‫בעלי תשובה‬

Key Legal Responsa on Iberian Anusím (14th to 20th c.)

Compiled and Arranged by

David Ramírez

In memory of all the children in captivity who died unable to see the
Light of the Toráh

1
2
 To my grandparents

Through whose actions, I learned the fear of God, mutual

respect, good manners, humbleness, modesty and charity

3
4
Yet, even then, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject or spurn
them so as to destroy them, annulling My covenant with them: for I the Lord am
their God. (Lev. 26:44)

If a man and his wife went beyond the sea and he and his wife and his children
returned and he said, ‘Lo, this is the wife that went with me beyond the sea and
these are her children’, he need not bring proof about either the woman or the
children. (Mishná, Kiddushin 4:10)

An Israelite, although he sinned, is still an Israelite (TB, Sanhedrin 44a)

Whosoever comes forth and declares that he is a priest is not to be believed, and
may not be elevated to the status of a priest on the strength of his own statement . .
. if, however, he speaks in all innocence, he is to be believed. How so? It happened
that a man said in all innocence, “I remember when I was a child and was borne on
my father’s shoulder, that they took me out of school and removed my shirt and
immersed me, so that I could eat of the heave offering that evening; and my
companions kept their distance from me and called me “Johnathan, the eater of
dough offering.” Thereupon the saintly Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi elevated him to the
status of a priest on the sole basis of his own statement.
(‘Isure Bi‘ah, xx, 17; Sekirut v, 8.)

5
6
 INDEX

Agradecimientos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 9

Jewish Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 10

Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 13

Treatment of Anusím upon Returning to Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 18

Key Rabbinical Responsa on Iberian Anusím per Categories . . . . . p. 24

Name of Rabbis and Dayanim [14th to 20th c.]

who dealt with the Iberian-Anusím question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 32

Addenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 36

Halakhic Contraditions with Rabbi Soloveitchik´s

and Rabbi Eliahu´s letters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 38

7
8
 A G R A D E C I M I E N TO S

I need to thank the following for sponsoring my trip, and for kindly providing scholarly
material for this presentation.

• Hugo Rekhi Simoes, from Congregation Sha’aré Tiqvah – The Spanish and
Portuguese Jews of London
• Shemu’el Fuentes, from Bend (OR), Canopy Beds
• Jaime Cohen, from Congregation Bet Ramban, Houston
• A Florida family who wishes to remain anonymous

Scholarly contributions
• Rabbi Jacob de Oliveira and Rabbi Mordekhai Lopes from Bet Yahdut Sefarad,
Israel
• Rabbi José Faur and Rabbi Zvi Zohar from Bar Ilan University, Israel
• Professor David Shasha, from the Center for Sephardic Heritage, New York

Thanks to Dr. Kunin and Dr. Hordes for kindly extending their invitation.

Special thanks to Congregation Ess Ĥayím, the Spanish and Portuguese Jews of Houston;
Ma‘azya Villanueva, Uri‘el Abarbanel and Eliezer Ocampo and their families who for the
past two years have looked after my sustenance and well-being, and with whom my work
has been able to continue. Muchas bendiciones de la Toráh para todos ellos.

And to God Almighty, for allowing me to reach this day.

9
 JEWISH LAW

Before I begin this exposition, I though it necessary to mention a few notes on Jewish Law,
which is the background from which this presentation takes place. In the words of Rabbi and
Professor José Faur:

Jewish jurisprudence is the oldest evolving legal system in history. It has existed since pre-
biblical times, and continues in our own day both in the modern State of Israel and throughout
the diaspora. Rabbinic tradition stands at the center of this system. This tradition perceives itself
as the authoritative foundation and the historical bond linking the Jewish people from the dawn
of time to the present. The rabbinic tradition functions as an apparatus that processes and
catalogues data and opinions facilitating juridical interpretations and decisions.

Due to the peculiar circumstances in which rabbinic jurisprudence developed, it is structurally

unique. To understand the substance and procedures of rabbinic jurisprudence, one need not
draw parallels with similar laws and institutions found in other legal systems, which ignore the
specific character and function of the rabbinic method.

"Law" in Jewish tradition is a radical concept with no parallel in legal thought. In

contradistinction with other democratic systems, where the demos or "people," as an absolute
empirical object, are the ultimate source of authority, the people of Israel recognized the
absolute authority of the law. The people acted as the depository of that law. n14 Thus, Judaism
may be properly described as a "nomocratic" system. [in other words, Government of Laws].

Jewish law is the result of a bilateral covenant contracted between God and the Jewish people at
the foot of Mount Sinai. According to rabbinic tradition, the covenant contains six hundred and
thirteen mis.vot or "articles" regulating all of Jewish life. n16 The covenant is both "divine" and
"eternal." Since it is "divine," it requires no promulgation. It binds the contracting parties at all
times and in all societies. This principle is known as torah min hashamayyim expressing the tenet
that the "Law is divine." Rather than a theological doctrine, this is a fundamental legal principle
postulating that the law requires no promulgation or earthly authority to sanction it. From this
perspective, God is the consequence, not the cause, of the law. This radical idea is implied in a
rabbinic doctrine, widely held throughout the Jewish world, whereby the first verse to be taught
to a child is "Moses has commanded the Law to us, it is the legacy of the congregation of Jacob."
n17 Only afterwards is the child to be taught "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is
One." n18 As it were, belief in God is subsequent to, and a result of, belief in the Torah.

Orobio de Castro n20 pointed out that since belief in God is a consequence of the law, disbelief
in the law implies disbelief in God. n21 From this perspective, there is no distinction between
rejecting the law and atheism. n22 Within this specific context, the ultimate grounds [*1662]
for belief in God are legal, not theological or metaphysical.

Since the ultimate recognition of God is the law, and not some metaphysical notion, were God to
contravene any of the elements of the law, He would not be obeyed. Accordingly, the Talmud
identifies the eternity of the law with the biblical principle "lo bashamayim hi" ("The Law is not
in heaven") by explaining that the divine lawgiver may no longer promulgate new laws or

10
reinterpret the laws of the covenant. n26 Indeed, the law cannot be abrogated even by a divine
agency. Since the covenant was not imposed but negotiated by the two parties - God and Israel -
neither may abrogate any of its terms.

The notion that God is subject to the law, and that He cannot abrogate it, leads to two of the
most significant aspects of rabbinic jurisprudence: the exclusion of "violence" and, its ensuing
consequence, equality before the law.1

Rabbinic Tradition, the Judaism of history for the past 2000 years, is the sole surviving tradition
after the destruction of the Temple in the year 70 CE. It is Rabbinic Tradition that gathers,
compiles and formulates Jewish Law as passed down from the Revelation at Mt. Sinai to their
days, resulting in the authoritative texts of Jewish jurisprudence of the Mishnáh and the Talmud,
in the 3rd and 5th centuries respectively. Also Rabbinic Tradition is responsible for giving us the
final version of the Bible, and the official vocalization of the Pentateuch, what we Jews call the
Toráh, and this is the document that works as the Constitution for the Jewish Nation, from which
all laws are derived.

In essence, Rabbinic Tradition is a self-enclosed system, with its own logical procedures for
interpretation, one that has remained unchanged since the closing of the Talmud. As Rabbi
Moses Maimonides, the preminent Spanish rabbinic scholar of the 12th century, explained:

29 Raviná and Rav Ashé {the final editors of the Talmud) and their colleagues are the
end of the Sages copying the Oral Toráh, and the end of those who decreed "gezerôt"
(negative decrees), "taqanôt" (positive decrees) and "minhagót" (customs), having their
decrees extrended through all the People of Israel in every place where they lived.

32 Every Bet Din (Jewish court) that came to be after (the closing of) the Talmud in each
region, and which decreed "gezerôt", "taqanôt" or "minhagôt, these decrees do not extend
over all of the People of Israel, because of the distance and the difficulty of roads. Alsoe
because these Bet Din are of "yeĥidim" because the Great Bet Din of seventy and one
[judges] was annulled some years prior to the compilation of the Talmud.

1LAW AND HERMENEUTICS IN RABBINIC JURISPRUDENCE: A MAIMONIDEAN PERSPECTIVE,

Cardozo Law Review, pp. 1657-1661.

11
12
 PREFACE

Indeed, when it comes to lineage, all the people of Israel are brethren. We are
all the sons of one father, the rebels and criminals, the apostates and forced
converts, and the proselytes who are attached to the house of Jacob. All these
are Israelites. Even if they left God or denied Him, or violated His Law, the
yoke of that Law is still upon their shoulders and will never be removed from
them.
[R. She‘adyá ben Maimon ibn Danan, Khemdáh Genuzáh, 15b]

In the following pages, one will become acquainted with the legal subject of the Anusím,
that is Jews coerced to reject Jewish Law against their will, and those who were born in that state
of coercion. The legal Responsa here enclosed mainly covers a span of 600 years after 1391, as it
deals with the treatment of Iberian Anusím before and after the expulsion of Jews from the
peninsula.

The Responsa (sin. responsum) are a series of legal opinions, taken place within the
fulcrum of Jewish Law. The hermeneutical procedures to arrive at a legal decision are implicit
within the responsa. Sometimes, the Responsa represent particular cases coming before the local
Bet Din, that is a court of Law, which historically has regulated civil and criminal cases for the
Jewish community. Its decisions reflect the times and circumstances of the case at hand, but also
reflect a normative use of legal practice. The end-result of each Responsum is therefore that
normalcy we call Judaism, both in historical and practical terms. Although the present essay does
not represent an expert exposition of the Anusím legal issue, at least it will give the reader a
sense of the importance of the practice. I have classified samples of the responsa according to the
end-result. Mishnaic and Talmudic sources are not fully disclosed, as this would the work of
erudites, of whom – we are disspointed to say – there is hardly anyone left able to explain these
halakhot in our days. [A]nd the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the prudence of their
prudent men shall be hid.2

BACKGROUND

The Iberian Anusím (plural for anús) had been victims of long carried out conversion
policies, which began after the Orthodoxy3 displaced the Eastern Christian rite and Aryanism in
12th c. Spain.4 These policies were designed primarily by the Mendicant Orders (Dominicans,
Franciscans) with the help of Jewish apostates. Many of these apostates had been rabbis (e.g.
Abner of Burgos) with anti-Maimonidean training,5 a training then en vogue within Northern

2 Is. 29:14.
3 As properly and historically understood, the term and ideologies of Orthodox / Orthodoxy (gr. “correct
opinion”) was first coined by the Patristic tradition, the genesis of the Catholic Church in the 4th c., and
inspiration to subsequent orthodoxies. See Encyclopedia Britannica.
4 To look into how this change took place, please refer to Leon Poliakov’s De Mahoma a los Marranos (p.

