HISPANIA JUDAICA BULLETIN
Articles, Reviews, Bibliography and Manuscripts on Sefarad
Editors: Yom Tov Assis and Raquel Ibáñez-Sperber
Volume 7 5770/2010
Hispania Judaica
The Mandel Institute of Jewish Studies
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Contents
In Memoriam: Professor Haim Beinart ���� VII
Editorial 1
English and Spanish Section
Articles
KENNETH BROWN, El Rabí Açebýn/A�er ben Ye�iel y don Carnal celebran yom tov en el Libro de Buen Amor 5
MIGUEL ÁNGEL MOTIS DOLADER, Re�exiones en torno al procedimiento civil
en los tribunales judíos de Aragón (siglo 15) - El aforismo Dina de-
malkhuta dina 39
MERITXELL BLASCO ORELLANA & JOSÉ RAMÓN MAGDALENA NOM DE DÉU, Oraciones de Yom Kipur de conversos valencianos en un ms. fragmentario de !nales del siglo 15 101
MAURO PERANI, The �Gerona Genizah�: An Overview and a Rediscovered Ketubah of 1377 137
MARIA JOSÉ FERRO TAVARES, The Castilian Jews in Portugal: An Approach to their History 175
NADIA ZELDES, Jews and Conversos in the Writings of Lucio Marineo Siculo: Historiography and Propaganda 193
JOSÉ ALBERTO RODRIGUES DA SILVA TAVIM, La �Materia Oriental� en el trayecto de dos personalidades judías del Imperio Otomano: João Micas / D. Yosef Nasí, Álvaro Mendes / D. Shelomó Ibn Ya�ish 211
RUTH FINE, Los rostros de Ester � Tres versiones dramáticas auriseculares del libro de Ester: La hermosa Ester de Lope de Vega, La reina Ester de Godínez y La gran sultana de Cervantes 233
Research Project: The Expulsion of the Jews from Spain and its
Aftermath in the Life of the Refugees and their Children
HANNAH DAVIDSON, Fun and Games in the Jewish Communities of the Mediterranean at the Turn of the 16th Century 263
JAMES W. NELSON NOVOA, The Trial of Diogo Fernandes Neto by the Tribunale del governatore di Roma 277
ALDINA QUINTANA, The Merger of the Hispanic Medieval Heritage with the Jewish Tradition in Judeo-Spanish Texts (I): Private Letters 317
DORA ZSOM, The Return of the Conversos to Judaism in the Ottoman Empire and North-Africa 335
Book Reviews 351
Bibliography and Manuscripts 381
Author�s Guidelines and Transliteration 421
Contributors 423
Hebrew Section
YOM TOV ASSIS, �The Exile of Sefarad in Provence�: A Cultural and Religious Revolution in Provençal Jewry in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries �
NITAI SHINAN, The Cortes of Cádiz (1810-1813) and the Jews: Continuity and Change !
[Hispania Judaica 7 5770/2010]
The Return of the Conversos to Judaism in the
Ottoman Empire and North-Africa
Dora Zsom
The present paper is an attempt to clarify the question how the conversos intended
to return to their ancestral faith. The responsa literature provides vital information
about the practical matters the return of the conversos raised; it reveals what kind
of formal requirements they had to face; and sheds some light on the question of
how they were accepted by Jewish communities. However it should not be forgotten
that due to the nature of the responsa these sources have to be studied with the
greatest care and caution, to avoid reaching inappropriate conclusions on their
basis.
Introduction
There are a number of issues that appear in the responsa regarding the coverts
between the end of the fourteenth and the first half of the sixteenth century: the
problems that were most discussed and most frequently mentioned in the responsa
were marriage and related issues, like divorce and levirate marriage (yibum).1
Roughly half of the responsa written concerning conversos dealt with matters
related to their marital status. Other important subjects were inheritance, debt,
the use of Gentile names on different occasions, wine handled or produced by
conversos, mourning for a converso parent, the status of converso kohanim, the
formal requirements of the conversos’ reintegration to the Jewish community,
etc. Some matters apparently ceased to be discussed over the course of time. For
instance, questions relating to dietary laws, like the consumption of cheese, meat
or wine of the conversos were asked in the decades subsequent to the great wave
of forced conversion in 1391, but later they disappeared. When massive forced
conversion was still a new phenomenon it was necessary to redefine the position of
Jewish communities towards the conversos and some matters remained ambiguous
for a while. Later a certain practice established itself and some questions were not
raised any more. For example, in all probability from the middle of the fifteenth
century there was no longer a question, whether one could drink the wine made by
1 The widow of a man who died without having a child is obliged to marry her husband’s
brother or to be released from this obligation by the symbolic act of halitsah (taking off
the brother’s shoe). See: Deut. 25:1-9.
