David of Oxford

Asher of Lincoln had a son, David, who married a local woman, Muriel, and at some point moved to Oxford, where he lived in a house on St. Aldate's (now site of the Oxford Town Hall), where Oxford Jews congregated their homes. (The illustration is by an 18th-century artist, Jonathan Skelton.)

David was one of the wealthiest Anglo-Jewish financiers of the 13th century. He was one of six wealthy Jews engaged by King Henry III to collect the tallage, the special tax the Crown often imposed on Jews to raise funds quickly for royal projects.

The Close Rolls in England were an administrative record of every letter and order issued with the authority of the Crown behind it. There is an entry from Winchester for 27 August, 1242:

For David of Oxford: The King to Masters Moses of London, Aaron of Canterbury, and Jacob of [Oxford], Jews, greeting. We do hereby forbid you to hold henceforth any plea concerning David Jew of Oxford and Muriel who was wife of the same; nor under any circumstances are you to distrain him either to take or to keep that wife or any other. Know for certainly that if you do otherwise, you will incur grave punishment therefore.

In short, the king forbade anyone (and those three in particular) from acting with any authority on the current issue of David and Muriel "who was wife of the same." Note the italics. David divorced Muriel, presumably because they were childless and he wanted a son to whom he could leave his fortune. Jewish law forbade divorcing a wife without her consent. Muriel (we assume) did not consent, and appealed for help.

She appealed to her family in Lincoln. Peytevin the Great, who had his own synagogue, appealed to the beth din (rabbinical court) in France (the rabbis of France were considered very authoritative). The word from France seemed to be that David acted improperly and must take Muriel back. An ad hoc beth din was assembled in Oxford of three men to ratify this decision and present it to David. We know who these men were because of another entry in the Close Rolls on the same date. I share the relevant part here:

... Moreover, Peytevin of Lincoln, Muriel who was the wife of David of Oxford, Benedict f. (son of) Peytevin of Lincoln, Vaalyn', and Moses de Barbun', Jews, are to appear before the aforesaid Archbishop and others of the King's council on the octave of St Michael, wheresoever they shall be in England, to show cause why they sent to France to the Jews of France to hold a chapter on the Jews of England. And the said justices are enjoined not to permit David of Oxford to be constrained to take or to keep any wife save of his own desire.

David, seeing the decision to overturn his divorce, obviously turned to the authority that could override the English Jews and give David what he wanted, the man who relied on David for ready money, King Henry III.

Tomorrow I'll tell you how it turned out, what happened to Muriel, and why David's second wife was imprisoned in the Tower of London.

Moses of Oxford

Moses of Oxford was one of the most prominent scholars and legal minds in Anglo-Jewry of the 13th century. Born in Oxford to a four-generation family of rabbis, he married into another prominent family. He had five children.

Two of his children—Elijah Menachem of London and Berachiah of Lincoln—became rabbis in England. Another son, Jacob, sold a property to Walton de Merton that became part of Merton College. Another son, Hagin, became treasurer for Richard of Cornwall and was chief rabbi of England until his death in 1280.

Moses was referred to in some documents as abir ha-olam ("the mighty one of the world"), attesting to his reputation as a scholar. One of his writings was Darchei ha-Nikud ve-ha-Neginot ("The Ways of Vowels and Accents") on the proper way to chant the Torah.

His legal decisions often disagreed with others, showing the differences that could develop between communities of Jews in different geographical locations. Moses felt it was okay to eat on Shabbat between the afternoon and evening prayer, while the tradition in France was to eat before the afternoon prayer and not after. Another question raised was whether it was permissible to allow an apostate to divorce without the wife's knowledge. Isaac be Peretz of Northampton said it was not permissible. Moses said it was fine, since a wife would benefit from no longer being married to an apostate.

Speaking of divorce, there was a particular divorce case at the time that has actually been studied quite extensively by modern historians and scholars. I keep running across it in my research, and it's time to see how it turned out and what the fuss was about. Tomorrow we'll visit David of Oxford and Muriel and Licoricia. See you then.

The Jews in Oxford

Just as London had a Jewish presence after the arrival of William and the Norman French, Oxford started to see a significant Jewish population about 10 years after the 1066 conquest. Living mostly around what was called the Great Jewry in the southern part of the city (now St. Aldate's), they held many important positions.

Their synagogue came later. An English Jew, Copin of Worcester, bought a building that belonged to a nearby priory for the purposes of making a synagogue. Extant no longer, the building was originally taken over by Balliol College.

After 1190 and the disaster at Clifford's Tower, King Richard allowed Jews to have a cemetery outside of London. It was established in Oxford, but had to be moved in 1231 when Henry III gave the land to St. John the Baptist Hospital. The place it was moved to is now the Oxford University Botanic Garden, and only a plaque remains there to acknowledge the cemetery. (The illustration shows the first plaque, placed in 1931. A more informative plaque was created later and can be seen here.)

Besides being moneylenders, Jews in Oxford were also landlords. Up to 10% of early student housing is estimated to have been owned by Jews. Lombard Hall, Moses Hall, and Jacob Hall were owned by Jews and rented to students.

Jews were not allowed to attend any of the Oxford colleges; that was reserved for Christians. But scholars consulted with Jews, one of whom was Moses of Oxford. Tomorrow we'll learn more about him.

