1

David Ben-Abraham

BENEI ANUSIM (Part I)

THE HALACHA regarding the Spanish and Portuguese Jews who were
compelled to adopt the Christian religion (henceforth: Benei Ansim) or leave the
Iberian Peninsula was clear to the rabbis of Israel in the 16th century CE, as they were
still considered Jews who had not yet intermingled or intermarried with gentile families
since the Spanish Inquisition of 1481 and the expulsion of Spanish Jewry in 1492, and the
Portuguese Inquisition in 1531 and in 1536. In a responsum written by former Spanish
Jew and exile, the RADBAZ - which is an acronym for Rabbi David ben Zimra (circa
1479 1589), a Rabbi who was also expelled from Spain as a child with the general
expulsion of Jews in 1492, he was asked about those Benei Ansim whose children
were left uncircumcised (as the Christians of Spain) but who now wished to return to the
Jewish religion and to keep its injunctions. Less than one-hundred years had passed since
these Jews were forced to abandon their religion and to adopt the Christian religion, and
their lineage was still well-known to themselves. In their case, all that was needed for
them was to start keeping the commandments, while no more than this was required of
them. When the Benei Ansim needed to be circumcised, they simply did so adding
the blessing known as Sheheiyanu (Who hast kept us alive). There was no need to
convert them to Judaism, because they were already Jews who had merely concealed
their Jewishness! Here is a translation of that responsum.

Questions & Responsa of the RADBAZ, Part I (responsum # 434)

YOU HAVE ASKED me concerning the Benei Ansim who have come to put
themselves under the wings of the Divine Presence, whether or not they are required to
make the blessing known as Sheheiyanu (lit. Who hast kept us alive) at the time of
their circumcision.

ANSWER: The matter is clear with me that he is required to bless, if he knows the
blessing, for how can it be any different from he [who is a firstborn son] whose father has
 2

not redeemed him [at birth] and he comes to redeem himself [when hes grown older]?
He blesses, [Who hast commanded us] to redeem the firstborn son, as well as
Sheheiyanu (Who hast kept us alive). Likewise has Maimonides (of blessed memory)
written, and has stated in writing that they didnt enact Sheheiyanu excepting over
some joyous occasion [that happens to befall man], although here, in this case, he [that
circumcises himself] is in sorrow by reason of his pain. Still, it presents no difficulty,
since there is no joy except the joy of the heart. Moreover, it is written (Psalm 119:162):
I rejoice at your word, which verse was said to refer to circumcision. Although the
body is in sorrow, the heart is glad, and as a result of the joy of his heart he makes the
blessing. Now, if you should ask, why hasnt Maimonides (of blessed memory) written
this [explicitly] about circumcision, just as he has written it about the redemption of the
firstborn son? Perhaps we can say that because the one who is being circumcised is
troubled [about the affair], he cannot adequately direct his mind [in what is required of
him], wherefore, he has omitted it. However, if he is able to direct his mind and to make
the blessing, who is it that will exempt him?! [Implied here that a grown man may still
say Sheheiyanu when he is circumcised].

With regard to the proselyte, since it is well-established with us that he who is

circumcised but who has not yet been immersed in a ritual bath, he is deemed as though
he hadnt been circumcised, let him (i.e. the proselyte) not bless during the time of his
circumcision, but [only] after the immersion in the ritual bath let him bless Sheheiyanu
(Who hast kept us alive), for at this time his conversion is completed insofar that he was
immersed. [Needless to say], you already know that they do not immerse him until he is
healed [from the wound of his circumcision], and then he has complete joy that he has
come under the wings of the Divine Presence. [We might deduce, furthermore, by an
inference from minor to major premise], that if concerning a specific commandment (i.e.
the circumcision of ones son) he is required to bless Sheheiyanu (Who hast kept us
alive), as also to make the blessing, Who has sanctified us, etc. [and hast commanded
us] to bring him into the covenant of Abraham our forefather, had he come under [the
obligation of] the Torah in its entirety by accepting it (i.e. as the Benei Ansim who
 3

return to keep the Torah), is it not even more applicable for him to make the blessing?!
The matter is quite simple. What appears as my opinion, I have written.
* * * * *

The thing that is to be noted here is that there was never any question concerning
the Benei Ansim of Spain and Portugal, and about where they had come from. I also
asked the confirmation of a Rabbi here, in Israel, and he said to me that, it would seem
by this that the pedigree (Heb. yechs) of these Benei Anusim was known to them at the
time, meaning, it was evident at the time of writing this responsum that they were Jews
who were forced to conceal their religion.

