441) Could the Zohar Chadash have engaged in a contemporary polemic with Chassidei Ashkenaz?

Introduction

This article, based extensively on the research by Dr Jonatan Benarroch,[1] explores the question of whether Zohar, could possibly have engaged in a polemic, or religious debate, with the Chassidei Ashkenaz (the German Pietists of the Rhineland). The problem is that the Zohar is traditionally believed to have been authored by R. Shimon bar Yochai, a second-century Tanna, or Mishnaic rabbi – while Chassidei Ashkenaz was a twelfth and thirteenth-century mystical movement in Germany. This places the Zohar a thousand years before the advent of Chassidei Askenaz. 

394) Berachia’s attempt to replace ‘Midrashic fantasy’ with ‘naturalistic rationalism’

 

Mishlei Shu’alim (“Fox Fables,” Hebrew Version Of Aesop’s Fables) By Berachia Ben Natronai HaNakdan.

Introduction

This article is based extensively on the research by Professor Tamás Visi[1] and explores the thought of Berachia ben Natronai haNakdan who lived around the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in Normandy, England and Provence (southern France). Berachia bases himself on some of the more rationalist ideas of Rav Saadia Gaon (882-942) and develops them further in his Sefer haChibur, Mussar, Sefer haMetzaref as well as his Dodi veNechdi (a work of twelfth-century scientific questions and answers, supposedly between an uncle and his nephew).[2]

393) The travel bans of R. Yehuda heChasid

Travel by ship in the 12th century

Introduction

This article draws extensively on the research by Dr Ahuva Liberles[1] and explores a unique path within Jewish theology (and messianic eschatology) where personal redemption is emphasised, over the more common notion of national redemption. This path, it is suggested, was championed by R. Yehuda heChasid (1150-1217), a leader of the mystical group known as Chasidei Ashkenaz (or German Pietists) which flourished during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. R. Yehuda heChasid is one of the authors of Sefer Chasidim[2] containing almost two thousand brief teachings on mystical, pietist and ascetic practices interspersed with German folk traditions. R. Yehuda heChasid’s restriction of travel is an area of scholarship that has not achieved much attention and the lacuna is filled by Liberles’ enlightening research.

346) THE REGENSBURG TORAH CODEX:

 

The Regensburg Codex from around 1300.

INTRODUCTION:

The Regensburg Torah scroll (Ms. Jerusalem IM 180/52) was written in around 1300 and reflects some of the mystical writing practices of the German Pietists known as Chasidei Ashkenaz. Of interest is the unusual use of taggin (crownlets) that differs from our style today and other peculiarities that emphasise the mystical theology of Chasidei Ashkenaz. The Masora notes in the margins include many commentaries that clearly go beyond the usual scope of Masora notes. This article is based extensively on the research by Professor Hanna Liss[1] from the University of Heidelberg.

318) AUTHORSHIP OF THE BOOK OF PSALMS – THE DISCOVERY OF A LOST TEXT FROM CHASSIDEI ASHKENAZ:

 

A commentary on the Book of Psalms by Rashbam (1085-1158) from just before the period of R. Eleazar of Worms. 

INTODUCTION:

Pursuant to previous posts about lost texts (and even lost Talmudim) which were discovered in what became known as the “European Geniza”, this article - based extensively on the research of Professor Simcha Emanuel^[1] - explores another fascinating text with interesting implications.

The European Geniza is a term that has come to refer to old texts that were glued together and ‘repurposed’ as binding material to form a hardcover for newer books. These books are scattered throughout Europe in various libraries and archives. Their often-accidental discoveries yield important information about works from towards the end of the Middle Ages[2] which were until recently either not known or thought to have been lost.

292) SEFER CHUKEI HATORAH - A MONASTIC MODEL FOR EARLY YESHIVOT?

From the cover of Jewish Education and Society in the High Middle Ages, by Ephraim Kanarfogel.

INTRODUCTION:

I recall vividly, as a youngster just out of school and about to study in yeshiva, how it was made very clear by my rabbis that as bochurim (yeshiva students) we had to get, not just away from our families, not just out of town, but out of the country in order to immerse ourselves in study. Many children were sent overseas even earlier, as thirteen and fourteen-year-olds, just after barmitzvah. I know some who never saw their parents, brothers and sisters again, for years. 

One of the yeshivot I attended in Israel was great fun but rather ascetic in that we were  given  a  certain elitist designation, not allowed mirrors in the washrooms, and hardly allowed out on Shabbat, not even to go to other yeshivot, never mind visiting family. If one chose, instead, to study in a yeshiva in one’s hometown, no matter how good it was, one lost a perceived status that was difficult to regain.

