|
   |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
           |
|
|
|
Kiddush Hashem - A Medieval View During the Crusades Jews were massacred in Europe by crusaders on their march to the Holy Land. Faced with the threat of forced conversion, more than five thousand1 died during the First Crusade of 1096, through deaths inflicted either by themselves or others. Among the self-inflicted deaths were cases of slaughtering children rather than allowing them to be forcibly converted to Christianity. This article will analyze the course of action which became known as Kiddush Hashem and its halachic permissibility. The latter will be defined by the standards of the poskim (halachic authorities) of that time. The phrase 'Kiddush Hashem' in rabbinic literature meant sanctifying the name of God through either ethical behavior, prayer, or martyrdom2. However, since Tannaitic times, it has come to mean dying as a martyr rather than converting or disregarding certain fundamental principles of Judaism. The main text for this is found in a Beraita in Sanhedrin 74a:
The Gemara presents a contradiction between two verses. It first quotes a verse referring to the commandment,
It then quotes a conflicting verse:
The Talmud resolves the contradiction by explaining that you are meant to live by and not die for the commandments. Yet in a case where God’s name would be defiled, it may be preferable to die. The Gemara lists the circumstances in which you are obliged to give up your life. The commandment of sanctifying God’s name seems to apply only in public. However, in private the negative commandment of not defaming God’s name still applies, although only to the three major sins of idolatry, immorality and spilling blood. In public, namely before a group of ten people (there is an argument over whether they must be Jewish), the requirement to die rather than commit these major sins applies. In a time of persecution, even if idol worshippers tell you to wear a different type of shoe strap3 , you must die rather than obey, as this would transgress "and you should not defame". Rambam lists the above categories in Mishneh Torah4 but adds an important clause,
Rambam emphasizes that life is precious and should not be sacrificed readily6. The Gemara in Sanhedrin and Rambam are the basic texts for the commandment of Kiddush Hashem. However, they apply only to people killed by oppressors, not those who killed themselves. Since the phrase "and he dies and does not transgress" is in the passive form, it cannot apply to people killing themselves or others. One method through which many Ashkenazi Jews avoided being forcibly converted to Christianity was suicide. The first and only place in which suicide is prohibited is in the minor tractate of Smachot7. It is even considered one of the three major sins - spilling blood. As only God gives life, only He has the right to take it away. Consequently, committing suicide is tantamount to a rebellion against God. Additionally, man is created in the image of God – by committing suicide, one shows disrespect for God. If suicide was anathema, how could the halachic authorities of the twelfth and thirteenth century have allowed and even encouraged people to commit suicide? The permissibility of suicide was mainly based on aggadic texts, as there are no halachic grounds for it. One such aggada is found in Gittin8. It describes how four hundred children were on a boat and were going to be sold into slavery (Rashi adds that both the girls and the boys were going to be sold as prostitutes). They debated whether they will go to heaven if they jump overboard and drown themselves. But they remembered a verse they had learned:
On the basis of this verse, they decided they will ascend to heaven. And so the girls jumped into the sea. This is the best known precedent as a textual source in Crusader times for committing suicide. Other familiar aggadot elaborate on the concept of Kiddush Hashem as found in the Gemara. Hannaniah, Mishael and Azariah jump into a fiery furnace rather than bow down to an image of Nebucadnezzer9. The Gemara asks: from where did they learn that they could act in this manner? The Gemara answers that they derived this teaching from an aggada describing how the frogs, in the plague of frogs in Egypt, jumped into the hot ovens and killed themselves in order to increase the Egyptians’ discomfort. The frogs were not commanded to do this but did so out of a desire to sanctify God’s name. The Baalei Tosafot10 ask: if Hannaniah, Mishael and Azariah had to bow down to an idol, why would it be optional for them to die rather than transgress? Are they not commanded to die? Consequently, Rabbeinu Tam11 concludes that the idol was not an idol as such but a form of a man built to honor the king. According to him, the innovation of the Gemara is that it is permissible to bow down before this image. The fact that Hannaniah, Mishael and Azariah were willing to die rather than bow is what classifies their action as a Kiddush Hashem. According to the Ri12, it was optional because they could have run away and escaped as Daniel did. However, they stayed to prove their faith and belief in God. Tosafot’s attitude differs from Rambam’s. The former maintains that killing oneself constitutes Kiddush Hashem while the latter considers it suicide. In the story of the death of Rabbi Hannaniah Ben Teradion (in which he is wrapped in Torah scrolls and burnt) his daughter asks him to open his mouth and let the fire in so that he will die faster and thereby lessen his suffering. However he refuses and gives this answer:
