Daf Ditty Eruvin 42: Brundisium

The name comes through the Latin Brundisium through the Greek Brentesion and
Messapi Brention meaning "head of deer" related with Albanian bri, brî - pl. brirë,
brinë ("horn"; "antler") [< late Proto-Albanian *brina < earlier *brena ].[16][17] The
city's name appears, therefore, to refer to the shape of the port which recalls the
shape of the head of the animal.

1
2
The mishna (41b) relates: There was an incident where all of these Sages were coming from
Pelandarsin, an overseas location, and their boat set sail on the sea on Shabbat, taking them
beyond their Shabbat limit. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya walked about the
entire boat, as they hold that the entire boat is considered like four cubits, while Rabbi Yehoshua
and Rabbi Akiva did not move beyond four cubits, as they sought to be stringent with
themselves.

Our Daf: Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said: The dispute between Shmuel and Rav Huna is
parallel to a dispute between tanna’im recorded in the mishna: If the gentiles brought him to a
different city beyond his Shabbat limit, or if they put him in a pen or a stable, the Sages
disagree. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya say: He may walk about the entire
stable or pen. Since they are enclosed by a partition, their entire area is considered like only four

3
cubits. Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva say: He has only four cubits from where he was
deposited.

Is it not the case that Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who said: He may walk
about the entire area, do not prohibit walking in a pen or a stable due to walking in a field
where one is limited to four cubits?

Rather, they say that since the stable is surrounded by partitions, it is not similar to a field, in which
a person may not leave his four cubits.

4
And since they did not prohibit walking in a pen or a stable due to the limits imposed on walking
in a field, they would certainly not prohibit carrying in a pen due to the limits imposed on
walking in a field.

Rather, they would permit a person to carry in a field that had been enclosed on Shabbat by
gentiles, and even to throw into the part lying beyond his two thousand cubits, parallel to the
opinion of Shmuel who did not decree against this.

Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel with regard to a
pen, a stable, and a boat. And Shmuel said:

5
The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel with regard to a boat, but
not with regard to a stable or a pen.

The Gemara poses a question: At any rate, all agree, i.e., both Rav and Shmuel, that the halakha
is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel with regard to a boat.

What is the reason that the halakha is different in this case than in the other cases?

Rabba said: This is since he acquired his place of residence within the partitions of the boat
while it was still day, in which case it is reasonable to say that the entire boat is considered as if
it is only four cubits.

Rabbi Zeira said: This is since the boat constantly moves the person out of his four cubits, lifting
him from the beginning of four cubits and placing him at the end of four cubits.

6
Since in any case he cannot restrict himself to any particular four cubits, even if he wished to do
so, it is reasonable to say that he is permitted to walk about the entire boat.

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two explanations?

The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to a case where
the walls of the boat were breached, so that the person is no longer located between its partitions.

Alternatively, there is a difference with regard to a case where the person jumped from one
boat to another, so that he is no longer on the boat where he had acquired his place of residence.

In both of these cases, Rabba’s reason no longer applies, but Rabbi Zeira’s reason does.

7
8
R. Koby Geller writes:1

An incident recorded in a Mishnah on yesterday’s page in which several sages were on a boat on
Shabbat.

The Mishnah tells us that two of them, Rabbi Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria, walked around
the entire boat on Shabbat, but that two others, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehoshua, did not,
restricting their movements to an area of four cubits.

In Jewish law, four cubits is the area of someone’s personal space, so Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi
Yehoshua were effectively saying a person should not move at all beyond their personal area on a
boat on Shabbat.

On our daf, the Gemara brings this story to bear on a question we’ve been dealing with for many
pages now — how far is one permitted to travel on Shabbat?

As we’ve seen, it is forbidden to travel more than 2,000 cubits from your residence on Shabbat.
On today’s daf, the rabbis entertain the question of whether this limit also applies if someone is
traveling on a boat.

A boat is clearly going to travel more than 2,000 cubits. However, the Talmud tells us that this is
nevertheless permitted.

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:2

The Rashba asks: Rabbi Akiva, who is stringent and argues that even someone who was on a bot
before Shabbos can only walk in his four cubits on Shabbos, seems very difficult.

Rabah’s explanation for Rabban Gamliel, that being in a place surrounded with walls before
Shabbos entered is reason to permit walking in that entire domain on Shabbos, seems like a very
strong reason.

Why would Rabbi Akiva argue?

The Rashba suggests that Rabbi Akiva is stringent because the person went in before Shabbos
knowing that he was going to be taken out of his techum on Shabbos.

