JEWISH society in the Crown of Aragon created and maintained many of its institutions on the model of traditional Jewish norms and practices, adapting them to local conditions. Other institutions were typical of the communities in the north-east of the Iberian peninsula. Notwithstanding the traditional Hebrew names given to these institutions, their establishment was due entirely to the needs and conditions prevalent in the Crown of Aragon at the time. The sources reveal that most mutual aid confraternities that operated in these communities were set up to solve problems that the qehilah was unable or unwilling to solve. Their establishment was, therefore, directly linked to the social unrest and the communal regime that prevailed in these communities.

THE COMMUNITY AND THE POOR

Most communities of the Crown of Aragon did not pursue a welfare policy designed to assist the needy. No institution was created by the community to look after the poor. Contrary to the widespread Jewish norm by which provision for charity funds was made by the qehilah, charity remained a private initiative in most communities in the Aragonese realm. It seems that the absence of any clear public charity programme was due mainly to the character of the communal regime and the status of the leaders. The wealthy leadership proved very insensitive to the needs of the poor members of the community. At the end of the thirteenth century most communities had neither a charity fund nor a welfare policy. The dispute that broke out in one community between the rich and the middle class on the question of welfare provides a good illustration of the situation. Members of the middle class proposed that the members of the community pay a tax for the support of their needy. The tax, they claimed, would spare the poor in their community the shame and the embarrassment of begging from fellow Jews. The institutionalization of charity, in their opinion, was the solution to the problem of poverty among their ‘flesh and blood'. The opposition of the rich is most significant. They did not want more taxes. They wanted the poor to continue their habitual visits and receive the usual pittance. They promised to continue their ‘generous support'.