The philosopher, Joseph Ibn-Shem Tob (born 1400, died a martyr 1460), who was a voluminous writer, a popular preacher, and a frequenter of the Castilian court, also entered the lists against Christianity to expose the fallacy and unreasonableness of its dogmas. In his frequent intercourse with Christians of distinction, both clerical and lay, he found it necessary to make himself thoroughly acquainted with Christian theology that he might adduce cogent arguments in reply to those who wished to convert him, or in his presence made the oft-reiterated statement of the falsity of Judaism. Occasionally a regular controversy in defense of his creed was forced upon him. The fruits of his studies and thought he committed to writing in the shape of a small treatise, entitled "Doubts of the Religion of Jesus," in which he criticised with unsparing logic the dogmas of Original Sin, Salvation, and Incarnation. Besides, he wrote, for the instruction of his brethren, a detailed commentary on Profiat Duran's satire on Christianity, and made available for them, by means of a Hebrew translation, Chasdaï Crescas' polemical work against the Christian religion, originally written in Spanish. Strange to say, the Spanish Jews preferred, as a rule, Hebrew books to those in the language of their adopted country.
Among the authors of polemical works against Christianity a contemporary of Joseph Ibn-Shem Tob deserves special mention. History has hitherto forgotten Chayim Ibn-Musa, from Bejar, in the neighborhood of Salamanca (born about 1390, died about 1460), a physician, versifier and writer, who had access to the Spanish court and the grandees through his medical skill, and so, frequent opportunities of discussing questions of doctrine with ecclesiastics and learned laymen. A colloquy preserved by Chayim Ibn-Musa illustrates the spirit which prevailed in Spain before the hateful Inquisition silenced all freedom of speech. A learned ecclesiastic once asked Ibn-Musa why, if Judaism, as he maintained, was the true faith, the Jews could not possess themselves of the Holy Land and Jerusalem? Ibn Musa replied that they had lost their country through the sins of their fathers, and could regain it only by perfect atonement and purgation. He, in turn, propounded a question: Why are the Christians no longer in possession of the Holy Sepulcher? and why does it, together with all the sites associated with the Passion, continue in the hands of Mahometan infidels, notwithstanding that Christians, by means of confession and absolution, and through the medium of the nearest available priest, can free themselves at any moment from sin? Before the ecclesiastic could bethink himself of a suitable reply, a knight, who had formerly been in Palestine, interposed: The Mahometans are the only people who deserve to possess the site of the Temple and the Holy Land, for neither Christians nor Jews hold houses of prayer in so much honor as they. The Christians, during the night before Easter (Vigils), perpetrate shameful abominations in the churches at Jerusalem, abandon themselves to debauchery, harbor thieves and murderers, and carry on bloody feuds within their precincts. They dishonor their character in the same way as the Jews profaned their Temple. Therefore, God, in His wisdom, has deprived the Jews and the Christians of the Holy City, and has intrusted it to the Mahometans, because, in their hands, it is safe from desecration. To his observation the Christian priest and the Jewish physician could oppose only abashed silence.
Chayim Ibn-Musa devoted himself to the task of discrediting the chief sources of the materials of Christian attacks on Judaism, the writings of the Franciscan Nicholas de Lyra. He not only refuted the assertions put forward in those works, but deprived them of the soil upon which they fed. The ever-recurring controversies between Jews and Christians led to no conclusions, and left each party in the belief that it had gained a victory, because they generally turned on secondary questions, the disputants never discussing fundamental premises, but wrangling, each from his undemonstrated basis. Chayim Ibn-Musa wished to introduce method into these controversies, and to lay down clear principles for the defense of Judaism. Accordingly, he drew up rules which, strictly observed, were bound to lead to a definite result. In the first place, he advised Jews invariably to hold fast in a disputation to the simple meaning of the Scriptures, always to take the context into account, and especially to avoid allegorical or symbolical methods of interpretation, which left Christian polemics free to introduce arbitrary theories. Further, Jewish disputants were to announce that they ascribed no authority in matters of belief either to the Chaldaic translation of the Bible (Targum) or to the Greek (Septuagint), these being the sources of the false proofs adduced by Christians. He counseled them to abandon even Agadic exegesis, and not to hesitate to declare that it had no weight in determining the doctrines of Judaism. These and similar rules Chayim Ibn-Musa applied to the writings of Nicholas de Lyra, successfully refuting them from beginning to end in a comprehensive work, justly entitled "Shield and Sword."
