Sere eet at Ban be ew e e $ 03 at =~ bm ee ad > fet bet BG O&O oer eer tt Cera es Serre = r 6 a le ne OT it me ot eh ee er od ahgeai ete’ lee) priszraieielt wicereiele Peay Cee SCA rt ay het ei re es, oni $a ed ah ea ee ee ri > ’ aye ele ee Tarai ele le ~ ss -% an ae hos 5 Fae ae Fo a ee eae ae tn See abo a Petr Se ee a nae Sete ete ater oe ee eT ee eee eat ab <8 i ‘ {eke ele > o— Gre Ben F< Pre P= a > : ae FT a ede ea a ar a eer le Tr - Be eee ees eter oe Bes + = eS a re ee te al ee EI OF PEE SEi 21 1925 , %, S Se osicar sews Division |). Section pean @ hn atey bore) Fd pote. rt oe ¢ ‘ate ‘4 ‘ , , & i iy j i On aie 1), vi, e Ny si ~ PR eee Gan i ad al ¢ JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES Se eee ee Z ‘ 7 ‘ eo 3 ee are ak a, . ‘ : ° , ihe ae eagle , < . ly " 5 . a4 - “* . ; aS ee, a Fhe 7% we - fon r. * a ie ye ren eh * ood at | P ’ a2) \ ‘ ; - 7 # . A - Le ] , , E ¢ a] ht ¢ P : 4 « i ‘ i be : 7 y ; , . ~* 2 x ~ _ bs . ‘¢ ' bate Copyright by _ r; ve Pe a Ley e fi THE JEWISH THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF AMERICA [Pt ie . | 19240 ae ae . ' a é + ~ J ‘ - =f z i 2 4 : ! { i \ . “de “ 5 ’ : a *’ 7 ‘? ss £. ; x ) . wa - t } ~* 4 : a" “= " : a ' * vf a Me = = i « (og ae s] é - P re 4 me By i HPs ne ' ges i ae A TA F if ; , wh r. ie ; Printed at!” oP? igi Magia THE JEWISH PUBLICATION SOnre Tyee S Philadelphia, Penna, USA. he TO MR. LOUIS S. STROOCK IN APPRECIATION OF HIS ENCOURAGEMENT OF JEWISH LEARNING THIS BOOK IS DEDICATED —— .5i. a. & oD ”, o» | a —_s 8 € A PREFACE The development of their communal life is one of the most interesting aspects of the history of the Jews in the middle ages. But no less important were their attempts to unite their various communities in country-wide orga- nizations. The measure of success which these endeavors achieved is most remarkable; but aside from the imme- diate results attained, the spectacle of a persecuted people, in the midst of disunited principalities, governed by their petty barons “for revenue only,’’ endeavoring to organize itself is eminently noteworthy. In the course of his studies on Rabbinical Synods, the writer was impressed by the fact that this phase of Jewish history had not received the attention it merited. It was from this point of view, therefore, that the prize essay submitted to the faculty of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, under the title, ““The Rabbinical Synods from the Eleventh to the Seventeenth Centuries and their Enactments’’ was de- veloped into the present work. The new material that has been examined and the investigations that have been made into the stories of the conferences only increased one’s wonder at the ability of the mediaeval Jew to view with such clarity the problems that confronted him. The volume has grown to such proportions that it has been thought well to limit its scope to European com- munities, omitting the account of the organization of the Jews of Algiers and Morocco. The writer regrets this necessity not only because he feels that the history of these communities contains much of profound interest, but on the more personal ground that he was considerably helped in the reading of the Arabic texts used in the preparation of that part of the original essay by the late Professor Halper of the Dropsie College. viii PREFACE In order to complete the picture, the outlines of which are traced in the present volume, there would also be needed a comprehensive study of the local government of the Jews in the Middle Ages. Local ordinances were as common in Spain and Italy as were the countrywide synodal Tak- kanot in France and Germany. The writer has gathered a large amount of material on this subject, but has not yet crystallized it in book form. He hopes to be able to pre- sent these phases of the subject on some other occasion. The synods which are discussed in this volume had no authority, other than that granted them voluntarily by the Jews of the various communities. None of them was recognized by the secular government, and only in Spain and Italy was there any relation at all between the rabbini- cal gatherings and the state. Nevertheless it is felt that the term ‘Self-Government’? may properly be applied to the Jewish institutions of the Middle Ages, because whether de jure or de facto, the communities were autonomous en- tities. The decrees of the synods were obeyed, often with far greater rigor than those of the state government. The judiciary was organized to such an extent that courts of appeal were differentiated carefully from courts of original jurisdiction. The rights of the members of the communities as against the communities were defined with precision. Such an arrangement can hardly be called anything less than a system of ‘‘self-government.”’ It is probable that the division of the volume into parts, the first being devoted to a general account of the rise of synodal activity, and the second to an examination of the various document that have been preserved, will prove of help to the casual reader. Nevertheless it is hoped that even the lay reader, who may not be interested in the critical analysis of texts and in the explanation of difficult passages of the Talmudic sources, will endeavor to acquaint himself with the documents that are given there. It is with this in mind that virtually all the texts have been printed with translation. Though much of the ma- terial has previously appeared in print, none of it has hitherto been translated into English, and in nearly every \ PREFACE ix case new manuscript material has been available to pro- vide better texts. It is eminently fitting that this book should be the first in the series established in memory of the late Professor Abraham Berliner, who did so much to throw light on the history of the Jews in the Middle Ages, especially in his “Geschichte der Juden in Rom” and ‘Aus dem Leben der deutschen Juden im Mzttelalter.’’ The student who wishes to pursue further studies in this direction should consult these works and also Guedemann’s ‘Geschichte der Erzie- hungswesens und der Cultur der Abendlaendischen Juden.”’ The English reader will find a fascinating picture of the culture and civilization of the Jews of this period in ‘Jewish Life in the Middle Ages,”’ by Israel Abrahams. In conclusion the writer feels it a pleasure to express his gratitude to the Stroock family who established the prize which was the immediate stimulus to his undertaking this study, and to whom he is now under additonal obligations for making possible the publication of this book. During the course of the four years in which at various times the author has been engaged in preparing this volume he has received help from many friends both far and near. To Dr. A. E. Cowley, Dr. L. D. Barnett, Dr. H. Hirschfeld and Dr. A. Freimann, he is indebted for having kindly placed at his disposal copies and photographs of various manuscripts in their respective libraries. To Dr. Cyrus Adler, the Pres- ident, and Professor Israel Davidson, the Registrar of the Seminary, as well as to Professor D. S. Blondheim of Johns Hopkins University, he is thankful for their willingness to discuss with him various aspects of his work, and for helping him by many suggestions and criticisms;to Dr. Rosenberg of Ancona, he is under obligations for giving him permission to reprint the Takkanot of Candia from the Hoffmann Festschrift; to Mr. D. S. Sassoon of London, for generously sending him photographs of the part of the manuscript of the Takkanot which Dr. Rosenberg did not publish. The author has been considerably helped in preparing the manuscript of this volume by his wife as well as by his friend, Mr. Maurice Samuel, both of whom suggested a number of improvements PREFACE in style. Mr. Frank Schechter and Mr. Maurice Finkel- stein have also been helpful in discussing certain aspects of the work. The proofs of this work have been read by Professor Louis Ginzberg who, with his keen mind and unparalleled grasp on all fie:ds of Jewish literature, helped in the solu- tion of a number of problems which at first seemed almost insoluble. More than to anyone else, however, the author is indebted to Professor Alexander Marx, who not only provided him with much of the new material contained in this volume, but took a personal interest in the work, and with his usual generosity and unselfishness read the work both in manuscript and in proof, making innumerable ' suggestions and helpful criticisms. It is not too much to say that without the help of Professor Marx this book could not have appeared in its present form» In stating his indebtedness to his teachers and friends for their kind co-operation, che writer does not wish to free himself from ultimate responsibility for all the statements made in it. Such errors as may be charged against it, whether of fact or of judgment, must be set against him, He trusts, however, that whatever may be the failings of the work, the reader will through it become more interested in the history of the Jewish people and their literature. If this purpose is achieved, the author feels that he will have accomplished his task. Louis FINKELSTEIN. FOREWORD Several years ago Messrs. Louis S. Stroock, Mark E. Stroock, Moses J. Stroock, Joseph Stroock, and Sol. M. Stroock, established at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, the Abraham Berliner Prize in Jewish History in memory of their uncle, the distinguished historian, my . revered master, Professor Abraham Berliner. One of the early subjects announced for this prize was ‘“The Rabbinical Synods from the Eleventh to the Seventeenth Centuries.”’ In 1920 the prize was awarded to. Dr. Louis Finkelstein. Since that time the essay has been carefully revised and enlarged by the author and is now published through the generosity of the gentlemen who established the prize. The important subject discussed in the following pages has never heretofore been treated by itseif, and but a few of the synods have been made the subjects of smaller monographs. It is only a comprehensive treatment that enables us to gain a full view of this most important aspect of the constitutional activity of the European Jewish com- munities during the Middle Ages. It is most interesting to observe how the economic and social decline of German Jewry in particular influenced this part of their activity. The spirit which finds expres- sion in the enactments of the period preceding the Black Plague is quite different from that of the later period. Their whole outlook on life was changed as they gradually were turned from free citizens into bondmen of the emperor and the many petty rulers of the cities. Their spiritual activity was dwarfed and the legal developments of the succeeding centuries show the unhealthy influence of their unfortunate status. Nowhere is this as evident as in the synodal enactments which pass before our eyes in Dr. Finkelstein’s book. | A study of this pay eopent is of the Brats value o xii FOREWORD the solution of the problems of the present day. While there is no more room for such provincial gatherings in our time when the Jewries of the whole world are brought into close contact by modern methods of communication, there is no doubt a crying need for a representative gathering embodying in its membership the Jewries of all the various countries, to grapple with the problems confronting us. Such a body which must enjoy the confidence of all the people in the same measure in which it was possessed by those ancient predecessors and must act in the spirit of the synods of the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries, continuing where they stopped, would be the greatest boon for the present and future generations. Let us hope that the development of conditions in Palestine will in its natural course lead to the consumation of this ideal for only in Palestine can we imagine the successful accomplish- ment of such a scheme. To return to the book before us, it has the great merit of collecting in one place all the various texts that have come down to us with the enactments of the different synods. A good deal of the material is new. The Takkanot of Corfu and some of those from Italy were entirely unknown heretofore. Of the greatest importance is the treatment of the German synods which takes up the larger part of the volume. The comparison of the various texts both printed and hitherto unprinted has made possible the establish- ment of the character and authenticity of sets of Takkanot by Rabbenu Gershom and Rabbenu Tam. _ Incidentally new light is thrown in the course of these investigations on the history of German Jewish life in the days before Rabbenu Gershom, about which so few sources are avail- able. In regard to the synods of the Rhine communities in the early part of the thirteenth century the author has found in a manuscript of Jews’ College a text which is older than either of those previously published. Moreover he shows that the text hitherto accepted as containing the enactments of the synod of 1220 is in reality a revision of the earlier text by a later synod, which met in the middle of that century. Altogether the new material has enabled FOREWORD xiii the author to establish more reliable texts and to place his discussions on a broader and firmer basis. The book is undoubtedly a very welcome addition to our historical literature and enriches particularly the scanty English publications on such subjects. ALEXANDER MARX. TABLE OF CONTENTS Part. I, GENERAL ACCOUNT OF THE RABBINICAL SYNODS. European Jewry in the Tenth Century....-................005. 1 Early Jewish Institutions in France and Germany............... 6 Re eORCT AM TCIBMON) <0, amor thes utien Ite she. see Sera ot IAN, sori: 8 20 BREET ELITES VHLOTIS Kec MEME are eet Teens ANY cee teen ot A 36 eerimansynous Pron 106-12 50gaaies oe icc oe ea Mok 56 SIMO SEE DMS SOU Ls a icws ait Ra tle a ns Ne NER ae a RAL aA a 66 ERATE EAC SOT ITI OVITOUS ae et ial te GPE citi ere fi ithe n nia: wetste MARS 72 BUSA OEY CL ALICIA 5 Sar era ce saci) eee MET Bc rosy Ae Wie) ee eA a 82 SR NOt Ofe) bol ly trac tue wae ee ceorg aol as CW cree noc oibestahe ahd 86 SMR mee LAOL COL [ie oe een oot ais WI TUe, fe ea ac ie ecto uaena aha yh ciem 66 SaItStOTAL Te OPAMISH |e Waammnn wets Lai cute coaak ie cael aa aaa 99 ANS TRME NCL ei lace a) shoe ceeeMMm ee Merial baie sO ren, lee rai NA Oa tal 105 Part IT. TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS. Mie ie Otero se CTCTSMOMM) Waal sidcs Pn Sarees Gari wee pen nee Motes iB | Regulations Concerning The Suspension of the Herem Against PluralMarriage and Similar Regulations..........0.......... 139 ei IMaL INSU ee ek air es ig acetic yon DU TRR ee ei e ae’ 148 RIOR ee OTR Te ETTE Ne Seer eee ey a crt Sore ua De antidote 150 se maa ANOL Ol Otte LATO rn aks, oie eee ae pe ima tae we OL 171 eMart U aK Katian O18 he Glee nen \ soe ihe ies une kG a arate We 216 Takkanot of the Rhine Communities..... Deke Say SPR n ON aie zal er ane a a ad 218 UMMM IRERIMLeC eS UKLOTL oie Gah ety het ee ati. aes es el ai.e ean dalad Nek 2, oa 257 MTOR AT Cia leee Mein fod ceri iky sek bape thaw iki L so cde 265 Meme TEMeveRC NT ALU Yan ust thet: Beets Gy ote wn clas aah «Sir Se AS Se whee wk 281 NAIL COLL ot Ace ee ess See Fine Role me aa ae eds 216 AC CRINISIR PUAN COIL: ars 2We hai oe Men: 30 nic) aa cow's eae Da ahs Meare tete uns 328 Semmonatiuie Gastiiat Jews, 143220 inna bie he oe gitall eke. CM oe 348 Additional Notes: PeLAmudicaLaw Regarding Gompetition f.7 ur f7 hs) aon. Pi 376 B. The Legal Status of Women in German Jewry............. 377 ora nneliater) ucisdiction any) almudic Law ils its obese Ve ues 379 D. The Origin of the Custom of Interrupting the Prayers...... 382 MeL ACVht FA FIT ECU LALIOTI ES alo | Vc, LN! hele eben die tess a oad dy, bon wlan Mites 383 EES Ce a RT Sa se a SSE oat gg ey 4 AR Le a Pe 385 PART I GENERAL ACCOUNT OF THE RABBINICAL SYNODS isa te ef re ; y CHAPTER I EUROPEAN JEWRY IN THE TENTH CENTURY Among the innumerable Talmudic legends which are centered about the life of Moses, one, among the most beautiful, deals with the last moments of the law-giver and liberator. As he stood on Mount Nebo, overlooking the valley of the Jordan, the legend tells, the veil was lifted from his mortal eves and the future story of his people was unrolled before him, generation by generation, until the coming of the Messiah. We, the children of this age, look- ing back on some of the centuries that he foresaw, with their marvelous changes, may well ask ourselves with what profound and alternating emotions of joy and grief the sage hailed the prophetic panorama. For in the intense -forshortening of his last mortal moments, he saw the rise and fail of the tiny Jewish kingdom, the swift blossoming of its sacred and secular glory, its humiliation and destruc- tion, the brief but poignant agony of the first exile, the slow, heroic reconstruction of the second Jewish common- wealth, its struggles and death-agonies—and the final catastrophe which shattered the edifice of his building after more than a thousand years, and scattered its fragments to the ends of the world. Thus too did the Sages of old picture to themselves the last moments of Israel’s first leader. The great drama of the history of the Jewish people, with its crises, with its moments of tension, with its generations of anxious foreboding, becamé even more impressive when it was seen as a vision of an ancient lawgiver and prophet. Yet the epic con- tains no tenser moment than that which marked the dis- appearance of the Jewish center in the east and the develop- ment of new communities in the West. Even the fall * Comp. Sifre, Deuteronomy, ed. Friedmann, p. 149a. 2 _ JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES of the Second Commonwealth, catastrophic as it was, and full of peril to the continued existence of the people,was of no greater significance than the fall of the academies of Sura and Pumbedita. For when the independence of Israel was lost there still remained the spiritual authority of the elders; the Jews throughout the world were still bound together by bonds of common allegiance to recog- nized leaders. With the fall of the Babylonian academies the last semblance of centralized authority waslost. Never- more could any Jewish community lay claim to the hege- mony of Jewish life. . The authority of the rabbis of each country was limited by the political confines of the secular government. The disruption of the Jewish central au- thority would of itself have made che period memorable, but the full extent to which it was fraught with danger can be realized only when we remember that these new western communities, which were rising into prominence, were living under novel conditions—conditions so different from those which had previously surrounded Jewish life, that only by a miracle could one hope for a survival of the ancient nation. , For several centuries the Jewish communities of Europe attempted to follow the guidance of the Eastern authorities, the heads of the Palestinian and Babylonian schools. Nu- merous lecters have been preserved in which the old scholars of Asia gave their decisions in reply to questions addressed to them from the West. Agents of the old academies travelled throughout the new communities collecting con- tributions for the maintenance of the houses of learning. Sometimes these representatives who were often scholars of note, were persuaded to remain in Europe and to serve as rabbis for the communities. There thus were planted the seeds of a new scholarship in Spain,in Italy, in France and in Germany. At the beginning of the tenth century, when the genius of R. Saadia Gaont was bringing new 1b. Fayyum, Egypt, ‘882; d. Sura, 942. He was by far the most famous of the Geonim; author of many important works and a pioneer in several branches of Jewish studies, such as Hebrew lexicography, philosophy, methodology of the Talmud. He wrote commentaries to CHAPTER I 3 energy into the school of Sura, there had already been opened modest institutions of Talmudic learning on the banks of the Rhine and the Ebro. A generation later when the academy of Pumbedita, under the leadership of R. Sherira and R. Hai Gaon,! had surpassed that of Sura, these new western schools had already produced scholars who could rival the eastern masters in learning. Yet the increase of knowledge of Jewish tradition could not of itself solve the problem of the adjustment of Jewish life to its new conditions. Probably the majority of the Jewish people were at this time still living in Asia or Africa. They were under the dominion of Islam. While the Arabic world was from time to time plunged into the throes of civil war, there were long stretches of comparative peace; the edict of the caliph was obeyed; there was thriving com- merce and industry; there was a semblance of justice, even though at times it had to be purchased; there were large academies where scientific studies were pursued. Far different were the conditions that prevailed in Chris- tendom during the tenth and eleventh centuries. Ignorance was all but universal. Evenso great a potentate as Charle- magne had been unable to write his name. He could only make the two lines that formed the “‘u”’ of his name, Carolus, the rest was filled in by the scribe. Conditions had not much improved in the two centuries that had elapsed between the time of his death and the eleventh century. Under the feudal system the traveler was at the mercy of every baron and petty landholder through whose territory he had to pass. The central government was as a rule very weak; justice could rarely be obtained against one’s superior except by appeal to the sword; the anarchy that filled Latin Europe in the tenth century brought about a relapse from the moderate intellectual attainments of the ninth century. the Mishna, and Arabic translation of as well as commentaries on the Scriptures. See Malter’s Life and Works of Saadia Gaon, Jewish Pub- lication Society, 1921. For his dates see also Mann, J.Q.R. (N.S.) II, 423-4; and Marx, R.E.J. 74. 222. * d. 1038. The last important Gaon of Babylonia. ‘ 4 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES It was inconceivable that the Geonim living under Moslem rule should have a correct understanding of the problems confronting their brethren in the new, slowly- developing European states. Even if all that was needed had been guidance in Talmudic study and the ritual, it would have been difficult to live permanently under the rule of foreign leaders. But the Western Communities needed more; they needed guidance in a diplomatic, states- manlike sense. Their problems were not merely matters of prayer-book and forbidden food, but they often involved their relation to the government, their control of their own members, and the adjustment of the Talmudic civil law to the new conditions. In these matters the Geonim could not aid them at all. In the case of the Spanish and Italian communities their proximity to the ancient centers made the problem less formidable. Especially were the Spanish communities able to rely on the spiritual leadership of the Geonim long after that had failed the communities north of the Pyrenees. They spoke the same language and in general belonged to _the same culture as the Oriental scholars. Far different were conditions in France and Germany where feudalism was at its zenith. The political institutions that were ~ developing, the influence exerted by the Church on the infant states, the very character of the people among whom they lived were helping to shape the future of the Jewish com- munities. From being insignificant in the tenth century, the Jewries of Western Europe developed into foremost commu- nities by the thirteenth. They overcame the all-prevading ignorance that was strangling their cultural life before the year 1000, and by the year 1300, their children were teachers of the Jewish world. The persecutions of the Crusades, the incessant hatred, the ruthless tax-exactions, the general anarchy of the country could not repress their soul. The problems that faced the Jews in those critical centuries were solved largely by synods and councils where representatives of the various communities gathered, usu- ally at the call of one of the great leaders of the people. The decisions reached at these conferences appear even CHAPTER I 5 from the distance of a thousand years to have been in most cases the most far-sighted. Among the leaders who were responsible for the gathering of such synods, the foremost was R. Gershom b. Judah. It was he who in the tenth century laid the foundations of the system that helped to organize and to strengthen French and German Jewry for half a millenium. The importance of his work can hardly be overestimated, but it will be better understood in the light of the institutions which the Jewish communities had developed when he came forward as the leader of German Jewry. CUA Ea. calf EARLY JEWISH INSTITUTIONS IN FRANCE AND GERMANY a. THE HEREM BETH DIN. Even during the formative period, before the year 1000, the communities of Israel in France and Germany had developed customs which were destined to play an impor- tant part in their life. Their very distance from the old centers made the creation of new institutions inevitable. While these institutions were primarily legal, they are of importance in discussing the life of a community whose main bond of union was social rather than economic or political. One of the main problems that faced the Jewish com- munities of the West was that of establishing courts of justice. The secular courts had not yet developed any system of jurisprudence that was comparable to Talmudic law. On the other hand the fact that the Jews were fast becoming the men of commerce made necessary for them a more intricate system of law than was required for the simple peasantry of the surrounding population. The matter was all the more urgent since the feudal courts hardly provided for the Jew. Society as well as law was based on the assumption that the litigants were Christians and the Jew was forced to seek his justice elsewhere. Moreover the German and French Jews had _ inherited from their ancestors a strong attachment to the system of having their own courts.* When Jerusalem had fallen the local courts still retained their right to decide civil cases, and in some cases even criminal matters. The * Gittin 88b and comp. I Corinthians 6.1, where Christians are urged not to appeal to heathen courts. CHAPTER II . 7 Babylonian courts, too, had been permitted by the secular government to apply Talmudic law in civil matters. The Jews of the period were inclined to regard it as a re- flection on their own law, to take a case before the secular. courts. There was still a sense of hesitation about per- mitting the Gentile population to hear their quarrels. As the infant European states did not interfere with the retention of the autonomy of the Jewish communities, and even encouraged it, local courts were established by the Jews in the important communities. In order to insure obedience to their decrees these courts made use of the right of excommunication or Herem. Just as in Talmudic times’, so in the new communities of Western Europe a person who failed to respond to a summons or carry out a decree of the court was laid under the Shamta. Excommunication was so effective a punishment that there was no need of police power or physical force of any kind in the execution of an order of the Court. For the ex- communicated person was not only forbidden to take part in the religious life of his people, which in itself would have been a serious blow to anyone in those days of piety and observance, but he was socially ostracized. The possession of the power of excommunication gave the Rabbi and the Community as great an advantage in dealing with recalcitrant individuals as the similar power ex- ercised by the Popes gave them over the kings of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Indeed so important was this authority, and so liable to misuse, that as the communities developed attempts were made to regulate it and to limit the right of the Rabbi or of the council of Elders to pronounce excommunications.? The theoretical basis on which the Rabbis of the European communities relied in assuming their authority to decide cases and to punish the disobedient is not clearly defined. While for ordinary civil suits Talmudic law permits the litigants to choose their judges, only men who had re- * Baba Kamma 112a. | 2 See part II, p. 232. 3 Mishna Sanhedrin, III. 1. 8 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES ceived ordination could act as members of regular courts of justice with power of summons. Such ordination could be issued only by persons already ordained and only on the soil of Palestine.t In some periods the Sanhedrin out of respect for the Patriarch or Nasi limited to him the right to confer the authority of ‘“‘judgeship’’, which was expressed in the title of Rabbi, ‘‘my master’. But at no time was it held that anyone living outside of Palestine could ‘‘ordain”’ any disciple. The Babylonian Amoraim were styled Rab. Those of them who acted as judges did so either at the invitation of litigants, or under authorization of the Exilarch.? According to, the Babylonian Talmud, the Exilarch’s right to confer judgeships was based not merely on his recognition by the secular government, but on a Biblical verse,’ in view of the supposed descent of the Princes of the Dispersion from the House of David. The Rabbis of the western communities were invested with the delegated authority neither by the Palestinian Patriarchs nor by the Babylonian Exilarchs. Either of two possible legal steps may have been taken to establish their position on a traditional basis. The members of the communities may have bound themselves under a herem or a vow, that they and their descendants would accept the authority of their duly elected Rabbis. Such a herem would have binding effect and would, within limits, have given the necessary legal status to the new local courts. Or the older academies (either of Palestine or Babylonia) may have issued authorizations to certain Rabbis to act as leaders for the various communities. The first Babylonian Amo-_ vaim like Rab (third century), had received such authoriza- tions from the Palestinian Patriarchs; it would not be strange if it were found that the earliest European judges based their right to decide cases on similar authorizations from older scholars.4 * Sanhedrin 14a. 2 Ibid, Sa. 3 Genesis 49.10. 4 Very little is known about the relations of the early European settlements to the Babylonian and Palestinian academies. We do CHAPTER II 9 Which of these two methods was followed is unknown. Perhaps both were used in the various communities. It is known however that by the year 1000, the term herem Beth Din had come into use in the description of the authori- ty on which the local courts acted in certain communities. Whether the source of the authority of these Rabbis was an authorization by the scholars of the east or the herem of the communities, (it was certain that henceforth the community could determine not merely who its leaders were to be, but whether a person had reached the stage of learning that fitted him for leadership.) This of necessity brought about a certain amount of confusion in Jewish life, which was not quite dispelled until R. Meir Ha-Levi of Vienna (end of fourteenth Century) introduced, for the first. time, the system of ordination outside of Palestine and issued licenses to his disciples permitting them to de- cide matters of Jewish law. So timely was this innovation that within two generations it had been adopted throughout northern Europe and has continued till our own day. This extra-Palestinian ordination could of course have effect only in a limited sense. It could not take the place of the ancient Palestinian “‘“Semztka’’, it was merely a certi- ficate by a recognized scholar declaring the holder fit to decide matters of ritual and civil law, to issue divorces, and generally to carry out those functions of the judge which still held in the Dispersion. The authority to issue a herem which was basic to Rabbinic prestige in the find their characteristic institutions called by names which can be based only on Arabic or Aramaic roots. For instance Ma‘arupia designates in German and French writings a group of Gentiles who customarily deal with a certain Jew. It was forbidden for any other Jew to try to attract such custom to himself. The root of the word can only be the Aramaic Araf ‘‘to know’”’ (See Mann, J.Q.R. (N.S.) X, 239, but comp. Mueller, R.F.L.p. XXXVII. The word Jkkul in the expression Herem Ha-Ikkul can be based only on the Arabic root, where it means restrain, a connot- ation of neither the Hebrew or Aramaic cognate form. The attempt of the editor of the Sefer Ha-Yashar (p. 56), to emend ‘akal into ‘akab while merely a slight change, involves so many passages that it cannot be accepted. 10 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES Middle Ages still sprang, theoretically at least, from the recognition by the community. As time went on the original meaning of the term herem Beth Din was forgotten.t The French Rabbis introduced the fiction that wherever a Rabbi was known to have lived in early times, one might assume the existence of a Herem Beth Din. Thus by the thirteenth century the distinction between communities having the herem and those lacking it had been completely obliterated. b. THE HEREM HA-IKKUL. Of a different character from the Herem Beth Din, but nevertheless very important in view of the number. of times it is mentioned by mediaeval scholars, is the Herem Ha-Ikkul. This was an unwritten law forbidding a person to retain an article that had been entrusted to him, even though he had a claim against the owner. Such a law was necessary in the Middle Ages when a person would very often have to protect his property by entrusting it to another. In many cases one did not have the time to choose a bailee who could be trusted, and unscrupulous persons might easily take advantage of the panic into which the owner of an article was thrown by a bandit attack or by the fear of seizure of his property by a tyranical baron. In days when there were no safe deposit boxes and property was largely limited to cash and movables—for the Jews rapidly lost their land after the beginning of the tenth century—the protection of bailments was a fundamental necessity. c. THE HEREM HA-YISHSHUB The anarchic conditions of the Middle Ages were such that insecure as was the possession of movable property, the protection of landed property was even more difficult. The large landowners preyed on their small neighbors, and in the absence of any real repressive force, the small * See below, Part II, p. 127, note 3. CHAPTER II 11 landholder had to seek his safety in voluntary vassalage to some powerful baron who could protect him. At times instead of choosing a private overlord, a person might prefer to give his property to the Church and receive it back as a benefictum. Even Jewish farmers at times availed themselves of this method, but in general the feudal system left little room for Jews as owners of real property. The conditions that ultimately brought about the con- version of most of the allodial land into feudal domain, worked to deprive the Jews of their small farms. There was, however, this difference: that while the Christian remained a vassal or tenant on the land which had formerly been his own, the Jew had torseek some other occupation than agriculture. It was during this period that there occurred the separation of the Jew from the soil that has left such an indelible mark on his development. Driven from his farm, the Jew found the life of the artisan closed to him. The guild system as effectively prevented his becoming a tailor or a carpenter as the feudal system had forced him from his land. With most avenues of life closed to him, the Jew chose the only one that re- mained open, the life of trade. He was the more fitted for this occupation because he could import and export with greater ease than his Christian neighbor, his co-religionists in other countries being at- tached to him with the bonds that always hold members of minority races together. Moreover political boundaries did not imply for him any change of language, for his fellow-Jews throughout Europe and Asia understood Hebrew even when they could not speak it. He was thus able to import and export with far greater ease than his Christian countryman. Yet in determining the causes for the movements of large masses of people, it is insufficient to take account merely of the economic facts. It was not merely the pressure of circumstances that was forcing the Jew into the life of trade, but there was added to that an inner impulse. The Christian could satisfy his love of adventure in battle or combat; the Jew to whom the life of hazard 12 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES had an appeal could only enter upon commerce. That many Jews of the period were such as would be likely to take risks and tempt their fortune, was the more natural since they were largely descended from the early pioneers who had had the hardihood to leave their secure homes in Asia and seek their fortune in an unknown land. The spirit that animated these men was not unlike that which was the compelling force of the early American pioneers. And just as the American of today has inherited from his pioneering ancestors the ingenuity, daring and foresight which distinguish him, so did the Jew of the tenth century in Europe display a love of hazard and a desire for trade, which is largely traceable to the character of his ancestry. While the causes that were taking the Jew into commercial life were natural, the Rabbis of the period were far-sighted enough to see the danger that lurked in the complete alienation of their people from the soil and they tried to stem the tide that was drawing the people to commerce. Centuries before, the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem had been engaged in a similar struggle to keep the land of Israel from falling away from the ownership of the people. Laws had then been made forbidding the sale of land or even ° of oxen to plough the land to the conquering Romans.* This effort had failed. Even less could the poor Jews of the ninth century, who saw their farms passing out of their hands, and the apparently uncontrollable movement into the towns begin, hope to prevent the passing of their estates to their neighbors. It is pathetic to see the struggle of the Jew to keep a last holdon thesoil. Since the days when his wandering ancestors had settled in Palestine, he had been an agriculturist—in Palestine, in Babylonia, in France and Germany; more than two thousand years of ploughing and reaping, of sowing and harvesting. His festivals were all festivals of the soil, his laws were largely those dealing with the farm. He did not want to go to the towns, and yet it seemed that inexorable Fate was driving him there. Attempts were made to lighten the economic burden of the Jewish landowners. Taxes were in those days levied t Aboda Zara lI. 5. CHAPTER II 13 not on each individual but on the entire Jewish community, and the Community was obliged to apportion the burden among its members. The Jewish communities declared farms tax-exempt. Men like Rashi and R. Joseph Tob- Elem living in France in the eleventh century, urged that this exemption be not taken away.’ In days of Single Tax propaganda, like our own, this may sound very strange. But R. Joseph points out that in his day land was a pre- carious possession, its productivity depended on uncer- tain climatic conditions, and its owners were oppressed with all manner of demands. Two centuries later, R. Meir b. Baruch in Germany, quotes R. Joseph in support of the custom of his country, where land was not taxed. R. Meir defends the tax-exemption of land by citing some Talmudic passages, but one can readily see that it is not the force of the passages quoted so much as the conditions of the people that influenced his decision. It may be that one Talmudic authority declared that there is no worse occupation that agriculture,? but surely that is not to be taken literally. One could easily quote the statements of a number of Rabbis highly praising that occupation. The truth is that both R. Joseph Tob Elem and R. Meir b. Baruch were faced with a situation which they and their colleagues considered full of-peril, the estrangement of their people from the farm. They tried to stem the tide, and doubtless their efforts helped to delay, albeit they could not avert, the day when the Jews found themselves no longer men of the soil but men of commerce. The method of tax-exemption was more successful than the direct prohibition against selling farms to Gentiles could be. Yet even that was adopted in some communities though it never became general.4 An attempt was made, however, to prevent Jews coming into the towns. Any one wishing to move into a town had to be accepted by the population already there» It is sometimes said that R. 1 RMP 941, Mordecai, Baba Batra 840. For Rashi’s views see his ordinance, Part II, p. 148. 2 Yebamot 63a. 3 See Funk, Juden in Babylonien, I, p. 21, note 3. 4 Raben I. 52. 14 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES Gershom established this custom but it certainly antedates him.t| Only those who were required to take part in the religious services of the community could enter without hindrance, all others could enter only if the community voted to admit them.? This institution was called the Herem Ha-Yishshub. Numbers of cases arose under this law. Very often a community would feel itself justified in refusing admission to a man, and he would appeal to the court of the most generally recognized scholar. Sometimes a person would claim that he had inherited the right to settle in a given community. Since the matter was considered one entirely under the jurisdiction of the communities and not.at all based on Talmudic law, women and relatives were admitted as witnesses. There was a disposition to accept the testi- mony of a single witness and to hear the evidence presented by children. This tendency was checked by Rashi,} who insisted that this herem was in fact based on Talmudic law.4 After his death, Rashi’s view was opposed by his grandson, R. Jacob Tam (France, twelfth century). R. Tam claimed that the Talmudic laws’ forbidding strangers to settle in a town against the will of the inhabitants, applied only to such persons as refused to pay their share of the taxes.© He held that no Jew could be refused admission into a Jewish community if he was willing to accept their rules. The Herem Ha-Yishshub itself was limited by him as applying only to “‘those who are power- ful and who denounce their brethren to Gentiles and who refuse to accept their part of the tax burdens of the com- munity.” 1 Res. R. Jacob Weil, in Isserlein, Pesakim 126; See also Mordecai Baba Batra, II, 517 and Res. R. Moses Mintz, 89. 2 R. Isaac Or Zarua, quoted by R. Jacob Weil, in responsum mentioned in note 1. ¢ For his contribution to Jewish synodal activity see below Chapter IV. ® 4 RMB p. 67, 514; but see Res. Maim. Shofetim 13. 5 See additional Note A, on p. 376, below. 6 See RMR, 111, where R. Moses Taku, quotes these words from a responsum of R. Eliezer of Orleans, who claims that he heard them verbally from R. Tam. CHAPTER II 15 While R. Tam may have succeeded in limiting the scope of the Herem Ha-Yishshub in France, the German scholars were not inclined to follow him. A generation after his death, R. Eliezer b. Joel Ha-Levi, better known as Rabiah,‘ declared that R. Tam had: dealt only with the theoretical interpretation of the Talmud, but that his words had no bearing on the practical application of the herem2 As R. Eliezer was one of the foremost authorities in Germany during the first half of the thirteenth century, it is clear that the effect of R. Tam’s decision was limited to France. Somewhat later, R. Meir b. Baruch tried to explain that R. Tam’s views applied only to such places as had not definitely adopted the Herem Ha-Yishshub.3 R. Meir’s interpretation of the view of R. Tam. was accepted by the later scholars in Germany where the Herem Ha- Yishshub continued in force till the sixteenth century. d. INTERRUPTING THE PRAYERS The fourth institution which helped to shape the course of the development of German and French Jewry was the custom of interrupting the prayers in order to call public attention to private wrongs. Even under an autocratic government public opinion is a force to be reckoned with. It is a rare monarch who is indifferent to the love or hate of his subjects. Their affection or antipathy may have little consequence for his material life, but insofar as he is human, he longs to be loved. As he yields to this longing, the tyrant becomes the benevolent despot. The power of public opinion is incomparably greater where ultimate sovereignty is vested in the people. In little democracies such as were the Jewish communities the t Grandson of R. Eliezer b. Nathan, lived at the end of twelfth and the beginning of the thirteenth centuries. For his life, see Monats- schrift vols. 34, 35. 2 See excerpts from his book in RMR 77, quoted also in Mord, Baba Batra chapter II, 519. 3 RMP 382, 16 _ JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES aroused collective mind of the people presents a power that is almost irresistible. The interruption of the prayers by a person having a complaint had much the same effect in a Jewish community, of the twelfth or thirteenth century as has an exposure of a crime or a wrong in a modern metropolitan newspaper. The congress, the executive, the various governmental agencies may for some reason or another prefer to close their eyes to some nefarious practice. A widely-read maga- zine in a series of articles endeavors to arouse public opinion. Soon, whether they wish it or no, the officers of the govern- ment find themselves compelled to take action. In the Mediaeval Jewish community, where there were no news- papers or magazines, the aggrieved person would arise in the synagogue and prevent the continuance of the prayer until his case had been examined. Since practically every male Jew attended daily services,the whole community would thus hear his complaint. The custom of making public complaint is not mentioned in Talmudic sources. Even in later Rabbinic works,’ we « See Ha-Zofeh, 1.88, where Aptowitzer has called attention to Jer. Kiddushin 61c where we read yy mooRr 9 S's yn Sat ond pen wa an gms pan pn yn ORY 9 sas Spx md mops emet pa by oS Sap sens yor an b's npr jo qd adv sin mm by xnwis He interprets the passage as follows: R. Jannai and R. Jonathan were conversing when a man came up and kissed the feet of R. Jonathan. Thereupon R. Jannai asked his colleague, ‘What kindness hast thou conferred upon this man?’ R. Jonathan explained, ‘Once he came before me complaining against his son, who failed to maintain him, I said to him, ‘‘Go, close the synagogue against him and shame him.,’” The words spaced in the Hebrew and rendered by the English ‘‘close the synagogue”’ are extremely doubtful. It is true that the interpreta- tion given to the passage by Aptowitzer has the support of no less an authority than R. Solomon ibn Adret (Res. 4.56). The same interpretation is also implied in the Sefer Hasidim (ed. Berlin, p. 411, See Ha-Zofeh 2.97 and compare additional note D, p. 382). Yet the difficulties in the way of accepting this interpre- tation of the passage are insurmountable. Firstly x does not mean close in the sense of closing a house, but rather in the sense of tying a bundle. It is used in an applied way of closing a bottle, but its usein connection with closing a synagogue would be exceedingly CHAPTER II 17 find it limited to France and Germany.' Nevertheless, it represented the feeling of the people to which the highest expression had been given by the Prophet: “‘And when you spread forth your hands I shall conceal my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers I will not hear; your hands are full of blood.” One who felt that wrongs were being committed with the connivance of the re- presentatives of the community,: could not permit the continuance of prayers. Neither Prophet nor Rabbi could reconcile worship of God with injustice to man. extraordinary. Secondly, we will see that interrupting the prayers wa® customary in Germany and France, but practically unknown elsewhere. It would be strange if a custom mentioned in the Palestinian Talmud, should re-appear only in Germany and France. The evidence of the author of the Sefer Hasidim to the interpretation loses its value when we consider how natural it was for him to read into the passage the custom that was daily before him. Ibn Adret must have heard of the custom while in France or from a German traveller, or perhaps he heard the interpretation from one of them. In the Pesikta Rabbati the story is told again, and in his notes there (p. 122) Friedmann agrees with most of the commentators on the Jerushalmi in explaining the obscure phrase, as “gather a crowd”’. However, 1% is rarely, if ever used in the sense of ‘‘gather’’. It is true that the parallel passage in Peah 1.1. (and the quotation in Tosafot Kiddushin 32b) read pyx, but that is probably a scribal emendation. Professor Ginzberg suggests that 1x here is connected with the Aramaic root 7X) which means “‘to chirp”’ or ‘“‘to make an outcry’’. In that case, the passage means, ‘‘ Make an outcry against him in the synagogue and shame him,” which gives by far the best interpretation. This meaning of the word is to be compared with the expression in Jer. Maaser, chapter III, 5la. « The interruption of the prayers is mentioned in Res. 'R. Isaac b. Sheshet (176) as having occurred in Tunis. At the present writing I can recall no other mention of it by a Spanish authority, except that in Res. R. Solomon ibn Adret, 4.56, cited in the preceding note. (See note, p. 382, below). In Jttur, Dine Berurin, ed. Warsaw, I, f. 47a, ref- erence is made to the interruption of the prayers in the Provence. Since in general the customs of the Provencal Jews were similar to those of the Spanish Jews, this passage would seem to reflect the existence of the custom in Spain. Moreover Estori Farhi in his Kaptor Va-Perah (ed. Luncz, p. 332) cites this passage from the /ttur without further comment. So that we may assume that while the custom-may have originated in France and Germany, it filtered through to other communities. 2 Isaiah 1.15. 18 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES Aside from the fine theological conception on which the institution was based, its practical application was a bul- wark of strength for the weak and oppressed against the powerful. Judges are only human and again and again do we find exhortations to them to beware the undue in- fluence of the great. It might be that the fear of the Gentile ruling powers would prevent a judge from investigating a charge, but as soon ag a matter became public the judge was forced to take action. Jewish history in France and Germany tells, page by page,of quarrels and bitterness, of suffering and persecution, but never was any attempt made to deprive the people of the right of interrupting the prayers. Just as the British held dear the right of petition, so did the Jews hold dear their means of calling public attention to their wrongs. e. TITHES (Ma‘aser) So long as Israel lived in Palestine it was customary to give one tenth of one’s produce to the Levite who in many cases acted as teacher. Every third year a second tithe was set aside for the poor. Besides these there were other gifts to the poor that had to be made before the harvest could be gathered in. It was the impossibility of fulfilling these agricultural laws in a foreign country that made the soil of Palestine so sacred to the Jew. Nevertheless even after the dispersion Jews made some attempt to carry out the spirit if not the letter of the law. But the gifts were no longer given to Levites but were rather devoted to communal institutions, such as schools and charitable organizations. Nor were the gifts now necessarily a tenth of one’s income. There is evidence to show that most often it was a much smaller proportion. Thus we are told that R. Moses Minsz (Germany, fifteenth century) fixed it at one fortieth of one’s income.t But the term ma‘aser was still used because the funds represented a definite per- centage of each person’s income. * Res. R. Moses Mintz 40. Compare below, p. 185, note 3. CHAPTER II 19 Such were the five major institutions of the German and French Jews before the time of R. Gershom. Their development reflects an understanding of conditions, a sense of justice, an ability to perfect organization, which must arouse admiration. The Jews of Germany were awaiting only the arrival of a truly great leader to take a foremost part in the activities of their people. The needed leader arose in the person of R. Gershom. CHAPTER IIT RABBENU GERSHOM The development of such customs as the Herem Beth Din and the Herem’ Ha-Yishshub imply the existence in early France and Germany of Rabbinic scholars. While their contributions to the development of Jewish law and literature were very modest, they devoted themselves to study and in their humble way !aid foundations for the future development of Franco-German Talmudic learning. The most prominent of these early teachers were R. Kalonymos' and R. Leontin.?, The fame of all his predeces- sors was, however, eclipsed by R. Gershom b. Judah of Mayence, the first truly great German scholar and leader. With a genius not merely for learning but for practical organization, he achieved what few others could accom- plish: the establishment of Jewish learning in his country on a sound basis, and the uniting of the scattered com- munities into a federation. With his critical insight and care he wrote with his own hand copies of the Talmud which served for centuries as standard texts in the acade- mies of his country.4 His responsa were quoted for genera- tions and many of them have been preserved till our own day. While it is true that the commentaries that have in modern times been published under his name,5 are now known to have been written by subsequent scholars, it is certain that much of their content is based on comments of his which were transmitted orally. R. Gershom’s fame, however, rests mainly on his legisla- ° * Mueller, Kalonymos of Lucca, p. 4. 2 Or Ha-Hayyim, p. 461. 3 For his life, See Ha-Shiloach, vol. 28 (1913). 4 See Sefer Ha-Ittur, Part II, ed. Lemberg, p. 17a; and Tosafot of R. Judah Sir Leon (ascribed to R. Judah He-Hasid) Berakot 19b. 5 Epstein, Steinschneider Festschrift, p. 115. CHAPTER III 21 tive activity. For R. Gershom re-introduced the law- making function of the Rabbi. It is in this field that we become aware of the keen insight into the needs of the people and of the thorough grasp of their problems that made R. Gershom not only the leader of his own generation, but as the years rolled by, the lawgiver for most of the Jews of Western Europe. It is not to be supposed that he was wealthy or had influentiai relationships. It was sheer power of learning and strength of character, combined with charity of discernment that placed him in this posi- tion of foremost authority. The problem which confronted him as lawgiver was different from that which had come before any Jewish leader for generations. For the traditional unity of the Jewish people had at last been disrupted. Living in lands of petty principalities it was natural for the European Jews to develop small, independent and jealous communities. Wheieas previously the Jews throughout the world had looked to some central authority to guide them in matters of religious observance, each community now had its own tradi- tions. The peopie of Mayence had their local customs which differed from those of the neighboring community of Worms.’ R. Gershom undertook no less a task than that of bringing all these scattered communities into a federation. Had he fully succeeded it could have been accounted nothing less than a miracle, for the idea of a democratic federation had never been fully developed in Israel. There had been obedience to constituted authority but this authority was always based on that of past ages. R. Gershom proposed to establish a voluntary constitution among the communities that would claim its authority solely from those whom it governed. It is true that he would not have stated his thought in these precise terms, but the fact is, nevertheless, that he, a scholar with no traditions in his office, undertook to legislate for a large number of communities in Israel. One can hardly believe that he failed to realize the serious- t For some examples of these differences of custom see Rokeah, 108, 294, 317, Ma‘aseh Ha-Geonim, p. 17, Glassberg Zikron Brit La- Rishonim, p. 70, and Freimann, in Hoffmann Festschrift, Hebrew, p. 17. 22 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES ness of the step that he was taking. He well knew that till his day the center of authority had been vested in the Palestinian and Babylonian academies. Yet the times de- manded drastic action and that he took. It must be noted, however, that R. Gershom never stepped beyond the limits set in the Talmud to local legislation. He made no attempt, of course, to abrogate the law, or to establish a European Judaism that would differ essentially from that of the past. Ic was mainly in the fieid of civil law, and in the matter of adapting the Jewish iaw of marriage and divorce to the new conditions that had to be faced in Christian countries, that he under- took to introduce innovations. In order to base on the Talmud his authority for the step that he was about to take, he had recourse to an ancient institution. The Scriptures tell how Ezra, in order to stem of tide of assimila- tion that threatened to destroy Israel during the first days of the Second Commonweaith, ordered all those who had returned from Babylonia to Palestine to appear before him and his colleagues. Those who failed to appear were to be punished by having ‘‘their substance forfeited and them- selves separated from the congregation of the captivity.’ It was on this verse that the Rabbis based their right to excommunicate members of the Jewish community who failed to obey a court-order. This verse was also believed to endow Jewish courts with the right to issue not merely judicial orders, but legislative ordinances. The Geonim, supported by the political power of the Exilarchate, had used the Shamta (as excommunication was called) but had not developed the conception beyond its Talmudic limits. R. Gershom finding himself in Germany with no other power than the spiritual force of the Shamta employed and developed that as it never had been before his day. 1. ORDINANCES REGARDING THE MARRIAGE LAW The legislative activity of R. Gershom falls into two parts. He established several important ordinances which t Ezra 10.8. CHAPTER III 23 deal primarily with Jewish religious law, especially the marriage law, But he also established Takkanot regu- lating the relations of the communities to one another and to their members. While the communal ordinances were of more far-reaching significance in his own day, the name of R. Gershom is today heard more often in connection with the religious ordinances. The communities for which he legislated have lost their position of preeminence and the Jewish situation today is totally different from what it was in his day, but the Jewish family has endured and his Takkanot in regard to it are of the utmost importance in Jewish religious life in modern times. a. TAKKANAH AGAINST PLURAL MARRIAGE The best known of the ordinances of R. Gershom is that forbidding a person to marry more than one wife. Plural marriage had not been common in Israel for centuries. R. Ammi lays down the principle that no one may marry a second wife against the will of his first wife.t The rule is disputed by other authorities, but reflects the tendency in Talmudic law toward the monogamous family. Indeed some of the Karaites declared that bigamy was Biblically prohibited.?, They interpreted the verse, ‘‘And thou shalt not take a woman to her sister to be a rival to her’’3 as referring to any two women, the word for “‘sister’’ being used in its most liberal sense of ‘‘neighbor’’. While it is true that this interpretation is somewhat fanciful, it does show t Ketubot 65a. 2 Poznanski, Revue des Etudes Juives, 45.186; see Buber, Lekah Tob, Deuteronomy 21.15, and the note. Compare also Schechter, Fragments of a Zadokite Work, p. 4, 1.20, and Ginzberg, Eine Unbekannte Juedische Sekte, p. 24. Buber’s theory that R. Gershom was aware of the Karaite aversion to plural marriage and in order not to appear to be adopting their attitude limited the duration of his ordinance to the fifth millenium, is hardly tenable in view of the improbability of any direct information concerning the Karaites in Germany, and fur- ther in view of the fact established, below p. 143, that there is no reason for assuming that the Takkanah was intended to expire in 1240. 3 Leviticus 18.16. 24 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES that long before the time of R. Gershom, plural marriage had become so obsolete in certain parts of Jewry that this sect could conceive of its having been Biblically prohibited. Nevertheless there must have been specific instances of polygamy, especially among the wealthier classes and R. Gershom decided that the time had come for Israel formally to declare its adherence to the monogamous life. The text of the ordinance has not been preserved, so that we do not know what its original scope was, or what was the immediate occasion that called it forth. There is no reference to it before the time of Rashi, almost a century after its promulgation. Rosenthalt assumes on the basis of textual difficulties in later records? that the Takkanah was originally intended only for the three Rhine Com- munities — Mayence, Speyer, and Worms. But aside from the fact that it has now been definitely proven that the Jewish community of Speyer came into existence only in 1084, about half a century after the death of R. Gershom, and further that the text on which Rosenthal bases this view dates from a period long after R. Gershom,’ it is intrinsically improbable that a Takkanah intended only for a few com- munities would have been so generally accepted as was this Takkanah. There are numbers of rules which R. Gershom laid down for the Rhine Communities but those never gained the wide recognition that was accorded the ordinance against bigamy and its sister ordinance forbidding compul- sory divorce. One of the laws laid down by R. Gershom for the Rhine Communities, for instance, forbade the issuing of any divorce without the consent of representatives of the communities. We never hear of any attempt to extend the provisions of that ordinance beyond the Rhine district. Moreover the very fact that R. Gershom established this very stringent rule for divorce in the Rhine Communities shows that the more lenient rule, permitting divorce if the wife consented thereto, was meant also for other communi- ties. Since the ordinance against compulsory divorce was thus intended for all the German communities, and per- * Hildesheimer Festschrift, p. 37 ff. 2 See Part II, Chapter II. 3 Epstein, Jued. Alterthuemer in Worms u. Speier, p. 16. CHAPTER III 25 haps even for the French, it seems certain that the same was true of the ordinance against plural marriage. When we say the R.Gershom established this ordinance we must of course realize that he was merely a prime mover. The ordinance could only have been established by a synod representing the various communities for whom it was intended. Just as Hillel is mentioned in the Mishna as the person responsible for the Prosbul, and just as R. Johanan b. Zakkai is called the author of the ordinances which bear his name,‘ even though in both cases they were merely the men who led the Sanhedrin and urged the passage of the laws, even so was R. Gershom called the originator of Takkanot which were passed by synods that met under his direction. It may be well to note here that these synods were usually held in connection with large fairs. We know of a later Takkanah that it originated during a gathering for commercial purposes,? and the same was probably true of most of the synods. When we recall that the members of the synods of whom we speak ordinarily as rabbis, were quite often not salaried officials at all, but business men and workers of sufficient learning to be the leaders of their respective communities, we will readily see that a trade gathering would offer a most fitting opportunity for the discussion of intercommunal problems. These synods often were called upon to decide matters of a judicial nature? in regards to which the complainant found himself unable to obtain the help of his local officials. In the original Takkanah against plural marriage no provision seems to have been made for exceptional cases. It was doubtless believed that a synod similar to the one that had established the rule could amend, abrogate or even repeal it. No one could have realized beforehand the veneration in which succeeding generations would hold the great German scholar. As early as the time of Rashi, it was believed that none of R. Gershom’s suc- t Gittin 4.1; Rosh Ha-Shanah 4.1, 2 See the Takkanah of R. Tam against casting any slur on the validity of a writ of divorce (See Appendix A, below, p. 105). * 3 See Teshubot Hakme Zarfat ve-Lotir, p. 15.- 26 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES cessors could hope to equal him in authority.%3 Yet it soon became evident that there were cases in which exceptions would have to be made. If for instance a wife had ac- cepted baptism, and had left her husband’s home, it was clearly wrong to compel the injured husband to remain loyal to one who had proven herself faithless not merely to him but to her people and her God. Especially was it un- fair to expect the husband to remain bound to her, since most cases of conversion of this type were results of il- licit relations with Christian knights and nobles. In the Rhine communities it was assumed without question that the ordinance protecting the Jewish home against the evils of polygamy had never been intended to protect the interests of women who had left the Jewish fold. As soon as it was established that a woman had willingly accepted Christianity her husband was free to marry a second wife. It was, indeed, the duty of the elders of the community to make certain that it was a case of voluntary abandonment and not involuntary captivity, and that the wife was not secretly loyal to her family. The nu- merous cases of enforced baptism made great care necessary in deciding whether a woman was living among Gentiles by force or of her own will. But if her guilt was established, no ceremony was necessary to suspend the herem.? According to the later Austrian custom the husband in such a case was required to execute a writ of divorce which was accepted on behalf of the wife by some person appointed by the Court to act as her agent. This procedure of course involved the setting aside of R. Gershom’s ordinance against compulsory divorce. But even more than that it did some violence to the Talmudic principle that the agent for the wife must be appointed not by the Court but by her. It was held, that while ordinarily divorce was a disadvantage for the wife, in that it deprived her of her marital rights, and that therefore she had to be aware of the fact in order that it might be valid; in this instance * Mueller, Teshubot Hakme Zarfat ve-Lotir, 11b., 2 Isserlein Pesakim 256; compare Ras. R. Joseph Colon, 141, 2. CHAPTER III 27 since she lived among Gentiles and was disloyal to her husband, she would be saved from the gross sin of adultery by being formally freed, even without her knowledge or consent, from the legal and religious bonds of marriage. It was, therefore, to her advantage to be divorced, and the divorce could take effect without the presence of herself or her appointed agent. As time went on other difficulties appeared in the way of the new law. There was the matter of the Levirate marriage. If one of two brothers dies childless, the Bible enjoins on the survivor the duty of marrying the widow. * If the latter happened to be married, the question arose whether the Biblical law or the herem of R. Gershom was to be given precedence. Since in early times the Levirate marriage had fallen in disuse in France,? the problem existed only for the Jews of Germany. The general op- inion of the German Rabbis forbade the marriage in such a case, since the Bible permits the alternative of the cere- mony of Halizah. Indeed the German communities or- dained that the surviving brother could under these condi- tions be compelled to perform the Halizah.3 On the other hand, R. Jacob Molin, in the fifteenth century, would in such an emergency inform the surviving brother that he was free to marry the widow.4 This, however, may have been a mere fiction. R. Judah Mintz, living in Italy, in the sixteenth century, marshalls a host of French and German authorities forbidding the Levirate marriage when it would involve bigamy.5 On the other hand the Spanish authorities, who, while not accepting the ordinance of R. t Deuteronomy 25.5. 2 Kol Bo 78; Res. R. Hayyim Or Zarua 146. 3 RMP 866 end, but compare Sefer Ha-Terumah of R. Baruch, end. 4 Maharil, Laws of Halizah.. On the other hand R. Eliezer b. Samuel of Metz, one of the most famous of the pupils of R. Jacob Tam, was accustomed to suspend formally the herem of R. Gershom against plural marriage in order that the levir might be quite untrammeled in his decision to have the halizah performed. See Sefer Ha-Parnes, 355; Hagahot Maimunti, Gittin, 4.1; Mordecai, Yebamot, 12.57. 5 Responsum 10 28 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES Gershom for their own communities enforced it on German Jews who emigrated into the southern countries, declare that the ordinance does not at all apply to cases where the Biblical law is involved. They even go further and state that since procreation is a Biblical injunction, a person who is childless after ten years of married life, may marry a second wife... One German authority agrees with these Spanish scholars, and quotes a decision of R. Gershom himself, permitting a second marriage in such a case.? R. Baruch,3 a famous German Rabbi of the first half of the thirteenth century and author of an important code, also declared that R. Gershom permitted a second marriage under these circumstances. Yet a contemporary of his, R. Eliezer b. Joel Ha-Levi,‘4 insisted that the ordinance applied even to the case of the childless marriage. The matter must have been confused in very early times. In order to meet the difficulties, the French Rabbis (perhaps in the generation immediately following R. Ger- shom) established the method of permitting the ordinance to be suspended by the agreement of one hundred scholars living in three different provinces. It was their belief that certain emergencies justify the setting aside of the ordinance, and that there is no need of enumerating such cases, but that it had better be left to the judgment of a large number of scholars in any generation. The re- quirement that they be not of the same province only helped to make it certain that greater deliberation would be used in the suspension of the herem. The ordinance of R. Gershom gained the widest accep- tance. Its authority among the people was greater than that of a Rabbinic law. The writer of the ‘‘Book of the Pious’’,5 living in Germany in the thirteenth century, demands the same respect for Biblical and Rabbinic laws « See Res. R. Solomon ibn Adret, ed. Rome, 280. , 2 Tasbez (German) 470; compare Responsa of R. Meir b. Baruch ed. Prague, 685. 3 See Kaptor Va-Perah, ed. Luncz, p. 178 and p. 782. 4 Quoted in Res. R. Solomon Luria, 65. 5 Old edition, 49. CHAPTER III 29 as is paid to the ordinance of R. Gershom. Somewhat later, R. Hayyim Or Zarua' pleads similarly, when he says that if we compel a bigamist to leave his second wife al- though he has transgressed only an ordinance, how much more ought we to insist on the separation of those who marry contrary to Rabbinic law. So far-reaching was the influence of this ordinance, that, as has been said, the Spanish authorities often found themselves compelled to enforce it on such German Jews as came within their jurisdiction. They did, however, attempt to lessen the rigor of the rule even for the Ash- kenazic Jews. R. Solomon ibn Adret practically nulli- fied the effect of the ordinance by declaring that it lapsed automatically in the vear 5000 A. M. (i. e. 1240 of the Common Era).?, This view, which Ibn Adret based on rumors that came to him from German scholars, is un- supported by any evidence and is entirely untenable.s Strangely enough the authority of Ibn Adret was such that the statement has found its way into many important codes, and yet Jewish consciousness felt the importance of the Takkanah so deeply that in spite of its supposed termination, it is still observed as binding law in all com- munities of Ashkenazic Jews. b. COMPULSORY DIVORCE Inextricably bound up with the Takkanah against bigamy is the ordinance promulgated by R. Gershom against compulsory divorce. It is well-known that both Biblical and Rabbinic law leave the matter of divorce almost com- pletely in the hands of the husband. It is true that there are cases in which the Talmudic scholars assumed the authority to compel a husband to divorce his wife if she demanded it, but hardly any limitation was put upon his right of divorcing her if he pleased. The Rabbinic theory seems to have been that the necessity of paying the Ke- t Res. R. Hayyim Or Zarua, 182. 2 Quoted by R. Joseph Colon, in responsum 101. 3 See p. 142 note 2. 30 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES tubah would of itself prevent divorce under ordinary con- ditions. But that protected only the wives of the poor; what of the wives of the wealthy? It was assumed that wealthy parents probably would protect the interests of their daughters by demanding that the husband at the time of the marriage settle upon her a larger Ketubah than the minimum. Yet the situation was unsatisfactory. R. Gershom met this difficulty by forbidding any husband to divorce his wife against her will. For the Rhine communities, he ordained further that no divorce should be executed without the consent of the representatives of the communities. The Takkanah against compulsory divorce was strength- ened by later generations, to the extent that it was or- dained that any writ of divorce delivered in violation of it was null and void. The doctrine that a Court may nullify a divorce executed otherwise than in accordance with its rules, is Talmudic.? This doctrine was generally recognized in Geonic times. It is open to serious ques- tion, however, whether R. Gershom would have as- sumed either for himself, or for a synod called under him, the right to declare null a divorce executed according to the law of the Talmud. Even the later authors whose respect for the memory of R. Gershom gave them the courage to hold a compulsory divorce ineffective did this only to the extent of prohibiting the husband from re- marrying, but for every other purpose they recognized its validity. C. ORDINANCE AGAINST INSULTING PENITENT CONVERTS The number of forced conversions in R. Gershom’s day must have been considerable in view of the Takkanah he made prohibiting anyone to insult converted Jews after their return to Judaism. The Takkanah protected not merely those who had been converted by physical t Part II, p. 247. 2 Ketubot 3b. 3 Mann, Jewish Quarterly Review (N.S.) 7.471. CHAPTER III 31 force, but also such as had been led to forsake their people and their religion because of other circumstances. The text of the ordinance is no longer in existence, indeed, it seems to have been. lost as early as the time of Rashi, who is the first to allude to the Takkanah.' d. ORDINANCE PROTECTING JEWISH TENANTS Another Takkanah? generally ascribed to R. Gershom is that forbidding any Jew to rent a house of a Gentile, who had unjustly ejected a former Jewish tenant. This Tak- kanah would seem to point to the existence of very cramped Jewish quarters even in those early centuries. It was only by agreeing not to rent houses from which Jews had been unrighteously evicted, that the Jews could in any way defend themselves against ruthless house-owners. This ordinance was re-enacted in a more rigorous form in Italy in the sixteenth century. The establishment of Ghettoes in that country during that period made some such law all the more necessary. e€. ORDINANCE PROTECTING THE PRIVACY OF LETTERS One of R. Gershom’s Takkanot, which was quoted very often in modern times in continental countries, was that forbidding a person to read the letters of another without permission. This ordinance was of especial importance in days when mail delivery by government agencies was practically unknown, at least in Europe. Letters of a private character often had to be sent through messengers, whose curiosity would only be too likely to tempt them to break the trust that had been placed in them. It is additional evidence of the religious reverence gained by these ordinances, that it was expected that they would command respect in cases which the ordinary legal methods could not reach. t Mueller, Teshubot Hakme Zarfat Ve-Lotir,11b; see also below p.179. eeratt ilo p.18i. 3 Part II, p. 189. 32 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES THE f. ALLEGED ORDINANCE AGAINST EMENDING THE TEXT OF THE, TALMUD R. Jacob Tam, living*in the twelfth century, reports that R. Gershom “cursed”’ those who would in the future tamper with the received text of the Talmud.* On the basis of this report the impression has spread that the prohibition of emendations was one of R. Gershom’s ordinances. We know, of course, that R. Gershom was very zealous for the care of the text of the Talmud.’ But even R. Tam merely says that R. Gershom cursed those who would change it, not that he declared any or- dinance against it. Moreover most of the Tosafists in- dulged in emendations,and some of them introduced their changes into the text itself. Is it possible that all of these men dared to transgress an injunction of R. Gershom? The word Jat ‘‘curse”’ is itself merely a figurative expression for “‘denounce,’’ and it is used by R. Tam in that sense, just as it often occurs in the Talmud. 2. CIVIL ORDINANCES OF R. GERSHOM Of a different character from the Takkanot thus far dis- cussed, are those which have been compiled in a group, usually called ‘‘Takkanot R. Gershom’’.3 R. Gershom apparently strove not merely to gather the representatives of the communities in synods in order to pass upon measures which he thought salutary, but he desired to establish a permanent organization of communities, such as might continue to function after his death. The code of Takkanot of R. Gershom on examination appears to be a crude miniature constitution for such a confederation. It does not contain all the elements that we would expect to find in a constitution, since it assumes the existence of many institutions, and merely attempts to give official assertion to some important aspects of the Federation as it was conceived. t Introduction to the Sefer Ha-Yashar. 2 See above p. 20, note 3. 3 See p. 111. CHAPTER III 33 The analysis of the text in the form that it has been received must be deferred to Part II.t Of the twelve or thirteen sections of which it consists in most of the recensions, a nucleus of five are certainly the work of a synod that gathered under R.Gershom. These established the following rules: a. The jurisdiction of the local courts of the communities is to extend not merely to the members of the community but to any Jew who may happen to come within their city. b. The right of interrupting the prayers because a de- fendant refuses to come to Court, or because the Court refuses to summon a defendant is guaranteed, but it is limited in the following manner. The plaintiff must three times make complaint in public at the end of the service if he finds no response from the community, he may pre- vent them from holding public worship until his wrongs are righted. c. If the synagogue-house is owned by a member of the community he may not prevent any other member ’ from attending public service, except by closing it to every- one. d. Anyone losing an object may publicly declare a herem in the synagogue, compelling any person having knowledge of the finder, to inform against him. e. The minority in any community must accept the ordinances of the majority and abide by them. , These ordinances cannot be considered merely civil Takkanot, they are of a constitutional nature. They specify and guarantee certain rights of the individual. When we think of the power of the Mediaeval community and of the fact that for the Jew it was the only source of justice, we will realize the importance of these ordinances. In view of what has been said above about the herem beth- din, i. e. the authority of the local court, it was a matter of the highest importance that this authority be extended not merely to members of the community but also to transients. One could always rely on the public opinion t See below p. 111. 34 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES of acommunity to compel a fellow-member to do one justice, but what could one do against a member of another com- munity, or one who had fled his own community and settled in another? The right of appealing to the Court of any community in whose jurisdiction a defendant might happen to come, provided a method of dealing with many whom the courts previously had been unable to reach. The privilege of interrupting the prayers is regulated and thus recognized. Its importance has already been analyzed. But no less important in a country of small and poor communities was the regulation forbidding the owner of a synagogue to tyrannize over any member of the community by denying him the right to enter the synagogue. In times when public worship every day was as common and indispensable as one’s meals, it was a real spiritual loss for a person to be prevented from taking part in the public service. The ordinance declared that one who closed a synagogue to one member closed it to all. If the owner wanted his house to continue as the house of prayer he would have to admit the people whom he dis- liked on the same terms as the people whom he liked. It may be thought that the section declaring the will of the majority binding on all members was unnecessary. So indeed it might be in a community where self-government is inculcated in a child almost from the nursery. In a community where all government came from Kings and Emperors, the rule of the majority was by no means firmly established. There were many authorities who claimed that no communal ordinance could be accepted as authoritative unless it had been unanimously adopted. Yet it was obvious that if there was to be any local govern- ment at all, the rule of the majority would have to be es- tablished.. It was a question debated for centuries after R. Gershom, whether the right to make such ordinances by will of the majority is based on the Talmud or not. While the academic discussions were continuing, the rule established by R. Gershom was in practical effect, bringing life and vigor into German communal life. CHAPTER III 35 3. THE FEDERATION OF COMMUNITIES AFTER THE DEATH OF R. GERSHOM The care with which R. Gershom built is evidenced by the strength of the federation after his death. Although the empire was disunited, and travel was difficult and dangerous, while local patriotisms tended to divide the Jewish community, nevertheless the synods apparently continued to meet even after R. Gershom could no longer lead them. It was such a synod doubtless that provided for the suspension of the ordinance against plural marriage in certain emergencies. No synod would have dared to change that ordinance in any way more than a generation after the time of R. Gershom. Even Rashi would not have been bold enough to limit the scope of one of the ordinances passed under supervision of the great scholar. It must have been therefore within twenty-five or thirty years after his death that the change in that law was made. Nevertheless the lack of a great leader ultimately brought about the disintegration of the federation. Only the Rhine communities, and a few smaller communities that were subsidiary to them, continued in the closer union that had been perfected under R. Gershom. But of their activities Jittle is known. The records of the period are scanty at best, and its history can be reconstructed only by conjecture. The schools at Mayence and:other parts of Germany carried on their works but the time was approach- ing when the German communities would have to admit that the center of Talmudic scholarship had removed to France. The place that had been filled in the early part of the eleventh century by R. Gershom, was vacant till Rashi arose in the second half, a new master-builder in Israel. CHAPTER IV THE FRENCH SYNODS 1. RASHI A generation elapsed between the time of the death of R. Gershom and the general acceptance of Rashi' as a leader in Israel. It is a generation of which we know little. We hear of such men as R. Jacob b. Yakar, but we know little of what progress was being made in carrying on the “work so auspiciously begun by the great master. We hardly know of any of Rashi’s public activities. The com- mentary which is his everlasting monument—for he was indeed the greatest of commentators—was written in the quiet of his study. Whether he took any more immediate part in the solution of the social problems of his own genera- tion is not known. We are told by his grandson, R. Jacob Tam, that he ordained? that if a Jew lent money to another on a half loan, half investment basis,—that is, on the understanding that the money invested should be used by the agent, and the profits divided between himself and the principal,—in such a case Rashi ordained the principal could only be taxed one half of the money which he had invested. In other words, the basis for taxation purposes was to be income-producing capital. Such a Takkanah is found in a collection of responsa of R. Meir b. Baruch in which it is said to have been copied from a manuscript of “R. Solomon of Troyes’’.s The ordinance begins with the words, ‘‘we the inhabitants of Troyes and its surrounding communities.” It therefore would seem that the ordinance as published was in fact t See Liber, Rashi, Jewish Publication Society, 1906 and Lip- schutz, R. Shelomo Yishaki, Warsaw, 1912. 2 Part II, p. 148. 3 Res. R. Meir b. Baruch, ed. Berlin, p. 320. CHAPTER IV 37 passed at a local synod of the communities near Troyes. R. Tam had occasion to quote only one section,* but doubt- less he knew the whole of the text. As the ordinance was intended only for Troyes and its immediate vicinity, it is not surprising that it is not quoted more extensively. It provides that no Jew shall take advantage of any exemption offered him by a feudal lord to escape taxation by the Jewish community.? Houses, fields, vineyards, utensils and money lent to Jews by Gentiles were exempted from taxation. Gold and silverware, jewelry and rings were to be taxed at half their value; non-interest bearing loans were exempt from taxation for one year, but there- after were subject to tax. It was assumed of course that a loan for more than a year was either a gift or a fiction used to evade the payment of the tax. New residents were not to be taxed. until they had done some business in the city. Gifts of money to one’s children were taxable, if the children lived in the same city. If one accepted books as pledges for a loan, the lender was taxed on as much of the capital as was represented by the books. THE FIRST CRUSADE We know of no further action by Rashi in the matter of convening synods. Yet the times in which he lived must have demanded serious action. Towards the end of his life the First Crusade was being organized. At the Council of Clermont in 1095, Pope Urban II issued a call to a Crusade for the purpose of rescuing Jerusalem from the hands of the Infidels. Bands began to gather under Peter the Hermit, who, starting in France, marched northward through Germany on his way to the Holy Land. The Jews of France feared that before proceeding to make war on the distant Turks, the Crusaders might attack the neighboring Jews. They therefore sent a letter to t Mordecai, Riva, Baba Kamma, 10.248; and Nimmukim of R. Menahem Merseburg, printed at the end of the Hanau edition of Res. R. Jacob Weil. 2 See Part II, p. 243, section 15. 38 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES the Jews of Germany calling on them. to join them in prayer and fasting that the calamity might be averted. It is safe to say that other and less spiritual means were taken to prevent the threatened disaster. Letters were sent to Germany advising a careful welcome to Peter and his followers. When we hear of the ravages these bands committed in Hungary, we may well be surprised at the comparative quiet with which they marched through France and Germany. Even the second and third bands of this Crusade passed through France without committing any serious outrages, although they mercilessly ravaged the Rhine cities. The letters that were sent from France to Germany must have been authorized and the money that was needed to gain the favor of the Crusaders raised by synods of some kind. But no trace of these has been left, so that the Rashi’s part in these activities is completely unknown. The legend of Rashi’s relation with Godfrey of Bouillon is hardly worth mentioning, and we have no more trust- worthy accounts of Rashi’s activity in these late years. CHANGE IN THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL STATUS OF THE JEWS RESULTING FROM THE CRUSADES The Second Crusade like the first brought little suffering to the Jews of France. To the Jews of Germany, with their bitter memories of 1096, it brought infinite terror but nothing worse. The Jew-baiters were successfully prevented from repeating the atrocities of the First Crusaders, and German Jewry breathed more freely as the soldiers of the Cross left their land. But the Crusades left a deep impress on the economic and social conditons of the Jews of France and Germany. They had become less the tradesmen, and more the money- lenders of their respective countries. We have seen? how the precarious state of land-ownership in the days of R. Gershom was driving the people from the soil; the ownership of merchandise had by now become almost * Chapter I, p. 11. CHAPTER IV 39 as insecure. The expulsions from the towns made the moving of goods very difficult, and while debts too could not easily be collected, yet the huge interest taken in the Middle Ages in part offset the risks. But more important than this, was the rivalry in trade that had been born out of the Crusades. The Crusades re-introduced Wes- tern Europe to the Levant, and now many a Christian could engage in commerce. Naturally this tended to drive the Jews from ordinary trade into money lending.' There is on the other hand, a tendency to overestimate the number of Jews who became moneylenders. The im- pression gained from reading books like The Merchant of Venice and Ivanhoe is that all Jews were usurers. The authors of these books are of course not to be blamed for they merely reflect the popular notion. It is a little true that every Jew, or even that the majority of Jews, were usurers, as that every Jew is called Isaac. Yet because there are more Jews named Isaac than Gentiles, the ordinary Christian will call the ordinary Jew by that name. Even though the proportion of moneylenders among Jews to their total number were only slightly larger than the proportion of moneylenders to the rest of the general population, the belief would soon spread that all money- lenders were Jews. In times when statistics were unknown the belief would soon gain vogue that all Jews were usurers. The increased competition from the Christians who had become accustomed to travel during the Crusades, the hazard now attached to the possession of movable property and the rise of feeling in the Church opposed to lending money on interest would sufficiently account for the fact that a larger number of Jews became moneylenders than did Gentiles to whom other and more reputable occupa- tions were open. Yet the Jew, innocently forced into this hateful traffic by the economic conditions which he could not control, was the more hated for taking the only path that had t See Abrahams, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, pp. 237-244 for a fair and impartial account of the spread of moneylending among Jews. 40 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES been left open to him. Not only had the persecutions to which they had been subjected during the Crusades made . the Jews a group definitely-recognized as socially inferior, but the general belief that all of them were usurers helped to provoke the mass-hatred against them. The war- animus which had been aroused by the Crusades could not easily subside, and spent itself not only in battles and wars at home, but in ravages against the “unbelieving” Jews. The condition of the Jew was thus entangled in the most unfortunate of vicious circles. “The more he was oppressed, the more he had to leave ordinary trade in order to engage in moneylending, the more he engaged in moneylending the more was he oppressed. | Jewish leaders must have realized the great danger that confronted them, and sought to meet. it. But there are no records of any synods, if there were any documents they have been lost. There is no trace of any gatherings of Rabbis during this period in the responsa or other legal literature that has survived. Perhaps, on the other hand, the French and German Jews were without capable leader- ship in these trying times. Rashi had died in 1105. His grandson, R. Samuel b. Meir, who succeeded to his posi- tion as the leading Jewish scholar, was a student, but hardly a man of the world. He could lend the prestige of his vast erudition to the efforts of another but he seems to have lacked initiative and organizing ability. He completed his grandfather’s commentaries on Baba Batra and it may be that his commentary on the last chapter of Pesahim was intended to complete unfinished work of Rashi.? His discussions of the meaning of the Talmud are everywhere illuminating, but while these literary activities were very important and of lasting influence, conditions called also for immediate action. No leader of the type that was needed appeared till R. Samuel’s younger brother? reached maturity. No less * For his life, see Rosin, R. Samuel b. Meir, Breslau, 1880. 