262) HOW TO CATCH A THIEF:

A spindle with a whorl wheel (left) with the distaff (right) for producing thread.

INTRODUCTION:

I have again[1] drawn from the research of Professor Gideon Bohak, a specialist in Jewish magic in Antiquity and the Middle ages, as well as in the textual fragments from the Cairo Geniza. He is a professor in the Department of Jewish Philosophy and Talmud at Tel Aviv University.

In this article, we are going to look at one area of Bohak’s work; a fragment which was found in the Cairo Geniza [See Cairo Geniza – 1000 Years of Torah on African Soil] which deals with how to catch a thief. We will look at the surprising origins of this text and briefly examine the relationship between Jewish magic and mysticism.

a) THE GENIZA FRAGMENT:

The object of our investigation is a 12 X 16.5cm single sheet of paper in the Cambridge University Library on a shelf marked Taylor-Schechter K1.115. It is perfectly preserved apart from a small piece missing from the top right-hand corner.

On the recto (front main side of the sheet) is a Latin text transliterated in Hebrew characters (Judeo-Latin). According to the Oriental semi-cursive script it has been dated from around the 12^th or 13^th - century.

On the verso (back side of the sheet) is a short Hebrew blessing followed an Aramaic recipe for Kefitzat haDerech (a shortening of the road, ‘path jumping’ or teleportation). [2]

This is the Latin text in Hebrew characters, followed by a representation in actual Latin:

The Latin text in Hebrew characters.

The same text in Latin.

As can be seen, parts of the transliterated Latin text are missing so it is difficult to completely reconstruct the original Latin which is clearly a form of prayer.

Bohak needed to know more about the provenance of the Judeo-Latin text and he began searching.

b) A SECOND TEXT FROM TOSAFIST LITERATURE:

Through a series of coincidences and great detective work, Bohak and a colleague were able to find a similar transliterated Latin text in another manuscript - which was located in the microfilm collection at the Institute for Hebrew Manuscripts of the National Library in Jerusalem.

What made this new manuscript[3] so interesting was that it was part of a Tosafist work from Ashkenaz (from the German cities of Worms, Mainz and Koln) and also dated from around the 13^th-century.

The text opens with instructions in Hebrew followed by a similar Latin prayer or adjuration in Hebrew characters and then concludes with more Hebrew instructions:

Tosafist work showing similar matching Latin text with Hebrew instructions before and after.

Essentially a spindle rod (a long straight stick) with a whorl stone (a weighted disk to maintain rotational speed) is placed in a Book of Psalms (Psalm 51 in this case) and allowed to rotate freely in mid-air. Certain Latin words in Hebrew characters are then recited three times and if the Book begins to rotate the suspected thief is declared guilty.

Bohak writes:

“The presence of a magical recipe for detecting thieves in a mostly-halakhic collection from the world of the Tosaphists is of great interest, and certainly supports recent claims that there was quite an interest in mysticism and magic even in medieval Ashkenaz, and even among some of its most halakhically-minded rabbis.”

[For more on this, see Mystical Forays of the Tosafists.]

More scholarly research revealed that the Latin prayer was part of what is known as an Ordeal. An Ordeal is technically defined as follows:

“Trial by ordeal was an ancient judicial practice by which the guilt or innocence of the accused was determined by subjecting them to a painful, or at least an unpleasant, usually dangerous experience. The test was one of life or death, and the proof of innocence was survival.”[4]

In this case, the Ordeal was not that severe, as it only involved placing a spindle in the Book of Psalms, reciting a Latin prayer and waiting to see if it rotated.

However, what is startling is that the use of a prayer in Latin reveals its origins as a form of Christian Ordeal, which is surprising for a work of the Tosafists.

[Although see Tosafot – Dialectics of the Nations?]

c) A THIRD TEXT FROM THE MARGINS OF SEFER HATERUMAH:

Fascinatingly, Bohak then discovered a third parallel text[5], with a similar transliterated Latin prayer, inserted in the margins of a 14^th-century Ashkenazi Halachik work, Sefer haTerumah, by R. Baruch ben Yitzchak:[6]

The text found inserted in the margins of  Sefer haTerumah.

