50 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291
officials and ecclesiastical dignitaries through his father, the elder official, who had
held public office and was often invited to take part in religious disputations.116
what is particularly striking about the younger official’s The Disputation of Rabbi
Yehi’el of Paris, perhaps the most famous account of the talmud’s trial in 1240, is
the central role played by gregory ix.117 The Jewish witness at the trial was rabbi
Yehi’el of paris, head of the local rabbinical academy and a tossafist, while on the
Christian side were william of Auvergne, bishop of paris, Adam de Chambly, bishop
of Senlis, walter Cornutus, archbishop of Sens, geoffrey of Bellevelle, the royal
chaplain, and possibly odo (Eudes) of Châteauroux, chancellor of the University
of paris.118 According to official, the queen (-mother) of France, Blanche of
Castile, informed rabbi Yehi’el that it was the pope himself who, concerned about
what he had heard regarding the talmud, had ordered its trial; while she assured
him of royal protection, nevertheless she bid him to answer Nicholas Donin’s
charges at the pope’s own behest.119 Yehi’el replied that he was afraid that the
queen might not like his replies. He stated:
‘prior to everything i shall call you to court in front of the pope if he should force me
to answer the infidel’s [Donin’s] claims’.120Donin then himself intervened and declared that ‘this is being done in accordance
with what the pope says’—in other words that the trial would take place at the
pope’s own command—and at this point Yehi’el replied that he would answer the
charges.121 And later in the proceedings too Yehi’el again proclaimed the pope a
safe and certain protector, as having:
‘ordained with all his might to preserve us and to keep us alive and to give us a liveli-
hood in their country and thereby we live as willed by the Creator’.122116 For Joseph ben Nathan official see, for example, Baron, A Social and Religious History of the
Jews, Vol. 9, p.104; Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, p.63, footnote 22; p.64, footnote 23; p.65; p.74;
Judaism on Trial, ed. Maccoby, p.20; p.218.
117 For rabbi Yehi’el see, for example, Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, Vol. 9,
p.104; Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, p.61, footnote 19; p.63; pp.65–6; pp.69–74; p.156; Judaism on
Trial, ed. Maccoby, p.11; p.20; p.21; pp.23–38; p.44; p.61; p.76; p.80; p.111; pp.153–67; p.218.
See also especially Berger, ‘on the Uses of History in Medieval Jewish polemic Against Christianity’,
p.33. For Joseph ben Nathan official’s edition of rabbi Yehi’el’s Hebrew account of the paris Disputation,
see Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, p.63, footnote 22; Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty,
p.42; piero Capelli, ‘rashi nella controversia parigina sul talmud del 1240’, in Ricercare la Sapienza di
Tutti gli Antichi, Series 39, Vol. 1, Miscellanea in onore di Gian Luigi Prato, ed. M. Milani, M. Zappella
(Bologna, 2013).
118 Shlomo Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History (toronto, 1991), p.302.
119 Joseph ben Nathan official, ‘Vikuah r. Yehi’el miparis’. For an easily accessible text, see Osar
wikuhim, ed. J. D. Eisenstein, p.82. But for a more accurate text, see Sefer Ṿikuaḥ Ṿ Rabenu Yeḥi’el
mi-Paris, ed. S. gruenbaum (Thorn, 1873), p.2. For an English translation (paraphrased) of the
Hebrew text, see Judaism on Trial, ed. Maccoby, pp.153–62. For a translation of the Christian account
of the paris Disputation, see Judaism on Trial, ed. Maccoby, pp.163–7.
120 Joseph ben Nathan official, ‘Vikuah r. Yehi’el miparis’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.82;
Sefer Ṿikuaḥ Rabenu Yeḥi’el mi-Paris, ed. gruenbaum, p.2.
121 Joseph ben Nathan official, ‘Vikuah r. Yehi’el miparis’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.82;
Sefer Ṿikuaḥ Rabenu Yeḥi’el mi-Paris, ed. gruenbaum, p.2.
122 Joseph ben Nathan official, ‘Vikuah r. Yehi’el miparis’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.86;
Sefer Ṿikuaḥ Rabenu Yeḥi’el mi-Paris, ed. gruenbaum, p.12.