Abraham_gross - Struggling_with_tradition__reservations_about_active_martyrdom_in_the_middle_ages.pdf

Struggling with Tradition

The Brill Reference Library of Judaism Editors

J . Neusner (Bard College) H. Basser (Queens University) A.J. Avery-Peck (College of the Holy Cross) Wm.S. Green (University of Rochester) — G. Stemberger (University of Vienna) — I. Gruenwald (Tel Aviv University) M.I. Gruber (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev) G.G. Porton (University of Illinois) —J. Faur (Bar Ilan University)

V O L U M E 19

Struggling with Tradition Reservations about Active Martyrdom in the Middle Ages

by

Abraham Gross

' / 6 8‫' ל‬

BRILL LEIDEN B O S T O N 2004

Library o f C o n g r e s s C a t a l o g i n g - i n - P u b l i c a t i o n D a t a Gross, Abraham. Struggling with tradition : reservations about active martyrdom in the Middle Ages / by Abraham Gross. p. cm. — (The Brill reference library ofJudaism, ISSN 1571-5000 ; v. 19) Includes bibliographical references and index. Contents: Active and passive martyrdom in Mainz 1096 — A halakhic and human dilemma : the Ashkenazic struggle with its own traditions — The Iberian Peninsula between 1391-1497. ISBN 90-04-13853-6 1. Martyrdom—Judaism—History of doctrines—Middle Ages, 600-1500. I. Title. II. Series. BM645.M34G76 2004 296'.09'02—dc22 2004049682

ISSN ISBN

1571-5000 90 04 13853 6

© C o p y r i g h t 2004 b y K o n i n k l i j k e Brill NV, L e i d e n , T h e N e t h e r l a n d s All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to T h e Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

‫לנכדי‬ ‫שקד ודניאל‬ ‫״עטרת זקנים בני בנים ותפארת בנים אבותם״)משלי יז‪:‬ו(‬

CONTENTS PREFACE CHAPTER ONE Active and Passive Martyrdom in Mainz 1096 CHAPTER T W O A Halakhic and H u m a n Dilemma: T h e Ashkenazic Struggle with its O w n Tradition Continuity of the Phenomenon and the Development of Traditions— Halakhic References and Discussions—Conclusion CHAPTER THREE T h e Iberian Peninsula between 1391-1497 Active Martyrdom in 1391- -Ashkenazic Ideology of Martyrdom in Sefarad during the 13th- 14th Centuries—Ashkenazic Ideology of Martyrdom in Sefarad in the Fifteenth Century- Portugal 1493-1497 - The Sources—The Abduction of the Children: Between 1493 and 1497—The "Simple People of Israel" and the ‫״‬Heads of Israel": Two Roads to Martyrdom in the Mass Forced-Conversion in Lisbon —Summary

1

19

45

APPENDIX A T h e Ideology of Active Martyrdom in Antiquity: T h e Petronius Affair

87

APPENDIX Β O n Revisionism, Reading Comprehension, and Academic Aggressiveness: A Response to R a m Ben-Shalom

93

APPENDIX C Hebrew Sources

101

APPENDIX D T h e Historical Background of the Scroll of Amrafel

105

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

119

INDEX

129

PREFACE The events that unfolded in the Rhine Valley during the spring of 1096 might well be considered the most fertile historiographical ground for students of medieval Jewish history. The attacks of the advancing Crusaders on the Jewish communities in that area yielded a type of an extraordinarily violent response on the part of the Jews which seems to be unprecedented, at least during the Middle Ages. Some of the communities performed collective active martyrdom by first slaughtering their wives and children and then committing suicide.1 Such acts are recorded by Christian chroniclers, but as far as the sources are concerned, we have here yet another outstanding precedent: at least three detailed Hebrew chronicles also record the persecutions. This stands out conspicuously in comparison to the meagre harvest of historiographical works written by Jews in the Middle Ages. Many of the studies concerning the events of 1096 have concentrated mainly on such basic problems as the inter-relationship of these three chronicles and their relationship to a possible early collection of sources or to an Urtext.2 Modern scholarship in the last twenty five years questions the reliability of the chronicles, and by reconstructing their tendentiousness prefer to study them as mid 12th century works which reflect the cultural situation and needs stemming from inter-faith relations of the communities half a century after the events themselves. Such an approach is accompanied by a tendency to minimize the scope of active martyrdom. Some of the martyrological anecdotes are interpreted not as historical events but rather as literary creations in the context of the inter-faith polemical atmosphere of two competing religions, in which the Jews express a message of superiority. Those and other

1 Definition of Active Martyrdom: Normally, matryrdom is defined as the act of being killed by the persecutor, while the martyr plays the passive role of willingly accepting death for his religion or belief. Active martyrdom, therefore, includes cases in which the victim plays an active role in the killing, namely, suicide a n d / o r killing one's family members a n d / o r co-religionists. 2 No one solution is without its problems. See: A. Gross, "Al Ma'asei Kiddush ha-Shem be-Magenza bi-Shenat 1096—Piyyutim u-Khroniqot," Yehudim Mut ha-^elav [Y. Assis et al ed.]. Jerusalem, 2000, 174 η. 18. R. Chazan, "Christian and Jewish Perceptions of 1096: A Case Study of Trier," Jewish History 13, 1999, 21 n. 5.

historians question the general martyrological thrust of the chronicles, suggesting that there were more forced-converts to Christianity than the chroniclers were willing to admit. Still others minimize the physical dimensions of the destruction, be it in the loss of human life or property. 5 However, even the most extreme revisionists admit that not all that is being related concerning the active martyrdom committed is a later figment of someone's imagination. Historians who accept in principle the information related in the chronicles are faced with a vexing dilemma which Abraham Grossman considers as "possibly the most problematic question." 4 According to an undisputed Jewish legal ruling, which was formulated in the first half of the second century A.D., one must choose a martyr's death when faced with the choice of death or idolatry. 5 Jews considered Christianity as idolatry, and consequently were bound by that ruling to give their lives rather than convert. This is exemplified by the classic Jewish martyrs such as Eleazar the Elder and by the seven brothers, during the Antiochus Epiphanes persecutions (165 B.C.), and Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Hanina ben Teradion, during the Hadrianic persecutions (132-135 A.D.). They all died passively at the hands of the enemy. But in 1096, German Jews died by their own hand. This stands, it would seem, in contradiction to Jewish law, which demands of one to die as a martyr for his religion but not to kill. Jewish law prohibits suicide. Moreover, nowhere in the vast Jewish legal and non-legal classical literature do we find anything that allows one to kill his own wife or children. This would seem to amount not to an act of martyrdom but to murder. 6 Indeed, that is how some shocked Christians viewed those acts. If this is the case, then one must treat the rabbinic attempts of the Tosafists in the twelfth century to identify aggadic material as the sources for their ancestors actions as apologetics. After all, one can also find pious sages among the martyrs.

5 R. Chazan, European Jewry and the First Crusade, Berkeley, 1987, 200. S. Schwartzfuchs, "Meqomam shel Mas'ei ha-Zelav be-Divrei Yemei Yisrael," Tarbut ve-Hevrah be-Toldot Tisrael bi-Yemei ha-Bdnayim: Qovez Ma'amanm le-^jkhro shel H.H. Ben-Sasson, Jerusalem, 1989, 251-67. A. Grossman, "Shorashav shel Kiddush ha-Shem be-Ashkenaz ha-Qedumah," Qedushat ha-Hayyim ve-Herufha-Nefesh: Qovei Ma'amarim le-^ikhro shel Amir Yequtiel [Y. Gafni and A. Ravitzky ed.], Jerusalem, 1993, 100-5. 4 Grossman, Shorashav, 105. 5 B. Sanhédrin 74a. 6 H. Soloveitchik, "Religious Law and Change: The Ashkenazic Example", AJS Review 12, 1987, 209.

What is more, this type of martyrdom formed a proud Ashkenazic martyrological ethos, praised in an unprecedented corpus of liturgy.‫י‬ This persecution and martyrdom poetry was to become a pronounced genre of liturgy, which lasted for many centuries in the Ashkenazic cultural sphere that included Eastern Europe. As we shall see, the Jewish communities in Germany did not invent this type of martyrdom. It has been suggested that they knew of the mass suicides in Masada in 73 A.D., that they were aware of aggadic stories in praise of suicide in order to avoid sin, and that there is even a halakhic Midrash which could support their suicide. 8 At least one suicide case of three rabbis is known from tenth century Italy. 9 They certainly did not deem their acts murderous or in contradiction to the Halakhah. However, beyond this question one might wonder how consensual was the opinion concerning active martyrdom. This was certainly not a common type of martyrdom transmitted through the major channels of Jewish law. T h e classical martyrs like Rabbi Akiva and his comrades, to whom the chronicles liken the 1096 martyrs, died passively at the hands of the Romans. Throughout the period of active martyrdom in Ashkenaz, reaching well into the fifteenth century, there are hints in rabbinic literature that not everyone found active martyrdom acceptable. It is this aspect of the problem which our study will investigate, namely: what can be said about the reservations and opposition to active martyrdom? This is not merely a halakhically technical problern. The practice is much more complicated than passive martyrdom and far more profound because it involves human conflicts. Halakhah might give it legitimacy but it cannot dictate actions contrary to human nature. We believe therefore that the history of active martyrdom is one of conflict between a tradition, which beginning in 1096, formed a central pillar of the Ashkenazic martyrological ethos, and the constant re-evaluation and criticism of that same tradition. In Chapter I we attempt to show through an analysis of the martyrdom of the Jewish community in Mainz that the picture, once closely

7

About 20(!) liturgical poems related directly to the 1096 persecutions are extant. 8 See below Chapter 1. 9 J. Mann, Texts and Studies, Cincinnati, 1931, 24 (Grossman, Shorashav, 109-

examined, is more diverse than hitherto painted by historians. Chapter II surveys and analyzes sources from the 13th- 16th centuries that reveal an Ashkenazic society which, while keeping alive the practice, is divided in its stance toward active martyrdom. 1 0 Chapter III turns to examine active martyrdom in Spain from 1391, but in particular during the persecutions of the Jews in Portugal during 1497. How did it come about that some Iberian Jews adopted this type of "Ashkenazically" identified martyrdom? Was this practice adopted as a valid martyrological solution by all? In Appendix A we analyze the Petronius affair (40 A.D.) during the Roman rule of Caligula, as related by Philo and Josephus. The case of mass active martyrdom (in the eyes of the participants, of course) in Masada which is well-known to us from Josephus, was also well-known to German Jews from the tenth century book of Tossifon. In our opinion, it was instrumental in shaping the Ashkenazic martyrological state of mind. This is not true for the Petronius affair of which we have no good reason to believe that it had reached medieval Ashkenazic Jewry. However, chronologically, it preceded the Masada episode by over thirty years and the ideological seeds of the Masada active martyrdom may be traced to it.11 Appendix Β is a response to Ram Ben-Shalom who criticized some of my views included in Chapter III. It concludes an exchange published in recent issues of Tarbiz• Appendix C contains the Hebrew original texts discussed in this book in translation. Megilat Amrafel is an important and unique

1(1

T h e recent most important article by Haym Soloveitchik has reached my attention after this book was already in production and after pagination (Haym Soloveitchik, "Halakhah, Hermeneutics, and Martyrdom in Medieval Ashkenaz (Part I of II)," JQ/f 94, 77-108.) This lengthy article was designed primarily as a response to critics of the author's earlier article on this subject ("Religious Law and Change: T h e Medieval Ashkenazic Example," AJS Review 2, 1987, 205-21). O n the whole I agree to his thesis about the indefensibility of slaughtering children as a halakhically legitimate act under the heading of Jewish martyrdom and of the crucial role of 1096 in shaping consequent norms of practice and the Tosafists struggle to make it halakhically sensible. I managed to insert short references intended mainly to draw the reader's attention to some points of disagreement. ' 1 Chapter I was initially published as the first part of a Hebrew article entitled: "Al Ma'asei Kiddush ha-Shem be-Magenza bi-Snat T a T N U , " Yehudim Mul ha-^elav [Y. T. Assis et al ed.], Jerusalem, 2000, 171-83. Some changes resulting from new studies were introduced. Part of Chapter III was published under the title: "Al haTismonet ha‫־‬Ashkenazit shel Kiddush ha-Shem be-Portugal bi-Shnat 1497," Tarbiz 64, 1995, 83-114. I thank the Magnes Press and Tarbiz for allowing me to publish the English translations of the above-mentioned articles.

martyrological text which contains actual advice for potential martyrs and a mystical sermon on the last chapter of Song of Songs. T h e last appendix is comprised of an analysis of its historical background and a full translation of it. I want to express my gratitude to Professor Mayer Gruber and to Professor Jacob Neusner who took personal interest in this monograph. The editing skills of my dear friend, Mrs. Sarah Fine, are traceable throughout this book. The Research and Publication Committee of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Studies in the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev generously supported this publication. Lehavim Marheshvan 5764—November 2003

CHAPTER ONE

A C T I V E A N D PASSIVE M A R T Y R D O M IN M A I N Z 1096 As a short introductory note it is necessary to state that our basic assumption is that many of the events depicted in the Hebrew chronicles go back to an earlier Urtext a n d / o r a body of sources—such as written reports sent to other communities—and contain a significant kernel of historical truth. This is grounded in a detailed textual analysis, and we have no doubt that anyone who allots the proper time and effort for a painstaking examination of the texts will reach the same conclusion. 1 It is true that each individual episode needs separate attention and we do agree that certain anecdotes present difficulties which can best be solved by turning to metaphoric‫"־‬anthropological" approaches. Yet when we come to the specific subject matter of this study, the similarity to the point of identity between the different versions proves that the later editor(s) did not tamper with the texts. We deal with the main event of martyrdom in Mainz, which should be handled differently than the anecdotes of individual martyrs.-' The event under scrutiny is the most central and most important one as far as the phenomenon of active martyrdom in 1096 is concerned. The chronicles describe in great detail the stages that led to it, and add many individual anecdotes of martyrdom without sparing gory, sometimes appalling, details. There is no doubt this, more than any other tragic-heroic event which took place during the spring and summer of that year in the Rhine Valley, left its tremendous impression on Ashkenazic Jewry. Although Y. Baer has already divided and arranged the logical order of events, we find that an additional analysis, placing the emphasis on the development and crystallization of the collective decision in favor of active martyrdom, is in order. 1

This, of course, has no bearing on the question of the inter-relations among the three chronicles themselves. 2 We should add that, in our opinion, most of those are historically based, and should not be treated lightly as imaginary events from which the modern historian can glean only c ultural ideas expressed through images and language. This does not dismiss out of hand the possibility of later embellishment and distortions, and even completely fabricated anecdotes by later authors.

T h e event, which took place in the palace of the Bishop, is the centerpiece in the chronicle attributed to Rabbi Solomon bar Samson and in the chronicle commonly known as the "Mainz Anonymous.' 5/‫ י‬The narrative, related partially in the first person, is being told by a member o f t h a t community. 4 We must add, however, that the description uses the first person only in the initial phases of the negotiations, before the fighting in the palace broke out, 5 but from this point on the third person is used. It would seem that the original narrator—a member of the community who was with them before the fighting—was not present during the last stages which he describes. This is supported by his comment about his sources. He tells his audience that he relies on the testimony of forced converts [anusim], who remained in the palace to the end. () The date was the 3 rd day of Sivan when the Jewish defenses, headed by Qalonimos ben Meshulam, the Parnas, caved in and Count Emicho's forces broke in through the inner gate. Now the chronicles tell us what took place during those critical hours-moments among the besieged Jews. 7 A simple literary division of the description shows the evolutionary nature of the event. Here is the narrative in Chronicle A, which is the most complete of the extant versions: A. When the children of the sacred covenant saw that the decree had been enacted and that the enemy had overcome them, they entered the courtyard and all cried out together—elders, young men and young women, children, manservants and maidservants—to their Father in heaven. They wept for themselves and their lives. They accepted upon themselves the judgement of Heaven. They said to one another: "Let us be strong and suffer the yoke of the sacred awe. For the moment the enemy will kill us, but the easiest of the four deaths is by sword. We shall, however, remain alive; our souls will be in paradise, in the radiance of the great light forever."

!

Henceforth: Chronicles A and B. This has been noted by Baer, Gezerat T a T N U , 133-4. 1 Haberman, Sefer Gezerot, 26, 28-9 '‫ י‬Ibid., 43. Another possibility is that the final editor had another source for the palace scenes. 7 Chazan quotes this passage, which leads to the martyrological scenes in the palace's rooms, but remarks only that, "such descriptions abound throughout the chronicle" (R. Chazan, "The Hebrew First Crusade Chronicles: Further Reflections," AJS Review 3, 1978, 94). 4

B. They said unreservedly, and willingly: "Ultimately, one must not question the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He and blessed be His Name, who gave us the Torah and the commandment to put to death and to kill ourselves for the unity of His holy Name. Blessed are we if we do His will. Blessed are all those who are killed and slaughtered and die for the unity of His Name. They are destined for the world to come and shall sit in the circle of the righteous, Rabbi Akiva and his associates, "the pillars of the universe," who were killed for His Name. What is more, a world of darkness will be exchanged for a world of light, a world of pain for a world of happiness, a transitory world for a world that is eternal and everlasting." C. Then they all cried out loudly, saying in unison: "Now let us tarry no longer, for the enemy has already come upon us. Let us go quickly and sacrifice ourselves before the Lord. Anyone who has a knife should inspect it, that it not be defective. Then he should come and slaughter us for the unification of the unique [God] who lives forever. Subsequently he should cut his throat or should thrust the knife into his belly." D. The enemy, immediately upon entering the courtyard, found there some of the perfectly pious with Rabbi Isaac ben R. Moses the dialectician. He stretched out his neck and they cut off his head immediately. 8 They [the pious] had clothed themselves in their fringed prayer shawls and had seated themselves in the midst of the courtyard in order to do speedily the will of their Creator. They did not wish to flee to the chambers in order to go on living however briefly. Rather, with love, they accepted upon themselves the judgment of Heaven. The enemy rained stones and arrows upon them, but they did not deign to flee. They struck down all those whom they found there, with blows of sword, death and destruction. E. In those chambers, when they saw this behavior on the part of those saintly ones and that the enemy had come upon them, all cried out; "There is nothing better than to offer ourselves as a sacrifice." Women girded themselves with strength and slaughtered their sons and daughters, along with themselves. Many men likewise gathered strength and slaughtered their wives and their children and their little ones. The tenderest and daintiest slaughtered [...]. 9

8

This sentence is out of place and belongs at the end of this paragraph. About this rabbi and his wife, see: Germania Judaica [M. Bran ed.],I, Tübingen 1963, p. 194. 9 Haberman, Sefer Gezerot, 31. Chazan, European Jewry, 253-4. The division into paragraphs is ours. For minor variations between Chronicles A and C, see: Gross, "Al Ma'asei Kiddush ha-Shcm be-Magenza bi-Shnat T a T N U : Piyyutim u-Khro-

We have here a highly dramatic and emotionally charged scene, which is extremely significant because it tells us about the fateful decisionmaking process of the Mainz community to commit collective active martyrdom. I would go even as far as suggesting that, for the historian who attempts to understand the thinking and mental state of that community of besieged Jews, this is the most important passage in the chronicles. O n e might choose to question the historical authenticity of other stories about what happened in the chambers of the palace, which can be classified as specific "acts of martyrs." But this scene, being communal and public, remains, in our opinion, much more real and authentic. 111 Now we must try to decipher the true significance of the text, which is not without its complications. First there is a description of several stages as indicated by our division. In the first stage, we read about the collective lament of people overpowered by external circumstances. As can be expected, they are shaken and struck by profound sorrow and despair over their lives which they are about to lose as a violent death approaches. Yet, they express sincere theodicy, accept their cruel fate and resolve to face it bravely: "Let us be strong and suffer the yoke of the sacred awe. For the moment the enemy will kill us, but the easiest of the four deaths is by sword. We will, however, remain alive; our souls will be in paradise, in the radiance of the great light forever." The loss of one's temporary, short life cannot be compared with the expected reward in the eternal and divine "great light" of God in Paradise. As to the suffering, they strengthen and encourage themselves, saying that death by the enemies' sword is the fastest and therefore the least painful. At this point there is nothing yet about active martyrdom. Only later, in the second phase, still in the presence of all the members, we read about a decision to hasten their death by collective suicide: "They said unreservedly, and willingly: 'Ultimately, one must not question the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He and blessed be His Name, who gave us the Torah and the commandment to put to death and to kill ourselves for the unity of His holy Name. Blessed are we if we niqot," Yehudim Mul ha-^lav [Y. Assis et al ed.], Jerusalem, 2000, 173-4. For the use of midrashic material of the chronicler in order to join the fate of these martyrs with that of the classical ones, such as R. Akiva, see: M. Fishbane, The Kiss of God, Seatde and London, 1994, pp. 72-74. 1(1 See now a systematic attempt to classify the reliability of various parts in the chronicles by: D. Malkiel, "Vestiges of Conflict in the Hebrew Crusade Chronicles," Journal of Jewish Studies 53, 2001,"323-40.

do His will. Blessed are all those who are killed and slaughtered and die for the unity of His Name'." 1 1 It is clear to them that this is God , s will and commandment, and that this is the right place and situation for them to carry it out. We note that the option of converting does not seem to be the issue here at all, since they have already decided to die by the enemies' sword, and have no doubt that they will go through with this decision. This element does exist in the background, but unlike the martyrological anecdotes which follow, here there is no clear expression of it. 12 Their main concern now is to save themselves from death at the hand of the Gentiles. This is supported by the Christian chronicler, Albert of Aachen, who describes the Jewish response in Mainz: The Jews, seeing that their Christian enemies were attacking them and their children and were sparing no age, fell upon one another—brothers, children, wives mothers and sisters— and slaughtered one another. Horrible to say, mothers cut the throats of nursing children with knives and stabbed others, preferring to perish thus by their own hands rather than be killed by the weapons of the uncircumcised. 15

Now if it is true that they conceived of such acts as God's "commandment", then we must try to find a source for it. Anyone who has dealt with this issue knows that there is nothing in Jewish classical Halakhah which allows, let alone advocates the killing of one's own children as a martyrological act. It is true that the author of our report used by Chronicles A and B, knew the historiographical book of Yossifon, as

11

As to the awkward Hebrew expression used here for suicide, we go along with Chazan , s translation. (See Gross, Al Ma'asei, 175 n. 21). 12 This element does exist, but only implicitly: "Then he should come and slaughter us for the unification of the unique [God] who lives forever." Contrary to the collection of martyrological anecdotes to follow in the chronicle, in the description of this main communal gathering there are no explicit expressions of slaughtering in order to prevent conversion. In the beginning of the narrative on the events in Mainz, where the days of fear and anxiety prior to the attack are described, we read that their fear was to "die at the hands of God's enemies" (Haberman, Sefer Gezerot, 28). This seems to have been the initial and main aim of the Crusaders, as claimed by Malkiel: Vestiges, 329-31. Idem, "Mekhir ha-Emunali be-TaTNU," Isadore Twersky Memorial Volume (forthcoming). The first instance of this, is mentioned is by the martyrs in the chambers: "Behold and see, our God, what we do for the sanctification of Your holy Name, rather than deny You for a crucified one [...]" (Haberman, Sefer Gezerot, 34. Chazan, European Jewry, 255). 13 Chazan, European Jewry, 70.

evidenced by the use of unique expressions from that book, 14 where we read about the collective suicides in Gamla and Masada, which included women and children. 1 5 But although we know now that the Jews in Germany had the highest regard for Tossifon, which they considered a holy book and one that could serve as a model for actual behavior, the question remains: how did the Jews of Mainz know that it was God's "commandment"? It would seem that the biblical account of King Saul on the Mount of Gilboa—which is mentioned by post-1096 halakhists who attempted to explain the martyrdoms of that year—was the most important source for those martyrs. In order to understand it properly we should examine the relevant verse in I Samuel 31,4: "Then said Saul to his armor bearer: Draw your sword and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through and abuse me." I do not consider it farfetched that the Christian source, which reported to Albert about the Jews' wish not to die at the hands of the "uncircumcised," received the explanation for the collective self-slaughtering from Jews who had been present at the palace but who had survived converting. 16 Moreover, later Christian sources, from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, also use the term "uncircumcised" to designate the Christian side, when they report that the Jews chose death at their own hands, "when they saw that they could not escape the hands of the

14

Y. Baer "Sefer Yossifon ha-Ivri," [J. Gutmann and M. Schwabe ed.], Sefer Dinaburg, Jerusalem, 1949, 192, 202. T h e expression "the great light" [ha-or ha-gadot\, unique to Tossifon, appears in the chronicles in the following locations: Haberman, Sefer Gezerot, 37, 97 (twice), 100. O n the possible source of the expression, see: Baer, ibid., 192 η. 19. 15 See also, Grossman, Sh Ū rashav, 116-9. Idem, "Bein 1012 le-1096," 67-70. 1(1 It is self-evident that we cannot agree with I. Marcus 5 evaluation that, "Although Albert correcdy sensed that Jewish mothers preferred to kill their own children 'rather than be killed by the weapons of the uncircumcised,' he did not fully understand the meaning of the Jewish reactions to the attacks." ("From Politics to Martyrdom: Shifting Paradigms in the Hebrew Narratives of the 1096 Crusade Riots," Prooftexts 2, 1982, p. 41.) See also; M. Minti, "Kiddush ha-Shem be‫־‬Einei Nozrim be-Germania bi-Yemei ha‫־‬Beinayyim," Zion 59, 1994, 223. Albert of Aachen did not have to sense or guess why mothers killed their children. He had his sources. T h e consideration of avoiding conversion did play a role, but is more conspicuous in the narratives of active martyrdom (e.g. the Rachel anecdote)- a literary appendix permeated with symbols and metaphors—which is entirely different from the text we focus on. We also cannot go along with Marcus' generalization that the martyrdoms constituted a daring and novel practice in that period, and that their justification is the major

uncircumcised." 1 ' Even if it is not entirely clear that the chroniclers meant to suggest that the Jews did it in order to avoid torture and death at the hands of the Christians, the association is to the biblical story of King Saul.1!i T o be sure, circumstances varied. In circumstances where battle was a factor, as was the case in Mainz, the fear of death by the enemy was the central factor. Such was the situation in York in 1 190, when the mob was on the verge of breaking into the castle where the Jews found shelter. In other cases, such as later libels, when the Jews decided, for example, to die by fire, it was less out of a fear of being killed by the Christians than having their children abducted or converted to Christianity. T h e York martyrdom is of particular interest to us now that we understand what took place in Mainz. The most important historical source for York is the chronicle of William of Newbury, who was on hand when the event took place, and claims that his sources are Jewish forced-converts. Here he tells us about the exhortation to martyrdom by the Rabbi of the community: Now there was there a certain old man, a most famous Doctor of the Law [...] who, it is said, had come from beyond the sea to teach the

reason for the composition of the chronicles ("the narrators who chronicled their actions had, by use of archetypal imagery, to justify the martyrs." Ibid., 41, 45.) The simplicity with which it is written: "gave us the Torah and the commandment to put to death and to kill ourselves for the unity of His holy Name" negates such an explanation altogether. Moreover, one of the main foundations of Marcus' method is that any detail which did not fit into the pre-conceived religio-literary scheme was omitted (Ibid., 42), is contradicted by the fact that forced-conversions are not concealed, by and large. If there is an apology to be found in the acts of the Mainz martyrs, it is not for their active martyrdom but for the reason that drove them to it. While in the narrative of the assembly in the Bishop's courtyard the reason is to avoid torture and death at the hand of the enemy, we find a change in the individual anecdotes—a separate literary unit after a poetic lament of the chronicler (Haberman, Sefer Gezerot, 31 -3). The emphasis there is on slaughtering and suicide in order to avoid conversion, a higher motivation from a religious perspective than the fear of corporeal torture and death by the enemy. 17

Minti, Kiddush ha-Shem, 223-4. The Latin source, cited by Minti, says: "ne traderentur manibus incircumcisorum." The case brought in front of Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg by a person who slaughtered his wife and four sons reads: "He did so because they (i.e. wife and children) had asked him when they had seen that the wrath had poured forth from before God and the enemies started to kill the sons of the living God" (Sec, below, chapter 2). There is no mention here of the conversion option. They wanted to avoid being killed by the enemies. IH

English Jews. He was honored by all and was obeyed by all as if he had been one of the prophets. When, therefore, he was asked his advice on that occasion, he replied: "God [...] orders us to die now for the Law. And behold our death is at the door, unless, perchance, which God forbid, you think of deserting the sacred Law for this brief space of life, and choose a fate harsher than any death [...] namely, to live as apostates in the deepest dishonor at the mercy of impious enemies [...] we ought to select the easiest and most honorable form of death. For if we fall into the hands of the enemy we shall die at their will and amidst their jeers. [...] For many of our people in different times of tribulation are known to have done the same, preferring a form of choice most honorable to us."

Joseph Jacobs, who edited the English version of William's account, is convinced that the contents of the sermon are fictitious, being a figment of the churchman's imagination and literarily based on Eleazar ben Yair's speech at Masada, which was well-known to him from Josephus' account. 19 The rabbi, who allegedly gave this sermon, was Rabbi Yom-Tov of Joigny, a Tossafist, who came from France to York to serve as the Rabbi of the community. The motifs and the expressions here are basically identical to what we have in the chronicle about the Mainz affair in 1096. I believe that the Rabbi's sermon is generally authentic and must be traced to the Mainz description we analyzed above. 20 From later Jewish sources let us quote two. The first is a liturgical poem referring to the events in 1298, known as the "Rindfleisch Persecutions." T h e poet who surveys the communities which were destroyed, writes about the slaughter of the children by their mothers in the attempt to save them from falling in cruel hands: "[...] and let the uncircumcised not abuse me by every type of violent death [mitah meshunah\rix The second source is Joseph Hacohen who writes about the "Lepers Persecutions" in 1321:

1 1

' Jacobs, The Jews, 126. For a more detailed discussion, see the appendix in: A. Gross, "Hirhurim al Hebetim Hilkhatiyim ve-lo Hilkhatiyim shel Kiddush ha-Shem bi-Shnat T a T N U , " /. Twersfa Memorial Volume, Cambridge, Mass. (forthcoming). In the discussion of fifteenth century Spain below, I show what could be a direct influence of the same chronicle on mid 14lh c. cases of self-inflicted death by fire, committed by forcedconverts who were moved by a profound sense of anxiety and guilt. 21 S. Bernfeld, Sefer ha-Dema'ot II, Berlin, 1924, 57. 20

It is also told that they seized forty Jews and put them in jail. And when the Jews understood their situation, they chose from amongst them two who volunteered to slaughter their brethren, so that the uncircumcised would not abuse them. 2 ‫־‬ Let us now return to the halakhic p r o b l e m . T h e r e is a well-known halakhic Midrash on Genesis 9:5, which teaches that in cases such as K i n g Saul's one m a y c o m m i t suicide: "'But [ve-Akh] your blood of your lives will I require' (Gen. 9:5). This includes one w h o strangles himself. You might think that even one in the plight of Saul is m e a n t : therefore we have 'But' [ΛΑΛ].23 In other words, the " B u t " was a d d e d to teach us that that the T o r a h allows suicide in certain cases. T h e r e are several Ashkenazic sources, which refer to this M i d r a s h in the context of Kiddush ha-Shem, a n d some of t h e m discuss it. O n e such discussion is in R a b b i A b r a h a m ben Azriel's Arugat ha-Bosem, f r o m the beginning of the thirteenth century: Thaddeus of Rome has expounded: "What (reason) did Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah see, that they delivered themselves [masru nafsham] into the fiery furnace, for the Sanctification of the Name? They have deduced it from the frogs (in Egypt) etc." And Rabenu Isaac of Dampiers brought up a difficult question against Rashi, who interprets, "what did Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah see not to apply the principle of 'and you shall live by them' [ve-hai ba-hem]? And he (Rabbi Isaac) said: Their act is understandable since it was in public [farhesia], in which case it has been unanimously concluded in Sanhédrin (74a) that one must sacrifice his life even for a minor commandment. Rabbi Ephraim of Lunel expounded (differently): What did they see to give their lives and die such a painful death? They could have killed themselves when they heard about the decree, and such an act (of suicide is not punishable, as it has been expounded [...]: "You might think that even one in the plight of Saul is meant: therefore we have 'But'." 24 22

R. Joseph ha-Kohen, Emeq ha-Bakha, Cracow, 1895, 78. For additional examples from Prague in 1389 and Vienna in 1421, see: Bernfeld, Sefer ha-Dema'ot II, 161, 168. About the first event, see: Joseph Hakohen, Sefer Divrei ha-Tamim le-Malkhei £a1fat u-Beit Otoman ha-Togar, Lemberg, 1859, 28b. O n the second, see: Shevet Yehudah [A. Shohat cd.], Jerusalem, 1947, 92, and the editor's note, 193. 23 It is a principle of halakhic exegesis that the word AkJi is a limiting particle. Bereshit Rabbah 34, 13 (Theodor-Albeck edition, 324. Soncino English translation, London, 1961, 278-9.). See: Grossman, Shorashav, 113. Chazan, in his discussion of the possible sources for the 1096 martyrdoms, treats this source as "aggadic" {European Jewry, 155). 24 R. Abraham bar Azricl, Arugat ha-Bosem I, [E.E. Urbach ed.], Jerusalem, 1939, 222.

Although this Midrash only mentions suicide, Ashkenazic logic extended it to include the slaughter of children. And if one is permitted to kill his children to spare them death at the hands of the enemies, how much more so is it allowed in order to prevent the death and eternal damnation of the soul through conversion to a life in Christianity. This process of extension from suicide to slaughter can be found in a commentary by the Tosafists on the same verse in Genesis: "Because in time of religious persecution [bi-she'at ha-shemad] one may surrender his life and kill himself. And those who slaughter a child [tinoq] in times of religious persecutions bring their proof from here." 2 ' In a society for which eternal life was so central a concern, and for which Christianity was a sure ticket to Hell, one cannot question the logic of that horrible act which in fact reflected feelings of love towards the children. The parents felt it was their responsibility to save their children from death by the sword of the "uncircumcised" as well as from their deadly religion.21' We suggest then that this was not a new form of post-1096 reasoning, but that such arguments were already being heard during the events of that year. As for Mainz, we must remember that the Jews there were not the first to be attacked and during the few weeks until their turn arrived, all possibilities were entertained. 27 They, and at least

25

Rabotenu Ba'alei ha-Tosafot al Hamishah Humshei Torah, Warsaw, 1876, 30. For a full citation and discussion of this source see below, chapter 2.). H. Soloveitchik refers to this source but does not discuss the midrash. ("Religious Law and Change: The Medieval Ashkenazic Example," 4 7 ^ Review 2, 1987, p. 210 n. 8.) See also R. Yom-Tov Isbili's discussion, in our chapter on Spain, below, chapter 3. 26 "If the afterlife is a fact, martyrdom is a bargain [...] A swift stroke of the sword was perhaps seen as the greatest kindness that a parent could bestow upon a child" (Soloveitchic, Halakhah, 105-6). Soloveitchic rests his case in rejecting the Midrash on Saul's suicide as a valid halakhic source that would serve the basis for allowing suicide on the totally different circumstances in 11111 century Germany where a forced religious conversion was at stake. This, as he points out correcdy, was not the case at all in the biblical story. The Philistines were not going to force him (or Samson) to worship Dagon (ibid., 97). This is the reason for his insistence on the conversion factor as the driving force behind parents' decision to kill their children. However, as I tried to show, one cannot ignore the factor of abusive death by the hands of the enemy, paralleling Saul's fears. In fact, even in the specific case brought before Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg and analyzed by Soloveitchic (ibid., 99-101), this is the expressed reason for the slaughter. This is why the case of Saul is quite relevant to the issue at hand. T h e leap from avoiding death by the hand of the enemy to avoiding conversion is not difficult to understand. In fact, Soloveitchic himself outlined brilliantly this logic at length (ibid., 104-6). 27

The first attack on Speyer took place on the 8 l h of lyyar. O n the 10'1' the Jews of

the more knowledgeable among them, were aware of the halakhic problematics of active martyrdom. Yet, it was only human that the final decisions on how to act were taken in the last moments when time had started to run out. 2 8 Normally, the Christians in chronicle A are called either oivim (enemy) or to'im (peúgrìni).2‫ יי‬T h e r e are several incidents where the term arelim (uncircumcised) is mentioned, and they allude to the biblical story of King Saul's death. 3 0 O n another occasion, the act itself points to this source. It is told about the death of Rabbi Qalonimos the Parnas, the commander of the Jewish fighting force that, according to one rumor, "took his sword, stuck it in the ground and fell on it stabbing himself in the stomach." According to the chronicler, he chose for himself an honorable hero's death, emulating Saul. 31 In addition to the midrash, there might have been yet another source which served as an inspiration for a suicide à-la-King Saul. We find that in Tossifon, when the soldiers, hiding in the cave, try to convince Josephus, their commander, to commit suicide together with them,

Worms who remained in their houses were attacked, and the rest, who found refuge at the Bishop's courtyard, were attacked again on the 25 th (See: Baer, Gezerat T a T N U , 131). There we find also scenes of active martyrdom, although the reports on this community are relatively scanty. In Worms too, they had one-week pause between attacks, in which they must have prepared themselves for the proper response. The Mainz martyrdom was, as aforesaid, on the 3 rd of Swan. 28 See: D. Berger, "Heqer Rabanut Ashkenaz ha-Qedumah," Tarbiz 53, 1984, 484 n. 6. Berger refers to the midrash, which allows suicide under conditions similar to King Saul's, and its extention to the killing of others in a responsum of Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg (Teshuvot, Pesaqim u-Minhagim [Y.Z. Kahana ed.], Jerusalem, 1960, 54. See below, chapter 2), and in the Tosafists commentary on Gen. 9:5. Berger believes that "those people did not wrestle with the halakhic distinction between suicide and slaughtering others, and, consequently, did not have a need to broaden the application of the talmudic midrash." Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg's own understanding is a novelty that his predecessors did not think of, but they did know the midrash. We have no doubt that the obvious gap between suicide and murder did not escape them, but their religious logic created the necessary bridge over this gap. 29 See; Chazan, European Jewry, 78. 30 See: Gross, Al Ma'asei, "!80. ' 31 O u r attempt to show that the death scene of King Saul was fixed in the consciousness of the 1096 martyrs fits in well with H.H. Ben-Sasson's emphasis on the holy war motif in the 1096 martyrs' stories (including, of course, the martyrdom of Qalonimos (H.H. Ben-Sasson, "Li-Megamot ha-Khronografiah ha-Yehudit shel Yemei ha-Beinayyim," HistoHonim ve-Askolot Histonyot, Jerusalem, 1963, 43-5). BenSasson talks about the narrators perspective, but we are of the opinion that there is no significant gap between the atmosphere prevalent in the martyrs circles and that reflected in most of the stories in the chronicles.

t h e y b r i n g p r o o f s f r o m t h e B i b l e . A m o n g t h o s e , t h e y a d d u c e t h e following: A n d w h a t of o u r king Saul a n d his son, J o n a t h a n , w h o fought for G o d ' s p e o p l e a n d died for G o d ? Surely Saul could h a v e fled a n d lived, b u t r a t h e r he despised life a n d chose d e a t h over it, w h e n he saw that his p e o p l e w e r e b e i n g r o u t e d in battle a n d did not w a n t to be s e p a r a t e d f r o m his b r e t h r e n , t o g e t h e r with his son, J o n a t h a n , the beloved a n d the pleasant. R i g h t a f t e r this t h e y r e m i n d J o s e p h u s : A n d w h e r e is the holy T o r a h , w h i c h is c o n c e a l e d in y o u r h e a r t ? You, a priest a n d a n o i n t e d o n e , w h o t a u g h t us the T o r a h , h o w could we love o u r G o d with all o u r h e a r t a n d all o u r soul, if we are not willing to die for his c o v e n a n t a l o n g with his servants w h o told us are killed for H i m ? W a s not it not you w h o m a n y a time that a n y o n e w h o dies in battle for G o d , his people, a n d his T o r a h will b e l o n g to G o d , that he will go to the great light, a n d thus avoid the darkness? 5 2 N o w w e c a n b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d t h e significance of Biblical expressions f r o m the d e a t h of Saul a n d f r o m the eulogy D a v i d p r o n o u n c e d over h i m in t h e l i t u r g i c a l p o e t r y a s t h e y a r e u s e d in t h e w a k e o f t h e 1 0 9 6 persecutions a n d active m a r t y r d o m . 5 5 But m o r e importantly, w e are

‫ ־י‬Sefer Yossifon [D. Flusser ed.], Jerusalem, 1981, 312. Baer conjectured that the author of Yossifon knew of the Midrash Rabbah on King Saul's suicide (Baer, Sefer Yossifon, 198). As we have noted above, this particular expression of the great light is unique to Yossifon, and is used by the chronicles, in general—as already shown by Baer—and in the passage describing the Mainz communal martyrdom. (Baer and Grossman believe that Yossifon had an influence on the martyrs of 1096. (Baer, ibid.. Grossman, Shorashav, 116-9) Soloveitchik, who mainly discusses the Tosafist's attitudes to this phenomenon, ignores it completely. Ghazan mentions the Masada story in Yossifon, but does not attribute to it any influence on the martyrs' acts. In his opinion one can speak only about a literary influence on the chronicles (Chazan, European Jewry, 327 n. 33). Elsewhere, however, he agrees that, "it seems to me simplest to suggest that the potent symbols in question did in fact circulate within the ranks of the martyrs themselves." (Ibid., 116). In light of this statement it is difficult to understand why he shies away from the self-evident conclusion, arrived by Baer and Grossman, that Yossifon did in fact play a role in forming the martyrological behavior. O n e should note also that in the Yossifon version of Eleazar's speech 111 Masada, we find: "And we shall die courageously for God and not be arrested with chains and iron instrumcnts like slaves at the hands of the uncircumcised' (Yossifon, 429-30). Also the motifs of the slaughter as a sacrifice and of this life in comparison to the eternal life after death can be found there. 33

See: Gross, Al Ma'asei, 181.

in a position to understand the prayer of Av ha-Rahamim, which was composed in memory of the victims-saints of the First Crusade. We read the expression, which can be found in the chronicles and in the liturgical poetry: "The beloved and the pleasant in their lives, even in their death they were not divided." 34 This is, of course, a quotation from David's eulogy. Even more significant, we continue to read in the prayer: "They were swifter than eagles. They were stronger than lions." This is also a quotation from David's eulogy over King Saul and Jonathan, his son, who are mentioned in the beginning of the verse in 2 Samuel 1:23. While one can certainly not learn from each and every biblical allusion to King Saul's death scene—especially when dealing with liturgical material—that they intended to hint at the halakhic source which guided the acts of the martyrs, we are allowed to conclude from all these references that they were conscious of Saul's case, and that it served as a positive precedent. But when the rabbis in the Rhineland, who composed the prayer of Av ha-Rahamim, use the expression, "They were swifter than eagles. They were stronger than lions," they clarify their intention quite explicitly: "to fulfill (literally: to do) the will of their Creator and the wish of their Rock" namely, to carry out the cruel act of active martyrdom. The emulation of the King Saul story was certainly in the minds of the rabbis who composed this prayer. In this framework of a composed prayer (unlike liturgical poetry), we believe that one must approach each word and citation with great care, assuming that they have been chosen carefully and not by casual association. In order to complete the halakhic aspects of the Mainz collective martyrdom let us return now to the courtyard of the palace. T h e style of the chronicles succeeds in authentically transmitting to the reader the tense atmosphere in the courtyard, which in turn resulted in the decision on a more or less uniform response. This is described as a behavior bordering on group hysteria: "Then they all cried out loudly, saying in unison: "Now let us tarry no longer, for the enemy has already come upon us. Let us go quickly and sacrifice ourselves before the Lord. Anyone who has a knife should inspect it, that it not be defective. Then he should come and slaughter us [...]."

