The Reception of the Shulhan ‘Arukh and the Formation of Ashkenazic Jewish Identity

AJS Review

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 251-276

  Davis, Joseph ^a  

^a GRATZ COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85012494615     PISSN: 03640094     EISSN: 14754541     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0364009402000065     Document Type: Article

References (95)

1. Isadore Twersky, “The Shulh. an ‘Arukh: Enduring Code of Jewish Law,” Judaism 16 (1967), 141-158, reprinted in The Jewish Expression, ed. Judah Goldin (New Haven, 1976), pp. 322-343. Cf. Isadore Twersky, “Ha-Rav Yosef Qaro ba'al ha-Shulh. an ‘Arukh,” Asufot 3 (1989), 245-262. See also Chaim Tchernowitz, Toledot ha-Posqim, vol. 3 (New York, 1947); Yizhaq Raphael, ed., Rabi Yosef Qaro: ‘Iyunim u-meh.qarim be-mishnat Maran Ba'al ha-Shulh. an ‘Arukh (Jerusalem, 1969); Menachem Elon, Ha-Mishpat ha-'Ivri: toledotav, meqorotav, ‘eqronotav, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem, 1978); Asher Siev (Ziv), Rabeinu Mosheh Isserles (Rema) (New York, 1972); R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, Joseph Karo: Lawyer and Mystic, rev. ed. (Philadelphia, 1977); Meir Benayahu, Yosef Beh.iri: Maran Rabi Yosef Qaro (Jerusalem, 1991); Israel Ta-Shma, “Rabbi Joseph Caro and His Beit Yosef: Between Spain and Germany,” in Moreshet Sepharad: The Sephardi Legacy, ed. Haim Beinart, vol. 2 (Jerusalem, 1992), pp. 192-206 (the article originally appeared in Hebrew in Tarbiz 59 [1990]: 153-170); Eric (Yizhaq) Zimmer, Gah.alatan shel H. akhamim: peraqim be-toledot ha-rabanut be-Germanyah ba-me'ah ha-shesh-'esreh uvame'ah ha-sheva'-'esreh (Jerusalem, 1999), pp. 177-237.
2. An excellent recent study of identity-formation among a group of early modern Jews is Miriam Bodian, Hebrews of the Portuguese Nation: Conversos and Community in Early Modern Amsterdam (Bloomington, IN, 1997). The formation of Polish Jewish identity was the topic of Adam Teller's lecture, “Yeven Metzula and the Formation of Jewish Self-Consciousness in Eastern Europe,” which I was privileged to hear, and which is expected to appear in Jewish History in a special issue on the massacres of 1648. On the treatment of Ashkenazic and Sefardic Jews in Jewish historiography, see Ismar Schorsch, “The Myth of Sephardic Supremacy,” Leo Baeck Institute Year Book 34 (1989), 47-66. On halakhic aspects of the differences between the two groups, see Hirsch Jacob Zimmels, Ashkenazim and Sephardim: Their Relations, Differences, and Problems as Reflected in the Rabbinical Responsa (Oxford, 1958).
3. The connection is made by Richard Helgerson among others; see his Forms of Nationhood: The Elizabethan Writing of England (Chicago, 1992), pp. 65-104. On the general question of national and group identity in early modern Europe, see Charlotte Catherine Wells, Law and Citizenship in Early Modern France (Baltimore, 1995); Rainer Babel and Jean-Marie Moeglin, eds., Identité régionale et conscience nationale en France et en Allemagne du Moyen Age à l'Epoque Moderne (Sigmaringen, 1997); Brenden Bradshaw and Peter Robert, eds., British Consciousness and Identity: The Making of Britain, 1533-1707 (Cambridge, 1998); the special issue of Harvard Ukrainian Studies, vol. 10, nos. 3-4 (1986), ed. Ivo Banac and Frank Sysyn, entitled Concepts of Nationhood in Early Modern Eastern Europe; Orest Ranum, ed., National Consciousness, History, and Political Culture in Early Modern Europe (Baltimore, 1975); and note also David Bell, “Recent Works on Early Modern French National Identity,” Journal of Modern History 68 (1996), 84-113, and the literature cited there.
4. See Manlio Bellomo, The Common Legal Past of Europe, 1000-1800, trans. Lydia G. Cochrane (Washington, D.C., 1995), pp. 78-84; John P. Dawson, “The Codification of the French Customs,” Michigan Law Review 38 (1940), 765-800; René Filhol, “La rédaction des coutumes en France aux XVe et XVIe siècles,” and John Gilissen, “La redaction des coutumes en Belgique aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles,” both to be found in John Gillisen, ed., La rédaction des coutumes dans le passé et dans le présent (Brussels, 1962), pp. 63-78 and 87-109; Richard L. Kagan, Lawsuits and Litigants in Castile, 1500-1700 (Chapel Hill, NC, 1988), pp. 25-26; Helgerson, Forms of Nationhood; Gerald Straus, Law, Resistance, and the State: The Opposition to Roman Law in Reformation Germany (Princeton, 1986), pp. 86-87; Waclaw Uruszczak, “Essais de codification du droit polonais dans la première moitié du XVIe siècle,” Revue historique du droit francais et étranger 59 (1981), 419-430; H. Inalcik, “Suleiman the Lawgiver and Ottoman Law,” Archivum Ottomanicum 1 (1969), 105-138.
5. Quoted by Helgerson, Forms of Nationhood, p. 70.
6. Quoted by Konstanty Grzybowski, “La loi et la coutume en Pologne depuis le X-ème siècle jusqu'à 1795,” in Rapport polonais présenté au sixième Congres international de droit comparé (Warsaw, 1962), p. 51. Cf. Waclaw W. Soroka, “Historical Studies of Polish Law,” in Polish Law Throughout the Ages, ed. Wenceslas J. Wagner (Stanford, 1970), pp. 23-31. 7. Uruszczak, “Essais de codification du droit polonais,” p. 422.
7. Peter R. Roberts, “Wales and England after the Tudor ‘Union': Crown, Principality, and Par liament, 1543-1624,” in Law and Government under the Tudors: Essays Presented to Sir Geoffrey Elton, ed. Claire Cross et al. (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 111-138. On the extension of English law to Ireland, see in the same volume, Brendan Bradshaw, “Robe and Sword in the Conquest of Ireland,” pp. 139-162.
8. See above n. 6.
9. See Dawson, “Codification of the French Customs”; Filhol, “La rédaction des coutumes en France”; Gilissen, “La redaction des coutumes en Beligique” (all above n. 4).
10. See Anthony Pagden, Lords of All the World: Ideologies of Empire in Spain, Britain, and France, c. 1500 - c. 1800 (New Haven, 1995), pp. 23, 53-60.
11. See Elanan Reiner, “Bein Ashkenaz li-yrushalayim-H. akhamim Ashkenazim be-'Eres. Yisra'el le-ah.ar ha-mavet ha-shah. or’,” Shalem 4 (1984), 27-62.
