The so-called St. Louis was literally more papal than the pope himself. His weak mind lent its ready aid to all the fanatical measures taken against the Jews. When the wild idea occurred to him of entering upon a new crusade, he confiscated the property of certain Jews in order to obtain money for the campaign. Whilst waging war in Egypt in furtherance of the crusade, he was taken prisoner (April-May, 1250). He was jeered at by the Mahometans, because he, the most Christian king, suffered the enemies of Christianity to remain in his kingdom. He thereupon, on his release, promulgated an edict for the banishment of all Jews, with the exception of handicraftsmen, from his hereditary lands. However, his prudent mother, the queen Blanche, probably paid little heed to this reckless command. On her death, however, and the subsequent return of Louis to France (December, 1254), the king seriously set about expelling the Jews. Their landed property, synagogues and cemeteries, were forfeited to the crown. What Philip Augustus had done from apparently political motives, Louis, the saint of the Church, did from fanaticism. But on this, as on the former occasion, the period of exile was not long. As before, the edict affected only those Jews who dwelt in the king's own territories; and even then those who lived by the labor of their hands were excepted. A few years later, permission was granted to the exiles to return, and their synagogues and cemeteries were restored to them.

It is a noteworthy fact that the spiritual activity of the French Jews, the ingenious exposition of the Talmud by the Tossafists, in no degree ceased on account of these miseries, but continued undisturbed for some time longer. The Talmud was burnt; the teaching of it was again prohibited by Louis, and still, in this very time, the pious itinerant preacher, Moses of Coucy, composed his great work on the Law. In this he combined, in a clear, synoptical manner, the elements of the Talmud with the religious ordinances of the Bible, proceeding on the basis of the Code of Maimuni. Another famous Talmudist, Samuel ben Solomon Sir Morel, of Falaise, prepared a new collection of Tossafoth, just at the time when the Talmud was proscribed (1252–1259); he possessed no copy of the Talmud to work from, because the Dominican spies had deprived him of it, and he was compelled to rely upon his memory. Moreover, Yechiel of Paris had three hundred students of the Talmud in his academy, to whom he delivered discourses, probably from memory. But this activity could not long continue; there were too many obstacles to be encountered. The French congregations had become impoverished by the frequent demands for money and the confiscation of their property. Whilst formerly France had sent money for the support of the Jews in Asia, Yechiel was now compelled to send a messenger to Palestine and the neighboring lands to procure supplies for the maintenance of his academy. Yechiel felt himself obliged to leave his native land and to emigrate to Palestine (to Jean d'Acre). He was one of the last representatives of the French Tossafist school, which had developed so much ingenuity and critical acumen, but was now gradually declining and approaching its fall. The Church was succeeding in altogether destroying the Talmudical spirit which had its chief home in France. The last followers of the school of Tossafists in France were only compilers, who endeavored to bring the results of the labors of past scholars into proper form and order. Prompted by the conviction that the study of the Talmud was declining, and that even the rabbis were at a loss for correct decisions, Isaac ben Joseph, of Corbeil, the disciple and son-in-law of Yechiel of Paris, wrote a concise manual of such religious duties as were of practical importance to the Jews in their dispersion (Semak). He strove to render his book as popular and pleasing as possible, for he could not at that time depend upon its being easily understood by the bulk of the people in any other form, and he sent a letter to the congregations of France and Germany asking them to make copies of his work, and to spread the knowledge of it. The Tossafist method of study perished before the fanaticism of the mendicant friars and the bigotry of King Louis IX.

In England, throughout the long reign of King Henry III (1216–1272), the condition of the Jews grew worse and worse. Henry, indeed, was not a tyrant like his father, John Lackland, and was at first kindly disposed towards the Jews. During his minority, whilst the regent held the reins of office, the Jews were treated with great indulgence. Commands were given to the sheriffs to protect them against the violence of the mob; and distinct and impressive orders were given to the clergy not to assume any power over the Jews. Henry, or the regent, permitted foreign Jews to land and settle in any part of England without paying any special tax for the privilege; and he forbade the native Jews, not, indeed, from any particularly tender feeling towards them, to quit the country. Henry, as his father had done, appointed a chief rabbi over all the Jewish congregations (presbyter Judæorum). The first man to hold this office was Joceus (José?); Aaron of York succeeded him, and the last to hold the post was Elias, of London. This appointment was for life. The English chief rabbi possessed very great authority over the members of his community. He was at the same time royal overseer (justitiarus) of the revenues of the crown which were obtained from the Jews. He, together with certain Jewish and Christian colleagues, had to keep a register of the property of the English Jews in the Rolls (rotuli); to see also to the payment of the Jew-tax into the treasury, called the Exchequer of the Jews; and also to deliver up to the royal exchequer the property of men who had died without heirs, this property escheating to the crown. If the chief rabbi did not wish to occupy himself with financial matters, he could appoint a substitute with full powers. Finally, he was invested with the authority to excommunicate members of his community who refused to obey his decrees, or who would not contribute towards the burdens of the congregation. Henry III at first energetically restrained the intolerance of the Church. On one occasion, when the Archbishop of Canterbury, in order to prevent intercourse between Christians and Jews, issued a decree prohibiting all Christians, on pain of ecclesiastical censure, from selling any kinds of food to Jews, the king countermanded the interdict. Whilst the French Jews were being robbed and massacred by the crowds of crusaders, Henry exerted himself to prevent the spreading of this spirit of fanaticism over his domains.

But this considerate treatment of the Jews did not last long. Henry III was of a reckless, thoughtless nature, and very extravagant. He lent a ready ear to all that his friends advised. He was especially guided by the legates and financial agents of the pope, who had been sent to loot this rich land, and who, like a long-enduring epidemic, caused much injury to England, and stirred up revolts and civil war. On the one hand, he was in great need of a very large sum of money, and on the other, the influence of the Church was continually growing stronger. In order to replenish his almost empty coffers, Henry levied a poll-tax upon the Jews, even upon newly-born infants. A portion of every debt contracted between Jews and Christians was to be paid into the royal treasury. The bonds for debts owing to Jews were therefore registered and examined with suspicious care, lest an attempt be made to defraud his majesty. The bonds had to be attested by several witnesses, and a copy of them deposited in the city archives. The ordinary Jew-taxes, however, did not long satisfy the king, who was involved in debt, and very lavish in his expenditure. Enormous sums were extracted from the congregations, now under one pretext, now under another. The clergy furnished the opportunities. Sometimes the Jews were accused of making away with their baptized brethren, and of circumcising Christian boys. Upon such charges, individuals or even whole congregations were cast into prison, and released only on payment of a heavy ransom. All this, however, presents no novel features. Something entirely new and original was done when the king summoned a Jewish Parliament. He issued writs to all the English communities, commanding the larger ones to return six representatives from among their distinguished men, and the smaller ones two, who were to assemble before the king, in Worcester, on the Sunday before Lent. The Jewish Parliament in Worcester numbered over one hundred members. The king in his message stated that they were to take counsel together for their own and his majesty's welfare. But it is scarcely possible that the Jews allowed themselves to be lulled by the deceptive promise that liberties would be conceded to them. Henry assembled his ordinary Parliament only when he was in urgent need of supplies. Accordingly, he informed his Jewish Parliament that it was to collect large sums of money for him, and the Jews dared not make any objections. Finally, the Parliament elected trustworthy men to assess the money for each congregation, and to see to its payment. If the apportioned sums of money were not forthcoming, the collectors were made answerable, on penalty of imprisonment of themselves, their wives, and their families. When at length, Henry had extorted enough from the Jews, and a feeling of shame prevented him from demanding any more money from them, he pledged them, on certain conditions, to his brother Richard, who had even less consideration for them.