This time it is Psalm 16 which is referenced. A spindle is similarly to be placed in the Book of Psalms, hanging from a distaff (the rod on which wool is wound before spinning), and a similar Latin prayer, or spell, in Hebrew characters is recited three times. Again the assumption is that if the thief is guilty, the book will spin.

d) THE ORIGINAL FORM OF THE LATIN ORDEAL:

Because parts of the Latin texts were missing, Bohak searched for the original version of this Ordeal. This turned out to be a 12^th-century Christian manuscript:

“To make a judgment with a Psalter [Book of Psalms][7]. Take a piece of wood with a knob, and place it in a Psalter, on this verse ‘Righteous are you, Lord, and right is your judgment’ (Ps. 118.137). Close the Psalter and bind it tight, with the knob protruding outside [towards the top][8]

Then take another piece of wood, with a hole, and place in it the knob of the first piece[9], so that the Psalter hangs upon it and can revolve. And let two people hold the piece of wood, with the Psalter pending in the middle.

And have the suspect stand in front of them. And let one of those holding the Psalter say to the other three times like this, ‘He has that thing.’ And the other shall respond three times, ‘He does not have it.’

Then the priest should say, ‘May Him by whose judgment the heavens and earth are governed be willing to reveal this to us...’”[10]

The Ordeal proceeds to make overt Christian references to Jesus, Mary and the Holy Ghost.

REMOVING THE OVERT CHRISTIAN REFERENCES:

Bohak then explains:

“[T]he Jew(s) who first borrowed this prayer from its Christian users certainly knew enough Latin to omit all the blatantly-Christian elements from the original Latin prayer, and to insert the Hebrew word ploni, ‘so and so,’ in the right place.

 Whether the scribes who wrote down this prayer in Paris 326 [i.e., the Tosafist manuscript] and JTS RABB 1077 [i.e., from the margins of Sefer haTerumah][11] still had some idea of what it meant is hard to say, but the Egyptian Jew who wrote it – without the instructions which originally accompanied it – in his collection of spells and recipes [which was found in the Cairo Geniza][12], probably had no idea whatsoever about the original meaning of all these strange words.

As voces magicae [i.e., magical formulae usually in the form of incomprehensible syllables][13], however, they must have sounded quite impressive.”

THE PAPER TRAIL:

Bohak reconstructs the historical chain of events leading to this Christian prayer practice becoming part the Jewish magical tradition:

It seems that a 12^th-century Jew, probably living in the Rhineland, was aware of a Benedictine Ordeal and decided to adapt it for Jewish use. Essentially, he retained the actual ritual technique but consciously removed all the overt Christian references adding ploni (the reference to an anonymous person) at the appropriate places.

The Tosafist text with the word ploni shown highlighted. 

Additionally, although Bohak does not mention this, the Chassidei Ashkenaz who influenced the Tosafists were known to have borrowed some folk mystical practices from the populace and possibly even from the monks. [See Chasidei Ashkenaz – These are Not Superstitions.]

Nevertheless, in its Judaized form, the Christian Latin Ordeal for catching thieves was circulated in Ashkenazi circles and eventually found its way into Tosafist Halachic manuscripts; and then it moved on to Arabic speaking Cairo where it was again copied and then finally placed into the Cairo Geniza where it lay for centuries until its discovery in the late 1800s.

The Christian Lateran Council of 1215 officially banned all Ordeals and levied heavy penalties on priests who performed such practices. Although this ban went largely unheeded, there was an official condemnation of such practices, yet ironically these texts found their amended way into aspects of the Jewish magic tradition.

AT WHAT POINT DOES MYSTICISM STOP AND MAGIC BEGINS?

While many fields of Jewish endeavour have been well explored, Bohak informs us that the scientific study of Jewish magical texts has been seriously neglected by scholars in the past:

 “[T]he number of unedited and even uncharted primary sources for the study of Jewish magic is staggering, and...these sources must serve as the starting point for any serious study of the Jewish magical tradition....”[14]

Bohak explains why it was that the study of Jewish magic has been neglected:

“Until recently, most scholars in Jewish Studies were quite willing to accept Balaam’s famous claim, ‘There is no divination in Jacob, and no augury in Israel’ (Num. 23.23), and to ignore the existence of a rich and variegated Jewish magical tradition which is continuously documented at least from late antiquity and all the way to the twenty-first century.”

