This paper was originally presented in a much different form to the Columbia University Center for Israel and Jewish Studies Seminar. It has benefited from the wisdom of members of the seminar as well as the comments of Professors Gerald Blidstein, Elisheva Carlebach, and Haym Soloveitchik. The shortcomings that remain are obviously but a reflection of the author's own deficiencies.

1 Regarding converts, see, for example, the famous quip of Rabbi, Helbo, B.T., Yebamot 47b, that converts are like a scab to Israel. The tanna Rabbi Isaac, for one, was willing to posit that apostates were the enemy referred to in Exodus 23:4, “If you meet your enemy's ox or donkey going astray, you must return it to him” (Mikilta′ de-Rabbi Yishma′ ′el, H. Horovitz and I. Rabin, eds., 2d ed. [Jerusalem: Bamberger &Wahrman, 1960], Mishpatim 20, p. 324).Google Scholar

2 Codex Theodosianus 16.8.19, cited and translated by Amnon, Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987), p. 258. While the Theodosian Code was abandoned in 529, the sixteenth book of the Code was accepted by the Church as an authoritative source of canon law (Linder, p. 33). Under points out that “general prohibitions against conversion” of Christians to Judaism existed from the fourth century (p. 81).Google Scholar

3 , Linder, pp. 258 and 261, nn. 7, 9.Google Scholar

4 See Edward, Syrian, The Popes and the Jews in the Middle Ages (New York: Macmillan, 1965), pp. 55, 58.Google Scholar

5 Teshubot ha-ge′onim, Y. Musafia, ed. (1924; reprint, Jerusalem: Ha′emunim, 1967), no. 23. The responsum, which was sent to Spain, has appeared in various recensions, some greatly abbreviated, that have been collected in Ozar ha-ge ′onim, Lewin, B. M., ed. (Jerusalem: Central, 1939), vol. 9 (Qiddushin), pp. 30–35Google Scholar, nos. 78–88. On this responsum, also see Ya′aqob, Blidstein, “Ma′amadan ha-ishi shel nashim shebuyot u-meshumadot be-halakah shel yemey ha-beynayim,” Shanaton ha-mishpat ha-′ibri 3 (1976–1977): 56–57Google Scholar, who in addition cites a similar ruling of Naturnai with respect to a husband inheriting his apostate wife (O?ar ha-ge′onim, vol. 8 [Ketubbot], p. 356, no. 790). Oded, Ir-Shai, “Mumar ke-yoresh be-teshubot ha-ge′onim-yesodotehah shel pesiqah u-maqabbiloteyha ba-mishpat ha-nokri,” Shanaton hamishpat ha-′ibri 11(1984–1986): 438–455, discusses the possible social-economic basis of Naturnai's position, his successors′ views, and their critics.Google Scholar

6 See Gerald, Blidstein, “Who Is Not a Jew?-The Medieval Discussion,” Israel Law Review 11 (1976): 374–378.Google Scholar

7 Louis, Finkelstein, Jewish Self-Government in the Middle Ages, 2d ed. (New York: Philipp Feldheim, 1964), pp. 30–31Google Scholar, and Avraham, Grossman, Hakmey Ashkenaz ha-ri'shonim, 2d ed. (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989), pp. 122–123Google Scholar and n. 68. The “mey ha-shemad” referred to by Rashi in his responsum (see Teshubot hakmey Zarfat u-Lotir, Joel Mailer, ed. [1881; reprint, Jerusalem: n.p., 1967], p. 1 lb, no. 21), cited by Finkelstein and Grossman, may best be translated as “the waters of baptism.” On such a meaning of the word shemad, see Eliezer, Ben Yehuda, Millon ha–lashon ha- ′ibrit, Tur-Sinai, N., ed. (New York: Thomas Yoseloff, 1959), s.v. shamad, second definition and the sources cited.Google Scholar

8 Also see Grossman, Hakmey Ashkenaz ha-ri'sohnim, p. 406. There were limits to R. Gershom's permissive attitude toward repentant apostates. While R. Gershom generally allowed repentant apostates to perform the priestly blessing in the synagogue, he would not allow a Jew who had apostatized of his own volition and become a Christian teacher (priest?) to bless the community. R. Eleazar ben Isaac, a younger contemporary, did not concur with R. Gershom's view. See Shlomo, Eidelberg, “Teshubah lo′ noda′at me-Rabbeynu Gershom me′or ha-golah,” Talpiot 6. 1–2 (March 1953): 153–155.Google Scholar

9 Jacob, Katz, “Yisra′el af ′al pi she-hata′Yisra′el hu′,” reprinted in his Halakah ve-qabbalah (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984), p. 264.Google Scholar

10 , Katz, “Yisra′el af ′al pi she-hata′,” p. 266. As Katz points out, from the Jewish perspective, Rashi's position left an ongoing burden of repentance on the Jew who had tried to leave the fold.Google Scholar

11 The tenet that baptism must be voluntary appeared already in the late fourth century in a law barring the acceptance into the Church of Jews who wished to convert to escape their debts or prosecution for crimes that they might have committed (Under, Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, pp. 199200). In 416 the Church permitted converts who were lax in their observance of Christianity to return to Judaism if their conversions were known to have been motivated by something other than devotion to the Christian faith (Linder, pp. 275276), but this was not repeated in Alaric H's Breviarium (promulgated 506), nor was it accepted by the Fourth Council of Toledo in 633, whose position was endorsed by Adrian I (see Jean, Juster, “The Legal Condition of the Jews under the Visigothic Kings,” translated and annotated by Alfredo M. Rabello, Israel Law Review 11 [July 1976]: 409410Google Scholar, and Solomon, Grayzel, The Church and the Jews in the Xlllth Century, vol. 1, 2d ed. [New York: Hermon, 1966], p. 15, n. 14).Google Scholar

