While Benjamin Nahavendi, as is generally acknowledged, deviated widely from the Jewish system with respect to religious philosophy, he approached the Rabbanites on the subject of morals; he adopted many Talmudical ordinances, and left it to the free choice of the Karaites to reject or adopt them as their standard. In order to enforce obedience to the laws, Benjamin Nahavendi introduced a species of excommunication, which differed only slightly from the excommunication of the Rabbanites. When an accused person refused to obey the summons served on him, and attempted to evade judgment, he was to be cursed on each of seven successive days, and then excommunication pronounced on him. The excommunication consisted in the prohibition of intercourse with all the members of the community, who also were forbidden to greet him, or to accept anything from him; he was to be treated in all respects like one deceased, until he submitted. If he obstinately disregarded the decree, it was lawful to hand him over to temporal justice. Although Benjamin Nahavendi inclined to Rabbanism on certain points, he adhered firmly, nevertheless, to the Karaite principle of unrestrained research in the Bible. One ought not to tie one's self down to the authorities, but to follow one's own conviction; the son may differ from the father, the disciple from the master, as soon as they have reasons for their different views. "Inquiry is a duty, and errors occasioned by inquiry do not constitute a sin."
In the same manner as the orthodox Mahometan teachers of religion worked counter to the unrestrained subtlety of the Mutazilists, and, falling into the opposite extreme, conceived the divinity as possessed of a bodily form, so also did the Jewish adherents of the orthodox doctrine go astray, and, regarding the rationalistic innovation as a defection from Judaism, they conceived the most absurd ideas concerning the materiality of God. They even desired to accept in their most literal sense the Biblical expressions, "God's hand, God's foot, his sitting down, or walking about." The Agadic exposition of the Scripture, which occasionally made use of material, tangible figures, adapted to the comprehension of the people, promoted the acceptance of this anti-Jewish theory. This theory, the creation of an imbecile, gained adherents by reason of its mysterious nature. It gives a minute, corporeal description of the Deity, measures his height from head to foot by the parasang-scale, speaks in blasphemous detail of God's right and left eye, of his upper and lower lip, of his beard and of other members, which it would be sacrilegious even to mention. In order, however, not to prejudice the sublimity and majesty of God, this theory enlarges each organ to enormous proportions, and considers that justice has been done to the case when it adds that the scale by which the members are measured considerably exceeds the whole world (Shiur-Komah). To this God, whom it thus dissected and measured, the theory assigned a special house in heaven with seven halls (Hechaloth). In the uppermost hall, God is seated upon an elevated throne, the proportions of which are measured by the same enormous scale. The halls are populated by this materialistic theory with myriads of angels, to some of whom are assigned names formed by the arbitrary combination of Hebrew and foreign words into barbarous sounds. The chief angel, however, is a certain Metatoron, and the theory adds, after the example of the Christian and Mahometan authors, that he was Enoch or Henoch, originally a man, but transported by God into heaven, and converted into flames of fire. With evident pleasure the theory dwells upon the description of this abortion of a morbid fancy. It even dared place him at the side of the Divinity, and call him the "little God."
This theory, which was a compound of misunderstood Agadas, and of Jewish, Christian, and Mahometan fantastic notions, clothed itself in mysterious obscurity, and pretended to be a revelation. In order to answer the inquiry whence it had acquired this wisdom which enabled it to scoff at Judaism, in other words, at the Bible and the Talmud, it quotes alleged divine instructions. As there is no nonsense, however apparent, which cannot find adherents when earnestly and impressively enunciated, this doctrine of mystery, which was based upon a grossly material conception of God, found many followers. Its adepts called themselves "Men of Faith." They boasted of possessing the means of obtaining a view of the divine household. By virtue of certain incantations, invocations of the names of God and the angels, and the recitation of certain prayer-like chants, combined with fasting and an ascetic mode of living, they pretended to be able to perform supernatural deeds. For this purpose they made use of amulets and cameos (Kameoth), and wrote upon them the names of God or the angels with certain signs. Miracle-working was a trifle to these mystics. They asserted that every pious man had the power of performing miracles, if he only employed the proper means. To this end they wrote a number of works on the theory and practice of the esoteric doctrine; for the most part they contained downright nonsense, but here and there they rose to poetry. But this mystical literature only gave hints; the adepts would surrender the real key to a knowledge of the divine secrets and to the power of performing miracles only to certain persons, in whose hand and forehead they pretended to discover lines that proved them to be worthy of this favor.