Rabbeinu Tam contrasts this story with the one in Gittin. There the children are allowed to commit suicide, but here Rav Hannaniah is not. The reason for this seeming contradiction is that in one case it discusses children who might not be able to keep their faith in the face of tortures, while the other case discusses Rav Hannaniah, a great scholar whose faith could withstand torture. The principle derived from this is that if one believes that he will not be able to withstand the tortures of the non-Jews, then it is a commandment to injure oneself (i.e. kill oneself) rather than submit to sin. Even if this torture and possible religious transgression is only anticipated, Rabbeinu Tam rules that one is permitted to commit suicide. Rabbeinu Tam is not the only authority who believed that the greatest fulfillment of one’s life could be through the act of Kiddush Hashem. The Maharam MeRothenburg14 states that ‘a person is indeed permitted to take his own life’15. These medieval rabbis were faced with a reality where whole communities were given the choice between death or conversion. Although all of these opinions were written after the First Crusade in 1096 when many Jews had died, they may have avoided condemning suicide out of respect for those who had taken this course. However, Rabbeinu Tam, the Ri and the Maharam MeRothenburg were aware that their rulings would be applied in future crusades. They were therefore anxious to assert that in certain situations it was preferable to die for your beliefs rather than betray them. There were objections to this approach. In a commentary on the Torah by the Baalei Tosafot16 two approaches to the question of committing suicide and killing your children are explained based on the verse
The word ach is translated here as "even" and explained in the context of Hannaniah, Mishael and Azariah. The commentary explains that the word ach means that although they were not commanded to die they were still able to act in this way. In a case where a person doubts his abilities to withstand tortures, he is permitted to commit suicide. The example of Saul18 who fell on his sword rather than being captured by the enemy is brought to support this argument. However, this argument is then refuted with the information that Saul was condemned by the Rabbis for this action. In the rebuttal of the argument, ach is interpreted to mean that they were going to be killed anyway. Therefore this cannot be called suicide. This viewpoint, although quoted in a work of the Baalei Tosafot, contradicted their official line. The prevalent view (which is also expressed in the chronicles of the Crusades) extolled martyrdom
The phenomenon of committing suicide rather than converting to Christianity can be partially explained by the approval given by the leading rabbis of that time. Another method by which the Jews resisted forced conversion was by killing their own children. The Jews feared that the Christians would take the children and raise them as Christians. The chronicles of the crusades records cases of people killing their children rather than allowing this. There is no halachic basis for killing another and murder is one of the three major sins for which you must die rather than transgress. There is also very little aggadic basis for it. The Tosafot tried to base this premise on the statement of Rabbeinu Tam in which he says it is a commandment to kill yourself rather than betray your religion. They concluded that if you could kill yourself rather than do so then you could also kill someone else20. There was an attempt to use the sacrifice of Yitzhak by Avraham as a precedent21. According to the literal sense of the text, Avraham does not sacrifice Yitzhak. However, there is a midrashic tradition which disagrees based on the text’s use of the word "va'yashev" ("he returned") when Avraham leaves the mountain22. This verb is in the singular form, signifying that he left alone. Yitzhak does not appear in the story for quite a while after that. One explanation given is that Yitzhak went away to learn for three years23. However, another tradition discusses him going to the next world to be healed by the angels from the incision that Avraham made on him while on the mountain24. Another midrash details how, "Father Isaac was bound on the altar and reduced to ashes and his sacrificial dust was cast on to Mount Moriah.25" Yitzhak is then resuscitated by God. This midrashic tradition runs contrary to the literal sense of the text in which Avraham was commanded not to touch or harm Yitzhak. It is possible that this midrash was used as a basis for the permissibility of killing one’s children. By preventing them from being converted, it could be seen as obeying the word of God in a similar way to Avraham. The date in which the midrashim were written is very interesting. Although some were written during the Middle Ages, it appears to be a much older tradition. It is possible that they resurfaced during the Crusades to act as a justification of the parents’ actions or to influence them. There are aspects of the Sacrifice of Yitzhak which the Christians would have liked to claim as their own. The ideas of the sacrificial lamb and Yitzhak carrying the wood to his own pyre are similar to the concepts of Jesus as the paschal lamb and his carrying of his own cross. Therefore the reappearance of the tradition of Yitzhak being killed could also be a