[PDF] Vol.20 To Wei - Free Download PDF (2024)

Download Vol.20 To Wei...

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

JUDAICA

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

JUDAICA S E C O N D

E D I T I O N

VOLUME 20 To–Wei F red Skolnik, Editor in Chief M ichael Berenbaum, Executive Editor

IN ASSOCIATION WITH KETER PUBLISHING HOUSE LtD., JERUSALEM

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition Fred Skolnik, Editor in Chief Michael Berenbaum, Executive Editor Shlomo S. (Yosh) Gafni, Editorial Project Manager Rachel Gilon, Editorial Project Planning and Control Thomson Gale Gordon Macomber, President Frank Menchaca, Senior Vice President and Publisher Jay Flynn, Publisher Hélène Potter, Publishing Director Keter Publishing House Yiphtach Dekel, Chief Executive Officer Peter Tomkins, Executive Project Director Complete staff listings appear in Volume 1

©2007 Keter Publishing House Ltd. Thomson Gale is a part of The Thomson Corporation. Thomson, Star Logo and Macmillan Reference USA are trademarks and Gale is a registered trademark used herein under license. For more information, contact Macmillan Reference USA An imprint of Thomson Gale 27500 Drake Rd. Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3535 Or you can visit our internet site at http://www.gale.com

mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, web distribution, or information storage retrieval systems – without the written permission of the publisher. For permission to use material from this product, submit your request via Web at http://www.gale-edit.com/permissions, or you may download our Permissions Request form and submit your request by fax or mail to: Permissions Department Thomson Gale 27500 Drake Road Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3535 Permissions Hotline: (+1) 248-699-8006 or 800-877-4253 ext. 8006 Fax: (+1) 248-699-8074 or 800-762-4058

Since this page cannot legibly accommodate all copyright notices, the acknowledgments constitute an extension of the copyright notice. While every effort has been made to ensure the reliability of the information presented in this publication, Thomson Gale does not guarantee the accuracy of the data contained herein. Thomson Gale accepts no payment for listing; and inclusion in the publication of any organization, agency, institution, publication, service, or individual does not imply endorsement of the editors or publisher. Errors brought to the attention of the publisher and verified to the satisfaction of the publisher will be corrected in future editions.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA Encyclopaedia Judaica / Fred Skolnik, editor-in-chief ; Michael Berenbaum, executive editor. -- 2nd ed. v. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. Contents: v.1. Aa-Alp. ISBN 0-02-865928-7 (set hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865929-5 (vol. 1 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02865930-9 (vol. 2 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865931-7 (vol. 3 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865932-5 (vol. 4 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865933-3 (vol. 5 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865934-1 (vol. 6 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865935-X (vol. 7 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865936-8 (vol. 8 hardcover : alk. paper) -ISBN 0-02-865937-6 (vol. 9 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865938-4 (vol. 10 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02865939-2 (vol. 11 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865940-6 (vol. 12 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865941-4 (vol. 13 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865942-2 (vol. 14 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865943-0 (vol. 15: alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865944-9 (vol. 16: alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865945-7 (vol. 17: alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865946-5 (vol. 18: alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865947-3 (vol. 19: alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865948-1 (vol. 20: alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865949X (vol. 21: alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865950-3 (vol. 22: alk. paper) 1. Jews -- Encyclopedias. I. Skolnik, Fred. II. Berenbaum, Michael, 1945DS102.8.E496 2007 909’.04924 -- dc22 2006020426

ISBN-13: 978-0-02-865928-2 978-0-02-865929-9 978-0-02-865930-5 978-0-02-865931-2 978-0-02-865932-9

(set) (vol. (vol. (vol. (vol.

1) 2) 3) 4)

978-0-02-865933-6 978-0-02-865934-3 978-0-02-865935-0 978-0-02-865936-7 978-0-02-865937-4

(vol. (vol. (vol. (vol. (vol.

5) 6) 7) 8) 9)

978-0-02-865938-1 978-0-02-865939-8 978-0-02-865940-4 978-0-02-865941-1 978-0-02-865942-8

(vol. (vol. (vol. (vol. (vol.

10) 11) 12) 13) 14)

978-0-02-865943-5 978-0-02-865944-2 978-0-02-865945-9 978-0-02-865946-6 978-0-02-865947-3

This title is also available as an e-book ISBN-10: 0-02-866097-8 ISBN-13: 978-0-02-866097-4 Contact your Thomson Gale representative for ordering information. Printed in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

(vol. (vol. (vol. (vol. (vol.

15) 16) 17) 18) 19)

978-0-02-865948-0 (vol. 20) 978-0-02-865949-7 (vol. 21) 978-0-02-865950-3 (vol. 22)

TABLE OF CONTENTS Entries To–Wei 5 • Abbreviations General Abbreviations 757 Abbreviations used in Rabbinical Literature 758 Bibliographical Abbreviations 764 • Transliteration Rules 777 Glossary 780

Initial letter “T” of the phrase Temptavit Deus Abraham in a 14th-century Paris missal. The illumination shows the “sacrifice” of Isaac. Rheims, Bibliothèque Municipale, Ms. 2301, fol. 49v.

To-Tz

TOAFF, Italian family of rabbis. ALFREDO SABATO TOAFF (1880–1963) was born in Leghorn and studied under R. Elijah *Benamozegh at the Leghorn Rabbinical College, where he was made professor, and in 1923 succeeded Samuel *Colombo as chief rabbi of Leghorn. A member of the Italian Rabbinical Council for many years (from 1931), he was several times its president. He headed the Leghorn Rabbinical College and was head of the *Collegio Rabbinico Italiano in Rome from its reopening in 1955 until his death, which occurred in his native city. He was the author of many works on, and translations into Italian of, biblical and post-biblical Hebrew literature, as well as of writings on the history and traditions of the Leghorn Jewish community (such as Cenni storici sulla Comunità Ebraica e sulla Singagoga di Livorno, 1955). Many of his writings show the influence of E. Benamozegh, whose Scritti Scelti (1955) he edited. A bibliography of the writings of Alfredo Toaff appears in: E. Toaff (ed.), Annuario di Studi Ebraici (1965), 215–6. His son, ELIO TOAFF (1915– ), was born in Leghorn and was the last rabbi ordained by its Rabbinical College, before

its closure by the Fascist regime (reopened 1955). He was rabbi of Ancona (1941–46) and of Venice (1946–51) and was called to Rome to succeed David *Prato as chief rabbi of that community in 1951. A member of the Italian Rabbinical Council and head of the Collegio Rabbinico Italiano from 1963, he edited the Annuario di Studi Ebraici at the college. Elio was a member of the executive of the Conference of European Rabbis. On April 13, 1986, he welcomed Pope John Paul II on the first visit ever by a pope to a synagogue. He wrote articles and translated studies on Jewish, biblical, and historical topics from Hebrew into Italian.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

Bibliography: Israel, corriere israelitico, 49 (1963), nos. 7–13; Ha-Tikwà, Organo della Federazione giovanile ebraica d’Italia, 11 (1963), no. 9. [Sergio DellaPergola]

TOB (Heb. ‫)טוֹ ב‬, biblical place name. When *Jephthah the Gileadite was expelled from his father’s house, he went to the land of Tob (Judg. 11:13). “A man of Tob” (Heb. ish Tov) is mentioned alongside the Aramean armies which came to the aid

tobacco trade and industries

TOBACCO TRADE AND INDUSTRIES. Throughout the first two centuries after the discovery of tobacco for Europe through Christopher Columbus, *Marranos took part in spreading its cultivation and in introducing it to Europe. Jews took up smoking (widespread from the 17t century) and snuff taking (widespread from the 18t), and entered the trade in tobacco, which, starting out as a luxury article, became a mass consumer commodity. At Amsterdam, the first important tobacco importing and processing center in the 17t century, Isak ltaliaander was the largest importer, and 10 of the 30 leading tobacco importers were Jews. Ashkenazi and poor Sephardi Jews were employed in processing tobacco for snuff: the profession of 14 out of 24 bridegrooms in a list of 1649–53 was tobacco dressing. In this period Jews took an active part in the tobacco trade of the *Hamburg center. The first Jews to settle in *Mecklenburg in the late 17t century were tobacco traders from Hamburg who leased the ducal tobacco monopoly; outstanding was Michael Hinrichsen nicknamed “Tabakspinner.” Sephardi Jews filled an important role in the “appalto” system of contracting for the monopoly on the tobacco trade (or other products). The monopoly concession system was also practiced in the Austrian provinces and the southern German states. In this, Sephardi Jews were often the contractors because of their previous experience. The business carried considerable risks, including fluctuating prices, varying quality, deterioration through adulteration, and the hazards of war. Diego d’*Aguilar managed to hold the tobacco monopoly in Austria in 1734–48, using Christian nobles as men of straw. In the second half of the 18t century the tobacco monopoly of Bohemia and Moravia was in the hands of members of the *Dobruschka, *Popper, and *Hoenig families, whereby they rose to importance and amassed wealth. Jews succeeded in holding the tobacco monopoly in only a few principalities in Germany. In the 19t century Jews entered the open tobacco market. In 1933 Jews engaged in about 5 of the German tobacco trade and industry, primarily as cigar manufacturers. In Eastern Europe snuff processing was widespread, and tobacco was a staple ware of the Jewish *peddler. When in the mid-19t century cigars and cigarettes entered the mass

market Leopold *Kronenberg, the Jewish industrialist and financier, was one of the main entrepreneurs in Poland, owning 12 factories in 1867 and producing 25 of the total. Of 110 tobacco factories in the *Pale of Settlement in 1897, 83 were owned by Jews, and over 80 of the workers were Jewish. This participation continued into the 20t century, and the Jewish tobacco workers were active in the ranks of socialism. The huge Y. Shereshevsky tobacco factory in Grodno employed, before World War I, some 1,800 workers. The nationalization in Poland of the tobacco and liquor industries in 1923–24 was a severe blow to the many Jews who gained their livelihood from them. The leading tobacco factories in Riga, Latvia, were owned by two wealthy Karaites, Asimakis and Maikapar. On the American continent Jews traded in tobacco as early as 1658. It frequently served as legal tender and was a stock retail article of the Jewish peddler. However, Jews played a considerable part only in the snuff trade, among them the firms of Asher and Solomon, and Gomez. Judah Morris, who wrote the first Hebrew book to be printed in North America, became a snuff trader. The last quarter of the 19t century brought an influx of impoverished Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe who entered the cigar and cigarette industry, and, after the garment industry, it had the largest concentration of Jewish workers in the United States. The first professional cigar makers were generally Jews of Dutch or German origin, who employed the immigrants in their factories or in sweatshops. The Jewish firm of Keeney Brothers, makers of “Sweet Caporals,” employed approximately 2,000 Jewish workers. The Durham factory almost exclusively employed Jews. Tobacco workers, organized by Samuel *Gompers, became the spearhead of the labor union movement in the United States in the 1870s and 1880s. Subsequently Jewish participation in the cigarette industry declined through the creation of large concerns, though many cigar firms remained under Jewish ownership. In New York and the major cities the tobacco retail trade occupied a high proportion of Jews. A survey by Fortune magazine (Jews in America; 1935) stated that “Jews have practically blanketed the tobacco buying business, where Jews and buyer are synonymous words, and they control three of the four leading cigar-manufacturing concerns, including Fred Hirschhorn’s General Cigar, which makes every seventh cigar smoked in America.” The *Culman family of Philip Morris, involved in American tobacco from the mid-19t century, was a giant of the industry. In Canada Jews played a leading role in introducing the tobacco industry; Mortimer B. Davis was known as the “tobacco king” of Canada. In Great Britain cigar making was traditionally associated with Dutch Jews, who formed the main body of Jewish immigrants in the mid-19t century; cigar making was the most widespread occupation in London’s East End in 1860. In 1850, 44 of the meerschaum pipe makers were Jewish, and 22 of the cigar manufacturers. East European Jewish immigrants introduced cigarette making into England. In 1880 Jacob Kamusch, an Austrian Jewish cigarette entrepreneur, brought

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

of the Ammonites during their war with David (II Sam. 10:6, 8). The phrase “a man of Tob” apparently refers to the people of the land of Tob (cf. the usages “man of Israel,” “man of God”), or to a Tobite ruler (cf. the terms for Canaanite rulers in the *El-Amarna tablets). Documents from the second millennium B.C.E. mention a place called Ṭ by or Ṭ ubu, along with cities in *Bashan. It has been suggested, therefore, by B. Mazar, that the land of Tob is to be located in the vicinity of the settlement of Taiyibeh, east of Edrei. It seems that the land of Tob was back country, and that it served as an asylum for outlaws. Bibliography: B. Maisler (Mazar), in: JPOS, 9 (1929), 83; M. Noth, in: ZDPV, 68 (1949), 6 (n. 6), 8 (n. 3), 27–28. [Bustanay Oded]

toback, james 310 workers, mainly Jewish, to his Glasgow cigarette factory. Isidore Gluckstein founded his first tobacconist shop in 1872 and became the biggest retail tobacconist in England, up to 1904. Bernhard *Baron was a large-scale cigarette manufacturer in America and England. Sephardi Jews played an active role in the tobacco trade from its beginnings in the Ottoman Empire. The *Recanati banking family began as *Salonika tobacco merchants. Thrace and Macedonia were major tobacco-growing areas; the *Alatino (Alatini) family became sole suppliers of the Italian tobacco monopoly. [Henry Wasserman]

In Israel Tobacco growing was first introduced in the country in 1923/24, in order to solve problems of unemployment. New immigrants from Bulgaria and Greece took an important part in the development of the industry. All kinds of tobacco products are manufactured in Israel. In 1969 the overall production included 3,700 tons of cigarettes, 15,000 kg. of cigars, 60,600 kg. of tumbak, 40,100 kg. of snuff, and 16,600 kg. of pipe tobacco. In the same year the consumption of tobacco products amounted to nearly IL 200,000,000 (about 2 of the total private consumption in Israel), including mainly locally produced products but also about $6,000,000 worth of imported products. There were 15 manufacturing plants in Israel, employing 875 workers and processing mostly locally grown tobacco of Oriental aroma. Tobacco was grown mainly in the non-Jewish sector in northern Israel. In 1950 tobacco-growing areas amounted to 9,000 dunams, and tobacco-product manufacture reached 600 tons. By 1969 tobacco was grown in 35,000 dunams and production increased to 2,200 tons. Since that time tobacco production has dropped radically, to 150 tons on 5,000 dunams by 1990, but cigarette imports have risen dramatically, by about 2,500 between 1970 and 2000 along with a 33 increase in tobacco leaf imports. Local cigarette production rose from 3,668 million cigarettes in 1970 to 4,933 million in 1995. The industry employed around 600 workers in the late 1990s. [Zeev Barkai]

Bibliography: M. Hainisch, in: Vierteljahrschrift fuer Sozialund Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 8 (1910), 394–444; W. Stieda, Die Besteuerung des Tabaks in Ansbach-Bayreuth und Bamberg-Wuerzburg im achtzehnten Jahrhundert (1911); M. Grunwald, Samuel Oppenheimer (1913), 295–300; A.D. Hart, The Jew in Canada (1926), 324–5, 337; S.B. Weinryb, Neueste Wirtschaftsgeschichte der Juden in Russland und Polen (1934), index, S.V. Tabakindustrie; P. Friedmann, in: Jewish Studies in Memory of G.A. Kohut (1935), 196, 232–3 (Ger.); H.I. Bloom, Economic Activities of the Jews of Amsterdam (1937); H. Rachel et al., Berliner Grosskaufleute und Kapitalisten, 2 (1938), 50–52; J. Starr, in: JSOS, 7 (1945), 323–6; M. Epstein, Jewish Labor in U.S.A. (1950), 76–78; J. Shatzky, Geshikhte fun Yidn in Varshe, 3 (1953), 37, 43–46; H. Schnee, Die Hoffinanz und der moderne Staat, 1 (1953), 89, 185; 2 (1954), 88f., 294ff.; 3 (1955), 123ff.; 4 (1963), 219–22, 239–41; S. Gompers, Seventy Years of Life and Labour (19572); H. Kellenbenz, Sephardim an der unteren Elbe (1958), 205, 436–46; J. Frumkin et al., Russian Jewry (1966), 130–1; V. Kurrein, in: Menorah, 3 (1925), 155f.; A. Mueller, Zur Geschichte der Judenfrage in… der Landgrafschaft Hessen-Darmstadt

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

(1937), 54–56; S. Simonsohn, Toledot ha-Yehudim be-Dukkasut Mantovah, 2 vols. (1962–64); Z. Kahana, in: Kol Torah, 3 (1949/50), 55–61; L.P. Gartner, The Jewish Immigrant in England (1960), 73–75; V.D. Lipman, Social History of the Jews in England (1954), index.

TOBACH, ETHEL (1921– ), U.S. leader in the field of comparative psychology and the use of psychological knowledge for the public good. Tobach was born in the Ukraine to Fanya (Schecterman) and Ralph Wiener. Two weeks after her birth her parents fled with her to Palestine to escape pogroms. When Tobach’s father died nine months later, her mother immigrated with her to Philadelphia and became an activist in the garment workers’ union. Tobach also worked at blue-collar occupations while attending Hunter College in New York City, from which she graduated Phi Beta Kappa in 1949. Shortly after World War II she married Charles Tobach, a fellow radical who belonged to her union. He encouraged her to pursue graduate work in psychology at New York University, where she received a Ph.D. in 1957. Tobach spent her entire career at the American Museum of Natural History, rising to the rank of curator. Although she taught at a number of universities in the New York City area, for most of her professional life she was a full time researcher in animal behavior. Her research was voluminous and broad in scope. Her empirical articles focused on the link between stress and disease in rats; she also contributed extensively to the study of emotionality in rats and mice, and explored the biopsychology of development and the evolution of social behavior. Tobach was a consistent critic of genetic determinism; one of her most important contributions to psychology was the book series, “Genes and Gender,” initiated in 1978 with Betty Rosoff. These books critically examined psychology’s relatively unsophisticated view of the interactions between biological and social processes. Tobach was vice president of the New York Academy of Sciences in 1972, president of the American Psychological Association Division of Comparative and Physiological Psychology in 1984–85, president of the Eastern Psychological Association in 1987–88, and president of the APA Division on Peace in 2003–4. In 1993 she received the Kurt Lewin award from the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues and in 2003 she received an award for Life Time Service for Psychology in the Public Interest from the American Psychological Foundation. Bibliography: R.K. Unger, “Tobach, Ethel,” in P.E. Hyman and D. Dash Moore (eds.), Jewish Women in America, 2 (1997), 1404–6. [Rhoda K. Unger (2nd ed.)]

TOBACK, JAMES (1944– ), U.S. writer, screenwriter-director, and producer. Born in New York City, Toback was educated at Harvard University (A.B., 1966) and Columbia University (M.A., 1967). He served as an instructor in English at the City College of the City University of New York and wrote JIM: The Author’s Self-Centered Memoir on the Great Jim Brown (1971). He was also the author of a sports column appearing

tobenkin, elias

TOBIADS, dynastic family of political importance from the time of Nehemiah to the end of the Hasmonean revolt. The name Tobiah remained in the family on the basis of pappyonomy, handed down from grandson to son, for many generations. There is good literary evidence for at least four prominent members of the family and archaeological evidence of their country seat in Transjordan for several hundred years in the Hellenistic period. The family may have had earlier ancestors, such as Tobijah, returnee from the Exile, mentioned by Zechariah (6:9 and 14); Tubyahu, “arm” and “servant” of the king, mentioned in the Lachish letters of 588 B.C.E.; and even the “son of Tabeel,” a usurper planning to replace King Ahaz (Isa. 7:6), all as claimed by Mazar (1957). The Tobiad estate was at Tyros (Ẓ ur, or “rock”), some 13 mi. (20 km). west of Rabbat-Ammon (Philadelphia) and was rediscovered by Willam Bankes in 1818 (Irby and Mangles 1823), thanks to a full account of it by Josephus. He described it as a paradeisos, a kind of Persian country estate, consisting of a marble fortress (birta) with animals carved on the walls, and surrounded by a moat; a long series of defensible caves; some enclosed halls and vast parks; and located between Arabia and Judea, not far from Heshbon (Ant. 12:222–34). His account is accurate, though not in all details. The site is known today as Airaq (or ‘Iraq) al-Amir (“Cliff of the Prince”), based on the cliff of caves, and the name Tyros, or Ẓ ur, is still preserved in that of the adjacent valley, Wadi Sir. Two of the cave entrances carry a large Aramaic inscription, TOBYAH, to the right-hand side of their doorways. The chief building, of monumental size though plainly not a fortress, sported at each corner a frieze of lions (with two eagles above) and had two unique panther

fountains (Lapp 1963). It is called the Qasr al-Abd (“Castle of the Slave”) and was largely restored by a French team in the years 1976 to 1986 (Will and Larché, 1991). It was built by Hyrcanus, the last of the Tobiads, and largely completed, but much of its megalithic construction was toppled by later earthquakes (Amiran 1996). The earliest Tobiad to be described in some detail is Tobyah, “the servant, the Ammonite” (Neh. 2:10). He was one of the chief opponents of Nehemiah, when he came to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem in 445 B.C.E. As Tobyah was allied to *Sanballat of Samaria and Geshem the Arabian (2:19), all major landowners, it is likely that their opposition was mainly due to the land reforms being forced through by Nehemiah (5:11). Tobyah was well connected to other Jewish aristocratic families by oath (6:17–18) and to the priesthood by marriage. He was given rooms in the offerings chamber of the Temple by the High Priest Eliashib, but Nehemiah had him expelled and insisted that the place be ritually cleansed thereafter (13:4–11). The title given him by Nehemiah, “the servant, the Ammonite,” is generally taken to be a rank implying ministerial service to the Persians in Ammon, and some have claimed that he was governor of the Persian province of Ammon. But that post is not attested to and the title could also be pejorative, as implying that Tobyah’s pedigree was not faultless, seeing that, on their return from the Exile, the Benei Tobyah clan had not been able to prove “they were of Israel” (7:61–62). The second known prominent member of the family was Toubias, who was visited by Zenon, acting on behalf of Appolonius, chief minister to Ptolemy II Philadelphos of Egypt. The papyri records of his journey through Palestine and Transjordan are dated to 259 B.C.E. He visited Surabit (Ẓ ur bayit), the birta of Ammonitis, where he conducted trade with its chieftain Toubias. Zenon brought grain from Egypt and several contracts record that he received slave boys and girls and exotic animals in return. The animals, consisting of horses, dogs, donkeys, and asses, were sent as gifts to Appolonius and to Ptolemy directly (Tcherikover and Fuks 1957). The contracts were witnessed by Persian and Greek soldiers and indicate that Tyros was then a military camp as well as an animal breeding center under Toubias and well known to the Egyptians. Josephus wrote extensively on the subject of Joseph, son of Tobias, and his son Hyrcanus (Ant. 12:154–236) in a section that is generally known as the Tobiad Saga, or the “Tales of the Tobiads” (Goldstein 1975). His account had been seen as mainly fictional, as it contains many fabulous deeds of the two Tobiads, but when the evidence of the Zenon Papyri (as above) came to light in 1918, and when Josephus’s description of Tyros was seen to accord with the facts on the ground, it was necessary to take him seriously. He tells us that Joseph’s mother was a sister of the High Priest Onias, and that as a young man he was elected as prostastes (chief magistrate) of the Jews in place of Onias, who had refused to pay tribute to Ptolemy, the Egyptian Pharaoh. Joseph went to Alexandria and obtained the office of tax farmer to Ptolemy for CoeleSyria (Palestine) and, with the help of Egyptian troops, ex-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

in Lifestyle, a film critic for Dissent; and contributed articles to numerous magazines, including Esquire, Sport, the Village Voice, Harper’s, and Commentary. Toback wrote the screenplays for The Gambler (1974) and Bugsy (1991) and was the writer and director for Fingers (1978), Love and Money (1982), Exposed (1983), The Pick-Up Artist (1987), The Big Bang (1989); Two Girls and a Guy (1997), Black & White (1999), Love in Paris (1999), Harvard Man (2001), and When Will I Be Loved (2004). Subsequently he wrote the screenplay for the French remake of his film Fingers, translated into English as The Beat That My Heart Skipped (2005). [Amy Handelsman (2nd ed.)]

TOBENKIN, ELIAS (1882–1963), U.S. journalist and author. Born in Russia and taken to the U.S. as a boy, he served as Russian expert for the U.S. Committee on Public Information. He was correspondent for the Herald Tribune in Eastern Europe and Germany, and in 1926 spent five months in the U.S.S.R. and wrote an uncensored account of the Communist regime. His first novel Witte Arrives (1916) described the Americanization of an immigrant Jewish family. God of Might (1925) dealt with the problems of intermarriage. Among his other books were Stalin’s Ladder (1933) and The Peoples Want Peace (1938).

tobiads tracted tax sums that pleased his master. He also enriched himself and, according to Josephus, enhanced the status of his Jewish brethren. He carried out this work for 22 years. In his old age he sent Hyrcanus, the youngest of his seven sons, to Alexandria to attend the birthday celebrations of the new Pharaoh’s son. Hyrcanus took the opportunity to supplant his father as tax farmer by offering a huge sum of his father’s funds to the new Pharaoh, thus outbidding all others, and excluding his older brothers, who had not been interested in making the journey. His father and brothers naturally took umbrage and on his return Hyrcanus had to flee Jerusalem to Tyros, where he set up the family estate, as previously described. He dwelt there in conflict with his Arab neighbors for seven years and eventually committed suicide when Antiochus IV Epiphanes came to the Seleucid throne in 175 B.C.E., and made an end of the Tyros estate. This detailed account raises as many questions as it answers. Much of the inconsistencies are due to the continuing wars between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids, who eventually gained control of Palestine from the Ptolemies in 200 B.C.E. It appears that Joseph the tax farmer was pro-Ptolemy and managed to supplant his uncle Onias, who was unwilling to pay tribute to Ptolemy when he saw the Seleucids in the ascendant. Later his sons sided with the Seleucids, while the youngest, Hyrcanus, remained loyal to the Ptolemies. Hyrcanus had to retreat to Tyros in the face of the Seleucid victory and when the Seleucids started to expand their Empire under Antiochus IV, he thought his fate was sealed. But it may not have been so. After the discovery of the Zenon Papyri in 1918, it was assumed that Joseph, the son of Tobias was the son of the Toubias of the Zenon Papyri. However, that places him at too early a date, and it is more likely that he was the son of a grandson of that Toubias, who carried the same name. It was Onias II who had refused to pay tribute to Ptolemy III Eurgetes, and when his successor Ptolemy IV Philopater won a surprise victory against the Seleucids in 222 B.C.E., Joseph was appointed in place of his uncle, Onias II. Twenty-two years later, he sent Hyrcanus to the birth celebrations of the son of Ptolemy V and Cleopatra I, and Hyrcanus took the tax farmer post from Joseph. This may not have been such a coup, as in exactly that year, 200 B.C.E., Antiochus III finally wrested Palestine from the Ptolemies, so the taxes should now have gone to the Seleucids. However, he generously transferred those taxes to Cleopatra, his daughter (Schwartz 1998), and it seems that Hyrcanus was astute enough to see they would then go to her husband, his master, Ptolemy V. Meanwhile Ptolemy’s general Scopas tried to retake Jerusalem but failed to do so in 198 B.C.E., and it is then that Hyrcanus was ousted from Jerusalem and spent the rest of his days, and his wealth, in developing the family estate at Tyros. It is unlikely that Hyrcanus committed suicide or even died in 175 B.C.E. The Seleucids were too busy, in Jerusalem and Egypt, to take notice of him and it is more likely that he survived until at least 169 or 168 B.C.E., when Antiochus IV

returned from Egypt and punished the Jews for believing him to be dead. He may then have turned his attention to the remaining pockets of Ptolemaic resistance. In any case we know that the estate stood until 163 B.C.E., when it was overrun by the Seleucid general Timotheus, who massacred about a thousand men of “our fellow Jews in the region of Tubias”(II Macc. 5:13). It also appears that Jason, the hellenizing high priest, who displaced his brother Onias III, and built the gymnasium in Jerusalem (II Macc. 4:12) had, in his turn, to flee in 171 B.C.E. from the more extreme usurper Menelaus, and came to find sanctuary in “Ammonite country” (II Macc. 4:26), probably in Tyros with his cousin Hyrcanus. From the archeological evidence it is clear that it was Hyrcanus who built the Qasr al-Abd, it being in the Hellenistic style of the late second century B.C.E., similar to palaces at Alexandria and Ionia (Butler 1907, Nielsen 1994). For many years it was considered to be an unorthodox temple built to challenge Jerusalem, but no altar has been found and the interior, now reconstructed by the French team, is quite unsuitable for use as a shrine. The French have concluded that it is “Le Château du Tobiade Hyrcan” but that is unlikely. It was designed to stand in the center of a lake, for which there is good evidence, and was a grand monumental building whose lower floor, of small rooms surrounded by massive monoliths, could only, in their opinion, be designated as mere storerooms (Will and Larché 1991). And access via the lake would have been cumbersome. Therefore it is more likely to have been intended as a mausoleum to his distinguished family by its last scion, Hyrcanus, as surmised many years ago by W.F. Albright. The group of lion sculptures at each corner represent the guardians of a typical Ionian mausoleum, and the upper eagles represent the messengers that carry the souls of the dead to heaven. The small rooms of the monumental lower story were for burials and the columnated upper story for funereal banquets (Rosenberg 2004). Hyrcanus turned the whole of the family estate into a Hellenistic garden city (paradeisos) as Josephus claims (Ant. 12:233). He renovated the ancient caves and turned two of them into triclinia, or feasting chambers. He built a small aedicule, as a shrine or tomb (Butler 1907), a vast dike to the lake he intended to form around the Qasr al-Abd, a nymphaeum (water source) on the hillside, and a monumental gateway to the estate. He converted the older buildings on the upper site – which go back to the Iron Age, and which had been the original birta (fortress) of the estate (Gera 1990) – into spacious halls with plastered walls (Lapp 1963). It is impossible that he could have done all this in the seven years allocated to him by Josephus, though it is clear that he did not live to finish the Qasr. The two TOBYAH cave inscriptions are now safely dated to the fourth century B.C.E. (Naveh 1976) and show that the estate was that of the Tobiads well before the time of Hyrcanus. It was a true paradeisos, in that its development began in the Persian period, adjacent to the original birta on the upper site.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

tobias, abraham The Tobiads were clearly Hellenizers from the time of the Tobyah of the Zenon Papyri and played an important role in the events leading up to the Hasmonean revolt. Joseph, son of Tobias, in particular would have brought customs of Alexandrian life and luxury, in the wake of his increased wealth, to Jerusalem. And the Tobiads would have supported the High Priest Jason in building a gymnasium and designating Jerusalem to be a Greek polis. Nevertheless, when it came to the war against the Seleucids, the Tubian Jews sided with the Hasmoneans and *Judah Maccabee crossed the Jordan to avenge the death of the thousands slain by the Seleucids in the land of the Tubians (II Macc. 12:23). Bibliography: D.H.K. Amiran, “Location Index for Earthquakes in Israel since 100 B.C.E.,” in: IEJ, 46:1–2 (1996), 120–30; H.C. Butler, Ancient Architecture in Syria, Division II, Princeton (1907); D. Gera, “On the Credibility of the History of the Tobiads,” in: Kasher et al. (eds.), Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel, (1990) 21–38; J. Goldstein, “The Tales of the Tobiads,” in: J. Neusner (ed.), Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults (1975), pt. III, 85–123; C.L. Irby and J. Mangles, Travels in Egypt and Nubia, Syria and Asia Minor (1823), 473–74; P.W. Lapp, “The Second and Third Campaigns at Araq elEmir,” in: BASOR, 171 (1963), 8–39; B. Mazar, “The Tobiads,” in: IEJ, 7:3 (1957), 137–45 and 229–38; J. Naveh, “The Development of the Aramaic Script,” in: Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, vol. 5 (1976), 62–65; E. Netzer, “Tyros, the Floating Palace” in: Wilson et al. (eds.), Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity (2000), 340–53; I. Nielsen, Hellenistic Palaces, Tradition and Renewal (1994); S.G. Rosenberg, “Qasr al-Abd: a Mausoleum of the Tobiad Family?” in: BAIAS, 19–20 (2001–2), 157–75; D.R. Schwartz, “Josephus’s Tobiads, Back to the Second Century?” in: M. Goodman (ed.), Jews in a Greco-Roman World (1998), 47–61; V.A. Tcherikover and A. Fuks, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, vol. 1 (1957), 125–29.; E. Will and F. Larché, Iraq al-Amir, le Château du Tobiade Hyrcan (1991). [Stephen G. Rosenberg (2nd ed.)]

TOBIAS, ABRAHAM (1793–1856), Charleston businessman and civic leader. Born in Charleston, Tobias received little formal education. He prospered as an auctioneer, vendue master, and commission merchant. He was a director of the Union Bank of South Carolina for 21 years, a member of the City Board of Health (1833–37), and a commissioner of pilotage for Charleston harbor (1838–43). He participated in the turbulent politics of the period as a States Rights Party member, supporting John C. Calhoun’s position. As a trustee of Beth Elohim synagogue, of which his great-grandfather, Joseph *Tobias, was a founder (1749), he was a key figure in the 1840s when the congregation split over installing an organ and making other ritual reforms.

the early 1730s. During the long-standing hostilities between the English and the Spanish in the South, Tobias served the South Carolina government as a Spanish interpreter. In 1741 he became a naturalized British subject, being one of the first Jews in the colonies to apply under an act passed by Parliament in 1740. Tobias was one of the founders and first parnas of Charleston’s congregation Beth Elohim, organized in 1749. His wife, Leah, was the daughter of Jacob De Oliviera, one of the original Savannah Jewish settlers in 1733. Bibliography: T.J. Tobias, in: AJHSP, 49 (1959), 33–38; B.A. Elzas, The Jews of South Carolina (1905), 24, and passim; C. Reznikoff and U.Z. Engelman, The Jews of Charleston (1950), passim; T.J. Tobias, in: A.J. Karp (ed.), The Jewish Experience in America, 1 (1969), 114–9. [Thomas J. Tobias]

TOBIAS, MOSES (1694–1769), merchant of *Surat, India. A native of Cochin, Tobias was appointed in 1728 director of the Surat Portuguese factory by the Portuguese viceroy and undertook many important negotiations with the neighboring native rulers as accredited “agent of the Portuguese nation.” The Portuguese archives in Goa have preserved many documents attesting to his diplomatic role in Surat, in which he was succeeded by his son Isaac and other members of his family throughout the 18t century. Moses Tobias conducted commercial transactions on a large scale and was a shipowner whose vessels sailed the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean. Dutch records of the day frequently register the movements of the “Jew’s ships of Surat” under the command of presumably Jewish captains such as Jacob Moses and Moses Alexander. Tobias’ tombstone inscription, in which he is styled “nasi,” i.e., president, of the Surat Jewish community, is one of the few preserved in the old Jewish cemetery in Surat. Bibliography: W.J. Fischel, Ha-Yehudim be-Hodu (1960), 39–46; idem, in: JQR, 47 (1956–57), 37–57. [Walter Joseph Fischel]

TOBIAS, JOSEPH (1684–1761), colonial settler of Charleston, South Carolina. Tobias, whose parentage and birthplace are unknown, was of Spanish lineage. He served as Spanish interpreter in the British navy prior to coming to Charleston in

TOBIAS, PHILLIP VALLENTINE (1925– ), South African anatomist and paleoanthropologist. His paternal grandfather Phillip Tobias served the Central Synagogue of London from 1854 to 1904. Professor Tobias was the great-great-grandson of Isaac Vallentine (1793–1868), founder of the Jewish Chronicle. Born in Durban, South Africa, Tobias taught at the Witwatersrand Medical School from 1951. From 1959 until 1990 he served as head of the department of anatomy. He was dean of the Faculty of Medicine (1980–82), member of the Witwatersrand University Council (1971–84), and the only simultaneous holder of three professorships at Witwatersrand University, Anatomy, Zoology, Palaeo-anthropology. From 1994 he was Professor Emeritus of Anatomy and Human Biology. He was founder and president of the Institute for the Study of Mankind in Africa (1961–68, 1983–84), president of the Royal Society of South Africa (1970–72) and of the South African Archaeological Society (1964–65), founder and first president of the Anatomical Society of Southern Africa (1968–72) and

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

Bibliography: B.A. Elzas, The Jews of South Carolina (1905), passim; A. Tarshish, in: AJHSQ, 54 (1965), 411–49. [Thomas J. Tobias]

tobias ben moses ha-avel South African Society for Quaternary Research (1969–73). From 1994 to 1998, he was president of the International Association of Human Biologists. Protégé and successor of Raymond Dart, who discovered the first African australopithecine, Tobias was from 1959 closely associated with Louis and Mary Leakey, who found early hominid remains in northern Tanzania. Some of these fossil hominids Leakey, Tobias, and Napier identified as a new lowly species of man, which they named Homo habilis (handy man) representing a more hominised lineage than the australopithecines. Tobias later adduced evidence that Homo habilis was the world’s earliest primate with a capacity for spoken language. To a series of volumes on Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, Tobias contributed a monograph on the biggest-toothed australopithecines, Australopithecus boisei, and two volumes on Homo habilis. His oeuvre of over 1,100 published works includes nearly 500 articles in periodicals, 125 chapters in books, and over 50 books and monographs. He is recognized internationally as a leading authority in palaeo-anthropology and has received 17 honorary doctorates, the Carmel Award of Merit of the University of Haifa, and many medals, honorary professorships, civil decorations, and memberships of academies. He has written inter alia on living Africans, genetics, race and racism, academic freedom, and the harmful effects of apartheid on South African education. Tobias was active in Jewish communal affairs, including the Board of Deputies and the Great Synagogue of Johannesburg. [Gali Rotstein and Bracher Rager (2nd ed.)]

TOBIAS BEN MOSES HAAVEL (or ha-Ma’tik, “the translator”; 11t century), *Karaite scholar. He laid the theoretical and educational foundations for establishing the Karaites in the Byzantine milieu. According to Elijah *Bashyaẓ i (Iggeret Gid ha-Nasheh, 4a) Tobias studied under *Jeshua b. Judah, translated his works from Arabic into Hebrew, and brought them to Constantinople. He would therefore seem to have lived in the second half of the 11t century. However, two letters in Tobias’ own handwriting found in the *Genizah of Cairo indicate that he went to Jerusalem as early as the 1030s (or possibly the 1020s). At any rate he had returned by 1041, after he, like other Karaites, became involved in a bitter controversy which split the *Rabbanite community in Ereẓ Israel between the supporters of *Nathan b. Abraham and the followers of *Solomon b. Judah Gaon. Tobias could not have been a pupil of Jeshua b. Judah since both apparently studied under Joseph b. Abraham ha-Kohen “ha-Ro’eh” (al-*Baṣ īr), Tobias even translating some of al-Baṣ īr’s letters into Hebrew. A few years later, at all events before 1048, Tobias headed the Karaite community in Byzantium. He went to Egypt, perhaps as an emissary, and there instituted regulations for the synagogues of his community. His authority was recognized by all “the communities of Edom [i.e., Byzantium] both near and far” (letter to Abraham b. Yashar *Abu Sad al-Tustarī in Egypt; see Z. Ankori, in: Essays… S.W. Baron (1959), 38). As the independent leader of the first Karaite center in the Byzantine Empire, ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

he several times addressed questions on halakhic matters to the scholars in Jerusalem. Their answer to his query on intercalation was kept as a ruling for the Diaspora communities (Judah Hadassi, Eshkol ha-Kofer, 76a). Epithets The epithets by which Tobias is remembered in Karaite history are an indication of his personality and activities. His membership of the *Avelei Zion of Jerusalem while he was a student in the academy there led to his designation haavel (“the mourner”) and ha-oved (“the worshiper”); his role as commentator and decisor on the laws of his community gained him the honorific ha-baki (“the erudite”), in addition to the conventional appellations he-ḥ akham (“the sage”) and ha-maskil (“the teacher”). Tobias attests that he was also called ha-sofer (“the scribe”), possibly in reference to his art (as demonstrated by his fine calligraphy in manuscripts which have survived). The title ha-ma’tik (“the translator”) best describes Tobias, which then meant both translation and knowledge of tradition (masoret). Works With the exception of several liturgical poems (two of which were included in the Karaite prayer book), Tobias’ works consist for the most part either of actual translations of works by his teacher Joseph al-Baṣ īr from Arabic into Hebrew – Sefer Ne’imot, i.e., Kitāb al-Muḥ tawī (“Book of Melodies”); Sefer Maḥ kimat Peti, i.e., Kitāb al-Tamyīz (or al-Manṣ ūrī, “Book for the Enlightenment of Fools”); and Sefer ha-Moladim, one of eight chapters from Kitāb al-Istibṣ ār (“Book of Festivals”) – or of compilations of Arabic material from other “Jerusalemite scholars” and its adaptation in Hebrew as the basis for Tobias’ original work. This applies to his philosophical treatise Meshivat Nefesh (extant in manuscript), and his halakhic commentary, in many volumes, Sefer Oẓ ar Neḥ mad le-Va-Yikra (only the first part, on Lev. 1–10, has survived in manuscript; passages from it have been published by Neubauer, Poznański, Mann, and Ankori). In this case Tobias himself states (at the end of the work) that his investigation is based “on Arabic works which I would have rendered into Hebrew,” particularly on the Arabic commentaries of *David b. Boaz and *Japheth b. Ali ha-Levi, tenth-century Karaite scholars. Halakhic System In the legal field, the term ha’takah (Ar. al-naql) denotes the principle of tradition (precedence) in the determination of law. Its original (i.e., Rabbanite) meaning naturally refers to the Oral Law. But the tenth-century Karaite polemical writers, who borrowed this term from their Rabbanite opponents, attributed to it, in accordance with the classic standpoint adopted by this sect, two separate aspects and designated them as follows: on the one hand, there is acknowledgment of “ha’takah which all regard as authoritative,” i.e., the prophetic tradition which has been preserved for posterity “in the books and prophecies transcribed with the Torah in the possession of Israel” (according to the definition of *Sahl b.

tobit, book of

TOBIT, BOOK OF, one of the books of the *Apocrypha included in the Septuagint and Vulgate in the canon. It is the story of Tobit, an honest, upright man of the tribe of Naphtali, who observed the precepts and was exiled to Assyria by Shalmaneser (III?). When he came to the land of his

exile and the king of Assyria (Sennacherib) put many of the Jewish exiles to death, Tobit endangered his own life by defying the royal decree and arranging for the burial of the victims. His action came to the knowledge of the government and he was compelled to go into hiding until Esarhadon ascended the throne and *Ahikar, Tobit’s nephew, was restored to his post as the king’s scribe. Tobit then resumed his beneficent activities. It happened that on one occasion, when he had returned from burying an abandoned corpse, and lay down to sleep in his courtyard, bird’s droppings fell into his eyes and he became blind. In his distress he remembered that some time before he had lent his relative in Rages of Media ten talents of silver. He therefore requested his son – called Tobias – to claim the money. The young man went in the company of a guide. On the way, as they passed the River Tigris, the guide advised him to catch a fish and preserve its heart, liver, and gall. Later as they passed Ecbatana in Media, the guide told him that his kinsman Raguel (Reuel) dwelt there, and that he had an only daughter, Sarah. She had already been married seven times, but the bridegroom had died each time on the night of the wedding, and according to the law of the Torah, since she was the young Tobias’ kinswoman she was bespoken to him and not to a stranger. In order to drive away *Ashmedai, the demon who slew the grooms, the guide advised him to burn the heart and liver of the fish. Tobias did as ordered and was successful. His father-in-law, who was glad to see him alive, doubled the duration of the festivities from seven to 14 days. Meanwhile the guide, who had gone to Rages to bring the debt, came back, and they returned together to the home of Tobit the elder. When they reached Nineveh the son smeared the gall on his father’s eyes, and his eyesight was restored. Tobit wanted to pay the guide his hire, but then it became known to him that the guide was none other than the angel Raphael, one of the seven angels who carry up prayers to Heaven. The aged Tobit, being aware that the end of Nineveh was near, commanded his son to leave the city and to go to Media after his father’s death, which he did. Various conjectures have been put forward with regard to the source of the tale. In the past it was usual to give the historical explanation that the story reflects the prohibition in some period against burying the dead, whether in the Persian era, or the Greek (under Antiochus IV), or the Roman (cf. Graetz; cf. Katznelson). However, the Roman era is much too late (the book is now known from the Dead Sea scrolls); there is even no reflection of the religious persecution of Antiochus IV, nor has the story any visible connection with the Persian custom of not burying the dead (moreover, its author praises Media). In recent decades the conjecture has gained acceptance that there is a connection between the story and the widespread folkloristic motif of a young man who saved a dead body from creditors who wanted to prevent its burial, and was then rescued by the deceased’s spirit from mortal peril. The story of Tobit, however, does not speak even of a single creditor but of people put to death because of their devotion to burying the corpses of those executed

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

Maẓ liaḥ ha-Kohen in S. Pinsker (ed.), Likkutei Kadmoniyyot (1860), 34); on the other, the authority of non-biblical tradition is rejected and it is laid down that “any ha’takah which has no support from Scripture is worthless” (Aaron b. Elijah of Nicomedia, Gan Eden, 8b/c, and Elijah Bashyaẓ i, Adderet Eliyahu, 9d, 48c, 82b. All further citations are taken from the latter source). The original version of Tobias’ definitive treatise on the theory of ha’takah has not survived and its position among his lost works is not known. However, its inherent boldness and revolutionary consequences were perceived by subsequent generations of scholars who preserved his text, with slight linguistic changes, and interpreted it repeatedly as they saw fit. In his endeavor to establish an intellectual and legal criterion for compromise solutions necessitated by time and place, Tobias recognized in both theory and practice the positive and dynamic function of the principle of ha’takah for his contemporaries, as it was also understood by the Rabbanites. In order to mollify conservative Karaite opinion, Tobias based this awareness on the fictitious assumption that all the activities of the Karaites, even seeming innovations, must have a foundation in and derive proof from Scripture, and “those who say that ha’takah exists without support from Scripture merely show that they lack the intelligence to find its legal validity in the Torah.” At the same time as the Karaite concept of tradition was in the process of being enriched, there existed in Karaism a corresponding trend whereby the concept of “community” (Heb. edah or kibbutz; Ar. al-ijmāʿ) was assimilated within the comprehensive context of tradition. Thus Tobias’ fundamentally broader concept of ha’takah absorbed the ingredients of the Karaite principle of “consensus of the community,” one of the earliest sectarian impediments to authoritative halakhic initiative. On the strength of this twofold development, ha’takah (which Tobias also called kabbalah, i.e., chain of tradition, while others called it sevel ha-yerushah, i.e., traditional custom) was harnessed in its new context to the positive process of later Karaite legislation. In the course of time ha’takah was to rise to the level of the two other fundaments of Karaism, the Torah (Scripture) and comprehension (da’at or analogy; hekkesh, Ar. al-qiyās), and even to become the leading principle. It completely changed the attitude of the Karaites toward the Talmud and its place in Jewish history, and ended by paving the way to the radical reforms effected in Byzantine-Turkish Karaism in the 15t century. Bibliography: Z. Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium (1959), index; idem, in: Tarbiz, 25 (1957), 44–65; idem, in: PAAJR, 24 (1955), 1–38; idem, in: JJS, 8 (1958), 79–81; idem, in: Essays… S.W. Baron (1959), 1–38; S. Poznański, in: Oẓ ar Yisrael, 5 (1911), 12–14; Mann, Texts, index; L. Nemoy, Karaite Anthology (1952), 124, 249, 380.

tobit, book of

In the Arts The book’s ethical message was congenial to the early Christian Reformers, notably Martin Luther (who recommended Tobit as a subject for comedy). A pioneer of the drama in Sweden was the Lutheran writer and preacher Olaus Petri (Olof Petterson), whose Tobiae Commedia appeared in 1550. Other works of the period were a Danish play by Hieronymus Justesen Ranch of Viborg, the German Meistersinger Hans Sachs’ comedy, Die gantz histori Tobie, Joerg Wickram’s German prose comedy, Tobias (1551), and a mystery staged at Lincoln in 1564. These were followed by several more works in the 17t century, but interest in the theme later waned, although the 19t century saw the appearance of Milovan Vidahoric’s Serbian epic, Mladi Tovija (1825). In recent times, however, the subject has been revived in works such as James Bridie’s

Tobias and the Angel (1931) and Gonzalo Torrente Ballester’s modern Spanish miracle play, El viaje del joven Tobias (1938). Bridie succeeded in revitalizing the Apocryphal story by injecting humor and colloquial speech into his realistic interpretation of the old theme. In art there have been several cycles of works illustrating the story of Tobias, such as the fourth-century sarcophagus of St. Sebastian in the Appenine Way, Italy; 13t-century carvings at Chartres Cathedral; eight scenes in the Berlin Museum by Pinturiccio or Giulio Bugiardini; and paintings by Francesco Guardi for the Church of the Angel Raphael in Venice. The story of Tobias particularly appealed to *Rembrandt: the blind Tobit with his wife Anna (Tobit 2:11–14) is the subject of a meticulous early Rembrandt in the Moscow Museum and of several later works, including one in Berlin. These are studies of humble Dutch interiors, with a soft light filtering through the windows. There is also a painting by Rembrandt (Hermitage, Leningrad) of the younger Tobias taking leave of his parents as he sets out on his journey (5:17–22). Tobias and the angel (ch. 6) was a favorite subject in early Renaissance Italy. Merchants sometimes had their sons painted as Tobias accompanied by a guardian angel if they went away on business. The youth would be shown dangling his fish, followed by a little dog. The subject inspired paintings by Pollaiuolo (Pinacoteca, Turin); Filippino Lippi (Bension Collection, London); a follower of Verrochio (National Gallery, London); Botticelli (Academy, Florence); and Perugino (National Gallery, London). In “The Virgin with the Fish” by Raphael (Prado, Madrid), the kneeling Tobias holding his fish is presented by the angel to the Madonna. A painting by Rembrandt in the collection of the duke of Arenberg, Brussels, of the restoration of Tobit’s sight (ch. 11) has been admired for the exactitude with which it depicts an operation for cataracts in the 17t century; and one in the Louvre shows the archangel Raphael taking leave of Tobit and his family (12:16–22). In music Tobit’s song of praise, Magnus es Domine in aeternum, is included among the Cantica of the Roman Catholic rite, and sung to a simple psalmodic melody. In the 16t century, a motet, Domine deus patrum nostrorum, is found among the works of the composer Jacobus Gallus (Handl), and there is a Historia Tobiae in the manuscript of Hungarian historico-biblical songs known as the Hofgreff Collection. The subject was sometimes used for oratorios by minor 17tcentury composers: a work often mentioned in the history of the oratorio, Matthias Weckmann’s dialogue Tobias und Raquel, was for long attributed to his better-known contemporary, Johann Rosenmueller (c. 1620–1684). More prominent composers turned to the subject for oratorios in the 18t century: Antonio Caldara (Tobia, text by Apostolo Zeno, 1720), Antonio Lotti (Il ritorno di Tobia, Bologna, 1723), Georg Reutter the Younger (Il Ritorno di Tobia, Vienna, 1733), Joseph Mysliveczek (1737–1781), and Baldassare Galuppi (1782). The outstanding work of this period was Haydn’s oratorio Il ritorno di Tobia (text by Giovanni Gastone Boccherini, written in 1774–75). Haydn produced an augmented version in 1784 (a

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

by royal decree (as in the story of Antigone), and the bride is not a legendary king’s daughter, but a kinswoman bespoken to her relative; nor is there mention of the many fabulous deeds which characterize the folklore tale. Probably, what the author really had in mind were the two popular “precepts,” known from both the apocryphal and early talmudic literature: the first that one is in duty bound (even if he be a Nazirite or a high priest, who must keep away from any uncleanness) to bury a corpse found at random (met mitzvah, “the burial of the dead that is a precept”); and the second that there is special merit in marrying a kinswoman (cf. Tosef., Kid. 1:4; TJ, Naz. 7:1; and there are many stories of scholars who did so). The book itself appears to be as early as the Persian era. It contains a prophecy on the building of Jerusalem, but there is no allusion to the Hasmonean wars. It appears to have been compiled in Media. To this the Iranian name “Ashmedai” (from Aeshma-Dawa) seems appropriate. There is also the very fact that the whole story turns around descendants of the ten tribes. From talmudic and other sources, it is clear that until a very late period the ten tribes were believed to thrive in Media and in the surrounding countries. Furthermore, in Babylonia (in a wide sense) more than in any other place, they were concerned about the genealogical purity of the Jews of the Exile. Moreover, and connecting of Tobit with Ahikar shows that in that place and time Ahikar was a wellknown personality, which again lends support to the earlier date. The book is regarded as the most artistic story of the Apocrypha. Though dealing with various motifs, it retains a simple style and character. The original language was either Hebrew or Aramaic. Several fragments of the book were found among the Qumran scrolls both in Hebrew and in Aramaic. The Greek text is preserved in many versions, a long one (S) which is attested to in the Qumran library, a short one (A and B), and a third one, which is represented in many minuscules. Several Hebrew versions were preserved in the Middle Ages, but they all seem to be later adaptations. A very shortened version of the tale found its way into the well-known Midrash *Tanḥ uma. [Yehoshua M. Grintz]

toby, jackson revised version was made by Sigismund Neukomm in 1806); and the work is still occasionally performed, as is its overture. A charming curiosity is Beethoven’s jocular canon, O Tobias, heiliger Tobias! (1823), addressed to his publisher and friend Tobias Haslinger: according to the composer, he conceived the canon in a reverie on a coach ride during which he dreamt that he was transported to the Holy Land, felt very saintly, and through further flights of association came to think of “Saint” Tobit and his friend’s good qualities. In the 19t century, the subject was taken up by several French composers in short succession, following upon Pierre-Louis Deffés’ cantata (1847); Bizet (L’ange et Tobie, cantata, c. 1885–87, unfinished, text by Léon *Halévy); Gounod (Tobie, small oratorio, c. 1866, text by H. Lefèvre); and E. Ortolan (another setting of Halévy’s libretto, 1867). Works of the 20t century include the opera Tobias and the Angel by Arthur Bliss (1959–60; text by Christopher Hassall); and Darius *Milhaud’s Invocation à l’ange Raphaël, a cantata in four parts for women’s voices and orchestra (text by Paul Claudel, published 1965). [Bathja Bayer] Bibliography: X.L. Katzenelson, in: Ha-Tekufah, 25 (1929), 361–4; A. Kahana, Ha-Sefarim ha-Ḥ iẓ onim, 2 (1937), 291–311; Z. Hirsch, Ha-Psychologyah be-Sifrutenu ha-Attikah (1957), 70–73; H. Graetz, in: MGWJ, 28 (1879), 145–63, 385–408, 433–55, 509–20; F. Rosenthal, Vier apokryphische Buecher aus der Zeit und Schule R. Akiba’s (1885), 104–50; F.C. Conybeare, J.R. Harris, and A.S. Lewis (eds.), The Story of Ahikar (19132); E. Cosquin, in: RB, 8 (1899), 50–82; Charles, Apocrypha, 1 (1913), 174–201; M.M. Schumpp (tr. and ed.), Das Buch Tobias (1933); A. Miller (tr. and ed.), Das Buch Tobias (1940).

TOBY, JACKSON (1925– ), U.S. criminologist and sociologist. Toby received his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1950. He taught at Brooklyn College, N.Y., and at Harvard. He then took on the position of professor of sociology at Rutgers University, where he became chairman of the Sociology Department in 1961. He specialized in problems of adolescence and deviant behavior and was chief consultant to the Ford Foundation youth development program (1959–63). In 1966 he prepared a report on “Affluence and Adolescent Crime” for the President’s Law Enforcement Commission. He served as director of the Institute for Criminological Research at Rutgers from 1969 to 1994. His subsequent research focused on undergraduate education and the causes of and remedies for school violence. His publications include Social Problems in America (with Harry C. Bredemeier, 1960); Contemporary Society: Social Process and Social Structure in Urban Industrial Societies (1964); The Evolution of Societies (with T. Parsons, 1977); and Higher Education as an Entitlement (2005).

zur Stilkunde der Melodie (published as Melodielehre, Berlin, 1923). In 1929 he moved to Berlin, and in 1934 he settled in the United States. From 1937 he lived in Hollywood and taught at various universities. Though his earlier compositions show a rather romantic style, he later turned to a more modern idiom and also experimented in compositions such as Gesprochene Musik (1930). His music is strongly lyrical and shows a classical sense of form; in piano compositions, his style is more brilliant. Toch’s works include four operas; orchestral works; chamber music; incidental music for plays, films, and radio plays; and choral works (including Cantata of the Bitter Herbs, a Passover oratorio, 1938). The overture to his opera Die Prinzessin auf der Erbse (1926) is often played. Bibliography: MGG; Grove, Dict; Riemann-Gurlitt; Baker, Biog Dict. [Claude Abravanel]

TOCH, MAXIMILIAN (1864–1946), U.S. paint chemist. Born in New York, Toch graduated in chemistry and law before entering his father’s paint business. He became an expert on the authenticity of paintings. He was professor of industrial chemistry at Cooper Union, New York (1919), and professor of the chemistry of artistic painting at the National Academy of Design, New York (1924). During World War I he invented the “Toch system” of camouflage. Among his books are Chemistry and Technology of Mixed Paints (1907), How to Paint Permanent Pictures (1922), and Paint, Paintings and Restoration (1931). TOCHNER, MESHULLAM (1912–1966), Israeli literary critic. Born in the Ukraine, Tochner was taken to Bessarabia by his family during World War I. In 1925 he went to Palestine, settling in Jerusalem. He taught at the Teachers’ Seminary of Beit ha-Kerem, Jerusalem. He published literary research articles in Israel’s newspapers, literary periodicals, and anthologies, and in the jubilee volumes for S.Y. *Agnon. Tochner was one of the most perceptive critics and interpreters of Agnon’s works; Pesher Agnon (1968), a collection of his essays on Agnon, with the addition of critical remarks by D. Sadan, was published posthumously. Bibliography: S.Y. Agnon et al., ‘Al Meshullam Tochner (1967). [Getzel Kressel]

TOCH, ERNST (1887–1967), composer. Born in Vienna, Toch studied medicine and philosophy and was self-taught in music. After studying piano with Rehberg, he became a teacher of composition at the Mannheim Hochschule fuer Musik (1913). In 1921 he received his Ph.D. with the dissertation Beitraege

TODD, MIKE (Avrom Hirsch Goldbogen; 1909–1958), U.S. producer and impresario. Born in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Todd was the son of a Polish-born rabbi. He produced 21 shows on Broadway, largely light musicals. These include Call Me Ziggy (1937); The Hot Mikado (1939); Star and Garter (1942); Something for the Boys (1943); Mexican Hayride (1944); Up in Central Park (1945); As the Girls Go (1948); Michael Todd’s Peep Show (1950); and The Live Wire (1950). His production of the tragedy Hamlet (1945), starring Maurice Evans, set

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

tohorot the record at the time for the longest run of any Shakespearean play on Broadway (131 performances). Todd was a financial promoter of two motion picture filming innovations, Cinerama and Todd-AO, the latter of which he codeveloped. Cinerama was introduced to film audiences in 1952 with the stomach-churning This Is Cinerama. Todd-AO was introduced in 1955 with the wide-screen film Oklahoma! In 1956 Todd made the $6.5 million film of Jules Verne’s Around the World in 80 Days (Academy Award winner for Best Picture) which, by the time of his death in a plane crash, had grossed $33 million. Of his three marriages, the second and third were to the film actresses Joan Blondell (from 1947 to 1950) and Elizabeth Taylor (from 1957 until his death). Bibliography: A. Cohn, The Nine Lives of Michael Todd (1959); Liz Taylor, M. Todd Jr., and S. Todd McCarthy, A Valuable Property: The Life Story of Michael Todd (1983). [Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]

TODESCO, HERMANN (1791–1844), Austrian industrialist and philanthropist. Todesco was born in Pressburg (Bratislava) to Babette, née Pick, of Breslau, and Aaron Hirschl Wellisch (Welsche) of Pressburg, a silk merchant, who acquired the surname Todesco after numerous trips to Italy (tedesco is Italian for “German”). In 1789 he was included in the list of Jews permitted to reside in Vienna. Hermann’s business abilities soon brought him appreciable wealth and position. He was an efficient military contractor and established one of the first cotton mills in Marienthal (near Vienna), introducing modern machines and methods from abroad. In 1835 he bought an estate in Legnaro, Italy, where he planted mulberry trees for raising silk worms. Todesco was one of the founders of the Vienna temple in 1826 and was distinguished by his munificent philanthropic activities. He donated a school to the Pressburg community, made a magnificent bequest for a Jewish hospital in Baden, and gave large sums to the Vienna Jewish community to develop handicrafts. Shortly before his death he was nominated a member of the Kollegium of the community and opened a public kitchen for the poor. Hermann’s banking firm was managed after his death by two of his seven children, Eduard (1814–1887) and Moritz (1816–1873). Eduard continued his father’s philanthropic policies by establishing generous foundations to help needy army officers and impoverished Jewish students. Bibliography: B. Wachstein, Die ersten Statuten (1926), index; C. Von Wurzbach, Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich, S.V. [Albert Lichtblau (2nd ed.)]

TOEPLITZ, OTTO (1881–1940), German mathematician. Toeplitz was professor of mathematics at Kiel (1920) and Bonn (1928–35) until his dismissal by the Nazis. He immigrated to Palestine in 1939 and held an administrative post at the Hebrew University. He contributed to many branches of research in pure mathematics; his main interest was in matrix algebra. ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

He wrote Von Zahlen und Figuren (1930) and published articles on Plato’s mathematical ideas in Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Mathematik, Astronomie und Physik, a periodical which he helped found. TOHORAH (Heb. ‫“ ; ָט ֳה ָרה‬cleansing,” “purification”), the ceremony of washing the dead before burial, performed by mit’assekim (“attendants”), members of the *ḥ evra kaddisha. The body is laid on a special tohorah board, the feet toward the door to indicate the escape of the impurity. While the body is undressed, thoroughly rubbed and cleansed with lukewarm water, the mit’assekim recite biblical verses (Zech. 3:4; Ezek. 36:25; Song 5:11, etc.). Then the head and the front part of the body are rubbed with a beaten egg, a symbol of the perpetual wheel of life. (This part of the ceremony is only observed nowadays in very Orthodox circles.) Thereafter, “nine measures” (9 “kav,” 4½ gallons) of water are poured over the body while it is held in an upright position. This process is the essential part of the tohorah ceremony. The body is then thoroughly dried and dressed in shrouds. The tohorah rite for great rabbis and scholars, called reḥ iẓ ah gedolah (“great washing”), is more elaborate. “Nine measures” of water are used several times: the body may even be immersed in a mikveh (“ritual bath”). This custom, however, was strongly opposed by leading rabbis because it discouraged women from attending the mikveh. In addition to the washing of the body, the hair is combed and the fingernails and toenails are cut (Sh. Ar., YD 352:4). The basis for tohorah is in Ecclesiastes 5:15, “as he came, so shall he go” (meaning: as when man is born, he is washed, so too when he dies, he is washed; Sefer Ḥ asidim, ed. by R. Margaliot (1957), no. 560). The ceremony of tohorah, as well as all other burial details, is not mentioned in the Bible. At the burial of kings, however, sweet odorous spices were used (II Chron. 16:14) and the Tombs of the Kings in Jerusalem have a bath below the entrance to the courtyard, which may have been built either for cleansing the dead or for the ritual use of priests. Tohorah was observed in mishnaic times, as can be derived from the statement that limited washing and anointing of the body is permitted on the Sabbath (Shab. 23:5). Talmudic literature mentions the cleansing of the body with myrtle and the cutting of the hair of the deceased (cf. Beẓ ah 6a; MK 8b). Tohorah for women is performed by the female members of the ḥ evra kaddisha. After tohorah, the attendants clean their hands with salted water. Most traditional cemeteries have a special annex to the cemetery called bet tohorah (“cleansing house”). In recent times, however, tohorah is generally performed at the mortuary of hospitals (or by the undertaker). *Reform Judaism has discarded the ritual of tohorah. Bibliography: S. Baer, Toẓ e’ot Ḥ ayyim (Heb. and Ger., 1900), 99–102 (Heb. pt.); J.M. Tukaczinsky, Gesher ha-Ḥ ayyim, 1 (19602), 94–100; M. Lamm, Jewish Way in Death and Mourning (1969), 6–7, 242–5; H. Rabinowicz, A Guide to Life (1964), 38–39.

TOHOROT (Heb. ‫ ; ָט ֳהרוֹ ת‬lit. “cleannesses”), the last of the six orders of the Mishnah, according to the traditional arrange-

tohorot ment mentioned in the homily of *Simeon b. Lakish (Shab. 31a), but the fifth order according to R. *Tanḥ uma (Num. R. 13:15). Tohorot discusses the halakhot of the different categories of ritual purity and impurity. It contains 12 tractates, arranged in descending order according to the number of chapters: *Kelim, containing 30 chapters, on vessels susceptible to impurity; *Oholot, 18 chapters, on ritual impurity arising from the overshadowing of a dead person; *Nega’im, 14 chapters, on uncleanness relating to leprosies; *Parah, 12 chapters, on the *red heifer; *Tohorot, ten chapters, mainly on conditions rendering foods unclean; *Mikva’ot, ten chapters, on the pools for ritual immersion; *Niddah, ten chapters, on uncleanness relating to the menstruant; *Makhshirim, six chapters, on the fluids rendering food susceptible to becoming ritually impure; *Zavim, five chapters, on uncleannesss from gonorrhea; *Tevul Yom, four chapters, on uncleanness, lasting until the sunset, of one who has gone through ritual immersion during the day; *Yadayim, four chapters, on the uncleanness of unwashed hands and their purification; and *Ukẓ in, three chapters, on the uncleanness transferred by the stalks or husks of fruits or plants – 126 chapters in all. Because of its length, some divided Kelim into three bavot (“gates”), namely Bava Kamma, Bava Meẓ ia, and Bava Batra, each containing ten chapters, as was done with *Nezikin (see *Bava Kamma). In the Tosefta of Tohorot, Kelim Bava Kamma has seven chapters, Kelim Bava Meẓ ia 11, and Kelim Bava Batra, seven chapters; Oholot has 18, Nega’im nine, Parah 12, Niddah nine, Mikva’ot seven (or eight), Tohorot 11, Makhshirim three, Zavim five, Yadayim two, Tevul Yom two, and Ukẓ in three chapters. Apart from the tractate Niddah, Tohorot has no Gemara in either the Jerusalem or Babylonian Talmud. Bibliography: Epstein, Mishnah, 980ff.; Ḥ . Albeck (ed.), Shishah Sidrei Mishnah, Seder Tohorot (1959), 9f. [Abraham Arzi]

TOHOROT (Heb. ‫ ; ָט ֳהרוֹ ת‬lit. “cleannesses”), fifth tractate in the order of the same name according to the enumeration in the standard Mishnah. According to *Hai Gaon it is the seventh. It is also the seventh in the Tosefta, if the three sections into which Kelim is divided there are counted as one. The name tohorot (“ritual cleannesses”) is actually a euphemism for tumot (“ritual uncleannesses”) since Tohorot deals essentially with the rules of the lesser degrees of uncleanness, effects of which last until sunset only. It details the laws of cleanness and uncleanness regarding foodstuffs and liquids, persons engaged in their preparation or consumption, and vessels employed in the process. Chapter 1 begins with the 13 regulations concerning the carrion of clean birds, and those relating to unclean birds and cattle. It continues with a discussion of the extent to which foodstuffs of major and minor grades of uncleanness may be combined to form the prescribed minima. Also discussed are the conditions under which the same or different grades of uncleanness may be conveyed to a number of loaves or pieces

of dough that cling to one another. Chapter 2 discusses uncleanness that may be conveyed to wet or dry *terumah by the hands of clean and unclean persons, the various grades of uncleanness a person may contract through eating, and the resultant uncleanness of foodstuff in contact with other foodstuff possessing various grades of uncleanness. Chapter 3 deals with the grades of uncleanness and minimum amounts applicable to foodstuffs capable of changing their state of fluidity to one of solidity and vice versa. Also discussed is the cleanness or uncleanness of those objects whose bulk is increased or decreased by weather conditions. The chapter concludes with an exposition of doubtful uncleanness, and this continues to the end of chapter 4 which deals with cases of doubtful uncleanness as a result of which terumah is to be burned, and doubtful instances that are finally regarded as clean. Chapters 5 and 6 are mainly concerned with doubtful cases of uncleanness in which a distinction is made between location in a private domain and location in a public domain. In the former, all doubtful cases are declared unclean, while in the latter, they are considered clean. Also discussed are instances in which both a private and public domain are involved. Chapter 7 discusses forms of doubtful uncleanness which result from the presence of an *am ha-areẓ or his wife. Chapter 8 concludes the discussion regarding the am ha-areẓ . Rules regarding the stages when foodstuffs begin and cease to be susceptible to uncleanness are next specified. A discussion concerning the uncleanness of beverages concludes the chapter. Chapters 9 and 10 conclude the tractate with the regulations concerning the stages at which olives become susceptible to uncleanness, and the laws of cleanness and uncleanness that apply to an olive-press and a winepress. The Tosefta to this tractate is divided into 11 chapters. Since there is no Gemara to Tohorot, the Tosefta is extremely valuable for the elucidation of many difficult passages in the Mishnah. All the commentators therefore made extensive use of the Tosefta in their explanations of the Mishnah. The Tosefta does not totally correspond to the Mishnah. It does not contain any laws that correspond to Mishnah 1:1–4 or 2:1. Tosefta 4:1–4 includes material which is not contained in the Mishnah. It was translated into English by H. Danby (The Mishnah, 1933), and J. Neusner published a translation of both the Mishnah (1991) and the Tosefta (2002) of Tohorot. add. Bibliography: Strack-Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (1996), 117; Epstein, The Gaonic Commentary on the Order Toharot (Hebrew) (1982); S. Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim, vol. 3 (1939); J. Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Laws of Purities (1974–77), vols. 11–12; idem, From Mishnah to Scripture (1984), 67–71; idem, The Mishnah Before 70 (1987), 171–178; idem, The Philosophical Mishnah, 3 (1989), 207–20; idem, Purity in Rabbinic Judaism (1994), 74–79. [Aaron Rothkoff]

TOHOROT HAKODESH, an important work of ethical literature. First printed in Amsterdam in 1733, this anonymous work has been wrongly attributed to Benjamin Wolf b. Mattathias. The error arose from the fact that Benjamin’s name ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

toker, eliahu is mentioned on the title page, not as the author but as the person who brought the work to the press, and, it seems, collected the funds necessary to finance the printing. According to his introduction, the author chose to remain anonymous in order to avoid pride of authorship, and probably also because of the harsh criticism of contemporary rabbis, institutions, and customs contained in the work. The original title of the work, the introduction indicates, was Hanhagot Yesharot (“Right Ways of Behavior”). Evidence in the book shows that the author was from Poland, and in the work he occasionally compares the customs of Eastern Europe with those of the Orient. It seems that the author was poor, wandered from place to place, and knew Russian. I. Halpern attempted to prove that the author lived in Poland during the *Chmielnicki persecutions (1648–49), which left a deep impression on him, and that he finished the work a decade or two later. B.Z. Dinur and D. Tamar, however, hold that the work was probably written in the first decade of the 18t century. The later date is somewhat more credible in view of the historical and biographical facts recorded in the work itself. The writer, a Lurianic kabbalist like most authors of ethical works at that time, divided the book into six parts: (1) daily behavior, including the proper way to study at night and to perform the morning rites; (2) synagogue and prayer; (3) business and ethics, and the necessity to study and pray even while attending to daily tasks; (4) evening rites; (5) behavior during Sabbath and festivals; and (6) all aspects of social conduct. Social criticism holds a central place in this work. Ethical literature’s preoccupation with just social behavior as the supreme religious goal is clearly presented, especially in the criticism of contemporary rabbis. In fact, the author emphasizes that right social behavior takes precedence over study of the Torah. Dinur included Tohorot ha-Kodesh among those East European ethical works which anticipated modern Ḥ asidism and carried some of its social and religious message.

Tokat in 1642, and we can assume that there existed an organized Jewish community. Hebron emissaries R. Moshe Halevi Nazir and R. Yosef Hacohen visited Tokat between the years 1668 and 1671 and 1675–1677. The latter spent a short time in Tokat in 1684 when he traveled to many communities to collect money for himself. At the beginning of the 18t century the Shabbatean Ḥ ayyim Malach met *Shabbetai Ẓ evi on his way from Bursa to Tokat. At that time Rabbi Joseph ben Mordechai from *Jerusalem lived in the city. At the beginning of the 19t century about 100 families lived in the community; by 1927 only 20 families were left. There are two Jewish cemeteries and an old synagogue, where a *genizah was found. Jews originally handled the town’s commerce, but they were gradually replaced by the Armenians who used more up-todate methods and mastered the foreign languages required for the export-import trade. As a result of this, the Jewish community scattered. Bibliography: A. Galanté, Histoire des Juifs d’Anatolie, 2 (1939), 289–92; Rosanes, Togarmah, 2 (1937–38), 135–6. add. bibliography: A. Yaari, Shelohei, 373, 416, 469–70; Tevernier, Voyages de Perse, I, 90; M. Benveniste, Responsa Penei Moshe, I (1971), no. 33; U. Heyd, in: Sefunot, 5 (1961), 135–50; M. Benayahu, in: Sefunot, 14 (1971–78), 92, 248; M.A. Epstein, The Ottoman Jewish Communities and Their Role in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries (1980), 277; H. Gerber, Yehudei ha-Imperiyah ha-Otmanit ba-Me’ot ha-Shesh Esrei veha-Sheva Esrei: Ḥ evrah ve-Kalkalah (1983), 47, 69, 159. [Abraham Haim / Leah Bornstein-Makovetsky (2nd ed.)]

TOKAT, capital city of the province bearing the same name in northern Anatolia, situated on the banks of the Yeşil Irmak. The community was founded by Jews from *Amasya in 1530. After the Amasya blood libel in 1553, most of them returned to Amasya in 1565. During the Ottoman period there existed a small Jewish community in Tokat. Tokat then was also the scene of a blood libel, instigated by Armenians; as a result of an intervention by Moses *Hamon, Sultan *Suleiman’s chief physician, the Jews were able to prove their innocence. In the 16t century Jewish silk merchants traveled via Tokat to *Aleppo and *Persia. A document from 1574/75 noted 29 Jewish households and 27 Jewish bachelors in the community. The traveler Tevernier visited the city in the 17t century, but wrote only about Muslims, Christians, and Armenians who lived there. Yet it is known that R. Zemach Narvoni lived in

TOKER, ELIAHU (1934– ), Argentinean writer, poet, translator, and researcher in Jewish literature and lore. The scope and spirit of his works are oriented both to Jewish traditions of the past, and to the building of a contemporary Jewish-Latin American identity. His eight books of poetry include Lejaim (“To Life,” 1974); Piedra de par en par (“Wide Open Stone,” 1974); Padretierra (“Fatherearth,” 1977); Homenaje a Abraxas (“Homage to Abraxas,” 1980); Papá, mamá y otras ciudades (“Dad, Mom and Other Cities,” 1988); and Las manos del silencio (“The Hands of Silence,” 2003). His translations include valuable anthologies such as the following: from Yiddish – El resplandor de la palabra judía: antología de poesía ídish del siglo XX (“The Radiance of the Jewish Word: Anthology of 20t Century Yiddish Poetry,” 1981); Poesía de Avrom Sútzkever (“Poetry by Avrom Sutzkever,” 1983); El ídish es también Latinoamérica (“Yiddish is also Latin America,” 2003); from Hebrew – El Cantar de los Cantares (“The Song of Songs,” 1984); Pirké Avot (“The Sayings of the Fathers,” 1988), and anthologies of kabbalistic, talmudic, and rabbinical texts. He also published critical editions of the Argentinean Jewish writers César Tiempo, Carlos M. Grünberg, and Alberto Gerchunoff; collections of Jewish proverbs and jokes; and volumes devoted to the Holocaust and to the victims of the attack on the Buenos Aires Jewish Community building in 1994. His poems have been translated into Yiddish, Hebrew, French, German, and Portuguese. Toker received several awards in Argentina and Mexico. He was also active in Jewish cultural and community

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

Bibliography: B. Dinur, Be-Mifneh ha-Dorot (1955), index; I. Halpern, in: KS, 34 (1959), 495–98 (=Yehudim ve-Yahadut be-Mizraḥ Eiropah (1968), 396–400); D. Tamar, in: Aresheth, 3 (1961), 166–72 (= Meḥ karim be-Toledot ha-Yehudim (1970), 131–7).

tokheḤ ah life in Argentina, and participated in national and international conferences on Jewish Latin American issues. Bibliography: D.B. Lockhart, Jewish Writers of Latin America. A Dictionary (1997); R. Di Antonio and N. Glickman, Tradition and Innovation: Reflection on Latin American Jewish Writing (1993); P. Finzi et al., El imaginario judío en la literatura de América Latina: visión y realidad (1992). [Florinda F. Goldberg (2nd ed.)]

TOKHEḤ AH (Heb. ‫ ; ּתוֹ כֵ ָחה‬lit. “reproof ”), the name given to the two comminatory passages in the Pentateuch (Lev. 26:14–45; Deut. 28:15–68). The Mishnah referred to them as the “chapters of curses” and they were designated as the Torah reading for fast days. These sections must not be divided, but must be read by one person (Meg. 3:6, 31b). In order to begin and end with more favorable sentences (Meg. 31b; TJ, Meg. 3:8, 74b), the reading is commenced before the curses and concluded after them (e.g., Lev. 26:10–46; Deut. 28:7–69). The Deuteronomy chapter was considered the more severe since it contains no verses of consolation and is written in the present tense. The public reading of these passages on their appropriate Sabbaths generated fear among the listeners, and it therefore became customary for the reader to recite them quickly in a low voice. People were reluctant to be called to the Torah for these portions. In some communities it became customary to give this aliyah to poor people who could not afford to pledge donations for the more desirable aliyot. The person was not called up by his name, but the sexton simply said “May anyone who wishes rise to the Torah” (Rema to Sh. Ar. 428:6). It later became the general practice for the sexton or the reader of the Torah to accept this aliyah. However, in some communities, the rabbis insisted on receiving these aliyot to demonstrate that the word of the Torah need not be feared. [Aaron Rothkoff]

TOKYO, city in *Japan. Jewish history, culture, and religion were generally unknown to the Japanese of Tokyo before the end of World War I. Although the city had been designated the imperial capital in 1868, Jews who took up residence in Japan before World War I settled in the great port cities of *Kobe, *Yokohama, and *Nagasaki. Acquaintance with things Jewish was largely limited to Christian missionaries and their converts. This state of affairs changed somewhat after 1918 when a small number of Jews fleeing from the Bolshevik revolution in Russia made their homes in Tokyo, and many Japanese encountered Jews and witnessed antisemitism during Japan’s military expedition in Siberia (1918–22). During the 1920s a handful of Japanese antisemites founded organizations and engaged in publication, mostly in Tokyo, but their work was generally ineffectual. With the spread of Nazism in Germany and the drift of Japan after 1932 toward closer relations with Hitler, professional antisemites – military and civilian – attempted with little success to spread their message of hatred among the Japanese people. When Japan surrendered to the allied powers in 1945, Tokyo soon emerged as a center of Jewish life and

activity in Japan. Many of the Jews who helped to stimulate a wide variety of Jewish activities were among the thousands of American troops stationed in Tokyo during the American occupation of Japan (1945–52). The civilian Jewish community grew slowly during and after this period as hundreds of Jews, mainly from the United States and Western Europe, settled in the city for professional and commercial purposes. Jewish life gravitated toward the Tokyo Jewish Center which was established and maintained by the local community. In the late 1950s some American Jews studied briefly the feasibility of “missionary” work in Japan, especially in Tokyo, but the idea was soon abandoned. A Jewish community, supplemented by a steady stream of temporary residents from abroad, continued to exist in Japan’s capital city. In 1971 there were approximately 300 Jews living in the city. In the first years of the 21st century the permanent Jewish population of Tokyo amounted to fewer than 200 people, though the transient Jewish population brought the total up to somewhat fewer than 1,000. These included representatives of businesses and financial institutions, as well as journalists and students, mostly from the U.S. and Israel. The Jewish community center houses the only synagogue in Japan as well as a school (with classes twice a week up to the eighth grade), a library, and a mikveh. Bibliography: S. Mason, Our Mission to the Far East (1918); J. Nakada, Japan in the Bible (1933); I. Cohen, in: East and West, 2 (1922), 239–40, 267–70, 652–4; H. Dicker, Wanderers and Settlers in the Far East (1962), incl. bibl. [Hyman Kublin]

°TOLAND, JOHN (1670–1722), Irish-born deist, active in the theological and political controversies in England at the beginning of the 18t century. Toland was born in County Donegal, supposedly the illegitimate son of a Roman Catholic priest. At the age of 16 he rejected Catholicism, became a Presbyterian, and studied at Scottish universities. A friend of John Locke, he eventually became a Deist and, later, a Pantheist. Among his many publications was Reasons for Naturalising the Jews in Great Britain and Ireland on the Same Footing with All Other Nations (anonymously published in London in 1714, reprinted 1939). This was not as has frequently been stated a plea for the naturalization of the Jews, but for facilitating the naturalization of foreign-born Jews and thereby attracting them to England. The economic and philosophic arguments that Toland used to demonstrate the utility of the Jews to the country showed a tolerance in advance of his day. Toland also translated into English The Agreement of the Customs of the East Indians with Those of the Jews (London, 1705). Bibliography: Dubnow, Weltgesch, 7 (1928), 520–3; Roth, Mag Bib, 213, 380; Wiener, in: HUCA, 16 (1941), 215–42; A. Cohen, Anglo-Jewish Scrapbook (1943), 336–7; J. Toland, Gruende fuer die Einbuergerung der Juden in Grossbritannien und Irland, ed. and tr. by H. Mainusch (Eng. and Ger., 1965), incl. bibl.; Barzilay, in: JSS, 21 (1969), 75–81. Add. Bibliography: ODNB online; S.H. Daniel, John Toland: His Methods, Manners, and Mind (1984); R.E. Sullivan, John Toland and the Deist Controversy (1982); Katz, England, 234–36. [Cecil Roth]

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

toledano TOLANSKY, SAMUEL (1907–1973), English physicist and world authority on optics and spectroscopy. Tolansky was born in Newcastle-on-Tyne, England, to Russian parents. He received his education in Newcastle and at the Imperial College in London, where he was appointed assistant lecturer in physics in 1934. He subsequently held various appointments at Manchester University, where he conducted important research work in the field of atomic energy during World War II. He joined the Royal Holloway College of London University in 1947, becoming professor of physics. He became a fellow of the Royal Society in 1952. Tolansky was a principal investigator for the American NASA lunar research project, and was one of the first group of scientists chosen to examine and evaluate the dust brought back by the Apollo moon astronauts. His prediction in 1969 that the moon is covered with glasslike marbles was verified a year later. Tolansky wrote a large number of works in his special field, many of which were translated into Russian, German, Japanese, and other languages. They include Optical Illusions (1964); Curiosities of Light Rays and Light Waves (1964); Interference Microscopy for the Biologist (1968); The Strategic Diamond (1968); Microstructures of Surfaces (1968); and Revolution in Optics (1968). He also published over 300 scientific papers. Keenly interested in Jewish affairs, Tolansky was an active member of the academic advisory council of the cultural department of the World Jewish Congress, and was generally associated with Israeli scientific institutions. He was also a vice president of the British Technion society. He visited Israel on a number of occasions, delivering scientific lectures and advising on scientific affairs.

TOLEDANO, family of rabbis and ḥ akhamim which originated in Toledo, *Spain. After the expulsion from Spain in 1492, the Toledanos were to be found in Safed, Salonika, and Morocco. According to a family tradition, they arrived in Fez during the 16t century from Salonika, and from there went to Meknès and became leaders of the community from the 16t century until the present day. They were prominent in the community in religious affairs, producing renowned rabbis and poets who enriched the literature of Moroccan Jewry with their works and greatly influenced the western communities, particularly those of Meknès, Salé, Tangier, and even Gibraltar; in political affairs, producing men who served as ministers and counselors to kings and were entrusted with diplomatic missions; and in economic affairs, producing outstanding merchants who developed and maintained varied commercial relations with European countries which contributed to the economic progress of Morocco. (1) DANIEL BEN JOSEPH (c. 1570–1640) arrived in Fez from Salonika with his sons (2) ḥ AYYIM and (3) JOSEPH, from whom the two principal lines of the family branched out. He is described in sources as the “head of the yeshivah of Fez” and as the “head of the Castilian scholars.”

(2) Ḥ ayyim’s sons were (4) ḥ ABIB (d. c. 1660) and (5) DANIEL (1600–1670?). The former was rabbi and nagid in Meknès and was referred to as He-Ḥ asid (“the Pious”). He was a signatory to a takkanah of 1640, whose efficacy he strengthened by securing for it a royal order. The latter was a rabbi and legal authority in Meknès. (3) Joseph’s sons were (6) DANIEL (d. c. 1680) and (7) BARUCH (d. 1685). The former was a rabbi and dayyan in Meknès and counselor of Moulay Ismāʾil together with his colleague Joseph *Maymeran. He fought Shabbateanism with R. Aaron ha-Sabʿuni and his sonin-law R. Jacob *Sasportas, and he signed legal decisions together with (9) R. Hayyim b. Habib (see below). Baruch (7) was a rabbi in Meknès, father of seven sons, including (8) MOSES, the father of four ḥ akhamim. Among Baruch’s other sons were (16) Ḥ ayyim and (17) Abraham, leading merchants who traded with the royal family. (9) ḥ AYYIM BEN ḥ ABIB HE-ḥ ASID (d. c. 1680), rabbi and kabbalist, copied kabbalistic and ethical works, including Yeraḥ Yakar of R. Abraham Galanté which was brought to him by the emissary Elisha Ashkenazi – the father of Nathan of Gaza – and Sha’arei Ḥ okhmah of an Ashkenazi author, thus contributing to their circulation in the West. It is almost certain that he fought the Shabbatean movement, as did his relative Daniel, with whom he shared the position of dayyan. He maintained contact with R. Aaron ha-Sabʿuni and copied the marginal notes of the latter’s copy of the Shulḥ an Arukh. One of his daughters married R. Abraham Berdugo and was the mother of R. Moses Berdugo (“ha-MaSHBIR”), and the other married R. (8) Moses b. Baruch (see above) and gave birth to R. (18) Ḥ ayyim (“MaHaRḤ aT”) and R. (21) Jacob Toledano (“MaHaRIT”). Ḥ ayyim (9) signed legal decisions together with his relative Daniel. His son (10) MOSES (1643–1723) was the leading rabbi of Meknès and corresponded on halakhic questions with R. Menahem *Serero, R. Vidal ha-*Sarfati, and others. Some of his responsa and legal decisions were published in the works of Moroccan ḥ akhamim. He held rabbinical office together with his brother (11) ḥ ABIB (1658–1716). The latter corresponded extensively with the ḥ akhamim of Fez. R. Judah (1660–1729), a scholar of Meknès, was known as a great talmudist. (12) JOSEPH TOLEDANO BEN DANIEL (b) (d. c. 1700) was also a counselor of the Moroccan king Moulay Ismāʾil, who sought to develop foreign trade and exchange Christian captives for arms as well as for other goods. He sent Joseph to the Netherlands to conduct negotiations which would lead to a peace treaty and a commercial agreement between the two countries. His mission was successful and the treaty was ratified in 1683. In 1688 Joseph presented his credentials as Moroccan ambassador to the States General. The presence in Holland of his brother-in-law Jacob Sasportas obviously assisted him in the fulfillment of his mission. His brother (13) ḥ AYYIM TOLEDANO (d. c. 1710), also a royal counselor, accompanied him on the mission. Once the treaty was ratified in the Netherlands, he returned to Meknès and together with the nagid Abraham Maymeran convinced the king to accept its conditions

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

[Michael Wallach]

toledano

TOLEDANO FAMILY

20. SOLOMON d. 1789 ELIEZER

31. HABIB c. 1800 –1870

dtr.

ABRAHAM

MOSES

34. MEIR

25. MOSES d. 1773

dtr.

JUDAH d. 1820

Ḥ ABIB 19. ELIEZER d.c. 1730 JUDAH DANIEL 4. Ḥ ABIB d.c. 1660

9. Ḥ AYYIM he-Ḥ asid d.c. 1680

2. Ḥ AYYIM 5. DANIEL 1600 –?1670

JEDIDIAH d. 1942 DAVID

24. Ḥ AYYIM 1703 –1783 10. MOSES 1643 –1723 11. Ḥ ABIB 1658 –1716 2 others

12. JOSEPH d.c. 1700

1. DANIEL b. JOSEPH TOLEDANO c. 1570 –1640

13. Ḥ AYYIM d.c. 1710 6. DANIEL d.c. 1680

15. DANIEL d.c. 1740 SOLOMON d. 1877

14. MOSES d.c. 1725 6 others 18. Ḥ AYYIM 1690 –1750 8. MOSES

3. JOSEPH

21. JACOB 1697–1771 BARUCH d. 1712

7. BARUCH d. 1685

22. AARON d.c. 1785

JACOB

JUDAH

JACOB MOSES 1880 –1960

SAMUEL

ABRAHAM

JACOB 26. BARUCH 1738 –1817

33. dtr.

JOSEPH

JUDAH

27. SOLOMON c. 1770 –1840

28. MOSES d. 1778

29. JOSEPH d. 1788

32. RAPHAEL BARUCH 1892 –1971

BARUCH

30. Ḥ AYYIM d. 1848

23. ABRAHAM d.c. 1820

16. HAYYIM d.c. 1715 17. ABRAHAM 4 others

and sign. In 1690, when a crisis between the two countries appeared imminent, he traveled to the Netherlands and succeeded in renewing the treaty, afterward convincing the king to accept the conditions of the treaty. (14) MOSES TOLEDANO (d. c. 1725) was one of the favorites at the court. Together with the nagid Abraham Maymeran, he traded with the European countries, especially in firearms. In 1699 he traveled to the Netherlands and submitted complaints to the States General concerning his dealings with them. He won his suit and was awarded considerable compensation. (15) DANIEL TOLEDANO (d. c. 1740), son of (13) Ḥ ayyim, traded, together with his father, in the Netherlands and other European countries. He dealt mainly in wax and was known as “one of the country’s magnates.” In about 1720, after the death of his father, he was arrested by the king. The king confiscated his family’s belongings in payment for his debt, including (18) R. Ḥ ayyim Toledano’s property, thus bankrupting him. (16) ḥ AYYIM TOLEDANO BEN BARUCH (d. c. 1715), a

wealthy merchant, was associated with his brother (17) ABRAHAM in various business transactions and was a favorite of the royal family. He died childless and bequeathed his estate to (18) R. Ḥ ayyim (MaHaRḤ aT; see below), the son of his brother (8) Moses. (19) ELIEZER TOLEDANO BEN R. JUDAH (d. c. 1730) was among the wealthiest Moroccan merchants and a member of the circle of negidim which included Abraham Maymeran and Moses ibn Attar. Together with Maimon Toledano, he leased the meat tax of the community. He was the father of (20) R. Solomon (MaHaRShaT; see below). (18) ḥ AYYIM TOLEDANO BEN MOSES BEN BARUCH (MaHaRḤ aT; 1690–1750), rabbi in Meknès, became wealthy after he inherited his uncle Ḥ ayyim’s fortune. He wrote some legal decisions which were published in Fez under the title Ḥ ok u-Mishpat (“Law and Judgment,” 1931). His brother (21) R. JACOB TOLEDANO (MaHaRIT; 1697– 1771) was a prominent rabbi in Meknès and a disciple of R. Moses Berdugo, holding rabbinical office for 50 years. He was

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

toledano, jacob moses the most important halakhic authority in the Maghreb during the second half of the 18t century and played a central role in the leadership of his community. A crisis occurred in the relations between himself and his community in 1764, but the difficulties were settled and he continued to serve the community. He wrote a commentary on the Torah, a commentary to Rashi on the Torah, a work on the Shulḥ an Arukh, novellae on the Talmud, legal decisions, some of which were published in the works of Moroccan ḥ akhamim, and sermons. Another brother, (22) AARON TOLEDANO (d. c. 1785), was rabbi in Meknès. Toward the end of his life he left for Tangier, where he was appointed rabbi. His son (23) R. ABRAHAM TOLEDANO (d. c. 1820) was rabbi in Tangier after his father’s death. (24) R. ḥ AYYIM BEN R. JUDAH (1703–1783), renowned for his piety, was rabbi in Salé. He was a disciple of R. Moses Berdugo and wrote legal decisions (Teshuvot MaHaRḤ at shel Salé), kinot, and piyyutim. His nephew (20) R. SOLOMON BEN ELIEZER (MaHaRShaT; d. 1809) was a leading rabbi in Meknès and a member of the bet din of (21) R. Jacob b. Moses (MaHaRIT). He is said to have performed miracles, and to the present day the sick prostrate themselves and pray at his tomb. He wrote a work of legal decisions entitled Piskei MaHaRShat. His cousin (25) MOSES BEN DANIEL (d. 1773) was a disciple of the brothers (18) R. Ḥ ayyim and (21) R. Jacob Toledano (see above). From 1769 he was a member of the bet din of the MaHaRIT (21). He left many works on the Torah which his son-in-law (34) R. MEIR TOLEDANO edited, summarized, and published as Melekhet ha-Kodesh (Leghorn, 1803). His legal decisions were published as Ha-Shamayim ha-Ḥ adashim. (26) R. BARUCH TOLEDANO (1738–1817), son of MaHaRIT, was appointed dayyan after the death of his father. The opponent of R. Raphael Berdugo he wrote legal decisions and responsa. His son (?), (27) R. SOLOMON TOLEDANO (c. 1770–1840), was rabbi in Meknès. Many of his legal decisions were published in the work Shufrei de-Ya’akov of R. Jacob Berdugo. (28) R. MOSES TOLEDANO (d. 1778), son of MaHaRIT, was rabbi in Meknès. He wrote Meginnei Shelomo, on Rashi’s commentary to the Torah, as well as sermons. His son (29), R. JOSEPH, collected, arranged, and copied the writings of his grandfather (MaHaRIT). (30) R. ḥ AYYIM BEN R. JOSEPH (d. 1848), rabbi in Meknès, was very active in the community’s administration. In Iyyar 5608 (1848) he was arrested by the sherif (ruler) – as a result of a denunciation – together with his colleague R. Joseph Berdugo and ten of the community’s leaders. About two months later he died in the prison of Fez. He wrote a brief commentary on the Torah, legal decisions, responsa, a work on the Tur Shulḥ an Arukh, a commentary on the Haggadah, and a collection of letters and writings. (31) R. ḥ ABIB TOLEDANO BEN ELIEZER (c. 1800–1870) was brought up in Meknès. Prior to 1825 he traveled to Gibraltar, where he collected funds to save the members of his community from the famine which then ravaged Morocco.

From there he went to Tunis and Italy, where he published his commentary on the Haggadah, Peh Yesharim (Leghorn, 1834), and Terumat ha-Kodesh (Leghorn, 1842). R. JACOB TOLEDANO BEN MOSES (d. c. 1928) was a rabbinical authority in Meknès and a poet. His piyyutim and poems were published as Yagel Ya’akov (in: Yismaḥ Yisrael, 1931). (32) R. RAPHAEL BARUCH BEN JACOB (1892–1971) was rabbi in Meknès. After his father’s death he was appointed to the bet din, and from about 1940 he was av bet din of Meknès. He was very active in community affairs, and founded yeshivot. He immigrated to Israel in 1965. Toledano wrote a summarized version of the complete Shulḥ an Arukh (1966), as well as a number of poems and piyyutim, some of which are recited by Oriental communities and Sephardim. Rabbi Jacob Moses *Toledano was also a member of the family.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

Bibliography: J.M. Toledano, Ner ha-Ma’arav (1911); J. BenNaim, Malkhei Rabbanan (1931); Hirschberg, Afrikah, index; idem, in: H.J. Zimmels et al. (eds.), Essays Presented to Chief Rabbi Israel Brodie… (1967), 153–82. [Haim Bentov]

TOLEDANO, JACOB MOSES (1880–1960), rabbi and scholar. Toledano’s father Judah had immigrated to Ereẓ Israel from Morocco. Jacob was born, educated, and ordained in Tiberias. During 1899–1909, his first articles appeared in the Jerusalem Hebrew paper Ḥ avaẓ ẓ elet, under the title Ḥ iddushei Torah. They were written in elegant Hebrew and in a scholarly style. Toledano was also interested in ancient manuscripts preserved in the libraries and yeshivot of Oriental countries. He conceived the idea of founding a society to publish them and with this aim in mind entered into correspondence with scholars in western countries who encouraged him to implement the project. As a result of the cholera epidemic in Tiberias in 1903, he and his family left the town and settled in Peki’in. During the seven years he lived there he devoted himself to the study of the history of Oriental Jewry and its personalities, as well as to the affairs of the Peki’in community, and published his Ner ha-Ma’arav. At the beginning of World War I, together with 700 “French” Jews (of North African descent) from Galilee, he was exiled from Ereẓ Israel to Corsica because of his French citizenship. As the representative of the Alliance Israélite Universelle and the French government, he headed the committee of exiles and worked for their material and spiritual benefit. In 1920 he returned to Tiberias and took part in activities to revive communal life in the town; he represented it in 1921 at the rabbinical conference held in Jerusalem to establish the chief rabbinate of Ereẓ Israel. In 1926 he was appointed a member of the Tangier rabbinate, and in 1929 av bet din and deputy chief rabbi of Cairo. In 1933 he was appointed to the similar office in Alexandria, as well as deputy head of the rabbinical court of appeals in Cairo, and in 1937 he became chief rabbi of Alexandria. In 1942 he was elected Sephardi chief rabbi of Tel Aviv-Jaffa, succeeding Ben Zion *Ouziel. In 1958, when the religious parties had left the government coalition, he was appointed minister of religious affairs.

toledo His Ner ha-Ma’arav (1911), the history of the Jews in Morocco from the commencement of their settlement and the biographies of its great rabbis, is a basic work for research into the origins of Jewry in North Africa. His other books included Appiryon (Jerusalem, 1905), a bibliography of the supercommentators to Rashi’s commentary to the Pentateuch; Yedei Moshe (Safed, 1915), a commentary on the Mishnah Pesaḥ im by Maimonides from a manuscript; Yam ha-Gadol (Cairo, 1931), responsa; Sarid u-Falit (Tel Aviv, 1945), giving passages from manuscripts on ancient works dealing with the Talmud, Jewish scholarship, the history of the settlement in Ereẓ Israel, and bibliography; and Oẓ ar Genazim (1960), a collection of letters on the history of Ereẓ Israel from ancient manuscripts, with introductions and notes. Bibliography: M.D. Gaon, Yehudei ha-Mizraḥ be-Ereẓ Yisrael, 2 (1938), 268–72; Tidhar, 3 (19582), 1322–24. [Itzhak Goldshlag]

TOLEDO, city in Castile, central *Spain; capital of Castile until 1561. Early Jewish Settlement and Visigothic Period There is no substantive information available on the beginnings of the Jewish settlement in Toledo, which was only a small village in the period of Roman rule over Spain. According to a Jewish tradition dating from the period of Muslim rule, the Jewish settlement in Toledo was the most ancient in the Iberian peninsula. This tradition was accepted by Isaac *Abrabanel who states (in his commentary to the Book of Kings, at the end, and to Obadiah 20) that the first settlers were exiles from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, who had arrived there after the destruction of the First Temple, and were associated with a legend concerning Pirus and Hispan who took part in the siege of Jerusalem. Hence the name “Tuletula” (Lat. Toletum = Toledo) has been explained as deriving from their wanderings (Heb. taltelah) when they were expelled from their land. Jews probably established themselves there when the town became the capital of the Visigoths, or during the preceding fourth to fifth centuries C.E. The Jewish settlement was, however, inconsiderable, the Jews then being mainly concentrated in the towns on the east coast. Once the Visigoths became converted to Christianity, the *Church councils held in Toledo, particularly from the reign of Sisenand onward, directed many decrees against them, which the Visigothic kings strictly applied. The legislation indicates that there were Jewish settlements in Toledo and the vicinity mainly engaged in agriculture. When the danger of a Muslim invasion seemed imminent, the 17t Church Council, held in Toledo in 694, accused the Jews of plotting, in collaboration with their coreligionists living across the straits, to destroy the Christian kingdom. There is, however, no foundation to the accusation that the Jews delivered the town to the Muslims at the time of its capture (c. 712). Information on the conquest and the presence of Jews in the town is extant from a later period: during

the 13t century, Ibn al-Adhari wrote that there had been only a few Jews in the town at the time of its conquest. [Haim Beinart]

The Jewish Quarter The first sources referring to the Jewish quarter of Toledo are from the 12t century. At that time its size was much smaller and was in the district of San Martín. The Jewish population of Toledo increased considerably and with it the size of the Jewish quarter, which expanded as far as San Tomé and later reached San Román. The Jewish quarter in Toledo was situated in the western part of the town, where it remained throughout the existence of the Jewish settlement. Its location has been always known in the city. The documents related to the Jews of Toledo published by León Tello make it possible to define with a great degree of precision the boundaries of the quarter. In this area, a number of streets bear names recalling the magnificent past of the community: Samuel ha-Levi, Travesía de la Judería. The quarter spread as far as the gate known today as Cambrón, formerly named “Gate of the Jews.” The principal artery of the Jewish quarter, at present known as Calle del Angel, was formerly named Calle de la Judería. This street led to a spacious square which was presumably the center of the quarter. The wall which surrounded the quarter was built as early as 820. There was also a fortress in the quarter for the protection of the Jewish population. Because of the form of its construction, the quarter constituted a kind of independent town which could provide support and assistance to the king when necessary. The Jewish quarter reached the peak of its development and size in the middle of the 14t century. A mistaken reading of one of the sources misled some scholars into thinking that there was a second, smaller quarter near the Cathedral. The Jewish quarter of Toledo was not exclusively inhabited by Jews. Several well-known Christian noblemen had houses in the precincts of the Jewish quarter. The size of the Jewish population of Toledo cannot be estimated from the area of the Jewish quarter. Baer estimates that the community consisted of 350 families during the 14t century, including those who lived in villages in the vicinity. The historian Ayala concluded that 1,200 Jewish men, women, and children of Toledo died in the persecutions of 1355, in the Alcana quarter only, though Baer does not consider that there were so many Jews living here. In 1368, during the siege of Henry of Trastamara against the town, 8,000 Jews including adults and children died in Toledo, showing the magnitude of their numbers at that time. The community of Toledo was one of the largest in the Iberian peninsula, and at the height of its prosperity the Jews probably formed one third of the city’s population, which was then over 40,000. Jewish Edifices and Ancient Remnants Toledo is one of the few towns of Spain where remnants of Jewish edifices have been preserved. Toward the close of the 15t century the sources (see Cantera, in bibliography) mention ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

toledo ten synagogues and a further five battei midrash. The synagogues included the Great Synagogue situated in the old quarter, which was destroyed by fire in 1250; the Old Synagogue, renovated in 1107, an event which Judah Halevi immortalized in a poem; the Ben-Ziza Synagogue, and many others, some of whose names have not been recorded. In addition, there was a synagogue founded by Joseph Abu ‘Omar *Ibn Shoshan in 1203, converted into a church named Santa Maria la Blanca in 1411 by Vicente *Ferrer (see below). Another synagogue was built by Don Samuel Halevi in c. 1357; transferred to the Order of the Knights of Calatrava in 1494, it later belonged to the priory of San Benito and is at present named El Transito. These two synagogues, still standing, are built in pronounced Mudéjar style and are distinguished for the beauty of their arches and general appearance. They were evidently built by Moorish craftsmen, and underwent structural alterations to adapt them to church requirements. Both were declared national monuments toward the middle of the 19t century. Repairs have been carried out in the Samuel Halevi Synagogue, and the women’s gallery and other parts have been restored. In 1964 it was decided to transform the synagogue into the Sephardi Museum. The museum contains very important Jewish tombstones and various articles of great historical value. The synagogue is decorated with passages from the Psalms and beautiful dedicatory inscriptions to the benefactor and builder of the synagogue and King Pedro, during whose reign it was erected. The house of Samuel Halevi, still standing, was for a while inhabited by the painter El Greco. Toledo also has many remnants of Jewish tombstones, some of which are preserved in the archaeological museum of the town and others in the Sephardi Museum. Copying of the inscriptions on these tombstones was begun from the end of the 16t century; many of the tombstones have since been lost. During the 19t century these reproductions were seen by S.D. *Luzzatto, who published them (Avnei Zikkaron). A scholarly edition of these inscriptions was published by Cantera and Míllas with the addition of inscriptions and findings discovered after Luzzatto’s publication. Of the tombstones whose inscriptions were published, noteworthy are those of Joseph Abu ‘Omar ibn Shoshan (builder of the synagogue mentioned above) who died in 1205; several members of the *Abulafia family; *Jonah b. Abraham of Gerona (d. 1264); David b. Gedaliah ibn Yaḥ ya of Portugal (d. 1325); *Jacob b. Asher, author of the Turim (d. 1340), son of *Asher b. Jehiel (see below); his brother, *Judah b. Asher, and members of his family who died in the Black Death in 1349; the woman Sitbona (a unique tombstone preserved in the archaeological museum of Toledo); and R. Menahem b. Zerah author of Ẓ eidah la-Derekh (d. 1385). Other findings include a pillar with the inscription “Blessed be thy coming and blessed be thy going,” with an Arabic version of a blessing, which belonged to one of the synagogues of the town; its architectural form indicates that it dates from the late 12t or early 13t century. The bath house of the Jews of the town was handed over to the San Clemente

monastery in 1131 by Alfonso VII but its location is unknown. This abundance of findings is exceptional in Spain, where few Jewish remains have been preserved. All the efforts in looking for a mikveh or ritual bath have led to no concrete or certain results. Of special interest is a fresco in one of the exits of the Cathedral describing the blood libel leveled against the Jews, accused of murdering a child of La Guardia.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

[Haim Beinart / Yom Tov Assis (2nd ed.)]

