realm of England," but who is (in exile) from the country called England. 3. There yet remains the third functionary, Rabbi Aaron of Canterbury, a great Tosaphist, hitherto a mere name and myth. I possess him frequently on my notes; his full name was Rabbi Aaron ben Sampson, and his doings are as explicit to me as if he were living at the present date. He also must be relegated to some future opportunity. We now proceed with our narrative. David de Oxon having gained the day over the Rabbis, remained content with his triumph. The divorcée, Muriella, was far from satisfied. She deemed herself harshly treated. Finding that no redress awaited her in England, urged to desperation by her wrongs, and surrounded by friends and partisans, she determined to make an appeal to the Paris Consistory. Unfortunately, all details are lacking. We only know by the sequel that her course of procedure became revealed to the lay authorities, and incited their grave 'displeasure. Whether a deputation waited on the Paris Rabbonim, or the suit was conducted by correspondence, we have no means of ascertaining. Anyway, it precipitated the emission of the following writ, again translated from the Latin original :— "For David of Oxford. Whereas by the counsel of the Venerable Archbishop in Christ, W. of York, and sundry of the King's Council, it was provided that henceforward no tribunals (Bethdins?) might be held concerning the Jews in England. And whereas the justices assigned to the custody of the Jews were firmly enjoined on the part of the King to see with regard to all the Jews of England that no chapters should henceforth be held throughout England. Consequently these are to appear before the aforesaid Archbishop and others of the King's Council on the Octave (a week subsequent to) Saint Michael, wheresoever such Council may be in England, to show cause why they sent to France, and to the Jews of France to hold a chapter concerning the Jews of England. Namely, Peytevin of Lincoln, Muriel who was the wife of David of Oxford, Benedict son of Peytevin of Lincoln, Vaalin, and Moses of Banbury,' Jews. "And the aforesaid Justices are ordered not to suffer David of Oxon to be coerced by the Jews to take or hold any woman to wife, except at his own free will." Peytevin of Lincoln was a local Rav, originally (Close Roll, 1230) “de Francia"; hence his connection with his Parisian co-religionists. He is frequently styled "Clericus"-ecclesiastic. He made several journeys to the Metropolis, and was more of a Londoner than a 1 The original looks like Barbuñ. A Moses of Banbury is cited elsewhere in the records. Lincoln man. His son Benedict always lived in London, and gave important evidence, in 1234, before the Barons of the Exchequer, when the Justices of the Jews were indicted for extorting bribes from Jewish applicants, remitting their tallage in some instances, increasing it in others, and otherwise turning justice into a farce. The result of this inquiry, if it ever took place, will possibly never be known, for the record, as will have been noticed, plunges in medias res, and concludes in medias res. It is unsatisfactory to the extent that it leaves so much untold. Whatever way the affair terminated, one thing is certain. The Rabbis gained the superiority at a subsequent date, and dealt out excommunications with a rigorous hand. David of Oxford did not long survive the success of his suit. His widow, Licoricia, was mulcted very heavily by the Crown, and a large share of her husband's wealth was pounced upon in order to beautify Westminster Abbey and support the houses of the converts in London and Oxford. Muriella showed some signs of restlessness, if not vindictiveness, soon after her divorce. She occupied a house of her former husband on a repairing lease, but allowed the premises to fall into a state of dilapidation. All appeals to her were in vain; so the Justices interposed, and peremptorily ordered her to fulfil her contract. The regulation touching the jurisdiction of a Bethdin must have been relaxed soon after 1242; for in 1250 "the Masters of the Law" in London were empowered to launch forth the high excommunication, if they deemed it expedient. They exercised the function once in 1270, against Sadekin of Northampton, and again in 1275, against Cok Hagin, an eminent Jew of London. In both instances the unfortunate victims of ecclesiastical wrath were denuded of their chattels and possessions, Queen Eleanor preferring a claim to the same on forfeiture-a demand that was instantly recognised, and as readily conceded. The following is the original text of the document which forms the subject of the present article :— 'Pro David de Oxon.-Rex Magistris Mosse de London, Aaron de Cantuar et Jacobo de Oxon Judeis, salutem. Prohibemus vobis ne de cetero placitum teneatis de David Judeo Oxon et Murell quæ fuit uxor ipsius nec ipsum ad uxorem ipsam vel aliam capiendam vel tenendam aliquotenus distringatis. Scituri pro certo quod si secus egeretis gravem penam exinde incurreretis. Pro David de Oxon.