The London Get of 1287

<plain_text><page sequence="1">The London Get of 1287 RABBI DR. LOUIS RABINOWITZ It is the natural and unvarying practice of the mediaeval codifiers and authors of ritual com? pendia to include in the laws of divorce a blank formula of a valid Bill of Divorce.1 R. Jacob ben Judah, the Hazzan of London, is no exception. In his Etz Hayyim2 he faithfully copies out the blank formula for divorce as given by Maimonides.3 But having done that, he adds, 'And the following is the formula of a Get according to the custom of our Rabbis at the present day', and proceeds to give the text of a Get, incidentally written out in the square script of a Scribe instead of the cursive hand which he employs for the rest of the manuscript. It is this Get which is the subject of this paper. This Bill of Divorce given by R. Jacob the Hazzan of London differs in one striking respect from all the formulae given by the other, and contemporary, authorities. It is, as he explicitly states, copied from a Bill of Divorce executed for the parties named therein but declared invalid because of a minor and insignificant breach of the strict regulations governing the writing of a Get.4" Apart from the fact that for some unknown reason he omits the year in which it was written, substituting the stock formula 'in the year so-and-so',5 and the names of the witnesses, which probably were not added in view of the invalidity of the document, it is complete. It gives the day of the week and of the month, the names of the parties to the Get and their fathers, and the topographical description of London as re? quired in a Get. It is this difference which gives a special importance to the document. Generally speak? ing, the author of the Etz Hayyim so slavishly copies the authorities upon whom he bases his compendium, mainly the famous Code of Maimonides and the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol of R. Moses of Coucy, that it is almost impossible to tell whether the regulations and customs mentioned by him prevailed in England in his time, or whether they are copied from his authorities and belong to their time and place. In his Introduction he states clearly, with regard to his reliance upon Maimonides, 'But of all his laws and decisions I have quoted those which obtain at the present day and some which do not'. Thus to give a minor example appertaining to the Get, despite the fact that a Get written at his time according to the formula of Maimonides would undoubtedly have been declared invalid, not only does he give it but it is to this formula that he appends the Talmudic6 regulations governing the writing, and not to the contemporary formula, saying 'He who wishes to make use of this formula should pay heed to the following points'.7 In the case of this Get, however, we have beyond any doubt or question an authentic Get belonging to London, and from this point of view it well repays study. Actually it was not necessary to await the publication of the Etz Hayyim before consider? ing this interesting document. It was published by Professor D. Kaufmann over 70 years ago8 but as far as I am aware it has never been made the subject of special study. Despite the undoubted authenticity of this Get, were the fact not specifically stated, one might well be excused for believing that in point of fact it is none other than a stock formula, the names inserted being the con? temporary equivalents of the Reuben and Simeon of the Talmud, or the Thomas Atkins who has been immortalised by the British Army. For the names of both the husband, Gamaliel called Dieulecresse the son of Isaac, and his wife Bellasset the daughter of Aaron, are not only among the most common of names borne by Jews of Angevin England but, as far as one of them is concerned, seems to have been borne only by them. That name is Gamaliel. As Roth properly points out,9 whereas the name Gamaliel is not infrequent among English Jews, it is almost completely unknown on the Continent at this time. Apart from an entry referring to a 314</page><page sequence="2">The London Get of 1287 315 certain Moses b. Gamaliel in a later work,10 it is not to be found in any standard book of reference during the whole period. 