Opening
HISTORY OF THE JEWS
HISTORY OF THE JEWS
BY PROFESSOR H. GRAETZ
VOL. III
FROM THE REVOLT AGAINST THE ZENDIK (511 C. E.) TO THE CAPTURE OF ST. JEAN D'ACRE BY THE MAHOMETANS (1291 C. E.)
PHILADELPHIA
THE JEWISH PUBLICATION SOCIETY OF AMERICA
COPYRIGHT, 1894, BY THE JEWISH PUBLICATION SOCIETY OF AMERICA.
I. THE DECAY OF JUDÆA, AND THE JEWS IN DISPERSION
The Zendik Religion--King Kobad and Mazdak the Reformer--Revolt of the Jews--Mar-Zutra--Revival of the Schools--The Saburaïm-- The Talmud committed to writing--Tolerance of Chosru II--The Christianization of Judæa--The Jews under Byzantine Rule-- Justinian--Persecution of the Samaritans--Benjamin of Tiberias --Attack on Tyre--The Emperor Heraclius page 1
500-628 C. E.
II. THE JEWS IN EUROPE
Growth of the Jews in Europe--The Communities in Constantinople and Italy--Theodoric--Isidore of Seville--Pope Gregory I--The Jews of France--Chilperic and Dagobert--Avitus--The Jews in Spain--Controversies between Jews and Christians page 24
510-640 C. E.
III. THE JEWS OF THE ARABIAN PENINSULA
Happy condition of the Jews in Arabia--Traditions as to their original settlements--Yathrib and Chaibar--The Jewish-Arabic tribes--The Benu-Nadhir, the Benu-Kuraiza, and Benu-Bachdal-- The Benu-Kainukaa--The Jews of Yemen--Their power and influence--Conversion of Arabian tribes to Judaism-- Abu-Kariba, the first Jewish-Himyarite king--Zorah Dhu-Nowas-- Samuel Ibn-Adija--Mahomet--His indebtedness to Judaism-- Mahomet's early friendliness to the Jews and subsequent breach with them--His attacks on the Jewish tribes--The War of the Fosse--The position of the Jews under the Caliphs page 53
500-662 C. E.
IV. THE AGE OF THE GEONIM
The Conquests of Islam--Omar's Intolerance--Condition of the Jews in Babylonia--Bostanaï--The Princes of the Captivity and the Geonim--Dignity and Revenues of the Prince--Communal Organization--Excommunication--Julian of Toledo and the Jews-- The Moslems in Spain--The Jews and Arabic Literature--The Assyrian Vowel-system--The Neo-Hebraic Poetry: José ben José-- Simon ben Caipha--Employment of Rhyme--Jannaï--Eleazar Kaliri --Opposition to the Study of the Talmud--The False Messiah Serenus, the Syrian--The Jews in the Crimea and the Land of the Chazars--The False Messiah Obadia Abu-Isa page 86
640-760 C. E.
V. RISE OF KARAISM AND ITS RESULTS
Anan ben David, the founder of Karaism--His life, writings, and influence--Hostility to the Talmud--Anan's innovations-- Karaite reverence of Anan--The Exilarchate becomes elective-- Adoption of Judaism by the Chazars--King Bulan and Isaac Sinjari--Bulan's Jewish successors--Charlemagne and the Empire of the Franks--The Jews and Commerce--Jewish Envoy sent to the Caliph Haroun Alrashid--Spread of the Jews in Europe--The Caliphs and the Jews--The study of philosophy--Sahal--The Kalam--Mutazilists and Anthropomorphists--Judah Judghan--The Shiur Komah--The Akbarites--Moses the Persian page 127
761-840 C. E.
Chapter VI
FAVORABLE CONDITION OF THE JEWS IN THE FRANKISH DOMINIONS, AND THE DECAY OF THE EXILARCHATE IN THE EAST.
The Jews under Louis le Débonnaire--The Empress Judith and her Veneration for Judaism--Agobard, Bishop of Lyons-- Conversion of Bishop Bodo--Amolo's effort against the Jews-- Charles the Bald--Troubles in Béziers and Toulouse--Decree against the Jews in Italy--Boso of Burgundy--Basilius--Leo the Philosopher--Decline of the Exilarchate--The Geonim acquire Additional Influence--The Prayer Book of Amram--Mar-Zemach-- Literary and Scientific Activity of the Jews--Decay of Karaism --Dissensions at Pumbeditha page 160
814-920 C. E.
VII. THE GOLDEN AGE OF JEWISH SCIENCE: SAADIAH AND CHASDAÏ
Judaism in the Tenth Century--Saadiah, the Founder of Religious Philosophy--Translation of the Bible into Arabic--Saadiah opposes Karaism--The Karaite Solomon ben Yerucham--Saadiah and the School at Sora--Saadiah retires from Sora--His Literary Activity--Extinction of the Exilarchate--Sahal and other Karaite writers--Jews in Spain--The School at Cordova--Dunash ben Tamim--Chasdaï--His services to Judaism--Menachem ben Saruk--Chasdaï and the King of the Chazars page 187
928-970 C. E.
Chapter VIII
THE RISE OF JEWISH-SPANISH CULTURE, AND THE DECAY OF THE GAONATE.
The Gaon Sherira and his son Haï--Sherira's Historical Letter --The Jewish Congregations in Spain--Jewish Culture in Andalusia--The Disciples of Menachem and Dunash--Jehuda Chayuj --Contest between Chanoch and Ibn-Abitur--Jacob Ibn-Jau--The Jews of France--Nathan the Babylonian and Leontin--The Jews of Germany--Gershom and his Ordinances--The Emperor Henry II--The Caliph Hakem--The Jewish Communities of Northern Africa-- Chananel, the Son of Chushiel, and Nissim bar Jacob Ibn Shahin --The Jerusalem Talmud--Haï Gaon--His Character and Importance --Samuel bar Chofni--Chiskiya, the Last Gaon--Samuel Ibn-Nagrela--Jonah Ibn-Janach page 231
970-1050 C. E.
IX. IBN-GEBIROL AND HIS EPOCH
Solomon Ibn-Gebirol--His early life--His poems--The statesman Yekutiel Ibn-Hassan befriends him--Murder of Yekutiel--Bachya Ibn-Pakuda and his moral philosophy--The Biblical critic Yizchaki ben Yasus--Joseph ben Chasdaï, the Poet--Death of Samuel Ibn Nagrela--Character of his son Joseph and his tragic fate--Death of Ibn-Gebirol--The French and German communities --Alfassi--Life and works of Rashi--Jewish scholars in Spain --King Alfonso page 265
1027-1070 C. E.
X. THE FIRST CRUSADE
The position of the Jews in Germany previous to the Crusades-- The community of Speyer and Henry IV--The Martyrs of Treves and Speyer--Emmerich of Leiningen and the Martyrs of Mayence-- Cruel persecutions at Cologne--Suffering of the Jews in Bohemia--Pitiful death of the Jews of Jerusalem--Emperor Henry's justice towards the Jews--Return of Converts to Judaism--Death of Alfassi and Rashi Page 297
1096-1105 C. E.
XI. ZENITH OF THE SPANISH-JEWISH CULTURE: JEHUDA HALEVI
The Jews under the Almoravides--Joseph Ibn-Sahal, Joseph Ibn-Zadik--Joseph Ibn-Migash--The Poets Ibn-Giat, Ibn-Abbas, Ibn-Sakbel and Ibn-Ezra--Abulhassan Jehuda Halevi--His Poems and Philosophy--The Chozari--Incidents of his Life--Prince Samuel Almansur--Jehuda Halevi's Pilgrimage to Jerusalem-- His Death page 311
1105-1148 C. E.
Chapter XII
PERSECUTIONS DURING THE SECOND CRUSADE AND UNDER THE ALMOHADES.
Condition of the Jews in France--The Second Crusade--Peter the Venerable and the Monk Rudolph--Bernard of Clairvaux and the Emperor Conrad--Protectors of the Jews--Persecutions under the Almohades--Abdulmumen and his Edict--The Prince Jehuda Ibn-Ezra--The Karaites in Spain--Jehuda Hadassi--The historian Abraham Ibn-Daud and his Philosophy--Abraham Ibn-Ezra--Rabbenu Tam page 347
1143-1170 C. E.
XIII. SURVEY OF THE EPOCH OF MAIMUNI (MAIMONIDES)
The Jews of Toledo--Ibn-Shoshan, Ibn-Alfachar--The Poet Charisi--Sheshet Benveniste--Benjamin of Tudela--The Jews of Provence--The Kimchis--The Communities of Béziers, Montpellier, Lünel, and Toulouse--Persecutions of Jews in Northern France--The Jews of England--Richard I--The Jews of York--The Jews of Germany--Ephraim ben Jacob--Süsskind-- Petachya the Traveler--The Jews of Italy and of the Byzantine Empire--Communities in Syria and Palestine--The Jews of Bagdad --Mosul--The Pseudo-Messiah, David Alroy--The Jews of India-- Conversion to Judaism of Tartars--The Jews of Egypt page 382
1171-1205 C. E.
XIV. MAIMUNI (MAIMONIDES)
Early years of Maimuni (Maimonides)--His journey to Fez--Letter of Consolation of Maimun (father of Maimonides)--Maimuni and the Jewish Converts to Islam--The Maimun Family in Palestine and Egypt--Maimuni's Commentary on the Mishna--Saladin and the Jews--Letter of Maimonides to Yemen--The Mishne-Torah of Maimuni--Controversies with reference to this Work--Joseph Ibn-Aknin--Maimuni as a Physician--Maimuni attacked by Samuel ben Ali--Maimuni and the Jews of Provence--The More Nebuchim and its importance--Death of Maimonides page 446
1171-1205 C. E.
Chapter XV
NEW POSITION OF THE JEWS IN CHRISTIAN LANDS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY.
Effects of the Death of Maimuni--Abraham Maimuni, the son of Maimuni--Hostility of the Papacy against the Jews--Pope Innocent III--The Albigenses--Emigration of Rabbis to Palestine--The Lateran Council and the Jewish Badges--Synod of Rabbis at Mayence--The Dominicans and the Rise of the Inquisition--King Jayme of Aragon and his Physician Benveniste --Stephen Langton and the Jews of England--Gregory IX and Louis IX of France--The Jews of Hungary page 494
1205-1232 C. E.
Chapter XVI
THE MAIMUNIST CONTROVERSY AND THE RISE OF THE KABBALA.
The Opposition against Maimuni--Maimunists and anti-Maimunists --Meïr Abulafia--Samson of Sens--Solomon of Montpellier-- Excommunication of the Maimunists--David Kimchi's energetic Advocacy of Maimuni--Nachmani--His Character and Work--His Relations to Maimuni, Ibn-Ezra, and the Kabbala--Solomon of Montpellier calls in the aid of the Dominicans--Moses of Coucy --Modern date of the Kabbala--Azriel and Ezra--Doctrines of the Kabbala--Jacob ben Sheshet Gerundi--The Bahir--Three Parties in Judaism--Last flicker of the Neo-Hebraic Poetry-- The Satirical Romance: Al-Charisi and Joseph ben Sabara page 522
1232-1236 C. E.
XVII. PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS, AND THE BURNING OF THE TALMUD
Pope Gregory IX--Emperor Frederick II and the Jewish Scholars, Jehuda Ibn-Matka and Jacob Anatoli--The Jewish Legislation of Frederick of Austria--The Martyrs of Aquitaine and Gregory IX --Louis IX of France and his Enmity to the Jews--Attacks on the Talmud--The Apostate Nicholas-Donin--Disputation at the French Court between Yechiel of Paris and Nicholas-Donin--Judah of Melun--The Talmud burnt at Paris--The Church and Jewish Physicians--Moses Ibn-Tibbon and Shem-Tob Tortosi--Papal Bull acquitting Jews of the Blood-accusation--The Last French Tossafists--The Jews of England--The Jewish Parliament--Alfonso the Wise and the Jews of Spain--Meïr de Malea and his Sons--The Jewish Astronomers Don Judah Cohen and Don Zag Ibn-Said--The Jews of Aragon--De Penyaforte and the Apostate Pablo Christiani --The First Censorship of the Talmud--Nachmani's Disputation with Pablo--Influence of Nachmani--The Karaites page 563
1236-1270 C. E.
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 page 610
1270-1306 C. E.
HISTORY OF THE JEWS.
I. THE DECAY OF JUDÆA AND THE JEWS IN DISPERSION
The Zendik Religion--King Kobad and Mazdak the Reformer-- Revolt of the Jews--Mar-Zutra--Revival of the Schools-- The Saburaïm--The Talmud committed to writing--Tolerance of Chosru II--The Christianization of Judæa--The Jews under Byzantine Rule--Justinian--Persecution of the Samaritans-- Benjamin of Tiberias--Attack on Tyre--The Emperor Heraclius.
500-628 C. E.
Hardly had the Jews recovered from the long and horrible persecution to which they had been subjected by King Firuz, when they were overtaken by fresh storms, which subverted the work of three centuries. Firuz had been followed by his brother, who reigned a short time, and was succeeded by Kobad (Kovad, Cabades). The latter was a weak king, not without good qualities, but he allowed himself to become the tool of a fanatic, and was prevailed upon to institute religious persecutions. There arose under this monarch a man who desired to reform the religion of the Magi and make it the ruling faith. Mazdak--for that was the name of this reformer of Magianism--believed that he had discovered a means of promoting the promised victory of Light over Darkness, of Ahura-Mazda over Angromainyus. He considered greed of property and lust after women the causes of all evil among men, and he desired to remove these causes by introducing community of property and of women, even allowing promiscuous intercourse among those related by ties of consanguinity. In Mazdak's opinion it was on the foundation of communistic equality that the edifice of Zoroaster's doctrine could most safely be raised. As he led a virtuous and ascetic life, and was very earnest in his endeavors to reform, he soon succeeded in gaining numerous adherents (about the year 501), who availed themselves of these advantageous liberties, and called themselves Zendik, or true believers of the Zend. King Kobad himself became Mazdak's faithful disciple and supporter. He issued a decree commanding all the inhabitants of the Persian Empire to accept the doctrines of Mazdak, and to live in accordance therewith. The lower classes became the most zealous of Zendiks; they promptly appropriated the possessions of the rich and such of the women as pleased them. Thus there arose a confusion of the ideas of right and wrong, of virtue and vice, such as had never been known in the history of nations. Finally, the Persian nobles dethroned this communistic king, and threw him into prison; but when Kobad escaped from confinement and, by the aid of the Huns, was again placed in possession of his dominions, they were unable to prevent Mazdak's adherents from renewing their licentious conduct. Many children born during Kobad's reign were of doubtful paternity, and no one could be certain of the peaceful enjoyment of his property.
The Jews and Christians naturally did not escape the communistic plague, and although only the rich suffered from the legalized robbery of the Zendiks, the community of women struck a terrible blow at all classes. Chastity and holding sacred the marriage vows had, from the first, been characteristic virtues of the Jews, and by Talmudic law, they had become even more deeply rooted in their natures. They could not endure the thought of their wives and maidens exposed to violation, and the purity of their families, which they treasured as the apple of their eye, threatened with defilement. They appear therefore to have opposed an armed resistance to the licentious attacks of the Zendiks. An insurrection of the Jews, which broke out at this juncture, was in all probability organized for the purpose of resisting this intolerable communism. At the head of this insurrection stood Mar-Zutra II, the youthful Prince of the Captivity, who, to judge from the fact alone that legend has embellished his birth and deeds with wonderful details, must have been a remarkable personage.
Mar-Zutra, born in about 496, was the son of Huna, a learned Prince of the Captivity, who, after the death of the tyrant Firuz, was invested with the dignity of the Exilarchate (488-508). At the time of his father's death, Mar-Zutra was still a young boy. During the period of his minority, the office of Prince of the Captivity was held by Pachda, his sister's husband, who does not seem to have been inclined to yield this dignity to the lawful heir. Mar-Zutra's grandfather, Mar-Chanina, in company with his grandson, sought the court of the Persian king, and in 511, presumably by means of valuable presents, succeeded in effecting Pachda's deposition and Mar-Zutra's investiture. It was this young prince who now arose, sword in hand, to protect his brethren. The immediate cause of the insurrection is said to have been the murder of Mar-Isaac, the president of one of the academies. Mar-Zutra's forces consisted of four hundred Jewish warriors, with whose help he probably succeeded in expelling Mazdak's rapacious and lustful adherents from the territory of Jewish Babylonia, and in resisting this shameless violation of most sacred rights. He is further said to have accomplished such brilliant feats of arms that the troops which had been sent by the king to quell the insurrection were unable to withstand him. Mar-Zutra is even said to have won independence for his people, and to have laid the non-Jewish inhabitants of Babylonia under tribute. Machuza, near Ctesiphon, became the capital of a small Jewish state, with the Prince of the Captivity for its king.
