 |
| A traditional wooden sailing boat used in the protected waters of the Mediterranean. |
BACKGROUND:
The Torah centres of Babylonia had been home to early
rabbinic Judaism for about a thousand years after the destruction of the second
Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE. Its roots went back even earlier to the time of
the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE.
However, around the year 1000 CE, the Babylonian seat of
rabbinic power began to disintegrate and made way for a geographical shift to
the West.
This was a difficult period historically as besides
unseating the geographical location and home of Torah authority and erudition
in Babylonia where the Babylonian Talmud was formulated - it was also a time
when, in 1038, we transitioned from the rabbinic period of the Gaonim to
that of the Rishonim.
All these events culminating together made that period very
unsettling.
There are various accounts, and possibly some myths
describing just which country in the West came to represent the new seat of
western authorized rabbinical authority. Was it North Africa, Spain, Italy, Northern
France, Southern France or Germany?
In this article, I have drawn from the research of Professor
Avraham Grossman
(b. 1936) who specializes in Jewish History and has done manuscript research at
the Bodleian Library.
THE FOUR CAPTIVES:
Around 1161, Rabbi Avraham ibn Daud
wrote an account of four rabbis who travelled to Europe on a fundraising
mission from the declining Babylonian Torah centre of Sura.
These four great rabbis were seized by pirates off the
Italian coast and variously sold for ransom to the Jews of Egypt, (Kairouan)
Tunisia, Spain and Germany thus establishing venerable Torah centres in each of
those locations.
This event became known as the Four Captives and was
described as an act of Divine Providence to show how the shift in rabbinic
authority - from East to West - was sanctioned from On High, and that
henceforth people should obey the rabbis in those counties and no longer look
to Babylonia for rabbinic guidance as they had done in the past.
WHICH WESTERN COUNTRY HAS MORE AUTHORITY?
Until the 11th-century, there was no question
that Babylonia (or Bavel) was the final seat of determination and arbitration
of Jewish law. However, after the passing of the last of the Babylonian Gaonic
rabbis, Rav Hai Gaon in 1038, it became necessary to establish a
correspondingly replacement authoritative seat among the western countries.
This difficulty was intensified, because, as Grossman
writes:
“Rivalry between Spain and
Ashkenaz [Germany]
was especially fierce at this time, with each centre striving to outdo the
other.”
But it wasn’t just Spain and Ashkenaz that competed for the
position of highest rabbinic authority. Fascinating, we shall see how various
communities each independently developed accounts of history that placed them
at the forefront of the battle for authority.
1) SPAIN:
The rabbis of Spain claimed that the decline of the
Babylonian academies were not by accident but by Divine decree that Spain should
emerge as the primary home of rabbinic Judaism. Spain was to be the designated
successor to Bavel.
They even found a biblical verse from Ovadia to substantiate
that claim:
“And that exiled force of
Israelites [shall possess] what belongs to the Phoenicians as far as Tzarfat, while the Jerusalemite exile community
of Sefarad shall possess the towns of the Negeb.”
The biblical reference to Sefarad was immediately associated
with Spain. The Aramaic translation of this verse identified Sefarad
as Aspamia (Aramaic for the Latin Hispania). Even Rashi (1040-1105) who
lived and died in France, was forced to ‘concede’ the pre-eminence of Spanish
authority. He mentions that some of the early First Temple exiles did indeed
reach Tzarfat
(France) but the more ‘elite’ tribe of Judah reached as far as Sefarad (Spain).
The claim was that Spain had been chosen by G-d because
Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem had reached Spanish shores as early as First
Temple times. This meant that the Jews of Spain were the descendants of the
elite Jerusalem exiles, while those in other parts of Europe and North Africa
came from other towns and villages in the Holy land.
In fact - by the Spanish claim that they were the descendants
of the elite group of Jerusalem exiles after the destruction of the First
Temple - they were showing their pre-eminence even over the Babylonians
themselves!
SHMUEL HANAGID:
In keeping with this theme, we find statements like that of
the Spanish rabbi Shmuel haNagid (993-1056):
“Sefarad has been a place of
Torah study from the time of the First Temple and the exile of Jerusalem to
this day.”