Many have always taken and continue to take Jewish ‘magicians’ (some may prefer a more eloquent nomenclature for the practitioners of this art) very seriously:

“The Jewish magicians and their patrons believed that they possessed the ability to exorcise demons, slay enemies, heal a wide range of ailments, assist in matters of fertility and childbirth, cause a certain person to love or hate another, to send demons or bad dreams upon a person they desired to harm, and to act in a wide variety of other realms.” [15]

[See ‘Kupat Ha’ir’: Ultra-Orthodox Manipulation and African Magic.]

The use and the origins of magic within Jewish traditions are far more widespread than many would care to admit. To what extent Jewish magic overlaps with Jewish mysticism is subject to a fierce debate:

In the search for the point where mysticism stops and magic begins, the student can adopt one of three different approaches.

Bohak writes quite outspokenly:

“The study of Jewish mysticism will make an important step forward when it finally drops both Gershom Scholem’s understanding of Jewish magic as the ugly stepdaughter of Jewish mysticism and Moshe Idel’s view of much of Jewish religion and almost all of Jewish mysticism as suffused with magic, and would become more acquainted with the Jewish magical texts themselves and more accustomed to seeing the Jewish magical tradition as a sister—sometimes an older sister, sometimes a younger sister, and mostly a distant sister—of the Jewish mystical tradition.”

Bohak thus takes the interesting position that Jewish magic is not an ugly offshoot of Jewish mysticism (as per Scholem), nor is it inextricably bound together with mysticism (as per Idel) but, rather, it maintains a somewhat distant relationship to it.

Either way, mysticism still cannot divorce itself entirely from some relationship to magic - and whichever position one takes would remain subjective because the technical boundaries (between theosophical mysticism and theurgical magic) remain ill-defined.

---

[1] See A Window into Pre-Zoharic Mystical Literature  and  Folklore – Alive and Well in a Modern World.

[2] The Latin text on the recto is followed by a space and then a text in Judaeo-Arabic (Arabic in Hebrew characters). This page would have originally been left blank and it is assumed that the Latin and Judeo-Arabic text were added later. The verso is quite standard for Geniza magical texts but the Latin transliteration on the recto is unusual. Because of the various different languages it seems that the texts may have divergent origins. 

[3] Paris BN Heb. 326.

[4] Wikipedia.

[5] JTS Rabb. 1077

[6] Apparently, using margins and blank spaces for additional related or unrelated material was quite a common practice at that time.

[7] Parenthesis mine.

[8] Parenthesis mine.

[9] Or rather, first place the upwards facing knob in the hole which will then act as a kind of bearing and then insert it into the Psalter?

[10] Codex Latinus Monacensis 100, fol. 132–133.

[11] Parentheses mine.

[12] Parenthesis mine.

[13] Parenthesis mine.

[14] Gideon Bohak, Prolegomena to the Study of the Jewish Magical Tradition.

[15] Gideon Bohak, Khamsa Khamsa Khamsa: The Evolution of a Motif in Contemporary Israeli Art.

250) THE CHANGING STATUS OF THE CONVERT IN TOSAFIST LITERATURE:

Part I:

INTRODUCTION:

RABBEINU YITZCHAK OF DAMPIERRE:

Research into the status of converts to Judaism, within Tosafist literature, paradoxically reveals both a positive tolerance, and a surprising negative resistance, to their acceptance as equal amongst Jews. The Tosafists were active in Northern France and Germany between 1040 and 1293.[1]

In this essay, we will show how early Tosafists like Rashi[2] (1040-1105) and his grandson Rabbeinu Tam[3] (1100-1171) had downgraded the status of the convert; while Rabbeinu Yitzchak of Dampierre, known as the Ri haZaken[4] (1115-1184) - who happened to be Rabbeinu Tam’s student and nephew – boldly challenged his uncle’s and his great-grandfather’s denigration of the convert and, instead, began to raise the dignity of the convert to be correspondent to that of a Jew.

