202 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291
Christian objections to the burning of the Talmud, Innocent also anticipated
objections to his compromise, and while giving orders to allow the return of Jewish
books, threatened ecclesiastical censure without appeal against any opponents. He
wrote to louis, who had strongly supported the anti-Talmudic effort, to ensure he
would agree to his more moderate stance.265
odo of Châteauroux, the papal legate, formerly chancellor of the university of
Paris, objected to Innocent Iv’s change of heart. odo had served as chancellor of
the university from 1238 to 1244, the period of the trial and condemnation of the
Talmud, but in 1244 was made a cardinal-bishop and papal legate, and in 1248 left
France to join louis on crusade. Since he was involved in the Talmud’s trial and
condemnation, it was natural that Innocent Iv should write to him explaining his
softened position. Yet odo was close enough to both the papal and the royal courts
to feel able to stand firm against this papal initiative.266 Indeed he set out his counter
arguments carefully, arguing that it would be presumptious for anyone—including
Gregory IX’s successor—to alter Gregory’s prescribed course, that the steps Gregory
had ordered had been carefully followed, that the Talmud had been found guilty
and the punishment of burning imposed—and that no alteration of stance was
therefore appropriate: indeed that Innocent’s request for re-examination and return
of parts of the Talmud was wrong and unfitting. odo even claimed that Innocent
had been duped by Jews who—according to the pope—had insisted that, without
the Talmud, they could not practice their faith. odo rejected this claim, citing the
previous Paris investigation which had found that, on the contrary, the Talmud
actually hindered the Jews in the practice of their faith.267
odo argued that the Talmud obfuscated the Bible and Jewish law. He knew
that Christians had long claimed that Jews did not understand the Hebrew Bible
because they were focused on its literal and material meaning. He now argued that
the Talmud impeded even a literal grasp of the Bible and of the genuine obligations
of even literalist Jewish practice. He urged not that Jewish leaders were deliberately
lying when they made their claims to the pope, but that their (sincere) position was
incorrect. They had misled Innocent in claiming that they needed the Talmud to
understand the Bible and biblically-grounded religious observances, because the
Paris investigation had shown the Talmud to be a distortion, not an interpretation,
of literal biblical truth.268
odo pointed to the history of a campaign intended from the outset to end in
the burning of the Talmud and proceeded to explain the fallacious nature of the
Jewish response. Indeed he even suggested that Innocent’s mistake constituted no
less than a doctrinal error: if the Talmud was returned to the Jews, this would
imply approval of it—and that the Talmud was tolerable, which would fly in the
face of traditional Christian teaching. Although there were a number of good
teachings in the Talmud, this did not justify its return to the Jews—whom he
compared to lepers and heretics, perhaps deliberately, in order to augment popular
265 The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.26.
266 The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.35.
267 The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, pp.26–8.
268 The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.28.