Significantly, R. Shmuel haNagid was a student of R. Moshe
ben Chanoch, one of the Four Captives mentioned above, who was ransomed in
Spain.
On the historicity of the claim which placed their ancestors
as the elite exiles from Jerusalem, Grossman writes that although it:
“...sought to present Spain as
a divinely chosen place from time immemorial, and as one that needed neither
Babylonia nor Italy...the historical truth is that the Jewish intellectual
centre in Spain underwent rapid growth in the time of R. Hisdai Ibn Shaprut, in
the mid-tenth century.”
R. Shmuel haNagid also tied to show a direct line of
communication between Babylonia and Spain. He wrote about Rav Natronai Gaon (d.
878) of Babylonia:
“It was he who wrote down the Talmud for the
scholars of Spain without consulting a book.”
The Talmud in Spain, accordingly, was handed over directly to
the Spanish rabbis from Babylonia, inferring an official transferral of
the mantle of leadership to Spain.
YEHUDA AL-BARCELONI:
Another similar teaching was promoted by R. Yehuda
al-Barceloni
(11th to 12th-centuries):
“A well-known tradition in Spain, handed
down by their fathers, is that R. Natronai Gaon...came to them from Babylonia
by ’shortening the way’ [kefitsat haderekh]. He taught them Torah and then he
returned [magically to Babylonia];
he came not by convoy nor was he seen along the way.”
By bringing in the miraculous component of kefitsat hadereckh,
again we see the how Divine Providence was said to have endorsed the pre-eminence
of Spain over the other centres.
The Spanish Jews thus had three precedents to their claim of
representing the most accurate tradition, the verse from Ovadia, the story of
the Four Captives and the direct transferral of Torah literature from Babylonia
to Spain.
2) ITALY:
The sages of Italy also claimed they were descendant from
Jerusalem exiles. According to the Scroll
of Achima’atz, also known as Megillat Yuchasin, written by
Achima’atz ben Paltiel (1017-1060), his
family descended from the captives taken by Titus to Rome after the destruction
of the Second Temple in 70 CE. [For more on Achima’atz see A
Window into Pre-Zoharic Mystical Literature.]
Achima’atz writes that these
elite exiles were “Torah scholars...wise and learned” and they were
mystics who composed many of the prayers found in our prayer books to this day.
TOSAFISTS:
The Tosafists
of Northern France and Germany (who were influenced by Chasidei Ashkenaz [See Mystical Forays of the Tosafists.]) were also known to have respected the rabbis of Italy.
The French Tosafist,
Rabbeinu Tam (1100-1171) even adapted the verse “The Torah will go out from
Zion, and the word of G-d from Jerusalem” to read “The Torah will
go out from Bari,
and the word of G-d from Otranto.”
The Tosafists had great
admiration for Rabbeinu Chananel (990-1053) of North Africa because he was
trained by Italian rabbis.
3) GERMANY:
CHASIDEI ASHKENAZ:
The German mystical movement
known as Chasidei
Ashkenaz or German Pietists of the 12th and 13th-centuries
also had much respect for the Italian rabbis. They spoke about the transmission
of ‘secrets’ within the prayer liturgy. One of the leaders of Chasidei
Ashkenaz, R. Eleazar of Worms claimed that the early founder of the
mystical movement, Abu Aharon (from the earlier Gaonic Period)
transmitted his secret knowledge in Lucca.
Abu Aharon is said to have
established a Yeshiva in Italy, called the Sanhedrin Yeshiva from where
his teachings spread throughout Italy.
R. Eleazer of Worms wrote that
Abu Aharon had met with his (R. Eleazar’s) ancestor Moshe haPaytan (R. Moshe
ben Kalonymus, the ‘poet’) who was “the first [Jew] to emigrate to from
Italy” to Mainz in Germany. This move to Germany was allegedly arranged by
Charlemagne (or Charles the Great 742-814).
It is significant that Abu
Aharon is said to have entrusted his Babylonian mystical tradition to the
Rabbis of Italy before any of the other centres in North Africa and Europe.