Alternatively, the Rashba gives a broader view of the argument. He states that the Gemara dealt
with three cases.

In the case of a person who was in a valley on Shabbos, and the valley was then surrounded on
Shabbos with walls (by gentiles), even Rabban Gamliel holds that he only has four cubits. This is
because the walls were not up before Shabbos.

1
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/eruvin-42/
2
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Eiruvin_42-1.pdf

9
Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Akiva argue in a case where a person was forcibly taken to a place
with walls, such as a jail. In that case, our Gemoro suggested that Rabbi Akiva decrees he only has
four cubits lest one come to be lenient in the case of the valley.

Rabban Gamliel did not make this decree.

Despite the fact that the Gemoro asked a question on understanding their argument in this fashion,
the Rashba concludes that it could be a valid way to understand their argument.

In our case, there is the similar argument of whether to extend this decree to the case of the boat.
Rabbi Akiva extends it, while Rabban Gamliel, of course, does not.

The Rashba therefore answers his question by explaining that while Rabbi Akiva does not have a
straight halachic objection to the case of the boat, he does hold that the decree should be extended.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

One of the cases presented by the Mishna (41b) describes a person who was forcibly moved from
his established place on Shabbat to another city, and placed in a prison or other enclosed area.
Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya rule that he can walk freely, since the whole area is
considered as if it was four cubits, since it is enclosed; Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehoshua rule that
he is only allowed the immediate four amot that surround him.

To illustrate this disagreement, the Mishna tells a story. There was an incident where all of these
Sages were coming from Pelandarsin, an overseas location, and their boat set sail on the sea on
Shabbat, taking them beyond their Shabbat limit.

Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya walked about the entire boat, as they hold that
the entire boat is considered like four cubits, while Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva did not
move beyond four cubits, as they sought to be stringent with themselves.

Pelandarsin is apparently a reference is to the Italian city of Brundisium, which is the modern-day
city of Brindisi, an important harbor in Calabria, Italy.

As far as the halakha is concerned, the Gemara brings a disagreement between the amoraim as to
whether we rule like Rabban Gamliel or Rabbi Akiva in the case where the person has been taken
to another city.

With regard to the boat, however, everyone agrees that we accept Rabban Gamliel's ruling that the
person can walk around the entire area. The Jerusalem Talmud notes that this is apparent from the
Mishna itself, which records that Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva remained within their four
cubits "because they wanted to be stringent on themselves" but even they appear to agree that in
the case of the boat, according to the letter of the law one is allowed full access.

3
https://www.steinsaltz-center.org/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=68446

10
Two reasons are brought by the Gemara to explain what is unique about the case of boat travel.
According to Rabba, in the case of the boat the travelers are already within the closed walls of the
boat before Shabbat begins.

Rabbi Zeira explains that it is impossible to expect someone traveling on a boat to remain within
four cubits, after all, the boat itself travels more than four cubits with each movement.

The Ritva explains that Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva were not willing to accept this idea for
themselves, since from their perspective although the boat was moving, they had established
themselves in one spot on the boat, which became their "Shabbat place" once the boat took them
out of the techum (=limits).

Mark Cartwright writes:4

Brundisium (modern Brindisi), located on the Adriatic coast of southern Italy, was a Messapian
and then Roman town of great strategic importance throughout antiquity. Although architectural
remains are sparse, the city has several claims to fame. Brundisium is the end of the road for the

4
https://www.ancient.eu/Brundisium/

11
Appian Way, was a traditional launching point for armies and travelers to the East, and played a
pivotal role in both the Punic wars and Roman civil wars. Amongst its more impressive artefacts
are many examples of Hellenistic and Roman bronze statuary which have been rescued from the
town’s harbours.

Early Settlement

The area of Brindisi was inhabited in Palaeolithic times some 12,000 years ago and the site of
Torre Testa just 7 km to the north was the most important settlement in the region at that time.
Thousands of stone tools and other artefacts have been discovered which belonged to the hunter-
gatherers of the period. A continued presence in the Neolithic period and Bronze Age is attested
by additional finds.

Messapian & Greek Town

Located at the very bottom of the Italian peninsula, in local mythology Brundisium was first
settled by either Diomedes, a hero of the Trojan War, or Phalanthus, the Spartan who was also
credited with founding nearby Tarentum (modern Taranto). Yet other sources suggest
Brundisium was founded by settlers from Crete. Certainly, a Greek influence, if not actually
full Greek colonization, is indicated in the cemetery at Tor Pisani. Little is known today regarding
the town when it was inhabited by the Messapians, one of the tribes who lived in the ‘heel’ of Italy
which constitutes modern Apulia. Their name for the town was Brentesion which may derive from
the Messapian brentos, meaning 'deer’s head', which describes the form of the harbour with its two
distinctive promontories.

