Center for Advanced Judaic Studies, University of Pennsylvania

Democracy in the Communities of the Early Middle Ages

Author(s): Irving A. Agus
Source: The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 43, No. 2 (Oct., 1952), pp. 153-176
Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1452877 .
Accessed: 11/09/2011 12:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Pennsylvania Press and Center for Advanced Judaic Studies, University of Pennsylvania are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Jewish Quarterly Review.

http://www.jstor.org
 DEMOCRACY IN THE COMMUNITIES OF
THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES

By IRVINGA. AGUS,Yeshiva University

A.

One of the most popular subjects for historical research

during the past century, a subject that occupied the best
European historians for a hundred years and was discussed
in innumerable articles and books, was the origin and
development of the European towns, and the social, political
and economic institutions evolved therein during the Middle
Ages.' Modern life in most of its phases is a direct out-
growth of the institutions, practices and ideas developed
in the medieval towns. Our present civilization is urban
and cannot be fully comprehended without a clear grasp
of the elements creating the multifarious life of the early
towns.
Vast research has therefore been devoted to this subject,
and a number of theories have been set forth to explain the
sudden emergence of free corporations in a medieval world,
and the growth of democratic institutions in an over-
whelmingly autocratic environment; theories have been
advanced about the freedom of the individual, in spite of the

I For a
bibliography of the subject see Dahlman-Waitz, Quellenkunde
der Deutschen Geschichte, 9th edition, Leipzig 1931, pp. 156-7 and
453-6; Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 5, pp. 904-8: J. W. Thompson,
An Economic and Social History of the Middle Ages, New York, 1928,
pp. 848-50; J. C. Gemperle, Belgische und Schweizerische Stadte-
verfassungsgeschichte im Mittelalter, Wetteren, 1943, pp. 349-66.
153
154 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

all pervading idea of servility and dependence.2 The prob-

lem of the origin of the European town and of its character-
istic institutions, has, as yet received no adequate solution,
and none of the theories so far propounded by various
schools of historians since W. Arnold3 and G. L. Maurer,4
have satisfactorily explained all the matters involved.5 To
cite a single example, George von Below, after a lifetime of
laborious and fruitful research, was forced to conclude:
"Unter diesen Umstanden bleibt uns nur iibrig zu kon-
statieren dass es im grossen und ganzen gar keinen Ankntip-
fungspunkt fur den entstehenden stadtrat gegeben hat."6
The paucity of studies on town origins by scholars of the
present generation is not due to the fact that the problem
has been considered solved either by Keutgen,7 Rietschel,8

2 An excellent summary of the various theories

propounded during
the active period of the controversy, will be found in G. Seeliger,
"Stadtverfassung", Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, ed.
by J. Hoops, vol. IV, Strassburg, 1918, pp. 244 ff. Cf. Cambridge
Medieval History, vol. 5, pp. 631-7; J. W. Thompson, op. cit., pp. 766-73;
C. Stephenson, Borough and town, Cambridge, Mass., 1933, ch. 1.
3
Verfassungsgeschichte der deutschen Freistddte, 2 vols., Hamburg
and Gotha, 1854.
4 Geschichte der Stddteverfassung in Deutschland, Erlangen, 1869-71,

4 vols. For a criticism of Maurer, see A. Heusler, Der Ursprung der

deutschen Stadtverfassung, Weimar, 1872, pp. 157 ff., 236 ff.
s Even the mercantile theory of Pirenne and Rietschel, which is the
most favored theory at present (C. Stephenson, ibid.), is based mostly
on conjecture, takes many things for granted, and does not explain the
origin of many characteristic town institutions. It merely states,
without evidence from earlier sources, that such institutions were
usually set up by merchants. Cf. K. Fr6lich, Zeitschrift der Savigny-
Stiftung fur Rechtsgeschichte, Germanische Abteilung, LI (1931),
pp. 628 ff.; A. Coville, "Les Villes du Moyen Age," Journal de Savants,
1928.
6 Die Entstehung der Stadtgemeinde, Dusseldorf, 1889, p. 97.
7
Untersuchungen iiber den Ursprung der deutschen Stadtverfassung,
Leipzig, 1895. Cf. F. W. Maitland, "The origin of the Borough,"
English Historical Review XI (1896), pp. 13 ff.; ibid., Doomsday Book
and Beyond, Cambridge, 1897.
8 Die Civitas
auf deutschen Boden, Leipzig, 1894; Markt und Stadt
in ihrem rechtlichen Verhdltniss, Leipzig, 1897.
 COMMUNITIES OF THE MIDDLE AGES-AGUS 155

Dopsch,9 or Pirenne,?1 but is rather due to a conviction

that the problems involved are unsolvable."
It is therefore important to examine a parallel political
corporation that developed side by side with the town
commune, that has been in daily contact with it socially,
economically, and even culturally, and that has often
antedated it by centuries in the development of character-
istic town institutions. Such a political corporation was the
Jewish community, which in many localities had already
been established by the time the town commune began its
characteristic development immediately adjacent to this
community. A study of the Jewish community, therefore,
may shed new light on the subject, and may even lead to a
satisfactory solution of some of its most intricate problems.
Moreover, there is a great paucity of source material for
the growth of the European town, during the tenth and
eleventh centuries, although we do possess very valuable
material for the study of the community during this
period.12
Thus in the Responsa literature of the end of the tenth
and the beginning of the eleventh centuries, the Jewish
community already appears as a unit of self-government
with fully developed institutions, with firmly rooted

9 The Economic and Social Foundations of European Civilization,

tr. from the German, London, 1937, esp. chs. X and XI.
0
"L'Origine des Constitutions Urbaines au Moyen Age," Revue
Historique, LIII (1893), pp. 52 ff., LVII (1895), pp. 57 ff.; Belgian
Democracy, Manchester, 1951; Medieval Cities; Princeton, 1925; Les
Villes et les Institutions Urbaines, Brussels, 1939, 2 vols.
I Since the turn of the century most studies of the town life deal
with separate towns and depend on localized sources, but are not
concerned with general theories of origin. See Stephenson, op. cit.,
first two chapters, and the detailed bibliography in J. C. Gemperle,
ibid.
12
A detailed discussion of the constitutional history of the Jewish
community in the middle ages, is given by the present author in his book
Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg, Philadelphia, 1947, pp. 54-124.
156 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