155-156); Sánchez Albornoz España, un enigma histórico (op. cit. t. I, p. 328); and John Tolan’s Saracens
(Chp. 7).
5 For background literatures regarding this controversy, please read Maimonidean Criticism and the

Maimonidean Controversy, pp. 175-182; E.E. Ubrach’s “The Participation of German and French Scholars in

13
Spanish Yeshivot with close ties to the Franco-German school. As reconquista [Christian
conquest of Muslim-ruled Spain] swept across Iberia, Jews began to loose protections before
guaranteed by the dh‘imma. This process of socio-political deterioration lasted approximately
300 years. By 1391, Spanish Jewry began to collapse after the first major riots, culminating with
the Edict of Expulsion of 1492, thereby making Jewish presence illegal in the peninsula. The
main reason behind the Expulsion was to avoid the contact of Anusím with the Jewish
population, who was still reminding them of Jewish practice.6 The installment of the Spanish
Inquisition in 1478 was to monitor the Anusím’s Christian practice, and persecute them if they
did not comply with the orthodoxy. The Inquisition never persecuted unconverted Jews – as it is
generally assumed –, unless these helped Anusím to become observant Jews again.

In our times, there has been some confusion as to what to call their modern descendants.
English-speaking readers have been familiarized with the term marrano, according to some a
Spanish word of uncertain origin. La Real Academia de la Lengua Española – the language-
governing body for Spanish-speaking people – lists the word marrano as coming from the
Hispanoarabic word muhBBarrám, which means “anathema.” However, popular use links it with
the animal forbidden for consumption both in Jewish and Islamic law: the pig, swine.
Particularly, its use refers to a recently born swine (marranillo). Spanish Inquisition historian
Henry Kamen cites the words of an anús, published in Carrete Parrondo’s Fontes (II, p. 53),
saying:

Bien me llaman a mí marrano, pues marré en volverme de la bien ley a la mala.7

It is certain they call me marrano, because I marré in turning from the good law (i.e.
Christian law) to the bad law (i.e Jewish Law)

The verb marré is the past tense of the word marrar, again listed by La Real Academia, as
coming from a word of Germanic origin marrhEan, which in turn is from of the Latin errare; this
means “to deviate”, “to err.” In diametrical opposition to the Greek term óρθóδοξος (“correct
opinion”), it does not require a lot of imagination of what marrar meant in this context.

Linguistic nuances aside, any well informed and historically-conscious Jew knows that
the word marrano, as with the word xueta assigned to Balearic Anusím, was meant as a
pejorative, derogatory, term formulated by anti-Jewish anti-Semites to publicly insult Iberian
Anusím suspect of practicing Jewish Law and/or because of being of Jewish ancestry. The forced
conversions of Jewish and Muslim populations to Christianity created the phenomena of the
cristiano nuevo, the New Christian. This was in distinction to the cristiano viejo (Old Christian),
or as they liked to be referred to, cristiano lindo (Cute Christian), that is people who did not have
any genealogical links with either the newly-turned-Christian Jewish or Muslim populations of

the Controversy about Maimonides and his Works,” Zion 12 (1947), pp. 149-159; “Anti-Maimonidean
Demons,” The Review of Rabbinic Judaism Vol 6.1, pp. 3-52.
6 For an assessment of the Anús problem for both Christian and Jewish societies in Spain, and the reason

behind the expulsion, consult Julio Valdeón Baruque’s “Los Conversos en Castilla,” Los Conversos y la
Inquisición (El Monte, 2000), pp. 35-95. Please compare with the Edict of Expulsion,
http://www.sephardicstudies.org/decree.html.
7 The Spanish Inquisition (Yale Univ. Press, 1998), p. 323-324, footnote #11.

14
Spain and Portugal. The Old Christian nobility, boasting “pure” Visigoth (Germanic) lineage,
was particular about this distinction.

What began merely as a status peculiarity of New vs. Old Christians, eventually
developed into a “racial” division, thus becoming official at the promulgation of limpieza de
sangre (Purity of Blood) statues at the beginning of the 16th c. (1501).

In this manner, Anusím became victims of (1) political8 persecution, then of (2) genealogical
discrimination.9 The first phase is construed on an anti-Jewish animus to destroy Judaism vis-à-
vis the Torah; the second phase is construed on anti-Semitic animus to prevent the people of
Israel from participating in society. All embodied in the orthodox design of the Spanish
Inquisition, Anusím were subject to the longest, most officially organized, and expensive
persecution in the history of Israel – indeed of any persecuting society in human history – (1478-
1834), totaling 356 years. Limpieza de sangre statues were not formally abolished until 1865, by
then Queen Isabel II. The parent of the Spanish Inquisition, the episcopal Inquisition, still exists
today as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (new name given in 1965). The Spanish
Inquisition was autonomous from this one, so the modern version does not necessarily hold the
premises against unorthodox Anusím, as the Spanish Inquisition had done until the 19th c.10

As far as nomenclatures, Inquisition Officials refer to the Anusím as cristianos nuevos,

hebreos, judios observantes de la ley de Mosen, conversos, confessos; Old-Christian anti-Semites
refer to the Anusím as marranos.11 Jewish competent halakhic authorities refer to the
forcibly converted Jews AND their descendants just as Anusím.

Serious Spanish scholars stick with the terms converso, or judeoconverso, and even
Anusím.

Despite this unheard and uncalled horror, Anusím as crypto-Jews, Christians or Skeptics,
then and now, became active and positive contributors to their societies and Human civilization,

8 To truly understand the nature of discrimination towards Anusím vis-à-vis Christianity, one needs to
understand a fundamental key aspect that differentiates Christianity from Judaism. In a nutshell,
Christianity calls for the dissolution of the ‘old’ Law, the Torah. When the Jew accepts baptism, whether
voluntarily or involuntarily, he / she is no longer a “Jew”, according to Christian legal thought. When the
Anús dared to practice Jewish Law, no matter what it was, he / she in fact was denying a cardinal
premise of Christianity, thus making him / her a first-rate heretic. In essence, this discrimination is
political in nature, in no way religous. See Paul’s doctrine on baptism 1st Cor., Chap. 1, ver. 9,10,13;
Augustine’s doctine on heretics, Sermon CCLXVIII, n. 2, in *Patrologia Latina*, vol. 38, col. 1232; on the
political nature of baptism, Ullman; The Individual and Society in the Middle Ages; pp. 8-9; and Faur’s In the
Shadow of History, pp. 28 and 32.
9 Limpieza de sangre / Purity of Blood statues stipulated to prove pure Old-Christian lineage, both in the

maternal and paternal sides, no matter the generation.

10 http://www.cwnews.com/news/biosgloss/definition.cfm?glossID=32
11 Ironically, the term marrano has been revived by scholars of Jewish origin who hail from Franco-

Germany (e.g. Graetz, Baer, Netanyahu, Poliakov, among many), and unwarily adopted by Sephardim in
the 20th c. Serious Spanish scholars have never use such term. Rabbinic scholars have never used the term
either.

15
following in the Scientific and Humanistic endeavors of Sefarad. As returning Jews, former-
Anusím have given the brightest luminaries to Judaism. Among them, in both cases, we have:

• Sevillian Humanist, Historian, Astronomer, Poet and Philologist, father of the Spanish
Grammar, Antonio de Nebrija (1444 – 1522).
• Toledan Writer, author of one of the most influential Comedies in the Modern Age (La
Celestina), Fernando de Rojas (1473 – 1541).
• Sevillian Dominican friar, Social Activist and Humanist, Barolomé de las Casas (1484 –
1566).
• Valencian Philosopher and father of Modern Psychology, Juan Luis Vives (1494 – 1540).
• Sevillian Rabbi, Physician and Historian, Salomón ibn Verga (15th – 16th c.).
• Spanish Scientist and Philosopher, teacher to the celebrated Ottoman Rabbi Moisés
Almosnino, Aharon Afiya (16th c.)
• Portuguese Merchant and Philantropist, economic founder and supporter of R. Yosef
Caro’s Yeshiva, doña Gracia Nasi (1510 – 1568).
• Extremeño Philosopher, Poet and Hebraist, Benito (Baruk) Arias Montano (1528 – 1598).
• Granadene Augustine friar, Poet, Social Activist, Hebraist and Historian, Luis de León
(1528 – 1591).
• French essayist and thinker, perhaps the most influential philosopher for the Modern Age,
seigneur de Michel Eyquem Montaigne (1533 – 1592).
• Canario Theologian, Poet, and Grammarian, founder of the city of São Paulo, José de
Anchieta (c. 1534 – 1597).
• Andalusian (some say alleged Anús) Writer, Poet and creator of the Modern Novel,
Miguel de Cervantes (1547 – 1616).
• Portuguese Skeptic and Philosopher, inspiration to French philosopher Rene Descartes,
Francisco Sánchez (1551 – 1623).
• Portuguese Philosopher and Writer, author of Puerta del cielo, Rabbi Abraham Cohen de
Herrera (1570 – 1635).
• Portuguese Grammarian, Writer and Community leader, first documented Rabbi in the
American Hemisphere, Isaac Aboab da Fonseca (b. 1605 – 1693)
• Cordoban Poet and Social Commentator, author of the foremost Poem of the Baroque
Letters (Primera Soledad), Luis de Góngora (1561 – 1627).
• Portuguese Poet and Playwright, author of El Macabeo, Miguel de Silveira (1580? –
1638).
• Portuguese Synagogal Cantor, the first in the American Hemisphere, Moisés Rafael
Aguiar (1641 - ).
• Mexican Jesuit, Astronomer, Mathematician and Historian, Carlos Sigüenza y Góngora
(1645 – 1700).
• Portuguese Hebraist, Lexicographer and Legalist, author of perhaps the most
methodological system for Talmud study, Darke No'am, Rabbi Salomão de David de
Oliveira (d. 1708)
• Mexican Poetess, Feminist and Playwright, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz (1651 – 1695).
• Brazilian Playwright, Antonio José da Silva (1703 – 1739).
• Mexican Revolutionary, Fray Servando Teresa de Mier de Noriega y Guerra (1765 –
1827).

