V

:1

68

RABBI LEONE DA MODENAA CONTEXTUAL APPROACH: FREEDOM AND DETERMINISM IN

SEVENTEENTh-CENTURY JEwIsH THOUGHT

RON REISSBERG

INTRODUCTION

Rabbi Leone de Modena of Venice (1571-1648) has been of continuous interest toscholars ofboth Jewish and general history. It was not until 1946, however, that historianswrote about him with anything approaching what todaywould be called historical objectivity. Modena scholarship had been consistentlymarred by presentism and a tendency to seein Modena a friend or foe ofwhatever religious controversies were current for those writingabout him.

In 1946, with Ellis Rivkin’s ground breaking dissertation on the first forty years ofModena’s life, historians began to use contextual methodology in their approach to theRabbi. Scholars such as Bezaleel Safran, Mark Cohen, and Sifiomo Simonsohn examinednot only Modena’s writings, but also the times in which he lived and wrote. The result wasa richer and more accurate understanding of the Rabbi and his times, as many of themysteries and contradictions that intrigued earlier scholars were resolved.

Contemporary scholars have, nonetheless, given insufficient consideration to one ofthe most important aspects ofModena’s life: his role as Rabbi ofVenice and the effect ofthatrole on his writings and actions. Much ofModena’s writing was restricted by his positionas a prominent leader of an important Jewish community. More importantly many ofhisideas were determined by his role as rabbi: he had to address problems and threats to hispeople which a lay reader or independent scholar might tend to view as secondary personalgoals. By considering Modena in his role as community leader, and by paying carefulattention to the unique problemswhich faced Jews in Italy during the seventeenth century,this study will demonstrate a more complete picture of Modena and the era in which helived.

69

V

A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF MOBENA $cHoiiusHIP: THE EARLY PsE

Two ofModena’s works, the anti-Kabbalah polemicAn Nohem andRiti, a description ofJudaic customs written to promote tolerance ofJudaism, had the greatest influenceofboth Jewish and Christian Scholar’s perceptions ofModena immediately after his death.’Anti-Jewish Christians countered the favorable impression of Jewish customs in Riti byportraying Modena as a dissembler and a hater ofChristianity. Those favorably disposedto Jews read, translated, and used it in the spirit in which it was written. For example,Richard Simon, a Catholic priest who defended Jews, translated Riti into French in 1674.In his introduction, Simon expresses for the Jews and for Modena in particular. At theopposite extreme is a voluminous anti-Jewish polemic published in 1683 by the Jewishapostate Giulio Morosini, previously Samuel Nahmias, a former student ofModena. In Viadelta Fede, Morosini portrayed Jews as hostile to Christians in order to undermineModena’s presentation inRiti ofJewish customs that were not based on any anti-Christianbias.

A parallel tendency among Jewish scholars of using Modena’s works for partisanbattles began in the 1730s in connection with the controversy surrounding Rabbi MosheChaim Luzzatto ofPadua. Luzzatto encountered serious opposition from Jewish leaders allover Europe because of his kabbalis tic teachings. When Modena’s work, An Nohem wasquotedby the anti-Luzzatto forces as a source for arguments against the study ofKabbalah,the pro-Luzzatto forces countered thatModena’s ideas were poisonous and had even spreadto the non-Jews.2

MODENA ANT) WISSENSCHAFr

From the Luzzatto affair until the start of the scientific study of Judaism, theWissensehaft, interest in Modena lay relatively dormant. His Riti was reprinted with theusual pro and con reactions; he was mentioned in Hebrew bibliographies; some ofhis workswere summarized in an encyclopedia published in 1753; and in 1754 it was claimed by thekabbalist, Azulai, that Modena had recanted his stance on transmigration of souls in anautobiographical work called Life ofJudah. During this period European Jewry was toooccupied with Napoleon’s effort to define the relationship between Jews and the state toengage in much else.3

70

Interest inModenawas revived in the nineteenth centurywith the Wissensehaft desJudentums. This era ushered in the haskatah, the Jewish Enlightenment, and thebeginning of Reform Judaism. Once again, Modena’s stand on Kabbalah was used in apartisanway. Those who had an interest in fightingKabbalah suppressed suggestions thatModena may have recanted his stance late in life. His writing was an excellent source forunderstanding Jewish life in the late Renaissance and early Reformation periods wentunevaluated.4 For example, IsaacSamuel Regglo ofGorizia (1784-1855), one ofthe foundersof modern Jewish scholarship, who possessed a copy of The Life of Judah, knowinglysuppressed personal facts ofModena’s life which would have cast the Rabbi in a bad light.Reggio wished to employ an unblemished Modena to fight the Kabbalah movement;Enlightenment scholars had an interest in promotingModena as a proto-Reformed JewandModena’s opposition to the Kabbalah was falsely interpreted as anti-Talmudic. Thistendency first appeared in 1846 when Samuel David Luzzatto labeled Modena “a hater ofthe sages ofthe Mishna and the Talmudmore than the Karaites. He was more Reform thatGeiger.”6

