History of the Jews, Vol. 2 (of 6)

by Heinrich Graetz

The period of Ashi's activity falls within the reign of Jezdijird (400–420), a king of the Sassanian dynasty, who was favorably disposed towards the Jews. The Magians gave to this noble prince the surname of "Al Hatim" (the sinner), because he refused to surrender his own will and allow himself to be ruled by them. He was exceedingly well affected towards the Jews, and at the same time favorably disposed towards the Christians. On the days of homage there were present at his court the three representatives of the Babylonian Jews: Ashi, of Sora; Mar-Zutra, of Pumbeditha; and Amemar, of Nahardea. Huna bar Nathan, who, if he was no Prince of the Captivity, must nevertheless have been possessed of considerable influence, held frequent intercourse with Jezdijird's court. This mark of attention on the part of a Persian king, who proclaimed himself the child of the Sun, a worshiper of Ormuz, and the King of the Kings of Iran, may be regarded as a proof of high favor.

Ashi was devoid of all exaggerated enthusiasm, and seems to have attempted to suppress the hope of the coming of the Messiah, which kept the minds of the Jews in greater suspense than ever at this time of the migration of nations and of universal revolution, when sin-laden Rome was suffering the punishment of God. An ancient sibylline saying, attributed to the prophet Elijah, was current, according to which the Messiah would appear in the eighty-fifth jubilee (between 440 and 470 of the common era). Such messianic expectations were always certain of creating enthusiasts, who aimed at converting their silent belief into fact, and without exactly intending to deceive, attempted to carry away such of the crowd as were of like opinions, and to excite them to such a pitch that they would willingly sacrifice their lives. In point of fact such an enthusiast did appear during Ashi's time in Crete, and he gained as adherents all the Jewish congregations of this important island, through which he had traveled in a year. He promised them that one day he would lead them dry-footed, as Moses had formerly done, through the sea into the promised land; he is said to have adopted the name of the great lawgiver. For the rest, this Cretan Moses was able to convince his followers so thoroughly of his divine mission, that they neglected their business, abandoned all their property, and only waited for the day of the passage through the sea. On the appointed day, Moses the Messiah marched in front, and behind him came the entire Jewish population of Crete, including the women and the children. From a promontory projecting out into the sea, he commanded them to throw themselves fearlessly into the ocean, as the waters would divide themselves before them. Several of these fanatics met their death in the waves; others were rescued by sailors. The false Moses is said, however, never to have been found again. It was against such false hopes as these, whose consequences were so sad, that Ashi warned the Jews. At the same time he suggested another interpretation of the prophecy which had been set in circulation: "It is certain," said he, "that the Messiah cannot appear before this time, before the eighty-fifth jubilee, but after the lapse of this period the hope, although not the certainty, of his coming may be entertained." Ashi died, greatly respected by his contemporaries and the Jews of after-times, at a ripe old age (427), two years before the capture of Carthage by Genseric. This Prince of the Vandals, who wrested from Rome her accumulations of spoil, also carried to Africa the vessels of the Temple, which Titus had added in triumph to the plunder of so many nations. Like the sons of Judæa, the Temple vessels wandered much.

By reason of the Patriarchate, Judæa was still regarded as their head by the Jewish communities of the Roman Empire. During this period it presents an even more gloomy picture of complete decay than formerly. The oppression of hostile Christianity bore all too heavily upon the country, and stifled the impulse to study. Tanchuma bar Abba, the chief supporter of the later Agada, is the last Halachic authority of Judæa. There also, as in Babylonia, the last Amoraïm collected the traditions and planned and arranged the Jerusalem, or, more correctly, the Judæan or Western Talmud (Talmud shel Erez-Israel, Gemara di Bene Ma'araba). But so defective is the history of Judæa that not even the names of the compilers or the originators of the movement are known. Doubtless the example of Babylonia suggested the making of this collection. Only so much is certain, that Tiberias, the seat of the Patriarchate and of the School, was the birthplace of the Jerusalem Talmud.