This mystical doctrine flourished chiefly in Palestine, where the real study of the Talmud was languishing; little by little it made its way into Babylonia. This became apparent on the occasion of the election of a principal of the Pumbeditha academy (814). The best claim to this office was that advanced by a certain Mar-Aaron (ben Samuel), by reason of his erudition and on account of his having acted up till then as chief judge. Nevertheless, preference was given to the claim of a rival, the aged Joseph bar Abba, who was far inferior to him in learning; the reason of this preference being that the latter was an adept in mysticism, and was believed to be favored with the intimacy of the prophet Elijah. One day when this same Joseph bar Abba was presiding at a public meeting, he exclaimed with rapture, "Make room for the old man who is just coming in." The eyes of all present were immediately turned to the entrance, and those to the right of the principal respectfully stepped aside. They saw no one enter, however, and were therefore all the more positively convinced that the prophet Elijah had entered invisible, had seated himself on the right of his friend Joseph, and had been present during the whole of his discourse. After that time no one dared occupy the place at the side of the principal of the Pumbeditha academy, for it had been honored and hallowed by Elijah, and it became the custom to leave it vacant.
Joseph's successor, Mar-Abraham ben Sherira (816–828), was likewise a mystic. It was said that he could foresee the future from the rustling of palm leaves on a calm day.
More liberal views, and even Karaism, found a way into the halls of learning, just as mysticism had done before. Through these opposed views quarrels naturally arose, which came to light when the office of Exilarch was to be filled. In the year 825 there was to be the election of a new Prince of the Exile. For this office there were two candidates, David ben Judah and Daniel. The latter was inclined to Karaism, and perhaps just on this account found in southern Babylonia many supporters who gave him their votes. The Babylonians in the north, who belonged to Pumbeditha (Anbar), decided in favor of David, as he doubtless belonged to the orthodox party. The quarrel was carried on with much virulence. The mystic Abraham ben Sherira was deposed in consequence, and Joseph ben Chiya appointed in his place. It is not known by which party this was brought about. But Abraham had followers in Pumbeditha, who gave him their support, and refused allegiance to the rival Gaon. The quarrel could not be decided by their own authorities, and both parties appealed to the Caliph Almamun to confirm the Exilarch of their choice. Almamun, however, at that time was engaged in a dispute about the Eastern Church. He had been called upon to decide between two claimants for the Chaldæo-Christian Patriarchate, and wanted to rid himself of such litigation. He therefore declined to interfere in the internal affairs of the Jews and Christians, and decreed that in future each party should be empowered to elect its own religious chief. If ten Jews wished to elect an Exilarch, ten Christians an Archbishop, or ten Fire-worshipers a Chief Priest, they had the power to do so. This decree was unsatisfactory to both parties, inasmuch as it left the quarrel undecided; it is not certain how it ended. So much, however, is known: David ben Judah asserted his authority, and filled the post for about ten years (till 840).
In the school of Sora also quarrels broke out (827). The quarrel between the chiefs lasted for a long time in the school of Pumbeditha. Eventually a compromise was effected. There were to be two Gaons holding office together, who should share equally the title and the revenue. Abraham, however, was to have the privilege of delivering the address at the general assemblies.
One day both heads of the school at Pumbeditha met in Bagdad at an installation ceremony, at which it was customary to give an address. The capital of the Caliphate had at this time a numerous Jewish community and several synagogues. Bagdad, which was nearer to Pumbeditha than to Sora, belonged to the district of the School of Pumbeditha. Its president was there given the preference to him of Sora.