Period of Muslim Rule During the 11t century, when Toledo was ruled by the Berber Ibn Danun dynasty, it had a large Jewish population of about 4,000, divided into separate communities generally according to place of origin (e.g., the Cordobans, Barcelonese, etc.), and a group to which was attributed *Khazar descent. Toledo was also the center of the *Karaites in Spain. Jewish occupations included textile manufacture, tanning, and dyeing, military professions, and commerce. Jews in the villages near Toledo were known for their skill in agriculture and viticulture. A wealthy class of Jewish merchants, bankers, and agents for foreign Christian rulers lived in Toledo. Toledo became a center of Jewish scholarship, translation, and science; the astronomer Zarkal (Abu Ishaq Ibrahim b. Yaḥ ya) lived there for a time in the mid-11t century, and the biblical commentator Judah b. Samuel *Ibn Bal’am was born and educated in Toledo in this period. Toledo under Christian Rule The situation of the Jews in Toledo remained unchanged after the town was conquered by Alfonso VI in 1085. During the 12t century it continued as a center of learning and Jews and apostates were among those who translated works of mathematics, astronomy, and other subjects from Arabic into the spoken vernacular and from that language into Latin. The capitulation terms of the town show that Alfonso promised the Muslims that they could retain their mosques and would only transfer to him the fortified places. There is, however, no information available on the terms affecting the Jews although the fortress situated in their quarter remained in their possession. At this time and throughout the reign of Alfonso, Don Joseph *Ferrizuel (Cidellus) held office in the royal court and was particularly active in favor of his coreligionists. From then on, the community developed until it became the most prominent in the Kingdom of Castile and one of the most important in Spain. In 1101 Alfonso granted the Arabized Christian population a privilege establishing that the fines they might pay should amount to only one-fifth of those paid by others, excepting in the case of murder or robbery of a Jew or Moor. When Alfonso VI died in 1109, the inhabitants of the town rebelled and attacked the Jews. Alfonso VII, the crown prince, reached a compromise with the townsmen and issued a series of laws discriminating against the Jews, and laid down that lawsuits between Jews and Christians were to be brought before a Christian judge. In 1118 he actually reintroduced the Visigothic law of the fourth council of Toledo in 633, which excluded “those of Jewish origin” from all public positions.

toledo During this period some of the most distinguished personalities of their time lived in Toledo: Isaac *Ibn Ezra who apparently left the town in 1119; Moses *Ibn Ezra who stayed there; and Joseph ibn Kamaniel, the physician, one of the wealthiest members of the community who was entrusted with an important diplomatic mission to the king of Portugal. There were also the families of Shoshan, Al-Fakhar, Halevi, Abulafia, Zadok (who were given land in a village near Toledo in 1132), and Ferrizuel. Because of their importance, the last regarded themselves as descendants of the House of David and as being of noble birth: they assumed the title of nasi and thus became a kind of oligarchy within the Jewish community. This family produced the leading tax lessees in the city, in the surrounding area, and in the whole kingdom, as well as other courtiers almost throughout the community’s existence. During the reign of Sancho III (1157–58), the position of almoxarife in Toledo was held by Judah Joseph ibn Ezra (referred to as Bonjuda in documents); the king granted him lands and exempted him from the payment of tithes on these estates and taxes. R. Judah is known for his energetic activity to remove Karaism from Castile. During the reign of Alfonso VIII (1158–1214), when Toledo was again threatened by the *Almohads, the Christian soldiers maltreated the Jews, although these had actively participated in the defense of the town. Joseph Al-Fakhar and his son Abraham, originally from Granada, then acted as almoxarifes in Toledo, as did also members of the Ibn Ezra family and Joseph Abu Omar ibn Shoshan. The language spoken by the Jews of Toledo and employed in their documents during the 11t to 13t centuries was partly Arabic; they customarily wrote their documents in Arabic with Hebrew characters. These sources reveal a well-developed economic life. Jews of Toledo are recorded as having sold or purchased land, as lenders and borrowers, and are also found in partnerships with Christians in real estate transactions and in commerce. The documents show that the Jews of Toledo did not turn to the non-Jewish tribunals, as was customary in other communities, in matters which involved both Christians and Jews. The Jews owned fields and vineyards and occasionally leased land and pastures in partnership with Christians; they maintained slaves, owned shops, and engaged in every kind of craft. In conjunction with Christians they even occasionally leased the revenues of churches and monasteries. The documents also indicate the status of several of their signatories within the framework of the community. Some of them bear the title of sofer or ḥ azzan, as well as honorifics such as al-ḥ akim and al-vazir. Apparently until the close of the 12t century, the community’s style of life resembled that of a Jewish community under Muslim rule. It was only in the course of the 13t century that the prevailing Arab titles lost their luster. By the beginning of the 14t century, use of Arabic in deeds and documents was abandoned. The administrative organization of the community does not appear to have changed throughout its existence. There is no information on the administrative organization during Muslim rule, but a responsum attributed to R. Joseph

ibn Migash mentions the existence, in the early 12t century, of an organization headed by seven notables and elders and a bet din. During that period there were also administrative leaders in the community. Gonzalez Palencia has shown that these positions were held by members of distinguished families. From the 13t century the community was administered by ten *muqaddimūn. Under the influence of Don Joseph ibn Wakar, changes were introduced into the procedure for the election of the community leaders: two arbitrators were elected to choose the muqaddimūn. After the expulsion of the Jews from Spain the regulations of Toledo became a model for the organization of the communities of Spanish refugees who settled in North Africa and throughout the territories of the Ottoman Empire. The decisions of the Fourth *Lateran Council of 1215 influenced the relationship between the Church and the Jews of the town. Rodrigo, the archbishop of Toledo, reached an agreement with the Jews of the archdiocese according to which every Jew aged over 20 would pay one sixth of a gold coin to him as an annual tax; it was laid down that doubtful cases were to be decided by four elders, the muqaddimūn of the community, and two Jews chosen by the archbishop; the Jews of Toledo would be exempted from all tithe payments as decided by the Lateran Council, and any property sold by a Jew to a Christian throughout the archdiocese would be exempted from tithe payment. The archbishop undertook to protect the Jews, and the elders of the community were responsible for observance of the agreement by the Jews. Ferdinand III ratified this agreement. In the 13t century, under the auspices of Alfonso X, the Wise, Jews were involved in translating scientific, philosophical, and medical works from Arabic into Castilian. Out of the 12 translators engaged in the program 5 were Jewish, and they translated 40 percent of all the works. A period of crisis occurred at the time of the revolt of Crown Prince Sancho against his father (1280–81). A contemporary author relates that the community of Toledo was shaken “as Sodom and Gomorrah.” Alfonso X ordered the imprisonment of the Jews in their synagogues, from which they were not to be released until the community paid him a special tax. Notables of the community remained in prison for many months. Attempts were even made there to convert them and several were executed. The distinguished poet Todros b. Judah Ha-Levi was among the prisoners, who after some selfexamination decided to repent. He called on the community to amend its evil ways in transactions and commerce, and to separate from non-Jewish women, among other practices. The community accepted his appeal, and a ḥ erem (“ban”) was proclaimed in the synagogue against anyone committing these offenses. This was an act of repentance on the part of a whole community. One of the scholars of Toledo, Jacob b. Crisp, turned to Solomon b. Abraham *Adret (Rashba) and requested his opinion and sanction for the administration of “this province and the penalization of offenders.” The latter advised that the same rule could not be applied to everyone: at first a gentle

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

toledo manner should be adopted, but if this proved of no avail, then the strict letter of the law was to be applied. The same conditions prevailed within the community of Toledo during the reigns of Alfonso and Sancho. The main figure among the Jewish courtiers was Don Abraham El Barchillon, a native of Toledo, first mentioned in state documents as having leased the minting of coins in the kingdom. Others included Don Abraham ibn Shoshan who had already risen to importance during the reign of Alfonso X, and was the almoxarife of the queen. The poet Todros ha-Levi Abulafia also resumed his public activities and for a period headed a group of personalities who leased the state revenues: the port customs duties, payments to the royal office, and others. During his own lifetime, Maimonides was challenged in Toledo by a notable adversary, Meir b. Todros ha-Levi Abulafia, whose opinions were shared by the physician Judah b. Joseph al-Fakhar, and Joseph b. Todros Ha-Levi, the brother of R. Meir. They regarded the writings of Maimonides to be dangerous in that they could undermine faith. The controversy over the study of the writings of Maimonides (see *Maimonidean controversy) received particular impetus in Toledo in 1304–05, at the time of the publication of the correspondence between Solomon b. Adret and Abba Mari *Astruc on the subject of the ḥ erem issued against the study of the Guide of the Perplexed. The correspondence was published by Samson b. Meir, who went to Toledo to obtain the signatures of the community leaders to this ḥ erem and the support of R. Asher b. Jehiel (Rosh), who from the beginning of the 14t century occupied the rabbinical seat in Toledo. During his lifetime and that of his son R. Judah, Torah learning flourished in Toledo; another of his sons, R. *Jacob b. Asher, wrote the Turim there. Israel b. Joseph *al-Nakawa, author of Menorat ha-Ma’or, was also active there. At the beginning of the 14t century, an attempt was made by the clergy in Toledo to compel the Jews to cease from engaging in moneylending; they also compelled the Jews to return the interest which they had taken and to cancel the obligations of payment which Christians had undertaken. Ferdinand IV notified the clergy that he would bring them to account if they continued to impose a boycott on the Jews or sought to prosecute them before the Church tribunals. Nevertheless in a number of cases the king accepted the arguments of the clergy, and Jewish moneylenders of Toledo were arrested, tried before Christian judges, and condemned to lengthy terms of imprisonment. During that period there were wealthy Jews who earned their livelihood by renting houses to other Jews, a practice until then unknown. Toledo was also one of the rare places where Jews owned Muslim slaves. The reign of Alfonso XI (1312–50) was favorable to the community. Don Joseph ha-Levi b. Ephraim (identified with Don Yuçaf de Ecija) and Samuel ibn Wakar, the king’s physician who in 1320 leased the minting of coins in the kingdom, were then active at court. They competed for influence there and for the leasing of the revenues of the kingdom. Don Moses

*Abzardiel (or Zardiel) was a third personality of importance; as dayyan in Toledo and scribe of the king, his signature in Latin is found on deeds and documents concerning taxes and financial affairs, and on privileges issued to bishops, monasteries, noblemen, and towns during the 1330s. The *Black Death (1348) took a heavy toll among the community of Toledo. During the reign of Pedro the Cruel (1350–60), Don Samuel b. Meir ha-Levi *Abulafia acted as chief agent and treasurer of the king. It was presumably he who built the synagogue in 1357 which bears his name (see above). In 1358 he left for Portugal to negotiate a political agreement, and he was signatory to several royal edicts. He was suddenly arrested in 1360 (or 1361) upon the order of King Pedro, and removed to Seville, where he died at the hands of his torturers. Other Jews after him were lessees and courtiers, more particularly members of the ha-Levi and *Benveniste families of Burgos. In 1355, when the king entered Toledo, Christians and Muslims attacked the Jewish quarters. The Alcana quarter, near the cathedral, suffered heavily. During the civil war between Pedro and Henry (1366–69), the town changed hands several times; when Pedro once more besieged the city, in 1368–69, 8,000 Jews perished. In June 1369 he ordered that the Jews of Toledo and their belongings be sold to raise 1,000,000 gold coins. The community was ruined, and every object which could find a buyer was sold. By 1367, however, the Christian congregations had already complained that they had sunk into debts to the Jews and called for a moratorium on their debts and reduction to half of their value. Henry had remitted their debts for two years and reduced them to one third.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

The Persecutions of 1391 While the Toledo community was still endeavoring to recover from the effects of the civil war, it was overtaken by the persecutions which swept Spain in 1391 and brought down upon it ruin and destruction. The riots against the Jews in Toledo broke out on 17 Tammuz (June 20) or, according to Christian sources, on August 5. Among the many who were martyred were the grandchildren of R. Asher, his disciples, and numerous distinguished members of the community. Almost all the synagogues were destroyed or set on fire, and the battei midrash became mounds of ruins. Many abandoned Judaism at that time, and Toledo became filled with Conversos (see below). The impoverishment of the community is also evident from the order of Henry III, according to which certain incomes totaling 48,400 maravedis were handed over to the New Kings Church of Toledo in 1397 instead of the income provided for it by his father and grandfather from the annual tax of the Jews, which could not be collected as a result of the destruction of the community. During that year Jewish houses were also auctioned. There were, however, still Jews of Toledo who held important leases. In 1395 the archbishop of Toledo appointed his physician Pedro, who was an apostate, chief justice of the communities of his archdiocese. This was a

toledo unique case in which an apostate became a judge to dispense Jewish law. Don Abraham ibn Shoshan protested to the crown against this appointment. The community of Toledo did not recover throughout the 15t century. In 1408 John II transferred several revenues to the chief adelantado of the kingdom of Castile to replace his revenues formerly derived from the communities of Toledo, Madrid, and Alcalá de Henares which had been destroyed and were so impoverished that all income from them had disappeared. Vicente Ferrer visited Toledo in 1411. He entered the Jewish quarter with an armed escort and converted the Ibn Shoshan Synagogue into a church. There is reason to believe that a number of Jews converted to Christianity as a result of the sermons he delivered. The annual taxes of Jewish Toledo amounted to only 7,000 maravedis in 1439. There were, however, still a number of Jews who held leases in the town and outside it, survivors of the old families: Don Isaac Abudraham in the archdeaconry of Alcaraz near Toledo (1439); Don Ephraim ibn Shoshan who leased taxes in Toledo in 1442 and continued to do so after the attacks on the Conversos in 1452 and 1454. When Isabella ascended the throne and the country became united with the kingdom of Aragon, Jews of Toledo again held important positions in the kingdom as lessees and courtiers. Don David Abudraham leased the tax on meat and fish in Toledo between 1481 and 1484. Don Moses ibn Shoshan leased the taxes of Molina. During that year Don Abraham *Seneor of Segovia leased the taxes of Toledo. While in Toledo in 1480, the Catholic monarchs *Ferdinand and Isabella decided on their anti-Jewish policy and the Cortes convened there adopted a series of decrees. The Jews of Toledo were expelled with the other Jews of Spain in 1492, and the last exiles left Toledo on the seventh of Av. They left behind them the debts owed to them by Christians, and the government determined the procedure for their collection. Luis de Alcalá and Fernando Nuñez (Abraham Seneor) Coronel were entrusted with this task. At that time 40 houses in their ancient quarter were owned by Jews, who apparently were not sufficiently numerous to occupy all of them so that some were inhabited by Christians. No information is available about the destinations of the exiles, but as the regulations of the Toledo community are found in Fez and other places in North Africa they obviously settled there. Jews from Toledo settled in Turkey and also reestablished communities in Ereẓ Israel. In Toledo in 1494 Rodrigo de Marcado, the king’s representative, proclaimed that the property of the community would be transferred to the crown. This included communal property, the debts owed to Jews, real estate, butchers’ shops, and the lands and consecrated properties which the Jews of the town had entrusted to the municipal council or handed over to several of its citizens. The Conversos of Toledo Jews were living in Toledo as forced converts (see also *Anusim) during two periods. The first was under the Visigoths, and the second period of religious persecution and forced apos-

tasy was from the end of the 14t century. The Conversos of Toledo continued to live in the quarters they had formerly occupied as Jews, until the 1480s, when the residential area of the Jewish quarter was greatly reduced, while the Conversos were dispersed among the Christian parishes of the town. The revolt of Pedro *Sarmiento against John II in 1449, and the attempt by the crown to have taxes collected from the inhabitants of the town by Conversos, resulted in attacks on the latter. These were followed by a trial of 12 Conversos which gave impetus to the publication in Castile of a widespread literature on the subject, as part of a public campaign both for and against the Conversos, concerning their place within Christian society. Many pamphlets of satire which ridiculed the Conversos were composed, while forged letters were circulated of a supposed correspondence between Chamorro, the “head” of the community of Toledo, with Yusuf, the “head” of the Jews of Constantinople, concerning a project to destroy Christianity. Attempts to conduct inquiries in Toledo against suspected heresy, in *Inquisition style, were inspired by the monk *Alfonso de Espina during the 1460s. *Alfonso de Oropesa, head of the Order of St. Jerome, was appointed by the archbishop to investigate heresy in Toledo. During a whole year he interrogated Conversos and penalized them, but the overwhelming majority evidently returned to the fold of the Church. On July 19, 1467 riots again broke out against the Conversos in the Magdalena quarter, and there was again an open conflict between Conversos and Christians in various quarters of the town. When the Christians gained the upper hand, many Conversos hid in the houses of the Jews. Several of the Converso leaders were arrested and executed. In 1485 the rabbis of Toledo were ordered to proclaim a ḥ erem against Jews who refused to testify before the Inquisition if they knew of Conversos who observed the Jewish precepts. In 1486 and the beginning of 1487, 4,000 of the inhabitants of the town and the vicinity were involved in five autos-da-fé; some of them returned to the fold of the Church and others were burned at the stake on the site known as Sucodovar. However, the files of only 85 executions are extant for the period between 1485 and the 1660s. The Conversos sentenced in Toledo belonged to two categories: the cultured persons, holders of public office, and the ordinary craftsmen. Among the intellectuals sentenced were Alvaro de Montalbán, father-in-law of the poet Fernando de Rojas, author of the Celestina; and Martín de Lucena, to whom R. Solomon ibn Verga refers as a scholar. His son Juan de Lucena was one of the first in Spain to print Hebrew works and diffuse them outside the country. Juan de Pineda, a commander of the Order of Santiago and the delegate of the Order at the papal court, was also among those tried. Craftsmen tried by the Inquisition included cobblers, shoemakers, tailors, and blacksmiths. Many merchants and women were also executed. Attempts were also made to implicate the Conversos of Toledo in the *La Guardia blood libel. [Haim Beinart]

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

toledo Bibliography: GENERAL: Baer, Spain, index; A.M. Gamero, Historia de la Ciudad de Toledo (1862); J. Amador de los Ríos, Historia… de los Judíos de España y Portugal, 3 vols. (1876), passim; Neuman, Spain, index. Add. Bibliography: A.M. López Álvarez, Catálogo del Museo Sefardí, Toledo (1986); J. Blázquez Miguel, Toledot: Historia del Toledo judío (1989). EARLY JEWISH COMMUNITY AND THE VISIGOTHIC PERIOD: S. Katz, Jews in the Visigothic and Frankish Kingdoms of Spain and Gaul (1937), passim; C.G. Goldaraz, El códice Lucense (1954); H. Beinart, in: Estudios, 3 (1961), 1–32 (includes bibliography). JEWISH QUARTER: Ashtor, Korot, 1 (1960), 211ff.; A. González Palencia, Los mozárabes de Toledo en los siglos XII y XII, estudio preliminar (1930), 72f.; L. Torres Balbas, in: Al-Andalus, 12 (1947), 164–98; F. Cantera, in: Sefarad, 7 (1947), 442–3; M. Reisz, Europe’s Jewish Quarters (1991), 24–37. JEWISH LANDMARKS: C. Roth, in: JQR, 39 (1948), 123ff.; idem, in: Sefarad, 8 (1948), 3–22; F. Cantera, ibid., 26 (1966), 305–14; idem, Sinagogas españolas (1955), 33–150; F. Cantera and J.M. Míllas, Inscripciones hebraicas de España (1956), 36–180, 332–9, 367–8 (incl. bibl.). Add. Bibliography: S. Palomera Plaza, A.M. López Alvarez, and Y. Alvarez Delgado, in: Jewish Art, 18 (1992), 48–57; E.W. Goldman, in: ibid., 58–70. MUSLIM PERIOD: Y. Baer, in: Tarbiz, 5 (1934), 186ff.; S.D. Goitein, ibid., 24 (1955), 21ff., 134ff.; 25 (1956), 393ff.; E. Ashtor, in: Zion, 28 (1963), 39–40; Ashtor, Korot; A. González Palencia, Los mozárabes de Toledo en los siglos XII y XII, estudio preliminar (1930), 149–51; Baer, Urkunden, index. CHRISTIAN PERIOD: N. Round, in: Archivum, 16 (1966), 385–446; B. Netanyahu, in: PAAJR, 44 (1977), 93–125; P. León Tello, Judíos de Toledo (1979), 2 vols.; J.M. Nieto Soria, in: Sefarad, 41 (1981), 301–19; 42 (1982), 79–102; J. Porres Martín-Cleto, in: Anales toledanos, 16 (1983), 37–61; N. Roth, in: AJSR, 11 (1986), 189–220; J. Aguado Villalba, in: Arqueología medieval española, II Congreso (1987), 247–57; L. Cardaillac (ed.), Tolède, XIIe-XIIIe: musulmans, chrétiens et juifs; le savoir et la tolérance (1991). CONVERSOS: A.Z. Aescoly, in: Zion, 10 (1945), 136ff.; H. Beinart, ibid., 20 (1955), 1ff.; idem, in: Tarbiz, 26 (1957), 86–71; idem, Anusim be-Din ha-Inkviziẓ yah (1965), index; H.C. Lea, A History of the Inquisition of Spain, 4 vols. (1906), index; A. de Cartagena, Defensonium unitatis christianae, ed. by M. Alonso (1943); A.A. Sicroff, Les controverses de statuts de “pureté de sang” en Espagne… (1960); E. Benito Ruano, Toledo en el siglo XV (1961); Suárez Fernández, Documentos, index; F. Cantera, Judaizantes del arzobispado de Toledo (1969); idem, El poeta Rodrigo Cota y su familia de judíos Conversos (1970). Add. Bibliography: L. Martz, in: Sefarad, 48 (1988), 117–96; J-P. Dedieu, L’administration de la foi: l’Inquisition de Tolède, XVIe–XVIIIe siècle (1989).

TOLEDO, city in Ohio, U.S. The estimated population (2005) was 315,000, with the Jewish population somewhat less than 4,000 (5,900 in the metropolitan area), approximately 6,000 fewer than cited in the 1972 Encyclopaedia Judaica. Local legend has it that the name of the city, borrowed from the Spanish city, was suggested by the Jewish citizens as it derives from the Hebrew toledot which connotes history and continuity. The history of the development of the Toledo Jewish community began with a handful of German and Dutch Jews who arrived via Cincinnati. They were joined by several Hungarian Jews. In 1837 when the city was chartered there were several Jewish families. Toledo and Cincinnati were connected by a series of canals and the local Jews were largely in commerce with goods that were ferried from Cincinnati. Happily,

there was no need for a Jewish cemetery until 1867 when the Hebrew Benevolent and Cemetery Association was founded. The first cemetery was interdenominational. Since then, the three congregations have created separate burial grounds for their members. There is a ḥ evra kaddisha that serves all the Jews of the community. Among the first Jewish families were the Marx brothers. Emil, Guido, and Joseph published the Ohio Staatszeitung intended for the largely German-speaking population of the area. Emil was an early volunteer at the beginning of the Civil War. Joseph was appointed U.S. consul to Amsterdam by President Abraham Lincoln in 1864. The first settlers were staunchly individualistic free thinking or atheistic Jews who were bound to the community through a network of family business and shared capital. Attempts to form synagogues were spasmodic and short lived. The first mention of the observance of High Holidays was in 1865 but it wasn’t until 1867 that Congregation B’nai Israel, now affiliated with the Conservative movement, was founded. It has been served by Rabbis Halper, Glazer, Herowitz, Epstein, Lichtenstein, Goldberg, Perlmutter, Bienstock, Ungar, Kaiman, and Leff. Eight years later Reform Congregation Shomer Emunim (“keeper of faithfulness”; Isaiah 26:2) was founded. The name was suggested by Isaac Mayer Wise, the initiator and organizer of the then incipient Reform movement in the United States. It was assumed that a Jewish community in such a remote section of the mid-west United States deserved a name affirming its faithfulness. It appears to be the only synagogal congregation in the world with that name. The rabbis of the congregation have been Schanfarber, Meier, Freund, Alexander, Coffee, Harris, Kornfeld, Feuer, Sokobin, and Weinstein. Congregation Etz Chaim was founded by the merger of smaller Orthodox congregations. Its rabbis have been Katz and Garsek. Several of the rabbis of Toledo have had contributory positions in Toledo to the nation and national Jewish organizations. Following World War II when Israel was struggling to create its independence Rabbi Leon *Feuer was the chief lobbyist in Washington seeking American political support for the establishment of a Jewish State. He later became president of the Central Conference of American Rabbis. Rabbi Morton Goldberg served as both president of the Toledo Public School System and the Toledo Library system. Rabbi J.S. *Kornfeld was ambassador to Persia and Rabbi Alan Sokobin was chair of studies of the educational system as well as the court and justice systems of the City of Toledo. Both Rabbi Feuer and Rabbi Sokobin taught at the University of Toledo. In response to the large number of Jews arriving in Toledo the need to organize led to the establishment of the Toledo Federation of Jewish Charities in 1907. The Jewish Banner Boys Club had previously been organized to assist 12 and 13 year olds integrate into the community. A Banner Club for girls was formed and the boys and girls met together on a weekly basis for a discussion group. The many social and

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

toledo, moses de cultural activities thrived and the need for a building was becoming apparent. In 1911 the Council of Jewish Women was given permission to solicit funds for a building. In 1912 a building was erected by the Jewish Educational League for the programs directed at children and newcomers to the area. The purpose of the league had the lofty goal “to develop and maintain a high standard of American citizenship among the Jewish Residents of Toledo.” In 1936 the Jewish Educational League, the Jewish Family Service, and the Transient Service became a part of the Jewish Community Center. Since that time the Jewish community of Toledo has been exceedingly well represented in national Jewish organizations. There are active chapters of Hadassah, ORT, and B’nai B’rith as well as chapters of Young Judea and Synagogue Youth. The United Jewish Council is the governance body for the Toledo Board of Jewish Education that maintains a Jewish day school as well as an afternoon Hebrew program serving the Orthodox and Conservative congregations. In 2004 the athletic programs of the Jewish Community Center were combined with those of the Toledo YMCA. Jews have become an integral part of the general Toledo community. There are Jews who have been elected to important judicial as well as legislative posts. While the community began largely with merchants, today the majority of Toledo Jewry is engaged in the professions. Like many Ohio communities, elderly Jews have migrated toward the sunbelt and younger Jews have left for college and not returned home. [Alan Sokobin (2nd ed.)]

TOLEDO, MOSES DE (fl. first part of 17t century), Jerusalem ḥ akham and emissary. In 1628 Toledo traveled through the Greek islands, reaching the island of Corfu at the beginning of winter. He was one of the numerous emissaries who were sent out from Jerusalem after the brutalities of the governor, Muhammad ibn Farukh, in 1625. The latter impoverished the Jews, who lost all of their possessions, and as a result of his extortions he even enslaved them to the Muslims for many years. The community of Corfu was generous with all the emissaries, but since Toledo was the third emissary from Jerusalem within a brief period, the community in a special letter to Jerusalem requested that no more emissaries be sent. Furthermore, it stated that the Corfu community would send its contributions directly to Jerusalem by the safest method available, in order to save the commissioning of an emissary and his expenses.

Yemenite story based on it). It first appeared in print under the title Kavvanot u-Ma’aseh Nissim (Istanbul, 1720). The relationship between this work and the Shivḥ ei ha-Ari, another collection of stories about Luria (first printed in Joseph *Delmedigo’s Ta’alumot Ḥ okhmah, Basle, 1629–31, and again in a different version in Emek ha-Melekh by Naphtali *Bacharach, Amsterdam, 1648) is a point of discussion in modern scholarship. Benayahu maintains that the letters constituting Shivḥ ei ha-Ari (the letters of Solomon Shlumil of Dresnitz) were written in Safed in the first decade of the 17t century, and were taken from Toledot ha-Ari which, according to him, already existed then as a collection of stories. However, the first manuscripts of Toledot ha-Ari were written in the second half of the 17t century, decades after R. Shlumil’s letters. Toledot ha-Ari is a more fantastical, romantic, and imaginative work than Shivḥ ei ha-Ari. It includes, for example, a version of “The Story of the Jerusalemite,” a 13t-century tale about the marriage between a man and a demon, adapted to serve as a vehicle to demonstrate Luria’s greatness. The famous story of the *dibbuk (a spirit which entered a girl’s body) which appears in Shivḥ ei ha-Ari as an addendum, and is not among Shlumil’s original letters, is an integral part of Toledot ha-Ari. The supernatural tales found in Toledot ha-Ari are also not in Shivḥ ei ha-Ari. In Toledot ha-Ari, Luria is sometimes portrayed as a famous rabbi and judge, respected in Safed and all over the Jewish East. This is not a historical fact, and nothing of the sort is mentioned in Shlumil’s letters. It may therefore be inferred that Shivḥ ei ha-Ari is a compilation of intimate accounts told by Luria’s pupils, whereas Toledot haAri is a collection of fantastical and imaginary hagiographies which were associated with Luria by later admirers, after his fame had spread all over the Jewish world. At the same time, there is little doubt that Toledot ha-Ari also includes some true stories about Luria which Shlumil either did not know, or did not include in his extant letters. It must therefore be considered also as a source on Luria’s life and works. It served as an example for later Jewish compilers of hagiographies, and, undoubtedly, influenced Shivḥ ei ha-Besht (Berdichev, 1815), the hagiographies of the founder of Ḥ asidism, and other similar works. Bibliography: M. Benayahu (ed.), Sefer Toledot ha-Ari (1967), incl. bibl.; idem, in: Sefunot, 10 (1966), 213–98. [Joseph Dan]

TOLEDOT HAARI (Heb. ‫) ּתוֹ לְ דוֹ ת ָה ֲא ִר״י‬, a legendary biography of Isaac *Luria of *Safed. It is one of the most detailed and richest hagiographies written in Hebrew. Found in many manuscripts, it seems to have been a popular work, was translated into Ladino (printed 1766), and even adapted into the story genre having a single plot (e.g., a

TOLEDOT YESHU (Heb. “The Life of Jesus”), medieval pseudo-history of the life of *Jesus. The inherent nature of the Christian version of the birth, life, and death of Jesus called forth a “Jewish” view. Beginnings to an approach can be found in the talmudic tractates Sotah (47a) and Sanhedrin (43a; 67a; 107b). When confronted by Christian critics and censors, however, Jewish scholars explained that these references were to another Jesus who had lived 200 years before the Christian era. From the geonic period at the latest, and throughout the Middle Ages, many versions on the life of Jesus were written and compiled by Jews. The authors used as sources talmudic

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

Bibliography: S. Baron, in: Sefer ha-Shanah li-Yhudei Amerikah, 6 (1942), 167–8; Yaari, Sheluḥ ei, 266. [Avraham Yaari]

toller, ernst sayings and Christian stories. The different writings merged into a single narrative of which nearly a dozen versions are extant. Most of these were printed by Samuel *Krauss, whose Das Leben Jesu nach juedischen Quellen (1902) includes a detailed study of nine versions of the story, and has remained the main scholarly work in the field. The complete narrative, which could not have been written before the tenth century, used earlier sources, some of which have been preserved in the Cairo *Genizah documents. A chronological examination of the various fragments and versions reveals the development of the narrative. The complete medieval story has versions which are so different from each other in attitude and in detail that it is impossible that one author could have written it. Undoubtedly, several storytellers wove their separate tales out of the same early material; these were then compiled. In all the versions, Miriam (Mary), Jesus’ mother, is described in a favorable light. She is of a good family and marries a nobleman whose ancestry goes back to the House of David. According to the narrative, Jesus’ father, a neighbor of the household, was a bad man. Some versions state that he raped Miriam, others relate that he succeeded in pretending to be Miriam’s husband. The names of the husband and the villain vary in the different versions. If the husband is Joseph, the villain is Johanan, and in those which name Johanan as the husband, Joseph is the villain. All versions concur that when it became known that Mary was raped, the husband ran away, and the infant was born to his lonely mother. The narrative in all its versions treats Jesus as an exceptional person who from his youth demonstrated unusual wit and wisdom, but disrespect toward his elders and the sages of the age. This part of the story bears some similarities to Ben Sira’s youth described in Alphabet of *Ben Sira, leading some scholars to believe that the latter was also an anti-Christian satirical medieval work. The narrative does not deny that Jesus had supernatural powers; these, however, he obtained when he stole a holy name from the Temple. After a long struggle, in which conflicting magical powers contested for preeminence, Jesus’ magic was rendered powerless by one of the sages. Naturally, the narrative intends to divest Christian tradition of any spiritual meaning. Some of the miracles, therefore, like the disappearance of Jesus’ body after death, are explained either as acts of deception or as natural phenomena. In the more developed versions of the narrative, the hatred toward Jesus and his followers is not the only motif in the story. Many unnecessary details were added, secondary characters were developed, and the story became a romance about the tragic fate of a young man mistaken in his ways. Bibliography: S. Krauss, Das Leben Jesu nach juedischen Quellen (1902); J. Jacobs, Jesus as Others Saw Him (19252), contains How the Jews will Reclaim Jesus (introductory essay by H.A. Wolfson); H.G. Enelow, A Jewish View of Jesus (19312); G. Brandes, Jesus a Myth (1926); W. Fischel, Eine juedisch-persische “Toledoth Jeschu”Handschrift (offprint from MGWJ, vol. 78, 1934).

TOLERANZPATENT, edict of tolerance issued by Emperor Joseph II on Jan. 2, 1782 for Vienna and Lower Austria (and subsequently for other provinces of the empire). It was one of a series of patents granted to the major, non-Catholic denominations of Austria, guaranteeing existing rights and obligations and laying down additional ones. The final version was less liberal than Joseph II’s original drafts. The Toleranzpatent confirmed existing restrictions against any increase in the number of tolerated Jews; however, they were encouraged to engage in large-scale business, to set up factories, and to learn trades (although becoming master craftsmen remained prohibited); to establish schools and attend universities. Upper-class Jews were encouraged to integrate socially. The concluding article exhorted the Jews to be thankful and not to misuse their privileges, particularly not to offend Christianity in public, an offense which would result in expulsion. At the same time insult or violence done to a Jew would be punished. With its leitmotif of making the Jews useful to society and the state through education and the abolishment of economic restrictions, the Toleranzpatent influenced much contemporary legislation in Germany. Although welcomed by N.H. *Wessely and other luminaries of the *Haskalah, it was viewed with misgiving in conservative Jewish circles, in particular by Ezekiel *Landau, who characterized it as a gezerah (“a disaster”); he was especially troubled by the order that within two years no document in Hebrew would be legally valid. Even Moses *Mendelssohn expressed misgivings over the new type of Christian enticement. Nonetheless, the edict was a significant milestone on the road to full emancipation. Bibliography: P.P. Bernard, in: Austrian History Yearbook, 4–5 (1968–69), 101–19; see also bibliography *Joseph II.

TOLKOWSKY, SHEMUEL (1886–1965), agronomist and Israel diplomat. Born in Antwerp, Belgium, Tolkowsky settled in Ereẓ Israel in 1911. In 1916–18 he served under Chaim *Weizmann in London as member of the Zionist Political Committee, which negotiated the *Balfour Declaration, and was an advisor on political matters. In 1918–19 he was the secretary of the Zionist delegation in the Versailles Peace Conference. Tolkowsky was active in various economic and public fields in Tel Aviv. In 1949–56 he was consul general and later minister of Israel in Berne, Switzerland. His books include The Gateway to Palestine – History of Jaffa (1924); Hesperides, A History of the Culture and Use of Citrus Fruits (1938); and They Look to the Sea (1964). His son DAN (1921– ), born in Tel Aviv, was a mechanical engineer, and served in the British Royal Air Force as a flight lieutenant during World War II. From 1948 he served in the Israel air force and from 1953 until 1958 was its commander, attaining the rank of alluf. [Benjamin Jaffe]

[Joseph Dan]

TOLLER, ERNST (1893–1939), German playwright and revolutionary. Born in Samotschin, Prussia, Toller was raised in an assimilated Jewish family which prided itself on being representative of German culture in a region heavily populated by

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

tolstoye Poles. He volunteered for the army at the outbreak of World War I and after 13 months in the trenches at Verdun, was released as unfit for service. Toller’s war experiences converted him from ultranationalism to pacifistic socialism. In Berlin he met Kurt *Eisner, and joined him in Munich as a member of the Independent Socialist Party (USPD), participating in strikes and anti-war agitation, as a result of which he was briefly imprisoned. Toller was a leader of the short-lived Bavarian Soviet Republic of 1919 and he succeeded Eisner after the latter’s murder. Later he headed the Red Guard, but opposed needless violence. In June 1919, when the revolution collapsed, he was hounded by the authorities and spent five years in prison. It was while he was in jail that Toller wrote his celebrated expressionistic dramas: Masse-Mensch (1921; Masses and Man, 1923), Die Maschinenstuermer (1922; The Machine-Wreckers, 1923), Hinkemann (1924; Brokenbrow, 1926), and Der entfesselte Wotan (1923), which called for a new and more humane society and for man’s liberation from the tyranny of the machine. The verse collection, Das Schwalbenbuch (1923; The Swallow-Book, 1924), contains some of the best poetry written during his imprisonment. After his release, Toller visited the U.S.S.R. (1926) and the U.S. (1929), shedding some of his utopian ideas. His later plays, such as Hoppla wir leben! (1927; Hoppla, 1928), and Feuer aus den Kesseln (1930; Draw the Fires, 1935), were less successful. Another drama, Wunder in Amerika (1931), was written in collaboration with Hermann *Kesten. Hitler’s rise to power drove Toller into exile. His autobiography, Eine Jugend in Deutschland (1933; I Was a German, 1934), vividly depicted the hopes and frustrations of his generation. Toller continued the struggle against the Nazis, who regarded him with special hatred, throughout his years of exile, first in Switzerland, then in France, England, and finally, from 1936, in the U.S. He was engaged in unremitting efforts to help the cause of Spanish democracy but the fall of Republican Madrid to Franco’s troops brought him a feeling of increased isolation and despair which led him to commit suicide in New York. Toller’s last works include No More Peace (1937) and Pastor Hall (in English only, 1939). Bibliography: W.A. Willibrand, Ernst Toller and his Ideology (1945); S. Liptzin, Germany’s Stepchildren (1961), 195–201; Exil Literatur 1933–1945 (19673), 248–50. [Sol Liptzin]

TOLSTOYE (Pol. Thuste), town in Tarnopol district, W. Ukraine. Jews first settled in Tolstoye in the late 17t century. In the mid-1720s *Israel b. Eliezer, Ba’al Shem Tov, came to settle with his family and from there he started to preach his doctrine (1736). The gravestone of his mother was in the old local cemetery until World War II. From the first partition of Poland in 1772 until 1918, Tolstoye was under Austrian rule. In the 19t century the Jews traded in agricultural produce, timber, cloth, and beverages. They numbered 2,157 (67 of the total population) in 1880; 2,172 (59) in 1900; and 1,196 (46) in 1921. Ḥ asidism was preponderant in Tolstoye; the wealthy members of the community (estate owners, contractors, and merchants of forest

produce and hides) were followers of the ẓ addik of Chortkov, whereas shopkeepers, grain merchants, brokers, and scholars adhered to Viznitsa Ḥ asidism, and the artisans were followers of the ẓ addik of Kopychintsy. In 1914 and 1916 the Jews suffered at the hands of the Russian army. Between the two world wars, in independent Poland, all the Zionist parties were active in the town and there was a *Tarbut Hebrew school. [Shimshon Leib Kirshboim]

Holocaust Period With the outbreak of war between Germany and the U.S.S.R. (June 22, 1941), groups of Jewish youth attempted to escape to the Soviet Union with the retreating Soviet army, but only a few succeeded. The city was captured by the Hungarian army, which was an ally of Germany. The Ukrainians attacked the Jews and looted their property, and Jews were drafted into work camps and agricultural farms in the area. In March 1942 the remnants of the Jewish communities of the entire area were concentrated in Tolstoye. In July 1942, 200 people were arrested and sent off in an “unknown direction.” On Oct. 5, 1942, about 1,000 people were transported to the *Belzec death camp and about 150 were killed on the spot. On May 27, 1943, about 3,000 people were concentrated in the market square and were taken from there to the Jewish cemetery, where they were killed. About 1,000 people remained in the city, and they were murdered in an Aktion on June 6, 1943. The last 80 Jews were transported to Czortkow and found their deaths there. Many of the Jews who had fled to the forests fell into the hands of the fanatic Ukrainian Bandera gangs, but some of them joined partisan units. The remnants of the Tolstoye community were liberated from the camps in the area in March 1944. They soon immigrated to Palestine and the West. Jewish life was not reconstituted in Tolstoye after the war. [Aharon Weiss] Bibliography: B. Wasiutyński, Ludność źydowska w Polsce w wiekach XIX i XX (1930), 141; G. Lindberg (ed.), Sefer Tluste (1965); I. Alfasi, Sefer ha-Admorim (1961), 9, 10; Dubnow, Ḥ asidut, 44, 48, 51.

TOLUSH (pseudonym of Iser Muselevitsh; 1887–1962), Yiddish writer, born in Dvinsk, Latvia. Orphaned at an early age, he was virtually self-educated. Upon arriving in the U.S. in 1920, he shifted from writing in Russian to Yiddish. He worked at numerous occupations and wandered across much of Europe, Palestine, and the U.S. The designation Tolush (Heb. “detached” / “displaced”) was given him by Z. *Shneour to characterize his itinerant life. His writing, influenced by Gorky and reflecting his wandering, introduced into Yiddish literature bohemian and unusual characters and settings. His works include Der Yam Roysht (“The Sea Roars,” 1921), A Zump (“A Swamp,” 1922), Voglenish (“Wandering,” 1938), Yidishe Shrayber (“Yiddish Authors,” 1953), and Mayn Tatns Nign (“My Father’s Melody,” 1957). Bibliography: M. Ḥ alamish (ed.), Mi-Kan u-mi-Karov (1966), 27–32; Rejzen, Leksikon, 4 (1929), 891–6. Add. Bibliography: LNYL, 8 (1981), 804–5. [Leonard Prager / Jerold C. Frakes (2nd ed.)]

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

tomaszow lubelski TOMA, A. (originally Moscovici; 1875–1954), Romanian poet. Toma contributed to Romania’s socialist and Jewish press and one of his poems, “Sion” (“Zion”), was often recited at Zionist gatherings. His verse collections include Poezii (1926, 19302) and Cîntul vietii (1950); a volume of children’s poems, Piuici si fratii lui mici (“Piuici and his Little Brothers”), also appeared in English (1956). A member of the Romanian Academy after World War II, he was a prolific translator and gained many awards. TOMAR (formerly Thomar), city in central Portugal. The earliest record of Tomar Jews, a tombstone of a rabbi, Joseph of Thomar, dated 1315, is found in *Faro’s Jewish cemetery. A magnificent 15t-century synagogue on Rua de Joaquin Jacinto, referred to in an old document as “Rua Nova que foi judaria,” reveals that there was a dynamic Jewish community in Tomar prior to the forced baptisms of 1497. The residents of the judaria, called gente da naçao or “people of the nation,” were generally upper-class citizens. An *Inquisition tribunal was established at Tomar in 1540, and the first *auto-da-fé was held on May 6, 1543. After a second auto-dafé, on June 20, 1544, the tribunal was suspended, owing perhaps to the discovery of administrative abuses. It was closed altogether with the publication on July 10, 1548 of a bull of pardon directing the release of all persons then held by the Inquisition. On July 29, 1921, Tomar’s historic synagogue building – which had been confiscated and used by a Christian order throughout the Inquisition period – was declared a national monument by the Portuguese government. In 1922 the antiquarian Samuel *Schwarz took title to the building, establishing there a museum for Judeo-Portuguese artifacts and inscriptions. Named Museu Luso-Hebraico Abraham Zacuto, it contains a good collection of inscriptions from early synagogues, including the notable stone from *Belmonte’s 13tcentury synagogue inscribed “And the Lord is in His holy Temple, be still before Him all the land,” where the Divine Name is represented by three dots, in a manner also found in the *Dead Sea Scrolls.

perpetrated by the armies of *Denikin in February 1920. By 1926 the number of Jews in the town had decreased to 3,252 (54.3). After the German occupation of Tomashpol in 1941, the Jews who remained there were murdered. In the late 1960s the Jewish population was estimated at 1,000. There was no synagogue, the last remaining synagogue having been confiscated in 1956 and converted into a tailoring workshop. Bibliography: A.D. Rosenthal, Megillat ha-Tevaḥ , 3 (1931), 60–63. [Yehuda Slutsky]

TOMASZOW LUBELSKI, town in Lublin province, E. Poland; from 1772 to 1809 under Austria, and from 1815 within Congress Poland. An organized Jewish community existed in Tomaszow Lubelski from the 1630s, but it was almost entirely annihilated in the *Chmielnicki massacres of 1648. The community was reorganized in the late 1650s. Its members earned their livelihood from trade in agricultural produce, the fur trade, tailoring, and inn keeping. The parnas of the community, Jacob Levi Safra, was its delegate at the Council of Four Lands (see *Councils of Lands) in 1667. In the 1670s the rabbi of the town was Isaac Shapira; he was succeeded by Judah b. Nisan. R. Phinehas bar Meir of Tomaszow was martyred in Lublin in 1677. There were 806 Jews in the town and its surroundings who paid the poll-tax in 1765. From the beginning of the 19t century the community was increasingly influenced by Ḥ asidism. The Jewish population numbered 1,156 (43 of the total) in 1827; 2,090 (57) in 1857; and 3,646 (59) in 1897. At the close of the 19t century the Jews of Tomaszow Lubelski, among whom were many laborers, engaged in the operation of flour-mills, processing wood, weaving, tailoring, baking, and tanning. Between the two world wars, the Jewish population increased from 4,643 (65) in 1921 to 5,669 in 1931. A library and Jewish sports club were established; branches of all the Jewish parties were active. [Arthur Cygielman]

TOMASHPOL, town in Vinnitsa district, Ukraine; before the 1917 Revolution in the administrative province of Podolia. In 1847 there were 1,875 Jews living in Tomashpol. The town developed extensively as a result of the sugar industry and trade there. Between 1883 and 1918 Judah Leib *Levin (Yahalal) lived there, employed as an accountant in the factory owned by the *Brodski family. There were 4,518 Jews (over 90 of the total population) in the town in 1897. During the civil war many Jews in Tomashpol fell victims of the pogroms

Holocaust Period On the outbreak of World War II there were about 6,000 Jews in Tomaszow. On Sept. 6, 1939, the Jewish quarter suffered heavy German bombardment. The local synagogue was burned down, and about 500 houses inhabited by Jews were destroyed. The German army entered Tomaszow on Sept. 13, 1939, but withdrew within two weeks, and the Soviet army entered, only to return the town to the Germans after a few days. Many Jews (over 75) seized the opportunity of leaving the town with the withdrawing Soviet army, and only 1,500 remained when the Germans returned. On Feb. 25, 1942, most of them were deported to the forced-labor camp in Cieszanow, where almost all died. Many Jews fled into the surrounding forests and attempted to hide there. A group of young Jews under Mendel Heler and Meir Kalichmacher organized a Jewish partisan unit, which fought the Germans for some time, but was betrayed by local Poles and annihilated.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

Bibliography: M. Kayserling, Geschichte der Juden in Portugal (1867), index; Roth, Marranos, 73; F.A. Garcez Teixeira, A Antiga Sinagoga de Tomar (1925); idem, A Familia Camoes em Tomar (1922); S. Schwarz, Inscricões Hebraicas em Portugal (1923); idem, Museo Luso-Hebraico em Tomar (1939); American Sephardi (Autumn 1970). [Aaron Lichtenstein]

tomaszow mazowiecki The Jewish community was not reconstituted in Tomaszow Lubelski after the war. [Stefan Krakowski] Bibliography: Halpern, Pinkas, index; B. Wasiutyński, Ludność żydowska w Polsce w wiekach XIX i XX (1930), 11, 16, 33, 60, 71; S. Bronsztejn, Ludność żydowska w Polsce w okresie miedzywojennym (1963), 278; M. Weinreich, Shturmvint (1927), 176–80: Tomashover Yisker Bukh (1965).

father taught in the city, the writer Moshe Dolzenovsky, and the chess champion Samuel *Reshevsky. The mathematician Ḥ ayyim Selig *Slonimski lived there between 1846 and 1858. [Arthur Cygielman]

Holocaust Period On the outbreak of World War II there were 13,000 Jews in the town. In December 1940 a closed ghetto composed of three isolated parts was established there. On March 11, 1941 the Jews from Plock were forced to settle there, so that the town’s Jewish population grew to over 15,000. On April 27, 1942 about 100 people, including many members of the local underground, were arrested and shot. About 7,000 Jews were deported to the *Treblinka death camp and murdered on Oct. 31, 1942. Three days later another 7,000 Tomaszow Jews met their death in Treblinka. Only about 1,000 were left in the ghetto, which became a forced-labor camp. In May 1943 the ghetto was liquidated and its inmates transferred to the forcedlabor camps in Blizyna and Starachowice, where almost all of them perished. No Jewish community was reconstituted in Tomaszow Mazowiecki.

TOMASZOW MAZOWIECKI (also called Tomaszow Rawski), city in Lodz province, central Poland. The owner of Tomaszow Mazowiecki, Count Antoni Adam Ostrowski, invited Jewish weavers and entrepreneurs to settle there in the 1820s. Jacob Steinman from Ujazd acted as the count’s agent in charge of the area. Jewish merchants who came to settle received building plots. They soon organized trade in local textile products. On the initiative of the manufacturer Leib Zilber a Jewish community was officially founded in 1831, and was granted sites for a synagogue, mikveh, hospital, and cemetery. The first dozen Jewish families in the city earned their livelihood as hired workers in the local weaving mills; later several became managers and owners of various textile plants. After the defeat of the Polish uprising of 1831, the Russian government of Nicholas I confiscated the Ostrowski estates, including Tomaszow Mazowiecki. Antoni Ostrowski went into exile in France, where he published Pomysfy o potrzebie reformy towarzyskiej (“Thoughts on the Necessity of Social Change,” 1834), in which he formulated a plan for improving the conditions of the Jews in Poland. The town grew from the early 1850s. The 1,879 Jews who lived there in 1857 comprised 37 of the population. By 1897 the number of Jews had grown to 9,320 (47 of the population); it increased to 10,070 in 1921 and 11,310 in 1931. The great synagogue was built between 1864 and 1878. In 1889 a kasher kitchen was built to cater for 120 Jewish soldiers serving in the Russian army who were stationed in the area. The manufacturer and community leader A. Landsberg paid for the building of a community center and donated another building to house the city’s first Jewish high school. The community’s first rabbi was Abraham Altschuler; Jacob Wieliczkier served there from 1857 to 1888 and Hersh Aaron Israelewicz from 1890 to 1916. In the 1880s David Bornstein founded a textile mill to employ Jewish workers, thus assuring their Sabbath observance. Besides weaving and spinning, the Jews engaged in carpentry, dyeing, and construction; many were employed as bookkeepers and foremen. In the early 20t century a Jewish workers’ movement was organized. Between the world wars all the Jewish political parties were active in the city, especially the *Bund, *Po’alei Zion, and *Agudat Israel. Ludwik Frucht served as deputy mayor from 1926. In 1921 two schools merged to form the Hebrew high school. A Yiddish weekly, Tomashover Vokhenblat, appeared between 1925 and 1939. Samuel ha-Levi Brot, a Mizrachi leader in Poland, officiated as rabbi between 1928 and 1936. In the 1930s the Jews were damaged economically by the growing antisemitism. Natives of Tomaszow Mazowiecki include Leon *Pinsker, whose

TOMBS AND TOMBSTONES. Regular burial of the dead in tombs was customary even in prehistoric times as a manifestation of the beginnings of religious ritual, both among nomads and among settled peoples. In the Neolithic period, deceased tribal heads were regarded as family or tribal totems as attested by clay skulls, with human features, found at Jericho (Kenyon, in bibl.). In the Chalcolithic period it was customary to bury the bones in dry ossuaries after the flesh had disintegrated. There were various forms of ossuaries. Sometimes human features were engraved on the front of the ossuary. *Cemeteries of ossuaries were found mainly on the coastal strip of Ereẓ Israel. Death was viewed as a transition to a different world, where life was continued. The dead and their departed spirits were thought of as powerful, incomprehensible forces threatening the living with a limitless capacity for harm or for good. It was thus customary to place offerings of food and drink in special vessels, which were then buried in the tomb together with the corpse. For example, a platter with a lamb’s head upon it has been found in a tomb at Afulah. Gifts given to the dead, either for their use or to propitiate them, were the items most highly prized by the person during his lifetime. Thus, during the Middle Canaanite period it was customary to “kill” the sword of the deceased after its owner’s death by bending it and making it useless. During the Late Canaanite period, a man’s war horse and chariot were symbolic of his noble status. It was therefore customary to bury a nobleman’s weapons and horse with him. In a number of graves at Beth-Eglaim (Tell-ʿAjūl) horses are buried with their rid-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

[Stefan Krakowski] Bibliography: B. Wasiutyński, Ludność żydowska w Polsce w wiekach XIX i XX (1930), 28; S. Bronsztejn, Ludność żydowska w Polsce w okresie międzywojennym (1963), 278; M. Wejsberg (ed.), Tomashov-Mazovyetsk Yisker Bukh (1969); A. Rutkowski, in: BŻIH, 15–16 (1955).

tombs and tombstones ers (Petrie, in bibl.). Burial customs were the most important aspect of the early Egyptian cultic practices. These customs accompanied the death of the king-gods, nobles, and upper classes. The monumental architecture of the Egyptian burial cities, the mummification of the kings, and the embalming of sacred animals, all developed around the Egyptian burial cult (Dawson, in bibl.). Such practices were employed in the great, powerful, and stable kingdoms and in Mesopotamia, though they were not found among the tribes who arrived in Palestine with the wave of ethnic wanderings, during the patriarchal period of the second millennium B.C.E. These wandering tribes did, however, continue the practice of burying various offerings together with their dead, as was customary from the Early Canaanite period on. During the time of the Patriarchs, when there was a change from tribal wanderings to permanent settlement, a new element was added to the burial customs. A permanent grave site was purchased in the vicinity of the settlement which was a significant indication of permanent settlement. Herein lies the importance of Abraham’s purchase of a family tomb (Gen. 23:4). Jacob’s request that he be buried at this place rather than in Egypt may be understood against this background (Gen. 47:29). Joseph’s burial in Shechem in the land of his ancestors (Josh. 24:32) must be seen as part of the process of Exodus from Egypt and the conquest and settlement of Palestine. This identification of the patriarchal tomb with the Promised Land may be discerned in Nehemiah’s remark to the Persian king from whom he requested permission to go to Palestine to rebuild its ruins: “… the place of my father’s sepulchers lies waste…” (Neh. 2:3). For a long period of time, from the Patriarchs until the establishment of the monarchy, it was customary to bury the dead in a family plot (Heb. bet ʾavotam) in an effort to maintain contact with the place (e.g., Judg. 2:9; I Sam. 25:1). During the period of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, sepulchers for kings and nobles were established: “and they buried him [Uzziah] with his fathers in the burial field which belonged to the kings” (II Chron. 26:23). Special mention should be made of the discovery of an engraved tablet bearing the name of Uzziah king of Judah. The tablet cannot be the original one which marked the grave, since its script and its general form are of the Second Temple period. It appears that for various reasons the king’s bones were transferred during this period. Noblemen and officers also merited lavish burial. The prophet, fighting the corrupt nobility, denigrates the elegant tombs, hewn out of the rocks (Isa. 22:16). The carving of tombs in elevated places is reminiscent of the grave sites above the Kidron Brook in Jerusalem (Avigad, in bibl.). A number of hewn graves dating to the period of the kings have been found at this location. The most striking of them is a hewn tomb, upon whose lintel appears a dedication to some person who held an administrative position: “…who was over the household.” The name of this person ends with the syllable yhw. Conceivably, it may be the same Shebna (Shebaniahu) mentioned in Isaiah 22:16 [15]. Another tomb

from the same period is the one called “the grave of Pharaoh’s daughter.” This tomb is cut from rock into the shape of a cube. It has a small entrance and contains the remains of a striking structure, perhaps pyramidal, on its roof. During certain periods grave markers or tombstones were part of the grave itself (Gen. 35:20). The most luxurious graves from this period found, for example, at Achzib, are hewn according to Phoenician design. The burial cave has a vaulted ceiling, cut as much as 10 m. (33 ft.) deep into the rock. At its end is a catafalque hewn out of rock, upon which the corpse was placed. In order to elevate the head of the corpse, a stone was placed beneath it, or a projection shaped like a raised pillow was left on the catafalque. As a result of the custom of burying items of value from the deceased’s lifetime along with him, there arose a class of grave robbers in the Ancient East. To prevent such incursions, complicated grave sealing techniques were developed, along with difficult entrance and exit passages from the interior of the tombs. In many instances it was customary to warn grave robbers against entering. The tomb of “…yhw who was over the household” (mentioned above) contains the inscription: “Cursed be he who opens this.” This is similar to the inscriptions common in the Second Temple Period, which contained the name of the deceased and a warning not to open the grave. Thousands of tombs have been unearthed and investigated during the years of archaeological activities in Israel. Several characteristic grave types have been found: (1) A communal grave within a cave from the Middle Canaanite period, like one found at Jericho. Dozens of skeletons were found in the cave as well as the offerings buried there (Garstang, in bibl.). In this case, a household or family used a natural cave, which served it for several generations. This type of mausoleum, consisting of some land and a cave, was no doubt the kind acquired by Abraham from Ephron the Hittite near Hebron, when he came to settle permanently in Palestine. The patriarchal sepulcher remained traditional among the people even as late as Herod’s time. Among his massive building projects throughout the land, he constructed a Romanstyle monument over the patriarchal tomb in Hebron. This monument was intended as an architectural marker of the site and its sanctity. (2) During the same Middle Canaanite period pit burials were common. For this purpose either natural caves were used or circular or rectangular pits were dug out of the earth to a depth of one to 2 m. (3–6 ft.). The walls of the pit contained the burial niches into which were placed the bodies and the offerings. Each niche would be sealed with a single large stone, and the central pit would be filled in up to ground level, thus preventing any approach to the graves themselves. (3) In addition to family graves, individual tombs have been found. These too contain gifts to accompany the deceased to his new life. Generally, these gifts were eating and drinking utensils, jewelry, personal seals, etc. The finds from tombs are many and variegated, and by their nature are better preserved than finds from the usual, exposed ancient sites.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

tombs and tombstones (4) Among the graves unearthed from the Late Canaanite period are pit tombs, of the style of the prior period, both of family as well as of individual types and simple inhumations. Graves from this period have been found at Tell Abu Hawām (Hamilton, in bibl.), Achzib, and elsewhere. Special attention was given to the manner in which the body was placed in the grave. Generally, the hands were folded and the legs stretched out. The custom of burying gifts with the dead continued into the Late Canaanite period. Offerings in these graves are either local or imported implements. (5) At the end of this period another form of burial appears. The corpse is placed into two large ossuaries, or jugs, whose necks have been removed, so that the bodies of the jugs enclose the corpse from the feet up and from the head down. These graves, too, contain offerings and weapons that served the deceased during his lifetime. (6) At the end of the second millennium B.C.E., with the advent of the Philistines in the land, sites with Philistine population, such as Beth-Shean, exhibit different burial methods. The corpse was provided with a clay coffin, longer than the body. The coffin had a cover near the head, decorated with human features. Such decoration was intended to symbolize the personality of the deceased. The engraved hats and diadems resemble the headdress of the Philistines portrayed on ancient Egyptian monuments (Dothan, in bibl.). (7) A large quantity of graves, including pit tombs, burial caves, rock-hewn tombs, and individual grave sites, from the Israelite period, have been found at Megiddo, Hazor, BethShean, and other sites. The offerings placed in these graves are usually pottery vessels, such as jars and flasks, some of them imported, as well as jewelry and seals. (8) The Israelite II and the Persian periods reveal tombs hewn into caves with ledges provided for the corpses, known mainly from the Shephelah and the coastal strip. Tombs of Phoenician style are especially to be found in the Athlit area (Hamilton, in bibl.). These are in the shape of a four-sided pit hewn into the hard rock, with ladderlike sockets for hands and feet, to be used in climbing down the pit. At the bottom of the pit there are one or more hewn openings to the burial niches themselves. These are sealed with large stones. The entrance pit itself is filled with earth and stones to block off the entrance to the graves. (9) With the close of the Persian period and the beginning of the Hellenistic, the most common form of grave consisted of rock tombs, with raised shelves or ledges, or troughs resembling coffins, near the walls. The typical cave ceiling of this period is in the form of a large camel hump, as in the case of a grave found at Marissah. The walls and ceiling of this grave are decorated with drawings. A tomb of similar design has been found at Nazareth. See also *Death, *Mourning. Tombstones The first tombstone mentioned in the Bible is the maẓ ẓ evah (“monument”) which Jacob set up over the grave of Rachel

(Gen. 35:20; see Tomb of *Rachel). The custom continued during the First Temple period as is clear from II Kings 23:17, where King Josiah saw the ẓ iyyun over the grave of the prophet who had prophesied that Josiah would undertake the religious reformation (cf. I Kings 13). Ezekiel (39:15) also uses ẓ iyyun for a sign placed over the grave. The custom continued during the period of the Second Temple and the Talmud. I Maccabees 13:27–29 describes the ornate tombstone and monument which Simeon the Hasmonean erected over the grave of his father and brothers at Modi’in, of which Josephus (Ant. 13:211) also gives a detailed description. However, apart from a vague reference in the Talmud stating that one of the things which adversely affects one’s study is “the reading of an inscription on a grave” (Hor. 13b), there is no evidence that these tombstones bore inscriptions either in the biblical or early Second Temple periods (but see below). In the later period their main purpose seems to have been to indicate the position of a grave in order to obviate the fear of a kohen becoming ritually unclean by being in its vicinity (cf. Tosef. Oholot 17:4). The custom of erecting these tombstones was widespread. R. Nathan ha-Bavli ruled that a surplus of the money provided for the burial of the dead was to be applied to erecting a memorial over the grave (Shek. 2:5), and the 15t of Adar was selected as the day of the year when graves were marked (Shek. 1:1) by daubing them with lime (Ma’as. Sh. 5:1). In addition to those ẓ iyyunim which were apparently simple markers there were two kinds of more ornate tombstones (called nefesh, literally, “a soul”). One was a solid structure over the grave without any entrance (Er. 55b); the other had an entrance to which a dwelling chamber, probably for the watchman, was attached (Er. 5:1). During the later Hasmonean period, under Greek and Roman influence, there developed the custom of erecting ornate monumental tombstones for the nobility, notable examples being the Yad Avshalom (Monument of Absalom), the sepulcher of Zechariah, and that of the Sons of Hezir in the Kidron Valley. The last bears the inscription “this is the grave and the nefesh [“soul”] of,” giving the names of the members of the family buried there. For many years this was the only known inscription on a tombstone of the Second Temple period, but recent excavations have revealed a large number, including the Tomb of Jason in Reḥ avyah in Jerusalem and that of Simeon the builder of the Sanctuary, among others (see *Epitaphs, and the reproductions in Sefer Yerushalayim, 1957, pp. 220–321 and 352–3). It has been suggested that it was this ostentation, so foreign to the spirit of Judaism, and the desire to abolish it which caused Rabbah Simeon b. Gamaliel to declare that “one does not erect nefashot to the righteous, for their words are their memorial” (Gen. R. 82:10; TJ, Shek. 2:7, 47a). In view of the extensive discovery of such inscriptions, the suggestion can no longer be upheld that it was only outside Ereẓ Israel that the Jews adopted the custom from the Greeks and Romans of adding inscriptions to tombstones in addition to Jewish symbols (see below on tombstone art), and the

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

[Ze’ev Yeivin]

tombs and tombstones custom is to be regarded as common from at least the second century B.C.E. Jacob Moellin (the Maharil) states that in Mainz he discovered a fragment of a tombstone over a thousand years old (i.e., of the fourth century) bearing the Hebrew inscription “a designated bondmaid” (cf. Lev. 19:20; Likkutei Maharil at the end of his book of that name). The earliest known tombstones bearing the inscription shalom al Yisrael (“Peace upon Israel”), dated 668, was found at Narbonne, one at Brindisi dates from 832, and one at Lyons from 1101. Maimonides (Yad, Avel 4:4) adopts the abovementioned view of Simeon b. Gamaliel that tombstones are not erected over the graves of the righteous. Solomon b. Abraham Adret, however (Resp. 375), regards the tombstone as a mark of honor for the dead, while Isaac Luria (Sha’ar ha-Mitzvot, Va-Yeḥ i) even regards it as contributing to the tikkun ha-nefesh (“the perfecting of the soul”) of the deceased. It is forbidden to derive material benefit from a tombstone (Sh. Ar. YD 364:1). At the present day it is the universal custom to erect tombstones, and a special order of service for the consecration of the tombstone has been drawn up. In Israel its main content is the reading of those portions of the alphabetical 119t Psalm which constitute the name of the deceased and the letters of the word neshamah (“soul”); in Western countries it consists of a selection of appropriate Psalms and biblical passages; and in both cases it concludes with a memorial prayer and *Kaddish by the mourners. In the Diaspora it is the custom to erect and consecrate the tombstone during the 12t month after death; in Israel on the 30t day. Ashkenazi tombstones are usually vertical; among the Sephardim they lie flat (for inscriptions on tombstones see *Epitaphs; see also *Burial; *Catacombs; *Cemetery). The tombstones of many ancient communities have been published. Art A desire for originality allied to an emphasis on tradition is characteristic of the tombstones in Jewish cemeteries. Here the anonymous Jewish craftsman succeeded perhaps better than in most other fields of art in establishing an individual style. There are few branches of Jewish art which are distinguished by such richness of decoration, and by such a variety of symbolism, as tombstone art. Thus a study of Jewish tombstones is a rich source of material for the study of Jewish art from ancient times to the present. The artistic and traditional development of the tombstone and of its individual style is based on two factors: (a) the desire for perpetuation; (b) artistic expression and the participation of the various branches of the plastic arts in its creation. Hence the great value of the tombstone not only lies in the study of epitaphs, but also in its ornamentation.

ries C.E., are outstanding for the ornamentation at the lintel to the graves. Similar ornamentation exists at the entry to the burial chamber of the royal line of Adiabene in Jerusalem, traditionally known as the “Tomb of the Kings.” At the same period, under the influence of Egyptian and Greek art, individual monuments were erected to mark graves. Examples are the monuments known as “Absalom’s Tomb,” “The Tomb of Zechariah,” and others, all in the Valley of Kidron in Jerusalem. In Galilee, the *Bet She’arim necropolis has a wealth of ornamentation, both Jewish and mythological. In the Roman catacombs of the classical period the Jewish tomb was recognizable by symbols such as the *shofar or the menorah. A very few Roman sarcophagi have been preserved which combine this Jewish symbolism with classical motifs – e.g., the menorah supported by putti in pure pagan style, found in the Catacomb of Vigna Randanini. The early tombstones erected over graves in the western world after the classical period were on the whole severely plain, sometimes merely embodying (in Spain and Italy) a crudely engraved menorah whether as a symbol of Jewish allegiance or of eternal light. In the Middle Ages, even this slight ornamentation disappeared, and the decorative element was entirely provided by the engraved Hebrew characters. In most cases, however, the inscriptions were crudely carved by inexpert hands. There now developed a tendency for the tombstones in Germany and the lands of Ashkenazi civilization to be upright, those in Spain and the Sephardi world to be sometimes horizontal, sometimes built up in the form of altar-tombs. LATER SEPHARDI TOMBSTONES. A more elaborate form of tombstone began to emerge in the Renaissance period. While in North Africa and the Orient the utmost simplicity continued to prevail, in some of the Sephardi communities of Northern Europe (especially Amsterdam, though not London) and of the West Indies (especially Curaçao) an elaborate Jewish funerary art developed. In these places the recumbent tombstones were often decorated with scenes in relief depicting events connected with the biblical character whose name was borne by the deceased (the sacrifice of Isaac or the call of Samuel), and in Curaçao sometimes even with the actual deathbed scene. In Italy, the vertical tombstone was often surmounted by the family badge, and in the case of families of Marrano descent with the knightly helm or with armorial bearings.

TOMBSTONE ART IN THE ANCIENT WORLD. The oldest graveyards are found in Ereẓ Israel. Here the original form of the cemetery, consisting of rock vaults intended for a group of graves, has been preserved. The so-called Tombs of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, dating from the first and second centu-

ASHKENAZI TOMBSTONES. The Ashkenazim, on the other hand, used symbols which illustrated the deceased’s religious status, his virtues or his trade. These then were special symbols to denote a rabbi, a kohen, a levite; an alms-box would be shown on the tombstone of a philanthropist; and a pair of scissors on that of a tailor. The depiction of the human figure is unknown on Ashkenazi tombstones, and allegorical figures are very rarely found. As in medieval Spain, Ashkenazi Jewry in Bohemia and in parts of Poland sometimes used vertical and horizontal stones together to form a sarcophagus. This sarcophagus monument was usually intended for important

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

tombs and tombstones personages. Another type of tombstone intended for an important person, a *ẓ addik or an *admor, is to be found in Polish cemeteries, and in neighboring Ashkenazi countries. This was in the form of an ohel (“tent” or “tabernacle”). These tabernacles generally had no artistic or architectural distinction; they were built in the form of a small stone or wooden house, or of a simple hut standing on four posts, inside which the tombstone itself was placed. Sometimes the tabernacle was encircled by a wrought iron fence. But the most common form of tombstone among Ashkenazi Jewry is the vertical, rectangular stone. A few cast-iron tombstones are known, and in small, poor communities, particularly in Eastern Europe, there are wooden tombstones. The tombstones in Prague, Worms (Germany) and Lublin (Poland), dating from the mid-15t and early 16t centuries, have no special ornamentation. Most of them are in the form of square stone tablets, and were seldom topped with a semicircular or triangular decoration. From the mid-16t century onward, tombstones have more elaborate decoration, particularly in the ornamentation of the frame for the epitaph. The most common designs resemble those of the ark curtains in the synagogue, with two columns flanking the tombstone and enclosing the text. It is in this period that flora and fauna make their first appearance, mostly around the frame, while the epitaph is engraved on the main part of the stone, below the two-columned portico. Nevertheless, with its beautiful lettering the epitaph constitutes the main decoration of the tombstone. From the early 17t century, the tombstone of Eastern European Jewry developed a definite style of ornamentation. There is a clear post-Renaissance influence in the form of the tombstone and the ornamentation. In the design of this ornamentation, and the manner in which it is placed on the tombstone, there are the beginnings of the rich Jewish decoration, baroque in essence, which is characteristic of the century in Eastern Europe, and particularly in Poland. This decoration is reminiscent in both subject matter and execution of the wall-paintings of the wooden synagogues, which in fact were first built during this same period. This similarity is particularly apparent after the 1648–49 massacres in Poland. The number of Jewish motifs on tombstones was increased and more honorific descriptions of the deceased taken from the Holy Scriptures or the Talmud were added to the epitaph. Other new decorations included anagrams at the beginning and end of the text The late 17t and early 18t century tombstones, though still outstanding for their floral decoration – full-blown roses, and baskets or bowls filled with ripe fruit – have lost their Jewishness and are lacking in originality. Some of the common symbols used on the Jewish tombstone continued to appear in most Jewish communities. These were the hands of the priest in an attitude of blessing. This marked the grave of a kohen, while an ewer and basin or a musical instrument marked the grave of a levite. In Bohemia and Poland they still used occupational symbols such as chains on the grave of a goldsmith, a parchment with a goosefeather on the grave of a Torah scribe, an open book or a row of books with engraved titles on the grave of a

learned rabbi or author. Apart from this, there were also animal, bird or fish motifs representing the name of the deceased, such as a lion on the grave of a man named Leib, a deer on the grave of a man named Hirsch, a bird in memory of Jonah (dove), and a fish on the tombstone of Fischel. The engraver occasionally emphasized the decorative and sculptural aspect by the addition of colors. The anonymous tombstone artists who worked in Jewish communities were excellent craftsmen, sometimes inheriting their craft from their fathers. Their work has a primitive charm and occasionally even a certain degree of professionalism. Some were gifted sculptors, whose work showed sensitivity and a poetic quality. All the religious and philosophical ideas connected with death, the phenomenon of death itself, man’s mortality, his ways on earth and his relationship with God and eternity, were given artistic expression in stone. Sometimes death was depicted as a flickering flame, as a shipwrecked vessel, an overturned and extinguished lamp, or a flock without a shepherd. The fear of death was sometimes symbolized by fledglings nestling under their mother’s wing. Heraldic designs were also used on tombstones, particularly in Eastern Europe. They took the form of a pair of lions, deer or even sea-horses holding the crowns of the Torah. Other animals also appeared occasionally, such as bears, hares, squirrels and ravens – the raven being the harbinger of disaster. One particular tombstone is of such exceptional beauty that it merits special mention. It is that of Dov Baer Shmulovicz, the son of Samuel Zbitkower, the founder of the Bergsohn family in Warsaw. The tombstone was made by the Jewish artist, David Friedlaender. The main decoration is two bas-reliefs, one on each side of the stone. One depicts a landscape with a river and cargo boats signifying the trade of the deceased and a walled city with towers, houses, including a synagogue, *bet midrash and windmill, while on the horizon is a palace, which the ancestors of the deceased received as a gift from the last king of Poland, Stanislaus Augustus. The other bas-relief shows the tower (of Babylon) and a grove of trees, on whose branches are hung musical instruments, recalling the passage from Psalm 137, “By the waters of Babylon….” In recent years there has been a tendency, at least among the orthodox, for tombstones to be increasingly simple, notwithstanding an occasional exuberance of architectural forms. In Eastern Europe they are without exception severely plain.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

[David Davidovitch] Bibliography: W.R. Dawson, in: JEA, 13 (1927), pl. 18, 40–49; W.M.F. Petrie, Beth Pelet I (1930), passim; A. Rowe, The Topography and History of Beth Shan (1930), pl. 37, 39; R.W. Hamilton, Excavation at Tell Abu Hawām (1935); M. Werbrouck, Les pleureuses dans l’Egypte ancienne (1938); J. Finegan, Light from the Ancient Past (1946), 353–98; J. Garstang, The Story of Jericho (1948); A.G. Barrois, Manuel d’archéologie biblique, 2 (1953), 274–323; N. Avigad, Maẓ ẓ evot Kedumot be–Naḥ al Kidron (1954), 9ff.; K. Kenyon, Digging up Jericho (1957), 95–102, 194–209, 233–55, 665; T. Dothan, The Philistines and their Material Culture (1967); D. Ussishkin, in: Qadmoniot, 2 (1970), 25–27. SECOND TEMPLE AND TALMUD PERIODS: N. Avigad, in: Sefer

toplpunkt: fertlyor-shrift far literatur, kunst un gezelschaftlekhe frages Yerushalayim, 1 (1956), 320–48. IN ART: N. Avigad, Maẓ ẓ evot Kedumot be-Naḥ al Kidron (1954); I. Pinkerfeld, Bi-Shevilei Ommanut Yehudit (1957); M. Gruenwald, Portugiesengraeber auf deutscher Erde (1902); D. Henrique de Castro, Keur van Grafsteenen… Ouderkerk aan den Amstel (Dutch and Ger. 1883); A. Grotte, Alte schlesische Judenfriedhoefe (1927); M. Balaban, Die Judenstadt von Lublin (1919); A. Levy, Juedische Grabmalkunst in Osteuropa (n.d.); O. Muneles and M. Vitimkôvá, Starý židovský hřbitov v Praze (1955); M. Levy, Der alte israelitische Friedhof zu Worms am Rhein (1913); M. Diamant, Juedische Volkskunst (1937); L.A. Mayer, Bibliography of Jewish Art (1967), index; I.S. Emmanuel, Precious Stones of the Jews of Curaçao (1957); Cantera y Burgos et al., Las Inscripciones Hebraicas de España (1955); E.R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols… (13 vols, 1953–68); Roth, Art, index.

TOMSK, main city of Tomsk district (Siberia), Russia. Before the October Revolution the district of Tomsk was beyond the *Pale of Settlement and no Jewish settlement was allowed there until the cancellation of the Pale enactment. A Jewish community was nevertheless established in Tomsk in the first half of the 19t century by exiled prisoners and Jewish soldiers who served there (among them several Jewish *Cantonists who were brought to a Cantonist institute there). A number of these soldiers settled in Tomsk after their release from the army. In the second half of the 19t century, Jews of all professions who were allowed now to reside beyond the Pale began to settle in Tomsk. In 1897 the number of Jews in the entire district of Tomsk was 7,900, of whom 3,214 (6.4 of the total population) lived in the town of Tomsk proper. In October 1905 there were in Tomsk organized attacks on Jews and members of the Russian intelligentsia, fomented by the local administration. At the end of 1969 the Jewish population was estimated at about 5,000. The last synagogue was closed down by the authorities in 1959. After the mass exodus of the 1990s fewer than 1,000 Jews remained in the entire Tomsk district. However, Jewish life was revived, including an active community center and officiating rabbi. Bibliography: Die Judenpogrome in Russland, 2 (1909), 524–30; G. Tsam, Istoriya vozniknoveniya v Tomske voyennoy soldatskoy shkoly (1909). [Yehuda Slutsky]

was an outspoken opponent of Roman Catholicism. Well known in her day – a collection of her works was published in 1845 with an introduction by Harriet Beecher Stowe – she was largely forgotten until recently, when her remarkable views attracted renewed interest. Bibliography: ODNB online; H.L. Rubinstein, “A Pioneering Philosemite: Charlotte Elizabeth Tonna (1790–1846) and the Jews,” in: JHSET, 35 (1996–98), 103–18; W.D. Rubinstein and H.L. Rubinstein, Philosemitism: Admiration and Support in the English-Speaking World for Jews, 1840–1939 (1999), index. [William D. Rubinstein (2nd ed.)]

TOPARCHY (τοπαρχία), the basic administrative district in Palestine during the major part of the Second Temple period. Under the Ptolemies the division of Palestine was fashioned after that of Egypt, although the names given to each administrative district were not always identical. Thus, whereas in Egypt the largest unit was the nomos (νομός) which was divided into smaller districts called topos (τόπος), the major unit in Palestine under the Ptolemies was the hyparchia, subdivided into smaller units called toparchies (cf., however, I Macc. 10:30; 11:57, where the larger units of Palestine are also called nomos). At times the toparchy was in effect the combined territory of a number of neighboring villages, and each toparchy had a capital city or town which was probably the seat of the local governor, known as strategos toparchos or simply strategos. Under Herod Jewish Palestine was divided into approximately 21 toparchies. As for Judea, two lists are given. Pliny (Natural History 5:70) lists ten toparchies, whereas Josephus enumerates 13 (Wars, 3:54–5), including two toparchies of Idumea. Perea was probably divided into three toparchies and Lower Galilee into four, while Upper Galilee was considered a separate unit. Bibliography: Schuerer, Gesch, 2 (1907), 229–36; A. Schalit, Ha-Mishtar ha-Roma’i be-Ereẓ Yisrael (1937), 16ff. [Isaiah Gafni]

°TONNA, CHARLOTTE ELIZABETH (1790–1846), British philosemitic writer and editor. Born Charlotte Browne in Norwich, England, the daughter of an Anglican vicar, she became an extreme Protestant Evangelical writer and edited The Christian Lady’s Magazine from 1834 until 1846 as well as other religious journals. Tonna was an outspoken philosemite who, most unusually, discarded the normal aim among Evangelicals of converting the Jews, instead adopting the position that Jews remain a Covenant people and that Judaism represented a valid alternative means of attaining salvation. Her magazine reproduced articles on Judaism by Jacob *Franklin, the editor of the Jewish newspaper The Voice of Jacob, and she supported the efforts of British Jews to assist persecuted Jews overseas. Tonna also believed that Protestants should themselves practice the Jewish rites, including circumcision. In contrast, she

TOPLPUNKT: FERTLYORSHRIFT FAR LITERATUR, KUNST UN GEZELSCHAFTLEKHE FRAGES (Yid. “Colon: Quarterly of Literature, Art and Social Questions”), Yiddish literary journal published since 2000 in Tel Aviv by Der Natsyonaler Instants far Yidisher Kultur (“The National Instance for Yiddish Culture”). Nos. 1–5 were edited by Yankev Beser and co-edited by Yisroel Rudnitski, the latter becoming editor with no. 6 (Winter 2003). The closing down of the journal *Di Goldene Keyt in 1995 created a vacuum in international Yiddish literary culture. Many of the participants in Toplpunkt would have been – or would have aspired to become – contributors to Di Goldene Keyt. Toplpunkt partly fills a void left by that prestigious journal’s surcease and can also lay claim to a character of its own – a greater emphasis on graphic design and on a fruitful exchange between older and younger Yiddish writers. Toplpunkt is a serious magazine that radiates a certain vitality: two-thirds of its material is original Yiddish work, while the other third comprises translations from

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

topol, chaim Hebrew and major European languages. Of the 60–70 Yiddish-writing participants, almost a third are relatively young (mainly late-wave immigrants from former Soviet lands). The folio-size journal is visually attractive, each number featuring work by a particular artist. Those represented in issues 1–9 are among Israel’s major artists: Yosl Bergner, Menashe Kadishman, Yossef Zaritsky, Arye Arokh, Tsiona Tagger, Mula BenKhayim, Mordecai Ardon, Reuven Rubin, Moshe Rozentalis (in that order). Each issue contains more than 100 pages of a lively variety of genres. Some readers may sense a “last Mohican” strain in this 21st-century subsidized international Yiddish literary periodical.

TOPOLCANY (Slovak Topolčany; Hung. Nagytapolcsány), town in Slovakia. The first documentary evidence of the Jewish appearance in Topolcany is from the 14t century. In the following centuries Topolcany was not a pleasant place to live because of the many wars and battles in the area. The first Jews arrived in Topolcany from Moravia and Uhersky Brod in 1649 and established families. The antiJewish legislation of Emperor Charles VI (1711–1780) and of his daughter Maria Theresa (1740–1780) encouraged further settlement of Moravian Jews in upper Hungary. Jews in the city engaged in trade, including international trade. Attempts to expel Jews in 1727 and in 1755 failed. Jewish community life expanded and by 1755 there were a cemetery, a synagogue, and a ḥ evra kaddisha. In the census of 1735, there were 50 Jews in Topolcany. The “Toleranzpatent” (1782) of Emperor Joseph II (1780–90) permitted further settlement of Jews and commerce. By the end of the 18t century a yeshivah was established, under the supervision and instruction of Rabbis Asher Anshel Roth (Ruta) and Abraham Ullmann.

The community grew quickly. In 1830 there were 561 Jews in Topolcany; in 1840 there were 618; and in 1850 there were 760. In 1880 there were 1,119 Jews and in 1910 there were 1,934. The 1930 census records 2,991. On the eve of World War II the number was 2,700. Toward 1942, the number reached 3,000, which included Jews from surrounding villages who moved there, concerned for their safety. Jews lived a quiet life in Topolcany in the 19t century; but in 1848 during the Spring of Nations, Jews were attacked and robbed. In 1918–19 pogroms took place and Jewish property was looted and destroyed. After the 1868 Congress of Hungarian Jewry, the Topolcany congregation chose the Orthodox stream. Zionist activity centered on the youth movements, and the Maccabi sports movement organized the young people. A Jewish school, a talmud torah, an old-age home, and women’s associations extended the social life of the congregation. The Communist Party was also active, particularly among the youth. The Jewish political party clashed with parties representing the Orthodox (mainly the Agrarian Party). About 80 of the retail trade was in Jewish hands, largely in the horse and cattle trade, wood, food and beverages, and construction material. In 1938 Hlinka’s nationalistic fascist Slovak People’s Party gained supreme power in the country. On March 14, 1939, it proclaimed the Slovak state with Nazi support. Jews were the primary target. The Hlinka Guard, with a storm trooper unit, cast a dark shadow on social and political life. Under the guise of “Aryanization,” the Jews lost their property and livelihoods. In 1942 the Slovak authorities began to deport the Jews to the extermination camps in Poland. The local population took the opportunity to pillage and divide up Jewish property left in the apartments and stores and grabbed Jewish real estate. When the deportations stopped in fall 1942 about 2,500 Jews had been deported. Only several hundred Jews were left in the town. They were joined in the spring of 1944 by several dozen Jewish families transferred from eastern Slovakia when the Soviet army closed in. By August 1944 an anti-Nazi uprising spread in parts of Slovakia. Jews from Topolcany in labor camps were liberated and returned home. Thus before German troops arrived to quell the uprising, 1,000 Jews gathered in the city. A few days later, the Germans sent all the Jews to Auschwitz. Fifty who hid were found by the Slovak inhabitants and were shot by the Nazis in a field in nearby Nemcice. In 1947, there were 320 survivors living in Topolcany. A memorial to the Holocaust victims was erected in the Jewish cemetery. One of the synagogues was restored. Antisemitism continued to plague the Jews. The gentiles who had stolen Jewish property were resentful of the Jews’ demands to return their belongings. In September 1945 rumors spread that a Jewish doctor was poisoning children and that Jewish teachers were replacing nuns. A pogrom swept the town. Jewish property was pillaged and destroyed, and 47

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

[Leonard Prager (2nd ed.)]

TOPOL, CHAIM (1935– ), Israeli actor, who won international fame as the Shalom Aleichem character, Tevye in the musical Fiddler on the Roof. Born in Tel Aviv, Topol began to appear on the stage during his period of army service. He first gained a reputation at the Haifa Municipal Theater, which he co-founded and where he appeared in the Hebrew versions of Ionesco’s Rhinoceros, Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew, Brecht’s Caucasian Chalk Circle, and the Japanese Rashomon. In Tel Aviv he appeared in the Hebrew production of Fiddler on the Roof. This led to his starring in the London West End production in English (1967), which brought him wide acclaim and the lead in the movie (1971). His films made in Israel include Sallah Shabbati (1964) and Ervinka (1967). He also appeared in Galileo (1975), The House on Garibaldi Street (1979), Flash Gordon (1980), and For Your Eyes Only (1981). He also appeared in the TV versions of Herman Wouk’s Winds of War (1983) and War and Remembrance (1988). His autobiography, Topol by Topol, was published in London. He has illustrated 20 books. [Dora Leah Sowden]

torah people were injured. An army unit sent to disperse the rioters joined the mob. In 1945–49 most of the surviving Jews emigrated. The Great Synagogue was turned into a warehouse. Bibliography: L. Venetianer, A magyar zsidóság töténete (1922); M. Lányi and H. Propper, A szlovenszkói zsidó hitközségek története (1933); Y.R. Buechler, The Story and Origin of the Jewish Community of Topoltchany (1976); E. Bàrkàny and L. Dojč, Židovské náboženské obce na Slovensku (1991), 206–9. [Yeshayahu Jelinek (2nd ed.)]

TOPOLEVSKY, GREGORIO (1907–1986), Argentine politician and physician. Born in Grodno, Russia, Topolevsky immigrated to Argentina as a child and became a physician specializing in otorhinolaryngology. Between 1933 and 1945, he was frequently arrested for political agitation against the dictatorial governments in Argentina and was again imprisoned in 1951. In 1937 he fought on the republican side in the Spanish Civil War. After World War II he was a member of the Unión Civica Radical del Pueblo party and was appointed Argentine ambassador to Israel (1955–58). Later, during the presidency of Arturo Illia, Topolevsky was appointed director general of social welfare in the Ministry of Communications. Active in Jewish communal affairs, he was chairman of a number of local Jewish organizations, among them the Instituto de Intercambio Cultural Argentino Israelí. [Israel Drapkin-Senderey]

TOPOLSKI, FELIKS (1907–1989), pictorial chronicler and muralist. Topolski, the son of Edward Topolski, a well-known actor, was born in Warsaw and studied art at the Warsaw Academy, and also studied at the Officers’ School of Artillery. He later traveled in Italy and France, studying the old masters, before he settled in England in 1935. He developed an outstanding reputation as a draughtsman, writer, muralist, and portrait painter, and also worked in the theater. Appointed an official war artist during World War II, he recorded the British and Allied forces in Russia, the Middle East, the Far East, and Europe. His drawings were used widely in the press and have appeared in a series of books he published on these wartime experiences. Topolski also excelled as a mural painter, for which he received commissions all over the world. His most famous murals are Cavalcade of Commonwealth, 60 × 20 feet, painted in 1951 for the Festival of Britain, and Coronation of Elizabeth II, 100 × 4 feet, painted between 1958 and 1960 at the request of Prince Philip, which is now in Buckingham Palace, London. Another important commission was for 20 portraits of English writers in 1961, from the University of Texas. Topolski illustrated numerous books, notably the plays of George Bernard Shaw, as well as his own 20 works, including Was Paris Lost (1973). From 1953 he published Topolski’s Chronicle, a hand-printed, pictorial broadsheet on current events. In 1969 he made a television film Topolski’s Moscow and his environmental painting,

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

Memoir of the Century, in London’s South Bank Arts Centre was begun in 1977. He was elected to the Royal Academy in the year of his death. Topolski wrote an autobiography, Fourteen Letters (1988). [Charles Samuel Spencer]

TORAH (Heb. ‫) ּתוֹ ָרה‬. The Term Torah is derived from the root ‫ ירה‬which in the hifil conjugation means “to teach” (cf. Lev. 10:11). The meaning of the word is therefore “teaching,” “doctrine,” or “instruction”; the commonly accepted “law” gives a wrong impression. The word is used in different ways but the underlying idea of “teaching” is common to all. In the Pentateuch it is used for all the body of laws referring to a specific subject, e.g., “the torah of the meal offering” (Lev. 6:7), of the guilt offering (7:1), and of the Nazirite (Num. 6:21), and especially as a summation of all the separate torot (cf. Lev. 7:37–38; 14:54–56). In verses, however, such as Deuteronomy 4:44, “and this is the Torah which Moses set before the children of Israel” and ibid. 33:4, “Moses commanded us a Torah, an inheritance of the congregation of Jacob” and the references in the Bible to “the Torah of Moses” (cf. Josh. 1:7; Ezra 3:2; 7:6; 8:1, 8; Mal. 3:22), it refers particularly to the Pentateuch as distinct from the rest of the Bible. In later literature the whole Bible was referred to as Tanakh, the initial letters of Torah (Pentateuch), Nevi’im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Hagiographia), a meaning it retained in halakhic literature to differentiate between the laws which are of biblical origin (in its Aramaic form, de-Oraita, “from the Torah”) and those of rabbinic provenance (de-rabbanan). The term is, however, also used loosely to designate the Bible as a whole. A further extension of the term came with the distinction made between the Written Torah (Torah she-bi-khetav) and the Oral Torah (Torah she-be-al peh). The use of the plural Torot (e.g., Gen. 26:5) was taken to refer to those two branches of divine revelation which were traditionally regarded as having been given to Moses on Mount Sinai (Yoma 28b, and see *Oral Law). Justification was found in the verse of Exodus 34:27, which can be translated literally as “Write thou these words for by the mouth of these words I have made a covenant.” The word “write” (ketav) was regarded as the authority for the Written Law (hence Torah she-bi-khetav, i.e., the Torah included in the word ketav) while “by the mouth” (al pi) was taken to refer to the Torah she-be-al peh (i.e., the Torah referred to in the phrase al pi; cf. Git. 60b). Lastly, the word is used for the whole corpus of Jewish traditional law from the Bible to the latest development of the halakhah. In modern Hebrew the word is used to designate the system of a thinker or scholar, e.g., “the torah of Spinoza.” See also *Judaism. [Louis Isaac Rabinowitz]

torah Origin and Preexistence “Moses received the Torah from Sinai” (Avot 1:1). Yet there is an ancient tradition that the Torah existed in heaven not only before God revealed it to Moses, but even before the world was created. The apocryphal book The Wisdom of Ben Sira identified the Torah with preexistent personified wisdom (1:1–5, 26; 15:1; 24:1ff.; 34:8; cf. Prov. 8:22–31). In rabbinic literature, it was taught that the Torah was one of the six or seven things created prior to the creation of the world (Gen. R. 1:4; Pes. 54a, et al.). Of these preexistent things, it was said that only the Torah and the throne of glory were actually created, while the others were only conceived, and that the Torah preceded the throne of glory (Gen. R. 1:4). According to Eliezer ben Yose the Galilean, for 974 generations before the creation of the world, the Torah lay in God’s bosom and joined the ministering angels in song (ARN1 31, p. 91; cf. Gen. R. 28:4, et al.). Simeon ben Lakish taught that the Torah preceded the world by 2,000 years (Lev. R. 19:1, et al.) and was written in black fire upon white fire (TJ, Shek. 6:1, 49d, et al.). Akiva called the Torah “the precious instrument by which the world was created” (Avot 3:14). Rav *Hoshaiah, explicitly identifying the Torah with the preexistent wisdom of Proverbs, said that God created the world by looking into the Torah as an architect builds a palace by looking into blueprints. He also took the first word of Genesis not in the sense of “In the beginning,” but in that of “By means of the beginning,” and he taught that “beginning” (probably in the philosophic sense of the Greek archē) designates Torah, since it is written of wisdom (= Torah), “The Lord made me the beginning of His way” (Prov. 8:22; Gen. R. 1:1). It was also taught that God took council with the Torah before He created the world (Tanḥ . B. 2, et al.). The concept of the preexistence of the Torah is perhaps implicit in the philosophy of Philo, who wrote of the preexistence and role in creation of the Word of God (logos; e.g., Op. 20, 25, 36; Cher. 127) and identified the Word of God with the Torah (Mig. 130; cf. Op. and II Mos.). *Saadiah Gaon rejected the literal belief in preexistent things on the grounds that it contradicts the principle of creation ex nihilo. In his view, Proverbs 8:22, the verse cited by Rav Hoshaiah, means no more than that God created the world in a wise manner (Beliefs and Opinions 1:3; cf. Saadiah’s commentary on Proverbs, ad loc.). *Judah b. Barzillai of Barcelona raised the problem of place. Where could God have kept a preexistent Torah? While allowing that God could conceivably have provided an antemundane place for a corporeal Torah, he preferred the interpretation that the Torah preexisted only as a thought in the divine mind. Ultimately, however, he expressed the opinion that the Torah’s preexistence is a rabbinic metaphor, spoken out of love for the Torah and those who study it, and teaching that the Torah is worthy to have been created before the world (commentary on Sefer Yeẓ irah, pp. 88–89; cf. Solomon b. Abraham Adret, Perushei Aggadot). Abraham *Ibn Ezra raised the problem of time. He wrote that it is impossible for the Torah to have preceded the

world by 2,000 years or even by one moment, since time is an accident of motion, and there was no motion before God created the celestial spheres; rather, he concluded, the teaching about the Torah’s preexistence must be a metaphoric riddle (cf. Commentary on the Torah, introd., “the fourth method” (both versions); cf. also Judah Hadassi, Eshkol haKofer, 25b–26a; and cf. Abraham Shalom, Neveh Shalom, 10:8). *Judah Halevi explained that the Torah precedes the world in terms of teleology; God created the world for the purpose of revealing the Torah; therefore, since, as the philosophers say, “the first of thought is the end of the work,” the Torah is said to have existed before the world (Kuzari 3:73). *Maimonides discussed the origin of the Torah from the standpoint of the epistemology of the unique prophecy of Moses (Guide of the Perplexed 2:35; 3:51; et al.; cf. Yad, introd.). The tradition of the preexistence of the Torah was not discussed in the Guide of the Perplexed; however, the closely related tradition of the preexistence of the throne of glory was (2:26, 30, et al.). The discussions of Moses’ prophecy and of the throne of glory are esoteric and controversial, and each reader will interpret them according to his own views, perhaps inferring Maimonides’ position concerning the origin of the Torah. Within the framework of his Neoplatonic ontology, Isaac ibn Latif suggested that the Torah precedes the world not in time, but in rank. He cited the aggadic statements that the Torah and the throne of glory preceded the world, and that the Torah preceded the throne of glory, and he intimated that the Torah is the upper world (wisdom or intellect) which ontologically precedes the middle world (the celestial spheres, the throne of glory) which, in turn, ontologically precedes the lower world (our world of changing elements; Sha’ar haShamayim). While the tradition of the preexistence of the Torah was being ignored or explained away by most philosophers, it became fundamental in the Kabbalah. Like Ibn Latif, the kabbalists of Spain held that the Torah precedes the world ontologically. Some kabbalists identified the primordial Torah with Ḥ okhmah (God’s wisdom), the second of the ten Sefirot in emanation. Others identified the Written Torah with the sixth Sefirah, Tiferet (God’s beauty), and the Oral Torah with the tenth Sefirah, Malkhut (God’s kingdom). Emanational precedence signifies creative power; and it was with the Torah that God created the angels and the worlds, and with the Torah He sustains all (Zohar 3, 152a; Num. 9:1). Ḥ asdai *Crescas, who in the course of his revolutionary critique of Aristotelian physics had rejected the dependence of time on motion, was able to take preexistence literally as chronological. He interpreted the proposition about the preexistence of the Torah as a metonymy, referring actually to the purpose of the Torah. Since, according to him, the purpose of the Torah and the purpose of the world are the same, namely, love, and since the purpose or final cause of an object

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

torah chronologically precedes it, it follows that the purpose of the Torah (i.e., love) chronologically preceded the world. As its final cause, love (= the purpose of the Torah) is a necessary condition of the world; and this is the meaning of the talmudic statement, “Were it not for the Torah [i.e., the purpose of the Torah, or love], heaven and earth would not have come into existence” (Pes. 68b; Or Adonai 2:6, 4; cf. Nissim b. Reuben Gerondi, Commentary on Ned. 39b). Joseph *Albo also interpreted the preexistence of the Torah in terms of final causality, but his position was essentially that of Judah Halevi, and not that of his teacher, Crescas. He reasoned that man exists for the sake of the Torah; everything in the world of generation and corruption exists for the sake of man; therefore, the Torah preceded the world in the Aristotelian sense that the final cause in (the mind of) the agent necessarily precedes the other three causes (Sefer ha-Ikkarim 3:12; cf. Jacob b. Solomon ibn Ḥ abib, Ein Ya’akov, introd.; Joseph Solomon Delmedigo, Novelot Ḥ okhmah, 1). The theory, based on the statement of Rav Hoshaiah, that the Torah was the preexistent blueprint of creation, was elaborated by Isaac Arama, Isaac Abrabanel, Moses Alshekh, Judah Loew b. Bezalel, and others. In modern Jewish philosophical literature, Nachman *Krochmal analyzed the interpretation of the Torah’s preexistence by the author of Sha’ar ha-Shamayim (Ibn Latif and not, as Krochmal supposed, Ibn Ezra), and his analysis bears implications for his own idealistic concept of the metaphysical and epistemological precedence of the spiritual (Moreh Nevukhei ha-Zeman, 17; cf. 12, 16). Franz Rosenzweig, in his existentalist reaction to the intellectualist interpretation of the Torah by German rabbis, appealed to the aggadah of the preexistence of the Torah in an attempt to show the absurdity of trying to base the claim of the Torah merely on a juridical or historical reason: “No doubt the Torah, both Written and Oral, was given to Moses on Sinai, but was it not created before the creation of the world? Written against a background of shining fire in letters of somber flame? And was not the world created for its sake?” (“The Builders,” in: N. Glatzer (ed.), On Jewish Learning (1955), 78). Nature and Purpose In the Bible, the Torah is referred to as the Torah of the Lord (Ex. 13:9, et al.) and of Moses (Josh. 8:31, et al.), and is said to be given as an inheritance to the congregation of Jacob (Deut. 33:4). Its purpose seems to be to make Israel “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex. 19:6). It was said that “the commandment is a lamp and the Torah is light” (Prov. 6:23). The Torah was called “perfect,” its ordinances “sweeter than honey and the flow of honeycombs” (Ps. 19:8, 11; cf. 119:103; Prov. 16:24). Psalm 119, containing 176 verses, is a song of love for the Torah whose precepts give peace and understanding. In the apocryphal book The Wisdom of Ben Sira, the Torah is identified with wisdom (see above). In another apoc-

ryphal work, the laws of the Torah are said to be drawn up “with a view to truth and the indication of right reason” (Arist. 161). The Septuagint rendered the Hebrew torah by the Greek nomos (“law”), probably in the sense of a living network of traditions and customs of a people. The designation of the Torah by nomos, and by its Latin successor lex (whence, “the Law”), has historically given rise to the sad misunderstanding that Torah means legalism. It was one of the very few real dogmas of rabbinic theology that the Torah is from heaven (Heb. Torah min hashamayim; Sanh. 10:1, et al.; cf. Ex. 20:22 [19]; Deut. 4:36); i.e., the Torah in its entirety was revealed by God. According to the aggadah, Moses ascended into heaven to capture the Torah from the angels (Shab. 89a, et al.). In one of the oldest mishnaic statements, Simeon the Just taught that (the study of the) Torah is one of the three things by which the world is sustained (Avot 1:2). Eleazar ben Shammua said: “Were it not for the Torah, heaven and earth would not continue to exist” (Pes. 68b; Ned. 32a; cf. Crescas’ interpretation above). It was calculated that “the whole world in its entirety is only ⅓ of the Torah” (Er. 21a; cf. TJ, Pe’ah 1:1, 15d). God Himself was said to study the Torah daily (Av. Zar. 3b, et al.). The Torah was often compared to fire, water, wine, oil, milk, honey, drugs, manna, the tree of life, and many other things; it was considered the source of freedom, goodness, and life (e.g., Avot 6:2, 3, 7); it was identified both with wisdom and with love (e.g., Mid. Ps. to 1:18). Hillel summarized the entire Torah in one sentence: “What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow” (Shab. 31a). Akiva said: “The fundamental principle of the Torah is the commandment, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself ’” (Lev. 19:18). His disciple Simeon ben Azzai said that its fundamental principle is the verse (Gen. 5:1) which teaches that all human beings are descended from the same man, and created by God in His image (Sifra, Kedoshim 4:12; TJ, Ned. 9:3, 41c; Gen. R. 24:7). Often the Torah was personified. Not only did God take council with the Torah before He created the world (see above), but according to one interpretation, the plural in “Let us make man” (Gen. 1:26) refers to God and the Torah (Tanḥ . Pekudei, 3). The Torah appears as the daughter of God and the bride of Israel (PR 20; 95a, et al.). On occasion, the Torah is obliged to plead the case of Israel before God (e.g., Ex. R. 29:4). The message of the Torah is for all mankind. Before giving the Torah to Israel, God offered it to the other nations, but they refused it; and when He did give the Torah to Israel, He revealed it in the extraterritorial desert and simultaneously in all the 70 languages, so that men of all nations would have a right to it (Mekh., Yitro, 5; Sif. Deut. 343; Shab. 88b; Ex. R. 5:9; 27:9; cf. Av. Zar. 3a: “a pagan who studies the Torah is like a high priest”). Alongside this universalism, the rabbis taught the inseparability of Israel and the Torah. One rabbi held that the concept of Israel existed in God’s mind even before He created the Torah (Gen. R. 1:4). Yet, were it not for its accept-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

torah ing the Torah, Israel would not be “chosen,” nor would it be different from all the idolatrous nations (Num. 14:10; Ex. R. 47:3, et al.). In the Hellenistic literature contemporaneous with the early rabbinic teachings, Philo considered the Torah the ideal law of the philosophers, and Moses the perfect lawgiver and prophet and the philosopher-ruler of Plato’s Republic (II Mos. 2). His concept of the relationship of the Torah to nature and man was Stoic: “The world is in harmony with the Torah and the Torah with the world, and the man who observes the Torah is constituted thereby a loyal citizen of the world” (Op. 3). He wrote that the laws of the Torah are “stamped with the seals of nature,” and are “the most perfect picture of the cosmic polity” (II Mos. 14, 51). Josephus, in his Against Apion, discoursed on the moral and universalistic nature of the Torah, emphasizing that it promotes piety, friendship, humanity toward the world at large, justice, charity, and endurance under persecution. Both Philo and Josephus wrote that principles of the Torah, e.g., the Sabbath, have been imitated by all nations. Saadiah Gaon expounded a rationalist theory according to which the ethical and religious-intellectual beliefs imparted by the Torah are all attainable by human reason. He held that the Torah is divisible into (1) commandments which, in addition to being revealed, are demanded by reason (e.g., prohibitions of murder, fornication, theft, lying); and (2) commandments whose authority is revelation alone (e.g., Sabbath and dietary laws), but which generally are understandable in terms of some personal or social benefit attained by their performance. Revelation of the Torah was needed because while reason makes general demands, it does not dictate particular laws; and while the matters of religious belief revealed in the Torah are attainable by philosophy, they are only attained by it after some time or, in the case of many, not at all. He taught that the purpose of the Torah is the bestowal of eternal bliss (Beliefs and Opinions, introd. 6, ch. 3). He held that Israel is a nation only by virtue of the Torah (see below). In the period between Saadiah and Maimonides, most Jewish writers who speculated on the nature of the Torah continued in the rationalist tradition established by Saadiah. These included Baḥ ya ibn Paquda, Joseph ibn Ẓ addik, Abraham Ibn Ezra, and Abraham ibn Daud. Judah Halevi, however, opposed the rationalist interpretation. He allowed that the Torah contains rational and political laws, but considered them preliminary to the specifically divine laws and teachings which cannot be comprehended by reason, e.g., the laws of the Sabbath which teach the omnipotence of God and the creation of the world (Kuzari 2:48, 50). The Torah makes it possible to approach God by awe, love, and joy (2:50). It is the essence of wisdom, and the outcome of the will of God to reveal His kingdom on earth as it is in heaven (3:17). While Judah Halevi held that Israel was created to fulfill the Torah, he wrote that there would be no Torah were there no Israel (2:56; 3:73).

Maimonides emphasized that the Torah is the product of the unique prophecy of Moses. He maintained that the Torah has two purposes; first, the welfare of the body and, ultimately, the welfare of the soul (intellect). The first purpose, which is a prerequisite of the ultimate purpose, is political, and “consists in the governance of the city and the well-being of the state of all its people according to their capacity.” The ultimate purpose consists in the true perfection of man, his acquisition of immortality through intellection of the highest things. The Torah is similar to other laws in its concern with the welfare of the body; but its divine nature is reflected in its concern for the welfare of the soul (Guide of the Perplexed, 3:27). Maimonides saw the Torah as a rationalizing force, warring against superstition, imagination, appetite, and idolatry. He cited the rabbinic dictum, “Everyone who disbelieves in idolatry professes the Torah in its entirety” (Sif. Num. 110; Guide 3:29; Yad, Ovedei Kokhavim 2:4), and taught that the foundation of the Torah and the pivot around which it turns consists in the effacement of idolatry. He held that the Torah must be interpreted in the light of reason. Of the Jewish philosophers who flourished in the 13t and early 14t centuries, most endorsed Maimonides’ position that the Torah has as its purpose both political and spiritual welfare. Some, like Samuel ibn Tibbon and Isaac *Albalag, argued that its purpose consists only or chiefly in political welfare. Others emphasized its spiritual purpose, like Levi b. Gershom, who taught that the purpose of the Torah is to guide man – the masses as well as the intellectual elite – toward human perfection, that is, the acquisition of true knowledge and, thereby, an immortal intellect. While Maimonides and the Maimonideans generally restricted their analyses of the nature of the Torah to questions of its educational, moral, or political value, the Spanish kabbalists engaged in bold metaphysical speculation concerning its essence. The kabbalists taught that the Torah is a living organism. Some said the entire Torah consists of the names of God set in succession (cf. Naḥ manides, Perushei haTorah, Preface) or interwoven into a fabric (cf. Joseph Gikatilla, Sha’arei Orah). Others said that the Torah is itself the name of God. The Torah was identified with various Sefirot in the divine body (see above). Ultimately, it was said that the Torah is God (Menahem Recanati, Ta’amei ha-Mitzvot, 3a; Zohar 2, 60a [Ex. 15:22]). This identification of the Torah and God was understood to refer to the Torah in its true primordial essence, and not to its manifestation in the world of creation. The first Jewish philosopher to construct a metaphysics in which the Torah plays an integral role was Ḥ asdai Crescas, who, notwithstanding his distinguished work in natural science, was more sympathetic to the Kabbalah than to Aristotle. He taught that the purpose of the Torah is to effect the purpose of the universe. By guiding man toward corporeal happiness, moral and intellectual excellence, and felicity of soul, the Torah leads him to the love of neighbor and, finally, the eternal love of God [devekut], which is the purpose of all

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

torah creation (Or Adonai, 2:6). Like Judah Halevi, he took an ultimately anti-intellectualist position, and maintained, in opposition to the Maimonideans, that the very definition of the Torah as the communication of God to man implies beliefs about the nature of God and His relation to man which cannot, and need not, be proved by philosophy. Joseph Albo, developing some Maimonidean ideas, taught that the Torah, as divine law, is superior to natural law and conventional-positive law in that it not only promotes political security and good behavior, but also guides man toward eternal spiritual happiness (Sefer ha-Ikkarim, 1:7). In the writings of Isaac Arama, Isaac Abrabanel, Moses Alshekh, Judah Loew b. Beẓ alel, and other late medievals, the conflicting approaches to the Torah of Maimonideanism and the Kabbalah converged to give expression to the theme, already adumbrated in Philo, that the Torah exists in the mind of God as the plan and order of the universe (Arama, Akedat Yiẓ ḥ ak, 1; Abrabanel, Mifalot Elohim, 1:2; Alshekh, Torat Moshe to Genesis 1:1; Judah Loew, Netivot Olam, 1:1; Tiferet Yisrael, 25; cf. above). In Italy, *Judah b. Jehiel (Messer Leon), influenced by the Renaissance emphasis on the art of rhetoric, composed the Nofet Ẓ ufim, in which he analyzed the language of the Bible and, in effect, presented the first aesthetic interpretation of the Torah (cf. Judah Abrabanel, Dialoghi di Amore). Influenced by Maimonides, Baruch *Spinoza took the position taken by some early Maimonideans that the Torah is an exclusively political law. However, he broke radically with those Maimonideans and with all rabbinic tradition by denying its divine nature, by making it an object of historical-critical investigation, and by maintaining that it was not written by Moses alone but by various authors living at different times. Moreover, he considered the Torah primitive, unscientific, and particularistic, and thus subversive to progress, reason, and universal morality. By portraying the Torah as a product of the Jewish people, he reversed the traditional opinion (but cf. Judah Halevi) according to which the Jewish people are a product of the Torah. Like Spinoza, Moses *Mendelssohn considered the Torah a political law, but he affirmed its divine nature. Taking a position similar to Saadiah’s, he explained that the Torah does not intend to reveal new ideas about deism and morality, but rather, through its laws and institutions, to arouse men to be mindful of the true ideas attainable by all men through reason. By identifying the beliefs of the Torah with the truths of reason, Mendelssohn affirmed both its scientific respectability and its universalistic nature. By defining the Torah as a political law given to Israel by God, he preserved the traditional view that Israel is a product of the Torah, and not, as Spinoza claimed, vice versa. With the rise of the science of Judaism (Wissenschaft des Judentums) in the 19t century, and the advance of the historical-critical approach to the Torah, many Jewish intellectuals, including ideologists of Reform like Abraham *Geiger, followed Spinoza in seeing the Torah, at least in part, as a prod-

uct of the primitive history of the Jewish nation. Nachman Krochmal, in his rationalist-idealist philosophy, attempted to synthesize the historical-critical thesis that the Torah is a product of Jewish history, with the traditional thesis that the entire Torah is divinely revealed. He maintained that, from the days of Abraham and Isaac, the Hebrew nation has contained the Absolute Spiritual, and this Absolute Spiritual was the source of the laws given to Moses on Mt. Sinai, whose purpose is to perfect the individual and the group, and to prevent the nation’s extinction. The Oral Torah, which is, in effect, the history of the evolution of the Jewish spirit, is inseparable from the Written Torah, and is its clarification and conceptual refinement; which is to say, the true science of the Torah, which is the vocation of the Jewish spirit, is the conceptualization of the Absolute Spiritual (Moreh Nevukhei haZeman, esp. 6–8, 13). The increasing intellectualization of the Torah was opposed by Samuel David *Luzzatto and Salomon Ludwig *Steinheim, two men who had little in common but their fideism. They contended – as Crescas had against the Maimonideans – that the belief that God revealed the Torah is the starting point of Judaism, and that this belief, with its momentous implications concerning the nature of God and His relation to man, cannot be attained by philosophy. Luzzatto held that the foundation of the whole Torah is compassion. Steinheim, profoundly opposing Mendelssohn, held that the Torah comes to reveal truths about God and His work. While Spinoza and Mendelssohn had emphasized the political nature of the Torah, many rationalists of the late 19t and early 20t centuries emphasized its moral nature. Moritz *Lazarus identified the Torah with the moral law, and interpreted the rabbinical statement, “Were it not for the Torah, heaven and earth would not continue to exist” (see above), as corresponding to the Kantian teaching that it is the moral law that gives value to existence. Hermann *Cohen condemned Spinoza as a willful falsifier and a traitor to the Jewish people for his claim that the Torah is subversive to universalistic morality. He held that the Torah, with its monotheistic ethics, far from being subversive to universalism, prepares a Jew to participate fully and excellently in general culture (in this connection, he opposed Zionism and developed his controversial theory of “Germanism and Judaism”). He maintained that in its promulgation of commandments affecting all realms of human action, the Torah moves toward overcoming the distinction between holy and profane through teaching all men to become holy by always performing holy actions, i.e., by always acting in accordance with the moral law. In their German translation of the Bible, Martin *Buber and Franz Rosenzweig translated torah as Weisung or Unterweisung (“Instruction”) and not as Gesetz (“Law”). In general, they agreed on the purpose of the Torah: to convert the universe and God from It to Thou. Yet they differed on several points concerning its nature. Buber saw the Torah as the past dialogue between Israel and God, and the present

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

torah dialogue between the individual reader, the I, and God, the Thou. He concluded that while one must open himself to the entire teaching of the Torah, he need only accept a particular law of the Torah if he feels that it is being spoken now to him. Rosenzweig objected to this personalist and antinomian position of Buber’s. Taking an existentialist position, he maintained that the laws of the Torah are commandments to do, and as such become comprehensible only in the experience of doing, and, therefore, a Jew must not, as Buber did, reject a law of the Torah that “does not speak to me,” but must always open himself to the new experience which may make it comprehensible. Like Cohen – and also like the Ḥ asidim – he marveled that the law of the Torah is universal in range. He contended that it erases the barrier between this world and the world to come by encompassing, vitalizing, and thereby redeeming everything in this world. The secular Zionism of the late 19t and early 20t centuries gave religious thinkers new cause to define the relationship between the Torah and the Jewish nation. Some defined the Torah in terms of the nation. Thus, Mordecai *Kaplan translated *Aḥ ad Ha-Am’s sociological theory of the evolution of Jewish civilization into a religious, though naturalistic, theory of the Torah as the “religious civilization of the Jews.” Others, like Buber and Rosenzweig, considering secular nationalism dangerous, tried to “interdefine” the Torah and the nation. Whereas Buber saw the Torah as the product of a dialogue between the nation and God, he held that the spirit of the nation was transfigured by that dialogue. Rosenzweig, whose position here resembles Judah Halevi’s, stated both that the nation’s chosenness is prior to the Torah, and that the acceptance of the Torah is an experiential precondition of its chosenness. Other thinkers defined the nation in terms of the Torah. Thus, Abraham Isaac *Kook, whose thought was influenced by the Kabbalah, taught that the purpose of the Torah is to reveal the living light of the universe, the suprarational spiritual, to Israel and, through Israel, to all mankind. While the Written Torah, which reveals the light in the highest channel of our soul, is the product of God alone, the Oral Torah, which is inseparable from the Written Torah, and which reveals the light in a second channel of our soul, proximate to the life of deeds, derives its personality from the spirit of the nation. The Oral Torah can live in its fullness only when Israel lives in its fullness – in peace and independence in the Land of Israel. Thus, according to Kook, modern Zionism, whatever the intent of its secular ideologists, has universal religious significance, for it is acting in service of the Torah (see esp. Orot ha-Torah). In the State of Israel, most writers and educators have maintained the secularist position of the early Zionists, namely, that the Torah was not revealed by God, in the traditional sense, but is the product of the national life of ancient Israel. Those who have discussed the Torah and its relation to the state from a religious point of view have mostly followed Kook or Buber and Rosenzweig. However, a radically rationalist approach to the nature of the Torah has been taught by Yeshayahu Leibowitz who, in the Maimonidean tradition, em-

phasizes that the Torah is a law for the worship of God and for the consequent obliteration of the worship of men and things; in this connection, he condemns the subordination of the Torah to nationalism or to religious sentimentalism or to any ideology or institution. Outside the State of Israel, a similarly iconoclastic position has been taken by the French phenomenologist Emmanuel *Levinas, who has gone further and written that the love for the Torah should take precedence even over the love for God Himself, for only through the Torah – that knowledge of the Other which is the condition of all ethics – can man relate to a personal God against Whom he can rebel and for Whom he can die.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

Eternity (or Nonabrogability). In the Bible there is no text unanimously understood to affirm explicitly the eternity or nonabrogability of the Torah; however, many laws of the Torah are accompanied by phrases such as, “an everlasting injunction through your generations” (Lev. 3:17, et al.). The doctrine that the Torah is eternal appears several times in the pre-tannaitic apocryphal literature; e.g., Ben Sira 24:9 (“the memorial of me shall never cease”) and Jubilees 33:16 (“an everlasting law for everlasting generations”). Whereas the rabbis understood the preexistence of the Torah in terms of its prerevelation existence in heaven, they understood the eternity or nonabrogability of the Torah in terms of its postrevelation existence, not in heaven; i.e., the whole Torah was given to Moses and no part of it remained in heaven (Deut. 8:6, et al.). When Eliezer ben Hyrcanus and Joshua ben Hananiah were debating a point of Torah and a voice from heaven dramatically announced that Eliezer’s position was correct, Joshua refused to recognize its testimony, for the Torah “is not in heaven” (Deut. 30:12), and must be interpreted by men, unaided by the supernatural (BM 59b). It was a principle that “a prophet is henceforth not permitted to innovate a thing” (Sifra, Be-Ḥ ukkotai 13:7; Tem. 16a; but he was permitted to suspend a law temporarily (Sif. Deut. 175)). The rabbis taught that the Torah would continue to exist in the world to come (e.g., Eccles. R. 2:1), although some of them were of the opinion that innovations would be made in the messianic era (e.g., Gen. R. 98:9; Lev. R. 9:7). Philo saw the eternity of the Torah as a metaphysical principle, following from the Torah’s accord with nature. He believed that the laws and enactments of the Torah “will remain for all future ages as though immortal, so long as the sun and the moon and the whole heaven and universe exist” (II Mos. 14; cf. Jer. 31:32–35). The belief in the eternity of the Torah appears also in the later apocryphal works (e.g., I Bar. 4:1; Ps. of Sol. 10:5) and in Josephus (Apion, 2:277). With the rise to political power of Christianity and Islam, two religions which sought to convert Jews and which argued that particular injunctions of the Torah had been abrogated, the question of the eternity or “nonabrogability” of the Torah became urgent. Saadiah Gaon stated that the children of Israel have a clear tradition from the prophets that the laws of the Torah

torah are not subject to abrogation. Presenting scriptural corroboration for this tradition, he appealed to phrases appended to certain commandments, e.g., “throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant” (Ex. 31:16). According to one novel argument of his, the Jewish nation is a nation only by virtue of its laws, namely, the Torah; God has stated that the Jewish nation will endure as long as the heaven and earth (Jer. 31:35–36); therefore, the Torah will last as long as heaven and earth (cf. Philo, above). He interpreted the verses, “Remember ye the Torah of Moses… Behold, I will send you Elijah…” (Mal. 3:22–23), as teaching that the Torah will hold valid until the prophet Elijah returns to herald the resurrection (Beliefs and Opinions 3:7). Maimonides listed the belief in the eternity of the Torah as the ninth of his 13 principles of Judaism, and connected it with the belief that no prophet will surpass Moses, the only man to give people laws through prophecy. He contended that the eternity of the Torah is stated clearly in the Bible, particularly in Deuteronomy 13:1 (“thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it”) and Deuteronomy 29:28 (“the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this Torah”). He also cited the rabbinic principle: “A prophet is henceforth not permitted to innovate a thing” (see above). He offered the following explanation of the Torah’s eternity, based on its perfection and on the theory of the mean: “The Torah of the Lord is perfect” (Ps. 19:8) in that its statutes are just, i.e., that they are equibalanced between the burdensome and the indulgent; and “when a thing is perfect as it is possible to be within its species, it is impossible that within that species there should be found another thing that does not fall short of the perfection either because of excess or deficiency.” Also, he mentioned the argument that the prophesied eternity of the name of Israel (“For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before Me… so shall your seed and your name”; Isa. 66:22) entails the eternity of the Torah (cf. Saadiah above). He held that there will be no change in the Torah after the coming of the Messiah (commentary on Mishnah, Sanh. 10; Yad, Yesodei ha-Torah 9; cf. Sefer ha-Mitzvot; Guide of the Perplexed 2:29, 39; Abraham ibn Daud, Emunah Ramah). Ḥ asdai Crescas listed the eternity of the Torah as a nonfundamental true belief, i.e., required by Judaism, but not essential to the concept of Torah. Unlike Saadiah and Maimonides, he did not try to found this belief directly on a biblical text (but cf. his Bittul Ikkarei ha-Noẓ erim, 9), but solely on the rabbinic dictum: “A prophet is henceforth not permitted to innovate a thing” (see above). To elucidate the belief from the point of view of speculation, he presented an argument from the perfection of the Torah, which differed markedly from its Maimonidean precursor. The argument proceeds as follows: The Torah is perfect, for it perfectly guides men toward the ultimate human happiness, love. If God were to abrogate the Torah, He would surely replace it, for it is impossible that He would forsake His purpose to maximize love. Since the Torah is perfect, it could be replaced only by an equal or an infe-

rior; but if inferior, God would not be achieving His purpose of maximizing love; and if equal, He would be acting futilely. Therefore, He will not abrogate the Torah. Against the argument that replacement of the Torah by an equal but different law would make sense if there were an appreciable change – for better or worse – in the people who received it, he retorted characteristically that the Torah is the excellent guide for all, including both the intellectuals and the backward (Or Adonai, 3, pt. 1, 5:1–2). Joseph Albo criticized Maimonides for listing the belief in the eternity of the Torah as an independent fundamental belief of Judaism. In a long discussion, which in many places constitutes an elaboration of arguments found in Crescas, he contended that nonabrogation is not a fundamental principle of the Torah, and that moreover, no text can be found in the Bible to establish it. Ironically, his ultimate position turned out to be closer to Maimonides’ than to Crescas’; for he concluded that the belief in the nonabrogation of the Torah is a branch of the doctrine that no prophet will surpass the excellence of Moses (Sefer ha-Ikkarim, 3:13–23). After Albo, the question of the eternity of the Torah became routine in Jewish philosophical literature (e.g., Abraham Shalom, Neveh Shalom 10:3–4; Isaac Abrabanel, Rosh Amanah, 13). However, in the Kabbalah it was never routine. In the 13t-century Sefer ha-Temunah a doctrine of cosmic cycles (or shemittot; cf. Deut. 15) was expounded, according to which creation is renewed every 7,000 years, at which times the letters of the Torah reassemble, and the Torah enters the new cycle bearing different words and meanings. Thus, while eternal in its unrevealed state, the Torah, in its manifestation in creation, is destined to be abrogated. This doctrine became popular in later kabbalistic and ḥ asidic literature, and was exploited by the heretic Shabbetai Ẓ evi and his followers, who claimed that a new cycle had begun, and in consequence he was able to teach that “the abrogation of the Torah is its fulfillment!” Like his contemporary Shabbetai Ẓ evi, but for much different reasons (see above), Spinoza committed the heresy of advocating the abrogation of the Torah. Subsequently, in the 19t century, Reform ideologists held that the abrogation of parts of the traditional Torah was not a heresy at all but was necessary for the progress of the Jewish religion. Similarly, many intellectuals and nationalists held that it was necessary for the progress of the Jewish nation. Aḥ ad Ha-Am called for the Torah in the Heart to replace the Torah of Moses and of the rabbis, which having been written down, had, in his opinion, become rigid and ossified in the process of time. Jewish philosophers of modern times have not concentrated on the question of the eternity or nonabrogability of the Torah. Nevertheless, it is not entirely untenable that the main distinction between Orthodox Judaism and non-Orthodox Judaism is that the latter rejects the literal interpretation of the ninth principle of Maimonides’ Creed that there will be no change in the Torah.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

[Warren Harvey]

torah, reading of Bibliography: S. Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology (19602); C.G. Montefiore and H. Loewe, A Rabbinic Anthology (19602), index; G.G. Scholem, On the Kabbalah and its Symbolism (1965), index; S.Y. Agnon, Attem Re’item (1959); A.J. Heschel, Torah min haShamayim ba-Aspaklaryah shel ha-Dorot, 2 (1965); F.E. Urbach, Ḥ azal Pirkei Emunot ve-De’ot (1969), index.