The independence thus conquered by Mar-Zutra lasted nearly seven years; the Jewish army was finally overcome by the superior numbers of the Persian host, and the Prince of the Captivity was taken prisoner. He and his aged grandfather, Mar-Chanina, were executed, and their bodies nailed to the cross on the bridge of Machuza (about 520). The inhabitants of this town were stripped of their possessions, and led into captivity, and it is probable that this was not the full extent of the persecution. The members of the family of the Prince of the Captivity were compelled to flee. They escaped to Judæa, taking with them Mar-Zutra's posthumous heir, who also bore the name Mar-Zutra. He was educated in Judæa, and there became a distinguished scholar. On account of Kobad's persecution, the office of Prince of the Captivity in Babylonia remained in abeyance for some time. The Talmudical academies were closed, for the teachers of the Law were persecuted and compelled to hide. Two of the leading men, Ahunai and Giza, fled, and the latter settled on the river Zab. Other fugitives probably directed their steps towards Palestine or Arabia. Kobad's revenge for an insurrection provoked by fanaticism dealt a severe blow at the public life of the Babylonian Jews, which centered in the two academies, at Sora and Pumbeditha. However, the persecution does not seem to have extended over the whole of Persia, for Jewish soldiers served in the Persian army which fought against the Greek general Belisarius, and the Persian captain had so great a regard for them that he requested a truce in order that they might peacefully observe the feast of Passover.
After Kobad's death, the persecution of the Babylonian Jews ceased. His successor, Chosroes Nushirvan, was not, indeed, well-disposed towards them, and imposed upon them and the Christians a poll-tax from which only children and old men were exempt; yet this tax was not an indication of intolerance or hate, but simply a means of filling the imperial treasury.
As soon as peace was restored the representatives of the Babylonian Jews hastened to re-establish their institutions, to re-open the academies, and, as it were, to re-unite the severed links in the chain of tradition. The fugitive Giza, who had remained in hiding by the river Zab, was called to preside over the academy at Sora; the sister academy at Pumbeditha chose Semuna as its head. A third name of this period has been transmitted to posterity, that of Rabaï of Rob (near Nahardea), whose position and office are, however, not clearly known. These men, with their associates and disciples, devoted their whole activity to the Talmud. It was the sole object of the attention of all thoughtful and pious men of that period; it satisfied religious zeal, promoted tranquillity of mind, and was also the means of acquiring fame, and thus furthering both spiritual and temporal aims. The persecution of the Law endeared and sanctified it, and the Talmud was the sacred banner around which the entire nation rallied.
But the disciples of the last Amoraïm had lost all creative power, and were unable to continue the development of the Talmud. The subject-matter and the method of teaching were both so fully defined that they were incapable of extension or of amplification. The stagnation in Talmudical development was more marked than ever before. The presidents of the academies were content to adhere to the ancient custom of assembling their disciples during the months of Adar (March) and Ellul (September), giving them lectures on the traditional lore and the methodology of the Talmud, and assigning to them themes for private study. At the utmost they settled, according to certain principles, many points of practice in the ritual, the civil law and the marriage code, which had until then remained undetermined, or concerning which there was a difference of opinion in the academies. Their purpose was to render the exhaustless material of the Talmud, which discussion and controversy had deprived of all definiteness, available for practical use. In order to prevent the decay of religious living, it was necessary that all doubt and uncertainty should cease; the judges stood in need of fixed principles by which to decide the cases brought before them, and all were ignorant of authoritative precepts by which to regulate their religious conduct. The establishing of the final rules for religious and legal practice after careful consideration of the arguments pro and con conferred upon the post-Amoraïc teachers the name of Sabureans (Saburaï). After the various opinions (Sebora) were reviewed, they were the ones that established the final, valid law. The activity of the Sabureans really began immediately after the completion of the Talmud, and Giza, Semuna and their associates merely worked along the same lines; their intention was to develop a practical code rather than the theory of the Law. They did not arrogate to themselves the authority to originate. First of all, Giza and Semuna, the presidents of the academies, engaged in the work of committing the Talmud to writing. They availed themselves partly of oral tradition, partly of written notes made by various persons as an aid to memory.
As everything which proceeded from the Amoraïc authorities appeared of importance to their successors, they gathered up every utterance, every anecdote which was current in learned circles, so that posterity might not be deprived of what they deemed to be the fulness of wisdom. They made additions for the purpose of explaining obscure passages. In this form, as edited by the Sabureans, the contemporary communities and posterity received the Talmud.
The era of the Sabureans witnessed the beginnings of an art without which the sacred writings had remained a sealed book,--the introduction of a system of vowel-points, by means of which the text of Holy Writ became intelligible to the unlearned. This art owes its origin to a faint breath of "scientific research" wafted from dying Greece. Justinian had closed the schools of philosophy in Greece, and the last of her wise men sought refuge in Persia. From them the science of grammar was communicated to the Syrian Christians, these in turn roused in their Jewish neighbors the spirit of emulation in the investigation of the Scriptures, and this led to the adoption of vowel-points and accents.
The names of the immediate successors of Giza and Semuna have been preserved neither by the chronicles nor by tradition; they were forgotten in the persecution with which the academies were again visited. In this century Magianism contended with Christianity for the palm of intolerance. Judaism was an abomination to both, and the priests of these two religions, of which the one preached the victory of light, and the other the rule of brotherly love, used weak kings as the instruments of horrible persecutions.
Chosroes Nushirvan's son, Hormisdas (Ormuz) IV, was unlike his great father in every respect. His tutor and counselor, Abuzurj-Mihir, the Persian Seneca, is said to have invented the game of chess for this weakly monarch, in order to teach him the dependence of the king on the army and the people. During this philosopher's lifetime the true character of Hormisdas was hidden, but immediately upon his retirement the Nero-like nature of the king broke out, and overstepped the bounds of prudence and moderation.
Led by the Magi, who attempted to arrest the approaching dissolution of their religion by persecuting the adherents of other beliefs, he vented his wrath upon the Jews and the Christians of his empire. The Talmudical academies in Sora and Pumbeditha were closed, and as under Firuz and Kobad, many of the teachers of the Law again emigrated (about 581). They settled in Firuz-Shabur (near Nahardea), which was governed by an Arabian chieftain, and was, therefore, less exposed to espionage. They continued their labors in Firuz-Shabur, and new academies arose in that town, the most distinguished being that of Mari.
Hormisdas' cruel reign, however, was of short duration; the Persians became dissatisfied and refractory, and the political enemies of Persia entered its territory, and possessed themselves of the country. The empire of the Sassanians would have become the prize of some successful invader, had it not been saved by the efforts of the brave general Bahram Tshubin. But when the foolish monarch went so far as to reward the deliverer of his country with ingratitude and to dismiss him, Bahram rose against the unworthy king, dethroned him, and threw him into prison, in which he was afterwards murdered (589). At first, for the sake of appearances, Bahram governed in the name of Prince Chosru, but soon he threw off all disguise and ascended the Persian throne. The Jews of Persia and Babylonia hailed Bahram as their deliverer. He was for them what the Emperor Julian had been for the Jews of the Roman empire two hundred years before; he put an end to their oppression and favored their endeavors. For this reason they espoused his cause with great devotion, assisted him with money and troops, and supported his tottering throne. Without the aid of the Jews, it is probable that he would have experienced great difficulty in retaining it for any length of time, for after some hesitation the Persian nation turned towards Chosru, the lawful heir to the throne. Only the army for the most part remained faithful to Bahram, and the Jews, doubtless, provided for the maintenance and the pay of the troops. The re-opening of the academies in Sora and Pumbeditha is undoubtedly to be attributed to the favor of Bahram in return for the devotion of the Persian Jews. Chanan of Iskia returned from Firuz-Shabur to Pumbeditha, and restored the ancient academic organization; it is also probable that the academy of Sora, which enjoyed by far the greater repute, elected a president at this time, although his name is not mentioned in the chronicles.
Bahram's rule was brought to a sudden end. The Byzantine emperor Mauritius, to whom the fugitive Prince Chosru had fled, sent an army to his aid, with which the loyal Persians united to make war upon Bahram. The Jews paid with their lives for their adherence to the usurper. At the capture of Machuza, a town containing a large Jewish population, the Persian general Mebodes put the greater part of the Jews to death. They probably fared no better in the other cities into which Chosru's victorious army penetrated. Bahram's army was vanquished, and he himself compelled to take refuge with the Huns. Chosru II, surnamed Firuz, ascended the throne of his ancestors. This prince, who was both just and humane, resembled his grandfather Nushirvan rather than Hormisdas, his father; he did not hold the Jews to account for their participation in the revolt. Throughout his long reign (590-628), the two academies enjoyed uninterrupted prosperity. Chanan was succeeded by Mari bar Mar, who had founded an academy in Firuz-Shabur, and the president of Sora during the same period was a teacher of similar name, Mar bar Huna (609 to about 620), during whose administration the fortunes of the Jews of Palestine alternated from victory to defeat. The successors of these teachers were Chaninaï in Pumbeditha and Chananya in Sora; they lived to see the victorious advance of the Arabs and the end of the Persian rule. The last of the Sassanian kings, of whom there were ten in the short period of twelve years, had no leisure to devote to the affairs of the Jewish population of their shattered empire; the Jewish community in Babylonia continued, therefore, to exist in its ancient order, with the Prince of the Captivity at its head. During the half-century that elapsed between the re-opening of the academies under Bahram and the Arab conquest of Persia (589-640), three Resh-Galutas are mentioned by name: Kafnaï, Chaninaï, and Bostanaï. The last of these belongs to the ensuing epoch, in which, aided by favorable circumstances, he succeeded in again investing the dignity of Prince of the Captivity with substantial power.
The position of the Jews in Judæa during the sixth century was so terrible that a complete cessation of intellectual pursuits ensued. Like their co-religionists of the Byzantine empire, they were without political standing; the laws of the younger Theodosius were still in force, and were applied with increased severity by Justin I. The Jews were excluded from all posts of honor, and were forbidden to build new synagogues. The successors of this emperor, as narrow-minded as he and even harder of heart, enforced the anti-Jewish laws rigorously. The spirit which animated the rulers of the Eastern Empire against the Jews is shown by an utterance of the Emperor Zeno, the Isaurian upstart. In Antioch, where, as in all the great cities of the Byzantine empire, there existed the race-course (stadium) and the factions of the two colors, blue and green, one of those disturbances which seldom ended without bloodshed had been fomented by the latter party. Upon this occasion the partisans of the green murdered many Jews, threw their bodies into the flames, and burned their synagogues. When the Emperor Zeno was informed of this occurrence, he exclaimed that the sole fault of the partisans of the green was that they had burned only the dead Jews, and not the living ones as well! The bigoted populace, whom the disputes of the clergy and the color-factions had demoralized, saw in their ruler's hatred of the Jews a tacit invitation to vent their rage upon them. The inhabitants of Antioch had always been inimical towards the Jews. When, therefore, a notorious charioteer of Constantinople, Calliopas by name, came to Antioch, and joining the party of the green, occasioned a riot, the Jews again felt the brutal barbarity of this faction. Its partisans had repaired to Daphne, near Antioch, in order to celebrate some festival, and there, without any sufficient motive, they destroyed the synagogue and its sanctuaries, and brutally murdered the worshipers (507).
Meanwhile how much of the land of their fathers still remained in the hands of the Jews? Christianity had made itself master of Judæa, and had become the heir of Judaism. Churches and monasteries arose in the Holy Land, but its former masters were subjected to all sorts of persecution whenever they attempted to repair a dilapidated synagogue. Bishops, abbots and monks lorded it over Palestine, and turned it into a theater of dogmatic wranglings over the simple or dual nature of Christ. Jerusalem had ceased to be a center for the Jews; it had become a thoroughly Christian city, the seat of an archbishop, and inaccessible to its own sons. The law forbidding Jews to enter the Holy City, which had been revived by Constantine, was, after the death of Julian, most rigorously enforced by the authorities. Tiberias, the stately city on the lake, alone maintained its academical rank, and under the presidency of Mar-Zutra III and his descendants, it became a seat of authority for the Jews of other countries. Even the Jewish king of Arabia voluntarily submitted to the exhortations addressed to him from Tiberias. But Christianity had acquired a hold even there, and Tiberias was also the seat of a bishopric. The mountain cities of Galilee were inhabited by Jews, who probably followed the same occupations as their forefathers, namely, agriculture and the cultivation of the olive.
Nazareth, the cradle of Christianity, where the most beautiful women in all Palestine were to be found, seems to have been mostly populated by Jews, as it had not been raised to the rank of a bishopric. Scythopolis (Bethsan), which became the capital of Palæstina Secunda during this century, and Neapolis (Shechem), the capital of the Samaritans since Samaria had become Christian, had Jewish inhabitants. But in all these cities, with the exception of Nazareth, the Jews seem to have been in the minority, insignificant in comparison with the number of the Christians.
There probably existed an educational system among the Jews of Palestine, but it must have been inadequate and unimportant, since, with the exception of Mar-Zutra, not even the names of the teachers are known. Until the time of Justinian the Jews of Palestine and the Byzantine empire, whatever may have been their civil disabilities, enjoyed complete religious liberty; the emperors did not interfere in the affairs of the heart. Justinian was the emperor who, besides imposing greater civil restrictions, first interfered in matters of conscience. It was he who promulgated the disgraceful law that Jewish witnesses were not to be allowed to testify against Christians, and that they were to be considered competent witnesses only in their own cases (532). Compared with the Samaritans, the Jews were a favored class, for the evidence of the former had no validity whatever, and they were not even allowed to dispose of their property by will. This was an act of revenge against the Samaritans, who had several times risen in revolt against the imperial power, and on one occasion had set up a king in the person of Julian ben Sabar (about 530). As the Jews had not taken part in this insurrection, they were favored to a certain extent. Meanwhile, however, Justinian also published an anti-Jewish law. Although the Jews and Samaritans were excluded, like all heretics, from offices of honor, they were obliged by law to assume the onerous and expensive decurionate (magisterial office), without being permitted, however, to enjoy the privileges attached to it, namely, exemption from exile and flogging. "They shall bear the yoke, although they sigh under it; but they shall be deemed unworthy of every honor" (537).
Justinian was one of those rulers who, in spite of narrowness of mind and wickedness, have their own opinions on religious matters, and desire to assert them without regard for their subjects' peace of mind. Justinian wished to carry out his views concerning the Christian celebration of Easter, and he therefore forbade the Jews to celebrate the Passover before the Easter of the Christians. The governors of the provinces had strict orders to enforce this prohibition. Thus, whenever the Jewish feast of the Passover preceded the Christian Easter, in the year before leap-year, the Jews incurred heavy fines for holding divine service and eating unleavened bread (about 540).
Other invasions were made by Justinian on the territory of religious affairs. A Jewish congregation, probably in Constantinople or Cæsarea, had been for some time divided against itself. One party wanted the reading of the portions of the Pentateuch and the Prophets to be followed by a translation into Greek, for the benefit of the illiterate and the women. The pious members, on the other hand, especially the teachers of the Law, entertained an aversion to the use of the language of their tormentors and of the Church in divine service, probably also on the ground that no time would be left for the Agadic exposition. The dispute became so violent that the Grecian party laid the matter before the emperor, and appealed to him, as judge, in the last instance. Justinian of course pronounced judgment in favor of the Greek translation, and recommended to the Jews the use of the Septuagint or of Aquila's translation in their divine service. He also commanded that in all the provinces of his empire the lessons from the Holy Scriptures be translated into the vernacular. Thus far Justinian was in the right. It is true that he also forbade, under threat of corporal punishment, the excommunication of the Greek party or party of innovation by those that clung to the old liturgical system; but even this may be regarded as an act of justice, as the emperor desired to guarantee liberty in matters connected with the liturgy. But another clause of the same rescript proves unmistakably that in this matter he was consulting the interests of the Church alone, laboring, as he did, under the delusion that the use of a Greek translation in the synagogical services, especially of the Septuagint, Christian in coloring, would win over the Jews to the Christian faith. He decreed that all the Jewish congregations of the Byzantine empire, naturally including those which entertained no desire in this direction, should use a Greek or Latin translation of the lessons for each Sabbath, and he forbade the use of the Agadic exposition, which had been customary until then. Justinian desired to suppress the national conceptions of the Holy Scripture in favor of a translation which had been altered in many places to suit the purposes of Christianity.
It was probably Justinian who forbade the recital of the confession of faith, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord is one," in the synagogues, because it seemed a protest against the doctrine of the Trinity. He also forbade the prayer, "Holy, holy, holy," because the Jews added an Aramaic sentence, by way of explanation, in order that this prayer might not, as the Christians held, be taken as a confirmation of the Trinity. Finally, he forbade the reading of the prophet Isaiah on the Sabbath, so that the Jews might be deprived of this source of comfort for their present sorrows and of hope for future happiness.
The service in the synagogue was to be a means of converting the Jews, and the spirit of Judaism, manifesting itself in Agadic expositions and homilies, was to be made to yield to Christian doctrines, the path to which was to be leveled by a method of interpretation showing Christ to be prefigured in the Old Testament. It appears, therefore, that the despotic Justinian by no means proposed to grant liberties to the synagogue, but that he desired, on the contrary, to impose a species of restraint. He was very zealous in exacting obedience to this decree, and he commanded his minister, Areobindus, to communicate the edict concerning the translation of the lessons read in the synagogue to all the officers of the provinces, and to enjoin upon them to watch strictly over its rigorous execution (February 13th, 553).
