בראי ההיסטוריה - פרק 2: "נמות ולא": סיפורם של מסעי הצלב

Let’s embark together on the series " Reflections of History." We will trace the events, the secrets, and the great names that shaped the history of us all . >> Reflections of History. Professor Maoz Kahana sets out on a deep journey into the fascinating chapters of Jewish history. Hosted by Rabbi Israel Alter Gervais. So, once again, I have the privilege of meeting with my teacher, Rabbi Professor Maoz Kahana, and this time we...last time we discussed an introduction to history, and this time we want to dive into a historical story . A historical story that, on the surface, everyone has heard of, everyone learned about in school; we all recite dirges about it, sometimes some of us even mention this event on Shabbat without really knowing what we’re talking about. And it is very interesting that the moment you start talking to you, you discover that this story is much, much more complex; it has layers, you can see it really like "Rashomon"—meaning the question: who tells it, how they tell it, and what they tell. And what you taught me is that this story is actually the founding event of Ashkenazi Jewry, it is the founding event of Europe. And maybe, maybe—and I’m just throwing out a political statement to the people listening to us—it could be—and I’m already stretching something with a smile—that the fact that today there are Ashkenazi Jews shouting in the streets "We shall die and not..."( The "not," that's less important than the "we shall die"), it could be that this event also has its implications. And right away I want to dive in: we are talking about the Crusades. The Crusades. So tell us, you know what the ...what the history teacher says in the first lesson: this is not a Jewish event at all. Hello, right? The Crusades, yes, the Crusaders (a name attached to them later because of the cross they bore on their clothing) are, they are a massive event that changed Europe, and, primarily, it wasn't related to Jews in any way, yes. In the year 1095, yes, 1095. 95, Pope Urban II stands in Clermont and gives a sermon. This sermon is truly a sermon that changes Europe; he comes and says: we are here, and the Holy Land and the tomb of that man. >> Meaning, he stands in Europe and speaks about how Jerusalem, speaks about how Jerusalem is held by the hands of the impure, that is, by the hands of the Muslims. >> Muslims. >> Yes, and how can one come to terms with the fact that...that the holy Jerusalem and the Holy Land (he speaks of the whole Holy Land, Jerusalem—we have five records of this speech, it wasn't preserved itself, but he speaks about the Holy Land, the holy Jerusalem, and of course the tomb of their messiah) how are they held by impure hands? You can ask, come and ask: What? What? Yes, what? What? What happened to him? What side of the bed did he wake up on in the morning that he suddenly gives such a sermon? That...whoop! That it...this is a sermon that mobilizes one of the most characteristic things of the Christian Middle Ages, that is, the piety of the French, English, and other nobles—essentially those with means —and mobilizes them for a massive logistical effort. >> That eventually moves thousands of people with their horses and their supplies and such. >> Yes, many thousands of people. >> Moves them. To, yes, small armies. After all, we are talking about an era before mandatory conscription, meaning you have every lord with their own military forces. Europe, which was busy expanding within itself using these armies, usually also against each other , and now it is setting out—or parts of it are setting out—to some very distant unknown where, within that, a large percentage of them will die. From hunger. >> Setting out, I think that. >> From thirst, from heat. Think, they arrive—I'm just jumping, yes, I'm jumping almost 200 years forward— Battle of Hattin here, what is it? People arrive from Europe wearing armor , the horses in armor, and in the Israeli summer they simply. >> They simply die from the heat, yes? And are defeated before, uh, before Saladin and the Muslim armies. That is, you bring here some—yes, yes—some huge thing and it, that is, suddenly it has some such need. Why? From where? Now, this is a question that historians ask: What was this? It is so clear to us that to a person living at the edge of France, this is the Holy Land, Eretz Israel is the Holy Land and Jerusalem is the Holy City—this also happens a bit as a result of this event. >> Certainly, it is an event that in many ways creates Christian Europe—what we call Christian Europe. Because Europe is, even when they started, and several historians wrote about this, yes, in the half, in the middle of the tenth century before the crusades began; and look 200 years, 300 years later— Europe doubles itself in area and and and the Christians within it significantly, and creates a unified Christian framework that will truly call itself or refer to itself sometimes as Christian Europe. >> Yes, and it does this with the help, or to a large extent with the help, of this journey which, one must remember, truly comes a moment after many events, for example the schism, the Schism of 1054, this is an event where the Eastern Church detaches from the Western Church; it sounds very nice, but think about it for a moment from a more visual point. >> Constantinople, Byzantium, and Rome; actually think about it, until that year, yes, we are already well into the 11th century, you have patriarchs, or yes, high ecclesiastical authorities, one sits in Jerusalem, one sits in Constantinople, one sits in Rome, yes, you have four of those, another one. >> What, five great ones that manage the world, yes, they—and the church is decentralized among them, there is no identity between, yes, Rome, another very important place for you, the church is not, the church is not Rome's ; in 1054 these churches, Constantinople and it creates a schism and they separate, they separate. >> Separate, and then Rome, which is actually the least likely place—after all, Christianity was created here in Jerusalem, in the Mediterranean basin. >> Yes. Yes, in the Mediterranean basin. >> Suddenly then Rome, the least likely place, yes, and think that in Constantinople then, and also many years later, they continue to speak the , the ancient Greek of the, yes, which is the language of. >> A spoken language that is not close to the world of the Sages and not close to the world of the first Christians and so on and so forth. It is a very traditional place, and the church in Rome...therefore, when less than 50, when 51 years later you actually—the Pope declares a crusade in which he conquers. And I can already tell you what follows, that in the Fourth Crusade in 1204 for example, because crusades from here on out will be many. >> So, one must say that a crusade is not a single event, it is a 200-year event. >> Events, right, we have them, and there are dilemmas as to what to count inside and what to count outside, because some of them, like the First Crusade and the Second Crusade, were truly aimed at Jerusalem. >> And some of them don't even reach... >> The Fourth Crusade, for example, was supposedly meant to reach Jerusalem, but midway there is suddenly a small plot twist, and the Christian kingdom’s Venetian forces that set out on ships suddenly anchor in the port of Constantinople. >> And they conquer the second Christian kingdom, meaning Christians against Christians, in 1204 they conquer Constantinople and then, until a certain one comes and they conquered it , and it will be a kingdom. >> Under Roman rule. Meaning, here, the idea proved itself, and here Rome conquered during a crusade. Who did it conquer? Other Christians. Or if you want more dramatic examples, crusades that didn't go to the Land of Israel at all, yes, and still were authorized under the church authority we will speak about in a moment, of a crusade to conquer the Teutons in Germany, to go to the Baltic lands, to expel the Muslims from parts of Spain, the Iberian Peninsula, all of this under a crusade. >> Yes, now we must understand, we use this as a word, but Urban, whom I mentioned a moment ago in this speech, he creates a revolutionary infrastructure; he comes and says, yes, the church is indeed haunted by the question of guilt, there are sacraments , there are ways in which a person can merit the world to come. >> And he comes and says something very, very revolutionary: anyone who has sinned... >> And promises... >> A promise... >> He promises not just salvation, but... promises atonement, atonement in the world to come. >> Yes, anyone who—whoever sets out for a crusade, and—and this also has very earthly sides—it also talks about criminals who are actually obligated to all sorts of... >> All sorts of punishments. >> Punishments, whoever sets out, certainly anyone who has some spiritual punishment and is supposed to confess it, and whoever goes out on a crusade, participates in an institutionalized way in this crusade, puts the cross on their garment and leaves, has forgiveness of sins; this is a huge thing. >> In the syntax of the Christian soul, in the soul for the Christian soul of that period, and it is guaranteed by the only authority in the Christian world that... >> Is authorized to promise such a thing. >> Now, many things came out of this, for example, all the...following the— following the battles for Jerusalem and following the need to also try to secure this Christian achievement. The knightly orders will be