reclamation of the tradition by its rightful originators26. On occasions during the Crusades, parents slaughtering their children used sacrificial imagery to invest their actions with some sense of holiness; they recited a blessing before performing the act and the children answered ‘amen’27. There are descriptions of a father killing his children in the synagogue (as if in the Temple) and sprinkling their blood (as was done with animal sacrifices at the time of the Temple). The language used in describing the deaths are the sacrificial terms of ray'ach ni'choach la'hashem (a pleasant odor for God) and l'hiyot olah tamim (to be a complete sacrifice). It is also interesting to note that most of the killings were done with a knife which the people called a 'ma'achelet'. This is the same word used in the Biblical account of the Binding of Yitzhak. Obviously the people were trying to link themselves with this divinely ordained sacrifice to give their actions legitimacy and meaning. The rabbis of that period did not like questions on this subject. The Maharam was asked by a Jew if he needed to do kaparah (atonement) for having killed his wife and four sons on a day of great slaughter28. The Maharam simply answers this question with the phrase,
The tone of this statement suggests that he does not want to deal with this subject. It might be concluded from this that the Maharam does not support the idea of killing a wife and children since he does not state this explicitly. However, neither does he condemn this practice. It is probable that the man may remarry and have more children and behave in the same manner should the same situation arise. The Maharam is being emotionally sensitive but he is also not committing himself, which could be read as authorization for future instances. Most of the rabbis of the twelfth and thirteenth century were more muted on the subject of killing children than on the subject of suicide; however, that silence did not indicate their disapproval. There was, however, one recorded case of dissent on this subject. The commentary on the Torah by the Baalei Tosafot29 states that a proof could be derived from the cases of Saul, and Hannaniah, Mishael and Azariah. However, it then refutes the argument by presenting a cautionary tale. It describes how one rabbi was killing babies lest they be converted to Christianity while another rabbi argued with him, declaring it forbidden. The second rabbi told the first that if the second rabbi was right then the first one (whom he called a murderer) would die an unnatural death. The rabbi who killed the children was eventually caught by Gentiles, had his skin peeled off, and was left to die with sand on his wounds. The story concludes on the sad note that if the rabbi had not killed the babies, they would still be alive. Were there alternatives to committing Kiddush Hashem? Christianity’s questionable monotheistic nature contributed to the reluctance of the rabbis of the period to allow conversion. However there were people who converted in preference to dying and many of these returned to Judaism once the danger passed. The Maharil30 addresses this problem in a responsa31. He rules that a woman is allowed to dissimulate and pretend to be a non-Jew to save her life. This is on the condition that she continues to consider herself a part of the Jewish people and religion. A man is not included in this ruling on the grounds that he would be recognizable, as he is circumcised and wears ritual garments (tzitzit and tefillin) which would identify him immediately as a Jew. However in a case of actual conversion, according to the Maharil, both men and women are forbidden to transgress and must die rather than pretend to believe in heresy. This is the stand taken by most Ashkenazi rabbis which may have led so many Jews to commit suicide and kill their children rather than convert during this period. The concepts of Kiddush Hashem and death might lead one to think that the Jews of that time were passive. However, committing suicide and slaughtering one’s own children are not passive forms of death. The communal approval of taking action can be shown through an account in one of the chronicles of the Crusades32. After the majority of the community had been killed, there was one youth who went to the Bishop’s castle and attempted to kill him. The youth failed, but killed three others before he was eventually killed.
This suggests that the boy was greater than the rest of the community: not only did he die for Kiddush Hashem, but he simultaneously took revenge on his persecutors. Another person who is lauded is David of Mainz. When he saw that the majority of the community was dead, he pretended that he wished to convert. The non-Jews were very excited and allowed him to deliver a speech to them before he converted. However he did not say what they expected33. Rather, he shouted:
After he gave this speech he and his family were killed by the crowd. The inclusion of these accounts in the chronicles shows that even those who were passive admired resistance. This was ultimately the aim of their Kiddush Hashem was – a desire to take their destiny into their own hands and resist the society which threatened their lives. The Jews during the period of the Crusades had little power and could not show their superiority, as could the dominant Christians. However, by being willing to give up their lives en masse, the Jews demonstrated their spiritual worth to the world around them. Deprived of physical power, moral superiority was the main recourse of many communities. * * * * The concept of Kiddush Hashem was utterly changed by the Crusades. The interaction of halacha with reality influenced many judgements of that period35. Although there had been precedents for mass suicides in Massada and Betar, these appear to have been unknown to the rabbis of the time due to the lack of availability of Greek and Latin literature. Therefore the behavior of the Jews during the Crusades might be considered unprecedented. Since Jerusalem was the focus of the Crusades, the Jews began to focus on the Beit Hamikdash (Temple) and try to reclaim it from Christian imagery. The language used in reference to those who committed Kiddush Hashem (ray'ach ni'choach la'hashem, l'hiyot olah tamim) denotes sacrifices given in the Temple. In Xanten36, before the community was killed by the crusaders, Rabbi Moses gave a speech to the congregation assembled in the synagogue at the end of a meal. He uses sacrificial imagery and compares the people to offerings37:
The chronicler then concludes saying,
The Jews reclaimed the temple imagery and Jerusalem by reenacting the sacrifices of the Temple. Only this time they offered people instead of animals. 1 .Encyclopaedia Judaica: Crusades Return to Article2. Encyclopaedia Judaica: Kiddush Hashem and Hillul Hashem Return to Article 3. Tosafot Sanhedrin 74b, under the heading
"a'fi'lu" 4. Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah Chapter 5 Return to Article 5. ibid. Halacha 4 Return to Article 6. There is a possible contradiction between the Mishneh Torah cited above and the Iggeret Hashmad of the Rambam. This letter is in response to one sent to this community by another rabbi in which he condemns them for converting to Islam. Rambam informs a community faced with the choice of conversion to Islam or death that their conversion was the right decision. At the same time he says that the people who have died already, have died for Kiddush Hashem. If this is a situation in which you must die rather than transgress, how can Rambam advise people to transgress? Or conversely, if this is a case where you can transgress, then surely if you die rather than transgress you are guilty of suicide, a sin which merits the severest of penalties. A possible answer is that many people had already died for Kiddush Hashem. The Rambam wanted to preserve the community and was afraid that the people would completely abandon Judaism if they did not believe that their prayers would be answered since they were Moslems. This is a post-facto letter so it cannot change the situation but its aim is to preserve the community’s faith. This is why he phrases the Iggeret in this way and adds that the best solution is to leave the country as soon as possible. Return to Article 7. Hilchot Semachot Chapter 5, Halachot 2-6 Return to Article 8. Gittin 57b Return to Article 9. Pesachim 53b Return to Article 10. Tosafot Pesachim 23, under the heading "ma ra'u" Return to Article 11. Rav Yaakov Ben Meir 1100-1171 France. The creator of the tosafist talmudic method and the founder of the Baalei Tosafot. The leading halachist of his day. Return to Article 12. Rav Yitzhak of Dampierre 1120-1200 France. Nephew of Rabbeinu Tam. He expanded the tosafist talmudic method and was second only to Rabbeinu Tam among the Baalei Tosafot. Return to Article 13. Avodah Zara 18b Return to Article 14. Rav Meir Ben Baruch 1215(Germany)-1293(France). He was considered the greatest authority of the time in Germany. Return to Article 15. Maharam Teshuvot Psakim v'Minhagim 53 "Surely one who martyrs himself for the declaration of the unity of God is permitted to commit suicide." Return to Article 16. Parashat Noach "v'ach" 17. The Jerusalem Bible translates this verse differently: "And surely your blood of your lives will I require" Return to Article 18. Samuel I: 31:4 Return to Article 19. Gezarot Ashkenaz v'Tzarfat Habermann 56-57 Return to Article 20. Gilyoni Tosafot, Chidushei Ha'Ritva 7:18 Return to Article 21. The Last Trial: Shalom Spiegel(1979) Return to Article 22. Genesis 22:19 Return to Article 23. Chizkuni on Genesis 22:19 Return to Article 24. Hadar Zekenim 10a-b(a commentary on the Torah by the Baalei Tosafot): As cited in ‘The Last Trial': Shalom Spiegel. I searched for the original manuscript in the National library but was unable to find it. Return to Article 25. Sefer Shibolei Haleket 18 a-b: (see text) 26. The Last Trial: Shalom Spiegel(1979) Return to Article 27. The Bracha for shchitah Return to Article 28. Shut ba'alei ha'Tosafot, siman 101 Return to Article 29. See footnote 19. Return to Article 30. Rav Yaakov Moelin 1365-1427. He was regarded as the leading halachic authority by the Ashkenazic Jews of his generation. Return to Article 31. Shut Maharil siman 72 beg. words "d'ha'hi d'yicholah" Return to Article 32. Narrative of the Old Persecutions, Mainz anonymous. European Jewry and the First Crusade: Robert Chazan (1987) Return to Article 33. Narrative of the Old Persecutions, Mainz anonymous. Return to Article 34. This is an allusion to Gittin 57a. Return to Article 35. Haim Soloveitchik AJS 12 1987 pg.205-21, ‘there are entire areas of talmudics – in which one may say, without fear of exaggeration, that the Tosafists have overtly fashioned the law so as to align it better with regnant practice and need’ Return to Article 36. A town in West Germany. Return to Article 37. Chronicles of Rabbi Solomon Ben Samson Return to Article |
|
|
|||||