'The reason for this inhibition', he writes, 'is difficult to understand, unless the name came into bad repute because, according to a Christian legend, Gamaliel the teacher of Paul had become a convert to Christianity, being even admitted in England into the calendar of saints'. It is admittedly a far-fetched assumption, which, if carried to its logical conclusion, would suggest that it was borne specifically by Jews of Angevin England not because of its honourable Jewish associations but because of its occurrence in the calendar of English saints! Nevertheless a curious and equally weakly-based footnote may be added to it. It is the name Peter, borne by one of the martyred disciples of R. Tarn, as well as by a number of English Jews.11 For if there was a Christian legend to the effect that Gamaliel had become a convert to Christianity, there was a contrary and contemporaneous legend among Jews that Simon called Peter remained throughout his life a pious and God-fearing Jew who sacrificed himself in order to achieve the separation of nascent Christianity from Judaism so as to ensure the preservation and survival of Juda? ism. He is regarded not only as one of the earliest Paitanim but even as the author of the sublime Sabbath prayer 'NishmaV12 which figures so prominently in our liturgy. It is interesting to note that whereas Rashi indig? nantly repudiates the truth of this legend, his grandson R.Jacob Tarn upheld it.13 Incidentally, in one passage of the Etz Hayyim14' the name of R. Peter has been omitted from the manuscript and has been in? serted in the published work by the editor from a parallel source.15 I was of the opinion that the omission might be deliberate, but his name is quoted in another passage16 which states, 'And so R. Peter inquired of R. Tarn'. After all, Tarn was the great authority for the Anglo Jewish scholars who were his disciples and the disciples of his disciples. But Gamaliel is not the only name borne by the divorcing husband. He is there referred to as 'Gamaliel called Dieulecresse', and in order to appreciate the full import of this double name and to remove existing misconceptions, it is necessary to enter into a somewhat lengthy discussion, which I shall, however, endeavour to make as brief as possible. The question as to which name or names belonging to the parties to the divorce were to be inserted in that document is already dis? cussed in the Mishnah,17 which tells us that Rabban Gamaliel made a Takkanah to the effect that in the case of a man or woman who had adopted a second name the formula should be 'So-and-so, and whatever name by which he is known5. In the discussion on this Mishnah in the Talmud,18 it is stated that this enactment was made by Rabban Gamaliel following a query addressed to him from over? seas in the following terms: 4A man comes here from the Land of Israel, where he was known as Joseph, but here he is known as Jonathan5. Which of these names is to be inserted in the Get? Later on the Talmud cites an actual incident in Nehardea of a woman known to most people by the name Miriam, but to a few as Sarah. The ruling was given that in the Bill of Divorce she was to be referred to as 'Miriam and any other name by which she may be called5, and not 'Sarah and any other name by which she may be called5. This formula is in fact quoted both by the Halachot Gedolot and Maimonides19, but, for reasons which need not be gone into here, R. Tarn abolished this formula and in its place issued a Takkanah, an enactment, that in the case of two names20 both were to be given, the less common one to be preceded by the word "HpDftT,21 which is used in the London Get, or, in the case of a nickname, by the word ATD??!.22 Now, as the original formula, which was thus abolished and superseded by Tarn, re? ferred clearly and specifically to two separate and distinct names, it stands to reason that the new formula instituted by him was also for two entirely different and unrelated names, as un? related as Joseph and Jonathan, or Miriam and Sarah. This consideration alone provides a prima facie case for the assumption that Dieule cresse is not a 'francisisation5 or an 'anglicisa tion5 of the name Gamaliel, but an entirely unrelated one.