customs, and with an established method of cooperation

with neighboring communities.13 From a Responsum of
Rabbenu Gershom we learn that several communities were
assembled in one place, and that they pronounced the ban
to help restore the stolen goods of a Jew, and that the
pronouncement of a ban for such a purpose was a well
established custom "in most Jewish communities."'4 R.
Gershom affirms in his answer that the community is a
legal entity having the judicial and legislative authority of
the Sanhedrin, the High Court of Jerusalem.15 The
European towns, on the other hand, did not generally
exercise such authority till the end of the twelfth and the
beginning of the thirteenth centuries.
The community at this early period already paid its
taxes to the king, or overlord, in a lump sum, assessed
each member for his share of the tax, and used several well-
established and ingenious methods of assessment,6 - in
which respects, again the community antedated the town
commune by more than a century. In the second half of
the tenth century the community maintained peace between
its members, and fixed specific money-fines for particular
breaches of the peace - a characteristic function of the town
commune two centuries later.I7
'3 See the Responsa of Rabbenu Gershom in Imnl1' ns-nxin nmiwn,
nos. 85, 87, 88 and 97; and the Responsa of R. Joseph Tob-Elem found
among the Responsa of R. Meir of Rothenburg, Prague ed. nos. 940-1;
Lemberg ed. no. 423, cf. nympnram,nm nimln, nos. 165, 205.
'4 Joel Mueller, mnlilns-ix ,nn nmun, no. 97; Mordecai, B. M. 257:
rhK nsTTz 1-1T1l[ontnN] (rn'iN) n-'2N by Inxyn) DWwxnp) I'.=a nltqnprl
13130D nT'7KNb? -mrnv mm'9D -ntin -iav i :n ri 1i', y')'V 'D by n-1YI=I
'WtyWI,lpy DtIV IN
1nK'= IN
1KI -1 'D9'Wp 'I LDp LiKW' nlI'p =1n-
I1zn
0'ya1= -Itnsw aiB
intDmn' a nii9;N 1rr' NIW 'InI by 0'-t11i mpn 1?.
'5 Ibid., loc. cit.
t6 See Responsa of R. Joseph Tob-Elem cited in note 13 above.
17 Teshubot Geonim Kadmonim, 125; ibid., 135; L. Ginzberg, 'm
iUDrt, II, p. 274; For a survey of the dates of the establishment of
similar institutions in the European towns, see Cambridge Medieval
History, vol. V, chapter XIX.
 COMMUNITIES OF THE MIDDLE AGES-AGUS 157

The most important phase of community activity, how-

ever, was its system of government. We encounter in the
communities of the thirteenth century a government,
democratic in form, based on ideals of justice, freedom
and equality. The principle that "the majority rules"
is generally accepted in the matter of election of officers
and in legislation designed for the public welfare and for
strengthening of religious observance, while unanimous
agreement is required for the introduction of arbitrarily
new practices.'8 The question therefore arises: what were
the steps in the development of this elaborate and mature
system? and principally, what were the factors that deter-
mined the direction of such growth?
Two alternatives present themselves: A. The commu-
nities of the tenth century had an aristocratic form of
government, similar to the one described in geonic Re-
sponsa,'9 but later changed through the adoption of the
democratic principle "the majority rules," while in the
final stage of their constitutional development, during the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the communities came to
recognize the rights of the minority and instituted safe-
guards for its protection, so that in certain instances
unanimous agreement was required. B. The constitutional
development within the community was mainly conditioned
by the ideas of its environment. Therefore, in accordance
with Germanic lines of development, unanimous agreement
was required for all community activities during the tenth
century; while in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries,
because of the renewed interest in Roman law in the
European towns, the principle "the majority rules" was
introduced in the Jewish communities.20
18See Irving A. Agus, op. cit., pp. 108-24.
I9 See Shaare Zedek, p. 57a.
20 See Prof. Yitzchak (Fritz) Baer, t1 nlinnnm Mnmil1r
nr;ipn pliN
m'n, 'D'n, nrmnln,Zion, 1951, pp. 37-40. It is very doubtful, however,
158 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

The present writer in his book on R. Meir of Rothenburg

accepted the first alternative,21 and came to the conclusion
that the democratic system of government in the commu-
nities was an outgrowth of Jewish law in its constant
adjustment to the problems of life. A continuous growth
was shown in the sensitivity of community government to
the interests of each individual member.22
Prof. Yitzchak (Fritz) Baer in a recent article has
accepted the second alternative.23 He gives an excellent
description of the history of the community system of
government, marshalling an abundance of source material
in order to prove that this system had already been in
existence in the Judean towns in the days of the second
Temple. He has shown that although it developed side
by side with the Hellenistic cities, it was an immanently
Jewish creation, and that in spite of the opposition of
official Judaism (embodied in the Mishna, Talmud, and
geonic literature) it flourished throughout the first mil-
lenium of our era, until it became firmly established in the
West. Although Prof. Baer brilliantly points out that as
a political unit possessing autonomy, judicial power, a
penal code, and powerful social institutions, the Jewish
community antedated the town commune by several
generations,24 he nevertheless insists that the Jews became
familiar with the democratic system of government through
the contemporary learned jurists and canonists, who in

whether the old Germanic idea of unanimous consent was still known
in Germany and France during the tenth and eleventh centuries.
Long before this time the autocratic idea became paramount in western
Europe, thus wiping out any trace, or even a memory, of the custom of
free association of equals. See O. v. Gierke, Genossenschaftsrecht,
vol. I, pp. 98, 103, 121, 153.
21
Op. cit., pp. 94 f.
22
See ibid., pp. 108-24. 23 See note 20 above.

24 Ibid., pp. 32-6; see also his article on Rashi in -lz 521,'r nDv
l"flD mlm py,, , Jerusalem, 1950, p. 320.
 COMMUNITIES OF THE MIDDLE AGES-AGUS 159

turn arrived at the principle "the majority rules" during

the revival of the study of Roman law in the twelfth
century.
Thus Baer writes: "Accordingly we conclude therefrom
that the tosaphists and the German rabbinical scholars,
because of their long, traditional training in talmudic
dialectics, antedated the Christian scholars in the exact
formulation of political conceptions then vaguely current
in the air, [and used them] before their neighbors were
able to arrive at distinctly clear definitions. Basically,
however, in this matter the Jewish scholars learned and
received their ideas from their friends, the Christian jurists
and canonists, and not from their own, talmudic tradition.
The principle "follow the majority" was not applied by
the Talmud to town corporations nor to communities-
for, as pointed out before, such institutions were not within
the scope of interest of the talmudic scholars - nor do we
find that such a problem could practically have been dis-
cussed in the geonic period. In European society, however,
toward the end of the twelfth century they began seriously
to discuss such matters."25

25
Ibid., p. 38: ,r3 rnKDnlm mnDmlnn- y lnl,m, O1K134nup'D3
ODnSylW'DmOmD 1-l nDnlln nno ,- fnn
1Dp ,nlmin or,= -DD n m13T n13r1
l'-y lp'von 16 On-'vin Qn'm3tot ,KmlIn m'll 3 nl 1',n
Io ,D')iD 0':lr1D
nm wirW mDon]fL 1i16 .n1i'ni
plyn np'Y3 11 mvnl:'M ZM01K 11 an
.nliTnn nlDn-I1Dn ,1O'l h
,n O'DDIp l1-'O'1D'l',n'
o-ln n ,D on1in
n
m'nsl 1pniy ?i m1nnn 1n3n:3 -6i:
"mvn+l 0',:in -nN. 55=n
nD3n5V omnrl:ynn1mnn3 1D=3:s ris nm-iDD'3-m'nSnpml nrlryn
'nyinY nS=' nlr3 nIy: '3 ,m14 hi m1Kn3, nolpn:l - 11,Nt,'
'D3 ,'nD1nn
-
1jHf 3n',n nioDngIoDD i^'nn, nD
'sH, -nnin ,ormyDi nz'n
wy lri1
tPHfc143i3 rIHco nlm14 11]i.
[The principle of "the majority rules" was in vogue in the Second
Commonwealth and was adopted in the synagogues (assemblies) and
conclaves. Decisions were made according to the majority after taking
a vote. These decisions affected not only the religious, but Jewish
life as a whole. This may be deduced from the expression 1n1 13ZD found
in tannaitic literature (compare also the expression 1nimi1rn3).The princi-
ple of "the majority rules" was also observed in the Jewish communities
160 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