Dora Zsom
[336]
a converso or not. The tendency of the responsa written in this issue was clear; the
rabbinic position moved from uncertainty to definite prohibition.2 Other questions
like levirate marriage continued to be debated through the centuries. In the case of
this topic it is more difficult to determine the tendency of the decisions, as opinions
frequently contradicted each other, or were changed due to personal experience or
even tensions of power among rabbinic authorities that were representatives of
different social or ethnic groups.
Nevertheless, it would be a rash conclusion to say, for instance, that all
Sephardi authorities represented a certain tendency while all Romaniot authorities
represented another. Although a certain disparity can be observed in their
decisions, the data available are not sufficient to draw far-reaching conclusions.
All the more so, since the number of surviving responsa on a given topic is
quite limited, even in the most discussed matters. Moreover, the majority of the
decisions relate to concrete cases, and usually every case is different in some way
from the other, therefore two decisions written concerning the same problem,
but with reference to distinct cases are not properly commeasurable. There are,
naturally, responsa that were not intended as an answer to a specific question but
as general instructions and rulings concerning a certain problem. These also have
to be handled with care, as a rabbinical authority may take a well-defined general
position in an issue, but may decide differently from, or even in contradiction
to it in a specific case, in which peculiar circumstances influence his decision.
Obviously, the two kinds of responsa, the one that formulates general instructions
and the other, which decides a particular case, do not represent the same category
and consequently cannot be compared without restrictions. It is needless to
mention such well-known difficulties as the fact that the responsa are generally
undated, that they were subject to later editing and abridgement, that most data
like toponyms and proper names were omitted, etc., that complicate further their
use as historical sources.
After these introductory remarks I would like to turn to the actual subject of
this paper. In the following I would like to present some problems related to the
conversos’ return to Judaism. I will quote here mostly responsa of Sephardi rabbis.
I would not like to limit the discussion to responsa written after the expulsion
only, as in most cases it cannot be determined with certainty whether a given
decision was written before or after the expulsion, unless the expulsion is explicitly
mentioned in it, of course, or it can be dated in any other way. As a matter of fact,
the circumstances mentioned in the responsa can usually be read in many ways,
2 Cf. the responsa of Yitshak b. Sheshet Perfet (Ribash nos. 4, 12); Shim‘on b. Tsemah
Duran (Tashbez 1:63, 1:66, 2:60, 3:227, 3:312); Shelomo b. Shim‘on Duran (Rashbash
no. 553). For detailed references of the collections of responsa see the biblography at
the end of the paper.
[337]
The Return of the Conversos to Judaism
and different interpretations are possible. I decided to include also some responsa
written well before the expulsion, in order to put the later decisions in a wider
context. It is not the aim of this paper to present a specific halachic question in
detail but to draw attention to some of the problems raised in connection with the
conversos. I will present two minor matters, on the basis of the responsa written by
Shim‘on ben Tsemah Duran (Tasbets),3 Shelomo ben Shim‘on Duran (Rashbash),4
Tsemah ben Shelomo Duran (Yakhin u-Bo‘az 1),5 Moshe ben Elija Capsali,6
Shim‘on ben Shelomo Duran (Yakhin u-Bo‘az 2),7 Binyamin Zeev,8 David ben
3 Shim‘on ben Tsemah Duran was born in Majorca in 1361. He studied at Palma with
Efraim Vidal and later in Aragon with Yonah Desmaestre, whose daughter he married.
The Tashbets besides his waste halakhic knowledge was skilled in natural sciences as
medicine, mathematics and astronomy. After the massive religious persecutions of the
year 1391 he left Mallorca and settled in Algiers with his family, where he joined the
rabbinical court of law of Yitshak bar Sheshet Perfet (Ribash). His relationship with
the Ribash was not void of tensions. After the death of the Ribash (1408) Shim‘on ben
Tsemah Duran became the most prominent rabbi of Algiers. He died in 1444 (Hirsch
Jacob Zimmels, “Duran, Simeon ben Zemah”, Encyclopaedia Judaica, Jerusalem,
1972, 16 vols. (henceforth: EJ), vol. 6, pp. 302-306. See also: I. Epstein: The Responsa
of Rabbi Simon ben Zemah Duran, London, 1930; A.M. Hershman: Rabbi Isaac b.
Sheshet Perfet and his Times, New York, 1943. The responsa of Shim‘on ben Tsemah
Duran were first published in Amsterdam, 1738.