12
Roman Brundisium

Brundisium started to take on a greater regional significance only from the 3rd century BCE
onwards when Rome began to expand throughout the Italian peninsula. The Romans conquered
the city in 266 BCE and a colony was formally established at Brundisium in 247 or 244 BCE. The
city was then fortified in order to ensure the Romans kept hold of the excellent double harbour
they had acquired. Around the same time, the great Roman road the Via Appia (Appian Way) was
extended to reach the city, connecting it with Rome itself and bringing its total paved length to 569
km or 385 Roman miles.

The Appian Way (Latin and Italian: Via Appia) is one of the earliest and strategically most
important Roman roads of the ancient republic.

13
It connected Rome to Brindisi, in southeast Italy. Its importance is indicated by its common
name, recorded by Statius:
Appia longarum... regina viarum
"the Appian Way the queen of the long roads"

Brundisium consequently became the main point of departure for anyone travelling to Greece and
the East and usurped Tarentum’s position as the most important port in the south.

Today a 19.2 m tall single marble column stands near the waterfront which was traditionally
thought to mark the spot where the road finally ends. In fact, inscriptions reveal that the column
once belonged to a building with a religious or commemorative function connected to the sea.

During the First Punic War (264-241 BCE) the Carthaginian general Hamilcar Barca had
attacked several Roman coastal cities in search of booty for his mercenaries and one of them was

14
Brundisium in 247 BCE. These skirmishes, though, were largely a minor distraction from the main
battlefront in Sicily. The city became more directly embroiled in the Second Punic War (218-201
BCE) when Hannibal invaded Italy and encamped in the southern corner of the peninsula. The
Carthaginian general desperately needed a port through which he could receive reinforcements and
supplies from Africa but the Romans successfully blockaded the harbours of the southern coast.

Sulla gave Brundisium an exemption from the portoria, the tax duty imposed on the import and
export of goods at ports, and the town was given municipium status around 89 BCE, which granted
its citizens Roman citizenship. However, the city’s fortunes would soon suffer a dramatic
downturn during the violent final stages of the Roman Republic.

In the civil war of the 1st century BCE, Brundisium would, once again, find itself centre stage in
the theatre of a bloody and brutal war. Julius Caesar captured the city in 49 BCE so that he could
prevent his great rival Pompey from fleeing Italy. Then it was attacked again in 40 BCE, this time
by Mark Antony. The city’s handy location at the foot of Italy was proving something of a liability
for the local residents. Brundisium was also the site of the accord, known as the Treaty of
Brundisium, between Antony and Octavian to carve up the Roman Empire between themselves.
When Octavian won the war and became the first Roman Emperor as Augustus, a triumphal
arch was set up in the city in his honour.

Benjamin of Tudela5
David Jacoby writes:

Benjamin of Tudela is the best-known, most cited, and most translated Jewish traveler of the
Middle Ages. Paradoxically, however, we have no personal information about him except for his
name, his father’s name Jonah, his birth and residence in Tudela, a city of Navarre, and his return
to the kingdom of Castile in 1172/1173, a trustworthy date.

5
https://www.academia.edu/5834087/Benjamin_of_Tudela

15
The meager information regarding Benjamin appears in the prologue to the travel account bearing
his name, which refers to him in the third person as deceased and provides the title Sefer Masa’oth
or Book of Travels. This information, especially the date of his return, suggests that the prologue
was composed a short time after Benjamin’s death by a Jew of Tudela presumably acquainted with
him, either in the late twelfth or early thirteenth century.

Benjamin’s autograph report has not survived. Testimonies to the existence of his travel account
appear only from the fourteenth century onward. A passage in the extant versions of the Book of
Travels regarding the Druze community living in Lebanon (BT 29) is cited verbatim by Shemuel
¯Sarsa, a Jew of Valencia, Spain, in his Sefer Mekor Hayim, completed in 1368.

However, this citation does not reveal whether the version of the “Book of Travels” before that
author entirely conformed to the one reproduced by the earliest surviving copies of Benjamin’s
book. In fact, this is rather doubtful, for reasons explained below, since British Library, ms. Add.
27,089, section 19, also from the fourteenth century, was executed in Ashkenazi script, thus outside
Spain.

