1. Parts of the Discorsohave been translated into Latin, French, German and English. For the English translation, see Commentary3 (1947):371–77,474–78, 13 (1952):589–93, and for a listing of the other partial translations, see Benjamin Ravid, Economics and Toleration in Seventeenth Century Venice: The Background and Context of theDiscorso of Simone Luzzatto(Jerusalem, 1978), pp. 7–8, note 1. The only complete translation is the Hebrew translation by Dante Lattes (Jerusalem, 1950), with two Hebrew introductions: Moses A. Shulvass, “Rabbi Simha Luzzatto” (reprinted in In The Grip of Centuries[Hebrew] [Tel Aviv-Jerusalem, 1960], pp. 33–55) and Roberto Bachi, “Introduction to the Hebrew edition of the Discorso on the State of the Jews”(partly reprinted in Italian, with additions, in his Israele disperso e ricostruito[Rome, 1952], pp. 97–139).Google Scholar

2. See Shulvass, Moses A., “A Story of the Misfortunes Which Afflicted the Jews in Italy” (Hebrew), Hebrew Union College Annual 22 (1949): 18–20, Hebrew section, reprinted in In the Grip of Centuries, pp. 99–101. For an English translation of the passage and further discussion, see Ravid, Economics and Toleration, pp. 10–13.Google Scholar

3. See Baer, Yitzhak F., Galut(Berlin, 1936), p. 69Google Scholar, English translation (New York, 1947), p. 83, and the review of the 1950 translation of the Discorsoby Baron, Salo W. in Jewish Social Studies 15(1953):313–314.Google Scholar

4. See Ravid, Economics and Toleration, pp. 25–98, and more specifically on the charter of 1589, Benjamin Ravid, “The First Charter of the Jewish Merchants of Venice, 1589,” AJSreview1 (1976): 187–222.

5. Such an analysis still remains to be undertaken. The problem has been presented in greater detail, and a tentative approach suggested, in Ravid, Economics and Toleration, pp. 19–25.

6. The basic history of the Jews of Venice still remains Cecil Roth, Venice(Philadelphia, 1930), although many points require revision.

7. On Menasseh ben Israel, see Benjamin Ravid, “How Profitable the Nation of the Jews Are: The Humble Addressesof Menasseh ben Israel and the Discorsoof Simone Luzzatto,” Mystics, Philosophers and Politicians: Essays in Jewish Intellectual History in Honor of Alexander Altmann, eds. Jehudah Reinharz and Daniel Swetchinski (Durham, 1982), pp. 159–80 and on Cardoso, see Yerushalmi, Yosef H., From Spanish Court to Italian Ghetto(New York, 1971), p. 418.Google Scholar

8. On Toland, see Barzilay, Isaac, “John Toland's Borrowings from Simone Luzzatto”, Jewish Social Studies 31 (1969):75–81.Google Scholar

9. The only comprehensive list of his writings is that contained in Carlus Imbonatus, J., Bibliotheca latino-hebraica(Rome, 1694), pp. 160–161. One of the items on that list (not the Breve risposta)is contained in the British Museum General Catalogue of Printed Books, Photolithographic Edition to 1955, 263 vols. (London, 1965–66), 179:203. None of his works are to be found in the Catalogue general des livres imprimis de la Bibliotheque Nationale, Parisor in the catalogues of the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C.Google Scholar

10. There is no entry on Palontrotti in either the Jewish Encyclopediaor the Encyclopaedia Judaica, and to date I have been unable to locate any biographical information on him in Italian sources. Imbonatus apparently knew nothing about Palontrotti since he merely characterized him as “Vir in Sacra, ”; Imbonatus, Bibliotheca, p. 160.

11. Imbonatus reproduced the title of the Breve rispostainaccurately as “Breve risposta da Simone Luzzato[sic] Ebreo in Venetia”;Imbonatus, Bibliotheca, p. 161.

12. See Wolf, Johann C., Bibliotheca hebraea,4 vols. (Hamburg and Leipzig, 1715–1733), 1:1146 (entry 2183), 2:1039; Julius Furst, Bibliotheca judaica, 3 parts in 2 (Leipzig, 1863), 3:64; Moritz Steinschneider, “Letteratura antigiudaica in lingua italiana,” Vessillo israelitico30 (1882):245. The Breve rispostais also mentioned in Encyclopaedia Judaica(Berlin, 1928–34), s.v. “Luzzatto, Simone”; Shulvass, “Rabbi Simha Luzzatto,” p. 23; Encyclopaedia Judaica(Jerusalem, 1971), s.v. “Luzzatto, Simone,” where it is misdated 1642; also the work is alluded to in Roth, Venice, p. 229.Google Scholar

13. I should like to thank the Centro Nazionale per il Catalogo Unico delle Biblioteche Italiane e per le Informazioni Bibliografiche which responded to my query as to where I could obtain a copy of the Breve rispostaby referring me to the Bibliotheca Vallicelliana in Rome, and to the Bibliotheca Vallicelliana for sending me, in the spring of 1969, virtually by return mail, a microfilm of the work.

14. Leone Modena employs the same theme in the opening lines of his refutation of the Bibliotheca sanctaof Sixtus of Sienna published by Clemente E. Ancona, “Attacchi contro il Talmud di Fra Sisto da Siena e la risposta, finora inedita, di Leon Modena, Rabbino in Venezia,” Bolletino dell'islituto di storia delta societa e dello stato Veneziano5–6 (1963–64): 297–323, specifically p. 313, briefly summarized in Ravid, Economics and Toleration, pp. 23–24.

15. Discorso, consideration 2, fols. 10r- I2r, Hebrew translation, pp. 82–84. For further details, see Ravid, Economics and Toleration, pp. 56–60.

16. Discorso, consideration 3, fols. 12v- 18r, Hebrew translation, pp. 84–89. For further details, see Ravid, Economics and Toleration, pp. 60–66.