12. Zimmels, Ashkenazim and Sephardim, pp. 41-45; Salomon Rosanes, Divrei yemei Yisra'el be-Togarmah (Tel Aviv, 1930), vol. 1, n. 5 (pp. 163-175); Shelomoh Spitzer, “Ha-Ashkenazim be-h.as. i ha-i ha-Balqani ba-me'ot ha-15 veha-16,” and Leah Bornstein, “Ha-Ashkenazim ba-Imperyah ha-Othmanit ba-me'ot ha-16 veha-17,” both in Mi-Mizrah. umi-Ma'arav 1 (1974), 59-79, 81-104; Abraham David, “Qavim li-demuto shel ha-qehilah ha-Ashkenazit bi-Yerushalayim ba-me'ah ha-16,” Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, vol. 2, Hebrew sec., pp. 331-341; Minna Rozen, Ha-Qehilah ha-Yehudit bi-Yerushalayim ba-me'ah ha-17 (Tel Aviv, 1985), pp. 99-102; Moses Shulvass, “Dos Ashkenazishe Yidntum in Italye,” Yivobleter 34 (1950), 157-181 (also published in English as “Ashkenazic Jewry in Italy,” YIVO Annual of Jewish Social Science 7 (1952), 110-131).
13. On multi-ethnic Jewish communities in the sixteenth century, see Kenneth Stow, “Ethnic Rivalry or Melting Pot: The Edot in the Roman Ghetto,” Judaism 41 (1992), 286-296; Ariel Toaff, “The Jewish Communities of Catalonia, Aragon, and Castile in 16th Century Rome,” in The Mediterranean and the Jews: Banking, Finance, and International Trade (XVI- XVIII Centuries), ed. Ariel Toaff and Simon Schwartzfuchs (Tel Aviv, 1989), pp. 249-270; Salo Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, vol. 18, 2nd ed. (New York, 1983), pp. 55-67. The Ashkenazic communities of Central and Eastern Europe were not generally divided into separate co-territorial Jewish communities. Thus, for instance, there was no community of German or Polish Jews in Prague. An exception was the Jewish community of Cracow, which in the early sixteenth century was divided for some time into separate Polish and Bohemian communities. See Bernard Weinryb, The Jews of Poland (Philadelphia, 1973), pp. 91-92.
14. On Venice, see David Malkiel, A Separate Republic: The Mechanics and Dynamics of Venetian Jewish Self-Government, 1607-1624 (Jerusalem, 1991), pp. 92-113; Daniel Carpi, “ ‘Taqanoneha’ shel qehilat Venes. yah 1591-1607,” in Galut ah.ar golah: meh.qarim be-toledot ‘am Yisra'el mugashim le-Prof. H. ayim Beinart…, ed. Aaron Mirski et al. (Jerusalem, 1988), pp. 443-469, reprinted in Carpi, Be-Tarbut ha-Renesans u-vein h. omot ha-gito (Tel Aviv, 1989), pp. 168-208.
15. Amnon Cohen and Bernard Lewis, Population and Revenue in the Towns of Palestine in the Sixteenth Century (Princeton, 1978), p. 159.
16. Bernard Lewis, Notes and Documents from the Turkish Archives (Jerusalem, 1952), pp. 25- 28. Cf. Rivka Cohen, Qushta-Saloniqi-Patros: hit'argenut qehalit ve-'al-qehalit shel Yehudei Yavan taat shilton ha-'Othmani ba-me'ot ha-15 veha-16 (Tel Aviv, 1984), pp. 15 ff.
17. See Ta-Shma, “Rabbi Joseph Caro and his Beit Yosef “ (above n. 1). Benayahu (Yosef Beiri, p. 28; cf. p. 140) suggests that Karo “wished the Sefardim to exercise hegemony” in Safed. In 1555, Karo was involved in a conflict with Moses b. Joseph of Trani (MaBIT) over a case in which Karo rejected a custom observed by the pre-Sefardic (Musta'arabic) community of Safed. See Karo, She'elot u-teshuvot Beit Yosef, dinei ketubah 3. Cf. Karo, She'elot u-teshuvot ‘Avqat rokhel 32, discussed by Toledano in Raphael, Rabi Yosef Qaro, p. 184, and by Dienstag in the same volume, pp. 173-174. Gordon Weiner has accused Sefardic rabbis of a “double standard” that favored their own local customs over those of others. See “Sephardic Philo- and Anti-Semitism in the Early Modern Era: The Jewish Adoption of Christian Attitudes,” in Jewish Christians and Christian Jews from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, ed. Richard Popkin and Gordon Weiner (Dordrecht, 1994), p. 199.
18. See Karo's introduction to Beit Yosef: “If in certain lands, they are accustomed to forbid certain things, even though we shall decide the law to the contrary, they should hold fast to their custom, for they have already accepted the words of the sage who forbade it, and it is prohibited to them.” Cf. José Faur in Raphael, Rabi Yosef Qaro, pp. 192-193.
19. See Karo's comment in Kesef Mishneh on Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot ‘Avodat Kokhavim 12:14, and his criticism of the view of R. David ben H. ayyim of Corfu. Contrast, however, She'elot u-teshuvot ‘Avqat rokhel nos. 32 and 191, and see below n. 32 on the principle, invoked by Karo in these responsa, that an ethnic community may be considered a “city unto itself.” There are a number of expressions by Ottoman Jews in this period of the principle that the Jews of a single locality ought to be united and observe a single set of customs. For instance, a sixteenth-century communal statute of the Jews in Sérrai in Macedonia prohibited anyone from forming a competing synagogue in that place. See Rivka Cohen, Qushta-Saloniqi-Patros (above n. 17), p. 148.
20. Joseph Karo, She'elot u-teshuvot ‘Avqat rokhel, no. 212 (ed. New York, 1959, p. 193). The text is discussed by Zimmels, Ashkenazim and Sephardim, p. 304; Rosanes, Divrei Yemei Yisra'el be- Togarmah (above n. 13), p. 167; Elyakim Elinson, Ish ve-ishto (Jerusalem, 1981), p. 20, n. 12 and p. 24, n. 31; Asher Siev, ed., She'elot u-teshuvot ha-Rema (Jerusalem, 1971), p. 335, n. 2.
21. This theory of the legal status of immigrants was made more flexible by Samuel de Medina in his responsum 40 on Yoreh de'ah. He distinguished between immigration by isolated individuals (to whom Karo's rule would apply) and immigration en masse by a group, whose members keep their ethnic status and form a separate new community of their own. On de Medina, see Morris Goodblatt, Jewish Life in Turkey in the XVI Century: As Reflected in the Legal Writings of Samuel de Medina (New York, 1952), but the work should be used with caution.