2 Dienemann, Lewy Festschrift, p. 259. 3 For his life see Weiss, Toledot R. Jacob Tam (1883) and A. Berliner, in J. J. L. G. I, (1903) p. 1, seg. CHAPTER IV 41 a scholar than his brother, R. Jacob Tam (b. 1100, d. 1170) had the genius of a R. Gershom. He had been but a lad of five when his illustrious grandfather had died, and he had been taught by his older brother. But before many years had gone by, his fame equalled that of his master. His criticisms of Rashi attracted attention far and wide. Quick, fearless and independent, he was gifted with extra- ordinary insight into the needs of the people A char- acteristic incident shows the difference between the two brothers. R. Samuel in his piety always walked about with his eyes on the ground. It thus happened that on one occasion, he ordered a carriage and since, according to his custom he did not look up, he failed to realize that it was driven by a horse and a mule. Talmudic law for- bids pairing animals of different species not merely for reproduction but in their work. Just as R. Samuel was about to enter the carriage and unknowingly transgress the law, his younger and more circumspect brother hap- pened to pass, and laughingly reproached him saying, ‘‘Be not over-pious, lift up thine eyes and behold there stand a horse and a mule before thee.’’! Even in his interpretations of the Talmud R. Tam always kept in mind the needs of the people. Thus he justified the custom that permitted Jews to engage in commerce with Christians during the seasons preceding their religious festivals, although commerce with idol-worshippeis under like circumstances is forbidden.? He was inclined to permit a Gentile contractor to build a house for a Jew on the Sabbath,’ and to mitigate the rigor of some Rabbinic laws, such as that forbidding the cutting of one’s hair during the festival week.4 From such a man we would expect an active interest in Jewish communal work. About the year 1150 he persuaded his brother, R. Samuel, t Hagahot Mordecai, Erubin, chapter I, end. 2 Tosafot Aboda Zara, 2b. 3 Ibid. 21b. 4 Tur Orah Hayyim, 531, compare Hagahot Asheri, Moed Qatan, chapter III, beginning; and Hagahot Maimuni, Hilkot Yom Tob chapter VIL. 42 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES to join him in requesting all the communities not only of France but also of Germany, to send representatives to a synod that was to meet at Troyes, to discuss some of the new conditions that had arisen as a result of the Second Crusade. The German communities as well as those of France responded, and the conference was attended by men of such eminence as R. Eliezer b. Nathan of Mayence and R. Eliezer b. Samson of Cologne. It was indeed a promising moment in Jewish life, when the representatives of France and Germany gathered to discuss the problem before them. We have an ordinance? that was the re- sult of their deliberations, but it is doubtless only one of several decisions taken. It is the only ordinancc the text of which has been preserved, but it can hardly be believed that the rabbis would have undertaken all the dangers that were encountered in travel from country to country in the twelfth century, merely to publish a Takkanah against informers. As in the case of other synods, we must assume that the practical steps that were taken to meet immediate exigencies were either not recorded, or the records were lost by following generations, while we have the decisions that were retained because of their Halakic importance, The text of the ordinances which we have, deals with the problem of the informers. It forbids any Jew to bring litigation against another before non-Jewish courts; and « Their names are mentioned in connection with this synod only in the abstract of the Takkanah, in RMP 1022. The defective punc- tuation of Bloch’s reprint of this edition has misled the writer of the article on Cologne in Germania Judaica, p. 74, into thinking that R. Eliezer b. Nathan and R. Eliezer b. Samson were members of the synod of 1220. The contributor takes pains to show that it would have been impossible for R. Eliezer b. Nathan to be present at that council since he died fifty years earlier, in 1170. The writer might have noticed that R. Tam also died in 1170, and that he could not have been present at the council of 1220. This would have led him to read some- what more carefully and realize that it is not stated that either R. Tam or R. Eliezer b. Nathan or R. Eliezer b. Samson were present at the Council of 1220, but rather that they were representatives of various communities at the council of Troyes held about 1160. 2 For text, translation and notes, see Part II, pages 152-158. CHAPTER IV 43 moreover, it enjoins on any Jewish plaintiff whose cause is brought before Gentile authorities, even without his knowledge, the duty of indemnifying the defendant against any harm threatened him by these authorities; finally it forbids the acceptance of any office in the Jewish community at the hands of non-Jewish authorities. This synod must have been considered a success for it led to the calling of another, this time after the death of R. Samuel, that is, after 1160. Again the synod met at Troyes. It was attended by representatives of communi- ties of Normandy and Poitiers as well as of the kingdom of France, proper.t. The text of the decisions which has been preserved, provides that the Takkanah regarding the return of the dowry, which had previously been in vogue at Narbonne,? should be extended to apply to the remainder of France. If a woman died within a year of her marriage without issue, any gifts given to her and her husband by her family, were to be returned to them. Moreover, if any dowry had been promised to the husband, and he failed to obtain it during the life of his wife, he was not to collect it after her death. Some of the names of those who were present at the synod are preserved. They are given somewhat differ- ently in different sources and will perhaps be best discussed in connection with the texts. There are several other Takkanot of R. Tam which were no less important. We do not know whether they too were adopted at one of these councils or are the decrees of other gatherings, or whether they were adopted by t For text, tanslation and notes, see Part II. pages 163-167. 2 The statement made by Gross, Gallia Judaica, s.v. Troyes, that the community of Narbonne was represented at this synod must be re- vised. It is based on a misreading of a passage in Mordecai, Ketubot 5.155. Anyone reading the texts reprinted in Part Ii, and then com- paring them with the text of Mordecai, will see that the community of Narbonne was not represented at the synod. Weiss in his R. Tam, seems likewise to have been misled by the somewhat obscure passage in Mordecai into thinking that the Takkanah was a responsum to the community of Narbonne. 44 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES correspondence. Of some we have the text, others we only know from quotations. An interesting ordinance is that which undertook to regulate the length of time which a person might absent himself from home. From early times it had become customary for those who aspired to Jewish scholarship to leave their families and to give themselves unreservedly to study in the quiet atmosphere of the great academies. The wives supported themselves as well as they could, suffering patiently in the expectation of sharing with their husbands the bliss that is stored away for those who deny themselves the. pleasures of this world for the sake of the Torah. The most famous case was that of the wife of R. Akiba,? but she was merely typical of a large number of pious women who made the preservation of the Torah in Israel possible amidst the perils that surrounded it. The custom became even more.prevalent in Germany and France in the Middle Ages. Besides these cases where the husband left his wife with her consent and for ideal reasons, it frequently happened that men left their homes out of malice. The breaking up of families thus became a serious matter. In the Talmud we already find restrictions on the privileges of the husband in this respect.2, R. Tam’s ordinance,3 only reemphasizes and defines these restrictions. It is of some interest to note that R. Tam felt that the law would be more respected it it were re-enacted as an ordinance. The decisions of the Synods must have enjoyed great prestige in Israel when one could think that their words would carry more weight with the people than a statement of the Mishna. A better known Takkanah of R. Tam is that forbidding anyone to cast a slur on the validity of a divorce after it hadbeen delivered in a Jewish court. The practice of finding technical irregularities in such documents was widespread and was a source of endless trouble throughout the history of Rabbinic Judaism. So complicated are the laws of divorce that a clever person might without t Ketubot 62a. 2 Ketubot 5.6.° 3 Part II, p. 167-170. CHAPTER IV 45 serious difficulty discover a flaw in most writs of divorce.! The results of the arousing of suspicions with regard to a Get? were most serious. The divorced wife might have married again. She and her new husband might have been living happily for years and become the fond parents of innocent children. Then someone out of malice would raise the cry that the wife’s divorce had been irregular in such and such a detail, and that consequently she had never been truly divorced, her second marriage was void, and her children illegitimate. There was even the possibility that a cruel husband might at the time of the divorce intentionally introduce some irregularity into the proceedings so as to make trouble for the unfortunate wife in after years. R. Tam in his decree prohibited such action. As soon as a divorce had been accepted in a Jewish court, the matter was closed. Whoever attempted to re-open it was to be declared excommunicated. If he knew of any irregu- larity it was his duty to protest before the delivery and to the original court; his silence at the time established a conclusive presumption of guilt against him. The text of the Takkanah has been lost, but we have an abstract of it3, whence we know that it also was adopted at Troyes, and that one of the main associates of R. Tam in the enactment of this Takkanah was one R. Moses, whom Gross identifies with R. Moses of Pontoise.4 t J. L. Gordon, the modern-Hebrew poet, has portrayed the conditions surrounding and resulting from such an over-emphasis on technicalities in his Kozo shel Yod (collected works, vol.4,p.50). A similar condition exists in the English law of wills, and the numerous litigations arising as a result of them form an almost exact parallel to the litigations arising under the Jewish law of divorce. Yet it is dif- ficult to waive technicalities in such matters. For example, see Isserlein, Pesakim, 14, where the case arose of a person whose name was Gershom, but who had divorced his wife with a writ where he was called Gershon. Since Gershon and Gershom are distinct names in the Bible it was quite impossible to accept such a divorce as valid. 2 Get, meaning writ in a general sense, is often used to designate the writ of divorce in particular. 3 See below p.105, where the abstract of this Takkanah is re- printed from a manuscript and from Mordecai, Gittin, 4.155. 4 Gross, Gallia Judaica, s. v. Pontoise; and compare Revue des Etudes Juives, 64.281. 46 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES Two provisions of the ordinance are cited: first, that no one may raise any objection to the validity of a Get after its delivery aud acceptance; second, that no one who was not present at the divorce, may afterward object and say, ‘‘Had I been present I would have done so and so’’, or “‘I would not have permitted this and this witness to sign’’. R. Mordecai Yaffe (16th century, Poland and Lithuania) seems to have overlooked the second part of the Takkanah, for in a responsum! he denies that there was any objection to one raising a claim against the validity of a divorce if he was not present. His contempor- ary, R. Moses Isserles, made another exception to the rule of the herem.2, In one case R. Tam himself insisted that a second bill of divorce be delivered to the woman because there were some who complained that the first was not valid. It is not known, however, whether this happened before or after the establishing of the herem. If it took place before that the case can have no importance for us. If after the synod, it would mean that while R. Tam announced a herem against those who would raise a cry of invalidity against a divorce, he admitted nevertheless the need foranew divorce. His Takkanah then did not undertake to interfere with the law as established. This inference is very likely correct, for it is hardly credible that R. Tam should undertake to permit a woman to marry who was shown not to have been divorced properly. A very important matter with which R..Tam was called upon to deal was that of the Jew who became surety for another to a prince or noble in order to obtain for him the right to leave the country. This always involved heavy risks not only to the Jew who was trying to save his fellow, but to the whole community. Thus the baron might suspect that such and such a person intended to leave his country. Not wishing to lose the source of income which even a poor Jew might represent, the baron would grant him leave of absence, only on con- « Published in Res. R. Meir Lublin, 123. 2 Res. R. Moses Isserles 55. 3 Gittin 90a. CHAPTER IV 47 dition that some other Jew be responsible for him. It would not be very difficult for an individual to find a tender- hearted fellow-Jew to pledge for him. It was the general _rule that in such cases the guarantor could demand from the freed Jew full compensation for any suffering that might come upon him through the default of his charge. This would appear to us to be but common justice, yet it was the subject of no small amount of litigation. The defense usually given by the defaulter was that the noble used his failure to re-appear merely as a pretext for extort- ing money from the guarantor and that, had the noble lacked that pretext, he would certainly have found another. That was no doubt true, yet it is also true as R. Meir b. Baruch says, that this defaulter was the means of the “driving the lion into the property of his fellow.’’! The following are the circumstances which occasioned this peculiar Takkanah.?, Towards the end of the twelfth century the king and the nobles of France, began to develop the theory that the Jews were the property of the governing power of the land in which they lived. The nobles thus felt empowered to refuse to permit a Jew to leave their land, without depositing a pledge that he would return. For any Jew to go bail for another, under the circumstances, would be to admit the right of the nobles in this matter. R. Tam and his colleagues doubtless felt that it were better to undergo all the inconveniences and trouble that might result from a refusai to recognize the ownership of their bodies, rather than to submit to virtual enslavement. It must be admitted, however, that while the Takkanah was a wise measure, it failed in its purpose, for the king and the barons did ultimately enforce their power over the Jews. They became little better than serfs in all of France, and their condition became steadity worse till they were finally expelled from the country in 1306. t See Res. R. Meir b. Baruch of Rothenburg, ed Prague, 495, 725, 977; ed. Cremona, 294,- 296; Mordecai Baba Kamma, 10.160; and Res. Shearit Israel_32. . 2 Printed in Res. R. Hayyim Or Zarua 179; Res. R. Meir b. Baruch, ed. Rabinowitz 114 and reprinted below, p. 106. 48 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES CODIFIED TAKKANOT OF R. TAM Just as R. Gershom left besides his Takkanot on cere- monial matters, a compilation of ordinances, even so R. Tam besides estab.ishing the ordinances described,, was the -author of a code of ordinances. Unlike the code of R. Gershom, however, this is not entirely of a constitutional nature, and its various sections do not materialiy differ in character from his other ordinances. They have been pre- served to us in several recensions, in each of which there are numerous additions from other sources. The analysis and proof must in this case too be deferred to Part II.' It will there be seen that the Takkanot of R..Tam are ten in number: a. Any community in which a prominent Rabbi is known to have lived, may assume that he established a regular Court (Herem Beth Din), so that its Court may compel its citizens to obey the summons and decrees. b. R. Gershom’s herem against compulsory divorce does not apply in certain emergencies. c. The right of interrupting the prayers at any time is guaranteed to one who apprehends defamation before Gen- tiles at the hands of a fellow-Jew. d. The Court may compel obedience to a herem. e. All who live in a community for a month, may be compelled to pay their “tithe” i. e. to contribute toward the communal expenses. f. One may not remove a Jallit or Mahzor from a syna- gogue without the owner’s permission. g. One may not strike one’s neighbor. (There are several incidental rules regulating the punishment for assault, the most important of these fixes the fine at twenty- five dinars, unless the crime was committed in the synagogue when the fine is to be doubled). h. No one may cut off a margin of a book, even if it is his property. i. The laws of summons are fixed; the judge is enjoined t pp. 171-189. CHAPTER IV 49 to issue one on request, and the jurisdiction of local courts is defined. j. The Court may compel anyone to give testimony re- garding the property of men who are guilty of abandonment. While these ordinances do not have the constitutional character of the Takkanot of R. Gershom, it is evident from the work of R. Tam, that he sought to accomplish what R. Gershom had attempted more than a century be< fore him,—the establishment of a central authority in the West. His task was more difficult however, since the num- ber of Jewish communities had increased considerably since the year 1000. The spirit of local patriotism which had hindered and made incomplete the work of R. Gershom, was still prevalent. R. Tam felt therefore that if the council of all the communities was to be given authority, a first step toward that end would be the weakening of the power of the individual communities. One of the Takkanot of R. Gershom, as we have seen, provided for the rule of the majority in communal affairs. This principle found support in a Talmudic passage em- powering the people of a community to establish rules for measures, prices, and wages, and to provide punish- ment for their infraction.* It had generally been assumed that the rules and the punishment were both to be fixed by a majority vote, as practically all questions in Talmudic law are settled by majority. R. Tam, however, gave a novel interpretation to the passage. According to him the decisions of the law must be made by common consent, but the punishment may be fixed by the majority. R. Tam’s theory was that while no individual could be bound by the community to obey any ordinance, once he had by consent- ing to the passage of the ordinance agreed to it, he could be punished for transgressing it. The legislative power of the community was based on nothing more than a vow undertaken by each member to do or refrain from doing certain things. t Baba Batra 8b. 2 Mordecai, Baba Batra I. 481; see also responsum quoted in Mordecai (ed. Riva) Baba Kamma, 10.248. 50 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES Had this opinion been accepted, the legislative power of the Community would have been seriously limited. For when could one hope to induce all the members of a community to agree on anything? We have seen how some Rabbis protested against the rule which forbade anyone to settle in a city without obtaining unanimous consent to waive the prohibition against settlers from other cities (Herem Ha-Yishshub, see above, p. 10). They felt that such a provision made it impossible to have the herem set aside in any case. The establishment of any Takkanah would be far more difficult if any individual could, by refusing his assent, prevent its passage. R. Tam had a remedy for this. The greatest scholars of any generation are in fact the successors of the ancient Sanhedrin, he claimed. They may accordingly promul- gate decrees which must then be obeyed by all under penalty of excommunication.’ It was under this authority, according to R. Tam, that R. Gershom had issued his famous Takkanot, and indeed, the power of the Palestinian Patriarchs was based on no surer foundation than their status as the foremost scholars of their time. Thus, he argued, when it was found that Hillel was a greater scholar than the Bene Batyra, they made way before him.? R. Tam did not apparently take into consideration the argument against his theory that is presented in the cases of R. Ga- maliel IT and his son, R. Simeon. It will generally be admitted that R. Akiba and R. Ishmael—not to speak of R. Joshua and R. Eliezer—outshone their, colleague, R. Gamaliel, in scholarship, yet he was the Patriarch over them. Moreover when he was removed because of a quarrel with R. Joshua, it was not the greatest scholar that was appointed -in his place but rather the voung R. Eleazar b. Azariah who was descended from a prominent family.’ Certainly no one will maintain that R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who was patriarch in the following generation, was a greater scholar than his contemporaries R. Meir and R. Judah. 1 Sanhedrin, Asheri 2.41. 2 Pesahim 66b. 3 Berakot 27b. CHAPTER IV 51 But we are not here concerned with the historical ac- curacy of the interpretation put forward by R. Tam. Stripped of its argumentative intricacies, the view ex- pounded by this scholar was that the individual communities had no right of legislation, but that the legislative powers were lodged in the hands of the greatest scholars of each- generation. This view was radically different from that which had been current in France and Germany before his day. R. Gershom, himself, who had been the first to insti- tute country-wide ordinances in the West held, in a respon- sum,’ that the heirs of the great Sanhedrin were the locai courts. He held that it was not the scholarship of the Patriarch that gave him the prestige which he enjoyed, but rather the fact that the Sanhedrin over which he presided was representative in one sense of all Israel, and at any rate was recognized as the supreme authority by Jews every- where. In enforcing the herem of a community even when its ordinances seemed to be in opposition to the Talmudic law, he cited those very verses of Scripture which are used in the Talmud to establish the rights of the Sanhedrin in civil matters. As is well known, this is based on the judi- cial power of confiscation. It is true that R. Gershom at- tempted to bring about closer co-operation among the communities, but he felt that the central synod which he endeavored to establish only enjoyed its authority by virtue of its recognition by the communities. R. Tam’s views were accepted by some of his contem- poraries and pupils, notably by R. Eliezer b. Samuel of Metz.* But there also arose opposition to the revolu- tionary doctrine, especially in Germany. We have res- ponsa 3° signed by two of the pupils of R. Eliezer of Metz, who take issue with the view of R. Tam, and uphold in principle, at least, the older view. The case’ whch was the occasion of the response is of sufficient interest to be fully described. The community t Mordecai, Baba Kamma 2.257; Mueller, Teshubot Hakme Zarfa! Ve Lotir 97. . 2 Res. R. Hayyim Or Zarua, 222 end. 3 Loc. cit., see appendix, p. 107, for the text of these responsa. 52 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES - of Worms found thatmany of its tax-payers were es- caping their proper share of the communal burdens by taking an oath that their, capital (which was used as the basis for the computation of the tax) had been overes- timated. In order to remedy this evil, a decree was passed taking away the right of the tax-payer to decrease his assessment by an affirmation under oath. R. Eleazar of Worms and his colleagues sent the matter before the Rabbis of the neighboring community of Mayence, since Talmudic law forbids citizens of a community to be judges in matters where their own community is involved. The Rabbis of Mayence, R. Baruch b. Samuel, R. Judah b. Kalonymos, and R. Moses b. Mordecai upheld the right of communai leaders to establish ordinances with the consent of the majority of the members of the community, but they decided that this power was limited by the obvious truth that in money matters a man cannot be made to pay what he does not have. It is true that the Rabbinic principle is that ‘‘one cannot make a decree which the majority of the community finds it impossible to endure.’ That does not apply to matters of taxa- tion, however, where the ordinance can be annulled if it is found to be confiscatory even for a minority. The judges of whether a community had acted within its rights or otherwise were the Rabbis before whom the Community was called to defend its ordinances. Apparently, this decision which ended with an exhor- tation to the Community to be lenient with the men, and which failed to give a final decree to either party, proved unsatisfactory for the matter was sent further to R. Eliezer b. Joel Ha-Levi, (Rabiah) then Rabbi of Cologne. Rabiah lays down the principle that the Communal Board, consisting of the so-called “Seven Best Men,’’ had in their local community as much power in civil matters as the Sanhedrin had over all Israel. They were limited only by the principle that the decrees issued by them must not be too severe for the endurance of the greater part of the community. In order to discover whether in any particular * Hortot 3b. CHAPTER IV 53 instance they were within their rights or not, recourse should be had to a referendum; if a majority sustained the Board their decision was final. In this Rabiah was clearly following the Takkanah of R. Gershom (TRG 5), which indeed he echoes but does not quote. While the view of Rabiah was accepted by both par- ties to this controversy, the principle in dispute was too deep-seated to be settled by any one man. Fifty years later we find the question of the powers of the Community over the individual again a subject of discussion. At this time the foremost authority in Germany was R. Meir b. Baruch of Rothenburg. At least three cases involving this question came be- fore R. Meir for decision but these decisions do not all follow the same principle. In one case that came before him,’ a certain community had decided to forbid any but its own members to deal with the Gentile inhabitants of the city. It therefore decreed that any non-member who had lent money to Gentiles of the city, should trans- fer the debt to a member of the community within a cer- tain time; otherwise the debt would be liable to taxation by the community. R. Meir b. Baruch discusses the matter from two angles. If those who held the debts against the Gentiles had been members of the community - at the time of the issuance of the decree they were doubtless bound by it, in accordance with the Takkanah of R. Ger- shom (TRG 5) that any ordinance passed by a majority of the members of a community is binding on all of them. If they had not been members of the Community when the decree was passed, they were nevertheless bound by it to sell their debts to members of the community provided that they were given sufficient time. In this responsum R. Meir aligns himself completely with Rabiah and the old Germanic tradition that gives the community power over the property of its members; and he adds the novel principle that, provided the community is not unjust, it may even protect its citizens by calling on non-members doing business within its jurisdiction to obey its decrees. ™ Res. R. Meir b. Baruch, ed. Berlin, p. 209. 54 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES In a second case,! most of the members of a community, but not all of them, had been present at an election, and had appointed one of their number overseer of religious and communal affairs. This overseer or dictator had levied certain taxes which one member of the community refused to pay, insisting that he was not bound by the action of the majority of the community because he had not been represented. R. Meir held that a man might be bound by the decision of a community in one of two ways: if the decision reached by the community was unanimous, or if the decree was made by a board which,had been unanimously elected. In this responsum R. Meir clearly followed the view of R. Tam who required unanimous con- sent for the passage of any ordinance,but made it practicable by adding to it the possibility that unanimously elected members of a Board might act for the community. This made it possible for a community to legislate. The Tak- kanah of R. Gershom endowing communities with the power of making ordinances was still effective, for a Tak- kanah proposed by the Board would be binding on the community even though accepted only by a majority. The third responsum on this subject appears to have been written by R. Meir b. Baruch,? after he had been imprisoned. A certain community—as usual the name has not been preserved—found itself in a curious dilemma. The members could come to no agreement as to the election of the Board, there was constant interruption of prayers, and ‘‘justice was cast to the earth’’. R. Meir ordered the members to assemble, and each one to bind himself by an oath to vote according’ to what he felt to be the best interests of the community. The board securing the majority of votes was to be considered in power. It is clear that the German Rabbis felt that they could not accept R. Tam’s view without qualification, for there * Res. R. Meir b. Baruch, ed. Prague, 968. 2 Teshubot Maimuni, Kinyan 27, and Res. R. Meir b. Baruch, ed. Berlin, p. 320. In the former text the signature used is xp ‘yn 3772 12 which according to R. Solomon Luria was used by R. Meir only after his incarceration (Yam Shel Shelomo, Yebamot 4.18). CHAPTER IV 55 was no strong central organization in Germany at the time. Nor could they vest unlimited power in the communities since these often worked injustice. Thus the position of the more prominent Rabbis became more and more that of a Court of Appeals to decide whether in any particular case a community had acted within its rights.? t Res. R. Hayyim Or Zarua, 55. CHAP PERS: GERMAN SYNODS FROM. 1196-1250 SYNOD OF 1196 We hear of no general synod in France after the death of R. Tam. The condition of the Jews was deteriorating. We might have expected that the Third Crusade which took place about 1190, would arouse a new interest in synods but we have no information about any attempt to gather the scholars of the period. The Jews were expelled from the domains of the King of France, and the need of receiving the exiles must have helped to undermine their institutions even in those parts of the country where they were tolerated. On the other hand in Germany, the prob- lems raised by the Third Crusade did result in the convoca- tion of a synod under the presidency of R. David b. Kalony- mos. This synod met in 1196, probably at one of the large Rhine Communities, Worms or Speyer or Mayence, but nothing certain is known about the place of meeting. In- deed the text of the decisions can be reconstructed only insofar as it is quoted in the Takkanot of later synods, and partly given in a responsum signed by a certain R. David (who may or may not be identical with the President of this synod) and by R. Baruch b. Samuel.? The first matter dealt with by the Council was that of the widows whose husbands had died, and who, having no children, were at the mercy of their brothers-in-law if they wished to receive permission to marry again. The Biblical jaw requires that in such a case the brother of the deceased shall marry the widow; if he refuses to do so, the widow must summon him before the elders of the town, and make complaint against him for refusing “‘to establish a name for his brother in Israel.’’ “The elders of the city shall then * Teshubot Maimuni, Ishut, 26. CHAPTER V Si call to him and speak to him and if he stand and say, I like not to take her; then the widow shall come unto him in the presence of the elders and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face and say, So shall it be done unto the man doth not build up his brother’s house’’.t_ The marriage was called Yzbbum; the alternative ceremony of the loosen- ing of the shoe, Halizah. Even during Talmudic times the custom of Halizah gradu- ally tended to become.more common than Yzbbum. For Yibbum is primarily suited for a polygamic society. It pre- supposes a condition where the status of the wife is not very distinct from that of the slave, for the Levirate marriage (Yzbbum) is essentially the inheritance by the nearest kins- man of the childless widow together with all the other property of the deceased. In the Bible the status of the wife is already raised. The Levirate marriage is to be per- formed no longer by any kinsman (cf. the story of Ruth) but by the brother. Yet as Judaism developed it looked more and more askance at Yzbbum and with greater favor - at the alternative Halizah. In Talmudic times there was no longer any odium at- tached to the Halizah. Indeed Abba Saul, one of the Tannaim of the second century, recommends it.? There are cases where the Rabbis permitted the widow to refuse to marry her brother-in-law and to insist on the Halzah. Yet Yibbum continued as a custom. It had indeed become very rare, and in France was not practised at all. But according to some of the Rabbis, the Court had no power to compel a brother of the deceased to have the Halizah performed, and even those of the Rabbis who felt author- ized to use force, preferred not to resort to it. The Yabam (i. e. the brother-in-law) therefore had the widow at his mercy. He often used his power to extort money from her. This abuse was not frowned upon as it might have been, since in Rabbinic law, a wife does not inherit her husband’s property, but has only a dower right. There would always be difficulty in determining the exact amount due the widow, t Deuteronomy 25.8. 2 Bekorot 1.7. 58 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES and so the brother-in-law who used his power against his deceased brother’s widow would escape the general con- demnation which he so richly deserved. R. David of Muenzberg undertook to regulate this abuse. He laid down definite rules for the amount to be paid to the brother of the deceased. He was to get one half of the property and give the other half to the widow. Or if he chose, he might take the whole of the property and pay her her dowry. MHeirlooms, such as land or books, he might retain. He could not, however, retain any of the property that she had inherited or received from her family. These provisions which became known as the “Takkanot Shum tn regard to Halizah’’ soon spread far and wide and entered into the codes. They formed a much_ needed compromise and served as a solution to a vexing problem. It is true that to us at this date the decree seems to give the brother-in-law an unjust advantage, in that he has the choice of refusing to pay even her dower to the widow if that should be more than half of the total property of the deceased. Measured by its success, however, the Takkanah was certainly a true reform. Henceforth the power of the Yabam was to some extent controlled. It seems that this synod also took action in regard to adapting the ordinance of R. Tam in regard to dowry to the needs of the Jews of Germany. R. David of Muenz- berg is mentioned as the man who was responsible for the German Takkanah requiring the husband to return to the family of his wife one half of what he received from them, if his wife died within two years after their marriage. The Takkanah of R. Tam had limited the time to one year but had enjoined the return of the whole of the dowry. Another change that R. David introduced and which was dictated by the peculiar conditions prevailing in Germany, was that the Takkanah was made to apply to the wife as well as to the husband. In Germany child marriages were quite frequent. The parents of both the husband and wife would contribute toward the sustenance of the new couple. It was now ordained that if the husband died within two years after the marriage, the wife could not CHAPTER V 59 collect her dower right from the property which had been given them by the husband’s family at the time of the marriage. For just as the wife’s family had given her their gifts in the expectation of a long married life, similarly the husband’s family had not expected him to die soon after his marriage. In both cases then, the German rabbis decided, half of the gifts were to be returned. The gatherings of the Rhine communities had continued in all probability since the days of R. Gershom. At times the Confederation may have dwindled to the Three Communities but generally some other communities were represented. A new impulse was evidently given to these meetings by R. David who apparently followed French precedent and it seems that the meetings continued with some regularity after his day.’ SYNODS 1200-1223 In Part II? of this book there are published several texts of Takkanot of three distinct synods. The date of the first of these is unknown but it must have taken place sometimes before 1220. Its provisions may be summarized as follows: 1. a. That a man shall not eat with his wife in the days of her impurity until she undergoes the proper ceremony of purification; b. That one may not lend money at interest to a fellow-Jew except under an agreement to share in losses as well as in profits; c. That a Jew shall not cut his hair or shave his beard after the fashion of Gentiles; d. That one shall not permit his hair to grow unduly long. 2. That if one is summoned to Court he shall respond within three days. ™ In a letter sent by R. Nathan b. Isaac to R. Eliezer b. Joel Ha- Levi, mention is made of several synods of which no other trace has been found (Or Zarua I, 652, and comp. also responsum of Rashi, RFL. 27). 2 pp. 218-250. 60 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 3. That if there are witnesses to the effect that one Jew threatened to denounce another to Gentiles, and it is found that the intimidated Jew suffered at the hand of Gentiles, it may be assumed that the one who threatened carried out his threat and he shall therefore be held liable for all damages that have occurred to his neighbor; the amount to be determined either by the statement of witnesses or in the case of there being none, by the oath of the plaintiff. 4. That books which have been left in trust may not be seized by the community for taxes. 5. That taking a false oath regarding taxes renders one unfit to testify or take an oath in Jewish Courts. 6. That any Jew compelled to make a contribution to the king or noble shal) be aided by the rest of the community in bearing his burden, provided the Jew shall not himself have brought about the undue demand. 7. That a member of a community who feels that his assessment is too high, must nevertheless pay the amount of taxes claimed, but he may then bring suit against the community for the return of what he considers the excess amount. 8. That no Jew may accept religious office at the hands of Gentile powers. 9. That no Jew may gamble. 10. That neither the President nor the Rabbi of a com- munity may excommunicate a person except at a public gathering. | 11. That no one may “close a synagogue” in protest against alleged injustice unless he has “‘seated the Kahal”’ thrice. 12. That no one may make a public festivity except in celebration of some religious duty. 13. That the Hazzan may recite the prayers of the second day of Rosh ha-Shanah and of Yom Kippur after Yozer, only with the consent of the community. 14. That no one shall interfere with the sessions of Jewish courts. CHAPTER V 61 15. That a Yabam may not refuse to perform the Halizah. (The other regulations previously ordained by R. David of Muenzberg and his council are here inserted). 16. That a guard shall see to it that Gentiles add no water to the food prepared for a wedding feast on the Sabbath. 17. That no one shall divorce his wife without the con- sent of the Three Communities. 18. That no one shall villify a fellow-Jew. 19. That every member of the community shall pay his tithe for the support of communal institutions. | 20. That no man shall act as Shohet except after examina- tion by a Rabbi or an Expert. A more detailed study of these ordinances wil] be found in the notes to their translation, but the bare summary will give the reader some comprehension of the breadth of interest of the Medieval Community and of its power over its members. A second synod took place at Mayence in 1220. This synod reordained most of the provisions of the decision of the previous synod, but omitted sections 6, 9, 12 and 24. It also introduced several new sections, among which were the following: 1. That one may not use the utensils of Gentiles for Jewish wine, or permit Gentiles to assist in the preparation of Jewish wine; that one may not eat food cooked by Gentiles; that one may not clip coins (section1); 2. That the young men escorting a bridegroom shall receive only six deniers from him, and shall not be per- mitted to steal chickens or anything else even in play (section 6); 3. That if in any community the amount collected for educational purposes is found to be insufficient, they shall use for this purpose any bequests left the community by philanthropic individuals, unless the bequest was left for a specific purpose (section 23). 4. That every Jew shall set aside definite times for study; * RMP 1022, and below Part II, p. p. 225-250, Version M. 62 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES and that the synagogue . service shall be carried on with proper decorum (section 27). Three years later another synod was held at Speyer (1223) where the ordinances of both the previous synods were combined and reenacted.t They are published as Text Ria Part II of this book. The members of the three synods were with a few ex- ceptions the same Rabbis. The best known among them were R. Eleazar b. R. Judah of Worms, the author of Rokeah (d. 1235); R. Eliezer b. Joel Ha-Levi (Rabiah) who has already been mentioned, and who like R. Eleazar of Worms was a disciple of the famous R. Eliezer of Metz; R. Simhah b. Samuel of Speyer, whose discussions are often quoted with respect in the Or Zarua and other early codes. R. Baruch b. Samuel of Mayence, the author of the Sefer Ha-Hokma, which is no longer extant, but which was highly respected and was still quoted by R. Bezallel Ashknazi in the sixteenth century, attended only the first two synods. He died in 1221, two years before the synod at Speyer took place. The members of these synods form a distinct group in the history of German Jewry. By the year 1240 they had all passed away, leaving their positions to their chil- dren in some cases, but more often to less illustrious dis- ciples. While we have several responsa by these German Rabbis of the middle of the thirteenth century, the only man of outstanding eminence among them was R. Jsaac b. Moses Or Zarua. R. Isaac who appears to have spent his childhood in Bohemia, came to Germany while he was still very young and studied under the famous saint, R. Judah He-Hasid. After spending some time’ in Paris where he studied under the famous R. Judah b. Isaac Sir Leon, he returned to Germany and continued his studies under the leading scholars of the Rhine country, R. Eleazar b. Judah, R. Simhah of Speyer and R. Eliezer b. Joel (Rabiah). He became more deeply attached to Rabiah than to any of his other teachers and included many of his responsa in the * Rosenthal, Monatsschrift, 45, 249 ff. and Part II, of this volume, pp. 225-250, Version R. CHAPTER V 63 code which he wrote in later years and which made him famous. It is said that R. Meir b. Baruch studied under him before leaving Germany to complete his studies under the French Tosafists. While R. Isaac is remembered even in our own time as the author of one of the most important of German codes, and while this work of his soon became recognized in all parts of Germany and France, as well as Austria and Bo- hemia, he seems to have taken little part in the organiza- tion of the German communities in his day. He was in all probability recognized as the foremost German scholar in the year 1250, before the rise of R. Meir b. Baruch, yet he did not seem to possess the executive ability of either a R. Tam or a R. David of Muenzberg. Be the causes whatever they were, the fact remains that R. Isaac did not succeed in calling any synod such at those that had taken place in the, first quarter of the thirteenth century. SYNOD OF 1250? It was probably after R. Isaac had left the Rhine pro- vinces and retired to the more eastern countries, that an attempt was made to gather a synod of the Rhine scholars. This synod was held at Mayence, probably about the year 1250. Among those who attended were R. David b. Shealtiel, a disciple of R. Eliezer b. Joel Ha-Levi; Meshullam the son of R. David b. Kalonymos who had attended the synod of the early part of the century; and R. Judah b. Moses Ha-Kohen, who, in company with the other two just mentioned, held a long discussion with R. Isaac Or Zarua regarding the case of a Jewish girl who had been outraged during the massacre at Frankfort in 1241, and whose betrothed on that account refused to marry her. There is only one ordinance preserved as the decision of thissynod. Itisare-enactment in stronger terms of the old provision found in the earlier Takkanot against per- mitting the Rabbi to excommunicate a man without the consent of the community. It was now decided that the * For discussion of the date of this synod see below, p. 222. 64 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES — Rabbi should have no power to declare any excommunica- tion without the consent of the community, nor should the community have the power to excommunicate any member without the consent of the Rabbi; any excommunication issued in disregard to this ordinance was to have no validity even if the Rabbis of neighboring communities should join the local Rabbi in regard to the excommunication. It is apparent that the question of the right of excom- munication was becoming a more and more troublesome one. The weapon had been of the greatest use in the con- struction of the German Jewish communities, but it threat- ened to become a Frankenstein that would destroy them. If every Rabbi could use the right of excommunication at his will, he might use it to further his own interests. The majority of a community might tyrannize over a minority as much as it pleased. Obviously the power of excommunication was such that it could not be left to the discretion of any single individual. The attempts to limit it occupy a very interesting chapter in the later development of German Jewish life; but it must be admitted that all attempts to regulate it failed in the end, so that it continued to be used at the whim of men who were not always as scrupulous as those who had brought it into being. As it was employed with less and less care, people respected it less and less, Rabbis began to use it against one another and gradually it became meaningless and without force even in ghetto life. Ordinances like the one just discussed limiting the power to declare excommunication against a person are to be found among the Takkanot of Italy even in much later centuries. In modern times the Russian Czarist govern- ment forbade the issuance of a herem; and it would be an interesting question, which has, however, fortunately never been tested, whether American courts would permit the issue of such a herem. It is probable that this synod of the middle of the thir- teenth century is responsible for the inclusion of the Takkanot of R. Gershom into the text of the decisions of CHAPTER V : 65 the Synod of 1220.t There is reason to believe that these Takkanot (TRG) were not originally incorporated in the ordinance but were introduced later; as we find the decision of the synod of 1250 attached to that of the synod of 1220, it seems not unreasonable to assume that the later council has added them to the body of the earlier Takkanah itself. * See below p. 218. CHAP AE heat SYNODS 1250-1300 R. MEIR B. BARUCH Thedeparture of R. Isaac Or Zarua from the Rhine country had left Germany without any outstanding spiritual leader. There were several scholars whose names are remembered in connection with important centers, such as R. Yedidiah of Speyer and the men who had gathered at the assembly. of 1250. But none of these seems to have been able to command the universal respect or indeed to have had the outstanding personality necessary to found a school about which the others might gather. It is for this reason that their names are known only to those who with diligent eye search into the faded records of the past; by the masses they have been forgotten. Not so was R. Meir b. Baruch of Rothenburg. His name was even till our own times a household word in Jewish families, the story of his life and trials became the common property of the Jewish people. R. Meir b. Baruch was born at Worms about 1215, the son of a man well-known for his piety, scholarship and oratorical powers. -He studied in Germany under R. Isaac Or Zarua, but soon proceeded to complete his studies in the Tosafistic school under R. Jehiel of Paris. He was in Paris when the Talmud copies that had been seized under the Papal order of 1240 were burned. His dirge composed at this time, is still recited annually on the ninth of Ab.? It was soon after this that he returned to Germany to accept the rabbinate of Kostnitz. But he could not have remained there long, for he was successively Rabbi of Kostnitz, Augsburg, Wuertzburg, Rothenburg, Worms, t The poem begins with the words wxa npn *dxv. CHAPTER VI 67 Nuremberg and Mayence. Professor Ginzberg suggests that he is called R. Meir of Rothenburg because he stayed longer in that city than in any other. Pupils gathered to him from far and wide. Among them were R. Asher b. Yehiel, who later emigrated to Spain, where he became the rabbi of Toledo, and wrote the famous Code of Ashert, and R. Mordecai b. Hillel was the author of the code called Mordecat, which is a treasure trove for the scholarship of German Rabbis before the end of the thirteenth century; and R. Meir Ha-Kohen, the author of the Hagahot Maimoni in which the opinions of the French and German scholars are given as notes to the Yad of R. Moses Maimonides. R. Meir himself wrote commentaries on the sixth order of the Mishnah, Tosafot to many treatises of the Talmud, (of which those on Yoma are printed as the ordinary Tosafot), and several codes. But his most important work was the writing of his responsa which have been printed in four collections differing from each other, although many of the individual decisions are duplicated. Many of his answers are also found in the codes of his disciples. He was often cailed upon as court of the last appeal to decide differences between communities and especially between communities and their members. We might suppose a priori that a man of the type of R. Meir would take some action towards bringing the com- munities in closer touch with one another and such is indeed the fact. By comparison of several sources it can be shown that R. Meir brought about the convening of at least one council—during his’ stay at Nuremberg—and perhaps this was only one of several." R. Hayyim Or Zarua, the son of R. Isaac, who has been mentioned, was a pupil of R. Meir b. Baruch’s. He writes in one of his responsa, that ‘‘when the number of women who deserted their husbands increased, R. Meir wrote to R. Yedidiah, who was at the time in Speyer, and to the chain of communities to gather and ordain that a wife deserting her husband should lose her rights, not merely to the Ketubah but also should forfeit whatever property t Bruell, Jahrbuecher, 8.61, and references there given. 68 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES she brought to her husband.’’* This is the only synod convoked under R. Meir of which we know but it reflects a serious condition that*must have arisen at the time. The law of the Intractable Wife is one of the most com- plicated in Jewish marriage law, and one that seems to have undergone more changes than any other. Without going into all the detailed changes that took place in this law in the times of the Amoraim and the Geonim, it will suffice to say here that in his younger days R. Meir held that if a woman refuses to continue to live with her hus- band and fails to offer a reasonable objection to him, she should be divorced and should forfeit her right to the Ketubah. She should, however, receive whatever property she brought with her. This view accorded with that of Alfasi and apparently gained widespread recognition in Germany. But this rule was not very well suited to the economic con- ditions of the German Jews. A large number of the German Jewish women partook in the economic life of the country. It was not unusual for a wife to support her scholarly hus- band while he devoted himself to his studies. If she had no property of her own she would imitate the wife of the great R. Akiba and toil in order to support the family, while her husband was making headway as a student of the Torah. It is related as an instance of the extreme piety of Maharil (R. Jacob Molin) that he refused to accept anything from his wife but preferred to earn his own liv- ing as a marriage broker.2 As scholars rarely if ever, received any stipend from their communities, they could continue their studies only if they were rich in their own right like R. Meir b. Baruch, married rich women, or were supported by their wives. Under such conditions it was likely that the number of women who would express dissatisfaction with their husbands would increase. The situation was doubtless one which called for action. The responsum of R. Hayyim gives only a hazy idea of the Takkanah. Indeed he declares that he does not know * Res. R, Hayyim Or Zarua, 69, 126., 191. 2 Maharil, Laws of Hanukkah. nj CHAPTER VI 69 whether or not the Takkanah was generally accepted. In another responsum on the subject, R. Hayyim does not even mention the Takkanah.' It is, however, mentioned in Hagahot Ashert, thus: “R. Meir ordained toward the end of his life that even the property which a wife brought to her husband is forfeit’’ if she proves intractable.? For- tunately, we have a responsum of R. Meir himself in which he refers to this ordinance. He says: ““The Communities ordained when they were at Nuremberg that in any such case where a woman leaves her husband because of the persuasion of relatives the husband shall retain all her property, and he shall divorce her even against her will, if she fails to return to him after being warned to do so by the Court. It is proper that all Israel should obey Bivtes bakkanamd nar, and moreover it is even Talmudic law, for since there is no apprehension that she will be driven from the Jewish fold since there is no Gentile involved, the law ought to be placed on its Biblical plane that all that a woman owns is the property of her husband”’.s It is clear from this statement that the Takkanah applied primarily only to women who were induced to leave their husbands because of quarrels generated by their families. It is apparent from the fact that we know this provision only from a passing reference in Hagahot Maimoni, that the synod adopted'a Takkanah of many provisions, and that with our present meagre information it is quite unsafe to attempt to reconstruct it. It is enough to know that it dealt with the problem of the “intractable wife’ and that the laws in regard to her were made much more stringent than they had been. | R. PEREZ B. ELIJAH OF CORBEIL While German Jewry was thus attempting to keep alive its system of synods, these had fallen into disuse in France. ‘In the century following the death of R. Tam we hear of no synod. The thirteenth century was a disastrous one t Res R. Hayyim Or Zarua 191. 2 Hagahot Asheri, Kiddushin 3.16. 3 Hagahot Maimoni, Ishut 14.30 70 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES for French Jewry. New laws were constantly being made against them and new decrees issued. They became the possessions of the kings and of the barons and were reduced to the status of serfs. The burning of the books of the ~ Talmud in Paris about the middle of the century was the outstanding event in Jewish life of the period, but it was only typical of the troubles that the Jewish community had to undergo. The school of R. Judah Sir Leon at Paris attracted many pupils and its reputation was even in- creased under the leadership of R. Jehiel b. Joseph, who has been mentioned above as one of the masters of R. Meir b. Baruch. Other pupils of the academy of R. Jehiel were R. Isaac of Corbeil, the son-in-law of R. Jehiel and the author of the Semak (Sefer Mizot Oatan); and R. Perez b. Elijah, the author of additions to the Semak, a code of his own and Tosafot on several tracts of the Talmud, some of which are printed in the ordinary editions as the Tosafot. But after the middle of the century the period of decadence began. It is probable that political conditions made the convening of a French synod at this time very difficult. For we find R. Perez attempting to establish a Takkanah by correspondence with the contemporary Rabbis.‘ This proposed Takkanah dealt with the subject of wife-beating. This crime was one that rarely, if ever, gave trouble to Jews of the Middle Ages. There are on record cases of maltreatment of wives by their husbands that came before R. Simhah b. Samuel and R. Meir b. Baruch. Both of them reprimand the husband severely, insisting that the community should treat those who strike their wives more stringently than those who commit assault on others. There may have been some temporary cause that moved R. Perez to urge the adoption of the Takkanah that in the case of a husband guilty of beating his wife, the wife should be entitled to alimony, from her husband’s property ‘‘as though he were in a distant land’’. In other words, R. Perez wanted to introduce into Jewish law the priniciple ™ Guedemann I, p. 263. See also Part II, p. 216. CHAPTER VI thi of separation without divorce; since the husband would not treat his wife properly, she would be freed from her duty of living with him, yet he would be compelled to support her. We never hear of the Takkanah elsewhere, and it probably failed to gain the support of R. Perez’s col- leagues because the rarity of the offense made the revolu- tionary measure seem unnecessary. CHAPTER VII LATER GERMAN SYNODS GERMAN SYNODS IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY » R. Perez died before the close of the thirteenth century and was thus spared. the pain of seeing the expulsion of his comrades from the land in which they had built up the great academies. The blow fell in 1306, when the Jews of France were ordered by Philip the Fair to leave the country. Many of them wandered to Germany, where the Emperor demanded 30,000 marks for permitting them to settle in his domains. As the French Jews had been robbed of all their property by their former sovereign this money had to be raised by the German Jews. A synod was called at Mayence to raise the means of satis- fying the demand. Probably somewhat later than this synod was that which convened at the instance of R. Hayyim Or Zarua and which regulated the practice of answering questions regarding civil law by letter. Jewish tradition had always opposed the employment of counsellors in litigations. Every man was expected to act as his own lawyer. So much depends upon the claim which a person makes in a Jewish trial, that it is very important that no litigant shall receive expert advice in making a response. The influence of the environment, however, was constantly tending to bring about the introduction of a legal profession among Jews. Already in Talmudic timesa Rabbinic maxim warns the Rabbi not to help a litigant in arranging his claims. R. Hayyim and his colleagues ordained that no Rabbi was to give a decision in any case unless it is referred to him by both litigants. “If a man comes to the Rabbi and says to him, hear my * Bruell, Jahrbuecher 8.61. CHAPTER VII 73 claims and decide on the basis of them, and if the Rabbi yields to his request to him, that Rabbi is no longer to act as a judge’’.t. We do not hear of this Takkanah else- where but we do hear of many rabbis who refuses to answer questions addressed to them by one of two litigants. R. Israel Isserlein objects to the practice;? R. Obadiah Sforno$ declares it to be a practice condemned to the ancients. For a century after R. Hayyim history is silent on synodal activity, yet that century was replete with im- portant events. Of these, the most outstanding was the Black Death which swept over Europe during the years 1348-1351. Not only did the Jews suffer by the plague which carried off young and old, but frenzied by the fear of the pestilence, the Gentile population rose against the Jews accusing them of having brought on the epidemic. This belief was further encouraged by the myth, which gained circulation but which appears to have been with- out foundation, that the Jews suffered less from the Black Death than their Gentile neighbors. The outbreaks be- gan in Spain but soon spread throughout Western Europe. The Jews in Germany suffered, however, more than any other group. There were riots in Augsburg and Munich in November 1348, and thence the flames spread to the set of Bavaria and the Rhine country. The Jews of Speyer were the first of those of the Three Communities to suffer. But the number of their slain was small in comparison with .- the two thousand Jews of Strassburg who were killed in February 1349. It were but horrifying once more to tell the tale of the rapine and cruelty that was displayed in Germany during those terrible years. The Jewish communities, weakened by the plague, impoverished by the death of the debtors who owed them money, were all but destroyed by the hand of the maddened multitude, who found in Israel a scapegoat on which to wreak their anger. t Res. R. Moses Isserles 57. | * Isserlein Pesakim, 175, Comp. Res. R. Isaac b. Sheshet, 5. 3 Res. R. Menahem Azariah 89; Comp. RFL 28; and Takkanot of Italy, part II, p. 301. 74 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES | To such an extent were the communal activities paralyzed that no attempt was made to call a synod after the horrors were over. While the Crusades had meant severe losses for the Jewish communities they could still rally sufficient- ly to gather and take counsel; the suffering through which they passed in the fateful year, 1349, left them without even that strength. It was thirty years before the newer generation had sufficiently rested from the turmoil and troubles of the Black Death and its persecutions to call a synod to deal with some of its problems. SYNOD OF 1381. The synod was held at Mayence in the middle of the month of Ab, 5141 (July 1381). The most prominent of its members was R. Moses b. Yekutiel, the Rabbi of Mayence, who was the father of the even more prominent, R. Jacob Molin. Others who attended the council were R. Samuel Bonfant, an ancestor of the famous Salman of St. Goar;' and R. Abraham b. Gamaliel b. Pdahzur who is elsewhere mentioned as a colleague of R. Moses Molin. This council discussed the old problem of the Halizah’? We have seen how R. David of Muenzberg tried to cope with the abuses arising from this law. The ordinance enacted under his direction had now been in force for almost two hundred years, but apparently it was no longer ade- quate. At any rate it seems that brothers-in-law were no longer satisfied with the ancient arrangement and insisted on obtaining more than what was their due under the Takkanah of 1196. Yet the matter could not be left to the adjudi- cation of each local rabbi, as that resulted in disorder and unfairness. The synod therefore decided that all the prop- erty of the couple, both that given them by the family of the husband and that given them by the family of the wife, should be divided equally between the brothers- * The writer of Minhage Maharil whom Dr. Schechter so aptly called a Jewish Boswell. At the end of the Ms. of Mahari! in the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary R. Salman gives his own genealogy and Samuel Bonfant is mentioned among his ancestors. + For text etc. see Part II, p. 252. CHAPTER VII 75 in-law and the widow. Only property inherited after the marriage was exempted from this division. Such property as the husband had inherited from his family was to be given to his brother, and what the wife had inherited from her family, she was permitted to retain. The Council also undertook to define in terms of current money the value of the Ketubah. As is well known, the wife was granted by the marriage contract two hundred zuz if she was a virgin and a hundred guz if she was a widow. This obligation of the husband toward his wife is considered by some Rabbis to be even Biblical,t but is.at any rate held to be a very old custom. The debt is collectible on the death of the husband or in case of divorce. It is forfeited by faithlessness on the part of the wife and also in a few other cases. The wife may not, however, cancel or forego her rights in this respect. No husband may continue to live with a wife unless he is bound by -the Ketubah to pay her the sum specified from his estate. He may at the time of the marriage add to it, and then he becomes obligated for the ‘additional Ketubah’’. He may not detract. Just how much a mina (one hundred zuz) meant became a matter of serious importance as soon as the Jews began to wander over the face of the earth. Not only was the relative value of money different in different times and places, but it was difficult to ascertain the absolute weight of the silver in the mina of Talmudic days. There is no need to enter here into the endless calculations of the codi- fiers but we learn from our Takkanah that in Germany the sum had been fixed in terms of the currency of Cologne. This had been the most marketable in earlier times and had approached most nearly a standard coinage. By the time of the Council, the coinage of Cologne had ceased, however, to be so reliable. The florin now replaced it, and the value of the Ketubah had to be re-assessed. It was now placed at three hundred and six hundred florins for the widow and the virgin respectively. The Takkanah was accepted by most of the Rhine t Ketubot 10a. 76 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN iets MIDDLE AGES cities but not by Cologne where apparently the old standards continued in force. Strangely enough, Maharil, who was the son of one of the members of the synod, fails to make any mention of the council in discussing the difference of custom between Cologne and the other cities. * Graetz’ reports several synods of this period. A council took place at Weissenfels in 1386 but we know nothing of the circumstances under which it gathered or of its decisions. It is reported that the delegates to the council took the precaution to obtain letters of protection from prominent nobles but that these helped them little in their.sufferings on the journey. We have somewhat more definite information about a synod held about the year 1400 at Erfurt.3 Among those present were R. Eichel, R. Lippman (perhaps he of Muehl- hausen),4 R. Nathan, R. Hezekiah, and R. Abraham Cohen. The only decision recorded is that forbidding the priests to pass through the gates of the city and the ceme- tery at funerals until the dead had been carried through those gates. SYNODS OF THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY R. Jacob Weil, a disciple of Maharil, tells of another synod, this time held at Nuremberg, at which “‘many or- dinances were passed.’”’5 One of them was to the effect that “if one of the litigants wants to use German in plead- ing his case, the other must do likewise.’’ This ordinance is in the spirit of Talmudic law which requires that so far as possible the two litigants shall be placed in the same position before the judges. Moreover, since in Jewish court-actions, the discussion was almost oral, it was very important that the litigants should understand each other. * Compare Minhage Maharil, laws of Nissutn. 2 Vol. 8-2, p. 426. 4 Pesakim, 24. 3 Famous as the author of the polemical work, Sefer Nizahon. 5 Graetz Gesch. 8-2, p. 427ff. Res. R. Jacob Weil. 101. CHAPTER VII 77 It would not be difficult for a litigant using Hebrew to disguise his claims from one who knew only German. Less important from our point of view, but of no less seriousness to the people of the age, was the decree of R. Lippman of Muehlhausen which must have been issued about this time, against using horns other than those of rams for the Shophar of Rosh Ha-Shanah.t This was not really the decision of a synod at all but was hailed as a Takkanah since it was the official decision of R. Lippman and his court at Erfurt. About the middle of the fifteenth century, German Jewry suddenly found itself torn into two parts by a violent conflict that broke out among the Rabbis as a result of the attempt of R. Seligmann Oppenheim of Bingen to set himself up as a superior Rabbi, if not a Chief Rabbi. He called a council of all the communities, but refused to give any statement of the agenda of the meeting. We do not know all the decisions taken at the meeting, but one of them made R. Seligmann the final arbiter in the inter- pretation of the Takkanot. This authorization was quite revolutionary and aroused the protests of R. Moses Mintz and R. Phoebus, as well as of other representatives of com- munities which -had been represented at the Bingen con- ferences. Appeal was made to R. Israel Isserlein of Neus- tadt, near Vienna, who decided against R. Seligmann. After a long discussion, R. Seligmann was forced to yield and this effort at centralizing German Jewry proved unsuccessful. s In 1475, occurred the wellknown Blood Accusation against the Jews as a result of the disappearance of the boy, Simon of Trent. The confessions extorted from the Jews under torture impressed the Gentiles, so that in the following year many Jews in Regensburg were seized in a blood- accusation. In order to counteract the activities of the citizens of Regensburg who sought to bribe the then * The Takkanah is found in oon) O27 pap printed in Husiatyn. 2 Graetz 8-2, p. 428ff., Res. R. Moses Mintz, 63, and other references given by Graetz. 78 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES Emperor Frederick III to give them the right to try the accused Jews, large sums were needed. A council was held at Nuremberg which did not, however, dare of its own accord levy a tax on the Jews of Germany, and so appealed to R. Joseph Colon (Northern Italy)! to issue the demand for them. SYNODS OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY It is clear that the holding of synods in Germany was becoming more and more perilous. A council held in 1493 aroused the suspicions of the Gentiles against the Jews. ? We know nothing however of its decisions. The councils of the sixteenth century of which we have any records are very few. We hear of one in 1562, and another in 1582, at Frankfort-on-the-Main, but these were more concerned with the material than the spiritual welfare of the people. 3 Their discussions no longer centered about Jewish law, but about Jewish disabilities and sufferings. As we read these dark pages in German Jewish history a feeling of futility comes over us, as when one witnesses the death pangs of agreat soul. It is difficult to feel in the activities of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, in the quarrels about R. Seligmann and the ordinances about priests and trumpets the spirit that had filled the synods of R. Gershom and R. Tam. The living Judaism of the first days of the revival was yielding before the ceaseles§ perse- cutions, the merciless tyranny of the evil days that had come. Just as the great codes of R. Eliezer b. Nathan, Rabiah, R. Isaac Or Zarua, and R. Mordecai b. Hillel were being replaced by the collections of customs of the type of R. Abraham Klausner’s Minhagim, the Minhage Mahartl, and the Leket Yosher, even so were the general Rabbinic discussions descending from theirl oftv level to matters of trivial importance. * Bruell, Jahrbuecher, 8.61. 2 Bruell. zdzd. 3 Monarsodlaetter, 1890, p. 155. CHAPTER VII 79 SYNOD OF 1603 Our! account of the German synods must close, how- ever, with an attempt to regain the old prestige by a council that was held in Frankfort in the year 1603. This synod is of particular importance as it led to a long trial of the Jews of Germany as having been guilty of high treason. In order to meet the accusations of the Jew-baiters, three German translations of the Takkanot of this synod were prepared. The accusations brought no untoward results, but while they were being discussed the Jews of Frankfort and indeed of all Germany lived through years of profound anxiety. Yet there is nothing in the Takkanot that can in any way be said to have justified the slightest suspicion against the Jews. There are provisions against appealing to the secular courts for redress; regulations concerning the just distribu- tion of communal taxes; exhortations to the spiritual heads of the communities to see to it that the Shohetim of their respective communities are duly qualified; ordinances against buying wine from Gentiles, forbidding inter- marriage with such Jews as are in the habit of buying wine from Gentiles, and deposing any Rabbi found guilty of such practice or permitting others to follow it; regu- lations regarding the ordination of Rabbis, forbidding the granting of authorization except by a committee of three heads of academies, or to a young man before he has been married for two years; refusing recognition to the appoint- ment of a person as Haber (scholar) by any authority out- side of Germany; denunciation of the practice of dealing in counterfeit coins and collecting debts by means of forged notes; an ordinance against receiving stolen property; a provision denouncing the practice of borrowing money or wares from Gentiles and failing to pay, and providing that one guilty of such practice is neither to be helped nor defended by his fellow-Jews against prosecution by the authorities; a prohibition against performing any marriage t Ibid. See also Horovitz, Die Frankfurter Rabbiner-versamlung, where the Hebrew text has been published. See also below Part II. aco i. 80 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGBS ceremony for one who transgresses these ordinances or intermarrying with them; a prohibition against buying milk from Gentiles; a prohibition against wearing clothes like those of the Gentiles or against forbidden mixtures of linen and wool or exacting usury; a prohibition against printing any book without the permission of three recognized rabbis; and a further prohibition against buying books printed without permission; an ordinance that no Rabbi shall seek to extend his sphere of authority over people previously under the jurisdiction of a colleagues; a provision denying the power of any Rabbi outside of Germany to pronounce a herem over the German communities and declaring any herem pronounced by a foreign Rabbi void; a section exhorting every community to pay the share of the tax allotted to it by the conference, and forbidding any marriage with such as would refuse to accept the ordinance, and annulling such marriages if performed. These Takkanot strongly recall of the authority of the early German Rabbis. The boldness which character- izes some of the provisions, the attempt to deal with real abuses, the fearlessness with which such iniquities as the counterfeiting of coins and the forging of notes is de- nounced, the assumption of the authority to annul marriages contracted in violation of the ordinances, indeed, the very thought of using the power to forbid marriage with such as failed to obey the ordinances, were worthy of the most promising days of German Jewry. But it was the last flicker before extinction. The authority that had once been possessed by Jewish synods had passed away from them. Obedience which people refused to give willingly could hardly be extorted by any means. Unless the vast ma- jority of the Jews would accept the Takkanot, their very rigour was certain to make them only the more futile. The days when Jews would have agreed to marry only such as were observant of Rabbinic Takkanot were for- ever gone. Perhaps such an ordinance could never have been enforced. At any rate, it does not seem to have suceeded in unifying the Jewry of seventeenth century Germany. The decay that had begun with the Black CHAPTER VII 81 Death, and the persecutions that accompanied it in the middle of the fourteenth century, had touched vital nerve centers of German Jewry and there was no longer either the early devotion to the Torah or the power of organization. Just as the reading of the annals of the growth of the Ger- man communities in the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries fills one with hope and inspiration, even so a study of the decay that marked the progress of the later centuries fills one with gloom. The very revivals that took place under the guidance of Maharil in the West and Isserlein in Austria, were revivals which held in themselves seeds of progressive disintegration. The times required not merely a saint or ordinary scholar, they required a R. Gershom or a R. Tam, combining unequalled scholarship and a strong personality with practical foresight and power of organization. Such a physician did not arise and so the disease spread further and further. It is time that we turn to the developments that were taking place during these later centuries in southern Europe where Jewish communal life was beginning to show signs of life and power reminiscent of the early days of France and Germany. CHAPTER °Vill TAKKANOT OF CANDIA The persecutions of the Crusades and the resultant lowering of the social status of French and German Jewry coupled with the increased knowledge of the Orient that was brought to Europe through the returning knights, aroused in the thirteenth century a new interest in Palestine in the hearts of the Jews of Western Europe. As early as the beginning of the century R. Samson of Sens, accom- panied by about three hundred French and English rabbis, attempted the hazardous migration to the Holy Land. Some twenty years later we find a R. Baruch b. Isaac, probably the well-known author of the Sefer Ha-Terumah, on his way to the Land of Israel. After the middle of the century we hear of the migration of the two great polemists on behalf of the Jewish faith—R. Yehiel of Paris and R. Moses b. Nahman. In the year 1286, R. Meir b. Baruch set out for Palestine, but was captured on the way and imprisoned. While the journeys of but these few outstanding persons have been recorded in history we may be certain that a larger number of rabbis and laymen undertook the journey to the Orient. Many of them, however, did not attain their goal, but remained in the countries through which they passed. A number of others forced to flee from tyranny and persecution sought homes in the southern European lands. We thus find that beginning with the close of the thirteenth century and continuing through the fourteenth century, there is an influx into the southern European lands of scholars of German and French extraction. Thus R. Asher b. Yehiel became the rabbi of Toledo. Thus also there grew up in northern Italy the families of the Landaus, the Mintzes, the Katzenellenbogens, whose very names betray their German origin. CHAPTER VIII 83 While there had been no important synods in Spain or Italy in the centuries in which they were attaining such importance in the Jewish life of France and Germany, it was clear that the arrival of the northern Rabbis would of itself stimulate the establishment on the new soil of the institution which proved so useful in their former homes. The earliest recorded synod which was inspired by one of these migratory rabbis was that held on the island of Crete a Bea he kes The Jewish population of this island was small, but their laxity in certain observances and particularly the loose morals of some of the younger elements of the community shocked the more or less Puritanical German scholars. In German cities there was hardly a Jew who did not attend daily service; here there were large numbers who did not come to the Sabbath service till they had refreshed them- selves by a ramble along the beach. The Jews of the German towns were knit together by centuries of traditions and by the common fear of persecution. They were almost like members of the same family. If a death occurred, it was a matter of concern for the whole community, and the . Talmudic precept that no work should be done during a funeral was rigidly carried out. How could one accustomed to such expression of mutual sympathy on the part of towns- people, regard members of a community who left a bereaved family to grieve by itself.t The German rigorists had surrounded the Sabbath with any number of restrictions. Not satisfied with the prohibition of work on _ that day, they had added severities of their own. It was in- conceivable that any member of a German community would continue to work on Friday till nightfall, exposing himself to the possibility of the violation of the Sabbath. Yet this was a common practice among the Jews of Crete. Finally there were numbers of cases of indiscretion on the part of betrothed couples, an evil which was almost un- known among the Jews of France and Germany not only * See Hoffmann Festschrift, p. 268, but compare Kaftor Va-Ferah Tho yske, 84 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES because of their more rigorous adherence to Jewish cére- monial, but because of the frequency of child-marriages. It was R. Baruch b. Isaac, when he passed through Crete on his way to Palestine in 1238, who called the attention of the community to their waywardness and insisted on reform. With his aid a series of ten ordinances were drawn up and established. The main provisions were directed against the abuses already mentioned. But the German origin of these ordinances is betrayed in the re-establish- ment in this island of the Takkanah of R. Gershom against renting from a Gentile a house from which a former Jewish tenant had been unjustly evicted, Another ordinance prohibits defrauding Gentiles, a third forbids anyone to compel a fellow-Jew to attend the secular court on Friday. R. Baruch b. Isaac established these ordinances in a council attended by fifteen prominent Jews of Crete. Yet it was not to be expected that the mere passage of the Takkanot would give them permanence, so that we are per- haps justified in assuming that within a few years they fell into oblivion. It was a Cretan rabbi—R. Zedaka—a person otherwise unrecorded in the annals of Jewish life, who re- established these ordinances. He must have felt that this failure to acquire the authority due them was the result in part of their being written in the rhymed prose form that was so delightful to the French and German rabbis. Being acquainted with philosophy, he prefaced the more important ordinances with ethical discussions of their value. Thus in repeating the ordinance against working at the time of a funeral, he takes the opportunity of giving a discourse on immortality, and in connection with the ordinance urging the people to attend the service in the synagogue, he gives an exposition of the value and meaning of prayer. In discussing the relations of betrothed couples, reference is made to a case where pre-marital relations led to in- fanticide, and the prohibition established by R. Baruch against a betrothed man entering the house of his future t These Takkanot are reprinted in Part II, of this volume,p. 265 ff. from the text of Rosenberg, in Hoffmann Festschrift, p. 270 ff. CHAPTER VIII 85 bride except in matters of the utmost importance and in the company of two other men is repeated. Our scant records of the development of the Cretan Jewish community give us no information of the further history of these ordinances or their effectiveness. Before turning to the discussion of the ordinances of the other southern European lands, it must be noted, however, that the same prominence which the suppression of illicit sex-relationships is given in these ordinances, is given it in those of Corfu, of Italy and of Spain. While the institutions of the synods was imported from Germany the conditions that these synods had to face in the new lands were quite different from those that prevailed in the more learned communities of Germany and France. GHAPTE RSLS TAKKANOT Obs ITALY In Italy, as, in Candia, the spirit of the Torah received new life from immigrants from Germany. It was the many German rabbis who settled in the northern part of the peninsula in the fourteenth and fifteenth century who re- kindled the light of Jewish learning in those communities. It was natural therefore that they should bring with them some of the outstanding institutions of the Jews of the Rhine country. Ina country whose religious life was more or less dominated for a century by scions of the foremost German-Jewish families, we would naturally look for synods and inter-communal Takkanot. And in truth while we hear of no attempt in earlier times at federating the Italian communities, the beginning of the fifteenth century did see such an endeavor carried out. It required the imminence of a serious danger to bring together representatives of various Italian communities in 1416. Those were the days of the rival popes, Benedict XV and Martin V. Benedict had in his anger against the Jews released a bull which was fraught with the most threatening danger to the Jewish people. Not only was the study of the Talmud forbidden and all Talmud copies ordered seized and destroyed, but Jews were forbidden to do business with Gentiles, and were compelled to at- tend church services thrice a year to hear their religion blasphemed. It was with the hope of being able to in- fluence the ultimately victorious pope to be more favorable to Israel that the communities of Rome, Padua, Ferrara, and Bologna as well as the districts of the Romagna and Tuscana, sent delegates to a councils held at Bologna. We do not have the complete minutes of the meeting or the resolutions decided upon. It is known, however, that a ‘‘ Vigilance Comittee’’ was appointed on which each CHAPTER IX 87 community was represented by twomen. This Committee was to have the power to levy taxes, and to expend the funds raised in gifts as might become necessary for the common defense. Arrangments were made for an equitable distribution of the taxes, and a general treasurer was appointed. We know of these provisions only in so far as they are quoted in the decisions taken at the meeting of this Vigi- lance Committee in 1418.% By that time Pope Martin V had been definitely recognized by all as the head of the Church. It was therefore necessary for the Commission to meet and take action toward gaining his favor for the Jewish community. The meeting was held at. Forli, on May 25, 1418. A deputation was to be sent to the Pope as soon as possible, to ask for the restoration of the ancient privileges of the Jews and ‘“‘as is understood by all who think”’ a lavish gift was authorized in order to pave the way for this restoration. The Jews knew only too well that the heart of the Mediaeval men of power “hung on their purses’”’. Detailed arrangments were made for the collection of the tax, which was to be divided in two parts. One part was to be collected according to the wealth of the families. This tax was a ducat and a half per thousand ducats of property in the possession of the family. A further tax which was rather in the nature of a ‘poll tax, was assessed against each family. Each family possessing more than five hundred ducats was to pay a ducat and a half, a family possessing less than five hundred ducats and more than one hundred ducats was to pay a ducat if they could, but in any case not less than half a ducat. Recipients of charity were of course freed from the tax, but there were no other exemptions. The Communities were urged to use both the spiritual power of the herem and the physical force of the state in the collection of the taxes. The council did not, however, limit itself merely to fiscal arrangements for the Communities. It dealt with internal Jewish conditions as well. Strict rules were laid down regarding extravagant dressing and lavish banqueting. 1 See Part II, p. 282 ff., and Graetz Festschruft p. 53 ff. Aad 88 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES Playing games of chance was forbidden, except, curiously enough, on fastdays. This exception is in striking con- trast to the German ordinance which permits playing only on festive days.t. The kind of clothing that might be worn was described in detail. The husbands were made responsible for the observance of this ordinance by their wives. If one’s wife wore too costly a dress, one was sub- ject toa fine. Failure to pay a fine made one liable to lose the privilege of being called to the Torah or being counted as a member of a minyan. Limitations were placed on the right to assemble. No more than six persons were permitted to gather in any place outside the synagogue except to discuss matters of religion. Even promenading about the streets was pro- hibited except on festival days. In general, any action that might arouse the notice, the envy or the anger of the Gentile population was deprecated. The self-abasement reflected in this document is hardly to be paralleled. While the protest against luxuries may have been justified and at least finds its outerpart in most of the writings of the period in all countries,? both among Jews and Gentiles, the fear of walking about the streets, the apprehension that Gentiles might suspect Jewish gatherings is almost without parallel. Nor was any at- tempt made at self-deception regarding the reasons for these prohibitions. They were made so as to avoid giving offense to non-Jews and that fact is distinctly stated. It is the low social position held by the Jews of Italy that is reflected in these ordinances, and the self-contempt that grew out of it made them necessary. While this influence of the Gentiles on the Jews was vicious: there was another influence even more vicious. In the Takkanot of Candia we heard of precautions taken against misconduct by engaged couples,3 but we have thus far not heard of any ordinances regarding vice. It appears, however, that that was a matter calling for serious considera- t See part II, p. 242. 