‫״‬

See: Haberman, Sefer Gezerot, 29. Seder Qinot le-Tish'ah be-Av left Minhag Polin [D. Goldscmidt ed.j, Jerusalem, 1977, 95 line 43 (It appears in connection with the Mainz martyrdom). Alahzor le-Tamim Nora'im [I). Goldscmidt ed.), Jerusalem, 1970, 674 line 17.

Under such circumstances individual voices could not be heard. Everybody, or so it seemed, cried out loudly in order to encourage and be encouraged, on the way to the operative phase of the decision. The direct result of the enthusiastic call for self-slaughter will come in the fifth paragraph, where the slaughter in the chambers is described. But between these two paragraphs the forth—the scene of the passive death of a group in the courtyard intercedes. What do we know about that group? We are told that several people, among them Rabbi Isaac bar Moses, wrapped in their prayer shawls awaited their death by the swords of the enemy. In truth, they acted in accordance with the original decision in paragraph two. The chronicler explains that they had decided not to escape into the chambers in order to gain a few more minutes of life. This we cannot accept! Halakhically one must cling to life for as long as possible and hope to one's last breath for Heaven's mercy, "even when a sharp sword is pointed at his neck." It is true that we can find in the chronicles cases of yearning for martyrdom which overrides all other considerations. Yet, it is hardly likely that this was Rabbi Isaac bar Moses' major concern. Furthermore, the responsibility of a leader is with his community, especially in time of crisis, and Jewish history, both medieval and modern, is replete with examples concerning the proper course of action rabbis took under similar circumstances. Moreover, the rest of the community—which sacrificed their dear ones in a shocking manner—are depicted as people who ran away in order to gain some insignificant amount of time, and are said to be on a lower religious level than the passive group. Finally, it goes against the narrator's description of the entire community, as taking the brave decision to sanctify the Name in the manner of offering sacrifices, as the climax of the heroic event. 5 ' In

,

'‫ י‬One might think of another possibility that Rabbi Isaac meant to slow down the enemy in order to enable the rest of the community to prepare for the slaughter. However, there is no hint of such an idea in the chronicle, although it would be a positive and suitable act as far as the development of narrative. As to the checking of the knives, mentioned in the earlier phase, we can find for this act a source in the Midrash on the binding of Isaac story: "'And he took the ram etc.' It is there that God promised him that whenever his descendents sacrificed burnt-offerings He would accept them immediately. The sages said: If Abraham did not defer (his act of slaughtering) in order to check the knife, Isaac would have been sacrificed. But he did postpone it to check the knife, and immediately the compassion of the Holy O n e blessed be He on Isaac arose [...]. And how do we know that he checked the knife? It is written, 'And he took the knife,' and the sum of the letters is twelve like the number of examinations of a slaughtering knife [···]" (Tanhuma 96:13).

order to understand fully the thinking of this group we should introduce one more fragment into our puzzle. As mentioned above, the story of the Mainz affair is not presented in chronological order, so much so that Baer suggests the Urtext version of the Mainz account was torn to pieces and reconstructed with much chronological distortion. In a later section, devoted to individual martyrs, we again find reference to this group: It was then that Rabenu Isaac bar R. Moses and the rest of the rabbis and notables with him sat in the courtyard of the bishop weeping, with their necks outstretched, saying: When will the ruffians come so that we may accept the sentence of Heaven [...]. 36

What we learn from this addition is that together with R. Isaac there were "the rest of the rabbis and notables." This clarifies the picture for us. This was the elite group of spiritual leadership in Mainz that did not go up to the chambers. Rejecting the chroniclers' explanation for their passivity, we believe that this act represents a martyrological ideology. We have here a halakhic stand concerning the central issue: performance of active martyrdom, which was decided upon and was going to be implemented by the community. This was not the ideal solution for the religious challenge they were faced with. We do not mean to claim on the one hand that the rabbis opposed it, and on the other we certainly cannot argue for a unified stand and ideology of the Ashkenazic religious leadership in all the communities. It seems that in Mainz they did not protest, nor did they suggest that it was a sinful act. Yet it was not the ideal. Between the two extremes of opposing it and elevating it to a level as the supreme act of martyrdom, surpassed by no other, there was a scholarly position which M

' Haberman, Sefer Gezerot, 33. T h e story that preceded our passage on Rabenu Menahem bar J u d a h (Haberman united them in one paragraph) does not belong here according to Baer's chronological arrangement. Baer also rightfully corrected the name to Menahem bar David, in accordance with Chronicle C and the Memorbuch. It appears after the eulogy, which sums up and bewails the Mainz martyrdom as a whole, but it does not belong and does not open the section consisting of a group of anecdotes about individual acts of martyrdom. Only following this passage does the chronicler write: "And now I will tell of the great wonders which were performed by those great righteous persons." It is therefore, quite clear that it is in the wrong literary context. Baer's solution that the original chronicle was in front of the editor "in torn pieces" can explain the mistaken location of Rabenu Menahem, but not the repetitious reference to the R. Isaac bar Moses group, including the changes and addition in this version (See: Baer: Gezerat T a T N U , 132 n. 27). O u r suggestion, not without its flaws, is that the editor had in front of him yet another source.

might have commended it, but for the general public only. This is the explanation for their silence on this issue during the assembly in the bishop's courtyard. However, for others, the right thing to do was to follow the classical martyrological models of Hanania, Mishael, and Azaria, and the Ten Martyrs passive martyrdom which was sanctified by Jewish halakhic tradition. 57 In his most recent article on Jewish martyrdom in 1096, A. Grossman expressed reservations about my conclusion as to the position of rabbinical circles toward active martyrdom during the First Crusade. 58 He bases his argument on two points: (a) that Rabenu Menahem bar David Halevi, a renowned scholar in Mainz, encouraged the assembly of that community to take the path of active martyrdom. Other rabbis, from communities secondary in importance, who took part in the ritual of slaughtering, are described as scholars and halakhic authorities and (b) that it is difficult to imagine all those acts of active martyrdom taking place if the rabbis had objected to the principle.

Grossman adds that the fact that the simple people are mentioned, rather than the leaders, is intentional and clue to the wish of the chronicler to impress upon his audience that even the common people committed the most difficult acts of active martyrdom. Indeed, I did not mean to include in my argument all of the Rhineland communities that participated in the ritual of active martyrdom, nor did I suggest that there was an unequivocal objection of halakhists to those acts. What is clear, relying on the chronicles, is that the majority of the Mainz Jewish community leadership did not participate in the slaughtering. It would suffice for us to show that this was the situation in Mainz, the model community and Torah center in Ashkenaz. The chronicles do not attempt to hide this fact but rather choose to explain it away in a manner which is unacceptable to us. Moreover, Grossman's comment that we have no names of any major

" See also Chazan's observation that "R. Isaac bar Moses and his friends" represent "the more traditional and conservative attitude among the Jews" (R. Chazan, Masa ha-^e.lav ha-Ruhon veha-Yehudim, Jerusalem, 2000, 68, 119. Cf.: Idem, European Jewry, 107-8, 114). 38 A. Grossman, "Bein 1012 le-1096: Ha-Reqa ha-Tarbuti veha-Hevrati le-Kiddush 11a-Shem be-TaTNU," Yehudim Mul ha-^elav, 59-60. He based his criticism on my oral presentation at the Dinnur Center, Jerusalem, 1996.

halakhic authority from Worms who is told to have performed active martyrdom, only strengthens our argument, because it means that we know of no rabbis from these two major communities who were part of the self-slaughter. Certainly one cannot deny that there were such rabbis. As Grossman noted, the rabbi in Xanten preached for active martyrdom. Chronicle Β supplies us with another anecdote in support of rabbinical participation in active martyrdom (which is of import to the issue of the practice of it before 1096).39 As for Rabenu Menahem bar David Halevi, his behavior only serves to reinforce our argument. In Sefer Gimatnya'ot, composed by Rabbi J u d a h he-Hasid, we find a passage which seems to relate to this episode of martyrdom: "A great rabbi in (or: The great rabbi of) Mainz wrapped himself in his prayer-shawl and said: 'Watch me and do likewise.' He sat and recited the Shema and was killed stretching out his neck saying, 'the Lord is our God, the Lord is one.'" 4 0 E.E. Urbach identified this rabbi as Rabenu Menahem who, according to the chronicle preached to the community about reciting the Shema.[i We believe that it is Rabbi Isaac bar Moses who is referred to here. If Urbach is right, then we have not even the name of one rabbi who participated in the active martyrdom in Mainz. At any rate, perusing the references in both Chronicles A and Β reveals that there is not even one shred of evidence that Rabenu Menahem exhorted the community to perform active martyrdom. It was a sermon which intended to urge everyone to remain faithful to his faith and to conquer all fears. T h e chronicles tell that in the end, "they all shouted with one voice and one heart; 'Shema Israel [...]."' 4 2 It is not clear at what stage this

M<

This story has the stamp of truth about it: "And there was there one rabbi who was commonly known as 'the rabbi from France.' (We do not know his name. They probably called him ^arfati, a name which can be found several times in the Memorbuch.) And he told everybody: 'That is how we do it in our place.' He dug a hole and recited the blessing al ha-shehitah, and died before God. All the people prèscnt responded: 'Shema Israel [...]'." (Haberman, Sefer Gezerot, 78). 40 M. Güdemann, Geschichte des Erziehungens und der Cultur der Juden in Frankreich und Deutschland, Wien 1880, 151 n. 2. Ii has been recently published: D. Abrahams and I Ta-Shma, Sefer Gimatnya'ot le-Rabi Yehudah he-Hasid, Los Angeles, 1998, 49a. 41 Arugat ha-Bosem [E.E. Urbach ed.] IV, Jerusalem, 1963, 183. 12 Haberman, Sefer Gezerot, 33, 100. Baer has suggested that the lack of reference to active martyrdom in the liturgical poems, written in the wake of 1096 and adopted by the communities as part of the synagogual services, is due to the problem of this

sermon was delivered and, at any rate, the report does not end by saying that they all ran to slaughter their families. What did Rabenu Menahem himself do? It is likely that he joined the group of martyrs who awaited their death at the hands of their enemies. Beyond that (and chronologically beyond 1096) the significance of Judah he-Hasid's historical information needs some attention. Apparendy, he understood the act of the "great rabbi in Mainz" as religious instruction. He must have known that many of this "holy congregation" died at their own hands, and yet he emphasizes the act and recommendation of a rabbi who died passively. Moreover, we should pay attention to the fact that in Sefer Hasidim—which contains not a few references to Kiddush ha-Shem, most of which were written under the influence of the 1096 events—there is not even one instance of, or reference to active martyrdom! This is consistent with the indirect recommendation in the short passage from Sefer Gimatriya'ot, and therefore it might not be too far-fetched to interpret this as an intended omission. practice from the rabbinic-halakhic point of view (Baer, Gezerat T a T N U , 138-9). However, some of the poems do contain extreme descriptions of self-slaughter. Let us also point out that some of the poets who omit any reference to this practice in one poem do mention it, and even describe it vividly, in another. This issue is still in need of closer examination. I hope to address it in a forthcoming critical edition of the 1096 piyyutim.

CHAPTER TWO

A HALAKHIC AND H U M A N DILEMMA: THE ASHKENAZIC STRUGGLE W I T H ITS O W N T R A D I T I O N T h e Ashkenazic martyrological tradition in general and that of active martyrdom in particular, were forged during the First Crusade events. The traumatic situation the Jews were faced with and their defiant response which were carved deep in its consciousness became the foundation of its special martyrological ethos. T h e Jews made sure that traces of 1096 would remain not only in the chronicles, a unique medieval historiographical monument, but also in massive liturgical additions and changes, and in a variety of customs. One may almost speak of a memory industry. 1 Indeed, the martyrological tradition of a few centuries traces its roots to 1096. In this respect, the First Crusade was a watershed which served as the real basis for future rabbinic decisions in matters of active martyrdom when they could not find relevant halakhic references in a milleniun of halakhic literature. In the matter of slaughtering women and children as an act of martyrdom, it was a clear case in which reality forcefully dictated the course of tradition and Halakhahr In the previous chapter we attempted to show that some halakhic authorities during 1096, either refrained from granting wholehearted approval to active martyrdom or they maintained silence on the issue. Talmudic halakhic and aggadic sources advocate martyrdom in certain cases, but there was no hint that there could be any hypothetical situation in which one could actively sacrifice his wife and children on the altar of faith. No doubt, with respect to the standard manner of halakhic decision-making—locating relevant references in the halakhic literature and applying them to the problem at hand—such acts bordered on murder. 3 After 1096, the very real and shocking self1

See: A. Gross, "Hirhurim al Hebetim Hilkhatiyim velo-Hilkhatiyim shel Kiddush ha‫־‬Shem be-TaTNU," /. Twersky Memorial Volume, Cambridge, Mass (forthcoming). 2 H. Soloveitchik, "Religious Law and Change: T h e Ashkenazic Example," AJS Review 12, 1987, 208-11. 5 Soloveitchic, Religious Law, 209.

sacrifice of the Jews had to be taken into account by the generations of halakhists who followed. A denunciation of whole communities, sometimes including their religious leadership, was virtually out of the question. It is clear that the norm of active martyrdom had to be justified, if for no other reason than the fact that it had taken place. Nonetheless, we argue that the issue was not setded. T h e controversy continued into the next centuries until the practice waned and eventually disappeared. After all, it was not only halakhically problematic, but also humanly appalling. Continuity of the Phenomenon and the Development of Traditions Some historians insist on the limited nature of the actual manifestation of active martyrdom during the persecutions of 1096, branding the Hebrew chronicles as literature based largely on the imagination of later writers and redactors, who were guided by a tendentious agenda. This, they claim, would render the chronicles unreliable as factual information as far as the modern historian is concerned. Even if one chooses to adopt this methodological restriction, one fact would remain unshaken: the myth of T a T N U was not diminished. Northern and central European Jews during the High Middle Ages were not affected by modern historiographical critical attitudes and accepted the written and oral traditions of martyrology without hesitation. So much so, that the landmark martyrdom during 1096 resulted in a steady tradition of active martyrdom which lasted a number of centuries. Before turning our attention to an analysis of the positions regarding active martyrdom, we will illustrate the chronological continuity of the practice until its waning in the fifteenth century. We will also point out some nuances of traditions which seem to be rooted in 1096. In 1190 there were economic-religious oriented riots against the Jews in York, England. Some of the Jews who found refuge in Clifford Tower, decided to end their lives in a collective martyrdom at their own hands. Both major sources which inform us of the events that took place there, agree that the rabbi, Yom-Tov of Joigny, a French Tosafist, had a central role in that decision. William of Newbury relates in some detail that the rabbi delivered a sermon, which was, in essence, an exhortation to martyrdom, and immediately after that, the self-slaughter took place. 4 Rabbi Ephraim of Bonn writes: "And ' I.Jacobs, The Jews of Angevin England, London, 1893, 124-7.

Rabbi Yom-Tov stood up and slaughtered about sixty souls. Others also took part in the slaughter. One ordered his only son to be slaughtered [...]. Others were burned for the unity of their Creator. T h e sum of the holy souls killed or burnt amounted to about one hundred and fifty." 3 T h e contents of the rabbi's sermon seem to be directly connected to the martyrdom scene in the bishop's courtyard in Mainz, as described in the Hebrew chronicles. 6 We are informed of two cases of self-immolation as atonement for Jews who were baptized during the persecution against them in Konstanz in 1349. Sorely regretting their conversion, they decided to commit suicide. Each of them set fire to his home and was burned to death (in one case with his sons).7 It is possible that these acts draw on a similar case of two Jews in Mainz in 1096.8 In a responsum of Rabbi Judah he-Hasid we read of a recommendation to a man who had accepted baptism, to drown himself. The end of the responsum reads: "And there was an apostate [meshumad] who said that since he had sinned with water [i.e., been baptized], therefore he must drown himself in water as atonement." 9 Ta-Shma asserts that there is no testimony that "this sort of frightful penance was practiced before the generation of the initiators of Hasidut Ashkenaz, and there is not a shred of evidence for such an idea in our sources." But reviewing the practices of the hasidim during 1096, we find a case that might have been the one referred to by Rabbi Judah he-Hasid• In Neuss there was a hasid, Rabbi Isaac Halevi, who was semi-conscious due to beatings by enemies, and in that physical state they baptized him. When he realized what had happened he went to the Rhine and drowned himself. Driven by heavy guilt feelings for what took place, albeit without his consent or even his knowledge, he spontaneously decided to cleanse himself from the "stench" of the baptismal waters, which stuck to him. He would purify his body by ritual immersion and his soul by drowning. Such acts by the Jews in 1096 seem to have had a lasting

5

Haberman, Sefer Gezerot, 128. Sefer ^ekhirah [A.M. Haberman ed.] Jerusalem, 1970, 35. 6 See above, chapter 1. ' Minti, "Kiddush ha-Shem," 219. Surveying post-twelvth century martyrdom cases Minti brands fire as the preferred death by the Jews (221-2). 8 For a citation from one of the chronicles, see below p. 57. 9 I. Ta-Shma, "Hit'abdut ve-Rezah ha‫־‬Zulat al Kiddush ha-Shem," Yehudim Mut ha-^elav, 153.

influence on patterns of behavior in the Ashkenazic cultural sphere even after several generations. 10 J u d a h he-Hasid adduces as a midrashic textproof the story about the nephew of Yose ben Yo'ezer who sentenced himself to death as atonement. It is quite possible that Rabbi Jacob Weil of the fifteenth century was influenced by this tradition of penance, which started in 1096 and was justified and supported by Rabbi J u d a h he-Hasid—in a responsum, the background of which is not entirely clear. By and large, it is about a Jew who had been killed by Christians in "a violent death after great tortures," after handing himself over to them. Here is the passage, relevant to our discussion: Moreover, since he handed himself over to be killed, as you have written, that someone had told him: Go outside [...] and hand yourself over so that you will attain atonement, and he did so. Now since he gave his life to attain atonement, he certainly attained it. Similarly, we find a story brought in Bereshit Rabbah about the son of Yose ben Yo'ezer, who behaved improperly and managed to execute himself in all four forms of death used by Beit Din, and a Bat Qol was heard announcing that he was summoned to life in the World to C o m e . "

In a selihah, composed by David bar Samson, dedicated to an event of martyrdom in France during the thirteenth century, the poet describes the self-slaughtering while giving some specific names of the victims. He refers to the local rabbi's role: "At the gates there stood Rabbi Joseph the Sage / He did not know his brethren but slit the throats of / the sheep at the time of gathering / 'To sacrifice to God I came'." 1 2 Again, the rabbi is assuming an active role in the (ritual) slaughter. As we will see below, there is more evidence that the role of the rabbi in such situations, to act as the chief communal slaughterer, became to some extent a tradition. 13 The wave of riots against the Jews in 1298, known as the "Rindfleisch Persecutions," was by far more comprehensive and devastating than the

111 It is worthwhile noting that the radical recommendations of penance by death, found in R. J u d a h he-Hasid''s responsa did not find its way to Sefer Hasidim, as already observed by J . Elboim, Teshuvat ha-Lev ve-Qabbalat Tisurim, Jerusalem, 1993, 15 n. 13. 11 She'elot u-Teshuvot MaHaRI Wal, Jerusalem, 1959, 77. 12 H. Schirmann, "Qinot al ha-Gezerot be-Erez Yisrael, Africa, Sefarad, Ashkenaz ve-Zarfat," Qovez al Tad n.s. 3 [13] 1, 1940, 44. 13 Cf. Soloveitchic, Halakhah, 103 η. 57.

1096 persecutions. 14 Scores of communities were sacked and destroyed. In various piyyution we read about, "The virgin daughter of my people who should have become a bride with a bridal canopy, set the fire and leaped into it [...]. Beautiful women [...] slit the throats of their children [...]. On the same day she slaughtered herself and her son." 15 In the Memorbuch we read about Genenlin of Bamberg, "and the boy Solomon ben Asher and three children whom she slaughtered," and in Holfeld, "[...] and his son Rabbi Isaac with his wife and children, and he slaughtered [them] in the ritual bath [ba-merhaz] together with his children."1*' Christian sources, reporting these persecutions, also inform of active martyrdom performed by the Jews. It is told that in Wirtzburg, "when they realized that they would not be able to escape the Christians, the Jews killed their wives, brothers, sisters, other relatives and especially their children, casting all of them along with their possessions into the fire." In one detailed anecdote we read: O n e young, beautiful Jewish woman was captured by her neighbors, who promised to save her if she would agree to accept baptism. The town elders summoned her, comforted her gently, and told her: "We will get you a husband and property and free you from all sorts of taxes and levies." The woman responded: "Allow me time until tomorrow to give my answer." [...] The next day the woman returned with a shining countenance and in an outwardly happy tone, declared: "You should know, gentlemen, that I have slit my children's throats. I have also distributed my possessions among those I have designated. Now I am submitting my body to you, and you can do with it as you wish. Be informed that I despise the worship of your god and that for the past seven years, I have placed his image in my shoes under my feet to disgrace him [...] They called Rindfleisch right away and handed her over to him. His servants, the torturing hangmen, brought her to the area of execution and there she died willingly.17 14

As for 1096, the trend of decreasing the number of victims and comprehensive physical damage of the communities has become increasingly accepted by scholars. See: Chazan, European Jewry and the First Crusade, Berkeley, 1987, 200. S. Schwartzfuchs, "Meqomam shel Mas'ei ha-Zelav be-Divrei Yemei Yisrael," Tarbut ve-Hewah be-Toldot Tisrael bi-Temei ha-Beinayim: Qovez Ma'amarim le-^ikhro shel H.H. Ben-Sasson, Jerusalem, 1989, 251-67. Grossman, Shorashav, 100-5. 15 Haberman, Sefer Gezerot, 224-5. S. Salfeld, Das Martyrologium des Nürnberger Memorbuches, Berlin, 1898, pp. 50-1. The slaughter in the Jewish ritual bath might be symbolic of the rejection of Christian baptism. '‫ י‬M. Minti, "Kiddush ha-Shem be-Einei No?rim be-Germania bi-Yemei haBeinayyim," Zion 59, 1994, 238.

Mary Minti describes this story as "historically reliable from the perspective of the Wirtzburg persecutions in 1298," while on the other hand, she sees in it a narrative whose "historical veracity is doubtful," and talks about the "creator of the story." We need not accept all the details in this account as historically authentic, but we must emphasize that it contains no puzzling or problematic element. If it was a Jewish text, one might have claimed that it contained literary motifs from the famous story of Rabbi Amnon of Mainz, who asked the bishop to grant him three days in order to respond to his conversion proposal, or from the Rachel narrative in the 1096 chronicles, where she slaughters her children out of a sense of religious duty combined with the sorrow of a mother for the future of her children. But our narrative comes from a Christian source, which should be taken as independent of Hebrew hagiography. Also, the trampling of the Cross in one's shoe is neither a unique to that woman, nor to this narrative. 18 About twenty years later, the "Lepers Persecutions" swept through parts of France. Rabbi Joseph Hakohen informs us that: Many chose to kill each other [...] drawing lots among them to determine who would kill his brethren. All of them died there. The last two who remained, threw themselves from the tower to the ground and died as well. 19

Christian sources from the era of the Black Death in the middle of the fourteenth century confirm that the practice of active martyrdom continued, and historiographically reinforce the piyyutim, which documented the persecutions and acts of martyrdom from 1096. These often included the names of the victims/martyrs. T h e murder and destruction of European Jewry, during which many communities were uprooted and annihilated, did not leave much in terms of Jewish prose documentation. T h e lists in the Memorbucher do not mention individual names any longer, but only the names of communities that were decimated. However, Christian sources supply us with enough

18

O n various forms of desecration and abuse of the Cross by Jews, see recently: E. Horowitz, "Ha-Zelav ha-Doqer," Jehudim Mul ha-^elav, 118-40. On spitting on the Cross in Witzburg itself some 150 years earlier, see; ibid, 123. 19 R.Joseph Hakohen, Emeq ha-Bakha, 73.

information to determine that active martyrdom was no rare occasion during the Black Death. 2 0 In Prague, on the final day of Passover 1389, religious riots against the Jews broke out, in the course of which they were offered the choice of conversion or death. Most of the Jews died as martyrs. In a selihah of Rabbi Avigdor Qara we read: "Anyone who was soft-hearted, his son slaughtered him / and [even] the mother's compassion did not seek to help her child to escape / [...] / the old teacher, the man of rank amongst his people / so that they would not abuse him, hurried / to slaughter his sons and the members of his household with him / it is for that [reason] that my heart trembled and moved out of its place." 21 One of the great persecutions, which left its imprint in the responsa literature, took place in Austria in 1421. Rabbi Israel Isserlein talks about "the well known imprisonment and the Austrian persecution, owing to our sins, which took place from the tenth day of Sivan one hundred and eighty (1420) until the ninth day of Nissan one hundred and eighty one (142l)." 22 From a short account originally written in Yiddish, we learn about the course of events in some detail. On the advice of an apostate it was decided to abduct all Jewish youth up to the age of fifteen and baptize them by force. The scheme was revealed by a Jewish woman who had "dealings with one of the officials." At this point, The Jews shouted loudly: "Alas, they are going to defile our pure and holy children, God forbid," and they reached a decision to take their own lives for the sanctification of God. They drew lots and it came out that the hasid Rabbi Jonah Hakohen would carry it out. This happened on the festival of Sukkot (Tabernacles). The rabbi stood in front of the Holy Ark and the entire congregation asked for forgiveness from each other, recited confession, and were slaughtered before the Holy Ark in the men's section. Also the women were slaughtered in the women's section for the sanctification of God. There was one woman remaining who asked Rabbi Jonah to slaughter her through the window of the women section. Then, Rabbi Jonah, having no strength left to slaughter himself, removed all the beams in the synagogue, put them in a pile and

20

Minti, "Kiddush ha-Shem," 217-9. S. Bernfeld, Sefer ha-Dema'ot, 161. 22 Terumat ha-Deshen, Warsaw, 1882, 44a, no. 241. See also: Minti, "Kiddush ha-Shem", 219-20. 21

poured all of the oil on them Then he asked God for forgiveness, since what he had done was for the sake of Heaven. He sat on the altar and set fire to it from below. When the flames rose, he killed himself. 5 ‫־‬

We have no way of verifying the details of this account. However, there are some which are known to us from the 1096 chronicles and liturgical poetry, as well as from the martyrological tradition which has subsequently developed. Drawing lots to choose the slaughterer is known from previous cases. The death ritual, chosen by Rabbi Jonah, reminds us of the case of Isaac bar David, the Parnas from Mainz, who killed his children and set fire to the synagogue. 24 Of interest is the continuation of the sacrificial ritual, a central motif in 1096. Rabbi J o n a h constructs an altar from the internal wooden beams of the synagogue, lights the flame and places himself on the pyre, in order to slaughter himself and give himself up as a burnt-offering. We read that he asked for forgiveness from God for all "his acts [ma'asav]." It is not entirely clear whether this refers to the burning down of the synagogue only, or for the slaughtering as well. It is conceivable that he had some feelings of remorse over the killing, not being sure that he had done the proper thing. 25 At the same time the Hussite revolt was raging in Bohemia and the Jews suffered from persecutions. In one case, where the readiness for martyrdom did not materialize, we are told: [...] as I saw then, because I was at the time in the house of Rabbi Nathan, may he rest in peace, and I was told that they were there [...] in grave danger. Rabbi Nathan had gathered many children and put them in his wife's care, commanding her to be on the alert so that if she should hear him shout, she was to be ready to slaughter all the children he had left in her care. But a miracle happened and they were saved. 26

The rabbi who initiated the gathering of the children and who took it upon himself (and his wife) to slaughter them, was Rabbi Nathan Eger, one of the important rabbinical authorities in Bohemia during

23 24

Bernfeld, Sefer ha-Dema'ot, 169. See the long narrative of this anecdote in Chronicle A (Haberman, Sefer Gezerot,

37-8). 25

See below, the responsum of R. Meir of Rothenburg. I. Yuval, "Yehudim, Hussitim ve-Germanim al pi ha-Khronikah 'Gilgul Benei Hushim'," gort 54, 1989, 316. 26

the first half of the fifteenth century. 27 Not only did the rabbi see in slaughtering children a legitimate form of martyrdom, but so did the writer of the chronicle, Rabbi Zalman of St. Goar, an eminent disciple of Rabbi Jacob Moelin (.MaHaRIL). 28 We can, without much difficulty, add cases of active martyrdom until the fourteenth century. However, to the best of my knowledge, there are no instances, after the ones mentioned above, in the Ashkenazie cultural realm in the fifteenth century. There is one exception in 1492. 29 It took place during a particularly complicated case of Host desecration libel, which led to the conviction of about thirty Jews and their sentencing to death at the stake. 30 Throughout the period lasting until the nineteenth century we find many cases of suicides by fire, drowning, strangulation and by sword. This was prevalent among individuals who were jailed and faced interrogation-related tortures, various libels, or during riots and persecutions, when they wanted to avoid the difficult religious trial of baptism or death, men afraid of being abused by the enemy and women who wanted to avoid being raped. But we no longer find the killing of children such as it was carried out in 1096.

27

See about R. Zalman of St. Goar: I. Yuval, Hakhamim be-Doram: Ha-Alanhigut ha-Ruhanit shel Tehudei Germaniah be-Shilhei Temei ha-Beinayim, Jerusalem, 1989, 173. 28 Yuval, Yehudim, 276-7. Concerning the readiness of Jews for self-sacrifice, it would seem that the chronicler tries to argue that the Jews were no less pious than the Hussites who voluntarily jumped into the pyre in which J a n Huss' was burnt. One of the manuscripts refers to this spontaneous act as martyrdom, but using the Jewish terminology: "And in the same scene of the fire, the rest of the priests [galahim], out of their own initiative, said: 'We will also die' [...], jumped into the flames for the sanctification of the Name [Kiddush ha-Shem] and were consumed" (Ibid., 310, and also, 284 n. 34). O n courting martyrdom, a characteristic of Christian martyrdom, see my monograph: Spirituality and Law: Courting Martyrdom in Christianity and Judaism (forthcoming). 29 L. Zunz, Die synagogale Poesie des Mittelalters, Frankfurt am Main, 1920, 52. L. Donath, Geschichte der Juden in Mecklenburg, Leipzig, 1874. 30 Bernfeld, Sefer ha-Dema'ot, 298. For a detailed discussion of the contradictions between the sources as to the exact number of victims, see: Qalman. D. Horowitz, Qedoshei Yisrael va-Harugav, 1904, Ms. Institute for Oriental Studies, St. Petersburg, no. B397, entry: Aharon ben Mordekhai) In a Yizkor list of the victims of this event we find: "May God remember the souls of the city of Mecklenburg : R. Aaron bar Mordekhai and his holy son, R. Mendeln, and R. Aaron and his holy son R. Mekhel, and his wife whose name was Hendeln, slaughtered herselfand her three children." (On the events in Portugal during 1497 see below, chapter 3.)

Halakhic References and Discussions References to active martyrdom as a halakhic issue are quite limited. The first, most famous and most authoritative one is that of Rabenu Jacob Tarn in the Tosafot on B. Avodah £ara, 18a. The context is that of Rabbi Hanina ben Teradion's execution by the Romans for the public study of Torah. While Rabbi Hanina is burning at the stake, wrapped with the Torah scroll, his students suggest that he hasten his death by opening his mouth. T o this, he answers: "It is preferable that the O n e who has given the soul will take it instead of dying by one's own hand." In the Tosafot we read: "Rabenu T a m says that if one is afraid that the Gentiles will force him to sin [ya'avirum la-averah], for example by torture that he would not be able to resist, then it is a mizvah to hurt (kill) himself, as in the case found in (tractate) Gittin of the children who were captured for immoral purposes [qalon\ and threw themselves into the sea." Although he talks only about suicide, he was understood by some as also recommending the killing of others. 31 It is difficult to find any apologetic overtones in this short halakhic instruction. Some of the later halakhic sources would polemicize, criticize, or at the very least, recoil both religiously and emotionally from this radical form of response that had become an accepted practice in Ashkenaz, to the conversion trial. Haim Soloveitchik has emphasized the halakhic confusion of the Tosafists in their attempts to explain the actions of their ancestors and rabbis. If for suicide there were some sources, mostly aggadic, killing children could be accepted on the basis of "reason" alone, as an extension of permitted suicide. 32 Soloveitchik maintains that the acceptance and justification of active martyrdom was all-inclusive among the vast majority of Ashkenazic authorities. True, there is one exception from the Tosafists school who voiced a strong objection, but at the end of the day, he concluded that such "protests are anonymous or from men of no consequence." 3 3 It is this assertion about the attitude of Ashkenazic halakhists to this painful issue that we want to re-examine in the following pages. W'e will begin with a passage, cited by Soloveitchik:

31 32 33

Soloveitchik, "Religious Law," 210 n. 8. Gross, "Al Ma'asei," 179. Soloveitchik, "Religious Law," 210 n. 8.

[...] to teach us that if one is afraid of being tortured and he will not be able to endure it and subsequently, pass the trial, he may kill himself. It is from here that those who slaughter the children [ha-tinoqot] in times of religious persecution [shemad] bring proof [for their practice]. And there are those who forbid it and interpret thus: [... | That is to say that one may never kill oneself, and Saul did it without the permission of the sages. (Rabbi S. bar Abraham Ukhman) There was a case of a rabbi who slaughtered many children during religious persecutions because he was afraid that they would be forced to convert. And there was with him another rabbi who was very angry with him (to the extent) that he called him a "murderer." And that rabbi said: "If I am right, may this rabbi die a violent death \mitah meshunah]. Indeed, that is what happened. The idolators caught him, stripped off his skin and put sand between his skin and his flesh. After that the persecutions were stopped. Had he not slaughtered those children, they would have been saved. 54

We read here that the case of King Saul's suicide, according to the Midrash, which served as a proof text for "those who slaughter the children in times of religious persecution bring proof [for their practice]," and we have already pointed to the centrality of it for those who allowed or even recommended active martyrdom. 5 ' However, we are interested here more in the opinion of those who objected to this practice and forbade it. It is true that this opinion is represented here in the name of an unknown Tosafist who, as Soloveitchik noted, was certainly not one of the central pillars of Ashkenazic Halakhah during the period of the Tosafists. But he was not alone. T h e text reads in the plural: "And there are those who forbid it." Put another way, there are "those who do not slaughter the children." Moreover, let us stress that this opinion is defiantly against Rabenu Tarn's authoritative stance, which was believed to extend beyond suicide to the slaughtering of others. If we may rely on the testimony of this text, then there was indeed an objection to the widely accepted halakhic attitude towards active martyrdom among halakhists in the twelfth a n d / o r thirteenth century. From a literary point of view it was almost "underground" and was not expressed in

34

Rabotenu Ba'aleiha-Tosafot alHamuhah Humshei Torah, Warsaw, 1877, 30. See also: Rabbi Aharon of Lunel, Orhot Hayyim II [M. Schlezinger ed.], Berlin, 1902, 26. 35 Above, chapter I.

halakhic texts of the period. This should come as no surprise. After all, this was hardly a trivial matter but rather, a major topic in the ongoing historical existence of Ashkenazic Jewry. In maintaining such a stand, those rabbis were hurling a murder charge—it is "murderer" that the rabbi is called by his colleague—at their ancestors who were believed to be righteous and saintly, and whose acts of self-sacrifice had become supremely heroic models for emulation, be it through oral traditions, liturgical poetry, Memorbucher, or references in halakhic writings. 36 T h e end of the story, seems to indicate very clearly the attitude of the editor. The brutal death of the rabbi-slaughterer proves it. The information added at the end about the fact that the children could have been saved were it not for the rabbi's zeal, would appear to provide further proof that he and his way, were wrong, but not the halakhic argument per se. This passage from the Tosafists commentary on the Torah is the most explicit objection raised against active martyrdom. However, there are more sources that reveal a pervading atmosphere of doubt concerning this issue in Ashkenaz during this period. In the Nüremberg Memorbuch, found among the victims in the persecution in Koblenz on "the fifteenth of Nissan, twenty five" (1265) was the "wife of Rabbi Abraham bar Moses and his children who were slaughtered." 37 The case of this wretched Jew who had slaughtered his family, was brought to Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg (MaHaRaM): One Jew asked MaHaRaM, whether he needed to do penance for the slaughtering of his wife and children on a day of massacre in Koblenz, the town of bloodshed. He did so because they had asked him to when they saw that God was unleashing his wrath and the enemy had started to murder the childlren of the living God for the sanctification of the Name. He wanted to kill himself together with them, but God saved him through some Gentiles. MaHaRaM responded to him: I do not have a definite answer to this query. It is clear that one is permitted to take his own life for the sanetification of the Name, as the sages said [...] 3 8 and there are many such 35

For a sharp invective against rabbis who objected to the recital of piyyutim during prayer and were silenced to the point of complete anonymity of their identity and even of their argumentation, see: I. Ta-Shma, Minhag Ashkenaz ha-Qadmon, Jerusalem, 1992, 90. 37 Salfeld, Martyrologium, 15. 38 Here MaHaRaM brings three proofs; the Aiidrash about King Saul, the story about the four hundred children who were captured and shipped to Rome (B. Gittin,

examples. But concerning the slaughter of others one must look very hard into this matter to find evidence which allows it. However, such an act became widely accepted as permissible, and we have heard of many great authorities who slaughtered their sons and daughters. Also, Rabenu Qalonimos (bar Judah) wrote about it [asah ken. Literally: did so] in the dirge which begins with the words amarti she'u meni.M Thus, anyone who requires him to do penance, would thereby vilify the pious men of former days [ha-hasidim ha-Hshonim]. And since his intentions were good and out of the abundance of his love for our Creator did he harm his loved ones, and they also begged him (to kill them) [...] one should not deal harshly with him. 40

The Jew was asking whether he needs to do penance to expiate the slaughter of his family. In the summation of his responsum, MaHaRaM says that, "anyone who requires him to do penance, would thereby vilify the pious men of former days." We learn from this that there was a cadre of people who thought that he acted improperly, or that the father himself, suffering from a guilty conscience, initiated the query. It is also possible that Rabbi Meir, anticipated the critical reactions of the Jewish "street." The striking feature of this responsum is its halakhically indecisive nature. MaHaRaM states so in an opening declaration: "I do not now have a definite answer to this query.' 5 The solution to the question put to him is problematic, since halakhic sources normally available to the rabbi are non-existent. MaHaRaAf s stand is particularly of interest since the issue of active martyrdom was not new and he was aware that, "such an act became widely accepted as permissible." MaHaRaM certainly had occasion to reflect on this practice previously. For suicide as a form of martyrdom, he has no problem answering, using materials such as the King Saul case and the story of the four hundred children which were known to him from earlier discussions of 57b), and the story about the mother of the seven sons who climbed up to the roof, jumped off and died, while a Bat Qol approved of the act (ibid.). The original story is about the Antiochian persecutions (167 B.C.) and appears in the Books of Maccabees. The Talmud shifts it to the Hadrianic persecutions (132-135 A.D.). *‫ יי‬Here MaHaRaM tries halfheartedly to bring an original proof from the Midrash about King Saul. He does this by extending the exception of Saul to the beginning of the biblical verse as well which deals with plain murder: in cases such as Saul's one can even murder. 4(1 Teshuvot, Pesaqim u-Alinhagim [Y.Z. Kahana ed.], Jerusalem, 1960, 54. I have used some of the translation supplied in: I. Agus, Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg II, Philadelphia, 1947, 679.

the problem. But for the dilemma at hand, he could not adduce any halakhic precedents or explicit halakhic tradition. Very gendy he writes: "But concerning the slaughter of others one must look very hard into this matter to find evidence that would allow it." The best he could do was to reach one definite conclusion: that there is no tradition of halakhic ruling which brands active martyrdom as murder. But since one needs no evidence to declare that an act of killing is forbidden, the normal ruling that must follow is that it is murder. At this point MaHaRaM, who cannot avoid an authoritative answer, writes hesitantly: "However, such an act became widely accepted as permissible, and we have heard of many great authorities who slaughtered their sons and daughters," and that Qalonimos wrote a liturgical poem about the 1096 slaughterers with admiration. Here MaHaRaM adds an ingenious interpretation of the Midrash, which excludes cases like King Saul's from the religious prohibition of suicide. He suggests the exclusion, learned from the word "But", can be extended to the second part of the biblical verse which deals with murder, and thus we learn that there is an exclusion from murdering others as well in situations such as King Saul's and forced conversion. As David Berger noted, MaHaRaM is the origin of this novel interpretation. His predecessors did not think of it and allowed the slaughtering without any halakhic precedent. 41 The subtext of this responsum tells us that if he had had to decide in a halakhic vacuum without carrying the heavy burden of Ashkenazic tradition and practice, MaHaRaM would have not permitted active martyrdom on the basis of his novel interpretation of the Midrash. In short, the only reason he is lenient with the slaughtering father is that "anyone who requires him to do penance, would thereby vilify the pious men of former days." 42 MaHaRaM, he greatest Ashkenazic halakhic decisor of his generation, surrenders to a tradition which he cannot adequately justify. 4 5 We must also consider the fact that MaHaRaM is asked after the fact. He receives a question concerning the man after he has killed his

41

D. Berger, "Heqer Rabanut Ashkenaz ha-Qedumah," Tarbiz 53, 1984, 484

n. 6. 42

O n this halakhic concept, see: E. Kanarfogel, "Halakhah and Metziut (Realia) in Medieval Ashkenaz: Surveying the Parameters and Defining the Limits," The Jewish Law Annual 14, 2003, 213 n. 58. 43 His style, decision making and reasoning are quite similar to the discussion of active martyrdom by R. Yom-Tov Isbili in the early fourteenth century Spain (See below, chapter 3).