The problem of the origin of democratic ideas in the

communities, however, could easily be resolved if we were
able to discover the approximate date of a Responsum sent
by R. Judah b. Meir ha-Cohen and R. Eliezer b. Judah to
the community of Troyes.26 The matter here involved was
as follows: The people of Troyes had enacted a resolution
by majority vote, and had strengthened it by a herem,
enjoining the members of the community from employing
a particularly obnoxious servant for a period of six months.
The employer of the servant, however, refused to abide by
this resolution holding that it was carried through by a
personal enemy. The community, therefore, inquired of
R. Judah and R. Eliezer whether an enactment passed by
the majority of the members of the community was binding
upon the minority in spite of the latter's protest. In their
answer these scholars gave a detailed explanation of the
principle "the majority rules" as applied to community
government, and gave elaborate proof of its validity in
Jewish law.
The present writer has subscribed to the opinion of S. D.
Luzzatto27 and H. Gross28in identifying R. Judah b. Meir
of France. Professor Baer states that the principle of "majority
rules" was not mentioned in the geonic literature. This silence is
understandable since the Babylonian communities were not as
democratic as the Judaean-Palestinian. On the other hand, the
Franco-German Jewish communities were a continuation of the
Palestinian communities and followed the principles that were in
vogue among the Jews in Judaea-Palestine. S. Z.]
V 1,1 ,lfc
26Kol-Bo, no. 142: nTn ni'" :I nn, ,il'n ,"",ln ilr nUW
"tr;n-mrn-m n1rY', ,n11; printed also by S. D. Luzzatto in ,nn, mno,
pp. 8-10, from a manuscript of the Orhot-Hayyim, II, p. 235.
27 Ibid., p. 10: i3n wn 1lnn nml 'n'I nrt , N3 '3D0 nrt 5z,npnyn
..'1-rin niry '1i npDn mn pn1zr 1 The sign1
secondn ature 1thin
not i3nan :,nnn ,3x 'm'
o onn ,,r Ta nm ,"z up~n ,~3n3 mn,3

... , fn Rnh in rrnmlphin i, in." The second signature in the

Orhot-Hayyim mss. quoted by Luzzatto and that in the Seminary is
pnx, n' nIti, though the heading clearly states ilnlm ni"3 niry,.
28
Monatsschrift, XVIII (1869), pp. 537-8; Galia Judaica, Paris.
 COMMUNITIES OF THE MIDDLE AGES-AGUS 161

as R. Leontin, the teacher of Rabbenu Gershom, who had

been active toward the end of the tenth and the beginning
of the eleventh centuries. He thus had decisive proof of
the fact that the principle "the majority rules" was
operative within the Jewish community almost two
centuries before "European society began seriously to
discuss it."29
Baer, however, refuses to accept this identification and
suggests that R. Judah and R. Eliezer were students of
R. Perez (of the thirteenth century). He insists that, unless
decisive proof be found to the contrary, this Responsum
be considered as belonging to the end of the thirteenth
century since its contents are in consonance with the stage
in constitutional development reached by the European
towns at that time.30 As proof, Baer cites: a) the fact
that the above-mentioned Responsum appears at the end of
a chapter entitled "the decisions of R. Perez"; b) the
comparative length of the Responsum; c) the peculiarity of
finding a Responsum of R. Leontin only in the Kol-Bo;
and d) that the nature of the charges brought against the
unruly servant (that she struck a man with a stick, called
the wife of another "a prostitute," and called the third
"a cuckold") is not in consonance with manners at the turn
of the eleventh century, but rather fits in well with the
the thirteenth.3'

1897, p. 224: "Cette consultation fut adressee a cette communaute par

Juda ben Meir Haccohen (identique tries certainement avec Sire
Leontin, qui vecut vers l'an 1000 et fut le maitre de Rabbenu Guer-
schom) et Eliezer b. Juda..."
29
Op. cit., p. 76 f.
30Op. cit., p. 38, note 31.
3I Ibid.: - p1' 'in i nil-: nawn 1: pz 'oD wD1 1 ryDWlni nr n'n'i
malmn-t H1h !hDY OD-1DDwn-1i'D6n n1:Ia 9 ylrrt nD3 -y ,Dw wip3 -1BM pi
Dl'P:'2
-13 n, '1 iw- DVO n,"f1 ,"nl1o, D in
. lin3 13 '032 krD4 i"n
no;ID 1D1?n3": nlwnnfl '3 ,fnl'? J'ix n-'1i nvlDD
nZ]rwO l'H 1 ,O'Ion
.,n'n 3)i ,1mim1n,-11m3n lrmt ]^3 3nDn -
z n3-n nl:m3-nmn niD
1po .an
oait
LIwtr nvynm mvrn-m 13 -,11m,nrnwfc, i'mamn3 _^ rnDrn 131-1 ^im
162 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

The objections of Baer to the antiquity of the Responsum

under discussion, however, are not very serious. This
Responsum is found in manuscripts of the Orchot Chayyim
II,32 and of other collections of rabbinic lore.33 Although
it usually follows the decisions of R. Perez, it did not
necessarily emanate from his school. Students in the
thirteenth century usually included much older material
in the collections of their teachers' decisions. Thus we
find geonic Responsa in practically all collections of rabbinic
lore of this period.34 A student of R. Perez did indeed
copy the above-mentioned Responsum and placed it among
the decisions of his teacher, but this act should never be used
as a criterion of its age. It may serve as a terminus ad quem,
but not a terminus a quo.
Nor is it strange to find a Responsum of R. Leontin
exclusively in the Kol Bo. We find geonic Responsa in the
Mordecai that are not found elsewhere. This is also true
of Responsa in the Shibbolei ha-Leket, in the Shaare Dura,
in the Teshuvot Maimuniot, in the Orchot Ilayyim. The
Shibbolei ha-Leket, vol. II, still in manuscript, contains
Responsa of R. Gershom not found elsewhere; why then
should it be so strange to find a Responsum of R. Leontin
in the Kol Bo?3s