This malignant decree was, however, followed by no serious consequences; the need of a translation of the Bible was not sufficiently pressing among the Jews to oblige them to make use of one. The party which desired to introduce a translation stood isolated, and it was not difficult to conduct divine service in the customary manner and to escape the notice of the authorities in those instances in which the congregation was at peace. The preachers continued to make use of the Agada, even introducing covert attacks upon anti-Jewish Byzantium into their sermons. "'There are creeping things innumerable' (Psalm civ) signifies the countless edicts which the Roman empire (Byzantium) publishes against us; the 'small and great beasts' are the dukes, governors, and captains; whosoever of the Jews associates himself with them shall become an object of scorn." "As an arrow is not perceived until it has pierced the heart, so it is with the decrees of Esau (Byzantium). His shafts come suddenly, and are not felt until the word is spoken for death or imprisonment. Their writings are 'the arrow that flieth by day.'" In this strain the teachers of the Law preached in Judæa.
The Jews of Palestine had but little cause to be satisfied with Justinian's rule, which oppressed them doubly with its extortionate taxation and its religious hypocrisy. Stephanus, the governor of Palæstina Prima, doubtless no better than the majority of officials in Justinian's time, helped to irritate the Jews, by whom he was thoroughly hated. The time was past, however, when the Jews could angrily shake the galling yoke from their necks, and take up arms against their oppressors. The Samaritans, who had been hard pressed since the days of the Emperor Zeno, were more passionate and venturesome, but their numerous insurrections resulted in forging new chains for them, especially since the days of their short-lived king, Julian, when they had so ruthlessly massacred their hated enemies, the Christians. They were compelled, with even greater rigor than the Jews, to embrace Christianity, and all who refused to submit forfeited the right of disposing of their property. Although Sergius, bishop of Cæsarea, declared that the obstinacy of the Samaritans had decreased, and that they embraced Christianity with ever-increasing sincerity, and although he succeeded in inducing Justinian to mitigate the severity of the harsh laws which had been promulgated against them, they nevertheless concealed in their hearts the deepest hatred toward their tormentors.
On the occasion of a chariot-race in Cæsarea, the capital, where the jealousy of the color-factions against one another never allowed an event of that kind to pass off without a riot, the Samaritans threw off all restraint, and fell upon the Christians. The Jewish youth made common cause with them, and together they massacred their Christian opponents in Cæsarea and destroyed their churches. Stephanus, the governor, hastened to the aid of the Christians, but the Samaritans pressed him and his military escort so hard that he was obliged to take refuge in his official residence. Eventually they killed him in his own house, and spread terror throughout the city and the surrounding country (July, 556). The Samaritans probably counted upon the support of one of their countrymen, Arsenios by name, the all-powerful favorite of Empress Theodora, with whose secret commissions he was entrusted. Stephanus' widow hurried to Constantinople to acquaint the emperor with this disturbance and the death of her husband, whereupon Justinian ordered Amantius, the governor of the East resident in Antioch, to intervene with an armed force.
Amantius found it easy to execute this command, as the movement was not serious, but few of the Samaritans and Jews of Palestine being concerned in it. Punishment was meted out only to the guilty, but was in keeping with the spirit of the times, and consisted of beheading, hanging, loss of the right hand, and confiscation of property.
Justinian's successor, Justin the Younger, appears to have made no change in the anti-Jewish laws. Although he renewed the oppressive enactments of his predecessor against the Samaritans, whom he deprived of the right to dispose of their property by testament or by deed, there is no edict of his which was prejudicial to the Jews. Under the two excellent emperors, Tiberius and Mauritius, no mention is made of the Jews. It is not until the accession of the usurper Phocas, who renewed the times of Caligula and Commodus, that a disturbance occurs, in the course of which the Jews were carried away to a deed of brutal violence, which proves that the arbitrariness of the officials and the arrogance of the clergy must have caused intolerable suffering among them.
In Antioch, hatred had existed between Jews and Christians for centuries, and had been intensified by constant friction. Suddenly the Jews fell upon their Christian neighbors, perhaps at the races in the circus, and retaliated for the injuries which they had suffered; they killed all that fell into their hands, and threw their bodies into the fire, as the Christians had done to them a century before. The Patriarch Anastasius, surnamed the Sinaite, an object of special hate, was shamefully abused by them, and his body dragged through the streets before he was put to death. When the news of this rebellion reached Phocas, he appointed Bonosus governor of the East, and Cotys, commander of the troops, and charged them to bring the rebels to account. But the Jews of Antioch fought so bravely that the Roman army could obtain no advantage over them. It was only when the campaign was renewed with numerous troops collected from the neighboring country that they succumbed to the Roman generals, who killed part of them, mutilated others, and sent the rest into exile (September and October, 608).
The misdeeds of the Emperor Phocas afforded the Jews an unexpected opportunity to give vent to their deep resentment. He had dispossessed his predecessor Mauritius, and this provoked the Persian king, Chosru II, the son-in-law of the latter, to attack the Roman possessions in the East. A Persian host inundated Asia Minor and Syria, in spite of the fact that Heraclius, the newly elected emperor, sent news to the Persian king of Phocas' well-merited chastisement, and begged for peace.
A division of the Persian army under the general Sharbarza descended from the heights of Lebanon in order to wrest Palestine from the Byzantine scepter. On hearing of the weakness of the Christian arms and of the advance of the Persian troops, the Jews of Palestine felt a fierce desire for battle. It seemed to them that the hour had come for revenge upon their twofold enemy, Roman and Christian, for the humiliations which they had borne for centuries. Tiberias was the hotbed of this warlike movement, and it was started by a man named Benjamin, who possessed a prodigious fortune, which he employed in enlisting and arming Jewish troops. A call was issued to all the Jews of Palestine to assemble and join the Persian army, and it met with a ready response. The sturdy Jewish inhabitants of Tiberias, of Nazareth, and of the mountain cities of Galilee, flocked to the Persian standard. Filled with rage, they spared neither the Christians nor their churches in Tiberias, and probably put an end to the bishopric. With Sharbarza's army they marched on Jerusalem, in order to wrest the Holy City from the Christians. The Jews of southern Palestine joined their countrymen, and with the help of the Jews and a band of Saracens, the Persian general took Jerusalem by storm (July, 614). Ninety thousand Christians are said to have perished in Jerusalem; but the story that the Jews bought the Christian prisoners from the Persians, and killed them in cold blood is a pure fiction.
In their rage, however, the Jews relentlessly destroyed the Christian sanctuaries. All the churches and monasteries were burned, and the Jews undoubtedly had a greater share in this deed than the Persians. Had not Jerusalem--the original possession of the Jews--been torn from them by violence and treachery? Did they not feel that the Holy City was as foully desecrated by the adoration of the cross and of the bones of the martyrs as by the idolatries of Antiochus Epiphanes and Hadrian? The Jews seem to have deluded themselves with the hope that the Persians would grant them Jerusalem and the surrounding territory whereon to establish a commonwealth.
With the Persians, the Jews swept through Palestine, destroyed the monasteries which abounded in the country, and expelled or killed the monks. A detachment of Jews from Jerusalem, Tiberias, Galilee, Damascus, and even Cyprus, undertook an incursion against Tyre, having been invited by the four thousand Jewish inhabitants of that city to fall upon the Christians on Easter-night and to massacre them. The Jewish host is said to have consisted of 20,000 men. The expedition, however, miscarried, as the Christians of Tyre had been informed of the impending danger. They anticipated their enemies, seizing their Jewish fellow-citizens and throwing them into prison; then they awaited the arrival of the Jewish troops, who found the gates closed and fortified. The invading Jews revenged themselves by destroying the churches around Tyre. As often, however, as the Christians of Tyre heard of the destruction of a church, they killed a hundred of their Jewish prisoners, and threw their heads over the walls. In this manner 2000 of the latter are said to have met their death. The besiegers, disheartened by the death of their brethren, withdrew, and were pursued by the Tyrians.
The Palestinian Jews were relieved of the sight of their enemies for about fourteen years, and the immediate result of these wars filled them with joy. No doubt many a Christian became converted through fear, or because he despaired of the continuance of Christianity. The conversion of a monk who of his own free will embraced Judaism was a great triumph for the Jews. This monk had spent many years in the monastery on Mount Sinaï in doing penance and reciting litanies. Suddenly he was assailed by doubts as to the truth of Christianity. He alleged that he had been led to this change by vivid dreams, which showed him on one side Christ, the apostles, and the martyrs enveloped in gloomy darkness, while on the other side were Moses, the prophets, and the holy men of Judaism, bathed in light. Weary of this internal struggle, he descended from Mount Sinaï, crossed the desert to Palestine, and finally went to Tiberias, where he declared his settled determination to embrace Judaism. He offered himself for circumcision, adopted the name of Abraham, married a Jewess, and henceforward became a zealous advocate of Judaism and a vehement opponent of his former religion.
Meanwhile the hope which the Jews had placed in the Persian conquerors had not been fulfilled. The Persians did not deliver up to them the city of Jerusalem, and did nothing to promote the rise of a free Jewish commonwealth, besides which they probably oppressed the Jews with taxes. There thus arose great discord between the allies, which ended in the Persian general's seizing many of the Jews of Palestine and banishing them to Persia. This only served to increase the discontent of the Jews, and induced them to change their opinions and to lean more towards the Emperor Heraclius. This prince, who underwent the rare transformation, by which a dull coward is in a night changed into an enthusiastic hero, was anxious to conciliate his Jewish enemies in order to use them against his chief opponent. He therefore entered into a formal alliance with the Jews, the negotiations for which were probably conducted by Benjamin of Tiberias. This treaty secured for them immunity from punishment for the injuries which they had inflicted on the Christians, and held out to them other advantages which have not come down to us (about 627).
Heraclius' victories, coupled with Chosru's incapacity, and the revolt which Syroes, the son of the latter, had raised against his father, won back for the Greek emperor all those provinces which were on the point of being permanently constituted Persian satrapies. After the conclusion of peace between Heraclius and Syroes, who dethroned and killed his aged father, the Persians quitted Judæa, and again the country fell under Byzantine rule (628). In the autumn of the same year the emperor proceeded in triumph to Jerusalem. On his journey he touched at Tiberias, where he was hospitably entertained by Benjamin, who also furnished the Byzantine army with the means of subsistence. In the course of conversation the emperor asked him why he had shown such hatred towards the Christians, to which Benjamin ingenuously replied, "Because they are the enemies of my religion."
When Heraclius entered the Holy City he was met by the vehement demand of the monks and the Patriarch Modestus for the extirpation of all the Jews of Palestine, at once a measure of revenge for their past treatment of the Christians, and a safeguard against the recurrence of the outrage if similar incursions should happen. The emperor protested, however, that he had solemnly and in writing promised immunity from punishment to the Jews, and to violate this pledge would make him a sinner before God and a traitor before men. The fanatical monks replied that the assassination of the Jews, far from being a crime, was, on the contrary, an offering acceptable to God. They offered to take the entire responsibility for the sin upon their own shoulders, and to appoint a special week of fasting by way of atonement. This argument convinced the bigoted emperor and sufficed to quiet his conscience; he instituted a persecution of the Jews throughout Palestine, and massacred all that failed to conceal themselves in the mountains or escape to Egypt.
There still existed Jewish congregations in Egypt, even in Alexandria itself, whence the Jews had been expelled by the fanatic Cyril in the beginning of the fifth century. A certain Jew of Alexandria, Urbib by name, celebrated for his wealth and generosity, during a pestilential famine charitably fed the needy without distinction of religion. The Jews of Alexandria, moved by warm sympathy for their suffering co-religionists, fraternally welcomed the unhappy fugitives from Judæa, the victims of monkish fanaticism. Heraclius seized upon this occasion to renew the edicts of Hadrian and Constantine, by which the Jews were forbidden to enter Jerusalem or its precincts (628).
II. THE JEWS IN EUROPE
Growth of the Jews in Europe--The Communities in Constantinople and Italy--Theodoric--Isidore of Seville-- Pope Gregory I.--The Jews of France--Chilperic and Dagobert --Avitus--The Jews in Spain--Controversies between Jews and Christians.
510-640 C. E.
The Jews of Europe had no history, in the proper sense of the word, until a conjunction of fortunate circumstances enabled them to develop their powers, and to produce certain works whereby they wrested the pre-eminence from their brethren in the East. Until then there are only chronicles of martyrdom at the hands of the victorious Church, monotonously repeated with but little variation in all countries. "Dispersed and scattered throughout the world," says a celebrated author of this period, "the Jews, though subject to the Roman yoke, nevertheless live in accordance with their own laws." The only point of interest is the manner in which the Jews settled in the European states, and lived unmolested, in friendly intercourse with their neighbors, until Christianity gradually encompassed them, and deprived them of the very breath of life. In the Byzantine empire, in Ostrogothic Italy, in Frankish and Burgundian Gaul, in Visigothic Spain, everywhere we are confronted with the same phenomena. The people, even the barons and the princes, were entirely free from intolerance, felt no antipathy against the Jews, and associated with them without prejudice; to the higher clergy, however, the prosperity and comfort of the Jews appeared as a humiliation of Christianity. They desired the fulfillment of the curse which the founder of Christianity is said to have pronounced on the Jewish nation, and every anti-Jewish, narrow-minded thought which the fathers of the Church had uttered against them was to be literally fulfilled by embittering their life. At the councils and synods, the Jewish question occupied the clerical delegates quite as fully as dogmatic controversies and the prevailing immorality, which was continually gaining ground among the clergy and the laity, in spite, or perhaps in consequence of, ecclesiastical severity and increased austerity in observances.
It is remarkable, however, that the Roman bishops, the recognized champions of Christianity, treated the Jews with the utmost toleration and liberality. The occupants of the Papal throne shielded the Jews, and exhorted the clergy and the princes against the use of force in converting them to Christianity. This liberality was in truth an inconsistency, for the Church, following the lines of development prescribed by the Council of Nice, had to be exclusive, and therefore hard-hearted and given to persecution. It could only say to Jew, Samaritan, and heretic: "Believe as I believe, or die," the sword supplying the lack of argument. But who would not prefer the benevolent inconsistency of Gregory the Holy to the terrible consistency of the bloodthirsty kings Sisebut and Dagobert, who, ecclesiastically speaking, were more Catholic than the Pope? But the toleration of even the most liberal of the bishops was not of much consequence. They merely refrained from proselytizing by means of threats of banishment or death, because they were convinced that in this manner the Church would be peopled with false Christians, who would curse it in their inmost hearts. But they did not hesitate to fetter and harass the Jews, and to place them next to the serfs in the scale of society. This course appeared absolutely just and pious to almost all the representatives of Christianity during the centuries of barbarism. Those nations, however, which were baptized in the Arian creed showed less intolerance of the Jews. The more Arianism was driven out of Europe, and the more it gave way before the Catholic religion, the more the Jews were harassed by proselytizing zeal. Their valiant resistance continually incited fresh attacks. Their heroic constancy in the face of permanent degradation is, therefore, a noble trait which history ought not to conceal. Nor were the Jews devoid of all knowledge in those illiterate times. They were certainly better acquainted with the records of their religion than the inferior clergy, for the latter were not capable of reading their missal.
Our survey of the settlement of the Jews in Europe begins, on our way from Asia, with the Byzantine empire. They lived in its cities before Christianity had begun its world-conquest. In Constantinople the Jewish community inhabited a separate quarter, called the brass-market, where there was also a large synagogue, from which they were, however, expelled by one of the emperors, Theodosius II or Justinus II, and the synagogue was converted into the "Church of the Mother of God."
The holy vessels of the ruined Temple, after having been transported from place to place, had at last been deposited at Carthage, where they remained for nearly a century. It was with pain that the Jews of the Byzantine capital witnessed their removal to Constantinople by Belisarius, the conqueror of the empire of the Vandals. The Jewish trophies were displayed in triumph along with Gelimer, the Prince of the Vandals and grandson of Genseric, and the treasures of that unfortunate monarch. A certain Jew, filled with profound grief on seeing the living memorials of Judæa's former greatness in the hands of her enemies, remarked to a courtier that it was not advisable to deposit them in the imperial palace, for they might bring misfortune in their train. They had brought misfortune to Rome, which had been pillaged by Genseric, and they had brought down adversity upon his successor, Gelimer, and his capital. It would therefore be better to remove these holy relics to Jerusalem, where they had been wrought by King Solomon. No sooner had the Emperor Justinian been informed of this observation than his superstitious mind began to be fearful of the consequences, and he accordingly removed the Temple vessels in haste to Jerusalem, where they were deposited in a church.
In Greece, Macedonia, and Illyria the Jews had been settled a long time, and although the Christian emperors persecuted them, and laid them under considerable restraint, they nevertheless allowed them autonomy in communal affairs, and the application of their own system of jurisprudence in civil suits. Every community had a Jewish overseer (ephoros), who had the control of the market prices, weights and measures. In Italy the Jews are known to have been domiciled as early as the time of the Republic, and to have been in enjoyment of full political rights until these were curtailed by the Christian emperors. They probably looked with excusable pleasure on the fall of Rome, and exulted to see the ruling city of the world become the prey of the barbarians and the mockery of the whole world, and felt that the lamentation over Jerusalem could be literally applied to Rome as well: "She that was great among the nations, and princess among the provinces, how is she become tributary?" After the Gepidæ and the Heruli, by whom Rome had been temporarily enslaved, came the Goths, who threw the name of Rome into oblivion by founding the Ostrogothic empire under Theodoric (Dioterich) of the house of the Amali.