</page><page sequence="3">316 Rabbi Dr. Louis Rabinowitz That assumption is fully confirmed by the ruling given by R. Tarn himself. The French authorities were greatly exercised by this question of double names in so far as a Get was concerned. These double names can be divided into three groups. (1) The specifically Christian names adopted by Jewish converts to Christianity, of whom there was a considerable number.23 The ques? tion was of great importance in view of the fact that the wives of such apostates could not remarry unless they received a valid Jewish divorce from their husbands, despite their apostasy, and there is an extensive literature on the subject. (2) Where the second name was a French equivalent for the Hebrew name. Tam himself gives the following list:24 Anita for Hannah Belita for Belle Avegaie for Abigail Galina for Margoliot Poriah for Zipporah Mollin for Samuel, and Bonami for Benjamin. As will immediately be apparent, these are not necessarily 'abbreviations', although Tam specifically calls them so, but French approxi? mations to the Hebrew names, like Jack for Jacob. (3) Two completely unrelated names. That the Jews of Northern France and England bore such double names is amply demonstrated by the relevant documents. Both Roth25 and Loewe26 state, without giving any source,27 that the added name was given in case of illness. The custom is in fact mentioned by R. Perez of Corbeil,28 but I am of the opinion that there were other reasons for it as well. Tam deals with all those three categories. With regard to the first, he roundly declares that in no circumstances is the Christian name to be inserted.29 With regard to the second, he similarly states that it is quite unnecessary to give the French equivalent, even in the first instance, and it is for that purpose that he gives the above-quoted list. It is only with regard to the third category, that of two completely unrelated names, that he requires the inclusion of both names, the main name coming first and the secondary one introduced by the word *Hj?ri?*T, or in the feminine H'Hpn?*?. R. Isaac of Corbeil30 puts the matter suc? cinctly. 'Where the husband has two distinct and unrelated names, of which one is the main name and the other the secondary one, he should employ the formula "So-and-so 'Hj?ft?*T so-and-so." Similarly with the woman, but only when they are distinct and separate names', and on that R. Perez of Corbeil in his gloss says distinctly, 'The universal custom is to write *H|?nft*T only when the second name is a Hebrew one. When the second name is in the vernacular the term HllD^n is employed'.31 Before we apply those considerations to the London Get, it is necessary to emphasise that the procedure and the formulae employed in commercial Starrs was different from that enjoined in the case of a divorce. Three examples will suffice. In the Starrs published by Davis,32 the following double names occur: R. Haim JHp?H Meir33 and two in which the unusual, if not unique, formula *1tPX Vffl? 10in, 'whose name was changed'.34 Yehiel ben Isaac, whose name was changed to Elijah.35 Joseph son of Solomon, whose name was changed to Mordecai.36 Neither of these words or phrases would be admissible in a Get.37 Loewe38 deals exhaustively with the name ttrVpVH SWD?n Tttiby p W and discusses whether it was Jose or his father who was called Dieulecresse. He expresses the difficulty in the words 'Since niDdH *W TVlbW p ttmpVH would be almost intolerable in Hebrew, there is no easy way of avoiding the ambiguity and of differentiation between: 'Jose known as Solomon called Dieule? cresse', and 'Jose son of Solomon, who is known as Dieulecresse.' Yet it is just this order which Loewe calls 'almost intolerable in Hebrew' which was, and is, obligatory in a Get. Similarly, Davis39 gives a Starr in which</page><page sequence="4">The London Get of 1287 317 quoted by Roth himself.47 On page 113 of the same work, however, he departs from this theory of equivalence and states that 'Cresse, or Dieulecresse, is, however, also found for Berechiah, Solomon, Samuel, and Gamaliel. It is presumably therefore not an equivalent, but a name of good augury'.48 But although he thus departs from his previous theory of equivalence, he still fails to appreciate that 'Gamaliel called Dieulecresse' is no different from 'Solomon called Dieulecresse' or from 'Isaac called Meir'. They are all examples of double and unrelated names. Interestingly enough, with regard to Dieule? cresse the son of Moses of Wallingford, the Latin chronicler who latinises his name into Deus-eum-crescat specifically says, 'For the Jews use prayers in this way instead of proper names',49 clearly indicating an independent choice unconnected with the Hebrew name. Like