• Ottoman Jews and Plagues
• Yaron Ayalon (bio)

In a monumental volume published in 1791, titled A Treatise of the Plague, the Scottish surgeon, herpetologist, and naturalist Patrick Russell described in detail his experience with plague outbreaks in Aleppo, where he was serving as the physician of the Levant Company. The city, and the eastern Mediterranean more broadly, suffered from several such epidemics in the course of the eighteenth century, often accompanied by other natural disasters that amplified their effect. From 1757 to 1764, for example, the city and the region more broadly suffered from drought and famine, a series of earthquakes, a two-year long plague epidemic, then two more years of famine.¹ During the plague years, Russell conducted a study of 120 individuals who had contracted the disease. Although unaware of the causes of plague at the time, Russell's observations suggest that he understood that it was not transmitted simply by proximity to a sick individual, that familial ties played a key part in the treatment and healing process, and that responses to the epidemic had much to do with economics but little to do with religious affiliation.²

Historians, too, have recently come to recognize the tenuous connection between individual and collective responses to epidemics (and natural disasters more broadly) and religious or communal affiliation.³ Still, examining Ottoman Jews' responses to major crises such as epidemic outbreaks can illuminate the role that the Jewish community played in their lives at such moments, when state intervention often remained limited. Indeed, until the second half of the nineteenth century, the central Ottoman administration in Istanbul [End Page 46] responded to disasters with a limited arsenal of tools that mostly included tax remissions or reassessment, shipment of grain from one area to another, or the reconstruction of public buildings.⁴ This left many other unmet needs to be addressed locally, both by provincial officials and communal institutions. The role that religious communities played in people's lives thus increased dramatically during crises. During "normal" times, Ottoman Jews were far from segregated: many maintained extensive social, neighborly, business, and even familial networks with their non-Jewish neighbors. In many respects, the Jewish community as an institution faced serious competition from the other social and commercial networks that Jews took part in, and rabbis had a hard time promoting Jewish law as a guiding principle or enforcing particular behaviors.⁵ And yet, the Jewish community had almost no competition—and thus nearly complete control—in the realms of education and charity. It is the latter that matters most to the current discussion. In times of hardship and distress, the community functioned primarily as a relief agency. Its charitable institutions supported Jews, irrespective of their level of observance or involvement with religious life. Avenues for seeking charity across denominational lines were rare.⁶

In moderate disasters, when an epidemic was of short duration and its financial repercussions manageable, Jewish communities could generally handle demands without resorting to extraordinary measures. When a crisis lingered, in the case of a prolonged famine or severe outbreaks, resources would eventually run out. Such times posed a real challenge to the Jewish community as a cohesive, social unit. In response, communal leaders would address pressing needs by redesignating funds and property, where those were still available, to prioritize treating the sick and their families. They also diverted resources away from religious instruction toward more essential concerns, such as distributing grain to the poor as bread prices soared during a famine. Selling communal property, even at unfavorable prices, was another way to generate revenue. During such moments, congregations resorted to selling silver and gold artifacts from their synagogues to wealthy Jews and non-Jews alike.⁷ It was also common practice for communal leaders to suspend ordinances (takanot) that governed their coreligionists' behavior once they realized that most of the members of their community were no longer in a position to comply with them: plagues and natural disasters were, no doubt, among the events that set such procedures in motion.⁸ At this stage, communal representatives typically turned to wealthier Jews to ask for further support. The response, as we can imagine, was not always positive. We...

• 奥斯曼帝国的犹太人和瘟疫
• 亚伦·亚隆（生物）

苏格兰外科医生，爬虫学家和自然学家帕特里克·罗素（Patrick Russell）在1791年出版的题为《瘟疫专着》的巨著中，详细介绍了他在阿勒颇（Leep Company）担任医师时在阿勒颇爆发瘟疫的经历。在18世纪，这座城市以及整个地中海东部地区遭受了几次此类流行病的侵袭，并经常伴有其他自然灾害，其影响扩大了。例如，从1757年到1764年，这个城市和该地区遭受了干旱和饥荒，一系列地震，长达两年的瘟疫流行，然后又遭受了两年的饥荒。^1个在瘟疫岁月中，罗素进行了一项研究，研究对象是120名染上该病的人。尽管当时尚不了解鼠疫的病因，但拉塞尔的观察表明他了解到，鼠疫并非仅因与患病个体接近而传播，家族关系在治疗和康复过程中起着关键作用，并且对这一流行病的反应也很重要。与经济学有很大关系，而与宗教信仰无关。^2个

历史学家们最近也开始认识到，个人和集体对流行病（以及更广泛的自然灾害）与宗教或社区联系的反应之间存在微弱的联系。³尽管如此，考察奥斯曼帝国犹太人对流行病等重大危机的反应，仍可以说明犹太人社区在这样的时刻，在国家干预通常仍然有限的情况下，在他们的生活中所起的作用。的确，直到19世纪下半叶，伊斯坦布尔的奥斯曼中央政府[End Page 46]对灾难的反应有限，所用工具很少，主要包括税收减免或重新评估，谷物从一个地区运往另一个地区或重建公共建筑。⁴这留下了许多其他未满足的需求，需要地方官员和社区机构在当地解决。因此，宗教团体在危机中扮演的角色急剧增加。在“正常”时期，奥斯曼帝国的犹太人远离种族隔离：许多人与非犹太邻居保持着广泛的社会，邻居，商业乃至家庭网络。在许多方面，作为一个机构的犹太社区面临着与犹太人参加的其他社会和商业网络的激烈竞争，拉比在推广犹太人法律作为指导原则或强制执行特定行为方面遇到困难。⁵但是，犹太人社区在教育和慈善领域几乎没有竞争，因此几乎完全可以控制。在当前的讨论中，最重要的是后者。在困难和困境中，社区主要充当救济机构的职能。它的慈善机构支持犹太人，无论其遵守或参与宗教生活的程度如何。跨界寻求慈善的途径很少。⁶

在中度灾害中，当流行病持续时间短且其财务影响可控时，犹太社区通常可以在不诉诸特殊措施的情况下处理需求。当危机持续存在时，如果长期饥荒或严重爆发，资源将最终耗尽。这样的时代对作为凝聚力的社会单位的犹太社区构成了真正的挑战。作为回应，社区领导人将通过重新分配仍然可用的资金和财产来解决紧迫的需求，以优先治疗病人及其家人。他们还把资源从宗教教育中转移到更基本的问题上，例如在饥荒期间面包价格飞涨的时候，将粮食分配给穷人。出售公共财产，甚至以不利的价格出售，都是创收的另一种方式。⁷社区领导人通常的惯例是，一旦他们意识到社区中的大多数成员不再有能力遵守他们的规定，便中止统治他们的民权主义者行为的法令（takanot）：瘟疫和自然灾害就没有了。在使此类程序开始运作的事件中，人们对此表示怀疑。⁸在这一阶段，社区代表通常会向富有的犹太人寻求进一步的支持。正如我们可以想象的那样，反应并不总是积极的。我们...