And, importantly, the connection between Italy and Germany was quickly
established through Abu Aharon and Moshe haPaytan.
RABBEINU GERSHOM:
The Chasidei Ashkenaz and
the German Jews bolstered their claim to the authenticity of being the rightful
heirs to the Babylonian tradition by suggesting that the famed Rabbeinu
Gershom (known as the Meor haGolah or Light of the Exile) who
lived in Mainz, had been taught by the last of the Babylonian Gaonim, Rav Hai
Gaon.
However, as Grossman points out:
“There is no
hint of this claim in any of R. Gershom’s own writings; [whose]
teacher and mentor, he clearly states, was R. Leontine.”
Another claim was that Rabbeinu
Gershom had married the sister of Rav Hai Gaon.
THE ISLAMIC CONQUEST:
There is a further claim that after
the Islamic conquest of Persia (Babylonia) there was a mass immigration of Jews
to Germany, thereby effectively becoming the new Babylonia on German soil - but
as Grossman confirms, this event lacks historical truth.
GERMANY IS SUPERIOR TO
BABYLONIA:
In yet another tradition, R.
Meshulam of Ashkenaz (Germany) visited Babylonia and met the head of the
Babylonian academy. At the meeting, it soon transpired that R. Meshulam was far
more learned and erudite than his Babylonian counterpart who offered his
daughter’s hand to him in marriage. R. Meshulam declined the offer and returned
to Germany to head the Ashkenaz community.
4) NORTHERN FRANCE:
Northern France and Germany are together regarded as
Ashkenaz. The Jews of northern France also developed their own traditions which
showed them as the natural successors to Babylonian rabbinic authority.
One tradition tells of R. Eliyahu ben Menachem of Le Mans
being chosen by G-d as the natural successor to Rav Hai Gaon of Babylonia.
Interestingly, this tradition was written by R. Eliyahu himself and he
explained that every generation needs a special leader. Historically, R. Eliyahu
did indeed visit Rav Hai Gaon in Babylonia who gave R. Eliyahu the title aluf
(leader).
Another tradition has R. Eliyahu also marrying the sister of
Rav Hai Gaon.
For some reason, the northern French literature of succession
from Babylonia is not as elaborate as that of the other counties. And Rashi, as
mentioned, seems to have conceded that Spain (and not his home country France)
was the ‘chosen’ successor.
5) SOUTHERN FRANCE - PROVENCE:
The Jews of Provence
in southern France also claimed that their connection to Babylonia went back as
far as the times of Charlemagne. During his reign, Charlemagne managed to unite
most of western and central Europe. According to their tradition, Charlemagne
asked the king of Babylonia “to send a Jew from among the Jews in his land
of royal blood, of the House of David” to head the Jewish community of
Provence.
The person who met the requirements was a certain R. Machir and his
descendants continued to lead that community for generations. In fact, they did
not just lead Provence but were regarded as “lawmakers and judges all over
the [Jewish]
world, just like exilarchs.”
Grossman says that it is “difficult to find even a slim
historical basis” for this event
but he shows that there were prominent families in Provence with the title “Nasi”.
He also points out, interestingly, that the Jews of Provence - unlike all the
other communities - chose rather to claim authorization from the Exilarchs
and not from the Gaonim of Babylonia.
This was because the Exilarch claimed decadency from
Jewish Kings and the royal Davidic line. Thus the Babylonian roots of Provence
Jewry were depicted as more prestigious than those of the other countries.
R. Menachem haMeiri (d. 1316) lent some credence to the claim
of Provence Jewry when he wrote:
“Pre-eminence passed from one generation
to the next ... this tradition is upheld by the greatest of our princes in
Narbonne.”
6) EGYPT:
A similar story to that of Provence is told of the
pre-eminence of the Jews of Egypt. According to the Divrei Yosef
the Egyptian queen encouraged the king to:
“send forth messengers to the land of
Babylon with the message: ‘I have heard that in your kingdom there are Jews
from the house of David ... send me one of them.’ They sent him a wise man, a
descendant of the princes in that land; the king appointed him over Egypt;
henceforth he was the negidut [leadership] established in Egypt.”