AbrahamGeiger, the father ofReform Judaism, continuedwhathadbecome by thena tradition in Modena scholarship: he distorted Modena’s writings to legitimize his ownpositions with the works of a scholar from the seventeenth century. Geiger claimed thatModena’s stance against the Kabbalah was an attack on the entire Jewish oral tradition.Only because he was intimidated by the rabbis ofhis time, claimed Geiger, didModena failto attack the Talmud.6

Geiger’s use of history as a justification for the Reform agenda was challenged byHeinrjch Graetz. Graetz disdained the Reformmovement and its misuse ofJewish history.Nevertheless, he, as much as Geiger, used Modena’s writings for partisan purposes andfurther destroyed any possible objective view ofModena. Graetz, in order to deprive Geigerofthe precedent ofa seventeenth century precursor to Reform Judaism, portrayedModenaas an unstable person with personal problems and numerous character flaws. Graetzasserted that there was no consistency inModena’s views, and that therefore it would havebeen useless to use Modena’s works as proof of anything, much less to appropriate him asthe “first Reform Rabbi.”7

Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to present a complete description ofthepolitics of Modena scholarship up to the present time, the examples presented heredemonstrate a marked tendency of Jewish historians to be so involved in debates,controversies, and trends of their times that the chance of an unbiased objective history ofModena was impossible. Scholars ignored manuscripts unless they supported theirparticular doctrine, and changing interpretations of Modena’s life and writings weresubverted by a faulty scholarship based on an a priori approach to the subject.

71

MODENA IN RECENT SCHOLARSHIP

A turning point in Modena scholarship came with Ellis Rivkin’s 1946 Ph.D.dissertation on the first forty years ofModena’s life. Rivkin’s work places Modena in thecontext ofseventeenth-centuryVenice and the intellectual currents of that particular time.He successfully defended Modena against the nineteenth century charge of heresy,hypocrisy, and weakness of character, and presented the rabbi as a respected preacher,scholar, and poet. Relying on Modena’s autobiography, Rivkin portrayed him as having“suffered from feelings offrustration and failure.” Rivkin goes on to conclude “Modena hadtrouble applying himself conscientiously to tasks which required sustained effort.” ForRivkin, Modena’s works were second rate; he was a dabbler and only wrote to supporthimself.8 The weakness ofRivldn’s research is that he limited it to published sources anddid not base it directly on available manuscripts. He also concluded anachronistically thatModena was a “democratic liberal who was tolerant ofmany conflicting points of view nomatter how much he opposed them, as long as he could learn something from them.”9

While Rivkin was working on his dissertation in the United States, ShiomoSimonsohn was writing on Modena at the University of London. Simonsohn, like Rivkin,used contextual methods to examine the texts and attributed the perceived contradictionsin Modena as having resulted from the failure ofprevious scholars to place the Rabbi in theproper context. The major source of evidence ofModena’s supposed heresy is Kot $akhat,which contains a heretical attack on the validity of the Oral Law. The authorship ofKotSakhat has always been a matter of debate. Tradition attributes it to Ibn Raz who was aknown heretic sand who lived in Spain in the fifteenth century. Modena published Kot$akhat and attached his own attack on its heretical ideas in $hagathAreyh. Scholars suchas Geigerwho had and interest in proving thatModena questioned Oral Law, tried to provethat Modena himself wrote Kot $akhal. Those who viewed Modena as a defender ofRabbinic Judaism accepted that Modena published the heretical work not as its author butin order to refute it. Simonsohn did not deal with the authorship ofKot $akhat but insteadset out to present Modena as a “humanistically inclined liberal,” whose supposed self-contradictions were imagined by nineteenth-century scholars. Such scholars, Simonsohnfelt, viewed Modena from their own perspective saw contradictions, heresy and lack ofcharacter where these things did not exist.’°

After publishing their ground breaking works on Modena, Simonsohn and Rivkinturned to other projects. Other scholars continued the study ofModena in the 1970s. Newarchival information about and new studies ofVenetian Jewish history appeared. Scholarssuch as Benjamin Ravid, ReuvenBonfil, DavidRuderman, Paul Grendler, andBrianPullanin the 1970s and Daniele Carpi, Mark Cohen, and Yacob Boksenboim in the 1980s, carriedon Simonsohn’s and Rivldn’s research.”

72

CURRENT S’mDIEs OF MODENA

The most recent studies ofModena have attempted a more objective approach. Thenineteenth century doctrinal controversies no longer elicit attention from historians. Thereare no longer political connotations to debate over the Kabbalah, and while the fightsbetween the Reform and Orthodox branches of Judaism still rage, they are fought overissues such as the question of“who is a Jew.” Modena is no longer ofinterest as an exampleor proofof any particular contemporary school of thought or practice. Historical interest isnow centered on a more modest curiosity ofwhat can teach us about seventeenth-centuryItaly.