4 Shelomo ben Shim‘on Duran, the son of the Tashbets, was born about the year 1400 in
Algiers. He joined the rabbinical court of law headed by his father whom he succeeded
after his death. He died in 1467 (EJ, vol. 6, 306-307). His responsa were first published
in Livorno, 1742.
5 Tsemah ben Shelomo Duran was the second son of Shelomo ben Shimon Duran. He
occupied the post of dayan in Algires in the fifteenth century. The exact dates of his
birth and death are unknown. He visited Mallorca for a medical cure and returned from
there to Algiers in 1468. His responsa were collected in the first part of Sefer Yakhin
u-Bo‘az (Hirsch Jacob Zimmels: “Duran, Zemah ben Solomon”, EJ, vol. 6, p. 307).
Sefer Yakhin u-Bo‘az was first published in Livorno in 1782.
6 Moshe ben Eliyah Capsali was born in Crete in 1420 and served as a rabbi in
Constantinople. After the conquest of Constantinople in 1453 he became the most
prominent rabbi of the Ottoman Empire due to his good relationship with the sultan
Mehmed II the Conqueror. He died in 1496 or 1497 (Abraham David: “Capsali, Moses
ben Elijah”, EJ, vol. 5, pp. 153-154).
7 Shimon ben Shelomo Duran was born in 1438 in Algiers and died after 1510. He was
the first son of Shelomo ben Shim‘on Duran, and acted as a dayan in Algiers but had
the flee from there because of the Spanish invasion of Algeria in the early sixteenth
century. His responsa were collected in the second part of Sefer Yakhin u-Bo‘az (Hirsch
Jacob Zimmels, “Duran, Simeon ben Solomon”, EJ, vol. 6, pp. 302-303).
8 Binyamin Zeev was a dayyan of the first half of the sixteenth century who lived
in several locations of Greece (Arta, Larissa, Corfu) and even in Venice, but spent
most of his life in Arta. He was a controversial figure whose halakhic competence
was questioned by his contemporaries (Yehoshua Horowitz, “Benjamin Ze’ev ben
Dora Zsom
[338]
Shelomo ibn Avi Zimra (Radbaz),9 and Yosef ben David ibn Lev10.
Leaving the Land of Persecution
The first issue I would like to deal with is not even a proper halakhic problem, but
a mere recurring theme that appears in a great number of the responsa. Although
every decision focuses on one main subject like the ones enumerated previously
(divorce, marriage, inheritance, debt, etc.) most of them touch on related matters
also. One of the topics frequently addressed by the rabbis was the converso’s
tardiness in leaving the land of persecution. As I have said, this is not a halakhic
issue, which had to be decided. It was evident to all rabbinical authorities that
forced conversos were obliged to leave the land of persecution and to emigrate
to a territory where they could practice Judaism openly. There was no discussion
regarding this. It is worth taking note, however, of the remarks made by the rabbis
concerning the probability and possibility of the emigration.
The conversos who decided to leave the land where they were subject to
persecution and forced conversion had to face various difficulties. On the one
hand, they had to liquidate their estates and goods, and to rearrange their family
and other social relationships. Although some conversos did return to the Iberian
Peninsula after a longer or shorter stay in North Africa, in the Ottoman Empire,
or in other territories where they could practice Judaism freely,11 most of those
who left the Peninsula had the intention of leaving it for good. The emigration
Mattathias of Arta”, EJ, vol. 4, p. 538). About his life see the Introduction of M.
Benayahu to Sefer Binyamin Zeev, Jerusalem 1989 (Hebrew). His responsa were first
published in Venice, 1539.
9 David ben Shelomo Ibn Avi Zimra was born in the Iberian Peninsula in 1479 but left it
in 1492 with the expelled Jews. He spent most of his life in Egypt (first in Alexandria
and then in Cairo) but in his old age he decided to move to Eretz Israel. He established
himself first in Jerusalem but due to conflicts with local Ottoman and Jewish leaders
moved to Safed where he remained untill his death in 1573 (Hirsch Jacob Zimmels,
“David ben Solomon ibn Avi Zimra”, EJ, vol. 5, pp. 1356-1358). For monographic
works see Ibidem.: Rabbi David Ibn Abi Simra, Breslau, 1932 and Israel M. Goldman:
The Life and Times of Rabbi David Ibn Abi Zimra, New York, 1970. For the first
printed editions of his responsa see: vols. 1-2: Venice, 1749; vol. 3: Fürth, 1781; vol.
4.: Livorno, 1652; vol. 5: Livorno, 1818; vol. 6: Livorno 1828.