The Jews also had to bear a share of the calamities which the savage swarms of barbarian tribes brought upon the Roman world. With the adoption of Christianity the Germanic and Sclavonic hordes learnt also intolerance from the Romans, their teachers, and in their rude minds it assumed even more hateful forms. The Jewish preachers of this time had to complain of new foes. "See, O Lord, how many are mine enemies! If Esau (Rome) hateth Jacob," thus the Agadists expressed themselves, "he hath at least some specious ground, for he was robbed of his birthright; but what hath Israel done to the barbarians and the Goths?" But of what could the barbarians rob the Jews? They had long since forfeited their political independence, and their spiritual fortune was secure against destruction. Rome, however, was robbed by the barbarians of its crown, and clothed with the dress of the slave.
Rome did not remain the political center of Italy, Ravenna, in alternation with Verona, being the residence of the Ostrogothic emperors. In these cities, as also in Rome, Milan, and Genoa, Jewish communities existed at this period. The Jews were also well represented in Lower Italy, especially in the beautiful town of Naples, in Palermo, Messina, and Agrigentum, on the island of Sicily, and in Sardinia. In Palermo there lived Jewish families of ancient nobility, who bore the name of Nasas (Nassi). The laws governing the Italian Jews were the decrees of Theodosius, which gave them autonomy in the management of the internal affairs of their communities, but forbade the building of new synagogues, the assumption of judicial offices and military rank, and the possession of Christian slaves. The last point frequently led to friction between the clergy and the Jews. The repeated invasions of the barbarian tribes and the numerous wars had increased the number of prisoners, and the Jews carried on a brisk trade in slaves, although they were not the only slave merchants. The depopulated cities and the desolate fields rendered the slave-market a necessity. Laborers were thus obtained for agriculture and the business of daily life. The Jewish slave-owners made a practice of converting their slaves to Judaism, partly because there was a Talmudical ordinance which directed that they should either be circumcised, or, if they resisted, be sold again, and partly in order not to be hindered in the exercise of religious duties by the presence of foreign elements in the house. The slaves themselves preferred to remain with their Jewish masters, who, with few exceptions, treated them humanely, regarded them as members of the family, and shared their joys and sorrows.
Although the restrictions of the Theodosian code had the force of law, it may be questioned whether they were really carried into effect. The bishops of the apostolic see, who had learnt political shrewdness from the Roman statesmen, were too prudent to be fanatic. The Pope Gelasius had a friend, a Jew of Telesina, who bore the title of "the most illustrious" (clarissimus), and at his intercession his relative Antoninus was warmly recommended by the Pope to the bishop Secundinus. A charge having been brought against a Jew named Basilius, of selling Christian slaves from Gaul, he pleaded that he only sold heathen slaves, and that it was impossible to prevent a few Christians from being included among a number of other slaves; this excuse was accepted by Pope Gelasius.
When Italy became Ostrogothic under Theodoric, the Jews of that country were placed in a peculiar position. Hostile outbreaks were not infrequent during this reign, but at bottom they were not directed against the Jews, but against this hated Arian monarch. Theodoric, although an Arian, was by no means favorably disposed towards the Jews, whose conversion he desired. On a certain occasion, he had his counselor and minister Cassiodorus write the following to the community of Milan: "Why dost thou seek temporal peace, O Judah, when because of thine obduracy thou art unable to find eternal peace?" The Jews of Genoa having requested permission to put their synagogue into better repair, Theodoric sent them the following reply: "Why do you desire that which you should avoid? We accord you, indeed, the permission you request, but we blame the wish, which is tainted with error. We cannot command religion, however, nor compel any one to believe contrary to his conscience." He permitted the Jews neither to erect new synagogues, nor to decorate old ones, but simply allowed them to repair such as were falling into decay.
The Ostrogothic ruler was zealous in preserving internal peace and in upholding the laws, and accordingly he was just to the Jews whenever any undeserved injury was inflicted upon them. The Catholics entertained a secret hate of the Arians, and with the deepest resentment saw Arianism on the throne, while the Catholic Church was merely magnanimously tolerated: they seized upon every opportunity of thwarting Theodoric, when it could be done with impunity. On one occasion, when a few slaves rose against their Jewish masters in Rome, the mob gathered, burnt the synagogue, ill-treated the Jews, and plundered their property, in order to laugh Theodoric's edicts to scorn. Theodoric, having been informed of this, bitterly reproached the Roman Senate, which was now but the shadow of its former self, for permitting such misconduct, and imperiously charged it to discover the culprits and oblige them to make compensation for the damage they had done. As the leaders of the riot were not discovered, Theodoric condemned the Roman commune to make compensation. This severity roused the entire Catholic Church against him.
It is creditable to the Italian Jews of this period that, in spite of the general deterioration and demoralization, the political and ecclesiastical literature of the times imputes no other crimes to them than obduracy and unbelief. Their religion shielded them from the prevailing wickedness. Cassiodorus, who became a monk after resigning all his dignities, composed among other works a homiletic exposition of the Psalms, in which he makes frequent reference to the Jews, apostrophizing them, and endeavoring to convert them. It is characteristic of this period that Cassiodorus,--who, besides Boëthius, was the only notability of the sixth century possessing a certain philosophic culture--designated the Jews by the most opprobrious names. It would be easy to compile a dictionary of abusive words from his writings; he called them "scorpions and lions," "wild asses," "dogs and unicorns."
In spite of the antipathy of the leaders of opinion, the Jews of Italy were happy in comparison with their brethren of the Byzantine empire. Theodoric's successors, his beautiful and accomplished daughter Amalasuntha, and her husband and murderer Theodatus, a weakling with philosophical pretensions, followed his principles. The Jews supported King Theodatus with tenacious fidelity, even when he himself had given up all hope. The Jews of Naples risked their lives rather than come under Justinian's scourge. Belisarius, the conqueror of the Vandal empire, the laurel-crowned hero, trembled at Justinian's wrath, and allowed himself to be used as the blind tool of the latter's tyranny; he had already subjugated the whole of Sicily and the southern extremity of the Italian peninsula, and now was swiftly approaching Naples, the largest and most beautiful city of Lower Italy. On his summons to the inhabitants to surrender, the Neapolitans divided into two factions. But even the war party was not disposed to sacrifice itself for the Ostrogoths, who were hated in Italy. The Jews alone, and two lawyers, Pastor and Asclepiadotus, who had been raised to fame through the influence of the Ostrogothic kings, opposed the surrender of the city to the Byzantine general. The Jews, who were wealthy and patriotic, offered their lives and their fortunes for the defense of the city. In order to allay the fear of scarcity of provisions, they promised to supply Naples with all necessaries during the siege. The Jews, unaided, defended that part of the city which was nearest the sea, and fought with such bravery, that the enemy did not venture to direct their attacks against that quarter. A contemporary historian (Procopius) has raised a glorious monument to the heroic bravery of the Jews of Naples.
Having one night, by means of treachery, penetrated into the city, the enemy almost made themselves masters of it (536), but the Jews, with the courage of lions, still continued the struggle. It was only at break of day, when the enemy had overwhelmed them with numbers, and many of their own side had been killed, that the Jews quitted their posts. It is not related how the surviving Jewish combatants fared--certainly no better than their confederates Asclepiadotus and Pastor, who fell victims to the fury of the people. Now occurred that which the Italian Jews had anticipated with horror; they came under the rule of the Emperor Justinian, whose anti-Jewish ideas place him in a class with Hadrian, Constantine, and Firuz. Italy, ruler of the world, sank to the rank of a province (Exarchate) of the Byzantine empire, and the Jews of Italy trembled before the exarch of Ravenna.
This situation, however, did not continue long. Justinian's successors were obliged to abandon a great part of Italy forever to the powerful and uncouth Lombards (589), who, half heathen, half Arian, troubled themselves but little about the Jews. At all events there are no exceptional laws for the Jews to be met with in the Longobard code. Even when the Lombards embraced the Catholic faith, the position of the Jews in Italy remained bearable. The heads of the Catholic Church, the Popes, were free from extreme intolerance. Gregory I (590-604), called the Great and the Holy, who laid the foundation of the power of Catholicism, gave utterance to the principle that the Jews should be converted only by means of gentle persuasion and not by violence. He conscientiously maintained their rights of Roman citizenship, which had been recognized by various emperors. In the territory which was subject to the papal sway in Rome, Lower Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia, he steadfastly persisted in this course, in the face of the fanatical bishops, who regarded the oppression of the Jews as a pious work. His pastoral letters are full of earnest exhortations, such as the following: "We forbid you to molest the Jews or to lay upon them restrictions not imposed by the established laws; we further permit them to live as Romans and to dispose of their property as they will; we only prohibit them from owning Christian slaves."
But greatly as Gregory abhorred the forcible conversion of the Jews, he exerted himself to win them for the Church by other means. He did not hesitate to make an appeal to cupidity, and remitted a portion of the land-tax to such of the Jewish farmers and peasants as embraced Christianity. He did not, indeed, deceive himself with the belief that the converts who were obtained in this manner were loyal Christians; he counted, however, upon their descendants. "If we do not gain them over," he wrote, "we at least gain their children." Having heard that a Jew named Nasas had erected an altar to Elijah (probably a synagogue known by this name) in the island of Sicily, and that Christians met there to celebrate divine service, Gregory commanded the prefect Libertinus to raze the building, and to inflict corporal punishment on Nasas for his offense. Gregory vigorously persecuted such of the Jews as purchased or possessed Christian slaves. In the Frankish empire, where fanaticism had not yet made its way, the Jews were not forbidden to carry on the slave trade. Gregory was indignant at this, and wrote to King Theodoric (Dieterich) of Burgundy, Theodebert, king of Austrasia, and also to Queen Brunhilde, expressing his astonishment that they allowed the Jews to possess Christian slaves. He exhorted them with great warmth to remove this evil, and to free the true believers from the power of their enemy. Reccared, the king of the Visigoths, who submitted to the papal see, was flattered beyond measure by Gregory for promulgating an edict of intolerance.
In the Byzantine empire and in Italy, Christianity had from the very first shown more or less hostility to Judaism, but in the west of Europe, in France and Spain, where the Church established itself with difficulty, the situation of the Jews assumed a different and much more favorable aspect. The invasions of the barbarians had completely changed the social order existing in these countries. Roman institutions, both political and ecclesiastical, were nearly effaced, and the polity of the empires established by heathen or half Christianized nations was not built up on the basis of Church law. It was a long while before Catholicism gained a firm footing in the west of Europe, and the Jews who had settled there enjoyed undisturbed peace until the victorious Church gained the upper hand.
The immigration of the Jews into these important and wealthy provinces took place probably as early as the time of the Republic or of Cæsar. The Jewish merchants whose business pursuits brought them from Alexandria or Asia Minor to Rome and Italy, the Jewish warriors whom the emperors Vespasian and Titus, the conquerors of Judæa, had dispersed as prisoners throughout the Roman provinces, found their way voluntarily or involuntarily into Gaul and Iberia. The presence of the Jews in the west of Europe is a certain fact only since the second century.
The Gallic Jews, whose first settlement was in the district of Arles, enjoyed the full rights of Roman citizenship, whether they arrived in Gaul as merchants or as fugitives, with the peddler's pack or in the garb of slaves; they were treated as Romans also by the Frankish and Burgundian conquerors. The most ancient legislation of the Franks and Burgundians did not consider the Jews as a distinct race, subject to peculiar laws. In the Frankish kingdom founded by Clovis, the Jews dwelt in Auvergne (Arverna), in Carcassonne, Arles, Orleans, and as far north as Paris and Belgium. Numbers of them resided in the old Greek port of Marseilles, and in Béziers (Biterræ), and so many dwelt in the province of Narbonne that a mountain near the city of that name was called Mons Judaicus. The territory of Narbonne belonged for a long time to Visigothic Spain, and for this reason the Jewish history of this district reflects all the vicissitudes of the Jews on the further side of the Pyrenees.
The Jews of the Frankish and Burgundian kingdoms carried on agriculture, trade, and commerce without restraint; they navigated the seas and rivers in their own ships. They also practised medicine, and the advice of the Jewish physicians was sought even by the clergy, who probably did not care to rely entirely on the miraculous healing powers of the saints and of relics. They were also skilled in the use of the weapons of war, and took an active part in the battles between Clovis and Theodoric's generals before Arles (508).
Besides their Biblical names, the Jews of Gaul bore the appellations which were common in the country, such as Armentarius, Gozolas, Priscus, or Siderius. They lived on the best of terms with the people of the country, and intermarriages even occurred between Jews and Christians. The Christian clergy did not scruple to eat at Jewish tables, and in turn often entertained the Jews.
The higher ecclesiastics, however, took umbrage, because the Jews refused, at Christian banquets, to eat of certain dishes, which the precepts of their religion forbade them to enjoy. For this reason the council of Vannes (465) prohibited the clergy from taking part in Jewish banquets, "because they considered it undignified that Christians should eat the viands of the Jews, while the latter refused to eat of Christian dishes, thus making it appear as though the clergy were inferior to the Jews." But this decision of the council was of no avail; canonical severity was powerless to check this friendly intercourse. It became necessary to re-enact this ecclesiastical prohibition several times. Thus, in spite of their separation from Judæa and Babylonia, the centers of Judaism, the Jews of Gaul lived in strict accordance with the precepts of their religion. Wherever they settled they built their synagogues, and constituted their communities in exact agreement with the directions of the Talmud.
The friendly relations existing between the Jews and the inhabitants of Gaul underwent no change even when the country, by reason of Clovis' conversion, came under the rule of the Catholic Church. Clovis was, indeed, a bloodthirsty butcher, but not a fanatic. The clergy were under obligations to him, because he had abandoned heathenism for Christianity, and he did not need to yield to them in any way. As he left an hereditary kingdom to his successors, they were not placed in painful situations and dilemmas, as were the elective kings of the Visigoths, and were not obliged to make concessions or sacrifices to the Church. Among the Franks, therefore, heathen customs remained long in vogue, and the Jews were permitted to live according to their religion without molestation. It is true that many ecclesiastical fanatics exerted themselves to convert the Jews by every means in their power, even using ill-treatment, and many severe resolutions were passed at their councils. But these persecutions remained isolated, even when they were countenanced by one or another of the zealous kings. Burgundy, however, ever since King Sigismund had embraced the Catholic faith (516), and felt bound to elevate oppression of the Arians and the Jews into the policy of the state, was more hostile to the Jews than the rest of France. It was this king who first raised the barrier between Jews and Christians. He confirmed the decision of the council of Epaone, held under the presidency of the bloodthirsty bishop Avitus, forbidding even laymen to take part in Jewish banquets (517).
A spirit of hostility to the Jews gradually spread from Burgundy over the Frankish countries. As early as the third and fourth councils at Orleans (538 and 545), severe enactments were passed against them. Not only were the Christians commanded not to take part in Jewish banquets, and the Jews forbidden to make proselytes, but the latter were even prohibited from appearing in the streets and public squares during Easter, because "their appearance was an insult to Christianity." Childebert I of Paris embodied this last point in his constitution (554), and thus exalted the intolerance of the clergy into a law of the state. This feeling of hostility, however, was not prevalent among Childebert's contemporaries. The Frankish empire was divided among several monarchs, who, although related, mortally hated one another; this division had the effect of confining intolerant practices to single provinces. Even ecclesiastical dignitaries of high rank continued to maintain friendly intercourse with the Jews, without fearing any danger to the Church. But fanaticism is naturally contagious; when it has once gained a firm footing in a country, it soon obtains ascendancy over all minds, and overcomes all scruples. In the Frankish empire the persecution of the Jews proceeded from a man who may be regarded as the very incarnation of Jew-hatred. This was Avitus, Bishop of Arverna, whose see was at Clermont; what Cyril had been to the Jews of Alexandria, Avitus was to the Jews of Gaul.
The Jewish population of his bishopric was a thorn in his side, and he accordingly roused the members of his flock against it. Again and again he exhorted the Jews of Clermont to become converts, but his sermons meeting with no response, he incited the mob to attack the synagogues, and raze them to the ground. But even this did not content the fanatic; he offered the Jews the choice between presenting themselves for baptism and quitting the city. Only one Jew received baptism, thus making himself an object of abhorrence to the whole community. As he was going through the streets at Pentecost in his white baptismal robe, he was sprinkled with rancid oil by a Jew. This seemed a challenge to the fanatic mob, and they fell upon the Jews. The latter retreated to their houses, where they were attacked, and many of them killed. The sight of blood caused the faint hearts to waver, and five hundred of the Jews besought Bishop Avitus to accord them the favor of baptism, and implored him to put an end to the massacre at once. Such of them as remained true to their religion fled to Marseilles (576). The Christian population celebrated the day of the baptism of the five hundred with wild rejoicing, as though the cross might pride itself on a victory which had been won by the sword. The news of the occurrence in Clermont caused great joy among the fanatics. Bishop Gregory of Tours invited the pious poet Venantius Fortunatus to celebrate in song the achievement of Avitus. But the Latin verses of this poet, who had emigrated to France from Italy, instead of glorifying Avitus, raised a monument of shame to his memory. They indicate quite clearly that the Jews of Clermont suffered innocently, and became converts to Christianity out of sheer desperation. Thus the effects of the ever-growing fanaticism made themselves felt in many parts of France. The Council of Mâcon (581) adopted several resolutions which aimed at assigning an inferior position in society to the Jews. They were neither to officiate as judges nor to be allowed to become tax-farmers, "lest the Christian population appear to be subjected to them." The Jews were further obliged to show profound reverence to the Christian priests, and were to seat themselves in their presence only by express permission. All who transgressed this law were to be severely punished. The edict forbidding the Jews to appear in public during Easter was re-enacted by this council. Even King Chilperic, although he bore no particular good-will to the Catholic clergy, emulated the example set by Avitus. He also compelled the Jews of his empire to receive baptism, and himself stood sponsor to the Jewish neophytes at the baptismal font. But he was content with the mere appearance of conversion, and offered no opposition to the Jews, although they continued to celebrate the Sabbath and to observe the laws of Judaism.