2 See Part II, p. 244, and p. 374. 3 See Part II, p. 279. CHAPTER IX 89 tion among the Italian Jews. Respect for woman had lamentably broken down and vigorous action seemed neces- sary to maintain the moral integrity of Jewish manhood and the purity of Jewish family life. The local officers of each - community were charged with the duty of making in- vestigations into this matter and to punish anyone guilty of wrongdoing. If the leaders of any community failed to take action, the leaders of the neighboring communities might interfere and discharge their duty. The officers of the Confederation pledged themselves to cooperate with the local officers in eradicating this evil. Obviously, among those guilty of the sin might be the more influential of the population, and the pledges and precautions taken against them were not too many. While the action taken regarding the internal life of the Jews was very important, that was not, of course, the main purpose of the commission. It had been created to gain the favor of the Pope for the Jews. Its success or its failure would be measured by the success or the failure of the deputation. There seems to have been no serious difficulty in raising the funds necessary for the work of the commission. The deputation was eminently successful in carrying out all that had been expected from it. On January 31, 1419: the Pope issued a bull,’ prohibiting attacks on Jewish syna- gogues, or interference with the observance of Jewish religious rites, or physical compulsion to accept baptism. A second bull followed in February, 1422,? admonishing the Dominican fathers against inciting mobs against the Jews. The Jews had every reason to congratulate themselves on their powerful friend. It is true that his friendship was not constant, but to the down-trodden Jew of the Middle Ages, it was a blessing to find a man whose friendship could be relied upon to any extent. In 1425 signs began to appear that the Jews had con- gratulated themselves too early. In one bull the Pope reminded the Jews that they were obliged to wear the t Stern, Stellung der Paepste, p. 25, no. 11. 2 Ibid. p. 30, no. 21. 90 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES badge. In another he gave the Bishop of Gerace full authority to deal as he might see fit with such Jews as failed to wear the badge or publicly accepted usury, or in general disobey the commands of the Church.' Finally in 1427, the Minorites complained to the Pope that the seizure of their chapel on Mount Zion by the Mohammedans had been instigated by the Jews. As the Venetian Jews had commercial connections with the Orient the Pope held that they were responsible for the infringement of the Christian rights there, and he compelled them to pay a fine because of the seizure of the chapel. This was certainly a pass where the Commission was bound to interfere. Accordingly a meeting was held at Florence in 1428. The term of the original Commissioners had expired in 1426, and it is not known whether they met without legal sanction or their terms had been extended. They held a synod which decided to send to all the com- munities a circular letter begging for help in the emergency. A copy of this letter has come down to us. It is written in a very guarded tone, but is piteous in its appeal. A particular appeal is made to the communities of Romagna and Lombardy. The matter must have been particularly urgent for they write, ‘‘we know definitely neither from conjecture nor by rumor, that unless we hasten to stand in the breach against those who seek to do us ill, there is no longer any hope for us.”’ The appeal seems to have met a ready response, for we soon hear that the Pope became much more favorable to the Jews. In 1429 he issued a bull condemning severely the action of the monks and others who incited Christians against Jews. He repeated his order against compulsory baptism, freed Jews from certain tax-burdens, and granted . them the right of free trade with Gentiles and the right of attending schools. Just as in 1418, so now the Commission did not content itself with merely raising funds and buying the favor of princes. It looked into the internal affairs of the Jewish Community and passed important resolutions regarding t Ibid. p. 37, no. 281 CHAPTER IX 91 them. Of these only one has come down to us, dealing with the matter of usury. We have seen that in view of the extreme stringency of the Jewish law against usury, forbidding the acceptance of any interest whatever, the Rabbis of the Middle Ages permitted the use of certain legal fictions in order to enable Jews to borrow money from their fellows. The Rabbis were, however, very anxious that no one should accept any interest from another Jew except by means of the properly established formula. It appears to have become customary in Italy for the creditor to compel the debtor to execute a note for a larger amount than what he had actually received, in this way making the interest part of the debt. The Takkanah declares that in any such case the debtor need pay only the amount actually loaned. Furthermore, the debtor who claimed that the amount set down in the note was larger than that which he received, might compel the creditor to state under oath whether he had lent the total amount, and had not included the interest as part of the debt. If the creditor refused to take the oath the debtor was freed from paying any more than the amount which he admitted having received. Another form of evasion of the law against usury was to use a Gentile as intermediary. Since the Jewish law of usury applied only to Jews, it was customary in Italy, as in Germany, for the creditor Jew nominally to lend the money to a Gentile and then have the Gentile lend the same money to the debtor Jew. In such cases it was usual for the debtor Jew to give pledges for his debt to the Gentile intermediary who promptly transferred them to the creditor. Ordinarily, this method secured the lender both his capital and interest without any difficulty. The ordinance pro- hibited such methods, and furthermore declared that if any one gave a pledge to another Jew with a Gentile as intermediary in the manner described, and if the pledge were worth more than three florins, that debtor would be compelled to pay the interest charges on his debt—not to the creditor, but rather to the Charity Fund of the Com- munity. Furthermore, he would be fined two ducats 92 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES for each transgression, which fine too should be paid to the Charity Fund. Whether the Commission was able to influence Jewish internal life to any large extent is doubtful. However, their success in dealing with the Pope should have raised their prestige in the community. So important did the Jews con- sider the Bull of 1429 that many years later the Roman Jewish community had the bull printed at its own expense. It is possible that the confederation was continued for some years. The kindness of Eugene IV and his successor, Nicholas V, must have been obtained by lavish gifts from the communities, but we hear nothing of the manner in which the sums were raised and have no way of knowing whether they were raised through such a commission as worked between 1416 and 1429 or otherwise. As so often in Jewish history, we catch a glimpse of a most interesting phenomenon which only arouses our curiosity to know more about it, but the sources fail us. It is probable that the Commission decreased in importance even if it continued in existence, and when we look about at the time of the next Takkanah, the old Commission and the Confederation which it governed have passed into history. THE SYNOD OF 1554 For more than a century we hear of no Italian synods. But the number of immigrant Jews from Germany con- tinued to increase and if they did not form a majority of the Jewish population by the middle of the sixteenth century, they at least set the cultural tone of the com- munities. The conditions of the Jews in Italy had become markedly worse. While the Popes of the period were not unfriendly to the Jews, the feeling of the people generally had grown more hostile. The printing of Hebrew books had begun, and the Inquisition was already busily engaged in assign- ing them to the fire. These facts are reflected in the decisions of the Synod at Ferrarat. The Synod took place on June 21, 1554. « Printed originally in *>38 ay, 1879, reprinted in pamphlet form. See Part II; p. 301. CHAPTER IX 93 The Takkanot provided that no book was to be published except with the sanction of three rabbis and the heads of the community in which it was printed. If the city where it was printed had no such committee, the heads of the neighboring community were to have the authority of permitting or refusing to permit the publication of the volume. The names of the Rabbis sanctioning the book and of the Community-elders who gave permission for its publication were to be printed at the beginning of the book. Otherwise, the sale or buying of the book would be prohibited under a fine of twenty-five scuti. A second provision was that if one of the litigants in a case had taken the matter before the Gentile authorities, he could not bring it back before the Jewish courts without the con- sent of the other litigant. This Takkanah is very lenient when one considers the seriousness with which the Jews of other countries looked upon the matter of taking Jewish litigations before Gentile courts. It seems that Jews could not prohibit appeal to Gentile courts in Italy, and so re- sorted to this rather mild refusal to consider any case that had been taken to the secular courts unless both par- ties asked them to interfere. Another important pro- vision of the Takkanot was the one forbidding any Rabbi to give a decision in civil cases unless he was requested to do so by both parties. This Takkanah was intended to prevent a Rabbi from suggesting to one of the litigants under the veil of a decision what he ought to claim. A si- milar Takkanah had been established by R. Hayyim Or Zarua,’ according to the testimony of R. Moses Isserles. This section is the only one which is quoted in any of the responsa collections. The fifth section deals with the rights which a Jewish tenant gained over the house in which he lived.. It will be recalled that one of the most important of the Takkanot attributed to R. Gershom is that forbidding any Jew from renting a house from a Gentile if a previous Jewish tenant had been dispossessed unjustly. The ordinance of these Italian communities remarks that some authorities t Above, p. 73. 94 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES limited the operation of that Takkanah to cases where the house was still in the hands of the offending Gentile » landlord, and were inclined to permit the renting of the house if it had been sold. The ordinance therefore expressly prohibited the renting of the house in any case. It thus established, at least so far as Jewish law is concerned, the principle that a Jewish tenant acquired rights in the house of the Gentile in which he lived. These rights were not merely personal rights against the landlord, for in that case they would cease to exist when the house was sold, but objective, in the house itself, and therefore continued even after the sale of the house. The sixth section deals with another Takkanah of R. Gershom. Inthe discussion of the ordinance against bigamy it has been pointed out, that various opinions were ex- pressed by the scholars of different countries and different ages in regard to the right of the husband to marry a second time if his first wife had no children. It was generally felt that R. Gershom could not have intended to interfere with Biblical and Talmudic law, and that therefore if there was no issue of the marriage, the Takkanah did not apply. Still the question remained whether the birth. of a single child could prevent the husband from remarrying or at least two children were necessary. For the Mzshna declares that it is commendable to be the father of both a son and a daughter. The Takkanah does not permit a second marriage in the case of the father who has only a single child. These two sections show how far the German influence had developed over the Italian communities. The two or- dinances just described deal with Takkanot originally promulgated for Germany and France alone. While it is true that the Takkanah against renting a house from which a Jew had been dispossessed applied with special importance to Italian conditions with the Ghettoes, yet the remarks about the Takkanah against bigamy show that it was not merely the conditions of the time that brought about the acceptance of these German Tak- CHAPTER IX 95 kanot but the influx of German Jews and German scholars into the country. The last section of the ordinances provided that no Kiddushin was to be performed except in the presence of ten persons. The consent of the parents, or in the case of their death, of the two nearest relatives, is also required. The performance of Kziddushin in violation of the law as laid down would automatically result in the ex- communication of both the husband and the witnesses. No provision is made here for the nullification of the Kid- dushin contracted under the forbidden circumstances de- scribed. It is likely that the violent protest of R. Joseph Colon, the famous Italian rabbi, against the action of R. Moses Capsali, of Constantinople, in declaring void Kzd- dushin performed in violation of a similar ordinance made the Italian communities beware of the nullification of marriages. Halberstam in his edition of the Takkanot has identified some of those who signed them. The most prominent of them by far were R. Meir Katzenellenbogen of Padua, and Isaac Abravanel, grandson of the still more famous Don Isaac Abravanel, who was amongst the Jews expelled from Spain in 1492. It is interesting to find the scion of the renowned Spanish family writings which are of German decent in endeavoring to create a strong Jewish community in their new home. CHART Baty eX TAKKANOT OF CORFU That the Takkanot here described were not the only ones enacted can be seen from the fact that very often the merest chance brings to light new ordinances in the most unlooked for places. In a manuscript Mahzor of Corfu in the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary, Professor Marx found some Takkanot which on examination appeared to be Takkanot made in 1642 in the island of Corfu. They are the more interesting as they give us some information about a community of whose internal life little is otherwise known. The Corfiote Jews who had held positions of importance in their communities in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries gradually lost their social standing. As Corfu came under the domination of Venice, the Jews sank to the low position held by their Italian brethren at the time. It is said that at the time of these ordinances, there were no more than five hundred Jewish families on the island and that the population was diminishing. As seen from the text before us’ there were at the time two congregations on the island, the Italian Congregation, with whom were mixed such Spanish immigrants as had found their way to Corfu, and the Greek congregation, which is referred to in our text as “‘the other”’ congregation. The Italian Congregation who established these ordinances invited the Greek Congregation to join them in drawing them up, but the latter declined to take any part in the work. Thereupon the Italian congregation appears to have appealed to the Venetian governor to enforce these Takkanot. : We do not know whether or not the consent of the governor to these Takkanot was gained. The pages on which the text has come down to us, flyleaves of the Mah- zor, are not well preserved so that many of the lines are t See Part II, p. 316. CHAPTER X 97 incomplete. This makes it difficult for us to be certain of the things about which we are most anxious to know. Of the signatories to the Takkanot none are known otherwise, but the families of several are well-known. The Pipi family, two of whom took part in the synod, is known because one, Abraham Pipi, was among the seven Jews admitted to the bar at Corfu in 1698. The Di Mordo family which is represented here by Elijah di Mordo had several rabbis among those of Corfu, and several other noted members in more modern times. Most of the provisions deal with the matter of marriage. Just as in the Takkanot of Candia so in these complaint is made that engaged couples are often guilty of misconduct. The betrothed are therefore forbidden to be together in private except during the month preceding the wedding. The custom of dividing the marriage ceremony into two parts, each performed at different times, was abolished, except for cases of emergency, and in such ceses the marriage ceremony would have to be completed within a month. The curse of the Jewish Middle Ages, namely, the man who gave a girl something of value in the presence of witnesses and thereafter claimed her as his wife, was done away with by a simple expedient. All such marriages were declared void. The synod declared that it had the right of an authoritative Jewish Beth Din to annul such a marriage, and moreover, fined the bride, the bridegroom and the witnesses one hundred ducats each. An interesting or- dinance is the one providing that the consent of the girl to the betrothal is necessary whenever she is more than thirteen years of age. That is a year beyond the age of majority for females as fixed in the Talmud.' But as engagements are not legally recognized in the Talmud at all, and have force only as communal arrangements, the synod doubtless felt free to set the age according to the needs of the time. Weddings on Friday were to * Compare Harkavy, Teshubot Ha-Geonim, p. 87, from which it appears that there was a difference of opinion among the Geonim in regard to the matter. 98 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES take place in the forenoon so as to avoid violation of the Sabbath. An ordinance regarding woman ’s dress follows which is however incomplete because of several lacunae. Just as in the Italian Takkanot,' the burden of seeing that this Takkanah is observed is placed on the husbands and fathers of the women. Three following Takkanot deal with matters relating to death. They provide that everyone who is on his deathbed shall repeat the confession of sins, that no one shall cut his flesh in mourning for the dead, and that on the Sabbath or Festivals no woman should act as a pro- fessional mourner at a funeral of a Jew or a Gentile. There is also an ordinance protecting orphans against neglect on the part of their surviving parent. If a man dies his wife is to obtain only the minimum Ketubah, and the property which she brought to her husband from her father’s house. If the wife dies the husband is to inherit but one third of her property, the rest being given to the children. A regulation about wine-selling follows. This ordinance is not altogether clear since we do not know much about the methods of sale. Moreover, it seems to represent rather a pious’ urging than a Takkanah that could be enforced. While these Takkanot seem to throw an unhealthy emphasis on sex matters showing that moral conditions in the community were unsatisfactory, yet they reveal to us the Corfiote Community in a new light, struggling to main- tain its Jewish life, and in common with the other Jewish communities, working to maintain the Torah. in Israel, t See below, p. 293. COA RE Rex T. SYNODS OF THE SPANISH JEWS While both Spanish and Franco-German Jewry developed as the Gaonate decayed, the Jews of the Peninsula remained in closer touch with Babylonian Jewry than did their northern brethren. There have been preserved more responsa of R. Sherira and R. Hai addressed to Spain than to any other European country. We may take the proportion of those which have endured through the ages as an index of the proportion of those which were written. It is no mere accident that the Seder R. Amram was composed at the request of a Spanish community. Indeed, the Spanish liturgy belongs to the Babylonian rather than to the Palestinian group, while the Italian and the Franco-German rituals are in many respects akin to the Palestinian family. The reason for this is obvious. Spain like Babylonia was a Mohammedan country. The language, the culture, the habits of the people, were very much the same on the banks of the Ebro as they were on the banks of the Tigris. Even after the Caliphate was divided, there was still much akin between the two parts of the Mohammedan Empire. This relationship could not but be reflected in the closer contact ‘of the Jewish communities of the Mohammedan world. The Jews in the jands of Christendom who were living under completely different conditions, could not possibly keep in close touch with the Geonim, and tended to develop an autonomy that was unknown in the South. We have found traces of the influence of the Babylonian Geonim on the Jews of Germany and France, but by the end of the tenth century they were practically out of touch with each other. These differences in language and in culture, the need of crossing several national boundaries in order to arrive in Babylon and the difficulty of receiving messengers 100 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES from the seat of the Gaonate, led to the rise in France and Germany of a type of scholar distinctly different from that which developed in Spanish soil. Alfasi, Ibn Migas, Maimonides, R. Meir Abulafia, Ibn Ezra, Ibn Gebirol and Judah Ha-Levi, to mention various Spanish scholars al- most at random, were not very different from the Baby- lonian scholars who preceded them. Alfasi had his proto- type in the author of Halakot Gedolot, Maimonides was a spiritual descendant of R. Saadya Gaon, R. Meir Abulafia had much in common with R. Sherira and R. Hai while Ibn Gebirol and Judah Ha-Levi, of whom we think pri- marily as poets, doubtless considered themselves first and foremost philosophers, having thus much less in common with Jannai and Kalir than with the Babylonian poets. These were quite different conditions from those north of the Pyrenees. Babylonia had no one who could be compared to Rashi or R. Tam. A book like the Sefer Hasidim would have been as dismal a failure at Pumbedita in the tenth or eleventh century as it would have been in Spain as a competitor to the Hobat Ha-Lebabot of Bahya. Where we understand the wide difference between Spanish and German Jewry, especially in their relations to the Geonim there will be no difficulty in seeing why the op- pressed Jews along the Rhine, who produced no Samuel Ibn Nagdela and no Hasdai Ibn Shaprut, were still able to perfect a strong inter-communal organization, while their brethren in the South, with all their statesmanship and secular power which was so often combined with Jewish learning, effected little for the organization of the Jewish Communities. Other factors, too, must have entered into the matter. For instance, the very fact that Jews held such high offices in their respective kingdoms must have made it difficult for them to seek to gather in council with Jews outside of their kingdom, lest they be accused of lack of patriotism. The fact too, that during the larger part of the rise of Spanish Judaism there were constant wars be- tween the Christians and the Mohammedans may have made union impossible. Whatever the cause, the fact remains that while R. CHAPTER XI 101 Gershom, and after him R. Tam and others, were making strenuous efforts to build up a well-organized French and German Jewry, nothing was being done in any similar direction in Spain. During the thirteenth century, however, it became customary for Spanish Jews seeking Jewish scholarship to go to the Tosafistic schools in France to complete their education. Moreover, there was some influx of Jews from the North into Spain as a result of the repeated expulsions from France, and of the unceasing persecutions in Germany. Spaniards like Ibn Adret and Germans like Asheri, must alike have brought to the south news of the Rabbinic gatherings at Troyes and at Speyer, Worms and Mayence. As the idea spread, all that was needed to bring about a council was some im- portant occasion. Such an occasion did arise when the Black Death was followed in Spain as elsewhere by nu- merous onslaughts against the Jews. It was evident that nothing but united action could prevent further disaster to the Jewish people, and so the various communities living under the rule of the King of Aragon, sent represen- tatives to a council, which seems to have been held at Barcelona, to confer and take action in regard to the crisis. 1. THE SYNOD OF 1354 This council which met in 1354, appointed a Commission which was to be in power for the ensuing five years and which was to attempt to gain certain privileges from the Pope. The communities were also organized in a perma- nent association for their mutual protection. But in order that the agreement might become valid, it required the sanction of the King. Indeed, it seems to have been illegal to pass any resolutions unless they were made de- pendent for their ratification by the King. To induce him to ratify the agreement and also to help them by interced- ing for them with the Pope, in order to persuade him to grant them certain rights which are enumerated, the Commissioners were’ empowered to tax the people in order to raise a gift for the King’s treasury. The Council also established decrees regarding the 102 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES — internal life of the Jews. But since these were in a separate document they have been lost. They probably dealt with Jewish luxuries of dress and food like the similar ordinances in Italy, in Castile and in Morocco.! We have no further information in regard to the activities of the Commission. It is possible that the Communities of Catalonia refused to join the others even in the face of the imminent danger threatening them and that the plan failed for lack of unity. What ever may have been the outcome of the work of the synod, our sources again fail us, and nothing further can be said. But dark days were now in store for the Spanish Jews. Their enemies were active and powerful, and their activity and power were increasing. As the wars to expel the Mohammedans from the country continued and became more and more successful, it was inevitable that religious fervor and hate should spread through the land. More- over, those who had taken Jewish lives and looted Jewish homes after the Black Plague were only too likely to de- mand new offerings. It was, however, almost forty years before the incitements against the Jews culminated in the terrible riots of 1391. There is no need of recounting here the horrors of that year, which marks the beginning of the end of Jewish life in Spain. The number of Jewish slain reached thousands, and those forcibly converted were at least as many. Not only were the Jews of Valencia, Catalonia and Aragon attacked, the flame spread to the island of Majorca. The year 1391 meant to the Spanish Jews what the First Crusade had meant to the Jews of Germany. They were henceforth definitely a hated and persecuted people. 2. TAKKANOT OF CASTILE The first serious attempt to organize the Jewish communi- ties of Castile did not take place till almost a century had passed after the Aragonian council. In 1432, under the * These Takkanot were originally published in the He-Haluz I,1. by Schorr. They have been reprinted with translation and notes in Part II, of this volume, p. 326 ff. CHAPTER XI 103 influence of a particularly able court-Rabbi, R. Abraham Benvenisti,’ representatives of the communities of Castile gathered at the capital, Valladolid, for a conference which was to frame a constitution for the conduct of the Jews of that land. The document that was drawn up by the con- ference still exists, and it is far more detailed and compli- cated than any thus far discussed. Its very detail serves to throw light on the life on the Jews of Spain in that period to an extent that could be obtained from no other source. It is divided into five chapters, which deal respectively with: a. Schools and Synagogues; b. Courts, their pro- cedure and their power, the election of judges and other officials; c. Defamations, forced marriages and attempts to intimidate judges or other officials of the community through the power of the Gentiles, the sale of wine, and attempts to seize Jewish offices through non-Jewish inter- ference; d. Taxes and community meetings; e. Luxurious festivities and lavish clothing. It might seem that the last section is given too prominent a place, and that the details of men’s and women’s clothing which are there discussed are hardly relevant to a fundamental code such as our document was intended to be. But when we remember the importance that was placed on the matter of restraint in clothing in the Italian Takkanot? and what an important part it played in all Mediaeval ordinances, it will no longer surprise us that the Castilian Jews considered the regula- tion of clothing a matter of prime importance.’ It does not seem that these Takkanot were ever put into effect. Perhaps the government was averse to them, or it may be that the communities whose plenipotentiaries had agreed on them, refused to accept them. In any case, we do not hear anything more of these ordinances. The Castilian communities remained independent and separate * See J.E. III, 38b. 2 See p. 243 note 3. 3 The text of these ordinances has been published by Fernandez y Gonzalez in Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia and reprinted therefrom in book form in 1886. An English abstract of the provisions of these ordinances is given in Part II of this volume, p. 348 ff. 104 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGBS until in 1492 they were united in their common ruin. The expulsion from Spain wiped out all distinctions that there might have existed among them; thereafter they were all alike homeless exiles, and when they had been scattered to the four ends of the earth, they felt more akin to one another than when they had been close together in the land which had been theirs for half a milennium. ~ APPENDIX The following sources are referred to in this part of the volume and while they are not complete texts, it was thought best to make them easily accessible to the reader. They are therefore reprinted here. Text A. is the quotation in Mordecat, Gittin, 455, from the Takkanah of R. Tam, against bringing complaint against the validity of a Get. The text given in Mordecai has been compared with that quoted in the Halberstam Ms., now in the library of Jews College, London, cat. Hirschfeld, 130, fol. 57b. The variants from the Ms. have been placed in parantheses and marked ¥. Text B. is the quotation in a responsum of R. Moses Taku (printed in Res. R. Hayyim Or Zarua, 179 and Res. R. Meir b. Baruch, ed. Rabinowitz 114) of the Takkanah of R. Tam against going bail for another Jew. For a further discussion of this curious enactment see above page. The text below is that published in the Responsa of R. Meir, the variants from HOS are marked N. Text C. is a quotation of the responsum of Rashi (Mueller, Teshubot Hakme Zarfat, 11b) dealing with the herem of R. Gershom against insulting Jews who returned to the fold after having been forced to leave it through the severe persecutions. Text D. is a quotation from the responsa of several German Rabbis, which are printed in the Responsa of R. Hayyim Or Zarua 222. It deals with the right of a community to tax its members. ‘Tex peHAy nin ody $2) wy reobn mw wan oDom n™ onan 4D [2 ow snp xdbw mon mina mon abs. wer pw dw wena x Tow by pa yay xd om inrni ans yi ow by nypy Sxiw oat aNw Sy ow wr by ww ontyn Sy aynyo onem 42 wa jn 7A 106 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES mova) mn own xnowa) TI) 7bxa wornm win mos bo by bon woo yre> ('n owa WoANM .) owl wiInm (AT Yo GI DD. T00WI 6x) TON TY °D Mm noowa InNDwD rend ones ots a 8h) Sen S25 nmd snows mpd casa nym> omra cynmd ons a iby 4s mom ond yD Toy Ty nanan ar aat by o> pen bod 8d 4s yord yor ws ims oy poy and mnpaws yay aapo xd 2ax pond oyow oxnpm o> Sew map © pian on any onyom ono? odey owh) man Saend yo poy oned ap nwa mat awpr> ase yyod awd od wy ann odd and wey Som ayn pasa ww $a irs) wad wiyr ams om open opds 15> op) ums) OD wD DD’ OND Ip>n ONAN DD wd ~Nd 202 apy) so mbwm nosn by pny yom jyod sim orn aad ere=h te tir peht Gath mF icd avin eta eee Saw qd bs wbdwn on Oaym poben nnn mawra onwa oy anynm saws mds wn mem yyy xdow anynon by winarnn Sy may 7’n on ots Ow yIpwD paved onan 2y qx 4 Sy t'a seid xbw wn moa ja b> Syn panyd sby ain. ined oaxm podbwo nnn ¢.'n xow .m xb (Emx TGs yaar omy mbnd ww ona wm omnes pois anbsxwa oninann OYA IND ON .D VT YD MN TATW AI Ww uM OF? TNT PTT PRV ITT PD) Mos ANY TIN 7A AYwY yn AI NINA OYpiIMn OMA snoop xbw oon on snow pws ypo xsi ononan adsn mona nvn ows ~ppom ma aamm omni xd) oxy mawn dyad ar a8 mam pnd amos Sym pr o> praa wea mbp nmd wd ps aan sa xd) IDA Joy wna OFS ann ATM onw wa —Pednz ona7 ms snow pwoa wa ary yn ox yo) ody and pr wa nnd ppd Wa [wavs ase ody sanz ab ps ammo anyon ma cond a 951 PN yap win mon ory Txmw mDIa> wp) pty or own Ty TT) DY NID AMT AID yA yPodn “Pen OND) NDwRX N17) ONNNI (PD NIP) wPDy OX WX WN &? 4D Yy wIANA -ypA eyo mori ow xb mawn Yya an ox Aap andA on D’2 "y) mas -wyo Dry Tox NS on 12 7? Os ONeRIW Py Now por Sow ODTIT NN ON ANID DARL cesses Can pos NNDY Is Ody IT MD “YoY ann na aYew ma Opimoen Yn Noy pons praa mbna mbdop xdbw mob pxa nx pod us APPENDIX 107 ppodna pry pox ams yam dy apysa ayn anxd ny wpm bo wom Saa°5 -wes ow) PT] ON PMY MNT AS Pons pompon ean chr 71D SIND OO 1b. av BR NBEIIWIDN OFS TAI TD Srp NN APM JAW... esseseececceeeseees qo ond qn awe po ond n> or oxw Sapn iyy jaNn mam IMs bapd ix xd ond ynxw poo o> pew yaws Dx ond onan) Tat bap) xb on mnp mp2 xd1 ymd 4S w poo 4D1 4D os FS onynaw oN Pa aod bw ADD wyn 1D pom Sw powa °> am Jnynaw pivnbp mam vara ywupm arydn.............7l2v07 mp> pon stays FDY 2 CDT own 2 SPDT PINT NTT DIN OY pom wh AN. esses mawn 0p ya simw ons by tat panw> ar (a5 poy appz 7’3 NDT w'D) PWS Non pos] yp|T> add ons a7’ on Don..... bapmw wan os aT Finn......a5 paw mo nnd ots oayna oanw 3's) ons Sw xd.15 sanyo bw ox 9 nnd ons ow dy nn xd (a 'm ppmwaa yeast amid prw mo nnd jaws ons arm nod wy Tax mipn sinw rata nn jnep by word ym om pre mwyd oan by painw nao yp xbw son w’p......aag7 ovp> opa saxn by ann pan ps (a"y ‘Dp 2") WONT NT 1a paw a nnd Maxi an pda? os 87 youn ma yd maxm an o dia 7D on Nos xd sem 5" ma noyd phio> paw wiyon Sy ides pam ma cioyd nixw Ty) NO NDT D> poo wind Say ots PD pon Nin oD PONT S72) [BINT ON ONT)... onana oad dy>> ors oN) oN m2> dia Sapa mipn po mynaw Sapd xdow mpn wy Sapm sin seen ONPY BIND wN|TY > Tas No ow Say onipnd jaw oN bey Vaya CTD a aw opwndp 7’'a TTT TOM VYTT PDW TID DN... OUST YT ODN II Dw aN bap mipna wy mwyw ap naw tr ides nat $52 abap ymmd sana p7p mbit bers ‘DAT Pr PDND...... 72 Sxvow> 173 MND ym 13D yn ast non Mad now man qwhw C's “Sy 3"71 yD) es oody bap xdwa on rrp ops ody rbapwa ox porp us aD pr (> as 7027 SDT Tod ww OwD ONDA pop Us 7D NON TDD WISN ONY AMD PR) COTA PryY Py WIR Ty "D)........01 p752 195s) DoD Nos Pym nw 't wy xd o's JT tod Do Kw ww mwvyd Sapa ows pew rata nn Pyn op ons oxw Sn on xO os) aNa8 TweD oon abn moon bapa an ox orn and 108 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES bap xb b> aot mnad ody ors Dwean 4s wm Sapaz an wropn WD yom WwD07 az oN bas ~wbenvn Dd soa °> AD mbna mato ww DS wid NINA... onn> Sys omdy anna adn yond) oxan arp pyr da pret Ca‘ 2"D) INT NAT OAS Yow NyoI7 Onin by Tay aw) ony NIM TP imsN2 Od1D os oT onx’p by sw xd appr t’a appm mwyd ods 85 nyt aba Sax nay oan ant [ws oxo S'prxt Cron S's ody porn pm a TIN TD NOT Ssnw Senw Sy oben om oman cman onw ox onan °na5 oy tom Sey sa ards (owt n"D) sna 8323 7D wey der n'a bw awn appa KXxD JIA wan oD msi D’xs jnep by yond wy 22 PR PRT pp esac db 1H TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS. CHAPTER I. TAKKANOT OF R. GERSHOM. The codified Takkanot of R. Gershom are less well-known than those regarding plural marriage and compul!sory divorce but are of no less importance. While the texts of the ordinances regarding marriage and divorce have been lost, the texts of the ordinances regarding civil law have been: preserved -in several versions. None of these is in its original form, but nevertheless by a comparison of the readings of the various texts we are able to form a clear notion of what the ordinances of R. Gershom were. In establishing the texts of the Takkanot of R. Gershom (TRG), I have had the use of seventeen versions. Of these three are very late texts in which the Takkanot of R. Tam have been interwoven with those of R.Gershom. They are therefore discussed separately in chapter V, (below, p. 205). The remaining fourteen have been used as a basis for establishing the text that follows. The versions used for the establishment of the text are: Hebrew English Source : ‘ Notation Notation Quotation of TRG in the Takkanot of Rhine Communities (See RMP 1022 Secmpeow. cuapter.. VL) sine seesne aut eh Nae. de? S Munich Talmud Ms. (Strack’s photographic edition, also printed in Taussig’s Meleket Beg Ole Lite 1S) te meri ees Mae acs RE hi: M Mahzor Vitry (p: 798) <0 20. ccc es. pet ied aa V Br. Mus. Ms. Add. 11639 (Marg. 1056)..... Shy aye C 112 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES Merz bacherpyisin los: ssc c'cinth av iees he arene eee Nb ered ce E Kobez Debarim Nehmadim (compared with Maharil Ms. in library of the Jewish Theological Seminary).......... NT age JA Bodleian Ms. Mich. 582 (Neubauer 666)....3%...... JB Koh Boy SeGOure 0-2. 0 en ee ge ae Ne NL Soe ae Sahat K RMP 153, (printed also in RMP 1022)..... Thi cpeaepees P Bodleian Ms. Opp. 225, (Neubauer 970)....8)...... PB Br. Mus. Ms. 1389 (See MGWJ 1893, p.171)..m...... Ae Appendix to the Bomberg edition of Likkute Ha-Pardes Venice 1519,end..... ha Fae Os L Halberstam Ms. now in Montefiore Libra, Gate Hirshtéld a0 Sr a ese ie Tlie pews H Another Halberstam Ms. now in Montefiore Library,.(cats Hirshield, 1461560 eee eee PF In all of these texts except S, there occurs after section 1, a paragraph regulating the method of suspending the herem against plural marriage and the release of betrothed couples. This paragraph mentions R. Gershom by name in most of the texts, and where his name is omitted, it is evident that the scribe emended the text, because it seemed strange to have R. Gershom mentioned in the third person in a text which was ascribed to himself. In view of the fact, however, that the paragraph is lacking in S, which we shall presently see is one of the oldest of our sources, and in view of the fact that unlike the other sections of TRG it is not a statement of an ordinance at all, but a regulation of the procedure to be followed in the suspension of an ordinance, we may well assume that it, was not part of the original text of TRG. Hence it has been omitted from the text as printed below, and is dis- cussed separately in Chapter II. In all the texts, except S, there is also added at the end a statement of the law that one must not leave a synagogue in which there is only a precise quorum for religious ser- vices. In one of the texts discussed in Chapter IT (AA, Heb. S88) this provision is attached to the regulation concerning the suspension of the ordinance against plural marriage. CHAPTER I 113 Again we follow S in not considering this section part of the original TRG. Nevertheless this section. has been printed below, since it is most conveniently discussed in connection with the remainder of the texts before us. By omitting these two sections, TRG is reduced to a code of ten sections, nine of which deal with fundamental rights of communities and individuals in their relation to each other. The exception is paragraph 6, which pro- vides that no book or other article entrusted to the care of one person by another shall be retained by the bailee because of any claim against the owner. This is purely a rule of civillaw and can hardly be classified as one of the important basic rules such as the provision concerning the right of summons (section 1) or the right of the communi- ty to collect the taxes before suit can be brought for review of the assesment (section 7). Moreover this is the only section that mentions any authority. The authority mentioned is R. Tam, who was born more than half a century after the death of R. Gershom. This difficulty was felt by the writer of V who omits R. Tam’s name although he includes the section. But the omission of the name can be regarded only as an unsuccessful emenda- tion, since the context requires the mention of some au- thority. We must therefore assume that the whole of section 6 is a later interpolation. Section 7 too appears to have been inserted at a later time. Although it deals with a rule that naturally would be included in such a code as this, it seems that R. Meir b. Baruch did not have that section in his text. For he refers to the rule laid down in it, providing for the payment of the tax by the assessed person before bringing suit for the revision of his assessment, as a ‘“‘custom of the an- cients’? (RMP 708). It cannot be doubted that if this section had been found in R. Meir’s text of TRG he would have quoted it, or referred to it as the ordinance of R. Gershom, just as he quotes section 5 in a similar connection (RMB p. 209). Since we have definite proof that sections 6 and 7 are later interpolations, doubt may well be cast on the genuine- 114 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES ness of the ascription of all but the first five sections. On the other hand there can be no doubt of the authorship of part of TRG by R. Gershom,since section 3 is quoted as a Tak- kanah of R. Gershom by so early an authority as R. Aaron of Lunel (thirteenth century) in his Orhot Hayyim, Part I, Laws of the Synagogue, § 26. Similarly, as has been stated, section 5 is quoted by R. Meir b. Baruch. To the theory that the original TRG contained only five sections, the objection may be raised that in the Takkanot of the Rhine Communities, dated 1220, TRG is given in ten sections (S). But as will be seen in the discussion of those ordinances (p. 225), there is good reason to believe that TRG was inserted into the text by a synod that met long after 1220. It seems that during the first half of the thirteenth century there were a number—at least three— recensions of TRG current in German communities. The original version in five sections was the one used by R. Meir b. Baruch. Another, strongly influenced by the enlarged French versions had ten sections, and also included the regulations concerning the release of the herem against plural marriage (C). A third (S) contained ten sections but was still without the regulations concerning the suspen- sion of the herem against plural marriage. That the text of R. Meir was not S, can be seen by a comparison of the text of his quotation with the corresponding section (5) of S. It is much more akin to C. It has been noted above that S differs from all’ the other texts of the Takkanot in omitting the regulations about the suspension of the ordinance against plural marriage and the final paragraphs about leaving the synagogue when there is only a precise quorum for con- ducting services. Sections 7 and 9 are given there in a reading that differs quite widely from that of the other texts. It is evident that S was not used by the writers of the other texts, nor was it influenced by them, except that since it is descended from a common source with them the actual provisions of the Takkanot are the same. It is difficult to determine whether S or M represents a version more nearly akin to the original. While M has CHAPTER I 115 introduced the regulations concerning the suspension of the ordinance against plural marriage, and also the para- graph about leaving the synagogue when the quorum for services will thus be destroyed, in several cases it has pre- served older readings than S. Thus in section 2, it will be seen that S agrees with all the texts in having two para- graphs while M has only one (See the notes to that section). Again in section 5, it will be proven in the notes the reading of M is older than that of any other text. M and S are thus both outgrowths of an older text. V is akin to M, but while both M and V claim to come from the pen of R. Moses of Berne it is probable that V made use also of some other source. V is the ancestor or is akin to the ancestor of most of the other texts that have been preserved. These fall into three families. The first class consists of two meme bers—C and E. C has been strongly influenced by some German texts. Like S it mentions the Seder Kedushah and refers to the interruption of the reading of the Torah, in section 2, but on the other hand it contains the sections omitted by. S, and does not follow the readings of that text in sections 7 and 9. It is noteworthy that the writer living in Germany where Zarfat generally meant not the province of Isle de France, but the country of France, substitutes Poitiers for the Zarfat of the French texts. (below p. 139). C and E are alike, however, in that they read in paragraph 5, MIPN ARV IS Wyn MIpn pwiyw vy 12; in the regula- tions concerning the suspension of the herem against plural marriage they in the regulations concerning the suspension of the herem (See chapter IT) they read 75>) nn instead of mwsN1 ws of the other texts; in paragraph 3, they read ON bxwm whereas the S, V, and K read ?’8wD 078 ON}, while M read }xwon; in paragraph 6 they read in common with S appl ps whereas K and V read p52 ps on; in paragraph 8, they read 09597 wis while K and V read 0° 527 ’wis ON) and S and M have onan 712. It is this seen that E and C have much in common as opposed to other groups of the earlier texts. The second group of texts are those included in the class 116 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES J-JA and JB. In establishing the text of JA use has been made not only of the Kobez Debarim Nehmadim, but of the Ms. of Maharil which is closely akin to it. JB is a little more diffuse than JA “but is not essentially different. The readings of these texts are characteristic and are so different from those of the other texts as to place them un- mistakably in the same group. For instance the words nans yo are inserted in the first line. In the paragraph dealing with the Yom Kippur candles, there is an additional provision exempting the candles brought by women. There is a quotation from R. Isaac of Falaise (?) regarding the custom of stealing in sport on Purim. The third group consists of K and of a series of texts that seem to be based on a text very much akin to K. This group is characterized by many variations only a few of which can be noted here. In paragraph 1, they insert (anna) apna ydy abn and pam poaw ay pnomd pas ps Vy ‘ (ene nee ANSELE Moxy mn 1 % i Soir evewedd ipsrond pyr 2a pois Besides K there belong to this group, P, PB, PC, PF, H and L. K is more akin to the earlier texts than the others since they all have variants like the following: They insert D197 Mal pny in paragraph 2. They insert 13 5banndb xa xbw in paragraph 4. L represents an older text than P, PC, PF, or H. Like K and the other earlier texts it reads in the first paragraph yoy miaqd pam pre xdx instead of ainad pbia> paw; in the regulation concerning the suspension of the herem against plural marriage it reads in common with most of the older texts m>np wow» max wbwn while the later versions of this group omit mbap wbwn. It is not probable that K is the source of the others since it has a number of variants which are not reproduced in them. Mention should also be made of the fact that in PC the sections are numbered and that its writer seems to have had available material not in the original of the other texts, since he inserts the rule about the candles CHAPTER I ; 117 of women for Yom Kippur which otherwise is found only in JA and JB. PB also adds large sections not found in the other texts. , Besides these complete texts, individual sections are quoted in several collections of responsa. Section 1 is quoted by R. Moses Mintz (Res. 83), but as it is obvious that his source is S, his quotation is of little help in estab- lishing the text. This section is also quoted in a German responsum of uncertain authorship, dated 1569 (printed in Ozar Tob, 1883, p. 5), from a source akin to the K—P group. Section 3 in quoted by R. Aaron of Lunel in Orhot Hayyim, 1, Laws of the Synagogue, 26. His text seems to be quoted from memory, so that aside from being obviously based on one of the earliest texts, akin to M, V, C and S, it cannot be determined to which of these groups his text belonged, or whether it did not represent a group otherwise no longer known. The quotation of section 5 in RMB p. 209, is definitely from a text akin to C, and that in Res. R. Joseph Colon 17, from a text of the K group. In printing the text below, it has seemed best to use M as the basic text, but where S was very different that text is printed in a parallel column. The changes in the M text where those occur in brackets are from V. M as are not found in V and are believed to be additions are marked by parantheses. The important variants have been placed in footnotes. The variants from the quotation of R. Meir b. Baruch are marked n (English T), those from the quotation of R. Joseph Colon are marked w (English Q); those from R. Aaron Ha-Kohen of Lunel 1 (English AK) and those from R. Moses Mintz ¥ (English MM); those from the responsum in Ozar Tab, 9 (English O). It may help clarify the relation of the various texts to - one another, to indicate it in the following diagram. 118 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES TAKKANOT OF R. GERSHOM xX | | x x x By a i (2) i T (n) S (x) ee (1) Co ate G Se A Ee L(a) xX QO) ¢P-On)* “BBN Oe 7PE I) PH yi be TEXT worm ow 5) FAT OTs say on 27'2 (ov) Onn 12 ww imp» 41 pina yoy mon pwa "DS 6paw> omy cpa son p"y pad 4ans ppp >>.) wy orpo S23 .m .2) 72 OTN ww op 5D .71)..N) 7 [7°3... DID 1 Opp won Ly ww .V7202N Ly 13D .3r NT 2 INN VyYdD WN DY Dy ON .NP DY... NIN 3 IMS RD). PTD orm ANN 83d Ty 2 td irom MN DIN NA2).7 4 ans OF8 729 worm .n pad wom yan 830 p> wom «37.7 oy s'y > y 8 [oon »'y 5 72 NIM) (73) 13. PT 3a 1a .y N.S war NP) 7) 3) 7 7 ANS VyD porwr DN) .ar..’> omy "wa .N) T"3 °wA OMY WI «mM [ApPAD! —— ss CHAPTER I 119 pwd xox camp as got sorty xdb3 bas) 29’23 pywn NIw ITY ayat> yan 4d somiyy ans otya xbs 4nvanp pam> pry xds pt pop > mbwd yams mind yainn dyn S ra pa> ivan pom sotNwo pa> ivan pow oINwD .2 nbn Suay dia psx anon rwam = axy Suad di>> ws (anDD vam) myap os am n>en ww oxy opys ‘robvaw ay mmo ndvpam iondban oyD ‘2 bvaw ay sana Jb25 Svan 3D ANN) ANINNA bua 112"N8 TWIP TID IN May won ptib wyw ay adanm b> b> pS i2,ya nypi ona cn 3yannw normals ox dD buad mben 3) bvawa Sbannd ow xa 4inwa Svad dia ns pyod pa7ad gad spas por .ar.m pyvd tao Raw Pa oy aT Ny .PWA INS MDNR .T 2 eta ornn yoy abn .onnn yoy adn oa mot) ar on ok) smapnn yby mbdn un 3 wxr.poy ainod odia> oraw om ody ainad poior pro xox on 8) (pamis...kon 4 map yan 12 pry xox SSP ot) 297 72 92 19979 nod yan ayy ON sm .a7 Ny 7-119979...999 5 was ox 19975 yan > 45° om .95> yan ax on .2; 7 on pam pow say pnomd pay pry om 41 a) 8) 6 mbowdy sind wm nd sawd) on .nodwa ony wt b...rans 7 Porm) NDT Maa pwd . «Tm .T) 2 wT ND 8 dry ohiety, DN’ INS .AP NT 1 TTT) 0 WN) WT) TD 8 .0).mdpn ornys 2 Sua ty .3).8).oDIs7 onyD 12 Sua o"s NON. .odDn on. 10 moon Svaw ay .m .opys 9 md_n Svaw ay oon .mban onyp wow Sua xd on sayy bom Sva5 pron xn Sia ie opin onyD 2 Suaws) arr MIDIS OY, 1) nea Aw WD 7 .AM) ama ™y varasr.mbpna $5 Suad Soo> gy yan .> tpt... "N] 1 by omxd wy ayn ow Sava v2) Inawa xd ndan dua xbdv onotp on wo) Nt -bva> oxwn adnnsd ps Sapm mpn Sawa on mbpn 11 129 Sua Nd ox ran maa x2 aan Suad dy>> pry. ww ws 237 INN PNT TD 7 280.7 2 13 nyo na $55 Suab So>> mein mbpn ‘43 Sua ox Sax ov Nin wR NOMA yan .t).ov SSpnp yan .) .ow yan ims .n .t.555np yan .n.3 13 .ov yon non maa war st oa $>pno yan . .m 212 bo2 .n svya aden nyo ona bop wk) nyo ona $5> wn .odraa wart. yo1> 02 14 “vyya pry nyo ona $53 .m .yyaw nyo na [953 .) $50.0.) . Py nyo ona 120 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES Wx on InXd (oxo CaoDy 2915 wm 2eoa7d n'a 1S>Nwor .3 e)105 sayton xd ox 4roy moowwd 3d1>> Sapa mond) (aden Sead) 77a mwin mas 15 TaNw °D .4 ow 10intaxo yoy Sow orn Sapam b> obapw ry spy send [JX DIN [DIN 83) ‘ord MTT? a Das pRiinayeay 4b? 727 onipm) ons2 nawna isdma appa xxoi ja) 14pq> 4 i3xnas uno wand Sia ws van Sy ppp myvid ww on onwd 16mn L9PN) MONT IV 1som~ey yanim ono Sapa b> by ornnnd o> das zioqna yawad dia pppp > arneim onat arp> 20u sanyo doa wrx Chma Sy wrx nism xba mo xen on) ot a xen wr oa wD DTN OND OP NT NDT omwia Sxw DIN ON) wn DTPI2,.D ip? SNS ONO IPR OP NT TT TD RD TI 8 ons immed .2 8) wnt md arnt ad .p cots med on. .a.07N ins by ww 4 em ov SSom xdw ots aimed on mot tad em omed on aa Soannd xo xdw £3. xd os ok) arpa Sapa $2 mms pw o’ss .p odd now ND ON TLR 5 (ID "D2 MIN¥DIT NINN npn enpnynw anor mwad yy avd oan bod me ow ov oan $55 ime tow 8d ox on ot) ar a SSannd oan $55 now xd on on oa $$ nnd oxan $55 now ma ims Tox xd ox om .oSpnad TN ADA pA yD) .ar NT 6 JT2 ND ww.) 7 jina aed on. 8 DD OdIDy JY .n .onNa ob1D IID! TY war NT MT). 2) ND ToT 9 Onn .OT NT DD 37D! oN 2937 Ow 2a) TANT 1D ObD 7 nO «M2... 10 “TYY 727 N83 ory ad yy td sow oa py owen yas anxd yoy noi pm Ins pry. mid Sy>> ots per .nr .'9 7 .yainn mind wa aosy mntd ox 12 DIN PR) ar er yan aod diay par om .tod yainm doa? psn ott p10" anpd diay aaa mnt di sora pik xdi pd wy TIN os 13 6735 55 pow ow FN. 7) wa 81 7725 wy qds8 oN JON .7 14 nmypn 1D °5173 WDA HYD wT) N¥DI 1D). .at NP. 57a Wo NYO) AN. 15 NTP P37 OT RYN) 137.8) NNT mapna * ra ‘7 DOA N¥D) JD) oT) NIT NN? ODN PRI ONT I Tyo 37 ova °NMANS 872) 32 pI NRO) NNT AoW 16 now nyiaw .X 17 ean asyd Si» fot ow=nr'e bes NW PN) NI 18 Nar Bie |p SOR PRI NI 19 "5 v1 20 .OND DANS .N) 21 CHAPTER I 121 S 20y2y MIPN PyT 2a wry 1ON) oxanD 32007) MINN npn oS NaN PS Onno 370 7273 sta aad) mpnm buadb Kw Try awd 7’2 pr od tad nopy ym aw msi 9B> sqdin ban > al oy mipn dapm wy on .5 PS a7 wm MANS mupN IN 9’25 spar tidy dvad ia my nn mix p> b9m -D 3999 sawenn? IW DNTP wm p> py vaw ayy ys °D> DWI TP AW jd 10°D ow Sawa iznazy? appi> n> ps ran dxx opp 117 pENT «6 b> 1679 150'N WAT pow 14mn27p orn mr don) 13pSy 12 ww ryan JIN 2 PHY ON.ND priyy Vy wn on. pn ANZ OMIT mpm on ."> NITNN.....O%Y wat NP. pM ANY IN wn 7 2 .OP NP .9293 OxIND OMAN yO VYyT I aN. oxane pimp arm 7 3 1373 DIN OWA yO aM .n .osaND OMA 3M DMT YO OM. Tw a1 Nt 4 mind 05 oa) pst tt.) .ar 8) 2’ad oopy Naa. pao saan tad was ot 5 xox joan oy mpna oid mnotd pois pro on ta p"y yD ean mpna vis xbw > pias NdY Tad Kad yo os indi mpnm bvad di» ons per pei om 72 b"y 3 7’3 _"y 8D DAPI Mpna 11» Xow mnqd) .ar "a B"y oN T'3 PRD 037.9273 3? Pas 81.7" aw prea qo by a’ awind 7 6 21272 ae> 3a pre sm 42 dy sa aeind pr vd on .aw? SAIN eZ OPA aNteIAia). Meo LEN Dei les “Py nw 3 D> .m 9 TYY JUS IPN NONI NDI «NT YY JMS DIAN ONDIP wp «M1. 10 9D (ot ayy qos °B> ws potpT amo wD at ayy JUS (DD IN NT DNTP wm yw qos p> os onotpm an asy> appid ps (pyr oT) ON NP TD) ND Ts [oazy>...ppppm) ptppion onpo aDy> app:> psx o2 arm .pns ostppwit wk} Sx opp opp JOSS Jo mde ow oar 12 oxvon Sy ww pppon by war spppom by uxt ym) ot) on wa) ND TT 13 snotp orn & mr bon wt .onotp Sw orn & ar Sop 2. kn nynDTp ON 7D N14 w onanow mbx Sop wm 2) a) .'2 ayn nnd '»y ww .onotp onn w ar 9a by un 5 .ot St .onoIp mipnd on 15 3 apy wan WN 15 pw asy xbw 7 .asyd xdbw myrtpp 52 .ar.xr.a mmtpp $2 aay> xbw.n .n.s 16 0d wy om matpen $5 Sy sen ner by wa ty rtpp ow asyd xdy am on pp ow Sawa wot er pppon by 1d ww ayan ow Sawa sm ot on a) .o22y> pry myran 122 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES aya aob sinew spon sapy> 2>> mpun anbow nds mitpen & pa} pon “anw Sapm ombu Ooms ww on ”y pa Lox >"y rw 09195 dy>> ps oon durw wo oMyo yrEw sty ad wy mwyw 0 pom dia> ms mnown yIDw onp BX ww PTD Xow > pap xbw id ewyw yrya nN ON Poody war kt. nm on ox} taba pr 77N& 6737 OW 5x al own mann poy yum 8 .7 rman pom dy>> 1198 Loma qNDwd IX My) 13y7bw Ty Tad pa> isyom> Si 1593 an n> 1> w isynpw onp inde» 2onwyw ay qa xba pdy iopiyxd b> 22np D"5s7 215npA mint Dd eat ONT OFT 2D) wT) 0 02D) TT Ow ON sto>D7 pr .7) .mpun 0519) wt NT on.) oe 2 MvIwa war wt ony Sawa .n 3 wor Aywd imvaDw Dawa 1 mM on 4 “NvD NTT ost Rw bax ot) .otx $25 Worn my-an aNwa Sax.» .2 5 ots S52 NIT In ont Nw Sax om .ome b> sins xd) 1 6 wor TWDywD 37 OS $7 OTN) «7 ON) LW Ot ONT 21) LIT) /T) 22) 02) NDT Oo 8 ooo maid ws3) om) ./4w Na) ar LNT 9 My TNT PPD TY VY oO 1.) JT) 0) 03) ON) WT IN TPH " FT YT .T 2 10 l Swi IN PPS 8 or kr .3 1 ps. ..t1.ar gr pomd xbdy od ps ot .pomdb pr au por) sod px .n yam n> Svyor an voto 7’25 sana on mato ta Syn war xr .n).a) kd) 7 2 12 | 1'a5 manor Sven ww nan by Sonn wm .ma20n ON oy bum AD ww Nom om aN) IN MYO IN .W .MNIwo3 YA Myds yA Tw .3) .MnDwNa IN My... 1 13 1 14 MNIVIIA PRR YI! MND TNT) IND OP ST) NDT TD 15 (Awyy .an Awyw 9 pormd ar sr .paa xdw 1d mwyw ow ct’ad wy pomd on 7.216 27). 091 TD .N) pa Nbw ad Aww Pd 1 AD b> pomd wn tpt Rbw mes) on) p> xbw 1d meye ino bop om amino yaw om oy > yap oper on 395 7 17 xdw > awy Svomwy O78 ANN ON wo) pt> xdby 1d mew md ON nT 2 18 paz xdy any odovere om) Sven aN Os | 1) waxy mnpm yD AMw>) pT 19 Pwyw ANT ON wa? Nt AOSy mINDA yD ANY 7328. Moxy mnDm yO Tw pap xbw nya) abn bvad wy ay my yn .ar at Sarpy pys nvmd ot Sap nvad a 19 voy Sapo vbpn Svad war wer pdy Sarp ATNWD) PT ww TM .T) WN 231 20 Vyrvawory we .orstmory om Sapa ory car xr oy a) on a 21 doen mp? Sia ww anand wwe $55 otx np .m .dyn np: un 22 CHAPTER I 123 S wyw ty dapdi piyxd ra nw yy mee anyy jpn pt 781 7377 W909 Np’ D"oxw Sapa anp> pon d-awa pmo oxNay oD 70 sp bw omnmo iwr abmpsa a e>avay ox ion ’y 1d 7wE p> 3x7 manor mbnp> so wan so p7 422.8 pupy 7m) pad) Dd ova ial od Add onl ot ONE sprrio wavs ww OWY ON) IT] ON w wD LOTNN) 'DID7 923 PY INNA NIN pra podannw oipoa ovya ~yn ismmNa 14yoby 13’pI97 Maa 1pamw om 1155) .9 Isyiap 1739%9 17> w ON OoMIpNd) 16D ona mp ib saws born > ony war at SpA tay ’y wn 1 : Aahwht beh ae ie EF non Sawa ximy vat xt .np> ow sm oD mmy on ynnp> .1 3 ODD wR SD. LADD WIN NT. O77 WIN OND DTD.) NI. 4 por ond pr aw wor opya po ond pre ai 8) 75 yd mbmp opad paar anos Sap opps paar .t adap oma ona na poo mbnpm opod pray .ar xt aa S$pnnd mbnp opps oa) .m .onpon ova | MOPI NT O03 pprotoy ws pupy mye bw mam ymre) ex ppy onm 7 spy 9) ‘on maa pdt) .m 2) wx papy mm wk) .o mp7 ors ww pPNpy ny perry) .ar Nt. .wrys NDIDT INNA ANA PY 7 nD Maa omimd pay .n 7 now mad um. 8 ow ap >amw noisn maa mr ans x"D nwy xd os NX) .oDDA ova ppdot paw poy PX ON T22 PY Amon ark ap daw "33 Ns PP INN 12 SX Avy? ON «Mm STAN NOR Danaea er it Pei’). <1 177 Ny 9 73...) OP NPT, 9 | [ow wry .91) irpamd A) .irpya a) pms row nm) $$pnow opna fvya wa pot angm un .7 22 10 oipaa poand wy gw oanym om .bSemw orpod proanb wy awd dior wm yy .b5annd Saw opr cup da .an pda wy ge owm var kr ow Sdpnow JW oPMs...0wy ON) .n [1 apo nnd on spyon b> 1) 11 SIM) OTNY 2 Td WN) TN 22 cow Sdpnw x 13 09 .n a Ny) ND) Ts 14 1 ANNA DPA AMINA WN 15 {5 pmypnd) .2 OD (aT NT 77 SPY wIs WWD D2 .DIPOT WIN IMI _ N16 sYIDP PMID YIP A LF PIO ETM DN 17 7 adv O3"N ONIN YANY WS VW ON ND 17) ON 7 18 124 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES & ra yap pao ov wy oppo boa [ONDA TY 2758 1DID2WD1) .10 oD myo ind ayn ov myn oN 4D DDI Ny JIT somaya WIND WN OYIN ON TAN MW MNP DAN w yap pw ow wv moms wan xb on ym ams ovayd zpbnd comp myn snnd any xo ox oon yo oma on ons 1S oyam oN sTyn mms an xo 908) YT AMS wIRD JOINT 19 Twp Wd LInssd oNYI OTD INN PS LOOXDIS PP NIT WI. wy ON 14 16eap isdnn7 14on) inden ary 13ty Sspnnd max mw 125nnnwo NI729 Mw I" AND 205"y 19]°29 NOI AN TY 1877392 177VTTP IN !2) ‘so pin mxnout $52 n’> 1 oud soon. 2 aayn b> a3 pao ovd w ox ODI NY Jn yap pw ma ww ya ot (Oo D...777 4 DIPOD .nyIap pw OW KY TM MN yap pI Ow w& OX TD) N) NDT yap io by oipnd im> Somw nop odo ond adr ond pried an pred on am sn nas oboe jay pond ome myo yrned onotp orn & Aner Jb ow 6 epym ord pond a omayd pond 7 obxw os ym yo ons wan’ ox 4 Spy wisn ans 1d pyan’ on 218 “Vym ‘ava ans oyame taba) on spyn a0 tnx var sr oon poy adn xd oyain ib ps on) 7 ond Wwe Dyan N17 OND. 9 wo mpoin mund iy ans Snnm sm SSannd Sonnn yn wer bbpnad pina Sonnm on wn a) 7 2 10 bSannd py Snnm wwe bd nnd nsx) prom Svad oy pron bvabdi noi map pin qo*> nso bvad on en buad sm 1S Sbonndb.Snnmwo 88 (or NP) a) WN) TT oT 2 12 ms pint orpw sy Sean ory ty wy anden ny pina nore ty a) 13 oonson ee JS ndenty wor okt a sore cay Senn on indpn SN NY) IBY OND ST) NS) OD IMS By OND LT) RS) TY ONT NT TT 14 NY?ON) .D TSwpp Nay Is Po px os 19989 8 8¥y OD INN Tay ON ar om wmwn xd onD InN Sonna exw pe op) 39 tox am on Sennay ane °> op) Fn ‘DIN 15 sep yn wp yn bon ore op) VR 1273 8 WIP VT 16 yyw yosy ov pre S’ys pros nna anso sn ennne anno .ar 217 Sonny yy> pw xba pn nor 7 18 MI NED) 12) 1 MPT MD77A NX} 13) NN 19 !Oo mxnouw 4 NPIAD Awd '7:-I3aNT | NINdD -npnyn YR IY a 2 1 CHAPTER I 125 odin Sy sy JN¥PO WX? ION NT NNDDINT IW OIA WDD oN) (0D WS TY) WD ANY) IW NW 1 65ya xd on su nawa mbpn Suad spew 3nd 2Nxn .12 samo mynns> As Sapa mpn bawar zmbpn “8 TDI son> dw sayin mp pesin -pyod cp> nes: ‘nm pita mow wwyd ses jody owoqya wand sbe on cpa inp xdo an dy Topm ‘mi ‘opm 1d ps ox mand oN pa 2.2 MDT yan mwa xbw ma ows xd. 22 pyo InN pow 'N) "DA sos man tna a> sdbw cand ran an ox ny owd 37 Aw jor sop xbw owl iran mpno w my arp bs apind mwEwy mw anNd FIDD Tyonn Nd) ‘Nw TTT 7 NNON LIN WIAA Tyo TAT OW OFN ma np xd) 12 ad. ona pms bs mayn wan xd ann J7van ns ws mp xdw ona Saws a ow ww ota bobo A MDDWT sobp pn onowp onn w aro 3S" 1 pyo tow sa) pt 1 Tobw ADD Nprn invow Sawa 1a todbw apo asyds Soy mpun ear b>) ‘A vany) tow ainsn ody pro xba yim pany prsym ibs bor wt b>» ‘nm vanyr $453 sin adwon nay ww pas psy on 19959 85 Nx” OTD INN Tay oN Downy anND “ipy mvp ANY 1D ‘oR indsn ovo x" yn bw onn dy rayi FID TY TED YN) 19 TON MINMDN Aw PID Nba jinn Nor mw oY nA & pyon Son »pyom $5 war kt ON TY) aN THY) 2 2 JYnoIp mpn wom .-nowp on wo.) Tw dN) IND 3 ONWT DIN PR NN NOW TM on aw) 4 pay mayan tow 3 Sava sm wy and yain oxy myano .7 at ows 15 avan Sy ofxd wy nyan tow om Sava an am on avand om ® by mn .onyp 1199 onp mdb5nm bua D’NN NN 139 JT oT) a) NI 6 29 onpo mbpn ‘1 bya oss WW den oye 1 79> onp o1nn Jo? onNp wk) MBIT m7 moon ’5 amp,...08 ks onnsd tbe Soa om boas Som oy wn wa) Wk) 8 STNIIAD wD AI ND pnyimw ‘nD pnyin WS sand pny wt) MIT YI 126 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES onmby opp aay> prt pow nn ots $55 Ninn a7 aNwa Dax opp azy> appid pr oy 27D NMOWT 'N) D2) NN 7aT7 Nd) On ptoupp pppon by 1d wy obyaw mayan ow Saws iss open wre b> Sy xnowa crmarenbxa ons iam upnw Spy dw on ot Sy) Sxwon Sy Saw 1b wn povbvo in opp ja ony beer aoxw nna psn S"x) sim iaina aasy> Sia pry iman upn nypds di mpo Son oasyd Sia aysw p’yyt on’ sow yd wa NNIDVNT NID DON MTT UP PD IPS ON OYA ONT WO ODI OTD Ty Wo PT TD pyyd did Nm ONT LR"y yp "a bapon pp ANoT7 penyyw oat im> nat ows jasy> dia iew S"ys od Tos *ya ONT bxwod oxw AN WD On WoT oADy>S ToNw we: Sow ona DIpoa wot Wo owe rot TD Ty pyvd Ho cps Sx) abaw py yr xd oy Son Palate} hn by DD WN :'N PY ANN ‘PDA ‘NT T2 NNO) NNN AoW nxxo) "521 .noo7 maa innd yrsd SApA Pa [ND ANN PR Ow) ID> Sapa Ta pe MD ova OWI penywy an cnx NNO ADO by Fpoind) aan mw> qyuxnd owm pa cD noi maa innd ort TDW J MDD OD 2” !PYD ANN ONT MDD ONN¥D ‘ar DI) 'NT 73 an a> ar se onpibw mnem Soxo 17297 .an bow rxaED DD 3a52) .an asm bn owe 12 ps ome onow men cmwia xbw DE nov ney xdw tabar cptd womb o> we omer any 1d ore svym caw msi op> oxdw .an ym 1) MEDIA nawn -2ya wad xdw sox mown ‘yn "Da Nk¥D) 3" =pyo ns sw mw da qed on powaw ma ows sdvn oywer onnap poind MpapINT MXxo 'm °'D2) .ANTD bya mwe wd eden mw ams b5 S22 yywe 1S pom nawn bya ous oo8 we xd conn NNO amon mw ty mw xb3 2 97 Ssnwy on ma om Tow abe ax CHAPTER I 127 TRANSLATION 1. Iff a man passes through a community? where there is a herem} beth din and he is summoned to Court under the herem, in the presence of proper‘ witnesses, even if he be summoned in the market-place, the erem is upon him until he repairs to the Court to plead his case. Even if no wit- nesses are present, the herem applies, for witnesses, “are needed only as a protection against deceivers’’,> but a writ of insubordination® can be issued only on the testimony of witnesses. After having made his plea, the t K inserts before this section an additional Takkanah against denouncing Jews. See Addition 1 (Hebrew text) and below p. 175. 2 This section is quoted in Res. R. Moses Mintz, 83. It is no longer in its original form. A paranthetical remark declaring a summons valid if it delivered otherwise than in the presence of witnesses has been inserted. But the insertion must have taken place at a very early date since all our texts have it. 3 For the institution of Herem Beth Din see Part I, p. 6. Our Takkanah attempted to insure for all the rights that under the herem beth din were guaranteed only for the citizens of each individual locality. It protected the interests of the defendant to the extent that he was merely obliged to come to Court and state his case. It would have been obviously unfair to compel him to await the decision of the Court. In later times the expression Herem Beth Din seems to have lost its meaning, since every community developed the authority of calling its citizens a court. As a result the later texts have various changes of readings, the most important of these being that of JA and JB, Herem m1-Beth Din. 4 The word for ‘‘proper’’ has been omitted in all the later texts. Yet it must have been in the original Takkanah. Before the parantheti- cal statement declaring witnesses unnecessary for the validity of a summons was added, the opinion doubtless prevailed that the presence of witnesses was an essential factor in the summons. In that case it was necessary that the witnesses be such as according to Talmudic law are fit to testify. When the extension of the law was made, the word for “‘proper’’ was omitted. M< still retains it, although the paranthetical statement has already been added. 5 Kiddushin 65b. 6 The writ of insubordination is called Petisha in the Talmud (Baba Kamma, 112a). Why the term is changed in our Takkanah is not clear. 128 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES defendant may proceed on his way. The plaintiff is re- sponsible to see that the decree of the Court reaches him.* M = 2. If? a man summons his If8amansummons his neigh- neighbor to Court and the bor to Court, and the latter « For the sections that are inserted here in all the texts except S, see below, chapter II. 2 M is here too more original, but a misunderstanding of the early, text gave rise to the various differences which are found in the other versions. It will be noticed that the main differences between M and S, is that the latter contains an additional clause, differentiating in regard to communities having more than one synagogue, between the right to interrupt in the synagogue attended by the defendant and other synagogues. It will be noticed too on examination of the variants that while S speaks of two synagogues, the other texts speak of two or more. Moreover the other texts read ‘He (the plaintiff) may not in- terrupt the morning (Yozer) or afternoon service unless he has three times interrupted the services.’ This meaningless clause, has usually been explained to mean ‘‘unless he has three times interrupted the evening service.’’ So Bloch emends the text in his edition of RMP. So was it changed by the writer of S. The matter becomes entirely clear when we bear in mind the custom regarding interruption of prayers which was prevalent in Germany. Full interruption of the prayers consisted of arising immediately after the prayer of Yishtabah and preventing the reading of the Yozer, the benediction of the Shema. This is evident from Rabiah, Berakot 32. A manuscript Sefer Minhagim in the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary (now being published by my friend, Dr. Israel Elfenbein,) fol. 63a, contains the following statement: wee m22 by ym [away bx"x] aviods pad nan xp otxvs mbmpm boa amo 72> Swav sy mn nbn Sva xd) many asy nben dyad ronaa pina awind dy> men Suad dia 15 any ope me on) Doayodd ‘mi pa maya wa Ipaa yD 2 pt wy sy “It is the custom in all the communities that when a man summons his neighbor to court (and desires to) cause the hazzan to be seated, i.e., interrupt the prayers, on that account, he may not cause the hazzan to be seated at Barku, thus preventing the recital of the Yozer (the morning benediction of the Shema) or Arbit (the corresponding evening benediction) nor may he interfere with the recitation of Minhah, the Afternoon Prayer, unless he has thrice interrupted the prayers either in the morning at Ashre (that is before the prayer }yx> xa) or between the afternoon prayers and the evening prayers. If the defendant then refuses to answer, he may cause the prayers to be stopped until they do him justice.” The interruption of the prayer ‘between the afternoon and the evening prayers’ can refer to no stoppage of the recitation of prayer . CHAPTER I 129 latter refuses to appear, the plaintiff may not stop the morning (Yozer) or after- noon service until he has interrupted their completion thrice. After that he may stop them entirely. refuses to appear,the plaintiff may not stop the morning (Yozer) or afternoon prayers or the reading of the Torah? unless he has thrice inter- fered with the evening ser- vice or the completion of the morning service. After that he may stop all services un- til his case is tried. If there are two synagogues in the city he may only interrupt the prayers in the synagogue which the defendant attends? But if he has interrupted the prayers there thrice (with- out avail) he may stop the services in both synagogues. ~ but only, apparently to the gathering of the people and making public protest against injustice. The passage cited shows that the interruption of the prayers always took place before the beginning of the Yozer or the benedictions of the Shema. This was in fact the beginning of the public prayers. The Takkanah now provided that before interfering with the recitation of the Yozer the complainant would have to give notice of his complaint by preventing the reading of ys> x21 three times. It is only on the basis of the assumption that it was the German custom to interrupt the prayers at the end, that we can understand section 14 of the Takkanot Shum (below p. 228). That passage was mis- understood by Guedemann (1.280) but correctly interpreted by Rosen- thal (MGWJ 46.255). After failing to arouse public opinion by three interruptions of the prayers, the complainant would forbid the holding of any services until justice was done him. This was called ‘‘closing the synagogue.” « In Jater times it became more customary to disturb the Reading of the Torah than the prayers, see Takkanot Shum, 14 2 The expressions used in the various texts have a distinct sig- nificance. In S we read that one may interrupt the prayers for the first three times only in the synagogue where ‘‘the defendant comes to pray’. That does not imply that that person is in the synagogue at the time of the complaint. In H and P it is expressly stated that the defendant must be present. The very fact that there is no agree- 130 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES “3 Ift one lends a (house for use as a) synagogue toa community and a difference arises between him and one of the other members of the community he may not forbid its use to any individual unless he forbids it to all the other members of the community. 4. If? a person has lost an article he has the right to interrupt the prayers until the community pronounce a ment as to what precisely is the requirement, shows that it was not part of the original compilation and that therefore each later writer felt at liberty to change it. That tends to confirm the theory expounded in note 2, page 128. « This ordinance is quoted in Orhot Hayyim (laws of the Synagogue 26, and thence by R. Joseph in Sheartt Joseph 29, 69) and by R. Meir Katzenellenbogen in a responsum (85). On the other hand the author of the Or Zarua in discussing the rights of the owner of a synagogue against those to whom he loaned it, makes no mention of our ordinance (Or Zarua Baba Mezia, 21). 2 This Takkanah is mentioned by R. Joseph Colon in a responsum (110). He ascribes it to R. Gershom. The custom is mentioned by R. Eliezer b. Nathan (Raben, ed. Prague 93c, RMP 770) but he speaks of no ordinance on the subject. In Maharil (Customs of Penitential Days, ed. Cremona 56b) mention is made of one who pronounced a herem during the penitential season in order to have his lost articles returned by the finder. R. Jacob Molin was angered, it is said, because the person had so little thought of the sanctity of the period as to be concerned about a mere monetary matter. He objected too, to the pronunciation of a herem during those days since it partook of the character of an oath. While the ordinance before us guaranteed to the members of the communities the right of pronouncing a herem compelling those who might find strayed property to return it, the custom itself was older than the ordinance of R. Gershom. In one of his responsa R. Gershom himself discusses the rights of the ‘‘communities”’ to compel the finders of articles to return them, although under the letter of Talmudic law they might be excused. (RFL 94 and Hayye Olam ed. Goldberg et Adelman p. 29). Nor was this custom limited to France and Germany. A question addressed to R. Solomon ibn Adret shows that the custom prevailed at least in some Spanish communities (Res. Ibn Adret, 4, 104). In another form, however, the custom was even more widespread. We hear very often of a herem similar to that contemplated in the Takkanah before us, being announced to compel witnesses to come and testify. Professor Ginzberg calls my attention to a reference to such a custom in so old a source as Vayikra Rabba, chapter 6. (See his Unbe- CHAT EE TG. 131 herem compelling anyone having information about the lost article to inform him. None may refuse to submit to the herem under the plea that he is ready to be tried in Court. ? So is the law stated in the Book of Barzilai,? in the res- kannte Juedische Sekte pp. 171-2). In that case there is no mention of any herem; the hazzan merely announces that all who know anything about a certain theft are required to come forth and testify. In a question addressed to Rashi mention is made of the pronouncement of a formal herem in such a case (RFL 29). We read of such a provision .in Raben (Prague 59d) and elsewhere (RMP 319, RMB p. 31, e¢ al.) It is clear that this was a revised form of the ancient Shebuot Ha-Edut, (Lev. chapter 5, and M. Shebuot, chapter 4). Instead of demanding that each individual swear that he had not heard about the litigation or the stolen or lost article, the custom naturally developed of taking the whole Congregation under oath by means of a herem. Thefts and losses being the most common matters about which one needs witnesses and yet does not know where to seek them, they are most commonly mentioned. But we hear on one occasion of a custom to clear titles to property by means of such a herem. In some communities no one could sell landed property without a herem being pronounced asking all those who knew of any flaw in the title to reveal it to the Elders of the Community or to the buyer (RMC 262). That this herem to compel people to testify is akin to the ancient Witnesses’s Oath, can be seen from the fact that other oaths underwent similar development. Thus we read in a responsum of R. Hai in Shaare Zedek (483) that if one has general suspicion against a person but not sufficient evidence to compel him to take an oath, one may announce a herem against the whole Congregation including that man. (Comp. also Teshubot Ha-Geonim Lyck 22, Mordecat Shebuot 706, Raben Sanhedrin 24). The close correspondence between these two customs was seen by the compiler of M who refers to the quotation from R. Judah Barceloni, given in the text of several of the sources. t The expression p> 3 which is here used is the one ordinarily employed in German texts, or rather those of the Rhine country, for going to Court in a litigation. It corresponds of course to the Talmudic expression xvq> mm) (Compare xv7> inn, Shebuot, 30a.) The ordinary expression in Hebrew for going to war is monbnd a and perhaps the conception of a litigation as a contest led to the coining of the phrase. 2 The work referred to is doubtless the code of R. Judah Barceloni. It is expressly mentioned in one of the variants. (See also Halber- stam’s introduction to R. Judah Barceloni’s Commentary on the Sefer Yezirah). 132 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES ponsa and ordinances of the Geonim. ‘‘No* defendant can be compelled to take an oath regarding a claim in which the plaintiff is not positive. Yet one may declare a herem binding the community, including the suspect to confess the truth. No one may prevent the pronunciation of such a herem. The words of the Geonim, remarks Barzeloni, should be observed and one may bind a community by a herem provided no one is mentioned by name.” M 5. If? the Kahal has estab- lished an ordinance to help the poor? or for any other purpose with the agreement of the majority, the minority may not refuse to obey it saying, ‘‘Let us go to Court to discuss the matter’’, for everything depends on the opinion of the Elders’ of the City, according to the ancient custom or the needs of the hour. S If the members of a Commun- ity are establishing an or- dinance to help the poor or for any other purpose and most of those worthy to de- cide have agreed to it, the others may not ignore the ordinance, and claim that they wish to discuss it in Court, for no Court may sit in such a case, since every- thing depends on the opinion of the Elders of the City for such is the custom of the ancients. : * The quotation is found only in M and PB. A custom similar to the one mentioned is recorded in Shaare Zedek, p. 83, Teshubot Ha- Geoniin, ed. Lyck, 22, and Mordecai Shebuot 706. I have not, however, been able to locate the quotation. 2 This ordinance is quoted by R. Meir b. Baruch. See RMB p. 209. 3 M must have been the original form of the ordinance. As it stands in most of the texts it is full of obvious self-contradictions. The expression ‘‘and they are among the worthy ones”’ is a paranthetical one inserted quite peculiarly in the midst of a sentence. It is evidently a later addition. 4 The reason for specifying the helping of the poor is not clear. It is possible that originally that ordinance dealt only with the ques- tion of raising money for charity, and that later scribes added “‘or other Takkanot’’. 5 It is clear that the expression ‘‘the members of a community make a Takkanah’’ does not mean that the Takkanah was put to ae CHAPTER I 133 6. Ift one has left books with his neighbor for safe- keeping the trustee may not retain them because of any claim that he may have against the owner. In regard vote, for that is denied by the expression ‘‘the majority agree’’. It would be most unnatural to express in this form the thought that a resolution had been passed by the majority. It seems to me that ‘‘the people of the city’’ refers to a council; perhaps the council of seven. Perhaps we should read ym °aw as the Council is usually called. If we assume that to be the meaning, the ordinance becomes very lucid. “Tf the council proposes a Takkanah, for the sake of the poor or other- wise, and the majority of the community agree to it, but a minority object, then the minority cannot set aside the Takkanah, saying we will come to Court against you. For no court can sit in such a matter. It all depends upon the will of the best men of the city (provided of course the majority agree)’’. See Part I. p. 51 for the various concep- tions of the rights of the community. t The difficulties in regard to this section are numerous. First, it is the only section in which there occurs the name of an authority. Secondly, the authority mentioned is R. Tam, who was born about the year 1100, more than half a century after the death of R. Gershom. If we assume that it is of later origin, there are other difficulties to trouble us. We find R. Samson of Sens (d. c. 1215) deciding a case in which the principle of this ordinance was involved making no mention of either R. Gershom or R. Tam. A and B, two brothers, owned some books in common. One of the books was used as a text book by the son of B. Later A and B divided their property and the book which was being used by B’s son fell to the lot of A. For a time A did not object his nephew using his book. But soon be began to insist that the book be returned. The young man claimed that A owed him some money and that he would keep the book until the debt was paid. R. Samson says in his responsum: “‘It is true that there is an ancient herem against retaining because of a claim anything which came to one’s hands as a loan or as a pledge’’ (RMP 479, Res. Maim. Mish- patim 21). Now R. Samson does not distinguish between books and other property in the matter of retaining. He thinks that there is an ancient herem in regard to any retention of pledges. But he could hardly have referred to a Takkanah of R. Tam as an ancient herem, since the years of R. Tam’s greatest activity coincide with R. Samson’s student days. Moreover, it is most probable that if he had known of the Takkanah from our compilation he would have made mention of R. Gershom or R. Tam. But the matter is even more confused. We have a decision of R. Tam, himself, in a case similar to the one described referring to the ordinance as an ancient enactment. In that case two men had gone into 134 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES to this is there an ancient herem, but R. Tam added that no article left in trust may be retained except that a teacher may retain the book in which the pupil has studied but nothing else. ’ business together. The one had supplied the capital, and the other was to manage the business. The profits were to be divided equally. Jewish law looks upon the manager in such a case as bailee in regard to the half of the funds, the profits of which belong to the investor. He is a borrower in regard to half of the funds, since the returns on it belong to him. (Baba Mezia 104b). In ‘the case before R. Tam, the ac- tive partner, pleading certain claims against the owner of the capital, refused to return the invested money. A local court had decided that the seizure of the bailments had been illegal and that the manager would have to make restitution and then sue for his claims in the or- dinary way. On appeal, R. Tam sustained the decision of the local court, explaining that there is ‘“‘an ancient herem”’ against retaining bailments for any cause. (RMP 335, RMB p. 2, Res. Maim. Mish- patim 1, Mordecat, Baba Mezia (9, 404). It is clear then that R. Tam could not have originated the extension of the herem to other things than books for he would certainly not mention an ordinance of his own as an ‘‘ancient ordinance’’, It is singular, too, that while he speaks of the Takkanah as ancient, he does not ascribe it to R. Gershom. R. Eliezer b. Joel Ha-Levi, a younger contemporary of R. Samson of Sens, gives us some clarifying facts. He tells us that in his day there were different customs in regard toretention of bailments. ‘‘ There are places in our country”’, he writes in Germany, ‘‘ where the custom prevails not to retain any books which have been loaned as security for debt. But there are places where that custom holds only in regard to teachers of children where the teacher may retain the book only in order to obtain due payment.’” (RMB p. 1, 3 and see RMP 576, 663). In France we have seen that everything was held to fall under the scope of the ordinance, . This then is what seems to have happened. There was an ancient German herem against retaining books. There was a similar French custom which protected all bailments. It is the German custom which | is referred to in our text as the ‘‘custom of the ancients’. R. Tam merely extended the custom of France to all the communities. The original Takkanah with the change introduced by R. Tam, was still further amended by a later scholar who wanted to include his local custom, limiting the prohibition to teachers and permitting even for them the seizing of text books only in order to insure payment of tui- tion fees. The whole was then added to the Takkanot of R. Gershom, to which they do not belong at all. For this code deals almost entirely with communal matters, and this is a matter between individuals. . | CHAPTER I 135 M 7. If* a contribution has been assessed against a per- son he may not summon the collector to Court until he has paid the tax either in cash or given a pledge for itsvalue. After that he may summon the collector to Court. Even before he pays he may make complaint without appearing in Court until the collector does what seems right to the commun- ity. Otherwise a ruthless man might deprive a mem- ber of the community of his property and declare that he is collecting it as a tax.? 5 The agents of a Community who are collecting a tax, whether with the help of Jews or Gentiles, and the as- sessors, cannot be summened to Court until the tax has been paid in cash or pledges. After the tax has been paid suit may be brought against anyone who acted illegally. Evenbefore payment is made, however, if one feels that his rights are being violated he may make complaint until justice is done him, and the wrong righted in ac- cordance with the view of the Elders of the Community. Otherwise the collector might use the tax as a pre- text to take from him an exorbitant sum. t The custom described in this ordinance is well established. * See RMP 708, RMB 414, RMC 49, RMR 371, HOS 275. The section is quoted in the responsa of R. Joseph Colon (17) as an ordinance of R. Gershom. 2 There is good reason for believing that even M represents an outgrowth from an older text. dicts itself. First as M stands before us it contra- It begins by saying that one cannot cite the collector or assessor to Court, and ends by permitting one to complain “‘with- out calling a Court’’. It is clear that the ‘“‘complaining”’ is only an evasion, for surely it would require a Court to decide what was fair taxation and to state ‘‘what seems best to the Community’’. Some of the texts, (L, P etc.) try to avoid the difficulty by assuming that one may complain only when ‘‘the gift (contributed) itself’’ is wrongly as- sessed against one. But those are obviously mere attempts to rectify a difficult text. It is evident that originally there was no provision for “complaining without a Court’. Moreover, the various texts are so confused about the “‘assessors’’ and the ‘‘collectors’’ that it is clear that there has been some juggling with them also. There can be no 136 ' JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 8. Villagers' who come to the large communities on Yom Kippur and bring their candles, called czerges, must place them in the synagogue Villagers?3 who come to a larger community for prayers must place their Yom Kip- pur candles in the synagogue for such is a herem. for there is a herem concern- ing the matter. If they have two candles, they must place one in the syna- gogue, and the other may be placed in their own lo- cality where they pray privately. doubt that originally attention was paid only to the assessors. If they found difficulty in having the assessment paid, they would appeal to the Gentiles for help. The later compiler or copyist could not under- stand why any attempt should be made to restrain the assessor when it was really the one who was collecting through Gentile powers that was at fault and so he added also the “‘collector’’. That there was no provision originally for special cases is evident from the Takkanot Shum (9), where the Three Communities adopted this in principle as a local Takkanah. There is no mention there of any “complaining without a court’. R. Meir b. Baruch, who appears to have had only the first five sections of the compilation before him, knows the principle involved in this Takkanah as an ordinance of the “ancients”’ (see references in previous note), but he, too, does not know of any right to complain in the synagogue in such a case before paying the assessment in money or securities. 1 In the case of this section we are more fortunate, as the original text is retained in one of the recensions (S). The simple rule is there laid down that villagers caming to larger cities for public worship on the High Holidays, must set their Yom Kippur candles in the synagogue in which they pray on Yom Kippur rather than in their homes. The word my here has the same sense as in the phrase mxp mMy nnn (B.Sabbath 22b). When the Takkanah spread the custom developed of having two candles, the one for the synagogue in which one prayed on Yom Kippur, the other for one’s local place of prayer. The writer of K misunderstood the word my, and took it to mean “leave’’. He added, in order to be more explicit, ‘he shall leave what remains of the candle”. The later writers strayed still farther from the original by inserting, ‘“‘and the second he shall bear with him to the place where he prays regularly”. The original custom was doubtless to kindle the second candle in. the village place of worship for the Day of Atone- ment; the writers, however, thought that both candles were brought to CHAPTER I 137 9. All! vows which are taken in the synagogue must be paid in that city in accordance with the custom of the city? and its ordinances, if it has an established custom. 10. Frome the beginning of Adar till Purim, those who pass through cities and vil- lages in which permanent are obliged by an ancient herem to pay the Purim tax for the benefit of the poor of the locality services are held. If no one requests Anyone passing through a locality in which regular services are held, after the beginning of Adar is obliged to pay the Purim tax if a demand for payment is made. If no request for payment is made the herem does not apply. payment of the tax, the traveler is free from the herem.§ 11. If° there are only ten men in the synagogue, none of them is permitted to leave until the hazzan has completed the City Synagogue, and that after the fast was over, the villagers left the remnant of the one candle in that synagogue. The remnant of the second he might take with him to his home place of service. In later times the custom of leaving the remnants of the candles in the Synagogue does not seem to have been prevalent. It is told both of Maharil (Minhagim, Cremona 69a) and of R. Israel Isserlein Leket Yosher p. 142) that they took remains of the candle to their homes in order to pronounce the Habdalah over them. « This section is omitted from P. It has come down substantially in its original form in all the other recensions. 2 K fixes the term of payment at one year. Paying a vow with- in a year is required by Talmudic law (Rosh Ha-Shanah 4b). 3 In Tashbez (173) we read that in a place which has no perma- nent minyan one may retain the Purim tax to give it to a community where there is such a minyan. 4 In the well-known responsum of R. Eliezer b. Isaac of Bohemia to R. Judah the Pious, RMR 112, mention is made of the custom of using the Purim tax to support the hazzan of the synagogue. It is not likely that the custom in this regard was uniform. Probably our ordinance contemplates gifts to the poor. 5 This custom must have been widespread since we find a Middle Age parody to this Takkanah. See Davidson, “Parody in Jewish Literature’, p. 136, no. 14, 6 This section also occurs as the ae section of the secondary recension of the Takkanot ascribed to R. Tam, see below p. 192. 