Chapter XVII · PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS, AND THE BURNING OF THE TALMUD.

Pope Gregory IX—Emperor Frederick II and the Jewish Scholars, Jehuda Ibn-Matka and Jacob Anatoli—The Jewish Legislation of Frederick of Austria—The Martyrs of Aquitaine and Gregory IX—Louis IX of France and his Enmity to the Jews—Attacks on The Talmud—The Apostate Nicholas-Donin—Disputation at the French Court between Yechiel of Paris and Nicholas-Donin—Judah of Melun—The Talmud burnt at Paris—The Church and Jewish Physicians—Moses Ibn-Tibbon and Shem-Tob Tortosi—Papal Bull acquitting Jews of the Blood-accusation—The Last French Tossafists—The Jews of England—The Jewish Parliament—Alfonso the Wise and the Jews of Spain—Meïr de Malea and his Sons—The Jewish Astronomers Don Judah Cohen and Don Zag Ibn-Said—The Jews of Aragon—De Penyaforte and the Apostate Pablo Christiani—The First Censorship of the Talmud—Nachmani's Disputation with Pablo—Influence of Nachmani—The Karaites.

1236–1270 C. E.

Whilst these internal divisions continued, the poisonous seed that had been scattered abroad by the papacy was producing abundance of evil fruit. Persecutions of the Jews, which had hitherto been merely local, began to spread like a contagion, and became every year more violent and general. Innocent III, it is true, did not aim at the complete annihilation of the Jews, but only at their degradation. He desired to crush them down to a state lower than that of the rustic serfs, for which purpose the whole weight of the society of the Middle Ages, consisting of princes, nobles of high or low rank, the clergy of every degree, burghers and peasants, was to bear heavily upon them, to afflict them grievously, and to reduce them to a most pitiable condition. The humiliation of the Jews afforded great pleasure to the lower grades of the people, who were rejoiced to behold a class of human beings, sunk yet lower than themselves, against whom they could use their clumsy wit and rough fists. This people, which was branded with a distinguishing badge by the Church and society, was regarded by the ignorant mob as a race of outcasts, who might be put to death like filthy dogs, without any feeling of remorse. All sorts of crimes were attributed to the Jews, and credited. Fierce attacks on the Jews were repeated from time to time, and in various places, on the plea of child murder, and with such an air of truth in the charge that even well-disposed Christians were filled with doubts, and were inclined to believe the tissue of lies. It happened once that the body of a Christian was found between Lauda and Bischofsheim (in Baden). Who were the murderers? Jews, of course. On this altogether groundless accusation, the Jewish men, women and children of both towns were attacked by the mob and the clergy, and, without being brought to trial, were put to death. Then eight learned and pious men were brought up to answer for the supposed assassination of a Christian (on the 2d and 3d January, 1235); they were put to the rack, and, probably in consequence of the confessions wrung from them by the torture, they were executed. The plundering of Jewish houses was the invariable accompaniment of such massacres. The Jews in the neighboring districts thereupon implored Pope Gregory IX to grant them a charter, which might protect them against the arbitrary action of the murderous mob and the bigoted judges. In reply, he issued a bull to all Christendom (on the 3d of May, 1235), which repeated and confirmed the constitution of Pope Innocent III. So little sense of justice existed that it was the opinion of many that the Vicar of Christ had allowed himself to be induced to publish this bull by a bribe of a large sum of money from the Jews. However, whether this papal decree had emanated from love of justice, or had been the outcome of bribery, like many previous ones in favor of the Jews, it remained a dead letter. The spirit of intolerance and of Jew-hatred which was taught in the schools, and was preached in the pulpit by the Dominicans, became infused into the very blood of men, and the noblest natures were not able to escape contamination. Of what advantage was it to the Jews that they produced comparatively the largest number of scholars, who first rendered science accessible to Christians, either by means of translations and expositions of didactic writings in foreign languages, or through their own activity and discoveries, especially in medicine? They received no benefit from providing the marts of trade with wares, and the book market with works of genius, for the Christians would acknowledge no thanks to them for their labor, or repaid them by splitting their skulls.

As an eloquent illustration of the attitude of the Middle Ages with regard to the Jews, the conduct of the greatest and most cultured German emperor towards them may be instanced. Frederick II, the last of the Hohenstaufen line of emperors, was the most genial and unprejudiced monarch of the first half of the thirteenth century. A Sicilian rather than a German, he had a liking for the sciences, and supported men of genius with princely liberality. He took an interest in having writings on philosophy and astronomy translated from the Arabic, and for this purpose he employed many learned Jews. The emperor carried on a correspondence with a young Jewish scholar, Jehuda ben Solomon Cohen Ibn-Matka, of Toledo (born in about 1215, and wrote in 1247). His learning produced so deep an impression on Emperor Frederick that he submitted a number of scientific questions to him, and expressed pleasure at the answers returned to them. The emperor then probably induced him to come to Italy (Tuscany). Jehuda Ibn-Matka possessed the right of free entry to the imperial court.

The emperor invited another Jewish sage, Jacob Anatoli (Anatolio), to leave Provence and take up his residence in Naples. He granted the scholar an annual stipend, so that he might be at leisure to apply himself to the translation of Arabic works of a scientific character. This man, whose full name was Jacob ben Abba-Mari ben Simon, or Samson (flourished about 1200–1250), was the son-in-law of the prolific translator but sterile author, Samuel Ibn-Tibbon, who was praised by the Maimunists, and hated by the strict Talmudists. Anatoli resembled him as a son resembles his father, and in a manner continued his work of translation. Like Ibn-Tibbon he did not possess any creative genius, but was, so to speak, a handicraftsman in philosophy, who translated Arabic writings on this subject into Hebrew. He had undergone special training for this work with his father-in-law and his Christian friend, Michael Scotus. He had so exalted a reverence for Maimuni that he placed him in the rank of the prophets, and was naturally full of wrath against those who termed him a heretic. "These malicious bigots," he remarked, "would have condemned even David and Asaph, had they lived in these times." By the aid of philosophical catchwords, he interpreted Holy Writ in the spirit of Maimuni. He also tried to refer miracles, as far as possible, to natural causes, and was, in short, one of those men who divested Judaism of much of its mystical character. Following this method, he delivered public discourses on Sabbaths and festivals, which he collected into one volume (Malmed), which, in spite of its mediocrity, became the cherished book of the orthodox Provençal congregations. Frederick II entrusted him with the task of translating the writings of Aristotle, with the commentaries of the Arabic philosopher Averroës (Ibn-Roshd), hitherto unknown to Christians. A Christian doctor, probably Michael Scotus, the court astrologer of the emperor, translated these works into Latin, probably under the supervision of Anatoli.

From all this it might be expected that the emperor Frederick entertained a favorable feeling towards the Jews, especially as, if only a portion of the accusations which his contemporaries leveled against his orthodoxy be true, he was by no means convinced of the truths of Christianity. Pope Gregory IX, his mortal foe, frankly reproached him with having said in public that the world had been deluded by three impostors, Moses, Jesus, and Mahomet, of whom two had died an honorable death, but the third had ended his days on the cross. The emperor can, therefore, hardly be supposed to have taken deep offense at the unbelief of the Jews; yet in spite of all this, the emperor Frederick was no whit less an enemy of the Jews than his antipode, the bigoted Saint Louis of France. A bitter enemy to the papacy, which hindered his undertakings in every possible way, he nevertheless executed in his realm the canonical decree which excluded all Jews from public offices, making an exception only in the case of a certain Jewish clerk of the mint at Messina. In his capital, Palermo, he shut the Jews up in a Ghetto, an act of intolerance which far outstripped that of the popes of the time. In Austria, the Jews were permitted to fill public offices, under the rule of the Princes of Babenberg. The Archduke Frederick I, the Valiant, recognized the worth of the Jews as promoters of wealth, entrusted the care of his finances to Jewish officials, and granted to them titles of honor. Two brothers, Leblin and Nekelo, were officially styled chamberlains of the Duke of Austria. Frederick I of Austria (in 1244) granted a royal decree to the Jews of his domain, which appears to have been inspired by a love of justice and humanity, and which became an example for other similarly disposed potentates who desired to protect their Jewish subjects from injury and violence. This statute, which consisted of thirty clauses, aimed especially at affording protection to the Jewish inhabitants of Austria against murder and assault. If a Christian killed a Jew, he was to suffer the extreme penalty of the law; if he wounded him, he was to be compelled to pay a heavy fine, or lose his hand. If the murderer of a Jew could not be convicted by means of direct proof of the commission of the crime, but strong circumstantial evidence fixed the deed on him, then the relatives or friends of the Jew could appoint a champion to meet the accused in a duel. A Christian who made a murderous attack upon a Jewess was sentenced to the loss of his hand. Grave charges involving the persons or property of Jews were not to be determined by the evidence of a Christian, unless a Jewish witness confirmed the misdemeanor. A Christian who kidnapped a Jewish child for the purpose of compulsory baptism, was to be punished as a thief. The statute of Frederick the Valiant also allowed the Jews to exercise their own jurisdiction, so that the judges of the land could have no power over them. The synagogues and cemeteries of the Jews were also to be respected by Christians, and the latter were liable to heavy punishment for any outrage upon them. The statute further guaranteed to all Jews the privilege of free passage and free trading throughout the country, and the right to loan money on pledges. The rates of interest were limited, but were permitted to be sufficiently high. The right of accepting pledges, which had been granted to members of the Jewish religion, was strictly regulated as an object of vital importance for both the Jews and the Duke. This decree, moreover, shielded them against paying extortionate sums to the Christians for the conveyance of Jewish corpses from place to place. The Archduke Frederick remarked that he conceded these privileges to the Jews, in order that "they also might participate in his grace and good wishes." This statute also proved beneficial to the Jews of other lands, for within twenty years it was introduced into Hungary, Bohemia, Greater Poland, Meissen, and Thuringia, and later on into Silesia.

