中世纪世界生活手册（二十三）

2023-12-13 13:17 作者:神尾智代 0人读过 | 我要投稿

上一章

犹太社会

这一章节，我们将详细探讨犹太社区在中世纪基督教与穆斯林世界中艰难而微妙的地位。他们的社会地位时而被视为君主和哈里发不可或缺的“宫廷农奴”，时而被视为经济不可或缺的商人和放债人，时而又被蔑视为基督的“敌人”。在这些极端之间，犹太社区得以繁荣发展，保留了主要的社会机构与传统，很大程度上保障其自主性与身份认同。

The following section explores in detail the difficult and delicate position of Jewish communities in the Christian and Muslim medieval world. Their social status fluctuated between being considered indispensable to the monarchy and caliphate as “royal serfs” and to the economy as merchants and moneylenders to being despised as the “enemies” of Christ. In between the two extremes Jewish communities managed to thrive, maintaining key social institutions and traditions that largely safeguarded their autonomy and identity.

乐观现实主义的概念

在基督教徒和穆斯林的统治下，犹太人的生存险象环生。然而，尽管有威胁、大屠杀、驱逐、强迫皈依、十字军东征的恐怖以及众多对犹太人聚居区的限制，许多中世纪犹太人似乎仍坚定地拒绝悲观主义，提倡乐观主义，选择在世界上追求卓越。乐观的现实主义是整个中世纪犹太哲学中的一个普遍主题，或多或少地体现在 10 世纪的萨阿迪亚·果昂（Saadya Gaon，阿拔斯王朝时期犹太教的一位重要的拉比、哲学家、解经学家，犹太-阿拉伯语文学奠基人）、11 世纪的拉什（Rashi，全名：拉比 所罗门·本·依撒克·哈泰扎法提，中世纪的法国拉比，其撰写了对《塔木德》与《塔纳赫》的全面评述）和巴亚·伊本·帕库达（Bahya ibn Pakuda，犹太哲学家和拉比，住在安达卢斯（现西班牙）的萨拉戈萨）、12 世纪的迈蒙尼德（Maimonides，塞法迪犹太哲学家、法学家、医生）、亚伯拉罕·伊本·达乌德（Abraham ibn Daud，西班牙裔犹太天文学家、历史学家和哲学家）、犹大·哈列维（Judah Halevi，11世纪西班牙犹太人医生、诗人、哲学家，作品内容涉及宗教和世俗方面。以《可萨人之书》闻名）和纳贺蒙尼德（Nachmanides，中世纪犹太学者、西班牙塞法迪犹太拉比及圣经注解家，对1099年十字军东征之后的犹太人社区重建起着重要作用）以及 14 世纪的哈斯代·本·亚伯拉罕·克雷斯卡斯（Hasdai Crescas，犹太教哲学理性主义方法的主要实践者之一）的学说中。它还使犹太男女老幼的日常生活充满活力，犹太商人在开罗geniza（Genizah，犹太手稿片段和法蒂玛行政文件的集合，这些文件保存在埃及福斯塔特或老开罗本·埃兹拉犹太教堂的储藏室中）书信中对困难和胜利的目击描述就是例证。从 10 世纪到 13 世纪，犹太人周游世界，在海上与海难作斗争，在贸易航线上与海盗作斗争，在国际市场上与政治骚扰和商业危机作斗争。商人们没有耐心地接受现实，然后等待：他们承认现实，然后开始改善局面。

Jewish life was perilous under cross and crescent. Yet despite threats, pogroms, expulsions, forced conversions, the horrors of the Crusades, and restrictions to Jewish ghettos, many medieval Jews seemed steadfastly to refuse pessimism and to promote optimism, electing to presume excellence in the world. Optimistic realism was a pervasive theme throughout medieval Jewish philosophy, evidenced in greater or lesser degree in the teachings of the 10th-century Saadya Gaon; 11th-century Rashi and Bahya ibn Pakuda; 12th-century Maimonides, Abraham ibn Daud, Judah Halevi, and Nachmanides; and 14th-century Hasdai Crescas. It also animated daily life among Jewish men, women, and children, as exemplified in the eyewitness accounts of troubles and triumphs of Jewish traders in their Cairo geniza letters. Jews who traveled the world from the 10th through 13th centuries, battling on the sea against shipwreck, on the trade routes against piracy and thievery, and on the international markets against political molestation and mercantile disaster, did not simply wait for God’s help or for heavenly rewards for earthly suffering. Traders did not patiently accept what was and then wait: They acknowledged reality and then started bettering it.

犹太哲学认为，在条件困难、神秘或无法解释的情况下，有必要假定卓越。有意选择对事实的正面解释而非负面解释，是履行一种被称为“limud lekaf zekus”的成人礼，一种受祝福的义务。这就禁止了错误的判断、错误的结论，并必然要求犹太人对一个人或一件事给予好的假设。在男女老幼的日常行为中，都有“疑罪从无”的要求。人们被教导要清楚地识别逆境，并将其转化为机遇。化逆境为机遇也意味着化逆境为利润。学者 Goitein 和 Stillman 翻译的犹太商人的书信就是这一理念的具体体现。

Jewish philosophy counseled that it was necessary to presume excellence when conditions were difficult, mysterious, or inexplicable. An obligation intentionally to select a positive over a negative interpretation of facts was a fulfillment of a mitzvah, a blessed obligation, called limud lekaf zekus. That prohibited false judging, false concluding, and necessarily required the Jew to provide a person or an incident with benefit of the doubt. Limud lekaf zekus had daily application in commonplace acts of men, women, and children. Taught to identify an adversity clearly, people were expected to turn it into an opportunity. Rotating adversity into opportunity also could mean rotating adversity into profit. Jewish merchants’ letters translated by scholars Goitein and Stillman illustrate that philosophy in action.