When the lecture was to begin, and it was proclaimed aloud, "Hear what the heads of the schools are about to say," those present burst into tears on account of the disunion in their midst. The tears of the multitude had so mighty an effect upon Joseph ben Chiya that he arose, and publicly tendered his resignation in favor of his opponent.
He received an insulting blessing as the reward of his noble resolve. "May God give you a share in the world to come," said his opponent, who now assumed his position. It was only after Abraham's death (828), that the noble Joseph was re-installed as Gaon of Pumbeditha (828–833).
All disputes had ceased in the school of Sora, but they soon broke out again, and created such confusion, that Sora was without a Gaon for two years (837–839). We are in the dark as to the true reason of all this discord, but it is probable that the rise of Karaism had something to do with it. However much the Rabbanites hated the Karaite sect, and though they declared it heretical, and kept away from it, yet they adopted several of its teachings, and imitated it in others.
But if Anan's sect had sown the seeds of dissension amongst the followers of the more ancient sect, it was itself not by any means free therefrom. The principal dogma of Karaism was unlimited freedom in exegesis, and the regulation of religion according to the result of honest inquiry. The result was that every Karaite constructed his Judaism according to his own interpretation of the text. Religious practice was regulated according to the clever or silly ideas of the expositor. Moreover, exegesis was yet in its infancy. The knowledge of the Hebrew language, the basis of a healthy, rational exegesis, was still scanty, and arbitrariness had every opportunity of asserting itself. Every one believed himself to be in possession of the truth, and when he did not condemn them, pitied those who did not share his views. We have a sad picture of the condition of Karaism scarcely a century after Anan's death. New sects, too, arose from it, the founders of which had strange ideas about some customs of Judaism. Musa (or Mesvi) and Ishmael, from the town of Akbara (seven miles east of Bagdad), are said to have held peculiar views about the observance of the Sabbath. What these views were we do not now know, but they approached the doctrines of the Samaritans. The two Akbarites further declared that the Pentateuchal prohibition against eating certain parts of the fat of an animal only referred to the sacrifices, and that it was permissible to use them otherwise. Musa and Ishmael found followers who lived according to their doctrines. These formed a sect within Karaism, and called themselves Akbarites.
Simultaneously with these there arose another false teacher, Abu-Amran Moses, a Persian from the little town of Safran (near Kerman-Shah in Persia), who had emigrated to the town of Tiflis in Armenia. Abu Amran Altiflisi propounded other views, which he believed were based upon the text of the Bible. He, like the other Karaites, wished to have the marriage of an uncle with his niece considered among the prohibited unions. He had peculiar views about the calendar, differing both from those of the Karaites and those of the Rabbanites. There was to be no fixed calendar, nor was the month to commence when the new moon became visible, but at the moment of its eclipse. Moses, the Persian, denied bodily resurrection, and introduced other innovations which are not known in detail. His followers formed themselves into a peculiar sect, under the name of Abu-Amranites or Tiflisites, and continued to exist for several centuries.
Another Moses (or Mesvi), from Baalbek in Syria, continued the schism, and departed still more from Karaism. He affirmed that the Feast of Passover must always happen on Thursday, and the Day of Atonement on the Sabbath, because this day is designated in the Bible as "the Sabbath of Sabbaths." In many points, Moses of Baalbek differed from both the Karaites and the Rabbanites. He enacted amongst his sect that in praying they should always turn to the west, instead of turning in the direction of the Temple. He, too, formed a sect called by his name, which continued to exist for a long time.
As Karaism had no religious center, and no spiritual court to represent its unity, it is quite natural that there could be no sympathy between one Karaite community and another. And so it happened that the people of Khorasan observed the festivals in a manner different from that of the other Karaites.