Old Jewry

In the City of London there is a street still called Old Jewry, currently dominated mostly by financial offices. In 2001 the remains of a mikveh (ritual bath, requiring fresh flowing water) was discovered in the area, attesting to its former Jewish occupation. It would have been abandoned when the Jews were expelled in 1290 by King Edward I.

(The illustration shows Old Jewry on the Agas Map, a woodcut made of London probably in the 1560s. It shows Old Jewry [in yellow] linking Poultry Street to Gresham Street. The street is still called Old Jewry, as you can see in the illustration to this 2012 post.)

Although Jews could travel anywhere and any time, they likely came to England in larger numbers from Rouen after 1066, when William invited them to take up residence. By that time Jews were well-known as money-lenders, and William knew he would need money to finance his consolidation of his new country.

Because of their financial importance to the Crown, London Jews were given rights by some kings. William's son William Rufus even brought rabbis and priests together in London to debate religion, teasing his priests that if the Jews won then Rufus would convert.

After the suspicious death of Rufus, Henry I continued the royal policy of giving the Jews privileges unavailable to regular subjects. Jews were a valuable source of financial support; the king would occasionally tax them to raise money quickly. Henry issued a royal charter giving Jews certain protections and freedoms. Jews were given freedom of movement without having to pay the king's tolls, the right to be tried by their Jewish peers, and the right to swear on the Torah in a court of law.

Besides the mikveh, Jewry street also contained the Great Synagogue, which was closed in 1272 after the death of Henry III—who "supported" the Jews with his charity institution, the Domus Conversorum ("House of Converts") placed on the western edge of London far from Jewry, possibly to help prevent apostasy—and the rise to power of Edward I.

One of the other chief locations of Jews in England after they came from the continent in the 11th century was Oxford, and we'll look at their presence there tomorrow.

Ashkenazi and Sephardic and Mizrahi

The difference between different groups of Jews starts with the Jewish Diaspora, the displacement of Israelites outside of the Southern Levant. Because Jews traveled to various parts of the known world and inter-communication was not as easy as it is today, over time they developed their own customs, religious practices, language, foods, etc.

The three major ethnic divisions are the Ashkenazi, the Sephardic, and the Mizrahi. (Much of the following comes from chabad.org.)

The group most familiar to Western Europe and America is the Ashkenazi, the Jews who settled in France, Germany, and Eastern Europe. The Hebrew word "Ashkenaz" refers to Germany. Over time their language evolved to a blend of Hebrew with German and Slavic vocabulary; this language is what we call Yiddish.

The Sephardic Jews settled in the Iberian Peninsula ("Sepharad" refers to Spain). Their Hebrew was blended with Old Spanish and Portuguese into a dialect called Ladino.

Jews who migrated to the Middle East and North Africa are the Mizrahi. Living among Arabs, dialects associated with the Mizrahim are Judeo-Iranian, Judeo-Persian, and Neo-Aramaic.

Culinary tastes differ among the different ethnic groups. The Ashkenazi are associated with gefilte fish, matzo ball soup, and (after the European discovery of the Americas) potato kugel. During Passover, legumes and rice are forbidden. Sephardic Jews do not restrict these foods during Passover; their cuisine is more heavily spiced than Ashkenazi foods, and they have slow-cooked Sabbath stews. The Mizrahim also allow legumes and rice. Charoset, a sweet staple of Passover, is made from dried fruits, chiefly dates, and has a thick consistency for the Mizrahim. Among the Ashkenazi, charoset is made with apples and nuts, spiced with wine and cinnamon.

There are more profound differences. Sephardic Jews keep their Torah scrolls upright when reading. Ashkenazi lay them flat. Ashkenazi synagogues are arranged with seats facing forward; Sephardic synagogues arrange seating around a central reading table.

Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews tended to be more integrated into the local (largely Arabic or Muslim) culture, whereas in Christian territory Jews dealt with the constant tension of being distrusted by their neighbors, accused of crimes, and segregated into ghettos.

The origin of the word ghetto is disputed, but it seems likely that it comes from a Venetian decree in 1516 that Jews in the city must live in the Cannaregio district. The Cannaregio was where cannons were made, and the word "ghetto" means "foundry." But since that was the 16th century and a little late for a blog with "medieval" in its name, let's look at an earlier situation when Jews were settled in a specific part of town: the Old Jewry of London. See you next time.

Rashi's Writings

The first book printed in Hebrew with a date on it was printed in Italy and dated 18 February 1475. It was a commentary by Rashi on the Chumash (the first five books of the Bible, the Torah, as distinguished from a Torah scroll, which was made by hand on special parchment).

This commentary was completed late in his life (1040 - 1105), and may be a compilation of the lectures he offered at the yeshiva (college) he founded in Troyes. There is a recent phrase in social media: ELI5, which means "Explain Like I'm 5," asking the teacher to put something into very simple terms for easy understanding. Rashi's commentary has been described as so simple that a five-year-old could understand what he is saying.

His focus seemed to be on grammar and syntax, and he defined unusual Hebrew words to explain why that word was chosen over another and the nuances of word choice. He was careful to distinguish between the plain meaning of a word and the rabbinic interpretation of it.

Rashi also wrote the first (near-)comprehensive commentary on the Talmud (the primary source of Jewish law). Phrase by phrase, he went through 30 of the 39 tractates (organizational elements), explaining the meaning of the words and their result. To make things more comprehensive, he often used analogies to common knowledge of daily life, professions, or crafts. He also translated difficult Hebrew or Aramaic words into the local language, Norman French. This attention to vocabulary has given modern scholars insight into spoken French of the 11th century.