Where did these unwritten laws and perceptions come from? Certainly, they have become part of the cultural authority of various modern groups and sects, but their roots may have had their origins in earlier times.

This article, based extensively on the research of Rabbi Professor Ephraim Kanarfogel[1] of Yeshiva University, deals with guidelines for early yeshiva schools going back perhaps to the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and is based on the work Sefer Chukei haTorah.

SEFER CHUKEI HATORAH:

There is only one extant version of Sefer Chukei haTorah and it has three sections. The text is found in the Bodleian Library[2]. It reads like a manual or guideline for a strict pietist school system.

It’s an interesting work as it has many unknowns. For some reason, it is not cited by later rabbinic literature although two later texts are fairly similar to it.

Sefer Chukei haTorah was eventually only published in 1880, by Moritz Guedermann. Since then, over twenty-five scholars have argued and debated over its date of origin and general provenance. The work makes mention of Gaonim (rabbis from the Gaonic period 589-1038) and some believe it may have been written during that time. 

On the other hand, it shows resemblance to the midrash hagadol or great academy which was prevalent in southern France in the twelfth century.

The historian Salo Baron (1895-1989) writes that Sefer Chukei haTorah originated:

“...in one of the northern communities under the impact of Provençal[3] mysticism or of German-Jewish Pietism [i.e., the mystical movement known as Chassidei Ashkenaz][4] of the school of Yehudah the Pious and Eleazar of Worms.”

This indicates that Sefer Chukei haTorah had intense mystical origins. 

a) PROGRESSIVE TEACHINGS:

Rabbi Professor Isadore Twersky (1930-1997) sums up the essence of  Sefer Chukei haTorah as being most progressive:

“It strives, by way of stipulations and suggestions, to achieve maximum learning on the part of the student and maximum dedication on the part of the teacher. It operates with such progressive notions as determining the occupational aptitude of students, arranging small groups in order to enable individual attention, grading the classes in order not to stifle individual progress.

The teacher is urged to encourage free debate and discussion among students, arrange periodic review...utilize the vernacular in order to facilitate comprehension. Above all, he is warned against insincerity and is exhorted to be wholly committed to his noble profession.”[5]

Sefer Chukei haTorah also stresses that teachers be completely committed to their teaching while in class and not allow anything to distract them. Even the Dean may not interrupt the teacher while he is engaged in his work with the students.

These are, as R. Twersky describes, very progressive pedagogic measures particularly for a school system some eight centuries ago.

b) ASCETIC AND PIETISTIC TEACHINGS:

However, one can argue that Sefer Chukei haTorah also encouraged strict ascetic practices as well. It tells how the sons of the Cohanim and Leviyim were ‘consecrated’ and expected to study in these schools full time, although this was not enforced. Designated scholars would also study full time – and, importantly, the communal responsibility to study Torah was considered to be vicariously discharged through these students. The students are not just called students, but perushim, or separatists who have been ‘consecrated’ to distance themselves from not just the outside world, but even from their own families.

Kanarfogel writes:

“The most novel position of this document calls for the establishment of quasi-monastic study halls for perushim (lit., those who are separate), dedicated students who would remain totally immersed in their Torah studies for a period of seven years. Elementary-level students would be taught in separate structures for a period of up to seven years, in preparation for their initiation into the ranks of the perushim. The formal initiation took place when the student was thirteen, although it could be postponed (or perhaps renounced) until age sixteen.”

This makes a total of fourteen years of study within these institutions.

The fact that Kanarfogal, who is most articulate in his use of words, refers to ‘quasi-monastic study halls for perushim’ is significant because he suggests a possible non-Jewish ascetic influence.

Elsewhere, Kanarfogel writes about the Tosafist’s (also active during the same period - around the twelfth and thirteenth centuries) whose analytical style of dialectics is referred to by the Sefer Chassidim as ‘dialectica shel goyim’ or dialectics of the non-Jews. He shows how the signature analytical style of the Tosafists may have been adopted by Jews influenced by the culture of dialectics popular in Christian France.

[See: Tosafot – Dialectics of the Nations?]

Rabbi Professor Yaakov Elman shows many earlier examples of influences from the surrounding outside culture which were prevalent during the times of the Babylonian Talmud. A significant example is that of Jewish women who opted for stricter observances when it came to the laws of family purity, so as not to be spiritually upstaged by their more ascetic Zoroastrian neighbours.

