Aspects of Jewish Culture in the Middle Ages

MEDIEVAL JEWRY: FROM WITHIN AND FROM WITHOUT

MEDIEVAL JEWRY: FROM WITHIN AND FROM WITHOUT>!< Yosef Hayim Yerllshalmi Ul1der ordinary and more prosaic circumstances 1 shollld have delivered a limited substantive paper on some particular aspect of my work, preferably one so arcane as to be immune to criticism. However your invitation to deliver an opening address, as well as the occasion itself, have moved me to extend both my perimeters and vulnerabilities to larger issues, and thus to appear more exuberantly el1gage thal1 is my custom. 111 the time at my disposal 1 shall necessarily have to simplify a number of complexities, for which 1beg your indulgence. Briefly stated, my central theses are the following: *This paper having been cOl1ceived and delivered as a public address, 1 have refrained fron1 altering its in1n1ediate "oral" character in sending it off to the press. For the same reason 1 have not seen fit to enculnber the text with footl1otes. For those who desire cOlnprehensive bibliographic informatiol1 011 any aspect of n1edieval Jewish studies the following, above all, are to be recommended: Shlon1o Shunami, Bibliography of !ewish Bibliographies, 2nd ed. (Jerusalen1, 1969); Salo W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the !ews, 2nd rev. ed., 15 vols. (New York, 1952 et seq.) ; and the collaborative volume Bibliographic Essays iJl Medieval !ewish Sttldies (New York, 1976). 2 I MedievalJewry First-That the widespread neglect by general medievalists of the Jewish component in medieval history is due in large measure to inherited, though often unconscious and culturally metamorphosed, tlleological and ideological biases. Second-That even when medievalists do turn their attention to medieval Jewry they are constrained, by their equipment and the sources accessible to them, to view the Jews in an essentially external manner. Their conception of medieval Jewry is tllUS not only limited but, by that very token, also distorted. Third-That there are compelling reasons as to why this situation should change. And now, if you will allow a Jewish historian an alien metaphor, the rest of this address will consist of an attempt to nail tllese theses to the door. 1 We shall begin at the point of origins. Western conceptions of Jewish history trail an exceedingly long pedigree. Indeed the fundamental attitudes were already forged in the very earliest centuries of Christianity and remained surprisingly consistent down to modern times. As the Incarnation was seen to bisect all historical time, so, in the Christian schema, the Crucifixion split Jewish history into two radically disparate segments. Placed on one side was the biblical history of Israel, God's chosen people. This history was sacred and supremely meaningfll1, so much so that it was appropriated now as the prehistory of Christendom itself. In the "New Israel" which supersedes the "Old" in the eyes of God, biblical history is to find its direct continuity and 3 I Yosef Hayim Yerusha1mi fu1fi11ment, whi1e, converse1y, the subsequent history of the ]ews themse1ves is deflected to the side. Indeed the postbib1ica1 history of the rejected peop1e turns out up on examination to be no history at all. It may be more adequate1y described as an implacab1e existentia1 curse . to be endured by the ]ews to the end of time What the Gospels adumbrated, the Church Fathers e1aborated and systematized. A1ready prior to Constan tine , but in an acce1erating crescendo thereafter, Chris tian triumpha1ism was nowhere more insistent and stri dent than inits po1emics against the ]ews. Without pausing to consider the irony of such a position, those who spoke in the name of a crucified messiah saw noth ing inconsistent in exp10iting the visible historica1 defeat of the ]ewish peop1e to the fu11. The 10ss of kingdom al1d Temp1e, the po1itica1 subjugation of the ]ews throughout their globa1 exi1e, were primary proofs to demonstrate the Christian claim against them. Postbib lica1.]ewish history was denuded of any positive value except as witness to Christian victory in the wor1d. The ews have nothing more to say, un1ess it be to bemoan ] their condition, nothing further to do but persist help less1y in a state of negative suspension unti1 the Second Coming sha11 precipitate their final conversion. Post bib1ical ]ewish history (if such it can sti1l be ca11ed) is , thus comp1ete1y static. Apprehended in such terms it is . we must repeat, no history at all ews remained dominant in the ‫ש‬ That such inherited Middle Ages is surely too obvious to require extended discussion. 1only want to stress that the problem, of course, does not lie in the absence of actua1 chronic1es devoted to postbiblica1 ]ewish history. To expect such writings from medieva1 Christians wou1d be absurd though, as we shall see, it becomes less so when we ( enter the period from the sixteenth to the eighteenth 4 I Medieval ]ewry centuries). Even among the ]ews themselves, prior to a , sudden surge of historiography in the sixteenth century historical chronicles are few and far between. But the relative neglect of explicitly historical writings by medi eval ]ews certainly had nothing to do with an accep tance of Christian verdicts. ]ews, for example, had no doubt whatever that biblica1 and postbib1ica1 ]udaism form a seam1ess wh01e and that they are not only the . physica1 but the spiritua1 heirs of their bib1ical ancestors If historiography was not cu1tivated by them per se, a11 , genres of medieva1 ]ewish literature, whether 1ega1 exegetical, phi1osophica1, or mystica1, are rep1ete with rich1y varied attitudes toward history and specu1ations . as to the nature of ]ewish historica1 destinies n the other hand, no matter to what genre we turn ‫ס‬ among medieva1 Christians, whenever ]ews are discussed the patristic image of them remains so ingrained as to prec1ude, ab initio, any consideration of the ]ews as a serious factor in history. This point must be formu1ated and understood with precision. It means, in essence, that the r01e of spectator assigned the ]ews amid the flux of history was not even necessari1y an empirical conc1usion derived from the rea1ities of their position among the nations. Being axiomatic to begin with, it did not have ire a vivid symb01 that com ‫ן‬ to be deduced. If you reql presses everything succinct1y, you may have it in the Crusades. Throughout the Crusades, and the even 10nger history of the crusading idea in Europe, ]erusa1em is e between Christendom and Is1am ‫ן‬ regarded 3.S an issl a10ne. It is so not on1y po1itica11y and mi1itari1y, but above a11 psych010gica11y. Upon the outermost horizons of the crusading menta1ity the very question of any ]ew ish stake in the fate of the H01y City cou1d not possib1y impinge--not because there were no ]ews in Palestine there were) , nor because ]ews were indifferent to the ( 5 I Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi outcome of the struggle (on the contrary, they were often actively concerned), but rather because the nexus between the ]ews and ]erusalem was regarded as irrev O, and the issue settled for ‫ך‬ ocably ruptured in the year that the world ‫ך‬ 196 all time. It was, after all, not until was rudely awakened to the unanticipated vista of ]ews guarding the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the . Mosque of Omar 2 Lest one be tempted to ascribe medieval attitudes merely to ignorance of postbiblical ]udaism, let it be noted that the development of Christian Hebraism from the Renaissance and Reformation through the eighteenth century brought no significan