17. See Ravid, Economics and Tolerationpp. 38–49.Google Scholar

18. This charge, in a slightly different form, was already made in Judeo-Christian polemics by Nicholas Donin at the disputation over the Talmud in 1240, the first of the major medieval trials of the Talmud. There it was alleged that “it is permissible to deceive a Christian in every way by a ruse or ingenuity without committing a sin. The sages prove by the Talmud that God gave to the Jews all the possessions of the gentiles.” This was supported by misinterpreting and falsely generalizing from two talmudic texts (B.T. Bava Qamma 38a and U3a-b). Specifically, it should be pointed out that the Hebrew word nokhriused in the talmudic passages in question did not refer exclusively to Christians, but rather to non-Jews in general (i.e., nokhrifrom the root nkhrforeign, includes all non-Jews, while the specific term for Christians would be noseriderived from the place name Nazareth). Palontrotti here accurately uses the Italian gentilewhich I have translated by its English cognate “gentile,” but later when allegedly quoting this passage from the Talmud, Palontrotti uses the word Christianorum(see below). On the disputation of 1240, see the article, with texts, published by Isadore Loeb, “La controverse de 1240 sur le Talmud,” Revue des etudes juives1 (1880):247–61, 2 (1881):248–70, 3 (1881 ):39–57, especially 2:265–67, Judah Rosenthal, “The Talmud on Trial: The Disputation at Paris in the Year 1240,” Jewish Quarterly Review, n.s. 47 (1956–57):58–76, 145–69, especially 151–52, and Salo W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 17 vols. to date (Philadelphia, 1952–), 9:64–65, 79–83, and 277–79, notes 30–32. For two modern discussions of the passages in question, see Jacob Z. Lauterbach, “The Attitude of the Jew Towards the Non-Jew,” Central Conference of American Rabbis Yearbook31 (1921):186–233, reprinted in Jacob Z. Lauterbach, Studies in Jewish Law, Custom and Folklore(New York, 1970), pp. 159–206, especially pp. 176–82 and also Joseph S. Bloch, Israel and the Nations(Berlin and Vienna, 1927, from the German of 1922), pp. 92–143.

19. Discorso, consideration 5, fols. 21v–22r, Hebrew translation, p. 92.

20. See above, note 3.

21. Discorso, consideration 8, fol. 30r, Hebrew translation, p. 99; Ravid, Economics and Toleration, pp. 74–88.

22. Discorso, consideration 10, fols. 34r–35v, Hebrew translation, pp. 103–4; Ravid, Economics and Toleration, pp. 92–93.

23. “Voi dite, che se l'ebreo tal volta vien' aggravato, non si lamenta”; these general words were not used by Luzzatto, who wrote specifically “sempre avvezzi nelle gravezze e oppressioni che pero sono acostumati di non esalare pur un languido lamento”; Discorso, consideration 10, fol. 35r, Hebrew translation, p. 103.

24. Discorso, consideration 11, fols. 35v–40r, Hebrew translation, pp. 104–8.

25. The text of the Discorso(fol. 40r) reads “cinque”; however this was corrected to “died” on the errata list printed immediately following the title page in some copies of the 1638 edition of the Discorso.The Hebrew translation of 1950 (p. 108) also renders the number as five, with a note pointing out that the number given in the Bible, Genesis 18:32, is ten.

26. The distortions are especially evident in the negative characteristics conceded by Luzzatto. His statement that the Jews are “d'animo molto invilito e fiacco” is rendered by Palontrotti as “d'animo fiacco e vile”; “incapace nel stato presente d'ogni governo politico” becomes “incapace di governo”; “poco overo niente providi del loro universale” becomes “poco provido”; “la loro parsimonia avvicinarsi all'avaritia” becomes “piu tosto avaro che parco”; “molti d'essi rozi di costumi” is reduced to “rozzo di costumi”; “poco applicati alle dottrine e cognitioni delle lingue” is accurately rendered as “poco applicato alia dottrina et alia cognitione delle lingue”; however, Luzzatto's qualified concession that “nell'osservare la loro legge, secondo il parer d'altrui, in alcune cose eccedendo il limite accostarsi alia scrupulosita” becomes merely a run-on clause following the above quoted “cognitione delle lingue” as “et alFosservanza della legge.” On the other hand, Luzzatto's enumeration of the strong points of the Jews is reproduced more accurately, albeit succinctly. Luzzatto's introductory phrase “alii quali mancamenti si contrapongono altre qualita degne d'alcuna osservatione” is rendered by Palontrotti simply as “se ben e”; Luzzatto's “fermezze e tenacita indicibile nella credenza et osservatione della loro religione” becomes “tenace nella religione”; “uniformita di dogmi circa la loro fede per il corso di 1550 anni che sono dispersi per il mondo” becomes “unita de dogmi circa la fede”; “costanza mirabile se non nell'incontrare li pericoli al meno nel supportare le calamita” becomes “costanza nel supportare calamita”; “cognitione singolare della sacra scrittura e sua interpretatione” becomes “singolare cognitione della scrittura sacra e sua interpretatione”; “humana carita et hospitalita verso qualunque della loro natione ben che estero e forastiero” becomes “carita grande tra di loro”; “la distanza del loco non cagiona in fra essi disunione, essendovi l'uniformita della religione” is reduced to one word “unione”; “circa li vitij carnali astinenza grande” becomes “astinenza de vitij carnali grande”; finally “soggettione e ossequio verso qual si sia fuori della loro religione” becomes “soggettione, etc.”

27. The reference to the disagreement among “rabbis of our times” must involve minor issues of ritual observance. I have so far not encountered any information on Jews of Rome who explicitly denied the doctrines of the Talmud in the late seventeenth century. The possibility that there were then in Rome a few individuals, maybe of converso-marrano background, who had difficulties in accepting the talmudic tradition cannot be precluded; alternatively, perhaps the reference is to Karaites. For an introduction to the problem of Jewish heresy in the seventeenth century, see Ellis Rivkin, Leon Da Modena and the Kol Sakhal(Cincinnati, 1952), pp. 1–17, which first appeared in Jewish Quarterly Review, n.s. 38: (1947–8).

28. Palontrotti renders Luzzatto's “poco applicati alle dottrine e cognitioni delle lingue” as “poco applicato alle dottrine e all'osservanza delle legge.”

29. Palontrotti renders Luzzatto's “humana carita e hospitalita” as “unione e carita.”

30. Presumably the Italian odio senza causais a translation of the Hebrew phrase sin atmnam, which apparently appears only once in rabbinic literature in the following context. The rabbis of the talmudic period (A.D. 200–500) did not wish to explain the destruction of the First Temple by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. or that of the Second Temple by the Romans in A.D. 70 in political-military terms, but rather sought a religious-theological reason. Accordingly, in B.T. Yoma 9b, it is explained that the First Temple was destroyed “because of three things: idolatry, immorality and bloodshed. But why was the Second Temple, when they were occupied with Torah, commandments and charitable deeds, destroyed? Because hatred without cause prevailed. This teaches you that hatred without cause is of the same weight as idolatry, immorality and bloodshed.”

31. The classical Jewish authorities permitted all forms of sexual relations between husband and wife, but in the case of nonvaginal intercourse, ejaculation was strictly forbidden. I wish to thank Marvin Fox for drawing my attention to Nedarim 20b and Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, The Laws of Forbidden Intercourse 21:9.