Bellasset,50 it is one of the earliest names among Anglo-Jewry. Both those men? tioned above were born well within the twelfth century, and in the hundred and more years between them and the divorce it had become accepted by usage as a Hebrew name. Its immense popularity is seen in the fact that there are no fewer than 20 different Dieule cresses listed in the various indexes of Angevin England. Bellasset. The evidence with regard to the name Bellasset, in so far as concerns Anglo Jewry as distinct from French Jewry, is even more convincing. There is no doubt but that on the basis of Gen. xxix, 17, Belle, Bellaset, Belleassez, and even Belle-Assez-Belle were originally the French equivalents of Rachel. R. Tam, who died more than a century before R. Jacob the Hazzan of London wrote his compendium, states explicitly, 'When R. Eliezer divorced our aunt Rachel, and his name was Jocelyn and hers Bellasset, they merely wrote Eliezer and Rachel, the Hebrew names [in the Get] and omitted the other names by which most non Jews called them, since the fact that a majority of non-Jews call them by a certain name is not regarded as a majority. Only the names by which most Jews called them is so regarded'.51 This then was a case where the lady was occurs the name Samuel ben Aaron nilD?H pj?Vltt. It is certain that the Molkin refers to Samuel and not to Aaron, since not only is it obviously a form of the 'Mollin' given by Tarn, but later on in the document he is specifically referred to as 'Samuel Molkin'. In this case we have a double difference between the usage in Starrs and that in a divorce. In the latter the second name must follow that of the person and not of his father, and in this specific instance, as Tarn clearly states, it would not be included at all, 'even in the first instance'. In the same way, if, as seems probable, Dieulecresse, 'May God increase', was origin? ally the equivalent of Jose,40 where both names occur in the Starr, only Jose would appear in the Get. We may now turn to the London Get. From what has been said, two important conclusions follow. The first is that Gamaliel and Dieule? cresse were two entirely different and unre? lated names,41 and the second that by the end of the thirteenth century, among English Jews, the undoubtedly original French names of Dieulecresse and Bellasset had become so assimilated that, like Morris and Harris and Isidore today, they were regarded as specific? ally Jewish names, equivalent to Hebrew names. This conclusion necessitates a complete reconsideration of the theories of Roth and Loewe about both those names. It is convenient to deal with them separately. Dieulecresse. Although originally it would appear reasonable to assume that this name was a translation of Joseph or Jose, nevertheless, of the three sons of Benjamin of Oxford, who died in 1187, one is called Jose (= Joseph) and another Dieulecresse.42 Faced with this diffi? culty, Roth suggests that Dieulecresse is per? haps equivalent to Solomon, or to Gedaliah, which means 'God increase him'. Nevertheless, Dieulecresse is elsewhere equated with Solo? mon,43 Yom Tov,44 and Gamaliel.45 Else? where,46 he points out, Neubauer gives the Hebrew name of Dieulecresse the son of Moses of Wallingford as Solomon, 'but fails to indicate his authority'. On the assumption, which Roth accepts, but which I claim is here disproved, that the alternative names are equivalents, the authority is the Starr published by Davis and</page><page sequence="5">318 Rabbi Dr. Louis Rabinowitz called Bellasset only by non-Jews, the Jews calling her by her Hebrew name Rachel. But it is noteworthy that in the list of equivalents quoted above Tam lists Belle as a Hebrew name, like Benjamin, Samuel, and Abigail, its non Jewish equivalent being Belita. This proves beyond any doubt that even in his time, despite the statement made about the divorce of his aunt, the name Belle had become completely assimilated as a Hebrew name. And if any further proof is needed it is provided by a Starr52 where a lady's name is given as Bellasset the daughter of Eliezer, called Swete cot the daughter of Diaia.53 The final proof is afforded by our Get. Unlike her husband, who has a purely Hebrew name in addition to Dieulecresse, she is referred to only as Bellas set, and the Hebrew name was obligatory in a Get. There was certainly time for this name to be thus accepted. It is already borne