born. Yes. The ... >> Meaning, some military Christian orders , the Templars, named after the Temple. Yes. The Templars and all the rest. >> Explain what these orders are. It's like groups... >> To groups of monks who, of course, do not marry, but unlike the ancient monk. >> Those we encounter here in the Judean Desert, yes, in the antiquities of the Judean Desert, unlike early or late Christian monasticism, they do not seclude themselves within their monasteries, but become warrior monks. They will not achieve their salvation through prayer, supplication, and the strict observance of Christian law, or through study or a life of contemplation like Augustine and thousands of others; they will achieve their salvation on horseback, fighting the Muslims. >> Yes, and this is either against other Christians, or against pagans in Teutonia, and in doing so, they will attain the salvation of their souls. This creates frameworks with enormous power to this day. Yes, the ones who manage a large part of Catholic Jerusalem, let's call it that, are the Franciscans, yes, one of the orders created in that period. At some point, these orders become too strong, and the Church tries to dismantle some of them. But it is also another product, a side effect of a new idea: the idea that, in fact, a Christian expresses his love for God through war. For Christianity, this is a very novel idea, especially since Christianity grew up here in the Land of Israel during a period of decrees and persecution, and its collective memory is a memory of martyrdom. >> Martyrdom is an important word here; the martyr is the saint who sacrifices, sacrifices his soul, >> Who sacrifices his soul, who is killed for his faith, not the one who goes and conquers on horseback the... >> That is to say, there is a point here that you will touch upon much more strongly in a moment, but in the eyes of the warrior, the martyr is not a murderer; he is the murdered one. >> In the eyes of the warrior, the martyr, the warrior is, I would say—I wouldn't say he is the murdered one, he certainly is not a murderer in his own eyes, he is a soul-sacrificer; he is sacrificing his soul. The word, the more accurate word is "soul-sacrificer. " A soul-sacrificer; he is performing an act of love, love of God. >> So what you are essentially saying is that we are talking about Christians who are charging toward the Holy Land, as it were; they are charging to achieve salvation, the forgiveness of their own sins. Now, what is the interest of... >> To take the Holy Land. >> To take the Holy Land and, they speak of it as being from the hands of impurity, from the hands of the Muslims , and this and this and this—it's like new feelings from the Christian perspective. And they speak, the Pope, when he speaks, he reminds them of the Maccabees who redeemed the Land of Israel; as far as they are concerned, they are the Jews. Before you speak about the Maccabees, I want to tell you that we have already been talking, notice, we have been talking for a quarter of an hour about the Crusades and we haven't mentioned the word "Jews ." >> No, it's not here at all for now. >> Because from our perspective, what happened in the Crusades is such a huge event here, so we will touch on that in a moment. And as you say, and this is the most surprising thing when one starts to read a little, is that the Christians perceive themselves in some way as Jews at all. >> True, Christians see themselves—it's always the paradox, right—in the replacement theory, yes, of Saul of Tarsus. Say the word, say it. >> The replacement [theory] comes and says : the true Israel is the true Israel, meaning the Israel of the spirit is the true Israel; that is, the Israel that defines itself through faith in this new faith, which is perceived by them as the true Judaism. The true Israel is the Israel of the spirit, it is the true Israel, and therefore every word directed in the Torah where it is written "Israel," the "People of Israel ," is directed at them. And they identify themselves [as such], while the Israel of the flesh, that is, the Jews, they... >> The old Jews, physically speaking, were replaced by God. He chose them once, they are important, but now He has made a new choice, and the old choice—the Old Covenant—was nullified because they sinned. >> Of course, it's possible to say that, but, but...yes. Now, within all this, what you're saying is something very interesting: they set out, and what are the sources of inspiration they speak of when they go to take revenge on the Muslims? When they go, they talk about sources we are familiar with, to a large extent one could even say about sources that not everyone knows; who reads Flavius Josephus? Or the Book of Maccabees? Yes, who even... >> They talk—I think there is one place where they talk about Hannah and her seven sons. >> Right, they talk about Hannah and her sons. >> They see here an event where they, the Jews who continue, who go... >> Right. >> Go to sacrifice their souls to receive the World to Come, to achieve all this, and here the Jewish story begins to be much, much more interesting. >> True, it must be said, when they arrive in Jerusalem again as a noble act of love—Jerusalem, according to the Crusaders 'descriptions—yes, it is drenched in blood, the blood of vengeance, blood of Muslims and also of Jews. Everyone who was there, they murdered without distinction, Muslim or otherwise. This act of Christian love was a very murderous love. >> But it is described among them, right, with many images, some of which are Jewish images, even if their motives, again... >> Are they anti-Jewish? No, they are not anti-Jewish. The Crusade is not anti-Jewish in any way. >> This Crusade is not anti-Jewish; the treasury of images they use is partly Jewish, is what I meant to say, even though the real motives are [ anti-Jewish]. Suddenly you are creating here a new world of passions that is driven by, among other things, the schism I described; that is, the fact that there is essentially a church here that is not centralized. Driven by distress, the distress of land in Europe; the entire system of knights and their inheritances requires expansion. That is to say, because I read something interesting about inheritance laws that say only the eldest inherits (Hasidic courts are somewhat familiar with this). If only the eldest inherits, it turns out there are many, many children—let's call them the "younger ones"—who have no position, no job, no land, and nothing. It is very easy to recruit this public to go and carry out radical actions. >> Right? There are quite a few things fermenting here. There is also in the background the ongoing wars against the Muslims in Spain. >> In Spain. There, a long war is already being waged where sometimes the Christians, sometimes the Muslims, and sometimes there are alliances of Christians with Muslims against other Christians, and even there, it feels like a very uncomfortable situation. Suddenly, a kind of—a kind of window for religious wars is created there; suddenly, yes, Christianity is fighting , not of its own initiative... >> Against the Muslims. >> It becomes, yes, the Christian-Muslim story becomes, or at least at times it looks like, a religious war. So it's a bit like a trailer that Urban II takes and creates from it a new program—a more ambitious and fundamental program. >> In other words, if we want to summarize : the first change resulting from this declaration by Urban, let's call it that, is that he essentially creates the Christian sentiment that we must fight for Christianity. Christianity is not...one must say this, Christianity is not hundreds of years old at this time, he is crystallizing it. We are all, first of all by definition, we are all Christians, it is important to all of us. And there is us and there are the foreigners, there are the others, and we are going to fight them. >> Yes, Christianity is already many years old, but he is relying here on things. A, we are things that were, a, he is definitely doing here some kind of reorganization that will also affect many generations. That is to say, he is creating an era, yes. One of the, one of the historians who wrote about this period actually wrote a book, the title of which is the formation of a persecuting society, essentially a Christian society. He says: the Crusades. >> After that, the campaigns against Christian heresy in Europe. >> Meaning, it becomes. >> The campaigns, the marking of lepers, the marking of Jews, the marking of witches later on—that is, he calls it so, he calls it, he calls it the formation of a society whose logic is a persecuting society, a society occupied with defining itself through its devotion to God, through markings, labeling, and persecutions of the others, the different ones: lepers, Jews, Christian heretics, women considered to be women who might have healing powers or other powers attributed to them. It is the formation —that is, and he truly touches upon it here—this is one of the first points where this persecuting society is truly created and will flourish in Europe. >> And here we arrive at our story; our story is ostensibly a subplot. That is, we got stuck there on the way, we, that is, the Jews, they went out with all the fervor and they were all in all and that, and we just didn't fit in well for them along the way. >> Let's tell the story more accurately. The Crusade is like everything related to, related to the Vatican, to the church, yes, to the Catholic Church, it is a very organized and