The later Merovingian kings became more and more bigoted, and their hatred of the Jews consequently increased. Clotaire II, on whom had devolved the rule of the entire Frankish empire (613), was a matricide, but was nevertheless considered a model of religious piety. He sanctioned the decisions of the Council of Paris, which forbade the Jews to hold magisterial power or to take military service (615). His son Dagobert must be counted among the most anti-Jewish monarchs in the whole history of the world. Many thousands of Jewish fugitives who had fled to the Frankish empire to escape from the fanaticism of Sisebut, king of the Visigoths, roused the jealousy of this sensual monarch, who was ashamed of being considered inferior to his Visigothic contemporary and of manifesting less religious zeal. He therefore issued a decree, wherein he declared that the entire Jewish population of the Frankish empire must either embrace Christianity before a certain day, or be treated as enemies and be put to death (about 629).
The more the authority of the Merovingian fainéants, as they have been called, declined, and the more the power of the politic and cautious stewards, Pepin's descendants, rose, the greater was the exemption from persecution and torture enjoyed by the Jews. The predecessors of Charlemagne seem to have felt that the Jews were a useful class of men, whose activity and intellectual capabilities could not but be advantageous to the state. The slave trade alone remained a standing subject of legislation in the Councils; but in spite of their zeal they were unable to abolish the traffic in human beings, because their condemnation applied to only one phase of the trade.
The Jews of Germany are to be regarded merely as colonies of the Frankish Jews, and such of them as lived in Austrasia, a province subject to the Merovingian kings, shared the same fate as their brethren in France. According to a chronicle, the most ancient Jews in the Rhine district are said to have been the descendants of the legionaries who took part in the destruction of the Temple. From the vast horde of Jewish prisoners, the Vangioni had chosen the most beautiful women, had brought them back to their stations on the shores of the Rhine and the Main, and had compelled them to minister to the satisfaction of their desires. The children thus begotten of Jewish and Germanic parents were brought up by their mothers in the Jewish faith, their fathers not troubling themselves about them. It is these children who are said to have been the founders of the first Jewish communities between Worms and Mayence. It is certain that a Jewish congregation existed in the Roman colony, the city of Cologne, long before Christianity had been raised to power by Constantine. The heads of the community and its most respected members had obtained from the heathen emperors the privilege of exemption from the onerous municipal offices. The first Christian emperor, however, narrowed the limits of this immunity, exempting only two or three families. The Jews of Cologne enjoyed also the privilege of exercising their own jurisdiction, which they were allowed to retain until the Middle Ages. A non-Jewish plaintiff, even though he were a priest, was obliged to bring his suit against a Jew before the Jewish judge (bishop of the Jews).
While the history of the Jews in Byzantium, Italy, and France possesses interest for special students, that of their brethren in the Pyrenean peninsula rises to the height of universal importance. The Jewish inhabitants of this happy peninsula contributed by their hearty interest to the greatness of the country, which they loved as only a fatherland can be loved, and in so doing achieved world-wide reputation. Jewish Spain contributed almost as much to the development of Judaism as Judæa and Babylonia, and as in these countries, so every spot in this new home has become classic for the Jewish race. Cordova, Granada, and Toledo are as familiar to the Jews as Jerusalem and Tiberias, and almost more so than Nahardea and Sora. When Judaism had come to a standstill in the East, and had grown weak with age, it acquired new vigor in Spain, and extended its fruitful influence over a wide sphere. Spain seemed to be destined by Providence to become a new center for the members of the dispersed race, where their spirit could revive, and to which they could point with pride.
The first settlement of the Jews in beautiful Hesperia is buried in dim obscurity. It is certain that they went thither as early as the time of the Roman Republic, as free men, to take advantage of the rich resources of this country.
The victims of the unhappy insurrections under Vespasian, Titus, and Hadrian were also dispersed to the extreme west, and an exaggerated account relates that 80,000 of them were carried off to Spain as prisoners. They probably did not remain long in slavery; the sympathy of their free brethren undoubtedly hastened to ransom them, and thus fulfil the most important of the duties prescribed by Talmudical Judaism to its adherents. How numerously the Jews had settled in some parts of Spain is shown by the names which they conferred upon these localities. The city of Granada was called the city of the Jews in former times, on account of its being entirely inhabited by them: the same name was also borne by the ancient town of Tarragona (Tarracona), before its conquest by the Arabs. In Cordova there existed a Jewish gateway of ancient date, and near Saragossa there was a fortress which at the time of the Arabs was called Ruta al Jahud. In the neighborhood of Tortosa a gravestone was found with both a Hebrew and a national name. This memorial was inscribed in three languages--Hebrew, Greek, and Latin; the Jews must, therefore, have emigrated at an early period from a Greek district to the north of Spain, and acquired the Latin language, without forgetting that of the Holy Writings.
Pride of ancestry, which was a characteristic of the Jews of this country as of the other Spaniards, was not content with the fact that the Jewish colony in Spain had possessed the right of citizenship long before the Visigoths and other Germanic tribes had set their tyrannous iron foot in the land, but desired to lay claim to even higher antiquity for it. The Spanish Jews maintained that they had been transported hither after the destruction of the Temple by the Babylonian conqueror, Nebuchadnezzar. Certain Jewish families, the Ibn-Dauds and the Abrabanels, boasted descent from the royal house of David, and maintained that their ancestors had been settled since time immemorial partly in the district of Lucena, and partly in the environs of Toledo and Seville. The numerous Spanish-Jewish family of Nasi also traced back its pedigree to King David, and proved it by means of a genealogical table and seals. The family of the Ibn-Albalias was more modest, and dated its immigration only from the destruction of the Second Temple. A family tradition runs to the effect that the Roman governor of Spain begged the conqueror of Jerusalem to send him some noble families from the capital of Judæa, and that Titus complied with his request. Among those thus transported was a man named Baruch, who excelled in the art of weaving curtains for the Temple. This Baruch, who settled in Merida, was the ancestor of the Ibn-Albalias.
Christianity had early taken root in Spain. In fact a council of bishops, priests, and the subordinate clergy met at Illiberis (Elvira, near Granada) some time before Constantine's conversion. The Jews were nevertheless held in high esteem by the Christian population as well as by the heathens. The Iberians and Romans who had been converted to Christianity had not yet discovered in the Jews a race repudiated by God, a people whose presence was to be shunned. They associated with their Jewish neighbors in perfect freedom. The newly-converted inhabitants of the country, who often heard their apostle preach about Jews and Judaism, had no conception of the wide gulf dividing Judaism from Christianity, and as often had the produce of their fields blessed by pious Jews as by their own clergy. Intermarriages between Jews and Christians occurred quite as frequently in Spain as in Gaul.
The higher Catholic clergy, however, could not suffer this friendly intercourse between Jews and Christians to continue; they perceived it to be dangerous to the newly-established Church. To the representatives of the Church in Spain is due the honor--if honor it be--of first having raised a barrier between Jew and Christian. The Council of Illiberis (about 320), at whose head was Osius, Bishop of Cordova, forbade the Christians, under pain of excommunication, to hold friendly intercourse with the Jews, to contract marriages with them, or to allow them to bless the produce of their fields. The seed of malignant hatred of the Jews, which was thus first sown by the Synod of Illiberis, did not, however, produce its poisonous fruit until much later. When the migrating Germanic hordes of the Suevi, Vandals, and Visigoths first laid waste this beautiful country, and then chose it for their home, the Catholics of the land were obliged to bear the yoke of political and religious dependence, for the Visigoths, who had taken lasting possession of the peninsula, happened to have been converted to the Arian faith. On the whole, the Visigothic Arians were tolerably indifferent to the controversy of the creeds, as to whether the Son of God was the same as, or similar to, the Father, and whether Bishop Arius ought to be regarded as orthodox or heretical. But they thoroughly hated the Catholic inhabitants of the country, because in every Catholic they saw a Roman, and consequently an enemy. The Jews, on the other hand, were unmolested under the Arian kings, and besides enjoying civil and political equality, were admitted to the public offices. Their skill and knowledge, which gave them the advantage over the uncivilized Visigoths, specially fitted them for these posts. The favorable condition of the Jews in Spain continued for more than a century, beginning with the time when this country first became a province of the Toletanic-Visigothic empire, and extending over the later period, when, under Theudes (531), it became the center of the same. The Jews who dwelt in the province of Narbonne, and in that district of Africa which formed part of the Visigothic empire, also enjoyed civil and political equality; some of them rendered material service to the Visigothic kings. The Jews that lived at the foot of the Pyrenees defended the passes leading from Gaul into Spain against the invasions of the Franks and Burgundians, who longed to possess the country. They were regarded as the most trusty guardians of the frontier, and their martial courage gained for them special distinction. The Visigothic Jews must have remained in communication, either through Italy or through Africa, with Judæa or Babylonia, from which countries they probably received their religious teachers. They adhered strictly to the precepts of the Talmud, abstained from wine made by non-Jews, and admitted their heathen and Christian slaves into the covenant of Abraham, as ordained by the Talmud. While their brethren on the other side of the Pyrenees were greatly oppressed, and forcibly converted to Christianity, or compelled to emigrate, they enjoyed complete liberty of religion, and were further granted the privilege, which was denied the Jews in all the other countries of Europe, of initiating their slaves into their religion.
But as soon as the Catholic Church obtained the supremacy in Spain, and Arianism began to be persecuted, the affairs of the Jews of this country assumed an unfavorable aspect. King Reccared, who had abjured the Arian creed at the Council of Toledo, was the first to unite with the Synod in imposing restrictions on the Jews. They were prohibited from contracting marriages with the Christians, from acquiring Christian slaves, and from holding public offices; such of their children as were born of intermarriages were to be forcibly baptized (589). They were thus made to assume an isolated position, which pained them all the more as they were animated by a sense of honor, and until now had lived upon equal terms with their fellow-citizens, having, in fact, been privileged more than the Catholics. Most oppressive of all was the restraint touching the possession of slaves. Henceforward the Jews were neither to purchase Christian slaves nor to accept them as presents, and if they transgressed the order and initiated the slaves into Judaism, they were to lose all rights in them. The whole fortune of him that circumcised a slave was forfeited to the state. All well-to-do people in the country possessed slaves and serfs, who cultivated their land and provided for the wants of the house; the Jews alone were to be deprived of this advantage. It is conceivable that the wealthy Jews who owned slaves exerted themselves to obtain the repeal of Reccared's law, and to this end they proffered a considerable sum of money to the king. Reccared, however, refused their offer, and for this deed was commended beyond measure by Pope Gregory, whose heart's desire was fulfilled by this law (599). Gregory compared the Visigothic monarch to David, king of Israel, "who refused to accept the water which his warriors had brought him at the risk of their lives, and poured it out before the Lord." In the same manner, he contended, Reccared had sacrificed to God the gold which had been offered to him. At the same time Reccared confirmed a decision of the Council of Narbonne, forbidding the Jews to sing Psalms at their funeral services,--a custom which they had probably adopted from the Church.
Although Reccared desired to enforce these restrictive laws against the Jews, it was nevertheless not very difficult for the latter to evade them. The peculiar constitution of Visigothic Spain afforded them the means of escaping their pressure. According to this constitution the king was not an all-powerful ruler, for the Visigothic nobles, who possessed the right of electing him, were absolutely independent in their own provinces. Neither they nor the people at large shared the fanaticism of the Church against the Jews. They accorded them, as in the past, the right of purchasing slaves, and probably also bestowed offices upon them. In twenty years Reccared's laws against the Jews had fallen into complete disuse. His successors paid but little attention to the matter, and were on the whole not unfavorably disposed towards the Jews.
At this period, however, a king of the Visigoths was elected, who, liberal in other respects, and not uncultured, was a scourge for the Jews of his dominions, and, in consequence, prepared a grievous destiny for his empire. Sisebut, a contemporary of the Emperor Heraclius, was, like the latter, a fanatical persecutor of the Jews. But while some excuse may be found for Heraclius's conduct in the revolt of the Jews of Palestine, and in the fact that he was compelled to adopt this course by the blind fury of the monks, Sisebut acted thus without any provocation, of his own free will, and almost contrary to the wish of the Catholic clergy. At the very commencement of his reign (612), the Jews engaged his attention. His conscience was troubled by the fact, that in spite of Reccared's laws, Christian slaves still served Jewish masters, and were initiated into Judaism, to which faith they willingly adhered. He therefore renewed these laws, and commanded the ecclesiastics and the judges, as well as the entire population of the country, to see that in future no Christians stood in servile relations to the Jews, but he went further in this direction than Reccared; the Jews were not only prohibited from acquiring any slaves, but were forbidden to retain those whom they possessed. Only those Jews who embraced Christianity were permitted to own slaves, and they alone were allowed to advance a claim to the slaves left by their Jewish relatives. Sisebut solemnly exhorted his successors to maintain this law. "May the king who dares abolish this law"--thus ran the formula of Sisebut's curse--"incur the deepest disgrace in this world, and eternal torments in the flames of hell." In spite of this severity and of Sisebut's earnest exhortations, this law appears to have been as little enforced at that period as under Reccared. The independent nobles of the country extended their protection to the Jews, either for their own interest or out of defiance to the king. Even many of the priests and bishops seem to have supported the Jews, and to have concerned themselves but little about the king's command. Sisebut therefore enacted a still severer decree. Within a certain period all the Jews of the land were either to receive baptism or to quit the territory of the Visigothic empire. This order was strictly executed. The weak, who clung to their property or loved the land which their fathers had inhabited time out of mind, allowed themselves to be baptized. The stronger-minded, on the other hand, whose conscience could approve of no compromise, emigrated to France or to the neighboring continent of Africa (612-613). The clergy, however, were by no means satisfied with this forced conversion, and one of their principal representatives reproached the king with having indeed "exhibited zeal for the faith, but not conscientious zeal." With this fanatical persecution Sisebut paved the way for the dissolution of the Visigothic empire.
Sisebut's rigorous laws against the Jews lasted no longer than his reign. They were repealed by his successor, Swintila, a just and liberal monarch, whom the oppressed named the "father of his country." The exiled Jews returned to their native land, and the proselytes reverted to Judaism (621-631). In spite of their baptism the Jewish converts had not abandoned their religion. The act of baptism was deemed sufficient at this period, and no one inquired whether the converts still retained their former customs and usages. The noble king Swintila was, however, dethroned by a conspiracy of nobles and the clergy, and a docile tool, Sisenand by name, raised to his place. Under this monarch the clergy again acquired the ascendancy. Once again, at the Council of Toledo (633), the Jews became the object of synodal attention. At the head of this council stood Isidore, archbishop of Hispalis (Seville), a well-informed and equitable prelate, but infected with the prejudices of his time. The synod proclaimed the principle that the Jews ought not to be made to embrace Christianity by violence and threats of punishment; nevertheless Reccared's laws against them were re-enacted. The full severity of the ecclesiastical legislation was, however, directed against the Jews who had been forcibly converted under Sisebut, and had reverted to their religion. Although the clergy themselves had criticized the method of their conversion, they nevertheless considered it a duty to keep within the pale of Christianity the Jews that had once received the holy sacrament, "in order that the faith may not be dishonored." Religion was regarded at this period merely as a lip-confession. The synod which sat under Sisenand decided, therefore, that the Jews who had been baptized should be forcibly restrained from the observance of their religion, and withdrawn from the society of their co-religionists, and that the children of both sexes should be torn from their parents and thrust into monasteries. Those discovered observing the Sabbath and the Jewish festivals, contracting marriages according to the Jewish rites, practising circumcision, or abstaining from certain foods, in obedience to the precepts of Judaism, were to expiate their offenses by forfeiting their freedom. They were to be reduced to slavery, and presented to orthodox Christians chosen by the king. According to this canonical legislation, the forcibly converted Jews and their descendants were not to be admitted as witnesses, because "those that have been untrue to God cannot be sincere to man"; this was the conclusion reached by ignorance in session. In comparison with this severity, the treatment of the Jews that had remained steadfast to their faith appears quite merciful.
Even these, however, the clergy exerted themselves to alienate from Judaism. Isidore of Seville wrote two books against the Jews, wherein he attempted to prove the doctrines of Christianity by means of passages from the Old Testament, naturally in that tasteless, senseless manner which had been employed since the commencement of the polemic warfare against Judaism by the Fathers. The Spanish Jews, in order to confirm themselves in their ancestral faith, were induced to take up the controversy, and to refute this specious proof. The learned men among them replied with counter treatises, written probably in Latin. Their superior knowledge of the Biblical records made their victory easy. In answer to the principal rejoinder, that the scepter had departed from Judah, and that the Christians, who possessed kings, thus formed the true people of Israel, the Jews pointed to a Jewish kingdom in the extreme East, which they asserted was ruled over by a descendant of David. They alluded to the Jewish-Himyarite empire in southern Arabia, but this was governed by a dynasty which had been converted to Judaism.