12 Avraham, Grossman, “Shorashav shel qiddush ha-Shem be-Ashkenaz ha-qeddumah,” in Qiddushat ha-hayyim ve-hiruf ha-nefesh, qobez ma′amarim le-zikro shel Amir Yequti′el, Isaiah, Garni and Aviezer, Ravitzky, eds. (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1992), p. 125Google Scholar, has argued that apostasy was one of the central legal issues of the eleventh and twelfth centuries for Franco-German Jewry. Also see Jacob, Katz, Exclusiveness and Tolerance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), pp. 68Google Scholar, 73. The scope of the problem is difficult, if not impossible, to gauge (see Katz, pp. 6768). Clearly, apostasy/martyrdom was the significant legal problem for Jews dining the Crusades. Prior to and after the Crusades, the matter is less certain. One does not get the impression from the sources that in the pre- and post-Crusade era in Franco-Germany apostasies ever reached the proportions that they did in England in the 1240s and 1250s where there were concerted efforts at converting the Jews and perhaps up to ten percent of the Jewish population of 3,000 apostatized (see Robert, Stacey, “The Conversion of Jews to Christianity in Thirteenth Century England,” Speculum 67, no. 2 [April 1992]: p 269).Google Scholar

13 Solomon, Katz, The Jews in the Visigothic and Frankish Kingdoms of Spain and Gaul (1937; reprint, New York: Kraus, 1970), pp. 13Google Scholar, 15; Solomon, Grayzel, “Popes, Jews, and Inquisition from 'sicut′ to ′Turbato,′ reprinted in his The Church and the Jews in the Xlllth Century, vol. 2, Kenneth, Stow, ed. (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1989), p. 4 and nn. 12 and 13.Google Scholar

14 On the First Crusades and Henry IV's position, see Julius, Aronius, Regesten zur Geschichte derJuden (1902; reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1970), pp. 93–94Google Scholar, nos. 203,204. The chronicler states that ”through his [R. Moses′] efforts all the forced converts who remained scattered about in Henry's kingdom returned [to Judaism]“ (Habermann, A. M., Sefer gezerot Ashkenaz u-Zarfat [Jerusalem: Tarshish, 1946], p. 94). The Latin report of Henry's decision makes no reference to any request from the Jewish community. Regarding papal reaction, see Grayzel, ”Popes, Jews, and Inquisition,“ p. 12.Google Scholar

15 Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France, Leopold, Delisle, ed., new edition (1878; reprint, Famborough: Gregg International Publishers, 1968), vol. 16, p. 8, no. 19.Google Scholar

16 , Habermann, Sefer gezerot Ashkenaz u–Zarfat, p. 145.Google Scholar

17 According to one version, those who had been forcibly apostatized during the First Crusade had never acknowledged Christianity and had tried to observe the commandments to the best of their abilities while within the reach of the Church. For this the chronicler Solomon ben Simon deemed them praiseworthy and said that ”he who speaks evil of them, it is as if he speaks [against] the Holy Presence“ (Habermann, Sefer gezerot Ashkenaz u-Zarfat, p. 57).

18 Cited in Urbach, Ephraim, Ba ′aley ha-tosafot, 4th ed. (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1980),Google Scholar

19 See Urbach, Ba′aley ha-tosafot, p. 407, a citation of Rabbi Eleazar ben Judah of Worms's prescriptions by Rabbi Isaac ben Abraham. However, Yedidya, Dinari, Hakmey Ashkenaz be-shalhey yemey ha-beynayim (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1984), p. 86Google Scholar, n. 74, has noted that in R. Eleazar of Worms's own writings there are long penances for the repentant apostate. Also see he-hasid, Judah, Sefer hasidim, Yehudah, Wistinetzki, ed., with introduction by Aron Freimann, 2d ed., (1924; reprint, Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1969), nos. 208, 209, a product of the same school as R. Eleazar, where some form of penance is expected of the returning apostate.Google Scholar

20 Simhah, Goldin, ”Ha-yahasim beyn ha-yahid ve-haqebuzah be-qebillah ha-Yehudit be-zafon Zarfat ve-Germanyah (1100–1300)“ (Ph.D. diss., Tel Aviv University, 1991, p. 147)Google Scholar, has argued that in German lands there was a harsher attitude toward the returning apostate, requiring penances and rejecting Rabbi Jacob Tarn's allowance with respect to the continuing relationship between the married woman and her previous non-Jewish paramour. Nevertheless, in at least one case, German communities made efforts to bring repentant apostates back into the community (see, for example, Isaac, Hayyim ben, Sefer she ′elot u-teshubot moreynu ha-rab Hayyim or zaru′a [Leipzig, 1865], no. 103, a case of a voluntary apostate who was extricated from Christian society by the Jewish community and who was allowed to return to her husband).Google Scholar

21 For the text (with English translation), background to, and significance of Sicut Judeis, see Grayzel, Solomon, “The Papal Bull Sicut Judeis,” reprinted in Essential Papers on Judaism and Christianity in Conflict, Jeremy, Cohen, ed. (New York: New York University Press, 1991), pp. 231259. Grayzel suggests the possibility that Sicut Judeis was connected with the episodes of forced conversion of Jews during the First Crusade (pp. 233, 235–236).Google Scholar

22 Cited and translated in Grayzel, “Popes, Jews, and Inquisition,” p. 7. Even churchmen could falter in observing Gratian's statute. When, on the day after his baptism in September 1189, the badly wounded Benedict of York stood before Richard I and was asked to identify himself, he responded, “Ego sum Benedictus Judaeus tuus de Eboraco.” Incensed, the archbishop of Canterbury lashed back, “Ille Christianus esse non vult,(homo Diaboli sit,” seemingly giving Benedict leave to return to Judaism. According to Roger of Howden, Benedict died soon thereafter. The Jewish community, however, would not accept his body for burial because he had apostatized. See Chronica Magistri Rogeri de Houedene, William, Stubbs, ed., vol. 3 (1870; reprint, Wiesbaden: Kraus, 1964), pp. 12–13Google Scholar, as well as Dobson, R. B., The Jews of Medieval York, Borthwick Papers, no. 45 (York: St. Anthony's, 1974), pp. 24–25.Google Scholar

23 Cited and translated in Grayzel, Church and the Jews, vol. 1, pp. 101103. The position was repeated by Nicholas III in 1277 and incorporated into canon law by the end of the century (see Solomon Grayzel, “The Confession of a Medieval Jewish Convert,” Historia Judaica 17, no. 2 [October 1955] 92–93).