[See: Babylonian influences on the Babylonian Talmud.]

If Kanarfogel is correct, it is possible that both the dialectic style of the Tosafists and the ascetic approach to education that we see in Sefer Chukei haTorah, may both have been influenced by the prevailing religious milieu as found within cathedral and monastic schools in Europe at that time.

Sefer Chukei haTorah discourages the classes taking place in the house of the academy head lest he is distracted by his wife. The classes must take place in the school of the perushim (the students who have separated). The academy head must remain with the students and not return home for the entire week. He may only return home for Shabbat.

SEFER CHUKEI HATORAH RESEMBLES SEFER CHASSIDIM:

Sefer Chukei haTorah reflects many ideas that are mentioned in Sefer Chassidim of the German Pietists (Chassidei Ashkenaz).

Sefer Chassidim also expects the children of Cohanim and Leviyim to be sent away from home for long periods of time, in order to study Torah, or until they no longer have doubts. This is based on its unusual interpretation of a verse in Devarim recording Moshe’s blessing before he died:

“Who said of his father and mother, “I consider them not.” His brothers he disregarded, ignored his own children. Your precepts alone they observed and kept your covenant.”[6]

Kanarfogel says that he knows of no other text that interprets this verse the way Sefer Chassidim does, other than what appears to be its sister work, Sefer Chukei haTorah.

He writes:

“...the sons of kohanim and leviyyim are to be consecrated as youngsters to study Torah and to become perushim [separatists][7]. They are to remain separated from everyone including their families for seven years, while they study.”

Thus Sefer Chukei haTorah seems to follow a similar educational approach to that of Sefer Chassidim.

MONASTIC INFLUENCES?

Based on this and other similarities[8] between Sefer Chukei haTorah and Sefer Chassidim, it is possible that the pietistic teachings of the former were influenced by the latter.

However, Kanarfogel suggests that some influences may also have been absorbed from the surrounding religious culture of Christian piety which was reflected in its educational system.

He writes:

“Another possible key to the origin of [Sefer Chukei haTorah] that has not been probed sufficiently lies in the practices and phrases that appear to be similar to Christian monastic ideals. The perushim, who are chosen originally through some form of parental consecration, ensconce themselves in their fortresses of study away from all worldly temptations.

They devote all their time in the holy work of God (melekhet shamayim), and serve as representatives of the rest of the community in this endeavour. It is possible that the [Sefer Chukei haTorah] represents an attempt to recast the discipline and devotion of Christian monastic education, which was certainly known to, and perhaps admired by, Jews, in a form compatible with Jewish practices and values.”

EXTRACTS FROM THE TEXT OF SEFER CHUKEI HATORAH:

The following are some selected extracts from Sefer Chukei haTorah:

1) NUMBERS OF STUDENTS IN A CLASS:

“Statute six. Melammedim [teachers][9] should not accept more than ten students in one class...”.

2) TO TEACH FROM A TEXT:

“Statute seven. It is incumbent upon the melammedim not to teach the children by heart, but from the written text....”

3) NOT TO LINGER IN THE SYNAGOGUE:

The heads of the academies should not linger in the synagogue for morning prayer until the prayer [service] ends, but only until...qedushah rabbah...”

4) THE RECULCITRANT STUDENT:

“Statute five.....And if the supervisor sees amongst the youths a young man who is difficult and dense, he should bring him to his father and say to him: ‘The Lord should privilege your son to [do] good deeds, because he is too difficult for Torah study,’ lest the brighter students fall behind because of him.”

5) FINANCIAL MATTERS:

"Statute four. To collect from all Israel twelve deniers a year for the service of the study hall....”

“And it was ordained regarding the melammedim, that a head melamed can gather up to one hundred young men to teach them Torah, and take in for this one hundred litrin. He then hires for them ten melammedim for eighty litrin, and the remaining litrin will be his share. He does not teach any child but is the officer and supervisor over the [other] melammedim....”

“[The father of a five year old][10] informs the melammed...’I am telling you that you will teach my son during this month the structure of the letters, during the second month their vocalization, during the third month the combination of letters into words....If not, you will be paid as a furloughed [temporary][11]worker.’”

6) CONSECRATION WHILE IN THE WOMB:

“The first statute. It is incumbent on the priests and Levites to separate one of their sons and consecrate him to Torah study, even while he is still in his mother’s womb. For they were commanded this at Mount Sinai as it is written, “they shall teach your statutes to Jacob. [Deut.33:10]....”