These resolutions of the fourth Council of Toledo and Sisenand's persecution of the Jewish converts do not appear to have been carried out with all the proposed severity. The Visigothic-Spanish nobles took the Jews more and more under their patronage, and against them the royal authority was powerless. At this period, however, a king resembling Sisebut ascended the Visigothic throne. Chintila assembled a general council, and not only did he obtain from them a confirmation of all anti-Jewish clauses contained in the existing laws, but enacted that no one should be allowed to remain in the Visigothic empire who did not embrace the Catholic religion. The ecclesiastical assembly adopted these propositions with joy, and exulted over the fact that "by the piety of the king, the unyielding infidelity of the Jews would at last be destroyed." They appended the canonical law, that in future every king, before his accession, should be compelled to take a solemn oath not to allow the converted Jews to violate the Catholic faith, nor to favor their unbelief, but strictly to enforce the ecclesiastical decisions against them (638).
A second time the Jews were obliged to emigrate, and the converts, who still clung to Judaism in their secret hearts, were compelled to sign a confession to the effect that they would observe and obey the Catholic religion without reserve. But the confession thus signed by men whose sacred convictions were outraged, was not and could not be sincere. They hoped steadfastly for better times, when they might be able to throw off the mask, and the elective constitution of the Visigothic empire soon made this possible. The present situation lasted only during the four years of Chintila's reign (638-642).
III. THE JEWS OF THE ARABIAN PENINSULA
Happy condition of the Jews in Arabia--Traditions as to their original settlements--Yathrib and Chaibar--The Jewish-Arabic tribes--The Benu-Nadhir, the Benu-Kuraiza, and Benu-Bachdal--The Benu-Kainukaa--The Jews of Yemen-- Their power and influence--Conversion of Arabian tribes to Judaism--Abu-Kariba the first Jewish-Himyarite king--Zorah Dhu-Nowas--Samuel Ibn-Adija--Mahomet--His indebtedness to Judaism--Mahomet's early friendliness to the Jews and subsequent breach with them--His attacks on the Jewish tribes --The War of the Fosse--The position of the Jews under the Caliphs.
500-662 C. E.
Wearied with contemplating the miserable plight of the Jews in their ancient home and in the countries of Europe, and fatigued by the constant sight of fanatical oppression, the eyes of the observer rest with gladness upon their situation in the Arabian peninsula. Here the sons of Judah were free to raise their heads, and did not need to look about them with fear and humiliation, lest the ecclesiastical wrath be discharged upon them, or the secular power overwhelm them. Here they were not shut out from the paths of honor, nor excluded from the privileges of the state, but, untrammeled, were allowed to develop their powers in the midst of a free, simple, and talented people, to show their manly courage, to compete for the gifts of fame, and with practised hand to measure swords with their antagonists. Instead of bearing the yoke, the Jews were not infrequently the leaders of the Arabian tribes. Their intellectual superiority constituted them a power, and they concluded offensive and defensive alliances, and carried on feuds. Besides the sword and the lance, however, they handled the ploughshare and the lyre, and in the end became the teachers of the Arabian nation. The history of the Jews of Arabia in the century which precedes Mahomet's appearance, and during the period of his activity, forms a glorious page in the annals of the Jews.
The first immigration of Jewish families into the free peninsula is buried in misty tradition. According to one account, the Israelites sent by Joshua to fight the Amalekites settled in the city of Yathrib (afterwards Medina), and in the province of Chaibar; according to another, the Israelite warriors, under Saul, who had spared the beautiful young son of the Amalekite king, and had been repudiated by the nation for their disobedience, returned to the Hejas (northern Arabia), and settled there. An Israelite colony is also supposed to have been formed in northern Arabia during the reign of David. It is possible that under the powerful kings of Judah, seafaring Israelites, who navigated the Red Sea on their way to Ophir--the land of gold--established trading stations, for the trade with India, in Mariba and Sanaa (Usal), the most important commercial towns of southern Arabia (Yemen, Himyara, Sabea), and planted Jewish colonies there. The later Arabian Jews said, however, that they had heard from their forefathers that many Jewish fugitives had escaped to northern Arabia on the destruction of the First Temple by Nebuchadnezzar. But there can be no doubt that the persecution of the Jews by the Romans was the means of establishing a Jewish population in the Arabian peninsula. The death-defying zealots who, after the destruction of the Second Temple, fled in part to Egypt and to Cyrene, in order to continue there the desperate struggle against the thraldom of Rome, also passed in straggling bands into Arabia, where they were not compelled to hide their love of freedom or to abandon their warlike bearing.
From these fugitives sprang three Jewish-Arabic tribes--the Benu-Nadhir, the Benu-Kuraiza, and the Benu-Bachdal, the first two of which were descended from Aaron, and therefore called themselves Cohanim (Al-kahinani). Another Jewish family--the Benu-Kainukaa--were established in northern Arabia, and their mode of living was different from that of the Nadhir and Kuraiza. These tribes had their center in the city of Yathrib, which was situated in a fruitful district, planted with palms and rice, and watered by small streams. As the Jews were often molested by Bedouins, they built castles on the elevated places in the city and the surrounding country, whereby they guarded their independence. Although originally the sole rulers of this district, they were afterwards obliged to share their power and the possession of the soil with the Arabs, for, about the year 300, two related families, the Benu-Aus and the Chazraj (together forming the tribe of Kaila), settled in the same neighborhood, and sometimes stood in friendly, sometimes in hostile relations to the Jews.
To the north of Yathrib was situated the district of Chaibar, which was entirely inhabited by Jews, who constituted a separate commonwealth. The Jews of Chaibar are supposed to have been descendants of the Rechabites, who, in accordance with the command of their progenitor, Jonadab, the son of Rechab, led a nomadic and Nazarite life; after the destruction of the First Temple, they are said to have wandered as far as the district of Chaibar, attracted by its abundance of palms and grain. The Jews of Chaibar constructed a line of castles or fortresses, like the castles of the Christian knights; the strongest of them was Kamus, built upon a hill difficult of access. These castles protected them from the predatory incursions of the warlike Bedouins, and enabled them to offer an asylum to many a persecuted fugitive. Wadil-Kora (the valley of the villages), a fertile plain a day's journey from Chaibar, was also inhabited exclusively by Jews. In Mecca, where stood the sanctuary of the Arabs, there probably lived but few Jews.
They were numerously represented, however, in southern Arabia (Yemen), "the land," its inhabitants boasted, "the very dust of which was gold, which produced the healthiest men, and whose women brought forth without pain." But unlike their brethren in Hejas, the Jews of Arabia Felix lived without racial or political cohesion, scattered among the Arabs. They nevertheless in time obtained so great an influence over the Arab tribes and the kings of Yemen (Himyara), that they were able to prevent the propagation of Christianity in this region. The Byzantine Christian emperors had their desires fixed upon these markets for Indian produce. Without actually meditating the subjection of the brave Himyarites (Homerites), they desired to gain their friendship by converting them to Christianity; the cross was to be the means of effecting a commercial connection. It was not until the end of the fifth or the beginning of the sixth century that the Christian envoys succeeded in converting to Christianity an Arab prince and his tribe, whose capital was the commercial town of Najara.--Arabia owned only half the island of Yotabe (now Jijbân), in the Red Sea (60 miles to the south of the capital, Aila); a small Jewish free state had existed there since time immemorial.
In consequence of their Semitic descent, the Jews of Arabia possessed many points of similarity with the primitive inhabitants of the country. Their language was closely related to Arabic, and their customs, except those that had been produced by their religion, were not different from those of the sons of Arabia. The Jews became, therefore, so thoroughly Arabic that they were distinguished from the natives of the country only by their religious belief. Intermarriage between the two nations tended to heighten the similarity of their characters. Like the Himyarites, the Jews of southern Arabia applied themselves more particularly to the trade between India, the Byzantine empire, and Persia. The Jews of northern Arabia, on the contrary, led the life of Bedouins; they occupied themselves with agriculture, cattle breeding, transport by caravan, traffic in weapons, and probably also the calling of robbers. The Arabian Jews likewise possessed a patriarchal, tribal constitution. Several families were united under one name, and led by a chieftain (shaïch), who in times of peace settled controversies and pronounced judgment, and in war commanded all the men able to bear arms, and concluded alliances with neighboring tribes. Like the Arabs, the Jews of the peninsula extended their hospitality to every one who entered their tents, and held inviolable faith with their allies; but they shared also the faults of the original inhabitants of the peninsula, avenging the death of one of their number with rigorous inflexibility, and hiding in ambush in order to surprise and annihilate their enemy. It would sometimes happen that a Jewish tribe, having entered into an alliance with an Arabian clan, would find itself opposed to a kindred tribe which had espoused another cause. But even though Jews were at feud with each other, their innate qualities moderated in them Bedouin ferocity, which never extended mercy to a foe. They ransomed the prisoners of a kindred tribe with which they happened to be at war, from the hands of their own allies, being unwilling to abandon them as slaves to heathens, "because," said they, "the redemption of such of our co-religionists as are prisoners is a religious duty." Besides being equal to the Arabs in bravery, the Jews also contended with them for the palm in poetry. For in addition to manliness and courage, poetry was cultivated among the Arab nobles; it was fostered by the chieftains, and richly rewarded by the Arab kings. Next to the warrior, the poet was the man most honored in Arabia; for him all hearts and tents opened wide. The Jews of Arabia were likewise able to speak with elegance the Arabic language, and to adorn their poetry with rhymes.
The knowledge of their religion, which the Arabian Jews had brought with them in their flight from Judæa, and that which afterwards came to them from the academies, conferred upon them superiority over the heathen tribes, and soon made them their masters. While but few Arabs, before the latter part of the seventh century, were familiar with the art of writing, it was universally understood by the Jews, who made use, however, of the square, the so-called Assyrian characters. As the few Arabs that succeeded in learning to write generally employed the Hebrew characters, it would appear that they first acquired the art of writing from the Jews. Every Jew in Arabia was probably able to read the Holy Scriptures, for which reason the Arabs called the Jews the "nation of writing" (Ahl' ul kitab).
In the form in which it was transmitted to them, that is to say, with the character impressed upon it by the Tanaim and the Amoraim, Judaism was most holy to the Arabian Jews. They strictly observed the dietary laws, and solemnized the festivals, and the fast of Yom-Kippur, which they called Ashura. They celebrated the Sabbath with such rigor that in spite of their delight in war, and the opportunity for enjoying it, their sword remained in its scabbard on that day. Although they had nothing to complain of in this hospitable country, which they were able to regard and love as their fatherland, they yearned nevertheless to return to the holy land of their fathers, and daily awaited the coming of the Messiah. Like all the Jews of the globe, therefore, they turned their face in prayer towards Jerusalem. They were in communication with the Jews of Palestine, and even after the fall of the Patriarchate, willingly subordinated themselves to the authorities in Tiberias, whence they received, as also from the Babylonian academies probably, religious instruction and interpretation of the Bible. Yathrib was the seat of Jewish learning, and possessed teachers of the Law (Achbâr, Chabar) who expounded the Scriptures in an academy (Midras). But the knowledge of the Bible which the Arabian Jews possessed was not considerable. They were acquainted with it only through the medium of the Agadic exegesis, which had become familiar to them in their travels or had been brought to them by immigrants. For them the glorious history of the past coalesced so completely with the Agadic additions that they were no longer able to separate the gold from the dross. Endowed with poetical fancy, the Arabian Jews on their side embellished the Biblical history with interesting legends, which were afterwards circulated as actual facts.
The Jews of Arabia, enjoying complete liberty, and being subjected to no restraint, were able to defend their religious opinions without fear, and to communicate them with impunity to their heathen neighbors. The Arab mind, susceptible to intellectual promptings, was delighted with the simple, sublime contents of the Bible, and by degrees certain Jewish conceptions and religious ideas became familiar and current in Arabia. The Arabian Jews made their neighbors acquainted with a calendar-system, without which the latter were completely at sea in the arrangement of their holy seasons; learned Jews from Yathrib taught the Arabs to insert another month in their lunar year, which was far in arrear of the solar year. The Arabs adopted the nineteen-years cycle of the Jews (about 420), and called the intercalary month Nasi, doubtless from the circumstance that the Jews were accustomed to receive their calendar for the festivals from their Nasi (Patriarch).
The Jews even succeeded in instructing the Arabs in regard to their historical origin, concerning which their memories were void, and in their credulity the latter accepted this genealogy as the true one. It was of great consequence to the Jews to be regarded and acknowledged by the Arabs as their kinsmen, and too many points of social interest were bound up with this relationship for them to allow it to escape their attention. The holy city of Mecca (Alcharam), the chief city of the country, was built round an ancient temple (Kaaba, the Square), or more properly, round a black stone; for all Arabs it was an asylum, in which the sword durst not quit the sheath. The five fairs, the most important of which was at Okaz, could be frequented only in the four holy months of the year, when the truce of God prevailed. Whoever desired to take advantage of these periods and to enjoy security of life in the midst of a warlike people, not over-scrupulous in the matter of shedding blood, was obliged to establish his relationship to the Arabs, otherwise he was excluded from these privileges.
Happily, the Arabian Jews bethought them of the genealogy of the Arabs as set forth in the first book of the Pentateuch, and seized upon it as the instrument by which to prove their kinship with them. The Jews were convinced that they were related to the Arabs on two sides, through Yoktan and through Ishmael. Under their instruction, therefore, the two principal Arabian tribes traced back the line of their ancestors to these two progenitors, the real Arabs (the Himyarites) supposing themselves to be descended from Yoktan; the pseudo-Arabs in the north, on the other hand, deriving their origin from Ishmael. These points of contact granted, the Jews had ample opportunity to multiply the proofs of their relationship. The Arabs loved genealogical tables, and were delighted to be able to follow their descent and history so far into hoary antiquity; accordingly, all this appeared to them both evident and flattering. They consequently exerted themselves to bring their genealogical records and traditions into unison with the Biblical accounts. Although their traditions extended over less than six centuries on the one side to their progenitor Yarob and his sons or grandsons Himyar and Kachtan, and on the other, to Adnan, yet in their utter disregard of historical accuracy, this fact constituted no obstacle. Without a scruple, the southern Arabians called themselves Kachtanites, and the northern Arabians Ishmaelites. They readily accorded to the Jews the rights of relationship, that is to say, equality and all the advantages attending it.
The Arabs were thus in intimate intercourse with the Jews, and the sons of the desert, whose unpoetical mythology afforded them no matter for inspiration, derived much instruction from Judaism. Under these circumstances many Arabs could not fail to develop peculiar affection for Judaism, and some embraced this religion, though their conversion had not been thought of by the Jews. As they had practised circumcision while heathen, their conversion to Judaism was particularly easy. The members of a family among the Arabs were indissolubly bound to one another, and, according to their phylarchic constitution, the individuals identified themselves with the tribe. This brought about, that when a chieftain became a Jew, his whole clan at once followed him, the wisest, into the fold of Judaism. It is expressly recorded about several Arabian tribes that they were converted to Judaism; such were the Benu-Kinanah, a warlike, quarrelsome clan, related to the most respected Koraishites of Mecca, and several other families of the tribes Aus and Chazraj in Yathrib.
Especially memorable, however, in the history of the Arabs is the conversion to Judaism of a powerful king of Yemen. The princes or kings of Yemen bore the name of Tobba, and at times ruled over the whole of Arabia; they traced their historical origin back to Himyar, their legendary origin to Kachtan. One of these kings, who went by the name of Abu-Kariba Assad-Tobban, was a man of judgment, knowledge, poetical endowments, and of valor which incited him to conquest. Abu-Kariba therefore undertook (about 500) an expedition against Persia and the Arabian provinces of the Byzantine empire. On his march he passed through Yathrib, the capital of northern Arabia, and not expecting treachery from the inhabitants of the town, left his son there as governor. Hardly, however, had he proceeded further, when he received the sad intelligence that the people of Yathrib had killed his son. Smitten with grief, he turned back in order to wreak bloody vengeance on the perfidious city, and after cutting down the palm trees, from which the inhabitants derived their principal sustenance, laid siege to it with his numerous band of warriors. A Jewish poet composed an elegy on the ruined palm trees, which the Arabs loved like living beings, and the destruction of which they bewailed like the death of dear relatives. The Jews rivaled the Chazraj Arabs in bravery in resisting Abu-Kariba's attack, and finally succeeded in tiring out his troops. During the siege, the Himyarite king was seized with a severe illness, and no fresh water could be discovered in the neighborhood to quench his burning thirst. Two Jewish teachers of the Law from Yathrib, Kaab and Assad by name, took advantage of Abu-Kariba's exhaustion to betake themselves to his tent, and persuade him to pardon the inhabitants of Yathrib and raise the siege. The Arabs have woven a tissue of legend about this interview, but it is certain that the Jewish sages found opportunity to discourse to Abu-Kariba of Judaism, and succeeded in inspiring him with a lively interest for it. The exhortations of Kaab and Assad raised his sympathy to so high a pitch that he determined to embrace the Jewish faith, and induced the Himyarite army to do likewise.