22. See H. ayyim Vital, Sha'ar ha-Kavanot in Kol kitve ha-'Ari z”l, ed. Judah Zvi Brandwein, vol. 8 (Jerusalem, 1988), p. 328. The passage is quoted in Zimmels, Ashkenazim and Sephardim, p. 116, n. 6, and also in such seventeenth-century halakhic works as Joseph Hahn Nördlingen, Yosif ‘omes. (Frankfurt am Main, 1928), p. 12, and Abraham Gombiner, Magen Avraham on Shulh. an ‘arukh, Ora ayim, sec. 68.
23. It should be noted that Luria did not see ancestral liturgical customs as halakhically binding. He himself used an idiosyncratic prayer text, the so-called Nusah. ha-'Ari. Cf. the halakhic view of Samuel de Medina, below n. 35. Nusah. ha-'Ari combines aspects of the Sefardic and Ashkenazic texts, and in that respect resembles Karo's efforts at halakhic unification (on which see Ta-Shma, “Rabbi Joseph Caro and His Beit Yosef “). It was promoted by Vital and later became widespread among Hasidic groups. There is no evidence, however, that Luria himself intended his prayer text to have widespread use or to replace the various traditional prayer texts (as was later alleged). On the later reception of Nusah. ha-Ari, see Joseph ben H. ayyim Moses Nazir, She'elot u-teshuvot Mateh Yosef (Constantinople, 1717), pt. 1, no. 3; Dov Baer of Mezhirech, Magid devarav le-Ya'akov, ed. Rivka Schatz-Uffenheimer (Jerusalem, 1990), p. 167; Zimmels, Ashkenazim and Sephardim pp. 118-119; E. Daniel Goldschmidt, “'Al nusah. ha-tefilot shel qehilot ha-H. asidim,” in his Meh. qerei tefilah u-fiyut (Jerusalem, 1980), pp. 315-321.
24. Castro, ‘Erekh leh. em (Constantinople, 1718) on ‘Even ha-'ezer 1:1 (p. 55b). On Castro, see Yizhak Nissim in Raphael, ed., R. Yosef Qaro, pp. 64, 75-81. Elimelekh Westreich has written a series of articles on the history of the interpretation of the h. erem Rabeinu Gershom. See esp. “ ‘Ilot le-hatarat h. erem de-Rabeinu Gershom be-Italyah ba-me'ot ha-h.amesh ve-ha-shesh ‘esreh,” Meh. qere mishpat, 9 (1991), pp. 227-256; and “The Ban on Polygamy in Polish Rabbinic Thought,” Polin 10 (1997), pp. 66-84. In one of his responsa (She'elot u-teshuvot Beit Yosef, dine ketubot, no. 14) Karo reports that the Ashkenazic Jews in Jerusalem and Turkey themselves permitted polygamy. Their theory of the operation of the h. erem must therefore have been different from Castro's (although it may also have been different from Karo's). Cf. Os.ar ha-posqim, ‘Even ha-'ezer, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 1956), p. 70.
25. Cf. Talmud Bavli, Pesah.im 50a, codified in Yoreh de'ah 214. The h. erem of Rabeinu Gershom, as a h. erem, is said by some early modern halakhists to have a special status that makes it obligatory on children and children's children; whether other Ashkenazic minhagim are similarly inherited remained debatable. The principle that ancestors may bind future generations of descendents to a custom or practice is also stated (in regard to the celebration of a special Purim) by R. Moses Alashkar in his Responsa, no.49; cf. R. Joseph Furman, quoted by Rivka Cohen, Qushta-Saloniqi-Patros, p. 150. Samuel de Medina qualified this rule in his responsa,1:40, children may be released from an ancestral custom unless it is an interpretation of the talmudic law that they have accepted.
26. Cf. Donald R. Kelley, “Second Nature: The Idea of Custom in European Law, Society, and Culture,” in The Transmission of Culture in Early Modern Europe, ed. Anthony Grafton and Ann Blair (Philadelphia, 1990), pp. 150-157.
27. See Talmud Bavli, Yevamot 13b -14a and elsewhere.
28. For minhag avot, see Talmud Bavli, Bes. ah 4b, and for the medieval development of the notion, see Yedidyah Denari, H. akhmei Ashkenaz be-shilhei yemei ha-beinayim (Jerusalem, 1984), pp. 190-191, especially n. 5; Jeffrey Woolf, “The Authority of Custom in the Responsa of Joseph Colon (Maharik),” Dine Israel 19 (1998), English sec., pp. 43-93. Note also Joseph ibn Ezra, Masa Melekh: dinei misim u-minhagim (ed. princ. Salonika, 1601), pt. 8, Ne'ilat She'arim (ed. Ya'aqov Shemu'el Spiegel, [ Jerusalem, 1989], pp. 200-205). Intermediate, in some sense, between lineage and place of residence is place of birth. Moses b. Joseph di Trani rules (responsum 1: 307, quoted in Rivka Cohen, Qushta-Saloniqi-Patros, p. 16) that communal allegiance should follow one's own birthplace rather than that of one's parents30. Cf. responsum 78 of R. Elijah Mizrahi: “The name ‘Ashkenazi’ in this place does not signify that its bearer came from the kingdom of Germany, but rather that he is a member of the qehilah of the Ashkenazim who live in the city of Constantinople.” Note also the debate of two Egyptian rabbis of the end of the seventeenth century, Joseph ben Moses Nazir and Abraham ben Mordechai ha- Levi. Both addressed the question of whether Jews of Ashkenazic ancestry (or place of birth) should continue to observe Ashkenazic customs after settling in Egypt. Abraham ben Mordechai answered that they should not, because there was no Ashkenazic qehilah in Egypt. In a palce where there is a qehillah, however, “each qehilah is considered a city unto itself.” See Joseph ben Moses Nazir, Mateh Yosef, pt. 2, Yoreh de'ah, no. 1; Abraham ben Mordechai, She'elot u-teshuvot Ginat veradim (Constantinople, 1717), Yoreh de'ah 3:5. Epitomes of both responsa are given in Isaac Lampronti, Pah. ad Yis. h. aq, vol. 4 (Livorno, 1839; reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1969), pp. 138a-b, s.v. minhag.
29. See Wells, Law and Citizenship in Early Modern France, pp. 4-6. See also Salo Baron, The Jewish Community, vol. 2 (Philadelphia, 1945), pp. 4-23 on “citizenship” in the medieval and early modern Jewish communities. On the principle of consent, see Martin Golding, “The Juridical Basis of Communal Association in Medieval Rabbinic Legal Thought,” Jewish Social Studies 28 (1966), 67- 76. Cf. also Menachem Elon, “Demoqratyah, zekhuyot yesod, u-minhal taqin bi-fesiqatam shel h. akhmei ha-Mizrah. be-mos. ‘ei gerush Sefarad,” Shenaton ha-mishpat ha-'Ivri 18-19 (1992-94), pp. 9-64.