24 Concerning the place, or lack thereof, of Hasidey Ashkenaz in the German Jewish community of the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, see Soloveitchik, Haym, “Three Themes in the Sefer Hasidim” AJS Review 1 (1976): 336–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 On the dating of Sefer hasidim, see Haym, Soloveitchik, “Le-ta′arik hibburo shel 'sefer hasidim′,” in Tarbut ve-hebrah be-toledot Yisra′el be-yemey ha-beynayim, qobez ma′amarim le-zikro shel Hayyim Hillel Ben-Sasson, Menahem, Ben-Sasson et al., eds. (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1989), pp. 383–388Google Scholar, who is able to establish that sections dealing with economic practices (and perhaps charity) predate 1225. Ivan, Marcus, Piety and Society (Leiden: Brill, 1981), pp. 136–137, 153 n. 88, asserts “that aside from obvious interpolations” Sefer hasidim (after section 16) predates 1217.Google Scholar

26 Sefer hasidim, no. 201.

27 While the apostate remained in the Christian community, the hasid called on Jews to insult him (Sefer hasidim, no. 192), although the hasid did allow Jews to pray that God would lighten the punishment of an apostate who did good things for Jews (no. 1571). The hasid was not just reticent about helping apostates who physically endangered the Jewish community; spiritual danger was also a concern (no. 183).

28 The attack was ostensibly the result of local Jews not allowing a boy to apostatize (see Kracauer, I., Geschichte der Juden in Frankfurt a.M., vol 1 [Frankfurt: I. Kauffmann, 1925], p. 7). On the number of martyrs and the size of the community, see Germania Judaica, Zvi Avneri, ed., vol. 2.1 (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1968), p. 239 and the sources cited in n. 6.Google Scholar

29 Isaac, Hayyim ben, Responsa,, no. 221 with comparison to 103. The Christian residents of Frankfurt acted illegally in attacking the Jews and were forced to seek a royal pardon for their actions (see Germania Judaica, p. 239).Google Scholar

30 Isaac, ben Moses, Sefer or zaru′a, vol. 1 (1862; reprint, n.p.: Ma′or ha-gadol, 1976), no. 747. R. Isaac was not alone in praising the girls. See the comments of R. Isaac's teachers R. Judah ben Moses of Friedberg, R. Meshulam ben David, and R. David ben Sha′alti′el in Hayyim ben Isaac, Responsa, nos. 103, 221. Blidstein, “Ma′amadan ha-ishi shel nashim shebuyot,” p. 92, correctly notes, however, that R. Isaac's acclaim of the girls did not match his praise of the martyrs.Google Scholar

31 Asher, ben Yehi′el, She′elot u-teshubot ha-R′osh (1881; reprint, n.p., n.d.), no. 32.8, wrote, “it is true that they did something terrible and they must be remorseful and repent and accept sufferings more than those who apostatized in peaceful times because they apostatized in public.”Google Scholar

32 See , Blidstein, “Ma′amadan ha-ishi shel nashim shebuyot,” pp. 98–99, regarding the general trend to allow these women to return to their husbands. If, however, the women lingered in the Christian community when they had the opportunity to escape, rabbis were quite willing to prohibit them from returning to their conjugal relationshipsGoogle Scholar. See the opinion of Rabbi Abraham Katz cited in Jacob, Mollin, She′elot u-teshubot Maharil, Yitzchok, Satz, ed. (Jerusalem: Machon Yerushalayim, 1979), no. 72, p. 92 and the sources cited in n. 35.Google Scholar

33 Isaac, ben Moses, Sefer or zaru′a, vol. 1, no. 758. In R. Isaac's reconstruction of the litigants′ claims there is no mention of her having being a convert. However, in his own discussion, R. Isaac cites Pesiqta′ rabbati 22, “do not trust a convert until the twenty-second generation,” and adds of his own accord, “and all the more so a convert who has apostatized.”Google Scholar

34 The owner is purported to have said,

35 On the identification of with Irek, a village near Nitra, see Wellesz, J., “Isaak b. Mose Or Sarua,” Monatsschriftjur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 48 (1904): 449Google Scholar. Also see Kahan, I., “Or Sarua als Geschichtsquelle,” Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft fur Geschichte derJuden in der Cechoslovakischen Republik 9 (1938): n. 88. Wellesz dates the responsum to some time before 1233 (p. 450).Google Scholar

36 Cited and translated in Synan, Popes and the Jews in the Middle Ages, p. 118.

37 See Shatzmiller, Joseph, “L′inquisition et les juifs de Provence au Xllle s.,” Provence Historique 93 (1973): 328Google Scholar. Also see Yerushalmi, Yosef, “The Inquisition and the Jews of France in the Time of Bernard Gui,” Harvard Theological Review 63, no.3 (July 1970): 340, n. 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38 See , Grayzel, “Popes, Jews, and Inquisition,” pp. 1516. Shatzmiller, “L′inquisition et les juifs de Provence au XIHe s.,” p. 328, points out that Nicholas IV used the same language when he reissued the bull in 1288.Google Scholar

39 The Third Lateran Council (March 1179) approved the use of secular power against heretics. Innocent III went further by threatening nobles who did not help in the battle against heresy with excommunication and interdictions. Previously there was little occasion for the collaboration of church and state against religious dissenters, since there was no consensus on how to deal with such people. See Walter, Wakefield, Heresy, Crusade and Inquisition in Southern France, 1100–1250 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), pp. 82, 85, 88.Google Scholar

40 On relapsing into Judaism and heresy in the Schwabenspiegel and the work's subsequent influence, see Guido, Kisch, The Jews in Medieval Germany (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949), pp. 39, 203–204.Google Scholar

41 Lea, Henry C., in his classic A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages (1888; reprint, New York: Russell and Russell, 1955)Google Scholar, argued that local German authorities opposed the Inquisition on political grounds and therefore prevented it from establishing itself (vol. 1, p. 332; vol. 2, p. 388). When Charles IV finally supported the Inquisition in 1369, its activities were aimed at beghards and beguines but even these limited efforts elicited local opposition (vol. 2, pp. 393–395). Richard, Kieckhefer, Repression of Heresy in Medieval Germany (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979), challenged Lea's contentions and suggested that the reason for the Inquisition's weakness in Germany lay in its own institutional structure. Inquisitors lacked the institutional mechanisms for interregional cooperation and, unlike their counterparts in southern Europe, inquisitors in Germany were appointed over regions too large to administer effectively (p. 26).Google Scholar

42 , Shatzmiller, “L′inquisition et les juifs,” pp. 330–331,335, as well as his Recherches sur la Communite juive de Manosque au Moyen Age 12411329 (Paris: Mouton, 1973), pp. 58–62.Google Scholar