The Church now began her canonical extortions and cruelties. The clergy prevailed on the king, who was their puppet, to prohibit the Jews from erecting any new house of prayer; they were not to utter their prayers aloud in their synagogues, and especially they were to wear the conspicuous Jew-badge on their garments. Many other enactments to a similar effect were passed. The life of the Jews became so intolerable by reason of this double tyranny of Church and State, that their chief rabbi Elias, together with a few colleagues, twice declared to the king, in the name of the congregations, that they could not pay the taxes that were continually being demanded from them, and they must ask leave to quit the country. However sorry they might be to depart from their native land and to forsake their homes, they preferred it to the miserable condition in which they now were. But it was of no avail. The Jews were obliged to remain in England against their will; they were forced to surrender their last farthing, and to resort to usury in order to replenish their coffers. An account, which is still extant, gives some idea of the exactions made by Henry III. The Jews were required to collect within seven years the sum of £422,000 sterling. One Jew, Aaron of York, was compelled to pay to the king, in seven years, the sum of 30,000 marks of silver, besides 200 marks of gold to the queen. As the chief rabbi Elias was not sufficiently severe in raising money for the king, Henry deposed him, and granted the Jews the privilege, on payment of a certain sum, of electing their own spiritual leaders.

Meanwhile, in England also, the usual charge of child-murder was made against the Jews. The Dominicans, with their poisonous eloquence, zealously called for their punishment. Several of them were thrown into prison; but they were freed by the Franciscans. Matthew Paris, the malicious chronicler of the period, remarks, concerning the affair, "Dame Rumor has it that the Minorites' friendship for the Jews was bought by a bribe." This statement does not, indeed, go to prove the guilt of the Jews in the charge of child-murder, but that the Franciscans had for once permitted themselves to be bought for a just cause. The constant agitation of the fanatical Dominicans against the Jews had filled the people with deep hatred against this race. At the time when the Commons were admitted by law as the Third Estate, and rose against the despotic rule of the monarch, they made an attack upon the Jews in London, pillaged their treasures, and murdered 1500 of them (Easter week, 1264). The surviving Jews fled for safety to the Tower, where the king granted them his protection; their houses, however, fell into the hands of the plundering barons. The Jews became so impoverished by these assaults that they were not able to pay the ordinary taxes, and Henry was obliged to remit payment for the space of three years, in order to avoid reducing them to a state of total destitution (1268). Besides, the king and the Parliament forbade their buying fee estates, or, in general, real property from Christian owners (1270).

Superficially compared with their brethren in England, France and Germany, the Jews in Spain at this time appeared to be living in paradise. In Castile, Alfonso X (1252–1284), who was called the Wise, even by his contemporaries, was king. He had a veritable and strong affection for science, and encouraged its pursuit. He emulated the fame of his Mahometan predecessors, Abderrahman III and Alhakem. His father, Ferdinand the Holy—a title always synonymous with the Intolerant—was not particularly gracious towards the Jews, but the son, who in no respect was in accord with him, appeared desirous of pursuing another course of action. In the war against Seville, which he conducted whilst still heir-apparent, there were many Jewish soldiers in his army. When this city was captured, and the district was being partitioned among the warriors, the Infante Alfonso looked well to the interests of his Jewish allies. He allotted to them certain lands, where they might form a village exclusively Jewish (Aldea de los Judios). He transferred three mosques, which they turned into synagogues, to the Jews of Seville. The latter had probably helped him in the capture of the city, as they had been very wretched under the rule of the Almohades, having been compelled to live as Mahometans. A large portion of the town, which was separated from the rest of the city by a wall, belonged to them (under the name of Parternilla de los Judios). Out of gratitude towards the victor, the congregation of Seville presented him with a valuable, artistically wrought key, with a Hebrew and Spanish inscription, which ran as follows:—"The King of kings opens, the king of the land will enter." When Alfonso ascended the throne, he entrusted many important official positions to the Jews. Don Meïr de Malea, who was a cultured man, and a student of the Talmud, was treasurer to this monarch, and bore the title of Almoxarif. He appears to have performed his functions in this office in so excellent a manner that his son, Don Zag (Isaac), succeeded him in the position. It became the custom in Castile for a long space of time to select Jews as Chancellors of the Exchequer, not only because they were better informed on financial matters than the Spanish hidalgos, but because they managed in a more trustworthy and skilful manner. Many other Jews were admitted to the court of Alfonso. He employed a Jewish physician, Don Judah ben Moses Cohen, who at the same time was his astronomer and astrologer. The king, who was himself engaged in the study of astrology and alchemy to a great extent, had astronomical works, and a book upon the qualities of certain stones, translated by learned Jews, from Arabic into Castilian. At this period, as in earlier times, there were very few Christian scholars acquainted with Arabic, although they were surrounded by Arabs, and the Jews here, as in most places, had to furnish the means of communication. Churchmen who had not forgotten their Latin then translated the Castilian version made by the Jews into the language of the Church. The king was accustomed to call the reader of prayers in the synagogue of Toledo "his sage." This man was Don Zag (Isaac) Ibn-Said (Sid), one of the most distinguished astronomers of his age. Alfonso commissioned this precentor, Don Zag, to draw up astronomical tables, which work renders the name of this sovereign more famous than his warlike deeds and his political wisdom. Up to the time of the recent discoveries in astronomy, those engaged in this study made use of the "Tables of Alfonso," which more appropriately should be termed the tables of Zag or of Said. There was a third Jewish scientist at the court of Alfonso, Samuel Halevi, whose name is associated with an ingenious water-clock, which he invented, and fashioned at the order of the king. The representatives of the Church were naturally very much incensed that the Jews held these important positions at court, and the Pope Nicholas III thereupon, with characteristic selfishness and presumption, reproached the king with a long list of sins, and pointed out that many evils arose because Jews were preferred to Christians.

However, although Alfonso admitted many cultured and able Jews to court, and employed their talents, yet the condition of the Jews of Castile under his rule was by no means so favorable as one might at first sight expect. Alfonso was not altogether free from the prejudices of his time. The spirit of hatred of the Jews, which had been stirred up by Innocent III, had taken its hold upon him, as upon Emperor Frederick II, whose place he had been elected to fill by a certain faction. Alfonso deserved the honorable title of "the Wise" only in a limited sense, seeing that he acted very unwisely in political matters, and in his relations with the Church was by no means so enlightened as Frederick II. As a favor to the clergy, or because he was a bigot, he placed many restrictions upon the Jews, and reduced them to a degraded condition. It is not quite certain whether the Visigothic collection of laws (called Forum Judicum, fuero juzgo) was translated into Castilian by Alfonso or by his father. From this collection the Spaniards acquired their ineradicable hatred against the Jews. Whether Alfonso is responsible for this or not, it is nevertheless well known that he aimed at reducing the Jews to a miserable state by a series of enactments of his own.