^po= ralIr 'lmf n11H rit. wo'-irrmnm49'-pi qTn1?mniyv rm1 ,rp~r r1y
,'143 ]w1 ;rI-33 Iopn
1; r cp mrmw
p ']3Ip ,fcmp sn-mf -IKnn Nult -1D , nn
nnlmNt ,nHl, naitlnn, n, 1, min
l Dn-i o,1-n- nln t,n ti. Incidentally,
the word p1ip probably means the same as today in German Horner
aufsetzen, i. e., to cuckold; using the noun, however, instead of the verb.
32 See ornn 'lui, II, pp. 8 f.; also the Seminary ms. Orhot Hayyim,
II, p. 338.
33 See Halberstam.m
catalogue, ih15 n;rnp, no. 170; also described in
"Descriptive Catalogue of Hebrew Mss. of the Montefiore Library,"
JQR., o. s. XIV (1902), p. 180.
34 See
especially the Prague edition of the Responsa of R. Meir of
Rothenburg which contains, among many others, eleven Responsa of
R. Gershom, forty-one of R. Juda haCohen, two of R. Joseph Tob-
Elem, eight of Rashi, twenty-eight of R. Tam, some of which are not
found elsewhere.
35Moreover, though the Kol-Bo consists mainly of a systematic
 COMMUNITIES OF THE MIDDLE AGES-AGUS 163

The length of the Responsum is certainly no criterion,

as anyone acquainted with Responsa literature will admit.
It is not unduly long, especially when one takes into
consideration the fact that it answers three questions. We
possess Responsa of Rabbenu Gershom of equal length.36
The Responsa of R. Meir of Rothenburg range from a few
lines to several hundred, the length depending on the prob-
lem involved and the prestige of those who propounded the
question.37 Nor do the charges brought against the servant
predicate a particular age or century.
Serious study of the text of the Responsum of R. Judah
and R. Eliezer will convince the student of rabbinic
Responsa that it was composed at the turn of the eleventh
century, for the following reasons: a) The authors cite
many proofs for their view that the principle "the majority
rules" is sound Jewish law, but they never mention author-
ities, such as Rashi, R. Tam, Rabiah, R. Meir, or any of the
celebrated tosaphists - an unusual omission in discussions
of the thirteenth century. Nor are the widely accepted
customs of the French and German communities (during
the thirteenth century) ever referred to as proof.38 b) The
authors derive legal principles directly from the Bible.

arrangement of many branches of Jewish law, the last part of the

Kol-Bo contains a haphazard collection, without any discernible
order, of rabbinic lore, halakic decisions and Responsa of talmudic
scholars who lived within a period of four centuries before the compila-
tion had been made.
36Cf. Joel Mueller, -inlim nrnx n nlman, nos. 85, 98, 99; Wnx
Dnn III (1927), pp. 97-102.
37 See especially Cremona edition, no. 111, versus Berlin edition,
pp. 146-53. Moreover, one can not compare one authority with another,
even if they are of the same period. Thus R. Meir usually wrote brief
answers while those of R. Eliezer b. Joel are unusually long sometimes
constituting elaborate treatises. The famous Iggeret of R. Sherira Gaon
is also not a model of brevity.
38R. Meir of Rothenburg constantly refers to the customs of the
communities as the deciding factors in community law; see Cremona ed.
nos. 49, 111, 121, 156, 230; Berlin ed., pp. 205, 209, and many others
too numerous to list.
164 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

This is indeed a decisive proof. The very beginning of their

answer: 'Mlnrn wimnlD,233 ',l13,t in2m i' an d is such
as is rarely, if ever, found in rabbinic writing after the
middle of the eleventh century. The rabbis of the middle
ages relied exclusively on the Talmud, and on talmudic
interpretation of biblical verses. One can hardly find an
author of Responsa from Rashi on who derives law directly
from the Bible.
Talmudic scholars never re-inforced their views thus,
as is well known. Nevertheless, R. Judah and R. Eliezer
indulge in a long, midrashic, interpretation of biblical
sources,39 comparing the community to the congregation
of Israel in solemn assembly, its decision to that of the
Sanhedrin under Joshua the son of Nun, and its authority
to that of king Saul, without citing any proof from the
Talmud that such comparisons are admissible.40 Some parts
of the Responsum read exactly like a Midrash, but a
diligent search has failed to reveal any other source for
most of these interpretations.
Traces of such a practice are found in the Responsa of

39 Kol Bo 142: minzr ,selwn s'1 D'lb ID'lrn nb2lnm;ni'mrinf

.D1'9lpt 1N'm'lbD
1 'mP1 D'Dgl -Dv D3pn 'lWW -DoD Inn 0'-Iunll OaDltw
1'Ml .ipml DDOy '-imK1 :,n-In OD'lnm .olwn InDn
oy 'mn n1m I 'K',
l'0iy,' DynO DKIaOw ,n nD 1 ny OaK1 I" M nD Vnni lmilnpi niryb wKI
inowm nD i'irp nD Vnm
wi l 'r n'n OKi .,3 n 3K 'n'or minmi .1n01n
.. .'ll '1o Ib 1'nmKl ?10Kn DO'lD ,Dyu no ,l?7n 'n 1"nT 'lml py,' "l'tStr 1n1'
IDn 1n lo KNlxin ;1' IKa ]-30l nn m n'rlpp o : P: 'l 13 1
IN VI'N DOz W 1JD =nol .'131 n5 13v1 ItvN nm wnol DOxm1 Drni N 3^nz!
on

'n-m "nn"'i wmn .'121 nln n-K ] 'no

'im-I nK lynz m 'nDl .'1l nW"
.. . 1n',nn,9 by vbWywl, nDnnw s"yl Onn nyn.
40 Ibid.: .'in
ol mpm nin ,'nin in r'n ry 1' y 'n"pn ODn
1D3= "'
1
,'ton
,nl n DN .'npo l Dnnn n'on K' OK Oay nly mnln l'DlK K1 ,nl'
"nlyl .1o3D'nb= KmI KbK ,Donn noDDna 'noDn Ki lYr nl l=y1p b 1 nn
'11~
n1tI lwIn mK9 by n,::3 l :nn3,y ny I , tK: 13,D n-lyl . . '. 7lmK 1u3z,
,'m31n- ',-n:- b:b b1', ,"3'r'i l'e- lv
7 n3'n . . :,n:";
a.'n3 b D1y
'-inr:, nb

p-in nzn~ '-i19W -IO yn-1mm >-1lN

^ .l-iD I-nl m'noni.
 COMMUNITIES OF THE MIDDLE AGES-AGUS 165

Rabbenu Gershom41and R. Joseph Tob-Elem.42 They, too,

occasionally derive legal principles directly from biblical
verses. This extraordinary use of biblical verses by the two
leading scholars of the end of the tenth and the beginning
of the eleventh centuries confirms the view of the present
author that the above-mentioned Responsum was composed
in this period.
More decisive proof of the antiquity of the Responsum
under discussion, however, can now be advanced. One of
the three questions asked, by the community of Troyes, of
R. Judah and R. Eliezer was whether one community
might presume to exercise authority over another and
effectively pronounce the here against its members.43 This
question is set forth in general terms with no description of
the circumstances involved. The present author, however,
fortunately discovered an unpublished Responsum of R.
Joseph Tob-Eiem, apparently addressed to the other
community involved, in which are given all the details
that occasioned the incidental query included by the
community of Troyes in their questions to R. Judah and
R. Eliezer.
This Responsum of R. Joseph Tob-Elem, the text of

