State Archive of Modena, Inquisizione, Causae Hebreorum, busta n. 69, fascicolo n. 8 1624 – Processo contro Leone Poggetti rabbino e Aron de Sacerdoti

Confrontation between Ciro Yaghel and the Inquisitor Giovanni Vincenzo da Tabia.

Report by Ciro Yaghel.

Report on the Hebrew books sent by the Magnificent Reverend Father Inquisitor in answer to the requested points.

As for the first point, regarding the new machzorim, I consider them being very well corrected during printing in relation to the details that offended the Christian religion. Taking into account that in the old [machzorim] a major correction for things that actually don’t regard Christians was found, adopted by whoever was not an expert corrector, even in the new [the printed machzorim] deletions [or/and modifications] were similarly imperfect, imitating the former ones. For that erroneous application, the Catholic religion is still offended rather than defended as if believers’ life seemed almost worthy only for insults of any wickedness, while Jews by this [offense] mean to obtain the eradication of the universal [wickedness].

As for the second [point], the left-over crossed-out words are of two kinds: the first relates to the errors made in the printed version and erased in order to bring back the book to its original significance. The second relates to the words kept by the Christian corrector[s] where there was no need for [any correction], such as in the case of sorcerers’ idolatry, and worship of ancient stars or fire. And in those instances even more universal clauses have been inserted with cleverness and in order to connect, which do not offend nor refer to the believers [Christians], who would have been greatly offended by the corrector had he suggested (by so doing) even stranger opinions to the malicious and ignorant people [the Jews] than what they thought originally.

As for the third [point] many erased sections are now readable because of the faded ink, others are absolutely undecipherable, and few others, noted at the presence of the Reverend Vicar, have not been cancelled. And some of the cancelled ones of a certain importance are absolutely forbidden, others that should not be cancelled in consideration of their simple meaning are forbidden because of the ancient Jewish custom kept by Jews even today of using them implicitly in relation to Christians. The exclusion of such recognized terms is due to judicial caution; others are so general that even if retaining the same ancestry, they can clearly refer also to Christians as the disparaging “uncircumcised” indicates.

As for the fourth [point] the books sent with the index of the corrections were examined in the presence of the same Father Vicar; they were checked again where necessary, and there are still some, but very few parts, where possibly correction may be necessary. Only one is still in my hands in need of examination, because it lacks the index of corrections, but apparently the content, being moral, does not make it suspect.

As for the fifth [point]: “goy” in the singular form, and “goyim” in the plural, is universally used, sometimes Jewish writers intend their own nation; [it is reported] at singular in the majority of cases, as exactly reported in the old German machzor; in other cases, it refers to each nation as distinct from their own, and often Christians are offended because they are not distinct from all others, and sometimes neither this or that because the offence derives from the subject associated with the term.

As for the sixth and last point, if we talk about the Jewish ignorant masses they mostly implicitly consider the Christians as idolatrous because they worship the holiest human nature of Christ Lord and receive the sacred images. If we talk about the [Jewish] writers and the wise men, many both ancient and modern write extensively claiming the contrary. In their treatises when relating to idolatry, they specify conditions which exclude the Christians since they refer mostly to the customs of ancient people.  Sometimes only with great difficulty it would be possible to identify the Christians [as idolatrous] because of the scarce and weak universality’s specification. Rarely [these descriptions] refer to believers [Christians] and as I say that is the case of only part of the writers, not all of them, because of differences in opinion.

↑ Back to top