orderly thing. By and large, yes, it requires funding, logistics, equipment; those who go out to it are the knights and their soldiers who hope for and also gain estates—in the first Crusade, four new Christian kingdoms are established: Jerusalem. >> There is B. >> Uh. >> Near, what is it called today, Romania over there. >> Right, Asia Minor, Asia Minor, Antioch, yes, four Christian kingdoms are established, and that means estates, that means money, that means new opportunities for the unsuccessful children of knights from Europe, for example. >> Besides the world to come, there is also this world. >> No, there is a lot of this world here, but then it is a very organized thing. >> Alongside it, and not as part of it, alongside it. >> It is important to say, not as part of it, alongside it, popular movements, hitchhikers, grow. >> Religious, and also not religious, it is also a popular thing. And when you press on a certain spiritual mental string, it stirs much beyond the focused organization. There is the sermon meant to persuade the nobles, and it has very formal structures, very clear formats; many others hear this sermon, it touches them, it just touches them, it touches their hearts, and they embark on crusades they didn't necessarily plan. For example, one of the most wondrous and somewhat legendary episodes, but wondrous nonetheless, is the Children's Crusade: children, a boy of 12 or 13, leads hundreds of children walking on foot to reach Jerusalem and save it, and they die, and they all die along the way. Yes, they all die the moment they reach some territory. The Children's Crusade. There are all sorts of such crusades, meaning, the popular, unorganized crusades that stem from this religious fervor. One of them, and it...one of them, led by a few local priests, is truly the wave of rioters that go and harm Jewish communities. >> In France first, and in the Rhineland, the communities—we know which ones— in the communities of Speyer, Worms, Mainz, Cologne, and others in other crusades, it spreads to other places; these are the Jews of Central Europe, not to mention York. >> Who are harmed very severely by these rioters who act, as described in both Christian and Jewish sources, by an "a fortiori" argument; it is described saying: if they say that we are going to avenge the revenge of... >> The infidels there, we have here near us the people who killed our Messiah, and we won't harm them? They use the "a fortiori" logic themselves and create a mass, and they go and attack the Jewish neighborhoods, the neighborhoods where the Jews live. >> And with the goal of conversion and murder, and one must be precise, they don't just come to kill. >> They don't...they come to kill; they come to kill and convert. >> Everyone they can—the option they offer is death or conversion. >> Yes, and this is the popular movement. This distinction, which is a very sharp distinction in the concepts of that era between institutionalized Christianity and popular Christianity, also explains the actions of the Jews. >> Because a paradox happens; sometimes the Jews are forced to seek protection. >> Almost always, one of the first things the Jews do in such a place is to seek the protection of the Christian authorities, the bishops. >> The prelates, in the language of our sources, yes, who are the churchmen, and the Jews ask for their help and usually receive it as well. They go, the communities go, and a large part of the battles, the exiles, and the acts of destruction—if you want to look at Worms, at Mainz, at the places where the killings eventually took place, these were inside the churches, inside the monasteries where the Jews fled; the Jews fled to the monasteries, and the monastery protected them. >> Yes, the monks protected them, sometimes even fought for them, sometimes took bribes and turned them in, sometimes tried to fight and failed , there were many behaviors. >> But in the end, they were the ones who protected them, and the Jews had good reason to understand that then, and in the 700 years that followed, institutionalized Christianity was their support, because according to the thesis of... >> Contrary to how we are used to perceiving it, like the Inquisitions and such. >> Yes, the Jew who fled from the Christian rioter, who was moved by a Christian impulse, fled to the Christian bishop of that same city, and he protected him. >> Who grasps this paradox? Yes, it is not a paradox; it is complexity. >> This complexity stems from the fact that the Christian Church, as an organized body, believes in the religious theses of Christianity in which, yes, already in the fifth century AD, Augustine interpreted the verse in Isaiah "do not slay them"– those who come and say we have replaced , I just spoke about the Jews–the Jews still have a positive role within >> within the structure of the community, they are, he calls them "the carriers of the books," they hold the true books that they do not know how to read, and as long as they are humiliated >> then that is part of the correction >> It is part of the testimony to the replacement, the replacement theory needs them to be replaced constantly so that they can testify to it, and therefore indeed, when we reach the Middle Ages in the Frankish lands, this thesis has very, very physical forms of expression, you have a Christian city and on its margins, there is a Jewish street. That is to say, the margins, the Jews as margins, are marked. Meaning they are not yet sometimes marked, sometimes not; after that, they will be marked more clearly, only from the Fourth Lateran Council, but >> They are, they are, they are, they are differentiated, they are humiliated to a large extent, and they are also, and this must also be remembered, and they fulfill a very important economic role for the bishops, for those same bishops ; that is, the alliance is not just an alliance >> of a religious nature, it is not just such a beautiful, theoretical Augustinian alliance, it is also often related to money, to pledges, and to mechanisms of loans and credit in which , again, both the Jews and the bishops belong >> in this period to the layer, let's say, the more established one that deals with, that holds capital >> I am already throwing out, I am already throwing out, the comparisons that are made all the time, and we might talk about this later, between the pogroms of 1648 and 1649 and the pogroms of what we call TTR [1096], and this comparison is precisely because of this issue, because what happens in 1648-1649 is much more pronounced, there is an alliance there between the Jews and the upper class >> Right, and in 1648-1649, also, those who perpetrate the violence are not just a rioting mob, but it is truly the chaotic forces that invade Poland, into the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from the east, yes, the Cossacks, these unorganized armies, they are the ones who invade. There is similarity and there is difference, indeed, between 1648-1649 and 1096. >> But we will touch on this, we will touch on this because it is an interesting story in its own right. >> So I just want you to start by telling us, actually, what we are now—let's go back for a moment, we tried to give some broad context—now remind us what we know, what is written in our sources , and who actually wrote our sources? >> Yes, we have in our hands several chronicles, that is to say, relatively systematic descriptions of the events as they happened in different communities in the [Rhine] Valley. >> People who are not used to it, we have what is called—the closest thing to this is memorial books. >> It is not books, yes, documents. >> Documents that basically describe >> describe the order of events from the point of view of the Jews, of the Jews —which Jews? Those who died, of course, did not write. >> Those who wrote, in many cases, and the example is, yes, the decrees of the year 1096 by Rabbi Solomon bar Simson, for example, who was a descendant of the Jews of Mainz, that is to say, his ancestors. >> His ancestors were probably not killed, yes his ancestors, whom we will ask ourselves about in a moment, but his ancestors, Rabbi Shlomo's, were present during the events, and he himself, about 45 years later, writes the events , and those 45 years, we will return to them, because between 1096 and 1140, when he writes the chronicle, 45 years seems like a short time, but perhaps it is not a short time. The memory is surely fresh, but there are other things entering in: this generation of the children of the survivors, he writes. >> It is the second generation. >> It is this second generation that is truly filled with a sense of trauma from an unprecedented event, a catastrophe; one must remember that these people are often writing these chronicles in the very places where they occurred. That is to say, the SHUM communities, which although they were struck very, very severely, they recovered very quickly. Yes, and within the attempt to rebuild these communities, an attempt that succeeded, chronicles are also written that truly bring the memory and create, consolidate the collective memory of the Jews of Europe regarding what happened to them. A memory that will have endless significance also in prayer and in the language of prayer and in the Ashkenazi outlooks toward Kiddush Hashem from here on for many, many years. >> So, just a moment, I want us to frame it: we have more than one chronicle. We have mainly three central chronicles. Meaning three documents that basically record the essence. One