30. See R. David ben H.ayyim of Corfu, Responsa no.11; R. Elijah Mizrah.i, Responsa #13; R. David ibn Abi Zimra (Radbaz), Responsa, pt. III, no. 472; R. Samuel de Medina, Responsa, pt. I, nos. 40 and 153. R. Joseph ibn Lev, in his Responsa, pt. II, no. 72, limits the scope of this principle considerably. On Karo, see above, notes 20 and 30. R. Solomon ibn Adret, at the turn of the fourteenth century, treats craft guilds as “cities unto themselves”: Responsa, no. 185. Cf. Kenneth Stow, “Corporate Double Talk: Kehillat Kodesh and Universitas in the Roman Jewish Sixteenth Century Environment,” Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 8 (1999), pp. 283-303.
31. Cited by Cohen, Qushta-Saloniqi-Patros, p. 16. She refers also to Isaac Adarbi, She'elot uteshuvot Divrei rivot, no. 56, who discusses a case arising from the decision of the seven Spanish and Portuguese communities of Salonika to assign new Jewish immigrants to communities by lot, regardless of their precise origins and preferences.
32. De Medina refused to allow a community to exclude new immigrants from membership (that is, to apply against them the h. ezqat ha-yishuv), see the responsum discussed by Baron in A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 2nd ed., vol. 18, p. 59. Thus, he left the initiative very much in the hands of the individual. The community can neither coercively exclude nor retain members. Fluidity among Jewish ethnic groupings in Italy is emphasized by Baron (Jewish Community, pp. 19-20); by Stow, “Ethnic Rivalry or Melting Pot”; and by Westreich, “'Ilot le-hatarat h.erem de-Rabeinu Gershom.”
33. She'elot u-teshuvot Maharshdam 1:35. Cf. no. 36. The incident is discussed by Rivka Cohen, Qushta-Saloniqi-Patros, pp. 145-150. It is not clear whether de Medina would have accepted a decision by a community to abandon the Sefardic rite in favor of another; he praises the special clarity and simplicity of the Sefardic rite. Note also Samuel de Medina's attempts in one of his responsa (She'elot u-teshuvot Maharshdam, Yoreh de'ah 40) to justify the continuation of Sefardic customs by the Salonika Jews, while at the same time allowing the Jews of Sofia to abandon Hungarian customs of ritual slaughter. Cf. nn. 22, 26 above.
34. See Wells, Law and Citizenship in Early Modern France. Wells disproves the commonly held view that the concept of citizenship did not exist in premodern times. She shows that rights to citizenship were held to be based on a number of separate claims: blood relation, place of birth, place of residence, and subjective allegiance, as demonstrated, for example, by an oath. A person might become a citizen upon birth or through a contract with the city. 37. On Isserles, see generally Siev, Rabeinu Mosheh Isserles and the extensive bibliography there, pp. 267-300; Jonah Ben Sasson, Mishnato ha-'iyunit shel ha-Rema (Jerusalem, 1984); Elhanan Reiner, “The Ashkenazi Elite at the Beginning of the Modern Era: Manuscript vs. Printed Book,” Polin 10 (1997), 93-98.
35. From the introduction to Isserles’ commentary to the Shulh. an ‘arukh. The introduction, which is not in all editions of the Shulh. an ‘arukh, is published, for example, in the photo-offset reprint of the first Cracow edition (Jerusalem, 1974), and in Raphael, ed., Rabi Yosef Qaro, p. 96. Isserles repeats the phrase in Yoreh de'ah 39:18: “the ancient sages of France and Germany, whose children's children we are.” Isserles’ remark is echoed in the 1649 responsum of R. Yom Tov Lipman Heller, She'elot u-teshuvot Ge'onei batra'ei, ed. Elijah b. Moses of Pinczow (ed. princ. Turka, 1764), no. 10: “We are the descendants of the Jews of France and Germany, and we decide halakhah in accordance with their opinions, as… Rabbi Moses Isserles wrote.”
36. Karo was regarded by rabbis of the subsequent generations, such as Mordechai Jaffe and many others, as an “Oriental” rather than a Spanish Jew. See the introduction to Jaffe, Levush Malkhut: “[Karo] decided the majority of his rulings… in accordance with the customs of the Islamic lands, because he was their leader.” Cf. H. ayyim ben Bes. alel in Vikuah. Mayim H. ayim (in Tchernowitz, Toledot ha-Posqim, vol. 2, p. 98), who characterizes Karo's rulings as minhag Eres. Yisra'el; see also H. ayyim Benveniste (1603-1673), in the introduction to his Keneset ha-gedolah, and the quotation from Joshua Falk Cohen below at n. 77.
37. See Jeffrey Woolf, “The Authority of Custom in the Responsa of R. Joseph Colon (Maharik),” Dine Israel 19 (1998), English section, pp. 43-93. The principle that descendents should follow the halakhic interpretations of their ancestors is also discussed by Zimmels, Ashkenazim and Sephardim, pp. 281-282. Cf. nn. 26, 29 above.
38. Sefer ha-Tishbi, s.v. qeruvas. (sic), quoted by Max Weinrich, Geshikhte fun der yidishe shprakh (New York, 1973), vol. 1, p. 349 (trans. Shlomo Noble and Joshua Fishman, History of the Yiddish Language [Chicago, 1980], p. 342). Cf. the remark by the early seventeenth-century grammarian and liturgist Shabbetai Sofer: “The German Jews are the French Jews” (!), quoted by Stefan Reif, Shabbethai Sofer and His Prayer Book (Cambridge, 1979), p. 80, n. 86.
39. One may contrast other medieval theories of the origins of the German Jews, and particularly the theory of Maharil that the German Jewish settlements were ancient, and predated the destruction of the Temple. See Abraham Grossman, H. akhmei Ashkenaz ha-rishonim ‘ad… tatnu [51096] (Jerusalem, 1981), pp. 2-5. Similarly, R. Asher ben Yeh. iel's claim (quoted by Maharil in his Responsa, no.100 [ed. Satz, p. 172], and then by R. H. ayyim ben Bes. alel [in Tchernowitz (above n.1), p. 98]) that “the traditions of the German Jews are to be preferred… because the Torah is an inheritance for them from their ancestors,” does not seem to trace that tradition through the French Jews.
40. See Siev, Isserles, pp. 8-10. The genealogical tradition of the Luria family was first recorded in the early sixteenth century; it reached back as a continuous genealogical record to the fourteenth century. From there to Rashi, it merely asserted the existence of a genealogical link. See Israel Yuval, H. akhamim be-doram: manhigut ha-ruh. anit shel Yehudei Germanyah be-shilhei yemei ha-beinayim (Jerusalem, 1989), pp. 249-252.