A duke of inferior rank thus set the example of protecting the Jews against caprice by means of fixed laws. The powerful emperor Frederick II thereupon censured Frederick the Valiant for his friendly attitude towards the Jews, and he, who himself had been expelled from the Church, published an edict that the Jews of Austria should be rigorously excluded from all public offices lest the race, condemned to perpetual slavery, oppress the Christians through its office-holding members. With particular satisfaction he pronounced the sentence that the Jews, wherever they were located, were the "servi cameræ" of the emperor. He adhered so strictly to the canonical decrees of the Lateran Council against them, that he was even more rigorous than the kings of Spain in executing the law which compelled the Jews in his hereditary provinces to wear a distinguishing badge, and he crushed them under a load of taxes. It is true that he permitted those who had come to Sicily from Africa (whence they had fled before the fanatical fury of the Almohades), to take up their residence under his sway. But whilst he remitted taxes from other colonies for ten years, he at once burdened the Jewish immigrants with heavy imposts, and restricted them to agricultural pursuits. He, indeed, promised his "servi cameræ" especial protection, but nevertheless he treated them as a despised race of human beings. Henceforward the three powers of Christianity, the princes, the Church, and the people, combined to utterly destroy the feeblest of nations.

When Pope Gregory IX gave orders for another crusade to be preached, the warriors of the cross assembled in Aquitania, made an attack upon the Jewish communities of Anjou, Poitou, in the cities of Bordeaux, Angoulême, and elsewhere, in order to compel them to accept baptism. But as the Jews remained steadfast to their faith, the crusaders acted with unprecedented cruelty towards them, trampling down many of them beneath the hoofs of their horses. They spared neither children nor pregnant women, and left the corpses lying unburied, a prey to wild beasts and birds. They destroyed the sacred books, burnt the houses of the Jews, and possessed themselves of their property. On this occasion, more than three thousand persons perished (in the summer of 1236), whilst more than five hundred accepted Christianity. Once again did the surviving Jews complain to the pope of this unendurable cruelty. The pope felt himself obliged to send a letter about the matter to the prelates of the Church in Bordeaux, Angoulême, and other bishoprics, and also to King Louis IX of France (September, 1236), in which he deplored the events that had taken place, and signified that the Church desired neither the utter annihilation of the Jews, nor their compulsory baptism. What, however, could occasional letters of admonition avail against the bitter feeling of abhorrence towards the Jews that had been stirred up by the Church? The otherwise noble and well-disposed monarch, Louis IX, was so ruled by his prejudice that he could not bear to look at a Jew. He encouraged the conversion of the Jews in every way, and permitted the children of converted fathers to be torn away from their mothers, who still adhered to Judaism. The Jews had only one means wherewith to appease the rage that was kindled against them, and that was—money. In England, by its influence, they induced King Henry III to proclaim throughout his territories that no one should offer any injury to a Jew. But this means proved to be a double-edged sword that turned against the very people it was intended to benefit. In order to raise large sums of money, the Jews were compelled to charge extortionate interest, and even to have recourse to fraud. In this way, they incurred the hatred of the populace, and subjected themselves to further outrages. The repeated complaints about their usury prompted Louis IX to fix the rate of interest, and in many cases to remit a portion of the debts owing to Jews. But when this same king determined to repress usury, and called together a number of barons to decide upon the matter, the latter asserted that the peasants and merchants were unable to dispense with loans from the Jews, and that the Jews were preferable to the Christian money-lenders, because the latter oppressed their Christian debtors with still higher rates of usurious interest.

In the midst of all these troubles, petty inflictions and persecutions, there was only one spot in which the Jew might feel himself quite happy, and was able to forget his sufferings. The house of learning, where young and old gathered together in order to study the Talmud, was their only haven of peace. Absorbed in their study, the Talmud enthusiasts became entirely oblivious of the outer world, with its bitter hate, its malicious laws and its cruel tortures. Here they were princes, the majesty of thought cast a halo about their brows, and their delight in spiritual activity transfigured their features. Their whole happiness consisted in solving some difficult problem in the Talmud, or in throwing light upon some obscure point, or in discovering something new which had escaped the notice of their predecessors. They looked neither for office nor honor in reward for their profound studies, and received no tangible recompense for their nocturnal vigils. They desired only to gratify their intense longing for knowledge, to satisfy their sense of religious duty, at best, assure themselves of reward in the hereafter. The all-important occupation for all was study, and the flower of all scholarship was the Talmud. As soon as a child was able to lisp, he was led on the morning of Pentecost from his house to the synagogue or "school," with his eyes veiled, in order that they might not encounter anything profane. There the Hebrew alphabet, in its usual and also in a reversed order, and some appropriate verses were read to him. He was rewarded with a honey cake and an egg, with Scriptural verses inscribed on them. The day on which the child was first introduced to the Law was celebrated by his parents and the whole congregation as a festive occasion. If he proved at all intelligent, he was allowed to begin the Talmud, after having spent some time over the Bible. To be a student of the Talmud was esteemed the highest honor. Disgrace was the portion of the ignoramus (Am ha-Arez). A studious youth passed many years in the house of learning even till the time of his marriage; and to the end of his life the earning of his livelihood was held to be of secondary importance, and the study of the Talmud the aim of his existence. This absorbing study of the Talmud was certainly one-sided, but there was something ideal about it. The hand of the enemy had up to this time not violated this inner sanctuary. The temporal authorities did not concern themselves about the matter, the clergy had no power over the domestic affairs of the Jews; here excommunication itself proved ineffectual.

This domestic peace of the Jews was, however, soon to be destroyed; even from their intellectual asylum they were to be driven forth. The leader in the movement was a baptized Jew, who incited the temporal and the spiritual powers against his former co-religionists. A man, named Donin (or Dunin), a Talmudist from La Rochelle, in the north of France, conceived doubts of the validity of the Talmud and the oral law. For this he was excommunicated by the French rabbis. Having no position either among Jews or among Christians, Donin determined to accept baptism, and assumed the name of Nicholas. Filled with hatred against the rabbis and the Talmud, the apostate determined to revenge himself on both. Probably urged on by the clergy, he became the instigator of the great autos-da-fé of the Jews and their writings, and it was he that occasioned the bloody persecution in Poitou. His appetite for revenge was, however, not yet satiated. Donin or Nicholas betook himself to Pope Gregory IX, and brought charges against the Talmud, saying that it distorted the words of Holy Writ, and that in the Agadic portions there were to be found disgraceful representations of God; that in spite of this, it was held in higher estimation by the rabbis than the Bible, and finally that it was filled with abuse against the founder of the Christian religion and the Virgin. Donin demonstrated to the pope that it was the Talmud which prevented the Jews from accepting Christianity, and that without it they would certainly give up their unbelief. The excess of veneration paid by the compilers of the Talmud to earlier lawgivers caused cruel suffering. Without considering the sage remark of Abtalion, "Ye wise men, be cautious with your words," they, in their desire to immortalize every utterance, every familiar conversation, every trivial controversy, and even every joke made by one of the Tanaïm or Amoraïm, had incorporated these in the Talmud, thinking that the outer world would be none the wiser. But the sins of the fathers were visited upon the children. On account of various unguarded statements, the Talmud was dragged before the judgment-bench to answer these charges, and the whole of the Jewish world, which had accepted the Talmud as its guide in life, was made responsible for its contents. This was the first time that it was thus accused, but in the course of the century the charge was repeated frequently and in a more bitter spirit. The apostate had made extracts from the Talmud, and formulated thirty-five articles, upon which he based his charges. Some of these alleged that the Talmud contained many gross errors and absurdities, and also rank blasphemies against God; in others, it was stated that it upheld dishonesty and duplicity in intercourse with Christians; others again asserted that the Talmud insulted and blasphemed Jesus, the Virgin, and the Church. Compared with the spiteful attacks which the Evangelists, the Church Fathers down to Hieronymus and Augustine, and various ecclesiastical scholars have made, with the intention of humiliating and injuring the Jews, the few passages in the Talmud concerning Jesus seem harmless jests; but the Church was waging successful war against the Synagogue, and was very sensitive to any disrespectful utterance. In his charges against the Talmud, Nicholas-Donin had, however, distorted the truth. He had stated that the Talmudical writings taught that it was a meritorious action to kill even the best among the Christians; that a Christian who rested on the Sabbath day or studied the Law was to be punished with death; that it was lawful to deceive a Christian; that Jews were permitted to break a promise made on oath; and he had made many other lying assertions.

