Download PDF | Ephraim Kanarfogel - The Intellectual History and Rabbinic Culture of Medieval Ashkenaz-Wayne State University Press (2012).
579 Pages
Preface
Write talmudic studies certainly constituted the primary area of scholarly endeavor in Ashkenaz during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the goal of this book is to put forward disciplinary and interdisciplinary treatments and methodologies that will lead, for the first time, to an assessment of the intellectual proclivities of Ashkenazic rabbinic culture as a whole. Sefardic (and Provengal) rabbinic culture during this period tended on the whole to be more compartmentalized. A small number of the greatest medieval Sefardic talmudists and halakhists—figures such as Maimonides, R. Meir /a-Levi Abulafia (Ramah), Nahmanides, and R. Solomon ibn Adret (Rashba)—also pursued extra-talmudic disciplines such as philosophy, kabbalah, and biblical exegesis. At the same time, however, many of the leading specialists in these other disciplines were not necessarily important talmudists or halakhists. The names of Judah ha-Levi, Abraham bar Hiyya, Abraham ibn Ezra, and Abraham Abulafia, as well as the Provengal scholars Isaac the Blind (son of Rabad of Posquieres) and Yedayah ha-Penini of Beziers, come readily to mind in this regard."
This study will demonstrate that despite the lesser degree of cultural interaction between Jews and Christians in northwestern Europe, as compared to Jews who (originally) lived in Islamic lands and their Muslim counterparts, the disciplinary interests of Ashkenazic rabbinic figures were much broader than talmudic studies alone. A significant difference betweenthese two orbits, however, is that those Ashkenazic scholars who pursued a range of intellectual and spiritual disciplines most often began this pursuit with very strong credentials in the study of Talmud and halakhah, upon which the other disciplines were then built, as a means of promulgating a larger and more variegated conception of the “multiple truths of the Torah? In tracing the scope of Ashkenazic cultural achievements, we will also get a better sense of the levels and layers of scholarship in medieval Ashkenaz. Leopold Zunz, for example, whose published volumes list and briefly describe virtually all the biblical commentaries and liturgical poetry produced in medieval Ashkenaz (that were available in his day, in both published and manuscript form), made almost no effort to separate these strands and strata, even as he strove to identify the various individual authors.”
A description of the contents of this book is in order. The introduction points to several factors that have contributed to the relatively narrow perceptions of Ashkenazic rabbinic culture. It sets the stage for what follows by arguing that the Tosafists and Ashkenazic rabbinic scholarship more generally advocated a wide definition of the truths that could be discovered through Torah study. In addition to subjecting the text of the Talmud to a range of questions and inquiries, different kinds of textual and conceptual methods could be deployed across a wide range of Jewish texts and disciplines, as appropriate means of arriving at truthful and meaningful interpretations. Indeed, different methods could be undertaken at the same time and even by the same rabbinic scholar without concern for how or whether the results completely comported or cohered with each other. Ultimately, all that resulted, if done faithfully and skillfully, was considered to be a part of worthwhile and truthful Torah study.
Chapter 1 begins with a discussion of the salient differences in talmudic and halakhic studies between the Tosafist centers of northern France and Germany. These differences can be observed within the methods of study and intellectual tendencies, and the institutional structures and the roles of leading rabbinic figures, as well as the degree of contact between these centers. Although differences along regional lines were sometimes manifested in the halakhic positions or minhagim of the Tosafists (with the Tosafists of northern France ruling in a particular way over time while those in Germany took a different view), the obvious commonalities that existed within and between these Tosafist realms meant that many specific rulings or practices did not adhere to any such pattern. Nonetheless, the significant distinctions between these centers of talmudic studies that did exist also have implications for other disciplines of study, as we shall see. In addition,this chapter considers anew the degree of Christian scholastic influence on Tosafist dialectic, an issue that also has important implications for assessing the intellectual breadth of the Tosafists.
The next three chapters deal with aspects of biblical interpretation. Chapter 2 focuses on three late twelfth-century French Tosafists and students of Rabbenu Jacob Tam (beginning with the somewhat familiar R. Yosef Bekhor Shor of Orleans, as well as R. Jacob of Orleans and R. Yom Tov of Joigny) who favored (and offered) interpretations that followed a kind of peshuto shel migra va-aggadah ha-meyashevet divrei approach similar to that of Rashi rather than the ‘omeg shel migra approach adopted by their more immediate predecessor, Rashbam. Chapter 3 discusses two leading Ashkenazic rabbinic figures with German roots, R. Judah he-Hasid and R. Isaiah di Trani, who also composed Torah commentaries with this dimension, and it compares the approaches of these five exegetes with the more talmudically inclined comments to the Torah that were typically put forward by other Tosafists at this time. The possible influences of Spanish biblical exegesis on these phases of Ashkenazic interpretation in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries are also noted.
Chapter 4 identifies additional Tosafists and rabbinic figures during the first half of the thirteenth century, including R. Moses of Coucy, R. Yehi’el of Paris, and the brothers of Evreux, who pursued both peshat and derash in their interpretations of the text of the Torah. The Tosafist exegetes highlighted in these three chapters, who were engaged to a significant degree in the study of peshat (and with Rashi’s commentary in particular), constitute a sizable substrate of the so-called Tosafist Torah commentaries (perushei Ba‘alei ha-Tosafot ‘al ha-Torah, extant in a dozen or so published collections and in more than two hundred manuscripts) that began to appear around 1240 and continued into the early fourteenth century. Indeed, these Tosaf ist exegetes serve as a bridge between the handful of independent, classical northern French pashtanim of the twelfth century on the one hand and the decidedly compilatory perushei Ba‘alei ha-Tosafot ‘al ha-Torah collections on the other.