43 Joshua, Starr, “The Mass Conversion of Jews in Southern Italy (1290–1293),” Speculum 21, no. 2 (April 1946): 206. Such apostates were not forcibly baptized but rather forced into apostasy by excessive taxation (p. 208).Google Scholar

44 On the conversion of such Jews during the expulsion, see Yom Tov Assis, “Juifs de France refugies en Aragon (Xlle-XIVe siecles),” Revue des etudes juives 142 (1983): 291–292, 299; Yerushalmi, “Inquisition and the Jews of France,” pp. 322323; Robert, Chazan, Medieval Jewry in Northern France (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973), pp. 195–196Google Scholar; William, Chester Jordan, The French Monarchy and the Jews (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989), p. 236.Google Scholar

45 See Joseph, Shatzmiller, “Converts and Judaizers in the Early Fourteenth Century,” Harvard Theological Review 74, no. 1 (January 1981): 63–66,69Google Scholar; Yerushalmi, “Inquisition and the Jews of France,” pp. 363–374; Goldin, “Ha-yahasim beyn ha-yahid,” p. 174. The notion of washing away the effects of an earlier religious rite of passage was not without parallel in the Christian community. Esther, Cohen, The Crossroads of Justice (Leiden: Brill, 1993), p. 184, describing how the fingers of two condemned monks “were scrubbed to remove the chrism used at their ordination and they were declared devoid of all ecclesiastical authority.”Google Scholar

46 See Yitzhak, Baer, A History of the Jews in Christian Spain, Louis Schoflman et al., trans., vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1966), p. 9.Google Scholar

47 See , Assis, “Juifs de France refugies en Aragon (Xlle-XrVe siecles),” pp. 299–302.Google Scholar

48 , Yerushalmi, “Inquisition and the Jews of France,” p. 323.Google Scholar

49 Baer, History of the Jews in Christian Spain, vol. 2, p. 10.

50 See ibid,

51 See , Assis, “Juifs de France refugies,” p. 313.Google Scholar

52 See Jeremy, Cohen, The Friars and the Jews (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982), p. 48, and Starr, “Mass Conversion of Jews in Southern Italy (1290–1293),” p. 203.Google Scholar

53 , Baer, History of the Jews in Christian Spain, vol. 2, pp. 13–14.Google Scholar

54 See ibid. pp. 295–299, 384–389; Yerushalmi, “Inquisition and the Jews of Fiance,” pp. 369–370.

55 Teshubot Maymoniyyot,, Nashim 10; also cited in Israel Isserlein, Terumat ha–deshen, Pesaqim u-ketabim (Bene Beraq: n.p., 1971), no. 230. A shorter version of R. Me′ir of Rothenburg's responsum appears in Mordecai ben Hillel, Ketubbot 306. The text seems to indicate that R. Me′ir thought that these people would steal and fulfill their base desires while feigning to be Jews. A late-fourteenth-century Jewish vagrant in France did exactly that, exploiting hospitality to steal from his Jewish hosts (see Esther, Cohen, “Posh′im Yehudim be-Zarfat be-shalhey ha-me′ah ha–14,” Zion 46, no. 2 [1981]: 151–152).Google Scholar

56 Adret, Solomon ben Abraham, She ′elot u-teshubot ha-Rashba ′(1868; reprint, Jerusalem: n.p., 1958), vol. 7, no. 179. The French scholars believed that such Jews pretended to be Christians only to indulge their evil inclinations but did not really believe in Christianity..Google Scholar

57 Isserlein, Pesaqim u-ketabim, no. 138. In Isserlein's case the “waffling” apostate seems to have tried to avoid Jews who might have recognized him, running from a town when he found out that people who knew him were coming. The Church certainly did not approve of apostates mingling with Jews, let alone acting as Jews. See Felix, Vernet, “Le Pape Martin V et les Juifs,” Revue des questions historiques 51 (1892): 405.Google Scholar

58 See Rapahel, Straus, Urkunden und Aktenstucke zur Geschichte derJuden in Regensburg 1453–1738 (Munich: Beck'sche, 1960), no. 211, pp. 64–66Google Scholar. The material is cited and the importance of the accusations regarding the host are put in their proper historical perspective by Hsia, R. Po-chia, The Myth of Ritual Murder (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), p. 70.Google Scholar

59 The Jewish element among the vagrant population was not insignificant. It influenced the language of the vagrants and thieves both in Germany (Rotwelsch) and France (see the fifteenth-century Liber Vagatorum [Strasbourg, 1858], glossary, pp. 55–57; my thanks to Professor Esther Cohen for bringing the work to my attention).

60 Asher ben Yehi′el, Responsa, no. 54.1. The final phrase, is a double entendre. Not only does the case require investigation, but the legal permissibility of accepting their testimony in this regard does as well.

61 R. Asher was willing to accept the testimony of repentant apostates with respect to whether women could remarry (i.e., were their husbands dead). Concluding a responsum R. Asher noted, “and his testimony appears to me to be valid because he repented. And so we did in Germany at the time of the decrees , we allowed women [to remarry] based on the testimony of those who repented and I wrote a lengthy responsum on this” (no. 54.5). As for the lengthy responsum, like many of R. Asher's responsa written in Germany, it has, to the best of my knowledge, yet to be located (see Ta-Shema, Israel, “Rabbenu Asher u-beno R. Ya′aqob ba′al ha-Turim: beyn Ashkenaz le-Sefarad,” Pe′amim 46 [Spring 1991]: 80–82, 88).Google Scholar

62 Teshubot ba′aley ha-tosafot, Irving, Agus, ed. (New York: Talpioth, 1954), p. 238, a source kindly brought to my attention by Professor Blidstein. There is no doubt that these observations were made in the course of a prejudiced response. If the testimony under question was disqualified, the money at issue would be used to redeem children taken by the Christians and forcibly converted. However, R. Yedidyah's social comments, even if somewhat exaggerated, remain indicative of common perceptions.Google Scholar

63 Jacob Mollin, Responsa, no. 100, pp. 192–193. Mollin believed that since some of these apostates were merciful (i.e., essentially good husbands), it may have been better for a Jewish woman to have remained married to such an apostate in the hope that he might return than be divorced and free of him.