32. The Shevef Yehudahis a sixteenth-century text written primarily by Solomon ibn Verga, who had been among the Spanish exiles, and was first published, with some additions, by his son Joseph in 1554; see Encyclopaedia Judaica, s.v. “Ibn Verga, Joseph”; “Ibn Verga, Solomon.” The specific incidents cited by Palontrotti are to be found on pp. 21 and 66 of the Hebrew text, edited by Azriel Shohat (Jerusalem, 1947).

33. Discorso, consideration 12, fols. 40v-46r, Hebrew translation, pp. 108–13.

34. See consideration 13, fol. 47r-v, Hebrew translation, p. 114 and consideration 14, fols. 55r-56r Hebrew translation, pp. 121–22. Luzzatto also deals with moneylending in the ninth, fourteenth and seventeenth considerations of the Discorso;for a brief discussion of his presentation in the ninth consideration, see Ravid, Economics and Toleration, pp. 88–92, also n. 39, below.

35. This point of Luzzatto's is remarkable, since the Venetian government had allowed the Jews to engage in moneylending for over 250 years prior to the writing of the Discorso, and for over a hundred years had issued charters specifically permitting them to do so in the city of Venice itself. In fact, on occasion the government explicitly stated that the presence of the Jews was tolerated only to prevent Christians from lending money at interest to fellow Christians. For Jewish moneylending in Venice prior to 1509, see Brian Pullan, Rich and Poor in Renaissance Venice(Cambridge, 1971), pp. 443–75; Reinhold Mueller, “Les preteurs juifs de Venise au moyen age,” Annales30 (1975): 1277–1302; David Jacoby, “Les juifs a Venise du XIVe au milieu du XVIe siecle,” Venezia centro di mediazione tra oriente e occidente, 2vols. (Florence, 1977), 1:163–216; Eliyahu Ashtor, “Gli inizi della comunita ebraica a Venezia,” La Rassegna mensile di Israel44 (1978):683–703. On the activity of the Jewish moneylenders in Venice from 1509–1618, see Pullan, Rich and Poor, pp. 476–578, specifically p. 521 for the statement that the Jews were tolerated only to prevent Christians from engaging in moneylending, and Benjamin Ravid, “The Socioeconomic Background of the Expulsion and Readmission of the Venetian Jews, 1571–73,” Essays in Modern Jewish History: A Tribute to Ben Halpern, eds. Frances Malino and Phyllis Cohen Albert (East Brunswick, N.J., 1982), pp. 27–55.

36. This statement is somewhat inaccurate. While it is true that once the Jewish moneylenders had accepted the pawn, they could not compel the Christian borrower to redeem it for one year, elaborate provisions had been formulated for enabling the Christian to redeem it at the end of the year; should he be unable to do so, the pawn was to be sold at auction under the supervision of the Venetian magistracy of the Sopraconsoli, with the Jew receiving his capital and interest and any excess sum going to the original Christian owner. For the exact provisions, see clause 18 of the charter of the Jewish moneylenders of 1624, still in effect at the time of the writing of the Discorso, published in Ravid, Economics and Toleration, pp. 115–17.

37. Incorrectly rendered as Venice in the Hebrew translation (cf. fol. 42r and p. 109). No monte di pietàwas ever established in Venice because of the presence of the Jews, who especially from 1571 on were in effect running a monte di pietà;see David Kaufmann, “A Contribution to the History of Venetian Jews,” Jewish Quarterly Review, o.s., 2 (1889–9O):3O3; Leon Poliakov, Les banchieri juifs et le Saint Siège du XIII^e au XVII^e siècle(Paris, 1967), pp. 271–81, abridged English edition: Jewish Bankers and the Holy See front the Thirteenth to the Seventeenth Century(London, Henley, and Boston, 1977), pp. 199–210; Pullan, Rich and Poor, pp. 499–504, 538–40; Ravid, Economics and Toleration, pp. 90–92; Ravid, “The Socioeconomic Background,” pp. 47–48.

38. Here again, the presentation of Luzzatto reflects the Venetian situation, where from the mid-sixteenth century on, the loan banks were no longer sources of revenue, but rather deficit incurring institutions financed by corporate assessments not only on the German Tedeschi Jews of Venice, but also after 1591 on the communities of the terra ferma and after 1597 on the Jewish merchants residing in the city; see Pullan, Rich and Poor, pp. 569–71; Ravid, Economics and Toleration, p. 28, n. 24; and Ravid, “The Socioeconomic Background,” pp. 48–49.

39. In his justification of Jewish moneylending at interest, Luzzatto was clearly on the defensive in the light of previous Christian attacks. A discussion of Jewish moneylending activities is far beyond the scope of this paper. Here, it suffices to note that according to Judah Rosenthal, “Usury from a Gentile” (Hebrew), Talpiot5 (1951–2):475–92,6 (1952–53): 130–52, reprinted in Studies and Texts in Jewish History, Literature and Religion(Hebrew), 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1967), 1:253–323, “no new ideas regarding interest are to be found in the book of Luzzatto,” Studies, p. 316. However, for a slightly more favorable evaluation, see his concluding sentences two paragraphs later. See also Siegfried Stein, “The Development of the Jewish Law on Interest from the Biblical Period to the Expulsion of the Jews from England,” Historia Judaica17 (1955):3–40, and also his “Interest Taken by Jews From Gentiles: An Evaluation of Source Material (Fourteenth to Seventeenth Centuries),” Journal of Semitic Studies1 (1956): 141–64. For some sixteenth and seventeenth century views on usury, see the selection from David de Pomis, De medico hebraico(Venice, 1588), available in English translation from a German translation in Harry Friedenwald, “Apologetic Works of Jewish Physicians,” Jewish Quarterly Review, n.s., 32 (1941–42):243, reprinted in The Jews in Medicine, 2vols. (Baltimore, 1944), 1:41–44; Leone Modena, Historia de riti hebraici(Venice, 1638), 2:5, 4, reprinted in La Rassegna mensile di Israel 1(1932–33): 388–89; Menasseh ben Israel, Humble Addresses, reprinted in Lucien Wolf, Menasseh ben Israel's Mission to Oliver Cromwell(London, 1901), pp. 100–1. Also, for the views of Isaac Cardoso on usury from the gentiles, see Yerushalmi, From Spanish Court, p. 403. See also the statement of Leone Modena in his Responseto Sixtus of Sienna, which did not receive permission to be printed and remained in the Venetian State Archives until published by Ancona in “Attacchi contro il Talmud,” pp. 317–20. I have dealt with this problem in my paper “Moneylending in Seventeenth Century Jewish Vernacular Apologetics,” presented at the Conference on Jewish Thought in the Seventeenth Century, held at the Center for Jewish Studies, Harvard University, in March 1982.