“[The father] accepts upon himself and says: ‘If my wife gives birth to a male, he shall be consecrated unto the Lord, and he will study His Torah day and night.’ On the eighth day, after the child has entered the covenant of circumcision....[t]he academy head shall place his hands on him and on the Pentateuch and say, ‘this one shall learn what is written in this,’ three times....”

7) THE ‘TITHE OF SONS’:

“Similarly, all the children of Israel shall separate [one] from among their sons, because Jacob made such a separation, as it is written, “all that You shall give to me I will surely give the tenth [double verb] to You” [Gen. 28:22]. The verse speaks of two tithings, a tithe of money and a tithe of sons....”

8) THE FEW STUDY FOR THE MANY:

“Statute two. To establish a study hall for the separated students [perushim]...near the synagogue. This house would be called the great study hall. 

For just as cantors are appointed to discharge for the many their obligation in prayer, full-time students are appointed to study Torah without end, to discharge for the many their obligation in Torah study, and the work of heaven will thereby not fall behind....”

9) THE STUDENTS MAY NOT LEAVE FOR SEVEN YEARS:

“Statute three. The perushim may not leave the house for seven years. There they will eat and drink, and there they will sleep, and they should not speak in the study hall.

Wisdom will not reside in the student who comes and goes...

If the perushim leave the study hall before seven years, they must pay a set fine...which teaches that they imprison themselves in order to know the statutes of the Almighty....”

ANALYSIS:

The first five extracts are indeed quite ‘progressive’ as per R. Twersky - but the last four appear extremely ascetic and do seem to reflect a monastic approach as per R. Kanarfogel, making his hypothesis rather convincing.

FURTHER READING:

Jewish Education and Society in the High Middle Ages, by Ephraim Kanarfogel. Detroit. Wayne State University Press.

Michal Bar-Asher Siegal. Shared Worlds: Rabbinic and Monastic Literature. Ben Gurion University.

---

[1] Ephraim Kanarfogel,  A Monastic-like Setting for the Study of Torah: Sefer Huqqei ha-Torah.

[2] Opp. 342, fols. 196-199 (Neubauer 873).

[3] Pronounced ‘provensal’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRg1B6txHqw. Provence is part of southern France, and is usually associated with the bastion of Maimonidean rationalism. It did, however, also contain circles of mysticism. See Between Provence and Barcelona.

[4] Parenthesis mine.

[5] Isadore Twersky, Rabad of Posquiéres, 2^nd ed. (Philidelphia: Jewish Publication Society 1980, p. 25.

[6] Deuteronomy 33:9. It is interesting to note that the next verse,  verse 10 reads:  “They shall teach Your ordinances to Jacob, and Your Torah to Israel” and verse 11 reads: “May the Lord bless his army”. It is possible that this interpretation of Sefer Chassidim may be the originator of the notion that the students of Torah represent the mystical army that protects the Jewish people. (Interpretation mine.)

[7] Parenthesis mine.

[8] Kanarfogel adds that similar sentiments were also expressed in the Sefer Chassidim of Chassidei Ashkenaz, that students of different levels should not be included together in one combined class as both the bright and the weaker students would suffer.

[9] Parenthesis mine.

[10] Parenthesis mine.

[11] Parenthesis mine.

281) THE SHIFT FROM BABYLONIA TO THE WEST AND THE DESPERATE NEED TO RE-ESTABLISH RABBINICAL AUTHORITY:

A traditional wooden sailing boat used in the protected waters of the Mediterranean. 

BACKGROUND:

The Torah centres of Babylonia had been home to early rabbinic Judaism for about a thousand years after the destruction of the second Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE. Its roots went back even earlier to the time of the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE.

However, around the year 1000 CE, the Babylonian seat of rabbinic power began to disintegrate and made way for a geographical shift to the West.

This was a difficult period historically as besides unseating the geographical location and home of Torah authority and erudition in Babylonia where the Babylonian Talmud was formulated - it was also a time when, in 1038, we transitioned from the rabbinic period of the Gaonim to that of the Rishonim.

All these events culminating together made that period very unsettling.

There are various accounts, and possibly some myths describing just which country in the West came to represent the new seat of western authorized rabbinical authority. Was it North Africa, Spain, Italy, Northern France, Southern France or Germany?

In this article, I have drawn from the research of Professor Avraham Grossman[1] (b. 1936) who specializes in Jewish History and has done manuscript research at the Bodleian Library.

THE FOUR CAPTIVES:

Around 1161, Rabbi Avraham ibn Daud[2] wrote an account of four rabbis who travelled to Europe on a fundraising mission from the declining Babylonian Torah centre of Sura.