family. Moreover, it appears that there are some in his social circle who are "good" enough to burden the father with guilt-feelings. Had the same father asked MaHaRaM before whether he would be allowed to slaughter his family, our impression from the responsum is that the rabbi would not have recommended it, since he states clearly that the practice, "became widely accepted as permissible," which is not synonymous with "recommended." I think that the answer to the hypothetical question of whether MaHaRaM would have allowed slaughtering of children had he been asked on the eve of the First Crusade lies somewhere between an unequivocal and a qualified "no". 4 4 Disagreements on the practice of active martyrdom did not cease as attested to by the fourteenth century commentary of Rabbi Moses of Ziirich's on Rabbi Moses of Corbeil's Sefer Mizvot Qatan (SeMaQof Zürich). O n the commandment to sanctify the Name, he comments at relative length: As for those saints [qedoshim], when they were faced with a trial, who slaughtered themselves and their children because they did not want to rely on themselves too much [...] and were afraid that the Gentiles would force them to abandon their religion and the Name of heaven would be desecrated, all of them have a share in the World to Come and are perfect saints [qedoshim gemunm], based on our interpretation of "But" [...]. Also [...] there were four hundred children who were captured in Ashkelon(!) who threw themselves into the sea so that the Name of Heaven would not be desecrated through them, and a Bat Qol announced: "All of them are saints [qedoshim] and are destined for [eternal] life in the World to Come." One should not reply (to this argument) from the story about Rabbi Hanina ben Teradion who did not want to open his mouth [...] because the Rabbi Hanina case is different in that he had already been set on fire with the bundles of straw with which the enemies surrounded him, and he knew that the Name would not be desecrated by him. But it is on this story that they relied in order to slaughter the children in time of religious persecution, because the young ones do not yet know the difference between good and evil and we are afraid that they will settle among the Gentiles and adopt their religion when they grow up. It 44

It would seem that MaHaRahTs reasoning runs contrary to Ta-Shma's criticism of Soloveitchik: "This is not a matter of the image of past generations as holy communities, but the attribute of halakhic weight to existing holy communities." (Ta-Shma, Hit'abdut, 153-4). 45 Here he brings the Midrash on Gen. 9:5 which excludes King Saul.

is better that they die innocent and not guilty. The case of the stubborn and rebellious son is similar in that he is being stoned because of what he might do in the future when he might rob people and desecrate the Sabbath. Thus is it written in the Avi Ezri.46

There is nothing new here in terms of the sources in support of suicide. The version of the legend about the four hundred children is different from the common version, not only in the distortion of Ashkelon instead of le-qalon. In our version, we do not find the addition "so that the Name of heaven would not be desecrated through them." The last scene of the Bat Qol is also an addition that is missing from the known talmudic versions. It would seem that in this addition the author inserted a formulation which appears in other cases of suicides in the Talmud and Midrash.47 What is more interesting is that the phrase of being "destined for life in the World to Come" does appear in the other versions. However, we cannot find the expression "all of them are qedoshim," which is a relatively late adjective, and which even in the thirteenth century had not yet been adopted as an exclusive term for Jewish martyrs. 48 All these changes and additions are connected to the author^ opening declaration about the Ashkenazic active martyrs, who having acted out of the fear that "the Name of Heaven would be desecrated, all of them have a share in the World to Come and are perfect saints [1qedoshim gemurìm]." They "have a share in the World to Come" unlike the suicide who is considered in Jewish tradition as one who "has no share in the World to Come." 4 9 They are not only qedoshim—they are qedoshim gemurim\ This extra emphasis reveals that this expression—just

46

R. Isaac ofCorbeil, Seferha-SeMaQmi-Zürich I, [I. Har-Shoshanim ed.],Jerusalem, 1973, 57-8. T h e attribution of this passage to Avi ha-Ezri, a major halakhic work by Rabbi Eliezer ben Yoel Halevi (RABIaH, late 12th century or beginning of the 13th century) has been shown to be a correct, with the exception of the last reference to ben sorer u-moreh which is a late addition. This passage was, apparently fairly well known in the 13th century, although it is evident that MaHaRaM was not aware of it. It could have reached Rabbi Moses indirecdy from Rabbi Abraham ben Ephraim's Sefer Simanei Taryag Mizvot, composed in the middle of the 13th century (Kanarfogel, "Halakhah and Metziut," 211-4). 47

See sources in: Ta-Shma, Hit'abdut, 153-4. The terms used then were ‫שרופים הרוגים צ ד י ק י ם ת מ י מ י ם ח ס י ד י ם‬ 49 O u r interpretation assumes knowledge of this tradition by the author. We have no conclusive evidence for the spread of this tradition in Ashkenaz in this period. See: M. Shapiro, "Suicide and the World-to-Come," AJS Review 18, 1993, 247. We can, possibly, infer from our text that, it was known in thirteenth century Ashkenaz. 48

like the entire declaration—was not uttered in a halakhic and social vacuum, but was intended as a reply to accusers who saw in those who killed themselves not qedoshim but suicides who have "no share in the World to Come". It goes without saying that these same critics would not have consented to the norm of slaughtering children. 50 Rabbi Menahem Recanati, the fourteenth century Italian qabbalist, did not write in the Ashkenazic geographical realm, and consequently, his reference to active martyrdom does not necessarily enlighten us on any tension that might have existed within the Jewish milieu where it was practiced. Yet it is worthwhile noting that he feels the need to clarify the issue for his audience lest they mistakenly think otherwise that, "anyone who cannot withstand the trial of idolatry and kills himself, is called a saint [qadosh], just like all the others who sanctify the Name." 5 1 Rabbi Shalom of Neustadt who died in 1415/6, was the head of the yeshivah of Vienna, and the teacher of Rabbi Jacob Moelin (MaHaRIL) He was asked a question by a woman from Poland. She explained how she was in the town of Esztergom 52 at the time of the persecution on the Sabbath, that she had slaughtered her children, and finally escaped. And to her question Rabbi Shalom responded that she needs no penance. On the contrary, she acted properly and in accordance

with the HalakhahP The woman has profound guilt feelings for slaughtering her children and the rabbi reassures her, after the fact. This is not intended to encourage the slaughter of children, but to give solace to a bereaved mother who has already committed the act. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine any rabbi who would inflict on parents the unbearably heavy mental burden of guilt feelings related to the murder of one's own children, even if he considered that the act should not have

50

See Soloveitchic's enlightening remarks on the halakhic irrelevance of the case of the rebellious son to the issue at hand (Soloveitchic, Halakhah, 104, 107). Note that contrary to Soloveitchik, according to our interpretation R. Moses of Zurich's "qedoshim gemuúm" is not an expression of this "unconscious unease" with active martyrdom (ibid., 104) but an answer to opposition in Ashkenazic society. 51 Paragraph 69. In the following paragraph he writes about the blessing on the act of slaughter, apparendy from Ashenazic source, as well. 52 The editor identifies it as the town in northern Hungary, where the woman had fled from to Poland. 53 Halakhot u-Minhagei (MaHaRaSH) Rabenu Shalom mi-Neustadt [S. Spitzer ed.], Jerusalem, 1977, 137.

been committed. In other words, it is difficult to learn from this responsum about the rabbi's real attitude to this issue. Moreover, one cannot evaluate his precise stance because we do not have the exact version of the responsum but only a summary, in all probability, of a student of his. On the other hand, even if we cannot clarify the social context and background of the question, we can assume that beyond the personally generated guilt feelings, the woman sent her question after some critical feedback from her socio-religious circle. If she had had unanimous social support she would probably not have bothered to write from Poland to Vienna. We might learn from this something about the doubts among simple people concerning active martyrdom, despite an uninterrupted tradition of more than three hundred years. From the next generation, we have a short pronouncement by Rabbi Menahem Merzburg (1420-1470): "The law concerning a person who slaughtered his wife and children during times of persecution, is that we should not deal severely with him. And certainly one may kill himself for the sanctification of the Name." 5 4 In this case, we find no support for slaughtering. O n the contrary, one senses an aversion to it as compared to suicide. It would seem that the formulation recommending "not to deal severely with him" is borrowed from the responsum of Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg, which only confirms the custom without any real halakhic argument. Here, too, there is no recommendation but only permission. Again, we conclude that active martyrdom, including suicide, encountered objections in various circles in Ashkenaz. The directive is aimed at halakhists who remained anonymous and who thought that they had to deal "severely" with the slaughterer in terms of required penance. Further, we suggest that in this period

54 R . J a c o b Weil, She'elot u-Teshuvot, Jerusalem, 1959, 178. The final section of the paragraph reads: "Reuven accepted of his own free will that his eyes be plucked out. Some people call him 'murderer' (and his sons, 'murderer's sons'). These people must be scolded, and if one continues to do so despite warnings, he deserves excommunication: Bar Hama killed someone. Resh Galuta said: If it is certain that he has done so, may his eyes be darkened [Aramaic; likh'hu'ye einet] (Β. Sanhédrin 27a). Rashi interpreted this to be blinded since death by the court [bet din] does not exist any more. Others interpret it to mean excommunicate him." Although it is tempting to unify both parts of the paragraph, it would seem that S. Eidelberg is right in separating the two parts: the first deals with martyrdom, and the second with the penalty for plain murder (Eidelberg, Jewish Life in Austria in the XVth Century, Philadelphia, 1962, 89. For the correct reading of this most interesting case, cf. Ms. Oxford, Bodley 819 (Opp. 74) and Ms. Amsterdam, Etz Hayyim, 47 A 31 (not paginated).

the objection to active martyrdom increased because of the fact that such acts became rare. It is worthwhile noting that we do not have any information about the slaughter of children in the Ashkenazic cultural sphere from the middle of the fifteenth century, with the exception of the one case in 1492, mentioned earlier, when a mother slaughtered her three children. The absence of records for this period might not teach us anything conclusively, yet it may indicate a significant change in attitude, as argued above. Halakhic reservations and human repulsion from such acts did exist throughout the three hundred years period, but only at the end of that period did this practice wane and ultimately diminish. At the head of the chronology of rabbinic references to active martyrdom there stands Rabbi Solomon Luria (MaHaRSHaL, mid sixteenth century, Poland), who devotes a significant discussion to this issue. Soloveitchik, in referring to MaHaRSHaL's attitude—after asserting that all objections to active martyrdom came from unimportant scholars—declares that MaHaRSHaL expressed pointed objections to suicide and slaughter of children. Solovietchik also negates the possibility that AlaHaRSHaL relied on Rabenu Isaac, a major tosafist of the twelfth century, because the latter apparendy did not object to this practice. Against this backdrop, the attitude οÍ MaHaRSHaL, a towering and daring halakhic figure, stands out all the more conspicuously, alone against the Ashkenazic halakhic written tradition of four and a half centuries. Most of his halakhic deliberation revolves around the issue of suicide in a situation of religious persecution; only toward the end does MaHaRSHaL devote a short discussion arguing against the slaughtering of children. 53 About half is devoted to King Saul's death and the midrashic interpretation which permits suicide in similar cases. MaHaRSHal rejects an interesting (though anachronistic) interpretation, common among Ashkenazic scholars, according to which Saul was afraid of failing the trial and that he would be forced to convert. In his opinion, Saul's suicide was permitted for two reasons. T h e first is "due to the honor of the God-anointed king, since it is not proper that he should die by torture and abuse at the hands of the uncircumcised. And this is a desecration of the Name [...]." Clearly, Ashkenazic Jewry could not justify their suicides on the basis of this precedent which applies only to kings. The second argument is that by his suicide, Saul ‫ י י‬Yam shel Shelomo, Bava Q a m a , chaptcr 8, paragraph 59.

prevented the deaths of many others who would have come to try and free him had they heard that their King was being tortured, "and for the saving of others' lives one can kill himself." This point is of very practical significance for MaHaRSHaL's times. MaHaRSHaL himself spells it out: "However, if one is afraid that being tortured, he might implicate other Jews and cause their death as happens when some rulers torture one J e w because of a libelous accusation that affects the whole community. If one might cause the death of many, that person is allowed to kill himself." Indeed, in this period, and until the nineteenth century, most cases of Kiddush ha-Shem concerned Blood and Host Libels, in which individual Jews were captured and after the extortion of a confession by means of torture, the Christians tried to tie to the bitter fate of the prisoner, as many Jews as they could. After a summary of his halakhic verdict, that one is not permitted to commit suicide in order to prevent a possible failure to withstand the trial of conversion, MaHaRSHaL adds: And one is surely forbidden to slaughter his children so that they be not defiled in the time of religious persecution. If one may not kill oneself, how much more may he not kill others. And presumably, if they are weak [and convert], they will return by themselves (one day). Meanwhile, they are in the category of anusim and [consequently] completely exonerated. Also, most of the forced converts return after a few years, and (if they do not) sometimes their children do. 56

Two elements stand out in these arguments. T h e first lies in what seems to be missing from the discussion. In writing a fairly comprehensive halakhic discourse, MaHaRSHaL completely ignores the opinion of Rabenu Tam, the greatest of the twelfth century Tosafists, who justified active martyrdom. MaHaRSHaL could avoid referring to MaHaRaM s responsum, which is inconclusive and about which it might be argued that he was not aware of its existence. However, ignoring the opinion of Rabenu T a m , an opinion which was well known through the Tosafot and other quotations of his opinion, must be intentional, and therefore is no less than astonishing. Rabenu T a m spoke explicitly about suicide, and an Ashkenazic tradition attributes

56

Despite all that he allows, "setting fire to the house so that he and his children will be burned in the time of persecution. This does not belong to the category of suicide [hovel be-azmo], but rather of one who did not save himself, which is permitted." In other words, since he hurts himself only indirectly, it is permissible in a situation of persecution.

to him the permission of slaughtering children as well. T h e second element lies in the novel and fresh arguments that MaHaRSHaL employs in favor of his strong objection to the slaughter of children. These bring into account the status and future of the children. Being of tender age, he argues, they are now "anusim and [consequently] completely exonerated." This argument, which undoubtedly crossed the minds of the supporters of active martyrdom, is diametrically opposed to theirs, as expressed by Rabbi Eliezer ben Yoel Halevi and Rabbi Moses of Corbeil, "And on this they relied to slaughter the children in time of religious persecution, because they do not know the difference between good and evil and we are afraid lest they setde among the Gentiles in their religion even when they grow up. It is better that they die innocent and not guilty." 57 MaHaRSHaL does not bother to conduct a discussion on the issue, content to voice his objection by bringing his counter-argument. This argument, based on "non-profitability," using historical data about the return of forced-converts to their former faith, is novel. 58 The addition of "and (if they do not return,) sometimes their children do," is interesting because it exposes MaHaRSHaLs thinking and considerations. Now, if "sometimes their children do," it follows that "sometimes their children do 0‫מ‬/." In other words, he bases his conclusion on a cold arithmetical-statistical calculation: a. Slaughtering kills everybody. b. At the end of the day, opting for conversion would result in a small number of children remaining Christians. It seems to us that had we presented the supporters of active martyrdom with MaHaRSHaL s logic, they would have responded trembling with fear: "But what will be of the souls of those who do remain Christian?!"

57

SeMaQmi-Rurich, above. ' The end of the anecdote about the rabbi who slaughtered children and the rabbi who criticized him (above) ends by informing the reader that, "the persecution was stopped, and had he not slaughtered those children, they would have been saved." It would seem tha, if MaHaRSHaL was aware of this text, he was not completely original in his line of argument. However, MaHaRSHaL uses it as a halakhic argument, while in the story it is not a part of the objecting rabbi's argumentation. Secondly, in the story, a per-baptismal salvation seemed to come out of nowhere, and the children were not defiled at all. MaHaRSHaL himself does not appear to be repelled by the prospect of the baptism of Jewish children. ;8

In this respect, it would seem that MaHaRSHaL indeed presents a halakhic discourse with a fresh, indeed, daring spirit. 59 What did he rely on? How revolutionary is his attitude? Is his stand only representative of an existing historical context to which MaHaRSHaL (albeit characteristically daring) only affixes a stamp of validation by anchoring it in proper halakhic discourse and decisions just as Rabenu T a m did for the new norm ushered in with the 1096 active martyrdom? These are still open questions. Conclusion During the entire period of the Tosafists we hear only one clear objection to the slaughter of children, and it is accompanied by a supporting anecdote. T h e narration of the controversy described there is sympathetic to the objectionist stand. Admittedly, this position is not represented by one of the pillars of Ashkenazic Halakhah. But this very fact suggest to us that Rabbi S. Ukhman and the rabbi, who objected vehemendy to the slaughter in that anecdote, did not stand alone, not against the acts of their ancestors and mentors nor against the halakhic tradition since 1096, but rather they represented a living trend, which has not reached us in a neat literal manner in halakhic writings. No doubt the majority of halakhists sided with the tradition forged during the First Crusade. We suggested in Chapter One that already in 1096 there were tacit reservations about active martyrdom on the part of important religious leaders in Mainz who waited passively for their death by the enemy's swords, but did not express these reservations openly. What was suitable under extreme circumstances, and in the light of some aggadic, halakhic and historical sources for the community as a whole, was not

9

of the sixteenth century an on (J. Katz, "Bein T a T N U 1e-TaH-TaT," Sefer ha-Yovel le-Yilhaq Baer, 1961, 318-37.) For some reason Katz does not discuss MaHaRSHaL. If one adopts his reasoning against active martyrdom based on the historical experience that anusim sometimes escaped and reverted to Judaism, this comes dangerously close to the cancellation of the entire idea of martyrdom. If a community opts for conversion and life we may assume that some will return to Judaism. Why, then, choose death? MaHaRSHaL certainly did not mean to imply or legitimize such an attitude. It is his permission to burn one's house down with people inside which shows his adherence to Kiddush ha-Shem, and that the main reason against slaughtering children necessarily stems from his argument against suicide.

congruent with the spirit and practice of the classical Kiddush ha-Shem of Rabbi Akiva and his peers. Even after some one hundred and seventy years, MaHaRaM does not find clear cut halakhic evidence for an unequivocal halakhic decision in favor of slaughtering as a form of martyrdom. He instructs a father who slaughtered his wife and children that he does not need to atone for it because "such an act became widely accepted as permissible [...]. Thus, anyone who should require him to do penance, would thereby vilify the pious men of former days." Eliminate the historically accepted practice of slaughtering wife and children, and you are left with a grave halakhic transgression. T h e final sentence in this responsum makes it abundantly clear that the practice of slaughter was not acceptable to everyone in the community. What is not entirely clear is who scolded the father for his act. Was it a rabbi or possibly, his neighbor? However, other writings support the conclusion—and one can infer it even without written evidence—that, despite the widely accepted and even sanctified Ashkenazic tradition, many could not emotionally agree with it. We can only imagine what the post-traumatic experience of eyewitnesses and the postfactum guilty conscience of surviving slaughterers, such as the father discussed by MaHaRaM, did to raise the level of skepticism and objection. We must remember that the shock from hearing about slaughtered children is neither a halakhic nor a religious issue. It is eminently a human one. There are several Christian sources, from 1096 to the Black Death, which express the shock and dismay of Christian eyewitnesses to Jewish active martyrdom. We find appalled Christians who react with rage over such acts by the Jews. In a 1096 Chronicle we read about the reaction of Christians who witnessed the killing and suicide of Isaac bar David of Mainz amid the fire he set in the synagogue: "And the enemies shouted to him: Evil man, come down from the fire, for you can still be saved, and they handed him a pole to pull him out of the fire."60 Again in Mainz, in the story about Rabbi Qalonimos who slaughtered his son, it is written: "And when the bishop heard that he (Rabbi Qalonimos) had slaughtered his son, he was furious and said: 'From now on I do not want to help you.' 61 Similar testimony can be found in contemporary Christian sources.1'2 Such feelings of 60

Haberman, Sefer Gezerot, 38. Ibid., 41. 62 I. Yuval, "Ha-Naqam veha-Qelalah, ha-Dam veha-Alilah: Mc-Alilot Qedoshim le-Alilot Dam," £ 7 5 - 6,1993,58‫ ־ ן‬0 ‫ מ‬. 61

repulsion, originating not only from the Christian desire to baptize the children, but also from the cruelty of the acts of martyrdom, are found repeatedly in Christian writings in the ensuing centuries. 63 It is for these reasons that it is reasonable to assume that at the heart of the reservations or even objections to active martyrdom, lay an emotional issue, not a halakhic one. Kiddush ha-Shem is not like any other religious commandment. One's entire world and existence depends on his decision to fulfill this religious obligation, and once it is done there is no room for regret. It is irreversible, and there is no way back to this life. When the religiosity of an individual or of a community dictated a direction of self-sacrifice, the fact that it was not demanded by the Halakhah did not stop them. As had happened more than once, here too, the customs and practices of martyrdom first took root and then halakhic decisions were made in keeping with the reality. The practice of slaughtering children during persecutions, though becoming an integral part of the Ashkenazic heritage and martyrological ethos bequeathed for generations orally and through liturgical and prosaic literature, remained problematic as it contradieted the most basic and profound human instincts. As such, it was destined to diminish and finally disappear. We have pointed out that it is difficult to find in the Ashkenazic cultural sphere cases of slaughter after the 1420's. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that MaHaRSHaL, who objected to it so uncompromisingly, only validated the new norm that had already been adopted for several generations. It is quite possible that the nature of persecution in this period contributed to the historical process which ended the practice of active martyrdom. The most common persecutions can be characterized as libel-based. In such cases, adults were taken in for interrogation which was accompanied by torture. Children, however, were not involved in trials of Kiddush ha-Shem. But there were other incidents in which the entire community was punished and the wellremembered choice between death and conversion was revived. Still, we do not encounter the slaughtering of children.134 63 Minti, "Kiddush ha-Shem,'' 224, 230-1. In our opinion, Minti's evaluation is somewhat naïve, in that she ignores missionary impulses, which are reflected in the Christian rage about the slaughtering of the Jewish children, especially when the Gentiles tried to save them (ibid., 224). It is abundantly clear that they were mosdy interested in young converts, which is precisely why the Jews were so intent on killing the children. Cf. Damiao de Gôis' description of the active martyrdom in Portugal in 1497 (Below, chapter 3). 64 See, e.g.: Bernfeld, Sefer ha-Dema'ot, 293-8.

If our observation as to the historical end of this practice is correct, one must ask: why then? The study of childhood in medieval Europe has not yet come to clear and unambiguous conclusions. P. Ariés' pioneering research, suggesting that there was no concept of childhood until the seventeenth century, and that it is difficult to talk about parent-child relationship in the modern terms of love and caring, has generated a series of studies which either support his thesis, contradiet, or adapt it. While some claim that sources Ariés did not make use of contradict his conclusions, others agree with his basic concept but differ with him on the chronological point of change, arguing that the change came earlier, in the fifteenth-sixteenth centuries. 65 If scholarship will find a parallel between Christian and Jewish societies in this respect, and if we accept the notion that it was in the fifteenthsixteenth centuries that parent-children relationships in western and central Europe were shaped by a more tender attitude and practice, then we might conjecture that this is why we no longer hear about active martyrdom with regard to children. 66 T h e question, to what extent did MaHaRSHats halakhic decision influence the final eradication of this Ashkenazic practice, remains open. Suicides of adult men and women did not cease; neither did the joint drowning of fathers and sons, which can be found in the historiographical literature on the 1648-49 persecutions. 67 The distinction seems to have been made regarding the aversion to the raising of ,

‫ יי‬This field has produced a rich scholarly literature. See: Linda A. Pollock, Forgotten Children: Parent-Child Relations from 1500 to 1900, Cambridge, 1983. Shulamit Shahar, Medieval Childhood, London, 1990. Ralph Frenken, "Changes in German Parent-Child Relations from the Fourteenth to the Middle of the Seventeenth Century," Journal of Psychohistory 27, 2000, 266. 66 It seems that this was the main thrust of the slaughtering practice and religious issue, and not so much the killing of wives. (>/ "And some took their young sons on their shoulders and jumped into the river, so that their children would not be heretics" (£a'ar Bat Rabim, in Le-Qorot haGezerot be-T1srael II [H.Y. Gorland ed.], Cracow, 1889, 14). There is one case during the 1648-49 persecutions which might be taken as a collective active martyrdom by slaughtering, including children (though this is not indicated explicitly): "And from there he went to Hobnib(!) where there were a hundred households, and all of them were killed at each others hands, and they were slaughtered so that they would not fall in their enemies hands" (Tit ha-Yeven, in Le-Qorot ha-Gezerot be-Yisrael V [H.Y. Gorland ed.], Cracow, 1892, 14). The town is identified as Homel=Gomel (Y. Fram, Bein T a T N U 1e-TaH-TaT Iyyun me-Hadash," £i0n 61, 1996, 180 n. 96). Although other sources agree that this community died as martyrs, we do not find any other allusion to active martyrdom. The narrative in £uq ha-Ittim is misleading and might have been the source for the misunderstanding. It starts with the sermon

a knife against children which struck such deep emotional roots that once the practice diminished, there was no way back. b8

of the rabbi who spoke about martyrdom. In this sermon we find several sentences in the style of the 1096 chronicles (Le-Qorot ha-Gezerot be-Yisrael IV [H.Y. Gorland ed.], Cracow, 1889, 14). Anyone who reads these alphabetically rhymed lines can be misled to understand that it is an exhortation to active martyrdom. However, reading the prose beyond these rhymes, it becomes evident that the Jews handed themselves over to the enemies. This might have been the source of the misunderstanding of the author of Tit ha-Yeven. 68 As to the active martyrdom in Portugal in 1497, the sources mention mosdy killing by drowning in wells and rivers, although slaughtering was also a form used by the Jews (See: Gross, Al ha-Tismonet, 89-94, and the end of chapter 3, below).

CHAPTER THREE

T H E IBERIAN P E N I N S U L A B E T W E E N 1391-1497 ‫בני ציון היקרים שבו וישליכום אל מעתות אריות אל‬ ‫הררי נמרים בארץ ערבה ושוחה בארץ ציה וצלמות ארץ‬ ‫[ בנותיהם ובניהם‬...] ‫לא עבר בה איש ולא ישב אדם שם‬ .‫נתונים לעם אחר ועיניהם רואות וכלות ואין לאל ידם‬ ‫ואם יש בם אשר המירו כבודם ביום מר ויפרשו כפיהם‬ ‫לאל זר אתה לבדך ידעת את לבב בני אדם וידעתה נגעו‬ ‫ וכמה וכמה בחרו מחנק לנפשם ויזבחו את‬.‫ומכאוב לבבו‬ ‫ ואשר‬.‫בניהם ואת בנותיהם לבלתי חלל את שם כבודך‬ [...] ‫העבירו עליו המים הזידונים במסתרים תבכה נפשי‬ (‫ )מתוך תפילה לר' שלמה אלקבץ‬1

The history of martyrdom in the Iberian Peninsula follows both a different course and chronology from that of Ashkenaz. T h e Ommayad caliphate, which ruled Spain from the 8 th century, was a tolerant regime especially to the Jews who were not ambitious, who were careful not to become involved in political intrigues and who knew that for their own survival they should maintain a low profile. We find no Jews involved in any of the political upheavals this regime experienced. 2 The political and economic position of the Jews became much more visible, beginning in the 101'1 century when influential Jews were called upon to perform a variety of functions in the kings' courts. Courtiers such as Hisdai ibn Shaprut (born circa 910) in Cordoba and Samuel ha-Nagid ibn Nagrela (993-1056) in G r a n a d a paved an historical road for the Jews in the Iberian peninsula entirely different than that of Ashkenazic Jewry. Save for the local riots against the Jewish community in Granada in 1066, after Yehosef ha-Nagid, Samuel's son, was murdered the Jews did not experience religious persecutions at the hands of the Moslems. Certainly we do not encounter violent attempts to convert the Jews in the manner of the Crusaders during the First Crusade in the Rhineland. 1

R.I.Z. Werblowsky, "Tiqun Tefilot lc-Rabi Shelomo ibn Elkabe?," Sefunot 6, 1962, 152. 2 E. Ashtor, The Jews of Moslem Spain I, Philadelphia, 1973, 67, 93

One major exception is the invasion of the Almohades, a radical Moslem sect of Berber origin, into Andalucia. As in North Africa, they attempted to convert all conquered inhabitants to their faith by the sword. We know that south of the Gibraltar Straits most Jews converted, clandestinely remaining loyal to their ancestral faith. We know less of converted Jews in the Almohade campaign in Andalucia. The sources tell us that the Jews, fearful of the invaders, fled northward to Christian occupied territories. 3 Some of the refugees setded as far as Provence, notably the families of Qimhi and Tibbon. Others, such as the Maimon family from Cordoba, fled to Fez and thence eastward, but we have no records ofJewish martyrdom during those persecutions. T h e gradual movement of the Jews into Christian territory starting in the middle of the 11th century and continuing until the beginning of the 14th century, was the result of the continuous Reconquista conducted by the Christians in order to conquer and liberate Spain from the Moslems. This process brought with it prosperity and political advancement for the Jews. Many of them rendered much needed services to the Crown of Castile in the liberated territories. They served as administrators, interpreters, etc., and fulfilled various roles in the courts of the Christian kings. Documents show the gratitude of the kings who rewarded Jews for their activities on behalf of the Crown with special privileges and gifts of houses, vineyards, and olive groves. 4 This was the main reason that Iberian Jewry's history followed a different time-table than that of European Jewry. Riots and expulsions experienced by the Jews in Western Europe much earlier began to affect the Jews only in the 14th century. Only when the Reconquista came to a halt, did religious pressures—contained until then by the Crown—surface and signs of persecutions similar to those known for a long time to German, French, and English Jews, became apparent in the Iberian peninsula. But throughout the whole period of Jewish life under Christian rule in Spain prior to the persecutions in 1391, we rarely find cases ofJews facing a situation of the choice between conversion or death. 5

3

E.g. Abraham ibn Daud, Sefer ha-Qabbalah, G. Cohen ed., Philadelphia, 1967,

4

Y. Baer, Toldot ha-Yehudim bi-Stfarad ha-Noznt, Tel Aviv, 1965, 27-34.

97. 5

About individual cases at the end of the thirteenth century see: R. Ben Shalom, "Kiddush ha-Shem u-Martyrologia Yehudit be-Aragon uve-Qastiliah bi-Shnat QaNA (1391): Bein Sefarad le-Ashkenaz," Tarbiz 70, 2001, 259-63.

In Hebrew literature there are only scattered references to the issue of martyrdom. This is most likely due to the fact that unlike Ashkenazic Jews, their co-religionists in Spain were not under constant threat of sudden eruptions of hatred, nor were they troubled by rioting Crusaders and by Blood Libels and the like. Persecution against Jews did not start in 1391. These riots which swept across Spain, were heralded by the Black Death in the middle of the 14th century, followed by events triggered by the Castilian civil war in 1369.b Still, if we must look for a watershed in the history of the Jews in Spain which led to their final expulsion in 1492, it is the 1391 persecutions—known in Jewish tradition as Gezerot QCLNA.1 Active Martyrdom in 1391 After years of preaching for violence against the Jews by Ferrand Martinez, Archdeacon of Ecija, riots broke out in SeviUe during a period of interregnum in Castile. The riots erupted throughout most of Spain, leaving behind a trail of physical destruction, death, and myriads of forced-converts who preferred baptism over death. 8 Historians have not settled on the demographic extent of the conversion, but it is safe to assume that they numbered in the tens of thousands. Many Jews were killed, some after being given the choice to convert and live. We have sources of all kinds that confirm this point: Spanish documents, the famous letter sent by Hasdai Crescas to the Jewish community of Avignon, liturgical poetry and short accounts scattered in Hebrew writings of various genres from the period. However, all this gives us at best a partial picture, leaving ample room for disagreement among historians as to the extent of Kiddush ha-Shem. All things considered, one cannot dismiss the testimonies of contemporaries who bemoan the extent of the conversions (Rabbi Reuven ben Nissim Gerondi talks about 140,000 converts), and not reflect on the reasons for this disaster. 9 6

Baer, Toldot, 217-20, 242. T h e numerical value of the Hebrew letters is equivalent to that year in the Jewish calendar. Similarly the year of TaTNU is associated for the Ashkenazim with the persecution during 1096 by the Crusaders, and TaH- Τα Τ with the Chmielnicky persecutions in 1648-49. 8 For a summary see: Baer, Toldot, 284-308. 9 It has been suggested recently that the number of people dying as martyrs was more significant than hitherto accepted by scholars, and only the mass conversions during 1411-14 blurred their memory, tainted the sacred martyrdom of a large 7

We know of several cases of active martyrdom performed by the Jews. A few sources mention the Asheri family of Toledo in this connection. Crescas writes in his letter: "In Toledo [...] its rabbis, the righteous and chosen seed of Rabbi Asher (ben Yehi'el) of blessed memory, they, their sons, and their students, sanctified the Name in public there." 10 This he writes in contrast to the many Jews who converted in Toledo, "being unable to give up their lives." While Crescas does not talk about active martyrdom, we have another source which mentions the martyrdom of this family in some detail. It is one of the elegies, written in the wake of the persecutions. Its author, Jacob ben Albeneh" mentions the communities of Seville, Cordoba, Valencia, Majorca, and Barcelona. Yet, it is an elegy dedicated to the Jews in Toledo. In one section it enumerates all the synagogues that were destroyed. 12 In another, the author lists the names of individuals who died as martyrs. 15 Among them we find: "And Rabbi J u d a h first [...] / sacrificed his wife and his children as burnt offerings." 14 At least three more committed active martyrdom. 1 5 These events in Toledo probably represent the reality behind the following lines from the pen of Rabbi Yehiel of the Asheri family. In a dirge he addresses the month of Tamuz: "Tamuz [...] in you the people of God [...] and my communities together apostatized / Tamuz, in you fathers killed their sons so that they would not / exchange their faith for the faith of my persecutor and foe." 16

group, and shattered the self-image of Spanish Jewry. Their religious guilt feelings were misplaced, so to speak (Ben-Shalom, Kiddush ha-Shem, 227-77). This goes against the grain of many contemporary sources. (For a more detailed criticism of this attempted revision see: A. Gross, "Hamarot Dat u-Ma'asei Kiddush ha-Shem bi-Shnat QaNA—Ha'arakhah Mehadeshet," Tarbiz 72, 2002, 269-77, and Appendix B, below). 111 Appended to: Solomon Ibn Verga, Schevet Jehuda [M. Wiener ed.], Hanover, 1924, 129. 1 ' Roth does not exclude the possibility that this is the name of the copyist, not of the author: C. Roth, "A Hebrew Elegy on the Martyrs of Toledo," JQR 34 (1948), 12, 125 n. 9 12 Ibid., 141-4. 13 Ibid., 137-40. Roth wonders whether these few who are mentioned by name were the only martyrs in Toledo (127 n. 11a). 14 Ibid., 137. 15 ibid., 139. 16 Shirei Rabi Yehi'el ben ha-Rosh, Y. David ed., Jerusalem, 1986, 23. Note the impression of a collective conversion of the communities. Ben-Shalom, while quoting this line, does not comment on this point which runs contrary to his argument, in

This case remained etched in Spanish Jewry's collective memory, as Abraham Zacut writes toward the end of the 15th century: "[...] to sanctify the Name as did Rabbi J u d a h son of the Princely [sar\ Rabbi Asher, the saint in Toledo who killed himself together with his wife and mother-in-law, wife of Rabbi Jacob author of the Tuúm during 1391." 17 Elsewhere he writes again, "And this whole family are called saints [1qedoshim] because in all the persecutions [shemadot] they sanctified the Name. This is all the more true of Rabbi Judah the saint, the son-in-law of Rabenu Jacob who composed the Arba Turim, and he (Judah) was killed for the sanctification of the Name, he and his wife and all his sons who killed each other. As a rule, they do not have self-compassion when it comes to Kiddush ha-Shem."8‫י‬ There are also cases of active matyrdom in other communities. Crescas tells us about the Jews of Barcelona who found refuge in the tower and fought back: "And many of them slaughtered themselves, and others jumped down (to their death) from the tower." 19 In the northern town of Gerona many, perhaps most of the Jews remained loyal to their faith. Crescas noted this fact: "In the city of Gerona, a community which combines learning and humility, the local rabbis sanctified the Name of God in public. Only a few converted, and the majority found refuge in the houses of the burghers and as of today, they are in the tower." This should be contrasted with most other communities described by Crescas where the majority did convert. Similar sentiments are echoed by Profiat Duran, who writes

general, and to his attempt to link dirges to his purpose, claiming that they mention only a few communities who converted. 17 Sefer Y0haún, Frankfurt am Main, 1925, 51b. 18 Ibid, 222b. It would appear that Zacut wrote from a detailed independent tradition. 19 Crescas, letter, 129. About his own son, Crescas writes in the same letter: "My only son, a bridegroom, a lamb with no blemish, I sacrificed as a burnt-offering [...] and I am consoled by his (soul's) good share and pleasant fate." In light of a recently published sermon, it has been suggested that Crescas literally slaughtered this son (M. Saperstein, "A Sermon on the Akcdah from the Generation of the expulsion and Its Implication for 1391," Exile and Diaspora: Studies in the History of the Jewish People Presented to Professor Haim Beinart [A. Mirsky et al ed.], Jerusalem, 1991, 111-3. This sentence need not be interpreted literally. Some doubt must also be raised if we compare this to the resonance and historical memory of the martyrdom of the Asheri family. A leader of Crescas stature, was a person about whom miracle stories were told a century after his death. It seems to me hardly likely that such a courageous act of martyrdom on his part could have been completely erased from Jewish memory. (See A. Gross, Ha-Tismonet, 99 n. 49)

a eulogy three years later to a friend whose father the "great rabbi, scholar, leader, and poet Don Abraham Isaac Halevi" passed away. The deceased was a rabbi in "the community of Gerona which has risen a mother in Israel for Torah learning and for God-fearing." He extolls him as a person who had been well versed in "Torah, Talmud, Halakhah, and Aggadah." He mentions his collègues "the scholars, rabbis, pious men, three shepherds in Gerona [...] who died by the sword and by fire. Their merit, so I believe, protected the remaining (Jews)." Official documents teach us that in Gerona there were cases of active martyrdom. 2 0 Elsewhere I have suggested that what we know about the response of the Jews there to the persecutions of 1391 is concordant with the pious character and name this small community acquired for itself throughout the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, being the hometown of spiritual figures and leaders such as J o n a h Gerondi, Moses ben Nahman (Ramban), Ezra and Azriel, and Nissim Gerondi. This community's religious contribution to Spanish Jewry went far beyond its very limited demographic dimensions. These prominent figures represented a form of piety related to certain forms in Ashkenaz, and it was grounded in profound religio-intellectual traditionalism. 21

20

Ben-Shalom, Kiddush ha-Shem, 231. A Gross, "Gerona: A Cradle of Jewish Learning and Spirituality," Materia giudaica VI, 2001, 161-6. I remarked there that an Aragonese Crown letter dated 22.9.1391 reveals possible cases of active martyrdom also in other communities as well (ibid., 165 η. 20). It has been published by F. Baer, Die Juden im Christlichen Spanien I, Berlin, 1929, no. 434, 687. Baer, Toldot, 292. Active martyrdom is mentioned in a line of the Aragonese poet, Solomon Dapiera: "But now raging fathers slaughter their sons" (Baer, Toldot, 307. Ben-Shalom, 237. T h e Hebrew reads: ‫א ב לבנים יכין‬ ‫)מטבח ב ח מ ת רוחו‬. Solomon Bonafed, a young contemporary of Dapiera, writes about "the prayer shawl and the knife" [ha-talit veha-ma'akhelet], in a satire written in rhymed prose around 1445 against the elders of the Zaragoza Jewish community. Ben-Shalom (ibid., 239) takes this allusive phrase in an unclear verse to mean that the poet refers here to the ritualistic tools of active martyrdom. I am not going to discuss here at length the extent of this martyrdom in 1391. By and large, all of the documentation concerning cases and locations of active martyrdom amassed by Ben-Shalom in his attempt to show a general practice of martyrdom, passive and active, by the Jews in Castile and in Aragon, had been known to Baer, who did not try to hide them. O n the contrary, he cited them but nevertheless reached the following conclusion: "There were among the Jews of Spain those who acted in the manner of the Hasidei Ashkenaz and slaughtered themselves along with their wives and children [...]. But the number of those who were ready to accept baptism was larger manifold." (Baer, Toldot, 303-4). Weighing all the evidence I see no good reason to differ with him. (See also Appendix B, below.) 21

Ashkenazic Ideology of Martyrdom in Sefarad during the 13th-14th Centuries Our discussion here revolves around another question: What is the source for active martyrdom in Spain? It was not the Talmud or any of their decisors who gave instructions to slaughter one's wife and children to avoid conversion to Christianity. If there was such a Sefardic tradition which was reflected in the acts of martyrs during 1391, then we should examine each prior relevant reference to it in Spain and determine to the best of our ability (limited by evidence availability) how it evolved and how independent of external influences it was. Apparendy, the first to refer to such a mode of Klddush ha-Shem is the Geronese Rabbi Moses ben Nahman (Nachmanides, c. 1194-1270). Nachmanides' works span the gamut of Jewish intellectual interests: talmudic commentary, Halakhah, mysticism, biblical exegesis, poetry, inter-religious polemics. 22 He was the most influential and revered leader of Spanish Jewry in the thirteenth century. In a long poem called "One Hundred Stanzas" [me'ah batim] he writes several lines on martyrdom, and about those who "performed their Creator's will [asu rezon qonam] [...] he who executes his first-born."23 If he alludes here to active martyrdom, his first phrase seems to duplicate the phrase la-asot rezon qonam ve-hefez zuram from the Ashkenazic prayer Av ha-Rahamim, composed in the wake of the 1096 massacres in the Rhineland in memory of the communities and the martyrs during the First Crusade. As we understand it, the word la-asot (to perform) refers to active martyrdom. 2 4 In another poem of Nachmanides, "Prayer on the Ruins of Jerusalem" [Tefilah al Horvot Yerushalayim] passive and active martyrdom are described: [...] Who bared their souls unto death / placing their heads under the sword [...] For Thy sake being killed every day

22

See: I. Twersky, "Introduction, , ‫ י‬Rabbi Moses Nahmanides (Ramban): Explorations in His Religious and Literary Virtuousity [I. Twersky ed.], Cambridge Mass, 1983, 1-9. 23 Kitvei Rabenu Mosheh ben Nakhman (Ramban) I, H.D. Chavel ed., Jerusalem, 1963, 401-2. 24 See above Chapter 1.

sacrificing before you burnt-offerings and sacrifices / and (including) human sacrifices [...] And they rejoice and are glad O n e will say: "I am the Lord's / and the Rock of Israel's who has created me I shall sacrifice myself and my fat, blood, parts, and head And I shall give my first-born for my transgression, The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul And their soul rejoices / wallowing in its blood." 2 5

Who did Nachmanides have in mind here? T h e only cases in Jewish history known to us to fit this description are Ashkenazic from 1096 onward. There is no such ideological tradition in Spain, not to mention actual praxis. The influence of northern European Jewish culture on Nachmanides is well-known. His talmudic commentaries testify to that, loud and clear. T h e penetration of Ashkenazic halakhic traditions and learning, ideas, and piety reached Gerona at least one generation earlier, as can be seen in the writings of his relative, Jonah Gerondi. 26 Therefore it is highly likely that Nachmanides was aware of the practice of active martyrdom in Ashkenaz. 27 This would be a cultural transmission, possibly oral, since Nachmanides studied in France, a n d / o r through reading Ashkenazic liturgical poetry or other literary accounts of martyrdom. At any rate, the nature of the poetic outpore indicates that Nachmanides came across detailed descriptions of persecutions in Ashkenaz. 28 When we consider the reference of Rabbi Yom Τον Isbili (RITBA), an important talmudist from the beginning of the fourteenth century, to active martyrdom in his talmudic commentaries we encounter a new direction: 25

Kitvei Ramban, 430. '‫ י‬On an idea concerning daily preparation for Kiddush ha-Shem, originating in Spain by Jonah Gerondi, see below. 27 See: H.H. Ben-Sasson, Retef u-Temurah, Tel Aviv, 1984, 325. Cf. Ben-Shalom, Kiddush ha-Shem, 259 η. 139. Cf. Apendix B, below. 28 Evidence pointing to the knowledge of Ashkenazic martyrdom spreading south may be found in the apparently concealed objection to martyrdom in Moses Narboni (B. Septimus, "Narboni and Shem Τον on Martyrdom," Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature II [I. Twersky ed.], Cambridge, Mass. 1984, 447-455). 2

It is written in Gilyonei Tosafot that R a b e n u T a m used to say that w h e n e v e r o n e is a f r a i d of b e i n g c o e r c e d to violate the faith, he m a y d o i n j u r y to himself. A n d so it is written in the M i d r a s h (.Beresh.it Rabbah 34:13): "[...] Y o u m i g h t think t h a t it includes cases similar to t h a t of Saul, K i n g of Israel, n a m e l y that he did injury to himself because h e was a f r a i d of b e i n g forcibly c o n v e r t e d . Therefore it is written ' b u t ' , to exclude (and teach) that in such a case it is allowed." A n d f r o m here it has b e e n learned to allow the slaughter of children d u r i n g persecutions to avoid conversion. T h i s m u c h I h a v e f o u n d in Gilyonei Tosafot a n d this requires délibération a n d m u c h scrutinizing. H o w e v e r , (what can we d o since) a n elder scholar has already instructed us to d o so. A n d we h a v e h e a r d in the n a m e of t h e g r e a t (halakhic authorities) of F r a n c e t h a t they allowed the p r a c t i c e . 2 9

This is a radical stand which is attributed in RITBÄs source to R a b e n u T a m , one of the greatest French Tosafists of the twelfth century, and who is known to have defended the Ashkenazic practice of active martyrdom in 1096. 30 Isbili's Sefardic sensibility rebels against the harsh decision of Rabenu T a m . For Isbili this is an issue which "requires deliberation and much scrutinizing." Killing children as a means of preventing their conversion is at best a decision based on rational inference, since there is no talmudic source for it. And this is no minor matter. It is the double dilemma of "to be or not to be," weighing the physical against the spiritual. At the end of the day, he acquiesces to Rabenu Tarn's decision about suicide, which was understood by the French rabbis to encompass the slaughter of children as well. For RITBA it was sealed by the fact, known to him from oral communication, that the "great (halakhic authorities) of France" instructed accordingly. This is the first positive reference to active martyrdom in Spain within the context of halakhic discussion, and it is based solely on Ashkenazic halakhic traditions—literary and oral. T o summarize the evidence, we can find no ideology of active martyrdom in pre-1391 Spain which evolved independently of the Franco-German medieval tradition. T h e references in Nachmanides'

29

81.

