History of the Jews, Vol. 4 (of 6)

After Don Henry's victory, the Jews had good reason to tremble. One pretext for making war on his brother was the favor shown by Don Pedro to Jews. Now he had become the arbiter of their destinies. Would he not, like another Vespasian or Hadrian, place his foot on the necks of the vanquished? The gloomiest of their anticipations, however, were not realized. Don Henry II was as little able to dispense with the Jews as his predecessors, or the French and German princes. Jews were the only financiers able to keep the state exchequer in prosperity and order, and for this purpose Don Henry stood in need of them more than ever. During the war he had incurred debts for the payment of the troops with which Du Guesclin had assisted him, and for help received in other quarters he had made promises which had to be redeemed. The country had become impoverished by the protracted war. Who was to procure the necessary sums, and provide for the systematic collection of the taxes, if not the Jews? Henry was not blind to the merits of the Jews exemplified in their constancy to his brother. Instead of punishing the conquered, he appreciated their fidelity, saying: "Such subjects a king must love and reward, because they maintained proper loyalty to their conquered king unto death, and did not surrender to the victor."

Don Henry, then, was guilty of the conduct which, in the case of his brother, he branded as a crime in the eyes of all Christendom; he employed able Jews in the service of the state, confiding to them the finances in particular. Two Jews from Seville, Don Joseph Pichon and Don Samuel Abrabanel, he appointed to important posts, the former as receiver general of taxes, and Almoxarif to the king, by whom he was held in high esteem. Other Jews, distinguished for their ability or their wealth, had access to Don Henry's court.

If the king bore the Jews no grudge for the part they had taken in the war against him, the general population was not so magnanimous. The nobility and the commonalty could not forgive their having confronted them as foes in the besieged towns and on the open battle-fields. A passion for vengeance, linked with the usual Jew-hatred, blinded them to the benefits which the Jews contributed to the welfare of the state, and their only thought was how to gratify their resentment. The Jews, being the vanquished, ought, as they thought, to be reduced to a kind of serfdom. The hostile feeling of the populace manifested itself on the assembling of the first cortes at Toro (1371). Here the enemies of the Jews opened the attack. The cortes expressed to the king their displeasure that this "evil, audacious race," these enemies of God and Christendom, were employed in "high offices" at court and by the grandees of the realm, and that the farming of the taxes was confided to them, by which means feeble Christians were held in subjection and fear. The cortes accordingly made explicit demands upon the crown with respect to the Jews. From that time forward they were not to be eligible for any kind of state employment; they were to live in Jewish quarters separated from the Christian population, be forced to wear Jew-badges, be prohibited from appearing in public in rich apparel, from riding on mules, and from bearing Christian names. To Don Henry these demands were very unwelcome, but he dared not refuse some concessions. The majority he dismissed with the remark that in his treatment of Jews he only followed the example of his ancestors, especially that of his father, Alfonso XI. The two restrictions conceded were, if not of material significance, yet calculated to have a sinister effect. These were that the Castilian Jews should don the degrading badges, and give up their Spanish names. The pride of the Jews, equal to that of the grandees and the hidalgos, was deeply wounded. A century and a half had elapsed since the canonical law concerning the Jew-badge, the outcome of papal intolerance and arrogance, had been promulgated. During the whole of that period the Jews of Castile had been able to prevent its application to themselves, but now they also were to be compelled to wear the stigma on their garments. They who had been accustomed to hold their heads high, and rejoice in sounding titles, were, like the German Jews, to slink along with downcast eyes, and be called by their Oriental names. They could not accustom themselves to this humiliating situation.

In consequence of an outcry made by some of his subjects, who had been ruined by loans from Jewish creditors, and complained of usurious interest, Don Henry made encroachments upon their private rights. He decided that if the Christian debtors discharged their obligations within a short space of time, they need refund only two-thirds of the principal borrowed.