10 Yosef Ibn Lev was born in Monastir in 1505. He lived first in Salonika and later in
Constantinople where he was teaching in the yeshiva founded by Doña Gracia Nasi
until his death in 1580 (Yehoshua Horowitz, “Lev, Joseph ben David ibn”, EJ, vol. 11,
pp. 64-65). His responsa were first published in Constantinople, 1556-1573.
11 Cf. Ibn Lev 1:22, Tashbets, 1:66, Radbaz 4:91, Radakh 11, Mabit 1:142, Rashdam,
Even ha-‘Ezer 10.
[339]
The Return of the Conversos to Judaism
of the conversos was prohibited by the Christian authorities as they supposed the
emigrants would return to their former religion.12 The return to Judaism presented
a serious theological problem since though forced baptism was undesirable, the
effect of the sacrament – according to the Catholic belief – was irrevocable.
Therefore a person once baptized in any way remained Christian for the rest of his
life, and the supervision of his moral conduct was the responsibility of the Catholic
Church. For this theological reason, and for other more practical, financial and
economic reasons, the emigration of the conversos was generally prohibited. From
the point of view of the rabbinic authorities staying in the land of persecution or
leaving it was a crucial issue. In fact, that was the criterion that differentiated
between those considered voluntary conversos and those held to be forced ones.
The two categories of the conversos frequently overlapped as the actual degree of
the compulsion was difficult to determine.
The categorization of the conversos had practical consequences since the
status of a forced and of a voluntary converso was different, and the regulations
that concerned them varied or even contrasted with one another. In the case of
some essential matters like marital status, the reasons and circumstances of the
conversion were practically irrelevant. The descendants of a converso mother,
whether forced or voluntary, were evidently regarded as Jews, at least as it
concerned their marital capacity. But in most halakhic matters the circumstances
of the conversion were relevant to the status of the converso, as forced conversos
were suitable for performing most of the religious precepts while voluntary
conversos were disqualified and excluded in many instances. It must be noted,
that the disqualification did not only have negative effects on the lives of the
conversos. For example at the end of the fifteenth century a communal ordinance
was promulgated in Salonika which declared invalid all marriages contracted in
the Iberian Peninsula after the expulsion, since it disqualified the conversos from
being witnesses of marriage.13 That fact had the most positive effect on the life of
numerous conversos who had escaped from the Peninsula, and intended to begin a
new life in the Ottoman Empire. Namely, they could remarry without obtaining a
formal divorce from their former partners; and widows whose husbands had died
without having a child were no longer bound to their inaccessible brothers-in-law
12 See for example the edict of faith referred to by Nadia Zeldes, in which the Inquisition
of Sicily (pertaining at that time to the Crown of Aragon) prohibited the conversos to
leave the island without permission). Nadia Zeldes: ‘The Queen’s Property: Isabel I
and the Jews and Converts of the Sicilian Camera Reginale after the 1492 Expulsion’,
Hispania Judaica Bulletin 4 (2004), p. 78. Concerning the migration of the conversos
before the Expulsion see for example Haim Beinart: Conversos on Trial, Jerusalem
1981, pp.72-74.
13 Shemuel de Medina, Even ha-‘Ezer, no. 10. The ordinance, which is dated 1499, is
quoted in the responsum.
Dora Zsom
[340]
by the obligation of levirate marriage, which previously forced so many women to
loneliness. It also should be mentioned here that about fifteen years later another
ordinance was promulgated in Salonika, which established that no women could
remarry without obtaining halitsah from their husbands’ converso brothers-in-law,
whether forced or voluntary conversos.14 This regulation referred to women who
contracted marriages in the presence of valid witnesses, that is, before the expulsion
from Spain and the forcible conversion in Portugal, or after they emigrated from
the Peninsula and settled in a territory where Jews could be found. It was necessary
to renew this latter ordinance since in practice many women were permitted to
remarry without halitsah on the pretext that the conversos who remained in the
Peninsula were inaccessible, they established a new life for themselves in the
Christian world, and the majority of them would never return to Judaism.
