The Cherem on Spain, Ukraine, Italy, Germany, York and Yaffo

Tovia Preschel (toviapreschel.com)

In the year 1913, Professor Avraham Shalom Yehuda was invited by the Spanish government to lecture at the University of Madrid on the greats of Spanish science, song, policy and economics....Professor Yehuda wrote that from searching through the writings of the Rabbis from the period of the expulsion he could not find a hint to the cherem. He also asked the Rabbis of Morocco who have in their hands many traditions from the time of the expulsion but they also could not give a clear [source].

Upon further examination he looked at the full text of the expulsion decree of the kings of Spain and suggested a possible source for this statement about the cherem.

In the expulsion decree, it says among other things: "And concerning this we command this our charter to be given, by which we order all Jews and Jewesses of whatever age they may be...depart from all of these [places]...[or convert]". From investigating these things Professor Yehuda came to the conclusion that there was never a cherem on Spain, and rather there was a prohibition on any Jew who visited or returned to that country because they would have to act as a Christian when they went there. And when the inquisition was nullified in 1837 the rationale for the prohibition was also nullified.

Pinkes of Spanish Community in Hamburg, 1658 (Yearbook 8, 1911, p. 231)

One who visits Spain or Portugal cannot be called up for an aliyah to the Torah for two years and cannot be honoured with any other mitzvah.

Ner Hamaarav to Toldot Yisrael in Morocco, p. 75, Note 9 (R' Yaakov Moshe Toledano, 1880-1960)

So our forefathers told us that because members of our family decreed a cherem on themselves not to return to Spain, they were called Toleda-no, like 'Toleda-lo' in Spanish.

[Note: The author goes onto reject this and instead explain that Toledano means 'man of Toledo']

Shu't Mabit 1:307 (R' Moshe Yosef di Trani, 1500-1580)

There have been no Jews in Aragon for seventy years and we trust that no Jew will [live] there for God will soon gather the remnants of the people of Israel to the land of Israel.

Kol Mevaser 1:13 (R' Meshulam Rata, 1875-1962)

Regarding what is written, that the exiles from Spain decreed a cherem not to return to Spain - I have not found this in any book and this statement has no reliable foundation (On the contrary, in the Shu't Mabit (Part 1, Section 307), the reverse is clear, as he writes: "There have been no Jews in Aragon for seventy years and we trust that no Jew will [live] there for God will soon gather the remnants of the people of Israel to the land of Israel", see there well and understand.

Tzitz Eliezer, 5:17 (R' Eliezer Waldenberg, 1917-2006)

[Point 1:]

The Mabit writes clearly and simply on the knowledge that "No Italian will ever come etc.". And how did he know this if not that it had already been accepted, and likewise how could we have the assurance of the Mabit, "that no Jew will [live] there", if it is not the case that a cherem was already in place. And don't say that the assurance of the Mabit derives from the rationale at his conclusion, that "God will soon gather the remnants of the people of Israel to the land of Israel", for if it were because of that there would also need to be assurance that [Jews] not be expelled at all...and furthermore also that the residents of that city themselves be uprooted from their place to come to the land of Israel. Rather, it seems to me certain that the rationale for this knowledge and assurance "that no Jew will [live] there" is because of the agreement and cherem that was already established regarding [Spain].

[Point 2:]

And on the contrary, the concluding words of the Mabit, that "God will soon gather..." implies that the agreement was [made] until the time comes to gather the remnants of the people of Israel to the land of Israel

[Point 3:]

...and as for why the Mabit does not explicitly mention the cherem and the agreement, it is possible to say that is in the category of 'It is the glory of God to conceal a matter', and because of darchei shalom and diligence in guarding the peace of Israel in the disparate lands among the different peoples.

Tzitz Eliezer, 5:17 (R' Eliezer Waldenberg, 1917-2006)

[There is no record of it...] and it is particularly amazing that the Abrabanel, who was at the head of the exiles and recounts at length the departure from Spain in the introduction to his book, does not mention even indirectly the announcement of this cherem. It is also not mentioned in the sefarim published like Shevet Yehuda, Seder Hadorot, Sefer Yahuchsin, Shalshelet Hakabbalh, which typically did not omit any aggadah. And I asked those who knew and experts in history and they did not know the answer and could not show me any source for it...but 'now I have turned back I am full of remorse', as I am very concerned because 'the custom of Israel is Torah', and 'the voice of the masses is like the voice of God', for among the peoples there is a very widespread received legend that the exiles of Spain made an agreement about this, and generation after generation has been concerned for it. Therefore about this one can say 'But leave it to Israel, if they are not prophets they are sons of prophets'. And [so] one cannot permit fixed residence in Spain to one who asks, and particularly if the one asking is Sefardi from among the descendants of those who were exiled from Spain, for since the conclusion of the Talmud a Beit Din in one province does not have the capacity to decree on another province, as explained in Rambam's introduction to the [Mishnah Torah], and Shu't Rivash 277, and [even] more so if the heads of the other province did not accept it upon themselves...