He compiled for all the peoples of his kingdom a bulky code of laws, divided into seven groups, and written in Castilian (1257–1266). In this work there are many references to the Jews, in fact a whole section of the code treats solely of them. It is there stated: "Although the Jews deny Christ, they are suffered in all Christian countries, so that they may remind everybody that they belong to that race which crucified Jesus. Since they are merely tolerated, they must keep themselves quiet and unobtrusive, must not openly preach the doctrines of Judaism, nor attempt to make any converts to their religion." The law of Alfonso attached the penalty of death to the conversion of a Christian to Judaism. It asserts that in ancient times the Jews were held in respect, and called the people of God, but by their wickedness against Jesus, they had forfeited this distinction, and no Jew was ever to obtain any dignity or fill any public office in Spain. Alfonso included in his code of laws every possible restriction which fanaticism and hatred had ever devised against the Jews. They were prohibited from building new synagogues, from having Christian servants, and from intermarriage with Christians. Jews and Jewesses were to wear a peculiar mark upon their head-dress, and any person who was seen without this mark was condemned to pay a fine of ten pieces of gold, or if he was poor, to receive ten stripes with the scourge. Jews and Christians were not to take their meals together, nor bathe in company. Alfonso also incorporated the ordinance that Jews should not appear in the public streets on Good Friday. The wise Alfonso gave credence to the lying story that the Jews every year, on Good Friday, crucified a Christian child, and therefore framed a law that whoever was found guilty of this crime, or whoever crucified a wax figure on this day, should be put to death. In vain had Pope Innocent IV declared the falsehood of this accusation, and proved the innocence of the Jews. When a pope was heard to speak in a favorable manner of the Jews, his infallibility was discredited, even by a cultured monarch who held intercourse with Jews. It is hard to believe that the king who kept a private Jewish physician promulgated a law to the effect that no Christian should take any medicine prepared by a Jew. It must be considered a great concession to the Jews, that Alfonso decreed that their synagogues were not to be profaned or dishonored, that they were not to be coerced to undergo baptism, were not to be summoned before a court of justice on their festivals, and were simply to take the oath upon the Torah, without any further degrading ceremony, such as was sometimes added in Germany.

The laws of Alfonso with regard to the Jews had no practical importance for the time being; his code obtained the force of law only at a much later date. Alfonso himself transgressed the very laws concerning the Jews which he had laid down, when he permitted Jews to hold offices of trust. Nevertheless, his collection of laws exercised a most prejudicial effect upon the Jews of Spain. It set up the canonical standard as that of the state, and contributed towards transforming their paradise into a veritable hell. The laws of Alfonso are in force at the present day in Spanish America, whilst his astronomical tables have been forgotten.

The Jews in the kingdom of Aragon suffered even worse treatment than those of Castile. Here, two influences were at work, making their condition a most humiliating one. The king Jayme (Jacob I), who reigned for a long time, had possessions in the south of France, and often came into contact with the bigoted St. Louis and his councilors. From them he acquired the theory of the proper treatment of Jews. He also looked upon them, with all their possessions, as the chattels of the sovereign, his "servi cameræ," serfs. No Jew was allowed to place himself under the protection of a nobleman. There was an advantage in this: it withdrew the Jews from the jurisdiction of the clergy. A law was made by Jayme which expressly stated that the Jews were not to be treated either as prisoners or as slaves. They were nevertheless exposed to the arbitrary action of the reigning sovereign, which was not limited by any law or custom. The second pernicious influence emanated from the Church and its blind zealots. The general of the Dominicans was Raymond de Penyaforte, the collector of the papal decretals, the precursor of Torquemada, whose whole soul was absorbed by the task of elevating the power of the papacy and of the infallible Church above that of the state. This gloomy and evil-minded monk was the confessor of King Jayme. The king of Aragon had loved much, and sinned greatly, and was thus in constant need of his father-confessor, and dependent on him; and though he did not always obey his will, in his treatment of Jews and Mahometans, he did his bidding gladly. The main purpose of Penyaforte's exertions was to convert Jews and Mahometans. In the higher schools, conducted by the Dominicans, Penyaforte had also Hebrew and Arabic taught, so that the preaching friars might use their knowledge of those languages in effecting conversions.

A young man of this order, named Pablo Christiani, a baptized Jew, who was like Nicholas-Donin in disposition, was the first missionary preacher for the conversion of the Jews. He journeyed about in the south of France and in other places, invited the Jews to enter into discussion with him, and sought to demonstrate to them that the Messianic character and the divinity of Jesus were confirmed in the Bible and the Talmud. As his mission was crowned with little or no success, De Penyaforte resolved on arranging a public disputation on the relative merits of Judaism and Christianity at the royal court, between Pablo Christiani and Moses Nachmani, the most famous rabbi in Spain. If the rabbi was converted, Penyaforte hoped to effect without any difficulty the wholesale acknowledgment by the Jewish communities of the truths of the Christian faith. Nachmani received a letter of invitation from King Jayme to come to Barcelona and enter upon a solemn discussion (1263).

Nachmani made his appearance, and, contrary to his desire, was obliged to declare himself willing to take part in the disputation. However, he did it with dignity, and represented the religion of his fathers before a Christian king in as honorable a manner as Philo of Alexandria had done twelve hundred years before, in the presence of a heathen emperor. At the outset Nachmani told Jayme and his confessor Penyaforte that he was ready to take part in this contest only on the condition that complete freedom of speech be granted him, so that he might meet his opponent on a footing of equality. The king consented to this stipulation. When Penyaforte thereupon remarked that he must not avail himself of this liberty of speech to revile and blaspheme Christianity, he replied, with dignity, that he knew the rules of common courtesy. The discussion between Nachmani and Pablo Christiani, if compared with that between Yechiel and Nicholas-Donin, clearly reveals the superiority of the Spanish Jews over their brethren of northern France. The rabbi of Paris and the Dominican Donin fought like two fierce pugilists, assailing each other with heavy blows of the fist, accompanied by words of abuse; the rabbi of Gerona and the Dominican Pablo, on the other hand, met like two cultured noblemen, who dealt blows with an air of politeness, and with due observance of the etiquette of refined society.

This disputation at Barcelona lasted for four days (beginning on the 20th July). It took place in the palace of the king, and in the presence of the whole court and of many distinguished ecclesiastics, knights and citizens. Many Jews were probably among the audience. Nachmani at the very beginning clearly defined the points to be discussed. The points of difference between Judaism and Christianity were so numerous, he remarked, that it was advisable to pay attention only to the most essential among them. The topics of discussion which he suggested were, first, whether the Messiah had appeared or not; next, whether the Messiah, according to the prophecies of the Bible, was to be considered as God, or as a man born of human parents; and finally, whether the Jews or the Christians were in possession of the true faith. The king and all those interested in the matter expressed their approval of this proposed plan. It is peculiar that whilst Nicholas-Donin accused the Talmud on the ground that it contained scurrilous attacks upon Jesus and the Christians, Pablo Christiani based his argument on the opposite contention, that the Talmud recognized Jesus as the Messiah. This statement it was, of course, easy for Nachmani to refute. Pablo's chief proof rested upon Agadic passages, but Nachmani had at the beginning of the discussion carefully guarded against this method of attack, by emphatically asserting that he did not believe in these and other Agadic stories. The Dominican now declared that an interpretation such as he suggested was heresy, as though he knew better than the rabbi what was orthodox in Judaism and what infidelity. His Jewish antagonist, however, would not allow himself to be disconcerted by such remarks, and said in justification of his position that it behoved a Jew to believe in the truth of the Bible and in the exposition of the Talmud in all points of religious practice; but, on the other hand, he was perfectly at liberty to reject or accept the Agadic interpretations, which were to be regarded only as sermons (sermones), as they were conformable or opposed to his views. Nachmani made another bold remark. He said "that he had more regard for the Christian monarch than for the Messiah." This statement he justified by saying that it was more meritorious for himself and for all Jews to keep the precepts of their religion whilst under a Christian ruler, in exile, and suffering humiliation and abuse, than to observe them when dwelling in prosperity and freedom under a powerful Jewish king. The Messiah was to be regarded as nothing more than a king of flesh and blood. Nachmani did not neglect to bring forward an important objection to the Messianic character of Jesus, which had been employed by ancient polemical writers. All the prophets had foretold, that at the time of the Messiah a more elevated standard of morality would prevail among mankind, and especially that all war and bloodshed would cease. But since the appearance of Jesus, the world had really become filled with violence and injustice. The Christians were considered to be the most warlike among the nations, that is to say, the people that shed most blood. Then turning to the king, Nachmani said, "It behoves thee, and thy knights, O king, to put an end to all thy war-making, as the beginning of the Messianic era demands."