64 See Isserlein, Terumat ha–deshen, Responsa, no. 241. Also Mollin, Responsa, no. 72, pp. 89–104. Even R. Asher had found the pious who had been forcibly converted and who returned as soon as possible quite acceptable (Asher ben Yebiel, Responsa, no. 54.1).

65 On the Edict of Vienna in general, see Krauss, Samuel, Die Wiener Geserah vom Jahre 1421 (Vienna: Wilhelm Braumuller, 1920). Krauss asserts that Maitin Vs bull, Licet Judaeorum omnium issued on December 23,1420, which threatened to excommunicate anyone baptizing Jewish children under the age of twelve against their parents wishes, was issued to the Jews of Austria and the Venetian territories in response to the Edict of Vienna (p. 107). R. Jacob Mollin certainly believed that the papal response was aimed at head of the Viennese community (Responsa, p. 102, no. 72). One is left with the impression that Krauss believed that Martin V would have allowed all forced converts to return to Judaism dejure but, bound by Christian theology, could not do so, so the Church simply turned a blind eye. The dating of Licet Judaeorum, however, remains problematic. See Vernet, Le Pape Martin V, p. 422, no. 81.Google Scholar

66 Isserlein, Responsa, no. 241, was asked about the permissibility of these women to their husbands.

67 Isserlein believed that the women could not be charged because they had originally been detained on other pretenses. Whether Isserleins assumption was correct or not remains unclear.

68 On the decline of heresy in fifteenth–century Germany, see Kieckhefer, Repression of Heresy, p. 83.

69 Isserlein, Responsa, no. 86, notes that while according to the letter of the law the repenter could fully participate in Jewish life without immersion, the custom of our fathers demanded ritual immersion before a male repenter could be included in a quorum or any holy matter.

70 Isserlein, Responsa, no. 198. On the apparent contradiction between Isserleins lenient ruling here and the stringent traditon cited in his name two generations later by Joseph ben Moses, Sefer leqet yosher, Jacob Freimann, ed. (1904; reprint, Jerusalem: n.p., 1964), p. 49, see the very questionable suggestion of Dinari, Hakmey Ashkenaz be–shalhey yemey ha–beynayim, p. 91, n. 102. Jacob Elbaum, Teshubat ha–leb u–qabbalat yesurim (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1993), p. 28, nn. 2122, maintains that Isserleins responsa best reflect bis position, but it is difficult to draw any conclusions about Isserleins general view without knowing the circumstances of each case and without solving the long standing question regarding the nature of Isserleins responsa (i.e., were the questions actually asked of him).

71 See Schipper, Ignacy, Zydzi neofici i prozelici w Polsce do r. 1569, Kwartalnik posawieocony badaniom historii Zydow w Polsce 2 (1912): 66. I thank Professor Carlebach for sending me a copy of Schippers article.Google Scholar

72 A number of Jews chose to convert rather than leave their homes during the expulsion of Jews from neighboring Lithuania in 1495. See Jeskecholnski, Teodor, Neofici Polscy (Warsaw: Piotr Laskauer, 1904), pp. 1113, a polemical work that should be used with some cautionGoogle Scholar

73 The few who converted to Lutheranism were more likely to have done so out of conviction, for there was little profit in becoming a Lutheran in Poland. See Goldberg, Jacob, Ha–mumarim be–mamelket Polin–Lita (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1985), pp. 9, 20.Google Scholar

74 On the ennoblement of converts to Catholicism in Poland and Lithuania in the sixteenth century, see Ciechanowiecki, Andrzej, A Footnote to the History of the Integration of Converts into the Ranks of the Szlachta in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, in The Jews in Poland, Abramsky, Chimen et al., eds. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986), pp. 64–65. On attempts to use apostasy as a means to escape punishment, see, for example, Abraham Rapoport, Sheelot u–teshubot eytan ha–ezrahi (1796; reprint, Jerusalem: n.p., 1986), end no. 45, who noted that priests always tried to tempt Jews awaiting punishment to convert with the promise that their sentences would be commuted. In the second half of the seventeenth century, a number of condemned Jewish criminals who withstood the temptation to convert were considered martyrs by the Jewish community (see Chone Shmeruk, Ha–qadosh R. Shakna, Qeraqa 1682–rishum be–pinqas shel ha–hebrah qaddisha le–umat Shir histori, Gal–Ed 78 [1985]: 63 and the source cited in n. 15).Google Scholar

75 Szewczyk, Roman, Ludnosca Lublina w latach 1583–1650 (Lublin: KUL, 1947), p. 107. Among the converts were two children, one aged about five, the other around twelve (p. 109, n. 3).Google Scholar

76 There were sixty–nine Jewish homes in the Jewish suburb of Lublin in 1570, which, according to Mandelsbergschildkraut, Bella, Mehqarim le–toledot Yehudey Lublin (Tel Aviv: Circle of Friends of the Late Bella Mandelsberg–Schildkraut, 1965), p. 66, represented about 1,035 Jews. Even if one assumes that the Jewish population of Lublin replaced itself but once during the sixty–seven–year period of the records, twelve represents less than 1 percent of the Jews who lived in Lublin during those years.Google Scholar

77 See Balaban, Majer, Historja Zydow w Krakowie i na Kazimierzu 1304–1868, vol. 1 (1912; reprint, Cracow: Krajowa Agencja Wydawnicza, 1985), pp. 426–428.Google Scholar

78 See Balaban, Majer, Zydzi Lwowscy na przelomie XVIgo i XVIIgo wieku (1906; reprint, Cracow: Orbita, n.d.), p. 527, n. 2. On the Jewish community in Nawaria, see Pinqas ha–qehillot, Poland, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Yad ve–shem, 1980), s.v. Nawaria. It is, of course, possible that potential apostates from Nawaria may have left the town for a more prestigious center in which to undergo baptism.Google Scholar

79 Sirkes, Joel, Bayit hadash (Cracow, 1635), Yoreh deah 268, wrote that everyone now knows that most apostates convert only so that their appetites may be satiated, to allow them to steal, to have illicit sexual relationships, and to eat forbidden foods in public without having the rabbinic court of the Jews chastise them for it (also see 340 [end]). Sirkess view was not surprising considering that he believed that it was the way of most apostates that all their actions are to trouble and irritate the Jewish community (She elot u–teshubot ha–bayit hadash [Frankfurt, 1697], no. 102). Sirkess contention that apostates were seeking physical pleasures reflects a much earlier tradition (see Luria, Yam shel Shelomoh, Yebamot [Altona, 1740], chap. 1, no. 6) as well asGoogle ScholarRosenthal, Judah, Marcin Czechowic and Jacob of Beizyce Arian–Jewish Encounters in 16th Century Poland, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 34 [1966]: 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

80 Even the German pietist was faced with parents who wanted to bribe their apostate son to return to the Jewish community (Sefer hasidim, no. 183).

