374) Stagnation in the inquiry into reasons for the commandments

 

 R. Shlomo ibn Aderet, El Rab d'España (The Rabbi of Spain) 1235-1310.

Introduction

It is sometimes of great benefit to view theological ideas and concepts within their historical context. This way, one would not mistakenly think that the idea or concept has always been there since antiquity. So, for example, when it comes to the notion of ta’amei hamitzvot, or reasons for the commandments - whatever one’s personal view on the matter is - it does help to realise that it was only as late as around the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries that the idea developed that the reasons for the mitzvot are beyond human comprehension. Until that time, it was quite common for rabbis to give rational or logical reasons for the mitzvot. But then the theology changed and the preferred approach became one of ‘transcendence’ whereby the reasons behind the Torah’s commandments were considered beyond human comprehension.

The Retraction of Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks

In honour of the memory of Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, this is a re-post of an article I wrote some years ago. Rabbi Sacks had read it and had the dignity to acknowledge even thank me for it.

 

INTRODUCTION:

While walking through a Modern Orthodox institution recently, I was chatting to a colleague who noticed I was holding a copy of the book; ‘To Heal a Fractured World’, by Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. Being a great admirer of Rabbi Sacks, I was rather taken aback when he asked why I was reading such ‘controversial literature’. Intrigued to find out what was so contentious about the man, I discovered that in 2003, Rabbi Sacks was pressured into retracting and deleting sections of his book; ‘The Dignity of Difference’. 

Apparently, his own Beit Din had said that parts of the book were “inconsistent with basic Jewish beliefs.” 

And Rabbi Elyashiv said it was “contrary to our faith in the Holy Torah”, and was unfit to be brought into the home.

What did Rabbi Sacks say that brought about such scathing attacks?

In the ‘censored’ version, he wrote:

G-d is universal, religions are particular...G-d has spoken to mankind in many languages: through Judaism to Jews, Christianity to Christians, Islam to Muslims... G-d is greater than religion...He is only partially comprehended by any faith...He exists in my faith, but also in yours.

However, this sentence had been deleted:

No one creed has a monopoly on spiritual truth.

Some felt that he had gone too far in accepting the ‘validity’ of other religions.

I can understand why some felt he had gone too far. There are some major and fundamental differences between Judaism and other faiths. Many of these differences are theologically and philosophically irreconcilable.

However, as an intellectual exercise, and in the interest of freedom of (Torah) expression, take a look at some very different perspectives on other religions, by some of our leading rabbinical thinkers.

THE RAMBAM’S VIEW ON OTHER RELIGIONS:

Rabbi Moshe Maimonides (1135-1204) writes that in general, both Christianity and Islam pave the way for universal acceptance of Mashiach. As a result of the emergence of both these religions:

[T]he world has become full of the ideas of Mashiach, Torah and commandments, which have spread to distant lands and nations.[1]

Notwithstanding this broad and sweeping statement, the Rambam bluntly considers Christianity to be a form of idolatry. He says this in a number of different places[2], and is quite outspoken in his reference their houses of worship as:

[P]agan houses of worship without any doubt.

His view on Islam is very different:

The Ishmaelites are not idol worshippers at all and they worship the singular G-d properly and without blemish.”[3] 

As a consequence of this view, Jews and Muslims have often shared the same houses of worship.

Then, in a surprising and dramatic turnaround, the Rambam adds a caveat: When it comes to social and religious interaction with members of both faiths, he says:

It is permitted to teach the commandments to Christians and to attract them to our religion, while one should not do the same with Ishmaelites.

This is because Christians accepted the authority of the Torah and never denied its authenticity. Whereas Muslims, he says, although their books describe the giving of the Torah to the Jews, consider every point of difference between them and Jews to be either a falsification of, or mistakes in, textual transmission on the part of the Jews, and that they (the Muslims) indeed have the correct tradition.

The Rambam’s view is clear albeit rather paradoxical: Christianity is idolatry. Islam is monotheistic. Yet, theologically, Christians may be engaged with in preference to Muslims because they accept the basic authority of the Torah. Yet overall, both are indispensable in terms of core principles and preparation for Mashiach.

Concerning the oft-quoted Talmudic statement that “the pious of the nations have a share in the world to come” (San.105a) -  Rambam is of the view that this is only when they declare their commitment to upholding the seven Noachide laws[4] before a Jewish Beit Din.[5] This, not being a common practice, puts a very different pragmatic spin on the popular perception of this famous statement, and is indicative of the Rambam’s uncompromising stance on the matter.