The misery resulting from the civil war and the new restrictions exercised a depressing effect on the Castilian Jews. Their most prominent men, those who had access to court, and possessed wealth and influence, especially Samuel Abrabanel, exerted themselves to remedy the gloomy state of affairs. They particularly endeavored to restore the abased, impoverished, and disorganized community of Toledo; but it was beyond their power to revive the scholarly culture and intellectual distinction to which the Toledo community had been as much indebted for its leading position as to the prosperity of its members. The unhappy war, and the evils following in its trail, had stunted the Jewish mind, and diverted it from intellectual to material interests. Disorganization proceeded with great strides. Indifference to scientific work resulted in so general an ignorance, that what formerly every tyro was familiar with now passed for transcendent wisdom. We have an example of the mawkishness to which the new Hebrew poetry had fallen in the verses of the poetaster Zarak (Zerach) Barfat, who, in a poetical paraphrase of the book of Job, completely marred the beauties of that work of art. Just at this period men of learning and ability were urgently required, for representatives of Christianity began to make earnest and energetic attacks on Judaism to obtain converts from amongst its adherents.

Don Henry had much to thank the clergy for; they had sanctified his usurpation, and acquiesced in his arrogated succession. From gratitude and a false conception of religiousness, he conceded much to them. At his command, Jews were again forced to take part in religious debates, in which there was much to lose and nothing to gain.

Two baptized Jews received from the king the privilege of holding religious discussions in every province and town of Castile, which they might compel Jews to attend.

One of these apostates was John of Valladolid. At Burgos the discussion took place before Archbishop Gomez of Toledo. At Avila the whole community was compelled to repair to the great church (1375), where the debate was carried on in the presence of many Christians and Mahometans. Moses Cohen de Tordesillas, who was as familiar with Christian as with Jewish theological authorities, appeared on behalf of the Jews. He entered upon his dangerous enterprise with trepidation, for he had had an opportunity to form an estimate of Christian charity. During the civil war, Christian marauders had robbed him of all his possessions, and had even personally ill-used him in order to force him to embrace Christianity. All these trials he had suffered with the courage of strong convictions, but he had become so poverty-stricken that he had to accept support from the community of Avila.

Moses de Tordesillas did not find his part in the discussion too difficult. The apostate John of Valladolid laid stress on the proposition that the dogmas of Christianity – the Messianic claim, the Divinity and Incarnation of Jesus, the Trinity, and the Virginity of the "Mother of God" – could be demonstrated from the Old Testament. It was consequently not difficult for his Jewish opponent to confute his arguments. After four debates John was obliged to abandon his task, vanquished. This, however, did not conclude the matter. A pupil of the apostate, Abner-Alfonso, appeared soon after, and challenged Moses de Tordesillas to a debate on the Talmud and Agadic texts. In case of refusal, he threatened publicly to impeach the Talmud as the source of anti-Christian sentiments. Moses was again forced to meet a series of silly assertions and charges, and to drag himself through the thorny length of another controversy. By the advice of the Avila community, he committed to writing the principal arguments used in these discussions under the title, "Ezer ha-Emuna," and sent them to his Toledan brethren for use under similar circumstances. Moses de Tordesillas' disputations, notwithstanding the difficulties of his position, were characterized by calmness and equanimity. Not a word of abuse or invective escaped him, and he counseled his Toledo brethren not to permit themselves to be tempted by their zeal to vexatious expressions, "for it is a fact," he said, "that the Christians possess the power and disposition to silence truth by force." Toledo, formerly recognized as the teacher of Jewry, was now obliged to play the part of pupil, and follow formularies in the disputations to which its members might be invited.