MAIMONIDES, in his Mishne Torah (Hil. Mamrim 3:3) also says something
similarly about the children of the Karaites, viz., that they are to be viewed as though they
were constrained to transgress against the Oral Laws of our nation, like a babe who was
taken captive amongst the gentiles, seeing that they were born unto parents who are
apostates and who deny the Oral Laws bequeathed to us by Moses. However, since
Karaites are Jews who do not marry outside of the families of Israel, all that is necessary
for them to do in order to return to Judaism is to repent and to begin to perform those
laws. Nothing more is needed.

The guiding principle behind these matters is that wherever the people of Israel
are gathered and are known to exist, these same families in every Jewish community
are presumed to be untainted, and every Jew can marry the daughter of his fellow Jew,
although she might be from another Jewish community (Maimonides, ibid., Hil. Issurei
Biah 19:17). However, this refers only to those Jewish communities where they clearly
had a tradition of their being Jews. This leniency does NOT apply to marriages between
Jews and gentiles, or to those who never held a tradition that they are Jews or to those
families where intermarriage with gentiles was known to have existed.

A different type of discussion is brought down in the Tosefta (Yadayim 2:7-8; in

other editions 2:17) and later in the Talmud (Berakhot 28a) about people who live
 4

amongst the gentiles but who are uncertain about their ancestral lineage. One proselyte
named Yehudah, the Ammonite proselyte, who came from the country of Rabat
Ammon (in trans-Jordan) stood up in the Beit Midrash asking the Rabbis if he was
permitted to marry an Israelite daughter. He thought that he was a descendant of Ammon,
of whom the Torah says (Deut. 23:4): Neither an Ammonite, nor a Moabite, shall enter
the congregation of Hashem. Rabban Gamliel told him that it was forbidden for him to
marry an Israelite woman, but Rabbi Yehoshua said that he was permitted to do so.
Rabban Gamliel countered by saying to Rabbi Yehoshua, But look! It is written (ibid.),
Neither an Ammonite, nor a Moabite, shall enter the congregation of Hashem. To this,
answered Rabbi Yehoshua: But are Ammon and Moab still stationary in their places!?
Sennacherib has already come up and mixed-up all of the nations, as it is written (Isaiah
10:13), I shall then take away the boundaries of the nations, and shall destroy their
strength. Rabban Gamliel answered him, The Scripture says (Jeremiah 49:6), But
afterwards I shall bring again the captivity of the children of Ammon (just as it was in the
beginning), says Hashem. He answered him, Until now they havent returned. Rabbi
Yehoshua went on to explain: The Scripture says (Amos 9:14), And I shall bring back
the captivity of my people Israel. Just as these have not yet returned, so, too, they
havent returned! Yehudah, the Ammonite proselyte, said to them, What then shall I
do? They said to him, You have just heard from the old man. Lo! You are permitted to
come into the congregation (i.e. to marry a daughter of Israel). Rabban Gamliel then
interjected, Is an Egyptian (i.e. a Coptic) like unto this [situation]? They answered him,
An Egyptian [is different in that] the Scripture has given him a fixed time period [to be
in exile], as it says (Ezekiel 29:13), At the end of forty years I shall gather Egypt from
the nations where they have been scattered, and they shall return to their own land.

Similarly, we find that G-d restricts marriages with the people of Egypt and Edom
until the third generation. Although they might convert to Judaism, Israel is not permitted
to consummate marriages with them until the third generation. Yet, today, since other
nations dwell amongst them and we no longer recognize who is an authentic Egyptian
and who is an authentic Edomite, these nations are no longer prohibited. Anyone from
 5

them converting unto Judaism can marry a man or woman from Israel (Maimonides,
ibid., Hil. Issurei Biah 12:25).