例如，1130 年，的黎波里一位名叫萨丹的父亲不情愿地让他的儿子去做买卖、去体验世界。这位父亲喝多了酒，贸然许下诺言。他承诺儿子可以搭乘下一班船离开，却以为不会有船了。他被自己的轻率承诺所迷惑，但荣誉要求他遵守承诺。父亲让孩子走了，但他还是采取了预防措施，他提醒一位在国外做生意的朋友，请他买来一种叫“紫胶”（Lac）的染料、丁香树皮、肉豆蔻和香木，让这个没有经验的年轻人去售卖。如果父亲无法再在家里教儿子，那么他就花钱请国外的朋友来培训孩子的商人技能。

In 1130, for instance, a father named Sadan in Tripoli reluctantly let his son go off to trade and to see the world. The father had made a rash promise when drinking too much. He had pledged that his son could leave on the next boat, thinking that no boats were forthcoming. Caught by his own rash promise, he was required by honor to abide by it. He let the boy go. But the father took the precaution of alerting a business friend abroad please to buy the dyestuff called lac, clove bark, nutmeg, and fragrant wood for the inexperienced youngster to sell. If the father could no longer teach his son at home, then he paid for the friend overseas to train the youth in the merchant profession.

第二封信件的日期是 13 世纪，信中介绍了Ibrahim ben Abu l-Surer，他在信中向福斯塔特的阿布·纳赛尔讲述了他期待购买的劣质药材以及在乡村旅行过程中的不愉快。他留在那里只是为了讨还欠他的债务。他说，对于一个聪明人来说，寻求温饱和寻求荣耀一样，都是强大的动力。

A second letter dated in the 13th century introduced Ibrahim ben Abu l-Surer, who wrote to Abu Nasr of Fustat about the poor quality of medicinal goods he was expecting to buy and the unpleasantness of the countryside where he was traveling. Ibrahim remained there only for collecting the debts owed to him. Seeking sustenance, he said, was as powerful an impetus for an intelligent man as seeking glory.

1025 年，西西里岛巴勒莫刚被拜占庭人攻陷，约瑟夫·本·塞缪尔在危急中写信请求一位可信赖的朋友帮忙。约瑟夫将爱妻和幼子留在了埃及家中。和许多海外商人一样，他在出发前给了妻子一份有条件的离婚协议书，这样，如果他因自然或暴力原因死亡，而又没有确凿证据证明他的死亡，妻子就可以自由地再婚。有条件离婚的目的是为了让这位妇女摆脱犹太法中既不是合法妻子也不是合法寡妇的地位（agunah）。

Writing in peril from Palermo, Sicily, in 1025, just sacked by the Byzantines, Joseph ben Samuel requested help from a trusted friend. Joseph had left at home in Egypt his beloved wife and young son. As did many an overseas trader, he had given his wife a conditional bill of divorce before departure so that if he died by natural or violent causes without confirmatory witness to his death, she would be free to remarry. The purpose of the conditional divorce was to enable the woman to escape agunah, the status in Jewish law of neither legal wife nor legal widow.

约瑟夫·本·塞缪尔讲述了他在Zahlaq遭遇海难，没有钱也没有衣服，赤身裸体来到的黎波里的经历。那里的一个犹太人欠他钱，这些钱能让他够买到衣服和食物。否则，他将不得不乞求施舍。一到巴勒莫，约瑟夫就发现一个来自Barqua的人拆掉了约瑟夫拥有的一座小房子，又建起了另一座。但约瑟夫现在太穷了，无法提起诉讼。他寻找欠他钱的弟弟，但弟弟不见了。因此，约瑟夫请求他的朋友帮助他，因为考虑到他岌岌可危的处境，他可能至少两年都回不了家。要么与妻子离婚，要么说服妻子前往战区与他一起生活。

Joseph ben Samuel recounted his shipwreck in Zahlaq, surviving without coin or garment and arriving in Tripoli naked. A Jew there who owed him money enabled him to buy clothing and food. Otherwise, he would have had to beg for charity. Once in Palermo, Joseph discovered that a man from Barqua had pulled down a small house Joseph had owned and erected another. But Joseph now was too poor to file a lawsuit. He looked for his brother, who owed him money, but he had vanished. Therefore, Joseph asked his friend to help him either to divorce his wife, for he might not return home for at least two years given his precarious situation or to convince his wife to travel to the war zone to live there with him.

他的计划理性而庄重，带着家庭的激情，将最终决定权交给了妻子：如果她接受离婚，他将为孩子寄去赡养费。如果她不接受，他就想知道她是否愿意与他一起去西西里定居。如果她愿意前往，她就会宣誓确认自己的决定，而他就会安排她和孩子们与他一起住在那里。他请朋友为他的小儿子找个老师。

His rational, dignified plan, tinged with family passion, rested ultimate power of decision with his wife: If she accepted the divorce, then he would send alimony for the boy. But if not, then he wondered whether she would be prepared to settle with him in Sicily. If she were willing to travel, she would confirm her decision by oath, and he would make the arrangements for her and their son to live there with him. He asked his friend to find a teacher for his little son.

