History of the Jews, Vol. 3 (of 6)

by Heinrich Graetz

The man who rekindled this bitter strife was a learned Talmudist, named Moses ben Chasdaï Taku (Tachau?), who flourished from about 1250 to 1290. An eccentric, orthodox literalist, he considered all philosophical and rational views concerning Judaism equal to a disavowal of the truths of the Torah and the Talmud. Taku was quite logical in his opposition. He denounced as heretics not only Maimuni and Ibn-Ezra, but also the Gaon Saadiah, because the latter, in his writings on philosophy, had been the pioneer in this path. The new study had thus originated with him; before his time it had been unheard of in Jewish circles. Led by an unerring instinct, Taku justly affirmed that these men had paved the way for the Karaites. He maintained that it was the bounden duty of every pious Jew, who believed in the written and oral Law, to keep himself aloof from their folly. Moses Taku, with his curious notions, certainly did not occupy an isolated position among the German rabbis. Other men, who had been nurtured in the same school, undoubtedly were in entire agreement with him: but they did not all possess the courage or versatility to take part in a contest against the well-armed representatives of the philosophical school. The most distinguished among them was Meïr ben Baruch of Rothenburg on the Tauber (born 1220, died 1293), on whom the last rays of the dying school of the Tossafists continued to linger. He probably was the first official chief rabbi in the German kingdom, having perhaps received this title from Emperor Rudolph, the first of the house of Habsburg. Although he is sometimes reckoned among the Tossafists, yet his Talmudical writings reveal comprehensive erudition rather than originality or acuteness. He can in no way be compared with Ben Adret; however, he was an authority in Germany and northern France. His piety was of an exaggerated kind. It had been agreed by the French rabbis that in winter rooms might be warmed on the Sabbath by Christians. Meïr of Rothenburg would not allow the Sabbath to be desecrated in this indirect way. He therefore tightly fastened up the doors of the stoves in his house, because the servant-maid had several times made a fire unbidden. In general, the German Jews were more scrupulous than those of other countries; they, for instance, still observed the fast of the Day of Atonement for two consecutive days.

What position the German rabbis took in reference to the denunciation of philosophy and of Maimuni, revived by Moses Taku, is not authentically known, but may be inferred from an event which was the cause of much scandal elsewhere.

A French or Rhenish Kabbalist, who had emigrated to Jean d'Acre (Accho), was stirred up by even more intense zeal than Moses Taku. This man, whose name was Solomon Petit, made it the aim of his life to kindle again the pyre for the wholesale burning of the writings of Maimuni, and to plant the standard of the Kabbala upon the grave of philosophy. At Accho he gathered a circle of pupils around him, whom he initiated into the knowledge of the secret art, and to whom he related marvelous stories in order to cast disrepute upon philosophy. Accho was at this time a very nest of Kabbalists and mystics, of whom the greater number were pupils of Nachmani. Although the days of this town, the last stronghold of the much reduced Christian kingdom of Jerusalem, were numbered, these dabblers in the mystic art conducted themselves as if they were destined to remain there for ever. Solomon Petit thought that he could command sufficient support to venture upon carrying into execution his plan of publishing once more a sentence of condemnation upon Maimunist writings, of forbidding under penalties all scientific study, and excommunicating men engaged in independent research. His fanaticism was especially directed against Maimuni's "Guide" (Moré); in his opinion it deserved to be proscribed, like other heretical works. He enlisted many followers in Palestine to aid him in this attack on heresy. Who would not obey, when the voice of the Holy Land had caused itself to be heard? Who would attempt to justify what it had condemned? But the zealot Solomon Petit met with unexpected opposition.

At the head of the Eastern congregations at this time, there stood an energetic man, Yishaï ben Chiskiya, who had obtained the title of Prince and Exilarch (Resh-Galuta) from the temporal authorities. Those communities of Palestine which were under the rule of the Mahometans and of the Egyptian Sultan Kilavun, naturally belonged to his diocese, and he also claimed obedience from the community at Accho, although it was in the hands of the crusaders. The Exilarch Yishaï held Maimuni in the highest respect, and was on friendly terms with his grandson, David, the Nagid of Egypt. As soon as he received information concerning the doings of Solomon Petit, the mystic of Accho, he dispatched a sharp letter to him, and threatened to excommunicate him if he persisted in his attacks on Maimuni and his writings. Several rabbis, whom Yishaï had called in, to add the weight of their authority to his, expressed themselves to the same effect. But Solomon Petit was not a man to permit himself to be overpowered by obstacles. He undertook a journey to Europe, visited the large congregations, and described the danger of the Maimunistic writings to the rabbis and other distinguished persons. He overawed them by his knowledge of the Kabbala, succeeded in persuading many to join him, and announce, in documents bearing their signatures, that the philosophical writings of Maimuni contained heresies, that they deserved to be put aside or even burnt, and that no Jew ought to read them. Nowhere did Solomon Petit meet with such hearty support as with the German rabbis. They showed their approval of his action in letters, even some of those who had recently been in agreement with the Exilarch Yishaï.