His commentaries became "instant classics." They were copied and spread far and wide and embraced by both Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.

Near the end of his life he experienced the mass murders of Jews caused by the followers of the People's Crusade (the unofficial first phase of the First Crusade) as they traveled through Europe, fired up with pro-Christian sentiment and the fervor to free the Holy land from non-Christians. Rashi wrote several poems mourning the destruction. Three sons of his teacher, Isaac ben Eliezer Halevi, were killed during this time.

Rashi died at the age of 65 and was buried in Troyes. Although the location of his grave was noted, that information was lost over time. The Jewish cemetery land is now a public square in Troyes, and a monument to Rashi was erected by French Jews. There is a legend, however, that because of the prominence of his life and works—impossible to produce by an ordinary man in one lifetime—that he was so clearly inspired by the Shekinah, the Holy Spirit, that he did not die a natural death. Instead, he was assumed bodily into heaven like the prophet Elijah.

The fifth paragraph mentions that his commentaries were accepted by both Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews. What was the difference, and why did it exist? I'll explain that tomorrow.

Apostasy

"Apostasy" is the abandonment or renunciation of a religious (or political) belief. Yesterday's post on Canon 70 of the Fourth Lateran Council discussed the concern over Jews who converted to Christianity turning back to Judaism again.

First, let's address why Jews would convert to Christianity. Some did so to escape the oppressive taxation meted out by governments who used Jews as their purse because Jews were so often money-lenders. Another reason might be the opportunity to advance a political or professional career in fields where the Christian (or Islamic) authorities would not hire Jews. They might have wanted to get out of the ghetto, the place to which Jews were restricted, instead of living in the nicer parts of the city. And let's not omit the possibility of a real change of faith and acceptance of Christianity.

How were conversions received by those who "stayed behind"?

Rabbinic authorities debated whether those who converted were traitors to the faith or victims. Many conversions were victims, because they were coerced under threat of death. Forced baptisms also took place. This could lead to Marranos, so-called "crypto-Jews": individuals who lived publicly as Christians but secretly kept Jewish practices at home. The Spanish Inquisition went after Marranos and Moriscos (converted Muslims) with severe penalties for any who were not fully embracing Christianity and abandoning all facets of their former faith.

Sometimes agreeing to conversion to avoid death did not work because the Christians offering "salvation" were out for blood anyway. Some Jewish parents would kill their children and then themselves in order to avoid forced conversion.

The apostate who turned from Judaism to Christianity was in a strange state of limbo, being neither fish nor fowl. Former fellow Jews rejected him, and Christians still looked at him askance. If he wished to return to Judaism, his former neighbors still might feel awkward, but official rabbinical attitudes were different.

The rabbinic scholar Rashi (1040 - 1105; mentioned here) claimed a Jew remains a Jew regardless. A Jew who fell away from the faith could simply return to Jewish practices and be fine. Another, Gershom ben Judah (c.960 - 1040), forbade mistreating an apostate who returned to Judaism or even mentioning their past choices. This was different from Christian and Muslim attitudes toward those who left those faiths.

Rashi's pronouncements were so respected that he became legendary. Seriously: legends arose about him, even miracles performed while he was in the womb. Let's meet him next time.

Race and Ethnicity: Canon 70

After the past few entries concerning the anti-Jewish Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, we come finally to Canon 70, dealing with Jews who convert to Christianity but might change their minds at a later date:

Some, we understand, who voluntarily approached the waters of holy baptism, do not entirely cast off the old man that they may more perfectly put on the new one, because, retaining remnants of the former rite, they obscure by such a mixture the beauty of the Christian religion. But since it is written: "Accursed is the man that goeth on the two ways" (Ecclesiastes 2:14), and "a garment that is woven together of woolen and linen" (Deuteronomy 22:2) ought not to be put on, we decree that such persons be in every way restrained by the prelates from the observance of the former rite, that, having given themselves of their own free will to the Christian religion, salutary coercive action may preserve them in its observance, since not to know the way of the Lord is a lesser evil than to retrace one's steps after it is known.

Essentially, if a Jew has converted, it is important that bishops and others prevent them from being exposed to Jewish rites lest they turn away from Christianity. If not being a Christian was bad, then being Christian and deliberately abandoning it was even worse.

This was not the same as being a non-Christian in the first place, since "ignorance of the law was an excuse." If you had not been made Christian through lack of exposure (or coercion), you were simply non-Christian and living in error. But to deliberately turn away from a Christian life was a subversion of the social order according to the Justinian Code.

This was worse than being a heretic. A heretic was a Christian who erroneously believed certain points that were counter to the accepted tenets. A heretic was still a Christian, and persuasion (or coercion) could bring the "lost sheep" more fully into the fold.

An unrepentant apostate could be excommunicated, a way of saying "You want to quit? Well, then you're fired!"

Augustine of Hippo claimed that the "gift of perseverance" in Christian faith was a gift from God, and that an individual cannot know if God has granted them this gift. Without it, it was possible that a Christian might leave the faith.

How did Jews look at those of their faith who converted? Let's talk about that tomorrow.

Race and Ethnicity: Canon 69

The attempt to limit contact with Jews in public and keep their public authority diminished forced them to wind up being more crucial than ever to society as the money-lenders for which they were reviled.