41OrhotHayyim, II, p. 574; Responsa R. Meir, Prague ed. 928;

Mahzor Vitri, p. 96 f.; MordecaiB. B. 600: 'Kr ,n IK'- 2"PI
l'Dmn,3
'O W'K Mrnz-I 'Kp-I K'pri .'n3n KplI'l
'Klp-r D
K'pl-iD'Dp KO'K K I'
nmnxnnnliy i n nn,o nyno ,lnnm nK onnnymr l' l 1i noD'.
42 Responsa R. Meir, Prague ed. 941; Cf. Responsum at end of this
article: n
inol
1'Ty2'-in mn',n 1n tm, n'ri n'
l'rnm
KTl1m1'-n
n= K',Dim3ubK
o ,iri ('z ,t"' 1mK)
noKi. Our Talmud,however,derives
this law from another verse, see B. K. 79a, B. B. 60b, A. Z. 36a,
Horayot 3b. See also Mahzor Vitry, p. 357: irn;n nix 'lryn Knipm
'0y -|-1nO 91W0.
43 Kol-Bo, loc. cit.: a y aM Wp y'Mwn vy
v 3= I5= 0 yDNK nl-i 11mn11
D90 'ml nlmKD9noD orn D'pilnl onWW1B9" N
nT 0-1oyM DOWD911i n-inT
V I3K 'K oz9SW OnNI ) 3n 13K 1?' l
D'onM -I^n plyvi OK1 .1iK y onI
L
.nyl. v ty DLn___._
N1
166 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

which is appended to this article, is found in the Mordecai

Hagadol, the Goldsmith manuscript, in the Jewish Theo-
logical Seminary library.44 This Responsum undoubtedly
belongs to R. Joseph Tob-Elem the elder, who was active
at the turn of the eleventh century, since it bears the full
signature Doy ma t1=W 91 Dlr,44aand parts of it are quoted
by the famous tosaphist R. Isaac b. Abraham (end of
twelfth century) who refers to the author as "gaon."45
This title was given to the scholars of France, Germany,
and Spain, who lived at the time when talmudic learning
first appeared in the West.45a Following is a digest of the
question put to R. Joseph Tob-Elem:
Some Jews of Rheims, while on their way to the fair of
Troyes, were attacked and taken captive. The charitable
members of the latter community interceded on their
behalf, negotiated with their captors, and agreed to pay a
ransom of thirty pounds. The greater part of the ransom
money was paid by the captives themselves, while, in order

44 P. 298a.
44aSee Rappaport, Introduction to Teshubot Geonim Kadmonim;
Sefer Hayashar, no. 46d; Mahzor Vitry, pp. 352-3; ibid., p. 357; Tos-
saphot to Pesahim, 30a, s. v. -nI; ibid., 115a, s. v. n-ri; Nazir 59a,
s. v. -na; Gittin 85b, s. v. al.
45 Mordecai, B. B. 490: np-n -i onnnr n pn', n" nnrlDl' -'n ibtw
'nyzDw '31
.bn lDw 1m K'1 D'n-I ny- Dy rm-D -n,
Tvn -wsl n 'in D0p-DIMS
mIwX6 li'7' npim , o
jw 7nbt 6y woIDIw1Ir-' ntDv n-oty iov Irm nno

n-'li' lm .'y nin 1n101m3 nsnia o in s

m' BBi, rsuin noD
vn'm1sy
- - '
7'v D ]'bi IDl' 13'3-1 3n3 . .. Tl DI I- -I -'W, I . . . -Inni l-|in
rvzy 3 o-in-in nnor my- n b6 'm 3n3mv' .n-i3 nO-iv 7nzn DIVO,1
nx13-i 1iu 'nKxn. Cf. Tossaphot to B. B. 8b, s. v. n'5Dmi; Teshubot
Maimuniot to Kinyan 28; Or Zarua, Hilkot Zedakah, 4. Part of this
Responsum is found in Responsa of R. Meir, Prague ed. 940 with the
superscription: nitnn l13 'D,r"lni ', nDl .6y 3ID
3 3n3 I3n- nlrwn.
45a See Samuel Poznanski, Babylonische Geonim im nachgaonaischen
zeitalter, Berlin, 1914, pp. 105-111; Joel Mueller, Introduction to
imnlmi n-i^x ,Dn nilitn, and to niyvi nmir n'i 1 miwvn; Tashbetz, 575;
Or Zarua, II, p. 117, middle of first column; ibid., no. 275 end; Mordecai
Pesahim, 594; Tarbitz, VIII (1937), p. 169.
 COMMUNITIES OF THE MIDDLE AGES-AGUS 167

to raise the remainder, the community of Troyes ordained

that their own members and those of the neighboring
communities, Sens, Auxerre, and Chalon-sur-Sa6ne, should
contribute one shilling per pound. They further ordained
that anyone who would refuse to contribute his share
should together with his children be placed under the ban;
that partaking of his bread and wine should be forbidden;
and that he should pay a fine of thirty shillings. They
added that no one should release a community or individual
from this ban.
The community of Sens, however, formally released its
members from the ban on the ground that they had become
impoverished, because of recent harassment and serious
trouble; and, furthermore, they maintained that they were
completely independent of the community of Troyes and
were under no obligation to share in its burdens. The
representative of Troyes was aware that the people of
Sens were in serious difficulty because some one had
destroyed a church (or a cross) in their locality. They,
nevertheless, sent their voluntary contribution to the people
of Troyes. The question was, therefore, whether the
community of Troyes had a right to pronounce the ban,
and whether it was binding upon the people of Sens. Thus
there can be no reasonable doubt that the part of the
Responsum of R. Judah and R. Eliezer referred to above,
and the Responsum of R. Joseph Tub-Elem, deal with the
same incident; and that both were, therefore, written about
the same time. There is no other case, where one commu-
nity tried to dictate to another community, reported in the
entire literature of Germany and France of the eleventh
twelfth, or thirteenth centuries. To assume that the two
Responsa dealing with such a case, and both involving
Troyes, refer to two separate incidents, would indeed tax
our credulity. Moreover, in his book the present author
168 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

discussed at length the legal relationship of the communities

to one another, the jealousy of each community for its
independence,46and the widespread acceptance of political
and constitutional theories by the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries, theories that would make it impossible, during
that period, for one community to attempt to coerce the
members of another.47
In view of the internal and external evidence cited above,
we must conclude that the Responsum of R. Judah and
R. Eliezer, which gives a clear and detailed description of
the principle "the majority rules" as applied to community
government, was written at the turn of the eleventh cen-
tury, at a time when "European society" was not at all
confronted with such problems (especially in Germany and
France), and a century and a half before jurists and
canonists discussed them. Hence, the rabbis could not have
learned this principle from their Christian neighbors, but
must have relied solely on their interpretation of the Talmud
and on their own efforts in applying Jewish law to new
circumstances.
We must now try to identify R. Judah b. Meir ha-Cohen
and his colleague R. Eliezer b. Judah. As stated above,
S. D. Luzzatto and H. Gross believe that the former was
R. Leontin the teacher of Rabbenu Gershom.48 L. Zunz
is not certain of his identity,49 while Abraham Epsteins?
suggests that he was R. Judah ha-Cohen, the author of the
Sefer Hadinim,5' a student of Rabbenu Gershom, and that
his colleague was R. Eleazer b. Isaak, known as the Great.52