When Nachmani had been debating for three days, with candor combined with dignity, about the doctrines of Christianity, the Jews of Barcelona entreated him to break off the disputation, as they feared the persecution of the Dominicans. Many knights and clergymen also warned him against being carried too far by his frankness. The Christian inhabitants of Barcelona interested themselves in behalf of the Jews, and desired to avoid all provocation. Nachmani told the king of the feeling that prevailed, but he wished the disputation to continue. The intellectual tournament was therefore resumed. Nachmani finally proved victorious, as Pablo could not cope with his well-directed arguments. At the end of the discussion, the king said to Nachmani in a private audience, that he had never heard so unjust a matter defended so skilfully. The Dominicans, however, sought to spread the report that Pablo Christiani had contrived to outwit his opponent so cleverly that the latter, overwhelmed with shame, had secretly fled. So far from running away, Nachmani remained in Barcelona for another week, as a rumor had got abroad that his majesty and the Dominicans intended to visit the synagogue on the following Saturday. They did really appear in the synagogue, and Penyaforte resumed the disputation there. He illustrated the doctrine of the Trinity by wine, which possesses the qualities of color, taste and smell, and is yet a unity. It was an easy task for Nachmani to offer a complete reply to these and similar analogies, and he at last drove the confessor of the king to make the dangerous acknowledgment that the idea of the Trinity was so profound a mystery that even the angels were unable to comprehend it. Thereupon Nachmani remarked, "If this is really the case, then no reproach ought to be made to men, if they cannot surpass the angels in wisdom." Before his departure, Nachmani was again admitted to an audience with the king, and dismissed with a friendly farewell. The king gave him three hundred maravedis as a mark of respect.

The consequences of this disputation at Barcelona were by no means harmless. De Penyaforte was resolved upon compassing the conversion of the Jews, and permitted nothing to turn him from his fixed determination. He obtained from King Jayme a letter of protection which would enable his protégé Pablo Christiani to go on long missionary journeys, and thus the Jews were exposed to the caprice of the Jewish Dominican friar. What had failed of success in Barcelona, with an antagonist like Nachmani, might perhaps be successful in other places with less skilful opponents. Strict commands were issued to the congregations in Aragon, and in the adjoining districts of southern France, to enter into discussion with Pablo Christiani at his invitation. The Jews were to listen to him quietly, either in their synagogues or wherever they chanced to be, to answer his questions meekly, and to hand over to him all such books as he required for his demonstrations. They were also to defray the expenses of his mission. The despair of the Jews at such demands may well be imagined. Whether victorious or defeated, they were subjected to torments and extortion.

As in spite of the protection granted to him by the king, Pablo Christiani did not meet with a hearty welcome among his former co-religionists, he followed in the footsteps of Nicholas-Donin, and denounced the Talmud, asserting that it contained passages of hostile import directed against Jesus and Mary. He went to Pope Clement IV, and repeated to him the charges against the Talmud. The pope, at his request, issued a bull (1264) to the Bishop of Tarragona, commanding him to confiscate copies of the Talmud, and to submit them to the examination of the Dominicans and Franciscans; if found to be blasphemous, they were to be burnt. Pablo Christiani, the apostate, in person brought this bull to Spain. Thereupon King Jayme ordered (1264) that the Talmud be examined, and the passages containing abuse and slander be struck out. The duty of acting as censors was entrusted to the Bishop of Barcelona, De Penyaforte, and to three other Dominicans, together with Pablo Christiani. This commission marked the passages in the Talmud which were to be obliterated, and thus for the first time censorship was exercised by the Dominicans against the Talmud in Spain. The censorship was on the whole less destructive in Aragon than in France, where the whole Talmud was condemned to the flames. The reason of this comparative mildness was explained by the fact that Raymond Martin, a member of the Dominican order and of the board of censors, and the writer of two anti-Jewish works, was convinced that several passages in the Talmud bore witness to the truth of Christianity, and were certainly traditions derived from Moses, and that therefore the Talmud should not be utterly destroyed.

The hurtful effects of the disputation of Nachmani have not yet been enumerated. They even affected the man himself, who was the accredited representative of Spanish Judaism in the post-Maimunic age. Nachmani found himself obliged to publish, for his co-religionists, a true and accurate report of the proceedings at Barcelona, in order to oppose the missionary machinations of Pablo Christiani, and to rebuke the unjustifiable vainglory of the Dominicans over the victory, which they declared that they had gained at the disputation held at the court.

He made no secret of the matter, but gave a copy of his pamphlet to the Bishop of Gerona, and as the latter raised no objection, copies of the account of this disputation were dispatched to various countries where Jews dwelt (about 1264). As might have been expected, Nachmani by this proceeding drew down upon himself the still fiercer hatred of the Dominicans. Pablo Christiani, who obtained a report of the disputation, and who understood Hebrew, selected from it passages that contained gross blasphemies against the Christian religion, and notified De Penyaforte, his superior, the fanatical general of the Dominicans, of them. The latter then, in conjunction with a brother friar, instituted a capital charge, and lodged a formal complaint with the king against the author and his work. Don Jayme was obliged to assent to the charge; but he did not entrust the trial to a court composed of Dominicans, but called together an extraordinary commission, and invited Nachmani (or as he was called by the Christians, Bonastruc de Porta) to defend himself, and ordered that the proceedings be conducted in his presence. Nachmani was in a very unpleasant position, but his staunch truthfulness did not fail him. He admitted that he had stated many things against Christianity in his pamphlet, but he had written nothing which he had not used in his disputation in the presence of the king; and he had asked from the king and the general of the Dominicans for liberty of speech to utter these things, and had obtained permission. He ought not to be made answerable and condemned for expressions in his written account which had remained unrebuked in his oral defense.