These four great rabbis were seized by pirates off the Italian coast and variously sold for ransom to the Jews of Egypt, (Kairouan) Tunisia, Spain and Germany thus establishing venerable Torah centres in each of those locations.

This event became known as the Four Captives and was described as an act of Divine Providence to show how the shift in rabbinic authority - from East to West - was sanctioned from On High, and that henceforth people should obey the rabbis in those counties and no longer look to Babylonia for rabbinic guidance as they had done in the past.

[For more background, the Reader is urged to read an earlier article on The ‘Four Captives’- When Evidence Confronts History.]

WHICH WESTERN COUNTRY HAS MORE AUTHORITY?

Until the 11^th-century, there was no question that Babylonia (or Bavel) was the final seat of determination and arbitration of Jewish law. However, after the passing of the last of the Babylonian Gaonic rabbis, Rav Hai Gaon in 1038, it became necessary to establish a correspondingly replacement authoritative seat among the western countries.

This difficulty was intensified, because, as Grossman writes:

“Rivalry between Spain and Ashkenaz [Germany][3] was especially fierce at this time, with each centre striving to outdo the other.”

But it wasn’t just Spain and Ashkenaz that competed for the position of highest rabbinic authority. Fascinating, we shall see how various communities each independently developed accounts of history that placed them at the forefront of the battle for authority.

1) SPAIN:

The rabbis of Spain claimed that the decline of the Babylonian academies were not by accident but by Divine decree that Spain should emerge as the primary home of rabbinic Judaism. Spain was to be the designated successor to Bavel.

They even found a biblical verse from Ovadia to substantiate that claim:

“And that exiled force of Israelites [shall possess] what belongs to the Phoenicians as far as Tzarfat, while the Jerusalemite exile community of Sefarad shall possess the towns of the Negeb.”[4]

The biblical reference to Sefarad was immediately associated with Spain. The Aramaic translation of this verse identified Sefarad as Aspamia (Aramaic for the Latin Hispania). Even Rashi (1040-1105) who lived and died in France, was forced to ‘concede’ the pre-eminence of Spanish authority. He mentions that some of the early First Temple exiles did indeed reach Tzarfat (France) but the more ‘elite’ tribe of Judah reached as far as Sefarad (Spain).

The claim was that Spain had been chosen by G-d because Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem had reached Spanish shores as early as First Temple times. This meant that the Jews of Spain were the descendants of the elite Jerusalem exiles, while those in other parts of Europe and North Africa came from other towns and villages in the Holy land.

In fact - by the Spanish claim that they were the descendants of the elite group of Jerusalem exiles after the destruction of the First Temple - they were showing their pre-eminence even over the Babylonians themselves!

SHMUEL HANAGID:

In keeping with this theme, we find statements like that of the Spanish rabbi Shmuel haNagid (993-1056):

“Sefarad has been a place of Torah study from the time of the First Temple and the exile of Jerusalem to this day.”[5]

Significantly, R. Shmuel haNagid was a student of R. Moshe ben Chanoch, one of the Four Captives mentioned above, who was ransomed in Spain.

On the historicity of the claim which placed their ancestors as the elite exiles from Jerusalem, Grossman writes that although it:

“...sought to present Spain as a divinely chosen place from time immemorial, and as one that needed neither Babylonia nor Italy...the historical truth is that the Jewish intellectual centre in Spain underwent rapid growth in the time of R. Hisdai Ibn Shaprut, in the mid-tenth century.”

R. Shmuel haNagid also tied to show a direct line of communication between Babylonia and Spain. He wrote about Rav Natronai Gaon (d. 878) of Babylonia:

 “It was he who wrote down the Talmud for the scholars of Spain without consulting a book.”[6]

The Talmud in Spain, accordingly, was handed over directly to the Spanish rabbis from Babylonia, inferring an official transferral of the mantle of leadership to Spain.

YEHUDA AL-BARCELONI:

Another similar teaching was promoted by R. Yehuda al-Barceloni[7] (11^th to 12^th-centuries):

“A well-known tradition in Spain, handed down by their fathers, is that R. Natronai Gaon...came to them from Babylonia by ’shortening the way’ [kefitsat haderekh]. He taught them Torah and then he returned [magically to Babylonia][8]; he came not by convoy nor was he seen along the way.”[9]

By bringing in the miraculous component of kefitsat hadereckh, again we see the how Divine Providence was said to have endorsed the pre-eminence of Spain over the other centres.