History The practice of reading the Pentateuch (Torah) in public is undoubtedly ancient. The sources, however, do not permit the definite tracing of the historical development of the custom. The command to assemble the people at the end of every seven years to read the law “in their hearing” (Deut. 31:10–13) is the earliest reference to a public Torah reading. A second mention is made in the time of *Ezra when he read the Torah to all the people, both men and women, from early morning until midday, on the first day of the seventh month (Neh. 8:1–8). These two occasions are isolated instances, and do not help to establish when the custom of regular Torah readings arose. Moses’ command that the Israelites should read the Torah on the Sabbath, on festivals, and on new moons, and Ezra’s that it should be read on Mondays, on Thursdays, and on Sabbath afternoons (TJ, Meg. 4:1, 75a; BK 82a) are not historical statements in themselves; they point, however, to an early date for the introduction of regular readings. It may be assumed that the custom dates from about the first half of the third century B.C.E., since the Septuagint was apparently compiled for the purpose of public reading in the synagogue. Josephus (Apion, 2:175) and Philo (II Som. 127) refer to public Torah readings as an ancient practice. This contention is supported by evidence in the New Testament: “For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogue every Sabbath day” (Acts 15:21). Elbogen is of the opinion that originally the Torah was read only on the festivals and on certain Sabbath days before the festivals; the reading was to instruct the people as to the significance of these days. If this is correct, the original Torah reading was didactic rather than liturgical. The Mishnah shows that by the end of the second century C.E. there were regular Torah readings on Mondays, on Thursdays, and on Sabbaths; special readings for the Sabbaths during the period from before the month of Adar to before Passover; and special readings for the festivals, including those of Ḥ anukkah and Purim, and for fast days (Meg. 3, 4–6). The length of the reading, however, seems not to have been fixed by that time. R. *Meir states, for instance, that the practice was to read a short portion on Sabbath mornings, the portion that followed on Sabbath afternoon, and further portions on Monday and Thursday, beginning on the following Sabbath morning from the end of the Thursday portion. According to R. Judah, the procedure was to begin the reading each Sabbath morning service where it had ended on the morning of the previous Sabbath (Meg. 31b).

The passage in the Babylonian Talmud (Meg. 29b) is the earliest reference to a fixed cycle of consecutive readings. It states that “in the West” (Palestine), they completed the reading of the Torah in three years. The old division of the Pentateuch into 153, 155, or 167 sedarim (“divisions”) is based on this triennial cycle. Buechler, with great ingenuity, attempted to reconstruct the weekly portions of the *triennial cycle, assuming the cycle to have begun on the first day of Nisan. On the basis of his reconstruction, he proceeds to explain various traditions regarding events of the past (e.g., that Moses died on the seventh day of Adar and that Sarah was “remembered” on the first day of Tishri). Buechler contends that since the portions describing these events were read once every three years at these times, the tradition grew that the events themselves had taken place then. In Babylon and other communities outside Palestine, an annual cycle was followed according to which the Pentateuch was divided into 54 sedarim (sing. sidrah, i.e., parashah). This became the universal Jewish practice, except for certain isolated instances. In Palestine, the triennial cycle was also superseded by the annual, possibly under the influence of Babylonian immigrants. However, the eminent traveler *Benjamin of Tudela writes about the community of Cairo (c. 1170): “Two large synagogues are there, one belonging to the land of Israel and one belonging to the men of the land of Babylon… Their usage with regard to the portions and sections of the law is not alike; for the men of Babylon are accustomed to read a portion every week, as is done in Spain, and is our custom, and to finish the law each year; while the men of Palestine do not do so but divide each portion into three sections and finish the law at the end of three years. The two communities, however, have an established custom to unite and pray together on the day of the Rejoicing of the Law, and on the day of the Giving of the Law” (M.N. Adler (ed.), The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela (1907), 70). Similarly, in the 12t century Maimonides (Yad, Tefillah 13:1) writes that the universal custom was to follow the annual cycle; he states, however, that the triennial cycle was nevertheless followed in some places. The Mishnah rules that three persons read the Torah on Sabbath afternoons, on Mondays, and on Thursdays; four on ḥ ol ha-mo’ed of the festivals and on the new moon; five on a festival; six on the Day of Atonement; and seven on a Sabbath morning (Meg. 4:1–2). The privilege of reading the first portion of the day was given to a priest, the second to a levite, and the others to Israelites (Git. 5:8). Originally, each person read his own portion. In time, with the deterioration of Torah learning among the lay people, a special official of the synagogue read the portion while the person called to the reading recited the benedictions. At an early period, it was customary to translate the Hebrew text into the vernacular at the time of the reading (e.g., in Palestine and Babylon the translation was into Aramaic). The *targum (“translation”) was done by a special synagogue official, called the meturgeman (Meg. 4:4–10). Eventually, the practice of translating into the vernacular was discontinued.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

TORAH, READING OF.

torah, reading of Table of Scriptural Readings on Sabbaths PENTATEUCH

GENESIS Bereshit No’aḥ Lekh Lekha Va-Yera Ḥ ayyei Sarah Toledot Va-Yeẓ e Va-Yishlaḥ Va-Yeshev Mi-Keẓ Va-Yiggash Va-Yeḥ i EXODUS Shemot Va-Era Bo Be-Shallaḥ Yitro Mishpatim 2 Terumah Teẓ avveh Ki Tissa Va-Yakhel Pekudei LEVITICUS Va-Yikra Ẓ av Shemini 2 Tazri’a Meẓ ora Aḥ arei Mot Kedoshim Emor Be-Har Be-Ḥ ukkotai NUMBERS Be-Midbar Naso Be-Ha’alotkha Shelaḥ Lekha Koraḥ Ḥ ukkat Balak Pinḥ as Mattot Masei DEUTERONOMY Devarim Va-Ethannan Ekev Re’eh Shofetim Ki Teẓ e Ki Tavo Niẓ ẓ avim Va-Yelekh Ha’azinu Ve-Zot ha-Berakhah³

PROPHETS

1:1–6:8 6:9–11:32 12:1–17:27 18:1–22:24 23:1–25:18 25:19–28:9 28:10–32:3 32:4–36:43 37:1–40:23 41:1–44:17 44:18–47:27 47:28–50:26

Isa. 42:5–43:11 (42:5–21)¹ Isa. 54:1–55:5 (54:1–10) Isa. 40:27–41:16 II Kings 4:1–37 (4:1–23) I Kings 1:1–31 Mal. 1:1–2:7 Hos. 12:13–14:10 (11:7–12:12) Hos. 11:7–12:12 (Obad. 1:1–21) Amos 2:6–3:8 I Kings 3:15–4:1 Ezek. 37:15–28 I Kings 2:1–12

1:1–6:1 6:2–9:35 10:1–13:16 13:17–17:16 18:1–20:23 21:1–24:18 25:1–27:19 27:20–30:10 30:11–34:35 35:1–38:20 38:21–40:38

Isa. 27:6–28:13; 29:22, 23 (Jer. 1:1–2:3) Ezek. 28:25–29:21 Jer. 46:13–28 Judg. 4:4–5:31 (5:1–31) Isa. 6:1–7:6 ; 9:5 (6:1–13) Jer. 34:8–22; 33:25, 26 I Kings 5:26–6:13 Ezek. 43:10–27 I Kings 18:1–39 (18:20–39) I Kings 7:40–50 (7:13–26) I Kings 7:51–8:21 (7:40–50)

1:1–5:26 6:1–8:36 9:1–11:47 12:1–13:59 14:1–15:33 16:1–18:30 19:1–20:27 21:1–24:23 25:1–26:2 26:3–27:34

Isa. 43:21–44:23 Jer. 7:21–8:3; 9:22, 23 II Sam. 6:1–7:17 (6:1–19) II Kings 4:42–5:19 II Kings 7:3–20 Ezek. 22:1–19 (22:1–16) Amos 9:7–15 (Ezek. 20:2–20) Ezek. 44:15–31 Jer. 32:6–27 Jer. 16:19–17:14

1:1–4:20 4:21–7:89 8:1–12:16 13:1–15:41 16:1–18:32 19:1–22:1 22:2–25:9 25:10–30:1 30:2–32:42 33:1–36:13

Hos. 2:1–22 Judg. 13:2–25 Zech. 2:14–4:7 Josh. 2:1–24 I Sam. 11:14–12:22 Judg. 11:1–33 Micah 5:6–6:8 I Kings 18:46–19:21 Jer. 1:1–2:3 Jer. 2:4–28; 3:4 (2:4–28; 4:1, 2)

1:1–3:22 3:23–7:11 7:12–11:25 11:26–16:17 16:18–21:9 21:10–25:19 26:1–29:8 29:9–30:20 31:1–30 32:1–52 33:1–34:12

Isa. 1:1–27 Isa. 40:1–26 Isa. 49:14–51:3 Isa. 54:11–55:5 Isa. 51:12–52:12 Isa. 54:1–10 Isa. 60:1–22 Isa. 61:10–63:9 Isa. 55:6–56:8 II Sam. 22:1–51 Josh. 1:1–18 (1:1–9)

¹ Parentheses indicate Sephardi ritual. ² Brackets indicate portions that are sometimes combined. ³ This portion is not read on Sabbath but on Simḥ at Torah.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

torah, reading of Table of Holiday Scriptural Readings for the Diaspora and for Ereẓ Israel

1 4

PENTATEUCH

PROPHETS

Rosh Ha-Shanah 1st Day 2nd Day

Gen. 21:1–34; Num. 29:1–6 Gen. 22:1–24; Num. 29–1–6

I Sam. 1:1–2:10 Jer. 31:2–20

Shabbat Shuvah

Weekly portion

Hos. 14:2–10; Micah 7:18–20 or Hos. 14:2–10; Joel 2:15–17 (Hos. 14:2–10; Micah 7:18–20¹)

Day of Atonement Morning Afternoon

Lev. 16:1–34; num. 29:7–11 Lev. 18:1–30

Isa. 57:14–58:14 The Book of Jonah; Micah 7:18–20

Sukkot 1st Day 2nd Day 3rd Day 4th Day 5th Day 6th Day 7th Day Shabbat during the Intermediate Days Shemini Aẓ eret 8th Day Simḥ at Torah 9th day

Lev. 22:26–23:44; Num. 29:12–16 Lev. 22:26–23:44; Num. 29:12–16 [Num. 29:17–19]2,4 Num. 29:17–22 [29:20–22]2,4 Num. 29:20–28 [29:23–25]2,4 Num. 29:23–31 [29:26–28]2,4 Num. 29:26–34 [29:29–31]2,4 Num. 29:26–34 [29:32–34]2,4 Ex. 33:12–34:26; Daily portion from Num. 29 Deut. 14:22–16:17; Num. 29:35–30:1 [as for Simḥ at Torah] Deut. 33:1–34:12; Gen. 1:1–2:3; Num. 29:35–30:1 [none]

Zech. 14:1–21 I Kings 8:2–21 [none]

Ḥ anukkah 1st Day 2nd Day 3rd Day 4th Day 5th Day 6th Day 7th Day 8th Day First Shabbat Ḥ anukkah Second Shabbat Ḥ anukkah Rosh Ḥ odesh during Ḥ anukkah Rosh Ḥ odesh and Shabbat Ḥ anukkah

Num. 7:1–17 Num. 7:18–29 [7:18–23]5 Num. 7:24–35 [7:24–29]5 Num. 7:30–41 [7:30–35]5 Num. 7:36–47 [7:36–41]5 Num. 7:42–53 [7:42–47]5 Num. 7:48–59 [7:48–53]5 Num. 7:54–8:4 Weekly Ḥ anukkah portions as for Ereẓ Israel Zech. 2:14–4:4:7 Weekly Ḥ anukkah portions as for Ereẓ Israel I Kings 7:40–50 Weekly Ḥ anukkah portions as for Ereẓ Israel and Num. 28:1–15 Weekly Rosh Ḥ odesh, and Ḥ anukkah portions as for Ereẓ Israel Isa. 66:1–24

Shekalim Zakhor Purim Parah Ha-Ḥ odesh

Weekly portion; Ex. 30:11–16 Weekly portion; Deut. 25:17–19 Ex. 17:8–16 Weekly portion; Num. 19:1–22 Weekly portion; Ex. 12:1–20

Ezek. 36:16–38 (36:16–36) Ezek. 45:16–46:18 (45:18–46:5)

Shabbat Ha-Gadol

Weekly portion

Mal. 3:4–24

Passover 1st Day 2nd Day 3rd Day 4th Day 5th Day 6th Day Intermediate Shabbat 7th Day 8th Day

Ex. 12:21–51; Num. 28:19–25 Lev. 22:26–23:44; Num. 28–19:25 Ex. 13:1–16; Num. 28:19–25 Ex. 22:24–23:19; Num. 28:19–25 Ex. 33:12–34:26; Num. 28:19–25 Num. 9:1–14; 28:19–25 The order to allow for the reading as on the 5th day above Ex. 13:17–15:26; Num. 28:19–25 Deut. 15:19–16:17³; Num. 28:19–25 [none]

Josh. 5:2–6:1 II Kings 23:1–9; 21–25 [none]

Shavuot 1st Day 2nd Day

Ex. 19:1–20:23; Num. 28:26–31 Deut. 15:19–16:17³; Num. 28:26–31 [none]

Ezek. 1:1–28; 3:12 Num. 3:1–19 (2:20–3:19)

II Kings 12:1–17 I Sam. 15:2–34 (15:1–34)

Parenthesis indicate Sephardi custom. 2 Square brackets indicate Ereẓ Israel custom. Ereẓ Israel portion read four times. 5 Ereẓ Israel portion read three times.

Ezek. 38:18–39:16 I Kings 8:54–66 [as for Simḥ at Torah] Josh. 1:1–18 (1:1–9) [none]

Ezek. 36:37–37:14 (37:1–14) II Sam. 22:1–51 Isa. 10:32–12:6 [none]

On Shabbat, 14:22–16:17.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

torah, reading of Table of Holiday Scriptural Readings for the Diaspora and for Ereẓ Israel (cont.) PENTATEUCH

PROPHETS

Ninth of Av Morning Afternoon

Deut. 4:25–40 Ex. 32:11–14; 34:1–10

Jer. 8:13–9:23 Isa. 55:6–56:8 (Hos. 14:2–10; Micah [7:18–20]

Other Fasts Morning and afternoon

Ex. 32:11–14; 34:1–10

Isa. 55:6–56:8

Rosh Ḥ odesh Num. 28:1–15 Shabbat and Rosh Ḥ odesh Weekly portion; Num. 28:9–15 Shabbat immediately preceding Rosh Weekly portion Ḥ odesh

The practice of “completing” the Torah reading with a passage from one of the prophetic books, the *haftarah (“completion”), is mentioned in the Mishnah (Meg. 4:1–2); the origins of the custom, however, are obscure. The custom is referred to as early as the New Testament period (Luke 4:17; Acts 13:15). The particular chosen prophetic passage accorded in theme with the day’s Torah reading (see Meg. 29b). There is evidence that in some communities, selections from the Hagiographa were also read. This explains the frequent quotations from this part of the Bible found in the various midrashic passages which comment on Pentateuchal themes. The saying of R. *Akiva (Sanh. 10:1) that one who reads the external books has no share in the world to come refers, in all probability, to the public readings of such books as those of the Apocrypha. The Reading of the Torah Today The Pentateuch is divided into 54 portions; one is to be read each Sabbath. Two such portions are sometimes read on a single Sabbath; otherwise the cycle could not be completed in one year. (See Table: Scriptural Readings on Sabbaths.) On festivals, a special portion dealing with the theme of that festival is read from one scroll and the relevant portion of Numbers 28:16–29:39 from the second scroll. (See Table: Holiday Scriptural Readings.) The regular portion is not read on a Sabbath coinciding with a festival. Each weekly portion is divided into seven smaller ones; the actual point of division, however, varies in the different rites. The Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews do not read the same haftarot on certain Sabbaths. There are also occasions when different portions are read in Israel and the Diaspora (as a consequence of the observance of second days of festivals outside Israel). The cycle of readings begins on the Sabbath after *Sukkot and is completed on the last day of this festival (Simḥ at Torah). Since the early part of the 19t century, various attempts have been made to reintroduce the triennial cycle; Buechler, in reply to a query by an Anglo-Jewish congregation, observed: “If you ask me about the din (“law”), I have to answer that it is against our codified law from the 12t century onward, and even much earlier in Babylon whence our law proceeded. If you introduce the triennial cycle, you separate yourself from the main body of ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

Isa. 66:1–24 I Sam. 20:18–12

Judaism” (London, New West End Synagogue, Report on the Sabbath Reading of the Scriptures in a Triennial Cycle (1913), 9). Many contemporary Reform and Conservative congregations follow the practice of reading about a third of the portion for the week from the portions of the annual cycle. In some of these congregations, women are called to the reading of the Torah; the practice is substantiated by some traditional sources (see A.B. Blumenthal in Rabbinical Assembly America, Proceedings, 19 (1956), 168–81). In a few synagogues, it is customary to read the haftarah from a handwritten scroll of the prophets but in most communities, the haftarah is read from a printed book. The haftarah reading, therefore, requires less expertise and it is customary that it is read by a member of the congregation, and not a special official. In modern communities, the old practice of selling the aliyyot (from a root meaning “to ascend” i.e., the platform from which the Torah is read) has been discontinued. The Laws and Customs of Reading the Torah The Torah scroll is taken from the ark and carried in procession around the synagogue before and after the reading; the congregation stands during the procession. According to rabbinic authorities, Leviticus 19:32 “Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head and honor the face of the old man, and thou shalt fear thy God: l am the Lord,” means that one must rise when a Torah scholar, as well as an old man, passes by. The argument is developed that if one must rise before those who study the Torah, how much more before the Torah itself (Kid. 33b). It has become customary for the congregation to gather around the scroll and kiss it as it passes. The reader must prepare himself well by rehearsing the portion he is to read. He must stand erect while reading and must enunciate the words clearly but not excessively. If he reads a word incorrectly, so that its meaning is changed, he must repeat it. The Torah can only be read if at least a minyan (“ten adult males”) are present. Although it is permitted to add to the number of persons called to the reading on the Sabbath, no less than three verses are to be read for each person. The portions are frequently subdivided for this purpose, but care must be taken not to end a passage with an unfavorable topic. A person is called to the reading by his Hebrew

torah ornaments name and that of his father. If he is a rabbi, he is called by this title (morenu ha-rav). He ascends the bimah (raised platform from which the Torah is read) by the shortest route and descends by the longest, thus demonstrating his eagerness to be called and his reluctance to leave. If he is seated in the middle of the synagogue, so that both routes are equidistant, he should ascend to the right and descend to the left. Both before and after the reading, he recites special benedictions (see *Birkat ha-Torah). The kabbalists consider the reading of the Torah a dramatic re-enactment of the theophany at Sinai; the reader is in place of the Almighty, the person called to the reading represents the people to whom the Torah was given, and the segan (“the congregational leader who apportions the aliyyot and stands at the side of the reader”) has the role of Moses. Others, for whom the Torah reading is also this dramatic re-enactment, consider the segan in place of the Almighty and the reader in place of Moses. R. Simeon said: “When the scroll of the Torah is taken out in public to be read therefrom the heavenly gates of mercy are opened and the love from above is awakened. A man should then say: ‘Blessed be the name…’” (Zohar Ex. 206a). This mystical prayer, Berikh Shemei, is found in most prayer books and is recited in many congregations. There are seven aliyyot on a Sabbath, of which the first goes to a kohen, the second to a levite, and five to Israelites. If no levite is present, the kohen is called again to the regular levite portion. If no kohen is present, either a levite or an Israelite is called to the kohen portion and a levite is not then called to the second portion, but an Israelite. A kohen or levite may not be called to any of the five Israelite portions. However, since it is permitted to add to these he may be called to the last additional portion. A father and son, or two brothers, may not be called consecutively to the Torah reading, for fear of the “evil eye” or to prevent near relatives from testifying together which is forbidden by Jewish law. (The calling up to the Torah is to attest its truth.) The following persons take precedence in being called to the Torah: (1) a bridegroom who is to be married during the following week or was married that week; (2) a boy who has reached his religious majority (bar mitzvah); (3) a man whose wife has borne him a child; (4) a man commemorating the death of a parent (yahrzeit); (5) a man rising from mourning (shivah). On the Sabbath it is considered an honor to receive the highly valued third and sixth aliyyot. It is customary to allot them to men of special learning or piety. The same applies to the last aliyah, particularly when the reading is from one of the concluding portions of the five books. Other valued portions are the Song of Moses (Ex. 15:1–21) and the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:1–14 and Deut. 5:6–18). The congregation stands while these portions are being read. The portions Exodus 32:1–33:6; Leviticus 26:14–43; Numbers 11; and Deuteronomy 28:15–68 are read softly because they deal with Israel’s

backsliding. The last few verses of the maftir (“final portion”) of the sidrah are repeated for the person called to read the haftarah. This can be given to a kohen or a levite and, unlike the others, also to a minor. The Torah reading is cantillated in a specific way which is distinct from that of the haftarah. The Ashkenazi and the Sephardi rites have different cantillations for the reading. There are also special cantillations for the Book of Esther, the Book of Lamentations, and for the Books of Ruth, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. It is considered wrong to substitute one cantillation for another. The verse: “You shall not move your neighbor’s landmarks, set up by previous generations” (Deut. 19:14) is cited when such a change is attempted. The reader does not have to repeat words read with an incorrect cantillation (for the musical aspects see *Masoretic Accents, Musical Rendition). In Sephardi congregations, the open scroll is lifted (hagbahah) and shown to the congregation before the reading; in Ashkenazi congregations this ceremony is performed after the reading. When the scroll is raised, the congregation chants: “This is the law which Moses set before the children of Israel” (Deut. 4:44). After the reading, the scroll is rolled together again (gelilah) and its ornaments are replaced. The Torah may only be read from a scroll that is kasher (“fit for use”), and not from one rendered pasul (“unfit”) because it had been incorrectly written or its words or letters have been obliterated. A scroll is unfit for use, even if only one letter has been omitted. The scroll must be unpointed; it should have no other signs than the consonants. If the vowel signs or the notes for cantillation have been written in the scroll, it is unfit for use. If during the reading it is discovered that the scroll is unfit, it should be returned to the ark and another scroll taken out. The reading from the second scroll is continued from the place where the mistake was discovered. Should this occur on a Sabbath, the required number of seven persons must be called up to the reading of the second scroll, even if some have already been called up to the reading of the first. Most Reform temples in the United States have shortened or abandoned the traditional Torah readings and a number of Conservative temples have substituted the old triennial cycle of readings. In non-Orthodox congregations where women are counted as part of the minyan, they may also receive an aliyah and girls may celebrate their bat mitzvah like boys with a reading from their portion. Bibliography: Sh. Ar., Oḥ 135–49; D.B.D. Reifmann, Shulḥ an ha-Keri’ah (1882); Zunz-Albeck, Derashot, index, S.V. Keri’at ha-Torah; Buechler, in: JQR, 5 (1892/93), 420–68; 6 (1893/94), 1–73; Elbogen, Gottesdienst, index, S.V. Tora Vorlesung; J. Mann, The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue, 1 (1940); idem and I. Sonne, ibid., 2 (1966). [Louis Jacobs]

TORAH ORNAMENTS. The sacred and ceremonial objects in the synagogue revolve around the Torah scroll. These objects differ from one place to another and not every object exists in every community. ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

torah ornaments Storage of the Torah Scroll The length of cloth known in Hebrew as the mitpaḥ at (plural mitpaḥ ot) is the earliest known means for storage of the Torah scroll. The mitpahḥ at, also known in the sources as mappah, is mentioned in the Mishnah and in the Tosefta and later in the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds (Mishnah, Kel. 28:4, Meg. 4:1, Kil. 9:3; Tosef. BM 9:5; TJ, Ber. 6:4; TB, Meg. 26b, etc.). It is known from these sources that in ancient times woolen or linen mitpaḥ ot were used, sometimes with colorful stripes woven in; some were provided with bells. It is also known from Greek and Latin literature that in the ancient Middle East important scrolls were regularly wrapped in cloth. In time, the Jewish communities of the East Mediterranean Basin, as well as the Eastern communities, began to keep their Torah scrolls in special cases. Such cases were common in the classical world; they are referred to as theca in Greek or capsa in Latin. Archaeological finds from all parts of the Roman Empire attest to the shape of the case: a cylindrical or prism-shaped container used to carry various objects, including scrolls. Used in the Jewish world to carry Torah scrolls, such cases eventually became the main permanent receptacle for Torah scrolls in the communities of the East and the East Mediterranean Basin.

preventing its unnecessary exposure. In other communities, the mitpaḥ at is used only to cover the scroll during pauses in the reading, when it is placed on the case and not on the Torah scroll itself.

Torah Case and Mitpaḥ at The case is a small wooden cabinet, either cylindrical or prism-shaped with eight, ten, or twelve faces in two parts that open lengthwise. There are three main types of case: the flat-topped case used in Yemen, Cochin, Eastern Iran, and Afghanistan; the case with a circular or onion-shaped crown used in the Babylonian communities, i.e., Iraq and Western Iran; and the case with a coronet used in Libya, Tunisia, and the Greek Romaniot communities. The ornamentation of the case differs from one community to another. Cases may be adorned with colorful drawings or covered with leather, fabric, or beaten silver plates. In some communities, such as Yemen, Tunisia, and Libya, the case is usually wrapped in a rich fabric. The Torah cases generally have inscriptions around the edges, on the front, or inside. Two types of inscription are characteristic: biblical verses extolling the Torah, mainly from the books of Proverbs and Psalms, and personal information about the donor. Our knowledge of Torah cases and mitpaḥ ot in pre-modern times is meager; the process whereby the case evolved from a mere receptacle for carrying the Torah into a sacred artifact can at most be conjectured. It may be assumed that in the first stage, when the case was used only for storage, the scroll was wrapped in a mitpaḥ at when placed in the case. However, it was difficult to handle the Torah scroll wrapped in the mitpaḥ at in its case, and most communities therefore removed it from the case. Only the Jews of Yemen continued to wrap the Torah in two or three mitpaḥ ot, and until they came to Israel they used colorful, geometrically patterned, cottonprint mitpaḥ ot of Indian manufacture. There, the mitpaḥ at is used to cover the text adjacent to the text being read, thus

Wrapper, Binder, and Mantle Two textile objects developed from the mitpaḥ at in European communities. One, found only in Italy and in communities of the Sephardi Diaspora, is a wrapper (Hebrew yeriʿah), of height equal to that of the parchment sheets from which the Torah scroll is made and rolled up together with the scroll, a custom which is gradually disappearing. Another textile object wound around the Torah scroll in Ashkenazi communities, in Italy, and in the Sephardi Diaspora is the binder. The binder is a long narrow strip of cloth with which the Torah is bound, either on top of the wrapper or directly on the parchment. Its purpose is to keep the scroll securely bound when not in use. In Italy and in the Sephardi communities, the binder is known as a fascia; it is made of a costly material or of linen embroidered in silk thread. From the 16t century it became customary in Northern Italy for girls and young women to embroider binders with biblical verses or original personal dedicatory inscriptions. In Germany it became customary in the second half of the 16t century to prepare a binder for the Torah scroll on the occasion of the birth of a son. This binder, called a mappah or wimpel, was fashioned from a piece of square linen cloth which was placed near the infant during the circumcision ceremony. The infant’s name, his father’s, name and his date of birth were embroidered or written on the cloth, as well as the blessing recited during the ceremony: “May he enter into the Torah, the nuptial canopy, and into good deeds.” By the 17t century, binders often had pictures illustrating the three elements of “Torah, the nuptial canopy and good deeds.” The Torah mantle is as it were the clothing of the Torah scroll. In Sephardi communities, Italy, and Germany, and in halakhic literature, it was indeed occasionally known as beged, “garment,” or mappah, but later the term meʿil became standard in most communities. The earliest attestation to the shape of the mantle appears in the 14t-century Sarajevo Haggadah, created in Spain. The mantles shown there are made of a costly material, probably not embroidered. This tradition is still common today in Sephardi communities, with the exception of Morocco and Algeria, where Torah mantles are made of velvet with elaborately embroidered patterns and dedicatory inscriptions. Common motifs on these mantles are the Tree of Life (in Morocco) and a gate (in Algeria). The shapes of the mantle differ from community to community – some are wide and open in the front (Italy and the Spanish Diaspora), others have a small cape atop the robe, still others are of simple rectangular length with material gathered at the upper borders (Algeria). The earliest German mantles are depicted in 15t-century manuscripts. This Torah mantle is generally narrower and smaller than the Sephardi mantle, while the robe-like part is

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

torah ornaments made of two rectangular lengths of material sewn together. Two openings at the upper end of the mantle enable the staves to protrude. The designs on Torah mantles in Germany and Central Europe are influenced by the ornamentation of the Torah Ark curtain, with such motifs as a pair of columns, lions, and the Torah crown most frequent. Torah Crown The earliest Torah ornaments are the Torah crown and the finials mounted on the Torah case or on the staves of the Torah scroll. We first hear of a Torah crown in the 11t century, in a responsum of *Hai Gaon concerning the use of a crown for a Torah scroll on *Simḥ at Torah. The use of the Torah crown is linked in this responsum to the custom of crowning the socalled “*Bridegrooms of the Law,” i.e., the persons called up on Simḥ at Torah to complete the annual cycle of the Torah reading and to initiate the new cycle. At the time, the Torah crown was an ad hoc object made from various decorative items, such as plants and jewelry. About a hundred years later, fixed crowns, made of silver and used regularly to decorate Torah scrolls in the synagogue, are mentioned in a document from the Cairo *Genizah. Their earliest depiction is in the 14tcentury Spanish Sarajevo Haggadah. Torah crowns are used in almost all communities (the exceptions are Morocco and Yemen), their design being influenced in each locality by local tradition. The onion-shaped or conical crown of the Iraqi-Persian Torah case follows the tradition of the crowns of the Sassanid kings, the last Persian dynasty prior to the Muslim conquest. In Cochin, India, and in Aden, the independent port of Yemen, a tapering dome-like crown developed through which protrude finials mounted on the staves on which the Torah scroll is wound; the crown is not fixed to the case. By the 20t century, the Torah crown in Cochin showed distinct European features. In Eastern Iran, where the Torah had a small crown, the outer sides of the crown lost their spherical shape and became flat dedicatory plaques. Today this crown looks like a pair of flat finials, and only their designation as “crowns” hints at their origin in the Torah crown. The circlet or coronet on the Mediterranean case, which became an integral part of the case, was based on a local medieval crown tradition typified by floral patterns. The European crown is shaped like a floral coronet with arms closing over it. In Eastern Europe a two- or three-tiered crown developed, inspired by the crown motif on the Torah Ark in this region. In Italy, on the other hand, the Torah crown was a coronet, known in Hebrew as the atarah.

which we learn that by the 12t century finials were already being made of silver and had bells. Around the same time, *Maimonides mentions finials in the Mishneh Torah (Hilkhot Sefer Torah 10:4). Despite the variations on the spherical shape which developed over the centuries and the addition of small bells around the main body of the finial, the spherical, fruitlike form was the basic model for the design of finials in Oriental and European communities. A most significant variation appeared in 15t-century Spain, Italy, and Germany, where the shape of finials was influenced by that of various objects of church ritual, whose design often incorporated architectural motifs, The resulting tower-like structure, which seems to have appeared around the same time in different parts of Europe, became the main type of finial in 18t-century Germany and Italy, as well as Morocco, brought there by Jews expelled from Spain. Breastplates and Metal Shields Hung in Front of the Torah Scroll Breastplates – ornamental metal plates or shields hung in front of the Torah scroll – are found in all Ashkenazi communities, as well as Italy and Turkey, but designed differently in each community. In most cases the breastplate is made of silver or silver-plated metal. In Italy the breastplate is shaped like a half-coronet and known as the keter, “crown.” In Turkey, the breastplate is called a tass, and assumes a variety of shapes – circular, triangular, oval, or even the Star of David. In Western, Central, and Eastern Europe the breastplate is called either tass or ẓ iẓ ; its function there is not merely ornamental: it designates which Torah scroll is to be used for the Torah reading on any particular occasion, with interchangeable plaques. The most notable early breastplates, from 17tcentury Germany and Holland, were either square or rectangular, but over time they became rounded and decorative, and bells or small dedicatory plaques were suspended from its lower edge. During this period, the design of breastplates was influenced by that of the Torah Ark and the *parokhet (curtain) concealing it, featuring various architectural motifs, the *menorah (the seven-branched candelabrum), Moses and Aaron, lions, or Torah crowns.

Torah Finials The finials evolved from knobs at the upper end of the staves (eẓ ei ḥ ayyim) on which the Torah scroll is wound. Since the shape of the spherical finial recalled that of a fruit, it was called a tappu’aḥ , “apple,” among the Jews of Spain and in the Sephardi Diaspora, and a rimmon, “pomegranate,” in all other communities. The earliest known reference to Torah finials occurs in a document from 1159, found in the Cairo Genizah, from

Objects Used in the Torah Reading TORAH POINTER. The pointer used by the Torah reader to keep the place is known in European communities as the *yad, “hand,” or the eẓ ba, “finger,” and in Sephardi and Eastern communities as the moreh, “pointer,” or kulmus, “quill,” the former because of its function and the latter because of its shape. Halakhic sources also use the terms moreh or kulmus. The pointer was originally a narrow rod, tapered at the pointing end, usually with a hole at the other end through which a ring or chain could be passed to hang the pointer on the Torah scroll. The original form of the pointer was preserved in Eastern communities, the differences from one community to another being mainly in length and ornamentation. In certain communities a hand with a pointing finger was added, and

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

torberg, friedrich accordingly the pointer came to be known as a yad, “hand,” or eẓ ba, “finger.” Pointers are made for the most part of silver or silver-plated brass, but in a few European communities they used to be made of wood. In such cases the pointers were carved in the local folk-art style.

Cases from the Islamic World,” in: For Every Thing a Season – Jewish Ritual Art (2002), 39–76; idem, The Torah Case; Its History and Design (1997) (Heb.); M. Gelfer-Jørgensen (ed.), Danish Jewish Art – Jews in Danish Art (tr. from the Danish; 1999).

Bibliography: P.J. Abbink van der Zwan, “Ornamentation on Eighteenth-Century Torah Binders,” in: The Israel Museum News (1978), 64–73; G. Boll, “The Jewish Community of Mackenheim,” in: A. Weber, E. Friedlander & F. Armbruster (eds.), Mappo … blessed be who comes, The Band of Jewish Tradition (1997), 22–27; Y. Cohen, “Torah Breastplates from Augsburg in the Israel Museum,” in: Israel Museum News, 14 (1978), 75–85; D. Davidovitch, “Die Tora Wimpel im Braunschweigischen Landesmuseum,” in: R. Hagen (ed.), Tora Wimpel, Zeugniss jüdischer Volkskunst aus dem Braunschweigisches Landesmuseum (1978), 12–27; J. Doleželová, “Torah Binders in the Czech Republic,” in: A. Weber, E. Friedlander & F. Armbruster (eds.), Mappot… blessed be who comes, The Band of Jewish Tradition (1997), 99–103; idem, “Torah Binders from Four Centuries at the State Jewish Museum in Prague,” in: Judaica Bohemiae, 9:2 (1973), 55–71; idem, “Binders and Festive Covers from the Collections of the State Jewish Museum in Prague,” in: Judaica Bohemiae, 10:2 (1974), 91–104; idem, “Die Sammlung der Thorawickel,” in: Judaica Bohemiae, 16:1 (1980), 60–63; R. Eis, Torah Binders of the Judah L. Magnes Museum (1979); N. Feuchtwanger-Sarig, “Torah Binders from Denmark,” in: M. GelferJørgensen (ed.), Danish Jewish Art – Jews in Danish Art (Danish,1999), 382–435; R. Grafman, Crowning Glory, Silver Torah Ornaments (1996); idem, 50 Rimmonim, A Selection of Torah Finials from a European Family Collection (1998); C. Grossman, “Italian Torah Binders,” in: Jewish Art, 7 (1980), 35–43; F. Guggenheim-Grünberg, Die Torawickelbänder von Lengnau Zeugnisse jüdischer Volkskunst (1967); J. Gutmann, “Die Mappe Schuletragen,” in: A. Weber, E. Friedlander & F. Armbruster (eds.), Mappot …blessed be who comes, The Band of Jewish Tradition (1997), 65–69; R. Jacoby, “‘Etzba’ and ‘Kulmos,’ The Torah Pointer in the Persian World” (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2005); B. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, “The Cut that Binds: The Western Ashkenazic Torah Binder as Nexus between Circumcision and Torah,” in: V. Turner (ed.), Celebration: Studies in Festivity and Ritual (1982), 136–46; F. Raphaël, “On Saturday My Grandson Will Bring the Mappah to the Synagogue,” in: A. Weber, E. Friedlander & F. Armbruster (eds.), Mappot… blessed be who comes, The Band of Jewish Tradition (1997), 73–79; C. Roth, “Ritual Art,” in: Encyclopedia Judaica (1973), 3:524–535; S. Sabar “‘May He Grow Up to the Huppah’: Representations of the Wedding on Ashkenazi Torah Binders,” in: G. Cohen Grossman (ed.), Romance & Ritual: Celebrating The Jewish Wedding (2001), 31–45; J. Stown, “Silver English Rimmonim and Their Makers,” in: Quest (Sept. 1965), 23–30; D. Tahon, “Rapduni be-Tapuḥ im,” in: Rimmonim, 4 (1994), 20–27 (Heb.); A. Weber, “The Culture of Rural Jewry in Swabia and Franconia,” in: A. Weber, E. Friedlander & F. Armbruster (eds.), Mappot… blessed be who comes, The Band of Jewish Tradition (1997), 82–91; idem, “From Leo to Virgo – The Binders of the Synagogue at Ichenhausen,” in: A. Weber, E. Friedlander & F. Armbruster (eds.), Mappot… blessed be who comes, The Band of Jewish Tradition (1997), 92–99; B.Yaniv, “An Attempt to Reconstruct the Design of Tower-Shaped Rimonim in Morocco according to Models from Spain,” in: Pe’amim, 50 (Winter 1992), 69–98 (Heb.); idem, “The Mystery of the Flat Torah Finials from East Persia,” in: A. Netzer (ed.), Padyavand, Judeo-Iranian and Jewish Studies Series, 1 (1996), 63–74; idem, “The Samaritan Torah Case,” in: V. Morabito, Alen D. Crown & L. Davey (eds.), Samaritan Researches, 5 (2000), 4.04–4.13; idem, “Regional Variations of Torah

TORAH UMESORAH (National Society for Hebrew Day Schools). The largest national body serving 700 Orthodox day schools in North America, the Torah Umesorah was founded in 1944 by Rabbi Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz. From 1946 its national director was Joseph Kaminetsky, who was succeeded by Rabbi Joshua Fishman in 1982. Policy is officially dictated by a rabbinical board. Among its other activities, Torah Umesorah sponsors a teacher training institute called AishDos and represents its membership schools to the U.S. Department of Education. In the past, Torah Umesorah published the children’s magazine Olomeinu as well as The Jewish Parent; and Hamenahel, a periodical for school principals. In 2004 they began publishing an educational magazine called Rayanos. Torah Umesorah organizes two yearly conferences, the National Conference of Yeshiva Principals and the National Leadership Convention, the latter of which is geared toward anyone involved in Torah education.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

[Bracha Yaniv (2nd ed.)]

Bibliography: D. Zvi Kramer, The Day Schools and Torah Umesorah: The Seeding of Traditional Judaism in America (1984); C.S. Liebman, in: AJYP, 66 (1965); A.I. Schiff, The Jewish Day School in America (1966). [Asher Oser (2nd ed.)]

TORAH VAAVODAH (Heb. “Torah and Labor”), description of the ideology of the Zionist religious pioneering movement, as well as the name of the world confederation of pioneer and youth groups of the *Mizrachi movement established in Vienna in 1925 at a conference of delegates from various countries (representing Mizrachi youth, religious *He-Ḥ alutz groups, and *Ha-Po’el ha-Mizrachi). The ideology was based on the unity of the Torah, the people, and the land of Israel, as well as on the postulate that only a man who lives by his own labor can be certain that he does not exploit and abuse his neighbor. This concept, coupled with the demand for social justice, induced the movement into establishing cooperative collective pioneering settlements in Ereẓ Israel. See also *Mizrachi, *Ha-Po’el ha-Mizrachi, *Bnei Akiva, *Ha-Kibbutz ha-Dati. Bibliography: J. Walk, in: YLBI, 6 (1961), 236–56.

TORBERG (Kantorberg), FRIEDRICH (1908–1979), Austrian novelist, journalist, and editor. Torberg, who was born in Vienna, won acclaim with his first novel, Der Schueler Gerber hat absolviert (1930). He worked for the Prager Tagblatt and the Selbstwehr during the 1930s. In 1938 he fled from Prague to Switzerland and fought in a Czech brigade with the French army until the collapse of France. With the help of the “Emergency Rescue Committee,” he escaped to the U.S. in 1940 as a persecuted writer. There he lived first as a scriptwriter in Los Angeles and later in New York. Torberg returned to Vienna

torchin in 1951, where he was for many years the editor of Forum, a literary and cultural monthly. His novella Mein ist die Rache (1943) and his novel Hier bin ich, mein Vater (1948) dealt with the fate of Jews under Nazi rule. His other novels include Abschied (1937) and Die zweite Begegnung (1950). He published two collections of verse, Der ewige Refrain (1929) and Lebenslied (1958). Among his further works are Das fuenfte Rad am Thespiskarren (1967), Golems Wiederkehr (1968), Suesskind von Trimberg (1972), and two collection of anecdotes on Jewish life in the Habsburg monarchy, Die Tante Jolesch (1977) and Die Erben der Tante Jolesch (1978). Torberg’s collected works, including his extensive correspondence, appeared in 19 volumes (1962–91). In addition to his extensive literary output, Torberg also worked as a German translator of Ephraim *Kishon’s novels. Bibliography: F. Lennartz, Deutsche Dichter und Schriftsteller unserer Zeit (19598), 756–8; H. Zohn, Wiener Juden in der deutschen Literatur (1964), 101–5. Add. Bibliography: J. Strelka (ed.), Festschrift (1970); A. Tobias, in: BLB, 19 (1980), 56/57:169–73; R. Hilbrand, in: D. Axmann (ed.), Und Lächeln ist das Erbteil meines Stammes (1988), 89–106; D. Axmann, in: ibid., 149–58; H. Zogbaum, in: Australian Journal of Jewish Studies, 7 (1993), 1, 71–92; J. Thunecke, in: Modern Austrian Literature, 27 (1994), 3–4, 19–36; E. Adunka, in: ibid., 213–37; F. Tichy, Friedrich Torberg (1995); C. Sajak, in: J. Thunecke (ed.), Deutschsprachige Exillyrik von 1933 bis zur Nachkriegszeit (1998), 157–69; H. Abret, in: M. Braun et al. (ed.), “Hinauf und Zurueck in die herzhelle Zukunft” (2000), 521–41; S. Hart, “History through Humor … Friedrich Torberg’s ‘Tante Jolesch’ Books, with particular Reference to the Problems of Assimilation and Anti-Semitism” (Ph.D. diss., King’s College, London; 2001). [Sol Liptzin / Mirjam Triendl (2nd ed.)]

and another group in escaping and joining a partisan unit that operated in the vicinity. After the war, the Jewish community of Torczyn was not reconstituted. Bibliography: Halpern, Pinkas, index; B. Wasiutyński, Ludność żydowska w Polsce w wiekach XIX i XX (1930), 84. [Shimon Leib Kirshenboim]

TORCZYNER, JACQUES (1914– ), U.S. Zionist leader. Torczyner was born in Antwerp, Belgium, where his father had been president of the Belgian Zionist Federation. He identified himself with Zionist activity in Belgium and was editor of the official publications of the Zionist Federation from 1937 until the outbreak of World War II. In 1940 he immigrated to the United States and became one of the leaders of the Zionist Organization of America and was closely associated with Abba Hillel *Silver. Torczyner served as president of the Zionist Organization of America for five consecutive terms and was appointed chairman of the Administrative Board of the ZOA. He is also president of the World Union of General Zionists. He has written extensively on problems connected with Zionist ideology and the future of American Jewry.

Holocaust Period Before the outbreak of World War II there were about 1,600 Jews in Torczyn. In September 1939 the Red Army entered the town and a Soviet administration was established there until the outbreak of the German-Soviet war in June 1941. The Germans occupied the town on June 24, 1941. In January 1942 the Jews from Torczyn and its vicinity were concentrated in a closed ghetto in the town. The ghetto was liquidated at the end of August 1942 and most of the Jews were shot in the Jewish cemetery. During this Aktion some Jews succeeded in hiding

TORGOV, MORLEY (1927– ), Canadian author. Morley Torgov was born and raised in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, where his family was part of the city’s small Jewish community. A full-time lawyer with a practice in Toronto, he wrote in his leisure time. Torgov published a memoir and five novels, each of which explores Jewish themes with humor and irony that are gentler than in either Mordecai *Richler or Philip *Roth, with whom he is often compared. A Good Place to Come From (1974) won the Leacock Medal for Humour and was adapted as a mini-series for television and for the stage in Canada and the United States. A series of vignettes, it describes Torgov’s experience of growing up Jewish in the predominantly gentile world of Sault Ste. Marie. The Abramsky Variations (1977), written in three parts and set in Toronto and France, concerns three generations of the Abramsky (later Brahms) family: father Louis, son Hershel, and grandson Bart (né Kevin). Each character struggles to reconcile Jewish tradition with secular ambition, and all are more strongly attracted to fantasizing about people they want to emulate than to facing reality. Torgov’s second novel, The Outside Chance of Maximilian Glick (1982), which also won the Leacock Medal, was first written as a children’s story. It takes a comic look at 12-year-old Maximilian, so named because his parents thought it would look impressive on the door of a law office. It is the story of a boy raised in a tiny Jewish community in Steelton, northern Ontario. Maximilian seeks to escape the suffocating love of his parents and grandparents, who envision him making a career as a surgeon, judge, or scientist. With the help of Rabbi Kalman Teitelman, who replaces Steelton’s former rabbi and with whom Maximilian forms a relationship, he eventually releases himself from the stifling expectations of others. St. Farb’s Day (1990) concerns Isadore Farb, an honest, respectable lawyer

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

TORCHIN (Pol. Torczyn), town in S. Volyn district, Ukraine; passed to Russia in 1795. In 1648–49 the Jews suffered at the hands of the Cossacks under *Chmielnicki. Because of their economic plight, the Council of the Four Lands (see *Councils of the Lands) granted the community a reduction in tax in 1726. The Jewish population numbered about 640 in 1765. During the 19t century various branches of crafts were developed whose products were sold on the Russian markets. In 1890 there were 21 tanneries and 66 shops in the town, most of them owned by Jews. The Jewish population numbered 1,748 in 1847, 2,629 (58 of total population) in 1897, and 1,480 (46) in 1921. Between the two world wars, in independent Poland, all the Jewish parties were active in the town, as well as a branch of He-Ḥ alutz, a sport association, and a library.

Toronto on Toronto’s Bay Street. As Farb struggles with an ethical dilemma – he finds himself involved in a conflict of interest with several clients – he confronts larger moral issues linked to his Jewish identity. The War to End All Wars (1998) brings together two former soldiers who had fought opposite one another in World War I. In the mid-1920s, Ellio Pines and Karl Sternberg are living in the small town of Oreville, Michigan, where they compete as businessmen and as suitors. Stickler and Me (2002) is a novel for young adults. [Ruth Panofsky (2nd ed.)]

TORME, MEL (Melvin Howard; 1925–1999) U.S. singer, drummer, pianist, composer, arranger, actor, author. Although he was known as “the Velvet Fog,” a nickname he loathed, and most people thought of him in terms of his creamy vocal tones, Mel Torme was a protean figure whose range of talents encompassed not only jazz and pop music but writing and acting as well. The son of Russian Jewish immigrants (the family name, Torma, was changed by an immigration official at Ellis Island), Torme was a child performer of note, singing with the CoonSanders Nighthawks Orchestra at four and appearing on numerous national radio programs including Jack Armstrong, the All-American Boy when he was nine. Trained as a pianist and drummer, he also began his songwriting career very early, with the Harry James band performing his “Lament of Love” when Torme was 15. By 1943, the teenager was touring with the Chico Marx band as a singer, drummer, and arranger. That was the year in which he also made his film debut in Higher and Higher alongside another newcomer, Frank Sinatra. Sinatra’s success with the Pied Pipers vocal group inspired Torme to form his own backup aggregation, the MelTones, and it was his recordings with them in the mid-1940s that inspired New York disk jockey Fred Robbins to gift Torme with his famous sobriquet. (Torme eventually came to accept the nickname, sporting license plates that read LE FOG and EL PHOG.) His career continued in the ascendant with a commercial peak in the 1947 MGM musical Good News, which triggered a very brief enthusiasm for Torme among the bobbysoxers. But he was outgrowing this music and by the early 1950s hooked up with nascent Bethlehem Records where he became a jazz artist in earnest. The timing was probably unfortunate, as Torme’s musical maturing coincided with the rise of rock ‘n’ roll and the ebbing of jazz as a commercial vehicle. Torme, however, was a man of many interests and talents, and survived by broadening his horizons to include writing for television, several books of non-fiction including an autobiography (It Wasn’t All Velvet, 1988) and a biography of his close friend and fellow Jewish child prodigy, Buddy Rich (Traps: The Drum Wonder, 1991). His most famous composition, “The Christmas Song,” was not only a huge hit for Nat Cole but is among the most frequently recorded holiday songs in the modern repertoire. Torme continued performing and recording until a serious stroke felled him in 1996; the lingering effects of that stroke would kill him three years later. ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

Bibliography: “Mel Torme,” Biography Resource Center, Thompson-Gale Publishing, at: www.gale.com/BiographyRC; “Mel Torme,” MusicWeb Encyclopaedia of Popular Music, at: www. musicweb.uk.net; J. Rosen, “Mel Torme,” in Salon Magazine (June 12, 1999), at: www.salon.com. [George Robinson (2nd ed.)]

TORONTO, city in Canada, with a population of approximately 2.5 million people; located on the north shore of Lake Ontario. The city is the capital of the province of Ontario and at the heart of a larger urban expanse officially known as the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), home to an additional 2.7 million people. Toronto is also one of the largest Jewish Diaspora centers. In 2001 there were approximately 114,000 Jews in the city of Toronto and another 65,000 in the surrounding GTA municipalities. That population continues to grow. History Many of Toronto’s Jews remain clustered along what is likely the longest Jewish neighborhood in the Diaspora. It begins downtown and extends up either side of one street, Bathurst Street, for about 15 miles (24 km.). While there are no fixed boundaries along this lengthy north/south artery, it is possible to divide the Toronto Jewish community into a landscape of three connected neighborhoods. The downtown and most southerly neighborhood is the oldest. Toronto, originally named York, was founded as a British garrison town on Lake Ontario in the late 18t century. As surrounding agricultural settlement gradually expanded, so did the town, which served as a local market and commercial center. By the late 1840s and early 1850s Toronto was home to a small number of Jews, mostly merchants active in the jewelry, clothing, and dry goods business. Many of these Jews were originally from England or Germany and retained close economic and kinship ties to Jewish merchant families in Montreal, New York, or London. As Toronto continued to grow, Jewish-owned enterprises successfully expanded to include financial services, land speculation, and manufacturing. While few in number and generally well integrated into the larger community, the tiny Toronto Jewish community came together to found a burial society and organize High Holiday services. Confident that their numbers would gradually grow, in 1856 a group of 18 men founded Toronto’s Holy Blossom Congregation. For the next decade and a half, there was slow but steady growth in the community. In the early 1880s the Toronto Jewish community stood just short of 600 members. They were not ready for the explosion in Jewish population numbers that came with the great westward migration of Jews out of Russian Poland, Lithuania, and the Ukraine that began in the early 1880s. As this migration reached Toronto the city’s Jewish population expanded by more than 200 percent to almost 1,400 Jews in 1891. During the next 20 years it grew by more than one thousand percent to exceed 18,000 in 1911. In the next ten years the size of the Jewish community of Toronto doubled yet again.

Toronto The small and generally well-integrated older Jewish community offered the new immigrants what assistance it could, but it was soon overwhelmed by so many new arrivals who were so different from themselves. In turn, the new arrivals, Yiddish-speaking and largely working-class, often felt at a distance from the prosperous and largely English-speaking Jews they found in Toronto. Many of the recent immigrants first clustered in poorer inner-city neighborhoods where they found employment in the growing garment industry or struggled to make a living as peddlers and petty merchants. They built an institutional infrastructure that echoed the East European world from which they had recently arrived. Synagogues and Landsmannschaften were established, often tied to country or region of origin. Secular organizations of many different political stripes, left and right, Zionist and non-Zionist, also took root. Even as Jewish immigrants to Toronto and their children struggled to secure an economic foothold for themselves in this new urban world while tenaciously holding onto their identities as Jews, they were subject to assimilationist pressures from Toronto’s urban gatekeepers – school teachers, Protestant missionaries, social workers, and politicians – all preaching a vision of Toronto as an orderly outpost of British values in North America and believing it their duty to remake these “foreigners” in their own image. Some, tinged with antisemitism and fearing that Jews could not or would not assimilate, began to pressure the government for severe restrictions on immigration. As the anti-immigrant movement grew through the mid-1920s, the government responded with tough immigration barriers. Even though these regulations cut off the flow of East European immigration into Canada, antisemitism in housing, in the workplace, and in areas of social contact continued. Tensions exploded in the 1933 Christie Pits riot, where Jewish and Italian youths fought anti-immigrant gangs who had been harassing Jews. World War II was a watershed in Toronto Jewish life. The outbreak of war in 1939 brought not only distress to the heavily Polish-Jewish population of Toronto fearful for the fate of family still in Poland, it also brought a return of economic growth, full employment, and a sense of shared contribution to the national cause. With many Canadian Jews serving with the military and contributing on the home front, Jews were increasingly unwilling to tolerate further anti-Jewish discrimination. Even as the organized Toronto Jewish community, led by the Canadian Jewish Congress, organized in support of the war effort it also began a campaign to combat antisemitism and to lobby for legally enforced human rights protections. In part as a result of this effort, in 1944 Ontario passed the first human rights legislation in Canada, barring discrimination on the basis of race or religion. In 1962 the Ontario Human Rights Code was proclaimed and the Ontario Human Rights Commission established to ensure the Code was followed. Changing attitudes can be seen in the election, back-to-back, of two Jewish mayors, Nathan *Phillips (1955–62) and Philip *Givens (1962–66). Givens, at the

time he was mayor, was also president of the Canadian Zionist Federation. In addition to a growing spirit of openness, Toronto also emerged from the war a prosperous center of commerce and industry. Continuing demand for labor in and around Toronto drew migrants from within Canada and quickly forced a reopening of immigration. Toronto continued to thrive through the rest of the 20t century. Manufacturing declined, but the government and service sectors expanded. The city grew through large-scale suburban expansion. Like most North American Jews, Toronto Jews left crowded, aging housing downtown for the second of Toronto’s Jewish neighborhoods, the near suburbs – now considered the central region of Jewish Toronto – above the core along Bathurst St. The near suburbs developed as an uptown version of the dense Jewish community that had been downtown. Continued immigration as well as suburbanization brought Jews to this area. Tens of thousands of Displaced Persons, including many Holocaust survivors, settled in Toronto in the 1950s as Canada became second only to Israel in the proportion of survivors in its Jewish population. North African Jews and Hungarian Jews arrived in Toronto in the 1960s. In addition, small-town Ontario Jews seeking a more Jewish environment for themselves and their children also moved to Toronto as did many young people from Montreal who moved out of fear of separatism in Quebec during the 1970s and 1980s. Toronto also attracted immigrants from the United States, including Vietnam draft resistors, and many from the former Soviet Union, South Africa, and Israel. Each group brought its own Jewish traditions, creating a unique Jewish community pluralism that found expression in new congregations, schools, bookstores, newspapers, bakeries, restaurants, clubs, and cultural associations. By 1991, the Jewish population of greater Toronto had risen to 163,000, up from 67,000 in 1951.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

Education The near suburbs developed as population expanded from the 1950s through the 1980s. Dozens of congregations of all branches are found in the near suburbs. Forest Hill, which was the subject of an early study of suburbia, Crestwood Heights, is the home of Holy Blossom Temple, Canada’s largest Reform congregation, and of Beth Tzedec, Canada’s – and North America’s – largest Conservative congregation. Toronto’s extensive network of Jewish schools, which began downtown in the first wave of migration, flourished in the near suburbs. The Toronto Jewish Federation decided in the early 1970s to place considerable community resources into day school education. But instead of funding schools directly, the Federation started subsidizing tuition according to need. Day school enrollment steadily increased, reaching parity with Jewish supplementary school enrollment in the 1970s. Congregationally based supplementary schools remain the setting in which many Toronto Jews have their Jewish education, but the enrollments at Jewish day schools are now larger. And as day school enrollment grew, so did the range of day school

Toronto options. Orthodox day schools were joined by secular Zionist, Conservative, and Reform day schools and others with distinctive pedagogical approaches. Orthodox schools on the yeshivah model are also late 20t century additions to the Toronto Jewish school system. As the day schools grew at the elementary level, Federation leaders planned for a high school which would be an alternative to the public high schools that prepare students to do well at university. The Community Hebrew Academy of Toronto, which opened in the 1960s, has had continually increasing enrollment, to over 1,400 students in 2004–5. In contrast to the expansion of the day school system, there are still many school-age Jewish children who do not receive any formal Jewish education. As in other North American Jewish communities, there is support for a model of lifelong learning in summer camps, campus programs, and adult education. Both the University of Toronto downtown and suburban York University have well-staffed and well-enrolled programs in Jewish Studies and many congregations have active adult education programs. Community Organization The Toronto UJA Federation, which was created by the merger of the Ontario branch of the *Canadian Jewish Congress with the Toronto Jewish Welfare Fund in the 1970s, acts as the central agency of the community. By the end of the 20t century the Federation’s UJA campaign in Toronto was annually raising about $50 million. It allocates funds to a wide diversity of needs. About one-third of the annual UJA income goes overseas and almost 10 percent to Canada-wide Jewish organizations. Of the part that remains in Toronto about 40 percent is allocated to Jewish education and identity. Of that amount, two-thirds is used for subsidy of Jewish day school tuition. Significant Federation allocations support a range of social services often in conjunction with funding from different levels of government. The Jewish Family and Child Service is the leading agency in this area. The Federation acquired responsibility for the two Jewish community centers in the 1990s. The Toronto Jewish community has also developed a wide range of services for the elderly. The Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care is one of the world’s outstanding facilities. In addition to the support from Federation, Jewish schools, social services, and other organizations do their own fundraising. The Orthodox community is also organized for its particular needs, sponsoring a bet din and maintaining a well-organized Va’ad Hakashrut, which uses the COR label. York Region and Downtown Toronto Jewish population expanded along Bathurst Street beyond the near suburbs into York Region, north of the city of Toronto. This area is today the third distinctive Toronto Jewish neighborhood. The first step was the intentional creation of a Jewish neighborhood in the 1980s and this set the stage for a later transformation of this previous farming landscape into dense automobile-dependent suburbs. The developer of a large tract along Bathurst Street set aside a plot for a large Orthodox ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

synagogue and encouraged Jewish day schools to build. The area soon became an affluent, largely Orthodox neighborhood from its inception. In addition to the synagogues and schools, the local shopping center contains a large grocery chain extensively stocked with kosher items, a Jewish bookstore, and kosher restaurants. Jews, not all Orthodox, have continued to move northward in York Region, attracted by large modern housing developments, Jewish schools, and the perception of the region as the “new neighborhood.” By 2001, York Region accounted for 33 percent of the Jewish population of the GTA, and with so many younger Jewish families it was home to 40 percent of Jewish children and tightly packed with hockey clubs, music lessons, and carpooling. UJA Federation has begun building a York Region campus that will include Federation offices, a Jewish community center, and several different day schools. Synagogues, while present, are less visible parts of the area landscape than they are in the near suburbs, since a number of existing day school buildings have space in which congregations can meet. Socially, the neighborhood is also distinctive. It has a large percentage of recent immigrants from Israel and the former Soviet Union. Street life, characteristic of Toronto Jewry two generations ago and still common downtown and in parts of the near suburbs, is much reduced, shifting to the malls that dot Bathurst Street in York Region which provide the setting for the leisure-time spending on entertainment, snacks, and consumer goods. In counterpoint to the development in York Region, downtown Toronto has also seen a rapid revival in Jewish population growth. Much of downtown Toronto was gentrified in the latter 20t century. This urban transformation brought thousands of Jewish professionals and business people into renovated homes. With its combination of safe streets, public transportation, pedestrian street culture, and access to jobs and the arts, central Toronto is considered a very desirable place to live. Some areas with competitive house prices remain, but much of the increase in the Jewish population is occurring due to extensive recent condominium construction, which is adding hundreds of thousands of residential units to the central city. Recently formed Jewish congregations have joined several historic ones. New schools were founded in the 1970s and have grown since. The downtown Jewish Community Centre was renovated in the early 2000s and the Hillel at the University of Toronto’s downtown campus constructed a new center at the same time. The Ashkenaz Festival of “new Jewish culture,” which grew out of the klezmer revival, is held over Labor Day weekend every second year at Harbourfront, an urban park on the Lake Ontario waterfront. Multiculturalism Toronto is today a city where immigrants from all over the world and the children of immigrants constitute a large majority of the population. This multicultural reality is celebrated by city boosters and Toronto Jews as a vital part of that urban context. The ability of people from a pluralism of origins to

torquemada, tomás de live together in Toronto without overt racial tensions and the widely held view that new immigrants enrich the local culture and economy are seen as measures of the city’s tolerance. Multiculturalism also continues Canada’s older tradition of seeing itself as a mosaic society. The separate tiles of a mosaic touch and form a richer larger whole, but they do remain separate. While there are social settings where persons of different backgrounds meet, and a growing segment of Toronto society where friendships and families are drawn from more than one group, social segmentation continues. This is aided by new technologies which allow extensive and low-cost contact with the old country. Modern transportation also encourages more travel back and forth than was possible for previous waves of migration. This applies to Toronto Jews as well as the general population. Toronto Jews, for example, maintain a strong attachment with Israel. Many Toronto Jews have family in Israel, whom they visit and stay in contact with. Others who do not have family have visited and many have friends and professional contacts there. As well, many Israelis have moved to Toronto, some temporarily and others permanently. Multiculturalism is also associated with the clustering of Toronto Jews in their own neighborhoods. Many older downtown neighborhoods still have ethnic labels, although the residents of these neighborhoods are now quite mixed. Clustering in ethnic neighborhoods is also common in the new suburbs. A large concentration of Italian Canadians is found west of the Jewish neighborhood in York Region, and the largest Chinese urban diaspora in the world, a product of recent and continuing immigration, is to its east. Other immigrant groups, including growing Muslim and Arab populations, are residentially concentrated elsewhere in the central city and suburbs of the GTA. Multiculturalism is also associated with the willingness to respect the public show of distinctive lifestyles. Accordingly, not only is Toronto a good place to be a secular, Reform, Reconstructionist, or Conservative Jew, but it is also a good place to be an Orthodox Jew. The value placed on diversity can sometimes engender unlikely alliances. In the 1990s, supporters of Toronto Jewish day schools, and the Ontario Region of the Canadian Jewish Congress acting on their behalf, joined Conservative Christian and Muslim private school supporters in a multifaith coalition. The coalition unsuccessfully urged the Ontario government to follow a policy similar to that of other provinces, which allocate public funds to private religious schools. Toronto, which is now by far Canada’s largest city, has developed into a major world center, a node in a global network of communications, commercial, and population flows. Greater Toronto’s Jewish population topped 179,000 Jews in 2001 and now accounts for approximately half of all Jews in Canada. And that population is projected to grow. Jews play important roles in sustaining and developing Toronto’s social and economic network, not unlike the role Jews play in other world cities. The Jews of Toronto, as in other world cities, are also continually challenged to creatively and productively blend the separate identities fostered by multiculturalism

with the cosmopolitanism of an interconnected global society. Bibliography: C.H. Levitt, and W. Shaffir, Riot at Christie Pits (1987); C. Shahar and T. Rosenbaum, Jewish Life in Greater Toronto: A Comprehensive Survey of the Attitudes & Behaviors of Members of the Greater Toronto Jewish Community (2005); S.A. Speisman, The Jews of Toronto: A History to 1937 (1979). [Stuart Schoenfeld and Harold Troper (2nd ed.)]

°TORQUEMADA, TOMÁS DE (1420?–1498), first head of the Spanish *Inquisition. Probably born in Valladolid, he entered the *Dominican Order at the age of 14, and soon took his place among the strictest members of the monastery. At the age of 32 he became prior of the monastery of Segovia. Torquemada first came in contact with Queen Isabella around 1469; he became her confessor and some time later also her husband King Ferdinand’s. His influence on the royal couple, especially on the queen, made him a powerful factor in Spanish politics. In conjunction with Cardinal Mendoza he drafted a petition to the Pope requesting authorization of the establishment of a unified national Spanish Inquisition. This was given in 1478. Torquemada was among the 12 clerics whose names were submitted to the pope in 1482 for inquisitorial appointments. At that time he was already known for his extreme views on the eradication of Judaism among the *Conversos and the question of the Jews in the united Spanish kingdom. After confirmation of his appointment he started to prepare the organization of the Inquisition, and founded its general supreme council, which became one of the councils of state and a key power in the internal affairs of the united kingdom. As head of the council, Torquemada was accorded the title inquisitor general (1483). Torquemada established a system of regional inquisitional tribunals, at first in smaller towns near centers of Converso influence where opposition from the local population to the inquisitorial methods was manifest. Later, tribunals were also set up in larger towns. Torquemada initiated conventions of inquisitors (the first was held in Seville in 1484) to discuss the activities of the tribunals. He also drew up permanent instructions for the tribunals on working methods, as well as judicial procedures. In addition to the trials held by the Inquisition, the first results of Torquemada’s activities concerning Conversos and Jews were the orders of expulsion from Andalusia (1483) and Albarracín (1486). In particular, there was the libel of *Host desecration and alleged crucifixion of a Christian child involving a group of Conversos at *La Guardia (1490–91). In the sphere of general politics Torquemada pressed for resumption of the war of Reconquest against the kingdom of *Granada. After Granada’s conquest he was instrumental in obtaining the general decree of expulsion of the Jews from Spain (1492). A widely related legend – probably without historical foundation – tells of negotiations between a Jewish delegation headed by Don Isaac *Abrabanel and the king: the king was offered the sum of 30,000 dinars for abolition of the ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

torrey, charles cutler expulsion decree, but Torquemada, who was listening to the talks from an adjacent room, broke into the king’s room, put a crucifix on the table, and reminded him of Judah Iscariot who had betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. Influenced by Torquemada’s appearance, the king rejected the Jewish offer. In 1494 additional inquisitors were appointed, who were allocated many of Torquemada’s former competencies. The appointments were evidently made because of Torquemada’s failing health, not because of a decline in his influence. In the early 1490s he proceeded severely against bishops and clerics suspected of requesting the pope’s support against his methods and policy, the essence of which were to turn Spain into a country of “one flock with one shepherd.” Torquemada had already become a legend in his lifetime, and various assessments – often contradictory – have been made of his personality by writers and scholars. He became a symbol of religious and ideological fanaticism, of persecution, investigation and interrogation, and probing into the souls of men.

who assassinated the Ukrainian leader Simon *Petlyura. By using the evidence of the pogroms initiated by Petlyura against the Ukrainian Jews, Torrès obtained Schwarzbard’s acquittal. After the Nazi invasion of France, Torrès fled to the United States. In America he campaigned against the Pétain regime in France, publishing La France trahie: Pierre Laval (1941; Eng. tr., 1941) and La Machine infernale (1942; Campaign of Treachery, 1942) and edited La Voix de France from 1942 to 1943, a political journal for French refugees in New York. After World War II, Torrès returned to France and from 1948 to 1958 was a Gaullist senator for the Seine department. Vice president of the High Court of Justice from 1956 to 1958, he was also president of the French broadcasting authority (RTF). Torrès was the author of several political and historical works, among them Le Procès des Pogromes (1927) describing his defense of Schwarzbard, and France, terre de liberté (1940). He also wrote plays with a legal background including French versions of the Trial of Mary Dugan by Bayard Veiller (1928), and Witness for the Prosecution by Agatha Christie (1956).

Bibliography: Baer, Spain, index; E. de Molènes, Torquemada et l’Inquisition (1897); H.C. Lea, A History of the Inquisition of Spain (3 vols., 1906, repr. 1958), index; T. Hope, Torquemada, Scourge of the Jews (1939); B. Llorca, in: Sefarad, 8 (1948), 360–3, 374–81.

[Shulamith Catane]

[Haim Beinart]

TORRE, ALFONSO DE LA (1421–1461), Spanish Converso author. Torre, a humanist, is known principally for his Vysyon Delectable de la Philosophia y artes liberales, a kind of universal encyclopedia presented in the form of a series of dialogues which he wrote c. 1450. It quoted *Maimonides extensively and was in its turn frequently cited by Solomon ibn Verga in his Shevet Yehudah. The sixth chapter of the work, dealing with arithmetic, includes a detailed discussion of the numerological aspects of the Kabbalah. The Vysyon has been termed a link between the JudeoArabic thinkers of the Middle Ages and *Spinoza, and it enjoyed great influence in its own day and for the subsequent two centuries. First published in Burgos in 1485, it was one of the few non-Hebrew books printed by Abraham *Usque, who produced an Italian version in Ferrara in 1554. The Italian text was ultimately retranslated into Spanish by the Marrano Francisco (Joseph) de *Caceres (Frankfurt, 16231, 16632), who was probably unaware that its original author was himself a Spaniard and a Converso.

TORRES, LUIS DE (15t–16t cent.), Spanish interpreter to Christopher *Columbus on his first voyage of discovery in 1492. Contrary to what was formerly believed, he was the only person of Jewish birth who was among the companions of Christopher Columbus on his first voyage, having been baptized shortly before the expedition sailed. He knew Hebrew, Aramaic, and some Arabic. When Columbus landed in Cuba, convinced it was the mainland, he took possession of it for Spain and dispatched Torres with a party into the interior to see if they could find gold. Torres reported back that the natives were friendly, that he had found no gold but that he had seen men putting thin rolls of dried leaves called tobacco into their mouths, lighting them and blowing out clouds of smoke. Torres settled in Cuba and won the friendship of the Indian ruler who gave him land and slaves. He soon set up his own small empire. As an independent ruler of Spanish territory, he received an annual allowance from the Spanish royal family. Bibliography: Roth, Marranos; M. Kayserling, Christopher Columbus… (19072).

TORRÈS, HENRY (1891–1966), French lawyer and politician. Born in Les Andelys, Torrès practiced law in Bordeaux and in 1919 moved to Paris. A communist in his youth, he published Histoire d’un complot (1921) protesting against the arrest of militant communists after World War I but later joined the Socialist Party and was a radical socialist deputy from 1932 to 1936. He became famous for the fiery eloquence of his advocacy as a defense counsel. His reputation reached its peak in 1926 with his successful defense of Shalom *Schwarzbard,

°TORREY, CHARLES CUTLER (1863–1956), U.S. Bible scholar and Semitist. Born in East Hardwick, Vermont, Torrey taught Latin at Bowdoin College (1885–86), and Semitics, Bible, and Hebraica at Andover Theological Seminary (1892–1900) and at Yale University (1900–34). He was one of the founders of the American School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Subsequent archaeological finds and advances in Semitic linguistics and in lower and higher biblical criticism have been damaging to many of Torrey’s contributions in the estimation of present-day scholarship. He developed an independent exegesis of the period of Ezra and Nehemiah in The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah (1896), Ezra Studies (1910; 1970), and Chronicler’s History of Israel (1954). Following E.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

[Kenneth R. Scholberg]

tortoise Koenig’s commentary on Isaiah, he argued in Second Isaiah (1928) for the unity of Isaiah 40–66, and assigned Isaiah 34–35 as the introduction to this corpus. In his articles on Ezekiel in the Journal of Biblical Literature and in Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Original Prophecy (1930; 19704), he expounded his theory regarding the nature and composition of the Book of Ezekiel. His thesis was that the bulk of the prophecy contained in the canonical Book of Ezekiel was pseudepigraphic, composed around 230 B.C.E. but purporting to date from the period of Manasseh (692–639 B.C.E.), and later in 200 B.C.E. edited so as to appear to be an exilic work. It provoked, however, a bitter attack by S. Spiegel, who advocated caution in the critical analyses and wanton emendations of Ezekiel. His often cited theory that the Synoptic Gospels, John, and Revelations, as they have been handed down are for the most part straightforward translations of Aramaic originals, was developed in a number of publications including Translations Made from the Original Aramaic Gospels (1912), Four Gospels: A New Translation (1934), Our Translated Gospels (1936), Documents of the Primitive Church (1941), and the posthumous Apocalypse of John (1958). How deeply the koranic tradition is steeped in the Hebraic culture is documented in Jewish Foundation of Islam (1933; 1967). His other Islamic studies are Mohammedan Conquest of Egypt and North Africa (1901) by Ibn Abd al-Ḥ akām, edited with notes and selections of the writings of Al-Buḥ āa (1948; 1969). In the area of numismatics he investigated the Aramaic graffiti on coins buried in 318 B.C.E. and belonging to Jews of Egypt (1937), and he wrote on the rare coinage of the Khans of Khokand and Bukhārā Gold Coins of Kokhand and Bukhārā (1950). His other publications include a treatise on the composition of Acts The Composition and Date of Acts (1926); and an introduction to the apocryphal literature (Apocryphal Literature; A Brief Introduction, 1945). Bibliography: M. Greenberg, in: C.C. Torrey, PseudoEzekiel and the Original Prophecy (1970), xi–xxxv (prolegomenon); W.F. Stinespring, in: idem, Ezra Studies (1970), xi–xxviii (prolegomenon); F. Rosenthal, in: idem, Jewish Foundation of Islam (1967), v–xxiii (introd.). [Zev Garber]

bic dabb. It is found in the Negev and the Arabah and is herbivorous. The Bedouin hunt it and regard its flesh as a great delicacy. Bibliography: Lewysohn, Zool, 230f.; F.S. Bodenheimer, Animal and Man in Bible Lands (1960), 10, 99; J. Feliks, Animal World of the Bible (1962), 10. [Jehuda Feliks]

TORTOSA, city in Tarragona provinces, N.E. Spain; it had one of the oldest Jewish communities in the Iberian Peninsula. A tombstone inscribed in three languages (Hebrew, Latin, and Greek) belonging to the first centuries of the Christian era (opinions conflict as to its exact date) attests the early existence of Jews in the city. The Jewish quarter was situated in the northern part of the town, now slightly north of the district known as Remolinos; the Jewish cemetery (from which only a few tombstones have survived) was situated to the east of the city wall. The existence of the quarter is commemorated by the names of such streets as Jerusalem Alley and Jerusalem Street. Muslim Period During the Muslim period many Tortosa Jews engaged in agriculture and in the flourishing maritime trade, maintaining commercial ties with Jews of Barcelona and southern France. The city was also a center of Jewish learning as is shown by 10t- and 11t-century responsa which indicate a high level of talmudic knowledge and devout religious observance. The poet, grammarian, and lexicographer *Menahem b. Jacob ibn Saruq (mid-10t century) was a native of Tortosa and returned to his birthplace after losing the patronage of *Ḥ isdai Ibn Shaprut of Córdoba. Another native of Tortosa, the physician and geographer *Ibrahim b. Yaqub, Menahem’s contemporary, was sent by Caliph al-Ḥ akam II to travel and survey Western and Central Europe. The Hebrew liturgical poet Levi b. Isaac ibn Mar Saul lived in Tortosa in the early 11t century. Ashtor (see bibliography) estimates Tortosa’s Jewish population in the 11t century at about 30 families.

TORTOISE (Mod. Heb. ‫) ָצב‬, a reptile. In Israel there are several species of both land and water tortoises; the latter lives in both sweet and salt water. Some commentators identify the ‫( ָצב‬ẓ av), enumerated among the unclean reptiles (Lev. 11:29), with the tortoise, and on this basis it is so called in modern Hebrew. According to rabbinical sources, however, the ẓ av is a species of *lizard. Thus the expression “the ẓ av after its kind” is explained as including the salamander and other reptiles which bear no resemblance to the tortoise (see Sifra 6:5). Similarly a resemblance between the ẓ av and the snake is mentioned (Ḥ ul. 127a), and the ḥ ardon, a species of lizard of the family of Agamidae (TJ, Ber. 8:6, 12b). From this last source it is apparent that “the ẓ av after its kind” includes the Agamidae family, of which six species are found in Israel, the largest of which is the Uromastix aegyptius called in Ara-

Under Christian Rule Ramon Berenguer IV, count of Barcelona, captured Tortosa from the Muslims in 1148. The treaty of capitulation was similar to that of *Tudela, but the article which prohibited the appointment of Jewish officials with rights of jurisdiction over Muslims was omitted. It appears that the Jewish community was destroyed during this war of conquest and Ramon Berenguer attempted to restore it. He set aside a plot of land between the coast and the R. Ebro, which was then fortified and surrounded with towers, on which 60 residential houses were built. Berenguer also granted the Jews vineyards and gardens which had formerly belonged to Muslims, so that the cultivation of these became the principal occupation of the Jews, in addition to crafts and maritime trade. He also promised land to any Jew who would settle in Tortosa, and Jews were exempted from the payment of taxes for four years. Even after this period, they were not required to do any “work, cus-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

tortosa tomary tasks or duties for the count or the other lords of the land, unless of their own free will.” The ruler decreed that no Muslim should exercise authority over Jews; lawsuits between Jews and Christians were to be adjudicated under the privileges enjoyed by the community of Barcelona. These conditions were an exceptional opportunity for the development of the Jewish community. However, the hopes which Berenguer had placed in the Jews did not materialize because of the division between the various lords of the town who challenged his authority over it and severely oppressed the Jewish population. In February 1181, Alfonso II of Aragon granted the Jews of Tortosa a privilege, with the consent of Raimundo de Moncada (who held the right of jurisdiction over the Jews of the town) according to which they were authorized to present one of the town’s lords with a gift without incurring the obligation of giving gifts to the others. Pledges were not to be taken from them for their debts, they were not to be confined to their houses, and if they were condemned to imprisonment, they were to be detained in the fortress (see Rashba (Solomon b. Abraham *Adret), Responsa, IV, 260). The sum which was paid in taxes in 1271 – 6,000 sólidos – testifies to the strength and wealth of the community. Tortosa and Alcañez then formed a single entity, for tax purposes. Pedro III granted the Jews of Tortosa the right of sitting as judges in the local tribunals, though with a lower rank than the Christian judges. During the 13t century Jews were employed as bailiffs by the Moncada family and by the Templars. At the beginning of the 14t century, the community of Tortosa addressed a complaint to James II against the moratorium on debts which he had granted to the Christian inhabitants of the town, claiming that oral promises that the debts owed to them would be repaid could not be relied upon. Result of the Persecutions of 1391 The community of Tortosa suffered during the persecutions of the Jews in Spain in 1391. On July 24, John I wrote to the municipal council, requiring them not only to protect the Jews but also to rehabilitate the community. At the end of the month the Jews were still concealed in the fortress, but from the beginning of August they were taken away individually to the houses of the townsmen in order to be baptized, by force if necessary. Christian townsmen and Jewish apostates collaborated in these acts, the latter compelling the conversion of their wives, parents, and children. On August 14 disorders broke out against both the Jews and the municipal authorities who were accused of giving the Jews assistance and support. By arresting the instigator of the disorders, the municipal leaders succeeded in suppressing the riots; many Jews, however, abandoned their religion during these events. After more than a month (on Sept. 2), the king wrote to the municipal leaders of Tortosa requesting information concerning the heirless property of the Jews who had died as martyrs. In April 1392 he authorized the impoverished Jews who were then living in the fortress to remain there and ordered the bailiff to protect ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

them. Turning his attention to the relations between Jews and *Conversos, the king issued a decree (Aug. 18, 1393) in which he prohibited Jews and Conversos to live in the same quarter, to eat or to pray together. Upon the instructions of the bishop, the Conversos were obliged to attend church, listen to missionary sermons, adhere to Christian observances, and immediately separate themselves from the Jews. The Jews were compelled to wear a distinctive *badge and garb, and sexual relations between Jews and Christians (obviously referring to Conversos) were punishable by burning at the stake. It nevertheless appears that toward the close of the century (1397) a number of laws favorable to both the Jews and the Moors of Tortosa were issued. Disputation of Tortosa In 1412 Tortosa became the focus of events which the Jews of Aragon regarded with trepidation, and that proved a turning point in their history, namely, the Disputation of Tortosa (see *Tortosa, Disputation of). The community of Tortosa itself was represented by the poet Solomon b. Reuben *Bonafed who gives a description of the tense atmosphere which pervaded throughout the kingdom in general, and in Tortosa in particular, during the disputation. The disputation began on Feb. 7, 1413, and was continued, with interruptions until Nov. 1414. In 1417 the community of Tortosa began to recover. Alfonso V exempted Jews who came to live there from payment of taxes for five years. There is also some information on the community from the reign of Ferdinand II, who in 1480 issued a decree in which he instructed the community of Tortosa on the procedure for electing community leaders, trustees, and *muqaddimūn. In October 1481 he issued further instructions concerning the swearing-in of officials, and also authorized the election of relatives (e.g., father, son, brothers, father-inlaw and son-in-law) to serve in the community – a practice forbidden by the regulations of the Spanish communities. Ferdinand II ordered the election of Benveniste Barzilai as the leader of the community. An indication of the atmosphere in Tortosa on the eve of the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492 can be deduced from the fine imposed on Abraham Toledano of Tortosa, who made a wager, with a number of Christians that the Catholic Monarchs would not capture Loja and Málaga from the Muslims. Tortosa, like neighboring Barcelona and Tarragona, was also a port of departure for Jewish refugees from Spain. Bibliography: MUSLIM PERIOD: Ashtor, Korot, 1 (1960), 226–9; idem, in: Zion, 28 (1963), 48–49. CHRISTIAN PERIOD: Baer, Spain, index; Baer, Urkunden, 1 (1929), index; H.C. Lea, A History of the Inquisition of Spain, 1 (1906), 544; F. Carreras i Candi, Laljama de jueus de Tortosa (1928); Neuman, Spain, index; F. Vendrell, in: Sefarad, 10 (1950), 353ff., 362f.; D. Romano, ibid., 13 (1953), 79ff.; A. López de Meneses, in: Estudios de Edad Media de la Corona de Aragón, 6 (1952), 748–9; J.M. Font Rius, in: Cuadernos de Historia de España, 10 (1953), 124ff.; E. Bayerri y Bartomeu, Historia de Tortosa y su comarca, 4 (1954), 90ff.; F. Cantera, Sinagogas españolas (1955), 319f.; Cantera-Millás, Inscripciones, 267–77. [Haim Beinart]

tortosa, disputation of TORTOSA, DISPUTATION OF, disputation held in Tortosa, in 1413–14, the most important and longest of the ChristianJewish *disputations which were forced upon the Jews during the Middle Ages. It was apparently prompted by Gerónimo de Santa Fé (the apostate Joshua *Lorki) in which he claimed to prove the authenticity of the messianism of Jesus from Jewish sources. In 1412 the anti-pope *Benedict XIII, who was recognized as pope in Spain, ordered the communities of Aragon and Catalonia to send delegates for a discussion in his presence on the claims of Gerónimo. The disputation was drawn out over some 20 months, and 69 sessions were held; it was presided over by the pope, who also actively participated in it. From the outset, the disputation did not assume the form of a free discussion between two parties but that of a propagandist missionary attack accompanied by psychological pressure – to the point of intimidation and threats – by the Christian side against Jews, in order to compel them to accept the arguments of their adversaries. The principal Hebrew source for the history of the disputation is Shevet Yehudah by Solomon *Ibn Verga. The Jewish sources mention about 20 participants on the Jewish side; some of these actively participated, while others were advisers and observers. A neutral Christian account of the debate is also extant. In the disputation, the most prominent personalities were rabbis *Zerahiah ha-Levi, Astruc haLevi, Joseph *Albo, and Mattathias ha-Yiẓ hari. Immediately upon the first encounter, the pope announced – contrary to the promises which he had previously given to the Jews – that it was not intended to hold a discussion between two equal parties, but to prove the truth of Christianity and its principles, as it emerges from the Talmud. Gerónimo opened the disputation with a veiled threat against the obstinate Jews, and during the disputation he passed to open threats. To the arguments presented by the Jews, he retorted by accusing them of heresy against their own religion, for which they would be tried by the Inquisition. In this heavy atmosphere, the Jewish delegates were overtaken by fear and confusion and occasionally did not dare – or did not succeed – in answering correctly, especially because those replies which did not please the pope aroused vulgar rebukes on his part which only intensified their fears and anxieties. During the disputation new participants appeared on the Jewish side, and their arguments were not always coordinated with the former; besides, the last word was always granted to Gerónimo, so that the impression could be formed that he had the upper hand. During the first part of the disputation (until March 1414), the discussion revolved around the Messiah and his nature (as in the Disputation of *Barcelona). Its second part concerned the “errors, the heresy, the villainy, and the abuse against the Christian religion in the Talmud,” according to the definition of the initiators of the disputation, and resembled the disputation of Paris, initiated by Nicholas *Donin. The Jews were requested to answer the claims of Gerónimo which appeared in his work that was being used as the basis of the disputation, and to explain various Midrashim which

had been collected by Raymond *Martini. After a while, 12 questions were presented to the Jews on the subjects of Jesus, Original Sin, and the causes of the Exile. The discussions on these subjects were prolonged over several months. It was at this stage that some of the most brilliant answers ever given to questions of this type in similar disputations of the Middle Ages were offered. At the beginning of 1414 Pope Benedict entered the disputation himself and demanded that the procedure be shortened and practical conclusions arrived at. Most of the Jews sought to withdraw from the disputation because during their prolonged absence from home and as a result of the mental strain prevailing among their communities, faith was being undermined and there was rising despair, while the missionary preachings of the monks had succeeded in bringing many Jews to baptism. Zerahiah ha-Levi, Mattathias ha-Yiẓ hari, and Astruc ha-Levi, however, presented memoranda in which they refuted all the arguments drawn from aggadot and Midrashim. R. Astruc even dared to point out the injustice inhering in the actual conditions of the disputation. The delegates of the communities were away from their homes for about a year; they became impoverished and tremendous harm was caused to their communities; this may also be regarded as a reason for the failure of the Jews to reply successfully. Gerónimo reacted with words of contempt against the Talmud and the Jews who denied the validity of the aggadah, he argued that they ought to be tried according to their own laws as unbelievers of the principles of their faith. The second part of the disputation opened in April 1414. Its details are not entirely known, but it is clearly evident that at first the Jews chose to remain silent. When Gerónimo brought a list of sayings which were to be effaced from the Talmud as impugning the honor of Christianity, the Jews replied that they themselves were unable to answer, although it was certain that the sages of the Talmud in their time would have been able to reply, and that consequently the value of the Talmud could not be deduced from their own weakness; they once more requested to be freed from the disputation. Gerónimo summarized his arguments and demanded of the pope that the delegates be brought to justice. The latter, with the exception of Zerahiah ha-Levi and Joseph Albo, claimed that they failed to understand the meaning of Gerónimo’s citations. On November 12, the memorandum of R. Astruc was presented as the last Jewish memorandum, and on the following day the disputation was concluded with the issue of a bull on the subject by the pope, and the Jews returned to their homes.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

Consequences of the Disputation Throughout the period of the disputation, Jews continually arrived in Tortosa, where they converted to Christianity. The authorities, on their part, intensified their persecutions, and ordered that everything which had been disqualified by Gerónimo should be obliterated from the Talmud. The disputation in itself acted as an incentive for anti-Jewish incite-

torts

The Basis of Liability – Negligence The Talmud states that a man could be held liable only for damage caused by his negligence (peshi’ah), and not for damage through an accident (ones). Negligence is defined as con-

duct which the tortfeasor should have foreseen would cause damage (BK 21b; 52a/b; 99b), since this would be the normal result of such conduct. Thus liability would be incurred for a fire which spread in an ordinary wind (BK 56a) or for fencing a courtyard with thorns in a place frequented by the public who habitually lean against this fence (BK 29b). The rabbis ruled that negligence was to be determined objectively. A man is liable for conduct which people would normally foresee as likely to cause damage (see R. Ulla’s statement, BK 27b; Tosef. BK 10:29). On the other hand, if his conduct was such that most people would not normally foresee it as likely to cause damage, the damage is considered a mishap and not a consequence of his act and he is not liable (see Rif, Halakhot on BK 61b). Even if the defendant was of above-average intelligence and foresaw that damage would occur, he could not be held liable for conduct causing damage if most people would not have foreseen damage as resulting from such conduct. In such circumstances no liability would be incurred under human law for even willful damage (see Ra’ah and Meiri in Shitah Mekubbeẓ et, BK 56a, beginning U-le-Rav Ashi) unless the damage claimed was depredation (BK 27a). However, rabbinical enactments created liability for deliberate acts in certain cases in the interests of public policy (Git. 53a; Tosef. Git. 4 (3):6). The objective criterion of negligence was also applied where the tortfeasor was of below-average intelligence and incapable of foreseeing the possibility of damage. However, the deaf-mute, idiot, and minor are not liable for the damage they cause, since they have no understanding and cannot be expected to foresee the consequences of their actions. Indeed, since they frequently do cause damage, those encountering them should take suitable precautions, and if they fail to do so would themselves be liable for the resulting damage. In this respect damage caused by the deaf-mute, idiot, and minor can be compared to damage by cattle on public ground for which the owners are not liable since the injured party himself is bound to take precautions. This test of negligence was applied to all the principal categories of damage mentioned in the Torah (see BK 55b and Rashi beginning ke-ein). Thus, if an animal was injured by falling into an inadequately covered pit, the owner of the pit was liable. On the other hand, if the pit were properly covered but the cover became decayed, he would not be liable (BK 52a). Similarly, the owner of the pit would be liable if a young ox, incapable of looking after itself, fell into an open pit, but not if the ox were fully grown and fell into the pit during the daytime (Milḥ amot ha-Shem 52b ad finem). Likewise, liability would be incurred for a fire which spread in a normal wind but not where it spread in an unusual wind (BK 56a); and the owner of cattle which consumed and trampled on crops in another’s field would be liable for the damage only if the control he exercised over his cattle was insufficient to prevent this kind of damage (BK 55b, 56a). As to damage done by man directly, the Mishnah states: he is always Mu’ad (forewarned, and therefore liable for the consequences), whether he acted intentionally or inadver-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

ment, and in several towns the inhabitants adopted severe measures in order to force the Jews to convert. Many broke down and accepted baptism. Three works were written after the Disputation of Tortosa in an attempt at soul-searching: Sefer ha-Ikkarim (“Book of Principles”) of R. Joseph Albo, in which the author clarified the religious fundamentals discussed at the disputation; Sefer ha-Emunot (“Book of Beliefs”) by R. *Shem Tov, who regarded the cultivation of philosophy as the cause of conversion; and Iggeret Musar (“Letter of Ethics”) by R. Solomon *Alami, who considered that disrespect toward religion and ethics was the cause of the destruction of Spanish Jewry. Bibliography: S.Z.H. Halberstam, in: Jeschurun, 6 (1868), 45ff. (Heb.); J.D. Eisenstein, Oẓ ar Vikkuḥ im (1928), 104–11; Baer, Spain, index; Y. Boer, Die Disputation von Tortosa, 1413–1414 (1931); idem, in: Sefer Zikkaron le-Asher Gulak u-li-Shemu’el Klein (1942), 28–49; S. Lieberman, Sheki’in (1939), index; idem, in: HJ, 5 (1943), 87–102; A. Posnanski, in: REJ, 74 (1922), 17–39, 160–8; 75 (1923), 74–88, 187–204, 76 (1923), 37–46; A. Pacios López, La Disputa de Tortosa, 2 vols. (1957). [Haim Beinart]

TORTS. The Principal Categories of Torts The liability of various tortfeasors is discussed in relative detail in the Torah. Four principal cases are considered: (1) where someone opens a pit into which an animal falls and dies (Ex. 21:33–4); (2) where cattle trespass into the fields of others and do damage (Ex. 22:4); (3) where someone lights a fire which spreads to neighboring fields (Ex. 22:5); (4) where an ox gores man or beast (Ex. 21:28–32, 35–6). To those has to be added the case where a man injures his fellow or damages his property (Ex. 21:18–19, 22–5; Lev. 24:18–20). The Talmud calls the cases contained in the Torah primary categories of damage (*Avot Nezikin) and these serve as archetypes for similar groups of torts. The principal categories of animal torts are shen (tooth) – where the animal causes damage by consuming; regel (foot) – where the animal causes damage by walking in its normal manner; and keren (horn) – where the animal causes damage by goring with the intention of doing harm or does any other kind of unusual damage. The other principal categories of damage are bor (pit) – any nuisance which ipso facto causes damage; esh (fire) – anything which causes damage when spread by the wind; and direct damage by man to another’s person or property. These principal categories and their derivative rules were expanded to form a complete and homogeneous legal system embracing many other factual situations. As a result they were capable of dealing with any case of tortious liability which might arise.

torts tently, “whether he was awake or asleep” (BK 26a). Nevertheless, many cases are mentioned where the man who did the damage was not liable and Tosafot (BK 27b) tried to solve the contradiction by distinguishing between cases of absolute “ones,” and qualified “ones.” Only in the latter case would liability be incurred. There is no hint of this distinction in the sources and the better view seems to be that a tortfeasor is liable only if he caused damage by ones (compulsion) which could have been foreseen by him, as putting himself in the hands of robbers who forced him to do damage, or lying down to sleep next to objects which he should have foreseen he might break in his sleep, aliter, if the vessels were placed next to him after he went to sleep. Likewise a person who caused damage through his lack of expertise could only be held liable where he should have foreseen that expertise was required. However, a person who caused proprietary damage to his neighbor in order to save himself is not exempt because of ones, as he chose to act in a way which would damage his neighbor’s property and did foresee the damage. No Liability Where No Negligence Exists Cases where the defendant is entirely exempt from liability because he was in no way negligent are of two kinds: (1) the plaintiff himself was negligent because he should have foreseen the possibility of damage i.e., where the defendant acted in the usual way and the plaintiff acted in an unusual way and the damage was therefore unforeseeable; (2) neither party could have foreseen the possibility of damage and therefore neither was negligent. An instance of the second kind is where an animal, kept under sufficient control, escaped in an unusual manner and did damage, and no liability would be incurred (BK 55b). Similarly, where an animal managed to start a fire or dig a pit which caused damage, no liability would be incurred since such an unusual eventuality could not have been foreseen (see the Ravad in the Shitah Mekubbeẓ et, BK 48a beginning “Mat”; BK 22a). The Talmud cites examples where no liability would be incurred, such as where an animal fell into a pit whose covering was originally adequate but which later became decayed (BK 52a); where a wall or tree unexpectedly fell onto the highway (BK 6b); where a fire spread further than could have been anticipated (BK 61b); where a burning coal was given to a deaf-mute, idiot, or minor who set fire to something (BK 59b); or experts such as physicians who acted in the usual professional manner and caused damage (Tosef. BK 9:11). As instances of the first kind the Talmud cites the case where a person running along the street collided with and was injured by another walking along the street; here the former alone would be liable since his conduct was unusual (BK 32a). Similarly, if a man broke his vessel against a beam carried by the man walking in front of him, the owner of the beam would not be liable. Aliter, however, if the owner of the beam stopped unexpectedly, thereby causing the vessel to strike the beam and break (loc. cit.). Likewise, a person who places his objects on public ground where they are damaged by animals walking or grazing in a normal manner

has no claim against the owner of the animals, since animals are to be expected on public ground (BK 19b, 20a). However, the presence of a pit, fire, or a goring ox on public ground would cause liability for damage since they are not normally present and people do not expect them and take no precautions (BK 27b). It would also be unusual behavior and therefore negligence to enter another’s premises or bring chattels or livestock therein, without permission. Since his presence was unexpected the owner of the premises would not be liable for damage caused to the trespasser or his property, but the trespasser would be liable for damage caused to the owner or his property (BK 47a–b, 48a). Sometimes a person is injured even though both parties behaved in the usual manner, e.g., when both walk in the street or if one enters the premises of another with permission. In these cases the tortfeasor is not liable because the other party should have taken precautions as he ought to have foreseen the normal behavior of the tortfeasor. Likewise, damage may occur when both parties behave in an unusual manner as where both were running along the street or where both entered the premises of a third party without permission (ibid., 32a; 48a/b); in these cases too, the tortfeasor is exempt, since the fact that he was behaving abnormally should have made him foresee that others may behave abnormally too (Tos. BK 48b, S.V. “Sheneihem”). If without negligence a man creates a situation which is likely to cause damage, he will not be liable for damage caused before he had a reasonable opportunity to know about the situation and remove it. An objective test was laid down as to when a man should have known of the existence of the nuisance and acted to remove it. If he adequately covered his pit and through no fault of his own the pit was uncovered he would not be liable for damage during the period that most people would not have known that the pit had become open and required covering (BK 52a). Similarly, if his animal escaped from his courtyard through no fault of his own, and caused damage during the period in which he could not have been expected to realize that the animal had escaped and to recapture it, he would not be liable (see BK 58a and Meiri in the Shitah Mekubbeẓ et on 55b beginning “nifreẓ ah”). Similarly if a man’s vessels broke non-negligently on the highway and, without intending to abandon them, he left them there, he is liable, except for damage caused by them before they could have been removed (BK 29a). Similarly, the owner of a wall or a tree which fell onto the highway and caused damage would be liable only if he knew that they were in a bad condition or was warned that they might fall (BK 6b). The foreseeability test as the basis of liability for damage led the rabbis to conclude that even where negligent the tortfeasor would only be liable for damage that he could foresee. He is not liable for additional or other damage, or damage greater than that foreseeable. Thus where a fire spread in an ordinary wind the tortfeasor would be liable for whatever could be seen to be within the path of the fire but not for what was hidden, unless, according to R. Judah, he should have con-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

torts templated the existence of hidden objects (BK 61b). Similarly, if a man dug a pit and did not cover it he would be liable for injury to a young animal or to an animal who fell into it at night but would not be liable for injury to a grown animal who fell into it in daylight (BK 54b), or for a human being who fell into the pit (BK 28b). If the pit was less than ten handbreadths deep, he would be liable for injury only, since animals do not normally die when falling into such a small pit (BK 3a). Likewise, liability for injury is restricted to the extent of its original gravity. If the injury becomes worse than was originally estimated the tortfeasor is not liable for additional damage (BK 91a). However, where the degree of damage was foreseen but the way in which the damage occurred was unexpected the rabbis disagreed as to whether the defendant should be held liable, some arguing that the defendant was liable in negligence while others holding that the defendant could not be liable for what he could not foresee. This situation is known in the Talmud as Teḥ ilato bi-Feshi’ah ve-Sofo be-Ones (negligent conduct leading to accidental damage). Thus, if a man put his dog on a roof and the dog fell off and broke nearby objects (BK 21b), he would be liable in negligence for putting his dog on the roof (since a dog could be expected to jump off a roof) but not for the mode of damage, since he could not have foreseen that the dog would fall.

nomic or commercial damage (BK 98a); for liability for damage is restricted to physical damage. Damage Committed by the Person and by His Property A distinction is found in several places in the Talmud between damage by a person and damage by his property (BK 4a; 4b). The difference is that liability for damage by the person is confined to negligent acts of commission whereas liability for damage by his property can also be incurred by negligent acts of omission. Thus, a man who spilt another’s wine must pay for the damage, whereas if he saw the other’s wine spill and did nothing to help him recover it, he would not be liable. On the other hand, the defendant whose ox grazed in the plaintiff ’s field would be liable for damage caused by the animal either because he put the ox there or because he did not adequately prevent its escape. Similarly, a man who did nothing to prevent a stray fire from spreading onto the highway would not be liable even though he was able to prevent the fire’s spreading. He would be liable, however, if he caused the fire negligently or if he did not prevent the spread of a fire from his own premises, even though he did not start it.

Defenses to Negligence A person who negligently causes damage is not liable for damages in three situations: (1) where he received permission from the plaintiff to cause damage (BK 92a, 93a), e.g., was allowed to feed his cattle in the plaintiff ’s field; (2) where the defendant, in his capacity as a court official was given permission by a court to harm the plaintiff, e.g., by administering punishment (Tosef. BK 9:11); (3) where the damage inflicted was nonphysical, e.g., distress and sorrow (where there is no physical pain), or eco-

Joint Tortfeasors Where damage was caused by the negligence of two or more persons, the parties are liable in equal proportions. If the plaintiff and the defendant were equally negligent, the plaintiff recovers half damages from the defendant and loses the remainder (see Tos. BK 23a, S.V. “U-Leḥ ayyev”). The negligence of each tortfeasor is one of two types: (1) where he should have foreseen that his negligence alone would cause damage; (2) where he should have foreseen that damage would result from his conduct, coupled with that of the other tortfeasor, even though his conduct alone would not be expected to lead to damage. Thus if two men dug a pit together, they would both be held liable in negligence for damage caused by the pit (BK 51a). However, if only one of them was negligent, he alone is liable. Thus, a man who concealed sharp pieces of glass in his neighbor’s dilapidated wall which the latter was about to pull down onto public ground would be liable in negligence to anyone injured by the glass pieces, whereas the neighbor would incur no liability since he could not have anticipated the presence of glass pieces in his wall (BK 30a). Similarly, someone who put objects by the side of a man sleeping would be solely liable if the latter broke the objects in his sleep (TJ. BK 2:8, 3a). Where damage was caused by two tortfeasors, the first leading the second to perform the act, the rabbis were divided as to the liability of the party performing the damage. Examples of such cases, which are known as Garme (see *Gerama and *Garme), include informing about another’s property which leads to its seizure (BK 117a) and the hiring of false witnesses (BK 55b). In each case the party performing the damage had a choice as to whether to act tortiously or not. If he had no choice in the matter because of lack of intelligence or the required expertise, he is no more than a tool in the hand of

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

Indirect Damage The foreseeability test would appear to determine liability for indirect damage (*gerama) where the damage is the ultimate consequence of the defendant’s act. Only if the defendant should have foreseen the damage occurring would he be held liable for indirect damage. Unusual Damage by Cattle Unusual animal torts, such as goring, lie between liability in negligence for foreseeable damage and exemption for accidental damage. In such cases the animal’s owners are liable for half-damages (BK 14a). But if the animal was a habitual gorer, having gored three times, the owner would be liable for full damage, since the damage was neither unusual nor unforeseeable. On the other hand, the owner would be completely exempt if he was not negligent at all. Thus, if the defendant’s animal gored the plaintiff on the defendant’s premises, no liability would normally be incurred since the defendant could not have foreseen that the plaintiff would enter his premises.

torts the first tortfeasor and the latter is liable for all the damages. Thus a man who puts an idiot or minor in charge of fire and thorns is liable for all the damage if his neighbor’s house is burnt down (BK 59b); and the defendant who tells his neighbor to bring him his animal from the premises of a third party is solely liable if it transpires that the animal does not belong to the defendant at all and that the latter attempted to steal it (Tos. ibid., 79a). Israel Law The Israel law of torts is covered by the Civil Wrongs Ordinance (1944, new version 1968), originally enacted by the British Mandatory authorities, which came into force in 1947, and several amendments enacted by the Knesset. The ordinance is modeled on English law and section 2 explicitly refers to English law for explanations of, and supplements to, the ordinance. See also *Avot Nezikin; *Gerama and *Garme; *Damages.

shurat ha-din – beyond the requirements of the law. The duty of behaving more generously toward others, in a manner that is beyond the requirements of the law is an established principle and binding legal norm in Jewish law, and was the basis of his ruling in the Kitan case (CA 350/77 Kitan Ltd. v. Sarah Weiss, 33 (2) 809–811). In that case Justice Elon ruled that even where a person is exempt from liability for damages according to the laws of torts, he is liable, under certain circumstances, to pay compensation for damage incurred in order to “fulfill his duty in the sight of heaven” (laẓ eit yedei shamayim) (see, e.g., BK 55b). It is therefore appropriate that the Court inform the litigants of the obligation incumbent upon them in this sphere (see CA 842/79 Ness v. Golda, PD 36 (1) 220–221; and see at length: *Damages).

PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE BEYOND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW (LI-FENIM MI-SHURAT HADIN). Justice Elon stressed in his decisions that under certain circumstances the tortfeasor, may be exempt from liability for damages due to various reasons, such as the absence of a causal connection between the negligence and the damage that was caused. However, he may be obliged to compensate the victim by force of his duty to act in a manner which is li-fenim mi-

THE LIABILITY OF A RECALCITRANT SPOUSE. The wife or husband of a recalcitrant spouse, who refuses to give or receive a Jewish bill of divorce (get) is entitled to sue the spouse in the Family Matters Court for his or her losses and agony as a result of being forced to wait for a valid divorce bill (get), when the refusal is unjustified. Subject to conditions stipulated by Jewish divorce law, the wife or husband of the recalcitrant spouse may be entitled to damages under two grounds of action recognized in Israeli law: negligence, and breach of statutory duty. Coercive measures, including an obligation to pay money, intended to pressure the husband or wife to give or receive a get, are occasionally considered by Jewish Law as unlawful duress that invalidates the writ of divorce. However, in other circumstances such coercive measures do not invalidate the get. As a result, the principles of Jewish law concerning coerced divorce (get me’useh) are important regarding the scope of civil liability of the recalcitrant spouse. The wife’s attempts to secure her get by way of a damages action against the recalcitrant husband may have negative ramifications in future divorce proceedings in the rabbinical court. For example, a rabbinical court may refuse to hear an action for divorce until the woman abandons her tort action, or waives her right of action in torts, or signs over to her husband any sum obtained through a tort action. It may even refuse to arrange a get, on the grounds that a get granted by the husband or received by the wife after being obligated to pay compensation for the damage that was caused the recalcitrant spouse may be deemed unlawfully coerced (me’useh), and therefore invalid. Accordingly, it has been suggested that the Israeli legislator should intervene in an attempt to avoid these undesirable consequences. Scholars have suggested a model of legislation that may, to a certain extent, alleviate the suffering of a woman or man awaiting a get and which would induce the recalcitrant spouse to give or receive the desired get. And of equal importance – such legislation would similarly ensure the validity of the get when actually given, so that the woman’s or man’s fundamental will is realized. This legislation will enable the Family Matters Courts to grant the aforementioned compensation in torts only when the rabbinical court has ruled that the husband or wife: (1) may be compelled (kofin) to give or

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

[Shalom Albeck]

NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION AS GROUNDS FOR ACTION IN TORTS. In the Amidar case (CA 86/76 Amidar National Company for Immigrant Housing in Israel Ltd. v. Avraham Aharon, 32 (2) PD 337, 348) Israeli Supreme Court, Justice, Menachem Elon implemented the talmudic principle regarding damage caused by negligence in providing information. He noted that in Jewish law a person is liable for damages caused as a result of negligently conveying incorrect information, through which damage is caused (ibid., 350). A person who negligently conveys incorrect information to another, even in good faith, is responsible for the damage caused to the other person as a result of his acting upon that information. It makes no difference if the information was conveyed in writing or orally; in business negotiations or otherwise; by a professional or by someone with no special qualifications in the field. On the contrary, in certain cases a layman’s responsibility may be even greater than that of a professional because, in addition to conveying incorrect information, the very fact that he agreed to advise and provide information in a field in which he has no professional expertise, is an act of negligence. The essential and central condition for liability is that the provider of the information knew, or should have known, under the circumstances, that the person receiving the information intended to rely on his words and to act accordingly. Liability for damages exists when the provider of the information acted negligently and without the reasonable measure of caution with which a reasonable person ought to have acted.

tosafot receive a get, or (2) is obligated (ḥ iyyuv) to render or receive a get. Other relevant limitations, stemming from principles of Jewish law, are also taken into consideration (see Kaplan & Perry, Bibliography).

[Yehiel Kaplan (2nd ed.)]