of them is by Rabbeinu Ra'avan, and we have another one called, um, by a certain anonymous person. >> Right? Right, an anonymous author. >> The anonymous author whom we do not know who he is. Now, it is very interesting to think about the connection between the, the, that is to say, to perform a comparison between the chronicles, which is something that has been done. And it must be said that in parallel to all this, we have descriptions that entered into the Kinot order, into the prayer order, where there are also visual descriptions. It is not just crying, but we say in the Kinot about the Jews of, the Jews of Speyer, Worms, and Mainz, we say, we actually describe there, there are descriptions there that also tell us the story. >> True, we have to remember, since the Crusades, in Ashkenazi communities, there is the Memorbuch which they take out. >> A Memorbuch is the book of memory. >> The local memorial book. >> A local manuscript, yes. >> In which they add the lists of the deceased every time, and every. >> Day that has a Yizkor, every day that has a memorial, basically what we— right, another Ashkenazi ritual created following the Crusades, every such place where the souls of the dead are mentioned, they pull out this, um. >> Which has been in the community for hundreds of years, and they copy it and read on the bimah the names of those murdered for the sanctification of God's name and the communities that were murdered. And what about later? I will tell you more than that: we have Yosef the Shamash of the Worms community in the 17th century. He, for example, describes the ceremony of the eve, what they do on the eve of, on the eve of Rosh Hashanah and the eve of Yom Kippur, when they go to the graves, like we know from the Shulchan Aruch. >> Yes, yes. >> Uh, what do they do? There is a custom; one of the important stops is to stop at the grave of the 12 communal leaders at the cemetery in Worms, even if you go today. >> I think it exists today. >> The marker exists; the marker is in the place where it stood. Why? Because of the connection, because Jews—let's say not the same city of Worms, of Worms—the Jews continue on holidays when they go up to the cemetery to make the rounds. They even have a special fast on the first of Sivan, on the day those leaders were murdered. That is to say, they remember the place where they are buried and they go and say prayers there every year, several times a year. They have a special fast dedicated to the 12 leaders, meaning the leaders of the community who were murdered in the bishop's courtyard in Worms, on the first of Sivan that same year during the Crusade. It is truly amazing, and of course, as we said earlier, there is an influence on the community for generations. And perhaps you even hinted to me that it's possible that even today—not only in Haredi Israel, but also in Zionist Israel, let's call it—there are implications, this commemoration, the fact that we commemorate so much. You mentioned the researcher. >> Uh, I will say this. A combination was formed here that became very characteristic of Ashkenazi Jewry: self-sacrifice, ease of soul, uh, the devotion to die for the sanctification of the Name, and also the sense of holiness and purity that comes with this death, with this death. >> For your Judaism, for the sanctification of the Name, remember that in those same years... >> Almost as if, yes, 50 years later, yes, in Spain we have the, the, the same Muslim groups like the Almohad, who go, fanatical groups that go and harm all the Jews, and there the accepted response is a response of conversion. >> That is to say, we must say: You mentioned that there were great figures in Ashkenaz, they sacrificed their souls, they died for the sanctification of the Name. In the lands of Islam, some chose to convert to Islam, at least to convert—to convert ostensibly, right? And the story is famous, the story about the Rambam's family is famous, there are others, yes , it was clear that this was a forced conversion, that the moment they could get out from under their hand, they would return to Judaism openly, and that is indeed what happened. Now, I will address the historical reality in a moment—it is not so simple, but certainly in historical memory, this is the memory that is preserved, and we have wonderful witnesses to this. If you sit for a moment, you know, on the simplest issue of the Sanhedrin, in— right, on the three sins? So, uh, so, so the Rambam rules, right? The Rambam whose family we just mentioned, this Rambam is the one who rules that anyone who sacrifices their soul when not obligated to do so, is considered responsible for their own death. That is to say, it is, of course, a paradoxical expression, but on the simple halachic level he says: A person is forbidden to sacrifice their soul except for the three sins, and not in times of religious persecution. In contrast, the Tosafists explicitly write that it is permitted for him; they write it as an allowance. >> Not mandatory, but. >> Not mandatory, but they write it as an allowance. >> That is to say, not only in other places, they even write that it is a holy act for him. >> In Ashkenaz, concrete problems also appear related to this. What we see, for example, with the Maharam of Rothenburg and in many other places, for example, a Jew who comes—and it's not just about self-sacrifice in the case of the Crusades, it's also about the killing of children. >> Or that is a point we see in our communities, meaning there were mothers and fathers who decided >> to kill their infants so they would not be tempted, so they would not fall to Christianity. >> True. >> And that is something I think is almost primal. >> Right, but let's briefly go over the different ways the Jews reacted; we are jumping a bit from subject to subject. >> Let's briefly go over the different ways the Jews reacted to the Crusades, and then we will talk about the community of memory. >> But the Jewish chronicles are very focused on the subject of Kiddush Hashem (sanctification of the Name). It is also the central Ashkenazi memory. Kiddush Hashem. The "El Maleh Rachamim" prayer, which according to one account of the "Hadrat Kodesh" Mahzor was found on the bimah one day following the— following the prayer we say on Sabbaths , or for example, the statement of the Maharil. Think of the Maharil, who says —yes, hundreds of years later, he speaks about the cemetery, saying it is a holy and pure place, the resting place of the righteous; words like " holy and pure" for a cemetery could not have been said >> before that. >> Without this experience, the experience of the purity and holiness of self-sacrifice, the resting place of the righteous in the Ashkenazi world is only called "holy" >> for someone who was killed. >> For someone who was killed for the sanctification of the Name; no other person is called "holy." There is a theory, a hypothesis, that the Ashkenazi expression "holy communities" (Kehillot HaKodesh) is rooted in the fact that they sacrificed their lives for the sanctification of the Name. There is no holiness, yes, in the communities, they are not holy by their very nature; they are holy because in them, people sacrificed their lives for the sanctification of the Name. In other words, this experience is a very fundamental experience, and it is true that one can think about this Ashkenazi side which is so, so...Look, a book like "Yosef Ometz" from Frankfurt, 16th century, he writes the daily order, the laws, the customs of the daily order: what one does at Shacharit, what one does with this, and then a person eats, and then he sets out on his way. When he writes about setting out on the road , he mentions the laws of Kiddush Hashem, because if you go on the road, it might be that you will have to sanctify the Name—when to make a blessing, when not to, for what yes, for what no. It becomes a part of it. >> The blessing for Kiddush Hashem, the blessing "Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to sanctify the Name," was also established in this context. >> Years later, but yes, the Bach writes that when a person says "Shema Yisrael, " right? Then he should imagine himself as if he has sacrificed his life for the sanctification of the Name. That is to say, both as an act and as an internal image. The idea, the self-sacrifice for the sanctification of the Name, the idea of the holy death , the pure death, is very, very strong in the Ashkenazi world. Therefore, one can truly look, and sometimes you wonder when you look at contemporary Israeli society and its choice—which is not self-evident in the world—in the centrality for it of the world of bereavement. Yes, and this feeling, yes , about soldiers they also say, they would say, they still say: "May Hashem avenge their blood." Yes, which is an expression, "May Hashem avenge their blood," which is yes. >> That is an expression that belongs to the Crusades, yes, of course, and there is something in—sometimes you look around and you say that, really, the Israeli Zionist community is in some sense a very unconscious reincarnation of a medieval Ashkenazi community; the central place it gives to death for the sanctification of the Name, in the rallying around—even at the moment a soldier dies, he truly becomes a saint, not only in the religious sense, but in the heroic sense, in the sense of... >> Yes, so there is, of course, something a bit paradoxical in the fact that a Zionist community that tried to distance itself from the Diaspora actually took it