Canon 69 of the Fourth Lateran Council decreed that Jews should be prevented from exerting any kind of political authority:

Since it is absurd that a blasphemer of Christ exercise authority over Christians, we on account of the boldness of transgressors renew in this general council what the Synod of Toledo wisely enacted in this matter, prohibiting Jews from being given preference in the matter of public offices, since in such capacity they are most troublesome to the Christians. But if anyone should commit such an office to them, let him, after previous warning, be restrained by such punishment as seems proper by the provincial synod which we command to be celebrated every year. The official, however, shall be denied the commercial and other intercourse of the Christians, till in the judgment of the bishop all that he acquired from the Christians from the time he assumed office be restored for the needs of the Christian poor, and the office that he irreverently assumed let him lose with shame. The same we extend also to pagans.

The Third Synod of Toledo in 589CE was organized by Bishop Leander of Seville who had worked to convert the Visigoths and King Reccared from Arianism to Roman Catholicism. It resulted in Visigothic Spain officially becoming part of the Roman Catholic Church. Its14th Canon forbade Jews to take Christian wives or concubines or slaves. Children from such a union were to be baptized. Jews were disqualified from any position that would give them authority over Christians. Christian slaves forced into following Jewish practices were to be freed.

Note that anyone who does hire or appoint a Jew to a position of authority where they make decisions that affect Christians is himself guilty and deserving of punishment. The Jew will be forced to return any material gain he had from Christians during the time in office, the value to be used for poor Christians.

(I apologize for "getting political," but I cannot help thinking of a current situation in the United States where immigrants are castigated for "taking jobs" from Americans, when the "crime"—if there is one—was committed by the business owners who, knowing the law, hired non-citizens in the first place. The workers suffer and the folk responsible are untouched.)

Denied the opportunity for many positions for which a Jew might have plenty of knowledge and skill—was this a reason why some Jews turned to lending money? If this was one profession that you were allowed and  Christians did not generally go for, why not become a money-lender, which in some ways gave you more power over Christians than any public office? There were, of course, other options for employment, as in becoming a scribe as depicted in the illustration above, showing Jewish scribes from a 1283 Spanish work.

In the later Middle Ages, even as Jews were looked on with suspicion if not outright hostility, Jews were sometime valued for the skills they possessed. It was not unknown for the wealthy and nobility to retain Jews as physicians.

The final Canon of the Fourth Lateran, number 70, was concerned with apostasy. We'll wrap this up next time.

Race and Ethnicity: Canon 68

Continuing our look at the final four Canons of the proceedings of the 1215 Fourth Lateran Council, we come to Canon 68, which wanted to make sure everyone knew who a Jew (or Muslim) was, so they could avoid them if desired.

In some provinces a difference in dress distinguishes the Jews or Saracens from the Christians, but in certain others such a confusion has grown up that they cannot be distinguished by any difference. Thus it happens at times that through error Christians have relations with the women of Jews or Saracens, and Jews and Saracens with Christian women. Therefore, that they may not, under pretext of error of this sort, excuse themselves in the future for the excesses of such prohibited intercourse, we decree that such Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress. Particularly, since it may be read in the writings of Moses, that this very law has been enjoined upon them.

"The writings of Moses" refers to Numbers 15:37-41, God's commandment to the Israelites to wear tassels with blue thread on the corners of their garments. Like tying a string around your finger to remember something, these tassels (called tzitzit) are supposed to be a reminder to keep all God's commandments.

The segregation of Jews was even more severe during important Christian Holy Days:

Moreover, during the last three days before Easter and especially on Good Friday, they shall not go forth in public at all, for the reason that some of them on these very days, as we hear, do not blush to go forth better dressed and are not afraid to mock the Christians who maintain the memory of the most holy Passion by wearing signs of mourning.

(Of course there would be times a Passover celebration would overlap Easter.)

This, however, we forbid most severely, that any one should presume at all to break forth in insult to the Redeemer. And since we ought not to ignore any insult to Him who blotted out our disgraceful deeds, we command that such impudent fellows be checked by the secular princes by imposing them proper punishment so that they shall not at all presume to blaspheme Him who was crucified for us.

Notice that this does not specify how Jews should be marked differently in their garments. This became in modern times the wearing of the yellow Star of David, a symbol of 20th century oppression in Germany specifically.

In 13th-century England, however, Henry III (who also gave Jews a way to "redeem" themselves) forced them to wear two rectangular patches of a pale color (the assumption is to resemble the tablets of Moses). Earlier, however, the 581CE Synod of Macon specified an oval badge in the center of their garment "the measure of one finger in width and one half a palm in height." In 16th-century Worms they were compelled to wear a yellow ring (illustration).

The next Canon further attempted to keep Jews segregated from others, as we'll see tomorrow.

Race and Ethnicity: Canon 67

Today we look specifically at the institutional racism against Jews established by Pope Innocent III in the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215. Of the 70 canons of the council proceedings, the final four were about Jews. It is worth looking at these in their entirety.

Canon 67 blames Jews for the poor planning of the Gentiles who became indebted to Jewish money-lenders and could not repay the debt. This is blamed on the ability of Jews to charge interest, called usury by the Church and considered sinful and un-Christian.