by the wife of Moses ben Isaac ben Simeon, the ancestor of R. Elijah Menahem of London, and he 'was active as a financier in Bristol in the second half of the thirteenth century'.54 A mere reference to this name in its various spellings in the Index Volume to S.G.B.M. shows how immensely popular it was.55 The text of the Get apart from the names calls for some comment. Generally speaking, the far-reaching innovations in the formula of the Get instituted by Tam, the outstanding authority for French and English Jewry,56 are incorporated in this Bill of Divorce, but there are departures which have to be noted. It is of passing interest that alone of all the con? temporary formulae which I have examined in this Get the Hebrew 12H2K is used for the usual 12K, which can also be regarded as Aramaic, the language used for a Get. There are one or two other minor textual differences which call for no special comment.57 There are, however, two which are more significant The 'essential of the Get* given by the Mish? nah58 includes the words rH2K 'pDI'Ifi 1D0 fTI?? mi jy??. These three verbal parti? ciples occur twice as verbs in the text of the Get, and without exception all the French authorities 'ring the changes', so to speak, on the order. In the first mention the order is IVWim nnODI r\yW2 and in the second rPDIim rPpWI JYhttD. The reason is that each term shall be given equal weight in that in the first JVp2tP comes first, in the second IVHtJS), and in the final formula pDVlfl.59 Maimonides in his formula ignores this nicety and gives lYOnm rP*1DD1 rPpSttf on both occasions, and in this he is followed in this Get. There is, however, one more important difference between the formula of the Get of R. Tarn and the London Get. The former includes the place of the birth of the divorcee.60 That detail is omitted in our Get, and the author of Etz Hayyim explicitly states, 'And in this matter R. Isaac,61 R. Judah,62 and R. Jehiel of Paris63 are at one that if the place of birth is not known for a certainty there is no need to include it'.64 In this London Get, therefore, the view of the three later authorities prevailed in preference to that of the great master.65 Lastly, in so far as the text is concerned, a word must be said about the topographical description of London given in the Get, 'a city situate on the river Thames and Walbrook'. This method of describing the city according to its sources of water supply is obligatory in all Gittin today and the exact description is a question of considerable importance. It is, however, completely unknown in the Talmud, which merely mentions 'the name of the city'.66 In fact, it seems to have been instituted in Europe, and Rashi is quoted as stating ex? plicitly, 'There is no regulation requiring the name of the river [upon which the city stands, in the case of a Get]. It was instituted and became the accepted usage merely as an identification, in order to prevent confusion with another city of the same name'.64 So painstaking and meticulous, however, were the authorities that no possible flaw should occur in the Get that, as with all its other details, every possibility was taken into consideration, discussed, and decided upon. Thus the Gloss to the Mordecai, which gives this quotation from Rashi, adds two more points. One is to the effect that 'There are some who explain that it is necessary to include all the rivers that flow within the city limits.68 The other gives the ruling that 'R. Jehiel of Paris and his son</page><page sequence="6">The London Get of 1287 319 in-law used to refrain from including the springs and wells in a city if it had a river. And in Troves, where there are many wells, they include only the name of the river. And thus R. Perez instituted towards the end of his life, and this is the correct procedure'.69 These quotations are of particular interest in view of the fact that the Mordecai70 and R. Perez of Corbeil71 were complete contem? poraries of R.Jacob Hazzan, and it is with this in mind that the description of London as 'situate on the river Thames and Walbrook' is to be considered. I content myself for this purpose with the following passage from the Encyclopedia Britannica,72 'The original city grew up on the site of the City of London at the present day, on a slight eminence inter? sected by the Wal- or Wallbrook and flanked on the west by the river Fleet. . . . The Wall