It was during this period that the Patriarchate, the last remnant of former times, met with complete destruction. Three patriarchs are mentioned by name: they are Gamaliel V, successor of Hillel II, his son Judah IV and Gamaliel, the last (370–425). But only indistinct traces of their activity can be recognized. It is true that they still bore the pompous rather than influential title of Highness, together with its attendant privileges, and that they still drew voluntary subsidies from the communities of the Roman empire, which their envoys were wont to collect from the congregations. But their authority was considerably diminished. The sole influence of the Patriarchs now consisted in the one fact, that they excluded from the Jewish community its apostate members, who had gone over to Christianity either voluntarily or through deceit or persuasion. But even this power proud Christianity refused to recognize. By means of the secular arm, the Bishops compelled the Patriarchs and the heads of the communities, who bore the name of Primates, to readmit into the community such of the members as had been excommunicated. But Theodosius the Great (379–395), although continually incited by the Catholic clergy, Ambrosius, among others, to persecute the Arians and other heretics, consistently protected the Jews against their fanatical attacks. He promulgated a law confirming to the Patriarchs and Primates the right of excommunicating the members of their community, and forbidding the secular authorities to meddle with the domestic affairs of the Jews. He proved to Gamaliel V his justice towards the Jews by condemning to death the consular agent Hesychius, whom the Patriarch had accused before him of surreptitiously gaining possession of important documents. For the rest, nothing more is known of the circumstance to which these documents referred.

Theodosius frequently had to restrain the religious zeal of the Christians, which regarded as heroism such deeds as the disturbance of the religious devotions of the Jews, the pillaging or destruction of the synagogues, or their appropriation and conversion into churches. The principal fanatics against the Jews at this period were John Chrysostom of Antioch, and Ambrosius of Milan, who attacked them with the greatest fierceness.

The former, who had been called from the solitude of the cloister to the ministry, thundered against the Jews from the pulpit with his bombastic and cynical eloquence; even made them the subject of six successive sermons. The behavior of the Jews of Antioch, however, was indeed too provoking: without any active endeavor on their part, Christians became interested in their customs, their divine service, and their court of law. On Sabbaths and festivals many Christians, especially of the female sex, ladies of rank and women of lower position, met together regularly in the synagogues. They listened with devotion to the blowing of the cornet on the Jewish New Year, attended the solemn service on the Day of Atonement, and participated in the joys of the Feast of Tabernacles. They were all the more attracted by the fact that all this had to go on behind the backs of the Christian priests, and that the neighbors had to be entreated not to betray them. Christians preferred to bring their lawsuits before Jewish judges, the form of the Jewish oath appearing more imposing and forcible to them. It was against such voluntary honoring of Jewish institutions by the Christians that Chrysostom directed the violence of his Capuchin sermons, bestowing all manner of harsh names upon them, and proclaiming the synagogues as infamous theaters, dens of robbers, and even still worse places.

Ambrosius, of Milan, was a violent official, ignorant of all theology, whom a reputation for violence in the church had raised to the rank of bishop; he was even more virulent against the Jews. Once when the Christians of Rome had burnt down a synagogue, and the usurper Maximus commanded the Roman Senate to rebuild it at the expense of the State, Ambrosius called him a Jew. The Bishop of Callinicus, in Northern Mesopotamia, having caused a synagogue situated in that district to be burnt to the ground by monks, Theodosius ordered him to build it up again at his own expense, and punished all who had participated in the act (388). Hereupon Ambrosius' anger was most violently inflamed, and in the epistle which he addressed to the emperor he employed such sharp, provoking terms, that the latter was thereby led to revoke his order. Ambrosius accused the Jews of despising the Roman laws, and mockingly taunted them with the fact that they were not permitted to set up any emperor or governor in their midst, nor to enter the army or the Senate, nor even to eat at the table of the nobles; they were only there for the purpose of bearing heavy taxes. To this pious misconduct Theodosius endeavored to put a stop by means of laws. Starting from the premise that Judaism was not prohibited from existing in the Roman empire by any law, he was desirous of extending to it the protection of the law against violent attacks. He therefore enjoined the Comes of the East to severely punish the Christian religious rioters and desecrators of synagogues (393). But of what avail could the imperial edicts and commands be against the tendency of the times to be malignant, to accuse of heresy, and to persecute? The Jews could not complain, for they were not treated any worse than the adherents of the various Christian sects whose opponents had gained the upper hand. The savageness which the invasion of the barbarians had introduced into the historical parts of the world tainted the province of religion with its contagion; Vandalism reigned everywhere, in the Church as well as in the State. Meanwhile the exceptional position of the Jews in the Roman empire had been either re-established or confirmed by Theodosius I. Constantius' law relative to the possession of slaves was revived afresh; any Jewish slave-owner who admitted his slaves into the pale of Judaism was to be severely punished. The privilege of exemption from the onerous municipal offices on the grounds of religious scruples, which the Jews had succeeded in obtaining under his predecessors, was abolished by Theodosius.