Bibliography: Ch. Tchernowitz, Shi’urim ba-Talmud, 1 (1913); Gulak, Yesodei, 2 (1922), 201–37; idem, in: Tarbiz, 6 (1935), 383–95; B.B. Lieberman, in: Journal of Comparative Legislation, 9 (1927), 231–40, I.S. Zuri, Torat ha-Mishpat ha-Ezraḥ i ha-Ivri, 3, pt. 1 (1937); J.J. Weinberg, Meḥ karim ba-Talmud, 1 (1937/38), 180ff.; J.S. Ben-Meir, in: Sinai, 7 (1940), 295–308; G. Horowitz, The Spirit of Jewish Law (1953), 569–623; B. Cohen, in: Studi in onore di Pietro de Francisci, 1 (1954), 305–36; reprinted in his: Jewish and Roman Law (1966), 578–609, addenda; ibid. 788–92; S.J. Zevin, in: Sinai, 50 (1961/62), 88–95; idem, in: Torah she-be-Al-Peh, 4 (1962), 9–17; Sh. Albeck, Pesher Dinei ha-Nezikin ba-Talmud (1965); Elon, Mafte’aḥ , 181–8. Add. Bibliography: M. Elon, Ha-Mishpat ha-Ivri (1988), 1:128, 138, 185, 341f., 495f., 498, 648, 750f., 823f.; 2:868; 3:1370, 1381; ibid, Jewish Law (1994), 1:144, 156, 207, 410f; 2:602f., 607, 802, 925f., 1008f.; 3:1060; 4:1635, 1645; idem, Jewish Law (Cases and Materials) (1999), 50ff., 145ff.; M. Elon and B. Lifshitz, Mafte’aḥ ha-She’elot ve-ha-Teshuvot shel Ḥ akhmei Sefarad u-Ẓ efon Afrikah (legal digest) (1986), 2:293–99; B. Lifshitz and E. Shochetman, Mafte’aḥ ha-She’elot ve-ha-Teshuvot shel Ḥ akhmei Ashkenaz, Ẓ arefat ve-Italyah (legal digest) (1997), 204–07; A. Sheinfeld, Nezikin, (1992); Y.S. Kaplan, “Elements of Tort in the Jewish Law of Surety,” in: Shenaton ha-Mishpat ha-Ivri, 9–10 (1982–83), 359–96; Y.S. Kaplan and R. Perry, “Tort Liability of Recalcitrant Husbands,” in: Tel Aviv University Law Review, 28 (2005), 773–869.

Holocaust Period On the outbreak of World War II there were about 1,000 Jews in Torun. The community was liquidated in the autumn of 1939, when the Jews were expelled to the territory of the General Government. After the war the community was not reconstituted. Bibliography: Mitteilungen des Gesamtarchivs der deutschen Juden (1910); Dzieje Torunia (1934); J. Wojtowicz, Studia nad kształtowaniem sie układu kapitalistycznego w Toruniu (1960).

[Jacob Goldberg]

TOSAFOT (Heb. ‫ ; ּתוֹ ָספוֹ ת‬lit. “additions”), collections of comments on the Talmud arranged according to the order of the talmudic tractates. In general the point of departure of the tosafot is not the Talmud itself but the comments on it by the earlier authorities, principally *Rashi. Where and when the tosafot were compiled, their types, and their historical and literary development are among the most fundamental and difficult problems in the study of rabbinic literature. The concept of the tosafot was originally bound up with the method of study characteristic of the schools of Germany and France in the 12t–14t centuries. Their beginnings go back to the generation of Rashi’s pupils and descendants, who undertook to expand, elaborate, and develop their teacher’s commentary on the Talmud (*Kunteres) by making it the foundation of talmudic studies in the schools which they headed. In fact Rashi’s commentary is a concise summary, arrived at through precise sifting and literary adaptation, of the tradition of studying the Oral Law prevalent in the principal French and German schools where he had studied for many years. By a careful perusal of his commentary those who followed him were able to acquire for the first time a profound and harmonious comprehension of the Talmud. Through questioning Rashi’s statements – on the basis of the talmudic theme under discussion, or of one found elsewhere, or of Rashi’s own comments on some other passage, the tosafists sought to answer their questions by pointing to differences and distinctions between one case and another or between one source and another. In this way they produced new halakhic deductions and conclusions, which in turn became themselves subjects for discussion, to be refuted or substantiated in the later tosafot. The terms ve-im tomar (“and if you were to say”) and veyesh lomar (“and then one may answer”) – almost exclusively characteristic of this literary genre – are the most commonly used in the tosafot and more than anything else typify their essential character. This vast work was produced entirely within the yeshivot in the form of oral, animated discussions between the heads of the yeshivot and their pupils. In these discussions, views were often put forward which, either in principle or in detail, differed from Rashi’s. Such views abound in the tosafot, both in the names of their authors and anonymously. After Rashi’s death, the teaching and study methods of Isaac *Alfasi, *Hananel b. Ḥ ushi’el, and *Nathan b. Jehiel of Rome, which represented a tradition of learning basically different from the local one, began to penetrate into France and Germany. The tosafists took every occasion to quote these novel views and

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

TORUN (Ger. Thorn), port on the R. Vistula, N. central Poland; founded by the Teutonic Order in the 13t century, and incorporated into Poland in 1454. Jews first visited Torun on *market days only; in 1766 six Jewish families were permitted to settle there, as in the 18t century there was a great demand for Jewish merchants who traded in cloth manufactured in Torun. In the second half of the 18t century some were attacked by members of the guilds because, in conjunction with the guildmasters, they lent money for interest to the craftsmen. Torun passed to Prussia in 1793–1806. When included in the principality of Warsaw in 1806–14 it had a larger number of Jewish inhabitants. It reverted to Prussia from 1814 to 1920, when the Jewish population increased. It numbered 248 in 1828; 1,371 (5 of the total population) in 1890; 1,100 (2.3) in 1905. Culturally, the Jews were closest to German Jewry. A Jewish primary school was founded in 1862. In 1891 a literary and cultural association was founded (Litteratur und Culturverein zu Thorn) with the objective of broadening knowledge of Jewish history and literature, without political or religious implications. A Jewish Women’s Association (Israelitischer Frauenverein) to aid sick and needy women was founded in 1868. The increase of antisemitism in Pomerania and the regression in the economy of Torun at the end of the 19t century led to a decrease in the number of Jews living there. After Torun reverted to Poland in 1920, the local Jewish population became one of the smallest in Polish towns of that size, numbering 354 (0.9 of the total) in 1925.

tosafot compare them with their own traditions. Simultaneously, a large number of new versions of the Talmud also reached the tosafists, giving them almost unlimited opportunities for argumentation and for advancing new interpretations by incorporating the Babylonian-North African tradition into their own. Another novel feature was the extensive use by the tosafot of the Jerusalem Talmud. While this resulted from the tosafists’ critical comparative method of learning itself, a contributing factor was undoubtedly their acquaintance with the teachings of Hananel b. Ḥ ushi’el, who had a particular predilection for the Jerusalem Talmud. Originally and formally the tosafot were written as “additions” to Rashi’s comments. From these modest beginnings almost nothing of which has been preserved and whose most notable representative is apparently Isaac b. Nathan, Rashi’s son-in-law, a movement developed – and it was undoubtedly a movement with all the spiritual implications of the word. Within a few years this movement became the dominant force that for centuries shaped the method of learning the Torah, first in Germany and France (including Provence), and, from the days of *Naḥ manides, also in Spain. The spirit of the tosafists is already apparent in *Samuel b. Meir, Rashi’s grandson. He and his brothers Jacob *Tam and *Isaac b. Meir were not only the first but the most important tosafists in France. The chief architect of the tosafot, and the driving force behind them for many generations, was Jacob Tam. It was he who laid down their pattern and final form. He was followed by his nephew *Isaac b. Samuel of Dampierre. These two overshadow not only the scores of tosafists, their pupils, who are known by name from collections of tosafot, but also the hundreds of others whose names have not been preserved. Samuel b. Meir’s older contemporary, *Isaac b. Asher ha-Levi, who had studied under Rashi at Troyes and then later returned to Germany, was the first tosafist in Germany in his new yeshivah at Speyer. In the history of Torah study there was no essential difference in the 12t–13t centuries between France and Germany, for it was a common occurrence for pupils to move from one territory to the other, the subdivision of the Carolingian Empire having no relevance in the cultural life of the Jews. Nevertheless, for the sake of convenience, a distinction is made between the two when describing the successive generations of the tosafists in these centuries. The tosafot were written down as “shitot,” interpretations which the pupils of the yeshivot committed to writing under the auspices of their teachers. In these notes the pupils recorded the substance of the halakhic discussions which had taken place in the yeshivah, incorporating their teacher’s views as well as the arguments for and against them, and adding their own opinions. The teachers reviewed their pupils’ notes, correcting and improving them, thus giving them their personal stamp. Very little remains of the original language of Tam’s statements, which are quoted everywhere in the tosafot, and the text of his Sefer ha-Yashar, too, went through many hands. The same is true of the original notes of Isaac b. Samuel ha-Zaken of Dampierre; he is cited on almost ev-

ery page of the tosafot, but only isolated phrases of his actual wording have been preserved. These notes by the foremost pupils, which had received the approbation of their teachers, passed from one yeshivah to another between France and Germany, and in the process various additions were made to them. However, several substantial works are extant which were written by the leading tosafists themselves, such as Sefer Yere’im by *Eliezer b. Samuel of Metz, Sefer Mitzvot Gadol by *Moses of Coucy, Sefer Mitzvot Katan by *Isaac of Corbeil, Sefer ha-Terumah by *Baruch b. Isaac of Worms, Sefer ha-Roke’aḥ by *Eleazer b. Judah of Worms, and others. Later editions abstracted from these works statements which they incorporated in the tosafot. Although the tosafot are characterized by keen thought and great originality, it is impossible to distinguish any individual style or approach among the many tosafists, about a hundred of whom are known by name. It was the special method of learning that determined the approach and set the intellectual standard which all the tosafists had to meet. Some of them surpassed others by reason of their eminent halakhic authority and the many pupils who spread their teachings; some produced more novellae and interpretations than others; but these are quantitative differences, and any qualitative distinctions there may have been are not reflected in their teachings. Moreover, theirs was teamwork in the full sense of the word, and a novel view quoted in the name of an individual scholar was frequently the result of an involved discussion among many, each one of whom contributed something to the final outcome. A general account of the historical development of the tosafists movement is reliably and accurately given in E.E. Urbach’s voluminous and monumental Ba’alei ha-Tosafot (1955), which deals in chronological order with all the important tosafists and their literary work. They lived in scores of clustered cities in France and Germany. Many are known by their own and their fathers’ names, although their identification is not always certain. Sometimes the same scholar is mentioned with considerable differences in various sources. Yet a minute knowledge of this history contributes little to a better understanding of the tosafot themselves. For although there was undoubtedly a certain continuity and a clear link between teacher and pupil, the functional structure of the tosafot was based on freedom in learning and teaching, which permitted a pupil to disagree with his teacher in the theoretical apprehension and frequently even in the practical significance of the talmudic themes. In the vast ocean of the tosafot a distinction is made between several “types” or rather “collections” of tosafot, which are the outcome of different editings, and are distinguished from one another by the contents of their argumentation but not in their methodology. This systemization is important for a historical account of the various tosafot and for an understanding of what is known as “our tosafot” – i.e., those included in the present-day printed editions of the Talmud – and also for a comprehension of the way in which the tosafot

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

tosafot penetrated into Jewish cultural spheres beyond the confines of France and Germany. Generally, there are many passages among these various types of tosafot, which are parallel materially (in the preference for one answer to a problem over another, etc.), although not in their actual phraseology. The first important collection of tosafot is the tosafot of Sens of *Samson of Sens, whose literary heritage is greater than that of most tosafists. Portions of them are extant in the author’s own words. When contemporary German scholars quoted from “French tosafot” they generally referred to him. Written on the whole Talmud and modeled on the French tradition which Samson had learned from Isaac b. Samuel of Dampierre, the tosafot of Sens served as the basis of most subsequent collections, their influence being clearly discernible in “our tosafot” to many tractates. Though the tosafot of Evreux of the brothers Samuel, Moses, and Isaac of Evreux have not yet been fully investigated with reference to their literary identity, character, and influence, it is evident that they too were influenced by the tosafot of Sens. Although the tosafot of *Meir of Rothenburg and *Perez b. Elijah, who were almost contemporaries, enjoyed great renown in earlier times, they are no longer extant, except for remnants of varying length. Some tosafot of theirs, and especially of Meir of Rothenburg, exist in manuscript. Particularly well known are the tosafot of Touques composed by *Eliezer of Touques and based on those of Sens, which he adapted, abbreviated, and expanded by including new interpretations of later dates. These new interpretations were written as marginal notes to the tosafot themselves, and the quotations from the gilyonot (“marginal notes”) found largely in Shitah Mekubbeẓ et are generally his. The tosafot of Touques were included by the earliest printers in their editions of the Talmud (from 1484 onward), thereby establishing a tradition generally followed up to the present, so that the printed tosafot in more than ten large tractates are those of Touques. Quantitatively they comprise the largest part of “our tosafot” so called in contrast to collections of tosafot in manuscript and to those later printed in the margin of the Talmud or in separate works, which are referred to as tosafot yeshanim (“old tosafot”). There are two further types, the “tosafot Rosh” of *Asher b. Jehiel, which were widely studied chiefly in Spain and the tosafot Rid of *Isaiah b. Mali di Trani of Italy, which present a difficult literary problem. Asher b. Jehiel’s tosafot contain few original interpretations, some of which are mainly based on the tosafot of Sens, with “Spanish” additions. Most of them are in print. The tosafot of the scholars in England before the expulsion (1290) are in the process of being published from a recently identified manuscript. The techniques and style of tosafot literature were not limited specifically to the Talmud, there being an extensive literature of tosafot on the Pentateuch. These have Rashi as their starting point also, but they go far beyond him by propounding questions and answers to them, by curtailing and expanding, in the exact manner of the tosafot to the Talmud. Like the latter, they are divided into German and French tosafot, the German “style” being generally recognizable by its

numerous *gematriot, which were used as a significant exegetical principle. Usually the same scholars are mentioned in the tosafot both to the Talmud and to the Pentateuch. Some scholars, however, devoted themselves exclusively to biblical exegesis, such as Joseph *Bekhor Shor, Joseph *Kara, and others of whom almost nothing except their names is known, and who were apparently mainly aggadists. The chief characteristic of the tosafists to the Pentateuch is their halakhic approach. On the basis of the talmudic halakhah, the actions of each biblical figure, whether righteous or evil, are weighed and explained. Thus this literature created a unique fusion between the argumentation characteristic of the talmudic halakhah and biblical exegesis that, in its own way, aimed at arriving at the literal interpretation. Samuel b. Meir wrote “tosafot” to Alfasi’s halakhot – although they are not tosafot in the usual sense of the word and are more in the nature of glosses; only a few extracts from them have been preserved. *Moses b. Yom Tov, an English tosafist, also wrote tosafot on Alfasi. However there is no evidence that tosafot were regularly written on Alfasi, although the earlier authorities studied him extensively. The same happened once again in Germany in the 15t century when following on persecutions and the resultant lowering in the status of learning there, there was a move away from the study of the Talmud to that of Alfasi. From France and Germany the tosafot penetrated first to Spain, where the earliest scholar to quote the tosafist literature, although in a very limited form, was Meir ha-Levi *Abulafia. But it is evident that this literature was still a novelty for him and it is clear from his works that he preferred the Spanish tradition of learning, which differed completely from the tosafists’ method of study. The latter was introduced into Spain by two scholars related to one another, Jonah *Gerondi and Naḥ manides, who had either studied in France or with teachers from there. Naḥ manides’ novellae on the Talmud incorporate the best of the tosafot, adopting their views and comparing them with those of the earlier Spanish scholars. While assigning almost the same value to both, he preferred the superior Spanish talmudic texts and its links with the teachings of the Babylonian geonim. Naḥ manides was undoubtedly the first to introduce the study of the tosafot into Spain, and his pupils and their pupils after them, Solomon b. Abraham *Adret and *Yom Tov b. Abraham Ishbili, established the study of the tosafot there. Among these scholars and their contemporaries, who were the heads of large yeshivot and wrote many works on the entire Talmud, the tosafistic element increasingly predominated over that of the early “Spanish” element, so that from their time on the method of the tosafot was adopted in Spain both in theory and in practice. A contemporary of these two scholars, *Asher b. Jehiel, who had come from Germany to Spain with his sons, was the second scholar to bring the study of the tosafot to Spain, thereby encouraging and advancing the process already flourishing there. His chief contribution was to reinforce and consolidate this process by writing tosafot on most of the tractates of the Talmud. These were based on

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

tosefta those of Sens in many places and incorporated the local Spanish teachings. In Spain Asher b. Jehiel’s version of the tosafot was regarded as the more accurate, in contrast to the French tosafot, which had been current until then among the scholars there. Thus while Naḥ manides and his bet midrash introduced the tosafists’ method of study and most of their teachings into Spain, the text of the tosafot was laid down by Asher b. Jehiel, whose tosafot subsequently became the only ones officially studied in all the Spanish yeshivot. The influence which the tosafot have had on the entire history of learning among the Jewish people up to present times is inestimable. A “page of Gemara” invariably refers to the text itself, Rashi’s commentary (called perush), and the tosafot, and is called Ga-Pa-T, the initial letters of Gemara, perush and tosafot. That the early printers included the tosafot as the companion commentary to Rashi’s in their editions was not fortuitous, but because this was the customary combination. Wishing to enhance the value of their product, they accordingly printed the tosafot at the side of the page. In later times, from the expulsion from Spain (1492) onward, an extensive literature was produced whose object was to answer the questions raised in the tosafot which conflicted with Rashi, and in any event to attain a deeper comprehension of the principles underlying both. Among the most notable of these works are Sefer ha-Maharsha of Samuel Edels, Ḥ iddushei ha-Maharam of Meir b. Gedaliah of Lublin, Meginnei Shelomo of Joshua Falk I, Ḥ iddushei Maharam Schiff of Meir Schiff of Fulda, Hora’at Sha’ah of Solomon and Isaac Heilprin, and others. For greater convenience some of these works, which were highly esteemed by scholars, have been printed at the end of the editions of the Talmud. This type of literature also appeared among Jews in the East, later Spain, Egypt, etc., where an accurate and systematic methodology was produced of the principles of Rashi and the tosafot so that their divergent views could be better understood. The most outstanding of these works is Darkhei ha-Gemara by Isaac Canpanton. On the other hand, some leading scholars considered the combined study of the Talmud and the tosafot at an early age as pedagogically wrong, in that it did not permit young students to arrive at an independent, straightforward, and correct comprehension of the Talmud and its themes. Instead it imposed on them from the outset the methods of *pilpul and of ḥ illukim (forms of talmudic casuistry), which from the beginning of the 15t century were associated with the study of the tosafot in Poland and Germany. In the early days of their appearance the tosafot were already criticized, and there were scholars in the 14t century who considered studying them a waste of time. But the criticism began to gather force only with the development of the casuistic method of ḥ illukim which was intrinsically associated with the tosafot.

Talmud, ed. by A.M. Habermann (1952); Perush al Yeḥ ezkel u-Terei Asar le-R. Eliezer mi-Belganẓ i (1913), preface by S. Poznański; Germ Jud; Assaf, Mekorot; V. Aptowitzer, Mavo le-Sefer Ravyah (1938); P. Tarshish, Ishim u-Sefarim ba-Tosafot (1942). [Israel Moses Ta-Shma]

Bibliography: Urbach, Tosafot; idem, in: Essays Presented to… I. Brodie (1967), 1–56 (Heb. pt.); A.F. Kleinberger, Ha-Maḥ ashavah ha-Pedagogit shel ha-Maharal mi-Prag (1962); J. Lifschitz (ed.), Tosafot Evreux… le-Sotah (1969), introd.; I. Ta-Shema, in: Sinai, 65 (1969), 200–5; Gross, Gal Jud; R.N.N. Rabbinovicz, Ma’amar al Hadpasat ha-

TOSEFTA (Aram. ‫ ּתוֹ ֶס ְפ ָּתא‬, Heb. ‫) ּתוֹ ֶס ֶפת‬, literally an “additional” or “supplementary” halakhic or aggadic tradition, i.e., one not included in the *Mishnah of R. *Judah ha-Nasi. Originally the term was used to designate any individual additional or supplementary tannaitic tradition, and so was virtually synonymous with the later Babylonian term *baraita. In the later Babylonian tradition the term “tosefta” was used to designate a particular body of such baraitot (Kid. 49b; Meg. 28b; Shav. 41b), and eventually it came to denote a particular literary work, “the Tosefta” – a collection of halakhic and aggadic baraitot, organized according to the order of the Mishnah, and serving as a companion volume to it. Though there may once have been other such collections of tannaitic halakhot and aggadot, the Tosefta is the only such collection to have come down to us, and together with the extant *Midrashei Halakhah, it provides the student with direct access to a large body of ancient tannaitic sources, without the mediation of later amoraic and post-amoraic talmudic tradition. In most respects, the Tosefta is identical to the Mishnah. Its Hebrew language is similar in all essential points to the language of the Mishnah, and seems unaffected by later dialects of amoraic Hebrew. The content, terminology, and formal structures of the halakhah in the Tosefta are the same as those in the Mishnah. The tannaim mentioned in the Tosefta are the same as those mentioned in the Mishnah, with the exception that the Tosefta also mentions scholars from the two following generations – almost all either direct descendents of the tannaim mentioned in the Mishnah, or otherwise associated closely with the circle or the family of R. Judah Ha-Nasi. From all of this it would seem clear that the Tosefta which we possess today was redacted in the same circles in which the Mishnah was redacted – the school of R. Judah ha-Nasi – some 40 or 50 years later, and by his own disciples. Since the last prominent scholar to be mentioned in the Tosefta (twice only) is none other than R. Ḥ iyya – a close relative and prime disciple of R. Judah ha-Nasi – it is not surprising that tradition has ascribed to R. Ḥ iyya the redaction of the Tosefta, though there is no solid historical evidence which can confirm this suggestion. In addition to containing two additional layers of tannaitic traditions, there are two primary differences between the Mishnah and the Tosefta. First, the Tosefta is some three to four times larger than the Mishnah. Second, the overall order of the units of tradition found in the Tosefta is largely dictated, not by internal criteria, but rather by the external standard of the order of the Mishnah. It would therefore be fair to say that the Tosefta as a whole represents a kind of proto-talmud to the Mishnah – a large collection of tannaitic traditions whose purpose is to supplement, to complement,

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

tosefta hint or reference which may have been mentioned in passing in the Mishnah. With the exception of Avot, Tamid, Middot, and Kinnim, every tractate in the Mishnah has a parallel tractate in the Tosefta, though the precise character of the content of the Tosefta tractate and its relationship to the material found in the Mishnah can vary radically. Some have claimed that *Avot de-Rabbi Nathan, once considered a late tannaitic work, serves as a kind of “Tosefta” to Mishnah Avot. Recent research, however, has shown that ARN is actually a rather late aggadic work with no substantial connection to the Tosefta.

and in various other ways to expand upon the Mishnah of R. Judah Ha-Nasi (see: *Talmud, Babylonian – The Four Stages of Talmudic Tradition). Both the critical examination of the Tosefta itself and the comparison of the Tosefta to parallel tannaitic collections (Mishnah and Midrashei Halakhah) point toward one simple conclusion – the Tosefta which we possess today was collected and redacted in Ereẓ Israel shortly after the redaction of the Mishnah and in the same scholarly circles. Nevertheless one of the greatest talmudic scholars, Ḥ . Albeck, rejected this conclusion. His rejection of this conclusion was not, however, based either on an examination of the internal evidence of the Tosefta itself, or on a comparison of the Tosefta to other tannaitic collections. Rather it was founded primarily on a comparison of the Tosefta to the baraitot found in the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud. The talmudic baraitot are in many ways very similar to the parallel traditions found in our extent tannaitic collections. On the other hand there are also significant differences between them. Assuming that the amoraim would not have dared to add, omit, or in any other way intentionally change the ancient tannaitic traditions which they had received (see *Mishnah, The Redaction of the Mishnah), Albeck concluded that the baraitot in the talmudim could not have derived from the tannaitic collections which we today possess – the Tosefta and the extant Midrashei Halakhah – but rather must have been drawn from other collections of baraitot which have not survived in independent form. Consistent with this view, he also ascribed the redaction of our Tosefta to the end of the fourth century (at the very earliest), i.e., after the main body of amoraic talmudic literature had already largely taken shape. Since Albeck’s assumptions concerning the nature of the talmudic baraitot are highly speculative at best, his views concerning the redaction of the Tosefta cannot be maintained in the face of all the internal evidence of the tannaitic sources to the contrary. Broadly speaking the relationship between the traditions found in the Tosefta to the parallel traditions found in the Mishnah are of three kinds, the two relatively familiar and well known, the third less so. First, a tradition in the Tosefta can presuppose the exact text of our Mishnah, and comment directly upon it. Alternatively the Tosefta can transmit a different version of the same halakhah, either reporting the same opinion in different language, or reporting other opinions concerning the same issue. There is however, a third possibility: the Tosefta can transmit the halakhah of the Mishnah in an earlier and more original version. In this third case, the Tosefta may have preserved the “raw” material out of which R. Judah ha-Nasi composed the version of the halakhah which is included in his Mishnah. This third possibility has provided the focal point for some of the most fruitful and creative recent scholarship on the Tosefta (Friedman, Tosefta Atiqta). In addition to this parallel material, the Tosefta also includes additional independent tannaitic traditions which are either related topically to the halakhic or aggadic content of the Mishnah, or associatively – attaching themselves to some

The Tosefta and R. Nehemiah The Babylonian Talmud (Sanh. 86a) ascribes to R. Johanan the statement that “Setam Tosefta Rabbi Neḥ emiah” – “Anonymous statements in the Tosefta are to be attributed to R. Nehemiah.” Both the precise sense of this statement and its historical authenticity require clarification. The full text of this statement in the Babylonian Talmud runs as follows: “R. Johanan said: Anonymous statements in the Mishnah are to be attributed to R. Meir; anonymous statements in the Tosefta are to be attributed to R. Nehemiah; anonymous statements in the Sifra are to be attributed to R. Judah; anonymous statements in the Sifre are to be attributed to R. Simeon – and all of them represent the views of R. Akiva.” The first element in this statement is almost certainly the literary and historical kernel of this tradition, since it is the topic of a controversy between R. Johanan and R. Simeon ben Lakish in the Jerusalem Talmud (Yev. 4:11, 6b): “R. Johanan said: Any place where [Rabbi] taught an anonymous Mishnah, that [anonymous Mishnah] is [presumed to represent] the majority position, until one receives explicit information from one’s teacher [to the contrary]; R. Simeon ben Lakish said: Any anonymous Mishnah is [presumed to represent the position] of R. Meir, until one receives explicit information from one’s teacher [to the contrary].” On the one hand, the Jerusalem Talmud ascribes the view that anonymous statements in the Mishnah are R. Meir to R. Simeon ben Lakish, and not to R. Johanan. On the other hand the Jerusalem Talmud goes on to state that “R. Simeon ben Lakish does not actually disagree with R. Johanan; he just observed that most anonymous mishnayot happen to reflect the view of R. Meir.” It seems fairly clear that the primary intent of R. Johanan’s statement in the Jerusalem Talmud was not historical, but rather legal. It asserts that one may presume that an anonymous Mishnah reflects the position of the majority of sages, and hence is to be assumed to reflect the normative halakhah. On the basis of this understanding R. Johanan’s words were summarized and transmitted in the Babylonian Talmud (cf. the list in the margin of Shab. 46a) in the following form: “R. Johanan said: The halakhah is in accordance with an anonymous Mishnah.” Given this interpretation we may presume that the final comment of the Jerusalem Talmud represents a (perhaps somewhat artificial) conflation of the positions of these two sages: R. Simeon ben Lakish is understood to have made an empirical observation concern-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

touati, charles ing the provenance of most anonymous mishnayot, while R. Johanan has asserted a most significant halakhic determination – that anonymous mishnayot are to be accepted as normative halakhah, unless evidence is brought to the contrary. In the Babylonian Talmud this complex tradition was summarized and transmitted in the name of R. Johanan as follows: “Anonymous statements in the Mishnah are to be attributed to R. Meir – [but they do not reflect the individual opinions of R. Meir, but rather] represent the views of R. Akiva.” The tradition in the Babylonian Talmud has been further expanded to include the other canonical tannaitic works familiar to and accepted by the Babylonian Talmud: Sifra, Sifre, and Tosefta (for the relation of these works to the extant tannaitic collections known by these names, see above). It is likely that the primary intention of this expanded tradition is to extend R. Johanan’s halakhic judgment concerning the presumed authority of anonymous traditions found in the Mishnah, to anonymous traditions found in these other works, by ascribing them to other well-known disciples of R. Akiva, who are all presumed to have transmitted their master’s views. On the other hand, the historical reliability and significance of the ascription of anonymous passages in the Tosefta to R. Nehemiah remain highly questionable. Nevertheless, on the basis of this relatively late Babylonian tradition, some scholars have posited the existence of a proto-Tosefta already in the days of R. Akiva and his students. There is, however, no direct evidence for the existence of such a work in this early period. Moreover, the terms tosefet, tosefta, baraita appear only in the amoraic literary stratum of talmudic literature, after the acceptance and dissemination of the Mishnah of R. Judah ha-Nasi. Neither these terms nor any other comparable terms are mentioned anywhere in tannaitic literature. The phenomenon of multiple literary levels within the Mishnah, and the habit of later tannaim to “add” comments to the traditions which they received from their teachers, should not be confused with the distinction between an accepted and official canon of select and authoritative traditions (e.g., the Mishnah of R. Judah ha-Nasi) and an extracanonical “supplementary” tradition (tosefet, baraita), or collection of traditions (Tosefta). Editions and Commentaries The Tosefta was first published together with the halakhot of Isaac Alfasi in Venice in 1521, and it can still be found at the end of most standard editions of the Babylonian Talmud after the halakhot of Alfasi. There are no commentaries to the Tosefta which derive from the early period of the *rishonim, though many passages from the Tosefta are cited and explained in their other commentaries, e.g., Maimonides’ commentary to the Mishnah, and especially the commentary of R. Samson ben Abraham to Mishnah Tohorot. During the period of the *aḥ aronim a number of commentaries were written, the most important of which is the comprehensive commentary covering all of the Tosefta, Ḥ asdei David, composed by R. David Pardo in the 18t century. Two volumes (covering four

orders of the Tosefta) were published in his lifetime – Zera’imNashim (Leghorn, 1777) and Nezikin (Leghorn, 1790). A third volume, containing his commentary to Kodashim, was published in Jerusalem in 1890, and the final volumes, containing his most important commentary to Tohorot, were only rediscovered and published in Jerusalem in 1970. The commentaries and emendations of Elijah Gaon of Vilna to Tosefta Tohorot are also very important. Toward the end of the 19t century, M.S. Zuckermandel published an edition (1881) of the Tosefta, based mainly on the Erfurt manuscript (which ends in Zevaḥ im, the rest being based on the Vienna manuscript), and including variant readings. While this work constituted a great step forward at the time, it suffers from two problems. First, the transcription of the Erfurt manuscript is not always accurate. More significantly, however, is the choice of the Erfurt manuscript as the basis of his edition. The Erfurt manuscript of the Tosefta does not always transmit the text of the Tosefta in its original form; rather it often reflects medieval emendations of the Tosefta, in order to bring its text in line with parallel versions of a tradition found in the Babylonian Talmud, the Jerusalem Talmud, or even the Midrashei Halakhah. A new critical edition of the Tosefta based on the superior Vienna manuscript, including variae lectiones, notes, and a detailed commentary (Tosefta ki-Feshuta) – the pinnacle of modern Tosefta studies – covering over half the Tosefta was published by S. Lieberman (Zera’im, 1955; Mo’ed, 1961–2; Nashim, 1967, 1973; the first half of Nezikin, 1988). The complete texts of all known manuscripts and Genizah fragments of the Tosefta are available on the website of Bar-Ilan University (http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/tosefta/). Bibliography: Annotated bibliography, up to 1953, by M.I. Abramski, in: KS, 29 (1953/54), 149–61; Ḥ . Albeck, Meḥ karim bi-Veraita ve-Tosefta (1944); idem, Mavo la-Talmudim, 1 (1969), 51–78; Epstein, Tanna’im, 241–69; B. de Vries, in: Tarbiz, 27 (1958), 148ff.; Strack-Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (1996), 149–63; A. Goldberg, in: The Literature of the Sages, ed. S. Safrai (1987), 283–302; idem, Tosefta Bava Kamma, A Structural and Analytical Commentary (2001); S. Friedman, Tosefta Atiqta (2002); idem, in: S. Friedman (ed.), Saul Lieberman Memorial Volume (1993), 119–64; idem, “Baraitot,” in: D. Boyarin et al. (eds.), Ateret le-Ḥ aim (2000); H. Fox and T. Meacham (eds.), Introducing the Tosefta (1999); Y. Elman, Authority and Tradition – Toseftan Baraitot in Talmudic Babylonian (1994); J. Hauptman, in: S.J.D. Cohen (ed.), The Synoptic Problem in Rabbinic Literature (2000), 13–34; N. Braverman, in: Meḥ karim beLashon, 5–6 (1992), 153–70; idem, in: Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, 4:1 (1986), 31–38. [Stephen G. Wald (2nd ed.)]

TOUATI, CHARLES (1925–2003), French rabbi, teacher. The scion of a rabbinical family, he studied at the University of Algiers, then in Paris at the Sorbonne, the École pratique des hautes études, the École Rabbinique, and later at Dropsie College, Philadelphia, under Solomon Zeitlin. He was for a few months the rabbi of the Ohel Avraham Community in Paris; later professor at the École Rabbinique until the beginning of the 1980s and at the École pratique des hautes études, section

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

toulouse des sciences religieuses (1967–71), as a “chargé de conferences,” 1972–93, and as a “directeur d’études”; director of the *Revue des études juives with Gérard Nahon (1981–1996). He was honored with the title of chief rabbi (“grand rabbin”) but was hindered by poor health from succeeding Jacob *Kaplan as chief rabbi of France. A specialist on medieval Jewish theology and philosophy as well as talmudic literature, he is mainly known for his annotated translation of Gersonides, Les Guerres du Seigneur. Livres III et IV (1968); for the first thorough and momentous synthesis on La pensée théologique et philosophique de Gersonide (1973, repr. 1992); and for his French translation of the Kuzari of Judah ha-Levi (1994). Some of his articles were collected in Prophètes, talmudistes, philosophes (1990). Bibliography: G. Freudenthal, J.P. Rothschild, G. Dahan (eds.), Torah et science… Études offertes à Charles Touati (2001); “Hommage à Charles Touati (1925–2003),” in: REJ, 162 (2003), 343–56; G. Nahon, “Hommage au grand rabbin Charles Touati (1925–2003), REJ, 164 (2005), 539–46. [Jean-Pierre Rothschild (2nd ed.)]

merchants’ guild of Toulon successfully prevented the arrival of Jewish merchants. On being granted rights of citizenship, a Jew from *Avignon requested permission to settle in Toulon. The community formed in the 19t century remained small. At the beginning of World War II around 50 Jewish families lived in the town, two-thirds of them refugees from *Alsace. In 1971 there were some 2,000 Jews in Toulon, the majority being from North Africa. An estimated 2,000 Jewish families lived there at the outset of the 21st century. In 2004 the community center with its synagogue was firebombed in an antisemitic incident. Bibliography: Gross, Gal Jud, 212f.; A. Crémieux, in: REJ, 89 (1930), 33–72; 90 (1931), 43–64; L. Mangin, Toulon, 1 (1901), index; G. Le Bellegou-Beguin, L’Evolution des Institutions Municipales Toulonnaises (1959), 123. [Bernhard Blumenkranz]

TOULON, port in the Var department, S.E. France. In the second half of the 13t century the Jews made up an appreciable proportion of the population of Toulon: at a general municipal assembly held in 1285, 11 of the 155 participants were Jews. They shared the same rights and duties as the other citizens. The community came to a brutal end on the night of April 12/13, 1348 (Palm Sunday), when the Jewish street, “Carriera de la Juteria,” was attacked, the houses pillaged, and 40 Jews slain; this attack was probably related to the *Black Death persecutions. Faced with an enquiry set up by a judge from Hyères, the assailants fled; however, they were soon pardoned. After this date, in addition to a few converted Jews, there were in Toulon only individual Jews who stayed for short periods; one such man was Vitalis of Marseilles, who was engaged as a town physician in 1440. The medieval Jewish street corresponded largely to the present Rue des Tombades. In 1760 the

TOULOUSE (Heb. ‫)טולושה‬, capital of the department of Haute-Garonne, in southern France. According to a legendary tradition, there were Jews in Toulouse as early as the eighth century, when as a result of their disloyalty to the ruling Franks, they were ordered to choose a member of the community every year to be publicly slapped in the face on Good Friday. This tradition also mentions a council held in Toulouse in 883 in the presence of the Jews to discuss their complaint against this custom. There is definite evidence of this practice, however, from 1020 onward. During the late 11t and early 12t centuries, the custom was waived on payment of a high fee. The Jews were also compelled to provide the cathedral with 44 pounds of wax and the bishop with incense. The Jewish quarter, whose center was the Rue Juzaygas or JoutxAigues, lay around the square of the Carmelites. The Jewish cemetery was at first situated near the Château Narbonnais. When the king took possession of it in 1281, the Jews acquired a field near the Porte de Montoulieu, on the site of the present Grand Rond, for a new cemetery. Communal institutions in this period included a hospital, which was destroyed in the war of the *Albigenses. The importance of the Jewish population can be deduced from the number of houses owned by the Jews. Commerce and moneylending are mentioned as the principal occupations of the Jews in Toulouse in this period. In 1209 they were excluded from holding public office, though they remained free to dispose of their real estate and often possessed the rights of ownership over land held by individuals or religious institutions, particularly the Templars. *Alphonse of Poitiers imposed a large tax on the Jews of Toulouse, as well as on the other Jews under his authority, its payment being enforced by coercive measures. Toward the end of the 13t century, there was debate between the royal officers and the count over the judicial and fiscal jurisdiction of many Jews. At the time of the expulsion of the Jews from the kingdom of France in 1306, the community of Toulouse was still numerous and economically important, as shown by the number and value of the confiscated properties mentioned in the

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

TOUL, city in the department Meurthe-et-Moselle in N.E. France. The earliest reference to the existence of Jews there is The Life of St. Mansuy, written in 974, in which the author mentions a Jewish physician in Toul. The tosafists *Eliezer of Toul, who died before 1234, and his brother Abraham, disciple of Isaac the Elder of Dampierre, lived in the town. From the Middle Ages until the French Revolution there is no evidence of Jews living there legally, although some Jews were in the region during various periods, and in 1711 a few even settled in the town temporarily. In 1791 an important community was formed and in 1808 one of its members was a delegate to the Napoleonic *Sanhedrin. The synagogue was built in 1819, and for a time after 1850, Toul was the seat of a rabbinate. In 1905 there were not more than 40–50 Jews in the community. In 1970 there were 15 Jews residing in the city. Bibliography: Gross, Gal Jud, 211–2; B. Blumenkranz, Juifs et Chrétiens… (1960), 54ff. [Gilbert Cahen]

touraine extant auction documents. They included several “operatoria,” perhaps workshops or commercial premises. The new community formed after the readmission of the Jews in 1315 also appears to have been of considerable size, and even attracted Jews from other localities who had not been among the exiles of 1306. There is mention of Baruch “the Teuton,” for example, who came from Germany. In 1320, the Jews in Toulouse became victims of the *Pastoureaux persecutions, despite efforts by government authorities to protect them; the houses in the Jewish quarter were looted, and their inhabitants were massacred if they refused immediate baptism. The *Inquisition took precautions that these forced converts should not return to Judaism. As a result, the community practically ceased to exist well before the next expulsion of the Jews of the kingdom in 1322. A new community was organized in Toulouse after the readmission of Jews in 1359. Only about 15 families settled in the city. Although they established themselves in the former Jewish quarter of Joutx-Aigues, their situation and economic activity had radically changed. They no longer owned land, rented the houses which they occupied, and generally limited themselves to moneylending. They were taken by surprise by the publication of the “final” expulsion order of 1394. A short time earlier, butchers’ regulations had laid down the procedure for ritual slaughter with the assumption that the community would remain in Toulouse for a long time. There is no definite information available on medieval Jewish scholars in Toulouse. During the 17t century a group of *Marranos attempted to establish themselves in Toulouse. They were tried by an Inquisition tribunal in 1685 and received severe penalties. From the end of the century, Jewish merchants, mainly from *Comtat Venaissin, were authorized to trade in Toulouse four times a year. Beginning in the second half of the 18t century, several of them endeavored to settle permanently in the city. There were about 80 Marranos in 1790. After the Reign of Terror, the municipality allowed them to use a former church (the Church of the Penitents) as a synagogue. They do not appear to have taken possession of it, however, because in 1806, they were still without a synagogue. At about that time, they obtained a concession for exclusive use of the cemetery, which until the Revolution had been used for the burial of both Protestants and Jews. There were then 105 Jews in Toulouse, and their numbers increased very slowly. However, from the beginning of the 20t century, many Jewish students from Poland and the Balkans were attracted by the opportunity to study at the University of Toulouse.

of important organizations was set up, including children’s homes and agricultural schools. Toulouse was also an important stopover for Jews seeking to escape to Spain. The Organisation Juive de Combat was created at Toulouse and its leaders would often meet there. In August 1942, when 1,525 foreignborn Jews from the region were “regrouped” for deportation, the archbishop of Toulouse, Msgr. Saliège, issued a vigorous protest, which was read publicly in all the churches of the diocese. Following the German occupation of all of France (November 1942), the area around Toulouse saw increased Jewish resistance, including acts of sabotage, the formation of fighting groups, the hiding of children and their transportation to safe havens, and stepped-up efforts to ferry Jews across the border to Spain en route to Palestine or England. Many men, women, and children fell victim to the Nazis and their French collaborators, however, and were tortured to death or deported to Auschwitz. Contemporary Jewry Many Holocaust survivors chose to remain in the city after the liberation. As a result, the postwar community gained greater importance than it had enjoyed prior to the war. In 1960 there were over 3,000 members of the community. Thanks largely to the arrival of Jews from North Africa, the Toulouse community became one of the most important Jewish centers in France. In 1987, it had a Jewish population of 12,000. The Jews of Toulouse maintain a full range of communal institutions, including three synagogues, kosher butchers and restaurants, and a community center. Toulouse is also the center for the regional consistory. [Georges Levitte / David Weinberg (2nd ed.)] Bibliography: Gross, Gal Jud, 213f.; B. Blumenkranz, Juifs et chrétiens… (1960), index; G. Saige, Juifs du Languedoc (1881), index; Y. Dossat, in: Archives Juives, 6 (1969/70), 4f., 32f.; E. Szapiro, in: REJ, 125 (1966), 395–9; J.H. Mundy, Liberty and Political Power in Toulouse (1954), index; J. Coppolani, Toulouse (Fr., 1954), 44–50; A. Thomas, in: Annales du Midi, 7 (1895), 439–42; C. Douais, in: Bulletin de la société archéologique du Midi, 2 (1888), 118f.; P. Wolff, Commerce et marchands à Toulouse (1954), index; Z. Szajkowski, Franco-Judaica (1962), index; idem, Analytical Franco-Jewish Gazetteer (1966), 195f.; idem, in: JQR, 41 (1958/59), 278–81. Add. Bibliography: Guide pratique de judaîsme (1987), 39.

Holocaust Period With the flight of population from the northern zone in June 1940 after the Nazi defeat of France, many Jews settled in Toulouse. As a result, it rapidly became one of the principal centers for Jewish life and resistance in the unoccupied zone. Toulouse was in effect the capital of the southwest of France. Here a considerable number of Jews found refuge and a range

TOURAINE, former province of W. central France whose territory corresponded to the present department of Indreet-Loire. The earliest information on the presence of Jews in Touraine is from about 570. Gregory of Tours mentions their presence in Civray and in Tours itself. Jews were subsequently to be found in several places in Touraine, more specifically in Loches, Amboise, and Chinon. During the second half of the 11t century, Philip I, king of France, held several rights in Touraine, including the right to one half of the tenure paid by the Jews of Tours. An agreement of 1215 between the Abbey of St. Martin of Tours and the squire of Loches stipulated that not a single Jew would be authorized to reside in the locality of Longueil. The common law of Touraine of

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

[Bernhard Blumenkranz / David Weinberg (2nd ed.)]

touro college 1246 declared that upon his request a Jew of the feudal lord or the king would be judged by that lord or the king because they were the actual owners of his belongings. In an entry for the year 1306 on the subject of the expulsion of the Jews from France, the “Abridged Chronicle of Touraine” relates that the Jews left Touraine on August 26. They returned in 1315, and in 1321 were among the first victims of the accusation that the Jews had poisoned the wells in collaboration with the lepers. It appears that with the next return of the Jews to France in 1359, none settled in Touraine. Bibliography: L. Lazard, in: REJ, 17 (1888), 210–34; A. Salmon (ed.), Recueil des Chroniques de Touraine (1854), 198. [Bernhard Blumenkranz]

TOUREL, JENNIE (1910–1973), mezzo-soprano. Born in Montreal, Canada, Jennie Tourel was educated in Russia, Switzerland, and France, where she studied with Anna El-Tour, whose name she transposed to form her own stage name. In 1933 she began her career in the Opéra Comique, Paris, and in 1940 settled in the United States. She made her U.S. debut with the New York Philharmonic under Toscanini. In 1944 she joined the Metropolitan Opera. Her best-known non-operatic performance was the rendition of the vocal solo in Leonard *Bernstein’s Jeremiah symphony at its premiere performance (1944); she also became known through appearances in concerts and for recording. She gave annual courses at the Rubin Academy of Music, Jerusalem. TOURO, JUDAH (1775–1854), U.S. philanthropist. Born in Newport, Rhode Island, to Isaac Touro (d. 1873), the ḥ azzan of the Yeshuat Israel synagogue, and his wife Reyna, sister of the merchant Moses Michael Hays, Touro had a troubled childhood. The Revolutionary War shattered the prosperity and unity of the Jewish community of Newport. Isaac Touro, a Tory, went with the British to New York City where he lived on a military dole and, in 1782, to Jamaica, British West Indies, where he officiated for a brief time until his death the following year. Touro’s widowed mother returned to New England with her four children and took up residence with her wealthy brother. Judah was trained in his uncle’s mercantile business, and undertook a number of voyages in his uncle’s interest. In 1801 Touro left Boston for New Orleans. Legend attributes this departure to his uncle’s refusal to permit him to marry a cousin, but there is no sure evidence of this. Touro’s choice of New Orleans as a center of commercial operations was a fortunate one. Still in Spanish hands at the time of his arrival, the port was soon transferred to France and then sold by Napoleon to the United States as part of the Louisiana Purchase. The population and trade of the city grew in geometric proportions, and Touro and other early merchants prospered greatly. Touro served as a civilian volunteer in the American army at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815 and was severely wounded. His life was saved by his close friend, the Virginia merchant Rezin Shepherd, who was ultimately an executor and residual legatee of Touro’s estate. After his recovery Touro ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

took no part in the civic or social life of New Orleans, in contradistinction to an active interest during prior years; some reports indicate that the wound, which left him with a limp and damaged his sexual organs, was the reason for his withdrawal from social relations with any but a few close friends. His business activities continued unabated, however, and his holdings increased. He was a commission merchant who accepted shipments on consignment from firms in the North, which were then sold for the benefit of the owners. He also invested in steamships and other vessels. At no time, however, was he a major mercantile power in New Orleans. He accumulated his fortune through prudent investments in real estate and through his modest standard of living. He said to Rabbi Isaac *Leeser that he had “saved a fortune by strict economy, while others had spent one by their liberal expenditures.” He was not a speculator like many of his New Orleans colleagues, and, as a result, easily weathered the periodic panics and depressions which drove many other New Orleans business houses into bankruptcy. Touro, a reticent, shy, and even peculiar man, took no interest in Jewish matters until late in life; he made only a modest contribution to the first New Orleans congregation, which was founded in 1827, but did not join as a member. The first person with a sense of Jewish responsibility to penetrate his shell of indifference and reserve was Gershom Kursheedt, who arrived in New Orleans in 1839 or 1840, and ultimately succeeded in arousing Touro’s feelings of Jewish loyalty. He, and possibly Rezin Shepherd, persuaded Touro to purchase an old Episcopal church for the benefit of a new congregation which Kursheedt organized, Nefutzoth Yehudah, and to pay for its conversion into a synagogue. Kursheedt was also responsible for Touro’s bequests, in his famous will, to a host of Jewish institutions. Among these were $108,000 to congregations and societies in New Orleans, and to the Jewish hospital which Touro had founded and which has ever since carried his name; $10,000 for the upkeep of the synagogue and cemetery in Newport, his old home; $60,000 for the relief of the poor in Ereẓ Israel to be used at the discretion of Sir Moses Montefiore; a total of $143,000 to congregations, schools, and other Jewish institutions in 17 cities throughout the land. Gifts to non-Jewish institutions in New Orleans, Boston, and Newport totaled $153,000. No American Jew had ever given so much to so many agencies and causes; nor had any non-Jew done so much in such varied ways. Bibliography: L. Huhner, The Life of Judah Touro (1946); M.A. Gutstein, A. Lopez and Judah Touro (1939); idem, The Touro Family in Newport (1935), 23–38; idem, The Story of the Jews of Newport (1936), index; J.B. Feibelman, New Orleans Jewish Community (1941), 77–78; M.J. Kohler, in: A.J. Karp (ed.), The Jewish Experience in America, 2 (1969), 158–76. [Bertram Wallace Korn]

TOURO COLLEGE, one of the largest institutions of higher and professional education under Jewish sponsorship. Touro has grown from a small liberal arts college consisting of 35

touroff, nissan freshmen in 1971, situated in midtown Manhattan, to an international university of over 23,000 students. It was founded and was under the leadership of Dr. Bernard Lander. The guiding mission of the school can be noted from its being named for Judah and Isaac Touro, who both exemplified in colonial and early America a love for the democratic ethos and their Jewish heritage. Touro’s vision is to serve the larger community in keeping with the Judaic commitment to social justice, intellectual pursuit, and service to humanity. Under Dr. Lander’s guidance Touro’s programs had a two-pronged thrust. One is to serve the Jewish community by developing a cadre of committed and concerned Jewish youth in the United States by giving them a higher and professional education with a curriculum based on Jewish values. Secondly, Touro’s programs also serve the educational needs of the total society, non-sectarian as well as Jewish. One of Touro’s mottos has been “where there is a need, Touro reaches out to help.” Touro does not wait for the student to come to the school but brings the school to the student. Touro College has satellites on three continents. In the United States Touro has several campuses in three states (New York, California, and Nevada), with another planned for Florida in 2006. Based in New York are separate programs for men and women that meet on alternate days. The Lander College of Arts and Sciences offers a traditional yeshivah program combined with a full secular college curriculum, which is offered at the Men’s Division in Kew Garden Hills, Queens. A Men’s Division enabling yeshivah students from other institutions desiring to study for a college degree in secular studies was opened in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn in 1977. A Women’s Division was initiated in Manhattan in 1974 with a dual Judaic and secular studies curriculum. A parallel Women’s Division was opened in Flatbush in 1979. These programs offer broad appeal to Orthodox Jews and allow them to attend their respective religious institutions and earn a higher or professional degree simultaneously. The Touro School of Lifelong Education (a mentoring program opened in 1988) provides an opportunity for ḥ asidic and yeshivah students to be the first in their families to earn a higher and/or professional degree. An affiliate Machon LaParnassa allows students to earn an associates degree. A similar undergraduate program opened in Los Angeles in 2005 and one in Miami is scheduled for 2006. Touro also has an affiliate full time yeshivah program, Ohr Hachaim (1984), and a yeshivah high school for boys, Yesodai Yeshurun in Queens (1994). The Graduate School of Jewish Studies was opened in 1979 offering a master’s degree. Touro has opened several professional divisions. A division of Health Sciences was opened in 1972 offering a physicians assistant (PA) program, and added a medical records administration program in 1980. The Touro Center for BioMedical Education in Long Island offers a MS-MD degree in

conjunction with the Technion Medical School in Israel (1983). A physical therapy (PT) program was added in 1984 and an occupational therapy (OT) program in 1996. A graduate program in speech language pathology began in 2000. In 1997 Touro opened a Touro University College of Osteopathic Medicine, currently located in Vallejo, California, with a branch campus in Las Vegas in 2004. A similar school is planned for 2006 in New York State. A school of nursing opened in 2005 in the Boro Park section of Brooklyn creating the opportunity for ḥ asidic women to attain a career. The Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law School was founded as a division of Touro in 1980 and is situated in Huntington, Long Island. In addition to the general law curriculum it has an Institute of Jewish Law. Touro has also been a leader in innovative pedagogy establishing Touro University International based in Las Alamitos, California in 1999, offering graduate degrees in business over the Internet. The Graduate School of Education and Technology also offers many online courses as do the undergraduate departments in the Lander colleges. Touro’s international programs teach Jewish studies and business courses. Campus sites include Moscow, Berlin, and Jerusalem. Programs are planned for other sites, such as Rome and Budapest. The Touro campus in Givat Shaul Jerusalem offers a program for Americans in Israel and an affiliate Machon Lander for Israelis. There is also a division of the Touro Graduate School for Jewish Studies in Israel. The School for General Studies (1974) and the Division of New Americans (1985) began particularly to aid many refugees coming from the former Soviet Union. The latter division was renamed the School of Career and Applied Studies and was eventually merged with the School of General Studies. These divisions, which are community based and have several campuses in New York, have over 6,000 students from all ethnic backgrounds matriculating for the associate and bachelor’s degrees.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

[Ted Lauer (2nd ed.)]

TOUROFF, NISSAN (1877–1953), educator and author. Born in Nesvizh near Minsk, Touroff became principal of the Girls School in Jaffa in 1907 and later principal of the Levinsky Teachers Seminary for Girls. During World War i he headed the important Education Committee (Va’ad ha-Ḥ innukh) which was responsible for Jewish education in Palestine. He also edited, briefly, the pedagogical journal Ha-Ḥ innukh and the daily Haaretz. He immigrated to the United States in 1919 and worked in an editorial capacity for the Stybel Publishing Company. He was one of the founders of the Hebrew Teachers College (now Hebrew College) of Boston in 1921 and its first dean. He also founded the educational magazine Shevilei ha-Ḥ innukh in 1925. In 1926 he left Boston and became professor of education and Hebrew literature at the Jewish Institute of Religion in New York (1926–32). Touroff ’s major themes in

tovey, D’bloissiers education were nationalism and Zionism, Hebrew language and literature, the utilization of modern psychological insights in teaching, and the attention to aesthetics in the life of the school. His main Hebrew works in the fields of education and psychology include Ha-Psychologyah be-Yameinu (2 vols., 1939–41), Be-Yode’im u-ve-Lo Yode’im (1946), a collection of essays on problems of culture and education under the title Ha’arakhot (1947), and Be’ayot ha-Hitabbedut (1953). Bibliography: E. Silberschlag and Y. Twersky (eds.), Sefer Touroff (1938), 7–114 (incl. bibl.); M. Ribalow, Ketavim u-Megillot (1942), 246–61; A. Epstein, Soferim Ivriyyim ba-Amerikah (1952), 403–12; Z. Scharfstein, Gedolei Ḥ innukh be-Ammenu (1964), 208–25. [Eisig Silberschlag]

Franco-Jewish Gazetteer (1966), 204; B. Blumenkranz, in: Archives Juives, 6 (1969–70), 36–38. Add. Bibliography: Jewish Travel Guide (2002), 91. [Bernhard Blumenkranz / David Weinberg (2nd ed.)]

°TOUSSENEL, ALPHONSE (1803–1885), French antisemitic publicist and disciple of *Fourier. From 1839 to 1843 Toussenel coedited Phalange and later participated in the foundation of the Démocratie pacifique, both Fourierist publications. His two-volume work, Les Juifs, rois de l’époque; histoire de la féodalité financière, was one of the most resounding attacks on the Jews published in France (1845) before the appearance of *Drumont’s La France Juive. An even more virulent second edition of Les Juifs… was published in 1847 and reprinted in 1886 and 1888. To some degree Toussenel influenced Drumont. He also helped to inspire a conservative, rural antisemitism, which later found its political expression in L’*Action Française. Toussenel did not make a formal attack on the Jewish people as such, but tried rather to show what he believed was commonly meant by “Jew”. He wrote, “I wish to point out to the reader that this word will generally be used here in the popular sense of Jew: banker, usurer.” Toussenel’s antisemitism was not limited to his conception of a Jew-dominated 19t century. Reaching back into history, he affirmed his sympathy for the persecutions inflicted upon the Jews by the Romans, Christians, and Muslims. Adding another dimension to his antisemitism, Toussenel also declared, “Who says Jew says Protestant.” Accordingly, the Protestant nations of Europe – the English, the Dutch, and the Swiss, in particular – were, like the Jews, “merchants and birds of prey.” Toussenel’s embittered antisemitic, anti-foreign, and anti-Protestant tirades later provided ample inspiration for the anti-Dreyfusards.

TOURS, city in the Indre-et-Loire department, central France. Jewish settlement in Tours dates from at least 570, one of the earliest recorded indications of Jewish life in France. In 1171 a notable of the community of Tours intervened in favor of the Jews of *Blois, who were persecuted following an accusation of ritual murder. A council held in Tours in 1236 forbade the Crusaders – as well as every other Christian – to conspire against the lives, health, and property of the Jews. Those found guilty of such a crime would be expelled from the ranks of the Crusaders. A subsequent Council of Tours (1239), however, excluded the Jews from testifying in lawsuits. During this period, Jews lived in a quarter known as the “Juiverie,” which was situated between the old bridge and the Rue de la Caserne and consisted of at least 20 houses. They owned a synagogue and leased from the archbishop a plot of land in the Saint-Vincent parish (near the present Rue du Cygne and de Lucé) to use as a cemetery. The Jews of Tours were authorized to bury the Jewish dead, not only of their community, but of any other locality. In addition, a plot of agricultural land and a vineyard were worked by Jews. Expelled from France along with other Jews in 1306, individual Jews from Tours returned in 1315. They also suffered in the persecutions of 1321, which were later justified as punishment for their supposed collusion with the lepers. The community seems to have declined precipitously afterwards, for in 1359 the municipality ordered the final destruction of the Jewish cemetery. A number of scholars are known to have lived in Tours during the Middle Ages: an individual named Solomon corresponded with *Rashi; someone named David lived there toward the middle of the 13t century, as did a Joseph b. Elijah toward the close of the 13t century. Their works, however, have not survived. Before World War II there were fewer than 100 Jews in Tours. There is little information on the community during the Holocaust and in the immediate postwar period. In the early 1970s, as a result of the arrival of North African Jews, there were about 550 Jews. In the early 21st century, the community maintained a synagogue, a community center, and a talmud torah.

°TOVEY, D’BLOISSIERS (1692–1745), English clergyman. He wrote the first comprehensive history of the Jews of England, Anglia Judaica or the History and Antiquities of the Jews in England, collected from all our historians, both printed and manuscript, as also from the records in the Tower, and other publick repositories (1738). Though concentrating on the medieval period, the work contains a section on the resettlement and on the English Jews of his own day. It shows appreciation of the magnitude of royal exploitation of the Jews in the Middle Ages and a healthy skepticism of ritual murder charges. It is largely based on the Short Demurrer… (1656) of William *Prynne. Tovey estimated that in 1738 there were about 6,000 Jews in England and noted that, at the time, no settled Jewish communities existed outside of London.

Bibliography: Gross, Gal Jud, 216ff.; L. Lazard, in: REJ, 17 (1888), 210–34; L. de Grandmaison, ibid., 18 (1889), 262–75; idem (ed.), Cartulaire de l’Archevêché de Tours, 2 (1904), 84–87; S. Grayzel, Church and the Jews… (19662), index; Z. Szajkowski, Analytical

Bibliography: S. Levy, in: JHSET, 6 (1912), 9. Add. Bibliography: ODNB online; Endelman, Jews in Georgian England, index; Katz, England, index. [Vivian David Lipman]

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

Bibliography: R.F. Byrnes, Anti-semitism in Modern France, 1 (1950), index; E. Silberner, Sozialisten zur Judenfrage (1962), index; L. Thomas, Alphonse-Toussenel, socialistenational, antisémite (1941); Z. Szajkowski, in: JSS, 9 (1947), 33–47.

towne, charles TOWNE, CHARLES (1781–1854), English painter of animals and landscapes. Born in London, Towne’s work such as The Boat Builders (1811) and Cattle Fair (1826) resemble the productions of the Norwich School and show a strong feeling for English country life of the period. From the year 1806 Towne exhibited at the Royal Academy. Another English painter of animals, who was not Jewish, was also named Charles Towne (or Town). He lived from 1763 to 1840, and is known as “Charles Towner the Elder” to distinguish him from this artist. TOZ (abbr. from the initials of Towarzystwo Ochrony Zdrowia Ludnośći Źydowskiej, “Society for the Safeguarding of the Health of the Jewish Population”), Jewish welfare organization officially founded in Poland in 1921. It was connected with the *OZE society, established in St. Petersburg in 1912, which engaged in medical activities in the former territories of Russia and was later integrated into a common framework in Poland. TOZ began activities in a few regions only, but from 1923 it encompassed all areas in the state. World War I and its consequences, especially in the eastern regions, where the Jews had also suffered from pogroms, brought the society up against a number of urgent problems. It had to combat the contagious diseases which developed into epidemics and were responsible for a high death rate among the Jewish population in general and children in particular. On the other hand, the hostilities along the borders until the Peace of Riga (1921) brought chaos to the state and municipal medical services and prevented the impoverished Jewish masses from benefiting from the sick funds for organized workers. Although TOZ considered its principal role in the sphere of preventive medicine, current needs compelled it to concentrate its main efforts in preventing the spread of skin and eye diseases (ringworm and trachoma) and tuberculosis by establishing clinics, X-ray departments, pharmacies, convalescent homes, etc. TOZ published three periodicals: Folksgezund (for the masses), Gezund (for schoolchildren), and Sotsiale Meditisin (a scientific journal). Among its many services the psycho-hygienic assistance which TOZ offered in treating the mentally retarded or those with physical afflictions was of great importance. In addition to its institutions, TOZ also supported numbers of Jewish hospitals with its advisory services and assistance funds. In 1939 it was responsible for over 400 medical and sanitary institutions in 50 towns. Annual membership fees were paid by 15,000 supporters, and about 1,000 people, including doctors, nurses, dentists, teachers, and medical assistants, were on its employment roll. Additional incomes were derived from support by the *American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee and the funds raised by the OZE abroad. Throughout the existence of TOZ, its central committee was presided over by the physician and public worker Gershon *Lewin, formerly director of the Jewish hospital in Warsaw. Leon Wulman also played an outstanding role in the activities of the organization in his capacity of general secretary.

During World War II the institutions of TOZ attempted to assist victims of famine and epidemics until 1942, when all its branches were closed down on the order of the German occupation authorities in Poland. Bibliography: Y. Gruenbaum (ed.), EG, 1 (1953), 582–5: A. Lewinson, Toledot Yehudei Varshah (1953), 353–5; H.M. Rabinowicz, The Legacy of Polish Jewry (1965), 175–6. [Moshe Landau]

TRABOT (Trabotto), Italian family of French origin which flourished from the 14t to the 17t centuries. The name is most probably derived from Trévoux, once Trévou, a town located in Burgundy, from where the Jews were definitely expelled in 1488. The most important members of the family are PEREZ TRABOT (14t–15t centuries), also known as Zarfati or Catalani which seems to indicate that he went from France to Catalonia in 1395, then to Italy. He composed Makrei Dardekei, a Hebrew–French and Hebrew–Catalan dictionary (Naples, 1488). JEHIEL TRABOT, rabbi at Pesaro in the early 16t century, was a grandson of R. Joseph *Colon, whose own father was known as Solomon Trabot. Jehiel is mentioned in Naḥ alat Ya’akov, Jacob Alpron’s collection of responsa. His son AZRIEL (d. 1569), rabbi in Florence and Ascoli in the second half of the 16t century, was noted for his responsa. Following the bull of February 1569 of Pope *Pius V, decreeing that all Jews in the Papal States except Rome and Ancona should be driven out, the congregation of Ascoli, with Azriel at its head, found refuge at Pesaro. There Azriel was entrusted with the valuable Ark. He died in Pesaro in July of the same year. His son JEHIEL was rabbi at Pesaro and Ferrara. AZRIEL, son of Jehiel, was rabbi of Ascoli at the beginning of the 17t century. He composed a list of rabbis (cf. REJ, 4 (1882), 208–25) and several responsa. NETHANEL BEN BENJAMIN BEN AZRIEL (1576–1653), was rabbi of Modena. Several of his rulings are extant. Especially important is his responsum on reform of music in the synagogue. In 1711, RAFAEL TRABOTTO was given permission by the Austrian authorities to engage in moneylending in Mantua. Bibliography: Gross, Gal Jud, 219–21; Mortara, Indice, 65–66; Ghirondi-Neppi, 179, 271, 296; S. Simonsohn, Toledot ha-Yehudim ba-Dukkasut Mantovah (1962), index; D. Kaufmann, in: JQR, 9 (1896/97), 255ff.

TRACHONITIS, a province of the area of *Bashan E. of the River Jordan and N. of the River Yarmuk. It was one of the three provinces into which the area was divided by the Ptolemies, the other two being Gaulonitis and Batanaea. As a result the Targum renders the name Argob as a region of Bashan and as “the province of Trachonitis” (pelakh Terakhona, cf. Deut. 3:4). The emperor Augustus awarded it to Herod, and it remained with his heirs until Agrippa (II; c. 100). In 106 C.E., together with all Bashan, it was annexed to the province of Arabia, the capital of which was Boẓ rah and it is therefore called “Trachonitis of Boẓ rah” in the Tosefta (see below). During Herod’s stay in Rome, the inhabitants of Trachonitis ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

trade and commerce rebelled against him, and his commander *Zamaris cleared it of marauders; it is therefore also referred to as “Trachonitis of Zamaris” (Terakhona de-Zimra). For halakhic purposes Trachonitis was regarded as part of the territory of Ereẓ Israel, and therefore, the laws appertaining to the Sabbatical Year applied to it (Tosef., Shev. 4:11).

In the Bible The geopolitical location of Palestine, set as it is in the heart of the Fertile Crescent, made it a pivotal link in the commercial activities carried on by land and sea between, on the one hand, Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula in the south and, on the other, Phoenicia, Syria, Anatolia, and Mesopotamia in the north. Palestine also played a part in the maritime trade with the Mediterranean islands, as it did, too, in trade with the commercial centers on the Mediterranean littoral. The special position enjoyed by Palestine among the ancient lands was due to the existence and activities of cities – harbor cities and others – which, being situated along the main arteries of communication, became important centers in the international and internal trade. The written sources in archaeological finds clearly show that trading was a favorite occupation by which a considerable proportion of the local population directly or indirectly earned a livelihood. A notable contribution to the development of economic relations in Palestine was made by the nomads who, roaming the border areas of the permanently populated regions and along the main highways, engaged in the transit trade (Gen. 37:25, 28).

Since it was poor in natural resources and raw materials, Palestine’s own share in the export trade comprised agricultural products and other items, the production of which was associated with agriculture. Foreign sources (in particular those of Egypt, which imported the products of Palestine) and to some extent, too, the Bible, emphasize that Palestine sustained itself by exporting cereals and flour, oil and wine, as well as cosmetic and medicinal products extracted from plants (Gen. 43:11; Ezek. 27:17; Hos. 12:2) and, at a relatively later period, also ore and finished metal goods. In contrast to its limited exports the population of Palestine needed an unceasing stream of products, various luxury goods, and raw materials, such as timber, metal, and so on. The destinations and composition of the commodities and the identity of the traders did not change with the conquest of Palestine by the Israelites. They did not actively participate in trade either because of the tribal structure of their autarchic society and economy or because access to the main arteries of commerce was obstructed by the autochthonous population. Thus the Bible contains no evidence of the pursuit of trade or finance (allied areas also in ancient times). Nor do the laws of the Torah make much reference to commerce, the exceptions being the laws enjoining just weights, measures, and balances (Lev. 19:36; Deut. 25:13ff.), and stringent warnings against exacting interest from Israelites, but these admonitions may reflect other spheres of economic activity and a later period when the land was being divided among the tribes. It is also probable that the sparse mention of trade is due in part to the negative attitude of the writers and redactors of the Bible and of prophetic circles to commerce and to the foreigners who engaged in it: “As the merchant [lit. Canaan] keeps balances of deceit, he loves to oppress” (Hos. 12:8). The expression “Canaanite” became a synonym for “a merchant” (“Who has devised this against Tyre, the crowning city, whose tradesmen are princes, whose merchants [Canaanites] are the honorable of the earth?” – Isa. 23:8; and see Prov. 31:24, et al.). Throughout the First Temple period (Isa. 23; Ezek. 27) and also in the early days of the Restoration (Neh. 13:16) their activities were considerable. Israelite participation in international economic activities and commerce began with the inception of the United Kingdom. This participation was made possible by the establishment of a large kingdom whose needs were considerable and whose political ties were extensive. The control of lengthy sections of the important trade routes in Transjordan and in the coastal plain, along which commerce flowed, intensified the urge to profit from it. In the days of *David and particularly in those of *Solomon economic relations were developed with the kingdom of *Tyre, one of the most important economic powers at the time. To carry out its extensive construction projects both within and outside the confines of Jerusalem, Israel needed building materials, metal, and other commodities, which were supplied and transported to Jaffa by the Tyrians in exchange for agricultural products: “And we will cut whatever timber you need from Lebanon, and bring

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

TRACHTENBERG, JOSHUA (1904–1959), U.S. Reform rabbi and scholar. Trachtenberg, born in London, was taken to the U.S. in 1907. He received rabbinic ordination at Hebrew Union College (1936) and served Congregation Covenant of Peace, Easton, Pennsylvania (1930–51), and Bergen County Reform Temple, Teaneck, New Jersey (1953–59). During 1951–52 he worked on a survey of religious conditions in Israel, sponsored by the Central Conference of American Rabbis and the Union of American Hebrew Congregations. His report, displaying great depth of feeling, appeared in the Year Book (1952) of the Central Conference of American Rabbis. Trachtenberg was active both in the fields of scholarship and community work. In Easton he was president of the Jewish Community Council (1939–46); an ardent Zionist, he was identified with the Labor Zionist movement. His scholarly work was conducted despite the handicap of a serious eye defect. Jewish Magic and Superstition (1939, repr. 1961) was his Ph.D. dissertation at Columbia University. An outgrowth of this study was The Devil and the Jews (1943, repr. 1966), which examines the relationship of the medieval conception of antisemitism to the modern variety. Consider the Years (1944) is a history of the Easton Jewish community. Bibliography: A.J. Zuckerman, in: CCARY, 70 (1961), 180–1. [Sefton D. Temkin]

TRADE AND COMMERCE.

trade and commerce it to you in rafts by sea to Jaffa, so that you may take it up to Jerusalem” (II Chron. 2:15 [16]; cf. I Kings 5:21ff.). The chronicler of Solomon’s activities lays great stress on the place occupied by the royal trade. Indeed, it seems that the monarchy in Israel exercised a monopoly in this economic sphere. Solomon’s Tyrian allies undoubtedly benefited from the Israelite control of the arteries of communication along which flowed the trade with southern Arabia and Egypt, for Solomon could direct the caravans to such destinations in his own kingdom and in friendly countries as he wished. Thus he profited not only from barter with Tyre but also from the international transit trade. Moreover, the royal commercial apparatus in Israel was able to initiate independent trading activities. According to the sources, this independent trade was apparently maritime commerce in which Solomon’s ships, built with Tyrian help in the port of *EzionGeber, took part. Yet these very sources make it possible for the opposite conclusion to be drawn, for it is probable that the Tyrians insisted on being made partners in such ventures in exchange for their technical assistance and for the participation of their men in these expeditions: “King Solomon built a fleet of ships at Ezion-Geber, which is near Eloth on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom. And Hiram sent with the fleet his servants, seamen who were familiar with the sea, together with the servants of Solomon” (I Kings 9:26–27; II Chron. 8:17–18). The ships sailed to, and traded with, the African and Arabian coasts (see *Ophir). On these voyages they brought with them precious metals and precious stones, as well as rare kinds of timber: “And they went to Ophir, and brought from there gold, to the amount of four hundred and twenty talents; and they brought it to King Solomon” (I Kings 9:28; II Chron. 8:18). “The fleet of Hiram, which brought gold from Ophir, brought from Ophir a very great amount of almug wood and precious stones” (I Kings 10:11; II Chron. 9:10). According to one theory, Israelite-Tyrian ships also voyaged in the Mediterranean Sea as far as Spain (if *Tarshish is explained as a place name). Another view however maintains that “the fleet of ships of Tarshish” was a type of ship suitable for transporting metal, and hence alludes to the nature of the Israelite exports and the goods received in exchange: “For the king had a fleet of ships of Tarshish at sea with the fleet of Hiram. Once every three years the fleet of ships of Tarshish used to come bringing gold, silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks” (I Kings 10:22; II Chron. 9:21). Barter also occupied a place in Solomon’s economic activities: the royal merchants purchased horses from *Que and chariots from Egypt, and marketed them as “a finished product” to the kings of Syria: “And Solomon’s import of horses was from Egypt and Keveh [Que], and the king’s traders received them from Keveh at a price. A chariot could be imported from Egypt for six hundred shekels of silver, and a horse for a hundred and fifty; and so through the king’s traders they were exported to all the kings of the Hittites, and for the kings of Aram” (I Kings 10:28–29; II Chron. 9:28). The enigmatic reference to “the kings of the mingled people” (‫ ַמלְ כֵ י ָהﬠֶ ֶרב‬, the read-

ing in II Chron. is “the kings of Arabia” – ‫ ) ַמלְ כֵ י ֲﬠ ָרב‬alongside “the governors of the land” as persons with whom Solomon had commercial relations either indicates that the United Kingdom traded directly with the Arabian Peninsula, or may refer to contacts with nomads who engaged extensively in transporting goods from the south to the north (I Kings 10:15; II Chron. 9:14). The well-known story of the Queen of *Sheba’s visit to Jerusalem may reasonably be explained on the assumption that the queen of this South Arabian kingdom came to Jerusalem at the head of a trade delegation to establish closer relations with Israel (I Kings 10:1ff.; II Chron. 9:1–12). The extensive space which the Bible devotes to Solomon is not accorded to the kings who reigned after him. This, however, does not warrant the conclusion that the commercial activities ceased after Solomon’s time. The continuation of these activities is attested by the products of foreign lands dating from the days of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah which have been uncovered at various archaeological sites in the country. Under King *Jehoshaphat of Judah there was a renewed attempt to sail ships from Ezion-Geber which failed owing to the destructive forces of nature: “Jehoshaphat made ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir for gold; but they did not go, for the ships were wrecked at Ezion-Geber” (I Kings 22:49 [48]). This attempt is undoubtedly to be understood against the background of the relations which Jehoshaphat established with the dynasty of Omri in Israel and with the Kingdom of Tyre. He may have been assisted in the building of his navy by the Tyrians. The close ties maintained by *Omri and Ahab with the Tyrians are similarly to be regarded as indubitably commercial relations. Jehoshaphat apparently brought the kings of Israel into association with the activities of his navy in the Red Sea: “After this Jehoshaphat king of Judah joined [‫] ֶא ְת ַח ַ ּבר‬ with Ahaziah king of Israel, who did wickedly. He joined him [‫ ]וַ יְ ַח ְ ּב ֵרה ּו‬in building ships to go to Tarshish, and they built the ships in Ezion-Geber. Then Eliezer son of Dodavahu of Mareshah prophesied against Jehoshaphat, saying: ‘Because you have joined [‫ ] ְ ּב ִה ְת ַח ֶ ּב ְר ָך‬with Ahaziah, the Lord will destroy what you have made.’ And the ships were wrecked and were not able to go to Tarshish” (II Chron. 20:35–37). The use of the root ḥ br, “to join,” is intended to indicate the significance of the relations between Jehoshaphat and Ahaziah. In several Semitic languages the use of ḥ br denotes a commercial partnership, particularly in a maritime connection. According to I Kings 22:50, Jehoshaphat rejected Ahaziah’s offer to cooperate with him in maritime commerce. Additional evidence of trade that was conditioned by political circumstances is the presence not only of Aramean commercial agencies in Samaria in the days of Omri and in part of those of Ahab, but also, after the latter’s victory over Aram, of Israelite agencies in Damascus (I Kings 20:34). Furthermore the economic tendencies to develop trade in Israel and Judah, though not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, are evident in the expansionist ambitions of these kingdoms toward Transjordan and the west, the purpose of which was to gain control both of the trade routes in these areas and of the

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

trade and commerce centrally located ports that promoted trade with Phoenicia, Egypt, and other countries on the Mediterranean littoral. The biblical references to internal trade are sparse. This trade was carried on in open places, in streets, squares, and marketplaces (Neh. 13:17–22), as also in open areas near gates (II Kings 7:1). It apparently took the form mainly of barter, in which farmers, artisans, and others who offered the products of their labors participated. Merchants and peddlers also displayed their wares. There is no information on the quality of the goods or on the organization of the internal retail trade. The Bible mentions trade in oil (II Kings 4:7), wine, grapes, and figs (Neh. 13:15–16), fish (13:16) and animals (II Sam. 12:3, et al.), in addition to products such as pottery (Jer. 19:1) and items of clothing (13:1–2). These individual mentions undoubtedly represent only a few of the potential articles of trade. The likely range of the retail trade may be inferred from the cultural and material standard of the population at various periods, and in particular from the fact that the economy of the Israelites ceased to be autarchic already at a late stage of the division of the land among the tribes, for as the standard of life rose among the inhabitants of the country, so undoubtedly did the articles of trade increase in quantity and diversity.

Middle Ages to 18t Century From the fifth to seventh centuries, Jews traded as far as Gaul where the ports of Provence, especially *Narbonne and *Mar-

seilles, served them as transit places. They dealt in perfumes, glassware, textiles, and other luxury articles of the Orient. Procopius, Cassiodorus, and Pope Gregory I (the Great) mention Jewish merchants in Genoa, Naples, and Palermo. The system of trade in the *Byzantine Empire probably favored the expansion of these merchants toward the west where the vacuum created by the invasions of the Germans opened new routes for selling Oriental luxury goods. Clients of all ranks were to be found. Jewish merchants supplied kings as well as monasteries and high church dignitaries with *spices and all types of precious Oriental goods. The extent to which they obtained these wares directly from the Orient is not certain. Documentation on direct trading relations with the Orient exists only from the end of the eighth century. In 797 when *Charlemagne sent two ambassadors to the caliph Hārūn-al-Rashid from Aix-laChapelle the merchant *Isaac acted as a guide and interpreter, returning to Aix-la-Chapelle in 802. At least from the seventh century, after the ports of Syria had been conquered by the Arabs, Jews were able to develop a far-flung trading network. According to Ibn Chordadbeh, the postmaster of the caliph of Baghdad (between 854 and 874), the *Radaniya traded between France and China along four routes, some of them touching at Byzantium on their return. It is not clear from where the Radaniya came, either from France or from a region east of the Tigris. These merchants brought swords, eunuchs, slaves, furs, and silks from the West, and musk, aloes, camphor, cinnamon, and other articles from the East. One of the most important spheres of trade seems to have been the *slave trade, especially in slaves from the countries of the Slavs, since the Council of Meaux in 845 (see *Church Councils) prohibited trade in Christian slaves. The chief market was the area in the Iberian Peninsula under Muslim rule. Commercial centers of the northern route were *Kiev, the valley of the Danube, where they had to pass the customs of Raffelstetten near *Passau, then *Regensburg and *Mainz. From the tenth century, this northern route became the more important because of the rise of the Mediterranean rivalry of the Italian cities. Mainz and Regensburg then apparently became the most important starting points for trade expeditions to the East. Jews from the western regions traveled as far as Bulgar of Itil (see *Atil), the capital of the Jewish *Khazars on the Volga. Around 955 *Isaac b. Eleazar brought a letter from *Ḥ isdai ibn Shaprut, when a minister in Córdoba, to the Khazar king *Joseph. The route passed through Prague and Cracow. In 965 Prague was visited by the Spanish geographer *Ibrahim ibn Yaqūb, who stressed the importance of this town for the trade with the East and mentions the role of the Jews. There he saw Jewish and Islamic merchants from the empire of the Khazars and *Crimea. At that time Italian Jews still had trading connections with Jerusalem. In particular Jews of Gaeta traded with Jaffa, and Jews of Capua with Egypt, until the rising cities of Amalfi, Bari, Venice, Genoa, and Pisa drove them from the Levantine trade. Venetian captains were forbidden to transport Jews and Jewish merchan-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

[Hanoch Reviv]

Post-Biblical During the Babylonian Exile Jews became acquainted with old commercial traditions. The post-biblical, talmudic epoch shows Palestine again as an agrarian country, as is clear from the Talmud and Josephus. The growing Diaspora intensified the contacts with Phoenicians, Syrians, and Greeks, and especially Greek influence as is to be seen in the use of technical terms. The consequence of those influences is especially notable where Jews met in an atmosphere of strong commercial activity, as in Alexandria and later in Delos and Ostia. In the late Roman Empire there were colonies of Jewish and Syrian merchants all over its realm who preserved their ethical and religious traditions. Such colonies were to be found from Britanny and Ireland as far as India and Turkestan. Hennig stressed the commerce of Jews with China which had already come into being. The superiority of the Jewish over the Syrian merchants must, according to Heichelheim, be seen in the fund of common traditions going back to Babylonia. The Talmud knows the “pragmateutes” and the “emporos” as specializations in trade in far distant lands, terms which point to their Hellenistic origins. In addition, the word “taggar” – known from Palmyra – is found, and is related to the Babylonian “tamkar.” The taggar was the merchant who was occupied in local commerce. Many of these traditions passed, as pointed out by R.S. Lopez, from the late Roman Empire to the Byzantine Empire and from Sassanid Persia to the empire of the Caliphs. On the base of a widely autonomous economy, trade in the distant lands was limited to luxury goods.

trade and commerce dise. The activity of the Jews of Mainz in the East European trade led to a diplomatic correspondence by the doge Pietro of Venice and the patriarch of Grado with Emperor Henry I and the archbishop of Mainz concerning the duty to compel the Mainz Jews to become Christians or else prohibit them from trading in Oriental goods. In this period, additional Jewish settlements grew in the Rhine region, the main part of the East Franconian Empire, the most important being Metz, Trier, Cologne, Worms, and Speyer. There they were allowed to trade freely, especially in wines, hides, and drugs, as well as in meat and secondhand goods, which was often combined with lending on pawn, while slaves and Oriental products were also important. From the tenth century a new route was opened through the Danube Valley to Hungary which became accessible after the inhabitants became converted to Christianity, *Esztergom (Gran) or Ofen-Pest serving as points of transit. From there the merchants often crossed the passes of the Carpathians, continuing to *Przemysl and Kiev, where there was an important Jewish settlement. Toward the end of the 11t century *Isaac b. Asher ha-Levi at Speyer was well informed on the role and importance of this East European trade. He relates that the merchants traveled in caravans, and that each caravan formed an association, buying the merchandise jointly and distributing it by lot. During the 12t century Regensburg Jews became the main entrepreneurs of this trade. *Pethahiah of Regensburg shows that Jews from there traveled as far as Crimea, the *Caucasus, *Baghdad, and *Mosul. Later, from the beginning of the 13t century, Prague and Vienna seem to have outrivaled Regensburg. In 1221 transit through Vienna was forbidden. After the Tatar invasions Kiev’s importance waned and this eastern trade declined. Regensburg especially was a center for the silver trade and the mint business. Meanwhile, for the slave trade another route from Magdeburg and Merseburg to the Rhine came into use. The customs regulations of Coblenz from 1104 record the passage of slaves on the Rhine for the last time, since after the adoption of Christianity by the Slav countries the slave trade there was prohibited. Along the trade routes of the Indian Ocean, as well as the Mediterranean, in the 11t to 13t centuries, Jewish merchants combined in manifold far-distance trading activities as well as more limited coastal trading in most of this period. *Yemen served as a transit station for the trade between Egypt and the Far East. Scores of categories of articles, some of them in huge quantities, were transported by this Jewish trade mainly through Muslim ports. Jewish trading activity was based on a well-established organization of Jewish merchants at the ports. Meanwhile, the interior market in Western Europe grew, the fairs of Cologne especially attracting Jews. They met there three times a year in order to sell and buy wool, hides, furs, jewels, and pearls. With the First Crusade an epoch of persecutions began in Western Europe (see *Crusades). Local restrictions and canon law compelled Jews to concentrate on

*moneylending. However, as late as the 14t century *Alexander Sueslein ha-Kohen of Frankfurt states that Jews did business at the fairs of the Christians, and that on Sabbath nonJewish debtors came with wagons of corn. The responsa of *Meir b. Baruch of Rothenburg show that Jewish merchants used the Rhine shipping route, trading in, among other items, salted fish, wool, skins, wines, grain, silver, and gold. After the decline of the Cologne fairs Jewish merchants were attracted by the fairs of Frankfurt and Friedberg. At the same time the courts of the princes offered a market for luxury goods. In this period Jews generally seem to have bought from far-distance traders in order to sell as retailers and *peddlers. How far there were trading relations for instance with southern France and Spain is hard to ascertain. By then the distant trade had mainly passed to Christian merchants. Generally members of a family joined in partnership and women took an active part. In the persecutions, plunder, and massacre of the Jews occasioned by the *Black Death, the patricians were not the main adversaries of the Jews – many of whom being active in far-distance trade had commercial relations with them – but the artisans, who viewed the Jewish retailers and peddlers as bringing unfavorable competition. After the persecutions Jews were again active in trade and apparently had trade connections from the Rhineland not only with the Netherlands and France but also with parts of Spain, Switzerland, and probably Italy. Meanwhile, a new series of anti-Jewish measures began. From the end of the 14t until the beginning of the 16t centuries Jews had to leave most of the German towns. They withdrew into the small domains of local lords or went to Eastern Europe where there were possibilities open in the service of the crown of Poland and the nobles. The wealthy Jews were attracted by privileges in connection with the colonization policies of Duke *Boleslav and King *Casimir III. Witold, grand duke of Lithuania, continued this policy. In an agrarian society Jews became important representatives of commercial activity. Not only the princes, but the nobles also had good relations with them. From Poland Jews, in the same way as Armenians, participated in the trade with the Black Sea regions, especially with Caffa (*Feodosiya), Khadzhibei, Cetatea-Alba (*Belgorod-Dnestrovski), and *Kiliya. *Vladimir-Volynski, *Lutsk, Lvov, Cracow, and later Lublin and Bratislava became the main trading links in Poland and Silesia. Meanwhile a Jewish colony grew up at Caffa, and later, after its decline, Jewish merchants in *Constantinople established direct commercial relations with Poland. In *Apulia and *Sicily Jews were active in the silk trade, Emperor Frederick II granting them the monopoly for trade in raw silk. They also organized the commerce in dyed textiles. In southern France Jews played a main part in the trade of kermes. From the ports of Provence they took part in the Levantine trade and had connections with the Spanish littoral, Sicily, and southern Italy. This trade was organized, like that of the Italian merchants in Venice or Genoa, by the practice of commenda. Mardoché Joseph, whose register from 1374 has

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

trade and commerce been preserved, owned woods where the resin was extracted from the trees. In *Franche-Comté from 1300 to 1318 a Jewish company developed extensive trading activity in goods and money. IBERIAN PENINSULA. On the Iberian Peninsula Jews could maintain far-reaching trading relations from the areas under Arab rule with Central Europe and the slave markets in Eastern Europe, as well as with North Africa and the Levant, their main centers being Córdoba and *Lucena. Following persecutions in the Moorish part of the peninsula, Jews settled in the areas with a Christian population, where they participated, among other commercial activities, in provisioning the soldiers who fought in the Christian Reconquest. Apart from the prohibition on the slave trade, their economic activity was unrestricted. Generally, more is known of their activity as lessees of revenues such as customs or rents than of their trading activities, but in *Toledo, the Jewish center in Castile, as well as in *Barcelona and *Saragossa, the centers in Catalonia and Aragon, some Jews must have been merchants, dealing for instance in cloth or bullion. Don Samuel ha-Levi, the richest Jew in Toledo in the 14t century, was a merchant, and the building of the synagogue of Toledo as well as that of Córdoba must have been made possible by wealth acquired by trade. In Portugal the Abrabanel family and other Jewish cloth merchants had far-reaching trade connections. The persecutions of the Jews in Spain of 1391 resulted in major damage to Jewish workshops, to the cloth production in Aragon and Catalonia, the tanneries of Oscaña and Córdoba, the silks of Valencia, Seville, *Talavera de la Reina, and *Murcia, the carpets of Borja and Salamanca, the goldsmiths’ wares of Toledo and Córdoba, and other precious articles of artisan production organized by Jewish manufacturers and merchants. At the same time there were fairs to which Jews imported silk from Persia and Damascus, leather from Tafilalet, and Arabian filigree. Records exist especially from Seville showing that even after the persecutions the production of Jewish swordsmiths, tailors, and manufacturers of embossed leather, and the activities of merchants continued. Meanwhile, the wave of conversions to Christianity among the Jews in Spain especially affected members of the upper class, including merchants. One group of them is expressly known to have continued its activity as merchants – the Villanova of Calatayud, the Maluenda, de Ribas, de Jassa from Tauste and Hijar, the Ortigas, Esprés, Vidal, and Esplugas from Saragossa. Don Alfonso of Aragon, a bastard of King John of Navarre, had three sons by Estenza, daughter of the rich cloth merchant Aviasa ha-Cohen or Coneso, and took the name of Aragon. A last important role was played by Jewish merchants in Spain in the final phase of the Christian Reconquest. There were also trading relations with the Moorish regions, and one of the reasons for the restrictions ordered against them by the Cortes of Toledo in 1480 was that Jews were selling arms there. On the other side Abraham *Senior and Isaac Abravanel with ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

a staff of Jewish merchants organized the supply of the troops that conquered Malaga, Baza, and finally Granada. The edict of March 31, 1492, ordering the expulsion of the Jews from Spain was made even more severe since they had to sell their properties but were forbidden to take gold and silver away with them. In Aragon Jews sold textile workshops at Hijar, Barbastro, Huesca, Saragossa, Lerida, Manresa, Valencia, and Barcelona. One of the best-known textile manufacturers at Huesca was Solomon Abenaqua, and at Hijar, Samuel Auping. MARRANO ACTIVITY. The exiles included many craftsmen, manufacturers, and merchants. The majority emigrated to Portugal, the nearest place of refuge. Those who preferred to stay in Spain had to accept baptism, though secretly most of them maintained their Jewish religious traditions and were regarded as a special group of New Christians (Marranos). The Spanish overseas expansion opened up new fields of activity for them, especially in the spice trade. Rui Mendes (de Brito), and subsequently Francisco and Diogo *Mendes, organized trading activities which spanned an area from the East Indies through Lisbon to Antwerp, and included not only spices, but precious stones, pearls, and other Oriental luxury goods. Additional Marrano families entered this trade. Later, toward the end of the 16t century, notably the Ximenes, the Rodrigues d’évora, Heitor Mendes, Duarte Furtado de Mendoza, Luis Gomes d’Elvas, and the Rodrigues Solis families participated in the East Indies trade. Other fields of Marrano trading activity were the trade with Africa and Brazil which began with Fernão de Noronha, who organized the trade in Brazilian dyewood. Marrano merchants participated in the development of sugar production in Madeira, São Tomé, and Brazil. Diogo Fernandes and a group were owners of one of the five sugar plantations which existed in Brazil about 1550. Toward the end of the 16t century, as can be seen from the records of the Inquisition, among the outstanding businessmen accused of Judaizing were Bento Dias Santiago, João Nunes, and Heitor Antunes, who from localities in the northeast, especially Paraiba, Olinda, and Bahia, organized the export of sugar and other Brazilian goods as correspondents of the Marrano merchants at Lisbon and other places in Portugal, as well as of their relatives, who meanwhile had begun emigrating to Northern Europe. By maintaining commercial relations from Brazil to Buenos Aires, and from there through Córdoba to Lima and Potosi, they organized an important contraband trade for a market which, because of the monopolistic policy of the Spanish center, was underprovided. They exported textiles and other manufactured goods or slaves, and received bullion which they sent to Europe. “La complicidad grande,” the large-scale investigation organized by the Inquisition, which alarmed Lima from 1635 to 1639, resulted in economic disaster; among 81 persons apprehended, 64 were “Judaizers,” most of them merchants. When the Dutch West India Company occupied part of Brazil, the Marranos and those who now openly confessed

trade and commerce their Jewish tradition took a remarkable part in the trade both in retail business, in financing, and in the export-import trade. When the Dutch were expelled from the northeast (the last from *Recife in 1654) some of the sugar traders settled in the West Indies, where, through their European market connections they contributed, at first in Barbados and Guyana, in developing sugar export to Europe. Later Curacao and São Tomé became the main centers of Jewish trade in the Antilles. This was a factor that exercised great influence in the expansion of Jewish trade toward Africa after the expulsion from the Iberian Peninsula. At first Morocco, Salé, and *Safed afforded them trading possibilities, and with the rise of the slave trade to America they found chances to extend their influence to the main African slave markets on the coast of Guinea, the Cape Verde Islands, São Tomé, and Angola, since these regions belonged to the sphere of Portuguese dominance. The same circumstances operated in the infiltration by Marrano merchants into Spain, especially to Seville, in order to participate from there in the American trade. Among the early families engaged in this activity was the Jorge family whose participation in the slave trade is recorded from 1540. After their bankruptcy in 1567, other representatives were Francisco Nunes de Bejar and his son Antonio Nunes Caldeira. These Seville merchants had correspondents in the important centers in the Indies and West Africa as well as in Lisbon, and especially with the slave contractors of Africa, some of whom were Marranos. From 1587 the king of Spain as monarch of Portugal signed slavetrading agreements with Lisbon merchants for the provision of slaves in Angola and Cape Verde. This system lasted until the Portuguese restoration in 1640. Meanwhile Moroccan trading connections were intensified with the Netherlands, especially through the intervention of the important family of Palache. Jewish trading connections also intensified with the Sephardi migration to the Mediterranean.

as Cochin and Goa, where spices and jewels attracted them. The Danube principalities were also connected with this network. From the 17t century *Isfahan Jews organized silk export to *Aleppo.

Under Muslim Rule In the Arab world Jewish trade in the Middle Ages followed the same trends as in the Occident. At first Arab expansion contributed to the urbanization of the Jews and favored their trading activity, especially in the era under the *Fatimids. Yaʿqūb ibn Killis (c. 991), who later adopted *Islam and became a vizier, was a merchant in the wide area between North Africa and *Iraq, where *Baghdad with its important Jewish settlement remained the principal trading center. Under alMustanṣ ir (c. 1094) the brothers *Abu Saʿd al-Tustari and Abu Harun traded as merchants between *Egypt, *Syria, and Iraq, and were influential in the finances of Egypt. In the 12t century a decline began, connected with the rise of the Christian city states in the Mediterranean, the decline of the Fatimids, and the Crusades. The Karimi merchants then obtained a leading position. With the emigration of Jews from the Occident to the Ottoman possessions they were able to integrate into the widespread network of international trade reaching as far

REESTABLISHMENT IN THE WEST. From the end of the 16t century Leghorn, through the granting of important privileges to its inhabitants, became the most important trading link in the West, besides Venice. Jews compelled to emigrate from Milan in the 16t century were partially reintegrated into the network of Marrano trade, as in Naples, whereas in Rome and other central and northern Italian towns, some commerce remained a Jewish occupation, though generally not on a large scale. In Provence, Jews lost their part in the Levantine trade after their expulsion at the end of the 15t century. Meanwhile émigré settlements of Marranos grew up at Antwerp, and also along the French Atlantic coast from St. Jean de Luz, *Bayonne, and Bordeaux to Nantes and Rouen and the Lower Elbe in Hamburg and Glueckstadt, as well as in the Netherlands, especially Amsterdam, and in London. Some of the Marranos remained Catholics, mainly in Antwerp, but along the Lower Elbe and at Amsterdam they openly returned to Judaism and established Sephardi communities. All the settlements played an important role in the trade between the Iberian Peninsula and Northwestern Europe. Leading Marrano families throughout the 16t century were among the main contractors of the Portuguese spice trade. The jewel trade was an additional branch of the Antwerp colony, establishing connections with important trade centers in the interior such as Cologne (to which during the crisis in Antwerp they partly transferred their offices), with the Leipzig and the Frankfurt fairs, with Paris, with the fairs of Lyons, and with the trading centers of Italy. Meanwhile, they participated in the export-import trade between the Netherlands, England, Germany, and Italy. This included textiles, English cloth, Netherlands fabric, Italian fustian, and silk and grain, the latter being sent by sea. The main representatives of this trade were the Ximenes, the Rodrigues d’Evora, the Álvares Caldeira, and the Jorge families. The Hamburg colony, for some time, predominated in the import of sugar and spices and contributed to the modernization of trade usages. Álvaro Dinis and Antônio Faleiro were merchants in Hamburg from the end of the 16t century. At Amsterdam Manuel Rodrigues Vega and others participated in the financing of voorkompagnien which opened up direct trade by the Dutch to the East Indies. The direct participation of the Amsterdam Portuguese in the Dutch East India Company was modest. But their international trading connections with the Mediterranean, as well as with the African and the Brazilian ports and the East Indies, contributed to the rise of the Dutch international trade, as well as to that of Hamburg, Scandinavia, and the Baltic. The last act of the Dutch struggle with Spanish domination was helped by the contribution their merchants made to

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

trade and commerce the forces of the Portuguese restoration after 1640. Jeronimo Nunes da Costa at Amsterdam and his father Duarte Nunes da Costa at Hamburg were the main suppliers or agents to the Portuguese of military and naval stores. However, it was typical of the complicated situation within the communities that Lopo Ramires at Amsterdam, a brother of Duarte Nunes da Costa, and Manuel Bocarro (Jacob Rosales) at Hamburg assisted the Spaniards. In the second half of the 17t century the Hamburg as well as the Amsterdam Portuguese increasingly retired from the trade with the Iberian Peninsula and its colonial settlements in consequence of the continuing hostility against suspected Marranos and Jews. Meanwhile new fields of commercial activity opened with the Baltic, Scandinavia, and various courts. Diogo (Diego) *Teixeira and his son Manuel, the outstanding representatives at Hamburg, traded in jewels and, with their relatives, the Nunes Henriques, at Amsterdam entered the Norwegian copper exploitation. With the emigration of the Teixeira group to the Netherlands, the Hamburg settlement soon lost its earlier importance. Closely connected with Hamburg were small colonies at Altona and Glueckstadt. The latter especially was designed by Christian IV of Denmark and his successors to be a rival of Hamburg, in particular in the overseas trade, but never fulfilled their hopes. Nevertheless, for a time some Iberian trade in the 1620s, and again some African and West Indian trade in the second half of the 17t century, was organized from Glueckstadt. In the Netherlands Amsterdam had the largest community of Portuguese Jews. At the beginning of the 18t century these still took considerable part in the colonial trade but were more active in speculative trade in commodities and company shares. Meanwhile the Sephardi community of London also took a share in the overseas trade, especially with West Africa and the West Indies. In its eastern extremities, from the 16t century this trade system linked with the extensive trade system of the Jews in *Poland-Lithuania based on *arenda and a large and growing share in exports and imports, as well as in the transit trade of the kingdom. The memoirs of *Glueckel von Hameln, and the even more extensive activities of the *Court Jews and factors show the influence of both these systems in Central European Jewish economic activity.

Hamburg region where overseas trading connections guaranteed a steady silver market, opened, Jacob *Bassevi at Prague was an outstanding entrepreneur of mints. During the Thirty Years’ War several Jews took the opportunity to organize provisions for the armies. With the rise of the absolutist state and the sumptuous baroque culture displayed at a large number of courts the presence of the Court Jew opened new paths for wide-ranging Jewish commercial activity. Partly as a consequence of the protection afforded by the princes, the Ashkenazi settlements at Frankfurt, Hamburg, Altona, Berlin, and then Vienna also became centers of Jewish trade. From Hamburg and Altona as well as from Copenhagen and Amsterdam Jews entered the overseas trade. From the second half of the 17t and especially in the 18t century Jews of Hamburg and Amsterdam actively participated in the trade of the fairs of Frankfurt, Zurzach, Braunschweig, Naumburg, and Frankfurt on the Oder, and especially of Leipzig and Breslau. In Eastern Europe, since there was as yet no large stratum of long-distance traders, this favored the role of small traders who were mostly of Jewish origin and often traveled in caravans. Jews from Prague, Mikulov (Nikolsburg), Leczno (Lissa), Teplice, Cracow, Brody, and Lvov in particular were among those visitors, but they had rivals in the Armenians, Greeks, Wallachians, “Raitzen” (Russians), and Courlanders. In Poland many of these Jews administered the trade of the nobility. Lithuanian Jews preferred Koenigsberg, Memel, and Riga, and traveled as far as Moscow. Galician Jews traveled to the Danubian principalities and imported wines from Hungary. Jewish trade was mostly concentrated in the fairs of Lublin, Yaroslaw, Torun, Gniezno, Kopyl, Stolin, and Mir. During the 18t century Berdichev and Brody, a free city from 1779, became important. The growing Jewish population in Bohemia, Moravia, Poland, and White Russia, and their widespread artisan activity, opened up an interior market of growing importance.

ASHKENAZI TRADING ACTIVITY. For Ashkenazi Jews the 16t and 17t centuries were an epoch of repression in consequence of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. In Germany they mostly lived in smaller settlements where they obtained licences (Geleit; equivalent to the Italian condotta) and traded in cattle, horses, *agricultural produce, or secondhand articles obtained from loans on pawn, were peddlers, or provided the mints with bullion. The brothers Oppenheim at Frankfurt and their companies dealt in silk goods and other textiles, and there already existed connections with some courts that afforded the possibility of providing them with luxury goods, and their armies with victuals and weapons. When the possibility of forming mints, especially in the

19t and 20t Centuries From the period of the Middle Ages Jewish commercial activity had undergone many changes. At first the trade in Oriental luxury goods predominated; then, with the overseas expansion and the rise of shipping, colonial and staple goods were added. The *emancipation of the Jews in consequence of the epoch of the Enlightenment, combined with the consequences of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, put the Jewish communities on a new basis. Most spectacular was the rise of Jewish banking and the activity of Jews in industrialization, whereas the part of Jews in commerce is more difficult to discern. The organization of trade, then the sector of large stores (Tietz, Wertheim, Karstadt), and the commodity trade, especially in metal, wood, grain, furs, textiles, shoes, and diamonds, remained the branches preferred by Jews. In Germany, their part in the trading sector from 1895 to 1933 declined from 5.7 to 2.5. In 1925 in Prussia over 34 of those active in the sector of banking and stock exchange, 13.2 in brokerage, 10.8 in the real estate business, and 10.7 in the

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

trade and commerce commerce of merchandise and products, were Jews. On the whole, about 50 of the Jewish population were occupied in commerce. With the growing degree of social assimilation, however, this proportion declined as did the general participation of the Jews in economic life. In general, it may be stated that the proportion of Jewish participation in commerce diminished in Germany and rose in the East European countries. In Hungary (1920) 44.1, in Czechoslovakia (1921) 39.1, in Poland (1913) 35.1, and in Russia one-fifth (1926) of the total Jewish population were active in commerce. As Simon *Kuznets stressed, in the preWorld War II epoch in all countries excepting Poland and the Soviet Union the largest sector in the industrial structure of the gainfully occupied Jewish population remained trade and finance. They accounted for such a large proportion of the nonagricultural Jewish population because small-scale entrepreneurship was more readily accessible: it did not require heavy capital investment, and personal training was not necessary. Moreover, the conditions under which Jewish minorities had lived for centuries favored the acquisition of skills and the formation of connections useful for the pursuit of trade and finance. [Hermann Kellenbenz]

In the U.S. COLONIAL PERIOD TO 1820. Virtually from the mid-17tcentury beginnings of their settlement in North America, the Jews tended to support themselves as small businessmen – general merchants and shopkeepers – in tidewater commercial and shipping centers like New York, Newport, Philadelphia, Charleston (South Carolina), Savannah, and Montreal. Their function, like that of the non-Jewish businessmen with whom they frequently formed partnerships of more or less limited duration, was to supply the local market with hardware, textiles, and other European produced consumer goods as well as commodities like rum, wines, spices, tea, and sugar. They attempted to balance their European and West Indian imports with exports of North American products like lumber, grain, fish, furs, and whale oil. Though specialization was not unknown, these tradesmen for the most part offered a wide range of wares. Jews were represented in nearly every branch of early American enterprise apart from the export of tobacco and iron. Seldom, however, did they play a leading role: great coastal, Caribbean, and trans-Atlantic merchant-shippers like Aaron *Lopez of Newport, Nathan Simson and Jacob *Franks of New York, and Nathan *Levy of Philadelphia, substantial inland merchants, land speculators, and fur traders like Joseph Simon of Lancaster (Pennsylvania) and Samuel Jacobs of Canada, and important army purveyors like David Franks of Philadelphia were atypical – if not always for the character, certainly for the scale, of their dealings. Not infrequently 18t-century American Jewish businessmen acted as agents for European firms. The Levy-Franks clan of New York and Philadelphia, for example, constituted a branch of the family’s commercial empire headquartered in London. Though rudi-

mentary banking often fell within a merchant’s sphere of activity – since without extending credit to his customer he could not have survived – Jewish financiers on the contemporary European scale were absent from the early American scene. The colonial American economy was precarious, offering formidable hazards as well as attractive opportunities. Even well-established merchants not uncommonly owed their European suppliers huge sums, while bankruptcies and even imprisonment for debt occurred with considerable regularity. Post-Revolutionary and Early National America gave rise to fledgling Jewish communities in Midwestern river ports like Cincinnati and Pittsburgh, while Jewish economic activity presented in many respects a more varied scene. Though shopkeeping and merchantry continued to be characteristic, the country’s westward expansion and interest in developing its own resources generated many new enterprises involving Jews: land speculation, planting, shipping, banking, insurance, garment manufacturing, mining, and distilling. Jewish railroad directors prospered in South Carolina, and Jewish bank directors were active in South Carolina, New York, and Rhode Island. The Richmond (Virginia) firm of Cohen and Isaacs employed a frontiersman like Daniel Boone to survey land in Kentucky, and the Philadelphia *Gratzes became more important in the trans-Allegheny trade. The New York Hendrickses became prominent in the copper industry. Moses Seixas was among the Bank of Rhode Island’s organizers in the 1790s, and Judah *Touro established an impressive mercantile reputation in New Orleans. Peddling, though usually no more than a transitional occupation, was far more common among Jews in early 19t-century America than it had ever been during the pre-Revolutionary period. As the American economy burgeoned in the half-century following the Revolution, people skilled in trade, moneylending, the distribution of commodities, and the establishment of wholesale and retail outlets were needed with increasing frequency everywhere in the country. Jews found a wide gamut of opportunities in a developing America and took advantage of them to become well integrated into the country’s business life. [Stanley F. Chyet]

SINCE 1820. German Jewish immigrants to the U.S. who began arriving in large numbers about 1820 devoted themselves mainly to trade. The “Jew peddler” succeeded the “Yankee peddler” in the countryside as young Jews, securing their goods on credit mostly from Jewish wholesale houses in cities, peddled household and dry goods and small luxuries among isolated farmers throughout the Northeast, Middle West, and the South. With the opening of California in 1849 Jews became purveyors to its mining camps, a function they later performed in towns of the Rocky Mountains and the Southwest from the 1870s until the towns declined in the 1890s. The Jewish peddler’s foreign accent, dauntlessness, and business skill won him a distinct, rather complimentary image in American folklore. Those who usually started by carrying their stock in a pack on the back came to own a horse and wagon; ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

trade and commerce

Bibliography: ANCIENT AND BIBLICAL TIMES: F. Delitzsch, Handel und Wandel in Altbabylonien (1910); R. Hartmann, in: ZDPV, 41 (1918), 53–56; B. Meissner, Babylonien und Assyrien, 1 (1920), 336–70; G. Dalman, Orte und Wege Jesu (1924); idem, in: PJB, 12 (1916), 15–54; 21 (1925), 58ff.; A. Koester, Schiffahrt und Handelsverkehr des oestlichen Mittelmeers im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (1924); W.G. Barnes, Business in the Bible (1926); B. Maisler (Mazar), in: JPOS, 9 (1929), 80–81; idem, in: ZDPV, 58 (1935), 73–83; M. Rostovtsev, Caravan Cities (1932); S. Yeiven (ed.), Ha-Misḥ ar, ha-Ta’asiyyah ve-haMelakhah be-Ereẓ -Yisrael bi-Ymei Kedem (1937); Abel, Geog, 2 (1938), 207–22; M. North, in: ZDPV, 60 (1937), 183ff.; 61 (1938), 20ff., 277ff.; S. Smith, in: Antiquaries Journal, 22 (1942), 87ff.; J.J. Garstang, in: American Journal of Archaeology, 47 (1943), 35–62; B. Maisler (Mazar), in: RHJE, 1 (1947), 34ff.; W.F. Leemans, The Old Babylonian Merchant (1950); idem, in: Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient, 2 (1959), 111–2; 3 (1960), 21–37; 4 (1961), 106–12; idem, Foreign Trade

in the Old Babylonian Period (1960); M. Avi-Yonah, in: IEJ, 1 (1950/51), 56–60; G. Cardascia, Les Archives des Murāshû (1951); J. Lewy, in: Orientalia, 21 (1952), 265–92; A. Barrois, Manuel d’archéologie biblique, 2 (1953), S.V. Commerce; A.F. Oppenheim, in: JAOS, 74 (1954), 6–17; K. Polanyi et al., Trade and Market in the Early Empires (1957); C.H. Gordon, in: JNES, 17 (1958), 28–31; G.W. van Beck and A. Jamme, in: BASOR, 151 (1958), 9–16; F.M. Heichelheim, An Ancient Economic History, 1–2 (19582); M. Stekelis, in: Eretz Israel, 5 (1959), 35–37; J.B. Curtis and W.H. Hallo, in: HUCA, 30 (1959), 103–39; A. Malamat, in: JBL, 79 (1960), 12ff.; D.O. Edzard, in: Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient, 3 (1960), 38–55; M. Birot, ibid., 5 (1962), 91–109; W. Ward, ibid., 6 (1963), 1–57; J.B. Pritchard, in: BA, 23 (1960), 23–29; E.A. Speiser, in: BASOR, 164 (1961), 23–28; W.F. Albright, ibid., 163 (1961), 31–64; 164 (1961), 28; E. Anati, ibid., 167 (1962), 23–31; A. Malamat, in: Sefer Baer (1961), 1–7; A. Millard, in: JSS, 7 (1962), 201–13; A.F. Rainey, in: Christian News From Israel, 14 (1963), 17–26. POST-BIBLICAL PERIOD: L. Herzfeld, Handelsgeschichte der Juden des Altertums (1879); L. Heybod, Handelsgeschichte der Juden des Altertums (1894); L. Fuchs, Die Juden Aegyptens in ptolemaeischer und roemischer Zeit (1924); F.M. Heichelheim, Die auswaertige Bevoelkerung im Ptolemaeer-Reich (1925); idem, Roman Syria, in: An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, 1 (1938); J. Obermeyer, Die Landschaft Babyloniens im Zeitalter des Talmuds und des Gaonats (1929); M. Rostovtsev, Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft im roemischen Kaiserreich, 1–2 (1931); idem, The Near East in the Hellenistic and Roman Times (1941); idem, Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, 3 vols. (1941); idem, Gesellschaft der alten Welt, 1–2 (1942); Baron, Social2, index; F.M. Heichelheim, The Ancient Economic History from the Palaeolithic Age to the Migrations of the Germanic, Slavic and Arabic Nations, 1–2 (1958); V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (1959). UP TO 18t CENTURY: Baer, Spain; W. Heyd, Geschichte des Levanthandels im Mittelalter (1879); P. Masson, Histoire du commerce français dans le Levant au XVIIIe siècle (1896); J.T. Medina, El tribunal… de la Inquisición en… la Plata, Santiago de Chile (1899); M. Grunwald, Juden als Reeder und Seefahrer (1902); I. Schiper, Die Anfaenge des Kapitalismus bei den abendlaendischen Juden (1907); idem, Dzieje handlu Żdowskiego na ziemiach polskich (1937); W. Sombart, Die Juden und das Wirtschaftsleben (1907); H. Waetjen, Das Judentum und die Anfaenge der modernen Kolonisation (1914); idem, Die Niederlaender im Mittelmeergebiet zur Zeit ihrer hoechsten Machtstellung (1909); idem, Das hollaendische Kolonialreich in Brasilien (1921); G. Caro, Sozial-und Wirtschaftsgeschichte der Juden im Mittelalter und der Neuzeit, 2 vols. (1908–20); B. Hahn, Die wirtschaftliche Taetigkeit der Juden im fraenkischen und deutschen Reich bis zum 2. Kreuzzug (1911); M. Freudenthal, Leipziger Messegaeste… 1675 bis 1764 (1918); idem Leipziger Messegaeste (1928); Mann, Egypt; L. Brentano, in: Der wirtschaftende Mensch in der Geschichte (1923); G. Le Strange, Baghdad during the Abbasid Caliphate (1924); J.A. Goris, Etude sur les colonies marchandes méridionales a Anvers de 1488 B 1567 (1925); S. Stern, Der preussische Staat und die Juden (1925); idem, Jud Suess, ein Beitrag zur deutschen und juedischen Geschichte (1929); idem, Court Jews (1950); J. Brutzkus, in: ZGJD, 3 (1931); M. Wischnitzer, in: Festschrift S. Dubnow (1930); A.S. Tritton, The Caliphs and their Non-Muslim Subjects (1930); J. Starr, The Jews in the Byzantine Empire, 641–1204 (1930); W.J. Fischel, Jews in the Economic and Political Life of Mediaeval Islam (1931); H.I. Bloom, The Economic Activity of the Amsterdam Jews (1937); B. Lewin, El judío en la epoca colonial, un aspecto de la historia rioplatense (1939); idem, El Santo Oficio en América y el más grande proceso inquisitorial en Perú (1950); Brugmans-Frank; Duarte Gomes, Discursas sobre los comercios de las Indias, ed. by M.B. Amzalak (1943); A. Canabrava, O comercio portugues do Rio da Prata (1944); Roth, Italy; Roth, England; Roth, Marranos; J.L. de Azevedo, Epocas de Portugal económico

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

later, when their success permitted, they quit itinerant trade to open a store. Partners and employees were usually drawn from members of the family. Jewish merchants during the middle and later 19t century established themselves not only in all large cities, but in many crossroads villages and in river towns the length of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers. During this period they played a major role in establishing a continentwide commercial network. In addition they were wheat and cotton brokers, and conspicuous in U.S. international trade. The migration of Jewish merchants from small places to booming metropolitan centers is noticeable after the 1880s. Their most conspicuous activity was the establishment of *department stores, among them some of the world’s largest. A retail enterprise of particular importance was Sears Roebuck, under the ownership of Julius Rosenwald, which published huge catalogs for mail order service, thereby nearly eliminating the itinerant country peddler’s market. Other merchants, notably clothiers, began to manufacture the goods they sold. A small but highly important group branched into banking from their mercantile operations (see *Banking). East European Jews who settled mainly in large cities had few opportunities for rural peddling. Their commercial efforts were mainly urban. In the Middle West they were scrap metal merchants for the steel mills; throughout the United States they were petty shopkeepers when they did not follow proletarian occupations. The great majority of New York City’s 25,000 pushcart peddlers in 1900 were Jews, as were half of its 4,000 meat retailers in 1888. The city’s commercial life has been largely in Jewish hands to the present day. About 1920, only 3 of Los Angeles Jews were peddlers, but manufacturers, proprietors, and shopkeepers amounted to 20. Jews were numerous in U.S. commerce, especially in such branches as import and export, department stores, general merchants in small cities, and after 1945 in inter-city chain and discount stores. The slow decline of small retail trade in the U.S. and the movement of Jews into white-collar occupations and the professions decreased the place of Jews in U.S. commerce, but roughly one-third of gainfully employed U.S. Jews still made their living in wholesale and retail trade. [Lloyd P. Gartner]

tradition (19472); D.S. Sassoon, A History of the Jews in Baghdad (1949); H. Schnee, Die Hoffinanz und der moderne Staat (1953–67); S.D. Goitein, Documents on the India Trade, vol. 1; R.S. Lopez, in: M. Postan and E.E. Rich (eds.), The Cambridge Economic History of Europe, 2 (1952); idem, in: Relazioni del X Congresso Internazionale di Scienze Storiche, 3 (Eng., 1955); H. Kellenbenz, Sephardim an der unteren Elbe (1958); idem, in: Annales, 11 (1956), 1ff.; idem, in: Jahrbuch fuer Geschichte von Staat, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft Lateinamerikas, 1 (1964); idem, in: Jahrbuch fuer Geschichte Osteuropas, 12 (1964); idem, in: Miscellanea Mediaevalia, 4 (1966); idem, in: Monumenta Judaica (Exhibition, Cologne, 1963); W. Treue, ibid.; F. Guggenheim, in: Gruenberg, Die Juden auf der Zurzacher Messe im 18. Jahrhundert (1957); A. Wiznitzer, Jews in Colonial Brazil (1960); L. Hanke, in: Revista de Historia de América, 51 (Eng., 1961); J.A. Gonsalves de Mello (ed.), Dialogos dos Grandezas do Brasil (1962); Subhi y Lahib, Handelsgeschichte Aegyptens im Spaetmittelalter, 1157–1517 (1965); L. Poliakov, Les Banquiers juifs et la Saint-Siège du XIIIe au XVIIe siècle (1965). 19t–20t CENTURIES: P. Silbergleit, Die Bevoelkerungs-und Berufsverhaeltnisse der Juden im deutschen Reich, 1 (1930); M. Wischnitzer, in: EJ, 7 (1931), 910–34; S. Kuznets, in: L. Finkelstein (ed.), The Jews, their History, Culture and Religion, 2 (19603), 1597–666. IN THE U.S. – COLONIAL PERIOD TO 1820: S.F. Chyet, Lopez of Newport (1970); J.R. Marcus, The Colonial American Jew, 3 vols. (1970); E. Wolf and M. Whiteman, Jews of Philadelphia (1957); J.L. Blau and S.W. Baron, The Jews of the United States 1790–1840: A Documentary History, 1 (1963), 95–158; I.J. Benjamin, Three Years in America 1859–1862, 2 vols. (1956); H.L. Golden, Forgotten Pioneer (1963). SINCE 1820: R. Glanz, The Jews of California (1960), 19–91; idem, The Jew in the Old American Folklore (1961), 96–177; idem, in: JSOS, 6 (1944), 3–30; 7 (1945), 119–36; B.E. Supple, in: Business History Review, 31 (1957), 143–78; A. Tarshish, in: Essays in American Jewish History (1958); B.B. Seligman, S.J. Fauman, and N. Glazer, in: M. Sklare (ed.), The Jews: Social Patterns of an American Group (1958), 69–82, 101–6, 119–46; M. Whiteman, in: Studies and Essays in Honor of Abraham A. Neuman (1962), 503–16; idem, in: JQR, 53 (1962/63), 306–21; M. Rischin, The Promised City: New York’s Jews 1870–1914 (1962); L.J. Swichkow and L.P. Gartner, The History of the Jews of Milwaukee (1963), 94–109, 160–6, 296; M. Vorspan and L.P. Gartner, History of the Jews of Los Angeles (1970), 5–14, 25–28, 32–45, 75–78, 91–106, 120–34, 193–200, 230–7; E. Tcherikower (ed.), Geshikhte fun der Yidisher Arbeter-Bavregung in di Fareynikte Shtatn, 1 (1943), 224–53, 338–55; F.S. Fierman, in: AJHSQ, 56 (1966/67), 371–456; 57 (1967/68), 353–435; W.J. Parish, The Charles Ilfeld Company (1961); idem, in: New Mexico Historical Review, 35 (1960), 1–29, 129–50; R.M. Hower, History of Macy’s of New York, 1858–1919 (1943).

fetter about the Law (Avot 3:14). Since this knowledge was handed down by successive generations, it was also associated with the Hebrew word masor, denoting “to give over.” In the talmudic literature, the term masoret is used to include all forms of tradition, both those which relate to the Bible and those which concern custom, law, historical events, folkways, and other subjects. Different kinds of traditions were given special names. Traditions which specified the vocalization, punctuation, spelling, and correct form of the biblical text were called *masorah. Those legal traditions which were revealed to Moses at Mount Sinai and were later preserved in writing, were known as *Halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai (“law given to Moses on Sinai”). A legal tradition which was handed down by word of mouth, but did not necessarily emanate from Sinai, was called shemu’ah (“a report”). Religious and general traditions which became binding as result of long observance by successive generations were termed *minhag (“custom”). Prophetic traditions described in the books of the prophets and Hagiographa were known as Divrei Kabbalah (“words of tradition”). Esoteric and mystical traditions concerning God and the world transmitted to the elect and then passed down through the ages were called *Kabbalah, from kibbel (“to receive”).