RASHBA (1235-1310):

The Rashba[6], holding a similar view to the Rambam, says that Moslems are not idol worshippers, but:

all other gentiles are considered to be idol worshippers.

THE MEIRI (1249-1315):

Rabbi Menachem haMeiri[7], on the other hand, has probably the most radically liberal view on Christianity and Islam that is to be found in all of Torah literature.  He posits that the notion of idolatry has absolutely disappeared from society (barring what he refers to as some fringes or ‘extremities’ of civilization). Idolatry, in his view, has essentially become extinct, and replaced by more developed religions, with Christianity and Islam both falling under the broad rubric of monotheistic religions. He refers to them as ‘umot ha-gedurot be-darcei ha-datot’, or ‘nations restricted by ways of religion’, as opposed to the idolaters of old who thrived on total anarchy.[8]

Jewish law does contain several references to inequality between Jews and non-Jews. For example; If a Jew’s animal damages the property of a Gentile, the Jew is not liable. But if a Gentile’s animal damages the property of a Jew, the Gentile is liable. According to the Meiri, the ‘non-Jews’ in such examples of asymmetry in Jewish law, are specifically the ancient idolaters, who lost their rights to be protected by the very laws they sought to undermine.  He says of the ancient pagans; “All these people possess no religion and submit to the fear of no divinity”. Contemporary Gentiles, however, were to be treated no different from Jews, because their religions gave them a sense of law and order.

The Meiri continues:

Discriminatory rules such as this were instituted in times when those Gentiles were devout in their idolatry. But now their idolatry has come to an end in most places, and there is accordingly no need to be stringent with them as in the old regulations.[9]

In a similar vein, the Meiri offers a remarkable explanation in his commentary to a text in the Gemara:

“A Notzri (Christian) may not be traded with” -This refers (not to Christians but) to the (idolatrous) nation of Nevuchadnetzer , the Babylonian King.[10]

Commenting on the Gemara in Bava Kama, he says:

All the people who are of the nations that are restricted by the ways of their religion and worship the divinity in any way, even if their faith is far from ours, are excluded from the principle of inequality. Rather, they are like full-fledged Jews with respect to these matters, with no distinction whatsoever.[11]

Regarding the mitzvah of returning lost property, which only has to be performed to “your brother”[12], and not to Gentiles, the Meiri says:

The reference is to everyone who is ‘restricted by the ways of their religion’.[13] 

Accordingly, the Meiri regards contemporary non-Jews to fall under the technical category of ‘achicha’, your brother, and ‘re’ehu’, your peer.

Again, commenting on Bava Kama, he says:

All those who follow the seven laws of Noah are treated in our courts as we are treated in theirs, and we do not accord ourselves favourable treatment. It goes without saying that the same applies to nations restricted by ways of their religion.[14]

Significantly, here the Meiri seems to regard contemporary non-Jews as having a higher status than those who merely observe the seven Noachide laws.

As demonstrated, the Meiri differs spectacularly from the view of the Rambam. So much so that some simply couldn't accept his radically tolerant outlook and insisted that he wrote these commentaries specifically for the censors in order to appease the non-Jews. The Chatam Sofer[15], for example, wrote about a Meiri text:

It is a mitzvah to wipe it out, for it did not emerge from his holy mouth.”[16] 

The implication here is not just that the Meiri wrote to appease non-Jews but that his views on that issue were outright forgeries.

The interesting thing though is that the Chatam Sofer never gave any reasons for his sweeping statement[17]. And he never saw the writings of the Meiri on Bava Kama first hand, because he only quoted them through secondary sources (such as the Shita Mekubetzet in the above example). Also, he couldn't have been familiar with the Meiri on Avodah Zara (where the “nations bound by religion” concept was formulated), because it was only published in 1944, more than 100 years after his passing. Yet, notwithstanding all this, from then on, the views of the Meiri regarding non-Jews lost much of their credibility.[18]

RAMO (1520-1572):

Rabbi Moshe Isserless explains that in Jewish Law, the Trinity is considered to be “Shituff” or “partnering” G-d with another being. For a Jew, “Shituff” would be absolutely forbidden. The question is whether or not it is forbidden for a non-Jew.  The poskim (halachik authorities) are divided on this issue. As we have seen, the Rambam holds that it is forbidden even to a non-Jew, to the extent that if he practices “Shituff”, he is considered an idolater. The Ramo, however, takes a different view. He maintains that partnering G-d with another being is permitted to non-Jews.[19]

MAHARAL OF PRAGUE (1520-1609):

The Maharal[20], taking a similar tack, writes:

Anyone who accepts upon himself to worship the First Cause, falls into the category of a ‘ger toshav’[21] (a resident stranger), who is not discriminated against by the laws (as in Bava Kama 4,3).