As if the more far-seeing Jews had anticipated the approach of the gloomiest era of Spanish Judaism, they provided their co-religionists for the coming struggle with casque and buckler, so that the inexorable foe might not surprise them unarmed. A Spanish Jew, contemporary with Moses de Tordesillas, compiled a polemical work, more exhaustive than its predecessor, defending Judaism and attacking Christianity. Shem-Tob ben Isaac Shaprut of Tudela had at an early age been forced into the position of a defender of his brethren against proselytizing attempts. Cardinal Don Pedro de Luna, who later on, as Pope Benedict XIII, brought so much confusion into the church and evil on the Jews, was possessed of a perfect mania for conversion and religious controversy. At Pampeluna he summoned Shem-Tob ben Shaprut to a debate on original sin and salvation, and the latter was compelled to sustain his part in the presence of bishops and learned prelates. The war between England and Castile, the scene of which was Navarre, obliged Shem-Tob ben Shaprut, with many other Jews, to quit the country (1378) and settle in the neighboring town of Tarazona, in Aragon. Observing here that Jews of the stamp of John de Valladolid were extremely zealous in the promotion of religious discussions, the conversion of weaklings, and the maligning of Jewish literature, he published (1380) a comprehensive work ("Eben Bochan"), unmasking the speciousness of the arguments deduced by Christian controversialists from the Bible and the Talmud. The work is written in the form of a discussion between a believer in the unity of God and a Trinitarian. To enable the Jews to use weapons out of the Christian armory, Shem-Tob ben Shaprut translated into Hebrew extracts from the four Gospels, with incisive commentaries. Subsequently the anti-Jewish work of the apostate Abner-Alfonso fell into his hands, and he refuted it, argument by argument.

These polemical works did not prove of far-reaching importance; at any rate, their effect was not what their authors had expected. The Jews of Spain did not so much stand in need of writings as of men of force of character, commanding personality and dignity, able to raise, if not the masses, at least the half-educated classes, and imbue them with somewhat of their own spirit. The ban against scientific studies, pronounced by excessive fear and extreme religiousness, notably avenged itself. It dwarfed the intelligence of the people, and deprived them of that capacity for appreciating the signs of the times which only a liberal education can develop. Even faith suffered from this want of culture in the rising generation. Only one Jew of profound philosophic genius stands out prominently in the history of this period, and the influence he exerted over a rather small circle was due less to his superior intelligence than to his position and Talmudic knowledge. The majority of the Spanish rabbis, if not actually hostile, were indifferent to the sciences, especially to religious philosophy. Only laymen devoted themselves to such pursuits, and they were neither exhaustive in their inquiries nor creative in their speculations. It is characteristic of this period that Maimuni's philosophical "Guide of the Perplexed" was entirely neglected, the fashion being to read and discuss Ibn-Ezra. The fragmentary nature of the writings of this commentator, the ingenuity and acuteness, the disjointedness of thought, the variety of matter, which characterize his work, appealed to the shallowness of this retrograde generation. Shem-Tob ben Shaprut, Samuel Çarça, Joseph Tob-Elem, Ezra Gatiño, and others wrote super-commentaries on Ibn-Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch. The solution of riddles propounded by Ibn-Ezra, and the discovery of his secrets, and explanations of his obscurities, seriously exercised the minds of large circles of students.

The Talmud, with which the more thoughtful minds, prompted by a religious bias, continued to be engaged, fared no better than secular learning. Here, also, a state of stagnation, if nothing worse, had supervened. The rabbis of some large communities were not even able to discharge one of their chief duties, the explanation of the Talmud to their disciples. A French Talmudist, Solomon ben Abraham Zarfati, who had settled at Majorca, could venture to speak slightingly of the Spanish rabbis, not excepting the celebrated Nissim Gerundi, and compare them disparagingly with the French and German rabbis. A measure of the average intelligence of the rabbis of this period is yielded by the works of Menachem ben Zerach, chief rabbi of Toledo, even after its misfortunes a very important Jewish community.