The Spanish Jews thus had three precedents to their claim of representing the most accurate tradition, the verse from Ovadia, the story of the Four Captives and the direct transferral of Torah literature from Babylonia to Spain.

2) ITALY:

The sages of Italy also claimed they were descendant from Jerusalem exiles. According to the Scroll of Achima’atz, also known as Megillat Yuchasin, written by Achima’atz ben Paltiel  (1017-1060), his family descended from the captives taken by Titus to Rome after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. [For more on Achima’atz see A Window into Pre-Zoharic Mystical Literature.]

Achima’atz writes that these elite exiles were “Torah scholars...wise and learned” and they were mystics who composed many of the prayers found in our prayer books to this day.

TOSAFISTS:

The Tosafists of Northern France and Germany (who were influenced by Chasidei Ashkenaz [See Mystical Forays of the Tosafists.]) were also known to have respected the rabbis of Italy.

The French Tosafist, Rabbeinu Tam (1100-1171) even adapted the verse “The Torah will go out from Zion, and the word of G-d from Jerusalem” [10] to read “The Torah will go out from Bari[11], and the word of G-d from Otranto.”

The Tosafists had great admiration for Rabbeinu Chananel (990-1053) of North Africa because he was trained by Italian rabbis.

3) GERMANY:

CHASIDEI ASHKENAZ:

The German mystical movement known as Chasidei Ashkenaz or German Pietists of the 12^th and 13^th-centuries also had much respect for the Italian rabbis. They spoke about the transmission of ‘secrets’ within the prayer liturgy. One of the leaders of Chasidei Ashkenaz, R. Eleazar of Worms claimed that the early founder of the mystical movement, Abu Aharon[12] (from the earlier Gaonic Period) transmitted his secret knowledge in Lucca[13]. 

Abu Aharon is said to have established a Yeshiva in Italy, called the Sanhedrin Yeshiva from where his teachings spread throughout Italy.

R. Eleazer of Worms wrote that Abu Aharon had met with his (R. Eleazar’s) ancestor Moshe haPaytan (R. Moshe ben Kalonymus, the ‘poet’) who was “the first [Jew] to emigrate to from Italy” to Mainz in Germany. This move to Germany was allegedly arranged by Charlemagne (or Charles the Great 742-814).

It is significant that Abu Aharon is said to have entrusted his Babylonian mystical tradition to the Rabbis of Italy before any of the other centres in North Africa and Europe. And, importantly, the connection between Italy and Germany was quickly established through Abu Aharon and Moshe haPaytan.

RABBEINU GERSHOM:

The Chasidei Ashkenaz and the German Jews bolstered their claim to the authenticity of being the rightful heirs to the Babylonian tradition by suggesting that the famed Rabbeinu Gershom (known as the Meor haGolah or Light of the Exile) who lived in Mainz, had been taught by the last of the Babylonian Gaonim, Rav Hai Gaon.[14]

However, as Grossman points out:

“There is no hint of this claim in any of R. Gershom’s own writings; [whose][15] teacher and mentor, he clearly states, was R. Leontine.”[16]

Another claim was that Rabbeinu Gershom had married the sister of Rav Hai Gaon.[17]

THE ISLAMIC CONQUEST:

There is a further claim that after the Islamic conquest of Persia (Babylonia) there was a mass immigration of Jews to Germany, thereby effectively becoming the new Babylonia on German soil - but as Grossman confirms, this event lacks historical truth.

GERMANY IS SUPERIOR TO BABYLONIA:

In yet another tradition, R. Meshulam of Ashkenaz (Germany) visited Babylonia and met the head of the Babylonian academy. At the meeting, it soon transpired that R. Meshulam was far more learned and erudite than his Babylonian counterpart who offered his daughter’s hand to him in marriage. R. Meshulam declined the offer and returned to Germany to head the Ashkenaz community.[18]

4) NORTHERN FRANCE:

Northern France and Germany are together regarded as Ashkenaz. The Jews of northern France also developed their own traditions which showed them as the natural successors to Babylonian rabbinic authority.

One tradition tells of R. Eliyahu ben Menachem of Le Mans[19] being chosen by G-d as the natural successor to Rav Hai Gaon of Babylonia. Interestingly, this tradition was written by R. Eliyahu himself and he explained that every generation needs a special leader. Historically, R. Eliyahu did indeed visit Rav Hai Gaon in Babylonia who gave R. Eliyahu the title aluf (leader).

Another tradition has R. Eliyahu also marrying the sister of Rav Hai Gaon.