Iggerot Reiyah, Part Two, Section 632

Regarding residence in Spain - I have still not found explicitly if there is a cherem or oath on this, and fundamentally one should not be more stringent in this than in living in Egypt, where it is only prohibited to fix [abode] and not [prohibited] to go for business with the intent to return.

R' Kook, Mishpat Kohen 145

And since [Rambam] explains that if a Jewish king conquered Egypt with [the approval of] a beit din that would be permitted, because it would be sanctified with the kedusha of the land of Israel and it would have lost all the sinful features found in the uncleanliness of the land of Egypt, and it would then be permitted even for individuals from Israel to settle [there]. [Rambam] provides an additional novel ruling: "The warning against returning was said for individuals". For there is a concern of learning from their actions, but for complete Jewish communities, where they reside together in Egypt, there is no prohibition, since they are separated from the nations there in kedushah their [actions] are not included in the Torah's warning, since [Rambam] explains the reason for the [prohibition in the] verse is in order to not learn from their corrupt actions, and that [concern] is not applicable in communities, and that is permitted even when it is in the hands of the non-Jews. [Rambam continues,] "or to live there", [meaning] to settle, or even to live there without settling. For even though there is no physical action, nevertheless there is a prohibition for individuals "when it is in the hands of non-Jews". But if a Jewish King conquered and sanctified it with the kedushah of the land of Israel, the influence of the kingdom of Israel and the kedushah of the land [of Israel] would provide protection from sinning there, even if people came as individuals, even if Israel still had not settled there. And with this [explanation] one can completely dismiss the issue of how many gedolim for large communities lived in Egypt permanently, for [Rambam] held that the rationale for the prohibition did not apply to communities. And as is known there is also a significant question regarding Rambam himself, and in my view since a large community was already established there [it was not prohibited]. And if an individual goes there to join with a community, some say in that case there is no prohibition. And regarding that which is said in aggadah in Succah (51b) that the people of Alexandria were punished because they violated this negative commandment to [not] return, even though they were large communities, some say that Rambam explains that at the time of their return they were distinct individuals in different places and they returned to settle, and so violated the prohibition, and subsequently joined in a big group, but were punished for the prohibition they had transgressed. And some say that the prohibition continued from the start, for since initially they were spread out among the nations in the tumah of Egypt, [subsequently] joining together did not help, since the negative influence had already taken effect and they were obligated to leave from there. And therefore they were punished.

Shut Yabia Omer, Part 7 - Yoreh Deah Section 14 (R' Ovadiah Yosef, 1920-2013)

And furthermore the Abarbanel does not mention anything about this cherem, and from there there is a proof that there was no cherem at all. And I asked Professor Avraham Shalom Yehuda, born in Jerusalem, who lived in the Spanish capital of Madrid, who is well-versed and an expert in their history in Hebrew and their language, and he wrote to me that it has not been found in any writings, and it has just been heard from old people who said they heard about it, but they did not know the truth of the matter.

Shut Yabia Omer, Part 7 - Yoreh Deah Section 14 (R' Ovadiah Yosef, 1920-2013)

And see Rabbi Yehuda Hachasid saw well in Sefer Chasidim (Section 424), where he writes: "There was an evil prince in one city and he wanted to remove the Jews in that city from religiosity, and they fled from the city, and the congregations said to decree a cherem that no Jew should again live in that city [but] the chacham said to them, do not put a stumbling block before the generations to come, rather decree for the time that the prince is alive. And the chacham sees sensibly". And Rabbi Reuven Margolies writes in Mekor Chesed, that it is told that the exiles from Spain made a cherem for Jews to not return to Spain. And Rabbi S"H Meisels notes that according to the words of Rabbeinu it would not [make sense] to prohibit it in future. And on these lines Tosfot writes on Moed Katan (3b), [citing the Gemara's words] 'all who wish to nullify can come and nullify'. And according to what we said above, on the contrary, according to the words of Rabbi Yehuda Hachasid, it seems more [correct] that the exiles from Spain made no cherem at all.