We know nothing about the personal history of Benjamin MiTudelo, better known as Benjamin of
Tudela. He left Tudela, Spain between 1159 and 1163, and he returned in 1172. The two things
we do know are that he traveled extensively for more than ten years (some historians believe
fourteen years) visiting Jewish and non-Jewish communities around the world, and he wrote about
his experiences. His travel diary, the Book of Travels, has been a godsend for historians.

There is no general account of the Mediterranean world or of the Middle East in the mid-twelfth
century which approaches that of Benjamin of Tudela in importance, whether for Jewish or for
general history.

Benjamin’s displays a keen interest in economic matters. He notes Jewish craftsmen in several
manufacturing branches: silk workers involved in the manufacturing of silk textiles and the
tailoring of silk garments in Byzantium, dyers in Brindisi, Jaffa, Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Lydda and
other places, as well as those working on commission among the Druzes, tanners in
Constantinople, and glassmakers in Antioch and Tyre.

16
He indicates the distances between the various towns he visited, tells who stood at the head of the
Jewish communities, and who were the most notable scholars. He gives the number of Jews he
found in each place, though it is not clear in many instances whether he is speaking of individuals
or of householders, and in some cases such as Baghdad, the figures seem to be exaggerated.

He notes economic conditions, describing the activity of merchants from various lands in
Barcelona, Montpellier, and Alexandria, and speaking frequently of the occupations of the Jews:
the dyers in Brindisi, the silk-weavers in Thebes, the tanners in Constantinople, and the
glassworkers in Aleppo and Tyre.

He was deeply interested in Jewish scholarship, and his accounts of intellectual life in Provence
and Baghdad are especially important, as is his characterization of the organization
of synagogue life in Egypt.

17
Sects, too, engaged his attention, not only the Samaritans in Palestine, but also the Karaites in
Constantinople and a heretical sect in Cyprus which he relates observed the Sabbath from dawn to
dawn. His characterizations of non-Jewish life are vivid.

His somewhat highly- colored account of the Assassins of Lebanon and of the Ghuzz Turks are
primary historical sources, and he is said to be the first European of modern times to mention
China by the present name. The importance of his work can be gauged from the fact that it has
been translated into almost every language of Europe, and is used as a primary sourcebook by all
medieval historians

His travel itinerary was as follows:

From Tudela in northern Spain Benjamin traveled to Barcelona. From there he headed into
Provence. He gave a fairly full account of the cities and the scholars of the region, and also
described in detail the economic life.

From Marseilles he went by sea to Genoa. He traveled through Pisa to Rome. He must have spent
a fairly long time in Rome for he wrote a detailed description of the antiquities of the city. Not
being a historian, he interpreted many of these as being associated with Jewish history. He also
wrote about the Jewish community and their relations with the much-opposed Pope Alexander III.

18
Benjamin then headed south describing, sometimes at length, the conditions in Salerno, Amalfi,
Melfi, Benevento, and Brindisi. He sailed by way of Corfu to Arta, and then through Greece,
where he noted the Jewish silk-weavers in various places, and the agricultural colony at Crissa on
Mt. Parnassus.

He seems to have spent a particularly long time in Constantinople. His description of both Jewish
and non-Jewish conditions there is better than any other from that century.

Benjamin sailed through the Aegean archipelago to Cyprus and then crossed to the mainland. He
headed south via Antioch, Sidon, Tyre, and Akko into the Land of Israel, which was still under the
rule of the Crusaders.

He traveled throughout the country, giving a detailed account of the Holy Places (which he called
in many instances by their French names: thus Hebron is St. Abram de Bron). On the whole, his
descriptions were far more objective than those of Christian pilgrims of the age, and he provided
us with added insight by focusing on Jerusalem and its Jewish community.

From Tiberias Benjamin traveled north to Damascus and then around to Baghdad. His account of
the Druze was the first in the non-Arabic literature.

His account of Baghdad was more extensive than any other. He drew a graphic picture of the court
of the caliph and the charitable foundations of the city. He also told of the organization of the still-
surviving Talmudic academies and the glories and functions of the Exilarch.

After Baghdad, Benjamin's accounts become historically suspect. Although he may have traveled
to Persia, his descriptions of conditions there contain much legendary material. He wrote with
some fantastic detail about China, Cochin, and Ceylon, and there's no way to know whether any
of his descriptions were accurate.

His personal impressions became again realistic in his admirable and detailed account of Egypt in
general and its Jewish life in particular, especially in Cairo and Alexandria, which he visited on
his return voyage.