Rabbeinu Yitzchak of Dampierre is quoted on most pages of Tosefot commentary, and he was responsible for completing Rashi’s commentary on the Talmud.

I have drawn from the writings of Professor Avraham (Rami) Reiner[5] who specializes in the history of Halachic and Talmudic exegesis in Medieval Europe.

THE SUICIDE OF YAKOV BEN SULAM:

In 1096, the Jewish chronicler, R. Shlomo ben Shimshon, wrote about a shocking incident which took place in Mainz, Germany. A certain Yakov ben Sulam, described as a “very kind man” - whose mother had converted to Judaism - was not treated very well by the community, and he was regarded as somewhat inferior. Eventually, after enduring much abuse, he took a knife in his hands and, before killing himself, he declared:

“So far you have done nothing but disgrace me and now behold what I shall do.”

DOES THE ‘KIDDUSH HASHEM’ OF A GER COUNT?

Another incident also involving a suicide took place in that same year in the German city of Xanten,[6] this time regarding an unnamed convert. This episode, however, was related to the persecutions of the First Crusade when Jews often committed suicide as a final act of defiance against the Crusaders rather than submit to forced Baptisms.

This unnamed convert asked R. Moshe Cohen Gadol whether - being a covert -  his proposed suicide in the face of such persecution would qualify as a ‘sanctification of G-d’s name’; and whether his last stand as a Jewish martyr would be acceptable considering his non-Jewish origins.

The rabbi responded in the affirmative saying:

 “You shall dwell with us [in the afterlife].”

From the fact that the convert remains nameless; and from the fact that he was unsure of his true status as a Jew despite being referred to as a ‘ger tzedek’ (a righteous convert) who kept the Law and was prepared to die as a Jew - one can assume that converts were not fully integrated into the Judaism of 11^th century Germany.

Avraham Reiner shows how in the local Jewish records of Koln, which documented those who died in the persecutions of 1096, two converts are mentioned; one, a woman called Hatziva, and the other (also) an unnamed and anonymous man, simply referred to as a ger or convert. 

CONVERSION IN THE FACE OF ANTI-JEWISH SENTIMENT:

Later, in the 12^th century, conditions deteriorated even further for the Jews, who were regarded by much of Christendom as ‘lepers and heretics’. This made it very unappealing, never mind dangerous, for a non-Jew to even think of converting to Judaism, and one would have imagined that those who did, would have been treated with a little more dignity by the early Tosafists.

TALMUD BAVLI:

The negative status of the convert has its roots in earlier Talmudic times. The question arose: -can a convert, who brings the Bikkurim or first fruits to the Temple on the festival of Shavuot, recite the formula concerning the Holy Land “which G-d had sworn to our ancestors to give to us”?

The issue is, of course, that the convert’s non-Jewish ancestors were not promised the Land.

The Mishna[7] states that a convert may bring the first fruit offering to the Temple but may not recite the declaration because he is disqualified from making reference to the promise of the ‘G-d of our fathers’.[8]

Accordingly, a convert cannot claim a share in Jewish spiritual ancestry.

TALMUD YERUSHALMI:

However, in the Jerusalem Talmud (Yerushalmi) on the same topic, R. Yehuda says the exact opposite: - a convert may, while bringing the offering of first fruit to the Temple, recite ‘our ancestors’ like any other Jew!

R. Yehuda’s proof text is Genesis where G-d tells Avraham that he is to be the “father of a multitude of nations.”[9]

THE TIDE BEGINS TO TURN:

Moving ahead some centuries to the Tosafists, it is interesting to see that the younger generation of Tosafists, the contemporaries of Rabbeinu Yitzchak – began to reject the views of the older generations who based themselves on the Babylonian Talmud (Bavli). This new generation adopted a more accepting position regarding converts. As a result, we see many more conversions taking place in Northern France and Germany at this time.

The changing tide regarding the status of the convert is vividly reflected in the Halachic debates between the early and later Tosafists:

GRACE AFTER MEALS AND ‘ANCESTRAL RIGHTS’:

A question was posed to the Tosafists regarding whether or not a convert can recite the section in the bentching (grace after meals) which refers to thanking G-d for giving such spacious land to ‘our ancestors’.[10]

Rabbeinu Tam - based on the mishna - said no!