BE’ER HAGOLAH (1596-1671):

In a similar vein, R Moshe Rivkes, commentating on the Shulchan Aruch, says that the discriminatory laws were only directed towards the:

idolaters of earlier times, who believed in neither the Exodus from Egypt nor Creation ex nihilo. But concerning contemporary gentiles...since they believe in the Exodus, Creation ex nihilo, and other fundamentals (these laws do not apply), since their intent is to the Creator.

TIFERET LE'YISRAEL (1805-1855):

One of the first rabbinic authorities to actually acknowledge the Meiri as a source text, was R Zvi Hirsch Chayes[22]. Fascinatingly, he is the only commentator in the Vilna Shas to hold a PhD. He writes:

Christians, who believe in religion...Torah from Heaven and in the existence of G-d, are absolutely regarded by us as ‘gerim toshavim’, and the seven Noachide laws are built into both Christian and Moslem legal systems.”[23]

TORAH TEMIMAH (1860-1941):

About fifty years later, the Torah Temimah[24] writes that the discriminatory laws:

do not apply to those nations who observe the seven Noachide laws, and these are most of the contemporary nations, which are regarded as Jews in regard to these matters.”[25]

RAMACH (1874-1950):

R. Chalfon Moshe haCohen[26] ruled that:

The bans[27] only applied to the idolatrous nations of ancient times. But today, when idolatry has ceased to exist in almost all parts of the world, and all the Gentile nations believe in the Creator...we make no distinction with regard to Jew and Gentile in these matters.

CHIEF RABBI AVRAHAM YITZCHAK HAKOHEN KOOK (1865-1935):

The first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel declared that Moslems and Christians living in a Jewish society are to be treated as ‘gerim toshavim’, with full civil liberties, just like Jews.[28] He wrote

The fundamental view is the Meiri’s. Nations bound by descent customs between man and his fellow, should be considered ‘gerim toshavim’.[29]

TANNA DE'VEI ELIYAHU:

According to a 10th Century text from Tanna de'vei Eliyahu (ch 9):

I call heaven and earth to witness that whether man or woman, whether servant or maidservant, whether Gentile or Jew, the Holy Spirit rests upon a person according to his deed.

CONCLUSION:

It is well known that throughout our history, some sensitive texts had to be amended because it was feared that the original texts would fuel anti-Semitism. However, no absolute certainty exists as to exactly which texts were amended.  We have taken a look at many texts spanning a period of almost a thousand years. Some may have been written for ‘appeasement’.  But by the same token, some must have been the authors genuine interpretations.

If one does accept the authority of even just some of these texts, the questions beg:

·        Would our modern-day ‘censors’ who confronted Rabbi Sacks, similarly want all these texts to be retracted retroactively?   

·        Would these views also be branded as “inconsistent with basic Jewish beliefs” and unfit to be brought into the home?

Submitting to the fact that our traditional opinions on other religions do differ significantly and dramatically, surely we must also submit that they all still exist within the broad framework of Torah theology. One could find many reasons to take umbrage to what Rabbi Sacks wrote. But one could also, surely, make an argument that the Chief Rabbi was drawn to his way of thinking, by much textual precedent.

I can also understand, as Rabbi Norman Bernhard used to say, that; “There is salvation outside of the synagogue.” He told me he chose the term ‘salvation’ deliberately, because of its non-Jewish connotation. Non-Jews have no need for Judaism and can and should perfectly function within their own belief systems. If another religion is relevant to another creed, why can that religion not be valid for THEM? 

In this sense, could one not also understand the context and tenor of the Chief Rabbi’s pre-censored statements - remembering that he was communicating with an international readership including people of diverse creeds, many of whom respectfully consider him to be a leading thinker of our times? 