30

Hidushei ha-RITBA at Masekhet Avodah Zarah, M. Goldstein ed., Jerusalem, 1978,

Soloveitchik, "Religious Law and Change: The Medieval Ashkenazic Example, ‫יי‬ AJS Review 12, 1987, 210 n. 8.

poetry cannot be understood in a vacuum, and must be explained as alluding to persecutions in greater Ashkenaz, including England, where Jews committed the same kind of slaughter in the York massacre of 1190 which was modeled after First Crusade active martyrdom. 3 1 Therefore we submit that events of active martyrdom in Spain to the limited extent that they took place, were the result of the penetration of Ashkenazic traditions adopted by pious Jews in Spain. The year 1391 is about 120 years after Nachmanides wrote his poetry and more than 150 years after Ashkenazi culture made its inroads into northern Spain. Figures like Jonah Gerondi, Nachmanides and their followers preached to their students and their communities the Ashkenazic legacy in this, as well as in other fields, and spread its particular brand of religious mentality. Consider, for example, Rabbi Asher ben Yehiel (ROSH). This German rabbi fled Germany and settied in Toledo around 1305, becoming the rabbi of this most important and venerated community, and the most important decisor of Spanish Jewry. It is almost selfevident that he would try to pass on his traditions within his family and preach them to the community at large. We may be certain that cases of active martyrdom in Toledo, within his family and outside of it were the fruits of his labor. Along with this oral transmission we may assume the influence of Ashkenazic writings, such as the passage quoted by Isbili. Ashkenazic Ideology of Martyrdom in Sefarad in the Fifteenth Century Before describing and assessing the great martyrdom in Portugal during 1497, let us examine briefly what is known to us in terms of martyrological ideology during the century that followed the landmark events of 1391. In detecting and identifying the references to martyrdom in general, and to active martyrdom in particular, we will be able to demonstrate how Ashkenazic influences impacted on Spain. We find a number of scholars in the second half of the fifteenth century, who wrote after the expulsion from Spain and the mass forcedconversion in Portugal, in whose works we can trace Ashkenazic martyrological ideas. T h e penetration routes are not completely clear yet. One notable exception—which is attested to by a number of Sefardic

31

See: A. Gross, "Hirhurim al Hebetim Hilkhatiyim ve-10 Hilkhatiyim shel Kiddush ha-Shem," I. Twersky Memorial Volume, App. A (forthcoming).

sources—is how a Jew should prepare himself for an actual trial of martyrdom. This is to be done through the daily recital of the Shema, an idea which had become well-known and widespread at least from the end of the fifteenth century. Its source has been traced back (in all probability) to Rabenu Jonah Gerondi, 250 years earlier. Gerondi's idea was picked up by his deciples and by the author of the J?0har, and through it the idea reached later generations of qabbalists. 32 Gerondi was influenced profoundly in many ways from the education he had absorbed in a French-Ashkenazicjy£íAí»aA, and he was a major figure in the transmission o f t h a t northern Jewish culture to Catalunia. It is probable that this particular martyrological practice reflects the pietistic spirit he brought back with him. 33 Let us now bring some examples of the Ashkenazic influence in matters concerning Kiddush ha-Shem on Sefardic writers from the last generation of the Jews in Iberia. In the famous remains of a short manuscript from the Scroll of Amrafel, attributed to the qabbalist Rabbi Abraham ben Eliezer Halevi, the author teaches his readers how to overcome physical pain inflicted on a Jew in a situation of Kiddush ha-Shem, so that he will not feel it. In his opening sentence he testifies to his source: "I found one of the hasidim who wrote [...]," 34 and it would seem that it is identical to what has been transmitted by Rabbi Samson ben Zadoq in the name of his mentor, Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg. 3 ‫ י‬Gershom Scholem, who published the manuscript, added: "As is evident from this, Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg is also not the originator of this idea, and indeed, one can sense here the presence of the Hasidei Ashkenaz, especially from the mystical allusion to the special Name (used) in the intention of the martyr." This written sermon reflects the influence of Ashkenazic written sources, deeply imbued by the martyrological spirit and sensibilitiy of the Ashkenazic hasidim.36 32

Y. Hacker, "Kelum Hu'ataq Kiddush ha-Shem el T e h u m ha-Ru'ah Liqrat ha-Et ha-Hadashah," Qedushat ha-Hayyim ve-Heruf ha-Nefesh: Qovez Ma'amarim le-J?ikhr0 shel Amir Tequtiel [Y. Gafni and A. Ravitzky ed.], Jerusalem, 1993, 229. 33 I. Ta-Shma, "Hasidut Ashkenaz bi-Sefarad: Rabenu Yonah Gerondi—ha-Ish u-Fo'olo," Galut Ahar Gola, Sefer Tovel le-Haim Beinart [A. Mirsky et al ed.], Jerusalem, 1988, 187. 34 G. Scholem, "Haqirot Hadashot al Rabi Avraham ben Eliezer Halevi," Qiryat Sefer 7, 1930-31, 153. 35 Ibid., 441. ','‫ י‬The sermon does not discuss active martyrdom. The only consideration of the author is to strengthen and encourage his contemporaries in a generation which he describes as "generation of religious persecutions [dor shel shemad]." Only one expres-

T h e infiltration of martyrological ideas in their Ashkenazic f o r m into circles of Spanish qabbalists a n d pietists in the second half of the fifteenth century is evident also in the a n o n y m o u s a u t h o r of Kaf ha-Qetoret, a mystical c o m m e n t a r y on Psalms. 3 7 In a long passage on this subject he writes: To know and to inform how great is the goodness done for Israel by anyone who endures the trial and dies for the unification of His Name [...] the radiant countenance stand with smiling countenance [...] all sorts of angels of mercy are created to serve that righteous man. And therefore all of Israel must mourn [le-hesped\ in all synagogues and houses of learning [batei midrash] every man, woman or child who sanctifies the Name of the Holy One blessed be He and died, was burned or crucified. And if a man was married, his wife is not to remarry ever, for the honor of the Holy One blessed be He and for the honor of Israel. But in case she does remarry, she need not divorce. 38 W e have here a c o m b i n a t i o n of w h a t looks like Spanish Qabbalah, in the first part, a n d a s o m e w h a t distorted quotation of a medieval instruction hitherto known to us only f r o m the Ashkenazic sphere: Anyone who is killed for the sanctification and unification [...] and was killed, burned or crucified [...] since he sanctified the Name with his body and soul, all of Israel must rend [their clothes] and mourn [1 e-hit'abel\ over him and eulogize [le-haspido] in the synagogues and batei midrashot. And his wife is not to remarry ever, for Heaven's and his honor [...].39‫׳‬ T h e continuation of this passage is also fascinating: Similarly, anyone who was overcome by an evil spirit and transgressed and denied [kafar] Moses' Torah and despised the commandments of the Lord, God of Israel, and walked in the stubbornness of his heart and then he went and accepted upon himself a violent death [mitak meshunah],

sion might allude to this type of martyrdom: "[...] that the person who recites the Shema [...] and is determined to hand over his body and soul, including his wife and children" (Ibid., 154). Cf. Abraham Saba's phrase in the same context (geror ha-Mor, Devarim, 15a.) For a reconstruction of the historical context of Megillat Amrafel see: A. Gross, Al ha-Tismonet, 108-14. 37 About this author, see: M. Idel, "Hibburim Zenuhim shel Ba'al 'Sefer Qaf haQetoret," Pe'amim 53, 1993, 75-89, and the bibliography in the end o f t h a t article. 38 Ms. Paris 845, 23a. 39 S. Assaf, Sefer ha-M1qzo'ot, Jerusalem, 1947, 10. Cited by A. Grossman, Shorashav, 129. This passage was preserved by Rabbi Hayyim O r Zaru'a, who saw it in his father's (Rabbi Isaac) Simanei Or ζαηι'α (She'elot u-Teshuvot Rabi Hayyim Or 2f1ru'a, Jerusalem, 1960, no. 14).

in place of [bi-meqom] his sin, all Israel must be happy for him like the happiness of drinking wine, because the dead will be alive forever.

Two early cases, described in the First Crusade Hebrew chronicles could be the inspiration for this instruction. In the chronicle of Rabbi Eliezer bar Nathan we read a short version about the horrific martyrdom of two important members of the Mainz Jewish community: And also two hasidim were saved (from physical death) on that day, because they soiled (i.e. baptized) them by force. T h e name of one was M a r Uri and the other, M a r Isaac and his two daughters. And they too sanctified very much the N a m e by accepting upon themselves a violent death [mitah meshunah] [...] since on the eve of Shavu'ot M a r Isaac bar David the Pamas slaughtered his two daughters, set fire to his house, and then he went with M a r Uri to the synagogue and died in front of the Holy Ark before God, since they were burned there [...] 4 ‫״‬

In a second case the repentant convert drowns himself: O n Tuesday, those in the town of Neuss were killed and buried [...]. T h e r e was also a hasid named Rabbi Isaac, the Levite. They afflicted him with harsh tortures and baptized him against his will, for he was confused (possibly: unconscious) because of the blows that they he had endured. When he regained his senses, he returned three days later and went to Cologne, entered his house, waited a bit—an hour—and drowned himself in the Rhine river. "

This case may have been the inspiration for a responsum by R. Judah he-Hasid which deals with the most extreme form of atonement. Basing his response on aggadic materials, he states that one may commit suicide in order to atone for severe transgressions, adding that "There was an apostate [meshumad] who said that since he had sinned with water [i.e., been baptized], therefore he must drown himself in water as an atonement." 4 2 It would seem that Kaf ha-Qetoret refers to a case such as the one in the Ashkenazic chronicles of a repentant forced-convert, or to the case of an apostate—which seems to be the referent in Rabbi J u d a h

Haberman, Sefer Gezerot, 75. Their acceptance of violent death is phrased almost identically in the chronicle attributed to Rabbi Solomon bar Samson (ibid., 36). 41 Haberman, Sefer Gezerot, 44. I used the translation in R. Chazan, European Jewry and the First Crusade, Berkeley 1987, 275. 42 I. Ta-Shma, "Hit'abdut ve-Rezah ha-Zulat al Kiddush ha-Shem, , ‫ י‬Yehudim Mut ha-£etav, 153.

he-Hasid.'s responsum43—who regretted his reckless act and searched for an extreme manner of expiation to pacify his profound guilt feelings. 44 It seems to us to be beyond any reasonable doubt that the source of this idea in Kaf ha-Qetoret also originated in Ashkenaz. 45 Thus far, we have presented evidence of the influence of Ashkenaz on certain marginal ideas and practices concerning martyrdom. One of the major spiritual figures who flourished in Spain during this period was Rabbi Abraham Zacut (Zacuto). In addition to being the head of a rabbinic academy [yeshivah] in Salamanca and a qabbalist, he was also renowned as a mathematician and astronomer who commanded the admiration of contemporary Christian scientists for his achievements. 46 He discusses at length the very halakhic issue under study—active martyrdom. He does not reveal to his audience much autobiographical data, but alludes to the fact that he went through the Portuguese ordeal. On his family's resisting conversion from 1391 to the present, he recounts proudly: And all of them resisted the Castilian religious persecutions, remaining true to the worship of God and his Torah. T o me, also, God, blessed be He, granted the right to sanctify His Name, together with my son, Samuel. We arrived in Africa and were twice taken into captivity. 4 '

43

Cases of apostasy were not such a rare phenomenon in twelvth century Ashkenaz. The number of the paragraphs in Sefer Hasidim dealing with apostates is not insignificant and they include the stories of those who regretted their rash decision, asking to return to Judaism with the proper atonement, though not such a radical impulsive self-execution. See, for instance: " O n e who converted and returned to be a Jew and accepted upon himself to do the penance as the sages [hakhamim] instruct him." [Sefer Hasidim [ R. Margaliot ed.], Jerusalem, 1957, no. 203. 44 It would seem that the story about the martyrdom of the repentant forcedconverts by fire was particularly powerful and influential. It might be connected to two cases (one of whose motifs are very similar to the long version of our story), in Germany during 1349 (M. Minti, "Kiddush ha-Shem be-einei Nozrim be-Germaniah bi-Yemei ha-Beinayyim," ζίοη 59, 1994, 219). O n the impact of the chronicles in the fifteenth century see: I. Yuval, "Yehudim, Husitim ve-Germanim al pi ha-Khronika 5 4 1989 'Gilgul Benei Hushim'," · 5 ‫י‬ ‫ ־‬284‫־‬ 45 Also, the idea that the proper atonement must fit as symetrically as possible to the type and magnitude of the sin, is the foundation of the atonement system [teshuvat ha-mishqat] developed by the Hasidei Ashkenaz• +() Interesting material about his activity as an astronomer in the service of King Manuel on the eve of the tragic events in 1497 and about his contribution to the successful voyage of Vasco da Gama, can be found in the book of Gaspar Correa, who was close to the events: H. Stanley (ed.), The Three Voyages of Vasco da Gama and his Viceroyalty from the Lendas da India of Gaspar Correa, London 1869, 17-25, 50, 59. 47 Sefer Tohasin, 223a. See, also, ibid., la.

Z a c u t talks with m u c h a d m i r a t i o n a b o u t the Asheri family in T o l e d o , w h o p e r f o r m e d active m a r t y r d o m in 1391. 4 8 In the first part of his Sefer Tohasin, w h e r e he surveys the g e n e r a t i o n s of the tana'im, he digresses w i t h o u t a n y satisfactory excuse, d e v o t i n g a long halakhic discourse to the subject, in which he details his personal stand o n the radical f o r m of m a r t y r d o m : It is proper and fitting to bring here, in accordance with the conditions prevailing in our time, when we have witnessed saintly men take their own lives and their children's in order to save them from being forced to abandon the religion of their God, to state clearly that this is not only permissible, but is (even) saintly. We know this because it is told in the Talmud (B. Gittin 57b) that some ships containing boys and girls who were captured to be carried off to Rome for immoral purposes [qalon]. They said: Is it not enough that we angered (God) while living in the Land (of Israel) that we should do so also abroad? And then they asked: If we throw ourselves into the sea, will we reach the World to Come? One elder explained to them: "The Lord said; '1 will bring back from Bashan etc." (Ps. 68:23). And the girls threw themselves into the sea and the males learned from them etc. and threw themselves in, too. [...] And in the decisions of the Tosafists (it is written): In the time of persecutions [bi-she'''at gezerot] it is allowed to kill oneself if he is afraid to be tortured, and the proof is from those who jumped into the sea. One might try to contradict this from what is written in tractate Avodah rah (18a), about Rabbi Hanina ben Teradion (who said): It is preferable that it (the soul) will be taken by the O n e who gave it and one is not to harmoneself by opening his mouth for the fire to enter. However, here they were afraid of torture [...]. And it is written in the Mordekhai in the end of the first chapter of Avodah Zarah about the matter of Rabbi Hanina ben Teradion; "Rabbi Joseph wrote; 'However, if one is being tortured and he is afraid that he would not be able to stand the trial, it is allowed.'" 49 But I, who am writing this, have more (better) proof from the story about Rabbi (Judah ha-Nastfs death, when a launderer who could not attend the funeral and heard that anyone who attended it had been granted life in the World to Come, climbed up to the roof and threw himself down and died [...]. And a Bat Qol from heaven 48

See above. In a late gloss on the SeMaQ_mi-Rurich it is written: "And also the Mordekhai in the end of the first chapter of Avodah Zarah dwelled on it at length." (SeMaQmi-Ζμ rikh [Y.Y. Har-Shoshanim-Rosenberg ed.], Jerusalem, 1973, no. 6, 58.) In the extant manuscript of the Mordekhai examined by H. Soloveitchik, it has not been found ("Religious Law," 2 1 1 η . 8). We cannot tell whether Zacut actually saw the alleged discussion in the Mordekhai. 49

announced that he was summoned to the World to Come without any trial and punishment, as is explained there (B. Ketubot 103b, and in the Tosafot there). And also Yoqim of Zridot, nephew of Yose ben Yoezer, who killed himself. 50 [...] All the more so is this true in times of persecution when we must not only refrain from defiling but must sanctify the Holy Name, as did Rabbi Judah son of the Princely [hasar\, Rabbi Asher the saint in Toledo who killed himself together with his wife and mother-in-law, wife of Rabbi Jacob author of the Tunm during 1391. So too did the sage Rabbi Isaac ben Zahin of Bonillia de la Sierra take both his life and that of his sons during the persecutions in Portugal, in the year 257 (1497). And thus they said in Sanhédrin 51 : "But surely your blood of your lives will I require etc." (Gen. 9, 5).52 One might have thought that it included the case of (King) Saul who killed himself so that the uncircumcised would not make a mockery of him, therefore it is written "but," to exclude it. And similarly, Samson son of Manoah (who killed himself), of whom we know that he merited eternal life [...] as the sages have said." 53 Z a c u t starts with the historical incident w h i c h led h i m to this halakhic discussion—the m a r t y r d o m in P o r t u g a l — a n d ends with examples taken only f r o m the Iberian tradition a n d collective m e m o r y . It is self-evid e n t t h a t he w o u l d p r e f e r the tradition in w h i c h he was raised a n d it is also quite plausible that he did n o t know m u c h a b o u t the First C r u s a d e persecutions (1096) in G e r m a n y . 5 4 A c c o r d i n g to Z a c u t , "it

50

See: Bereshit Rabbah [Theodor-Albeck ed.], Jerusalem, 1965, 65, 222, 742-3. One should add to the versions of the name the one supplied by Zacut here, and somewhat differently there, 14b. 51 See: Bereshit Rabbah, 34, 13. 52 See above, Chapter 1. 53 Tohasin, 51a-b. Bamidbar Rabbah, 9, 24. A. Newman, in his article on Zacut translates a small part of this discourse and discusses the reason for Zacut's digression for it, but does not deal with its contents (A. Neuman, "Abraham Zacuto Historiographer," Harry Aus tryη Wolfson Jubilee Volume 2 [S. Lieberman ed.], Jerusalem 1965, pp. 610-1). 54 M. Saperstein, "A Sermon on the Akedah from the Generation of the Expulsion and Its Implications for 1391," Studies in the History of the Jewish People Presented to Professor Haim Beinart, Jerusalem, 1991, 110. The author draws support from Shevet Yehudah, where it can be understood that its author, Solomon ibn Verga, knew of the Ashkenazic tendency for martyrdom, but that he had no details about specific events. It is worth noting that Solomon ibn Verga tells about several persecutions where the Ashkenazim died as martyrs, without giving any dates. In one of them he mentions active martyrdom, when the Jews gathered into the synagogue and slaughtered their families (see below). It is true that there are no specific references to the 1096 persecutions in the second half of the fifteenth century in Spain, and therefore

was permissible and (even) saintly." In killing the children not only was there no sin but he deems it a commendable behavior. True, he does not adduce any talmudic text proof, for the simple reason that there was none, but we have to assume that in his opinion it was as logical as it was for the German Jews who initiated the practice in the Middle Ages and saw in it an extention of the permission to commit suicide. 55 An Ashkenazic rabbinic authority explained it thus: "And on this they have relied to slaughter the children in times of persecution, since they (the children) do not know how to distinguish between good and evil, and we are afraid that they will settle among the Gentiles and (adopt) their religion. It is better that they die innocent and not guilty." 56 It seems that Zacut did not trace independentaly the roots of this halakhic decision to the mishnaic literature. Rather, he found the references in the writings of the French halakhists, to which he added some more sources. The stories of the captured children and of Rabbi Hanina ben Teradion had been discussed in the context of active martyrdom by some of the Tosafists. 57 These writings and opinions penetrated into Spain already in the second half of the thirteenth century, as evident from Rabbi Yom-Tov Isbili's discussion of active martyrdom, where he relies on the Tosafists and accepts this practice which was foreign to the Sefardim. 58 Zacut finds support for his opinion not only in the French sources, but also in the actual behavior of Spanish Jews, and at the end of his discourse he resorts to the Sefardic collective memory of the courageous active martyrdom of the Asheri family in Toledo. 59 We learn from here that this Ashkenazic tradition of martyrdom entered Zacut's spiritual world via two routes, and from his example, it is possible to generalize to the world of the Iberian martyrs in Portugal. From the

Saperstein's suggestion that Rabbi Shem-Tov ben Shem-Tov , s discussion of active martyrdom in his sermon might refer to such acts in Spain during 1391. 55 O n using reason, in the absence of clear textproof, to allow active martyrdom, see: Tosafot Rabenu Elhanan at Masekhet Avodah Zflrah, Husiatin, 1901, 38. He comments on the talmudic story concerning the captured children. 56 SeMaQmi-Zurikh, 57-8. 57 Soloveitchik, "Religious Law," 210-1 n. 8. 58 See above. Let us note here that Zacut refers very positively to RITVA's commentaries on the Talmud (Tohasin, 221 b). 59 It is worthy of mention that Zacut repeats this story in the fifth part of his book (Tohasin, 222).

first route directly through the writings of the Tosafists, and indirectiy through Sefardic scholars who absorbed those writings and transmitted the message orally to a wider audience and from the fifth part of Sefer Tohasin, it is evident that Zacut was acquainted with a large part of the important Ashkenazic medieval literature and the spirit of Hasidei Ashkenaz could have reached him via those writings. 60 Another Ashkenazic pronouncement is found by Zacut in the opinion that one is allowed to die as a martyr even when the Halakhah decides to "let him transgress and not die." 61 One might also detect an influence of Ashkenazic halakhic method on Zacut. A. Grossman is of the opinion that Ashkenazic legal thinking allowed the use of evidence and textproofs which are not included in the halakhic sections of the Talmud, but rather in the parts which are defined as Aggadah: "Sources of an aggadic nature, especially those included in the Babylonean Talmud, were taken as an integral part of the halakhic sources and served as the basis for the scholars of Ashkenaz in their halakhic discourses." 62 Zacut, the Sefaradi, who relies on Ashkenazic writings in the matter of Kiddush ha-Shem, sees it as legitimate to add to their proofs—in agreement with their and his method—stories appearing in the Babylonian Talmud and Bereshit Rabbah. We must emphasize that we are not dealing with a preacher but with a halakhic scholar of stature as is evident from his writings 60

Parenthetically, we might add that even during the fifteenth century there existed contacts, albeit limited ones, between Sefaradim and Ashkenazim in Spain. Thus, Rabbi Abraham Saba informs of a solution to an exegetical problem he had by "one Ashkenazi" [geror ha-Mor, Shemot, 18b). Cf. H.J. Zimmels, Ashkenazim and Sephardim, London 1958, 36. 61 See: A. Shohat, "Kiddush ha-Shem be-Hagutam shel Megorashei Sefarad u-Mequbalei ^ e f a t , " Milhemet Qodesh u-Martirologiah, Jerusalem, 1968, 133. It would seem that the turning point in this respect came with the decision of the Turim, Yoreh Deah, 157, 1). Here, again, the Asheri family is connected with a change concerning Kiddush ha-Shem in Spain. See also: I. Twersky, "Kiddush ha-Shem ve-Kiddush ha-Hayyim—Hebetim shel Qedushah be-Mishnat ha-Rambam," Qedushat ha-Hayyim ve-Heruf ha-Nefesh, 168 n. 3. 62 Grossman, Shorashav, 107. See now also: I. Ta-Shma, "Hit'abdut ve-Rezah ha-Zulat al Kiddush ha-Shem: Li-She'elat Meqomah shel ha-Aggadah be-Masoret ha-Pesiqah ha-Ashkenazit," Yehudim Mul ha-£elav, 150-6. Zacut does not rely on the Masada story which appears in Yossifon, a work he was acquainted with and made use of. It is possible that the reason for this is that this book was not considered to be part of the rabbinic literature of the mishnaic period, and hence Zacut's general critical attitude to it (See: Neuman, Zacut, 614-8. Concerning the use of Aggadah by Maimonides in his Iggeret ha-Shemad, see: D. Hartman, Epistles of Maimonides: Crisis and Leadership, Philadelphia & Jerusalem, 1993, 57-9.

and from the testimonies of his contemporaries/' 3 T h e second route by which the Ashkenazic weltanschaaung in the matter of martyrdom made its way into Spain was embodied in the specific heritage of Rabbi Asher ben Yehi'el and the personal example set by his descendants in Toledo who martyred themselves in 1391. This was a family of Ashkenazic origin that arrived at the beginning of the fourteenth century in Toledo and owing to its outstanding scholarship, 64 assumed the halakhic leadership of this most prestigious community in Castile until the persecutions in the end of that century. Their martyrdom left an undelible impression on Sefardic Jewry and remained in their collective memory. It is mentioned both in the famous episde of Rabbi Hasdai Crescas, in various liturgical poems, and in the detailed account of Zacut. 65 Thus far we have illustrated the Ashkenazic influence from the writings of individuals all of whom can be classified as qabbalists. However, even Solomon ibn Verga -who is viewed by some as a precursor of modern Jewish historiography, and in whose Shevet Tehudah traces of "heretical scepticism" could be found 66 —cites many cases of passive martyrdom from various communities, including Spain. He does not know, apparently, about the active martyrdom of the Asheri family in Toledo (or any other such martyrdom in Spain, for that matter). But he does tell about an Ashkenazic community where its members slaughtered their families and then themselves, in the way known to us from 1096 and thereafter. For purposes of our discussion of particular interest is the author's conclusion from which we learn that he expresses a clear stance on this difficult religious issue: "The merit of these and similar saints will live on for the descendents of Israel, wherever there may be. Amen!" 6 ‫י‬

63

M. Benayahu, "Derushav shel Rabi Yosef ben Meir Garson etc.," Michael 7, 1982, 91-2, 178, 179. 64 Rabbi Asher became the most authoritative decisor of Castilian Jewry in the Fifteenth century. See, e.g.: F. Baer, Die Juden im Christlichen Spanien. Zacut, Tohasin, 223b. 65 See above. Hacker, Kelum Hu'ataq, 229 n. 29. 66 Y. Baer, Galut, Jerusalem, 1980, 68-74. Idem, Introduction, Shevet Tehudah [A. Shohat ed.], Jerusalem, 1947, 12, 14-5. 67 Ibid., 92. This has been noted already by Shohat, Kiddush ha-Shem, 132. Had he opposed such acts, Ibn Verga would have described them as foolish piety rather than martyrdom, and it is hard to imagine him adding such an emotional ending. Now, if we can deduce from here as to his positive attitude toward Kiddush ha-Shem,

The concept of active martyrdom seems to have been a live issue for Sefardic thinkers during the fifteenth century, particularly in the more moderate rationalist circles. Since there were actual cases in Spain during 1391, one cannot be sure whether the background for the occasional remarks is of Ashkenazic influence, as we find in the veiled opposition to it by Moses Narboni, the fourteenth century provençal philosopher, 68 or Sefardic. Such is the case with Rabbi Isaac Arama, a philosophical thinker and preacher in Castile. He, of course, does not oppose the notion of Kiddush ha-Shem per se. However, he does oppose active martyrdom not because of a heretical lack of faith in reward and punishment after death, but probably because of halakhic and philosophical reservations which are consistent with the Sefardic traditions. Arama mentions this issue explicitly in his sermon on the biblical story of the binding of Isaac, written probably in the 1580's. In fact, there is a lesson to be learned from this story: "And one should not say, 'if God would command me to bind (and sacrifice) this son of mine, I would have done just as did Abraham [...].' Because binding the sons and slaughtering them is not desired before Him, but rather humility and submission." 69 In contrast, we find a positive reference to active martyrdom by Rabbi Shem-Tov ben Joseph ibn Shem-Tov, a philosophical thinker in pre-expulsion Spain, who also quotes Crescas' recommendation: "And it is worthwhile for a Jew to reflect (and conclude) that since he is from the seed of Abraham he, as a father, must be prepared to kill his son [...]." 7 ° In order to ground his opinion he mentions persecutions, not necessarily of Ashkenazic origin. In his commentary on Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed, he writes: "And this is said concerning all the commandments except for idolatry, murder and incest, because committing these sins is the great death itself. And those who avoid them by accepting upon themselves tortures and death go to the great light [ha-or ha-gadol\ and a place that no human eye has ever seen [...]." 71 The term "the great light" is found in Yossifon and in the Ashkenazic

we can understand why he completely ignored the Lisbon events in 1497, including the final mass forced-conversion, in which he was among the converted. 68 B. Septimus, 'Narboni and Shem Τον on Martyrdom,' Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature II [I. Twersky ed.], Cambridge, Mass. 1984, 447-455. 09 See: Saperstein, Sermon, 115 70 Ibid., 117,121. 71 Commentary on Guide 3:34.

literature on the First Crusade persecutions and martyrdom. 7 2 His attitude is clear. His source is less so. He did not need to read about Ashkenazic active martyrdom in order to be introduced to, and make use of this term.7•3 This, however, remained in the realm of theoretical discussion of thinkers during the fifteenth century when no violent persecutions of the Jews, the likes of 1391, took place in Spain. This was to change in a dramatic manner when a major part of the remnants of Spanish Jewry—those who chose to leave their homeland during the 1492 expulsion rather than convert to Christianity—entered Portugal. Portugal 1493-1497 The events which befell the Jews during their final year on Portuguese soil were to become the climax of the tragic century in the history of Iberian Jewry. For various reasons, scholarship has neglected research of these events, including its martyrological aspect. Ignoring it renders every attempt to write a history of medieval Jewish martyrdom, truncated, missing an important link. Moreover, the understanding of post-expulsion Hispano-Jewry's self-image and mentality remains incomplete. 74 In the summer of 1492, a large number ofJewish refugees crossed 72

Sefer Tossifon [D. Flusser ed.], 301, 424, 426, Haberman, Sefer Gezerot, 37, 97, 100. See also: Septimus, Narboni, 453 n. 21, and our discussion, above chapter 1. 73 See: Gross, Al ha-Tismonet, 103, n. 64. 74 For example, Jacob Katz, one of the more important scholars to comment on Jewish martyrdom in the Middle Ages and the Early Modern period, talks about a process that took place in Spain of "relocation of the religious duty of martyrdom from the socio-religious to the sphere of spiritualization." (J. Katz, "Bein T a T N U 1e-TaH-TaT," Sefer ha-Tovel le-T1zhaq Baer, Jerusalem, 1961, 324 and n. 33). T h e Portuguese martyrological stories which were recorded in the sources to be discussed below, were spread by the descendents of the Jews who survived Iberian persecutions and became a part of its heritage and collective memory (Gross, Al ha-Tismonet, 107 and n. 80). This contributed to the exact opposite of "spiritualization" (the more common term is "sublimation") process. A response to Katz's thesis, by detailing the Sefardic sources dealing with the daily preparation for an event of Kiddush ha-Shem through the recital of the Shema, see: Hacker, Kelum Hu'ataq, 221-32. Cecil (Bezalel) Roth refers to the phenomenon of martyrdom in Spain during 1391, pointing to the scarcity of cases, but does not mention the phenomenon in Portugal at all (B. Roth, "Dat u-Martirologia bein ha-Anusim," Milhemet Kodesh u-Martirologia, Jerusalem, 1968, 93-105.). Azriel Shohat pointed out, in an excellent paper, the historical importance of the martyrdoms in Portugal, but did so in a single sentence without going into ‫י י‬ ) . any details or analysis (Shohat, "Kiddush h a - S h e m , 1 3 4

the border from the united kingdom of Spain, mainly from Castile, westward into the neighboring kingdom of Portugal. The beginning and the end of their short stay as Jews in this kingdom is marked by religious persecution, initiated and carried out by the Crown itself. There were three waves of "evil waters" [ha-mayyim ha-zedonim], as the Jews referred to the water of baptism: the first, during the first year; and the other two, in the final year. The source of the trouble in the beginning of this period stemmed from the fact that most of the Jews who entered Portugal did so conditional to the payment of a fee, which entided them to a maximum stay of eight months. Among the refugees, there were some who could afford the fare for a ship leaving Portugal within that period. Among those we find the famous qabbalist, Rabbi Judah Hayyat who recounts in a short autobiography the typical course of misfortune of a Jewish refugee. He starts his wanderings from Portugal: "By the order of the King, I embarked with my wife and two hundred and fifty souls on a ship in the middle of the winter in the year 253 (=1493) from Lisbon, the great city in the kingdom of Portugal." 7 ' Others could not choose this course for lack of money. But even some affluent Jews decided against the trying naval experience after hearing of the difficulties encountered by those who did so, be it by conniving ship captains and crews, or by the Moslems in North Africa. 76 With Spain prohibited to Jews, there was no other way out of Portugal. The remaining refugees thus became entrapped. Now that their stay in Portugal was extended beyond the fixed time of eight months it became illegal, and that served as the pretext for their maltreatment and abuse. Two edicts were promulgated against them in that year: abduction of their children in order to baptize them, and enslaving the fathers. For our study the first one is of great interest. 77 75

Minhat Yehudah, Mantua, 1558, 2b. Hayyat sketches for his readers such an ordeal. For a detailed description of this episode on the refugees' suffering, based on most of the Portuguese and Hebrew sources known to us, see: H. Graetz, History of the Jews IV, Philadelphia, 1894, 369-71. He describes also in great and outstanding detail the history of the refugees remaining in Portugal and the royal decrees against them. However, he does not analyze the episodes of martyrdom. 77 We will enter into the details of the persecutions only insofar as the need to shed light on the phenomenon which is at the heart of our discussion. The details can be found, by and large, already in Graetz. It was only recendy that a few additional details have been added in: Y. Tishbi, Meshihiyut be-Dor Gerushei Sefarad u-Portugal, Jerusalem, 1985. 76

T h e second wave came on Passover 1497—after the publication of the edict of expulsion from Portugal and in a more comprehensive context of religious edicts in the form of a directive that permitted Jewish boys and girls in their teens to be abducted in order to pressure their parents to convert to Christianity. The last wave took place half a year later, when the Jews assembled in Lisbon to embark on ships promised to them by the Crown but they were forced to convert and the vast majority were indeed baptized. In the following pages, we will examine what is known to us about the responses of the Jews to these acts of persecution.

The Sources The sources for these episodes are relatively numerous and diverse. They include testimonies of eyewitnesses, both Jewish and Christian. Abraham Zacut was among the refugees who crossed over into Portugal during the expulsion from Spain. He does not tell us anything autobiographical about his Portuguese period, and only alludes to his troubles in a short sentence 78 We can say, however, that if he was in the Saba group and was released with it, he was not baptized. This we learn from Saba, who tells us that the survivors of the Rabbi Shimon Meme group (after their leader "meanwhile died")—contrary to his own group—were not released by King Manuel, who claimed that "they had already acquiesced", namely, that they had been already baptized. 79 In his Sefer Tohasin (Book of Geneology) he tells his readers about the Portuguese persecutions, to which he was an eyewitness. Therefore we ought to attach to his concise descriptions much importance. Abraham Saba—a biblical exegete, preacher, and qabbalist from

78

Y. Tishbi, Meshihiyut, 12 n. 2, 37-8. It is plausible that Zacut was in Rabbi Abraham Saba's group in the Lisbon prison, as 'I'ishbi suggests. We do not know what happened to him and to his son until they were imprisoned, but it is clear that their martyrdom was a passive one, by being ready to die rather than convert. We cannot know whether the fact that Zacut avoids telling about his own experience there stems from trying to avoid something he has done of which he was not proud (cf. Solomon ibn Verga, below). 7 ·' Zeror ha-Mor, Vayiqra, 35a. We learn from here that the Saba group, which was released without further problems (after an imprisonment of six months), had not been baptized.

Zamora—arrived during the expulsion and settled in the northern Portuguese town of Guimaràes, but he subsequendy lost all that he owned during the "Portuguese expulsion. ‫ יי‬His wife and sons were converted by force to Christianity. He had to transfer his vast personal library to the authorities, as demanded in the royal edict. He could not even hold on to his own writings, which consisted of a single autograph copy of each of them. He buried the manuscripts before entering Lisbon, and after six months in jail he was expelled to North Africa without being able to retrieve them. It was there that he rewrote most of them, and they contain several references to the persecutions. It is apparent that his writings are the most important extant Hebrew source for those events. Among the Jewish eyewitnesses is Solomon ibn Verga, also a Spanish refugee, but his testimony is of less importance for our discussion. In his book Shevet Tehudah, where he enumerated all the shemadot (persecutions) known to him, he barely mentions the Portuguese cases. T h e reason for this odd omission seems to be rooted in the fact that despite being there he consciously preferred not to dwell on it. As opposed to Zacut and Saba, he was apparently baptized in 1497. He barely hints at this while recounting the riots against the New Christians in Lisbon in 1506, saying inter alia: "And I was then outside the city." Of course, no professing Jews were allowed in Portugal after the expulsion. 80 Abraham Ardutiel wrote his Hashlamat Sefer ha-Qabbalah (Completion of the Book of Tradition) in North Africa. He was also a Spanish refugee but never lived in Portugal. Nonetheless he heard horror stories about the "Portuguese experience" from the few survivors who arrived in Fez. It would appear that his account is of importance for the reconstruction of the stance toward Kiddush ha-Shem current among the rabbinic circles of the Spanish refugees. 80

He hints at it in chapter 60 which discusses the riots against the New Christians in Lisbon in 1506. In the opening he writes: "I was outside the city" {Shevet Tehudah, 125). Similarly, we find by Rabbi Joseph Garson, on whose forced-conversion and subsequent temporary stay in Portugal as a crypto-Jew we can learn only from his inferences (J. Hacker, "Li-Dmutam ha-Ruhanit shel Yehudei Sefarad be-Sof haMe'ah ha-Hamesh Esreh," Sefunot [n.s.] II [17], 1983, 29-35). Isaac ibn Farage was also in Portugal during that time. He informs us of all three edicts, but does not say anything at all about the martyrdom, which undoubtedly did take place. One interesting detail, included in his short chronicle, says that the reason for the first persecution was the breach of the agreement about the eight months limited stay of the Jews in Portugal (A. Marx, "The Expulsion of the Jews from Spain; Two new Accounts," JQR 20 [o.s.], 1908, 266).