138 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES his prayers. If, however, the hazzan has begun the re- cital of Kaddish or Kedushah in the presence of a quorum (ten persons), he may complete it even if one has left. Thus far have I copied from the Manuscript of R. Moses of Verona’, but I, Jehosifiah Benjamin,? claim that the law is found in the Josefta,s which reads: “If some of the men present have left, he may complete the service, but to all such as leave the services under such circum- stances, we apply the verse: And they that forsake the Lord shall be consumed.’’4 12. It is written that it is forbidden to disturb the prayers on Sabbaths or Festivals unless the complainant has attempted to interrupt them three times during the week days without success. In case of matters of public concern, the prayers may be interrupted even on such days. * See Berliner, in Hebraetsche Bibliographie, XII. 39, and Gross, Gallia Judaica, p. 129. both of whom transliterate ‘‘Verona,’’ but compare Lauer in J.J. L.G. XII, p. 19, who proves that Verona would be written xn. 2 The writer of the Munich Talmud Ms. 3 I have been unable to find the statement in the Tosefta, but it is found in Jer. Megillah 4.4. In some of the later texts it is quoted in the name of R. Nissim. The earliest text mentioning him is K. We know from the Shibbale Ha-Leket (ed. Buber, p. 10) and from RMP 766 that it is taken from Megillat Setarim of R. Nissim. 4 Isaiah [.23. a ee | CHAE LE ROT REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE SUSPENSION OF THE HEREM AGAINST PLURAL MARRIAGES AND SIMILAR REGULATIONS. The following regulations occur as has been stated in chapter I, p. 112, in every text of TRG except S. The variants are therefore here given under the same notation as is used in regard to that text. In addition to those texts use has also been made of AA (Hebrew 88), which is an old German recension of these regulations found in RMP 1022. AA, M, and K, have been printed below in parallel columns. AA and M are printed in full since they are the oldest representatives of the German and French texts respectively, while K presents several interest- ing variants which made it advisable to give it completely. The variants from E and C are attached to AA, which they resemble most; those from JA, JB and V to M, to which they are most nearly akin; and the rest are given as variants to K, because while the development of K has in the case of these regulations somewhat obscured its relationship to the group P-PB-PC-PF-H-L, it is certain that they are akin tLowit. TEXT rT 3 NS wan ow iDanM oawanionaw ona mb>apainapnonn.s sw swe oxdw pwn) a) .Ov WS ONT .N) 1 _ OW WES mbnpn nipn anim Ov WAT ON OY OWT IPA Ww LN W377 OY WS ONT 71.7) OU) ox xe oxdw it) 2) 2 xwrrdy im .wapd xbw on Ly enw 1) 3 omy 2nd xdow ony pao mpynnd ps ow svowD OWI MNDI “N11 42938 ID MPI at Nt yan owe 1 OY WN nywd xbw var 2 mbonp wowo .ar Nt. 3 mixx wown HDAS SPAY TWaDOs Ni 4 DIY NIT WDD war 27ND OWT PAI ow ny awd spya ndun pao avna> pr ow MSN 4'V9 DWI TNA 5 mbapm mpn .4 1 Ci IND: th ste oy. .7 3 msax ‘9 mbmp ‘wo .7 4 NTT WMD) ANU 3 79 myt 9 mM>baAp 9 nN SANTIITN PAY) Ww" wy 140 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES iT pa rena? px 40, nbrp7'1o GO WIN SIND SPIN WD MEIN 1) pb) npqx mn mand lity 1020” xd 97 pnb aman DYD INTY L2NANw py IMS. anand NAN) ANI JON) “PA AA ANAS 13,.Myoa IW MN DwpA mpn on 14538 .2 oP 1 4 silldalsaeeaee Sd) ON 2251 6 19° oh TNISaN.... ap 7 em an smbap 29 myx nvnon 39.1.9 moa "39 NyTIONU) «ONOVIN LN 8 MBAS) UX .2) NANI —)) NPI wy .ANTTand TANYDN wT) WD) ATID "8 .T) NDI) ANTIADIN 2 OWN ANMD 31 JNDAX) NOIR NTN .T)) .OMN .1) 27.37 N19 pina mx omKx.m .'> on stynnd isp xbw mMs8 YN" ,7) 10 pyo IND XO ON WM 11 a NTnY wT) aN) 12 72 nnn) WN Anan .2) MNDwWOI IN MyDd3 7DN} ma 7A nnd Anais WAN 7) MYDD IX MNDWD3 IN 7 m7") Ann ADT NAN MmndwN3 IX MydA yOX 72 yoy Sapow nvm a) 13 mo PIX yD 02 NNN SSN 19 PAS PR pnd DAN .77.97,77 .2,.3),8) 14 anxd mexm wan odbappe snown jow> .m .'> wm = SONS ON NBA ANTI WT? XD cox DDD" NO ~hn> «Nap 7oyy an¥ ANN. NAN Myna }ON] Pa nnn .MNDWdI IN poapow span .3 oaann ypdy sow 722 .O7 (a1 WNT 5 TUN TY 12 DST ...0N 6 ONTO TY .atkt ONY 7372 2 oyY .at Nt 7 now nes wad ar pn any7D smbonpm on war wet 8 JNM.At NT TWN) WN .2 9 2p nown and abo 12 10D TIS at Nt .2 10 [WN .ot OWN WNT ND enn SS xd om on m>rp ‘10 Dy INTwW TY ws jax. nnd aap TS sanan> NANw 6MYyda joOX) 73 NNN .MNDWDA IN 7bapow = =oam .2 sax 95" pby sinnn rane) .n mann .1 5 .mnain> .MydD2 I% MNDWwA .7 6 .MNDwo2 IX NNW Myd3 .n Sapow .n 47 ynna .n .7 cyd>y jnnn s 72M Oy Fe Bs Sh = ie iT PR 1eparTw ism >mpn SAN "YD 1774 xba 7 nowm .3 oon vw onn nbap Lon» p> Ly’ 7p w 2098 —P nownr a1 oaiowswa anad sy pnd pawn ps NON) T7130 DyY INTw nana). 7A ANans IN MNDwWNA ON] Tr (myn bapow 2207NmM .4 OWI MND 1D WD WN yas ps Js monn MEAN "WD moa mynd Fax v1 15 MND DIP 0.7 wa spnnd px dws. end 19> 2m wrx owdwa xox ‘on x’> omoynnd NK 7D WIN wa 1 71.3) 1 16 STS 7) JN Pw 2117 NNTP .T wa) LN) 18 NNTP MN ey TO eee ow>wa and 4x .m 20 OND xba mond pr wn 21 9°72" OYN) 7) 13D OYY £1273 Dy2 IN Ty pnd axva 5 'T MpyD] 22 ama mbyod yyy msm Lay CHAPTER II | ‘YO Pr¥ Lops) ANDI IT nba 7 mown .2 oon w onn nbap nown o»p> mnoap Bow>ya waanm 7? Oyo intw ay 147501 spnmd asian bax .ar.ar ops bax 111 wkd pnd w JN Wor Nt. 12 LOVIN "ID WT NT 13 wT PR p31 WNT 14 penad oyy ww ty. nad “pn7? nyy ws? on 7513) 21 NS yew 10ox"s) pnd aND MSN ID Syi'r7p o1M .3 nbap xba 7 mown 7 nownr7 apd izo7n ow>wa nnd w qs pyy pox odio 16.ynad isan spas ps bax 4 5 'ynotp om .4 YNDTP ON wy 7 12 0 13 nip 5201 .7 .qWw13d .7 rica 142. © JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES AA 1. The! herem of the ordinance of the com- munities established by R. Gershom Me- or Ha-Golah? against TRANSLATION M 1, The herem de- clared by R. Ger- shom against mar- rying two wives may not be suspended ex- Ks 1. The herem de- clared by R. Ger- shom against marry- ing two wives may not be suspended ex- t This text is not properly an ordinance at all. It is a state- ment of the conditions necessary to suspend the operation of the herem of R. Gershom against plural marriage. Gross in Gallia Judaica (p. 237) imagines that it is an amendment of R. Tam’s to the famous Takkanah of his predecessor. But that view is untenable. We shall see (p. 145) that the latter parts of this text were unknown to R. Yehiel of Paris. While it is true that the first section may be, and probably is, earlier than the second and the third, we have no reason for assuming that it is the work of R. Tam. Gross’s opinion is very likely based on the ascription of TRG in one text to R. Tam (See RMP 153). But we have seen that this section was only in later times added to TRG, and that the ascription of that text to R. Tam is erroneous. 2 It is generally recognized that the herem against polygamy was promulgated by R. Gershom. R. Meir of Padua, however, believed that it was the work of R. Samson b. Abraham of Sens (France about 1200). In a responsum (13) R. Meir quotes R. Joseph ibn Habib as saying, ‘‘although R. Samson of blessed memory instituted a herem in the presence of many scholars, that one may not commit bigamy, in a case such as this (where there are no children by the first wife) the Rabbis did not institute the ordinance. This is the opinion of the French scholars as quoted in a responsum of R. Solomon ibn Adret.”’ This quite astonishing news which is unsupported by any other evidence, we are at first tempted to ascribe to a copyist’s blunder since three of the letters of pw. and pwow are identical (Gershom often being written Gershon). But that the error, if it be one, is really R. Meir’s is evident from the statement made somewhat later, that “‘it is possible that the author, (R. Joseph ibn Habib), makes a distinction between the ordinances of R. Gershom and R. Samson.” It is clear, therefore, that R. Meir actually believed that R. Samson had made a Takkanah which differed in some respects from that of R. Gershom. At first sight the matter gains plausibility because of the statement of R. Solomon ibn Adret that the Takkanah of R. Gershom lapsed automatically with the year 5000 A.M. (1240C.E). It would be natural, if that be true, for R. Samson, who lived a little before the time of the expiration of the Takkanah to have renewed it, perhaps with amend- ments.- Unfortunately the statement of R. Solomon ibn Adret regard- AA marrying two wives may not be suspend- ed except by one hundred men from three countries and from three commun- ttiest. These men shall not agree to suspend the herem unless a cogent rea- son is given for the request and unless the payment of the Ketubah is assured either by cash or other guarantee. CHAPTER II M cept by one hundred men from three pro- vinces like Anjou, Normandy, and Isle de France. ‘These men shall not agree to suspend the herem unless a cogent rea- son is given for the request and unless the payment of the Ketubah is assured either by cash or other guarantee. 143 K cept by one hundred men from three com- munities and from three countries, like Aragon, Lombardy and France. These men shall not agree to suspend the herem unless a cogent res- son is given for the request, (and unless the payment of the Ketubah is assured either by cash or other guarantee). ing the temporary character of the Takkanah of the Light of the Dis- persion, is itself in need of verification. Ibn Adret’s statement is not found in his published responsa, but is quoted by R. Joseph Colon (Res. 101). But according to that citation Ibn Adret’s authority was very indefinite. He was unable, apparently to name the source of his information, and said, ‘I heard it in the name of the French scholars.’’ Had the information which reached Ibn Adret had a true basis, how could we explain the fact that in all the French and German discussions of the Ordinance of R. Gershom, there never occurs any reference to this time limit. Is it conceivable that so important a matter would be overlooked by the many scholars who deal with subject? One is forced to the conviction that Ibn Adret’s authority was inaccurate. If we abandon the theory that the ordinance of R. Gershom lapsed in 1240, we’cannot understand why any renewal of it should have been necessary. It was observed by all and it would have appeared unnecessary for a scholar of the twelfth or thirteenth century to renew the ordinances of R. Gershom. (See Takkanot Shum Text M, end, below, p. 23). We must therefore assume that the statement of Takkanah is based on a misreading of the Nimmuke Joseph. This belief is corroborated by the fact that our editions of the Nimmuke Joseph have R. Gershom where R. Meir reads R. Samson. (See Nimmuke Joseph, Yebamot 39b) We must therefore come to the conclusion that R. Samson had nothing whatever to do with the Takkanah, neither amending nor renewing it. * Rosenthal (Hildesheimer Festschrift p. 40ff) accepts the reading 144 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES ‘“‘of three countries, of three communities’? as more original. He believes that originally the Takkanah was made by R. Gershom for the three communities of Speyer, Worms and Mayence. It should be suspended therefore on!y by the consent of representatives of these communities. When the Takkanah was extended to all of Germany and France. the requirement was made to have 100 men from three provinces. The words, ‘‘of three provinces’’ were then inserted, and the original reading kept as well. Sorunsthe argument. It is not, however, acceptable (see also above, p. 24). If the Takkanah had been established only for the three communities, it would doubtless have been liable to abrogation by the representatives of the three communities, just as writs of divorce could be granted by representatives of the three communities, properly elected, without requiring 100 men, selected without any regard to station. Moreover, it is scarcely credible that a Takkanah intended only for the three communities should have gained such wide vogue. Even the later Takkanot of the Three Communities were in reality the decisions of Synods representing the whole of the Rhine country. Knowing what we do of R. Gershom’s synodal activity, it is very prob- able, to say the least, that this most important and best known of his ordinances should have been made by one of the Synods of his time. Finally, Rosenthal seems to imply that this section dates back to R. Gershom. ‘That is unlikely. It speaks of R. Gershom in the third person and could not have formed part of the text of his ordinance it- self. If we assume, therefore, that R. Gershom originally intended this Takkanah at least for all the German communities, if not for all those of France, as well, we must interpret the words, ‘‘of three communi- ties of three provinces”’ as being merely a legal redundancy. What is wanted is that the 100 men come from three provinces. It is possible of course, that in earlier times, when the Takkanah was limited to Ger- many, the requirement was only that the 100 men be of any three communities—not the three communities, as Rosenthal would have it. It may even be that the confusion arose out of a misunderstanding of the word Medinot originally used in the regulations and still found in text M. This word has regularly in Hebrew texts from Arabic-speaking countries, and at times also from other countries, the meaning of city. It would be natural that as the Jewish communities of the West de- veloped and the word Medinah came in Germany and France to be limited more and more to the connotation of ‘‘province,’’ that two interpretations should arise. As usual both variants crept into the texts. In any case it is probable that when the French Jews accepted the Takkanah the people felt that the 100 men ought to come from three different provinces. This hypothesis gains color from the fact that in every case where provinces are mentioned by name in the earlier texts, they are French provinces. When the Takkanah spread further, the demand was made that the releasing Rabbis hail from at least three different countries. The scribes in accordance with this new AA 2. The herem! taken upon himself by a betrothed man (to keep his engage- ment) also may be set aside? only by one hundred (men) but they need not come from three different countries. CHAPTER II M 3. The herem which people take upon themselves may be set aside by one hundred (men) but they need not come from different countries, 145 K 2. But the herem regarding engage- ments may be set aside by people not living in different countries. interpretation, intentionally or unintentionally, misread the original text in regard to the names of the provinces. For Normandy they substituted Lombardy; for Anjou, in some cases Hungary in others Aragon, and so forth. These variants will be found in the notes. t It was customary to re-enforce the Takkanah against breach of engagement by having the parties undertake under the herem to marry. This custom is referred to in the list of Takkanot. It is also mentioned in another case in connection with R. Yehielof Paris. Since Jewish law requires the widow of a husband who died without children to marry his brother or undergo the ceremony of Halizah it became customary for childless husbands on their deathbeds to grant their wives writs of divorce, with the understanding of course, that should they recover they would renew their marriage. R. Yehiel would engage them for the re-marriage under the herem, before they were divorced (Kol Bo 141). The betrothal and its release are mentioned again in connection with R. Yehiel. In a case that came before him, he de- cided that only thirty persons from three provinces were needed to re- ease them. The one hundred persons ‘‘were needed only in the case of the herem against compulsory divorce’’ (Mordecai, ed. Riva, Yeb- amot. 1.742). That differs materially from the custom as described in the text before us, which required for the release of the ‘“‘betrothal under the herem’’ one hundred persons not necessarily from three provinces, and for that of the ‘‘betrothal without the herem” thirty persons. The customs instituted by R. Yehiel in this connection spread far and wide continuing for many centuries (Res. R. Meir Lublin, 123). There can be no doubt, however, that the reading of M is the older and that the rule applied in the first instance to any herem taken by a person upon himself or herself. 2 A very interesting case came beforé R. Meir b. Baruch (Hagahot Mordecai Niddah 781) under this section. A young man who had been affianced to a girl became an apostate. She was afraid to choose another 146 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 3. It is an ancient herem thatan engage- ment in the case of which pledges have been placed as se- curity should be ob- served even though the parties did not bind themselves by aherem.* Butitmay be released by thirty men. In all these cases a cogent rea- son must be given for the release. 2. An engagement in the case of which pledges have been placed as security without a _ herem should be observed according to an an- cient herem, but it may be released by thirty men; but in all these cases a cog- ent reason must be given for the re- lease. 3. An engagement in the case of which pledges have been placed as security without a herem should be observed according to an an- cient herem, but it may be suspended by thirty people. In all these cases the reason forsuspension of the herem must be made clear. 4. If a man binds himself by a herem he can be released only by one hundred persons but they need not come from three countries. in his place because of the herem. But R. Meir decided that so long as he remained outside the fold, she was not bound to him. Should he repent, however, she would have to accept him in spite of the blemish, provided of course she had not in the meantime been engaged to another. t A betrothal without the herem is, of course, less binding then a betrothal under the herem. Just what the ceremony of betrothal consisted of, it is not easy to state. From some sources it would seem that the parties gave security to guarantee their maintaining their promises. This can be seen from an oft quoted responsum of Rashi (Sefer Ha-Orah 141, RFL 27, RMC 90, Res. Maim. Kinyan, 26). He says, ‘“‘and in regard to your inquiry concerning the case of R who engaged his niece to his son, and they affirmed their words and placed the guarantees in the hands of the kablanim.’’ The German-Yiddish expression for engagements—knas legen—would seem to bear out this idea. On the other hand in the more ancient Ma‘aseh Ha-Geonim, p. 65, the expression 7 nown is used merely as referring to the ceremony of betrothals. We read there, ‘‘And if he did not marry her in accord- ance with the Biblical custom, but only in accordance with the local custom, where they put a covering on the head of the bride as the CHAPTER IT 147 sign of engagement’’. It is possible, of course, that besides the custom of covering the future bride’s head, there was the further depositing of the securities. The expression 7 nown which originally meant “giving a handsel’”’ as pledge that one intends to marry the other, came to mean the pledges by which the promises were secured, but which were not a necessary part of the ceremony. The two parties might trust each other to pay the fines eventually. The word Shid- dukin itself, properly meaning betrothal, underwent a similar develop- ment in meaning. In a passage in Kol Bo (124:31) it means nothing else than the pledges by which the betrothal is guaranteed. In Or Zarua (Sanhedrin 28) we hear of a custom to declare the engagement before the ‘“‘best men of the city”’, that is, the council, so that it might have communal sanction and thus be the more binding. See also the Geonic Responsum cited in Jttur, Pesakim I, 66d. CHAPTER III TAKKANAH OF RASHI In Hagahot Asheri (Baba Batra chapter II, section 11) we are told that ‘Rashi ordained in France that if one has money belonging to his neighbor, with the arrangement that one half of the gain is to be given to the investor and one half to the manager, the manager must pay taxes on the half of the capital, the gain of which is his. If the capital belongs to Gentiles, one need pay nothing. Regard- ing places where this ordinance does not hold, R. Tam stated in a responsum that the manager need not pay any taxes on the capital with which he is doing business.” In the responsa of R. Meir b. Baruch (ed. Berlin, p. 320) occurs the text of a Takkanah ascribed to ‘‘R. Solomon of Troyes” which contains the first of the ordinances cited in the name of Rashi in Hagahot Ashert, but in which no provision is made for exempting from taxes investments by Gentiles, when made through a Jew. This omission should not, however, argue against the identification of the Takkanah with that of Rashi, since a comparison of the text of Hagahot Asheri, with that of a cresponsum of R. Tam, quoted in Mordecai, Baba Kamma, 10.179, wil! show that the original Takkanah did not exempt the invest- ments made by Gentiles through Jews except by implica- tion. In Mordecai we read: mop sinw oxnm yo 8bs um xd ons Swe nnd ar mabna pimw mo pp NOS Ta ko Mbp NIMwoO“NT yO BNI IPS Nimw oxnm yo xd Ppa Ad7 obD oan ps on Swo ob2 nyt ndonnn oy apw ND J2 spy” oder msds -ypr mobw wa ypn 4D) ‘As for the custom which is prevalent in this kingdom of paying taxes on the capital invested with one by other people, that custom applies only to the half, the profits CHAPTER III 149 of which belong to the agent. Even in that case they pay only because they have undertaken to do so by general consent. And one pays no taxes on the capital invested by Gentiles since it 1s considered a batlment. ‘Thus did R. Solomon, my grandfather, ordain in our kingdom.”’ (The text of the Mordecaz is to be compared with the Nimmukim of R. Menahem Merseburg, printed at the end of the Hanau edition of Res. R. Jacob Weil). : It is more than likely that it was R. Tam who stressed the fact that one ‘‘does not pay on the money invested by Gentiles,’’ but since that clause was put in its present place, it seemed to the copyist that it was part of the Takkanah of Rashi. There is to be no reason therefore for refusing to accept the following text as that of the Takkanah of Rashi. A summary of the contents of this Takkanah is given in part I (p. 37), and it is therefore unnecessary to add a translation here. TEXT Tyna wbx yn mmpap wws mbap ay wy ww wns ‘yo joxy oxs> exw ym xbw iso oot oes ws do by anon Nyx TNT podwa O8 O) ND IN OV on Tax 'y $3 mw wn pyan oy diya yap xbw axa Osc nyt Stand m7 orm yo ynse rpapm pobwn Sy nat yrne> on nwo Spr xbdi syn ocaoinsw mo Dd iby said 's b> yn onoy ay am oxdm woo Son yn> wid “aw wwnotpo wbap yD) TID OVD WT) WwWND > xd yaa mw on dw yom mrt oD) ons wrovwn Son Jab w ON invansaw psno yo yan Secu ppp io w ox 4S ppm 1 72 w ON) [POT Os | myay ow -wwom ant o>) ADD > 1b ama nm’oainsb’r nb>nnw aston »Son pis dw nyansa mbna Sse J2v wyow 928 1 x? ynw qTIna pr bom yo I mwh Tayy and 10 Jw Wyn jo Kximw pond ww yA oD TINNY ONDIP mp xo) oD ay jo Nd ya non DIDTS Ndi ad wa ox ad bon IND 77 yO ON 1a ndeew sy in x? nn WIS AT ON) OS 1 ~ya mam yor b> ym yo wesim onmiad ws oad mn 2m: sax ya ym vya onminad asa nym nyw p> yym yo dr os i” ynxd> son Sow wpa oes oD INNd w oN Dd IMND wyrwe moby "ano pnyin .onpon Syw jon CHAPTER “EV TAKKANOT OF R. TAM TEXT A. INFORMERS The Takkanah of R. Samuel b. Meir and R. Jacob Tam, his brother, regarding defamation was, as has been shown in Part I, p. 42, probably a direct result of the Second Crusade. We have six texts of this Takkanah before us, of which three have been printed. They are to be found: 1. In RMC 78 (called below RMC, Heb. 4); 2. In Ha-Lebanon, II.91, which text has been published from a Guenzburg Ms. by B. Goldberg. This text is called below D, (Heb. 9); 3. In R.E.J. 17.66, from Br. Mus. Ms. 11639, Margoliouth 1056, published by Neubauer with variants from the Guenzburg Ms. This text we will call N (Heb. 3). The manuscript material consists of: 4. A Halberstam Ms., now in the Montefiore Library (Cat. Hirschfeld, 492, fol. 22ff). This text is referred to as R., Hebrew 7. 5. Another Halberstam Ms., now in the Montefiore Library, (Cat. Hirschfeld, 130). This text is called C, Hebrew 1. 6. A British Museum Ms. (Add, 27129, cac. Margoliouth 1281, ff. 126b-127a). This text is so different from the others that it has been printed separately below, p. 159. Besides these texts there are three abstracts of the Takkanah which so far as can be seen are independent of one another. They are found in the Munich Talmud Ms. (Strack, photographic edition, folio 756a); in the Kol Bo (section 117) and in RMP 1022. These abstracts are of little help in reconstructing the original text. From the RMP text, however, we learn that among those who attended the synod at Troyes which ordained these Takkanot, were R. Eliezer b. Samson of Cologne, and R. CHAPTER IV 151 Eliezer b. Nathan of Mayence. This information we find in no other source. The abstract which is found in Kol Bo (section 117) has retained the language of the original Takkanah to such an extent that it supplies several variants. It is referred to hereinafter as K, Heb. 3 while the variants from the RMP text are marked 8. The abstract which is found in the Munich Talmud Ms. (Strack’s photographic edition, folio 576a reprinted below, p. 191) contains a sec- tion which has no corresponding paragraph in the text of the Takkanah as we have it. This paragraph reads thus: on oTa ps aww pwr own dy Sinn xd on “The herem shall not apply to one who denounces a malshin who has previously denounced him to Gentiles.’’ This provision which is not found in any of the complete texts of the Takkanah, is repeatedly mentioned, usually with disapproval, by R. Meir b. Baruch. In one case (Res. Maim. Neztkin 15; Mordecat, Baba Kamma, end) a cer- tain R. Joel had made statements to Gentiles which were detrimental to a fellow-Jew. His defense was that he had merely acted in vengeance because the other Jew had made similar statements about him. Some scholars were inclined to acquit Joel on the basis of the alleged Takkanah of the Communities justifying acts ‘committed in passion.’’ R. Meir declared that he could not believe that such a Takkanah existed. For the second informer, Joel, had gained nothing by bringing trouble on his adversary. The Communities, at best, might refuse to punish Joel. They could not, however, refuse to award damages to the man who suffered through the denunciation. In another case (RMP 717) a person had been struck by another. The son, seeing his father bleed, became furious and denounced the assailant to the authorities. R. Meir refused to consider his filial ‘‘indignation’’ an excuse. ‘“‘Even if his father had bidden him denounce the other, he should not have done so.”’ In a third case (RMP 994) R. Meir, and recognizes the possibility of the existence of such a Takkanah. A de- nounced B to the authorities because some fifteen years (days?) previously B had bitten his finger until blood flowed 152 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES B summoned A to Jewish Courts for defamation. A pre- sented a double defence. First, he had made no defama- tion. Secondly, if anyone had made any defamation in his behalf, that was done “whilst his heart was hot”. R. Meir as usual believes that in such a case the informer ought to be freed from fines and punishment, which otherwise would be laid upon him, yet he could not be held guiltless for the damage he had done. At the end he adds, however, “But if there is an ordinance of the Communities to free him completely if the act was done in the heat of passion, I do not take issue with an ordinance of the Communities.” On the other hand R. Hayyim Or Zarua (HOS 25) states quite definitely that if a denunciation were committed in time of anger, he would not convict the informer or compel him to pay any damages at all. He even quotes R. Meir in support of this decision. Whatever may have been the source of R. Hayyim’s statement of R. Meir’s views, it is certain that R. Hayyim understood the ordinance as completely freeing the A/alshin in times of indignation. TEXT wamoms wd oa qu wm qenn pind mm imp muon px mp7 op upima oan poy by nppdy npn yow wxan mp aa sminn> 2nnbS nynt ods ty odyna pom wx ond oso mpyind Py yq 40 Ox NINoD ya naxen Stan xd yynd sow dyn NOTTDA w'D) Kya) TOI onwd epT Sew wa ory sia Sy1 ows) oma pin Poynd oiwinn oD way 8x» Oy 77m orm ow on? Sy ydy0) anos wbn aay tatb odin on orada amon) mvay 3275 ow muram worna mp pind wen a yy tpind...nmp 1 yoyo wy samb>> nyn 0 2 YD Dy 3 1.7.2.0 2 [ow 4 ordy) rsa wy .7 0 8 > wa onwy 777 Ly 6 th SF JSD 1 . 8 JIN) 2 IRWIN ,2 9 CHAPTER IV 153 2pon yap ima ws osm ww “pram ad wxyn jy serdoax ouwy mma pwr 3asdxds ob mmoap prs wspay rman z7er 7 dja) ~oam ewndbsp vawy ayn pqNT 20) o7 Sam 10mg °awr) swEwrN spxdo oxyy MDM oD Sav uw mp ona jo md pax cawy wart o> aww) arm swe Sy no00) yim) 2990 TD OPTIAT yDw RS aWN wr IDF 7a ast ans xb ods nos po pam owp> oyow: oda ony? .ana”> OPIN oamp mex ws 55 125y woanm wepn wam ww 41 apPIT Tw yon? Sy wei ww 130) P72 Pan ANS ND WS sows oy (pa omw nyt NSoos vytap yn deny yn ms wis yD oP Syn ond ww mobdnd i6yow sath Syzam ow) .2 1oy’pw) 1807) PAN NN ASD wy wsmims dy wos wan wan wan IN INYAN TAN) OND) 2opIn NP Now IMS DYDD OT 1 1S ON) Py mw mya ONY 21002 2OYD ono NV Nw RNdwI INDD 2272 DwY ADDN yA yA OYE one? Sy yn ony nya Sy 230>y xbw poanm wan wm .3 armaap $51.91 snpax cavr $5 01.9.0 [mD...PT °DdN 2 svbs 73 ww yy 4 rds wy 5 yroxp wy 6 wry) wn 7 NWP) pr? .d 8 WIWIN) .D 9 sinvtianid) .3 10 wmyu 2onopsa wand opintm oanpn mes ws So by ors on xdw oy fom.. by 12 yy on .4 0 13 {> wrt qm .o 14 aanan dy Sn xd sata ony wn tad nab janp Nin os JN GN 15 9316 nN As YY aN WR 217 Lar oie i adpws vy 19 yy 20 bata Le Val Win 7 be SP a opm ie ea psiwoT nok 37 *D Sy pM yr aw IPN VEYD IMy? OF ON OW ww .D 22 combs by os ON’ NOW Ly 23 154 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 172 WAN OPwYD JwNDA peny non yan pwd dyad yyra1 1 epym ony myaw ep by iaxe xd ox Suda o> Sy AS sndsdi Sew 15 yw pesr ora ond Sed woanm isn wim .4 bs yo Tews 529 ren awadi imxad Sy mow dod oxen oon ap dw wont won win Tyr .5 Nam ata xd 2951 oup>r wnys > yew ww qb ~p by van Q@pyay) spyus 1>_N) OWI DoOsy OMY wood mow MaTa Nd LOY snowa) pn moea Np ob>s armon mwoy Sy aym .6 eo-ninn woo sadotay Sse S> pon mr mopwai Nn’D ows OND) wp) ody omsam opebn spodm onpadm oinn ors 7TPODIP DD YIBD FOI} wr emd np rnp wnryn Sy aaymM .7 a7 Ds tom 122 Dx pe qwR MDD OTN WM sinw> wy AaIDM 2y MNP AM OMI vmaw waat ANY wat bs waxy b>p) 10¥N> wNX NOM ON YI pw ~pnoM mobo byr Orwhor MwNIPA ODSxy wm ana 1297 May Ndi yy xd inn yaxs JN ods sa wipo by ws poxn ipyo odtayw nnd: isytpnimd a now mm poy Sim xd nyw ond wy ws aap isqdon mx on) .8 1EMpP YD NAY 2) ww w> wy Anw may xo ory xbdw taba OPN) ANwea joxy num yaw xd) mayno yo xd nviyn aNwa 17D mayn iy) adi ayp TD mow mbow xbs baond > .bore tp abn ono bawd .y .poxn ova andx? ond daw 3. .p 1 ond wb oy 92 spyrax DN) pyuy .y 3 “2 mwp..raym 2 .2nar Sy asym. .ninn ans by aaym .y 4 porns .15 S wWNIWN.......0 INN .3 6 ad>yp on yn wan >> b> wd 7 WDD NP .D wMDD WT. 8 DD ANY .D 9 amyr> .> 10 yy 2.0 1 Ry Hs en A Ps > 3 .y..D 13 .pINT *DY MNDUD .2 .y 14 Senn mvp IW LD 15 by 168 CHAPTER IV 155 2X) ON TAT OW. OY w Tad NAP JAIDN 1791.9 ory psy Sar xd ona vy aad mayan oms So ony mrad mobnd panp 55 pwpad omnnT 1M) .10 neyo 3mm meyd asp awd omdy ops abs wn-vno nos anyon 5a bow = peo ’oma bsinw peo Toma apy .mbw aptsa wring mobw 7’a pny’ 4apy TRANSLATION The introduction which is in the usual style of the French rabbis of the period recites the serious troubles that had come upon the Jews because of denunciations. Some had defamed their fellows in secret, other had committed the crime in public, with equally dire results. The ordinance continues thus: “Therefore have we taken counsel together, the elders of Troyes and her Sages, and those of her vicinity, the Sages of Dijon and its vicinity, the leaders of Auxerre, and of Sens and its suburbs, the elders of Orleans(?), and the vicinity, our brothers, the inhabitants of Ch4alon-sur- Saone,! the Sages of the Rhine country, and our masters of Paris, and their neighbors, the scholars of Melun and Etampes, and the inhabitants of Normandy, and the shore of the sea, and Anjou and Poitiers, the greatest of our gene- ration, the inhabitants of the land of Lorraine; of those men- tioned here, some have already agreed and from some we have not yet heard, but since the matter was pressing, we were confident (in their agreement) knowing that they are great men who listen to their inferiors, and knowing that the decision is a correct one, which if it were not written down, ought to be written down. 1. We have voted, decreed, ordained and declared under the herem, that no man or woman may who bring a fellow- Syoey et etoria poy Sim xd pyran ama on dy myo qya yainm ua ox .2 2 Daa mod "3 pny? a opr "pr yma aa ads wp wD 4 2 Nn ya pny’ .y 4 2 om "3 PID DIT MoM) 7a pny’ Ss>xo apy v3 Synw pwd 5 .o pro ja now yp 5 t See Gallia Judaica, p. 592. 156 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES Jew before Gentile courts or exert compulsion on him through Gentiles, whether by a prince of a common man, a ruler or an inferior official, excent by mutual agreement made in the presence of proper witnesses. 2. If the matter accidentally? reaches the government or other Gentiles, and in that manner pressure is exerted on a Jew, we have decreed that the man who is aided by the Gentiles shall save his fellow from’their hands, and shall secure him against the Gentiles who are aiding him so that the Jew may not be harmed or even be in apprehension because of the Gentiles, nor shall he lose his claim or his property. He shall see to it that his fellow shall be in no fear of them, and he shall make satisfaction to him and se- cure him in such manner as the seven elders of the city will ordain. If there is no such board in his town, he shall act on the order of those of the nearest city in which such are to be found. 3. He shall not intimidate the “seven elders”? through the power of Gentiles. And because the masters of * More noteworthy than the prohibition against taking Jewish litigations to Gentile Courts, is the permission to have them adjusted tnere if both parties agree. The Talmudic law prohibits the use of the Gentile Courts in any case, for ‘‘he who brings a Jewish suit before the tribunals of the idolators profanes the name of God and glorifies the names of the Idols’’ (Gittin 84b). It is evidence of the greater tolerance that was arising among the French rabbis that they do not include Christians in the category of idol-worshippers. The only reason for keeping Jewish litigations in Jewish tribunals was the fear of the injustice of the Gentile courts. Therefore, where both parties agreed the rabbis of France could see no reason for hesitation in bringing matters before them. This is in consonance with the lenient view of some of the French rabbis in regard to wines of Gentiles and similar matters (Comp. Tosafot Aboda Zara 57a, See Part I. p. 41). 2 The position of the Board of Seven in the Medieval communities is not very clear. Josephus speaks of seven judges in each city (Anti- quities, 4, 8.14. Comp. also Acts 6.3). The expression occurs also in Tannaitie sources. We read ‘Seven men from a city may act on behalf of the city, three men of synagogue may act in behalf of the synagogue’’, (Baraita Jer. Megilla 74a). The meaning of the statement is not clear. Raba in Babli (ibid. 26a) mentions in that connection the ‘‘seven best men’’. ————— — CHAPTER IV 157 wicked tongue and informers do their deeds in darkness, we have decreed also excommunication for indirect action unless he satisfy him in accordance with the decision of the ‘‘seven elders”’ of the city. 4. It was further decreed that he should apply to them (to the ‘“‘seven elders’’) on the first possible day, and that he should return the damage in accordance with all that they decree to him. 5. No?! man shall try to gain control over his neighbor through a king, prince or judge, in order to punish or fine or coerce him, either in secular or religious matters, for there are some who play the part of saints and do not live up to ordinary standards. ? 6. He who transgresses these three dies 3 of ours shall be excommunicated, all Israel shall keep apart from him, those who sign (this decree) as well as those who do not sign, their pupils, and the pupils of their pupils, their comrades, great and small. 7. As for him who transgresses our decree, his bread is that of a Samaritan, 4 his wine is that of libations, his books are as those of the magicians, and who converses with him is like unto him; and he shall be in excommunication like him.s But he who takes these matters to heart, and is apprehensive of the words of our Creator and our words, will find our words good and upright. There is an old ordinance against informers, malshinim, and those * This section was re-enacted by the German communities in their synods in the thirteenth century (see below p. 232). 2 A play on a phrase ascribed to King Jannai in Sotah 22b. 3 The three decrees are: (1) That prohibiting application to Gentile courts for remedy against Jews; (2) That enjoining on a Jew on whose behalf appeal had been made to Gentiles to save his opponent from their hands; (3) That forbidding a Jew to accept a Jewish communal office at the hands of Gentiles. Since there are five paragraphs preceding this, the scribes were confused by the mention of ‘‘three’’ decrees and omitted that word in Dand N. 4 Hullin 13a. 5 A play on Deut. 7.26. 158 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES who tell tales in secret; if a man sin against man, let him be judged by proper judges,' but let not the hand of a stranger pass among them, and let them behave themselves with sanctity and purity, s¢parating themselves from the peoples of the land, then shall each come to his destination in peace.’ 8. If because of the fear of the Government, a man speak to the informer occasionally, this excommunication shall not fall on that man, provided he does not use this pretext to multiply words with him. This is an applica- tion of the principle given in regard to the fasting of preg- nant and nursing women on fastdays other than Yom Kippur and Tisha B‘Av,—‘they need not fast, but yet yet they must not indulge in delicacies; they may only eat and drink for the sake of the child’. 9. If one refuses to come to Court and there are proper witnesses in regard to the matter and the plaintiff collects a claim through the power of Gentiles, our excommunica- tion will not apply. 10. We, the undersigned, request all those that are in touch with the government to coerce through the power of Gentiles anyone who transgresses our commandments, in order that the Scriptural injunction, “‘to observe very much and to carry out’’4 what they are commanded, may be fulfilled. And righteous action leads to peace.s Samuel b. Meir ' Jacob b. Meir Samuel b. Jacob Isaac b. Solomon Troyes. The following is the text of the Takkanah as it is found in Ms. Br. Mus. Add. 27129 (Marg. 1281). The text is in some respects shorter than that given above, but it con- tains a number of points of interest which appear to justify its inclusion here. * A play on I Samuel 2.25. 2 Cf. Neh. 10. .29, and Ezra 6.21 for the variant. 3 Cf. Jer. Taanit 64c. 4 Deut. 24.8. 5 Play on Isaiah 32.17. CHAPTER IV 159 Sg) pNo 227 72 Sywow wan nw moon ps NIpw ansq or boa inden ws Sram ano DANS pny’ aT [PND F’2 apy’ patim ody ano AaAIM nDwN rmd) nea mobnaw Advan ody ova Sy omby ‘now onn adem maxon ox wnn od nasa > xm yom pw> osexw dy wm sem wena me pind mn nyo px nd) 85 > wPtaD) wrt qWw ....... Wan Jw) Kom) AND orwby oO Ta an saw mw ws 55 oINM WIM Iw an>d> AT ONT .Ow> OTY (BT ow nyt xd ox veto veto Syn -w Wn FD “"y wmMpI1 mM ASwoor vd wan oat dydan> ow PD? ONT D> pw OTN MAN AXDw wr ims dy wo sn wn 'rON'W WD USD INY'AM WD) TAND) o7D OND) YT] ND Nw vyn nw oy ond Sewn on Sy ym ony ‘rove xdow wotnm wasn wam 70x ws S22 ropa wads amspd andy ond Oxwd Sopw pwn ”y saya Sy aatw dood onwsa a xdw oan ran wan Ty Tym oY 7372 IW oesaT ata 9d pupdr wry > «ww Joo pam) ‘md owa Nnowa) abxa Ta NA ond TON Sy AS nth Sy JDP wns oNan bo) woo draw ym dsenw $2) aa anwa>d satan $21 [pepip IBD YA.) p’op [77] yw) 1" EMD NB 1B) mp2 WTP wy bonw nt by nay moabn> sod int by amon dy art 731 1 >>S5 iyane) oy wy. Nd) OmED IY 435) ?n-7NN IN D1 7D Jn onde oy rapw ww 55 tod yn oa ONwT Ss ods 1655) sor wer inxp by yond: yD ws mobn> axanw copra mm xb on > xd qx rtm poy Sim xd nyw ond wy tap qbon mst on ‘yn ANWA Mp May codes ‘ONT wy Aw may xd. ony? 32 mow mba xbs opusna ‘oxy mami py xd 48 mayno pr stdin arp OMS NXP O8 T3732 ow. My wi t’ad xad jaton by on bana wos marr yoy Sire oxd S*s) oma oy aad ayan ams pxaw tad 737 ‘ow 4s %Sy ow maT NT py xdbi nan? op by aaym b> on "y mobod “arp $55 men inn o'y Koya Soin by SNM yO OTP NNOwW) OAT AN kw ASF yaa wns “py Son jpmws) mwam wom) AND vrwon ond ono Sn aw ‘aon Py pots awa Py pyoa ytd ren pyr caw 160 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES soqenm yo mwy 7a b> ator oy myw pd 3975) pan awa ps "DN aniot oy n> amp wew mw 339d saym id rem opy) pyr ‘ oy bb53 ws onyay Ssaw S55 ofan) oN) dra pms 12 poinn mp SNs8 DIpN3 Tain ‘nownD jbads AXP onINAw MYtpaw TEXT B. RETURN OF THE DOWRY This ordinance of R. Tam has been discussed in Part I, p. 43. Neubauer published two versions of it R.E.J. 17. 71. The first, which will be called N herein, he based on three manuscripts, one from the British Museum, 11639, Marg. 1056 (L. Heb. 83) which he uses as a basis; a Bodleian Ms., Neubauer 847 (O, Heb. 33), and a Guenzburg Ms. (G. Heb. 33) from which he gives the important variants. The second version (S) of Neubauer’s is taken from another British Musuem Ms. Harl. 5686 (Sc. Heb. 73). It was originally copied from the Sefer Ha-Yashar of R. Tam. We have thus to compare it with the text as found in the printed Sefer Ha-Yashar (Sa. Heb. &’) and in the quotation from that book in the _ responsa-collection, Binyamin Zeeb (60). The latter is referred to below as Sb. (Heb. 2). Besides the texts that have been printed, the following Ms. material was used in establishing the text of this ordin- ance. Ms. Halberstam, (Cat. Hirshfeld 492, ff. 19-21 called herein D (Hebrew 7); and a text taken from the Sefer Ha-Yashar, called herein Sa (Heb. 7). A version that differs in many details from either of these is found in RMP 934, (P, Heb. -); and still another in RMC 72 (C, Heb. 3). There are also included below the variants found in the summary of the Takkanah given in Kol Bo 117 (K. Hebrew 5) and in RMP 1022 (MP, Heb. 8). The N version shows definite signs of being more nearly original than the S version. Thus in paragraph 2, the versions read thus: CHAPTER IV 161 nw nay Ty sorp bw qd) xba mw sin ana nwo xvi do by wrt $5 pine mw (N) (S) sym innd purwonn do Ns mwY> TWRT wwoM rear? ws peta amd That if anyone marries a wife, and she dies within a year of their marriage, he shall return all the dowry . (N) (S) and all the jewels to him and all the jewels of his wife to who gave the dowry or his _ her heirs or those who gave the hetrs. dowry The change! of text in S makes the provision difficult to understand. Is the dowry to be returned to the heirs of the wife or to the person who gave it? They need not necessarily to be the same. Suppose that her father was living but that she received her dowry from a brother who was wealthy. Is the dowry to be returned on her death to her heir, namely the father, or to the giver, namely t Another case in which it is clear that S changed the text of N, occurs in paragraph 3. . There N reads ma nym yo inn ny md des) [Ape nw ans ano des odd pnna yan xdbw “‘And we have further ordained that so far as the uncollected portion of the dowry is concerned, the bridegroom shall never demand it.” The copyist of S must have inserted nx before the word jnn7 so as to read: nno 1px odd non ne yam xbw mab pnyn yo wn ny1 atd> Spy) prim mie and “‘And we have further decreed that so far as the uncollected portion of the dowry is concerned, he shall not demand it from the bridegroom at any time.” The various texts of S have sought to remedy the defect by chang- ing the words jnn7 nx to nina ns ‘‘the father-in-law”’, or inven nN Yon ns “his father-in-law or his mother-in-law’. The very fact that the variations are so many shows that they all had a difficult text as a basis. Further variants which are common to all S versions are the omission of the words mwxn nndn ox in par. 2, the substitution of wna" for mnw the same paragraph. In the second half of the Takkanah, curiously enough, S has generally preserved better readings. These are marked in brackets in the text below, while the readings of N are given in parentheses. 162 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES the brother? No such difficulty can arise from the text of N, since there it is expressly stated that the dowry is to be returned to the giver, or if he is dead, to his heirs. It was the misreading of the abbreviation "wiv as movay> instead of rw, that misled the original copyist of the S version. Furthermore, S has incorporated into the text of the Takkanah a note which was originally placed after it. It reads thus: ‘Afterward I recalled that is taught in Torat, Kohan Sifra, ed Weiss 11 id) ao. see that the verse, ‘And your strength shall be spent in vain’ (Lev. 26.20), refers to the case of a person who gives his daughter in marriage, and makes a large settlement on her, and before the wedding week is past, she dies.”’ The words ‘‘afterward I recalled’? show that this is not part of the ordinance. In C where a somewhat elab- orated form of addition is found, it is expressly stated to be not part of the ordinance but some additional words by R. Tam or one of his pupils. It is clear, then, that S, which has changed the text of N, and which has incorporated into the text of the Takkanah an editorial note, is a later version that N. C has several readings which are akin to N, but also some which rather echo S. It has, as has been mentioned, the note about the extract from Torat Kohanim, although it does not incorporate that into the text. The same is true of P and D, both of which are evidently derived from the same text. We must therefore assume that S, P, and C had a common origin, in a text to which this editorial note was appended, and which differed in several minan matters from N. The following diagram will help to clarify the relation of the texts to one another. CHAPTER IV 163 Original Takkanah x | | | baal | No (a3) NI (83) Neg (aa) ‘i Bia) I C() | | | | Sea) ac seletealy: SCital) Laem oCaal) TEXT 49YTN WYOY AWS sNNaTI avy wma 2odyn Wbo7 1oyu ws ANTON DWM APIS SN AS ’awy yma mds NIN WKN oPYpD mon vdsa 7m past aap anay dy a oT) 6197) WRI panna pt uma ywSyr ps iomaa an pos p12 sywm sn-vns sty sop bw td) xba iannw tin ann isms xu d> 12by wa 05 27 wa fomdrn ...oyun 1 orpim ov opditn wo 'S wa fomdrtn 2 8N373°57TN ND NDI AwWY PMID [AVN way nN) 27.3 ExNAI ...odITN 3 2.2/5 7 (TORN OF YPM .OYTN nyDY .7) .OYTN onyow .2 [myIN nynw 4 STONY JANN OPP TD OND NAN) OY) .73 STII] AVPINT NAS NY NTN) WIN NDI 2 NTO MW .a 5 NOND ON WD .2) NTO HO_) PIR NI ND NTT aN np. NPIS wD NPN DMD AVIN NI 27) ANTON DoD BW TAN TINDTN SNOW WD) PIR NAW oT ANTONI wy Oh av k tS i wee kT LEANk7 > 3.2 [pono ..yon nvna s 22 yor "3 1 [pl ya yer 9 STAN Deer asta RS, 1h 16 V3 npn. P29) 03) 82 (pt maa 1 poe [7 yats JS 8) [TE 13 pro by anew ot wen 3" P67) 02 Wk” [nw 14 JO 8 LNW? «Ty 15 164 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES sentin 2inn> mean sown So 2:ent b> a imw Nw? nw Tay mindn oon smbab ony? 7xd) oxi Now ipa aNww oo spwird ow 13 Ty) LSI poyM 117N3D°b? ANNA poyN’ 10NxDI7 19 PI TWN i7Nan NX? iemMyanw Jy owyam ox ond isaw or "5 145". Jr coy 5 say ae xd y'n 1808 myann orp ox °D monn pby mind es odiyd 21nnn zoyam xow maid nym yo 19 Ny? .2 aimd> (d:ay) 2277sw) Mw ANN 2691009 All. 1d worn 2awInw awy 2a1pby nap araan .7 dy odin 55 Sy ardy arm woonm 7272 nee 277K oy Fon wD sav esnpq¥ cawy SD dy mbynd and awRDd ryt Sy) POW DT. PRw) 02 CPsw 1 J}. 2 SOYIN) TP. wk. oo puwon $273 sent and w mead 22.2? agent and ow pwrrd op cyward wound 4 ord .o oa cred 5 .cnba xby ams wo oN OD 27) Pa 2 Exim Ndw 6 ov ot oa den wo gd) 7 mba) mood .o tmbod 8 12.7.2) 8? 2) een oadnn ox wo .ndon meen ox w8 [nenn mondn ox 9 O07 a a png 7d poyn 12 .2 [Dd 26 OY 'D 2) OP 2.) WN? 7 3 2 ETS oP 27 MDW .D .JU"D) MINN ANION NPI .3 TWP OT DWI) BWw’P N_W .7) 28 7 CHAPTER IV 165 by omby mor iw ay qono >a awed qyop caw ANTON ANwWOT IN INT 2pEpy ind wom Fox wD AN ovp> aynrr 2am adm 4928) won YIN smwNT nv ans yond yn sma asy=por 7x ean ans > any xd) maw smart yw ys a 37a 72 pny y"] ND 72 103py siwoNnM WAND wANW 7 LPI 7a any DY’) ‘SIT oMpNa '_) OD NNN 134wY TD NIN }D 120NI Www i6émmaind isonw1D nyAD ww mpod aA 1ennn (W’y Xp wow os 45 w& DOND pn? om ('D 1D SIP) ANDINA NDA mnwon %D isnyaw ip pon xb) i7maI poo A? InN pop ina MN now IPIWN1 110 207ND1 IND NX 197 DDD N¥DI IND ANow Ty oxxd myn moan boo 881 4D ANN UXxYw 220WD) TN AMSA 217: trate Sy e3smby maw mows awann TYPO NAVINI DW" NPA .2 ANID AVIND WWM NBA NP NTI) PINT 1D} QOD) PINT ANTI NAW. ANTI AMIN WMD BWIzd 223 2D pin. .2) «82 [70 1 .poby °D [pDpw 2 WRT 2) XY [TWNT 3 tom Soy a waa wk inom bon 4 sand 433.2) 6S aw. an 4373.5 now) ynw 2? 02?’ adm yo naw mw 7 jnw mp adm yo novi ‘nw .12 [nnw 6 jnw m9 29m jp Sy OW PN 7.2 (ayy ok 7 may .o [13 3 yod nby row os 4X pram oor ta ow ots ow Tey? Sis wo DonM 9 .codya moby mann yo mm mdy PO MDT et od! pal watt LP Ds eal 10 po .a) [p7p 1 won ny ans wo wor m>w nod cans .7 03 1D INN 12 .a cnxxd ...nyaw 1s Tap .2) MT 728 19 YMyD NX TODD) .& [ND TAND) 20 N82 wD [Ny) 21 JS 14) [ANID ...0WD) 22 oni .b"r 4192-73 pms’, y")] PRD 73 3py? .7 PRO 7’3 apy .a Loew Sy ody 23 ’3 pny? xo I'n3 apy? .b"t »podnp ans wwon's pwd aw mp2 .o .b"r pap 73 | pup 43 om .73 166 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES TRANSLATION Following the example set by the community of Nar- bonne, we the inhabitants of Isle de France, Anjou, Poitiers, and Normandy have bound ourselves to obey the following ordinance by a severe oath; 1. That if a man marries a woman and she then dies within a year of the marriage without being survived by any permanent issue, he shall return to the giver of the dowry or his heirs, all that is left of his wife’s dowry or her jewels; ? and her husband shall not designedly consume them if the wife falls sick; but from whatever is left, he shail pay for her burial expenses, and he shall provide a funeral in accordance with his station and his desires. He must return the dowry within thirty days if a demand is made for it. But if no demand is made for it, the herem shall not take effect. In no case shall it take effect unless he fails to return it within thirty days after the demand.? t This Takkanah is not without precedent in Talmudic law. We read in Jer. Ketubot 9.1: R. Jose says, that if one writes in the Ketubah ‘if the wife should die without children, what is hers shall return to her father’, that is a contract in regard to money matters and is therefore valid (although it is not in accordance with the law). The passage is quoted with slight variations in a responsum of R. Solomon ibn Adret (6.254) and in Res. Maim. Ishut 55. 2 The French custom was that only the wife received dowry from her family. In Germany it was customary for the father of the new husband as well to contribute to the household of the new couple. (Comp. RMP 285, 985, RMC 93, RMR 327, HOS 2, RFL 30, Hagahot Mordecat, Ketubot 287). This was due perhaps to the fact that German boys married so early (Comp. Res. R. Mordecai Yaffe published in Res. R. Meir Lubin, no. 123). Perhaps it was also due in part to the custom that developed in Germany of having the young men study after their marriage. It was all the more necessary, therefore, that they should have some capital with which to do business. It may be too that the custom of studying after the marriage was the result of the early marriages. However that may be, the result was that in Germany it was considered proper for the wife, on the death of the husband, to return to the family of her husband half of such goods as he might have gotten from them on his marriage, even though that did not leave her enough to cover her Ketubah. There must have been cases, of course, even in France of husbands receiving large gifts from their families. In one such case when the husband died without issue within a year after the wedding, his family tried to obtain the return of their gifts. CHAPTER IV 167 2. We have further decreed that the bridegroom shall not demand the payment of the uncollected portions of the dowry, in case of the death of the wife, even though she have lived with him a full year, and even though she be survived by a child.* 3. This ordinance have we accepted upon ourselves, the inhabitants of Troyes and Rheims, and we have sent messengers to those who were within a day’s journey and they rejoiced in the ordinance. We have therefore decreed a herem over ourselves and all those who join us, and our children, and over all the inhabitants of Isle or France, Anjou, Poitiers, Normandy, and those who live about these settlements, within the distance of a day or two, and over their children to maintain the above decree; for who shall enjoy and partake of the gifts of the father or of him who gave the woman in marriage, after the death of the woman, save the giver? We have seen fit to limit the time to one year, for after a year the matter is forgotten and the sorrow is not increased because of the loss of the money. | Jacob b. Meir Isaac b. Baruch Menahem b. Perez (After? this I recalled what is taught in Torat Kohanim and I gave thanks to God that he saved us from being among those who are deservant of rebuke. For we read in the chapter of the Punishments, ‘‘and your strength shall They invoked the Takkanah of R. Tam. R. Azriel b. Yehiel, who was judge, denied that R. Tam could have had such an extraordinary case in mind. (Mordecai Kiddushin 551). For the German Jews the matter was settled at a synod held under the presidency of R. David of Muenz- berg (see p. 58). t This section merely established as an ordinance the principle which R. Tam regarded as Talmudic law. See Tosafot, Ket. 47a. 5 As has been stated'in the prefatory note, this section is found in the S recension before the signatures. An extended version of it is given in C, concluding witn these words from some scribe, ‘‘ Apparently these are the words of R. Tam or of one of his pupils.” A shortened form of it is found in P, where, too, it is followed by the name of R. Jacob b. Meir. It is evident, however, from the text itself, that it is only an addition, or a covering note. Furthermore, it appears from Tosafot Ket. 47b, that this baraita from the Sifra was originally quoted in dis- proof of R. Tam’s statement. 168 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES be spent in vain’’,tand the Sages apply that verse to one who gives his daughter in marriage and gives her a large dowry, and then she dies within the wedding week. It then appears that this man has lost both his daughter and his money. Happy are we that we are no longer subject to that evil. Just as we have escaped that evil, so may we be saved from all. others, and may we hear good tidings, peace for Israel.) TEXT C. ABANDONMENT The following Takkanah. was first published by Guede- mann (I. 263). I have compared the text as there printed with that of a copy of it made from the original Ms. (Halberstam cod. 49, Hirschfeld 130, fol. 54a), and with that given in the responsa collection Binyamin Zeeb 64 (12°). TEXT 21at xb by ombya ory xd) ennynn xbw ovr Sy nm mpn spn ipo DppT nix wim yoy pray voy na nyw dip p2on> ins ihn 3axnraw wma by) wopay INXT oPYyE UMN nap unvn wnvn> wD ox apyn awd pap ard wy now Sq 43a b> by orty ANaIon nmN MIN NDDONA WIN 1 ON °D SUTIN “WY TNOWD TINY OON? OYA ANyTD xdbw invs ox PY mapa vyr saw by pnanm tind aonwm>d sxvd sds ian xd 6estn swy Anow rd) .2 comra bw wn nanna xd ron) ines nyto xbw maw oxen oon xp xd) .3 Jos DD) Thu -bD wrxd ym om 7onpyy Mian WS PYyT awd nysaw "12 MNO ABN Td Fed) yma mad pw Jux> smywn ya) nex ppd Own mew moy nynad -poy inimay .4 7'2°D Sy ox 0D my xd yo ad) map sno Sax 5 7? meted onone ot piad) iad ooxn nbew win ny t Lev. 26.20, and Sifra ad. loc. myn 2 2 DINAVY .2’ 3 > bis ede wan 3" a’ 5 OT 7, tas 7 8 .Onpy? .2° yw .2 j * CHAPTER IV 169 miobndy pomp asd now mp t’a cp Sy yripdh) own mew pp <8 'D Mand. wma wD Awd An ow. oy pa ond sean po ond mr id w on) .6 inwxd moby nyt ps on oxxd ony xdow iotsd by wm .7 ayyay OYSpA mom ANS OwWIN AwwO any aDym xbw mms dy1 > aDwoOn yD ON xd) oN 22 TN ND 2,758) TNA PN op Nd wR? .8 M02” NOW IMAI WDD’ ON MND YNA ANN WDpA MPM WAM |p wT up aw TON WANS ODIDD UNI NT MMI WAM AMA AINA nN" ‘nD psd T'a apy own Sym o> npasaw "man op by TRANSLATION (Omitting the first paragraph, the text may be rendered as follows:) 1. We have decreed in consonance with a letter which we have received from Dreux that no one shall be permitted to leave his wife for more than eighteen months? without permission of the Court of the nearest city, unless he receive the consent of his wife in the presence of proper witnesses. 2. We have permitted the absence of eighteen months only to such as leave out of necessity to earn and provided the husband is at at peace with his wife. 3. No one may remain away from his wife against her will unless the Court of Seven Elders before whom the matter is taken permit the continuance of his stay. The Court may give the husband permission to remain absent according to the circumstances, for example if he must collect his debts or if he is engaged in study or learning to write or he is engaged in business. 4. When the husband returns from his journey he must enw ta b> by a1 apm mda .2 2 3 In Binyamin Zeeb the reading. is ‘‘twelve months’’. That was also the reading of R. Aaron Ha-Kohen of Lunel (See Orhot Hayyim, I p. 103). On the other hand R. Isaac of Corbeil (Semak, section 285) has the reading ‘‘eighteen months’’. See also the variant readings in the codified Takkanot below p. 213. | 170 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES remain at home for no less than six months before under- taking a second journey. 5. But in no case may one forsake his wife as the result of a quarrel or with bitter feelings, but only with the con- sent of the Court in the manner described. Each man must send his wife the means for her livelihood every six months. He must make payment through the Court for whatever debts were contracted in his absence in order to maintain his family and give his children their education in accordance with the law of the Talmud (Ketubot 50a). 6. One who is able to do so must before leaving on a journey give his wife sufficient means for the support of the family.* 7. We have decreed that no one shail evade the law and leave unless he is sincerely attached to his wife, and no one may refuse to return home after being summoned by the Court of the city in which his wife resides,? or the Court of the nearest city, if there is none in that city. He must return within six months from the time of the call.3 8. Anyone transgressing this ordinance shall be refused hospitality and shall be excommunicated.4 This decree was enacted ‘‘with a scroll of the Torah and the 613 commandments” and it will stand effective if aproved by our masters. R. Tam wrote that it is a proper decree and in accordance with ancient custom and ‘“‘we agree to it in accordance with the view of our masters in France.” t Ketubot V.7, where the amount one must give one’s wife is fixed. 2 It is likely that the summons under which Kalonymos b. Kal- onymos was recalled from Rome (Mahberet Immanuel 23) was issued under a similar *Takkanah. , 3 Among the responsa of R. Solomon Luria (55) there is one letter which he sent to a man urging him to return home. In it he refers to the Takkanah as one of R. Gershom’s. I have, however, been un- able to find any other source for that ascription. 4 R. Samson b. Abraham (d. 1215) upbraids a correspondent for asking permissior to leave his wife in order to carry out a vow to visit the Holy Land. In spite of R. Samson’s devotion to the land of Israel, where he ended his days, he felt that the husband ’s first duty was that to his wife and while he does not mention this Takkanah he maintains the principle it established (Hag. Maim. Shebuot, 8.6). CHAPTER V CODEC OR. TANRGANG TORS Re LAM TEXT A. PRIMARY RECENSIONS Just as we have a compilation of Takkanot which is as- cribed to R. Gershom (chapter I) so we have a compilation of Takkanot ascribed to R. Jacob Tam. There were avail- able in the preparation of the texts given below, three primary and three secondary recensions of these Takkanot. To deal first with the primary recensions, which are printed below in parallel columns, both in the Hebrew original and the English translation, they are taken from the Munich Talmud Manuscript (M. Heb. 3) the Maharil (J. Heb. 1), and the Kol Bo (K. Heb. 7). Of the Maharil version we have used three texts; 1. that printed O°79M O37 arp; 2. the Maharil manuscript of the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary; 3. the Bodleian manuscript, Opp. 225, Neubauer 970. It is to be noted that in only one case does a section occur in one of the recensions without a corresponding section in another. The exception is section 3M which corresponds (as can be seen from the text or translation) to 1K, but has nothing corresponding to it in J. Thus, M and K have fourteen sections each, while J has thirteen sections. They are not all in the same order, however, as a cursory examination will show. | Moreover, there are some sections of the text which certainly are not by R. Tam. Thus M1, which prohibits the reviling of a repentant convert because of his forced conversion is mentioned by Rashi as Takkanah of R. Gershom (RFL 21). The Takkanah against renting a house from a Gentile after a Jew had been evicted there- from is generally ascribed to R. Gershom (See for ex- ample, below, p. 305). The herem against reading 172 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES another’s letters is an ordinance which is popularly believed to have been instituted by R. Gershom, witness the formula that was used on letters to prevent anyone but the addressee from reading them ”77n2 pw “forbidden under the herem of R. Gershom’’. While such evidence is not as a rule conclusive, it is hardly likely that a Takkanah of R. Tam would be ascribed to R. Gershom. A further scrutiny of the texts will show that while M1 forbids the acceptance of church vessels from Gentiles as security for debt, the corresponding section in J (7) and in K (11) forbids rather the buying of such vessels. It would thus appear that the original text from which the three before us are sprung contained no paragraph dealing with church vessels. 3 It will be noticed too that the variations in the order of the Takkanot in the various texts are caused by the irregular insertion of the paragraphs just mentioned. Without them there would be left ten sections (J having only nine) arranged in precisely the same order. They would be as follows: a. Right of jurisdiction. b. Exceptions to the herem against compulsory divorce. c. Interruption of the prayers. d. Transgressing the herem of a Court. e. Giving the “‘tithes’’. f. Not to remove a Tallit or Mahzor. g. Not to strike one’s neighbor. h. Not to cut the margin of a book. i. The law of summons. j. Providing for abandoned wives. It will be seen that as far as form is concerned, the compi- lation as we have reduced it would fall into three parts: Part I, (sections a-e), dealing with various communal matters and arranged more or less in the order of the first sections of the Takkanot of R. Gershom, as we wil! see presently. Part II, (sections f, g, and h) various prohibi- tions. Part III, remaining sections i and j. If we accept the theory that the four sections not included in this list CHAPTER V 173 are interpolations, we will find corroboration for our view in the fact that they were inserted in practically every case before one of the subdivisions. The four interpolated sections are: k. regarding apostates. l. regarding the renting of houses from Gentiles. m. regarding Gentile holy vessels. n. regarding the reading of other people’s letters. In M, & and / are inserted as sections 1 and 2 before Part I, while m and u, are inserted as sections 11 and 12 before Part III. In J, 2 and x form sections 1 and 2, being inserted before Part I, while m is inserted as section 7 before Part II, and k, as section 11 before Part III. In K, section k, m and 1 are inserted before Part III. The insertion of / as section 4, may perhaps be accounted for on the ground that the writer thought it in some manner connected with the matter of defamation. It is of course peculiar that the four paragraphs inserted into the three texts should be so nearly identical. Yet the above arguments, that the excision of the four para- graphs which are suspicious on other grounds would leave a basic text which is practically the same in the three versions, seems convincing. The original Takkanot of R. Tam were then ten in number, and those marked a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, in the text printed below. There are several conjectures regarding these ten Tak- kanot which are.offered with diffidence since they rest on no certain proof. It is, nevertheless, thought best to pre- sent them. It should be noticed that the arrangement of the Takkanot in the first part is peculiarly reminiscent of the order of the paragraphs in the Takkanot of R. Gershom (above chapter I). If we assume that the paragraph regarding the herem against bigamy was introduced into that text before the time of R. Tam, the two lists are all but parallel for the first six Takkanot. 174 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES TAKKANOT of R. Gershom _ of R. Tam 1. Jurisdiction of the Court. Jurisdiction of the Court. 2. Release of the herem a- Exception to the herem gainst bigamy. against compuslory di- vorce. 3. Interruption of Prayers. Interruption of Prayers (and defamation). 4. Letting out a synagogue. 5. Proclaiming herem to ob- Compelling all to obey he- tain lost article. rem. 6. Ordinances for the poor Giving of the tithes for the and other ordinances. poor. If we accept this as a true parallelism, there can be no doubt that R.Tam framed his ordinances on the basis of those of R. Gershom. It will then corroborate our view expressed above (p. 144) that the section regarding the re- lease of the herem against bigamy is of French origin and was later inserted there into the Takkanot of R. Gershom. For in France this section was known before the time of R. Tam, while the German synod sitting at Mayence some time after 1220, did not yet have it in its text. Moreover, we may conclude from the fact that R. Tam arranged the compilation of his synod in ten sections, that he had the example of R. Gershom before him in that as well. Perhaps he considered section 8 and 9 of the Takkanot of R. Gershom a unit, and therefore counted ten including the spurious section regarding bigamy. The particular ascription of one Takkanah to R. Tam in J and K (sections 9 and 8 respectively) cannot militate against the genuineness of the ascription of the whole text to the scholar, since he is not mentioned in the cor- responding section of M (9). The reason that particular mention is made in J and K of the authorship of this sec- tion is that it was not generally acted upon by judges. The scribe was led to emphasize its authorship, so as to give it greater authority. CHAPTER V 175 While M is here, as in the Takkanot of R. Gershom, the oldest source it is not free from accretions. The four inserted paragraphs are found in it as well as in the other texts. Moreover, section 14 shows evidence of no longer being in its original state. It was intended doubtless as legislation concerning men who abandoned their wives, and is supplementary to the famous Takkanah of R. Tam against abandonment, (See above chapter IV, Text C, p. 167). But later a provision was added extending its effect to compel the husband to support his wife when he was in the city. The relation of the various recensions cannot be estab- lished with any degree of certainty on the basis of the material at present available. None of the texts before us is a direct copy of either of the others. Moreover each has developed in its own way, so that their relationship to one another is obscured. The original from which they all are derived cannot have contained the four additional sections, k, l, m, n, since it is the position of these very sections in the respective compilations that mark their greatest difference. On the other hand, it is strange that the three of them should be independently have made the same additions. Thus a number of questions regarding these texts must for the present remain unanswered. TEXTS Syn wad wbdvn .10 yw. Wyo Aawn xbw mupna oi .4 sw ma on nov sy nw xba an 12 ams mw > omxdp Syn wad dun 14 ImMyo mawn orn 15 impp Thy .1 1281 77 ONY OND TP I oToNva oo mao PyOY TI pr 2rPsw3 S) apy’ wan npn ibs D’n a7 NIpw wes vomd> xby 4 sawn Syab ma vownd xbw .o sy m2 97 Osnww on Dn mw PTD (2)NNSD3 .aT 1 MVIWI .aI 2 176 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES iT 5 9907 TDN NN’? arDww minpa *> ww onan ionn xdi nD sos ond) ona agi si a> xbnos Sn sai niyyowma mind mw NDwa mM PR aNVA IW May O07 mipn ma > ody ONIN) «1 ow mm Dw opp mo opya Sim oN 7’aD DIN w KNoONDD 2 ams pM mwr>d 0) ]N] ON) .2 wNT oNvn oop bya bi 4m) pray IPN) Tw» b> diop N¥ON ANS AW bya md md) mmd an 1D OINT NY ON) 23 bi? mx IMS ww>> nava |x) mm bvad prob my» ayo imism> pia pwn mo a> oon na ~ym nw p> ‘oxy % wy ond my On xd wpbp rn pop 1'29 7bs8 7K I jawrsmws Xba sw SNS mon mw ay M2 WIND JANI Nw bax 12 aa NpYT jos Ssw maa xoy onnn Ty .3 bya onUS ON wa mwan Toy oN) ANN ws 4mNwn om dys pray xqp xd NOW DIN NT ON .4 emxioa ospyby arwd> ayy nbpn Suad dia > mwyw ay mmo noa msn dion ps 0 15BS ‘ow ON D> TONY md yn sion xd1 p50 Swinn 12> qbs = 37 72 Tw DPD 23 xonod onpo bora pT oma on o w ow pn NWS WW OTN .4 wx oxwn oni Sya IPIAy NPI WN Ww sxon mx vam jn mwyd) aaind by>> dyob ann bya 1D NNW ON .5 apy>5 yp? amr» FAN) AXP) ow nbpn pT wyw ay nawa pwdon craam> dio" mo.1o tox orn nd2 Swnion bs TDR mona xdbv war 3 JIY NPI WN NOD WNT 'RVN .at 4 JMS .3t 5 pypw pre noon Sy pyoxa px nyt TIN. ON ap IN TP Aw mond 7D) .ar 6 nono ow ww ywoin by Senna my pe Seid ratow prim 4s iwebdaw conn by ss pooon .at7 it by moan rym .5 praya mom va xbwo omnyon = qpn> sano sand onna pi" .¢ asian ma bs swynn vIn ya apyy pr ms oomaD oan) ~ya pw ox obo Tr om xb pt bapy ob> nsx mann ow> 95 pry oni apt b> ya wes pdiya xO as ons mond ORD PP my sxaind wou .7 noi map TIN oN .ooyn mw xba now mnoqp Onn .8 pyna an mond mony onp onnn bapw mio by mwya s’a nx mwyd poy by) wy md ON IPM Vy aw Dw Wt aon ey ns maa wom. wt 'n MDM Dw 7M NDA TWN) AMID TAN DD CHAPTER V T monn Sy aay 45 mao pa oma by 9m) pnb sprnayn Jonna 1a’ xb anpbn Sy WYDT 10IN'DT 6 saw anx> son ma > pRw om .Pya won SOs maa yal d nny ons moon ishi> ox amp xdwy taba omy nexy xdwy .g map am ww omby Syn muna xow non arpa yoy ondqp on .9 aperyice voneela) | alate be Twyl mw) NTw OTN Diyala pS % mwyds yoy Sand by n'a ypm 147’2 yn sn = ICANT eT Pectin) al Coat fh Ga ge nD os 7” nrow> S28 an ADD ANN 177 a morn dy sayT .6 paya mond parma jpn? svamd onna pion .7 sin7 ma bs swynn SS Wars oleae pnd pw Pym wIKN peasy ompIx mwy> mwy> ofa wy OMS ww xbw sada apts ION) 22 moby runs why og sow noi may NN) .o>yan mwa man mond xbw .9 1 pnd pS D7 ox roy Sap iw ayy oy bre chy nn cme yd mon Dip pa Mma cnn pars ‘wom "wy wan owon nolo nan D8 Tas DM NN ON) pamnp) oow impr boa) mr 4272 ODN) bya pRw myyp) 727 payin a 8 snoop mond o2 .at 9 wand war 10 wd war it wv at 12 dys var 13 “YY AW YY MINT W uP 14 Le nave dope aL 178 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES iT 52357 7 PON] AMP ow pxw muvp Soa 7D) nyo oy nad OwIN “DD }D) OINND 7373 poy "3ON) TWD FN ony ov pry Dd .podrws >. yrapd xdwi .9 snno> 75D yar mpd sbwr 11 on 8 ayn Ww m>Dn DD IW DNS Pew) may anda mynd xbv.12 xb. and ons nbwy onws xb inyep ow =nmpm 13 p71 wyw mnoap mapa oyyn nema qo5 stwxr hy xd Syma and pind by) pind Epp mo 9y myo tarsind (muorm Sx) Ayom mary ‘yo nnxd qdw 3M ON) 7D OY WY ox) awnd 195» apa tH 1629p) AWN) IMT 1) at a7 by oN: paw movp i7mat boa sa72 oy nya mo SIN) Ww yD) wi 1S ODN) 18ND ov mm Nb iopwhraw ony >. sann? xdw .10 yby 20n1n0> DD nan nd xbw .7 on. mDym ysl ry mbpn 7pp) ON Mop own mwnw 51 Dn ww WIN .2 map> sby onoap Syn 2inmwi xba ‘nd 223d ON IpA mpn .10 vyl mom wyw s> xby yaind mapa sbi pinnod dit and meys awn ano mom a ID) oy ow nr PION] TWIND FINI TDD? ov yo xd onnw poy poorws ony da. yinpd dw .10 by ains> Ds ADD by nnbnd xbw .11 a1 may cwnwn 52 ano mynd xby .12 an nodo> pax ps .13 by and apinn ya mapa oo pyaoNds sbw mymm yaind mary wove nord [OM] ov ew MD0DF awn ov w OND PT Ms wom anno xd amp nnxb Sw = maomm moon my wow mown awn yan ox .2)7) IN .3? 16 wum> war 17 .O°9N] WIND TOW 7D) .ar 18 omy ov yn podmvow .ar 19 sanad AS mera xdbw “IMD pT ON) ea? 21 eat 22 rT awnn ano 15s >"x) Ps oN mom mwyd TONIows awa yan ws mom basa Inwmi Pysa Syn .14 WR oN mom ndxw by onn abo ya py dwn oytn mina 71> ppb y7pp bapw jaw boi ids Sy ow) won) «obyan Syan mma nupnn s75) nays monn m0 . M These are the Tak- kanot of R. Jacob who is called R. Tam, Rk. 15 Not! to men- ‘tion his sin to a repentant.? CHAPTER V T )Y2 NIT 230781 13 IN MM NwpzD InwN) ~ya mbya ps [DN b> by orn dun qos py) ovo oyt m9 "2 \pDaN pIPs wow mo Sy min pan byan bapw w'n a7 ww mon TRANSLATIONS J 11. Not to put a re- pentant to shame be cause of his sins. 179 aa "oy? Oy wD JON Avomw Y2 OTN PRON) 14 INV! YD NIT ON Sy worm mn nyain Wp AS oytrd 55 mm md ypoD 10. Not to put a re- pentant toshame be- cause of his sins. ton »yom 55 war 23 t This Takkanah is mentioned by Rashi, the grandfather of R. Tam, as being one of the ordinances of R. Gershom (RFL 21). This disposes of the genuineness of its ascription to R. Tam. But as we have seen in the preface to these Takkanot, the section is in all likeli- hood a later interpolation of an early Takkanah into a compilation of R. Tam. The fact that the language of M differs from that of J and K also tends to show that the Takkanah was inserted into the various texts at different times. 2 Compare also Takkanot Shum, section 23 below p. 230. It will be seen that the main difference between the ordinance before us and that of the Rhine communities is this: theirs deals with reviling a person because of alleged low birth; the one before us, with referring to a man’s conversion after his return to the fold. The two are not to be confused. The Takkanah against calling one a bastard is nowhere ascribed to R. 180 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES Gershom. It is a ‘‘custom of the ancients’’, a herem, a Takkanah, but never, at least in early sources, an ordinance of R. Gershom. I find no reference to such a Takkanah in French sources. ‘It seems to have been a special ordinance of the Rhine communities. That is what we would naturally understand from the statement in Or Zarua (quoted RMB p. 72) that it was ‘‘the ancients in the Rhine communi- ties that said there is a herem against the slander of the dead’’. This refers to an allegation of illegitimate birth, since it involves moral tur- pitude on the part of the deceased. It seems indeed tha R. Isaac Or Zarua knew of no other herem in regard to slander. For we read ina responsum of his (Or Zarua I. 751) that ‘‘regarding a person who says to another ‘You deny the resurrection’, or ‘You area rebel against the whold Torah’, even in this case have I heard of no herem; for there is only a herem against slander affecting one’s birth as when one calls another ‘bastard’, or ‘slave’’’. This passage need not preclude the existence of a herem against calling someone ‘‘Convert”. But that interpretation must be set aside in view of the information that we have from his grandson, R. Isaac b. R. Hayyim Or Zarua (Res. 69). He says, ‘‘For thus did my grandfather of blessed memory, write: there is no herem except in matters involving defects of birth; but if one accuses another of denying the resurrection or of being a convert, there is no herem; for that does not imply any aspersion on the legitimacy of his children, except that they are disgraced by being the children of a convert, It is clear than that the objection against attacking the legitimacy of someone’s birth was twofold. First it implied a sin on the part of those that had departed. Second it involved disgrace on generations yet unborn. R. Meir b. Baruch tended to emphasize rather the first aspect of the matter (RMP 132, Mord. Baba Kamma 8.105), R. Isaac Or Zarua emphasized the second. Far different from these was the Takkanah of R. Gershom which we have before us, and of which, as we have seen, R. Isaac Or Zarua knew nothing. It forbade the reviling of a repentant convert because of his former sins. Therein it but followed the law of the Mishna (Baba Mezia 4.9). But the importance of the Takkanah was that it was no longer a moral maxim as in the days of the Mishna but an es- sential for the proper continuance of Jewish life. For there were among the Jews, many who had forcibly been torn away from the fold. If they were made to feel that their forced conversion to Christianity had placed them forever in an inferior position in the camp of Israel, many would naturally be led to remain with the majority and be lost to their people. R. Gershom, therefore not merely out of humanitarian considerations but because of the welfare of Israel forbade the mention of their sin to these unfortunates, The ordinance is widely quoted, see RFL 21, Hagahot Mordecai, Baba Kamma 8.21, Yam shel Shelomo, Baba Kamma 8.55. * ‘ . Te: i M 1. 2. Not to rent? for a whole year the house of a Gentile in which a Jew has lived (after the re- moval of the Jew’). CHAPTER V J 1. We have further received a herem of the ancients that if a Jew lives in the house of a Gentile whether for rent or as loan, no other Jew may rent the house for a whole year after the first Jew’s removal from the house. ‘This or- dinance applies only to the house owned by a Gentile but not to that owned by a Jew. 181 K 4. It is also one of the Takkanot that one may not hire from a Gentile a housein whicha Jew has lived until a year has passed after his removal. If the (former Jewish) ten- ant said to the Gen- tile, “ Rent the house to me for less than I have been paying,” and the houses have not become cheaper and he gives no rea- son for desiring to decrease the rental and another came and hired the house for the same rental as was paid the past year or more, there is no herem in the matter. * The expression here used for renting (wn) is grammatically wrong. We should expect the Qal rather than the Hiphil or Causative. But the Hebrew of the text before us is not above reproach. The use of the Causative for the Simple verb is usual in the responsa of R. Benjamin b. Mattathias(lived at Arta, first half of the sixteenth century.) Indeed he quoted our ordinance with that grammatical inaccuracy (Res. 404). 2 The economic importance of this Takkanah has been studied in Part I. p. 31. The refinements introduced by the later compilers are at least not repugnant to the spirit of the Takkanah. In PD the Takkanah is extended to forbid the hiring of houses which had been loaned to a fellow-Jew without pay. The second Jew is not forbidden to accept a loan of the house on the same terms as his predecessor. That would not help the former tenant and would not harm the owner. To refuse it would merely mean a vain sacrifice on the part of the second Jew. That is also the view taken by R. Meir b. Baruch (RMP 661). 182 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES M a.3.Intaplacewhere a great Rabbi lived in former times we may assume the exis- tence of a herem Beth Din and one must stand for trial there. b.4. Ifamandivorces his wife against her will and she marries thereafter, he is free and is not called a J 3. Furthermore did he ordain that no man shall divorce his wife against her will’; if one did di- K 1. The “great schol- ars” say that any placewhich is known to have been the habitation of a great man may beassumed to have the herem Beth Din and one must so regard it. 2. If a man gives a writ of divorce to a woman against her will and she is then married again, the * This section is mentioned in K in the name of ‘‘the great scholars’’. In the secondary recensions (P and L) printed below, it is given in the name of the ‘‘Rabbis of France.’’ The law of jurisdiction here laid down, had an interesting development both in the Talmud and in Post-Talmudic writings, regarding which see Additional Note on page 379. 2 This Takkanah against compulsory divorce is added in J, but it is quite unnecessary since we are dealing here only with ordinances of R. Tam and not with those of R. Gershom. In the secondary re- censions (below p. 193) the statement is added that if the writ was delivered against the will of the wife ‘‘it is nothing’. Just what is meant by this expression is not clear, since in the very next sentence we are told that if the wife marries the husband is free from guilt. The reason inserted by the writer of L and PD is that by her marriage the wife has shown that she accepted the divorce willingly. This is evidently a fiction and can only be upheld as such. For it is obvious that while a woman may have received her writ of divorce quite un- willingly, months or perhaps years of separation may have made her resigned to the inevitable. The phrase probably means that the writ is without force in that is does not permit the husband to marry a second time so long as the woman remains unmarried. The question of the power of a Court to annul bills of divorce and marriage does not arise here at all. As is well known that formed the subject of a famous controversy between R. Joseph Colon and R. Moses Capsali. R. Joseph held that while the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem did have the right M ;‘transgressor”. If he gave her a writ of divorce with her consent and it is found to be invalid he may divorce her against her will.? c. 5. Ifa man appre- hends that he will be defamed to the gov- ernment, he may in- terrupt the prayers of CHAPTER V J * vorce his wife against her will, and then she was married, he is no longer to be regarded a_ trans- gressor. 4. If a man appre- hends that he will be defamed shortly he may interrupt the morning (Yozer) 183 K husband is free and is not a transgressor. If he gave her the writ with her con- sent and it is found unfit (legally) hemay divorce her against her will. 3. Ifa person appre- hends that he will be defamed shortly, hemay interrupt the afternoon prayers to annul marriages no such right inheres in modern courts. In this claim he was successful against R. Moses Capsali who, following good Spanish precedent, attempted to declare marriages that were contracted otherwise than in accordance with the local ordinance, invalid. That matter is not at all involved here. There is no question that the writ had full validity insofar as the wife was concerned; it was void merely to the extent that the husband was not released by it. R. Moses Mintz did not so understand the text before us, and he comes to the conclusion that the writ of divorce is actually invalid. He does not rely on that interpretation, however, to interfere with the ordinary processes of the marriage law. (Res. R. Moses Mintz, 17). t This is not the only exception to the working of the Takkanah against compulsory divorce. In Austria, at least, it was customary for men to deposit in Court writs of divorce for their wives if the latter forsook the Jewish fold (Isserlein, Pesakim 256). In such cases the consent of the wife was not required. Nor was it required, according to R. Meir in the special case discussed by him (RMR 245). Similarly it is assumed by R. Simon of Joinville that if a person warned his wife not to have any dealings with a third party and she disobeyed, she might be compelled to accept divorce. For according to Rabbinic law further continuance of married life would be impossible under the conditions. Since tne ordeal of the Sotah (Numbers, 5.24) had been abolished there was no remedy for the husband but divorce. (Tosafot Nedarim 90b, Hagahot Maim. Ishut 24.10, RMP 587, Hagahot Asheri Kiddushin 3.16). The opinion is however expressed that even in such a case the herem of R. Gershom holds and the husband may not divorce the wife (Semak 198, Orhot Hayyim, II. p. 98). 184 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES M the afternoon or the morning (Yozer), even on the Sab- bath, until they do him justice;? one may announce a herem compelling the defamer to re- veal to him? what he said to the ruler. if andafternoon pray- ers until justice is donehim. Onemay announce a herem compelling (the de- famer) to repeat be- fore the elders of the city what he said co the ruler. K even on the Sabbath until justice is done him. One may an- nounce a herem to compel the defamer to repeat what he said before the elders of the city. If in their opinion it is his duty to indem- nify the defamed, he shall immediately indemnify him, and not take the matter to Court. * The expression ]"1 mvy is equivalent to the Biblical yawn ney regarding which see Ginzberg, Eine Unbekannte Juédische Sekte, p. 4. It means that the executive authority carries out justice between two litigants. In the same sense we have the Aramaic NY “ay In K we read po 15 nvyw ay. Unless that is to be corrected into “[y y11> wyw, we must assume that the meaning there is different from the ordinary. Whatever may be true in regard to the meaning of the expression in K, it is certain that in the German texts it means to ‘‘give satisfaction’’, ‘‘to do justice’’ in the sense in which the idiom is used in English and generally in modern languages. In that sense the expression is used in Takkanot Shum section 3, text R. (below p. 226) and numberless times in the responsa literature. I mention here amost at random Maaseh Ha-Geonim, 80; Raben Sanhedrin 13; HOS 248, RMR 334. Finally the expression assumed also a derived meaning, namely “doing penance’’. It has this significance in Takkanot Shum (loc. cit.) Text Z, as well as in Or Zarua I, iiv where we read in regard to a repentant sinner, 7 ow wy xdv »”yx Dl px NIT In MaWwns aw ox Sax “but if he repented he is already a righteous man, although he did as yet no penance”’, 2 As it is generally quoted the ordinance provides that the suspected defamer shall declare in the presence of the Gentile to whom he is ac- cused of having made the denunciation, that he made no denunciation. It was assumed that even if he had given information, the Gentile would perceive how little trust could be put on his words. This law is thus stated in the name of R. Tam (Or Zarua, Baba Kamma 10; RMP 383; Agudah, Baba Kamma 10). The original Takkanah seems to have been that the informer should tell his victim what he had told the rul- M d. 6. Ift one trans- gresses a herem Beth Din, he should be compelled to make amends. e. 7. To} come under the herem to “‘bring the tithe to the CHAPTER V J 5. Ifonetransgresses a herem, it is the duty of the Court to compel him to makeamends. Nei- ther may one re- fuse to enter a her- em.? 6. “To bring the tithe to the treasure house” one need K 5. If one trans- eresses a herem, the Court should compel the transgressor to mend his perver- sity, and not to be obstinate. 6. To come under the herem to “bring the tithe to the ing power, so that the victim might plan his defence accordingly. In J and K it is said that this statement must be made before the elder of the city. The thought there is that they will then know what action to take. t The original reading was doubtless to the effect that, “if one transgress the herem, the Court isempowered to compel the transgressor to make amends.”’ It referred to the declaration of a private herem, such as that regarding lost property, etc. in which there is possibility of naming amends. The misplacing of the word by before the word mnin produced the confusion. 2 Even a cursory comparison of the Hebrew texts will show how the confusion resulting in this additional paragraph arose. 3 It is doubtful whether Maaser means actually a tithe or simply the regular percentage given tocharity. The word is taken of course from the verse quoted. The Talmudic law provides that one must contribute to the food collection as soon as one has resided in a city for thirty days, to the charity fund after ninety days and so forth. In Germany and France it appears that the charity fund was collected by the announcement of a herem against all who would fail to contri- bute their full allotment. This is the herem referred to in the Tak- kanah. We read in L-P, that before the time of ‘‘R. Gershom there ~was a Takkanah and R. Gershom ordained that it be renewed each year”’ (See above p. 18). Whether we accept or reject the emendation in L that before the time of R. Gershom the charity tax was one twentieth, it is certain that at other times the tax was not fully one tenth. R. Moses Mintz placed the tax at Mayence at one fortieth (Res. 40). We learn thence, too, that the tax at least in his time and place was payable in monthly instalments and that is was customary later to go about with a closed box into which each one deposited what he thought was one fortieth of his income for the month. From the 186 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES M treasure house’’? one must be but one month in the city. Members cf a com- munity who cannot give charity may compel others who can afford to give, provided they (those who cannot give) are not appointed treas- urers of the funds. f. 8. Not? to take a Talliit or Mahzor from a Synagogue without the permiss- ion of the owner. J have been but one month in the city. One who is unable to share in the bur- den of the city may compel others (to give) but he must not be a treasurer. 8. No person shall remove a Zallit or Mahzor from a syna- gogue without the permission of the owner. i treasure house”’ one need have been in the city but one month. If there is a minyan in the city, one man may com- pel all, but that in- dividual must not be a recipient of charity. One who cannot afford to par- take in the burdens of acommunity may compel others to give but he must not be a treasurer. 7. Not toremovea Mahzor or a Tallit from a synagogue except by permis- sion of the owner. expression “to bring the tithe into the treasure house’’ we would assume that in earlier times it was rather customary to bring the money to the treasury. t Malachi 3.10. 2 This is of course not to be understood as an ordinance against stealing. There was no need of a communal ordinance for that. It is rather a limitation on the Rabbinic principle that “‘one wants to have one’s property used in the fulfilment of a Mitzvah’’. (Baba Kam- ma 29b). This was generally assumed to give one the right of using the property of another in such a case. Thus for instance, there could be no possibility of anyone objecting to the use of his Tallit by another Jew in praying. It woud not be well, however, to allow one to remove it from the synagogue for the borrower might forget to return it. In a responsum in which the principle is involved (RMP 723) there is no mention of the Takkanah. M g. 9. Not to strike one’sneighbor. Ifone did strike another, no release is to be gran- ted him until he per- forms or agrees to perform the decree of the Court. The fineof onewhostrikes another shall be twenty-five? dinars and if the quarrel occurred in the Synagogue, fifty dinars. If the as- sailed turned and struck the assailant he loses his rights. CHAPTER V J 9. There is a herem of ancients not to strike one’s neigh- bor. Onewhostrikes another must be re- leased from the her- em before he can be counted fora minyan on condition that he should undertake to go before a Court. R. Tam ordained that he who strikes hisneighborshall pay him twenty-five din- ars and if he struck himinthesynagogue fifty dinars. If the 187 K 8. Thereisan ancient herem not to strike one’sneighbor. The herem must be re- leased before he can be counted for a minyanonly oncon- dition that he under- take to carry out the order of theCourt or whatever fine the elders of the city will place on him. R. Tam_ ordained that one who strikes his neighbor shall pay twenty-five din- ars and if he struck t This passage can be best understood in the light of a state- ment by R. Eliezer b. Nathan (Raben, Prague, 113d, quoted RMB 96, cf. RMP. 382). He decides that if ‘‘one raises his hand against one’s neighbor he is called Rasha’, (wicked), and if he is summoned to Court (by his assailant) the Court declares him a Rasha.”’