Terms Masoret is the general name for tradition. It is found in Ezekiel 20:37 and means originally “bond” or “fetter.” Tradition is the discipline which establishes the correct practice and interpretation of the *Torah and was therefore regarded as a hedge or

Origin Many statutes were committed to writing by Moses. However, the vast majority of laws were handed down orally by him (see Written and Oral *Law). The Written Law did not always detail the manner and form of practice, giving rise of necessity to tradition. An instance of this kind is the law relating to fish which meet the biblical dietary requirements. Leviticus 11:9 states that a fish that has a fin and a scale in the water can be eaten. However, the minimum number of fins and scales that a fish must have to be ritually edible is not specified. The traditions relating to the Bible and Mishnah taught that a fish needs at least one fin and two scales to satisfy the biblical dietary requirements (see Arukh, S.V. Akunos). Similarly, the Bible commands that a paschal lamb be slaughtered on the 14t day of Nisan. There is no mention in the Bible as to whether it is permissible to perform this act if the 14t day of Nisan occurs on the Sabbath when the slaughtering of animals is forbidden. In the year 31 B.C.E., the 14t of Nisan fell on the Sabbath. The Sons of Bathyra, the heads of the high court, forgot the precedent previously established. Hillel, a then unknown Babylonian, volunteered the information that he had heard from Shemaiah and Avtalyon, the foremost teachers of the age, that it was permissible to slaughter the paschal lamb on the Sabbath. This reported tradition of Hillel’s mentors was readily accepted (TJ, Pes. 6:1, 33a), and it is mentioned that because of this display of erudition with regard to tradition, Hillel was appointed nasi. Tradition was also the vehicle of transmission for the rules of interpretation, of the Written Law, such as the laws of *hermeneutics. Since it was impossible within the confines of writing to record all the laws and their applications in all situations, a medium was needed to preserve

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

TRADITION (Heb. ‫) ָמס ֶֹרת‬. The term tradition derives from the Latin tradere, which means “to transmit” or “to give over.” Generally, it refers to beliefs, doctrines, customs, ethical and moral standards, and cultural values and attitudes which are transmitted orally or by personal example. Under this designation, the process of transmission itself is also included. Theologically, in Judaism, tradition is the name applied to the unwritten code of law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai.

tradition this information. Even today, with the availability of writing media, much of our culture is handed down orally. Tradition was the means whereby extant law was maintained and applied to life. Thus R. Joshua b. Levi declared that all teachings both of the Bible, Mishnah, Talmud, and aggadah and those that were initiated by veteran scholars were already given to Moses on Mount Sinai (see TJ, Pe’ah 2:6, 17a). Some traditions arose as a result of the common practice of the community. These practices were considered to emanate from eminent religious authorities and owed their binding character to having been handed down by previous generations, from father to son, a principle upheld by R. Johanan in the Talmud. The citizens of Beth-Shean complained to him that the custom of not going from Tyre to Sidon on the eve of the Sabbath was impossible for them to observe. R. Johanan replied, “Your fathers have already taken it (this custom) upon themselves” (Pes. 50b). As a result, this tradition could not be abrogated.

Medieval Times At the end of the eighth century, rabbinic Judaism was again challenged by a new sect, the Karaites. They accepted the authority of the Bible but denied rabbinical tradition and law, which had developed further as the Mishnah and Talmud were elucidated and applied to life. Through its great exponents, Saadiah and Maimonides, rabbinic Judaism triumphed over the Karaites. The latter wrote his code of law, Mishneh Torah (“The Second Torah”), and showed the direct connection between the Written Law and its explanation in the Oral Law (Introd. Maim. Yad). As new situations arose, the talmudic, geonic, and post-geonic traditions were further amplified. They in turn were set down in writing in the responsa and codes. In the 16t century R. Joseph Caro produced his definitive code, the Shulḥ an Arukh. With the addition of the glosses of R. Moses Isserles and later commentaries, it became the most comprehensive compendium of Jewish law and tradition to this day.

History In rabbinic Judaism, tradition was binding and had the force of law. The divine revelation to Moses consisted of the Written Law and Oral Law with its implied exposition by the sages of Israel. Berakhot 5a tells that R. Levi b. Ḥ ama said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: “What is the meaning of the verse, ‘and I will give thee the tables of stone, and the law and the commandments, which I have written to teach them’ [Ex. 24:12]. It means as follows: ‘the tables of stone’ are the Ten Commandments, ‘the law’ is the Pentateuch, ‘the commandments’ is the Mishnah, ‘which I have written’ are the prophets and the Hagiographa, ‘to teach them’ is the Gemara. This teaches us that all these things were given at Sinai.” Originally, the Oral Law was handed down by word of mouth. When its transmission became difficult, it was set down in writing in the Mishnah and Talmud. The validity of the Oral Law was attacked by the *Sadducees, one of the early sects in Judaism. Josephus records that the Sadducees held that “only those observances are obligatory which are in the written word but that those which derived from the tradition of the forefathers need not be kept” (Ant. 13:297).

Modern Times At the end of the 18t century rabbinic Judaism, which had maintained an unbroken chain of tradition from the days of Moses was again challenged. A *Reform movement began in Germany which sought to assimilate the Jews into the general culture by modifying Jewish traditions. Among the reforms instituted were sermons in the German vernacular, hymns and chorals in German, the use of the organ, and the confirmation of boys on the Feast of Pentecost instead of the traditional bar mitzvah. In the course of time, this movement established itself in America. Here it continued to propound its doctrine that Judaism was primarily a universalistic and moral religion. Only the moral law was binding. Ceremonial laws which could be adapted to the views of the modern environment were to be maintained. Other Mosaic and rabbinic laws which regulated diet, priestly purity, and dress could be discarded. In reaction to the reformers’ break with tradition, the *Conservative movement was formed in America. At the founding meeting of its congregational organization in 1913, it declared itself “a union of congregations for the promotion of traditional Judaism.” Other aims were the furtherance of Sabbath observance and dietary laws, and the maintenance of the traditional liturgy with Hebrew as the language of prayer. As the complexion of American Jewry changed, the Conservative movement incorporated some Reform externals of worship such as family pews and the use of the organ in many congregations. However, it accepted the authority of rabbinic tradition, instituting changes advocated by its scholars, with regard for the attitude of the people and the place of the observance in Jewish tradition.

Talmudic Times After the destruction of the Temple, the Sadducees disappeared. The body of tradition continued to grow as rites were introduced to replace the Temple ritual. Megillah 31b pictures the patriarch Abraham as concerned with how Israel could obtain forgiveness, once the Temple ceased to exist. God assures Abraham, “I have already ordained for them the order of the sacrifices. Every time that they read them, it is considered as if they offer up a sacrifice and I forgive them all their sins.” After the destruction of the Temple, the system of public prayer was instituted to substitute for the Temple service. The liturgical traditions were handed down verbally, through the centuries, until they were compiled in the prayer book of Amram Gaon.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

Transmitters of the Tradition In rabbinic literature the chain of tradition is given as follows: Moses received the Torah on Sinai and delivered it to Joshua, who in turn delivered it to the elders, the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the Men of the Great Synagogue

tragacanth (Avot 1:1). According to rabbinic Judaism, the teaching of the great sages in every generation in keeping with the halakhah is binding (Deut. 17:88). Thus, the transmitters of tradition included the successors to the Men of the Great Synagogue down to modern times, namely: the scribes (soferim), the pairs (*zugot), the tannaim, the amoraim, the savoraim, the geonim, the codifiers, the world famous Torah authorities of every era, and the rashei ha-yeshivah (“heads of the academies”). Significance Tradition has given Judaism a continuity with its past and preserved its character as a unique faith with a distinct way of life. As the successor of rabbinic Judaism, Orthodoxy representing tradition harks back to the Sinaitic divine revelation and can only be changed within the framework of rabbinic law. In Conservative Judaism, tradition is a vital force capable of modification according to the historical evolution of Jewish law. Reform Judaism has recently displayed a greater appreciation of traditional practices but tradition remains voluntary in character (see *Masorah). Bibliography: S. Belkin, In His Image (1960), 290ff.; B. Cohen, Law and Tradition in Judaism (1959), 243ff.; I. Epstein, Judaism (1959), 49ff.; S. Freehof, Reform Jewish Practices (1944), 193ff.; S.R. Hirsch, Judaism Eternal, 2 (1956), 612ff.; L. Jacobs, Principles of Faith (1964), 473ff.; D. Rudavsky, Emancipation and Adjustment (1967), 460ff. [Leon J. Yagod]

TRAGACANTH (Heb. ‫נְ כֹאת‬, nekhot). The identification of tragacanth with nekhot is attested by its Arabic name Rathirāʾ. It was included in spices carried by the caravan of Ishmaelites from Gilead on their journey to Egypt (Gen. 37:25), as well as in the gift sent by Jacob to the ruler of Egypt (43:11). It is the aromatic sap of a species of Astragalus which is called τραγακανδα in Greek. These are plants of the family Papilionaceae, short prickly shrubs which exude a sap when the roots or stalks are split open. Tens of species of Astragalus grow in Israel but these do not exude the nekhot. This is obtained from the species that grow in east Asia and the mountains of Syria and Lebanon. In former times it was used as incense but today it is used for medicinal purposes.

Trajan’s attitude to the Jews. According to the papyrus Alilot Kedoshei Alexandria (“Deeds of the Martyrs of Alexandria”), Trajan and his wife Plotina preferred the Jews of Alexandria to its Greeks (see *Egypt). In 115, however, at the height of Trajan’s war with the Parthians, a great revolt of Jews broke out in Cyrenaica that spread to Egypt and Cyprus the following year. Trajan ordered the disturbances put down with a strong hand. In the same year the revolt spread to Mesopotamia where it also involved the Jewish inhabitants of the country particularly. Trajan ordered Lusius *Quietus to subdue the Jews of Mesopotamia, and the order was carried out with savage cruelty. An allusion to this has been preserved in rabbinic literature which refers to the “war of Quietus” (Sot. 9:14 – according to the correct reading; Seder Olam), and also mentions the great destruction of Egyptian Jewry generally, and that of Alexandria in particular, with the crushing of the revolt (the destruction of its magnificent synagogue is ascribed to Trajan himself – TJ, Suk. 5:1, 55b). There is an aggadah that Trajan attacked the Jews because, when his son was born on the Ninth of Av, the Jews were mourning, while on the death of another child which occurred on Ḥ anukkah, they kindled lamps in joy (TJ, ibid.; Ta’an. 18b; Lam. R. 1:16 no. 45; et al.). Another aggadah states that before his death he decreed the death of *Pappus and Julianus in Laodicea. In rabbinic literature the name Trajan usually appears in a corrupt form: Trogianus, Tarkinus, etc. Bibliography: Juster, Juifs, 2 (1914), 185–94; Tcherikover, Corpus, 2 (1960), introd., index; K. Friedmann, in: Giornale della Società Asiatica Italiana, 2 (1930), 108–24; A. Schalit, in: Tarbiz, 7 (1935/36), 159–80; J. Guttmann, in: Sefer Assaf (1953), 149–84; S. Apfelbaum, in: Zion, 19 (1954), 23–56; A. Fuks, ibid., 22 (1957), 1–9; Alon, Toledot, 1 (19583), index; R.P. Longden, The Wars of Trajan, in: Cambridge Ancient History, 11 (1936), R. Syme, Tacitus, 1 (1958), 86–99, 217–35; A. Fuks, in: Journal of Roman Studies, 51 (1961); V. Tcherikover, Ha-Yehudim be-Miẓ rayim… (19632), 116–30, 160–79. [Moshe David Herr]

°TRAJAN (Traianus), MARCUS ULPIUS (52/3–117), Roman emperor, ruled 98–117 C.E. In 114 C.E. Chosroes, king of Parthia, violated the arrangement between his country and Rome regarding Armenia. Trajan went to war immediately, conquered Armenia, and annexed it to his empire together with northern Mesopotamia, also including Adiabene. In 116 he captured Ctesiphon, the capital of the Parthians, and penetrated into Babylon. However, a violent uprising among the population of Mesopotamia in which the Jews of the country even earlier played an active role and the previous uprisings in Cyrenaica and Egypt (see below) compelled him to interrupt his campaign of conquest. Nothing definite is known about

TRAMER, MORITZ (1882–1963), pioneer of child psychiatry. Born in Czechoslovakia, Tramer began his career as an engineer and mathematician and is the coauthor of a textbook of higher mathematics for engineers, Differential- und Integralrechnung (1913). He then studied medicine and specialized in psychiatry. From 1924 to 1946 he was medical director of the Psychiatric Hospital in the Canton of Solothurn, Switzerland, and initiated the establishment in 1924 of the Observation Center “Gotthelf Haus” for emotionally disturbed children. He lectured on child and adolescent psychiatry at Berne University and in 1951 founded the Swiss Institute of Research and Information on Child Psychiatry. The designation of the specialty as “child psychiatry” owes its existence to Tramer. He was also the advocate of its recognition as a medical specialty in Switzerland in 1953. Tramer was a prominent figure in national and international professional organizations and published numerous articles. His books include the monumental textbook Lehrbuch der allgemeinen Kinderpsychiatrie (1942, 19644) and the well-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

Bibliography: Loew, Flora, 2 (1924), 419ff.; J. Feliks, Olam ha-Ẓ ome’aḥ ha-Mikra’i (19682), 274–5. [Jehuda Feliks]

trani, moses ben joseph known monograph Allgemeine Psychohygiene (1960s). He was the founder and editor of the first journal of child psychiatry in 1934 later known as Acta Paedopsychiatrica which is the official organ of the International Association for Child Psychiatry and Allied Professions. Bibliography: Acta Paedopsychiatrica, 30 (1963). [Alexander Meijer]

TRANI, seaport in Apulia, S. Italy. In the 12t century, when the town had become a port of embarkation for Crusaders and an important center of Eastern trade, it contained a flourishing Jewish community. When *Benjamin of Tudela visited Trani around 1159 he found 200 Jewish families there. Recognizing their economic usefulness the Norman kings in the 12t century and Emperor Frederick II in the first half of the 13t century granted the Jews a measure of protection. Thanks to this royal patronage they were given the right to control and distribute all the raw silk in Apulia and Calabria. Under Angevin rule toward the end of the 13t century, the position of the Jews deteriorated and they were subjected to severe persecution, fomented by Dominican friars. The houses in the Jewish quarter were repeatedly sacked; *blood libels were frequently raised against the heavily taxed Jews and a growing number was forced into baptism, causing heavy losses to the community. In 1290 four synagogues were converted into churches; two of them still stand. The position did not improve in the next century and many Jewish families left the town. In 1382 other synagogues were turned into churches and the Jewish cemetery was confiscated by the friars. In 1413, when King Ladislas of Naples issued certain dispositions regarding the communal administration of the city of Trani, he decreed that the community (universitas) would have the right to elect a governing body of 16 representatives consisting of 8 nobles, 6 commoners, and *Neofiti (baptized Jews). In all probability the need for this provision arose from the continuing existence of a convert population that retained a separate identity. In 1443 Trani still had 870 families of *Neofiti, and all the commercial activities of the town were said to be concentrated in their hands. After the 1492 expulsions from the Spanish kingdoms and Sicily, many exiles settled in Trani. Jews and Neofiti were expelled from Trani in 1510–11, along with the rest of the Jews in southern Italy. Sporadic persecutions of Neofiti continued for some time. The medieval Jewish settlement is still commemorated by street names such as Vicolo Giudecca, Via Scolanova, and Via la Giudea (renamed Via Mose (di Isaiah) di Trani).

Annali 11, Gli ebrei in Italia. Dall’alto Medioevo all’età dei ghetti, ed. Corrao Vivant (1996), 5–44; C. Colafemmina, “Di alcune iscrizioni ebraiche a Trani,” in: RMI, 67 (2001), 305–12. [Arial Toaff / Nadia Zeldes (2nd ed.)]

TRANI, JOSEPH BEN MOSES (1568–1639), rabbi and halakhist. Trani, known as the “Maharit” (Morenu ha-Rav Joseph Trani), was born in Safed, the youngest son of Moses b. Joseph *Trani. Joseph, 12 years old when his father died, was taken into the home of Solomon *Sagis, a Safed scholar, and became his pupil. In 1587, when Sagis died, Trani went to Egypt, where he attracted many pupils. After a short time he returned to Safed where he founded and taught in a yeshivah. Following the outbreak of a plague in Safed (1594), he went to Jerusalem, where he did research on the design and plan of the Temple. The resulting work, Ẓ urat ha-Bayit, was lost, but many fragments and quotations from it have been preserved in Derekh ha-Kodesh by Ḥ ayyim *Alfandari (published in Maggid mi-Reshit, Constantinople, 1710). After some time Trani returned to Safed, where – as his father before him – he headed the Sephardi community. In 1599 he was sent by the Safed community to Constantinople, and in 1604 took up permanent residence there. Trani headed a large yeshivah in Constantinople which became a center of Torah for all Turkish Jewry and produced many of the great Turkish rabbis of the 17t century, including Ḥ ayyim b. Israel *Benveniste. Trani was eventually elected chief rabbi of Turkey, in which office he introduced takkanot, established societies, and became renowned for his many charitable acts. However, he took a severe attitude toward the *Karaites, who came under his authority according to the law. In addition to Ẓ urat ha-Bayit, the following works by Joseph have been published: Talmud novellae on the tractates of Shabbat, Ketubbot, and Kiddushin (Venice, 1645); Ẓ afenat Pane’aḥ (ibid., 1648), sermons; and responsa (Constantine, 1641; Venice, 1645). Most of his works, which encompassed all branches of Torah, have been lost, among them a supercommentary on Elijah *Mizraḥ i’s commentary on the Pentateuch and an abridgment of the Arukh of *Nathan b. Jehiel of Rome. Bibliography: Frumkin-Rivlin, 1 (1928), 119–20; Rosanes, Togarmah, 3 (1938), 96–100; Yaari, Sheluḥ ei, 243–4; Bloch, in: Hadorom, 5–6 (1958), 95–108; 7 (1958), 78–100; I. Schepansky, Ereẓ Yisrael be-Sifrut ha-Teshuvot, 1 (1966), 314–22; 2 (1968), index, S.V. She’elot u-Teshuvot Maharit. [Ephraim Kupfer]

Bibliography: Milano, Bibliotheca, index; Milano, Italia, index; Roth, Italy, index; U. Cassuto, in: Rivista degli studi orientali, 13 (1932), 172–80; idem, in: Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume… (1950), 387–9; Luzzatto, in: RMI, 10 (1935/36), 285–9; N. Ferorelli, Ebrei nell’Italia Meridionale… (1915), passim; E. Munkácsi, Der Jude von Neapel (1939), 47–80. Add. Bibliography: C. Colafemmina, “Documenti per la storia degli ebrei a Trani nei secoli XV–XVI,” in: Sefer Yuhasin, 3 (1987), 17–24; idem, Documenti per la storia degli ebrei in Puglia nell’archivio di stato di Napoli (1990); D. Abulafia, “Il mezzogiorno peninsulare dai bizantini all’espulsione,” in: Storia d’Italia.

TRANI, MOSES BEN JOSEPH (Heb. acronym Ha-Ma-bit; 1500–1580), rabbi. His father emigrated from Italy to Salonika, where Moses was born, but the family was of Spanish origin. Orphaned at an early age, Moses went to Adrianople to live with his uncle Aaron, studying with him as well as at the yeshivah of R. Joseph Fasi. He later proceeded to Safed where he studied under Jacob *Berab, and was one of the four scholars ordained by him in his attempt to reintroduce ordination (*semikhah). In 1525 Moses was appointed marbiẓ Torah of the

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

transjordan Bet Ya’akov congregation. In 1535 he visited Jerusalem. Moses devoted himself to a considerable extent to the agricultural laws which obtained in Ereẓ Israel, and in a *Sabbatical Year exempted from tithes produce that had grown in land belonging to a gentile, even though it had been stored by a Jew. This decision was disputed by Joseph *Caro and other Safed scholars. There were also spirited controversies between him and Caro on other matters. For some time he stayed in Damascus (1565). Moses was active as rabbi and dayyan for 54 years, but it was only after the death of Joseph Caro that he was appointed spiritual head of the whole community of Safed. Moses had two sons: Solomon, who was rabbi in Egypt, and Joseph *Trani (from his second marriage), who was rabbi in Safed and in Constantinople. Moses’ works are Kiryat Sefer on Maimonides (Venice, 1551); Beit Elohim, a moral and philosophical work with a commentary to *Perek Shirah (Venice, 1576; Warsaw, 1872); Iggeret Derekh ha-Shem, a moral work (Venice, 1553); responsa (2 pts., Venice, 1629–30; Lvov, 1861).

range parallel to the Jordan on the east varies in height: in the ʿAjlūn (Gilead), Tell ʿIbbīn is 3,940 ft. (1,182 m.) high, Umm al-Daraj is 4,203 ft. (1,261 m.) high, and Qalʿat Ilyās is 3,640 ft. (1,092 m.) high. South of the Jabbok, Nabī Yūshaʿ reaches to 3,710 ft. (1,113 m.) and Mount Nebo to 2,650 ft. (795 m.); south of the Arnon, Jebel Sīhān is 3,550 ft. (1,065 m.) high and Jebel al-Ḥ asāʾ is 113 ft. (1,234 m.) high; the mountains of Seir reach to 5,776 ft. (1,733 m.). The greatest rainfall is in the ʿAjlūn (c. 27½ in.; 700 mm.) and in the mountains of Seir (c. 15¾ in.; 400 mm.). Most of the cultivable area receives about 8 in. (200 mm.) annually, with a rainfall of about 3 in. (80 mm.) in the desert. The mountains of Gilead are still wooded; in antiquity the area was much more thickly afforested, as is borne out by the story of Absalom. There is evidence that a large area under cultivation extended eastward. Iron was mined near Jerash and copper in the Arabah (see *Punon).

TRANSJORDAN (Heb. ‫) ֵﬠ ֶבר ַהיַ ְרדֵּ ן‬. Geographically, Transjordan includes the area east of the Jordan River, extending from the sources of the Jordan near the *Hermon to the *Dead Sea. However, the area north of the Yarmuk River (the Golan and Bashan) are regarded as a separate entity, while the area east of the Dead Sea and the *Arabah, down to the Red Sea, is included in the region of Transjordan. In its geographical configuration, Transjordan is composed of a series of three regions running from north to south: the eastern *Jordan Valley; the slopes descending to the valley, which face westward and are well provided with rainfall; and the mountains which slope gently eastward and merge with the desert steppe. The settled part of this area covers 6,840 sq. mi. (17,500 sq. km.), of which the Jordan-Dead Sea depression comprises 215 sq. mi. (550 sq. km.), the mountain and hill region 2,617 sq. mi. (6,700 sq. km.), the high plateau 2,051 sq. mi. (5,250 sq. km.), and the sandy southern regions approximately 1,953 sq. mi. (c. 5,000 sq. km.). Politically, in the Hashemite Kingdom of *Jordan, the region of Transjordan is considered to include 28,320 sq. mi. (72,500 sq. km.) of steppe and desert in a broad strip joining Iraq and dividing *Syria from *Saudi-Arabia. The settled area is cut by confluents of the Jordan flowing from east to west, and by rivers emptying into the Dead Sea: the Yarmuk, forming the northern boundary of the region; the Jabbok, separating Gilead from Ammon and the Peraea; the Nimrīn, usually the northern boundary of Moab; the Arnon, at certain times the boundary of Moab; the Zered, separating Moab from Edom and the mountains of Seir. The mountain

History Paleolithic and Mesolithic remains, the earliest traces of occupation in Transjordan, have been found in the mountains of Seir and in Wadi Nimrīn. A pre-ceramic Neolithic settlement was discovered at al-Bayḍ āʾ, southeast of the Dead Sea. Megalithic constructions were found at Alfa Safat and al-ʿUdayma in the Jordan Valley. Near the latter site is Tulaylāt al-Ghassūl, a Chalcolithic site of great importance, which gave its name to the Ghassulian culture. From the Early Bronze Age onward, a certain pattern of occupation can be noticed, mainly in the southern part of Transjordan, as a result of the archaeological survey undertaken by N. Glueck: periods of settlement varied with periods in which the area was abandoned to nomads. The first period of settlement lasted from approximately the 23rd to the 19t century B.C.E. According to biblical tradition, the early populations included the Zuzims at Ham in northern Gilead, the Emims in Moab, and the Horites in Mount Seir (Gen. 14:5–6). Possibly as a result of the invasion described in this chapter, there was a decline in the settlement of Transjordan from the 19t to approximately the 14t century B.C.E. Egyptian texts do not mention any cities in Transjordan within this span of time, except for those in the Jordan Valley proper: Pehel (Pella; Execration Texts, Thutmosis III and Seti I), and perhaps Zaphon (Tell el-Amarna letters), Zarethan (Execration Texts), and Kiriath Anab (Tell al-Shihāb on the Yarmuk; Seti I, Papyrus Anastasi I). Only in the 13t century, in inscriptions of Ramses II, are cities in Moab, including Dibon, mentioned for the first time. The biblical definition of the Egyptian province of *Canaan (Num. 34) definitely excludes Transjordan, which was left to the Shasu nomads. About a century before the Exodus, Transjordan was settled again by the Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites, who formed a strong chain of kingdoms, with extensive areas under cultivation and a system of efficient border fortresses. Probably in the early 13t century, Moab was attacked from the north by Sihon, the Amorite king of Heshbon, who wrested the area north of the Arnon from it. The Israelites, coming from the wilderness, found it extremely difficult to cross Transjordan;

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

Bibliography: Conforte, Kore, 35b–36b; Fishman, in: Sinai, 14 (1944), 12–16; Dimitrovsky, in: Sefunot, 6 (1962), 71–117; 7 (1963), 41–100; Frumkin-Rivlin, 1 (1929), 88; Rosanes, Togarmah, 2 (1938), 168f., 190ff.; A. Elmaleh (ed.), Ḥ emdat Yisrael (1946), 147–56; Joffeh, in: Sinai, 24 (1948/49), 290–304; S. Schechter, Studies in Judaism, 2 (1908), index. [Hirsch Jacob Zimmels]

transjordan finally they passed east of the settled area of Moab and Edom; their victory over Sihon gave them the entire Jordan Valley, the Gilead, and part of Moab. This area was allotted to the tribes of Reuben (from the Arnon to the Nimrīn Valley), Gad (from southern Gilead to the Jabbok and the Jordan Valley), and half of Manasseh (from the Jabbok northward). In the period of the Judges these tribes were subjected to the kings of Ammon and Moab, until David eventually conquered all of Transjordan down to the Red Sea. In the time of Solomon, Israelite-controlled Transjordan was organized into the three districts of Ramoth-Gilead, Mahanaim, and southern Gilead (Gad?; I Kings 4:13–14, 19). After the division of the kingdom, Ammon and Moab fell to Israel and Edom to Judah, but all three soon regained their independence. As is known from the *Mesha stele, Moab was reconquered by Omri; it revolted against Israel in the time of Ahab, finally gaining its independence in the days of Joram, the last of the Omrid kings (851–842 B.C.E.; cf. II Kings 3). In later times Israel never succeeded in subduing Moab, which under Mesha had enlarged its boundaries to the edge of the Jordan Valley. However, the kings of Judah succeeded in ruling large parts of Edom in the ninth century during the days of Jehoshaphat and Jehoram, and again in the eighth century in the days of Amaziah and Uzziah. With the eighth century B.C.E., the settled area of Transjordan began once more to shrink, a process which lasted until the Hellenistic period. The Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III deported part of the Israelite population from Gilead in 732 B.C.E. The Ammonites maintained their independence, and the Edomites threw off Judean rule in the time of Ahaz (743–727 B.C.E.). After the fall of Jerusalem and the deportation of its population by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C.E., the Edomites moved into southern Judea and their place was gradually taken over by the Nabateans, a people known for outstanding achievements in agriculture, architecture, and art. Their kingdom was composed of sections of Transjordan, Palestine, and Syria, and Petra was their capital (fourth century B.C.E.). In the Persian period, Ammon was ruled by the Jewish family of *Tobiads, whose roots in Gilead dated back to the time of the Israelite monarchy. In Hellenistic times, a new period of prosperity began for Transjordan, lasting until the Arab conquest. The Ptolemies or Seleucids founded a number of cities in the northern part: Gadara and Abila to the north, followed by Pella and Gerasa. Rabbath-Ammon became the city of Philadelphia and was separated from the area of the Tobiads, who ruled the region populated by Jews between Philadelphia and the Jordan (the Peraea). Transjordan passed temporarily from Ptolemaic to Seleucid rule in 218 B.C.E. and permanently in 198 B.C.E. In the course of Hasmonean expansion, large areas of Transjordan were conquered by Jonathan (the Peraea), John Hyrcanus (Madaba and Heshbon), and Alexander Yannai (Moab to the Zered, Gerasa, Pella, and Gadara). In 63 B.C.E. Pompey restored the autonomy of the Greek cities, leaving only Peraea to the Jews. In order to strengthen the Greek element under

Roman rule, he formed the Decapolis league, which included Philadelphia. For a time, Herod ruled Gadara, which was restored to Syria after his death. In the First Jewish War, the Peraea was conquered by the Romans (68 C.E.), but its Jewish population remained. In 97 the city of Capitolias was founded at Belt al-Rās near Pella. In 106 Trajan annexed the Nabatean kingdom; the cities of Madaba, Esbus (Heshbon), Areopolis (Rabbath-Moab), Charachmoba, and Petra became part of the new province of Arabia, into which Philadelphia and Gerasa were incorporated. The cities of the area reached a height of prosperity in the second century C.E. under the Antonines, due to a new paved road (the Via Nova) running from Elath (Aila) to Bostra throughout the length of Transjordan. Christianity gained an early foothold in Transjordan, when the Jerusalem community moved to Pella in 70 C.E. In the Byzantine period southern Transjordan was attached to Palaestina III, the rest to Arabia. Churches and monasteries were built in all the large cities and the bishops took part in church councils. In the last centuries of Byzantine rule, Arab influences in the area were marked. The first battle between the Arabs and the Byzantines took place in 629, still in the lifetime of the prophet *Muhammad, in Transjordan (in Mu’ta, near Karak). The final Arab conquest was effected in several stages: southern Transjordan was taken in 630, the mountains of Seir and Moab in 634, and the rest of the region in 635. With the battle on the Yarmuk in 636, Arab rule in the area was established. In the early Arab period, the area up to Jerash was attached to the Jund al-Urdunn; central Transjordan, including Amman, to the Jund Filasṭīn; and the northern part to the Jund Dimashq (*Damascus). Under Arab rule the northern part of Transjordan together with northern Palestine constituted an administrative unit called Jund al-Urdun, with Tiberias as its capital. Central and southern Transjordan, with the equivalent parts west of the river Jordan, became Jund Filasṭīn, administered from Ramleh. The Arab period marked the beginning of a new decline in the population, which became pronounced for centuries after the Crusades (13t to 19t centuries). In the Crusades period, the Jordan Valley, part of the ʿAjlūn, and the mountains of Karak and Shawbak down to the Red Sea were combined into a principality known as Terre D’Outre Jourdain. As the Crusaders, and especially the rulers of the fortress of Montreal (Shawbak), threatened the pilgrims’ route to Mecca and even the holy cities themselves, Saladin attacked and reduced the Crusader fortresses before the battle of Ḥ iṭṭin. Under *Mamluk rule Transjordan was divided between Mamlakat Dimashq (the districts (aʿmāl) of ʿAjlūn and al-Balqāʾ) and Mamlakat al-Karak, which included Maʿān, Shawbak, Zughar (Zoar), and Karak. In the time of Baybars it was ruled by the last descendant of the *Ayyubid dynasty. In Ottoman times the population of Transjordan reached its lowest level and most of Transjordan was left to the Bedouin, although the sultans kept up a semblance of administration in the western areas. Most of the region was part of the vilayet of Damascus, divided into the Sanjak of Ḥ awrān (to the Jabbok), the Sanjak of Nablus, which occasionally included the Balqāʾ,

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

translation and translators and the Sanjak of al-Karak. The southern sections, Ma‘an and Aqaba, were part of the vilayet of Hijaz. However, Ottoman rule was nominal most of the time. Transjordan was regarded as the backyard of Syria and Palestine and concerned the Ottomans only during the annual pilgrimage, as the main Hajj caravan from Damascus had to cross it en route to *Medina. Only in the second half of the 19t century, after the shortlived Egyptian occupation (1831–40) and during the reform period (Tanzimat), under *Abdul-Ḥ amid II, was resettlement begun. The Ottomans had extended their direct rule over Transjordan. Karak, the capital of its namesake sanjak, was the major city in the area and the jurisdiction of its governor stretched over most of sedentary Transjordan. Local population increased when Circassian refugees from Russian-occupied Caucasus were encouraged by the Ottomans (in 1861–64, and later after the Turkish-Russian war of 1877–78) to migrate to Palestine and Transjordan. In the latter they settled in and around Amman, Zarqa, and Jarash. The 19t century also witnessed growing European interest in Transjordan, mainly for archeological and historical reasons – in 1812 Burckhardt discovered Petra and in 1806 Seetzen discovered Jarash. In the second half of the 19t century the interest of the Palestine Exploration Fund as well as of Christian churches and missions in Transjordan yielded, inter alia, the discovery of the *Mesha stele and the *Madaba mosaic map. In 1900–08 the Ottomans built the Hijazi railroad from Damascus to Medina. About one third of the 1,200 km. line passed through Transjordan, bringing it closer to the administrative centers of Damascus and *Istanbul, yet also triggering several rebellions in Karak. For modern period after 1914, see also *Israel; *Jordan.

TRANSLATION AND TRANSLATORS (Medieval). The earliest Jewish translations, apart from possible examples in the Bible, are the Greek version of the Pentateuch and, later, other books of the Bible, which were made to fill a need in the Greek-speaking Jewish community of Alexandria and other places that no longer understood the original Hebrew. Similarly, the Aramaic vernacular of Jewish settlements in Palestine and other parts of southwestern Asia explain the development of Aramaic versions of the Bible. In the 10t century *Ḥ isdai ibn Shaprut was one of the main translators of Dioscorides’ work from Greek to Arabic in the court of Cordoba. During the 12t and 13t century Toledo was a very notable center of translations and the Jews

played an important role in this enterprise. In the middle of the 12t century the archbishop of Toledo, Don Raimundo de la Sauvetat (1124–52), promoted the translation of Arabic philosophical works from Arabic through the Romance versions into Latin. The Jew Avendauth worked together with the Christian Gundisalvus, translating, for instance, the De Anima of Avicenna and Ibn Gabirol’s Fons Vitae. One century later, King Alfonso the Sage relied on Jewish translators to get Romance versions of many scientific works. Among them, Judah ben Moses ha-Kohen, Isaac ibn Sa’id, the Alfaquim Don Abraham (Ibn Shoshan?), Samuel ha-Levi Abulafiah, and Don Moses Alfaquí, translated important astronomic and astrologic treatises. The many translations into Hebrew which began to appear in Western Europe early in the 12t century can be attributed to several factors, among which the spread of Judeo-Islamic culture was of central importance. Cultured and scholarly men from Islamic Spain began to travel to Christian lands. Abraham Ibn Ezra, for example, traveled to Italy, France, and England, and supported himself by writing Hebrew grammars, translations, and biblical commentaries commissioned by Jewish communities. These works undoubtedly stimulated interest in the new approaches to language and learning and reflected the cultural richness of Spain. In consequence of religious persecutions and other disturbances in the Iberian Peninsula during the 12t century, some Jewish families emigrated to southern France or northern Italy, and spread something of the learning and achievements of their native land in their new homes. Works written in Hebrew, moreover, stimulated a desire for additional works in that language. In addition, the general cultural awakening in Western Europe during the 12t century affected the Jews, encouraging them to the further acquisition of knowledge. Without question, at the end of the 12t century, Maimonides’ Hebrew code of Jewish law Mishneh Torah excited scholars in France and Italy, so that they avidly sought everything the master produced, translating it from Arabic into Hebrew. No discernible pattern governed the books that were translated into Hebrew. Apparently, books were often translated on the request of a patron, or a scholar would select a book to translate for his own reasons. However, besides the large number of such unclassifiable translations, activity was concentrated in the fields of philosophy, mathematics, medicine, and other sciences. Generally, translators explained their undertakings as being in response to a special request. Judah ibn *Tibbon relates in the introduction to his Hebrew version of Baḥ ya ibn Paquda’s Ḥ ovot ha-Levavot (Duties of the Heart) that Meshullam b. Jacob, whom he praises as an adept in both religious and secular studies, urged him to prepare a translation of the Arabic work. Similarly, Judah *Al-Ḥ arizi states that he translated Maimonides’ Moreh Nevukhim (Guide of the Perplexed) at the invitation of some Provençal scholars. There are many other examples of requests urging the translation of a work, yet there is no information about remuneration, although the translators presumably received some payment

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

Bibliography: G. Schumacher, Across the Jordan (1886); idem, Karte des Ostjordanlandes (1908); A. Musil, Arabia Petraea (1907); R.E. Bruennow and A. Domaszewski, Provincia Arabia, 3 vols. (1904–09); C. Sternagel, Der Adschlun (1927); H. Rhotert, Transjordanien (1938); N. Glueck, The Other Side of the Jordan (1940); idem, Explorations in Eastern Palestine, 4 vols. (1934–51); A. Konikoff, Transjordan (1946); L. Harding, The Antiquities of Jordan (1959). Add. Bibliography: N. Lewis, Nomads and Settlers in Syria and Jordan (1987); R.S. AbuJaber, Pioneers over Jordan: The Frontier Settlement in Transjordan 1850–1914 (1989); E. Rogan, Frontiers of State in the Late Ottoman Empire: Transjordan 1850–1921 (1999). [Michael Avi-Yonah / Joseph Nevo (2nd ed.)]

translation and translators from those who requested the work. Perhaps a community assumed some obligation for payment, especially if the persons interested in the translation were influential members in it. While it is reasonable to assume this of professional translators, like the Tibbonids or al-Ḥ arizi, it is probable that other translators were impelled by a personal interest in the work and a desire to bring it to the attention of their fellow Jews. There was considerable complaint about the neglect of Hebrew and the employment of Arabic. Writers occasionally pointed out the difference between Jews who lived under Islamic domination and Jews who resided in Christian lands. It was not the use of the vernacular Arabic which vexed them, because it was taken for granted that for social intercourse the language of the land was the proper vehicle. But in view of the fact that Jews in Christian countries utilized Hebrew in their literary productions, Jewish writers in Islamic countries justified their use of Arabic by claiming that the subjects they dealt with – subjects not cultivated by Italian and French Jews – required a vocabulary which Hebrew did not possess and which Arabic possessed in abundance. Moses ha-Kohen *Gikatilla, who supplied a Hebrew translation of the grammatical studies of Ḥ ayyūj, explains that grammarians were compelled to write in Arabic “because it is the current speech of a victorious people, and it is explicit while Hebrew is vague; clear and plain whereas Hebrew is ambiguous; and it is proper to elucidate the unknown by the known and the vague by the explicit.” Judah ibn Tibbon presents a brief historical survey of the course of development: “Afterward most of the geonim lived in the Diaspora of the Muslim Empire, Iraq, Ereẓ Israel and Iran, and spoke Arabic, and all the Jewish communities in those areas spoke that tongue. Most of their interpretations of biblical and mishnaic and talmudic books were in Arabic, as also most of their compilations and responsa in answer to inquiries made of them. All the people understood it. Moreover it is a rich language, fully adequate for every theme and every need of orator or author; straight and clear rhetoric, to express the essence of every subject more than is possible in Hebrew.” Notwithstanding the conceded advantages of Arabic over Hebrew, Jews adhered to the tradition that Hebrew was the divine tongue, the first to serve mankind. But the exile and the tribulations which Jews suffered had caused the loss of a significant portion of Hebrew vocabulary, since the Bible was the only record preserved. In view of the difference in the richness of the two languages, the role of translator imposed certain duties, the main being the coinage of words and phrases in Hebrew according to need. For translating philosophical, scientific, or medical works new technical words had to be created in Hebrew. It was also necessary to decide what method to pursue in this process. Ordinarily translation is in large measure interpretation, and the function of the translator is to transmit in the new medium the sense of the original. Before Samuel ibn Tibbon translated the Guide of the Perplexed into Hebrew, he asked Maimonides for suggestions. The latter offered the following instructions: a translator must first understand the content,

and narrate and explain that content in the language in which he is working. He will not escape changing the order of words, or transmitting phrases in single words, or eliminating vocables, or adding them, so that the work is well ordered and expounded, and the language of the translator will follow the principles governing that language. Despite this very sensible advice, Samuel ibn Tibbon’s translation of the Guide, and his father’s version of other works, give the impression of excessive faithfulness to the original. Yet this did not prove contrary to Maimonides’ demands, inasmuch as he expressed his gratitude for the accomplishment of his translator. In fact, the style developed by father and son, with strong Arabic influence in its morphology, syntax, and vocabulary, became the standard for subsequent efforts in this field (Goshen-Gottstein). Other ways of translating, searching for a pure, more literary biblical language and avoiding the numerous neologisms, was undertaken also by other Jewish scholars like Judah Al-Ḥ arizi, who translated Maimonides’ Guide in a completely different way not long after the Tibbonid translation. But the method of the ibn Tibbon family was taken as a model for the future, while Al-Ḥ arizi’s translation was quickly forgotten. When the full mastery of Arabic was lacking, books were translated from Arabic to Latin by way of the Hebrew version, and occasionally Hebrew translations were made from the Latin rather than from the original Arabic. Although thorough knowledge of both tongues was theoretically necessary – to appreciate the nuances and fathom the true meaning of the original, and to render it authentically and idiomatically – in practice this was unfortunately rarely the case. Translators, even if they were qualified to produce the ideal version, were so concerned about remaining faithful to the original Arabic that they frequently violated Hebrew syntax or sentence structure, and disregarded simple rules of gender and number. Nevertheless, translators contributed greatly to the enrichment of Hebrew, adding a large scientific and philosophic vocabulary. The means utilized to expand the vocabulary were forming new words from existing roots, creating additional noun patterns, making derivations from verbal stems, or forming verbs from nouns. Occasionally a new meaning was attached to an existing term, parallel to the course followed in the coinage of the Arabic terminology. In addition, a number of words were borrowed from Arabic, and they were generally adjusted to the morphological requirements of Hebrew. It should also be kept in mind that the philosophic and scientific style introduced by the translators became the standard, so that men who composed in Hebrew followed the patterns adopted from Arabic. Translators were not always familiar with the subject of the work they were rendering. Occasionally criticism would be voiced about translators who offered to work without adequate knowledge of the field involved. However, on the whole, translators were usually conscious of their obligations, and succeeded in transmitting authentic versions of the originals. Even in more popular literature, where greater freedom could be taken since in popular works eloquence was frequently a

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

translation and translators major quality, the Hebrew version, although it may read like an original, will still be a correct rendering. Abraham ibn Ḥ asdai’s *Ben ha-Melekh ve-ha-Nazir, a beautiful Jewish book in Hebrew, is unmistakably a rendering of Barlaam and Josaphat. Other popular works translated into Hebrew were *Kalila and Dimna and Sinbad the Sailor. In this genre, and, for that matter, in some of the more serious compositions, like Ibn Gabirol’s Improvement of the Qualities of the Soul, translators often substituted Jewish personalities and references for foreign ones, and even replaced Arabic verses with Jewish equivalents. Translators generally approached their task with deep humility. Statements of inadequacy and confessions of ignorance, which should have kept them from the undertaking, are often found in translators’ introductions to their works. Although some of these expressions were undoubtedly pro forma, many others represent expressions of genuine trepidation with which translators assumed the charge. Samuel b. Judah of Marseilles, who translated Aristotle’s Ethics, admits openly and sincerely his insufficient acquaintance with the subject and expresses the hope of studying it in depth to improve his rendering. Judah b. Nathan, who prepared a Hebrew version of Ghazalī’s The Intentions of the Philosopher, frankly describes his inadequate command of the language and the subject. Yet the results are by and large highly commendable. Our main source of information about Hebrew translations is still the monumental work of M. Steinschneider, Die hebraeischen Uebersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher (1893, repr. 1956). The following is a survey of medieval Hebrew translations of Arabic and Latin works. It begins with philosophy, and in this field *Aristotle was far and away the outstanding representative of Greek thought among Muslim and Jewish thinkers. The latter, who were mostly unfamiliar with Greek, knew him only through the Arabic. Two Muslim philosophers are extremely important for their influence on their Jewish counterparts: Abu al-Naṣ r Muhammad al-*Fārābi (c. 870–950), known as “the second teacher” (Aristotle was the first), and Abu al-Walīd Muhammad ibn Rushd (*Averroes; 1126–1198). The Jewish philosophers knew the views of the Greek master through the commentaries of these two. The Muslim thinkers, and Maimonides among the Jews, knew of a compendium of the entire Organon; but in Hebrew translation, only some parts are to be found: (1) Porphyry’s Isagoge was called Kiẓ ẓ ur mi-Kol Melekhet ha-Higgayon by its translator Moses b. Samuel ibn Tibbon. A fragment of another version of their Introduction to logic is also extant; (2) Categoriae Sifrei Ma’amarot, in two renderings; (3) Hermeneutica, in two Hebrew translations, both known to Abraham Avigdor in his commentary on Averroes; (4) Syllogisms, also in two translations, and an abridgment by Jacob Anatoli; (5) Analytica Posteriora – Ma’amar bi-Tena’ei ha-Hekkesh haMofet, anonymous; (6) Topica – Ommanut ha-Nisṣ u’aḥ , in two translations, both anonymous. All of these works in logic are in al-Fārābi’s version.

Averroes studied Aristotle’s works in three ways: (1) Summaries of the latter’s teachings which he himself called AlJawāmi ʿal-Sighār (the brief compendia; in Heb. Kiẓ ẓ ur). (2) The Middle Commentaries, which Averroes named Talkhiṣ – Be’ur or Perush; the Hebrew renderings do not indicate in each work whether it is from this body, or from the next one. (3) The Great Commentaries. In these Aristotle’s text is offered in sections, followed in every case by a detailed commentary. In the ensuing list 1 = The Compendium, 2 = The Middle Commentary, 3 = The Great Commentary. I. Logic. (1a) Kol Melekhet ha-Higgayon le-Aristoteles mi-Kiẓ ẓ urei ibn Rushd by Jacob b. Inaktur, Nov. 10, 1189. (1b) Kiẓ ẓ ur Higgayon by Samuel b. Judah of Marseilles, December 1329. He explains in his introduction that he undertook it only because the previous one was a poor performance. (2a) by Jacob b. Abba Mari Anatoli, March 1232. (2b) Nissu’aḥ ve-Hata’ah by Kalonymus b. Kalonymus, Arles, 1313. (2c) Halaẓ ah ve-Shir by Todros Todrosi, Arles, 1337. (3) Ha-Mofet by Kalonymus b. Kalonymus, December 1314. II. A. Physics. (1) Ha-Shema ha-Tivi by Moses ibn Tibbon. (2a) Ha-Shema by Zerahiah Ḥ en of Barcelona, in Rome, 1284. It is in eight sections (ma’amarim), divided into principles (kelalim), and these into chapters (perakim). (2b) HaShema by Kalonymus b. Kalonymus, Arles, 1316. (3) Ha-Shema by Kalonymus b. Kalonymus. It seems that another version was prepared by Moses b. Solomon. B. Sefer ha-Shamayim (1) Themistius’ paraphrase, by Zerahiah Ḥ en, Rome, 1284. Averroes’ Kelalei ha-Shamayim veha-Olam was done by Moses ibn Tibbon. (2) by Solomon b. Joseph ibn Ayyūb of Granada, in Béziers, 1259. C. (1) Ha-Havayah ve-ha-Hefsed, by Moses ibn Tibbon, 1250. (2) by Zerahiah Ḥ en, Rome, 1284. Also by Kalonymus b. Kalonymus, October 1316. D. Al-Āthār al-ʿAlawiyya on meteorology. (1) Otot haShamayim by Samuel ibn Tibbon, 1210. A work by Averroes: Otot Elyonot was translated into Hebrew by Moses ibn Tibbon. (2) Be’ur Sefer ha-Otot ha-Elyonot by Kalonymus b. Kalonymus, Arles, 1316. E. Ha-Ẓ emaḥ im 1–2 by Shem Tov ibn Falaquera, and Kalonymus b. Kalonymus, who did Averroes’ commentary, April 1314. F. Sefer Ba’alei-Ḥ ayyim, consisting of de Natura Animalium, de Partibus and de Generatione. The last two were translated by Jacob b. Machir ibn Tibbon, December 1302. G. On the Soul, translated by Zerahiah Ḥ en in Rome, 1284. Averroes’ treatment (1) Kelalei Sefer ha-Nefesh, by Moses ibn Tibbon, 1244. (2a) by Shem Tov b. Isaac of Tortosa. (2b) Be’ur Sefer ha-Nefesh by Moses ibn Tibbon, April 1261. (3) Of the Great Commentary no Hebrew translation is known, but it was used by Shem Tov Falaquera and was commented on by Joseph b. Shem Tov. It is also pertinent to mention the treatise of Alexander of Aphrodisias, which in Hebrew is Ma’amar Nefesh, translated by Samuel b. Judah of Marseilles in Murcia, November 1323. H. Of the Parva Naturalia, consisting of de Sensu et Sensato, de Memoria, de Somno, and de Berevitate Vitae, only the

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

translation and translators first was translated as Ha-Ḥ ush ve-ha Muḥ ash by Moses ibn Tibbon, July 1314, in Montpellier. Metaphysics. Al-Fārābī’s introduction Kitāb fī Aghrāḍ Aristo fī Kitāb mā ba’d al-Tabī’a was rendered anonymously in Hebrew under the title: Be-Khavvanot Aristo be-Sifro Mah she-Akhar ha-Teva. Books alpha–lambda were done from the Latin by Baruch b. Yā’ish for Samuel Sarfati about 1485. Of Averroes’ treatment, one was presented in Hebrew by Moses ibn Tibbon in May 1258, a second by Zerahiah Ḥ en, 1284, in Rome and also by Kalonymus b. Kalonymus in May 1317. The third is by Moses b. Solomon of Salon in Beaucaire, 1310–20, of which only Hebrew fragments survive. Themistius’ paraphrase of Book Lambda (12) was translated by Moses ibn Tibbon. De Anima plus Averroes’ commentary was explained, and possibly translated by Moses Narboni under the title Efsharut ha-Devekut ba-Sekhel ha-Po’el. Three treatises on the same theme were translated into Hebrew by Samuel ibn Tibbon. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics were rendered in Hebrew from the Latin by Don Meir b. Solomon Alguadez, Averroes’ middle commentary in Hebrew by Samuel b. Judah of Marseilles, February 1321. His Politics were never translated into Arabic, although its existence was known as the practical application of the principle in the Ethics to the conduct of the state, but it is Plato’s Republic which was available in Arabic under the title Kitāb al-Siyāsa and was translated into Hebrew by Samuel b. Judah of Marseilles in 1320–22. Of Aristotle’s Economica, a Hebrew version from the Arabic was prepared by David b. Solomon of Seville (1373?), and probably from the Latin by Leon Aretino. The latter carries an Introduction by an otherwise unknown Abraham ibn Tibbon. Several pseudo-Aristotelian works circulated in Hebrew, generally via Arabic. Of these, Problemata by Moses ibn Tibbon (1264); on stones – Sefer ha-Avanim or De Lapidario; Theology by Moses b. Joseph Arovas, from the Arabic, and also in Italian by him; Secretum secretorum, in Arabic Sirr al-Asrār, and in Hebrew, anonymously, Sod ha-Sodot, in the 13t century; de Causis, on the absolute good, by Zerahiah Ḥ en called Ha-Be’ur be-Tov ha-Gamur, and also by Hillel b. Samuel of Verona, both from the Arabic, which is not known (Produs’ de Causis was rendered in Hebrew by Judah Romano, and called Sefer haSibbot); Kitāb-al-Tufāḥ a (“On the Apple”; on immorality, and seen as an imitation of Plato’s Phaedo) in Hebrew by Abraham ibn Ḥ isdai; these are also letters which he sent to Alexander the Great, and works on auguring. Muslim thinkers who wrote in Arabic, and whose works were translated into Hebrew, include al-Fārābi: Fi al-Tanbīhʿ alā Sabīl al-Saʿāda is rendered in Hebrew, Ha-He’arah alDerekh ha-Haẓ laḥ ah, by an anonymous translator; Kitab alMabādiʾ or al-Siyāsa was translated by Moses ibn Tibbon, and named Sefer ha-Hatḥ alah; Iḥ ṣ āʾ al-Ulūm (an enumeration of the sciences), in Hebrew, by Kalonymus b. Kalonymus, BeMispar ha-Ḥ okhmot; ʿUyūn al-Masāʾil (answers to philosophical problems), in Hebrew Ayin Mishpat ha-Derushim by Todros Todrosi; Kalonymus b. Kalonymus did Iggeret be-Siddur

Kriʾat ha-Ḥ okhmot from the Arabic fī mā Yanbaghīʿan Yaqdum qabla Taʿallum al-Falsafa; Ba-Sekhel u-va-Muskal from fī alʿAql wa al-Mʿaqūl; the last was also translated anonymously as Ha Sekhel ve-ha-muskalot. Risāla fī Hayāt al-Nafs was done in Hebrew by Zerahiah Ḥ en, in 1284, Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna, d. 1037), accepted by orthodox Islam, wrote al-Samāʾ wa alʿĀlam, translated into Hebrew as Ha-Shamayim ve-ha-Olam, by Solomon b. Moses of Melgueil (second half of 13t century), probably from Latin; Sefer ha-Shenah ve-ha-Yekẓ ah by the same, again from Latin; al-Najāt, translated as Haẓ ẓ alat ha-Nefesh by Todros Todrosi (1330–40); Ḥ ai ibn Yaqzān, in Hebrew Iggeret Ḥ ai ben Mekiẓ by Abraham ibn Ezra. Al-*Ghazālī (d. 1111), the famous critic of philosophy, wrote Maqāṣ id al-Falāsifa (“The Objectives of the Philosopher”; it was cribbed by Saádiah b. Daud al-ʿAdeni under the title Zakāt al-Nafs) which was adopted by Isaac al-Balagh (only the first two parts) and called De’ot ha-Pilosofim. A translation, Kavvanot ha-Pilosofim, was prepared (1352–58) by Judah b. Nathan, a Provençal physician. A third anonymous version also exists. His Tahāfut al-Falāsifa (“The Collapse of the Philosophers”) was translated into Hebrew, by Zerahiah b. Isaac ha-Levi, called Saladin, and possibly the Rabbi Ferrer of the Tortosa disputation (1412–14). Miʿyar al-ʿIlm is Moznei ha-Iyyunim by Jacob b. Machir ibn Tibbon; Mīzān al-ʿAmal, an ethical work, done by Abraham b. Samuel ibn Ḥ asdai and called Moznei Ẓ edek. Mishkatt al-Anwar (“The Niche of the Lights”) is Maskit ha-Orot by Isaac b. Joseph al-Fāsī, of the 13t century. Another, but anonymous, rendering is called Ha-Orot ha-Elohiyyot. Abdallah ibn Muhammad of Badajoz (d. 1127) wrote alDāʾira al-Wahmiyya (“The Imaginary Circle”) a work which was quite influential among Jewish thinkers. Moses ibn Tibbon rendered it into Hebrew, calling it Ha-Agullot ha-Ra’yoniyyot. It was also done by Samuel Motot, as part of his commentary on Sefer Yeẓ irah. Ibn Baja (d. 1138 in Fez) wrote Kitāb al-Wadāʿ (“The Farewell” [to the world]) which was converted into Hebrew by Ḥ ayyim ibn Vivas, and fī Tadbīr al-Mutawaḥ ḥ id (on the conduct of the recluse) which is Be-Hanhagat ha-Mitboded, by Moses of Narbonne who wrote a commentary on it. Ibn Ṭ ufayl (d. 1185 in Murcia) composed a celebrated Risālat Ḥ ayy ben Yaqzān, in Hebrew Iggeret Ḥ ayawan ben Yakson, it was also incorporated by Moses of Narbonne in his commentary. Ibn Rushd (Averroes, d. 1198) wrote an exposition of the harmony of religion and philosophy called Faṣ l al-Maqāl etc., which was translated into Hebrew, anonymously, under the name Ha-Hevdel ha-Ne’emar she-Bein ha-Torah ve-ha Ḥ okhmah min ha-Devekut. He refuted Ghazāli’s critique of philosophy in his Tahāfut al-Tahāfut (“The Collapse of the Collapse”); its Hebrew version, Happalat ha-Happalah, was prepared by Kalonymus b. David b. Todros. A second rendering, anonymous, is also extant. Since a number of Jewish thinkers wrote their works in Arabic, they also required conversion into Hebrew. The earliest is Isaac Israeli. Among his philosophic writings are Kitāb alḤ udūd wa al-Rusūm (“Book of Definitions”), in Hebrew, Sefer

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

translation and translators ha-Gevulim ve-ha-Reshamim by Nissim b. Solomon; Kitāb alUstuqṣ āt as Sefer ha-Yesodot by Abraham ibn Ḥ isdai; Maqāla fi-Yishersku ha-Mayim, in an anonymous Hebrew version; Sefer ha-Ru’ah ve-ha-Nefesh, only a small fragment of the Arabic original is extant. Saadiah b. Joseph al-Fayyumi (d. 942) composed Kitāb al-Amānāt wa al-Iʿtiqādāt, called in Hebrew Sefer ha-Emunot ve-ha De’ot by Judah ibn Tibbon. An anonymous version titled Pitron Sefer ha-Emunot is also extant. His commentary on Sefer Yeẓ irah is likewise found in Hebrew, but the translator is not known with certainty. Baḥ ya ibn Paquda composed the ethical-philosophical, Farāʾid al-Qulūb; in Hebrew it is Ḥ ovot ha-Levavot translated by Judah ibn Tibbon, who also appended an interesting introduction to his translation. Solomon ibn Gabirol wrote a philosophic rather than a theological study, whose Arabic original has not been discovered. No medieval Hebrew translation exists (one is extant in Latin), but an epitome, Likkutim, prepared by Shem Tov ibn Falaquera, is extant. A modern Hebrew version is now available. Other works Ibn Gabirol rendered into Hebrew included Iṣ lāḥ al-Akhlāq (“The Improvement of the Character”) translated by Judah ibn Tibbon as Tikkun Middot ha-Nefesh, and a collection of aphorisms, probably by the same translator, under the title Mivḥ ar ha-Peninnim. Another version, in the rhyme, Shekel ha-Kodesh, was the work of Joseph Kimḥ i. Joseph ibn Ẓ addik, a judge in Cordoba (d. 1149), wrote al-ʿĀlam al-Ṣ aqhīr (“Microcosm”), which is Ha-Olam ha-Katan in Hebrew, but the translator is unknown. Judah Halevi (d. 1141) is the author of Kitāb al-Hujja wa al-Dalil (“The Argument and Proof ”), known as Ha-Kuzari in Judah ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew rendering. A fragment is also extant of a translation by Judah b. Kardena. Abraham ibn Daud, the earliest Aristotelian among Jewish thinkers, wrote al-ʿAqida al-Rafiʿ̄ a, on free will and other matters. It was translated as Ha-Emunah ha-Nissa’ah by Samuel ibn Motot in 1312, and as Ha-Emunah ha-Ramah by Solomon b. Levi. Moses Ibn Ezra wrote a work of literary criticism, Kitāb al-Muḥ aḍ ara wa al-Mudhākara (which is called Shirat Yisrael in a modern Hebrew version by B. Halper, or Sefer ha-Iyyunim ve-ha-Diyyunim by A.S. Halkin), and Fī Maʿna al-Majāz wa al-Haqīqa (“On Literalisms and Figurative Expressions”), part of which was rendered into Hebrew as Arugat ha-Bosem. Many of the works of Maimonides were rendered in Hebrew translation. Of his commentary on the Mishnah, Judah al-Ḥ arizi translated the general introduction and most of Zera’im; Joseph ibn al-Fawwāl and a certain Simḥ ah did Mo’ed and Nashim in Huesca; the remaining three were done in Saragossa by Solomon ibn Yaʾqūb (Nezikin) and Nethanel ibn Almali (Kodashim and Tohorot). There are also fragments of other translations. Avot was done by Samuel ibn Tibbon. Maimonides’ Sefer ha-Mitzvot, listing the 613 biblical precepts, was rendered into Hebrew by Abraham ibn Ḥ isdai, of which only fragments exist, and by Moses ibn Tibbon. A third version exists by Solomon ibn Ayyūb. His epistle on forced conversion was titled Iggeret ha-Shemad in Hebrew;

the translator is unknown; his Iggeret Teiman exists in three Hebrew versions: (a) by Samuel ibn Tibbon; (b) by Abraham ibn Ḥ isdai; (c) by Nahum ha-Ma’aravi; his treatise on resurrection, Ma’amar Teḥ iyyat ha-Metim, by Samuel ibn Tibbon. His major philosophic composition, Dalālat al-Hāʾirīn, was translated by Samuel ibn Tibbon and also by Judah al-Ḥ arizi. His treatise on logic, Maqāla fī Sināʿat al-Manṭ iq, is available in Hebrew, probably from Moses ibn Tibbon’s hand, as Millot ha-Higgayon. Joseph b. Judah ibn Aknin wrote a philosophic commentary on the Songs of Songs, which he called Inkishāf al-Asrār wa Ṭ uhūr al-Anwār. It was recently translated into Hebrew. Of Karaite thinkers, Joseph al-Basir’s two works were provided with a Hebrew translation: Al-Muḥ tawī was translated under the title Sefer ha-Ne’imot, and Kitāb al-Tamyīz, received by the Hebrew name Maḥ kimot Peti. Books by Christians which are available in Hebrew translation include Quaestiones naturale by Adelard of Bath (c. 1120), which is Dodi ve-Nekhdi, by Berechiah ha-Nakdan; Philosophia of Albertus Magnus (1193–1286) is in a Hebrew version titled Kiẓ ẓ ur ha-Pilosofyah ha-Tivit by Abraham Shalom, and Aegidius de Columnas’ (d. 1306) De Regimine Principum, in Hebrew Hanhagat ha-Melakhim. The De Consolationes Philosophiae of Boethius (d. 524) was translated into Hebrew by Samuel b, Benveniste and called Menaḥ em Meshiv Nafshi, and again by Azariah b. Abba Mari under the name Neḥ amot ha-Pilosofyah. Other scholastics whose works were translated are Occam (d. 1343/7) whose Summa totius, in Hebrew Perakim ba-Kolel, was translated by Eli Habillo, who called himself Don Manuel. Petrus Hispanus (d. 1276) wrote Parva Logicalia, a work quite popular among Jews, as can be judged from the several renderings: (a) Higgayon Kaẓ ar by Abraham Avigdor; (b) Higgayon by Judah b. Samuel Shalom; (c) Trattat, anonymous; Be’ur ha-Mavo by Jehezekiah b. Ḥ alafta. Raimund Lull (d. 1215) created an Ars Parva from his Ars Magna, the former was rendered into Hebrew by several translators as Melakhah Keẓ arah. Many of Thomas Aquinas’ works, particularly the philosophic treatises and commentaries, were made available in Hebrew. The Jews in the Islamic world were deeply interested in mathematics, first, because of its intrinsic challenge, and secondly, because of its use in astronomy and astrology, which had important practical and religious implications. As in philosophy, so in science, the pursuits of the Greek scientists were eagerly studied. Archimedes’ work on cylinders was translated by Kalonymus b. Kalonymus under the title Ba-Kaddur u-va Iẓ tevanah from Costa ibn Lucca’s Arabic version. Kalonymus also provided a Hebrew version of the measurement of circles, Bi-Meshiḥ at ha-Agullah; from Thābit b. Karras’ Arabic. Euclid was the representative of the Greeks. His Kitāb al-Uṣ ūl or al-Ustuqṣ āt, in 12 books, augmented by two more of Hypsicles, was rendered by Moses ibn Tibbon in 1270. Another version called Yesodot ve-Shorashim was made by Jacob b. Machir about 1270. Other Hebrew texts also exist, possibly from the Latin, for example, his Data in Sefer ha-Mattanot

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

translation and translators by Jacob b. Machir. The Optics, bi-Khtilāf al-Manāthir, and Ḥ illuf ha-Mabbatim in Hebrew, was also the work of Jacob b. Machir. In the Hebrew manuscript Sefer ha-Marim of Euclid follows the preceding work. But the Arabs know only a Kitāb al-Mirʾa by Aristotle. A book of Menelaus of Alexandria (first century; Ar. Kitāb al-Ashkāl al-Kurriyya) was translated into Hebrew by Jacob b. Machir and called Sefer Mileus ba-Temunot ha-Kadduriyyot. Ptolemy of Alexandria (d. 150), known to Jews and Arabs as Betolomaus, is the author of Elmegiste, which was translated into Hebrew as Ḥ ibbur ha-Gadol by Jacob Anatoli. The introduction to Elmegiste was turned into Hebrew as Ḥ okhmat ha-Kokhavim, or Ḥ okhmat Tekhunah ha-Keẓ arah by Moses ibn Tibbon. His Hypotheses was rendered by Kalonymus b. Kalonymus in 1317 under the title Be-Sippur Inyenei haKokhavim ha-Nevukhim. Several works ascribed to Ptolemy also circulated, among them the Astrolabe, called Ma’aseh ha-Aẓ terolav by Solomon Sharvit ha-Zahav (14t century), and Planispherium, called Mofetei Kelei ha-Habbatah, probably from the Latin. Muslim mathematician and astronomer Jābir ibn Aflaḥ ’s Kitāb al-Hayʾa, which was translated into Hebrew by Moses ibn Tibbon, is identical with the alleged Elmegiste in nine books, completed in 1274. His Sector of Menelaus is Ha-Ḥ ibbur ba-Temunah ha-Ḥ itukhit le-Mileus; the translator is not known with certainty. Abu Batir’s De Nativitatibus was rendered into Hebrew as Sefer ha-Moladot by Isḥ āq abu al-Khayr from the Latin in 1498. Averroes’ Compendium is Kiẓ ẓ ur Elmegiste by Jacob Anatoli in 1231. Abu Isḥ āq al-Bitrinji of Seville composed Kitāb fī al-Hayʾa, Ma’amar ba-Tekhunah in Hebrew by Moses ibn Tibbon. Costa ibn Lucca’s Al-ʿAmal bial-kurra al-Nujūmiyya was translated by Jacob b. Machir as Sefer haMa’aseh be-Khaddur ha-Galgol. Aḥ med al-Ferghani (d. 833/ 844) wrote Jawāmiʿ al-Nujūm which is Yesodot ha-Tekhunah by Jacob Anatoli (the title is not his). Muhammad al-Ḥ aṣ ṣ ār composed an arithmetic which he named Al-Bayān wa alTidhkār, and it is available in the Hebrew translation of Moses ibn Tibbon as Ḥ eshbon. Ibn Haitham’s Qawl fī Hayʾat-ʿAlam was translated as Sefer ha-Tekhunah by Jacob b. Machir in 1271, and by Solomon ibn Fatir ha-Kohen in 1322. Abu Yūsuf al-Kindī’s astrological work on the new moon was prepared in Hebrew by Kalonymus b. Kalonymus as Iggeret be-Kiẓ ẓ ur ha-Ma’amar ba-Moladot. His Iggeret ha-Maspeket ba-la-Ḥ iyyut u-va-Matar exists in an anonymous translation. Jaʿfar Abu Maʿshar (d. 885/6 at the age of 100) wrote Al-Madkhal alKabīr, which was translated into Hebrew from the Latin under the name Mavo ha-Gadol me-Ḥ okhmat ha-Tekhunah by Jacob b. Elijah. Another work of his is Sefer Kaẓ ar be-Mivḥ ar Liabi Maʿshar by an anonymous translator from the Arabic al-Ikhtiyārāt. The astronomical Tables, by an unknown Muslim, were translated into Hebrew by Abraham ibn Ezra and called Ta’amei Luḥ ot al-Khwarizmi. Ibn Muʿadh’s discussion of the solar eclipse of 1079, was converted into Hebrew by Samuel b. Judah of Marseilles (1320–40), who also translated Ibn Muʾadh’s treatise on the Dawn, as Iggeret be-Ammud ha-

Shaḥ ar. Kitāb al-ʿAmal bi al-Asturlab by Aḥ mad ibn al-Saffār was rendered into Hebrew as Perush ha-Aẓ terolab by Jacob b. Machir. Kalonymus b. Kalonymus translated Abu l-Qāsim ibn Samḥ ’s work under the title Ma’amar ba-Iẓ tevanot u-vaMeḥ udadim. Abu al-Kāmil Shujāʿ of Egypt (900–950) composed Ṭ harāʾif al-Ḥ isāb, and it was translated from the Latin into Hebrew by Mordecai Finzi of Manta (1344–1375). Thābit b. Qurra (d.901) composed Kitāb al-Shakl al-Qaṭ āʿ. Its Hebrew version, Sefer ha-Temunah ha-Ḥ ittukhit, is by Kalonymus b. Kalonymus. Ibrāhīm al-Nakkūsh ibn al-Zarkala (1061–80) composed al-Ṣ afih̄ ̣ a al-Zarkaliya, which was done in Hebrew by an unknown translator under the title Iggeret ha Ma’aseh ba-Lu’aḥ ha-Nikra Ṣ afih̄ a. Another work by this author, on the fixed stars, was translated by Samuel b. Judah of Marseilles and called Ma’amar bi-Tenu’at ha-Kokhavim ha-Kayyamim. A few Jewish astronomers wrote in Arabic, and their works required translation. Mashalla (d. 820) wrote an astrological study, which Abraham ibn Ezra translated under the title She’elot. He also translated Mashalla’s work on eclipses which in Hebrew is called Be-Kadrut ha-Levanah ve-haShemesh ve-Ḥ ibbur ha-Kokhavim u-Tekufat ha-Shanim. Sahl ibn Bishr (d. c. 820) compiled a book of principles of astrology, Kitāb al-Aḥ kām. Rendered into Hebrew by an unknown translator, it is called Kelalim. Maimonides’ treatise on the calendar is translated by an unknown scholar as Ḥ ibbur be-Ḥ okhmat ha-Ibbur. Joseph ibn Naḥ mias’ astronomical study, Nūr alʿAlam, was rendered into Hebrew by an unknown translator as Ha-Shamayim ha-Ḥ adashim. The astronomical tables of Joseph ibn Wakkār were also done in Hebrew. The Alphonsine Tables, prepared by the Jew Yisḥ ak ibn Cid in 1265, for the Christian astronomer Alphonse, have been rendered into Hebrew, as have other tables, with adjusted dates. Gerard of Sabionetta wrote a Thearica Planetarum which, in the Hebrew of Judah b. Samuel Shalom, is Iyyun Shivah Kokhevei Lekhet. Hermanus Contractus (d. 1054) produced de Mensura Astrolabu, which in Hebrew is called Sefer ha-Aẓ teroblin, and, in another version, Sefer Astrolog. Both translators are unknown. John of Gmund (d. 1417) is the author of a treatise on the stars which David b. Meir Kalonymus translated into Hebrew and called Marot ha-Kokhavim. Alessandro Piccolomini (d. 1578) composed La Spera del Mondo and Speculazione dei Pianete. In Hebrew they are respectively Sefer ha-Kidor and Iyyunei Kokhevei ha-Nevokhah in the translations of an unknown author. Dioscorides (first cent. C.E.) compiled a work on Simplicia in which Ḥ isdai ibn Shaprut participated in translating into Arabic; no Hebrew version is known, except for passages in the medical work of the socalled Asaf. His Succeda Nea was translated from the Latin by Azariah Bonafoux under the title Temurat ha-Sammim. Numerous writings of Galen were available in Hebrew. Ars Parva (Techne) was rendered from the Arabic as Ha-Me’assef le-khol ha-Maḥ anot by an unknown scholar. Four of his smaller works on illnesses, their cause and symptoms, were combined in the Hebrew of Zerahiah Ḥ en (1277) under the heading Sefer haḤ ola’im ve-ha-Mikrim. Zerahiah Ḥ en also translated the Kata-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

translation and translators genos, which deals with compound medicines. Galen’s work on crises, al-Buḥ rān in Arabic, was made available in Hebrew under the Arabic name by Bonirac (perhaps Boniac) Solomon (c. 1300–1350). On Blood Letting was rendered by Kalonymus b. Kalonymus (1308) as Sefer ha-Hakazah. Kalonymus also translated Ba-Ḥ uknah u-va Kulang (“on enema and colic”). The author’s treatise on epilepsy was rendered in Hebrew by an unknown translator under the title Be-Hanhagat ha-Na’ar Nikhpeh, and his De Malitia Complexionis Diversae was rendered in Hebrew from the Latin by David b. Abraham Caslari (1280–1337) and called Sefer Ro’a Mezeg Mitḥ allef. The Compendia (Ar. al-Jawāmiʿ) was converted into Hebrew by Samson b. Solomon (1332). Many smaller tracts of his were also made available in Hebrew, all, of course, from the Arabic or the Latin. Some writings ascribed to Galen are Sefer ha-Em (“Gynaecaeas”) and Sefer Issur ha-Kevurah (on prohibition of burial before 72 hours after death) fī Taḥ rīm al-dafn. Hippocrates, the father of Greek medicine, was known to the medieval Jews, through the Arabs, by his aphorisms, Kitāb al-Fusūl, translated by Moses ibn Tibbon as Perakim. This work was also translated by an unknown scholar and by Nathan ha-Me’ati, in 1283. Hillel b. Samuel of Verona prepared a Hebrew version of it from the Latin with the title Ma’amar haRofe’im, and another version under the name Agur, again from the Latin, was made by an unknown translator. Hippocrates’ Prognostica with Galen’s comments and titled Hakdamat haYedi’ah, was probably translated by Nathan ha-Me’ati. It also exists as Ḥ idot ve-Hashgaḥ ot, evidently rendered from Greek and Latin by an unknown translator. His work on acute illnesses, Hanhagat ha-Ḥ ola’im ha-Ḥ addim, was translated by Nathan ha-Me’ati, and by his grandson Samuel b. Solomon. Hippocrates’ study of air, water, and places, Sefer ha-Avirim u-va-Zemannim ve-ha-Memot ve-ha-Araẓ ot – was rendered by Nathan ha-Me’ati, and Galen’s commentary on it, in Hebrew, is the work of Solomon b. Nathan in 1299. A book, Marot ha-Sheten (“on the color of urine”), ascribed to the Greek physician, is extant in Hebrew in the translation of Joseph b. Isaac Yisre’eli. In Arabic a good deal was produced on medicine, and much of it was rendered into Hebrew. The celebrated translator of Galen, Ḥ unayn ibn Isḥ āq, himself a physician, compiled an introduction, Madkhal fi-̄ al-Ṭ ibb, which exists in Hebrew as Mavo or She’elot translated from the Latin by Moses ibn *Tibbon and two anonymous scholars called Mavo. Māsawayh (d. 857) wrote medical curiosities, al-Nawādir al-Ṭ ibbiyya, translated into Hebrew as He’arot min ha-Refu’ah by an unknown scholar, and Iṣ lāh al-Adwiya al-Mushila (“on laxatives”) rendered into Hebrew as Me-ha-Eẓ ah ve-ha-Teva’im ve-haTena’im by Samuel b. Jacob (end of 13t century), and also by an unknown scholar. There is an antidotary by Māsawayh, Aqrābadhīn, of which three or four anonymous versions are in existence. Muhammad al-Rāzī (d. 932/3), one of the famous Muslim writers on medicine, wrote al-Manṣ ūrī, a general work in ten tracts, which was translated by Shem Tov b. Isaac Tartasi (d. 1264), and was later abridged. His Aegritudine

junctuarum (Me-Ḥ olyei ha-Ḥ ibburim), de Aegritudinibus puerorum (Me-Hanhagat ha-Ne’arim ha-Ketannim) are both by unknown translators from the Latin, the latter being a more literal translation than Me-Ḥ oli ha-Ne’arim ke-fi Rāzi. Pirkei Razi, 119 short aphorisms, is an anonymous translation from Arabic, as is also Sefer ha-Pesakot. A compendium, Liber Divisionum, was translated by Moses ibn Tibbon as Ha-Ḥ illuk ve-ha-Ḥ illuf; he also translated Al-Rāzī’s antidotary in 1257; of the latter an anonymous version also exists. Al-Rāzī’s explanation of why people go to charlatans, Ba-Meh she-Yikreh biMelekhet ha-Refu’ah, is perhaps the work of Nathan ha-Me’ati. There is an anonymous Ma’amar be-Hakkazah, and, from the Latin, Mi-Segullat Evrei Ba’alei Ḥ ayyim ve-Te’aliyyotam ve-Hezzekam (“on limbs and organs of living beings”). Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna) is the author of the standard medical textbook of the late Middle Ages. His Canon, al-Qānūn, was translated by Nathan ha-Me’ati, although the manuscripts do not include the rendering of the whole. Zerahiah Ḥ en also worked on a translation of the Canon, but only the first two books are known. Of Joseph ha-Lorki’s rendering (before 1402) only book one and part of book two are extant. Avicenna’s al-Qānūm alṢ aghīr was translated by Moses ibn Tibbon in Montpellier in 1272. Canticum, a medical book in verse (arjūza in Arabic), was rendered into prose by Moses ibn Tibbon, and, in verse, by Solomon b. Joseph ibn Ayyūb (Sefer ha-Ḥ aruzim ha-Nikra arjūza), and by Ḥ ayyim Israel, and by an unknown scholar of whose work only a fragment exists. His al-Adwiya al-Qalbiyya on cures for heart disorders, is found in two anonymous Hebrew versions: Ha-Sammim ha-Libbiyyim, and Ha-Refu’ot ha-Levaviyyot, the latter from Latin. ʿAmmār ibn Ali (d. 1020), an ophthalmologist, wrote alMuntakhab fī ʿIlāj al-ʿayn, translated by Nathan ha-Me’ati under the title (not by him) Shetalim ha-Nifradim ha-Mo’ilim laAyin. Ali ibn Riḍ wān (d. 1068) wrote al-Uṣ ūl fi-̄ al-Ṭ ibb which Kalonymus b. Kalonymus translated into Hebrew in Arles in 1307 under the title Ha-ʿAmmud be-Shorshei ha-Refu’ah. His Sharḥ Kitāb al-Ṣ ināʿa al-Saghīra, on a work by Galen, is translated as Perush Melakhah Ketannah by Samuel ibn Tibbon, done in Béziers in 1199. Another rendering from the Latin, by Hillel b. Samuel, is called Sefer ha-Tenge. ʿAmmār’s al-Ustuqṣ āt, was translated into Hebrew as Perush ba-yesodot by an unknown scholar. Aḥ med al-Jazzār (11t century) is the author of al-Iʿtimād, on simple cures, which in Hebrew is the anonymous Sefer ha-Ma’alot. His Zād al-Musāfir (viaticum) is Ẓ eidat ha-Derakhim by Moses ibn Tibbon in 1259, Ẓ eidah laOreḥ im by Abraham b. Isaac, and Ya’ir Nativ by an unknown translator. He also wrote on forgetfulness, in Hebrew Iggeret ha-Shikhḥ ah by Nathan ha-Me’ati. Abu al-Qāsim Zahrawī of Spain (11t century) compiled al-Taṣ rīf, on medical practice, which was rendered into Hebrew by Shem Tov b. Isaac Tartasi (1261–64) and called Sefer ha-Shimmush. He-Ḥ afeẓ ha-Shalem, a medical compendium, is the version by Meshullam b. Jonah (1287) of a no longer extant Arabic original, a compendious work in two tractates and 14 sections. Ibn Ṣ oar (d. 1162) wrote al-Taysir fi-̄ al-Mudāwāt

100

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

translation and translators wa al-Tadbīr (which in the Hebrew of an unknown translator is Ha-Ḥ elek ha-Kolel) and Kitāb al-Aghdhiya, on foods, which was converted into Hebrew by Nathan ha-Me’ati in about 1275 under the title Sefer ha-Mezonot. His work on the difference between sugar and honey became in the Hebrew version of Bon Senior ibn Ḥ isdai Ma’amar ba-Hevdel bein ha-Devash veha-Sukkar. Ibn Rushd (Averroes) was both philosopher and physician. In the latter capacity his work Kitāb Kulliyyāt fi-̄ alṬ ibb, a compendium, was titled Klal by Solomon b. Abraham in his translation, as well as in that of an anonymous translator. It is also unknown who translated Maqāla fi-̄ al-Teriak, Simplicia, which is called Peshatim be-Rippui Ḥ ola’ei ha-Guf, and the work on purgatives, titled Shorashim Kolelim. His tract on diarrhea was translated into Hebrew by Jacob ha-Katan under the title Ma’amar ha-Shilshul. Among Jewish writers on medical subjects, Isaac Yisre’eli composed Kitāb al-Adwiya al-Mufrada wa-al-Aghdhiya, on cures and foods, and it was rendered into Hebrew by an unknown translator under the name Sefer ha-Misadim. Likewise anonymous are the three Hebrew versions of Kitāb al-Bawl (“on urine”); Bi-Ydi’at haSheten, Marot ha-Sheten, and Sefer ha-Shetanim. So are also the book on fevers, Kitāb al-Ḥ ummayāt, in Hebrew Sefer haKaddaḥ ot, and 50 aphorisms, not known in Arabic, called Musar ha-Rofe’im. *Maimonides’ writings include fi-̄ al-Bawāsīr (“on hemorrhoids”) called, in an anonymous Hebrew version, Bi-Refu’at ha-Teḥ orim, a work on intercourse fi-al-Jimʿa, translated by Zerahiah Ḥ en and called Ma’amar ha-Mishgal, and Fuṣ ūl Mūsā, aphorisms, also rendered by Zerahiah and by Nathan ha-Me’ati under the title Pirkei Moshe. Moses ibn Tibbon is the translator of fī al-Sumūm (“on poisons”) which, in Hebrew, is called Ha-Ma’amar ha-Nikhbad. Solomon b. Yaish (d. 1343) wrote a commentary on ibn Sīnā’s Qānūn, of which an extract in Hebrew was made by Jacob Kaphanton. As the Christian West learned the medical knowledge transmitted and composed in Arabic, its physicians also began to write, generally in Latin. Nicolaus of the Salerno school of medicine (1150–1200) prepared an Antidotarium which is known by the same name in the Hebrew rendering of Jacob. Petrus Hispanus (d. 1276) produced a medical compendium, Thesaurus pauperum, translated as Oẓ ar ha-Aniyyim in an anonymous version, and Oẓ ar ha-Dallim in the rendering of Todros Moses Bondoa, 1394. Lamprandi’s (d. 1296) Chirurgia Parva is abridged in an anonymous Hebrew version titled Alanfranchina, and ha-Yad in Hebrew. Bernard de Gardon is the author of Lilium Practica, which is called Ḥ okhmah Nishlemet bi-Melekhet Medicinae (c. 1305). In the version of Moses b. Samuel it is titled Peraḥ ha-Refu’ot ha-Sali, and in that of Jekuthiel b. Solomon of Narbonne, Shoshan ha-Refu’ah (1387). He also wrote Regimen Acutarum Aegritudinum de Phlebotomia, and de Medicinarum gradibus, all three of which were translated anonymously and titled respectively Ḥ ibbur beHanhagot ha-Ḥ addot, Ha-Ma’amar be-Hakkazah, and Sefer ha-Madregot. Arnaldus of Villanova (d. 1317/18) is the author of Regimen sanitatis, which in Hebrew is called Ma’amar beHanhagat ha-Beri’ut by the translator Israel Kaslari (1327), and

Hanhagot ha-Beri’ut in the anonymous version. His Arnavdina is called Practica in Israel Kaslari’s version. Gentile da Foligna (d. 1348) composed a book on practice, Prattiche, Nisyonot in its anonymous Hebrew version, and Consilium, which is called Eẓ ah by its Hebrew translator, probably Joshua of Bologna. Guy de Gauliac, a surgeon in Avignon (d. 1363), prepared a Chirurgia magna, translated by an unknown scholar; the beginning and end are unfortunately missing. He also produced a Chirurgia Parva, translated into Hebrew by Asher b. Moses (1468), and titled Giddu’a Kaẓ ar. John Jacobi (1366), wrote Secretarius practicus. It is available in two anonymous Hebrew renderings: Sod ha-Melakhah and Sod ha-Pratikah. Gerard de Salo composed a commentary on the ninth book of Al-Rāzī’s al-Manṣ ūrī titled in Nomum mansoris; Abraham Avigdor made an abridged translation, and Leon Joseph a full one in 1394. His introductarium juvenum, on the care of the body, was likewise done in Hebrew by Leon Joseph and called Meishir ha-Matḥ ilim, and his treatise on fever, de Febribus, was translated by Abraham Avigdor. Bernard Alberti (1339–58) compiled an Introductarium in practicam, a collection of prescriptions, done in Hebrew by Abraham Avigdor under the title Mavo ba-Melakhah. Albertus Magnus is the author of discussions on six needs of the body, which Moses Ḥ abib called She’elot u-Teshuvot in his Hebrew version of it. Jews were interested not only in philosophy and the sciences, but also in what can be called the humanities. They translated and wrote a good deal of popular literature, and they also cultivated eloquence, linguistics, and poetry. Mention should be made of the great popularity among them of all sorts of divinations, called Goralot, including astrology, mantic, and facial features. Among the foreign creations which made their way into Hebrew are the fables of Aesop, known as Ḥ idot Esopito, and Kalila and Dimna by the Indian Bidpai. Its anonymous Hebrew translation is the source of all European versions made from its Latin rendering by the convert John of Capua (1262–78). Another Hebrew text prepared by Jacob b. Eleazar (d. 1223) is less literal than the other. The story of a demon who entered a woman and was expelled by a man, which is found in an Indian source and in the 1001 Nights, is told in Ma’amar Midyenei Ishaḥ . Mishlei *Sindabar, the Hebrew counterpart of the very popular Seven Sages, although originally of Indian origin, is important as the link which connects the eastern type of individual and the western type. The history of Alexander the Great, originating in Callisthenes’ Greek story, was popular in Jewish literature from talmudic times. The medieval Hebrew book, Sefer Alexander Mokedon ve-Korotov, said to be the work of Samuel ibn Tibbon or Judah al-Ḥ arizi, is a translation of an Arabic original. Immanuel b. Jacob did another Toledot Alexander from the Latin. It should also be noted that sayings gleaned by various authors were also attractive to Jews, so that books like Sefer ha-Musar, Mishlei Arav, or Mishlei Anashim ha-Ḥ akhamim, not to speak of works in which they are introduced en passant, are all translations from the Arabic, whether from one work

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

101

transnistria or from many. A good example is presented by Ibn Gabirol’s Mivḥ ar ha-Peninnim, discussed above. A work of consolation, allegedly sent to a friend who sustained a loss, is the Ḥ ibbur Yafeh me-ha-Yeshu’ah by Nissim b. Jacob ibn Shaḥ in of Kairouan, a Hebrew translation of his Arabic original. The Maqāmāt of al-Ḥ arīrī (1054–1121), a literary genre characterized by rhymed prose and metrical verse, in which beauty of language was the major objective, were translated by Judah al-Ḥ arizi under the title Maḥ barot Iti’el. Abraham ibn Ḥ isdai produced a Hebrew version, called Ben ha-Melekh ve-haNazir, of an Arabic translation of the original Indian tale of Barlaam and Josaphat, and Kalonymus b. Kalonymus composed Iggeret Ba’alei Ḥ ayyim, which is a discussion between men and beasts and is a free rendering of Epistle No. 21 of the Epistles of the Ikwān al-Ṣ afāʾ. Hebrew grammar and lexicography attracted the attention of a number of Jewish writers who were stimulated by the parallel studies of Arabic, and many of their works were originally written in Arabic, and only later translated into Hebrew. The comparative lexicographic study of Judah ibn Quraish (tenth century) was not translated until modern times. Judah Ḥ ayyuj (early 11t century) wrote on verbs with quiescent letters, and geminative verbs. These tracts were first translated by Moses ha-Kohen Gikatilla as Otiyyot ha-Sefer ve-ha Meshekh, and later, by Abraham ibn Ezra as Otiyyot ha-Naḥ , Ba’alei ha-Kefel, and ha-Nikkud. The master work of Hebrew grammar by Jonah ibn Janāḥ , Kitāb al-Lumaʿ, was translated into Hebrew by Judah ibn Tibbon, and the lexicon, Kitāb alUṣ ūl, was translated by Isaac b. Judah, and by Isaac ha-Levi, both translations going only to the letter lamed. A complete translation was made by Judah ibn Tibbon in 1171. Ibn Jarah’s shorter work, al-mustalḥ iq, is called Sefer ha-Hassagah by its Hebrew translator Obadiah (c. 1300). Judah ibn Bal’am compiled a work on Hebrew particles Ḥ urūf al-Maʿāni, rendered as Otiyyot ha-Inyamim in an anonymous Hebrew version; and al-Af ʿāl Mushtaqqa min al-Asmāʾ, a work on verbs derived from nouns, which in its anonymous Hebrew rendering is Ha-Pe’alim she-Hem mi-Gizrat ha-Shemot. He also is the author of a short tract on the proper reading of the Bible, Hadāyat al-Qāriʾ, which was rendered into Hebrew either by Nethanel b. Meshullam or by Menahem b. Nethanel under the title Horayat ha-Kore. Some miscellaneous compositions include halakhic writings of Hai Gaon (d. 1038) such as al-Buyūʿāt, which was translated into Hebrew by Isaac b. Reuben and was called Sefer ha-Mikkaḥ ve-ha-Mimkar, and, in an anonymous Hebrew version Mishpetei ha-Tena’im ve-Halva’ot, and the book on oaths which in its anonymous Hebrew translation is titled Mishpetei Shevu’ot or Sefer ha-Shevu’ot. A metrical version also exists, Sha’arei Dinei Mamonot ve-Sha’arei Shevu’ot. Joseph ibn ʿAknīn, who wrote an introduction to the Talmud and a book on biblical and talmudic weights and measures, is represented in Hebrew translation by Mevo ha-Talmud, perhaps by an Abraham Yerushalmi, and by an anonymous version Ma’amar al ha-Middot. Of Abraham Maimonides’

102

moralistic and pietistic work Kifāyat al-’Abidin, only a short section was rendered into Hebrew. A work on liturgy, Mitzvot Zemanniyyot, by Israel Yisre’eli, was translated into Hebrew by Don Shem Tov b. Ardutiel. Of Joseph ibn ʿAknīn’s Ṭ ibb alNufūs, only the first chapter was translated under the name Marpeh ha-Nefashot. Bibliography: Steinschneider, Uebersetzungen (1893, repr. 1956); E. Bevan and C.J. Singer (eds.), Legacy of Israel (1927), 173–314. Add. Bibliography: M. Goshen-Gottstein, Medieval Hebrew Syntax and Vocabulary as Influenced by Arabic (Heb., 1951); B.R. Goldstein, in: Isis, 72:2 (1981), 237–51; A. Ivry, in: Rencontres de cultures dans la philosophie médiévale (1990), 167–86; J. Lomba, in: Mediaevalia, Textos e Estudios, 7–8 (1995), 199–220; S. Harvey, in: The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy (2003), 258–80; S. Harvey (ed.), The Medieval Hebrew Encyclopedias of Science and Philosophy (2000); M. McVaugh and L. Ferre, The Tabula Antidotarii of Armengaud Blasi and Its Hebrew Translation (2000); G. Freudenthal, in: JQR, 93:1–2 (2002), 29–115. [Abraham Solomon Halkin / Angel Sáenz-Badillos (2nd ed.)]

TRANSNISTRIA, geographical designation, referring to the area in the Ukraine situated between the Bug and Dniester rivers. The term is derived from the Romanian name for the Dniester (Nistru) and was coined after the occupation of the area by German and Romanian troops, in World War II. Before the war the area had a population of 3,400,000, but in the course of the occupation it was reduced to 2,250,000, as a result of the mobilization of men and of mass flights. Jewish Population Before 1939 the Jewish population was 300,000 according to the statistical data of 1926. According to reports of the Nazi Einsatzkommandos (“action groups”) which entered the area in July 1941 in the wake of the occupying troops, two-thirds of the local Jewish population had fled the area. However, there remained local Jews and Jewish refugees, primarily from neighboring *Bessarabia; these refugees had fled previously from the advancing German troops. It must also be assumed that many local Jews were apprehended while escaping and were murdered by German troops or by Einsatzkommandos. In general, Einsatzgruppe “D” under the command of Otto Ohlendorf, was most active in Transnistria. In the north Einsatzkommando “10B,” and in the south “11B” were also active. Their reports contain some information on the murder actions committed by the units (e.g., in Yampol, Kokina, Mogilev), but the figures given on the local population are far too low and unrealistic. To illustrate the magnitude of the murder actions perpetrated by the Nazis: in one town alone, *Dubossary, on the east bank of the Dniester, two common graves contained the bodies of 3,500 Jews from Dubossary itself and 7,000 from the vicinity, killed in the town after being rounded up by the Nazis. Deportations to Transnistria After its occupation Transnistria became the destination for deported Romanian Jews. At the end of July 1941, 25,000 Jewish survivors from towns in northern Bessarabia were expelled ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

4 (SPTPMPWP

5JSBTQPM

7B[EPWLB

4BWSBO

Camps and ghettos in Transnistria. Based on T. Lavi (ed.), Pinkas ha-Kehillot: Romanyah, vol 1, Jerusalem, 1969.

,JTIJOFW

%VCPTTBSZ

#BMUB

0MHPQPM

#JS[VMB

#VEFZ

,PEZNB

#SJUBWLB

3ZCOJUTB

TUFS3 %OJF

1S VU 3

0EFTTB

#FSF[PWLB

"MFLTBOESPWLB

7ZHPEB

4MJWJOB

7FTFMJOPWP

,BSMPWLB 4VLIB#BMLB

,PMPTPWLB

.PTUPWPZF

'SVO[F

%PNBOFWLB

7MBEJTMBWLB

/JLPMBZFWLB

#VLPW

"LNFDIFULB

#PHEBOPWLB

(PMUB

.BSJOPWLB

,SJWPZF0[FSP

5SJEVCZ

%FBUIDBNQ

H3 #V

$BNQ MBCPS QPMJUJDBM QSJTPOFSThPSUSBOTJU

(IFUUP

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

#BS

7BSWBSPWLB

5SJIBUJ

,VSJFWLB

/JLPMBZFW

.BUFFXLB

transnistria

103

transnistria to Transnistria by the Romanians, but they were sent back to Bessarabia by the Germans, after 4,000 refugees were murdered. Other groups sent to Transnistria wandered about the area of Mogilev, Skazinets, and Yampol for about two weeks, before the Romanians agreed to their return. Finally, on August 17–18, another 20,500 were readmitted to Bessarabia; many were shot or thrown into the river, by both German and Romanian troops. Systematic deportations began in the middle of September. In the course of the next two months, all the surviving Jews of Bessarabia and *Bukovina (except for some 20,000 Jews of *Chernovtsy) and a part of the Jewish population of the *Dorohoi district of Old Romania, were dispatched across the Dniester. This first wave of deportations reached 118,847 by mid-November 1941. Deportations resumed at the beginning of the summer of 1942, affecting 4,200 Jews from Chernovtsy and 450 from Dorohoi. A third series of deportations from Old Romania came in July 1942 affecting Jews who had evaded the forced labor decrees, as well as their families, Communist sympathizers, and Bessarabian Jews who had been in Old Romania and Transylvania during the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia in June 1940, and had asked to be repatriated to their homes. Of the latter group, 350 Jews were shot to death by *SS troops on their arrival at Berezovka (in Transnistria). The Communist sympathizers, among them many socialists, were taken to a special concentration camp in Vapnyarka Transnistria. Some individual deportation orders were directed against Jewish merchants and industrialists accused of economic sabotage, bribery, and similar “economic crimes.” The Romanian general staff submitted an additional list of 12,000 Jews who had violated the forced labor laws. In the meantime, however, the Romanian government policy changed and the deportation of this group was not implemented; neither did the Romanian government give its consent to Germany’s insistence on the deportation of all Romania’s Jews. According to a German source, a total of Romanian archival sources 146,000 Jews were deported to Transnistria. In December 1943 the Romanian Ministry of Interior informed its government that 50,741 deportees had survived. Ghettos and Expulsions The status of the Jews in Transnistria was determined by a decree (Nov. 11, 1941) serving to follow up the Tighina Agreement, which expressly referred to the imprisonment of Jews in ghettos. At the end of the month large numbers of Jews were dispatched to the northern part of Transnistria. In the southern part they were put into several large ghettos in the Golta district: 54,000 in Bogdanovka, 12,000 in Domanevka, and 18,000 in Akmechetka. All 48,000 Jews in the Bogdanovka concentration camp were murdered by Ukrainian police and local German members of the SS and Sonderkommando R, on the initiative of Fleischer, the German adviser to the district commander. At first, 5,000 sick and maimed Jews were locked into sheds and burned alive, and in the course of the

following two months the remaining inmates of the camps were shot to death and their bodies cremated. In January and February 1942, 18,000 Jews were murdered in the Domanevka 18,000 and Akmechetka. Another 28,000 Jews were murdered by SS troops and local German police in German villages in the Berezovka area. By March 1943, only 485 Jews were still alive in the southern area, between *Odessa and Mogilev; of these 60 were in Odessa itself. When Odessa was taken, by Romanian troops in October 1941, 25,000 Jews were killed on the personal orders of Antonescu after a Russian-made time bomb exploded in a building housing high-ranking Romanian officers. The rest of the Jews of the city were driven out. Members of the local Ukrainian militia participated in the murder though in many cases Ukrainians provided Jews with food and hideouts. The deportees from Bessarabia, Bukovina, and Dorohoi were sent to the northern part of Transnistria. At first they wandered from place to place, as some of the towns refused to accept them. Some groups from southern Bukovina had money and bribed the local authorities for the right to stay (e.g., in Mogilev). In some cases entire communities were expelled as a group together with the community leaders, e.g., the communities of *Radauti and *Suceava; the latter also saved the community’s funds with which they managed to obtain better living conditions. In some instances the deportees took it upon themselves to repair local factories in ruins – as in the case of the sugar factory in Vindiceni. In Mogilev, where the local Romanian authorities at first refused a residential permit to the deportees, a group of 500 Jewish deportees successfully undertook repairs of the local electric power station and a local foundry; they established a repair workshop for automobiles, and were generally useful in the rehabilitation of the city. In some of the towns – *Shargorod, Dzhurin, and Mogilev – Jewish committees were set up comprising community leaders from Romania and representatives of the local Jewish population. In other places the Romanians themselves appointed local Jewish committees and forced them to collaborate with the regime. After the war some of the latter committees were brought to trial by both the Russians and the Romanians on charges of harshly dealing with the deportees. On the other hand, others, especially former leaders of their communities, sacrificed themselves for the welfare of the refugees. In places where the local Jews still survived, the deportees received shelter in homes or in those synagogues which had not been destroyed. Jewish refugees from the Ukraine (who had crossed the Bug River) were hidden by local Jews or by the deportees from Romania. In some cases the local committees provided them with forged identification documents. The first winter (1941–42) was extremely harsh, with temperatures dropping to 40° C below zero. Many died of cold or starved to death. The bodies of the dead accumulated in the cemeteries until the spring, when graves could be dug for them. Various epidemics, such as typhus and dysentery, also claimed tens of thousands of victims. In Dzhurin, Shargorod, and Mogilev the local committees succeeded in organizing the

104

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

transnistria internal life of the refugee communities. In some ghettos the committees established public kitchens, hospitals, orphanages, bakeries, and soap factories, and organized sales cooperatives. All this helped make life more bearable. Post offices were organized by a number of Jewish committees, and a register of deaths and births was kept. Jewish police detachments were formed, but these not infrequently became a tool in the hands of the occupation power, who used them for drafting men and women for forced labor. Improved internal organization controlled epidemics. In the second winter (1942–43) only four out of 25 patients died in an epidemic in the town of Shargorod, as compared to 1,400 the year before. The doctors among the deportees vigorously combated the epidemics, and many died in the execution of their task. In those camps where no internal organization was created, the mortality rate reached almost 100. The Jews were completely at the mercy of the local authorities. Their situation was especially grave in the area adjoining the Bug River, as from time to time the Germans crossed the west bank to use Jews for forced labor on the other side of the river. At Pechora, a sign at the camp entrance identified it as a “death camp.” There were several German raids from across the Bug, and in the fall of 1942, 1,000 Jews were dragged across the river. In the camp at *Bar, which was over the Bug River and in German occupied territory 12,000 Jews were put to death on Oct. 20, 1942. The people who had been taken to eastern Ukraine for forced labor were put to death as soon as their job was done, while those who were unable to work were instantly murdered. The head of the *Tulchin district was particularly efficient in handing Jews over to the Germans, especially to the Todt Organisation. Tens of thousands were murdered in the second deportation to the German-administered territories beyond the Bug, in such places as *Gaisin, Krasnopolye, and Trihati. In the spring of 1942 the Romanians initiated the deportation of several thousand Jews to the other side of the Bug, in order to dispose of them; this however, did not fit in with *Eichmann’s overall plans for the “Final Solution” and he protested to the German Foreign Office; as a result, the Jews were returned to Transnistria where some of them were murdered. The special camp at Vapnyarka for Communist sympathizers fed the prisoners poisoned beans which caused paralysis and death.

The central aid committee was finally granted permission in 1943 to send a delegation to visit the area. The papal nuncio, Monsignor Andrea Cassulo, visited Transnistria from April 27 to May 5, 1943, and an International Red Cross mission arrived there in December of that year. Jewish leaders in Bucharest established contact with Jewish organizations abroad, and obtained financial aid for the deportees from the American Jewish *Joint Distribution Committee, the Rescue Committee of the Zionist Organization, the World Jewish Congress, and OSE. In the first two years, 500,000,000 lei were spent in aid to the Jews in Transnistria, of which about 160,000,000 was spent in cash and the rest provided salt, coal, glasspanes, wood, medicines, and equipment for artisans. In February 1944, as a result of Cassulo’s visit, the pope donated 1,300,000 lei to alleviate the conditions of the Jews of Transnistria.

Aid Operations From the very beginning, Jewish leaders and institutions in Bucharest made efforts to provide help to the deportees. In December 1941 the Council of Romanian Jewish Communities received permission from Antonescu to extend aid to the refugees. The special central committee established for this purpose collected money and contributions in kind, and dispatched financial aid, clothing, and medicines to the refugees. Other sources of help were provided by the Joint and the Zionist Organization and by special committees established by natives of the deported communities who were residents of Old Romania.