Among other Hebrew sources which should be considered secondary in importance, being "heresay," and suspect of tendentiousness, is Elijah Qapsali. According to his testimony in his book Seder Eliyyahu Zuta, he received his information about Portugal from Spanish refugees. Still, his account is very lengthy and deserves our attention. Samuel Usque, the historiographer of the second generation of the Portuguese New Christians who returned to Judaism, tells us about some of the persecutions. As we will see, he was not aware of all of them, but one finds conspicuously serious contradictions in the narrative of those he did know about. This fact and his very emotional descriptions cast a shadow on his reliability as a historian. T h e most important of the non-Hebrew sources available to us is the written testimony from 1531 by Fernando Coutinho, a supreme judge, and later the bishop of Silves. Coutinho was close to King Manuel and was an eyewitness to the decision-making process and its execution. 8 ' His attitude is not apologetic at all, nor does he attempt to justify the Crown. In fact, he volunteered his testimony in order to help a New Christian accused of "judaizing," arguing that he was not to be punished for his erroneous behavior because he had been forced to convert together with the rest of the Jews in Portugal. In contra-distinction, Damiâo de Gôis (1502-1574) was hired to write the official history of Manuel's kingship, which he did between 1556-1566. 82 In some of the chapters changes were introduced before publication, due to objections of the royal family. Geronimo (Hieronimus) Osorio (1506-1580), the bishop of Silves, who wrote his account of Manuel's reign in 1571, was influenced by Gôis' work. 83

The Abduction of the Children: Between 1493 and 1497 We have relatively many sources concerning the abduction of the children in 1493 which remain insufficient for painting a full and clear historical picture of this event. The common denominator of all of them is that none describes any cases of a Jewish response in the form

81

A. Herculano, Da origem e estebelecimiento da inquisicao em Portugal I, Lisboa 1856,

121. 82 Damiao de Gôis, Cronica do serenissimo Senhor Rei Dom Emanuel, Coimbra 1 790, ch. 20. 83 Hieronimus Osorio, De Rebus Emmanuelis, Conimbricae 1791, 48-53.

of active martyrdom. 8 4 As we will see, such acts will characterize the second abduction on Passover 1497. 85 It would seem that the sources H4 Zacut mentions it in one casual sentence which does not describe the background to this decree: "And time might end before one can finish telling the story of Portugal, where more than one hundred and twenty thousands souls entered and only a few were left after a plague, and others became captives after they took their children and sent them to the isles of the sea" (Tohasin, 227a). Abraham Saba also deals with it shortly, without any mention of Kiddush ha-Shem: "'Your sons and daughters shall be given to another people' (Deut. 28:32). This is another curse that befell us, due to our sins, in Portugal, where the king took the small sons and daughters and sent them by ship to the isles of the snakes in order to build there a colony" (£eror ha-Mor, Devanm, 46b. Interestingly, Saba does not write that the king's intention was to cause the parents to convert, but rather he gives an "economic" reason: to setde and colonize the islands of Säo Tomé, which had been discovered only a few years earlier. A prior attempt of the Portuguese to setde it with convicts failed.) Solomon ibn Verga, a third eyewitness, writes: "Anyone who did not see the crying and screaming of the mothers have neither heard nor seen anxiety and moaning in his life. And there was no one to show mercy [...]" He adds an anecdote about a mother whose six children had been taken from her, and the king—to whose feet she fell in a desperate plea for mercy—hardened his heart and turned away. Here also there is no mention of martyrdom scenes (Shevet Tehudah, 125). Qapsali informs only that due to this decree many converted to avoid seperation from their children. Again, no mention of martyrdom {Seder Eliyyahu £uta, chapter 75, 222). Rabbi Solomon Elqabe?, one of the most important qabbalists in the East in the first half of the sixteenth century, was born after the events. He recounts acts of martyrdom which he must have heard about in family and Sefardic refugee circles. His emotional words come in a prayer he wrote where he makes clear mention of the 1493 abduction decree and the exiling of the children to Säo Tomé. It seems that he refers there to scenes of active martyrdom, only that the poetic context blurs the description and makes it difficult to determine to exacdy which event they belong. Moreover, it comes from the pen of a second generation "heresay," which makes this testimony problematic from a historical point of view (R.Z.I. Werblowsky, "Tiqqun Tefilot le-Rabi Shelomoh ibn Elqabe?," Sefiinot 6, 1962, 152, and see the interpretation of the relevant parts of the prayer, 141. Elqabez' style is similar to the descriptions of Rabbi Abraham Ardutiel {Hashlamat Sefer ha-Qabbalah, 37). Samuel Usque does not relate anything about the Passover 1497 decree, and it would seem that he was not aware of it at all. But he does write about the 1493 abduction, and at relative length. Like others, he does not refer to cases of martyrdom, in contra-distinction to the mass forced conversion in Lisbon. He explains apologetically why there were almost no cases of suicides; "But husbands feared their beloved wives would be widows and alone among the enemies, while wives were restrained by the hope of seeing their children (in the future) again" (S. Usque, Consolacao as tribulacoes de Israel, Ferrara, 1553 [reprinted with introductory studies by Y.H. Yerushalmi and Jose V. de Pina Martins, Lisboa 1989], p. 101b. Consolation for the Tribulation of Israel [M. Cohen trans.], Philadelphia, 1977, 202). Had Usque known of the second abduction, when cases of active martyrdom were common, he would not have been able to justify as he does, the lack of readiness for martyrdom in the first. 85

Rui de Pina and Garcia de Resende, the chroniclers of J o à o II, King of Portugal, tell of this decree (ignoring completely the inhumanity of it, contrary to King

r e c o u n t i n g t h e first a b d u c t i o n e p i s o d e d o n o t a t t e m p t to o f f e r a n y e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e a b s e n c e o f a c t i v e a c t s o f m a r t y r d o m . If n o t f o r t h e radical m o d e s of response to the s e c o n d a b d u c t i o n w e w o u l d p r o b a b l y h a v e e x p l a i n e d it a w a y w i t h t h e c o m m o n l y a c c e p t e d s c h o l a r l y v i e w a s t o t h e d i f f e r e n c e in s t a n c e t o w a r d Kiddush ha-Shem

between Ashkenaz

a n d S e f a r a d . I b e l i e v e t h a t w h a t is in n e e d o f h i s t o r i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n is n o t t h e p h e n o m e n o n o f a c t i v e m a r t y r d o m in 1 4 9 7 b u t r a t h e r its a b s e n s e in 1 4 9 3 . I n o r d e r t o f i n d t h e d i f f e r e n c e in t h e J e w i s h

reac-

tions to the two persecutions of a similar n a t u r e w e m u s t t u r n to the sources w h i c h describe the second decree. O n the publication of the edict of expulsion a n d the m a j o r events that followed d u r i n g that year, w e a r e i n f o r m e d at relative length by A b r a h a m

Zacut:

A n d there was a great shemad d u r i n g that y e a r , the likes of which has not h a p p e n e d before. A n d on the eve of Shabbat ha-Gadol.m it was d e c r e e d that the youth [ne'aHm u-ne'arot] in E v o r a a n d in the whole of Portugal w o u l d b e c o n v e r t e d . A n d a great o u t c r y to the king the likes of which has not h a p p e n e d b e f o r e took place in E v o r a . 8 ' A n d d u r i n g Passover they c a m e a n d took all the boys a n d girls. A n d the decree s p r e a d since e v e n old p e o p l e w e r e c o n v e r t e d b y f o r c e . 8 8 A n d m a n y d i e d for t h e sanctification of the N a m e by killing themselves. 8 9

Manuel's chroniclers who emphasized this aspect in the parallel 1497 decree) without making any remark on the martyrdom. Although we cannot rely on the silence of these sources, they do strengthen the silence of the Hebrew sources, and are diametrically opposed to the Portuguese sources informing about the second abduction including the martyrdom. Generally, there is a surprising similarity, sometimes to the point of an identical narrative (including identical expressions) between the Hebrew and Portuguese sources, be it in the description of the decrees or the fate of the refugees in their wanderings on land and on sea. m> T h e Sabbath before Passover. 87 A Portuguese source corroborates this detail. Everyone agrees that the subject was discussed in the king's council in Estremoz and that that it was announced in Evora. According to Gôis, the council decided on it unanimously (Gôis, Crönica, 35), while according to Coutinho, who was present at that meeting, the King decided on it despite the opposition of the Church representatives, including Coutinho himself, who could not agree to such an inhumane act (Herculano, Historia, 121). 88 A Portuguese source informs that when the use of force started, they seized even older youth, contrary to the original instructions (Herculano, Hutoria (121 -2). 89 Zacut, Yohasin, 227b. It was probably during this abduction that Judah Abravanel's son was seized and taken away. His father tells about King Manuel in his long lament and calls him "a fool of a king" and "pious in his religion, a hollow man," who decreed a forced-conversion "on the entire congregation o f j a c o b , [...], and many killed themselves to avoid transgressing the Torah of God" (Οζ,ατ Nehmad II, Vienna, 1857, 72). T h e sources do not allow us to distinguish between the Spanish refugees and the Portuguese local Jews. O n the religious-spiritual ambience characterizing

Here, for the first time we read about killing as part of Kiddush haShem in Portugal, although Zacut talks explicitly not about killing the children but only about "killing themselves", namely, suicides. On the same episode during Passover 1497, we read Qapsali's long rhymed eulogy, written in his unique style that is rich in biblical allusions: And when the Gentiles took the children of the Jews an uncountable number of them converted because they could not bear this decree, since it is known that the compassion of a father toward his son is great etc. And some of them [heleq mehem] sanctified the Name and remained holy, having no pity on the fruit of the womb and their eye did not spare children and they did not waver at all in their religion and faith. 90

The Portuguese sources, all of whom protest against this inhumane decree, each in his individual style and according to the writer's daring, tell a similar story about the Jewish active martyrdom. Coutinho tells about such acts that took place all over Portugal. Some of the Jews chose to strangle their children or drown them in wells. Others, who could not muster the necessary emotional strength for such acts went, heads bowed and mourning, with their children to the baptismal fonts while protesting and turning to God to be their witness that they wished to die in the law of Moses. 91 Damiào de Gôis relates that the crying and pain of the parents thus robbed touched the hearts of many Christians who pitied them and took Jewish children to their homes in order to hide them from the King's soldiers. This historian goes on: T h e same natural law (which bonds children and their parents, and which caused Christians to help the Jews. A.G.) led the Jews themselves to resort to cruelty. Many of them killed their children by throwing and drowning them in wells and rivers and by other means, wishing to see them end this way rather than to be separated from themselves without hope of ever seeing them again. For the same reason many (of the parents) killed themselves. 92

Lisbon in the middle of the fifteenth century see: A. Gross, Rabi Yosef Hayyun; Parshan u-Manhig Qehilat Lisbon vi-Yeiirato, Ramat-Gan, 1993, 12-7, 113-20. 90 Seder Eliyahu Zuta, chapter 81, 234. 91 Herculano, Histôria, 125. 92 Gôis, Crônica, 36. This event was recendy reconstructed briefly on the basis of Gois1 description in: M.J. Pimenta Ferro Tavares, Os judeus em Portugal no seculo XV, Lisboa 1982, p. 486.

In other words, and this is omitted by Gôis, since the parents did not want to convert, they preferred to kill their children and commit suicide. The possibility that their children would live but grow up as Christians was ruled out as an option on religious grounds. The other option, that the children would be saved from baptism by killing them while the parents remained alive and Jewish—the decree was not against adults—was also ruled out on emotional grounds. 95 An interesting fact on the process of carrying out this decree, related by Gôis, might also shed light on the response of the Jews. He states that the element of surprise had been lost owing to a leak from the King's court, since all the members of the King's council were aware of the decree about to be carried out. It was due to this that the King decided to carry out this operation earlier, and thus attempt to avoid the hiding of the children or the smuggling of them across the borders of Portugal. 94 We may learn from this report that the rumor concerning the decree spread throughout Portugal, and certainly in the large cities, where most of the Jews concentrated, so that the Jews knew what was about to happen. It is possible that some were able to escape or smuggle their children outside the country. We can safely assume that even if there was not enough time left to save the children, other options were discussed, Kiddush ha-Shem among them. We can further assume that the rabbis had much to say about it, and the actual martyrdom as it was then carried out—even though it was not identical to the collective-communal manner known from the Ashkenazic experience, was the result of prior religious and mental preparation. 9 '

93

A similar description of the decree and of the acts of martyrdom—including a long, harsh and blunt criticism against the inhuman and "non-Christian" act of the King—appears by Osorio (De Rebus, 49-53). Gôis' attitude to the active martyrdoms performed by the Jews agrees with a similar attitude in late medieval Germany See: M. Minti, "Kiddush ha-Shem be-einei No?rim be-Germaniah bi-Yemei ha-Beinayyim," ^ion 59, 1994, 209-66. 94 Gôis, Crônica, 35. 95 In the end, the edict was announced, according to Zacut, on Friday, the eve of the Great Sabbath, and on Passover it was carried out. According to Qapsali, it happened on the eve of the Seder (the first night of Passover). If Zacut's dates are precise, then from the calendar we learn that inn that year, the first day of Passover fell on Sabbath, March 18. Consequendy, the Great Sabbath fell a week earlier, on March 11, and Friday was March 10. In the period of one week the Jews could, as individuals, attempt to find escape routes for their children. However, it is doubtful that the authorities would make public an edict in a way that the element of surprise would be lost. Therefore, it is possible that Zacut was referring to Friday, eve of

This is, possibly, how we are to understand the difference between the responses to the two persecutions. A few years earlier, in 1493, the Jews were in a state of shock, facing what they perceived as an unprecedented and cruel decree by no less than the Crown, which had served as their traditional shield and protector against popular riots and church incitement. They were unprepared for this form of religious persecution. All sources describe hysterical crying, emotional pleas for mercy, screaming and the heartbreaking shrieking of parents, but not even one case of active martyrdom. The "Simple People of Israel" and the "Heads of Israel": Two Roads to Martyrdom in the Mass Forced-Conversion in Lisbon The most important of the Hebrew sources for the events in Lisbon is Abraham Saba who was an eyewitness. In his commentary on the book of Esther, he discusses the question of how a righteous man like Mordekhai could have allowed Esther to be taken away from him to the King5s court: Passover, which fell on March 17. Cf. C. Roth, The History of the Marranos, New York 1959, p. 57. In this case there was very little time, or no time at all for the parents to plan or execute the escape of the children. Nor was there time for the spiritual leaders to prepare the community to face martyrdom. As for the role of the rabbis in such circumstances, one should remember the famous description of the expulsion from Spain by Andres Bernaldes, who relates in detail the active role they took in encouraging the members of their communities in the march on foot out of Spain (A. Bernaldez, Historia de los Reyes Catolicos Don Fernando y Dona Isabel I, Sevilla 1869, ch. 110, 112, 335, 342. (See also: Katz, Bein, 331-2). Ginés de Moya, a resident of Cuenca who was accused of judaizing, testified in 1516 in front of an Inquisitorial court that during 1496 many Jews left Portugal, heading for Turkey, fleeing the Inquisition (huydos por miedo de la Ynquisiaon). C. Carrete Parrondo, El judaismo espanoly la inquisicion, Madrid 1992, 47). It would seem that the accused exchanged Jews and the Portuguese Crown edicts for Marranos and Spanish Inquisition, since no Inquisition operated in Portugal yet. If the date given by him is correct, we can learn about a movement of the Jews out of Portugal as soon as the edict of expulsion was announced (5.12.1496). It is certainly plausible that in the year between the announcement of the edict and its execution there was a constant trickle of Jews outside Portugal. T h e rumors about the decision on a second round of abduction of Jewish children only hastened this process. It is possible that the attempts to smuggle children outside the kingdom and to secret hiding places in it are hinted at in Saba's complaint about Mordekhai's idleness concerning Esther. At any rate, the testimony of Ginés de Moya is of importance for the dcmographical question about the fate and whereabouts of the Spanish refugees and of the Portuguese Jews who did not come to Lisbon for the "expulsion." O n this see also: B. Netanyahu, The Marranos of Spain in the 15th Century, New York, 1966, p. 213.

And now, when he heard the King's messanger proclaim that everyone who had a daughter or a sister should have her brought to the King to have sexual intercourse with this uncircumsized idol-worshipper, why did he not risk his life and take her to a land which is cut off [erez gezerah] until the rage passed, or to escort her to another kingdom? And if neither of these options were possible, behold as we have seen with our own eyes in the Kingdom of Portugal during the expulsion, when the boys and girls were taken by force to violate their religion and be converted that they (the parents) strangled and slaughtered themselves and their wives. And this happened especially at first when the decree did not apply to more than the boys and girls, and they took the boys and girls and threw them into wells91' in order to kill them during their own lives [le-hamitam be-hayehem\ while they (the parents) were still alive, or to strangle and slaughter them, instead of watching them commit idolatry. And why did Mordekhai not do one of those things, which the simple people of Israel [qetaneiyisrael] did in Portugal? It was appropriate for Mordekhai to have killed himself for such an issue. 9 '

From here we can learn in detail and from a reliable source about the various means of killing and suicide practiced by the Jews. It is somewhat difficult to determine conclusively the chronological peak of the active martyrdom as described by Saba. It is possible that the phrase, "and this happened especially at first when the decree did not apply to more than the boys and girls," refers to the abduction of the youths on Passover 1497. If so, then the expression "in the Kingdom of Portugal" would be understood literally since by Passover, Saba was not in Lisbon and could only have seen the acts he describes as an eyewitness in Guimarâes, where he lived until the expulsion. However, it is more convenient to understand the phrase "during the expulsion" literally, that is, in Lisbon during the final phase of the forced-conversion, in which parents were separated from their offspring in the beginning of the process. What is only hinted at in Saba's description is recounted in detail

%

T h e Hebrew word is borot, which means (empty) holes. But other sources, Portuguese and Hebrew alike, talk about wells, be'erol, so that Saba might have meant wells. 97 Eshkol ha-Kofer (on the Book of Esther), Drohobitz, 1903, 39-40. For the expression qetaneiyisrael see: Yerushatmi, Shevi'it, 4:8. Saba mentions those killed as martyrs elsewhere: "[...] dew that God will resurrect the dead with [...]. These are the dead for the sanctification of the Name, like those who were killed in Portugal in the time of persecution, whose bodies where thrown like dead animals in dunghills, and they will rise up (from the dead)" 'nor ha-Mor, Devaúm, 42a).

by Samuel Usque. Writing in the middle of the sixteenth century, he is not aware of the abduction of the youths during Passover, and there are inaccuracies in his survey of the events in Lisbon. As stated above, half a century had elapsed since the events, and Usque himself spent most of his life until then as a clandestine Jew in Portugal. Despite the distorted details in his narrative, 98 we can accept as true his description of the various stages of the forced mass-conversion. Usque relates that at first, the Portuguese took all of those who were under twenty-five years of age in Lisbon and baptized them by force. Afterwards they informed their parents that their children had converted to Christianity. When this did not help and the Jews stuck stubbornly to their faith, they were dragged violently by their legs, or by the hair of their heads and beards and brought to the churches where they were sprinkled with baptismal waters. 99 It is at this point, according to Usque, that there was an outbreak of acts of martyrdom. One father covered his six sons with their prayer shawls [com seus taleciod] and after speaking with them about Kiddush ha-Shem, he slaughtered them one by one. 100 Another couple hung themselves, and many jumped into wells or out of windows, their bodies smashing to the ground. Although the factualness of some of the details in this narrative are questionable, we do find in the most reliable Portuguese account, that of Bishop Coutinho, a confirmation of the phases described by Usque. According to the bishop, first they separated the youth who were with their parents and baptized them. Only after did they coerce their parents: "I myself saw many dragged by the hair of their heads to the baptismal fonts." 101 98

See: Tishbi, Meshihiyut, 25 n. 42. Usque, Consolacàm, 104a. Consolation [M. Cohen trans.], 204. This seems to contradict Saba's testimony as if all of them were converted in Os Estàos and in the large courtyard behind it. It should be noted, however, that according to Joseph Hakohen, who apparendy copied from Usque (Emeq ha-Bakha, Cracow, 1895, 104-6), we find the Hebrew bamah, namely, one church, and in this case there was no need to drag the Jews out of the compound of Os Estâos. In the first edition of Usque's book it is written dentro as ygrejas, in the plural, and we can assume that Hakohen either made a mistake or that he "corrected" his source. 11,0 Usque is not concerned by the question, raised by his own chronology, namely, how his children remained with him after the seperation. 101 Herculano, Historia, 125. About the mass forced-conversion we are told by Gôis (Crônica, 36) that the King supplied temporary lodging for more than 20,000 Jews in the palace of Os Estäos: "dandolhes hos estaos pera se nelles agasalharem, onde se ajuntaram mais de vinte mil almas." He must have been aware of the fact that one cannot sleep in that compound in a reasonable manner (In the whole of Lisbon 99

It might be telling that in describing the mass forced-conversion in Lisbon, which came after the separation of the youth from their parents, Saba makes no mention at all of martyrdom: "Afterwards they put all of them in one courtyard, about ten thousand Jews, and they forced and tempted [hikhrihum u-fitum] them to renounce their religion. In four days time there were fewer than forty men and women left." 102 One can sense a certain disappointment on Saba's part from what transpired there. After all, from the fact that out o f t e n thousand less than forty people were strong enough to cling strongly to their faith, there lived about 60,000 in this period). He chose to gloss over this point, knowing full well that his readers in Lisbon acquainted with this building—which became the seat of the Inquisition—would know that the "lodging" offered by the King could not have been a very friendly and hospitable one. This might be his way of hinting to something he could not write about openly. (As to the possibility of having such a huge crowd in this palace, see: A. Gross, "Rabi Avraham Saba 'ha-Megorash bi-Shnei Gerushim'," Sefer ζίλατοη la-Rav Y17J1aq Ktssim ha-Rishon le-£iyyon IV, Jerusalem, 1985, 222 n. 42, and the fifteenth century painting of Os Estâos, including its courtyard, on the cover of: Idem, Iberian Jewry from Twilight to Dawn: The World of Rabbi Abraham Saba, Leiden, 1995.) Gôis goes on to say that due to some delays somehow the last day, according to the edict of expulsion, passed and being illegally on Portuguese soil they became prisoners in Os Estàos, and most of them surrendered. They were taken to be baptized without any physical resistance on their part, and then their children were returned to them. (Osorio follows Gôis in the descriptive part of the events [De Rebus, 48-9]. His harsh criticism of the cunning and deceit employed by the King, and of the final forced baptism, stands out against the general background of his tendency to portray Manuel as a humane, benevolent and compassionate ruler.) Salo Baron accepts the descriptions of the Portuguese sources and adds something of his own: "The Jews arrived at Lisbon after the embarkation from two other ports had been cancelled. In Lisbon there were only few ships, so that only a small number of Jews could leave the country. The majority was entrapped, rounded up and led to Os Estäos" (S.W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews XI, New York & London 1967, p. 248). Gôis adds that those Jews who continued to resist baptism were given a vessel to sail to North Africa. He does not give any details about this group, but it should be identified with the Saba group, as one can deduce from another unpublished source which talks about a limited group of seven or eight (Herculano, HLstoria, 127 n. 1). 1112 Gross, ibid.. Rabbi Joseph Ya'avez, a contemporary Sefardi refugee, brings as an example for martyrdom—contrary to others who converted—"Shimon, the righteous, who is the perfect sage, Rabbi Shimon Meme, who sanctified the Name as did Rabbi Akiva and his collègues [...] and other pious ones [hasidim] who suffered many evils and frightening troubles for the sake of God. Some of them died while others were saved as a brand plucked from the fire" (Hasdei ha-Shem, New York, 1934, 57). He does not mention active martyrdom at all. It is possible that, being in Italy, he was not yet aware (or did not know the details) of what had transpired in Portugal in 1497. If he wrote this tract in 1492, as his son informs in the introduction, then we must assume that this passage was added as soon as he heard of the of the forced-conversion in Lisbon and about Rabbi Shimon Meme.

one might surmise that the vast majority lost its power to resist the physical and spiritual pressures they were under ("and they forced and tempted them"). 103 From both of Saba's paragraphs, it would seem that in the last phase there were very few, or no cases at all of martyrdom. In addition to the long physical and mental attrition the Jews endured, which certainly contributed to the mass conversions (and here we can rely on the Portuguese sources as well), it is also possible that it was the sense of responsibility of parents for their children, being afraid of the prospects of their young children losing their faith—that brought them to the baptismal fonts. It was the same religious motivation that pushed them in the first place to commit radical acts of martyrdom when their children were still with them. Adults who had no children could have found various justifications for choosing not to take their own lives, and so the number of martyrs in the last four days subsided or disappeared altogether. One phrase of Saba's, "the simple people of Israel" still needs some clarification. It is hard to reach a conclusive understanding of it. Does he mean to say that many of them, even of the simple people, committed active martyrdom, or do we have here a sociological description of a lower class that contributed the bulk of the martyrs? Saba's argument against Mordekhai who as a scholar and leader should have done so, do not afford us one unequivocal interpretation of the phrase in question. 104 Even if Saba's opinion was that the "simple people of Israel" acted commendably, and that their actions should set an example for each individual in whose heart the love of God and His faith burn, still we may ask whether this was the stance common among the majority of the Sefardic spiritual leaders of the day. It is a fact that

10i

This is true, although in another place he calls some of them "righteous forced-converts." {Zfr°r ha-Mor, Vayiqra, 35b). 104 There might be a recommendation for active martyrdom included in an important sermon of his on the portion of Va-Ethanan, which he delivered in Fez upon his recovery from a very serious intestinal illness. The focus of the passage is the idea of daily preparation for an actual religious trial of martyrdom through the recital of the Shema. Saba suggests that the recital should be done in a way that the individual will attain a mystical union with God [1devequt]: "And this is the meaning of 'And you shall love the Lord, your God,' because each one who does it out of love, due to an abundance of longing and love, does not think much of himself or his wife and children" (£eror ha-Mor, Devanm, 15a. Here, too, one might trace this idea, that one's love of God should overshadow his love for his wife and children to Hasidei Ashkenaz (See: Sefer Hasidim [ed. A. Wistinetsky], Berlin 1891, no. 1513. Sefer ha-Roqe'ah, Jerusalem 1967, 5-6).

out of the relatively many accounts of Kiddush ha-Shem in Portugal, we are hard-pressed to find any of the important and famous rabbis, who suffered themselves the "Portuguese experience," and who killed their own families or committed suicide. There were widely circulated stories that found their way into the writings of contemporary historiographers and chroniclers about the courage of Rabbi Shimon Meme and his group and about Saba and his companions, all of whom were ready to die as martyrs (and the first group were, in fact, martyred), but no one is mentioned to have killed as an act of martyrdom. The imbalance between the ideal and reality is also conspicuous in the halakhic discourse on active martyrdom by Abraham Zacut. 10 ‫ '־‬At the beginning of the text he states: "For we saw righteous ones who killed themselves and their children so that they (the Christians) would not force them to leave God's Torah." At its close, however, when he tries to propound a case of such a radical form of martyrdom by authoritative rabbinic figures, he cites the name of only one scholar, unknown to us from other sources and evidently not from the elite of the rabbinic leadership: "And thus acted the sage Rabbi Isaac ben Zahin of Bonillia de la Sierra, both he and his sons during the persecutions in Portugal, in the year 257 (1497)." 106 It might be that there is an allusion to such an ideology in the writings of Rabbi Abraham ben Ardutiel. In his historiographical work Hashlamat Sefer ha-Qabbalah, the author mentions the abduction of the children and youth without mentioning their parents' acts of martyrdom. 1 0 7 However, when he writes about the mass forced-martyrdom in Lisbon, Ardutiel recounts the following: And the King did not calm down until he took the scholars [...] and tortured them in a variety of ways and imprisoned them with iron chains. And many of the Jews who could not endure the trial converted. Some of the others hung themselves and some gave themselves for the sanctity of His Name [...]. At their head stood the saintly and pious rabbi with a pure soul and clean body like Elisha, "the man of wings," 108 Rabbi Shimon Meme, of blessed memory, who gave himself together with his his house and all that he had—men, women and children—and died in prison in great torment. And the pious and saintly scholar, Rabbi Shem

lib F ‫ ״‬r the complete halakhic discourse, see above. 106 107 108

Tohasin, 51b. Hashlamat Sefer ha-Qabbalah, 37, 40. See: B. Shabbat, 49a.

Τον Lerma endured much torture, as we mentioned above, when they put him in prison. And afterwards he was freed by them and the Holy One blessed be He saved his life from death, and he came to the kingdom of Fez along with Rabbi Jacob Loal and Rabbi Abraham Saba." 19

Ardutiel informs us here about two types of martyrdom. There were those who hung themselves, and undoubtedly he sees in them legitimate martyrs, although he does not apply this term to them. The title is reserved for the second type—the group of rabbis who stood their religious ground passively against the decree, putting their lives at risk (and indeed, at least one of the rabbis died). It would seem that Ardutiel saw in their resolve—which defied the Christians and their physical power, without resorting to the quick solution of suicide—a higher ideal. The difficulty of a continuous trial of martyrdom is expressed already in the Midrash, where Rabbi Hiyya bar Aba states that he is ready to give his life: "I (am ready to) give, but only if they kill me instantly." 110 In a similar vein we read in the Babylonean Talmud: "Rav said: If they had tortured Hanania, Mishael and Azaria, they would have worshipped the idols."(Ketubot, 33b) Above all, in Jewish tradition there stood tall the exemplary classic martyrdom of Rabbi Akiva, who risked his life for the sake of Torah study and was eventually killed by the Romans. As Maimonides rates the martyrdom of Rabbi Akiva and his collègues: "These are the martyrs [harugei malkhui] than whom none ranks higher." 111 Generally, suicide is not considered a positive option in Jewish tradition, and certainly is not recommended in the Sefardic halakhic tradition, even in a case of having to choose between death or idolatry which enters the halakhic category of "let him be killed and not transgress." If we follow the chain of events as described by Qapsali, we will reach the same conclusion. T h e majority of the martyrdom stories by Qapsali revolve around the mass forced-conversion in Lisbon. As far as he knows, there was an escalation in a series of Jewish responses against the conversion aims of King Manuel. In this showdown, the Jews who always found the way to martyrdom and thus avoided conversion were the winners. According to Qapsali, the decree to assemble all the Jews in Lisbon came in reaction to the Jew's stubborness to the point of active 109 110

'11

Hashlamat Sefer ha-Qabbala, 40. Shir ha-Shirm Rabbah, 2:7. Cited by Hacker, Kelum, 231, n. 36. Mishneh Torah, Tesodei ha-Torah, 5:5.

martyrdom during Passover. When they arrived, the King announced that anyone who accepted baptism would get his children back, and those who did not would be imprisoned. Many apostatized, but many others resolved to die as martyrs." 2 Under the extreme conditions of physical pressure many converted, "and the rest remained in the trial," sticking tenaciously to their initial resolve. Until this point in the narrative we encounter passive martyrdom only. In the next phase, the King decides to baptize the Jews by sheer physical force, and orders his men to drag the Jews into churches and baptize them against their will. 113 But the Jews find a temporary answer to this step by breaking and desecrating the Christian idols within the churches, so that they were killed for it. In other words, when necessary, they rose to the occasion and sanctified the Name in a creative way; combining acts of defiance—such as smashing and desecrating crucifixes—which triggered their final martyrdom, but passively, at the hands of the Christians. The King, determined to convert the Jews no matter what, now ordered his men not to touch Jews who might commit similar acts of defiance. This led to the next phase of martyrdom, when the Jews "saw that there was no way to die (passively) and decided to throw themselves into cisterns, pits and caverns in order to avoid being led to 'broken cisterns' (baptismal fonts)." The struggle between the King and the Jews did not end there, because the King commanded that the Jews be guarded so closely that they would not be able to martyr themselves. At this stage only seven Jews remained, among them Rabbi Shimon Meme and two others who eventually were tortured and died in prison, and four more who were expelled in a small ship without food, sails or oars. By some miracle, this group reached North Africa and was saved." 4 O n e of Qapsali's major aims is to tell about the self-sacrifice of the Sefardic refugees. After a story about a woman who killed her five children in Arzilla, he sums up: "And many similar acts were performed by the refugees [anshei ha-gerush] [...] and they sanctified the Name with vigor. Their souls shall abide in prosperity and their seed shall inherit the land". 1 1 } We must treat his stories with caution. Shlomo Simonson has already pointed to the problem of the mixture

112 113 114 115

Seder, chapter 81, 235. Ibid., chapter 82, 236. Ibid., 237-8. Chapter 78, 229.

of facts and fiction which characterize Qapsali's Spanish collection of stories.This is probably because of his oral sources, Sefardic refugees, who misled him. 1 1 6 While we agree with Simonson, we should be aware that Qapsali's work contains factual material which should be sifted from the imaginary narratives. For example, Qapsali tells us that after the active martyrdom in which the children were slaughtered, the King ordered that the possessions of the parents be transferred to the abducted children, "and children inherited from their fathers while they were still alive." 117 This he heard from the refugees, and it confirms what Ibn Farage tells us: "And they took the fathers' money and gave it to their sons," a fact not known from any other source. 118 Almost all of the details in Qapsali's account can be confirmed by other sources. Generally, the imprécisions are minor. Most of the account concerning the struggle between the King and the martyrs is true, although the creation of the narrative framework and the chronology of the phases might be a creation of Qapsali's, or his source's, imagination. From Qapsali's own presentation there arises a piercing question which must be directed to those who were martyred in the end, headed by Rabbi Shimon Meme. If, indeed, there was a phase in which people took their own lives in order to avoid baptism, why did the group, called by Qapsali "heads of the children of Israel," not act similarly? How is it that, of all people, the leaders who were to serve as the models for their religious flock, did not commit suicide? The narrator does not address this question. We read that the martyrs of this group tried every possible way to provoke the soldiers in order to become martyrs. They could "throw themselves into wells [...]," directly and die without the assistance of the Christians, but did not! From the fact that a revered leadership did not choose this path, the reader may learn that this was not the ideal martyrdom. If this analysis is correct, then we can interpret the behavior of the rabbinic leadership in Lisbon as negating active martyrdom, in the form of suicide known primarily from medieval Ashkenaz, and especially rejecting the slaughter of women and children. All this might teach us about Qapsali's stance, if this is more than a narrative and in fact happened, as we believe it did—albeit not in

116 S. Simonson, "'Seder Eliyyahu Zuta—'Divrei ha-Yamim 5 and 'Sipurei Sefard'," Seder Eliyyahu Zuta III, Tel Aviv, 1983, 234. 117 Seder, Chapter 81, 234. 118 See: Marx, Two New Accounts, 271, 266 n. 61.

the framework and order of Qapsali's account. According to Saba, a most reliable source for the reconstruction of some of the events in Lisbon, 119 Meme entered the Lisbon prison with "his sons-in-law, righteous people, and his righteous wife." 120 He died as a martyr, passively. Martyrdom in the manner of suicide and killing were not objected to as being contrary to the Halakhah. As we have seen, not only in the Ashkenazic but even in the Sefardic tradition martyrdom of this kind took place. Cases such as those of the much admired Asheri family in Toledo during 1391 could not be ignored or dismissed as illegal. Saba's expectation from Mordekhai to act in this manner in order to avoid the taking of Esther to the king 121 reveals his positive attitude toward it. All the chroniclers and historiographers who write with much admiration about the active martyrdoms during 1497 in Portugal, second it. Yet the Meme and Saba groups in Lisbon, alongside Ardutiel and Qapsali, teach us that active martyrdom was conceived as inferior to death at the hands of the Christians. They understood the readiness to suffer unto death, which reflects one's self-confidence in his ability to endure physical and mental torments, in full agreement with the talmudic and halakhic traditions, as preferable to a swift and "easy" solution. 122 Summary In principle we may accept Baer's succinct summary:

119

See: Tishbi, Meshihiyut, 12 n. 2.

120

Zeror ha-Mor, Vayiqra, 35a.

121

It would seem that Saba's religious expectation from Mordekhai is a stricture, not necessarily agreed to by all halakhic authorities, since it is not entirely clear that sexual relations with the Gentile king are not decidedly incest. (See, e.g. Hidushei ha-RITBA al Masekhet Ketubot [M. Goldstein ed.], Jerusalem, 1982, 14). If so, then Saba sides with the Ashkenazic general halakhic stance that one may die as a martyr even in cases when the Halakhah does not obligate him to. Such an attitude to Kiddush ha-Shem, which is contrary to the Maimonidean attitude (Tesodei ha-Torah 5:1) can be found already in Rabenu Nissim Gerondi (mid fourteenth century. B. Shabbat, 49a). For a more detailed discussion, see: Gross, Al ha-Tismonet, 95 n. 32. 122 If this, indeed, was Saba's pietistic stand, one must attempt to understand how was it that he himself did not prevent his sons forced-conversion by doing what the "simple people of Israel" had done. O n this, see: A. Gross, "Gerushei Sefarad u-Portugal bi-Re'i Parshanut Megilat Ester," Divrei ha-Qongres ha-Teshi'i le-Mada'ei ha-Tahadut, Jerusalem, 1986, 157.

By virtue of such a faith the Jew first evolved the practice of martyrdom, the revival of which, though it began with the pious men of Ashkenaz, eventually claimed the heartfelt allegiance of Spanish Jewry—the tortured of the Inquisition and the generation of the expulsion. 123

As to the historical connections, we have shown that active martyrdom in Iberia did not spring direcdy from its own independent tradition but from medieval traditions which found their way to Spain. Ashkenazic religiousity permeated Jewish society in Spain from the middle of the thirteenth century, erased some of the mental gap that had existed between the two Jewries, and was eventually reflected in the practices of Kiddush ha-Shem in the end of the fifteenth century. 124 T o be sure, many thousands of Jews converted and remained in Spain, preferring to hold on to their material possessions, giving up their spiritual ones in 1492. Many converted in Portugal during the 11 months of continuous persecutions from the announcement of the edict of expulsion up to the final mass forced-conversion in Lisbon. Opinions as to the legitimacy of active martyrdom varied from complete negation to enthusiastic affirmation. Among the supporters we can find not only qabbalists but also thinkers who are considered "enlightened rationalists." The majority of the rabbinic stratum present in Portugal during 1497 agreed to it, commended it, and even admired the martyrs. Yet the fact that not even one authoritative leader sacrificed his children teaches us that, similar to our claim concerning the leadership of Mainz during 1096, active martyrdom was considered by them to be second to the traditional, passive one taught by Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Hanina ben Teradion. Reviewing the phenomenon of active martyrdom from a chronological perspective one conspicuous fact, somewhat ironic and puzzling, stands out. While this norm was waning in the Ashkenazic cultural sphere during the fifteenth century, it was picked up and adopted in a very forceful manner in Iberia, as attested to by the events in Portugal. But as for the halakhic attitude to it, their admiration for 12 5

Y. Baer, The History of the Jews in Christian Spain II, Philadelphia, 1966, 430. The change is noticeable also in passive martyrdom. Contrary to the Maimonidean directive that one is prohibited from martyrdom when it is not demanded by the talmudic guidelines (Tesodei ha-Torah, 5:1) we find reservations among Sefardic authorities from the generation in the post-expulsion period, but the change started already in the fourteenth century (See Appendix B, below. See also: A. Gross, "Rashi u‫־‬Masoret Limud ha-Torah Shebikhtav," Rashi: lyyunim bi-Yeiirato [Z.A. Steinfeld ed.], Ramat Gan, 1993, 54-5.) 124

the deed performed by the masses notwithstanding, the rabbis had their reservations about this radical form of martyrdom which was, therefore, rarely sanctified in strictly halakhic writings. From the first generation that ushered in active martyrdom, in eleventh century Germany, to the last great manifestation of it, at the end of the fifteenth century on Iberian soil, no fully satisfying answer was found to disperse the clouds of halakhic doubt surrounding this practice. Explicit and implicit evidence for it is scattered in Hebrew narratives, texts and subtexts. The history of the actual performance of active martyrdom, a chapter in the interplay between human pain, parental compassion, religious zeal and spiritual tenacity, has faded into the pages of the history ofJewish martyrdom. Yet, its reverberations still continued to echo in the hearts and memory, playing their part in forming the individual and collective mentality of the of the martyrs' descendents, of their relatives and of the Iberian survivors as a whole. 123 125

See: Gross, Al ha-Tismonet, 107 and n. 80.

APPENDIX A

T H E I D E O L O G Y O F A C T I V E M A R T Y R D O M IN A N T I Q U I T Y : T H E P E T R O N I U S AFFAIR In discussing the phenomenon of active martyrdom, exercised by some Jews in the Middle Ages, one of the foremost problems facing the historian is its examination vis-à-vis Jewish tradition. How legitimate was it from the halakhic perspective? Were there any accounts—historical or mythical—which served as precedents for those medieval martyrs? This has been the basis for a heated scholarly debate and has been discussed in Chapter One. T h e Bible leaves us a dramatic account in which Saul, King of Israel, commits suicide after his defeat at the hands of the Philistines. Fearing that the "uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and make mock of me," he "took his sword and fell upon it." (ISam. 31:4) Similarly, and possibly inspired by the biblical story, we read of Razis who was about to fall into enemy hands during the first stages of the Hasmonean revolt, but decided to "fall upon his sword." 1 Many Jews chose suicide during the great revolt against Rome when they realized their defeat in batde and in the fall of fortresses such as Gamla in the Golan Heights, Yodpat in the Galilee, and the Temple in Jerusalem, in order not to fall into Romans hands or out of sorrow and despair. One can find precedents in aggadic, and even halakhic, literature which condone suicide under certain circumstances. Moreover, some cases, real or mythical, of such conduct are related throughout rabbinic literature. Here too, we have the case of the 400 children (or adults, according to another version) who were captured by the Romans, but drowned themselves on the way to Rome in order to avoid degradation and an immoral life imposed by the captors. Another case deals with someone who committed suicide out of deep sorrow. Yet another bizarre story is told about one who sought expiation for his sinful life and found a creative way of dying by applying

1 2Mac. 14:40. For a detailed analysis of this episode without referring to Saul but suggesting a Hellenistic idea of effective death (devotio) intended by Razis, see: J.W. Van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A study of 2 and 4 Maccabees, Leiden, 1997,146ff.

to himself all four of the methods of execution prescribed for different sins by the Jewish court [arba mitot beit din]. These cases were referred to in medieval rabbinic discussions of active martyrdom and cited in chapters ITII of this monograph. However, one does not find in early rabbinic literature any discussion, let alone actual cases, of the slaughter of wives and children as a positive (recommended or tolerated) act of martyrdom. T h e first Hebrew written account of such a case is recorded by the anonymous author of the historiographical work of Sefer Tossifon, written in southern Italy in the middle of the 10th century. This book tells about the tragic fate of Masada, and introduced the story to medieval Jews, who were not aware of the original works ofJosephus Flavius. Much has been said about the existence of Tossifon in 11th century Ashkenaz, the special reverence it acquired there, and the influence of the Masada slaughtering episode on the active martyrdom performed by the Jews of the Rhineland during the First Crusade in the spring of 1096. We have expressed our view, agreeing that Tossifon's story was indeed an inspiration to those martyrs, and that phrases and ideas from that book which left their traces in the Hebrew Chronicles of 1096—though extant in versions edited about half a century later—do reflect thoughts, attitudes and the state of mind current in the circles of the martyrs themselves. T h e story of the Sicarii's last stronghold in Masada came down to us only through the report of Josephus at the end of his Wars of the Jews Against the Romans. The scholarly bibliography discussing the veracity of this story has become an ever growing corpus since the archaeological excavations on that mountain in the 1960's. T h e various positions of historians cover a wide spectrum, ranging from a naive belief in most of Josephus' account to an almost total rejection of it. If we accept that a communal suicide scene did take place, albeit in a limited and not a total and comprehensive fashion as Josephus describes, then one must go one step further and look for the roots of the ideology. Some elements in the two speeches of the Sicarii leader in Masada, Eleazar ben Yair, can be taken as the creation of a highly imaginative Josephus, Nevertheless one must attempt to explain two things: what exacdy did they die for, and whether a communal slaughter for a religious idea was their original invention. It is quite surprising that an episode, which occurred one generation earlier and sheds, in our opinion, some light on the communal slaughter in Masada, was virtually overlooked by scholars ofthat period.

