11 - A Note on Deviance in Eleventh-Century Ashkenaz

Summary

AVRAHAM GROSSMAN has argued that the traditional picture of a deeply observant Ashkenazic community in the eleventh century is an exaggeration, for the responsa literature of that era shows that the community was constantly contending with criminals (’avaryanim) and violent men (alamim). The evidence he adduces may be entered under four headings: (1) Repeated instances throughout the eleventh century of resistance to communal ordinances. (2) The need of communities to impose fines and excommunication to control their members. (3) Recourse by individuals to Gentile courts. (4) References in responsa to thieves, perjurers, and occasional strongarm tactics.

If the purpose of the essay was to counteract the pathos-laden description of pre-Crusade Ashkenaz by Yitsḥak Baer, I have no quarrel with the antidote that Dr. Grossman has prescribed. If it is presented as a rounded portrait of Ashkenaz in the eleventh century, I would like to register a qualified demurral.

Let us analyze each phenomenon separately.

1. In an important article Grossman demonstrated that Yitsḥak Baer's portrayal of communal organization was in error. It was not the case, as Baer had contended, that Jewish self-government in Ashkenaz initially required that decisions be made unanimously, with the principle of majority rule evolving only in the course of the thirteenth century. Rather, from the very outset, the governing principle was majority rule, as I. A. Agus had contended long ago. However, contrary to Agus, Grossman convincingly argued that the Jewish community was not democratic but oligarchic. The ‘little people’ (ha-ketanim) were to listen to the ‘great ones’ (ha-gedolim) and to their ‘elders’ (zikneihem). Majority rule was simply a practical way of resolving differences among the maiores. In his presentation Grossman was so interested in making the important point, contra Baer, that majority rule obtained throughout the course of the eleventh century that he presented that period statically, as if communal power and its reach had been one and the same at the outset and at the close of that century.

If communal authority was fully in place and widely recognized at the outset of this period, in the days of Rabbenu Meshullam (fl. latter half of the tenth century) and Rabbenu Gershom (d. 1028), the numerous instances of non-compliance with communal ordinances that Grossman cites portray, indeed, a deviant and recalcitrant community.