The more the Christians are restrained from the practice of usury, the more are they oppressed in this matter by the treachery of the Jews, so that in a short time they exhaust the resources of the Christians. Wishing, therefore, in this matter to protect the Christians against cruel oppression by the Jews, we ordain in this decree that if in the future under any pretext Jews extort from Christians oppressive and immoderate interest, the partnership of the Christians shall be denied them till they have made suitable satisfaction for their excesses. The Christians also, every appeal being set aside, shall, if necessary, be compelled by ecclesiastical censure to abstain from all commercial intercourse with them. We command the princes not to be hostile to the Christians on this account, but rather to strive to hinder the Jews from practicing such excesses. Lastly, we decree that the Jews be compelled by the same punishment (avoidance of commercial intercourse) to make satisfaction for the tithes and offerings due to the churches, which the Christians were accustomed to supply from their houses and other possessions before these properties, under whatever title, fell into the hands of the Jews, that thus the churches may be safeguarded against loss.

There were several reasons why usury was condemned in the Middle Ages.

Aristotle and Aquinas thought of money as "sterile" in that it was just a thing that did not reproduce or grow. Making money "grow" by charging a fee was considered unnatural and inappropriate.

A loan was not something one did to buy a car or get a mortgage: it was used in time of serious need. In this situation, making the desperate person pay back more when they are financially disadvantaged was considered to be taking advantage of someone at a vulnerable time in their life.

Paying interest was all about tying money to time, making money "worth more" simply because time has passed. Your money does not expand just because time goes by. Usury was seen as "selling time" or taking advantage of time, which was created by and managed by and belonged to God.

Also, quite simply, asking for more money back showed the sin of Avarice, and gaining more money than loaned out could lead to not needing to work, and therefore promote idleness/sloth.

We'll continue with the other canons tomorrow.

Race and Ethnicity, Part 3

Modern ideas of race and racism are largely based on skin color, but the Middle Ages saw many other factors. To quote (again) Regino of Prüm:

"Nor should it be forgotten that, just as different nations of people differ from one another in race [genus], customs [mores], language [lingua], and laws [leges], so the holy universal church spread throughout the whole world, although united in the unity of faith, nevertheless differs from one another in ecclesiastical customs."

There were other factors that distinguished "The Other" from oneself: religion, economic class, geographic origin, even clothing. The illustration you can see if you follow the link in the first paragraph uses a turban and bushy beard to indicate a man from Africa, not skin color.

It would be difficult to argue that religion was a prime factor in distinguishing race, and such a strong part of a cultural identity that those of other religions were a danger to the self and the body politic. Although using factors that indicate a different race did not necessarily lead to racism, religion as a factor led to outright hostility.

Of course the primary example of religion-based race leading to prominent racism is the Western European attitude toward Jews: 

...the periodic exterminations of Jews in Europe, the demand that they mark their bodies and the bodies of their children with a large visible badge, the herding of Jews into specific towns in England to monitor their livelihoods, and the vilification of Jews for supposedly possessing a fetid stench, a male menses, subhuman and bestial qualities, and a congenital need to ingest the blood of Christian children whom they tortured and crucified to death... [source]

For Western Europe, and particularly countries that wholly expelled Jews, religion was the deciding factor.

Jews were not the only religion that came under fire. Bernard of Clairvaux, asked to write a rule for the newly formed Knights of the Order of the Temple (Templars), proclaims that the killing of Muslims was not homicide by malicide, the killing of evil incarnate. The Crusades could be seen as a form of institutionalized racism.

The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 called by Pope Innocent III published Canon 68, cementing racist law against Jews. We'll look at the details and outcome tomorrow.

Eleanor the Queen

A queen can have several duties, one of which is to produce heirs that can either succeed their parents or be used to make politically advantageous marriages. Eleanor of Provence was one of four sisters each of whom became a queen. Eleanor was married to King Henry III of England, and exercised a great deal of influence in England, even if she was disliked by the citizens of London.

Her relationship with Henry was very strong, and he did his best to care for his young wife (they were married when she was not yet a teenager and he was 28). He embarked on a campaign of updating and decorating royal apartments. They had their own rooms, but he made sure they were next to each other. If the queen's apartments were in a separate building or other part of the palace, he made sure the distance between them had covered walkways so she could visit his apartments in comfort.

The two often appeared in public in matching outfits, and Henry made sure her residences had furniture and trappings equal to his. For the wedding of their daughter, Margaret, to King Alexander III of Scotland, they wore matching cloth of gold.

Eleanor also matched her husband in religious devotion. Henry had a special love of King Edward the Confessor, and instilled in Eleanor the same religious fervor. In 1250 she and Henry vowed to go on Crusade, and she vowed that after his death she would enter a nunnery.

She had close relationships with some of the greatest English minds of that era: Adam Marsh, Robert Grosseteste of London (the bishop, not the Oxford scholar), and royal physician and Bishop of Durham Nicholas Farnham.

Part of that religious devotion expressed itself in an act of anti-semitism shortly after Henry died. Henry had created in 1232 the Domus Conversorum ("House of Converts") in the west of London, a place where Jews who converted to Christianity would be housed, fed, given a stipend, and instructed in their new faith and made to pray for the king, his ancestors, and his descendants. Henry died in 1272, succeeded by his eldest son, Edward. In 1275 Eleanor sought, and received, permission from King Edward I to expel Jews from the lands given to her, in Marlborough, Gloucester (told to go to Bristol, but choosing Hereford since Bristol was known to have plenty of anti-semitism), Worcester (told to go to Hereford), and Cambridge (told to flee to Norwich).

Edward was raised by his mother to be hostile to Jews, and used the crime of coin-clipping as an excuse to punish them. This was a prelude to 1290, when Edward expelled all Jews from England.