Rescue and Assistance At the first reports of deportations to Transnistria, W. Fildermann made efforts to stop the deportations and, failing in this, tried to alleviate the refugees’ plight. A secret committee was formed in Bucharest, with both Fildermann and Zionist leaders participating. The committee’s major purpose was to put a stop to the deportations. In November 1941 it persuaded Antonescu not to deport 20,000 Jews considered essential for the smooth functioning of the city. In the spring of 1942, as a result of German pressure, 4,000 of the remaining Jews of Chernovtsy were also deported. The deportation of the Jews of Southern Transylvania was canceled during the fall of 1942 for reasons yet to be understood; this deportation was intended to be the first stage in the deportation of all the Jews of Romania to the death camps in Poland. One factor was the protests of foreign diplomats, such as the ambassadors of neutral countries and the papal nuncio, and of the representatives of the International Red Cross, leaders of the Romanian Church, the queen mother Helena, and leaders of Romanian political parties. This intervention, along with the turning tide of the war, prompted the Romanian government in November 1942 to enter into negotiations with Jewish leaders in Bucharest on the return of the deportees and the emigration to Palestine of 75,000 survivors. In March 1943 a selection commission was sent to Transnistria by the Romanian government. In April Antonescu approved the repatriation of 5,000 orphaned children, and of persons who had been “innocently” deported. As early as December 1942 the German Foreign Ministry, the German minister in Bucharest, Manfred von Killinger, and Eichmann’s representative, Gustav Richter, protested against any decisions to repatriate Romanian Jews from Transnistria. In March 1943 Eichmann informed *Himmler of the planned emigration of Jewish orphans from Transnistria to Palestine and asked the German Foreign Ministry to prevent it. In the spring of 1943 Fildermann, who in the meantime had himself been deported to Transnistria, called upon the Romanian government to permit the return of all the de-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

105

transoxiana portees. By mid-December 1943 the first group, consisting of 1,500 Jews from Dorohoi were allowed to go back to their homes. Repatriation was stopped at the end of January 1944, but the secret committee persevered and in March a group of 1,846 orphans, out of a total of 4,500, arrived in Jassy. Earlier, in February 1944, the chief rabbi of Palestine, Isaac *Herzog, appealed to the papal nuncio in Istanbul, Monsignor Roncalli (later Pope *John XXIII), to ensure the safety of the Transnistria deportees, now threatened by the withdrawing German armies. Roncalli transmitted this request to Monsignor Cassulo, the nuncio in Bucharest. On March 15, 1944, the Soviet armies crossed the Bug. Within five days they advanced northward up to the Dniester. A Jewish commission from Bucharest had in the meantime arrived in the south and arranged for the repatriation of 2,518 Jews in the towns of *Tiraspol and *Balta to Romania. On their arrival in Romania, 563 deportees from the Vapnyarka camp were seized by the Romanians and sent to the Targu-Jiu concentration camp in the western part of the country. The Transnistria deportations resulted in 88,294 deaths, out of a total of 146,555 persons deported. At least another 175,000 persons among the local Jewish inhabitants of Transnistria also fell victim to the Holocaust. See also *Romania.

according to one manuscript version of the travels of *Benjamin of Tudela (ed. A. Asher, 1 (1840), 128; 2 (1840), 168–9), a community of 8,000 Jews. *Solomon b. Samuel, the author of a Hebrew-Persian dictionary of the Bible, known as Sefer haMeliẓ ah (c. 1339), lived in Urgench in the 14t century. Bibliography: E.N. Adler, Jews in Many Lands (1905), 196ff.; A. Yaari, Sifrei Yehudei Bukharah (1942); idem, in: Moznayim, 6 (1937/38), 496–503; W.J. Fischel, in: HJ, 7 (1945), 42ff.; I. Ben-Zvi, The Exiled and the Redeemed (19612), 56–58, 205–13. [Walter Joseph Fischel]

TRANSOXIANA, ancient region of central Asia, between the Oxus and Jaxartes rivers, known to the Arabs as Ma-Waran-Nahr (“beyond the river”). In the medieval period it was divided into several provinces, one being Khwarizm, with its two capitals Khiva and Urgench, and another Soghd, with the two capitals *Samarkand and *Bukhara. These four cities have been connected in various periods with Jewish settlements, mostly consisting of Persian Jews who had penetrated into these remote regions from the central provinces of Persia and *Khursan. According to an ancient Pahlavi tradition, Khwarizm was built by Narses (fifth century), the son of Yezdegerd I and his Jewish wife Shushan Dokt, daughter of the exilarch. That Jews lived in this region in early Islamic times can be inferred from the work of the ninth-century Arab historian, al-Ṭ abarī (II, 1238); recounting that the shah of Khwarizm assembled the leaders of the various communities of his domain, he mentions the “Habar,” a term usually applied to Jews. The 13t-century Muslim historian al-Umari mentions expressly in his Masālik al-Absār that there were in Khwarizm 100 Jewish families and the same number of Christian and that they were not permitted to exceed this total. Khiva (see *Khorezm), a large city on the bank of the Oxus which was a central meeting place for merchants, had,

TRANSPLANTS. Advances in medical knowledge and technology have made possible the transplantation of organs from a deceased (or, in the case of some organs such as a kidney, from a living) person into another individual stricken with disease, and this technological advance reached an acme with the transplantation of a human heart. Such operations raised many moral, theological, legal, social, and philosophical problems. With regard to the general permissibility, Rabbi I. *Jakobovits is of the opinion that a donor may endanger his life or health to supply a “spare” organ to a recipient whose life would thereby be saved, only if the probability of saving the recipient’s life is substantially greater than the risk to the donor’s life or health. This principle is applicable to all organ transplantation where live donors are used as a source of the organ in question. Rabbi Y. Waldenberg (Responsa Ẓ iẓ Eliezer, 9 (1967), no. 45) discusses at length the question of whether a healthy person may or must donate one of his organs to save the life of another. The majority opinion seems to be that a small risk may be undertaken by the donor if the chances for success in the recipient are substantial. Most of the rabbinic responsa literature concerning organ transplantation deals with eye (cornea) transplants. The basic halakhic principles governing eye transplants, however, are applicable to nearly all other organ transplants. Kidney and heart transplants involve several additional unique questions. The classic responsum is that of Rabbi I.Y. *Unterman (Shevet mi-Yhudah (1955), 313ff.) who states that the prohibitions on deriving benefit from the dead, desecrating the dead, and delaying the burial of the dead are all set aside because of pikku’aḥ nefesh – the consideration of saving life. These prohibitions would remain if there is no threat to life involved in the condition for the treatment of which the transplant is being done. For example, there is no pikku’aḥ nefesh involved in a nose transplant. Rabbi Unterman considers eye transplants to involve pikku’aḥ nefesh because blindness is a situation in which a person so afflicted may fall down a flight of stairs or into a ditch and be killed. What of a person blind in one eye? The concept of pikku’aḥ nefesh does not apply. However, argues Rabbi Unterman, once the donor eye is implanted into the recipient, it is not considered dead but a living organ. Thus, the prohibitions on deriving benefit from the dead and delaying burial of the dead are not applicable since no dead organ is involved. For the same reason, the problem

106

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

Bibliography: A. Dallin, Odessa 1941–1944; a Case Study of Soviet Territory under Foreign Rule (1957), 45–110; M. Carp, Cartea Neagraˇ, 3 (1947); PK Romanyah, 349–86, bibl. 386–8; J.S. Fisher, The Forgotten Cemetery (1970). Add. Bibliography: J. Ancel, Transnistria, 1941–1943: The Romanian Mass Murder Campaigns (2003); R. Ioanid, Holocaust in Romania: The Destruction of Jews and Gypsies under the Antonescu Regime, 1940–1944 (2000). [Theodor Lavi]

transplants of ritual defilement or tumah is nonexistent, in regard to the transplanted eye. Rabbi J.J. Greenwald (Kol Bo al Avelut, 1 (1947), 45ff.) presents reasoning from which the conclusion can be drawn that one may not remove the entire eye from a deceased donor for transplantation; only the cornea may be used since a whole eye represents flesh whereas the cornea alone is considered skin. Furthermore, one cannot overcome the problems of desecrating and delaying burial of the dead without invoking the concept of pikku’aḥ nefesh. Thus, Rabbi Greenwald, as most authorities, would only permit eye grafts for a person blind in both eyes. Rabbi I. Glickman (No’am, 4 (1961), 206–17) added to Rabbi Unterman’s theses described above that one may perform a transplant only if the donor gave permission prior to his death. Most rabbinic responsa agree with this requirement. The problem of eye banks is raised by Rabbi M. Steinberg (No’am, 3 (1960), 87ff.). Since the permissibility of organ transplants rests primarily on the overriding consideration of pikku’aḥ nefesh, then it would seem that the recipient would have to be at hand (lefaneinu). Rabbi Steinberg states that since the number of blind persons is so large, a recipient is considered to be always at hand. Rabbi Jakobovits also permits organs or blood to be donated for deposit in banks provided there is a reasonable certainty that they will eventually be used in life-saving operations including the restoration or preservation of eyesight. Rabbi Unterman, at the end of his remarks on eye transplants, also states that donations to blood banks are permissible. The question of whether the eye of a non-Jewish donor may be used for an eye transplant is raised by Rabbi M. Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe, pt. Yoreh De’ah (1959), no. 229). He draws the conclusion that it is permissible for a Jew to use the eye of a gentile donor. Kidney transplants are governed by the same principles as those discussed above for eye transplants. In fact, many of the responsa deal with both eye and kidney transplants. In addition to cadaver kidneys, kidneys from live donors are used for transplantation. Here, new halakhic questions arise. Is the donor allowed to subject himself to the danger, however small, of the operation to remove one of his kidneys in order to save the life of another? Does the donor transgress the commandments to “take heed to thyself ” (Deut. 4:9 and 4:15)? The Shulḥ an Arukh and Maimonides in the Yad answer this question by stating as follows: “The Jerusalem Talmud concludes that one is obligated to put oneself even into a possibly dangerous situation [to save another’s life].” The reason seems to be that the death of the sick person (i.e., the kidney recipient) without intervention is a certainty, whereas his (the donor’s) death is only a possibility. With regard to heart transplantations, medical and ethical guidelines have been established. Recommendations include the requirements that the surgical team shall have had extensive laboratory experience in cardiac transplantation, that death of the donor shall be certified by an independent group of physicians, and that the information and

knowledge gained should be rapidly disseminated to the medical world. From the halakhic point of view, the prohibitions dealing with desecrating the dead, delaying burial of the dead, and ritual defilement, are all set aside in the case of human heart transplantation, for the overriding consideration of pikku’aḥ nefesh, saving a life. The major halakhic problem remaining is the establishment of the death of the donor. Prior to death, the donor is in the category of a gosses (hopelessly ill patient) and one is prohibited from touching him or moving him or doing anything that might hasten his death. There are many types of death: mental death when a person’s intellect ceases to function; social death when a person can no longer function in society; spiritual death when the soul leaves the body; and physiological or medical death. The Jewish legal or halakhic definition of death is that a person who has stopped breathing and whose heart is not beating is considered dead. This classic definition of death in the Talmud (Yoma 8:6–7; Yoma 85a; TJ, Yoma 8:5, 45a and Maimonides, Yad, Shabbat 2:19; Sh. Ar., Oḥ 329:4) would be set aside if prospects for resuscitation of the patient, however remote, are deemed feasible. On the assumption that the donor is absolutely and positively dead, most rabbinic authorities permit heart transplants. Rabbi Jakobovits has stated that “…in principle, I can see no objection in Jewish law to the heart operations recently carried out, provided the donors were definitely deceased at the time the organ was removed from them.” Rabbi I. Arieli is also quoted as having said that heart transplants are permissible if the donor is definitely dead, but only with the family’s consent. A similar pronouncement was made by Rabbi D. Lifshutz. Rabbi Unterman’s published responsum (No’am, 13 (1970), 1–9) dealing specifically with heart transplants begins by stating that consent from the family of the donor must be obtained for several reasons. Touching briefly on the problem of organ banks, he states that freezing organs for later use is allowed provided there is a good chance that they will be used to save a life. Then the situation would be comparable to having the recipient at hand (lefaneinu). Rabbi Unterman concludes with the novel pronouncement that in the case of a human heart transplant recipient, removing the patient’s old heart takes from him his hold on life (ḥ ezkat ḥ ayyim). Therefore, the removal of the recipient’s heart can be sanctioned only if the risk of death resulting from the surgery is estimated to be smaller than the prospect for lasting success. Dissenting from Rabbi Unterman’s permissiveness toward heart transplants under the conditions described above is Rabbi J. Weiss who strongly condemns cardiac transplants as double murder (Ha-Ma’or, 20 (1968), no. 7, 1–9). Rabbi Feinstein also added his voice to those condemning heart transplants (Ha-Pardes, 43 (1969), no. 5). Careful reading of his lengthy responsum on this subject discloses the following clarification of his position: if the donor is definitely dead by all medical and Jewish legal criteria, then no murder of the donor would be involved and the removal of his heart or other organ to save another human life would be permitted. Concerning

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

107

transylvania the recipient, he wrote at the time, when medical science will have progressed to the point where cardiac transplantation becomes an accepted therapeutic procedure with reasonably good chances for success, then the recipient shall no longer be considered murdered. Major obstacles such as organ rejection, tissue compatibility testing, and immunosuppressive therapy must be first overcome. Other responsa on cardiac transplantation are those of Rabbi S. *Goren (Maḥ anayim, 122 (1969), 7–15), Rabbi Y. Gershuni (Or Ha-Mizraḥ , April 1969), Rabbi D.C. Gulewski (Ha-Maor, 21 (1969), no. 1, 1–16), Rabbi M. *Kasher (No’am, 13 (1970), 10–20), and Dr. J. Levi (No’am, 12 (1969), 289–313). The major concern of most, if not all, rabbis attempting to render legal rulings in heart transplant cases is the establishment of the death of the donor. For a full legal discussion with later rulings, see *Medicine and the Law.

TRANSYLVANIA (Rom. Transilvania or Ardeal; Ger. Siebenbuergen; Hung. Erdély), historic province now forming western *Romania. Each territorial component of this region has its own history, which has influenced the history of the Jews living among the Hungarians, Romanians, Germans, and other peoples inhabiting it. In 1940, as a result of the second arbitration decision of Vienna, the territory was divided between Hungary and Romania – northern Transylvania going to Hungary and southern Transylvania to Romania – where the Jews suffered different fates. In 1945 the whole of Transylvania reverted to Romania. Transylvania has always been a center of routes connecting the Orient with the West, and southern Europe with northern Europe. Its location influenced the general development of the region, and in particular Jewish settlement from its beginnings. The first Jews arrived from the south – the Balkans and Turkey – by the trade routes to the north of Transylvania. It has, however, been surmised that a small Jewish settlement existed there, as one had also in neighboring Pannonia, during the first and second centuries C.E. when the territory was under Roman rule and constituted Roman Dacia, though there is no definite evidence for this assumption. Between 1571 and 1687, historic Transylvania and a number of the bordering territories formed an independent principality ruled by the Hungarian-Transylvanian princes. It was in this principality, which was adjacent to the Ottoman Empire and maintained close relations with it, that the first recorded Jewish settlement developed. The overwhelming majority of its members were Turkish Sephardi Jews. Their first organized Jewish community was in *Alba Iulia, the seat of the prince. A letter of protection of 1623 guaranteed the Jews extensive rights, but restricted their residence to this town only. However, despite the restrictions, Jews began to settle in other localities close to the mother community. The relations of the local Jews with

the Jews in the north and the west attracted a small number of Ashkenazi settlers from distant places. This first settlement also affected the development of the Transylvanian Christian sect of *Somrei Sabat, whose customs and prayer books were influenced by the Sephardi ritual. Although the princes, particularly Gabriel Bethlen, had promised the Jews certain rights, there were also schemings against them, and at the general assemblies of the classes it was suggested that the number of Jews be restricted. The first decision to this effect was passed as early as 1578. With the close of the period of the independent principality and the beginning of Austrian rule, Jews also began to settle on the estates of noblemen who were not bound by the residence prohibitions already issued against Jews. (The aristocrats needed the Jews for the economic exploitation of their land, but provoked antisemitic feelings among their dependents in order to make the Jews afraid of them.) Most of the towns nevertheless remained closed to Jewish settlement. The revolutionary year of 1848 theoretically marked the end of the residence restrictions. There were then about 15,000 Jews in historic Transylvania. The number of Sephardim was declining and Ashkenazi settlers from the north – i.e., Poland – began to play an important role in community life. The number of Jews in historic Transylvania has been estimated at 2,000 in 1766; 5,175 in 1825; and 15,600 in 1850. Organizationally, between 1754 and 1879, the Jews were under the jurisdiction of a chief rabbi whose seat was in Alba Iulia. In 1866, when Transylvania was still ruled by the central government in Vienna, representatives of the Jewish communities gathered for the first time in *Cluj for a national conference to create a unified communal organization with regular organizational patterns. The objectives of this congress did not materialize because in 1867 the whole of Transylvania was incorporated within Hungary, and Jewish communal organization followed that of Hungarian Jewry until the end of World War I. The religious schism which occurred within Hungarian Jewry after 1868–69 (see *Hungary) also left its imprint on Transylvania and, after struggles within the communities, separate Orthodox, *Neologist, and *Status Quo Ante communities were formed. The influence of *Ḥ asidism, which penetrated Transylvania from the north, was powerful. During the period of the struggles and separations, the Jews of historic Transylvania numbered 25,142. By 1880, upon the completion of the new organization, they numbered 30,000. The majority of the communities, especially those with large memberships, joined the Orthodox trend. There were sharp controversies between the Ḥ asidim and the rabbinist-Ashkenazi Jews, who in spiritual-religious matters turned to Pressburg (*Bratislava) as a center of authority. The Neologist communities, in which the Magyar assimilationist trend became strong, regarded Budapest as their center. The densest Jewish population developed in northeastern Transylvania, whose territories bordered upon Poland and Moldavia, the urban centers of this region being *Sighet and *Satu Mare. Until its liquidation, the majority of Jews there

108

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

Bibliography: I. Jakobovits, Jewish Medical Ethics (1959), 96ff.; idem, in: Essays Presented to… I. Brodie (1967), 188f.; F. Rosner, in: Jewish Life, 37 (1969), 38–51; idem, in: Tradition, 10 (1969), no. 4, 33–39. [Fred Rosner]

transylvania remained loyal to traditional Jewish culture, and the predominant language was Yiddish. During the 19t century, Yiddish newspapers were published there, and several poets and authors published works in this language. In the western part of Transylvania, where the large urban centers were *Oradea and *Arad, the predominant language was Hungarian, while in the southwestern part of the region, whose center was *Timisoara, it was Hungarian and German. In the southeastern part, whose center was *Brasov, the Jews lived among a German population which influenced them culturally, but their social ties with it were not extensive. Although there was a large Romanian population in the whole of Transylvania, the Jews were not influenced culturally by the Romanian element until the end of World War I. On the contrary, in most places Jews were pioneers in spreading among the Romanian population the Magyar national trend of the central government in Budapest. The natural center of Transylvania, the town of Cluj – which also occasionally served as its official capital – was also a Jewish center during most of the 19t and 20t centuries. Cluj University, where Jews were also appointed professors, was an important intellectual center for Jews in historic Transylvania, while those in the western districts attended the University of Budapest. From the beginning of the 20t century, the Jewish population in historic Transylvania only increased from 53,065 (2.2 percent of the total population) in 1900 to 64,674 (2.4 percent) in 1910. In the whole area currently known as Transylvania the Jews numbered 181,340 (3.57 percent) at the beginning of Romanian rule in 1920. The growth of the Jewish population and its dispersion throughout the region was linked to economic development, the establishment of industry, and the construction of the railway system. Jews played an important role in this development, at first in small trade and later in large-scale industrialization; they were also prominent in railroad construction. In general cultural life Jewish participation was considerable, and from 1860 Jews took an active part in political life. Jewish journalists were prominent and in particular assisted in raising the standard of the theater. Jewish producers active in Cluj before World War I were pioneers in the film industry in Hungary, among them Alexander *Korda. In the field of Jewish culture before the end of World War I there were Hebrew printing presses, and attempts were made to publish newspapers and weeklies in Hebrew, Yiddish, and Hungarian. Most communities had elementary schools. In 1918–19 historic Transylvania and the other territories which constitute present-day Transylvania were transferred from Hungary to Romania. Links were established with Romanian Jewry and its center in Bucharest, but they remained very weak, with neither of the two sides willing to compromise; very few of the Hungarian-speaking Transylvanian Jews were prepared to change their cultural affiliations. Even after World War II and the Holocaust, many Transylvanian Jews continued to see themselves as “Hungarians of the Mosaic faith.” Important secondary schools were established in Cluj (where the language of instruction was also Hebrew),

Timisoara, and Oradea. A Hungarian-Jewish daily, *Uj Kelet (first appearing as a weekly), was published in Cluj from 1918 until 1940; its publication was resumed in Israel in 1948. Jewish works were published under its aegis, and its supporters and members of the editorial board were active in Jewish cultural life and even in the general political sphere, among them the editor-in-chief, E. *Marton. In the interwar period there were 110 organized Jewish communities in Transylvania, of which 23 belonged to the Neologist organization, 80 were Orthodox, and the remainder belonged to the Status Quo Ante organization. The headquarters of the Neologist communities were in Cluj, while those of the Orthodox communities were at first in *Bistrita and later in *Turda. Zionist activity, which had already commenced at the time of the first Zionist congress, developed to large proportions. Every trend of the Zionist movement reached the major towns and even the smallest localities of the region. Until 1927, the Zionist national headquarters were situated in Cluj, after which its organizational section was transferred to Timisoara. In association with the Zionist movement, a national Jewish party, active mainly after 1930, campaigned on a large scale in parliamentary and municipal elections. The party delegates in the Romanian Parliament fought against anti-Jewish discrimination by the government, and for promulgation of the *minority rights expressly granted the Jews by the Trianon peace treaty. A number of Jews, especially in the western districts, who had remained politically attached to the Hungarians, organized a separate political party in Transylvania. Jews rose to the leadership and were elected to municipal councils and as delegates to the Parliament in Bucharest. A limited number of Jews were also active in the national Romanian parties, and slightly more in the Social Democratic Party. Jews also belonged to the underground Communist movement, some serving among its leaders between the two world wars. Romanian antisemitism, strong throughout this period, also made its appearance in Transylvania. In 1927 pogroms were organized by Romanian students who had convened in Oradea for their national conference. These disorders spread to the areas in the vicinity of Oradea, to localities situated near the Oradea-Cluj railway line, and to Cluj itself. In 1936–37, when the Romanian Fascist movement, the Iron Guard, formed branches throughout Romania, centers were also established in most Transylvanian towns, particularly in Arad. After 1933, the overwhelming majority of the German population – the Swabians in Banat and the Saxons in southern Transylvania – proclaimed themselves supporters of the Third Reich. Most of the German population was associated with the Transylvanian Fascist organizations. These, however, did not take active measures against the Jews and contented themselves with an economic *boycott and social ostracism. Between the end of 1937 and the beginning of 1938, when the outspokenly antisemitic O. Goga-A.C. Cuza government came to power, Jews, under the direction of the Zionists, formed clandestine *self-defense organizations which succeeded in preventing acts of brutality. A Jewish economic organization

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

109

transylvania was established to assist Jews threatened with dismissal from employment. The succeeding Romanian governments continued to discriminate against Jews; severe economic problems arose, and there was growing poverty. The Jewish organizations combined in efforts to provide relief and assistance. Aliyah to Palestine increased, though few immigration certificates were allocated to Transylvanian Jews. The number of Jews in this period remained approximately 200,000, forming 1.8 percent of the general population of historic Transylvania, 20.9 percent of that of Maramures, 5 percent of that of Crisana, and 1.2 percent of that of Banat. Holocaust and Contemporary Periods In August 1940, in the second arbitration decision of Vienna, it was decided by Germany and Italy – upon the basis of political considerations of the German Nazis – to incorporate one part of Transylvania into Hungary, while the other remained within Romania, the parts being known respectively as northern Transylvania and southern Transylvania. SOUTHERN TRANSYLVANIA. The minority of about 40,000 Jews remained in the southern, Romanian sector, where the government began severe persecution of the Jewish population. The land owned by the community bodies was confiscated, Jews were deprived of factories and shops, and many Jews of military age were forced into labor battalions. Whole Jewish populations of villages and provincial towns were expelled and concentrated in the district capitals. The communities were nevertheless able to continue their religious activities and provided assistance for the needy. The Zionist movement continued activities, and its leaders and members of the youth movement organized rescue and defense from their center in Timisoara. NORTHERN TRANSYLVANIA. The fate of the Jews in northern Transylvania, who numbered approximately 150,000, was very different. The Fascist Hungarian government which occupied this territory during the first half of September 1940 immediately introduced economic, social, and cultural restrictions against the Jews. The newspaper Uj Kelet was compelled to cease publication on the first day of Hungarian rule in Cluj. Zionist activity was prohibited in most places. Jews were immediately dismissed from law offices and public positions, and the number of Jewish pupils in the general secondary schools was restricted to 4 percent of the student rolls. The Jewish organizations took steps to relieve this situation. In the fall of 1940 a Jewish secondary school was established in Cluj with eight classes for boys and eight for girls, and later absorbed pupils who had been dismissed from the general secondary schools, as well as from outlying districts. Central relief organizations were set up in which both the Orthodox and the Neologist communities cooperated. In 1942, the Hungarian military command began to conscript Jews of military age into forced labor battalions, most of which were sent to the eastern front and reached the advance lines of the German-Hungarian invasion of the Soviet Union. Most of the conscripts perished

110

under the harsh conditions. The Jews in northern Transylvania began to resume participation in the organizational life of Hungarian Jewry, whose center was in Budapest. The Transylvanian Zionist movement functioned clandestinely, and even succeeded in sending youths and adults to Palestine through Romania and the Black Sea. A further turning point occurred on March 19, 1944, when the Germans occupied Hungary. After a few weeks, preparations were made to establish ghettos and for deportations to the death camp at *Auschwitz. The area was declared to be a danger zone from the security aspect, and both the Hungarian and German authorities sped up the deportations to the death camps. From the end of the summer of 1944 nearly all the Jews in northern Transylvania were deported; few succeeded in hiding themselves. The Jewish institutions were liquidated and a number of synagogues were destroyed. After the capitulation of Romania on Aug. 23, 1944, northern Transylvania became a battle zone: the Soviet and Romanian armies entered the region and defeated the German and Hungarian forces. Toward the end of this period, a few Jews left southern Transylvania for northern Transylvania. In 1945 survivors began to return to the region. By 1947 a Jewish population had been formed from survivors of the camps, the arrivals from southern Transylvania, and others who had come to the region from Romania and northern Bukovina, occupied by the Soviet Union. According to an estimate for that year, they numbered about 44,000 in northern Transylvania, 13,000 in Crisana, and 15,000 in Banat. The traditional community institutions were revived, and Zionist organizations were also active until 1949 in finding opportunities for aliyah. In addition, a new Jewish Democratic Committee (Comitetul Democratic Evreesc – CDE) was established by Jewish activists of the Communist Party. However, as soon became evident, the committee was an instrument of the new Communist regime, with the principal objective of disbanding the Zionist movement so that organized Jewish activities could be placed under close government and party supervision. After the war, and especially after the establishment of the State of Israel, many thousands of Jews made their way to Israel. The Jewish population in the region in 1971 was estimated at between 6,000 and 7,000. In towns with traditional communities – Cluj, Oradea, Arad, and Timisoara – and in several other smaller towns, the community organizations continued to be active, and prayers were held in the synagogues at least on Friday evenings and festivals. The communities were affiliated to the central organization of Romanian Jews with headquarters in Bucharest. The dwindling of the Transylvanian Jewish communities continued into the 21st century, with most of the remaining Jews now being entirely assimilated. Bibliography: M. Carmilly-Weinberger (ed.), Memorial Volume for the Jews of Cluj-Kolozsvar (Eng., Heb., and Hung., 1970); N. Sylvain, in: P. Meyer et al., The Jews in the Soviet Satellites (1953); B. Vágó, in: R.L. Braham (ed.), Hungarian Jewish Studies, 1 (1966); idem, in: PK Romanyah, 1 (1970), 261–71 (incl. bibl.); Z.Y. Avraham, Le-Korot

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

traub, marvin S. ha-Yehudim bi-Transilvanyah (1951); I.J. Cohen, in: KS, 33 (1957/58), 386–403; 34 (1958–59), 499–512; 35 (1959–60), 98–108; 37 (1961–62), 249–66; S. Yitzḥ aki, Battei-Sefer Yehudiyyim bi-Transilvanyah Bein Shetei Milḥ amot ha-Olam (1970); M. Eisler, Az erdélyi zsidók multjából (1901); D. Schoen, Istenkeresők a Kárpátok alatt (1964).

gion. L’evolution du judaïsme sicilien dans l’environment latin, XIIe–XVe siècles (2001); N. Zeldes, The Former Jews of this Kingdom. Sicilian Converts after the Expulsion (1492–1516) (2003).

[Yehouda Marton / Paul Schveiger (2nd ed.)]

°TRASKE, JOHN (c. 1585–1636), English sectarian leader and Judaizer. Born in Somerset, Traske became an Anglican minister in 1611. He then became a peripatetic preacher and, by the mid-1610s, influenced by a tailor named Hamlet Jackson, he and his followers regulated their lives by the Hebrew Scriptures, strictly observing the Sabbath and dietary laws. After being condemned to savage punishment by the Star Chamber (1618), he recanted and published A Treatise of Libertie from Judaisme … by John Traske, of late stumbling, now happily running again in the Race of Christianitie (London, 1620). Some of his associates, including Hamlet Jackson, immigrated to Amsterdam where the latter, at least, formally joined the Jewish community.

TRAPANI, city in Sicily. Documents suggest that 200 Jews, constituting one-tenth of the town’s inhabitants, lived in Trapani in 1439. Their share of the taxes, however, was one-sixth, and from 1426 they had to provide one-third of the guard for the town walls. The affairs of the community were directed by the prothi (“notables”), assisted by 12 elders. In 1484 the community adopted the unusual system of having the outgoing prothi appoint their own successors. Like all the Jews in Sicily, the Jews of Trapani were under continuous pressure to pay special levies to the sovereigns. In 1404 King Martin urged the prothi to proceed energetically against Jewish tax defaulters through excommunication, denial of circumcision for their sons, and exclusion from burial in the Jewish cemetery. Two years later he reconfirmed the privileges of the Jews, in consequence of the exceptional contributions they had paid. The brothers Samuel and Elia Sala, who in 1402 had been granted special privileges for services rendered to the royal house, were commissioned in 1405 and 1409 to negotiate the peace between the rulers of Sicily and Tripoli. In the meantime they ransomed the bishop of Syracuse from the Saracens. The Jews of Trapani made their living from trade, including shipping merchandise to Tunisia, and many worked in the manufacture of coral jewelry. The number of Jews obliged to leave Trapani at the expulsion in 1492 (see *Sicily) is estimated at about 300. In 1492, at the time of the expulsion many wealthy Jewish families left Trapani, but they returned a few years later as *Neofiti (baptized Jews). In 1499 the city negotiated the taxation of Jewish property that remained after the expulsion specifying that it concerned the newly converted Jews, and referring to the “assets, debts, silver, gold, jewels, and other things of the said former Jews, at present baptized.” Shortly after its establishment in 1500, the Spanish Inquisition in Sicily concentrated its efforts against the converted Jews of Trapani and many were prosecuted. Inquisitorial registers list 80 converts living in Trapani after the expulsion.

[Sergio Joseph Sierra / Nadia Zeldes (2nd ed.)]

Bibliography: Philips, in: JHSET, 15 (1939–45), 63–72; Roth, ibid., 19 (1955–59), 9f. Add. Bibliography: ODNB online; D. Katz, Sabbath and Sectarianism in Seventeenth-Century England (1988). [Cecil Roth]

Bibliography: Milano, Bibliotheca, index; Milano, Italia, index; Roth, Italy, index; Lagumina, in: Archivio Storico Siciliano, 11 (1887), 446–7; G. Di Giovanni, Ebraismo della Sicilia… (Palermo, 1748). Add. Bibliography: A. Precopi Lombardi, “Le comunità ebraiche del Trapanse,” in: Italia Judaica, 5 (1995), 463–500; C. Trasselli, Siciliani fra quattrocento e cinquecento (1981); E. Ashtor, “The Jews of Trapani in the Later Middle Ages,” in: Studi Medievali, 25 (1984), 1–30; A. Sparti, Fonti per la storia del corallo nel medioevo mediterraneo (1986); F. Renda, La fine del giudaismo siciliano (1993); A. Scandaliato, “Momenti di vita a Trapani nel Quattrocento,” in: N. Bucaria (ed.), Gli ebrei in Sicilia dal tardoantico al medioevo, Studi in onore di Monsignor Benedetto Rocco (1998), 167–219; S. Simonsohn, The Jews in Sicily, 1–6, index; H. Bresc, Arabes de langue, juifs de reli-

TRAUB, MARVIN S. (1925– ), U.S. retail executive. Traub, a native New Yorker, became synonymous with one of the city’s best-known attractions, Bloomingdale’s department store. Under his leadership, it evolved from dowdy to dazzling and turned shopping into show business. It was also on his watch that Bloomingdale’s had its darkest days, being forced into a brief period of bankruptcy. Traub was raised in a retailing environment. His mother was a fashion director at Bonwit Teller on Fifth Avenue and his father had a licensing agreement with Christian Dior. After serving in France with the U.S. infantry in World War II and receiving a Purple Heart for a leg wound, Traub graduated from Harvard College in 1947 and Harvard Business School in 1949. He worked briefly at Macy’s and Alexander’s, then joined Bloomingdale’s in 1950. It would be his employer for the next 41 years. When Traub arrived, the store’s wares were modestly priced, “a notch below Gimbel’s,” he once recalled. His first assignment was to manage the 49cent bargain hosiery table. By 1959, Traub had risen to vice president of home products and he made history by sending his buyers to Italy to look for everything from flatware to furniture. The Casa Bella promotion became the first of Bloomingdale’s import events, presaging the transformation of the store into one of the most dynamic retailing operations in the U.S. The import promotions spread to other departments and eventually were storewide. Traub also advanced the concept of in-store boutiques, a key retail development. He was named president of Bloomingdale’s in 1960 and chairman in 1978, retaining that post until he retired in 1991. That year, he was awarded the National Retail Federation’s Gold Medal. From 1988 to 1992, Traub was also a vice chairman of Federated Department Stores, Bloomingdale’s owner. In 1992, he formed Marvin Traub Associates, a marketing and consulting

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

111

traube, isidor business. He was a senior advisor to Financo, an investment banking firm. In 1993, Traub co-authored Like No Other Store in the World, a chronicle of his triumphs at Bloomingdale’s and an unsparing critique of Robert Campeau, a Canadian real estate tycoon who borrowed billions to complete a hostile takeover of the store in 1988. Pressed by debt, Campeau put Bloomingdale’s up for sale. Traub tried and failed to buy the store, which was driven into bankruptcy in 1990 and emerged from it in 1992. Bibliography: M. Traub and T. Teicholz, Like No Other Store in the World (1993). [Mort Sheinman (2nd ed.)]

TRAUBE, ISIDOR (1860–1943), German physical chemist. Traube, who was born in Hildesheim, worked at the universities of Heidelberg and Bonn. From 1901 he was professor at the Technische Hochschule of Berlin, but left Germany in 1934 and settled in Edinburgh. Traube related the laws governing the behavior of dilute solutions to the gas laws, actually anticipating Van’t Hoff and Arrhenius, the Dutch and Swedish physical chemists. Traube also propounded that absorbed films on liquid surfaces obeyed two-dimensional analogies of the gas laws, a proposition that was substantiated 30 years later. He published numerous papers on surface phenomena. His theory of the action of drugs had a positive effect on pharmacological research for years. The effect of organic compounds on the surface tension of water is governed by “Traube’s Rule.” [Samuel Aaron Miller]

TRAUBE, LUDWIG (1818–1876), German pathologist; a pioneer in the field of experimental pathology. Traube was born in Silesia and graduated from the University of Berlin. In 1849 he was appointed lecturer and research worker at the Charité Hospital in Berlin and his clinic soon achieved a high reputation for exactness and thoroughness in diagnoses and therapy. His book Gesammelte Beitraege zur Pathologie und Physiologie (3 vols., 1871–78) earned him a worldwide reputation. He was one of the first Jewish physicians to attain the title of professor in Germany. Traube investigated pulmonary resection of the vagus nerve and carried out studies on suffocation, effects of digitalis and other drugs, the pathology of fever, the relationship between heart and kidney diseases, and many other subjects. He was the first to introduce the thermometer in his clinic for regular checking of temperature of all patients. He described an area of the chest wall over which stomach resonance is obtained (“Traube’s Space”). “Traube’s Sign” is a double sound over the peripheral arteries in aortic insufficiency or mitral stenosis. He also described blood curves (“Traube’s Curves”) and an artificial chemical membrane (“Traube’s Membrane”). Bibliography: H. Morrison, Ludwig Traube (Eng., 1927); S.R. Kagan, Jewish Medicine (1952), 222–3. [Suessmann Muntner]

112

TRAUBE, LUDWIG (1861–1907), master paleographer and critic of Latin texts. Born in Berlin, the son of Ludwig *Traube, the great pathologist, he became professor of the Latin philology of the Middle Ages at the University of Munich in 1904 after a long struggle in which his Jewishness played a key role. His importance lies in the fact that through his independent research he raised paleography to the status of a historical science and made a basic contribution to the intellectual history of the Latin Middle Ages. Possessed of independent means, he was able to visit all the important libraries of Europe and study the Latin manuscripts at length. His studies of contractions of Latin words and nomina sacra (his major work, a study of various ways of writing divine names in manuscripts) proved crucial in tracing the history of schools of copyists, tracing manuscripts to particular monks, and indicating which medieval scholars had used them. He unraveled the complicated textual histories of the Rule of St. Benedict and of the Latin historian Livy. Of his projected comprehensive work on Latin paleography, the study of the half-uncial script appeared posthumously. Despite his premature death, Traube, because of his ability to attract and influence students, continued to exercise a profound influence on the field through his students – P. Lehmann, P. Maas, C.U. Clark, C.H. Beeson, E.A. *Lowe, and E.K. Rand – not only in Germany but also in England and especially in the United States. Bibliography: F. Boll and P. Lehmann (ed.), Vorlesungen und Abhandlungen von Ludwig Traube, 1 (1909), 11–73 [biography and list of his writings, including a large number in manuscript, some of which were edited posthumously by Boll and Lehmann]; J.E. Sandys, A History of Classical Scholarship, 3 (1958), 195. [Louis Harry Feldman]

TRAUBE, MORITZ (1826–1894), German chemist and biologist. Traube was born in Ratibor, Upper Silesia, the brother of Ludwig *Traube. For most of his life he had to combine scientific research in his private laboratory with running the family wine business. With his discovery of semipermeable membranes he pioneered the field of osmosis. He also did research into autoxidation of hydrogen peroxide, plant respiration, biological oxidation and reduction, and nutrition. Traube was a member of the Berlin Academy of Sciences. TRAUBE, WILHELM (1866–1942), German organic chemist. Traube was born in Ratibor, Upper Silesia, the son of Moritz *Traube, and the brother of Hermann Traube, professor of mineralogy at Breslau. He studied at Heidelberg, and in Berlin. He spent his career at the University of Berlin, where he became professor in 1929, retiring in 1934. He published on aromatic and heterocylic compounds and pharmaceutical activity. TRAVEL, PRAYER FOR (Heb. ‫ ְּת ִפ ַּלת ַהדֶּ ֶר ְך‬, Tefillat haDerekh), prayer recited upon setting out on a journey to protect the traveler from the dangers associated with travel. The Talmud attributes the institution of this practice to the prophet ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

travelers and explorers Elijah, who cautioned a scholar that “when thou goest forth on a journey, seek counsel of thy Maker and go forth.” The talmudic text of this prayer is: May it be Thy will, O Lord my God, to lead me forth in peace, and direct my steps in peace and uphold me in peace, and deliver me from the hand of every enemy and ambush by the way, and send a blessing on the works of my hands, and cause me to find grace, kindness, and mercy in Thy eyes and in the eyes of all who see me. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who hearkenest unto prayer (Ber. 29b).

With only slight alterations, this text has since been used as the traveler’s prayer among both Ashkenazim and Sephardim (Hertz, Prayer, 1044). It is, however, recited in the first person plural in accordance with the dictum of Abbaye that “a man should always associate himself with the congregation” (Ber. 29b–30a). It is recited once daily at the start of each day’s travels, as long as a distance of 1 Persian mile (about 3 miles) is to be covered. It is preferable to recite this prayer while standing, although it may be said while sitting in places where it is difficult to stand (Ber. 30a; Sh. Ar., Oḥ 110:4–7), as in an automobile or airplane. It has also become customary to recite appropriate biblical selections (e.g., Gen. 32:2–3; Ex. 23:20; Ps. 91) at the conclusion of the prayer. Additions have also been made for sea and air travel. Alternative versions of this prayer for paratroopers, pilots, sailors, and soldiers were composed by S. Goren, the former chief rabbi of the Israel Defense Forces. Bibliography: Idelsohn, Liturgy, 172.

years and amassed a fortune. He returned to Oman in 912/13. Isḥ āq was subsequently killed at Serboza in Sumatra on orders of Oman’s governor Ahmad ibn Hilāl. He is also supposed to have visited Lhó or Bhutan in the Himalayas. *Ibrāhīm ibn Yaʿqūb of Tortosa (tenth century) visited France (including the area around the English Channel), Mainz, Fulda, Schleswig, apparently Bohemia, and the court of the German emperor, Otto 1, in 966. According to Abraham *Ibn Ezra (12t century), a Jewish traveler brought the “Arabic” numerals from India. Ibn Ezra himself visited Rome, a number of other Italian towns, Provence, France, England, Africa, Rhodes, and perhaps Ereẓ Israel and even India. His Reshit Ḥ okhmah contains important information on Egypt, Arabia, Ereẓ Israel, Persia, and India. Genizah documents attest to considerable travel by Jewish merchants from the Middle East to India and other Asian countries. The most famous Jewish medieval traveler was *Benjamin b. Jonah of Tudela who journeyed in the second half of the 12t century. He wrote a book on his travels, which vividly depicts the many Jewish communities he visited and also gives a picture of general political and economic conditions. His contemporary, the German traveler *Pethahiah of Regensburg, journeyed throughout the Middle East and his account, although incorporating certain legendary elements, gives much valuable information on the Jewish communities he encountered. An adventurous traveler was the Hebrew poet and translator Judah *al-Ḥ arizi. In his youth he traveled from his native Spain to Provence. In about 1216 he set out on his journey to the East. Some chapters of his classical work Taḥ kemoni contain his observations, at times very critical, of the Jewish communities he visited between 1216 and 1230, which included those in Southern France, Egypt, Ereẓ Israel, Syria, and Mesopotamia. A document of King James IV of Majorca (1334) states that Yuceff Faquin, a Barcelona Jew, had circumnavigated the entire known world on the king’s orders. Much Jewish travel concentrated on journeys to and from Ereẓ Israel, for which see *Travelers and Travel to Ereẓ Israel.

TRAVELERS AND EXPLORERS. In the ninth century Jewish traders known as “*Radaniya” traded between Western Europe and China, by land and sea. They were fluent in several languages and dealt in female and boy slaves, eunuchs, brocades, furs such as beaver and marten, and swords from the West. They brought back musk, aloes, camphor, cinnamon, and other products from China and India. After the Arab conquest of North Africa in the seventh century, Jewish traders had followed the Berber and Arab armies and reached the Niger Basin. As late as the 18t and 19t centuries, Jewish caravan travelers were sending geographical information about southern Morocco and the western Sahara back to Europe. *Isaac the Jew, who accompanied Charlemagne’s embassy to Hārūn al-Rashīd as an interpreter in 797, returned four years later with an elephant, Abulaboz, which was a gift from the sultan. *Eldad ha-Dani (c. 880) claimed to have made two voyages. The range of his travels seems to have extended from Baghdad and Kairouan to Spain. Jacob ibn Ṭ āriq (ninth century) is supposed to have traveled from Baghdad to Ceylon to obtain books on astronomy, while an Arabian or Turkish ruler sent a Jacob Aben Sheara to India (c. 925), for the same purpose. According to the ʿAjaʾib al-Hind (“The Wonders of India,” c. 953), by Buzurg ibn Shahriyar of Ramhurmuz, Isḥ āq (Isaac) the Jew traveled from Oman (Sohar, southeastern Arabia) to India. From there, he went to China, where he lived for 30

The Age of Discovery Luis de *Torres, Columbus’ interpreter, was a Jew who was baptized the day before the expedition’s departure. De Torres, who reported the discovery of the phenomenon of tobacco, was the first person of Jewish origin to settle in Cuba. The Portuguese, who attempted to find both a sea and an overland route to the Indies, sent João Perez of Covilhá and Alfonso de Paiva to search for such a route. When the pair had not been heard from for some time, *Abraham of Beja, known for his fluency in several languages, and Joseph Copateiro, an experienced eastern traveler, were sent to find them. They met Perez returning from India, in Cairo. De Paiva had died meanwhile. Abraham and Perez returned to Portugal via Ormuz, Damascus, and Aleppo, while Copateiro returned directly to Portugal with the information which indicated the existence of a sea route to the Far East; this information was then used by Vasco da Gama. One of the pilots and navi-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

113

travelers and explorers gators who helped Da Gama in his later journey was a Jew, variously described as from Posen and Alexandria, whom he picked up on an island 60 miles from Goa. Da Gama had the Jew baptized as Gaspar da *Gama, and made him a pilot of the Portuguese fleet. Hernando Alonso (1460–1528) had a particularly adventurous career. He was born in Niebla, Spain, immigrated to Cuba where he met Hernando Cortez (1516), and became a member of Cortez’ army that sailed for Mexico (1520). A blacksmith and carpenter by trade, he helped build the ships that Cortez needed for the conquest of Tenochtitlán. He led the group that subdued the Indians of Pánuco and took part in the conquest of Guanajuato. Cortez awarded him the estate of Actopan, 40 miles outside of Mexico City, and he engaged in the lucrative business of supplying the town with meat. In 1528 he was denounced as a Judaizer and burned at the stake. One of the most interesting and enigmatic figures of Jewish history is David *Reuveni, who appeared in Italy in 1524 claiming that his brother Joseph ruled over the tribes of Gad and Reuben and half the tribe of Manasseh in the wilderness of Habor and that he was the commander of his army. He claimed to have traveled, disguised as a Muslim, through Ethiopia, Egypt, and Ereẓ Israel, and came to Europe to elicit the military assistance of the Christian powers for the liberation of the Holy Land from the Turks. His “project” failed and he is reported to have died in prison in Spain. His Hebrew diary, which reflects his claims, describes, among other things, his talks with the pope and the king of Portugal, his visits to Italian Jewish communities, and his meetings in Portugal with Marranos, who saw in him the bearer of their hope. Joseph *Delmedigo, who was born in Crete and studied in Padua, traveled through Egypt, Turkey, Poland, Russia, and Lithuania in the course of his career. A Jewish interpreter accompanied Captain James Lancaster (1601) on the East India Company’s first expedition. He helped to negotiate the treaty between the English and the sultan of Achin in Sumatra, which served as the basis for British expansion in the Far East. The 16t-century Yemenite poet *Zechariah al-Dāḥ iri traveled widely. He journeyed to Yemen, India, Persia, Babylonia, Turkey, Syria, Ereẓ Israel, Egypt, and Ethiopia. His travel impressions form the literary background of his magnum opus Sefer ha-Musar. Pedro *Teixeira (c. 1570–1650), a Marrano from Lisbon, may have been the first Jew to go around the world, and is believed to have been the first white man to make a continuous journey up the River Amazon. In 1644 Antonio de Montezinos, who had returned from a trip to the Americas, told the worthies of the Amsterdam community about Indians he had met near Quito, Ecuador, who knew the Shema and claimed that they were descended from the tribes of Reuben and Levi. His report encouraged *Manasseh Ben Israel to write “Hope of Israel” and later to negotiate with Oliver Cromwell to readmit the Jews to England

18t–20t Centuries Sason Hai of the House of Castiel was a native of Istanbul, who from his youth evinced a great desire to travel. From his travel account, in Hebrew, published by Izhak Ben-Zvi (Sefunot, 1 (1956), 141–84), it is difficult to determine the route of his travels. He mentions his return to Istanbul in 1703 and that in 1709 he was in Basra. Among the countries he visited were Holland, Italy, Ethiopia, Tunisia and Morocco, Persia, and Afghanistan. Although his account abounds in legends, folk tales and hearsay, it nevertheless contains many accurate facts which he reports as an eyewitness. The best-known Jewish travel record of the 18t century is the Ma’gal Tov of Ḥ ayyim Joseph David *Azulai, the famous rabbinical scholar and bibliographer. He twice toured European Jewish communities as an emissary of the Jewish community of Hebron. On his first journey (1753–58), he sailed from Alexandria to Leghorn, where he returned after traveling through Italy, Tyrol, Germany, Holland, England, and France, and sailed from there to Smyrna. He subsequently visited Istanbul, returning from there by boat to Ereẓ Israel. On his second journey (1772–78), he sailed from Alexandria to Tunis and from there to Leghorn. He traveled through Italy, France, Belgium, and Holland, finally settling in Leghorn. His diaries are replete with acute observations on life in the cities he visited. A contemporary of Azulai was Simon von *Geldern. A native of Vienna, he grew up in Germany and studied at yeshivot there. He led an adventurous life, traveling through Europe and the Near East, visiting Ereẓ Israel several times. He was equally at home in the Jewish community and in high society and gentile scholarly circles in various European countries. Von Geldern, who was a great-uncle of Heine, kept a diary. His life was described by Fritz Heymann (Der Chevalier von Geldern, 1937). Earlier David Kaufmann had published extracts from his diary in his Aus Heinrich Heines Ahnensaal (1896). A Jewish traveler whose travel record was very popular was Israel Joseph Benjamin (*Benjamin II). From his early youth he formed the desire to make a pilgrimage to Ereẓ Israel and to travel in search of traces of the lost ten tribes. After he failed in business in his home town Fălticeni, in the then Turkish province of Moldavia, he set out to realize his dream. He traveled through Turkey, Egypt, Ereẓ Israel, Syria, Kurdistan, Mesopotamia, India, Afghanistan, and Persia, and also visited Singapore and Canton. Shortly after his return to Europe, he set out on another voyage, traveling through North Africa. He published Cinque années de voyage en Orient 1846–1851 (Paris, 1856) about his travels in Asia. The book appeared later in German with additional chapters on his travels in Af-

114

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

in order to complete their dispersion to the “end of the earth,” which was a prerequisite for the coming of the Messiah. In 1687 there appeared in Amsterdam Notisias dos Judeos de Cochin, a report on the condition of the Jews of *Cochin, by Moses *Pereira de Paiva, an Amsterdam Jew of Portuguese descent, who visited India.

travelers and explorers rica (Acht Jahre in Asien und Afrika, 1858) and was translated into English, Hebrew, and Ladino. From 1859 to 1862, Benjamin was in America, and he recorded his experiences there in Drei Jahre in Amerika (1862; Eng. edition: Three Years in America, 1956). Jacob *Saphir was the first Jewish traveler to report on the life of the Jews of Yemen. Born in Lithuania in 1812, he settled with his parents in Ereẓ Israel when he was ten years old. In 1858–63 he visited Egypt, Aden, Yemen, Bombay, Cochin, Colombo in Ceylon, Calcutta, Rangoon, Singapore, Batavia, Australia, and New Zealand, as an emissary of the Jerusalem community. He spent longer periods in Yemen and India and in his travel book Even Sappir (2 vols., 1866–74) gives detailed descriptions of the life and customs of the Jews of Yemen, the Bene Israel of India, and the black and white Jews of Cochin. Jehiel Fishl Kestelmann visited the Jewish communities of Syria, Kurdistan, Mesopotamia, and Persia as an emissary of the Jewish community of Safed in 1859–61. His description of his travels was published by A. Yaari under the title Massa’ot Shali’aḥ Ẓ efat be-Arẓ ot ha-Mizraḥ (1942). Asher ha-Levi was born in Galicia. After an unhappy childhood, in 1866, at the age of 17, he left Jassy, where he had lived for several years, and traveled through the Balkans, Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, and India. Eventually he settled in a city in the Himalayan Mountains. He wrote several books in Hebrew, including an autobiography. His account of his travels in the Balkans in 1866–68 was published in 1938 by A. Yaari under the title Harpatka’otav shel Asher ha-Levi. Salomon Rinman was born in Galicia. After spending many years in Cochin he returned to Europe and at the urging of the Hebrew writer Wolf Schur he wrote a description of his travels in India, Burma, and China, Massa’ot Shelomo be-Ereẓ Hodu, Birman ve-Sinim (1884). In 1883–86, Ephraim *Neumark visited the Jewish communities in Syria, Kurdistan, Mesopotamia, Persia, Afghanistan, and Central Persia. His travel impressions Massa be-Ereẓ ha-Kedem were first printed in Ha-Asif (5, 1887). He was the first to report on the crypto-Jews of *Meshed in Persia. In 1868, the Orientalist Joseph *Halévy was sent by the Alliance Israélite Universelle to study the conditions of the Falashas, describing his journey there in “Travels in Abyssinia” (Miscellany of Hebrew Literature, 2 (1877), 177–256). Not long after his return he went to Yemen to inquire into the state of the Jews there and to examine the Sabean inscriptions. Halévy did not write a book about his travels to Yemen, but years after the expedition Ḥ ayyim *Ḥ abshush, a Yemenite Jew who had served as Halévy’s guide, wrote an account of their travels there. Written partly in Hebrew and partly in Arabic, it was published in Hebrew in 1939 by S.D. Goitein under the title Massa’ot Ḥ abshush. Ephraim *Deinard wrote several travel books. His Massa Krim (1878) includes chapters on the life of the Karaites and the Krimchaks (original Jews of the Crimea). Sefer ha-Massa’ot be-Ereẓ Kavkaz u-vi-Medinot asher me-Ever le-Kavkaz (1884)

by Joseph Judah *Chorny, printed after the death of the author, gives an account of his travels among the Jewish communities in the Caucasus and in Transcaucasia. Arctic explorers and travelers of the 18t and 19t centuries include Israel Lyons (1739–1775) who served as chief astronomer with Captain Phipps’ expedition to the Polar regions in 1773; Isaac Israel *Hayes (1832–1881), surgeon to the “Advance” expedition searching for Sir John Franklin, discoverer and explorer of Grinnel Land, and leader of an 1860 expedition to Greenland which encountered another expedition led by August Sonntag; Emil *Bessels (1847–1888), surgeon and naturalist of the ill-fated “Polaris” expedition to the North Pole; Edward *Israel (1859–1884), astronomer with the Greely expedition to Greenland, where he died of malnutrition; Aldo Pontremoli (1896–1928), physics professor at the University of Milan and an aviation pioneer during the interwar period, who died on Nobile’s 1928 Arctic dirigible expedition; Rudolph *Samoilovich (1881–1939), who led the Russian relief expedition to the Nobile party’s aid (1928), discovered the Spitzbergen coal deposit, and explored the Franz Josef Archipelago; and Angelo Heilperin (1853–1907), who made geological expeditions to Florida (1886), Bermuda (1888), and Mexico (1890), led a relief expedition to Peary’s aid in Greenland (1892), took part in expeditions to North Africa (1896) and to the Klondike (1898–99), and scaled and explored Mt. Pelee (1902–03). Explorers of Africa in the 19t century include Nathaniel *Isaacs, a member of the King expedition sent to search for Farwell, wrecked off Natal in 1825, who explored Natal for seven years; *Emin Pasha (Eduard Schnitzer), General Gordon’s aide, then his successor as governor of the Equatorial Province, who made important explorations and investigations in Central Africa; Edouard *Foa, who traveled through Morocco, southern and central Africa, French Congo and Dahomey; and Louis Arthur Lucas, who traveled through the U.S. (1872), Egypt (1873), and navigated the northern part of Lake Albert Nyanza in 1876. Other travelers, adventurers, or explorers of the 18t, 19t, and 20t centuries who were Jewish or of Jewish origin include Mantua-born Samuel *Romanelli, whose Massa baArav (Berlin, 1792) is a vivid account of his four-year journey from Gibraltar to Algiers and Morocco; Captain Moses Ximenes (c. 1762–c. 1830), who led an expedition from England to the island of Bulama, West Africa, and made an unsuccessful attempt to establish a colony there; a U.S. Army colonel from Boston named Cohen, who traveled from Adana via Smyrna to Constantinople with a group of Egyptian soldiers; *David D’Beth Hillel, author of The Travels From Jerusalem through Arabia, Koordistan, Part of Persia, and India, to Madras (1832), who searched for the remnants of the Ten Tribes, and described in detail the holy places and historical sites of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam from India to Ereẓ Israel, the Yazidis in Sinjār, the Sabeans, Wahhabis, Druze, the Dāwūdiyya sect in western Persia, and the differences between the Sunnite and Shi’ite Muslims; Alexander *Salmon, an English sailor who married a Tahitian clan chief-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

115

travelers and travels to ereẓ israel tainess and served as adviser to the rulers of Tahiti; Heinrich Bernstein (1828–1865), who explored the Moluccas, the Malay Peninsula, and New Guinea for Holland; William Gifford Palgrave (1826–1888), who worked as a Catholic missionary in India, Syria, and Arabia and wrote Narrative of a Year’s Journey Through Central and Eastern Arabia (2 vols., 1865); Arminius *Vambery who, disguised as a Muslim dervish, was the first European to travel from Trebizond to Teheran, Persia, and Samarkand in Central Asia (1861–63); Gottfried *Merzbacher, who climbed mountains in the Caucasus and the Tien Shan range and studied the ecology of the latter for more than five years; Ney *Elias, who traveled across the Gobi Desert, through the Pamir Mountains, and Chinese and Afghan Turkestan, and traced the Oxus River’s upper course; Elio Modigliani, who explored the Malay Peninsula; Samuel *Fenichel, who explored New Guinea for bird and butterfly specimens; Nathaniel Wallich, who explored Assam, Hindustan, and Burma; Lamberto Loria, who traveled in Australia and New Guinea; Eduard *Glaser, the Austrian explorer who made four expeditions to the Yemen, located San’a, and discovered numerous old manuscripts and inscriptions; Hermann *Burchardt, German explorer and ethnographer, who traveled in the Near East, North Africa, Australia, America, India, and Iceland, and was murdered in Yemen; Julius Popper, who explored and reigned briefly over Tierra del Fuego; Sir Mark Aurel *Stein, who headed expeditions in India, Chinese Turkestan, China, Persia, and the Middle East; Raimondo *Franchetti, the “Italian Lawrence,” who traveled in Indochina, Malaya, the Sudan, East Africa, and Ethiopia; the ethnologist Vladmir *Jochelson, who, in the course of a ten-year exile in Siberia (1884–94), studied the nomad Yokaghir tribe and latter accompanied expeditions to Kamchatka, Eastern Asia, and Alaska; Lev Yakovlevich Sternberg, who was also exiled to Siberia (1910–20) and studied the nomad Giyake tribe in northeastern Siberia; and Charles *Bernheimer, who explored the northern Arizona and Utah badlands for the American Museum of Natural History and undertook expeditions to Guatemala and Yucatan. Of the many travel books which appeared in the 20t century only a few can be mentioned: E.N. *Adler’s Jews in Many Lands (1905). Jacques *Faitlovitch, who devoted his life to the Falashas, wrote Quer durch Abessinien (1910; Hebrew: Massa el ha-Falashim, 1959). Zvi Kasdoi described his journeys in Caucasus, Central Asia, Siberia, and the Far East in Mamlekhet Ararat (1912) and Mi-Yarketei Tevel (2 vols., 1914). Among Nahum *Slouschz’s many studies on North African Jewry was Travels in North Africa (1927). Ezriel *Carlebach’s Exotische Juden (1932) included, among other travel reports, chapters on the descendants of the Marranos of Portugal, the Chuetas of Majorca, the Doenmeh of Turkey, and the Karaites of Lithuania. A World Passed By (1933) by Marvin *Lowenthal does not describe existing communities but landmarks and memories of the Jewish past in Europe and North Africa. Abraham Jacob *Brawer gave an account of his travels in the Middle East in Avak Derakhim (2 vols., 1944–46). Shmuel

*Yavne’eli’s Massa le-Teiman (“Journey to Yemen,” 1952), Israel *Cohen’s Travels in Jewry (1953), David S. *Sassoon’s Massa Bavel (“Voyage to Babylonia,” 1955), L. *Rabinowitz’s Far East Mission (1952), and Joseph Carmel’s Massa el Aḥ im Nidaḥ im (1957) are about the Far East. H.Z. Hirschberg’s Me-Ereẓ Mevo ha-Shemesh (1957) is on travels in North Africa. Jacob Beller’s travel books on South America included Jews in Latin America (1969). Henry Shoshkes circled the globe many times. His travel accounts were published in the Yiddish press, and he was the author of several books, among them Your World and Mine (1952). In 1972 Jews in Remote Corners of the World by Ida Cowen appeared. It described visits to Jewish communities in the Pacific and in the Far and Near East.

Jewish Travelers Jews have traveled to see the Holy Land ever since they first settled in the lands of the Diaspora, i.e., travel by Jews to Ereẓ Israel began from the time of the Babylonian Exile and in effect never ceased entirely from then to the present. During the Second Temple period the focus of attraction for *pilgrims was the Temple. However, even after the destruction of the Temple, and after most of the people were exiled from its land, the attraction of Ereẓ Israel did not abate. Actual descriptions of the travels by the travelers themselves exist only from the middle of the 12t century. The first known Jewish traveler who left literary evidence about his travels was *Judah Halevi. He left Spain in 1140 but apparently did not reach Ereẓ Israel. The literary evidence which he left expresses the poet’s feelings about the adventures which befell him on his travels, rather than the adventures themselves. Its usefulness lies in that it reveals the profound emotional motives operating within the traveler to the Holy Land. The first historical document offering a mostly factually accurate travel description is the itinerary of *Benjamin of Tudela from Spain. He arrived in Ereẓ Israel about 1170. He describes various geographic sites there, as well as the number of Jewish inhabitants he found in each place, the conditions under which they lived, the history of the places, historical identifications, etc. Benjamin arrived before the collapse of crusader rule, and his accounts are an important source of information about the situation of the Jews there during that period.

116

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

Bibliography: M. Kayserling, Christopher Columbus and the Participation of the Jews in the Spanish and Portuguese Discoveries (1907); E.N. Adler (ed.), Jewish Travellers (1930); L. Zunz, in: A. Asher (ed.), Itinerary of Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela, 2 (1927?), 230–317, includes bibliography; C. Roth, Jewish Contribution to Civilisation (1938), 63–86, incl. bibl.; J.D. Eisenstein, Oẓ ar Massa’ot (1926); S.D. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society (1967), 42–70, 209–15, 273–352; L.I. Rabinowitz, Jewish Merchant Adventurers (1948); J.D. Eisenstein, Oẓ ar Massa’ot (1926); E.N. Adler, Jewish Travellers (1930); Yaari, Sheluḥ ei; A. Epstein, Eldad ha-Dani (1950); A.Z. Aescoly, Sippur David ha-Reuveni (1940); Zechariah al-Dahiri’, Sefer ha-Musar, ed. by Y. Ratzaby (1965). [Tovia Preschel]

TRAVELERS AND TRAVELS TO EREẒ ISRAEL.

travelers and travels to ereẓ israel About ten years after the visit of Benjamin of Tudela, *Pethahiah of Regensburg toured the country. He completes the picture of the impoverished situation of the Jewish community at the end of the crusader period, in contrast to the comfortable situation of contemporary Babylonian Jewry under Muslim rule. His main interest was the *holy places, and he did not devote much attention to the material conditions of the Jews. Jacob b. Nethanel, who visited the country and Jerusalem, apparently before its conquest by Saladin (1187), was also mainly interested in the holy places and the tombs of the tannaim and amoraim. The situation was different during the travels of Judah *Al-Ḥ arizi. He arrived in 1218, after the country had been conquered from the crusaders, and after the immigration of 300 rabbis from France and England, some of whom he met in Jerusalem. The Muslim conquest and the immigration eased the conditions of the Jewish community there. Al-Ḥ arizi himself attests: “From the day it was conquered by Ishmaelites, it was settled by Israelites.” In 1238 a journey was made by R. Jacob, the emissary of R. *Jehiel of Paris, but in contrast to Al-Ḥ arizi he gives almost no description of the situation of the Jewish community, and concentrates primarily on describing the holy places and the tombs. A special place among the settlers of Ereẓ Israel is held by *Naḥ manides (1267), who gives a very somber description of the conditions of the Jews during his stay. He also describes the destruction and desolation which abounded in the country. Naḥ manides’ action in renewing the settlement of Jerusalem was an outstanding enterprise. An interesting figure among travelers was *Estori haParḥ i, who arrived in 1322. Far from being a mere transitory tourist, he delved deep into the study of Ereẓ Israel. He investigated the problem of identifying several places in the country, displaying an outstanding expertise in Jewish literature and foreign languages, and approached his subject scientifically. Nevertheless, love of Ereẓ Israel was not the legacy of Jewish scholars or men of letters alone. Simple people, too, greatly desired to settle there. This is evidenced by the tale about two Spanish Jews who vowed to immigrate in 1317. When their attempts proved unsuccessful, one of them asked R. *Asher b. Jehiel if he could break his vow (Resp. Rosh, 8:11). In the course of time common people (usually merchants) came, e.g., Isaac ibn al-Fara of Malaga, Spain, who visited Ereẓ Israel in 1411 and wrote a letter to Simeon b. Zemaḥ *Duran in Algiers, describing what he saw there. He also visited the important cities of Syria. In 1443 he sent a list of the locations of the holy graves in Ereẓ Israel, which he took from an ancient book in his possession, to Solomon b. Simeon *Duran. The two letters are lost but they were summarized in Abraham *Zacuto’s Sefer Yuḥ asin. In 1473 an anonymous traveler went there from Candia, and numerous others went there from Italy in the second half of the 15t century. The most famous among these were R. Meshullam of Volterra (1481), a wealthy merchant, whose book of travels is very important from a histori-

cal point of view, and Obadiah of *Bertinoro (1488–90), who became one of the greatest rabbis of Ereẓ Israel of his time; three of his letters from there are among the most beautiful in travel literature. In the 16t century a considerable number of Italian Jews traveled to the Holy Land. The book of travels of Moses *Basola (1521–23) is a gem among travel literature. In 1563 the wealthy merchant Elijah of Pesaro settled there, and his book contains a detailed description of the means of travel from Italy to Ereẓ Israel. The description of the economic conditions prevailing there in the 16t century is also detailed and enlightening. This is reflected in a letter from David di Rossi, a merchant who was a fellow-countryman of Elijah, and who journeyed there in 1535. Solomon Shlomil Meinstril from Resnitz, Moravia, arrived in Safed at the end of 1602, and his letters are filled with realistic descriptions of the Safed community, its spiritual life, its economic situation, relations with non-Jews, climate, etc. Isaiah *Horowitz tells about his travels in his letters and describes Safed, where he arrived in 1620, and his visits to the tombs of the ẓ addikim, as well as his journey to Jerusalem. During the 17t and 18t centuries Karaite pilgrims went to Ereẓ Israel from the Crimean Peninsula, after having vowed to undertake the journey. The descriptions of the travels of *Samuel b. David (1641–42), Moses b. Elijah (1654–55), and *Benjamin b. Elijah (1785–86) are filled with religious fervor and love of the Holy Land. The Karaites used to bestow the title Yerushalmi (“Jerusalemite”) on every immigrant, and such an event was a great celebration for the entire community. One of the travelers in the famous group of *Judah Ḥ asid was Gedaliah of Siemiatycze, from Poland. In his book, Sha’alu Shelom Yerushalayim, he describes the adventures of the travelers, as well as life in Jerusalem. The adventures undergone by Abraham Roiyo and his group (1702) during their travels to Ereẓ Israel, as well as the yeshivah built by him, are described in a letter written by one of the travelers. There is a series of letters and stories about travels to and in Ereẓ Israel in connection with the immigration (1741) of Ḥ ayyim *Attar, author of Or ha-Ḥ ayyim. In 1746 Abraham Gershom of Kutow, brother-in-law of *Israel b. Eliezer Ba’al Shem Tov, immigrated there. He served as the first bridge for the great ḥ asidic immigration. As a result, there are numerous travel descriptions written by settlers and travelers who went from eastern Galicia and Volhynia, the provinces where Ḥ asidism originated. In 1760 Joseph Sofer journeyed there from Berestzka in Volhynia province. He related in his letter that there was a gradual but regular immigration from Poland. In 1764 two ḥ asidic leaders from eastern Galicia, *Naḥ man of Horodenka and *Menahem Mendel of Peremyshlyany, arrived with the groups of ḥ asidic immigrants. Information about their journey is given by a Galician Jew, who recounts the stories of his travel to Ereẓ Israel in a book entitled Ahavat Ẓ iyyon. In the framework of the ḥ asidic immigration, an especially great role was played by the Ḥ asidim of Lithuania and

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

117

travelers and travels to ereẓ israel Rydzyna, whose leaders describe, among other things, their travels and immigration in their letters (1777), as well as the situation of the Jews of Ereẓ Israel at the time. The most famous traveler was R. *Naḥ man of Bratslav, who traveled in 1798–99, and who regarded the Holy Land as the center of his ḥ asidic teaching. About 30 years after the move by Ḥ asidim to settle in Ereẓ Israel, their opponents, the Mitnaggedim, also felt the spiritual need to settle there. The first group of the disciples of R. Elijah, the Gaon of Vilna, traveled there in 1808, and settled in Safed. Two additional groups of R. Elijah’s disciples went in 1809. Their letters give expression to the religious yearning of the immigrants, and the great call on Diaspora Jewry to take part in the settlement of the land. Supplementary information about this immigration is given in the book of travels of R. *David D’Beth Hillel, who joined the disciples of the Gaon in Safed, in 1815, but did not remain with them long, and left to wander around the country. In 1824 R. David D’Beth Hillel left to tour the world. The description of his travels in Ereẓ Israel is the only one of its kind by a Jew during the first quarter of the 19t century. His diary is also of historical significance, because he is generally precise in the facts which he presents. In 1833 Menahem Mendel of Kamieniec arrived in Ereẓ Israel. He published a small work entitled Korot ha-Ittim in 1840, describing the terrible sufferings of the Jews of Safed as a result of the fellahin’s rebellion against Ibrahim Pasha. He devotes a special chapter to describing daily life in Ereẓ Israel. In 1833 R. Yehoseph *Schwarz from Bavaria settled in Ereẓ Israel. He was not an ordinary traveler. Like Estori haParḥ i in the 14t century, R. Yehoseph Schwarz devoted all his strength and energy to the study of the country. He covered its length and breadth, dealing with its borders, antiquities, flora, climate, etc. His book, Tevu’ot ha-Areẓ (1845), is the major product of his investigations, and was translated into German and English. In a letter written in 1837, he describes the quality of life in Jerusalem, its holy places, and the climate and productivity of the country. Travel literature and the history of travels in the 19t century accompany the first manifestations of national revival and the renewal of Jewish settlement. Moses *Montefiore and his wife, Judith, made seven trips. She kept a detailed travel diary about her second trip with her husband (1839). Eliezer Halevi, Montefiore’s secretary and right-hand man, described in four letters what he had seen in his tour throughout the country, in which he spent two months (1838). The beginning of Zionism may be associated with the activity of Jehiel Michael *Pines, who traveled throughout the country in 1878 examining the quality of land suitable for settlement. He tells about these travels in his letter. The historian Ze’ev *Jawitz, who immigrated in 1887, tells in his letter about his arrival and his visits to various places. There is also the description by Mordecai b. Hillel, among the first of the Ḥ ovevei Zion, who visited the new yishuv in 1889. In his book of travels, he describes the situation of the moshavot, as well as the way of life of the old yishuv in Jerusalem.

The travels of Zionist leaders *Aḥ ad Ha-Am (1891) and Theodor *Herzl (1898) to Ereẓ Israel exemplify the new trend in travel (see *Zionism). Christian Travelers Numerous travel descriptions were written from the 12t century to modern times by Christian pilgrims who went to Ereẓ Israel to visit the holy places of their faith, and other travelers who wandered through the countries of the East and visited the Holy Land. Among them were some who were not adept at literary expression, whose travels were described by companions or by someone to whom they told their story. Their writings are often nothing more than a list of the Christian holy places visited by pilgrims, the pilgrimage “stations,” and the prayers which were to be said at these places. Many of the pilgrim-travelers, however, were priests and intellectuals, who could describe their travels in works which bore a literary character. All such works were called in Latin itineraria. Since many of the pilgrims visited Syria and Egypt as well, their travel books include interesting information about these countries also. These works are important sources not only for the history of Ereẓ Israel, and especially for the study of its topography, but also for the history of Oriental civilization in general, including data about the social and economic conditions. On the other hand, all the itineraries show the authors to be aliens unfamiliar with the way of life of the country, especially with the languages spoken by its inhabitants; they required the mediation of guides and translators, who often misled them. The tendency to believe legends was almost general in the Middle Ages. However, in the course of the generations in which travel descriptions were written by the Christians who went to Ereẓ Israel, the nature of these writings underwent changes according to the national and social origin of their authors, as well as according to their approach to matters relating to the country. A few itineraries from the period preceding the Crusades have been preserved. Most of them were written in Latin by West European priests, and some of them were written in Greek by Byzantine priests. Their character was determined by that of the authors: they concentrate mainly on descriptions of the holy places, the monasteries, etc. The earliest extant itinerary is by an anonymous author called the “Bordeaux Pilgrim,” who gives an account of his journey from France, through Italy and the Balkans, to Ereẓ Israel, where he describes, naturally first and foremost, the Christian holy places in Jerusalem. This journey was apparently made in the 330s (333?). About 50 years later an itinerary was written which is attributed to Saint Silvia of Aquitania. The authoress spent three years in the countries of the Orient and, after a lengthy stay in Ereẓ Israel, also visited Syria and Mesopotamia. Her description of her travels is so detailed that it is an invaluable aid for the study of topography. One of the most popular works from that time was the description of the journey undertaken by the French bishop Arculfus, around 670. Arculfus spent nine months in Jerusalem, visiting the shore of the Dead Sea, the northern

118

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

[Menahem Schmelzer]

travelers and travels to ereẓ israel part of the country, Damascus, and Tyre, and later traveling to Constantinople. He finally arrived in Scotland, where he told the head of an Irish monastery about his travels, and the latter wrote down his story. This work is important in that it is the first (known) work from the period of Muslim rule in Ereẓ Israel and the neighboring countries. A detailed travel book, which gives a lengthy description of the adventures and tribulations of a western pilgrim in the Oriental countries, is the travel description by St. Willibald, who went to Ereẓ Israel in 723. Willibald was an Englishman, but he became bishop of Eichstadt, Germany. Beginning with the First Crusade there was an increasing number of pilgrims who wrote descriptions of their travels. The types of traveler-authors became more variegated, and the establishment of Frankish rule in Ereẓ Israel and a few Syrian provinces resulted in the broadening of the travelers’ scope of interests, and they included in their books topics other than just the holy places. Of greatest interest among the works written in the second half of the 12t century are the travel descriptions of Saewulf, who went to Ereẓ Israel while making a sea voyage and visiting Greece and Constantinople (1102–03), and those by the Russian ascetic, Daniel (1106–08), whose work is one of the first written in Russian. From the second half of the 12t century, mention should be made of the travel descriptions of Nicolaeus Saemundarson, the head of a monastery in northern Ireland (1151–54), of Johannes of Wurtzburg (1165), and the description of Ereẓ Israel by Johannes Phocas (1177). The most important among the itineraries of the 13t century are the works by the Germans Wilbrand of Oldenburg (1212) and Thietmar (1217), the book by Sabbas, archbishop of Serbia (1225–27), written in ancient Slavic, and the work by Perdiccas, protonotary of Ephesus (c. 1250). From the end of the century there is a description of the “Holy Land” by Burchardus of Mount Zion (de Monte Sion; 1283), which is not actually an itinerary but rather a work by a monk who lived in Ereẓ Israel for a long time. After the elimination of the last remnant of crusader rule in Jerusalem, i.e., the conquest of Acre in 1291, the pilgrimage movement increased. Many of the visitors and travelers wrote about their travels, and hence a greater number of itineraries is preserved from the 14t century than from earlier periods, and they are more varied. During this period the pilgrims began to write their works in their national languages as well. Of these, special mention should be made of the travel descriptions by the Irish monk Simeon Simeonis (1332); the German priest Ludolf of Suchem, who spent the years 1336–41 in the countries of the Orient and described them in a Latin and German work; the Italian monk Niccolo da Poggibonsi (1345) who wrote in Italian “A Book about the Land Across the Sea”; and the Russian priest Ignatius of Smolensk, who went to Ereẓ Israel at the end of the century and described the Christian holy places in his mother tongue. Of the emissary-spy type was a German nobleman, Wilhelm of Boldensele, who was a member of the Dominican Order and visited Ereẓ Israel (1333) as an emissary of a French cardinal connected with plans for a new

Crusade. The detailed itinerary by the monk Giacomo of Verona (1335), written in Latin, is a combined guide for pilgrims and exploration of possibilities of a new Crusade. Itineraries of a completely different type were written by three Florentines, Lionardo Frescobaldi, Simone Sigoli, and Giorgio Gucci, who went to Ereẓ Israel in 1384 by way of Egypt and returned by way of Syria. The three pilgrims were secular and their travel books reflect the secular-commercial approach of the townsmen. They abound in descriptions of the economic and social life and they also contain exact data about expenditures. With the increase in pilgrimages high-ranking noblemen also went to Ereẓ Israel in that generation and their travels were described by their companions. Among these was the future King Henry IV of England (1392/93). Mention should also be made of the travelers during that century who visited in all the Oriental countries and did not go especially to Ereẓ Israel, but in whose travel books the description of Ereẓ Israel plays a major role. Among these were the Italian Odorico de Pordenone (1320), the Englishman John of Mandeville (c. 1336), and the Italian Giovanni de Marignola (1350). The 15t century was the classic period of Christian pilgrimage to Ereẓ Israel in the sense that the pilgrimage movement was more intense, its forms were more crystallized, and the composition of the pilgrims in terms of their origins was more variegated than in any preceding period. The proportion of priests was smaller than formerly while the proportion of the bourgeois was larger. The variety of pilgrims is reflected by the variety of itineraries preserved from that century. Some travelers did not take the short sea-route from Italy to the shores of Ereẓ Israel, but wandered in many countries on the way to and from Ereẓ Israel, since their entire purpose was to gather information about the strength of the armies and fortifications in the Holy Land itself and its neighboring countries. There are many itineraries of noblemen from various countries who went to Ereẓ Israel during the 15t century and whose travels are described by their companions. Especially characteristic of the pilgrimages of that time was the broad participation of the urban laymen. These bourgeois came from various countries. However, the most important itineraries in terms of their comprehensiveness and the value of their information about the contemporary social scene in Ereẓ Israel were still those written by priests. Among the itineraries of churchmen of the 15t century, especially significant are the works of the Italians Santo Brasca (1480) and Pietro Casola (1494), and of the Germans Bernhard of Breidenbach and Felix Fabri, who went to Ereẓ Israel in 1483. Both Bernhard of Breidenbach, who was a priest in Mainz, and Felix Fabri, who was a Dominican monk in Ulm, wrote travel books. Their works, especially that by Fabri, are, on the one hand, travel descriptions, and, on the other, studies in the history of Ereẓ Israel, its settlement, and the holy places. Naturally, in many of the descriptions of travels, which were written in the course of hundreds of years, there is also information about the meetings between the pilgrims and Jews in various places and especially about the places of origin of these Jews. Although

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

119

travelers and travels to ereẓ israel most of the authors display a marked orthodoxy and even extreme religious zealousness, with regard to this matter they were simply reporting. Of greater historical significance are the Christian itineraries from the 16t century on, which mainly describe the population in general and the Christians in particular. However, the Jewish population was increasing in Safed and later in Jerusalem, Tiberias, and Hebron, and the Christian travelers, now mostly coming from the various German countries, from Spain, and later from France and England as well, did not miss the opportunity to describe their meetings with the Jews. They also tell about religious discussions conducted between themselves and the Jews, with whom they found a common tongue (German, Spanish) and whose houses often provided clean and secure inns, and polite hospitality (in places where there were no monasteries or inns for pilgrims). These travel books, especially because they were numerous and sometimes contained contradictory views, serve as a primary source for the history of the Jews of Ereẓ Israel during the Ottoman period, since most of them perhaps quite unintentionally gave expression to a completely objective picture. The many travel books, amounting to about 120 in all, which were written by Christian travelers in the course of 400 years (16t–19t centuries) add up to a considerable historical treasure. It is impossible to review here all the Christian travel books published during this period, particularly since many of them merely parrot the words of their predecessors. However, some of them should be mentioned: the travel book of the Franciscan monk from Portugal, Pantaleao de Aveiro, Itinerario da Terra Sancta (c. 1565, publ. 1927); of the French Franciscan monk Jaques Goujon, Histoire et Voyage de la Terre Sainte (Lyons, 1571); of John Sanderson, who was in Ereẓ Israel in 1601, The Travels of John Sanderson, 1584–1602 (publ. 1931); of George Sandys, A Relation of a Journey, A Description of the Holy Land of the Jewes (London5, 1652); and especially the description by the monk-missionary Eugéne Roger (c. 1630), La Terre Sainte (1664). The learned Dutchman Olaf Dapper collected much information which he found in works by preceding scholars, added his own eyewitness accounts, and wrote a complete description of Ereẓ Israel, first published in Amsterdam in 1681, and later in German translation in Nuremberg, 1688–89, Asia, oder genaue und gruendliche Beschreibung des gantzen Syrien und Palestins. This is not an original work but it includes considerable geographic-historical material. The broad travel memoirs of L. de Arvieux, who served as French consul and ambassador in Algeria and Tunisia (1664–65) and later as special ambassador to the sultan in Constantinople (1672–73), and finally as consul with broad authority in Aleppo (1682–88), adapted De la Roque, Voyage dans la Palestine (Amsterdam, 1718). The Dutchman Cornellius le Bruya undertook a comprehensive tour of Asia Minor, the Aegean Isles, Egypt, Syria, and Ereẓ Israel at the end of the century. His work, which includes numerous illustrations (about 200 copper engravings), was published in Dutch, translated into French and from French into English: A Voyage to the Levant,

etc. (London, 1702). Of lasting scholarly worth is the work by Thomas Shaw, Travels or Observations relating to several parts of Barbary and the Levant (Oxford, 1738). Among the numerous travelers of the 18t century special mention should also be made of Richard Pococke (1738), A Description of the East II/1 (London, 1745); Frederick Hasselquirst (1751), Voyages and Travels in the Levant (London, 1766); and especially the Frenchman C.-J. Volney, Travels etc. (1783–85; London, 1788), who visited the countries of the Orient at a young age and who in his travel description offers a brilliant analysis of the political situation and of the strategic plans already formulated at that time, ten years before Napoleon prepared to conquer Egypt. After Napoleon’s campaign of conquest in the area, and despite his failure, there was an increasing number of Christian travelers who went to Ereẓ Israel not necessarily from purely religious motives. There were among them important scholars such as Edward Robinson, E. Picrotti, C.R. Conder, and many others who opened up Ereẓ Israel for Muslim scholarship and who cannot be regarded as traveler-tourists in the accepted sense. The travel works devoted to describing the Ottoman Empire, Egypt, and North Africa, often contain descriptions dealing with Ereẓ Israel which mention Jews as well.

120

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

Muslim Travelers Throughout the Middle Ages and in modern times numerous Muslims have gone to *Jerusalem to pray at the mosque on the Temple Mount, which is considered one of the holy places of *Islam. These pilgrims also came from many countries. However, despite the richness of Arabic literature, almost no books are devoted solely to descriptions of these travels. It should be pointed out that also in relation to travels to Mecca no literary branch developed similar to the descriptions of Christian travels to Ereẓ Israel. A book describing travels to Ereẓ Israel and Mecca was written by the Spanish judge Abū al-Baqāʾ Khālid b. ʿIsā alBalawī, who set out in 1336. This work, however, is in part a copy of itineraries by earlier writer-travelers. The mystic ‘Abd al-Ghanī b. Ismāʿil al-Nābulusī, who lived in *Damascus, wrote a description of a journey to Jerusalem at the end of the 17t century. However, these works did not become well known in Arabic literature, and if one were interested in a description of Ereẓ Israel one would have to resort to works describing long journeys and general works on geography. Especially interesting among these itineraries are the Persian work Sefer Nāmeh (“The Book of Travel”) by Nasir-i Khosrau, who visited Ereẓ Israel in 1047; the Arabic work Riḥ la (“The Journey”), by Abu al-Ḥ usayn Muhammad ibn Jubayr, who visited Ereẓ Israel in 1184; and the work by the world traveler Ibn Baṭṭūṭa, who visited Ereẓ Israel in 1326–30, on his long journey in Eastern Asia from which he returned in 1348. The descriptions of Ereẓ Israel included in the works of Arabic geographers of the classical school were also the product of personal observations and investigations. These geographers,

travnik the most important of whom lived in the tenth century, based their works on firsthand research in various countries to which they traveled. The three outstanding representatives of this school were al-Iṣ ṭakhrī (c. 950), Ibn Ḥ awqal al-Nasībī (977), and Muhammad b. Aḥ mad, called al-Maqdisī (the Jerusalemite, who wrote in 985). The Muslims also composed itineraries for pilgrims, similar to the itineraries written by Christian clerics for the pilgrims who came to worship at the holy places. The most famous, Kitāb al-Ishārāt ilā maʿrifat al-Ziyārāt (“Guide for the Places of Pilgrimage”), written by Ali b. Abī Bakr Al-Harawī (d. 1214), includes the vast material he collected on long journeys. The work is not limited to a description of the Muslim holy places in Ereẓ Israel, but lists holy places in other countries as well. Such itineraries generally contained sayings attributed to *Muhammad about the holiness of Jerusalem and especially about the mosque of the Dome of the Rock, as well as reviews of the history of Jerusalem. More numerous were the works containing only sayings about the holiness of Jerusalem and especially of the mosques on the Temple Mount. Such works on the “praises of Jerusalem” became characteristic of the Muslim literature of Ereẓ Israel. In the second half of the 11t century Abu ‘lMa ʿalī al-Musharraf b. al-Murajja (d. 1099), a Jerusalemite, composed such a work, entitled Faḍ āʾil Bayt al-Maqdis wa al-Shām (“The Qualities of Jerusalem and Damascus”). AlQāsim ibn ʿAsākir (d. 1203) wrote a work about the al-Aqṣ a Mosque, and his relative, Niẓ ām al-Dīn (d. 1274), wrote Faḍ āʾil al-Quds (“The Qualities of Jerusalem”). While the manuscripts of these writings have not been found, there are extant manuscripts of a book praising Jerusalem which was written by the Baghdad historian, Abu al-Faraj ibn al-Jawzī (d. 1200). In the 14t century Burhān al-dīn Ibrāhīm ibn al-Firkāh, a teacher in Damascus (d. 1329), wrote Bāʿith al-Nufūs ilā Ziyārāt alQuds al-Maḥ rūs (“He who Stirs his Soul to Visit Preserved Jerusalem”). In 1351 in Jerusalem itself, Shihāb al-dīn Aḥ mad b. Muhammad b. Ibrāhīm ibn Hilāl wrote a similar book entitled Muthīr al-Gharām ilā Ziyārāt al-Quds wa al-Shām (“The Arouser of Desire to Visit Jerusalem and Damascus”). In the mid-14t century the Hebronite preacher Isḥ āq b. Ibrāhīm al-Tadmurī wrote about the cave of *Machpelah as a place of pilgrimage. In 1470 the Egyptian Shams al-Dīn al-Suyūtī wrote in Jerusalem about the “Outer Mosque.” These works were preserved and published, and some of them were even translated into English. The most important of these books is the comprehensive work about Jerusalem and Hebron written in 1494/95 by the Jerusalemite judge Mujīr al-Dīn al-ʿUlaymī entitled al-Uns al-Jalīl bi-Taʿrīkh al-Quds wa al-Khalīl (“A Weighty Discussion of the History of Jerusalem and the City of the Friend [Abraham] – Hebron”). This work contains all the sayings about the holiness of Jerusalem attributed to the prophet of Islam, as well as a detailed description of the holy city and the other towns of Ereẓ Israel (the book was printed in Cairo in 1293 A.H.). Works about Jerusalem continued to be written during the period of Ottomon rule. In the mid-

17t century a judge from Medina, Nāṣ ir al-dīn Muhammad b. Khiḍ r al-Rūmī al-Jalālī, wrote a book entitled Al-Mustaqṣ ā fī Faḍ l al-Ziyārāt bi al-Masjid al-Aqṣ ā (“The Book Concerning the Right to Visit the Outer Mosque”). This work differs from the traditional type of the Muslim “praises of Jerusalem” in that it contains a detailed guide for pilgrims. In summation, the Arabic writings about Ereẓ Israel, most of which contain “praises of Jerusalem,” generally lack factual-documentary content. In contrast, the descriptions of the Turkish traveler Evliya Çelebi, who visited Ereẓ Israel twice (first in 1649 and then in 1660–61), are of great significance. He was an experienced statesman-scholar, whose sharp eyes observed the situation of the population, the administrative division of the country, the changes which had occurred during the time between his two visits, and the amount of taxes collected. He paid attention to the Jewish populations of all the countries he visited. Of special importance in connection with the situation of Ereẓ Israel is his recounting of the mass exodus of the Jews of *Safed, which took place in his time, and the mention of the custom of pilgrimage to Meron, which in his time was not yet celebrated on Lag ba-Omer. Evliya Çelebi, however, was the last Muslim traveler to devote part of his work to Ereẓ Israel.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

121

[Eliyahu Ashtor] Bibliography: R. Roehricht, Bibliotheca Geographica Palaestinae (1890); idem and H. Meisner, Deutsche Pilgerreisen nach dem heiligen Lande (1880); H. Michelant and G. Raynava, Itinéraires à Jerusalem et Descriptions de la Terre Sainte (1882); Reysbuch des heyligen Lands (Frankfurt on the Main, 1584); Th. Wright, Early Travels in Palestine (1848); Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society Library, 1–13 (1890–97); S.P. Khitrowo, Itinéraires Russes en Orient (1889); I. BenZvi, Ereẓ Yisrael vi-Yshuvah bi-Ymei ha-Shilton ha-Ottomani (19672); M. Ish-Shalom, Masei Noẓ erim le-Ereẓ Yisrael (1965); E.L. Sukenik, in: KS, 7 (1930/31), 99–101; M. Narkiss, in: Ommanut, 2 (1941), 7–10; Z. Vilnay, Maẓ ẓ evot Kodesh be-Ereẓ Yisra’el (19632); P. Thomsen, Die Palaestina-Literatur, 7 vols. (1908–60), passim; T. Tobler, Bibliographia geographica Palaestinae (Ger., 1867, 1875); T. Kollek and M. Perlman, Pilgrims to the Holy Land (1970).

TRAVNIK, town in Bosnia. Under Ottoman rule until Austrian annexation in 1878; within Yugoslavia from 1918. After *Sarajevo, it had the second most important settlement of Sephardi Jews in the region; some of them originally lived in Sarajevo and transferred their residence to Travnik in the 18t century. A community was organized by the mid-18t century and a kal santo (synagogue) existed from 1768. The Jews themselves constructed it, working daily between the Minḥ ah and Ma’ariv prayers. Trouble assailed the community when an apostate, Moses Habillo, who took the name of Derwish Aḥ med, incited a massacre of the Jews. Many Muslims rioted but disaster was prevented when Rabbi Raphael Pinto achieved a compromise. Ten Jewish hostages were taken into custody for inquiry. They were freed after a ransom was paid on the second day of Marḥ eshvan (in 1807), which was celebrated for many years by the community as a feast of deliverance. In 1818 the local qāimaqam, the vizier’s representative, accused the Jews

treasure, treasury of ritual murder. Some Jews were arrested, but were released when Muslim notables intervened on their behalf. Apart from such isolated incidents, and cases of extortions, Jewish communal life remained undisturbed and relations with the majority of the city’s residents were good. The best known rabbi of Travnik was Abram Abinun. Jews were occupied as blacksmiths, joiners, saddlers, tailors, and shoemakers, dealers in medicinal plants and folk healers. Some of them were distillers and wheat merchants. In 1878, shortly after Travnik passed to Austria, a small Ashkenazi community was founded. A synagogue was erected in 1769. The community had a philanthropic association, Ezrat Dalim, and in the 20t century a “Jewish Club” existed there. Until the Holocaust, 375 Jews lived there peacefully. In World War II the German-Croatian occupation violently and cruelly clamped down on the community. A concentration camp was established at nearby Kruščica (Krooshchitza); survivors were deported and murdered elsewhere in Croatia or Poland. The community was not renewed. The synagogue was used as a workshop. Bibliography: V. Vinaver, in: Jevrejski Almanah (1955/56), 28–34. Add. Bibliography: J. Konforti, Travnički Jevreji (1979). [Zvi Loker]

TREASURE, TREASURY (Treasure: Heb. ‫אוֹ ָצר‬, ‫ ֶ ּב ֶצר‬, ‫ ַחיִ ל‬, ‫ח ֶֹסן‬, ‫ ַמ ְטמוֹ ן‬, ‫ ִמ ְס ָּתר‬, ‫ ַמ ְצ ּפוּן‬, ‫נֶ ְעלָ ם‬, ‫ ; ְסגֻ ָּלה‬Akk. niṣ irtu; Treasury: Heb. (‫ ֵ ּבית ָהאוֹ ָצר)וֹ ת‬, ‫ ִ ּגנְ זֵ י ַה ּ ֶמלֶ ְך‬, ‫ ִ ּגנְ זַ ְך‬, ‫ ; ֵ ּבית נְ כוֹ ת‬Akk. bīt niṣ irti, bāt nakkamīti). The concepts of treasure and treasury in the Bible are denoted by many different terms. Semantic Range of Words Meaning Treasure Most of the Hebrew words for treasure listed above may be divided into two semantic groups: a) Words which mean both treasure and something hidden or secret (maṭ mon, mistar, maẓ pun, neʿlam). b) Words which mean both treasure and strength (beẓ er, ḥ ayil, ḥ osen). The most common Akkadian term for treasure, niṣ irtu, belongs to the first group as may be seen from the following passage: Utnapištim ana šâšuma izzakkara ana Gilgameš luptēka Gilgameš amat niṣ irti u pirišta ša ilāni kâša luqbīka. “Utnapishtim said to him, to Gilgamesh: ‘Let me divulge a hidden matter to you, O Gilgamesh, And let me tell you a secret of the gods’” (Gilgamesh, 11:8–10).

bowls, and gold drachmas and priestly vestments, while royal treasures are mentioned in II Chronicles 32:27–29 (period of Hezekiah) comprising silver, gold, precious stones, spices, shields, and miscellaneous items. Babylonia in particular is singled out for her opulence and is called “the one rich in treasures” (Jer. 51:13). The treasures of Israel’s enemies (ḥ eil goyim) will all come to her when God executes His punishment upon them (Isa. 60:5, 11; 61:6; Zech. 14:14). Treasures are sometimes described as being transported on the backs of beasts of burden (Isa. 30:6; I Kings 10:2 = II Chron. 9:1; cf. Isa. 66:20). The gold of Ophir is described as “the treasure of the rivers” (Job 22:24; cf. N.H. Tur-Sinai, in bibl.). Finally, treasures are used as bribes in the Bible. In Jeremiah 41:8 the ten men who remained after Ishmael son of Nethaniah’s massacre of the rest of their group bribed Ishmael to let them live in return for treasures of wheat, barley, olive oil, and honey, hidden in the fields. In I Samuel 12:3 and Amos 2:6; 8:6, there are additional instances of bribes involving treasure. In all three cases the word nʿelam, “hidden treasure” (the vocalization of which is still uncertain) must be restored to the text (in place of naʿalayim, “shoes” in Amos 2:6; 8:6, and ʾaʿalim, “I shall hide” in I Sam. 12:3, cf. Septuagint which also reads naʿalayim, “shoes”). This meaning is demonstrated both by Ben Sira 46:19 which paraphrases I Samuel 12:3, by juxtaposing the Hebrew word kofer, “gift,” with the word naʿalayim, and by Targum Jonathan which translates naʿalayim in Amos 2:6 and 8:6 by a form of the word ḥ osen, “treasure” (see above). In extra-biblical sources, mention must be made of the Copper Scroll discovered in 1952 in Cave 3 of Qumran. This Copper Scroll consists of three sheets of very thin copper on which is engraved a Hebrew text. The Hebrew text is a register of 64 deposits of buried treasure supposed to be hidden in and around Qumran (in an area extending from Hebron to Mt. Gerizim). The objects listed include a silver chest, ingots of gold and silver, jars of all shapes and sizes, bowls, perfumes, and perhaps, vestments. It should be noted that the purpose of the scroll is still a mystery. Among the theories advanced by scholars are that it is a list of the treasures of the First Temple, the Second Temple, or the Qumran community. A fourth theory, posited by T.H. Gaster (see bibl.), is that the scroll represents “an unconscionable fraud [or even a cruel practical joke] perpetrated by some cynical outsider upon the naive and innocent minds of the ascetics of Qumran.”

Types of Treasures While the most common type of treasure referred to is “silver and gold” (kesef, zahav, e.g., Isa. 2:7; Ezek. 28:4; Eccles. 2:8; I Chron. 29:3; cf. Ps. 68:31 where perhaps the reading should be beẓ er kesef, so Tur-Sinai), treasures of clothes (e.g., Jer. 38:11; Zech. 14:14), wine (I Chron. 27:27), oil (I Chron. 27:28), food in general (Joel 1:17; II Chron. 11:11), precious stones (I Chron. 29:8), and dedicated gifts (I Chron. 26:26) are all represented. Elsewhere, temple treasures are listed in Ezra 1:9–11 (cf. Ezra 2:68–69; Neh. 7:69ff.) and include gold and silver dishes and

Treasures in War The defeated nation often was obliged to give up all of her treasures to the victor (Isa. 39:6ff.). For example, Shishak of Egypt took from Jerusalem the royal treasures, the Temple treasures, and everything else (I Kings 14:26 = II Chron. 12:9). While no part of the ḥ erem of Jericho after Joshua’s conquest could be taken by any Israelite, all the silver and gold, and the copper and iron vessels were to be added to the Temple treasury (Josh. 6:19, 24). As part of Israel’s punishment, Babylon would carry off all of her treasures as spoil (Jer. 15:13; 17:3; 20:5); but the day would also come when Babylon would be punished

122

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

trebic in kind (Jer. 50:37). Likewise, Moab (Jer. 48:7) and the Ammonites (Jer. 49:4), who trusted in their treasures, and Edom (Jer. 49:10; cf. Obad. 6) would suffer the same consequences. In extra-biblical sources, the same situation prevailed in times of war. Sennacherib of Assyria in describing his defeat of Merodach-Baladan of Babylon claims: Ann ekallišu ša qereb Bāb-ili ērumma aptēma bīt niṣ irtišu hurāṣ a ̆ kaspa unūt hurāṣ i kaspi abnu aqartu bušê makkūr ēkallišu ašlula. “I entered his palace in Babylon and I opened his treasury. I took as spoil – gold, silver, gold and silver vessels, precious stones, valuables, and property of his palace” (D.D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib (1924), p. 67, lines 5–6).

Symbolic Treasures Both Israel and God are spoken of as each other’s treasure. Israel is spoken of as God’s segullah, “treasured/private possession” (Ex. 19:5; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 26:18; cf. Mal. 3:17; Ps. 135:4; for this meaning compare likewise Akk. sikiltu). Eliphaz instructs Job to return to God and consider the Lord his treasure (Job 22:23–25). There are many references to the heavens as God’s treasure (Deut. 28:12; Jer. 10:13; 51:16; Ps. 135:7), while various forces of God are described as His treasure (Jer. 50:25; Ps. 33:6–7; Job 38:22). Finally, wisdom and devotion to God are described as the treasure of faith (Isa. 33:6). Concept of Treasure in Wisdom Literature The connection between wisdom and treasure may best be seen from those passages where wisdom is personified. Wisdom fills the treasuries of those who seek her (Prov. 8:21), and, in turn, should be sought after like buried treasure (Prov. 2:4). Elsewhere, there are many references to the treasures of the wise man, but the fool has none (Prov. 15:6; 21:20). Treasures gained through wickedness are of no avail (Prov. 10:2), while a little in the way of material goods plus a good deal of faith are better than the most precious treasures (Prov. 15:16). Finally, the acquisition of treasures through deceitful means will cause their owner’s downfall (Prov. 21:6ff.), a theme which has several extra-biblical parallels. In an Akkadian composition entitled “Counsels of Wisdom,” the following advice is given:

responding verbs, ʾẓ r and nakāmu, meaning “to amass, store up.” For example, Ashurbanipal boasts in his annals about his conquest of Susa: Aptēma bīt nakkamātišu (nu) sa kaspu ḥ urāṣ u bušû makkūru nukkumū qrebšun. “I opened his treasure house wherein silver, gold, valuables and property were stored …” (M. Streck, Aššurbanipal… (1916), p. 50, lines 132–4).

Elsewhere, ʾoẓ rot bet YHWH, “Temple treasury” (e.g., I Kings 7:51 = II Chron. 5:1), and oʾẓ rot bet ha-melekh, “palace treasury” (e.g., I Kings 14:26), are often mentioned together. For example, Asa gave all he had in both treasuries to Ben-Hadad (I Kings 15:18 = II Chron. 16:2), Joash gave up both his treasuries to Hazael (II Kings 12:19), and Nebuchadnezzar took everything from the treasuries in Jerusalem (e.g., II Kings 24:13; II Chron. 36:10, 18). Another instance is the discussion between Isaiah and Hezekiah concerning the delegation sent by the Babylonian king to see Hezekiah (II Kings 20:12ff. = Isa. 39:1ff.). Finally, the term genazim is used three times in the latest biblical books to refer to the treasury of Persia (Esth. 3:9; 4:7) and the treasuries of multicolored garments of many nations (Ezek. 27:24). Bibliography: H. Zimmern, Akkadische Fremdwoerter (1917), 8; M. Greenberg, in: JAOS, 71 (1951), 172–4; T.H. Gaster, The Dead Sea Scriptures (1956), 382–5; M.Z. Segal, Sifrei Shemu’el (1964), 86–87; N.H. Tur-Sinai, The Book of Job (1967), 347–8. [Chayim Cohen]

Treasury Of the three words for treasury listed above, only one, bet nekhot, was not understood until fairly recently. The context of the single biblical verse in which this term occurs (II Kings 20:13 = Isa. 39:2) showed that it must mean treasury, but the origin of the term was still a mystery. It is now known that bet nekhot is a loanword from the Akkadian bīt nakkamāti, “treasury.” Both the Hebrew and Akkadian nouns have cor-

TREBIC (Czech Třebič; Ger. Trebitsch), town in W. Moravia, Czech Republic. The Trebic community was considered one of the oldest in Moravia; it is alleged that a synagogue was built in 938. During the wave of massacres of Jews in 1338, which commenced in *Pulkau, some Trebic Jews were killed. The first documentary mention of the community concerns an attack on Jews and robbery in 1410. In 1464 it was destroyed along with the rest of the town. Jewish matters were included in the Stadtordnung (“municipal regulations”) of 1583. In 1604 the majority of Trebic’s merchants were Jews. The old synagogue was allegedly built in 1639–42; in 1757 its roof had to be lowered so that its lights could not be seen from the castle. It was damaged three times by fire and was redesigned several times, the last time in neo-Gothic style in 1880. Services were held until World War I. Since 1954 it has been used by the Hussite Church. The new synagogue was built in the early 17t century and renovated in 1845. After World War I, it fell into disuse. After World War II, it was converted into a Jewish museum. In 1727 Jews were compelled to live segregated from Christians. In 1848 the Jews were prevented from organizing a Jewish unit in the National Guard. Becoming one of the Politischen Gemeinden (“political communities,” see *Politische Gemeinde) in 1849, Trebic retained this status until the dissolution of the Hapsburg monarchy. After freedom of movement and settlement had been granted to Jews, the community began to decline, many moving to *Vienna, *Brno, *Jihlava,

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

123

My son, if it be the desire of the prince that you be his, if you are entrusted with his closely guarded seal, open his treasure house [niṣ irtašu], enter into [it]; apart from you there is not another man [who may enter into it]. You will find therein untold wealth. Do not covet anything. Do not take it into your head to conceal something. For afterwards, the matter will be investigated, and what you have concealed will come to light … (W.G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (1960), p. 102, lines 81ff.).

trebitsch, abraham and other larger cities. Whereas in 1799 there were 1,770 Jews in the Jewish quarter of Trebic, and in 1850 the community numbered 1,605, in 1890 their number declined to 987; in 1900 to 756; in 1921 to 362; and in 1930 to 300. During the German occupation, in May 1942, 1,370 Jews from *Jihlava province were assembled in Trebic and deported to *Theresienstadt; only 35 of them survived the war. A small congregation was reestablished in 1945. In 1957 a memorial tablet for the victims of the Holocaust was dedicated. Born in Trebic were Wolfgang *Wessely, the first Jewish university teacher in Austria; Adolf Kurrein (1846–1919), one of the first Zionist rabbis in Austria; and Sigmund Taussig (1840–1910), a pioneer in the field of hydro-engineering. Bibliography: Kořatek, in: H. Gold (ed.), Die Juden und Judengemeinden Maehrens (1929), 523–37; A. Engel, in: JGJJ, 2 (1930); Kahana, in: Kobez al Jad, 4 (1946/47), 183–92; Věstnik ždovské obce náboženské v Praze, 20:1 (1958), 4; Der Orient, 5 (1844), 308. Add. Bibliography: J. Fiedler, Jewish Sights of Bohemia and Moravia (1991), 184–85. [Meir Lamed / Yeshayahu Jelinek (2nd ed.)]

TREBITSCH, ABRAHAM (Reuven Hayyat; b. 1760), Moravian historical author. Born in Trebic, he attended a Prague yeshivah c. 1775, and later in *Mikulov was secretary of the Moravian *Landesrabbiner. His history, Korot ha-Ittim (Bruenn, 1801), contains “tales of all the wars from 1741 to 1801 which were waged in the countries of Austria, Prussia, France, and England and all that Jews went through in those days.” Intended as a continuation of Menahem *Amelander’s She’erit Yisrael (Amsterdam, 1743), it differs from it by covering nonJewish as well as Jewish history. It was published simultaneously in Yiddish as Tsaytgeshikhte. The work is important mainly for its traditionalist evaluation of the reforms of *Joseph II. In 1851 Jacob *Bodek published a revised edition entitled Korot Nosafot, and there also exists an edition apparently plagiarized by Bodek’s brother-in-law. Along with Hirsch Menaker, Trebitsch wrote Ru’aḥ Ḥ ayyim, an account of the exorcism of a *dibbuk in Mikulov (Vienna, 1785; Yid. (same title), Bruenn, 1785; repr. in several editions of Moshe Graf ’s Zera Kodesh). Bibliography: R. Kestenberg-Gladstein, Die neuere Geschichte der Juden in den boehmischen Laendern, 1 (1969), index; I. Halpern, in: KS, 29 (1953/54), 174–5. [Meir Lamed]

Bibliography: Landsberger, in: HUCA, 23 (1950–51), 503–21; Naményi, in: REJ, 16 (1957), 59–60. [Cecil Roth]

TREBITSCH, NEHEMIAH (Menahem Nahum; 1779–1842), Moravian rabbi. Trebitsch taught at the Prague yeshivot of Jacob Guensburg and Simon Kuh before becoming rabbi in Prossnitz (1826–32). He was subsequently appointed Landesrabbiner of Moravia with his seat in Nikolsburg. The right bestowed upon him by the provincial government (1833) to appoint candidates for vacant rabbinates was canceled in 1838 because of his persistent refusal to nominate rabbis with liberal leanings. This cancellation was also influenced by his opposition to the use of German in sermons for which he had been officially censured. However, he consented to, and participated in, the establishment of a Hebrew-German industrial school. He wrote glosses to the Jerusalem Talmud, and Koveẓ al Yad ha-Ḥ aẓ akah (8 vols., 1835–42), notes on Maimonides’ Yad. Bibliography: A. Schlesinger, Kol Nehi (Heb. and Ger., 1842), eulogy and biography; L. Loew, Gesammelte Schriften, 2 (1900), 195–212; H. Gold (ed.), Juden und Judengemeinden Maehrens (1929), 500 and index; I. Kahn, in: A. Engel (ed.), Gedenkbuch im Auftrag des Kuratoriums Nikolsburg (1936), 71–74; A.H. Weiss, Zikhronotai (1895), 41–45. [Oskar K. Rabinowicz]

TREBITSCH, SIEGFRIED (1869–1956), Austrian novelist, playwright, and translator. The son of a Viennese silk merchant, Trebitsch was a great traveler. His first volume of poetry, Gedichte (1889), was followed after prolonged intervals by Wellen und Wege (1913) and Aus verschuetteten Tiefen (1947). He was, however, better known as a prose writer and wrote many psychological novels, including Genesung (1902), Spaetes Licht (1918), and Renate Aldringen (1929). Die Rache ist mein (1934) was a volume of novellas. Trebitsch’s plays include Ein Muttersohn (1911), Frau Gittas Suehne (1920), and Das Land der Treue (1926). His German translations of George Bernard Shaw’s plays (in various editions from the turn of the century on) paved the way for Shaw’s European vogue. Following the Anschluss in 1938, Trebitsch, a convert to Christianity, settled in Switzerland. His autobiography, Chronik eines Lebens (1951; Chronicle of a Life, 1953), is an informative and entertaining firsthand account of the European literary scene. [Harry Zohn]

TREBITSCH, MOSES LOEB BEN WOLF (18t century), Central European Hebrew scribe-illuminator, from Trebic in Moravia. He was one of the pioneer figures in the renaissance of Jewish manuscript art at the beginning of the 18t century. At least a dozen works from his gifted pen are known – most of them Passover Haggadot. His pen drawings, usually set off by wash, are well-composed, small genre paintings. The family scene which he prefixed to the Van Geldern Haggadah (1723) and a companion work now in the Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati (1716–17), are among the outstanding specimens of the new Jewish miniature art of the period.

His stepbrother, ARTHUR TREBITSCH (1880–1927), was also a writer in Vienna. Like Siegfried he abandoned Judaism and, as a disciple of Otto *Weininger, was a notorious antisemite. His book Geist und Judentum (1919) blamed the defeat of the Central Powers during World War I and the subsequent collapse of the Hohenzollern and Hapsburg dynasties on Jewish machinations. His Deutscher Geist – oder Judentum (1921) utilized the forged Protocols of the Elders of Zion to prove the existence of a Jewish conspiracy to dominate and debauch the world. An admirer of Houston Stewart *Chamberlain, whose racial theories he developed to a pathological extreme,

124

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

treblinka Trebitsch vilified his fellow Jews until his death and even offered his services to the Austrian Nazis. Bibliography: G. Schuberth, Arthur Trebitsch, sein Leben und sein Werk (1927); R. Mueller-Guttenbrunn, Der brennende Mensch: Das geistige Vermaechtnis von Arthur Trebitsch (1930); T. Lessing, Juedischer Selbsthass (1930), 101–31; F. Heer, Der Glaube des Adolf Hitler (1968), index; S. Liptzin, Germany’s Stepchildren (1944), 189–94.

TREBLINKA, one of the three Aktion Reinhard death camps during World War II, second only to *Auschwitz in the number of Jews killed. Known until then as a small railroad station between Siedlce and Malkinia, located approximately 62 miles (100 km.) northeast of Warsaw. The Germans built a railway spur that led from the labor camp to the death camp and to the railway station in the village of Treblinka. Heavily wooded, it could be hidden from view. Treblinka became the final destination for transports that brought Jews from the ghettos of the General Government and about ten European countries to their death. The Jews were brought to Treblinka under the pretext of resettlement in former Soviet territories that had been occupied. The actual site of mass slaughter was located approximately 2.5 miles (4 km.) from the station, camouflaged inside a pine forest. On the border of this area was a platform for the train that carried the Jews from the station in consignments of 15–20 cars, which reached the camp on a side track especially built for this purpose. However, the name Treblinka refers to two camps: the first one (later called Treblinka I), which began operating in 1941, was openly and officially designated as a forced-labor camp for offenses against the occupation authorities; the second camp, located approximately 1 mile (1.5 km.) from the first, and designed for mass extermination, was treated by the German authorities as a state secret, and its name was coded even in confidential letters as T.II.

either shot or murdered in other ways. In light of the practices for mixed camps, according to which the Aryans benefited from larger food rations and were allowed to receive provisions from their families, it can be assumed that at least 90 of those who perished were Jews. After the war more than 40 mass graves were dug up in the nearby forest and as many as 6,500 bodies were counted. Deeper in the forest were more graves that were not dug up. The commanding officer of Treblinka I was SS Hauptsturmfuehrer von Eupen. His favorite sport was horseback riding, which gave him the opportunity to trample and kill prisoners. The statements of surviving witnesses from Treblinka I include a particularly gruesome description of how 30 children brought there during the *Warsaw ghetto uprising were killed with an ax by a Ukrainian from the auxiliary service under the supervision of Hans Heinbuch, an SS man, who was a university graduate and worked as a teacher after the war.

