The Ban Placed by the Community of Barcelona on the Study of Philosophy and Allegorical Preaching — a New Study*

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 philosophiques 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 community 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 contention 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 issued 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 various 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 examine 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 philosophy had repeatedly broken out in Provence and Spain, starting in the mid-thirteenth century. 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 preaching 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. Solomon bar Abraham ben Adret, part I, vol. 2, Jerusalem, 1990, p. 696- 697 [hereinafter: MQ]. Although the extent of Ben Adret’s influence in Provence must still be clarified, that it was recognized is evident in the halakhic questions sent to him from there. This is the reason why Abba Mari chose to seek his support. See BEN-SHALOM, “Communi- cation and Propaganda…”, p. 176; and pp. 220-221, on Abba Mari’s network of family connections to Ben Adret. 390 THE BAN PLACED BY THE COMMUNITY OF BARCELONA

As few as two years earlier, Abba Mari had opposed not only the philosophy contained in non-Jewish writings, but also the writings of such Pro- vencal Jews as Levy ben Abraham ben Hayyim, his Livyat Hen in particular. Now, in 1305 he apparently moderated his stance in response to the powerful Ibn Tibbon family and its supporters, which favored philosophic study. Abba Mari hoped his moderation would attract additional support. Ben Adret supported Abba Mari’s stance and, together with representatives of the Barcelona community declared a ban hoping to win the support of the communities in Provence and Spain5. The age limit for the prohibition on Greek Philosophical books (except medicine) was set at 25 years, although Ben Adret had formerly sought to set that limit at 30. In this matter, Ben Adret yielded to an explicit request on the part of Abba Mari and his colleagues of Provence, who sought in this way to facilitate the enlist- ment of support among the communities. In addition, the ban of Barcelona specified that the prohibition applied to both students and teachers. These details were apparently intended to prevent any future hair-splitting. At the same time Ben Adret and the Barcelona community did not take the stricter line on every issue: in contrast to Abba Mari’s proposal from Provence, which favored an unlimited imposition of the ban they restricted it to a period of 50 years6. Notwithstanding those differences and distinctions, the Barcelona community did not deviate at that point from the wording which had been proposed to it by Abba Mari. However Ben Adret was not content with the “modest” wording which had been sent to him by Abba Mari and had decided to extend its contents in a second ban, which also included matters which were not proposed in the official formula of Provence7. This second ban, issued together with the first but sent in a separate letter, dealt with radical allegorical statements in Jewish treatises, which were regularly included in sermons given by

5. MQ, 90, pp. 698-699; 30, pp. 371-372. Crescas Vidal was the originator of the idea of imposing the ban. Ben Adret adopted almost verbatim the plan formulated by Vidal, only asking that the ban should be imposed at the initiative of the Provencal communities. Y. BAER, A History of the Jews in Christian Spain, I, Philadelphia, 1961, p. 292, finds it dif- ficult to believe that Crescas Vidal was solely responsible for the wording of the ban, but cf. SHATZMILLER, “Between Abba Mari…”, p. 123. The wording of the ban was written in letters signed by the notables of Barcelona and sent to Provence. MQ, 91, p. 700. Ben Adret prom- ised to obtain the signatures of 20 communities in Spain in approval of the ban, and asked Abba Mari to fulfill his own promise and obtain the signatures of the Provence communities. MQ, 98, p. 722. 6. MQ, 99, p. 723. 7. MQ, 98, p. 721: “You gave a slight hint, and I have done much. You said part, and by Divine grace, I have done all”. Covert criticism in this matter was apparently also expressed by Ben Adret in an earlier letter as well: MQ, 90, p. 698: “And I saw that you were not concerned only for the science of physics and metaphysics which the Greeks discussed”. THE BAN PLACED BY THE COMMUNITY OF BARCELONA 391 preachers of Provence. The notables of Barcelona provided a written listing of some of those radical statements, which they said were harmful to the Torah and the Talmudic sages, and subsequently banned those who made them and refused to retract. They also added a ban on books containing the listed radical material as well as their owners and authors8. The second ban was therefore much more severe than the first. Whereas the first ban merely addressed itself to the future and sought to forbid the study of philosophical subjects from that time forth, this ban was directed against the activity of a defined group of people which had already commit- ted those “sins” and owned those forbidden books. Accordingly, once the second ban had been imposed, a curse was laid on all those practicing radical philosophy in Provence, condemning them to perish like heretics in the fires of Hell9. Abba Mari, who was more familiar than Ben Adret with public opinion in the Provence communities, apparently never conceived of taking such a forceful and definitive action against the advocates of philosophy. In fact, that group was not homogeneous in nature, and many of its leaders were opposed to the radical allegorization openly preached in the streets of Pro- vence by poorly educated wandering preachers10. Moreover, this frontal at- tack from Barcelona was also directed against such renowned books as the Commentary on Ecclesiastes by Samuel Ibn Tibbon,11 whose descendants then headed the pro-philosophy camp. It can be argued that Abba Mari un- derstood that such a forceful and comprehensive decree would arouse strong objections in Provence, and so refrained from openly opposing radical allegorization in the version of the regulation which he formulated together with the Nasi of Narbonne. He presumably hoped that a limit imposed by the community institutions on the study of philosophy would