The king and the commission acknowledged the justice of his vindication; nevertheless, in order to avoid provoking the order of the Dominicans or De Penyaforte, Nachmani was sentenced to exile from his native land for two years, and his pamphlet was condemned to be burnt. The Inquisition had not yet attained an all-powerful position. The Dominicans were, however, by no means satisfied with this comparatively mild sentence, as they had expected a much more severe punishment. It appears that they intended to summon Nachmani before their own tribunal, where they would undoubtedly have condemned him to death. King Jayme offered energetic opposition to this project. He gave to Nachmani a sort of charter, which stated that he could be accused in this matter only in the presence of the king (April, 1265). The Dominicans were naturally very much enraged at the mildness of the king, and at the apparent encroachment on their judicial prerogative to decide upon questions of life and death. They appealed to Pope Clement IV, complaining that the king had permitted the author of a pamphlet which grossly insulted Christianity to go unpunished. The pope, who at that time was harboring other grudges against the king of Aragon, addressed a very severe epistle to him. He upbraided him for a number of sins, ordering him to deprive Jews of public offices, and to inflict heavy punishment on that arch-villain who, after taking part in a religious discussion, had published a pamphlet as a trophy of his heresy (1266). It cannot be fully ascertained whether the king obeyed the pope regarding Nachmani or not, or what his sentence was. At any rate, it appears that one punishment was meted out to him, namely, that he was to be banished from the country. At the age of seventy, Nachmani left his fatherland, his two sons, his school and his friends, and went into exile. He made his way to the Holy Land, being filled with the same intense longing as his spiritual kinsman, Jehuda Halevi. He went a step further than the latter, maintaining that it is the religious duty of every Jew to dwell in Judæa. Thus fate had done him a kindness, assisting him in the performance of a command, and helping him to fulfil his ardent desire. He set out on his journey by ship, and landed at Jean d'Acre (1267), which at that time was still in the hands of the Christians. Thence he made haste to start for Jerusalem (9th Ellul—12th August).

Nachmani's feelings were deeply stirred on beholding the condition of the Holy Land and the Sacred City. He suffered even keener disappointment than Jehuda Halevi. The Mongols or Tartars, under the Sultan Hulagu, had committed fearful ravages in the land a few years previously (1260). This savage monarch, after conquering the eastern Caliphate, had turned his attention to the Sultanate of Egypt, captured the fortresses on the Euphrates, Damascus, Aleppo, and Baalbek, and forced his way into Palestine. Jerusalem was transformed into a heap of ruins; all its inhabitants had forsaken it (1260). The Jews had connected these extraordinary events with their hopes for the Messiah. The "hateful, deformed men of the East," who had subdued both the oppressors of Israel, the followers of Jesus and of Mahomet, might perhaps bring near unto Israel the hour of redemption. An enthusiast circulated a new revelation said to have been given through Simon bar Yochaï, the medium so frequently appealed to by mysticism, and it declared that the devastations of the Mongols were the sufferings which must precede the coming of the Messiah.

Nachmani entered Palestine a few years after the Mongols had been expelled from the country by the Sultan of Egypt. He beheld many ruins, and apostrophized them in eloquent words, saying, "The more holy the place, the greater its desolation; Jerusalem is more desolate than the rest of Judæa, and Judæa in turn more desolate than Galilee." The Jews of the Holy City had either been slain or scattered; the scrolls of the Law had been rescued by some who fled to Shechem. Two thousand Mahometans and three hundred Christians had again settled in Jerusalem, but only one or two Jewish families were discovered there by Nachmani, and, as before, they enjoyed the privilege of farming the dye-works. The Jewish pilgrims, who had come to Jerusalem from Syria, erected a synagogue at Nachmani's suggestion. Upon Mount Olivet, opposite the ruins of the Temple, Nachmani breathed forth his deep distress over the desolation of the Holy City; but it was not the song of Zion that arose from his excited mind. Nachmani did not possess that divine gift of grace, the poetical genius of Jehuda Halevi, the fancy that is able to re-people deserts, re-establish destroyed kingdoms, chasten sorrow, and ease the heart from pain. He uttered his lament in the verses of other poets.

This exile from Spain did not rest content with erecting synagogues and organizing congregations in the land which for a long time had been his spiritual home, but he also founded in it a home for the study of Jewish science, which had died out there since the conquest of Jerusalem by the crusaders. He gathered a circle of pupils around him, and people came in crowds even from the district of the Euphrates to hear him. Even Karaites are said to have sat at his feet, as for instance Aaron ben Joseph the Elder, who became famous in later times. Although he was no friend of free scientific thought, and thoroughly adhered to Talmudic Judaism, yet Nachmani, as a son of Spain, had obtained sufficient general culture to fertilize the desert of the Oriental Jews. Even his theory of the Kabbala, which he first transplanted into Palestine, where it afterwards spread far and wide, had at least the merit of presenting new points of view, of which his co-religionists, either on account of their ignorance or their partiality for the Talmud, had no idea. He strove at least to explain the irrational in a rational manner, and thus combated stupidity and indifference. He was particularly successful in arousing an interest in the exposition of Holy Writ, of which the Oriental Jews were entirely ignorant. With this end in view, Nachmani composed his Commentary to the Bible, and especially his chief work, the Exposition of the Pentateuch. In this work he brought into play his peculiar genius, his warm and tender disposition, his power of clear thinking, and his mystical dreams. Like numberless men before and after him, he discovered his own philosophy in this Book of books, and interpreted it from his point of view. He did not make much of the Kabbala in his Commentaries; merely touched upon it lightly. But precisely by his careless allusions, he magnified its importance. Narrow, enthusiastic minds searched eagerly for the hidden meaning of these suggestions, and took more notice of Nachmani's Kabbalistic hints, than of the clear ideas to be found in his work.

Nachmani's method of exegesis did not altogether escape the reproach of his contemporaries, chiefly because in his Commentary he made attacks upon Maimuni, and spoke still more violently against Ibn-Ezra. A devotee of philosophy and two enthusiastic students of it wrote a refutation of his works, prefacing it by a satire, in which the mysticism of Nachmani was especially made ridiculous. Pious men, on the other hand, held him in high honor as a particularly orthodox rabbi, and just as his Talmudical works were diligently read and used, so his Commentary became a favorite study of the mystics.

During his three years' stay in Palestine, Nachmani kept up a correspondence with his native land, whereby Judæa and Spain were brought into closer connection. He sent copies of his works to his sons and friends, and gave them descriptions of the condition of their ever unhappy ancestral country. He thus once again awoke an ardent longing for the Holy Land, and induced several persons of an enthusiastic turn of mind to emigrate thither. Nachmani died after having passed the age of seventy (about 1270), and his remains were interred in Chaifa, next to the grave of Yechiel of Paris, his companion in misfortune, who had gone into exile before him.

Nachmani exercised more effect upon his contemporaries and the succeeding age by his personality than by his writings. His numerous pupils, among whom the most renowned was Solomon ben Adret, made the teaching of Nachmani predominant among the Spanish Jews. Inspirited and unwavering attachment to Judaism, a deep regard for the Talmud and complete resignation to its decrees, a dilettante knowledge of the science of the time and of philosophy, the recognition of the Kabbala as extremely ancient tradition, to which was given respect, but not research, these are the distinctly characteristic traits of the Spanish rabbis, and of the representatives of Judaism in the succeeding age. Henceforth Spanish rabbis seldom occupied themselves with philosophy or with any other branch of learning, or even with the exposition of the Bible. Their minds were devoted only to the Talmud, whilst the sciences were cultivated only by non-rabbinical scholars. The simple method of Biblical interpretation taught by Ibn-Ezra and Kimchi was completely neglected.

CHAPTER XVIII.
THE AGE OF SOLOMON BEN ADRET AND ASHERI.