The guilt of the Talmud, which implied that of the Jews, seemed unmistakable to Pope Gregory, for whom the apostate had drawn up these grounds of accusation, and to whom he had communicated them both by word of mouth and in writing. He immediately dispatched to the heads of the Church in France, England, Castile, Aragon, and Portugal, transcripts of the list of charges tabulated by Nicholas, and commanded them to confiscate all copies of the Talmud—on the morning of the first Saturday in Lent, when the Jews assembled in their synagogues—and to hand them over to the Dominicans and Franciscans. He also wrote to the monarchs of those countries, and called upon them to support the Church with their temporal power. The pope further admonished the provincials of the two orders of monks, who had inquisitorial power over books and doctrines, to submit the contents of the Talmudical writings to an examination; and if their judgment corroborated the charges of Nicholas-Donin, they were to burn the volumes of the Talmud (9 June, 1239).

Thus a new weapon for the destruction of Judaism was brought into play, and had this papal decree been rigidly executed, the spiritual life of the Jews, which was intimately bound up with the Talmud, would have been endangered in its most vital part. The pope gave Nicholas a special letter to be delivered to William, Bishop of Paris, which charged him with the vigorous persecution of the Talmud in France, the chief seat of Talmudical erudition, and the original home of the Tossafists.

However, when the pope's edict was to be executed, it appeared that the pretended Vicar of God upon earth did not really possess, even in the zenith of his power, the great influence he was supposed to have. Only in such places where personal interests and passions were concerned did the princes thoroughly carry into effect the violent policy of the pope; otherwise, unless the rulers were particularly bigoted, but little heed was paid to papal decrees even in the Middle Ages. The command of Gregory to confiscate the Talmud was entirely disregarded in Spain and in England, at least there is no record of any hostile measures in these countries. Only in France, where the priest-ridden and weak-minded Louis IX, having attained his majority, had nominally assumed the reins of government, was the Talmud really confiscated. The Jews were compelled under penalty of death to surrender their copies (March, 1240). The Talmud was then put on trial. Four distinguished rabbis of northern France were commanded by the king to hold a public disputation with Nicholas, either to refute the imputations leveled against the Talmud, or to make confession that it contained abuse against Christianity and blasphemies against God. Each of these rabbis was to be examined separately, and to give replies to the accuser.

The four rabbis who were summoned to act as advocates on behalf of the Talmud were Yechiel (Vivo) of Paris, Moses of Coucy, who had returned from his embassy to Spain, Jehuda ben David of Melun, and Samuel ben Solomon of Chateau-Thierry. Yechiel, who was more eloquent than his associates, and, besides, had more frequently entered into theological discussions with antagonists who belonged to the Church, was first called, unaccompanied by his friends. He was not asked to controvert the accusations made against them, but to confess that these were founded on truth. The disputation was held in Latin at the royal court (on the 5th of Tamuz—25th June, 1240), in the presence of the bishops of Paris and Senlis, of many Dominicans, and of the wise queen-mother Blanche, who for all practical purposes was at the head of affairs. At first Yechiel refused to answer. He based his objection upon the constitution of the popes, which had assured independence to the Jews in their domestic concerns. He remarked that the Talmud was the very essence of their life, in behalf of which numbers of Jews were prepared to die. The queen, however, allayed his fears by assuring him that their lives were in no danger; she would protect them, and he was only required to answer the questions asked of him. When Nicholas demanded that Rabbi Yechiel should take an oath to answer to the best of his knowledge and ability, as otherwise he might attempt to pervert the truth by subtleties and evasions, the rabbi refused to do so. He said that never, in the course of his life, had he taken an oath, and that he would not invoke the name of God in vain. Thereupon the queen released him from the necessity of taking an oath. The discussion which now took place turned upon the two points, whether there were in the Talmud immoral sentiments and offensive passages against the Deity, and whether it contained insulting remarks concerning Jesus. Yechiel disproved the charge of blasphemy and immorality. With regard to the second of the accusations, he asserted that there could be no doubt that many odious facts were related in the Talmud concerning a Jesus, the son of Pantheras; these, however, had no reference to Jesus of Nazareth, but to one of a similar name who had lived long before him. He himself believed that this declaration was true, and affirmed it with the solemnity of an oath. Tradition and Talmudical chronology had misled him into believing that the Jesus whose name occurred in the Talmud was not identical with the founder of Christianity. Yechiel also contended, among other things, that the Father of the Church, Hieronymus, and other Church Fathers, who were acquainted with the Talmud, had never asserted that it contained sentiments hostile to the Christian faith, and that Nicholas was the first one to raise these false imputations, inspired as he was with feelings of malice and revenge against his former co-religionists, who had expelled him from their community on account of his heresy.

The examination of Yechiel of Paris lasted two days, during which the Jewish congregations fasted, and offered up prayers to God to avert misfortune from their heads. On the third day, the second rabbi, Judah of Melun, was examined, without having been previously allowed to confer with Yechiel, who was kept in custody. In the main, he agreed with the statements of Yechiel, that the defamatory passages in the Talmud concerning Jesus did not refer to the man who was held in such great honor by the Christians, and that the Talmud was indispensable to the religious life of the Jews. The two remaining rabbis were not required to undergo an examination. As the result of this three days' discussion (25th-27th June, 1240), the commission, which had been appointed to make an inquiry into the Talmud, condemned it to be burnt, on the ground that Yechiel and Judah of Melun had been compelled to admit the truth of several of the charges. The sentence of condemnation, however, remained unexecuted. It appears that Archbishop Walter (Guatier) Cornutus, of Sens, a prelate influential with the king, had interceded on behalf of the Jews, and had succeeded in having many of the confiscated volumes restored to their owners. From a Christian source of information, which was intended to calumniate the Jews, but which only points conclusively to the corruptibility of the Church dignitaries of the time, it is gleaned that this prelate was won over to the side of the Jews by a bribe. The French Jews were filled with great joy at the unexpected issue of this event which was of such vital importance to them, and celebrated the day on which the copies of the Talmud were restored to them as a day of rejoicing. But they had begun to exult too early.

The prelate who had raised his voice in favor of the Jews died suddenly; the fanatical monks saw in this a heaven-sent punishment for his befriending the Jews, or persuaded the weak-minded and docile monarch that it was so. Thereupon he commanded that the volumes of the Talmud and similar writings should be sought for, and taken away from their possessors by force. Four-and-twenty cartloads of them were brought together in one spot in Paris, and committed to the flames (Friday, Tamuz—June, 1242). Two young men, one a Provençal and the other a German, named respectively Abraham Bedaresi and Meïr, of Rothenburg, wrote each an elegy upon this event. The French Jews or the French students of the Talmud, who imagined that they could as little exist without the Talmud as without their souls, did not remain passive in quiet endurance of their grief. They turned to Pope Innocent IV, the successor of Gregory IX, and begged that they might be permitted to retain their Talmudical writings, without which they could not fulfil their religious obligations. Their petition was acceded to. The new pope promulgated a decree that they were not to be deprived of those writings which contained nothing antagonistic to Christianity (1243), and under this description the Talmud could be included, as the Christian clergy were unable to discriminate between one work and another. The fanatics, however, among whom was the papal legate, Odo, of Chateauroux, continued to agitate against this edict, till they induced the pope to give his sanction to the sentence of condemnation that had been passed upon the Talmud.

The grief of the French Jews on account of these events was heartrending. They felt as if their very hearts had been torn from them. The pious men among them kept the anniversary of the burning of the Talmud as a fast. One good effect, however, sprang from these wholesale methods of destruction. The opponents of the Maimunists were, to a certain extent, disarmed, and the fierce passions of the parties engaged in internal conflict were stilled for the moment. Jonah Gerundi was the sole survivor of the chief antagonists of the Maimunist teaching. But a short time before he had given the writings of Maimuni to the Dominicans and the Franciscans in Paris to be thrown into the flames. As soon as Jonah became aware of the bitter hostility of the monkish orders of the Inquisition to the Talmud, which was so highly revered by him, he very deeply regretted that he had employed them as the instruments of his hate against Maimuni, and beheld in the burning of the Talmud a divine punishment for his having allowed the writings of Maimuni to be consumed by fire. He was so overwhelmed by the sense of his injustice that he publicly, in the synagogue, confessed his sincere repentance, and announced his intention of making a pilgrimage to the grave of Maimuni, there, veiled in mourning, to prostrate himself and, in the presence of ten persons, to implore the pardon of this great and pious man. For this purpose he set out on a journey, left Paris, and stopped at Montpellier, where he also made public confession of his remorse for his procedure against Maimuni. This act reconciled the two parties. The opponents cast aside all feelings of rancor, and treated each other as brethren. In his discourses, he repeatedly mentioned the name of Maimuni with the respect due to that of a holy man. This conversion possessed so much the greater importance, as Jonah was a rabbinical authority, and the author of several Talmudical works, which were held in high estimation.