back. But yes, but Professor Yoram Bilu described it really beautifully, as he wrote about both the Moroccan saints scattered here in the country and about the monuments of the fallen—how central this place is, how he went and counted almost 1,000 such monuments, yes, of such and such units. Meaning, how much this, this subject. >> This subject of the martyrs. >> Is central. On the other hand, if we spoke about Israeli society, the Haredi society also holds onto. >> Obviously. " >> We shall die and not..." >> The "we shall die and not" is definitely yes. >> It is also—it is very, very strong. So in that sense, it is a confrontation between two Ashkenazi communities that seem to take the same dough, the same materials, but. >> And you—and you say Ashkenazi, and I want to say, to throw out a sign for the future, we—when we, as we examine the non-Ashkenazi communities, we will not find these manifestations, or we will find them in a completely different form. >> In very different forms, yes. >> Yes. >> In very, very different forms. >> That is Ashkenazi Jewry. Basically, that is when it takes shape. We need to mention here a few names that are very relevant, very relevant to the discussion: Rabbenu Rashi, who lived then, the Tosafists who lived, and some of them—according to the stories at least—are slaughtered for the sanctification of the Name and all. This whole thing shapes us. It shapes you. You see how it gets into the compositions, into the Midrash, into, into, into our literature. >> True, I want to briefly quote Rashi from the liturgical poem "Torah Temimah ," whose name is found there as an acrostic and he is likely the author. >> Meaning, it is not clear to us that he is the author, but the assumption is that he is the author. >> He writes: "Seek the shame of Your pious ones, and the spilling of the blood of Your students at the hands of the sons of fornication who destroyed Your...Your students who tore Your curtains and trampled me, and with anger and fury destroyed Your dwellings ." These words—Rashi, one must remember, was very old when the Crusades occurred; in fact, he passed away—the Crusades were in 1096, and he passed away in 1105, yes, nine years later. And there is here, there is a scholarly discussion on the question. >> For example, in his writings on the Talmud, in his writings on—in his commentary on the Bible, uh, was it already, how finished was it? No, certainly he started it in 1080; he certainly started it earlier. But the question, for example, his commentary on Isaiah: was it finished then or not finished then? Researchers are trying to clarify the matter, because there are in his commentaries to all the...to Isaiah, to the Song of Songs, very sharp expressions of the Jewish polemic that was created. And in fact, many of the things we spoke about here are found in Rashi. Yes, remember for example, right, Rashi on Leviticus: " And I shall be sanctified"—Rashi says : "Surrender yourself and sanctify My name." Again, it is found in the sources. >> That it is based on Chazal. >> Of course, the language is the language of Chazal, but still this emphasis, yes , Rashi chooses "and I will be sanctified," and then he says, and he adds that he who delivers himself to die... >> That whoever delivers himself with the intent to die, no miracle is performed for him; meaning this question, which echoes very strongly later in the Ashkenazi world—there are, for example, traditions saying that whoever gives himself up wholeheartedly will not feel pain. >> That is a tradition that comes from Maharam of Rothenburg, I think. >> True, it is later, but it essentially says that there is no pain, that it is accepted by us that there is no pain. >> There is a whole world. This, there is a whole world of beliefs and traditions related to this fundamental experience. So Rashi on Leviticus, think: Rashi on the Song of Songs, it's impossible. " What is your beloved more than another beloved," right? The nations ask Israel : What is the nature of your God for whom you are being burned, for whom you are being crucified? Rashi crystallizes , Rashi on the Song of Songs, the experience of the love of the congregation, the public that sees success in the commandment of martyrdom . >> On the other hand, it is important to say this is not the first time it started. Certainly not, certainly not. >> Sanctification of the Name goes with us from Abraham who jumps into the fiery furnace and... >> Probably, probably this is the moment when it starts. >> Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. >> And yet, scholars easily identify within Rashi’s language not only this great matter of sanctification, not just the tradition, not only the tradition of Sanctification of the Name , but also the national experience facing Christianity and the Jewish-Christian polemic. Including details and the thesis that Rashi argues about, of the confrontation over ...Because, and one must remember this, and it probably happened, it is possible there are some things Rashi wrote in the wake of the Crusades. But the truth is that even the Crusade, historically, is not so new in the atmosphere in which Rashi lived. Already 30 years earlier, in 1062, there is a bull—that is, a church decree—that is truly related to the war against the Muslims in Spain—but it says: do not kill the Jews on the way. Yes, because again, the Church believes in preserving Jewish life and says: only by will and not by force. But when it says that, the thing is happening. The Crusade is the documented and noted place, but it is not the first; such things happened, and Rashi writes within this atmosphere . One must understand that in this atmosphere...Supersessionism—if we place the emphasis on it for a moment —it says: these are two religions in confrontation. If one is right, the other is wrong, and if one is wrong— the other...We see it in this week's Torah portion: it is two nations, it is a type of, not Antoninus and Rabbi, but someone here needs to win. >> This is the confrontation, and Jews in many respects really feel that this confrontation is unequivocal, and therefore, for example, also in the chronicles in the descriptions of the horrors of the Crusades, you have Jews standing inside the narrow courtyard as I described, there are of course bars and a door and a gate that the mob is trying to break through, and any moment they will break it, and the Jews in these situations, according to the chronicles, curse the name of Jesus... >> Yes. >> And the Christian faith, and compare it to... >> I mean, they curse her in her own house , they come to provoke them, yes, there , but against the mob, because for them , this is the feeling: the condemnation of Christianity, its degradation and humiliation, moments before you die for the sanctification of God because you refuse to convert—this condemnation is a testament, it is the sanctification of God, a testament to the righteousness of Judaism. Meaning, there is some kind of inner collision that a person carries within themselves . >> And that this is a decision, it will fall and rise, someone will decide, someone will revive this binary structure, the 0-1 structure, yes, the structure that is, in fact, at this particular moment, certainly within the religious tension of the Crusade, Jews and Christians experience the same thing. >> Now, I need to add another word because we previously defined that Maimonides practices moderation and the Ashkenazi Hasidim do not; ah, one must also say they made a different Halachic distinction. Meaning that here, Christianity is truly different, at least in its principles and in its view of "Shituf"(association/trinity), than Islam. Meaning there is a Halachic distinction here as well. It is not just this reality of >> Yes, I am returning here to things written by the historian Jacob Katz. When going to the Tosafists, one sees that in terms of economic activity, they define Christianity in many complex ways: whether one is commanded regarding the "Shituf" or not commanded regarding the "Shituf," how exactly one understands this matter. This is true at the level of economic activity that was shared, but it is not true—as Jacob Katz himself said—in the world of religious sentiment and religious faith. There, Christianity is unequivocally idolatry, not just idolatry, but much more than that. Yes, like it is one, yes, ah, no. The intent : the sons of death and the sons of life, yes, who is this pleasant one here, pleasant? Yes, sons of death and sons of life, it's either this or that, yes? There is here, between the, who is right? The Jews and the Christians are struggling. I mentioned earlier Rashi in the intellectual world, but Jews and Christians are struggling over the same holy scriptures: who is right? Who are they talking about? And therefore the struggle in a deep and emotional way— again, not necessarily in the scholarly world—in the scholarly world, it is conducted. >> An argument. >> An argument is being conducted: whether , whether the sanctification of God >> Whether the sanctification of God of the Rhine Valley communities was according to Halacha or not according to Halacha—we will touch upon that in a moment—a very scholarly debate is being conducted there, but in the world of religious sentiment, there is no doubt; Ashkenaz chooses. >> And one sees this through now. Let us take this apart for a moment, for the Ashkenazi communities. What was it about? Wait, I have spoken here until now about memory and an ethos that has, of course, roots