A Jewish response dossier behind the Tortosa disputation

Epistemic status

This article describes an entity that is not directly attested as a surviving complete dossier. It infers a Jewish-side working layer behind written submissions and Hebrew accounts of the Tortosa disputation.

Summary

The Jewish side of the Tortosa disputation appears to have produced more written working material than the surviving notices preserve as a single archive. The inferred object is a dossier-like working layer of memoranda, declarations, notes, excerpts, or draft responses used under coercive disputation conditions.

What is being inferred

Inferpedia infers a Jewish response dossier in a functional sense, not necessarily one bound file. It may have consisted of separate memoranda, declarations, Hebrew notes, draft answers, or excerpt lists associated with Astruc Ha-Levi, Zerahiah ben Isaac ha-Levi, and related Jewish respondents.

What is attested

Reference literature reports a joint memorandum by Astruc and Zerahiah and a separate written declaration by Astruc during attacks on the Talmud. Modern scholarship identifies papal notarial records and Hebrew source layers around the proceedings, including anonymous fragmentary material and Shevet Yehuda, and notes a movement from oral sessions toward written texts.

Why infer this entity

Multiple written acts imply preparation, copying, preservation, or reuse. Coercive multi-session debate makes ad hoc oral response unlikely as the whole documentary base. The known Hebrew source problem suggests a broader working layer from which later accounts and notices drew.

Evidence ledger

• Evidence 19: a reference entry reports a joint memorandum by Astruc Ha-Levi and Zerahiah ben Isaac ha-Levi.
• Evidence 20: a reference entry reports a written declaration by Astruc during attacks on the Talmud.
• Evidence 21: Bianchi identifies papal notarial records and Hebrew source layers, including an anonymous fragmentary source.
• Evidence 22: Bianchi notes that after oral sessions, written texts became part of the later debate procedure.

Counterarguments

The dossier may be an analytical convenience rather than a single historical file. Some written items may have been isolated submissions rather than parts of a shared working archive. Later Hebrew accounts may reshape the source layer, and the official acta may not preserve Jewish-side textual practice neutrally.

Confidence scores

Direct attestation: 35. Existence warrant: 74. Specificity confidence: 48. Reconstruction dependence: 42. Counterevidence pressure: 24. Overall: probable inferred dossier-like working layer, with uncertain physical form and sequence.

What would change the score

The score would rise with manuscript witnesses, acta references, explicit citations of Jewish submissions, or specialist source analysis linking the notices to a common working file. It would fall if the memorandum and declaration prove isolated, later-retold items with no shared documentary layer.

Related lacunae

• Profiat Duran's lost Maamar Zikhron ha-Shemadot records the persecutions of the same generation; both objects are lost Hebrew works from the era of coerced disputation and conversion.