Chapter 5 focuses on the composition of liturgical poetry (pryyut) by Tosafists. Some contemporary scholars have suggested that, following the First Crusade (which significantly impacted the Rhineland) as well as several persecutions in northern France (and Germany) during the mid- and late twelfth century which generated a series of commemorative liturgical compositions, the writing of pzyyut was not maintained as a staple of Tosaf ist creativity, especially within northern France. Moreover, according to this view, those pryyut genres that commemorate catastrophe (qinot and se/ibot) far and away dominated the other forms of liturgical poetry composed during the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries, mostly by German Tosafists and Pietists. Although German Tosafists did out-produce their French counterparts overall, this chapter demonstrates that it is possible to detect clearly defined areas of interest and patterns of endeavor in both regions, as Tosafists sought to compose piyyutim for different occasions (both happy and sad), and for liturgical contexts that had been underrepresented in earlier ptyyut compositions or that became newly designated as appropriate venues for piyyutim. Commemorative ginot and selibot were (unfortunately) always needed and produced, but the richness and variety of the other genres during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, throughout Ashkenaz, are palpable. Moreover, even as pre-Crusade compositional models continued to play a role, the significant patterns of composition for a large cohort of Tosafist ptyyutim authored in both northern France and Germany further suggest that interest in pzyywt in this period was surely not limited to the German Pietists and their followers.
In chapter 6,1 reflect on and expand some of the arguments and findings that I put forward in my “Peering through the Lattices”: Mystical, Magical, and Pietistic Dimensions in the Tosafist Period (Wayne State University Press, 2000). As with regard to the composition of pzyyutim, there was substantial awareness of forms of (white) magic and mysticism on the part of a number of northern French Tosafists, in addition to the strong involvement of a group of German Tosafists. As the twelfth century gave way to the thirteenth, Hasidei Ashkenaz strengthened the predisposition of certain German Tosafists in these matters, just as the interest in northern France proceeded apace. To paraphrase Yaakov Sussmann, if the thirteenth century ultimately comes to be dominated by Frenchmen in terms of talmudic studies (and German Tosafists at that time received anew the methods of their French colleagues through both direct teacher-student interactions and the increased availability of the Tosafist literature of northern France), it is a German century in the realms of prayer and mysticism, during which French Tosafists may have followed the lead of their German colleagues in these areas.’ Indeed, the influence of Ashkenaz as a whole on esoteric studies in Spain now appears to have been far greater than Gershom Scholem and others had imagined. This influence parallels the patterns (and direction) of influence with regard to talmudic studies.
With respect to matters of belief, the commonly held view is that the talmudocentricity of the Tosafists tended to mask any theological positions that they might have been inclined to offer in the course of interpreting talmudic texts. For this view, the technical methods employed by the Tosafists in the interpretation of ’aggadah precluded the possibility that their interpretations could reflect anything other than the valences of the underlying talmudic texts themselves. However, given the broader, more open, and multidisciplinary approaches of the Tosafists that are demonstrated throughout this book, it should not be surprising to find (as we shall see in the seventh and final chapter) that northern French and German Tosafists (as well as the German Pietists) did in fact express a range or spectrum of views on the question anthropomorphism (as but one significant example) that runs almost from one extreme to the other. Multiple (individual) views can also be detected with respect to issues of messianism and the nature of the messianic age, although in this instance the results are generally more unified. Nonetheless, these positions most often emerge from nuanced interpretation and interdisciplinary correlation, rather than as the byproducts of technical talmudic study alone, and reflect the deeply held views of the Tosafists themselves.
Acknowledgments
Researching and writing this book has proven to be both an exhilarating and daunting task, given its wide disciplinary range and the vast amount of material found in manuscript. Over the years I have been privileged to “sit at the feet” of four leading Jerusalem scholars whose remarkable knowledge and complete mastery of both manuscript and printed texts allowed (and even encouraged) me to read and understand Ashkenazic rabbinic culture in the way that I have. They are Professors Israel Ta-Shma z"/ and Ezra Fleischer 2"/; and, a7 pa? on P2972, Professors Moshe Idel and Avraham Grossman.
A wealth of colleagues in the United States and Israel have contributed in ways large and small to this study. Citation of their monographs and articles will serve, I hope, as heartfelt (if not fully adequate) acknowledgment of their generous assistance. I must, however, single out several individuals: my friend and mentor, Professor Moshe Sokolow, of the Azrieli Graduate School of Jewish Education at Yeshiva University, who read (and proofread) the entire manuscript with remarkable dedication and offered numerous corrections and suggestions; another devoted friend, Rabbi Shmuel Klein, who read through large parts of the manuscript and saved me from a number of errors; Professor Elisabeth Hollender, of the University of Frankfurt, who provided a series of helpful comments on chapter 5; and Professor Chanita Goodblatt, of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, whose unusual expertise at transposing and converting multilingual computer programs greatly aided in the production of this work.
The academic leadership of Yeshiva University, President Richard Joel and Provost Morton Lowengrub, and Deans David Berger and Karen Bacon of the two schools in which I am privileged to teach, the Bernard Revel Graduate School of Jewish Studies and Stern College for Women, have faithfully and generously supported my research, publications, and travel. We are all still truly bereft at the passing of E. Billi Ivry,a remarkable woman of great intelligence, commitment, warmth, and friendship.
As various ideas and conclusions of this work were taking shape, I tried out a number of them in my graduate seminars at Revel, and in my classes at the S. Daniel Abraham Honors Program of Stern. Not surprisingly, I found that the students had quite a few helpful things to say. Indeed, these discussions caused me on a number of occasions to rethink and to reformulate some of my arguments; I am very grateful to my students for their interest and input.
The rich holdings of the Mendel Gottesman Library at Yeshiva (with special thanks to Zvi Erenyi) and the unique Institute for Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts at the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem (with special thanks to Dr. Avraham David and Benjamin Richler) have always been at my disposal. I am grateful to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Bar-Ilan University, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, and Haifa University, and to my colleagues at these institutions, for the steady stream of conference and research invitations and subventions that helped to defray travel expenses. I also wish to express my deep sense of hakkarat hatov to Rabbi and Mrs. Reuven Aberman of Jerusalem for their exceptional hospitality and friendship over these many years, and to Mr. Victor Geller of Jerusalem for his wise guidance and counsel.
