Volume 27, Issue 2

Abstract: In diesem Aufsatz wird der Versuch unternommen, das sehr verschwommene aber ungemein wichtige Abhängigkeitsverhältnis zwischen den Erzählungen des Rabbi Nissim (im heutigen Tunesien) und den Werken der zwei mittelhochdeutschen Dichter Rudolf von Ems ( Der guote Gerhart ) und Heinrich Kaufringer (Verserzählungen) vom 12. bis zum 15. Jahrhundert nachzuzeichnen und damit eine neue Dimension der interreligiösen und interkulturellen Beziehungen im Mittelalter aufzudecken. Dass Nissim die entscheidende narrative Vorlage lieferte, ist eindeutig nachzuweisen, aber es bleibt zu fragen, wie diese Rezeption möglich war.

Abstract: This article discusses one item found in the colophons of medieval Hebrew manuscripts copied in Ashkenaz. Some opening and closing scribal formulas were found to be typical of the various cultural expanses of the Jewish world. Here we survey the Hebrew colophons for the closing formula at the end of the copying: »עד שיעלה חמור בסולם« (»until a donkey will go up the ladder«), a formula we found in 228 manuscripts, of which 130 are from Ashkenaz (including the Provence in France) making up over half (57 %) of the total manuscripts copied in this area. The rich imagination of the scribes wrought a few changes to the basic formula - not only a donkey »up the ladder« but also other animals and other objects. This formula, which first appears in a thirteenth century manuscript, is tracked in this article up until the middle of the 16th century. We discuss the origin of the formula, whether it is from Jewish or universal cultural sources. »The donkey formula« was used not only in colophons but in Hebrew literary sources as well. The question is whether the scribe used the formula in jest or to express a wish that »nothing bad should happen to him« since »never« will a donkey go up a ladder. There is no definite answer. The formula has spread from Ashkenazic culture to other areas, including Italy, Spain, Byzantium and the Middle East.

Abstract: The essay assesses all the regulations in these collections that relate directly or indirectly to Jews, dividing them into four topic-based groups (protection and toleration; the mission of the Jews; proselytism; reduction of rights and condemnation) each with further subdivisions. This provides a solid foundation for comparing the treatment of Jews advocated by Burchard and Ivo, as well as for comparing their propositions with those of other canon law collections. Since older systematic canonical regulations for Jews apparently did not serve as immediate examples for either Burchard or Ivo, whereas the latter had an influence on Gratian, it can be assumed that Burchard’s collection formed the beginning of a direct line of canon law developments for Jews. If we compare Burchard’s and Ivo’s regulations we notice a clear negative progression in the treatment of Jews between the former and the latter, even though Ivo, in principle, also advocated the protection of Jews. With either it becomes apparent, however, that the great majority of the later canonical regulations for Jews trace back to the distant past. Moreover, the comparison of Ivo’s Decretum with the Panormia , a work attributed to him, reveals so many differences in the fundamental attitude towards Jews that the Panormia may have to be attributed to another author, possibly from Ivo’s school.