Teruat Melech, Siman 13, Anaf 2 (R' Yosef Susmanovitz, 1895-1941)

Perhaps they only promulgated it on the land of King Manuel [sic] and Queen Isabella but not [the land of] a republic. This would be like one who vows not to enter a certain house, however if the owner dies or sells the dwelling one is permitted (to enter). We have concerning this idea a profound analysis but because this is not the place to expound upon it I have made it short. In conclusion, since our case it is clear that a Beit Din is able to permit [settlement in Spain] for everyone a Beit Din of three should be organised to do this and I join in this permission so that our brothers the children of Israel will be able to settle in Spain.

[Translation by Rabbi Dr. Marc Shapiro]

She'elat Shlomo, 2:53 (R' Shlomo Aharon ben Yaakov Wertheimer, 1866-1935)

And even if the matters are correct...it would seem that the Rabbis today can undo the cherem as was done with Rav Chaim Avraham Gagin (1787-1848), gaon of Jerusalem, who in his time undid the cherem that was previously established at the start of the last residence of the people of Israel in the holy land that Jews not live in the city of Jaffa because they wanted the upstanding people of Israel to live in Jerusalem. It seems the gaon undid the cherem afterwards and appointed there as Rabbi the Chacham R' Yehuda Halevi (1789-1893) (as is known here from chachamim and scribes) and certainly his reason for undoing it was because the rationale was [no longer applicable] because there was already in his time the settlement of Jews in [the congregation of] the gaon in Jerusalem and the traders had a need to find employment in Jaffa because it is a coastal city, so he could undo [the cherem]. And in these circumstances any beit din can undo [a cherem], as in the Gemara in Beitzah 5a, [where it says] anything [established] by a vote needs another vote to undo it...and in this do not say that a beit din can only nullify the act of another beit din if it is greater in number and wisdom, since [here where] the rationale [is no longer applicable] this is not called nullification because the first beit din would agree with undoing it now that the rationale for the prohibition is no longer [applicable]. And this is the case here, since the times have changed and the hatred and jealousy have gone and there is a great need on the part of the refugees in places where they cannot stay, a gathering of great Rabbis can undo [the cherem]. And if it is difficult to gather them together, write for the agreement of three great Rabbis and they can together undo [the cherem].

'The Rav Gaon intentionally transgressed the cherem of the earlier ones on the land of Spain', Hamaor Vol. 21, No. 2, Kislev 5729 (R' Meir Amsel, 1907-2007)

There is no source or hint in any sefer for the cherem announced on residing in Spain, but it is received and accepted in the mouths of Jews of every generation and every land, that the gedolei hador decreed this, with a curse on every Jew who returned to live in Spain, for four hundred years. But the Jews of every generation were stringent on themselves and accepted it upon themselves and their offspring to never live in Spain. And just as the cherem of Rabbeinu Gershon, was given for a time but accepted for all time, so too this cherem spread in all places and generations of Israel...in the great destruction of the Nazis a few hundred Jews fled there and their initial entry [to Spain] was permitted. All of them together constituted the congregation there, but practically the congregation there has no significance and no value among the congregations of Israel in all the world, and there is no Jew of significance in the world who will come to terms with the idea of establishing a Jewish congregation in this cursed land of blood.

Rabbi Menachem Mendel Chaim Landau (1861-1935), quoted in Seridei Eish, Yoreh Deah, Siman 6, Letter 10, Subject 3 (p. 323):

Regarding the third question that many exiles of Ashkenaz at this time of need want to establish a settlement in the country of Spain, but they are concerned in case it is true that the exiles of Spain in the year 5252 decreed a cherem for Jews to no longer establish a residence in the land of Spain. I also heard this in my childhood, but it is just a statement because it is not mentioned at all in the writings of the exiles of Spain.

And furthermore, [even] if they did decree this, the people of one land are not able to [impose a] decree on the whole world. And who says they accepted this cherem upon themselves in the world. And who is greater to us than Rabbeinu Gershom Meor Hagolah, nevertheless his decree was not accepted in every land, since they did not wish to accept upon themselves the cherem as it says in Even Haezer 1, see there. And it was only a prohibition for the lands where they accepted the cherem upon themselves.

And as for why they did not fix their home [in Spain] in the generations soon [after] the expulsion, that was because the land was closed to Jews for many hundreds of years after the expulsion.

Rabbi Menachem Mendel Chaim Landau (1861-1935), quoted in Seridei Eish, Yoreh Deah, Siman 6, Letter 10, Subject 3 (p. 323):

And even the decree of our Sages, if not accepted by most of the people, does not take effect, as it says in Avodah Zarah 36a regarding oil [of non-Jews], the prohibition did not spread among the majority of Jews, and so too in Avodah Zarah 35a, when they fixed a decree in the West, they did not reveal its reasoning until twelve months had passed in case someone would disagree with it and treat it with contempt, and ostensibly the explanation is that before twelve months [passed] if someone treated it with contempt because the rationale did not make sense to them, there is a concern that as a result of that they would treat it with contempt and not accept upon themselves the decree, but after twelve months when it has spread among the people there is no longer a concern. So seems to me [to be the case] from the language of Rashi's explanation.