16
 • Brazilian Independence Pionneer, José Jaoquim Maia (1766 – 1787).
• Livornese and American Community Leader, Hebraist, Writer, Social Activist and
Historian, Rabbi Sabato Morais (1823 – 1897).
• First Brazilian President, Manuel Deodoro da Fonseca (1827 – 1892).
• U.S. North American Jurisprudent, U.S. Supreme Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo (1870 –
1938)
• Revolutionary and Mexican President, in the modern Democracy of Mexico, Francisco I.
Madero (1873 – 1913)
• Mexican Painter, Muralist and Social Activist, Diego Rivera (1886 – 1957).
• Dutch Community Leader and Linguist, Rabbi Salomão de Aharon Rodrigues Pereira (n.
1887 – 1969)
• Brazilian Composer, Heitor Villa-Lôbos (1887 – 1959).
• Mexican Poet, Writer and Political Intellectual, inspiration to Jorge Luis Borges, Alfonso
Reyes (1889 – 1959).
• Catalá Surrealist Painter, Joan Miró (1893 - 1983)
• Argentinian Writer, and one of the most influential thinkers in the 20th c., Jorge Luis
Borges (1899 – 1986)
• Brazilian Writer, Bernardo Elis de Campos Curado (b. 1915 - ).
• Uruguayan former-President, and political supporter for the State of Israel, Luis Alberto
la Calle Herrera (1941 - ).
• Brazilian cantora, Elis Regina Carvalho Costa (1945 – 1982).

In the words of historian Lewis A. Tambs:

The immense human tragedy of the Expulsion of the Jews from Castile and Aragón often
overshadows the great cultural contributions by marranos and New Christians both prior
to and after 1492. . . [One] distinguished Catholic family was among the many New
Christians such as Fernándo Rojas, author of the first Castilian novel La Celestina; Juan
Luis Vives, Christian Humanist and Catholic Apologist; Luis de León, theologian and
poet; Juan de Polanco, secretary to St. Ignatius Loyola, Vicar General of the Society of
Jesus, and assistant to St. Francis Borgia of the Council of Trent; and quite possibly
Diego Lainez, second General of the Jesuits, St. John of the Cross, and St. Teresa of
Avila, who contributed to the literary and religious Golden Age of Spain. . . Luis de
Torres, whose fluency in Hebrew and Arabic would be essential when Columbus made
landfall in the empire of the great Khan. Torres would later be granted extensive estates
in Cuba and is credited with introducing American tobacco to Europe. . . Antonio de
Nebrija published his Gramática de la Lengua Castellana at Salamanca. Written with
the Queen's encouragement . . . marked “the transition of Castilian from the status of
vernacular language to that of a cultivated one.” This grammar, the first Romance
language to be standardized . . ., and would form the basis for imperial linguistic unity in
the Peninsula, Africa, the Americas, and the Pacific . . . which would endure for three
centuries . . . conversos and New Christians would contribute mightily to the Golden Age
of art, literature, empire, and Counter Reformation.12

Tambs, Lewis A., Religion in the Age of Exploration: The Case of Spain and New Spain, Religion in the
12

Age of Exploration, Creighton University Press, 1996, p.50-52.

17
 The Anusím and former-Anusím of Iberia became instrumental for the first system of
global trade ever instituted, introducing new produce (tomatoes, chocolate, potatoes, squashes,
turkey, etc.) and bullion to the Old World, promoting egalitarian thinking – a threshold for
modern Democracy; producing among the most enduring and humane inspirational pieces of
literature known to mankind; formulating the first legal philosophies for the protection of
subjugated populations; revitalizing Jewish jurisprudence; pioneering religious plurality among
Christendom as the first Jews in Dutch and English-America (Recife, Savannah, New
Amsterdam); introducing printing in the Middle East and the New World. In sum, the world as
we know it today – and the ability for Jews to live in free societies – would not have been
possible without their contributions.

To answer a man before hearing him out is foolish and disgraceful

[Prov. 18:13]

Then He saw it and gauged it; He measured it and probed it . . . then, He said to man.
[Job 28:27].

18
 Treatment of Anusím upon Returning to Judaism
According to Rabbinic Tradition

One needs to set forth a few pointers regarding the treatment of Anusím, when they
return to Judaism. First, we need a few definitions.

Formally, an Anús / Anusá is a Jew / Jewess coerced to abandon Judaism against his / her
will. Furthermore, an Anús is a Jew who keeps Jewish Law to the best of his / her abilities under
the coerced condition, and does whatever in his / her power to abandon the situation of coercion.

A Jew by Rabbinical definition is not only the son or daughter of a Jewess, but also –
from the behavioral standpoint – one who keeps living within Rabbinic tradition. Rabbis make a
difference between a Jew who lives within Judaism, and one who does not.

Rabbinic tradition is the interpretative and exegetical mode of transmission formalized

since the times of the Mishná (2nd and 3rd c. CE) to our present century. The Mishná is the Oral
tradition, as formulated by the post-2nd Temple Rabbis from the 1st to the 3rd centuries, and it has
regulated the entire interpretive tradition ever since. Formally, the Jewish-way-of-life is set
according to Rabbinic tradition, from birth to death. Hence, the sect of the Qara‘im (i.e. literalist,
who date back to the 8th c. CE) created by ‘Anan ben David – who do not follow the Rabbinic
mode of hermeneutics, or interpretation – are not called Jews. Likewise, a Jew who willingly and
knowingly denies the Law, either in its Written and Oral forms, is called an “apostate” (heb.
min13). A first-generation coerced-Jew (heb. anús), or an Israelite who is a rebel, who stays in
that condition and starts assimilating to a non-Jewish praxis is called a “renegade of the Law” or
“heretic” (heb. meshumad14). The children of any of the aforementioned can be considered an
anús / anusá – since he / she was born under that condition of abodá zará (i.e. foreign service)
against his / her will, providing the mother is an Israelite.

13 Five are the ones that are called “minim”: that who a) says who there is no God, and there is no one
driving the world; b) those who say there’s someone driving the world, but this is two or more; c) those
who say there is one only Lord, but that he has body and image; d) also the one who says that he is not
the only first and Creator of all; y d) those who serve another [god] besides him, so to be an intermediary
between himself and God. Each one of these five is a “min.” (min=singular; minim=plural). [MT Book of
Science, V: Chp. 3, 15]. For a sensible assessment on the Biblical and Talmudic sources regulating this
position, see Foot Moore’s Judaism (Hendrickson, 1997), pp. 460 – 473.
14 Two are “mešumadim”: a) the “mešumad” for only one type of transgression; and b) the “mešumad” in

relation to the whole Torá. The “mešumad” for one type of transgression – that is whoever is stuck to a
[determined] transgression, making it consciously and knowingly, becoming accustomed [to it], same
way with lighter [transgressions], for example, to dress with [clothing made of] “ša‘atnez,” or trim [the
hair in a round manner, without leaving the sideburns on the head, on each side,] the peá, making it
appear as if this precept [was inexistent] void for the whole world – this is a “mešumad” in relation to such
thing [i.e. the given precept]. This is, if done with the intention to provoke. [In regards to] the “mešumad”
for the whole Torá, this is that who turn to the laws [as creeds] of the gentiles, when these decree
religious persecutions, uniting with them, saying: “ – What gain do I have in remaining united to the
People of Israel, who are humiliated and persecuted? It is better for me to unite to those whose hand is
powerful!” – this is the “mešumad” for the whole Torá. [MT Book of Science, V: Chp. 3, 18]. For a sensible
assessment on the Biblical and Talmudic sources regulating this position, see Foot Moore’s Judaism
(Hendrickson, 1997), pp. 460 – 473.

19
 Unlike Christianity, Rabbinic tradition does not recognize a political separation for an act
of rebellion,15 in other words for abandoning the Law and all that it implicates. This follows the
Talmudic doctrine An Israelite, although he sinned, is still an Israelite [Sanhedrin 44a].

In Talmudic [4th to the 9th c.] and Post-Talmudic times, the children of Qara‘im are
considered as “children in captivity,” that is children of Israelites who were raised as non-Jews,
i.e. outside Rabbinical tradition. In the event he or she wishes to marry someone from the Jewish
community, he / she only needs to make a promise (haverut) to keep Rabbinical tradition. In
essence, according to the Andalusian view that ‘aboda zara is any “foreign service” not
stipulated by the Torá (Oral and Written), it makes no difference if the Israelite professes
Christianity, Islam or any sectarian movement sensibly stemming out of Judaism, Qara‘im and
Reform included.

In pre and post-Expulsion times, from 2nd generation onward, the children of either
first-generation Anusím, Meshumadim, or Minim are ALL considered by the rabbis as Anusím.
In essence, the fact that the child grew up outside Judaism, against his / her will, is enough
grounds to consider him / her an Anús / Anusá.

These responsa can be divided in three phases: a) During the persecution and conversions
(1391-1497); b) after the complete expulsion of unconverted Jews until the formation of
Spanish-Portuguese Amsterdam community (1497 – 1610’s); after the establishment and
expansion of the Spanish-Portuguese tradition until the last written responsum by Hakham
Bensión Uzziel, the former Chief Rabbi of Sephardim of the State of Israel (1880-1953).