brook rose in a marsh in the modern district of Finsbury and joined the Thames close to the Cannon Street Bridge'. This passage perhaps explains why the Wallbrook is mentioned and not the Fleet river, or for that matter the Tyburn. Since the Wallbrook had its con? fluence with the Thames it represents a distinc? tive point of identification. It is interesting to note that the Encyclopedia gives the alternative spellings of Walbrook and Wallbrook. The Get has the former spelling, with of course a 21 for the English 'w', as in all cases.73 But it also explains why the wording is 'situate on the river Thames and Walbrook', and not 'the rivers Thames and Walbrook'. Kaufmann is wrong74 in giving it as two words, Wall Brook, but, despite the fact that it is clearly written as one word, the English Jews were of course aware that it meant the brook of the Wall and 'the rivers Thames and Walbrook' would have constituted tautology. The description 'London situate on the river Thames and Walbrook' is exact. As has been stated, this Get was never delivered, having been declared invalid, be? cause of a minor infraction of the strict regula? tions which had evolved concerning the writing of a Get. That infraction consisted in the fact that these regulations demanded that the twelve lines of the Get should be of exactly the same length, and the scribe in this instance had over run the length of one line by one letter.75 How minor this infraction was can be seen from the note of the learned editor which I give in full:76 Tn the Sefer HaTerumah par. 116 and the Sefer Mitzvoth Gadol [it is stated that] the letters must not overrun the line. So also the Semak par. 184, who says, "And it should not overrun by two letters", except that R. Perez of Corbeil notes in loc. "And the custom is to be par? ticular even with regard to one letter".' From the language employed by them it would appear that this applies only in the first instance, but once the Get has been written it can be regarded as valid. Nevertheless the Hagahot Maimuniyot (Laws of Divorce, Chap. 4, Constantinople ed., p. 26a) quotes in the name of the Sefer Ha Teramah and the Semag, "And the custom is to invalidate the Get even with regard to one letter." See Beth Yoseph to Tur, Even HaEzer, par. 125'. So far the note. The Beth Yoseph, who is of course Joseph Karo, the compiler of the Shulhan Arukh, confirms that this irregularity is to be taken into con? sideration only in the first instance, but the Get is not to be declared invalid once it has been written, unless a whole word protrudes. He quotes the Hagahot Maimuniyot, but the opinion expressed there was presumably re? garded as so extreme that it is omitted in the subsequent editions of this work. That therefore this slight irregularity was regarded as sufficient to invalidate the Get after it had been written is eloquent evidence of the strictness of the authorities in Angevin England. Any attempt to identify the parties to the Get seems foredoomed to failure on the basis of existing material. Adler77 identifies our Gamaliel the son of Isaac with Gamaliel of Oxford, but this is quite impossible. Not only is the latter consistently referred to as 'Gamaliel the Jew of Oxford', without a patronymic, but Roth78 gives his father's name as Milo or Meir. Similarly with Bellasset. Here at least we have two specific mentions of Bellasset the daughter of Aaron. One of them, however,79 was in 1276 the divorcee of Leon son of Preciosa,80 while the other,81 Bellasset the daughter of Aaron of Marlborough, was in 1275 the wife of Abraham son of Azriel. The</page><page sequence="7">320 Rabbi Dr. Louis Rabinowitz former Bellasset may have remarried and this was her second divorce, and there is a similar possibility that her namesake was widowed or divorced after 1275 and then married Gamaliel. But all this is pure guesswork. The final point to be discussed about this Get is the actual year in which it was written. As has been stated, for some unknown reason R. Jacob Hazzan omits the year, leaving, however, the day of the week and the month. From this we learn that it was written on a Friday, the 18th day of the month of Nisan, which is of course during the Intermediate Days of Passover. Gittin could be written both on Fridays and on the Intermediate Days of Festivals,82 but the combination surely sug? gests a certain urgency. Adler's assumption that the Get