From this time forward the whole history of the Jews alternated between restrictive laws and bloody persecutions, which were repeated from year to year, now at one place, now at another, but principally in Germany, where the intolerant Church had transformed the naturally mild-tempered people into tigers. When the Mongols and Tartars, the savage warriors of Jenghis-Khan, made their inroads into Europe, ravaged Russia and Poland, and penetrated to the borders of Germany, the Jews were accused of having secretly aided this enemy of Christianity. Instead of directing their charges against Emperor Frederick II and the pope, who, engaged in an obstinate feud, looked on quietly whilst the savage conquerors were advancing, the rage of the deluded populace, based upon groundless imputations of guilt, was directed against the Jews of Germany. There were, indeed, Jewish soldiers among the Mongols, from the independent tribes of Khorasan, or, as the legends call them, the remnant of the Ten Tribes who were shut in by the Caspian mountains. Had the German Jews any knowledge of their kinsmen among the Mongol hordes? Had they any secret understanding with them? The story was circulated in Germany that the Jews had offered to supply the Mongols with poisoned provisions. Under this pretext they had attempted to provide them with weapons of all kinds enclosed in casks. A vigilant guard at the borders, having his suspicions aroused, insisted on having the casks opened, whereupon the plot was revealed. This tale was received with general credulity, and was the cause of much suffering to the German Jews.

As if the representatives of the Church had not yet done sufficient harm to the Jews, they determined to deprive them of their only remaining position of influence in Christian society. The practice of medicine was in the hands of Jews principally; indeed, nearly every prince and noble had his private Jewish physician, who possessed more or less influence over the mind of the one whose body was entrusted to his skill. The clergy, who were seldom gentle as doves, but often full of cunning, could not suffer this influence of the Jews over the powerful rulers of the land. The Church council at Béziers was the first to pay special attention to the question of Jews' practising the medicinal art. Under the presidency of the Archbishop of Narbonne, this council, which also inflicted all kinds of hardships upon the Albigensian heretics, renewed many ancient restrictions. They enacted that Jews should not be allowed to possess Christian servants or nurses, and that they should not be eligible to offices of trust. They were not to leave their homes during Passion Week; they were to pay to the Church an annual sum of six dinars for each family. Upon their breasts they were bidden to wear a distinctive badge, that of a wheel, and they were forbidden to sell meat in public. To these laws there was added a canonical decree that Christians should not seek the services of Jewish physicians, under penalty of excommunication (May, 1246). These restrictive enactments were repeated by a council held in the south of France, in which district the Jews had conferred distinction upon the healing art. Three generations of the Tibbon family had acted as instructors to Christian physicians, and now the third member of the family, Moses (who flourished 1250–1285 in Montpellier), the translator of philosophical and medical writings, was commanded to discontinue practising among Christian patients. Another writer on medicine, and a practical physician, Shem-Tob ben Isaac of Tortosa (born 1206, composed his works about 1261–1264), delivered public discourses on the healing art to Christian audiences in Marseilles, and made them acquainted with the results of the Arabic schools. This physician presents an instructive instance of the Jewish zeal for knowledge. In his youth he was taught exclusively in the Talmud; later he forsook this study, and became a merchant, making journeys across the sea, and going as far as the last remaining seat of the former Christian kingdom of Jerusalem, Jean d'Acre (Accho). Here one of his co-religionists, who was engaged in the study of mathematics, upbraided him for having considered science subordinate to the earning of a livelihood. Owing to this rebuke, although over thirty years of age, Shem-Tob Tortosi changed his plan of life, hastened from Accho to Barcelona, and made study his primary pursuit, and the earning of his livelihood a subsidiary one. He studied medicine, and became so proficient that he was able to translate the writings of the best Arabic physicians, and to deliver lectures upon the healing art. These and many other Jewish physicians were now, in pursuance of the edict of the council at Béziers, to be driven forth from the temple to which they alone, it may almost be said, in all Christendom possessed the key.

However, although the Church held the souls of the faithful captive and in a state of mystification, yet their bodies remained rebelliously opposed to her and her decisions. This canonical law could not, therefore, long retain its force. In sickness even the most bigoted Christian called in the aid of the clever Jewish physician. When Alfonso, Duke of Poitou and Toulouse, the brother of the fanatical king, Louis IX, under whose patronage the anti-Jewish councils at Béziers and Alby had taken place, was afflicted with some disease of the eye, he was perforce obliged to invoke the assistance of Abraham of Aragon, a skilful Jewish oculist. The lord of Lünel was driven to use great efforts, and to seek the good offices of his Jewish agent, in order to induce the wealthy and independent Jewish physician to attend to the French prince. In Montpellier, the seat of a famous college of medicine, Jewish physicians continued for a long time to be permitted to take the examinations, to practise, and even to give instruction.

The frequent massacres of the Jews, which for ten years had been taking place in Germany and France, especially on the charge of the murder of Christian children, induced the German and French congregations to apply for protection to Pope Innocent IV, and to explain to him that the charge that they employed the blood and hearts of human beings was a lying invention, concocted solely for the purpose of seeking an occasion for murder and robbery. At this time, Innocent lived in partial exile at Lyons, whither he had been forced to retire owing to his dispute with Emperor Frederick II. He yielded to the entreaty of the Jews, either because he deemed it necessary, in view of his strained relations with nearly all the temporal powers, to appear just, or because the Jews had liberally supplied him with the means of which he was so covetous, to enable him to overcome his bitter opponents. His greed for money was the subject of a biting satire, describing how the goddess Pecunia rules the world, the Church never closing its doors against her, and the pope willingly receiving her in his arms. Innocent IV dispatched a bull from Lyons (July 5, 1247) to the Church dignitaries of France and Germany, in which, for the first time, the repeated baseless and fiendish imputations against the Jews were officially contradicted. "Certain of the clergy, and princes, nobles and great lords of your dioceses have falsely devised certain godless plans against the Jews, unjustly depriving them by force of their property, and appropriating it themselves; they falsely charge them with dividing up among themselves on the Passover the heart of a murdered boy. Christians believe that the Law of the Jews prescribes this to them, whilst in their Law the very reverse is ordained. In fact, in their malice, they ascribe every murder, wherever it chance to occur, to Jews. And on the ground of these and other fabrications, they are filled with rage against them, rob them of their possessions without any formal accusation, without confession, and without legal trial and conviction. Contrary to the privileges graciously granted to them from the Apostolic chair, and opposed to God and His justice, they oppress the Jews by starvation, imprisonment, and by other tortures and sufferings; they afflict them with all kinds of punishments, and sometimes even condemn them to death, so that the Jews, although living under Christian princes, are in a worse plight than were their ancestors in Egypt under the Pharaohs. They are driven to leave in despair the land in which their fathers have dwelt since the memory of man. Since it is our pleasure that they shall not be distressed, we ordain that ye behave towards them in a friendly and kind manner. Whenever any unjust attacks upon them come under your notice, redress their injuries, and do not suffer them to be visited in the future by similar tribulations." One would imagine that so decisive a condemnation of the blood-accusation would once for all have disposed of these false charges. But the papacy had so impregnated men's hearts with the feeling of hatred against the Jews, that a mild expression of opinion from one or the other of the popes passed idly away as a breath of wind.

The so-called St. Louis was literally more papal than the pope himself. His weak mind lent its ready aid to all the fanatical measures taken against the Jews. When the wild idea occurred to him of entering upon a new crusade, he confiscated the property of certain Jews in order to obtain money for the campaign. Whilst waging war in Egypt in furtherance of the crusade, he was taken prisoner (April-May, 1250). He was jeered at by the Mahometans, because he, the most Christian king, suffered the enemies of Christianity to remain in his kingdom. He thereupon, on his release, promulgated an edict for the banishment of all Jews, with the exception of handicraftsmen, from his hereditary lands. However, his prudent mother, the queen Blanche, probably paid little heed to this reckless command. On her death, however, and the subsequent return of Louis to France (December, 1254), the king seriously set about expelling the Jews. Their landed property, synagogues and cemeteries, were forfeited to the crown. What Philip Augustus had done from apparently political motives, Louis, the saint of the Church, did from fanaticism. But on this, as on the former occasion, the period of exile was not long. As before, the edict affected only those Jews who dwelt in the king's own territories; and even then those who lived by the labor of their hands were excepted. A few years later, permission was granted to the exiles to return, and their synagogues and cemeteries were restored to them.