-Quia de consilio venerabilis in Christo W. Ebor archiepiscopo et aliorum de concilio R. provisum est quod de cetero nulla capitula teneantur de Judeis in Anglia, mandatum est justic. ad custodiam Judeorum assignatis firmiter injungendo ex parte R. quatenus omnibus Judeis Angliæ ne de cetero capitula teneant in Anglia. Et Peytevinu de Lincoln, Muriel quæ fuit uxor David de Oxon, Benedictum fil Peytevini de Lincoln, et Vaalyn et Mosseum de Barbuñ Judeos venire faciant coram prefato archiepiscopo et aliis de concilio R. in octabis sci Miche ubicunque fuerint in Anglia responsuri quare miserunt in Francia ad Judeos Franciæ pro capitulo tenendo super Judeos Angliæ. Et mandatum est predictis justic. quod non permittant predict. David de Oxon a Judeis distringi ad aliquam uxorem capiendā vel tenendā nisi de voluntate sua.” A WRIT OF EDWARD I. A SOMEWHAT novel and curious phase of Jewish religious life is discoverable in the Exchequer Plea Roll, No. 20, Membrane 3, anno 1275. We there find, in extenso, a writ under the Great Seal, directed by Edward I. to the Justices assigned to the custody of the Jews, informing them that the goods and chattels of Cok Hagin, a London Jew, had been confiscated to the Crown, and delivered over as a gift to Queen Eleanor. Cok Hagin had been excommunicated by the Rabbis for an offence against Jewish law, and such excommunication was tantamount to "felony" at Common Law. Hence the forfeiture of his possessions. The Justices consulted former Rolls, with a view of ascertaining precedents, and they found that in 1270, Sadekin of Northampton had incurred the displeasure of his fellow-Jews, and had been excommunicated, remaining under anathema forty days and more. His goods had consequently been confiscated and handed over to Queen Eleanor. The Justices, desirous of being set right on the matter, summoned a jury of twelve leading London Jews, and required them, under oath, to examine well the transaction, and report. They did so, and upheld the sentence and judgment of the Rabbis. The jurors consisted of the following:-Gamaliel of Oxford ; Sampson of Northampton; Aaron de la Rye; Benedict of Winchester ; Peitavin of Northampton; Isaac of London, from Northampton; Poteman; Manser ben Aaron; Isaac the Evesk; Solomon Bunting; Bonenfaunt of Cruce-rois; and Moses le Blund. It is to be noted that London, then as now, possessed an attractive force for provincials. Two of the jurors, Aaron de la Rye and Solomon Bunting, were subsequently hanged on an alleged charge of clipping the coin. King Edward thereupon desired Magister Elias, son of Magister Mosse, "Master of the Jewish Law," to wait upon him, and acquaint him with all the facts. The "Master" obeyed the King's behest, and satisfied him that the excommunication had been truly justified, and that Sadekin had incurred the displeasure of the Jewish ecclesiastical authorities for a crime against Jewish ordinances. The precedent having thus been established, the goods and chattels of Cok Hagin were estreated, and delivered into the hands of Queen Eleanor. What is most surprising, however, is the fact that, six years subsequently — in 1281 — this very same Cok Hagin was appointed Chief Rabbi of all England, at the special request and demand of Queen Eleanor. That the Rabbonim of London exercised the right of issuing excommunications is evident from an entry on the Patent Rolls 1250), running thus :-"The King to his Justiciars assigned to the Jews, greeting-Know that we have conceded to our London Jews that the Masters of the Law of the said Jews in the City of London may issue the high excommunication against all those Jews who have promised any subsidy towards maintaining their cemetery in London, and have failed to pay it: with this condition, that we, and none else, shall receive sufficient amends out of the Jews so excommunicated." M. D. DAVIS. NOTES AND DISCUSSION. The Title P given to Joseph Kimchi by the Commentator of his Sepher ha-Galui. THE Sepher-ha-Galui of Joseph Kimchi (edited by H. J. Mathews, Berlin, 1887), has been provided by an unknown commentator, named Benjamin, with numerous, and often with elaborate notes, in which he defends those views of the celebrated R. Jacob b. Meir (Tam), which had been attacked by Joseph Kimchi. These observations are for the most part marked by a very violent tone, and the commentator describes the author here and there by the epithet pл, e.g., p. 14, 1. 3:1'WN ND ואני בנימין אומר כי תשובות דהקורא על ונש :21 .1 ,15 .and p,הקורא awn pin ban. The editor does not explain this appellation, but merely refers to the two passages, Jer. xvii. 11 and 1 Sam. xxvi. 20, in which occurs as the name of a bird (Introduction, p. xi.). J. Reifmann, in his notes on " appendix to my edition of 11 'D, which have appeared as an (Berlin, 1888), says the following: ר' בנימין כנה בהרבה מקומות את ר' יוסף קמחי בשם הקורא על רדפו ,He .את רבינו תם ואת מנחם בן סרוק כאשר ירדוף הקורא בהרים accordingly, explains this expression on the basis of the passage in the Book of Samuel, and in such a manner, moreover, that he employs p as subject to 77, i.e., as the bird in question pursues-other birds?—in the mountains, so Joseph Kimchi pursues those who are refuted by him, and is therefore himself designated by the name of this bird. This explanation is adopted by E. Blüth in his treatise on Joseph Kimchi (Berliner, Magazin für die Wissenschaft des Judenthums, XVIII., p. 128, 1891). But this explanation, based upon 1 Sam. xxvi. 20, cannot be the right one, because the bird mentioned there is not the pursuer but the pursued (see D. Kimchi's Commentary ad loc., the subject not,ידדף is the object to הקרא : (קרא .and Lexicon, s. v being given. It is usually translated "as when one doth hunt a partridge" (R. V.). There is indeed one explanation of our passage ומרדף אחר קני שאר :as subject, viz., that of Rashi הקורא which takes But this explanation has no support from .עופות ויושב על ביציהם other authorities, and even if we should assume that the commentator Benjamin adopted it, it would not be calculated to render the employment of the word as a designation for Joseph Kimchi comprehensible. I myself formerly considered the word as synonymous with , the object being to describe Joseph Kimchi as an exegete and |