Jewish Attitudes to Christian Power in Medieval Spain

Whereas the attitude of the rulers of Christian Spain towards their Jewish subjects has been treated by various scholars •, Jewish attitudes towards royal authority and power in medieval Spain have not been systematically analysed. The Jews' attitude to Christian rulers was of little importance in comparison to the latter's views of them. However, the Jews were not deprived of political and economic influence in the country, at court and most particularly in the juderfa or cal/, i.e. the Jewish quarter, and an attempt to examine the Jews' attitudes to Christian power is not without relevance to the study of Judeo-Christian relations in medieval Spain. Fully aware of the limited influence Jewish opinion had in actuality, it is nevertheless submitted that what the Jewish public and its leaders thought of the rulers within their quarters and in their own interna! literature, is closely related to their treatment by the crown. As a matter of course, the most revelatory sources on the subject are the writings of Spanish rabbis, in responsa and commentaries. These Hebrew sources give us an insight into the Jews' political ideas and social ideologies which were reflected also in the regime prevailing in the Jewish communities • Sorne prominent Spanish rabbis expressed strong royalist sym-

and novella have had a great impact on the development of the halals:d, showed great familiarity with the local laws and political conditions. Adret asserts that wherever the king owns the entire land may divide it as he pleases among the people who owe bis full respect 9 • Although the doctrine that all land, including private land, belonged to the emperor was challenged in various countries and epochs, it was, nevertheless, most appropriate in thirteenth century Spain, where Castile and the Crown of Aragon expanded immensely their territories and their kings were engaged in the distribution of conquered lands. Adret knew well that Christians and Jews benefited from the repartimiento.
Jaime II, whose reign partly coincided with the period of Adret's leadership, is described in Jewish sources as a «righteous king». Jaime's personal feelings towards the Jews were not at ali sympath etic as can be seen in bis letter to his daughter Constanza which he sent in 1321 after she gave birth to a son. Following the customary congratulations f or the occasion, he wrote: We trust in God that He will save and guard him for you, but daughter, do not do as you are accustomed to do, entrust bis education to the Jews 10• In view of bis personal dislike of the Jews, bis official Jewish policy was ali the more praiseworthy. For the Jews of bis realm, he was their protector who defended their rights, their lives and property as a matter of principie. His decisions, which might have offended the Jews, were counterbalanced by many others which greatly fa voured them. When the kings of England and France expelled their Jews in 1290 and 1306, the Iberian kingdoms were places of refuge for the Jews. Jaime II allowed Jewish refugees from France to settle in bis realm 11• During the Shepherds' Crusade in 1320, the King's 9 Tllu/ió1 R. Sllomo ben Adret ha-Mlyut,asó1 /1-R. Mole  defence of the Jews proved to be quite efficient 12 • An overall view of bis reign shows clearly that the Jews' appreciation of bis policy towards them was more than justified.
Hebrew sources from the f ourteenth century are most compli mentary to the kings-counts of the Crown of Aragon. Maestre Crescas Elias, a leader of Aragonese Jewry at that time, was full of gratitude towards the kings of the land who treated the Jews well. This is what he wrote in 1346: ... and God, in his merey, left among us a remnant, from the kingdoms that oppressed the Jews ... and, having obtained compas sion, a few of us were gathered together in sorne of the kingdoms, as God inspired the righteous and merciful kings of Aragon, ma y their name be of good augury, who love justice and bate evil, their virtues have avoided persecution, disasters and hateful and horrible upheavals ... truth and peace being the foundations of their land ... may those who showed merey on Israel, gave refuge to exiles from ali corners of the world, treated them and supported them with honour, never collapse ... [ God ] having alread y put over us a just and upright kin g , a ruler full of the fear of God, who listens to our complaints to save us ... The king Crescas Elias referred to was Pedro IV. These words of praise could not have been merely words of flattery f or they were intended for the Jewish public as they were witten in Hebrew and could have certainly used a more moderate style had he not meant them 13 • This favourable attitude was the direct result of the Jewish policy of the kings of Castile and Aragon. By the thirteenth century, the Crown had emerged as the Jews' only reliable ally, while the latter proved to be the monarch's most trustworthy and efficient servants. The Jews' almost total dependence on him made them politically very weak but also safe from bis point of view. This political weakness was paradoxically to become the Jews' source of power. Jaime When I saw that those who are in the court of our lllustrous Majesty the King act, each one in accordance with bis status and position, as protectors and shelters of our people but in the cir cumstances and following their ambitions they lead a certain way of life, especially when they accompany the court on its journeys, lax in the observance of the commandments ... 17• The royal court was thus well-known to quite a number of Jews who could f orm an opinion based on personal experience and knowledge.
The Talmudic principie dina > de-mallf:uta > áina > (the law of the kingdom is law) was partly interpreted under the impact of the sympathy the rabbis of Spain had f or the king, on condition that the law applied to all the king's subjects. In the words of R. Yom Tob Alsibili: The agreement of the king's judge has no bearing except if the law is a fixed law of the entire kingdom and also of the Jews 18 • It f ollows from the abo ve that it is the law of the kingdom and not that of the king that supersedes Jewish law in certain circum stances. Thus both Nahmanides and Adret applied the Talmudic principie only in the case of a law established in the code and judicial tradition of the country and not a law legislated by the king for the needs of the hour 19 • Furthermore, the two greatest halakhists in thirteenth century Spain condoned and indeed required disobedi ence of a law that is unjust or contrary to Jewish law. In reality, the opinion of scholars on the legality of a king's law had no relevance. The king certainly did not need the rabbis' approval. However, we have reason to believe that, in certain conditions, such rabbinic opinions affected the behaviour of Jews in their daily life.
For R. Ya < aqob ben A §er «the law of the kingdom» can only be valid if it applies to all the inhabitants of the land. Any decision that is not prescribed by law is sheer injustice 20 • Basing himself on

