What do you think?
Rate this book
Jews and the Wine Trade in Medieval Europe: Principles and Pressures
Although Jews were at the centre of commercial activity in medieval Europe, a talmudic ban on any wine touched by a Gentile prevented them from engaging in the lucrative wine trade. Wine was consumed in vast quantities in the Middle Ages, and the banks of the Rhineland hosted some of the finest vineyards in northern Europe. German Jews were, until the thirteenth century, a merchant class. How could they abstain from trading in one of the region's major commodities? In time, they ruled that it was permissible to accept wine in payment of debt, but forbade trading in it, and they maintained that ban throughout the Middle Ages.
Further study in the twelfth century, however, led Talmudists to discover that Jews were only forbidden to profit from trading in Gentile wine if they dealt with idolaters, but that trade with Christians and Muslims was permitted. Nevertheless, the German community refused to take advantage of this clear licence. Using Jewish and Gentile sources, this study probes the sources of this powerful taboo.
In describing the complex ways in which deeply held cultural values affect Jews' engagement in the economy of the surrounding society, this book also illustrates the law of unintended consequence show the ban on Gentile wine led both to a major Jewish contribution to German viticulture and to the involvement of Jews in moneylending, with all its tragic consequences.
Further study in the twelfth century, however, led Talmudists to discover that Jews were only forbidden to profit from trading in Gentile wine if they dealt with idolaters, but that trade with Christians and Muslims was permitted. Nevertheless, the German community refused to take advantage of this clear licence. Using Jewish and Gentile sources, this study probes the sources of this powerful taboo.
In describing the complex ways in which deeply held cultural values affect Jews' engagement in the economy of the surrounding society, this book also illustrates the law of unintended consequence show the ban on Gentile wine led both to a major Jewish contribution to German viticulture and to the involvement of Jews in moneylending, with all its tragic consequences.
Hardcover
First published July 1, 2011
1 person is currently reading
14 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
September 30, 2024
I finished masechet AZ bekiut with Adam last month and they translated this classic just recently, so I'm glad I don't have to read it in Hebrew, LW is a great editor and it reads smoothly. Exciting, fun, page turning, etc.
I am going to write a final review after learning this chapter by chapter with Adam. I'm excited for that. Here are the meanwhiles:
-the thesis on the Jewish moneylender trope is wild if true. Seems like a really big claim tho
-the notice and contrast given to the poskim of ashkenaz vs. elsewhere, where the former understood the kehila kedosha as their responsibility and understood their responsibility to keep them within sanctioned halachik lives but the latter had no problem writing general practice off as wrong, I think that's really interesting. I wonder how true it is and whether HS's commitment to a pristine halachik process, identifiable and above social pressures, actually causes him to miss halachik evolution where it isn't consternation? (e.g. he chooses to focus on wine issue vs. suicide... more thoughts here)
-In a more contemporary sociological sense, I do think it's very useful for thinking about individual halachik observance, not just for rabbis, and whether you feel you are representing just yourself or a broader community when you practice, and how you conceptualize deviance between public and private practice
*
September addendum: Adam wasn't as I was, which is of course fine, good even. The most important critique he put me on to was the on the issue of Taboo and the degree to which HS imagines a very top down, pure halachik world, which only then confronts and judges the reality of the society around them.
I'm not sure that taboo even explains, in an exclusive way, the reason why various leniencies or stringencies were or weren't enacted. In chapter 1, for example, the Rashi could have made things EASIER by broadly applying the ruling that he discovered… but he doesn't do it, because taboo. Then in Chapter 5 you find that the halacha should've forced the Tosafists to make things HARDER, but better that they should err in ignorance.
Is it taboo? Maybe, maybe it’s just inertia though, and maybe the rabbis are powerless in the face of the world around them. Whether the reaction is CHAS VECHALILA (e.g. in Chapter 1) or MEITAV SHEYIYHU SHOGEGIM (e.g. in Chapter 5) one gets the sense that they wouldn't change much if they tried.
*
Applying the lens of jurisdiction - my last bullet above - is fruitful. In Ashkenaz today if you deviate in your practice a little bit you practically have to redefine your affiliation and you probably started a new movement within Judiasm, but in sefardic circles nobody bats an eyelash. I think part of maturing might be allowing yourself to do the latter and not take yourself all that seriously. But that's for another essay.
I am going to write a final review after learning this chapter by chapter with Adam. I'm excited for that. Here are the meanwhiles:
-the thesis on the Jewish moneylender trope is wild if true. Seems like a really big claim tho
-the notice and contrast given to the poskim of ashkenaz vs. elsewhere, where the former understood the kehila kedosha as their responsibility and understood their responsibility to keep them within sanctioned halachik lives but the latter had no problem writing general practice off as wrong, I think that's really interesting. I wonder how true it is and whether HS's commitment to a pristine halachik process, identifiable and above social pressures, actually causes him to miss halachik evolution where it isn't consternation? (e.g. he chooses to focus on wine issue vs. suicide... more thoughts here)
-In a more contemporary sociological sense, I do think it's very useful for thinking about individual halachik observance, not just for rabbis, and whether you feel you are representing just yourself or a broader community when you practice, and how you conceptualize deviance between public and private practice
*
September addendum: Adam wasn't as I was, which is of course fine, good even. The most important critique he put me on to was the on the issue of Taboo and the degree to which HS imagines a very top down, pure halachik world, which only then confronts and judges the reality of the society around them.
I'm not sure that taboo even explains, in an exclusive way, the reason why various leniencies or stringencies were or weren't enacted. In chapter 1, for example, the Rashi could have made things EASIER by broadly applying the ruling that he discovered… but he doesn't do it, because taboo. Then in Chapter 5 you find that the halacha should've forced the Tosafists to make things HARDER, but better that they should err in ignorance.
Is it taboo? Maybe, maybe it’s just inertia though, and maybe the rabbis are powerless in the face of the world around them. Whether the reaction is CHAS VECHALILA (e.g. in Chapter 1) or MEITAV SHEYIYHU SHOGEGIM (e.g. in Chapter 5) one gets the sense that they wouldn't change much if they tried.
*
Applying the lens of jurisdiction - my last bullet above - is fruitful. In Ashkenaz today if you deviate in your practice a little bit you practically have to redefine your affiliation and you probably started a new movement within Judiasm, but in sefardic circles nobody bats an eyelash. I think part of maturing might be allowing yourself to do the latter and not take yourself all that seriously. But that's for another essay.
Displaying 1 of 1 review