For example, Modena’s RabbinicResponsa are a source ofinformation on Jewish lifein seventeenth-century Venice. His responses to problems posed to him as a Rabbi are ofvalue for historians interested in the cultural milieu, and they also reveal much aboutModena himself. In one case,Modenawas asked to respond to charges that be had preachedin a Sabbath sermon that it is permitted for a Jew to go about bare-headed. He respondedthat, although he never advocated that Jews make a practice of removing their headcoverings, it was important to distinguish between custom and law. Modena proved thatcovering the head amongst Jews was a custom and therefore its observance should berelative to time and place. He then went on to assert that the connotation ofuncovering thehead as different for the various Jewish communities. For Levantine Jews, an uncoveredhead is an act of disrespect, or chutzpah; for Ashkenazic Jewry, the opposite is true. InChristian Europe it is respectftil to remove one’s hat in certain circumstances.12

Modena also made the point in his response to the question of head-covering, thatit was important for the Italian Rabbinate ofAshkenazic origin to take a stand and explaintheir position on this issue and others like it. It was unacceptable, wrote Modena, for hiscommunity to stand idle while it came to be accepted that the Levantine Jews were moreobservant, and therefore more God-fearing, than those Jews of the Italian Rite.3

There are several important points to be derived from this particular Responsum.It provides interesting evidence ofconflict within the Ghetto due to the influx ofJews fromall over the world. Modena’s writing reveals his sensitivity to a holier-than-thou attitudeamongst certain sects within the community. Furthermore, the responsum shows theelement of threat to Italian Rabbis posed by charges that they were lax in their religiousobservance.

Deciding a point ofJewishLawby reference to “time andplace” is also an innovation.To Modena, Scriptural commandments and Rabbinic ordinances were to be distinguishedform customs. Jewish customs varied according to the origin of the community. Jews

73

I

appropriated customs from their host cultures, and historical circumstances were to beconsidered in deciding matters of custom. This historical perspective was unusual inModena’s time and canbe seen as an early example ofhistorical thinkingin Jewish history.’4

MODENA, KABBALAM, AND THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE

Another aspect ofModena’s Responsa on the head-covering issue is its statementprohibiting use ofthe Kabbalah in decidingJewish Law. He quoted and then dismissed out-of-hand a passage in The Zohar that mentions covering the head.’5 It is Modena’s waragainst Kabbalah that continues to determine much of the interest in Modena amongcontemporary historians.

Modena’s generation was steeped in the study ofthe Kabbalah, andModena himselfstudied Kabbalah from an early age.’6 To understand his later opposition to mysticalstudies it is first necessary to distinguish the strains ofKabbalah and to examine their rolein the climate of seventeenth-century Italy. Several possibilities have been advanced toexplain this aspect of Modena’s thought. It has been suggested that he may have hadpersonal reasons for turning against the particular form ofKabbalah which came to Venicewith the arrival of Israel Shrug. Shrug, who came to Italy from Safed Palestine, claimedto be a student oflssac Luria (1534-1572) who founded a school ofkabbalistic studies basedon The Zohar. Before Shrug’s arrival, Italian Jews generally studied the interpretation ofKabbalah based on Moses Cordovero.’7 Modena may have felt personally threatened byShrug’s growing popularity, especially among Modena’s own followers. Much ofwhat weknow about Shrug is from Modena’s writings, in which he accused Shrug of being acharlatan.’8 It has also been suggested that Modena may have turned against mysticismbecause ofthe death ofhis son, who became ill due to his father’s experiments with alchemy.These are unlikely explanations. Although there was some connection between alchemyandKabbalah, it was essentially a tangential one. It is difficult to believe thatModena, wholived in an era in which Kabbalali flourished, and who himself studied it, would have sofalsely conflated the two separate disciplines. Similarly, it is unlikely that Modena wouldturn against a major intellectual trend of his day because of a personal rivalry with one ofits adherents. In fact, Modena’s war against Kabbalah reveals the core of the man and histimes.

74

Historians have often characterized the Renaissance as an era in which medievalAristotelian scholasticism was rejected and Platonism was revived. It is more accurate,however, to say that Renaissance philosophers were concerned with synthesizing Platonicdoctrine, Christian theology, and Aristotelian philosophy.19 The label of”Platonist” appliesto a wide variety ofRenaissance thinkers, each ofwhom contributed something different tothe history of philosophy. What they held in common was a search for a philosophictradition, a “phitosopha perrenis.”2° This common tradition is demonstrated by thetendency ofRenaissance Neoplatonists to attribute apocryphal writings oflate antiquity topagan figures such as Zoroaster, Hermes Trismegistus, Pythagoaras, and Orpheus.Platonic philosophy, based on human reason, was seen as an essentially revelatoryknowledge that predated Plato.2’ Platonic philosophy was a continuation of pagantheosophy, and Christian and Jewish theology were seen as being in fundamental agreement with both.

One of the mare fascinating aspects of the Italian Renaissance was the unprecedented level ofintellectual intercourse between Jews and Christians. Partially as a resultof this attempt to find common roots of knowledge between Pagan theology, Greekphilosophy, and Christian and Jewish doctrine, dialogue developed between Jewish andChristian intellectuals. Until the end ofthe fourteenth century, Jews had translatedmanyimportant non-Jewish philosophical works into Hebrew. Beginning with the fifteenthcentury the reverse was true; there was a growing desire among Christians for access toJewishworks. The desire for synthesis led Christian scholars to develop a curiosity aboutKabbalah. Through Jewish translators and instructors, thinkers such as Pico dellaMirandola (1463- 1494), Egidio da Viterbo (1465-1532), and Reuchlin (1455-1522) gainedaccess to Jewish mysticism.