40. This phrase is encountered in rabbinic literature, sometimes in slightly variant forms, and was already utilized in Judeo-Christian polemics by Nicholas Donin at the disputation over the Talmud in Paris in 1240 in the distorted form not encountered in rabbinic literature: “optimum Christianorum occide”; “kill the best of the Christians.” It should be pointed out that the word goymeans nation in general in the Bible and in rabbinic literature, but in medieval European Jewish usage, the word goyand its plural form, goyim, was used to refer to Christians, since the Jews lived in a Christian environment. This rabbinic phrase continued to be invoked by Christian polemicists in the following centuries. As a reaction to charges against certain problematic sayings of individual rabbis in rabbinic literature, postrabbinic sages affirmed the difference between the halakhic and the aggadic material in rabbinic literature: The halakhah, consisting of legal rulings, was binding on all Jews, while the aggadah, representing the nonlegal sayings of individual sages, was not binding and did not have to be accepted. Obviously, the phrase in question fell in the category of aggadah, not halakhah. Modern scholars and apologetes alike continued to reiterate the distinction between halakhah and aggadah and the meaning of the word goyin rabbinic literature (Christians would have been called noṣerim;see above, note 18). Additionally, they introduced the element of explaining the statement in terms of the personality of the individual who made it, the context in which it was uttered and the general historical background of the times: The phrase was uttered by Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai who had greatly suffered at the hands of the Romans in the second century; apparently in its original exegetical context as commentary on Exodus 14:7, it was used to refer to those Egyptians who, although they feared God, nevertheless at the time of the Exodus from Egypt had lent their horses to their fellow Egyptians to enable them to pursue the departing Israelites who were approaching the Red Sea (accordingly, some versions of the text removed from that Sitz im Lebenadded the words “be-'et milhamah,” “in time of war”); although the formal context of the phrase is exegesis of a biblical verse dealing with the Egyptians, the real import of the remark was anger at the Romans because of the harshness of the Hadrianic persecutions and the suppression of the Bar Kokhba revolt. On the invocation of this passage at the disputation of 1240, see Loeb, “La controverse de 1240,” 1: 2 56–59, 2: 263–64, 3:55, and also Rosenthal, “The Talmud on Trial,” especially pp. 150–51, and Baron, Social and Religious History, 9:278–79, note 31. For some modern discussions of this passage, see also Lauterbach, Jew and Non-Jew, pp. 185–86 and Bloch, Israel and the Nations, pp. 204–10. Nathan Süsskind, in “Tov Sheba-Goyim …” Central Conference of American Rabbis Journal23 (1976) 2:27–40, makes the interesting suggestion that the word harogshould not be taken as a verb in the imperative (kill!), but rather as a noun expressing a usual, constant or notorious activity; thus the passage should be translated as “the best of the goyimis a murderer [of Jews].

41. This time, Palontrotti uses the word “Christians” rather than “gentiles”; see above, note 18. Previously, he wrote “e chi non sa il rigoroso precetto del Talmud, che commanda, che si levi al gentile la robba in qualsivoglia modo, purche non se n'accorga per fuggir i pericoli” and here “e pure è precetto nel Talmud irrevocable … che gli Ebrei o per inganno o per forza o con usure tolgano le facoltà de Christiani.”

42. For a general introduction to Jewish moneylending, see Encyclopaedia Judaica, s.v. “moneylending” and “usury” and Baron, Social and Religious History, 12:132–97. On the situation in Venice, see above, note 35. On the moneylending activities of the Jews of Rome, see Attilio Milano, “Richerche sulle condizioni economiche degli Ebrei a Roma durante la clausura nel Ghetto (1555–1848),” La Rassegna mensile di Israel 5(1930–31):445–65, 545–66, 629–50, 6 (1931–32):52–73, 159–68; also Hermann Vogelstein, Rome(Philadelphia, 1940), pp. 296–302; Cecil Roth, History of the Jews of Italy(Philadelphia, 1940), pp. 317–19, 370Milano, II ghetto di Roma(Rome, 1964), pp. 85–108, esp. pp. 93–95; Poliakov, Les banchieri, esp. 283–90, Jewish Bankers, pp. 211–18; Baron, Social and Religious History, 14:65–66. In Rome, the interest rate of 18 percent was lowered to 12 percent in 1670, and in 1682, Pope Innocent XII officially ended the licensing system allowing the Jews to operate loan banks, but certain families still continued to do so in the eighteenth century.

43. Presumably Palontrotti is here drawing upon the “explanation” of a talmudic story contained in the Pugio fideiof the thirteenth-century apostate Raymond Martini. The Babylonian Talmud Me'ilah 17a-b relates that after the Romans had issued a decree (in the latter days of the reign of Hadrian) forbidding the Jews from keeping the Sabbath and circumcising their children and requiring them to have intercourse with menstruant women (forbidden by Jewish law), it was decided to send Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai to Rome to try to annul the decree, since he was experienced in miracles. On the way there, Ben Tamalion (identified by the medieval talmudic commentators as a demon or goblin) joined him. Ben Tamalion went ahead and entered the emperor's daughter. According to the medieval exegete, Rashi, the emperor's daughter continually proclaimed the name of R. Simeon, who was accordingly invited to come and cure her. When he came, the talmudic tale continues, he called out “Ben Tamalion, leave her,” and Ben Tamalion did so. Thereupon, the grateful emperor told R. Simeon to request whatever he wished as a reward, and led the rabbi to the treasure house. There Rabbi Simeon found the text of the evil decrees and tore it to pieces. On the basis of this tale, Martini wrote that the books of the Jews related that God took away from the Jews the observance of the Sabbath, circumcision and other ceremonial commandments through the Romans, and Ben Tamalion, that is, the devil, returned to them through a certain miracle circumcision, Sabbath and the other holidays so that they could pray and study Torah. I wish to thank Kenneth Stow for drawing my attention to, and sending me a copy of, the passage on Ben Tamalion in the Pugio fidei; Frank Talmage for the reference to the article of Reuven Bonfil, “The Image of Judaism in the Pugio fidei”(Hebrew), Tarbiz40 (1970–71): 360–75 (see especially p. 366); Chen Merchavia for directing me to information on Ben Tamalion in his article “The Talmud in the Additionesof Paul of Burgos,” Journal of Jewish Studies16 (1965): 119.

44. Discorso, consideration 13, fol. 47v, Hebrew translation, p. 114. See the Hebrew translation, p. 162, note 78, for further documentation.

45. Unlike the two previous occasions when this charge was made in Italian (see above, notes 18 and 41), this time Palontrotti's words are in Latin italics, giving the impression that he is quoting a text: “vel vi, velfraude, vel usuris diripere bona Christianorum.”