was written in the year of the writing of the Etz Hayyim, 1287,8 3 is probably correct. The calculation is a simple one. We have a simple mnemonic to the effect that the following Rosh Hashanah always falls on the same day as the third day of Passover. Since Friday was the 18th of Nisan, the first day was Tuesday and the third Thursday. In the Jewish Encyclopedia'84' there is a list of the incidence of Rosh Hashanah for the thousand years from 1001 c.e. to 2000. Rosh Hashanah of 5048, which is the Rosh Hashanah after 1287 (5047), actually fell on a Thursday, and the previous year on which this happened was 5045, i.e., 1284, and before that ten years earlier, in 1274. One can therefore confidently assume that this Get whereby Gamaliel called Dieulecresse the son of Isaac desired to divorce his wife Bellasset the daughter of Aaron was written on Friday, the 18th of Nisan, in the Jewish year 5047, corresponding to 1287. All that is left is the guess whether there was enough time left on that Friday to write and deliver another, after it was declared valid, before the incidence of the Sabbath. NOTES 1 Cf Halachot Gedolot, p. 339; Maimonides, Laws of Divorce, 4, 12; Tam, S. Hay. (V), par. 86, p. 12a; Semag, Positive Commandments, No. 50; Sefer HaTerumah (two versions), par. 131, Semak, 184. The Talmud does not give the full text but only the 'essential formula' Mishnah Gitt., 9, 3, and T.B., 85b. Rashi also gives an incomplete one, ibid. 2 2. 170/171. 3 Laws of Divorce, 12, 4. The variants from the printed text are doubtless due to variae lectiones. 4 Vide infra. 5 Adler, History of the Jews of London, Jewish Community Series, J.P.S., 1930 (p. 48), gives the date as 28th of Nisan instead of 18th, and assumes, probably correctly (see end of article), that it was written in 1287. He also wrongly identifies the husband and gives the wrong reference to Kauf? mann, J.Q.R. 6 T.B. Gitt., 85b. 7 As it happens, they all apply to his formula. 8J.Q.R. (O.S.), V, 372. There are two printing errors, t)Wl for ITttn and pD for HD, Kauf? mann having overlooked the regulation that the 'Vav' in this word must be written lengthened as in f pHtP and f Dnn, which he duly notes. The text in the recently published Etz Hayyim has also a bad misprint, iCHpfl?T in the feminine for "HpHftl in the masculine. I have verified from the photo-copy of the manuscript that the mistake does not occur there. 9 Jews of Medieval Oxford, p. 63 and note 3. To Moses son of Gamaliel, Gamaliel of Exeter, and Gamaliel b. Aaron of Oxford, mentioned by Roth in addition to the more famous and earlier Gamaliel of Oxford, can be added Gamaliel de Horr', S.C.B.M., 2, note 203(t). 10 S. Kraus, Wiener Geserah. 11 Cf S.G.B.M., 2, note 72, a and b. 12 See my article in the South African Zionist Record, Rosh Hashanah Annual, Sept. 1960. 13 Cf. Vitry, par. 325, p. 362, note 5. 14 2, 197. 15 Mordecai, Gittin, par. 700. 16 1, 169. For R. Peter see Urbach, Ba'ale Ha Tosafoth (Jerusalem, 1955), pp. 191/2. It is inter? esting to note how often the name is omitted from the various manuscripts referring to him. 17 Gittin, 4. 2. 18 T.B., 34b. 19 See note 1, above. It is still employed by the Sephardim. 20 Subject to the conditions mentioned later. 21 And in the feminine ICIpnzn. Cf. note 8 above. 22 Cf. Tos. Gitt., 34b, et al. 23 Cf. my Jews in Northern France, pp. 240 et seq. According to Tarn (Sefer Hayashar, p. 69a) 'More than 20 divorces of apostates were effected'. 24 S. Hay. (V), par. 271, p. 29a. Practically all these names occur in the English Starrs, as a</page><page sequence="8">The London Get of 1287 321 reference to the Index Volume of S.C.B.M. will show. Halberstam MSS. No. 345 gives a similar list, which Loewe assumes, on account of the context, to be of English origin. Cf. S.C.B.M., 2, p. cxviii. 25 Trans. J.H.S.E., XV, p. 50. 26 S.C.B.M., 2, note 1261(e), p. 275 top. 27 See, however, Trans. J.H.S.E., XV, p. 50, and note 86, p. 51, where Roth gives a general reference. 28 Gloss to Semak, 184. 29 S. Hay., loc. cit., Tos. Gitt., 34b. Perez of Corbeil, however, loc. cit., approves the use of the old formula rejected by Tarn in cases like this. 30 Loc. cit. 31 Ibid. 32 Shetaroth, etc., 1888. 33 No. 9, p. 22. 34 Based on Num. xxxii, 38. 35 No. 36, p. 86. 36 No. 58, p. 151. See discussion in S.C.B.M., 2, 1261(e). 37 Technically KIpSH would be admissible except that it was laid down that the Get must be written in Aramaic. 