Pica’s name is closely connected with Kabbalah among Christians, and he was thefirst to attempt to create a Christian Kabbalah. He adapted the kabbalistic method ofinterpreting the Scriptures by finding hidden meaning in the literal word to find hints andreferences for support of Christianity. Fundamental Christian doctrines such as the“Messiah who has come” were substituted for the Jewish doctrine ofthe “Messiah who willcome.” One kabbalistic technique, gematria, is to interpret meaning in Scriptures byanalyzing their numerical equivalents, and Christian kabbalists used this method to findsources for belief in the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, and Jesus as Messiah.

Mainstream Kabbalah, or theosophical Kabbalah, is concerned with the divinestructure of the universe. It postulates the existence ofdivine powers, called sefirot , whichemanate from God to this world. Man, by performing the divine commandments, or mitzvot,exerts influence on the heavenly realms. By contrast, ecstatic Kabbalah, sometimesreferred to as a lower form ofKabbalah, is more concerned with mystical experiences notnecessarily inducedby performance ofthe mitzvotY It is more anthropomorphic andmakesuse of divine names of God in order to reach mystical experience.

75

The first clash between kabbalists occurred when Abraham Abulafia (1240- 1291),who taught mystical-ecstatic Kabbalah, was criticized by Abraham ibn Adret (1235-13 10)ofthe theosophical school. AdretobjectedtoAbulafia’s excessive propheticmessianism andAbulafia countered with the charge that the theosophicmysticism ofAdret, with its concernwith the sefirot, was dangerously close to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The resultof the controversy was that the practitioners of ecstatic Kabbalah, unwelcome in Spain,migrated to Italy and to the Levant, where they flourished in a Moslem environment.

It is easy to understand how both forms ofKabbalah, with their system of practicedesigned to influence the divine realms, would appeal to the Renaissance mind with itsmarked interest in magic. This interest was woven into a fabric in which Kabbalah, magic,science, and philosophy formed the basis for a system ofthought by Christian scholars suchas Ficino and P1cc. Simultaneous with Christian interest in magic, and somewhatinfluenced by it, Jewish scholars also began to delve into the mystical arts. Conceptions ofmagic previously rejected by Judaism were rediscovered andworks on magic by Christianswere published in Hebrew.

Another factor in this cross-fertilization between Judaism andChristianity, and theresulting interest in the esoteric disciplines in both communities, was the growth of theprinting industry. Previously rare manuscripts became more accessible. Modena, whoworked in publishing, was intimately aware of the growing availability of controversialworks on magic and Kabbalah. As leader of a community, he was also aware of the powerand possible danger posed by this trend.3°

It is by understandingModena in his role as rabbi that his rejection ofthe Kabbalahcan be best understood. Although a common interest in esoteric studies fostered culturaland intellectual exchanges between Jews and Christians, there was also a dangerous sideto this exchange. Kabbalah, as mentioned above, was used by many Christian scholars asproof for various Christian doctrines. It was also used to entice Jews to convert toChristianity. In fact, some Jews did not need much enticing, and used Christian interpretations of Kabbalah as justification for becoming apostates. Some apostates became themost vocal advocates of Christianity and preached to other Jews of their conversion.Apostates were not always uneducated in Judaism and some used their new-found religionas a way to advance in Gentile society. For example, Paul Ricci, a prolific writer andkabbalist, became physician to Maximilian I as well as Professor of Greek and Hebrew atthe University of Pavia.31 Even Modena was offered a professorship on the condition heconvert.

76

MODENA AS RABBI OF VENICE

The most salient fact of Modena’s life was his position as a chief rabbi of theAshkenazim of Venice. This aspect of Modena’s life has not been sufficiently consideredeven by the most recent research. The contradictions and the mysteries surrounding himare no longer problematic when one views Modena primarily in his role as a responsibleleader of a community during troubled times. A good source for such a view is found in hisResponsa which have been compiled into Ziknei Yehuda. Many of these rulings illustrateModena’s great concern for the maintenance of traditional Rabbinic Judaism in the face ofthreats both from within and without the Jewish Community.

TheVenetianJewish Community was unusual in its composition. Jews from all overthe world were establishing sub-communities in the ghetto. In an introductory statementto Zeknei Yehuda, Modena warned of the danger posed to the Venetian Jews by fragmentation ofthe community. In the past, lamentedModena, Jews were able to reach consensusby majority opinion. This became increasingly impossible in Venice: “It happens consistently here in Venice, where the community is divided into many sub-committees, that anyagreement reached by majority reverts consistently to disagreement among variousfactions.”32 This fragmentation was especially worrisome to Modena because it hadrepercussions for the Jews in their relationship with the Gentile government. Referring tothose Jews who chose to use the non-Jewish courts and thus further undermine the unityand self-government ofthe Jewish community, Modena stated: “Howgreat is the sin ofthosewho embarrass their brothers in front of the Gentile governors by entering into judgementon money and criminal matters in non-Jewish courts.”