SEF LII 2 (1992)
R. Yosef Ha-Levi ibn Mega §, Nahmanides had described such deci sions as acts of violence-and robbery 21 • As noted above, these rabbinic decisions had no relevance whatsoever from the ki�g's point of view, but they did encourage Jews to disobey or avoid the king's laws, declared illegal by their leaders.
As noted above, the Jewish policy of the kings of Christian Spain left a deep impression on the Jewish leaders. R. Menapem Ha-Me < iri of Perpignan, a leading figure in the fourteenth century, was most appreciative of the king's attitude towards the Jews. He witnessed the treatment of Jewish refugees from France by the king of Majorca, whose dominion included the regions of Roussillon.

In fact, all Jews of Christian Spain could compare with satisfaction the treatment of the Jews of France and England by the crown and their own good fortune. It is very probable that Ha-Me > iri's view of the Christian world in general was influenced by the good relations that existed between the Jews and the Crown in the lberian Penin sula. For Ha-Me:llri the king's laws are not «the laws of the nations» that the Torah forbade the Israelites to follow 22•
Medieval reality and Jewish law were not always in harmony. In marital law as well as in ritual matters, the law of the land was totally rejected if it contradicted Jewish law. No community gave up its right to eat kaser meat or bake its unleavened bread for Passover. Any pressure from the authorities to ignore such laws would have meant the dissolution of the community. On other hand, in matters of finan ce and livelihood ways and means were f ound to adjust the law to reality and the law of the country overrode Jewish law 23 • Although Adret was strongly opposed to the application of non J ewish law to matters of inheritance, in Catalonia the local laws of inheritance were widely practised among the Jews who considered the matter purely financia! 24  Aragonese communities adopted ordinances on the sale of land which were compatible wit� the law of the country. R. A §er ben Yepiel justified the taqqand on the basis of the principie «the law of the kingdom is law» 26 • R. Nissim Gerondi, in Catatonia, went even further and suggested that, in certain circumstances, the «law of the kingdom» in political and social fields might be superior to the laws of the T orah 27 • The king's feudal lordship over land in general and its implications in daily life were well understood by Jewish jurists. On the basis of this lordship, Adret recognizes the king's right to do as he pi'éases in ali public places, squares, roads, markets, and to build, demolish, restore and repair.