41. Cf. Isserles’ role in the creation of the story of the translatio studii from Germany to Poland (the story of R. Jacob Pollak), discussed by Elh.anan Reiner in “Temurot bi-shivot Polin ve-Ashkenaz ba-me'ot ha-16-ha-17 veha-vikuah. ‘al ha-pilpul,” in Israel Bartal et al., eds., Ke-minhag Ashkenaz u-Folin: sefer yovel le-Chone Shmeruk: qoves. meh. qarim be-tarbut Yehudit (Jerusalem, 1993), pp. 47-53. As Reiner points out there, Polish Jewry did not have a well-developed foundation myth in the early modern period (and note the literature on medieval Jewish foundation myths cited on p. 49, n. 62.) On the later legends of the origins of Polish Jews, see Haya Bar-Itzhak, Polin-agadot reshit: etnopo'etiqah ve-qorot agadim (Tel Aviv, 1996), and now in English, Jewish Poland-Legends of Origin: Ethnopoetics and Legendary Chronicles (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2001).
42. On Coke's controversial reference to the legend of Brutus the Trojan, founder of Britain, see Glenn Burgess, The Politics of the Ancient Constitution: An Introduction to English Political Thought 1603-1642 (University Park, PA, 1993), pp. 73-78. Cf. the attribution of the Salic Law to the legendary Trojan founders of France, discussed by Colette Beaune, The Birth of an Ideology: Myths and Symbols of Nation in Late-Medieval France, trans. Susan Ross Huston, ed. Fredric L. Cheyette (Berkeley, 1991), pp. 242-243. See also the references there on the general topic of legitimation by descent.
43. On Luria, see Simah Assaf, “Mashehu le-toledot Maharshal,” in Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume (New York, 1945), Hebrew section, pp. 45-63, and cf. the literature cited by Jacob Elbaum, Petih. ut ve-histagrut: ha-yes. irah ha-ruh. anit-ha-sifrutit be-Folin uve-aras. ot Ashkenaz be-shilhei ha-me'ah ha- 16 (Jerusalem, 1990), p. 19, n. 20. See also Meir Rafeld's Ph.D. dissertation (Bar Ilan University, 1991), “Ha-Maharshal veha-Yam shel Shelomoh.”
44. From the introduction to Solomon Luria, Yam shel Shelomoh, Bava Qama. Solomon Luria's opposition to Isserles’ myth of the migration of Torah study from Germany to Poland is discussed by Reiner, “Temurot” (above n. 44), pp. 53-56.
45. Cf. Bellomo, Common Legal Past of Europe, p. 78, on presentations of German vs. Italian law as a contrast of the particular and the universal.
46. Universalism is not, of course, identical to tolerance. Unlike Karo, who tried to ingratiate himself to Ashkenazic Jewish readers among others (see Ta-Shma, above n. 1), Solomon Luria attacked Spanish Judaism in the introduction to Yam shel Shelomoh. See below n. 94.
47. From the introduction to Isserles’ commentary to the Shulh. an ‘arukh. Cf. Isserles’ introduction to Torat ha-H. atat, “If a man were to decide the law following [Karo's] opinions set down in his Shulh. an ‘arukh, especially in matters of ritual prohibitions [isur ve-heter], he would contradict all of the customs that are followed in these lands [ba-medinot ha-eilu].” Similarly, in Isserles’ introduction to Darkhei Mosheh, his commentary to the Turim, among the objections that Isserles made to Karo's decisions was that “[Karo] contradicts all of the customs that are observed in these lands (be-eilu hamedinot).” Cf. also Darkhei Mosheh on Yoreh de'ah 35:7.
48. See, for example, Tur, Orah. h. ayim, para. 47, 48, 49, 51, 59, 60, 114, 129, 131, 147, etc. Sometimes R. Jacob contrasted Spain to “France and Germany,” S. arefat ve-Ashkenaz. Cf. Israel Ta- Shma, “Rabeinu Asher u-veno R. Ya'aqov ba'al ha-turim: bein Ashkenaz li-Sefarad,” Pe'amim 46-47 (1991), pp. 75-91.
49. Orah. h. ayim 10, 28, 60, 114, 474, 547, 552, 581; Yoreh de'ah 1, 58. He refers to “the custom of the Rhineland Jews” in Yoreh de'ah 64. Contrast his much more frequent references to “these lands,” listed below n. 60.
50. The satirical Yiddish poem “Di beshraybung fun Ashkenaz un Polak,” (published by Max Weinreich, “Tzvay Yiddishe shpotlider oyf Yidn,” Yivo filologishe shriftn 3 [1929], pp. 537-554) gives evidence of the formation of antagonistic stereotypes of the two groups by about 1675, stereotypes that can also be seen in Glikl's diary a few decades later. Cf. Chone Shmeruk, Sifrut Yidish: peraqim le-toledoteha (Tel Aviv, 1978), p. 72, n. 1. On relations of Polish and German Jews in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, see Steven Aschheim, Brothers and Strangers: The East European Jew in German and German Jewish Consciousness 1800-1923 (Madison, 1982).
51. See Naftali Ben Menah.em, “Ha-defusim ha-rishonim shel ha-shulh. an ‘arukh,” in Raphael, ed., Rabi Yosef Qaro (above n. 1), p. 114. Cf. Samuel ben Isaac's note at the end of Yoreh de'ah (Cracow, 1578), p. 114a.
52. Bernhard (H. ayyim) Friedberg, Toledot ha-defus ha-'Ivri be-Folanyah (rev. ed., Tel Aviv, 1950), pp. 5-6; Naftali Ben Menah. em in Raphael, ed., Rabi Yosef Qaro (above n. 1), p. 104.
53. On R. H. ayyim, see Byron L. Sherwin, “In the Shadows of Greatness: Rabbi H. ayyim ben Bes. alel of Friedberg,” Jewish Social Studies 37 (1975: 35-61; Eric (Yizhaq) Zimmer, R. H. ayim b. Bes.alel mi-Friedberg: ah.i Maharal mi-Prag (Jerusalem, 1987); Zimmer, Gah.alatan shel h.akhamim (above n. 1), pp. 177-219. On R. H. ayyim's opposition to Isserles, see pp. 210-216. See also Reiner, “Ashkenazi Elite,” pp. 85-90. 57.H. ayyim ben Bes. alel, Introduction to Vikuah. mayim h.ayim, printed in Tchernowitz (above n. 1), p. 98.
54. Professor Twersky argues (“The Shulh. an arukh,” p. 151) that Isserles’ and Karo's intentions were not decisive in the later use of their book (and need not be decisive, for that matter, in our interpretation of it). This is, of course, far from arguing that Isserles had no specific intention in mind.
55. Sefer ha-minhagim le-Rabeinu Ayziq Tirna, ed. Shelomoh Spitzer (Jerusalem, 1979), p. 3 of the text, and p. 11, n. 9 of Spitzer's introduction.
56. The phrase “these lands,” (medinot eilu, or eilu ha-medinot, or in some places gelilot eilu or aras. ot eilu) appears frequently in the text of Isserles’ glosses to the Shulh.an ‘arukh: Orah. h. ayim, par. 28, 31, 128, 291, 366, 447, 608, 646, 892, 894, Yoreh de'ah par. 39, 55, 68, 115, 196, 316, 322,'Even ha-'ezer par. 1, H. oshen mishpat par. 207.