在 1149 年的第四封信中，西西里岛的犹太东方香料出口商阿布·赛义德已经离家三年。他写信给在埃及的兄长阿布·巴拉卡特（Abu l-Barakat），讲述了他从突尼斯启程后的奇遇。他的家人病了四个月，他的宝贝儿子死了，他的妻子和另一个儿子活了下来。离开突尼斯后，他们在海上遭遇了一场灾难性的风暴，被迫在一个叫Ghumur的小岛上登陆，在那里停留了 20 天，只能靠吃荨麻维持生命。这一次，他们在海上被折磨了 35 天，在海上迷失了方向。四艘海上驳船中，只有他们幸存下来。到达西西里岛后，他们被折磨得筋疲力尽，整整一个月吃不下面包，也听不懂别人对他们说的话。

In a fourth letter, dated 1149, Abu Said, a Jewish Oriental spice exporter in Sicily, had been away from home for three years. He wrote to his elder brother, Abu l-Barakat, in Egypt, relating his odyssey after embarking from Tunis. His family fell ill for four months. His baby son died. His wife and other son survived. Upon leaving Tunis they were seized by a disastrous storm at sea, forcing them to land on an island called Ghumur, where they remained for 20 days surviving by eating nothing other than nettles. This time they were tormented on the waters for 35 days and were thought lost at sea. Of four sea barges only theirs survived. After arrival in Sicily, they were so exhausted from their ordeal that they unable to eat bread or to understand a word of what was said to them for a full month.

阿布·赛义德讲述了这些不幸遭遇，以解释他和家人为何不前往埃及，因为他们的经历让他们不愿再次旅行。他没有将自己的不幸归咎于上帝、风暴或命运，也没有声称自己遭受的苦难使他有权得到社会的关怀。他所讲述的危险只是他必须留在国外弥补经济损失、工作获利、然后才能回国的前奏。他为工作和胜利而欢欣鼓舞，理性地计划着下一步的行动。他甚至邀请他的兄弟一起去西西里，因为那里是销售东方香料的主要市场。为了享乐，也为了生意兴隆，他建议他们一起工作，以提高家族声望和荣誉，让他们彼此“快乐”。

Abu Said recounted these misadventures to explain why he and his family did not travel to Egypt, as their experiences had made them reluctant to travel. He did not blame God, the storm, or fate for his misfortune. He did not claim suffering as entitling him to community care. His recounting of perils was preface to his necessity to remain abroad to make up financial losses, to work for profit, and only then to return home. Cheerful to work and to triumph, he rationally planned his next moves. He even invited his brother to join him in Sicily because it was a prime market for the sale of Oriental spices. For pleasure and for good business, he recommended their working together to increase family prestige and honor and to make them “happy” with one another.

法律地位

在犹太人所居住的基督教或穆斯林社会中，日常生活的现实对犹太人的自身利益和在这个世界上繁衍生息的合理愿望提出了挑战。禁食法、歧视性的财政待遇以及偶尔的贫民窟化是基督教和穆斯林政府强加给犹太人的一些区别对待的法律策略。不过，在大多数情况下，犹太人被允许信奉自己的宗教，享有自治权，不受非犹太人对其内部事务的干涉，主权当局还鼓励犹太人保持这些宗教和法律制度的完整性，以确保社会和平和经济稳定，使犹太人上交的税收源源不断地流入基督教或穆斯林国库。正如雅科夫·古根海姆 (Yacov Guggenheim)、马克·科恩 (Mark Cohen)和其他学者所指出的，对犹太人的法律限制经常被违反，犹太人获得的特权“通常是经过细致谈判并考虑到双方利益的妥协结果”（古根海姆，75 页）。在基督教和伊斯兰教统治下，犹太人的法律地位在某些方面有所不同。

Self-interest and the logical desire to flourish in this world were challenged by the realities of daily life in the wider Christian or Muslim society in which Jews resided. Sumptuary laws, discriminatory fiscal treatment, and occasionally ghettoization were some of the legal strategies of differentiation that Christian and Muslim governments imposed upon the Jews. For the most part, however, Jews were allowed to practice their religion, enjoyed autonomy from non-Jewish interference in their internal affairs, and were encouraged by the sovereign authorities to maintain these religious and legal institutions intact in order to ensure the social peace and economic stability required to maintain the steady flow of Jewish taxes into Christian or Muslim coffers. As Yacov Guggenheim, Mark Cohen, and other scholars have shown, legal restrictions placed upon Jews were often breached, and the privileges that Jews received “were normally compromises minutely negotiated and taking account of both parties’ interests” (Guggenheim 75). The legal status of Jews differed in certain ways under Christian and Islamic rule.