In the principles which the Karaites by and by were forced to lay down, in order, in a measure, to put a stop to the individualistic tendencies of their adherents, who were always forming new sects, they recognized the authority of tradition. They accepted the laws for slaughtering and the manner of fixing the beginning of each month, under their rule that a great many customs, not prescribed in either the Law, the Prophets or the Hagiographa, yet universally observed among the members of the Jewish race, were obligatory as religious practices. This rule of agreement or analogy was later called by them tradition (Haatakah) or hereditary teaching (Sebel ha Yerusha). In practice, however, they were arbitrary, inasmuch as they retained one custom as traditional, while they rejected others possessed of equal claims to be considered traditional. The rule of analogy led Karaism into new difficulties, especially as regards the marriage of certain blood-relations. They fell from one difficulty into another. They held that the affinity between a man and his wife was, according to the Bible, continuous. Consequently step-children should not be allowed to intermarry. But they went still further. The affinity between a man and his wife continues, they said, even if the marriage is dissolved. If in such a case the husband or the wife marries again, the affinity extends to the new families, although they are unknown to each other. Hence the members of the family of the first husband cannot intermarry with the members of the second husband's family. This affinity continues to the third and fourth generations. Thus the circle of affinity was considerably enlarged. The authors of this system of artificial relationship called it "handing over" (Rikkub, Tarkib). Why they should have stopped at the fourth generation it is difficult to see, but it appears that they feared the ultimate consequences. Such was the confusion in which Karaism had enveloped itself in its endeavor to break with the past.
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.
814–92 °C. E
The Jews of Europe had no knowledge of the split in Judaism in the East, of the struggle between the Exilarchate and the Gaonate, or of the rivalry of the heads of the schools. Babylonia, the seat of the Gaonic schools, was looked upon by them almost in the light of a heaven upon earth, as a place of eternal peace, and of the knowledge of God. A decision from Pumbeditha was considered an important event, and was read with the greatest respect. Such a decision was obeyed more willingly than a papal bull among the Catholics, because it was given without the assumption of authority. The western nations, as yet in their childhood with respect to literature, were under guardianship as regards religion – the Christians under the papal throne, the Jews under the Gaonic schools.
It is true, some prominent Jews in France and Italy occupied themselves with the study of mysticism and the Agada, but they regarded themselves as dependent upon the Eastern authorities.
The favorable condition of the Jews in the Frankish dominions, under Charles the Great, continued under his son Louis (814–840), and, under these advantageous circumstances, an impulse towards intellectual activity manifested itself. They showed so much zeal in the cause of Judaism that they even inspired Christians with love for it. The successor of Charles the Great, the generous but weak Louis, in spite of his religious inclination, which obtained for him the name of "the Pious," showed extraordinary favor to the Jews. He took them under his special protection, shielding them from injustice, both on the part of the barons and of the clergy. They enjoyed the right of settling in any part of the kingdom. In spite of numerous decrees to the contrary, they were not only allowed to employ Christian workmen, but they might even import slaves. The clergy were forbidden to baptize the slaves of Jews to enable them to regain their freedom. Out of regard for them the market day was changed from the Sabbath day to Sunday. The Jews were freed from the punishment of scourging, and had the jurisdiction over Jewish offenders in their own hands. They were, moreover, not subject to the barbarous ordeals of fire and water. They were allowed to carry on their trades without let or hindrance, but they had to pay a tax to the treasury, and to render account periodically of their income. Jews also farmed the taxes, and obtained through this privilege a certain power over the Christians, although this was distinctly contrary to the provisions of canonic law.
An officer (Magister Judæorum) was appointed whose duty it was to watch over the rights of the Jews, and not permit them to be encroached upon. In the time of Louis this office was filled by a man named Eberard. One is almost tempted to believe that the remarkable favor shown to the Jews by the pious emperor was mainly due to commercial motives. The international commerce which Charlemagne had established, and which the counselors of Louis wished to develop, was mostly in the hands of Jews, because they could more easily enter into commercial relations with their brethren in other lands, as they were not hampered by military service. But there was a deeper reason for the extraordinary favor shown to the Jews, not only to the Jewish merchants, but also to the Jews as such – the bearers of the purified knowledge of God.