He was speaking as a representative of Judaism to the widest of audiences and was taking full advantage of his honed ability to wax philosophical.

In the final analysis, considering that Rabbi Sacks was speaking Hashkafa (theological philosophy), writing to ‘appease’ - to create tolerance in an age of intolerance - and not to formulate or pasken Halacha (religious legalities) or look for stringencies -  was his punishment not perhaps a little disproportionate to his ‘crime’?

 

---

[1] Yad haChazakah.

[2] Hilchot Avoda Zara 9,4.  Commentary to Mishna Avoda Zara 1,3. Avoda Zara 4.

[3] Letter to Ovadya the Convert.

[4] These seven laws are: The prohibitions of committing murder, idolatry, theft, incest, blasphemy, cruelty to animals, and the injunction to establish civil court of law.

[5] Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim  8:10-11.

[6] R. Shlomo ben Avraham Aderet, Torat haBayit, book 5, chapter 4.

[7] The Meiri is one of the most monumental commentators on the Talmud. Yet, interestingly, his work was largely unknown until recent times. This is why its influence has been rather minimalised because it was left out of the halachic process. Some authorities, although having great respect for him, will not rely on his teachings because of this.

[8] See “Ones possessed of Religion”, by Dr Moshe Halbertal.

[9] Beit haBechira, Avodah Zara p. 28. (Schlesinger ed.)

[10] Ibid p 4.                             

[11] Beit haBechira, Bava Kama p. 330.

[12] Deut. 22,3.

[13] Beit HaBechira, Bava Metzia, p. 100.

[14] Beit HaBechira, Bava Kama p. 122.

[15] R. Moshe Schreiber (1762-1839).

[16] Kovetz Teshuvot paragraph 90.

[17] See Kotzk Blog 48) ‘Contemporary Daas Torah’; where (unlike traditional halachic rulings), according to the Daas Torah concept, no explanations are necessary.

[18] Even the the Chatam Sofer Institute which published the Responsa Anthology (1973), while quoting our abovementioned statement, added in a note; “The words of our master ‘It did not emerge from his holy mouth’, are puzzling, for the Meiri explicitly stated this view numerous times in his works.”

[19] Darchei Moshe 2 on Orach Chayim 156. (However see Nodah BeYehuda, who says the Ramo holds that worshiping ‘beshituff’ is forbidden to a non-Jew.)

[20] R. Yehudah Loew.

[21] An interesting halachik conundrum, however, is created when a gentile is considered to be a ‘ger toshav’- because the prohibition against intermarriage with them would shift from a Torah prohibition, to that of a rabbinic prohibition. This, of course, would be halachically untenable, (unless the distinction is made that a gentile is a ‘ger toshav’ only with regard to the discriminatory laws, but not with regard to intermarriage, which would remain a Torah prohibition.)

[22] Rabbi Berel Wein calls him the R. Samson Rephael Hirsch of Eastern Europe, and says he was; “simultaneously a talmid chacham and secular scholar. He aimed to fight the haskala with its own weapons, but because of his time and place, he came under suspicion as a maskil himself. The tragic story of this misunderstood genius is the eternal story of the Jewish people, struggling to walk the tightrope between Torah and modernity.”

[23] Compendium of R' Chajes, p. 489  (published by Divrei Chachamim, 1958).

[24] R. Baruch HaLevi Epstein, a bookkeeper by profession, and author of the Torah Temimah commentary to the Torah and Five Megilot.

[25] Torah Temimah on Shemot 21,35.

[26] A leading rabbi of the island of Djerba in Tunisia. In 1943 the Nazis came to Tunisia, and demanded that Rabbi Moshe collect 50 kilos of gold in three and a half hours and hand it over to them; otherwise, they would bomb the Jewish communities of Djerba and Tunis. The next day the Allies conquered Tunisia and the Nazis were gone from Tunisia. The gold that the Jews managed to collect was not handed to the Germans. He was a great Zionist and hatched a plan to establish a League of Nations and a World Court, both of which would have their headquarters in Jerusalem.

[27] These refer to not having to return a Gentile’s lost articles and not having to return funds overpaid in monetary transactions.

[28] Iggeret 89, Mishpat Cohen 63.                

[29] Igrot ha-Raayah, 89, v. 1, p. 99 (Mossad ha-Rav Kook edition, Jerusalem, 1962). 