Eleanor retired after Henry's death to Amesbury Priory, where two of her granddaughters were already nuns. She died in June 1291 and was buried at the Priory in a location that is now unknown—the only English queen whose grave is unmarked (except for her heart, which was buried at the Franciscan priory Greyfriars in London).

Of her children, Edward became king, Margaret became queen of Scotland, Beatrice became Duchess of Brittany, and Edmund became Earl of Leicester and Lancaster. Edmund had a nickname, "Crouchback," which sounds like something worth discussing. See you tomorrow.

Second Barons' War Against the Jews

In February 1264, after the Mise of Amiens, the fighting between the forces of Simon de Montfort and King Henry III began in earnest. One of the biggest moves made by the rebels was the attacks on the Jews.

Part of the Provisions of Oxford created by the barons was demanding the cancellation of Jewish debts. Attacks on Jewish communities were devastating. Henry de Montfort and Robert Earl Ferrers led an attack that killed most of the Jews in Worcester. Robert had borrowed heavily from the Jews of Worcester. He plundered homes and religious houses and stole the records of loans.

Another of the rebels, John fitz John, was part of the attack on Jews in London where 500 were killed.  John fitz John was said to have killed two of the leading Jewish figures, Isaac son of Aaron and Cok son of Abraham, with his bare hands. There was no offering to the Jews the choice of converting to Christianity as was sometimes offered in the past (such as the story of Clifford's Tower, although that was a cruel lie). The records of the Domus Conversorum ("House of Converts") established by Henry for converted Jews show no Jews were admitted in that year. A few were sent to the Tower of London for incarceration.

Simon the Younger extended his anti-Jewish pogroms to Winchester, Lincoln, and Cambridge. Gilbert de Clare, the 7th Earl of Gloucester whose father had been a royalist but who decided to join the rebels once he gained the title, led the attacks on Jews in Canterbury (where a few Jewish women were forced to convert) and Northampton.

The chief goal was less religious than financial. Since the incident at Clifford's Tower, the Crown had established a method for keeping track of Jewish debt. It was easier for the king to tax the Jews whenever he needed money than to get it from the barons. The Crown therefore desired to have accurate records of who owed what to whom. Cities and towns with large Jewish populations maintained archa, chests in which records were kept that the king could check on any time. The attacks not only killed Jews, they destroyed the archa to erase any records of debt.

The tide for the Barons was starting to turn, however. See you tomorrow.

The Second Barons' War—Causes

The Second Barons' War started in 1264 by Simon de Montfort, the 6th Earl of Leicester, against King Henry III of England. Henry was relying to much on favorites for advice—many of them from France, which annoyed the English lords—and the barons of the land wanted to have more authority in guiding king and country.

Ironically, de Montfort was one of those French foreigners whom Henry favored with not only his title (originally withheld, though his by right through his English mother), but also by marriage to Henry's sister. Such a royal marriage was a political matter, and traditionally the barons would be consulted. So de Montfort himself was one of the reasons the barons were not pleased with their king.

de Montfort started to turn against Henry when de Montfort was put on trial for actions in Gascony. He had been named governor of Gascony in 1248, whereupon he exercised his authority by suppressing the local lords' excessive behavior. Although ultimately acquitted of improper behavior, de Montfort was relieved of the title in 1252, and Henry himself went to Gascony to reconcile with the locals.

The insult to de Montfort caused a falling out between him and Henry.

Another point of contention was the control the king had over the Jewish population. (See the Statute of Jewry post.) Often, when the king wanted an influx of money, he would tax the Jewish population exorbitantly. The Jewish moneylenders would sometimes raise cash quickly by selling the debt contracts to someone with money to buy them. A wealthy lord would buy the contracts at a cheaper price, then start to collect (rather than use the long-term method of allowing interest to grow, since Christians were forbidden to charge interest). This impoverished many.

The death of Hugh of Lincoln in 1255, blamed on the Jews, also inflamed anti-semitism. That, debts barons owed to Jews, and anti-Jewish policies promoted by the Church helped give de Montfort an enemy and motivation to create widespread change to the political system. He called for the cancellation of all Jewish debt. (Note that France was more anti-Jew than England, having expelled all Jews in 1182 by order of King Philip II shortly after his coronation.) de Montfort himself expelled all Jews from Leicester back in 1231.

Another point of contention between the barons and the king was Henry's attempt to gain the throne of Sicily for his son Edmund, which he attempted to buy from Pope Innocent IV. The barons objected to Henry's attempt to raise money and start a war against the Hohenstaufens for Sicily.

This gave the barons an opening to curb the king's power, however. They would agree to make up the financial losses of his war for Sicily, if he would agree to some demands of theirs. I'll explain the deal they made next time.

The Hebrew Calendar

One of the oldest calendars in continuous use is the Hebrew Calendar. It was not just a way of counting days to get through a solar cycle, however. It was also a constant reminder of the relationship between God and his creations, since rituals and celebrations were not to be ignored or performed arbitrarily.

Jewish scholars attempted to determine the year based on the creation of the world after counting the genealogies in the Torah. By the 4th century CE it was decided that the world began in what the Christian world would call 3761/0 BC.

Because of Genesis 1:5 ("There was evening and there was morning, one day"), it was clear that the day begins with evening, and so sunset is the start of a new day, and the day ends at the following sunset. Festival days begin at sunset the night before the daytime. (The International Date Line observed by much of the world creates some debate for the Jewish calendar.)