It is a noteworthy fact that the spiritual activity of the French Jews, the ingenious exposition of the Talmud by the Tossafists, in no degree ceased on account of these miseries, but continued undisturbed for some time longer. The Talmud was burnt; the teaching of it was again prohibited by Louis, and still, in this very time, the pious itinerant preacher, Moses of Coucy, composed his great work on the Law. In this he combined, in a clear, synoptical manner, the elements of the Talmud with the religious ordinances of the Bible, proceeding on the basis of the Code of Maimuni. Another famous Talmudist, Samuel ben Solomon Sir Morel, of Falaise, prepared a new collection of Tossafoth, just at the time when the Talmud was proscribed (1252–1259); he possessed no copy of the Talmud to work from, because the Dominican spies had deprived him of it, and he was compelled to rely upon his memory. Moreover, Yechiel of Paris had three hundred students of the Talmud in his academy, to whom he delivered discourses, probably from memory. But this activity could not long continue; there were too many obstacles to be encountered. The French congregations had become impoverished by the frequent demands for money and the confiscation of their property. Whilst formerly France had sent money for the support of the Jews in Asia, Yechiel was now compelled to send a messenger to Palestine and the neighboring lands to procure supplies for the maintenance of his academy. Yechiel felt himself obliged to leave his native land and to emigrate to Palestine (to Jean d'Acre). He was one of the last representatives of the French Tossafist school, which had developed so much ingenuity and critical acumen, but was now gradually declining and approaching its fall. The Church was succeeding in altogether destroying the Talmudical spirit which had its chief home in France. The last followers of the school of Tossafists in France were only compilers, who endeavored to bring the results of the labors of past scholars into proper form and order. Prompted by the conviction that the study of the Talmud was declining, and that even the rabbis were at a loss for correct decisions, Isaac ben Joseph, of Corbeil, the disciple and son-in-law of Yechiel of Paris, wrote a concise manual of such religious duties as were of practical importance to the Jews in their dispersion (Semak). He strove to render his book as popular and pleasing as possible, for he could not at that time depend upon its being easily understood by the bulk of the people in any other form, and he sent a letter to the congregations of France and Germany asking them to make copies of his work, and to spread the knowledge of it. The Tossafist method of study perished before the fanaticism of the mendicant friars and the bigotry of King Louis IX.

In England, throughout the long reign of King Henry III (1216–1272), the condition of the Jews grew worse and worse. Henry, indeed, was not a tyrant like his father, John Lackland, and was at first kindly disposed towards the Jews. During his minority, whilst the regent held the reins of office, the Jews were treated with great indulgence. Commands were given to the sheriffs to protect them against the violence of the mob; and distinct and impressive orders were given to the clergy not to assume any power over the Jews. Henry, or the regent, permitted foreign Jews to land and settle in any part of England without paying any special tax for the privilege; and he forbade the native Jews, not, indeed, from any particularly tender feeling towards them, to quit the country. Henry, as his father had done, appointed a chief rabbi over all the Jewish congregations (presbyter Judæorum). The first man to hold this office was Joceus (José?); Aaron of York succeeded him, and the last to hold the post was Elias, of London. This appointment was for life. The English chief rabbi possessed very great authority over the members of his community. He was at the same time royal overseer (justitiarus) of the revenues of the crown which were obtained from the Jews. He, together with certain Jewish and Christian colleagues, had to keep a register of the property of the English Jews in the Rolls (rotuli); to see also to the payment of the Jew-tax into the treasury, called the Exchequer of the Jews; and also to deliver up to the royal exchequer the property of men who had died without heirs, this property escheating to the crown. If the chief rabbi did not wish to occupy himself with financial matters, he could appoint a substitute with full powers. Finally, he was invested with the authority to excommunicate members of his community who refused to obey his decrees, or who would not contribute towards the burdens of the congregation. Henry III at first energetically restrained the intolerance of the Church. On one occasion, when the Archbishop of Canterbury, in order to prevent intercourse between Christians and Jews, issued a decree prohibiting all Christians, on pain of ecclesiastical censure, from selling any kinds of food to Jews, the king countermanded the interdict. Whilst the French Jews were being robbed and massacred by the crowds of crusaders, Henry exerted himself to prevent the spreading of this spirit of fanaticism over his domains.

But this considerate treatment of the Jews did not last long. Henry III was of a reckless, thoughtless nature, and very extravagant. He lent a ready ear to all that his friends advised. He was especially guided by the legates and financial agents of the pope, who had been sent to loot this rich land, and who, like a long-enduring epidemic, caused much injury to England, and stirred up revolts and civil war. On the one hand, he was in great need of a very large sum of money, and on the other, the influence of the Church was continually growing stronger. In order to replenish his almost empty coffers, Henry levied a poll-tax upon the Jews, even upon newly-born infants. A portion of every debt contracted between Jews and Christians was to be paid into the royal treasury. The bonds for debts owing to Jews were therefore registered and examined with suspicious care, lest an attempt be made to defraud his majesty. The bonds had to be attested by several witnesses, and a copy of them deposited in the city archives. The ordinary Jew-taxes, however, did not long satisfy the king, who was involved in debt, and very lavish in his expenditure. Enormous sums were extracted from the congregations, now under one pretext, now under another. The clergy furnished the opportunities. Sometimes the Jews were accused of making away with their baptized brethren, and of circumcising Christian boys. Upon such charges, individuals or even whole congregations were cast into prison, and released only on payment of a heavy ransom. All this, however, presents no novel features. Something entirely new and original was done when the king summoned a Jewish Parliament. He issued writs to all the English communities, commanding the larger ones to return six representatives from among their distinguished men, and the smaller ones two, who were to assemble before the king, in Worcester, on the Sunday before Lent. The Jewish Parliament in Worcester numbered over one hundred members. The king in his message stated that they were to take counsel together for their own and his majesty's welfare. But it is scarcely possible that the Jews allowed themselves to be lulled by the deceptive promise that liberties would be conceded to them. Henry assembled his ordinary Parliament only when he was in urgent need of supplies. Accordingly, he informed his Jewish Parliament that it was to collect large sums of money for him, and the Jews dared not make any objections. Finally, the Parliament elected trustworthy men to assess the money for each congregation, and to see to its payment. If the apportioned sums of money were not forthcoming, the collectors were made answerable, on penalty of imprisonment of themselves, their wives, and their families. When at length, Henry had extorted enough from the Jews, and a feeling of shame prevented him from demanding any more money from them, he pledged them, on certain conditions, to his brother Richard, who had even less consideration for them.

The Church now began her canonical extortions and cruelties. The clergy prevailed on the king, who was their puppet, to prohibit the Jews from erecting any new house of prayer; they were not to utter their prayers aloud in their synagogues, and especially they were to wear the conspicuous Jew-badge on their garments. Many other enactments to a similar effect were passed. The life of the Jews became so intolerable by reason of this double tyranny of Church and State, that their chief rabbi Elias, together with a few colleagues, twice declared to the king, in the name of the congregations, that they could not pay the taxes that were continually being demanded from them, and they must ask leave to quit the country. However sorry they might be to depart from their native land and to forsake their homes, they preferred it to the miserable condition in which they now were. But it was of no avail. The Jews were obliged to remain in England against their will; they were forced to surrender their last farthing, and to resort to usury in order to replenish their coffers. An account, which is still extant, gives some idea of the exactions made by Henry III. The Jews were required to collect within seven years the sum of £422,000 sterling. One Jew, Aaron of York, was compelled to pay to the king, in seven years, the sum of 30,000 marks of silver, besides 200 marks of gold to the queen. As the chief rabbi Elias was not sufficiently severe in raising money for the king, Henry deposed him, and granted the Jews the privilege, on payment of a certain sum, of electing their own spiritual leaders.

Meanwhile, in England also, the usual charge of child-murder was made against the Jews. The Dominicans, with their poisonous eloquence, zealously called for their punishment. Several of them were thrown into prison; but they were freed by the Franciscans. Matthew Paris, the malicious chronicler of the period, remarks, concerning the affair, "Dame Rumor has it that the Minorites' friendship for the Jews was bought by a bribe." This statement does not, indeed, go to prove the guilt of the Jews in the charge of child-murder, but that the Franciscans had for once permitted themselves to be bought for a just cause. The constant agitation of the fanatical Dominicans against the Jews had filled the people with deep hatred against this race. At the time when the Commons were admitted by law as the Third Estate, and rose against the despotic rule of the monarch, they made an attack upon the Jews in London, pillaged their treasures, and murdered 1500 of them (Easter week, 1264). The surviving Jews fled for safety to the Tower, where the king granted them his protection; their houses, however, fell into the hands of the plundering barons. The Jews became so impoverished by these assaults that they were not able to pay the ordinary taxes, and Henry was obliged to remit payment for the space of three years, in order to avoid reducing them to a state of total destitution (1268). Besides, the king and the Parliament forbade their buying fee estates, or, in general, real property from Christian owners (1270).