皇家金库忠仆

在基督教欧洲，犹太人被视为其居住地的君主、贵族、城镇或教会的“财产”。从 12 世纪中叶开始，欧洲各地的犹太社区作为“皇家金库忠仆”（servus camere regie）与君主建立了特殊的关系。12 世纪阿拉贡和卡斯蒂利亚王国的《法律》（fueros）显然首次提出了犹太人为君主服务的概念，尽管其起源更为久远。以神学家圣奥古斯丁（卒于 430 年）命名的“奥古斯丁平衡”主张，尽管犹太人因拒绝基督而被判处永久奴役，但作为基督教胜利的“见证人”，基督教社会必须容忍犹太人。13 世纪，德意志和西西里的皇帝腓特烈二世在谈到为他服务的犹太人时使用了“王室仆人”（serfs of the royal chamber）一词。英国和法国也采用了类似的法律表述。

In Christian Europe Jews were considered the “property” of monarchs, nobles, towns, or the church in the territory in which they resided. From the mid-12th century onward, Jewish communities throughout Europe were bound in a special relationship to the monarchy as servus camere regie, “serfs of the royal chamber.” The concept of Jewish servitude to the monarch was apparently first formulated in the 12th-century fueros (laws) of the Kingdoms of Aragon and Castile, although its origins are more remote. The “Augustinian equilibrium,” so named after the theologian Saint Augustine (d. 430), maintained that Jews must be tolerated within Christian society as a “witness” to the triumph of Christianity, albeit condemned to perpetual servitude due to their rejection of Christ. In the 13th century Emperor Frederick II of Germany and Sicily employed the phrase “serfs of the royal chamber” in speaking of the Jews in his service. Similar legal formulations were adopted in England and France.

在所有情况下，宫廷奴役都意味着犹太社区直接服从君主的政治和财政权威，而不是服从于当地封建贵族或教会的权威。犹太廷臣、财务管理人员和收税员尤其受益于国王的私人服务：授予土地、免于穿戴表明其犹太人身份的独特服装或标志，以及允许建造犹太教堂，这些都是他们为真诚感谢所提供的服务而可能获得的特权。这种特殊地位为犹太人提供了保护，使他们免受社会其他成员的侵害。那些胆敢伤害“国王的犹太人”的人直接挑战了王权，因此受到了严厉的惩罚。但与此同时，专有关系也使犹太人容易受到君主的随意摆布。

In all cases cameral servitude meant the Jewish community was subject directly to the political and fiscal authority of the monarch, as opposed to that of the local feudal nobility or the church. Jewish courtiers, financial administrators, and tax collectors especially benefited from being in the king’s personal service: Land grants, exemption from wearing distinctive clothing or signs identifying their Jewish identity, and permission to build a synagogue were just some of the privileges that they might receive in sincere gratitude for services rendered. This special status provided Jews with protection from other elements of society. Those who dared to harm the “king’s Jews” directly challenged royal authority and therefore were severely punished. At the same time, however, the proprietary relationship left Jews vulnerable to the whims of the monarch’s discretion.

法典

教会法对犹太人来说是一把双刃剑，一方面保护他们免受虐待和压迫，另一方面又歧视他们。霍诺里乌斯 (Honorius)的法律规定，基督徒不得打扰犹太人或他们的教堂，也不得妨碍他们遵守安息日和节日。拜占庭狄奥多西二世（408-50年）的法典禁止基督徒攻击和焚烧犹太教堂，但也禁止重建被毁的犹太教堂。1199 年，教皇英诺森三世颁布了“犹太人宪法”，规定任何基督徒都不得强迫犹太人接受洗礼、抢夺他们的财产、向他们勒索任何不正当的服务、在他们庆祝节日时用棍棒或石块攻击他们、肢解或毁坏犹太人的墓地、或在犹太人埋葬后将其尸体从坟墓中挖出。

Canon law was a double-edged sword for Jews, protecting them from ill treatment and oppression on the one hand while discriminating against them on the other. The laws of Pope Honorius (r. 395–423) stipulated that Christians were not to disturb the Jews or their synagogues or hinder them from observing their Sabbath and feast days. The Law Code of Theodosius II of Byzantium (r. 408–50) forbade Christians to attack and burn Jewish synagogues, although it also prohibited such destroyed synagogues from being rebuilt. In 1199 Pope Innocent III issued a “Constitution for the Jews,” which stipulated that no Christian should compel Jewish persons to be baptized, rob them of their property, extort any unwarranted service from them, attack them with clubs or stones as they celebrated their festivals, mutilate or destroy a Jewish cemetery, or exhume a Jewish body from its grave after burial.

犹太人的独特地位及其社会隔离与歧视也同样通过教规禁戒法得以实施。教会针对犹太人颁布限制他们参与主流社会的法律由来已久。比如狄奥多西一世（Theodosius I the Great，378-95年）的“378-95 年诏书”。霍诺里乌斯 (Honorius)于 404 年颁布法律，禁止犹太人在军队和宫廷服役；《狄奥多西法典》（408-50 年）禁止犹太人建造新的犹太会堂；第三次奥尔良大公会议（538 年）禁止犹太人在圣周四至复活节期间与基督徒交往；马孔第四次法兰克会议（581 年）重申了这些限制，并禁止基督徒参加犹太节日。然而，教皇英诺森三世在 1215 年第四次拉特朗公会议上颁布的教皇法令却让人记忆犹新，因为该法令规定犹太（和穆斯林）男子和女子必须在衣服上印上独特的标记以示区别，这就产生了犹太徽章和犹太帽（Judenhut）等物品。不过，需要注意的是，直到中世纪末期，教会都不得不多次重新颁布这一规定，这表明它主要是在违反规定的情况下得到遵守的。

The distinct status of the Jews and their social segregation and discrimination were likewise enforced through canon sumptuary laws. The church had a long history of issuing legislation against the Jews that restricted their participation in the dominant society. One could mention Theodosius I the Great’s (r. 378–95) edict of 388 forbidding intermarriage between Jews and Christians; Pope Honorius’s law of 404 excluding Jews from military and court service; the Theodosian Code (408–50), which forbade Jews to build new synagogues; the Third Frankish Council of Orleans (538), which prohibited Jews from interacting with Christians between Holy Thursday and Easter; or the Fourth Frankish Council in Macon (581), which reaffirmed these restrictions and forbade Christians to participate in Jewish festivals. Yet the papal decrees of Pope Innocent III promulgated at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 are particularly remembered for obliging Jewish (and Muslim) men and women to distinguish themselves with a distinctive mark on their clothing, which would give rise to such items as the Jewish badge and the Jewish hat (Judenhut). It should be noted, however, that up until the end of the Middle Ages the church had to reissue this stipulation on numerous occasions, indicating that it was honored mainly in the breach.