in reality, but it is not the entire reality. If one reads the chronicles—those chronicles that celebrate death for the sanctification of God—we see there, and we can also get from them a picture (with a sensitive reading), a pretty good picture of a variety of courses of action that the Jews took against the mob that came to attack them. And let's detail for a moment; I want to detail them for a moment. >> Because the Jews were not really as passive as it is portrayed; it's not that they only sat and recited Psalms and waited. >> And blessed for the sanctification of God and waited, yes, for there to be no break until someone came to kill them —that is not the image that emerges for us, not even from the chronicles that are the main experience they describe. >> The Jews, as we already said, first of all try to forge alliances; yes, they —and sometimes they even succeed. >> Alliances with kings and alliances with the, with the, with the, with the Christian authorities, something that ... >> Cases where they go out to meet the mobs and give them food, as if to calm them down before... >> They try sometimes, many, many times, it is a bribe, right? This is one way of acting. Our points are bribes, alliances, connections. A second way, which we already mentioned, fleeing to the church fortresses. Another way of acting that we see when this too—when even this doesn't help—another way of acting is war. I want to read for a moment; it is very contrary to this image of the weak Ashkenazi Jew who stands there. But in many of the things described here, for example, yes, when —ah, when the holy covenant people who were there, the holy, God-fearing ones, the great multitude, a great army like the sand by the seashore, clung to their Creator. What does it mean, " clung to their Creator"? >> They fought. >> They wore armor and girded their weapons of war, from the greatest to the smallest; yes, the Jewish public goes and wears the armor—we come from the Middle Ages, that's how they fight, swords and armor. >> And they have this equipment. >> And Rabbi Kalonymus bar Rabbi Meshullam is at the head. >> At the head, exactly, Kalonymus, this well-known family, the most, most, most famous Ashkenazi family—truly he stands at the head, at the head of the community, he is also a fighter, he is the commander. >> But there is a small problem here. >> And the author of the chronicle tells us they were weak because of the troubles and the fasts; troubles, that is, fasts that they did, they had no strength to stand against. >> True, true, that is an interpretation, yes, but we have quite a few such descriptions of Jews. >> Further, further in the same section, and the men of Israel donned their weapons in the inner courtyard of the bishop and they all approached the gate to fight with the crusaders and the townspeople, and they fought one against the other at the gate and caused injuries and won. >> Right, so the war here as well, and the bishop himself fled from his own house. >> Right, he also... >> They said they would kill him too because he spoke well of Israel. >> Exactly, the bishop tries to protect the Jews, and he himself is threatened in the end because the mob wins in these situations. And this is another way of acting: Jews fighting. A third way, another way that should be mentioned, and it is also mentioned, is that Jews also convert to Christianity in some cases. Within the chronicles themselves, a massive baptism in the river is described to us; they baptize masses, yes, of Jews who are baptized. I will say more than that, who they are , we have, we also have documentation, ah, very clear documentation, truly following the events, a very unusual papal decree is issued that says: after all, usually, whoever—whoever— whoever converted once, from the perspective of the Church, cannot return—so think about the Jews in Spain hundreds of years later, yes? Once someone has accepted the Christian faith, he is already there. >> If he is a heretic, he is a Christian heretic; the Church, following the First Crusade, issues a decree that it is permissible for Jews to return to their Judaism even though they had converted. We are talking about a large phenomenon. I don't know the exact numbers, but we are talking about a very significant phenomenon where many Jews also converted in this situation. It is a moment that must be called " converted." >> For the sake of appearance, because of the rape, and it is clear that the vast majority of them returned to Judaism at the first opportunity they had. I will say even more than that. Some of the people writing the chronicles, or those who create the historical memory we spoke of—the memory of "Kiddush Hashem"—are children of those... >> Those who did not sanctify the Name. >> Right, they are the children of the converts, into the stench, as it is written. Yes, as the sources themselves , the Jewish sources, call them: those who immersed themselves in that stench, yes, into Christianity. And their children, who are actually the founders of the new communities—where did the founders of the new communities appear from? Yes, these are the children of the...the children of the converts who returned to Judaism, and they are determined to rebuild the communities as holy communities, with the memory of death as their banner. But it stemmed from the fact that in reality, there were quite a few who converted— converted temporarily, converted under pressure—and didn't see it as...there is an entire halakhic debate, and it becomes, of course, a very charged, very big debate about whether... >> Whether one had to sacrifice themselves at all. >> Yes, what does Halakha say? We spoke earlier about the dispute between the Rambam and the Tosafists. What does the Halakha say in the case of such a conversion that is not... >> Uh... >> That you don't actually admit it, you're just making a move for the sake of appearance. >> Right, what does Halakha actually say about this thing, or what did the Halakha say about it, yes, in the year 1095? A complex question. I will mention here some scholarly literature on this matter that also opens up very, very interesting angles for us, even if this question is not so simple to answer. I will maybe mention one more thing. We clearly see that even in the chronicles, the leaders of some of the events, a large part of the events, their leaders are not men, they are women. >> Women. >> Women, women, women jumping over the bridge. Also, the descriptions of noblewomen throwing coins and money out the windows; it's like you constantly see "the hands of compassionate women who slaughtered their children to do the will of their Creator." Meaning, it’s a very feminine moment suddenly. >> Right, feminine religiosity, yes, in general, female movements in the Middle Ages. That is true, religious movements in the Middle Ages were to a great extent led by women. One could say that , in general, religious sentiment... >> Or religiosity in the sense that men are responsible for the, of course, for the regulations, but women for the... for the religious sentiment, for the religious certainty. And this is also reflected very strongly in the chronicles, yes, a seemingly unlearned public that leads the... >> Also the slaughter of the children in very many events. >> Now, is it related, yes, where does it stem from? Scholars have suggested various interesting answers for this. For example, yes, Professor Avraham Grossman, of blessed memory, listed, for example, several factors. One of them, one idea, is related, for example , to the Aggadic literature. Grossman comes and says this thing actually reflects an Ashkenazi attitude different from the Sephardic one toward legal ruling—after all, a Geon Rav wrote... >> If you mentioned the righteous man, say a word about him, because Rabbi... because Professor Grossman, Rabbi Grossman was... >> He passed away not long ago, I was even at the funeral. >> And he was, uh, he researched what we know, he researched the Tosafists. >> The Tosafists and Rashi, right, really, uh. >> He knew this world through the. >> He was a man who lived deeply, yes, this world, he admired this world and was connected to it with every fiber of his soul. >> By the way, also women in the Talmud, he also, he also deals with that. >> A little, right. >> With, clearly, there is, Rami. >> Right, he really was, Professor Grossman, of blessed memory, truly was a man who was, in that way, truly God-fearing with a very deep connection . To the depth of this world that he researched, and so, for example, he tried in quite a few places to decipher , uh, this religious behavior that seemed to him, by his understanding, to be not according to the Halakha, or rather, not according to the written Halakha, seemingly, seemingly. >> It did not come from within the Beit Midrash as he would like. >> Seemingly it did not come from within the Beit Midrash, but he offered a variety of fascinating answers for it. So one of them actually does come to the Beit Midrash or to a religiosity that speaks of the fact that in the world of the Geonim you find a very distinguishing attitude between Halakha and Aggadah. Yes? There is Halakha in Halakha and there is no Halakha in Aggadah. Rabbi Gaon says we do not rely on the Midrashim, but rather each person interprets according to, each person interprets according to. >> Later on, Ramban also addressed this. >> Right? Each person interprets according to his heart. Right? That is what Rabbi Gaon says. And in contrast to that, in the