 

 

268) YOU EXCOMMUNICATE ME - I EXCOMMUNICATE YOU:

Kalonymous ben Kalonymous, an important source of Jewish history in Southern France.

R. YITZCHAK OF MANOSQUE - ‘FRENCH, BUT CHARMING’:

INTRODUCTION:

As of the time of this writing, a Google search for Rabbi Yitzchak haCohen of Manosque[1] yields no meaningful results. The Jewish Encyclopedia has a few lines basically saying that not much is known about R. Yitzchak haCohen:

In this article, in an attempt to discover more about this man was, I have drawn extensively from the research of Professor Joseph Shatzmiller, who specialises in medieval European-Jewish history.[2]

R. Yitzchak haCohen was active around the early 14^th-century, in Manosque, a town in south-eastern France. The actual town of Manosque was nondescript and described by Kalonymous ben Kalonymous[3] as “a dead end and visitors only come by once in a blue moon.”

However, Manosque was valuable historically as it housed some of the most important collections of records in France. These include municipal records and court documents. Although at the time there were only about 200 Jews out of a general population of 3 500, the Jews are referenced frequently. This indicates their degree of prominence in the town. R. Yitzchak haCohen, in particular, is mentioned regularly in these records.

Professor Shatzmiller writes:

“If we add to these records, especially those dealing with cases of litigation against him, the Hebrew material relating to R. Isaac, which is considerable, a rich and colourful picture emerges, which may well afford the best reconstruction of any rabbinic career of this period.”

Thus, despite the scarcity of material on the internet, there is probably more information about the life of R. Yitzchak of Manosque than any other rabbi of that time. This is due not only to his name occurring in various responsa literature and other writings of the rabbis, but also because no other town kept such precise records as those found in the archives of Manosque.

In the municipal documents, R. Yitzchak is referred to as Magister Isaac, indicating he is an important and leading figure.

[It is interesting that the Latin word Magister was sometimes translated in England as Rabbi or Rav. Thus there are records describing Christian clergy as for example Rav Hugh of London, Archdeacon of Colchester.]

R. Yitzchak is sometimes called ‘Erbi’, which may be the way bureaucrats recorded the word ‘rabbi’. One of his son’s names is Amadeus (this may or may not refer to his son Rabbeinu Peretz). The records show that R. Yitzchak mediated in communal matters, adjudicated in arbitration and was sometimes also the target of such activity.

THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF HIS STUDENT:

Shatzmiller shows how, according to Kalonymous ben Kalonymous, R. Yitzchak ran a large Talmudic academy in Manosque, one of the few such institutions in Provence (Southern France) at that time. In a responsum (Teshuva)[4] of Rashba (R. Shlomo ben Aderet 1235- 1310) from Barcelona, reference is made to R. Yitzchak standing in front of his Talmudic academy in Manosque with his students ‘twenty-two in number’[5] holding a Torah scroll while excommunicating one of his students, apparently for spreading some rumour:

“On behalf of God and on your behalfs I ban, excommunicate and anathematize that man...even though he is one of my pupils...

And they all responded with Amen and said: it is truly so, our Rabbi, we agree with you, and let the man who spread the rumour be anathematized.”

AROUSING THE IRE OF THE CIVIL AUTHORITIES:

The non-Jewish authorities were not always pleased with Magister Isaac and spoke deridingly about his assumption that he had control of the judicial power of the town. The records also show an abundance of incidents which indicate a breakdown in the relationships between R. Yitzchak and his community.

IN DEFENCE OF R. YITZCHAK:

R. Yitzchak ben Mordechai Kimchi wrote in defence of the honour of R. Yitzchak of Manosque:

“Behold, his fame has been spreading for some years now in most parts of this region and we, all of us, must not detract from the honour due to him even by the breadth of a hair.

Even if he should declare the clean unclean and the unclean clean, it is our duty to be kind to him and to find mitigating circumstances for his actions to the best of our ability.”[6]

Kalonymous ben Kalonymous writes of R. Yitzchak: ‘Tzarfati hu, ve’ish chamudot’[7], ‘he is French and charming’ – which could also be read ‘he is French but charming’, considering the general hostility towards the (northern) French, displayed by the inhabitants of Provence (in the south).

THE CONFLICT WITH GERSONIDES:

Shatzmiller is quick to point out that R. Yitzchak was not admired by all and that, in fact, he was quite a controversial rabbi. There were some who wished him ill. Some of his enemies were even rabbis.