38 Loc. cit. (d) and (e). 39 No. 175, p. 324. 40 Urbach, Basale Tos., p. 378, quotes a passage where occurs the name VUTbl '?w?, the son of R. Jehiel of Paris. His Hebrew name was Joseph, and Urbach takes W^t as 'Delicieux', the equivalent of 'Ben Porat' applied to Joseph (Gen. xlix, 22). In support of this he notes that the Vulgate translates the phrase 'Filius accrescens et decorus aspectu', while Rashi renders it ]n ]2* Gross, in his Gallia Judaica, p. 91, on the basis of a manuscript in the Bodleian, writes the name as t^Wh^l, which Urbach regards as a mistake. Is it not equally possible, however, that t^tP'' ?tt is a mistake for The ~Vh has always been taken as Dieu-le, whether it be Dieulecresse or Dieulesault. In S.C.B.M., 1, p. 15, Loewe categorically equates Dieulecresse with Gedaliah. In 2, note 214, pp. 99-100, he adds, 'Less probably Joseph. The evidence has not been sufficiently examined, and more material is needed before a conclusion can be reached. The question cannot be settled until un? ambiguous cases are found where Cresse in the Latin corresponds to Gedaliah or Joseph or Jose in the Hebrew. Unfortunately Cresse or Dieule? cresse usually appears as ttT*Hp or ltfvHpl?7. To this one may add that although the names Joseph and Jose are very common in our period and place, the name Gedaliah does not occur either in the Hebrew sources or in the Starrs and Rolls. 41 It might be argued that Gamaliel and Dieulecresse do not belong to the same category as Benjamin and Bonami, or Samuel and Mollin, but not only would it be difficult to find a relation ship between the two names, but the name Bellasset occurring in the Get without any Hebrew equivalent proves beyond question that it was regarded as a 'Hebrew' name, and the same applies to Dieule cresse. 42 Roth, Jews of Medieval Oxford, p. 5. 43 Davis, No. 80, p. 327. 44 Ibid., No. 175, p. 325. 45 Our case. 46 P. 6, note 3. 47 See above. 48 P. 113, note 5. 49 Ibid., p. 6. 50 See infra. 51 Sefer Hayashar, loc. cit. 52 Davis, No. 68, p. 181. 53 Cf. also S.G.B.M., 2, note 1455(o), p. 327. 54 Roth, Trans. J.H.S.E., XV, p. 30. 55 There are no fewer than 20 Dieulecresses listed. 56 Cf. Urbach, op. cit, p. 401. 57 E.g., 'OTT for 'OW. 58 See supra. 59 Cf. Bayit Hadash to Tur, Even Haezer, 126. 60 And no doubt of the husband as well, but the text of the Vienna edition is so corrupt that the whole line bearing the details of the husband is missing. 61 Of Dampierre. 62 Sir Leon of Paris. 63 In fact, it does not occur in the Get of Jehiel of Paris quoted in the Semak, 184. 64 Cf. Tos. Gitt., p. 34b, s.v. Vehu. 65 The formula given in the body of the Sefer HaTerumah, par. 131, retains it, but the formula at the end of the Laws of Divorce omits it. 66 Gitt., 4. 2. 67 Gloss to Mordecai, end of Gittin. I have not found the passage in Rashi's commentary. The problem of course was particularly acute in those countries owing to the large number of towns with identical names. Incidentally, the same differentia? tion is employed today. Cf. Newcastle upon Tyne and Newcastle under Lyme; Frankfort-on-Main and Frankfort-on-Oder, etc. 68 Gitt., par. 427. 69 Ibid., par. 467. Etz Hayyim, 2, 179, deals with the need to include rivers in the document whereby the divorcee appoints a messenger to receive the Get on her behalf, and quotes the opinion of R. Berechiah of Lincoln, who 'told him' that it was 'good to do this' in the first instance. 70 D. 1298. 71 D. circa 1295. The author of the gloss to Mordecai, however, Samuel b. Aaron of Schlett stadt, lived 60 years later. 72 13th ed., Vol. 16, p. 938. 73 Cf. S.C.B.M., 1, p. 30, and both K?Vfl. Vol. 2, note 1178b, as well as KfcVn 1187, 2-4. 74J.a.?. (O.S.), V, 372. 75 Curiously enough, although R. Jacob Hazzan</page><page sequence="9">322 Rabbi Dr. Louis Rabinowitz is at pains to transcribe the Get, as has been stated, in the square script of the Scribe, with all the special requirements of the Get, he ignores just this point of the equal length of the lines. 76 Note 51. 77 Loc. cit. 78 Jews of Medieval Oxford, p. 63. 79 Exchequer Vol. 3, p. 112. so ?wife' must have this meaning, since Leo is mentioned in 1277 (ibid., p. 274). 81 Davis, No. 60, p. 161. 82 Cf. 2, p. 175, where he quotes Maimonides, Laws of Divorce, 3, 19, with regard to a Get written on Sabbath or Festival. 83 See note 5, supra. 84 111, pp. 505-507.</page></plain_text>