The similarities between the stories of how Jews came to
Provence and Egypt show how they often shared the same themes.
On a similar note, the Jews of Provence tell a story of a Jew
who once saved the life of Charlemagne – and the German Jews tell of how one of
their Jews once saved the life of Emperor Otto II.
ANALYSIS:
The very overt similarities between all these foundational
accounts from the various centres in Europe and North Africa are either
coincidental or the result of a desperate attempt at re-establishing rabbinic
authority after Babylonia lost its hold on the Torah world. The correctness of
the line of authority is crucial to Judaism and is known as the Mesora.
The Mesora is presented to us today as a very simple traceable line
without any dispute. -But why, then, are there so many different accounts of
this line of Mesora?
The problem is compounded by the fact that our study only
concerned the period of around the 11th and 12th
–centuries. Back then, they had no idea that almost a thousand years later we
would have a very different Judaism with new movements unheard of at that time.
These include Chassidism and its different branches which would arrive on the
scene in the 1700s, Religious Zionism, Modern Orthodox and the ultra-Orthodox movement
which was established in 1885 (a year before Coca Cola was established). [See Reforms of the ultra-Orthodox] -All of
these new groups also claimed to have the correct Mesora.
This insistence on having the authorized version of the Mesora
is important for obvious reasons and, as we have seen, always has been.
However, a point is reached when insistence that one version
of the Mesora can exclude another becomes disingenuous.
When some of the lost Meiri texts were discovered in the
1800s, much the ultra-Orthodox world would have nothing to do with the texts,
although the Meiri (1249-1306) was an important Rishon. And the reason
was simple: The Meiri had not been part of the accepted Mesora for so
many centuries so he can never rejoin it. [See The Meiri Texts – Lost or
Ignored?]
A better example is the Chazon Ish (1878-1953), an anti-Zionist leader who shaped the
contemporary Chareidi theological and institutional landscape
of modern Israel. He said that if we were to find a Sefer Torah written
by Moshe Rabbeinu himself, and if it differs from the version we use today, we
need to correct Moshe’s Torah to match ours, otherwise, we need to bury it
within thirty days:
“The old sefer
Torah, even if were written by the greatest authority (Moshe), must be
considered pasul (invalid) as long as it does not conform to ours.
In order for it
to become kasher, it must be amended and adjusted to comply with the text of
contemporary sefarim, according to the most recent halacha.”
Much of the phenomena in this world operate on the basis of the
Inverted-U curve. Malcolm Gladwell writes:
“Inverted-U curves are about limits. They
illustrate that ‘more’ is not always better; there comes a point, in fact, when
the extra resources that the powerful think of as their greatest advantage only
serves to make things worse...
there comes a point where the best-intentioned application of power and
authority begins to backfire.”
He explains that no police, for example, is bad. A reasonable
amount of police is good to maintain law and order, but too much police creates
police states. Similarly, too little children in a class is not good, there is
a magic number where the dynamic is just right and then there is a point where
too many children are detrimental to everyone in the class.
Perhaps one can say the same with the Mesora. Of
course, we need a Mesora if we want to live according to the Law of
Moshe. That Mesora must of necessity function within the guidelines of Halacha.
But a point is reached when a fanaticism, obsession and desperation with Mesora
has the opposite effect and creates a false or invented Mesora which by
definition is a misnomer.
This is why we have numerous conflicting accounts in
the 11th-century as to who represents the Mesora from Bavel –
and, why in the 20th-century, we are prepared to bury the Torah written
by Moshe’s hand.
Parenthesis mine. Rav Hai Gaon
rejected this legend out of hand, and he wrote, "Perhaps an imposter
happened to come to them and claimed that he was Natronai. If Natronai had been
known for performing miracles we would not deny it, but he was not known for
such acts at all." [Otzar HaGeonim, Chagiga, pages 16-20].
Also known as
Ibn Aharon. See History and Folklore in a Medieval Jewish Chronicle:
The Family Chronicle of Achima’az ben Paltiel, by Robert Bonfil, p. 57.