R. Yitzchak got embroiled in a conflict with the famous rabbi, philosopher and astronomer Gersonides (R. Levi ben Gershom 1288-1342). This incident was recorded, once more, by R. Yitzchak ben Mordechai Kimchi.

The case involved a woman who had received a questionable get (bill of divorce) and wanted to marry again. Gersonides came head to head with R. Yitzchak as to the ruling in this case, and didn’t mince his words in insulting him. R. Kimchi again comes to the defence of R. Yitzchak and writes to Gersonides:

“You have gone too far...with your insinuations against the great Rabbi...we must treat his respectfully.”

THE CHAOS AT A CIRCUMCISION OF THE CHILD OF AN EXCOMMUNICATED MEMBER OF THE CONGREGATION:

Shatzmiller explains that not only did R. Yitzchak excommunicate his student, but there are references to many other of his bans of excommunication as well. One such case concerned a certain Manosque Jew by the name of Leonetus, who had also been excommunicated by R. Yitzchak. 

It seems that members of the congregation would not attend the circumcision of Leonetus’ son, under the impression that R. Yitzchak had forbidden them from so doing. When challenged on this issue, R. Yitzchak clarified his position that people should attend the ceremony. But the story doesn’t end there.

Both Leonetus and his brother (from a different father) Jacob had, for reasons that we do not know, been placed under a ban. Jacob then took R. Yitzchak to the court of the Bishop of the nearby town of Sisteron[8].

The court case was very serious. It involved a charge of culpability against R. Yitzchak regarding the circumcision of the baby of Jacob’s brother, Leonetus, who had died as a result of the procedure. This, despite the fact that R. Yitzchak had apparently not even attended the ceremony, which was performed by one Mosse Anglicus, whose lack of expertise resulted in a fatal haemorrhage.

The non-Jewish authorities back at Manosque felt aggrieved that Jacob had overridden their jurisdiction (which was guarded very dearly) by going out of town, and they, in turn, brought Jacob to court back in Manosque.

But the case gets even more complicated because in Manosque the practice was that the doctor of the town, Dr Banafos - who happened to be Leonetus’ father - usually performed all the circumcisions.

However, on this occasion, Dr Bonafos refused to perform the circumcision on his own grandson because of the conflict between R. Yitzchak and his son, Leonetus! (Probably out of loyalty to the rabbi.)

And Vitalis, the tailor, testified that R. Yitzchak refused to attend the ceremony until and unless:

“...the Magister [R. Yitzchak][9] is first treated with the respect which is due to him.”

Then later, when Jacob was excommunicated apparently for the second time, he declared:

“...it would have been more correct to excommunicate the Magister for having caused the death of the child.”

A further complication ensued after R. Yitzchak excommunicated Jacob - because in Southern France at that time, the local laws prohibited any rabbi from imposing a ban of excommunication on any individual unless the authorities were first consulted.

There was a French ordinance in place which instructed that:

“No sage should use the power of excommunication to protect his own honour.”

R. Yitzchak did not consult the authorities in the case of Jacob. When taken to task, he simply denied that it was he who had imposed the ban but claimed it was another Magister entirely, who had been confused with him. The court accepted his defence.

THE CONFLICT WITH R. BARUCH:

Shatzmiller points out that another recorded conflict concerns a certain rabbi about whom not much is known other than that his name is R. Baruch from nearby Digne[10].  And clearly this R. Baruch was highly respected because according to the sages of Avignon:

“His wisdom and piety were widely known, and the greatness of our teacher, Rabbi Baruch, was apparent to all and celebrated even in the most remote regions.”

It appears that at some stage R. Baruch may even have been R. Yitzchak’s teacher. Nevertheless, R. Yitzchak refers to R. Baruch as being aggressive and insulting, claiming R. Baruch had called him:

“...a fool, a wicked man, an ignoramus and an obdurate sinner.”

R. Yitzchak responded:

“...if I am obdurate, you are obdurate as well”

R. Baruch looked towards the rabbis of (northern) France to support him in the ensuing conflict and they obliged by placing R. Yitzchak under excommunication!

R. Yitzchak then writes a public apology to R. Baruch but he doesn’t spare the rabbis who excommunicated him:

“I would like...to declare now that I cannot believe any of the sages in France to have accused or censured me...However, if any one of them should have done so in error...if he has made improper remarks about me...or if he has censured, accused or pronounced the ban against me, I hereby refute him and moreover declare that his censure, accusation or ban apply to none other than himself...”