46. For an analysis of the sources of Tacitus's presentation on the Jews, see Hospers-Jansen, Anna M. A., Tacitus over de Joden(Groningen, 1949) and for an analysis of Tacitus's presentation and his attitude toward the Jews, see Yohanan Levy, “Tacitus on the Antiquity of the Jews and their Characteristics,” 'Olamot nifgashim(Hebrew) (Jerusalem, 1960), pp. 115–96.Google Scholar

47. For further details, see Ravid, Economics and Toleration, p. 22, note 15; also Yerushalmi, From Spanish Court, p. 418, note 7, pointing out that Isaac Cardoso cited Luzzatto's arguments against Tacitus in his Las excelencias de los Hebreos(Amsterdam, 1679).

48. Discorso, consideration 15, fols. 63r–64r, Hebrew translation, pp. 128–29.

49. Discorso, consideration 15, fol. 63v, Hebrew translation, p. 128.

50. Discorso, consideration 15, fols. 66–70, Hebrew translation, pp. 130–34.

51. Discorso, consideration 15, fols. 70v–71v, Hebrew translation, pp. 134–36.

52. Discorso.consideration 16, fols. 73r–74r, Hebrew translation, pp. 137–38.

53. The words of Luzzatto, not accurately reproduced by Palontrotti, were “ma anco quasi s'estinse in loro ogni lume di sapere, e si oscuro qualunque splendore di eruditione.” Palontrotti wrote “ch'affatto sia persa l'eruditione e la sapienza nell'ebraismo.” “Quasi” (almost, nearly) is not the same as “affatto” (completely or entirely).

54. Discorso, consideration 18, fols. 88v–89r, Hebrew translation, p. 151.

55. On Luzzatto's concept of diaspora, see Baer, Galul, pp. 83–92, and also the introduction of Bachi to the 1950 edition of the Discorso, bearing in mind the editorial note on p. 27.

56. Discorso, consideration 18, fols. 89r-v, Hebrew translation, pp. 151–52.

57. On Morosini, see Bartolocci, Giulio, Bibliotheca magna rabbinica,4 vols. (Rome, 1675–1693), 3:755–56, 855, 4:404Google Scholar; Imbonatus, Bibliotheca latino-hebtaica.pp. 126, 149; Wolf, Bibliotheca hebraea, 1: 1121 (item 2140), 3: 1126–28; Furst, Bibliotheca judaica, 2:391, 3:8; Steinschneider, “Letteratura antigiudaica,” pp. 372–73; Steinschneider, “Die italienische Litteratur der Juden,” Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums43 (1899): 514–15; Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Morosini, Giulio,” “Nahmias,” also “Luzzatto, Simone”; Encyclopaedia Judaica, s.v. “Morosini, Giulio.” The only article on Morosini to date is David Simonsen, “Giulio Morosinis Mitteilungen über seinen Lehrer Leon da Modena und seine jiidischen Zeitgenossen,” Festschrift zum siebzigsten Geburtstage Abraham Berliner's, eds. Aron Freimann and Meier Hildesheimer (Frankfurt, 1903), pp. 337–44. For a discussion of the musical academy referred to on pp. 342–43, see Adler, Israel, “The Rise of Art Music in the Italian Ghetto,” Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies, ed. Alexander Altmann (Cambridge, Mass., 1967), pp. 345–349.Google Scholar

58. Baal teshuvahis written in Hebrew characters and also in transliteration in Latin characters. (The statement in Encyclopaedia Judaica, s.v. “Morosini, Giulio” that Morosini's grandfather Isaac was “referred to as 'Paul Teshuvah'” probably results from a misreading of a handwritten “baal” as “Paul.”) It should be noted that many biblical phrases and Hebrew names, book titles and expressions are set in Hebrew type, often, as in this case, also with a transliteration according to the Italian pronunciation and an Italian translation.

59. The family crest is not found in the list of Roth, Cecil, “Stemmi di famiglie ebraiche italiane,” Scrilli in memoria di Leone Carpi(Jerusalem, 1967), pp. 165–174. Steinschneider, “Die italienische Litteratur,” p. 372 claimed that the family tradition was false and that the family originated in Toledo (i.e., medieval Spain). 'Ein Yisra'el(usually called 'Ein Ya'aqov), a collection of aggadot and midrashim extracted from the Talmud by Jacob ibn Habib, was reprinted in Venice in 1625 the subtitle of this edition, stating that it is a collection of material in the six orders of the mishnah is erroneous; the Hebrew title page should read as do the other editions of 'Ein Yisra'el, rather than together with Leone Modena's Bet lehem Yehudah, an alphabetical subject index of the rabbinic sayings in the 'Ein Yisra'el.The Hebrew preface to 'Ein Yisra'el, written by the “editor” of the 1625 edition, acknowledges the generosity of the brothers David and Joseph Nahmias, sons of Isaac Nahmias, the leaders of the community, who upon hearing that the work was out of print and unavailable at any price, underwrote its republication in accordance with the highest standards on expensive paper of the best quality. I wish to thank Menachem Schmelzer for sending me a copy of this preface from the volume in the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Leone Modena also praises the two brothers Joseph and David Nahmias for their generosity in his introduction to Bet lehem Yehudah Google Scholar

60. Some evidence of activities of members of the Nahmias family in Venetian maritime commerce has survived. While the records of the actual movements of ships in Venice and their cargoes have not been preserved, Alberto Tenenti found in the archives of two notaries in the Archivio di Stato di Venezia records of formal acts of renunciation on the part of owners of ships and cargoes lost at sea in cases of piracy, shipwreck, fire or other accidents in return for the payment of the insurance premium. Tenenti integrated the material and tabulated it in four columns: 1 name of ship, owner, route and fate or as much of that data as available, 2 names of insurers, 3 names of insured parties (with the amount of liability where given), and 4 merchandise (where given). Four members of the Nahmias family, David, Isaac, Raffael and Solomon, appear in these records. Incidentally, one member of the Luzzatto family, Isaac-possibly the father of Simone-is also encountered. For the references, see the index of Alberto Tenenti, Naufrages, corsaires et assurance maritimes à Venise, 1592–1609(Paris, 1959). The material on the Jews in that volume has been analyzed by Bernhard Blumenkranz, “Les Juifs dans le commerce maritime de Venise (1592–1609),” Revue des études juives119 (1961): 143–51; see also Baron, Social and Religious History, 14: 344, note 33. See also the comment in the Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Nahmias,” that Isaac Nahmias, who along with his son David was a prosperous merchant in Salonica in 1611, “is perhaps identical with Isaac ben David, praised for his bounty by Lonzano ('Shetei yadot').”