Rabbeinu Yitzchak - based on the Talmud Yerushalmi - said yes!

Clearly Rabbeinu Tam, as can be seen by his other responsa literature as well, denies the convert the right to claim Jewish ancestry and equal Jewish status – while Rabbeinu Yitzchak affords ‘ancestral rights’ to the convert.

THE CONVERT’S FAMILY TIES:

Reiner points out that the manner in which the convert was perceived was not just of moral or theological concern, but it also had serious monetary implications as well:

R. Moshe of Pontoise wrote to Rabbeinu Tam requesting clarity on the status of a certain convert whom his[11] brother had taught “Torah and mishna night and day.” Having established the bone fides of the covert, R. Moshe went on to explain that the convert was old and dying and wanted to leave a considerable amount of money to his[12] nephew (who was also a convert). 

The convert had, in the interim, deposited the money with his teacher (R. Moshe’s brother) for safekeeping until the matter was resolved.

The problem was that according to the Talmud, once a person converts, all their previous family connections lose their legal significance. Thus the natural heirs of a convert’s estate are no longer considered legal heirs.[13]

The question was, therefore, whether the teacher was obligated to fulfil the request of the dying convert and give the money to the nephew, or whether the money was technically hefker, or ownerless, and since already in the possession of the teacher, the teacher could keep it.

Rabbeinu Tam ruled according to the classical Talmudic view that money could not be bequeathed to the nephew and that it was indeed ‘ownerless’.

However, Rabbeinu Yitzchak ruled against convention and, as Reiner puts it:

“[Converts] are able to transfer their assets easily to their natural heirs de facto, although he does not seek to change their status in this respect de jure...

[Rabbeinu Yitzchak] encouraged the recognition of the convert’s family as normative within the Jewish community.”

‘SANITIZING’ EARLIER TALMUDIC STATEMENTS:

The Talmud, in various places, had some harsh pronouncements to make about converts. Centuries later, Rabbeinu Yitzchak and his students tried to ‘sanitize’ some of these statements.

 Reiner writes:

“[Rabbeinu Yitzchak’s] project of legitimizing gerim [converts] was not restricted to the practical sphere of halakha. He invested similarly intense effort, as did his disciples, in revising the meaning of popular Talmudic aphorisms [sayings][14].”

One such saying equated the existence of converts to ‘leprous scabs’ on the skin of a Jew:

THE ‘LEPROUS SCAB’:

The Talmud quotes R. Chelbo who refers to converts as a “hard (painful) leprous scab”[15]:

This statement appears four times in the Talmud.

Although Reiner does not bring the following Rashi, I have included it for clarity on Rashi’s views on this matter:

Rashi[16] explains that in Hebrew ‘scab’ is an expression of ‘clinging’[17], and as the scab clings to the skin, the converts will eventually cling to their old ways; and furthermore, they exert a negative influence on Jews; and they cause halachic standards to drop.

Rabbeinu Yitzchak, on the other hand, remarks in a Tosafot commentary that the Talmudic reference by R. Chelbo to ‘scabs’ would only apply in a case where the convert was insincere or even misled - but where the covert is sincere, he or she would certainly not be regarded as a ‘scab’, nor be prevented from freely marrying other Jews.

Another reinterpretation of the ‘leprous scab’ is offered also in a Tosafot commentary[18] by ‘Avraham Ger’ (Avraham the convert) who was a contemporary of Rabbeinu Yitzchak. He believes we should interpret R. Chelbo’s statement to mean that since converts are meticulously careful in their fulfilment of the commandments – even more so than other Jews – the comparison puts Jews in a bad light. This is why the converts are viewed as ‘painful’ for the Jewish people, as they embarrass them.

According to Reiner, the younger generations such as Rabbeinu Yitzchak and his students had effectively began to change the negative mindset regarding converts which was so prevalent in the literature of the early Tosafists:

“Subsequent commentaries in the Tosafot literature on Rabbi Helbo [Chelbo][19] attest to the popularity of Rabbi Yitzchak’s approach.”