第四次拉特朗公会议努力实现基督徒与“异教徒”（包括犹太人和穆斯林）的完全社会隔离。此时，在整个基督教欧洲，犹太人必须居住在与基督徒实际隔离的封闭区域。第四次拉特朗公会议禁止犹太人在任何情况下离家，从圣周四到复活节周日。第四次拉特朗公会议还再次确认禁止犹太人担任公职，并严格限制基督徒与犹太人之间的商业往来和其他形式的社会交往。从第四次拉特朗公会议《教规》第 68 条的措辞中可以清楚地看出，衣着禁律是出于对犹太人和基督徒之间性关系的担忧。它明确指出，规定特殊服装是为了确保基督徒不会“错误地”与犹太人或萨拉森人发生性关系。

Lateran IV strove to attain the complete social segregation of Christians from “infidels,” both Jewish and Muslim. Throughout Christian Europe Jews by this time were obliged to reside in closed quarters physically separated from Christians. Lateran IV banned Jews from leaving their homes under any circumstances from Holy Thursday through Easter Sunday. Lateran IV also reconfirmed the prohibition against Jews’ holding public office and severely restricted commercial and other forms of social intercourse between Christians and Jews. It is clear from the wording of canon 68 of Lateran IV that the sumptuary clothing laws were motivated by concerns about sexual relations between Jews and Christians. It explicitly states that the imposition of distinctive clothing was meant to ensure that Christians would not have sexual relations “through error” with Jews or Saracens.

《欧麦尔条约》

犹太人、基督徒、琐罗亚斯德教徒和印度教徒作为“迪米”（受保护的民族）生活在被并入伊斯兰帝国的土地上。“迪米”是一种法律地位，起源于《古兰经》和先知穆罕默德对待“圣书之民”（Ahl al-Kitab）的例子。“迪米”概念背后的神学理念与基督教中犹太人“永久奴役”地位的理念大相径庭。毫无疑问，真主给穆罕默德的启示被认为是所有启示中最终和最完美的启示。但这并不意味着要废除之前的启示，也不意味着其他宗教的信徒会因为属于不同的宗教传统而受到伤害、杀害、流放或被迫皈依伊斯兰教。穆罕默德开创了与“经书上的民族”商谈条约的先例，为他们提供保护，以换取他们服从自己的政治统治、承诺效忠并缴纳人头税（吉兹亚）。如果伊斯兰教徒违背承诺，伊斯兰教会保留惩罚、流放或将他们作为叛徒或反叛者处死的权利。627 年处决犹太巴努·古莱扎（Banu Qurayza）部落的男子就是这种情况。

Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and Hindus lived as dhimmis (protected peoples) in the lands absorbed into the Islamic empire. Dhimmi was a legal status, the origins of which lie in the Quran and in the example of the prophet Muhammad’s dealing with the Peoples of the Book (Ahl al-Kitab), those to whom God had revealed a book before the beginning of Islam. The theological ideals behind the notion of dhimmi differ significantly from those that underlie the status of the Jews’ “perpetual servitude” in Christendom. Unequivocally, God’s revelation to Muhammad was considered the final and most perfect of all the revelations. This did not mean, however, that the previous revelations should be abrogated or that the followers of these other religions should be harmed, killed, exiled, or forcibly converted to Islam simply by virtue of their belonging to a different religious tradition. Muhammad established the precedent of negotiating treaties with the Peoples of the Book, which provided them with protection in exchange for their submission to his political rule, their promise of loyalty, and the payment of a poll tax (jizya). In the event that the dhimmi community reneged on its pledges, the Islamic community reserved the right to punish, exile, or execute them as traitors or rebels. Such was the case with the execution of the men of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe in 627.

关于伊斯兰教徒法律地位的一般原则在被称为《欧麦尔条约》（Pact of Umar）的文本中最终形成，该文本是第二任哈里发、叙利亚和巴勒斯坦的征服者欧麦尔·本·赫塔卜（Umar ibn al-Khattab）所作；不过，大多数学者都认为该文本是 8 世纪至 11 世纪晚期的作品。文本的形式是“圣书之民”的代表向哈里发欧麦尔庄严宣誓，请求“保护我们自己、我们的子孙后代、我们的财产和我们的同教”（J. Marcus 13），以换取对一些条件的遵守。这些“同化者”保证不建造任何新的宗教建筑，也不修缮那些破败的建筑。他们不会拒绝任何穆斯林进入他们的教堂，也不会拒绝接待任何穆斯林旅行者。他们保证不窝藏任何间谍或穆斯林的敌人。他们承诺不公开展示自己的宗教标志，不敲钟，不在教堂内或宗教游行时在教堂外高声诵经，也不在穆斯林社区炫耀自己的宗教活动。他们保证不在穆斯林中传教，也不阻挠任何亲属自愿皈依伊斯兰教。