57. See She'elot u-teshuvot ha-Rema, ed. Asher Siev (Jerusalem, 1971), nos. 53 (contrast with Italy), 95 (with Germany), 124 (with Moravia); ed. Asher Siev, pp. 263, 417, 484.
58. See Grossman, H. akhmei Ashkenaz ha-rishonim, p. 1, n. 1. On the origins of the term “Germany” itself as a designation for the medieval kingdom, see Karl Ferdinand Werner, “Les nations et la sentiment nationale dans l'Europe médiévale,” Revue Historique 244 (1970), 285-304.
59. Max Weinreich has designated these meanings as Ashkenaz I and Ashkenaz II, respectively. See Weinreich, Geshikhte (above n. 41), vol. 1, p. 5; cf. vol. 1, p. 323; vol. 3, p. 5, n. 2. Weinreich's earliest citation for the term “Ashkenaz” used in its broader sense (Ashkenaz II) is from R. Anshel, Mirkevet ha-mishneh (Cracow, 1534). The name “Ashkenaz” did not lose its earlier narrower connotation, so there is an ambiguity that can be seen, for instance, in a quotation from R. Benjamin Slonik that we will cite later. On similar ambiguities in the meanings of “Germany” and “German” in the sixteenth century, see István Bejczy, “Erasmus Becomes a Netherlander,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 28 (1997), pp. 387-400.
60. On the general problem of regional and national consciousness in Germany, see Babel and Moeglin, eds. (above n. 3); Rüdiger Schnell, “Deutsche Literatur und Deutsches Nationsbewußtsein in Spätmittelalter und Frühen Neuzeit,” in Joachim Ehlers, ed., Ansätze und Diskontinuität Deutscher Nationsbildung im Mittelalter (Sigmaringen, 1989), pp. 247-319. The upsurge of German national consciousness at the turn of the sixteenth century, inspired partly by German humanists such as Ulrich von Hutten, is well known. Modern historiography has exaggerated the degree to which consciousness of national identity in Europe has tended to increase monotonically since early in the Middle Ages, and to denigrate other competing conceptions of group identity that have existed since that time. Michael Stolleis argues that national consciousness and imperial patriotism in Germany went through waves of increased and decreased intensity in the early modern period. See his “Public Law and Patriotism in the Holy Roman Empire,” in Max Reinhart, ed., Infinite Boundaries: Order, Disorder, and Reorder in Early Modern German Culture (Kirksville, MO, 1998), pp. 11-33.
61. She'elot u-teshuvot Maharil ha-h.adashot, ed. Yitzchok Satz (Jerusalem, 1977), no.187 (p. 291). The context is divorce law. Note also 38:6 (p. 44), in which Maharil contrasted French and German speech, while noting also the existence of different dialects of German in different regions. Eric Zimmer (Harmony and Discord: An Analysis of the Decline of Jewish Self-Government in 15th Century Central Europe [New York, 1970], pp. 128-142) emphasizes the merely regional scope of intercommunal cooperation among German Jews in the fifteenth century, and the repeated failures of imperial attempts to achieve recognition for a chief rabbi of Germany. See also Dovid Katz, “East and West, Khes and Shin, and the Origin of Yiddish,” in Israel Bartal et al., eds., Ke-minhag Ashkenaz u- Folin, English section, pp. 15-19.
62. A significant exception is the custom, described in Sefer Maharil (ed. Satz, p. 159) as observed throughout Germany, of an annual recitation of the names of all the communities that suffered massacres in 1096. “German” identity was tied partly to the memory of the massacres. Cf. Adam Teller's article (above n. 2).
63. See recently Eric (Yishaq) Zimmer, ‘Olam ke-minhago noheg: peraqim be-toledot ha-minhagim, hilkhoteihem, ve-gilguleihem (Jerusalem, 1996), pp. 217-295; Shelomoh Spitzer, “Minhag benei Ostraykh: meqoro ve-hitpath.uto be-meshekh yemei ha-beinayim,” Sinai 87 (1980), 55-64. Cf. Benjamin Hamburger, introduction to Juspa Shammes, Minhagim di-qehila qadish Varmaisa (Jerusalem, 1988), vol. 1, pp. 69-105. Zimmer (p. 217) and Spitzer both make assurances that the customs of “Austria” and “the Rhineland” agreed more than they disagreed. Note, however, that our question is not how modern ethnography sees medieval German Jews and their diverse but related customs, but how they saw the matter themselves. Notoriously, groups that seem very similar to outsiders may regard themselves as entirely different. R. Shalom of Neustadt, a rabbi in Austria, regarded Rhenish minhagim as customary throughout Germany: “The main part of the kingdom of Germany is the Rhineland, and the other lands follow it.” See Halakhot u-minhagei Rabeinu Shalom mi-Neustadt (Derashot Maharash), ed. Shelomoh Spitzer (Jerusalem, 1977), p. 41. On the earlier Middle Ages, see Israel Ta- Shma, Minhag Ashkenaz ha-qadmon: h.eqer ve-'Iyun (Jerusalem, 1992).
64. See the index to Joseph ben Moses of Münster, Leqet yosher, ed. Jacob Freimann (Berlin, 1903-1904). There are similarly very few references to “Ashkenaz” in Sefer minhagim le-Rabeinu Avraham Klausner, ed. Yosef Dissen (Jerusalem, 1978). Even in Sefer Maharil (relying on the index in the Spitzer edition [below, n. 69]), there are twice as many references to Austria, and nearly four times as many to the Rhineland, as there are to Germany.
65. Sefer Maharil, ed. Shelomoh Spitzer (Jerusalem, 1989), Hilkhot Yom Kippur, no. 11 (p. 339). Cf. p. 261 (Hilkhot yamim nora'im, #7); She'elot u-teshuvot Maharil, no. 76 (ed. Yitzchok Satz [ Jerusalem, 1980], p. 124. Cf. Denari, H. akhmei Ashkenaz (above n. 29), pp. 284-285.
66. See the 1575 contract of the rabbi of Friedberg, in A. Kober, “Documents selected from the Pinkas of Friedberg… “ PAAJR 17 (1947), pp. 45-46. The outstanding seventeenth century collection of local customs was Juspa Schammes, Minhagim de-qehila qadisha Varmaisa. The conflicting tendencies of localism and centralization in German Jewry of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are discussed by Zimmer, Gah. alatan shel h.akhamim (above n. 1), passim.
67. “H. us. li-Medinat Ashkenaz,” “ausserhalb Teutschlands” or in another version, “aus dem Römischen Reich.” The text is in Eric Zimmer, Jewish Synods in Germany during the Late Middle Ages (1286-1603) (New York, 1978), pp. 148-149, nos. 5 and 13. Cf. Zimmer, “Rabanei Germanyah bame'ah ha-16 ve-ziqatam la-rabanim bi-tefus. ot ‘ah. erot,” in Ninth WCJS (1986) Division B. vol. I, Hebrew section, pp. 127-134. Much of the credit for the new sense of German Jewish community goes to the Habsburg emperors, notably Charles V, and to the men whom they appointed to be leaders of all German Jewry, notably Josel of Rosheim. See Zimmer, Gah. alatan shel h.akhamim, p. 263.