WOE AFTER WOE:

In a further biting statement, R. Chelbo continues his anti-convert sentiment:

“Woe after woe shall befall those who accept converts.”

Rabbeinu Yitzchak is again quick to come to the defence of converts by saying that this statement only applies to converts who are insincere, but if they are sincere, then they must be accepted wholeheartedly.

PERSECUTIONS OF 12^th CENTURY FRANCE:

It must be remembered that in the climate of the persecutions of 12^th century France - where Rabbeinu Yitzchak abided - the vast majority of the converts he would have encountered, would have been extremely sincere as they were risking their lives by becoming Jewish.

RABBEINU YITZCHAK’S INFLUENCE ON CHASIDEI ASHKENAZ:

As noted, Rabbeinu Yitzchak’s French Tosafist school appears to have been quite influential in favourably changing the earlier perceptions regarding converts, and it seems that his influence may even have reached the community of Chasidei Ashkenaz in Germany.

The leader of Chasidei Ashkenaz, R. Yehuda heChasid (1150-1217) wrote:

“Any kindhearted man who takes a kindhearted gioret (female convert) – who comes from stock that are modest, charitable and pleasant in commerce – it is better to marry with their seed than marrying Israelites who do not possess such virtues, for the seed of the ger [convert][20] shall be upright and kind.

RABBEINU YITZCHAK’S INFLUENCE ON MAHARAM OF ROTHENBURG:

A century later, R. Meir of Rothenburg[21] (d. 1293) even developed a very mystical explanation for the purpose of the convert:

“The son of David [Messiah] does not arrive before all souls expire in the body."

In other words, there is now a mystical imperative for some souls to convert to Judaism as it will hasten the Messiah who can only come after all root-souls have been in a Jewish body.

"There is a chamber in the heavens called guf [body] housing all souls destined to enter humans, and an angel appointed to oversee pregnancies takes [souls] from that chamber and implants them in woman’s bellies.

Occasionally [the angel] errs and places a soul worthy of a gentile in a Jewish woman’s intestines and her baby becomes meshumad [apostate].

And occasionally he places a soul worthy of a Jew in a gentile woman’s intestines and her baby becomes a ger [Convert].”

If one contemplates this statement, a fascinating theolosophical stance has been proposed by R. Meir of Rothenburg who significantly happened to be the last of the Tosafists; namely, that all converts were intended and destined to be Jewish, but for literally an ‘accident’ of birth.

This is a far cry from the position of Rashi - the first of the Tosafists - and his grandson Rabbeinu Tam.

HISTORIC CONDITIONS:

Reiner makes a final ‘strategic’ observation:

“It seems reasonable to conclude that such halakhic creativity was motivated, at least in part, by historical conditions...

...in the 12^th century...[a] significant number of Jews converted to Christianity and actively represented their new community, serving Christian interests not only with argumentation grounded in Jewish knowledge, but by becoming living examples of the veracity [i.e., truthfulness] of Church dogma.

[For an example of how Jews who converted to Christianity used their previous Talmudic knowledge to attack Judaism, see The Dangers of Translating Hebrew Texts.]

This phenomenon was matched on the Jewish side of the fence by the increasing acceptance of gerim [converts],[22] who in later periods became an asset to Jewish propaganda.”

CONCLUSION:

We began with the 1096 story of an unnamed and anonymous righteous convert in Xanten who was unsure if he was worthy of dying al Kiddush haShem (a martyr, sanctifying G-d’s name) in the face anti-Jewish persecution. He was a less commemorated version of the modern ‘unknown soldier’[23] in a culture of anti-convert sentiment perpetuated by the early Tosafist establishment.

We shall conclude with another, more positive, account - less than two centuries later - about a man whose name is known and perpetuated, who left a Christian monastic order to become a convert to Judaism and eventually a rabbi:

“Rabbi Avraham bar Avraham Avinu of France, [a previous] leader of the barefooted [monks][24], who came to reject idols and came to dwell under the wing of the Eternal Soul, and died sanctifying the Name.”