The anti-Christian polemical literature of this period was further enriched by two writers, father and son, living in Algiers, far removed from the scenes of the Christian propaganda. But Simon ben Zemach Duran and his son, Solomon Duran, were Spaniards by birth and education. In his philosophic exposition of Judaism, the former devoted a chapter to Christianity, maintaining, in answer to Christian and Mahometan objections, the inviolability of the Torah. This chapter, entitled "Bow and Buckler," and described as being "for defense and attack," proves the contention of older writers, and more recently of Profiat Duran, that Jesus' intention was not to abolish Judaism. The rabbi of Algiers exhibits extraordinarily wide acquaintance with the literature of the New Testament and thorough familiarity with church doctrine, combats each with weapons taken from its own arsenal, and criticises unsparingly.
Solomon Duran I (born about 1400, died 1467), who succeeded his father in the Algerian rabbinate, combined with profound Talmudic knowledge a decided leaning towards a rationalistic apprehension of Judaism. Unlike his father and his ancestor, Nachmani, he was a sworn enemy of the Kabbala. During his father's lifetime and at his request, he wrote a refutation of the shameless, lying accusations brought against the Talmud by Geronimo de Santa Fé. In an exhaustive treatise ("Letter on the Conflict of Duties") he deals sharply with Geronimo's sallies. He repels the accusation that the Talmud teaches lewdness, and proves that it really inculcates extreme continence. Jews who regulate their lives according to Talmudical prescriptions scrupulously abstain from carnal sins, holding them in great abhorrence, and pointing with scorn at persons guilty of them. How, asks Solomon Duran, can Christians reproach Jews with unchastity – they, whose holiest men daily commit sins which dare not be mentioned to modest ears, and which have become proverbial as "Monk's sin" (peccato dei frati).
Religious philosophy, which had been raised to the perfection of a science only by Jewish-Spanish thinkers, had its last cultivators in Spain during this period. The same men who protected Judaism against the onslaughts of Christianity defended it against benighted Jews who wished to banish light, and, like the Dominicans, desired to establish blind faith in the place of reason and judgment. Zealots like Shem Tob Ibn-Shem Tob and others, biased by their narrow Talmudical education, and misled by the Kabbala, saw in scientific inquiry a byroad to heresy. Perceiving that for the most part cultivated Jews succumbed to the proselytizing efforts of Vincent Ferrer and Pope Benedict, men of the stamp of Shem Tob were confirmed in their belief that philosophic culture, nay, reflection on a religious topic, irretrievably lead to apostasy. The logical result of religious impeachment of science was the condemnation of Maimuni and all the Jewish thinkers who had allowed reason to have weight in religious questions. Against this form of bigotry Joseph Albo entered the lists with a complete religio-philosophical work (Ikkarim, "fundamental teachings"), in which he attempted to separate the essential doctrines of Judaism from the non-essential, and to fix the boundary line between belief and heresy.
Joseph Albo (born about 1380, died about 1444), of Monreal, one of the principal representatives of Judaism at the Tortosa disputation, who, probably through the intolerance of Pope Benedict, had emigrated to Soria, was a physician and a pupil of Chasdaï Crescas, hence well acquainted with the physical sciences and the philosophic thought of his time. Although a strict adherent of Talmudical Judaism, he was, like his teacher, not averse to philosophic ideas. Indeed, he tried to reconcile them, without, of course, permitting Judaism to yield a jot to philosophy. Albo had not, however, the profundity of his teacher; as a thinker he was superficial, commonplace, and incapable of writing with logical sequence. On the advice of his friends, he undertook to investigate in how far freedom of inquiry in religious matters was possible within the limits of Judaism. At the same time he wished to fix the number of articles of faith and to decide the question whether the number thirteen adopted by Maimuni was correct, or whether it could be increased or lessened without justly bringing a charge of heresy on him who made the change. Thus originated his religio-philosophical system, the last on Spanish soil. Albo's style differs widely from that of his predecessors. He was a preacher – one of the cleverest and most graceful – and this circumstance exercised marked influence on his method of exposition. It is easy, comprehensible, popular and captivating. Albo has the knack of explaining every philosophic idea by a striking illustration, and of developing it by skillful employment of Bible verses and Agadic aphorisms. What his style thus gained, on the one hand, in intelligibility and popularity, it lost, on the other, through a certain redundancy and shallowness.