46Op. cit., pp. 96-107. 47Ibid., pp. 79-96'

48See notes 27-8 above.
49Literaturgeschichte der Synagogalen Poesie, p. 612.
o5"Glossen zu Gross' Gallia Judaica," Monatsschrift 41 (1897), p. 469.
s5 For the Sefer Hadinim, see Zunz, op. cit., p. 611.
52 Lived in the first half of the eleventh
century. Luzzatto, op. cit.,
accepted the reading at the end of the Responsum in the Orhot Hayyim,
 COMMUNITIES OF THE MIDDLE AGES-AGUS 169

The fact that a certain incident occasioned the putting of

queries before these scholars and before R. Joseph Tob-
Elem, who is considered a younger contemporary of Rab-
benu Gershom, would incline many scholars to agree with
the opinion of A. Epstein.
The present writer, however, is still convinced that
R. Judah b. Meir of our Responsum is to be identified with
R. Leontin, the teacher of Rabbenu Gershom, for the
following reasons: a) It is very doubtful whether the
father of the author of the Sefer Hadinim was named
R. Meir; none of the authentic sources tells us his name.53
R. Leontin, on the other hand is clearly known as R. Judah
b. Meir.54 b) We find R. Leontin closely associated with
a R. Eliezer.55 c) We have a number of Responsa from the

ms. pnxi":l' "rytI as the correct reading, and identified him with
R. Eleazar the Great. In this identification A. Epstein agrees with
Luzzatto.
53Whenever R. Judah the author of the Sefer Hadinim is quoted,
the name of his father is not mentioned. See Maase ha-Geonim, p. 50;
Sefer ha-Pardes, nos. 24, 290; Rabiah II, p. 533; ibid., no. 994; ibid.,
no. 1011; Or Zarua I, nos. 440, 694; ibid., II, 275; Responsa R. Meir,
Prague edition, nos. 451, 861, 887, 891; ed. Lemberg no. 63; ed. Berlin,
p. 26; Mordecai, B. M. 222; Piske Rikanti 287. Although Zunz, ibid.,
is of the opinion that the name of the father of the author of the Sefer
Hadinim, was Meir, the source material does not support such an
opinion.
54 See Tashbetz, 575: ,H lrnl'i pnw ia'-i :ni... I'OD D 1,:n-
n'ND n: -m1n 1u,:n lwDl n1u InDamn an ,
Iran : ~:l- m1'' u,:Iranlmni
'
lpmr lpn; Shaare Dura, no. 35: nn ow-i o 13an 1Jan y o"'n pD 1im
-i'"'
7lN'1 ;l' m; cf. mnin n-D, Sidilkow, 1834, p. 108b: "1= nm'n i3n3l
33 i ' : l3prln n'vD.
mV-uInn
55See Shibbolei Haleket, II, mimeograph edition by Hassida, p. 58:
.Rn7n en'-nv -ime nn - n"
inT r In
bntImI
TD iy I1M-D yDo "Xttr no^ 132-1
nDn nnml,.Rn'N 1iT nmD7 piln 1i'7 1A itry;, '-1. That this R. Judah is
the teacher of Rabbenu Gershom we learn from Shaare Dura, loc. cit.,
where the law is clearly reported in the name of R. Leontin; cf. also
Shibbolei Haleket II, p. 59: nmnrnioai rn yO y" 'in onD '-n --nn -mINl3
tprnln. The fact that R. Eliezer is called by Rashi's teacher l'a lp
of R. Judah, shows that the two were closely associated.
170 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Sefer-Hadinim56 and we never find in them the extra-

ordinary practice of deriving law from biblical verses, a
practice so liberally resorted to in the Responsum of the
Kol Bo. As stated above, this practice is occasionally
found in the Responsa of Rabbenu Gershom and R. Joseph
Tob-Elem.57 It seems reasonable to assume, therefore,
that the teacher of Rabbenu Gershom engaged in this
archaic practice rather than his pupil.
The fact that the Responsum of the Kol Bo was written
at a time when R. Joseph Tob-Elem was already an out-
standing scholar, does not exclude R. Leontin from being
its author. R. Joseph Tob-Elem was probably active
toward the end of the tenth and the beginning of the
eleventh centuries. There is little evidence that would
force one to assign a later date for the activities of R.
Joseph.5s The convenient arrangement of the scholars of
the early centuries into teachers, students, and students of
students, is very misleading; for a scholar was often active
for more than half a century. He could therefore be
contemporaneous with the teacher of another scholar, with
the scholar himself, and with his students. Thus R. Meir
of Rothenburg wrote important Responsa for over forty-
four years,59although it was never mentioned that he was
very old when he died; while R. Leontin is known as
hazaken.6? Moreover, one of the younger students of
Rabbenu Gershom, while acting as judge in a particular

56 See Responsa R. Meir, ed. Prague, nos. 451, 874-913; cf. Zunz,
op. cit., p. 611.
57 See notes 41-2 above.
58 See Rapoport, Introduction to Teshubot Geonim Kadmornm, p. 5a;
Gallia Judaica, pp. 308 f.; Zunz, Zur Geschichte und Literatur, p. 192.
s9 See Agus, op. cit., pp. 156-7, where it is proven that R. Meir
wrote an important Responsum to the communities of Bohemia and
Moravia in 1249. R. Meir died in 1293, a span of activity of at least
44 years.
60See sources quoted in notes 54-5 above.
 COMMUNITIES OF THE MIDDLE AGES-AGUS 171

case, sent a query to R. Leontin.6I It was, therefore, possible

for R. Leontin and R. Joseph Tob-Elem to write Responsa
about the same case.
In any event, whether R. Leontin or the student of
Rabbenu Gershom was its author, the Responsum of
R. Judah and R. Eliezer was written in the first half of the
eleventh century at the latest, and is now, therefore, of
paramount importance in the study of democracy in the
communities of the early Middle Ages.

B.