W e r e f e r t o t h e P e t r o n i u s e p i s o d e in P h i l o ' s v e r s i o n a s r e l a t e d b y t h i s Jewish Alexandrian philosopher.2 T h i s s t o r y is r e l a t e d a l s o b y j o s e p h u s . It is c l e a r t h a t h e w a s n o t a w a r e of Philo's a c c o u n t a n d t h a t h e h a d his o w n i n d e p e n d e n t sources f o r it. A . M . S m a l l w o o d , in c o m p a r i n g t h e h i s t o r i c a l w r i t i n g s o f P h i l o , a c o n t e m p o r a r y , to the parallel episodes related b y j o s e p h u s , concludes t h a t P h i l o ' s v e r s i o n s a r e m o r e t r u s t w o r t h y . 3 O n e d e t a i l in t h e s t o r y , which concerns o u r discussion escaped Smallwood's attention. T h e n e w s f r o m t h e L a n d o f I s r a e l r e a c h e d P h i l o w h i l e in R o m e d u r i n g his e m b a s s y t o G a i u s C a l i g u l a t o p l e a d o n b e h a l f o f t h e J e w s o f A l e x a n d r i a w h o h a d suffered persecutions. H e was told that Petronius, the R o m a n g o v e r n o r of Syria, h a d b e e n o r d e r e d b y G a i u s to erect a s t a t u t e o f Z e u s in t h e T e m p l e in J e r u s a l e m . O n h i s w a y f r o m t h e n o r t h a s h e w a s s t a t i o n e d in P t o l e m a i s ( A k r e ) , t h e f o l l o w i n g d r a m a t i c scene took place: But w h e n the people of the Holy City a n d the rest of the country discovered w h a t was afoot, they g a t h e r e d as if at a single signal, the signal given by their c o m m o n calamity, a n d c a m e out in a body, a b a n d o n i n g their cities, villages a n d h o m e s , a n d at a single impulse h u r r i e d to Phoenicia, 4 w h e r e Petronius h a p p e n e d to be. [...] T h e n the J e w s a p p r o a c h e d a n d m a d e appeals such as the occasion suggested. F o r calamities are themselves

2

A notable exception is M. Stern in his survey of Jewish suicide cases which preceded the Sicarii in Masada (M. Stern, "Hit'abdutam shel El'azar ben Yair ve-Anashav bi-Mezadah veha-Filosofiah ha-Revi'it," ζίοη 47, 1982, p. 385). Stern, however, is interested in the religious idea of the "Forth Philosophy, 1 ' or as they were named by the Romans, Sicarii, of dying for freedom, and attempts to trace the roots of this ideology. Consequently, the "potential suicide" for the purity of the Temple in the Petronius incident, which had nothing to do with the radical ideology evolving in certain circles of Zealots, is not discussed by him. A. Grossman mentions it as a possible source for oral tradition which influenced medieval Jews in Ashkenaz (Grossman, Shorashav, 116). While we accept Grossman's stance on the influence of Yosnfon, which was extant in that region in the 11th century, there is no way that the following story reached them, and consequendy, we are highly sceptical about this suggestion. In his most recent article on the martyrdom of 1096 Grossman mentions the Petronius affair as reflecting an ideology of active martyrdom, which evolved into an actual case during the Masada episode (A. Grossman, "Bein 1012 le-1096: Ha-Reqa ha-Tarbuti veha-Hevrati le-Kiddush ha-Shem be-TaTNU, Yehudim Mut ha-^elav, 69). This is indeed our claim in this appendix. 3 A.M. Smallwood, "Philo and Josephus as Historians of the Same Events," Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity [Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata ed.], Detroit, 1987, 114-29. 4 Here Josephus is right, and it must be corrected to Ptolemais (Philonis Alexandrini, Legatio ad Gaium [A.M. Smallwood ed.], Leiden, 1970, p. 274, no. 225).

the teachers of the moment. They were divided into six groups—old men, young men, and boys, and then again elderly women, women in their prime, and girls. When Petronius appeared from the distance, all of the groups fell to the ground as though at a command and uttered a funereal wail and cries of supplication. When he urged them to stand up and come nearer, they stood up reluctandy, pouring quantities of dust on their heads, and weeping copiously, and approached him holding their hands behind their backs as if they were tied. Then the group of elderly men stood up and spoke as follows; "We are unarmed, as you see, and yet some people accuse us of coming as enemies. The limbs with which nature has endowed each of us for our defence, our hands, we have put behind us, where they can do nothing, and thus we offer our own bodies as targets for the unerring missiles of those who want to kill us. We have brought our wives and children and families to you, and in kneeling to you we have knelt to Gaius. We have left no one at home, in order that you Romans may either deliver us all or kill us all without exception. Petronius, we are peace loving people by nature and by choice, and the industry instilled in us by our upbringing has taught us this way of life from the beginning. [...] We are leaving our cities and abandoning our homes and estates, and we will willingly hand over our furniture, our money, our treasures, and all our flocks and herds as wefl; [...] We ask one thing in return for all this, that no change shall be made in the Temple but that it shall be preserved just as we inherited it from our ancestors. If we fail to persuade you, we hand ourselves over to be killed, in order that we may not live to see an evil worse than death. We know that cavalry and infantry forces have been prepared against us in case we should oppose the dedication. No one is so senseless as to oppose his master when he is himself only a slave. We readily and gladly offer our throats. Let them kill us, let them sacrifice us, let them divide our flesh without our fighting or causing bloodshed; let them do all the deeds of victors. What need is there of an army? We ourselves shall do very well as priests to begin the sacrifices. We will bring our wives to the Temple to slay them with our own hands; as fratricides we will bring our brothers and sisters, as infanticides our sons and daughters—innocent children! [..] Then as we stand in the midst bathed in the blood of our kinfolk [...] we will mingle our blood with theirs by killing ourselves upon their bodies. When we are dead, let this be our epitaph: Even God would not reproach us for having striven to attain two ends—respect for the Emperor and obedience to our hallowed Laws; and this will come to pass if we give up in contempt a life which is not worth living." 5

5

Legatio, pp. 110-14, no. 225-36.

Josephus tells us that the Jews were ready to give their lives passively at the hands of the Romans. However, he devotes only a few lines to this scene, and it might well be that he consciously chose not to go into a long and detailed description of it, or, what seems to me more plausible, that he lacked the detailed information Philo had. Judging the account as a whole, Smallwood reaches the general conclusion that Philo is more reliable. 6 But even if Philo was getting carried away by an excessive measure of dramatization, 7 we can safely conclude that the idea of committing mass suicide and comparing it to a sacrificial ritual must have existed and was acceptable, perhaps even admirable, to his audience. The event and the writing take place one generation prior to Masada. The participants, according to Philo, are Jews from all corners of the country. Many, we assume, were Galileans, who might have been somewhat more pious, and the proponents of extreme ideologies, as the Galilee was the cradle of the Jewish Zealots. But judging by their actions, the Jews in Philo's account were not militant at all. O n the contrary, they adopt "pacifistic" tactics. We may certainly conclude that active martyrdom in order to avoid desecration of the Law, and in this case in order to preserve the purity of the Temple, did not seem to be a strange idea—neither to Philo, nor to his audience. On the contrary, Philo is proud of his co-religionists from the Land of Israel who offered to give their lives in such a manner. Knowing of no precedent of active martyrdom prior to the Petronius affair, one is left with an open question concerning the Jews who took part in it: how did they come up with that idea? It seems to us a spontaneous act of religious piety. T o judge from many references in Josephus, the centrality of the Temple and its sanctity for many Jews at that time was beyond life itself, and its desecration was worse than death. Life was not worth living. If there was no recommendation in Jewish oral tradition to take such a course of action, there was nothing against it, and consequendy there was nothing to prevent popular pious impulses taking over and suggesting mass suicide. We assume that had Petronius remained insistent, they would not have gone home as workers

6

Smallwood. It has been suggested that the speech in front of Petronius was a creative rhetorical piece by Philo and was intended as an illustration of "the readiness of the Jews for self-sacrifice of the entire nation on the altar of its monotheistic faith" (A. Kasher, "He'arot ve‫־‬He'arot al Yihudo ha-Historiography shel Filon," Iyyunim be-Historiografiah [M. Zimmerman, M. Stern & Y. Salmon ed.], Jerusalem, 1988, p. 24). 7

whose strike has been broken, but would have carried out the threat to kill themselves. It has been suggested that within the chronology of frictions and clashes between the Jews and the Roman authorities in the Land of Israel leading to the Great Revolt this was "the most serious affair the Jews experienced under the Roman rule during those generations." 8 If actualized it would have violated the sanctity of the Temple, reminiscent of infamous religious persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes, leading to the Hasmonean revolt, and thus leaving a profoundly painful mark on Jewish consciousness. Moreover, it is quite logical to assume that many of the participants and leaders of the Great Revolt in 68 A.D. were in their youth when the shocking Petronius incident took place, and that the experience—both the Roman decree and the extreme reaction of the Jews—was a formative element in their radical views and ideology. One may, therefore, see in it an event which directly influenced the readiness for suicide on Masada, although the ideology of the Sicarii leading to their actual suicide was different from the suicide threat of the masses in the Petronius case. We do not believe that the Petronius case had any direct influence on German Jews during the First Crusade. They were not aware of it. Beyond the possible indirect influence through the Masada suicide, we learn from it something about of the mentality of active martyrs, their drives and impulses. As we have seen in the cases of martyrdom in the Middle Ages, they are not bound by religious rules and régulations. Even more than one thousand years later, when the talmudic Halakhah crystallized and the written laws of Kiddush ha-Shem were universally known and accepted, there was still room for additional pietistic conduct of individuals and communities driven by religiousspiritual impulses. The nature of such impulses is to look for ways to circumvent and override any formal religious obstacles. 8 U. Rappoport, "He'arot al Sibotav shel ha-Mered ha-Gadol be-Romi," Qatedra 8, 1978, p. 44.

APPENDIX Β

ON REVISIONISM, READING COMPREHENSION, AND ACADEMIC AGGRESSIVENESS: A RESPONSE T O R A M BEN-SHALOM1 / ‫ בדברה אחת לא הוכחתיך‬/ ‫דע אחי כי לולא אהבתיך‬ / ‫ למען תרבה לי אהבתך‬/ ‫שהרביתי לך בתוכחותיך‬ ‫ הוכח לחכם ויאהבך‬/ ‫ככתוב אל תוכח לץ פן ישנאך‬ (‫)תשובות דונש בן לברט‬

In the first part of chapter 3, I reviewed the relatively short history of martyrdom in Spain, mainly from 1391 when the Jews were faced with the choice of forced conversion. In the footnotes, I referred to a comprehensive article by Ram Ben-Shalom in which he suggested an historiographical revision of our understanding of the Sefardic tradition of and attitude towards martyrdom. In short, he tries to show that a continuous awareness of the ideal of martyrdom did exist in Spain, starting in the 12th century, and that this tradition, as seen in the writing of leading Sefardic leaders, was independent of the parallei Ashkenazic tradition. He concludes that there is a "draw" in the relative number of forced conversions between Ashkenaz and Sefarad. This goes against the grain of my argument that the phenomenon of active martyrdom in Spain in 1391, and mainly in Portugal in 1497, had been profoundly influenced by the Ashkenazic tradition. In the wake of my short, restrained, and even delicate criticism of his theses, RBS produced a longwinded, venomous response which betrayed some basic flaws not only in his understanding of fundamental 1

This is meant to be a final response in the ongoing debate between Ram BenShalom and myself in recent issues of Tarbiz• It is rather difficult to produce here the entire exchange. Some of the following comments would be better understood to those who review the articles and responses preceding this one: A. Gross,"Al haTismonet ha-Ashkenazit shel Kiddush ha-Shem be-Portugal bi-Shnat 1497," Tarbiz 64, 1995, 83-114 (=Gross 1). R. Ben Shalom, "Kiddush ha-Shem u-Martyrologia Yehudit be-Aragon uve-Qastiliah bi-Shnat Q a N A (1391): Bein Sefarad le-Ashkenaz," Tarbiz 70, 2001, 227-82 (=RBS 1). A. Gross, "Hamarot Dat u-Ma'asei Kiddush haShem bi-Snat QaNA: Ha'arakhah Mehadeshet," Tarbiz269-77 ,2002 ,1 !‫=( ־‬Gross 2). R. Ben Shalom, " Martirologiah Yehudit ve-Hamarot Dat bi-Sfarad uve-Ashkenaz bi-Yemei ha-Beinayyim," Tarbiz 71, 2002, 279-300 (=RBS 2).

concepts in the history of the Jews in Spain and in his skill in utilizing medieval text as historical sources, but also (once again) a continuous stream of misreading, misinterpretation, and misrepresentation of points made throughout my article. While the latter seem to reflect an uncontrolled deeply-seated personal turbulence, the former calls for some brief comments. RBS believes to have identified in my criticism of his thesis a sort of historiography which ignores circumstances external to medieval Judaism, which are reflected in developments and changes in HispanoJewish culture and society. I, in turn, am of the opinion that the main difference between us lies in weighing and balancing evidence and in the ability to distinguish between the issues. T h e following comments should suffice to illustrate this. I will touch only on a few of the major historiographical points upon which RBS based his case. Some, but certainly not all, of the distortions and misunderstandings of my criticism on his part will be mentioned in the footnotes. Judah Halevi, the Reconquista and 1391 RBS flaunts J u d a h Halevi's poems which mention Kiddush ha-Shem, believing that they constitute and provide the beginning of an enduring Sefardic tradition and consciousness of martyrdom. Moreover, in his counter-argument, he continues to assert that Jewish martyrs in 1391 responded to the martyrology of the Spanish Christian warriors of the Reconquista. Upon close scrutiny of Halevi's relevant poems and one prose supplication [baqashah], from which RBS extracted some moving lines about anti-Jewish riots during the Reconquista (RBS 2, 281), it is clear that there is nothing novel there and that one cannot find any significant addition to the most famous observation of Halevi: ‫בין צבאות‬ ‫ אנחנו נופלים‬/ ‫[ ה ם כי ילחמו ב מ ל ח מ ת ם‬...]/ ‫ א ב ד צבאי ונעדר‬/ ‫שעיר וקדר‬ ‫במפלתם‬. 2 His poems do not reflect a situation of shemad, a death or

2 "Aqonen al mar tla'otai," in Dov Yarden, Shirei ha-Qodesh le-Rabi Tehudah Halevi III, Jerusalem, 1986, 693. Also the few lines quoted by RBS from a very long wedding poem are less than impressive when taken in the context of the specific poem itself and in the wider context of the genre, of which we count about 60 poems. None of them deal with martyrdom, rendering RBS' reference a drop in the bucket. T o suggest that such a poem constitutes a serious link in an imaginary chain of martyrological awareness and tradition must surely be dismissed as ludicrous. For a

conversion choice, given by the persecutors but rather of riots whose aims were killing, destruction and plundering of the Jews, the likes of which we encounter in Moslem Granada in the time of Yehosef ha-Naggid (1066).3 Moreover, contrary to RBS's claim, there is no significance whatsoever to the fact that Jewish tradition endowed each Jew killed by a gentile with the crown of martyrdom (RBS 2, 283-4). From an historiographical perspective the opposite is true, because it means that not every case in which Kiddush ha-Shem is mentioned refers to Jews who have been killed due to their unrelenting devotion and loyalty to their faith. Consequentiy, when Halevi uses such terminology one may not surmise that in those persecutions the Jews were given the option of conversion. In juxtaposition to the clear historical context of Halevi's poetry about the Jewish national suffering due to the Reconquista in Spain, the suggestion that we should link the ideal and the practice of Kiddush ha-Shem in late 14th century Spain to the Reconquista is hypothetical and forced, at best. One must stretch the imagination very far to see any massive influence, direct or indirect, of Halevi in some of his remote and all but forgotten poems on the martyrs of 1391. In the sea of texts that RBS schemed to drown us in, I cannot find one fragment of evidence that would suggest a connection between the events of martyrdom then and a Spanish-Christian-martyrological-militaristic ideology which blew over from a war of conquest-liberation which was all but forgotten. Yet, RBS insists on sentences such as: "The Jews who chose martyrdom in 1391 [...] announced in their actions that just as their Christian neighbours have been ready to travel as far as the Holy Land or mainly to Moslem Granada in order to fight and die as martyrs for their God, so also the Jews give their lives for their God and are ready to die willingly and even to commit suicide." 4

balanced, sensible and careful use of this poem see: Y. Hacker, "Im Shakhahnu Shem Eloheinu va-Nifros Kapeinu le-El Zar—Gilgulah shel Parshanut al Reqa ha-Mezi'ut bi-Sefarad bi-Yemei ha-Beinayyim," <í0« 57, 1992, 253. 3 If I understood RBS correctly, then he admits that the wedding poem has nothing to do with active martyrdom (RBS 2, 280). His claim that "according to Gross, J u d a h Halevi heard of the martyrdom of the Jews in Ashkenaz" (Ibid., 282) is utterly baseless. I have never suggested such a thing. 4 RBS 1, 264. Inter alia, with one stroke of his pen (and probably, unintentionally), RBS setdes a vexing historiographical problem discussed widely among First Crusade Jewish historians: on what did the Jews in Germany rely when they took their own lives during their attacks by the Crusaders, adopting it as a legitimate form of martyrdom?

Nachmanides and the Beginning of Ashkenazic Influence RBS opposes my thesis as to the centrality of the Ashkenazic influence on Jewish martyrdom in Spain. He finds it difficult to comprehend why I am trying to "limit the discussion to the subject of suicide or self-slaughter/' while Kiddush ha-Shem is not limited to this type of death (RBS 2, 281). This forces me to explain the obvious. One way to prove whether there was an external influence on Spanish Kiddush ha-Shem, is by identifying characteristics of that external element. I know of two main elements of the tradition of martyrdom which developed in Ashkenaz. One of them is active martyrdom. I hope that RBS would agree that there is no such "creature" in Christian martyrdom. If we cannot find such an independent element in the history of the Jews in Spain and in the writings of their early scholars, we can assume that late references to it in Spain reflect Ashkenazic religious-cultural infiltration. Nachmanides was a religious leader of outstanding stature and of extreme importance in Spain in his generation and in generations to come. I believe that he was also a key figure in the chronology of the Ashkenazic influence in the topic under discussion. For some mysterious reason that escapes me, RBS insists that that the burden of proof lies with anyone who claims that Nachmanides was under Ashkenazic influence. This he says knowing full well that Nachmanides refers to "human sacrifices on the alter of faith" (RBS 2, 293). In a low keyed

In assessing Spanish traditions and attitudes to Kiddush ha-Shem one must discuss the fact that the memory of the religious persecutions and mass conversions during the Visigothic period (7th century) and Almohade period (mid 12th century) was alive in 14 th -15 th century Spain. This was a legacy, which must have had some influence on the Jews in 1391 and did not contribute anything to the spirit of martyrdom. O n e cannot find such a discussion by RBS. In the endless stream of baffling misreadings of my comments we find the following. I had made the point that there is no mention in Hebrew polemical literature of Christian martyrdom. In response RBS points out that in the liturgical poetry written in the wake of 1391, one can find lines in praise of the heroism of the Jewish martyrs. Yet again RBS, in his eagerness to find mistakes in my article, falls into an errant reading: "Gross is wrong in asserting that Profet Duran and Hasdai Crescas wrote before the waves of conversion." (Ibid., 296). I was not. A more careful reading of that paragraph and the one preceding it would have revealed that I referred to the conversion waves in the years 1411-1414 (Gross 2, 274-5). A final example of RBS's misunderstanding to be mentioned here is his reading of the title of my article (RBS 2, 279). This might not be relevant to the contents of our historiographical debate, but certainly points to a disturbing trend.

response he nevertheless sticks to his error: "True, Nachmanides had been influenced by the Tosafists. However their doctrines were not decisive in his worldview. T h e schools in Spain and in Provence influenced him greatly" (RBS 2, 294). I fail to see the relevance of this statement to our topic. Moreover, a second characteristic of Ashkenazic martyrdom we point to in our first response to RBS, is the religious allowance for stringencies. Contrary to Ashkenazic scholars, Maimonides was of the opinion that the Torah commandment of "and you should live by them" serves as a barrier against excessive martyrdom. Therefore, if one faces a situation of "die or transgress," commandments which the Halakhah does require him to die for, one cannot exercise selfimposed religious extremism and choose to die. Maimonides censors such practices in sharp and unequivocal language, and chooses to do so in his opening paragraph of the laws of martyrdom, so that the reader might wonder who he had in mind. In my article on Jewish martyrdom in Portugal during 1497,1 commented that in the course of the 14th century a change started to take place and Spanish halakhists rejected this Maimonidean stand (Gross 1, 98 n. 46, 104 n. 66). Now, we find that already Nachmanides (mid 13th century) sided with the Ashkenazic view on this point. 5 T o the best of my knowledge, Nachmanides is the first Spanish authority to disagree with Maimonides on this point. 6

' Pemshei ha-Ramban al Masekhet Shabat, 49a. Hidushei ha-Ramban le-Masekhet Ketubot [I. Shvat ed.], Jerusalem, 1990, 107-8, 148. Still about Nachmanides, to my criticism that RBS misinterpreted him, we find RBS responding: "Nachmanides' words in Sefer ha-Ge'ulah [...] might indeed be interpreted as relating to daily Kiddush ha-Shem (suffering, polemics)" (RBS 2, 293). Two comments are in order: 1. They cannot be understood any other way, certainly not in the sense of martyrdom, as misunderstood by RBS. 2. T h e meaning of this Kiddush ha-Shem has nothing to do with suffering but with patterns of ethical behaviour in dealing with non-Jews which are designed to draw their sympathy to and even love of the Jewish faith. RBS's presentation of my interpretation of Maimonides and the Spanish tradition of martyrdom, (RBS 2, 295-6) is long and marred by his mispresentation of it. A closer reading and paying attention to nuances, would have obviated some of his remarks. I never said that "We have in Maimonides' stance an explicit recommendation for conversion," not in the Moslem context and certainly not in the Christian. I merely meant to criticize RBS' absurd statement that Maimonides somehow contributed to "the performance of suicides" during 1391 (RBS 1, 234). 6 I might add that it would seem that in Nachmanides "Supplication on the Ruins of Jerusalem," where he talks about active martyrdom, we find a possible Ashkenazic literary influence. We read there: ‫ ב ד מ י ה מ ת ב ו ס ס ת‬/ ‫ונפשם מ ת ע ל ס ת‬

Demography of Forced Converts in Spain and Ashkenaz RBS claims that he does not attempt to belittle the number of conversions to Christianity in 1391. So be it, although this statement is not in full logical agreement with his efforts, spread over many pages, to show that the dimensions of Kiddush ha-Shem constituted a conspicuous phenomenon. In light of this, I can offer a joint conclusion, utilizing a carefully formulated evaluation in an article RBS relies heavily on: "The persecutions and riots [...] caused most of the Jews in many important communities in the Iberian peninsula to convert .[...] And although there were individuals and groups who died as martyrs in various cities in Castile, Catalunia and Valencia during those days, the testimonies of contemporaries show that the central phenomenon was that of mass conversion and not of Kiddush ha-Shem."7 Now I would refer with the utmost brevity to Ashkenaz. Recendy some of the scholars of the events of 1096 have invested much energy in the attempt to discover more conversion cases of individuals or, at least, of hints to religious doubts and conversion tendencies. At the end of the day, it seems to me exorbitant and tendentious to claim for a tie between Ashkenaz and Spain in this respect. Generally, I might add, it would be very beneficial to broaden the chronological scope and to include in the discussion, the martyrology of Ashkenazic Jewry in response to the bloody persecutions which accompanied its history over the centuries following 1096. 8

‫[ ו ה ם ששים ו ש מ ח י ם‬...]. This is very close to Qalonimos bar Yehuda's poem on the martyrs of 1096: ‫ ת ב ו ס ת ם ע ל י ה ם ב א ה ב‬/ ‫ש ו ח ט י ם ה א ב ו ת בניהם ו ב ד מ י ה ם מ ת ב ו ס ס י ם‬ ‫[ ליחד שמך ד צ י ם ו ש מ ח י ם‬...] ‫"( מ ת ע ל ס י ם‬Et ha-qol qol Ya'aqov" in Mahazor U-Yamim Nora'im II [D. Goldschmidt ed.], Jerusalem, 1970, 646). 7 Hacker, "Im Shakhahnu," 259. It is difficult to think of a more careful formulation. I was wrong in stating that we know of cases of active martyrdom in Zaragoza (RBS 2, 287). Consequendy, the list is even shorter, containing mainly Toledo and Barcelona. 8 RBS tried to draw some comfort and encouragement from a recent article by Kenneth Stow (K. Stow, "Conversion, Apostasy, and Apprehensiveness: Emicho of Flonheim and the Fear of the Jews in the Twelfth Century," Speculum 76, 2001, 91133. RBS 2, 285-6). In this article Stow did not mean to say anything novel about the conversions, known very well to all from the Hebrew chronicles. Concerning Mainz and Cologne, it would be, in my opinion, exaggerated to claim that there were many conversion cases, or that the chronicles deal with forced converts no less than with the martyrs (Stow, 918-9, 925). It would seem that there were more such cases in Worms, and according to one chronicle some did so in order to save their children who had been taken from them. This reminds us of the well-planned Portuguese attempts

In sum, RBS has constructed his arguments on wobbly foundations. Some of the problematic points, not detailed here, have been left for critical scholars who face the difficult task of penetrating the clouds of verbosity in RBS ; s articles. 9 Generally, problems of comprehension and carelessness cover his reading of my response to his long ardcle from beginning to end. Herein might be hidden the roots of his aggressive and unbecoming style. There is a story about an important statesman whose speeches bore the following notes in the margin: "This argument is not convincing. It will be necessary to raise my voice and hit the podium." to convert the Jews at the end of the 15th century (Above, chapter 3). Concerning Trier, all sources report several cases of active martyrdom, but what happened to most of the community resembles what was to take place in Portugal 400 years later (mainly according to the description of E. Qapsali), that the Christians did not kill them, but prevented them from taking their own lives and finally used physical force to baptize them (R. Chazan, "Christian and Jewish Perceptions of 1096: T h e Case of Trier," Jewish History 13/2, 1999, pp. 15-16,18. Gross 1, 94 n. 30). What took place in Regensburg, according to the apologetic presentation in one of the chronicles, and according to the hinted account found in Sefer Hasidim (Y. Hacker, "Li-Gzerat T a T N U , " Zjon 31, 1966, 230-1), reflects the influence of a religious leader and the subsequent hasty, improvised and collective baptism in the river. RBS, waving Stows tentative footnote suggestion (933 n. 76), concludes that the relative number of martyrs was inflated in the Ashkenazic collective memory based on the fact that the forced converts returned to Judaism. This, just like almost every historiographical hypothesis in this field, would depend on the dating of the chronicles. Consequently, if we assume (as I do) that the gist of the accounts have been written relatively close to the events themselves then Stow's conjecture becomes less appealing. In addition, he would have to argue that all the poems, which describe the mass martyrdom of 1096 are late as well, or alternatively, to disqualify the historiographical validity of this genre un bloc. 9 See: J T Berakhot, 5, 32, 39b. Concerning the connection that existed, or not, between philosophy and conversions in Spain, RBS points to the loyalty of the refugees of the 1492 expulsion "who did not choose conversion, and among them we find philosophers and scientists such as R. Isaac Abravanel and Abraham Zacut (RBS 1, 271). On this I commented that Zacut was a qabbalist and one cannot expect to find an influence of his professional career (mathematician and astronomer) on his religious devoutness. O n such a point, so basic to the understanding of the place of spiritual trends in the history of the Jews in Spain, RBS insists and replies that the definition of Zacut as a "scientist" is preferable to mine (as qabbalist), relying on the fact that "his contemporaries called him 'the great iztagniri or 'the erudite tokhen" (RBS 2, 291 n. 50). This needs no farther comment. Though it has nothing to do with RBS's major theses, this minor example speaks volumes of his awkward and embarrassing understanding of fundamental concepts and elements which should be evaluated by any historian of Spanish Jewry.

‫‪APPENDIX C‬‬

‫‪HEBREW SOURCES‬‬ ‫‪This appendix contains Hebrew texts which are cited or referred to in‬‬ ‫‪.the book. The pagination refers to the text's location in this book‬‬ ‫כרוניקה א‪ ,‬ת ת נ ״ ו ) ‪2‬‬

‫‪p):.‬‬

‫כשראו בני ברית ק ד ש כי נגזרה הגזירה ונצחום ה א ו י ב י ם ונכנסו בחצר ויצעקו‬ ‫כולם יחד ז ק נ י ם ובחורים בתולות וילדים עבדים ושפחות ל א ב י ה ם שבשמים‪,‬‬ ‫ובכו עליהם ועל ח י י ה ם והצדיקו עליהם א ת דין שמים‪ ,‬ואמרו זה ל ז ה ‪ :‬נ ת ח ז ק‬ ‫ונסבול עול ה י ר א ה הקדושה‪ ,‬כי לפי שעה יהרגו אותנו ה א ו י ב י ם ו ק ל ה ש ב מ י ת ו ת‬ ‫ארבע בחרב‪ ,‬ונהיה ח י י ם וקיימים‪ ,‬נפשותינו בגן עדן ב א י ס פ ק ל ר י א ה מ א י ר ה‬ ‫הגדולה לעולמי עד‪.‬‬ ‫ויאמרו בלב שלם ובנפש חפיצה‪ :‬סוף דבר אין להרהר א ח ר מ י ד ת ה ק ד ו ש ברוך‬ ‫ה ו א וברוך שמו‪ ,‬שנתן לנו תורתו וציווי להמיתנו ולהרוג אותנו על יחוד שמו‬ ‫הקדוש‪ .‬אשרינו א ם נעשה רצונו‪ ,‬ואשרי כל מ י שנהרג ונשחט וימות על יחוד‬ ‫שמו‪ ,‬ו י ה א מ ז ו מ ן לעולם ה ב א וישב ב מ ח י צ ה א ח ת עם ה צ ד י ק י ם ‪ ,‬ר' עקיבא‬ ‫וחביריו הנהרגים על שמו‪...‬‬ ‫ואז צעקו כולם בקול גדול ל א מ ר כ א ח ד ‪ :‬מ ע ת ה אין לנו לעכב יותר‪ ,‬כי ה א ו י ב י ם‬ ‫כבר ב א י ם עלינו‪ .‬נלך ב מ ה ר ה נעשה ונקריב עצמינו קרבן לפני הי‪ .‬וכל מ י שיש לו‬ ‫מ א כ ל ת יבדוק א ו ת ה שלא ת ה י ה פגומה ויבוא וישחוט אותנו על קידוש יחיד חי‬ ‫העולמים‪ ,‬ואחר כך י ש ח ו ט א ת עצמו בגרונו או ידקור ה ס כ י ן בבטנו‪.‬‬ ‫והאויבים מ י ד כשנכנסו בתוך ה ח צ ר מ צ א ו שם ק צ ת מ ן ה ח ס י ד י ם גמורים עם‬ ‫רבינו י צ ח ק ב״ר מ ש ה עוקר הרים‪ ,‬ו ה ו א פשט צוארו וחתכו ראשו תחילה‪.‬‬ ‫ונתעטפו ב ט ל י ת ו ת המצויינות וישבו ל ה ם בתוך ה ח צ ר ל מ ה ר לעשות רצון יוצרם‪,‬‬ ‫ולא רצו לברוח תוך ה ח ד ר ה לחיות חיי שעה‪ ,‬כי מ א ה ב ה קיבלו עליהם דין שמים‪.‬‬ ‫וישליכו עליהם ה א ו י ב י ם אבנים וחיצים ולא חששו לנוס‪ ,‬ויכו כל א ו ת ם אשר‬ ‫מ צ א ו א ו ת ם שם מ כ ת חרב והרג ואבדן‪.‬‬ ‫ו א ו ת ם שבחדרים כשראו א ת ה מ ע ש ה ה ז ה מ א ל ו ה צ ד י ק י ם והאויבים שבאו‬ ‫עליהם כבר צעקו כולם‪ :‬עוד אין כאלהינו טוב מ ל ה ק ר י ב קרבן נפשינו‪ .‬ושם חגרו‬ ‫נשים בעוז מ ת נ י ה ן וישחטו בניהן ובנותיהן וגם עצמן‪ .‬וגם אנשים רבים א י מ צ ו‬ ‫כ ח וישחטו נשיהם ובניהם ו ט פ ם ]‪[...‬‬

‫מדרש בראשית רבה לד)‪:(p. 9‬‬ ‫"ואך את דמכם וגוי"‪ ,‬אזהרה לחונק עצמו‪ .‬יכול כשאול ת״ל אך‪ .‬יכול כחנניה‬ ‫מישאל ועזריה ת״ל אך"‬ ‫ר' אברהם ב״ר עזריאל‪ ,‬ערוגת הבושם)‪:(p. 9‬‬ ‫כמי שאומר בפי מקום שנהגו )פסחים נג ב(‪ ,‬דרש תודוס איש רומי‪ ,‬מה ראו‬ ‫חנניה מישאל ועזריה שמסרו נפשם לתוך כבשן האש נשאו קל וחומר בעצמן‬ ‫מצפרדעים וכוי ]‪ [...‬ורבי' יצחק מדנפיר הקשה באותה דרשה על פר״ש שפי'‬ ‫מה ראו שלא דרשו וחי בהם‪ ,‬והקשה דהתם פרהסיא הוה ומסקינן לכולי עלמי‬ ‫בסנהדרין)עד א( חייב למסר עצמו על מצוה קלה‪ .‬הרי אפרים דלוניר פי' בפרק‬ ‫מקום שנהגו‪ ,‬מה ראו למסור עצמן במיתה קשה כזו‪ ,‬שהיה להרוג עצמן כששמעו‬ ‫שהגזירה יוצאה ואין עונש בזה‪ ,‬דדרשינן במכילתי' )הכוונה לבראשית רבה( אך‬ ‫דמכם לנפשותיכם אדרוש‪ ,‬יכול כשאול שהרג את עצמו‪ ,‬ת״ל אך‪.‬‬ ‫יוסיפון)‪:(p. 12‬‬ ‫ואיה מלכינו שאול ויהונתן בנו אשר נלחמו בעד עם ה' וימותו על הי ועל עמו‪,‬‬ ‫הלא יכול שאול לחיות ולהמלט ולא חפץ בחיים כי אם בחר מות מחיים כאשר‬ ‫ראה כי נגף עמו במלחמה‪ ,‬על כן לא נפרד מאחיו גם הוא גם יהונתן בנו הנאהבים‬ ‫והנעימים ]‪ [...‬ואיה התורה הקדושה הצפונה בלבבך‪ ,‬הלא אתה כהן ומשוח אשר‬ ‫למדתנו את התורה‪ ,‬איך נוכל לאהוב את אלהינו בכל לבבינו ובכל נפשנו אם לא‬ ‫נמות על בריתו עם עבדיו הנהרגים על שמו‪ .‬הלא אתה העדותה בנו פעמים רבות‬ ‫לאמר כי כל האיש אשר ימות במלחמה על ה' ועל עמו ועל תורתו יהיה בגורל‬ ‫חלק ה' ללכת אל האור הגדול לבלתי ראות את החשך המחשיך‪.‬‬ ‫כרוניקה א‪ ,‬תתנ״ו)‪:(p. 15‬‬ ‫אז היו רבנו יצחק ב״ר משה ושאר הרבנים והחשובים עמו‪ ,‬והיו יושבים בחצר‬ ‫ההגמון ובוכים וצוארם פשוט והיו אומרים‪ :‬מתי יבא השודד ונקבל עלינו דין‬ ‫שמים‪ ,‬וכבר ערכנו עקידות ועשינו מזבחות על שמו‪.‬‬ ‫ר' יעקב מבונא)‪: (p. 20‬‬ ‫ויעמוד הרב ר' יום טוב וישחט כסי נפשות‪ .‬וגם אחרים שחטו‪ .‬ויש שציוה לשחוט‬ ‫בנו יחידו אשר לא נסה כף רגלו הצג על הארץ מהתענג ומרוך‪ .‬ויש מהם שנשרפו‬ ‫על יחוד בוראם‪ .‬ויהי מספר ההרוגים והשרופים כק״ן נפשות קדושים‪.‬‬

‫כרוניקה א‪ ,‬תתנ״ו)‪:(pp. 21 n. 8, 57‬‬ ‫ב' ח ס י ד י ם נוצלו בו ביום כי ציחנום בעל כ ר ח ם שם ה א ח ד מר אורי ושם השני‬ ‫מר י צ ח ק ושתי בנותיו עמו‪ .‬וגם ה ם קדשו ה ש ם מ א ו ד וקבלו עליהן מ י ת ה משונה‬ ‫אשר לא כתובה בכל התוכחת)!( כי בערב שבועות ש ח ט מר י צ ח ק ב״ר דוד הפרנס‬ ‫שתי בנותיו עמו והצית א ש בביתו ומיד הלכו ה ו א ומר אורי עמו לבית ה כ נ ס ת‬ ‫לפני ארון ה ק ו ד ש וימותו שם לפני ה ' כי נשרפו שם בלב שלם‪.‬‬ ‫ספר ה מ ק צ ו ע ו ת ) ‪:(pp. 22 η. 10, 5 6‬‬ ‫וכיוצא בזה מ י שבא אליו רוח רעה ועבר וכפר בתורת מ ש ה ו מ א ס במצות ה '‬ ‫א ל ה י ישראל והלך בשרירות לבו ונתנחם והלך וקבל מיתי משונה ב מ ק ו ם שעבר‬ ‫עבירה כל ישראל מחוייבי' לשמוח עליו כ ש מ ח ' יין כי ה מ ת יהיה חי לעלם‬ ‫ולעלמי עולמים‪.‬‬ ‫תשובות ר' י ה ו ד ה ה ח ס י ד ) ‪:(p. 2 1‬‬ ‫ש א י ל ה ‪ :‬א ם י מ י ת א ד ם עצמו עבור עוונותיו‪ ,‬א ם עובר על זה " א ך א ת ד מ כ ם‬ ‫לנפשותיכם אדרוש"‪ .‬תשובה‪ :‬דטוב ה ו א ל א ד ם א ם י מ י ת עצמו עבור עוונותיו‪,‬‬ ‫שכך מצינו ברי אליעזר בן דורדיא ש ה מ י ת עצמו עבור עוונותיו‪ ,‬ו י צ א ת בת קול‬ ‫ו א מ ר ה אשריך וכוי‪ .‬וגם מצינו בבראשית רבה בבן א ח ו ת ו של ר' יוסי בן יועזר‬ ‫]‪ [...‬ן מ ש ו מ ד א ח ד או']מר[ ה ו א ח ט א ב מ י ם לפיכך ה ט ב י ע עצמו ב מ י ם להיות לו‬ ‫לכפרה‪.‬‬ ‫כרוניקה א‪ ,‬תתנ״ו)‪:(pp. 22 η. 10, 57‬‬ ‫וגם ח ס י ד א ח ד ה י ה לשם ור' י צ ח ק הלוי שמו‪ ,‬ויסרוהו ביסורים קשים‪ .‬וכאשר‬ ‫ראו עינויו וציחנוהו בעל כרחו‪ ,‬כי מ ן ה מ כ ו ת אשר הכוהו לא ה י ה יודע עד מה‪.‬‬ ‫וכשעמד על דעתו‪ ,‬ח ז ר בעוד שלשת י מ י ם והלך לקלוניא ונכנס בביתו ו ה מ ת י ן‬ ‫מעט‪ ,‬ר ק שעה א ח ת ‪ ,‬והלך לנהר ריינוס וטבע עצמו בנהר‪ .‬ועליו ועל כיוצא בו‬ ‫נאמר‪ ,‬מבשן אשיב אשיב מ מ צ ו ל ו ת י ם וגוי‬ ‫ש ו ״ ת מ ה ר ״ י ווייל)‪:(p. 22‬‬ ‫ועוד כיון ש מ ס ר עצמו ל מ י ת ה כמו שכתבת‪ ,‬ש א מ ר לו מ א ן ד ה ו א תלך לחוץ מ ן‬ ‫ה ח י ר ו ת ו מ ס ו ר עצמך כדי שיהיה לך כפרה‪ ,‬וכן עשה‪ .‬וכיון ש מ ס ר עצמו ל מ י ת ה‬ ‫כדי שיהיה לו כפרה ודאי יש לו כפרה‪ .‬וכה״ג מ י י ת י עובדא בב״ר‪ :‬בנו של יוסף בן‬ ‫יועזר שלא נהג כשורה ועשה בעצמו ד' מ י ת ו ת ב״ד י צ ת ה בת קול ו א מ ר ה מ ז ו מ ן‬ ‫לחיי העולם הבא‪.‬‬

‫ש מ ש ו ן " ) ‪:(p. 2 2‬‬ ‫בשערים ]עמד[ ה ח כ ם ר' יוסף ‪ /‬ו א ת א ח י ו ל א הכיר וישסף ‪ /‬ה מ ק נ ה עת ה א ס ף‬ ‫‪. /‬לזבוח ל ה ' ב א ת י‬ ‫ר׳ מ ש ה ב״ר אלעזר)‪:(p. 23‬‬ ‫ב ת ו ל ת ב ת עמי ה ר א ו י ה לאפריון וכלה‪ ,‬ה צ י ת ה א ת ה א ו ר ו ק פ צ ה בו ונפלה ]‪[...‬‬ ‫נשים יפהפיות תכרענה ילדיהן ת פ ל ח נ ה ]‪ [...‬ש ח ט ה ביום א ח ד א ו ת ה ו א ת בנה‬ ‫ממורבוך)‪:(p. 23‬‬ ‫ונער ש ל מ ה בר א ש ר וג׳ י ל ד י ם א ש ר ש ח ט ה בידה״‪ [...] .‬ובנו ר׳ י צ ח ק ו א ש ת ו ויל‬ ‫‪.‬דיו ו ש ח ט עצמו במרחץ וילדיו‬ ‫ר׳ יוסף ה כ ה ן ) ‪:(p. 2 4‬‬ ‫ויבחרו רבים להרוג א י ש א ת א ח י ו ]‪ [...‬כ א ש ר עשו ה י ה ו ד י ם א ש ר נ ח ב א ו ב ק א ש ט י ל‬ ‫ש א ר א ז י ן א ש ר השליכו גורל ביניהם ל ר א ו ת מ י יהרוג א ת אחיו‪ .‬ו י מ ו ת ו כ ל ם בעת‬ ‫‪.‬ההיא‪ ,‬ושניים א ש ר נשארו ב א ח ר ו נ ה נפלו מ ע ל ה מ ג ד ל א ר צ ה ו י מ ו ת ו גם שניהם‬ ‫ס ל י ח ה לר' אביגדור ק ר א ‪ ,‬פראג)‪:(p. 24‬‬ ‫כן רך הלבב בנו ישחטנו ‪ /‬ו ה א ם לא נכמרו ר ח מ י ה על בנה למלטנו ‪ /‬ת ר ו מ ה מ א ת‬ ‫כל א י ש א ש ר ידבנו ‪ /‬א ם זכר א ם נ ק ב ה ת מ י ם יקריבנו ]‪ [...‬מ ו ר ה ז ק ן ונשוא פנים‬ ‫בעמו ‪ /‬לבלתי יתעוללו בו נזדרז בעצמו ‪ /‬ל ש ח ו ט א ת בניו ובני ביתו עימו ‪ /‬א ף‬ ‫‪.‬לזאת י ח ר ד לבי ויתר מ מ ק ו מ ו‬ ‫ר' זלמן מ ס נ ט ג ו א ר ) ‪:(p. 2 6‬‬ ‫כ א ש ר א ז ר א י ת י כי ה י י ת י ב א ו ת ו ה פ ע ם ש ם בבית מ ה ״ ר נתן ע״ה‪ ,‬ו א מ ר ו לי שהיו‬ ‫ש ם בשע' עליית בני בליעל ב ס כ נ ה גדולה עד שקיבץ מ ה ״ ר נתן הנ״ל הרבי ילדיי‬ ‫ו ה פ ק י ד ' ביד א ש ת ו הרבנית וציוה עליה מ ת י ש ת ש מ ע ק ו ל צ ע ק ת ו א ז ת ה י י זריזה‬ ‫‪.‬ומוכנת ל ש ח ו ט א ת כ ל ה י ל ד י ם ש ה פ ק י ד בידה‪ .‬ו א י ת ר ח ש נ י ס א שנצלו‬ ‫ר ש י מ ת יזכור)‪:(p. 27, η. 30‬‬ ‫יזכור א ל ה י ם א ת נ ש מ ו ת מ ד י נ ו ת מעקלנבורג ר' א ה ר ן ב״ר מ ר ד כ י ובנו ה ק ד ו ש‬ ‫ר' מענדלן ור' א ה ר ן ובנו ה ק ד ו ש ר' מ י כ ל ו א ש ת ו ש ש ח ט ה ע צ מ ה ושלשת בניה‬ ‫‪.‬ששמה הענדלן‬