Treblinka I: For Jews and Poles (December 1941–July 1944) Unlike Treblinka II, this camp was intended not only for Jews, but also for Poles deported for economic or political offenses. The Poles would remain in the camp for the duration of their punishment, and only part of those charged with political crimes were killed or transferred to concentration camps. Jews were transferred there after roundups or from forcedlabor contingents required from the Judenrate, and only in a very few cases would they leave the place alive. Devastated by hunger, overwork in the nearby gravel pit, brutal beatings, and cruel harassment, they died in large numbers. Others perished in occasional executions or were transferred to Treblinka II to be murdered after they lost all their strength. The last execution at Treblinka I took place on July 24, 1944, just prior to the entrance of the Soviet army. According to the statistical estimates of Judge Z. Lukaszkiewicz, who conducted an investigation of both camps in 1945 on behalf of the Main State Commission for the Investigation of Nazi Crimes in Poland, approximately 10,000 individuals had passed through Treblinka I, 70 of whom were

Treblinka II: The Culmination of “Efficiency” in the Extermination of Jews (July 23, 1942–Oct. 14, 1943) After the beginning of mass slaughter in the *Belzec and *Sobibor camps in March and May 1942, Treblinka II became the third and, in terms of capacity, the largest camp for the death camps of Jews in the General Government. It measured 1,312 feet by 1,968 feet, trees camouflaged the camp, and watchtowers were placed along the fence. The camp was divided into three sections: the reception area, the killing area, and the living area. The living area was used by camp personnel, Germans and Ukrainians. It had storerooms and workshops. There were also barracks for Jews. Construction on the killing center began in May and was completed on July 22. A day later massive deportations began arriving from Warsaw. The stationary gas chambers installed in the above-mentioned camps used a uniform organizational and technical system based on a common operational center located in Lublin. The creator and head of this center, the SS and Polizeifuehrer of the district, Odilo *Globocnik, was appointed by *Himmler as a high official in charge of the “Final Solution” of the Jewish question on a European scale. He acted in close collaboration with Reichsamtsleiter Victor Brack, the former chief of the euthanasia program in Germany. Mobile gas chambers constructed on the model of the lethal sanitary vans tested in Germany were put into operation in the parts of Poland annexed by the Reich (Wartheland) and in some former Soviet territories. The main obstacle to the mass application of these vans was their limited capacity, their frequent breakdowns and the disposal of bodies; in short, they lacked efficiency. Mass shooting of the Jewish inhabitants in the U.S.S.R. by the Einsatzgruppen was no less problematic from the Nazi point of view. These massacres caused misgivings in commanding military circles; they caused too much noise and were carried out in broad daylight, and also left too many wounded or unhurt witnesses who could flee the graves. To employ this method on territories near European centers and even to Germany itself was out of the question.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

125

treblinka The death camp reversed the process: instead of sending mobile killers to stationary victims, the victims were made mobile – by being placed on a train – and were sent to stationary execution centers, death camps that operated on an assembly line basis. Arriving prisoners had their values confiscated, they were stripped naked, hair was shaven, and then they were murdered in gas chambers, gold was removed from their teeth, and their bodies were burned in crematoria or open pits. The solution was achieved by the division of labor and the coordination of individual sections. The functions of rounding up the victims at their places of residence and their extermination at the place of execution were separated. One of the Einsatzgruppen (the notorious Einsatz Reinhardt) was to continue to act, but in the framework of Globocnik’s camps its activities were connected mainly with deportation. As a result, the transports directed to the camps had fixed quotas. After a fixed number of “heads” and transports had been dispatched from a given place, the Einsatz team was free to perform its Aktion in another place. This ensured the death factories a regular and plentiful supply of human material. The services of the railway network of the Reich and the occupied countries comprised a link in this chain. Transport was a difficult matter at a time when all the railways were swamped with military personnel and supplies. In addition, the trains for transporting Jews from Western and Central Europe had to be ordinary long-distance passenger trains in order to prevent the suspicions of the victims and soothe the conscience of some satellite circles. Jews from the Polish ghettos were being “resettled” without such ceremonies. Freight trains and cattle cars escorted by murderers were filled beyond capacity with people designated for death. They were cold in winter, hot in the summer and a bucket was used for sanitation. Jews had to sit in their own excrement prior to arrival. For hours, and sometimes days, these trains would stand on the side tracks allowing other transports to pass, and thus a large proportion of the deportees (mainly babies, the aged, and the sick), lacking water, air, and sanitary arrangements, frequently died before reaching their destination. Those who arrived alive were awaited by the third link in the chain – a team of executioners. It was their duty to get the largest possible number of victims through the respective stages of the procedure at lightning speed: to strip them of the last remnants of their possessions including their hair, gold teeth and dentures; to supervise the removal of the corpses; and to sort out the remaining belongings for shipment to Germany. The large area of Treblinka (32 acres; 13 hectares) was divided into two sectors. In the first, the larger one, the victims were received and classified and their remaining possessions were sorted out and dispatched. In the second were two buildings containing gas chambers and a field of mass graves dug up by mechanical excavators. Three gas chambers (measuring 25 sq. m. each) were located in the building erected earlier, and ten more chambers, twice as large, were in the building erected at a later date. The staff of both sectors consisted of

about 30 SS men, 120 so-called Ukrainians (that is, members of the auxiliary services), and about 1,000–1,500 Jewish prisoners who were recruited for the work from among the younger men and, after having been brought to a state of emaciation, were often replaced by men from new transports. Both buildings had annexes outside. Inside were passages containing narrow, hermetically shut doors to the gas chambers fitted out with small peepholes. On the opposite wall of each chamber there was a hermetically adherent trapdoor that could be opened from the outside. The walls of the chambers were set with tiles and on the ceiling there were openings fitted out with shower heads, to give the obviously false impression that the chambers were showers. The openings in the ceilings were connected to pipes leading to diesel engines located in the annexes. After the engines were started, fumes containing carbon monoxide (CO1) emanated from the pipes and consumed all the oxygen in the hermetically closed room, causing the suffocation of the people crowded inside. Death in the chambers was calculated to occur within 15–20 minutes, however it sometimes lasted much longer, especially in the larger chambers of the building constructed later on and also when the engines were out of order. In Treblinka there were also camouflage buildings such as “Lazarette” and “train change stations” intended to prevent any self-defending from the victims. The entire procedure was set in motion the moment the vans arrived at the loading platform. After the doors of the vans were pulled aside, a horde of Germans and Ukrainians rushed at the victims, shouting, and beating them. They would throw the victims out of the vans, wounding and injuring them straightaway and causing the miserable people unbelievable shock. Shortly thereafter the Hoellenspektakel (“inferno show”) would begin. Men and women were separated and families were broken up without being allowed the opportunity for farewells. Men were ordered to undress at the square. While their heads and faces were being whipped, they had to snatch armfuls of clothing and bring them to a large pile to be sorted. A prisoner from the Jewish staff dealt bits of string to men to tie their shoes into pairs. In a nearby barrack another Jewish prisoner would distribute bits of string to women for the same purpose. From the “changing room,” women would go over to the “hairdressers,” where their hair would be cut off. It would then be used in some industries of the Third Reich. No pain and no humiliation were spared to those sentenced to death. Jews arrived on transports from Theresienstadt, Greece, and Slovakia as well as Poland. Jews from Bulgarian-occupied zones of Thrace and Macedonia were sent to Treblinka – but no Jews from Bulgaria itself. There were also Jews from Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, and the occupied Soviet Union. Some 2,000 Roma and Sinti (gypsies) were also deported to Treblinka. The victims would be stood in a row – ready for the “chase” – naked and barefoot, even in the worst winter days. Before them stretched a 150-yard path connecting both sectors

126

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

treblinka of the camp, called by the Germans Schlauch (tube) or, more “wittily,” Himmelstrasse (“Way to Heaven”). The condemned ran between the rows of torturers, who shouted, battered them with their whips, pricked them with bayonets. Among the shouts, the barking of an enormous hound (the famed dog Bari who belonged to the principal sadist of the camp, nicknamed “Doll”) would be heard. Excited by the cries, the hound would tear chunks of flesh from the victims’ bodies. The victims screamed as well, and cursed; some of them calling Shema Yisrael or “down with Hitler.” All inhibitions abandoned, even the men howled with pain; children cried, women were frantic with fear. This route to the gas chambers also had its name, Himmelfahrt (“Ascension”), in the camp slang. Perhaps Brack’s experts instructed the executioners that if victims arrived at the chambers out of breath, the effect of the gas would be hastened and the time of agony shortened. The condemned were probably oblivious of this aspect, but they would already be hurriedly running and pushing in order to get to their only refuge left in the world after what had happened to them. After it was ascertained, by looking through the peepholes, that all movement had ceased, the trapdoor was lifted from the outside and a sight unparalleled in its ghastly nightmarishness would be revealed. The corpses “stood” pressed one against the other (“like basalt pillars”) and appeared to be staring with the horror of suffocation. The first corpses had to be pulled out with hoops, and after that they fell out in heaps on the concrete platforms. They were pale and damp and bathed in perspiration and the secretions of the last defecation. The buttocks and faces were blue, mouths open, teeth bared, and bloody effusions oozed out from the mouths and noses. In the corridors, the staff began cleaning and washing the chambers for the next shift, sprinkling the Himmelstrasse with fresh sand, while on the side of the graves, men began the run with the corpses, under a storm of blows and threat of pistols, toward the enormous graves. The gravediggers placed corpses in the gigantic cavities head to feet, and feet to head, in order to put in the maximum number. On the way to the graves stood a squad of “dentists” whose duty it was to pull out gold teeth and dentures from the mouths of the corpses. Another group of specialists was to check quickly whether there were any diamonds hidden in the corpse’s rectums or in the women’s vaginas. From time to time single shots were fired by the guards to increase the zeal of the gravediggers standing in the grave full of blood, pus, and dreadful stench. Whoever was beaten up, had a trace of blood, or a bruise left on his face, was finished off with a bullet after the roll call. And there was also musical accompaniment to the shows of Treblinka; at first klezmerim from the surrounding villages and later an excellent chamber orchestra played under the direction of Artur Gold known for his jazz ensemble from Warsaw. In addition there was a choir which every evening sang the idyllic song Gute Nacht, Gute Nacht, schlaft gut bis der Morgen erwacht and a marching song composed by one of the prisoners. None of those musicians survived Treblinka. During roll ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

call and on their way to work prisoners were forced to sing the Anthem of Treblinka written by Artur Gold at the insistence of Kurt Franz. We look straight out at the world, The columns are marching off to their work. All we have left is Treblinka, It is our destiny. We heed the commandant’s voice, Obeying his every nod and sign. We march along altogether, To do what duty demands. Work, obedience and duty Must be our existence. Until we too, will catch a glimpse at last Of a modest bit of luck.

Yechiel Reichman, one of the very few to survive the camp, described the lives of those who worked there: We tried to encourage and calm each other. “Leibel,” I said to him. “Yesterday at this time my little sister was still alive.” And he answered: “And my whole family, my relatives, and 12,000 poor Jews from our city.” And we were alive, spectators to this great calamity and we became like stone, so that we could eat and carry with us this great pain.

Acts of Resistance The greatest number of transports occurred in the late summer and autumn of 1942; in the summer of 1942 beginning on July 23 and continuing through September 12, at least 265,000 Jews were transported from the Warsaw Ghetto alone. During the winter the frequency and number of transports abated. After the German defeat at Stalingrad and foreseeing the need to retreat from the Eastern front, the Nazi authorities decided to cremate the corpses in order to eliminate the traces of their crimes. A special corps of Jewish prisoners, coded by the number 1005, was set up on the grounds where the mass graves were placed. After Himmler’s visit to Treblinka in February 1943, the monstrous action of pulling the corpses out of the mass graves and burning them on iron grates began. In most of the 1005 squads, the commandants of this difficult task were forced to stop killing the already trained prisoners and their replacement by new ones. This, however, did not lessen the prisoners’ belief that they would also be shot and burned the moment their task was finished. That is when plans for rebellion and escape were born and ripened in almost all such groups in the second half of 1943 and in the first half of 1944. Sometimes these plans even partially succeeded, despite losses. The same happened in Treblinka. Isolated escapes from the camp began as early as the first weeks of its existence. The runaways would escape under the piles of clothing taken from the dead, that is, in the dispatch vans that had been cleared of the victims. There were also acts of resistance, although only a few have been reported because of the limited number of witnesses who survived to tell the story. On Aug. 26, 1942, a young man from the Kielce transport armed with a penknife threw himself at a Ukrainian who

127

treblinka had prevented him from bidding farewell to his mother. As a punishment, all the men who had arrived on the same transport were shot. On Sept. 10, 1942, while the selection was being carried out, Meir Berliner, a citizen of Argentina who was caught by the occupation while visiting his parents in Warsaw, lethally wounded an SS man, Max Biel, with a knife. Among the better known cases was the resistance of a group of men from Grodno who had refused to undress. They had thrown themselves in unison at the guard but only achieved being shot by automatic fire instead of being gassed in the chambers. Statements by a number of witnesses claim that the news of the armed resistance in January and of the April uprising in Warsaw reached the prisoners and influenced the activities of the conspirators. Their aim now was not only to escape and save their lives, but also to take revenge on the murderers. Such a group had come into existence in Treblinka II toward the end of 1942. Members of the committee were the physician, Dr. Julian Chorażycki; the head of the Jewish squad, engineer Galewski; Shmuel Rajzman (d. 1979); Kurland; a former captain of the Czech army, Zielo Bloch; and others. They began to make efforts to obtain arms, which they had hoped to smuggle in from the outside with the help of bribed Ukrainian guards. However, they paid for these activities with the loss of Chorażycki, who managed to commit suicide when caught with a packet of bank notes. After various failures the conspirators succeeded, with the help of a copied key, in obtaining arms from the camp arsenal and hiding them in a workshop. Contact was established with the second sector in Treblinka II, where the conspirators had only shovels and spades. They set a date and a signal: a shot and the explosion of a hand grenade. The revolt was to begin on August 2 at 4:30. At the beginning everything went well. On the appointed day, benzine had been substituted for a solution of lysol during the disinfecting of the wooden buildings. Each active member had a task assigned to him and waited for the signal. At 3:40 a shot suddenly resounded in the first sector, followed soon by the explosion of a hand grenade. Only those in the front barrack knew what had happened. Two young boys there had unearthed some hidden money from a hiding place and a Kapo had caught them. Soon the commanders at their observation points caught sight of Germans leading the youngsters at gunpoint for interrogation to the guardhouse. They realized that they had to begin immediately. The first shot heard in the camp killed the Kapo. Immediately thereafter one of the leaders dashed through the square with a hand grenade that he was supposed to hurl at the SS men’s canteen. He realized that there would not be enough time, and, in order not to confuse the signal, he threw it before he reached his target. The prematurity of the outbreak of the revolt had disastrous consequences. They had not managed to remove the Ukrainian staff guarding the machine guns on the turrets (the conspirators had planned to lure them away with gold); nor had the telephone connections with the outside world been cut.

The leaders of the revolt did not lose their heads. All the barracks were set on fire immediately. They managed to kill one of the main hangmen, Kuetner, cut through the barbedwire entanglements, and open the way to escape. They tried to kill the Ukrainians operating the machine guns on the guard turret, but did not succeed. Although a few gunners were killed and some wounded, it was impossible for the rebels, with only a few hand grenades and pistols, to lead a systematic struggle under the torrent of machine gun fire from above. Almost all those in command fell. They tried to cover the escape of those who rushed at the wires, but could do little more than die with honor. Apart from the heavily armed Germans and the Ukrainians of the staff, “relief ” troops had arrived from Treblinka I. The whole district was alerted by telephone. Most of the rebels fell while forcing their way through the barbed-wire entanglements. Most of those who escaped (between 300 and 500) from the range of fire were caught in the first weeks of the manhunt and killed or betrayed by the local peasants, who were on the lookout for the riches carried out of Treblinka. There were, however, Poles who gave shelter to the fugitives, either in their houses or in haystacks, dressed the wounded, fed them, and helped them to survive. However, almost a year was to pass before the area was liberated and there were casualties day after day and week after week. Only a total of about 50 survivors, including those who had escaped from Treblinka at an earlier time, could be counted after the liberation. And yet the rebellion and the escape from Treblinka were a great phenomenon in those times: as an act of resistance and revenge and as a bridge to the future struggles of the Jewish nation.

128

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

The Aftermath As a result of interviews and investigations conducted after the liberation, it appeared that although the wooden barracks were burned down, Aug. 2, 1943 was not the last day of activities in Treblinka II. Most of the German and Ukrainian staff remained alive. They completed the burning of the corpses and dealt with some transports, in the main from the General Government, up to September. In October 1943 all buildings were blown up and the entire area was plowed and sown with fodder, in order to obliterate all traces of the crime. According to the data collected by the Polish authorities, apart from Jews from the General Government and Reichskommissariat Ost (Bialystok and Grodno), Jews from several Central and West European countries (Germany, Austria, Bohemia-Moravia, Slovakia, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg) and from Balkan countries (Greece, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria) were murdered there. Coins and identity cards of the citizens of more than 30 countries were found among other exhibits unearthed in the camp grounds. In addition to Jews, a certain number of Poles and gypsies were also murdered there. According to the calculations of Judge Z. Lukaszkiewicz, the number of victims murdered in Treblinka amounted to at least 731,600. The basis of this calculation was the railway documentation and an estimation of the average number of vans and people. This

treitschke, heinrich von number, which was published in 1946, must be enlarged and rounded out to about 750,000 on the basis of German documents discovered later on by Jewish researchers. After the liberation of Poland, a Central Jewish Historical Committee came into existence almost simultaneously with the Main State Commission for the Investigation of Nazi Crimes. It established itself in Lodz and later transferred to Warsaw as the Jewish Historical Institute. The committee pursued the contacts established with a group of 35 survivors of Treblinka. In November 1945 representatives of the Polish Main Commission and of the Central Jewish Historical Committee visited the scene of the crimes; they were assisted by five former prisoners and accompanied by a unit of militia men and representatives of the local Polish authorities. The most explicit evidence of the monstrous crimes that had taken place there were the human skulls and bones scattered all over; they had been unearthed when the local inhabitants and scavengers of a nearby station of the Soviet army, out for gold teeth and other treasures of the murdered Jews, tore up the grounds. The document that remained after this visit was a memorandum of the Jewish participants to the Central Committee of Jews in Poland appealing for action to prevent further profanation of the place of martyrdom and disaster of close to threequarters of a million Jews. This appeal remained unanswered, and only in 1961 was the building of a monument begun on behalf of the Jewish division for the preservation of places of commemoration in Poland, presided over by S. Fischgrund. A pamphlet was published in several languages urging Jews from all over the world to contribute toward this goal. In 1963 a delegation from Israel arrived in Poland for the commemoration of the 20t anniversary of the Warsaw ghetto uprising. It also went on a pilgrimage to Treblinka, where a monument and a mausoleum in the form of a symbolic railway and cemetery, designed by A. Haupt and F. Duszenko, had in the meantime been erected. The delegation returned to Israel with a case of remains, and a profoundly moving funeral was held at the Naḥ alat Yiẓ ḥ ak cemetery near Tel Aviv. Since then, the former prisoners of Treblinka have held an annual memorial service there. In kibbutz *Loḥ amei ha-Getta’ot, a model of Treblinka planned and executed by the senior of the former prisoners of Treblinka II was erected. The number of former prisoners of Treblinka in Israel amounted to 20 and they remained in contact with the surviving fellow prisoners scattered all over the world. Three trials directly concerning the crimes at Treblinka were conducted in Germany. The first was of Joseph (Sepp) Hirtreiter (Frankfurt, 1951) who was sentenced for life. The second was of ten defendants from Treblinka II (Dusseldorf, 1965), in which the chief defendant from this camp, Kurt Franz (called “Doll”) was sentenced to life imprisonment, while his companions received various sentences up to a maximum of 12 years, one of them being acquitted. The third was of Franz Stangl, the commandant of Treblinka, who was arrested in ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

Brazil and delivered to the German authorities. After a sixmonth trial he was sentenced to life imprisonment in January 1971. Under extradition agreement this punishment was reduced to 20 years, but in June of the same year he died in prison. Bibliography: G. Reitlinger, Final Solution (19682) index; R. Hilberg, Destruction of the European Jews (1961, 1984, 2003), index; Y. Virnick, A Year in Treblinka (1945); German Crimes in Poland, 1 (1946), 95–106; V. Grossman, Ha-Gehinnom bi-Treblinkah (1945); R. Auerbach, Oyf di Felder fun Treblinka (1947); A. Krzepicki, in: Bleter far Geshikhte, 9 no. 1–2 (1956), 71–141; Israel, Attorney General against A. Eichmann, Eduyyot, 2 (1963), 1084–113; Rajzman, in: Y. Suhl (ed.), They Fought Back (1967), 128–35; See also the indictments of the Treblinka trials 12:870 10 904/19, and the decision of the court 3.9. 1965 A. 2 8IKS. Add. Bibliography: Y. Arad, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka: The Operation Reinhard Death Camps (1987); W. Chrostowski, Extermination Camp Treblinka (2004); G. Sereny, Into that Darkness: An Examination of Conscience (1983). [Rachel Auerbach / Michael Berenbaum (2nd ed.)]

TREFOUSSE, HANS LOUIS (1921– ), U.S. historian. Born in Frankfurt, Germany, Trefousse became professor of history at Brooklyn College, New York. After he retired from teaching, he was named professor emeritus of history. He published books on American diplomacy and on the role of Republicans in the American Civil War and Reconstruction. His biographies Ben Butler, the South Called Him Beast (1957) and Benjamin Franklin Wade, Radical Republican from Ohio (1963) were significant preludes to his Radical Republicans (1969). Some of his other published works include Germany and American Neutrality, 1939–41 (1951), Reconstruction (1971), Lincoln’s Decision for Emancipation (1975), Andrew Johnson: A Biography (1989), Pearl Harbor: The Continuing Controversy (1982), Carl Schurz: A Biography (1998), Thaddeus Stevens: 19tCentury Egalitarian (2001), and Rutherford B. Hayes (2002). °TREITSCHKE, HEINRICH VON (1834–1896), German historian and politician. Treitschke was a member of the National Liberal Party and author of a popular German history of the 19t century (Deutsche Geschichte im 19. Jahrhundert, 5 vols., 1879–94). He became well known as a staunch advocate of German nationalism increasingly critical of liberalism. The Berlin historian was very vocal in various campaigns for a cultural unification and homogenization of the young German nation-state. In this context, he published an anti-liberal article in 1879 entitled “Unsere Aussichten” in the Preussische Jahrbuecher in which he justified the antisemitic movement which had emerged in Germany since 1873. Behind this, Treitschke saw “a brutal but natural reaction of German national feeling against a foreign element,” and he praised the “instinct of the masses, which has perceived a grave danger,” that of Jewish domination of Germany. He launched the famous slogan: “The Jews are our misfortune!” As a result, the antisemitic agitation, which until then had been considered vulgar, especially in intellectual circles, now received the approval of one of the most illustrious think-

129

tremellius, john immanuel ers in Germany at the time and acquired a warrant of respectability. Over the course of the following year, controversies about his attacks broke out among the educated bourgeoisie; participants included the historian Heinrich *Graetz, who had been personally attacked in Treitschke’s article, and the historian of Rome, Theodor *Mommsen, who accused Treitschke of disturbing the public peace in Germany. Treitschke was not a “racist” in the radical sense of the word. He limited himself to demanding the rapid and complete assimilation of the Jews in the Germanic culture, yet he became more and more skeptical about the likelihood of accomplishing this objective. In the years after 1879 his political and historical writings, therefore, remained persistently antisemitic.

TRENCIN (Slovak Trenčín; Hung. Trencsén; Ger. Trentschin), town in western Slovakia. In the 14t century there were several Jews in Trencin. In the 16t century Jews reappeared. After the Kuruc invasion

of Ubersky Brod in 1683, some Jews took refuge in Trencin. For the next 100 years, the community was under Ubersky Brod’s jurisdiction. In 1734 the Jews took a secret oath to use only Ubersky Brod’s court in disputes and to avoid the Hungarian court system. The Trencin Jews tried to develop community life. They established a ḥ evra kaddisha and held services on the Sabbath and holidays in private homes. They also had a mikveh. In 1736 there was a Jewish school, and in 1760 the community hired its first rabbi, David Kahn Casid (d. 1783). The municipal authorities were not well disposed toward the Jewish community. It charged the Jews municipal and state taxes and prohibited several religious rituals, such as marriage and circumcision. To perform these rituals, the Jews were charged heavy taxes. They were forbidden to employ Christian servants. The authorities tried to curtail the expansion of the community. In 1703 Jews opened a factory that produced a scarce oil for tanning hides. During the first quarter of the 18t century, Jews were engaged in trade in hides and bones, and in producing spirits. In 1787 a fire destroyed the community’s archives. In 1834 the congregation owned a small wooden synagogue. During the first half of the 19t century, the school system was expanded. Most of the schools had been privately owned but slowly became public and then government-owned. The major government-run Jewish elementary school was established in 1857. It had an excellent reputation, and many gentile children were enrolled. After the Congress of Hungarian Jewry in 1868, the Trencin congregation joined the Reform (Neolog) stream of Jewry. In 1911 a new synagogue was constructed, often described as one of the most beautiful in Hungary. The congregation had a ḥ evra kaddisha, a cemetery, and a kosher butcher. There were several social, women’s, religious, and charitable societies. During World War I, 150 men enlisted in the army. From 1785 the community underwent rapid expansion. In that year there were 388 Jews in Trencin. In 1848 there were 688, while 50 years later the community numbered 1,113. An increase was seen in 1922 when the community reached its peak of 2,115. In 1930 the number decreased to 1,539. At the end of World War I, mobs looted Jewish property and homes and injured and even murdered Jews. When the disturbances subsided, the Jewish community recovered and contributed significantly to economic life. Several local factories were owned by Jewish entrepreneurs. Outstanding among them was one that produced natural oil. It supported local agriculture and provided employment. Jews were well represented in the educated strata and comprised much of Trencin’s intelligentsia. There was active political and social life in the community. In 1932 five Jews were elected to the municipal council, four of them from the Jewish party. A number of Zionist groups influenced the community. The congregation belonged to the Slovakia-wide Jeshurun association, which

130

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

Bibliography: A. Dorpalen, Heinrich Von Treitschke (Eng., 1957); H. Liebeschütz, Das Judentum im deutschen Geschichtsbild (1967). Add. Bibliography: U. Langer, Heinrich von Treitschke… (1998); K. Krieger (ed.), Der “Berliner Antisemitismusstreit” 1879–1881… (2003); U. Jensen, Gebildete Doppelgänger… (2005), 197–324. [Leon Poliakov / Uffa Jensen (2nd ed.)]

TREMELLIUS, JOHN IMMANUEL (1510–1580), Italian Hebraist and apostate Jew. Born in Ferrara and educated at the University of Padua, Tremellius became a Catholic in about 1540, his godfather being Cardinal Reginald Pole, archbishop of Canterbury. A year later, he abandoned Catholicism for Protestantism, and in 1542 was appointed professor of Hebrew at the University of Strasbourg. The European wars of religion drove Tremellius to England, where Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, a leading Protestant, gave him lodgings for a time in Lambeth Palace. Following the death of Paulus *Fagius, Tremellius served as king’s reader in Hebrew at the University of Cambridge, where he remained from 1549 until the Catholic reaction under Queen Mary (1553), when he left for Germany. He was professor of Old Testament at the University of Heidelberg between 1561 and 1576, but paid a second visit to England in 1565. As a Calvinist, he incurred Lutheran displeasure at Heidelberg and was expelled in 1576, concluding his teaching career at Sedan. Tremellius’ main work was his Latin translation of the Bible from Hebrew and Syriac (Old Testament with F. Junius, Frankfurt on the Main, 1575–59; New Testament, Geneva, 1569), of which many editions were published. He also issued an Aramaic and Syriac grammar (Geneva, 1569). His Latin Bible had a profound impact on Hebrew studies in England during the 17t century. Bibliography: DNB, S.V.; W. Becker, Immanuel Tremellius (Ger., 18902); H.P. Stokes, Studies in Anglo-Jewish History (1913), 207–9; F. Secret, Les Kabbalistes Chrétiens de la Renaissance (1964), 201, 229; Baron, Social2, 13 (1969), 167, 396; Roth, England, 146f. [Godfrey Edmond Silverman]

trenton unified the Neolog and Status Quo congregations. There was also a small Orthodox group. On the eve of the deportations in 1942, there were 2,500 Jews in Trencin and environs; in Trencin itself there were 1,619. Most of them perished in the extermination camps in Poland. In 1947 there were 228 Jews in Trencin. In the small synagogue, the names of the victims were inscribed on the walls. Most of the survivors emigrated or settled in other parts of Czechoslovakia. The rest attempted to preserve Jewish life. In 1968, during the Prague Spring, another wave of emigration took place. In 1978 a memorial was unveiled in the cemetery for Jewish anti-Fascist fighters and victims of the Holocaust. The Reform synagogue served as the city’s cultural center. Bibliography: M. Lányi and H. Propper, A szlovenszkói zsidó hitközségek története (1933); R. Iltis (ed.), Die aussaeen unter Traenen mit Jubel werden sie ernten (1959), 195–8; Magyar Zsidó Lexikon (1929), 913; E. Bárkány-L. Dojc, Zidovské nábozenské obce na Slovensku (1991), 221–24.

18t century were still not allowed to pass through the town (see Ḥ .J.D. Azulai, Ma’gal Tov, 10–11). Simon was beatified. The libel had widespread repercussions and served for intense antisemitic propaganda both inside and outside Italy. According to legend, the rabbis of Italy imposed a ban on Jewish settlement in Trent after 1475: this was formally raised when Simon was de-beatified in 1965. Bibliography: J.E. Scherer, Die Rechtsverhaeltnisse der Juden in den deutsch-oesterreichischen Laendern (1901), 579–611; G. Divina, Storia del Beato-Simone da Trento, 2 vols. (1902); G. Menestrina, Gli ebrei a Trento (1903); V. Manzini, La superstizione omicida e i sacrifici umani con particolare riguardo alle accuse contro gli ebrei (1930), 106, 218; M. Shulvass, Bi-Ẓ evat ha-Dorot (1960), 67–75; W.P. Eckert, in: P. Wilpert (ed.), Judentum im Mittelalter (1966), 283–336; Milano, Biblioteca, index. [Shlomo Simonsohn]

TRENT, city in northern Italy. The presence of some Jews in Trent, most of them emigrants from Germany, is mentioned from the first half of the 14t century. The usury regulations of the Jews of Trent served as a model elsewhere in the Tyrol. In the 15t century Jews in Trent possessed a synagogue, a house for study, and three other houses. The Jewish physician Tobiah practiced among the Christian as well as the Jewish population. In 1475, the fanatical Franciscan, Bernardino da *Feltre, preached there against the Jews in his Lenten sermons, and foretold that their sins would soon be manifested to all. A few days after this, on Maundy Thursday, a Christian infant named Simon disappeared. Shortly afterward his body was discovered near the house of the head of the Jewish community, and the whole community, men, women, and children were arrested. After 17 of them had been tortured for 15 consecutive days they “confessed” to the crimes of which they had been accused. One of the tortured died in prison, six were burnt at the stake, and two (who had converted to Christianity) were strangled. At this stage Pope *Sixtus IV intervened in the affair and the judicial proceedings were temporarily halted. A papal commissary was sent to Trent to investigate the circumstances of the incident, but was forced to leave when the results of his inquiries led him to contradict the findings of the local “trial.” Proceedings were reopened in Trent in face of violent opposition from the commissary, and at the end of the year five more Jews were executed (two of them were converted to Christianity before their deaths). A papal court of inquiry in 1476 justified the libel, and in 1478, as a result of its proceedings, Sixtus published the *Bull Facit nos pietas endorsing the “legality” of the trial. In the meantime four Jewish women of Trent had accepted the Christian faith and the property of the murdered Jews had been confiscated. Jews were henceforth excluded from Trent, and in the

TRENTON, capital of the state of New Jersey, U.S., situated between Philadelphia and New York City. Greater Trenton has a population of about 341,000 (2003); the Jewish population of Greater Trenton numbered about 10,000 in 1970, but by the mid-1990s, the Jewish population numbered approximately 6,000 as Jews from the city migrated to surrounding suburban areas. Greater Trenton in 2005 included most of Mercer County and its Jewish population remained at some 6,000 in 2005. Trenton was founded in 1679. The first Jew connected with Trenton was Simon *Gratz, of Philadelphia, who bought shares in the Trenton Banking Company when it was established in 1805. In 1839, Daniel Levy Maduro *Peixotto, of New York City, became editor, for a few months, of the Emporium and True American, a daily and weekly newspaper. Judge David *Naar, who bought the True American in 1853 and was its editor until 1869, played a prominent role in the political life of New Jersey as well as in local civic and educational affairs. German Jews began to settle in the late 1840s. The first prominent Jew was Simon Kahnweiler, a merchant and manufacturer. The Mt. Sinai Cemetery Association was incorporated in 1857 and the Har Sinai Hebrew Congregation held its first service in 1858 in rented quarters, and held its first formal services in 1860 when the congregation formalized its organization. In 1866 it bought a small Lutheran Church. Chevra Bikkur Cholim, “for the mutual relief of the sick and the burial of the dead,” was incorporated in 1877. The East European immigration, started in the late 1870s, was composed mainly of Lithuanian, Polish, and Hungarian Jews. They organized the synagogues Achenu Bnai Yisroel (1883); Anshey Emes (1891); Ahavath Israel (1909); and Poaley Emes (1920). Until 1903 Jewish education was conducted by private teachers, after which the Brothers of Israel Synagogue founded a Hebrew school. Later, in 1945, it became partly a day school, under the leadership of Rabbi Issachar Levin, who served the community from 1927 to 1969. In 1969 it became a full-fledged day school, the Trenton Hebrew Academy. Renamed in 1981 as the Abrams Hebrew Academy (named for

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

131

[Yeshayahu Jelinek (2nd ed.)]

trepman, paul a local foundation that made a significant endowment to the school), it moved from Trenton, New Jersey, to Yardley, Pennsylvania. In 2006, the school had 30 faculty teaching 300 students from nursery school through eighth grade in a secular/ religious day school curriculum. An influx of Jews into Trenton after World War I resulted in a proliferation of social, literary, and recreational societies as well as political groups. Har Sinai joined the Reform movement in 1922. Adath Israel was organized in 1923 as a Conservative congregation. The Workmen’s Circle began its activities in 1924. The YMHA was organized in 1910, reorganized in 1916, and acquired its first building in 1917 – the forerunner of the Jewish Community Center (1962). Zionist societies started in the early 1900s. The Jewish Federation of Trenton was organized in 1929. The Jewish Family Service (1937) dates back to its predecessor the Hebrew Ladies Aid Society (1900). The Home for the Aged Sons and Daughters of Israel, now called the Greenwood House, was organized in 1939 and had 132 beds in 2006. An assisted living center, Abrams Residence, was added in 2003 using money provided by a local Jewish foundation called the Abrams Foundation. It was created from the fortunes of the last surviving members of the Abrams family, brothers Samuel and David and sister Susan. The family’s fortune came from diversified holdings financed originally by a retail furniture operation; they began their diversification by purchasing single shares of General Motors Corporation stock during the Great Depression. The Abrams Foundation also helped finance the activities of the Abrams Day Camp, a Jewish day camp operated by the Jewish Community Center since 1963. An eight-week program, it offers activities for about 400 Jewish children each summer. In 1937 a Jewish census study showed that there were 7,191 Jews, or about 6 percent of the population; 32 organizations including 6 synagogues; and that 59 percent of the Jewish population was in trade, 13.3 percent in mechanical and manufacturing enterprises, and 12.3 percent in professions. The 1949 and the 1961 census showed increases in the professions which in 1970 probably amounted to nearly 30 percent. In 1970 there were 40 organizations, including three Conservative congregations as well as two Orthodox and one Reform. By the beginning of the new millennium, the community within the city limits had diminished to two congregations, one Conservative and the second a Reform congregation. It was the culmination of a general migration of Jewish families out of the city and into surrounding suburban communities in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. In 2006, the last two congregations within the city limits, Congregation Brothers of Israel (200 families) and Har Sinai Temple (500 families), were each in various stages of relocating. In 2006, Brothers of Israel was in the process of purchasing land for a new synagogue in Yardley, Pennsylvania, and Har Sinai was building a new facility approximately 15 miles north of Trenton, in Pennington, New Jersey. At that time, Har Sinai announced its intention to remain vested in the city of Trenton by continuing its charitable programs there.

132

The Jews have been well-integrated in the communal life of the city, participating actively in the United Fund and other charitable and educational institutions. Outstanding leaders in the general and Jewish community include Judge Phillip Forman, United States Circuit Court; Judge Sidney Goldmann, presiding judge of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New Jersey; Bernard Alexander; Leon Levy; comedian Jon Stewart; and Expressionist painter Max *Weber. Bibliography: Trenton Historical Society, History of Trenton, 1679–1929, 2 (1929); J.S. Merzbacher, Trenton’s Foreign Colonies (1908); Kohn, in: AJHSQ, 53 (1964), 373–95; S. Robinson, Jewish Population of Trenton, N.J. (1949). [S. Joshua Kohn / David Weinstock (2nd ed.)]

TREPMAN, PAUL (1916–1987), journalist, author, community leader. Born in Warsaw, Trepman was an only child. His father’s family were followers of the Gur Rebbe, and one of Trepman’s earliest memories was going with his father to meet the him. Trepman attended both traditional and modern cheders, as well as the Takhkemoni Yeshivah in Warsaw. In his youth, he joined the Betar Zionist movement, and was a strong supporter of Ze’ev *Jabotinksy and his Revisionist Zionism. He began to publish in Polish, and his works appeared in a journal edited by Janusz *Korczak and in the Revisionist press. He also began university at the Stefan Batory University in Vilna, but the war halted his studies. During the war, Trepman had the opportunity to escape east to Russia but refused to abandon his mother in Warsaw. He returned to Warsaw to find his mother in the ghetto, weak and stricken with typhus. He narrowly escaped his mother’s fate – deportation to Treblinka – and lived in the Warsaw area with Aryan papers. His Jewish identity hidden, he was arrested in June 1943 and accused of being a Soviet spy. He was sent to *Majdanek and subsequently saw the inside of various camps. He was in *Bergen-Belsen when it was liberated by the British in April 1945, and only after liberation did Trepman resume his Jewish identity. He was soon involved in the cultural and political life of the Bergen-Belsen Displaced Persons Camp. In July 1945 he was the founding coeditor (with Rafael Olewsky and David Rosenthal) of Undzer Shtimme, the first Jewish newspaper in the British Zone. In December 1947 Undzer Shtimme was replaced with the more substantial Vochnbalatt. Trepman was also an editor of Zamy Feder’s Anthology of Songs and Poems from the Ghettos and Concentration Camps, and was co-editor, again with Olewsky and Rosental, of an early photo album of the Holocaust, the multilingual Undzer Churbn in Bild, (Our Destruction in Pictures, Bergen-Belsen, 1946). With the support of Hirsch *Wolofsky, the editor of Montreal’s Yiddish daily, Keneder Adler, Trepman and his wife immigrated to Montreal in 1948. He was hired to teach at the Jewish People’s Schools, where he remained for 23 years. In the summers he directed the Labor Zionist Camp Undzer – Camp-Kindervelt. Between 1971 and 1981 he was the executive director of the Jewish Public Library of Montreal. Trepman ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

trepper, leopold became a central figure in the Montreal survivor community. In 1961 he established the Montreal chapter of BergenBelsen survivors, and served as its president for a number of years. In Montreal, Trepman was a frequent contributor to the Adler, often writing under pen-names, including the tonguein-cheek pen-name Pinchas Batlan (Pinchas the Loafer). He also wrote several books focusing on his life before the war and his wartime experiences. These include A Gesl in Varshe (1949; Among Men and Beasts, 1978), based on newspaper articles he had written between 1946 and 1953; and his description of going back to visit Poland, A Traumatic Return to Poland (1980), a translation of six articles he had written for the Keneder Adler about a return trip he took to Poland in 1979.

TREPPER, LEOPOLD (Leiba Domb; 1904–1982), former Soviet intelligence agent, head of the anti-German spy network known as “The Red Orchestra.” Trepper was born in Nowy Targ near Zakopane, Poland. He was active in the Polish Communist youth movement and was imprisoned for several months. Afterwards he joined Ha-Shomer ha-Ẓ a’ir and in 1926 went to Ereẓ Israel, where he soon became affiliated with the illegal Communist party and was detained several times by the police for his clandestine activities. In the Histadrut he became known as the leader of the Eḥ ud (Unity) faction which advocated workers’ unity, intending to include Communists and Arabs. After the first conference of Eḥ ud (1927), Trepper was expelled from Ereẓ Israel and went to France. There he became active in the Jewish section of the French Communist party as well as in the Soviet secret service. In 1932, in consequence of the discovery of a Soviet spy network, referred to in the French press as the “Fantomas” affair, Trepper had to leave France and proceeded to the Soviet Union. In Moscow he studied at the Communist University for Western Workers (KUNZ) and was probably also trained for intelligence work. In 1938 he was sent to France and Belgium, where, under various covers, he played a central role in Soviet military intelligence. He organized and headed a widespread clandestine radio service which had agents in high echelons of the German military machine in Berlin. German counter-intelligence called the network “The Red Orchestra.” In 1941 Trepper warned Moscow of Germany’s imminent attack on the U.S.S.R., predicting even its exact date, but Stalin disregarded these warnings as originating in “British provocation.” During the German-Soviet war “The Red Orchestra,” under Trepper’s direction, contributed greatly, and sometimes decisively, to Soviet strategy and tactics. In November 1942 Trepper was captured in Paris by a combined team of German counter-intelligence and the Gestapo. They attempted to enlist his services for a sophisticated anti-Soviet operation

in which he would continue his radio transmissions under secret German control (the so-called Funkspiel). According to previous orders from his superiors for such a contingency, Trepper pretended to respond to these overtures, thus saving his life and even succeeding in escaping less than a year later. During his imprisonment, he managed to smuggle out a detailed report, written in a mixture of Hebrew, Yiddish, and Polish, which was transmitted to Moscow by underground Communist party channels and which contained exact information about his arrest as well as about the German control already established over parts of “The Red Orchestra.” After his escape he resumed his intelligence activity. In 1945 he was recalled to Moscow and on arrival immediately arrested. He spent ten years in prison and was constantly interrogated by the highest Soviet security officials. At a certain stage, during Stalin’s antisemitic Black Year, one of the main charges leveled against him was the fact that in “The Red Orchestra” he had “surrounded himself with Jews” (some of them, like Hillel Katz, were old comrades from Ereẓ Israel), to which he replied that at that time Jewish Communists were the most reliable people he could find. In 1955 he was released and completely “rehabilitated.” From then on Trepper devoted himself exclusively to Jewish interests. He submitted to the post-Stalin leadership a detailed plan to revive Jewish cultural life and institutions in the Soviet Union, but in 1956, after the Twentieth Congress of the Soviet Communist party, he was officially informed that his plan had been rejected. He then went to Warsaw, where, under the name Leiba Domb, he headed the government-sponsored Jewish Cultural-Social Society (Yidisher Kultur-Gezelshaftlekher Farband) and its publishing house Yiddish Bukh. In 1968, during the violently anti-Jewish period in Polish policy, Trepper decided to return to Israel, where members of his family had already settled, but was constantly denied an exit permit. This attitude of the Polish government, possibly a result of Soviet pressure, aroused in 1971–72 worldwide publicity and many protests, including hunger strikes by Trepper’s sons in Jerusalem, in Canada, and at the United Nations building in New York. Toward the end of 1972 a French court heard a libel action by Trepper against the former French secret agent Jean Rochet, who had accused Trepper, in a letter to Le Monde, of having collaborated with the Nazis and betrayed his comrades in the underground. Despite Trepper’s inability to appear because he was not allowed to leave Poland, he won the case and Rochet was fined and ordered to publish the court’s verdict. Trepper was finally granted permission by the Polish authorities to leave Poland for England in order to undergo a serious operation. He stated that his plans included the writing of “the full and true account of the ‘Red Orchestra,’ ” not merely as an intelligence network, but as an organization of anti-Nazi resistance in which Jews played such a prominent part. His memoirs, Le Grand Jeu, were published in 1975 and in English translation by the author in 1977 as The Great Game: The Story of the Red Orchestra.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

133

Bibliography: B. Widutchinsky Trepman and E. Trepman, Paul Trepman: Bikher, Pulikazyes, Arkhivn (1999); C.L. Fuks (ed.), Hundert Yor Yidishe un Hebreyishe Literatur in Kanade (1982), 137–38. [Richard Menkis (2nd ed.)]

trest Trepper settled in Israel in 1974. He died early in 1982 and was buried in Jerusalem.

TREVES, a ramified family which produced scores of scholars, rabbis, and communal workers. It is usually assumed that the family’s origins were in Troyes, France, *Rashi’s birthplace, from where it spread throughout Italy and Germany. Others hold that it came from Treviso near Venice, Italy, in the 14t century, while a third opinion is that it originated in Trier (Germany), called Trèves in French. In France members of the family were called Triverzans and in Germany, Drifzan.

Branches of the family spread through the different countries of Europe from the 14t to the 20t centuries. From the original family there afterward branched off the Trefouse, Dreyfuss, and Tribas families. JOHANAN, the founder of the family, lived in Germany in the second half of the 13t century. The first to be called Treves was JOSEPH B. JOHANAN (the Great), rabbi of Paris or Marseilles in the first half of the 14t century. His son MATTATHIAS (c. 1325–died c. 1385) of Provence lived in Spain, studied under his father, and was a pupil of Nissim b. Reuben *Gerondi and Perez b. Isaac ha-Kohen. He returned to France when the edict of expulsion was repealed in 1361. In Paris he founded a yeshivah which had a large number of students. He was given the title of honor Morenu, and in 1363 was appointed rabbi of Paris by Charles V. Mattathias and the members of his family were among those exempted from wearing the Jewish badge decreed upon the Jews of France by Charles V. He is mentioned in the responsa of *Isaac b. Sheshet Perfet (No. 271) and in the fragments of the Kiryat Sefer of Isaac *Lattes published by Neubauer (Seder ha-Ḥ akhamim ve-Korot haYamim, pt. 2 (1893), 241). Mattathias had three sons, Johanan *Treves, ABRAHAM, and JOSEPH, the last apparently being ordained rabbi in Italy, where he died in 1429. Joseph’s greatgrandson NAPHTALI HERTZ (Drifzan) was the author of the kabbalistic commentary Dikduk Tefillah, on the prayer book Malah ha-Areẓ De’ah (Thuengen, 1560), and Naftulei Elohim, a supercommentary on the commentary of *Baḥ ya b. Asher (Heddernheim, 1546). He was cantor in Frankfurt on the Main and was renowned as “the great kabbalist.” Naphtali Herz’s son JOSEPH together with his brother ELIEZER (1495–1566) published their father’s commentary on the prayer book. Eliezer served as rabbi of Frankfurt for 22 years. A third son SAMUEL settled in Russia (see below). He wrote Yesod Shirim (Thuengen, 1559) on the Book of Ruth, giving both literal and kabbalistic explanations. Many members of the Treves family settled in Italy. The first known is Johanan b. Joseph *Treves, author of the commentary Kimḥ a de-Avishuna (Bologna, 1540). His son RAPHAEL JOSEPH (16t century) was rabbi in Ferrara, engaged in the publication of books, and in 1559 worked as a proofreader in the Hebrew press in Sabbioneta. JOSEPH B. MATTATHIAS in Svigliano was involved in the notorious Tamari-Venturozzo case (1566) in which the rabbis of Venice and Mantua took part (see Moses b. Abraham *Provençal). From the 16t century onward the Treves family is found in Russia. The Russian branch of the family traces its descent to Samuel, the son of Naphtali Herz of Frankfurt, who crossed into Russia and adopted the family name of Ẓ evi. He had two sons, one of whom, ELIEZER, called Ashkenazi or Ish Ẓ evi, served as rabbi in Opatow, and wrote commentaries on the Talmud, and glosses to tractate Ḥ ullin, which were published under the title Dammesek Eliezer (Lublin, 1646). He was also the author of a collection of prayers, Si’ah ha-Sadeh (ibid., 1645). Still another branch of the Treves family is found in Turkey from the end of the 15t century. From there a number of them also went to Ereẓ Israel. Of these the following may be

134

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

Bibliography: D.J. Dallin, Soviet Espionage (19643), 139–40, 156–68, passim; G. Perrault, L’Orchestre Rouge (1967), passim. [Joseph Berger-Barzilai]

TREST (Czech Třešt; Ger. Triesch), town in Moravia, Czech Republic. R. Jacob of Triesch is mentioned in a query addressed to Solomon b. Abraham *Adret. The community developed after the expulsion from nearby *Jihlava (1426) but it may be assumed that it existed earlier. In 1678 Jews owned fields and in 1693 they were permitted to distill spirits and to fatten cattle. Trest Jews were connected with the textile industry as sellers of wool, and in 1723 a distillery, tannery, and butchery were rented to a Jew. In 1789 there were 102 Jewish families permitted by the *Familiants Laws; 20 others also lived in the town. One hundred years later the community numbered 316. Trest was the seat of an important yeshivah and among its rabbis was Eleazar *Loew. In 1930 the community numbered 64 (1.3 of the total population). It came to an end in the Holocaust period, some immigrating to England and Palestine and the rest deported to the death camps of Poland via Theresienstadt. Its sacred objects are now in the Jewish State Museum in Prague. Bibliography: H. Gold and B. Wachstein, in: H. Gold (ed.), Juden und Judengemeinden Maehrens in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart (1929), 539–48; Germ Jud, 2 (1968) 833. [Meir Lamed]

TRETS (Heb. ‫) ְטריץ‬, town in the department of Bouchesdu-Rhone, S. France. Jewish sources indicate that a Jewish community, which included some scholars, existed there at least from 1269. The non-Jewish sources mention the protection given by the lords of Trets to local Jews in the 14t and 15t centuries, granting them equality with Christian inhabitants. However, in 1413, the Jewish community was obliged to request an order, which they obtained, placing them under the protection of the lord and imposing a heavy fine of 50 silver marks “for any injury or offense to them.” The community continued to exist until the expulsion of the Jews from Provence in 1501. Bibliography: Gross, Gal Jud, 244ff.; H. de Gerin-Ricard, in: Répertoire des travaux de la Société de statistique de Marseille, 48 (1911–20), 41–45; B. Blumenkranz, in: Bulletin philologique et historique (1965), 611. [Bernhard Blumenkranz]

treves, johanan ben mattathias mentioned: ABRAHAM B. SOLOMON ẓ AREFATI (1470–1552) was born in Mantua, but in 1495 went to Salonika. In 1505 he was appointed rabbi of Ferrara, and in 1522 went to Constantinople. He subsequently lived for several years in Adrianople with Joseph *Caro, where he became friendly with Solomon *Molcho. Immediately after Molcho’s death he moved to Ereẓ Israel, settling in Jerusalem. He was the author of the Birkat Avraham (Venice, 1552), on the ritual washing of the hands. His copy of the Halakhot of Isaac *Alfasi contained his own glosses and those of his ancestors. Another member of this branch was ISAAC B. MORDECAI GERSHON, one of the scholars of Safed and a pupil of Moses *Alshekh. He became rabbi in Constantinople (1583), but from there went to Venice. He became renowned as a proofreader and publisher of the works of the scholars of Safed. RAPHAEL TREVES was born in Smyrna and from 1710 lived in Jerusalem, where he died around 1745. His works are Ẓ aḥ ve-Adom (Constantinople, 1740), giving the order of prayers for those settling in Ereẓ Israel, and Dagul me-Revavah (ibid., 1743), a commentary on the Song of Songs. Bibliography: Michael, Or, nos. 245, 426; Bruell, Jahrbuecher…, 1 (1874), 87–122; Gross, Gal Jud, 242, 532f.; A. Epstein, in: MGWJ, 46 (1902), 159f.; Frumkin-Rivlin, 1 (1929), 91–93; 3 (1929), 84; H. Chone, in: Sinai, 11 (1942), 183–213; D. Tamar, in: KS, 33 (1958), 377; M. Benayahu, Rabbi Ḥ ayyim Yosef David Azulai (Heb., 1959), 344. [Yehoshua Horowitz]

TREVES, EMILIO (1834–1916), Italian publisher. Born in Trieste, Treves began to work as a proofreader in a local office and wrote anonymously for magazines prohibited by the Austrian censor. He was forced to leave for Paris when his association with the prohibited journals was discovered, and after working as a journalist and translator he became a publisher in Fiume. He joined Garibaldi’s legion in 1859 in the war against the Bourbon regime in Naples, and after peace was declared he founded the Treves publishing company with his brother Giuseppe. The Treves brothers published the highly successful Illustrazione Italiana, and later the works of many famous Italian writers including De Amicis, D’Annunzio, and Verga, as well as translations from foreign languages. By the end of the 19t century the Treves publishing company was the most important in Italy.

brew press in Bologna from 1537 to 1541; and it is possible that in the years 1545–46 he worked as a proofreader in the printing press of Daniel *Bomberg in Venice. Johanan was an author, publisher, and writer of responsa. Widely known is his commentary, Kimḥ a de-Avishuna (Bologna, 1540), on the festival prayer book according to the Roman rite, published anonymously. He endeavored to establish the correct readings “and did not invent anything; well nigh everything was gathered from existing authors … as the gleaner follows the harvester.” The work was designed for the untutored, and its title is explained in the statement that “he was not concerned to produce fine flour but flour made from roasted ears [Kimḥ a de-Avishuna; see Pes. 39b] … that had already been ground and roasted.” His commentary is based almost entirely upon Midrashim, some of which are otherwise unknown, and upon commentaries on early piyyutim, his purpose being simply to explain the words and subject matter. He was extremely active as a proofreader of midrashic works and in the establishment of accurate readings of the tractates he studied with his pupils. His glosses to the Halakhot of Isaac *Alfasi, his approbations to the works of his contemporaries, and his responsa (one of which, no. 58, was included in the responsa of Moses *Isserles), are extant. He also compiled a commentary on the laws of *shehitah u-vedikah and the halakhot of *issur ve-hetter of the Mordekhai of *Mordecai b. Hillel (Venice, 1550). His piyyutim and poems are also known. Of his three sons the best known is Raphael Joseph who was a posek, as well as a book publisher. In 1559 he was working in the Sabbioneta press. Bibliography: Ghirondi-Neppi, 167, 178–80; Bruell, Jahrbuecher, 1 (1874), 108; D.W. Amram, The Makers of Hebrew Books in Italy (1909), 205; Davidson, Oẓ ar, 4 (1933), 398; A. Marx, in: Tarbiz, 8 (1936/37), 173, 176; idem, Koveẓ Madda’i le-Zekher M. Schorr (1944), 189–219; I. Sonne, in: HUCA, 16 (1941), Heb. pt. 42, no. 11; H.D. Friedberg, Toledot ha-Defus ha-Ivri be-Italyah… (19562), 30, 65, 79. [Yehoshua Horowitz]

TREVES, JOHANAN BEN JOSEPH (1490?–1557?), Italian rabbi and scholar. His place of birth is unknown. In his youth he studied together with Joseph of Arles in the yeshivah of Moses *Navarro in Ferrara, where he later became a member of the bet din. For about 20 years he wandered in different towns of northern and central Italy, serving as religious instructor and rabbi, and as a result he was termed one of “the peripatetic rabbis.” For a number of years during this period, he lived in the house of Ishmael Rieti in Siena as his private tutor, a practice common in Italy. He then lived in Sabbioneta and Bologna (1540). It was assumed that he worked in the He-

TREVES, JOHANAN BEN MATTATHIAS (d. 1429), French rabbi. Treves was ordained by his father Mattathias b. Joseph. He was a son-in-law of the procurator-general, *Manessier de Vesoul. Treves first served as rabbi to a single French community but on the death of his father in 1385 was appointed chief rabbi of Paris with the consent of Charles VI and served in this office from 1385 to 1394. After some years of tranquility, a distinguished pupil of his father, Isaiah Astruc b. Abba Mari, became his enemy and claimed for himself the sole right of appointing rabbis in France and of conducting a yeshivah. With the help of Meir b. Baruch ha-Levi of Vienna, Isaiah Astruc tried to remove Johanan from his post by proclaiming that all arrangements of the rabbinate not confirmed by him were null and void. Johanan turned for help to the greatest rabbis of Catalonia, Ḥ asdai *Crescas and *Isaac b. Sheshet Perfet (the Ribash). These two supported the persecuted rabbi and in their responsa opposed both Isaiah Astruc and Meir b. Baruch. They claimed that Johanan, “besides inheriting his

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

135

[Giorgio Romano]

treviño de sobremonte, tomás rabbinate from his father with the approval of the monarch in accordance with the wishes of the communities, was also worthy of it on account of his learning and activities” (Resp. Ribash, 270–72). Some justify the intervention of Isaiah Astruc on the grounds of his constructive criticism of the affairs of the French communities and Johanan’s inability to halt the religious decline which had taken place. It was Johanan who characterized the attitude of Isaiah Astruc as prompted by a desire to oust him from office. The expulsion of the Jews from France in 1394 ended the quarrel. Johanan went to Italy, where he lived until his death. He achieved great renown among his contemporaries who referred to him as “the greatest in our times,” and “the paragon of the generation.” His rulings were much referred to by contemporary scholars. From Italy he corresponded with Jacob b. Moses *Moellin (the Maharil). His responsa on the prayers to be said by orphans and a responsum to the Padua community are extant.

budge him from his devotion to Judaism. The poet Miguel de Barrios dedicated a eulogy to Tomás Treviño de Sobremonte, but it is apparent that he confused him with another Marrano victim, Francisco Maldonado de *Silva, who died at the stake a decade earlier. Bibliography: J.T. Medina, Historia… de la Inquisición en México (1905), 148, 199, 206; A. Wiznitzer, in: AJHSQ, 51 (1962), 229–39; B. Lewin, Mártires y conquistadores judíos en la América Hispana (n.d.), 116–76. [Martin A. Cohen]

TREVIÑO DE SOBREMONTE, TOMÁS (1592–1649), Marrano martyr in Mexico. His father came from an old aristocratic Christian family and his mother, Leonor Martínez de Villagómez, was a Judaizing New Christian. Born in Medina de Riosoco, Spain, he studied Latin in two Jesuit schools and canon law at Salamanca, and became a page for a nobleman in his home town. When a fellow page called him a Jew, he killed him and went into hiding. In 1612 Tomás fled to New Spain, where he prospered as a merchant, with connections at the commercial centers of Zacatecas, Guadalajara, Acapulco, and Vera Cruz. His brother, Gerónimo, was arrested with their mother by the Inquisition in Spain, and revealed under torture that Tomás was a Judaizer. Consequently, the Mexican Inquisition arrested Tomás in November 1624 and reconciled him to the Church the following year after he expressed repentance. The repentance was feigned, however, for Tomás had no intention of relinquishing his Judaism. He even had himself circumcised in jail by a cell mate. In 1629 he married the Judaizer, Maria Gómez, and despite the interdict of the Inquisition he dressed in finery, wore arms, and rode on horseback. When his wife and her family were arrested by the Inquisition, he found various ways of communicating with them, but refused to take his wife back after her reconciliation with the Church until he was ordered to do so by the Inquisition. He was planning to flee New Spain, most probably to Holland, when he was rearrested as a relapsed heretic on Oct. 11, 1644, and after a lengthy trial condemned to the stake. He was the only one of over a hundred prisoners to be burned alive at the great *auto-da-fé of Apr. 11, 1649. To his last moment, learned theologians tried to convert him, but could not

TREVISO, city in N. Italy. The presence of Jews in Treviso and its vicinity is first mentioned in 905. A document from May 28, 972, records that the Emperor Otto I donated to the Monastery of San Candido D’Indica a farm situated near a property owned by a certain Isaac the Jew. In 1235 a certain Vascono Judeo is mentioned in a document. In 1294, Solomon, presumably an Ashkenazi Jew, founded loan banks in the town. After the annexation of Treviso by the Venetian Republic in 1339 the position of the Jews there was similar to that of the other Jews of the Veneto region. A decree from 1390 orders the local authorities to supervise the activity of the moneylenders. In 1398 the Doge Antonio Venier authorized a tax of 3,000 ducats to be paid by the Jews living in Treviso and Ceneda. By the end of the 14t century five loan banks in Treviso were owned by Jews, among whom were Jacob di Alemagna and Elhanan de Candida, who signed the renewal of their license in 1401. At this time also, the Sicilian scholar *Abulrabi was a student at a yeshivah in the town. At the end of the 15t century R. Benedict Alexander Axelrod was head of a yeshivah in Treviso. A halakhic question addressed by the Jews of Treviso to Judah *Mintz at the end of the 15t century (responsum no. 7) contains references to the construction of a new synagogue and a mikveh as well as to a method for treating eye complaints used by Treviso Jews. In 1443 the obligation to wear the yellow badge was reintroduced. In 1480, five Jews were arrested in Treviso and accused of killing a Christian child, Sebastian Novello, in the wake of similar cases following the affair of Simon of *Trent (1475); they were burned at the stake in Venice. It seems that the Jews of Treviso were banned from moneylending from 1483 until 1487. A Christian loan bank (*Monti di Pietà) was established in Treviso in 1496, and the citizens asked the Venetian government to banish the Jews from the town. After the Jews had agreed to give up moneylending, they were permitted to remain. In 1509, when Treviso was captured by the armies of the League of Cambrai, the populace rioted against the Jews under the pretext that they had collaborated with the Germans. All Jewish homes were destroyed, except the house of “Calman the Jew, friend of the people of Treviso,” or Calimano de Treviso, head of the Venetian family of the same name. That year the doge issued a decree of expulsion, prohibiting Jews from living in Treviso: the ordinance was engraved on a marble pillar in the town square. The Jews moved to nearby Asolo. In 1547 rioting broke out there also when, without apparent motive,

136

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

Bibliography: Graetz, Gesch, 8 (n.d.), 4, 35f., 70 n.2; Bruell, Jahrbuecher, 1 (1874), 95–99; Guedemann, Gesch Erz, 1 (1880), 247–9; Gross, Gal Jud, 508, 534; Weiss, Dor, 5 (19044), 147, 164–7, 239 n. 1; I. Lévi, in: REJ, 39 (1899), 85–94; G. Lauer, in: JJLG, 16 (1924), 1–42; A.M. Hershman, Rabbi Isaac b. Sheshet Perfet and his Time (1943), 203–13; S. Schwarzfuchs, Etudes sur l’Origine et le Développement du Rabbinat au Moyen Age (1957), 38–75. [Yehoshua Horowitz]

tribes, the twelve a gang of peasants killed eight and wounded ten out of the 37 Jews living there at the time. The rest fled from the area. In the latter half of the 16t century a few individual Jews were to be found in Treviso. In 1880, 27 Jewish gravestones were found during excavations. In 1909–10 fragments of Jewish tombstones dating from the 15t century were found in the Borgo Cavour (then the Borgo Santi Quaranta). In the second half of the 19t century a small Jewish community was again founded in Treviso, but has since ceased to exist. Bibliography: Leket Yosher, pt. 1 (1903), 44; pt. 2 (1904), 29, 76, 80; E. Morpurgo, in: Corriere Israelitico, 48 (1909–10), 141–4, 170–2; A. Marx, Studies in Jewish History (1944), 128, 130; M.A. Shulvass, in: HUCA, 22 (1949), 6–8 (Heb.); I. Sonne, ibid., 26–27 (Heb.); N., Pavoncello, “Le epigrafi dell’antico cimitero ebraico di Treviso,” in: RMI, 34 (1968), 221–32. Add. Bibliography: F. Brandes, Veneto Jewish Itineraries (1996), 100–3; I.M. Peles, “Rabbi Moshe Vinek,” in: RMI, 67 (2001), 27–31 (Heb.). [Shlomo Simonsohn / Samuele Rocca (2nd ed.)]

TRÉVOUX (Heb. ‫)טרבוט‬, town in the department of Ain, E. France. Article 49 of the charter of freedom of Trévoux of 1300, which prohibited the residence of Jews in the town, was not respected; however, in exchange for an annual payment of 15 pounds, many Jews were authorized to live there. The Jewish population increased considerably in 1420 with the arrival of the Jews who had been expelled from *Lyons, who introduced the gold- and silver-thread industry. In 1429 an investigation was carried out against the books of the Jews. This act closely resembled the trial of Paris of 1240; the books were seized, and several Jews were subjected to an interrogation concerning their contents. The sentence was a double one: the books were burned and the Jews were expelled. This expulsion did not remain in force for long, however; three years later, Jews were again found in Trévoux. In 1433 there were several Jews among the prisoners taken in Trévoux by the Duke of Savoy. In 1467 the inhabitants of Trévoux obtained the expulsion of the Jews by taking upon themselves the payment of their taxes. The few Jews who were spared from this expulsion were driven out in 1488. The Rue des Juifs, subsequently known as Rue Japperie, was situated in the eastern part of the town. Near this quarter was a stone building known as the “Tower of the Jews.” The synagogue was situated in the Grande Rue. The only scholars who bore the name of “Trévoux” or Trabot lived in Italy. Bibliography: Gross, Gal Jud, 219–23; J.F. Jolibois, Histoire de la Ville et du Canton de Trévoux (1853), 9–16; C. Jarrin, La Bresse et le Bugey, 1 (1883), 477ff.; I. Loeb, in: REJ, 10 (1885), 33ff.; E. Dreyfus and L. Marx, Autour des Juifs de Lyon et Alentour (1958), 93–102; H. Merḥ avya, in: KS, 45 (1969–70), 592f.

on the Supreme Court, Tribe joined the Harvard Law faculty in 1968 and became recognized as one of the foremost constitutional law experts in the country. He was the author of American Constitutional Law (1978), the most frequently cited textbook in that field. He served as a consultant to several government committees, including the Senate Committee on Public Works (1970–72). In 1978 he helped write a new constitution for the Marshall Islands. He was also noted for his frequent testimony before congressional committees and his extensive support of liberal legal causes. His book, God Save This Honorable Court (1985), in which he warned against “presidential court-packing,” was considered the main influence in the failure of Robert H. Bork to win confirmation to a seat on the United States Supreme Court in 1987. Tribe’s expertise was in legal, constitutional, and jurisprudential theory, the role of law in shaping technological development, and the uses and abuses of mathematical methods in policy and systems analysis. He argued many high-profile cases before the Supreme Court, including those for Al Gore during the disputed presidential election of 2000. The court had also ruled against Tribe in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986, holding that a Georgia state law criminalizing sodomy, as applied to consensual acts between persons of the same sex, did not violate fundamental liberties under the principle of substantive due process. However, Tribe was vindicated in 2003 when the court overruled Bowers in Lawrence v. Texas. Although Tribe did not argue that case, he wrote the amicus, or friend of the court, brief on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union urging that Bowers be overruled. Tribe was widely respected by the justices, as indicated by the fact that many of them referred to him as Professor Tribe during oral arguments, a sign of respect not generally shown toward law professors arguing before the court. In 2004, it was revealed that several passages in God Save This Honorable Court were copied without proper attribution from the 1974 book Justices and Presidents, written by Henry J. Abraham, a University of Virginia political scientist. In 2005, Harvard’s president and dean released a statement saying that Tribe’s admitted failure to provide appropriate attribution was a “significant lapse in proper academic practice,” but that they regarded the error as “the product of inadvertence rather than intentionality.” Tribe was the J. Alfred Prufrock University Professor at Harvard, one of 19 holding the title university professor. [Stewart Kampel (2nd ed.)]

TRIBE, LAURENCE H. (1941– ), U.S. lawyer, legal scholar. Born in Shanghai, China, Tribe and his family moved to San Francisco when he was five. He graduated from Harvard summa cum laude in mathematics in 1962 and Harvard Law School in 1966, magna cum laude. After serving as a clerk

TRIBES, THE TWELVE, the traditional division of Israel into 12 tribes: Reuben, Simeon (Levi), Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Benjamin, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Ephraim, and Manasseh. Biblical tradition holds that the 12 tribes of Israel are descended from the sons and grandsons of Jacob (Gen. 29–30; 35:16–18; 48:5–6). The tribes are collectively called Israel because of their origin in the patriarch Jacob-Israel. Jacob and his family went into Egypt as “70 souls” (Ex. 1:1–5). In Egypt “the Israelites were fertile and prolific; they multiplied and increased very greatly” (1:7), and there they became the “Israelite

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

137

[Bernhard Blumenkranz]

tribes, the twelve people” (1:9). A pharaoh, “who did not know Joseph” (1:8), oppressed them by burdensome labor. God “remembered His covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob” (2:24), made Himself known to Moses (Ex. 3), and rescued the Israelites from Egypt. By this time the nation numbered “600,000 men on foot, aside from taf ” which apparently means women as well as children (12:37). At Sinai, the nation received its laws and regulations, covenanting itself to God (Ex. 19–24). After wandering for 40 years in the desert under the leadership of Moses, the 12 Israelite tribes penetrated the land of Canaan with Joshua in command. The united force of the 12 tribes was sufficient to conquer the land, which was then distributed among them. During this period of settlement, and the subsequent period of the Judges, there was no predetermined pattern of leadership among the tribes, except for delivererjudges sent to them by God in time of need (see also *Judges, Book of). Such crises forced the tribes into cooperative action against enemies under the leadership of the “deliverer.” *Shiloh served as a sacral center for all the tribes, housing the Ark of the Covenant under the priestly family of Eli (I Sam. 1:3, 12; 2:27). Under the impact of military pressures, the Israelites felt compelled to turn to *Samuel with the request that he establish a monarchy, and *Saul was crowned to rule over all the tribes of Israel (I Sam. 11:15). Upon his death, *Ish-Bosheth, Saul’s son, was accepted by all the tribes save Judah and Simeon who preferred David. David’s struggle with the house of Saul ended in victory for him, and all the elders turned to David for royal leadership. He ruled from Jerusalem over all the tribes of Israel (II Sam. 5:3), and was succeeded by his son. After the death of *Solomon, the tribes once again split along territorial and political lines, with Judah and Benjamin in the south loyal to the Davidic house, and the rest of the tribes in the north ruled by a succession of dynasties. Modern scholarship does not generally accept the biblical notion that the 12 tribes are simply divisions of a larger unit which developed naturally from patriarchal roots. This simplistic scheme, it is felt, actually stems from later genealogical speculations which attempted to explain the history of the tribes in terms of familial relationships. The alliance of the 12 tribes is believed to have grown from the organization of independent tribes, or groups of tribes, forced together for historical reasons. Scholars differ as to when this union of 12 took place, and when the tribes of Israel became one nation. One school of thought holds that the confederation took place inside the country toward the end of the period of the Judges and the beginnings of the Monarchy. All of the traditions which see the 12 tribes as one nation as early as the enslavement in Egypt or the wanderings in the desert are regarded as having no basis in fact. This school recognizes in the names of some of the tribes the names of ancient sites in Canaan, such as the mountains of Naphtali, Ephraim, and Judah, the desert of Judah, and Gilead. With the passage of time, those who dwelt in these areas assumed the names of the localities. M. Noth feels that the Leah tribes, Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Zebulun, and Issachar, existed at an ear-

lier stage as a confederation of six tribes whose boundaries in Canaan were contiguous. Only at a later stage did other tribes penetrate the area, eventually expanding the confederation to 12. A second school grants that the union of 12 existed during the period of wanderings in the desert, but that Canaan was not conquered by an alliance of these at any one time. Rather, there were individual incursions into the land at widely separated periods. However, the covenant among the 12 tribes and their awareness of national unity flowing from ethnic kinship and common history, faith, and sacral practices had their source in the period prior to the conquest of the land. The number 12 is neither fictitious nor the result of an actual genealogical development in patriarchal history. It is an institutionalized and conventionalized figure which is found among other tribes as well, such as the sons of Ishmael (Gen. 25:13–16), the sons of Nahor (Gen. 22:20–24), of Joktan (Gen. 10:26–30 – so LXX), and Esau (Gen. 36:10–13). Similar organizational patterns built about groups of 12, or even six, tribes, are known from Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy. In Greece, such groupings were called amphictyony (ʿΑμφικτυονία), from ʾαμφικτίζω, meaning “to dwell about,” that is, about a central sanctuary. Each tribe was assigned a prearranged turn in the provision and maintenance of the shrine. The amphictyonic members would make pilgrimages to the common religious center on festive occasions. The exact measure of correspondence between the amphictyony of the Hellenic world and the duodecimal structure of the tribes of Israel may be the subject of scholarly controversy, but there can be little doubt that this pattern of 12 attributed to the Hebrew tribes is very real and historically rooted. Thus, if one tribe were to withdraw from the union or to be absorbed into another, the number 12 would be preserved, either by splitting one of the remaining tribes into two or by accepting a new tribe into the union. When, for example, the tribe of Levi is considered among the 12 tribes, the Joseph tribes are counted as one (Gen. 35:22–26; 46:8–25; 49:1–27). However, when Levi is not mentioned, the Joseph tribes are counted separately as Manasseh and Ephraim (Num. 26:4–51). For the same duodecimal considerations, Simeon is counted as a tribe even after having been absorbed into Judah (Josh. 19:1), and Manasseh, even after having split in two, is considered one. Among the six Leah tribes, Gad, although the son of Zilpah, is counted as one of them when Levi is missing (Num. 1:20–42; 26:5–50). The confederation of the 12 tribes was primarily religious, based upon belief in the one “God of Israel” with whom the tribes had made a covenant and whom they worshiped at a common sacral center as the “people of the Lord” (Judg. 5:11; 20:2). The Tent of Meeting and the Ark of the Covenant were the most sacred cultic objects of the tribal union. Biblical tradition shows that many places served as religious centers in various periods. During the desert wanderings, “the mountain of God,” that is, Sinai, known as Horeb, served as such a place (Ex. 3:1; 18:5; cf. 5:1–3; 8:23–24), as did the great oasis at Kadesh-Barnea where the tribes remained for some time

138

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

tribes, the twelve (Deut. 1:46). From there the Israelite tribes attempted a conquest of the land (Num. 13:3, 26). Many sites in Canaan are mentioned as having sacred associations or as being centers of pilgrimage. Some of these, such as Penuel, where Jacob, the nominal progenitor of the tribes, received the name Israel (Gen. 32:24–32), Beth-El (28:10–22; 35:1–15), where the Ark of the Lord rested (Judg. 20:26–28), and Beer-Sheba (Gen. 21:33; 46:1–4; Amos 5:5; 8:14) go back to patriarchal times. Jacob built an altar at Shechem (Gen. 33:18–20) and the tribes gathered there “before the Lord” and made a covenant with Him in Joshua’s time (Josh. 24). Shiloh enjoyed special importance as a central cultic site for the tribes. There they gathered under Joshua to divide up the land by lot, and it was there that they placed the Tent of Meeting and the Ark of the Covenant (Josh. 18:1–8). Eli’s family, which traced its descent from Aaron, the high priest, served at Shiloh (I Sam. 2:27), and it was to Shiloh that the Israelites turned for festivals and sacrifices (Judg. 21:19; I Sam. 1:3; cf. Jer. 7:14; 26:9). The multiplicity of cultic places raises the question of whether all 12 tribes were, indeed, centered about one amphictyonic site. It may be that as a tribe’s connections with the amphictyony were weakened for various reasons, the tribe began to worship at one or another of the sites. Possibly, different sites served the several subgroups among the tribes. Beer-Sheba and Hebron, for example, served the southern groups of tribes (Gen. 13:18; Josh. 21:10–11; II Sam. 2:1–4; 5:1–3; 15:7–10); Shechem, Shiloh, and Gilgal (Josh. 5:9–10; I Sam. 11:14–15; 13:4–15; Amos 5:5) were revered by the tribes in the center of the country; and the shrine at Dan served the northern tribes (Judg. 18:30–31). The likelihood of a multiplicity of shrines is strengthened by the fact that clusters of Canaanite settlements separated the southern and central tribes (of the mountains of Ephraim), and divided the central tribes from those in Galilee. It is possible that various shrines served different tribes simultaneously, while the sanctuary which held the Ark of the Lord was revered as central to all 12. The changes which occurred in the structure of the 12 tribes and in their relative strengths, find expression in the biblical genealogies. The tribes are descended from four matriarchs, eight of them from the wives Leah and Rachel, and four from the handmaids Bilhah and Zilpah (Gen. 29–30). It is a widely held view that attribution to the two wives is indicative of an early stage of tribal organization, the “tribes of Leah” and the “tribes of Rachel.” The attribution of four tribes to handmaids may indicate either a lowered status or late entry into the confederation. In the list of the 12 tribes, Reuben is prominent as the firstborn (Gen. 46:8), followed by Simeon, Levi, and Judah, the sons of Leah, who occupy primary positions. Reuben stood at the head of a tribal league and had a position of central importance among his confederates prior to the conquest of the land (Gen. 30:14; 35:22; 37:21; 42:22, 37; Num. 16:1ff.). On the other hand, the same tribe is inactive during the period of the Judges. It did not provide any of the judges, and during Deborah’s war against Sisera, Reuben “sat

among the sheepfolds” and did not render any aid (Judg. 5:16). Possibly, because this tribe dwelt on the fringes of the land (I Chron. 5:9–10), its links with the others were weakened, and its continued existence as one of the tribes of Israel was in jeopardy (cf. Deut. 33:6). Simeon was absorbed by Judah. Levi spread throughout Israel as a result of its sacral duties. Judah was cut off from the rest of the tribes by a Canaanite land strip that separated the mountains of Judah and Ephraim. Reuben’s place as head of the 12 tribes was taken by the house of Joseph which played a decisive and historic role during the periods of the settlement and the Judges. Joshua came from the tribe of Ephraim (Num. 13:8). Shechem and Shiloh were within the borders of the house of Joseph (cf. Ps. 78:59, 67–68). Samuel came from the hill country of Ephraim (I Sam. 1:1). Ephraim led the tribes in the war against Benjamin over the incident of the concubine in Gibeah (Judg. 19–21). At the beginning of the Monarchy, the leadership passed to Judah (cf. Gen. 49:8ff.). The passage in I Chronicles 5:1–2 illustrates well how the dominant position among the tribes passed from Reuben to Ephraim and from Ephraim to Judah. Each of the 12 tribes enjoyed a good deal of autonomy, ordering its own affairs after the patriarchal-tribal pattern. No doubt there were administrative institutions common to all the tribes, situated beside the central shrines, though information about them is exceedingly scanty. During the desert wanderings, leadership of the people was vested in the princes of each of the tribes and the elders who assisted Moses. They met and legislated for the entire people (Ex. 19:7; 24:1, 9; Num. 1–2; 11:16–24; 32:2; 34:16–29; Deut. 27:1; 31:28). There are references to meetings of tribal leaders and elders during the periods of the settlement and the Judges. “The princes of the congregation, the heads of the thousands of Israel” along with Phinehas the priest, conducted negotiations with the Transjordanian tribes, in the name of the entire nation (Josh. 22:30). Joshua summoned “the elders, the heads, the judges, and the officers of Israel” to make a covenant in Shechem (Josh. 24). The elders of Israel, speaking for the entire nation, requested Samuel to appoint a king (I Sam. 8:4). The incidents of the concubine in Gibeah (Judg. 19–21) and Saul’s battle with Nahash the Ammonite (I Sam. 11) are classic examples of joint action taken by the league of 12 tribes acting “as one man, from Dan even to Beer-Sheba, with the land of Gilead” (Judg. 20:1; I Sam. 11:7). In the one case, unified action was taken by the tribes against one of their members, Benjamin, for a breach of the terms of the covenant (Judg. 20:7). The war against Nahash the Ammonite proves that the tribes were required to come to the aid of any one of the league that found itself in difficulty. Because of the sacral nature of the league, the wars of the tribes were considered “wars of the Lord” (Ex. 17:16; Num. 21:14). Nevertheless, the narratives in the Book of Judges regarding the battles which Israel waged against its enemies make it clear that the league must have been rather weak in those days. The consciousness of national and religious unity had not yet led to a solid politico-military confederation. The Song of Deborah gives clear expression to the lack of solidarity among the

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

139

triennial cycle tribes, for some of them did not come to the aid of the Galilean tribes. It is impossible to designate even one war against external enemies during the period of the Judges in which all the tribes acted in concert. Indeed, there are indications of intertribal quarrels and disputes (Judg. 7–8; 12). In this connection, there are scholars who hold that the judge-deliverers were not pantribal national leaders, but headed only individual tribes, or groups of them (see *Judges). It was only toward the end of the period of the Judges when the Philistine pressure on the Israelite tribes increased in the west and that of the Transjordanian peoples in the east, that the religionational tribal confederation assumed political and military dimensions. The Israelite tribes then consolidated as a crystallized national-territorial entity within the framework of a monarchical regime. David, Solomon, and afterward the kings of Israel and Judah tended to weaken tribal consciousness in favor of the territorial and monarchical organization. It is apparent, however, from Ezekiel’s eschatological vision (Ezek. 47–48) that the awareness of Israel as a people composed of 12 tribes had not, even then, become effaced. See also *Ten Lost Tribes. [Bustanay Oded]

In the Aggadah In aggadic literature the word shevatim (“tribes,” sing., shevet) applies to both the 12 sons of Jacob and to the 12 tribes descended from them. When Jacob left home and had his dream, he took 12 stones as a headrest and declared: “God has decreed that there are to be 12 tribes; yet they did not issue from Abraham or Isaac; if these 12 stones will join into one I will know that I am destined to beget them” (Gen. R. 68:11), and in fact the 12 stones coalesced into one (Gen. 28:11 being contrasted with v. 18). Whereas Abraham and Isaac both begat wicked sons, Ishmael and Esau, all of Jacob’s 12 sons were loyal to God (Shab. 146a; cf. Ex. R. 1:1). They were all named in reference to Israel’s redemption (Tanḥ . Shemot 5), and God declared, “Their names are more precious to me than the anointing oil with which priests and kings were anointed” (Eccles. R. 7:1, 2). All the tribal ancestors were born outside the Land of Israel, save Benjamin, and all, with the exception of Benjamin, participated in the sale of Joseph. Therefore the tribe of Benjamin was privileged to have the *Shekhinah, i.e., the Temple, in its portion (Sif. Deut. 3:5, 352). None of the tribes maintained its family purity in Egypt, and all except for Reuben, Simeon, and Levi, engaged in idolatry there (Num. R. 13:8). Just as the heavens cannot endure without the 12 constellations (Ex. R. 15:6), so the world cannot endure without the 12 tribes, for the world was created only by their merit (PR 3:10). The names of the tribes are not always enumerated in the same order, so that it should not be said that those descended from the mistresses (Rachel and Leah) took priority over the descendants of their handmaids (Bilhah and Zilpah; Ex. R. 1:6). The tribe of Zebulun engaged in trade and supported

140

the tribe of Issachar, to enable it to devote itself to the study of the Torah; therefore in his blessings, Moses gave priority to the tribe of Zebulun (Yal. Gen. 129). All the tribes produced judges and kings, except Simeon, on account of the sin perpetrated by Zimri (Mid. Tadshe 8; see Num. 25:1–2, 14). Every tribe produced prophets; Judah and Benjamin produced kings by prophetic direction (Suk. 27b). Whereas the tribes of Benjamin and Judah were exiled to Babylon, the Ten Tribes were exiled beyond the river *Sambatyon (Gen. R. 73:6). The Ten Tribes shall neither be resurrected nor judged; R. *Simeon b. Yoḥ ai said, “They shall never return from exile,” but R. Akiva maintained that they would return (ARN 36:4). But see *Ten Lost Tribes. The Davidic Messiah will be descended from two tribes, his father from Judah and his mother from Dan (Yal. Gen. 160). [Harry Freedman] Bibliography: B. Luther, in: ZAW, 21 (1901), 37ff.; E. Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstaemme (1906), 498ff.; W.F. Albright, in: JPOS, 5 (1925), 2–54; A. Alt, Die Landnahme der Israeliten in Palaestina (1925); idem, in: PJB, 21 (1925), 100ff.; idem, in: E. Sellin Festschrift (1927), 13–24; Alt, Kl Schr, 2 (1953), 1–65; M. Noth, Das System der Zwoelf Staemme Israels (1930), 85–108; W. Duffy, The Tribal History Theory on the Origin of the Hebrews (1944); Albright, Arch Rel, 102–9; C.V. Wolf, in: JBL, 65 (1946), 45–49; idem, in: JQR, 36 (1945–46), 287–95; Noth, Hist Isr, 53–137; Bright, Hist, 142–60; R. Smend, Yahweh War and Confederation (1970). IN THE AGGADAH: Ginzberg, Legends, 7 (1938), 481 (index), S.V. Tribes, the twelve.

TRIENNIAL CYCLE, term denoting the custom according to which the weekly Pentateuchal readings on Sabbaths are completed in a three-year cycle. The triennial cycle was practiced in Palestine and in Egypt as late as 1170 C.E., whereas in Babylonia the reading of the Pentateuch was completed in one year, from Tishri to Tishri. The latter became the accepted traditional custom the world over (Meg. 29b; Maim., Yad, Tefillah 13:1). The masoretic text of the Pentateuch has 154 divisions, known as sedarim. According to other traditions, however, the Pentateuch consists of 161 and even 175 portions (Sof. 16:10); the Yemenites divide the Pentateuch into 167. It has been suggested that the 154 division corresponds to the minimum number of Sabbaths in the triennial cycle and 161 to the maximum. The difference is due to the occurrence of festivals on Sabbaths when the regular Pentateuch portions were superseded by special Pentateuch readings appropriate to the festivals. The 175 division stems from the practice of completing the reading of the whole Pentateuch within a cycle of three and a half years (twice within seven years). In general, the different Jewish communities arbitrarily divided the Pentateuch, either by joining portions or dividing them. In the triennial cycle, the Pentateuch reading started on Nisan the first, which was regarded as the Jewish *New Year (see: Ex. 12:2); while the reading of each of the five books of the Pentateuch started on one of the New Years mentioned in the Mishnah (RH 1:1), as can be seen in the following list (p. 142):

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

triennial cycle Triennial cycle

PENTATEUCH HAFTARAH

GENESIS 1:1 2:4 3:24 5:1

Isa. 42:5 (not extant) (not extant) Isa. 30:8–15

12:29 13:1 13:21 15:21

Isa. 21:11 Isa. 46:3 Isa. 45:24 Isa. 49:10

6:22 8:1 9:22 11:1

(not extant) Zech. 4:14 (not extant) (not extant)

6:9 8:1 8:15 9:18 11:1

Isa. 54:9–10 Hab. 3:1–5 Isa. 42:7–21 Isa. 49:9–13 (not extant)

16:25 18:1 21:1 22:26

Isa. 58:23 Isa. 6; 61:6–10 Jer. 34:1 Isa. 49:3

12:1 13:1 14:1 15:1 16:1

– Josh. 2:1; Judg. 18:7 – – I Sam. 11

12:1 14:1 15:1 16:1

Josh. 24:3–8 Isa. 41:2–14; I Kings 10:9 Zeph. 3:9–19; Isa. 1:1–17 Isa. 64:1

24:1 25:1 26:31 27:20 29:1

Isa. 60:17–61:9 Isa. 66 Ezek. 16:10–19 Hos. 14:7; Ezek. 43:10 Isa. 61:6

17:16 18:25 20:14 22:2

Ezek. 44:15 Ezek. 44:29 Judg. 11 Micah 5:6

TAMMUZ

17:1 18:1 19:1 20:1 21:1

Isa. 63:10–11 Isa. 33:17–34:12; II Kings 4 Isa. 17:14–18:7 Isa. 61:9–10 I Sam. 2:21–28

30:1 30:12 31:1 32:14

Mal. 1:11–2:7 II Kings 12:5 Isa. 43:7–21 II Sam. 22:10–51

23:2 25:10 26:52 28:1

(not extant) Mal. 2:5 Josh. 17:4 Ezek. 45:12

22:1 23:1 24:1 24:42 25:1

Isa. 33:7–22 I Kings 1:1 Judg. 19:20 Isa. 12:3–14:2 II Sam. 5:17–6:1

34:27 37:1 38:21 39:1

Jer. 31:33–40; I Kings 18:27–39 I Kings 8:8–22 Jer. 30:18 Isa. 33:20–34:8; I Kings 7:13

30:1 32:1 33:1 34:1

Jer. 4:2 Jer. 2 (not extant) Ezek. 45:1; Josh. 21:41 Josh. 20:1

26:11 27:1

Isa. 65:23–66:8 Isa. 46:3–6

LEVITICUS 1:1

27:28 28:10 29:31

Micah 1:1; 5:7–13 Hos. 12:13 Isa. 60:15

3:1 4:1 5:1 6:1

Isa. 43:21; Jer. 21:19; Micah 6:9–7:8 Ezek. 44:11; 20:41 Ezek. 18:4–17 Zech. 5:3–6:19 Jer. 7:21

30:21 31:3 32:4 33:18

I Sam. 1:11 Jer. 30:10–16; Micah 6:3–7:20 Obad. 1:1 Nah. 1:12–2:5

6:12 8:1 9:1 12:1

35:9 37:1 38:1 39:1

Isa. 43:1–7 Jer. 38:8 Isa. 37:31–37 Isa. 52:3–9

40:23 41:1 41:38 42:18 43:24

TEVET

ELUL

SIVAN

IYYAR

NISAN

PENTATEUCH HAFTARAH

TISHRI

THIRD YEAR

Ḥ ESHVAN

SECOND YEAR

KISLEV

FIRST YEAR

44:18 47:28 48:1 49:1

DEUTERONOMY 1:1 Jer. 30:4; Amos 2:9 2:1 3:23 4:1

(not extant) Jer. 32:16 (not extant)

Mal. 3:9 Ezek. 43:27 I Kings 8:56–58 Isa. 66:7

5:1 6:4 8:1 9:1

(not extant) I Kings 10:39 Jer. 9:22–24 Jer. 2:1; II Kings 8:30

13:29 14:1 15:1 16:1

II Kings 5 II Kings 7:8 (not extant) Ezek. 44:1

10:1 11:26 12:20 15:7

II Kings 13:23 Isa. 54:11–55:6 Jer. 23:9 Isa. 61:1–2

Amos 1:3–15; 2:6 Isa. 29:8 Isa. 11:2–9 Isa. 50:10–52:11

17:1 18:1 19:1 21:1

(not extant) Ezek. 22:1 Amos 9:7 Ezek. 44:25

17:14 17:24 18:1 20:10

I Sam. 8:1 I Sam. 10:24 Jer. 29:8 Josh. 24:1

Jer. 42:12–17; 43:12–14; I Kings 3:15 Josh. 14:6; Ezek. 37:10 I Kings 13:14 I Kings 2:1 Isa. 43:2

22:1

(not extant)

21:10

Isa. 54:1–10

24:1 25:1 25:39

(not extant) Jer. 36:6; Ezek. 34 Isa. 24:2

(not extant) (not extant) 26:1

(not extant) (not extant) Isa. 60:1–22

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

141

triennial cycle Triennial cycle (cont.)

ADAR

SHEVAT

FIRST YEAR

SECOND YEAR

THIRD YEAR

PENTATEUCH HAFTARAH

49:27 EXODUS 1:1 3:1 4:14 6:2

Isa. 27:6; Ezek. 16:1; 20 Isa. 40:11; II Kings 20:8 Isa. 55:12 Ezek. 28:25–29:21

26:3 NUMBERS 1:1 2:14 3:14

Hos. 2:1 (not extant) Isa. 43:9

29:9 31:1 31:14 32:1

Isa. 55:6–58:8; Micah 7:18–20 Jer. 12:15 Judg. 2:7 Ezek. 17:22

7:18 8:16 10:1 12:13

Joel 3:3 Isa. 34:11 Isa. 19; Jer. 4:6; I Sam. 6:6 Jer. 46:13–28

4:17 4:21 5:11 6:1

I Sam. 6:10 Judg. 13:2–25 Hos. 4:14 Judg. 13:2

33:1 34:1 Shekalim Zakhor Parah Ha-Ḥ odesh

Josh. 1:1–18 (not extant)

Zech. 14:1; Micah 2:12

Jer. 16:19; Ezek. 12:20

The above division corresponds with biblical events narrated in aggadic legends: (1) The creation story was read in the month of Nisan (in the first year of the cycle) as it was held that the world was created in this month (R. Joshua’s view, in RH 11a). (2) The sin of Cain (Gen. 4) was always read on the third Sabbath in Nisan (on Passover) which tallies with the legend that Cain offered his sacrifice on Passover (P d RE, sect. 21). (3) The story of Rachel giving birth to Joseph after having been barren for years (Gen. 30:22ff.), was always read at the beginning of Tishri (in the first year) which corresponds to the legend that Rachel, Sarah, Hannah, etc., were remembered by God on Rosh Ha-Shanah (RH 10b). (4) Exodus 12, whose subject is the exodus from Egypt and was read in Nisan (second year), coincides with the Passover festival. (5) The reading of the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:1–14) on the 6t of Sivan (second year) tallies with the *Shavuot festival. (6) Exodus 34, read on the last Sabbath of Av, records Moses receiving the two tablets of the law for the second time (80 days after the 6t of Sivan). This is in accordance with the tradition that Moses spent twice 40 days on Mount Sinai. With the first two tablets he descended on the 17t of Tammuz but broke them because of the sin of the Golden Calf (Ex. 32); he then ascended for another 40 days and returned with the second two tablets on the 29t of Av. (7) The reading of Leviticus always started (second year) at the end of Elul. Leviticus 8:1; 10:7, whose subject is the sacrificial cult of the priests in the Temple, was read on the *Day of Atonement on which the high priest performed the most sacred ritual in the Holy of Holies.

(8) Numbers (6:22ff.), always read at the beginning of Nisan (in the third year), corresponds to the biblical date of Moses’ inauguration of the tabernacle. (9) Deuteronomy 34, on the death of Moses, always read at the beginning of Adar (third year), tallies with the tradition that Moses died on the 7t of Adar. The intention behind the triennial cycle was that the weekly portions correspond to the character of the festivals on which these are read (as may be seen from the above examples). This thematic coincidence was not always possible and did not always occur. There is, for example, no thematic correspondence between the portions to be read in Tishri (the first year) with the festivals in this month. The Mishnah (Meg. 3:5), therefore, ordered for all festivals special readings from the Pentateuch dealing with the commandments, etc., of each particular festival. Since the reading of the whole Pentateuch ended in Adar of the third year of the cycle and a few Sabbaths were left until Nisan (when the cycle started anew), the particular portions for the Four Sabbaths (Arba Parashiyyot; Shekalim, Zakhor, Parah, and Ha-Ḥ odesh) were read as is customary nowadays (see *Torah, Reading of and *Sabbaths, Special). In traditional synagogues, the Pentateuch is read in one year. *Reform Judaism (and some *Conservative synagogues) has, however, reverted to the ancient Palestinian custom of a triennial cycle. It was done in response to the spiritual need of the congregants most of whom do not understand Hebrew, and consequently, cannot follow – with proper attention – the lengthy reading in Hebrew of the entire weekly *sidrah. The weekly reading was shortened to approximately one third. In order that the portion should not be different from that read in traditional synagogues, the first part of each weekly sidrah is read in the first year, the second in the next, and the third in the last year of this triennial cycle. Consequently, three different haftarot were provided for every standard Pentateuch portion to correspond to the central theme of the particular part of the portion read. (See Union Prayer Book, 1 (1924), 399–406.)

142

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

The reading of the book of Genesis started on Nisan the 1st Exodus started on Shevat the 15t Leviticus started on Tishri the 1st Numbers started on Shevat the 15t Deuteronomy started on Elul the 1s

1st 1st 2nd 2nd 3rd

trier The accompanying Table: Triennial Cycle is based on a number of hypotheses, first developed by Buechler and later taken up, with significant modification, by Mann (see bibl.). According to Buechler, the triennial cycle began in Nisan. According to Mann, it began in Tishri. Both of them worked with references in the Midrash and with genizah fragments. There is, however, no lectionary extant which, with any certainty, can be ascribed to either the tannaitic or the amoraic period. On the contrary, all available evidence seems to point in the direction of a complete absence of a definite triennial cycle in the talmudic period – although a number of such “cycles” were definitely in existence in the post-talmudic period. During the talmudic period – whence comes the ruling that each one of the seven people, “called” to read from the Torah, must not read “less than three verses” – various congregations seem to have begun and completed the reading of the Pentateuch at different times of the year.

TRIER (Treves), city in Germany and formerly also a bishopric. Archaeological evidence seems to point to the presence of Jews in Trier as early as the end of the third century C.E., although the existence of a Jewish community there at the time is uncertain. Traces of Jewish commercial activity in the sixth century suggest the possibility of Jewish settlement. The first definitive evidence for the presence of a Jewish community dates from 1066, when the Jews were saved from an attempted expulsion on the part of Archbishop Eberhard through his sudden death at the altar. The Jewish community was accused of the use of black magic in order to bring about his death. On April 10, 1096, the first day of Passover, Peter the Hermit appeared before the gates of Trier armed with a letter from the Jewish communities of France to their coreligionists in Germany, requesting that they provide provisions for Peter and his crusaders for their expedition to the Holy Land. The Jewish community responded to the letter, and Peter and his followers went on their way. Sometime later the burghers of the city rose against the Jews; they discovered the community’s Torah scrolls, which had been placed in a building for safekeeping, and desecrated them. In panic the Jews fled to the palace of Archbishop Egelbert; somehow they rescued their desecrated scrolls and took them along. The archbishop did his best to protect them, and the Jews hoped to remain under his protection until the imminent return of Emperor *Henry IV to Germany. A number of Jews were murdered and others committed suicide; the archbishop and his retinue were themselves attacked for shielding the Jews. Under increasing pressure from a mob outside the palace, the

archbishop prevailed upon the remaining Jews to convert, including their leader, Rabbi Micah, who was converted by the archbishop himself. One year later, however, with the return of Emperor Henry IV to Germany, all of them were permitted to return to Judaism. Other Jewish communities in the bishopric were also severely affected by the First Crusade; soon, however, the Jews of Trier returned to their homes and rebuilt their community life. The Gesta Trevarorum tells of a Jew named Joshua who served as a physician in the retinue of Archbishop Bruno of Trier (d. 1124). Joshua, who later converted to Christianity, was also a mathematician and astronomer. During the Second Crusade (1146), R. Simon of Trier fell as a martyr in the vicinity of Cologne; the community as a whole, however, remained undisturbed. During the course of the 12t-century, its economic position was strengthened considerably. The communal organization, known as universitas Judeorum Treverensium, had as its leader a so-called “Jewish bishop” (*Episcopus Judaeorum) with considerable authority. The community possessed a cemetery, and in 1235 a synagogue and community building (domus communitatis). A Judenstrasse is mentioned at the beginning of the 13t century. The Jews occupied themselves mostly in trading and moneylending, although other occupations were known. They reached, in fact, such a level of economic well-being as to arouse the cupidity of Archbishop Henry (1260–86), who extorted a considerable amount of money from the Jews in 1285. There was some measure of cultural contact between Jews and gentiles. Lambert of Luettich, a monk at the monastery of St. Matthew in Trier, was taught Hebrew by a Jew and with the aid of his teacher succeeded in deciphering a rare Hebrew manuscript. Sources dating from the 14t century indicate that Jews continued to own houses and vineyards outside the Jewish quarter and that Christians were living on the Judenstrasse. The community profited from the liberal and energetic administration of Archbishop Baldwin (1307–54), who entrusted a considerable portion of his financial administration to Jewish hands. Although Jews suffered during the *Armleder uprising of 1336, its effects were limited by the prompt action of the archbishop. In 1338 he was forced to guarantee to the burghers that the number of Jewish families in the city would not rise above 56. During the *Black Death persecutions of 1349, the burghers attacked the Jews, murdering some, stealing their property, and desecrating their cemetery. The community fled in panic, although Baldwin and his successor Boehmund sought to compensate them for the expropriation of their property. It was only in 1356 that King *Charles IV gave permission for the Jews to return, although in 1354 Bishop Boehmund made Simeon b. Jacob of Trier his court physician. By 1418, however, the Jews were expelled once more from the entire bishopric of Trier; among the properties of the Jewish community in the city that were disposed of in 1422 was a hospital. Jews did not reappear again in the bishopric until the beginning of the 16t century; in 1555 they were permitted the services of a rabbi to care for the needs of all who were

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

143

Bibliography: A. Buechler, in: JQR, 5 (1892/93), 420–68; 6 (1893/94), 1–73; Jacobs, in: JE, 12 (1905), 254–7 (with tables); J. Mann, The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue, 1 (1940); 2 (1966; completed by I. Sonne); Ḥ . Albeck, in: L. Ginzberg Jubilee Volume (1946), 25–43 (Heb. pt.); L. Morris, The New Testament and the Jewish Lectionaries (1964); L. Crockett, in: JJS, 17 (1966), 13–46; J. Heinemann, in: Tarbiz, 33 (1963/64), 362–8; idem, in: JJS, 19 (1968), 41–48; J.J. Petuchowski, Contributions to the Scientific Study of Jewish Liturgy (1970), xvii–xxiii.

trier, walter resident in the bishopric. Elector Johann von Schoeneberg expelled them in 1589, only to readmit them in 1593. In a regulation put into force in that year, a yellow *badge was prescribed for Jews to distinguish them from Christians. In 1597 a consortium of Jewish merchants headed by Magino Gabrieli were granted special trading privileges that were to last 25 years. However, in 1657, among other restrictive provisions, legislation was approved which severely limited the interest rate of Jewish moneylenders. In 1675 Jews were accused of giving aid to French troops quartered in the city; after the French surrendered, Jewish homes were plundered and the Jewish community sustained overwhelming losses. A fast day was declared in perpetuity for the 15t of Elul to mark the event; a *Memorbuch also dates from the period. At the head of the community at the time was David Tevele b. Isaac Wallich (d. 1691), a physician. In 1723 Elector Franz Ludwig limited the number of Jews in the bishopric to 160; in addition to some highly restrictive provisions, legislation of that year reaffirmed the authority of the rabbinate in the bishopric. A synagogue was constructed in 1762, formerly a house occupied by R. Mordecai Marx, grandfather of Karl *Marx. The French conquered the city in 1794, bringing with them civic equality for the Jews, a measure acknowledged fully by the Prussian administration only in 1850. Among the rabbis who served the community in the 19t century were Moses b. Eliezer Treves (d. 1840) and Joseph Kahn, who was rabbi at the time of the dedication of a new synagogue in September 1859. The modern community also developed a number of philanthropic organizations and an elementary school. There were 568 Jews in the city in 1871; 823 in 1893; 802 in 1925; 796 in 1933; 400 in 1938; 210 in 1939; and 450 in 1941. The onset of Nazism brought with it accelerated emigration, aided by the efforts of Adolf Altmann, rabbi in Trier, who helped to develop a program of adult Jewish education that involved many other communities in the area as well. On Kristallnacht, Nov. 9–10, 1938, the synagogue was destroyed. Almost all the Jews remaining in the city in 1941 were deported to Poland and *Theresienstadt, never to return. [Alexander Shapiro / B. Mordechai Ansbacher]

Post Word-War ii A new community of displaced persons was established after the war, and a new synagogue was erected in 1957. In 1971 there were 75 Jews living in Trier. The Jewish community numbered 61 in 1984; 54 in 1989; and 457 in 2004. The increase is explained by the immigration of Jews from the former Soviet Union after 1990. The house where Karl Marx was born has housed a museum of his life and work since 1947. In 1996–97 the Arye Maimon Institute for Jewish History was founded at Trier University. The institute’s work is focused on the research of Jewish history in central and Western Europe. [Alexander Shapiro and B. Mordechai Ansbacher / Larissa Daemmig (2nd ed.)]

144

Bibliography: Aronius, Regesten, 160, 22, 439, 773; Germania Judaica, 1 (1963), 376–83; 2 (1968), 826–33; 3 (1987), 1470–81; Salfeld, Martyrol, index; F. Haubrich, Die Juden in Trier (1907); A. Altmann, Das frueheste Vorkommen der Juden in Deutschland – Juden im roemischen Trier (1932); A.M. Habermann, Gezerot Ashkenaz veẒ arefat (1946); K. Duewell, Die Rheingebiete in der Judenpolitik des Nazionalsozialismus vor 1942 (1968), index; Die Feier der Einweihung der neuen Synagoge zu Trier (1859); K. Baas, in: MGWJ, 55 (1911), 745–6; 57 (1913), 458; S. Schifress, in: ZGJD, 3 (1931), 243–7; ibid., 7 (1937), 156–79. Add. Bibliography: R. Laufner and A. Rauch, Die Familie Marx und die Trierer Judenschaft (Schriften aus dem Karl-MarxHaus in Trier, vol. 14) (1975); J. Jacobs, Existenz und Untergang der alten Judengemeinde der Stadt Trier (1984); R. Nolden (ed.), Juden in Trier (Ausstellungskataloge Trierer Bibliotheken, vol. 15) (1988); idem (ed.), Vorlaeufiges Gedenkbuch fuer die Juden von Trier 1938–1943 (1994); A. Haller, Der juedische Friedhof an der Weidegasse in Trier und die mittelalterlichen juedischen Grabsteine im Rheinischen Landesmuseum Trier (2003).

TRIER, WALTER (1890–1951), cartoonist and illustrator. Trier, who came from a Prague German family, settled in Berlin. He is best known for his witty and ironic drawings and for his illustrations of books by famous German authors, especially those of Erich Kaestner. Trier was one of the leading contributors to the German humorous weeklies Simplicissimus and Lustige Blaetter and published several collections of his drawings in volume form. He was one of the first to infuse contemporary content into “imitations” of the old masters. After escaping from Germany before World War II, he contributed to publications in England and America. His own collections included 1000 Bauernwitze (1917), Fridolins Siebenmeilenpferd, Fridolins Harlekinder, and Fridolins Zauberland, all of which appeared in 1926. Bibliography: Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Kuenstler (1939); Roth, Art, 837. Add. Bibliography: L. Lang, Walter Trier. Klassiker der Karikatur, vol. 4 (1984). [Avigdor Dagan]

TRIESTE, port in Friuli, N. Italy. Although Jews may have lived in Trieste before the end of the 14t century, there is no authoritative information. After the city’s annexation to Austria in 1382 Jews from Germany settled there; some were subject to the dukes of Austria and some to the local rulers. Jews soon took the place of Tuscan moneylenders in the economic life of the city. The Jewish banker Moses and his brother Cazino, who lived in the Rione del Mercato, are mentioned in 1359. The Jews tended to live in the Riborgo neighborhood, then the civic and commercial center. The 15t century was a period of development for the small Jewish community. Two Jewish bankers dominated the period, Salomone D’Oro and Isacco da Trieste. In 1509 the Emperor Maximilian I granted to Isacco the position of Schutzjude, or protected Jew. It is important to stress the position of Jewish women, who sometimes directed the family’s banking establishment. As in the other Imperial possessions, Jews were obliged to wear the yellow badge. In 1583 there was an abortive attempt to expel the Jews. ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

trieste In 1620 Ventura Parente and the Grassin brothers received from the City of Trieste the concession of the title of public banker and moneylender. In 1624 Ventura Parente obtained from the Emperor Ferdinand II the title of Hoffaktor. During the 17t century Trieste’s Patriciate took an unfavorable stand toward the Jews, asking the imperial authorities for their expulsion. The imperial authorities resisted the pressure and Jews were not expelled. However, in 1695 the 11 Jewish families in the city, around 70 people, were enclosed in the so-called Old Ghetto, or Trauner Ghetto. The Jews petitioned the authorities successfully for a healthier site, and in 1696 the Jewish ghetto was erected in the Riborgo neighborhood, near the harbor. From the beginning of the 18t century the Hapsburgs adopted a mercantilist policy, which led to the development of the port of Trieste. In 1746 the Università degli ebrei, or Jewish community, was constituted. In this period there were 120 Jews living in Trieste. The most important families were the Morpurgo, Parente, Levi, and Luzzatto. In the same year the first synagogue was erected, the so-called Scuola Piccola. Maria Theresa permitted the richest Jewish families to live outside the ghetto. Moreover, Marco Levi, head of the community, received the title of Hoffaktor in 1765. In 1771 Maria Theresa granted a series of privileges to the Nazione Ebrea of Trieste. In the 18t century Jews were traders and craftsmen and some of them were factors to the Austrian court (see above). One of the most distinguished scholars of the mid-18t century was Rabbi Isacco Formiggini. Emperor *Joseph II’s Toleranzpatent of 1782 gave legal sanction to the gradually improving condition of the Jews in Trieste, and in 1785 the gates of the ghetto were destroyed. There were around 670 Jews in 1788. In 1775 the Scuola Grande or Great Synagogue was erected on the plan of the architect Francesco Balzano. The building included also a Sephardi synagogue. In 1796 the community inaugurated a Jewish school under the Chief Rabbi Raffael Nathan Tedesco. This school was in part inspired by the proposals of N.H. *Wessely. The first Hebrew work printed in Trieste was Samuel Romanelli’s Italian-Hebrew grammar, published in 1799. In 1796 the French under Napoleon arrived in Trieste. In 1800, 1,200 Jews lived in Trieste. From 1809 to 1813 Trieste was part of the Kingdom of Italy. Some Jews were supporters of the French Revolution and Napoleon, although Napoleon’s economic blockade ruined the city’s trade. Thus, when the Austrians returned in 1814, the Jewish community was relieved. Tedesco was followed by Abramo Eliezer Levi, who was the chief rabbi of Trieste between 1802 and 1825. The 19t century was the golden age of Trieste Jewry. In 1831 Giuseppe Lazzaro Morpurgo established the Assicurazioni Generali, which dominated the economic life of the city for more than a hundred years. During the 19t century some members of the community played an active part in the Risorgimento and the Irredentist struggle which culminated in Trieste’s becoming part of Italy in 1919. Trieste Jews, such as the writer Italo *Svevo and the poet Umberto *Saba,

were central in the creation of the Italian intellectual world. II Corriere Israelitico, a Jewish newspaper in Italian, was published in Trieste from 1862 to 1915. In 1862 S.D. *Luzzatto issued there his dirge on Abraham Eliezer Levi. In the 1850s some Hebrew books were printed at the Marinigha press, including Ghirondi-Neppi’s Toledot GedoleiYisrael (1853). The Jewish printer Jonah Cohen was active in the 1860s. His illustrated Passover Haggadah (by A.V. Morpurgo) with and without Italian translation (1864) was a memorable production. The number of Jews increased gradually in the 19t century. In 1848 there were around 3,000 Jews, in 1869 there were 4,421, and in 1910, 5,160 Jews lived in Trieste. Most of the chief rabbis of Trieste were Italian Jews, such as Marco Tedeschi, elected in 1858, and Sabato Raffaele Melli from 1870 to 1907. The monumental new synagogue in Via Donizzetti opened in 1912 and it was inaugurated by Chief Rabbi Zvi Perez Chajes. It followed the Ashkenazi rite. After World War I Trieste was the main port for Jews from Central and Eastern Europe who immigrated to Ereẓ Israel.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

145

[Shlomo Simonsohn / Samuele Rocca (2nd ed.)]

Holocaust Period According to the census of 1931, the Jewish community of Trieste had 4,671 members, including 3,234 Italians and 1,437 foreigners. Census data for 1938 recorded 5,381 Jews in Trieste, belonging for the most part to the lower and middle sectors of the middle class. The racial laws at the end of 1938 caused an initial period of disorientation, including many conversions, the withdrawal of membership of many Community leaders and members, and the emigration of most foreign Jews. By 1939, however, the elected council had been replaced by one appointed by the Italian government. In October 1941, the first visible acts of real intimidation occurred. The facade of the central temple of the German rite and the headquarters of the community in Via del Monte were defaced with antisemitic slogans and red ink. Vandalism and violence recurred in July 1942, when several Fascist squads devastated the temple and assaulted defenseless passers-by. Similar incidents occurred in May 1943, when Jewish and Slavic businesses and shops were sacked. By then, the Jewish community of Trieste had no more than 2,500 members. After the Italian armistice with the Allies on September 8, 1943, and the German occupation of Italy, Trieste and the surrounding area were incorporated into the Adriatisches Kustenland and formally annexed as an integral part of the Reich, with dire consequences for the Jews. Not all Jews were able to go into hiding before a German Einsatzkommando initiated the first roundup of Jews on October 9. A second roundup occurred on October 29, and a third on January 20, 1944. During the latter event, Dr. Carlo Morpurgo, secretary of the community, remained at work in order not to abandon the elderly patients at the Jewish Pia Casa Gentilomo hospice. He was arrested and deported with them to Auschwitz, where he was murdered on November 4, 1944.

trietsch, davis In March 1944, other Jews recovering in various hospitals throughout the city, including the Regina Elena, the psychiatric hospital, and the hospital for the chronically ill, were seized. After being arrested, the Jews were taken to the Coroneo prison and, after February or March 1944, also to the Risiera di San Sabba, the only concentration camp with a crematorium in Italy. Some Jews arrested in Fiume, Venice, Padua, and Arbe were also sent to the Risiera. From October 1943 to February 1945, about 60 convoys left Trieste, all headed for the concentration camps of Central and Eastern Europe. According to estimates, Jews deported from the Adriatisches Kustenland numbered 1,235, of whom 708 were from Trieste. Of the latter, only 23 returned. Some Jews from Trieste joined the partisans and died in combat. Sergio Forti was killed in battle near Perugia on June 16, 1944; Rita Rosana died near Verona on September 17, 1944, at the age of 22; and Eugenio Curiel, a university teacher, was killed by Fascists in Milan on February 24, 1945, just a few weeks before the liberation. [Adonella Cedarmas (2nd ed.)]

After the war about 1,500 Jews remained in Trieste; by 1965 their number had fallen to 1,052, out of a total of 280,000 inhabitants, partly because of the excess of deaths over births. In 1969 the community, numbering about 1,000, operated a synagogue and a prayer house of the Ashkenazi rite, a school, and a home for the aged. In the early 21st century the Jewish population of Trieste was around 600. [Shlomo Simonsohn / Samuele Rocca (2nd ed.)] Bibliography: Roth, Italy, index; Milano, Italia, index; Milano, Bibliotheca, index; Bachi, in: Israel (Aug. 11–18, 1927); Colbi, ibid. (March 22, 1928); idem, in: RMI 17 (1951), 122–9; Curiel, ibid., 6 (1931/32), 446–72; Volli, ibid., 24 (1958), 206–14; Botteri and Carmiel, in: Trieste…, 6 (1959), May-June issue, 6–16; L. Buda, Vicende e notizie della comunità ebraica triestina nel Settecento (1969); H.D. Friedberg, Ha-Defus ha-Ivri be Italyah (19562), 90. Add. Bibliography: T. Catalan, La comunità ebraica di Trieste (1781–1914), Politica, società e cultura, Quaderni del dipartimento di storia, Università degli studi di Trieste (2000); S.G. Cusin, and P.C. Ioly Zorattini, Friuli Venezia Giulia, Itinerari ebraici, I luoghi, la storia, l’arte (1998), 108–71; L.C., Dubin, The Port Jews of Habsburg Trieste, Absolutist Politics and Enlightenment Culture (1999); M., Stock, Nel segno di Geremia, Storia della comunità israelitica di Trieste dal 1200 (1979); S. Bon, Gli Ebrei a Trieste 1930–1945. Identità, persecuzione, risposte (2000); S.G. Cusin and P.C.I. Zorattini, Friuli Venezia Giulia, Itinerari ebraici (1998).