The general principles of the legal status of the dhimmi populations reached final form in the text known as the Pact of Umar, attributed to the second caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattab, the conqueror of Syria and Palestine; however, most scholars agree that the text dates from a later period between the eighth and 11th centuries. The text takes the form of a solemn pledge addressed by representatives of the People of the Book to Caliph Umar requesting “protection for ourselves, our posterity, our possessions, and our co-religionists” (J. Marcus 13) in exchange for the adherence to a number of conditions. The dhimmis pledged not to build any new religious building or repair those fallen into ruin. They would not refuse entry of any Muslim into their temples nor refuse hospitality to any Muslim traveler. They pledged not to harbor any spies or enemies of the Muslims. They pledged to abstain from displaying their religious symbols publicly, from ringing bells, from chanting loudly either inside their temples or outside during religious processions, and from any ostentatious practice of their religion in Muslim neighborhoods. They pledged not to proselytize among Muslims or to obstruct the voluntary conversion of any of their kinsfolk to Islam.

他们放弃了拥有或携带武器以及骑马的权利，并保证不使用阿拉伯语尊称。他们承诺不向穆斯林出售酒或其他伊斯兰法律禁止的物品。他们还同意遵守一系列服饰法，以明显区别于穆斯林居民。例如，他们保证“不模仿他们的着装，无论是帽子、头巾、凉鞋，还是头发的分叉”，他们还将佩戴 zunnar（一种佩戴在腰间的皮革或绳索腰带），保留穆斯林佩戴丝绸或布制腰带的特权（《马库斯全集》第 13-15 卷）。禁止拥有“迪米”身份的人担任公职，如前所述，他们同意缴纳人头税。伊斯兰法律在宗教间社会关系的某些方面存在歧视。穆斯林男性可以与“迪米”身份的女性结婚，但“迪米”身份的男性不能与穆斯林女性结婚。宗教间婚姻的子女必须作为穆斯林抚养。

They renounced the right to own or bear arms and to ride on saddles and pledged not to assume Arabic honorific names. They promised not to sell wine or other items forbidden by Islamic law to Muslims. They also agreed to a number of sumptuary laws to distinguish themselves visibly from the Muslim population. For instance, they pledged that they would “not imitate them in [their] dress, either in the cap, turban, sandals, or parting of the hair,” and they would wear the zunnar, a leather or cord girdle worn around the waist, reserving to the Muslims the privilege of wearing silk or cloth girdles (J. Marcus 13–15). Dhimmis were forbidden to hold public office, and, as mentioned, they agreed to pay the poll tax. Islamic law discriminated in some areas of interfaith social relations. Muslim males were permitted to marry dhimmi women, but dhimmi males could not marry Muslim women. The children of interfaith marriages had to be reared as Muslims.

作为臣服承诺的交换条件，“同化者”得到的“保护”包括信奉宗教的自由（受上述限制）和内部事务的自治。历史记录一再表明，缴纳人头税几乎是唯一一贯施加的限制。在中世纪，犹太人和其他“同化者”经常要求并获准建造或修复他们的教堂。科尔多瓦倭马亚王朝哈里发阿卜杜勒·拉赫曼三世（在位 912-61 年）的犹太宰相哈斯代·伊本·沙普鲁特（Hasdai ibn Shaprut）并不是唯一在伊斯兰政府中担任要职的杰出例子。在埃及和伊拉克，景教基督徒和科普特人以及犹太人经常担任政府行政职务。著名的迈蒙尼德也不是唯一获得阿拉伯语尊称（阿布·伊姆兰）的犹太人。至于服饰法，在某些时代和某些地方，它们被严格执行，例如在埃及马穆鲁克王朝，犹太人必须在衣服上佩戴黄色徽章，而基督徒则佩戴蓝色徽章，撒玛利亚人则佩戴红色徽章。不过，在大多数情况下，这些规定即使没有被忽视，也似乎被放松了。除了犹太人运用服饰法通过服装和装饰品将自己与非犹太人区分开来这一事实外，开罗族址的文件还表明，犹太人确实穿丝绸（理论上这是《欧麦尔条约》所禁止的），尤其是地中海地区犹太女性的服装与穆斯林的服装几乎没有区别。

The “protection” that the dhimmis received in exchange for the pledge of submission included the freedom to practice their religion (subject to the limitations mentioned) and autonomy in their internal affairs. Historical records have repeatedly shown that the payment of the poll tax was virtually the only restriction consistently imposed. In the Middle Ages Jews and other dhimmis frequently requested and received permission to build or repair one of their temples. Hasdai ibn Shaprut, Jewish vizier to the Umayyad caliph of Córdoba Abd al-Rahman III (r. 912–61), is not the only illustrious example of a dhimmi who occupied a high position of authority in an Islamic government. In Egypt and Iraq Nestorian Christians and Copts as well as Jews frequently held government administrative posts. Nor is the famous Maimonides the only Jewish person to have acquired an Arabic honorific name (Abu Imran). As for the sumptuary laws, in certain times and places they were applied rigorously, such as in Mamluk Egypt, where Jews had to wear a yellow badge on their clothing while Christians wore blue and the Samaritans wore red. For the most part, however, it appears that they were relaxed, if not ignored. In addition to the fact that Jews applied their own sumptuary laws to distinguish themselves from non-Jews through clothing and costume, the documents of the Cairo geniza illustrate that Jews did wear silk—theoretically forbidden under the Pact of Umar—and that the garments of Mediterranean Jewish women in particular were hardly distinguishable from those worn by Muslims.