Jerusalem Talmud, if we return there, right, as you said, it is also the legends and the culture, as we know . And Israel Ta-Shma, of blessed memory , taught us a lot about the deep connection of Ashkenazi Jews to their hidden sources in Italy and the Land of Israel, in Byzantium and the Land of Israel. This means that to a large extent, this community, which meets the Babylonian Talmud relatively late, already has established ways of life. These medieval Ashkenazi Jews, and they , in contrast to the Babylonian and Geonic approach, they, in contrast, treat the Aggadah with holy awe. And if in Halakha, Grossman claims, if in Halakha martyrdom is condemned, in Aggadah it is requested. The legends of the Gemara in Gittin about those who jumped into the sea, the legends of the destruction and other places; there one can see it in the chronicles all the time: "Happy is anyone who is killed and slaughtered and dies for the sanctification of His name and will be ready and prepared and have a seat with the righteous, Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues, the foundations of the world who are killed for His name." You identify here all the legends of our Sages. >> There is a binding, such a binding. Right, the chronicles say so too. Right , the legendary language is rich. Now, one could argue, and then Grossman says : Ashkenazi Jews, we see it in a wealth of other sources, they related in Ashkenaz, yes, they derive Halakha from the Aggadah. And this can be given a very large scope of, of, uh, of examples of the fact that Ashkenazi Halakhic ruling, its creativity, often sits on a very serious relationship to the words of the Aggadah, a correct, serious Halakhic relationship. Thing. >> The latest manifestation is that of the Three Weeks. >> If you like, but think about manifestations: if we return for a moment to holy Rashi, Rashi tells us the sentence that is also anchored in the reality of his time: "A Jew, even if he has sinned, remains a Jew." The Gemara in Sanhedrin mentions it, in the form of an Aggadic statement, that it never crossed his mind. The Geonim? Yes , yes, the Geonim of Babylon thought that a Jew who converted, in terms of his Halachic conduct, his testimony was disqualified. >> Meaning, a secular Jew of our time, according to the Geonim, >> I’m not jumping to the secular person immediately, but yes, the convert is not a Jew. Yes, in terms of his testimony, it was deeply compromised according to the various schools of the Geonim. In contrast, Rashi, in three different places in his responsa, adopts this Aggadic saying as a binding Halachic ruling. Regarding betrothal, they are concerned with the betrothal, because "a Jew, even though he has sinned, remains a Jew," and similarly in other matters, between man and his neighbor, and more. That is to say, Rashi stands, again, even before the Crusades, and also—what is Halacha— but before the Crusades he faces a reality of converts in whom he feels that Jewish sentiment. In this sense, you also see here the reliance on Aggadic teachings; you also see here, you see both sides of the experience of devotion, which again began before the Crusades, the experience of devotion to the sanctification of the Name: one is the intensity of devotion, even unto death for the devotion to the Holy One, Blessed be He, and on the other hand, you also see here the love for all Jewishness, the concept of "Yidishkeit, " the Judaism that is, as it were, an internal concept beyond any Halachic calculation. >> If you will, if you will, love for Israel even if he is a Christian. >> Right, even when he converted, even when he converted, Rashi is speaking there in a large part of the cases about the converts, about those very converts. >> These converts are "a Jew who has sinned is still a Jew." I mean, in this sense, the Ashkenazi religious experience stretches here to the depths —I would say, to the heights of the heavens and the lowest of the pits. That is, both the great devotion to the sanctification of the Name and the great love for Judaism that even one who changed—who betrayed his Judaism and converted—carries with him. And I say that the Sages in the Gemara in Gittin make a distinction there, when they asked, they brought up "that man," they brought up Titus, and those others , and asked what the judgment of each one was, and in the end, the Gemara says: See the difference between the worst of Israel and the best of the nations of the world. That is to say, it’s there, it’s there. It is, but I want you to step back a bit, because earlier you tossed that out in such a quick distinction, and I...it interests me, because you are actually mentioning that there is a distinction claiming that Ashkenazi Jewry relies more on the Jewry of the Land of Israel, while the Jewry of the East, let’s call it, relies on the Jewry of Babylon. >> Yes. >> Explain that. >> Yes. >> We see it in the liturgical poems, we see it in many places. >> Right, in the world of—let's put it simply—in our Talmud, yes, the Babylonian Talmud, and its dominance was sustained by the dominance of the Geonim, yes, the Geonim of Babylon, the heads of the academies in Sura and Pumbedita and so on. For hundreds of years, yes, Rav Hai Gaon passed away in 1038, like, yes, Rashi is really two minutes before our events, yes, the tradition of the Geonim, and as we can understand from the famous story of the Four Captives from the Book of Tradition. >> Say it in one word. >> Tell the story about the four sages. >> Actually, I, I’ll put it in simpler words: we have a historical question— how did Jews suddenly grow in Ashkenaz and [create] an entire world of Torah? And then we have one story: how did Jews get to Babylon? We know Nebuchadnezzar sent them, and in one direction, the Sages, the Geonim, and all that developed there. How did Jews get to Egypt? We know that too. But how did Jews get to Germany? >> True, so I come and say North African Jewry. >> No, and here there is...... >> Jewry, you can show its, its continuity . >> I’m saying, wait, it’s the story of the four captives, and here there is a general story that says there were four Jews who were captured; even if it's not a historical story, it’s a descriptive one. >> Right. >> And essentially they came and they spread out, as if one established Jewry there, one established Jewry here, and that is how Ashkenazi Jewry was formed. >> That's how...no, that's how the Torah centers in Egypt, Spain, and Italy were established. Yes, we aren't talking about Ashkenaz yet; the source of Ashkenazi Jewry is more mysterious. >> Yes, suddenly it appears around Rabbeinu Gershom, around that; suddenly , a cohesive, powerful, scholarly Jewry appears. Where does it grow from? One of the answers offered for this is that same Kalonymus family we mentioned a few minutes ago; we know as a symbol that they migrated at a certain moment. >> Yes, from Lucca, Italy, crossing the Alps, yes, and landing north of there, right, from that place that essentially [started] the whole thing. >> And one must remember that in the first centuries CE, the Land of Israel and Italy were both under Byzantine rule— yes, the same rule. >> Hence the connection. >> True, and there is a deep connection between the Jewish communities in the Land of Israel and the Jewish communities in Italy. Part of the Italian Jews are those who constitute the most core and ancient families of the Jews of the Rhine. Yes, the veteran , ancient Ashkenazi communities, yes. And this is definitely, let's say, evidence for this theory which says they also brought with them a world of custom and religious sensitivities. >> And laws and customs that originated in the Land of Israel many hundreds of years earlier. And for instance, really in the world of Piyyut, you see Land of Israel paytanim, right? Yannai and so on, who are continued by this liturgical culture. Therefore even, even "Unetanneh Tokef,""Unetanneh Tokef " with the story of Rabbi Amnon, right? It appears to us in*Or Zarua*, and he tells us Rabbi Amnon—well, according to, if you read the story accurately... Rabbi Amnon did not compose "Unetanneh Tokef" but commanded to chant it. Right , and we actually found "Unetanneh Tokef" in the Genizah, an ancient Land of Israel piyyut that Yannai composed, like almost everything else, yes, from that period—that is, the greater stories of sanctification of the Name, of—here, we even arrived at Kiddush Hashem, yes, at the story of Rabbi Amnon of Mainz. >> The greater stories of Kiddush Hashem which rely on Ashkenazi piyyut, the Land of Israel piyyut, in which the experience of persecution and trouble — >> And the experience of the*Aggadah*— >> And also the self-sacrifice and inner piety are very, very prominent, so one can see this continuous line, which Yisrael Ta-Shma, of blessed memory, managed to show in many very obscure Jerusalem Talmud [passages], which one can actually understand through the Ashkenazi customs that blossomed a thousand years after them. Yes, it's an amazing thing in this regard, because we hardly have any books; we have bits and pieces here and there, but no literary tradition that documents these transitions—but we can certainly point to this path and explain part of the religious emotional world, the world of prayer, and the world of Ashkenazi Jewry as rooted in its Land of Israel origins. And from here we return for a moment to the chronicles, because essentially the chronicles, what they do, they document and here— we are satisfied. >> Right. >> Are they a record of