It is a remarkable fact that Albo, who thought that he was developing his religio-philosophical system exclusively in the native spirit of Judaism, placed at its head a principle of indubitably Christian origin; so powerfully do surroundings affect even those who exert themselves to throw off such influence. The religious philosopher of Soria propounded as his fundamental idea that salvation was the whole aim of man in this life, and that Judaism strongly emphasized this aspect of religion. His teacher, Chasdaï Crescas, and others, had considered man's aim the bliss of the future life, to be found in proximity to the Deity and in the union of the soul with the all-pervading spirit of God. According to Albo highest happiness consists not so much in the exaltation of the soul as in its salvation. That is the nucleus of Albo's religio-philosophical system. Man attains only after death the perfection for which he is destined by God; for this higher life his mundane existence is but a preparation. How can he best utilize his term of preparation? There are three kinds of institutions for the reclamation of man from barbarism and his advancement to civilization. The first is Natural Law, a sort of social compact to abstain from theft, rapine and homicide; the second is State Legislation, which cares for order and morals; and the third is Philosophical Law, which aims at promoting the enduring happiness of man, or, at least, at removing obstacles in the way of its realization. All these institutions, even when highly developed, are powerless to assist the real welfare of man, the redemption of his soul, his beatitude; for they concern themselves only with actions, with proper conduct, but do nothing to inculcate the views or supply the principles which are to be the mainsprings of action. If the highest aim of man be eternal life or beatitude after death, then there must be a Divine Legislation, without which man in this world must always be groping in darkness and missing his highest destiny. This Divine Legislation must supply all the perfections lacking in its mundane counterpart. It must have for its postulate a perfect God, who both wishes and is able to promote the redemption of man; it must further bear witness to the certainty that this God has revealed an unalterable Law calculated to secure the happiness of man; and finally it must appoint a suitable requital for actions and intentions. Hence this Divine Legislation has three fundamental principles: the Existence of God, the Revelation of His Will, and just Retribution after Death. These are the three pillars on which it rests, and it requires none other.
Judaism, then, according to Albo, is a discipline for eternal salvation. It is "the Divine Legislation" (Dath Elohith), and, as such, comprises many religious laws – 613 according to the customary calculation – to enable each individual to promote his own salvation. For even a single religious precept fulfilled with intelligence and devotion, and without mental reservation or ulterior motive, entitles man to salvation. Consequently, the Torah, with its numerous prescriptions, is not intended as a burden for its disciples, nor are the Jews threatened, as Christian teachers maintain, with a curse in the event of their not observing the entire number of commandments. On the contrary, the object is to render easy the path to higher perfection. Therefore, the Agada says that every Israelite has a share in Eternal Life (Olam ha-ba), for each one can obtain this end by the fulfillment of a single religious duty.
