¹ “Judeorum ritus et modus in rejudaysando conversos baptizatos.” The translation is by Yerushalmi, Yosef H. in his article “The Inquisition and the Jews of France in the time of Bernard, Gui,” HTR 63 (1970) 317–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 363, 364. For the original Latin see the Douais, C. edition of the Practica inquisitionis heretice pravitatis (Paris: Picard, 1886) 288–89Google Scholar, as well as Mollat, G., Manuel de l'sinquisiteur (Paris: Champion, 1964) 1. 6–9.Google Scholar Characteristic paleographical difficulties concerning the deciphering of the letters v, n, vi, and m, made it such that the Hebrew words tyvila and Baahusuva are transcribed in these editions as tymla and Baltussuna.

² Salomon ibn Adreth, Responsa, vol. 7, no. 411. A very similar statement, though somewhat more elaborated, is to be found in his responsum no. 66 of vol. 5. As this last statement is a mere verbatim quotation of an ancient Gaonic responsum (see Lewin, B. M., O sär ha-Geonîm [Jerusalem: Lewin, 1936] 7. 112)Google Scholar, I preferred the shorter version because it might represent some editorial effort on the part of Salomon ibn Adreth. The No. 66 responsum of vol. 5 reads as follows: “And for your question whether a (Jewish) convert to Christianity that reverted requires immersion (tebilâ) or not. (The) answer (is): we saw that he deserved stripes as he transgressed in several positive and negative precepts and those deserving premature death by divine visitation (Kāret) as well as capital punishment by (regular) courts. Yet he does not require immersion as he is not a proselyte who does. There (in the case of a proselyte it is required in order) or lift him up from his gentile status as his conception and birth were not Jewish. But this son of Israel who converted to idolatry, had been conceived and born as a Jew and therefore does not require immersion. Even a proselyte who was circumsized and immersed, if he went back to his gentility and then reverted and judaized, does not require immersion.”

³ Examples are, among others, the description of the 1144 Norwich allegation or the confessions extorted from the Jews of Valréas (Southern France) in 1247. For the first case, see Jessop, A. and James, M. R., The Life and Miracles of St. Williams of Norwich, by Thomas of Monmouth, (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1896) esp. 19–23.Google Scholar For the second see Molinier, A., “Enquête sur un muertre rituel aux Juifs de Valréas (1247),” Le Cabinet historique 29 [n.s. 2] (1883) 121–33.Google Scholar

⁴ Yerushalmi, “Inquisition” 373–74; Baer, F., Die Juden im christlichen Spanien (Berlin: Schocken, 1936) 2. 504Google Scholar, n. 1. The great scholar asks himself nevertheless: “Oder handelt es sich um eine antisemitische Erfindung?”

⁵ Seper yām Snelōmō on Yebamot (New York, 1953) fol. 52.Google Scholar This reference, as well as the one in the following note, are to be found in the notes of the nineteeth-century rabbinic scholar Hayim Palache (Palaggi) (1788–1869) to his edition of Salomon ibn Adreth Responsa, vol. 5, no. 66, quoted above.

⁶ Sēper Hidduŝē ha-Ritba [on Yebamot], (New York: Mépisé Torā, 1960) 29a.Google Scholar

⁷ Yerushalmi, “Inquisition,” 325–26, 366–67.

⁸ Ibid., 328–33, 363–74. The following works appeared since the publication of that article: Duvernoy, J., Le régistre d'sinquisition de Jacques Fournier, évêque de Pamiers, (1316–1365) (3 vols.; Toulouse: Privat, 1965) 1. 177–90Google Scholar (a new edition of the text). Idem, L'sinquisition à Pamiers (Toulouse: Privat, 1966) 41–48Google Scholar (partial translation into French). Palès-Gobillard, A., “L'sinquisition et les Juifs: le cas de Jacques Fournier” Cahiers de Fanjeaux 12 (1977) 97–114Google Scholar; and the Hebrew book of Albert, B., The Case of Baruch, the Earliest Report of the Trial of a Jew by the Inquisition (1320) (Ramat-Gan: Bar-llan University, 1974).Google Scholar

⁹ Archives de Provence, Marseille 381E51.

¹⁰ Cf. the document from Brignoles (1283) published in my article “L'inquisition et les Juifs de Provence,” Provence historique 22 (1973) 326–38Google Scholar, esp. 336–38; and Practica (ed. Douais) 299–300.

¹¹ The document from Brignoles (dated 27 April 1283), quoted above, seems to be one of the last done by the previous inquisitor Petrus de Monte Gardino. On 11 November 1283, in a document from Manosque, it is already Bertrand de Cigoterio who appears as the inquisitor; cf. my “Juifs de Provence,” 336–38. For Bertrand's activities in the Combat Venaissin, see Wadding, L., Annales minorums (Quaracchi: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1935) 5. 261–64.Google Scholar

¹² Yerushalmi, “Inquisition,” 373; Practica (ed. Douais) 300; ed. Mollat, 48: “Modus abjurandi ibrum qui conversi a perfldia judeorum ad ftdem baptismi redierunt ad vomitum judaysmi.”

¹³ Some other documents concerning the activity of the Provencal Inquisition are published in my article “Paulus Christiani, un aspect de son activité anti-Juive.” in Nahon, G. and Touati, Ch., Hommage à Georges Vajda (Louvain: Societé des Etudes juives, 1980) 203–17.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See the Hebrew article, a classic by now, of Katz, Jacob, “Though he Sinned, He Remains an Israelite,” Tarbits 27 (1958) 203–17.Google Scholar

¹⁵ On the role of Salomon ibn Adreth as a communal leader and especially his efforts to limit the study of philosophy, which he considered ruinous, see Baer, Y., A History of the Jews in Christian Spain (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1971) 1. 281–305.Google ScholarSarachek, J., Faith and Reason, the Conflict over the Writing of Maimonides (2d ed.; New York: Herman, 1970) 195–264.Google Scholar