Superficially compared with their brethren in England, France and Germany, the Jews in Spain at this time appeared to be living in paradise. In Castile, Alfonso X (1252–1284), who was called the Wise, even by his contemporaries, was king. He had a veritable and strong affection for science, and encouraged its pursuit. He emulated the fame of his Mahometan predecessors, Abderrahman III and Alhakem. His father, Ferdinand the Holy—a title always synonymous with the Intolerant—was not particularly gracious towards the Jews, but the son, who in no respect was in accord with him, appeared desirous of pursuing another course of action. In the war against Seville, which he conducted whilst still heir-apparent, there were many Jewish soldiers in his army. When this city was captured, and the district was being partitioned among the warriors, the Infante Alfonso looked well to the interests of his Jewish allies. He allotted to them certain lands, where they might form a village exclusively Jewish (Aldea de los Judios). He transferred three mosques, which they turned into synagogues, to the Jews of Seville. The latter had probably helped him in the capture of the city, as they had been very wretched under the rule of the Almohades, having been compelled to live as Mahometans. A large portion of the town, which was separated from the rest of the city by a wall, belonged to them (under the name of Parternilla de los Judios). Out of gratitude towards the victor, the congregation of Seville presented him with a valuable, artistically wrought key, with a Hebrew and Spanish inscription, which ran as follows:—"The King of kings opens, the king of the land will enter." When Alfonso ascended the throne, he entrusted many important official positions to the Jews. Don Meïr de Malea, who was a cultured man, and a student of the Talmud, was treasurer to this monarch, and bore the title of Almoxarif. He appears to have performed his functions in this office in so excellent a manner that his son, Don Zag (Isaac), succeeded him in the position. It became the custom in Castile for a long space of time to select Jews as Chancellors of the Exchequer, not only because they were better informed on financial matters than the Spanish hidalgos, but because they managed in a more trustworthy and skilful manner. Many other Jews were admitted to the court of Alfonso. He employed a Jewish physician, Don Judah ben Moses Cohen, who at the same time was his astronomer and astrologer. The king, who was himself engaged in the study of astrology and alchemy to a great extent, had astronomical works, and a book upon the qualities of certain stones, translated by learned Jews, from Arabic into Castilian. At this period, as in earlier times, there were very few Christian scholars acquainted with Arabic, although they were surrounded by Arabs, and the Jews here, as in most places, had to furnish the means of communication. Churchmen who had not forgotten their Latin then translated the Castilian version made by the Jews into the language of the Church. The king was accustomed to call the reader of prayers in the synagogue of Toledo "his sage." This man was Don Zag (Isaac) Ibn-Said (Sid), one of the most distinguished astronomers of his age. Alfonso commissioned this precentor, Don Zag, to draw up astronomical tables, which work renders the name of this sovereign more famous than his warlike deeds and his political wisdom. Up to the time of the recent discoveries in astronomy, those engaged in this study made use of the "Tables of Alfonso," which more appropriately should be termed the tables of Zag or of Said. There was a third Jewish scientist at the court of Alfonso, Samuel Halevi, whose name is associated with an ingenious water-clock, which he invented, and fashioned at the order of the king. The representatives of the Church were naturally very much incensed that the Jews held these important positions at court, and the Pope Nicholas III thereupon, with characteristic selfishness and presumption, reproached the king with a long list of sins, and pointed out that many evils arose because Jews were preferred to Christians.

However, although Alfonso admitted many cultured and able Jews to court, and employed their talents, yet the condition of the Jews of Castile under his rule was by no means so favorable as one might at first sight expect. Alfonso was not altogether free from the prejudices of his time. The spirit of hatred of the Jews, which had been stirred up by Innocent III, had taken its hold upon him, as upon Emperor Frederick II, whose place he had been elected to fill by a certain faction. Alfonso deserved the honorable title of "the Wise" only in a limited sense, seeing that he acted very unwisely in political matters, and in his relations with the Church was by no means so enlightened as Frederick II. As a favor to the clergy, or because he was a bigot, he placed many restrictions upon the Jews, and reduced them to a degraded condition. It is not quite certain whether the Visigothic collection of laws (called Forum Judicum, fuero juzgo) was translated into Castilian by Alfonso or by his father. From this collection the Spaniards acquired their ineradicable hatred against the Jews. Whether Alfonso is responsible for this or not, it is nevertheless well known that he aimed at reducing the Jews to a miserable state by a series of enactments of his own.

He compiled for all the peoples of his kingdom a bulky code of laws, divided into seven groups, and written in Castilian (1257–1266). In this work there are many references to the Jews, in fact a whole section of the code treats solely of them. It is there stated: "Although the Jews deny Christ, they are suffered in all Christian countries, so that they may remind everybody that they belong to that race which crucified Jesus. Since they are merely tolerated, they must keep themselves quiet and unobtrusive, must not openly preach the doctrines of Judaism, nor attempt to make any converts to their religion." The law of Alfonso attached the penalty of death to the conversion of a Christian to Judaism. It asserts that in ancient times the Jews were held in respect, and called the people of God, but by their wickedness against Jesus, they had forfeited this distinction, and no Jew was ever to obtain any dignity or fill any public office in Spain. Alfonso included in his code of laws every possible restriction which fanaticism and hatred had ever devised against the Jews. They were prohibited from building new synagogues, from having Christian servants, and from intermarriage with Christians. Jews and Jewesses were to wear a peculiar mark upon their head-dress, and any person who was seen without this mark was condemned to pay a fine of ten pieces of gold, or if he was poor, to receive ten stripes with the scourge. Jews and Christians were not to take their meals together, nor bathe in company. Alfonso also incorporated the ordinance that Jews should not appear in the public streets on Good Friday. The wise Alfonso gave credence to the lying story that the Jews every year, on Good Friday, crucified a Christian child, and therefore framed a law that whoever was found guilty of this crime, or whoever crucified a wax figure on this day, should be put to death. In vain had Pope Innocent IV declared the falsehood of this accusation, and proved the innocence of the Jews. When a pope was heard to speak in a favorable manner of the Jews, his infallibility was discredited, even by a cultured monarch who held intercourse with Jews. It is hard to believe that the king who kept a private Jewish physician promulgated a law to the effect that no Christian should take any medicine prepared by a Jew. It must be considered a great concession to the Jews, that Alfonso decreed that their synagogues were not to be profaned or dishonored, that they were not to be coerced to undergo baptism, were not to be summoned before a court of justice on their festivals, and were simply to take the oath upon the Torah, without any further degrading ceremony, such as was sometimes added in Germany.

The laws of Alfonso with regard to the Jews had no practical importance for the time being; his code obtained the force of law only at a much later date. Alfonso himself transgressed the very laws concerning the Jews which he had laid down, when he permitted Jews to hold offices of trust. Nevertheless, his collection of laws exercised a most prejudicial effect upon the Jews of Spain. It set up the canonical standard as that of the state, and contributed towards transforming their paradise into a veritable hell. The laws of Alfonso are in force at the present day in Spanish America, whilst his astronomical tables have been forgotten.

The Jews in the kingdom of Aragon suffered even worse treatment than those of Castile. Here, two influences were at work, making their condition a most humiliating one. The king Jayme (Jacob I), who reigned for a long time, had possessions in the south of France, and often came into contact with the bigoted St. Louis and his councilors. From them he acquired the theory of the proper treatment of Jews. He also looked upon them, with all their possessions, as the chattels of the sovereign, his "servi cameræ," serfs. No Jew was allowed to place himself under the protection of a nobleman. There was an advantage in this: it withdrew the Jews from the jurisdiction of the clergy. A law was made by Jayme which expressly stated that the Jews were not to be treated either as prisoners or as slaves. They were nevertheless exposed to the arbitrary action of the reigning sovereign, which was not limited by any law or custom. The second pernicious influence emanated from the Church and its blind zealots. The general of the Dominicans was Raymond de Penyaforte, the collector of the papal decretals, the precursor of Torquemada, whose whole soul was absorbed by the task of elevating the power of the papacy and of the infallible Church above that of the state. This gloomy and evil-minded monk was the confessor of King Jayme. The king of Aragon had loved much, and sinned greatly, and was thus in constant need of his father-confessor, and dependent on him; and though he did not always obey his will, in his treatment of Jews and Mahometans, he did his bidding gladly. The main purpose of Penyaforte's exertions was to convert Jews and Mahometans. In the higher schools, conducted by the Dominicans, Penyaforte had also Hebrew and Arabic taught, so that the preaching friars might use their knowledge of those languages in effecting conversions.