自主与自治

在中世纪的大部分时间里，生活在基督教和伊斯兰教中的犹太人被允许保留对其内部事务的自治权。但是，在屈从于基督教或伊斯兰教统治的情况下，自治意味着什么？伊斯兰教法，尤其是在被称为《欧麦尔条约》的文本中，保证了犹太人信奉犹太教和在犹太社区内部事务中适用犹太教法的权利。基督教教规法和王室特权也赋予犹太人类似的权利。西班牙阿拉贡王国的一个例子是基督教承认犹太人自治的典型。1229 年，国王詹姆士（海梅）一世允许“你们，我们卡拉塔尤德（阿拉贡自治区萨拉戈萨省的一个市镇）所有忠诚的犹太人（universis），从你们中间确定、选举和任命四名正直的人 [probes homines] 作为你们的领袖 [adenantatos]；他们应由整个社区 [algema] 选举产生”（古根海姆，78 页）。实际上，自治是通过保留或调整一些传统的犹太社会机构来实现的，如犹太教堂、犹太学校（宗教学校）、宗教法庭、墓地和慈善组织。

For most of the Middle Ages Jews living in Christendom and Islam were allowed to retain autonomy over their internal affairs. But what did autonomy mean in a context of subjugation to Christian or Islamic rule, and how was it exercised and negotiated? Islamic law, and particularly in the text known as the Pact of Umar, guaranteed the right to practice the Jewish religion and to apply Jewish law in the internal affairs of the Jewish community. Christian canon law and royal privileges invested the Jews with similar rights. An example from the Kingdom of Aragon in Spain typifies Christian recognition of Jewish autonomy. In 1229 King James (Jaime) I permitted “you, all (universis) our loyal Jews of Calatayud, to determine, elect, and appoint four righteous men [probes homines] from your midst as your leaders [adenantatos]; they shall be elected by the entire community [algema]” (Guggenheim 78). In practice, autonomy was achieved by the survival or adaptation of a number of traditional Jewish social institutions, such as the synagogue, the yeshiva (religious school), the religious court, the cemetery, and charitable organizations.

犹太教堂

犹太教堂是宗教和社会生活的中心，与基督教和穆斯林的教区教堂和清真寺类似。教堂既是礼拜场所，也是公共集会场所，在这里可以宣布法律判决，决定影响整个社区的重大事项。鉴于犹太教堂、教区教堂（大教堂）和清真寺在社会功能上的相似性，犹太社区倾向于在大教堂和清真寺所在的城市地区定居也就不足为奇了。伊斯兰世界和基督教世界的这些城市地区为犹太人提供了更多谋生的经济机会，也使他们更接近教会和市政当局，从而保证了对他们的法律保护。

The synagogue as the center of religious and social life paralleled its Christian and Muslim counterparts of the parish church and the congregational mosque. The temple was a place of worship but also a site of public assembly where legal judgments were announced and important matters affecting the entire community were decided. Given the similarities in the social function of synagogue, parish church or cathedral, and mosque, it comes as no surprise that Jewish communities tended to settle in urban areas where cathedral churches and mosques were also located. These urban areas in the Islamic world and Christendom afforded the Jews greater economic opportunities to earn a living as well as greater proximity to the ecclesiastical and civic authorities that could guarantee their legal protection.

总的来说，生活在基督教和穆斯林地区的犹太人倾向于选择在犹太教堂附近共同生活。选择在同一地区共同生活不仅是害怕非犹太侵略者的攻击，甚至主要不是出于这种担心。它满足了人们对实用便利的渴望，使犹太人的生活方式得以延续。犹太人居住区通常包括一所宗教学校（犹太学校）、一个犹太法院（犹太法院）、一个社区教堂、一个临终关怀医院、一个用于仪式洁净的澡堂（犹太澡堂）、一个屠宰场、一个烘焙屋，如果社区规模允许，还包括一个墓地。(出于经济需要或迫于非犹太人市政当局的压力，多个较小的犹太社区可能会共用一个墓地，以限制特定地区的墓地数量）。此外，在某些情况下，具有上述特征的犹太人定居点实际上早于基督教（或穆斯林）城市中心的建立。

By and large, Jews living in Christian and Muslim lands tended by choice to live together in the vicinity of the synagogue. The preference for living together in the same region was not only or even primarily dictated by fear of attack from non-Jewish aggressors. It responded to the desire for pragmatic conveniences that perpetuated the preservation of the Jewish way of life. Jewish quarters typically included a religious school (yeshiva), a Jewish courthouse (beit din), a community hall, a hospice, a bathhouse for ritual cleansing (mikveh), a butcher, a baking house, and a cemetery if the size of the community allowed. (Multiple smaller Jewish communities might share a single cemetery out of economic necessity or out of pressure from the non-Jewish civic authorities seeking to limit the number of cemeteries in a given region.) In some cases, moreover, a Jewish settlement with the characteristics just described actually predated the establishment of a Christian (or Muslim) urban center.

