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 !

Research Project

Conducted under the auspices of

the Israel Science Foundation

[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 ˙˘˘