81 Luria, Yam shel Shelomoh, Yebamot, chap. 1, no.

82 According to a number of Muslim legalists, dimmis could only convert from Christianity or Judaism to Islam. The Ottoman school of law (madhab), however, followed the view of AbO Hanlfa al–Numan (d. 767) that allowed dimmis to convert to any tolerated religion. See Antoine Fattal, Le statut legal des non–Musulmans en pays dIslam (Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique, 19S8), p. 165, and Schacht, Joseph, An Introduction to Islamic Law (Oxford: Clarendon, 1964), pp. 89–90.Google Scholar

83 See Habermann, A. M., Ha–madpisim beney Hayyim Haliz, Qiryat sefer 33 (September 1958): 509–511, who notes that Samuel Halicz published his first work in Constantinople in 1550, and Majer Balaban, Zur Gescbichte der Hebraischen Druckereien in Polen, Soncino– Bldtter 3, no. 1 (July 1929): 2–3, 7–9. On the date of publication of the Judeo–German New Testament, see Balaban, n. 44. In describing his travels through Turkey in 155355, Hans Dernschwamm, an agent of the Fugger bank, reported meeting Samuel from Cracow, who, he said, had left Poland for the Ottoman Empire after converting to Judaism (cited in Mateusz Mieses, Judaizanci we wschodniej Europie, Miesi^cznik Zydowski 4 [1934]: 157, 254). Demschwamm described Samuel as an apprentice, but, given the small number of converts, one wonders whether the convert he met was none other than Samuel Halicz.Google Scholar

84 See Frankelgoldschmidt, Hava, Be–shuley ha–hebrah ha–yehuditmumarim Yehudiyim be–Gennanyah be–tequfat ha–reformaziyah, in Tarbut ve–hebrah be–toledot Yisrael be–yemey ha–beynayim, qobez ma amarim le–zikro shel Hayyim Hillel Ben Sasson, Bensasson, Menahem et al., eds. (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1989), pp. 638, 639–640.Google Scholar

85 Hanover, Nathan, Yeven mezulah (Venice, 1653), pp. 10a–b. The flight of Jews who had been forcibly converted from the Ukraine and their subsequent return to Judaism is corroborated by at least one Ukrainian source. See Yoel Raba, Beyn zikkaron le–hakhashah (Tel Aviv: Diaspora Research Institute, 1994), p. 163.Google Scholar

86 An English translation of King Jan Kazimierzs edict of May 5, 1649 as recorded in Pinsk (1650) can be found in Mordekhai Nadav, The Jewish Community of Nemyriv in 1648: Their Massacre and Loyalty Oath to the Cossacks, Harvard Ukrainian Studies 8, nos. 3–4 (December 1984): 394–395. The kings pronouncement must have emboldened Jews, for Hanover continued, And in all the places where killings took place there remained a few hundred young children and babies who had [been] apostatized. And the Jews took them back by force from the hands of the Gentiles (p. 10b).Google Scholar

87 Jacob Katz, Beyn reprinted in his Halakah ve–qabbalah, pp. 313–317, 326, argued that there was no expectation of martyrdom in 1648 and therefore no disappointment when Jews failed to die a martyrs death. See, however, Joseph of Zaslaw, Sefer rekeb Eliyyahu (Cracow, 1638), p. 14b, who maintained the demand for martyrdom and wrote and when the evil inclination rises up one should think that if it was a time of religious persecution he would be killed on a small matter of observance, even on changing a shoe strap (see B.T., Sanhedrin 74a–b). Also see the implied dissatisfaction of R. Hanoch the Preacher with Jews who converted rather than died during the Swedish invasions in Great Poland in 1656 (in Sheelot u–teshubot harerey qedem, I. Herskovitz, ed. [Brooklyn: n.p., 1988], no. 95, pp. 407–408).Google Scholar

88 Krochmal, Menahem Mendel, She elot u–teshubot zemah zedeq (Amsterdam, 1675), no. 70. Soon after writing his responsum Krochmal was informed that the woman was alive and well, had indeed never apostatized, had been held as a prisoner, redeemed in Constantinople, and had returned to Lublin from where she made contact with her husband and joyously rejoined him.Google Scholar

89 According to one mid–fifteenth–century German halakhist, if a child was forcibly converted but failed to repent when it reached the age of legal majority, his status changed to that of a willing apostate. See Spitzer, Shelomoh, Teshubah meet Rabbeynu Natan Igra be–din meshumad im yoresh et abiyv, Moriah 7, no. 1 (Fall 1977): 6.Google Scholar

90 see Isserles, Shulhan aruk, Yoreh deah 157.1. Also see the comments of Yerushalmi, Yosef, From Spanish Court to Italian Ghetto (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971), p. 28.Google Scholar

91 If, for example, the husband had been murdered first, then the wifes father would inherit her instead of the husbands family.

92 The question of whether a repentant apostate could give testimony on events seen while an apostate was addressed by Moses Isserles, Shulhan aruk, Eben ha–ezer 17.6, with respect to testimony that might allow a woman, the fate of whose husband was unknown, to remarry. In his supercommentary on this passage, David ben Samuel ha–Levi expanded Isserless phrase (David ben Samuel cites Isserless phrase as nrnn nwn lirro na) beyond its original intent (see also Asher ben Yehiel, Responsa, no. S4.1) to allow forced apostates who returned to Judaism to testify not only about what they had seen at the time of thenapostasy when they were under duress but also during their apostasy (Turey zahab, n. 4).

93 R. Hanoch, Sheelot u–teshubot harerey qedem, no. 95, pp. 407–408. On the attack on Jewish communities in Great Poland in 1656, see Hundert, Gershon, The Jews in a Polish Private Town (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1992), pp. 27–28.Google Scholar

94 Sefer hut ha–shani, Bachrach, Yair, ed. (Frankfurt, 1679), no. 75.Google Scholar

95 Bachrach was certainly not unique in following in the tradition of leniency. Rabbi Mordecai Jaffe, one of the important Polish halakhists of the late sixteenth century, ruled that one must be lenient with an apostate who comes to repent {Sefer ateret zahab [1825; reprint, New York: Gross Brothers, n.d.], 158.2).