8. MQ, 101, pp. 734-738. 9. Ibid., p. 737, and see below, n. 33. It should be noted that, although the herem did not mention the preachers’ names (most of whom were not known to the formulators of the ban), it explicitly spoke of the rabbi of those preachers; the reference, of course, was to Levy ben Abraham ben Hayyim. 10. See the statement by Menachem ben Solomon of Perpignan (= Menachem Ha-Me’iri) in Hoshen Mishpat, pp. 166-167; A letter from Jacob ben Makhir to Ben Adret, MQ, 58, p. 511; Yedaiah (PENINI) ben Abraham Bedersi, Ketab Hitnazlut, in The Book of Queries and Responsa of the Rashba, vol. I, Jerusalem, 1990, 118, pp. 210-215. 11. Similar radical allegories, including some on Torah stories, appear in the writings of Samuel Ibn Tibbon. Indeed, he was expressly charged with this in the previous debate (in the 1230s) by Solomon ben Abraham of Montpellier. See a letter by Solomon ben Abraham, in B.Z. DINUR, Israel in the Diaspora [Hebrew], vol. 2, part 4, Jerusalem, 1969, p. 183g; A. RAVITZKY, “R. Samuel Ibn Tibbon and the Secret of the Guide of the Perplexed” [He- brew], Daat 10 (1983), pp. 19-46. 392 THE BAN PLACED BY THE COMMUNITY OF BARCELONA eventually achieve the same results, causing the phenomenon of radical allegorization in sermons to die a natural death. The response of the philosophers in Provence was rapid. Even before the bans from Barcelona had reached Provence, rumors of their existence had spread there, and the advocates of philosophy appealed to the Christian governor of Montpellier to approve a ban of their own against those banning the study of philosophy. In response to the ban issued by the Provence philosophers, Abba Mari and his followers there came out with a second counterban of their own (this one known as the “Adrabba”, or “on the con- trary” ban), claiming that the philosophers’ ban was illegal12. These developments, which dragged the Christian authorities into the dispute, soon became known in Barcelona. Upon the declaration of the “Adrabba” ban, Abba Mari’s supporters sent urgent letters to Ben Adret and the heads of the Barcelona community, in which they asked for a rul- ing on the validity of the philosophers’ ban and that of the “Adrabba” ban. Ben Adret and the leaders of the community, who apparently had no idea that the debate had got so far out of hand, asked Abba Mari to pour oil on troubled waters. They did indeed confirm his claim that the philosophers’ ban was invalid and that the “Adrabba” ban was legal. They added, however, that, for the sake of peace, he ought to give in, and to repeal the “Adrabba” ban13. Their forceful statements with reference to the philosophers’ camp became considerably more moderate and a conciliatory tone crept in14. In fact, there can be no doubt that the course of the events at Montpellier, especially the philosophers’ appeal to the Christian authorities, caused the heads of the Barcelona community to rethink their actions. The Barcelona leaders (the fideles — Hebrew: ne’emanim) stated that “until we arose and set limits for our brothers / For ourselves alone, and not for others… There was no regulation / Except for books of philosophers not of the Jewish nation. / If so, then, how did it apply to those notables and what were their views in this regard / And how is it that their wrath at our resolution is still

12. MQ, 92, p. 701. On this entire affair, see SHATZMILLER, “Between Abba Mari…”, pp. 125-126. We should add here that in Aragon as in southern France the Jewish Community had to ask for Christian approval of its excommunications. The King of Aragon, Pedro III, granted (1280) the Jewish communities in Catalonia the right to ban their Jewish members, neighbors and visitors. See F. BAER, Die Juden im Christlichen Spanien, I, Berlin, 1929, p. 129, p. 134. This is why the Barcelona communal leadership did not ask for specific permission to issue the ban. See below n. 30 and Y.T. ASSIS, “Les juifs de Montpellier sous la domination aragonaise”, REJ, 148 (1989), p. 13. 13. MQ, 103, p. 745; 104, pp. 746-751. 14. See MQ, 103, pp. 744-745; 106, pp. 760-761; 107, pp. 769-770; 108, pp. 772-773; 109, p. 779. THE BAN PLACED BY THE COMMUNITY OF BARCELONA 393 so hard”15; the brothers Sheshet and Jacob bar Shaltiel wrote: “We have included no one and nothing in our oath and regulation / Except for our own land and our own nation”16; and Bonfos Vidal, for example, who had been Ben Adret’s right-hand man in Barcelona since the beginning of the debate, claimed that “And we have only included in our regulation / The members of our own congregation / And those associated with us. And anyone who wishes to adhere to it can come and adhere as he sees fit.”17 In other words, according to the sages of Barcelona, their ban against philosophy applied only to their own community, and perhaps also to the communities of their collecta18.

Ben Adret’s change of position

On the face of things, this conclusion would seem to support Marc Saperstein’s argument that a turning point in Ben Adret’s attitude took place at this stage. Saperstein found that, in his initial letters to Abba Mari and his camp, Ben Adret expressed a priori his reservations against inter- ference in Provence, due to the geographical and political barrier between that country and Aragon. In practice, however, the political border did not prevent him from interfering in Jewish matters and issuing his ban on the philosophers19. In Saperstein’s view, after proclaiming the ban in Barce- lona, Ben Adret suddenly changed his position, claiming that the Barcelona ban was valid only in the Kingdom of Aragon and did not apply to Pro- vence. This change in attitude seems also to have been confirmed in letters of clarification written by Barcelona community notables, who claimed that one kingdom must not interfere in the affairs of the other20.

עד שקמנו וגדרנו גדרים בעמנו / לא לאחרים כי אם לעצמנו ...לא היתה :MQ, 103, p. 743 .15 ההסכמה / כי אם בספרי הפילוסופים אשר לא מבני ישראל המה. ואם כן איפה, מה הגיע לנכבדים ההם ומה ראו על ככה / ואיך חמתם בהסכמתנו לא שככה. לא כללנו בכלל שבועתנו ובגדר הסכמתנו / בלתי אם גויתנו ואדמתנו. :MQ, 107, p. 767 .16 ולא כללנו בתקנתנו / זולתי בני קהלנו / והנלוים עלינו. וכל הרוצה לסמוך :MQ, 109, p. 777 .17 יבא ויסמוך כטוב בעיניו. 18. This is apparently the meaning of the words “those associated with us”, The collecta of Barcelona included the communities of Barcelona, Villafranca, Tarragona and Montblanch. Each one of these was a sub-collecta which included smaller communities. See Y.T. ASSIS, “The Jews in the Crown of Aragon and its Dominions”, in H. BEINART (ed.), Moreshet Sepharad: The Sepharadi Legacy, Jerusalem, 1992, p. 71; and idem, Jewish Economy in the Medieval Crown of Aragon, 1213-1327, Leiden, 1997, pp. 196-200. On the other hand, in a letter sent at a later date from Barcelona to Montpellier, Ben Adret and others determine, MQ, 123, p. 856: “That we have not even included the cities around us in our regulation.” 19. Saperstein also claims that Ben Adret had expressed this stance in his earlier corre- spondence with the philosophers. See however my comments below, n. 30. 20. M. SAPERSTEIN, “The Conflict over the Rashba’s Herem on Philosophical Study: A Political Perspective”, Jewish History 1 (1986), pp. 28-29. 394 THE BAN PLACED BY THE COMMUNITY OF BARCELONA