Benjamin then headed back to Sicily, his account of Palermo being both accurate and picturesque.
From there he probably returned to Spain by sea, though the itinerary as we have it ends with an
idealized picture of Jewish life in northern France and Germany, presumably based on hearsay. He
reentered Spain, as is specifically stated, through Castile, having left it by way of Aragon.

Benjamin’s acquaintance with trade and merchants is also illustrated by some of his remarks
regarding the Jews of Pera, the suburb of Constantinople. He reports that the Jewish tanners, who
spill on the streets the malodorous liquids deriving from the processing of hides, are responsible
for the animosity of the local Greeks toward their Jewish neighbors. In fact, however, at the time
of Benjamin’s visit in Constantinople Greek antisemitism was of a more general nature and not
related to the exercise of specific crafts, as attested by Byzantine contemporary sources. The blame
cast upon the craftsmen clearly reflects the social bias of the local Jewish elite composed of
merchants toward a section of the community involved in the lowly occupation of tanning. By

19
recording it Benjamin displays his identification with the attitudes of these merchants and offers a
glimpse of his own mentality.

On page 45 he writes of “10 Jews in Brindisi who were dyers”6

What motivated Benjamin to travel?

His journey was undertaken privately. He was not sent on a mission by a ruler. This may have
been the case of Ibrahim ibn Yakub, the Spanish Jewish traveler born in Tortosa who around 965

6
http://wpd.ugr.es/~proyecto_viajeros/recursos/textos/judios/tudela_asher_1840.pdf

20
carried out a long journey in western, central and eastern Europe, possibly on an official
intelligence mission for the Umayyad caliphate of Spain.

Nor did Benjamin travel on behalf of a Jewish community, as often done for the collection of
money or the ransoming of captives. His journey was not directed toward the gathering of evidence
on Jewish communities, since he refrained from passing through numerous localities of southern
Italy, Greece, the Aegean, Asia Minor and Egypt in which they were established84. Not
surprisingly, he followed commercial routes, except in the Holy Land and in Iraq when he went to
visit holy sites and the tombs of sages.

Benjamin deals at length with the traditions and miracles related to these places, like two other
Jewish travelers of the twelfth century. Pilgrimage to the Holy Land was clearly the aim of Jacob
ben Nethanel. Petayah of Regensburg appears to have displayed broader interests and traveled
more widely in the Middle East than the latter, yet his true intentions have been obscured by the
stress on holy sites and on the miraculous in his journey’s account, which may be partly ascribed
to one or several editors.

Admittedly, Jacob ben Nethanel, Petayah and Benjamin shared the same reverence for the sacred
sites of the Holy Land, and they all report the polemical responses of the local Jews to the Latin
appropriation of these sites and to the new Christian traditions regarding them that had emerged in
the wake of the crusader conquest. Shatzmiller7, contends that Benjamin and Petahyah shared the
same approach, namely, the purpose of their journeys was pilgrimage to holy shrines. At first
glance this may seem to have been the case for the latter yet is excluded for Benjamin for reasons
explained above. The substantial difference in approach and perspective between their travel
accounts cannot solely be explained by the intervention of their respective editors.

7
J. Shatzmiller, Jews, Pilgrimage, and the Christian Cult of Saints: Benjamin of Tudela and His contemporaries, in: A. C. Murray
(Ed.), After Rome’s Fall. Narrators and Sources of Early Medieval History. Essays presented to Walter Goffart, Toronto-
BuffaloLondon 1998, (n. 89), 343-345

21
The Travels of Benjamin is an important work not only as a description of the
Jewish communities, but also as a reliable source about the geography and
ethnography of the Middle Ages. Some modern historians credit Benjamin with
giving accurate descriptions of everyday life in the Middle Ages. It received
much attention from Renaissance scholars in the 16th century.

Rather, it may be safely assumed that he engaged in trading, as suggested by his keen interest in
economic matters and in specific goods, in order to finance his journeys and his residence in
various cities, which in some of them extended over several months and possibly even years.
However, trading along the way does not imply that Benjamin left Tudela on a commercial
journey, which would have entailed a return home after one or two years, as was customary. The
exploration of markets may be discounted as an incentive to travel since he followed customary
and well-known commercial routes, except when going to specific holy sites and shrines.
Incidentally, as illustrated by various sources, pilgrimage and trade were occasionally combined.
Benjamin’s curiosity, illustrated by his open-minded approach to the material and human

22
environment he encountered, and the quest of adventure may have acted as powerful incentives to
travel. In sum, Benjamin appears to have been motivated by a conjunction of factors, yet the
precise reasons for his extended journey elude us. In any event, his travel account was not
conceived as a guidebook either for pilgrims, travelers or merchants, although it could be used to
some extent by all of them.

