Ruderman David B. Early Modern Jewry: A New Cultural History

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

54 C H A P t e r o N e

traveled from Polotsk, Belorus, to Copenhagen, then

to Berlin, nally settling in London at the end of the

eighteenth century. A highly talented engraver by profes-

sion, he used his extensive Hebrew background in Lon-

don to initiate a new

english

translation of the Hebrew

Bible while

openly challenging the authority of the chief

Ashkenazic rabbi of London.

one could easily extend

this list to include a much larger number of well-known

itinerate maskilim (men of enlightenment) who trav-

eled from eastern

europe

to the West in pursuit of their

enlightened interests, such as

israel

Zamosc (c. 1700–

1772),

isaac satanov

(1732–1804), or

solomon

Maimon

(c. 1753–1800), to name only a few. Mobility remained a

critical dimension of Jewish intellectual life throughout

the modern period as well.

in the nal analysis, however, all of these examples

do not establish beyond any reasonable doubt that there

was a direct link between traveling people and traveling

ideas. What this chapter has demonstrated is that mo-

bility was a crucial factor in early modern Jewish life,

especially for many of its most prominent intellectual g-

ures.

the

precise impact it played on cultural formation

has not yet been studied sufciently and systematically.

such

a project requires more detailed biographical data

gleaned from the writings of these individuals and their

interlocutors as well a careful study of the variegated

cultural contexts in which they lived and their adapta-

tions to their changing surroundings.

such

a task is im-

portant but clearly beyond the scope of this chapter. All

can point to at present are possible connections.

these

might

include the accelerated pace of writing in many

languages; the emergence of new forms of literary cre-

ativity in law, kabbalah, belles lettres, medicine, history

J e W s o N t H e M ov e 55

and biography, homiletics and more; or the concentra-

tion of Jews in itinerant professions such as medicine,

performing arts, the rabbinate, and trade. Jewish mobil-

ity in this era might even explain, at least partially, such

phenomena as the production of custom books meant

to acknowledge and to enshrine in memory cultural dif-

ferences liable to be forgotten, or the composition and

printing of a universal code of Jewish law, the Shulh

Arukh and Mappah of Joseph Karo and Moses

isserles,

meant to address the change and disruption caused by

migratory upheaval.

Mobility, as we have seen, also

determines new linguistic enclaves. Ashkenazic Jews

spoke and wrote

yiddish in venice and

Amsterdam, as

well as Poland and Lithuania, despite its strangeness

among the majority of people living in these places.

se-

phar dim spoke

Ladino and published extensively in that

language in a

turkic linguistic

eld while conversos in

Amsterdam assembled regularly in their newly adopted

city for readings in

spanish

and Portuguese and used

these languages, rather than

dutch,

for communal busi-

ness and literary composition.

finally

, as has been men-

tioned, and as we shall soon examine in greater detail

in chapter 3, the mobility of persons went hand in hand

with the mobility of books.

the

printer, the typesetter,

and the book dealer were highly mobile people whose

business relied on their shuttling from place to place.

society in constant movement, the publishing of books

also constituted a means of arresting motion, of preserv-

ing and storing the memory of the past and its traditions

as an attempt—albeit elusive—of xing and stabilizing

the present.

This page intentionally left blank

two

CoMMUNAL CoHesioN

or more than a century, scholars have well noted

the prominent growth of relatively powerful Jew-

ish communal organizations during the early modern

period.

the Netherlands, in

italy

, in Germany, in the

otto man empire,

and especially in eastern

europe,

these

more elaborate and complex institutions functioned

most effectively in representing their Jewish constituen-

cies before local governments and in providing religious,

educational, and social services to their individual mem-

bers.

the

pinnacle of this remarkable development was

realized in eastern

europe,

where a vast federation of

local and regional Jewish communities banded together

to create the so-called Council of the

four

Lands.

this

mega-institution

represented one of the most imposing

structures of Jewish autonomy ever constituted in the

diaspora.

these early modern communities, their internal struc-

tures, the relations between rabbinic and lay leadership,

and the external relations with their host governments

have been of great interest to contemporary historians as

well.

yet,

disappointingly, the focus of their more recent

work has remained strictly regional, hardly considering

the broader landscape of these developments across the

Jewish world. No one, to my knowledge, has freshly

58 C H A P t e r t W o

attempted a systematic comparison of Jewish communal

developments in early modern

europe.

this chapter offers such a comparison of Jewish com-

munal structures, albeit a tentative and preliminary one,

concentrating on the Western

sephardic

communities—

primarily in Amsterdam, on those in German lands, and

those in Poland and Lithuania,

italy

, and the

ottoman

empire.

