An ultimate pariah? Jewish social attitudes toward Jewish lepers in Medieval Western Europe

Social Research, Spring, 2003 by Ephraim Shoham-Steiner

   If the demandant suffers from an incurable disease (morbum
   petentis incurabilem) and bodily deformity (corporis
   deformitatem) as where he is a leper and so deformed that
   the sight of him cannot be endured (et tam deformis quod
   aspectus eum sustinere non possit), such a man cannot plead
   (placitare non possit) nor claim an inheritance (Bracton,
   1977: IV, 309). (23)

Turning back to the story from Rabbi Meir's Responsa, it seems that the other inheritors tried to profit from the Talmudic moralistic pretext and associate the leper with the dead after the fashion of contemporary non-Jewish legal precedents. From Rabbi Meir's response it is quite clear that the trustees of the inheritance, although themselves reluctant to adhere to the novel interpretation of the Talmud, were in need of firm moral backing to fend off the inheritors' claim; this is why they turned to the prominent Rabbi Meir for support.

As for Rabbi Meir, he was vigorously opposed to the attempt made by the inheritors for two reasons. First, the attempt to project a predominantly moral saying and turn it into a legal ruling was in Rabbi Meir's eyes an unacceptable legal manuever. Moreover, Rabbi Meir responded unfavorably to the application of non-Jewish legal principles inside Jewish society. Implying that Jews should treat a Jewish leper in the same way as Christians treated Christian lepers was a line of argument that Rabbi Meir was clearly unwilling to accept.

Second, by using the extreme and extraordinarily harsh phrase "Sadducee act," Rabbi Meir implied his objections on two separate levels. Not only was he trying to uphold the legal rights of a leper and help him secure his legal and economic rights, but perhaps above and beyond that he was trying to block an attempt by people who did not fully understand Jewish law from making an illicit legal maneuver. In the eyes of Jewish leaders and scholars such as Rabbi Meir, this kind of attempt posed a serious threat to scholarly authority. This threat to the authority of the rabbis, synonymous with religious heresy, is echoed in the use of the term "Sadducee." This nonconformism on the part of the inheritors is of special significance in view of the unique socioreligious circumstances of Jewish medieval European existence. Given the lowly status of the Jews as a segregated "pariah minority," the allegations aimed at the inheritors might have led to unpleasant repercussions for those addressed in such terms.

Some Tentative Conclusions

A revealing entry in the aforementioned Book of the Pious (Sefer Hassidim) reads: "For in each city and town and in most places the conduct and behavior of Jews basically resembles that of their local non-Jewish neighbours" (Wistinezki, 1924:321 [section] 1301).

Even extremely pious Jews, such as the author-editor of the Book of the Pious, Rabbi Judah ("the Pious") of Regensburg, knew that the basic social characteristics and day-to-day behavioral codes of people who live in close physical proximity cannot differ fundamentally. Although living within their own society, practicing their own religion, and treated by the surrounding Christian majority as a pariah minority, Jews probably shared similar beliefs and notions concerning the sick, the deformed, and the mentally disturbed. In this respect we can assume that they sheared many of their perceptions with the world outside. (25) However, as the previous examples demonstrate, while in theory Jewish and Christian thoughts and attitudes toward lepers and leprosy bear a striking resemblance, in practice social attitudes toward lepers among Jews in medieval Western Europe are quite distinctive. Jewish attitudes to lepers were more than a simple mirror image of common practice in the Christian environment. We found a "popular trend" to accept, adhere to, and adopt common trends toward lepers from the surrounding, predominantly Christian society. We even found that Jews related to lepers as a danger that should be avoided. This is reflected in the deeds and thoughts of the people whose claims were rejected in the examples mentioned (spitting at lepers; the husband that tried to drive his wife out of their home; the inheritors) as well as in scholarly writings (RaAVYA). The picture emerging from some Jewish rabbinical source material is to some extent more intricate and there is more to it than meets the eye. In the cases discussed earlier, the almost natural tendency to segregate lepers, deprive them of rights and material gains, and to use offensive magical means of defense against their disease are common, yet checked by the learned elite. This is not to say that all members of Jewish society treated the lepers among them harshly but the cases discussed definitely demonstrate a tendency that fits well into the pattern found in medieval European society.