The issue of the return was the criterion which determined the rabbis’ attitude
towards the conversos. The mere fact of the conversion, if it happened under
greater or lesser coercion or pressure, was not regarded as a major transgression,
but the converso was expected to leave the land of persecution and to emigrate to a
place where he could return to Judaism and live openly as a Jew. If for any reason
he refused to return, he became suspected of voluntarily neglecting the religious
prescriptions. The assessment of the possibility and probability of their return varied
widely over time and place; depending on historical circumstances, the personality
and experiences of the specific halakhic authority, the nature of the question and the
particular case at hand. But if the question of return was mentioned in a responsum,
it was usually supposed that leaving Christian territory was possible and feasible,
and thus it was generally assumed, that those who nevertheless stayed, remained
voluntarily. Hesitation concerning this can be observed only in the responsa written
in the period when massive forced conversion was a new phenomenon, that is, in
the decades subsequent to the year 1391. There are instances when a change in the
rabbi’s personal opinion can be well observed, as in case of R. Shim‘on ben Tsemah
Duran (Tashbets). In a responsum sent to Majorca before 140815 he took a fairly
positive stance towards the conversos. In the subsequent decades his optimism faded
away completely and gave way to total disillusionment. In the above mentioned
responsum (1:63) he dwelt at length on the issue of leaving Christian territory or
staying in it, and offered several reasons to explain and even justify the tardiness of
the conversos. His basic statement was that it should not be automatically supposed
that the conversos could have left Christian territory. It should be assumed that
they stayed under the pressure of the circumstances. He enumerated some possible
14 Frankel, D. (ed.), Zera‘ Anashim, Even ha-‘Ezer, no. 53. The ordinance is dated 1514.
15 The text mentions the Ribash, and the abbreviation that appears next to his name shows
that he was still alive at the time of writing the responsum. This suggests that the
responsum was written before 1408.
[341]
The Return of the Conversos to Judaism
reasons, like financial problems and fear. Maybe they could not cover the expenses
of travel; maybe they were afraid that they would be severely punished if they
were discovered in their attempt to emigrate. In his view, even if it was evident
that the conversos could leave without endangering themselves, they should not be
treated as voluntary idolaters. He held that even a person who himself admitted that
he had stayed in Christian territory only for financial reasons should be regarded
as a forced converso. In his opinion, as he formulated it in this responsum, the
judgment of a person’s motives for staying was beyond the capacity of any fellow-
creature. Only divine omniscience could determine whether a particular person was
a voluntary converso who stayed there by his own free will; or whether he stayed
for a reason unknown to human observers.
Later however, in another responsum sent to Majorca (1:66), he alluded to
the same problem in a very changed tone: “We see that some of those who come
here [to Algiers] are complete Gentiles, and who will decide which is worthy and
which is disqualified? [...] According to hearsay the majority or even almost all of
them [in Majorca desecrate the Sabbath publicly], and even those who [formerly]
abstained of that changed for the worse and they do not feel restrained at all.
Apparently you do not have reservations either concerning their delay there even
after they received permission to leave; or regarding those who do not consider
leaving at all, and have built houses for themselves, and have chosen women for
their sons, and have given their daughters in marriage to men. Let alone those who
have been here and returned to there of their own accord – should they be treated
as forced conversos or not?” “In the case of these persecutions and especially in
that place [in Majorca] they let the conversos to do whatever they want, and they
are not forced to commit idolatry, and they are almost considered to be Jews, to
such an extent that they are given permission to leave the country if they wish.
[...] They are indeed considered by the Christians to be Jews, even though the
Christian religion holds that once a person has converted even under the duress
of force, he cannot return to Judaism. Therefore the Christians pretend not to see
[the conversos’ behaviour]. The only effect of the persecution is that they have
to use Gentile names […], and seeing the situation, the conversos think that it is
permitted to stay there”. It must be observed that in spite of the fact that a great
number of conversos did leave Majorca and returned to Judaism in North-Africa,
the emigration of the conversos was not authorized by the Christians rulers who
considered the returning of conversos to their former faith a most serious sin, the
perpetration of which had to be prevented at all costs. On the contrary, in Majorca
the Christian authorities issued subsequent decrees forbidding the forced conversos
to leave the island.16 The necessity of the renewal of the decrees naturally indicates
16 The governor of Majorca prohibited the emigration of the conversos after the
persecutions of the year 1391. In 1413 Fernando II issued a decree that forbade the
Dora Zsom
[342]
the fact that many conversos disregarded it.
The formerly quoted responsum referred to the situation in Majorca in the first
half of the fifteenth century. Apparently the opinion formulated by Shim‘on ben
Tsemah Duran gradually became widespread, and was shared quite unanimously
after the expulsion. Yosef ibn Lev formulated an opinion very similar to that of
the Tashbets on this issue. The passage that contains a general description of the
conversos can be found in a responsum (1:22) which deals with the validity of
marriages in the case of those conversos who had left Castille or Portugal, and on
their way to the Ottoman Empire stopped in Venice or in Flanders and married the
descendants of other conversos there. Ibn Lev expounded that “...these converts,
or their fathers were converted in Portugal and lingered there some days and some
years, although they could have escaped from there. And their children are similar
to them since they also lingered there some years. We have seen and we have been
informed about several documents and testimonies [concerning these conversos]
according to which the prominent rabbis of Salonika have assembled and ruled
that we should not accept the marriages of those women who come from Portugal
or Castille if they were contracted after the shmad (general forcible conversion).