犹太法

Takkanot（社区法令）是确保犹太社区及其机构完整性的重要手段。拉比发布的 takkanot（社区法令）决定了社区税收的数额，以支付基本服务费用，如领祷人的工资、犹太教堂、烤肉房、屠宰场和社区教堂的维护费用，以及对穷人的慈善捐赠。拉比的 takkanot（社区法令）还涉及家庭法、婚姻、离婚和继承等问题，还有一些拉比对基督教或穆斯林统治下出现的情况做出了回应。德国的格尔肖姆·本·犹大（968-1020 年）因其禁止一夫多妻制和禁止骚扰决定回归犹太教的被迫皈依者的Takkanot（社区法令）而闻名。

Takkanot (communal ordinances) were an essential means of securing the integrity of a Jewish community and its institutions. Rabbis issued takkanot to determine the amount of community taxes to pay for essential services such as the salary of the prayer leader; the maintenance of the synagogue, baking house, butchery, and community hall; and charitable gifts to the poor. The takkanot of the rabbis also dealt with matters of family law, marriage, divorce, and inheritance, while others responded to circumstances arising from the subjugation to Christian or Muslim rule. Rabbi Gershom ben Judah of Germany (968–1020) is famous for his takkanot banning polygamy and forbidding the harassment of forced converts who decided to return to Judaism.

犹太法院由拉比主持，或者由四名自由选举产生的男性领袖主持的非宗教法院来维护内部社会和谐、法律和秩序。中世纪的犹太教答辩书证明，非宗教领袖在做出最终决定之前，可能会经常向来自不同社区的拉比寻求法律专业知识。除了拉比的权威之外，整个社区还可以就涉及其普遍福利的事项进行投票，例如向穷人提供慈善和防御服务。例如，某些职业的成员，如商人、屠夫或面包师，也可以成立公司，制定并执行规范其职业的法规。犹太宗教和公民领袖有权逮捕、审判和惩罚罪犯和不法分子，基督教和穆斯林当局也授予并确保这些权力。

Jewish law courts presided over by a rabbi or, alternatively, a lay court presided over by four freely elected male leaders maintained internal social harmony, law, and order. Medieval Jewish responsa bear witness to the frequency with which lay leaders might seek out the legal expertise of a rabbi from a different community before making a final decision. In addition to the authority of the rabbis, the community could as a whole vote on matters concerning their general welfare, such as providing charity to the poor and networks of defense. Members of certain occupations, merchants, butchers, or bakers, for instance, might also form corporations to establish and enforce statutes regulating their professions. Jewish religious and civic leaders had the power to arrest, judge, and punish criminals and wrongdoers, and these powers were granted and ensured by Christian and Muslim authorities.

当法庭案件中的冲突双方属于不同的宗教团体时，情况就不同了。由于法律状况因地、因时而异，因此无法一概而论。以阿拉贡王国为例，12 世纪的法典（fueros）规定，在涉及犹太人和基督徒之间的诉讼案件中，双方一律平等。法庭案件应在公共市场的中立地点进行仲裁，而不是在基督教或犹太教机构内进行仲裁。必须有两名主审法官，一名是犹太人，另一名是基督徒，如果其中一方不同意他们的一致裁决，那么案件可以由四名法官审理，其中两名是犹太人，两名是基督徒。在智者阿方索十世统治下的卡斯蒂利亚王国（1252-1284 年），所有宗教间的纠纷都必须由当事人居住地区的皇家法院裁决。相比之下，在 14 世纪的德国科隆，涉及犹太人和基督徒的案件可以提交给由犹太教非宗教领袖主持的市民法庭。

The situation was different when conflicting parties in a court case belonged to different religious communities. Since the legal situation varied from place to place and time to time, it is impossible to generalize. Returning to the example of the Kingdom of Aragon, the 12th-century legal code (fueros) prescribed equality in cases involving lawsuits between Jews and Christians. Court cases were to be arbitrated on the neutral ground of a public marketplace, rather than inside a Christian or Jewish institution. There had to be two presiding judges, one a Jew, the other a Christian, and in the event that one of the parties disagreed with their unanimous verdict, then the case could be tried before four judges, two Jewish and two Christian. In the Kingdom of Castile under Alfonso X the Wise (1252–84), all interfaith disputes had to be decided in the Crown court in the district where the parties resided. By contrast, in 14th-century Cologne, Germany, cases involving Jews and Christians could be brought before the civic court presided over by Jewish lay leaders.

在伊斯兰国家，涉及穆斯林和“迪米”的纠纷必须由伊斯兰法庭裁决，并由穆斯林法官（Qadi）裁定。有趣的是，伊斯兰教徒甚至将自己的内部案件提交给卡迪（Qadi）的情况也并非罕见。在非穆斯林相对于穆斯林的地位问题上，各法律流派之间存在一些分歧。例如，哈乃斐法庭对非法杀害穆斯林的伊斯兰教徒判处死刑，对非法杀害伊斯兰教徒的穆斯林判处死刑。其他法律流派则拒绝平等，规定在此类案件中判处伊斯兰教徒死刑，但如果受害者是伊斯兰教徒，则只需支付“血腥钱”赔偿（在伊斯兰用语中，Qisas（قصاص）犯人付给的血腥钱数目随不同国家和不同案件而变化，前提是受害人的家人原谅了犯人，不原谅的话，犯人会被处以极刑）。

In Islamic countries disputes involving Muslims and dhimmis had to be decided in an Islamic court and adjudicated by a Muslim judge (qadi). Interestingly, it was not unknown for dhimmis to take even their internal cases to a qadi. There were some differences among the legal schools regarding the status of non-Muslims vis-à-vis Muslims. Hanafi law courts, for instance, decreed the death sentence for dhimmis who wrongfully murdered Muslims and for Muslims who wrongfully murdered dhimmis. Other schools of law rejected parity and dictated the death sentence for dhimmis in such cases but only the payment of “blood money” compensation if the victim was a dhimmi.