Because the Jewish calendar follows lunar cycles, each month begins with the new moon—easy to observe. This does not account for the extra days it takes for the Earth to go around the Sun, however, so between the years 70 and 1178 CE, a series of mathematical formulae were devised to try to keep up.

The "New Year" has more than one meaning in the Jewish calendar. The 1st day of the month of Tishrei is Rosh Hashanah and the start of the civil year. The 1st of Nisan, however is the start of the ecclesiastical year, the date from which festivals are counted. This puts Passover (14 Nisan) in the "first month" and Rosh Hashanah in the 7th, despite the previous statement.

Leap months have to be added every 19 years. Sometimes the year's length has to be altered by adding or removing a day from a month. When this is done, the danger is that Rosh Hashanah's day has shifted. There are important rules for making sure Rosh Hashanah is honored properly.

The man who studied the calendar carefully and helped determine many of its features that help decide when events take place was Nahshon ben Zadok, head of the Academy of Sura in the 9th century. We'll talk about him next time.

If you want a more detailed version of the Gregorian/Jewish image above, see this one.

The Enactments of SHU"M

The Roman Catholic Church and its followers tried many times to make up sets of rules for interaction with Jews. The Fourth Lateran comes to mind, as does Henry III's Statute of Jewry in 1253 (and his founding of the Domus Conversorum in 1232).

Likewise, Jewish communities sometimes had to establish their own set of policies and practices to govern themselves. After the Rhineland Massacres, three towns of the Rhineland banded together to devise a set of regulations for the future.

The towns were Speyer, Worms, and Mainz, who had suffered in spring of 1096 as the People's Crusade led by Peter the Hermit ravaged them. The leading Jews of the towns created the Enactments of SHU"M. SHU"M comes from the Hebrew names of the towns: Shpira, Vermayza, and Magentza.

The Enactmnets did not happen immediately, though they were a response to further strife that was started because of 1096. Itinerant merchants felt that travel was no longer safe, and so they settled in the towns and became local merchants or, in many cases, moneylenders. This situation created more contact between Jew and Gentile, leading to more problems between the two groups. The Crusades' need for funds also meant more and heavier taxes being levied against Jews.

The first example of such a system appeared in France. About 1160, a synod was held in Troyes, arranged by Jacob ben Meir (1100 - 1171, depicted above), a well-respected teacher (and grandson of Rashi). He, his brother, and over 250 rabbis from all over France gathered to create decrees that would affect the Jewish community as well as when they would rely on Gentile legal systems as opposed to their own. Some of the decisions they wanted people to accept were:

• A strengthening of a ban on polygamy.
• A dispute between Jews over money should not go to a secular court; the beth din, the rabbinical court, should settle it. It should only go to secular authorities if one of the people involved would not accept the decision of the beth din.
• In the case of the Jewish communities own tax system (called the kehillah), a person disputing the tax should pay it first and then bring his or her case to the beth din.
• If you offer a space you own to be used as a synagogue, you cannot restrict it to only certain members of the congregation. You just allow or deny all members.

SHU"M happened a couple generations later, at a synod in Mainz, agreeing to most of the decisions out of Troyes, but adding their own:

• Anyone who informed on another Jew was served with a cherem (essentially an excommunication) until restitution was made.
• No exceptions to kehillah-imposed taxes.
• Lending money to other Jews must follow strict adherence to the halakhot, the body of Jewish law.
• It was prohinbited to call anyone a mamzer (bastard, or any result of an improper relationship).
• If someone dies leaving young children, the estate may be used for their education, even if the deceased left other instructions in their will.

Many of these are still followed, and they have been added to over time.

This has been an important aside after the post on the Rhineland Massacres. Time tomorrow to go back to see what the People's Crusade was getting up to once they reached the Mediterranean.

The Man Who Found the Lost Tribes

The Tribe of Dan, one of the 12 Tribes of Israel, was compared to a lion's whelp by Moses, signifying strength (Deuteronomy 33:22). Numbers 2:25-31 tells how they filled the rearguard while the Israelites marched through the wilderness, protecting the other tribes.

When the Israelites reached Canaan, the Danites were given territory in the western coastal plains, but suffered from encounters with the Philistines. They therefore looked for other lands to inhabit. Judges 18 tells that they moved far north and captured and renamed a peaceful city.

There are theories that they were one of the first of the tribes to travel so far that they were "lost." This brings us to the Jews in Ethiopia and Eldad ha-Dani. 

Eldad ben Maḥli ha-Dani was active c. 851 – c. 900, traveling all over and writing about his thoughts and theories. Besides being a merchant, he studied the different dialects he found during his wanderings, writing about them in his work, the Sefer Eldad, which has been a valuable resource for scholars of the languages used by Jews.

Outside of writing about language, his accounts are too fanciful to be taken at face value. He writes that he and a companion from the Tribe of Asher sailed on a boat that was wrecked in a storm, but God saved them in a box which then came ashore among Ethiopians who ate his much larger companion. Eldad was put in a pit to be fattened up to be eaten, but another tribe attacked the cannibals and took Eldad prisoner. After four years he was taken to a place called Azanian (theorized to be southern Africa), where he was exchanged for 32 pieces of gold to a Jewish merchant from the Tribe of Issachar.

He claimed knowledge of some of the Lost Tribes. Dan traveled to Kush (in Africa), and was later joined by Asher, Gad, and Naphtali. The four tribes were nomadic and fought constantly with the Ethiopian kings. They have the Scriptures except for the Book of Esther and Lamentations. They know the Talmud, but have none of the commentaries by Talmud scholars.