Arrived at this point, the religious philosopher of Soria propounds the question whether Judaism can ever be altered as previous dispensations were by the Sinaitic Revelation. This question required specially careful consideration, as Christians always maintained that Christianity was a new revelation, as Judaism had been in its time; that the "New Covenant" took the place of the "Old," and that by the Gospel, the Torah had been fulfilled, i. e., abrogated. Albo had acknowledged the existence of rudimentary revelations previous to that of Sinai, and to avoid being entrapped by the consequences of his own system he put forward a peculiar distinction. That which God had once revealed by His own mouth direct to man was, by virtue of that fact, unalterable and binding for all time; but that which had been communicated only by a prophetic intermediary might suffer change or even annulment. The Ten Commandments which the Israelites had received direct from God, amid the flames of Sinai, were unalterable; in them the three cardinal principles of a divine legislation are laid down. On the other hand, the remaining prescriptions of Judaism, imposed on the people solely through the mediation of Moses, were open to change or even revocation. But this instability of a portion, perhaps a large portion, of the Jewish religious law was only a theory, propounded simply as a possibility. In practice the obligations of the Torah were to be regarded as binding and unalterable, until it should please God to reveal other laws through the medium of a prophet as great as Moses, and in as open and convincing a manner as on Sinai. Hitherto no prophet had made good his claim so far as to render necessary the rescinding of any portion of Judaism.
Albo's religious system is far from satisfactory. Based upon the Christian doctrine of salvation, it was compelled to regard faith, in a Christian sense, as the chief condition of the soul's redemption, and the ordinances of Judaism as sacraments, similar to baptism or communion, upon which salvation was dependent. Nor is the development of his theory strictly logical. Too often the arts of the preacher take the place of severe reasoning, and for the illustration of his ideas he indulges in prolix sermons in exposition of Biblical and Agadic texts.
A bolder thinker than Albo, but, like him, a preacher, was his junior contemporary, Joseph Ibn-Shem Tob. At one time, when in disgrace with the king of Castile, and leading a wandering life, he held forth every Sabbath to large audiences. He had been well schooled in philosophy. His Kabbalistical, gloomy and fanatical father, who denounced philosophy as a primary source of evil, damned Aristotle to hell, and even accused Maimuni of heterodoxy, must have been scandalized when his son Joseph plunged deep, and with all his heart, into the study of Aristotle and Maimuni. But Joseph did not hesitate to stigmatize the error of his father and of those who thought the employment of philosophic methods opposed to the interests of religion. He, on the contrary, held that they were essential for the attainment of the higher destiny to which all men, especially Israelites, are called. The cultured, philosophical Jew who intelligently discharges all the religious duties of Judaism obviously realizes his high aim much sooner than the Israelite who practices his ceremonial blindly, without wisdom or understanding. Science is also of great value in enabling human intelligence to discriminate error. It is the nature of man's imperfect intellect to foster truth and error side by side; but knowledge teaches how to distinguish between the true and the false. On the other hand, gaps in philosophical teaching are bridged over by the Sinaitic Law. In so far as the latter conceives the happiness of man in the survival of the spirit after the destruction of the body, it is immeasurably the superior of philosophy. Judaism also names the means of attaining eternal happiness – the conscientious fulfillment of religious obligations. On this point, Joseph Shem Tob's view approximates that of Joseph Albo. In his eyes, also, the commandments of Judaism have a sacramental character, but he does not emphasize salvation so much as Albo. Joseph Ibn-Shem Tob went so far, however, as to deny that the objects of the religious laws were knowable, and, to a certain extent, ascribed to them a mystical influence.
None of these writings of the first half of the fifteenth century, philosophical or polemical, was the fruit of leisure and an unfettered spirit. All were stimulated into existence by the urgent necessities of the times, and were put forth to protect the religious and moral treasure-house from pressing danger. In order not to succumb, Judaism was forced simultaneously to strengthen itself from within and ward off attacks from without.