96 A similar notion appears in Midrash Rabbah (Exodus) 31.1, but based on a verse in Ezekiel 33, not this particular verse.

97 Discussing the Italian milieu, Stow, Kenneth, A Tale of Uncertainties: Converts in the Roman Ghetto, in Sholomo Simonsohn Jubilee Volume, Oppenheimer, Ahron et al., eds. (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1993), pp. 258259, notes that the Christian world trusted converts little more than the Jews did, often abandoning them financially once they had been baptized. Frankel–Goldschmidt, Be–shuley ha–hebrah ha–yehudit, pp. 635–637, adds that the Jewish apostate was an object of derision in sixteenth–century Germany, perhaps no less than the Jew himself. In seventeenth–century France, an anonymous poet reminded a descendant of Marranos that he still reeked of thefoetor iudaicusGoogle Scholar (see Dahan, Gilbert, Contre un Juif, Archives Juives 16, no. 1 [1980]: 67, 7). There is little reason to suspect that attitudes were significantly different in eastern Europe.Google Scholar

98 Luria, Solomon, Yam shel Shelomoh, Baba Qamma (Prague, 1606–1608), chap. 8, no. 55.Google Scholar

99 See the sources cited by Katz, Exclusiveness and Tolerance, pp. 73 74. Sefer hasidim, no. 193, found a biblical proof text (Psalms 115:8) demanding such name–calling. Haym Soloveitchik, Beyn hevel arab le–hevel Edom, in Qiddushat ha–hayyim ve–hiruf ha–nefesh, qobez maamarim le–zikro shel Amir Yequtiel, Isaiah Gafni and Aviezer Ravitzky, eds. (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1992), p. 151, n. 9, draws attention to the fact that the curses so commonly heaped on apostates in the Ashkenazic world were not pervasive in the Muslim world.

100 Nathan Kahana, Sheelot u–teshubot dibrey renanah, I. Herskovitz, ed. (Brooklyn, N.Y.: n.p., 1984), no. 54. Some biographical information on Kahana is provided in the first few pages of Herskovitzs unpaginated introduction.

101 On the meaning of Kahanas phrase DT1? vrorw TS DH7S3 1K3 Vna 3331 see Psalms 105:18.

102 The question, reformulated by Kahana, states that many Jews were held. In his response Kahana refers to a Jew being killed if the repentant runaway was not returned to the Christian community.

103 When Rabbi Shabbetai ha–Kohen published his commentary on a portion of Joseph Karos Shulhan aruk (Cracow, 1646), he badly needed the approbations of contemporary rabbinic authorities to assure both the publication and purchase of the work of such a young scholar. Kahana was the third signatory, after the rabbi and rabbinic judge of Cracow, among the eighteen to sign.

104 Herskovitzs transcription is faulty on a crucial word in the question addressed to Kahana. The text as printed suggests that the Jewish community did not want to return the repenter. However, Bodleian Hebrew Manuscript Neubauer 833 (Herskovitzs labeling as 388 is simply a typographical error; Opp. 75) fol. 174b, clearly reads if they [sic] may be turned over to their hands against his will. Since the responsum only discusses the surrender of the apostate, I have assumed that the third–person masculine plural ending of the word DIOlDV is simply a mistake and should be a third person masculine singular ending.

105 J.T., Terumot 5.10; 46b. On Sheva ben Bikri, see 2 Samuel 20.

106 Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Yesodey ha–Torah 5.5. Joseph Karo, in his Kesef mishneh, a supercommentary to Maimonides code, and in his Beyt Yosef, Yoreh deah 157, attempts to explain Maimonides rejection of R. Yohanan.

107 See Rabbi Meir ha–Kohen, Hagahot Maymoniyyot, Yesodey ha–Torah 5.5, n. 6. In the Venice, 1524 edition, as well as the Bragadini (Venice, 1551) edition of Maimonides Mishneh Torah, R. Meir adds that his teacher, R. Meir of Rothenburg, explained to him why the law was like Reish Laqish while R. Meir of Rothenburg was himself being held hostage in Ensisheim (Germany). This information is missing, however, from the Guiustiniani (Venice, 1551) edition. The entire gloss does not appear in the Constantinople, 1509 edition of the Mishneh Torah. Authorities who ruled like R. Yohanan are cited by Sirkes, Bayit hadash, Yoreh deah 157. Isserless failure to give an unequivocal ruling on the matter (Shulhan aruk, Yoreh deah 157.1) only left the matter open for further, albeit limited, discussion.

108 Aware that his reinterpretation of the case in the Jerusalem Talmud could simply be labeled a textual quick fix by critics, Kahana attempted to show that his explanation solved other textual problems not connected to the case under consideration.

109 See Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Yesodey ha–Torah 5.4

110 On the rabbinic understanding of the biblical rationale for killing a rodef, see B.T., Sanhedrin 73a.

111 Even if, based on the Jerusalem Talmud, the Jew demanded by the non–Jews was deserving of death, R. David ben Samuel ha–Levi did not believe that a sage should become involved but should simply let the masses do as they please, which he believed would be to save themselves by turning over the individual. See David ben Samuel ha–Levi, Jurey zahab, Yorehdeahl 57, n. 7.