61. Inventories of the estates of several members of the Nahmias family are indeed extant in the archive of the Giudici di Petizionin the Venetian State Archives; the very detailed inventory of the assets of Isaac son of David Nahmias, presumably identical with the grandfather of Morosini (Giudici di Petizion353/18, July 28, 1631) includes a lengthy listing of books containing his business records. An examination of these inventories and others preserved in the Venetian State Archives would constitute an interesting and significant study. To date, only one such inventory has been published: Ancona, Clemente E., “L'inventario dei beni appartenenti a Leon da Modena”, Bolletino dell'istiluto delta società e dello stato veneziano 4 (1962): 249–267.Google Scholar

62. Morosini's claim does not appear to be an idle boast. The text of Via dellafedeabounds in quotations from the Talmud, midrashic literature and subsequent rabbinic tradition, the prayerbook and medieval Hebrew literature in general, quoted in Hebrew in Hebrew typeface with an Italian translation. Most of its pages contain some material in Hebrew typeface, either a biblical verse, a quotation from the abovementioned vast range of literature, or a term reflecting some religious law, ceremony or custom of the Jews, with the appropriate Italian translation. For a quick survey of sources quoted or mentioned, see the incomplete “Indice degli autori e de'libri qui citati” at the end of the book. While Morosini took some of his information from previous Christian authors, the wide range of authors cited and extensive quotations in the original Hebrew make it plausible that he was indeed drawing on the education of his youth rather than on later reading specifically undertaken for the writing of Via dellafede.However, in his introduction to the Christian reader, he mentions that friends gave him various books and relevant information, singling out Andrea Peschiulli and especially Giovanni Pastritio, lettoreof dogmatic theology at the Collegio de Propaganda Fede; see also Bartolocci, Bibliotheca magna rabbinica, 3:755–56;, Imbonatus, Bibliotheca lalino-hebraica, p. 126, and the penultimate paragraph of Morosini's introduction for the Hebrew reader. Interestingly, mention is made on p. 823 of one of the works of Palontrotti, the Raccolta di molti errori e chimere sognate da'talmudisti sopra I'espositioni della Bibbia, e riferite particolarmente da Rabbi Salomone(Venice, 1649), but there is no mention of Palontrotti's Breve risposta, neither in the few pages of Via dellafededevoted to the Discorsonor apparently elsewhere in the book.

63. On the inadequately examined attitude of Modena to Jesus and to Christianity, which is being investigated by Howard Adelman in his Brandeis University dissertation on Leone Modena, see Modenas, Magen va-herev, ed. Shlomo Simonsohn (Jerusalem, 1960) and also the presentations and scattered additional references contained in Simonsen, “Giulio Morosinis Mitteilungen”;Google ScholarRoth, Cecil, “Leone Da Modena and the Christian Hebraists of His Age,” Jewish Studies in Memory of Israel Abrahams(New York, 1927), pp. 384–401Google Scholar; Roth, , “Leone da Modena and England,” Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England 11 (1924–1927): 206–27;Google ScholarRoth, , “Leone Da Modena and His English Correspondents,” Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England 17 (1953): 39–43; Rivkin, Leon Da Modena, pp. 52–53.Google Scholar

64. Morosini does not reveal the identity of the brothers. See Yerushalmi, From Spanish Court, p. 201, note 14, for the suggestion that they might have been Fernando and Miguel Cardoso.

65. The name is misspelled in both Latin and Hebrew type: Simon Luzzato for Simone Luzzatto, and in the Hebrew with a lavinstead of a \et.

66. This time correctly spelled with two t's

67. The words placed in quotation marks were italicized in the text of Morosini and presumably were meant to represent the actual words of Luzzatto. A very brief Latin summary of this incident, with the alleged statements of Luzzatto translated in their entirety, was undertaken by Wolf, , Bibliotheca Hebraea, 3: 1127–1128; that version seems to have served as the source of information on the incident for subsequent writers. Morosini's account has been reproduced in the original Italian in Angelo Sacerdote, “Simone Luzzatto,” In memoria di Angelo Sacerdote(Rome, 1936), pp. 100–1.Google ScholarWolf, While and De Rossi, Giam Battista, Dizionario storico degli autori ebrei e delle loro opere, 2 vols. (Parma, 1802), 2: 15 accepted the story at face value, Jewish writers have been more critical. Hananel Nepi and Mordechai S. Ghirondi, Toledot gedolei Yisra'el(Trieste, 1853), p. 317 denounced “the lying priest De Rossi. who said that a convert wrote that the words of the said Rabbi [Luzzatto] in his commentary on Daniel led him to convert.” Graetz considered Morosini to have either distorted or misunderstood the statement of Luzzatto, and suggested that Luzzatto could only have maintained that the verse refers not to the messiah but to the period of the Hasmoneans, as Haim Galipapa had interpreted the passage in Daniel; see Heinrich Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, 11 vols. (Leipzig, 1853–76), 10: 164, note 1, omitted in the English translation. This assessment was repeated in the Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Luzzatto”; see also Roth, Venice, p. 231 Steinschneider, “Letteratura antigiudaica,” p. 373, commented that since Luzzatto had died in 1663, Morosini could relate whatever he wished twenty years later; even if the entire anecdote were not an invention, the famous author of the Discorsowould not have expressed the words ascribed to him by Morosini. More cautiously, in “Italienische Litteratur,” p. 418, Steinschneider considered Morosini's account of Luzzatto's alleged utterance regarding the seventy weeks of Daniel to be questionable. Simonsen, “Giulio Morosinis Mitteilungen,” p. 340 termed it certainly at least very strongly colored. Ludwig Blau, Leo Modems Briefe und Schriftstücke, 2 vols. (Budapest 1905), 1: 122, rejected the idea that Luzzatto uttered certain doubts about Jewish doctrine as completely unbelievable. Sacerdote, “Simone Luzzatto,” p. 101 stands out as the only scholar not to be so critical, stating that while it is not necessary to dwell on the fact that the account of Morosini is not reliable in its details, nevertheless from it one can at least deduce that Luzzatto was very broad-minded. Shulvass, “Rabbi Simha Luzzatto,” pp. 25–26 wrote that most of the scholars who had dealt with this passage considered it to be completely invented, while Simonsen, the only one not to reject it completely, considered it to be very exaggerated. Shulvass himself believed that there was no doubt that the story of Morosini was invented from beginning to end and pointed out that it became almost customary in Italy to relate after the death of Jewish sages, who were well known among Christians, that they either converted or leaned toward Christianity, citing reports that Elijah Levita, Judah Abrabanel and Leone Modena all converted. See also Roth, Venice, p. 231; I have been unable to find any “contemporary Christian observers” other than Morosini; also, to date I have been unable to locate the source for Roth's statement that “cardinal Barberigo used to recount how on his deathbed the freethinking Rabbi [Luzzatto] was only prevented from embracing Christianity by a forcible exercise of authority on the part of his scandalized coreligionists.” The information given by Morosini has to be carefully evaluated in the context of the religious climate within the Jewish community of Venice, and especially trends prevalent among the Marranos at the time; see Rivkin, Leon Da Modena and the Kol Sakhal, and Yerushalmi, From Spanish Court.The specific details furnished by Morosini regarding the background of the incident appear to give it some authenticity, and the choice of Luzzatto as the judge at such a debate cannot be precluded; however the authenticity of the specific words and actions attributed to Luzzatto by Morosini remain highly dubious.Google Scholar