Although the first ghetto was established in Venice in 1516, it was not until the startof the seventeenth century that this geographical constraint was a way of life for ItalianJews. This period also marks a general repression of Jews as the Catholic Churchattempted to curtail the Reformation. The free flow of learning between Jews andChristians which marked the earlier period ofthe Renaissance closed as the Church beganto suspect that Jewish studies influenced Protestants and Humanists. It is wrong,however, to view this withdrawal from shared learning from one side only. Jews also beganto withdraw into themselves. Modena, who in many ways represents the quintessentialRenaissance Jew, viewed the ghetto favorably. In a letter to a friend in Verona, Modenacalled the Venetian ghetto “a sign of the ingathering of the exiles.”35

Scholars have often equated rationalism with enlightenment and mysticism withobscurantism.36 In this view, Kabbalah would represent a Jewish withdrawal from theGentile world and Modena’s opposition to it would tend to create a perception ofhim as anearly enlightened Jew. This view has left Modena scholarship in a constant state ofconfusion with nineteenth-century reformists claiming him as one oftheir own, and recent

77

A

scholars pointing to evidence to contradict that interpretation. This debate was the resultofan incomplete understanding ofwhat Kabbalahmeant in the context of the Renaissanceand what it came to mean during the Reformation and early Counter Reformation.

In Italy during the early sixteenth century, Kabbalah was part of a Renaissancetrend of syrteretism. As mentioned above, scholars tended to sift through pagan, earlyChristian, Jewish, and Neoplatonic sources for the purpose of creating a sort of metaphilosophy. Kabbalah as studiedbyboth Jews andGentileswas the opposite ofobscuranfism.Its aim was to open both societies to each other. There were those who recognized early thedanger in opening the mystical writings ofJudaism, not only to Gentiles, but to the averageJew was well. In Modena’s lifetime the danger became acute and apparent, and Modenain his role as Rabbi ofVenice was well-placed to see and experience the danger first-hand.

Thej ob ofdefendingRabbinic Judaismbecame increasingly difficult as the Oral Lawcame under attack, not only from the Catholic Church, which at various times issued ordersto burn the Talmud, but also from some Protestant scholars such as Buxdorfwho ridiculedJewish religion because of its belief in the divine origin of the oral interpretation. Addedto these challenges were a divided community, increasing disrespect of rabbinical authority, the conversion of Jewish Kabbalah to a Christian Kabbalah which was then used toconvert Jews to Christianity, and the influx of those, such as Marranos, who wereparticularly vulnerable to Christian argument against Rabbinic Judaism.

Those Marranos who chose to return to Judaism carried with them the baggage ofa confused Christian past. Many ofthem struggled not only with a worldly threat from theInquisition when they returned to Judaism, but within themselves as well as they soughtto understand the implications oftheir own Christian past.38 Venice was a refuge for manyof these people because they could practice Judaism in the ghetto openly. However, theprocess of a large number of people moving from one faith to another had painfulimplications for the communities to which they came. Many ofthemwere wealthy and tookup places ofprominence in their new lands, and some were intellectuals who had an impacton the culture of their times.

Modena was directly involved in a number of controversies involving Marranos.Once again his Rabbinic rulings provide an important source for understanding thechallenges facing the Italian Rabbinate of the seventeeith century. Two such cases standout. The first involved a request for a decision from Modena in the case of a Marrano whowanted tomarry a divorcedwoman even though he hadheard from anotherwoman in Safed,who came from his family’s ancestral town, that his fatherwas a Cohen.39 Modena answeredemphatically that the marriage would be illegal. He quoted the Belt Yoseph : “If a forcedconvert should testify that one ofhis brethren is a Cohen, we can call him first to the Torahandwe do not fear that perhaps his mother is not Jewish, since all forced converts know thelaw.”4°

78

The most famous case involving a Marrano in which Modena played a key role wasthe case of David Farrar of Amsterdam, who was accused by the Rabbinate of heresy.Farrar, a scholar and prominent merchant, had returned to Judaism and, after moving toAmsterdam from Salonika, began to engage in polemics with Christians.4’ Problems beganwhen a controversy arose in Amsterdam concerning a ritual slaughterer whose adherenceto Jewish Law was questioned. Farrar, in defiance of the rabbis, ruled that the meat inquestion was permitted and publicly advised his followers to use it. Further complicationsarose when Farrar preached in the synagogue that practical Kabbalah was no longereffective.42

We know of Modena’s involvement with the Farrar case from a letter sent to therabbis of Salonika who had asked Modena’s advice in the matter. No mention of Farrar’sdefense ofthe ritual slaughterer was made in this letter. Instead, Modena defended Farrarand pointed out that the formerMarrano is a “goodman ofmany good acts who was the firstto establish a synagogue inAmsterdam and who dons the tefihin and tzitzit and who is strictto fulfill the rulings of the sages.”43 Farrar’s attack on Kabbalah was also defended byModena, and this marked the beginning of the latter’s open stance against Kabbalah.’