This emperor bequeathed his dominions to his two sons, and thus lastingly divided the Roman world into two parts, and into two different camps, thereby intensifying the strained and unsympathetic relations of the different parties to each other. Henceforward the Jews of the Roman empire belonged to different masters, part of them being subjects of the eastern, others of the western empire. Arcadius, the eastern or Byzantine emperor (395–408), was a monarch merely in name; his all-powerful chamberlains, Rufinus and Eutropius, were extremely favorable to the Jews. Rufinus loved money, and the Jews had already discovered the magic power of gold to soften obdurate hearts. Numerous laws were therefore promulgated in their favor. One of these laws decided (396) that the Jews should remain possessed of independence in the matter of choosing their own market inspectors (Agoranomos), and that whosoever should dare encroach on this right should be liable to severe punishment by imprisonment. Another law of the same year protected the "illustrious patriarchs" from insult. In Illyria synagogues were attacked, probably by the clergy, who would have liked to see the Jewish houses of prayer as completely destroyed as the heathen temples; thereupon Arcadius (or Eutropius) commanded the governors to resist this movement with all possible energy (397). In the same year he also re-enacted and confirmed the law of Constantius, whereby the patriarchs, as also all the religious officials of the synagogue, were exempted from the burden of the magistracy, as were the Christian clergy. Another right was also preserved to the Jews by Arcadius' administration (February, 398); they were allowed to retain the privilege of submitting their lawsuits to the patriarch and other Jewish arbitrators, if both parties consented to this course, and the Roman authorities were obliged to execute these judgments, without prejudice to the fact, however, that in so far as their religion was not concerned, they were subject to the Roman law. We must not be surprised by a capricious change under the arbitrary rule of the Byzantine court: a law was published in 399, subjecting all Jews, even the religious superiors, to the Curial burdens. This had, perhaps, some connection with Eutropius' fall in the same year.

Not much is known of the course of conduct pursued towards the Jews by the Emperor of the West, the feeble Honorius, or his master, Stilicho. The abolition of exemption from the Curies pronounced against the communities of Apuleia and Calabria does not prove that a systematic hostility already existed against the Jews. Another law (of April, 399) forbade, in the name of the Western Emperor Honorius, and under severe penalty, the collection of the patriarch's tax throughout the whole extent of the prefecture. Such sums as had already been received were confiscated to the imperial treasury. The motive of this prohibition may, however, have been that the Western Emperor regarded with envious eye the withdrawal of such considerable sums into the prefecture of his brother. But as if the legislation of this period desired to ridicule its own capriciousness, this prohibition was revoked five years later, and the Jews were henceforward permitted to collect the Patriarch's tax as before, and to forward it without concealment (404). While on the one hand Honorius forbade the Jews and the Samaritans to take any share in the military service, on the other hand, he protected the Jews from molestation on the part of the authorities, and decided by an edict that the Jews should not be summoned before the court on the Sabbath or the festivals (409).

The Middle Ages really begin for Judaism with Theodosius II (408–450), a good-natured but monk-ridden emperor, whose weakness afforded impunity to the fanatical zeal of many a bishop, and offered encouragement to cruelty. Edicts of this emperor prohibited the Jews from building new synagogues, from exercising the office of judge between Jewish and Christian suitors, and from possessing Christian slaves; they also contained other prohibitions of less interest. It was under this emperor that the Patriarchate finally fell, although Gamaliel (Batraah), the last of the patriarchs, enjoyed great distinction at the imperial court, such as none of his predecessors had ever possessed. Beside the title which had long been borne by the Patriarchs, the high dignity of Prefect (Præfectura), together with a diploma of honor (codicillus honorarius), had been bestowed upon him, and although these were but hollow honors, they were of great importance at a time when appearances constituted everything. It is not known what was the particular merit for which Gamaliel gained this distinction, but it was probably on account of his medical acquirements. He was a physician, and was credited with the discovery of a much-approved remedy for diseases of the spleen. In this elevated position Gamaliel considered himself privileged to be lax in his observance of the emperor's exceptional laws against the Jews. He therefore built new synagogues, exercised jurisdiction in disputes between Jews and Christians, and disregarded other similar imperial commands. In consequence of this, Theodosius deprived him of all his higher dignities, took from him his diploma of honor, and suffered him to retain only such distinctions as he had enjoyed as Patriarch (415). But Theodosius in nowise abolished the Patriarchate during Gamaliel's lifetime; it was not until after the latter's death that this occurred, his male heirs having died, it appears, at an early age (425). Thus, with Gamaliel (Batraah) the last remnants of the noble stock of the house of Hillel disappeared. For three and a half centuries this house had stood at the head of the spiritual affairs of Judaism; many of its members had been promoters of the Law, of liberty, and of national feeling, and the history of their lives had become an important part of the history of the Jewish nation. Fifteen Patriarchs had succeeded each other during this lapse of time; two Hillels, three Simons, four Judahs, and six Gamaliels.