A brief study of Benjamin of Tudela’s Book of Travels is far from exhaustive. It nevertheless
reveals that the book is a rich and multifaceted source of the twelfth century, even in the shortened
and edited version of the original account. It proves to be trustworthy and at times even of crucial
importance, especially when presenting evidence deriving from personal experience or not found
elsewhere. Yet the book is also a precious testimony to the author’s and the period’s mentality. At
times Benjamin displayed a critical approach.

The Jews of Rome told him that the two columns of St. John of Lateran supposedly brought from
the Temple of Solomon sweat, or rather exude tears on the 9 Ab, the day on which both the First
and Second Temple of Jerusalem were destroyed, according to Jewish tradition, yet the way he
reports that story suggests that he doubted its veracity (BT 10).

Still, like his contemporaries displaced in a foreign space and social environment, Benjamin
constantly perceived „mirabilia “beyond the realia of places, structures and people he sighted.
Although coming from a different cultural milieu, the Mirabilia urbis Romae and the Narracio de
mirabilibus urbis Rome offer interesting parallels to the Book of Travels. Like his contemporaries,
Benjamin was considerably impressed and even fascinated by the display of princely riches, pomp,
ceremonial and festivities, whether in the past or in the present.

Like them, Benjamin was avid of historical knowledge, traditions and stories to strengthen his
religious faith and his understanding of reality. Like them, he was overly credulous. There was
no boundary between fact and fantasy, which freely and constantly intermingled and merged in
his mind. In sum, Benjamin of Tudela was a true child of his time.

23
 MIRABILIA URBIS ROMAE 1511

The struggle between Cross and Crescent

Background History8

I believe that the book should not be read primarily as a factual travel account but may be better
appreciated as a popular anthology of faraway places and countries, including passages pro-
viding place-specific information, some of which seems to have been culled from earlier
traditions.9

8
Marcus Nathan Adler's The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela: Critical Text, Translation and Commentary (New York: Phillip
Feldheim, Inc., 1907)
9
From Lofty Caliphs to Uncivilized 'Orientals' - Images of the Muslim in Medieval Jewish Travel Literature Martin Jacobs
Jewish Studies Quarterly Vol. 18, No. 1 (2011)

24
The history of the civilized world from the downfall of the Roman Empire to the present day may
be summarized as the struggle between Cross and Crescent. This struggle is characterized. by a
persistent ebb and flow. Mohammed in 622 A. D. transformed, as if by magic, a cluster of Bedouin
tribes into a warlike people. An Arabian Empire was formed, which reached from the Ebro to the
Indus. Its further advance was stemmed in the year 732, just a hundred years after Mohammed's
death, by Charles Martel, in the seven days' battle of Tours.

The progress of the culture of the Arabs was as rapid as had been that of their arms. Great cities
such as Cairo and Bagdad were built. Commerce and manufactures flourished. The Jews, who
enjoyed protection under the benign rule of the Caliphs, transmitted to the Arabs the learning and
science of the Greeks. Schools and universities arose in all parts of the Empire. The dark age of
Christendom proved to be the golden age of literature for Jew and Arab.

By the eleventh century, however, the Arabs had lost much of their martial spirit. Islam might have
lost its ascendancy in the East had not the warlike Seljuk Turks, coming from the highlands of
Central Asia, possessed themselves of the countries which, in days of old, constituted the Persian
Empire under Darius. The Seljuks became ready converts to Islam and upheld the failing strength
of the Arabs.

It was the ill-treatment by the Seljuks of the Christian pilgrims to Palestine which aroused Christian
Europe and led to the First Crusade. The feudal system adopted by the Seljuks caused endless
dissension among their petty sovereigns, called "Atabegs", all of whom were nominally vassals of
the Caliph at Bagdad. Thus, it came about that Islamism, divided against itself, offered but a poor
resistance to the advance of the Christians. The Crusaders had little difficulty in making their way
to Palestine. They captured Jerusalem and established the Latin kingdom there.

By the middle of the twelfth century Mohammedan power had shrunk to smaller dimensions. Not
only did the Franks hold Palestine and all the important posts on the Syrian coast, but, by the
capture of Lesser Armenia, Antioch, and Edessa, they had driven a wedge into Syria, and extended
their conquests even beyond the Euphrates.

