The Ban Placed by the Community of Barcelona on the Study of Philosophy and Allegorical Preaching — a New Study*
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ram BEN-SHALOM The Open University, Tel Aviv THE BAN PLACED BY THE COMMUNITY OF BARCELONA ON THE STUDY OF PHILOSOPHY AND ALLEGORICAL PREACHING — A NEW STUDY* RÉSUMÉ La mise au ban des études philosophiques imposée par Salomon ben Adret en 1305, constitue l'acmé d'une longue controverse entre le camp philosophique et ses oppo- sants en Provence et en Espagne. Une théorie récente suppose que Ben Adret avait tout d'abord imposé ce ban aux communautés juives d'Espagne et de Provence, puis avait changé d'avis, prétendant que ce bannissement était local, et n'était im- posé qu'à la seule communauté de Barcelone. On a prétendu aussi que cette volte face était la conséquence des relations politiques entre les royaumes de France et d'Aragon, et du conflit autour de l'épineuse question de la juridiction sur la juiverie provençale. Cet article réexamine l'affaire du ban à travers une analyse minutieuse des lettres publiées par Abba Mari de Lunel dans son ouvrage, «Minhat Qena'ot», et parvient à de nouvelles conclusions. Il commence par établir une distinction claire entre deux formes de ban. Le premier ban imposé sur les études philosophi- ques était en effet local, c'est pourquoi il a été maintenu par Ben Adret. Il existait également une deuxième forme de banissement de nature plus générale contre les hérésies et les hérétiques juifs. Il semble que le changement de position de Ben Adret a l'égard du second ban, ne résultait pas de sa crainte de possibles repré- sailles de Philippe le Bon, roi de France, contre les Juifs provençaux. Il faut com- prendre cette inflexion dans le contexte des relations tendues entre les Juifs et les autorités ecclésiastiques à la fin du quatorzième siècle, et aussi comme l'expression de la peur de Ben Adret de voir des Chrétiens intervenir dans des questions internes à la foi juive. SUMMARY The ban on philosophical studies imposed by Solomon ben Adret in 1305 was the acme of a long controversy between the philosophical camp and their opponents in Provence and Spain. One recent theory assumes that Ben Adret initially imposed the ban on the Jewish communities of Spain and Provence but soon changed his mind, claiming that the ban was local and had been imposed only on the commu- nity of Barcelona. It has also been claimed that his change of heart was a conse- quence of the political relationships between France and Aragon and the crucial * I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Adam Teller for his helpful suggestions during the preparation of this article. Revue des Études juives, 159 (3-4), juillet-décembre 2000, pp. 387-404 388 THE BAN PLACED BY THE COMMUNITY OF BARCELONA question of jurisdiction over Provencal Jewry. The current article reexamines the affair of the ban through close analysis of the letters published by Abba Mari of Lunel in his work, “Minhat Qena'ot” and reaches new and different conclusions. It opens by drawing a clear distinction between two different forms of the ban. The first ban on philosophical studies was indeed a local ban and thus Ben Adret main- tained a consistent position towards it. There was also a second form of the ban on Jewish heresy and Jewish heretics, which was truly general in nature. It is my con- tention that the change in Ben Adret's position towards this second ban was not the result of his fears of reprisals which might be taken against the Jews of Provence by Philip the Fair, King of France. Instead, Ben Adret's change of mind should be un- derstood in the context of the complex and volatile relationship between the Jews and the Church authorities at the turn of the fourteenth century, and of Ben Adret's fears of Christian involvement in matters of the Jewish faith. The ban (Ìerem) imposed on the study of philosophy by Rabbi Solomon ben Abraham ben Adret and the notables of Barcelona was proclaimed in the summer of 1305, following a long period of negotiations between them and Abba Mari and his supporters in Provence. In fact, two bans were is- sued as a result of a severe controversy which had been going on since 1303, about a desirable curriculum and the issue of Jewish rationalism. This had been an object of repeated debate in Provence and Spain since the mid- thirteenth century and involved the question of accepting or rejecting vari- ous philosophical concepts as alien. This controversy has been the subject of academic study since it involves not only the question of philosophical study by Jews, but also the connections between the communities of Aragon, Castile and Provence and, as I shall demonstrate here, relations between the Church and the Jews1. In order to do this I shall briefly exam- ine the course of the controversy, and then focus on changes in the posi- tions of those involved in it, particularly that of Ben Adret. Note: English translations of Biblical quotations appearing in the text and the footnotes are drawn from Tanakh, The Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, 1985. 