68. Thus Morosini must have been born between November 23, 1611 and November 22, 1612; unfortunately, he did not state where he had been born, and conflicting assertions are to be found in the secondary literature that he had been born in either Salonica or Venice. Bartolocci, Bibliotheca magna rabbinica, 4:404 gave the month of conversion as December, for which he was criticized by Wolf, Bibliotheca hebraea, 3: 1128; see also 3: 1126; however, Wolf himself had given the month of conversion as “1649 22 Dec.” on 1: 1121! Bartolocci's source for December is unclear; see however Yerushalmi, From Spanish Court, p. 201, note 14, for a reference to a deposition given by Morosini “to the inquisition in 1661 in which he stated that his baptism took place on Dec. 22, 1649,” which would seem to contradict his statement in Via dellafede.

69. This appointment was made after the death of Giovanni Battista Jona, according to Bartolocci, Biblioiheca magna rabbinica, 4: 404; see also 3: 755–56. It appears that Morosini's only other literary activity was the completion of Jona's work on textual variants in the Targumim, still preserved in manuscript.

70. According to Morosini, another nephew of his, whom he does not name, came from Bosnia in 1660 under his influence to convert, and at the time of the writing of Via delta fedewas a hermit in Mantovano.

71. Pp. 627–36 appear twice, and an additional 236 unpaginated pages contain corrections and additions (45 pages), a subject index (176 pages), an index of biblical verses (7 pages) and an index of authors and works cited (8 pages). One approbation printed after the table of contents is dated July 24, 1677, while a second is dated July 18, 1683. The text of the book itself contains a reference to the “present year, 5440” which would be 1679–80 (p. 437). The opening dedication of Morosini is dated August 1, 1683. According to the title page, the book was printed in the printshop of the Sacra Congregazione de Propaganda Fede in 1683. Morosini's portrait appears as a frontispiece to the book, and bears the inscription: “iulius maurocenus olim samuel nahmias venetus aetatis suae lxxii anno mdclxxxiii.”

72. According to Morosini's fellow research fellow at the Vatican, Bartolocci, whom Morosini calls in his introduction to the Christian reader “a friend of many years” and whose Bibliotheca magna rabbinicahe praises (vols. 1 and 2 appeared in 1675 and 1678 respectively; for Bartolocci's praise of Via delta fedeand acknowledgement of Morosini's utilization of Bibliotheca, see 3: 755–56), Morosini died in 1687; Bartolocci, Bibliotheca magna rabbinica, 4: 404, and subsequent authors. The date 1683 given in Adler, “The Rise of Art Music,” p. 345 and Encyclopedia Judaica, s.v. “Morosini, Giulio,” appears to be an error; probably by mistake the date of the publication of Via delta fedewas substituted.

73. Presumably the Ritiof Leone Modena, to which Morosini often refers (see below, note 76), was not sufficiently detailed; furthermore, a new treatment would present an opportunity to add a critique of the Jewish ritual.

74. More specifically, Simonsen, “Giulio Morosinis Mitteilungen,” p. 339, note 2, has suggested that the customs of the Jews reflect the practices of the Jews of Venice primarily and also those of the Ottoman empire where Morosini had traveled in his youth, rather than those of the Jews of Rome (where presumably since he was living as a Christian, he had less intimate contact with their daily lives and customs). A cursory skimming of Via delta federeveals that Morosini Heoften drew attention to differences in customs between the Levantine, Portuguese, Spanish and Italian Jews, and on occasion specifically referred to institutions and practices in Venice, Rome and the Ottoman empire.

75. Roth, Venice, p. 118, see also p. 372.

76. The index to Via dellafede, s.v. “R. Leon di Modena” contains numerous entries, and a cursory skimming of the book yields additional references to Modena and his Riti.

77. See above, note 5 and Cohen, Mark R., “Leone da Modena's Riti: A Seventeenth Century Plea for Social Toleration of Jews”, Jewish Social Studies 34 (1972): 287–321.Google Scholar

78. My attention was drawn to this critique of the Discorsoby a reference in Wolf, Bibliotheca hebraea, 3: 1151, to the best of my knowledge not referred to by any subsequent author.

79. Via delta fede, p. 1415.

80. Cf. this characterization of Luzzatto with the above-cited phrasing in the introduction to the Hebrew reader; on p. 1116 of Via delta fede, Menasseh ben Israel is very similarly characterized as “stimato per l'eloquenza, eruditione e dottrina.”

81. Discorso, preface to the whole work, fols. 5r-6r, Hebrew translation, pp. 79–80; Ravid, Economics and Toleration, pp. 51–53.

82. Discorso, Introduction to This Treatise, fols. 7r-8r, Hebrew translation, pp. 79–80; Ravid, Economics and Toleration, pp. 53–54. On the Roman taxes, see the 1950 Hebrew translation of the Discorso, p. 157, note 3. Luzzatto's purpose in referring to these Roman taxes was to praise Venice, which did not resort to such measures; see Ravid, Economics and Toleration, p. 54.

83. Discorso, consideration 11, fols. 38v–39v, Hebrew translation, pp. 106–7.

84. Discorso, consideration 12, fols. 40v-44v, Hebrew translation, pp. 108–11.

85. For a discussion of the reasons advanced for the expulsion of the Jews from England in 1290, see Richardson, Henry G., The English Jewry under Angevin Kings(London, 1960), pp. 213–33.Google Scholar

86. On Pope Nicholas IV and the Jews, see Synan, Edward A., The Popes and the Jews in the Middle Ages(New York, 1965), pp. 122–123, with references to the sources in notes 74–78. Nicholas IV was certainly not one of the more anti-Jewish popes of the Middle Ages and does not seem to have sought their expulsion. Presumably Morosini selected him (rather than a more anti-Jewish pope) because he happened to be pope at the time of the expulsion from England in 1290.Google Scholar

87. Discorso, consideration 17, fol. 87v, Hebrew translation, p. 150.

88. Discorso, consideration 17, fol. 86r, Hebrew translation, pp. 148–49. It should be noted that the adjective cited by Morosini, “prudentissimi,” is used by Luzzatto not in the course of presenting his own views, but in summarizing a potential argument against the Jews.