The guiding principle behind this teaching, and which relates to our discussion on
Benei Ansim, lay in the famous rabbinic dictum: , = Anything
that is separated [from another thing that was once prohibited], when called into question,
it is assumed to be from the majority [of things that are permitted]. Maimonides brings
down the same principle in his Mishne Torah (Hil. Issurei Biah 12:25 ) when referring
to the nations of Ammon, Moab, Egypt and Edom today, namely: Anyone who separates
himself from them (i.e. from any nation whose status may have been tainted and where it
is no longer clear to him what his ancestral origins are) in order to convert, it is
generally assumed that he comes from the majority (i.e. whose equity and status were
never tainted). In short, we do not suspect that he came from one of the forbidden
families.

Conversely, the same rule would apply to Israelites who left their native land and
were mixed in amongst the gentiles and who no longer know their true ancestral heritage.
The assumption that we are to follow here, in this particular case, is the same as the
former case, viz. he is assumed to be from the general majority. If the majority were
gentiles, we assume that he was a gentile, unless it can be proven otherwise. If the
majority were of Israel, we can assume that he belongs to one of them, unless it can be
shown otherwise.

Today, assimilation has plagued the descendants of some Marranos (who know
that their ancestors were forced to convert to Christianity long ago). For this reason the
rabbinic courts are reluctant to accept them as Jews, requiring them to undergo an
orthodox conversion to Judaism.

* * * * *

BENEI ANUSIM (Part II)

 6

Although RADBAZ rules in responsum # 434 (of Part I, in his Responsa)

concerning the Benei Ansim of his day that they were still Jews, he also mentions
cases where some Benei Ansim had intermarried with gentiles and the children born
from such unlawful unions, in many cases, were no longer considered Jews. See:
responsum # 48 (of Part I, ibid.) and responsum # 651 (of Part II, ibid.). RADBAZ also
points out that even in surnames given to the Benei Ansim by gentiles, such as the
family name Cohen, there is still no guarantee that they are actually Cohenim (i.e.
priests of Aarons lineage) since one of his fathers who was compelled to live as a non-
Jew may have actually married a divorced Jewish woman, making his sons thenceforth
no more than profaned priests (i.e. Halal). Concerning this, see responsum # 683 (of Part
II, ibid.), which same reply is repeated in responsum # 31 (of Part VII, ibid.).

Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488-1575), who is himself a Spanish Jewish exile, wrote in
his Code of Jewish Law known as the Shlan Arkh (Yoreh Deah 119:12):

The Ansim who have remained in their countries, if they abide by the laws of
kashrut (i.e. in accordance with Jewish law) amongst themselves, although they cannot
escape to a place where they can serve Hashem [without fear of retribution], it is
permitted to rely upon their ritual slaughter (i.e. that it is Kosher), and wine which has
been touched by them is not to be prohibited.

ORIGINAL

,'

Here, again, it was clear to Rabbi Yosef Karo that the ordinary people who were
called in his day, Ansim, or Benei Ansim, were untainted as far as their Jewish
lineage was concerned. Otherwise, their ritual slaughter and wine would have been
prohibited to eat and drink.
 7

* * * * *

BENEI ANSIM (Part III)

Several responsa bearing on the widespread persecution of Spanish Jewry

between the years 1389 1392 of our Common Era can be found in the Questions &
Responsa of RABBI ISAAC BAR SHESHET (1326 1408). A description of these
horrific events which plagued the Jewish communities of Spain is written in Gedalia Ibn
Jachias "Shalshelet Ha-Kabbalah," (written ca. 1586), as well as in Rabbi Abraham
Zacutos (ca. 1452 1515) book, Yuchasin, who relate how tens of thousands of Jews
during these years were evicted from their homes, while many were killed with cruel
deaths, while some managed to flee the country, and still others who chose to convert to
Christianity in order to save their lives. Those that could not escape from Spain concealed
their true religion, and came to be known as Ansim, meaning, those who are
compelled [to hide their religion].

