451) Ancient pre-existence of Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin?

The order of the scrolls in Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin.

Introduction

This article – based extensively on the research by Dr. Yehudah Cohn[1] – explores the claim that Tefillin scrolls resembling those of Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam, were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Obviously, Rashi (11^th century) and his grandson Rabbeinu Tam (12^th century) lived long after the period of the scrolls (3^rd century BCE – 1^st century), but the claim is that their argument over the order of the four scrolls inserted into the Tefillin, reflected a much more ancient argument. 

269) THE FRENCH REVOLUTION:

Sefer Or Zarua by Rabbi Yitzchak ben Moshe of Vienna 1200-1270.

THE ASCENDANCY OF THE FRENCH TOSAFISTS STYLE OF ‘DISPUTATIO’:

INTRODUCTION:

Rabbi Yitzchak ben Moshe of Vienna lived between 1200 and 1270. He is also known as R. Yitzchak Or Zarua (after his Halachic work entitled Or Zarua) or simply as Riaz. R. Yitzchak Or Zarua was born in Bohemia[1] but served as rabbi for some thirty years in Vienna.

His book, Or Zarua, was very popular amongst the Ashkenazi (German) Jewish community. He loved to travel and as a result of him spending time all over Europe, he came into contact with different customs and Halachic ideas few of his contemporaries were familiar with. He also met the French Tosafists[2].

He was a member of the mystical movement known as Chasidei Ashkenaz, or German Pietists, studying under R. Yehudah heChassid. His student was R. Meir of Rothenburg, the last of the Tosafists.

In this article, we shall investigate how the ‘creeping revolution’ of the French Tosafists was able to slowly infiltrate and eventually corrode the more staid, traditional and customary environment of Germany.

I have drawn from the research of Professor Avraham (Rami) Reiner[3] who specializes in the history of Halachic and Talmudic exegesis in Medieval Europe.

THE NEW TOSAFIST STYLE OF STUDY:

The Tosafist dialectic and disputatious style of study was similar to the disputatio, which was a popular learning technique used in cathedral schools and universities at that time. These cathedral schools broke away from the more mystical monastery schools of previous times.

The Chasidei Ashkenaz identified and sharply objected to this ‘imported’ disputatio methodology of Talmudic study, referring to the Tosafist style of learning as dialectica shel goyim, (dialectics of the non-Jews) and limmud shel nitzachon (study in a style of intellectual argumentation and conflict).

According to Professor Reiner, the Tosafist glosses that appeared in later printings of the Talmud, paralleled:

 “...the glossae that were appended to the collections of Roman, and later Canon law.”

The Tosafist most closely identified by this type of learning, was Rashi’s grandson, R. Yaakov ben Meir, known as Rabbeinu Tam (1100-1171).

[See Tosafists –Dialectics of the Nations?]

THE ‘CREEPING REVOLUTION’:

 In Jewish Germany a religious law was sacrosanct primarily because it had the precedent and backing of generations of tradition. In France, however, a religious law became sacrosanct due to the clever dialectical and argumentative style of Talmudic study - and Halachic derivations there from - as innovated by the Tosafists.

AT FIRST R. YITZCHAK OR ZARUA REJECTS RABBEINU TAM:

In his Sefer Or Zarua[4], R. Yitzchak discusses the matter of moving a burning candle or lamp on the Sabbath. The issue at stake is the possibility that the flame may become extinguished by the movement, an action therefore forbidden on Shabbat.

R. Yitzchak Or Zarua writes:

“I have seen Rabbenu Tam quoted as permitting the touching of a kindled hanging lamp on the Sabbath...

(But)...we [German Jews][5] take care not to touch a kindled hanging lamp...

However, we recognize the broad spirit of Rabbenu Ram’s way of engaging in pilpul [dialectics, and][6][intellectual play – therefore his ruling is theoretical] and I do not adopt this position.”[7]

R. Yitzchak Or Zarua mentions in the same section, that (for some reason, only) women have accepted upon themselves the custom of fasting in instances where they inadvertently touched such a candle – again indicating how in Germany they refused to rely on any laws or customs derived through the art of dialectics as practised by the Tosafist rabbis of Northern France.  

Instead, the German rabbis relied solely on their regional tradition and did not want to verify their religious behaviour based on the dialectics of intellectual and textual derivation. They certainly did not want to rely on the more recent argumentative and disputatious deductions, possibly influenced by the general French milieu at that time, that was to become typical of Talmudic study.

This distinction between Northern France and Germany is interesting because we usually group the two together under the single rubric of Ashkenaz (or Germany).  Reiner shows that the assumption that the two lands were always together in mind and spirit is not entirely correct.