Saperstein hypothesized that, during the time which elapsed between the proclamation of the ban in Barcelona and the dispatch of the letters of clarification to Provence, news reached Barcelona of growing political tensions there. These were between the local forces in Languedoc and representatives of the King of France, Philip the Fair (1285-1314), who sought to ab- sorb the area into the French nation. A conspicuous reflection of the political struggle in Languedoc was the hanging of the eight consuls from Carcassonne in September 1305 (a month and a few days after the promul- gation of the ban in Barcelona). The status of the Jews and the question of sovereignty over them was an integral part of that struggle between the royal bureaucracy and the local seigneurs in Southern France. As Sa- perstein explained: The political context may well explain the sudden reversal of Ben Adret and the other leaders of Barcelona, who had previously proclaimed their right to act against deviance in southern France, but then, after the ban was declared, insisted that what they did in Barcelona had nothing to do with Provence. When the ban was issued in the summer of 1305, its promulgators in Barce- lona may have been unaware that eight consuls of Carcassonne were being tried for their role in a plot to transfer allegiance from Philip to the cousin of the king of Aragon. The verdict and subsequent hanging of the consuls, however, was a cause célèbre, known to all. Under the circumstances, the suspi- cion that the Jews of southern France were being governed from Barcelona was potentially a source of grave danger. The Barcelona leadership was left with no choice but to deny publicly any implication of a claim to hegemony over the Jews of Languedoc21. Despite the logic of Saperstein’s argument, the reproduction of the intra- Jewish conflict in the broader political context involving the undermining of the old order in Languedoc and the rise of the united kingdom of France needs closer analysis. This will show that Ben Adret did not intend to impose a general ban from Barcelona on the curriculum in Provence. In fact the first ban of the Barcelona community was local in nature; its propo- nents expected the communities of Provence to declare an identical ban on their own initiative. This indicates that there was no need for withdrawal in their position, since this ban did not directly intervene in the political affairs of the communities in France. In this as well, Ben Adret remained faithful to his viewpoint at the beginning of the debate, when he stated to Crescas Vidal: “And what you wrote in your book [letter], which speaks / Of banning all who study the books of the Greeks… How fine it would be if it had been issued with the agreement of the congregations / Which are affected by those deviations.”22

21. SAPERSTEIN, “The Conflict…”, p. 33. 22. MQ, 32, p. 383. THE BAN PLACED BY THE COMMUNITY OF BARCELONA 395

It is therefore worthwhile to make a new examination of both bans promulgated in Barcelona, in order to determine their precise scope. To this end, we must examine the official formula of the ban sent from Barcelona to Provence, and compare it with its subsequent interpretation by the Barce- lona community. Two distinct stages are evident here: the interpretation shortly after the ban before the events in Montpellier had become known in Barcelona, and the interpretation following the arrival in Barcelona of the news of the intervention of the Christian governor in the debate and the imposition of the counterban. Comparison may show whether there was indeed a turning point in the position of the Barcelona community, and if so, what it was and what its causes were. The first ban of Barcelona stated: “We have decreed and undertaken, for ourselves and for our seed, / And all those associated with us indeed / By force of ban, that no one of our congregation may study the books of the Greeks… or teach anyone of our congregation.”23 This wording explicitly makes use of limiting terms: “congregation”, “our seed”, “those associated with us”, showing that the Barcelona community did indeed choose to give this ban only local validity, knowing that many other communities in Spain and Provence would follow suit and pronounce bans with the same wording. Even Ben Adret, in the first stage, before hearing of the escalation in Montpellier, gave the ban a local and restrictive interpretation24. As stated, the philosophers’ camp responded by issuing a ban of its own, even before it could have known whether the Barcelona ban was local or general. Even Abba Mari did not know the scope of the Barcelona ban until he had obtained it on an official form. In an urgent letter, which he sent to Barcelona immediately after the rumor of the ban arrived in Montpellier, he wrote that he expected the sages of Barcelona to provide clarification in this matter25. At the same time, it is obvious that, in Abba Mari’s camp as well (and not only in that of the philosophers), rumor had it that this was an inclusive ban26. In any event, no-one complained at the philosophers for having issued a ban, even though the local regulation in Barcelona (as long as it had not been approved in Provence) did not apply to them at all. In fact, clarification subsequently arrived in letters to Abba Mari from the notables of Barcelona, written after he had informed them of the latest 23. MQ, 99, p. 723. 24. MQ, 98, p. 721: “We have placed a total ban on anyone who regularly studies among us, on physics and metaphysics from the books of the Greeks… and we have written to all the holy communities to do as we have done.” 25. MQ, 93, p. 704: “And we have heard that they [the Barcelona sages] intend to send it [the ban] to the notables of the communities, and to plead / That they join with what they have agreed / And that they have placed a strong ban, with a curse and an imprecation and a vow / And whether this is a particular or a general ban, we do not know clearly till now.” 26. See MQ, 97, pp. 716-717. 396 THE BAN PLACED BY THE COMMUNITY OF BARCELONA developments in Montpellier, and stating unequivocally that the ban was local in nature. They continued to interpret their ban in various ways, in order to reduce its severity and moderate the emotional storms which arose with reference to it in Provence. Above and beyond their desire to limit the ban to the area of the community itself, they also attempted, by using hermeneutic tools, to reopen the absolute prohibition which they had imposed against the study of Greek philosophy. Bonfos Vidal stated, in his abovementioned letter (see p. 381), that the ban applied only to regular study of Greek philosophy, whereas anyone who wished to consult the books of Greek philosophy once in a while — for example, in order to gain an understanding of Maimonides’ writings — was permitted to do so without impediment27. Needless to say, this statement was not in line with the original spirit of the ban (as it was sent to Provence); indeed, it represented a sort of compromise with the philosophers’ own contention that it was im- possible to understand Maimonides’ works without having recourse to the study of Greek philosophy28. This type of interpretation of the ban under- mined its very foundations, since it permited the general public to decide which study was regular study and which was occasional — when the reading of Greek books constituted study of philosophy for its own sake and when it was only a means of understanding Maimonides. Bonfos Vidal’s interpretation of the Barcelona ban also deprived the community institutions of any means of supervising or enforcing the new regulation, whereas Abba Mari’s original intention had been to allow for institutional supervi- sion of the curriculum. Since the letter sent by Ben Adret before the escalation of the debate was known in Barcelona also confirms the restricted interpretation of the ban, it may be asked whether there really was a turning point in the attitude of Ben Adret and the Barcelona community: The local ban on the study of Greek philosophy obviously did not constitute political intervention in the lives of Jews in another kingdom, as Saperstein claims, but was merely an attempt to persuade the Jews of Provence to take a similar local initiative29. This