The empress Judith, Louis' second consort, was most friendly to Judaism. This beautiful and clever queen, the admiration of whose friends was equaled only by the hostility of her foes, had great respect for the Jewish heroes of antiquity. When the learned abbot of Fulda, Rhabanus Maurus, wished to win her favor, he could find no more effectual means than to dedicate to her his work on the books of Esther and Judith, and to compare her to both these Jewish heroines. The empress and her friends, and probably also the treasurer Bernhard, the real ruler of the kingdom, became patrons of the Jews, because of their descent from the patriarchs and the prophets. "They ought to be honored on this account," said their friends at court, and their view was shared by the emperor. Cultured Christians refreshed themselves with the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus and the Jewish philosopher Philo, and read their works in preference to those of the apostles. Educated ladies and courtiers openly confessed that they esteemed the Jewish lawgiver more highly than they did their own. They even went so far as to ask the Jews for their blessing. The Jews had free access to court, and held direct intercourse with the emperor and those near him. Relatives of the emperor presented Jewish ladies with costly garments in order to show their appreciation and respect.
As such favor was shown them in higher circles, it was only natural that the Jews of the Frankish dominions (which also included Germany and Italy) should enjoy wide toleration, perhaps more than at any other period of their history. The hateful canonical laws were tacitly annulled. The Jews were allowed to build synagogues, to speak freely about the meaning of Judaism in the hearing of Christians, and even to say that they were "descendants of the patriarchs," "the race of the just," "the children of the prophets." They could fearlessly give their candid opinion about Christianity, the miracles of the saints, the relics, and image worship. Christians visited the synagogues, and were edified by the Jewish method of conducting divine service, and, strangely enough, were better pleased with the lectures of the Jewish preachers (Darshanim) than with those of their own clergy, although the Darshanim could hardly have been able to reveal the deep tenor of Judaism. So much, however, is certain: the Jewish preachers delivered their sermons in the vernacular. Clergymen in high station were not ashamed to adopt their expositions of Holy Writ from the Jews. The abbot Rhabanus Maurus of Fulda confessed that he had learnt several things from the Jews which he made use of in his commentary to the Bible, dedicated to Louis of Germany, who afterwards became emperor.
In consequence of the favor shown to the Jews at court, some Christians conceived a liking for Judaism, looked upon Judaism as the true religion, found it more convincing than Christianity, respected the Sabbath, and worked on Sunday. In short, the reign of Emperor Louis the Pious was a golden era for the Jews of his kingdom, such as they had never enjoyed, and were destined never again to enjoy in Europe. But as the Jewish race has had enemies at all times, these were not lacking to the French Jews of this epoch, especially as they were in favor at court, were beloved by the people, and could openly declare their religious views. The followers of strict Church discipline saw in the violation of the canonical laws, in the favor shown to the Jews and in the liberty which was then being vouchsafed to them, the ruin of Christendom. Envy and hatred were concealed under the cloak of orthodoxy. The patrons of the Jews at court, with the empress at their head, were hated by the clerical party, which strove to rule the emperor, and which now transferred its anger against the liberal court party to the Jews.
The exponent of clerical orthodoxy and of hatred against the Jews at this time, was Agobard, Bishop of Lyons, whom the Church has canonized. A restless and passionate man, he calumniated the empress Judith, rebelled against the emperor, and incited the princes to revolt. He supported the disloyal sons of the emperor, especially Lothaire, against their father. He was called the Ahithophel who incited Absalom against his father David. This bishop wished to limit the liberty of the Jews, and to reduce them to the low position they had held under the Merovingian kings.
An insignificant occurrence gave him the desired opportunity. The female slave of a respected Jew of Lyons ran away from her master, and to regain her freedom she allowed herself to be baptized (about 827). The Jews, who saw in this act an encroachment on their chartered rights and on their property, demanded the surrender of the runaway slave. On Agobard's refusal to grant this, the Jews turned to Eberard, the Magister Judæorum, who threatened to punish the bishop, if he persisted in his refusal to restore her to her master.