There is more, but that is enough to know that his account—although widely accepted for a few centuries—was looked at with raised eyebrows by later scholars. One of his claims, however, corresponded with a claim made in another document, and that may have created a medieval legend that would not die.

Eldad wrote that, on the other side of the river of Kush where these Jewish tribes lived, there was the Bnei Moshe, the Tribe of Levi, surrounded by the River Sambastion. Sambastion flows with sand and stones for six days and stops on the Sabbath. Fire surrounds the river, and no one can approach it. The other tribes communicate with the Bnei Moshe by yelling across the distance.

Curiously, this place is described in a different medieval story, and it ties into the legend of a powerful Christian king outside of Europe, a king that the Crusades hoped to contact and ally with during the Crusades. Tomorrow we touch on the subject of Prester John.

Beta Israel and Ethiopia

Beta Israel (Ge'ez for "House of Israel") is the name for Jews who established a presence in the Kingdom of Aksum, supposedly during the 4th century. According to a 9th-century Jewish traveler, Eldad ha-Dani, they were members of the Tribe of Dan who traveled south along the Nile to wind up in Aksum in Abyssinia (Ethiopia and Eritrea). Separated from their homeland, their traditions were different from those of Jews in the Middle East.

A Jewish-Italian traveler and Jewish scholar, Elijah of Ferrara, writes to his children in 1435 that he had encountered a member of this group. He says they follow a blend of oral and written traditions, that they did not observe Hanukkah, were not familiar with the Talmud, and that they included the Book of Esther (a later addition to the Bible that does not mention God and whose historicity has been questioned).

Around that time, Ethiopian missionaries decided to evangelize the Jewish communities in the Semien Mountains, which led to rebellion. The rebellion was dealt with brutally by Emperor Zara Yaqob (1399 - 1468), who mounted a strong campaign against any un-Christian practices. Zara Yaqob in one chronicle was given the title "Exterminator of the Jews."

The 1500s saw the Chief Rabbi of Egypt acknowledging the Beta Israel as "ethnically Jewish." It also saw the imam of the Adal Sultanate (an eastern region of Ethiopia populated by Muslims) attacking Ethiopia, forcing Emperor Dawit II to hide in the Semien Mountains. Pursuing him, the imam found the Jewish community there, who promised to be loyal to the imam if he would free them from persecution by the Christians. He did so, but later they switched their allegiance back to Dawit's son Galawdewos when he became emperor.

Revolts of the Beta Israel in 1614 and 1625 led to the successful suppression of their independence. The Jewish became forbidden in Ethiopia, and much of their culture was lost. The mid-19th century saw the beginning of "modern Ethiopia"; at the time, there were at least 200,000 Jews living there. Although there were still attempts to convert them, and questions as to how Jewish they were (compared to "mainstream" Middle Eastern Judaism), the Beta Israel community exists today.

The man who claimed they were of the Tribe of Dan traveled extensively and had many stories of the Lost Tribes of Israel in the Middle Ages. Let's see what he had to say next time.

Jews in Aragon

The subject of Jews and their treatment in the Iberian Peninsula has cropped up several times in this blog, regarding individuals like Isaac Abrabanel, or how Portugal was a safe place until Ferdinand and Isabella's Alhambra Decree of 1492. Jews in several European countries were protected by the rulers because of their learning, their hard-working natures, and their ability to generate large amounts of wealth from which a ruler could borrow or which a ruler could unfairly tax.

Aragon was no exception. James I of Aragon (1208 - 1276) issued a decree:

All Jews and Saracens dwelling in our domains belong to the king and are, with all their possessions, under the king's especial protection. Any one of them who shall place himself under the protection of a nobleman shall lose his head; and all his possessions, wherever they be, shall be forfeited to the king.

This ensured that no non-Christian would place themselves in a feudal relationship with anyone else. It also meant that no Jew or Saracen could be made a prisoner of anyone but the king. Jews and Muslims had complete freedom of movement in the kingdom of Aragon; no one should harm the king's "property."

This did not give them complete social equality, of course. Jews lived in special areas of the cities unless they had the king's permission. They could not move to another city without permission. Trade with Christians needed special permission. Without the king's permission (yes, that word is being used a lot), they could not build a synagogue, create a cemetery or a school, or even buy wheat to make their bread.

James also tried to determine the rightness of Christianity by arranging the Disputation of Barcelona, pitting a converted Jew, the Dominican Friar Pablo Christiani, against the leading Jewish scholar Moshe ben Nachman, called Nachmanides. The debate was chiefly on the question "Was Jesus the Messiah?" (Christianity was declared the winner, but James gave Nachmanides 300 gold coins for his performance.)

James valued Jews for their knowledge and work ethic. A confident and close member of James' administration was his head bailiff and royal treasurer, Jehudano de Cavallería (1227 - 1286). James also had two Jews as his personal physicians, Masters David and Solomon, and the Jew Master Samson was physician to his queen.

Pope Clement IV tried to stop this tolerance of the Jews, but James was immune. His son, Pedro III, eventually relented and went so far as to agree to prohibit Jews from the position of bailiff. Jews had been too generous in their financial support of Aragonese wars and its navy to treat them too harshly; in fact, they were forgiven taxes for several years because of their donations to ship-building needs.

James I has been mentioned before, but there was more to his reign than arranging the Disputation of Barcelona. I'll tell you more about him (and maybe about his three wives) next time.