While Jewish communities in their early mod-

ern contexts exhibited striking continuities with those of

medieval Muslim and Christian societies, there were ob-

vious discontinuities as well.

And even more dramatic

was the diminution and decline of these organizations

in modern Jewish societies. Communal cohesion in the

particular forms that developed in the sixteenth to eigh-

teenth centuries is surely a signicant marker of the sin-

gularity of early modern Jewry as a whole and, along

with the factor of mobility, deserves more serious atten-

tion on a transregional basis than it has received so far.

the

description that follows focuses on three primary

issues.

first,

the communal structures of early mod-

ern Jews were more elaborate and more complex than

their medieval counterparts and suggest a development

unique to this era.

presenting an overview of these

structures, can one discern a trend common to each of

the primary regions in which Jews lived, or do signicant

variations from region to region not allow us to make

meaningful comparisons?

second,

the new communities

privileged and elevated lay authority—primarily that of

afuent merchants—over that of the rabbis.

the

rab-

binate in this era appears to become more profession-

alized, more institutionalized, and subsequently more

subordinated to the communal leadership of elite patri-

cian groups regulating communal affairs.

the

rabbis, of

C o M M U N A L C o H e s i o N 59

course, did not lose all of their power, and as we shall

see, their situation varied to some degree from place to

place. Nevertheless, several of them noticed their rela-

tive loss of independence and authority, objected to their

new status, and struggled to adjust to the new realities

they clearly perceived.

the

loss of rabbinic power ap-

peared to be most acute in western

europe,

less so in

eastern

europe

and

italy

, and even less so in the

otto-

man

empire.

despite

these differences, does a broader

picture of a rabbinate in decline emerge from our indi-

vidual explorations?

third,

the growing complexity of

Jewish communal organizations was surely the result of

the policies of mercantilist governments who saw these

communal structures as promoting their own political

and economic agendas.

the

interesting question, which

shall be considered in this chapter, is to what degree

the early modern Jewish community was a creation of

these host governments, the result of a self-conscious

and coherent policy on their parts, serving their inter-

ests and even shaped in their images. Were the policies

of the early modern states actually different from those

of medieval ones with respect to Jewry policy? Can we

generalize at all about the relationship between the early

modern state and its Jewish community or do regional

variations obviate such a possibility?

italian Communal developments

in the community ledger (pinkas) of the Jewish com-

munity of Padua,

italy

, a unique case is recorded for

the year 1585.

involves a woman who gave birth to

a child out of wedlock and insisted that the community

support the child.

it refused, she would take the child

60 C H A P t e r t W o

to the synagogue or even to the home of the father to

embarrass the latter and the entire congregation.

the

community

leaders, the parnassim, were understand-

ably apprehensive about such negative publicity and

decided to take the matter into their own hands rather

than allow their renowned rabbi,

samuel

Archivolti

(1515–1611), to decide the matter. Archivolti was furi-

ous with their usurpation of his authority and ultimately

resigned in protest. But the general council of the com-

munity stood by their parnassim, insisting on their right

to decide “without the permission of any rabbi.”

samuel

decided

on his own to issue a h

erem (ban) against the

man he thought to be the father.

the

parnassim declared

the following in response: “

from

now on no rabbi or

teacher who lives in Padua can decree or issue a h

erem

without the consent and approval of at least two parn-

assim of our community.” Archivolti appealed to Judah

Katzenellenbogen, the rabbi of

venice,

who tried to nd

a compromise among the parties, asking the Paduan

leadership to rescind their declaration without ofcially

overturning it.

the

line remained in the community led-

ger until 1601, at which time the position of the rabbi

was considerably strengthened, unfavorable references

to him were erased, and his right to issue the herem on

matters of religious law was acknowledged.

this was the only case in italy, where community

leaders assumed what had traditionally been a rabbinic

prerogative, and in the end Archivolti successfully re-

claimed what had been temporarily taken from him.

this

case, then, is the exception that proves the rule but

opens for us a window onto one of the primary issues

of early modern Jewish communal life in the

italian

city

states and beyond: the balancing of lay authority with

C o M M U N A L C o H e s i o N 61

rabbinic authority and the general limits of each. this

incident profoundly illustrates a most telling point: that

Jews never had full authority over their own communi-

ties in

italy

but they nevertheless attained a considerable

measure of autonomy in running their own lives.