The rabbis did not differentiate between those who had been converted and their
descendants, as they also lingered there and married women, and fathered sons
and daughters, though they knew God, since they are like a proper nation in that
kingdom, and they know from their mothers’ womb and their birth that they are
Jews, and they see their fellows going to the Ottoman Empire in order to seek
protection under the wings of the Shekhinah, and still they are staying there”.17
Those conversos who had left Spain or Portugal but hadn’t arrived in the Ottoman
Empire yet were evidently different from those mentioned in the quoted passage.
Nevertheless, their capacity to be witnesses was controversial. Ibn Lev tended to
disqualify them even though he himself mentioned two considerations that spoke in
their favour; firstly, that most of them did arrive in the Ottoman Empire, and only a
minority settled in Flanders; and secondly, since it could be assumed that a person
who thought of returning should be considered a proper Jew immediately. It has
to be emphasized that Ibn Lev declared the marriage discussed in this responsum
void for several reasons, and the controversial position of the witnesses was only
one of them. Furthermore, these specific witnesses were disqualified since one
of them actually returned to Portugal after a longer stay in Salonika. It must be
noted also that this decision favoured the woman who disavowed the marriage and
emigration of the conversos to North Africa (Haim Beinart: “Majorca” in: EJ, vol. 11,
pp. 801-802).
17 Ibn Lev 1:22 (The number of the responsum is not indicated in the first printed edition
[Constantinople 1556]. It can be found in pp.52b-54a of the first volume. The pagination
of the edition is incorrect, the page numbers indicated in the edition are Ë�≠‰�.)
[343]
The Return of the Conversos to Judaism
wanted to marry another person.
Although the position towards those conversos who lingered in the Peninsula
was severe, naturally the rabbis strived to facilitate their return to the Jewish
community if the conversos decided to do so. This effort sometimes had
contradictory results. In Binyamin Zeev’s view, for instance, strictly speaking the
conversos who remained in the land of persecution should be disqualified in many
respects including inheritance and the performance of halitsah. But in order to
make it manifest that the Jewish community wishes and awaits their return, they
must be considered suitable for inheriting and performing halitsah: “...we consider
them as Jews so that they return, lest we close the doors of repentance before them.
But in the strict sense of the Law we should penalize them for staying there, and
not returning, and not being concerned about dying there as Gentiles”.18
The same consideration, namely facilitating the return of the conversos led
Moshe ben Eliya Capsali to the opposite conclusion. He ruled that the law of
levirate marriage did not apply to the conversos who remained among the Gentiles,
therefore the women who escaped and returned to Judaism could remarry without
obtaining halitsah from the absent brother-in-law, who stayed as a converso in
Christian territory. Capsali justified his ruling with a practical argument set forth
by him rather heatedly: those who claim that the law of levirate marriage is binding
for these women are preventing them from returning to Judaism, and are therefore
like inciters and enticers. He mentioned the case of a woman who married without
obtaining halitsah first, and some of the community turned against her: “and those
who are tormenting her heart and saying that her husband has a converso brother
settled among the Gentiles, they are propagators of idolatry, and their only thought
is to prevent the converso women from the service of God. If women hear that they
cannot remarry, they won’t return to the service of God”.19
As we can see from this example, the problems that the possibility of the return
raised could lead to conflicting results.
Formalities of the Reintegration
The second issue I would like to mention is the process of the conversos’ return to
the Jewish community, and the formal requirements of their reintegration.
If the converso was born as a Jew then his reintegration to the Jewish community
had no formal requirements. Although there are references in the responsa to rabbis
who thought that the conversos returning to Judaism must chastise themselves,
these opinions were refuted by the authorities who quoted them. The view that
18 Binyamin Zeev no. 70
19 Idem no. 75
Dora Zsom
[344]
the converso must mortify himself was quoted by ibn Avi Zimra. According to the
view mentioned by him the ba‘al-teshuvah20 who ponders over repentance “has to
be considered a righteous man; he must only mortify himself”.21 Ibn Avi Zimra,
however, limited the validity of this requisite to those Jews who had transgressed
a specific precept, and then decided to observe it again in the future. Ba‘alei-
teshuvah in the broader sense of the word (that is, conversos returning to Judaism)
did not need to mortify themselves.