Modena’s disagreement with the Rabbinate in the case ofFarrar did not indicate agenerally lax attitude toward the power of the rabbis in communal affairs. We know fromother recorded controversies that Modena was a zealous advocate of rabbinic prerogative.His defense ofFarrar represents both a concern for the integration offormerMarranos backintomainstream Judaism and a growing sense ofthe danger that Kabbalah posed to Jewishlife.

CoNcLusIoN

Historians have generally shared the view ofModena as a complicated and ofteninconsistent figure. Life ofJudah, Modena’s autobiography, is the source of much of thisperception.46 Indeed, there is much in this self-revelatory work that is disturbing to onesearching for consistency. For example, Modena revealed himself as an “obsessive”gambler. He listed among his accomplishments the distribution of protective amulets, inspite ofhis preaching against mysticism. Also disturbing to some historians, is Modena’sconstant mention ofmoney. By viewingModenain the context ofhis times, these problemsdisappear. For example, in the case of gambling, it has been pointed out that in Modena’sday, that particular form ofrecreation was acceptable and that it was common for Jews and

79

Christians to socialize in casinos.46 It has beenmaintained thatModena’s involvement with

the amulets predates his move into the anti-Kabbalah camp. Finally, his obsession with

money reflected the difficulty he had in making a living from his writing, teaching, andrabbinic role. One can also question the wisdom of looking for consistency in the case ofModena, who wrote so much over so long a period of time.

The extent to whichModena was an interesting and unusual person reflects the factthat he lived in an unusual time and place. In a sense he was the consummate “Renaissanceman.” His variety of interests, including poetry, and preaching, as well as the standardRenaissance style oflearningbased on grammar and rhetoric, place him squarely in an erawhich began well before his generation.47 And like the previous generation, he exemplified

the characteristic tendency toward Jewish and Christian socialization and intellectual cooperation. However, he also represents the pulling away from each other and the generaltendency in both groups toward introversion. Modena’s own intellectual developmentsymbolizes the Renaissance giving way to the Counter-Reformation. Both communitieswere interested in each other in terms of learning and philosophy, but interest tended tosour when Jews became Christians and new Christians reverted to Judaism. Just asRenaissance Hermeticism failed to create peace between Catholics and Protestants,similarly it failed to reconcile Judaism with Christianity.48

Modena was first and foremost a rabbi. One can almost feel his pain in a letter hewrote to Ben-Tzion Tzarfati in 1605 concerning the matter of an Ashkenazic Jew who wasabout to convert to Christianity. The rabbi appealed to Tzarfati for help in this matter, eventhough “the danger is great and it is proper to do nothing, whether big or small.”49

None ofModena’s published works are ofground breaking significance. He did notestablish a new approach to learning, either by forging a new methodology or by codifyingthe existing body of law. His arguments against the Kabbalah are often superficial. Forexample, mAn Nohem, Modena devoted much effort to the argument that the Zohar couldnothavebeenwrittenbyRabbi ShimonBarYohai since it quoted authoritieswho lived afterhis time.5° This is an unconvincing argument since it had long been held by adherents ofthe Zohar that Bar Yohai taught his precepts orally to his disciples who in turn taught itto their students until it was finally written down by a later generation of disciples.Modena’s learning, like much Renaissance scholarship, was broader than it was deep.5’This says less aboutModena’s intellectual gifts than it does about the fact that his polemicswere aimed at the immediate goal of distancing the Jewish layman from the study ofKabbalah. One almost gets the feeling thatModena only half-heartedly believed in his ownarguments.

This habit ofpolemical argumentation aimedmore at achieving a desiredgoal ratherthan delving deep into the core ofan issue is also apparent inModena’s anti-Christianwork,Mogen Vehereu.52 In it, Modena advances a historical argument for the rise ofChristianityand poses various arguments against the Trinity, Virgin Birth, and incarnation. Yet he is

80.

respectful towards Christianity in general and has some very charitable things to say aboutChristian society and culture.63 Once again, one is leftwith the impression thatModenawasmore concerned with steering Jews away from Christianity than he was with disprovingChristian dogma.

Just as many of his arguments against Kabbalali are superficial, much of his anti-Christian polemic seems aimed towards a limited goal. Modena lived in turbulent times forJews, and his role as rabbi limited him in ways not sufficiently recognized by historians.Changing conditions in general society created changing relations between Jews andChristians. New aspirations and adaptations within Jewish society to meet these challenges created tensions. Modena embodied much of this turbulence and it is that whichshould give him continuing importance in modern studies.

In our times, we are faced with similar confusion as cultures meet and ways aresought to understand the dynamics ofmulti-cultural societies. We have much to learn fromseventeenth-century Venice as experienced by Modena. The various Jewish communitiesofItaly during the Renaissance were engaged in a unique relationship with their Christianhosts. Never before were conditions for a shared cultural environment so ripe. It must beremembered that this era pre-dates the racial anti-Semitism of the nineteenth century,TMand as the religious anti-semitism abated for this brief time in Jewish-Christian relations,so did many of the barriers to cultural exchange.