All Jews in Spain were affected by the persecution that ravaged the country
during those years, especially those communities residing in the kingdom of Aragn, and
in Valncia, the isle of Mallorca, Barcelona in the region of Catelonia, in Seville and
Crdoba which are both in Andalusia, Burgos and Toledo (called then by Jews after its
Arabic name ulayulah) in the region of Castilla, as well as some other seventy towns
and villages thereabouts.

What is most striking about Rabbi Isaac bar Sheshets responsa concerning these
Ansim of his day was that even during their marriage and divorce procedures they
remained with only JEWISH PARTNERS, as we find in his Questions & Responsa
(responsa no. 6, 11 and 14), even though in the particular divorce case mentioned by him,
the couples marriage was terminated by the judicial system set up by the Christians
rather than by a rabbinic court.
 8

The one stricture that Rabbi Isaac bar Sheshet deemed fit to impose upon these
Jews who were compelled to hide their religion is outlined carefully in responsum # 12 of
his Questions & Responsa, and repeated by Rabbi Yosef Karo in his Code of Jewish
Law, the Shlan Arkh (Yoreh Deah 124:9). This stricture says that the ordinary
Ansim are NOT to be trusted in what concerns their wine (made in their own homes),
seeing that we suspect that Christian idolaters whom they have dealings with may have
opened the flask of wine owned by the Jew and, thereby, rendered the wine unfit for
drinking, as well as unlawful for its Jewish owner to derive any benefit from it by its sale
in accordance with an earlier rabbinic decree which makes any wine touched by an
idolater as though it had been wine offered as an oblation to an idol. In the words of
Rabbi Isaac bar Sheshet (ibid.):

The Ansim in Mallorca AND IN OTHER COUNTRIES are not able to guard
themselves from ordinary wine [belonging to idolaters]; even if they should be warned
about it, they are not able to take precaution over what is touched by idolaters. Even the
good [Jewish] men amongst them who are of the kind [of men] who are competent to
bear witness [in a court of law], in any case, they are suspects insofar that if a non-Jew
touched their wine, they would not forbid it, either by way of deriving a benefit from it
(i.e. as in selling it) or by drinking it, etc.

The practical bearing thereof is that we would NOT be able to drink their wine.
Rabbi Yosef Karo (ibid.) adds that they are not faithful over what concerns their own
[wine], but they are faithful over what concerns others.

The ORIGINAL of Rabbi Isaac bar Sheshet:

'
' " ' "
' ' '
 9

* It is to be noted here a rule of practice with the Yemenite Jews who took upon
themselves the Halachic rulings of Maimonides (RAMBAM). Wherever Maimonides did
not speak specifically about a case but it was brought down in the Shlan Arkh, they
would rule in accordance with the Shlan Arkh. This ruling is, therefore, universally
accepted by all Jews.
* * * * *

BENEI ANSIM (Part IV)

Rabbi Yosef Taitazak* once said about the Spanish Ansim of his day:

if someone would bring up the question about the possibility that the child [of the
Ansim] is of a non-Jewish woman, my answer would be that, unless there is proof to the
contrary, we take as fact that the child is from a Jewish woman. The reason for this
assertion is quite simple. Before they were forced into hiding their religion, they
maintained an open Jewish lifestyle and kept all Jewish mores and manners. After being
forced into hiding their religion, they still preserved a secret Jewish lifestyle and married
strictly amongst themselves.

*Taken from R. Samuel de Medina, Responsa III, 112; Samuel, son of Moses ha-Levi de
Medina was born in Salonika in anno 1505 or 1506 CE. His direct teachers were Rabbi
Yosef Taitazak, Rabbi Levi ibn Habib, Rabbi Yosef Karo and Rabbi Yosef ibn Leb. He
was, at one time, appointed the head of Salonikas House of Study (Bet Hamidrash). His
collection of responsa was published in 1589, in the year of his passing, under the title,
Piske ha-Rashdam.

END