. Even if the assailed make no complaint in Court, the assailant is still to be considered a Rasha’ and therefore unfit to take an oath. So that if the assailant is a litigant in a Court ‘action, his opponent may dis- qualify him from taking an oath, by bringing witnesses to prove him guilty of assault. The opponent would then take the oath and gain the decision in his favor. On the basis of these words we can understand the provision that ‘if one strikes one’s neighbor one is not to be counted as a member of minyan until one has agreed to abide by the decision of the Court. This herem, unlike the others, takes effect not after conviction by the Court, but immediately on committing the crime. P adds the pro- vision that if the assailed make no complaint the Community may release the herem without satisfaction on the part of the assailant. 2 This attempt of R. Tam to set up a fixed schedule of fines did not succeed. See below p. 194. Yet we learn from P that R. Yehiel decided in accordance with the ordinance of R. Tam, and it is some- what surprising not to find it mentioned in the codes. 188 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES M J K Women! and rela- assailed person re- himinthesynagogue tives are acceptedas turns the blow, he fifty dinars. If the witnesses in this case and in any matter of contention where it is not usual that witnesses should be present. Similarly for one accused of defamation they are accepted, even though they give only circumstantial evidence since there could not possibly be witness present when the denunciation was made. h.10. Nottotear the margin of a book even in order to write on it.? 11. Not to accept Church vessels as se- curity for debt. loses hisrights. Wo- men andrelativesare accepted as witnesses in this case and simi- larly in every conten- tion, where it is un- usual for witnesses to be present. Simi- larly in the case of defamation,even one who testifies from hearsay, is accepted since when the de- nunciation was made no witnesses could have been present. 10. Not to cut the margin of a book to write on it. 7. Not to buy a stolen chalice or cross or holy vest- assailed returns the blow, he loses his rights. Women and relatives ‘are accep- ted as witnesses in this matter, or inany contention where no men are on hand as witnesses, the matter having occur- redsuddenly. Simi- larly one guilty of giving information or even an apostate is to be accepted as witness. since there were no wit- nesses present when the denunciation was made. 9. And not to cut the margin of a book to write on it. 11. Not to buy the chalice or the cross or holy vestments * R. Joseph Colon quotes this ordinance in two varying versions in a responsum (180). His texts seem to resemble K and P most closely. Recanate (494) ascribes this law to R. Tam, perhaps because he found it in this or a similar text ascribed to R. T. 2 It was customary to cut the margins of books and to use the vellum thus obtained for writing Mezuzot, Tephilin or charms. The practice had to be discouraged for often the writing would be cut as well as the margin. 3 The practice of lending money to Gentiles, especially clergymen, _— Se Pe e. 12. Not? to read another’s letters. 13. One need not go to a distant city to a great rabbi, CHAPTER V J ments or prayer books of a Church or any of its vessels because of the peril. He says (?) there is a herem of the an- ‘cients, against read- ing a letter without the permission of the writer. 12a Thereis/a: lak kanahoftheancients that a summons 189 K or prayer book of a church or its vessels. 12. Not to read a letter which a man sends to his fellow except with his knowledge and _ per- mission. 13° There isa’ Tak- kanahand an ancient herem that autiti- on a pledge of their sacred vessels and vestments was widespread and at times brought the Jews into serious peril, as is implied in this Takkanah. Comp. Carlebach, Jued. Gemeinden, 43, 44. Also Gude- mann, I, 24, 130. In the Mishna (Abvda Zara 4.2) the practice was prohibited. For the vessel did not, on coming into the hands of the Jew, lose its religious character. It might not be used. The only question which could arise would then be what vessels are used so intimately in worship as to be prohibited. In our text there is no specification of the kind of vessels that are forbidden. But in the others (K and L-P) mention is made of the chalice, the vestments, and books. It is possible with R. Eliezer of Metz (Sefer Yereim 70 and 74) to dis- tinguish between buying vessels and accepting them as pledges. But while it is possible that zeal for the law prompted our ordinance in part, we read in the other three texts frank statements that the main cause is the fear of Gentile indignation. So that while R. Eliezer b. Nathan permits from the point of view of law, the lending of money against such vessels and articles as collateral (Raben 289, 290) and there is a tendency to be lenient among all the authorities, (See Tosafot Aboda Zara, 50a, Asheri ad loc., Mordecai, Aboda Zara chap. 4, beg.) yet that leniency made the Takkanah only the more necessary. It is surprising to find R. Hayyim Or Zarua (Res. 175) permitting the lend- ing of money and the accepting of these articles as pledges, without even mentioning the Takkanah. : * In modern times it was often invoked by putting on the cover of an epistle x”19N2a, ‘‘forbidden to read under the herem of R. Gershom”’. A similar prohibition in Geonic times is mentioned in Hazofeh 5.1. Also Shilte Ha-Gibborim Shebuot 4, end. The ordinance has found its way into the code Birke Josef, Yoreh Deah 334, 16. 190 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES M but in the city which is nearest the com- pidifnante ) he summons should ‘call one to go to one of the three nearest ci- ties? which have a herem Beth Din. If there isa great Rabbi in the vicinity he may not refuse to issue the summons. The summons should call upon the defendant to appear before the Court of one of the three nearest cities. If the defendant is (not?) in a settled community, the statement of the agent of the Court that he delivered the summons is to be accepted as final. j. 14. Ifa man is not in the city (or even if he is in the city) and his wifedemands J should be issued in the city nearest the plaintiff andthat one need not go to a great rabbi afar. Nor may the rabbi refuse to issue asum- mons. 13. Ifamanisin the city and his wife de- mands her mainten- ance, or even if the K gation is to be begun by the issuing of a summons in_ the city which is nearest and one should not be compelled to go afar’ to: a great rabbiand thusincur unnecessary expen- ses. The summons should call upon the defendant to present himself before one of the three cities where there is a court. If thereisa great Rabbi in the vicinity, they should go before him. He may notrefuse to issue the summons. Thestatement of the agent of the Court that he delivered the summons shall be accepted as final if the defendant isnot in a settled com- munity. 14. If a husband is in the city, and the wife demands _ her maintenance,or even * This statement is probably the source for the ordinance men- tioned in RMP 715, that in “these days they may compel the judges to sit in judgment under the ordinance of the Communities”’. 2 The request from the Court is not that the defendant should appear before it, but that he should choose one of the three nearest Courts for trial. M her maintenance, a herem may be-an- ounced against all who know aught of his property, and even bailments are to be reported. CHAPTER V J husband is not in the city, it is proper to declare a herem a- gainst all who know aught of his proper- ty and even bail- ments are to be de- clared. The Court shall set the alimony in accordance with what they find. Certainly the hus- band must state under the herem what he has in his possession. ' 191 K if heisnotin the city a herem may be announced against all who know any- thing of his property and even a_ bail- ment is to be reveal- ed. They shall fix her alimony in ac- cordance with that; all the more the hus- band can be compel- led toacceptaherem (to give a full state- ment of his pro- perty). The following is the portion of the Munich text that has been omitted above in order not interfere with the clarity of the arrangement o f the various codified Takkanot. [TRY O8 oO Pa Man ow om b> Sy pom mp nwon px Sy ya nso? xd on) ow yaw yaw oD dy pn don idxad line? fupettalensy ya (@piop>y proyd) aipmbo wand myawn omy by muon ps on modi wnaydr oup> > Senn qb0 o> by saanwnd Sia ons ps om) Sy sb>ps im> wy Jatom ony qaqa xb) oxan nada xb on ps oon nos pe wy tate bas monn by nou orn Suda voy pane aay xd) ony xdw sabi ayy od pby nov D> J’an anDDwD on Sw myDjya an own Sy onna Sinn eda Oy On OP. wns ow pwoo own dy Sinn xd on tmward Sx) nd -pim xorp ra anw pn 1 °%S3 ines anew ynn TN3p7 cay vA Tay Nd myo mbad ory? “ow powonm Ann: 1S dsww ans oy owdy sy poy non oon pe x7 TS a> ps) anw ans ono desi ayn baw xdw an myn OTPA we mwyd rWw112 AIM LNW) 8 NPT onw jn 192 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES TEXT B SECONDARY RECENSION Besides the primary recensions of the Takkanot of R. Tam, we have, as has been said, a secondary recension, that is a recension which is evidently a further develop- ment and growth of the texts just studied. It is found in RMP 1022 (P. Heb. »),and in the appendix to the Likkute Ha-Pardes, Venice 1519, (L, Heb. 9). It occurs also in Ms. Merzbacher 75, mentioned above (chapter 1). This text is called below E (Heb. mn). Another form of P is found in Res. R. Moses Mintz (No. 102; see above, p. 219). Variants from this source are marked %. The sections which correspond to those of the primary recensions have been marked with the letters which denote them in that text. It will be seen from a cursory examination, that while one or two sections are omitted the framework of the compila- tion are the above Takkanot. (See also below p. 204). L isa later text than P. (See p. 202, note 3). That can be seen from section 12, where the writer of L has attempted an emendation. P reads, “this Takkanah was in vogue before the time of R. Gershom, but R. Gershom ordained that it be renewed yearly.”’ This reading is difficult, for how are we to assume that R. Gershom, finding a usage of paying tithes regularly, would make the obligation de- pendent on a yearly renewal of the Takkanah. L there- fore tries to explain it in this wise: ‘‘Before the time of R. Gershom there was a Takkanah to pay half a tithe, but R. Gershom ordained that it be renewed every year (and a full tithe paid).”’ TEXT pao ans ps Sdanad pw Snnm yma oxmxp pi vw ON «1 Iw wap Snonm men Nba onp InN RY ON Tory Ty oxxd oRwI ambi mabma xxn2 13) px aba nor mwnp mana bua 2's p'ya ww nawa mbenm dSuad nw OTN pR .2 py ‘725 onp 2oanw PyT aw ow Ty OTN pynows y'v Ssem xbw on .3 CHAPTER V 193 same oda oesn np any ame nex ots pry xdbw on .4 snd shia as yor Soa onn 20w> Osnw odio nei npn .5 ndy>> yom Jina) nnd x's yom aay myy w ox myw qx pred pnd peys smn onnn by sayy pray oy ratd amp .6 ov onme odin onboT a pei naph ma 7a ww vy .7 ap >snon rob ow nw aDnw Opo n_ww 337an ‘ow ow qd 732 mm 72 oon ow aw ownd mab xbs myprp nero tad sad win xb onoapn mpn .g mytoay dyn ps say mo yn) amb wn psi ams Sya awd wi ym> xbw mpn .9 yoy yt os ammo bya cw wind in zu Sop exon ennx a adonnn ws yo shen ay? mt ons arose ont ber aran aos mbrpa ann *bapn .10 AS17912 INN eam orn ns orp> AxIT INST ON NA Pa pRt opdin M_AS 12°99 NXP) 178 PAM Yan Twp dy 104 orp spy mw 1d odo ay Sere yyania aw on ma mow> xbw mypn .11 mnps man > aw ond aos 797 os Dax man jp ATT 8Yw IMs psd ass inbsw m9 1pp wIbD PN Tayw mwa lantww mo Ds PN ow pris pwsad pnw maw md ym 162m mwd cnyt ones ny .o.n 1 jor xba onn ows .b 2 pn mvyds axan .o 3 2dy7) .m 3a $NOND VY AMINA .n 3b ‘nba mi ola Mw) ON). ay ws) mnyt mindy mr via nevi otpo oni .b 4 J} ay IPN ANS Dw Ny Tih ell mnsip .b 6 yop wi .n 7 porta dips .b on 8 wi .b .n 9 word amin .b .n 10 word now oo on 11 Jpaxp “main .n wp .d 12 xvi ox ot by on n> xerd nim nen (ny) wNT Ne? ON FX mm by 12 ma nerd ani nen wT enrzew 5 14 .mnpa bxw .b 15 jnw mo imn tyow Sx] ‘ow wm .b 16 194 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES savor 19>xow Sy abn ismpnn pri yaw i7oenan ir w py xb . sans Ssnw> ms pbin> maa any) wwyo ond oana pia’> 202905 xbw mapn .12 y 2207p) ONNT 2n¥7 8d oN onal PP Nd IN yA PID w ON mw $53 mwind pn 7’ yn mpn ann on aawys 2aaxamw onp Sapa id remy ivan 23500 Sy orn .13 on) poy pyix) bap main os 7’a 26Mw mo SD 25bapw ay pws oxy Sapn 27y9m wh MD \onp> noi Map yin wan mand wt Man" pn Ny .14 WII VyT 7D) 2owemw aT 2 wD own 2sno197 MPa) ww 'PT 32]7) ODYD nw DT On) wap Srp qa 311. ANTw s0Nqp ADP mood pnn> pax pei inst TaN 7D9n ADA ADA ON) Mop nw xb >> aay NAT TP Ando msyoaAM D> weer mowpA IN pes xox noon maa mand non mad pin adp pa nea o>iqw wns sw” weo 5195) mD0d nym cab samannb vynd 3 a a n> un mwyo Sy (’'a 1d p's) yraostD oy> xd) now> mr op) orya AP IN TPN 3s67w~KXY YPN 7D) MDS Nw s5IMAyMw NNT NDI Dns pom> cND pRwD JON) JOP 7D) omy mw od oN a's Poanbom? ypnt sian Ca 'x ov Sainm pw yPqextD ow azemeonn an p>) > ody Sor ori sox NNT wona .b 17 wmpn .> 18 Seiwa 5 19 IS b 20 ay on waxy > 21 my” 522 mwand ypn own wat Awyn oxn onNI UPN A’D 29 OTP) .> .n 22 wan mop .b on 23 TWY. IY. ATW pra wo .pwa “yyy monw .b 24 Sapw dy b 25 Sy piys) prt min ax on poy ta rire > on 26 aooovm .> 27 5p now maa) .> 28 te, OAn 39 ASP AOY a.m pp Aor van 5 30 opp SNP PID JD POD .2 Ww .n 31 7m mn .moip ow .b wy’ pipm wD 32 woo ber .n wn wp Seem aan .5° 33 msm) en ab mands .b 34 pon warn .> 35 JOR) DIP IW TWN NW .w 36 pipm ann .n 36a CHAPTER V 195 Iwona wow xbt ar Sy AS ows amp) TP 0D? ON .15 sins Sonox ww wren Sy Surv my 131 Suennd aatmw> pri 4s oy aind> > "BS DD yd a7psp> xdw on «16 2 onyy mawn ya weads xow onn .17 M08 nye? Xda rand ssndww yan ansa mynd xbw orn .18 Janv) \p7t ON) ONY OI) ya) 38 Mayin pa man mpd xbw onn .19 mo07 4025p "wown mban pp) On 'Pq92 RY pa on ‘roa Nw pa mp yx 41mpn .20 bapw rya byaws 42w"a1 bv yom b> wan mip nyain mwNm mt Sy mn a> 4aipppn mbo 1d pry onn mbana wn ayT NYA AWN) Tay CT 'T Pp" D) PONT NT 21 On’ NTT PSI wm 37 and) ayn ines 4559 mm 445yan on bas Mian mes. Spa say 2x7 oarn mp>o bas abwbn em prwe awn ovwa odain yo pow 72 ans obw pn ama podwo 4ent ns oroibanw ow .22 DN) INNAD ‘yD 4818 DIWD 479NY wy or stupa or Som nvam mbann m1 OF ms 517’. So AT pt ‘yya Nd 5sotDN) ADON 490¥yn: aeya wand no55 Aad mw 2 WY XD NPY 7317 PT Wy? VAX AMY wD MDT 527'N .23 .538POXN NX FMI mod wove oN) ‘NDT w ssox iwbaw sayow onoIp bn npn .24 pip> 3 37 dws nm ndwr 1b os 38 be bose sown > 40 ys pa ya bya pa .n wan bya wey pa man Sya pa n’p ya mpn 5 41 spya bya son > 42 Jpop > 43 USoU ane beY levee (ae ct A= nea Ape sany w 9 47 wv own sanknn nwdoen 5 48 soinni .b 49 mn pad ps tad sox nod ant aw) 50 woo ye t’a bo an tox 5b 52 . 9 5s YOww 1D 3D 54 } 55 196 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES nosy Sxad spxw onata mrwdor yo wsy Pond 1D ona7 bund nwRo pwoom soxw Jato any yn jad orwor as pwnd pr) pooa Sxmd ar ps cosy Sxmd ota oitaNd past yy> wn awe op) pt Sa pub sop pextm ran sw yond mom onyr yo noxd sawyw onsap orn mipn .25 mo wsy xd) patos ow ssww mawon onyn 2 yo nnxa pad wy 602192 WN OTN 59v ON AMDaw Yawn wpady qd mm ams yp dy wor rony Sy) oy ‘1 °2Da 61iyorm Inyo oNw w dx mupna oi .26 52 mdapn oy 62p95 15 onya 2 yo nova no$> 15 asad arp: xb mxw aod oan va yox) T'a bw .Syaa ttad nob> y'3 mpno wn W218 e3nnNa 72> Naw F'n mrrd>wa 1d axe mom 1S msitd yain> n> w mown vy Sapm esimn? ano ON) mpnm yD °D OD 10 NMSA yan aNaw ya mynd ainsd yy imsa penn duad t’ao on 3 eine awe ty ows i>ws ndenn Suay Sion ony 13 wa xdbw qan> 67o7>s xo xd on wo mwod A’apn aN Onn cendwi ans Sapm qrad esard an o@>y) opr orpowh: aoxw oonad sax ann ons dsc rbapw 71OD .O3¥) ONN) INN ADIAM NNN mand: 79d) aw 7onD73 Nan 27"'D YI Mypn TRANSLATION 1. If there is precisely a quorum, in a synagogue, and the Hazzan has begun to pray, none of those present may ana pad yan wy a1 yaind moon onyn yo nns wyw 5 57 Jo pa ma ow 5 ss Jo 5 59 npr 5 6o pro wom > 61 hi piee oyAd ans ana yan mbm 1d aoxw orm porn ww ‘nan .5 63 amy 5 ont 3 65 smwoy ow 5 66 sansd omy 5 67 smb 5 6s noun 69 maw moa wo 5 70 QnDo”D Oo 71 wv opps *> ypm) od>yan nw da qn ww ody now7 map wxind xden b 72 wma prt vya brn CHAPTER V 197 leave until the Hazzan has completed his prayers. But if one left after the Hazzan began the recital of Kaddzsh or Kedushah, it may be completed without a quorum. So the law is found in Halakot Gedolot. * 2. A person is not permitted to interrupt the prayers of the Sabbath or Festival day unless he has thrice interrupted the prayers of the daily services without success. 3. There is a herem that the Hazzan may not recite the prayers when a person protests until the “elders of the community”’ tell him to proceed. 4. A herem: that a man should not leave his wife and stay away for more than eighteen months without her per- mission. ? 5. A takkanah of the Geonim: the people of Israel may establish a herem with any time-limit, but they may sus- pend it for an individual because of a temporary need. When the time-limit has passed there is no need of releas- ing the herem,3 but within the time-limit they are em- powered to release it. t See above, p. 137, note 6. In PD there is an interesting state- ment added to this section: ‘‘This law is similar to that of the priest _who is sacrificing at the altar when it is discovered that being the child of a forbidden marriage he is unfit to perform the priestly func- tions. In that case too, he need not be removed from the altar but he may complete his sacrifices, since he has begun them.” The statement is evidently based on Mishna Terumot 8.1, quoted Kiddushin 66b, which provides that the sacrifices offered by a priest, who afterwards is discovered to have been the child of a forbidden marriage, are not invalid. Nothing is there said, however, in regard to permitting a priest who is found unfit, to complete the service. Truly, Maimonides and Tosafot (Ta‘anit 17b) go as far as to say that even the sacrifices offered by him after the discovery are valid, but there is no source for permitting him to continue to act in the priestly capacity even for a moment after the discovery of his unfitness. 2 See Takkanah of R. Tam concerning Abandonment, above p. 167. 3 The view that the herem is a means of legislation is a later de- / velopment. Originally it was conceived as a vow on the part of the individual of the community or a decree of the foremost scholar of the generation(See Rashi, RFL 21). It is here described rather as a constitutional means of legislation, its original meaning having been all but obscured. The doctrine that a herem with a time-limit expires automatically when that time-limit is reached is not generally agreed 198 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 6. One’ may converse with a transgressor who has diso- beyed the herem and he:may be counted as one toward a religious quorum. : a. 7. Acity? which has a cemetery may compel the villages which bring their dead to that cemetery to come under the jurisdiction of its court. And the French Rabbis say that if it is known that there once lived a scholar in a certain place, it may be taken for granted that an estab- lished court existed there and one must stand for trial there. 8. A Takkanah of the Ancients: a defendant in a litigation regarding the inheritance of landed estates may insist on bringing the matter before the highest Jewish court of the province. b. 9. A Takkanah: not to divorce a woman against her will. Such a Writ of Divorce is void. If he gave her the writ originally with her consent, and then it was found to be unfit, he may give her a second writ against her will, pro- vided we know that she did not realize that the first writ was void. 10. R. Yehiel? says that those who pledge themselves to. Those who consider the herem a vow or a decree of a scholar, held that it continued in force until abrogated even though its time limit had passed. This seems to have been Rashi’s view (Commentary to Sanhedrin 596). The Tosafists, however, take issue with this point of view. They insist that Rashi’s words are to be interpreted as ap- plying only to such Takkanot as have no time-limit (Comp. Yam Shel Shelomo, Bezah 1.9, Yebamot 6.41). This latter view is also held by R. Eliezer b. Nathan (Raben, Prague, 76a). * R. Isaac b. Sheshet in a responsum (No. 172) quotes the rule laid down in this section from R. Meir b. Baruch. 2 This law of jurisdiction was invoked by R. Hayyim Paltiel (RMP 249), but he does not quote the Takkanah, See also Isserlein, Pesakim No. 65, end. 3 For the ordinances governing the suspension of betrothals see section 2, p.139, above. The R. Yehiel referred to is probably R. Yehiel of Paris, who lived in the thirteenth century. In Pd, this sec- tion is somewhat amplified. We read there, ‘As for a betrothal with- out the undertaking of a herem, there is an ancient herem to maintain the betrothal, and that he who refuses should pay.’’ That section is quoted from Pd (or a text similar to it) in the responsa wrongly ascribed to R. Isaac b. Sheshet, Munkacs 1900, f. 42a. -_ ia ———— CHAPTER V 199 under a herem of the communities need no suspension of the herem if they release each other. But if one party wants to maintain the herem and the other refuses, the party who wishes to maintain it is free because of the release by the other, but the other party remains bound. Some of the French Rabbis dispute this. b. 11. A Takkanah: not to rent the house of a Gentile in which a fellow-Jew lived until a full year has passed after the other Jew left the house. But if the Jew said to the Gentile, ‘‘Let the house to me at a lower rate than I have been paying, and he gave no reason for asking a reduction in the rent, and the second offers the Gentile the amount the former tenant had been paying regularly, in that case there is no ordinance, unless the houses of the city have fallen or risen in value. And the Takkanah does not affect a Jew who lets a house to a fellow-Jew. d. 12. A Takkanah: not to refuse to enter the herem to raise the tithe. One member of the community may com- pel everyone to enter the herem if there is Minyan in the city. But one cannot become a Gabbaz (an administra- tor of the funds) if the others do not permit it. This Takkanah was in vogue before R. Gershom but R. Gershom ordained that it be renewed yearly. g. 13. A herem concerning one who strikes his neighbor: The community must not release him so that he may be counted for a Mznyan, until he has agreed to perform what- ever the Court may enjoin upon him. This is provided the assailed person makes a claim, otherwise the Community may suspend the herem of their own accord. — 14. Furthermore did R. Tam ordain that if one struck his neighbor outside the synagogue he is to pay twenty-five dinars, and in the synagogue the fine is double that amount. So did R. Joseph Kara‘ testify that he saw R. Yehiel of Paris decide. If one struck one’s neighbor twice he must pay a double fine, but if the person assailed hit back at the * L. Reads R. Joseph Karwan. The person has not been identi- fied, but he may have been related to the R. Joseph Kara, who was a contemporary of Rashi. See Einstein, R. Joseph Kara u. Sein Com- mentar zu Kohelet, p. 22. 200 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES assailant, he lost his rights. There is then no need of releasing the first assailant from the herem, but the fines are to be decided upon according to the number and character of the blows. All this is taken from a manuscript of R. Yehiel of Troyes,’ for the distinction between the one who strikes another in the synagogue or outside has not been accepted by the rabbis of France, but they permit the Court to increase or decrease the amount according to the circumstances (and the position) of the assailant and the assailed. This fine is to be given to the assailed? and not to the poor, as it is said in regard to the case of the half Zuz, which was ordered to be given to the poor. So also was it ordained to be given that even one woman or a relative is to be trusted when they testify that they saw one strike another. So too, is a minor believed in a case when it is not possible to summon other fit witnesses. As we read in the Talmud chapter Hahobel,s ““There was a * The word wwe may be a corruption of wiv or wy Ve which occurs quite often as the tittle of R. Yehiel of Paris (Compare Or Zarua I, 232a, and see Wellesz in J. J. L. G., 1906, p. 106). The reading of L vinun wopp dwn ' would seem to substantiate this theory. There is no “R. Yehiel of Troyes’? known. 2 In Rabbinic law, all fines are given to the person damaged. Thus the thirty shekels to be paid by the master of the ox who gored a slave, are given to the master of the slave (Exodus 21. cf. Deut. 22.19, 29). It was only in the Middle Ages, that the custom of the environment of taking all fines for the State, influenced the Jews to take fines for the poor. In this case however, Talmudic precedent was followed and the fines were paid to the person injured. 3 Baba Kamma 36b. In that case an assailant was ordered to pay half a Zuz for his assault. The person injured said, ‘Since it is only half a Zuz, let it go to the poor.’’ After a while he changed his mind and wanted to use it for himself. R. Joseph, who was the judge in the case, and also the administrator of the funds for the poor, re- fused to return it, saying that now it belonged to the poor. The story shows, as the writer wants to prove, that ordinarily the fines were paid to the assailed person. 4 Chapter 8 of Baba Kamma. The story referred to is evidently that told in Baba Kamma 90b. But the writer is quoting from memory and wecannot assume that the differences between his account and that before us are due to any textual errors. The principle that the writer wants to prove, that the judge may act as witness in such a case although ordinarily the same person cannot act both as judge and witness, is borne out by the story as it SO ee a a 5 ae Ss eS Se CHAPTER V 201 person who struck his neighbor, and R. Judah said, ‘‘Here am I who saw it, ‘““Go and pay”. And the payment must be according to the number of blows. 15. A herem: even a single witness or a relative may be accepted against an informer, and even though they did not hear him defaming but saw him speak to the ruler and then the ruler gave orders against the defamed person, or some other such circumstantial evidence. h. 16. A herem: not to cut off the margin of a book even in order to write thereon. k. 17. A herem: not to put repentant converts to shame . because of their sins. | n. 18. A herem: not to read the letter which one’s fellow sends to another without his knowledge, but if it is thrown away one may read it. m. 19. A herem: not to buy stolen things, such as images or a chalice or priestly vestments, and prayer books, or the vessels of worship because of the danger. j. 20. A Takkanah of R. Gershom, the Light of the Dis- persion: whether the husband is in a foreign country or not, if his wife demands her maintenance, they shall announce a herem against all those who know anything of his property, (and all the more if the husband is in town he must state the extent of his property under a herem) and on the basis of that amount they shall decide the amount due her. 21. The law that one? cannot collect from women and slaves? refers only to cases of as$ault, but if the husband benefited by his wife’s dishonesty he must make restitu- tion. R. Nahshon Gaon‘ wrote that (even in the case ‘of assault) they, the slaves and the women, are free only appears before us in the Talmud. But a comparison will show at a glance that we have here not even an epitome of the story. t Lit. ‘‘Clashing with a woman or a slave is always evil’, for if one injures them he must pay, while if they injure another he has no redress. Mishna Baba Kamma 8.6. 2 See additional note page 377. 3 Perhaps R. Nahshon, Gaon of Sura toward the end of the ninth century. The responsum is quoted in Pardes (ed. Const. 24d and ed. Warsaw 60a). * 202 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES from payment of damages, but they are to be punished with stripes, otherwise an unworthy slave, and a base woman might strike (with impunity) worthy men.‘ 22. If two people assail each other, the one doing the greater harm is to pay to the other.2) The wounds and the shame are also to be taken in consideration. Naturally there are heavier damages for two or three blows than for a single blow.’ If the assailant is stubborn and says “I do not want to be (variant: I insist on being) judged according to the law of the Torah,’’4 the Court may with- draw from the litigation and give permission to the assailed one to go to the Gentile Courts. 23. My masters says, if a man hits a person who insulted his father, justice must be done for the person hurt, for we find no law permitting one to strike one who insulted one’s father. 24. A Takkanah of the Early Geonim: if a person has proof that he has been defamed, and makes representations to the ruler whereby he saves himself from the defamation, * Mordecai, Baba Kamma 8.91 2 A quotation from Baba Kamma 33a. 3 This passage which in the Hebrew is not clear, was completely misunderstood by the writer of L; the writer of Pd simply omitted it. The interpretation given here is offered with some diffidence. 4 According to the strict Talmudic law, of course, he could not be adjudged guilty. Firstly only properly ordained Rabbis can be judges in cases of Assault (Sanhedrin 1.1). And ordination of that kind being impossible outside of Palestine, jurisdiction over such cases ceased when Palestine was no longer the Jewish center. Secondly, the ordinances admit testimony inadmissible in accordance with the views of the Talmud. Thirdly, the fines set are arbitrary. The Court could not therefore insist in the defendant obeying it completely” but on the other hand, it could refuse to protect him against defamation before the Gentile authorities unless he obeyed its injunctions. P reads here, ‘‘And if he says, ‘I do not want the judgment of the Torah’”’ The meaning is the same in either case, but it seems to me thay L is here to be preferred. 5’ This sounds like a decision in an actual case. It is possible that the word ‘‘Master’’ refers to Rashi who is often referred to in that way in French works. all aan ie, CHAPTER V 203 but by those representations! he hurt the original informer and even accussed him in a worse manner, than he had been accused—the second informer is free from guilt. For since he had to try to save himself, this is not considered ‘saving himself by the property of others’ and the first is a Malshin in regard to every law and fine. 4. 25. A Takkanah under the herem by the Ancients: that a summons should be issued by one of the cities to a complainant that the defendant should come to trial with him before one of the three nearest cities where there is a court. So that he should not incur expenses in going and seeking the prominent men of the province. If there is a prominent rabbi in the vicinity the summons shall be issued by him. 26. It is also one of these Takkanot that if a man is sum- moned to appear before three cities, he must not hesitate to choose one of the three cities. It is also a tradition as an ordinance of R. Gershom to choose the greatest court.’ The word of the Agent of the Court is accepted when he says that he wanted to show the defendant the , summons, and that he told him to come before the Court within one or two days.4 If he refuses to come, the Community shall judge him on the basis of the testimony of the Agent. The complainant has the right to stop the prayers in that city to compel them to issue a summons, so that the defendant should choose one of three cities. And after the summons has been issued he may interrupt the prayers until three men sit as a Court. And if the t The text of P is here clearly defective and is not to be saved by so easy an emendation as that proposed by Bloch in his edition of RMP. 2 Bloch emends ‘‘three’’ to ‘‘two’’ because he reads oy instead of ony making witnesses out of the cittes. The context shows that cities are meant here and not witnesses and the parallel passages in Pd leaves no doubt as to the matter. 3 This passage is omitted in B. 4 The ordinary term was three days, Cf. Res. Rashi in RFL f. 15b, cf. also Takkanot Shum 2, below p. 230, and Or Zarua, Baba Kamma 436, Res. of R. Samson of Sens. 204 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES defendant refuse to come before them, they must issue a writ that he did not comé. 27. It is customary to pronounce a blessing over the com- munity in connection with the announcement of a herem, as we find that the threatened punishments of Deuteronomy are followed by the blessing of Moses. End of the Takkanot of R. Gershom. TEA Ter C. Besides the two recensions of the Takkanot of R. Tam that have been discussed, there is also in existence one in which the Takkanot of R. Tam are interwoven, as it were, with those of R. Gershom. In this recension the writer aims apparently to combine all the extant ordinances and to arrange them in codified form. The original of: this work has not come to my notice, but in several manuscripts it has been preserved with a number of additions by later writers. These additions to some extent obscure the work of the compiler so that it is no longer easy to say which text he used in making his compilation. In establishing the text of this recension, the following manuscripts have been used: Ms. British Museum, Cat. Margoliouth 1081, (Add, 27129), referred to below as A, Hebrew 8; Merzbacher, Cat. Rabinowitz, 135, referred to as B, Hebrew 3; and British Museum, Cat. Margo- liouth, 569, (Or. 1083), referred to as C, Hebrew 2. B and C are practically identical, and they have been used only to correct the obvious errors that occur in each. A is longer than the others and contains material that is omitted inthem. For instance we learn from it, that the rule declaring that any city in which a rabbi is known to have lived at some preceding time may be assumed to have hada herem beth din, was established in 1272 (section 3). The writer of A, too, marks the end of section 42, with the statement ‘“‘these are the ordinances of R. Tam which the Israelites of the exiles of Edom (Christendom) have accepted upon themselves and for their children forever. Those who transgress them may be compelled by the CHAPTER V 205 Court to make restitution.’’ There is a similar remark in BC but coming at the end of section 41, which is a well- known ordinance of R. Tam, it seems in that text to refer only what immediately precedes it. Both A and BC contain a number of interpolated re- marks commenting on the ordinances from the point of view of Talmudic law. The strange lines at the end of BC, which contain only the opening words of the Ordinance of R. Tam against informers (Chapter IV, Text A) followed by the words “‘These are the ordinances of R. Gershom, the Light of the Dispersion.”’ are clarified by an examination of A, in which is the compilation of the ordinances followed by the complete text of the Takkanah of R. Tam against the informers (see above, p. 159). It is evident that the writer of BC who in several instances shows a desire to abbreviate the material before him, added only the open- ing words of the herem of R. Tam, but did not think it necessary to quote the whole of it. In view of the fact that the larger part of this recension is merely a re-arrangement of the older texts that have already been discussed, it does not seem necessary to translate it. The remarks necessary for its further elucidation have been included in the corresponding sections of L-P.. Wherever A differs materially from BC the two ver- sions are given in parallel columns; where the differences are slight, the text given is that of A, while the variants of B and C are placed in the notes. Version A has however in some instances ‘‘been corrected’’ by a later hand; the original reading has in such cases been placed in par- entheses, and the new reading, which is usually found above the line or on the margin, has been printed in brackets. In one case which is noted, version A has suffered a serious omission, and the text has been completed from BC. Le) S mou TS pw wa Mupn wa nynstp moan Wn , y") now ND pwn ora xd) ano. xb word xow ose rvan cond indy .1 xv) 2.3 206 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES p"y pad ons 20m Ov OTN JIT Way ON 7a ON iw Opn .2 osaya xbw 9x1 37’a2 py To ONT bn pwa Ax OY DA ONT mano ainsd> oda paw xox pw xds camp ax gbdt onnn bn spas ars ooo ad >> yan ax ox onyy cans ony xba art pop 1b mbw> pans sand yainn dyn wt pop ax aay pnond fan S 'w wryataw npax °5y7) oN) .3 by aw aDnw opo 2") obs 'n Nap ‘onom) PY AMNA Nn op (Dy AS>vm 3’. on ow mw xd 1 MS pn comm o> dion Day pp MapA ma ma ww Py mapnn .4 ow p> ow nein tas sad win xd onoap orn nyow onoap nbapi .5 mytoav dyna s’ab xbsx myprp no ox) mb> wn pre wpm amo Sys inwyd 7m ind xdw .6 mysaa abnna md yn saw pray ws) anxtow ‘nyt ‘nd or wi Sipps awe ay xbw wrt 9D"ya ow 00d ym dy ow nia Nexon | ORT MSN "9 Dw ‘pa pr anna cenad oS) ow: ‘2 Nwd xdw .7 DYyO INT 119~N Ty wD Nd OF ON NI) ANTI 107 D PID MYO IS MNDw2 yOX) Ta nN AWA Anan NAN” 7273 >) vat 8 DIN "01D WNT IN WNT ON ‘ya MAID ONDTIP 01N.8 sbapow onnm ana pax psa’ wd awe) er ‘ms adap qwro 77x 7 nown anxd nex wR oAYton on on nnd AND pox ps bax cpnnd 7D wD wR AND 27 ns NSN ‘YD PA "3 ow ww 2 31 pw oem ans 82) 2.2 2 DANS Vyo porn "PN W223 Mr Bee) Vans eae eee Ort pop yams mbwd 2 a 5 ond ov oon 2 2 6 NOX WI? 37 JD} JW) ANSI b) 7? 7M) ON 2.3 8 wx 7 SiO_A TNT AYT NPW IPRT ON D"ya 2.3 9 YK... 10 WOON 2.2 1 CHAPTER V 207 w orn nbap xba 7 nowm 7? nownn orp> “noqp orn ynn> w 4s 1a ann at) wey Jy wnmd oNwI OX OdID) £7273 1D) oy pin nbap xba 7 nown .9 ops dyapd onoqp on wy w 48a anna qytpb) nowna 1b pRw pd OY ON ON ANAd snd oxwa ps yoo odbw> an snmd am) aa byve xd on Dxw OwIN7 pavna SD onprd IN. TAN Tos 525 pamn anad Saw pro pre od pied isa ON) INA pas ps oan yo ard aaron os Syerp aan m1) .10 AS19711 ANN yam 29m IN) OANA ovp> AX oNNT nprx 227 nxp) xwrd mow Mam yan wD dy xwrd ami orpd Son onatd nan eS wet Nw? ON JON Am opin 1% w anon 4anam pq> an pom now maa 3p mom .11 > 6Ty mma asy nbn xd 4s srany awp (77D) bvad mw 2 mwa ini mbpna b> bua mm byad my spas Sym arm ornrsa Np D') opin ep’) mbpnn bom & yanimw opoa pr mbpn duad Sia wwe ya nyo cna ‘aw jal Ima mn 1 yan byaws 4S Suad 5)D> is 1DINA yan 7’a ~yav nyo cnaaw benn b> ans orppd 4$°> Sapa phiay psn pinon ‘yo? xba ‘ya Sopnnd aaw ams ib$am pond 4on ov Sbpnn S ans apna no>> Sapa pdia psi pinon nye xba Soannbd xyisa maay oms bbam prnom id 4dr not oman» >Sya non Son bund Sia o’ns ow yan “vyay nyo ona chy atin list: at orp> AXITA Man WD 2.2 2 2 PND OINYD) 2.2 3 Alyce tginves dry lane fate te! wany ndbpn iW 2.3 5 2") mbpn ‘1 Sum ay «1.2 6 208 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGBS ayan ow Sava va pa nawa pa mbpn dyad indw .12 mipn 25awa bax pb 7aD mbpn bua xd ox nan by ooNd ww satm crvdn dbp ‘os wo nawa bvads dia smbnnsd ps Sapa pyDa AX oO) naw mm axv> AS pond bya on ea be yp yin cad) pwdnd nob pr on po pond anpi7 maa pin Anws7 Sym cn wa ayy orn spo poy ido eds stn 7'2 15 mwyE yor? on 6f 729 ds ‘ond xd wpdon vmaxnd w Sennd) ‘oxw 670) on rn) ipbod epww ond 2 on pay ws on “po p>0d and 6) py” Nw os Sapa yo ans oy axe ad wn rand a’a Sxwn .13 oxan Sod 7mwn sow xd ox 12 SSannd xp xdw voy nord and pd n’o Sxwnd pan yo ma dSSpnnbd yn aw > sw ty ots punows x'v boam xbw pan wn 14 bSanw sy jinn sendy Sapa maomd mob sw mas 1 mtaNw °p .15 [ONY IPI APS "DR myD aT ow yoy» bow ona ob> IDI bi PR) WNYNWw MAI ow May 973d AIAN AN Ww 1b PR AN mr dy ‘apnar "ad sad you us 1098 DIMA DDN ND ‘nd yan ONTO OM 737. OX IND AIM 11/pN PyT 1a Mwy ON .16 pqan mpna io xbw mod ps mpnn dvad oye onnn py wmo> ory myi p> S9m 1D nata ayyd 127'ad ps vd F'n By N'D aya ody on ba mipnan aro aywn Jax °pD IN ONoIpA wyo Wd 13Avy JD) MAIDA Id Ov OTN wy NNED 2 21 Nay WM) 345'8 n mbnns> "BN 2.2 3 noon maa pm 3.3 4 “TD 2.25 2 "DD CNDDIM ,'N Wow Ns apn bab a 2 7 1 1.2 8 JON NW OW MDD TT 1.3 9 .1'3.1> TWYS FN 2.2 10 INS MPN Wy Mpn 2.2 11 im Sy awy a pr 2.2 12 JIT 2 2 18 CHAPTER V 209 el DXDI¥D ON 9D 7"223 PD PS ON) by nw ps $Spnzy pina Snnm sory ay pion Spady nex 5453 NTT RE) Tay ON? inden 79 mpn Sy ray 1b>> ‘Fm vany 7’ ‘py 'nben coy inn 4S mwTp Is wap Snn7 "DRw "DI 779 92) 9D) Snnaw anNo sr 2 Nw oy naw yy ‘yn IMS pr M8 aeIdH JAW wD SOND TDW DR awd xbw “nap orn ew on pa mdawa pa Ss 1a aw ma moon mw io oxdso ay mrovowa x> oN mam yD “TTT NYw IIMs ‘os oN. aw Seow mena mom omnes °> wenpy 12 700 WIDwN NOs Ayw MwD PNADww ‘ow 37> yns ws ond TON Cwm IW Mayy mw Osten 47> pnw ‘OX DX OAM mpm ow SX aNnY Ssqw py -aw mxip> xonow D> ams bened ma -pownn mw> ans Send ow own Dn ww oes) vnsqD noms b> S*aw nprx ody ows cnynw "8D 7X OIpD n'n ow Tw oIpD maw ond wap ‘ono any 77 ETD yanin by vbm "2 onn Sy moan ‘pn dy saym ipn> ynayn ypnd mond ra m So) od. map InN 7277 n> apts Sapm ya pin w oN po w "DS Sapp ww ox ma> 1 Kwon ar onna pid ya masn> doa yay odhya owd 8 hyp npisq maa w DN) 17 expr SSpnnd wr Snnm oxaiwn Sx 1) ps os poasd npn man b6>n win mbwpn nay ow Sr wan Sw oonz say >>> ‘a anyi anbpn ono ax mdw pwn sw ma ny awd xdw .18 nx? ans mw oxdp ay 2m 13 maw ond 397 ‘ox Pan yo TNT Mayy mwa nw mo mnpa%d minba byw mo pp 1d ‘DIN PN sw) mrawd onyt pr id ‘ox on SNY ISN PRI pnw ‘ows md yn: sobre Nd o8 OFF 2PM ow PR oven Ss yay ona pr yovon dy yan bsawd ma angi mNan mw> pow ona pia apd xby .19 ssnn ma bs swyon wand etn amy tata by Sapa osnws pig wos mr ba. ob ns ma moaomd b> sans n’ya im Ty. n> on ona] a No IS yr W347 onNpo om oANNT OS? 210 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 1 >"y onal TP Nd SN PANNA mw $53 wan jpn baw non NNT OD TT AwYyD °xMD Own?) MwIMY Jpn Ww Van 7p mw boa oman 7pD SN m>pn os mop we sexy xbw 20 Syn mera xbw poy 1b ww snyan ow nha mn) (onm $5 “noqp orn onn bapm od rpmw crvan 52d pwd momw on/p mrray md apy ni by) netpay 727 “VYTDW IN 72 ‘ONw = pup> was jpn nm tM WWI7.OS aT P4aPT "Dd AON fyi dal TNTW ‘15 ON) WR INS ap bipp jos) muvp boa yD) nDTw np WI) "wD pomd www PRY p72 wan wpm bs wep xdbw an p> yup ww dy op op S77 S an ADon by enoIp on .21 omp weaay orn Sapad wemw mertpaw 127 555 ws y>20d maonw vey 7 S5 apd pby Sapw n'y WS OM DIDNT AX ON poy Fa ooxy> Sapa im S : 22 & Ap) TTT AWRY wpm .23 bana pap x75) ar Sy jos Pr mand ypnt xian ('3 ' p"D TIN Us NT oT cay 9 b's ow) Trea bn mw > ordw dor any Sp 725 7») AwR IA Ip In pnd and ‘2 an p'n won 5.24 mom wane ow ‘xT mop row 2"x obw pn ania podwn mt mua nt bom nenam bana ‘NT Y) INNA "Nn OwA ANY wr mond xxpy wy xopr ww Spr nx 't xdbem “NDI Py 7 Obwni Ynw wo IN yoSy woe Jm0 bp ww no mov ow 2 3 1 “MN nd May 2 a 2 iO a fe 3 CHAPTER V 211 xbw npaxsa qs or 52 jaynd ps by T'n1a wn dx ipa iwwp pip owp> ora mw iid mr mso77 a Dd yup ww dy roxy 72 poo Amn pt o> ant Jad ‘ow m7 OxyN ON) .25 WD) NX ADM ADen 4M yy Iwo ya DD wands nonb mewn un [pest mood onnn anno pax pry amor ens pwsn 7D TAK he myst 317 °»> wey oIpn 4S DN DNF NA? pax ORY Ny I’22 Py MDF piyx? x? Mt 208) TWN IN ap Toad) by oN) nyTT Towa AN) or by qs pwbrw> “yow pry mpon by mx mm bennd rat omso ans xonox os ywoon yoy (aa mw yw 8 Ap) Try ~w> No 7D) .26 NYT JTOND) (NYT OTOND) FS Syow PRY NOD PY I0N) py TITOwD ON GN wed>rw win Py Pwd MX IN 2wion JINN NINN DW IN Ja ainod As pp ywda psp> xdbw .27 yal S AN) am op iby Ppa y's) xb) man owe 1b pn maant Ww pow yd nysyo mawn Sya wad xbdw .o8 meow ry mdan po) ON oD ‘ayn yar man np’d xbw .29 190 "Ww monn anys? 52 ynand ndwros 2nan ‘na msyid> xbdw .30 anv 1p 30N) orn ido mai ad pr 4inver xd pa ya Sya pays qpn .31 bapw ya Sys ox w'd) sibw itpp AN ob> bw oytrn b> by wt Sy mn a mb yppoan mb 15 pre onn dy amyo yw> ..2 1 aasv ‘nyyp a mand om nbwy 2.2 2 “nn ipa ON 2a 3 10D MND NVNW NVR) . a 4 yh y ce het 212 J“eWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES sinny whan ‘ox (an Ny) ede yow omen ‘pn .32 War pwIT ‘ONY 49997 ‘WIN YD wy se-xN? TD 20727 WT TWD Pwr ‘OXY IIIT Ww Any yo rata wba AS pwsr pwbor oxy Sxp pt ya pr Senn yo wsy dxmd oto roo > “pax wyw oONIP oan 3pm vypr pt 6b5D9 pwd sapr pwRrm yan pwns sid nnxa pad wy yan 77w yaind mom ma won oyn yo nns mon word) 75° aw Sy mo sexy [D T'a ov ww IDWoR 3) Oyn 58 1 pn mppp xdi0 yp") p"a7 p"pDd NI Nxp pmrwaw sawn vp Sy urpp apa awn w ox 1p S % nooo yi XS awnm mom psy 295 POM oy Da orm Nx os w yds pna oa .33 pa ony ‘2 yo nmsxa nod) 15 synaSm ano xb 12 nbd y'5 mpn 4D mbapz on syn trad mon 1 mend asaw rind wows yor Sst 2a men 34 mown 1S spew oo own 127nK2 J’a5 sow sa modva vd ‘xe 13390? ON) "pn DD bw yd ‘oNw OD °IWT 1D TNX AID yan pont Suad yaind n> ow yoy den oy ann ims ow Snpm wm, byad SoD oi 37 JO yainn 14aw ya ‘wm ‘ind> yA ‘MENA wa xdw ainod om>y xa xd on t’25 on ‘2 12e Jy ow dws nbpn Sopt> MND w NW 2.3 OR yO ANY YT OAT 22.3 evord 2.3 “TORT 'ONY......O8Y OI .2 2 oyad nay ord Jaxy 22.2 nm pypi yt bod a. NIV. DY 02 DA wD 22.2 pnd paxaw awn ap 2 3 TN p"D) 2.2 10 on 33 2.3 11 .'T MPNT yD %D.....20 INNA .2 2 12 1'05 x25 yan ano.) .3 13 evonn dvad yainna dia yan aw my ‘nD 172° WR 22.2 14 oo nggoaaert® wot = CHAPTER V . 213 pa S pomd ~y yo 97 apna | x mpno ow) pn ow asy> Sew ws appid ps ompp ays apex ps .35 xs Doyen ow "ppm aD oayan ow Sawa ides onpPmn ~pann by 1b ww my ow awa by ww pppen by 1b ww ym spp asy> ia mpirn toda pr Syy See Sy m9 epoim Sewn Soya tab ims Sawaiastpbw ow asyd xow odiys oyar b> bo> Nava oat awa bas wor >> tod ayan ow Sawa ppp ON onVDw tya 12 todw rpp adyd or Maya) tb n> 1? px pA jay "y ws ipawn mno yoy idvAw wR .36 noosa yoy y>unw inp >"x) 9 yaa ay t’ad Sunn asx man pom yapw onp AN pa xowid mwy aes 55 pod Sia ms nowna Ns > w nosy mnon yo pr xbw 1d meny Soom aN ox nino > amws i> avy sy sa gba pdy poop mynd pon Suad no 8 Ino Dawa ‘ox ony > saws S59 np 2597 Sapa ory msn NT Ty apa ts s np anvanws pay xd wr xe. pm? ND WN) .37 mwa xo ox owin xd ox won a" any ineKD mena Sap orpod oa ovya pro ond pre ona 20°77 On) .38 noi maa 'yba wees opw mdr mo ow swam mya pwd saad yyroc ody ow poanw v’aa wer ons xD mwy xd on sma dy 7a mys Sov on myw pend) 05 oxen mer ow ow inpind mpo? porn? wy xed Soy anxm SoNn mr ow my on inva cow Sdpnnw OMS DWIX) ITI Vy AMEN. Obw maa AT oTNY IT b>) .39 Nap 479 OY w ON ‘MPM VyN samay 83) 42.2 1 .OID IT NAD INN .2 2 2 733 VNINIY PUpY oN pad 2.2 3 “Vy. yap 3m . .2 4 214 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES xO an wry oT a> ionp> nan mD0> wt man" IPN "Wy .40 pow nad 9 1 722 77 20N) SD DWE moo a> Sap mo 35 jon ober aye) mw. Tn wnws nD .41 i mbia '@>y voap n> ‘pn o"y oy Sy ody am NST 8 spo Sy onan b> OD TY TIN DIDI) OW "NN DAN w .42 VYT yaunD "OWD Ww IYIDW yap po ow ww ony JIT vd MND wrx oyan 4zox amps pyn ‘ms vy> pond oma mynd Syne Sy mde ont yo ski NUD DYIIN WX PS ON PyA ipa ny mbap powow onm yor> swmw> 8 Js nyd snd 87 OND) ANT pay yo ans mow mee Se qwin bx nD 0 o5d> aw ‘od qasim (iw .w 9 ont 5 Tow oD dmNd oms 55> ody wown ond sox Sasi 42> oynaw onp on 7 ION PT 1") Ow "9 ‘ON ANA DD? ‘2 DN] ANN ynND OTP AD qo. wd () OD INN ana Jax ody ibapy n’3 morn o"y Sy) omby oN miziaw NT vw ombsy aaym ony> oy S277 pM jy prayn mand 7a pan owd ons mpn .43 bap) wp 'w yor Xda ody b> dyn oy Yy) OAT onYy sve ond) O72 98 ody ondon pmo ‘nay °° 48 AD WN boyd "DID Dy war [xn nys yom Ss 17orb) Gop>) ximw> x" nwowb ona pm ‘ww man pax mow mws bs win bs on p>drxd ood yaw nm (1 .v wowna wnad (iD 4 ona TDS INKY "9 ‘ON UDA Jina 48 mann pax Jody odiyd 1) b>) 590 nad odi>> yon bapd "n>1 ym "BD °DM AyD MIND 2.21 yD 33) 2.3 3 ‘n 59 3.353 Mo Vyr....0yan' ON 2.3 4 JT OR Ww...0NT 2 D5 CHAPTER V 215 J by rayw pay oy raid amp 2yvys men on 3x0 7'2 Seiwa ‘nn ‘von ys yok on ND pwr van mupn S"Dy oun S Ss win bs op 35 an oda ‘nminsn nw odys mur DS yp nb) ann Jax 495) Sava "OR ANN ynD oONp ans w'> ann bapb opnyy pdiys omox iw ‘nn idapw 42> o@ray anA nep nono pod yaw ‘ody mann pax an op dmx sans qnad Sapa edi 44 mwo> m’apn ‘ort oan nbon ‘ina ons bsaw bape ane oy mows iw ‘say sox 72 °Swm) aw ‘D972 San oamdyy snk ‘D737 nxn ‘ox 495) Cn 2x) sayy prays sats amp .45 imon xd) ond a MN OANA WS S520 1D) nen Wwyn-os NT Dippa ‘D725 ayo jn yow ans Onn ~ CHAPTER VI PROPOSED TAKKANAH OF R. PEREZ The text of this proposed Takkanah was taken by Guede- mann (J. 263) from a Halberstam manuscript, which is now part of the Montefiore Library (Hirschfeld 130). We do not know whether the proposed Takkanah was ever approved by the Rabbis to whom it was sent. It consists of two sections, the first providing that any man might be compelled to undertake by a herem or oath, that he would not strike his wife again. He might be compelled to undertake this herem on the complaint either of the wife, herself, or of one of her near relatives. Secondly, it provided that if the husband refused to under- take such a herem, the Court should assign the wife alimony as if the husband were away. Guedemann’s text has been compared with a photograph of the manuscript and only one slight change has been necessitated. Nevertheless the text is included here for the sake of completeness. om on Sew oa mms by yow prio wey mia nyw dip yom anes mond ain pays wsn oben cn) omw mond omy > awn Den" on Seen we ow mond xbw soy anno NIT > yw "PND wala pms vo nn Syvw wat prey °a7a4 "yw at Sy mpyix Sen map w oD yoy mM INN TDD IN!S TADoNw Sewn we 55 Sy ads ann Apna win job mbap qn nny? yx py n> odyopn m@anpo ans nwpad ww oinvs nvpad orna pid Mey? x5 7D °D 1D TT WN yen FIT ww oyD FIT inex mond xbw nym onbad wp nx a ws mayd) wx oD ww wy’ on) Oxcea Npy¥ IX TWNT Npys ow sanw ops ims bw 7’ad nya ad tam ep NT ws open mua amo D> AMaD Db mum md piond mManp som mon mdbya y>em ds. mn md ipo maqy °p> apy Att wayn ornaynd pasa awws ody wma wD’ oN) API 4773 aaost pbs 3’ ya pap os ode at op nop CHAPTER VI 217 TRANSLATION The cry of the daughters of our people has been heard concerning the sons of Israel who raise their hands to strike their wives. Yet who has given a husband the authority to beat his wife? Is he not rather forbidden to strike any person in Israel? Moreover R. I(saac) has written in a responsum that he has it on the authority of three great Sages, namely R. Samuel, R. Jacob Tam and R. Isaac), the sons of R. Meir, that one who beats his wife is in the same category as one who beats a stranger. Nevertheless have we heard of cases where Jewish women complained regarding their treatment before the Communities and no action was taken on their behalf. We have therefore decreed that any Jew may be com- pelled on application of his wife or one of her near relatives to undertake by a herem not to beat his wife in anger or cruelty or so as to disgrace her, for that is against Jewish practice. If anyone will stubbornly refuse to obey our words, the Court of the place to which the wife or her relatives will bring complaint, shall assign her maintenance according to her station and according to the custom of the place where she dwells. They shall fix her alimony as though her husband were away on a distant journey. If they, our masters, the great sages of the land agree to this ordinance it shall be established. Perez b. Elijah. CHAPTER VII TAKKANOT OF THE RHINE COMMUNITIES TEXT A. THIRTEENTH CENTURY In discussing the Takkanot of R. Gershom (above Chapter I) we noticed that one of the sources of these Takkanot are the ordinances of the Rhine communities into which they were incorporated. The text in which those Takkanot are incorporated among the other ordinances of the Communities, is the one printed in the responsa of R. Meir b. Baruch (ed. Prague, 1022). We will refer to that text as M (Heb. »).! Another recension of ordi- 1 The same text occurs with a few insignificant changes, most of which are corruptions, in Res. R. Moses Mintz, 102. No note has been taken of the variants of that text except where it shows a clear improve- ment. After the above was in press J received through the courtesy of Dr. Hirschfeld of the Library of the Jews College, London, a photograph of a Montefiore Ms. (Cat. Hirschfeld, 146) which contains another version of text M. The variants from this text which will be referred to below as MA, are given below under the Hebrew notation No. This text is of great interest as it verifies definitely certain hypotheses set forth above. It proves beyond question that Rosenthal (Monats- chrift 45.245) was right in maintaining that the synod of Mayence which adopted the ordinances found in M, took place in 1220, and that R is the work of a later synod held in Speyer in 1223. It is im- possible to suppose with some of the earlier writers on the subject that pnn in M is to be emended into wpnn, since the reading of M is now corroborated by MA. Moreover this text does not contain the Takkanot of R. Gershom, thus showing that originally M, or the ordinances adopted in Mayence in 1220, did not contain them, but that they were added by the sub- sequent synod held in the following generation. MA is a transcript of the original decision taken in 1220; M, on the other hand, is a transcript of those decisions as they were re-worked at the synod held between 1240 and 1250. Hence M contains immediately after the Takkanot adopted in 1220, those adopted at the later synod. MA does not con- tain them, but a reference to them is made, obviously by the later scribe who knew of the second synod. These ordinances are added 4 CHAPTER VII 219 ances of the Rhine Communities was published by Rosen- thal from a Halberstam manuscript which is now in the possession of the Montefiore Library (Cat. Hirshfeld 130). We shall call that text R (Heb. 1). There is a third re- cension which is to be found in a Zunz manuscript, which | too is at present part of the Montefiore Library, (136 of the same catalogue). This last text we shall call Z (Heb. ¥). Aside from these three sources which contain practically complete texts, part of the Takkanot, namely the sections dealing with the matter of Halizah, are quoted in a res- ponsum of R. Meir b. Baruch. This responsum is not found in any of the collections, but is quoted at length in a Bodleian manuscript (Hunt. 221, Neub. 820, Heb. ?) as well as in the Yam shel Shelomo (Yebamot 4.18) of R. Solomon Luria (Heb. 9), and in a responsum of R. Moses Mintz (no. 10), referred to in the Hebrew variants as Y. In the following pages the three texts are printed in parallel columns where they differ considerably from each other; but where the differences are not of outstanding importance, the Zunz text is taken as standard, since as will presently be shown it is probably the oldest of the texts. The different readings from the other texts, as well as the readings suggested by the responsum of R. Meir, are given as variants. The Takkanot of R. Gershom are not printed at the end of M, but it must be borne in mind that in that text they appear immediately before the concluding para- graph. After the names of the signers, there follows in M the text of a Takkanah of a synod of the following generation which has been printed in full. A cursory examination of the parallel texts as they are arranged below, whether in the original or in translation, after a reference is made to the ordinance of R. Samuel b. Meir and R. Tam against informers and that of R. Tam providing for the restitu- tion of the dowry in case of the death of the wife. (Above, Chapter IV, Texts A and B). Indeed it is definitely stated that the Takkanot of 1220 were re-ordained at the later synod. The text reading as follows: 92 mvp Pan m7 an odvn Pan oa bon wInnn MnoIpA IrMmaKND i pM yonNM and ow bap b>) yao AMT 220 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES will show that the three recensions are the work of three distinct synods. The differences between the recensions are not merely matters of reading, but there are actual differences of ordinances, many sections which occur in one being missing in one or both of the others. The main body of the ordinance is, however, identical in all three. This shows that the later synods in the main re-enacted the Takkanot of the earlier synods, but added such new ones as appeared to be required by new conditions. In this the Jewish synods were not unlike the Church councils. We find in them, too, that the same enactment were enacted in council after council. M is definitely dated, Mayence, 1220. R has been proven by Rosenthal (M. G. W. J. 45.244 ff) to have been enacted at Speyer in 1223. The date and place of the synod which enacted Z remains to be determined. In section three the names of the three communities are given in the following order in M; Mayence, Worms, Speyer. in R; Speyer, Worms, Mayence. in Z; Mayence, Worms, Speyer. It is to be assumed a priori that the council would name first the city in which they happened to meet. We know that this was the case with council of 1220 (M), since that is stated to have taken place at Mayence, and the name of | that city heads the list. It is on the ground that Speyer heads the list in R, that Rosenthal assumes that the synod of 1223 took place in that city. Since Mayence heads _the list in Z, we are led to suppose that it, like M, was com- posed at Mayence. The settlement of the date of the synod is not so easy. One of the signers of Z was R. Baruch b. Samuel. He was also one of the signers of M, but he died in 1221 before synod of that established text R was convened. Since he is named among the singers of Z, that could not have been enacted after 1221. But it is highly improbable that the three synods would have followed one another as closely as 1220, 1221, 1223. Itisfar more likely that synod responsible for Z took place before synod of 1220 (M). CHAPTER VII 221 This is further corroborated by a study of the texts. But one example need be cited here. MS OY 252 4n OS OTN OF ON IMIN POD’ ON 7) NN TODD AN > yrnp> onon ny ian w ON) PDEAw TDODIN yaw) 7wWEN son 1b yop Poan mp. ony mynawds Sion xm pwbom Z If a man threatens his neigh- bor, in the presence of wit- nesses saying, ‘‘I will cause you loss of money, by giving information to Gentiles,’’ if then that Jew suffers harm at the hands of Gentiles, the Court shall compel the intimidator to pay, whatever amount the victim claims under oath. If there are wit- nesses to the amount of the damage, the informer must pay that. The informer shall be declared unfit to take an oath. Section 3 reads: a) May) 72524 and o7N on ON IMS TOD’ oN LID) 19 TPoSAdS »D yrnpd> ono J’. wm TT w’ ON) PDD mod DPM yaww ~o Ton 19 ynB opm ony rp yan os poor omy vw on myriad) motyd dipp M If a man threatens his neighbor in the presence of witnesses, that he will cause him loss of money, if then that Jew suffer loss,the Court shall compel the intimida- tor to pay whatever amount is claimed by the victim under oath. If there are witnesses that he suffered loss the informer must pay immediately. If there are witnesses that he gave in- formation against his neigh- bor he shall be considered unfit to act as a witness or to take an oath. Even a cursory reading of the two texts will show that Z is the older. The word pwbom of Z, is replaced in M by pwomw ony w on. The words omy w on are evidently an insertion, following as they do on the words ToS oy won) of the preceding line. The insertion was made because it was feared that Z might be misunder- stood. The oath of an alleged victim of denunciation was sufficient to compel the defendant to pay, if there was 222 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES circumstantial evidence against the informer, e. g. if he made threats of denunciation. It is not deemed sufficient to make him unfit to take an oath. To deprive one of his right of taking an oath in a Jewish court, the ordinance demands testimony which would be accepted according to the Talmud. While in this case it is clear that the original text of M read differently from Z, because we find the same reading in R as we do in M;; in other cases we cannot be certain that the text of M has not been changed by later writers. Indeed there is good reason to believe that later synod did revise this text. In the concluding paragraph of M, we read: ‘We have renewed now, in the year 4980 (1220), what our ancestors ordained many years ago, here at Mayence, by a severe herem, except for the or- dinances of R. Gershom, the Light of the Dispersion, b. Judah, which are very many and are well-known and did not need renewal.” It is evident then, that the Takkanot of R. Gershom were not renewed at the synod of 1220. Yet just before this paragraph we find the complete list of the Takkanot of R. Gershom (see Part II, chapter 1). The Takkanot R. Gershom must have been inserted in the text at a later time. It is likely that those who in- troduced that change in the text, also introduced other changes. These changes appear to have been made in this Takkanah by the Rabbis of the generation after 1220. We find a Takkanah of theirs attached to M, forbidding the excommun- ication of any member of a Community exceptin the presence of tne Community. That Takkanah was ordained at Mayence, and probably for that reason, is attached to the text of M, which also was enacted there, rather than to R, which was enacted at Speyer. That this later synod was held after the year 1238, is evident the fact that neither R. Eliezer b. Joel Ha-Levi (who died in 1235) nor R. Eleazar b. Judah (author of the Rokeah, d. in 1238) is mentioned in connection with it. On the other hand there is mentioned among the signers of this Takkanah n™77ax. This is taken by Bruell to mean —_— = a CHAPTER VII 223 R. Asher b. Yehiel, (Jarbuecher, VII 89). That, however, has been denied by A. Freimann, in his Ascher b. Yehiel (Frankfort, 1918) p. 7, note 8. The latter assumes the synod to have taken place about 1240, and as R. Asher was born about 1250, he could not have attended the synod. Now in 1241, R. Isaac Or Zarua carried on an active discussion with R. Judah b. Moses Ha-Kohen, R. Me- shullam b. David, and R. David b. Shealtiel, as to whether a woman who had been violated during the massacre at Frankfort in that year, might remain with her husband after the outrage (Or Zarua, I, 747; HOS 221, 222). It would appear then that at that time he was still in Ger- many. If the council took place about that time, we would have expected him, as the foremost scholar of Germany, to have attended it. It may be that this synod took place as late as the year 1270. We know that was about the time of the death of R. Isaac b. Moses Or Zarua. It is likely that the three correspondents of his, R. David b. Shealtiel, Meshullam b. David, and R. Judah b. Moses Ha-Kohen, who were younger than he (HOS loc. cit.) survived him. In that case R. Asher b. Yehiel might have been present at the synod. We could still have to meet the difficulty of the absence of R. Meir b. Baruch from the council. We cannot therefore consider the matter definitely decided until more information is available regarding the lives of the members of the council. To return to synod Z, we have seen that it was the earliest of the synods whose enactments have been preserved. But it was not the first of the synods of the Rhine communi- ties. There is incorpaqrated in it the Takkanah regarding Halizah, which we learn from R, was ordained by a synod under R. David of Muenzberg in the year 1196; R. David, ap- parently, reorganized the Rhine confederation immediately after the Third Crusade. This Takkanah is the oldest part of the Ordinances of the Rhine Communities. But there are other traces of the synods which were held between the years 1196 and the time of the Z-synod. Text Z appears on examination to be the result of a develop- 224 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES ment. Just as we have seen in the case of the Takkanot of R. Gershom, (above, chapter I) and in the case of the Takkanot of R. Tam (above, chapter V) so in the case of the Takkanot of the Rhine Communities, must we assume that the writers of the original text had in their minds a definite order of arrangement of their various orders. It is only when additions were made, that the order originally intended was obscured. Thus if we examine the text of the Rhine Communities, we will find that the arrangement was along the following lines: I. Miscellaneous injunctions regarding Biblical andRabbinic prohibitions, paragraph 1. II. The power of the Court in the matter of summons and the new law of evidence in cases of denunciation to Gentiles, paragraphs 2 and 3. . III. Taxes, paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 9. IV. Attempts to influence Jewish communal life through non-Jewish agencies, paragraphs 10, 11, 15, 16 19. V. Halzah, paragraph 20. Now there are several insertions of foreign Takkanot in the midst of these, for instances the ordinance against sumptuous dinners is inserted in the midst of those regard- ing the relations of Jews to Gentiles. It is noteworthy that almost all of the basic ordinances of the outline just described are common to the three texts, Z, M, R. But the insertions in M are usually other than those in Z. R. adopts the insertion both of M and Z. These facts tend to show that there must have been an earlier version of the Takkanot of the Rhine Communities which in all likelihood contained only the basic Takkanot described under the five headings above. It is thus clear that we have before us in the three texts, Z, M and R, a record of more than half a century of synodal activity in the Rhine Communities. We can trace the development of the work inaugurated immediately after the Crusade by R. David of Muenzberg, till the time of R. David b. Shealtiel. The larger aspects of this interesting phenomenon in Jewish life, have been discussed in Part I, Chapter IV. a) pa mp) Aven py yon mod op ponm Py PR ad) yun pri o>>ow nyw dip yor wea ondy wy na WIM wwpN wan nyrpian m>osay cr oinnn wm ypn FloD ots md xbw x"> ryand imyp xd msno>) aDw msnn> 057 mana ow xdy muy xd os on by pand doy ow cy sd on or dy pa by mpbw Say xd on xd) mmpy my? xbdi myo my CHAPTER VII Pt Van nd’hn3] WAN Wr onn7a by o'nm 1m moa ja >> 7ws 922 madbna 47> xb soybn wana qo wh mya ona maya > a xd oop oD xd oupr mby xh ayn pys xdy ayna oy ws Sow xd sy nad cpa ner mor Syaony FD wand md xd) “Dv omxnoa o8 °D oan msnndy MS OTN yD Nd xd ox on Sw mana may ow Py wy mann q75 ona mr yds pn by mpbw Sox xbdy on Jo) pa anv xdy xd) mnpy my? xd) myo my orn jm n> my xdy naw. 7p 225 x DY WNT FAONNTS «1 nos nyiawa wn am pyn So) yen no-pna moa ja by maa Inve oy Son xdow Syapnw ay mna> wa yor rand ADD md wd sDv mxnnod> on 9 sama opm nxn man 5"y xd) opp pp” Ndi xd) ayna xd upr mb, ayn py baa >> xb) om awe any ano xbw pad ran ns 3porn .2 TDS? ON 0 NS TODS SIS O TY 52 41730 NS OTN OF ON .3 JS myn xd) wo 1 Jnan> onnn snd xp? xd) myn mwy? xdy .xo Emyp mdz xdi 2 pore 0 521.7 0 3 a> pond ony 52 mand .o 4 “JDO NS VDDD US .15 226 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 27DaTw TOD yaw wre ~)>D ynp> onom m& Nam NTT MNS ayaws Sop sp spwbom .amonm 1b ye soe aD Oy & om Nxmoa pT mwy zon ywand ynpw say mbapn b> orp 6m ans vy> ommi wey> ami s.e7bwa) xwDITNA) say 120d oxen Sapm yr xd 1ontppy opp 1b ww rn .4 oon bya ayn 12007 ym 167025) FDI 1593) 4D ox 7D 1d 14prw Sapd isyaw on .5 Dv isimy) aAyiawd>) mty> Sop iz apy Sy yawn any 1b wD Sun yaw I) a) RS Sy OTN TNwE Nd) = OTN THD? NDI og sxnaasrwpsonnjo «oS:awa pon yw wxy bon so. bom axna aa Oy 8 wx AD my ote pwo> on. oN bon oom 7 poms bod yan os aw row yoann mar ows pm pudwo mbn w 4a 42 °> yn mona ow ama ow ome bd np ow Apo bapa b> ry wnne => 15 wnne conond "3 mam 2 .1"3 MN 1B" WD 1 Sip xa nan ox podnw omy ew on .o 5 FIDD ayiaw> Sipe mm popme PA TWIN aoe 7 1.0 6 mbap "32 mand pot ney apy xv payo mbnp ‘20 pt Sapn .o 7 N¥DD OD MyEy. “1 vy aw my swro bipdp yp ws sy mbapm $5 212 NM WD 8 “VYyT aw NW wR. InMy pm sy mbzpa boa 2 A .mopn $55 atu .p 9 dosx oomonn abs omppin Rab) =P) 0D Dw 7 oonp> ots yar ont 4 op jm> 421 42 1b ww .0d yop jd 491 4D wv Sapm ym . bapd yor on. 10D WNT IMs . 5 wo 2] WIV TW Ys0 DD OTN OW yan’? ON) .4 Aa a) Ae) 2 oT ae) dD Dd 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 onan inp xd ND LINN 7D [anna by yauon ovwa " onam mobo ams ow ia xb ynnm oyw noo ooN owD 795 any 727 xd) nduoan pp "Ssw Sapm ox mm 55> NW TIM 1D bapn by rd omy onp> orm ams ym? bapa JN w>xw 7wr 2onipna wy pab way hyn) orxw om pd pain bxd nn anya NPS IND pri dw nN may awe $2) rrano mip boa mupn by ox mbnpm b> a on won wpa NA 00> AMD nDD NT? saym podwd osx aon wp Ssxd w irmpno arnyt °»> onp> CHAPTER VII - T7? ON pl DPA bapa SD is Inq yoy Innw xdi paw onnma np xd yaunon _" 8"D ANN wx ona mobon yr xd inom oy ym 727 ow mpd oxwn ‘ay xd) ona yan wm ots 55) onan .odwa an oy DIN Ow 77 oN 1s oD bapa jab inpw vmb> maw rat 55 prem ims ym Sapa by Sapm im>xw ws ms pad wy wa SapA IS pRw jms cd opr sat bw ynya oyn may) ax? xd om pana am wx mipn ox) mbapn b> stn on won wos naw son> aM DD TP why ubap on qn pw ox nian mows w oan nay’ onN ampdadi ionpd 227 Es xm oxbw pa Sapa W713 > wy Tn ON) .9 bapa by mayan ow O27D IN DON DD mo Sap> im ons wD Sap IS m>Rww pew p"'yx pad wy ~om at pyn mo. dw nx wan xD pwnd 7" wy IPDDw DTN OTN OW Nay’ ON ampends ionp> w amnaw b> orvbon $505 wn «10 p’'y 7ax pny S5ow eamna nods sin poyw on D1 «11 bSanom on mm 7D00 mwyy om NNOINND) NNoOwD) TIA NT OD yp w Ssaw ns Tou sw one Sy poryw rm aw 855 um yaw ort p"y muyd vw OIPHA ND 2 naw $53.4. 4, n'b1nb's 15 55m .4 ps onnn> ynna yo .8p 1 1373 Dy) OYRwW DS ND 3 yo 15 apn 17 228 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES a) - py xd pinwhs pm aay Sst oy xd) on byoxd nay JX myo by wy (xD) mnwdy munn ma. ww yw mney n> cay myo im xdy camo m>os ay x xd pinwh pri .12 Sew oy edo om oy say xd) myo nay md xb mnwd dioxd dx xb. myn nyt xba oan nad ww oxema oon owns 15 ips ompm .13 apa 4qoyo ym os OINT oe on oD simmana an Nd) 2>npa pana own m >> maa wrx ano xd aw xd ox non woen onys drpn yrat oyow = Sapm bap xdi yew wy WITP. TDA ON °D ma o7N 078d) .14 avy xd on non woen onyp Sapa wy Prat iyow Sapm ots Soap xd) ween 1d sxra ud) ama Nb ora xd) navn xd) lyin a » by woo roy) ow oN pre xd) 15 cond sno ow mby xd) .16 sd) wr xd mwy? xd) Ik me myo mews VY? ON IN OT Pp’ ON Wand Aor DxXI0D8 19 DA Ow) IN wy dd sm ary a ww nab, ora ots bap xbdy bapa 4s bona nysp mey> apd ody Nay (D7 we xd my xd) 17 mwa nyo mwr xd ops 19 YT ON IN byox5 and sx nadyr > ows x wy am mh "2 ON 2xema roan .kol mwyd pro apn b> .p 2 05> apyoa xD Sapa oon ene xd) oe Ow Sy Onn ow Nd .D 3 ob> Ioypa .1 4 WNNDYD) OANA win mt SD ww 5 CHAPTER VII 229 58 bnp nyt xba op o7 ova wr ‘sta ots S>pn dy) «18 17D Ty axva PD SSa wa 's7 bw wren ova Sbannd dia jin bapa mwaa sin nbyod ya p22) mwa wen bw ow ova 4S anys p> SSpnad dirpy Sapr os bbennd doa wsw wdn pint om N?) pqa jaw sow leo onsxd ws ad dy mdy> 2ndr 19 oan» by ain onata ibs $5 pom inn: py b> ws orn irdy boa pw unmipn mrowb siyyy 40n .20 nono n> wwaw oom md Heb 7px mow nom 0D] °D 6nDIN mad abn ain ba para yp pmax ndonn om) myprp adbya ‘ya Ww myn ory pd sip>rp inns 85) inspp D7 ON) INN AN moan Sy) roa Sy ya ionywa atobd uw povdovon gon ona 19 mowd mn 3px w2bsowK po om at we xd) oon nyt op myo pron 16x52) ars xba ino ns iste io many 140702; mbya now avo yin ows cans pion> ond > w moms not on ww mo youd ab ow izapam a7 Sixwd oxen pri is 82a pom amaw meam orn 1970 7705) yyad onond ise ops jo aTPA wap nyt xd. wp 1 Saw ord wr mx ed oso Ste ores ots mx? edi wp 2 aapr win .1 3 bax. moansn omupna 55 sank .o oNnona masse moan nyednm mpm 4 939 myeynAIAT Py mpn san snow asp by Spnd mp omwr ns *now »® by onna py Sy mbnpm 55 bap 42 .w'nn Ata ppt a> ayn mbyod mains wn nD Tp mow moby by way %D yr Oo” nwa.) nw pNaxMND WT 4 395 7 on .amobwa mpnz nxt Apnyi ma ws 43 72 oD NaWwn ANI by om ma yeso nw ovnwe $2) .nawnn oNyn2 ov ow TIDDpPRA ODD SIND INN mm prp> *duxn siao2 open pm pn 7B 95.0) oman yi ‘p> [y'pnna y] 2OpNNA Nona .y .D.2 DIT WN ON .D 5 ory wmipn now wes on ampn >'n [o'na .OWIN 9 ANY. 6 on? PR .D 7 omry msyip> pom .o coxa ya wn [ey sow .No] ora ipo .o Rie i]t) ee DN. D1 .Y 22. Syyn ond wy a spyn on op orm orn by . norm pa oan pa. HO Sw. csssees xd) WD “PS ONT) OD DOIN JO oO .DOD .y .D 2 MN 5 .D “5 mxo pion xdar .p 3 yawn moIM wy... TN) TNT OX ODINT SI . 18 Pa .y 219 230 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES os aynnm> oan ans qbn 2mpam aims xba pibnd ind w aw emwy> OX AY TONY IY si 027 477 ON) 3NINS Vya NIA DIN ISD po pownd amy sow omar aow umw prow doa 7rrs on .21 snava boxd ond ww anyd woy mwa xba invyd yr 1o-pwnd oxwn ony a xd 9nn .22 agypia ostym dyan a avy ox imbmp Sy ann or b> mnawon Sip ow amp rrand onx Ton Ndi 03 a) DP DDD PRY Opn ontond> mo iniw mo. PpDD pRw mpunn dw b> ond pre wopnn NWI ANWD INP? 4D ay wb) om) Pim opbnd om) ynow) x5 ox (pun “tabnb) sd yrn wav wD (Spm van anyon m9 > Sapa oxrw mpna p'y mbnpn b> bap 4D .y 4 Swynm wand winon apm yoxw mp °BD PRY Dp = .25 Dunw. ma op PDD mod Np? mprun sw>> now) ~yom> preww xd os omtodnd aun ssd yp wown wD pipod wun amom nD apr oxen mn cymr 3 nb w oo NNT 5 oS IY WIA ON .24 MpPIs W wwyD wand apm moNw MD DD oy 41 bon wm .o .nodin mpam uy 2 2 2 ts nba aedna mms Tw) 2b WWE «3.0 3 «oa mmm Syd py) art arp p’y mbapa boa unw ona QI AX Tow Ty ind w AX OPN NT OOND .D IND 2 4 My Wy 2.0 5 JS ornon.mwyds .y 2.0 6 PND WIN .D 7 sma bon pi nos ow wy xd) ns Xd) .D 9 pry .p 10 dap mwa xbw moipon awa). 11 JT5u7 ND JPN TWND .D 12 CHAPTER VII 231 WW °pam Dd 395° (xd) os 2prta Ndr vine xdbw nr) .26 opam p> smd i5b> opom on yb ann wd A) yor yap’ omy bo b> pr cor mb N71po2 pioy’ Tno>na 1S WIT IN TWA SNN) W277 TNs inb> xP oxdbw pl Mynon swan inde xd ons OTT ’y x’D mad 27 Wwe Sy oT IN Cs ys pom iwrman normal maT Nd) TNPI) WOR. 1aw 4X Dpvavoraxnyiayy Laven) ona win bon We. oA WIN on N39) moan py> dip naa ‘> 7D Syd py (ow py ww oIpoar .29 Py 121 7'a bw orn ‘oy mon nupn dyd (np “Dy wpn nupnn b> nny woam)ooann pnw m9 vb A "pnna moa p> OTpD "ND Ip DANA NYIOA MD OW som muapn 7a> son aN ov wan Sy Tereeiry minty ali i OW ra myr ym IN. ma0n wand 7x17 Ndi ce} by” NY oD) .27 pioy’ nobna pipyd ww indb> DD AT “NA NPD IN WIT Is 195n sn oy 553 mwa ION yoo INN) maton pus ap xdby aba (Mn FD 'y) pow ots 521 .28 xd) moan ADS 199 DN °D noon maa 7d xd) TwpNa IN NITMIpA Ip ms ow Nayw on So b> v2 NT oMpn 772 aw on mbzpn spond am oD wan sown bo1 qbnd ino qb °DD JAM wnypn 227 sone xdy np WO ON DTN DW .1 D2 217 WP .b 3 232 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES a) "a prypxion 7 pionop wei Ssny 72 FDP mdr > 7wWR T"'2 apy” | 377 72 opr ards TP YT IN by Ssvow "2 anow Seow a aryds Sr nyow "2 7M Sxiow 7a 4723 197 yn) 7a Oxy pny "2 1n3 p70129 72187’ pn jaan moby 7"2 pny Seinw "2 PND in27 SNy 7"a PND DDN "2 pwow by nyow va aryds WII 2 Jan» apy” om pny om Syiow én pny? pyow 7’ mw. j2189 7'2 wnnD >. Divn>p 73 77 osary "a DY “WX J’ apy 3’97 72 JopT ay >s m7 “197 (aN Sew 73 onow Seow "a ays nyow "2 yn W237 yn 72 Sey pny’ "2 yn IN -7'2 pm mow "2 pny Syinw "2 PND inant ONY 7"2 PND DIDS "2 pwow nyow aa aryds 15 pny "3 apy bn obwr "2 pny pyow "2 a7 ]2IN7 -7"'3 Wenny @ Js nondp 72 77 wei Seiny 7’2 Apr yada bm Ww "2 apy jpn ATP va aryds "YT ODN Seinv "2 aMow byiow a’ aryds wow 73 yn) byw 12 7172 Imam yn) 7’a Oxy pny? "2 yn) 12189 7’ pin ja27 moby 7"a pny byw 72 ND nom bxy 7’ px DIDS 7"2 pyow penw "a aryds TP 7"2 AY bm pny 1235 72 apy pop pbp mpn 729 ammo by As onnn p’y ds mupn wan 4D 25nN) vy xd Sapm oon bapa men xba ons ow aan my aby mw ox ovyi> wind ps Sapa ow add may on. ann men xba on mpm 72 ONT ps mpnm Sy warm xd ym aqd oa aNw WDD" Den2xw 392 77 A 7AN ,Y") OFAN 73 pny’ "nD TpA wMAND 1727 Aw) 7" AY IIA Awe wat ya ATT I was j2 adwo br ONM wDD7 KwDIN puyo xTPSW Sap Soy ym abaya oat ‘na eed onpon nowna bax Seow 217 ‘na ann pnym yD 1 "Owiny va, pnyn p73 73 oD nw Sy snows pr mNxXD) nN mpnn 2 v, 1. When the leaders of the people gather- ed together it was decreed under oath with a scroll of the Torah? in hand and all entered the Coyenant, a. That no child of _ the covenant shall eat with his wife in the days of her puri- fication,? until she CHAPTER VII TRANSLATION R We, the undersigned have decreed with thescrolloftheTorah in hand; m. that no child of the Covenant shall dress after the man- ner of the Gentiles ;3 now wear sleeves; d. no one shall have long hair after the fashion of non- Jews; 233 M “The staff has sprouted’’4 and we have _ be- come associated and bound and we have decreed under pain of excommunication and curse and while the scroll of the Torah was being held that b. Nomanshall lend t In Rabbinic law one usually takes an oath by holding in one’s hand either a scroll of the Torah or phylacteries. As the herem is a public oath it was announced in the same manner. 2 There were some Rabbis who distinguished in regard to tne days of the impurity of a woman after menstruation, between the actual period of menstruation and the seven days of purification thereafter. While the general opinion was that so long as the ritual bath had not been taken the status of the woman was unchanged, others thought that the seven days being added only Rabbinically, their impurity was less rigorous than that of the others. Rosenthal believes that our Takkanah tried to establish the authority of the German Rabbis in this regard as against the French Rabbis. Apparently he believes that the more lenient opinion was that of the French scholars. But in this he is not quite exact. For while it is true that those who held the less rigorous view were mainly French stholars yet their argu- ments are disposed of by no less a French authority than R. Tam, (See Sabbath 13b, Tosafot ad loc.). His view is identical with that taken by R. Eleazar in his Rokeah (Laws of Niddah). Compare also R. Eliezer b. Nathan Niddah (Raben 535) who seems to hold a more lenient view in regard to this matter than R. Tam. 3 Extravagance in dress is a constantly recurring subject for Com- munal Ordinances as well as for enactments of Mediaeval Church coun- cils. Gaudy clothes were peculiarly dangerous for Jews, because be- sides the expenses which they entailed, they aroused the jealousy of the Gentiles and gave them reason to believe that they were not op- pressing the Jews sufficiently. (See Guedemann, II. Note XIV). 4 Ezekiel 7.10, 234 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES i has bathed at the proper time; b. that no one shall lend money to his neighbor except with the understanding that both will share equally in the losses as well as in the profits,‘in the man- ner described by OUTAIMASTErS . R c.nooneshall shave his beard either with a razor, or in such a manner as approximates the ellect (OLw as 1az0L- a. nor may one eat with one’s wife in the days of her puri- fication until she bathes at the proper time; M another money ex- cept on the under- standing that both : will share equally in the losses as well as in the profits. e. No one shall put his wine in the ves- sels of Gentiles un- less they are properly purified; No one shall permit a Gen- * The arrangement mentioned here is known in the Talmud as the one of Sura. Two men entered a partnership, the one supplying the capital, the other supplying the work. The profits and losses were to be shared. The Mishna (Baba Mezia 5.4) prohibits the prac- tice, unless the worker gets something more of the profits or something’ less of the losses than the owner of the capital. The principle is that in such a case half of the capital is a loan to the worker and a half a bailment with him. For the half of the capital the profits of which the worker gets, cannot but be considered a loan. The other half, the profits of which are to go to the owner, are entrusted to the worker to use for the benefit of the owner, and thus become a trust fund. If the worker gets only the same income as his partner, it will appear that he works for the trust fund in return for the kindness of the owner in lending him the money. That would be usury. Doubtless our Tak- kanah contemplates in speaking of an equal division of both profits and loss some advantage to the worker as is enjoined by the Talmud. This is what is meant “by permission according to the word of his masters’’. No layman would know how to draw up a legal contract in such a case. The system was used extensively as a fiction to evade the Talmudic laws of usury in the Middle Ages. Thus if A wanted to lend money to B at interest, he would draw up a contract making half of the loan a trust which the borrower was to invest in the interest of the lender. That was permissible if the contract gave the borrower some advantage. There would then follow an additional agreement whereby the worker would agree to pay a stipulated amount instead of tne chance gain. As there were no limits to the amount that might be stipulated, it was easy to make it cover a proper rate of interest. There were other even more common ways of evading the law. Some of them are re- ferred to in RFL 56, HOS 202, Or Zarua, Baba Kamma, 202. Z c. that no one shall cut his hair in non- Jewish fashion,’ or shave his beard either with a razor or in such a manner as approximates the effect of a razor;? _d. nor shall one wear long hair. CHAPTER VII R b. nor may one lend money to his fellow except on the under- standing that both will share in losses as well as in profits; e. nor shall one put his wine in a flask of Gentiles unless he has purified the flask 235 M tile to make wine; g. Nor shall one eat what is cooked by Gentiles; h. nor shall one act deceitfully, or clip the coins. his properly ;3 f. nor shall he per- To cut the hair after the fashion of the Greeks was prohibited in Rabbinic times. See Baba Kamma 83a, Sotah 49a, Tosefta Sabbath 7:1, Sifra Leviticus 18:3. 2 Shaving the beard is Biblically prohibited, Leviticus 19.27. That was interpreted as applying only to shaving with a razor, but the Rabbis generally regarded shaving ‘‘as close as a razor’’ as permitted (Shulhan Aruk Yoreh Deah, 181.10 and comp. Tosafot Shebuot 2b). Is is primarily the latter practice, against which the Takkanah is in all probability directed. That shaving was not uncommon can be seen from the repeated emphasis on the prohibition of it in Jacob Ha-Levi’s onvn yo nw 36, 50, 69. It is told of Maharil that he would on festive occasions shave his beard. The manner is not described by his Boswell, but we may be certain that he did not use a razor. 3 Rosenthal believes that here, too, the enacment of the Takkanah had as its purpose the establishing of the view of the German as against the French scholars. We learn from Josafot (Aboda Zara 32b) that wnile it was generally held that the vessels which had been used by Gentiles were unfit for Jewish use as wine containers, the custom had become less rigorous. There were various attempts at justifying the use of gold and silver vessels and even earthen barrels or jugs after they had been used for impure wine, but no one looked upon these ex- planations as being more than attempted apologies for existing customs. It was but natural that even Rabbis who recognized the possibility of justifying the more lenient custom, should attempt to establish the severer law. In any case it cannot be said that the opinions were divided in this respect along national boundaries. The author of Rokeah takes as much cognizance of the lenient customs as do the French Tosafists themselves (See Rokeah 494). 236 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES Z: R M mit.a non-Jew to make his wine; g. nor shall one eat what is cooked by Gentiles ;? k. nor shall one deal in forbidden wine;3 h. nor shall one en- gage in fraudulent transactions or coin- clipping ;4 1. nor shall one per- mit a Gentile to put water into the cal- dron on the Sab- bath. 2. If a man summon his fellow to court, the defendant may not delay for more than three days. 1 That a Jew must not permit a Gentile to prepare his wine is taken as a matter of course in Tosafot (Aboda Zara 56b). The Tosa- fists argue that the question raised in the Talmud is whether the wine which is prepared by Gentiles may be sold. There could be no question of its being drunk, 2 Aboda Zara 2.9. The fact that the writer uses the term of the Mishna shows that he has in mind that law, and that no additional strin- gency is intended. 3 Aboda Zara 5.1. 4 The charge of coin-clipping was one of the worst and most com- mon charges made against the Mediaeval Jew. Little wonder then that he should seek to prevent the practice. Cf. unsigned responsum in RMR 246. s This Takkanah occurs somewhat later in M and Z and is there also repeated in R, see paragraph 21. 6 The provision that one is given three days to answer a com- plaint in Court is based on Baba Kamma 113a. It is stated there that one is not to be excommunicated as insubordinate unless he has thrice refused to obey a Court summons., As the Court in Talmudic times sat only on Monday and Thursdays, this meant that one was given. a Monday, Thursday and the following Monday in which to respond ©. 6 Ogee, wee CHAPTER VII 237 3. Ifaman threaten his neighbor in the presence of witnesses, saying “‘I will cause you loss of property,” and if there- after that Jew suffer loss, they shall compel the one who threatened to make restitution of the amount that the loser claims under oath; and if there are witnesses to testify regarding the amount that he lost,t the defamer shall make payment (without the oath). The defamer shall be con- sidered unfit to testify,? or to take an oath; he shall be declared excommunicated in all the communities until he pays his fellow and also does penance} in Mayence, Worms and Speyer (M, and he shall receive judgment from the three communities of Mayence, Worms and Speyer; R. Speyer, Worms, Mayence). “One who is excommunicated in his own city, is to be considered excommunicated in all other cities.’’4 4. If books have been left with a man as a bailment, the to a summons. Since in Mediaeval Jewry the Court sat every day, three days would take the place of the Talmudic three Court days. The three day period is referred to also in RFL, 29. * As can be seen from the variants both R. and M, agree in reading here, ‘‘and if there are witnesses that he suffered loss.” That is however an inadmissible reading since there could be no case unless there was some evidence that the threatened man had actually suffered loss. What is stated here is that if there are witnesses who can testify regarding the amount of the loss, the plaintiff need take no oath re- garding the matter. 2 This law is usually cited from the Book of Hefetz in the name of R. Paltoi Gaon (See Halper, Sefer Hefetz, p. 110). R. Joseph Colon insists that one cannot be declared unfit to testify unless one has ac- tually given information regarding Jews to Gentile powers, but not for merely threatening todoso. (See Res. 126). That view is how- ever in direct contradiction to the statement of R. Paltoi is generally quoted (Or Zarua, Baba Kamma 284 and Sanhedrin 23, Comp. also RMP 247, where the respondent does not quote the passage but de- cides that a threat to bring a Jewish litigation before Gentile courts brings punishment as well as the act itself). See Mueller, Mafieah p. 91, 61, and note. To his references should be added Semag, Positive Commandments 70, RMP 307, and the others just mentioned. 3 See page 184, Note 1. 4 Moed Katan 16a. The later compilations have changed the text so that it might include also villages, but Z is closest to that of the Talmud. 238 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES Community shall not have the authority to seize them for any tax owed by their owner. 5. If' a member of the Community states under oath that he has only such and such an amount of money and then it is found that he possessed more, and that he took a false oath, he shall be unfit to act as a witness or to take an oath; in cases of litigation where an oath is required, his opponent shall take the oath and receive payment. 6. a. No person shall free himself from taxes because he ‘‘rides in the Court of the King.” b. Nooneshallstrike his neighbor. « There is nodoubtthat one who commits perjury to save him- self money is unfit for testimony according to Rabbinic law (Sanhedrin 27a). On the other hand there is the oft-quoted opinion that the one who takes a false oath in regard to taxes does not thereby become unfit.- The Rabbinic principle seems to be that one whose sin consists in not having fulfilled an oath cannot be considered a perjurer. Perjury consists in taking an oath which is false at the time of the swearing. If one therefore promised under oath to pay his proper share of taxes, and failed to do so, he would not thereby become disqualified either to take other oaths or to act as witness. (see Shebuot 46b and Tosafol ad loc., Ashert ad loc. RMR 103, RMB 508, Mordecai Sanhedrin 3. 694). Asa result of this law it became a prevalent notion that one could not be convicted of perjury because of false oaths in regard to taxes, even when the custom changed and each one has to state under oath the value of his possessions. If he gave a false amount, however, under oath he certainly was unfit according to law to testify in a Jew- ish Court. Hence there was need of the Takkanah before us to counter- act false notions. The feeling that an oath in regard to taxes was somehow less important than another could not, however, be so easily eradicated. The later synods, perhaps seeing the troubles that would result from declaring a person unfit for testimony who was generally accepted, omitted the words “‘for testimony”’. For while disqualifying a person to take an oath put him to a financial disadvantage only in case of litigation, disqualifying him as a witness might result in endless ritual complications, should someone ignorantly accept him as a witness to a marriage or a writ of divorce. CHAPTER VII th R flr the-King or Ifa person de- the Bishop say toa nouncehisneighbor Jew, “Give me such andsuchanamount or lend me money,” or if he should seize property, the whole community shall share the loss, pro- vided it was not indirectly caused by the person him- to the King or the Bishop or the ruler and cause damage to any Jew, the Jew being compelled either to make a gift or a loan to the powers then the community shall share and aid in the 239 self.? loss. But if the loss was caused in- directly through the victim’s fault the Community shall be free and shall not share the loss with him. In R the provision is limited to extortions caused by in- formation given by another member of the Community. In M the provision is omitted. While the members of the Community were quite willing to share in such gain as accrued to any individual through his friendship to the King or Bishop, they were not so desirous of par- taking of the suffering that befell one. Yet it would seem that this provision would be a corollary of the following. 3 This provision while given here as a Takkanah is upheld as good Rabbinic law by several authorities (RMC 222, RMP 708). R. Simhah b. Samuel of Speyer relates that his uncle, R. Kalonymos, being on very intimate terms with the bishop or ruler of his community often was granted a release from his share of the taxes. He would always share that benefit with the community, paying his proper share in spite of the special privilege granted him. R.Simhah adds that while for a time he considered this to be a result of his uncle’s extraordinary piety, he later came to the conclusion that it was good Jewish law. For all the members of a community are regarded in law as partners so far as the taxes are concerned. The Talmudic law provides thay any gain accruing to any member of a partnership must 240 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 8. The young men! may not take from the bridegroom more than six of the small coins of the Kingdom; and the young men who are with the bridegroom shall not be permitted to take anything from the people R M and all shall be neither a chicken or at peace with one anything else.’ another. 9. Ifs an individual has a complaint against the community because of taxes or for some other reason he shall pay the Community what they ask him, but the Community must respond to him in Court although they have no personal interest in the matter.4 The individual is to be considered be shared by all. (RMP 932, Or Zarua Baba Kamma 460, Cf. also RMR p. 206, and Isserlein, Pesakim u-ketabim, 144). « Just what the function of tne young men here mentioned was, is not made clear. Most likely they are the people referred to by R. Samson b. Abraham of Sens as going to meet the bridegroom (Tosofut Succah 45a, Asheri ad loc., Mordecai Succah 2,743). R.Samson tells us that it was customary for the young men to meet in combat; they would charge eacn other on horseback, and while apparently it was quite unusual for the riders to receive.any hurt, the horses would suffer and the riders’ clothes would often be torn. R. Samson frees the one causing the damage from any responsibility since both entered the game knowing the risk involved. The custom mentioned by R. Asher b. Yehiel (Res. 101, 5) is not identical with this. There the young men escort the bridegroom, and it was only by accident that the mule on which one was riding was hurt. 2 Stealing in play is not unknown in Jewish literature. In Terumat Ha-Deshen (110) it is stated in the name of Riba (R. Isaac b. Asher) that one cannot be called to account for stealing food in jest on Purim. The same responsum is quoted by R. Moses Mintz (Res. 18). See above, p. 126. / 3 This section is practically identical with TRG, 7. 