And furthermore it seems to me that delo yehivna that a decree like this could stand, nevertheless it makes no sense to [apply] the decree to those who are exiled from a place and are looking for somewhere [to live] from [dire] need. And the land of Egypt demonstrates this, for the Torah prohibited returning to Egypt and yet some of the Tannaim escaped to Egypt...forgive me for I have not gone to the lengths of a precise examination of the teshuvot and their chiddushim, for here I am an exile and shake and I do not have almost any book from among the books of the decisors and acharonim, therefore it is impossible for me to delve into their words and I have written only what seems to me [true] from the source of the words of these halachot.

Rabbi Menachem Mendel Chaim Landau (1861-1935), quoted in Seridei Eish, Yoreh Deah, Siman 6, Letter 10, Subject 3 (p. 323):

But in general, I do not believe all the sayings that they decreed in exile this decree, and how many exiles have there been in the middle ages from France and England, where every Jewish settlement was removed from these countries for hundreds of years and later they returned to them, and what is different about the exile of Spain from the exile of England and France where we have never heard about such a cherem.

Tovia Preschel (toviapreschel.com)

Regarding the cherem established on Pistoia, Pisa and Monte Poliziano, three places in north Tuscany in Italy, we learn from a teshuva of Rabbi Rafael Yosef Troyes, Rabbi of Ferrara.

The Rav was asked in the year 5328 (1567-8) if the cherem announced on these places was an eternal cherem or if there were grounds for undoing it. The Rav answered that one can assume that the Rabbis who decreed on these three places did not want the prohibition to continue [even] once the "rulers of the places changed from bad to good", or when "Israel are oppressed and have an enemy in other places". He cancelled the cherem and allowed one who obtained a license from the ruler to live in these places.

Yeshayahu Zneh, who published this teshuva (in "From Paulo IV to Pius V", Jerusalem, 5714, pp. 208-210), held that the cherem on these places was decreed in the year 5248 (1487-8) which was a year of suffering for the Jews in Tuscany.

Letter written by survivor of Chmielnicki massacre, quoted in Pinkes of the council of the four lands (Jerusalem 5705, p. 79-80)

After the decree of the year 5409 from the decree of Chmielnicki [the 1648 massacres], they decreed a cherem in all the countries of Lithuania, Poland and Turkey* not to live in the country of Ukraine.

Yisrael Halpern Note 1: "We have decrees for the country of Lithuania for 5409, 5410, 5412 etc. and I have not found in them a decree of this kind".

* Yisrael Halpern Note 2: "Turkey seems to be a reference to Podolia which was annexed to Turkey in 5432"

Pinkes of Chortikov, Yisrael Halpern, 'Pinkes of Council of Four Lands'

This is written for the past generation where there was in the year 5408 (1648) great suffering and murder in the province of Ukraine, may God avenge their blood, Chmiel, may his name be erased, the surrounding areas in north Podolia made a cherem. Added to this here in the holy congregation of Chortikov, which I heard from truthful narrators, regarding the false plots and evil of the rulers, many men died sanctifying [God's] name in public, so the Rabbis of the four lands decreed that no Jew should live there [in Ukraine]. Until in the year 5465 the prince returned there and invited [Jews] to come live there and gave them freedom and as a result of this change, permission was given to live there.

Chashukei Chemed, Nedarim 83b

There is an old city in England called 'York', and there is an old cherem on it, that a Jew should not sleep there, for the people of the city slaughtered there baalei haTosfot [and I heard that the gaon Rabbi Lev Gurvitz asked [one] of his students, when on a train traveling via York, to wake him from his sleep, so he would not transgress the cherem.]

Kol Mevaser, 1:13 (R' Meshalem Rata, 1875-1962)

First of all, we do not have the power in this generation to announce a cherem or decree a new prohibition on every Jew in the world...and in truth we see that the gezeirot and takanot of Rabbeinu Gershom, who lived in the days of Rav Hai Gaon, have not spread through all the lands. And so too the gezeirah of kitniyot on Pesach, and many others like it. [So] how could we in our times, in our orphaned generation, take the crown for ourselves with a new gezeirah on all of Israel?...[And] there is a second reason to refrain from a gezeirat cherem by law. [For] in Avodah Zarah 36b, and in many other places in the Gemara, it says not to decree a gezeirah on the tsibbur unless most of the tsibbur can keep it...