For some reason, the northern French literature of succession from Babylonia is not as elaborate as that of the other counties. And Rashi, as mentioned, seems to have conceded that Spain (and not his home country France) was the ‘chosen’ successor.

5) SOUTHERN FRANCE - PROVENCE:

The Jews of Provence[20] in southern France also claimed that their connection to Babylonia went back as far as the times of Charlemagne. During his reign, Charlemagne managed to unite most of western and central Europe. According to their tradition, Charlemagne asked the king of Babylonia “to send a Jew from among the Jews in his land of royal blood, of the House of David” to head the Jewish community of Provence. 

The person who met the requirements was a certain R. Machir and his descendants continued to lead that community for generations. In fact, they did not just lead Provence but were regarded as “lawmakers and judges all over the [Jewish][21] world, just like exilarchs.”

Grossman says that it is “difficult to find even a slim historical basis” for this event[22] but he shows that there were prominent families in Provence with the title “Nasi”. He also points out, interestingly, that the Jews of Provence - unlike all the other communities - chose rather to claim authorization from the Exilarchs and not from the Gaonim of Babylonia.

This was because the Exilarch claimed decadency from Jewish Kings and the royal Davidic line. Thus the Babylonian roots of Provence Jewry were depicted as more prestigious than those of the other countries.

In Babylonia, the Reish Galuta or Exilarch operated in a form of partnership with the Gaon, where the Exilarch was in charge of political affairs while the Gaon had had jurisdiction over religious matters. [For more on this, see Rambam’s ‘Anti-Establishment' Writings on the ‘Gedolim’ of his Day.]

R. Menachem haMeiri (d. 1316) lent some credence to the claim of Provence Jewry when he wrote:

“Pre-eminence passed from one generation to the next ... this tradition is upheld by the greatest of our princes in Narbonne.”

6) EGYPT:

A similar story to that of Provence is told of the pre-eminence of the Jews of Egypt. According to the Divrei Yosef [23] the Egyptian queen encouraged the king to:

“send forth messengers to the land of Babylon with the message: ‘I have heard that in your kingdom there are Jews from the house of David ... send me one of them.’ They sent him a wise man, a descendant of the princes in that land; the king appointed him over Egypt; henceforth he was the negidut [leadership] established in Egypt.”[24]

The similarities between the stories of how Jews came to Provence and Egypt show how they often shared the same themes.

On a similar note, the Jews of Provence tell a story of a Jew who once saved the life of Charlemagne – and the German Jews tell of how one of their Jews once saved the life of Emperor Otto II.[25]

ANALYSIS:

The very overt similarities between all these foundational accounts from the various centres in Europe and North Africa are either coincidental or the result of a desperate attempt at re-establishing rabbinic authority after Babylonia lost its hold on the Torah world. The correctness of the line of authority is crucial to Judaism and is known as the Mesora. The Mesora is presented to us today as a very simple traceable line without any dispute. -But why, then, are there so many different accounts of this line of Mesora?

The problem is compounded by the fact that our study only concerned the period of around the 11^th and 12^th –centuries. Back then, they had no idea that almost a thousand years later we would have a very different Judaism with new movements unheard of at that time. 

These include Chassidism and its different branches which would arrive on the scene in the 1700s, Religious Zionism, Modern Orthodox and the ultra-Orthodox movement which was established in 1885 (a year before Coca Cola was established). [See Reforms of the ultra-Orthodox] -All of these new groups also claimed to have the correct Mesora.

This insistence on having the authorized version of the Mesora is important for obvious reasons and, as we have seen, always has been.

However, a point is reached when insistence that one version of the Mesora can exclude another becomes disingenuous.

When some of the lost Meiri texts were discovered in the 1800s, much the ultra-Orthodox world would have nothing to do with the texts, although the Meiri (1249-1306) was an important Rishon. And the reason was simple: The Meiri had not been part of the accepted Mesora for so many centuries so he can never rejoin it. [See The Meiri Texts – Lost or Ignored?]

A better example is the Chazon Ish (1878-1953), an anti-Zionist leader who shaped the contemporary Chareidi theological and institutional landscape of modern Israel. He said that if we were to find a Sefer Torah written by Moshe Rabbeinu himself, and if it differs from the version we use today, we need to correct Moshe’s Torah to match ours, otherwise, we need to bury it within thirty days:

“The old sefer Torah, even if were written by the greatest authority (Moshe), must be considered pasul (invalid) as long as it does not conform to ours. 