27. MQ, 109, p. 778: “We even said at the time of the regulation, that to prevent / Regu- lar study was all that was meant / And if any educated man who the Rabbi’s books would learn / Need to consult that science in order to clarify and discern, / He may do so from time to time without prevention / As to keep him from this was not our intention.” 28. See the statement by Menachem Ha-Me’iri in “Hoshen Mishpat”, p. 166. 29. We cannot, as Saperstein does, assume that Ben Adret’s viewpoint in the letters he wrote to Abba Mari’s adherents was different from that in his letters to the philosophers. Obviously, in the letters to those opposed to his own views, Ben Adret would express himself more definitively; however, his actual position, as stated to Abba Mari and Crescas Vidal, continued to guide him throughout. In fact, at the beginning of the debate, he wrote to Rabbi Solomon of Lunel, one of the chief philosophers. MQ, 52, p. 477: “And we have banned, THE BAN PLACED BY THE COMMUNITY OF BARCELONA 397 shows that the letters written by the notables in the wake of the dispute in Provence were not meant to change the stance previously taken by Ben Adret but to clarify it. This leads to the conclusion that this change in Ben Adret’s position was linked not to the first but to the second ban. The importance of the second ban was that, unlike the first ban which dealt only with the curriculum, the second ban declared as heretics that group of residents of Provence which studied and disseminated radical rationalist commentary. This first ban merely prohibited the reading of philosophical texts in the future, while the second was retroactive and personal30. This second ban had admittedly not since ‘it is not the practice in our place’[Genesis 29:26], as you have heard / And the nature of the sin and the guilt you have incurred / Have we banned in your place, in this ban we made? / ‘A boundary between you and us the Lord has made’ [Joshua 22:25] / Our children, but not your own / For whatever your soul desires, you have done.” Saperstein went so far as to argue that representatives of the philosophers in Montpellier, who sought to convince the Christian governor of the city to allow them to impose a ban, accused Abba Mari and his friends of having shown disloyalty to the King of France by accepting the hegemony of Bar- celona. In view of this accusation, it was clear that the governor would support their position and would approve the ban. Saperstein’s argument is based on a statement by one of Abba Mari’s comrades, Simeon ben Joseph Duran, that: “Had the sect of objectors not ‘let a man ride over us’ [Psalms 66:12] — that is, the governor, the great prince appointed by our lord His Majesty the King; had they not put their words into his mouth, speaking words which are not fit to be written, and if anyone hears them, his ears shall ring.” See D. KAUFMANN, “Deux Lettres de Simeon ben Joseph (En Duran de Lunel)”, REJ, 29 (1894), p. 224. See also SHATZMILLER, “Between Abba Mari…”, 125-126; ID., “L’excommunication, la communauté juive et les autorités temporelles au Moyen Âge”, in M. YARDENY (ed)., Les Juifs dans l’histoire de France, Leiden, 1980, pp. 63-69. But Duran was not present at the meeting between the representatives of the philosophers and the governor in Montpellier, and Saperstein’s argument is not corroborated in the governor’s opinion as was subsequently re- counted to Abba Mari, MQ, 92, p. 701. Nor is it reasonable that the governor would have avoided mentioning this to Abba Mari in his meeting with him, if the philosophers had actually so argued; further, there can be no doubt that, had such a charge been raised in the con- versation with the governor, Abba Mari would have written of it to Ben Adret. Saperstein assumes that the governor who met with the delegation of philosophers was the representative of the king of France, the seneschal or the viguier. However, there is no proof of this, and it is just as reasonable to assume — based on the division of authority in Montpellier between the kingdom of France and the kingdom of Majorca — that the governor mentioned was actually the judex major curiae palatii, the representative of the king of Majorca in the city. If we are right in this assumption, it is quite obvious that the representatives of the philosophers would not have raised the charge of disloyalty to the king of France before the governor of Majorca. See J. ROGOZINSKI, Power, Caste and Law — Social Conflict in Fourteenth-Century Montpellier, Cambridge, Mass., 1982, p. 1, n. 2; D. ABULAFIA, A Mediterranean Emporium: The Catalan Kingdom of Majorca, Cambridge, 1994, pp. 253-257, 261-263, doc. 4. 30. MQ, 101, p. 737: “All Israel are bound to shun them and ban them, and this sin shall not be forgiven them until they die / The fire of Hell shall burn them, and the bodies of these shall be in ‘a fire fanned by no man’ [Job 20:26; the reference is to Hell… And as to the books which they wrote, and which include even one of these [heretical articles]: We judge the owners and authors [Hebrew: be‘alim, a term which can mean both “owners” and “authors”] to be heretics [Heb. min] and the books to be witchcraft. They and all who possess them are subject to ban and shunning.” 398 THE BAN PLACED BY THE COMMUNITY OF BARCELONA arrived in Provence when the dispute erupted in Montpellier, but when it finally reached Abba Mari, it was certain beyond all doubt that it was a comprehensive ban. In his preface to Minhat Qena’ot, his edition of docu- ments of the dispute, Abba Mari wrote: This is the form of the third letter31, in which is the wording of the ban made by the sages of Barcelona against all who mock the words of the wise, our Masters the Talmudic sages, and all those who preach impure legends, and all who defile the Torah with heresy, with their written figures, to uproot all that was taught them by our Masters of blessed of memory. And they have also banned all the books which contain any of the destructions mentioned in the form of the ban, and all those who possess them. And this ban is made generally; accordingly, it should be as one whose “fame is spreading through all the provinces” [Esther 9:4].32 The emphasis on the general nature of this ban is, of course, intended to differentiate between it and the previous ban on the study of philosophy, which included only the Barcelona community. Indeed, in view of the severity and scope of the second ban, there can be no doubt that there was a considerable retreat in Ben Adret’s position immediately after being told of the events in Montpellier. This was initially reflected in a moderation of the aggressive tone of the letters, and perhaps even in an attempt to hush up the existence of the second ban33. The sources at our disposal do not enable us to determine unequivocally that they did indeed attempt to conceal its very existence (and it appears that, even had they wanted to, it would not have been possible to do so for any length of time); however, the long and detailed response written to Ben Adret by