112 In 1620, Rabbi Joel Sirkes, R. David ben Samuel ha–Levis father–in–law, was faced with a case in which the kings ministers ruled that the Jewish community must turn over the sexton of Kalisz to stand trial before the wojewoda court on charges connected to a host If the sexton was not surrendered, the leaders of the Jewish community would stand trial in his place. See Joel Sirkes, Sheelot u–teshubot ha–bayit ha–hadash (Frankfurt, 1697), no. 43, an English translation and commentary of which has been prepared by Schochet, Elijah, A Responsum of Surrender (Los Angeles: University of Judaism Press, 1973), as well as Sirkess Bayit hadash, Yoreh deah 157. Although some of Sirkess rationales anticipated those proposed by Kahana, Kahana quotes neither of Sirkess works.Google Scholar

113 Although the church had already in the thirteenth century prohibited the involuntary baptism of Jewish children as a violation of Jewish parental rights as well as the belief that baptism must be accepted voluntarily, the legal debate among canonists and theologians over the issue continued well into the fifteenth century (see Pakter, Walter, Medieval Canon Law and the Jews [Ebelsbach: Rolf Gremer, 1988], pp. 322–330, and R. Po–chia Hsia, The Myth of Ritual Murder, pp. 112–118).Google Scholar

114 According to information added by R. Isaac ben Abraham of Poznan, the source of the communitys information about the womans oath and intentions came from the Christians. See Isaac ben Abraham of Poznan, Sheelot u–teshubot Rabbeynu Yizhaq me–Pozna, Yaaqob Aharonfeld, et al., eds. (Jerusalem: Machon Yerushalayim, 1982), no. 38, p. 56

115 Whether the ruler was himself aggravated by the actions of the Jews or whether he was prodded into action by the local clergy is not specified in the responsum.

116 Isaac ben Abraham of Poznan, Responsa, no. 37, p. 53. Rabbi Samuels decision to send the letter to the rabbi from Sielec as well as to R. Isaac of Poznan, who, before assuming bis position in Poznan in 1667, served in Grodno and Luck (prior to 1664) and Vilnius (1664–67), suggests, but does not demand, a Lithuanian provenance.

117 See B.T., Sanhedrin 60b.

118 Isaac ben Abraham, Responsa,, no. 38, pp. 55 59.

119 The rorfe/defense is not simply a legal excuse for the victim (or bystanders) to kill the aggressor but is legally required of them if stopping the aggressor by some other means (e.g., wounding) is not possible. For a brief discussion of this particular aspect of the laws of rodef in the parlance of American jurisprudence, see Finkelman, Marilyn, Self–Defense and Defense of Others in Jewish Law: The Rodef Defense, Wayne Law Review 33 (1987): 1262–1263.Google Scholar

120 Ohalot 7.6 reads the majority of the child had left the womb; B.T., Sanhedrin 72b reads his head had emerged. I have followed R. Isaac in citing the Babylonian Talmuds version.

121 It is not clear whether the case occurred in Jaroslaw, which hosted a very small Jewish population prior to the mid–seventeenth century (see Mojzesz Steinberg, Zydzi w Jarostawiu od czasow najdawniejszych do polowy XIXwieku [Jaroslaw: Littman, 1933], pp. 9, 10, 12), or whether Schor was referring to a case that had taken place elsewhere and was discussed by the Polish rabbinic leadership during their regular gatherings at the Jarostaw fair. Jacob Schor was a prominent signatory to decrees of the Lithuanian rabbinic leadership from at least 1649 to 1662. See Pinqas ha–medinah, Dubnow, Simon, ed. (Berlin: Ajanoth, 1925), person index, s.v. Yaaqob ben Efrayim Zalman Schor.Google Scholar

122 R. Isaacs conclusion smacks of the necessity defense (i.e., the choice of the lesser evil in cases of conflicting values), a defense not usually admitted in halakhah. Fletcher, George, Self–Defense as a Justification for Punishment, Cardozo Law Review 12 (1991): 863, has correctly noticed that Absent a general theory of necessity, Jewish law has revealed certain tendencies to expand the law of pursuit well beyond the core cases of aggression analyzed in the Talmud.Google Scholar

123 Isaac, Hayyim ben, Responsa, no. 142. J. Wellesz, Hayyim b. Isaac Or Zaroua, Revue des etudes juives 53 (1907): 77, n. 2, maintained this to be a responsum of R. Meir of Rothenburg, but the conclusion of this responsum, and the case is written in Or zaru a and I have already written about it, points to a work that postdates R. Isaac ben Moses of Vienna and certainly R. Meir. I have been unable to locate any such reference either in Or zaru a or in R. Hayyims own work.Google Scholar

124 B.T., Baba Qamma 117a; Mordecai ben Hillel, Sefer Mordekay, Baba Qamma 195; Teshubot Maymoniyyot, Neziqin, no. 15. Also see R. Meir ben Baruch, Sefer sheelot u–teshubot Maharam bar Barukh, M. Bloch, ed. (1895; reprint, Tel Aviv: n.p., 1969), no. 485 and Sefer she elot u–teshubot Rabbi Me ir (Cremona, 1557; reprint, Jerusalem: n.p., 1969), no. 232.Google Scholar

125 See Liberman, Saul, Tosefta ke–feshufa, Commentary to Zeraim, pt. 1, 2d ed. (Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992), p. 420.Google Scholar

126 Sefer hasidim, no. 253, with comparison to parallel text in Sefer hasidim, Reuben Margoliot, ed. (Jerusalem: Mossad ha–Rav Kook, 1957), no. 700, concludes that he could be surrendered because he put both himself and everyone in danger.Google Scholar

127 R. Hayyims work was unknown to most authorities until the mid–nineteenth century; R. Menahems work was known to authorities in fifteenth–century Germany, but much of it was eventually lost An abbreviated form of his work, entitled Nimuqey moreynu ha–rab Menahem mi–Rezburq, appears at the end of most editions of the responsa of R. Jacob Weil. On R. Menahems influence, see Zimmer, Yizhaq, R. Menahem me–Mirzeburq ve–nimuqab, Sinai 78 (1976): 76.Google Scholar

128 Moses Isserles, Shulhan aruk, Hoshen mishpat 425.1. See also his gloss to 388.12.

129 See Fletcher, Self–Defense as a Justification, p. 864.

130 See Yerushalmi, From Spanish Court to Italian Ghetto, p. 25.

131 Cited in Assaf, Simhah, Anusey Sefarad u–Portugal be–safrut ha–teshubot, reprinted in his Be–ohaley Ya aqob (Jerusalem: Mossad Ha–Rav Rook, 1943), pp. 164–165.Google Scholar

132 No less a figure than the great Iberian Hebrew poet Judah ha–Levi was apprehended by Muslim authorities in Alexandria in 1141 for trying to convince an apostate to travel with him to the Land of Israel, where, under Christian rule, he could safely return to Judaism. It was ha–Levis great fortune to be saved from possible execution by his fame; a fellow Jew engaged in similar activities in contemporary Egypt was not as fortunate. See Goitein, S. D., A Mediterranean Society, vol. 5 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), pp. 236–237, 461.Google Scholar