In order for it to become kasher, it must be amended and adjusted to comply with the text of contemporary sefarim, according to the most recent halacha.”

[See What Would Happen if Moshe’s Torah were to be Discovered Tomorrow – and it’s Different from Ours?]

Much of the phenomena in this world operate on the basis of the Inverted-U curve. Malcolm Gladwell writes:

“Inverted-U curves are about limits. They illustrate that ‘more’ is not always better; there comes a point, in fact, when the extra resources that the powerful think of as their greatest advantage only serves to make things worse[26]... there comes a point where the best-intentioned application of power and authority begins to backfire[27].”

He explains that no police, for example, is bad. A reasonable amount of police is good to maintain law and order, but too much police creates police states. Similarly, too little children in a class is not good, there is a magic number where the dynamic is just right and then there is a point where too many children are detrimental to everyone in the class.

Perhaps one can say the same with the Mesora. Of course, we need a Mesora if we want to live according to the Law of Moshe. That Mesora must of necessity function within the guidelines of Halacha. 

But a point is reached when a fanaticism, obsession and desperation with Mesora has the opposite effect and creates a false or invented Mesora which by definition is a misnomer. 

This is why we have numerous conflicting accounts in the 11^th-century as to who represents the Mesora from Bavel – and, why in the 20^th-century, we are prepared to bury the Torah written by Moshe’s hand.

---

[1] Avraham Grossman, Medieval Jewish Legends on the Decline of the Babylonian Centre and the Primacy of Other Geographical Centres.

[2] Avraham Ibn Daud (sometimes known as Rabad) is not to be confused with Raavad (1125-1198) although they both have the same names and lived at the same time. Ibn Daud lived in Spain while Raavad lived in France. Ibn Daud is mentioned in Avodah Zara 38 and appears to have been one of the Baalei haTosefot.

[3] Parenthesis mine.

[4] Ovadia 1:20. According to Judges 1:21, Jerusalem fell within the territory of Benjamin, while according to Joshua 15:63, Jerusalem fell within the territory of Judah. 

[5] Quoted by R. Yehudah ben Barzilai of Barcelona in his Sefer haItim 267

[6] Sefer Hilchot haNagid (Margaliot), 2. The second part of this statement is not relevant to our discussion but would have implications regarding when the Talmud was finally written down. See Everyone Knows when the Talmud was Written Down.

[7]Yehuda al-Barceloni is the Hebrew version of the Arabic Yehuda al-Bargeloni. He is also referred to as haNasi (the prince).

[8] Parenthesis mine. Rav Hai Gaon rejected this legend out of hand, and he wrote, "Perhaps an imposter happened to come to them and claimed that he was Natronai. If Natronai had been known for performing miracles we would not deny it, but he was not known for such acts at all." [Otzar HaGeonim, Chagiga, pages 16-20].

[9] Commentary on Sefer Yetzirah, 150.

[10] Isaiah 2:3.

[11] One wonders if this is also a veiled reference to the Four Captives who set sail from the southern Italian port of Bari?

[12] Also known as Ibn Aharon. See History and Folklore in a Medieval Jewish Chronicle: The Family Chronicle of Achima’az ben Paltiel, by Robert Bonfil, p. 57.

[13] Lucca is a town in the Tuscany region of Italy.  Lucca is pronounced ‘Lukka’.

[14] See She’elot uTeshuvot Maharshal, no. 29.

[15] Parenthesis mine.

[16] See The Early Sages of Ashkenaz (Heb.), 113-16.

[17] Zimmer, ‘R. Azriel Trabot’s Sefer haposekim’(Heb.), 245.

[18] Zfatman, The Jewish Tale in the Middle Ages (Heb.), 97- 111.

[19] Pronounced ‘Le Moh’

[20] Pronounced ‘Provance’.

[21] Parenthesis mine.

[22] According to Jewish Encyclopaedia: Abraham ibn Daud says, in his "Sefer ha-Ḳabbalah," that the calif Harun al-Rashid, at the request of Charlemagne, sent to Narbonne Machir, a learned Jew of Babylon, to whom the emperor gave numerous prerogatives and whom he appointed head of the community. This is evidently a legend; but there is no doubt that Machir settled at Narbonne, where he soon acquired great influence over his coreligionists. 

[23] By R. Yosef ben Yitzchak Sambari.

[24] Sambari, Divrei Yosef, 139-40.

[25] Grossman, The Early Sages of Ashkenaz (Heb,), 36-8.

[26] Malcolm Gladwell, David and Goliath, p. 238.

[27] Ibid, p. 257.