A young man of this order, named Pablo Christiani, a baptized Jew, who was like Nicholas-Donin in disposition, was the first missionary preacher for the conversion of the Jews. He journeyed about in the south of France and in other places, invited the Jews to enter into discussion with him, and sought to demonstrate to them that the Messianic character and the divinity of Jesus were confirmed in the Bible and the Talmud. As his mission was crowned with little or no success, De Penyaforte resolved on arranging a public disputation on the relative merits of Judaism and Christianity at the royal court, between Pablo Christiani and Moses Nachmani, the most famous rabbi in Spain. If the rabbi was converted, Penyaforte hoped to effect without any difficulty the wholesale acknowledgment by the Jewish communities of the truths of the Christian faith. Nachmani received a letter of invitation from King Jayme to come to Barcelona and enter upon a solemn discussion (1263).

Nachmani made his appearance, and, contrary to his desire, was obliged to declare himself willing to take part in the disputation. However, he did it with dignity, and represented the religion of his fathers before a Christian king in as honorable a manner as Philo of Alexandria had done twelve hundred years before, in the presence of a heathen emperor. At the outset Nachmani told Jayme and his confessor Penyaforte that he was ready to take part in this contest only on the condition that complete freedom of speech be granted him, so that he might meet his opponent on a footing of equality. The king consented to this stipulation. When Penyaforte thereupon remarked that he must not avail himself of this liberty of speech to revile and blaspheme Christianity, he replied, with dignity, that he knew the rules of common courtesy. The discussion between Nachmani and Pablo Christiani, if compared with that between Yechiel and Nicholas-Donin, clearly reveals the superiority of the Spanish Jews over their brethren of northern France. The rabbi of Paris and the Dominican Donin fought like two fierce pugilists, assailing each other with heavy blows of the fist, accompanied by words of abuse; the rabbi of Gerona and the Dominican Pablo, on the other hand, met like two cultured noblemen, who dealt blows with an air of politeness, and with due observance of the etiquette of refined society.

This disputation at Barcelona lasted for four days (beginning on the 20th July). It took place in the palace of the king, and in the presence of the whole court and of many distinguished ecclesiastics, knights and citizens. Many Jews were probably among the audience. Nachmani at the very beginning clearly defined the points to be discussed. The points of difference between Judaism and Christianity were so numerous, he remarked, that it was advisable to pay attention only to the most essential among them. The topics of discussion which he suggested were, first, whether the Messiah had appeared or not; next, whether the Messiah, according to the prophecies of the Bible, was to be considered as God, or as a man born of human parents; and finally, whether the Jews or the Christians were in possession of the true faith. The king and all those interested in the matter expressed their approval of this proposed plan. It is peculiar that whilst Nicholas-Donin accused the Talmud on the ground that it contained scurrilous attacks upon Jesus and the Christians, Pablo Christiani based his argument on the opposite contention, that the Talmud recognized Jesus as the Messiah. This statement it was, of course, easy for Nachmani to refute. Pablo's chief proof rested upon Agadic passages, but Nachmani had at the beginning of the discussion carefully guarded against this method of attack, by emphatically asserting that he did not believe in these and other Agadic stories. The Dominican now declared that an interpretation such as he suggested was heresy, as though he knew better than the rabbi what was orthodox in Judaism and what infidelity. His Jewish antagonist, however, would not allow himself to be disconcerted by such remarks, and said in justification of his position that it behoved a Jew to believe in the truth of the Bible and in the exposition of the Talmud in all points of religious practice; but, on the other hand, he was perfectly at liberty to reject or accept the Agadic interpretations, which were to be regarded only as sermons (sermones), as they were conformable or opposed to his views. Nachmani made another bold remark. He said "that he had more regard for the Christian monarch than for the Messiah." This statement he justified by saying that it was more meritorious for himself and for all Jews to keep the precepts of their religion whilst under a Christian ruler, in exile, and suffering humiliation and abuse, than to observe them when dwelling in prosperity and freedom under a powerful Jewish king. The Messiah was to be regarded as nothing more than a king of flesh and blood. Nachmani did not neglect to bring forward an important objection to the Messianic character of Jesus, which had been employed by ancient polemical writers. All the prophets had foretold, that at the time of the Messiah a more elevated standard of morality would prevail among mankind, and especially that all war and bloodshed would cease. But since the appearance of Jesus, the world had really become filled with violence and injustice. The Christians were considered to be the most warlike among the nations, that is to say, the people that shed most blood. Then turning to the king, Nachmani said, "It behoves thee, and thy knights, O king, to put an end to all thy war-making, as the beginning of the Messianic era demands."

When Nachmani had been debating for three days, with candor combined with dignity, about the doctrines of Christianity, the Jews of Barcelona entreated him to break off the disputation, as they feared the persecution of the Dominicans. Many knights and clergymen also warned him against being carried too far by his frankness. The Christian inhabitants of Barcelona interested themselves in behalf of the Jews, and desired to avoid all provocation. Nachmani told the king of the feeling that prevailed, but he wished the disputation to continue. The intellectual tournament was therefore resumed. Nachmani finally proved victorious, as Pablo could not cope with his well-directed arguments. At the end of the discussion, the king said to Nachmani in a private audience, that he had never heard so unjust a matter defended so skilfully. The Dominicans, however, sought to spread the report that Pablo Christiani had contrived to outwit his opponent so cleverly that the latter, overwhelmed with shame, had secretly fled. So far from running away, Nachmani remained in Barcelona for another week, as a rumor had got abroad that his majesty and the Dominicans intended to visit the synagogue on the following Saturday. They did really appear in the synagogue, and Penyaforte resumed the disputation there. He illustrated the doctrine of the Trinity by wine, which possesses the qualities of color, taste and smell, and is yet a unity. It was an easy task for Nachmani to offer a complete reply to these and similar analogies, and he at last drove the confessor of the king to make the dangerous acknowledgment that the idea of the Trinity was so profound a mystery that even the angels were unable to comprehend it. Thereupon Nachmani remarked, "If this is really the case, then no reproach ought to be made to men, if they cannot surpass the angels in wisdom." Before his departure, Nachmani was again admitted to an audience with the king, and dismissed with a friendly farewell. The king gave him three hundred maravedis as a mark of respect.

The consequences of this disputation at Barcelona were by no means harmless. De Penyaforte was resolved upon compassing the conversion of the Jews, and permitted nothing to turn him from his fixed determination. He obtained from King Jayme a letter of protection which would enable his protégé Pablo Christiani to go on long missionary journeys, and thus the Jews were exposed to the caprice of the Jewish Dominican friar. What had failed of success in Barcelona, with an antagonist like Nachmani, might perhaps be successful in other places with less skilful opponents. Strict commands were issued to the congregations in Aragon, and in the adjoining districts of southern France, to enter into discussion with Pablo Christiani at his invitation. The Jews were to listen to him quietly, either in their synagogues or wherever they chanced to be, to answer his questions meekly, and to hand over to him all such books as he required for his demonstrations. They were also to defray the expenses of his mission. The despair of the Jews at such demands may well be imagined. Whether victorious or defeated, they were subjected to torments and extortion.

As in spite of the protection granted to him by the king, Pablo Christiani did not meet with a hearty welcome among his former co-religionists, he followed in the footsteps of Nicholas-Donin, and denounced the Talmud, asserting that it contained passages of hostile import directed against Jesus and Mary. He went to Pope Clement IV, and repeated to him the charges against the Talmud. The pope, at his request, issued a bull (1264) to the Bishop of Tarragona, commanding him to confiscate copies of the Talmud, and to submit them to the examination of the Dominicans and Franciscans; if found to be blasphemous, they were to be burnt. Pablo Christiani, the apostate, in person brought this bull to Spain. Thereupon King Jayme ordered (1264) that the Talmud be examined, and the passages containing abuse and slander be struck out. The duty of acting as censors was entrusted to the Bishop of Barcelona, De Penyaforte, and to three other Dominicans, together with Pablo Christiani. This commission marked the passages in the Talmud which were to be obliterated, and thus for the first time censorship was exercised by the Dominicans against the Talmud in Spain. The censorship was on the whole less destructive in Aragon than in France, where the whole Talmud was condemned to the flames. The reason of this comparative mildness was explained by the fact that Raymond Martin, a member of the Dominican order and of the board of censors, and the writer of two anti-Jewish works, was convinced that several passages in the Talmud bore witness to the truth of Christianity, and were certainly traditions derived from Moses, and that therefore the Talmud should not be utterly destroyed.

The hurtful effects of the disputation of Nachmani have not yet been enumerated. They even affected the man himself, who was the accredited representative of Spanish Judaism in the post-Maimunic age. Nachmani found himself obliged to publish, for his co-religionists, a true and accurate report of the proceedings at Barcelona, in order to oppose the missionary machinations of Pablo Christiani, and to rebuke the unjustifiable vainglory of the Dominicans over the victory, which they declared that they had gained at the disputation held at the court.