In case of crypto-Jews — non-Jewish academic term for the Anusím who keep Jewish
Law to the best of their abilities, or in Rabbinic terms, kasher (proper / complete / true) Jews —
their shekhitá (Jewish ritual slaughter of animals permitted for Jewish consumption) was to be
trusted, their unions considered valid and binding, their wine considered kasher, etc. In sum, for
most practical purposes, Anusím observant of Jewish Law are considered full-fledged Jews.

Rabbinical tradition does its best to win the Anusím back, to the point of punishing those
Jews who throw demeaning attitudes towards Anusím, and which might drive them away. On
which point, it expresses an innate interest and compromise from the rabbanim to protect those
who are weak and unprotected, as a Shepherd would care for his flock.

In most cases, we find that Rabbinical tradition treats Anusím kindly, especially those
after the second generation. On which point, it expresses an innate interest and compromise from
the rabbanim to care for those who are sick.

15What this means is that the citizenship status of an Israelite does not change, regardless of the act of
heresy; however, this does not include the laws relating to the Israelite functioning as a Jew. Every
Israelite can perform teshubá (return) and be readmitted into the community. The measure in which this is
done can be varied.

20
 In some cases, Rabbinical tradition is very harsh towards them, since some Anusím do
not have a desire to return to Judaism. On which point, it expresses an innate interest and
compromise from the rabbanim towards the Anusím, as a responsible father would demonstrate
for the education and future well-being of his son.

In no case whatsoever, Rabbinical tradition seems indifferent and insensible towards the
Anusím. On which point, it expresses an innate interest and compromise from the rabbanim as a
Shepherd would not abandon his flock, a Doctor his patient, a Father his son. Not even the
behavior of beasts would express such attitude for its offspring.

God indeed has infinite Mercy.

21
22
 Key Rabbinical Responsa on Anusím per Categories*
1. Anusím are to be regarded as Jews

A) It is known that a “Jew, even a sinner, is still a Jew.” If the Anús takes a wife, the
Kiddush is valid, even if he is an Anús who was born [as] a non-Jew and was not
circumcised – as long as the mother is an Anusá, even when his father was a non-Jew; the case
is even stronger if both of them were Anusím.16

B) They do not require a Mikveh as it is assumed their mother was Jewish. They are not
proselytes but regarded as ‫תולעת יעקב‬, ‫ מתי ישראל‬and as ‫בעלי תשובה‬. Their Kiddush is valid.17 A
Levire (a widow) whose brother-in-law is an Anús is tied to him even when he is not
circumcised.

C) R. Jacob ibn Habib (born in ca. 1460, died ca. 1515) declares that the Anusím and their
descendants are to be regarded as Jews.18

D) R. Salomon b. Simon Durán (born ca.1400, died 1467), declares that the Anusím are to be
regarded as Jews, even their uncircumcised children, as long as their mother was Jewish, i.e an
Anusá. They are not to be compared to the common Proselytes. The Mikveh is also not required
of them when they revert back to Judaism. The children of the Anusím are regarded as their
children in all aspects; nothing refers to them as non-Jews. “Proselytes do not have any
relationships with their parents.” (Mishná Yeb.XI 2).19
An Anús who is willing to be circumcised has to say the prayer:
‫ו להכנס בבריתו של אברהם אבינו‬p‫אקב‬
As the Anusím are regarded as Jews, and to entice them back to Judaism, they have to be
treated gently as not to frighten them at their return. An Anús should be accepted into Judaism
even if he converts out of love for a Jewish girl.

E) Kislev 5315 (October 30, 1555), Abraham Sirelao declared that there is no difference
between the Anusím who were forced into baptism in 1391 and those of later years (1492, 1497,
1498).20

F) R. Yosef Caro (1488 – 1575) agreed in the Shulkhan Arukh with the decision of R. Isaac
b. Sheshet that the Anusím, who practice the Jewish faith in secret and who were unable to
flee the country, are to be regarded as Jews.21

* All the Responsa was extracted from Zimmel’s Die marranen in der rabbinischen literature (Berlin, 1932).
Translation by Margarit Nash. Any other responsa taken from other sources are indicated as “Taken
from.” All brackets are mine.
16 Responsa of R. Simon ben Durán (d. 1510 ), N. 223.
17 Responsa of R. Simon ben Durán, N. 19.
18 In the Responsa of R. Yosef ibn Leb I 15.
19 Responsa of R. Simon b. Durán, N. 223.
20 In the Responsa of R. Yosef ibn Leb I 15.
21 Shulkhan Arukh, Yoreh Deah CXIX 12.

23
 G) R. Shelomo b. Isaac ha-Levi (d. 1635)22 regarded those Anusím who secretly adhered to
Judaism as Jews. He based his decision on RSbA [R. Shalomo b. Aaron ibn Hason] and RibS [R.
ibn Simon b. Durán].

H) The danger of being discovered by the Christians made the Anusím more pious than the
ordinary Jews who could observe their faith without danger. At a wedding, which was conducted
in secret, the Anusím asked other Anusím as witnesses and not Jews, although they knew that the
Jews would not recognize the Anusím as witnesses. The [rabbinic] reason [to consider
Anusím as witness] was: In their own eyes they regarded the Anusím as more suited than
the Jews as “their hearts were turned toward Heaven.”23
The rabbis took pity on those Anusím who tried so hard to meet some of their Jewish rituals
and they regarded them as “complete Jews.”24 These Anusím carry the name or ‫ אנוסים הקדומים‬or
‫אנוסים הראשונים‬.

J) R. Shalomo b. R. Simon Durán wrote: “I am often asked with regard to those Anusím
whose heart are in the right place and who want to live by the rituals: what to do with the food
during Pesah. If they abstain form everything and only eat rice or the equivalent, the Christians
would accuse them: You are still adhering to the rituals of your ancestors in only eating rice.
Rice is cooked in all households. These tormented people live in fear and defy only the less
serious offenses.”25

K) Isaak Levi, said: “I asked David who he is, whether his family are descendants from Jews
or non-Jews,” and he answered. “My father was the personal physician to the queen and he told
me that he is of Jewish descendent and that he has Jewish brothers in Turkey.” When I arrived
here, I was informed that I have a cousin in Tiberias, therefore I, David, said: “It seems to be true
what I heard of my father and what other people told me who knew my family. The witness said
to him,: “If this is so, you should have mercy on him, he is of noble heritage.” David answered:
“I shall do whatever I can.” David Oliviera died and R. Moshe Gedilya, son of Yosef Gedalia,
appeared as the heir.26

L) Those “who were born into heresy, misled by their parents to believe in it and
educated on it from their childhood” must be considered “forced ones” (Anusím) . . . every
man, convinced that his father would like him to believe in truth, not in falsehood, believes in the
teachings of his father more than in those of a hundred other people. (circa 1444)27

M) “Indeed, when it comes to lineage, all the people of Israel are brethren. We are all the
sons of one father, the rebels and criminals, the apostates and forced converts, and the proselytes
who are attached to the house to the house of Jacob. All these are Israelites. Even if they left

22 See Conforte’s Kore ha-Doroth p. 46, which is identical to R. Shelomo ha-Levi Jr. N. 4 (p. 64d); edition

1633.
23 R. Simon b. R. Shalomo with R. Elia Misrakhi ‫ מים עמוקים‬N. 32 S. 20c f.

24 ‫ מים עמוקים‬II 3 (69b).

25 Responsa of RSbS N. 90.
26 R. Moshe Trani (1505 – 1585); III N. 205, (p. 42a f.)
27 R. Salomon ben Durán – a.k.a. RASHBASH – Responsa, No. 89 (17b).

24
God or denied Him, or violated His Law, the yoke of that Law is still upon their shoulders
and will never be removed from them.”28

N) [R. Aaron Soloveichik, 5754] They [the Anusím] must be treated like full Jews in every
way (counted for minyan, given aliyot, etc.)

2. According to Talmudic and Gaonic practice, no one is supposed to bring doubt on the
Jewish maternal ancestry of the Jew / Anús, unless there is proof to the contrary

A) There is a decision in the Talmud (Kiddushin, 76a-b) which says, “ . . . when one is about
to marry a woman of priestly lineage, he should research the records of her family up to four
maternal generations.” Rabí Judá in the name of Rab maintains that this is only the opinion of
Rabbi Meir, while the sages maintain that the opinion to examine family records is not
necessary, since we assume that all Jews are of legitimate descent. Rabí Hama in the name of
Rab maintains that only when the legitimate status of a woman is disputed, the man has to
investigate the records of her family.”

Although there have been differences of opinion among the codifiers regarding this issue, all of
them agree that the requirements to examine family records of the woman applies only in a
case referent to the rights of priestly lineage. In the other cases, however, where the priestly
lineage had not been considered, there is no need to examine the woman’s records, since we
assume that all Israelites are within the status of legitimate descent . . .

Rabbi Yosef Taitazak also says, “ . . . if someone would bring up the question about the
possibility that the child is of a non-Jewish woman, my answer would be, that unless there
is proof the contrary, we take as fact that the child is from a Jewish woman.”29

3. Anusím are to be encouraged to keep the Commandments

A) Should an Anús wish not to follow the commandments we have to let him go. This must
be prevented; the Anusím were in earlier years obligated to follow the commandments; we
should try to win them back with kindness.30

B) [R. Mordechai Eliahu, 5755] It is appropriate to apply vis-à-vis them (the Anusím) all
that is stated in the Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh Deah 268, and as Rabbi Solomon ben Simeon ben

28 R. She’adyá ben Maimon ibn Danan, Khemdah Genuzah, 15b

29 Taken from R. Samuel de Medina, Responsa III, 112; Samuel, son of Moses ha-Levi de Medina, was
born in Salonika in 1505 or 1506. Heir to a prominent Castilian family, Samuel became at a young age a
halakhic authority in the Ottoman Empire and beyond, and sought after by the eminences of his day. His
direct teachers were Rabbi Joseph Taitazak, Levi ibn Habib, Joseph Caro and Joseph ibn Leb, thus
expressing the transmission of the highest authorities in Spanish Jewry. He was appointed the head of
Salonika’s House of Study (Bet Hamidrash), academy founded by Doña Gracia Mendes, a former-Anusá.
His collection of responsa was published in 1589, the year of his passing, under the title Piske ha-Rashdam;
Goodblatt, Morris S.; Jewish Life in Turkey in the XVIth Century: As Reflected in the Legal Writings of
Samuel de Medina; New York (1952); p. 26.
30 Responsa of RSbS N. 89 (p. 17b).