At length there came a pause in the decline of Islam. Zengi, a powerful Seljuk Atabeg, in 1144
captured Edemas, the outpost of Christendom, and the Second Crusade, led by the Emperor Conrad
of Germany and by King Louis VII of France, failed to affect the recapture of the fortress.
Nureddin, the far-sighted son and successor of Zengi, and later on Saladin, a Kurd, trained at his
court, discovered how to restore the fallen might of Islam and expel the Franks from Asia. A
necessary preliminary step was to put an end to the dissensions of the Atabeg rulers. Nureddin did
this effectually by himself annexing their dominions.

His next step was to gain possession of Egypt, and thereby isolate the Latin Kingdom. Genoa, Pisa,
and Venice, the three Italian republics who between them had command of the sea, were too selfish
and too intent upon their commercial interests to interfere with the designs of the Saracens. The
Latin king Amalric had for some years sought to gain a foothold in Egypt. In November 1168, he
led the Christian army as far as the Nile, and was about to seize Fostat, the old unfortified Arab
metropolis of Egypt.

25
The inhabitants, however, preferred to set fire to the city rather than that it should fall into the
hands of the Christians. To this very day many traces may be seen in the neighborhood of Cairo
of this conflagration. Nureddin's army, in which Saladin held a subordinate command, by a timely
arrival on the scene forced the Franks to retreat, and the Saracens were acclaimed as deliverers.

The nominal ruler of Egypt at that time was El-Adid, the Fatimite Caliph, and he made Saladin his
Vizier, little thinking that that modest officer would soon supplant him. So efficiently did Saladin
administer the country that in a few months it had regained its prosperity, despite the five years'
devastating war which had preceded.

Saladin (1137-93 CE) was the Sultan of Egypt and Syria (r. 1174-1193 CE) who shocked
the western world by defeating an army of the Crusader states at the Battle of Hattin and
then capturing Jerusalem in 1187 CE

At this juncture the traveler Rabbi Benjamin came to Egypt. Some three years earlier he had left
his native place--Tudela, on the Ebro in the north of Spain.

After passing through the prosperous towns which lie on the Gulf of Lyons, he visited Rome and
South Italy. From Otranto he crossed over to Corfu, traversed Greece, and then came to
Constantinople, of which he gives an interesting account. Very telling, for example, are the words:
"They hire from amongst all nations warriors called Barbarians to fight with the Sultan of the
Seljuks; for the natives are not warlike, but are as women who have no strength to fight "After

26
visiting the Islands of the Aegean, as well as Rhodes and Cyprus, he passed on to Antioch, and
followed the well-known southern route skirting the Mediterranean, visiting the important cities
along the coast, all of which were then in the hands of the Franks.

Let us hear his account of Jerusalem:

One day's journey brings one to Acre, the Acco of old, which is on the borders of Asher;
it is the commencement of the land of Israel. Situated by the Great Sea, it possesses a
large harbour for all the pilgrims who come to Jerusalem by ship. A stream runs in
front of it, called the brook of Kedumim.

About 200 Jews live there, at their head being R. Zadok, R. Japheth, and R. Jonah.
From there it is three parasangs to Haifa, which is Hahepher on the seaboard, and on
the other side is Mount Carmel, at the foot of which there are many Jewish graves. On
the mountain is the cave of Elijah, where the Christians have erected a structure called
St. Elias. On the top of the mountain can be recognized the overthrown altar which
Elijah repaired. in the days of Ahab. The site of the altar is circular, about four cubits
remain thereof, and at the foot of the mountain the brook Kishon flows. From here it is
[p. 32] four parasangs to Capernaum, which is the village of Nahum, identical with
Maon, the home of Nabal the Carmelite.

27
Six parasangs from here is Caesarea, the Gath of the Philistines, and here there are
about 200 Jews and 200 Cuthim. These are the Jews of Shomron, who are called
Samaritans. The city is fair and beautiful and lies by the sea. It was built by Caesar and
called after him Caesarea. Thence it is half a day's journey to Kako, the Keilah of
Scripture. There are no Jews here. Thence it is half a day's journey to St. George, which
is Ludd, where there lives one Jew, who is a dyer.

Thence it is a day's journey to Sebastiya, which is the city of Shomron (Samaria), and
here the ruins of the palace of Ahab the son of Omri may be seen. It was formerly a
well-fortified city by the mountainside, with streams of water. It is still a land of brooks
of water, gardens, orchards, vineyards, and olive groves, but no Jews dwell here.