This glorious epithet is a far cry from the nameless, faceless, if not inglorious, martyr of Xanten; and from Yakov ben Sulam who killed himself after being humiliated as a son of a convert.

This paradigm shift in halachic ethos within the Tosafist period was brought about essentially because of the bold efforts of Rabbeinu Yitzchak of Dampierre - who felt justified to stand up to none less than both his uncle Rabbeinu Tam, and his formidable great-grandfather Rashi.

ANALYSIS:

What was it that made Rabbeinu Yitzchak break so dramatically from the ethos of the earlier Tosafists when it came to converts? 

It is hard to say with certainty but I did notice that according to Ephraim Urbach[25], Rabbeinu Yitzchak had strong connections with the very mystical group of Chasidei Ashkenaz referred to above. 

He was associated with R. Yehudah heChasid - and his student R. Eleazar of Verona (or by some accounts he himself) was related to R. Eleazar of Worms (also part of the mystical Chasidei Ashkenaz group).

[See Mystical Forays of the Tosafists.]

It is possible that because of this apparent intense mystical association, Rabbeinu Yitzchak viewed converts - and tried to make sense of their origins, journeys and destinies - more from the perspective of the Spirit and Soul than the prevailing culture and Law. [26]

---

[1] The Tosafist period - spawned by Rashi (1040-1105) - lasted about two hundred years, encompassing the 12^th and 13^th centuries, and ending with R. Meir of Rothenburg (d. 1293). The term Tosafists generally refers to the rabbis of the early period of the Rishonim (1038-1500) who lived specifically in Ashkenaz (Northern France and Germany). We know the names of 44 Baalei haTosafot.

[2] R. Shlomo Yitzchaki.

[3] R. Yaakov ben Meir.

[4] R. Yitzchak ben Shmuel of Dampierre. He was called Ri (R. Yitzchak) haZaken (the Elder) to differentiate between him and R. Yitzchak ben Avrahan haBachur (the Younger), also known as Riba or Ritzba.

[5] Tough Are Gerim, Conversion to Judaism in Medieval Europe.

[6] Pronounced ‘Zanten’.

[7] See Mishna Bikkurim 1:4. The verse is from Devarim 26:3.

[8] The Mishna continues:

“If his mother is Jewish (but his father is not), then he can recite the declaration in full.

When the convert prays his everyday prayers alone in private, he also can’t say ‘our fathers’ but must say ‘G-d of the fathers of Israel’.

When the convert is in the synagogue he must say ‘G-d of your fathers’.

If the mother is Jewish (but the father is not), then he can recite it in the full.”

[9] Genesis 17:5.

[10] ’Al shehinchalta la’avoteinu eretz chemda tova uveracha...’

[11] I. e., R. Moshe’s.

[12] I.e., the convert’s.

[13] I’m not sure why the dying convert could not simply have given the money to any person of his choice as a gift, and not technically as an inheritance. Perhaps the answer is that the convert had already stipulated that it was indeed an inheritance for his nephew.

[14] All parentheses mine.

[15] Yevamot 47 b. This is a play on Isaiah 14:1:
 “And the stranger shall join himself with them [Israel] and they shall cleave [nispechu] to the house of Jacob.”  

[16] Yevamot 47b.

[17] That is, ‘sapachat’ = ‘nispechu’.

[18] Kiddushin 70b.  Another explanation is that the Jews were exiled amongst the nations specifically so that they would interact with non-Jews who would then become inspired to join the Jewish nation. In this sense, the converts were the ‘cause’ of the exile and hence regarded as painful to the Jewish people.

[19] Parenthesis mine.

[20] Parenthesis mine.

[21] Also known as the Maharam of Rothenburg.

[22] Parentheses mine.

[23] The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier is at Arlington National Cemetery. In 1921, Congress approved the burial of an unidentified World War I soldier to commemorate and represent all unknown fallen soldiers.

[24] Parentheses mine.

[25] Baalei haTosafot, by E. E. Urbach (Hebrew), p. 237 and 433.

[26] If this hypothesis is correct then the influence may have been from Chasidei Ashkenaz to Rabbeinu Yitzchak, and not the other way round.