25
Duran wrote, “He is to be drawn with kindness.” That is, they must be praised for coming today
to openly observe all the commandments of the Torah.

4. Jews who molest or insult Anusím must be punished, even with banishment from the
community

A) A widow, who entered a new marriage, was chastised because her Levire lived as an Anús
under non-Jews. R. Moshe b. Elia Kapsali accused those men who chastised her as “Apostates of
idolatry” (‫ז‬p‫)שלוחי ע‬. “Their intention is to prevent the Anusím from returning to Judaism. Upon
hearing that they may not remarry they will not accept Judaism.”31 Every insult to the Anusím
was condemned. A man in Arta, who referred to the returning Anusím as “Apostates” and
harassed them, should be banished, according to R. Benjamin Seeb32 [. . .].

B) R. Salomo ibn Hasson wrote: “Ruben and his son Simon came as Anusím from Portugal
to Turkey and returned to Judaism. Both were Kohanim. Ruben died. One day Simon got into an
argument with a Jew and heated words were exchanged. A Jew called Simon: ‘Christ, son of
Christ! All Portuguese are Christians!’” The scholar whose opinion was asked declared with
regard to the accusers. There were three sins:
1. He called him a “non-Jew.”
2. He damaged Ruben's reputation who was of the Kohanim.
3. He offended all Anusím who do penitence.
The offence of calling all Portuguese “Christians” is the most serious one. There are scholars
and pious men among them. . . . Each of the accusers is asked to apologize, to be chastised, to
fast and to submit to punishment under the order of banishment.33

C) “Through our sins the Jews who lived peacefully in Spain, Portugal, Sicily, Kalabrien and
Apulien were forced into baptism by those kings, the villains. The Jews remained true believers.
The king ordered some murdered, some were drowned, many of them were forced into baptism.
They fled those countries and came here to return to Judaism. If we do not punish those who
accuse them of sins, they will no longer come.”34

D) “If the Anusím are to be considered as gentiles and those who return to Judaism as
proselytes, their desire to return to the fold will weaken, so that finally they will assimilate
among the gentiles, add crime to their sin, and even their name will be forgotten from Israel.”35

F) It is well known from the account of our rabbis that before the Israelites left Egypt, they
corrupted their ways and violated the covenant of circumcision, so that none of them save the
tribe of Levi was circumcised . . . Nevertheless, although they were corrupt as all this, God
rebuked Moses for saying: What if they do not believe me? [Exod. 4:1]. And he retorted: They
are believers, children of believers; believers, as Scripture reports: and the people . . . believed
[Exod. 14:31]; sons of believers: because he believed, He reckoned it to his merit [Gen. 15:6].

31 In the Responsa of R. Benjamin Seeb N. 75 (p. 141b).

32 In the Responsa of R. Benjamin Seeb N. 287 (p. 405).
33 Beth Shelomo N. 14.
34 R Benjamin . Seeb b. Mathithyahu (b. 1470, d. ca. 1540); N. 284 (p. 405).
35 R. She’adyá ben Maimon ibn Danan, Khemdah Genuzah, 16b

26
But you will end up not believing; it is told in Scripture: Because you did not believe Me enough
to affirm My sanctity [Num. 20:12]. In fact, he was punished at once, as the rabbis understood:
“He who suspects the innocent suffers physically. What is the proof? Moses.”36

5. Anusím descendants of Kohanim are to be considered Kohanim

A) R. Simon decided that the descendants of Anusím (‫ אנוסי הזמן‬or those ‫ )בעלי תשובה‬in case
they insist on their Kohanim heritage, and a witness can verify this claim, are to be regarded as
Kohanim.37

B) R. lsaak b. Eleasar testified: his father told him, that R. lsaak Pomar's (Fumar?) father was
married to the niece of his wife. The niece was an Anusá and came from the family Benveniste.
Furthermore he was a Kohen from the family Ardut. R. Isaak b. Eleasar and another man also
mentioned that R. Josef Pomar, who lived in Constantinople, was regarded as a Kohen and a
member of the family Ardut. He was overheard saying that the father of R. lsaak Pomar was his
uncle, namely the brother of his father. Should he (R. Isaak Pomar), be regarded as a Kohen now
be the first to recite the Torá and to say the blessings? R. Moshe Trani decided that he is to be
regarded as an Kohen.38

6. If the Anusá is a Levire, she is not tied to his brother-in-law Anús

A) She also does not require a Haliza (divorce letter). She may enter a new marriage. These
are the words of R. Moshe Almosnino.39 Also signed by six other scholars R. Yosef ibn Habib,40
R. Shelomo Teytazak,41 R. Meir Arama,42 R. Yosef Fasi,43 R. Moshe ‫ארוכיס‬,44 and R. Elieser ha-
Shimeoni.45

B) R. Yosef Caro decided that the woman is free, not tied to a Levire, as the Kiddush which
were performed in Portugal are not legal. R. Shalom, R. Yosef ‫ סגיץ‬and R. Moshe Trani agree.46

C) For women whose husband’s death cannot be determined: “We learn in the Mishná (Yeb.
XV, 1) that, if a woman has been overseas (or in foreign parts) and there is peace between her
and her husband, but there is war in the world, and she comes back and says, ‘My husband died,’
she is not believed (see the more correct text in IV, no. 219). Maimonides, of blessed memory,

36 Maimonides, Iggeret ha-Shemad. Appears in Halkin’s translation of Maimonides’ letters, Epistles of

Maimonides (JPS, Philadelphia 1993); p. 18.
37 Responsa of R. Simon ben Durán, II 3.
38 Responsa of Moshe Trani (d. 1585); II 40 (p. 10b f.).
39 About R. Mose Almosnino see Conforte, Kore ha-Doroth ed. Cassel p. 38a, 39; and Rosanes, History of the

Jews in Turkey, II 20.

40 Conforte p. 32a, 33.
41 Conforte p. 22; in the Responsa of RSdM, read the signatures: Yosef b. Shelomo Teytazak and Elieser

ha-Shimeoni.
42 Conforte, p. 30, 32.
43 Rosanes, p. 36.
44 Sera Anaishim N. 44 (p. 83 ff.)
45 Sera Anaishim N. 53 ( (p. 89f.); Also see the Responsa of R. Yosef ibn Leb I 15.
46 Eben ha-Eser n. 5 (p. 4c f.)

27
says (she is not believed) even if she says, ‘I have buried him,’ because she is making that
statement by guesswork (since so many people were killed in the war, she assumes that he
husband, who has disappeared, has likewise been killed). They ask the question in the Talmud
(Yeb. 114b): ‘Should we not believe her when she says that there was a war? For what would she
gain by telling a lie on that score? She could easily have said there was peace in the world and he
died on his deathbed, and she would be believed (and therefore believing her, we should declare
her free to remarry). Or should we say that she was guessing (about his death, and therefore not
free her)?’ This question is not clearly settled (i.e. whether to free her or not). Maimonides says
about her, she should not marry; but that, if she does, she may remain married, and any child of
hers from the new marriage is casher (i.e. he is not illegitimate and may marry a Jew).47

7. The Kiddush of the Anusím is not valid

A) R. Yosef Caro (1488 – 1575) declared in a responsa that the Kiddush of the Anusím are
not valid.48

B) The pious Rachel, daughter of R. Jakob got engaged to the rabbi lsaak ibn Atar in
Saloniki. A rumor circulated that she was once married to an Anús in Ferrara. The council of the
rabbis separated Rachel from R. Isaak She maintained that she was never married to an Anús,
furthermore she knows that the person, who is circulating this rumor and who wanted to marry
her, is a non-Jew. At the engagement only five people were present, four of them were her
relatives: her father, a cousin and two brother-in-laws. What is going to happen to Rachel? Is she
allowed to marry her fiancé?
The answer: Witnesses testify he was a non-Jew, his father was a non-Jew. If his mother was
an Anusá or a non-Jew, they were not certain. R. Salomo Kohen [b. ca 1535, d. ca. 1602]
decided that the supposed wedding in Ferraro was not valid. The validity of the Kiddush of a
man, whose father is a non-Jew and whose mother is a Jew, only applies when the mother
is a true [observant] Jew. For the women in Portugal, however, who lived for many years
among non-Jews, we should make it easier for them even when their descendants are Anusím.49

8. If the Anusá is a Levire, she is tied to his brother-in-law Anús

A) R. Yosef ibn Leb (born ca. 1505, died ca. 1580) decided that a female Levire is tied to her
Anús brother-in-law. This applies even if he is a descendant of the “old Anusím” who were
forced into baptism 200 years ago. She is not allowed to enter a new marriage without Haliza.
It has happened in earlier times in Salonika that the scholars allowed a Levire, whose brother-in-
law was from the “old Anusím,” to remarry without Halizah. R. Yosef ibn Leb agreed to this
decision, not because these Anusím were “less holy” (‫)דקלישא קדושתייהו‬, but because it happened
sometimes that some of them married non-Jews. In the Talmud, Ketuboth 15a, the principle is
applied ‫כל קבוע כמחצה על מחצה‬. Therefore, it is possible that the Levire is a descendant of those

47 R. David ibn Zimri (1479 – 1589) Head of the Egyptian Community, this responsa is found TWICE in
his collection of rulings Vol. IV, no. 219 and Vol. VIII, no. 9. Taken from Salomon F. Freehoff’s A Treasury
of Responsa (JPSA, Philadelphia 1963). P. 124, but with a self-counter-response in p. 125, thus stating why
the Agunah cannot marry.
48 Eben ha-Ezer N. 5; also Abkath Roshel N. 90.
49 R. Salomón Kohen; Responsa II 202 (p. 143c ff.)