Menachem ben Aaron ben Zerach (born 1310, died 1385) counted several martyrs in his family. His father, Aaron, was one of the unfortunates whom the cupidity and tyranny of a French king had banished. With the limited means spared by legalized robbery he had settled in Estella, a not inconsiderable Navarrese community. His father, mother, and four brothers perished in the massacre of Jews instigated by a Dominican friar. Young Menachem was severely wounded in this outbreak, and might have succumbed but for the assistance of a nobleman of his father's acquaintance. On his recovery he devoted himself daily to Talmudical study, and later on attended the celebrated school of the Asheride Judah of Toledo. After he had passed his fortieth year, Menachem ben Zerach became chief of an academy, the care of which was confided to him by the Alcala (de Henares) community. During the civil war in Castile he was wounded and plundered by the lawless soldiery, and of his entire fortune, only his house, field, and collection of books remained. Don Samuel Abrabanel assisted him in his distress, so that he was enabled to recover somewhat from his misfortunes. Through his interposition Menachem was called from Alcala to assume the rabbinate of Toledo, where he opened an academy. As the disciple and successor of Jehuda Asheri, considerable Talmudical attainments were with justice expected of him. But he did not rise above the mediocrity of his times. To remedy the increasing ignorance of religious forms and duties, he wrote a compendium of theoretic and practical Judaism ("Zeda la-Derech," 1374), as comprehensible as it was short, for the use of prominent Jews, who, employed at court and by the grandees, had not sufficient leisure to search an extensive literature for instruction. His work is interspersed with scientific elements – psychological and religio-philosophical – but it is weak and commonplace, full of platitudes, and its several parts do not cohere. Even the Talmudical elements are neither profound nor original. The only redeeming feature is that it is conceived in a warm, sympathetic spirit, distinguishing it from the usually dry rabbinical disquisitions.

Only two men of this time are raised by their character and learning above the dead level of prevailing mediocrity: Chasdaï Crescas and Isaac ben Sheshet. They both lived in the kingdom of Aragon, where the Jews under Pedro IV and Juan I were neither so poor nor so oppressed as their brethren in Castile. Chasdaï Crescas and Isaac ben Sheshet were not sufficiently great to dominate their contemporaries, or prescribe their own views as rules of conduct; they were, however, the foci of large circles, and were frequently appealed to for final decisions on complicated and difficult questions. Both worked earnestly for the maintenance and furtherance of Judaism, for the preservation of peace in the communities at home and abroad, and for the consolation and re-animation of the broken in spirit, notwithstanding that their means were limited, and the times unpropitious.

Chasdaï ben Abraham Crescas (born 1340, died 1410), originally of Barcelona, and subsequently of Saragossa, where he ended his days, did not belong to the class of ordained rabbis, but he had been educated on Talmudical lines, and was an accomplished Talmudist. His wealth and his occupations seem to have indisposed him for this honorable position. Chasdaï Crescas was in close relation with the court of Juan I, of Aragon, was frequently consulted on important state questions, and also had much intercourse with the grandees of the kingdom. In the views of the various schools of philosophy he was well versed; the independence and depth of thought he evinced in dealing with them stamp him an original thinker. His ideas, of course, were largely based upon religious, or rather Jewish convictions, which, however, he presented in an original form. Chasdaï Crescas was the first to recognize the weak points of the prevailing Aristotelianism, and he attacked it with irresistible force. Of his youth nothing is known, and it is impossible to say under what influences those ripe powers of mind were developed which enabled him to question the authority not only of Maimonides and Gersonides, but of Aristotle himself. His ancestors were learned Talmudists, and his grandfather enjoyed a reputation equal to that of the famous Asheri family. In Talmudical studies he was a disciple of Nissim Gerundi, of Barcelona. Chasdaï Crescas was kind and gentle, a friend in need, and a faithful defender of the weak. During the unhappy days which broke upon the Jews of Spain in his lifetime, he devoted all his powers to the mitigation of the disasters which befell his brethren.