4 There is a distinct difference here between R and M on the one hand and Z on the other in regard to this provision. In R and M it is provided that the Community need not answer a complainant in any other courts than its own. In order to insure impartiality, “ = = CHAPTER VII 241 as if he were in possession of his own.’ They must follow the decision of the Court according to the law. If anyone transgresses he all be fined or flogged. 10. An anathema should be declared against the informers on every Sabbath.? 11. Whoever has a Hagzzgan or one to “‘roll the Torah”’, or any public officer appointed through Gentile influence, is excommunicated and also the hazzan and the one ‘“‘who rolls the Torah,’ as well as he who endeavors to bring it about that a Gentile should judge a Jew is to be in excom- munication, for one should try one’s litigation through Jewish judges. however, the judges must first waive any benefit that may accrue to them from the decision. Jn Z it is required tnat the representatives of the Community appear before ‘‘those who are not connected with the case’’ that is the judges of some other community. « The citizen must pay all that the community demands from him before he can compel them to respond in Court. The Takkanah provides that he should not by this act lose the advantage of being the defendant rather than the plaintiff. This is not, however, the accepted view. R. Meir b. Baruch says, (RMP 106), ‘‘ Wherever an individual has an unproven claim or a doubtful case against the community, we say the secular law of the land is dominant. The taxes of each person are to be considered as lying in the treasure-house of the King. It is but reasonable that this should be so. Otherwise every member of the community might claim, ‘I am legally free for I have paid my taxes’. He could then say, ‘I will state under oath that I paid, or you state under oath that I did not’. (Such is the Rabbinic law in cases where no proof is available). Now rather than that every person should take an oath over the small amount that would fall to nis share, they would each waive their right and the individual would free him- self from taxes.’”’ It was therefore decided that the Community has the benefit of the doubt if the individual brings no proof of his having paid or being free from payment. 2 R inserts here a provision which corresponds in part to what is found at the end of Z, namely, that he who remains under the ban of excommunication for a month forfeits the protection that Jewish law offers him against defamation; and his property may therefore be denounced to the ruling powers. This doctrine was vigorously opposed by R. Joseph Colon in later times (Res. 127) although he defended the right of the Community to use physical force, even that of the govern- ment in the collection of taxes. 3 Compare Takkanah of R: Tam, chapter IV, Text A. And see Sefer Hasidim (ed. Bologna) section 764. 242 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES Zz R M 12. It is not permitted to play with a Gentile? or with a Jew for money or for food and but one may play drink? nor may _ for food or drink one give money in- on half-holidays stead of food. (festival week) or at a wedding, but one is then not permitted to exchange the food for money. 13. The Parnes may not in secret excommunicate any person or release an excommunication without the consent « Since according to some authorities the property-rights of Gen- tiles are not as clearly defined in Jewish law as those of Jews, it might have been supposed that one would be permitted to play games of chance with Gentiles. It was therefore necessary to declare that the property of Gentiles was just as sacred as that of Jews. (See Res. Binyamin Zeeb, 281). 2 Gambling for food stuff or drink was held not to be so serious an offense as gambling for money. Since people were not usually niggardly about their food, there could not be so strong a prohibition against using the money of others for food as there was in ordinary gambling. Compare Mishna Sabbath 22.2. See also the will of R. Solomon of St. Goar, published in Kobez Debarim Nehmadim (Husiatyn). 3 Gambling was the subject of numberless Takkanot in the Middle Ages. Cf. Res. R. Isaac b. Sheshet 249, R. Elijah Mizrachi 13, R. Israel Bruna 136, and many others. 4 The abuse of the herem was so tempting that something had to be done to restrain the Rabbis and leaders of the communities. The words ‘‘in secret’’ are not to be taken too literally. The great power of the herem lay in its public character and the social ostracism it in- volved. What is meant is that the herem is not to be pronounced at a secret meeting. Such Takkanot were not rare. R. Israel Bruna tells us that the ordinance existed in his time (Res. 188), and we have a responsum of R. Solomon Ibn Adret, where he denies the power of a community to limit the power of the Rabbi in that manner. (Comment of R. Moses Isserles, Yoreh Deah, 334.18). One of the charges against R. Benjamin b. Mattathias was that in violation of a Takkanah similar to this, he excommunicated people without the consent of the community (Binyamin Zeeb 249). CHAPTER VII 243 of the community, nor may the Rabbi do so. Only the Public Assembly shall declare or release excommunication, fs R M 14. a. No' person shall close a synagogue unless he has “‘seated the community” twice or thrice and the Community shall hear his complaints and do him justice. b. No one may in- Nor may one inter- terrupt prayers at rupt the prayers the afternoon or otherwise than at morning services, or the Seder Kedushah. on the Sabbaths or when the Hallel? is recited. -15. No Jew shall through recourse to Gentiles free himself of his communal obligations. All this have we decreed under the herem. 16. Nor shall anyone reveal any secrets to Gentiles. 17. No man or woman shall prepare any feast except in fulfilment of a re- ligious obligation.4 But if t See Takkanot of R. Gershom (page 119, paragraph 2). In a manuscript of Sefer Minhagim of the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary, to which reference has already been made, (above p. 128), fol. 63a, the following statement is found: pt oon> wyw ay pws oysa dex aod doa mobs) ain on ADI “An orphan, whether male or female, and a widow, may close the synagogue even in making their first complaint, until justice is done them.”’ 2 By the Seder Kedushah is meant the prayer }yx> xa) where the Kedushah is recited with its Aramaic translation. 3 The Hallel is recited on Hanukkah, the New Moons and the three festivals, Passover, Shebuot and Succot. 4 See Pesahim 50a and comp. Alfasi and Mordecai ad loc. Lim- itations on expenditures for banquets’ were common in the Takkanot of the Middle Ages, see Part I, p. 88, and also Guedemann, I.160, Aries ).cs: ly. 1920; np. 79. 244 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES Zz | R M one hashad his blood let? or if one has guests he may ask his friends to come and dine with him. Similarly women may dine with one that has given birth. On a festival, too, itis permitted. No man shall make complaint at the synagogue on a day when the Hallel is recited, but the prayers may be in- terrupted for the public needs. 18. No private individual may recite the prayers on Rosh Ha-Shanah or Yom Kippur without having obtained the consent of the Community.” But the Hazzan may recite the prayers of the first day of Rosh Ha-Shanah, and Evening t That the day on which one was bled was celebrated as a festive day, or at least was the occasion of a dinner to one’s friends, can be seen also in RMP 605 and elsewhere. 2 The office of the Hazzan was generally held during good be- havior. Moreover in many communities it was hereditary. While it was not always a salaried position, it seems to have become very often an office with many applications and candidates (RMR 109, 110, 112). Very often a Community or an influential part of it would like to remove a hazzan either because his voice had ceased to be pleasing or because of personal animosity. The rule laid down here was that if a hazzan had not been formally removed—and that could only be done for cause—he might insist on his right to read the prayers during the times when a hazzan performed such duties, that is on the first day of Rosh Ha-Shanah, and on Yom Kippur evening, and Yom Kippur morning prayers till the Musaf service. That a hazzan was expected to recite the prayers only on the first day of Rosh ha-Shanah can be seen from the instances of R. Jacob Molin (Maharil, Laws of Rosh Ha-Shanah, note) and R. Israel Isserlein (Leket Yosher p. 129). Maharil recited all the prayers of Yom Kippur, but that was probably voluntary on his part, and in accordance with the desires of the Congregation (Maharil, Yom Kippur). CHAPTER VII 245 Prayers of Yom Kippur as well as the Morning Prayers till the Musaf Service. But on the second day of Rosh Ha-Shanah and Yom Kippur after the Musaf Service, it is left to the community to assign the prayer. If the Hazzan is weak so that he cannot pray the people shall appoint someone to take his place. 19. Let? it not occur to any man to command the judges of Israel not to sit in judgement or to open a trial. All of these things did we enjoin under the herem. 20. We? also have ordered, all to observe our Takkanah t Compare Takkanot of R. Tam, above p. 153. 2 As is well known Biblical law provides that if a man dies with- out issue, his brother is to marry his wife. Jt is assumed in tne Ta!mud on the basis of the story in the book of Ruth, that with the marriage of iis sister-in-law (Yibbuwm) the brother-in-law also acquired special rights in the property of his deceased brother. If the brother-in-law refused to accept the widow as his wife, she had recourse to the cere- mony of Halizah, which freed her to marry anyone she preferred. In the case of Halizah, the widow was of course given her dower-rights from the estate of her former husband. Rapacious brothers-in-law, however, often sought to obtain from the poor widow part of her Ketubah.in return for the freedom to marry again which was given her through the Hulizah. As Jewish police power disappeared, there was no way in which the brother-in-law could be compelled to allow the Halizah to be performed. The only induce- ment that could be offered in most cases was money. The Takkanah before us seeks to remedy this defect by defining to some extent the respective rights of the brother-in-law and of the widow. The matter underwent further development in the Takkanah printed below as Text B. This part of the ordinance seems to be the oldest. We find it not only in the texts of these Takkanot but it was quoted inaresponsum by R. Meir b. Baruch and through him in the responsa of R. Moses Mintz and by R. Solomon Luria (Yam Shel Shelomo, Yebamot 4.18), as stated in the introductory note to these Takkanot. In these extracts and also in R. it is declared to be the work of a synod assembled in the year 56 by R. David of Muenzberg. There can be hardly a doubt that he called the synod to consider the conditions that were prevailing after the Third Crusade in 1195. Many Jews lost their lives at the time and most of the survivors were impoverished. At such a time it was vitally necessary to take some action in regard to the matter of Halizah and the power of the brother-in-law over the widow. That the ’56 means 4956 (1196) and not 5056 (1296) is evident from the fact that R. David 246 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE] MIDDLE AGES that the brother-in-law (in case of a Halizah) should not keep his sister-in-law in suspense. From her own estate nothing must be deducted. The estates which came to her through her husband (both lands and books' which are family heirlooms) shall be divided between them, so that the heritage may not go to some other family.’ If it is the husband’s acquired, rather than his inherited, estate,’ the judges shall divide it according to what appears just before their Creator. The movable property should be divided in the ‘‘gate of the city’? between the brother- in-law and the widow, according to the understanding of the scholars and the heirs shall not deviate from their decision either to the right or to the left. One must not take from the widow any of the property which she brought into the marriage. The brother-in-law must free the widow without any delay and leavening of the Mitzvah. If the widow was only Arusah4 the brother-in-law must have the Halizah performed after three months’ (excluding the day of the husband’s death), without delay, and he has no right to demand anything. The widow must take an oath as to the value of the property which she has in hand and the judges shall arrange between the brother- of Muenzberg is mentioned in connection with it. He died in the early part of the thirteenth century. It would be quite natural for people writing in 4983 (when R. was admittedly written) to refer to a date less than thirty years previous without mentioning the century. * In the Middle Ages books were considered in the same class as real estate in many respects. They were treated as a distinct class of property in regard to taxation (Res. R. Meir b. Baruch, ed. Prague, 767, Res. R. Hayyim or Zorua 2, and Terumat Ha-Deshen, 342), and are often mentioned on an equality with landed estates. 2 Compare Numbers 36.9. 3 Compare Leviticus 27.22. 4 One who had received Kiddushin (i. e. a ring or some other gift, by which she became sanctified to her bridegroom) but with whom the Nissuin has not been performed. 5 The law requiring that the Halizah take place no less than three months after the death of the husband is Talmudic ( Yebamot 4.5). It is part of the general rule that a widow or divorcee may not marry within three months after the death of the husband or the di- vorce. CHAPTER VII 247 in-law and the widow. As for the widow who was fully married the Halizah must be performed without delay, and the widow must go to the domicile of the brother-in-law to be released if he is in a different city. If the brother- in-law refuses to release her he is to be flogged (Other texts, excommunicated) until he promises to do what the Sages ordain. 21. We have furthermore decreed that at each wedding they shall appoint a Jewish guardian to prevent pouring of water into the caldron from which they are to eat on the Sabbath. 22. No one shall be permitted to cast a writ of divorce to his wife without the consent of three communities. If he does divorce her without such consent, the husband and the witnesses shall be excommunicated.! 23. No one shall call his neighbor “bastard’’ or revile him with any other blemish of birth. All this have we decreed under the herem.? 24. We have also agreed and ordered that each man shall bring his tithes or other gifts to charity in accordance with the decree of the community. 255 In a locality where In a locality where the amount given for the instruction of the young is in- sufficient, they may take part of what people have left for the “memory of their souls’’,4 and give it to teachers, unless the person on his sick bed stated the amount given for the instruction of the young is in- sufficient (because the fund left for the purpose is too small, because they have little) they may take from other funds left by deceased persons and pay the teachers t See part *I, 23ff and notes. 2 See above p. 179, Text A. note 2. 3 See p. 185, note 18. 4 It seems to have been customary for people to leave sums on their deathbed for charitable purposes, and as a reward their would be prayed for on the final days of the festivals and on Yom Kippur. 248 the purposeforwhich his money was to be used. ~The remain- der they may use for such purpose as the Community desires. JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES unless the person on hissickbed stated the purpose for which the money was to be used; the remainder may be used for such purposes as the Com- munity desires, 26. We have ordered that no one shall act as Shohet or Bodek unless he presents himself to the expert or the Rabbi for trial; and the villagers may go (for reviewing their studies?) to the expert. aie One whois unable to devote himself to the study of Talmud, should study half a page if possible or Midrash or Scripture or part of the weekly portion every day, (Hewhocandomuch and he who can only do little are alike). ! They should study daily unless they are prevented by an emergency. ? t See Mishna Meénchot, end. Every man shall set aside a definite time for study; if he is unable to study Tal- mud, he shall read Scripture, the weekly portion, or the Mid- rash according to his ability, he who does much and he who does little are alike, provided that he is not prevented by an emergency. Noone may send meat home except througha Jew. The forbidden fat on the loins of the animal 2 2 It is evident that the quotation from the Mishna is an insertion for as it stands it separates the final clause from its connection, leaving What the paragraph originally stated was doubtless, that the person should set the time to study daily provided no preventing emergency would arise. it without meaning. 28. CHAPTER VII Every. man shall castasideenmity and rivalry. And no one _ shall go to the Syn- Whoever transgres- sesany ofthese Tak- kanot shall be under the excommunica- tion of all the Com- munities, and if he remains in his ob- duracy for a month his property may be denounced to. the King. 3 keeps our Takkanot shall be blessed by the King of Glory. 1 See Hullin 93a. 2 See Guedemann, agogue otherwise than with a cloak or overcoat but one should not wear a suckents.? Whoever | David‘ b. Kalony- _mos eT 3 See above note 206. 4 What is known of the individuals mentioned as signers of the Takkanah has been gathered by Rosenthal in his notes to the edition of R in the Monatsschrift, vol. 45. Special reference may be made to 249 shall be removed in accordancewiththe Talmudic law.' It is not permitted to speak in the Synagogue, but they shall sit with re- verence and awe and serve their Father who is in Heaven. All this have we commanded with a severe herem. Ail these Takkanot were made by the herem. Wehavere- newed now in the year 4980, what our ancestors ordained previously may years ago, hereat Mayence by a severe herem; except for the ordin- ances of the Great Light, R. Gershom, the Light of the Dis- persion, b. R. Judah, which are very many, and are well- known, and did not need renewal. 250 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES Joseph b. Othniel. Jacob ‘b. Asher. Eliezer ha-qatan b. R. Judah Abi Ha-Ezri (Eli- ezer b. Joel Ha- Levi) Simhah b. Samuel Eliezer b. Samuel Nathan b. Samson Baruch b. Samuel (Not in R) Joel b. Nathan Ha- Kohen Nathan b. Isaac. Hezekiah b. Reuben Mattathias b. Reu- ben (Not in Z) Isaac b. Solomon (Ha-Kohen) Meir b. Samuel Meir b. Joel Ha- Kohen Simeon (M. R. Samson) b. Eph- raim Eleazar b. Samson (M. R. Simeon) Joseph b. Judah (Not in M or R) Jacob b. Isaac Ha- Levi - Isaac b. Meshullam (M. b. Samuel) Ha-Levi(notinZ) Judah b. Simeon (Not in Z) his suggestion that the R. David b. Kalonymos who is here mentioned as one of the signers, is not to be identified with the R. David of Muenzberg. CHAPTER VII 251 (Found only in M) Afterward’ we renewed these Takkanot under the herem even though it was an ancient ordinance: That the Rabbi shall not excommunicate any one without the permission of the Community, nor shail the Community excommunicate anyone without the sanction of the Rabbi. If the Rabbi or the Community transgress this ordinance their excommunication need not be heeded. Even if the other Rabbis should agree with the local Rabbi and add their excommunication, it is not to be heeded. This ordinance has come to us from our ancestors. Isaac b. Abraham, AB.? b. IH., David b. Shealtiel? Meshullam b. David,4 Judah b. Moses Ha-Kohen,5 Joseph b. Moses Hazzan and all the community to Speyer, Worms and Mayence agreed and signed. THX THB TAKKANOT OF THE RHINE COMMUNITIES 1381 In establishing the text of the following Takkanot, there were available five sources, 1. The Yam _ shel Shelomo (Hebrew 3D) by R. Solomon Luria, where the Takkanot are quoted in an abbreviated form (See Yebamot, 4.18). 2. The responsa of R. Moses Mintz (Heb. y), where they are quoted at somewhat greater length (see res. 10). The following Bodleian Manuscripts: 3. Hunt 221, Neubauer 820 (Heb. 3). 4. Mich. 392, Neubauer 693 (Heb. ) and; 5. Seld. A.5 Neubauer 864 (Heb. 1). They differ t For the date of this synod see preface to these Takkanot, and also Part I pp. 63-65. 2 Bruell Jahrbuecher 7, 89, Note, and A.Freiman, Ascher b. Yehiel, 1918, p. 7, note 8. 3 See Or Ha-Hayyim p. 347, Gross in Monatschrift, 1871, p. 263, and Kohn, Mordecai b. Hillel, p. 107. 4 See J. E. VIII, 502, Epstein in Monatschrift, 41.468, and Kohn, Mordecai b. Hillel, p. 141. He was the son of the famous R. David b. Kalonymos of Muenzberg. Together with R. David b. Shealtiel he corresponded with R. Isaac Or Zarua (See HOS 103, 221, 747). 5 See Kohn, Mordecai b. Hillel, p. 130. He wasa relative and a teacher of R. Meir b. Baruch. Took part in case together with R. Meshullam b. David and R. David b. Shealtiel (HOS 221). 252 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES very slightly from one another. _The only difference of real importance, as can be seen from the list of variants, is in the matter of the.date. Hunt. 221 gives the date as 5146 rather than 5141 which is that of the other sources. Moreover while all the other sources mention that the synod took place on Monday, the fifteenth of Ab, this text omits the mention of the day of the week. This omission was necessitated by reason of the fact that in 5146, the fifttenth of Ab did not fall on a Monday. It did fall on that day in 5141. In view of the fact that the date is given so exactly in most of the sources, I believe that we may safely assume 5141 to be the correct date. TEXT | IMD °D WNT Ws yy .v7DS Nop mw AwINMWw ow mrp mpn MODDM PSI 7D WIS AN AD ADIN Ar Manon pyjws mya mpidno nm pmb mow an nnonw ody oy airman 3pm ar by w moby pyainn pop nono mmy mavy ow) mow is myn rat Sy on ney myo sim aedn myo Sy onmy: n> xb awN 20D OND pay ane op? Syt Sinn abot obs Co atta ona ady2 axdbm TION TNT warn orxw poo yd Poy onw Pano) ono. nN TY INN TXT TONY 4Ty IMS PDD AwY MDa 390") BINA AXdM wD -PTy OT AwWY MYOT NDT wD) GS." Man) WH] Xxnw odnp>p mod oy Gn np mye mx nawot on oman moNw DP IY SONI Aw m"y MMP MAN WSN Wyow AWD 7 ON. sya myy> a5n aM mpn max 6 ow $2) ard mpn wy ow ns $55 aun wiped) asad npibmo man cnbad apyn cw am "pn minod xd. wwno>07 nN yay epor onbad nxn nen Toww pw wer nbad moom jon 727 b> by oy pond wid xbs onotpa xd) any and qos now 7InNM AT an owd Fox Tow INN OTN am> oat pm w'yd onm> maw ody oy wy ws am ws oy Sapa yaw 795) onoNnd ones ym DYyow) oF aT pm pion xbw pond wma 2» whm ans mPa wD_M Ooms) O94 AND {20207 WS ANN MPN pinmw TD woy oinndy dio *D dt NM Pod .y 2 FIN) -y 3 JO WTY 02 4 0319 VID 2 5 mywy> a1 ayn mony) mpbnon wy .mxya mn nD w 2 6 JD ANN....IINT LY 27 CHAPTER VII 253 DYD ImN2 iwidyip yavod AB Py IA Wn OID mand Iya AM "main mbinanw wwospm yas ims jay) mb> Any) yave ims 4dn xd) mop xd pode yavon myo "1 modsm pubs yavon nr msn wonnw ww n> answ o’N8 ony 20577) MapN wT AIM AX?ON AXTM) Twr aednm rat Syn 1an> ~ws owny bod) omnat by om 00 uy ody “oy onotpA 9979 OYwIN "yd ANY TOIT Yd NWI DIT pry snow mds on oT I DIw Pa ow Iw IDTw ODD] NNT NIM Syan nw aN’ ON minw ooo $2 pdr 3at ps7 xd nim yo InNw oN Iam pa py7p> moan pon osn yy xb -px moIM Nowy mwa my non IW ANN. pyn> moa pon xn yx many oD oN Sax Anand sya ‘andm mowd wy 7S os orm non owiy> ap. ow IN an pippp xd omra any yi Nd) ow wd srw “DDI ox Ad un NW DD) on 4q~n7 Nba wd) win ‘wRD qwy aNaDD NON TIT) Nd) mom ards iar xd Papo INNS IN MOND IN TPaND mew nb pan ans qbn mepam wera yesyd um sin ww mp 57) WNT oan sine mo yinpd by mons qd.7 sim ox ow exiny orpoa naa ww bw ivxw prooa pry inn yond onbad om ano on) ar by yond axsanw ay mbnpm $5 dw onna 39> aydna yo vownd 52 DDMPM AD OIA NIM DIA wma wnya wenya 7M wx Sop v7p> sx"pp nw aN y'p 7'3 ora woD0n 7’ ‘pm "wo ya moby poi nom Ssemp "2 mw brDIST apy pana Sw ssp ja dsedn) a'n72 12 DTTAN ONT Mwy) *NDDoAA Dy n'a) avn 7a yn dyn p722017 72 ON: wd opds a’a pny (w') w'n am Tynaocnen Oo oy"ay ynon pny’ o’a Ser pina joan bsyiew "pra ND 3 inv There seems to be no need of translating the introduction which describes the confusion into which matters had n'ydip 3 omni .o °9r .p DIM Now Mya My non .p DT wp A) ae, yd mby) nim 4.0 boy VDP .p en ogo ar &® &H 254 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES fallen because of the unfortunate lack of agreement among the Rabbi as to the rightful amount due the Yabam. The body of the Takkanah is as follows: “Therefore have we, sitting in assembly, in the council of Rabbis and Presidents of Communities, unanimously agreed on the following ordinances. We also beg our mas- ters to agree to these ordinances and to sign them so that they may be the more firmly established. This is what we have ordained. : 1. The’ payment for the Ketubah in times past has been made in the coins of Cologne. At the time the custom was established these coins were current, but now they have completely disappeared. We have therefore agreed that the Ketubah of a virgin shall be six hundred (600) gold florins, and that of a widow, three hundred gold florins, neither less nor more, unless the husband has agreed to increase the dower, or the wife waived part of her rights. 2. Regarding the matter of the Halizah,? we have ex- * The disappearance of the Cologne coins as a standard currency brought confusion into the whole matter of payments demanded by Jewish law. A generation after the passing of this ordinance, R. Jacob Molin, the son of one of the signers, tells us that 200 florins were paid in Cologne, while it was usual to pay 600 in Mayence. In other words, Cologne had not adopted this Takkanah. It seems strange that Maharil, (as R. Jacob is usually known), makes no mention of this sy- nod in defending the custom of his community. He rather quotes Talmudic precedents for permitting the people of a locality to set their Ketubah at an amount beyond that which is usual. This is es- pecially justifiable, he claims, where the people of a district are of better stock, and he claims that the people of the upper Rhine are of better fainilies than those of the lower Rhine country. (Minhage Maharil, Laws of Marriage). R. Jacob Weil, a disciple of Maharil, informs us that in his time, the practically universal custom in the Rhine cities was the payment of 600 florins (Res. 14). We see then that the ordinance was gradually accepted. 2 See the Takkanah in regard to the Halizah which is included in the text of the Takkanot of the Rhine Communities of the thirteenth century (above, p. 229). That ordinance permitted the individual rabbi or judge to decide in each case what share of the property was CHAPTER VII 255 amined the Takkanot of our masters, the great men of former times and we agree to all they say and to the punishments which they have set for disobedience: Niddu, Herem, curse, and excommunication. The Yabam (the brother of the deceased husband) shall not keep the widow in suspense for more than the three months which is required by the law; and whether there are estates which the husband and wife severally brought into the marriage and which increased or decreased in value, or one of the couple brought nothing, all the family property shall be divided equally between the heirs of the deceased and the widow, even if the portion of the widow is less than the amount due to her as her Ketubah. If, however, the estates are large and the half that is to be given to the widow is equal to or is more than the amount of the Ketubah, the heirs of the deceased and the Yabam have the option either to pay the widow the amount of her Ketubah in cash, or to give her one half of the estates which were left. There shall be no further disagreement or difference between them but all must be done in the manner described in accordance with this decree. The widow shall be freed without further delay. In regard to the property which she inherited from her father or mother or another relative, they may not take it from her, but they must give it to her completely. Si- milarly, whatever he inherited must be given to his heirs completely. The widow must go to the place of her brother- in-law and. if he comes to her city she must pay his expenses. If the brother-in-law objects and refuses to have the Halizah performed in his desire for money which is not his, or if he flees in order to avoid the Halizah, he shall be ‘‘ taken in the net of the excommunication”’ of the Communities until the Halizah is performed. Thus did we decide on Monday, the fifteenth of Ab, of the year 5141. to be given to the brother of the deceased and what to the widow. As the introduction to the Takkanah states, this uncertainty led to many abuses, since it naturally soon became known that one rabbi generally favored the brothers and another the widows. The Takkanah before us by definitely fixing the method of division is a distinct advance on the earlier one. 256 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES Moses b. Yekutiel Molin * Abraham b. Gamaliel ‘b. Pdahzur Nathan b. Hayyim”™ Isaac b. Eliakim Yehiel b. Isaac Ha-Kohen Solomon b. Jacob Samuel Bonfant This was enacted with my consent, Menlin of Rothenburg. I, too, was present at this council, Meir b. Samuel Ha- Kohen of Nordhausen.”’ * So far as these men are known they are described in part I, p. 74, and notes. CHAPTER VIII SYNOD OF FRANKFORT, 1603 The text of the Takkanot which were passed at the synod that was held in Frankfort, in the year 1603, was for a long time considered lost. One of the translations that were prepared in defense of the Jews against the accusation of high treason has been printed by Stern in Koenigs- berger’s Monatsblaettern 1890-1. The Hebrew original was found and published by Dr. M. Horovitz of Frankfort in a separate pamphlet in 1897. The following is a free translation, in the nature of an abstract of the Takkanot, but it preserves the essential features of each section. The heads of the Communities have gathered here at Frankfort at the order of our masters, the Sages of Germany, to sit in council and look into the needs of the community and to make such ordinances and decrees as appear to be needed by the time and the place, so that the Holy People may not be a sheep without a shepherd; Section 1 Regarding law and judgement.? It is common offense among the people of our generation to refuse to obey Jewish law and even to compel opposing litigants to present themselves before secular courts. The result is that the Holy Name is profaned and that the Government and the judges are provoked at us. We have therefore decided that anyone who sues his neighbor in secular courts shall be compelled to free him from all the charges made against him, even though the Courts decided in favor of the plaintiff. A person guilty of taking a case to Gentile courts shall t See part I, page 79. ; 2 See Takkanan of R. Tam, above Chapter IV. 258 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES be separated from the community of Israel, shall not be called to the Torah, and shall not be permitted to marry until he repents and trees his fellow from the power of the Gentile courts. If the defendant was compelled to under- take expenditures in order to bring the infraction of this ordinance before the Jewish courts, the offender shall be compelled to bear the expense. It is well-known that many persons have by the power of their wealth sought to break down the organization of Jewish life in Germany, and have all but destroyed it completely. It is hoped that at some future time they will be brought to justice. However, anyone who will henceforth act in violation of the above ordinance shall be considered an informer and he ostracized as described above. We have ordained and established a special prayer concerning this rule to be publicly recited in every Jewish community every Sabbath throughout Germany. If the transgressor of this ordinance be a scholar, he is guilty of profanation of the name, and shall therefore lose his right to be called Rabbi; anyone who gives him the title shall be punished. If he be a leader of head of a community or an acting Rabbi or Teacher, he shall be re- moved from office. Since we know that we have in our communities wicked men of much influence who cannot be dealt with by the local courts, we have established five central courts in the following cities;—Frankfort, Worms, Fulda, Friedburg, and Ginzburg. If any local court finds itself powerless to deal with any person it shall refer the matter to the district court. The judge of this court shall do all in his power to bring the offending person to terms. Section 2 It has been agreed that each settlement shall make the assessment for the purposes of taxation in the following manner.’ Each community shall choose assessors of un- * Compare Italian Takkanot, below, chapter X, and Takkanot of Castile, below, chapter XIII. . CHAPTER VIII 259 questioned honesty and piety, who will assess every man and women according to their possessions. The assessors shall take an oath to act without consideration of friendship or enmity, and to be fair to each person. After making the assessment they shall divide it in half, and each person shall pay a “Shekel” pro rata on the remainder. Such persons as live far away from Jewish communities shall be obliged to present themselves before the community with which they are generally associated and they shall there be assessed in the manner just described. The assessors shall keep the assessments of the individuals in confidence so far as possible. The Rabbis of Germany have agreed to collect each month beginning with the month of Tishri, 365 (1605) a tax of one percent of all the property. The following cities were appointed centers to which collected moneys were to be sent: Frankfort, Worms, Mayence, Bing, Hamm, Friedburg, Schneitach, Waller- stein, and Ginzburg. ' The assembled delegates shall then choose representative men to present the Jewish affairs before the Court of the King. The collected moneys shail be put in a treasury a key to which shall be in the possession of each of the delegates. But no one shall remove anything without the knowledge and consent of his colleagues. If any persons refuse to give their allotted share toward the common fund, the head of the Court and the head of the Community shall be obliged to separate them from the whole community of Israel, from intermarrying with them, or permitting them to take part in any religious function. It was further agreed that from this day forth no com- munity shall be permitted to withhold their apportioned share of the tax whether in whole or in part because of any claim which that community claims to have against the General Organization, but the payment of the tax shall be made, and then the claim adjusted by the Sages of the time. 260 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES Section 3 It is often been found that men are engaged in Shehitah who lack adequate authorization,’ or having received au- thorization fail to review their studies and forget the law, thus causing their fellow-Jews to eat forbidden food. Moreover many fail to examine the knife in the proper manner. We therefore urge the head of each province and settlement to send an investigator, so far as possible, to review the necessary laws with the shohetim. Section 4 We have further decided that every head of a community has it as his duty to interfere with the buying of wine from Gentiles. If it is proven that any Jew has drunk wine in the house of Gentile, it shall be forbidden for any other Jew to marry his daughter, or to give him lodging, or to call him to the Torah or to allow him to perform any religious. function. We have further decided that every Jew living in a wine- growing province, shall make his own wine both for his own use and for sale. One shall not be permitted to keep wine of Gentiles in the same room as properly prepared wine. The head of the courts of the communities shall make as stringent laws regarding this matter as they may con- sider fit, and we will assist them in the enforcement of them. Any Rabbi who shall commit any infraction of this law, shall be deposed from his position, and anyone who shall thereafter call him Rabdz or Haber shall be punished. Section 5 No one shall be appointed a Rabbi without the consent of three heads of academies; the authorization as haber? given any person by a Rabbi outside of Germany, shall * See Takkanot Shum, above, p. 231, section 26. 2 Haber is a title used in the Talmud for scholars. In Mediaeval Germany it was a layman's title of honor, given for acquaintance with the Talmud and Halaka. CHAPTER VIII 261 not be considered valid; no authorization as Rabbi shall be given any young man who has not been married for two years. Section 6 It is well known that much trouble has arisen in Jewish communities and settlements because of the wicked Jews who engage in trade of counterfeit coins, the coins in some cases being completely valueless, in other cases counter- feited to look like a more valuable one than it actually is. As a result instead of it being said ‘‘The remnant of Israel does no evil’’, they say, ‘Where is the God of this nation?’ We have therefore agreed that from this day forth, anyone found engaged in such practices shall be punished with all the severity described above. This shall also apply to those who forge documents in collecting debts. Section 7 We have agreed that anyone who buys any wares from one who is well-known as a thief or lends a thief money on any pledge, shall be punished in the manner described above. Section 8 Anyone who borrows money or wares from Gentiles with the intention of failing to pay for them shall also be ostracized in the manner described, and no Jew shall buy any wares from him or have any commerce with him. Moreover if he is imprisoned for such an act, no Jew “will be permitted to defend him, so that the Gentiles may know that we are not generally guilty of such corrupt practices. Section 9 We beg of every Rabbi who is not a member of this council, to agree to these decisions and sign his name to them, and if he finds any persons disobedient to these or- dinances:to refuse to permit such men to intermarry with 262 JEWISH ‘SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES the community. Any Rabbi who performs a wedding for such as disobey these ordinances, and also those who intermarry with them, shall be punished and will be con- sidered among those who separate themselves from the community. Section 10 Any Jew who drinks milk bought from a Gentile,’ when the milking was not witnessed by a Jew, shall be punished so that no Jew will eat from any of his dishes, and his friends and neighbors shall be obliged to give information concerning him to the nearest Rabbi. If the transgressor be a scholar or a teacher or the head of a Court, or the President of a Community he shall be removed from his position. (Whoever? attempts to make a collection for the sake of dowering his daughter, shall be permitted to give her no more than one hundred and eighty gulden. If he has promised more he shall be given nothing, even though he have credentials from all the German Rabbis. Moreover no contributions shall be given to wicked men. Of course no Rabbi ought to sign any documents in such cases). Section 11 Whereas: we have noticed that many Jews wear clothing made after the manner of the Gentiles, and we have also noticed that many dress themselves and their daughters in costly clothes, therefore have we decreed by a severe t Milk bought from a Gentile was considered prohibited because of the fear that the Gentile might have mixed witn the cow’s milk the milk of an unclean animal. There was no apprehension therefore when the animal was milked in the presence of the Jew who bought it. In the Hebrew original the statement of R. Solomon ibn Adret declaring the vessels in which such prohibited milk was boiled likewise prohibited is accepted; for a further discussion of the matter see Yoreh Deah 115.1, and R. Solomon ibn Adret’s Torat Ha-Bayit 7.4. 2 This section was expunged by unanimous vote as can be seen from the note at the end of the Hebrew text. 3 See above chapter VII, Takkanot Shum, section 1, and below Chapter X, Text A. CHAPTER VIII 263 decree that within thirty days after hearing this decree each community shall take action in this matter. They shall also take action against wearing clothes of mixed linen and wool, and also regarding the prohibition of usury. Section 12 No‘ Jew in our provinces shall be permitted to publish any book, new or old, at Basel? or any other city in Ger- many, without the permission of three Courts; if anyone transgresses this law and publishes the books without permission, no man shall buy the books under the punish- ment of excommunication. Section 13 No Rabbi or head of a Court shall extend his jurisdiction over communities or districts which are traditionally subjects to another court; if any men refuse to obey the orders of their court and prefer to choose a Rabbi for them- selves, that Rabbi or Teacher shall be excommunicated as shall also be those men until the heads of the provinces are reconciled to them. ; If any court declares any punishment against any trans- gressors by authority of our ordinances, all Jews shall be obliged to obey the order of the Court. We have decreed thay any herem or decree from any Rabbi outside of Germany against any Jews in Germany shall be invalid. Whatever sum is decided upon by us as necessary shall be collected each year, and each person shall pay the sum assessed against him. If any Jew fail to give their share and disobey the agent of the General Community, their names shall be announced in every community in Germany. The announcement shall take this form: ‘The following men, who are mentioned by name, have been separated from the remainder of the Dispersion, they may not mingle * Compare Chapter X, Text D, section 1. 2 For the importance of Basel as a centre of Jewish printing in this period see J. E. s. v. Typography. 264 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES or intermarry with us, neither they nor their children, and no person may recite for them the benediction of matriage. If any one transgresses this order and does marry them, whether he act willingly or under compulsion, the marriage is declared void.” If any member of our people goes before a Gentile Court, and the leaders of the Community find it impossible to compel him to obey Jewish courts, announcement shall immediately be made concerning him in all the communities so as to compel such a person to present himself before the - court of Frankfort or Worms or Friedburg or to any court which the defendant will select. If anyone of those found guilty fail to repent within thirty days of the announcement he shall be compelled to pay a fine to the Charity Fund and to the Government in accordance with what will seem fit to the judges. If this will not be sufficient to bring him to terms, weshall seek permission from the Govern- ment to do justice and to compel the guilty one to defray all the expenses. CHAPTER IX TAKKANOT OF CANDIA The following text has been reprinted from the Hoffmann Festschrift (p. 267), where it was originally published by Dr. H. Rosenberg of Ancona. Dr. Rosenberg did not have before him the manuscript of the Takkanot, but a copy made from it by this predecessor, Rabbi J. R. Tedeschi. At the time of the publication of that text, the manuscript was inaccessible, but at present it is in the possession of Mr. D. S. Sassoon of London, who very generously sent photographs of the missing portions to the present writer. Unfortunately the photographs were not sufficiently legible . for publication. It seems probable that Dr. Rosenberg’s assumption that the defective state of Rabbi Tedeschi’s copy was due to the loss of a page, is inaccurate: it is more likely that the missing portions of the Takkanot were never copied. In any case it is still impossible to reproduce more than a part of the original text, although we have the complete text of the revisedTakkanot made by RabbiZedaka. As has been stated in part I (p. 84) R. Zedaka’s style is quite different from that of the writers of the original Takkanah. His is that of the Spanish-Italian philosophical schools, while the original is in the rhymed prose which is more common in France and Germany. Moreover, .R. Zedaka changed the order of the sections. In printing the texts, I have followed Dr. Rosenberg in placing the two versions side by side, and retaining the order of R. Zedaka since our text of his revision is more complete. The translation, too, follows the text of R. Zedaka. TEXT Wy by) DOTS 17” now sheta Map wend 12) MwA T"y WIDy-.mywn man wd mbstnes yiod yin yma) PIA OY 19 4 Aw inap 71ND) 77D Man byab mara bya nx nine dxy any °D2 Nn D8 imap wxind onata man ADIN NT DID }yo> onayA yn Wy" by) ‘Ss pw RY) Jad may wx soxd pm wo son mNwNT pw away 8d axdm am ovn jow TN’ 90) APY’ OWA Np OTN 379 mand maonD Awd. RY ona *Syap sanxd ino anand inbyd pn yan ma moe by 377 817 ws px cnbap 7Dw3 266 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES bs pry xe osm ody 1d wy on. mono ovdya jon >"y .o0> oon on YN nym wy wowed om 95 aAP anya doa pen op jad. mn ANY DNDN wy? MONT wWIYOM DIP ANN WN) TaN 3 a>vaun ma nanvd 371 sa>a0n ma oD yt. rwy mew mop wdiyo msxod wy swxo Ssow maa nanvd ambit bas ows pnynd mnexn 13 Sw] JD awa ino TIA) man Syn ox ward ratsn bx Nima oman woven 55 xy sawa by mhanm mb zy wpa sav mand ow imap wwxnd moo vb mayw mp °DD oman Jawina nay nxxd wD AND” werd ipown> opr ow or Tay wan wd omon swe dSydan pp >pD mm) mm Sy aman undap 5d2 am apn odapn ans ow away xbw m572 pps sia man maw undmp wird oxdp Jy (ST TDIwT WD WI) wR 12: 907 wan qws aan mw 1S man 8 moor ox end ANwR7 TWN 1 TIT ws ins aby ASV WO IM Aapy7 DIN yey SNWTINNON YY Pay TY MD DIN 1% any wn nya AyD wan DION) NIT maa AM 1b snd nem od5ym yo we PD 1'N ON wpa am ama Sua5 jan ywra DMX jam wad ym way YOuRVOTNpT oan) DD DDD ova oNxon ono indir ow nnxaam bapm b> yap> sian bapa nyt mdz ow nrown7 yp 15 snp) mvy ws india ws b> yay ow Sema a xb innowa jpop Stand Ose by oben dara arp os anym Syn n>avn ma nino ty.a 47 In’pN ma py bow nyt>b w ny 75 NW 13 WNIT Ws 77°30 CHAPTER IX 267 nbayon > yr jbsn unmna ins ysin 727 mp aby pax ama naa mews bs own mmpxya samay mds yn xd aneow maw can bw onnawa mwyny as"y oy mdan tataw $y) msap> mud cmINN mE x4 ogee aes COMP aDAypA m$> n>pNa NT ADY) Aw TWYD INS NT TIT DW CN") Ox) NDIA OY PII MIND orn npn b> obdiaw joxw ry qn PANN) WPM WY API! ATAy WIP MD pwyM WI) Wan ANS yan 's ow away xdow iez00 ‘Ab a pina? mpod 445 oon Ona OTIAM Maw oN. 12 poym xd 3D wd) ooNA p> myaon O27 cw nwn aNw> mMeyon NA PP TD ow Aw meyyd) one yn rmbawr $x) Ni mnm oat b> mx anya moby Swa sya a1 pb") mnaw Ms ‘IT ay oD yIT— my ay oa D> Syons nbmby Send pin poin> inrsw powm bsn ona pdiy> sem my a par ora ‘Nw a"y jadiyn nena by ann yom pop ,od> unbzp ww dy won odin ty) owpnd sin ow dyin anya mpNbon oyn b> Sua ox 7 mm ormopaxd) »™ maw Pm OYA IYI API) .oaw yw aw anND woos) jos yo mm mDNboo ayn b> dws abyn> prem wadyod) men many) 9"m) untn mxp> ONT OMwya pn wn wy ‘AD Np 12 AMDAwW on 7 ODI b> 43 miyison ommbiys odyind ann imasa5> sy qn wy -wE 17 21 DDD yo ym wMpw ow TIAA DIpA O’PoWw) OM DON O78 ow nwo xd asd on ova nen x> ,955 maNbp 1a mwyd xo ony mw o> AN JOA nyan oan neaw xd) od5 monn mown) jn. ADD) wp? p>2p7 n> Jen dynes amon NYOITYSAVDTINpAY OD DDD UMN mponm nx anwd yaynn yor boa n> wows AN OwIn ow sor IMpry Ty MpoA ASN Ww NAM am 4.37 canw mpon bo noyina a7 won odapon dynpn 1 mwys noaq ond nna ans .O17392 Opoy NaN LYM ASP oy ofan) ofa n¥p ums raw nytd w ny M8 Tw TIT ID der yny aD Sy ON WN YO" MNAw anya) on N12 Ty Pome axwo Sy ainnay obeq5 ond) ory pm won nyma °D AN) OPI Ww mDNboT ornyar ixmb1 12 pnd x2 Sya Mm qwon oon xba amp ora am pos oN oxysa ox naw SSpw ayn OPI) oD DDD MN may onw dy Aon amy aDIAn way xbsw jomaat mor dy oy NTA Wks Aap: ty rdw oy myo) arn mxnn maNbo mwyd AN bm myp> vb" Mmnaw -a4y3 268 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES any) w"aya dyapd xbw at a nay 7395 OTN PAX—.mrow 3OIN NIT YD) PRI "yan Ty 9 70> AYIM wen ora AWM NIT jnawa mow ans b> aw onda jn~dnp 52) news y291 7? mo tmx b> axy xdi jan Snsx ow mway xbw ipn ween myn -Ssqwm wens ms diap> p> yn ond 7 ayy orn OPIN Mw MTS vy OTN 927 ANY) 13001 NPD "poy dy Iw odbsiwd mow Sy owe yen 724Y2 AMIN) PY ION AN mnw Naw YD7AY Pwwa ws) ,AMI or 2 PwWRD WAY AP ms Qf93 Jon Aram by PMS MDW Sx orn mp) aqy °>d>x wr oD my Tay xd ome rods mxpo oan -p xd op aw an ox nba DIST OPT 12 XXYD) Nawd mwyds orm ond pyar y"'ya Syapd sow a1 WoT WRI Awe °D nyT> Ty ynwad NIM) waqpa moxw yr yoy °1aD oa 7D yy? .unddo) w’ya om opm ms 1>°ap NN? °D JPN. VSwWOM D> v"Py> py: om orm wip sro ay ow yoD07 wy Nnown) naw °D7xD Wk AN amy WS ms jpnd Ow TIpOAOTyIoI) OwIM ninawa sxnim Syne wr 55 axdm jronw byapd mD72 Dipa Away Nb ira opp ows sawn nan oN oN’ 9x8 [7 on bss 7 wEwon yo xd jyo> an vo ya "ya ‘a> naw D7¥ 5" pIw vw" NNDwD PS WS IkSD ‘my man xd ayn on? mbann aya 77) xona pay Syw nytd w ny TTY. WS ww OWNM 2A O’pD) UMS 13) MIN OWS 7IN sews mb|nn py ina ans n>>ena pds oon) am> warnn 7a oyna pnynd on $5 1 awd ST NAA ww) Ww? 7AM ny N22 YNND ODD ‘My 'm on) owns mnava nbpnn M2 OND JIT WD’ oD OYA oon an Sx upon) ODT) msxoty 5x 125’ 07D) TAN NVIN ON a9 man Npnwa oO CHAPTER IX 269 02> ory mow ans pa ndyin nyowd nsno aya qbin NID PR WR AMIN mboz yw xd) 555 o> noNwi werd 12 Wwe Spay xonz nits oad bx nyd M2 ON oatya o>w) mA odxy nx ow xrxom onvad opds sx p> omy pwd nbpnq nya 728 pnd wa wR onyn maw) 14555 15 on meyim TY Poy wns nn pn wwe oats 72a Twy SDS wor Two pn nxbod onbsn maa wen xb mand arows opty som mbpnn ns xxombo ony nopp 12 monn nya opbxn maa onxy onvn Shawn mnaws yp ombxann ana 1d) (oinm...45D 3777 WS? DIN) MINA HMDS MSN MNT wry ym ow Nd Sypon 1 nvw 22 ANP wpwN MYA UNNAP APD Ip] °D AN wm imp a> maw yo menbdn mbpna nat nm bs wad mow wnsy xxv nym ondas rab OwIs MDD ANN. wx 7p) pylons Mnawsa on mnbdy pa pam Stan non aon xb sp ratoan Sinn ow par espn paymamsra .od>5> ny sim IND MPa maT AM nnyom Spdipon SYN ID UNS TMX bd PN 722v2 mE wpyn = pwrmd aS amy unyt xy D> nbxyinn mp myxp> nbs wiys cam nna indap p> ops nena oyw p> yea nx opbs ananm monn ows = ob>xyn by maid) 4009 ns and mond 270 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES pvp °D Woy nYnaa wyT 7aDw ow NS own odin) wn may M87 TwRd) woxsy o& ODDIOM Swoon np apy jynb aim DD DDD WAIN IPMwWI WD YW wy] WN FADIA DIpa opow xo adm om opmow mwy> wr TN>ApP °wIND OTN Ow NWI To oyna) owt mnava orxxd mao 1 nym onban Srpn sino many 2720 oOnXX Ty nmDD bs 1m nw Py? ws ans od) yar pyo bs yoyp owd rab nynam pn bs nooo x5 as wpbs syd ee py own Sx xbdy poisy mS>y1 apo owas yynndy apy’ ova osnpin ber ny >> nyo Ss vane ovn opds say “yx wIp> yTAD jDwy DIpN) "7 73 TY ONT INIT IYNA NIT ws ONyD 10 OWT INN) Mow py) Ss oo mpd oxen ym mdbpnn oayn obi) nym owin mynn bx mpd oyav pr WS Oy YP monn onya ow oO Mynr oan nde saws nyaw oan 1 39D now) neapD noIn yn nba TD pan ya maNdm bs ynnn ond prppand mbwann ma bx opxy xxond ‘nm aw ‘m 'm wena ma95 opbxa smw> ‘mone nytd> mpT aAyIDN enpona > owid Na INxID 719) n> any pox any) pax many mdi7 ADNDD) UR¥D)] NAA AA yobs mmnd mbpxoi wp wx? danva "72D 2ad now ry IW CHAPTER IX 271 OM ital yaleebala to? xO Onn sTya—.nww WD JD Onova oPNWwW) maa by oD nvN oY myo p> 781 poem pbx oN TA nw a 171553 > abynd ow OTN osbon nbsp) moam nmiosp by yonw ,7’2) 77 nan ,opsNMN by) WIP? °D Dw 7) Pw TMT bad wpn a"y .nd dyn an myn ma ya xd) ama on bs snp 1D mpINd o> Ty AMNId Id DS xo ox oD mpaM nwa wopbn pox) mex NS NIT InN max) mei op> wi yp amnn> mwITP mt a7 un abiys wimax ODN US ON AWD) yp) mw mom a7 awd aindap aya opsn od cm) o> wor or niyo) Ss nn aw ONT oy Leer yl ealal’ 53172 79 Np» S178 NYO TN TY TTR NNW OID wp onrm aneapnm metp mow 'y) 47> amo. Foxy wip OWN MAN WT JD3 CR 'D ory> moa inna) ooxy> awp Swen bow poxy by rponm ay anstwo mao nay ba ma am1 SDs) mbna inDIA ny mr qa7a yi sx para pppa sx5 pw Jean araxs> jpn OwbIA W"p) Oxpry aapy SND mT MX OMNI wea yry oon 1DINww ANS AIT ap °D Abu mpd sad myx apa dp ox saw Fa) TT nn Abva om a xo oem ona °> amp aim by Tp nm vex xo yim onws apo -wM pyo ww oan mdy DWIN) TOTT DAN IT) Ow AWYyD yam pre) ad>nna Syda ows sy wea mbp omn one by oven maa oi>°> noxya ibpaw Ona NS wp) ow inv» boNn payia ayn nands o> pawn N23 WN mN|T IT aw Nd yanpa savay 7295 ooxy dorm sy 12 ow 1b 1298 9D CT TIyA Apa ont sad wxy yi xd on Sym amas mr xd xo 8m WY’ Tom AMY ne mbdy> mninx may mm ona xb ayn DY Pan rw pa mo ID AIWwA DAN WD Ip DT) Ppa py Mpon myd) wei mys dy xb on) @drn pao anedy did >> nadvnm onawno nxdoni Nand ADDN AWS wpa on 03 272 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES Q"D2 on Ar aT) bw peso mow mand ‘7 ppxm abs dyn norya 1) NNN wR Ayan Nom 1 IDR my7p a> ws 5’y inxw Sop snd 's nyta wos wom 1 ow mxdsm ornow wwrd sadn maa pid oxwn av xd Jw DYN ON) ADIND IID or TY YON sno’ pied yb Fx) nD OM WS Ovo yo ow nnpd pw is on ory b> by 7’ TT AN pr bad xodyo bra 055 omainn oy mdppim orpinn maa nob> ond a xw pi>°> snw mm otad ond madd n> nvnow n’n n> Syd nexdy 32 yp os $"M oxw Jpn Syn ‘6 pertp) oad inawo mr dno INTIME Ww WY Mw ATM, '3 op inom > ay nab now wry NTN. Ms op> wp a'aot anon nb aya a ad Sy wownaw nytd w ny wos aNaom wpyn $5 pwnd Sx) Jnxo 222 by maz JxTw wpyon nawn7 nym bs 1Atsn bx mv mwnh mPa man Sn Tym > AS md>y wn pom bd m7 wis pos n-vna mwrpA pws Sownw SI ANT mMsxoM mwyin ton mb mxow xin oD TAMP|T vn we yowod bs awh why ma ds nobd NIT wea np> mop TwSX ADIN n’o. mso xv aby ,oTN b> yD bod yrp ww yD aI nn yn ny Soa ume we ox Sow Sya nvowa waANM wow wws) namin b> oy) nx nawnaA AIDA CHAPTER IX 273 pind) arow> aN WR TPT WIND DWIS OND) ord 72 M25 on ans Odwon un>np ons> nexina onndo Ssnw ono pyin) tas ado ond ma ds pp nay by obona onnddn onoxbna opoynn mn oy odie bs yaw xd) adSnnaD ons) mony mnan xd nyt xd) oad b> no Os owanD NIT NIT oyaD pawn mon ambspa AS enn pon ODN DYyIT ONNDT nawns bixw oy) mim) ms maa wn xo Nay °D Fw pw mNN wey adie nyaDs yin aT uN nyt moon bs sim mn oN soo pmannd poxp 959 Nn nya1d ms at on b> obs ywa> °> ymny °y;n boa avin b> wb) Pa WR °D) MA parwa ons Syp we awa b> mn on (D3) USD? WX TINT Ib Ow navn naan bez b> -pwrmd nnawon man an Os tad) D3 DIPAW OPO OID MIs wor 92 WN My] TADWA AWS supna axdm orn mwynd amyo pdiy end indrp wind OTN wD) youn ons mbyni mw won ja bob wenn wei nw Amon mw a xd moxbo bya wr a> yi nap ows insNboa poynn byann> smn nya a7 WP AN Ins @ppynon $2) NIT INDN2DD non n> ws ay udp oD>noM a2 ON) Pym nad pin innsw Innap ope ty im>?>o wasyn onbon nay Jip ops TWDy” Winn orryo nom paanna “sy 274 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES spwhr ond ainb xbw at ond sins ow may xbd—.newdy spv>) ond sind jam jn> oya D’pwn dD on ony and) and Sion y'n OT OMX DANN ond > jovi %>S5> ny sim own Syvas 17 Scena mds ps yor’ (2.4. mY Ind nw Sx pam Tdiy wy xd Sse max mvp mI OTAaYA pa X¥D) Ny p72» omy 7D ND on wndvT ON wdyo pnand jy by ovo ‘mM may dip wynrr Syn ord) nan prasxy Syi wby wap jor movin b> so Fy ya 0°29) WI MINIT mpnT net AX Pan sanaady aby pon adda mm IMI) NDR Ox WX WRX OID yin mys ds ansn xd ar morn mx’? yorxdo 2D wom. anp xd ops Sy wont Soa wnnwd wd 23597 JANA FAN yD NNW Mont) 1 Vvalesai. on uMNtaw nyt> w ny m>pia Ws ONAN NINA AyIDD7 minya nyo7 0 uNTyA wy? nos0n bon by onyad mbpnn Wra xxom ay ws b> Sy 4m yoy xd os ond away bab sex draxvotnpad mnwx 7277 Imwan> wen oN OFA Ow aT w ps oni ime ond asin map> m8 770° oN) imwyn yiord 1S ona ny dy on IDI OD Ja nya om wr ib snp) ond Sins sow an pw xamd) jNoDw woDDn Thy | xia ow Sin yup undp 10 's and) ond apwh oxwn sa xd OTN OF ONpY m3 7A oOny7 > ond OTT ODIDY ADA IT o>>np on prann ond oapwan Oy moaxw ony x2) ona ‘7 px) arp aT Nd aby wy? xd bdr ny Sy Sr ox TaD) 6.2.72 mvayn bop on Nine own ps Sm 32 1908) C'S 1D NOY YD) Cs ‘2 perp) own ddna pp pn owas wy ns 7 ‘Mm CHAPTER IX 275 (oaNiao nnn Sy uans n ‘ bop OININT UMN INST OVS onayn omytp mbnp yar nxt 15 amp iypds ar ar mr oo; syo Donna Sn An oy mupnm mbxa cno2DA pny’ 73 72 78 sex Jaan mynad maada wpn wey ws yay -wrp A'NTIp vn ai 2) ppp arybs 72 mnND DDD PRY Ja OMI DDD ann wat Ton ya 7ryd>s ODD FDP 9 307 ya TNA pnw ppd JIN pny’ 72 now 7a WINw DDD NAN wow D200 ym yD I Fann ya comeT ws p00 a’ndr ADY ann ja mobw ra coNDPNP DIND p>on yon motay 7a ye p00 ann ja wx aT m’DDD WPA AY :377 ya po DID IT Ja NY IAW IP NT TIDY NNTIAN yor RTT ppd yw Ja NBIIT Oxyow p00 DMD apy 73 on ppp my ow 9 atm ja bydnn 7a Pow mbapm $2 onans oyna Sy om>y aapi wep nupn wwyn 1s nmwp mxdo ant awy ms 7D oD) AN TIP NA MwA TRANSLATION These Takkanot were made in the Communities of Candia and were re-established among our Communities by R. Zedaka. They are the ten ordinances which the princes, the leaders of the children of Israel, established for us that we may observe all that is written in them, for in that way shall we succeed and thus shall we attain wisdom. 1. Ordinance in regard to renting houses. Firstly! have we ordained that henceforth no Jew shall t Compare Takkanot ascribed to R. Tam, Text M, p. 181, section 2 and Takkanot of Italian Communities, 1554, p. 302. 276 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES be permitted for any reason to offer a higher rental for any house which is rented to another without the consent of the tenant. If the owner of his own accord ask an increase in the rental or demand that the tenant leave the house, no one shall be permitted under the pain of excommunica- tion to rent the house from which the tenant has been evicted for a whole year from the time of the eviction. The new tenant may however come to an agreement with the former tenant whereupon he may remain in the house. If however, the new tenant is a wicked person and refuses to satisfy the evicted tenant, the contestabile or any other of the officers of the Community shall be empowered to gather the whole community to one-of the Synagogues and there they shall reveal his wickedness to the whole com- munity and he;shall be declared one ‘‘who broke a hedge in Israel’. Every man in Israel shall become obliged to separate himself from him, no one shall mingle with him in his joys, nor come near to him in his sorrows. 2. Ordinance in regard to the cleanliness of the Ritual Bath. Whereas some of our people transgress the law by per- forming all their needs in the ritual bath thinking that it is intended for the use of their unseemly occupations, and as a result they pollute and defile it until its waters become green and like mud. Therefore we agree that from this day and hence, no one shall be permitted under penalty of excommunication to do any work in the Bath either washing clothes or soaking skins or washing dishes or soaking the stoppers of bottles or any similar work. In order to make certain the carrying out of this provision we ordain that the contestabile shall be obliged to see that the Bath is cleaned every two months. This shall be done by closing the door of the well which is in the court of the Bath until those who draw the water and the other workers who ' use it most shall clean the Bath. Then he shall open the door for them to use the well as is their custom. CHAPTER IX 277 3. Ordinance in regard to Sabbath and Fe&tival eves. Whereas we have seen that some of our people cast aside the righteous path and on the eve of the Sabbath or Festi- val they continue at their work until the setting of the sun, and their eyes and their hearts are set on the completion of the task in which they are engaged, and this is even more so when the master is a Christian and at times when the day is misty this results in violation of the Sabbath; therefore do we ordain and decide under penalty of ex- communication, besides their transgression of a Rabbinical commandment, that no one whether male or female of our Community, shall be permitted to do any work after midday on the Sabbath eve in accordance with the com- mandment of our Sages. Certainly when the shades of night are spreading and the day has gone each man shall turn to the commandment of God and do no more work. There shall not be included in this ordinance those who draw water for the public needs for the Sabbath or similar permitted occupations which must be performed and which may be done’. 4. Ordinance against lodging complaint on Sabbath or Festival eve. Whereas we have seen the evil custom among us which is our shame and our disgrace, that many of our people bring their fellow Jews to Court on Sabbath or Festival eves, in such a way that they are delayed there till near the time for the sanctification of the day, and they are thus prevented from making preparations for the Sabbath and for the rejoicing of the festival; therefore have we agreed to mend that which they have perverted, by or- daining that henceforth no Jew among us shall be per- mitted under penalty of excommunication to bring his fellow Israelite to any Court, whether Jewish or Gentile, * Rosenberg refers here to the statement in Shibbale Ha-Leket forbidding, in the name of R. Natronai Gaon, both men and women to engage in work on Friday afternoon, or on the afternoon of any day preceding a festival. 278 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES on the Sabbath or Festival eve.t This is ordained in order that he may not be prevented from enjoying the festival and that he may also prepare the needs of the Sabbath for the Lord, and that the Community of the Lord may not be like sheep which have no shepherd. 5. Ordinance in regard to Prayer. We must further call attention to the great sin of which we are indeed guilty and because of which we are being corrupted: namely, that we cast aside the matter of prayer which we are obliged to maintain in order to declare the unity of our God and to exalt Him and to purify our souls. Many of us at the time of prayers onSabbaths, New Moons, Festivals and Appointed Seasons, go about through the vineyards, gardens, and orchards, some of us turn toward the shore of the sea, to boats, and some of us go rather to the law-courts, or even on the streets and in the market- places, meandering uselessly, merely following the de- sires of the heart,satisfying the bodily cravings which pass away and are lost, which have no connection whatever with the eternal soul. They do not take to heart the grave sin of which they are guilty in forsaking the house of God, absenting themselves from it at the time of prayer, to such an extent that even when ten men are sought they are not to. be found in the Congregation. This is all the more to be decried on the Sabbath and Holidays. In view of all that has been said, we decree that hence- forth no member of our Community shall be permitted under penalty of excommunication to leave the Congre- gation on Sabbaths, New Moons or Festivals except for a compelling reason, before the completion of the public prayers in the morning. As soon as one awakes from sleep he shall proceed to the house of our God; certainly he may not go to the shore or to the suburbs. Indeed even the pious students who are not in the habit of turning to bodily pleasures at those times, shall be obliged to interrupt their study without delay when the Hazzan sends for them at the time that he reaches the prayer of Nishmat.? * Sabbath 1.2. 2 For a similar ordinance compelling people to attend public worship see Ordinance of Castile, p. 355. CHAPTER IX 279 6. Ordinance in regard to affianced men. Our ancestors had thecustom that noaffianced man should pass the house of his betrothed until the time of the Huppah. Even if they met on the street they would turn in opposite directions. But it has happened recently within ten years that this regulation has been broken down. Men of Belial have broken down the hedge made by the forefathers and have been so light-headed as to enter the houses of their future fathers-in-law and eat and drink there. It often happens as a result that indiscretions are committed, and this has led even to an attempt at abortion and to infant- murder. Therefore have we all agreed to bring the matter back to its original custom, that henceforth no afficanced youg man shall be permitted to enter the house of his father-in-law until the performance of the Huppah. If for some compelling reason he will have to enter the house he shall be obliged to take two of the officers who will be appointed to look to the execution of these ordinances or any two other people, with him. Those who are studying with their fathers-in-law, that is to say, those who must go to the houses of their fathers-in-law in order to do their studies, they alone shall be permitted to enter the houses of their fathers-in-law, for the power of the study of the Torah is such as to weaken the force of the tempter. * 7. Ordinance in regard to Burials. Whereas there are some members of our Community who cast aside the honor of the dead of Israel, failing to attend their funerals when they are being carried to their eternal home, and not only do they abstain from attending the funerals in order to spare themselves the trouble, but they continue to engage in their work and their art as before; they pay no attention to the fact that death is a natural thing which extends to all living things; and whereas indeed every person ought to be thinking at all times that there is but a step between him and death; therefore do we agree and decide that from this day hence, when any member of our community of the age of five or more, dies, it shall * Compare Takkanot of Corfu, p. 316, section 1. 280 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES be forbidden for any man under penalty of the excommuni- cation to engage in any work for any reason; verily he shall be obliged to cease work, he,t as well as those who work - with him, and those who are being taught by him until they bring the dead body from his last dwelling place beyond the gate of the city. If any reason prevents him from accompanying the funeral party till the cemetery he shall stand at some place near those who are escorting the body until the dead body is removed from them and then they shall turn about each one to his work and art. 8. Ordinance in regard to declaration of a herem Whereas we have noticed the blameworthy usage of announcing a herem for any light reason and closing syna- gogues at the times of prayers; therefore have we decreed that no one among us shall be permitted to declare a herem unless he first make the matter known to the contestabtle of his day. If they desire to permit him to announce the herem for some reason that appears right to them they will permit it; otherwise he must refrain from doing so; and if he opposes the command of those honored men, they shall declare his sin in public and he shall be called a rebellious man among the community of the Lord. 9. Ordinance not to defraud Gentiles. We have further agreed that henceforth no member of our Community whether young or old, — shall be permitted to lie to Gentiles or to deceive them, whether in regard to what Jews buy from them or in regard to what the Jews sell them. Those who deceive Gentiles profane the name of the Lord among the Gentiles and against them the Prophet calls out, ‘‘The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity nor speak lies’? and our Sages have said that the sin of profaning the Name is more severe than any of the others. t Moed Katan 27b. 2 Zeph. 3.13. CHAPTER X A. TAKKANOT OF ITALY OF THE YEARS 1416-1418. The following ordinances are those passed by a meeting of General Commissioners for all the more important com- munities of Italy. This Commission was created by a synod that had been held at Bologna in 1416. In ac- cordance with the mandate placed upon it by the synod of 1416, the Commission met at Forli, in 1418, to discuss the affairs of the Jews, especially with regard to the success of Martin V in obtaining universal recognition of himself as Pope. In the course of introducing their own decisions the Commissioners quote that part of the decisions of 1416 by which their Commission was created. We have no other information as to what transpired at the synod of Bologna. The text is here reproduced from a Halberstam Ms.°: now in the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. This manuscript was used by Halberstam himself in printing the text of the Takkanot in the Graetz Festschrift (p. 53 ff.). The text as there given has been carefully compared with that of the manuscript and a few changes have been made. In spite of the paucity of the improvements required in the text, it was thought best to include the text and translation in this volume for the sake of completeness. On the other hand it is not been thought necessary to reproduce the various enlightening notes added to the text by Halberstam, and the letter of Guedemann which is published with the text in the Fest- schrift. The student who is desirous of delving further into the story of the men who took part in the synod will refer to the original articles. 282 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES TEXT | NY bby b5 mw Toyody andy merpr anmin aad) ‘nm ‘a asd b>) NDIND p’pm Toyndi ppndr »nbyn »p> ams 55 py py Sor Sdn nava 72 o'n ums dt pa AD oy unyna £1? wpm mbap axw pinand n’yp) ods ‘7 nw pro wind mn” sine yo wand ow 22 mnanm ws yy (~Sox mbap maa cma seyo. ppn by amon nw> an yp) opbs ‘7 mw nav wana mendyaa wyi ww mozp73 wny wb -paxw moa sn mosonn pyr ooosn> ADaX Aywm ymdbianna JpAnD yom wms 3 xow x metpa mbapa toyo qwoa ans p> oan wad xx” Ws oinnn by oxsm ums wea wos0n nea Ams Nd) pap wa aT [WS NINPDW) NINDIN. NVIDIA NTS) NT) Noa >>> ono wanm wisn $55 $'5'5 ow sawy om S59 ond) ory ow ao omdy nnd oxapnn JAX WT ya °D OPYya ANY ON) Pw Ops APSA yxion oypoa tyi> o»d557 ones ayn ,prpa by soy msi 71D Jn¥ DD poo Mad oa mw AN ow noKdnd yrod ompinn pw) OID DDT AYA AID wD AAP oma AIDY Mbson noyind yen pou "7 ar qatd wo. ws yx ant Pa wwy lary myom 392 Onn myom wesy o»5$595 onooM .Toxrnpo 5"r omw ‘p23 m>anvm Fan mean $2) .wawn yo aye Fas> mbapr ndyind max m>rpn wep aye mbapm ppm qax oan ww ad crya ANY WE SNY IN ‘NW }OIP mapm yo map> on osm ww ob> »’y menpA nya? 1d yom xbw onox mbyinm map 1b ap od52q onno7 jp nyT WAM wipoa mw wo ynnn toys aynm sian mb>sanwza PTD yT) nD. nD) Nowa p>. mbwa cw A Nw won AM pyran nox ops 'o pam rm °>$55 ana opm new mds S'ny xp1a7 obw 'D2 NBII "MN OM "ID NDNA S SNY TDDa DTD 7D) NINA] NDI "2X1 NTP O'DA NDT OFAN ID NTA br mw D"DI XPD pny’ 1 S"} ono "D232 IN Aywo pds "Iw NTPpA S mwo Y'DD2 pM AY Ww b"t mw “oD NpIIN oxrp moby r'o wndiaa mayin wnns p23 PPT moby "a yap vad ayy n'pa dian on bymp "a R™INDINA NINA) AY) NIT TY D'D2 Nam dx "AD moa 77 > xprin adbwo o'D2 pny’ "ID my'‘ppwa xp’pa 777 >’ ennp a'poa Sym ‘1 CHAPTER X 283 nbyinb qaux ‘nd $$on nom ‘on yon TT YM ONw WwIDM yrnpdy mad mmaap) Nod 'p'pT arn NPY Myo wx? mMompnr a20n7 pw? >"y mwapA mbapa an yam pawn D1 DAY D> pr em on wmaap boa wand mwys sata ody oD ws wR cons nnd oS ypa ap tynnd wad oprysa aurw ‘nm ayd$on onnnn awd van ynbw onxp) IN aNxp) Ww? ‘2a Mbapa orp 222 aw WD DYyD 773 Wn wxwi dy 90] DMN .nD OXsod oF MNwAT wid mbw> p’Dy pay 1D PNT 1) NWOT AT ANN) woe oye > mwydr uy Sy ppb wpad mma on ar on 499 aVEDNT ANd NNT PS OAS PNT DD Ow OYp>y OwIN OVP? »7272 ya mbw maxi pax ma panes xbdi pope wos xa anr saya on mm otata mewys mo sn mex aya adswn b25 wea te ‘am mbnpa mbs> soy ppn Sy mo sa mins MNx17 navnd nx mbapm Sop ans va ADIN > TP Any Mary wo2DM NOI DOT nea 77D DD Momam onam poor bo FbRd xm 's NPIT onbwe mew oms S90 mad oxm 's Nprt> cP ay marw woDp7 on aNSIAT ANT Dy .adyod) 'xpr7 pnd ws ‘PIT p"n on nnn wy Is noadod many myn yw mood) ontpym pin n>sa? AD NT aNO Ty ‘DIT p'nD mT nnn ww ws ibwn mew 9>w weDD7 132 by mpw man Nays '8 XprT ONIN ANS Naya nny wo 1» 'NpyT swe vm .b95 Abxd oxm ‘prt ‘x pawnd poo aya i> yuow Ap NON Man Naya ‘8 ‘NPT yqp aT ox mweby NPT mNOD wT ADV) man Maya 'Nxprt sn yp and a Minar 999) ADT yoy nye Twa arp Ndr bon awn DD pond Maya yaw mp Fy ook ow xd> onan xb SyS anon ston °DD pon py tpn) onan NOI DOT aN yan aM anes yo oad onw apts Sapp on dn mim pom mad oa n> Ny yn) WS OMS IW ATO PY 45a wR na xa rs ow a po $x womb. mad DAMN yr nA sary mo $5 'x b> yrds yd anon atom p> ima ran TP ob> mynn wry JDIND (Nad Naw IN NIN TT IN JONI oy NITE nexy som moy'pows >" on Senay a'23 'xvr Syemp Tp PO gTD2 [wx Tom °ps) Naa Oxo ovd$on ono 19 nw ADT °DD DPMIID) AYP) NIP) NOMI WaYY 7D IN .ANy omy an b> yap xa mynan yaad ond awp ws on? manpm nyipom > OND TwWY? NIM NON pp’ yoxIT PD oA MwoIponD Mary nD py man mbnpno ansom mbapm b> Mm 2nya 19 and] Wwsx 77 3yn2F Won *D> ‘7 DDT yD pon yrwad ty bo me nam> ‘nA DDT an boa pa anon prand pa orya aN yy yp) Ty 222 Moywa Dy? 284 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES my on’ya medyn by ann mbapm tw piya omrya mx Ty DIK 3 nw nav wina xvyndiaa wyw moon b> orpd) awed ww20n 55's yep mw b> Ty wT yl No Ow AwyT Own TY yp) ods ayy wa nT NDA DoT 1 opdm 17D xdw oms Sow woD07 ny mo ond yn) wwe mon p> oma dyed ‘na sory pom °an iaynm py man mbnpn b> -™m "Dy apn woden mam nona owaw Ty owl Oo .’n7 pom nya pay 7 boa oxoxdy) ony> ‘na ox mobwa ssa nya ‘na xo oem mad ‘nz opm °an iarnm 554 ‘> maton tu mwydy Sapd xd) ped xd ow new ban ow Son ~ yord: pind ry yarn mbnrpa $21 ‘nm myzpma ains7A 7707 0) .w’ya p"Dy opdn wap man nppa aqDDA IwIY Ty ONXII N07 Ton opm xdbw >-"pys ‘nq nsDNA NDA NA TID pays ops) awed mbnpn 55 1arnmwy wss0n Any am orn ay modwa “709 "239 on Aa aM 49> aM Adbnp Soaw pays sian IDA Ipnd ‘nA wor PA Mw nD WAM wan adbapA soya appa ip2ww maw ‘7 PD) Aywm qosm ps ondw Abmpa mom cynd1 mupn moon sion oy man Sapam bo om ome ns ao xd ws ody Oyen maoNA aw Ty Nia ww mew pyr ty S52 oranpon apm ' mxo wp my ow ow mp x> ‘no yom oben say ormow uos0n ny waa pingd -pown MA 1139 MIP OFA Ww MoMyT raring x5 on jonsi xd) omay xb mpnen oy imera xd) ida xd p77 vavino xd oon ‘na mbapan mawmnnD oY ew oR’ TP ‘PINXD pny ows xd) MNXYaIpA PINs pins OWA pins? DIM sya si xd. ya ons edi snd xd ans pins owa xd opdpn 58 .2on8 maa xd) aaa xd ox: oy xdy omy oy xd ons xa myvap wba "ppom pinyz aM mE»ap) mxbav oy pina 's Dypa pny’ xdw cxanay pins> opnyen oxen po mpinsm cnen nyiynn wap) ny 85) Ins pinxa ow iw ADD »y>1a nyaAIND ANP opdpm pinxa o pins> oN yo om wdn oN Ow aT yn ON IN 8 ooNd '8 pings 'S wownp pr ipny” xXdw cxina onyx yard “1D 371 PN) PAY SAP’ pnxn opayo nvm mo.0nn by rnyr boy ‘na wny 1255 nayw oyp b> dy sen yn np 's ‘prt pnp on M>ap7 arn ‘7 papa yp> ax xd on) .o73 IpNY’ Wwe nw yA mwyd xd1 n’oa moap> immr xd aowy pao wy obumd xbwy sen oan "sy nwa yoy» >>) na wnym yr esp iow ay mod) vnym pipa oana 7at mbad a»nn nem mosonn by mayw ya AD mssnmnbady pirmds ow ww oy nod yx aad ynond ot oy CHAPTER X 285 ney sy ow awy xd na yom odwn sy opnow wos07 on ory wn wiady ow PIM oD 90 cawvinn xd) ‘nm mbdnpr arn MmMnp my mrensan yy Nden sanw wis Wr os pr m7 ow rox D7 AWN DD wWyw OTDAM nT Ow wy XIN ow ona ww xd myir onan yw qe awadsd yS5y nw onda ans yaxn wx ‘np JOT ANND) TIX ODIND onN OaboA Po on MND xd) opSear xd oma mado ow mee xdo wre xd wade xd on eyo xdy ody'en gdp yy eda aan vor gd) oo’yn xd) ord pa xdw osanay omwyd ws owadd idoy moans mnyo oD yn ON IN sypno ondit wia>om op nwa pinay My ow on “wadna wow 2799 TD Nia wiado7 wr mwadn wx oT MM» OP ona OY wy) TaDw OWN wad oy yino vbia ona nex> maw aran xo qx onsnD onan qn oms po? nan ANwNo yond’ 8d o8 OoNaT enn|ss ona msonnd xd) onad no) .ina onya 95> yon ayy Now paya propo ody mwabdn os myn pina oms mwadn os wir Yorn wy) rasw Ow Mp Jos aN? bw ond b> apy b> 55> mot owe widn ow wo cw EY owe wad> xd on wo wads ow mwabn xd own jor .yina $55 wa aby prya xd ox Nn? oy .yina omya apy b> 555 ay Ndwy prya 8 ON mdi wid IN ‘N CNND) INST ma enna os °D Ady AyD 13 ww wnady mwabdn Soin, Saya nan nv xb) mow by sadip ow mNw) mes ow xwn xd ao: nan nena no>> mse arnn yad> mbon condi pws n Sy mdi Lomdy epyxn wow axdm ov owownr oy owdw sy apys onda mdi Spwn mirw FADD oy ornad pind mbwo mon ow own am xd o pw wid mDIDD Nw nT Ann xd on nypny AwwH aNY ADIT V7 ant IMS nyavs any wwoN FIT OPMyaxNa Pw Nw Nd on xO ow oO) .PT onwD ISTH YIXN APSA IMIS IN” Nya MN) inva 555 's oyea wow ox mya one any aYewn sny 7027 Spws anw naw AyIXT NS AIT ow Amnon xd 321 anya 55 nypns mwyn owiaden piyo wm rie moon ‘ate jat by samyn bo pnw os FAoD '»pdia mowy yrned> ayn nes wrx pa ‘nd oweonm DN) Ow) Tya Irom owmm «ayy oyp 59d wan dyn nmpd yoy aowy pro wy odem> xow wan nbapn ayn snow on am _ ayer raw ay md) mwyd xdo n’oa mpd wn 286 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES mana ow wove any omad pin own moon xbw wos07 2 smyo 7275 ondor myqyi one oy nox Sms poya ond -wexw> mama opwa dry 447 mobn xd oy Dw) Ty. Pn owNM.’nT AIT DD man m1 pA yor ond .owmadnn piya ‘nm pip. p77 nvaps waDym 8d on nny mans mat D> 8d own on ‘nov a7 OwIX Twwo ANY oDINa nyo cna qwsS onad pind whi O07 OD YR WS VyND OND -Yya ANTY DIpA mx 737d oan) o25 oan nmyom mpink wy ws Ws DD DO) M2D TN ODIND UMS WR ONT TwyD AN) ond>> TDD ANY Mwyd nw b> mbwn sy n"yp wp wann or nysw wo207 199 poo IDaT> ons awa pod ‘na mbrpm caenns sy ow oxw7 mm xd d°>n yep pa mbina my) wom ow) wy) DwNX OAwY pr MmpINT Mnyod poms yb>> 5522 ow den perdy at ay mapa jo ,DNTy) Dnxn “7 poo Sy opp onx7> onD owt yp xbw pio by pyb yino xan nbon ow woD07 on by mas omy Ow wy ON °D 7A NAN Ws ys sina anndd sy aypor qo mnndS ySy xd mypoa Nan on .odnn mya) opp oy awy ow os °D Cominnna $b" od) *’Da _A’D) ANonnA ma yy IN nn mbapne ey ow oxen ap xb mbar mnypaw wos07 2) yap by DDN Dw) wom OWI MWY Ty OX °D ANN Aya pom $23 ‘0 TT Jy Map) YANp iam PMA) Ow) IN DWN pom ‘na moz07 No 'x ow Sy ayy wm So) ym nap> yrpd ayn ‘nn appar any mbnn ww mpi nrnyos J 71DT DD "nA pe any porw mw ws b> Sy 's prt sn ISDN NyAyA Nw Myawsa NVAyA PID NIT IWS IWS DD DI Ser o> ma paxm> say psy py ton bs oad oma yrs mw oy soxn> ond mini ore) orya nyainy nyqa ow .k17 37°23 Ip pon ox sq or by wen an oe .'2°DNdo) wn Sono wam 1% am xd 7 yD on onpodna any) ovona ay io a xd wn Sy FDID IND NON TIN yn mM wR a"D PIM) 1D) AMI wr» oO noon yw wos07 42> .o’a ons oa od ow TwPERY MD pnd owan omans arm arto ?y) vy Soa qwR oYotDA OP) oA nyaya os Nw oMmyiawa ow nays owe anN ‘= wap ns b> xd) omy osom xdw oada iw oxono ipew nym xd mappwa nraya my oxmp ya xd any eK Oomn AS ‘7 oy AWS OFT ONDA DS nN mo xd wR .nPtDia 7 and ‘nn onsen Pa mw nD WM ADD by oxnpA Amd CHAPTER X 287 Pa oprya aNywy pyn tx $53 nye opwnd: oyep7 apd bapa b> 1 nywm qoxm p> opps ae wwe mi pa poz way? sus 525 mwyd) oxoxd) a ns pind ononn oy MAN wn Py yo DIN NSP nono yon yo ory wedy? ken Pym nD 1'n Of) .ony bs oyminma ASIA Py Mpa AWS MYyA one Iaynm bw IN yon aw ay pyr ax boa sam yenpa sus mwyd poi Os sat so ovpaon mow~yn onos ay moan ov>$5n onsen 7 ayy xBINT Dw) Myo wpm 3y mbapr aKw nary py oxorxd: opin> AS RY TNT NY NI WN IN Dw? JNO NOITT OND NUT NOINT WD ANTON youw m5 mxdnos oD ond me yo aw Jaw Jy ony nd NAT NINA Pn MpINAT yD D"NN) Dw NYT wIND DL IMP TY yow x? oN INI7P IN) NIT NTA wT pry por ds ad yt Ty IN aw Ty .OD1NA wIpN ayn na WN WD TY FA“ DD >) aon) o'n uns NS TD Ty mw n> mm arto vy boa pr ws oYYADT anoesm .onwn 7D pow) insta yyya va 55> mapn meydy mat a? oF sex npn yy Py Soar .orby maw A Po) Aye JoxT Ds yr matin mupnn pnya> sna yyn mbap iarnm mya vos meson ppio ay »mozonn b> apd) -wxd wo207 ny, INT ona ws sno Soy xd oop ona aN? ots Sow TD 9N3 WW 7"32 oyap>r amronyp xd qn avd mos opnn $5 mwydy ayd: ims mame? wads ow own b> dyn edy mbdwn on ova arnynd on 55 wd awd wow "1 ns | Jos Ose wy sper an Say apts jyo> yp’p'n ‘7 nw yennn 1an23 “na mosonn ibsa pina owinn nw ids NIN] NBT Vay) NTY 7022 NDT WOR y'an xpinn obwn 7’p22 ‘NYP pny mayin wna yp2a Ne? mb y’an a> ayy o’pa ‘yam yds o'n emp ovd$on onoom ND p’D mw n’ndr IVAN J"pD3 Tw OU “WS ANPIX p"p MW IW 'NINAI 179A T"NDA °"DN "NYP Tw maxin xpi bn'y obwa a"pD2 "mM ow "ONDD y"aD onw I"pID3 Symp” mdr onaN "D235 ‘NYP ony Tayin pny? 7A wi "p23 ‘NYP wn andr mw 723 NYP pow 288 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES y"ap -xPD mwp q"po2 moby. T'3¥N ANY 7D NYP ona mnt onw "oD3 po maxin byw apa NYP pou mnbdr yinbs v2a Apr madr any 7’p92 NYP Synnw mp wow wonn °S31 nea 722 Mx DO} WYN JDI NTN wo ONT ONDA DD Myo masin Swit sp Yn mwD WIN] OFAN T’oD2 'RYP Sym Madr poua 722 ‘Now’ DAIS br DY "p23 jn) by omnasx yo22a x~p bmp om wxi .moy> aay v2 Sma wyw mw200 pnynn int WN Nad Myo. oN NN ay Ma Ms OAT opnyn y'n Rew mw yRo m'> wow qo wind oy omwya ix xvndia a"2 o7aDm orden wer As wad n’yp ‘oNIpD mMndr Awe a"pDa on amd: Syert a'paa Rvp See TRANSLATION We, the undersigned, gathered here at ForlijonWednesday the thirteenth of Sivan, corresponding to the eighteenth of May, of the year 5178, to discuss the communal affairs of the Italian Jews. We then examined the ordinances which had been passed at Bologna in the month of Tebet, 5176. The following is an extract of those ordinances: ‘“Whereas critical times appear to be approaching, and the Jewish communities are in need of wise and learned men to lead them so as to prevent any catastrophe, therefore have we, the undersigned, selected general commissioners in the communities. of Rome, Padua, Ferrara, Bologna, and the districts of Romagna and Toscana whose duty it shall be to guard the interests of the communities during the coming ten years. If in their opinion necessity should arise for an assembly of their members they shall gather, and their council shall be empowered to levy such taxes on the communities as the situation will require. The CHAPTER X 289 collection shall, however, follow the methods used in collect- ing the general tax. The moneys collected shall be placed with Benjamin b. Menahem of Corinaldo. The commis- sioners shall be authorized to disburse these collected funds as they will think necessary. If for some reasons any commissioner will find it impossible to attend the meeting, he shall appoint a representative to act in his place. This representative must be acceptable to the other members of the council, and when thus ac- cepted he shall be clothed in all the authority and power of his prinicpal. ‘The following shall be the commissioners, For Rome, Menahem b. Meshullam, the physician, and Mordecai b. Joab. For Padua, Abraham b. Judah, the physician, and Isaac b. Moses Finci. For Ferrara, Elhanan b. Menahem of Porta Leona and Joseph Hezekiah b. Moses. For Bologna, Solomon b. Moses Finci, the physician, and Solomon Yedidiah b. Mattathias. For Romagna, Yekutiel b. Joab of Tivoli, and Elijah b. Judah, the physician. For Tuscana, Isaac b. Meshullam, the physician, who lives at Siena, and Yehiel b. Mattathias who lives at Pisa. “We have further decided that if the Commission shall find that it must incur certain expenditures, the Communi- ties of Rome and the vicinity shall not be obliged to con- tribute more than a fair proportion of the amount needed.” Thus far the said Ordinance. When we realized that there was need for the Commission to take action, we sent invitations to the above-mentioned commissioners to assemble here at Forli; some of them came in person and some are represented here by proxies. After a long discussion it has been decided that we ought at least to send to the Pope a committee to ask his protec- tion for ourselves and our people, and to beg of him to issue a new Privilegi, and to re-affirm the old rights which we enjoyed under former Popes. 290 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES In order to cover the expenses involved in this matter and other necessary communal affairs, we have decided that the following taxes shall- be levied: A tax on the communities of one ducat and a half for every thousand ducats of property whether in houses, land or currency belonging to their members in accordance with the method of collecting the general taxes. A tax of a ducat and a half for each family from all those whose property is valued at five hundred ducats or more. Because this is not merely a matter of defending our property but our very lives, it were perhaps proper that it should be distributed equally on all the members of the community.’ We have therefore decided that everyone possessing five hundred ducats or less but more than one hundred shall pay besides his share in the above-men- tioned property tax (of one and a half ducats per thousand, which is collected from the communities) an additional ducat for the family tax. Whoever is possessed of less than one hundred ducats is urged to pay a ducat as family tax if possible, but in any case must contribute half a ducat to the fund. No one shall be exempt of the above tax except those who must be supported from charity. The collectors shall gather the funds and send them as soon as possible, either by special messenger or by notes of exchange or by transfer from one collector to the other, to Padua, to Yekutiel b. Emanuel Hai? of Toscanella; he shall use the funds in the manner ordered him by the commissioners at Padua. However, the funds collected at Rome and Campagna and Marignano, and such other places near them from which it is difficult to send money to Padua, shall be sent to the treasurer at Rome. He shall act in accordance with the instructions which we shall give him. * See Baba Batra 8b. } 2 It seems likely that this was a name, like the Babylonian Hata and the modern Hayyim. It is here to accept the interpretation of Zunz that it is an abbreviation for mm mn “‘may be live” since in this case it is followed in the Hebrew by 9". CHAPTER X 291 All the Communities and their officers shall unite to compel every Jew to pay his share of the tax in accordance with the regulations. They may make use for this purpose of any methods that they may deem proper. We have further decided to re-affirm all the ordinarices made at Bologna in Tebet, 5176, for the term of ten years, that is until the year 5186 (1416-26). We have further decided that all who have not paid their regular tax in the past years shall be compelled by the tax collectors to pay what is due from them. In the future years, too, the collectors of the regular tax shall collect it in full in its due time without respect or fear of person. All the com- munities shall help them to compel such as refuse to obey to make full payment. ‘Every community shall have a local Commission who will look after the needs of that community, and such a commission shall have the authority to make ordinances and regulations for its community. Moreover no Jew living in a community in which there are groups of the members of the Romanescan (?) Order shall be permitted to allow within his house or in any place under his control any group of players, whether Jews or Christians; nor shall any Jew living in such communities or other cities or villages be permitted to play dice or cards or any other game. No one shall play for the benefit of another, nor permit another to play for his benefit. But one may play draughts or chess provided one does not wager more than four silver bolognini at any one game. On a fast day, * too, one may play cards, in order to forget the pain, provided one wagers no more than one quattrino at a game, for each person. Whoever will transgress this ordinance shall be denounced as a transgressor, and shall pay a fine of one ducat to the treasury of the city for every transgression. If he fail to pay the fine, the members of the community shall be * See Ordinance of the Rhine Communities, above page 228, section 12 (text R) where one is permitted to play at games of chance only during festival weeks. To permit play cards on fast-days in order to forget the pain of the fast sounds very strange. 