As Reiner puts it:

“...R. Isaac [Or Zarua][8] could not accept the lenient position of Rabbenu Tam, the greatest halakhic authority in twelfth-century France, even though it was based on close study of the authoritative Talmudic text. Since the position was in stark opposition to the custom he recalled from his youth in Bohemia, he described Rabbenu Tam’s position as ‘theoretical’, mere pilpul, intellectual play.”

R. Yitzchak Or Zarua’s view, in this instance, was the polar opposite to that of the French approach where:

“...the results of textual analysis and interpretation hold true even when they conflict with the accepted custom of the entire community.”

The new French approach to Talmud study and Halachic derivation was considered too revolutionary for the Jews of Germany.

R. Yitzchak Or Zarua’s reliance on his traditional German customs is interesting because he had spent time in France studying under the Tosafist R. Yehuda ben Yitzchak Sir Leon, a student of Rabbeinu Tam. 

What is important to note is that Reiner describes R. Yitzchak Or Zarua as being in a state of ‘tension’ and ‘vacillation’ as a result of his dual loyalties. We will look deeper into this ‘tension’ later.

Europe in 1190.

THE TIDE BEGINS TO TURN:

The strong sense of German Jews holding on to their regional customs and traditions did not last forever. With time, the influence from the French Tosafists under the banner of ‘reason over custom’ began to spread eastwards to the heart of Germany.

One of the many teachers of R. Yitzchak Or Zarua was R. Eliezer ben Yoel haLevi from Bonn, known by the acronym Raviyah, who (despite his German origins) was largely responsible for bringing the French style of dialectics to Germany.

WHEN DID THE TIDE BEGIN TO TURN?

While there is no doubt that the French approach to Halacha soon spread to Germany, the scholars are divided as to when exactly that change began to take place.

According to Professor Yaakov Sussmann[9], the shift began in the middle of the 13^th-century. This was when R. Yitzchak Or Zarua and his student R. Meir of Rothenburg travelled to France to study with the Tosafists.

According to Professor Reiner, however, the shift was more gradual, starting much earlier, from the middle of the 12^th-century and reaching its peak with R. Yitzchak Or Zarua’s writings at the beginning of the 13^th-century. As we shall see, notwithstanding his comment about not following the French customs derived from dialectics (as in the case of handling a candle on Shabbat as mentioned earlier) it seems he was in a state of ‘tension’ because in other sections of Or Zarua he goes on to quote frequently from Rabbeinu Tam - to the extent that he too (like his teacher Raviyah) is also credited with bringing French change to Germany.

Reiner supports his view by showing that already in the 12^th-century, German rabbis had started studying in French Tosafist academies:

The first group of German rabbis, three in all, who journeyed to France to study under the Tosafists were R. Efraim of Regensburg (1110-1175), R. Yitzchak ben Mordechai (Rivam 1090-1130) and R. Moshe ben Yoel (Raviyah), the teacher of R. Yitzchak Or Zarua. Later a group of more than ten German rabbis also spent some time studying in the French Talmudic academy of Rabbenu Tam.

Reiner writes:

“For the first time we find a group of students from the veteran Rhine communities of Speyer, Worms, and Mainz turning westwards and thus admitting - at least tacitly – the academic supremacy of France over Ashkenaz.”

BUILDING A ‘FRENCH’ GERMANY:

What is fascinating, though, is that none of these German ‘pioneers’ returned to their original hometowns in Germany after studying with the Tosafists in France. Instead, they all settled in the eastern section of the German lands such as Regensburg and in Bohemia. Why?

The answer is quite telling. The eastern sections of Germany were spiritual Jewish wastelands with very little Torah content or religious life.

This exact phenomenon had already taken place sometime earlier with the Chasidei Ashkenaz, who also originally hailed from the Rhine valley but chose to move and teach in the east of the German lands.

Reiner explains:

“[B]oth German Pietists [Chasidei Ashkenaz] and the ‘French’ group [of German rabbis] were revolutionary, whether changing religious values [as per the mystical group of Chasidei Ashkenaz] or in settling halakhic norms [as per the new German Tosafists] [10].

Veteran communities such as Speyer, Worms, and Mainz in the Rhine valley possessed a long-standing tradition, and even more important, a deep consciousness of the transmitted customary tradition. Therefore, almost instinctively, they rejected new trends and obviously, revolutionary ones.”

This ‘rejection of new trends’ by the establishment within the Rhine valley can be seen, for example, in how R. Eliezer ben Natan (known as Raavan) from Mainz - in his work Even haEzer – rejects Rabbeinu Tam every time he mentions a comment or innovation made by the French Tosafist.

Under such conditions, the Chasidei Ashkenaz (under R. Yehuda heChasid) and the ‘French’ group of German rabbis would never have gained a foothold within the old school in the Rhine valley, and therefore they had to move eastwards to virgin spiritual territory such as Regensburg.