This situation changed by the time that the Counter-Reformation was at its height.There was no longer the free and easy exchange of ideas and culture of the previousgeneration. Modena’s life and times correspond to an era in which Jews and Christianswithdrew from each other. While Modena in many ways continued to represent theRenaissance-style Italian rabbi, he also became the product of the ghettoization of ItalianJewry.

Historians still interested in Modena should use his writings as a source forunderstanding the dynamics of the changes that occurred in Jewish-Christian relationsfrom the end of the Renaissance to the beginning of the Counter-Reformation. Thesechanges are a reflection of the general trends of those times.

81

Nois

1 Mark Cohen, “Leone de Modena’s Riti: A Seventeenth-Century Plea For Social Toleration ofJews,” Jewish Social Studies, vol. 35, 1972.

2HowardAdelman, Success andFailure in the Seventeenth-Century Ghetto ofVenke: TheLife andThought ofLeon Maclena, 15714648, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation (Brandeis University, 1985),19-2 1.

Ibid., 28.4 Ibid., 43.5 Ibid., 59.

6lbid,91.7 Ibid., 108.8 Ibid., 174.9 Ibid., 173.10 Ibid.11 Ibid., 177.12 Ibid., 181.13 Yehuda Aryeh Modena, Ziknei Yehuda, ed. Penina Naveh (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute), 176.14Ezalel Safran, “Leone daModena’sHistorical Thinking,” inJewish Thought in the Seventeenth-

Century, ed. Isadore Twersky and Bernard Septimus (Harvard University Press, 1987).15 Yehuda AryehModena, Zeknei Yehuda, ed. PeninaNaveh (Jerusalem: Bealik Institute, 1956)

177, 178.16 Mark Cohen andTheodore Rabb, “The Significance ofLeonModena’sAutobiography For Early

Modern Jewish Thought and General European History,” in The Autobiography of a Seventeenth-Century VenetianRabbi, Leon Modena’sLife ofJudah, ed. Mark Cohen (Princeton University Press,1988).

17Bracha Sack, “The Influence ofCordovero on Seventeenth-Century Jewish Thought,” inJewishThought in the Seventeenth-Century, ed. Isadore Twersky and Bernard Septimus (HarvardUniversity Press, 1987).18 Howard Adelman, “Rabbi Leon Modena and the Christian Kabbalists,” in Renaissance

Rereadings: Intertext and Context, ed. Maryanne Cline, Anne J. Horowitz, Wendy A. Furman(Bloomington: University of Illinois Press, 1988).19 Paul Kristeller, “Renaissance Platonism,” in Facets of the Renaissance, ed. William H.

Werkmeister (New York: Harper and Row, 1959).20 Paul Kristeller, Renaissance Philosophy and the Medieval Tradition (The Archabbey Press),

1966.21 Paul Kristeller, “Renaissance Platonism,” in Facets of the Renaissance, ed. William H.

Werkmeister (New York: Harper and Row 1959).

82

7

22 Ibid.23 Moshe Idel, “The Magical and Neoplatonic Interpretatians of the Kabbalah in the Renais

sance,” in Jewish Thought in the Sixteenth-Century, ed. Bernard Dov Cooperman (Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1983).24 Joseph L. Blau, The Christian Interpretation of the Cabata in the Renaissance (New York:

Kennikat Press, 1965).25 Moshe Idel, “Kabbalah: New Perspectives,” Orim: A Jewish Journal at Yale, 3:1 (Autumn

1987), 63.26 Ibid., 64.27 Ibid.28 Moshe Mel, Kabbatah, 191.29 Howard Adelman, “Modena: Autobiography and the Man,” The Autobiography of a Seven

teenth-Century Rabbi, ed. Mark R. Cohen (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988).30 Ibid., 271.31 j• Blau, Christian Interpretation, 65.32 Modena, Zeknei Yehuda, 17233 Ibid.3 Shiomo Simonsohn, “Halacha and Society in the Writings of Leone da Modena,” in Jewish

Thought in the Seventeenth-Century, 436.35 Ibid., 437.36 Ibid.

3½. Pullan, The Jews ofEurope and the Inquisition ofVenice 1550-1670 (New Jersey: Barnes &Noble, 1983).38 Bernard Cooperman, “Eliahu Montalto’s Suitable and Incontrovertible Propositions: A

Seventeenth-Century Anti-Christian Polemic,” in Jewish Thought in the Seventeenth-Centu,y(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987), 470.

39There is a scriptural proscription for a Cohen to marry a divorced women. The issue here waswhether or not marranos retain the genealogical knowledge of their ancestors.40Modena, Zeknei Yehuda.

41Adelman, “Rabbi Leon Modena,” 275.42 Ibid.43 Modena, Zeknei Yehuda, 170.