The two years I spent as a fellow at the Katz Center for Advanced Jewish Studies at the University of Pennsylvania (in 2003-4, during an early phase of this project, and in 2010-11, as the book was being completed and sent to press), were most productive and illuminating. I salute my colleagues at CAJS and its director, Professor David Ruderman, for their sagacity and camaraderie. Kathy Wildfong, editor-in-chief at Wayne State University Press—who has shepherded all my English-language books through the publication process—and her staff have once again done an exceptional job. In the course of providing expert copyediting, Mindy Brown managed to catch and correct all kinds of substantive and subtle things, in both English and Hebrew. And Cali Orenbuch and Estee Brick of Stern College have rendered invaluable assistance throughout.
My family has been remarkably supportive and patient during the research and writing of this book. They recognize that this is what I do, and they also know that I am paying considerable attention to them, even when it appears that I have my head in the books and manuscripts. It gives me great pride to mention my family and especially the newer arrivals who were not yet on the scene for prior works. Everything begins with Devorah, because that’s a very good place to start. My dear parents, Ethel and Lester Kanarfogel, are already envisioning the contents (and title) of the next book project(s), and my sister Susan has always been there to provide encouragement.
To our children, Tova and Yossi (and “the fellas” Yehudah Barak, Zechariah Alon, and Yonatan Boaz), Dovid and Hindy (and the “trips, Eliana, Yehudis Shira, and Shlomo Ezra), Moshe, Atara, Chaya, and Temima: I’m not done yet, but I’ll let you know. This book is dedicated to the memories of our grandparents, Sam and Yetta Kanarfogel a"h. They lived their lives with the fervent hope that we would be able to study and grow, and perhaps contribute a bit of learning and “Yiddishe nachas” to the world.
Introduction
Regnant Perceptions and Empirical Evidence
V lease appreciations of the intellectual history of medieval Ashkenazic
Jewry during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries have typically focused on the protean achievements of Ashkenazic rabbinic scholars in the realms of talmudic and halakhic studies. It is fair to say that the Tosafists of northern France and Germany revolutionized the study of the Talmud through their close, critical reading and dialectical applications. In doing so, they firmly established the superiority of the Babylonian Talmud as the locus of Jewish legal traditions and derivations, even as they brought a remarkably wide range of talmudic literature and post-talmudic rabbinic works to bear on (or in line with) the teachings of the Talmud Bavli.
The most creative and prominent twelfth-century Tosafists, figures such as Rabbenu Jacob Tam (d. 1171), R. Isaac (Ri) of Dampierre (d. 1189), and R. Samson of Sens (Rash m-Shanz,d. 1214) in northern France, and R. Eliezer b. Nathan (Raban) and his grandson R. Eliezer b. Joel ha-Levi (Rabiah, d.c. 1225) in Germany, have justifiably garnered the lion’s share of attention from among their contemporaries and within modern historiography as well. Similarly, authors of the leading halakhic works and texts in the thirteenth century, such as R. Moses of Coucy (d. c. 1250, author of Sefer Mizvot Gadol), R. Isaac Or Zaru‘a of Vienna (d.c. 1250), R. Isaac of Corbeil (d. 1270, author of Sefer Mizvot Qatan), and R. Meir of Rothenburg (d. 1293), who composed scores of responsa (and initiated the preservation of many others by his predecessors), have long been the focus of scholarly attention."
Indeed, part of the greatness of E. E. Urbach’s Ba‘alet ha-Tosafot: Toledoteihem, Hibbureihem, Shitatam lies in its ability to effectively reconstruct the wider circles of figures and works that surrounded these leading authorities, which included teachers, colleagues, and students who were often important scholars in their own right. Even today, however, more than fifty years after the first edition of Urbach’s Ba‘alei ha-Tosafot was published, manuscript research and other comparative textual studies continue to uncover the existence and output of Ashkenazic rabbinic figures of significant ability whose writings were lost or are virtually unknown, and whose influence in the periods during which these works were composed (and beyond) has gone mostly uncharted and unremarked.”
The Longitudinal Factor: French and German Centers
The lesser-known figures and works still being discovered are most often of German or Eastern European origin. Tosafists and halakhists in northern France during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (and their students and associates) were generally better known than their German counterparts, due in no small measure to the printing of the Tosafot to the standard editions of the Talmud.’ These Tosafot texts were fundamentally the products of Tosafist study halls in northern France. It was through these texts that the dominance of Rabbenu Tam and Ri first emerged, and that their students, such as R. Jacob of Orleans, R. Hayyim Kohen, R. Ephraim of Regensburg, R. Isaac b. Mordekhai (Rivam) of Bohemia, R. Elhanan b. ha-Rz, Rash mt-Shang and his brother R. Isaac b. Abraham (Rizba), and R. Judah Sirleon, became known to both students of the Talmud and academic scholars of Tosafist literature.*
Moreover, the printing of the standard Tosafot caused other manuscript versions of Tosafot to fall into disuse or to be forgotten.’ At the same time, R. Moses of Coucy’s Sefer Mizvot Gadol (Semag, first printed in Rome before 1480, and referenced in the standard editions of the Babylonian Talmud by the Ein Mishpat of R. Joshua Boaz),° allowed two earlier Tosafist halakhic works on which R. Moses of Coucy relied, Sefer Yereim (by R. Eliezer of Metz) and Sefer ha-Terumah (by R. Barukh b. Isaac), to become better known. The same holds true for R. Moses’s teacher, R. Judah Sirleon, and for other contemporaries and relatives of R. Moses, some of whom were themselves students of Rabbenu Tam or Ri. On the other hand, German and Austrian halakhic works from approximately the same period as Semag, such as Sefer Rabiah (Sefer Avi ha-Ezri by R. Eliezer b. Yo’el ha-Levi) and Sefer Or Zaru‘a (by Rabiah’s student, R. Isaac b. Moses of Vienna, who also studied in northern France), were published only in relatively modern times, while others were not published at all.’