‫פירושי בעלי ה ת ו ס פ ו ת לתורה )‪:(p. 29‬‬ ‫ואך א ת ד מ כ ם וגוי‪ ,‬א ז ה ר ה לחונק א ת עצמו‪ .‬ואמרו בב״ר יכול אפיי כחנניה‬ ‫מ י ש א ל ועזריה‪ ,‬ת ״ ל אך‪ .‬פירוש‪ ,‬יכול אפילו כמו אלו שמסרו עצמן לקידוש ה ש ם‬ ‫שלא יוכל לחבול בעצמו א ם ה ו א ירא שלא יוכל בעצמו לעמוד בניסיון‪ ,‬ת ״ ל‬ ‫אך‪ ,‬כי בשעת ה ש מ ד יכול ל מ ס ו ר עצמו ל מ י ת ה ולהרוג עצמו‪ .‬וכן בשאול בן ק י ש‬ ‫ש א מ ר לנערו‪ ,‬שלוף חרבך ודוקרני בה וכוי‪ ,‬ת ״ ל אך‪ ,‬ש א ם ירא א ד ם ש מ א יעשו‬ ‫לו יסורין ק ש י ם שלא יוכל לסבול ולעמוד בנסיון שיכול להרוג א ת עצמו‪ .‬ו מ כ א ן‬ ‫מביאין ראיה א ו ת ן ששוחטין התינוק[ות] בשעת השמד‪.‬‬ ‫ויש שאוסרין ומפרשין כן‪ :‬יכול כחנניה וחביריו שכבר נמסרו למיתה‪ ,‬ת ״ ל אך‪,‬‬ ‫אבל אינו יכול להרוג א ת עצמו‪ .‬יכול כשאול ש מ ס ר עצמו למיתה‪ ,‬ת ״ ל אך‪ .‬פי'‬ ‫שאינו יכול לחבול בעצמו כלל‪ ,‬ושאול שלא ברשות ח כ מ י ם עשה‪ .‬מ ה ר ״ ש בר‬ ‫א ב ר ה ם ה מ כ ו נ ה אוכמן‪.‬‬ ‫ומעשה ברב א ח ד ש ש ח ט הרבה תינוקות בשעת ה ש מ ד כי ה י ה ירא שיעבירום על‬ ‫דת‪ .‬ו ה י ה רב א ח ד עמו והיה כועס עליו ביותר וקוראו רוצח‪ ,‬והוא לא ה י ה חושש‪.‬‬ ‫ו א מ ר א ו ת ו רב‪ :‬א ם כדברי יהרג אותו רב ב מ י ת ה משונה‪ .‬וכן היה‪ ,‬שתפסוהו‬ ‫עכו״ם והיו פושטין עורו ונותנין חול בין העור והבשר‪ .‬ו א ח ״ כ נ ת ב ט ל ה הגזרה‪,‬‬ ‫ו א ם לא ש ח ט אותן ה ת י נ ו ק ו ת היו ניצולין‪.‬‬ ‫שו״ת מ ה ר ״ ם מרוטנבורג)‪:(p. 30‬‬ ‫יהודי א ח ד שאל מ ה ר ״ מ שיחיה‪ ,‬א ם צריך כפרה על ש ש ח ט א ש ת ו ודי בניו ביום‬ ‫הרג רב בקופלינש עיר ה ד מ י ם ‪ ,‬כי כך ביקשוהו יען ראו כי יצא ה ק צ ף מלפני ה '‬ ‫והתחילו ה א ו י ב י ם להרוג בני א ל חי הנהרגים על קידוש הי‪ .‬וגם ה ו א רצה להרוג‬ ‫א ת עצמו ב מ י ת ת ם ‪ ,‬א ל א שהצילו ה ' על ידי גוים‪.‬‬ ‫וכתב לו‪ :‬לא ידענא שפיר מ ה אידון ביה‪ ,‬כי ודאי ההורג עצמו על ייחוד ה ' רשאי‬ ‫לחבול בעצמו‪ .‬ו א מ י ‪ :‬יכול כשאול‪ ,‬ת ״ ל אך‪ .‬ואמרינן מעשה בדי מ א ו ת ילדים‬ ‫וילדות שנשבו לקלון ]‪ [...‬א ף גם ה י א עלתה לגג ונפלה ומתה‪ ,‬י צ ת ה בת ק ו ל‬ ‫ו א מ ר ה ‪ :‬א ם הבנים שמחה‪ .‬וכהנה רבות‪.‬‬ ‫אבל ל ש ח ו ט א ח ר י ם צריך עיון ל מ צ ו א ראייה להתיר ]‪ [...‬מיהו דבר ז ה פ ש ט‬ ‫היתירו ומצאנו שהרבה גדולים שהיו שוחטין א ת בניהם ו א ת בנותיהם‪ .‬וגם רבי'‬ ‫קלונימוס עשה כן בקינה ה מ ת ח ל ת ‪ :‬א מ ר ת י שעו מני‪.‬‬ ‫ונ״ל להביא ראייה להתיר דכי היכי ד א מ ' יכול כשאול ת ״ ל אך‪ ,‬ה"נ נימא‬ ‫דההורג א ת חברו על קידוש ה ש ם מותר‪ ,‬ד ב ה ה ו א ק ר א כתיב‪ ,‬ומיד ה א ד ם ומיד‬ ‫איש וגוי‪ .‬ואך דרישא ד ק ר א ק א י אכולי' ק ר א דבתר' ]‪[...‬‬ ‫ומי שמטעינו כפרה ה ו א מ ו צ י א לעז על ה ח ס י ד י ם הראשונים‪ .‬ואחרי שכוונת יצרו‬ ‫ה י ה ל ט ו ב ה ; מרוב א ה ב ת יוצרינו יתברך שמו פגע ונגע ב מ ח מ ד עיניו‪ .‬גם ה ם חילו‬ ‫פניו על כ כ ה ]‪ [...‬ואין ל ה ח מ י ר עליו כלל‪.‬‬

‫ר' מ ש ה מ ק ו ר ב י ל ) ב ש ם ראבי״ה()‪:(p. 33‬‬ ‫ו א ו ת ם ה ק ד ו ש י ם ששחטו עצמן וזרעם כשבאו לידי נסיון מפני שלא רצו ל ס מ ו ך‬ ‫על דעתן ד א מ ר ו רבותינו‪ ,‬א ל ת א מ י ן בעצמך עד יום מ ו ת ך ) א ב ו ת ב ד(‪ ,‬והיו י ר א י ם‬ ‫שיעבירום הגוים על ד ת ויהיה ש ם ש מ י ם מ ת ח ל ל על ידיהם‪ ,‬כולם יש ל ה ם ח ל ק‬ ‫לעולם ה ב א ו ק ד ו ש י ם גמורים ה ם כדדרשינן‪ ,‬ואך א ת ד מ כ ם לנפשותיכם אדרוש‪,‬‬ ‫יכול כ מ ע ש ה שאול ת ל מ ו ד לומר‪ ,‬א ך )בראשית רבה לד(‪ .‬ושנינן פרק הניזקין‪,‬‬ ‫מ צ א ו ד' מ א ו ת ילדים שנשבו באשקלון)!( והטילו עצמן לים לפי שלא י ה א שם‬ ‫ש מ י ם מ ת ח ל ל על ידיהם‪ ,‬ו י צ א ה בת קול ו א מ ר ה ‪ :‬כולם ק ד ו ש י ם מ ז ו מ נ י ם לעולם‬ ‫ה ב א )גיטין נז ב(‪ .‬ואין ל ה ק ש ו ת מרבי חנינא בן תרדיון בפרק ק מ א דעבודה‬ ‫זרה )דף יח א( שלא רצה לפתוח פיו כדי ש ת צ א ב ט ה ר ה ו א מ ר מ ו ט ב שיטלנה‬ ‫מ י שנתנה ו א ל א ח ב ל אני בעצמי‪ ,‬שאני רבי חנינא שכבר ה ו צ ת בחבילי זמורות‬ ‫שהקיפו ה א ו י ב י ם סביביו וידע בעצמו שלא י ה א ש ם ש מ י ם מ ת ח ל ל על ידו‪ .‬ו מ כ א ן‬ ‫ס מ כ ו ל ש ח ו ט הילדים בשעת גזירה שאינם יודעים בין ט ו ב לרעה לפי שאנו י ר א י ם‬ ‫פן ישתקעו בין הגוים בגויותן כשיגדלו מ ו ט ב שימותו ז כ א י ם ו א ל ימותו חייבים‬ ‫שכן מצינו גבי בן סורר ומורה שעל ש ם שסופו ל ל ס ט ם הבריות ומחלל שבתות‬ ‫לפיכך ה ו א בסקילה‪ .‬עד כ א ן לשון ה א ב י העזרי‪.‬‬ ‫ר' שלום מנוישטט)‪:(p. 35‬‬ ‫א ש ה א ח ת שלחה מ מ ד י נ ת פול״ן א ל מ ה ״ ר שלום‪ ,‬איך ש ה י ת ה בעיר שטריגו״ם‬ ‫בשעת הגזירה בשבת‪ ,‬ו ש ח ט ה ילדיה ולבסוף נמלטה‪ ,‬ו ש א ל ה ל מ ה ״ ר שלום‬ ‫שאינה צריכה לשום תשובה ו א ד ר ב ה כדין עשתה וכהוגנת עשתה‪.‬‬ ‫ר' מ נ ח ם מירזבורג)‪:(p. 36‬‬ ‫דין מ י ש ש ח ט א ש ת ו ובניו בשעת גזירה אין ל ה ח מ י ר עליו כלל‪ ,‬כ״ש ש א ד ם רשאי‬ ‫להרוג עצמו על קידוש השם‪.‬‬ ‫ר' ש ל מ ה לוריא)מהרש״ל()‪:(p. 38‬‬ ‫ו ק ״ ו ש א ס ו ר בשעת גזירה ל ש ח ו ט א ת בניו כדי שלא י ט מ א ו א ו ת ם בשמד‪ .‬כי‬ ‫אפילו בעצמו אין א ד ם רשאי לחבול בעצמו‪ ,‬ק ״ ו באחרים‪ .‬ו מ ס ת מ א א ם א י נ ם‬ ‫ראוים וזוכים לכך יחזרו מ ע צ מ ן ועכשיו הן א נ ו ס י ם ופטורי' לגמרי‪ .‬וג"כ רוב‬ ‫ה א נ ו ס י ם חוזרים א ח ר כ מ ה שנים‪ ,‬ולפעמים בניהם חוזרים‪.‬‬ ‫ר' ח ס ד א י ק ר ש ק ש )‪:(p. 48‬‬ ‫]‪ [...‬י״ז בתמוז ח מ ת ה ' נ ת כ ה על עיר ה ק ו ד ש אשר מ ש ם ת צ א תורה ודעת ה ' ה י א‬ ‫ק ה ל ת טוליטולה‪ ,‬ויהרגו ב מ ק ד ש ה ' כ ה ן ונביא‪ .‬ש מ ה קדשו א ת ה ש ם ברבים‬

‫רבניה‪ ,‬ה ם זרע הכשר והנבחר‪ ,‬זרע ר' אשר זצ״ל ה ם ובניהם ותלמידיהם‪ .‬גם‬ ‫ש ם המירו רבים לא יכלו לעמוד על נפשם‪.‬‬ ‫ר' יעקב אבן אלבנה‪ " ,‬ק י נ ה עלי ט ל י ט ל ה " ) ‪:(p. 4 8‬‬ ‫ורב י ה ו ד ה ת ח י ל ה‬ ‫אשר ה י ה איש ת ה י ל ה‬ ‫הקריב א ש ת ו לעולה‬ ‫ובניו בקרב ישראל]‪[...‬‬ ‫וציר נאמן של ק ה י ל ה‬ ‫ש ח ט עצמו ת ח י ל ה‬ ‫ל ז א ת א ז ע ק יללה‬ ‫א ל שאול ו א ל בית ישראל ]‪[...‬‬ ‫ושלמה א ח י ה ו‬ ‫ה ע ת אשר ר א ה ו‬ ‫מתגלל בדם ויעש גם ה ו א‬ ‫כאשר עשה ישראל‬ ‫והאיש מ ש ה בן אשר‬ ‫ה ק ד י ש עצמו כאשר‬ ‫ר א ה א ת כל אשר‬ ‫עשה א ל ה י ם ל מ ש ה ולישראל‬ ‫ר' י ח י א ל בן ה ר א ״ ש )‪:(p. 48‬‬ ‫ת מ ו ז ‪ /‬בך נדרשו עם א ל לפסל ומ־ ‪ /‬ס כ ה ונשתמדו יחד ק ה ל ו ת י‬ ‫ת מ ו ז ‪ /‬בך הרגו א ב ו ת לבנים לבל ‪ /‬ד ת ם ימירון ל ד ת צרי ושונאותי‬ ‫ר' ח ס ד א י ק ר ש ק ש ) ‪:(p. 4 9‬‬ ‫יום שבת אחריו שפך ה ' כאש ח מ ת ו נער מ ק ד ש ו וחלל נזר תורתו ה י א ק ה ל ת‬ ‫ברצלו״נה אשר הובקעה ה י ו ם ה ה ו א ובאו מ ס פ ר ההרוגים כמו מ א ת י י ם ו ח מ י ש י ם‬ ‫נפשות‪ .‬וכל יתר ה ק ה ל נסו א ל ה מ ג ד ל ושם נמלטו והאויבים בזזו כל מ ס י ל ו ת‬ ‫ה י ה ו ד י ם והציתו א ש ב ק צ ת ם ‪ [...] .‬א ז י ק ם שאון דלת ה ע ם והמון רבה על נכבדי‬ ‫ה מ ד י נ ה וילחמו עם ה י ה ו ד י ם אשר במגדל עם ק ש ת ו ת ו ב ל ס ט ר א ו ת ויכום ו י כ ת ו ם‬ ‫ש מ ה במגדל‪ .‬רבים קדשו ה ' ב ת ו כ ם בני יחידי חתן‪ ,‬שה ת מ י ם העליתיו לעולה‪,‬‬ ‫א צ ד י ק עלי הדין ו א ת נ ח ם לטוב ח ל ק ו ולנעימת גורלו‪ .‬ו מ ה ם רבים ששחטו עצמם‪,‬‬

‫ו מ ה ם הפילו ע צ מ ם מ ה מ ג ד ל ולא הגיעו לחצי ה מ ג ד ל עד שנעשו א ב ר י ם אברים‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬וקצת יצאו מ ש ם וקדשו א ת ה ש ם ברחוב‪ .‬וכל ה ש א ר המירו‬ ‫ר' א ב ר ה ם זכות)‪:(p. 49‬‬ ‫וכל ז א ת ה מ ש פ ח ה נקראו ק ד ו ש י ם כי בכל ש מ ד ו ת קדשו ה ש ם וכ״ש ר' י ה ו ד ה‬ ‫ה ק ד ש ח ת ן רבינו יעקב שעשה ד' ט ו ר י ם נהרג על קידוש ה ש ם ה ו א ו ח מ ו ת ו‬ ‫]‪ [...‬ואשתו וכל בניו והרגו זה לזה‪ ,‬זה הכלל א י נ ם ח ס י ן על ע צ מ ם בייחוד ה ש ם‬ ‫‪.‬ונקראו ק ד ו ש י ם‬ ‫פרופט דוראן)אפודי()‪:(p. 50‬‬ ‫ו ז ה ה מ י ן מ ן הכפרה מ י ו ח ד יותר ל צ ד י ק י ם הנהרגים על ק ד ו ש ת ה ' ואשר מ ס ר ו‬ ‫ע צ מ ם ל מ י ת ה על ק ד ו ש ת שמו ועל א ה ב ת ו לקדושי עליון רעיך אבי ה ח כ מ י ם‬ ‫הרבנים ה ח ס י ד י ם שלשת הרועים אשר בגירונה העיר ק ב ר ו ת אבותיך ויתר‬ ‫ה ק ד ו ש י ם אשר היו שם ו ז ו ל ת ם מ ן ה מ ק ו מ ו ת אשר מ ת ו בחרב ובלהבה אשר‬ ‫‪ [...].‬אחשוב ז כ ו ת ם הגין על ה ש א ר י ת ה נ מ צ א‬ ‫רמב״ן)‪:(p. 52‬‬ ‫צ ד י ק י ם ו ת מ י מ י ם ‪ [...] /‬ו ת ח ת החרב נתנו ר א ש ם ‪ /‬יקריבו לפניך עולה ]‪[...‬‬ ‫וזבחים ‪ /‬וזבחי א ד ם ‪ ,‬ויעשו לריח ניחוחים ‪ /‬א ת ה ר א ש ו א ת ה נ ת ח י ם ‪ /‬ו ה ם‬ ‫ששים ו ש מ ח י ם ‪ /‬זה י א מ ר ]‪ / [...‬א ק ר י ב א ת עצמי וחלבי ודמי ונתחי וראשי ‪/‬‬ ‫ו א ת ן בכורי פשעי פרי בטני ח ט א ת נפשי ‪ /‬ונפשם מ ת ע ל ס ת ‪ /‬ב ד מ י ה מ ת ב ו ס ס ת‬ ‫]·‪[·.‬‬

‫ר' יום טוב אשבילי)ריטב״א()‪:(p. 53‬‬ ‫כתוב בגליוני ה ת ו ס פ ו ת ש ה י ה א ו מ ר ר ״ ת ז״ל ד ה י כ א ש מ ת י י ר א שלא יכריחוהו‬ ‫לעבור על ד ת מ ו ת ר לחבול בעצמו‪ .‬והכי א י ת א ב מ ד ר ש ) ב ר א ש י ת רבה לד יג( כתיב‬ ‫א ך א ת דמכם‪...‬יכול אפילו כשאול מלך ישראל פי' שחבל בעצמו מפני שהיה‬ ‫מ ת י י ר א ש מ א יעבידוהו על ד ת ת ל מ ו ד לומר א ך מיעט‪ .‬דבכי ה א י גוונא שרי‪.‬‬ ‫ו מ כ א ן לומדים ל ש ח ו ט הנערים בגזרות מפני העברת הדת‪ .‬ע"כ מ צ א ת י בגליוני‬ ‫ה ת ו ס פ ו ת ו ה ם דברים שצריכין ת ל מ ו ד ועיון גדול‪ ,‬א ל א שכבר הורה זקן‪ .‬ושמענו‬ ‫בשם גדולי צרפת שהתירו כן ה ל כ ה למעשה‪.‬‬ ‫ספר כף ה ק ט ו ר ת ) ‪:(p. 5 6‬‬ ‫לידע ולהודיע מ ה ט ו ב ה עושה בישראל כל מ י שעומד בנסיון ו מ ת על יחוד שמו‬ ‫של ק ב ״ ה ה ק ד ו ש א ז י הפנים ה מ א י ר י ' עומדי' בפניי צ ו ח ק ו ' וכל ה כ י ת ו ' של ימין‬

‫ב ק י ל ו ס ו ב ש מ ח ה וברננה וכל דבור ודבור שיוצא מ ה פ נ י ' הנוראי' נבראי' כ מ ה‬ ‫מיני מ ל א כ י י שהן כ ל ם מ ל א כ י ר ח מ י י לשמש ה צ ד י ק ה ז ה ‪ .‬ולכן כל איש ישראל א ו‬ ‫א ש ה א ו ת י נ ו ק ה מ ק ד ש שמו של ק ב ״ ה ו מ ת א ו נשרף א ו נצלב כל ישראל ח י י ב י ם‬ ‫ל ה ס פ ד עליהם וכן בתי כ נ ס י ו ת ובתי מדרשות‪ .‬ו א ם בעל א ש ה ה ו א א ש ת ו ל א‬ ‫ת נ ש א לעולי עבור כבודו של ק ב ״ ה ועבור כ ב ו ד ם של ישראל ו א ם נשא לא תגרש‪.‬‬ ‫ס פ ר ה מ ק צ ו ע ו ת ) ‪:(p. 5 6‬‬ ‫כתוב בספר ה מ ק צ ו ע ו ת מ י שנהרג על ק י ד ו ש ה ש ם ועל יחוד ה ש ם יתברך ]‪[...‬‬ ‫ו מ ס ר עצמו ל מ י ת ה ונהרג א ו נצלב א ו נשרף על ק י ד ו ש ה ש ם כיון ש ק י ד ש ה ש ם‬ ‫בגופו ובנפשו כל ישראל חייבין לקרוע עליו ו ל ה ת א ב ל עליו ולהספידו בבתי‬ ‫כ נ ס י ו ת ובבתי מ ד ר ש ו ת ו א ש ת ו לא ת נ ש א עולמית מ ש ו ם כבוד ש מ י ם ו מ ש ו ם‬ ‫כבודו‪ ,‬ו א ם נ ש א ת ל א ת צ א י ‪.‬‬ ‫ר' א ב ר ה ם זכות)‪:(p. 58‬‬ ‫וכלם עמדו ב ש מ ד ו ת ק ש ט י ל י י א על ת ל ם בעבודת ה ש ם י ת ' ובתורתו‪ .‬גם אני‬ ‫ה ש ם ב ״ ה זכני ש א ק ד ש שמו עם ש מ ו א ל בני‪ ,‬ובאנו ל א פ ר י ק א והיינו שבויים שני‬ ‫פעמים‪ .‬ה ש ם למען ח ס ד י ו ורחמיו הגדולים ישלים לי ולזרעי ש י ה י ה א ח ר י ת נ ו‬ ‫לעבודת ה ש ם י ת ' ו י ת ' ולתורתו וישים ח ל ק נ ו עם ה צ ד י ק י ם בג״ע ו ב ת ח י י ת‬ ‫ה מ ת י ם ולבנין בית מ ק ד ש ו אכי״ר‪.‬‬ ‫ר' א ב ר ה ם זכות)‪:(p. 59‬‬ ‫וראוי ל ה ב י א בכאן כפי זמננו שראינו צ ד י ק י ם שהרגו ע צ מ ם ובניהם כדי שלא‬ ‫י ו צ י א ו ם על כ ר ח ם מ ת ו ר ת ה ' ש ז ה ה י ה מ ו ת ר ודבר ק ד ו ש כי ב ת ל מ ו ד כשבאו‬ ‫ספינות מ י ל ד י ם וילדות שנשבו לקלון לרומי א מ ר ו ל א דיינו מ ה שהכעסנו בארץ‬ ‫א ל א שגם בחייל ו א מ ר ו א ם נשליך עצמינו ל י ם ‪ /‬אנו ה ו ל כ י ם לעה״ב ודרש ל ה ם‬ ‫ז ק ן א ח ד א מ ר ה ' מבשן אשיב וכוי והשליכו עצמן ה י ל ד ו ת ונשאו ק ״ ו ה ז כ ר י ם‬ ‫וכוי והשליכו עצמן לים )בבלי גיטין נז ב(‪ .‬ובפרק ה נ ז ק י ן ו ב פ ס ק י ת ו ס פ ו ת בשעת‬ ‫גזרות מ ו ת ר להרוג עצמו כשדואג מ ן היסורין ו ה ר א י ה קפצו כ ל ם ונפלו וכוי‪.‬‬ ‫ו ה א ד א מ ר ב ע ״ ז ) ד ף יח א( ברי חנינא בן תרדיון מ ו ט ב שיטלנה מ י שנתנה ו א ל‬ ‫יחבול בעצמו שיפתח פיו לאש‪ ,‬ה כ א י ר א י ם היו מ י ס ו ר י ם כ ד א מ ר י נ ן א ל מ ל א נגדו‬ ‫לחנניה וחביריו וכוי ועוד על כ ר ח ם של ת י נ ו ק ו ת היו מענין א ו ת ם ולא היו הורגין‬ ‫א ו ת ם ‪ .‬ו ה מ ר ד כ י כ ת ב בסוף פ ״ ק דע״ז על ענין ר' חנינא בן תרדיון‪ ,‬כ ת ב ר' יוסף‬ ‫מ י ה ו ה י כ א שמיסרין א ו ת ו וירא שלא יוכל לעמוד בנסיון מותר‪ .‬א ב ל אני ה כ ו ת ב‬ ‫יש לי יותר ר א י ה מ ז ה ה מ ע ש ה של פ ט י ר ת רבי ב ה ה ו א כ ו ב ס שלא נזדמן ביום‬ ‫ה ה ו א להיו' בקבורתו של רבי ושמע כי מ י ש ה י ה ש ם בקבורתו זוכה לחיי ה ע ה ״ ב‬ ‫שעלה לגג והפיל עצמו ו מ ת שהרג עצמו בעבור שלא נזדמן ל ה י ו ת ש ם ל ק י י ם‬ ‫ה מ צ ו ה ו י צ א ת ב ״ ק ש ה ו א מ ז ו מ ן לחיי ה ע ה ״ ב בלי שום דין ועונש כ מ ו שפירשו‬

‫ב ז ה )בבלי כ ת ו ב ו ת קג ב ובתוספות שם(‪ .‬וכן י ו ק י ם איש צרידות בן א ח ו ת ו של‬ ‫יוסי בן יועזר שהרג עצמו‪.‬‬ ‫וכ״ש בזמן ה ש מ ד ו ת שלא לחלל ה ש ם ולהיות מ ק ד ש ה ש ם כ מ ו ר' י ה ו ד ה בן השר‬ ‫אשר ה ק ד ו ש בטוליטולא שנת ק נ ״ א שהרגו ע צ מ ם ה ו א ואשתו ו ח מ ו ת ו א ש ת ר'‬ ‫יעקב בעל הטורים‪ .‬וכן בפורטוגל ה ח כ ם ר' י צ ח ק בן צחין מבונילייא דילא שיירא‬ ‫ובניו בשנת נז״ר‪ .‬וכן א מ ר ו בסנהדרין‪ ,‬ו א ך א ת ד מ כ ם וכוי יכול כשאול שלא‬ ‫יתעללו בו הערלים ת ״ ל א ך מיעט‪ .‬וכן שמשון בן מנוח שידענו שזכה לחיי ה ע ה ״ ב‬ ‫בזכות עין א ח ד כ מ ו שאמרו ז״ל‪.‬‬ ‫ר' א ב ר ה ם זכות)‪:(p. 71‬‬ ‫ו ה י ה ש מ ד גדול בשנה ה ה י א שלא ה י ה מעולם‪ .‬וערב שבת הגדול נגזר שיוציאו‬ ‫נערים ונערות מ ה כ ל ל מ א י ב ו ר א ובכל מ ל כ ו ת פורטוגל‪ .‬ו ה י ת ה צ ע ק ה גדולה‬ ‫באיבורא א ל ה מ ל ך שלא ה י ת ה כמוה‪ ,‬ו ב פ ס ח באו ולקחו כל הילדים והילדות‬ ‫ונתפשטה הגזרה כי אפילו ל ז ק נ י ם מוציאין מ ן הכלל על כרחם‪ ,‬והרבה מ ת ו על‬ ‫ק ד ו ש ת ה ש ם שהיו מ מ י ת י ן עצמן‪.‬‬ ‫ר' אליהו קפשאלי)‪:(p. 72‬‬ ‫ויהי ב ל ו ק ח ם הגוים בני ה י ה ו ד י ם נשתמדו רבים לאין מ ס פ ר כי לא יכלו לעמוד‬ ‫ב ז א ת הגזרה כי כידוע שרחמי ה א ב מרובין על הבן וכי‪ .‬ו ח ל ק מ ה ם קדשו ש ם‬ ‫ש מ י ם ועמדו ב ק ד ו ש ת ם ופרי בטן לא ירחמו על בנים לא ת ח ו ס עינם ולא נעו ולא‬ ‫זעו מ ד ת ם ואמונתם‪...‬‬ ‫ר' א ב ר ה ם סבע)‪:(p. 75‬‬ ‫ואיך ע ת ה כששמע כרוז ה מ ל ך שכל מ י שיש לו בת או א ח ו ת שיביאה א ל ה מ ל ך‬ ‫ל ה י ו ת ה נבעלת לערל עע״ז‪ ,‬ל מ ה לא שם עצמו בסכנה להוליכה א ל ארץ גזרה לבא‬ ‫במערות צורים ובנקיקי ס ל ע י ם עד יעבור זעם‪ ,‬או להוליכה למלכות א ח ר ת ‪ .‬ו א ס‬ ‫א ״ א לא ז ה ולא זה ה נ ה ראינו בעינינו ב מ ל כ ו ת פורטוגל בזמן הגירוש‪ ,‬שלקחו‬ ‫הבנים והבנות באונס להעבירם על ד ת ולהמירם‪ ,‬שהיו ח ו נ ק י ם ע צ מ ם ו ש ו ח ט י ם‬ ‫ע צ מ ם ונשותיהם‪ ,‬ובפרט בראשונה שהגזרה לא פ ש ט ה א ל א בבנים ובנות היו‬ ‫ל ו ק ח י ם הבנים והבנות ומשליכים א ו ת ם בבורות ל ה מ י ת ם בחייהם‪ ,‬א ו ל ח ו נ ק ם‬ ‫ו ל ש ו ח ט ם ולא שיראו א ו ת ם עובדים ע״ז‪ .‬ו ל מ ה לא עשה מרדכי א ' מ א ל ו הדברים‬ ‫שעשו ק ט נ י ישראל בפורטוגל‪ ,‬וראוי ה י ה למרדכי ליהרג על דבר כ ז ה ]‪[...‬‬ ‫ר' א ב ר ה ם סבע)‪:(p. 77‬‬ ‫א ח " כ ה כ נ י ס ו ם כ ל ם לחצר א ח ד כ מ ו עשרת אלפים יהודים וכלם ה כ ר י ח ו ם‬ ‫ופיתום להמיר ד ת ם ‪ ,‬ובדי י מ י ם לא נשארו ארבעים בין אנשים ונשים‪.‬‬

‫ר' א ב ר ה ם ארדוטיאל)‪:(p. 79‬‬ ‫ולא נתקררה ד ע ת ו ) ש ל המלך( עד ששלח ידו ב ח כ מ י ם ועשה ב ה ם שפטים ועינה‬ ‫א ו ת ם בכל מיני עינוים ו א ס ר א ו ת ם בכבלי ברזל‪ .‬ורבים מן ה י ה ו ד י ם המירו ד ת ם‬ ‫שלא יכלו לעמוד בנסיונם ו מ ה ם תלו ע צ מ ם ו מ ה ם מ ס ר ו ע צ מ ם על ק ד ו ש ת שמו‬ ‫יתברך ובראשם הרב ה ק ד ו ש ה ח ס י ד בנפש ט ה ו ר ה וגוף נקי כאלישע בעל כנפים‬ ‫]בבלי שבת מ ט א[ ה ו א הרב ר' שמעון מ י מ י ז״ל ש מ ס ר עצמו ה ו א וביתו וכל אשר‬ ‫לו אנשים ונשים וטף ו מ ת בתוך ה ס ו ה ר בעינויים גדולים‪ .‬ו ה ח כ ם ה ח ס י ד ה ק ד ו ש‬ ‫הרי ש ם טוב ל א ר מ ה שעברו עליו כ מ ה עינויים כ מ ו שאמרנו ק ו ד ם שהכניסוהו‬ ‫לסוהר ו א ח ר כך הוציאוהו והצילו ה ק ב ״ ה נפשו מ מ ו ת ובא למלכות פ א ס ה ו א‬ ‫והרב רבי יעקב לואל והרי א ב ר ה ם סבאע‪.‬‬

APPENDIX D

THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE SCROLL OF AMRAFEL

In Chapter 3 I dealt with the Scroll of Amrafel, a treatise attributed to Rabbi Abraham Ben Eliezer Halevi. The author refers to a certain tradition, originated in thirteenth century Ashkenaz, or possibly earlier, which demonstrates how should a Jew act when facing the choice of conversion or death. A comprehensive re-examination of the sermon that survived from this treatise, led me to draw some new conclusions regarding its historical background, and regarding the Ashkenazic connections of its author. The meager remnants of this essay, a total of less than three printed pages, were published by Gershom Scholem more than seventy years ago. 1 Scholem depicts the contents of the Scroll as "fire chiseling utterances [...] undoubtedly, one of the best and more exalted sermons I had come across in the qabbalistic literature [...]. This is a sermon about the death of the martyrs who sacrificed their lives for the sanetification of the Name which was, undoubtedly, relevant in the times of the Inquisition and its trials." 2 I do not question here the authorship of Abraham Halevi, and there is also an indication that it was composed in Spain prior to the expulsion. 3 O n the other hand, I will attempt to prove that his ideas, which were used freely by the most important of historians, were misunderstood as far as the historical context of this sermon is concerned. 4 The sermon is divided into two main parts, indicated by content and

1

G. Scholem, "Haqirot Hadashot al Rabi Avraham Ben Eliezer Halevi', Qrryat Sefer 7, 1930-1931, 153-155. 2 Ibid.. See also: M. Fishbane, The Kiss of God, Seatde & London, 1994, p. 55. 3 See below, n. 20. 4 Fishbane, too, follows Scholem on this issue. The only scholar who handled this with some degree of prudence, as far as I am aware, is M. Saperstein, even though he treated it only implicitly and gave no alternative explanation (M. Saperstein, "A Sermon on the Akedah from the Generation of the expulsion and Its Implication for 1391," Exile and Diaspora: Studies in the History of the Jewish People Presented to Professor Haim Beinart [A. Mirsky et al ed.], Jerusalem, 1991, 115.

style. The first part is the practical part which deals with the preparation of the Jew for an event in which he might be facing a Kiddush ha-Shem situation, and it is composed of three sections. Initially, the author informs the reader about a "tradition of sages and martyrs, ‫יי‬ according to which everyone who would "focus his mind at that hour on the honorable and awesome Name between his eyes and will make up his mind to sanctify Him, [...] he can rest assured that he will be able to endure the test, trusting in God. He will not feel the pain of the beating and torture, nor will he tremble (with the fear) of death." T h e second section (In Scholem's edition it is joined to the first one.) deals with "the order of taking the resolution to sanctify the Name," and he cites what he had found "written by one of the Hasidim that his answer should be: 'What do you want from me? Am I not a Jew? A Jew I am and as a Jew shall I die! A Jew! A Jew! A Jew! And then he should resolve to (be true to) what he has his lips and mouth uttered [...]. It is then that he will not feel the pain of the tortures they inflict on him." Scholem already noted the Ashkenazic origin of this idea, from the school of Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg, and possibly even earlier. 5 In the last paragraph of this part the author contends that whoever recites the Shema, mornings and evenings, with the correct intention "and resolves to devote his own body and soul to Him as well as his wife's and children's," or (also) during NefilatApayim following the Vidui, while "saying: '1 commit my soul to You, Ο Lord' (Psalm 25:1), and entrusts his soul to his God," 6 it is considered as if he actually gave his

5

Scholem, 441-442, and see the references of David Tamar, Qiiyat Sefer 33, 1958, 376-377; ibid., 34 1959, 397. 6 About the Sefardic custom to recite Psalm 25 while prostrating, see, for instance: Abudraham Hashalem, Jerusalem, 1963, 119. Also, in the writings of Rabbi Abraham Halevi's contemporary: "And some are accustomed to say it every day as supplication accompanied by nefilat apayim" [Qaf ha-Qetoret, Ms. Paris 845, 69b. And cf.: Tur Orah Hayim, no. 131). And see: Y. M. Elenbogen, Ha-Tfilah be-Tisrael be-Hitpathutah ha-Historit, Tel-Aviv, 1972, 60. Generally, this is s Sefardic custom, while in Ashkenaz they used to recite Psalm 6. Regarding the confession [vidui] said before the nefilat apayim, a custom based on the ^phar, see: Daniel Sperber, Minhagei Tisrael 3, Jerusalem, 1994, 177. The source of the connection between reciting Psalm 25 to the readiness to give away one's soul appears for the first time in the Zphar II, 200b, 202b, and £ohar III, 121-122a. About the evolution of the custom of reciting Psalms and its connection to self-sacrifice of one's soul, see: Y. Verdiger, Sheruta Diilota in: Zlota de-Avraham 1, 1960, 348. O n e example of the development of this idea among the qabalists of Zafed in the 16th century, see: Rabbi Haim Vital, Sha'ar ha-Kavanot !,Jerusalem, 305, 310-311.

life for God's sake and all his sins are expiated, "since he resolved to die [le-hashlim nafsho] for his God and this is considered as if he died, gone and was annihilated from this world." About the intention to give away one's soul while reciting the Shema, which originates—as far as we know—in R. Yonah Gerondi (Catalunia, mid 12th century), was recendy extensively discussed in a comprehensive article. 7 One could speculate that there is a connection, and not an accidental one, to the parallel idea about the recommended intention during the reciting of Psalm 25 in the Nefilat Apayim prayer, which first appears in the Zohar (where the issue of intention while reciting of the Shema is also appears), about one generation after Yonah Gerondi. The second part, as noted by Scholem, is a "sermon based on Song of Songs 8:5-7, which makes use of ideas that were expressed already in the Midrash ha-Ne'elam, Hayn Sarah, 125b, expounding these verses." 8 Rabbi Abraham expounds these verses as referring to the soul of the martyr which goes up to its God which, due to its love, dedicated itself for him and agreed to suffer to the point that it rises from the desert, which is the underworld, to heaven while "she is falling apart [mitpareqet9] and drops down limb for limb and piece for piece," as the result of the tortures it had undergone for His sake. The love of God and devotion to Him make the martyr physically indifferent to pain so that "many waters," namely, multitudes of troubles and hardships, "cannot quench love." Indeed, that righteous may boast in this great act in which "he surrenders his body to the consuming fire and all the other harsh tortures I mentioned above." The sermon ends with depiction of the merit and place of the righteous amidst those who sanctified the Name, like "the martyrs of Lydda and (other) martyrs [harugei melukhah]." from the classical age of Kiddush ha-Shem in "the generation of persecutions." Now, there is here room for discussing the historical background of this sermon. It is rather simple to understand the reasons that caused scholars to inadvertently associate them with the Spanish Inquisition. T h e Scroll of Amrafel was written in Spain, in the last quarter of the fifteenth century and not earlier, since the author was born around 7 Y. Hacker, "Kelum Hu'ataq Kiddush ha-Shem el Tehum ha-Ru'ah Liqrat haEt ha-Hadashah," Qedushat ha-Hayyim ve-Heruf ha-Nefesh: Qovei Ma'amarim le-^ikhro shel Amir Yequtiel [Y. Gafni and A. Ravitzky ed.], Jerusalem, 1993, 221-232. 8 Scholem, 152. Rabbi Abraham actually is concerned with the homiletical interpretation of other verses. See also: Fishbane, 58-59. 9 I amended here: mitpareqet for mitrapeqet.