The custom of self-mortification is mentioned also by Binyamin Zeev, but he
also opposed the practice: “I think that he does not need to chastise himself, since
there is no greater mortification of the flesh than what he suffers each and every
day anyway: namely, that he has to abstain from all those pleasures which are
permitted to the Gentiles, and were permitted to him also formerly [before his
return to Judaism]”.22
If the converso was born a Christian of originally Jewish parents who later
converted, then various questions arose: whether the parents of the child could
really be considered as Jews; whether he could prove it; if not, how the presumed
legal status of the parents should be determined; how the parents got married
(according to Jewish rite, according to Christian rite or both); whether the witnesses
of the marriage were valid (whether the witnesses were Jews or conversos; in the
latter case, whether they are considered voluntary or forced conversos); if the child
was born from the second marriage of the parents, whether the first marriage and
the divorce were valid (if the first marriage was valid but the divorce was not,
then the second marriage was considered adultery, and the child born of it was
considered illegitimate).
Once the conversos’ descent was clarified he could be integrated into the
Jewish community. The formalities of this included the arrangement of the
converso’s personal relations (for example, if he returned together with his wife,
they were supplied with a Jewish marriage document, etc.) and the remedy of
several unfulfilled acts, such as circumcision. Some details of the formalities were
doubtful: it was not evident whether the converso had to undergo only circumcision
or ritual immersion as well; whether he had to declare in the presence of three
persons that he had the intention to observe the precepts (as a proselyte had to);
what blessings should be said at the circumcision, etc.
In the case of the third (and further) generations of conversos, when the parents
too were born as Christians, all the above mentioned questions arose, and besides
20 Ba‘al-teshuvah (singular), ba‘alei-teshuvah (plural): Returning; converso of Jewish
descent that reverted to Judaism; also a Jew regretting his former transgressions and
deciding to observe the previously neglected precept or precepts.
21 Radbaz 3:434
22 Binyamin Zeev no. 72
[345]
The Return of the Conversos to Judaism
that, also the problem of whether one could be considered a Jew if his father was
uncircumcised. Although no halachic authority would give a negative answer to the
last question, an opposite opinion existed among people as evidenced by questions
and passages cited in the responsa reflecting the views of the inquirers. These
passages advance arguments such as the following: “…you have also written – I
quote it – but their father was uncircumcised and was a voluntary idolater, and
their mother had neither legal marriage ceremony nor marriage document and they
[the parents] did not observe the precepts concerning the purity of marital life –
they were born from niddah23 women and uncircumcised men!”24
Some of the inquirers held that the lack of circumcision affected seriously
the marital status of the conversos, and disqualified them from marriage. In their
opinion although the conversos might be considered potential Jews, and thus,
fit for marriage; nonetheless, if they were uncircumcised, their marriages were
invalid in spite of their Jewish descent: “…in the view of some learned men the
woman may get married again since the marriages of the conversos are not valid,
because the conversos are not circumcised”.25
There cannot be found any legal decision according to which the circumstances
mentioned above did affect the Jewishness and marital status of the conversos.
On the basis of the responsa literature it is obvious that the terms designating
conversos were used in an inconsistent and confusing way. The difference between
the ger (proselyte) and the ba‘al-teshuvah (a person of Jewish descent who reverts
to Judaism) was unclear for a relatively great number of the inquirers. For this
reason the authors of the responsa generally touched upon the clarification of these
concepts and emphasized the difference between the two notions by pointing out
various disparities between them.
Since the returning converso is not a proselyte, ritual immersion is not
prescribed for him. The proselyte has to undergo three formal requirements in
order to be accepted as a Jew: 1) circumcision; 2) ritual immersion; 3) acceptance
of the precepts in the presence of three witnesses. The conversos, however, had to
accomplish the first condition only. They did not have to be admitted to the Jewish
people (as they remained members of it throughout due to their descent) but only
to remedy the lack of circumcision. As Tsemah ben Shelomo Duran put it: “Ritual
immersion was not prescribed for the conversos reverting to Judaism, and they are
not called gerim26 but ba‘alei-tshuva. [...] The converso, even if he was an idolater
does not require ritual immersion [if he wishes to return to Judaism] and neither
23 Nida: period unfit for marital life; woman who is in a period which is unfit for marital
life (like the menstruation and the following days).
24 Yakhin u-Bo‘az 2:3
25 Ibidem, 2:19
26 Ger (singular), gerim (plural): proselyte.
Dora Zsom
[346]
does he have to declare in the presence of three men that he has the intention to
observe the precepts”.27 (The same argumentation can be found also in Yakhin
u-Bo‘az 2:31).