292 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES obliged to refuse to accept him for minyan, or call him to the Torah, or to perform Gelilah (the rolling of the scroll of the Torah). Anyone knowing of another Jew’s trans- gression of this ordinance shall be obliged to make public announcement of it; otherwise he shall be punished by the above-mentioned fine. In order that we may carry ourselves modesty and humbleness before the Lord, our God, and to avoid arous- ing the envy of the Gentiles, we decree that until the end of the above-mentioned term (ten years, 1416-1426) no Jew or Jewess shall be permitted to make a foderato-cinto,* unless it be black, and that the sleeves shall be open and that the sleeves shall have no silk lining whatever on them. Those who already possess such cloaks (foderato- cinto) of any color other than black, may continue to wear them, provided the sleeves are not open, and the cloaks are closed both in the front and back. Neither shall any man or woman wear any cloak of sabel or ermine or mixed fur or of red material of mixed color or of muslin or of violet color. However, a cloak lined with fur may be worn, if none of the fur is placed on the outer covering of the cloak. Women’s cloaks which have already been made with open sleeves and are lined with fur, may be worn within the house but not in public, unless the sleeves are sewn or the cloaks are worn under an overcoat, so that the cloak cannot be seen at all. Also the coats of women which are lined with fur, must so far as possible be so made so as not to show the fur. No man shall be permitted to wear a silk or velvet giubetta (cloak) except in such manner that is completely concealed. Neither shall women wear any silk or velvet dress except in such manner that it is completely con- cealed. Neither shall they wear any dress having fringes * For a further discussion of these clothes see Guedemann’s letter printed as an appendix to Halberstam’s edition of these Takkanot in the Graelz Festschrift. Compare also Guedemann III, p. 330ff. Compare Takkanot of Castile, chapter XIII, section 5. CHAPTER X 293 attached to it other than at the opening of the neck or the sleeves. No woman shall wear any necklace on her neck or a gold hairnet on her head unless it be concealed except that newly-married brides may wear golden hair-nets un- concealed for thirty days after the wedding; after that time they must wear the veil over the net. No girdle which has a silver buckle more than six ounces in weight, or which is covered with velvet in any form, shall be worn by men in public. No more than one gold ring may be worn by a man, but the ring may be placed on any finger. Women shall under no circumstances wear more than two or three rings. Neither shall women wear a girdle or belt the silver of which weighs more than ten ounces. The fine for the transgression of any of these provisions regarding the use of clothes and ornaments shall be ten Bolognini of silver or their value for the treasury of the city for each offense. Men shall be held responsible for the infractions of these rules by their wives. If anyone will refuse to obey the ordinances, the community shall refuse to admit him to minyan or to read the Torah or to perform the Gelilah. We have also decreed that it shall be prohibited for more than three ladies and two maids to walk together in the streets except in the performance of some religious duty. Nor shall it be permitted for women to promenade through the streets and avenues except on festival days, when they shall be limited in the said manner. Men shall be held responsible for the observance of this section by their wives as in the case of the dresses. Neither shall men be permitted to walk in large groups or gather at the parting of the roads, or before the syna- gogues in groups of more than six, except in the perform- ance of areligious duty. The fine for the infraction of this section shall be set by the commissioners. From the end of this month of Sivan, 178, till the end of the year 186, no Jew shall be permitted to invite toa = 294 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES banquet more than twenty men and ten women and five girls. This number shall include both the people of the city and those without, but shall not include relatives as close as. second cousins." If a bride arrives from another city on horse, she may be escorted by no more than ten Jews on horseback and four men on foot. If she come by boat she may.be escorted to the place of the wedding by no more than twelve Jews or Jewesses. At feasts of circumcision only ten Jews and five Jewesses may be invited in addition to the relatives. In this matter, too, relatives as near as second cousins shall not be counted toward the limited number. Any infraction of these provisions shall be punished by a fine of one ducat to the treasury of the city. In view of the inordinate spread of vice among the members of the communities,? it has been ordained that the local commissioners in each city and province shall reprove those who are guilty of immoral conduct. The commissioners shall have the power to inflict such punish- ent as they may deem fit, whether fine of excommunication. If the commissioners of any city refuse to interfere with any transgressors, the commissioners of the neighboring communities shall be in duty bound to take action against him. The General Commissioners shall assist the local commissioners in enforcing this ordinance. If the sinner refuse to repent, or deny his sin and claim that he has no cause for repentance, the circumstantial evidence against him shall be accepted as valid and he shall be removed from the community. If he remain recalcitrant he shall also be removed from the other communities. * For similar limitations on banquets see Takkanot of Castile below, loc. cit., and p. 228, Takkanot of the Rhine Communities, section 17 and note. 2 Compare Takkanot of Corfu, below chapter X, section 1, and Takkanah of Candia, Chapter IX, section 6, where young men are cautioned against intimacy with their betrothed; there is no reference in the Takkanot to the prevalence of vice in the manner mentioned in these ordinances. CHAPTER X 295 The local commissioners in every city and province shall have authority to add other ordinances than these for their respective jurisdictions. A copy of these ordinances shall be made in each city and they shall be placed either in the synagogue or in the ark so that anyone may read ° them. Written and signed in the year 5176. Elijah b. Judah, the physician. Isaac b. Meshullam, the physician. Solomon Yedidiah b. Mattathias. Yekutiel b. Joab. Moses b. Abigdor, the representative of the community of Padua and the general commissioners who are there. Moses b. Benjamin, the representative of the community of Ancona. Menahem b. Meshullam, the physician. Yekutiel b. Menahem of Cavi. Menahem b. Abraham. Mattathias b. Isaac. Benjamin b. Moses. Solomon b. Moses Finci. Shabbetai b. Joab. Benjamin b. Menahem. Benjamin b. Samuel. Joseph b. Elhanan. Samuel b. Joab. We the representatives of the community of Forli have signed our names at the command of the General Com- missioners above signed; Moses Hai b. Daniel Yehiel b. Abraham Abraham b. Benjamin Nathan b. Joseph Yekutiel b. Abraham. B The following letter was sent by the synod of 1428 to the various communities of Italy, asking them to join in 296 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES an effort to regain the support of Martin V. It has been printed by Margulies in Rivista Israelitica, xii. 8, p. 178. The letter is written in a very cryptic style which makes it almost untranslatable. Nevertheless an attempt has been made to give a rendering of its more important sen- tences. It is evident that the writers were very much afraid of the possibility that the letter might fall into Gentile hands. There is no mention made of the Pope have brougth the terrible news that was the immediate occasion of the letter, is not mentioned by name. TEXT mwyw and7 Dw n’pp nwa mxrnbpa syn owd mwyw> 9985 owbwn "yy mbnpn moapo bso opin (pan yp b> crrvan Oxi noIy omg NYNIN WIND AIP OY NNT Twp AD TIN Ww wnt nyswe amwraa o>dy Som oi 55 ax nN nwa aaxp adem mynna nyna oy aydna mm .oonap nawen beandy axe oxyrd ndbdis may maison $n yom pm ano mw jipw> anon ays yr b> mmopon boo omen mxow> oat im mo unow >>> by nxvoa inser modo by axnaz i'n yp mda myna nya ww») Fonm>) ayna> Sawn mnrayoa wnay moa om mby> abnn yy mp 8x Nd py) rn are ~y'or dy bya wd mxawa aid om>y iSap) 1p) NVITDA OWIDOT WI Ww Mavnon mardn worm TDNbo.a oO wy inaw io) apy aD mepr mbrpaA ombw OwIN 7 Oya oaTnoT 55 ond Synbd wexim Darn wy 73D AWE xxrmbpa ap tynmd) aw adoyn nin m5n oD MADAM ~DyD ANN smo ami xd LON) °D AY wD XdI ToD Nd ANDI by ny JyDd > 7D Tpon ov «WS oIppa Axa mwyd yn owpann tu Toydr nyap anton >>> ay ovpynn wn aNw 55 mam mpm nomn ny wns wisy dy yyeam nvaon any wan oping 7bs won wm wa yyod sim nid my xem max NpIsa pen ind 4101 ANY) War NwaM wom wads Nk NN NX ONDA A on mw) 1727 AYwnd AMar "nd 1ow d1D apy ma Sew nxn Sy pwn CHAPTER X 297 Ty 82 DISDD MAL IN WD ’D powA wand ny pwr depen wen wPOT 37 ap? orvaNT WT TAN Nd COND 1D ANT POT oO nBw dy PAD 22> JONI WNT NWI TIM Mpo ny PR pt an mam anos any vand bw op? ~59 NoMM NdyA wmAD mA xT mE oy j221 oN¥oT no ASN yA ns ND) wa Na AM Np MOPS WNW ANTIADN? TIN MeAPA Mbap wpa d$sa wp UNIAA UIP yowN Wo NY oYow wT Mprwen om dp wx DONT NOD 2y avy 720 dx o>dsx yown wipz maw bx [2"2) 3") omy woe byw nan moswem mbyon ows DW FD CPI) Maper 222 mNTIaNd wa ces mdapn 7278 NAP ay ANP) nyA TRANSLATION To the leaders of the community of Israel, in every place to which this letter shall come. Hitherto, the communities have often been saved from destruction and the menaces of our enemies were prevented from accomplishment, by the action of the synods who stood in the breach. Since the meetings of the Commission ceased new dangers have arisen. It was therefore decided to gather here at F lorence, because we know it as a fact, and not merely from rumors, that unless we hasten to take action in defense of our people against those who wish to destroy us, there is no hope left for Israel. We have made various provisions for meeting the crisis. We trust in the Lord, who has stood as our Protector since the days of the selection of the Fathers. But now, brethren, be merciful and see to it that Israel be saved. Provide us with the “arrows of persuasion” for this is no time to bind (funds) in hidden places, for since our ancestors went forth from Egypt they have not been at a worse sea of trial than this. For if the words of the accusers be accepted and signed, there will be no more hope. The prince of our generation who is to be trusted in every respect), realizing that the poison has reached even the very highest places, girded his loins and cried out revealing the secrets (of the Papal Court). Therefore Holy People, and particularly, Communities of Romagna, Lombardy and the other places to which this letter will come, turn to the cry of this letter and may the Merciful God listen to you. 298 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES Cc The following text is taken from a manuscript of "MN 7oNd ody in the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary whence it has been printed in Cassuto, Gli Ebret a Firenze (1918). The section is quoted in a responsum, and is the only sec- tion of the decisions of the Conference of 1492, which has been preserved for us. TEXT ony dy ox pyow abxo ow YT ONWRIT DD TY UN ANID wyw NPM M207 MoD 12 ODD) ann pr Ap wa ww PAN mbrpa wr $5 ov rim ayn °D p'p> v'pp nwa N¥PIND Nya Abpn *>wa omy mainm ov omer inden medor 5) Saw Cam pre? owina °2 429 pax IAW INI AN ony Top aw? SAA by Sem qe ws rat $5 qwi rnd spor ondad mann unrna OS ano 139 wi Any) oat ToD by man pax po nN woT 4X NOY ‘NT DIN NAW OINM IITT AVL 3 ypand ws ordm ynan mipn 259 nxon by yep op ow on pa xibpi mbp xibp mbna mann omdby “pin bow woo07 ww? pwyo Sana yyod) ar by ann am ots b> y25 mapna 477 ee xd) mara mw ww mbna an Sy mann pprw moon Soy xdi apyo Sua mann ayy wen mat a >" pny tab papa pyrpa pr mbm mond OPN) OPYYD JwNDA WM Aaya nN ood ayn nxp nrmdi nwa ITM WoT FATA woD07 12 Aw) 7wRd) mb> ox °> OrMDTDD Dy Awy] Mean Tuy ox md> yrawnd mbd mw n> maw nIDwD? np"pr 9 Awe mdm jor yaw mbon axa xd on) man npr main 120 > moby pre mvp unin wea PI wea °D AYA dso mnswo mbwd uma ner yyod) (.n"D wn” 7a) ons oO) wn aT mp m7 xD MAI Jw won nprdr oynym Toy mbm mn 7a nm2DD ums o> o> moby wot omexn popm yar xb) won Seow pa ssow abyods romp; 2 ww Sey pown Sow ann Ay sw Jom od maa yes mbm aynm om "py CDN INN ory mptxd 8> Sy sim on maya anda Sete op onan oxin mbwonn nyady GT” vo" sappy Swoon nn xd my wh dy C5 a'D OAD pwn np? yrad arnm sion anbaw wos07 wy) xeon aa yyad CHAPTER X 299 poven °y byw main tabs oye. oyp b5 DY 'NPIT '2 npoxn TMyo> ADND 3" onyd ponnw TRANSLATION Whereas we are forbidden to receive any usury from our fellow-Jews and our Rabbis have as a hedge about the law made many additional prohibitions forbidding what is called the “dust’’* of usury, and whereas in our own times the number of those who disobey the law and lend one another large sums without observing the ways and methods which are provided for legal business transactions,? has increased and whereas they add sin to iniquity by nomi- nally including the usury in the loan; Therefore do we ordain that every person shall beware of such action. . In order that our hands may be clean from iniquity we have ordained that if any man include usury as nominally part of the loan he makes his neighbor, or if any person will lend money to his neighbor at usury, without observing the ordinances and methods laid down by the Sages, then the liability of the debtor for the usury shall be void, and the creditor shall be able to collect only the amount actually loaned. But whereas many of our generation are given to this sin, and they act in darkness, so that the sin is known only to the debtor and the creditor, therefore have we ordained as a hedge about the law, that any debtor shall have the power to compel the creditor to take an oath that the alleged loan does not consist in part of usury. If the creditor refuse to take the oath, the word of the debtor shall be accepted and he shall not be liable for the usury. And whereas it is the law of our Torah that a Gentile cannot act as an agent for a Jew, the custom has developed for one Jew to send pledges to another Jew through * See Shulhan Aruk Voreh Deah, 161. ? The conditions under which a loan may be made at interest are referred to on page 234, section 1. See there note 1. See also Voreh Deah, 167. 300 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES a Gentile, while the borrower stands by, and acts as though it were in fact a loan to the Gentile.t| But they have for- gotten that the principle of the inability of a Gentile to act as agent for a Jew does not apply to cases where it would make for leniency in ritual law. Therefore do we ordain that if in any case a pledge of the value of three florins or more given by a Jew is found in the hands of his fellow, even though it should have been given through the medium of a Gentile, the debtor shall pay the full amount of the usury, but it shall be given to the charity fund for the poor. And in view of the fact that the sin lies at the door of the debtor as well as of the creditor, since it is forbidden to pay usury just as it is forbidden to accept it,? and in order to punish the sinful one, we have ordained that the debtor in such case as that described above shall pay to the charity fund, two ducats for each transgression besides the interest on the debt which must be given to the poor. D TAKKANOT OF 1554 The foilowing Takkanot were first printed in Jbrz Anokz, 1879, numbers 29-30, by Isaac Baruch Ha-Levi. In no. 31 of the magazine for that year, there appeared a letter from Halberstam giving some variants to the text of the Takkanot from a manuscript of his, and adding from the same manuscript, the text of an attack on the ordinances by one Moses Basula. At the same time Halberstam added some very scholarly information concerning the members of the synod. The whole text with the additions by Halberstam was reprinted as a separate pamphlet under the title Takkanot Hakamim. Another text of the Takkanot is to be found under the * See Baba Mezia 71b, and Tosafot ad loc. where it is stated defi- nitely to have been the view of R. Tam that the practice was permit- ted. But see the other authorities who differ with him Yoreh Deah 169. 2 Mishna Baba Mezia chapter V, end. CHAPTER X 301 letter Tau in Samuel Lamperonti’s Pahad Yizhak. The part containing this letter, i.e., the last volume, appeared in 1887 (Berlin); the Takkanot being found on Pelooa, The text printed below is taken from a manuscript of the responsa collection 2m ‘anyn by R. Yehiel Traboto, now in the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. The main text of the Takkanot is found on fol. 383a seg. of the volume, but the first section is cited in the marginal notes of the famous scholar, Abraham Joseph Solomon Graciano, to section 178 of the book (fol. 350b). The variants from Graciano are marked &; those from Isaac Baruch Ha-Levi 3, and those from the Pahad Vizhaky. TEXT Pav 8" NITY NIN 8"D 17 OY OPT OT MN pnw Mupnn on bs OY NS TD20n2 OWT NPD °%bD ayNa MINT nD p’Dd Tw JOS M9S WTA DM WT Mwysa nYSw why 7” MwIpArmbap ovo ppt? Now 7Dp ow opt pian oda yoy xbw canes noson oy. oa7 awoye powo oan nwdw nosDAD nwa ON °D SDT 77 OX DIDI ope Sx Mmowon mertpA mbapa ans 2v84 N° Tenpm wNID APDONT pon ws bya wya WP oN) mwp Tyr O27 Mov ADOT nDTpAa 4ow7 wm b> ODwo ODT IN OY S177 OT Nup? Bswn tos ow Soy xd ar nbin sen abapa ws Mom 129" sm "DT opm In b5> “po mem oMwy dpa DT Opes Aprxsn nap bm spo Oa on Sw mxoaya ran bse poym abn mss spaw oy C2 Ths wpan 27 3a TET earn aw rey bw ana ow bap mor maoa> dap ow an ow yds yow xb. 95 mae edo" pan toynd saw orta ypoynd $x ypan os q77 Sy ides mop orta pop ainsd ons ow boy mbw (3 JS oy 1 bw 2 {> pam a ov 52 “ppm nostpma own mm (eda by» mow wm Coen yo mbynd) 4 DIIIAD ov ‘amr pp .3 5 ONY) .2 6 haere 302 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES ww OponA Maw orto prt odyan uw px7a py pyow jaw | wbwn ia. py>S ino ams aseboy xd onx 3913 TITw Opa (7 pono? Nim aan IN Pym a7 psaa a xd ox min ow ainz> ws Sopa 2nnoeA 3 ww oper oOTY "DA IN ANID NAT PAT 7 xO aan ow mwyd son yn "ay ans an boy xd Sapa ows man inven ay on $x Sapna 3ann psa pr mp dya xdo anos oy iS VyND aT oy OAT PTs wsd maw Ap yn xdbwa O7Py. ANP? qwso poy mind oan O25 onan npma pwr wan mpn by o ay ow wxoW nym Cn INpINw TNT IA Tw NAT an ns 7D man byaw yor Sow pon) Tmt ypp xd ima 750 “Tw S"yRw oN oD D0D MIN D"y mwa mpn onn Sy aay ar by anym ntmy ADpes inpim pesin sa 3ayo -Nann mana ANAT npn mypn 7373 4S nN unypn Syi 2" 7 Joy ONT wwsow poay -n Sy momDN OWN INSOW NVA (1 xdy nans mews onp> Sorw aan aap op xd) ow wy ines oy bp) 28 12.19 7 TwRDY DANN OD DDD UMN D’y Yn Mapnd wi no2p72 pa nans mews nnp> Soy xd man aw nan? Rx’ xd oD ‘ 4.m> WDD Papo INN NWS Px now any) nn avs wapd yp pyw on Sow am i207 Thy GT ow mend. sox) ax od w ox aon) wax mw da awya a wIpom ome) a mm sax n> prw> mds panp anya maps Som swam ny yinenw wn om perppn by o-pyon osym on Op) Aw mwa jna>soxp >") pny’ 1'pDa ND UN WT AMANI on) mAVLYN ny TO p"po mwa bt naw I"INDD3 ATT ON x72 p"p TWIN YY’ WNT Aw IP AMANA cM 537 295 mspp b'xr wpm qa "oD x’Nd ya Sry Fra uw on bx bob pope ber beenry aanp> ped ja 7RT apy? ow bom bod mop a'ndr oxi Sxiwy "nD3 YS pay ON Dd NINTD 7D S"xt uxpo pny ’oD3 pndbs pysn mdr oxyp mbox a'poa yy oxrp bw yn {5 enna ND) .7 2 2 25 a0 33 WD OMY DI. wD 4 .ON) .3 5 CHAPTER X 303 Maw AWD WDD ND pny m1 pp mw 91 ood IND T"DDa apy NPT) IPYNI P'’P WIND 'N AND pny ow mad? AMID OMI T"ND3 YX? pou Tyxn MON p"p wan Dipmp nody r’n22 dN yxn UNANIAN 249DY JT N'ND Ja pnY Pyxn an npma oiAd sy py xd OTN OwY ON ODD0D UN TY ~yToNTS ay can apn 2yad ww mpoa mora ondvd amw ba maim mn apn S53 iw °$a mana nnbad ofx ow Soy xdy 58 quod AD ANID OFNN) NYNd IA TAINS ALY ONT DN ayia npn iv mpna o>>22 sya xo xendoay aon yp oA mom O wind way oan ba) $m oxina ond pry raya mana aw nora om>y san $35 mapna apn b> nx ovpd uino-nn ans 6108 Sx $95) parnbn $95) qxand mde 75"er nad xixp pny’ 7’nDa VND by onaw q’"no23 aT xy mbap awn y's sr Sxiow Pysa nyndia p'p mwID CUNT wD Sr wpin Fira "oD x'xd 12 ery qa xt mdr sbyiy Toda "x pny Do xantas 9>xw pT N’Nd ya pnye bret seary a"am2 PNT 12 1omYNT Ay WDD 77D pny NPT) 12"WN7 P"P (WIND 'N LID IpI3 YS’ pnyY maw p’p nwa 5” abd No T"pD3 apy NINTD TD uNDo S’xr pny’ J’ 22 jnbs -yyxn Mr AMIN ON T’DI3 "por Pyx7 mon p"p wan >"? opp nobdw cana bx ysn Se Oo ee A Mg tae ya7aN FOr TT 2 .Syinw (Ave yo mdynd) 22 9. 1B 1 acl amv. 3 Pe orp) wow bom 2.2 eS ie Te OMtiacd,. shee Sxa53a8 DY 2.2 5 Ser Sony samo. pi ya 2.2 10 andr. pow of2a 2 9 pio 723 yy a 11 prrr 712 Oo (0 SO OC nm Co oN, (= 304 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES: TRANSLATION These ordinances have, been decreed by us on Thursday, the twenty-first of Tammuz, corresponding to the twenty- first of June, of the year 5314 (1554) here at Ferrara. 1. Printers shall not be permitted to print any hitherto unpublished book except with permission of three duly ordained Rabbis, and the consent of the heads of one of the communities nearest the place of printing, if the city in which the book is printed is a small one. If it is a large city, the agreement of the heads of that Community shall suffice provided the consent of three ordained Rabbis is obtained as said above. The names of the Rabbis and the heads of the Communities sponsoring the book shall be printed at the beginning of the volume. Otherwise no one shall be permitted to buy the book under penalty of a fine of twenty-five scuttz. The fine shall be given to the charity fund of the city of the transgressor. * 2. If any person compel his neighbor to defend a litigation before a secular court without the permission of his community or the rabbi of his city, he may not thereafter bring the matter. before the Jewish courts, and no Rabbi or Community shall issue a summons to compel the defendant to appear before them. ? 3. No person shall render a decision in any litigation, even without referring specifically to the parties concerned, unless asked to give his decision by both parties or the judges chosen by them or an arbitrator. 3 4. No Rabbi shall issue any order or decree to any inhabi- tant of a city which has another Rabbi unless the local Rabbi agrees or declares in the presence of witnesses or in writing his unwillingness to interfere in the litigation. t See Bruell, Jahrbuecher, 8, 60, note and Res. R. Meir of Padua, no. 40. Compare also above chapter VIII, section 12, p. 263. 2 Compare the more severe ordinance of R. Tam, above Chapter IV Text A: and also the Takkanot of Candia, Chapter IX, section 4, where the right to take a litigation before Gentile Courts, seems to be recognized. 3 Compare the Takkanah made by the synod convened under R. Hayyim Or Zarua, see part I, page 72. CHAPTER X 305 In a city where there is a Rabbi appointed by the Com- munity or by the Heads of the Community, no other Rabbi even of the same city may issue any order. If any order is issued contrary to this ordinance it shall be void. If, however, one of the members of the community has a litigation against the Rabbi of the Community, other Rabbis may issue such decrees as they think proper in the case. 5. In view of the fact that there are some who transgress the ordinance of R. Gershom against renting houses of Gentiles from which previous Jewish tenants have been expelled,* because they assume that after the original owner of the house has sold it to another, the prohibition ‘no longer holds, therefore do we decree, that even though the original Gentile owner sells the house, the rights of the original Jewish tenant do not disappear, and that he who rents the house in’ such a case transgresses the herem of R. Gershom and our own herem. (The ordinance re- garding lending money at interest in places where another Jew has had sole rights, will be found below). 6. Some persons have accepted the decision of the author- ity who permits a man whose wife has not given birth to both a son and a daughter within ten years after their marriage to marry a second wife without the consent of the first, in spite of the ordinance of R. Gershom against bigamy.?. We, therefore, ordain, that if there is ezther a son or a daughter born to a man, he may not marry a second wife except with the consent of the wife and one of her relatives. | 7. We have further decreed that if anyone gives Kiddu- shin to (betroths) a woman without the presence of ten people’ unless it be with the consent of her father and mother if they are alive, or her two nearest relatives if ™ See above Chapter V, the Takkanot of R. Tam, and compare Patol pe 31. 2 See Part I, page 26b, and also Part II, chapter II, section 1. 3 Compare below Chapter XIII, section 3, page 364. 306 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES she has no father, both he and the witnesses to the marri- ages shall be excommunicated. (Addendum) We have further decreed that no one shall be permitted to lend any money at interest in where cities contracts have been made with another Jew giving him the sole right to lend money at interest. The Jew of Rome and Bologna are not included under this section of the or- dinance, since there is no contract made with the masters of those cities. ' E The following text is taken from fol. 332a of the responsa collection bmi ‘any mentioned in connection with the pre- ceding text (above, p. 301). It appears to be a re-enact- ment in the year 1610 of the ordinances against compulsory Kiddushin. This is of course what is meant by forbidding the performance of Kiddushin except in the presence of ten Israelites of whom two must be relatives of the bride. Most interestingly it refers to ‘‘a general synod at Ferrara in the year 1555’’ where such an ordinance had been established through the influence of that scholar, “‘the Gaon, R. Judah Mintz.”’ Now we have seen from the pre- ceding text that the synod at Ferrara actually was held in the year 5314,1.e., 1554. R. Judah Mintz was very active — in connection with that synod, being the first signatory to the ordinance. The ordinance adopted at that time con- tains a provision against the performance of the Kiddushin except in the presence of ten people except with the per- mission of the bride’s parents or two relatives if she be an orphan. The re-enactment of 1610, indeed contains much more stringent rules. It requires the presence of ten Israelites, of whom two must be blood-relations of the bride. Furthermore it declares Kiddushin performed in violation of the ordinance null and void. It is therefore improbable that the word Yvwv is a mis- take for 7°%, and that the synod of 1554 is referred to. Yet that is not quite impossible since it was not unusual to change a Takkanah somewhat when it was re-enacted, Nevertheless it seems more likely that besides the synod of 1554, there was held another, again at Ferrara in 1555, CHAPTER X 307 where the ordinances of the previous year were in part or in whole re-established. We may venture the hypothesis that the attack of Basula on the ordinances of the year 1554 led to a re-convening of the conference. But the whole matter must remain indefinite until further manu- script material is made available. TEXT noboo own ws mod) ayyd mdyi mxroundn son yyod 325 WN) ov nwa NANVD p’pa >> ayna x” mbapA nn ann TNT IMS INS AN "y 1DT nw ANY AWW I AND p"p 1 wy by innp> 02> -wEe oneRT OTD IN Ww OT pro aA A"In0 OND) ONS apow) ymawna vn AS yoo. $"t x"awind bon beww 2a ws OW NT NY LSND) OAT wy N-yND OND UX Mwy °IH3) ANyTW NT D'S sox oui eds mya xd aes wipw oo yon 955a1 awa nanp awST Canps ow ono Oxi 37) YD APSR Pw YIN’ WW Tay aN) 1372 pyr bo) OYA 12 WIP’ WW PENT pypao wx woyor myo ar nd wpa oy or wp ON) OYPEW yr ywtpy TDA wapom Jy apN Kody 9199 PSN PIX YD wwENN aM Mur nyya indya? jynwo mwas PDN YIN IN YAP NWT WET pasa WI) saw oD] ws 9D Sy) Taba “"y xO ON MDDY ANT 12 aT sO nsrairnon Sy aaym xin 95 man oy owdsy mxax aww aya xDD by mawra anon TIwy pois ow ow? S"r amd nd denn nero unvnd oo xm jy0> 1OX (7D 3D89D) OMAK by ora 3d) oa Sy mas ab awm ainz5 pinp> ovxn ant po mwy opa bw na Sno0 nn Pow ONw ~Iy DID? OXM AST pps 7S" om ray .p'pd 'n'n'>'w YS AD 'm oY ~SDp mp 9" 9D YY pow) AID) pet OT orn nnawoD oNNaw 7"DD3 ONIN} Seana pam nen? oD00) pow) woo Sapp nat spi Oxvow va oT ONT NPN O'D00) WIDD ANYMNTAD PY” TTS TpI3 7 Ow nnd o2p01 TION py? ANd po TTyds JIN 72 OPN 2 sam $7 mpinnn oy 9" an? onoDDN (2) 2"IT yor NIT NDS m? DIDI NIN NYyo MwIA wIND AMS OD Dd oN "J x¥" SyIpUD DINdpP T"oDa YNiwW TNT OW) Ty) TNS IN pin pI as ory 9% Sm a" oN 7 Sx ono nyt? us oO cnoson 5.2m jor pS Py? cna NIP? 308 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES and wind ooren7 x oxo ards ana '2 orn os b 24 Ana p'pd obw yp "> ‘nm oY ora a’ pis ants nbyo mwa ox ; Jwxveno bop Ap TRANSLATION. In order that this Takkanah may be in force both for the present time and for future generations we are renewing the decree which was established by the communities in the general synod at Ferrara in the vear 5315 (1555), an ordinance which had previously been established by the community of Padua and the members of the academy (?) which is there situated in the year 5266 (1406), through the efforts of the great scholar, R. Judah Mintz, and indeed was in earlier times ordained by such scholars as R. Solomon ibn Adret, in his responsum, no. 1210, and by other codifiers. We are explaining and ordaining under the herem, niddut and shamia, that no Israelite shall give Kiddushin to any woman, whether a virgin or a divorcee, unless it be with her consent, and in the presence of ten Israelites, two of whom must be blood- relatives of the bride. The decree applies not only to the bridegroom, but to the witnesses and all those who take part in the performance of the ceremony. As to anyone who may transgress this ordinance, we now declare the gift which he used as Kiddushin public property and its use is forbidden to the one attempting to offer it as Kiddushin in such a-way that the Kiddushin shall not be valid. If the Kiddushin took the form of marital relations, we now declare those relations to have been out of wedlock. This decree shall apply to the district of Montferrat alone, and to such newcomers as may settle there per- manently or temporarily. Transgressors of his decree shall be released from the herem only after thirty days by consent of ten scholars who are acting as authorized rabbis living in three countries * See Responsa of Ibn Adret, ed. Bologna, 1539. 2 This seems the most likely interpetation of the paragraph. It is hardly possible that the thirty days period refers to the rabbinate of the scholars. CHAPTER X 309 (provinces?), in order that this decree may be made known, and that Elijah may be sent to us to bring peace into the world as it is written, ‘He shall bring back the heart of fathers to their children, and the heart of children to their fathers.’’"* Amen. (Whoever? removes this decree from the wall of the synagogue shall be fined ten gold scuti, half to be given to the Gentile poor as an act of mercy, and half to the Jewish poor). Here at Casale, Thursday, the end of the month , of Iyyar, 5370 A. M. (1610). Nathanel b. Shabbetai of the family of Dan, a judge agreeing to all the above. Samuel, called Zanvil, Petacrol, agreeing to the decree of the scholar, E. Nathanel. David b. Eliezer of Ravenna, agreeing to the decree of the foregoing scholars. It is true at that time I agreed to the above decree together with the other signatories, and now I again publicly announce it by permission of our lord, the Duke. David Samuel b. Kalonymos Petacrol. The words of the scholar, R. Zanvil, require no confirma- ’ tion but merely as a matter of form I wish to state that I aiso agreed with the opinions of the teachers just mentioned in regard to the decree. Hayyim b. Eliezer the Levite. The decree was announced anew by permission of our lord, the Duke, today, Thursday, the twenty-fourth of Sivan, of the year 5370 (1610), here at Casale, Montferrat. F The following is not the enactment of a synod, but it is a Takkanah made in several communities by corres- pondence. It is found in a manuscript of the Jewish t Malachi 3.24. 2 This seems to be an additional note added to the copy of the decree that was placed on the wall of the synagogue. 310 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES Theological Seminary on a folio leaf bound up with other Italian Hebrew documents. It was first established by the community of Cremona, and then accepted by that of Venice, and finally by that ,of Rome. Apparently it was then sent to all the smaller communities for confir- mation. Somewhat similarly, we notice the confirmation of the Takkanah of 1418 by the representatives of the community of Forli (see above p. 288). Since we have the original text of the Takkanah we can also notice the manner of promulgation which was the announcement at the Sabbath services. This method was also used in Castile (see p. 372) and in Morocco (Kerem Hemer I1.15). It was in all likelihood the method in common use in the other countries although there is no evidence available in regard to them. TEXT a nat bs on ‘7435 Wow YODA TYOWY TIS ODIs wn OPn nnn nypiw DIV5) nN) 1yDw ov aon aNd npina > xb miswo nwad ox anon 15 ora oid aa yaw ma yoy ws one npim diay rend nm npima OID. WPY PAX NIN MYXONA DPwyD JwNNA OW Oxy DP DYN ona mpinz qary °> ay modab prawest ay apm7 Sya sna sian wp Xd ONNN oYwI NID) OMyN MAD OWI Ar pI. Op TS > oyr amy diay pws WAN NAME NpoDT intindy Adbynd ywrar wdr NOP] NDPD aw) Mowdyp ADD) Iw) PT ADD Mw MNoOwYT 737 xd) indw 7aD RT oywin dex .ariat by papa ry ws NDP TN OUR NIpd MDI yow opwyr nyo dip °> yy D5 od in-w 3p OWIN Any) woD DON oD7a OAT Mpa *>ya nyD w>DA> sex ony) opdby ono cds amp ibm yan yer w> Soy xdo wa cones Sy) omwmd) myox wer $$nz map yyw ppdan yopdr Sy mynbo rawd joa woo pin Tp »y S¥md sy awn bau xdw ayn ypr mes wr 55 Sy w'm nana ums on OTP 739 7wSs oD paN7 Sw n’xo mya mbnd apn ow ywad yr Syp mm ty on) mow nndad aay qwe 8 Ink ay wR 13 pnd CHAPTER X 311 nana wns oan $x apm ow mwr pwya myo ww mdiyD IPS mw soo aim xd obs mn ow xo mena ma xd pone xbw w'n TNO JNA Ayton cian ya od yaw ots ow xd. nd owas Ndr pwr wy ond yxy Joon pt oma opoa Ssaw opt ocwd rp sy md yo yesoops mrp cdg on Sane ortop by ombdy nov awe S22 sa> nxronand ad mw xd) 0S am obw aoxd 1ada Joan wr TON ‘now 1217212 WIN NT apy wn wn ws pron way aos Sy AOI AINA Appa AansA Abbopa 5D 1a Axan mnowaw mo Syne na ja 12 5y om amin Soa) AINA NANA ws OTN apin7a on Ins ow ay nny ondbad den ayer owe dm Syn 699 nping ond Ins ows mpd xdw mond xdw nowd xden 57 ONION Ow O7D TNS ow oy mwyds xdw Anxpoa sbi Abia xd S79 sed goes yn ty mun wy Savmd eden Sx 55m mpinna odhyaw nyt Syy sim a oper nyt Sy nsrarn-m iw nox yarns tna MOD IS MOA ow rps m7 qand Syy sow pra ds won 55 Np 7a72 Ny Ww ON [PN ON TY NNT un yD APY x> yan mwyM Saw ort op Sy pn 1S obwar npn by apinn bya awa aban mymiad cosa bene cnon ow ow nado am mds by AD op) yp Sse ba) max Pom my we °DD onD Fawn Sapbr sos Sea ma msn mnow yaw 141 5 xbw oxina p’pd anw nanan yy bp> 'D Tor KN p AD Mpn ay mobon su am ber yen own 7a yopoyr Andon pny” on: 2a >t AN TD 7 ‘pm On yudia 5" oma 7"D3 ODN OND 1797 BND ony OFS ON bm 526 mp Non }ND OM Aw p’pnn nyo ¢na mindbwa cnao7» $x opbsea navn oD Nm ns NOP pp wow 3! aA'ndsr apy’ 7a NTN ON TNO Tp boa ambyn oy sw spy bx oben oon mbys in mp oo aynA Appin) an e> apn nav 'D (wer oY aN jna>wixp NTP ON ber ian moby omnax D3 apy SxTPPy WII M20) ALY nyo ona boa bx ANA ADD Tnw xm NM pT) 7D ‘TINT ‘yo we On WOT a by myD Onn TD by A> wow 3"sT NN "DD DATSN OND TIT OPH. wT AYN mn DDwA .p'pd a’pw Nay 7"D "TJ OY OVA OMIM AMF ANY?) P'p 312 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES inn T3D5) oa own noayd sx xd) oxsy mds nx ms on pbs maa aed py mbv> wpan a ox Ox TN AwIpA opibaa mbyn oy oso2 $x AAA orpar ani ond b22 uw 195 nam pwn ms opmon a> mobon a am xbw yow an pp nawe Ser Syed ama a/m23 PNY’ NAM HT SVyT | "DUT TINY? P'S NOT Ne NOT p’po nyo cna boa bx ANA moDTPnw XT Ons nbyoo ws’y nen oy Sapan mown > Sy mbenn nywa naw ova amd 4x7 bon Sy»adn pny’ p'pd a"pw Ny 'D nypia °na $53 No AD NIT TNT TDTDNw TION) Py UN DI ~yxn ow? 5 27 p’y ova ea) bm ba eh eT Lm DD ]NYNID Oywi nwo. MND ON 737 NT ANS NINA on npn) waa ww ws $9 nynd ovam n?dyo7 ann> am odwa s> impo by ws 55 pr payw wa xb TRANSLATION In view of the fact that many interfere the vested rights of their neighbors to have sole privilege of lending money at interest in certain localities, and very often the agency of the non-Jewish nobility is employed to compel the owner of the privileges to surrender them, and those who have the law on their side find themselves driven from their positions and the wicked displacing them and no one looks to God or to his Torah, which forbids such practices, in spite of the fact that many of our predecessors have protested against the unfairness of the practice, and whereas the cry of the oppressed of various places, especially among the owners of these exclusive rights of money lending, has reached us, and whereas it is to be feared that the protest of the local Rabbis against the unfairness and the injustice will be without avail, and they may even be cast into prison, therefore have we decided: That no Jew or Jewess shall interfere with the exclusive rights of moneylending that is at present possessed by any other Jew; CHAPTER X 313 That if anyone has already made an attempt to secure for himself the rights that in fact belong to a fellow-Jew, he shall be forbidden to make use of the transfer of the rights nor shall any heir of his or anyone who rights are derived from such an unjust person make use of them, until the matter is decided by a Jewish court; That if anyone shall violate these ordinances he shall be excommunicated, and no one shall trade with him, either taking part in the rights enjoyed by him or hiring it in whole or in part nor make any contract with him regarding the Hazakah, or have any dealings with him at all, even so far.as to sit in his company; This ordinance of ours shall not be set aside until the guilty one sees that the rightful owner of the exclusive rights is re-instated in them, and is compensated for his loss. Moreover the transgressor shall present himself before two ordained Rabbis to receive such penance as they may direct him to undertake. Ordained here at Cremona, on Wednesday, the fourth of Kislev, the fifteenth of November, of the year 5342 (1582), on condition that the ordinance is not opposed to the government. Isaac, called Zelkimann b. Gershom Aaron David b. Aaron Noirlingen Ephraim b. Menahem Noirlingen Abraham Menahem Port Ha-Kohen Moses Menahem Kohen. The ordinance of the above-mentioned leaders, has been announced by men in the three synagogues of Cremona. The decree of the Sages of Cremona is proper and we* second their decisions. Venice, twentieth of Tebet, 5342. Judah Katzenellenbogen Jacob b. Abraham Solomon Ha-Kohen Abigdor Cividal The ordinance was announced in all the synagogues of Venice by the undersigned, according to the command 314 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES of his highness Gambur, and a copy of it was placed on the gate of the Ghetto in the usual place, Abraham b. Uri, the Shamash of the Community of Venice, who has written and signed this on Wednesday the twenty-fifth of Tebet, 5342. I, too, agree with all that has been written above. Isaac b. Judah, minister to the Community of Rome. The above ordinance was announced in all the synagogues at Rome on Sabbath during the prayers, by the agent of the community with the permission of the Court, as usual. Isaac of Lifatil. I also testify that it was announced at the Community of Rome. Ben Zion of Norzi. G The following Takkanah of the Community of Pesaro is taken from the marginal notes of R. Abraham Joseph Solomon Graciano to a Ms. of the responsa mi ‘anya in the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, (concerning which see p. 301). It is of interest as bringing further evidence of the leniency with which the Rabbis of Italy saw Jewish litigations taken be- fore Gentile courts, and because it deals with an aspect of the matter not touched upon in the other ordinances. Although it is only a local Takkanah, its intrinsic interest seems to justify its inclusion here. bs Sop, Oy bh $9 mxa ms $727 Nob OI277 NODA pnym oDw 47> XM WI OWN PIV D> NOD AD Ma yw ays Sxnw maa $n mbps ond 's Sy aya ovewr idy on owe ondby msxstya vewon bs popn yaa mya bw pen onbw yawon oipna wan q>> wand yawnn Jay ms yw xd omy 25m) wan ns 12 yawnd wipn mDppD INN ws wT ona myiwam oma Sm ome aN pbena ws Apa ow ow xxon ona idrori jydpm 9D ow by? qriw yor dso omrys O’N27 ND’ AD Iw MeIpA mbapA *nqw ume 79> yn Sonn "x mMeapA mbapr nosona THynn wp > Wd TD oinnz by Msxdaya man ox yawad Sanwa pany ow Soy xdw win OA CHAPTER X 315 “7pm 8? oN) ovBwDD DI>Ipn Sy uyraw pr myo bw vena andy yawn ana win ans p> am Sys war owobdipa by ayeawnd anys mb>npa $5 by pnd aa ar csan myo bw yan wpm wwa yawn no2b7 Py Tay IND WA Wt mMpN Dy AaymM ND’D TD WS MwA aM sw S¥ar YI AUN TP TAT AS SPM ny Rein Sapa op) raw Som ppd tw wou ‘NIT AN YD IND’D-AD onnn ano) PT ws OI Mpnm mo IoD oan Mbyn ow yap xd 2% mD20NT pny7a ompw uxxo xd jy ma ony e TRANSLATION We have noticed a disgraceful procedure that is common here at Pesaro, namely that when two Jews have a liti- gation they proceed to take their case before the secular courts and if one is required to take an oath, an object of religious ceremonial, like the Tephilin, or one of the books of Scripture is brought to the Court so that the oath may be taken over it. Since the Gentiles do not realize the holiness which is attached to the Tephilin, they look upon them with contempt, and consider the straps of the Te- philin as of no more account than shoe-laces, and thus the Name is profaned. Therefore have we, the Ministers of the holy Communities, here at Pesaro, ordained, with the consent of all the Communities, that no Jew shall be per- mitted to take any article of religious ceremonial to a secular court for the purpose of administering an oath, but the oath:shall be taken over the pen. If the litigant is not satisfied with such an oath, the parties shall come before a Jewish judge for the administration of the oath. Whoever transgresses this ordinance shall be considered as having transgressed a communal ordinanee, and shall be punished. Written and signed, here at Pesaro, the twenty-sixth of Ab, which is the third of August of the year 5344 (1484). CHAPTER XI TAKKANOT OF CORFU The following Takkanot are taken fron the fly-leaves of a manuscript of a Mahzor Corfu in the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. In spite of the many lacunae, it is not difficult to gain a clear idea of the twelve provisions of the original ordinance. DTP °° TWN “IND WON] MON TPP) NON. eccsececsceeseeeeees IND] AS Oy Tan xd Fwonw Tw TN AIDA WDD... S wa xdw o> qawon mad Jon xb nomwon jo camad) o> xden Ca to poi vb mort yor My am yO pra DP Wor... eee pts po od ar oy xno oospm mdvan yox) onda yom won oy 47> pri Asp) yyr2 TD) (2) NP AXID) Mw AD. wra or om>ds orya wwe ows ca wwd am rans mann indbdp paw SOE Madi. yy pay menp mbapm cw noo ume yd) om DD OTD Mwyd) mid OKA] PYF FIND NYAD...ccecccececececeees GO") yw) my mye said mat x"y p’pnd onpm on Sma bY. -INDw YI Apy’ TID INI 1D PY MY JID Pwd OT Ny Toyo NMND DD PMD) WAID MDDDAT No Awd Sy ow mw a|-dg yu hizda bie ta pBOthe. “7p pene rece ar Dn TDyNA pip aN yma) x"? onan sap> unby (oy aan oun oy ude p’p nD 1x map nyma ‘a od15 125d nord) yownb 4D ans ppm onam ONT WY AD ISD INN p"PT VAN WSINA TDD NIW nese INT DS WYOWD (AWW? PPYA WPT WH SD NON cess nym> ons paw pro) spd ss mbndy jdoab dy awe ‘a PD THynn wop aM aI mosonn *>w nnn oinnd ainad iw»n ond Spanady ap ways Tipy TD nen mopA moDDAT dy Syt arpa 1D Wp... eae TOA PpPMPT Wow) xn Soa wa Pw o”p.......mwI MD md pond ‘nt nm ay on wa 737 $5 ap) Aa by ww Od PNY DINT NOVA ADDO DID WD... ve! ONIN nomwen xd) notwo mad n2b5 sw ow away adi Soy xd pRwin onp oo win eds yor gwar ops awa nbw qnwon mad CHAPTER XI 317 sy o7a> nonwom Jwen mine xd win omsay osnn ye mower maa yo "ay ws osTwer mwyd orn prwin ans oo wind men am ond ow mw op......... [7d] Ddn7 nwyn onp ON) OT OTDM OD [T)......... nad) oxxd ‘nn noon oon orn xd [JT wo DIDw ANS prem ny ym ow win mss cba naywo yor pasmd coins ya das priwid soi nnd aby bina p Averitt le RET ee noTweM FJTweA No ‘aA waInn TM xd wom wmEN2 ow win Ssqw man sven pond) dwn “YT NDIIN wen PD xdy oD AbD apo INN ney (53 DISA MII Ayawd soo Nds pwrtp nnd om ow mway Nd 'a Nan 21705 op sbi am pr cam pony 3277 nvma pow aww ains> wwon nyw mp xd cdowa onw ‘2 opan (DIDS ND72 rw wIp) aN AD wap> AXIM IMs yin DPr OW DD) OFT OND PW ODT DAL... eceseseeeee po ewan ans adom nntA Parp wa oODw> WIN MND. on APDND TTD con wba mpind p> ows ax porppm cans on Syd nm. nnn wm mr n> mboa (oy onba yn oxxd) poys qotd "oa won mwyd inva ons Twx wap x"y mrordapos pr ow sox sown cde ony T opan pay pyppw VP On perppm ypw>yo nyo oy wa MOP moIDAT ANT wR. woo 1a ps 1p duran ppraw DONT CON AN ON [TT 72 NyppAa wn) and mr by moa coyts>n obws ya osym nenpom eipom TT UNDIT 2F5 mya) eA EE a molp7T osin Wm 's ow by mayw ow do 3292 3", 7m nyaady ows orm dshte nay Sapp Orxm AP wror wood orxn [OUNI PITT DIp2 pid x"y? arp PM... meay xd on vbw yma cam sand nyad ax ore cp mesa vborb: maby sobn pam mm ar b> oyw ans Sap oy nyvad axn 279 wap) Stay npIDT M23 MNpIT ANON DPA Toyo) my x" 2 NANI NT ON IND Nk JWT ANT wD07 .’7 ONIN ANSI WT} wwa IND AwyY pNNa no ND fox yoXwwW SL IaTO? TTSIND DVO e. toseseceovdecs weet Wo om xbw op : roxn aba Tn xdv TD MxM OTP YP wIP Naw anya yw prem . ox | stnay) yon opd oean qway xbw nyo) mrma2 owb-ax nix nye nnd wpm .'roxan 318 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES Teys nnn yrenad oma nnn ymos> wbe............ indba Ua ccilicn peers “wa aN? xd 7D on OPV TDG pean metetad OV AQI aT TV lal erastesestecteoyeeterees 199 35 mindy mod Mid WND2....cccsescsseeeees mio2> DM EE RON Oe kM cleats b> Sy Sm ayn mm OTN Sycw na nyad inad asa jo) ars ana aa inwrd ow jreiadar waa mms xox x72 Nps x>1 myx SoPwyos mwyn xb nnap oy yt way dy Sun mbin bow Apa mDDDIAA 'n CNN] PRO MVD PRU LTTIN] ..eseseeeeees ova MDD wen oy nan 3WL") 'NW OD) OPT ANY pbIDD 737 PR) nvr ava pubw Rae NC Wapmw mua mm ar oy) and ni Now orn s7wn7 wxoD dr ANSAN ynxon 45d Sy 15 Sinn 1S soyonn $55 xpi p> ny $55) nbn ae syw wbnd mw ws owd npmondad anipa most am £'B NIM nv ntin mp ovp> n'a no wow xd owsd......... abe a eee Caper 82) TTann NS oomds ‘nd ons O22 byw a $255 ww anse on ‘ad ans wp oy > md Tapeh inka aan een sescsveereeeee BDI DIN TP now Paw yA nnn by myo ninpo mes ow > mw... 1 NI] OVD ND DIND TE OWA MYDS... eee syd 45 452 18 Syms iwn-ind amo tat nym ya dy p'y odo o>oosn ommny maa yom 737 om oy Soa C8” ONIN 370 meyy>d wen yD Sen nts os Sy mye pmad i ee sop’ *>sa ony OTN) O'TDR OYA Tw aw PPM sotia &os main Now sen mex oy ma 8k O22 YIN 7a axe nppinm 7d Ton on soy mad ADUDTAwWD NIT. RY INF tel donee yop oa mo yw XS on bax OMIT Tw ND Md Ns O22 75 Nw) TNT TWN oN 1D) N_DINN ya aDy Nd) oo mT? SD ord nnd... 21ND 7 onoinn iompnmy > arb. 5 nD mw Rent wber somSy ‘7 nbona ‘On WwR Ty OFAN °DDI ODN NYITW pa nvosa nwyn> boyy yoo mans wen S59 pod ot> .3” (xan) sayd nvan any ww "2 7905 waned anys Sow nvna sD107 wp) dya woyn anyp 105 x"y’ anon 1b Daw "RX snoo7 oxpa Swow tab min natn meydo snw sap yw'n) pipa 3°. 79> Ay raw) ERE ane BM cles MD107 INA Myiaws ana) MxNA wna AwWA..... sobiyd yan so xb mon nNm mDIDNn CHAPTER XI 319 b> Sy Sunn arn mem nem nosonn bw ostn opi aon b> snyvd) omeswd on orn op wp) boar ao S22 sow> ar nbapo am syon avon orn Sard mw 1d un ...oue am Sm b> no pin AGREES tle rele AS AE rp 's ow tm anon b> naa tad 4D seve PY OT TODDAD OWN ONIN TW 's ow by anyA jov|n) Ay AITwA ow ASM Sx b5 wedi orpdr pind wt1.... eee PDA OI Tay eee NDI sactisieeefeaites). ow on oa YT ws OnooT OAT Sst 22 mow ads moo mapys Sxvow 9 mUNPS On 4" paw jp md Dp oO’ HD OAS 7" paw pm : OPT Naw "nT paw pm Symp dyer on pai ip rot weds 'N paw pm PN DAIS I" pawn *byp pny 4"n pam " OFTIN WMD....(2) PIT OMowa "T'n’n mw "and x” py ora ee octet he 1y a7 wp> wy monn y’y oaaen ova > x"y1 >on p'p ADIN JOT “PANT? MID TP ONY ADINW ‘8 ONINA 2 pba m2oNn STUDD VDD ween WIND D1 onda T7pd APN YIN? OXw NWS ‘8 NINA Nowa mDDoMAw Iw RY? WIN Naywo Aw yor pasa? maw wm .......92~ gd1 nw B=) itn 2) => = bb An =n [notw) on mad ny ois xb JT won Das wa.) WIT Nyw TPS TR? OMINM DDIND OAT noqyn nya ow nynd Soyw > apind wo107 ap oD "nN ary n'n yrP) 73°) os 737 ya’ Oo "nt bsa on apind oyndAT O37 nos awon nyw my 1b ape > mNWNIDD Wd... DN mono) mony ow Sa ar ba.0> ao yd... oNp oD 2 ! Bee Sect ees, eats 2) tn Dip Bihan ahah mera eal oda phone pa reopen rere eh De pueda Pan ey - TRANSLATION Fe eto they made a perfect and upright ordinance that no affianced man should foregather with his fiancée nor go to her house, so that they may come to no temptation. This is in accordance with the view of our Sages of blessed 320 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES memory, who said, ‘‘Shun evil and what is like to it’’.? In the course of an indefinite time this ordinance has fallen into disuse. As a result every day there occur cases of indiscretion giving cause for untold shame and disgrace. No day passes without its curse being worse than that of the preceding. This is all the worse in a generation such as this, whose people are not fit....in the eyes of God and men. ‘Therefore have we, the officers of the two com- munities of Corfu, assembled to look into the matter and to make regulations an ordinances for the Community, in accordance with the words of the Prophet, ‘Take up the stumbling-block out of the way of My people’. ? Therefore have instructions been given to Jacob Miuni that he should write “with an iron pen and lead’ on parchment the text of the ordinance in accordance with that he should write “with an iron pen and lead”’ 3 marked on parchment the text of the ordinance in accordance with the intention of the said Committee. When the time for the gathering of the Ma‘amad came so that they might hear all that had been written we, the officers of the Ital- ian Congregation, with the chosen leaders (of............ Congregation) sent to call the officers and chosen men of the other Congregation in order to announce and de- clare before them all the terms of our ordinance for we have seen that it is time for the Lord to gather glory in our country. But the leaders of that other Congregation deciared that they could not agree to be at one with us but each one should be free to do as he please. When we heard this, we ‘‘arose and stood upright’’4 “‘according to the good hand of the Lord over us’’5 and decided to go to our most illustrious governors® to prostrate ourselves be- fore them, that we mighc persuade them to write and sign * Hullin 44b. 2 Isaiah 57.14. 3 Job19.24, 4 Ps. 20.9 5 Neh. 2.8. 6 In 1389 Corfu placed itself under the protection of Venice which in 1401 acquired formal sovereignty to the island. The ruler referred to is therefore the Venetian governor. CHAPTER XI 321 a decree beneath the ordinance in order to establish the ancient ordinance which is here renewed so that it may have authority. After the announcement of the o:dinance and the declaration of the herem no affianced man shall be permitced to enter the house of his fiancée, nor shall an affianced woman enier the house of her fiancé, in any place or at any time, except one month before the wedding. During that month the betrothed couple must not be together in private until after the wedding. Those who were engaged and have entered the house of their betrothed before the passage of the ordinance shall have the privilege of coming and going into the house of their betrothed for one month from the day of the promulgation of this ordi- nance, under the rules and regulations mentioned. If they cannot arrange for the wedding within that month but are compelled to postpone the time of their marriage, then when the month passes the betrothed pair shall separate oR ea In order to take up the stumbling block and to remove all suspicion from the daughters of Israel, we have decided that even during that month they shall not be in private without the guardianship of one of the relatives of the bride so that there may be no suspicion of impro- priety.’ ® Regulation 2. No person shall be permitted to perform the Kiddushin except at the same time as the recital of the Seven Benedictions, so that the Erusin? and the Huppah may be together. Regulation 3. If the time is not opportune for writing a document, of betrothal......... and the groom wish to perform the Kiddushin, he may perform it in the following manner: that the benediction of Erusin........ shall be t Part of the missing text of this section is quoted in the note below but I have not been able on that basis to reconstruct all that is lacking. 2 Erusin is the ceremony by which a man becomes the husband of a woman to the extent that she may not marry another. He may not have marital relations with her until the Huppah has been performed and the wedding benedictions recited. Already in the mishna it was noticed that very often these prohibitions would be transgressed. Especially were the betrothed lax in this regard in Judaea (Ketubot 1.5). 322 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN: THE MIDDLE AGES recited in the presence of the Rabbi of the time, and in the presence of two elders and in the presence of....... (2), and within one month thereafter he shall perform the Huppah.* Otherwise he shall part from his betrothed. In that month, too, he shall be under the restrictions apply- ing in cases arising under the first regulation. If after the Kiddushin he desires to go on a journey without his betrothed, he may have the privilege of the said month on his return. Regulation 4. If by any chance any member of our Com- munity will say at any time that he performed the Kiddushin with any woman in the presence of only two witnesses,’ those Kiddushin are now declared null and void, in accor- dance with the ordinance that was previously in force in regard to this matter. The power of those who ordained the previous ordinance and our authority is as strong as the Court of R. Ammi and R. Assi} to declare kiddushin null. He who performed the Kiddushin, and the bride who accepted them, and the witness shall be fined one hundred ducats,. t That is if for some reason or another it is not possible to draw up a contract of betrothal between tne couple, the Kiddushin may be performed so that the husband will be bound legally. Talmudic law requires for the Kiddushin merely the presence of two witnesses; the Takkanah requires the presence of at least the Rabbi and two elders. The Huppah may be delayed a single month. If the bridegroom leaves the city, he may delay the Huppah fora month after her return. See also Res. R. Isaac b. Sheshet, 399. Endless complications resulted in the Middle Ages from the law binding a woman who had accepted a ring or other valuable to the man who had given it to her. Even if the Rabbis were satisfied that there was no good cause for considering the Kiddushin valid, yet they would hesitate to permit a woman who had been the victim of such a fraudulent Kiddushin to marry another man without a bill of divorcement. The only remedy was to forbid the performance of Kiddushin except in the presence of ten people. This was often done, but it was seldom that the Courts assumed the power of declaring void Kiddushin performed in violation of such an ordinance. See above p. 80. 3 The Court of R. Ammi and R. Assi is mentioned (Gittin 36b) in connection with the right to issue a Prosbul, but that court is cited here as an example of an authoritative Jewish court. CHAPTER XI . 323 Whoever transgresses any of the four said regulations of this ordinance shall be excommunicated and separated from the Community of Israel, and declared anathema before God and men, and he shall also be compelled to pay a fine of a hundred ducats, half of which shall be given to most illustrious governor and half to the Syna- gogue. Nor shall any member of our Community be permitted to escape by saying that he no longer wishes to be a member of our community but prefers to join another community; in spite of such a claim, he shall be declared under excommunication and under a fine of one hundred ducats. Regulation 5. We have ordained that if a father ar- ranges for the betrothal of his daughter after she is mature, that is after she has reached thirteen years of age, he must ask her whether she is satisfied with the betrothal which he has made, and they shall write into the document the promise of her agreement so that she may not have any excuses for change of heart saying that her father be- trothed her against her will.* Regulation 6. If the wedding take place on Friday,? it must be performed before noon so that it be not pro- longed and the Sabbath violated. Regulation 7. We have ordained in order to inculcate modesty in Jewish women that they shall cover... . .and also their flesh shall not be seen.....:.... for this causes strengthening and the arousing of evil passions, and all the more shall they be obliged to cover those parts.......... prepared to entice and lure the hearts of men. It shall be an obligation resting on (every man to exhort) his wife time and again, and similarly a father shall exhort his daughter, so that the daughters of Israel may dress modestly t Rabbinic law permits the father to give his daughter in marriage to the husband of his choice till she is twelve years and six months old: the age of thirteen is mentioned here is being approximate; after the girl has reached that age her consent is required for marriage. Unless that has been obtained she may nullify the Kiddushin. 2 Weddings on Friday were forbidden in Talmudic times, but they became quite common in the Middle Ages. ‘ 324 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES and not like outcasts. But they shall be careful in their bodies and in their clothes, so as not to transgress the pro- hibition against imitating the Gentiles. (Regulation 8). The ancient ordinance that every sick person lying abed with chronic fever, shall, if there is a . suspicion of danger to life, confess his sins, since there is no one “who hath power over the day of death’’!? and there is nothing more doubtful than life as the Rabbis say “Let one repent today, lest he die to-morrow.”’? Thus he will be assured that the Holy One, blessed be He, will be kind to him, will forgive him all his sins, and heal him and bring him back to his health, even as the saying of the Psalmist, ‘‘who forgiveth all thine iniquity, who healeth all thy diseases.’ (Regulation 9) The ancient ordinance that it shall not be permitted anyone to tear his hair ‘“‘nor make cuttings in his flesh’’,4 because of any dead person. Thus we shall obey the law of our Torah which says, ‘Ye are children of the Lord, your God; ye shall not cut yourself (nor make any baldness between) your eyes for the dead, for thou art a holy people unto the Lord,’ 5 since every child of Israel is endowed with Immortality of the Soul and a portion in the Resurrection of the Dead in the world-to- come. (Regulation 10) No woman shall be permitted to act as ‘‘mourner or one who wails” for a dead person whether the deceased be a Jew or a Gentile in any manner or form either on the Sabbath or on Festivals, since as is well known, this practice is antagonistic to our Torah. Regulation 11) Whereas it is a usual matter far wretched orphans to fall into need because of the collection of the dower-right by the widows, therefore have we seen fit to establish a regulation and an ordinance which will be upright in the eyes of God and man; namely, that if a man t Eccl. 8.8. 2 Sabbath 153a. ACY s.)Laais: 4 Deut. 21.5. 5 Deut. 14.1. CHAPTER XI 325 die and is survived by sons and daughters which he had by the widow, she shall collect only that property which she brought to her husband, but her Ketwbah and the Addi- tional Ketubah shall remain. in the hands of the orphans. But if no children by her survive him, she shall collect all that is due her, both the property which she brought him and the Additional Ketubah. Similarly of the wife die, and she is survived by sons or daugthers by her husband, | he shall be obliged to give to the children all the property which their mother brought him and he shall not keep for himself more than a third of the property which she has brought him.? All this have we ordained in order that the orphans may be supported from the property of their mother or the estates of their father until the Lord have mercy on them. (Regulation 12). In order to remove every suspicion of deception which may occur in the selling of wine since it is possible to mix wines or to sell two or more jars at the rate which the officers fixed for one, therefore henceforth. . _....every pious wine-seller shall be careful and take heed not to do such a thing, for besides being fined in the pre- scribed manner he shall be declared excommunicate and anathema.? (Thrice during) the year, on the Passover, Shebuot and Succot Festivals, this ordinance shall be read and its memory shall not pass away from our children forever. All the rules, regulations and ordinances of this Takkanah shall be an obligation resting on every member of this our Community, that he may keep it with his whole heart and soul, for ‘‘they are life unto those that find them’’.3 In order to give even more power and authority to all that has been written above we shall beg the rulers to give us the authority to declare a severe and complete herem against anyone who refuses to obey or opposes anyone of the (regulations) and he shall be separated from our * Compare Takkanah passed in 1494 at Fez, Kerem Hemer II, § 2 and 3. 3 * Compare Takkanah of Castile, 1432, p. 366. 3 Prov. 4.22, 326 JEWISHESELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES Community. This is beside the punishment of the one hundred ducats for the person transgressing any of the first four regulations» of this ordinance. In order to establish, strengthen and make permanent all that has been written above we shall ask the Rulers that they may agree to affix their endorsement as is explained above. These are the names of the children of Israel who were chosen and of the officers who were in office at that time; The Elder, the Scholar Menahem Cesano : iE Nota Abraham Pipi of Pel aly Se he Shabbetai Dinti Daniel Cornil y et Elijah Dimordo i Meo Abraham Gaon .Isaac Moli R. Samuel Cesano, officer R. Hayyim Pipi, officer On Sabbath, the third day of the Omer, of the year 9412, Abraham ibn Ezra and the prince........ of the Italian Congregation put before the chosen leaders the necessity of explaining the above ordinance, especially the first regulation, which says that “if it should be ne- cessary to delay the time of the wedding, etc.”’ They agreed to explain: That whereas in the said ordinance, the first regulation says that ‘‘if any accident should occur and they be unable to arrange for the wedding and be compelled to postpone the time of the Huppah, then when the month passes by, the bridegroom shall leave the house and shall not again come in to the house of his betrothed untii it is the proper time to perfo.m the ceremony”’ and these words are obscure, since it is not definitely stated how long a time is meant by ‘‘the proper time’ to perform the ceremony’. Therefore the undersigned chosen men, have declared that by the expression ‘‘ proper time’’ is to be understood eight days before the wedding, « The words .w27 nyw seem to have been taken not in the sense of proper time but time of preparation. CHAPTER XI 327 so that he may be there at the time of the preparation of necessary things for the wedding. If during those eight days an accident, clear and definite before everyone should occur and he be unable to marry...... he shall again leave the house of his betrothed and shall not enter until the time of preparation for the wedding. The time of preparation shall be only three days before the Huppah.... . CHAPTER Xt TAKKANOT OF ARAGON The following Takkanot were first printed by Schorr in 7e-Haluz, 1. 20, from a manuscript which is now in the Bodleian Library (Neubauer 2237, fol. 271). As no other Ms. of it is available, it is here reproduced as it first appeared, although the text in several places appears to be corrupt. Dial talents sat ay bombo ory wo) ma nas Dene a me myn won now> oon nen Apy “Ty m3 wp MwA) ANI M359 wnd2 maaD .7OIN Ay myxp mon pon xd Syi ,po Ww DbT pyn) mbox a>en ayn mms ind: nD) AMNwD TAI |AMDN) Tow b> near Sy japon Spa pad jp ns on odsan aye wean nN WD 723 atn2 pays mayo aby oda b>w apd oxan mia ban be my>> mys ID Ty. NP’ AMS ANIA WS AMRIT ANDI oO AND ayn ary yod jonas moody nb wow onmimpa onapwa Sve your wbn sada a5 oan .onaw) oyna nwa > axnd ovn mioy> ond n> pS IND Ayoo mbayt JPN OMNI wT oOnenna ny mpy>t mm nn WS .TIAyD mI¥2 onYTA ay) yom bo n2 ody mo nar .oxn oxen> unz nep pow ad wd movd joo myay mbmp moa) .miobn m207 137) DoD wy °D INSON , Mw ws 7N> mows Sa oT pT ANT pys row) ,aow> yrs pm nuad mawrn Sy PDN WoT Dw UMN APS wrysa wns Mpa mybnz b> TVONT Wwe) Popa oNAD Jor -w oo wy pr wwyn rot. yww vt? yD opine ym jopaws neabn apy ma wab> nd mwyd ay avon myn 92 owp add avin AAA wan ,wanNd oI oyn noxdpa nd yen pri bana ,pymn Snn wm on) .tyob) aya ams pond OY OPT OX PAM yum wen qwe Adxnd ahp oyowa rp xd onvaa Syne $2) ,oar my nat on .ponm yrxm b> inn ans ordi wun’ ova jOMDy wr ang bapa b> .wany oan Sn nn way ADD wy xd awed corp ond ws bD7 oF Idx CHAPTER XII 229 wad moton ar by jpinw pint otpya Sew by opty wy jon PVA OR Py INN 731 7D oN WIAD ANDw SD AAT ry iow sewn wes b> ob) asp mp) Axpson 9 TI 9 Nd) onDwoD AMM Sn p21 ans amas mbrpa b> meyna bay nwy ax sex prya 1y> TIP ON) M92 ND 372 NF JAN ON) Mpa aw npr 595 sp ysrend yee yoo was) sia $ma osx ,oon pions am own mond yes nnn tw bxa yndnmd oniaa port oma ombsnwna b> °D wms12 Any .mwyd mona ona wr wr b> onD axa Kb NP_ aT WY TY umN AoA aw yy bo. KA naw mApdn by op yi ayn nan ays mon ty to wey or addy cad ayy D’Tay WNOTN was PAN nD Sy DIN TD Soma aM Mw ANIA AeA IND ITI UN WS Nya pamwe2 wy SxAd wb aw xbdq jwpodd DA? PR WS Ik¥D "TD OTTy nye om sath pasa pr wrx qwxs oD DVT > .ONNI TxA OTD 12 Sen xd word oyA aM zy Syne a Sx yn aosn onatn ee by jones onna open Wap) eAN Aaya me o> sex mbd yn aes jaNd Nn opwa naw? raw? pap amy on? gp) ‘Mary oxa poND mbaprn by mnoy idmpi odipd yow sp 'n WSR OMPIwM .MINI MMA INDI WV WIM .AWNAD Ow IPD Ox yD ‘Mm omIDS ody ,owDs DIVX OI OND wpy 77D vod ism ONS MOXY PRO ND AYN on? Swop oyna ate jew oma qd) end apy nvaby nyna? wy) opny oat mo waym Co > mew 'y) oon TOP OPN? OF OPN CD OD TX ODM OVEMD ONT? ad ma) m1 byw Sapo Sata jane one: ony Stam con o-nd APM Way yISD PIND WR ATID oT OMX Tw WYO Wy AYIND wsap Dx qw AIM WAT py rat ma ody nna INST De PSN Vw yop OTD TawA Tay nop) oF opr re m2 aw> uxap wes .pxapso yeas nypo oxap inyod uns Pew ont yx? Sa bay pxw ma p> AND wap Madr winw FION) ON7 5} NWN C2" 8" mye) ainD> pap pane aa mn 7 TY? 1D ON PINT MpID yaIND yap aT mx dyn ont oveia msy mv> omdian oy ws Aoxnna sows my yma oxdn na TN? wT ,oAxD nx ab joenp nap dxannb mr S¥oM) ONT Pya swr dws nD Dy nx myd nyt n> pords brs oN) AYP mwPA aM jean poxa omds x73 oO” qwKD) «mn pS 8271 exvd7 ,2)nny1 poy ND ww Maya IP mwpA isn miroa mary bow dbwh onnxa maw oyn maaw > nnn mby 7 nom °> rsd asooon wanpdno ex nbnn nxwom jn Rxon N89) P28 MMIDNT OD nMN b> yenD ADAy yun mdzpa 330 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES syn xO ons bs nnx on) santaya vyo ano md nvend ap bon xboo> Ty wt ovion wD osm mn mbnd any wh swx qbon om bs mwa Aw to wby Sun Apom sand oda naw PDD yw psyy pa yp> ANN IND MANY UMS PRIA maxon oa bab nm aad unvad wna am 3at5 jytom yon yip> pnond nt bon bs sai joa) .nnwe 7D ux a onbady by arto taymdy ob axnd wp Sy ozond »ndonar inansa n> yorxd: wmnson 737 by wb nnb opps inxs unrmdi innop boa oan ans wsx2 b> unyn> wom OppoD mem oA ws jn ays om mipnm 7M pola Mans7 mw2_Nn 727 Ow won on Ty move opiya by Ay bom ints nx ndid% n> oats) mapna $55 onrad jo ws uno od wos00 mbsn anathy ows moxm TVS TN? AWS TN YMINDD PMN) NT IND Wwe NwP Sty 1295p SoD wD NoNd Aon nd) ormax> mtpoyy xm oprn ona obxa mon ton °Dbn ynitdini mnonvn x32 yp5 any on ardn wns ard. 493 nots by, ova [vx myon oxn nydxm antm Sar mby pton ana -ws ,ny Dn by ox a mpm on bo bs ya p>: .osim opnsn prata oan ow ow mows po-monn Sx od) ow oon pan oo? swoyun wpa idsanw osaon 2y7 PD AT ANDI ova ws Aya poxn ay nawny pAb oTn>2 nxt 55 apy” ywpa aoxd pmwinn be od) mew wy WA Dd Som apis mwys ax nya oanno onym nnm mw npn ow DIDNT OTT 29 Moy Paryni? we 203 OI mM OT yA? ots 722 by Fp mown ‘a oben on Now ox we omby mx 19d Mad ory mand yep onxon Sy por Ox joyin ropwo ana by 0D ,oYy naa> ums mow> oddon ~ws yoota n5b>> ypinm bax SO awY WIN ONNON oxy ay xd) wos ON pin psa yews pind owd ny aw Sy jormpm onnsx tu> meyd ows Sew nyo wre rdw onat D> ws w>aw Srp ivrixd wy reso omboia mb 25 onon oT? YW AWN WATT Wp an aty7 Sy) aa ywe” ond np Sy at Sy meen om oysa ans o2ad) jor ob> omnbs nx Sy swr poming Syn ,otaxd ona or by rp nde swe b> Sy pn orn spin Mya non vawon» Sy qwsx nxving wean nd ATA NAM Op ND *> ANDY NIDM WN) OF AIMS OMIM ww paNT ay or Sy on ARe CHAPTER XII 331 by asad wo wpnst ow wow yyod> mmsn owe yrs nop NI WRT? NS TW OPW ONO WD po NIT POND 7 WR 9D ono an mp ont AMS 79 °D ,pDIN2 wnynd) pays mo onbp wap API? ond rawr odo) on oxy cwRa cy soi son tes py ond ar oyad asaw addi qewhy pst irdy mand OnNDY TN Woyw NIT) Nwxw m2 OND OTA wD miyd Dp 317 ora mon Sy in01 9272 o8 7D oT nbddia mron nvpn aan ndad axaw ny 7 AMIN pr aw gw Nd aoxd ondsxa wnoe> moan $5 aw pO NIA IN TP pre oA ox oy mnt npon 7272 4N .o Den myo INA DIIW WES ND LTT by myrnoa yn qwe xd insta paw xo at by ww men bax ant p> 12 pny xin ap ond INA ON. MPN ID Nd aN pwrw> qm md 12 Swnoz TT Yani? BOWS NPI TD|VA jw mew InN mt pp Nd non? IpDyT ws bd °D prom yow pd mor tad yyw wena rm aw by apn dwn os yan nso nxt ann apn [1 NP 8? ONT wom AND xixp onymD bbq Aa OAT PN bey nny qwor rato ar byy pr xd) you mds sw ay xb 1an> °D oO) OTD} ya nymd yaw oyA pon oan joa pasa xd) nossa xb mow omby Dy WS Ten Dw? AXP INN AX ON WW TY TNA pDTd ww PO Pomm> mawA> arnn dsc ona TNNd pwy WN pwyT IN 12 omar ows qwrd naend npr xd) onion op by PoNID Ty bo wt 7? Sy mwyd sro nbynd anon b> nao yoy a> 5 wbs mp qoxon O29 DYyIT WN WWND ODN soy> ow 195) mona ANAM non AwE OWN mnbww ws07 wes We? oI Ory Sy max nem ws pend moxbon Sy oO? NSON ww odpm oat bom oon ory boaw zyw500 ar tabp ainad) oren> ory mad Sanend oad n> am ona py b> oma yerd Sanemdy ymobm ops arya ombw adams omdy Daya oN APN Sein aw b> Oo A 4bon Ns DY ONpN oD WR oO ywa vied ody yawn now 737 by pinmw :ww20n Ty ay7 ,oSan7 nx onoxay mbpnr pasa mba ovo won sms Deen DD) HEWN YY awrT TP mwA1 ND 7D OSww var Aye dpn Pray 8s ods pro si onbdsd vpn > yew) NdN ]ND IND pR mx ov °> OM Mpa Dd ASX .pnamdy pan powa n> ona nD wr OV AB wm 75) .ADII ADDNM pI Sy nawd mo KAn nS ow Op) opi? va DD OMwEIa ONYN OFT PX NDI poya omay 332 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES oxap mbob arn ont Soa wabdsd ayo ar as a> arn nwea mxon any > As won pbs osiap ovo amd) Atyd: onD7 yD PR WYN NAY) ITD PIP SND) WPIN Wow wT 12 qwND Aydy obs ‘7 awd job) nox? naw mm oyn maaw > ,nnzin Sapp aA soo pedn Sa ayad wos Anes) ,oxdn ta wos jo? bya py men p> anywn oD aytn poy mond ws ony onoxa RxD wr conxsiad) mbapm b> ayys sian pwbor sua wendy joan Ob aoc pn ia yr $55 naga wan mrv>on 7at mitw ome 5455 pn won Nx? Sbw ova mrvdna xd woy v9 unyad swos0n mopi aban esata mpr xb on cay AWN aps> noon yy mbdsos tat opsa 2555 ap ams oD) noms mod xd) npn xb omwynn mod yp $25 qwnr nD pn °D yy? Pw op Ty. PS Ws OvaT open by unx7 pre eT mpm bax wenn yy quar $5 nbyin ommwp2 aya xd °5$5 pn qe. on open aoxyd wim any 55 mobnd mobn yo mbboa xxv dpm ps a> Joon 48 myna ooym onom own daApwo bane ny b>) bsrwp ans wei naw ow Soy pow nep wyw womp nwyd nob onpdds onw> mwa oa xbw ods ata 829 ons SpA FDn waa mda pan yo wad ram bas ooina wow>) oxaxa op wom wre Syn ond yap womp mwy>s onym onom own wapm ny boa sw 200 hy. npp> ow nvny mbapa $25 omdS> oredy mows onan ianinw bd nvdS> wompa taba) ooxy onan ow 195° ww mbnrpn -riya mabnn Ow won prowuenp paya bonew swoD0m hy wp) aaNad may wD amps Any oom wna wx IdInw ny od55n wei vyos ay Sma oy opox annd: oneen 337 by ims qbon 48 nN yaw onin pend ibanew wospn oan Ipys? by ox o> we) may oon tat by woya oc yom wi Sab amp 8D PNIAN) NTT WS I ay q>on wax nso onmn xxi> oar idanew swo200 ny yme’DIp eR DDT -wmd axdbw ow yrnpb mnraw mbzpn aron xbw mbapn by sd) ay qbon cos om Sy mo an ony wR DITA TAN wows pood ay Joon ts wd pnnnd sdtne ny yorpprad Abnna mvy: mess mb ov px ums 1b oD AS YD a? atm Svan anyy onby yyw mm qyod mbnpa nwpad ndoxt ow meyd Soy xbw ayawa ay abn ‘xo omn pend ny pap> mbapm wana a Ss) a ove mbrp w mbnrpn by prosper oT ion nyd Dbl Pw yyy -yya prya yn wx bom om Ox CHAPTER XII 333 ym ox yo am bw no ,zwr was omy yand np abo ox Sop WUNIDWN ODOT Sana wind -bano on wr oxgpa n™y q>o7 8 ox TwRD moent> wba myTbD Ww] AXpN ON WI ID woo ydyw Syxw omin pemdy yer onan ibanww us207 pows? ax aby drm opr aps wem ia odanen awe pestn yews ny Joon 48 oxo mp oF asp wwra tata a nnd ba xb qs oD onw ot penyy monn maxi diy mbapr Syn Spa Sanwad sun2pa ny aroy maw qbon ‘as p> amy abo 8 aXM 71 oD pypan Jno) AWA upna mw ps q7do>1 wy tap Nwo NIT OD TY" wawnip mey> xbw ap qdon ws neo omn pend susspn ny won of OAT YX wasnt od oA Iu. a7 awa pnd xdoS) mann MSs W12 °D On Awp os Ta onn> Fox pri nD nepa> j2 ox xbs od ood omam ay don soxd nbyin O20 Sxpwp nvpad sapad sbw a aon ws neo prand sbsnw ny monna wr ox AN awrd aytoxdp anid unx3 772 yarn 7D o8 xbox mand Sspwe> mwa aa xby mwyw noyann ow ayann bya ox yaar 7a azy> Sypepnr Dov x9 127 ADp yyn> w Send > pans tom bon mind 3x7) O8 IN TWP Mwyd wT ON poxy mwys mosno osm oampion wdoy bw omn pp ny yiand O7N Pa ww Ayan ows AXD 29 7197 OWA pram Dyn a5 amid) orm mew moa waren my qoon 8 nyo omn pad onan banew ss.00 ny boon npon yined mara mpnnwon mbapo mbnpi abnp b> mond DD nea ds maxim pynd> ware wra mwym eee DD mby Sy nronm mewn mwyne ,prmaai mo na yn ww Aa qbon "8 spon yrnp> anonw abmpn msexindy onosona ona: ov DAanD2 on orm wy mennyn mbnpm b> pry why NN Woy myth mbyd ons on °D) jOMYya AND) MDNbor nymd > omdyta anya ona wnyrmmon mapd oy amy ws syn yp Ans ax uns onynd oa aby xd ove joprya noxdon maw raraw sw yo pri arndyim od$5 ory nxpa Stnwad oraax us um xd) Ona onal oavy onyma ndyina opdn inp’ om uns wey ODI MaaM mMomnn ams baw wos07 yD Sy jANSTa opdn sbon 8 xo omni pew ndyin mbapm omed ona qwow onan om>y win nbyinn -p5 myaym oms3 opdn yrned omaon> a Tam ory msi pw sas oxy ay qbom x nyo omn pend sus20n ny 334 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES a7 bon rat bvad andi ow usy mpnneom mbapm boo tm 10 NMS ow Wo DNA Osan n> yd) Syad w nT MpnnwnnA oon onan ory maid omby us2pn aw mosomm mpnz Sx Ime yoy amingd) ims 7p") woo Sstanb mbzpm b> jarnnw MNS JN b> mwyd bop may a7 Oye 13 wow Py) WIN mpnnwon mbapa b> oxxiwd omrya aye 13 wom oad Sy mbapz nw nDNA MrannAn qatw Dd ny DWINT Pw mm °Dd ai 12 Jwor ndynnna ps oxmap nbxab mwyd an> sx> Sanvmd oda ons ow Soy xbdw aos00 a Sy onan ory Soa) oon ona own 715 nym ay qbon 48 oN OX OFPANN JT Ow won qn ANS mM>sInws ow mvyds xd) oon nyo mbapm b> 72%” yn OTN pypa .X> ON JOIN NowoNa Ww sow ond yon none Sy ana dane mom pwdo pra ims ware anew mor owsry Jato by or may ans As mbapz nex Ov TN 13 b> op awa ww ay don 8 nN on pad swo207 hy yya aANPY op ams ody aayn b> pup jo on. oriyn wo OomN pemd ar oTINpA DNA Opn d2aw so NAD UR Hy —~ Sy omn pead ona ann mean vay 4don aN monn Ory. ASP qwro ondi oy ow oxy oT. n> Pow on orynr boa banww osramy swo207 hy od5o95 onatn $53 uns ton paym °p Sy oon arin b> by mbnp aya ow ona yw arate by mm modem mbap bab sya an) ayord) mbap aya ans ps mbap aya ow s»ndup WoT OMe xYndupo OWT yr! AM WAM oN API ox mbzp sav ans) moby wpwnpis ony vor Sy wnnew mbaprz sa ona 3m 3ya) yan Ww ims wo aryd>s AMP 7 AN oYdy MNT Wy on723 OF wD OMS nYobor Tiny wo207 7D by ay woy wnnw xd pros mbrpw ved sy o>0m) onny Annwi> ompos ons In NYNbupD Ow Pa nd nD 17 ,onDy ANnwaAdS yew OFPyA ANTw ODI ONIN omE boa oADy banww owe nv72 pays yt arra pon ps maxis npn paya snoxw mo b> $$5a) .ond jw nA TAN AMDT IDNA nen pyar 7m ony wow ap Sa) ory msiod aon nea odwnd mwyd axy opnnenn b> dyn by Sap opp syyya Ssnwmby nppd oon onan $5 ianmw :an20n hy pbaio by ns a bond idoy 8dr ody odoinn oriym b>) on 5> ns ond yrpem ~ws mbapm nn p> aman) Sanwa ianm Sax TYiaw NIA ory asap nvow bao CHAPTER XII 335 boy xbw on tnxd ow oad yorr ods oxw suo200 my 7) ooIpoa ons mod voyw omy odor oriyn by ppd OP. w>DoV OAM OPI IW Py imMEKa ond. onD osnn> ara menneen mbapan Sap Sap $5 anmw siw207 hy mbrpn b> by) ody oranaim 1a D0 1s ond nw now ImKNa ON opm oman oms $52 anny jomey andin $5 Syn ara mennwnn boa ws oD Onn wd by orans) mbrpn ombw wD07 ws ODI bow ossnn ombwan ond nin none oon oan wow nD many sy wapa mbap $955 ami orm A Pra amy raya mn) wx open ory abs $5 sadp) corms unr wx on oxy ny woD07 n>ynS ainsw now Sy onary ndioy n> omby n> mow $5 ndynn 1a we rat aps mbap> qaoxw orya ay? amt Sy o>ox7 momnow omn xsd Stnend op. men b> wid aboy wndia poy ornayd ynw no Soaw suns0n Ty mbrpn b> 1am omry mynd pam pata way MINX [MN sex apidna ob by on wxrw ap boa opbnm yrned arm mennenn OPPs ommaxim ommbapn pawn jmd> onan iarynm xbw swo207 ny omsi xyndypds sendyvpaw oms mm unx7 imsbo5 ams 55 yds paar AN Yd) 1D) 7A Ara wDDw BD PIN 715 prNAW sbon 78 nyo omn ppm ma cxoxo boa Sanwad wo207 ony mmoipon ones pnyn> ory indwoo non aws onan b> nnd a> mwan Wwe naw ops S23» awapA mapa ad) n9b$ mobnn orn ay mwyi nos pn b> $yad) orp om anni ‘word) Sap yrpny a sn mys npibn mwynw wos my wownpin) aryds am ptory msi) nosnq moder mbap an 7D) | mw mood opiInnt x woD0N ODN OYiyn So) nnn moso7 551 Pw ANS AM aww now jms SD ar boy ovpd woxy dy bap) xobya oat por ards wan bas ap 4>0m ‘a0 yyw mn > Two UX Ar wonM wand) Aen wDd> yp mw nav wIna mw no T'D2 SP IwYP PIDIw DAA Pa wy awa AN > ww NDAD wpwr>pr 73 wy mova > ww none ATA ow) anawn w1Dd> 7) nw man DY bom onawnd 37 nw “asww wearsp wp oT pina odd) oaayn op) aw oay>s am 0>w wpwap 2'T WN) mw 336 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES ABSTRACT OF TAKKANAH The Takkanah is written in the mediaeval poetic-prose style with innumerable references to verses, rendering a translation into another language practically impossible. The introduction recites the woes that have befallen the Jewish people. ‘“‘Many of faint heart, weak by nature’”’ seeing the implements of torture were unable to withstand the trial and vielded their faith, “crossing over the bridge in their distress’. Apparently some of them turned against their former brethren, “bending their bow, making ready their arrow”’ to shoot by their deadly defamations whom- ever they pleased. The people of Israel have thus come into hard times. Unless immediate action be taken danger would result to the whole community. It was their duty to take counsel and to save themselves and theirs before the evil fell. Already there were cases of murder and riot here and there, and no effective protest had been raised. If ‘“‘the communities were made into a single union with a common treasury” they would be in a posi- tion to defend themselves, and to bring punishment on such as attacked them. Of what value would their money be to them if there lives were in danger? Since there was no leader taking upon himself the duty of protecting ‘‘the sheep of the Lord”’, the delegates has assembled at the call of the Jewish Community of Barcelona to take counsel in the critical situation. It was evident that the matter could not be left to the individual communities to deal with separately, as singly they were far too weak for the task. The only means for saving themselves in the situation was to use their money power, and they feared that “if one community will not help the other, we will be unable to bring the money which is annually assessed against us to the treasury of the King” and that ‘we will appear ungrateful”’ in his eyes and the eyes of the princes. It was therefore necessary to perfect an organization which should be responsible for the funds. A commission would be appointed to wait on CHAPTER XII 337 the King" in order to secure his assent to the formation of the union, and the ordinance which were enacted by the council. The commission was to hold office for five years. They were to strive to obtain from the King the following kindness: 1. That he should intercede with ‘“‘the King of Nations, the Pope’’,? either in writing or by sending “many and worthy ambassadors”’, so that he might grant the Jews the following: a. A decree forbidding the masses of the Christians to fall upon the Jews whenever a natural visitation, such as a plague or famine, occurs. They should rather seek the favor of the Lord by good deeds of charity and kindness, and ‘‘not add transgression to their sins” by destroying the Jews whom, according to their own faith, it was their duty to protect. b. A law among his Decretales forbidding the Christi- ans to make attacks on the Jews because of alleged desecrations of the host.4 Such a case had occurred shortly before at Seville. The alleged offender should be tried properly and punished if found guilty, but the Pope was to forbid under pain of excommunication any general attack on the Jews. Moreover he was to declare im- possible the miracles that were usually alleged with re- gard to the desecration of the host, and which were relied upon to incite the mob to violence. He was to make clear “that any one who believes in all such things is a heretic against his own faith and laws, which command that they leave us a remnant in the land.’’ t Peter IV (1336-1387). Alfonso IV whom Schorr mentions as the king at the time ceased to reign in 1336. 2 Innocent VI. (1352-1362). 3 The suffering of the Jews as a result of the Black Death is in- describable. The persecutions appear to have begun in Catalonia and spread rapidly throughout Europe. See J. E. III, 233. 4 Accusations in regard to the desecration of the host seem to have begun about the middle of the thirteenth century. The particular outbreak at Seville is not otherwise mentioned to my knowledge. 338 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN.THE MIDDLE AGES c. A decree forbidding the placing of the Jewish quarter in a state of seige about the time of Easter. He was to declare it a grievous sin to pain the Jews in any other way than that declared by law, namely that they should re- main in their houses behind closed doors “‘on that day.’ d. A limitation on the power of the Inquisition, de- claring a Jew to be guilty of heresy only when he denies some tenet of his own faith, as for instance the existence of God, or the Divine origin of the Torah. But no Jew should be subject to the charge of heresy for supporting heretical views of a Christian which are in consonance with the Jewish faith. Indeed such a one might be sub- ject to punishment by the secular power but was to be exempt from the Inquisition. If the Commissioners should find themselves unable to obtain this concession, they were to seek a decree ordering the Inquisition to furnish the accused Jew a statement of the charges against him, and the Jew was to be granted the right of’ Counsel. Ordinarily the Inquisition defended its denial of both elemental rights of an accused person by expressing the fear that if the accused should be a person of influence he might escape punishment if he were granted these rights, but since there could be no fear of that in the case of Jews, who were all without influence, it was patent injustice to deny them this right. « Jews were forbidden to show themselves on the streets on Good Friday. A church council held at Mayence, in 1259, forbade them to appear on the streets on that day under penalty of a fine of one mark. At another synod at Ashaffenburg, 1292, the Jews were forbidden to come near the doors of their houses or to look out of their windows under pain of a fine of one mark. Another synod held at Prague, 1347, commanded the Jews to keep away from the streets and remain in their homes. 2 In April 1238, Gregory IX appointed the first inquisitor in Aragon. See Lea, History of the Inquisition 1.302. 3 To defend one accused by the Inquisition was to make oneself liable to complicity in the dread crime of fautorship of heresy. In- nocent III in a decretal embodied in the Canon Law, had ordered ad- vocates to lend no aid or counsel to heretics or to understate their case in litigation. Lea, ibid. 1.444. . CHAPTER XII 339 e. Furthermore “let them obtain the further declara- tion that if a Christian should desire to return a stolen thing which he robbed or took by violence from one of the children of Israel, he shall be obliged to return it to the Jew, either from hand to hand, or through the priests, but he shall not free himself from guilt by returning it to a creditor of the Jew”’. ‘All that has been described above will have to be accomplished through our lord, the King, and his ambassa- dors, but since we know (best) what our needs are, for “the heart knows its own bitterness’? we have decided to send men of wisdom and understanding who will go thither and be in charge of the matter so that they may obtain for us the decrees necessary for the above-mentioned matters in so far as they can obtain them.” 2. Furthermorewe have decided that ‘‘the Commissioners shall have power in regard to all the said matters, and all matters dependent on them or relevant to them, to choose intercessors and agents in any place or kingdom, and to strive to secure any sort of improvement at the hands of our Lord, the King, or any prince or ruler, or any person in the world. 3. Furthermore it was agreed, that while it was impossible to carry out Jewish Jaw, especially where it involved capital punishment, still it were well to ‘‘cleanse away every Malshin and informer who will be found in any one ‘of the cities or to pour out evil on him in accordance with his wickedness in the judgement of the Commissioners and to make him known as a Malshin and drive him forth. Provided however, that the defamation is in regard to a public matter, from which there may result, Heaven forbid, harm to all our people, but not if it is merely a private defamation from which no harm can result.” Similarly the Communities were to have a common fund to oppose those inciting the popular to violence against them since “evil of this sort spreads”’..: But no notice was to be taken of merely private quarrels between indi- 340 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES vidual Jews and Gentiles, if no public harm could result therefrom. 4. Furthermore the sCommissioners were to strive to obtain a decision of the Cortes that if ‘“‘anyone slay a Jew, or try to incite others to violence against them’”’ he should not be given asylum in the territory of any of the nobles of princes, but each one must drive him forth from his Jand. 5. Whenever the nobles and princes would gather to form a Cortes, the Commissioners were to send their agents to guard the interests of the Communities, or the Com- missioners themselves might attend them. This only applied to the Cortes of the whole kingdom. 6. ‘‘ Furthermore have we agreed that they should pursue this endeavor about the ruling of the Cortes for the five years (of their term).”’ 7. ““Furthermore have we agreed, that whereas the tax-collectors have of late gone beyond all bounds making sorrowful the souls of our brethren in the matter of their extortions and they have bound them in affliction and in iron, so that well-nigh unto death do they cry from their prisons, therefore have we agreed that the Com- missioners should endeavor to obtain a decree from the King, forbidding his tax-collectors who rule over our people in the matter of taxes, to cause anyone bodily pain, except in the manner which the King and his ancestors have been in the habit of employing heretofore. 8. ‘Furthermore have we agreed that the Commissioners shall endeavor to obtain a decree from our lord, the King, that the Communities should not be compelled to pay any salary to the collectors of the tax or asignaciones since theic pay used to come from the treasury of the King and not from the Communities. 9. “Furthermore they shall endeavor to beg the King to abolish the special tax for the Duke, for, although we are his, there is no need for this tax now. For it was CHAPTER XII 341 originally made for the Viscount (of Avila?) at the request of the Communities, and at present there is no need of it. 10. ‘‘Furthermore they shall obtain a decree from our King, fortified by an oath, that he should not be able to levy any special tax on the Communities or on any _indi- vidual Community from this day forth. For when the Communities bring their money to the coffers of the King they find grace in his eyes and in the eyes of his counsellors and princes; also if they are in poor condition our lord, the King, may be generous to them in accordance with his proper custom, which would not be the case if the taxes were assigned. 11. ‘‘Since the heralds of our lord, the King, demand redemption money from any Jew whom they meet walking innocently, and if he is unable to redeem himself they cast him ‘with thrust on thrust’ ‘and with the garment they strip also the mantle’, therefore we have agreed that the commissioners should obtain and acquire a decree from our lord, the King, similar to the former rule which a few individuals sought and obtained from him now two years past, but which matter was never carried out be- cause they were unable to supply the redemption money. 12. ‘‘Furthermore we have agreed that thev should seek to alleviate from the communities the burden of the expense of the beds (or the staffs) which the courtiers of the King make and deniand from us, since it is a heavy burden upon us and there is no gain to the King in hurting us and wast- ing our money. ° 13. “‘Furthermore have we decided to obtain a decree from our lord, the King, promising that he will not appoint any Comisares (special investigators) to examine any matter relating to Jews. That can be left to the Ordinares (or- dinary judges). For the Jews are weak and it is unneces- sary to put them in the hands of a hard master; and also in that way (by appointing special investigators) the ex- penses increase without any gain for the King while the Jews grow poorer. The appointment of the Comuisares 342 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES should only be made at the request of the chosen Com- mission. 14.‘‘Furthermore titey shall endeavor to obtain a decree from the King that no investigation shall be made merely at the request of the Fiscal (treasurer or financial agent), unless there is a claimant in the matter, that is to say a Clamador legittmo. And even if originally there was a true complainant and he then withdrew the complaint or the demand, the F7scal shall have no right to pursue him in order to make him pay because of the fine. So also the Fiscal shall not be able to prevent the Ordinares (from carrying out their wish), if they desire to arbitrate the matter, or if they wish to forego it completely in their kindness.”’ 15. The Commissioners shall furthermore obtain a de- cree that the Scribes and the court-heralds should not be permitted to act as Counsellors in any matter of quarrel or contention or in any complaint which one man has against another. They should act only as is befitting their office and profession. 16. “Furthermore have we agreed to ask our lord, the King, to compel each community of those taking part in this synod to pay the share which is assigned to it in accordance with the division which is made between us. They shall be compelled to pay these expenses in the same manner they are compelled to pay the taxes of the King, whether by punishment of body or property, or by excommunication ot ban. The said compulsion is to be executed at the order of the Commissioners and with their agreement and at the expense of the Community which should refuse to pay its portion. 17. “Since not all the communities have joined us till this day, some of them in their letters making it clear that the work is pleasing to them, and that they are ready to come up and take counsel with us, nevertheless did not come at the designated time, perhaps because of unavoid- able accidents; while the leaders of others have informed CHAPTER XII 343 us that the work is proper in their eyes but they did not succeed in joining us in one federation; while we need to co-operate in regard to some generally useful matters, and it is noc fit that we should spend money and that they should get their share of the benefit sitting comfortably in their homes and not giving their share of the expendi- ture; therefore have we decreed that in regard to all those .decrees and customs and ways which the Commis- sioners will obtain, from which any improvement will come to those Communities (which are not represented), the Commissioners shall obtain a decree from our lord, the King, compelling also the unrepresented Communities to pay their share of the expenses of such affairs in accordance with the advantage which accrues to them in the eyes of the Commissioners. 18. “Furthermore have we agreed that we should obtain a decree from our lord the King, that if any member of any of the Communities whether of those who are taking part in this synod or of those who are not, shall in the view of the Commissioners be guilty of attempting to nullify anything that was undertaken in common or to_ nullify or lessen the power of the Commissioners or any of the Takkanot or Decisions upon which we have agreed,—all the Communities shall be obliged to separate themselves from him and to punish him and to conduct themselves toward him with all the severity and in the manner in which the Commissioners will agree and of which they will notify them. And in this way they shall be able to raise all the expenses which seem necessary to them for the ex- penses of the Communities who are combining. 19. “Moreover since the matter of the said confederation which the Communities have taken to their hearts and decided to form for their common safety, can only succeed through the impeccable character of the Commissioners, therefore have we agreed that no person shall attempt to obtain a letter from our lord, the King, giving him a place and a name among these Commissioners, or in any of the said matters. Nor shall one be permitted to make 344 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES any other endeavor within the five years or after them, if they should agree to, prolong the time, under pain of fine and excommunication, and that all the Communities shall separate themselves from him and shall deal with him as they do with a Malshin or an informer. 20. “The Commissioners will continue to work in accor- dance with the power that is given them to disburse the funds of the communities, even after the expiration of their term in accordance with the way in which they incur them in the work during their term. 21. ‘‘Furthermore have we agreed to obtain a decree from our lord, the King, or from his appointees, to establish all the said provisions, and that he should fine the one who transgresses them such a fine as he may think fit. 22. ‘‘Furthermore we explain that wherever it is directed in this document that the Commissioners obtain a decree or decrees from our lord, the King, they have the option of obtaining the decree in person or through others as they may see fit. 23. “Furthermore have we decreed that the Commission- ers who will take action in all the above-mentioned matters and who will have power in regard to all these matters in accordance with the provision made, that is to say in re- gard to all matters which are of general importance to all the Communities, shall be (chosen) in the following manner: two for the Communities of Catalonia, two for the Communities of Aragon, one for the Communities of Valencia and one for the Communities of the isle of Majorca, if they will agree to this; and that the two delegates for Catalonia shall be those on whom the Com- munities uniting on this decision have agreed, namely En Crescas Solomon and anyone whom he choose to act with him; the one from Valencia shall be Don Judah Eleazar, or anyone whom he shall choose in his stead; and for the other kingdoms those upon whom they will agree in their choice. CHAPTER XII 345 24. “Moreover since the Communities of Aragon have not yet joined, therefore have we agreed that the two Commissioners from Catalonia or others acting for them shall have power to admit them and to come to an agree- ment with them regarding all the conditions and ways which appear proper for joining with them, whether in regard to the division of the expenses, as to the manner of sharing it among ourselves, or in regard to the choosing’ of men who will endeavor to carry out the purpose of the said union, or their manner of action or the power which is given to them, and in general, in regard to everything . that will appear to them necessary for the completion of the said union; and all that they agree upon with them shall be established and accepted on us and upon all who join with us. 25. “Furthermore have we agreed that all the Commis- sioners shall be obliged to look after and to strive to carry out the duty of their office and everything which is placed on them; and they may not lighten their burden but they shall be obliged to strive and to act in accordance with the intentions of the Communities which have entrusted to them under oath all the work of protecting their gathering and their affairs. 26. ‘Furthermore have we agreed that if it should happen that the Commissioners or any one of them should be unable to look after the affairs which have been placed on them, they may appoint others in their place and then the power of the proxies shall be like that of the principals in that matter or in any special matters which they shall agree to leave in their hands. 