reality? >> True, I mentioned a moment ago the beautiful theory of Professor Grossman, who came and said that essentially, through the sanctification of God’s name, we see a different attitude toward the Aggadic teachings between Ashkenazi Jewry and the Geonic-Sephardic Jewry. And you came and gave me a very beautiful piece of evidence from the language of the chronicles that mentions many Aggadic tales, yes, Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues, and the Binding of Isaac, but, but certainly someone has already come and said maybe the opposite. Meaning, who said? >> When it is no less logical to say that when the survivors' descendants came to tell this story, which really deviated significantly from the accepted Halacha they held, they came and used Aggadic turns of phrase to explain what was truly an act of piety that went beyond what was required. >> By the way, I'm not sure that "to explain"—when you say "to explain"... >> To explain with emotion. >> That's it, to describe, I mean, I'm looking at it. One of the images, especially in the Haredi world, when they come to write about the Holocaust, you often see uses of the verses of Lamentations because you are looking for sources, holy sources to describe a disaster, and the most available sources are found in these events. And here you do see the process with, I think one of the most prominent manifestations of the sanctification of God's name in our sources is the Ten Martyrs, who are very, very dominant in this context. These are people who were killed, chosen—note the story here, they were chosen; it’s not just that they happened to be killed, they were chosen, and there was a decree and they had to die for the sanctification of God’s name. >> Yes, yes, I agree. >> So, so, so, so we talked about the use of Aggadic teachings, but...Other researchers came and offered more explanations; for example, explanations that sometimes it's really like a kind of window, as if through these cataclysmic events we have a window into the inner and scholarly world of Jews in that period. Because truly one of the things we also see in Rashi is the appearance of sources that are not the Babylonian Talmud and not the simple teachings of the Sages, namely Second Temple literature, which seemingly disappeared for over 1,000 years. We find it in the desert, i.e., the scrolls, but it seemingly disappeared from the Jewish world perhaps for many hundreds of years, perhaps it appeared for a moment in Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer, and suddenly it appears in the study halls of Rabbi Moshe HaDarshan and consequently in Rashi and others. And also in the story of the Binding of Isaac, in the story of self-sacrifice, there were those who saw an echo of a reality that, while not supported or founded by the Talmuds , nonetheless... >> There is such a tradition, a tradition that appears, for example, in the Book of Josippon; the Book of Josippon is a Hebrew adaptation of Josephus. >> From the mid-tenth century, by an Italian Jew, to the books of Josephus Flavius, who was one of the rebel leaders and later sat, betrayed his people and joined...sat in Rome and wrote the history of the destruction era. And indeed in the Book of Josippon we have a description, for instance, of Masada. Yes, this idea of sanctification of the Name and Masada, the willingness to die when one could be saved, or we have similar descriptions there. With the...the distinction that in Masada, I think, it's the first time there is, let's call it by its name, there is suicide for the sanctification of the Name. >> True, exactly. >> It's not just. >> And also the killing of a person. >> That someone else would kill. >> Both in Masada and in Gamla and in fact also in Yodfat, a place where Josephus acts in a way. >> He himself was there and killed everyone; in those places there is also the killing of others. >> Yes. >> This is seemingly the extreme step because of which questions appeared in Halakha in Ashkenaz. Regarding that same person who is called, as it appears in the Maharam, that same person who is called a murderer. Why? Because when the Gentiles approached the city, and we are talking about after the decree, after the First Crusade, but already within this mindset, when the enemies approached the city, he killed his children and also the children of others. And then the enemies retreated and he remained alive, so they call him a murderer. I will read you the phrasing for a moment ; it's a source worth mentioning in its own words, "Da'at Zekenim" from the Tosafists on Genesis, yes. "But your blood of your lives," the Rosh, right. >> It is as if on the Torah. >> Yes, the prohibition, the prohibition of a person killing himself, "But your blood of your lives." The Rosh says, ah , he says that if a person fears that they will inflict harsh tortures on him and he will not withstand the trial, he may kill himself. And from here they bring proof regarding those who slaughter an infant during a time of decree. And there are those who forbid it. Yes, and then there is, there is an argument here. And an incident occurred with one rabbi who slaughtered many infants, meaning children, during a time of persecution because he feared they would make them convert, and there was one rabbi with him who was very angry at him; he called him a murderer and he was not concerned. Meaning, an argument during the decree itself: one disagrees if one kills a child. >> One rabbi kills infants, and the second rabbi calls him a murderer. And that rabbi said: "If I am right, may that rabbi be killed in a strange death." And so it happened; the one who killed was killed in a strange death, for the gentiles caught him and flayed his skin and put sand between the skin and the flesh, and afterwards the decree was annulled, and if they hadn't slaughtered them, the infants would have been saved. A huge dilemma! And that is what the Zekenim of the Tosafists say, but in the Maharam of Rothenburg the question appears: if a father who killed his children during a time of decree, does he need atonement. >> Incomprehensible, you know. >> And the Maharam immediately says—I don't know what he's talking about—as if he says, what kind of questions are these, these are terrible and awful questions, and in the end he says this thing: he permitted the killing of children during the time of persecution , and whoever says he needs atonement is slandering the early pious ones. >> Wow. >> Here you see the memory, it must be said also regarding the Maharam of Rothenburg himself, in some way he sort of gave his soul. >> Yes, he gave his soul in the tower so that they would not truly redeem him. >> Yes, it’s not exactly about Kiddush Hashem, but he sacrificed his soul for Kiddush Hashem. >> Yes. >> On this debate, let's say, a non-Halachic, legendary one. >> But first of all, as an expert in Halacha at that time, he says, he looks back to the first Hasidim. Yes, to those people, to those people we observe today throughout the First Crusade, the Second Crusade, and he says: these are the first Hasidim. So these questions are questions, they are very big questions. There is someone who saw in, there is someone who saw in , who saw. Here, the...the reading of the...of the Jews of Ashkenaz, again, not in the Gemara and not in Rashi but in Josippon. There he read about Masada and also about it. There happened and emerged from there a new ideal of Kiddush Hashem, of killing...even killing the children for Kiddush Hashem . That is, of course, a thought. I, first of all, must say that although it is virtuoso, it is charming, it is not proven. >> Or it is very, very important to say everything we are saying here. >> We don't really have proofs, we have motives, we don't have proofs. >> We don't know what caused it. Researchers have suggested a lot of possibilities, yes? All of them perhaps intertwined or connected to one another . They are certainly not proven, and this is a suggestion that also has something very interesting in it. You know, for example, when the first Palmach members arrived here and created the pilgrimages, to where? To Masada. Because, who created the story of the pilgrimage to Masada? Josephus, who described the suicide at Masada. This idea, that was the driving idea of the Palmach, yes? To go to Masada, to turn Masada into a new collective model . But in this research proposal, it is actually not that new. Again, it's an Ashkenazi model, Jewish, uh, Jewish, the first millennium, they actually used it. >> We haven't finished the story of the Crusades yet; we will return to it in the next episode, if you’ll allow. >> Wonderful and agreed. >> Until now, I don't know, we are describing, maybe this is another very Ashkenazi thing, that we sit and talk about such horrors and we have a smile on our faces because it is part of life , which is very interesting, so we will meet, God willing, in the next episode and we will discuss, continue to discuss this context, uh, more broadly. >> Thank you and goodbye. >> Thank you. >> You have been listening to "Reflections of History" from the Mishpacha podcast house, I am Israel Alter Gervis. With me was Professor Rabbi Maoz Kahana. Thanks to content editor Tehila Siton, production manager Ayala Goldstein, and our sound and video editors. Avraham Weisel, Daniel Levin, and Hillel Willam . All series and episodes are waiting for you on the Mishpacha website, in all podcast apps, and on the phone line 077. 20202 extension 75, see you in the next episodes. (End)