At his desire the two Jewish sages of Yathrib accompanied him to Yemen, in order to convert his people to Judaism. This conversion, however, was not easy, for a nation does not cast off its opinions, usages and bad habits at will. There remained as many heathens as Jews in the land; they retained their temples, and were allowed to profess their religion unmolested. Altogether the Judaism which the king of Yemen professed must have been very superficial, and cannot have influenced to an appreciable extent the customs or the mode of living of the people. A prince of the noble tribe of the Kendites, a nephew of the king of Yemen, Harith Ibn-Amru by name, also embraced the Jewish faith. Abu-Kariba appointed him as viceroy of the Maaddites on the Red Sea, and also gave him the government of Mecca and Yathrib. With Harith a number of the Kendites went over to Judaism. The news of a Jewish king and a Jewish empire in the most beautiful and fertile part of Arabia was spread abroad by the numerous foreigners who visited the country for the purpose of trade, and reached the Jews of the most distant lands. It was asserted that they had settled there before the destruction of the First Temple and the fall of the Israelite kingdom.
Abu-Kariba's reign did not last long after his adoption of Judaism. His warlike nature prevented him from maintaining peace, and prompted him to engage in bold enterprises. It is said that in one of these campaigns he was slain by his own soldiers, who were worn out with fatigue and weary marches. He left three sons, Hassan, Amru, and Zorah, all of whom were minors.
Zorah, the youngest (520-530), was nicknamed Dhu-Nowas (curly-locks) on account of his fine head of hair. He was a zealous disciple of Judaism, and for that reason gave himself the Hebrew name Yussuf. But his zeal for the religion of which his father had also been an enthusiastic advocate continually involved him in difficulties, and brought misfortune to him, his kingdom, and the Jews of Himyara. King Zorah Yussuf Dhu-Nowas had heard how his co-religionists in the Byzantine kingdom suffered from daily persecution. He felt deeply for them, and wished therefore by retaliation to force the Byzantine emperors to render justice to the Jews. When some Roman (Byzantine) merchants were traveling on business through Himyara, the king had them seized and put to death. This spread terror among the Christian merchants who traded with the country whence come the sweet perfumes and the wealth of India. It also caused the Indian and Arabian trade to decline. In consequence of this, Dhu-Nowas involved his people in an exhausting war.
A neighboring king, Aidug, who still adhered to heathenism, reproached the Jewish king for his impolitic step in destroying the trade with Europe. The excuse Dhu-Nowas made was that many notable Jews in Byzantium were innocently put to death every year. This, however, made no impression upon Aidug. He declared war against Dhu-Nowas and defeated him in battle (521). As the outcome of his victory, Aidug is said to have embraced Christianity. Dhu-Nowas was not killed in this battle, as the Christian authorities relate, but made another effort, and through his impetuosity entangled himself in new difficulties. Najaran, in Yemen, was inhabited chiefly by Christians; it had, too, a Christian chief, Harith (Aretas) Ibn-Kaleb, who was a feudatory of the Jewish-Himyaritic kingdom. Harith probably did not perform his feudal duties in the war against Aidug, or he may have committed other acts of insubordination. One account relates that two young Jews were murdered in Najaran, and that the chief Harith was cognizant thereof. The Jewish king was therefore much displeased; at any rate, Dhu-Nowas had a pretext for chastising the ruler of Najaran as a rebel. He besieged the town, and reduced the inhabitants to such straits that they were forced to capitulate. Three hundred and forty chosen men, with Harith at their head, repaired to Dhu-Nowas's camp to sign the terms of peace (523). There, it is said, the king of Himyara, although he had assured the men of immunity from punishment, determined either to force them to accept Judaism or to put them to death. As they refused to renounce their faith, it is reported that they were executed, and their bodies thrown into the river. The entire account is so completely legendary that it is impossible to discover any historical fact. This much is certain: Dhu-Nowas levied a heavy tribute on the Christians in the kingdom of Himyara as a reprisal for the persecution of his co-religionists in Christian countries.
The news of the events in Najaran spread like wildfire; the number of the victims was exaggerated, and the punishment of the rebels was stigmatized as a persecution of the Christians on the part of a Jewish king. An elegy was composed on the martyrs. Simeon, a Syrian bishop, who was traveling to northern Arabia, did his utmost to rouse up enemies against Dhu-Nowas. Simeon believed the exaggerated account which had been circulated. He sent an incisive letter to another bishop who lived near Arabia, imploring him to set the Christians against the Jewish king, and to incite the Nejus (king) of Ethiopia to war against him. He also proposed to imprison the teachers of Judaism in Tiberias, and to compel them to write to Dhu-Nowas to put a stop for their sake to the persecution of the Christians. The Emperor Justin the First, a weak and foolish old man, was also asked to make war on the Jewish king. But his people were engaged in a war against the Persians, and he therefore replied, "Himyara is too far from us, and I cannot allow my army to march through a sandy desert for so great a distance. But I will write to the king of Ethiopia to send troops to Himyara."
Thus, many enemies conspired to ruin one who had attempted to assist his co-religionists in every way. Dhu-Nowas's most formidable enemy was Elesbaa (Atzbaha), the Nejus of Ethiopia, a monarch full of religious zeal. He beheld with jealousy the crown on the head of a Jew, and required no persuasion to fight, for the Jewish kingdom had long been a thorn in his side. Elesbaa equipped a powerful fleet, which the Byzantine Emperor, or rather young Justinian, his co-regent, re-inforced with ships from Egypt. A numerous army crossed the narrow strait of the Red Sea to Yemen. The Christian soldiers were united with this army. Dhu-Nowas, it is true, took measures to prevent the landing of the Ethiopian army by barring the landing-places with chains, and gathering an army on his side. The army of Himyara, however, was inferior in numbers to that of Ethiopia, but the king relied on his faithful and courageous cavalry. The first engagement terminated disastrously for Dhu-Nowas. The town of Zafara (Thafar) fell into the hands of the enemy, and with it the queen and the treasures. The Himyaran soldiers lost all courage. Yussuf Dhu-Nowas, who saw that there was no escape, and who was unwilling to fall into the hands of his arrogant foe, plunged, with his steed, from a rock into the sea, his body being carried far away (530). The victorious Ethiopians raged in Himyara with fire and sword, plundering, massacring, and taking the unarmed prisoners. They were so enraged at the Jews in Himyara that they massacred thousands as an atoning sacrifice for the supposed Christian martyrs of Najaran. Such was the end of the Jewish kingdom of Himyara, which arose in a night and disappeared in a night.
About this time the Jews of Yathrib fell into strife with the neighboring tribes of Arabia. The Jews in Yathrib, on account of their intimate relation with the king of Himyara, whose authority extended over the province, ruled over the heathen, and a Jewish chief was governor. The Arabians of the Kailan race (Aus and Chazraj) hated the rule of the Jews, and seized the opportunity of rebelling when the Jews could not rely on assistance from Himyara. An Arabian chief of the Ghassanid race, Harith Ibn Abu Shammir, who was closely related to the Kailan race, was invited to lead his troops towards Yathrib. This brave and adventurous prince of Arabia, who was attached to the Byzantine court, accepted the invitation. In order not to arouse the suspicions of the Jews, Ibn Abu Shammir gave out that he intended going to Himyara. He encamped near Yathrib, and invited the Jewish chiefs to visit him. Many of them came, expecting to be welcomed with the prince's usual generosity, and to be loaded with presents. But as they entered the tent of the Ghassanid prince, they were one by one murdered. Thereupon Ibn Abu Shammir exclaimed to the Arabs of Yathrib: "I have freed you from a great part of your enemies; now it will be easy for you to master the rest, if you have strength and courage." He then departed. The Arabs, however, did not venture to engage openly with the Jews, but had recourse to a stratagem. During a banquet, all the Jewish chiefs were killed, as well as Alghitjun or Sherif, the Jewish prince. Deprived of their leaders, the Jews of Yathrib were easily conquered by the Arabians, and they were obliged to give up their strongholds to them (530-535). It was a long time before they could get over the loss of their power and the sense of defeat. The insecurity of their lives taught them dissimulation, and they gradually placed themselves under the protection of one or another tribe, and so became dependents (Mawâli) of Aus and Chazraj. They hoped for the coming of the Messiah to crush their enemies.
Harith Ibn Abu Shammir, the Ghassanid prince, on his return from Yathrib, commenced a feud with a Jewish poet, who thereby became renowned throughout Arabia. Samuel Ibn-Adiya (born about 500 and died about 560), whose martial spirit was shown in the attacks of the Ghassanids, won immortality through his friendship with the most celebrated poet of Arabia in the time before Mahomet. His biography gives an insight into the life of the Jews of Arabia of that time. According to some, Samuel was descended from the heathen race of the Ghassanids; according to others, he was of Jewish origin, or to be more correct, he had an Arabian mother and a Jewish father. Adiya, his father, had lived in Yathrib until he built a castle in the neighborhood of Taima, which, from its many colors, was called Al-ablak, and has been immortalized in Arabic poetry. Samuel, the chief of a small tribe, was so respected in Hejas that the weaker tribes placed themselves under his protection. Ablak was a refuge for the persecuted and exiled, and the owner of the castle defended those under his roof at the risk of his life.
Imrulkais Ibn Hojr, the adventurous son of the Kendite prince, and at the same time the most distinguished poet of Arabia, was hemmed in on all sides by secret and open enemies, and could find shelter nowhere except in Samuel's safe retreat. The Jewish poet, the lord of the castle, was proud to afford a refuge to Arabia's most celebrated writer, whose fame and adventures were known throughout the peninsula. Imrulkais took his daughter and what remained of his retinue to Ablak, and lived there for some time. As the Kendite prince had no prospect of obtaining the assistance of the Arabs to avenge the murder of his father, and to regain his paternal inheritance, he endeavored to win over Justinian, the Byzantine Emperor. Before starting on his journey, he charged Samuel with the care of his daughter, his cousin, and of five valuable coats of mail and other arms. Samuel promised to guard the persons and the goods entrusted to him as he would the apple of his eye. But these arms brought misfortune on him. When the Ghassanid prince was in Hejas he went to Ablak, Samuel's castle, and demanded the surrender of Imrulkais' arms. Samuel refused to surrender them according to his promise. Harith then laid siege to the castle. Finding it impregnable, however, the tyrant had recourse to a barbarous expedient to compel Samuel to submit. One of Samuel's sons was taken outside the citadel by his nurse, and Harith captured him, and threatened to kill him unless Samuel acceded to his request. The unfortunate father hesitated for only a moment between duty to his guest and affection for his son; his sense of duty prevailed, and he said to the Ghassanid prince: "Do what you will; time always avenges treachery, and my son has brothers." Unmoved by such magnanimity, the despot slew the son before his father's eyes. Nevertheless, Harith had to withdraw from Ablak without accomplishing his object. The Arab proverb, "Faithful as Samuel," used to express undying faith, originated from this circumstance.
Many blamed him for the sacrifice of his son; but he defended himself in a poem, full of noble sentiments, courage and chivalrous ideas:--
Oh, ye censurers, cease to blame the man Who so oft has defied your censure. You should, when erring, have guided me aright, Instead of leading me astray with empty words. I have preserved the Kendite coats of mail; Another may betray the trust confided him! Thus did Adiya, my father, counsel me in by-gone days: "O Samuel, destroy not what I have built up!" For me he built a strong and safe place, where I ne'er feared to give defiance to my oppressor.
Before his death (about 560) Samuel could look back with pride on his chivalrous life and on the protection he had afforded the weak. His swan-song runs:--
Oh, would that I knew, the day my loss is lamented, What testimony my mourners would afford me; Whether they will say "Stay with us! For In many a trouble you have comforted us; The rights you had you ne'er resigned, Yet needed no reminder to give theirs to others."
Shoraich, his son, followed in his father's footsteps. He was a brave and noble man. On one occasion Maimun Asha, the celebrated Arabic poet, whose ungovernable temper raised many enemies against him, was pursued by an adversary, and having been captured, he was, by chance and without being recognized, taken with other prisoners to Taima, the castle of Shoraich. Here, in order to obtain his release, he sang a poem in praise of Samuel:--
Be like Samuel, when the fierce warrior Pressed heavily around him with his array; "Choose between the loss of a child and faithlessness!" Oh, evil choice which thou hadst to make! But quickly and calmly did he reply: "Kill thy captive, I fulfil my pledges."
Towards the end of the sixth century, the Jews of Yathrib had nearly recovered from the oppressive blows dealt them by their neighbors in Arabia. Their rulers, the Aus and Chazraj, had exhausted themselves in bloody feuds which lasted twenty years, whilst their allies suffered less. In consequence of another war between the same tribes, the Jews again rose to importance in Yathrib.
Judaism not only won over to its side many tribes in Arabia, and taught the sons of the desert certain indispensable arts, but it also inspired the founder of a religion, who played an important part in the great drama of the world's history, and whose influence survives to this day. Mahomet, the prophet of Mecca and Yathrib, was, it is true, not a loyal son of Judaism, but he appreciated its highest aims, and was induced by it to give to the world a new faith, known as Islam, founded on a lofty basis. This religion has exercised a wonderful influence on the course of Jewish history and on the evolution of Judaism. In the peaceful meetings in Mecca, his birthplace, at the public markets, and on his travels, Abdallah's son heard much spoken of the religion which acknowledges the belief in one God, who rules the world. He heard much of Abraham, who devoted himself to the service of God, and of religion and morality, which gave the disciples of Judaism the advantage over infidels. Mahomet's mind, at once original and receptive, was powerfully impressed by all this. Waraka Ibn-Naufal, a celebrated Meccan, and a descendant of the noble Khoraish race, was a cousin of Chadija, Mahomet's wife, and he had embraced Judaism and knew Hebrew well. He certainly imbued Mahomet with a love for the religion of Abraham.
Mahomet's first doctrines were strongly tinged with Jewish coloring. He first conceived them when suffering from epilepsy, and he communicated them to his friends, pretending that they were revealed to him by the angel Gabriel. First and foremost he proclaimed the simple but fundamental principle of Judaism: "There is no God but Allah"; later his pride led him to add as an integral part of the confession of faith, "and Mahomet is his prophet." Judaism may justly consider his teachings a victory of its own truths and a fulfilment of the prophecy that "one day every knee will bend to the only God, and every tongue will worship Him," for Mahomet taught the unity of God, that there are no gods beside Him (anti-trinity), and that He may not be represented by any image. He preached against the dissolute idolatry which was practised with 300 idols in the Kaaba; he declaimed against the immorality which was openly and shamelessly practised amongst the Arabs; he condemned the revolting practice of parents who from fear or in order to be rid of them drowned their new-born daughters, and he declared that there was nothing new in all these changes, but that they were commanded by the faith of the ancient religion of Abraham. A similar thing had happened at the time when Paul of Tarsus first made known to the Hellenes the history and principles of Judaism.
The best teachings in the Koran are borrowed from the Bible or the Talmud. In consequence of the difficulties which Mahomet for several years (612-633) had to encounter in Mecca on account of these purified doctrines, there grew around the sound kernel a loathsome husk. Mahomet's connection with the Jews of Arabia assisted not a little in determining and modifying the teachings of Islam. Portions of the Koran are devoted to them, at times in a friendly, at times in a hostile spirit.
When Mahomet failed in obtaining a hearing in Mecca, the seat of idolatrous worship in Arabia, and even ran the risk of losing his life there, he addressed himself to some men from Yathrib, and urged them to accept his doctrines. These men were more familiar with Jewish doctrines than the Meccans; they found in Mahomet's revelations a close analogy to what they had often heard from their Jewish neighbors. They, therefore, showed themselves inclined to follow him, and caused him to be invited to Yathrib, where his teachings were likely to be favorably received on account of the numerous Jews residing there. As soon as he came there (622, the year of expatriation--Hejira), Mahomet took care to win over the Jews of Yathrib and to set forth his aims, as though he desired to bring about the universal recognition of Judaism in Arabia. When he saw the Jews fasting on the day of Atonement, he said, "It becomes us more than Jews to fast on this day," and he established a fast-day (Ashura). Mahomet entered into a formal alliance for mutual defense with the Jewish tribes, and instituted the custom of turning towards Jerusalem in prayer (Kiblah). In the disputes between the Jews and his disciples (Moslems), which were submitted to his judgment, he behaved leniently to the Jews. For this reason Mahomet's disciples preferred to bring the matters in dispute before a Jewish chief, because they expected more impartiality from him than from Mahomet. Mahomet for a long time employed a Jewish scribe to do his correspondence, he himself being unable to write. These advances on the part of a man of so much promise were very flattering to the Jews of Medina. They looked upon him to some extent as a Jewish proselyte, and expected to see Judaism through him attain to power in Arabia. Some of them followed him devotedly and were his faithful allies (Ansar); amongst them was a learned youth, Abdallah Ibn-Salâm, of the race of Kainukaa. Abdallah and other Jews assisted Mahomet in propagating the Koran. The unbelieving Arabs frequently reproached him, saying that he was an ear (accepted anything as truth), that it was not the angel Gabriel who was teaching him, but a mortal man. Nevertheless, though Abdallah Ibn-Salâm and other Jewish Ansars supported him, they were far from abandoning Judaism on this account, and continued to observe the Jewish commandments, and Mahomet was at first not offended by this conduct.