31. Three letters had been sent to Provence from Ben Adret and the notables of Barce- lona. The first letter included the first ban. The second letter explained all the circumstances that had led them to impose the bans. The third letter included the formula of the second ban. זה טופס הכתב השלישי, אשר בתוכו לשון החרם אשר החרימו חכמי :MQ, 101, p. 732 .32 ברצלונה כל המלעיגים על דברי חכמים, רבותינו חכמי התלמוד, וכל הדורשים בהגדות של דופי, וכל המנאצים דברי התורה למינות, בציורם הכותב כדי לעקור מה שכונו בהם רבותי‘ ז“ל. והחרימו גם כן כל הספרים אשר נמצאו בהם אחת מן ההריסות הנזכרות בטופס החרם וכל המחזיקים בהם. וזה החרם נעשה כללי, על כן ראוי להיות שמעו הולך בכל המדינות. 33. All the letters sent from Barcelona after the uproar over the affair in Montpellier dis- cuss only the scope of the first ban. They attempt to show that the ban was a local one, and that they had not intended to intervene officially in the affairs of the Provence community. At the same time, not a word is mentioned with regard to the scope and validity of the second ban. This absolute silence on their part apparently reflects an attempt to downplay (or to conceal) the very fact that that ban had been proclaimed. The philosophers, after all, had issued their own ban even before the writs of banning from Barcelona had reached Provence; they had acted on the basis of rumors and not on the official basis of the writs of banning from Barcelona. It was even possible that the writs of banning from Barcelona, which had reached Abba Mari in the meantime, had not yet been distributed in Provence, and that accordingly there was no point in reacting to a matter which was not yet known to the adherents of philosophy. THE BAN PLACED BY THE COMMUNITY OF BARCELONA 399

Yedaiah (Penini) ben Abraham Bedersi, the philosopher from Perpignan, indicates that he was aware of two of the three letters sent from the community of Barcelona after the proclamation of the ban, but that he had no idea that there was a third letter with a ban on radical allegorization34. It is reasonable to assume that Abba Mari refrained at this stage from disseminat- ing the second ban in Provence, and that he published it only later in his book Minhat Qena’ot. In any event, even if our assumption that there was a deliberate attempt to conceal or hush up the ban is not correct, we must re- main aware of the efforts made by the Barcelona community to draw the second ban away from the focus of the debate, and to conceal other matters which could have escalated it35. Their repeated demand that Abba Mari and his supporters stop the feud with the philosophers and make peace, even at the price of giving up the struggle36, constitutes a clear withdrawal from their former aggressive position.

The explanation of Ben Adret’s change in position

The question to be asked, then, is what made them change their minds in the short time between the proclamation of the ban and the arrival of the news from Montpellier? Saperstein’s hypothesis that this was caused by fear from the staps taken by Philip the Fair to strengthen his jurisdiction has no basis in the sources. A more convincing answer may be found in the writings of Ben Adret himself and other notables of Barcelona. Ben Adret and the three fideles wrote to the community of Montpellier: And you, “oak trees of Bashan” [Ezekiel 27:6], we plead with you, do not maintain the dispute… We are afraid that “because you have raged and your tumult” [II Kings 19:28], things will come to pass / And the tyrants of the Gentiles will raise their voice in the cities / “Why is there such a loud shouting in the camp of the Hebrews?” [I Samuel 6:4] “They are aghast, their faces contorted” [Ezekiel 27:35] / And they turn into different colors with regard to