28
who married non-Jewish women. A difference of opinion exists among the scholars if an
Apostate is obligated to Haliza. It is ‫ספק ספקא‬. However, he changed his opinion and maintains
now that even if the Levire is of an “old” descendant, the female Levire cannot marry without
Haliza.50

9. Anusím are to participate in the Torá, even if uncircumcised

A) [Mid-17th century] An Anús fled into a predominantly Jewish community, converted to

Judaism, but did not agree to be circumcised. He may, at a later date, have to go back to his
former place because of debt collections. The question is: Is he or is he not allowed to participate
in the Torá? Is he or is he not allowed that the Tefilah be bound around him?
Decision by R. Jakob b. Mose Senior (‫)שיניאור‬, rabbi in Pisa, grandfather of R. Refael
Meldolá, [says that] he would allow it. The scholars in Livorno also agree: R. Shalomo Azubi,
Samuel Usiel, Maleachi b. R. David Montefuscole, David Israel b. R. Eleasar Meldolá . . . Not in
favor is R. Rafael Meldolá. He decided that the Anús is not allowed to come before the Torá.51

B) [R. Aaron Soloveichik, 5754] I am taking the liberty to write about the people in the
Americas who claim to be descendants of the marranos of Spain and Portugal.
They must be treated like full Jews in everyway (counted for minyan, given aliyot, etc.)

10. Anusím require Mikveh

A) This opinion is shared by R. Benveniste Mercado b. Abraham Gategno (18th century),52

who addresses the question if the Anusím, upon return to Judaism, require a Mikveh. He quotes
RSbS, who decided that the Anusím do not require a Mikveh. The author of ‫ עדות ביעקב‬is of the
opinion that they should be regarded as worse than non-Jews. At the time of the RSbS the
situation of the Anusím was different. They did not have the opportunity to flee, it was
immediately after the forced baptism and the Anusím were not “godless” (without God) . . .
Today, after a many years have passed since the persecution, they cling to the lies “untruth” and
they do not return to Judaism out of greed. Their touch to the wine makes it unsuitable for rituals.
They do not feel obligated to observe the death rituals . . . They are “Minim” (heretics) or worse
than non-Jews -- so writes the author of ‫עדות ביעקב‬. They did not flee because they idolize and
they are of evil heart. Those who have to listen to all this, should they not say with a heavy heart
that the Anusím, who convert to Judaism, require a Mikveh. All non-Jews have to take a Mikveh,
the same should be required of an Anús. It is well known that only the water cleanses.53

B) [R. Aaron Soloveichik, 5754] Only when one of these Anusím wishes to marry a Jew, he
or she must undergo immersion in a mikve (without the blessing) and full acceptance of
mitzvot or commitment to the Torah.

11. Anusím are to be compared to a Jewish child who lived as a prisoner among non-Jews

50 R. Yosef ibn Leb I 15.

51 Mayim Rabim II 51-53.
52 See Mercado’s legal writings N. 10 and 31; the first is from 1755, and the last from 1760. See also H.

Brody in Encyclopedia Judaica VII 110.

53 ‫מצרף לכסף‬

29
 A) This is the opinion of R. Samuel b. R. Abraham Aboab (died 1694). When he was asked
the question if the descendants of the Anusím were to be regarded as Apostates he replied: (in
contrast to many others) this only applies to those who were forced into baptism and had
knowledge of Judaism. They were aware that idolizing was forbidden but did it anyway. Their
children, who have never seen the light of the Torá, are no different from a Jewish child that
lived as a prisoner among non-Jews or with the Karaites (‫ )ולבני הצדוקים הקראים‬even Maimonides,
MT Hilkhot Mamrim III 3, had pity on them, and treated them lightly.54

B) “It seems that (these Israelites, the Falashas – the “black Jews” from Abyssinia) belong to
the sect of Zadok and Boethus, the sect who are called Qaracim. . . For they only know a few of
the commandments. They do not know the Oral Law at all; and they do not kindle lights on the
Shabat . . . Furthermore, there is a general reason for the rule that the Qaracim are to be deemed
Israelites. . . I admit that if they [the Falashas] all agreed to enter into our community,
making a promise of obedience to it (haverut) and to accept the tradition of our rabbis to be
like us, I, with the agreement of the scholars, would permit them to enter our community . . .”55

54 ‫ דבר שמואל‬N. 45 (p. 18c f.)

55 R. David ibn Zimri (1479 – 1589) Head of the Egyptian Community, this responsa is found TWICE in
his collection of rulings Vol. IV, no. 219 and Vol. VIII, no. 9. Taken from Salomon F. Freehoff’s A Treasury
of Responsa (JPSA, Philadelphia 1963). P. 125 –126.

30
 in alphabetical order
Name of Rabbis and Dayanim [14th to 20th c.] who dealt with the
Iberian-Anusím question
quoting on whom they based their decisions.

Abraham ‫ ;ארדוטיל‬R. Isaak de Lattes p. 110 f.

Abraham ibn Asher, Dayan
Abraham Gabriel; Responsa of R. Yom Tob Zahalon N. 148.
Abraham b. Josef ha-Levi; ‫ עין משפט‬IV 45
Abraham Beton; R. Isaak de Lattes p. 110 f.
Abraham b. Mose de Boton; ‫ לחם רב‬N. 5, 44, 220.
Abraham Shalom; Responsa of Yosef Caro N. 5
Abraham Seralvo; Responsa of RSdM ‫מ‬p‫ ח‬N. 305.
Abraham Usiel; R. Isaak of Lattes p. 110 f.
Aaron Sason; ‫ תורת אמת‬N. 20, 90.
Aaron ibn ‫ ;תיכה‬Dayan
Aaron Soloveitchik
Amram Efrathi b. ‫ ;מרואס‬RibS N. 11f.
Asarja Figo; ‫ דבר שמואל‬N. 45: ‫ל‬p‫להרב הנ‬, N. 39; ‫ זרע אנשים‬N. 23; ‫ גדלי תרומה‬XLVI 1 p. 51a.
Astruc Kohen; RibS N. 4; ‫עוד שאלת‬.
Benjamin Amer; RibS N. 6, Tashbez II 234.
Benjamin b. Mathithayahu Seeb; his own Responsa N. 76 S. 142, S. 165b f. 203 S. 298, 204 p.
300 287 f. p. 402 ff. N. 368 S. 490b; N. 73, 74
Benjamin b. Meir ha-Levi Ashkenazi; RSdM ‫מ‬p‫ ח‬N. 305
Benjamin ibn Rosh; Dayan
Benjamin b. Shemarya; R. David Kohen ed. Constantinople N. 23, ed. Ostrog N. 19.
Benveniste Mercado b. Abraham Gatigno; ‫ מצרף לכסף‬N. 3
Bension Uzziel
Haim Benveniste; ‫ עדות ביעקב‬N. 71, ‫ כנסת הגדולה‬to ‫ה‬p‫ א‬N. 3 (ed. Smyrna 1731, S. 4d) and N.
157 (p. 202c f.)
Haim Katon, Dayan
Haim Sabbathai, ‫ תורת חיים‬II 13, 18.
Dayanim of Damascus:
Mose Baruch, Jacob ‫סרפדיאל‬
Aaron ibn ‫;תיכה‬
Abraham ibn Asher,
Benjamin b. Rosh; based on R. Moshe Trani II 83 p. 24
Dayaním of Ferrara:
Rafael Yosef Treves
Samuel dal Vechio
Salomo Kohen de Ardiro
Dayaním of Constantinople:
Yosef b. Trani
Saadia ha-Kohen
Jaim Katon
Rafael b. Barukh ‫ ;אישפריאל‬Pene Moshe N. 92 p. 160

31
Dayaním de Üsküb:
Elia ‫ארברו‬
Moshe León
Moshe Bedarshi; Shalomo Kohen II 105 p. 149
Dayaním of Venedig
Shemaya di Medina
Asrya Figo
Simha Luzzato; Pene Moshe p. 161
David b. Israel b. Eleasar Meldola
David Kohen; his own Responsa ed. Constantinople 1537 N. 9 (ed. Ostrog, 1834, N. 9)
David Kohen ‫ ;שלאל‬addressing the question in Tashbez II 176, 278.
David b. Nethanel Carcassoni; ‫ זרע אנשים‬N. 59.
David b. Samuel ha-Kohen; ‫בוזי‬, addressing the question by RSbS N. 553.
David ibn Abi Simra; his own Responsa, ed. Warschau 1882 I 48, 434, II 651, 683, VII 31. See
also III 558 and N. 69, 1137.
Elia Misrahi; ‫ מים עמוקים‬N. 3.
Eliahu ibn Haim; his own Responsa ed. Constantinople N. 46
Eliahu ha-Levi; ‫ זקןאהרן‬N. 17.
Elieser ha-Shimeoni
Elisha Gallico; Responsa of Mose Trani II/2 205.
Isaac Abd al Hakk, son of the doctor Aarón abd al Hakk; Responsa of RIbS N. 14.
Isaac Don Don
Isaak ibn Feso
Isaak b. Samuel Adarbi; ‫ דברי ריבות‬N. 83, 198, 273, 278, 283, 365, 370.
Isaak de Lattes
Isaak b. Shesheth; his own Responsa N. 1, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 14, 43, 46-52; addressing the question
in Tashbez II 201 = III 83.
Jacob b. Abraham de Boton; ‫ עדות ביעקב‬N. 72 f.
Jacob Berab; his own Responsa N. 39, where he writes to the scholars in Egypt. See also the
Responsa of R. Yom Tob Zahalon N. 13, 201, R. Mose Trani II/ 1 83, R. Yosef Trani N.
18, ‫ כנסת הגדולה‬to ‫ה‬p‫ א‬N. 2 (ed. Smyrna p. 4d)
Jacob b. Habib; in the Responsa of R. Yosef ibn Leb I 15; see also RSdM to ‫מ‬p‫ ח‬315 and ‫ה‬p‫ א‬N.
199. These concur with the decrees in Salonika.
Jacob b. Mose Senior de Pisa; ‫ מים רבים‬of R. Rafael Meldola II 51.
Jacob Penso; addressing the question in ‫ פני משה‬N. 92.
Jacob b. Samuel Teytazak; Dayan.
Jacob Sasportas; ‫ אהליעקב‬N. 4 (p. 3ª), 59.
Jacob ‫ ;סרפדיאל‬Dayan
Judá ‫ ;בלאן‬see the Responsa of R. Jacob Berab N. 39, R. Moshe Trani II 1 83; also see p. 40
Anm. 2.
Judá Zarfathi; see Responsa ‫ כנסת הגדולה‬to ‫ה‬p‫ א‬N. 3 S 4d. “Kohen” see other sections p. 113.
Levi ibn Abib
Meir Arama
Meir Lublin; his Responsa N. 61, 118.
Mordechai Nagar; addressing the question in RIbS N. 43
Moshe Almosnino