E. E. Urbach’s textual forensics have shown that almost all of the key collections that formed or were incorporated into the Tosafot to the standard editions of the Babylonian Talmud were based in northern France. These include Tosafot Shanz, Tosafot R. Yebudah Sirleon, Tosafot Hakhmei Evreux, Tosafot Rabbenu Perez, as well as the most common collections of Tosafot, those edited or redacted by R. Eliezer b. Solomon m-Tukh (which connotes the French locale of Touques, in Urbach’s view).* Urbach identifies the standard Tosafot collections to only two tractates of the Babylonian Talmud, Sotah and the very brief Tosafot to Horayyot, as having originated in Germany. The only other German-based Tosafot found in standard editions of the Babylonian Talmud are classified as “addenda” to the main Tosafot, and appear on a small number of tractates. They are typically referred to as Tosafot Yeshanim, or as some other form of marginal compositions (gi/yonot).’
To be sure, Israel Ta-Shma has suggested that R. Eliezer mi-Tukh hailed not from northern France but from Germany (Tucheim), although he agrees that the earlier Tosafot collections that R. Eliezer compiled and edited originated for the most part in Tosafist battet midrash in northern France." In addition, the earliest Tosafist, R. Isaac b. Asher (Riba) ha-Levi of Speyer (d. 1133), was not a Frenchman.”
Nonetheless, leading German rabbinic scholars in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries became known mainly for the large, multifaceted, overarching, and stand-alone works they produced (e.g., Sefer Raban, Sefer Rabiah, Sefer Or Zaru‘a, Sefer Mordekhat), which contain a sometimes dizzying melange of commentary, halakhic rulings or compendia, and responsa. These medieval German halakhic works are much lengthier, bulkier, discursive, and diffuse than the glosslike Tosafot form of composition that was favored in northern France. Unlike their Tosafist colleagues in northern France, German rabbinic figures frequently consulted or communicated in writing with other German authorities and rabbinical courts. They also tended to include and to refer to their predecessors and contemporary colleagues at length, in addition to listing a wealth of personal, historical, and geographic details, as well as contemporary practices. As a result of these conventions, German halakhic works sometimes give the appearance of being slightly disorganized.”
In addition (and as I shall discuss further in the next chapter), German halakhic works often focused extensively on narrower areas of halakhic or judicial decision-making, and are not always as accessible or as interesting to students or nonspecialists as compared to French talmudic commentaries and halakhic compendia (such as R. Barukh b. Isaac’s Sefer ha-Terumah, R. Moses of Coucy’s Semag, and R. Isaac of Corbeil’s Sefer Mizvot Qatan).” At the same time, the collection process or method that produced Agqutim, which was vigorously pursued by thirteenth-century German works such as Sefer Mordekhait, had a tendency to “swallow up” earlier German halakhic materials and works, leading to the obsolescence or loss of those works, as well as obscuring the visibility of their authors. To be sure, several salient and essential characteristics of Tosafist dialectic can be found throughout these German works, which were also partially structured along the lines of the tractates of the Talmud, even though they did not comment on or interpret the text of the Talmud in a continuous or consistent way. (And German dialectic overall was somewhat more muted than its northern French counterpart.)
Unlike the halakhic codes and treatises of German origin, most of the German Tosafot collections of which we are currently aware have been lost, or have survived only in fragmentary fashion. These include Tosafot R. Eliezer mi-Metz,'° Tosafot Rivag mi-Shpira,"” Tosafot R. Shmuel b. Natronai,'* Tosafot R. Yorel ha-Levi,” Tosafot R. Barukh b. Samuel mi-Magenza,” Tosafot R. Simbah mi-Shpira,” Tosafot R. Mosheh Taku,” and Tosafot R. Eleazar mi-Vermaiza.” As noted earlier, these German Tosafot were either pushed aside or passively discarded or ignored in favor of Tosafot collections from northern France.”
All these factors taken together have undoubtedly contributed to the popular perception according to which the Tosafists of northern France occupied a disproportionately dominant place as representatives of the talmudism of medieval Ashkenaz. A first step in properly sketching the intellectual history of this period must therefore be to separate and distinguish “longitudinally” between Germany and northern France in order to establish what was different between these two centers. Indeed, moving forward, it should be possible to identify important differences between eastern and western Germany, or even within different regions of northern France as well, although this largely exceeds the scope of this study.”
As Yaakov Sussmann has noted, Urbach was well aware of the scholarly dynamism and productivity within both the German and northern French centers (he treated developments in northern France and Germany in separate chapters within his Baalei ha-Tosafot), but he also tended to view and evaluate their intellectual characteristics, proclivities, and methods as fundamentally similar. Y. N. Epstein, on the other hand, was more inclined to try to tease out the differences between these centers, just as he did with respect to parallel centers of Torah study during both the Tannaitic and Amoraic periods.” Once significant distinctions have been identified with respect to form (e.g., Tosafot versus halakhic works) and primary goals (e.g., pursuing overarching talmudic interpretations versus providing and supporting legal decisions), it becomes clear that a number of fundamental similarities nonetheless exist. I shall have more to say about this issue in the next chapter.
The Latitudinal Factor: The Multiplicity of Disciplines
A second significant factor (which may be characterized as a “latitudinal” one) that has shaped the perceptions of rabbinic culture during the Tosaf ist period concerns the extent to which Tosafist studies were exclusively talmudocentric. Here too, as Sussmann has noted, Urbach tended to stress that Tosafist talmudic methodology and interests dominated all other areas of study as well. In Urbach’s words:
The Tosafot were the fruits of constant laboring in the Talmud and also in the words of Hazal and their interpreters. The [talmudic] method of the Tosafists spread out and controlled other types of literature as well. Not only are the works of legal decisions and responsa by northern French and German rabbinic scholars considered to be Tosafot—in terms of their method, mode of interpretation, and presentation—but even their commentaries to the Torah, to the prayers and to pzyyutim, and even their polemical confrontations with local Christians were composed according to this approach and method.”