34. See Y. PENINI, Ketab Hitnazlut, pp. 211-215. In this passage, Penini responds to all the arguments concerning allegorization in the second letter (the first ban), argument by argument and in great detail. It is obvious that, had he known of the additional allegorical statements set forth in the third letter including the second ban, he would also have responded to them. 35. See the statement by Moses Halevi bar Isaac Halevi, MQ, 106, p. 760: “And we will not show concern for our numbers if we profane our regulation / And cancel it with all kinds of cancellation / Without more facts being heard in every location”. See also the statement by Solomon Gracian, MQ, 108, p. 773: “I also asked the Crowner [Ben Adret] for his advice / And he said that concealing it would be nice.” 36. MQ, loc. cit., pp. 772-773: “Make room for peace. Even if one group has signed / You must block it from your mind / Turn your heart away from the signature you sought / If this is so, you have left no room for peace / You have locked the open door to this.” 400 THE BAN PLACED BY THE COMMUNITY OF BARCELONA

their faith. “I beg you, friends, do not commit such a wrong” [Genesis 19:7]… “unloose the fetters” [Isaiah 58:6] of the bans.37 In addition, Moses Halevi bar Isaac Halevi wrote to Abba Mari and Simeon ben Joseph Duran: Even if you have been fighting a battle for Torah up till today, “how dare you crush [the] People” [Isaiah 3:15] of Israel? The fire of the dispute has “broken out” [Psalms 78:21] in you; how dare you be “the one that started the fire” [Exodus 22:5]? Why did you not guard “the last ember remaining” [II Samuel 14:7]; Heaven forbid, if it goes out, there is no one to light it. Even though the sages of the Gentiles heard these things, and our enemies judge our Torah. “Because of this our hearts are sick; because of this our eyes are dimmed” [Lamentations 5:17]. How is it that “you gave no thought to Him who planned it” [Isaiah 22:12]? How have you not feared several misfor- tunes, as a man walking on an untried path? Please, my masters, withdraw your hands from the quarrels.38 Ben Adret’s appeal that Abba Mari and his supporters give up the struggle does not seem here to be founded on fear that the Jews would be accused of political intervention in foreign territory and of conspiring against the French kingdom. His advice to them to achieve “the possible, and not the desirable”39 is influenced by his fear of the Church authorities, who were liable to suspect that the Jews’ books were full of heresies. Ben Adret stated this explicitly, indicating the accusation liable to come from the Gen-

בחכמתכם ואתם אלונים מבשן, במטותא מניכו, אל תחזיקו במחלקת... :MQ, 103, pp. 744-745 .37 ורכולתכם בחרו הסבל ואל תדברו אתם קשות... ותהיינה הלשונות רכות, פעמים ממללות פעמים חשות... למה תריקו חרבותיכם... יראים אנו פן בהתרגזכם ושאונכם, יתגלגלו הדברים / ועריצי הגוים יעבירו קול בערים / מה קול התרועה הזאת במחנה העברים / כי שערו שער רעמו פנים / ועל אמונתם מתהפכים לכמה גוונים. אל נא אחים תרעו... והתירו אגדות החרמות. אם עד כה הייתם נלחמים מלחמתה של תורה / מה לכם תדכאו עם ישראל :MQ, 105, p. 759 .38 ואש המחלקת נשקה בכם, מה לכם תבעירו את הבערה / מדוע לא חסתם על הגחלת הנשארה, חס ושלום אם כבתה אין זקוק לה. אף כי נשמעו הדברים בין חכמי הגוים / ואויבינו בתורתנו פלילים. על זה דוה לבנו על אלה חשכו עינינו, איך לא הבטתם אל עושה / לא חששתם לכמה תקלות כאיש ללכת בדרך לא נסה. is found in several ואויבינו בתורתנו פלילים The expression אנא רבותי משכו ידיכם מן המריבות. earlier Jewish sources, in the context of the Christian judging of Hebrew books as heresy: For an example of its use in the time of the Maimonidean controversy in the 1230s, see Samuel ben Abraham Saporta’s Letter to the Rabbis of Northern France, in M. STEINSCHNEIDER, “War of the Religion: Issues of the Controversy over the books of the ‘Guide’ and ‘Knowl- edge’” [Hebrew], Jeschurun, 8 (1871), p. 154; and Joseph bar Todros Halevi's letter to the Communities of Provence in S.Z.H. HALBERSTAM, “War of the Religion” [Hebrew], in: J. KOBAK, Ginzei Nistarot, 1-2, Bamberg, 1868, p. 171. On the time of the condemnation of the Talmud at Paris (1240), see Yehiel of Paris, Disputation [Hebrew], R. Margaliot (ed.), (Lwów, 1935), p. 12. See also the words of Solomon Gracian to Abba Mari and his supporters in Provence, MQ, 108, p. 772: “Even a heart as strong as ‘a stylus of iron’ [Jeremiah 17:1] will melt at the rumor which has come: ‘the sanctuary [is] surrendered and the host [is] tram- pled’ [Daniel 8:13]. Some Gentiles, who are not of our covenant, are coming into the home- land; I am beset with ‘cares’ [Psalms 94:19] that a spark will fly out from under the hammer and start a blaze.” 39. MQ, 107, p. 770. THE BAN PLACED BY THE COMMUNITY OF BARCELONA 401 tiles: the division of the Jewish faith into several “colors”. Similar fears were expressed in Provence by Yedaiah Penini: “There is other severe damage in publishing these complaints [of what was happening in Pro- vence], lest the word be spread and the Gentiles hear of the confusion of our faith and how our Torah has been made into several teachings.”40 Their words prove that, both in Aragon and in Provence, there was great fear that the division among the Jewish communities would constitute grounds for Christian intervention in the affairs of the Jewish religion. Ob- viously, this fear would only arise when details of the dispute became known to the Christian authorities. As we know, in the course of the 13th century, the Church authorities had increased their attacks on the books of the Jews. Maimonides’ Guide to the Perplexed (or parts thereof) were burned in the 1230s; books of the Tal- mud were burned in Paris in 124241. Raymond Martini enlisted the mendi- cant orders in a profound study of Jewish literature, which was intended, inter alia, to discover traces of heresy and to link rabbinic Judaism with the demonic42. Martini’s book, Pugio Fidei (“Dagger of the Faith”) was com- pleted in 1278. A few years earlier, in 1273, in the house of the Franciscans in Paris, the Jewish apostate Paul of Spain (possibly Paulus Christiani?) attempted to show, using the Talmud, that Judaism, like Catharism, is no more than heresy, and that therefore the Jews should be burned at the stake43. In 1299, only six years before the imposition of the Barcelona ban,