R. Selomo ben Adret showed great aptitude in making certain adjustments in bis halakhic decisions to avoid a clash between the hala/s.d and the king's law 28 • In many instances related to finance and real estate, the king's law took precedence over Talmudic law in lawsuits between Jews. Halakhists were quite aware of the preference shown at times by Jews for the law of the land, especially when it seemed to f avour them. In most cases there was little that could be done except offer a legal justification 29 •
The political and social system in the Christian kingdoms left its impact on the Jews' attitude to Christian rulers. In the Crown of Aragon, f or instan ce, the question arose as to whether baro nial lordship should be treated as royal authority 3 0 • In Aragon and Catalonia there were several communities in baronial domains. He brew sources contain evidence that sorne Jews made use of the feudal system and f ound in the poli ti cal divisions and social stratifi cation certain advantages. Sorne Jews emigrated from royal to baro nial doma�ns and vice versa, mostly to obtain sorne tax advantages. Jews who lived on noblemen's estates refused at times to submit to the judicial jurisdiction of the royal aljama. In marital matters, the situations was complicated. The king's interference in this field naturally aroused the rabbis' reaction. Rabbis were frequently asked whether it was permitted to turn to the king or bis representatives to solve family and marriage problems.
In the case of t,all1d, i.e. when a Jew had to perform a ceremony to release bis brother's childless widow, if he did not wish to marry her, the question was raised if the authorities' help could be sought to force a Jew to perform the t,all1d 32 • Aragonese law forbade divorce against the will of the wife and her father and prescribed capital punishment for the husband who acted against the law. Talmudic sholars bad to find a solution compatible with Jewish law 33 • Bigamy, too, was forbidden by the law of the country but permitted by Jewish law. The ban of R. Gedom against bigamous marriages was not accepted in Spain. Ordinary Jews and rabbis f ound ways to obtain the king's permission to marry a second wif e despite the prohibition. The king's permission was invariably based on the legality of bigamy in Jewish law 3 4• lt is noteworthy that almost all the rabbinic authorities who applied the principie «the law of the kingdom is law», that is the supremacy of tbe law of the kingdom over Jewish law, to civil cases among Jews, were from Spain. They included Nahmanides, Adret, Vidal de Tolosa, Nissim Gerondi. Spanish rabbis made a clear distinction between the law of the kingdom that applied to the entire population of the realm and the laws and norms of the people that were part of the Roman-Christian tradition. The principie dina > demal/íúta > dina > did not apply to the latter 35 • Jews who brought their lawsuits against other Jews to non-Jewish courts were therefore vehemently criticized 36 • 32 ADRET 1, No 1.240. 33 ADRET I, No 1.237: 4C.,. and because there is a law of the Kingdom that sets the death penalty to anyone who divorces · bis wif e against her will and that of her father ... ,.. Naturally the law applied to Jews. notarial acts according to R. Zerapya Ha-Levi depended on the official appointment of the notary and bis good reputation. R. Zerapya Ha-Levi informs us that this was the basis, ever since the days of Adret, f or the recognition of the notarial documents in Catalonia in Jewish law 44 • It is significant that halakhists such as Adret considered the royal courts · of their time free of corruption and bribery. This was due in no small measure to the high regard which Jewish jurists had f or the king.
The qehil-la or aljama enjoyed a f airly extensive degree of self government that had no parallel in medieval Christian Europe. While the Jews saw their autonomy as the extension of the self government inherent in Jewish law and tradition, which they upheld of their own free will, the leaders of Spanish Jewry were totally aware that Jewish autonomy was the result of royal concession. Adret was of the opinion that the qehil-la's right to legislate and rule by an authority which was not vested in it by the Torah, had nevertheless the same validity as Torah-law 4 5 • Aware of the cir cumstances prevalent in the Exile, he admitted that the ordinances of the qihil•ld were not necessarily derivcd from Talmudic law 46 • The community's authority to punish transgressors comes from the «government of the country» and its jurisdiction in several ficlds was not in accordance with the «laws of the Torah» but rather with the «authorization of the government». The realism in Adret's state ment is noteworthy 47 • Paradoxically, the rabbis of Spain used the principie «the law of the kingdom is law» to strengthen the Jewish judicial system. The acceptance of certain principies and laws from Christian society enabled the Jews to adapt themselves to new conditions without causing irreparable damagc to their existcnce as a separate ethnic, religious and cultural group. Eminent halakhists and communal leaders sought quite often the king's help to strcngthen Jewish self-government and impose their authority on the Jewish public. Royal interference in Jewish interna! http://sefarad.revistas.csic.es affairs carne frequently at the instigation of the Jews themselves 48 • Besides such initiatives, considered legitimate by the community leaders, there was a parallel uncontrollable trend of malsinuJ, infor mers who by their reports to the authorities jeopardized Jewish autonomy altogether. The word "malsin" penetrated into medieval Castilian, a word of Jewish origin that became the keyword for treason and treachery. The beJ-<lin often became powerless, not because the Chistian authorities wished to paralyze it, but because Jews turned to Christian power in their struggle with their fellow Jews 49 • Jewish society was destined to pay a heavy price for its readiness to turn to the Crown to settle interna! strife. This behaviour undermined the very foundations of Jewish existence in Spain.
Compared to large sectors of Christian society who were deprived of the freedom of movement, the Jews enjoyed a large measure of freedom in their movement. The Jews' freedom of movement within the limits of royal domain did not aff ect their status as the king's property. Furthermore, the Jew's movement throughout the kingdom coincided with the king's financia! interests. Attempts by communities to control the movement or restrict the emigration of their members was met by vehement rabbinic opposition 50 • This opposition was expressed in do uncertain terms by Catalan rabbis in 1346: It has been agreed since time immemorial in the kings' courts that the Jews are free people, and kings cannot stop them from moving wherever they picase .... The Jews are free as the knights, to go wherever they wish ... 51 • Finally, Spanish rabbis found it convenient that the Crown punished Jews for certain crimes. In most cases the Jews had no choice, but it is significant that rabbis f elt the need to justify it 52 •