Being assured of the assistance of the German and of some of the French rabbis, Solomon Petit started on his return journey through Italy, and sought to obtain partisans in that country also; but there he met with the least response, for just as Maimuni was finding fresh antagonists in Germany, so his admirers were increasing in Italy. The Italian communities, which hitherto had rivaled the Germans in ignorance of every kind, were just awakening from their torpidity, and their recently opened eyes turned to the light which emanated from Maimuni. Their political condition was not unfavorable; in fact, within the precincts of St. Peter, they were at that time in more propitious circumstances than any of the Jews of central Europe. The canonical laws against the Jews were nowhere more disregarded than in Italy. The small states and municipalities, into which the country was split up at this time, were too jealous of their liberty to permit the clergy to exert any influence over their domestic concerns. The city of Ferrara passed a statute in favor of the Jews, granting many liberties to them, and containing a clause stating, that a magistrate (podestà) could be empowered neither by the pope nor by any one else to deprive them of these privileges. Not only had the king of Sicily, Charles of Anjou, a Jewish physician, Farraj Ibn-Solomon, who, under the name of Farragut, was held in high repute as a scholar in Christian circles, but even the pope himself transgressed the canonical decree which forbade any one's taking medical assistance from a Jew. One of the four popes who reigned during the short period of thirteen years (1279 to 1291) entrusted his holy person to the care of a Jewish physician, Isaac ben Mordecai, who bore the title of Maestro Gajo.

The prosperity enjoyed by Italy in consequence of the wide extension of its flourishing commerce, and the fondness for art and poetry which sprang up at this time, during the youth of the poet Dante, affected also the Italian Jews, and aroused them from their hitherto dormant condition.

The philosophical writings of Maimuni made their influence in favor of the higher culture felt upon the minds of the Italian Jews. About this time, they began to occupy themselves earnestly with the "Guide," and intellectual men delivered discourses upon this profound work. The origin of this revival may be traced back to Anatoli, but Hillel of Verona must be considered the founder and promulgator of the scientific method among the Italian Jews. Maimuni had no warmer admirer than this true-hearted and energetic man, who, though somewhat limited in range of ideas, was exceedingly lovable. Hillel ben Samuel of Verona (born about 1220, died about 1295), a zealous Talmud disciple of Jonah Gerundi, in no way partook of the intolerant and heresy-hunting spirit which characterized his teacher. He had been a witness of the latter's genuine atonement for calling in the aid of the Dominicans in his fanatical onslaught on the writings of Maimuni, and since that time Hillel almost worshiped Maimuni. He avoided Talmudic one-sidedness, and turned his mind also to general studies. He made himself so thoroughly acquainted with the Latin language—a rare accomplishment among the Jews of his day—that he was able to compose in Latin with great ease; he translated a work upon surgery from this language into Hebrew. Indeed, Hillel's Hebrew style was influenced by the peculiarities of Latin syntax. He wrote beautiful, clear, terse Hebrew prose, entirely free from the verbose phraseology and ornate flourishes of the style then in vogue. At first he practised the profession of medicine in Rome, afterwards in Capua and Ferrara, and in his old age in Forli.

With all his intellectual powers Hillel became absorbed in Maimuni's writings on the philosophy of religion, notwithstanding which he remained true to his religious belief, clinging to it with great tenacity. The miracles in the Bible and the Talmud were not regarded by him as fanciful allegories, but on the contrary retained their character as real events. About this time there lived in Italy two logical thinkers, one a native born Italian, Sabbataï ben Solomon, of Rome—in his time a very distinguished personage—and the other, a Spaniard, who had emigrated to Rome, Serachya ben Isaac, a member of the renowned family of Ben Shaltiel-Chen (Gracian?), whose home was in Barcelona. The latter, famous as a physician and an adept in the Aristotelian philosophy, was a passionate opponent of the belief in miracles. The desire of the Italian Jews for knowledge is well illustrated by an anecdote wittily told by an Italian Jewish poet. A Jewish scholar from Toledo arrived at Perugia with eighty books upon science—a considerable library in those days—and, in order to continue his journey more comfortably, he tied them up, sealed them, and left them in Perugia. He had scarcely left the place, when those eager seekers after knowledge, unable to repress their curiosity, broke open the parcel, and possessed themselves of the mental treasures that it contained. The young poet, Immanuel Romi, who perhaps was concerned in this affair, drank in with all the vigor of his ardent mind, the spirit which Hillel of Verona and Serachya-Chen had distilled for the Italian Jews from the writings of Maimuni.