As the studies of Avraham Grossman have amply demonstrated, on the other hand, quite a few German and northern French halakhists and talmudists who flourished during the pre-Crusade period were involved in the study of Scripture (mzqgra) that went well beyond the discussions and methods found within talmudic swgyot, and even included nascent forms of peshat interpretation.” Many pre-Crusade rabbinic scholars in Germany composed piyyutim, as did a number in northern France,” and several rabbinic scholars in both areas did piyyut commentary as well.*° Groups of rabbinic figures at the academy of Mainz in particular were familiar with aspects of torat ha-sod and Hekhalot literature,”' as were several of their northern French counterparts.”” Indeed, the intellectual biography of Rashi (d. 1105) includes many of these extra-talmudic disciplines, in addition to his extensive commentary on the Talmud and his halakhic responsa and decisions (pesagim).*’ To put it another way, there seem to be relatively few pre-Crusade rabbinic figures who did Talmud and halakhabh exclusively.”*
The intellectual biographies of two of the earliest leading northern French Tosafists, Rashbam (d. c. 1160) and his brother Rabbenu Tam (d. 1171), suggest that they sought to limit or shift the range of pre-Crusade disciplines. In addition to his talmudic interpretations, which are cited frequently in Tosafot texts and related literature (and are occasionally referred to as Tosafot Rabbenu Shmu’el), Rashbam also “fills in” rather extensively for Rashi’s commentary on Bava Batra (and elsewhere), and he perhaps composed a halakhic compendium as well.*’ In the realm of biblical interpretation, Rashbam authored an extensive commentary on the Torah and on a number of other biblical books, and a detailed grammatical work that supported his biblical exegesis.”
As perceptively noted by Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson more than a halfcentury ago,” Rashbam treats scriptural interpretation as a discipline quite distinct from his talmudic interpretations (in terms of both method and form), so much so that it remains unclear whether Rashbam’s preferred method of scriptural interpretation, ‘omeq peshuto shel miqra, was taught and discussed within Tosafist study halls or whether it was mainly the province of specialists or groups of ba‘alei migra known as “maskilim” (as opposed to ba‘alet talmud),as both Rashbam and R. Yosef Qara themselves seem to indicate.”* In a fairly lengthy passage in his Torah commentary, Rashbam writes that he interacted in a matter of scriptural interpretation with his “teachers [or colleagues] in Paris.” However, this discussion completely bypasses Rashbam’s own peshat interpretation of this verse, and deals only with midrashic texts (midreshet halakhah) and their interpretation. The discussion ends with Rashbam citing a similar interpretation of these Tannaitic midrashim by R. Qalonymus of Rome (who arrived at the academy of Worms c. 1080).” Similarly, in a second such passage, in which Rashbam responds to a question from Anjou that was posed /efi ha-peshat, the issue at hand concerned the structure and style of the Torah, and could easily have been of interest to rabbinic scholars in general, without any particular affinity with Rashbam’s narrower method of peshat. Indeed, the key prooftext cited by Rashbam in his response is a talmudic passage from tractate Rosh ha-Shanah.* Although Rashi (who interpreted virtually the entire Bible) had students such as Yosef Qara who worked primarily or largely in the area of scriptural interpretation,” Rashi himself had studied Scripture (including issues of peshuto shel migra) with his talmudic teacher at Mainz, R. Ya‘aqov b. Yaqar.” Moreover, since Rashi, in his commentary on the Bible, was also interested in presenting aggadah ha-meyashevet divret migra,” it is often instructive to compare the parallel scriptural interpretations given by Rashi within his talmudic commentaries to those found in his biblical commentaries. Within his talmudic comments Rashbam for the most part explains the Talmud’s midrashic interpretation of a verse without indicating his own very different peshat interpretation as it appears in his Torah commentary. On quite a few occasions, however, Rashbam will note the scriptural basis that allows for the talmudic understanding of a verse to diverge from its plain meaning.” He will also, on occasion, juxtapose peshat interpretations and rabbinic interpretations in his Torah commentary especially in halakhic contexts that are fundamentally at odds with each other, without privileging either.”
This broad range of sensibilities, together with the expansive, dialectical interpretations provided by Rashbam throughout his talmudic comments, represent, as Ben-Sasson had indicated, the antithesis of his scriptural comments, reflecting Rashbam’s conviction that true interpretations of Torah texts and ideas can be reached through rather diverse means and methods. Indeed, this is how Rashbam’s various programmatic statements or disclaimers ought to be understood: he lauds the halakhic, nonliteral approach of Hazal to the interpretation of Scripture as primary in importance even as he stresses that talmudic literature itself notes that 7m migra yoze midei peshuto.”
And yet, despite his conviction that truthful Torah study could be pursued over different genres using very different exegetical forms, Rashbam, in contrast to Rashi and to the rabbinic scholars of the pre-Crusade period as a whole, sought to limit the number of disciplines in which he was involved.** Rashbam informs his readers, in both his commentary to Oohelet and at the beginning of his Torah commentary, that it is best to step away from the bokhmah ha-amugah of torat ha-sod, especially as it is found in the areas of cosmogony and theosophy, and to concentrate instead only on more exoteric forms of study and wisdom, even as Rashbam was himself aware of an array of mystical teachings and texts and of the magical powers of Divine names.” Additionally, no pzyyutim (or commentaries thereupon) from Rashbam have survived, and it appears that he was uninvolved in this important pre-Crusade discipline.”
This kind of disciplinary concentration is also in evidence for Rabbenu Tam to an even greater extent. According to Rabbenu Tam’s well-known formulation, one fulfills the (talmudic) requirement of studying, in equal proportion, the distinct subject areas of Scripture, Mishnah, and Talmud through study of the Babylonian Talmud, since the Talmud is suffused with material from the other disciplines and its study thus entails the study of these other areas as well. Through this formulation, Rabbenu Tam is indicating here not only that study of the Talmud should predominate but also that the other bodies of sacred literature can and should be studied principally through the prism of talmudic literature and its analysis.’