יש עוד נזקים חזקים בפרסום התלונות האלה. פן יאריכו :Y. PENINI, Ketab Hitnazlut, p. 228 .40 -About four years after .הדברים ויגיעו באזני האומות בלבולנו באמונה והעשות תורתינו כמה תורות ward (in 1309 or 1310), Ben Adret wrote to the sages of the Avignon community, urging them again to make peace between the camps, lest the protracted debate lead to Christian in- ואומה זו מן השמים המליכוה / ואם חס ושלום במעשיכים תעוררוה :tervention. MQ, 124, pp. 863-864 / חמתם כגחלי רתמים מים רבים לא יכבוה / ונהרות לא ישטפוה. ואם חלילה תגרמו אך הפעם / הרעותם And this people“ .לכל העם, ודמם מידכם יבוקש... וכתתו חרבותיכם לאתים וחניתותיכם למזמרות [the Christians], by Heaven crowned as king / If, Heaven forbid, your deeds their wrath upon us bring / Their anger is like ‘hot coals of broom-wood’ [Psalms 120:4]; much water will not put it out / And rivers will not wash it out. / And if, Heaven forbid, even once you cause this thing / You shall bring evil to all the people, and their blood shall be sought of you… ‘Beat your swords into plowshares, and your spears into pruning-hooks’ [Isaiah 2:4].” 41. J. COHEN, The Friars and the Jews — The Evolution of Medieval Anti-Judaism, Ithaca and London, 1986, pp. 19-99. It should also be remembered that Pope Innocent IV (1243- 1254) claimed, in Commentaria… super libros quinque decretalium ad X.3.34.8, 2 vols., Frankfurt, 1570, 1:430, that the Pope had jurisdiction over the affairs of the Jews, in the sense that item iudaeos potest iudicare Papa… si haeresis circa suam legem inveniant. This is also the justification given for the burning of the Talmud: in quos multae continebantur haereses. See B.Z. KEDAR, “Canon Law and the Burning of the Talmud”, Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law, N.S., 9 (1979), pp. 78-83. 42. R. BONFIL, “The Nature of Judaism in the Book Pugio Fidei” [Hebrew], Tarbiz 40 (1971), pp. 360-375; COHEN, The Friars…, pp. 142-153. 43. J. SHATZMILLER, “Albigensian Heresy in the Eyes of Contemporary Jews” [Hebrew], in R. BONFIL et al. (ed.), Culture and Society in Medieval Jewry — Studies Dedicated to the 402 THE BAN PLACED BY THE COMMUNITY OF BARCELONA

King Philip the Fair of France, in a reversal of his previous policy, issued an order accusing the Jews of blasphemy and other crimes, and condeming the Talmud44. Ben Adret was aware of this growing freedom with which the Christians intervened in Jewish affairs. As Jeremy Cohen has shown, he had himself debated with Raymond Martini only a few years previously, and was quite familiar with many of the arguments in Pugio Fidei45. Once the internal conflict in Montpellier became known to the Christians, Ben Adret under- stood that the situation had taken an unexpected turn, and the second ban imposed by the Barcelona community on the group of Jewish heretics46 in Provence could only help those elements which were already desirous of attacking Judaism and Jewish books. The explicit knowledge of a radical rationalist Jewish sect, such as that in Provence, which disqualified the sim- ple meaning of the Torah, could be used by the mendicants as good cause for investigation, and an additional reason for the confiscation and censor- ship of Hebrew books. It should be remembered that the second ban included quotations from the heretical opinions of those rationalist extrem- ists; this would definitely be enough to arouse the interest of the Church authorities, which had been desperately fighting Latin Averroism since the

Memory of Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson, Jerusalem, 1989, pp. 344-346. On p. 346: “I want to prove that you are a people without faith — a people called bougres [=Cathars] — and that you deserve to be burnt.” 44. See: G. SAIGE, Les Juifs du Languedoc antérieurement au XIVe siècle, Paris, 1881, XLIII, 20, pp. 235-236: Intelleximus quod Judei, in diversis regni partibus, Christianos sollicitant de heretica pravitate et suis astuciis multos decipiunt quam plures aliciunt muneribus et promissis, in tantum quod a plerisque receperunt et suis nephandis manibus presumpserunt nequiter pertractare sanctissimum corpus Christi et alia sacramenta nostre fidei blasphemare, simplices plurimos seducendo et circuncidendo seductos; receptantque hereticos fugitivos et occultant et in fidei nostre scandalum, novas exigunt sinagogas, alta voce cantantes, et si ecclesiam officiarent et libros damnatos qui Tamulti dicuntur, de gloriosa Virgine Maria innumerabiles blasphemias continentes, multiplicant et docent in non modicam depressionem fidei christiane. See S. GRAYZEL, The Church and the Jews in the XIIIth Century, II, 1254-1314, New York, 1989, p. 20; W.C. JORDAN, The French Monarchy and the Jews. From Philip Augustus to the Last Capetians, Philadelphia, 1989, p. 198. On the special interest of Bernard Gui in Jewish books, see Y.H. YERUSHALMI, “The Inquisition and the Jews of France in the Time of Bernard Gui”, Harvard Theological Review 63 (1970), pp. 321, n. 12; 326-327; COHEN, The Friars…, p. 84. 45. J. COHEN, “The Christian Adversary of Solomon ibn Adret”, JQR 71 (1980-1981), pp. 48-55; ID., The Friars…, pp. 156-163; R. CHAZAN, Daggers of Faith, Thirteenth-Century Christian Missionizing and Jewish Response, Berkeley, 1989, pp. 139-158. It is worth mentioning one of the arguments of the Christian disputant [Martini] with Ben Adret who refused to accept a philosophical argument in debate over the Trinity, Responsa of the Rashba, ed. Dimitrovsky, I, 1, 37, 7, p. 204, translated by COHEN, The Friars…, p. 162: “These are philosophical arguments, and you will not ascertain religious truth by means of philosophy; for from philosophy originate several logical difficulties for all religions.” 46. The text uses the Hebrew word min, which means “heretic”, see also n. 32. THE BAN PLACED BY THE COMMUNITY OF BARCELONA 403