The question of the necessity of ritual immersion arose in cases where the
converso could not prove his mother’s Jewish descent. According to the view
formulated by Shimon ben Shelomo Duran, as the general presumption was that
the conversos did not marry Gentiles, it should be assumed that the mother of
a returning converso was of Jewish descent: “This presumption is proven by
the common practice of reputed authorities everywhere, of obliging returning
conversos to undergo only circumcision and not ritual immersion, since they
are not suspected of having Gentile mothers. It is a common presumption that
conversos do not marry Gentiles”.28 (See also Yakhin u-Bo‘az 2:3)
This opinion, however, was not shared by Ibn Avi Zimra. He held that if it
was dubious whether the mother of the converso was Jewish or Gentile, ritual
immersion was necessary, and it was forbidden to rely on this allegedly common
presumption: “If the mother of the converso is Gentile, even if his father is Jewish,
ritual immersion is necessary according to Torah law, since the child born of a
Jewish father and a Gentile mother follows the status of the mother. But if the
descent of the mother is dubious, the stricter practice is preferred, as in the case
of every dubious matter that emerges in connection with a precept of the Torah,
and we do not regard him as a Jew until he undergoes circumcision and ritual
immersion”.29
* * *
In the foregoing I tried to draw attention of some common problems raised in
connection to the conversos’ return to Judaism. It was generally expected from all
conversos to leave the land of persecution for good and to immigrate to a territory
where they could practice Judaism without restrictions. The remarks about the
probability of the conversos’ return show a considerable diversity in the responsa
presented in the paper. The questions addressed to the authorities relating to the
formalities of the conversos’ reintegration to the Jewish community reveals a
certain incertitude regarding their status and qualities, the more noteworthy of
which is the confusing of conversos with proselytes.
27 Yakhin u-Bo‘az 1:75
28 Yakhin u-Bo‘az 2:31
29 Radbaz 3:415
[347]
The Return of the Conversos to Judaism
List of sources cited in this paper:
Ë¢ˆ¯ ¨‰‡ÈÊÈ�È ¨·‡Ê ÔÈÓÈ�· χ¯˘È· ÂÓ˘ ‡¯˜� ¯ÙÒ‰ ‰Ê ¨‰Ë¯‡Ó ¨Â‰È˙˙Ó Ô· ·‡Ê ÔÈÓÈ�·
·¢Ó˜˙ ¨Â�¯ÂÂÈÏ ¨ÊÚ·Â ÔÈÎÈ ¯ÙÒ ¨‰ÓÏ˘ Ô· ÔÂÚÓ˘ ¨Ô¯Â„ — ‰ÓÏ˘ Ô· ÁÓˆ ¨Ô¯Â„
·¢˜˙ ¨Â�¯ÂÂÈÏ ¨˙·¢˙ ˙Âχ˘ ¨ÔÂÚÓ˘ Ô· ‰ÓÏ˘ ¨Ô¯Â„
Á¢ˆ˙ ¨Ì„¯Ë˘Ó‡ ¨˙·¢˙ ˙Âχ˘ ¨ÁÓˆ Ô· ÔÂÚÓ˘ ¨Ô¯Â„
ª‡¢Ó˜˙ ¨‡„¯ÂÈÙ ¨‚ ˜ÏÁ ªËÈȘ˙ ¨‰‡ÈˆÈ� ¨·≠‡ ˜ÏÁ ¨˙·¢˙ ˙Âχ˘ ¨Ô·‡ ‰ÓÏ˘ Ô· „„ ¨‡¯ÓÊ
±∏∏≤ ¨‡˘¯‡Â ¨Ê≠ ˜ÏÁ ª‰¢Ú˜˙ ¨Â�¯ÂÂÈÏ ¨‰≠„ ˜ÏÁ
‚¢Ï˘≠Ê¢Ë˘ ¨‡�È„�‡Ë˘Â˜ ¨˙·¢˙ ˙Âχ˘ ¨Ô·‡ ÛÒÂÈ ¨·Ï
‰¢�˘≠„¢�˘ ¨È˜È�Âχ˘ ¨˙·¢˙ ˙Âχ˘ ¨È„ ‰˘Ó Ô· χÂÓ˘ ¨‰�È„Ó
·¢Ò¯˙ ¨ÔÈˇÈÒ‰ ÆÌÈ˘�‡ Ú¯Ê ¯ÙÒ ¨®Í¯ÂÚ© „È„ ¨ÏȘ�Ú¯Ù
Ê¢˘≠¨˘ ¨‰�ÈË�Ë˘Â˜ ¨˙·¢˙ ˙Âχ˘ ¨Ô· ˜ÁˆÈ ¨˙Ù¯Ù ˙˘˘