Although Rabbenu Tam authored a commentary on the book of Job and a treatment of the philological interpretations of Menahem and Dunash (characterized in one manuscript as Hakhra‘ot),” the comments on various Torah and other biblical verses that are properly attributed to Rabbenu Tam are almost invariably a reflection of talmudic or midrashic literature rather than an attempt at independent peshat interpretation of the kind typically associated with the pashtanim of northern France.” Indeed, relatively few non-talmudic Torah comments from Rabbenu Tam are to be found.” Thus, R. Joseph Kimhi, the father of R. David Kimhi, writes that Rabbenu Tam “did not make an effort to penetrate [or to clarify] the depths of grammar and syntax ... and he did not occupy himself with Scripture [higgayon] because ‘it is a virtue and not a virtue” (as per Bava Megi‘a 33a).”° Unlike Rashbam, Rabbenu Tam did author a fair number of piyyutim,” although like Rashbam he also eschewed the study of torat ha-sod.”’ Indeed, it was perhaps in order to provide a vehicle for addressing issues of spirituality and Divine immanence without having to resort to esoteric interpretations that both Rashbam and Rabbenu Tam, like R. Yosef Qara and other students of Rashi, turned to composing interpretations on the Book of Job.” The brilliant dialectical method put forward by Rabbenu Tam on the basis of the entire talmudic corpus—particularly when viewed against the overarching legalistic trend of the twelfth century, in both Jewish and general society—comes to dominate talmudic studies in northern France. Moreover, Rabbenu Tam’s tendency (relative to the pre-Crusade period) to downplay other disciplines of study aside from the Talmud is also firmly entrenched among a number of his leading students, including R. Hayyim Kohen,” R. Eliezer of Metz,” and R. Moses of Pontoise,” as well as the lesserknown R. Isaac b. Barukh.” Among Rabbenu Tam’s German and Austrian students, R. Isaac b. Mordekhai (Ribam) of Bohemia, R. Isaac ha-Lavan, and R. Peter b. Joseph belong in this category as well.®
Rabbenu Tam’s greatest Tosafist associate and successor, his nephew R. Isaac b. Samuel (Ri) of Dampierre, had leanings toward sod and ascetic tendencies (perishut),“ and he composed a number of piyyutim as well,” although his output in the realm of talmudic interpretations and formulations dominates his literary productivity by far. Moreover, as is the case for Rabbenu Tam, there are few verified migra interpretations in the name of Ri that are not fundamentally talmudic or halakhic in nature.” Several of Ri’s students followed the talmudocentric pattern of Rabbenu Tam even more closely, producing just a smattering of pzyyut, sod, or biblical interpretations. These include, among others, R. Shimshon (Rash) mz-Shanz;” his brother, R. Isaac b. Abraham of Dampierre (Rizba);“ R. Barukh, author of Sefer ha-Terumah;” R. Solomon ha-Qadosh of Dreux;” R. Judah Sirleon;” and R. Joseph of Clisson.”
In Germany as well the earliest Tosafist, R. Isaac b. Asher ha-Levi (Riba, d. 1133), was involved almost exclusively in talmudic studies as far as we can tell.” To be sure, R. Eliezer b. Nathan of Mainz (Raban) composed quite a number of pzyyutim and an exoteric prayer commentary, in addition to his extensive talmudic interpretations and halakhic rulings. While this is perhaps at least partly due to his proximity to the pre-Crusade period, he nevertheless left no writings in sod or migra.” This pattern of disciplinary concentration extends to Raban’s well-known grandson Rabiah, who was also much less involved in pzyyut composition than his grandfather.”
R. Moses b. Solomon ha-Kohen of Mainz, a leading German judge and teacher of Rabiah, also studied with Rabbenu Tam and is an important conduit for bringing Rabbenu Tam’s talmudic material to Germany. He too did halakhic and talmudic studies exclusively,” as did Raban’s relative R. Ya‘avetz (= R. Isaac b. Eliezer ha-Lev7); his contemporary, R. Shemaryah b. Mordekhai of Speyer;” his son-in-law, R. Samuel b. Natronai (d. c. 1180); and R. Moses b. Yo’el of Regensburg.” This group of German rabbinic figures from the twelfth through early thirteenth centuries provides further support for the regnant impression that the Tosafists were exclusively talmudists, who engaged little if at all in other disciplines.
Only one or two German Tosafists during this period (aside from Raban with respect to pzyyut) appear to have had broader scholarly interests. Rabiah’s contemporary, R. Simhah of Speyer (d. c. 1230), commented on a particularly wide range of rabbinic texts, and was involved with pietistic, mystical, and magical practices and teachings, and also composed three noteworthy se/ihot. The careful attention paid by R. Simhah to works of Tannaitic literature, such as the Sifra and other midrashet halakhah, and to related works associated with the talmudic order of Qodashim, may well reflect his association with Hastdet Ashkenaz, as do his interests in hasidut and torat ha-sod.”
Indeed, R. Simhah’s Tosafist predecessor in Speyer, R. Judah b. Qalonymus (Rivaq) b. Meir (d. c. 1198), was a member of the core Qalonymide family of the German Pietists, and interacted directly in matters of torat hasod with R. Judah he-Hasid, who left his native Speyer for Regensburg only c. 1195." R. Judah he-Hasid’s varied interests are well known, and we shall have the opportunity below (in chapter 3) to carefully examine his peshatlike comments on the Torah in particular. His father, R. Samuel be-Hasid of Speyer (b. 1115), appears to be the earliest of the relatively few rabbinic figures in Germany during the twelfth century to engage in a wide range of disciplines beyond talmudic studies, including mgra, piyyut composition and commentary, and mudrash (as a distinct genre), as well as torat ha-sod that included forms of mysticism and magic, gematriyyot, and remazim.”' As we shall see throughout this study, several Tosafists who were associated with study halls in northern France displayed strong interests in some of these same areas toward the end of the twelfth century, well before any German Tosafists who were unassociated with either the German Pietists or the school at Speyer began to do so.
Clearly, however, the study of Talmud and the derivation of halakhah on the basis of this study were the main pursuits of Tosafists and other leading rabbinic figures in both northern France and Germany during the twelfth century and beyond. The centrality of these disciplines for these leading rabbinic scholars was undoubtedly established, at least in part, on the basis of the aforementioned talmudic dictum in Bava Mezia@ 33a: X1PNI Ppowsa 1 72173 770 J? PR wa. Dw Poy pour Aw Awna 77 APRw) nM. The Tosaf ists were apparently aware of others in their day who were considered to be Ba‘alet Migra or Ba‘alei Mishnah, and they recognized and ratified the legitimacy of these pursuits as the study of Torah. At the same time, however, they certainly saw and considered themselves as primarily Ba‘alei Talmud.”