Similar in character, but fundamentally opposed to him in the disposition of his mind, was his friend and senior, Isaac ben Sheshet Barfat (Ribash, born 1310, died about 1409). A native of Barcelona, and having studied under Ben Adret's son and pupils, Isaac ben Sheshet may, in a measure, be considered a disciple of Ben Adret. He acquired his teacher's capacity for seizing the spirit of the Talmud and expounding it lucidly, and far surpassed him in hostility to secular studies. Ben Adret had permitted the circumstances of his times to extort from him the prohibition of such studies, as far as raw youths were concerned; Ben Sheshet, in his rigid orthodoxy, took the view that even mature men should hold aloof from them, although at that period there was but little fear of heresy. The physical sciences and philosophy, he held, should be completely avoided, as they were calculated to undermine the two essential supports of the Torah, the doctrines of the creation, and of a Providence; because they exalted reason over faith, and generated doubts of miracles. In Gersonides, and even Maimuni, Ben Sheshet found illustrations of the pernicious effects of philosophic speculation. He granted that they were men of incomparable genius, but he insisted that they had been seduced by philosophy to adopt heterodox views, and explain certain miracles of the Bible rationalistically. Ben Sheshet was of high moral character; his disposition was kindly, and on several occasions he willingly sacrificed his personal interests to advance the common good and to promote peace. But when he suspected the violation of a Talmudical precept or the non-observance of even an unessential custom, his mildness was immediately transformed into most obdurate severity.

On account of his Talmudical learning, his clear, penetrating intellect, and his irreproachable character, he was much sought after. The important community of Saragossa elected him its rabbi. Immediately on taking office, Isaac ben Sheshet gave an illustration of the tenacity with which he clung to the letter of the Law, even when it conflicted with the spirit. He observed, with regret, that the practice obtained of reading the book of Esther on the feast of Purim in a Spanish translation, for the benefit of the women. This practice had been introduced into other Spanish communities, and was not only applauded by all men of common sense, but had even been authorized by a few rabbis, who considered it unobjectionable from a Talmudical point of view. Ben Sheshet raised a cry of alarm, as if Judaism had been threatened with ruin. He called to his assistance the authority of his teacher, Nissim Gerundi, and together they opposed the excellent custom with sophistical argument. They appear to have been successful in abolishing it.

Still more characteristic of Isaac ben Sheshet is his quarrel with Chayim ben Gallipapa, a rabbi, stricken in years, whose opinions differed from those of the rabbi of Saragossa. This man (born 1310, died 1380), rabbi of Huesca and Pampeluna, was a singular figure in the Middle Ages, whom it is difficult to classify. Whilst the rabbis of the time, particularly since the rise of the Asheride teaching, exceeded all bounds in the imposition of burdensome observances, and always, in cases of doubt, decided in favor of their most rigorous fulfillment, Gallipapa took the opposite view, and maintained that the aim of all Talmudical exegesis should be to disencumber life. The times, he considered, had improved, and neither the ignorance of the people nor the fear of defection was so great as to warrant such severity. This principle was no mere theory with Gallipapa, for he followed it practically. The freedom he suggested concerned matters of comparative insignificance, but at that time every trifle was regarded as important. On certain dogmas, also, Gallipapa held independent views. The Messianic belief which, since the time of Maimonides, had become an article of faith, to deny which was heresy, he boldly set aside. Gallipapa considered that the prophecies, in Isaiah and Daniel, of the great prosperity of Israel in the future, had been fulfilled in the days of the Maccabees, and wrote a work on the subject. Against this hardy innovator, a storm naturally arose. A neighboring rabbi, Chasdaï ben Solomon, of Tudela, a man of not over-fine sensibilities, denounced him to Isaac ben Sheshet, and the latter lectured the venerable Gallipapa, who had sent disciples into the world, as if he had been a mere schoolboy. He adjured Chayim Gallipapa to avoid scandal and give no opportunity for schism amongst his brethren. The modest attempt at reform went no further.