1260s47. It may even be assumed that, if such a great authority as Ben Adret, who was well known and respected by Christians, condemned the heresy of a group of Jews, it would be hard to prevent the Church authorities from reaching a similar decision. Accordingly, even if Ben Adret felt that the second ban was justified, the course of events dictated withdrawal and retreat. One should not, therefore, look for the explanation of Ben Adret’s steps in terms of a conflict with the jurisdiction of the King of France, but rather within the context of Jewish relationships with Church authorities — particularly some enterprising In- quisitors48, when they won the support of secular rulers. Ben Adret was probably aware of the dangers of this connection between a King and an aggressive Inquisition from the events in Apulia (southern Italy) in the early 1290s, when the crown prince Charles II of Anjou and the Inquisitors destroyed the Jewish communities there49. Ben Adret’s caution in this regard would also seem justified in light of the developments in Aragon and Majorca in the course of the subsequent fifty years: In 1315, the Jews of Majorca asked King Sancho I to forbid the Inquisition to investigate the Jews on matters of faith without royal permission50. In 1354, after growing inquisitorial pressure on the Jewish communities of Aragon51, their

47. E. RENAN, Averroès et l’averroïsme, Essai historique, Paris, 1866, pp. 200-300, rééd. Paris, 1997, pp. 151-228. See also G. VERBEKE, “Philosophy and Heresy: Some Conflicts Be- tween Reason and Faith”, in W. LOURDAUX, D. VERHELST (ed.), The Concept of Heresy in the Middle Ages (11th-13th c.). Proceedings of the International Conference Louvain May 13-16, 1973, Louvain, 1976, pp. 172-197. J. SARACHEK, Faith and Reason. The Conflict over the Ra- tionalism of Maimonides, New York, 1970, p. 231, cited the chronological proximity of the ban of Barcelona and the Ecumenical Council of Vienne, which forbade Averroism (1311). In the matter at hand, of the 219 forbidden opinions published by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris in 1277, it is especially worth noting a few sections dealing with the relationship between theology and fable: Section 152, Quod sermones theologi sunt fundati in fabulis; Sec- tion 174, Quod fabulae et falsa sunt in lege christiana, sicut et in aliis. See RENAN, ibid., p. 274. See also R. HISSETTE, Enquête sur les 219 articles condamnés à Paris le 7 mars 1277, Louvain, 1977. On Averroism in the context of Spain, see R. IMBACH, “Lulle face aux Averroïstes parisiens”, Cahiers de Fanjeaux, 22 (1987), pp. 261-282. It should be noted that William of Auvergne, Bishop of Paris (1228-1249), in De Legibus, ch. 1, held that Aristote- lian philosophy had led the Jews to heresy; see COHEN, The Friars…, p. 62, n. 20; J. GUTT- MANN, Die Scholastik des dreizehnten Jahrhunderts in ihren Beziehungen zum Judenthum, 1902; repr., Hildesheim, 1970, pp. 24-25, n. 2. 48. Only a year before (1304) the King of Aragon, James II, wrote to the Inquisitor Bernardo de Podio expressing his displeasure over the latter’s proceedings against Jews in Tarragona. See N. ROTH, Conversos, Inquisition, and the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain, Madison, 1995, p. 208, and Y.T. ASSIS, The Golden Age of Aragonese Jewry. Community and Society in the Crown of Aragon, London, 1997, p. 60. 49. See COHEN, The Friars…, pp. 85-89; J. STARR, “The Mass Conversion of Jews in Southern Italy (1290-1293)”, Speculum, 21 (1946), pp. 203-211; K.R. STOW, Alienated Mi- nority: The Jews of Medieval Latin Europe, London, 1992, p. 265. 50. See A. LIONEL Isaacs, The Jews of Majorca, London, 1936, p. 49. 51. See Y.T. ASSIS, “The Papal Inquisition and Aragonese Jewry in the Early Fourteenth Century”, Medieval Studies, 49 (1987), pp. 399-400; ID., The Golden Age…, pp. 60-62, and 404 THE BAN PLACED BY THE COMMUNITY OF BARCELONA intercommunal organization (meeting in Barcelona) applied to King Pedro IV to ask the Pope for a decretal letter which would forbid the Inquisition to treat Jews as heretics for espousing beliefs consonant with Judaism, and would allow it to prosecute Jews only for rejecting beliefs common to all religions52. It seems reasonable to assume that the same fears moved Ben Adret to reconsider his actions and to change his mind concerning the second ban. Thus, a close analysis of the events of this controversy over the use of philosophical texts by Jews allows a clearer understanding of the de- velopment of the relations between the Jews and the Church authorities at the turn of the fourteenth century.

esp. p. 62, on the inquisitorial investigation against the Jews of Calatayud (1326) which led to the confiscation of their books (David QimÌi's Sefer ha-Shorashim, and some Talmudic tractates). 52. See L. FINKELSTEIN, Jewish Self-Government in the Middle Ages, New York, 1964, pp. 331; BAER, History, II, pp. 25-27; K.R. STOW, The “1007 Anonymous” and Papal Sover- eignty: Jewish Perceptions of the Papacy and Papal Policy in the High Middle Ages, Cincinnati, 1984, p. 43; Alienated Minority, pp. 264-265.