The Responsum of R. Joseph Tob-Elem printed below

is of great value to the medieval historian. It constitutes
an early source for the study of the community as a well
organized political body, independent of outside authority,
and bearing its burden on a communal basis. It shows
the natural cooperation between Jews of different com-
munities, the help and protection afforded by one commu-
nity to the members of another - the kind of cooperation
and protection that the town communes, centuries later,
endeavored to establish artificially through the various
leagues. Thus a relationship that arose among the Jews
spontaneously, because of the kindly feeling of brotherliness
and mutual responsibility, was later effected in the Euro-
pean towns by artificial means, through negotiation and
economic pressure, through signed treaties and sworn
pacts.
The tax the community of Troyes imposed upon itself
and upon the neighboring communities, presents a serious
problem. The term m3inin contemporary sources, means the

6i
i1" tv
See Tashbetz,no. 575: iani '1'- n7ryD Q'3t -I, nDov
y Ir,-I
... rD ID'mW1:inD pnr, ir:-i p-a ir ln lmy in nrml lmnlnn ',ln pnrs
1 1- 7^
wi'l... D.13 Ira- Iin]I ?1' 13'3
a 'lS51? i pnY' i'rz3n- i .
l'nrln'K
172 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

solidos, the shilling, twenty of which make up a pound.'

The tax imposed, then, was a five percent capital tax
a very high rate indeed !2 Moreover, it is difficult to under-
stand why such a high rate was necessary. According to
the account given, about fourteen pounds had to be raised;
is it possible that the Jews of Troyes, Sens, Auxerre, and
Chalon-sur-Sa6ne together had only two-hundred-eighty
pounds? The fine for non-cooperation was thirty solidos;
if the Jews at this time were so poor, why was such a
heavy fine imposed? Moreover, a Responsum of Rabbenu
Gershom speaks of an estate of three-hundred-fifty pounds
without any indication that the deceased was outstandingly
rich.4
One explanation of the high tax-rate is probably the
fact that the number of Jews in the above-mentioned
communities was small. Thus in its letter to R. Judah and
R. Eliezer the community of Troyes writes: 'nD inn i .
Another explanation, however, is possible: The community
of Troyes was attempting to raise a much larger sum in
order to establish a fund to guarantee partial compensation
to merchants coming to the fair of Troyes, should they be
despoiled on the way - a measure that would attract many

B.

I The denarius or penny, (240 of which made up the pound) was

designated in the Jewish sources of this period as t'Wv; see Joel Mueller,
T'nml1nmnx ,D3n niln, nos. 90, 98; the Responsa of the D'r-rn -iD,
in Resp. R. Meir, Prague ed. nos. 893, 898, 904, 911. The solidos, or
shilling, on the other hand, was designated as n"iT;see Mueller, op. cit.,
nos. 90, 91, 98; especially nos. 94 and 99; and ,~r-rn'ID, loc. cit., no. 893.
2 Thus normally, in the thirteenth century, the Jews paid a capital
tax of about two percent, which covered all community expenses,
including the taxes paid to the overlord; see Resp. R. Meir, ed. Berlin,
127: plprn 1D '"'v9o 'a pin 1rTnzi a Q'nn3m p. The pipr, Mark,
I'.
contained 160 peshitin.
3 For a brief review of fines in the guilds of the later middle ages,

see George Clune, The Medieval Gild System, Dublin, 1943, pp. 65-72.
4 Joel Mueller,
op. cit., 94.
 COMMUNITIES OF THE MIDDLE AGES-AGUS 173

merchants to the fair. The members of this community

were not motivated by charity alone. In their letter to
R. Judah and R. Eliezer they do not maintain that the
enactment of the community was for charitable purposes.
Apparently they were trying to attract merchants to the fair
of Troyes by promising to underwrite part of the losses they
might sustain while on their way to the fair.5 Since the Jews
of the neighboring communities also benefited from a busy
and populous fair at Troyes, an attempt was made to tax
them for this purpose.

6CY 9DO:MIL n.nI'I

i^ a-~y Yri 7W nDt3pa -
D'N^- 6"?D':.33 137nN hy
Dt]XtWnl:D1t
Ipbn Da-p nDD xDenn ,aln .i1n1m'1 31N
Inmnlm.aM1 l3n3 08.wanm
WlInMl Dw'PWm ca1wm '-D anpy
ION"IIRmtzl 9yrtw
3Zn: arrnN ytUyiV"riD inp wnry inen
"^
]HDDm1I'2,"^^"r anD nnr ltIm "ii.0"%liipz nlWin '=I
oa"ir '9 yqy IpnplI I3.1 11 nBI Inp:
H!p D nIYit iDl o1n rmliD
ECDn 3n1 I4.1nn1n down trim w ^ 9Wty 1im IO1l .Dxp1

5 For a study of medieval fairs, where such guaranties were common,

see S. Rietschel, Markt und Stadt, Leipzig, 1897; E. Basserman, Die
Champagnermessen, Tiibingen, 1903; H. Pirenne, "Marche et Marchands
au Moyen age" Revue Historique, LXVII (1905); and for the fair of
Troyes, R. Bourquelot, Etudes sur les Foires de Champagne, Paris, 1865,
2 vols.
6 Rheims, see Gallia Judaica, p. 633; cf. ibid., p. 72.
7 Troyes, see ibid., pp. 223 f.
8 For a discussion of the value and buying power of the pound at this
time, see Horeb 5 (1939), pp. 155-67.
9 See REJ, VI (1882), pp. 167 f.; VII (1883), pp. 40 f.
1OAuxerre, see Gallia Judaica, pp. 60 f.
" Probably same as Vnllp of the takkanah of R. Tam, see the sources
quoted by L. Finkelstein, Jewish Self-Government in the Middle Ages,
pp. 150 f.; cf. also Gallia Judaica, p. 592.
12 See note 1, above.
I3 A stipulation characteristic of the takkanot of Troyes; see Finkel-
stein, op. cit., p. 154, no. 7.
I4 This additional ban was necessary in this case since the original
174 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

,,ni: hnm
.l3nim' rT: n
n1; x rnl
,nmoy yr,,w Irnp ntrn
an.1 InW 1nDN I5.-ND 1ininn o1i3DW nli nr nrix nnno
W"1nD mlrlr .anlri 5z DD
Dni a1 E3ry ,m DEnnWDn't)n imp1
.?lDlpn=tnnyin nn3 :y Dp py-mrwn'nm n-ir: D1,,ID orD
1- I: iy omnrwmli .am1n3l73Dan1
In6 i onfy lsnnwvnrtiz Wyl
.N^ 1i wlnrh v ia ;lp a1 ,13 IlntW ""1ID ^np

rn, n3 1' nt 'y:mw 'nnal 1' n'nna ry

I7.1nyp n-n13D:
,aDIN :DvWt 11'D
I'^ 1 .;i';pn W^ mm1
,nn i ^ytn Dari n1?nz

ylxOI -fly nlutl ,Dayt)l

anlE Y1NXamnli?
or"1TiDmf w nom;
?;lim:p' "1'1l ,nlOm' 18,oPD'l) J""ip'1-:
-ly DDm133 Daip3l ,"D1
t7DY1 ;ln'
0^13^'Y; ; ip n Z a;a
-1: DRS :1usY
D'3tll ]'H 1
t3D1n 2I-'"Dn 1 3I~
l' mD oN1 2?.n3 Hw m113)
ID m1 "1 '3W '9,,m
;nni: l:mPy th ,l':n nnmrl -irn rnnin 1 i ; nmnwinw,
l -IDl mNmpy"I tny
,IDy 1nmn ni- 221npn ;rim t3vnz
;-m)nnr
.0,I33 OINIn cann p-im inimmoinm .1-rLn vmh awvnp "[vn
n11 24'3VtnmU1yr\In 'nl)tyPr jj 23^^ 11 N aIUD^
,3 7,riN Inly tonnD vaml nm' ,l1? IDKI 01lv mnp-mIm mvD

m
^1313 lanT3n bA ^
.a~1~i3nr3 vltUvy C^y I3N= nv
26.1.-3la

ban was meant to be binding upon neighboring communities who had

the right to lift bans. Cf. Resp. R. Meir, ed. Lemberg, 425.
's An appeal to the ruling (B. K. 79a): "HS1', n1 by naun paln I'm

,6 A form of introduction often used by Rabbenu Gershom. See

Joe Mueller, -rmnl nrixy 'nn nlurmn, nos. 85, 94, 99, and 100.
'7 Baraita, M. K. 16a.
I8 Cf. Sheb. 41a.