He made no secret of the matter, but gave a copy of his pamphlet to the Bishop of Gerona, and as the latter raised no objection, copies of the account of this disputation were dispatched to various countries where Jews dwelt (about 1264). As might have been expected, Nachmani by this proceeding drew down upon himself the still fiercer hatred of the Dominicans. Pablo Christiani, who obtained a report of the disputation, and who understood Hebrew, selected from it passages that contained gross blasphemies against the Christian religion, and notified De Penyaforte, his superior, the fanatical general of the Dominicans, of them. The latter then, in conjunction with a brother friar, instituted a capital charge, and lodged a formal complaint with the king against the author and his work. Don Jayme was obliged to assent to the charge; but he did not entrust the trial to a court composed of Dominicans, but called together an extraordinary commission, and invited Nachmani (or as he was called by the Christians, Bonastruc de Porta) to defend himself, and ordered that the proceedings be conducted in his presence. Nachmani was in a very unpleasant position, but his staunch truthfulness did not fail him. He admitted that he had stated many things against Christianity in his pamphlet, but he had written nothing which he had not used in his disputation in the presence of the king; and he had asked from the king and the general of the Dominicans for liberty of speech to utter these things, and had obtained permission. He ought not to be made answerable and condemned for expressions in his written account which had remained unrebuked in his oral defense.

The king and the commission acknowledged the justice of his vindication; nevertheless, in order to avoid provoking the order of the Dominicans or De Penyaforte, Nachmani was sentenced to exile from his native land for two years, and his pamphlet was condemned to be burnt. The Inquisition had not yet attained an all-powerful position. The Dominicans were, however, by no means satisfied with this comparatively mild sentence, as they had expected a much more severe punishment. It appears that they intended to summon Nachmani before their own tribunal, where they would undoubtedly have condemned him to death. King Jayme offered energetic opposition to this project. He gave to Nachmani a sort of charter, which stated that he could be accused in this matter only in the presence of the king (April, 1265). The Dominicans were naturally very much enraged at the mildness of the king, and at the apparent encroachment on their judicial prerogative to decide upon questions of life and death. They appealed to Pope Clement IV, complaining that the king had permitted the author of a pamphlet which grossly insulted Christianity to go unpunished. The pope, who at that time was harboring other grudges against the king of Aragon, addressed a very severe epistle to him. He upbraided him for a number of sins, ordering him to deprive Jews of public offices, and to inflict heavy punishment on that arch-villain who, after taking part in a religious discussion, had published a pamphlet as a trophy of his heresy (1266). It cannot be fully ascertained whether the king obeyed the pope regarding Nachmani or not, or what his sentence was. At any rate, it appears that one punishment was meted out to him, namely, that he was to be banished from the country. At the age of seventy, Nachmani left his fatherland, his two sons, his school and his friends, and went into exile. He made his way to the Holy Land, being filled with the same intense longing as his spiritual kinsman, Jehuda Halevi. He went a step further than the latter, maintaining that it is the religious duty of every Jew to dwell in Judæa. Thus fate had done him a kindness, assisting him in the performance of a command, and helping him to fulfil his ardent desire. He set out on his journey by ship, and landed at Jean d'Acre (1267), which at that time was still in the hands of the Christians. Thence he made haste to start for Jerusalem (9th Ellul—12th August).

Nachmani's feelings were deeply stirred on beholding the condition of the Holy Land and the Sacred City. He suffered even keener disappointment than Jehuda Halevi. The Mongols or Tartars, under the Sultan Hulagu, had committed fearful ravages in the land a few years previously (1260). This savage monarch, after conquering the eastern Caliphate, had turned his attention to the Sultanate of Egypt, captured the fortresses on the Euphrates, Damascus, Aleppo, and Baalbek, and forced his way into Palestine. Jerusalem was transformed into a heap of ruins; all its inhabitants had forsaken it (1260). The Jews had connected these extraordinary events with their hopes for the Messiah. The "hateful, deformed men of the East," who had subdued both the oppressors of Israel, the followers of Jesus and of Mahomet, might perhaps bring near unto Israel the hour of redemption. An enthusiast circulated a new revelation said to have been given through Simon bar Yochaï, the medium so frequently appealed to by mysticism, and it declared that the devastations of the Mongols were the sufferings which must precede the coming of the Messiah.

Nachmani entered Palestine a few years after the Mongols had been expelled from the country by the Sultan of Egypt. He beheld many ruins, and apostrophized them in eloquent words, saying, "The more holy the place, the greater its desolation; Jerusalem is more desolate than the rest of Judæa, and Judæa in turn more desolate than Galilee." The Jews of the Holy City had either been slain or scattered; the scrolls of the Law had been rescued by some who fled to Shechem. Two thousand Mahometans and three hundred Christians had again settled in Jerusalem, but only one or two Jewish families were discovered there by Nachmani, and, as before, they enjoyed the privilege of farming the dye-works. The Jewish pilgrims, who had come to Jerusalem from Syria, erected a synagogue at Nachmani's suggestion. Upon Mount Olivet, opposite the ruins of the Temple, Nachmani breathed forth his deep distress over the desolation of the Holy City; but it was not the song of Zion that arose from his excited mind. Nachmani did not possess that divine gift of grace, the poetical genius of Jehuda Halevi, the fancy that is able to re-people deserts, re-establish destroyed kingdoms, chasten sorrow, and ease the heart from pain. He uttered his lament in the verses of other poets.

This exile from Spain did not rest content with erecting synagogues and organizing congregations in the land which for a long time had been his spiritual home, but he also founded in it a home for the study of Jewish science, which had died out there since the conquest of Jerusalem by the crusaders. He gathered a circle of pupils around him, and people came in crowds even from the district of the Euphrates to hear him. Even Karaites are said to have sat at his feet, as for instance Aaron ben Joseph the Elder, who became famous in later times. Although he was no friend of free scientific thought, and thoroughly adhered to Talmudic Judaism, yet Nachmani, as a son of Spain, had obtained sufficient general culture to fertilize the desert of the Oriental Jews. Even his theory of the Kabbala, which he first transplanted into Palestine, where it afterwards spread far and wide, had at least the merit of presenting new points of view, of which his co-religionists, either on account of their ignorance or their partiality for the Talmud, had no idea. He strove at least to explain the irrational in a rational manner, and thus combated stupidity and indifference. He was particularly successful in arousing an interest in the exposition of Holy Writ, of which the Oriental Jews were entirely ignorant. With this end in view, Nachmani composed his Commentary to the Bible, and especially his chief work, the Exposition of the Pentateuch. In this work he brought into play his peculiar genius, his warm and tender disposition, his power of clear thinking, and his mystical dreams. Like numberless men before and after him, he discovered his own philosophy in this Book of books, and interpreted it from his point of view. He did not make much of the Kabbala in his Commentaries; merely touched upon it lightly. But precisely by his careless allusions, he magnified its importance. Narrow, enthusiastic minds searched eagerly for the hidden meaning of these suggestions, and took more notice of Nachmani's Kabbalistic hints, than of the clear ideas to be found in his work.

Nachmani's method of exegesis did not altogether escape the reproach of his contemporaries, chiefly because in his Commentary he made attacks upon Maimuni, and spoke still more violently against Ibn-Ezra. A devotee of philosophy and two enthusiastic students of it wrote a refutation of his works, prefacing it by a satire, in which the mysticism of Nachmani was especially made ridiculous. Pious men, on the other hand, held him in high honor as a particularly orthodox rabbi, and just as his Talmudical works were diligently read and used, so his Commentary became a favorite study of the mystics.

During his three years' stay in Palestine, Nachmani kept up a correspondence with his native land, whereby Judæa and Spain were brought into closer connection. He sent copies of his works to his sons and friends, and gave them descriptions of the condition of their ever unhappy ancestral country. He thus once again awoke an ardent longing for the Holy Land, and induced several persons of an enthusiastic turn of mind to emigrate thither. Nachmani died after having passed the age of seventy (about 1270), and his remains were interred in Chaifa, next to the grave of Yechiel of Paris, his companion in misfortune, who had gone into exile before him.

Nachmani exercised more effect upon his contemporaries and the succeeding age by his personality than by his writings. His numerous pupils, among whom the most renowned was Solomon ben Adret, made the teaching of Nachmani predominant among the Spanish Jews. Inspirited and unwavering attachment to Judaism, a deep regard for the Talmud and complete resignation to its decrees, a dilettante knowledge of the science of the time and of philosophy, the recognition of the Kabbala as extremely ancient tradition, to which was given respect, but not research, these are the distinctly characteristic traits of the Spanish rabbis, and of the representatives of Judaism in the succeeding age. Henceforth Spanish rabbis seldom occupied themselves with philosophy or with any other branch of learning, or even with the exposition of the Bible. Their minds were devoted only to the Talmud, whilst the sciences were cultivated only by non-rabbinical scholars. The simple method of Biblical interpretation taught by Ibn-Ezra and Kimchi was completely neglected.