This was the beginning of a contest between Agobard and the Jews which lasted for several years. It gave rise to many quarrels, and ended in the deposition of Agobard. He did not care so much about this slave, as about the maintenance and assertion of the canonical laws against the Jews. But he now encountered a serious difficulty. Incited, on the one hand, by his hatred of the Jews, restrained, on the other, by his fear of punishment, he did not know how to act. Perplexed, he turned to the representatives of the Church party at court, whom he knew to be enemies of the empress and her favorites, the Jews. He urged them to induce the emperor to restrict the liberty of the Jews. They appear to have proposed something of the sort to the emperor. The friends of the Jews at court, in the meantime, sought to frustrate the plans of the clergy. The emperor summoned the bishops and the representatives of Judaism to settle the points in dispute. Agobard, however, was so full of rage at the meeting that, as he himself says, "he roared rather than spoke." He then had an audience with the emperor. When the bishop appeared before Louis, the latter looked at him so fiercely that he could not utter a word, and heard nothing but the order to withdraw. Ashamed and confused, the bishop returned to his diocese. However, he soon recovered from his confusion, and plotted anew against the Jews. Agobard delivered anti-Jewish speeches, and urged his parishioners to break off all intercourse with the Jews, to do no business with them, and to decline entering their service. Fortunately, their patrons at court were active on their behalf, and did their best to frustrate the designs of the fanatic priest. As soon as they were informed of his action they obtained letters of protection (indiculi) from the emperor, sealed with his seal, and these they sent to the Jews of Lyons.
A letter was likewise sent to the bishop commanding him, under a severe penalty, to discontinue his anti-Jewish sermons. Another letter was sent to the governor of the Lyons district, bidding him render the Jews all assistance (828). Agobard took no notice of these letters, and spitefully alleged that the imperial decree was spurious – in fact, could not possibly be genuine. Thereupon Eberard, the Magister Judæorum, sent to him, telling him of the emperor's displeasure on account of his disobedience. But he remained so obstinate, that the emperor had to send two commissioners, Gerrick and Frederick, men in high standing at court, armed with full power to bring this stubborn and seditious bishop to reason. What means they were empowered to employ against him we do not know, but they must have been severe, because the few priests who had taken part in Agobard's agitation did not venture to show themselves. It is significant that the people of Lyons did not at all side with their bishop against the Jews.
The Jew-hater Agobard did not rest in his efforts against the Jews. He determined to oppose the court party which favored the Jews, and to win over the emperor by an appeal to his conscience. Perhaps he was acquainted with the plans of the conspirators, Wala, Helisachar, and Hilduin, who desired to incite the sons of the emperor's first marriage against the empress and the chief chancellor Bernhard, because these had induced the emperor to effect a new division of the kingdom in favor of Judith's son. Agobard henceforth divested himself of all timidity, and became quite resolute, as though he anticipated the speedy downfall of the party that favored the Jews. He first appealed to the bishops, and entreated them to reproach the king with his sin, and persuade him to reduce the Jews to the humble position they had occupied at the time of the Merovingians. Only one of Agobard's letters to the prelates is extant, the one to Bishop Nibridius of Narbonne. It is full of bitterness against the Jews, and is interesting on account of the fanaticism of the writer, and the confession he makes therein. Amongst other things he complains that the Christians, despite their efforts, could not succeed in winning over to Christianity a single Jewish soul, whilst the Christians, joining Jews at their meals, partook also of their spiritual food. Although Agobard's bitter hatred of the Jews is chiefly to be considered a manifestation of his own feelings, it cannot be denied that it was in entire harmony with the teachings of the Church. He justly appeals to the sayings of the apostles and to the canonic laws. The inviolable decrees of the councils, too, were on his side. Agobard, with his gloomy hatred, was strictly orthodox, whilst Emperor Louis with his mildness was inclined to heresy. But Agobard did not venture to spread this opinion openly. He rather suggested it in his statement that he could not believe it to be possible that the emperor had betrayed the Church to the Jews. His complaint was echoed in the hearts of the princes of the Church.