Martyrs in Germany—The Jews of Hungary and Poland—The Council at Buda—The Jews of Spain and Portugal—Solomon ben Adret, his character and writings—Raymund Martin's anti-Jewish Works—New antagonism to the Maimunist Philosophy—David Maimuni—Moses Taku—Meïr of Rothenburg—The Jews of Italy—Solomon Petit—Rudolph of Habsburg—Emigration of Jews from the Rhine Provinces—Sufferings of the English Jews—Expulsion of the Jews from England and Gascony—Saad-Addaula—Isaac of Accho.

1270–1306 C. E.

If Jewish history were to follow chronicles, memorial books and martyrologies, its pages would be filled with descriptions of bloodshed, it would consist of horrible exhibitions of corpses, and it would stand forth to make accusation against a doctrine which taught princes and nations to become common executioners and hangmen. For, from the thirteenth till the sixteenth century, the persecutions and massacres of the Jews increased with frightful rapidity and in intensity, and only alternated with inhuman decrees issued both by the Church and the state, the aim and purport of all of which were to humiliate the Jews, to brand them with calumny and to drive them to suicide. The prophet's description of the martyrdom of the servant of God, of the Messianic people, was fulfilled, or repeated with terrible literalness: "He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment ... for the transgression of my people was he stricken." The nations of Europe emulated one another in exercising their cruelty upon the Jews; and it was always the clergy who, in the name of a religion of love, stirred up this undying hatred. It mattered little to the Jews whether they lived under a strict government or under anarchy, for they suffered under the one no less than under the other.

In Germany they were slain by thousands during the troubles which, after the death of the emperor Frederick II, and till the crowning of Rudolph of Habsburg as emperor, arose from the strife between the Guelphs and the Ghibellines. Every year martyrs fell, now in Weissenburg, Magdeburg, Arnstadt, now in Coblenz, Sinzig, Erfurt, and other places. In Sinzig all the members of the congregation were burnt alive on a Sabbath in their synagogue. There were German Christian families who boasted that they had burnt Jews, and in their pride assumed the name of "Jew-roaster" (Judenbreter). The Church took good care that her flock should not, by intimate intercourse with Jews, discover that they were like other human beings, and so be made to feel sympathy for them. In Vienna, during the contest for the imperial throne of Germany, a large assembly of churchmen met (12th May, 1267) under the leadership of the papal legate Gudeo. Most of the German prelates took part in it, and gave much attention to the question of the Jews. They solemnly confirmed every canonical law that Innocent III and his successors had passed for the branding of the Jews. Jews were not allowed to have any Christian servants, were not admissible to any office of trust, were not to associate with Christians in ale-houses and baths, and Christians were not permitted to accept any invitation of the Jews, nor to enter into discussion with them. As if the German people desired to show that it could surpass all nations in scorn of the Jews, the members of the council at Vienna did not rest content with the command that the German Jews should wear a mark on their dress, but they compelled them to assume a disfiguring head-dress, a pointed, horned hat or cap (pileum cornutum), which provoked the mockery of the gamins. Bloody persecutions were the natural outcome of such distinguishing marks.

In France the clergy did not find it necessary to urge upon their princes, by threats, the degradation of the Jews. The saintly Louis, on his own account, busied himself with this matter. A year before his adventurous journey to Tunis, where he met his death, he emphasized, at the instigation of his much-beloved Pablo Christiani, the Jewish Dominican, the canonical edict which ordained the wearing of the badges. He ordered that this badge should be made of red felt or saffron-yellow cloth in the form of a wheel, and should be worn on the upper garment both on the breast and the back, "so that those who were thus marked might be recognized from all sides." Every Jew found without this badge was to be punished, for the first offense, with the loss of his garment, and for the second, with a fine of ten livres of silver to be paid into the treasury (March, 1269). The Jews of northern France, accustomed to ill-usage, and, as it were, dulled by it, easily yielded; but not so the Jews of Provence, who, being educated and in friendly intercourse with cultured Christians, would not submit to this ignominy. Hitherto they had contrived to escape from wearing the badge, and thought that they would be able to do so on this occasion also. The congregations of the south of France thereupon sent deputies to take counsel for the general welfare; and they in turn selected two distinguished men, Mordecai ben Joseph, of Avignon, and Solomon, of Tarascon, who were to go to court, and try to effect the abrogation of this law. The Jewish delegates met with success, and they returned home with the joyful news that the edict which commanded the wearing of the badge had been rescinded. But Philip III, the successor of Louis, and equally bigoted and narrow-minded, re-introduced the law a year after his accession to the throne (1271). The Dominicans took great care to see that it was not transgressed. Several distinguished Jews, such as Mordecai, of Avignon, and others, who would not submit to this disgrace, were imprisoned. This wearing of a badge by the Jews remained in force in France till the time of their expulsion from the country.

The Church pursued the sons of Jacob with its implacable hate to the very border-line between Europe and Asia. The people of Hungary and Poland, who had not yet laid aside their primitive state of barbarity and their warlike ferocity, were in greater need of the services of the Jews than the nations and states of Central and Western Europe. The Jews, with their commercial habits and their practical skill, had perceived the abundance of produce in the districts lying on the Lower Danube, the Vistula, and on both sides of the Carpathian mountains, had utilized, and thus first conferred value on, this source of wealth. Despite the zeal with which the papacy strove to deprive Jews of public offices, despite its efforts to restrain them from obtaining leases for working the salt mines and from farming the coinage and the taxes in Hungary, it could not expel them from positions in which they were indispensable in preventing the wealth of the country from running to waste. The Hungarian king, Bela IV, the successor of Andrew II, driven by stern necessity, the ravages of the Mongols having impoverished the country, invited Jewish agents. For the benefit of the Jews under his dominion, Bela introduced the law of Frederick the Valiant, of Austria, which protected them from the violence of the mob and the clergy, conceded to them their own jurisdiction, and allowed them the control over their domestic affairs. The papacy, however, turned its attention to the Carpathian districts, partly for the purpose of kindling a new crusade against the Mongols, and partly in order to bring back to the Roman see, by means of trickery and force, the schismatic adherents of the Greek Church. Its spiritual armies, the Dominicans and Franciscans, were despatched thither, and they instilled into the hitherto tolerant Magyars their own spirit of fanatical intolerance. A large church assembly, consisting of prelates from Hungary and the south of Poland, met at Buda (September, 1279). This convocation was under the presidency of Philip, who was the papal legate for Hungary, Poland, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Lodomeria, and Galicia, and decreed a proscription of the Jews of these countries, which the Church executed with logical severity. Jews and other inhabitants of the country not belonging to the Roman Catholic Church were to be debarred from the right of farming the taxes, or from holding any public post. Bishops and other ecclesiastics of higher or lower degree who had entrusted the farming of the revenues of their sees to the hands of Jews were to be suspended from their holy offices. Laymen, of whatsoever rank, were to be placed under a ban of excommunication till they dismissed the Jewish contractors and employés, and had given security that henceforward they would not accept or retain such men, "because it is very dangerous to permit Jews to dwell together with Christian families, and to have intimacy with them at courts and in private houses." The synod at Buda also enacted that the Jews of both sexes dwelling in Hungarian territory (which included Hungary and the provinces of southern Poland) should wear the figure of a wheel made of red cloth on the upper garment on the left side of the breast, and that they should never be seen without this badge. For the time, the exclusion of the Jews of Hungary and Poland from Christian society had little practical effect, for the Mahometans and the schismatic Greek Catholics shared their proscription. These latter were also withheld from public offices. The Mahometans, too, were ordered to wear a badge of a yellow color. The Magyars and Poles had not yet been made so intolerant by church influence as to adopt the refined, cruel practices of both the secular and the regular clergy, who would have denied fire and water to men not wearing a red or yellow sign. The first crop of this poisonous fruit was gathered about half a century later. The last king of the family of Arpad, Ladislaus IV, ratified and confirmed the statutes of the synod in Hungary.