Thus in systematically laying out and characterizing the Tosafist oeuvre for the first time, E. E. Urbach was more than justified in putting forward the talmudic and halakhic achievements of the Tosafists, and in downplaying their involvement in other areas and disciplines. At this point in time, however, manuscript evidence, along with a more sophisticated mapping and reading of both these and published texts, will demonstrate that both the level and extent of Tosafist involvement in other disciplines are such that we can no longer afford to regard them solely as an outgrowth or subfield of Tosafist talmudism as Urbach did, or as a minor portion of Tosafist endeavors more generally. In addition to presenting the manuscript data and revised analytical conclusions for the various disciplines, we must address more fully both the longitudinal and latitudinal issues and distinctions that have been raised here.
There is also a need to address more effectively the distinction between the first-level rabbinic elite in Ashkenaz, whose major concentration was in talmudic or halakhic studies but who may have also exhibited strong interests in other areas as well, and the secondary elite, who were specialists in biblical or pzyyut interpretation, or in grammatical or mystical studies, but whose involvement or productivity in talmudic and halakhic studies cannot be demonstrated.** As noted in the preface, one of the character-istics and legacies of the so-called Golden Age of Spain (and afterward in Provence as well) is that biblical exegetes, philosophers, and poets who were undistinguished as talmudists or halakhists nonetheless occupied significant places in the intellectual history of Spanish and Provencal Jewry, alongside leading talmudists. Moshe Idel has cogently suggested that firstlevel kabbalists should be typified by rabbinic figures such as Ramban and Rashba, who were leading talmudists as well as mystics, in contradistinction to members of the second-level elite, who only put forward important teachings or composed treatises in the realm of kabbalah.** Given the centrality of talmudism in medieval Ashkenaz, which rendered the Tosafists and their associates dominant, such a conception or schema may be important for Ashkenaz as well.
Nonetheless, it is not always clear who should be included within Tosaf ist circles, as the following examples demonstrate. Two of the most important pzyyut commentators in Ashkenaz during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, as identified and described by Urbach in his work on Ashkenazic piyyut commentary,” are barely discussed by him in his Ba‘alez ha-Tosafot.
One of these figures is R. Abraham b. Azriel of Bohemia, the author of ‘Arugat ha-Bosem.* The nontreatment of R. Abraham b. Azri’el in Ba‘alet haTosafot is perhaps justified, however, since he does not seem to have played any role in shaping the Tosafot or related literature, even as Urbach characterizes him as a rosh yeshivah who studied with Tosafists in Regensburg and Wurzburg, issued halakhic rulings together with other Tosafists, and is referred to by R. Isaac b. Moses Or Zaru‘a as his teacher (or senior colleague).”’ Itis more difficult, however, to imagine that R. Ephraim b. Jacob of Bonn (d. 1197)—who in addition to studying and interacting with Tosafists and other Ashkenazic rabbinic figures was a member (and ultimately head) of the prestigious rabbinic court in Mainz (following R. Yo’el ha-Levi of Bonn), and authored pisqet halakhah, hiddushim, responsa, and glosses to the Talmud Yerushalmi, in addition to his many pryyutim and extensive ptyyut commentary”—should merit only three references in Urbach’s Ba‘alei ha-Tosafot, none of them in connection with talmudic studies or halakhah.”
It is possible that Urbach minimized his treatment of R. Ephraim of Bonn and R. Abraham Azriel in the original edition of Ba‘alei ha-Tosafot (1955) because he knew that he would be treating them more fully in the introductory volume of ‘Arugat ha-Bosem that appeared in 1963. Nonetheless, this literary separation tends to sustain the misleading impression that leading payyetanim or piyyut commentators in Ashkenaz were not necessarily significant talmudists or halakhists. Similarly, there are only two passing references in Ba‘alei ha-Tosafot to R. Menahem b. Jacob of Worms (d. 1203), a venerable talmudist and rabbinic judge, and a prolific payyetan.” Indeed, the only pzyyut author and commentator who occupies a prominent place in both Arugat ha-Bosem and Ba‘alei ha-Tosafot is R. Eliezer b. Nathan (Raban) of Mainz.”' To be sure, Raban was a towering figure in all of these areas, but he is far from the only Ashkenazic rabbinic scholar and jurist in his day to be involved in several Torah disciplines at the highest levels, as we shall see in the chapters that follow.
Multiple Truths and Interpretations
As an ideological prolegomenon to this book, which seeks to trace the various disciplines that were pursued by Ashkenazic rabbinic scholarship in addition to Talmud and halakhah, and bearing in mind the example of Rashbam discussed above, we should take note of the degree to which the rabbinic elite in medieval Ashkenaz believed in and pursued the possibility of multiple truths in Torah study, whether they were engaged in a range of Torah disciplines or not. In a well-known passage in his commentary to Eruvin (13b), R. Yom Tov b. Abraham al-Ishvilli (Ritva, d.c. 1325) interprets the talmudic phrase used to characterize the halakhic debates of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, “these and those are the words of the Living God” (elu ve-elu divrei E-lohim hayyim), by citing a discussion of northern French rabbinic scholars. “The rabbis of northern France asked, how is it possible that both [views] are the words of the Living God, since one prohibits and one permits? They answered that when Moses ascended to the heavens to receive the Torah, he was shown for every [halakhic] aspect [of the Torah] forty-nine ways to prohibit and forty-nine ways to permit. Moses queried the Almighty about this, and He indicated that this [the final halakhic jurisdiction] was given to the scholars of Israel in every generation and the decision would be theirs” Ritva concludes by noting that while this is the proper exoteric rabbinic interpretation (”akhon hu lefi ha-derash), an esoteric understanding of this concept is to be found within mystical teachings (uve-derekh ha-emet, yesh ta‘am sod ba-davar).””