Thus R. Yitzchak effectively placed those rabbis who had excommunicated him, under ex-communication.

Then R. Baruch placed an additional ban of excommunication on R. Yitzchak because he:

“...repudiated the authority of the sages.”

And, of course, R. Yitzchak reacted in kind against R. Baruch by placing him in under ban of ex-communication!

Shatzmiller describes the chaotic situation as follows:

“Isaac, who knew that he could not expect sympathy from the rabbis of [northern][11] France, now turned to his colleagues in southern France, and they - judging by the records in our possession today – did not hesitate to side with him.”

This again attests to the great divide between the north and the south of France. [See previous post.]

THE PAPER TRAIL STOPS ABRUPTLY IN 1316:

After 1316, R. Yitzchak of Manosque disappears from his frequent mentions in the public records of the town and is never mentioned again. It seems that he must have left Manosque at around that time. During the following two decades the local synagogue has some mentions of various scandals - such as the quarrel which broke out on Yom Kippur of 1338, regarding the correct manner in which to conduct the service. At that stage a certain Magister Vitalis was at the reigns of the community.[12]

Professor Joseph Shatzmiller leaves us with a tantalizing piece of information: There is so much more knowledge and information like this still waiting to be discovered in the local archives of these regions...

A PARALLEL CULTURE OF EXCOMMUNICATIONS:

Fascinatingly, Shatzmiller shows that during that same period, and also in Provence in southern France, a register of Christian excommunications has survived from the diocese of Riez.[13] It too contains references to parallel and repetitive bans and counter-bans. This seems to have been par for the course in those times.

ANALYSIS:

What is immediately apparent is that the issuing of multiple bans and counter-bans within the Jewish community was out of control. In most of these instances, it appears that the bans were initiated because of personal attacks on the dignity, prestige and honour of the individual rabbis. One would have imagined that resorting to the severity of bans of excommunication would have been applied to far more fundamental issues that threatened the integrity of the tradition rather than to such relatively petty matters.

Was France different, or should one wonder about the motivation for similar bans which have taken place throughout our history, and continue to some extent to the present day?

[See The Ban, Repeal, and Censoring of the Pri Chadash.]

[For more on the allied concept of the censoring and banning of books see Hey Teacher Leave the Text Alone.]

[See The Heresy of Nosson Slifkin.]

[See a counter-ban by Chassidim against the Mitnagdim according to the Cherson Letters.]

---

[1] Pronounced ‘Manask’.

[2] Joseph Shatzmiller, Rabbi Isaac Ha-Cohen of Manosque and His Son Rabbi Peretz: The Rabbinate and its Professionalization in the Fourteenth Century.

[3] Kalonymous ben Kalonymous, also known as Maestro Calo (1286- after 1328), was a French writer, philosopher and translator. He was a student of Abba Mari.

[4] Rashba Responsum no. 460.

[5] Apparently, this was considered by Kalonymous ben Kalonymous to be a ‘large’ number of students for a Talmudic academy.

[6] S. Schwartzfuchs, ‘An Ordinance from 1313’ (Hebrew), in Bar Ilan vols. 4-5 (1967) pp. 209-10. Translation Shatzmiller.

[7]See The Scroll of the Minor Apology.

[8] Pronounced like this.

[9] Parenthesis mine. Translation Shatzmiller.

[10] Pronounce ‘Dinye’

[11] Parenthesis mine.

[12] R. Yitzchak left a son, Rabbeinu Peretz, probably one of the first recorded professional rabbis (i.e., a rabbi to be paid for his professional services). This information is preserved in letters from the Ran (R. Nissim of Gerona, 1320-1376) who urged the communities of Catalonia and Aragon to combine with Barcelona to pay the salary of Rabbeinu Peretz. This allowed Rabbeinu Peretz to serve the Barcelona community with a five-year contract with an annual salary of one thousand ‘silver’ (croats). After the first year, Rabbeinu Peretz realized that his salary was insufficient, and he considered moving to Toledo where he would be better paid. The Ran intervened again, and tied to rally support from other communities to get Rabbeinu Peretz to stay on in Barcelona with an increased salary.

[13] Pronounced ‘Reez.’