68. Note that R. H. ayyim, unlike Maharil, can conceive of a codification of the customs of the “German” Jews. See Vikuah. mayim h.ayim in Tchernowitz (above n. 1), p. 94. Similarly, R. Isaac Mizeya stressed “German” customs in the last decades of the sixteenth century; so did H. ayyim Ulma about 1630: see Zimmer, Gah. alatan shel h.akhamim, pp. 91-94, 228-236.
69. She'elot u-teshuvot Yefeh nof, ed. Avigdor Berger (Jerusalem, 1985), Yoreh de'ah 155 (p. 147), discussed in the introduction by Eric Zimmer, p. 18. But note that in another responsum (p. 236; discussed by Zimmer, p. 17), in which Mizeya discusses explicitly the authority of the Shulh.an ‘arukh and limits its authority considerably, he does describe Isserles as having “gathered all the customs of our lands [ha-medinot ve-aras.ot shelanu] as may be found in his [i.e., Isserles'] introduction.” On Mizeya, see Zimmer, Gah. alatan shel h.akhamim, pp. 84-105, 257.
70. From the introduction to Jaffe, Levush malkhut. Jaffe copies Isserles’ phrase medinot haeilu in his own halakhic work: see, for example, the passages quoted by Zimmer, ‘Olam ke-Minhago Noheg (above n. 67), pp. 140, 202. Another student of Isserles, the historian David Gans, also used the same phrase with the larger sense of the Ashkenazic lands. See his S. emah. David, pt. 1, for the year 1530 (ed. Mordechai Breuer [Jerusalem, 1983], p. 138); the passage is discussed in Reiner, “Temurot” (above n. 44), p. 48.
71. From the concluding appendix of ‘Emeq berakhah, p. 116b, quoted in Siev, Isserles (above n. 1), p. 77.
72. She'elot u-teshuvot Mas'at Binyamin (Vilna, 1894; ed. princ. Cracow, 1632), no. 27, end, quoted in Siev, Isserles, p. 82. For the date, see Nisson Shulman, Authority and Community: Polish Jewry in the Sixteenth Century (New York, 1985), p. 192.
73. Introduction to Sefer me'irat ‘einayim, published in many editions of Shulh. an ‘arukh, H. oshen mishpat.
74. An exception that proves the rule was in Amsterdam, where the Polish Jews split away from the German Jews in 1660. The two groups composed their differences and joined together again as one community in 1673. On the incident, see Bodian, Hebrews of the Portuguese Nation (above n. 2), pp. 125-131; Yosef Kaplan, “The Portuguese Community in the Seventeenth Century Amsterdam and the Ashkenazi World,” Dutch Jewish History 2 (1989), p. 42; Moshe Rosman, “Samkhut shel Va'ad ‘Arba ‘Ara s.ot mi-h.us. le-Folin,” Bar Ilan 24-25 (1989), 19-20; D. M. Sluys, “Yehudei Ashkenaz be Amsterdam mi-shenat 1635 ‘ad shenat 1795,” in Meh. qarim ‘al-toledot Yahadut Holand, vol. 1 (1975), pp. 69-87. (Sluys's article appeared originally in Dutch: “Hoogduits-Joods Amsterdam van 1635 tot 1795,” in Geschiednis der Joden in Nederland, ed. H. Brugmans and A. Frank, vol. 1 [Amsterdam, 1940], pp. 306-381.)
75. Responsa, pt. III, no. 472. Cf. R. Joseph ibn Lev, Responsa, pt. II, no. 72: “In Salonika, when they arrived after the expulsions, each language established a community for itself, and no one goes or comes from community to community, and each community supports the poor of their language.” Salo Baron quotes the passage in his Social and Religious History of the Jews, vol. 18, pp. 55- 56.
76. On Maimonides’ theory of talmudic authority, see Menahem Kellner, Maimonides on the ‘Decline of the Generations’ and the Nature of Rabbinic Authority (Albany, 1996). “They vowed and accepted”-qiyemu ve-qibelu (Esther 9:27)-is the catchphrase that is very often used for popular reception of a law or lawcode. A different view of Jewish law derives the authority of Jewish communal institutions from Talmudic law; here it is the reverse.
77. Karo was among those who applied the theory to Maimonides. See She'elot u-teshuvot ‘Avqat rokhel, no. 32: “All the communities of the Land of Israel and Arabistan and the Maghreb are accustomed to follow his opinions, and have accepted him as their master.” See also the passage from Karo's introduction to Beit Yosef quoted above n. 19. Maimonides’ theory of consent forms the basis for his theory of the possible future renewal of rabbinic ordination. It is therefore significant that Karo was involved in R. Jacob Berav's movement to ordain rabbis in Safed. On that event, see the revised version of Jacob Katz, “Maloqet ha-semikhah bein Rabi Ya'aqov Berav veha-Ralbah., “ in his Halakhah ve-qabalah (Jerusalem, 1984), pp. 213-236, and the literature cited there. On Karo's use of Maimonides, see Twersky, “R. Yosef Qaro,” above n. 1.
78. Note as well that R. Joshua Falk Cohen, in his discussion of the Talmud's authority in the introduction to Sefer Me'irat ‘Einayim, bases it only on rabbinic consensus.
79. Note also the formal acceptance of Karo's authority by the rabbis of the land of Israel in the seventeenth century, reported by Jacob Hagiz and discussed by Toledano in Raphael, ed., Rabi Yosef Qaro, p. 185.
80. Isserles claimed in his introduction to the Shulh.an ‘arukh that Karo, in relying on Maimonides, had unjustly neglected the more “recent authorities” whom it is right to follow, such as the fifteenth-century Ashkenazic rabbis. Abraham Horowitz (n. 75 above) argued that Isserles himself was the most “recent authority,” and that on that account he should be followed. On the principle that “the law follows the recent authority,” see Israel Ta-Shma, “Hilkheta ke-vatra'ei: beh. inot historiyot shel kelal mishpati,” Shenaton ha-mishpat ha-'Ivri 6-7 (1980), pp. 405 - 425; Meir Rafeld, “ ‘Hilkheta kevatra'ei’ es. el H. akhmei Ashkenaz u-Folin ba-Me'ot ha-15 -16: Meqorot u-Sefih. in,” Sidra 8 (1992), pp. 119-140; Israel Yuval, “Rishonim ve-'ah.aronim, Antiqui et moderni: toda'at ha-zeman ve-toda'ah ‘as. mit be-Ashkenaz,” Zion 57 (1992: 369-394).
81. Shenei luh. ot ha-berit (Warsaw, 1878), I, 54a - b (Sha'ar ha-'otiyot, “qedushah”), discussed in Zimmels, Ashkenazim and Sephardim, p. 57.