It is quite obvious that in the presence of this revival of culture among the congregations of Italy, the Kabbalist Solomon Petit could not possibly meet with support in his effort to enlist adherents for his denunciation of Maimuni. The fanatic was clever enough not to drop a word of his intentions there. When he arrived at Jean d'Acre (Accho) with the letters against Maimuni written by the German rabbis, he set to work to encourage his confederates, who had been intimidated by the threats of the prince-rabbi of Damascus, to arouse fresh strife, and to induce them to pronounce sentence of excommunication against Maimuni's philosophical writings. The Kabbalists of this community readily assented to his plan, condemned the "Guide" of Maimuni to be burnt, and threatened with excommunication all who might henceforth study it. The Kabbala despite its youth felt itself so powerful, that it imagined itself able to extirpate the firmly-rooted spirit of inquiry from the midst of Judaism. It appears that the tomb of Maimuni at Tiberias was desecrated by these Kabbalists. Instead of the laudatory inscription written on the stone, they substituted, "Moses Maimuni, the excommunicated heretic." However, the community at Accho did not, as a whole, agree with this disgraceful charge of heresy: there were in it warm admirers of Maimuni, and strenuous opponents of his condemnation by self-constituted authorities. Thus there broke out fierce strife in the very heart of the community, which actually led to blows. The news of this contention rapidly spread through the countries in communication with Palestine, and called forth universal indignation. Hillel of Verona, who had been a witness of the destructive consequences of the contest about Maimuni in France, displayed great energy to prevent a repetition. He sent letters to David Maimuni and the congregations in Egypt and Babylonia (Irak), and proposed the following plan for extinguishing once for all the destructive flame of dissension kindled by the writings of Maimuni, which so often blazed up afresh. He suggested that the most distinguished rabbis of the Jews in the East should assemble at a synod at Alexandria, and summon the German rabbis who had supported Solomon Petit to justify their conduct. If they could prove that the philosophical writings of Maimuni contained actual heresies and notions opposed to the Bible and the Talmud, which Hillel himself believed impossible, then it was only just that Maimuni's writings should be condemned, and removed from the hands of the public. If, however, the German rabbis were unable to defend and justify their accusations of heresy, then they should be compelled, under penalty of excommunication, to submit to the universal verdict of the excellence of the "Guide" of Maimuni, and to abstain in future from stirring up discord and division by their opposition to Maimuni's philosophy. The rabbis of Babylonia, who had possessed authority from time immemorial, were to pronounce judgment.

This energetic action in Europe, and the strenuous exertions of Hillel, were not really necessary in order to disturb the work of the mystics in Accho. Solomon Petit and his Kabbalistic faction were isolated in the East. As soon as David Maimuni received information of the condemnation passed upon his grandfather, he journeyed to Accho, where he met with support from the section of the community opposed to fanaticism. He addressed letters to all congregations, calling upon them to take up the defense of the honor of his grandfather against the Jewish Dominicans, the heresy-hunting and narrow-minded Kabbalists. Everywhere he met with approval. The Prince of the Captivity at Mosul, named David ben Daniel, who traced his origin back to King David, and who was the head of the communities on this side of the Tigris, declared that he would place Petit under the severest ban of excommunication till he ceased his attempts to create a disturbance (Iyar, 1289). Eleven rabbis of his college signed this threat against the heresy-hunter of Accho. The Exilarch of Damascus, Yishaï ben Chiskiya, who had already issued a warning against these attacks on Maimuni, again took energetic action in the matter. Together with his college of twelve associates, he pronounced a ban of excommunication (Tammuz—June, 1289), not merely against Solomon Petit and his partisans, but also against any person who dared speak in terms of contempt and disrespect of Maimuni, or who accused his writings of heresy. All persons who possessed any books hostile to Maimuni were commanded to yield them up to David Maimuni or his sons, as quickly as possible, so that no improper use might be made of them. If any persons who at the time dwelt in Accho, or who would immigrate thither at some later time, refused to obey the decisions of the Prince of the Captivity and his colleagues, it was incumbent upon every Jew to employ all possible means to render these men incapable of doing any harm, and even to call in the aid of the secular authorities.