This severe tendency in matters of religion was the natural outcome of the prevailing spiritual needs; and it must be confessed that the more rigorous, the better it was adapted to them. Isaac ben Sheshet and his friend Chasdaï Crescas, who, although no enemy of secular learning, entertained the same view as his colleague, and defended his orthodoxy on philosophic grounds, were considered, after the death of Nissim Gerundi, the most eminent rabbinical authorities of their day, not in Spain only. From far and near, inquiries were addressed to them, principally to Isaac ben Sheshet, but also to Chasdaï Crescas. The proudest rabbis and the largest communities invoked their counsel, and were content to abide by their decisions. The court of Aragon also regarded them as the leaders of the Jewish communities, but this operated to their disadvantage. In consequence of the denunciation of some malevolent person, the ground of which is unknown, the king, Don Pedro IV, ordered Chasdaï Crescas, Isaac ben Sheshet, his brother, Crescas Barfat, the aged Nissim Gerundi of Barcelona, and two others, to be thrown into prison. After a long time, they were released on bail. We may believe Isaac ben Sheshet, when he assures us that he and his fellow-prisoners were all innocent of the offense or crime laid to their charge. Their innocence must have come to light, for they afterwards remained unmolested.

The authority of Chasdaï Crescas and Isaac ben Sheshet was appealed to by the French communities to settle an important point in a dispute about the chief rabbinate of France. A change, largely the outcome of the political condition of the country, had come over the circumstances of these communities. Manessier de Vesoul, the zealous defender and protector of his co-religionists, was dead (about 1375–1378). Of his four sons – Solomon, Joseph, Abraham, and Haquinet – the eldest succeeded to his father's post of receiver general of the Jew taxes and political representative of the French Jews, and the second became a convert to Christianity. Solomon and his brothers enjoyed the same esteem at the royal court as their father. They were exempted from wearing the humiliating Jew badge, and they diligently cared for the interests of their brethren. Among Jews, however, they do not seem to have obtained the consideration that their father had enjoyed. On the death of the king, Charles V, their importance ceased altogether. The regent Louis, Duke of Anjou, confirmed, for a consideration, the privileges acquired by the French Jews (14th October, 1380), and prolonged their term of sufferance in the land by another five years. His protection, however, did not reach far, or rather it involved the Jews in his own unpopularity. The impoverished population of Paris, driven to despair by burdensome taxation, loudly and stormily demanded redress of the young king and the regent. Egged on by a nobility involved in debt, they included the Jews in their outcry, and demanded that the king should expel from the country "these shameful usurers who have ruined whole families." The people did not stop at words; at the instigation of the nobles, they attacked the houses of the Jews (November 16th, 1380), robbed the exchequer of the receiver general (of the Vesoul family), pillaged their dwelling-houses, destroyed the bonds of the debtors, appropriated the accumulated pledges, murdered a few Jews, and tore children from the arms of fleeing and weeping Jewish mothers to baptize them forthwith. A large number of Jews saved themselves by flight to the fort Châtelet. The regent was much irritated by this violent outbreak, but was unable to punish the offenders at once on account of the excited state of the people. He ordered that the Jews be reinstated in their homes, and the plunder restored to them. Few complied with the order. The prevôt of Paris, Hugues Aubriot – a man of considerable energy, who had beautified and enlarged the French capital – also interested himself in the Jews. In particular, he brought about the restitution of the stolen and baptized children. For this he was violently attacked by men whose learning should have taught them better. Aubriot, by his orderly administration, had made enemies of the university professors and students, who denounced as criminal his interference for the benefit of the Jews. He was accused before the bishop of Paris of having held intercourse with Jewish women, and even of being a secret adherent of Judaism. He was found guilty of heresy and infidelity, and made to pay with imprisonment for his humane conduct towards the Jews. Not only in Paris, but also in other towns where the people rose against heavy taxation, Jews fell victims to the popular excitement. Four months later, similar bloody scenes were enacted in Paris and the provinces when the rising of the Maillotins (so called from the mallets with which the insurgents were armed) took place. For three or four days in succession Jews were again plundered, ill-treated, and murdered (March 1st, 1381). The king, Charles VII, or rather the regent, attempted to protect the Jews and to obtain some indemnification of their losses. They were, however, unable to recover from the blow they had received. In these tumults the sons of Manessier de Vesoul appear either to have lost their lives, or, at any rate, their position of influence.