signs of Jewish communal organization rst ap-

peared in the city states of northern and central

ita

by the late fteenth and early sixteenth centuries and

become more visible by the second half of the sixteenth

with the appearance of Jewish synagogues, cemeteries,

and charitable associations.

the

inuence of city orga-

nizations upon Jewish communal structures is obvious:

general assemblies of Jewish citizens, smaller assem-

blies, and parnassim appear to mimic the structures of

municipal assemblies and procuratori.

the

oldest Jew-

ish communal ledger can be traced to

ver

ona in 1539.

initially, wealthy bankers dominated the leadership

of these communities later to be replaced by equally

wealthy merchants challenging their control.

the

pri-

mary function of these elites was to collect taxes from

their constituencies for the municipality and to offer so-

cial and educational services for their members.

rab

bis

were appointed by the community primarily for their

pedagogic roles but also issued legal decisions carried

out by means of arbitration that both parties agreed

to accept voluntarily from the outset.

the

se rabbis as-

sumed a relative degree of economic independence;

their positions were usually protected from the possible

challenge of other rabbis; and they could enforce their

decisions by the use of the h

erem with the backing and

agreement of the lay leadership—the ultimate resolu-

tion of the controversy surrounding

sam

uel Archivolti

mentioned earlier.

62 C H A P t e r t W o

By the second half of the sixteenth century, Jews were

segregated in neighborhoods, called ghettos, in which all

Jews were required to live and where no Christians were

allowed to live.

from

the perspective of the papacy, the

new spatial arrangements were designed to shield Cath-

olic society from Jewish “contamination.”

since

Jews

could be more easily controlled within a restricted quar-

ter, they ultimately could be more easily converted.

yet

despite the

missionary intentions of the ghetto founders,

only a small percentage of the Jewish population con-

verted.

fact, despite the misery and impoverishment

these newly sequestered neighborhoods often engen-

dered, there was also a positive side to these new condi-

tions: the ghetto provided Jews with a clearly dened

place, geographically and politically, within Christian

society. Moreover, Christian authorities continued to

tolerate the internal jurisprudence system of the Jews.

despite

the explicit aim of the architects of the ghetto to

insulate Christian culture from the alleged pollution of

its Jewish minority, the closure paradoxically opened up

new opportunities for cultural dialogue and inter

action

with the

Christian majority as Jews saw themselves a

more organic and natural part of their environment

than ever before.

At the same time, the concentration and even con-

gestion of these new urban environments posed new

challenges to Jewish communal living.

in a highly frag-

mented society of individual

sephardic,

Ashkenazic, and

italian

communities and synagogues, the fragmenta-

tion of rabbinic authority followed the general trend.

rabbinic

power was limited by the presence of these

multiple subcommunities and by competing rabbinic

authorities who often disagreed with each other. And

C o M M U N A L C o H e s i o N 63

despite the intellectual prominence of some individual

rabbis, all were ultimately beholden to the communities

they served and to the wealthy families who controlled

communal life including those who dominated the many

confraternities enriching the social and spiritual life of

the ghettos.

Until recently, the emergence of the ghetto has been

viewed by scholars as a decisive stage in Jewish com-

munal development but not necessarily its beginning or

the primary factor in its emergence.

a recent study

of the ghetto in

florence,

one scholar has claimed that

“the act of forcing the Jews to take up residence in their

newly bounded Jewish neighborhood created the Jewish

institutions that scholarship assumes existed all along.”

there

may have been a population of Jews living in

the environs of

florence

but not necessarily a commu-

nity prior to the establishment of the ghetto.

the

self-

conscious policy of the Medici rulers to organize Jews in

a separate quarter suited their need to contain, regulate,

control, and “spatialize” particular groups under their

regime. And in so doing they fashioned for the rst time

a Jewish community, Jewish institutions, and even “the

reconstruction of Jewishness.”

such an account of the rise of this relatively insig-

nicant Jewish community in

florence

and its ghettoiza-

tion, based primarily on archival sources of the Medici

government, provocatively raises the important ques-

tion about the deliberate use of Jewish segregation to

advance goals of state building and the degree to which

a minority community could be fashioned simply by po-

litical manipulation alone.

the case of

florence,

there

is indeed little evidence to suggest institutional life prior

to the ghetto, but even after communal structures were