27. “Furthermore have we agreed that everyone of the Communities which are hereby uniting, shall issue a herem—in such a formula as the Commissioners will decide upon—a herem upon themselves and upon all the Com- munities which are hereby uniting, and upon all who will join them, to act in accordance with all the customs, ordinances and ways which the representatives of the 346 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES Communities have agreed upon and have written in a document signed by them, and with whatever the said Commissioners may choose, by the authority which is given them by the said representatives of the Communities; and whoever transgresses these ordinances knowingly shall be declared excommunicate and anathema in all the Holy Communities until the Commissioners who carry out the duties of their office free him. Besides all these detailed matters in which power and authority have been given to the Commissioners in accordance with what has been described above, we have furthermore agreed that if they think that the Communities require something through which a general gain may be derived, they shall have the power and the right to strive to obtain a decree or decrees which may be needed for the purpose. 28. “‘Furthermore have we agreed that wherever powel has been granted the Commissioners they may incur what- ever expenditures they may deem necessary for these things, and the Communities who unite on this shall be obliged to pay their portion of whatever they have spent in ac- cordance with the division among them. 29. ‘‘Furthermore have we agreed that the Commis- sioners shall be obliged to give an account of their receipts and expenditures only to their several kingdoms, that is to say, the representatives of Catalonia shall report to the Communities of Catalonia and those of Aragon to the people of Aragon in accordance with what they agree among -themselves, similarly for Valencia and Majorca. 30. “Furthermore have we agreed that we shall strive with all our power to obtain a decree from our lord, the King, to permit the Jews who live under his government to remove from the places belonging to the King to those under the knights or wherever they may choose, just as this right was given them of yore and that he should set at naught the decree which is in existence at the present day. ‘‘To all the said decrees and all the said matters have we, the undersigned, agreed and we have taken it upon our- CHAPTER XII 347 selves to execute all the documents in this regard which will be necessary after we have obtained permission from our lord, the King, but we have written all this merely as a record of proceedings which took place in the month of Tebet of the year 5115 of the Creation. We have written and signed this we Moses and Crescas by the authority given us for this in a document executed by the notary, En Marco Castafiero on the twenty-fifth of September of the year 1354, Common Era, and I, Judah, by the authority conferred upon me by a document, exe- cuted by the notary, Guillem Berndt de Ximo, on the first day of September, 1354, Common Fra. And all is firm and established.”’ Moses Nathan Haii Crescas Solomon Judah Eleazar. CHAPTER XIII SYNOD OF CASTILIAN JEWS OF 1432 The statutes adopted at Valladolid in 1432 have come down to us in a Paris manuscript. Their language is Spanish, but they are written in Hebrew characters. In - 1869 Kayserling gave an abstract of their contents in the Jahrbuch fuer die Geschichte der Juden (4.265 ff.). In 1885-6 the distinguished Spanish scholar, Don Francisco Fernandez y Gonzalez published the text with a transla- tion into modern Spanish and with notes in the Boletin of the Madrid Academy, VII (1885) 145-189, 275-305, 395- 413; VIII (1886) 10-27. The work was reprinted in 1886 under the title ‘‘Ordenamiento formado por los Procuradores des las aljamas Hebreas, Valladolid, 1432.’’ In the Revue des Etudes Juives 13.187 ff. Isidore Loeb gave a descrip- tion of the Spanish Jewish communities based on the material found in these statutes. An abstract of his article was published in Hebrew, in Ha-Asif, 3, 133-147. In the following pages an abstract of the document is given. A full translation is as yet impossible since the document requires editing by a Romance scholar. While the text is thus still in a poor condition, the book is nevertheless of great importance as throwing light on the pass to which the Spanish Jewish communities had come in the first part of the fifteenth century. It is a picture far from pleasing that we have before’ us, but not the less interesting or important for that reason. The first lines are missing in the manuscript but they must have read approximately as indicated. t While the editor possessed a considerable knowledge ofHebrew, nevertheless his information on rabbinic works was not quite sufficient for the needs of the work. Thus he translates the expression ] NX Nwy3 “the last tenth of the month’’ instead of ‘‘the last ten days of the month.’”’ He could not be expected to recognize the Talmudic expres- sion Twya 7a\y ay 7INvon) and so he is led to read wysa for mvy3a, which makes no sense. CHAPTER XIII 349 (At the command of the King, the Rabbi of the Court, Don Abraham, invited the communities) to send trusted men from their Communities who would keep the paths of righteousness and with whom he could take “sweet counsel’’. And the Communities did as he commanded and some of them sent letters to the said Rabbi confirming and accepting everything which he would command and ordain, and some sent trusted representatives to represent them. The princes of the people were gathered together, the people of the God of Abraham, in the Court of our lord, the King, in the city of Valladolid. And in the last ten? days of the month of Jyyar of this, the above-mentioned year 5192, in the said city of Valladolid, we, the undersigned, were present in the great synagogue which is in the Jewish Quarter of the Community of Valladolid, when there gathered in the presence of the honored prince, Don Abra- ham, the Rabbi of the Court of our lord, the King, various scholars who came from various communities, worthy men clothed with authority, certified by credentials from the different communities of the domain of our lord, the King, which they presented before us, the undersigned. And there were present also some worthy men who go to the Court of our lord, the King. They held meetings among themselves in regard to a Takkanah which they decided was to deal with certain definite subjects and other matters, which are for the service of the Creator, the glory of the holy Torah, the service of the King, and the success and welfare of the Communities. This ordinance was agreed upon unanimously without anyone dissenting and it was completed on the first day of Sivan of the above- mentioned year, 5192. The text of the Takkanah follows immediately on our signatures. In witness whereof we have signed our names to it: Isaac Ha-Kohen b. Joseph Ha-Kohen b. Crispini Baruch b. Abraham ibn Sahl. 1 This expression which seems to have puzzled the editor of the document is very common in Judaeo-Spanish writings, cf. Kerem Hemer bei, 350 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES In previous times there were ordained in the holy com- munities of the dominion of our lord) the King, general Takkanot and regulations which were to be observed by all the Communities and those who were at their head, so that they might establish Takkanot and choose proper paths in which all the people of the Communities might walk, thus was the Torah established on its proper foun- dation and every Community was settled in quiet. For some time past, however, for various reasons no general Takkanah has been enacted by means of which the Com- munities might be led, as a result of which much harm has befallen the communities and there has come about disorder in their management. Therefore have we, the aforementioned delegates by virtue of the authority given by our lord, the King to the worthy Rabbi, Don Abraham, and by virtue of the authority given is by our Sages to attend to the arrangements of our own Communities and by the authority given us by the Communities, we have established this ordinance and agreement which we have divided into five chapters as will be explained, the follow- ing being the text: . I “This is the gate of the Lord, the righteous shall enter into it.’”? The first of our decisions and the beginning of our Takkanot has for its object the maintenance of the students of our Torah. For it is upon the Torah that the world is founded, as the Sages say. “‘On three things the world stands, on the Torah, on Divine Service, and on kindly acts’’.?, Whereas we saw that the hands of the students of the Torah have slackened in most places, and that they obtain their liveli- hood only with extreme pain, and that for this reason the pupils are becoming constantly fewer, and even the children of the primary school are idle in many places, because their parents cannot afford to pay the salary of those who might t Ps. 118.20 2 Abot 1.5 CHAPTER XIII 351 teach them the Torah, and the Torah would almost have been forgotten in Israel because of these reasons, and in order to “bring back the crown to its ancient glory’ and that there may be found scholars in Israel and that the students may increase in the Communities; therefore do we ordain that each of the Communities of the whole kingdom of Castile shall be obliged to establish and provide a Voluntary Fund for Talmud Torah in the following manner. For every head of big cattle which is slaughtered as kasher among them and for them, they should pay for Talmud Torah five maravedis; for every calf or heifer which weighs one hundred pounds, which are equivalent to twenty-five arreldes, they should pay for Talmud Torah two mara- , vedis; and for each head of small cattle a wether, a sheep, a he- -goat or a she-goat, they should pay one maravedi. For each small goat or sheep, weighing less than four arreldes they should pay for Talmud Torah one coronado. If it weigh four arreldes or more, they should pay five pence. For each jug of wine which is sold at retail—(if more than five jars are sold at one time, it may be considered wholesale),—they should pay to the Talmud Torah three pence per jar. If over five jars are sold whether to indi- vidual Jews or to Jewish muleteers and _ traders they should pay to the said Talmud Torah two, dinars. But of the wine which is sold to Christians they should pay half a penny for each jar, to the Talmud Torah. Whoever makes a wedding shall pay ten maravedis within the wedding week. For a circumcision they shall pay to the Talmud Torah ten maravedis as soon as the child reaches the stage when he is not to be considered any longer a nefel.* If one of either sex dies above the age of ten years, his or her heirs shall give to the Talmud Torah the dress which was worn above the under-shirt, or ten maravedis as the heirs may choose. Whoever gives more than the above amount deserves a blessing. The tax is to be paid t Yoma 69a. A child ceases to be a Nefel when it has demonstrated by living thirty days that it is likely to live and that it has had full embryonic development. See Sabbath 135b. 352 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES in the coins current or in use at the time of payment. The above-mentioned payments of the bridegroom or Of one celebrating a circumcision or in the case of death or not to be collected from such as derive their maintenance from charity or such as are fit to receive charity in the opin- ion of the treasurers who be appointed over these taxes. We ordain that each community shall be obliged to assemble by announcement according to their custom, ten days before the expiration of the terms of the farmers of the wine and meat tax. And they shall not disband until they have let out the tax for the Talmud Torah Fund or they shall appoint a trustee or trustees into whose hands they may bring the money so that the trustee or trustees may hold it in trust until the tax is farmed out. Each Com- munity shall be obliged every year to choose two treasurers over the said Talmud Torah Fund, so that through their hands there may be accomplished whatever the Rabbi of the Court may ordain or command in regard to it. In those places where there is no tax on meat and wine we ordain that within thirty days after the day when this ordinance is shown to them, they shall assemble by an- nouncement as has been mentioned and establish an ordinance in regard to the Talmud Torah in accordance with what has been set forth above. Moreover do we ordain that in those places where there are less than ten families, there shall be established the said Talmud Torah Fund as in all the other communities in the manner described. That amount they shall be obliged to deliver each year so long as this ordinance is in force to the treasurers of the Community to whom they pay ordinary taxes and they shall take a receipt for the amount which they have given. In those places where there are ten families or more, al- though they pay taxes to another community, they shall be obliged to name among themselves a treasurer in whose hands they shall entrust the 7almud Torah Fund and they shall keep the money until the Rabbi of the Court shall give orders as to how it should be used so that the said CHAPTER XIII 353 Talmud Torah Fund may be in general use throughout the Communities of the Kingdom of Castile. And we ordain that neither a community nor any individu- al shall be authorized to use the funds of the Talmud Torah, even a single maravedi of it, for any need that may arise whether public or private, either as a loan or in any other way, but that all the money should rather be in cash ready to be used for the purpose which the Rabbi of the Court shall order. But in those places where there are Rabbis, teaching the Torah appointed over the Community they may give and pay to the said Rabbior to the pupil their maintenance from the said Talmud Torah Fund. And if there is any money left of the Talmud Torah Fund after the above men- tioned amounts have been paid, they shall be kept for use as the Rabbi ot the Court will ordain as has been said. Moreover we ordain that if the Rabbi of the Court see fit he may ordain that such communities as have a Rabbi shall pay him his salary in a different manner and should not use for that purpose the funds of the’ Talmud Torah. ‘They shall then pay the salary of the Rabbi from the taxes on meat and wine or from the income of the Hakdesh' or rents from houses and the like if they have any. PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS Every community of fifteen families shall maintain a proper teacher for the children of primary school age who shall instruct them in Scripture. They shall allow him a reasonable salary according to his needs. The fathers of the children shall pay the teacher each according to their means, and if the amount paid by the fathers is insufficient for the maintenance of the teacher, the community shall be obliged to pay the remainder necessary for his liveli- hood. t This term which in the Talmud denotes Temple property was used in the Middle Ages of funds left for charitable purposes. As used in this ordinance the term seems to refer only to endowed funds. 354 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES RABBIS A community having forty families or more shall be obliged to endeavor so. far as possible, to maintain among themselves a Rabbi who will teach them Halakot and Aggadot. The community must maintain him reasonably. His salary shall be paid from the income of the tax on meat and wine and the income from the Hakdesh, if there is any, or from the Talmud Torah Fund, so that he should not have to beg his livelihood from any of the leaders of the Community, so that he may reprove them and guide them in all things which pertain to the service of the Creator, blessed be He. If the community and the Rabbi can come to no agreement as to the amount of the salary they shall be obliged to give him the income of the Talmud Torah of the locality and then to increase the amount as may be ordered by the Rabbi of the Court. + TALMUDIC ACADEMY Moreover we ordain that each Rabbi shall maintain a Talmudical academy where those desirous of learning may study the Halaka. He shall lecture at such hours as the Rabbis are wont to lecture. NUMBER OF PUPILS PER TEACHER Whereas according to the Talmudic law no teacher is permitted to teach more than twenty-five pupils,? unless he have an assistant, therefore we ordain that no teacher shall teach Scriptures to more than twenty-five children, * The most important function of the Rabbi is that of teaching. It is evident from section 2 that the judges were other men and that only in certain cases was the Rabbi called upon to act with them. 2 Cf. Baba Batra 21. This ordinance follows the view of Mai- monides (Yad, Laws of Talmud Torah 2.5.) and of R. Jonah who is quoted in Nimmuke Joseph, ad loc. that the numbers permitted in the Talmud to individual teachers and to assistants were maximum num- bers; Tosafot ad loc. and Asheri differ from this opinion and hold that one teacher may be used for any number of pupils less than forty, an assistant was required if the number exceed forty but was less than fifty, and two teachers were required for fifty or more. CHAPTER XIII 355 but that if he have an assistant he may teach forty in accordance with the law of the Talmud.t| A community having fifty children shall be obliged to maintain two teachers; the same law applied to any number above forty. PRAYERS Whereas prayer is a most important part of the service of the Lord and we have learned by tradition that the verse ‘‘to serve him with all your heart’”? refers to prayers ;' and our Sages said furthermore, One’s prayer is only heard when it is recited in the Synagogue;4 and that prayer with the community is the more acceptable;5 moreover it is im- possible to recite the Kaddish or Kedushah except in the presence of ten people,°so that R. Gamaliel freed his slave in order to complete the necessary quorum of ten although he who frees his servant transgresses a positive commandment;? and whereas there are places where although there are ten adult males, yet they do not gather in order to pray publicly; therefore do we ordain that any community hav- ing ten families or more shall establish a place for prayers. They shall either buy or hire a house for that purpose so that they may not interrupt the prayers even for a single day. And we ordain that in those places which have twenty families or less a fine shall be imposed on any- one who fails to come to public prayers in the’ morning or evening unless he is prevented by some valid reason. Moreover we ordain that they should take heed in the synagogue that no one lift his hand against his neighbor and that each son of Israel beware lest his heart be exalted to smite and to insult his neighbor. Therefore we ordain that if any Jew strike his neighbor in the Synagogue or in a place fixed for prayer, whether he strike him in the face or hit him with his fist, or catch him by the hair of t Ibid. a> Deut. 14713. thd 0. Othasa: 4 Berakot 6a. 5 Comp. Berakot 8a. 6 Shulhan Aruk, Orah Hayyim 55.1. 7 Gittin 38b. (In our texts the story is told of R. Eliezer). 356 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES his head or of his beard, or draw a weapon in the Synagogue wounding his neighbor in the hand or in any other part of the body,* he shall pay for each time he assaulted him two hundred maravedis, one half of which shall be given to the Talmud Torah Fund and the other half shall be dis- tributed among the poor as charity, or in such a way as the judges shall designate. If he wounded. his neighbor with a knife,a stone, or any other implement that can cause death, he shall pay in each instance three hundred mara- vedis, which shall be distributed in the manner described. These punishments are to be understood to be only the penalties for the profanation of the Synagogue. Il. THE ELECTION OF JUDGES AND OTHER OFFICERS Whereas the number of scholars has become small, and those who are fit to act as judges have become few, so that there are only a few Communities in the kingdom which have a court of three who are fit to act as judges in these times in accordance with Talmudic law; and whereas our forefathers were constrained because of this to go be- yond the law of the Talmud in their ordinances concerning the election of judges, ? and since unless there are authorized judges in each city to try claims and complaints and to pu- nish transgressors, there will be chaosso that neither men nor women will be safe, for the world depends on three things: on justice, on truth, and on peace,’ and where there is no true Torah, there is no peace; therefore have we ordained and agreed that in each community they shall choose judges to decide their cases as has been said and the members of the community shall accept them as judges. But they shall choose the most fit and the most worthy that can be found in the locality for the Torah often warns us in regard to this * Comp. Takkanah of R. Tam on this subject above, Chapter IV, Text A. 2 Any arrangement for the popular election of judges was of neces- sity non-Talmudic. In Palestine the authorization to act as judge had to come either from the Patriarch or the Synhedrion; in Babylonia, it usually was given by the Resh Galuta although the academies seem also to have claimed the right to confer this power. 8 Abot 1.18, CHAPTER XIII 357 matter therefore do we ordain that any community which at present has no judges shall be obliged to assemble in the usual meeting place according to the customary an- nouncement, within ten days’ from the day when this Takkanah is read. In those places where there are judges, they shall be obliged to gather within ten days before the completion of the term of the incumbent judges, and elect new judges for the coming year. They shall follow this rule every year so long as this ordinance shall be in force. An anathema shall be pronounced binding all those who are choosing the judges to consider only what will be pleas- ing to ‘Him who dwelleth in Heaven....’’ The electors shall choose those who are most worthy and fit in the community for this office and the same refers to all other officers, such as investigators and treasurers and those who look into the public needs and any other officers which the Community will choose. As soon as the herem has been pronounced they shall begin to discuss the matter and if they agree so much the better. If they do not agree they shall deliberate for the following three days and no one shall leave the meeting except for the purpose of eating or drinking or some other essential matter. If they do not agree within three days they shall remain for eight days, day and night, in that place, none of them leaving it except to eat or drink or for some necessary reason as described. If they cannot come to any agreement within the said time they shall notify the Rabbi of the Court who shall select judges, and the community and their judges shall be obliged to carry out the order of the Rabbi of the Court. This procedure shall be followed in the election of judges or of any other officials; and such official shall hold his position for the whole year. * We further ordain that no officer may appoint any judge or any other officer without the consent of the community, or the majority thereof, and that the proposed officer must be mentioned by name (before the electorate). Any * For a similar procedure see the responsum of R. Meir b. Baruch, quoted in Res. Maim. Kinyan 27, 358 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES election held in any other way than that prescribed is hereby declared void. DUTIES AND POWERS OF JUDGES We further ordain that whoever is appointed in each community shall have the power as long as this Takkanah is in effect, to judge any dispute, contentions or quarrels which may arise between man and man, according to Talmudic law. They shall have the power of imposing fines and punishment with the consent of the Rabbi and three of the most worthy of the “Best Men”’ of the city. 7? They shall however keep in mind the privilege granted by our lord, the King, to the said Rabbi of the Court, Don Abraham. Moreover anyone who feels himself too severly dealt with may appeal to the said Rabbi for redress. CUALIFICATION OF JUDGES We further ordain that the judges of the community must not be related to each other? s")0 ¢-enee 10 6) 2 6,.% Th 25k eee eee RULES OF PROCEDURE We further ordain that the judges shall fix a place for trying cases three days in the week, and that they shall observe the rules concerning judges, that they shall compel the defendant to come before them and do justice to the plaintiff. The litigants shall be obliged to come on the summons of the judges; and should either fail to appear he shall pay to the Charity Fund for the first offense a gold piece, for the second offense three gold pieces, and for the third offense ten gold pieces, beside such punishment as the judges may inflict on him. CASES WHERE JUDGES ARE LITIGANTS We further ordain that if any Jew or Jewess have a complaint against any judge or any judge has a case against * This would establish a court of seven in criminal cases. Courts of seven were not otherwise unknown in Jewisn law, see Sanhedrin 11.1. See also above p. 156, note 2, 2 Cf. Jer. Sanhedrin 21c. CHAPTER XIII 359 any member of the community, that judge shall be obliged to appear with his opposing litigant before one of the judges, his colleagues. If there is no other judge in the Community, the Community shall be obliged to provide for them one or more judges within three days to try the case. All the parties shall be obliged to carry out the orders of the judge or judges. The same procedure shall be followed if the judges are relatives of one of the litigants or friends or enemies to one of them in the sense of Talmudic law. No judge shall be permitted to try any case in which he, persnonally, or one of his relatives is involved unless the litigant has accepted him in the prescribed manner.* JUDGES TO HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER TAX-LISTS We further ordain that no judge shall be empowered to interfere by means of his judicial authority in the matter of the tax-lists or in the distribution of the taxes, but he may try cases arising among the members of the community in regard to taxes. SPECIAL JUDGES We ordain that if a Community feel that they do not want to entrust the differences arising among them to their judges, and there are differences among them requiring the attention of another judge, and they petition the Rabbi of the Court to send them judges, declaring that to. be the desire of the majority, counting both by persons and by wealth, and if it appear to the Rabbi to be an emergency which if not met will result in harm to the community, he shall choose a God-fearing man, for the time for which the Community request him, and the Community shall be obliged to accept his decisions. But if the majority of the community do not make such a petition to the Rabbi of the Court, he shall not send any judge against the will of the Community. APPEALS Regarding appeals, every judge shall be obliged to grant an appeal to the Rabbi of the Court within reasonable t See Sanhedrin 3.2. 360 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES time to the ‘party demanding it. The appellant shall give guarantees that he will cover the expenses incurred and shall take an oath that he makes the appeal because he feels himself misjudged, and not merely to delay the execution of justice. WRITTEN BRIEFS Since if one of the litigants were permitted to write down his grievance and bring them to Court, he would probably write more than is neccessary, perhaps even indulging in insults, which would result in more experises and dis- putes, and whereas those who instruct others to plead in certain ways are included under the rule that he who teaches another what to plead injures the community and he who teaches them to plead falsely is a sinner,' therefore have we decreed that no litigant shall submit written briefs to the Court without having received permission from the local judge. Even in cases in which a brief is per- mitted it must be in keeping with propriety, without injuri- ous words or insults against anyone, and must be signed by the person who drew it up, and the one presenting the brief shall state under oath that it is the signature of the person who drew it up and that no one else drew it up for him. Any brief presented in any other way will not be accepted by the judge. We further ordain that no one shall give a litigant any arguments or causes to plead, unless he is given permission in writing by the Court to do so. Whoever will without permission of the Court, help a litigant who is not a relative of his, with argu- ments, shall lose his stipend from the Talmud Torah Fund if he is a scholar; and if the pleadings suggested were false, he shall be proclaimed an evil counsellor. If he is a man who does not receive any stipend ‘he shall be fined as much as appear just to the Court and to the Rabbi. TAKING TESTIMONY AGAINST JUDGES. Every communal scribe shall be obliged to record and take the evidence which anyone may give against the * Compare Abot 1.8. See especially commentary of Maimonides, and also Ketubot 52b, 86a. CHAPTER XIII 361 dayyan or against anyone else who is not involved in the suit which is pending before the dayyan (?) between the day when the suit is brought and the third day following including the whole of the latter, and if the defendant is not willing to make a reply within the given time, the suit is to be decided in favor of the plaintiff as not contested and he should write in the record that the defendant was not willing to make any reply, and hence he shall be ob- liged to summon the dayyan or the party against whom he the said evidence has been given, and he shall have another witness with him on each of the said three days. If the scribe disregard the foregoing he shall pav as a fine twenty maravedis for each time he disregards it. BODILY APPREHENSION. We ordain that no judge shall order a Jew or Jewess to be seized bodily, except by order in writing signed by himself and witnesses; and that when the crime for which the person is apprehended is not defamation or a capital crime, the reason shall be stated in the writ. SERVING A WRIT We further ordain that if anyone obtains a writ from the Rabbi of the Court and does not present it to the opposing party within fifty days in the presence of witnesses, or place it in front of his door in the presence of one of the adult members of the family or in the Synagogue at the morning prayers in the presence of these who are praying he shall no longer be permitted to serve it or make any use of it, and it shall cease to have any value. III. DEFAMATIONS! No Jew or Jewess shall bring his or her neighbor whether a Jew or Jewess before any judge, ecclesiastic or secular, who is not of our faith, although such a judge should decide in accordance with the law of Israel, unless it be a matter t Compare the Takkanah of R. Tam above p. 153. 362 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES of payment of taxes or imposts or coinage or other rights of our lord, the King, or of our lady, the Queen, or the money or rights of the Church or of a lord or lady of a place. Whoever transgresses this law is to be declared anathema and excommunicated, and no one shall have any dealings with him; he shall not be buried among Jews, his bread shall be like the bread of a Samaritan, his wine shall be considered like that of libations to idols. For each transgression he shall pay 1000 maravedis to the Jew who suffered by the defamation or to whomever the Rabbi of the Court will order that it should be paid. But if any Jew refuses to come toa Jewish Court after being summoned three times, the Rabbi and the Judges of the Community may give the plaintiff permission to apply for redress to the Gentile Courts. Any Jew or Jewess defaming another Jew or Jewess in such a way that harm may result to the Jew or Jewess, even though no Gentile is present, shall be fined for each time’ he or she used defamatory language, 100 maravedis, (half to be paid to charity and half to whomever the judges designate), and shall be imprisoned for ten days. If any | harm result from the defamation, the guilty one shall be compelled to pay in addition to the above, all the damages that have been suffered because of the defamation .If the defamatory speech was made in the presence of Gentiles the punishment is imprisonment for twenty days and a fine of 200 maravedis. If any harm result in this case the defamer shall be compelled in addition to undergoing the said punishments, to make recompense for all damage suffered through the defamation and he shall be excom- municated for ten days. If any bodily harm results to the defamed because of the words of the defamer, the offender shall receive corporal punishment to the extent ordered by the Rabbi. If any Jew or Jewess is alleged to have caused the ap- prehension of another or the seizure of his property by some Gentile man or woman, but the matter is not sub- stantiated by witnesses being merely supported by the CHAPTER XIII 363 weight of circumstantial evidence,' the judge shall have the duty with the counsel of the Rabbi, to order the de- famer apprehended and punished bodily in accordance with what seems proper to the scholars so far as they may (legally). If the alleged defamation is confirmed by one witnesses as well as incriminating circumstances, or if he confesses to it, there shall be branded on his brow the word Malshin.? If the crime is proven through the testimony of two witneseses, the defamed shall receive for the first offense one hundred lashes, and be driven from the city in ac- cordance with the decision of the Rabbi and the judges and the leaders of the city above-mentioned. If he is guilty of a third offense, as established by the testimony of two proper witnesses, the Rabbi of the Court may in accordance with Jewish law, order his death through the judiciary of our lord, the King. If he cannot be put to death, or branded on the brow, or flogged in the above-mentioned manner, they shall de- -nounce him in every place as an informer and a defamer so that all Jews may keep aloof from him. He shall be declared in all Israel as the ‘‘Man of Belial, the man of blood”, no one shall permit him to marry his daughter nor shall he be accepted in the Congregation of Israel for any religious matter so Jong as he resists the execution of justice as here ordained. This punishment shall not apply to one who gives in- formation to our lord, the King, for his benefit even though that bring harm on some Jew. Such a one is not to be called either a defamer or an informer since it is the duty of all Jews to look after the service of the King. If however the informer of the King makes false accusa- tions against another Jew, he is to be punished severely because he lied to the King, and he is a false witness and * For the acceptance of circumstantial evidence see Takkanot ascribed to R. Tamabove p. 178. . 3a 2 The Jews in Spain seem to have taken over from their neighbors the use of cruel and unusual punishments, see Res. Asheri 17.1. 364 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES a defamer. For this reason every possible punishment should be inflicted upon him. APPEAL TO JEWISH COURTS FOR SAFETY If any Jew or Jewess demands from any judge or judges of the Communities that he set a truce between him and any other Jew or Jewess, one or many, the judge or judges shall be obliged to compel the person or persons to grant the truce in order to put a temporary end to the quarrels. Each party shall be expected to keep the agreement and whoever breaks it shall be liable for suit according to the laws of the kingdom with the advice of the Rabbi. If the judge or judges refuse to interfere in the matter, the petitioner shall have the right to proceed before the Gentile courts. FORCED BETROTHALS OR MARRIAGES No one shall have the right to use a writing from our lord, the King, or our lady, the Queen, or any other lord or lady, or any other person, whether by persuasion or intimidation, to compel a Jewess to accept a Jew, or to compel a Jew to acept a Jewess, in betrothal or marriage. Whoever transgresses this ordinance shall be declared anathema and excommunicate, his bread the bread of Samaritans, and his wine the wine of libations, he shall not be buried among Jews, and he shall pay a fine of five © thousand maravedis according to the order of the Rabbi of the Court. Whereas it happens at times that some enter the houses of Jews perforce with the help of Gentiles and compel daughters of Israel to accept money or valuables as Kid- dushin, or they force a ring on a woman’s finger, and there thus arise cases of doubtful marriage, and whereas all of this represents a laxity in the matter of marriage, and there has always been an ordinance among the Castilian com- munities in regard to this, therefore do we ordain that no marriage shall be performed except in the presence of ten CHAPTER XIII 365 adult Israelites,t one of them being a relative of the bride. If the father or the brother of the bride is in the neighborhood they must be present to give their consent. The minister of the. Congregation must recite the benedictions of the marriage. Whoever will transgress this law, shall be de- clared anathema and excommunicate and incapacitated to act as witness. He shall receive one hundred lashes and pay a fine of ten thousand maravedi as the Rabbi of the Court will order. No one is permitted to act as a witness to a marriage that is not performed in accordance with the above- mentioned ordinance, even though the bride has be- come engaged to the man with the consent of her father. If anyone knowing the intentions of the bridegroom acts as witness in violation of this ordinance, and his guilt be made certain, he shail be punished in the same way as the bridegroom himself. INTIMIDATION OF JUDGES No Jew or Jewess shall be permitted to bring a Gentile man or woman in order to threaten or intimidate a judge, ? an investigator or any other officer of the Jewish community. If a Gentile man or woman threatens a Jewish community on behalf of any Jew or Jewess, who deny that the Gentile came at their request, it shall be the duty of the Jew or Jewess to see to it that the Gentile abandon his threat in such a way that no harm may befall any individual or the Community. If he refuses to obey and prevent the Gentile from carrying out his threat and draws any ad- vantage from thesaid threat or intimidation on the part of the Gentile, it shall be looked upon as if proven by two witnesses that he brought the Gentile to help him. If the Community orany member of it has to undertake any expenditure because of the threat, the judges acting on the advice of the. Rabbi, may take of the property of the transgressor and give it to whomever they please. If the Gentiles are in- t See pp. 302 and 307. 2 Compare Takkanah of R. Tam, p. 153. 366 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES fluential persons and prevent the execution of justice against the transgressor, the judges of the locality shall be obliged to bring the matter to the attention of the Rabbi of the Court so that he may see that justice is done. If, however, the person on whose account the Gentile in- terfered requests the Gentile to desist, he shall be liable to no punishment. THE SALE OF WINE Any Jew or Jewess who makes wine of Gentiles' in such manner that it may be used for Jewish custom shall pay all the taxes, duties and imposts that are laid on the wine of any Jew. Moreover no Jew may give the Gentile any information which will lead him to bring any pressure whether by threat or intimidation on the Jew. Whoever transgresses this ordinance is to be considered as defamer and a malshin, and he shall be subject to all the rules which the Community may make in regard to the preparation of the wine of Gentiles. Every community of ten families or more shall establish a tavern where kasher wine may be obtained both for themselves and for travellers. As for those communities which already have ordinances providing for men to be in charge of the wine sale, they should follow their ordi- nances. As for those which do not have such ordinances we ordain that within eight days after this Takkanah is read to them, they shall call a meeting by announcement in the place of prayer, and they shall make pcovision for one or more men to be in charge of the wine sale and the manner in which the office shall be connected. If they cannot agree within three days, they shall appoint one man from the class of wine sellers and another for the class of of wine buyers. These shall declare under oath that they will loyally see to it that the wine is sold in accordance with the custom of the place and at the price at which it * The expression use here, ‘He who purifies Gentile wine”’ is taken froin the mtshna, Aboda Zara 4.8. It means “ preparing the wine of Gentiles in such a way that Jews may use it’’. I do not quite follow either Gonzalez’s or Kayserling’s interpretation of this passage. CHAPTER XIII 367 is sold to Christians adding to that the amount paid in taxes for the Talmud Torah Fund. If they see that the Jew- ish wine involves greater expenditures that the Christian wine, they shall allow in just that measure the price of the Jewish wine to be raised. They shall declare under oath that they will carry out their duties with no personal interest and that if there will be need of a third party to decide between them they will take one and act accord- ing to his decision. This regulation they shall observe each year during the duration of this Takkanah. No person of the children of Israel shall havethe right to avail himself of any letter of grace or privilege or other order whether written or oral of our lord, the King, or our lady, the Queen, of any other lord or lady, to have himself appointed Rabbi or to obtain any agreement or emolument from any of the communities,! or to be appointed Clerk, or Shohet or minister or teacher or messenger of the Court; or to obtain any other office in the gift of the communities, without the consent of the communites or the community _ which the office is to be held. Nor may he win the agreement of the communities or the appointment through threats or intimidation by Gentiles or any one Gentile. Whoever transgresses this ordinance shall be declared anathema and excommunicated. This rule shall not apply to our worthy Rabbi, Don Abra- ham, because it is the desire of the communities that he should be the highest judge and he accepted the position at the instance of the Rabbis and at the call of the Communi- ties. Whoever is at present in possession of such a letter of grace, shall present it to the Rabbi of the Court for examination within the next six months so that those of them which can be executed should be carried out. During these six months if he desires to carry out the functions of his office by the authority of the letter of the King he may do so. His salary shall be determined by the said Rabbi of the Court. Whereas there are some who appoint officials like the Clerk and the Shohet without the consent of the Communities, t See above p. 154. 368 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES we ordain that no one so appointed shall have the right to execute the duties of his office without the permission of the Community or the majority of it. No Jew may engage a Christian servant permanently in his home whether with pay or without pay. For serious scandals have arisen as a result of this practice and in ancient times there was an ordinance against it. IV. TAXES AND SERVICE No Jew or Jewess shall obtain any letter from the King, or Queen or any lord or lady or any other influential person by which he or she may be freed paying the taxes which the Communities may impose. Neither shall anyone try to gain any confirmation of such privilege nor shall any- one request anyone who does not belong to our faith, to obtain such a privilege for him or her whether by persuasion or intimidation. Neither shall one avail oneself of such an offer on the part of anyone, nor may such an offer be accepted by anyone, whether an individual or a communi- ty. In general no one shall take advantage of any letter obtained in the above manner to free himself from taxes, imposts, loans or any other demands which our lord, the King, may make on the Communities. In the case of taxes levied upon separate classes or groups of Jews, the same rules are to apply as in the case of ordin- ary taxes, unless the individual under consideration was exempted at the time of the levying of the tax. If any community farms out its taxes, the tax-farmer cannot free anyone from payment of taxes who was not exempt at the time of the farming of the tax. If any community makes an agreement with one to re- duce his taxes because of intimidation or fear or because of an exemption-decree, the agreement is null and void, and if any attempt to avoid payment after the Rabbi decides that it shall be made, the person involved is to be declared anathema and excommunicate. Any written documents in regard to this matter must be shown to the Rabbi of the Court within six months so that he may act on them as he sees fit. CHAPTER VIII 369 Whereas Don Meir Alguades, of sainted memory, was for many years a defender of his people, it is proper to show appreciation of his services, and not to appear ungrateful and whereas in the ordinances which were passed both before and after the said R. Meir became the chief judge, he and his descendants were granted exemption from all the taxes which the Community might have to pay, and whereas that privilege is still in force, and further whereas, his widow, Donna Bathsheba, is a virtuous woman and has lived so as to honor his memory, and aside from that, the wife of a scholar is even after his death to be accorded some of the privileges due a scholar,! and whereas his daughter, Donna Luna, the widow of the worthy Don Meir Alfachar, is a virtuous woman; therefore we ordain that neither of these widows shall be compelled to pay taxes by any community or by any individual in the Com- muity, nor shall they be compelled to give any pledge for such payments; the aforementioned Rabbi of the Court Don Abraham, will decide what their status is to be. If any Community- feels itself aggrieved in the matter of the division of the taxes, that commuity shall send a mission to the Rabbi of the Court, who will take counsel in regard to the matters with two other Rabbis of his choice and if he finds that the grievances as demonstrated by the mission are just, he shall see that they are redressed. RIGHT OF REDRESS FOR INDIVIDUALS Whereas certain communities have made very rigid ordi- nances providing that all the expenses and taxes of the Community should be distributed among all the inhabitants and that everyone without exception should be obliged to pay and no one is permitted to enjoy his right to be free from taxes and as the tax-assessors often cause serious and evident wrongs, therefore we ordain that henceforth no such ordinance shall be made; and in regard to those already made, we ordain that a general meeting be held of all the members of the Community in t Aboda Zara 39a. 370 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES accordance with the custom, so that they may release the herem (repeal the ordinance) and be free to make such or- dinance in regard to exemption from taxes as the Rabbi of the city may suggest, or if here should not be any in that city, according to the suggestion of the Rabbi of the nearest city. No Community shall henceforth have the right to for- bid any individual to make known such grievances as he may have against it. If the Community and the indi- vidual come to an agreement to lay their differences before a judge of the city or of the neighborhood, the matter shall so be settled. If, however, they cannot agree on a judge of the city or the neighborhood, the matter shall be referred to the Rabbi of the Court. The said Rabbi shall settle the differences and may remove the tax-assessor and order another appointed in his place who will see to it that the agreements are observed. But since great harm may re- sult to the communities if all those feeling themselves ag- grieved should withhold their payments of taxes, therefore it is ordained that each man must pay his share in accor- dance with the tax assessment, but that if the judge finds that one has a just grievance he shall order the restitution of the surplus or it may be used in the payment of other taxes than those assessed against him in the first list. Any Jew or Jewess, claiming exemption from taxes be- cause of the alleged privileges granted to the communities of Valderas and Badajoz, or because of an alleged privilege granted in regard to the Jews of Astorga by the Church and Bishop of that city, any Jew or Jewess claiming ex- emption from taxes because of these privileges, whether they be inhabitants of those communities or not, shall be ob- liged to present proof of their privileges to the Rabbi of the Court or his agent; otherwise the privilege shall be considered void and they shall be considered liable to pay in the same fashion as any other of the people. But those who have made agreements with the Communities because at the time their privileges were in doubt, shall pay in accordance with the agreements so long as they are in force. CHAPTER XIII 371 WIDOWS AND ORPHANS. Any widow, or male or female orphan who is not married, and possesses less than four hundred maravedi shall be exempt from payment of taxes. If any of them have more than the said amount, only the surplus over that sum shall be taxed. The same rule shall apply to the lame and the crippled. TAXES ON MEAT AND WINE Every community shall henceforth establish the custom of imposing taxes on meat and wine. Every community is authorized to make such ordinances in accordance with their custom and fix definite rates. If they do not agree on the imposts within thirty days from the day of their meeting, they shall send representatives to the Rabbi of the Court, who will ordain how the Community shall act in regard to the taxes, and they must act in accordance with his orders. In places where no tax on wine has yet been established, they shall not be obliged to impose one if the majority of the people, counting both by numbers and by wealth, are opposed to it. TAX EVADERS A stringent herem of ten maledictions shall be pronounced in all the communities on the Sabbath between Rosh Ha- Shanah and Yom Kippur of each year,’ at the morning prayer, in the presence of all those who are praying, while the Torah is in the Ark, against any Jew who will attempt to evade the payment of taxes, or who will help others to evade taxes which they are legally obliged to pay. ANNOUNCEMENT OF COMMUNITY MEETINGS In many Communities there are officers like investigators and community leaders who publish the announcemnts t Compare the statement in Maharil (Laws of Penitence) that R. Jacob Molin was very much pained when a Jew announced a herem in the synagogue during the ten days between Rosh Ha-Shanah and Yom Kippur. 372 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES in such an astute manner that the public meeting is only sparcely attended, only those being invited whom they choose, and they ordain whatever they please to ordain, As a result of this practice many scandals have arisen, and moreover this is contrary to the law of the Talmud which provides that an ordinance is not binding unless accepted by the whole or the majority of a community.’ We, therefore ordain that any ordinance passed in the aforesaid manner shall be void. If it be an ordinance levying taxes there must be present a majority of the tax-payers of the past three tax lists, nearest the time of the ordinance, as well as a majority by wealth of those who would pay the proposed tax. But whereas the Communities have the custom of making their ordinances by public announce- ment and it will be difficult for them to wait until the whole or the larger part of the Community gather, and as at times matters require an immediate solution and permit of no dealay, therefore we ordain: 1. That in regard to such things as can cause no harm to the community if action on them is delayed till the Sabbath, no ordinance may be made except in the manner mentioned above. And in all places where public prayers are. held, they shall announce publicly when the Torah is in the ark, to as many as are gathered into the Synagogue or Synagogues, that a gathering will be held in such and such a place and such and such ordinances will be discussed, so that each man may take it to his heart and think of the proposed meeting and guard his rights, or waive them freely. Those who are absent from the meeting will then learn what was said, and they must accept whatever is ordained by those present even if they were nota majority. 2. If it isa matter which cannot be delayed till the following Sabbath, but can wait till the next Monday or Thursday, they shall make announce- ment in the abovementioned manner on one of those days, and if notice of the proposed meeting was brought to those present on those days, all that is ordained at the meeting shall be valid although no announcement was made on * See above p. 50. CHAPTER XIII 373 the Sabbath. 3. If it is an urgent matter that cannot wait for the following Monday or Thursday, they shall announce the meeting at the regular morning or evening service. 4. If it is so urgent a matter that it cannot be delayed until announcement is made at the services, the Clerk of the Community shall go the houses of the majority of the members of the Community and of the taxpayers and inform them that the said meeting must take place. They shall wait with the discussion until everyone in the Community shall have had time to arrive at the place of the meeting. They may then discuss that it is wanted to ordain and whatever they ordain is valid. Some Com- munities have an ordinance providing that no act is valid unless passed by the majority of the Community; they shall act in accordance with their custom. But those communities which have elected officers to look after the welfare of the Communities shall act in accordance with this —Takkanah. No one shall be permitted to pronounce any herem until the subject has been deliberated upon and discussed so that one may be certain that the matter is being done with the consent of the whole or a majority of the Community. V. REGARDING CLOTHING ! No woman except those unmarried or a bride in the first year of her marriage, shall wear costly dresses of gold-cloth, or olive colored material or fine linen or silk, or of fine wool. Neither shall they wear on their dresses trimmings of velvet or brocade or olive-colored cloth. Nor shall they wear a golden brooch nor one of pearls, nor a string of pearls on the forehead, nor dresses with trails on the ground more than one third of a vara in measure, nor _ fringed Moorish garments, nor coats with high collars, nor cloth of a high reddish color, nor a skirt of bermeta thread, except as for the skirt and stockings, nor shall they make wide sleeves on the Moorish garments of more than t Compare similar Takkanot in Italy above p. 285, in Germany p. 228. 374 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES two palms in width, but they may wear jewelry like silver brooches and silver belts provided that there is not more than four ounces of silver on any of them. No son of Israel of the age of fifteen or more shall wear any cloak of gold-thread, olive colored material or silk, or any cloak trimmed with gold or olive-colored material or silk, nor a cloak with rich trimmings nor with trimmings of olive colored or gold cloth. This prohibition does not include the clothers worn at a time of festivity or at the reception of a lord or a lady, nor at balls or similar social occasions. Because of the diversity of custom among the Communi- ties in regard to the wearing apparel, we find it impracticable to make a general ordinance which shall provide for all the details that ought to be included, and we therefore ordain that each Community shall make such ordinances on the subject so long as this Ordinance endures, as will keep before their minds that we are in Dispersion because of our sins, and if they desire to establish more rigorous rules than this they have the power to do so. DINNERS AND FESTIVITIES Whereas at the time of betrothals and weddings and the birth of a child and other seasons of rejoicing, many spend lavish sums, we agree that every community shall make such ordinances on this subject as are compatible with its needs and position. Therefore we ordain that from the day when this Takkanah will be read in any Community having no ordinance dealing with this matter, a meeting shall be held within thirty days to adopt ordinances on this subject in the spirit described in this Ordinance. CONCLUSION. We agree that this Takkanah shall be established over all the Holy Communities of our lord, the King, and over each one of them just as it has been drawn the first day of Sivan of this year and for the coming ten years. All the communities shall act in accordance with it. Every one CHAPTER XIII 375 of these communities shall similarly act in accordance with it from the day on which it is read to them and announced until the end of the said ten successive years. No man shall raise objections to it either in whole or in part. Who- ever transgresses or causes another to transgress or raises any objection so as to annul it as a whole or in part shall be declared anathema and excommunicate in accordance with our judgement since this ordinance was established by the authority given the worthy Rabbi Don Abraham. ADDITIONAL NOTE A TALMUDIC LAW REGARDING COMPETITION Perhaps it may be well to summarize here the Talmudic sources whith underlie the institutions of the Herem Ha-yishshub. R. Judah b. Ilai, (a Tanna of the end of the second century), saint as he was, appears to have had little knowledge of business methods. He forbade any mer- chant to undersell his neighbor lest he ‘‘accustom the buyers to come to him”. (Baba Mezia 4.5.) The majority of the Sages saw nothing unfair in such methods of competition. The general opinion of the Rabbis was that one ‘‘may open a store next to that of his neighbor and the other may not object since the owner may say to him, You may do what you will in your property, and I do what I please in my property.” The principle of free competition is thus established in Tannaitic literature, i. e. for Palestine. R. Huna, who lived in Babylonia about the middle of the third century differed from the opinion laid down by the majority of the Tannaim (Baba Batra 21b). He held that if a man owned and operated a mill he might prevent anyone else in his immediate vicinity from beginning to operate another mill. The attempt of the succeeding generations of the Amoraim to find a Tannaitic basis for the statement of R. Huna, cannot be said to have been successful. The distinction between the sources adduced to support R. Huna, and the statement of R. Huna, is well pointed out by R. Meir Ha-Levi in his commentary to the passage (Yad Ramah, ad loc.). Indeed, it must have been the feeling that the stifling of competition was unjust that led the vast majority of the codifiers to decide against R. Huna. (See Bet Yosef, Hoshen Mishpat, 156). It is not unlikely that conditions in Babylonia, or at least in Sura, were such that R. Huna’s position was justified by fact if not by precedent. This becomes even more probable when we consider the words of R. Huna’s namesake, who lived several generations later, R. Huna b. R. Joshua, who lays down the rule that while one may not prevent one’s neighbor from competing with one, one may object to competition by an immigrant from another city. We have in this statement a principle that approaches the herem ha-yishshub in acting as a preventive measure against people from other towns but not against people of the same city. Rashi finds in this statement of the second R. Huna the basis for the institution of the herem ha-yishshub. (See RMR 77, but comp. com- mentary loc. cit.) The extent to which such laws reflect local conditions can be seen from the difficulty which R. Joseph ibn Migas found in comprehending the law. Harking back to the point of view of the Palestinian Tannaim ADDITIONAL NOT 377 of the second century, he does not see why one should take into considera- tion only feelings of the merchant and not that of the consumer. If the traders undersell one another they may be harming one another, but the consuming public reap the advantage of lower prices. Why, he asks, should the law defend the rights of the selling class rather than that of the buying class? He decided therefore that if new-comers may be prevented from selling their wares in competition with established houses, only when the newcomers do not offer inducements to the buyers, but where the wares of the newcomers is superior to that of the older firms, or is sold at a lower price, the Sages will not prevent them from selling their wares. For the law must defend the rights of the buyers as well as that of the sellers. If, however, trade in entirely in Jewish hands R. Joseph ibn Migas holds that it is forbidden for a newcomer to undersell a fellow-Jew, and therefore all competition is prohibited. In this view he is followed by R. Meir ha-Levi (see commentaries of Ibn Migas and R. Meir Ha-Levi ad loc.). On the other hand, the French and German commentators found no difficulty here at all. R. Eliezer b. Joel Ha-Levi (Mordecai, Baba Batra II. 516) decides with R. Huna, the elder, that all competition between Jews is forbidden. But, he inadvertently, reveals his true reason for the defense of the seller. ‘‘If the Gentile cannot come to the house of R. except by passing the house of S. (the newcomer) then R. (the original shopkeeper) may object in accordance with the view of R. Huna.’’ B. THE LEGAL Status oF WoMEN IN GERMAN JEWRY. This is one of the cases which illustrates the rule that according “to the changes that take place in life, the law changes’. But as Jewish law is judge-made rather than statutory, its changes are not as clearly defined as they would be by a legislature. The law laid down in the Talmud that women are not responsible for damages worked very well in Talmudic times. It applied not only to cases‘of assault but as Rashi points out also to other cases, This is made evident by the state- ment of the Pharisees (Yadaim 4.7) that a master cannot be held res- ponsible for the damage done by his slave in setting fire to the field of his neighbor. Doubtless the same view would have been held re- garding a person’s responsibility for the actions of his wife. And since married women were almost as devoid of property rights as slaves, there could be no question of their paying out of their own es- tates. In a society where women’s commercial transactions were limited this might work well. But when the Jewish women in Germany became the ‘“‘noble women who engage in trade’ (RMP 958) (See also Guedemann I, 230; Raben 115; RMR 57; HOS 250; 254) it was obviously impossible to free them from all responsibility which lay on others in matters of buying and selling goods. Business could not go on if the wife were permitted to buy and refuse to pay, while the husband sat carelessly by, denying any responsibility for her acts. R. Gershom still maintains the view of the Babylonian Geonim that 378 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES a woman cannot be brought to Court in a civil suit (Or Zarua, Baba Kamma 8.530). He makes the single qualification that if she came into the possession of propefty wherein her husband has no rights whatever, she may be compelled to pay therefrom. That exception is implied in the Talmud, but the case is so rare as to be negligible. It remained for R. Eliezer b. Nathan and his grandson, R. Eliezer b. Joel Ha-Levi to establish the new principle of women’s responsibility ‘“Nowadays,’”’ says R. Eliezer the Younger, ‘‘unless women will be compelled to come to court and defend themselves (in civil suits like men) you will destroy the means of livelihood”’ for those who are com- pelled to deal with them, and ultimately their own. He proposes that if ‘‘she claims that she destroyed what she received or was ne- gligent with it, the husband shall not be held responsible, but if she claims that she spent it or used it for her personal needs, I think that the husband is responsible.’’ Like his grandfather, he finds support for his views in a responsum of R. Kalonymos, perhaps the scholar of Lucca , but he admits that the weight of the authority of the Baby- lonian Geonim is against him. R. Baruch b. Samuel of Mayence suggests another manner of differentiating between the litigation in which women are to be held responsible and those in which they are to be free. His principle is the same as that of our Takkanah (p. 201, $21), namely that while women cannot be held responsible for assault since they are freed from that responsibility in the Mishna, they may be held for all other obligations. (Mordecai, Baba Kamma 8.111. See Cassel, Geonitm Kadmonim 107, and Mueller, Mafteah p. 8-9). Another more important theory was that women engaged in trade were really agents for their husbands who were therefore responsible for them not as husbands for wives but as principals foragents. This would amount in practical law to the same principle as that of the ordinance and that of R. Baruch b. Samuel. It is ascribed to R. Abra- ham b. Nahman (Mordecai, ed. Riva Baba Kamma 8.108-9). R. Meir b. Baruch denied the validity of all these theories and strongly insisted on the Talmudic law that a woman cannot be brought to court or compelled to take an oath while she is married. (RMC 35, Mor- decai Baba Kamma 8.99). The force of conditions proved the stronger however, and the general view of the German Rabbis is rather with his opponents. It is interesting to note howa change of conditions made the passage in Rabiah quite unintelligible to R. Joseph Colon. He says (Res. 193) that R. Eliezer could not have had in mind any large claims but only those ‘‘which a woman is likely to incur in the household ex- penses as the payment for food and similar things”’. It may be proper to note here too, that the higher economic status of women in Germany and partly in France was the cause of their recognition in legal matters. We have seen (above p. 178) that women were admitted as witnesses in some cases. We hear of one Rabbi who allowed his daughters to be counted as members of the quorum in ADDITIONAL NOTES 379 order to recite the Grace (Tosafot Berakot 45b). Some held that women might act as judges (Tosafot Niddah 50a). R. Meir b. Baruch himself in a special case, permitted women to be called up to the Torah pub- licly (RMP 108). This movement had already been started by the laws regulating marriage and divorce which were introduced by R. Gershom and re-enforced by communal! ordinances of various kinds. They all show an attempt to minimize the legal inferiority of women. There can be no doubt that the movement toward ‘‘ women’s rights”’, for such it was, had its origin and compelling force largely in the fact that women began to occupy a prominent posisition in the economic world. C. APPELLATE JURISDICTION IN TALMUTIC LAw. We read (Sanhedrin 31b) ‘‘When R. Dimi came from Palestine, he said in the name of R. Johanan, ‘If one man summons another to Court and one of the litigants says, let us try our case here, and the other says, let us get the place of Assembly they must go to the place of Assembly.”’ Translated into modern terminology, R. Dimi in the name of R. Johanan laid down the rule, that if one of the litigants refused to try his case before a local court, but insisted on going before a superior Court, then the other must go before the superior Court. R. Eleazar is re- ported to have objected to this decision of R. Johanan. He said, ‘‘O Master, shall he who sues for one mina, be compelled to waste one mina after the other in trying to recover it?’”’ R. Eleazar thought that it were better that they should be tried: by the local court. Thus Babli. In the Palestinian Talmud, the matter is related somewhat differently, We read there (Jer. Sanhedrin 21a), ‘‘There were two men who had a litigation in Antioch. One of them said to the other, ‘I will obey the decision of R. Johanan’.’’ In other words, he wanted to take the case directly to the higher court. R. Johanan refused to hear it, how- ever. He held that the case be tried by the local judges, and that if they were in doubt they might send to him. But he would not answer the litigants directly. ‘“‘R. Eleazar said, If one of the litigants wants to try his suit in Tiberias and the other in Sepphoris, we try it in Ti- berias.”” The traditions of the two Talmudim are not quite contra- dictory for it may well be that R. Johanan who was at first inclined to have the suit brought before him, finally felt the force of R. Eleazar’s argument in favor of the local courts as given in Babli. The Talmud of Jerusalem merely adds that one must try one’s case before the local court. If the two courts are as near each other as Sepphoris and Tiberias, indeed, the case should come before the higher court. It is only when it would necessitate the incurriug of expenses, that R. Eleazar denies the rights of the litigant to take the matter to the high- est court at once. That this explanation is true can be seen from the Babylonian Talmud, where R. Safra is reported to have said in the name of R. Johanan, that if two people stand opposed to each other at a trial and one says, let us try our case here, and the other says, let us go to the house of Assembly, it must be tried in their own city. We are to un- 380 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN_ THE MIDDLE AGES derstand then that Babliand Jerushalmi give each an incomplete story which must be supplemented from the other. R. Safra and R. Dimi do not contradict each other, but rather R. Safra tells us, what R. Dimi omits, that R. Johanan accepted the view of his pupil. There is therefore no need of omitting with R. Solomon Luria the words ‘“‘in the name of R. Johanan”’ in the statement of R. Safra. The matter thus far is clear. It became confused, however, when Amemar laid down the rule, that one must go to the higher court. It is inconceivable that Amemar should have meant that a Babylonian defendant might compel another Babylonian to come to some Pales- tinian court for trial. That would indeed be an injustice. Amemar in all likelihood, merely said that if one of the litigants wanted to go before a central Babylonian court such as that of the Exilarch or the Academies, his fellow would have to go before those courts rather than before the local courts. (His use of the term “yin ma merely reflects the fact that he quotes a Palestain source). It is not clear whether R. Ashi so understood Amemar’s statement, but he objected to it, because it seemed to contradict the view of R. Eleazar. Amemar did not quote in support of his statement the view of R..Johanan, since as we have seen, R. Johanan had adopted the decision of R. Eleazar. It is not clear whether the final decision in the Talmud is an amended statement by Amemar himself or the attempt of a later authority to reconcile the opposing points of view. The decision is that the plaintiff can compel the defendant to go to the higher court but not vice versa. The weakness of this decision was plainly seen by the French com- mentators. If one were suing a very busy manand insisted on taking his case to a distant court, it might well be that the defendant would prefer to pay even an unjust claim rather than incur the heavy ex- penses and loss of time of a distant trial (Asheri Baba Kamma 112b). Even more difficult is the statement of Mar Ukba in the name of Sam- uel (Baba Kamma 112b) that a defendant might refuse to answer a summons of a local court on the pleas that he would be tried only by the Great Beth Din. If Mar Ukba meant the great Beth Din in Palestine, his decision would have meant the end of justice in Baby- lonia. For every defendant might insist on being tried in Palestine. Since only in important cases would it pay the plaintiff to undertake the expenditure involved in a distant suit, the defendant would be at an advantage. Mar Ukba’s words apply therefore only to Babylonian courts of and are directly contradictory to the views set forth as the final decision of the Talmud above. The attempts to reconcile the two statements by R. Tam and by R. Solomon ibn Adret (ad loc.) are not quite acceptable to the later authorities (see Asheri ad loc.). But we still do not see why either Mar Ukba or Amemar should give such sweeping rights to either party at a litigation. While these discussions were going on, time was solving the problems and bringing about a common sense decision. A Takkanah was established ADDITIONAL NOTES 381 - (p. 190) which provides that one must stand for trial if summoned at home or in the nearest place where there was a regular court. This view was enunciated by R. Samson b. Abraham of Sens as being the custom of his own city (Or Zarua Baba Kamma 436, Res. Maim. Sho- fetim 2), but later it seems to have been understood as binding on all the communities (Shilte Ha-Gibborim Sanhedrin III, beg., but comp. Or Zarua, loc. cit., where case decided by R. Samson is definitely declared to be exceptional. Long before him, in the days of R. Eliezer b. Nathan (Raben, Prague 113a), we find it however as the prevalent custom. R. Joseph Colon refers to the custom as that of the Germans (Res. 14 and 15). The Takkanah referred to by R. Meir b. Baruch seems to be identical with the one before us. He says, (Mordecai, Sanhedrin 3.707), “Thus have I seen in the ordinaace of the communities: If one of the litigants wants to send the case to a distant judge, and there is a scholar near at hand, and if the judges see that he intends merely to cause his opponent unnecessary expense, they should not listen to him (but compel him to stand trial in his own city)”. We have a decision in this matter from the communities of Worms, Speyer and Mayence. It reads, ‘‘If a person sues another and summons him before the communities, he may say, I will not be tried outside of my city. This is only true however in case of a claim for the payment of money. But if the complaint is about matters of assault or denunci- ation before the Gentiles, the plaintiff may summon him to appear in Court before any of the Communities, (other than their home city)... The defendant may then choose from among them the court before which he would be tried”. (RMB, p. 319. Compare Ez Hayyim po uunp mwon p. 96b.) It is quite natural that a person of influence would be so powerful as to overawe the judges of his native community. A defendant against such a man might demand a change of venue. This would naturally be the case in litigations about assault and de- nunciation. Hence the distinction. Several precedents are mentioned by R. Samuel b. Elhanan (Mordecai Sanhedrin 3 end, note; RMP 546; RMB p. 318) in the case where a defendant said to the plaintiff, ‘‘ How can I stand trial in your city when you are feared by the judges and I will be unable to give my arguments?’ R. Samuel permits the case to go before another court and even mentions R. Samson of Sens who permitted his son-in-law to decline to answer a suit in his own city of Troyes because his opponents were too powerful. (The words ov) 39 mupna onyxn “I have found the following in the ordinances of R. Gershom” which are printed in RMB before this passage, are obviously a copyist’s error. Firstly this is a responsum and not a Takkanah, and secondly the authorities are all later by some centuries than R. Gershom). 382 JEWISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES THE ORIGIN OF THE CUSTOM OF INTERRUPTING THE PRAYERS. After this volume was in press, I received copies of the two excellent works on post-Talmudic Jurisprudence by Rabbi Simhah Asaf of Palestine: oD) prt cna and “Nwoonm nonn. ony penyn. Nat- turally there are a number of points of contact between those works and the present volume which deals with the same period, though from a different angle. There are a number of statements in the books which will have to be revised in view of the new material made available here. Thus the statement (in 07770) prt 'na, p. 27) that the ordinance limiting the right of interrupting the prayers, was established by R. Tam, is based on the title given the Takkanot of R. Gershom in the Prague edition of the Responsa of R. Meir b. Baruch (no. 153). In view of the fact that such early authors as R. Meir b. Baruch and R. Aaron of Lunel quote the list of Takkanot as R. Gershom's, there can be no doubt that it is by him (See, above, pp. 113, 114). Again Rabbi Asaf agrees with Aptowitzer in holding that the custom of interrupting the prayers was known in Palestine in Talmudic times (aD) pYT na p. 26). But that interpretation of the passage in the Jerushalmi has been shown above to be erroneous (p. 16, note 1). On the other hand, Rabbi Asaf quotes a reference to the custom in the work of the Spanish codifier R. Samuel ha-Sardi (thirteenth century which escaped my notice, but he is doubtless right in holding that the words there given are merely a quotation of the passage in the Ittur (referred to above, p. 17) Rabbi Asaf also cites a Geonic responsum, froma collection which was prepared for publication by the late Professor Halper, dealing with the matter of interrupting the prayers. The responsum definitely states that the custom was unknown in Babylonia. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS JQR—Jewish Quarterly Review REJ—Revue des Etudes Juives MGWJ—Monatsschrift fuer Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Juden- tums. JJLG—Jahrbuch der Juedisch-Literarischen Gesellschaft JGJ—Jahrbuch fuer die Geschichte der Juden RFL—Mueller, Teshubot Hakme Zarfat ve-Lotir HOS—Responsa of R. Hayyim Or Zarua. RMP—Responsa of R. Meir b. Baruch, ed. Prague RMC—Responsa of R. Meir b. Baruch, ed. Cremona RMB—Responsa of R. Meir b. Baruch, ed. Berlin. RMR—Responsa of R. Meir b. Baruch, ed. Rabinowitz, Lemberg. TRG—Takkanot of R. Gershom. Mord.—Mordecat. Guedemann—M. Guedemann, Geschichte der Erziehungswesen und der Cultur der Abendlaendischen Juden. INDEX Aaron, R.—of Lunel 114, 117 Abandonment, 44, 168, 197. Abba Saul, 57 Abigdor Cividal, 313 Abraham, R., Court Rabbi, 103, 349; See also Benveniste, R. Abraham Abraham b. Benjamin, 295 Abraham b. Gamaliel b. Pdahzur, 250 Abraham b. Judah 289 Abraham Menahem Port, 313 Abrahams, I., 39 Abravanel, Isaac 95 Abulafia, R. Meir 100. Academies 2, 22, 44 Agriculture 13 Akiba, R. 44, 68 Alfachar, Don, 369 Alfasi, R. Isaac, 68, 100 Alguades, Don Meir, 369 Ammi, R., 23, 322 Ancona, 380 , Appeals to higher courts, 55, 67, 359, 279-381; Aptowitzer, 16 Aragon, 101, 102, 328-347. wAsheri, SO, 67, 82; 101, 222, 354. Assault, 48, 187, 199, 238, 355, Assemblies, limitation on, 88 Assi, R., 322 Astorga, 370 Attorneys, 360 Badajoz, 370 Badge, 89 Baptism, 26 Barcelona, 101, 336 Baruch. R., b. Isaac 27, 28, 82, 84. Baruch, R., b. Judah 131 Baruch, R., b. Samuel, 52, 56, 62, 250, 378 Basula, 300, 307 Bath, ritual 276 Bene Batyra, 50 Benedict, Pope, 86 Benjamin b. Menahem, 289, 295 Benjamin b. Moses, 295 Benveniste, R. Abraham, 103, 349 Ben Zion of Norzi, 314 Bequests, 61, 247 Berliner. A., 40 Betrothals, 145, 146, 198, 279, 323 Bezalel Ashkenazi, 62 Bigamy 94; See Plural Marriage. Bing 259 Bingen, 77 Black Death, 73, 101 Blessing, at end of herem, 204 Bloch, 128 Blood-letting, 244 Bologna, 86, 306 Bonfant, Samuel, 256 Books 188, 237; censorship of 80, 263 304; as property, 58, 60. Bridegroom, escort of, 61, 240 Bruell, 72 Buber, 23 Burials, 279 Candia, 82-85 Capsali, 95, 182, Carlebach, 189 Casali, 309 Cassu to, 298 Castile, 102, 384-377 Catalonia, 102, 344, 346 Cemetery, 198 Censorship, 93, see also books, publica- tion of. Cesano, Menahem, 326 Cesano, Samuel, 326 Charity Fund, 91, 264, 358 Charity, recipients of, exempt from taxa- tion, 87 Chese, 291 Child marriages, 58 Church property, 188 Circumcision, tax on occasion of, 351 Clothes, imitation of Gentile 235. See also Dress. Clothing, limitation on expenditure for, Blame OL sed Las Coin-clipping, 61, 236 Coins, counterfeit, 72, 261 Cologne, 42, 52, 75, 254 Colon, R. Joseph, 26, 29, 78, 95, 117, 130143291 S20 1OGme one Commerce, Jews driven from, 39 Commercial gatherings, synods in con- nection with, 25 Communities, federation of 21, 35 Communities, Rhine, 24, 26, 30, 35 Community, legislative power of, 49; meetings of, 103 386 INDEX Competition, 376 Compulsory Baptism, bull prophibiting, 90 . . Compulsory Divorce, See Divorce, Com- pulsory. Confession, on deathbed, 98, 324 Conversions, 30. Converts, repentant, 30 Corfu, 96-98; 316-327 Cornil, David 326 Cortes, 340 Counsellors, ordinance against employing, 72 Courts, 6, 60, 117; authority of, 48; jurisdiction of, 33; secular, 42, 43, 156, 256, 351 Courts of appeal, 67, 359, 379-381; prominent rabbis, accepted as, 455 Courts of seven elders, 168; See also Seven Best Men Crescas, Solomon, 347 Crete, See Candia Crusades, 37-38, 102 Customs, Austrian, 26; French, 27; German, 27; local differences of, 21 Cutting hair, 59 David b. Eliezer, 309 David b. Kalonymos, 56-59, 63; See also David of Muenzberg. David of Muenzberg, 61, 74, 273 David b. Shealtiel, 63, 251 Denunciation of Jews to Gentiles, 60; See also Informers, Desertion, See Abandonment. Dienemann, 40 Di Mordo, 97, 326 Dinti, 326 Divorce, 24, 75; compulsory, 26, 29, 48, 182; ordinance against denying validity of, 44-46; writ of, 144, 198, 247 Documents, forged, 261 Dower-right, See Ketubah. Dowry, collection of, 262; return of, 43, 58, 163-167 Dress, 102; modesty in, 323; of Women, 98; See also Clothing. Economic Conditions after the Crusades, 38 Education, 247; funds for, 61; 350-354; See also Schools Eleazar b. Judah, 62. Elders of the Community, 131; See also Court of Seven Elders Eleazar b. Judah, 62, 250 Eleazar b. Samson, 250 Elfenbein, Dr. Israel, 128 Eliezer b. Joel Ha-Levi, 14, 28, 58, 222, 250; See a.so Rabicah Eliezer b. Nathan., 15, 42, 130, 151, 187, 189 Eliezer of Orleans, 14 Epstein, 20 Eliezer b. Samson, 42, 150 Eliezer b. Samuel of Metz, 27, 51, 62 Elhanan b. Menahem, 289 Elijah b. Judah, 289, 295 Engagements, see Betrothals Epstein, 20 Estori Farhi, 17. Erfurt, 76 Eugene, Pope, 92 Excommunication, 2, 45, 602, 63, 64; See also Herem Exilarchs, 22 Expulsion, from France, 56, 72 Extravagance in dress, See Clothing, limitation on expenditure for Ezra ,s 22 Families, disruption of, because of aban- donment, 44 Fastdays, games of chance permitted on, 88, 291 Ferrara, 86, 92, 304, 306 Festivities, limitation on expenditures for, 60, 103, 143, 244, 374 Finci, Isaac b. Moses, 289 Finci, Solomon, b. Moses, 289, 295 Fines, 93, 97, 200, 264, 293, 309, 355, 356, 365 First Crusade, See Crusades. Florence, 90, 297 Forli, 87, 281, 288, 289 France, customs of, 57, 78 Frankfort, 63, 78, 79, 257-264 Freimann, 21 Freidburg, 258, 259, 264 Friedmann, 17 Fulda, 258 Gamaliel, R., 355 Gambling, 60, 88, 242, 191 Gaon, Abraham 326 Gaonate, 100 Gatherings on streets, 293 Gentiles, ordinance against defrauding, 280 Geonim, 22, 68; See also Nahshon, Hai, Saadia, Sherira Gerace, Bishop of, 90 Gershom, 5, 13, 19, 20, 38, 41, 50, 51, 78, 81, 84, 93, 111-138 142, 144, INDEX 387 185, 201, 305, 379 Get, See Divorce, writ of Ghettoes, 31 Ginzberg, L., 17, 67, 130, 184 Ginzburg, city of, 258, 259 Glassberg, 21 Gordon, J. L., 45 Gracianowe Ana Ll. s., SOL. Gregory IX, Pope, 388 Gross, 43, 45, 142 Guedemann, 129, 189 Haber, title of, 79, 260 Hat, R.,'3;.99, 131 Halberstam, 281, 300 Halakot Gedolot, 100 Halizah, 27, 57, 61, 74, 145, 245-247, PAY ahs Hamm, 259 Hayyim Or Zarua, 27, 29, 47, 51, 55, 72, 93, 152, 189 Hayyim b. Eliezer, 309 Hayyim Paltiel, 198. Hazzan, 60, 131; right of, 244, 243 Hefetz, Book of, 237 Heirlooms, 58 Herem, 8, 26, 27, 46, 48, 51, 64, 80, 87, 117, 130, 145, 197, 242, 357; pronunci- ation of, in case of loss, 33; release of, 145 Herem Beth Din, 6, 20, 33, 48, 127, 182, 185 Herem Ha-Ikkul, 9, 10 Herem Ha-Yishshub, 10, 20, 50 Hezekiah b. Reuben, 250 Hillel, 25, 50 Hirschfeld, H., 218 Honesty, in dealing with Gentiles, en- joined 261 Horovitz, Dr. 257 Hist. alleged desecration of, 337 Huna, R. 376 Huppah, 321 Ibn Adret, R. Solomon, 16, 17, 28, 29, 101130; 142; 165, 308 Ibn Ezra, 100 Ibn Ezra, Abraham of Corfu, 326 Ibn Gebirol, 100 Ibn Habib, 142 Ibn Migas, 100, 276 Ibn Nagdela, 100 Ibn Sahl, Baruch b. Abraham, 349 Ibn Shaprut, 100 Illicit sex-relationships, 84 Indignation, as excuse for wrong, 151, 152 Informers, 42, 151, 184, 241 Inheritance, 98 Innocent, Pope, 338 Inquisition, 92, 338 Insubordination, writ of, 117 Intermarriage, with those transgressing the ordinances, forbidden, 79, 80 Interrupting the prayers, 15, 33, 48, 128, 129, 243, 381 Intractate wife, 68 Isaac b. Abraham, 251 Isaac b. Baruch Ha-Levi, 300 Isaac b. Elijah, 256 Isaac of Falaise, 116 Isaac b. Gershon, 313 Isaac b. Joseph b. Crispin 349 Isaac of Lifatil, 314 Isaac b. Meshullam, 250 Isaac Or Zarua, 14, 62, 63, 66, 179, 223 Isaac b. Solomon, 250 Isaac b. Sheshet, 17, 73, 198 Islam, 3 Isserlein, 14, 26, 45, 73, 81, 244 Isserles, R. Moses, 46, 93 Italy, 86-95, 281-315; Jewish tenants in, 31 Ittur, 17, 382 protection of Jacob b. Abraham Solomon, 313 Jacob b. Asher, 250 Jacob Ha-Levi, 235 Jacob b. Yakar, 36 Jannai, 100 Jehiel b. Joseph, R., of Paris, 66, 70, 198, 200 Joel b. Nathan, 250 Johanan, R., 379 Johanan b. Zakkai, R., 25 Joseph b. Elhanan, 295 Joseph Hezekial b. Moses, 289 Joseph b. Judah, 250 Joseph b. Othniel, 250 Judah b. Moses, 63, 251 Judah b. Simeon, 250 Joseph b. Moses, 251 Joseph Tob Elem, 13 Josephus, 156 Judah Eleazar, 347 Judah Ha-Levi, 100 Judah He-Hasid, 20 Judah b. Ilai, 376 Judah b. Kalonymos, 52 Judah Sir Leon, 70 Judges, election of 357; independence of, 245 Jurisdiction of local courts, 189, 198, 380 Kalir, 100 Kalonymos, R., 20 Kalonymos b. Kalonymos, 169 Karaites, 23 Katzenellenbogen, R. Judah, 313 388 | INDEX Katzenellenbogen, R. Meir, 95, 130, 142, 304 Ketubah, 29, 75, 143, 254, 325 Kiddushin, 95, 305, 308, 321, 322 Kol Bo, 27 Lamperonti, Samuel 2301 Land, inheritance of, 58; ownership of, 10; sale of, forbidden, 12 Landed estates, jurisdiction over, limited to highest courts, 198 Loans, 36, 234 Lombardy, 90, 297 Losses, announcement of, inthe synagogue oo Lublin, R. Meir, 46 Luria, R. Solomon, 28, 46, 54, 170 Leontin, R. 20 Letters, privacy of, protected by herem 31, 189, 201 Levirate marriage, 27; See also under Halizah. Liber, 36 Lippmann of Muehlhausen, 76 Lipshuetz, 36 Ma‘amad, 320 Maharil, 68, 76, 81, 130, 244. Maimonides, 67, 100 Majority age of, for females, 97 Majorca, Isle of, 344, 346 Majority, rule of, 33, 34, 49 Malshin, 151, 202, 339, 362, 363; See also under Informers. Malter, 3 Mann, Jacob, 3, 9, 30 Margins of books, ordinance against cutting, 48, 188, 201 Margulies, 296 Marriage, 22, 68, 79, 97, 364. Weddings; Kiddushin. Martin, Pope, 86, 87, 281 Mar Ukba, 380 Marx, A., 3, 96 Mattathias b. Isaac, 295 Mattathias b. Reuben, 250 Mayence, 20, 21, 24, 35, 42, 52, 61, 63, UTaIS5 22515 259 Meat, tax on, 352 Meeting of the community, 371-373 Meir b. Baruch, 13, 36, 47, 54, 63, 66-69, 113, 117). 132, 145,451, 181-357; 378 Meir Ha-Kohen, 67 Meir Ha-Levi of Vienna, 9 Meir b. Samuel, 250, 256 Meir of Padua, See Katzenellenbogen, R. Meir. Menahem b. Abraham, 295 Menahem Azariah, 73 See also Menahem b. Meshullam, 289, 195 Menlin of Rothenburg, 256 Merseburg, R. Menahem, 37 Meshullam b. David, 63, 251 Milk, purchase of, from Gentiles, for- bidden, 262 Mintz, R. Judah, 27, 306, 308 Mintz, R. Moses, 14, 18, 77, 117, 183, 185 Minyan, 88, 137 Moli, Isaac, 326 Molin, Jacob, 27; See also Maharil. Molin, Yekutiel, 74, 256 Money lending, 39, 53, 59, 306, 312, 313 Moses b. Abigdor, 295 Moses b. Benjamin, 295 Moses of Berne, 115 Moses Hai b. Daniel, 295 Moses Menahem Ha-Kohen, 2313 Moses b. Mordecai, 52 Moses Nathan Haii, 347 Moses of Pontoise, 45 Moses b. Yekutiel Molin, 256 Mourners, 98, 324 Mueller, 9, 20, 26, 31, 51, 237 Nahmanides, 82 Nahshon, R., Gaon, 201 Narbonne, 43 Nast, See Patriarch. Nathan b. Hayyim, 256 Nathan b. Isaac, 58, 250 Nathan b. Joseph, 295 Nathan b. Simeon, 250 Nathanel b. Shabbetai, 309 Natronai, Gaon, 277 Nicholas, Pope, 92 Noirlingen, Ephraim b. Menahem, 313 Noirlingen, Aaron David, 313 Normandy, 43 Nuremberg, 69, 76, 678 Oaths, 60, 131 Oppenheim, R. Seligmann, 77 Ordination, 8, 9; See also Semika. Ordinances, making of, 132 Orphans, protection of, 98, 371 Padua, 86, 308 Paltol, “isdon, 2237 Parnes, 60, 242 Patriarchs, 8, 50, 51 Perez b. Elijah, 69-71, 217 Perjury, 60, 238 Pesaro, 315 Peter the Hermit, 37, 38 Peter, King, 337 Petitha, 127, See Insubordination, writ of Petracol, Samuel, 309 Pipi, 97, 327 INDEX 389 Plural Marriage, 23, 112, 306 Poitiers, 43 Polygamy, See Plural Marriage. Popes, 7, 89, 92, 101, 289 Poznanski, 23. Prayers, 16, 355; See also Interrupiing the Prayers; Synagogue President of the Community, See Parnes. Printing, 192; See sential t Books, publication oh Procedure, rulers, 358 Pumbedita, 2, 3 Punishment, corporal, 363, 365° Tua Dis lOsel ose le? > 84 oe Oe 55m OO: U2 SOS E2015) 205,7 504, S058 a00, Soe Rabiah, 14, 52, 62, 63, 128, 250; See also Eliezer b. Joel Ha-Levi Rashbam, See Samuel b. Meir Rashi, 13, 14, 25, 431, 35, 36-38, 40, 41, 59, 100, 105, 131, 146, 148, 149, 179 Recante, 188 Regensburg, 77 Relatives as witnesses, 201 Retention of property, Herem Ha-Ikkul Reviling one’s neighbors, 247 Rhine communities, 56, 58, 75, 179 Rokeah, 21; See also Eleazar b. Judah, R. Romagna, 86, 90, 297 Rome, 86, 306, 314 Rosenberg, 84, 277 Rosenthal, 24, 62, 129, 143, 218, 235 Rosin, 40 Saadia, Gaon 2 Sabbath, 61, 277 Samson of Sens, R., 82, 133, 142, 170, 240 Samuel Bonfant, 74, 256 Samuel b. Elhanan, 381 Samuel b. Joab, 295 Samuel b. Meir, 40-43 Sanhedrin, 12, 25, 51 Schechter, S., 23, 74, 259 Schools, 103; See also Education. Schorr, 102, 328, 337 Seder R. Amram, 99 Sefer Hasidim, 16, 28 Seligmann, 78 Semika, 9 Serfdom, virtual, of the Jews, 47 Seven Best Men, 52, 156, 358; See also Court of Seven Elders. Seville, 337 Sex-relations, 98 Shabbetai b. Joab, 295 133; See also Shamta, 7, 22; See also Herem; Ecom- munication. Sharing tax-burdens, 60, 239 Shaving the beard, 59, 234 Shehitah, 260 Sherira, Gaon, 3, 99 Shohet, 61, 79, 248, 367 Simhah b. Samuel, 62, 250 Simon of Trent, 77 Sir Leon, Judah, 63; See also Judah, R., Sir Leon. Slander, 61 Slaves, responsibility of, 201, 377 Solomon b. Jacob, 256 Solomon of Troyes, 36 Solomon Yedidiah b.Mathathias, 289, 275 Speyer, 21, 24, 62, 251 Stealing in play, 61 Stolen property, 79 Study, daily, 61, 248 Summons, laws of, 48, 59, 128, 236 Sutaye2 wos Synagogue, 16, 17, 33, 48, 60, 62, 88, 103, 129, 130, 186, 187, 196, 276, 280 S55 Synods, 35, 37, 40, 42, 43, 69, 86 Takkanot Shum, See Rhine Communities Taku, R. Moses, 14, 105 Talmud, burning of, 66; law of, 14, 29, 49, 69; study of, forbidden, 86 Talmud Torah, provision for, 351 Tam, R. Jacob, 14, 25, 27, 32, 36, 41-55, 58, 63, 69, 78, 81, 100, 133, 142, 148, 179, 184, 187, 300 Vaxes;-.125915,036,041 7960, 79,9 8490103, 105, 148, 238, 258, 290, 340, 359, 368; exemption from, 13, 37, 87; farmers of, 368; for educational pur- DOSES noo le oO Teacher, number of pupils per, fixed, 354 Tenants, 31, 84, 93, 199, 275, 305 Tephilin, 315 Testimony, witnesses compelled to give, 49 Three Communities, See Rhine Com- munities. Third Crusade 56; See also Crusdaes. Tithes, 18, 48, 61, 185, 247 Title to property, 131 WMOSAstisiS;:32; 03,.00,) 101 Traboto, R. Yehiel 301 Troyes, 36, 42, 43, 101 AMDTAES th hy Tuscana, 86 Valderas, 370 Valencia, 102, 344, 346 Valladolid, 103, 349 Venice, 313, 314 Vice, ordinances against, 88 390 INDEX Vigilance Committee, 86, 87 Usury, 90, 91, 234, 235; See also Money- lending. , Wallerstein, 259 Weddings, 97, 240, 247, 323, 351 Weil, R. Jacob, 314, 37, 76, 254 Weiss, I. H. 40, 43 Weissenfels, 76 Widows, exempt from taxation, 371 Wife-beating, 70 Wine, 79, 98, 234, 236, 260, 325, 352, 366 Women, status of, 14, 68, 201, 377-379; as witnesses, 201, 377 Worms, 21, 24, 52, 66, 251, 258, 264 Yaffe, R. Mordecai, 46, 166 Yedidiah, R., of Speyer, 66 Yehiel. b. Abraham, 295 Yehiel b. Isaac Ha-Kohen, 256 Yehiel b. Mattathias, 289 Yehiel of Paris, 66, 70, 82, 142, 145, 198, 200 Yekutiel b. Abraham, 295 Yekutiel b. Joab, 289, 295 Yekutiel b. Menahem, 295 Yibbum, 57; See Levirate Marriage; Halizah. Zedaka, R., 84, 275 ; i : a A " iM : i A iA ry (hye F onl, sae, a af . , yb) ee ~ BORS GOP bass Te ney ay een Ue ’ ae , Date Due IN U. S.A, PRINTED J ‘ « "9 ae i } nie F i ay Arty, be eae Na DS124 .F4 Jewish self-government in the middle ia 1 1012 00023 0385