It was, indeed, more than ever necessary for Judaism to arm itself, doubly and trebly; its darkest days were approaching. Again the grim church fiend arose, and the gruesome shadow of its extended wings swept anxiously across Europe. As in the time of Innocent III, so again at this period the church decreed the degradation and proscription of the Jews. The old enactments were solemnly renewed by the official representatives of Christendom, assembled in Œcumenical Council at Basle, where they had declared their infallibility, and even sat in judgment on the papacy. Curious, indeed! The council could not arrange its own concerns, was powerless to bring the mocking Hussites back to the bosom of Mother Church, despaired of putting an end to the dissoluteness and vice of the clergy and monks, yet gave its attention to the Jews to lead them to salvation. Leprous sheep themselves, they sought to save unblemished lambs! The Basle church council, which sat for thirteen years (June, 1431-May, 1443), examining all the great European questions, gave no small share of its attention to the Jews. Their humiliation was necessary for the strengthening of Christian faith – such was the ground on which the council proceeded at its nineteenth sitting (September 7th, 1434), when it resolved to revise the old and devise new restrictions. The canonical decrees prohibiting Christians from holding intercourse with Jews, from rendering them services, and from employing them as physicians, excluding them from offices and dignities, imposing on them a distinctive garb, and ordering them to live in special Jew-quarters, were renewed. A few fresh measures were adopted, new in so far as they had not previously been put forward by the highest ecclesiastical authorities. These provided that Jews should not be admitted to university degrees, that they should be made, if necessary, by force, to attend the delivery of conversionist sermons, and that at the colleges means should be provided for combating Jewish heresy by instruction in Hebrew, Chaldee, and Arabic. Thus the Œcumenical Council, which gave itself out as inspired by the Holy Ghost, designed the conversion of all Jews. It adopted the program of Penyaforte, Pablo Christiani, and Vincent Ferrer, who had counseled systematic application of pressure to induce the Jews to abandon "their infidelity." On the baptized Jews, too, the Basle church council bestowed special attention. They were to be favored, but also carefully watched, lest they marry Jews, keep the Sabbath and Jewish feasts, bury their dead according to Jewish rites, or, in fact, follow any Jewish observances.
A fanatical paroxysm broke out afresh in various towns of Europe, commencing in the island of Majorca. The remnant of the congregation of Palma was hated alike by the priests and the mob, and both gave a willing ear to the rumor that the Jews, during Holy Week, had crucified the Moorish servant of a Jew, and put him to the torture. The reputed martyr was still living, but, nevertheless, Bishop Gil-Nunjoz caused two Jews to be imprisoned as ringleaders. Thereupon arose a contest between the bishop and the governor, Juan Desfar, the latter maintaining that as the Jews were the property of the king, he alone could condemn them. The bishop was obliged to hand over the Jews, who were locked up in the governor's jail. The priests, however, incited the mob against the governor and the Jews, and before Juan Desfar could arrange for a hearing, the people were prepossessed against him. A court composed chiefly of Dominicans and Franciscans was called together, and employed the rack as the most effectual means of obtaining the truth from the witnesses. One of the accused put to the torture acknowledged all that was desired, and pointed out any Jews who happened to be mentioned as his accomplices. An unprincipled Jew named Astruc Sibili, who lived in strife with many members of the community, and feared to be involved in the blood accusation, came forward as the denouncer of his co-religionists. Apparently of his own accord Astruc Sibili acknowledged that the servant had been crucified, and pointed out several Jews as the murderers. Although he kept himself clear from all complicity in the matter, Astruc Sibili was soon punished for his denunciations – he was thrown into prison as an accomplice. The fate of the informer and the flight of several Jewish families, justly fearing a repetition of massacres, from Palma to a mountain in the vicinity, excited the Christian inhabitants yet more. The fugitives were pursued, placed in fetters, and brought back to the city, their flight being considered a proof of the guilt of the entire community. Astruc Sibili and three others were condemned to be burnt at the stake, but their punishment was commuted to death by hanging, on condition that they be baptized. To this they agreed, considering baptism the last straw by which their lives might be saved. The whole community, men, women and children, two hundred in all, went over to Christianity to escape a horrible death. The priests had ample employment in baptizing the converts. How little they believed in the imputed crime of the condemned was shown when, the gallows being reached, the priests, encouraging the mob to do the same, demanded the pardon of the condemned. The governor yielded to the voice of the people, and by a procession and amid singing they were escorted to the church, where a Te Deum was chanted. Thus ended the community of Majorca, which had lasted over a thousand years, and had greatly contributed to the well-being of the island. With it disappeared the prosperity of this fruitful and favored island. Simon Duran, deeply grieved at the secession of the community of Palma, which he had lovingly cherished, silenced his conscience with the thought that he had not been remiss in exhortation.