89. Discorso, consideration 17, fols. 86v-87r, Hebrew translation, p. 149. It is obvious that Morosini has confused things here. If he presents the economic possibilities in the order of usury, real estate and crafts, then he should have stated that the first is permitted to the Jews, while the second and third are prohibited. Clearly a slip of the pen took place. In the Discorso, Luzzatto presented the activities in the order of usury, crafts and real estate; thus, according to both the order of Luzzatto and of Morosini, Morosini should have written that the second and the third were prohibited, while only the first was permitted. More substantially, it is most surprising that Morosini did not utilize the opportunity to denounce usury, or at least make a reference to his treatment of that subject elsewhere in the Via della fede(e.g., part III, chapter 15).

90. Cf. Discorso, consideration 17, fols. 87r-88v, Hebrew translation, pp. 150–51.

91. Morosini either distorted Luzzatto's presentation, whether deliberately or through a misunderstanding, or at least raised the possibility of misunderstanding on the part of his own readers by his formulation. Luzzatto's phrase “as this event is narrated in the Historyof the most eloquent Osorius” (consideration 17, fol. 88r, Hebrew translation, p. 151) apparently refers only to Emmanuel's promulgation of the decree of exile for all those Jews who would not convert and the complete confiscation of their goods, and not also to Luzzatto's preceding explanation of Emmanuel's action as resulting from his need for people to colonize the Indies. That reason was not found in Osorius (as Morosini points out below), who only stated that “it gave Emmanuel great uneasiness to think that so many thousand men should be driven into banishment, and he was desirous at least to bring over their sons.” For the presentation of Osorius, see his De rebus Emmanueli libri duodecim(Lisbon, 1571), in English translation, The History of the Portuguese During the Reign of Emmanuel, 2vols. (London, 1752), 1: 28–31. Osorius characterized Emmanuel's forced baptism as “a scheme which in fact was contrary to justice and equity,” although he conceded that it had “good consequences.” Of interest is Osorius's summary of the different views presented by Emmanuel's councellors as to whether the Jews should be expelled or not. Among the arguments in favor of keeping them was the fact that the pope allowed them to dwell in his territory (an argument used by Luzzatto, see above) and induced by his example, many Christian princes in Italy, Germany, Hungary and elsewhere in Europe allowed them to trade and carry on business of all sorts. Additionally, if they were to be expelled from Portugal, they would probably go to Africa, where, living among blind and superstitious Moslems, all hope of their conversion would be lost. Finally, “it would be greatly detrimental to the public interest if these people, some of whom were considerably rich, should carry their wealth to the Moors, and enrich our enemies with those arts which they learnt from our nation.” This last argument is similar to that advanced by Sarpi to justify allowing Marranos to revert to Judaism in Venice; see Ravid, “The First Charter,” pp. 210–11 and Economics and Toleration, pp. 35–36. On the other hand, among the arguments marshalled against the Jews was the consideration that it was in the public interest to expel the Jews immediately so that they would only take with them wealth they had gathered in other countries, rather than expelling them later after they had amassed considerable riches by fraudulent means in Portugal. For a similar discussion as to whether to tolerate the presence of Jews in Venice slightly over twenty years later, see Pullan, Rich and Poor in Renaissance Venice, pp. 489–96.

92. See the previous note.

93. These exact words are not found in the fourth consideration, but the ideas in general are encountered in several passages in the Discorso

94. Discorso, consideration 16, fols. 75v–76r, Hebrew translation, p. 139. Morosini is slightly distorting Luzzatto's presentation. Luzzatto related that the rabbis said that in many places the Bible was so obtuse and concise that human knowledge could not penetrate its real sense, and since it was not believable that God should leave such uncertain interpretations to the free and hasty judgment of everyone, it was reasonable that he revealed the explanations to the most elect and close to him so that they could transmit it at all times to posterity.

95. Apparently this constitutes a distorted rendering of consideration 16, fols. 74v–75r, Hebrew translation, p. 138, where Luzzatto stated that the Jews, after the destruction of their kingdom and during their long and miserable dispersion, were about to sink into a total ignorance had not the need to understand the Bible which was full of secret teachings driven them to some moderate utilization of their intelligence and curiosity to know. See the remainder of his presentation there and also the closing lines of the consideration, fol. 85v, Hebrew translation, p. 148.

96. Discorso, consideration 13, fol. 46r-v, Hebrew translation, p. 113.

97. See Krauss, Samuel, “Joshua Segre und sein polemisches Werk”, Zeitschrift für hebräische Bibliographie 8 (1904): 20–27Google Scholar, and the rejoinder by David Simonsen, Ibid, pp. 43–45. Segre's statement that Morosini converted at the age of 70 (accepted by Krauss but rejected by Simonsen on the basis of Morosini's introduction to Via dellafede[see above]) may be based on a misunderstanding of the fact that Morosini was between 70 and 72 when Via delta fedewas published in 1683 (on Morosini's date of birth, see above, note 68). See also Encyclopaedia Judaica, s.v. “Morosini, Giulio,” as well as “Segre, Joshua Ben Zion,” where it is stated erroneously that in addition to 'Asham talui, “Segre also wrote a polemic against Giulio Morosini's Derekh ha-'emunah (La Via delta Fede).”

98. See above, notes 57,67 and 97.

99. I hope to discuss these charters and publish their texts in a future study; in the interim, see Ravid, Economics and Toleration, pp. 25–49.

100. Luzzatto, Discorso, consideration 17, fol. 86r-86v, Hebrew translation, pp. 148–49; Morosini, Viadellafede, p. 1419.

101. See Ravid, Economics and Toleration, pp. 33–38.

102. See Ettinger, Samuel, “The Beginnings of the Change in the Attitude of European Society Towards the Jews”, Scripta Hierosolymitana 7 (1961): 209–219, passim, and Ravid, “How Profitable.”Google Scholar

103. See Marcus, Jacob, The Jew in the Medieval World(Cincinnati, 1938), p. 71, and Ravid, “How Profitable,” p. 174.Google Scholar

104. See Ettinger, , “The Beginnings of the Change,” p. 214, and Arthur Hertzberg, The French Enlightenment and the Jews(Philadelphia, 1968), pp. 23–24.Google Scholar

105. This point has been developed in greater detail in Ravid, “How Profitable,” pp. 171–74.