1. The negotiations between the parties, which led to the imposition of the ban, have been described in detail by J. SHATZMILLER, “Between Abba Mari and the Rashba — The Negotia- tions which preceded the Ban in Barcelona” [Hebrew], in B. ODED et al. (ed.), Studies in the History of the Jewish People and the Land of Israel, vol. 3, Haifa, 1985, pp. 121-137. See also A.A. NEUMAN, The Jews in Spain. Their Social, Political and Cultural Life During the Middle Ages, Philadelphia, 1948, II, pp. 123-145. For a detailed and updated bibliography, see R. BEN-SHALOM, “Communication and Propaganda between Provence and Spain: The Controversy over Extreme Allegorization 1303-1306, in S. MENACHE (ed.), Communication in the Jewish Diaspora: The Pre-Modern World, Leiden, 1996, pp. 171-172, n. 1. On Ben Adret, see J. PERLES, R. Salomo b. Abraham b. Adreth: Sein Leben und seine Schriften, Breslau, 1863; I. EPSTEIN, Studies in the Communal Life of the Jews of Spain, as Reflected in the Responsa of Rabbi Solomon ben Adreth and Rabbi Simeon ben Zemach Duran, New York, 1968. Ideological debates on the new theological concepts acquired from Muslim phi- losophy had repeatedly broken out in Provence and Spain, starting in the mid-thirteenth cen- tury. See J. DAN, “The Debate on Maimonides’ Writings” [Hebrew], Tarbiz 35 (1966), p. 298. THE BAN PLACED BY THE COMMUNITY OF BARCELONA 389 The course of events The controversy was aroused by the broad question of popular preaching, in particular allegoristic sermons, which disseminated radical philosophic ideas2. As long as such ideas were hidden in books reserved for the intellec- tual elite, it was possible to live with them and be content with the shaky status quo existing in Provence since the 1230s. However, radical preach- ing was now bringing elite teachings into the public domain. It was this de- velopment that led Abba Mari (a famous talmudic scholar who lived at that time in Montpellier) to act3. It is his action and the counter-reactions to them which I now propose to study. Abba Mari, who had failed to reach an agreement restricting the study of philosophy in Provence, suggested to Ben Adret a regulation he had worked out with Kalonymus ben Todros, the nasi of Narbonne, prohibiting the study of Greek physics and metaphysics by anyone below the age of 25 years. Books written by Jewish sages were exempt from this prohibition, even should they contain foreign philosophical material4. 2. For a discussion of these radical ideas, see D. SCHWARTZ, “‘Greek Science’ — A Re- Examination during the Period of the Debate on the Study of Philosophy” [Hebrew], Sinai 104 (1989), pp. 148-153; “The Debate on Astral Magic in Fourteenth-Century Provence” [Hebrew], Zion 58 (1993): 162-169; “The Philosophical Commentary on the Bible and on Legend as a Historical and Cultural Factor” [Hebrew], Mahanayim 7 (1994), p. 160-163. 3. Though it is generally thought that Levy ben Abraham ben Hayyim’s book Livyat Hen was the cause of the controversy, closer analysis reveals that this was only partly the case. See BEN-SHALOM, “Communication and Propaganda…”, esp. pp. 172-175. On Levy ben Abraham ben Hayyim, see L. BAECK, “Zur Charakteristik des Levy ben Abraham ben Chayim”, Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 44 (1900), pp. 156- 157; A.S. HALKIN, “Why Was Levy ben Hayyim Hounded?”, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 34 (1966), pp. 65-76; C. TOUATI, “La controverse de 1303- 1306 autour des études philosophiques et scientifiques”, Revue des Études Juives 127 (1968), pp. 21-37. Abba Mari’s motives are clearly attested to by his partner in the struggle, Simeon ben Joseph Duran, “Hoshen Mishpat”, in Glorious Old Age: In Memory of J.L. Zunz, ed. Zunz Memorial Society [Hebrew], Jerusalem, 1969, p. 170: “So long as the Rabbi [Abba Mari] and his associated faction thought to ‘shelter against scheming men’ [Psalms 31:21] [that is, against] the preachers who portray [speak in figures] and do not speak truly, the earth did not shake except for them alone”. On preaching and sermon literature, see M. SAPERSTEIN, Jewish Preaching 1200-1800: An Anthology, New Haven and London, 1989. On Abba Mari, see H. GROSS, “Notice sur Abba Mari de Lunel”, REJ 4 (1882), pp. 192-207; J. SHATZMILLER, “Minor Epistle of Apology of Rabbi Kalonymus ben Kalonymus” [Hebrew], Sefunot, 10 (1966), pp. 16-17. 4. R. Abba Mari of Lunel, “Minhat Qena’ot”, 89, in H.Z. DIMITROVSKY (ed.), Responsa of the Rashba to R.