The Shadar–host economy: new perspectives on the travels of emissaries from the Holy Land

Abstract

“Shadars” were rabbinic emissaries from Ottoman Palestine who raised funds in the diaspora. While Israeli historians studied the Shadar for his status as a representative of the Palestinian yishuv, this study focuses on the reciprocal relationship between the Shadar and his host community. Focusing on Hayyim Yoseph David Azulay, the preeminent Shadar, I portray this relationship as an economy, in which two sides give and receive “goods.” The primary gift is the funds for the Holy Land, but we shall see that the Shadar and his hosts exchanged material, social, intellectual and spiritual goods.

Notes on contributor

David Malkiel teaches medieval and early modern Jewish history at Bar-Ilan University. He has published books and articles on Jewish culture in medieval Ashkenaz, and in Italy from the Middle Ages to the modern era. Address: The Israel and Golda Koschitzky Department of Jewish History, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 5290002, Israel. [email: [email protected]]

Notes

1. On Zionist historiography, see Myers (1995) and Conforti (2006).

2. Ya'ari notes that of 850 Shadars known to us, 85 died en route, that is, 10% (Ya'ari 1951, 9). He generalizes that Shadar trips usually last three to four years, but mentions that they often make multiple trips (Ya'ari 1951, 19). In 1811, Eliezer Papo writes that Shadars travel “for about ten years, or more” (Ya'ari 1951, 4).

3. The literature on this subject is prodigious, and only a few, representative, works can be cited here: Bork and Kann (2008), Gomez-Géraud (1999), Grabois (1998), Holger and Proeve (1997), Howard (1980), Maczak (1995), Maurer and Brenner (1999), Muldoon (2010), Noonan (2007), Penrose (1967), Pinney and Stagl (1996), Prud’homme (2012), Richard (1981), Rubiés (2007), Schwartz (1994), Stagl (1995), Sumption (1975) and Tinguely (2000).

4. The following bibliography is illustrative: Abu-Lughod (1963), Eickelman and Piscatori (1990), Louca (1970), Miller (1992), Matar (2003), Miquel (1966), Netton (1993), Pagden (2000), Pérès (1937), Sauvaire (1884), Al-Tahtawi (2004) and Touati (2010). Montesqieu’s Persian Letters is a fascinating counter example, for it presents how a European imagined the experiences of an Oriental traveller in Paris.

5. On Jewish travel, see Berger (2002), Horowitz (1992), Jacobs (2014), Litt (2011), Weber (2005) and Zinger (2011).

6. On Azulay, see mainly Benayahu (1959a, 1959b). See also Lehmann (2007, 2013, 2014) and Bartal (1992).

7. See also the following select items: Bijsterveld (2007), Bourdieu (1998), Davis (2000), Godbout and Caillé (1992), James and Allen (1998), Komter (1996), Osteen (2002), Parry (1986) and Silber (1995).

8. On Jewish gift exchange, see Frenkel (2009), Hasan-Rokem (2013), Kochen (2004), Rustow (2009), and Schwartz (2010). On the importance of the informal, relational aspect of commercial exchange in the Islamic realm, see also Goldberg (2012).

9. Sometimes the tactic fails. In Pesaro, after learning that the community has budgeted 100 ducats for his cause, Azulay informs the council that he will not accept less than that amount, whereupon the affluent congregants refuse to make additional individual donations: Azulay (1934, 72).

10. The exhortation is a play on Jud. 7:17.

11. The phrase “do so and more” is a play on a common biblical vow formula, as in I Sam. 3:17.

12. For book gifts to Azulay in Amsterdam, see Azulay (1934, 135, 137).

13. Azulay was also given synagogue honours in Nice (Azulay 1934, 99), Bordeaux (Azulay 1934, 114), Paris (Azulay 1934, 120–121) and Torino (Azulay 1934, 171).

14. On the tourism industry, see Chambers (2010).

15. In Tunis, Azulay praised Samuel Fassi for the amulets he was distributing, even after he alienated people—even the Caid—with his bad behaviour: Azulay (1934, 62).

16. In 1757 Sabbatai Elhanan Del Vecchio asks Azulay for an approbation for a halakhic ruling: Benayahu (1959b, 437–438).

17. Cf. the interpretation offered there by the editor of the letters, Rabbi Hayyim Rosenberg of Ancona.

18. On the types and gradations of hospitality, see Still (2010, 16–18).

19. This hierarchy underpins and explains the universal need of recipients to reciprocate gifts, so as to restore their honour. See Pitt-Rivers (1966), Pitt-Rivers (1977a, 1992). On honour in early modern Europe, see Barber (1957), Chauchadis (1984), and Taylor (2008).

20. Elsewhere, Azulay accompanies a friend, David Hayyim Ariani, for two miles on his way from Torino to Milano—Azulay (1934, 171). For the rabbinic regulations concerning accompaniment, see bSotah 47v.

21. bShabbat 114r. For the Jewish law concerning the honour to be accorded a scholar, see Shulhan Arukh 2:242. On Azulay's conception of the honour to be accorded a scholar, see Azulay (1792, 129b, 1886, 37a).

22. “Blessing and dismissal” is a play on Ps. 109:17.

23. By the same token, Azulay cares nothing for his honour vis-à-vis gentiles, and when faced with a bureaucratic obstacle, readily cries and pleads before the public official, with no regard for his dignity. His interaction with non-Jews stands outside the code of honour, because their regard for him is inconsequential, both in Jewish law and in terms of his mission. This dynamic parallels the indifference a nobleman would have felt vis-à-vis commoners and slaves, to whose regard he was indifferent.

24. The significance of three days is that Jewish law considers someone ill for three days to be in mortal danger: see Shulhan Arukh 4:250.

25. Elsewhere, Azulay asks his son to inform Sr. Pinchas that he prays for his health and for that of his daughter-in-law “almost every day.” See Azulay (1927, 45).

26. These summaries appear prominently in the latter pages of Ma'agal Tov, from approximately page 140. For Azulay's view of the essence of a good sermon, see his Mahazik Berakhah, #290,3 (63b), partly cited in Benayahu (1959b, 229, n. 15).

27. For further details, see Azulay (1927, 34–35, n. 4).

28. For other anecdotes of Azulay's intervention in local disputes, see Azulay (1934, 77, 85).

29. This incident bears a certain resemblance to one in Bordeaux: Azulay (1934, 35–36).

Additional information

Funding

Research for this study was supported by a grant from the Israel Science Foundation [1262/13], for which I am profoundly grateful.