The German economy, culture and trade were also moving eastwards at that time and this served to assist the ‘revolutionaries’ as well.

By around the middle of the 12^th-century, the old school within the Rhine valley must have started feeling trapped by the French Tosafists in the west and the burgeoning German ‘French’ rabbis of Regensburg in the east who were expounding on what they had learned from the French academy of Rabbenu Tam.

Reiner describes the German ‘French’ revolutionary rabbis as follows:

“Though its members were of German origin, their talmudical and halakhic culture was absolutely French.”

To indicate how the French ‘revolution’ began to eventually become mainstream we must remember that, as mentioned above, Raavan[11] of Mainz (who always rejected Rabbeinu Tam’s views) had a grandson Raviyah (who frequently quoted Rabbeinu Tam’s views as authoritative) and the latter lived in the heart of the traditional Rhine valley! 

Thus within two generations the old German school from Mainz had evolved to an acceptance of the French style of dialectics and the French approach to Halacha where reason trumped generational custom. The heartland of traditional Ashkenaz had finally been infiltrated by the French. And it was through Raviyah’s student R. Yitzchak Or Zarua, that that influence reached its peak.

Reiner writes:

“From the generation of R. Isaac’s [i.e., R. Yitzchak Or Zarua’s][12] students onwards the scholars of Ashkenaz were fully exposed to the traditions and innovations of the French Tosafists.”

THE TENSION OF R. YITZCHAK OR ZARUA:

This is the ‘tension’ and the ‘vacillation’ exhibited by R. Yitzchak Or Zarua which Reiner was referring to. He was torn between the traditional customs he remembered from his youth (such as the example of the Sabbath lamp mentioned earlier, where he rejected Rabbeinu Tam’s view) and his later influences by the Tosafists. Thus, in his same book where he rejects Rabbeinu Tam he was also comfortable to quote extensively from the Responsa of Rabbeinu Tam.[13]

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION IS OVER:

Eventually, Ashkenazi rabbis rarely had to travel to France to study as they had done in the past, because by now they had already adopted the French style of dialectical Halachic decision making from within their own German lands to the east.

Reiner concludes:

“The French cultural ‘conquest’ of German territory was so complete and ingrained, that the German scholars perceived the results as their own and there was no more reason to set their eyes westward to France.”

ANALYSIS:

Notwithstanding the debate one could have over whether the Tosafist system was superior to that of traditional Ashkenaz or vice versa, what is fascinating here is the notion of what Professor Reiner calls the ‘hegemony’ of the Tosafists. 

Hegemony is defined as: "a group or regime which exerts undue influence within a society".

Understanding just how quickly a mind shift was able to affect the very heart of a deeply traditional and territorial German community, shows how important the study of Hashkafic (religious worldview) history is.

The Germans blinked and the French won.

To a person living in the German heartland at the end of the 13^th-century, it would have seemed as though the revolutionary French approach had always been the traditional German way...going back generations...to antiquity...

But we know that that was not the case, as the French approach had been only recently adopted by the German rabbis  - some of whom had been connected to Chassidei Ashkenaz who actually questioned the Jewish provenance of such an approach in the first instance!

Either way, Northern France and Germany were then heaped together under the broad category of the ‘monolithic’ community of Ashkenaz...as if they were always so united in Tosafist methodology and ideology. We even refer to the ‘Tosafists of Northern France and Germany’!

The French revolution by the Tosafists was now complete - and few, it seems, were any the wiser that it had even occurred.

One wonders how often similar examples of such hegemony or ‘hostile takeovers’ have occurred throughout the ages, up to and including some ‘traditional’ methodologies of present times?



[See also Avraham Grossman, Ashkenazim to 1300.]

---

[1] Bohemia is the westernmost and largest historical region of the Czech lands in the present-day Czech Republic.

[2] 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).

[3] Avraham Reiner, From Rabbenu Tam to R. Isaac of Vienna: The Hegemony of the French Talmudic School in the Twelfth Century.

[4] Sefer Or Zarua II (1862) no. 33.

[5] Parenthesis mine.

[6] Parenthesis mine.

[7] Translation by Reiner.

[8] Parenthesis mine.

[9] Yaakov Sussmann, The Scholarly Oeuvre (1993) pp. 48-50.

[10] Parentheses mine.

[11] R. Eliezer ben Natan.

[12] Parenthesis mine.

[13] If I understand this correctly, then parts of the Or Zarua may have been authored at different stages of his life – before he travelled to France and after. He journeyed to France whilst in his fifties. Sussmann says he went to France in the mid-13th-century. He was born around 1200 and died in 1270, which makes this premise feasible.  This would account for his being ‘torn’ between two traditions which are therefore reflected differently in his book. -Unless, of course, R. Yitzchak Or Zarua simply remained in tension and conflicted.

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.