A similar state of affairs was to be met with in the extreme west of Europe, in the Pyrenean peninsula. As Mahometans here also dwelt in proximity to Christians and Jews, the Church was not able easily to carry out its purpose, prompted by intolerance, of crushing the Jews. To this it must be added, that the higher culture of the Jews and their participation in all internal and foreign affairs, were circumstances in their favor here, and they forced respect from their enemies. Although Alfonso the Wise, king of Castile, had promulgated a law precluding Jews from filling state offices, yet he himself continued to appoint Jews to important posts. Amongst others, he promoted Don Zag (Isaac) de Malea, the son of Don Meïr, to be the royal treasurer. He was severely rebuked for doing so by Pope Nicholas III (1279), but still he did not remove the Jews from their offices. On one occasion, indeed, he became very angry with Don Zag, and caused his displeasure to be felt by the Jews generally in an ebullition of rage; this, however, was not out of respect for the Church, but emanated from discordant family relations. Don Zag had large sums of money belonging to the state under his custody, which the king had destined for the carrying on of a campaign. The Infante Don Sancho, who cherished hostile intentions against his father, compelled the Jewish treasurer to surrender the public money to him. King Alfonso was extremely enraged at this action, and, in order to teach his son a lesson, he had Don Zag arrested, put in chains, and thus fettered conducted through the city where the Infante was staying at the time. Don Sancho in vain exerted himself to procure the freedom of the Jewish Almoxarif, who was suffering for no guilt of his own; but Alfonso at once ordered his execution (1280). His displeasure was also visited upon all the Jews of Castile, who were forced to expiate their kinsman's act, which assuredly cannot be termed an oversight. The "wise" King Alfonso issued an injunction that all the Jews be imprisoned on a certain Sabbath, and exacted heavy fines from them, 12,000 maravedis every day for a stated period. The congregations were thus made to replenish the empty treasury. However, in a short time the king had to suffer severely for the violent injustice he had done to Don Zag. His son, who was embittered against him on this account, and took the ill-treatment and execution of Don Zag as a personal affront, openly rebelled against Alfonso, and drew to his side the greater portion of the nobility, the people, and the clergy. The unhappy king, who had indulged in extravagant ideals at his accession, and had hoped, as the emperor of Germany, to found a world monarchy, felt himself so deserted in his old age that in despair he appealed to a Mahometan prince to come to his help, seeing that he was "unable to find any protection or defender in his own land."

The condition of the Jews under Don Sancho, who ascended the throne when his father died grief-stricken, was tolerable, but was dependent upon caprice. This king was the first to regulate the payment of the Jew-tax (Juderia) by the congregations of New Castile, Leon, Murcia, and the newly-acquired provinces in Andalusia (la Frontera). Hitherto, every Jew had paid a capitation-tax of three maravedis (thirty dineros, about thirty-seven cents), in memory of the thirty pieces of silver guiltily paid for the death of Jesus. Don Sancho assembled deputies of the congregations at Huete, and named the total amount which every district was required to pay into the royal coffers, leaving it to the deputies to apportion this sum among the congregations and families (Sept., 1290). The commission for the newly-acquired territory in Andalusia was composed of four men. If these men found themselves unable to come to an agreement, they were to call to their aid the committee of the congregation (Aljama) of Toledo, and especially the aged David Abudarham, probably a highly respected personage. The Jews of the kingdom of Castile, whose population numbered nearly 850,000 souls, contributed 2,780,000 maravedis, part of which was the poll-tax and part the service-tax. In these provinces there were over eighty Jewish congregations, the most famous being in the capital Toledo, which, together with the adjacent smaller cities, numbered 72,000 Jews. There were also very large communities in Burgos (nearly 29,000), Carrion (24,000), Cuenca, Valladolid, and Avila. Over 3000 Jews dwelt in Madrid, which at this time had not yet attained any degree of importance. The king granted certain Jews who were his especial favorites immunity from taxation. This was the cause of much dissension, seeing that the freedom enjoyed by these usually wealthy persons fell as a heavy burden upon the body of the community, and on those less endowed with worldly goods.

At this period the Jews in the new kingdom of Portugal were very favorably placed, both under King Alfonso III (1248–1279) and King Diniz (1279–1325). Not only were they exempt from the canonical decrees which compelled the wearing of a distinctive sign and the payment of tithes to the Church, but prominent persons among them were appointed to fill very important positions. King Diniz had a Jewish minister of finance, named Judah, the chief rabbi of Portugal (Arraby Moor), who was so wealthy that he was able to advance large sums of money for the purchase of a city. Jews and Mahometans were commissioned to mete out punishment to the rebellious clergy, who, at the constant instigation of the papacy, strove to alter the national laws in accordance with canonical decisions, thus kindling fierce strife between the monarchy and the Church. In order to be at peace with the quarrelsome Church, King Diniz at length yielded, and introduced the canonical laws into his country, but made no serious attempt to carry them into effect.

Thus the Jews in the Pyrenean peninsula, in spite of the growing encroachments of the Church, in spite of its wicked desire to humiliate them, and the fanatical preaching and disputations of the mendicant friars, maintained a position superior to that held by Jews in the remaining countries of Europe. Here the pulse of spiritual life was strongest, here the character of Judaism was moulded, here questions of vital importance sprang up, were discussed, debated with passionate energy, and finally decided. Here the doctrines of Judaism were made the subject of warm debate, and the results of the scholarship and erudition of the Spanish Jews only gradually passed into the possession of the inhabitants of other countries and continents. Spain was once again, as in the ante-Maimunic epoch, elevated to the dignity of representing Judaism for the space of two centuries, and this was effected by a rabbi of remarkable genius. This rabbi was Solomon ben Abraham Ben Adret, of Barcelona (abbreviated into Rashba, born about 1245, died 1310). He was a man of penetrating and clear understanding, full of moral earnestness, of pure and unwavering belief, of mild temperament, combined with an energetic character, which prompted him to pursue with perseverance anything that he had discovered to be right. The Talmud, with its labyrinthine tracks and its hidden corners, with all the explanations and supplements of the Spanish and the French Tossafist schools, presented no more difficulty to Ben Adret than a child's primer, and he handled this enormous mass of material with such ease that he aroused the astonishment of his contemporaries. His probity at the same time guarded him from that subtle sophistry which had even then begun to be adopted in the treatment of the Talmud. Ben Adret, in Talmudical discussions, went straight to the core of a question, and did not stoop to employ stratagems or subterfuge. A Spaniard by birth, he did not altogether lack a knowledge of general science, nor disdain to pay some regard to philosophy, as long as it kept within its own province, acknowledged the doctrines of religion, and did not intrude with the desire of becoming a ruling power. He felt the necessity of interpreting those Agadic stories which gave offense by their simple literalness, and to explain them in a rational manner. While on the one side, then, he did no more than display a spirit of tolerance towards philosophy, he, on the other, had profound respect for the Kabbala, perhaps because his master Nachmani had paid such great homage to it. He confessed that he had not dived very deep into the subject, and maintained that his contemporaries who occupied themselves with the study were likewise not very profoundly initiated, and that their pretended secret traditions were idle boasts. He desired that the Kabbala be taught only in secret (esoterically), and be not expounded in public. Ben Adret's greatest power, however, lay in his acquaintance with the Talmud, because this represented to him, as it had to his teachers, the alpha and omega of all wisdom. In this he lived with his whole soul. Every Talmudical expression appeared to him to be an unfathomable well of the profoundest knowledge, and he believed that a mind completely absorbed in the study was necessary in order to reach its depths.