TRIETSCH, DAVIS (1870–1935), Zionist leader and author. Born in Dresden, Germany, Trietsch was educated in Berlin and subsequently studied migration problems in New York (1893–99). There he conceived (1895) the idea of settling Jews in *Cyprus, but he pursued this notion only after attending the First Zionist Congress (1897). He opposed Theodor *Herzl’s political Zionism, insisting on immediate practical settlement wherever possible in the vicinity of Palestine. He tried in vain to persuade the Zionist Movement to adopt his conception of

146

a “Greater Palestine,” which was to comprise Palestine proper, Cyprus, and *El-Arish. After negotiations with the High Commissioner of Cyprus in 1899, Trietsch brought a group of 11 Boryslaw miners to the island (March 1900). This attempt ended in failure, however, because of inadequate preparation of both the settlers and of the land. He regarded Herzl’s negotiations with the British authorities for a settlement in ElArish (1902–03) as “an acceptance by Herzl of his program without him.” This led to a permanent rupture between the two men (Sixth Zionist Congress, 1903). He subsequently organized the Juedische Orient-Kolonisations-Gesellschaft in Berlin, in whose name he negotiated with the London Colonial Office (1903) concerning a settlement in Cyprus, but was turned down. Trietsch was a delegate to the First Zionist Congress and at many subsequent ones. In 1905 Trietsch opened an Information Office for Immigration in Jaffa, with branches in other cities in Ereẓ Israel, but was unable to maintain it. In 1906 he organized and participated in an expedition to El-Arish to investigate the area for Jewish settlement with a view to reopening negotiations with the British government, but this effort, too, ended in failure. He was a member of the Zionist General Council in 1907–11 and 1920–21. Some of his suggestions regarding practical settlement in Ereẓ Israel were adopted by Zionist Congresses. At first he supported the new leadership consisting of practical Zionists (from 1911 onward), but soon fell out with them and opposed Arthur *Ruppin’s “slow settlement methods.” During World War I he served in the statistical department of the German army, and after 1915 he published a number of officially sponsored pamphlets in which he pleaded for collaboration between Zionism and Germany after the war. At the request of the British government, Arnold J. Toynbee opposed these ideas and pleaded (in Turkey: A Past and A Future, 1917) for cooperation between Zionism and the Allies. After World War I Trietsch fought for his “Zionist maximalism” with still more fervor, believing that a chance for large-scale immigration to Ereẓ Israel was at hand and that the agricultural methods of the Zionist Organization were inadequate to handle it. He suggested planned industrial development of the country in conjunction with numerous small “garden cities” and propagated these ideas at Zionist Congresses and in his periodical Volk und Land (Berlin, 1919). Trietsch was coeditor and cofounder (with Leo Wintz) of Ost und West (Berlin, 1901–02) and with Alfred *Nossig of Palaestina (Berlin, 1902). He propagated his ideas in a great many books, pamphlets, and articles, including PalaestinaHandbuch (1907 and nine subsequent editions), Juedische Emigration und Kolonisation (1917), Palaestina Wirtschaftsatlas (1922), Der Widereintritt der Juden in die Weltgeschichte (1926). Bibliography: O.K. Rabinowicz, in: Herzl Year Book, 4 (1962), 119–206; Juedische Rundschau (Jan. 9, 1930); A. Boehm, Geschichte der zionistischen Bewegung, 1 (1935), 247ff.; 2 (1937), 20–21. [Oskar K. Rabinowicz]

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

trikkala TRIGANO, SHMUEL (1948– ), French sociologist and intellectual, born in Blida, Algeria. A professor of sociology of religion and politics at the Nanterre University Paris X, Trigano’s main purpose was to investigate the enigma of modernity and the nature of Jewish politics. By studying the Jews as agents and subjects of history, he tried to understand why Jews disappeared from the public space in the modern world in the aftermath of the Emancipation and how Jewish politics have been restored in the historical arena with the creation of the State of Israel. He developed his reflections in two directions: an analysis of modernity and an attempt to understand the essence of Jewishness, with regard to the political dimension of the world. Following an hermeneutical method, Trigano developed, from his initial Le Récit de la disparue (1977) to La demeure oubliée, genèse religieuse du politique (1982), Philosophie de la Loi, l’origine de la politique dans la Tora (1992), and La séparation d’amour, une éthique d’alliance (1998), an anthropological approach to Judaism. He published numerous books, which are not only concerned with the Jewish sphere but also with the essence of politics and democracy as such. Assuming that the attitude of democracy towards the Jews is a key to the understanding of its very nature, he postulates that the Jewish question could illustrate the failure of the human rights theory to account for collective identity and to face the question of transcendence, which modernity can not paradoxically avoid despite the phenomenon of secularization and civil religion. Trying to pinpoint the origins of the presence and topicality of Jewishness in the modern world through Jewish history, Trigano conceives the idea of the Jewish State not as a regression to the past but as an invention of a new age. A special part of his work is devoted to French Judaism, considered as an exemplary case of the civil political status of the emancipated Jew. More recently Trigano focused on the new European antisemitism. In Les frontières d’Auschwitz, les ravages du devoir de mémoire (2005), he intended to demonstrate the way Europe expects the Jews to remain in the role of victims, the only recognition allowed to them. He assumes that as soon as they depart from this role, as is the case when they live in a sovereign political state, they are subjected to reprobation. Being one of the main figures in contemporary French Judaism, Trigano was the founding director of the College of Jewish Studies at the *Alliance Israélite Universelle (1986– ) and initiated the periodical Pardès, an European Journal for Jewish Studies and Culture (1985). In 2001, he created a research center devoted to the analysis of contemporary antisemitism. He was a president of the Observatory of the Jewish World. He also was the editor of the 4-volume series La Société juive à travers l’histoire (1992) intended to illustrate the permanence, unity, and continuity of the Jewish people over 30 centuries.

from Russia. As a child, she thought about becoming a doctor, but her father, Alexandre, a tailor, and mother, Cecile, a seamstress, persuaded her to learn dressmaking. She studied at Victor Hugo College, designed her own party dresses, and at 19 married Lazar Radley, a Russian-born tailor. Trigere and her brother, Robert, opened a store in Paris that became known for its smart suits and dresses, but in 1937, the looming Nazi threat forced Trigere and her family to head for New York City. In 1941, she and her husband separated, eventually to divorce. To support her two sons, she took a job as an assistant designer at Hattie *Carnegie for $65 a week. In 1942, with her brother, she opened her own business with an 11-piece collection. Her strength was being able to make dresses in the French style: instead of sketching a garment, she would actually cut the fabric to shape while it was draped on the model, wielding her scissors like a sword. It was a skill she was able to demonstrate for the rest of her life. Trigere was among the first to use common fabrics like cotton and wool in evening wear. She developed a thin wool called Trigeen that she used for 50 years. Her clothes, which combined elegance with practicality, were sold in the finest stores and became popular with such style icons as the Duchess of Windsor and Bette Davis. Trigere became known for her reversible capes and coats, and her jumpsuits, which became a fashion staple in the 1960s. In 1949 she won the first of three Coty Awards and in 1959 was inducted into the Coty Hall of Fame. In 1961 she was among the first major U.S. designers to hire an African-American model for an important runway show. She was honored by the Fashion Institute of Technology in 1992 on the 50t anniversary of her company. A year later, she closed the business, citing increasing retail consolidation as a reason. Its volume had peaked about a decade earlier at some $5 million. More honors followed: a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Council of Fashion Designers of America, induction into the Fashion Industry Walk of Fame and the French Legion of Honor. In 2001, Trigere – then 92 – went into a new business with an online retailer, designing accessories for older people: canes, pill boxes, cases for eyeglasses, and hearing aids. Although her clothes had become collectibles, she had never licensed out her name, something she said she regretted. She was a fiercely independent woman whose individual sense of style was evident not only in the clothes she designed, but in the life she lived. She learned English by sitting through multiple showings of Hollywood movies, collected turtles, practiced yoga, and never hesitated to speak her mind. [Mort Sheinman (2nd ed.)]

TRIGERE, PAULINE (1908–2002), U.S. fashion designer. Trigere was born in Paris to parents who had emigrated there

TRIKKALA (Trikala), city in W. Thessaly, Greece. In the third and fourth centuries, Trikkala was an important Hellenistic city that probably had a Jewish population, but little is known about it. From 1421 to 1451, there were an estimated 387 Jewish families in the area, most of whom were JudeoGreek–speaking *Romaniote Jews. After the Ottomans conquered Constantinople, they began sending Jewish sorgunim (those forcibly exiled) from Trikkala to the capital. In Istanbul,

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

147

[Perrine Simon-Nahum (2nd ed.)]

trikkala the Trikkala Jews formed their own community and in 1540, it had ten family heads who paid the jizya (head tax). In 1545, there were only six family heads listed, and by the 17t century, no more traces of the community. The Kahal Kadosh Yevanim (“Greek Community”) synagogue in Trikkala confirmed the ancientness of the Jewish community, which grew during the 16t century with the arrival of refugees from Hungary, after the Ottoman conquest of Buda, Spain, Portugal, and Sicily. There were also Kahal Kadosh Sephardim and Kahal Kadosh Sicilyanim (Sicilians) synagogues in the town. While the Romaniot Jews absorbed the Iberian Sephardi exiles, eventually the Sephardim achieved communal hegemony. The refugees from Spain introduced the weaving of wool. In 1520–35, there were 1,000 Jews in the city and in the region. The Jews of the city worked in wool production, and in trading wool and hides. The Trikkala Jewish merchants had commercial relations with Larissa and Arta as well as with Venice and Ragusa (Dubrovnik). Though *dhimmis, they enjoyed communal autonomy and toleration from the authorities. In 1497 the community requested from the authorities exemption from the Ispenja tax, claiming that the Jews did not work in agriculture, but commerce and the crafts. Thus, they also were exempt from serving in the Janissary military units. The Jews of Trikala were in contact with the rabbinic authorities of Salonika and Arta. Among the rabbis active in Trikkala in the 16t century were Romaniot rabbi Benjamin b. Rav Shmariya (Papo) of Arta (R. Samuel *Kalai was his student), *Benjamin b. Shmariya (rabbi of the Romaniot kahal), Solomon ben Maior, Menachem b. Moses *Bavli; Menachem b. Shabbetai ha-Rofeh (av bet din), and Eleazar Belgid. In the failed Greek rebellion of 1770, Jews in Trikkala were robbed of their money and property. In the 18t century, the community was served by Rabbi Abraham Amarilio, author of Sefer Berit Avraham (1802). In 1873, the community number 150 families or 600–700 people, with Jews working as tinsmiths, moneychangers, and mainly small fabric merchants. In 1881, Trikkala became part of the Greek sovereign state. In October King George I visited the city, stayed in the home of a local Jewish family, and was well received in a ceremony in the synagogue. In the 1880s, the community was led by Jacob Joseph Sidis, who came in the 1870s from Ioannina and made improvements, including a boys’ choir, hiring of new teachers for the talmud torah, renovation of two of the cities’ three synagogues, and the building of a mikveh. At the end of the 19t century the community rabbi was Simeon Pessah, later of Larissa. Ḥ evrat Yetomot was a philanthropic society that helped poor girls, assisted in education, contributed to the talmud torah, assisted the Bikkur Holim society, and aided, in the religious sphere, Tikkun Hatzot and Amirat Tehilim (recitation of psalms). There were *blood libel accusations in 1893, in 1898 (followed by anti-Jewish riots), and in 1911. At the end of the 19t century there were about 800 Jews in Trikkala. In 1906, 17-year-old Yomtov Yakoel, who became a prominent

Jewish community leader and lawyer in Salonika, founded the Zionist Eretz-Zion movement. Caught in hiding in Athens in 1944, he was deported to Birkenau and died as a crematorium Sonderkommando worker. Thirty-five local Jews fought in the Greek army in the Balkan Wars, two dying and some wounded. In 1912, the wealthy landowner Elias Cohen housed the royal family on a visit to Trikkala. During World War II, as a result of this connection, Princess Alice (Aliki), mother to English Prince Philip, provided shelter for the widow and four sons of Haimaki (Elias’s son), and was recognized as Righteous Among the Nations by Yad Vashem in Israel in the early 1990s. In 1917–19, Judah Matitiya, edited the Greek publication Israel, organ of the Zionist Federation of Trikkala, Larissa, and Volos. Asher *Moissis assisted in its publication. Two large department stores in Trikkala were owned by Jews, and Lazarus Muchtar and Meir Solomon were known as wealthy local Jewish bankers. The Ohavei Tzion Zionist organization’s club had an important function for the youth of the community. In 1925, the community numbered 120 families. The Jews worked in commerce and banking. In the mid-1920s, there was a Jewish theatrical group in Trikkal. In the Assembly of Representatives of the Jewish Communities of Greece in Salonika in 1929, the Jewish community of Trikkala was represented by the young lawyers Asher Moissis and Yomtov Yakoel (both of whom moved to Salonika in the 1930s). On the eve of World War II the number of Jews had decreased to 500. Many local Jews fought in the Greek army against the invading Italians in Albania from October 28, 1940, until April 1940. During Italian military rule from April 1941 to September 1943, the Jews fared relatively well. After the Germans replaced the Italian military occupation in September 1943, Rabbi Kastel led more than 300 community members to the mountains under the protection of the ELAS-EAM leftistleaning resistance movement. The Greek Orthodox clergy also assisted Jews to hide. A few days after the Nazis arrived, the communal leaders, including Abraham Baruch, were invited to the mayor’s office, where the commander said they would not be deported to Poland like Salonikan Jewry and requested that they persuade the Jews who had fled to return, promising matzot for Passover, sugar, and travel permits to other cities, but the Jews did not agree. During the Nazi persecutions the majority of the Jews escaped to the region controlled by the Greek partisans. On March 23, 1944, the Germans spread false rumors that the partisans had killed a German commander and called a general curfew for the city. A Greek-Orthodox townsman, Alexander Tchatjigakis, warned the Jewish community that they would be deported to Poland the next day, so many Jews fled. The next day, early in the morning, remaining Jews were arrested; mostly the elderly, women, children, and a few people who returned to the city from hiding. Some 50 Jews were deported to extermination camps. In October the city was liberated from the Nazis. The Sephardi and Sicilian

148

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

trilling, lionel synagogues were destroyed and the Romaniot synagogue was burned, but renovated after the war. In 1946, the Jewish community numbered 73 families (267 people – of whom 65 were children (32 orphans) and 12 widows) as opposed to 492 people before the war. Twenty stores and 23 houses were returned to the Jews as well as the school and the damaged synagogue; which was in need of repair. The cemetery was in ruins and it took three years to refurbish it. Jews began to leave for Athens, Israel, and the United States. Trikkalan Jewish youth were among the founders of moshav Neveh Yemin in Israel in 1949. In 1954 the synagogue was damaged and repaired two years later with the financial help of Judah Perahia of Xanthi. In 1958 there were 123 Jews in the city and by 1967 they numbered 101. In the 1970s and 1980s, Ovadiah Sabbas was community president and local WIZO leader Betty Haleva was community vice president. The Jews worked in the textile and clothing trade, and two prominent local Jewish families were Yesulas and Kabellis. The religious leader of the community was Moses Ganis and later Rabbi Eli Shabbetai. In the synagogue, there is a memorial tablet for the local Jewish Holocaust victims and the Jewish cemetery is situated on both sides of the interurban highway, which crosses the city. The cemetery was desecrated in neo-Nazi activities in the early 2000s. The city also has a Holocaust memorial statue. Bibliography: Mosè, 7 (1884), 196; M. Molho and J. Nehama, In Memoriam, Hommage aux victimes juives des Nazis en Grèce, 2 (1949), 61, 156, 164; B. Rivlin, and L. Bornstein-Makovetski, “Trikkala,” in: Pinkas ha-Kehillot Yavan (1999), 125–31; Y. Kerem, The History of the Jews in Greece, 1821–1940, Pt. 1 (1985), 197–214; D. Benveniste, Jewish Communities of Greece, Notes and Impressions (Heb., 1979), 66–69. [Simon Marcus / Yitzchak Kerem (2nd ed.)]

TRILLIN, CALVIN (1935– ), U.S. journalist, humorist, and novelist. Trillin, who was born in Kansas City, Mo., went to Yale University, where he was chairman of the Yale Daily News. After a stint in the U.S. Army, he worked as a reporter for Time magazine before joining the staff of the New Yorker in 1963, and from 1967 to 1982 he produced a series of articles called “U.S. Journal,” 3,000-word articles every three weeks from somewhere in the United States on subjects that ranged from the murder of a farmer’s wife in Iowa to the author’s effort to write the definitive history of a Louisiana restaurant. Trillin’s reporting for the New Yorker on the racial integration of the University of Georgia was published in his first book, An Education in Georgia (1964). From 1978 through 1985, Trillin wrote a humor column for The Nation called “Uncivil Liberties.” From 1986 he produced a nationally syndicated column under the same name. He won acclaim in remarkably diverse fields of writing, writing about his family; about his adventures in eating (American Fried: Adventures of a Happy Eater, 1974); Barnett Frummer is an Unbloomed Flower (1969), short stories about trendiness in the 1960s; Runestruck (1977), a novel about a small town after the discovery of what could be a Viking artifact; Killings (1984), New Yorker articles on sudden ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

death; Travels with Alice (1989), a book about traveling with his wife, mostly in Europe and the Caribbean; and Deadline Poet: My Life as a Doggerelist (1994). He also wrote and performed two one-man shows, Calvin Trillin’s Uncle Sam (1988) and Words, No Music (1990). The most autobiographical of his books is Messages from My Father (1996), a memoir in which he discusses his father’s fluency in Yiddish and the experience of growing up Jewish in the Protestant Midwest. [Stewart Kampel (2nd ed.)]

TRILLING, DIANA (1905–1996), U.S. literary critic. Born in New York to Polish immigrants, Diana Rubin graduated from Radcliffe College. In 1927 she met Lionel *Trilling, a graduate student in literature at Columbia who was to become one of the foremost literary critics and teachers in the United States. They married in 1929. “With marriage I had entered Lionel’s world,” she wrote. “It was with his friends that I chiefly associated. They were not easy companions, these intellectuals. They were overbearing and arrogant, excessively competitive; they lacked magnanimity and often they lacked common courtesy. Ours was a cruelly judgmental society, often malicious and riddled with envy.” These intellectuals included Alfred *Kazin, Irving *Howe, Philip *Rahv, Sidney *Hook, Delmore *Schwartz, Dwight McDonald, Hannah *Arendt, Saul *Bellow, Mary McCarthy, Clement *Greenberg, Irving Kristol, and others who helped set the intellectual agenda of the United States in the 1940s and 1950s. Diana Trilling began writing in 1941 and continued into her 90t year, despite failing eyesight, composing a 75-page article on a Welsh literary figure for The New Yorker. At one point, as a critic for The Nation, she read a novel a day for six and a half years, delivering challenging reviews on some of the most important works of the modern era: Evelyn Waugh’s Brideshead Revisited, Robert Penn Warren’s All the King’s Men, Jean-Paul Sartre’s Age of Reason, and George Orwell’s 1984. No novels, volumes of poetry, or short fiction bore her name, but among her writing credits were five books: three collections of essays and reviews, an impressionistic piece of journalism, Mrs. Harris: The Death of the Scarsdale Diet Doctor (1981), and The Beginning of the Journey (1984), a memoir. Her work appeared in leading magazines, including The Atlantic, Harper’s, The Saturday Review, and The Partisan Review, to which she contributed essays. In 1975 Lionel Trilling died, and in the years that followed she worked to assure his legacy, editing a 12-volume uniform edition of his work. She also published two collections of her criticism, Reviewing the Forties and We Must My Darlings (1977). [Stewart Kampel (2nd ed.)]

TRILLING, LIONEL (1905–1975), U.S. author, critic, and public intellectual. Born in New York City, Trilling attended Columbia University and then began teaching there. He eventually was appointed as the first Jewish assistant professor of English at Columbia University in 1939, receiving full professorship in 1948. Trilling was part of a group of largely Jewish New York intellectuals who dominated American culture and

149

triolet, elsa letters in the 1940s and 1950s. He brought a nearly religious devotion to his study of literature and thought, and through his writings revived interest in many neglected authors and works. He was praised for his erudition, the elegance, clarity, and care of his prose, and his high moral thoughtfulness. He was particularly interested in the Victorian poet Matthew Arnold, whose works he examined using the methods of modern psychology. His first published book, Matthew Arnold (1939), gave new insight into Arnold’s character. The same critical methods were evident in E.M. Forster (1943), The Liberal Imagination (1950), The Opposing Self (1955), A Gathering of Fugitives (1956), Beyond Culture: Essays on Learning and Literature (1965), and Sincerity and Authenticity (1972). Trilling’s books and his essays in various journals and reviews were highly influential in intellectual circles, with his most influential book being The Liberal Imagination, an attempt to complicate and redeem liberalism with the addition of the imagination, ethical stoicism, and new-found ironies. His work also includes several short stories and a novel, The Middle of the Journey (1947), which introduced themes found in his criticism. He edited The Portable Matthew Arnold (1949) and The Selected Letters of John Keats (1951), and wrote Freud and the Crisis of Our Culture (1955). He often returned to studies involving Freud, and later co-edited with Steven Marcus The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud (1961). Trilling did not often deal with Jewish subjects in an overt manner, and many other Jewish American scholars of the period, including Irving Howe and Alfred Kazin, believed that he was uncomfortable with his Jewish origins. However, early in his career, in the 1920s, Trilling wrote short stories focused on Jewish American identity for the humanist Menorah Journal, and he continued to write on Jewish writers and Jewish themes throughout his career. In “Wordsworth and the Rabbis” (1955), he explored what he saw as a common quality in Wordsworth’s thought and Rabbinic Judaism: namely, devotion to a divine object – Nature for Wordsworth and Torah for the rabbis. In an essay on the Russian-Jewish writer Isaac *Babel (in the introduction to Babel’s Collected Stories, 1961), he observed that Babel, the Jew who wrote about a Jew among the Cossacks, was painfully aware of the dialectic of Cossack and Jew, body and mind, society and self. Trilling was also interested in the problems of antisemitism facing American Jews, but only as far as these problems worked to exclude Jews from public life. He also served at Columbia as a supportive mentor to numerous important Jewish writers, including Allen *Ginsberg, John *Hollander, Steven Marcus, and Norman *Podhoretz. Trilling’s wife, the literary critic Diana (Rubin) *Trilling (1905–1996), wrote Claremont Essays (1964) and edited works by D.H. Lawrence. She headed the American Committee for Cultural Freedom (1955–57). Bibliography: H.R. Warfel, American Novelists of Today (1951), 430; D. Daiches, in: Commentary, 24 (1957), 66–69; S.J. Kunitz (ed.), Twentieth Century Authors, first supplement (1955). Add. Bibliography: J. Rodden (ed.), Lionel Trilling and the Critics (1999). [Irving Malin / Craig Svonkin (2nd ed.)]

150

TRIOLET (Blick), ELSA (1903–1970), French novelist. Born in Moscow, and a student of Maxim Gorki, Elsa Triolet first wrote in Russian. She settled in France, where she married the French poet Louis Aragon whose poems, Les yeux d’Elsa (1943) and Elsa (1959), she inspired. Her first book in French, Bonsoir Therésè (1938), revealed her narrative and stylistic gifts. Her novels Mille regrets (1942), Le cheval blanc (1943; The White Charger, 1946), and Le premier accroc coûte deux cents francs (1945; A Fine of 200 Francs, 1947, a winner of the Prix Goncourt), combined social and political concern with inventiveness, wit, and charm. Elsa Triolet’s chronicle of the Resistance, Les Amants d’Avignon (1943), deals with serious, even somber, subjects with an unusual lightness. Her communist ideology is felt more strongly in L’Inspecteur des Ruines (1948; The Inspector of Ruins, 1953), Le Cheval Roux (1953), and Le Rendezvous des étrangers (1956). However, in Le Monument (1957), the balance between social ideology and aesthetic approach was restored. In the trilogy, L’Age de nylon (Roses à crédit, 1959; Luna-Park, 1959; and L’Ame, 1963), Elsa Triolet revealed new breadth and power. Le Grand Jamais (1965), a meditation on death, displays considerable depth and richness of technique. She never lost touch with Russian literature, translated many of Chekhov’s plays, and in 1939 published a study of the poet Vladimir Mayakovski, who was her brother-in-law. Bibliography: J.P. Madaule, Ce que dit Elsa (1960). [Denise R. Goitein]

TRIPOLI, port in N. *Lebanon (Ar. Tarabulus al-Sham; called in Hebrew sources Sinim, on the basis of Gen. 10:17). From the seventh century there was a Jewish community in the town, although it never was large. At the beginning of the Arab conquest, Muʿāwiya, the *Umayyad governor of *Syria, established a garrison of Jewish troops in the harbor fortress to guard it against Byzantine attacks. At the beginning of the 11t century – after Syria came under *Fatimid rule – the caliph al-Ḥ ākim imposed severe restrictions on non-Muslim communities; as a result the Tripoli synagogue was turned into a mosque and several Jewish houses were destroyed. When the decrees were abolished, the Jews asked for the return of the synagogue; the Tripoli Muslims, unlike those in other towns, refused their demand, claiming that the place had already become a Muslim sanctuary. The Jews in turn asked for a royal permit to build a new synagogue. A document from the community, dated 1079, and which is signed and witnessed by the local bet din, has been preserved. There were Jews from Tripoli who immigrated to *Egypt in the Arab period. During the First Crusade, R. *Abiathar b. Elijah Ha-Kohen, the Ereẓ Israel rosh yeshivah, took refuge in Tripoli and sent a letter from there. After its conquest by the crusaders in 1109, Tripoli became the capital of an independent principality, but remained a busy port and industrial center. The Jewish community continued its existence throughout the period of crusader rule. *Benjamin of Tudela, the 12t-century traveler, reported that there were many Tripoli Jews among the victims of the earthENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

tripoli quakes that struck Syria in the middle of the 12t century. In 1289 the town was captured by the *Mamluks, who razed it and built a new town on a nearby hill and at its base. The Jewish community reestablished itself on the new site. During Mamluk rule there were *Karaites and Samaritans in the town, in addition to the Rabbanite Jews. In a letter written in 1489 R. Obadiah of Bertinoro reports that there were 100 Jewish families living in Tripoli at the time, but this figure seems exaggerated. At the end of the 15t century the Spanish scribe Abraham ha-Sefaradi lived in the city. In the 16t century Sephardi Jews came to settle in Tripoli and some became wealthy merchants. According to R. Moses Basola there were 100 Jewish households (400 people) in Tripoli in 1521, some of which were Musta‘arabs and the others immigrants from *Spain and Sicily. The Jews owned shops and many of them were merchants and workmen. They had one synagogue. Tripoli rabbis are mentioned in the responsa dating from this period. In mid-16t century Isaac Mishan was the rabbi of the town and was followed by R. Samuel ha-Kohen and by the latter’s son, R. Joseph ha-Kohen, who officiated until 1590. At the beginning of the 17t century Tripoli Jews suffered from the oppressive rule of Yūsufoglu Seyf Pasha and many left. A small community remained and is mentioned in the diary of a Hebron emissary who visited the town in 1675. The community went into a further decline during the 19t century due to the economic decline of the city and the emigration from Tripoli of many local Jews heading for *Beirut, *Aleppo, and other cities. In 1824 the traveler David D’Beth Hillel visited the city and found there 15 Jewish families who had a little synagogue. Yehoseph Schwarz noted 112 Jewish families in Tripoli. In 1843 there were only 11 Jewish families in the city, numbering 50 people. The head of the community at that time was Isaac, an oil merchant. The majority of the Jews were poor. Eliezer L. Frenkel visited the city in 1856 and found 17 families (80 people) there. The older graves survived 400 years. The Jews of Tripoli spoke Arabic. The community had no talmud torah. There were a few merchants who participated in international trade. On the eve of World War II only four Jewish families were left.

TRIPOLI, port city of *Libya. Tripoli was built by the Phoenicians in the seventh century B.C.E. They called the town Wiat (Latin Oea). Together with its two neighbors, Sabratha

and Leptis (Homs), the town was included in the Greek designation Tripolis (i.e., three towns); they all paid tribute to Carthage. There is little information available on the Jews of Tripoli during the Roman and Byzantine periods. A Roman road map from the fourth century indicates a Jewish locality named Scina (or Iscina) Locus Judaeorum Augusti (“Scina, locality of Jews belonging to the emperor”) in the vicinity of Oea. They were probably captives. Converts from Libya are mentioned at the end of the fourth century (TJ, Kil. 8:3). There was also a Jewish community in Oea during the fifth century. The sources for the Arab period are also very scarce. During the second half of the 11t century, there was a bet din in Tripoli which was independent of the Palestinian one. The Jewish community suffered greatly under the rules of *Spain and the Knights of Malta (1510–51), but prospered again with the Ottoman conquest (1551) when many Jews from the small rural communities settled in Tripoli. It seems that at the end of the 16t century descendants of the Spanish Jews expelled from Christian Europe settled in Tripoli; during the 17t century they were joined by Jews from *Leghorn (Livorno, referred to as Gornim) most of whom were merchants of Sephardi origin. During the reign of the Turkish Qaramanlī dynasty (1711–1835), Tripoli became a haven for Jewish refugees from *Tunis (1756) and *Algiers (1805). Jews played an important role in the Trans-Saharan trade with Europe and the African continent, while others held diplomatic and consular positions. In 1705 and 1793 the Jews of Tripoli were saved from the danger of extermination by foreign invaders and two local Purim days were fixed to commemorate these events: Purim ash-Sharif on 23 Tevet and Purim Burgul on 29 Tevet, respectively. In 1835, when Tripoli once more came under the direct rule of the *Ottoman Empire, there was a further improvement in the social and legal status of the community. The kingdom of *Italy – from its establishment in 1861 – attempted to wield its influence in Tripoli, especially among the Jews, many of whose big traders had strong economic and social ties with Italy. The community was divided between the traditionalist conservatives, who generally supported the Muslim authorities, and those who favored European culture and consequently Italy. The Italian influence increased during the period of Italian rule (1911–43), when the Jews enjoyed complete emancipation except for the World War II period. They engaged in the crafts and commerce as builders, carpenters, blacksmiths, tailors, cobblers, and wholesale and retail merchants. The gold- and silversmith crafts, as well as the textile trade, were entirely controlled by the Jews. In 1943 the Jews of Tripoli numbered about 15,000 (for the World War II period, see *Libya). In November 4, 1945, riots broke out with the Arabs attacking their Jewish neighbors while the British authorities were slow to intervene. During these riots 120 Jews were murdered in Tripoli and its vicinity, hundreds were injured, and a great deal of property was looted. As a result of these events, a secret Jewish defense organization was formed

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

151

Add. Bibliography: E.L. Frenkel, Yerushalayma (1860), 142–146; Rosanes, Togarmah, 2 (1937–382), 145f.; Ashtor, Toledot, 1 (1944), 274–5; 2 (1951), 121, 427, 445. add. bibliography: A. Yaari, Masot Ereẓ Israel, 527; B. Dinur, Israel ba-Golah, 1:104, 199, 274, 298, 331; 2:337, 427, 428, 441, 448, 463, 525; S.D. Goitein, Ha-Yishuv be-Ereẓ Israel be-Reshit ha-Islam u-va-Tekufah ha-Ẓ albanit (1980), 278–284, 302; M. Rozen, in: Pe’amim, 14 (1982), 32–44; M. Gil, Ereẓ Israel ba–Tekufah ha-Muslemit ha-Rishonah (634–1097), 1–3 (1983), index; N. Shor, in: Pe’amim, 24 (1985), 117, 136–38; I. Abramsky-Blei, in: Pe’amim, 28 (1987), 131–57; H. Gerber, Yehudei ha-Imperiyah haOtmanit ba-Me’ot ha-Shesh-Esrie ve-ha-Sheva-Esrei: Ḥ evrah ve-Kalkalah, 172; E. Bareket, Shafrir Miẓ rayim (1995), 17, 154. [Eliyahu Astor / Leah Bornstein-Makovetsky (2nd ed.)]

tristram, henry baker with covert help from Palestine and small arms were acquired. When riots again occurred in June 1948, there were some Jewish victims, but the Jews were ready, fought back, and killed many of their attackers. Religious and Communal Life The community of Tripoli held the exclusive leadership over the Jews of the country. From the middle of the 18t century the presidents of the community represented Libyan Jewry before the government and were empowered to inflict corporal punishment and imprisonment. During the second period of direct Ottoman rule (1835–1911), these presidents attended the council meetings of the governor. The revival of Jewish learning and the establishment of community takkanot (regulations) are attributed to R. Simeon *Labi (mid-16t century). In 1663 Abraham Miguel *Cardozo, who was later one of the leaders of the Shabbatean movement, settled in Tripoli. From the middle of the 18t century several dayyanim and prominent ḥ akhamim of Tripoli came from *Turkey and *Palestine, returning home after a period of office in Tripoli. In 1749 R. Mas’ūd Hai Rakah, an emissary from Jerusalem, arrived in Tripoli. He was joined by his sonin-law R. Nathan Adadi, who was born in Palestine and returned there in his old age. His grandson, Abraham Ḥ ayyim Adadi, settled in Tripoli after the earthquake in *Safed in 1837 and accomplished a great deal as dayyan and ḥ akham of the community. He also retired to Safed in his old age. After his death, the Ottoman government in Istanbul appointed Elijah Ḥ azzan as ḥ akham bashi (chief rabbi) (1874–88) by royal firman (order). The latter was also the representative of Tripolitanian Jewry before the government. The Italian government at first continued this tradition and appointed R. Elia Samuele *Artom to this position (1920–23). Jews lived in two exclusively Jewish neighborhoods within the walled old city of Tripoli, though many carried out their business in trade in specific streets in the Muslim parts of town. With the establishment of new neighborhoods outside the walled city, wealthier Jews moved there and lived in mixed neighborhoods with Italians and Muslim Arabs.

committee’s incomes derived from the gabelle (Qābilah), a tax on kosher meat, the sale of unleavened bread, and from community dues. In 1916 the Zionist organization gained 11 out of 31 seats in the committee. Due to internal conflicts, the Italian authorities dispersed the committee in 1929 and appointed an Italian non-Jewish official to administer the affairs of the community. Only 700 paid dues in 1948, their number having fallen from 2,300 in 1944. Spiritual affairs were conducted by the chief rabbi, who also headed the rabbinical court of three members. The first European school in Tripoli was established in 1876 by Italian Jews in response to the local initiative of Jews with economic contacts with Italy. This was followed by a school run by the Paris-based *Alliance Israélite Universelle in 1890. The latter was attended by 70 pupils in 1949 with the number of pupils rising to 601 in 1951, but after the mass immigration to Israel, enrollment fell to 129 in 1953 and to 38 in 1960 when the Alliance school closed down. In addition, in 1950 the town possessed a talmud torah, with 371 pupils, a Youth Aliyah school with 68 pupils, and a school with 300 children of Jews who had moved from villages to Tripoli. A total of 1,800 Jewish children attended Italian schools. Emigration reduced the number of synagogues from 30 in 1948 to seven in 1951. The branch of the Maccabi Zionist sports and culture organization, which functioned in Tripoli from 1920, was closed in December 1953, as was the bureau of the Jewish Agency for Israel in January 1953, after having functioned there for four years. For further information, see *Libya. [Haim J. Cohen / Rachel Simon (2nd ed.)] Bibliography: Scholem, in: Zion, 19 (1954), 1–22; Yahadut Luv (1960); Hirschberg, Afrikah, index; Attal, in: Sefunot, 9 (1964), 398 (index); H. Goldberg, in: JJSO, 9 (1967), 209–25. For additional bibliography, see *Libya.

Contemporary Period Approximately 20,000 Jews lived in Tripoli in 1948. Following mass immigration to Israel in 1949–52, only 6,228 Jews remained, comprising 3 of the town’s population of 198,000, according to the 1962 census. The majority of the Jews who remained after 1962 were wealthy merchants who were closely connected with Italy and spent part of the year there. After the riots that occurred in Tripoli during the Six-Day War in 1967 (see *Libya), most of the Jews immigrated to Italy and some to Israel. In 1970 there were only several dozen Jews living in the town and none by the end of the century. The Tripoli community was headed by a committee, whose subcommittees provided services such as aid for paupers and dowries for brides (to help poor girls marry). The

°TRISTRAM, HENRY BAKER (1822–1906), Anglican theologian, archaeologist, and naturalist whose work dealt with Palestine. Born in Eglingham, Northumberland, England, and educated at Oxford, Tristram became an Anglican vicar. He served as secretary and army and navy chaplain to the governor of Bermuda (1847–49), rector of Castle Eden near Durham (1849–60), vicar in Greatham (1860–74), and resident canon at Durham Cathedral. Delicate health forced him to spend winters in warmer climates such as North Africa, the Sahara, and the Far East. He visited Palestine several times from 1861 onward. In 1879 Tristram was offered by Disraeli the Anglican Bishopric of Jerusalem but declined. During his visits to Palestine he inspected missionary establishments and at the same time carried on geological, botanical, and zoological research, which earned him the title of “father of the nature study of Palestine.” Apart from numerous articles in periodicals, Tristram’s published work concerned with Palestine included The Land of Israel, a Journal of Travels with Reference to Its Physical History (1865, and many editions), Natural History of the Bible (1867), Land of Moab (1874), Pathways of Palestine (1882),

152

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

[Haïm Z’ew Hirschberg / Rachel Simon (2nd ed.)]

trnava Fauna and Flora of Palestine (1884), and Eastern Customs in Bible Lands (1894). Add. Bibliography: ODNB online; Y. Ben-Arieh, The Rediscovery of the Holy Land in the Nineteenth Century (1979). [Aviva Rabinovich]

°TRITHEMIUS, JOHANNES (Johann Heidenberg of Tritheim; 1462–1516), German churchman, scholar, and alchemist. Born in Trittenheim, he entered the Benedictine order in 1482 and became abbot of Sponheim three years later. Trithemius, who endeavored to reform the monastic system and to promote the “new learning,” established a famous library at Sponheim containing manuscripts in five languages, mainly Hebrew and Greek. It was visited by many of the leading scholars of the age, notably Johann *Reuchlin (1496). Trithemius published several works, such as a Catalogus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum (1494) and De viris illustribus Germaniae (1495), but is best remembered for two celebrated works on magic, Polygraphia (1507) and Chronologica mystica (1508). Though no Hebraist, the abbot dealt in these books with subjects such as numerology, planetary influences, and the Kabbalah. He immersed himself in alchemy and occult sciences and was eventually condemned and deposed from office. An opponent of the Inquisition, in 1510 he defended the Jews against charges of profaning the Host and of ritual murder (see *Blood Libel). Trithemius greatly influenced the astrologer and alchemist Henry Cornelius Agrippa (1486–1535), who wrote a controversial defense of magic, De Occulta Philosophia (Cologne, 1531; Three Books of Occult Philosophy, London, 1651), the last part of which drew on Reuchlin and the Kabbalah. Both Trithemius and Agrippa further influenced the celebrated philosopher and alchemist Paracelsus (Theophrastus Bombastus ab Hohenheim, 1493–1541). The careers of Trithemius and his two disciples became fused in popular imagination to produce the tragic figure of the legendary magician Faust. Bibliography: R.W. Seton-Watson (ed.), Tudor Studies Presented to A.F. Pollard (1924), 79; M. Pachter, Paracelsus: Magic into Science (1951), index; F. Secret, Les kabbalistes chrétiens de la Renaissance (1964), 157ff.; J. Silbernagel, Johannes Trithemius (1967). Add. Bibliography: N.L. Brann, The Abbot Trithemius (1981); W. Vogt, in: Ebernburghefte, 20 (1986), 7–20; E. Hellgardt: in: Sprache, Literatur, Kultur (1989), 355–75; R. Auenheimer (ed.), Johannes Trithemius: Humanismus und Magie… (1991); N.L. Brann, Trithemius and Magical Theology… (1999). [Godfrey Edmond Silverman]

°TRIVETH (Trevet), NICHOLAS (Trivetus; 1257/65–1334 or after), English theologian and historian. A Dominican preacher, Triveth taught at Oxford University and is best known for his English chronicle work, Annales sex Regum Angliae, covering the years 1136–1307 (published in Oxford, 1719). He also wrote a commentary on St. Augustine’s De Civitate Dei (c. 1468–73). Many of his theological writings, manuscripts of which are in various Oxford and Cambridge libraries, reveal Triveth’s extensive knowledge of Hebrew and rabbinic literature. Outstanding among these is his commentary on Jerome’s translation of the Psalms (In Psalterium, written 1317–20; Bodleian, Oxford). Triveth, a pioneer English Hebraist and the first recorded student of *Maimonides in England, often quotes the Guide of the Perplexed. His commentary was used by another medieval English Hebraist, Henry of Cossey, who was Triveth’s contemporary at Cambridge. Other works by Triveth include De Computo Hebraeorum, and commentaries on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and other books of the Old Testament. He lived on the Continent from about 1300 until 1314. Bibliography: R. Loewe, in: V.D. Lipman (ed.), Three Centuries of Anglo-Jewish History (1961), 136ff.; idem, in: J.M. Shaftesley (ed.), Remember the Days. Essays… Presented to Cecil Roth (1966), 28ff.; B. Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (19522), 400. Add. Bibliography: ODNB online.

TRIWOSCH, JOSEPH ELIJAH (1855–1940), Hebrew writer and biblical commentator. Born in Vilna, Triwosch grew up in its Haskalah atmosphere. He first published poems and short stories – which were among the earliest Hebrew modern fiction – in Ha-Levanon (1873). His story “Ha-Lita’i” (in: Ha-Shaḥ ar, 10 (1880)) and especially his book Dor Tahpukhot (1881) made a great impression. His stories “Din ve-Ḥ eshbon” (1895) and “Pesi’ot Ketannot” (1904) appeared separately. In addition to his stories he also published over the years articles and feuilletons, mainly in Ha-Zeman. After World War I, Triwosch taught at the Hebrew secondary school of Vilna. In his last years, he also engaged in biblical and philological research. His translations into Hebrew include many works of world literature, among them Tolstoy’s War and Peace (1921– 24) and Anna Karenina (1918–22). He wrote the major part of the commentary, as well as the introductions, to the individual books of Mikra Meforash (1909, and after), a project of biblical exegesis, which he edited together with N. Lewin, D. Lewin, and D. Nottick. Triwosch also published an anthology of medieval Hebrew literature (1925) together with M.Y. Nadel.

TRIVALE, ION (originally Iosef Netzler; 1889–1917), Romanian literary critic. His Cronici literare (1915) and Vina Raˇzboiuliu de Azi (“War Guilt of Our Days,” 1915) were outstanding works of criticism hailed by the leading pundits. Trivale also published a volume of translations from Mark Twain. His death in action during World War I robbed Romania of one of its most promising critical essayists.

Bibliography: Kressel, Leksikon, 2 (1967), 34–35; Zeitlin, Bibliotheca, 398. [Getzel Kressel]

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

153

TRNAVA (Hung. Nagyszombat; Ger. Tyrnau), city in Slovakia. There were Jews in Trnava from the 14t, perhaps even the 12t century, making it one of the oldest Jewish communities

troki in ancient Hungary. Economic life was organized in guilds, which would not accept Jews. Fierce competition developed between the guild members and the Jews. Adverse relations prevailed in wine production and trade as well. The local vineyard owners wanted a monopoly to dictate prices; but the Jews imported wine, reduced the price, and thus evoked hostility (1471–86). In the second half of the 14t century, Rabbi Eisig (Isac) Tyrnau officiated. He wrote the Sidur ha-Minhagim, a manual of Sabbath prayers used for centuries by Slovak, Czech, Hungarian, and Austrian Jews. In the late 15t century, the burghers established a ghetto, locking the Jews in and depriving them of free movement. In 1539 a *blood libel was invented, and several Jews were executed. Hapsburg King Ferdinand ordered all Jews expelled. Jews were prohibited from staying in or even passing through Trnava. Only the few Jewish students of the local university could stay in the town. In 1717, under royal insistence, Jews were allowed to pass through the city. Emperor Joseph II permitted the family of Joseph Loeb Wolf to live in the city; they were later joined by three other families. Encountering great hostility, they sometimes had to be protected by the military. In 1801 Wolf appealed to the court in Vienna to be allotted land for a cemetery. From that date, the ḥ evra kaddisha was established in Trnava. In 1790 there were 78 Jews in the town. Until 1855, the community was under the jurisdiction of the nearby congregation Cifer, where Rabbi Simeon Sidon (1815–1891) resided. In 1855 he moved to Trnava. In 1814 a synagogue was erected. In 1855 the first Jewish school was installed. In 1848 a wave of plundering of Jewish property swept the city. Several neighboring communities joined the Trnava congregation. The Jewish school expanded in 1864. The next year, the community numbered 524. It was recognized by local and state authorities, which supervised its administration. After the 1868 Congress of Hungarian Jewry, the congregation chose the *status quo ante trend, refusing to join either the Orthodox or the Reform. In 1891 it erected an impressive synagogue and owned a mikveh. That year, Rabbi Sidon died. Five years later, Rabbi Mayer Maximilian Stein assumed the position, holding it until 1934. Among his achievements, he compiled a book about Hungarian rabbis. In 1881, part of the congregation split and established an Orthodox congregation. It established its own school, mikveh, and synagogue (1914). It founded a renowned yeshivah, under the leadership or Rabbi David Unger (1885–1944). In 1930 it moved to Nitra. In 1918 the Czechoslovak Republic was founded. In its first month, the new state saw a wave of violence. The population looted the property of the wealthy and the followers of the previous regime. But the main target was Jewish property of both the rich and poor. In the 19t century, Jews were deeply engaged in the economic life of the city, and Jewish entrepreneurs established or advanced several branches of industry, such as breweries,

sugar refineries, and confectionaries, providing employment for hundreds; their products were sold at home and abroad. Textile mills and ironworks also provided jobs. Jewish physicians and lawyers were part of the expanding middle class, which turned Trnava into a modern town. The Zionist movement had deep roots in the community. Samuel Diamant participated in the First Zionist Congress in Basel in 1897; the following year he and friends founded Beit Yaakov. The Jewish party, supported by the Zionists, played an important role in public and municipal life. Both congregations developed social and philanthropic organizations; cultural activity was promoted by many clubs and organizations. In 1830 there were 84 Jews in the city. In 1850 the Jewish population grew to 200; in 1880 there were 1,325 Jews. In 1904 they numbered 1,715; in 1910 there were 2,126. In 1930 there were 2,728. Trnava was one of the Slovak centers of antisemitism. The first antisemitic party in Slovakia, the White Brotherhood (Biel Bratstvo), was founded there; it published “*Streicher-type” literature. The vicious antisemitism of this small organization influenced the Slovak storm troopers, the Rodobrana, and the Hlinka Guard. In December 1938, the status quo synagogue was torched by the mob. Trnava was one of the first Slovak cities to deport Jews to extermination camps in Poland in 1942. In 1941 the Jewish population was augmented by hundreds of Jews expelled from Bratislava. The first transport to leave Slovakia departed from Trnava on April 12, 1942. Altogether, some 2,500 Jews were deported from Trnava. In 1947 there were 336 Jews in Trnava. After the war, the status quo synagogue was made into a memorial for the murdered Trnava Jews. During the Communist regime, the memorial was destroyed. The synagogue was reconstructed and is used by the local art museum for exhibits. Most of the surviving Jews emigrated after returning to Slovakia. After 1989, some 15 Jews lived in Trnava.

154

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

Bibliography: Der Israelit, 5 (1864), 228f., 244, 310, 339; S. Kohn, A zsidók története Magyarországon (1884), index, S.V. Nagyszombat; J. Bergel (Bergl), Geschichte der ungarischen Juden (1879), 52; MHJ, passim; Magyar Zsidó Lexikon (1929), S.V. Nagyszombat; R. Iltis (ed.), Die aussaeen unter Traenen… (1959), 199–205; E. BárkányL. Dojc, Zidovské nábozenské obce na Slovensku (1991); Dejiny Trnavy (1989). [Yeshayahu Jelinek (2nd ed.)]

TROKI (Lith. Trakai; Ger. Traken), city in S.E. Lithuania; annexed to Russia after the third partition of Poland (1795), under Polish rule from 1922 to 1939. Troki is known as the site of an extended struggle between *Karaites and *Rabbanite Jews. It was the most ancient and important of the Karaite communities in the kingdom of *Poland-Lithuania, having apparently been founded by Karaites brought from the Crimea by the Grand Duke of Lithuania, Witold (Vitovt). In 1388 Witold gave the Troki Karaites a charter of rights (in which they

troki, isaac ben abraham were called Jews) which assured them the status of freemen, commercial and professional freedom, religious liberty, and the right to their own jurisdiction. These privileges were confirmed and even extended by the Lithuanian dukes and Polish kings of the 15t to 17t centuries. In 1441 Casimir IV (see *Poland) granted the status of a city with *Magdeburg rights to that half of Troki occupied by the Karaites, under a special judge who was to deal with their internecine quarrels. After 1625 some Rabbanite families settled in Troki and engaged in trade, but in 1646 the Karaites obtained from Ladislaus IV an order banning those Jews from living in Troki and competing with the Karaites in commerce. The Karaites of Troki, who up to recent times spoke a peculiar Tatar dialect, were comfortably situated, some of them becoming very wealthy. Although they were expelled along with the Jews of Lithuania in 1495, they resettled after the decree was canceled in 1503. They cooperated on many occasions with the Rabbanite communities in matters of taxes and confirmation of privileges, and lent Troki charters of rights to those communities for purposes of intercession with the authorities. The representatives of Troki were the acknowledged leaders at the councils of all the Lithuanian Karaites. The regulations of the all-Lithuanian Karaite Council, which met in Troki in 1553, were handed over to the heads of the Rabbanite communities for their approval in 1568, when the latter assembled at *Grodno. In 1579 the Karaite community of Troki was called on to join the discussions of the organization of Lithuanian Jewish communities concerning taxation; during the activity of the Council of Lithuania (see *Councils of the Lands), Troki paid the royal taxes through the Council. Up to the *Chmielnicki massacres of 1648 good relations obtained between the Karaites of Troki and the communities of Lithuania. Among the learned Karaites of Troki in the 15t and 16t centuries were Isaac b. Abraham *Troki, author of Ḥ izzuk Emunah (against Christianity); his pupil Joseph b. Mordecai *Malinovski; *Zerah b. Nathan; Ezra b. Nisan (d. 1666); and Josiah b. Judah (d. after 1658). The last three were influenced by Joseph Solomon *Delmedigo. Troki was so severely affected by the Russian-Polish struggle over the Ukraine in 1654–67 that by about 1680 there were no more than about 30 families in the declining Karaite community, divided by disputes with the other Karaite communities and with the Council of Lithuania regarding taxation demands. With the encouragement of King John III Sobieski, in 1688 a number of householders moved from Troki to Kukizov (Krasny Ostrov) near Lvov, to establish a Karaite community there. At the beginning of the 18t century Troki was again hit by war, famine, and plague, so that only three Karaite families remained. About that time another conflict broke out over the Rabbanites’ right of domicile (permission was granted in the end). But in 1765 there were about 150 Rabbanites and 300 Karaites in Troki and its environs. After Troki passed to Russia, many Jews who had been expelled from the villages settled there in 1804. In the same year the Karaites began to fight for the expulsion of those refu-

gees, and in 1835, after protracted legal debates, the Rabbanites were ordered to leave the city within five years. In 1862 this order was rescinded and the Rabbanites returned to Troki. In 1879 there were about 600 Karaites there and in 1897, 377 Karaites and 1,112 Rabbanites (out of a total population of 3,240). Some of the Troki Karaites left the town and established a new community in Vilna. In the 19t and 20t centuries relations between Karaites and Jews were strained and hostile.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

155

[Mordekhai Nadav]

Before the outbreak of World War II, there were about 300 Jews in Troki. The Jewish community was liquidated on Sept. 30, 1941. Only the Karaite community remained, and according to the 1959 Soviet census there were 5,700 Karaites in Troki. After the war the Jewish community was not reconstituted. Bibliography: Y. Luria, in: He-Avar, 1 (1918): M. Balaban, in: Ha-Tekufah, 25 (1929); J. Brutzkus, in: YIVO Bleter, 13 (1938; repr. in Lite, vol. 1, 1951); S. Shomroni-Shtraz (ed.), Troki-Sefer Zikkaron (Heb. and some Yid., 1954); M. Nadav, in: KS, 33 (1957/58), 260–8; Mann, Texts, 2 (1935); S. Bershadski, Litovskiye yevrei (1883), 178–82; Yu. Hessen, in: Yevreyskaya Starina, 3 (1910); I.A. Klienman, ibid., 13 (1930); I. Schiper, Dzieje handlu żydowskiego na ziemiach polskich (1937), index.

TROKI, ISAAC BEN ABRAHAM (c. 1533–c. 1594), *Karaite scholar, born in Troki (according to Mann’s hypothesis, he was born and died eight years earlier than the above dates). Troki’s learning earned him the respect and deference of his fellow Karaites, and his knowledge of Latin and Polish enabled him to hold conversations on theological subjects with Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox clergymen, as well as with Socinian and other sectarian adherents. The result of these discussions was his famous apology for Judaism entitled Ḥ izzuk Emunah. Troki himself did not live to complete the work and his pupil Joseph b. Mordecai *Malinovski (Troki) supplied it with preface and index. Troki’s reasoned defense of Judaism and his penetrating examination of the vulnerable points of Christian tradition and dogma caused his work to achieve immediate popularity. It was circulated in manuscript by interested Jewish readers, and each copyist felt free to modify the text according to his own views, so that at present, pending the discovery of more authentic manuscripts, it would probably be impossible to restore Isaac’s original text in its entirety. In about 1629 *Zeraḥ b. Nathan of Troki offered the work to *Manasseh Ben Israel for publication at the latter’s press in Amsterdam, but it was not printed there (presumably Manasseh declined the offer). Several decades later, another manuscript copy, apparently amended by a *Rabbanite copyist, fell into the hands of Johann Christoph *Wagenseil, who published it with a Latin translation and an extensive refutation in his Tela ignea Satanae (“The Fiery Darts of Satan”; Altdorf, 1681). The Latin version made Troki’s work accessible to wider Christian circles, and some of his arguments were later taken over by the 18t-century anticlerical writers; Voltaire mentions the Ḥ izzuk Emunah

trotsky, lev davidovich as a masterpiece of its kind. Troki would probably have been dismayed at this notoriety; he no doubt intended to have his work circulate among Jewish scholars only. Wagenseil’s text of the Ḥ izzuk Emunah was reprinted for Jewish use at Amsterdam in 1705, and a Yiddish translation was printed there in 1717. An English translation by Moses Mocatta, uncle of Sir Moses Montefiore, was issued at London in 1851, with the statement on the title page “Printed but not published” (republ. 1970 with introd. by T. Weiss-Rosmarin). A German translation was published by David Deutsch (with the Hebrew text; 2nd edition, Sohrau, 1873). Among other editions, one appeared in Calcutta in 1846, and another in New York in 1932. Some of Troki’s hymns are included in the official Karaite prayer book. He is also said to have composed some works on Karaite ritual law.

TROTSKY (Bronstein), LEV DAVIDOVICH (Leon; 1879–1940), Russian revolutionary, Soviet and Communist leader. Trotsky was the son of a Jewish farmer of Ivanovka, Ukraine. He studied mathematics at Odessa University, but gave up his studies to devote himself to revolutionary activities and joined the illegal Social Democratic Party in 1896. Arrested by the czarist authorities in 1898 and sent to Siberia, he escaped to England in October 1902, arriving on a forged passport issued in the name of “Trotsky.” In London he cooperated with *Lenin, *Martov, and *Axelrod in editing the Social Democratic organ Iskra. At the second congress of the Russian Social Democratic Party in 1903, Trotsky attacked Lenin and supported the Mensheviks. In 1904 he left Iskra and published a pamphlet Nashi Politicheskiye zadachi (“Our Political Tasks”), in which he again attacked Lenin, exposing the dictatorial tendencies of the Bolsheviks. He became an independent socialist and worked for reconciliation between the various factions. At that time, under the influence of Helphand (Parvus), he formulated the theory of permanent revolution, according to which a bourgeois revolution in Russia would, by its inner momentum, lead quickly to the socialist stage, even before the socialist revolution in the West. Trotsky returned to Russia at the outbreak of the 1905 Revolution and became a leader of the revolutionary workers’ council (soviet) in Petersburg. He was arrested while chairing a meeting of the council and deported to Siberia a second time. Again he escaped and arrived in London in 1907 to take part in the congress of the Social Democratic Party. Later he moved to Vienna where he lived for several years as a correspondent for the popular liberal newspaper Kiyevskaya Mysi and wrote numerous articles devoted mainly to revolutionary theory. At the outbreak of World War I Trotsky left for neutral Switzerland and wrote a detailed exposition of his anti-war policy entitled Der Krieg und die Internationale. He went to

Paris in November 1914 to propagate his ideas in the émigré newspaper Nashe Slovo. Expelled two years later, he went to New York. Trotsky returned to Russia shortly after the outbreak of the Revolution of February 1917, and was given a tremendous welcome by the Petrograd workers. He now cooperated with Lenin. Kerensky’s provisional government arrested him, but he was soon released. While in prison he was elected to the Central Committee of the Bolsheviks. He also became head of the Petrograd Soviet and of its Military Revolutionary Committee. Trotsky voted for the armed insurrection at the decisive meeting of the Bolshevik Central Committee. He directed the operation of the armed uprising on November 7, when the members of the provisional government were arrested and Soviet rule established. From then on Trotsky was one of the main organizers and leaders of the October Revolution and the Soviet regime, and played a part second only to that of Lenin. He became people’s commissar for foreign affairs and head of the Russian delegation at the Brest-Litovsk peace talks. It was during this period that Trotsky and Lenin clashed over the question of peace with Germany. Trotsky, believing the German revolution to be imminent, was against signing a peace treaty which would give imperial Germany large parts of Russian territory; he proposed to stop the war unilaterally, but not to make peace under these conditions, coining the formula, “neither war nor peace.” But the more skeptical Lenin insisted upon signing the peace treaty in order to save the revolution from a renewed Russo-German war. In March 1918, Trotsky became people’s commissar for military affairs, organizing the Red Army and directing military operations on the various civil war fronts from his famous armored train. After the bloody suppression of the Kronstadt fleet mutiny, aimed against the Bolshevik dictatorship, he took the salute at the victory parade in April 1921. He also served as people’s commissar for transport and was responsible for preventing the complete collapse of the railway system. In internal party debates during Lenin’s lifetime, he expounded a harsh “left-wing” approach to the problems of the legitimacy of revolutionary terror against the regime’s opponents, how to induce the peasants to supply the cities with food, and labor discipline in the nationalized industry. After Lenin’s death in 1924, however, Trotsky’s position in the Communist hierarchy weakened quickly as a result of a campaign by party veterans aimed at discrediting him. He fought back with great determination. He headed the semilegal left-wing opposition in the party and even enjoyed, from time to time, demonstrative support, mainly from younger party members and students. Stalin, however, played the various leaders and factions against each other until he assumed sole control of the party machine, and within two years succeeded in ousting Trotsky from the political life of both the Soviet Union and the Communist International. In January 1925, Trotsky was forced to resign from the Ministry of War and subsequently held only lesser posts in the Supreme Economic Council. Removed from the Politburo and the Central

156

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

Bibliography: Mann, Texts, 2 (1935), passim; Waxman, Literature, 2 (1966), 449–51. [Leon Nemoy]

troyes Committee in 1926, he was eventually expelled from the Communist Party on November 14, 1927, on the grounds that he was an “instigator of counterrevolutionary demonstrations.” In January 1928, Trotsky was convicted of counterrevolutionary activities and sent to Alma-Ata in Turkestan. Even there he fearlessly continued to lead the left-wing opposition in the Communist Party and a year later was expelled to Turkey with his wife and son. In Turkey he maintained contact with the opposition to Stalin in an attempt to organize a new Communist International, independent of Moscow. He went to Norway in 1936, but was forced to leave after several defendants at the Moscow trials accused him of joining *Zinoviev and *Kamenev in “an imperialist plot” to murder Stalin. He later settled in Mexico. During his years in exile he produced his vast literary output, including My Life (1930), The History of the Russian Revolution (3 vols., 1932–33), and The Permanent Revolution (1931), and edited The Living Thoughts of Karl Marx, published in 1939. On August 21, 1940, he was assassinated in Mexico City by a “friend” who is generally assumed to have acted on Stalin’s orders. Remarkably gifted, a brilliant writer and orator, Trotsky fought all his life to bring about the socialist world revolution. He was opposed to Stalin’s policy of building up “Socialism in one country,” arguing that Socialism could only be achieved through revolution on a world scale. In 1938, his followers assembled in Switzerland to found the Fourth International which would be independent of the Moscow-centered Third (Communist) International, but they failed to create a mass movement in support of Trotsky. In the Soviet Union his name and the term Trotskyism officially became synonymous with treason and perfidy and served as the main object of hatred and slander during the famous purge-trials of veteran Bolsheviks in the middle and late 1930s. Trotsky’s role in the revolution and the early Soviet regime was expunged from all official historical records in the Soviet Union and in the “orthodox” Communist movement everywhere, but he has had supporters and admirers in many countries including, silently, in the Soviet Union as well.

into the hands of the enemies such an additional weapon as my being Jewish?” Later he was shocked at the antisemitic innuendos of the campaign conducted against him in the late 1920s in the Soviet Union and he later emphasized the antisemitic undertones of the Moscow trials against Zinoviev, Kamenev, and others. In an interview with the New York Jewish Daily Forward, he admitted, in 1937, that the reemergence of antisemitism in Germany and the U.S.S.R. had brought him to the conclusion that the Jewish problem required a territorial solution, but he did not believe that Palestine was the answer; and the final solution would come only through the emancipation of all humanity by international socialism. “The longer the rotten bourgeois society lives, the more and more barbaric will antisemitism become everywhere,” he said in the same interview. In Trotsky and the Jews (1972), J. Nedava has made a special study of this question, throwing new light on the subject and revealing, inter alia, that Trotsky sat as an adviser at the Sixth Zionist Congress in Basle (1903), and later became increasingly interested in the Jewish Labor Movement in Ereẓ Israel. Bibliography: I. Deutscher, The Prophet Armed, Trotsky 1879–1921 (1965); idem, The Prophet Unarmed, Trotsky 1921–1929 (1965); idem, The Prophet Outcast, Trotsky 1929–1940 (1963); B.D. Wolfe, Three Who Made a Revolution (1948, paperback 1966); L. Shapiro, The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1960).

Trotsky and the “Jewish Question” Convinced that there was no future for the Jews as a separate people, Trotsky favored their assimilation. At the second congress of the Russian Social Democratic Party (1903), he attacked the *Bund, claiming that despite its opposition to Zionism, it had adopted the nationalist character of Zionism. After the Sixth Zionist Congress he wrote an article in Iskra prophesying the disappearance of the movement (Jan. 1, 1904). Trotsky visualized the solution of the Jewish problem only through the socialist reshaping of society within an international framework. But he was quite aware of the fact that his Jewish origin was a political handicap. When Lenin, after the victory of Nov. 7, 1917, proposed to put him at the head of the first Soviet government, Trotsky refused, and – in his own words (Moya Zhizn, II, 62–63) – mentioned “among other arguments the national aspect: would it be wise to give

TROYES, chief town of the department of Aube, in northeast central France. Evidence of the earliest period of Jewish settlement in Troyes is derived from rabbinic sources. From the first half of the 11t century, an organized Jewish community collected taxes from its members, and Jews owned real estate, more particularly vineyards. The *synods which were reputedly held in the town may have been little more than assemblies convened by the local community and expanded to include the representatives of a number of dependent communities. It may be assumed that in *Rashi’s time the community numbered no more than 100 people. Only from the beginning of the 13t century is there evidence of the Jews of Troyes engaging in *moneylending; their clients included the Saint-Loup Abbey. On the other hand, a number of Jews owed this abbey a regular quitrent, which was calculated in measures of wheat and wine, presumably for plots of land or vineyards leased from it. In 1288 the community was persecuted, with accompanying bloodshed, as a result of an accusation of ritual murder (see *Blood Libel). On Good Friday, March 26, during the Jewish Passover, a body was surreptitiously placed in the house of one of the Jewish notables, Isaac Châtelain. The inquiry was carried out by the Franciscan and Dominican Orders, and 13 Jews (most of them members of Châtelain’s family) sacrificed themselves in order to spare the remainder of the community. They were handed over to the “secular arm” and burned on April 24. The shock which was aroused in the Jewish world by this auto-da-fé can be measured by the fact

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

157

trujillo that six elegies, in Hebrew or in Judeo-French, relate the details of it. The most moving account is the famous Complainte de Troyes, a Judeo-French elegy, the author of which Arsène *Darmesteter identified as Jacob b. Judah de Lotra (Lorraine), who also wrote a Hebrew elegy on the subject (manuscript in Vatican Library). Although King *Philip IV the Fair prohibited the religious orders from prosecuting any Jew in France without informing the civil authorities – even if it be for a religious crime (1288) – he did not disregard the material benefit accruing from this auto-da-fé when he ordered the confiscation of the victims’ property for the treasury. Following the banishment of the Jews of France in 1306, Jews returned to Troyes after 1315. In 1320 King *Philip V the Tall addressed a series of criticisms to the bailiff of Troyes because he tolerated Jews not wearing their distinctive sign and permitted them to make so much noise in their synagogues (indicating that at least two were still in existence) that even the predicant friars and the minor canons were disturbed in the execution of their duties. The Jews do not appear to have returned to Troyes after the expulsion of 1322, although several Jews in the duchy and county of Burgundy between 1332 and 1388 originated in Troyes. During the 14t and 15t centuries, however, Christians bearing the surname “le Juif ” are mentioned in Troyes and were possibly descendants of converted Jews. The Jewish quarter, also known as “La Broce-auxJuifs,” was situated in the St. Frobert parish, and the St. Frobert Church is thought to be a former synagogue. The cemetery was situated at the entrance of the Faubourg de Preize. Troyes was the native city of Rashi, the great commentator on the Bible and Talmud. Rashi served as the rabbi of Troyes, where he founded (c. 1070) a school which became famous. The present-day streets rue de la Synagogue and rue Salomon Rachi perpetuate the memory of the flourishing medieval community, although their topographical relationship to the ancient location has not been determined. After Rashi, the scholars who taught or were born in Troyes included R. Jacob b. Meir *Tam, R. *Joseph b. Moses, the tosafist R. Samson, R. Joseph Ḥ azzan b. Judah, his son Menahem, and the disciple of the latter, Judah b. Eliezer. In 1808, there was not a single Jew in Troyes or in the whole of the department of Aube. The community was reorganized only during the second half of the 19t century (the synagogue was erected in 1877). On the eve of World War II there were some 200 Jews in Troyes. During the war, however, a large number of non-French Jews, as well as those who came from “prohibited” departments, were interned in the town by the Germans. The community, which was reconstituted after World War II, numbered 400 in the early 1970s and has since 1966 maintained the Rashi Community Center.

çaise, 1 (1960), 39–41; Z. Szajkowski, Analytical Franco-Jewish Gazetteer (1966), 163. [Bernhard Blumenkranz]

TRUJILLO, town in Estremadura, W. Spain, on an important junction near the Portuguese border. Trujillo was taken by Alfonso VIII in 1184, then reconquered by the Moors; it definitely became part of the kingdom of Castile only in 1233. It may be assumed that there was a Jewish settlement there in the Muslim period, but the available data mainly concerns the Christian period. Toward the end of the 13t century, the community of Trujillo was the second largest in Estremadura, after Badajoz. In the 14t century Jews in Trujillo owned land, vineyards, and houses, which apparently had belonged to them before. There also were merchants and craftsmen among them. No data has survived about the fate of this community during the 1391 persecutions, but there were Jews who forsook their faith under duress in Trujillo as elsewhere. Yet the community was able to pay 6,000 maravedis in 1439 and 7,500 in 1474. A year before the edict of expulsion, in 1491, it spiraled to 11,400 maravedis, owing to an influx of refugees from other Jewish communities and to a special tax imposed as a contribution toward the war against Granada. In 1480 the segregation of Jews and Conversos into different quarters was carried out in Trujillo. The Jews were ordered to leave their quarter within two years and resettle in another part allotted to them. Exchange of houses was arranged, and the Jews were allowed to build a synagogue in their own area. Abraham *Seneor collected taxes and imposts in the town and its surroundings in the 1480s. The community existed until the edict of expulsion, when the exiles from elsewhere in Spain passed through Trujillo and Badajoz on their way to Portugal. Bibliography: Baer, Urkunden, 2 (1936), index; J. González, El Reino de Castilla en la época de Alonso VIII, 3 vols. (1960), index; Suárez Fernández, Documentos, index. [Haim Beinart]

Bibliography: Gross, Gal Jud, 223–43; A. Darmesteter, in: REJ, 2 (1881), 199–247; idem, in: Romania, 3 (1874), 443–86; P. Pietresson De Saint-Aubin, in: Le Moyen Age, 22 (1920), 84–87; A. Lane, Quelques aspects de la vie économique et sociale à Troyes (thesis, Paris Univ., 1956), passim; J. Roserot De Melin, Le Diocèse de Troyes (1957), passim; C. Lehrmann, L’Elément juif dans la littérature fran-

°TRUMAN, HARRY S. (1884–1972), 33rd president of the United States. From 1922 to 1924 his partner in an unsuccessful haberdashery business in Kansas City was Eddie Jacobson, a Jewish businessman. Truman was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1935, in 1945 became vice president, and a few months later (April 12, 1945) – on Roosevelt’s death – president. Among the vast problems faced by Truman following the defeat of Germany and Japan in 1945 were Jewish refugees and the disposition of Palestine. In 1945 and 1946 they were only remotely related to the major crisis of the Cold War, but it nevertheless proved uncommonly difficult to find a solution. In the short run, Truman desired to bring 100,000 displaced Jews to Palestine. This was supplemented by a request to Congress, repeated in his address of Oct. 4, 1946 (which fell on the Day of Atonement), to liberalize the immigration laws so that more displaced persons, “including Jews,” might enter. The U.S. Legislation permitting 200,000 displaced persons to enter above the quota was passed in 1948. Truman’s desire to

158

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

trumpeldor, joseph tricts of the urban northeast, indicates that the great majority of Jewish voters were still drawn to the party of liberalism and Franklin Roosevelt which both Truman and Wallace were heir to. Truman himself adamantly denied that his recognition was based on domestic political imperatives: “The fate of the Jewish victims of Hitlerism,” he explains in his memoirs, “was a matter of deep personal concern to me…” It may well be that in Truman the Jewish voter finally found the powerful Christian leader who personified that sense of civilized world conscience which they had hopefully assigned to his predecessor, Franklin Roosevelt. On the whole, it can be said that the liberal, “Fair-Deal” administration over which Truman presided from 1948 to 1952 remained popular with Jewish voters even when the tide of general public opinion began to run against it as a result of the Korean War. The Jews were the one constituent of the original New Deal coalition put together by Roosevelt to show practically no defection to the Republican camp during the Eisenhower-Stevenson campaign of 1952, a fact which reflected on Truman’s ability to satisfy Jewish sentiments both in his policy toward Israel and his stand on domestic issues.

send Jewish DPs to Palestine was subsequently supported by the recommendation of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry (April 1946) and also by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP; August 1947). But Truman was less certain regarding the establishment of a Jewish state, maintaining that the UN was the proper agency for handling the long-range solution of the Middle East problem. Even such steps as Truman was willing to advocate – the entrance of more Jewish refugees into Palestine and tentative support of the concept of partition – faced the stubborn opposition of his closest advisers in the State Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and resentment by the British government. When the State of Israel was proclaimed on May 14, 1948, Truman personally made certain that within its first half hour of existence de facto U.S. recognition was extended to it. Nevertheless, he continued to advocate a temporary UN Trusteeship for the area. He subsequently opposed severing the Negev from the new state, a key element of the Bernadotte partition plan. There was some speculation concerning Truman’s motives in precipitously reversing U.S. policy for Palestine. The critical situation of the Democratic Party preceding the election of 1948 fueled suspicion that Truman acted purely for political reasons. It had become clear in the years after Roosevelt’s death that the coalition of southern conservatives and urban-based liberal elements which formed the core of the Democratic Party, was no longer viable. The former components broke away from the party to form the Dixiecrats. At the same time a strong pull from the left developed when Henry Wallace formed the Progressive Party. Its platform of “progressive capitalism” and sincere negotiations with the Soviet Union to nip the developing Cold War in the bud exercised a strong attraction for the traditional left-wing elements in the Jewish voting bloc. At the same time the imposition of an arms embargo for the Middle East in December 1947 and the fact that the Republican Party candidate, Thomas Dewey, had given strong pledges of support to the U.S. Zionists, threatened to capture the Jewish vote or at least deny it to the Democrats, who needed it desperately to keep their chances alive. In February 1948 the worst fears of Democratic leaders regarding the loss of the Jewish vote were confirmed when Leo Isaacson ran on the Wallace platform in a largely Jewish congressional district in the East Bronx, New York, and won by a two to one margin. It was at this juncture that Truman supposedly decided to make an all-out bid to win back the Jewish vote. He did so by recognizing the State of Israel in May 1948. Undoubtedly some political capital did accrue to Truman as a result of this step and his strong support for the new state between May and the election in November. The election results show that the Republican ticket was able to attract only two to three percent more of the Jewish vote in the election of 1948 as compared to 1944. But like the theory that Truman chose to recognize Israel because of the influence of his longtime friend and former business partner Eddie Jacobson, such theorizing is too simplistic to fit the facts. The considerable vote for Henry Wallace, especially in the poorer Jewish dis-

TRUMPELDOR, JOSEPH (1880–1920), soldier, symbol of pioneering and armed defense in Ereẓ Israel. Joseph’s father, Ze’ev (Vladimir; 1830–1915), was a soldier in the army of Nicholas I. His son Joseph, born in Pyatigorsk (northern Caucasus), was sent to a religious school in Rostov-on-Don before he attended a Russian municipal school. Since, as a Jew, he could not attend high school, he studied dentistry. He was influenced by the idea of the collective commune as described by Tolstoy and practiced by the Tolstoyan settlers near his hometown. In Trumpeldor’s mind, this ideal became intertwined with his concept of Zionism through the establishment of agricultural communes in Ereẓ Israel, which, if necessary, would be defended by armed force. In 1902 Trumpeldor was drafted into the army, volunteered for the 27t East Siberian Regiment, and was sent with it to Port Arthur. By volunteering for dangerous missions, Trumpeldor distinguished himself in the RussoJapanese War (1904), in which he was severely wounded, and his left arm had to be amputated. Upon recovery, Trumpeldor asked his commanding officer to send him back to the front although he had the right to be demobilized. His request was granted and received mention in a special order for the day, in which he was promoted to the rank of a noncommissioned officer. When Port Arthur surrendered (late 1904), Trumpeldor was transferred to a prisoner-of-war camp in Japan, where he worked for the welfare of his fellow prisoners and devoted special attention to the Jews among them, organizing a Zionist group and a group of Jewish soldiers, whose aim was to go to

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

159

Bibliography: Harry S Truman, Memoirs: Year of Decision, 1 (1955); Years of Trial and Hope, 2 (1956); C. Phillips, Truman Presidency: History of a Triumphant Succession (1966); F.E. Manuel, Realities of American Palestine Relations (1949); N. Safran, United States and Israel (1967); E. Jacobson, in: AJA, 20 (April 1968), 3–15. [Henry L. Feingold]

TRUNK, ISAIAH Ereẓ Israel and establish an agricultural commune there. In 1906 he was returned to Russia. Although a Jew, he received the rank of officer and was awarded several major decorations for distinguished service. Trumpeldor entered the law faculty of the University of St. Petersburg, simultaneously working to form a group that would implement his idea of collective settlement in Ereẓ Israel. In 1911 Trumpeldor and his comrades, whose declared aim was the liberation of the Jewish people from national oppression through an independent existence in Ereẓ Israel, held their first meeting in Romny (Ukraine). In 1912, together with a group of his comrades, Trumpeldor went to Ereẓ Israel and worked for a time at the Migdal farm and the kevuẓ ah *Deganyah. He participated in the defense of the Jewish settlements in Lower Galilee. When World War I broke out, he refused to take Ottoman citizenship and was deported to Egypt. In Alexandria he advocated the establishment of a legion of volunteers from among the Ereẓ Israel deportees that would put itself at the disposal of the British to help liberate the country from the Turks. He accepted the British army’s proposal to form the Zion Mule Corps (see *Jewish Legion), which he regarded as a first step toward the formation of a Jewish military force to liberate Ereẓ Israel. With the corps, of which he was deputy commander, Trumpeldor left for Gallipoli and between May and December 1915 took part in the major British offensive against the Turks. He set an example by his bravery and his willingness to undertake the most difficult tasks. After the Gallipoli campaign, Trumpeldor returned to Alexandria, and, after the corps’ disbandment, proceeded to London, where he joined Vladimir *Jabotinsky in efforts to form a Jewish Legion from among the Russian Jews living in England, using a group of soldiers of the Zion Mule Corps as a nucleus. In June 1917, Trumpeldor left for Russia to persuade the Provisional Russian Government to form Jewish regiments in the Russian army that could be sent to the Caucasian front and from there could break through to Ereẓ Israel. Trumpeldor was active in the Jewish Soldiers’ movement in Russia and at its conference in Kiev, at which it was decided to form the General Federation of Jewish Soldiers in Russia and the General Federation for Self-Defense. He was elected commissar for Jewish Soldiers’ Affairs. After the October Revolution Trumpeldor received permission to form the first Jewish regiment, whose chief objective was to combat the massacre of Jews; but the plan was canceled when Soviet Russia signed the peace treaty with Germany (January 1918). The regiment was disbanded and the Jewish defense organization outlawed; Trumpeldor was arrested at Petrograd but was soon released. He then devoted himself to the establishment of the *He-Ḥ alutz movement in Russia, whose aim was to organize and prepare young Jews for settlement in Ereẓ Israel. He was elected chairman of He-Ḥ alutz at its first conference in 1919, at which he demanded the introduction of military training for He-Ḥ alutz members. He tried to gather groups of pioneers from various parts of Russia and to form centers for training and migration to Ereẓ Israel in Minsk and in the Crimea.

In 1919, Trumpeldor went back to Ereẓ Israel, stopping at Constantinople, where he founded an information office and a transit farm for immigrants and pioneers going to Palestine to the Jewish settlement Mesillah Ḥ adashah. Upon arrival in Palestine, he proposed to the British military authorities to bring 10,000 Jewish soldiers from Russia as part of the Jewish Legion, and regarded the plan as a question of life or death for national existence in Ereẓ Israel. He also urged labor leaders in Palestine to unite into a single labor federation, which could efficiently absorb the new pioneering immigration. His proposal to form Jewish regiments was rejected. When news arrived of the danger facing the Jewish settlements in Upper Galilee, the scene of armed skirmishes between the French authorities and Arab rebels, Trumpeldor was asked to organize the defense of the settlements, and on Jan. 1, 1920, he reached *Tel Ḥ ai, which, together with the settlers and volunteers from the south, he began to fortify along with *Kefar Giladi and Metullah. On March 1, 1920, large numbers of armed Arabs attacked Tel Ḥ ai. During negotiations with their leaders, an exchange of fire took place in which Trumpeldor received a stomach wound. The battle continued all day. Toward evening, Trumpeldor was taken with other casualties to Kefar Giladi, but died on the way. His last words were, “Ein davar, tov lamut be’ad arẓ enu” (“Never mind; it is good to die for our country”). Trumpeldor and five of his comrades were buried in the courtyard of Kefar Giladi; their remains were later removed to a new cemetery between Tel Ḥ ai and Kefar Giladi, where, in 1934, a memorial by the sculptor A. Melnikov was erected. The pioneers who arrived from Crimea shortly after Trumpeldor’s death founded the Joseph Trumpeldor Labor Legion (*Gedud ha-Avodah), and named their settlement at the foot of Mount Gilboa *Tel Yosef in his memory. The life and death of Trumpeldor became a symbol to pioneer youth from all parts of the Diaspora. Songs, poems, and stories were written about him. A collection of his correspondence, his diary, and memoirs, edited by M. Poznansky in 1922, became a standard text of the youth and pioneer movement. Trumpeldor inspired both the pioneering socialist movements and the right-wing youth groups. The movement Berit Trumpeldor (*Betar) concentrated on the military and nationalist aspects of his ideology and activity. A Trumpeldor House was established at Tel Yosef, and collects material connected with Trumpeldor’s life and death and with the history of the Gedud ha-Avodah.

160

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

Bibliography: Me-Ḥ ayyei Yosef Trumpeldor (19452), includes his diary; P. Lipovetzky, Joseph Trumpeldor (Eng., 1953); N. Benari and A. Kena’ani, Yosef Trumpeldor, Po’olo u-Tekufato (1960); S. Laskov, Trumpeldor (1972); Dinur, Haganah, 2 pt. 1 (1959), 24–28, 50–51 and index; Syrkin, in: Mi-Bifnim (Feb. 1947), 360–70; R. Freulich and J. Abramson, The Hill of Life (1969). [Yehuda Slutsky]

TRUNK, ISAIAH (Yesha’ah; 1905–1981), historian in Poland and U.S. Trunk was the last major representative of the East-

trunk, yehiel yeshaia ern European Jewish historians who were trained before the Holocaust and worked primarily in Yiddish. Born in Kutno, Poland, he was a descendant of the Trunk rabbinical family of that city. He received his master’s degree in history from the University of Warsaw in 1929, and joined the Warsaw “Circle of Young Historians” (later a branch of YIVO) led by Emanuel Ringelblum and Rafael Mahler. He taught history and Latin for the Central Yiddish School Organization in Bialystok and Warsaw until the German invasion of 1939. During World War II, he took refuge in the Soviet Union, and returned to Poland in 1946, serving as a leader of the Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw from 1948 to 1950. Trunk lived in Israel from 1951 to 1953 and helped to found the research archives at Ghetto Fighters House. In 1953, he became director of the Peretz-Shul in Calgary, Canada. In 1954, he settled permanently in New York City, where he became a research associate and, later, chief archivist at YIVO. Trunk’s works reflect three areas of interest. In accordance with the research program of Ringelblum and Mahler, his earliest works are histories of Jewish communities in Poland, based on archival sources, including A yidishe kehile in Poyln baym sof 18tn yorhundert: Kutno (1934), Geshikhte fun di yidn in Plotsk, 1237–1567 (1939), and monographs on Polish-Jewish history published in the leading Yiddish journals of pre-war Poland. A common feature is his emphasis on the “internal” aspects of Jewish life, including the economic, legal, cultural, religious, and social organization of Jewish communities. After World War II, Trunk focused on Jewish life during the Holocaust. His research concerned daily life in the ghettos of German-occupied Europe and problems of health, education, social life, self-government, and resistance. These are exemplified by his “Shtudye tsu der geshikhte fun yidn in ‘varteland’ in der t’kufe fun umkum, 1939–1944” (1948) and Lodzsher geto: a historishe un sotsyologishe shtudye (1962). Trunk is best known for his comprehensive study of imposed Jewish governing bodies, Judenrat: The Jewish Councils in Eastern Europe Under Nazi Occupation (1972), which won the 1973 National Book Award for history. Here, Trunk extended his research to continue a project commenced by his colleague Philip Friedman, who died in 1960. Trunk based his work on archival records of Jewish councils, Nazi government documents, and questionnaires of ghetto survivors. He dealt with the contentious moral issue of whether the Councils were complicit, from the time of their initial planning of ghetto life, in aiding in the destruction of Jews within their realms. Trunk found the actions of most Council leaders to rest on sound, but inapplicable, historical experience. He concluded that Jewish survival would not have been greater if Jews had refused to participate in the Councils. He wrote this work at a time when Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil had charged that Jewish leadership enabled the Germans to annihilate the Jews. This book was the subject of a symposium in 1975 in which the leading Holocaust historians of the time debated ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

the role of the Councils (see bibl.: Bauer). Trunk also compiled and edited a collection of survivors’ accounts in Jewish Responses to Nazi Persecution (1979). Additional Holocaust studies appeared in Yiddish and Hebrew journals and encyclopedias. Trunk’s third area of interest was Jewish historiography. He published studies of Russian-Jewish historiography and the role of YIVO in Jewish historiography as well as critical appreciations of many Eastern European Jewish historians of his and the preceding generation, including Simon Dubnov, Meir Balaban, Ringelblum, Mahler, and Friedman. Trunk compiled three collections of his Yiddish historical essays: Geshtaltn un gesheenishn (1962), Shtudyes in yidisher geshikhte in poyln (1963), and Geshtaltn un gesheenishn [naye serye] (1983). His personal papers may be found in the YIVO special collections. Bibliography: LNYL, 4 (1961) 128–30; Y. Kermish (preface), in: Y. Trunk, Geshtaltn un Gesheenishn [naye serye] (1983), 7–16; Imposed Governing Bodies Under Nazi Rule: YIVO Colloquium (1972); Y. Bauer and N. Rotenstreich (eds.), The Holocaust as Historical Experience (1981). [Mark L. Smith (2nd ed.)]

TRUNK, ISRAEL JOSHUA (1820–1893), Polish rabbi and one of the early supporters of *Ḥ ibbat Zion. Born in Plock, Poland, Trunk soon developed a reputation as a prodigy and great scholar. He served as the rabbi of Szrensk (from 1840), Gabin (from 1847), Warka (from 1850), Poltusk (from 1853), and from 1861 to the end of his life he was rabbi of Kutno and was known throughout the Jewish world as Israel Joshua Trunk of Kutno. He was close to Ḥ asidism, especially to the rebbe of *Gur, Isaac Meir. He joined the Ḥ ibbat Zion movement with the initial activity of Ẓ evi Hirsch *Kalischer, whom he encouraged in his letters. In 1886 Trunk visited Ereẓ Israel and encouraged the pioneers who were then experiencing the initial difficulties of settlement. He was among the rabbis who permitted agricultural work during the sabbatical year in Ereẓ Israel. A halakhic authority, only one of his books on halakhah, Yeshu’ot Yisrael (1870), on Shulḥ an Arukh Ḥ oshen Mishpat, was published during his lifetime. The remainder were published posthumously by his grandson as Yeshu’ot Malko (1927–39), novellae, and Yavin Da’at (1932), on Shulḥ an Arukh, Yoreh De’ah with responsa. His grandson, ISAAC JUDAH (1879–1939), was one of the leaders of the *Mizrachi movement in Poland. The best known of his books is the Bible commentary Mikra Meforash (1936). At the end of his life he drew close to Po’alei Agudat Israel. Bibliography: I. Judah Trunk, in: I.J. Trunk, Yeshu’ot Malko, 1 (1927), 154–6; D. Weissbrod (Halaḥ mi), Arzei Levanon (1955), 126–31; Bath Yehudah, in: EẒ D, 2 (1960), 433–9. [Getzel Kressel]

TRUNK, YEHIEL YESHAIA (1887–1961), Yiddish essayist and writer. Born near Warsaw to a landowning family with rabbinic ancestry, his most popular work was his memoirs, Poyln (“Poland,” 7 vols., 1944–53), a rich source of Jewish

161

truth folk-culture in Poland. He depicts his ḥ asidic background grotesquely, satirically, but mostly lovingly. A member of the *Bund from 1923, he wrote many essays on socialism and Diaspora culture. His work reflects its classical, biblical, talmudic, kabbalistic, and European literary influences. As had many others, he shifted from Hebrew to Yiddish under the influence of I.L. *Peretz. He set a high level of literary criticism in Idealizm un Naturalizm in der Yidisher Literatur (“Idealism and Naturalism in Yiddish Literature,” 1927) and in his analyses of the work of *Sholem Aleichem: Sholem Aleykhem (1937), Tevye der Milkhiker (“Tevye the Dairyman,” 1939), and Tevye un Menakhem Mendl in Yidishn Velt Goyrl (“Tevye, Menakhem Mendl and Jewish Fate,” 1944). He wrote in a light parodic vein in his works on Hershele *Ostropolyer, Der Freylekhster Yid in der Velt (“The Happiest Jew in the World,” 1953), Khelmer Khakhomim (“The Wise Men of *Chelm,” 1951), and Simkhe Plakhte fun Narkove oder der Yidisher Don-Kikhot (“Simkhe Plakhte of Narkove or the Jewish Don Quixote,” 1951). Bibliography: LNYL, 4 (1961), 121–8. Add. Bibliography: D. Roskies, A Bridge of Longing: The Lost Art of Yiddish Storytelling (1995), 312–18; B. Davis, in: J Sherman (ed.), Biographical Dictionary of Yiddish Writers (2005). [Barry Davis (2nd ed.)]

TRUTH (Heb. ‫ ֱא ֶמת‬, ʾemet). The Bible often speaks of God as “the God of truth” (e.g., Jer. 10:10; Ps. 31:6), as does the Talmud where this synonymity climaxes in the famous dictum: “The Seal of God is truth” (Shab. 55a; TJ, Sanh. 1:5). The same idea is also found in medieval Jewish philosophy (Maim., Yad, Yesodei ha-Torah 1:4; Joseph Albo, Sefer ha-Ikkarim, 2:27). In rabbinic theology “Truth” is one of the 13 attributes of God (cf. Ex. 34:6). In Judaism truth is primarily an ethical notion: it describes not what is but what ought to be. Thus, in the Bible, truth is connected with peace (Zech. 8:16), righteousness (Mal. 2:6ff.), grace (Gen. 24:27, 49), justice (Zech. 7:9), and even with salvation (Ps. 25:4ff.; cf. Avot 1:18, “The world rests on three things – truth, justice, and peace”). In *Maimonides’ and Hermann *Cohen’s concept of God as the absolute paradigm of morality, from “the God of truth” follows the human virtue of “truthfulness” (H. Cohen, Religion der Vernunft (1929), index, S.V. Wahrhaftigkeit). Since God keeps truth (Ps. 146:6), only the man who speaks truth can come near Him (Ps. 145:18; Yoma 69b). Thus, also, Moritz *Lazarus (Ethik des Judentums, 2 (1911), 123ff.) and E. Berkovits (God and Man (1969), ch. 2) translate emet as “faithfulness” (emunah), identifying it ultimately with Jewish faith. God acts truthfully in that He keeps His word. Human truthfulness is to be faithful to God and man. This is specified in many ways: to speak truth even in one’s heart (Ps. 15:2ff.); always to quote correctly (Meg. 16a); to engage in commerce honestly (Mak. 24a); and to abstain from all deceit and hypocrisy (BM 49a; Yoma 72b; Maim., Yad, De’ot 2:6). In sum, as God is truth so Judaism as a whole is the practice of truth (BB 74a).

162

Jewish philosophers generally accepted the Greek notion of truth as “correspondence with reality” (*Saadiah Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, preface and 3:5; Abraham *Ibn Daud, Emunah Ramah, 2:3). Even such intellectualism, however, is ultimately superseded by biblical ethicism (e.g., Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, 3:53, end). In modern Jewish philosophy, Hermann Cohen designates the normative unity of cognition and ethics as “the fundamental law of truth” (Ethik des reinen Willens (1904), ch. 1). Martin *Buber also identifies Jewish faith (emunah) with truth as interpersonal trust. Thus, truth as a human, ethical criterion is commonplace throughout the mainstream of Jewish thinking. [Steven S. Schwarzschild]

TRZCIANKA (Ger. Schoenlanke), town in Poznan province, Poland. Jews were present in Schoenlanke from the first quarter of the 18t century; documentary evidence for the presence of a Jewish community dates from 1739 when the Jews of Schoenlanke were granted a privilege that secured for them certain trading and commercial rights. The privilege remained in force until 1756 when the town passed into the hands of Anton von Lasocki. It was then renewed, but at great cost and with highly restrictive conditions. After Poznan passed to Prussia (1772) the community (286 persons) successfully appealed the restrictions and their rights were reaffirmed. The synagogue burned down in 1779; a permanent one was built only in 1883. A bet midrash was functioning in 1772; in 1869 a new one was built but closed down in 1897 for lack of students. In 1790 there were 75 families in 31 Jewish-owned houses. The community was served by Rabbi Joel Meyer Asch (d. 1811) as well as his son Judah (d. 1831). The Jews, mainly large-scale wool merchants, were economically dominant and constituted a high but decreasing percentage of the total population: 863 in 1830 (23); 584 in 1880 (14); 590 in 1905 (8.1); and 380 in 1932 (4.3). Before the war the community maintained a school, library, mikveh, cemetery, and synagogue; its last rabbi was Curt Peritz (1932–36). Bibliography: A. Heppner and J. Herzberg, Aus Vergangenheit und Gegenwart der Juden… in den Posener Landen (1909), 926–45; M.L. Bamberger, Geschichte der Juden in Schoenlanke (1912); FJW, 85; PK, Germanyah.

TSABAN, YA’IR (1930– ), Israeli socialist politician and publicist, member of the Tenth to Thirteenth Knessets. Tsaban was born in Jerusalem to parents who had emigrated from Poland in the 1920s. After completing high school, in 1948 he joined the Palmaḥ . He participated in the burial of the Arab victims of the Dir-Yassin massacre committed by the Iẓ L in April 1948. In December 1948 he was one of the founders of kibbutz Ẓ or’a, near Beit-Shemesh, which he left four years later. In the War of Independence Tsaban fought in the Sixth Palmaḥ Brigade, participating in the unsuccessful attempt to conquer the Latrun area on the way to Jerusalem. During a course for company commanders he first met Moshe *Sneh, ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

tsanin, mordkhe who became his mentor. In 1952–54 he trained as a teacher at a kibbutz seminary, and started working as a teacher and youth instructor. In this period he became active in *Mapam. In January 1953 he left Mapam with Sneh, and for the next 27 years was active in various radical left-wing groups. He was a member of the Israel Communist Party (Maki) from 1954 to 1973, participating in various Communist youth delegations abroad. He also initiated opposition by the young guards of various political parties in Israel to the Statute of Limitations for Nazi Crimes, and to the establishment of relations with the Federal Republic of Germany. In 1969–72 Tsaban studied philosophy at Bar-Ilan and Tel Aviv universities. After Sneh’s death in 1972, he served briefly as chairman of Maki’s Political Bureau. He was later a member of Moked, and Maḥ aneh Sheli. Over the years he represented Maki, Moked, and Maḥ aneh Sheli in the Israel Executive of the World Jewish Congress, and in the Histadrut Executive Committee. In 1980 he returned to Mapam and was elected as its political secretary. Tsaban was elected to the Tenth Knesset in 1981 within the framework of the Alignment between the *Israel Labor Party and Mapam. In 1984–92 he was a member of the Mapam parliamentary group in the Knesset, heading the list in the elections to the Twelfth Knesset. In 1992–96 he was a member of the Meretz parliamentary group, which Mapam had joined. In the governments formed by Yitzhak *Rabin and Shimon *Peres in the course of the Thirteenth Knesset, he served as minister of immigration absorption, and was a member of the Ministerial Committees on Absorption, and Political and Security Issues. In the Knesset he concentrated on social and humanitarian issues, initiating and supporting legislation affecting workers’ rights and social welfare. He consistently supported peace initiatives with the Palestinians, and fought against religious coercion, and for the recognition of the nonOrthodox streams in Judaism. On several occasions in this period he appealed to the High Court of Justice on issues relating to the religious parties and personalities, and won. In the Knesset he was noted for his diligence and graciousness. After leaving the Knesset he was active in the meetings that led to the signing of the Geneva Initiative on December 1, 2003, and continued to campaign, together with others, for a variety of ideological and humanitarian causes. Since 1996 he has served as chairman of the College for Judaism as a Culture, and as chairman of the academic council of the Lavon Institute for Research on the Labor Movement, and has taught courses in public policy at Tel Aviv University. In 2000 he initiated the Encyclopedia of Jewish Culture in the Era of Modernization and Secularization and is a member of its editorial board. Since 2002 he has served as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Jewish Agency.

in 1946 he returned to Poland. He studied philosophy and literature and immigrated in 1957 to Israel, where he continued his studies. Later on, he spent some time in Grenoble, France. His first book, Doktor Barkel, a collection of stories, appeared in 1967. This was followed by stories and novels, including Si’aḥ ha-Beru’im (“The Dialogue of Creatures,” 1967), Philip Arbes (1977), Yaldei ha-Shemesh (“Children of the Sun,” 1979), Misḥ ak ha-Malakhim (“The Angels’ Game,” 1986), and others. The novel Ananim (“Clouds,” 1994; German, 1997), tells the story of a 13-year-old Jewish boy, the only survivor of a pogrom in a German town, who shares his fate with a German hangman. Set against the backdrop of medieval Germany, the relationship between the survivor and the executioner becomes a metaphor for Jewish-Christian history. Steeped in European culture, Tsalka developed an ambivalent attitude to the Hebrew language, which was not his mother tongue, and often focused on figures who opposed the Israeli mainstream and the Zionist narrative. His magnum opus is the novel Elef Levavot (“A Thousand Hearts,” 1991; German, 2002), a sweeping epic about Jewish life in the 20t century. Oscillating between pre-state Tel Aviv, the Oriental Samarkand, and Poland, the saga presents a wide range of characters, following an intricate baroque-like structure. Tsalka published his autobiography under the title Sefer ha-Alef Bet in 2003. He taught at the Art Department of Tel Aviv University, and was writerin-residence at the Hebrew University. He also published essays, poetry, books for children, and drama. Among the prizes he received are the Brenner Prize and the Sapir Prize (2004). A collection of stories in English, On the Road to Aleppo, appeared in 1999. Further information concerning translation is available at the ITHL website at www.ithl.org.il. Bibliography: D. Miron, “Immut she-Huḥ maẓ ,” in: Hadoar, 58:24 (1978); N. Mirsky, in: Yedioth Aharonoth (September 14, 1979); G. Moked, in: Haaretz (August 3, 1979); Y. Schwartz, “Kemo Ẓ ippor ba-Keluv,” in: Siman Keriah, 10 (1980), 480–81; G. Shaked, Ha-Sipporet ha-Ivrit, 5 (1998), 445–80; Y. Peuys, “Go’alei Olam al Saf Teruf,” in: Devarim, 1 (1999), 44–55; Y. Sharon, in: Maariv (July 15, 2005); Sh. Lev-Ari, in: Haaretz (June 16, 2005). [Anat Feinberg (2nd ed.)]

TSALKA, DAN (1936–2005), Hebrew writer. Born in Warsaw, Poland, Tsalka spent the war years in the Soviet Union and lived up to the age of ten in Siberia and in Kazakhstan;

TSANIN, (Yeshaye) MORDKHE (1906– ), Yiddish writer. Born in Sokołow-Podlaski (Poland), he settled in Warsaw (1920), where he had a traditional and secular education and became a writer and cultural organizer (publications in Oyfgang, which he also edited, and Naye Folksysaytung) until the Nazi invasion, when he fled to Vilna (1939), Japan (1940), and Palestine (1941). After several years of manual labor, he worked full-time as a journalist and writer. His consistent and adamant advocacy of Yiddish in Israel was of signal importance. His Iber Shteyn un Shtok: a Rayze iber Hundert Khorev-Gevorene Kehiles in Poyln (“Through Thick and Thin: A Journey through 100 Destroyed Jewish Communities in Poland,” 1952) collected his columns from the Forverts (for which he was also the Israeli correspondent, 1947–56), based on his postwar travels through Poland, posing as a gentile (1945–6). He con-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

163

[Susan Hattis Rolef (2nd ed.)]

tschlenow, jehiel tributed to Yiddish newspapers and periodicals throughout the world, including Tsukunft, Di Goldene Keyt, Davar, and edited Ilustrirte Veltvokh (1956– ) and founded and edited Letste Nayes (1949– ), Israel’s first Yiddish daily, where the first part of his magnum opus, Artopanus Kumt Tsurik Aheym (“Artopanus Comes Home”) began to appear serially; it was published in six volumes: Yerusholayim un Roym (“Jerusalem and Rome,” 1966), Fremde Himlen (“Foreign Skies,” 1968), Libshaft in Geviter (“Love during a Storm,” 1972), Di Meride fun Mezhibozh (“The Revolt of Mezhibozh,” 1976), Der Yardn Falt Arayn in Yam Hamelekh (“The Jordan Flows into the Dead Sea,” 1981), and Der Gzar-Din (“The Verdict,” 1985). The epic series of historical novels traces the history of Jews and Jewish culture from the Roman conquest of Judea up to the present as a series of cycles of persecution, survival, exile, and personal memory that comes to function as cultural memory and cultural tradition, projecting a moral and intellectual code that transcends individuals and even historical periods. It is one of the great achievements of Yiddish narrative, especially in postwar literature. Among his other books are Vivat Lebn! (“Live!,” 1933; stories), Oyf Zumpiker Erd (“On Swampy Ground,” 1935; novel), Vuhin Geyt Yapan (“Whither Japan,” 1942; journalism), Shabesdike Shmuesn (“Sabbath Chats,” 1957; feuilletons), Megiles Ruth / Shir Hashirim (“Ruth / Song of Songs,” 1962; Yid. tr.); Oyf di Vegn fun Yidishn Goyrl (“The Paths of Jewish Fate,” 1966; also Heb., 1967; essays), Der Dekadents fun a Meshiekh (“Decadence of a Messiah,” 1967; essays), Grenetsn biz tsum Himl (“Borders up to Heaven,” 1969/70; autobiography), Der Shlisl tsum Himl (“The Key to Heaven,” 1979; stories), Fuler Yidish-Hebreisher Verterbukh (“Complete Yiddish-Hebrew Dictionary,” 1982), Fuler Hebreish-Yidisher Verterbukh (“Complete Hebrew-Yiddish Dictionary,” 1983), Fun Yener Zayt Tsayt (“Behind the Times,” 1988), Zumershney (“Summer Snow,” 1992; stories, essays), Herts Grosbard (1995; biography), Shluf Nit Mameshi (“Do Not Sleep, Mama,” 1996; stories), and Dos Vort Mayn Shverd (“Word My Sword,” 1997; essays). For several decades Tsanin served as president of the Association of Yiddish Writers and Journalists in Israel. Bibliography: M. Ravitsh, Mayn Leksikon, 3 (1958), 350–5; LNYL, 7 (1968), 532–4; S. Liptzin, in: Yiddish, 2:4 (1977), 91–5; D. Sfard, in: Yidishe Kultur, 42:5 (1980), 33–7; Y. Shargel, in: Bay Zikh, 18 (1981), 66–72; Y. Yanasovitch, in: Bay Zikh, 19 (1981), 68–74; A. Lis, in: Yerusholaymer Almanakh, 25 (1996), 280–7. [Jerold C. Frakes (2nd ed.)]

TSCHLENOW, JEHIEL (Yefim Vladimirovich; 1863–1918), Zionist leader. Born in Kremenchug, Ukraine, into a well-todo ḥ asidic family, Tschlenow studied medicine in Moscow where his family had settled in 1876. He graduated as a physician in 1888 and became a well-known practitioner. The pogroms of 1881 turned Tschlenow from a sympathizer with the revolutionary populists (Narodniki) into a Jewish nationalist. In 1883 he became active in the Moscow *Ḥ ibbat Zion group, Benei Zion (to which Menaḥ em *Ussishkin, Jacob *Mazeh, and Abraham *Idelson belonged). After some hesitation, he joined

164

*Herzl’s Zionist Organization and attended Zionist Congresses. Tschlenow presided at the all-Russian Zionist Conference in Minsk in 1902. During the *Uganda controversy at the Sixth Zionist Congress (1903), Tschlenow left the hall after the vote in favor of Herzl’s proposal and 128 other opposition delegates followed him. He published a series of articles in the Zionist press against the Uganda scheme entitled “Zion and Africa.” At the *Helsingfors Conference (1906), he was an articulate promoter of the idea that the political goal of Zionism must be closely associated with immediate settlement work in Ereẓ Israel and particularly with large-scale purchases of land. A visit to Ereẓ Israel in 1907 and the revolution of the Young Turks in 1908 strengthened his conviction. From 1908 he was head of the Zionist Movement in the Moscow district and developed extensive activities, including the arrangement of meetings and conferences, opening of information offices on questions of Jewish education, publication of programs for the study of Jewish history, and preparation of catalogues for Jewish libraries. In 1909 he organized a group of Russian Jewish investors that established the farm *Migdal on the shores of Lake Kinneret. He also actively supported the settlement work of the *Odessa Committee. Since the general trend in the Zionist Movement was in this direction, Tschlenow’s role steadily increased. He was a member of the board of the *Jewish Colonial Trust. At the Tenth Zionist Congress he was elected to the Zionist Executive, and at the 11t Congress (1911) he was elected vice president of the Executive (under Otto *Warburg). He moved to Berlin and directed Zionist activities from there. In 1912 he again visited Ereẓ Israel. During this visit he laid the cornerstone of the Haifa *Technion, as a member of its governing board, and purchased the plot of land on which the Hadassah Hospital in Tel Aviv was later located. Forced to leave Berlin at the outbreak of hostilities in 1914, Tschlenow returned to Russia (1915). By the end of that year he was in London for consultations with Naḥ um *Sokolow and Chaim *Weizmann on the political situation and the program of the movement. During the war he was active in aiding Jewish refugees expelled from the front area by the Russian army command. After the February Revolution in Russia (1917) Tschlenow headed the all-Russian Zionist Convention in *Petrograd. In July 1917 he left for London, where he participated in the negotiations that led to the *Balfour Declaration. He died in London. In 1961 his remains were reinterred in the old cemetery in Tel Aviv. His Zionist writings included The Second Zionist Congress, Zion and Africa (in J. Tschlenow, Pirkei Hayyav… (1937), 101–302; on the Uganda project); Five Years of Work in Palestine (1913); The World and Our Prospects (1917). Tschlenow was known for his emotional warmth and sincerity, his deep devotion and gentle sagacity, and his ability to handle people and situations. Bibliography: N. Sokolow, History of Zionism, 1 (1919), index; A. Boehm, Die zionistische Bewegung (1935), index; S. Eisenstadt (ed.), Yehi’el Tschlenow (Heb., 1937); Y. Gruenbaum, Penei ha-Dor, 1 (1958), 137–48; S. Kling, in: Herzl Year Book, 6 (1965), 83–108. [Mark Perlman]

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

tsukunft TSFASSMAN, ALEXANDER NAUMOVICH (1906–1971), Soviet jazz pianist and composer. Born in Zaporozhe (formerly Alexandrovsk), Ukraine, Tsfassman began to study piano at an early age, and in 1930 he graduated from the piano class of Feliks Blumenfeld at the Moscow Conservatory. While still a student he formed an ensemble of jazz orchestra and piano soloist, a novelty at that time in Soviet Russia, and it was attacked by the Association of Proletarian Musicians for introducing “decadent” Western music. From 1939 to 1946 he headed the large jazz orchestra of Radio Moscow. In later years he appeared mostly as a piano soloist with stage orchestras in performances of his own works or his piano arrangements of popular Soviet songs. In 1957 he was named “Meritorious Artist.” His best known works are instrumental jazz music (including a piano concerto with jazz orchestra, 1941) and music written for choir, the theater, and films. Bibliography: Baker, Biog Dict, s.v.; A.N. Tsfassman, in: Sovyetskaya Musika, 5 (1971), 159. [Michael Goldstein]

TSHEMERISKI (Chemeriski), ALEXANDER (Solomon; 1880–193?), leading member of the Russian *Bund and later of the *Yevsektsiya in the Soviet Union. Born in Bar, Podolia, in the late 1890s Tshemeriski worked as a photographer in Minsk, and ranked among the activists of the Bund. In 1901 he was among the founders of the *Independent Jewish Workers Party. When the party was liquidated, he once more became a revolutionary and conducted illegal propaganda among the peasants. After he addressed a letter of “confession” to the central committee of the Bund, however, he was again accepted within its ranks. As a committee member of the Bund in Lodz, he played an important role in the 1905 Revolution. During the years 1908–10 he was exiled to Siberia. Upon his return, he was the delegate for Lodz at the eighth (Lemberg, 1910) and ninth (Vienna, 1912) conferences of the Bund. He also represented Jewish workers of Lodz at the all-Russian convention of craftsmen (St. Petersburg, 1911), after which he was again arrested. During World War I he lived in Vienna and Geneva. Upon his return to Russia, he was arrested, but set free after the February revolution (1917). Tshemeriski was co-opted as a member of the central committee of the Bund, active in Yekaterinoslav (Dnepropetrovsk) and Kiev, and became a member of the central executive of the trade unions of Ukraine. At the 11t conference of the Bund (March 1919), having been nominated as a candidate for the central committee, he rapidly turned to the Bolsheviks and participated in the foundation of the “Komfarbund,” which was the result of merging the “Kombund” with the United Jewish Communist Party (May 1919). At first a member of the head office of the Yevsektsiya in the Ukraine, he was subsequently appointed member of the central bureau of the Yevsektsiya and its secretary (1920). He wrote for Emes and was active in social and economic reconstruction and education among the Jews. In the mid-1930s he was arrested and tried on charges which included his previous affiliation to the “Independents.” He ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 20

apparently died in prison. Tshemeriski published memoirs in Krasny Arkhiv, no. 1 (1922), on the “Independents,” and in Royte Bleter (1929), on his activities in Lodz in 1905. His publications of the Soviet period are listed in Ch. Shmeruk (ed.), Pirsumim Yehudiyyim be-Verit ha-Mo’aẓ ot (1961), index. Bibliography: M. Altshuler (ed.), Russian Publications on Jews and Judaism in the Soviet Union 1917–1967 (1970), index; J.S. Hertz et al. (eds.), Geshikhte fun Bund, 3 vols. (1960–66), index; LNYL, 4 (1961), 153–4; Avram der Tate [= Leib Blekhman], Bleter fun Mayn Yugnt (1959), 179–85. [Moshe Mishkinsky]

TSOMET (Tzomet), right-wing Israeli political party, founded in 1984, prior to the elections to the Eleventh Knesset, by Raphael *Eitan. In keeping with Eitan’s views, Tsomet supported the concept of Greater Israel, compulsory military service for yeshivah students, and reduction of state financing for the yeshivot. Tsomet ran in a single list with Teḥ iyyah, but only Eitan was elected to the Knesset from the party. In 1987 Tsomet broke away from the joint parliamentary group owing to differences of opinion between Eitan and Ge’ulah *Cohen. Tsomet ran independently in the 1988 election to the Twelfth Knesset, and gained two seats. After the *Israel Labor Party left the National Unity Government, Tsomet joined the narrow government formed by Yitzhak *Shamir in June 1990, and Eitan was appointed minister of agriculture. However, due to opposition to the Madrid Conference of October/November 1991, Tsomet left the government at the end of the year. Toward the end of the Twelfth Knesset Yo’ash Zidon of Tsomet was one of the four MKs who were responsible for the passing of the Law for the Direct Election of the Prime Minister. In the 1992 elections to the Thirteenth Knesset Tsomet ran under the slogan of “clean politics,” and won eight seats, gaining many former *Likud votes. Tsomet opposed the Oslo Accords and the possibility of territorial concessions on the Golan Heights to Syria. In the field of economics it supported privatization. However, in 1995, in view of growing discontent in the Tsomet parliamentary group over Eitan’s domineering leadership, Labor successfully wooed away three Tsomet members, two of whom were offered ministerial positions. In the 1996 elections to the Fourteenth Knesset, Tsomet ran in a joint list with the Likud and Gesher, and as part of the joint parliamentary group became a member of the government formed by Binyamin *Netanyahu. However, in March 1999 Tsomet broke away from the Likud. At the same time several of its members left to join other parties, either further to the Right or further to the Left. Tsomet was not elected to the Fifteenth Knesset, and of its eight members in the Fourteenth only one – Eli’ezer (Mudi) Sandberg – remained in the Knesset, as a member of Shinui. Eitan was killed in an accident during a storm in 2004. [Susan Hattis Rolef (2nd ed.)]

TSUKUNFT (Zukunft), U.S. Yiddish monthly. Founded in New York in 1892 as an organ of the Socialist Labor Party,

165

tsur, jacob Tsukunft was one of the first serious Yiddish periodicals to be published anywhere and the oldest still appearing at the turn of the 21st century. Despite a dwindling readership and an ever-declining group of potential writers, Tsukunft continues to appear, albeit approximately twice a year, publishing poetry, literary reviews, and essays in Yiddish under the editorship of Itzik Gottesman. Edited from the first by some of the most distinguished Yiddish literary figures in the U.S., including Philip *Krantz, Abe *Cahan, and Morris *Vinchevsky, Tsukunft quickly outgrew its original dogmatic base and opened its pages wide to all sectors of opinion in American Yiddish life, while itself remaining secularist and socialist. In 1912 it was acquired by the Forward Association, publishers of the *Forverts. Under the editorship of Abraham *Liessin (1913–38) the magazine published the work of practically every Yiddish writer and thinker of note in the U.S. and of many others from all over the world. After Liessin’s death, Tsukunft was edited by many prominent figures in the Yiddish world, including Hillel *Rogoff, David *Pinski, Nochum Boruch *Minkoff, Shmuel *Niger, Jacob *Glatstein, and Eliezer *Greenberg. From 1940 it was published by the Central Yiddish Cultural Organization. Bibliography: Y. Yeshurin, in: Zukunft, 70t Anniversary Issue (Nov.–Dec. 1962), 503–20; H. Bez, E.R. Malachi, and M. Shtarkman, ibid., 75t Anniversary Issue (April 1968), 100–15. [Hillel Halkin / Samuel Spinner (2nd ed.)]

TSUR (Tchernowitz), JACOB (1906–1990), Israel diplomat and Zionist leader. Born in Vilna, the son of Samuel *Tchernowitz, Tsur settled in Ereẓ Israel in 1921. He was educated in Jerusalem and the universities of Paris and Florence. In 1929–48 he was public relations officer and later director of the Information Department of the *Jewish National Fund in Jerusalem. He served as the liaison officer of the Jewish Agency headquarters with the British army in Cairo from 1943 to 1945, and in 1945 became head of the UNRRA, Israel relief mission to Greece. From 1949 to 1953 Tsur was the first Israel minister to Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Chile, and in 1953–59 he was Israel ambassador to France. During his term of office there, Israel-French relations achieved a degree of cordiality which became virtually an alliance. He served on the Jewish Agency Executive as head of its Information Department in 1960–61. From 1960 he was chairman of the board of directors of the Jewish National Fund and held the presidency until 1977. In the years 1960–68 he was chairman of the Zionist General Council. Tsur was the president of the Central Institute of Cultural Relations with Ibero America, Spain, and Portugal and active in a number of national institutions. His books include his memoirs Shaḥ arit shel Etmol (1965; Sunrise in Zion, 1968), and Yoman Paris (Ambassador’s Diary in Paris, 1968). His Epopée de Zionisme, published in 1975 in French, has been translated into English (The Saga of Zionism), German, Italian, and Portuguese. His sister is the Hebrew writer, Yemimah *Tchernovitz-Avidar. [Benjamin Jaffe]

166

TUAT, with the Gurara, an oasis complex stretching over 360 mi. (600 km.) in the Algerian Sahara. Tuat’s center was Tamentit, “the Jewish town.” Traditions reported by Arab historians