44Adelman, “Rabbi Leon Modena,” 27545 It is questionable to use Modena’s auto-biography for proof of inconsistency. It is possible that

Modena used his diary for self-expression and therapeutic purposes, not expectingit to be published.For a discussion ofearly modern autobiography see Natalie Zemon Davis’ “Fame and Secrecy: LeonModena’s Life as an Early Modern Autobiography”.46 David Ruderman, “Memoirs of a Jewish Gambler,” in Orim: A Jewish Journal at Yale, 3:1,

(Autumn 1987).

83

47Cecil Roth, “Jewish Society in the Renaissance Environment,” in Jewish Society Through TheAges, ed. H. H. Ben-Sasson and S. Ettinger (New York: Schocken Books, 1971), 246.

48i

49Modena, Zeknei Yehuda, 171.

50Yoheda Aryeh Modena, Ari-Nohem, ed. Nehemia Shmuel Leibovitz (Jerusalem: Makor Press,1977).51 Delman, 1988.52 Yehuda Aryeh Modena, Mogen Veherev Hebor Negid Hanatzrus, ed. Shiomo Simonsohn

(Jerusalem: Meketzie Nirdomim Press).53 Adelman, “Rabbi Leon Modena.”54 For a discussion of the transition from the form of anti-Semitism of the early modern period

in Europe to that of the racially based anti-Semitism of the late modern period, see HannaArendt’sAntisemiti8m (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1951).

$4

1

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adelman, Howard, “Modena: Autobiography and the Man.” In TheAutobiography ofaSeventeenth-Century Venetian Rabbi. Edited by Mark Cohen. Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1988.

_______

“Rabbi Leon Modena and the Christian Kabbalists.” In RenaissanceRereadings: Intertext and Context. Edited by Maryanne Cline, et al. Normal, Ill.:University of Illinois Press, 1988.

_______

Success and Failure in the Seventeenth Century Ghetto of Venice: The Lifeand Thought ofLeon Modena, 1571 - 1648. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,Brandeis University, 1985.

Arendt, Hannah. Antisemitism. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World, 1951.

Blau, J. The Christian Interpretation of the Cabala in the Renaissance. New York:Kennikat Press, Inc., 1965.

Cohen, Mark. “Leone da Modena’s Riti: A Seventeenth-Century Plea for Social Toleration of Jews.” Jewish Social Studies 35 (1972).

_______

and Theodore Rabb. “The Significance of Leon Modena’s Autobiography forEarly Modern Jewish Thought and General European History.” In The Autobiography ofa Seventeenth-Century Venetian Rabbi, Leon Modena’s Life ofJudah.Edited by Mark Cohen. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988.

Cooperman, Bernard. “Eliahu Montalto’s Suitable and Incontrovertible Propositions: ASeventeenth-Century Anti-Christian Polemic.” In Jewish Thought in the Seventeenth Century. Edited by Isadore Twersky and Bernard Septimus. Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1987.

Idel, Moshe. “Kabbalah: New Perspectives.” Orim:A Jewish Journal at Yale 3, no. 1(Autumn 1987): 63.

_______

“The Magical and Neoplatonic Interpretations of the Kabbalah in the Renaissance.” In Jewish Thought in the Sixteenth-Century. Edited by Bernard DovCooperman. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983.

Kristeller, P. Renaissance Philosophy and the Medieval Tradition. London: ArchabbeyPress, 1966.

_______

“Renaissance Platonism.” In Facets of the Renaissance. Edited by William H.Werkmeister. New York: Harper and Row, 1959.

85

Modena, Yehuda Aryeh. Ari-Nohem. Edited by Nehemia Shmuel Liebovitz. Jerusalem:Makor Press, 1977.

_______

• Life ofJudah. Translated by Mark R. Cohen. Princeton: University Press,1988.

_______

• Mogen Veherev Hebor Negid Hanatzrus. Edited by Scfflomo Simonsohn.Jerusalem: Meketzie Nirdomim Press, 1952.

_______•

Zeknei Yehuda. Edited by Penina Naveh. Jerusalem: Bealilc Institute, 1956.

Pullan, B. The Jews ofEurope and the Inquisition ofVenice, 1550 - 1670. New York:Barnes and Noble Books, 1983.

Roth, Cecil. “Jewish Society in the Renaissance Environment.” In Jewish SocietyThrough the Ages. Edited by H. H. Ben-Sasson and S. Ettinger. New York:Schocken Books, 1971.

Ruderman, David. “Memoirs of a Jewish Gambler.” Orim:A Jewish Journal at Yale 3,no. 1 (Autumn 1987).

Sack, Bracha. “The Influence of Cordovero on Seventeenth-Century Jewish Thought.”In Jewish Thought in the Seventeenth Century. Edited by Isadore Twersky andBernard Septimus. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987.

Safran, Bezalel. “Leone da Modena’s Historical Thinking.” In Jewish Thought in theSeventeenth-Century. Edited by Isadore Twersky and Bernard Septimus. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987.

Simonsohn, Sifiomo. “Halacha and Society in the Writings of Leone da Modena.” InJewish Thought in the Seventeenth-Century. Edited by Isadore Twersky andBernard Septimus. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987.

86