32
Moshe b. Amer; addressing the question RIbS N. 43.
Moshe ‫ארוכיס‬
Moshe Barukh
Moshe Bedarshi
Moshe Benveniste; ‫ פני משה‬N. 61, 92.
Moshe b. Elia Kapsali; Responsa by R. Benjamin Seeb N. 75.
Moshe Gabbai; addressing the question by RibS N. 46.
Moshe Galante; his own Responsa N. 95 and that of R. Yom Tob Zahalon
Moshe ibn Gamil; agrees with ‫ נחלה ליהושע‬N. 39.
Moshe León
Moshe de Segovia; agrees with ‫ נחלה ליהושע‬N. 39.
Moshe Trani; his own Responsa ed. Lemberg 1861 I/2 142 S. 7b f., 170 (14c), 273; 273; II/1 17,
40, 83; II/ 2 24, 63, 205; see II/1 122; ‫ אבקת רוכל‬N. 80, Responsa of R. Yosef Caro N. 5.
Mordekhai Eliahu
Nathan ‫ בוסתי‬and colleagues in Fez (Morocco); addressing the question in ‫ יכין ובועז‬II 3.
Rafael b. Barukh ‫אישפריאל‬
Rafael b. Eleasar Meldola; ‫ מים רבים‬II 27, 32. 53, IV 47.
Rafael Yosef Treves
Rafael b. Samuel Corcoss de Florencia; ‫ מים רבים‬IV 46.
Saadya ha-Kohen
Saadya b. Maimun ibn Danan; Khemda Genusá ed. Edelmann I 13 ff.
Shalomo b. Aaron ibn Hason; ‫ בית שלמה‬N. 14 (s. 32ª ff.) N. 1 (p. 69b ff.), N. 33 (p. 129b ff.);
‫ משפטים ישרים‬N. 8 (p. 6b ff.)
Shalomo Kohen; his own Responsa I 136, 158; II 30, 33, 105, 202, IV 31.
Shalomo Kohen de Ardiro
Shalomo b. Isaac ha-Levi; his Responsa in Yoreh Deah N. 20, 29.
Shalomo ‫ זלמאטי‬de Xativa; addressing the question in ‫ יכין ובועז‬I 125.
Shalomo b. Simón Durán; his own Responsa N. 89, 90, 143, 223, 368, 393, 553.
Shalomo Teytazak; agrees with opinions in p. 33.
Samuel b. Abraham Aboab; ‫ דבר שמואל‬N. 45.
Samuel de Mercado de Ámsterdam; addressing the question in ‫ אוהל יעקב‬N. 4 p. 3e f.
Samuel ‫גווזיש‬
Samuel b. Yosef Usiel
Samuel dal Vecchio
Samuel de Medina; his own Responsa ed. Lemberg 1862 to Yoreh Deah N. 199; Eben ha-Eser
N. 10, 110, 112, 115, 199; se also Khosen Mishpat N. 46,54, 55, 128, 305, 306, 315, 327-332.
Shemaya de Medina
Simha Luzatto
Simón b. Zemaj Durán; Tashbez I 58 – 62, 63, 66; II 60, 139, 176, 201, 215, 234, 278; III 40, 43,
47, 83 (= II 201), 312; also see II 42, III 21.
Simón b. Shelomo Durán; ‫ יכין ובועז‬II 3, 19, 31, ‫ מים עמוקים‬N. 32
Tam ibn Yahya; ‫ אהלי תם‬in ‫ תמת ישרים‬N. 55, 91; see also p. 103 add. 1.
Yehiel Basan; his own Responsa N. 92.
Yehuda Ayyash; Beth Yehuda to Hoshen Mishpat N. 56.
Yehuda ibn Benveniste
Yom Tob Zahalon; his own Responsa N. 13, 148, 201.

33
Yona de Maistre; Tashbez 89; ‫ יכין ובועז‬I 107 p. 26d, II 31 S. 78d; ‫ מים עמוקים‬N. 32.
Yosef Fasi
Yosef Gabbai
Yosef Caro; Eben ha-Eser N. 5, 1 ‫ אבקת רוכל‬N. 81, 90. Shulkhan Arukh: Yoreh Deah CXIX 12,
CXXIV 9. Eben ha-Eser III 3, 4.
Yosef ha-Levi; agrees with ‫ עין משפט‬IV 45.
Yosef ibn Leb; his own Responsa I 15, 19, 23, 71, S. 63c; II 13, 23, 54; III 25, 27, 75; agrees
with RSdM in his ‫מ‬p‫ ח‬N. 305; also see N. 327.
Yosef b. Mose Trani; his own Responsa to ‫ה‬p‫ א‬N. 18.
Yosef Teytazak; in the Responsa of RSdM to ‫מ‬p‫ ח‬N. 327, ‫ה‬p‫ א‬N. 112, also see p. 35.
Yosef ‫ זוראפה‬de Valencia; question in ‫ יכין ובועז‬II 19.
Yosef Sagis; see the responsa of Yosef Caro N. 5.
Yoshua b. Yosef ‫ ;חנדאלי‬his own Responsa ‫ תורת חיים‬II 18.
Yoshua Soncin; Responsa in ‫ נחלה ליהושע‬N. 12, 20, 39, 40.
Zemach b. Shalomo Durán; ‫ יכין ובועז‬I 55, 75, 107, 125; also 115.

34
 ADDENDA

1. Mishpeté `Uzziel, Héleq Shení (2nd Tome),56

Hilkhót 'Ében ha`Ézer, Simán nun"tet (paragraph 59), sec. Bet (2),

Nisuín Ezrahyym keshe'Anusím lazé me'Yre'áh deMalkhutá

Civil Weddings of the Anusím through the Government.
[Trans. Hakham Mordekhai Lopes]

And we still have to clarify on the (subject of) Anusím, to whom the government forbids them to
perform Halakhicly valid marriages, if it's necessary to say that their wives must have a Get
(letter of divorce) to permit them (to marry another man), for the reason that, by Hazaqáh
(streghth of the Law), a man does not have intercourse for promiscuity (zenút). (this meaning
that all Jews, in this case are believed to have intercourse for marriage, even without witnesses).
Cont...

56 Ben-Zion Meir Hai Uziel or Ouziel (1880-1953) was the Sephardi chief rabbi of the British Mandate of
Palestine from 1939 to 1948, and of Israel from 1948 to 1954.
Ben-Zion was born in Jerusalem, where his father, Joseph Raphael, was the av bet din of the
Sephardi community of Jerusalem, as well as president of the community council. At the age of twenty he
became a yeshivah teacher and also founded a yeshivah called Mahazikei Torah for Sephardi young men.
In 1911, he was appointed hakham bashi of Jaffa and the district. Immediately upon his arrival in Jaffa he
began to work vigorously to raise the status of the Oriental congregations there. In spirit and ideas he
was close to the Ashkenazi rabbi of the Jaffa community, A. I. Kook, and their affinity helped to bring
about more harmonious relations than previously existed between the two communities.
During World War I he was active as a leader and communal worker. His intercession with the
Turkish government on behalf of persecuted Jews finally led to his exile to Damascus but he was
permitted to return to Eretz Yisrael, arriving in Jerusalem before the entry of the British army. In 1921 he
was appointed chief rabbi of Salonika, accepting this office with the consent of the Jaffa-Tel Aviv
community for a period of three years. He returned to become chief rabbi of Tel Aviv in 1923, and in 1939
was appointed Chief Rabbi of Palestine. Ben-Zion was a member of the temporary committee of Jews in
Israel, a member of the Va'ad Le'ummi, and a representative at the meeting which founded the Jewish
Agency. He appeared before the Mandatory government as a representative of the Jewish community
and on missions on its behalf, and impressed all with his dignity and bearing. He was also founder of the
yeshivah Sha'ar Zion in Jerusalem. He contributed extensively to newspapers and periodicals on
religious, communal, and national topics as well as Torah novellae and Jewish philosophy.
He was the author of: Mishpetei Ouziel, responsa (1st ed., 3 vols., 1935–60; 2nd ed., 4 vols.,
1947–64); Sha'arei Ouziel (1944–46), consisting of halakhah, general topics, and a selection of his
addresses, letters, and other writings; Mikhmannei Ouziel (1939); Hegyonei Ouziel (1953–54), and still
other works in manuscript. He made "Love, truth, and peace" the motto of his life. This verse (Zechariah
8:19) hung framed above his desk and was inscribed on his note paper.
Two days before his death he dictated his testament. It said, inter alia, "I have kept in the
forefront of my thoughts the following aims: to disseminate Torah among students, to love the Torah and
its precepts, Israel and its sanctity; I have emphasized love for every man and woman of Israel and for the
Jewish people as a whole, love for the Lord God of Israel, the bringing of peace between every man and
woman of Israel—in body, in spirit, in speech, and in deed, in thought and in meditation, in intent and in
act, at home and in the street, in village and in town; to bring genuine peace into the home of the Jew, into
the whole assembly of Israel in all its classes and divisions, and between Israel and its Father in Heaven."
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben-Zion_Meir_Hai_Uziel]

35
However, there is a place to doubt about (what was just said), and say that, even if they did not
get together (in a house, bedroom..) before Anusím or valid witnesses, their marriage is valid and
has religious value, that the women are liberated to marry another man only after received a Get.
This is because such Anous is considered before us as keeping the Torah and Miswóth beSéter
(in secrecy), and since we know that he married a woman who is Jewish and valid as he himself,
and lives with her as husband and wife, we testify that they isolated themselves (got alone in a
bedroom...) and had intercourse for the sake of marriage (Qidushín), as it states in the Gemará
Tractate of Ketubbóth 73, the one who engages under a certain specified condition (`al tenái),
and has intercourse, she is considered married, because the man does not have intercourse for
promiscuity, even if there is no witnesses to the Yihúd (here, being the couple together alone).