Thence it is two parasangs to Nablous, which is Shechem on Mount Ephraim, where

there are no Jews; the place is situated in the valley between Mount Gerizim and Mount
Ebal, and contains about 1,000 Cuthim, who observe the written law of Moses alone,
and are called Samaritans. They have [p. 33] priests of the seed (of Aaron), and they
call them Aaronim, who do not intermarry with Cuthim, but wed only amongst
themselves.

These priests offer sacrifices and bring burnt-offerings in their place of assembly on
Mount Gerizim, as it is written in their law--"And thou shalt set the blessing on Mount
Gerizim." They say that this is the proper site of the Temple. On Passover and the other
festivals they offer up burnt-offerings on the altar which they have built on Mount
Gerizim, as it is written in their law--"Ye shall set up the stones upon Mount Gerizim,
of the stones which Joshua and the children of Israel set up at the Jordan." They say
that they are descended from the tribe of Ephraim. And in the midst of them is the grave
of Joseph, the son of Jacob our father, as it is written "and the bones of Joseph buried
they in Shechem." Their alphabet lacks three letters, namely He, Heth, and Ain. The
letter He is taken from Abraham our father, because they have no dignity, the letter
Heth from Isaac, because they have no kindliness, and the letter Ain from Jacob,
because they have no humility. In place of these letters they make use of the Aleph, by
which we can tell that they are not of the seed of Israel, although they know the p. 34
law of Moses with the exception of these three letters.

They guard themselves from the defilement of the dead, of the bones of the slain, and of
graves; and they remove the garments which they have worn before they go to the place
of worship, and they bathe and put on fresh clothes.

28
This is their constant practice. On Mount Gerizim are fountains and gardens and
plantations, but Mount Ebal is rocky and barren; and between them in the valley lies
the city of Shechem.

An idealized twelfth-century map

of the crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem.

On towards Jerusalem!

29
From there it is three parasangs to Jerusalem, which is a small city, fortified by three
walls. It is full of people whom the Mohammedans call Jacobites, Syrians, Greeks,
Georgians and Franks, and of [p. 35] people of all tongues: It contains a dyeing-house,
for which the Jews pay a small rent annually to the king, on condition that besides the
Jews no other dyers be allowed in Jerusalem.

There are about 200 Jews who dwell under the Tower of David in one corner of the
city. The lower portion of the wall of the Tower of David, to the extent of about ten
cubits, is part of the ancient foundation set up by our ancestors, the remaining portion
having been built by the Mohammedans. There is no structure in the whole city stronger
than the Tower of David. The city also contains two buildings, from one of which--the
hospital--there issue forth four hundred knights; and therein all the sick who come
thither are lodged and cared for in life and in death. The other building is called the
Temple of Solomon; it is the palace built by Solomon the king of Israel. Three hundred
knights are quartered there, and issue therefrom every day for military exercise, besides
those who come from the land of the Franks and the other parts of Christendom, having
taken upon themselves to serve there a year or two until their vow is fulfilled.

In Jerusalem is the great church called the Sepulcher, and here is the [p. 36] burial-
place of Jesus, unto which the Christians make pilgrimages. Jerusalem has four gates-
the gate of Abraham, the gate of David, the gate of Zion, and the gate of Gushpat, which
is the gate of Jehoshaphat, facing our ancient Temple, now called Templum Domini.

30
Upon the site of the sanctuary Omar ben al Khataab erected an edifice with a very large
and magnificent cupola, into which the Gentiles do not bring any image or effigy, but
they merely come there to pray.

In front of this place is the western wall, which is one of the walls of the Holy of Holies.
This is called the Gate of Mercy, and thither come all the Jews to pray before the wall
of the court of the Temple. In Jerusalem, attached to the palace which belonged to
Solomon, are the stables built by him, forming a very substantial structure, composed
of large stones, and the like of it is not to be seen anywhere in the world. There is also
visible up to this day the pool used by the priests before offering their sacrifices, and
the Jews coming thither write their names upon the wall. The gate of Jehoshaphat leads
to the valley of Jehoshaphat, which is the gathering-place of nations. [p. 37 [Here is
the pillar called Absalom's Hand, and the sepulcher of King Uzziah.

In front of Jerusalem is Mount Zion, on which there is no building, except a place of

worship belonging to the Christians. Facing Jerusalem for a distance of three miles are
the cemeteries belonging to the Israelites, who in the days of old buried their dead in
caves, and upon each sepulcher is a dated inscription, but the Christians destroy the
sepulchers, employing the stones thereof in building their houses. These sepulchers
reach as far as Zelzah in the territory of Benjamin.

31