82. Zimmels, Ashkenazim and Sephardim, exaggerating somewhat, claims that “it was only through Caro and Isserles that the Sephardim and Ashkenazim became united among themselves” (p. 58).
83. The reception of the Shulh.an ‘arukh in Germany is surveyed by Zimmer in Gah. alatan shel h. akhamim (above n. 1), pp. 257-258, and in greater detail, pp. 210-237. The reception of the Shulh.an ‘arukh had at least four aspects, not all of them simultaneous. (1) Its widespread use was nearly instantaneous. (2) The decline and gradual falling out of print of competing codes, such as Sefer mis.vot ha-gadol; the Mordechai; the Turim; and the Talmudic digest of R. Asher ben Yeh. iel, began about 1600 and was complete after 1640, after the death of R. Joel Sirkes, who had championed the Turim. (3) Beginning at the turn of the seventeenth century, the authority of the Shulh.an ‘arukh was also asserted by major rabbis, by students of Isserles and later by their students and (particularly after mid-century) by their students’ students, and by others. (4) Finally, after the second quarter of the seventeenth century, statements of opposition to the Shulh.an ‘arukh by major rabbis trail off. Statements of support and opposition to the Shulkh.an ‘arukh are collected by Siev (above n. 1), pp. 286-296. Cf. Reiner, “Temurot” (above n. 44), pp. 21-22, n. 20.
84. From the introduction to Buchner's Orot H. ayim (Cracow, 1654), reprinted by Yizhak Yudlov in Moriah 14 (1985-86), nos. 5-8, p. 19. It is not clear just whom Buchner meant by “the Jews” in the last line. He may have been writing imprecisely, and meant only “the Ashkenazic Jews.” It is possible, however, that, like certain other rabbis in his day such as R. Hayyim Benveniste in Izmir, Buchner thought of Isserles’ comments as being applicable in principle to all Jews. See H. ayyim Benveniste, introduction to Keneset ha-gedolah (Livorno, 1658).
85. On the relation of Hungarian Jews and Ashkenazic Jews in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, see Bornstein (above n. 13), pp. 82-86. There were separate communities of Hungarian and Ashkenazic Jews in Constantinople as well (p. 82, n. 6). By the second quarter of the seventeenth century, however, two Salonika rabbis, R. Daniel Estrossa and R. H. ayyim ben Shabbetai, referred to the Buda Jews in their responsa as “Ashkenazim” (pp. 83-84).
86. See Ephraim ben Jacob ha-Kohen, She'elot u-teshuvot Sha'ar Efrayim, no. 113, quoted in Siev, p. 291, and in Tchernowitz, p. 157 (both above n. 1). In a reponsum written between his arrival in Buda in 1666 and his death in 1678, R. Ephraim wrote that he had found these taqanot in the pinqas of the community. He added that the community had placed clauses to this effect in the contracts of some of his predecessors. (Contrast the contract of the rabbi of Friedberg, above n. 70.)
87. For example, the acceptance of the Shulh.an ‘arukh by the Prague rabbinate before the end of the seventeenth century is not clear. There were attempts in Prague to promote Jaffe's Levushim (Jaffe was a Prague native), as well as R. Asher ben Yeiel's Pisqe ha-Rosh. In the early seventeenth century, while the Shulh.an ‘arukh was not published in Prague, the Levushim was reprinted twice: in 1609 and again in 1622-1624. R. Yom Tov Lipman Heller made efforts to promote R. Asher's Digest, as had Maharal before him; volumes of R. Asher were published in 1619 and 1628. Volumes of the Shulh.an ‘arukh were finally published in Prague in 1688-1695. See Tchernowitz (above n. 1), pp. 185-186 on Eliyah Rabah by the Prague rabbi Elijah Spira, which was written about 1690 as commentary to the Levushim, but published in the eighteenth century as a commentary on the Shulh.an ‘arukh.
88. Liah Greenfeld, Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity (Cambridge, MA, 1992).
89. See Elbaum, Petih. ut ve-histagrut (above n. 46), passim.
90. Luria's identification of Spanish Jewry with philosophical rationalism prefigured (albeit with a negative slant) the “Sefardic Mystique” of the Haskalah, on which, see Schorsch (above n. 2). Cf. the remarks of the Messianic visionary Asher Lemlein in the wake of the expulsion of the Spanish Jews in 1492 (“H. ezyonotav shel R. Asher be-R. Meir ha-mekhuneh Lemlein Reutlingen,” ed. Ephraim Kupfer, Qoves.'al yad 18 [1976], p. 406). Isserles, to the contrary, was a follower of Maimonidean rationalism: see Jonah Ben Sasson (above n. 37). Isserles restricted Ashkenazic difference to law and practice; he did not believe in the existence of an “Ashkenazic theology” nor a “Sefardic theology” that would be distinctive in any way. Isserles’ tendency to avoid polemics is remarked on by Twersky, “The Shulh. an ‘Arukh” (above n. 1), p. 150, n. 29.
91. On Sefardic identity, see Bodian (above n. 2).
92. Benedict R. O'G. Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, rev. ed. (London, 1991). Note also Rogers Brubaker, “Myths and Misconceptions in the Study of Nationalism,” in John Hall, ed., The State of the Nation: Ernest Gellner and the Study of Nationalism (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 272-309.
93. On the international scope of the market for Yiddish books in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, see Shmeruk, Sifrut Yidish (above n. 53), pp. 72-89. Note p. 80 on Isserles’ printer, Isaac of Prossnitz. Cf. Elbaum, Petih. ut ve-histagrut (above n. 46), p. 14, n. 9.
94. On linguistic nationalism in the sixteenth century, see M. T. Jones-Davies, ed., Langues et Nations au Temps de la Renaissance (Paris, 1991); Fredi Chiapelli, ed., The Fairest Flower: The Emergence of Linguistic National Consciousness in Renaissance Europe: International Conference (Florence, 1985); Roy Porter and Mikulás Teich, The Renaissance in National Context (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 78, 130, 158, 174, etc. Cf. above n. 3.
95. Elon, Ha-Mishpat ha-'Ivri, 2nd ed. (above n. 1), vol. 2, p. 1183. Cf. Heinrich Graetz, Divrei yemei Yisra'el, Saul Pinas Rabinowitz trans. and ed., vol. 8 (Warsaw, 1902), p. 156 and Rabinowitz's note, p. 157. On the movement of rabbis and other Jewish religious personnel in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries between Poland and the rest of the Ashkenazic world, see Moshe Rosman, “Demuyav shel beit Yisra'el be-Folin ke-merkaz Torah ah. arei gezerot tah. ve-tat,” Zion 51 (1986), pp. 442- 448. On the sixteenth century, note Zimmer, R. H. ayim ben Bes. alel (above n. 56), p. 41; Elbaum, Petih. ut ve-histagrut (above n. 46), pp. 13-14 and n. 8.