And clearly wrote haBa"sh, (), that anyone who marries (without any ceremony), and it is known
to everybody, it is considered as though having witnesses. and do not answer me about wrote
MARAN (Yossef Caro), "a man and a woman who converted due to the harshness of a decree
and got married under the laws of the gentiles that, even if they get alone with each other, we do
not consider this as a valid Qidushín ('Ében ha`Ézer 149:6), because this is not a (good) answer;
because what MARAN referred was to those who converted by force, about whom we have to
say that the beginning was by force and the end by will.

(In our very case), we deal with those who converted and kept Torah in secrecy and hide their
religion because of the gentile surveillance, we say that they do have intercourse for the sake of
marriage.

The truth is that the words of MARAN really mean to say that a man who has a promiscuous
intercourse with a woman once and on, that that woman is a concubine to him, however those
who we know for sure that if they would have the opportunity to do a valid wedding, according
to the Law of Moises, they would do it. But, because of the harshness of the evil government and
due to the fact that is impossible for them to stay without a wife, they do it in the Gentile's
courts, since we know through their deeds they do in secrecy, that they behave properly
according to the Torah of Israel, thus their wives are married to them for sure and they would
need a Get to be allowed to marry another man.

Nevertheless, all these things are said only in connection with a couple which stay married to
each other their whole lives, and we say about them intended to a real marriage (not
concubinage). But, after all, they divorce in a non-Jewish court or that they just leave each other,
and one of them get married to someone else, then we conclude that their relationship was only a
concubinage...

All this i wrote it is the Halakhah. However, in practice, it's evident that all cases like the ones
presented here, when one of such come before the Bet Din, it is necessary to investigate to see
whether they had not really have also a marriage to which is necessary a Get, in case of divorce.
According to the humble perception of my eyes i wrote this.

And the Rock of Israel save us from mistakes and may we fear His Torah of wonders.

36
2. Rabbi Mordekhai Eliahu’s letter to Schulamith Halevi
1 Ellul 5755 [27 August 1995]
1-944.95

Mrs. Schulamith Halevy

Jerusalem

Shalom and blessings,

With regard to your question [how to implement] the return of the anusim to Judaism:

First, I wish to praise your work on the matter of returning the hearts of children to their parents,
to the paths of Torah and piety.

However, since much time has passed from the time of the forced conversions until today and
there is a concern of intermarriage with those not of Israel, and it is also difficult to check the
ancestry of the anusim, it is appropriate to apply vis-a-vis them all that is stated in the Shulhan
Arukh, Yoreh Deah 268, and as Rabbi Solomon ben Simeon ben Durán wrote, "He is to be
drawn with kindness." That is, they must be praised for coming today to openly observe all the
commandments of the Torah. You will also note there that after the performance of the
circumcision, he is blessed and told: "Our God and God of our fathers, bring success to your
servant [returnee's Hebrew name supplied] and bestow your grace upon him. Just as you have
moved his heart to return in complete repentance before you, so may you plant in his heart love
and fear of you. Open his heart to your Torah and guide him in the path of your commandments
that he may find grace in your eyes. So may it be, and let us say, Amen."

After completion of all the steps of learning Torah, acceptance of the yoke of Torah and its
commandments, circumcision (if none was done; if he is circumcised, a drop of blood should be
drawn) and immersion as required, he should be given a certificate with the title, "Certificate for
he/she who returned to his/her ancestors' ways."

May it be that God will instill in us and in them His love and awe to do His will and serve him
with a whole heart. Amen, and so may be His will.

Mordechai Eliahu
Richon Lezion, Former Chief Rabbi of Israel

37
 Halakhic Contradictions with Rabbi Soloveitchik’s and Rabbi Eliahu’s letters

In the last couple decades the treatment of Iberian Anusím has drastically changed. Unlike the
600-year pedigree of Responsa here shown, Iberian Anusím have been treated on the same level
of Gentiles seeking conversion to Judaism. As I have pointed out elsewhere, this is probably due
to the fact that Sephardic tradition is nearly extinct, and because the new generations of rabbis
are not educated on the historical and halakhic aspects of the Sepharadím who have been living
as Christians for the past 600 years. Below we shall show how different is the position of today´s
rabbis, in comparison to what has been exposed in this presentation.

The following will show how the mental disposition began to change, beginning in the 1930s
during the reconstitution of Oporto’s Jewry, and two letters written in the 1990s coming from the
hands of Rav Aaron Solovetchik z”l, head of the Brisk Yeshiva in Chicago and respected
halakhic authority in the U.S., and Rabbi Mordechai Eliahu – of Iraqi-Arab Jewish origin, born
in Baghdad – at a time when he occupied the seat of the Israeli Chief Sephardic Rabbinate.

The first case is from a report by Paul Goodman, English Jew and strong advocate for Sephardim
who worked closely with the Marrano Committee of London (Bevis Marks) to help the Anusim
of Oporto, Portugal. In his account published in 1938, he relates a visit he paid to an important
Polish rabbi:

During the course of a visit to Bratislava, I saw Rabbi Akibah Schreiber, the chief of the rabbinic
dynasty of the Chatam Sofer, who showed an interest for the anusim (converted by force) of
Portugal; he manifested, from a halakhic (Jewish Jurisprudence) point of view a critical attitude
regarding the Marranos returning to Judaism. There is no doubt that the genealogical question
of the Marranos raised problems that are going to provoke interesting she‘elot-u-teshuboth
(questions and answers in matters of Jewish Jurisprudence). If these doubts had been applied
rigorously to the refugees from Spain and Portugal in the 17th century, the Sephardic
communities of Amsterdam, London and other places, would hardly have become organized.

The a priori mental roadblock that rabbi Akibah Scheriber is already putting forward is the
question of genealogy. During the same time when he said these golden words, Ashkenazi Jewry
had gone through its highest period of voluntary assimilation and intermarriage, something that
rabbis to this day – like Schreiber then – do not seem particularly concerned about from a
halakhic point of view. Fortunately for the Sephardim of Oporto making their return, Bevis
Marks was there to support them at a time when the Spanish & Portuguese Jewry was still a
force to be reckoned with.

Sixty years later, we find a similar picture alà Scheriber, but without the Sephardic support.

At the behest of pro-Anusim advocate Schulamith Haleví, Israeli lady of Sephardic descent who
has worked on the issue for nearly twenty years, rabbi Mordekhai Eliahu wrote a letter
expressing the following:

First, I wish to praise your work on the matter of returning the hearts of children to their
parents, to the paths of Torah and piety.

38
 However, since much time has passed from the time of the forced conversions until today and
there is a concern of intermarriage with those not of Israel, and it is also difficult to check the
ancestry of the anusim, it is appropriate to apply vis-a-vis them all that is stated in the Shulhan
Arukh, Yoreh Deah 268, and as Rabbi Solomon ben Simeon ben Duran wrote, “He is to be
drawn with kindness.” That is, they must be praised for coming today to openly observe all the
commandments of the Torah . . .

Most puzzling of the three, we find the one written by rabbi Aaron Soloveitchik, also at the
request of Mrs. Haleví:

I am taking the liberty to write about the people of the Americas who claim to be descendants
of the marranos of Spain and Portugal.
They must be treated like full Jews in every way (counted for minyan, given aliyot, etc.).
Only when one of these anusim wishes to marry a Jew, must she or he undergo full
conversion. That is, he or she must undergo immersion in a mikveh (without the blessing) and
full acceptance of the mitzvoth or commitment to the Torah.

There are intrinsic contradictions in both letters, both halakhic and cosmetic, without any
precedent in the history of rabbinic responsa on the Anusim question.

The first obvious one is that Eliahu is putting already the a priori doubt on Jewish lineage (just
like Schreiber did in the 1930’s), thus implying Iberian Anusim ought to be treated as gentiles,
regardless. He confirms this by recurring to Caro’s Yoreh Deah 268, where he codifies the
requirements for a gentile to become a Jew, codification that no rabbi writing the responsa on
Iberian Anusim ever touches. Then rabbi Eliahu comes back and says, but “they must be praised
for coming today to openly observe the Toráh”. The contradiction in terms, it follows, is how is a
gentile supposed to be praised for “coming today” to openly observe Jewish law, if in the first
place a gentile, from the get go, is not obligated to the Toráh from a birth stand point?

What is even more contradictory is when Eliahu then instructs to give this literal convert to
Judaism a certificate called “Certificate for he/she who returned to his/her ancestors' ways”.

R. Soloveitchik’s letter, although it adheres to the perception of Anusim as Jews in their a priori
treatment, when it comes to marriage he takes a position that does not parallel with the treatment
of other Jews who are openly Shabbat desecrators.

From the stand point of observance, when one considers there is no difference between a Jew
who has being raised as a non-Jew, and a Jew who openly and knowingly desecrates Shabbat
(likened to Idolatry), the prohibition of marrying the first over the latter does not make any sense.
Both are Toráh desecrators, albeit the first one through ignorance, while the second through open
defiance.

R. Soloveitchik’s letter clashes head on with 16th century responsa and with Rabbi Bensión
Uzziel in the 20th century, where rabbis recognized the Kiddushin (wedding vows) of Anusim
within Spain or Portugal as validly kasher, that is, acceptable within Jewish Law; particularly
this clash is more poignant when one realizes that many of these Iberian Anusim – from the 16th

39
to the 20th century – were not circumcised. It does clashes too with the current treatment of
openly Shabbat desecrators today, whereby no prohibitions or demands prior to marriage are
placed for such Jews.

However, and despite their contradictions, there is one single point that both letters parallel to
previous responsa on Anusim. This is that in both letters they call the reader to openly receive
the Iberian Anusim back into the fold.

40