1460. During the eighth decade of that century, the first decade of the activity of the Inquisition (literally: "interrogation," "investigation". Hebrew: haqirah), they started to burn New Christians ofjewish origin in their so-called Auto da Fé (Act of Faith). The multiple use of words like "fire" and "flames" were the words connecting the sermon to the reality in Spain. It seems that such dominant motifs obscured others and prevented a clearer sight of the historical reality that was in the background of composing the Scroll. We do not suggest to disregard or to underestimate it; it might also be that such motifs are the basis of the treatise title, since a very well known Midrash expounds: "And it was in the days of Amrafel [...]" who determined and thrown Abraham into the fiery furnace." 1 0 However, one must pay attention to the fact that these words appear only in the last part of the sermon, and even there—almost exclusively in the interpretation of verses of Song of Songs 8:6-7, in which we find the description of love as "the flashes thereof are flashes of fire, a very flame of the Lord [...] many waters cannot quench love." There is little doubt that the author knew what was taking place in the dark cellars of the Holy Office and that he was familiar with its procedures and ground rules. This supposition in itself is sufficient for questioning the thesis as if he aims his exhortation to martyrdom to the victims of this institution. As is well known, that the Inquisitorial system used methods of extreme tortures in its attempts to reveal the acts and religious allegiance that the New Christians, on their part, attempted to conceal; once a complete confession as to his heretical deeds and beliefs was extracted to the satisfaction of his interrogators, there would no longer be need for any additional torture; judges would have prescribed his penance, had he expressed any remorse and wish to return to the bosom of the Church, or to death penalty at the stake, had he persisted in his obstinacy. What point, then, is there to the author's introduction of the Ashkenazic tradition in the second section of the first part? Let us examine the complete paragraph: This is the order of taking the resolution to sanctify the Name when they come to torment him and interrogate him [yish'aluhu ve-yidreshuhu], and tell him that if he converts \yamir kevodo] they will let him go and will not hurt him, or that he should let them know what he wants. Behold this is what I have found written by one of the Hassidim that his answer should be: "What do you want from me? Am I not a Jew? A Jew I am 10

Bereshit Rabah, 41 (Theodore-Albeck Edition), Jerusalem, 1965, 408.

and as a Jew I shall die! A Jew! A Jew! A Jew!5' And then he should resolve to (be true to) what he has his lips and mouth uttered and be ready and sure that he is going to sanctify his Creator and not profane his God's Name. It is than that he will not feel the pain of the tortures they inflict on him. And this is the secret alluded to by the prophet Isaiah: "One shall say: '1 am the Lord's. And another shall call himself by the name ofJacob. And another shall subscribe with his hand unto the Lord, and surname himself by the name of Israel." First, it would be unthinkable that the Inquisition would offer the accused to "let them know what he wants," namely, to let them know of his terms or conditions. More importandy, this regime had no aim of converting. The issue of conversion is utterly and unquestionably of no relevance, but rather the confession of the New Christian regarding his heretical Jewish affiliation. It is precisely at the moment that the accused admits to his Jewish loyalty that tortures cease! If so, then there is no reasonable connection between the //05.rá&-Ashkenazic advice given by the author to help one withstand tortures when faces with torture-generated temptation to convert, and the conditions of those accused of "judaizing" by the Inquisition. How are we to understand the phrase "and tell him that if he converts [yamir kevodo] they will let him go and will not hurt him"? Furthermore, had our author referred to the anusim, it would have indicated his ignorance of their religious condition. Anyone who is aware of their limited "judaizing" and restricted acquaintance with Jewish practices and cognizance, would describe the author's tone as absolutely pathetic. How are we to understand a Jewish rabbi, who tries to advise the descendants of the anusim, in Hebrew, how to achieve supreme concentration and devequt through qabbalistic means? And, supposedly, some of them did know and even recited the Shema twice a day (see the end paragraph of the first part)—how could our author ever think that the masses of those anusim pray the Amidah prayer, followed by the Vidui and Nefilat Apayim? It would be against our familiarity with the author's late manuscripts and letters, most of which deal with Messianism; these, teach not only of the curiosity and interest of the author in what was happening not only in his vicinity but also around the world, and all that not without a measure of criticism. We deal here with a well-informed person, not with a qabbalist whose daily existence is wholly within the supernal spheres, detached from reality. 11 11

See: I. Robinson, "Two Letters of Abraham ben Eliezer Halevi," in: I. Twersky

All of the above considered, it seems that one must entirely reject the opinion that the anusim were the author's destined audience. O n the other hand, if we are to carefully examine the details of torments, the author refers to toward the end of the sermon, saying "all the other harsh tortures I mentioned above," while trying to interpret them in the context of tortures applied in this era—an aperture is opened for us to unveil the real historical context of the sermon: [...] And the righteous, who dwell in the innermost chamber of the King where bliss has its habitation, say about the soul of this martyr: "Who is this (soul) that comes up from the lower world—which is likened to the wilderness where there is nothing but serpents and adders, scorpions and thirst—and for the love of its Beloved its body falls to pieces [peraqim peraqim] due to the multitude of trials it was subjected to. They tear its flesh by hot pincers or hack it to pieces by swords. It seems that the torments mentioned at the end of the phrase were so far read and understood metaphorically, due to the mythical character of the beginning of the phrase, and herein lies the core of the problem. If we do not view this phrase as a metaphor, we must ask ourselves whether these torments were the fate of some of the Inquisition's condemned victims. T h e answer to this question is utterly negative. T h e series of torments led by this institution were committed under interrogations, and these means, or any similar ones, were not used. At the time of execution no tortures were carried out. There had been a death penalty through fire. T h e condemned person could choose a lighter death by accepting Christianity (as many did). In such a case he would be garroted before his body is burned. We do know, however, of the practice of such methods of torture within the Holy Roman Empire. These torture were part of the penal system and not of the interrogation procedure in which different kind of torments, primarily stretching the body and dislocating its organs, were used. It is explicit in the Carolina, the criminal code of King Charles V, from 1532, but it is known that these torments were in use already during the fifteenth century. 12 In an elegy dedicated to

(ed.) Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature, vol. 2, Cambridge, Mass., 1984, 408-410; Abraham Gross, "Aseret ha-Shvatim u-Malchut Prester John—Shemu'ot ve-Hipusim Lifnei Gerush Sefarad ve-Aharav", Peamim 48, 1991, 29. 12 Professor Esther Cohen from the Hebrew University informed me of iconographic evidence, particularly from cities in south Germany (and as we shall show below, there is also explicidy written evidence). O n the other hand, these torments

the victims of one libel, probably from the beginning of that century, we find the phrase: "and with white-hot pincers they gathered your flesh5' [uvi-zvat melubenet laqtu besarkha].13 In the Blood Libel of Endingen, in 1470, the three brothers accused of murdering a Christian child were burned. Eight years later, in March 10, 1478, in the Host Libel in Passau, on the banks of the Danube, two of the sentenced people were condemned to death at the stake. They were also sentenced to have their flesh pinched with white-hot pincers before being burned, a punishment that was saved for extremely severe cases.14 Likewise, the death penalty of "hacking it to pieces by swords" did exist in this region in that period; I assume that the author's reference is to quartering—the dissection of the condemned into quarters. 15 Examined from this angle, one could conclude from the very beginning of the first part that our Scroll discusses torments that were applied to people as part of the punishment—not as part of the interrogation procedure. Rabbi Abraham Halevi talks about "such a man, when they take him out in order to torment him through most horrible tortures—as they did to the holy (martyrs) that are on the

are not mentioned in early collections of the medieval practices from the thirteenth century, like the Schwabenspiegel and the Sachsenspiegel. 13 S. Benfeld, Sefer Hadma'ot, vol. 2, Berlin, 1896, p. 174, and laso: there, p. 173, 175, 178. 14 See: R. Po-Chia Hsia, The Myth of Ritual Murder, New Haven & London, 1988, 25, 26, 51. In the infamous Blood Libel of Trent in 1475, Shemuel was destined to be taken out in a carriage to the site of execution to have his flesh ripped οίΓ in white-hot pincers, and later to be burned (Idem, Trent 1475: Stories of Ritual Murder Trial, New York, 1992, 67). Others were sentenced to breaking their bodies on the wheel, and only then to be burnt. 15 See: R. van Dülmen, Theatre of Horror: Crime and Punishment in Early Modern Germany, Cambridge, 1990, 92-94. This penalty was considered to be the harshest of punishments. According to the author, this penalty was saved mainly for traitors and conspirators, who attempted to assassin the king. However, he does not mention any such penalty handed to a Jew. Clues for such peculiar death penalty we find in phrases Hebrew like: "cut" or "torn" [nigzru, ne'eqru] (See: A. M. Haberman, Sefer Gzerot Ahkenaz ve-^aifat, Jerusalem, 1945, 191-192). It is worthwhile noting the German drawing from the end of the fourteenth century, published by G. Kisch. The drawing deals in the upper part of it with the sight of a Jew hanging among monkeys. At the lower part of the drawing it shows a person whose arms and legs are tied to four horses—it was the original method of dissecting the body, as noted by Dülman, but due to 'inefficiency' they moved to using a knife and axe. If the subject of this part is also a Jew, it could be the proof to that the discussed form of death was applied to Jews too (G. Kisch, "The Jewish Execution in Medieval Gremany," Historia Judaica 5, 1943, plate 2, after p. 108). About the torments in white-hot pincers, see: Dülman, 78; about the breaking of the body with a wheel—ibid., 95.

earth,' 5 meaning, when taking him out to the public area, the place of execution. 16 In this manner one should also interpret the reference to the death penalty by fire of the "martyr who makes up his mind to die for his God," and to "and surrenders his body to consuming fire," as a reality about which our author heard from Ashkenaz. This we say, in spite of the possibility that at the time of composing the sermon there might have been already anusim burning at the inquisitorial stakes. It would seem that other violent sorts of death, mentioned by Rabbi Abraham Halevi, are such that he could have read about in literature originated in Ashkenaz, if not from occurrences of his own generation. In the dialogue between the righteous and his Creator, the righteous replies: Set me as a seal upon Your heart, as a seal upon Your arm, and do not forget me ever. Remember the love with which I loved you, for even if they kill me for my love to you, I shall not feel a thing "for love is as strong as death." Indeed, even if they buried me alive this would be as naught to me, for my zeal for the honor of Your Name is "as fierce as the grave." We read about the live burial of "Rabbi Shemaryah the Hassid" in First Crusade Hebrew chronicles. 17 However, perhaps there is no need to go that far back in history, since the punishment discussed

16

According to this interpretation, Fishbane's translation for this sentence (Kiss of God, 53) must be corrected. About the process of degradation through dragging one tied to a carriage in the city's streets, customary in the Holy Roman Empire, see: Hsia (Myth, 26-7, n. 14). According to & Judenspiel, written about the Blood Libel in Trent, the three brothers were undressed, wrapped in leather of catde, tied to horses' tails and dragged to the place of execution. It appears that such instance is the case of the martyrs' death in Pforzheim in 1267: "they were slaughter, drag and wheeled" [nitbhu, nigreru ve-ne'ejhu] (Haberman, ibid.). It is possible that the phrase "the holy (martyrs) that are on the earth," in the Scroll refers to the victims of various libels in that period, despite the fact that the end of the sentence ties it in with the 'sons of the holy Hannah' from the period of Hasmonean rebellion. The sentence is based on Psalm 17:3; the Midrash associates it with the suffering of the martyrs in the "generation of religious persecutions [doro shel shmad] (.Midrash Tehilim 16:4 [S. Buber's edition, 121]). There were, as is well known, Jews who could not face the tortures in the events mentioned above, be it during the interrogations or before execution, and ended up converting to Christianity in order to gain a relatively easier and faster death. They are probably the ones the author refers to at the end of his opening paragraph (after his recommendation to concentrate and focus on the Name as a method of blocking pain). See below, 123. 17

Haberman, 51, 80.

was conventional in Germany of the High Middle Ages.18 We have found also that this penalty was applied to Jews. In the middle of the fourteenth century we read in a Tizkor prayer: "Remember [...] those who were killed, drowned, burnt, hung, [...] strangled and buried alive." 19 Let us now return to the end of the third section of the first part. In this paragraph, the author informs his audience of the tradition he had found by "one of the Hassidim," concerning the prescribed verbal response of the Jew when facing the choice between sanctifying the Name and death. Rabbi Abraham ends the paragraph with an overtone which endows his message with urgency. One must pay special attention to this, since herein lies the reason for writing the sermon: Behold it is worthwhile spreading these words among the Children of Israel, a people near unto Him, for this is a generation of religious persecutions [doro shel shmad\ and it is of great import that such a cardinal idea [ha-iqar ha-zeh] will not be hidden from every person who

18

Dülman, 88-89. T h e author notes that the killing of children was punishable by burying the murderer alive. If so, could Shemaryah's form of death be a result of having killed his own children? This form of death penalty for murdering children is not mentioned in the discussion of this issue in: M. Minti, "Kidush ha-Shem be-Einei No?rim be-Germanya bi-Yemei ha-Beinayim," £ion, 59, 1994, 237, n. 118. 19 Bernfeld, Sefer ha-Dma'ot, 106. thus far, I have no unequivocal interpretation for the verse "[...] and he dies amidst the wicked" (Isa. 53:9), which the author uses in the beginning of his sermon on the verses from Song of Songs. See Rashi's interpretation of this verse (Y. Baer, Rashi veha-Me?iut ha-Historit shel Zemano," Tarbiz, 20, 1949, 326). Regarding the phrase 'to make up his mind to die for his God' [le-hashlim nafsho le-elohim] it is worthwhile mentioning that its source is mainly in Ashkenaz. Although 'to make up one's mind' in the sense of complete devotion and preparedness for death appears already in the Midrash (for example, Tanhuma, Vaet'hanan, 6), but it is very rare (See: E. Ben-Yehuda, Milon ha-Lashon ha-Ivrit 15, New York and London, 1959, 7183). In the twelfth century we find it several times in the Chronicle attributed to Shlomo ben Shimshon (Haberman, 37, 42) and in Ashkenazi liturgy (L. Zunz, Literaturgeschichte der synagogaten Poesie, Berlin, 1865, 641-642). Among the extensive liturgical poetry that was composed in the aftermath of the First Crusade (1096) we find it in a Seliha of Rabbi Eliezer bar Nathan (Haberman, 85) and in an elegy by Qalonimos bar Yehuda (Seder ha-Qinot le-Tishah be-Av [D. Goldsmidt ed.], Jerusalem, 1977, 107, line 29; 108, line 41). Afterwards, this phrase becomes routine in the memorial literature for those who died for the sanctification of the Name; in prayers, in piyyutim and in chronicles, till the eighteenth century. Zunz notes its usage by Hakalir and of the Midrash Asarah Harugei Malkhut. The author of Sefer Tosifon too uses it in the same sense (Sefer Tossifon [D. Flusser ed.], Jerusalem, 1977, 314). The literary transition to medieval Ashkenaz is, then, visible. About the evolution of the phrase, see: S. Lieberman, "Roman Legal Institutions in Early Rabbinics and the Acta Martyrum," JQR 35, 1944-1945, 52.

surnames himself by the name of Israel for who knows what a day may bring forth. Even this closing sentence proves that the issues discussed are not connected to the fate of the anusin and the Inquisition. The author addresses here "every person who surnames himself by the name of Israel," meaning—whose Judaism is externally expressed and well known to everyone around, a Judaism which is not kept a secret or is questioned by others. As is well known, the Inquisition dealt with the removal of any phenomenon of heresy within Christianity, and it could not have harmed "every person who surnames himself by the name of Israel." T h e source of scholarly misunderstanding in the interpretation of the historical background—implied in this paragraph—stems from the phrase "generation of religious persecutions" [doro shel shmad]. It was very convenient to explain it as the reaction to the events that occurred in the author's surroundings. Our suggestion is slighdy different. Rabbi Abraham Halevi, observing all the occurrences in the Jewish world, particularly regarding the spread of Blood Libels in Europe during the 1470's, alongside the atmosphere that was prevalent in Spain, came to the conclusion that his generation is a "generation of religious persecutions" [doro shel shmad]. Seeing what happened in other places he feared of the dangerous prospects faced by his coreligionists in Spain: religious coercion of individuals in a fashion similar to that of Europe. Indeed, most of these libels took place in Ashkenaz, but such ideas were not unfamiliar in Spain. T h e evidence for our author's realistic sense was embodied, eventually, in the infamous Blood Libel of the "Holy Child of La-Guardia," which took place two years before the Expulsion. 20

20 Baer reckons that the inquisitors in this trial were affected by external occurrences, particularly the Blood Libel in Trent (Y. Baer, Toldot Hayehudim bi-Sefard hNozrit, Tel-Aviv, 1959, 549, n. 131). About the potential of a Blood Libel in Spain one could learn from the propaganda of Alfonso d'Espina, who informs his Old Christian audience that such an event took place in Valladolid in 1454, but the Jews managed to silence the affair because of their great influence. T h e conclusion we have drawn relies on the premise that the Scroll of Amrafel was written in Spain. This view, as aforesaid, is also the view of G. Scholem, but it is not clear how did his supposition regarding the Inquisition as being the historical background affected his assumption that it was authored in Spain. Scholem does base the dating of composition on calculations which are wrapped in much doubt (See my article in Tarbiz 64, 1995, 114 n. 21). His circumstantial evidence is insufficient for drawing bibliographical conclusions for our discussion. Should the origin of the Scroll be found to be in Portugal (whereto, presumably, the author moved after the Spanish expulsion in 1492), or in

The Scroll of Amrafel Translation 2 ‫י‬ It is a tradition among the sages [hakhamim] that a person who resolves [gomer be-libo] to sacrifice himself for the honor of His honorable Name—come what will and transpire what may—such a man will not feel any pain of the beatings which torment other people who have not made such a decision wholeheartedly. Such a man, when they take him out in order to torment him through most horrible tortures—as they did to the holy (martyrs) that are on the earth, and to the excellent handsome young men, the sons of the saindy Hannah who lived in the time of the priests that came near to the Lord, the mighty men who fought the wars of the Lord—if he focuses his mind at that hour on the honorable and awesome Name between his eyes and will resolve to sanctify Him, and (if) his eyes will see the Holy O n e of Israel and (if) he will cleave \yadbiq] his mind and thought to Him, so that the holy Name will become a burning fire and its sparkling letters will extend on the wholeness of the world, or if he is able (at least) to grow the letters) to the best of his ability, he can rest assured that he will be able to endure the test, trusting in God. He will not feel pain of the beating and torture, nor will he tremble (with the fear) of death. And although this may sound contradictory to reason, behold this is known by experience and it is a tradition of scholars upright martyrs. (And this is a matter for the faithful only), for this is of the ways of the Lord which the just do walk in but transgressors do stumble therein. This is the order of taking the resolution to sanctify the Name when they come to torment him and interrogate him [yish'aluhu ve-yidre-

some other Christian country in which he might have gone through, our claims would remain with no significant change, and we shall only have to add to the list of libels the event that took place in Spain in 1490. Should it be found out that the author has written the Scroll toward the end of his wanderings, being in Muslim counties, we would be obliged to say that he had probably written it for Jews under Christian rule in Europe. (About his updated knowledge of the events in Germany during the Reformation, while living in Jerusalem, see above, n. 10). In any case, we would be able to stick to the reconstruction of the historical background we have offered. 2 ' T h e Scroll of Amrafel has been translated almost in its entirety by Michael Fishbane in his monograph: The Kiss of God: Spiritual and Mystical Death in Judaism, Seatde & London, 1994, 53, 54-6, 79-80. Here I present a complete English version of it. By and large I accepted Fishbane's translation. My reading of the text difTers here and there from his.

shuhu], and tell him that if he converts [yamir kevodo] they will let him go and will not hurt him, or that he should let them know what he wants. Behold this is what I have found written by one of the hasidim that his answer should be: "What do you want from me. Am I not a Jew? A Jew I am and as a J e w shall a die! A Jew! A Jew! A Jew!" And then he should resolve to (be true to) what he has his lips and mouth uttered and be ready and sure that he is going to sanctify his Creator and not profane his God , s Name. It is then that he will not feel the pain of the tortures they inflict on him. And this is the secret alluded to by the prophet Isaiah: "One shall say: '1 am the Lord's. And another shall call himself by the name of Jacob. And another shall subscribe with his hand unto the Lord, and surname himself by the name of Israel'" (44:5). Behold it is worthwhile spreading these words among the Children of Israel, a people near unto Him, for this is a generation of religious persecutions [doro shel shmad] and it is of great import that such a cardinal idea [ha-iqar ha-zeh] will not be hidden from every person who surnames himself by the name of Israel for who knows what a day may bring forth (Proverbs 27:1) and what is the end of man. It is also important to know, make known, and be aware that the person who recites the Shemah each morning and evening and focuses on the proper and correct intention while proclaiming the love of God and His unity and resolves to devote his own body and soul to Him as well as his wife's and children's, and to love Him with all his heart, soul, and might, even when he prostrates himself [be-noflo alpanav] after standing alive before the Lord (Leviticus 16:10) to confess his sins and says: "I commit my soul to You, Ο Lord" (Psalm 25:1), and entrusts his soul to his God, and upon Him 22 he sets his soul, and his spirit and breath he gathers to himself as if he were going to his eternal resting place [beit olamo]—truly such a person has ensured his share in (the eternal) life and will go to be enlightened with the light of life along with all the righteous, pious, and saints (or: martyrs) who sanctify the Holiness ofJacob and praise the Lord of Israel. Moreover, all the sins which normally would go unatoned until the day of death shall be atoned for at that time, since he resolved to die [le-hashlim nafsho] for his God and this is considered as if he died, gone and was annihilated from this world. And this is a great thing: for so the King established, and on this the poet who was inspired by the spirit of the Lord cried 22

I amended the text from ve-Elohav to ve-elav.

out, saying: "For Your sake we are killed all the day, and are counted as sheep brought for the slaughter" (Psalm 44:23). And perhaps it is concerning the soul of the martyr who devotes his life [ha-mashlim nafsho] for God whom he loves at all times, and he dies amidst the wicked, and surrenders his body to consuming fire that the sage (King Solomon) said in his wisdom: "Who is this that comes up from the wilderness, leaning [mitrapeqet] for her beloved" (Song 8:5). For God's word is pure: she is falling apart [mitpareqet23] and drops down limb for limb and piece for piece. And the righteous, who dwell in the innermost chamber of the King where bliss has its habitation, say about the soul of this martyr: "Who is this (soul) that comes up from the lower world—which is likened to the wilderness where there is nothing but serpents and adders, scorpions and thirst—and for the love of its Beloved its body falls to pieces [peraqim peraqim] due to the multitude of trials it was subjected to. They tear its flesh by hot pincers or hack it to pieces by sword. And the King, the Lord of peace, for love of whom she suffers all this, looks down from His dwelling and says about the righteous (martyr) whose soul is ascending to Him: "Behold you are pure and upright. I have born you this day (anew) and 'awakened you under the apple tree,' in the Orchard of Apples. Your holy soul is (now) pure before your Mother, the Throne of My Glory, whence it was hewn and formed like a flock of ewes. For where the Throne is, the Mother of all souls, there your mother was in travail and bore you' (Song 8:5). And the righteous (martyr) answers his Creator: "Set me as a seal upon Your heart, as a seal upon Your arm" (ibid. 8:6), and do not forget me ever. Remember the love with which I loved you, for even if they kill me for my love to You, I shall not feel a thing 'for love is as strong as death,' (ibid.). Indeed, even if they buried me alive this would be as nought to me, for my zeal for the honor of Your Name is 'as fierce as the grave' (ibid.). And even if they burn me and cast me into a fiery furnace, this too is nothing compared to my love to You, for my love to You is a wonder wrought upon me and burns within me like the sight of flaming torches, "the flashes thereof are flashes of fire, a very flame of the Lord" (ibid.). How, then, could my soul be impressed by that fire while the fiery flame of your love is overflowing within me? And 'mighty' troubles and hardships, which are compared

25

I amended here: mitpareqet for mitrapeqet.

to 'water,' 'cannot quench the' flame of my 'love' (ibid., 8:7) And though trouble come as a 'flood' (ibid.) the spirit of the Lord inspires me to devote myself to You. I am not speaking of my property or wealth, for 'wealth is less than nothing,' and if anyone should boast that he gave 'all the substance of his house for love,' those who are perfected, those who approach God, 'would surely scorn him' (Song 8:7). For this has no value to them, and they hold the treasures of the world in contempt." This is what one may truly boast of, if he surrenders his body to the consuming fire and all the other harsh tortures I mentioned above. Behold such a man the Lord will account it unto him and place him as a seal upon His right arm and wear him like a seal on His heart. His soul shall shine in God's light and there is no eye that has seen the goodness which is stored for it. This is because his eminence and glory are great and his soul will reside with those that pitch on the east side toward the sunrise, Moses and Aaron, or with princes that have gold, who filled their houses with silver, 24 and with those who dwell among plantations and hedges, the martyrs of Lydda and (other) martyrs [iharugei melukhah]. T h e existence of the entire world is worthwhile for such a soul and its works shall be praised in the gates. 24

A figurative interpretation of J o b 3:15.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Ashtor E., The Jews of Moslem Spain I, Philadelphia 1973. Mal'akhi ed., Lod, 1986, pp. 31-56. Baer Y., "Sefer Yossifon ha-Ivri," Q. Gutmann and M. Schwabe ed.], Sefer Dinaburg, Jerusalem, 1949, , "Gezerat T a T N U , " Sefer Assaf, 1953, 126-40. Ben-Sasson H.H., "Hasidei Ashkenaz al Haluqat Qinyanim Homriyim u-Nekhasim Ruhaniyim bein Benei ha-Adam," ζίοη 35, 1970, 61-79. Chazan R., "Christian and Jewish Perceptions of 1096: A Case Study of Trier," Jewish History 13 (2), 1999, 9-22. —, "The Early Development of Hasidut Ashkenaz," JQR 75, 1985, pp. 199211.

, European Jewry and the First Crusade, Berkeley, 1987. Frend W.H.C., Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of a Conflict from the Maccabees to Donatus, Oxford. Ginzburg L., Aggadot ha-Yehudim II, Ramat Gan 1967. Gregory B., Salvation at Stake: Christian Martyrdom in Early Modem Europe, Cambrigde, Mass., 1999. Gross Α., "AI Ha-Tismonet ha-Ashkenazit shel Kiddush ha-Shem be-Portugal biShenat 1497," Tarbiz 64, 1995, pp. 83-114. , Iberian Jewry from Twilight to Dawn, Leiden, 1995. , "Ta'amei Mizvat Milah—Zeramim ve-Hashpa'ot Historiyot," Da'at 21, 1988, 25-47. - , "Hirhurim al Hebetim Hilkhatiyim ve-lo Hilkhatiyim shel Kiddush ha-Shem biShnat T a T N U , " /. Twersky Memorial Volume, Cambridge, Mass. (forthcoming). , "Al Ma'asei Kiddush ha-Shem be-Magenza bi-Shenat 1096—Piyyutim u-Khroniqot," Tehudim Mut ha-^elav [Y. Assis et al ed.]. Jerusalem, 2000, 171-87. , "Gerona: A Cradle of Jewish Learning and Spirituality," Materia giudaica VI, 2001, 161-6. Grossman Α., "Bein 1012 le-1096: Ha-Reqa ha-Tarbuti veha-Hevrati le-Kiddush ha-Shem be-TaTNU," Tehudim Mul ha-^elav, Jerusalem, 2000, 55-73. Haberman A.M., Sefer Gezerot Ashkenaz ve-£a1fat, Jerusalem, 1971. Hacker Y., "Kelum Hu'ataq Kiddush ha-Shem el T e h u m ha-Ru , ah Liqrat ha-Et ha-Hadashah," Qedushat ha-Hayyim ve-Heruf ha-Nefesh [Y. Gafni and A. Ravitzky ed.], Jerusalem, 1993, 221-32. , "Li-Gzerat T a T N U (1096)," Qon 31, 1966, 28-31. Herr M.D., "Persecution and Martyrdom in Hadrian Days," Scripta Hierosolymitana 23, 1972, 85-125. Joseph ha-Kohen, Divrei ha-Tamim le-Malkhei Zarfat u-Malkhei Beit Otoman ha-Togar II, Lemberg, 1859. Judah he-Hasid, Sefer Hasidim [R. Margaliot ed.], Jerusalem, 1957. , Sefer Hasidim [A. Wistinetsky ed.], Berlin, 1891. Katz J ‫" ״‬Bein T a T N U 1e-TaH-TaT," Sefer ha-Tovel le-Tizhaq Baer, 1961, pp. 31837.

, Bein Yehudim le-Goyyim, Jerusalem, 1977. , Masoret u-Mashber: Ha-Hevrah ha-Yehudit be-Moza'ei Yemei ha-Beinayim, Jerusalem, 1958. Malkiel D., "Vestiges of Conflict in the Hebrew Crusade Chronicles " ,Journal of Jewish Studies 53, 2001, 323-40. Marcus I., "Mi-Deus Vult ve-ad Re?on ha-Bore," Yehudim Mul ha-gelav: Gezerot TaTNU ba-Historiah uva-Historiografiah [Edited by Y.T. Assis et al], Yerusalem, 2000, 92-100. , Piety and Society, Leiden, 1980. Mind M., "Kiddush ha-Shem be-Einei N0?rim be-Germaniah bi-Yemei ha-Beinayim," ζίοη 59, 1994, 209-66. Philo of Alexandria, Embassy to Gaius, in LCL, Philo ed. F.H. Colson, Cambridge, Mass. 1962. Safrai S., "Kiddush ha-Shem be-Toratam shel ha-Tana'im," Sefer /fkaron le-Y1zhaq Baer[Zi0n 43), 1979-81, 28-42. Salfeld S., Das Martyrologium des Nürenberger Memorbuches, Berlin, 1898. Saperstein M., "A Sermon on the Akedah from the Generation of the expulsion and Its Implication for 1391," Exile and Diaspora: Studies in the History of the Jewish People Presented to Professor Haim Beinart [A. Mirsky et al ed.], Jerusalem, 1991, 103-26. Sapir-Abulafia Α., "The Interrelationship Between the Hebrew Chronicles of the First Crusade," Journal of Semitic Studies 27, 1982, pp. 221-39. Scholem G., Shabetai gvi veha-Tenu'ah h-Shabeta'it bi-Yemei Hayav vol. I, Tel Aviv, 1957. Schwartzfuchs S., "Meqomam shel Mas'ei ha-Zelav be-Divrei Yemei Yisrael," Tarbut ve-Hevrah be-Toldot Tisrael bi-Yemei ha-Beinayim: Qovez Ma'amaHm le-Qkhro shel H.H. Ben-Sasson, Jerusalem, 1989, 251-67. Septimus B., "Narboni and Shem Τον on Martyrdom," Studies in MedievalJewish History and Literature II [I. Twersky ed.], Cambridge, Mass. 1984, 447-455. Shohat Α., "Kiddush ha-Shem be-Hagutam shel Megorashei Sefarad u-Mequbalei Zefat," Milkemet Qodesh u-Martirologiah, Jerusalem, 1968, 131-45. Soloveitchic Η., "Bein Hevel Arav le‫־‬Hevel Edom," Kedushat ha-Hayyim ve-Heruf haNefesh [I. Gafni and A. Ravitzky ed.], Jerusalem, 1993, 149-52. —, "Religious Law and Change: T h e Ashkenazic Example", 47*^ Review 12, 1987, 205-21. , "Halakhah, Hermeneuücs, and Martyrdom in Medieval Ashkenaz (Part I of II)," JQR 94, 77-108. Ta-Shma I., "Hit'abdut ve-Re?ah ha-Zulat al Kiddush ha-Shem: Li-She'elat Meqomah shel ha-Agadah be-Masoret ha-Psiqah ha-Ashkenazit," Yehudim Mul ha-£elav: Gezerot TaTNU ba-Historia uva-Historiografia [Y. Assis et al ed.], Jerusalem, 2000, 150-6. Tishbi Y., Meshihiyut be-Dor Gerushei Sefarad u-Portugal, Jerusalem, 1985.

INDEX A Aaron (Mecklenburg) 27 n. 30 Aaron bar Mordekhai (Mecklenburg) 27 n. 30 Aaron of Lunel 29 n. 34 Abraham (Patriarch) 14 n. 35 Abraham ben Azriel 9 Abraham ben Eliezer Halevi 55, 113fF. Abraham bar Moses (Koblenz) 30 Abraham Isaac Halevi (Gerona) 50 Abravanel, Isaac 99 n. 9 Akiva viii, ix, 3, 41, 77 η. 102, 80, 84 Albert of Aachen 5, 6 Almohades 45-6, 96 n. 4 Amnon of Mainz 24 Amrafel (biblical) 116 Antiochus Epiphanes viii, 31 n. 38, 92 anusim (Forced Converts) viii, 2, 8 n. 20, 38-9, 47, 48, 58 n. 44, 65 n. 74, 75, 117-8, 120, 122 Arama, Isaac 64 Ardutiel, Abraham 70 n. 84, 79-80, 83 Arelim (uncircumsized) 5, 6, 7 n. 18, 9-11,

60 Arugat ha-Bosem 9 Arzilla 81 Asher ben Yehi'el (ROSH) 48, 54, 63, Asheri Family (Toledo) 48-9, 63, 83 Austria 25 Auto da Fé 116 Av ha-Rahamim 13, 51 Avignon 47 Azriel (Gerona) 50 Β Bamberg 23 Barcelona 48, 49, 98 n. 7 Black Death 24-5,41,47 Bernaldes, Andres 74 n. 95 Bohemia 26 Bonafed, Solomon 50 n. 21 C Carolina 118 Catalunia 55 Childhood 43

Cologne 57, 98 η. 8 Cordoba 48 Correa, Gaspar 58 η. 44 Coutinho, Fernando 69, 71 n. 87, 72, 76 Crescas, Hasdai 47, 48, 49, 63, 64, 96 n. 4 Cuenca 74 n. 95 D Dapiera, Solomon 50 n. 21 David bar Samson (France) 22 Duran Profiat (Profet) 49, 96 n. 4 Ε Eleazar ben Yair 8, 12 n. 32, 88 Eleazar the Elder (Hasmonean) viii Eliezer bar Yoel Halevi (RABIaH) 34 n. 46, 38 Eliezer bar Nathan (RABaN) 57 Elqabe?, Solomon 45, 70 n. 84 Emicho, Count 2 Endingen 119 Ephraim of Bonn 20 Ephraim of Lunel 9 Espina, Alfonso de 122 η. 20 Estremoz 71 η. 87 Esztergom 35 Evora 71 Ezra (Gerona) 50 F Farage, Isaac ibn 68 n. 80 Fez 46, 78 n. 104 Forced Converts, see: anusim G Gama, Vasco da 58 n. 46 Gaius Caligula 89 Gamla 6, 87 Genenlin (Bamberg) 23 Gerona 49-50, 52 " Gerondi, Jonah 50, 52, 54, 55, 115 Gerondi, Nissim 50, 83 n. 121 Gerondi, Reuven ben Nissim 47 Gezerot QaNA (1391 Persecutions) 47

Gôis, Damiäo de 69, 71 η. 87, 72-3, 76-7 η. 101 Granada 45, 95 Great Light 2, 4, 6 η. 14 Great Revolt (68 A.D.) 92 Guimaràes 68, 75 H Hadrianic Persecuüons viii, 31 η. 38 Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah 9, 16, 80 Hanina ben Teradion viii, 28, 33, 59, 61,84 Hannah (Hasmonean), 31 n. 38, 120 n. 16, 123 Hasmonean Revolt 87, 92, 120 Hayyat Judah 66 Hendeln (Mecklenburg) 27 n. 30 Holfeld 23 Hungary 35 n. 52 Huss, J a n 27 n. 28 Hussites 26-7 I Inquisition 74 n. 95, 113, 115, 116, 117, 122 n. 20 Isaac (Holfeld) 23 Isaac (Patriarch) 14 n. 35 Isaac bar David (Mainz) 26, 41, 57 Isaac bar Moses 3, 14-5, 16 n. 37, 17 Isaac ben £ahin (Bofiillia de la Sierra) 60, 79 Isaac Halevi (Neuss) 21 Isaac of Dampiers 9 Isbili, Yom-Tov (RITBA) 32 n. 43, 523, 5 4 , 6 1 Isserlein, Israel 25 Italy ix

J Jacob ben Albeneh 48 Jacob ben Asher (Toledo) 48 Jacob T a m 28, 38, 39, 53 Jerusalem 87 J o â o II, King of Portugal 70 n. 85 J o n a h Hakohen (Austria) 25-6 Joseph Hakohen 8, 24, 76 Joseph the Sage (France) 22 Josephus Flavius χ, 8, 11-2, 88-9, 91 J u d a h ben Asher (Toledo) 48, 60

J u d a h Halevi 94-5 Judah he-Hasid 17, 18, 21-2, 57-8 Judenspiel 120 n. 16 Κ Kafha-Qetoret 56-8 Koblenz 30 Konstanz 21 L Lepers Persecution 8, 24 Lerma Shem-Tov 80 Lisbon 66, 68, 72 η. 89, 75-7, 79, 80-3 Liturgical poetry, see: Piyyul Loal, Jacob 80 Luria, Solomon (MaHaRSHaL) 37-40, 42, 43 Lydda, Martyrs of 126 M M a H a R a M , see Meir of Rothenburg M a H a R I L , see Moelin, Jacob MaHaRSHal, see Luria, Solomon Mainz ix, Iff., 26, 40, 41, 84, 98 n. 8 Majorca 48 Manuel, King of Portugal 67, 69, 71 ns. 85 and 89, 71 n. 87, 71 n. 89, 73, 74, 76-7 n. 101,79,80-2 Masada ix, x, 6, 8, 12 n. 32, 62 n. 62, 88, 89 n. 2, 91-2 Mechel ben Aaron (Mecklenburg) 27 n. 30 Mecklenburg 27 n. 30 Meir of Rothenburg (.MaHaRaM)7 n. 14, 10 n. 26, 11 n. 28, 30-3, 36,41, 55, 114 Meme, Shimon 67, 77 n. 102, 79, 81, 82, 83 Memorbüch 15, 17, 23, 24, 30 Mendeln ben Aaron (Mecklenburg) 27 n. 30 Menahem bar J u d a h (Mainz) 15 n. 36 Menahem bar David Halevi (Mainz) 16-8

Menahem Merzburg 36 Menahem Recanati 35 Messianism 117 Moelin, Jacob (MaHaRIL) 27, 35 Mordekhai (biblical) 74-5, 83 n. 121 Moses of Corbeil (SeMaQ} 33, 39

Moses of Zürich 33 Moses ben Eleazar 23 Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides) 62 n. 62, 64, 80, 83 η. 121,84 η. 124, 97 Moses ben Nahman (RaMBaN, Nachmanides) 50, 51, 54, 96-7 Moya, Ginés de 74 η. 95 Ν Narboni, Moses 52 η. 28, 64 Nathan Eger 26 Nefilat Apayim 114, 117 Neuss 21, 57 Ο Os Estàos 76 η. 99,77 η. 101, Osorio, Geronimo 69, 73 η. 93, 77 η. 101 Ρ Passau 119 Petronius 87, 89fT. Philo χ, 88-91 Pina, Rui de 70 n. 85 Piyyut ix, 17, 18 n. 42, 22, 24, 25, 30 n. 3 6 , 3 1 , 4 7 , 121 n. 19 Pforzheim 120 η. 16 Poland 53-6, 37 Prague 25 Ptolemais (Akre) 89 Q. Qalonimos bar Judah (Mainz) 31, 32, 98 n. 6 Qalonimos bar Meshulam (Mainz) 2, 11,41 Qapsali, Elijah 69, 70 n. 84, 72, 73 n. 95, 80-3, 99 n. 8 Qara, Avigdor 25 R RABaN, see Eliezer bar Nathan Rabenu Tam, see: Jacob T a m RABlaH, see Eliezer bar Yoel Halevi Rachel (Mainz) 6 n. 16, 24 RaMBaN, see Moses ben Nahman Razis (Hasmonean) 87 Reconquista 46, 94-5 Regensburg 99 n. 8

Resende, Garcia de 70 η. 85 Rindfleisch Persecutions 8, 23 Ritual knife 14 n. 35 ROSH, see Asher ben Yehi'el S S. Abraham bar Ukhman (Urman?) 29, 40 Sachsenspiegel 199 η. 12 Saba, Abraham 56 n. 36, 67, 70 n. 84, 74-8, 80, 83 Samson (biblical) 60 Samson bar Zadoq 55 Samuel ha-Naggid 45 Säo Tomé 70 η. 84 Saul (King of Israel) 6, 7, 9, 11-3, 29, 31-2, 33 n. 4 5 , 3 7 , 5 3 , 60,87 Scroll ofAmrafel x, 55, 113-126 Sefer Hasidim 18, 22 n. 10, 58 n. 43 Sefer Gimatriya'ot 17, 18 S e M a Q , see Moses of Corbeil Seville 48 Shalom of Neustadt 35 Shaprut, Hisdai ibn 45 Shem-Tov ben Joseph 64 Shem-Tov ben Shem-Tov 61 n. 54 Shema 17, 55, 56 n. 36, 65 n. 74, 78 n. 104, 114-5, 124 Shemaryah (Cologne) 120 Sicarii 88, 89 n. 2 Schwabenspiegel 199 η. 12 Solomon ben Asher (Bamberg) 23 Solomon bar Samson 2, 57 n. 40 Speyer 10 η. 27 Τ Ten Martyrs 16 Thaddeus of Rome 9 Toledo 48, 54, 59, 60, 61, 63, 83, 98 n. 7 Torture 118-21, 125 Trent 119 η. 14, 120 η. 16, 122 η. 20 Trier 99 η. 8 Turkey 74 η. 95 U Uri bar Isaac (Mainz) 57 Usque, Samuel 69, 70 n. 84, 76

V Valencia 48 Valladolid 122 n. 20 Verga, Solomon ibn 60 n. 54, 63, 64 n. 67, 70 n. 84, Vidui 114, 117 Vienna 35-6 W Weil, Jacob 22, 36 n. 54 WUliam of Newbury 7, 20 Wirtzburg 23-4 Worms 11 η. 27, 17,98 η. 8 Χ Xanten 17 Y Ya'ave?,Joseph 77 η. 102

Yehoseph ha-Naggid 45, 95 Tizkor 27 n. 30, 121 Yodpat87 Yom-Tov o f j o i g n y 8, 20-1 York 7, 20, 54 Yose ben Yoezer 22, 60 Yoqim of Zridot 60 Yossifon χ, 5, 6, 11, 12 n. 32, 62 n. 62, 88, 89 n. 2, 121 n. 19 Ζ Zacut, Abraham 49, 58-63, 67, 71-2, 73 n. 95, 79, 99 n. 9 Zalman of St. Goar 27 Zamora 68 Zaragoza 50 n. 21, 98 n. 7 Zarfati 17 n. 39 Zeus 88

THE BRILL REFERENCE LIBRARY OF JUDAISM

T h e Brill Reference Library ofJudaism presents research on fundamental problems in the study of the authoritative texts, beliefs and practices, events and ideas, of the Judaic religious worldfromthe sixth century BCE to the sixth century CE. Systematic accounts ofprincipal phenomena, characteristics of Judaic life, works of a theoretical character, accounts of movements and trends, diverse expressions of thefaith, new translations and commentaries of classical texts - all willfind a place in the Library.

1. Neusner, Jacob, The Halakhah. An Encyclopaedia of the Law of Judaism. 5 Vols. 2000. ISBN 90 04 11617 6 (set) Vol. I. Between Israel and God. Part A. ISBN 90 04 11611 7 Vol. II. Between Israel and God. Part B. Transcendent Transactions: Where Heaven and Earth Intersect. ISBN 90 04 11612 5 Vol. III. Within Israel's Social Order. ISBN 90 04 11613 3 Vol. IV Inside the Walls of the Israelite Household. Part A. At the Meeting of Time and Space. ISBN 90 04 11614 1 Vol. V Inside the Walls of the Israelite Household. Part B. The Desacralization of the Household. ISBN 90 04 11616 8 2. Basser, Herbert W, Studies in Exegesis. Christian Critiques ofJewish Law and Rabbinic Responses 70-300 C.E. 2000. ISBN 90 04 11848 9 ' 3. Neusner, Jacob, Judaism's Story of Creation. Scripture, Halakhah, Aggadah. 2000. ISBN 90 04 11899 3 4. Aaron, David H., Biblical Ambiguities. Metaphor, Semantics and Divine Imagery. 2001. ISBN 90 04 12032 7 5. Neusner, Jacob, The Reader's Guide to the Talmud. 2001. ISBN 90 04 1287 0. 6. Neusner, Jacob, The Theology of the Halakhah. 2001. ISBN 90 04 12291 5. 7. Schwartz, Dov, Faith at the Crossroads. A Theological Profile of Religious Zionism. Translated by Batya Stein. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12461 6 8. Neusner, Jacob, The Halakhah: Historical and Religious Perspectives. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12219 2 9. Neusner, Jacob, How the Talmud Works. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12796 8 10. Gruenwald, Ithamar, Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel. 2003. ISBN 90 04 12627 9 11. Boyarin, Daniel, Sparks of the logos Essays in Rabbinic Hermeneutics. 2003. ISBN 90 04 12628 7 12. Neusner, Jacob, The Idea of History in Rabbinic Judaism. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13583 9 13. Neusner, Jacob, The Perfect Torah. 2003. ISBN 90 04 13033 0 14. Neusner, Jacob, Rabbinic Narrative. A Documentary Perspective. Volume One: Forms, Types and Distribution of Narratives in the Mishnah, Tractate Abot and the Tosefta. 2003. ISBN 90 04 13023 3 15. Neusner, Jacob, Rabbinic Narrative. A Documentary Perspective. Volume Two: Forms, Types and Distribution of Narratives in Sifra, Sifré to Numbers,

and Sifré to Deuteronomy. 2003. ISBN 90 04 13034 9 16. Neusner, Jacob, Rabbinic Narrative. A Documentary Perspective. Volume Three Forms, Types and Distribution of Narratives in Song of Songs Rabbah and Lamentations Rabbah and a Reprise of Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan Text A. 2003. ISBN 90 04 13035 7 17. Neusner, Jacob, Rabbinic Narrative. A Documentary Perspective. Volume Four, The Precedent and the Parable in Diachronic View. 2003. ISBN 90 04 13036 5 18. Gruber, Mayer I., Rashi's Commentary on Psalms. 2003. ISBN 90 04 13251 1 19. Gross, Abraham, Struggling with Tradition. Reservations about Active Martyrdom in the Middle Ages. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13853 6

ISSN 1571-5000