'9 Cf. B. K. 79a; B. B. 60b; A. Z. 36a; Horayot 3b.

20 Job 37.23. This is a novel interpretation of this verse, as well as
an original derivation for the famous principle. For the talmudic
interpretation of this verse, see A. Z. 4a.
21 Ben
Patora, B. M. 62a.
22
Loc. cit. R. Joseph decides the law in conformity with the view
of R. Akiba, since R. Yohanan agreed with this view.
23 B. B. 9a. Our text reads R. Eleazar.

24 Isa. 32.17; cf. Or Zarua, Hilkot Zedakah, I.

25 B. B. 9a. Our text reads: 'rn ',ni lrly l,,D HmnluDa.

26 The reference is to the
negotiations over the dowry to be given to
 COMMUNITIES OF THE MIDDLE AGES-AGUS 175

mi DoWD n3 on
ti1 nDriDn r
mi ,nmnK y "33my 11DD I'Dly
271a 3n:n DwS1Y
rm nn ItW
,1YD1 14 1i'1 .1"30 11DD

vln 3n1 ]1 .;n7ty ; D

-;It-innD tv Y3 ]N 1 -I3 ;nirt inm
30.1ml 13U'1- Wt4 V't n rw '3tw
a NV29N 3n
1331 n nrin3m mH
n^nN
1N n1iDU H'91ZD m<y
DTa3pnDw nnN Ty z3 1i'9RW
i wi
m:3 1 9D1i3 N;iW1m ny oin3 1 r
mpm^ ri
1ny -ilDyI1 lnmynn
-
.,z1 im nlyWD1-;lW y-. la= PtNl3n-j I-IvY laYb 1;nnyY nlm
.':1in 1?m1 ,-3ply Tz1 13Y;1"9Di1,pm^I3mmriDnin Nm"
Wi 31wsnrwmay31 o
11rnnn imznliTmy linn-r yin 1jnl1ai
1'nY witr tU n
IDD ,1n nI3 IVy= InTI tw'N IVD1 32=jnDn

1D I"3ty *nytw IDIN :3pY' 1 Jtyir '"i 34rn

p1 33.t: nt
nlwyi -I m9m-min ^n3 by 'mI3y Hi1 ,;nrin;r1n [mtv] 1'Wl3yl
nn 'U3 iD1
"z3na lot -
.niin1? a"D
ylp989
IYIPM6 -I"= ipsn
i: lot 3stpsn
-.pB-
btall
35,.3pB-
Dl ,;-nl all

['3]-i brwn .1?

]-DII pni l iyt
yrvm btIV31iBb ,DaIbl330 lion
1N-
[,=]I 1013 36^3S1D2 I .^Dz lyl-jpx nr mi3 minb6 minbtivan

the bride of the son of R. Papa, Ket. 52b-53a. R. Tam (Or Zarua,
loc. cit., no. 4) resorted to similar reasoning; he probably used this
Responsum of R. Joseph Tob-Elem.
27 Deut. 15.10.

28 Hul.
110b; cf. Mordecai B. B. 290. Cf. Resp. R. Meir, ed. Prague,
940, which leaves out this important passage. Our text reads: i:
ny nmo.
29 The
Responsum of R. Isaac b. Abraham, Mordecai B. B. 490: own
~ en'PDHOKE mrim 1i'Dm npmn1 by l'VyZ I'm chy wot qDC1'I
nrt;l IDT
rn
in=1n I'ml'.innn
,'Y nua ~V Ar 1'mn'-f nnv lnkD
mn=nD i: lnl lnd1'
L'=zy n Rnn , - n 1 iAnnAm 'im,ln. The last phrase con-
tains the correct reading; cf. Resp. R. Meir, loc. cit.
30 Ex. 25.2.

31 Meg. 27a.
32 Lev. 26.27.
33Sifra, ad loc., ed. Weiss, p. 112; cf. Sheb. 39a; Sanh. 27b; Sotah 37b.
The application of this midrashic interpretation to actual legal practice
is also referred to in the Responsum of R. Judah and R. Eliezer, Kol Bo
142, and constitutes specialized community law current during the
early middle ages, which later fell into disuse owing to the expansion,
and preponderance, of talmudic learning in Germany and France.
34 Yeb. 90b.
35 Yeb. 89b; Git. 36b; Shek. 3a.
36 Yeb. 79b.
176 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

r
nzt? pin im apin [:3]i 1i -In .D01n
iD rTn3 2 nna il Ip
'KlNI axmpwin^
* -ln y Dlarnl 37MnZn I]1DD13:-1o'lna .Trrn
nllTDInn i"WImln KNf a~nD pin nny .1DYb 'n n TDl? a'o
.inn lmiiln Ki1 ,Ki"InKi Wnl:D n'nl p .ntwi n mn
,W I.?tin1 tW ,lrn w tW13-iDjhnp my 1InKlt -nnwItmD
Kni8D nDlo-rD,rbt:i m^KW"1ID^iWni~nZy"3
38pDOD- nr-r

,N'1 i't '1n" 13:' 1iW '1n" 1iW19 1noD ,KW~nD: i'KWn
. Om n'imtyr
Trin^
.t '-^2 ^"3^ ..t-I 3"n n ^tu n^~ 1 .0I

itnva rmin-tz
.38pDin1? 1i^^b .vmnID3nn~p-r"I-t)rr mit
W' Trii-^ ab
aH3i obnn1t b6V I'nItWty11-tt ^n1p n~btvvl
wn it mnlimpobmn"'n3biT) btsi 'D
:n[n]3pn H';I .In b ropin
1
noIDYy16nn -im 1130 11-ix 1303tm ^D
-I.M-1 3912.
IJ l t10
,nr~nn n3Ti~n<li)n^l ,;n~t nyw3 1303^u i^30D '^^t 1^30 i30
Ivy b6 n3Timnb m"nNt-.61rn rmbri ivy abn .nmimi I in
.^"rt^btl i"3 6y ILO 9|DI,ml1vl .mDl~

37Josh. 9.27.
38 M. K. 17a.
39Beza 5b.