Such was the nature of the man to whom was allotted the task of bearing aloft the standard of Judaism in these greatly disturbed times, and of combating the extravagant stories that arose on two sides—from the philosophers and from the Kabbalists. For forty years the authority of the Rabbi of Barcelona was paramount in the religious affairs of the Jews, not alone in Spain, but also in other parts of Europe, as well as in Asia and Africa. Questions for his decision were sent to him from France, Germany, Bohemia, Italy, and even from St. Jean d'Acre (Accho) in Palestine and from northern Africa. Students from Germany sat at his feet to hear him expound the Talmud. This is the more noteworthy, as the German rabbis were proud of the learning of their own country, and would not admit the superiority of the academies of any country over their own. When David, the grandson of Maimuni, was in great need, he turned to Ben Adret to obtain assistance. David Maimuni (born 1233, died 1300), who, like his father and his grandfather, was the prince (Nagid) over all the congregations in Egypt, had been calumniated by some evil-minded enemies before the Sultan Kilavun, and accused of some crime. He put his detractors under a ban of excommunication, but it appears without effect. At all events, David hoped to be placed on a safer footing, if he succeeded in appeasing the Sultan by gifts of money. He applied to Ben Adret, and laid the story of his sufferings before him; his request met with a ready response. Ben Adret sent an envoy with a letter to the Spanish congregations to collect funds, and all the communities joyfully contributed large sums of money to aid the grandson of the highly revered Maimuni. Whenever any event of importance took place within Jewish circles, Ben Adret was appealed to for advice or assistance.

The unique distinction enjoyed by the Rabbi of Barcelona can certainly not be attributed entirely to his comprehensive knowledge, for at that time there lived many learned rabbis, and even in Spain there was one equal to him. His fellow-student and countryman, Aaron Halevi (born about 1235, died after 1300), was equally well grounded in the Talmud, also composed works on the subject, and was not his inferior even in secular knowledge.

Ben Adret, nevertheless, exercised supreme authority over all the congregations, both far and near. This superiority was conceded to him on account of his energetic, ever ready defense of Judaism against attacks from within and without.

The clouds, pregnant with destruction, which burst upon the Jews of the Pyrenean peninsula two centuries later, began to collect in the time of Ben Adret. The means which the fanatical General of the Dominicans, Raymond de Penyaforte, had devised for the conversion of the Jews, were beginning to be used. The attempts made in Spain during the period of the Visigoths, on the one hand, to work upon the feelings of the princes and legislators by means of anti-Jewish writings, and, on the other, to prevail upon the Jews to desert their faith, were renewed on a larger scale. There now came forth from the institution which had been established by Raymond de Penyaforte for the purpose of instructing the Dominican monks in the literature of the Jews and Arabs to be used as a means of conversion, a monk, who was the first man in Europe to sharpen weapons of learning for the contest against the Jews. Raymund Martin wrote two books full of malevolent hostility against Judaism, whose very titles announce that the prison cell and the sword were to be employed against its adherents. They are called "Bridle for the Jews," and "Dagger of Faith" (Capistrum Judæorum, and Pugio Fidei). Martin possessed a thorough knowledge of Biblical and rabbinical literature, and was the first Christian who was better acquainted with Hebrew than the Church Father Jerome. He read with ease the Agadic works, the writings of Rashi, Ibn-Ezra, Maimuni and Kimchi, and used them to show that, not alone in the Bible, but also in the rabbinical writings, Jesus was recognized as the Messiah and the Son of God. As might be expected, Raymund Martin laid especial stress upon the argument that the Jewish laws, although a revelation from God, were not intended to have force for ever, and they would lose their validity, particularly at the time of the Messiah. To demonstrate this point, he adduced apparent proofs from the Agadic literature of the Talmud. He also urged that the Talmudists had tampered with the text of the Bible.

Although Raymund Martin's "Dagger of Faith" was neither sharp nor pointed, and although the book is so devoid of spirit that no person could be seduced by it, yet it made a great impression because of the amount of learning displayed therein. By means of the subjoined Latin translation of the Hebrew texts, Christians for the first time were able to peer into the recesses of the Jewish world of thought, which had hitherto been an impenetrable secret to them. Dominicans, eager for the fray, were provided with weapons from this well-stocked arsenal, and aimed blows with them which, to the superficial observer, appeared to strike the air only, but which were regarded by Solomon ben Adret as fraught with danger. He very frequently had interviews with Christian theologians, and, it appears, with Raymund Martin himself. He heard from them various statements, and all sorts of arguments to prove the divine character of Christianity, and was afraid that the weak-minded and the immature might be induced thereby to abandon the Jewish belief. In order to counteract this, he wrote a small pamphlet, in which he briefly refuted all those arguments which were employed at the time by Christians against Judaism. In this refutation and justification, Ben Adret manifested a remarkable spirit of moderation and calmness: no bitter or passionate utterance escaped him.

His polemical writings against a Mahometan writer are much more severe. This author, with scathing criticism, attacked the three revealed religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and directed his arrows very cleverly against their weak points. But Ben Adret's defense is feeble: it proves the correctness of the Bible from the Bible itself, and combats his critical opponent with Talmudical weapons. He thus continually reasons in a circle, and by no means did he achieve a glorious victory. Ben Adret's activity was productive of better results within the ranks of Judaism than beyond them. His time was one of great agitation, in which science and religion were diverging more steadily and noticeably than before: piety daily widened the gulf between it and thought; and thought continually separated itself more and more from the sphere of religion. The Kabbala, growing ever bolder, interfered in the fierce battle of opinions and religious beliefs, and cast its dark shadows over the dimly illuminated basis of Judaism. The old questions, whether Maimuni was to be termed a heretic or not, whether his philosophical writings were to be shunned or indeed consigned to the flames, or whether they were to be considered a satisfactory exposition of Jewish principles,—these questions now burst into new life, and again caused divisions. In Spain and in southern France, the strife had been extinguished by the solemn repentance of the former anti-Maimunist, Jonah I. Since his time, the rabbis of these congregations held Maimuni in great reverence, and considering his ideas as indisputably conducive to the strengthening of religion, they made use of them with more or less skill and lucidity of thought. Even the most orthodox Talmudists in Spain and Provence quoted sayings of Maimuni in their expositions of religious questions. But the battle for and against Maimuni was waged on another scene of action. In the German and Italian communities, it inflamed the minds of men anew, penetrated as far as Palestine, and, as it were, enfolded all Judaism in its embrace. The German Jews, who hitherto had not shown any liking for science, and who had limited their thoughts to the narrow circle of the Talmud, were unacquainted with the work of the active spirits of Montpellier, Saragossa, and Toledo. They did not suspect that Maimuni, in addition to his code of religious laws, which they accepted, had left writings of a more questionable nature. They were now rudely awakened from their happy religious slumber, and their minds agitated with speculations upon the consequences involved in the Maimunist philosophy of religion.

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.