But only a small number of the Jews of Medina joined the band of believers, particularly when they perceived his selfish efforts, his haughtiness, and his insatiable love of women. They bore in their hearts too high an ideal of their ancient prophets to place this enthusiast, who longed after every beautiful woman, on an equal footing with them. "See him," said the Jews, "he is not satisfied with food, and has no other desire than that of being surrounded by women. If he is a prophet, he should confine himself to his duties as a prophet, and not turn to women." Other Jews said: "If Mahomet is a prophet, he should appear in Palestine, for only in that place God appears unto his elect." The Jews also objected to him, saying, "You pride yourself on being of Abraham's faith, but Abraham did not use the flesh and milk of camels." Mahomet's chief opponents on the Jewish side were Pinehas Ibn-Azura, a man of caustic wit, who seized every opportunity to make Mahomet appear ridiculous; furthermore, the far-famed Kaab Ibn-Asharaf, the offspring of an Arab father and a Jewish mother; a poet, Abu-Afak, an old man more than a hundred years old, who endeavored to arouse hate against Mahomet amongst the ignorant Arabs; and Abdallah, the son of Saura, who was looked upon as the most learned Jew in Hejas. Pinehas is the author of a witty answer to Mahomet's invitation to the Jewish tribe of Benu-Kainukaa to accept Islam. Mahomet, in his epistle, had used the words: "Lend yourselves unto God as a beautiful pledge." Pinehas answered, "God is so poor that He borrows from us!" Thus the Jewish opponents of Mahomet placed a ridiculous meaning on his sayings and revelations, and treated him contemptuously, not anticipating that the fugitive from Mecca, who had come to Medina for assistance, would shortly humble and in part destroy their tribes, and that he would control the destiny of many of their co-religionists in times to come. They relied too much on their own courage and strength, and forgot that the most dangerous enemy is he whom one disregards too much. Mahomet, indeed, with sly dissimulation, at first accepted the contempt bestowed on him by the Jews with apparent equanimity. He advised his disciples, "Fight only in a becoming manner with the people who believe in the Holy Writ (Jews), and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and to you. Our God is the same as yours, and we are faithful to Him." But the mutual discontent made it difficult to maintain peace permanently. On the one side, the Jews did their best to alienate Mahomet's followers. They succeeded in prejudicing the first man in Medina, the Chazrajite Abdallah Ibn-Ubey, against Mahomet, so that he remained antagonistic to Mahomet to the end of his days. This man was about to be elected king of his town, but through the arrival of Mahomet he had been cast into the shade. On the other side, his followers urged him to declare to what extent he held to Judaism. They saw that his disciples amongst the Jews still continued to observe the Jewish laws, and to abstain from camel's flesh, and they said to him, "If the Torah be a divine book, then let us follow its teachings." Since Mahomet was thoroughly an Arab, he could not join Judaism, and he perceived that the Arabs would not conform to religious customs which were quite strange to them. So it only remained for him to break with the Jews definitely. He thereupon published a long Sura (called the Sura of the Cow), full of invectives against the Jews. He altered the position assumed in prayer, and decreed that the believers should no longer turn their faces towards Jerusalem, but towards Mecca and the Kaaba. He discarded fasting on the day of Atonement (Ashura), and instituted instead the holy month Ramadhan, as had been customary among the Arabs from very ancient times. He was obliged to withdraw much of what he had in the beginning given out as God's revelation. Mahomet now asserted that the Torah had contained many allusions to his appearance and calling as a prophet, but that the Jews had expunged the passages. At first he declared that the Jews were possessed of the true faith; later on he said that they honored Ezra (Ozaïr) as the son of God, just as the Christians did Jesus, and that the Jews were consequently to be regarded as infidels. His hatred against the Jews, who refused to accept his prophecies, and saw through his designs, continually widened the breach between them and him.
Although he hated the Jews in his innermost heart, yet he did not venture to provoke them by acts of violence, because his authority was not sufficiently great, and the Jews outnumbered his followers. But after the battle at Bedr (in the winter of 624), when the small body of Mahometans gained a victory over the numerous Koraishites, the situation changed. Mahomet, whose power was greatly increased through this victory, exchanged the attitude of a humble prophet for that of a fanatical tyrant, to whom any measure, even assassination, was a justifiable means of freeing himself from his enemies. However, he was prudent enough to avoid becoming involved in disputes with the powerful Jewish tribes; he began with the weak and defenseless. A poetess, Asma, daughter of Merwan, who was of Jewish descent, and married to an Arab, was murdered at night whilst asleep (because she had composed satires against the false prophet), and he commended the murderer. Thereupon the Jewish tribe Kainukaa experienced his religious wrath. It was the weakest of the Jewish-Arabian tribes, and to it belonged that Pinehas Ibn-Azura, whose sarcastic wit had made Mahomet appear in a ridiculous light. The pretext was of the slightest kind. A Mahometan had killed a Jew on account of a poor practical joke, and the Kainukaa avenged his death. Mahomet thereupon challenged them to profess Islam, or to accept war as the alternative. They replied: "We are, it is true, for peace, and would gladly maintain our alliance with you; but since you desire to make war upon us, we will show that we have no fear." They reckoned upon the assistance of the tribes of Nadhir and Kuraiza, who were their co-religionists, and withdrew to their fortresses at Medina. Mahomet collected his troops, and besieged the Kainukaa. Had the numerous Jews of northern Arabia, Nadhir, Kuraiza, and those of Chaibar, who, like the Kainukaa, were threatened, come to their assistance, and had they, before it was too late, made an offensive and defensive alliance, they would have been able to crush Mahomet and his straggling followers, on whose fidelity, moreover, he could not entirely rely. But the Jews, like the Arabs, were divided, and each tribe had only its own interests in view. The Kainukaa fought desperately for fifteen days, expecting re-inforcements from their co-religionists. But as these did not come, they surrendered to the enemy. Mahomet had all the Jews of Kainukaa put in chains with the intention of killing them; but a word from Abdallah Ibn-Ubey, their ally, made him draw back with alarm from his purpose. Abdallah laid hold of his shirt of mail, and said: "I will not let you go until you promise me to spare the captives; for they constitute my strength; they have defended me against the black people and the red people." To which Mahomet replied: "Let them be free; may God condemn them, and Abdallah with them!" The Jews of Kainukaa, 700 in number, were obliged to leave their possessions behind, and they set out for Palestine in a most destitute condition (February, 624). They settled in Batanea, whose chief town was Adraat, where they were probably received in a fraternal manner by their co-religionists, who, at this time, were free from the Byzantine yoke.
After the victory over the Kainukaa, Mahomet communicated to the Moslems a revelation against the Jews, which deprived them of every protection: "O ye believers, choose ye not Jews and Christians as allies; they may protect themselves. He who befriends them is one of them; God tolerates no sinful people." This exclusion was less harmful to the Christians, as they were not numerously represented in northern Arabia, and generally kept themselves neutral. The Jews, on the contrary, who were accustomed to independence, and who were full of warlike courage, became involved in numerous disputes by this act of outlawry. Their former allies for the most part renounced them, and at Mahomet's bidding, took spiteful vengeance on them.
With this mutual, deadly hatred existing between Mahomet and the Jews, it is said that the Benu-Nadhir invited him one day to their castle of Zuhara with the intention of hurling him from the terraces and thus ending his life. At that time their chief was Hujej Ibn-Achtab. Mahomet accepted the invitation, but watched the movements of the Jews. Suspecting that they desired his death, he stole away and hastened to Medina. The Jews of Nadhir paid dearly, it is said, for this treacherous project. Mahomet gave them the choice of quitting their homes within ten days, or of preparing for death. The Nadhir were resolved at first to avoid war and to emigrate, but encouraged by Abdallah, who promised them assistance, they accepted the challenge which had been thrown down. They, however, waited in vain for the assistance promised to them. Mahomet commenced operations against them, and uprooted and burnt the date-trees which supplied them with food. His own people rebelled at this proceeding, for to these unscrupulous warriors a palm was holier than a man's life. After several days of siege, the Nadhir were obliged to capitulate, and the terms were that they should depart without arms, and that they should take only a certain portion of their possessions--as much as a camel could carry.
They thereupon emigrated to the number of six hundred, some of them going to their countrymen in Chaibar, and some settling in Jericho and Adraat (June-July, 625). The war against the Nadhirites was, later on, justified by Mahomet through a revelation of the Koran, which read: "All in the heavens and earth praise God; He is the most honored, the most wise. He it is who drove out the unbelievers amongst the people of the Book from their dwelling places (Kainukaa), to send them to those who had already emigrated. You thought not that they would go forth, they themselves thought that their strong places would protect them from God himself, but God attacked them unexpectedly, and threw terror into their hearts, so that their houses were destroyed with their own hands, as well as laid waste by believers." The exiled Benu-Nadhir, who had remained in Arabia, did not accept their misfortune quietly, but exerted themselves to form a coalition with the enemies of Mahomet in order to attack him with combined forces. Three respected Nadhirites, Hujej, Kinanah Ibn-ol-Rabia, and Sallam Ibn Mishkam, incited the Koraishites in Mecca, in alliance with the mighty tribe of the Ghatafan and others, to make war against the haughty tyrannical prophet, who was daily becoming more powerful and more cruel. The enemies of Mahomet in Mecca, though filled with rage against him, were first incited by the Jews to join battle with him.
Through the activity of the Nadhirites the Arabian tribes were induced to join in the war. They found it more difficult, however, to induce their co-religionists, the Benu-Kuraiza, to take part. Kaab-Ibn-Assad, the governor of Kuraiza, at first would not receive the Nadhirite Hujej, who had desired his protection, because his tribe had made an alliance with Mahomet and the Moslems, and he was so guileless as to rely on Mahomet's word. Hujej managed to convince him of the danger which threatened the Jews, and to persuade him that the victory of so many allies over the less numerous Moslems was certain. The Benu-Kuraiza yielded to his arguments. Ten thousand of the allied troops took the field, and intended to surprise Medina. Mahomet, forewarned by a deserter, would not allow his army, which was inferior in numbers, to fight a pitched battle. He fortified Medina by surrounding it with a deep ditch and other defenses. The Arabs, accustomed to fight in single combat, vainly discharged their arrows against the fortifications. Mahomet succeeded finally in sowing the seeds of mutual distrust among the chief allies, viz., the Koraishites, the Ghatafan and the Jews.
The "War of the Fosse" terminated favorably for Mahomet, and very unhappily for the Jews, upon whom the whole of his wrath now fell. On the day after the departure of the allies, Mahomet, with 3000 men, took the field against Kuraiza, announcing that he was thus obeying an express revelation. His next step was to arouse the enthusiasm of his followers in the cause of the war. "Let him that is obedient offer up his prayers in the neighborhood of Kuraiza," was the formula with which he exhorted them. The Jews, unable to resist in a battle, retired to their fortresses, which they put into a state of defense. Here they were besieged by Mahomet and his troops for twenty-five days (February-March, 627). Food then began to fail the besieged, and it became necessary to think of capitulation. They besought Mahomet to treat them as he had treated their brethren, the Nadhirites, viz., allow them to withdraw with their wives, their children, and a portion of their property. The vindictive prophet, however, refused their request, and demanded unconditional surrender.
Nearly 700 Jews, amongst them the chiefs Kaab and Hujej, were ruthlessly slaughtered in the market-place, and their bodies thrown into a common grave. The market-place was thenceforth called the Kuraiza Place. And all this was done in the name of God! The Koran makes reference to it in the following verse: "God drove out of their fortresses those of the people of the Book [the Jews] who assisted the allies, and he cast into their hearts terror and dismay. Some of them you put to flight, some you took captive; he has caused you to inherit their land, their houses, and their wealth, and a land which you have not trodden; for God is almighty." The women were bartered for weapons and horses. Mahomet wished to retain one of the captives, a beautiful girl, Rihana by name, as his concubine; she, however, proudly rejected his advances. Only one of the Kuraiza remained alive, a certain Zabir Ibn-Bata, and he only by the intercession of Thabit, one of his friends. Full of joy, the latter hastened to the aged Zabir, to tell him of his fortune. "I thank thee," said the Jewish sage, who lay in fetters; "but tell me what has become of our leader Kaab?" "He is dead," answered Thabit. "And Hujej Ibn-Achtab, the prince of the Jews?" "He is dead," he again replied. "And Azzel Ibn-Samuel, the fearless warrior?" "He, too, is dead," was his answer again. "Then I do not care to live," said Zabir. The old man begged that he might die by the hands of his friend. His wish was granted.
A year later came the turn of the Jews in the district of Chaibar, a confederacy of small Jewish states. This war, however, was protracted into a long campaign, because the province had a number of fortresses which were in a good state of repair, and were well defended. The exiled Nadhirites in Chaibar roused their comrades to vigorous resistance. The Arab races of Ghatafan and Fezara had promised assistance. The leading spirit of the Chaibarites was the exiled Nadhirite, Kinanah Ibn Rabia, a man who possessed indomitable firmness and courage. He was called the King of the Jews, and was abetted by Marhab, a giant of Himyarite extraction. Mahomet, before the beginning of the war, turned in prayer to God, beseeching him to grant a victory over the Jews of Chaibar. The war, in which Mahomet employed 14,000 warriors, lasted almost two months (Spring 628).
The war against Chaibar assumed the same character as that which was waged against the other Jewish tribes. It was begun by the cutting down of the palm trees, and the siege of the small fortresses, which surrendered after a short resistance. Mahomet met the most vigorous resistance at the fortress Kamus, which was built on a steep rock. The Mahometans were several times beaten back by the Jews. Abu-Bekr and Omar, Mahomet's two bravest generals, lost their distinction as unconquered heroes before the walls of Kamus. Marhab performed wonderful feats of valor, to avenge the death of his brother, who had fallen earlier in the war.
When Mahomet sent his third general, Ali, against him, the Jewish hero addressed him thus: "Chaibar knows my valor, I am Marhab the hero, well armed and tried in the field." He then challenged Ali to single combat. But his time had come. He fell at the hands of his peer. After many attempts, the enemy succeeded in effecting an entrance into the fortress. How the captives fared is not known. Kinanah was captured and put on the rack in order to force him to discover his hidden treasures. But he bore pain and even death without uttering a word. After the fortress had fallen, the Jews lost courage, and the other fortresses surrendered on condition that the garrisons should be allowed to withdraw. They were subsequently allowed to take possession of their lands, and only had to pay as an annual tribute one half of their produce. The Mahometan conquerors took possession of all the movable property, and returned home laden with the spoils of the Jews. Fadak, Wadil-Kora and Taima also submitted. Their inhabitants, according to agreement, were allowed to remain in their land. The year 628 everywhere was distinguished by fatalities for the Jews. It marks the victory of Mahomet over the Jews of Chaibar, the decay of the last independent Jewish tribes, and the persecution of the Jews of Palestine by the Emperor Heraclius, who had, for a short time, again taken up arms. The sword which the Hasmoneans had wielded in defense of their religion, and which was in turn used by the Zealots and the Arabian Jews, was wrung from the hands of the last Jewish heroes of Chaibar, and henceforth the Jews had to make use of another weapon for the protection of their sanctuary.
Mahomet had brought two pretty Jewish women with him from the war at Chaibar: Safia, the daughter of his inveterate enemy, the Nadhirite Hujej, and Zainab, the sister of Marhab. This courageous woman bethought herself of an artifice, whereby she might avenge the murder of her co-religionists and relatives. She pretended to be friendly towards him, and prepared a repast for him. Mahomet unsuspectingly ate of a poisoned dish which she had set before him and his companions. One of them died from the effects. But Mahomet, who, not having found the dish to his taste, had scarcely tasted it, was saved alive, but suffered for a long time, and felt the effects of the poison to the hour of his death. Questioned as to the reason of her action, Zainab coolly replied, "You have persecuted my people with untold afflictions; I therefore thought that if you were simply a warrior, I could procure rest for them through poison, but if you were really a prophet, God would warn you in time, and you would come to no harm."
Mahomet thereupon ordered her to be put to death, and commanded his troops to use none of the cooking utensils of the Jews before they had been scalded. The rest of the Jews did not even now give up the hope of freeing themselves of their arch-enemy. They intrigued against him, and made common cause with some ill-disposed Arabs. The house of a Jew, Suwailim, in Medina was the appointed meeting-place for the malcontents, whom Mahomet and his fanatic followers named "the hypocrites" (Munafikun). A traitor betrayed them, and Suwailim's house was burnt to the ground. The Jews in Arabia felt real joy at Mahomet's death (632), because they, like others, believed that the Arabs would be cured of their false belief that he was a higher being endowed with immortality. But fanaticism, together with the love of war and conquest, had already taken possession of the Arabians, and they accepted the Koran as a whole, alike its revolting features and the truths borrowed from Judaism, as the irrefragable Word of God. Judaism had reared in Islam a second unnatural child. The Koran became the book of faith of a great part of humanity in three parts of the world, and, being full of hostile expressions against the Jews, it naturally urged on the Mahometans to acts of hostility against the Jews. This is paralleled by the effect which the Apostles and the Evangelists produced upon the Christians. So great was the fanaticism of the second Caliph, Omar, a man of a wild and energetic nature, that he broke the treaty made by Mahomet with the Jews of Chaibar and Wadil-Kora. He drove them from their lands, as he did also the Christians of Najaran, in order that the holy ground of Arabia might not be desecrated by Jews and Christians.
Omar assigned the landed property of the Jews to the Mahometan warriors, and a strip of land near the town of Kufa, on the Euphrates, was given them in return (about 640). But as no evil in history is quite devoid of good consequences, the dominion of Islam furthered the elevation of Judaism from its deepest degradation.