The discussion cited by Ritva appears in fact in Tosafot Rabbenu Perez to ‘Eruvin.” Indeed, the Tosafist R. Perez b. Elijah of Corbeil (d. 1298) notes that this interpretation is to be found within the earlier Tosafot of his teacher, R. Yehi’el b. Joseph of Paris, who had located it in an unnamed midrash. The most likely source for R. Yehi’el’s interpretation is a passage in Midrash Shoher Tov to Psalms 12:7 (“the expressions of the Almighty are exceedingly pure expressions”), in which early Palestinian Amoraim describe how even youngsters in the days of David and Saul and Samuel could present forty-nine different analyses of whether a substance was ritually pure or impure, and that this ability was retained by the Tannaim R. Meir and Somkhus (Symmachus) b. Joseph.”
The Talmud in the aforementioned passage (‘Eruvin 13b), just prior to its characterization of the arguments of Bezt Shammai and Beit Hillel, makes similar statements about R. Meir and Somkhus. R. Yehi’el of Paris was suggesting that the concept of more than one legitimate halakhic truth that is implicit in the conflicts between Beit Shammat and Beit Hillel may best be understood against the even larger number of halakhic truths that were established at Sinai, a backdrop to which the talmudic swgya itself alludes.”
The singular extent to which these thirteenth-century Tosafists sought to affirm the possibility and legitimacy of multiple truths through Torah study and to stress the need to pursue these truths had recognizable antecedents in medieval Ashkenaz.” An Ashkenazic chronicle of the late thirteenth century attributes to either R. Simeon b. Isaac ha-Gadol, a leading talmudist and mystical adept (and member of the pious Abun family) active in Mainz circa 1000, or perhaps to R. Abun himself, the ability to interpret each letter of the Torah in forty-nine ways. This attribution is clearly modeled after the forty-nine aspects or channels that were operant at the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, using mystical methodology.”
The forty-nine “faces” of Torah interpretation (mem-tet panim shehaTorah nidreshet bahem) are representative of the way that the Jews received the truth of the Torah at Sinai, and concomitantly, of the varied ways by which they would be able to interpret the halakhic possibilities and truths of the Torah. They are also mentioned in a Tosafist Torah commentary as ameans of explaining the Torah’s characterization (in Lev. 23:15-16) of the festival of Shavuot as occurring at the juncture of both the counting of seven full weeks (sheva shabbatot temimot = 49 days) as well as at the counting of fifty days (tesperu hamishim yom). The Torah, which represents the full fifty levels of Divine wisdom (dinah), was given to Moses on behalf of the Jewish people, who stood just below the Divine realm with only one possible level of interpretation removed, as per Psalms 8:6,“You diminished him just a bit from the Divine?”* A passage found within collections of Ashkenazic pzyyut commentaries, whose authors range from the late eleventh through the late twelfth century, interprets a gerovah by R. Eleazar Qallir for parashat Parah according to this notion as well.”
Although there are quite a number of Tosafists who were familiar with various kinds of mystical views (as we shall see in chapter 6), the notion that a legitimately received or derived Torah interpretation or rabbinic teaching represents one truth out of many possible ones is at the same time a fundamentally exoteric dimension of the precept of Torah study in Tosaf ist thought, and constitutes a cornerstone of Tosafist analysis and intellectual endeavor. The Tosafot commentary to tractate ‘Eduyyot (1:5), attributed to R.Samson of Sens, refers to the notion of an open-ended revelation in explaining the Mishnaic convention of citing the minority view in many disputes. Although the law is usually decided according to the majority, a subsequent court could decide to rule according to the minority view. Despite the fact that a majority had not concurred with this view originally, when another generation arrives and the majority [at that time] accepts this view, the law will be established according to them. For the entirety of the Torah was given to Moses, including [all] the reasons (panim) to render impure [= to prohibit], as well as all the reasons to render pure [= to permit]. And they asked him, at some point will we be able to clarify [and then decide] between the various possibilities? He responded that although the majority [in each generation] must be followed, ‘these and those are the words of the Living God.”
This passage would appear to adumbrate the Tosafist texts cited by Ritva and discussed above, although its attribution to R. Samson of Sens is far from certain.'”° Nonetheless, a similar point is made in a confirmed formulation by R. Samson, found in his somewhat polemical response to R. Meir ha-Levi Abulafia (Ramah) of Toledo during the early phase of the Maimonidean controversy. R. Samson writes: “The Mishnah, Talmud, Sifra, Sifrei, and Tosefta did not transmit to subsequent scholars final legal decisions (pisqet halakhot). Rather, they included the views of those who rendered pure and impure, those who prohibited and permitted. Since the reason for these and those were all given by the one shepherd (me-roeh ‘ehad), one who ponders them is rewarded for [the study of] all of them. Moreover, a later scholar can sometimes see what was hidden to an earlier scholar ... for a student can see what his teacher did not see. He can sometimes sharpen (or outsmart) his teacher [mahkim ‘et rabbo], and focus his teaching [u-mekhaven et shemu‘ato|?''
This formulation by R. Samson clearly accords with the possibility of multiple truths in Torah study, and the need to actively pursue those truths. Indeed, Rashi, in his talmudic commentary to tractate to Hullin, explains that the Talmud inquires about the halakhic propriety of an act that took place during the initial conquest of the land of Israel, even though no practical halakhic implications for any future event can emerge from this inquiry, simply because we are always bidden to seek the truth (or true knowledge):naxa 2y Tay? IN DW NIT DW 2apr WIT ,Way 7aDw D“yNI.' An unusual talmudic interpretation by Rabbenu Tam goes so far as to suggest that even if two Torah scholars are arguing with each other (shnez talmidet hakhamim ha-madgilim zeh la-zeh) in \ess than constructive terms, and, as a result, may not arrive at the essential truths of the subject under study, the Almighty nonetheless loves them. Rabbenu Tam’s presumption in suggesting this interpretation is that discovering the truth of Torah is the principal goal of study and is eminently within reach, at least for those who are considered talmidet hakhamim.'”
It is suggestive that the biblical prooftext adduced by the Talmud in tractate Shabbat for the concept found at the core of Rabbenu Tam’s interpretation—that there is Divine love even for two contentious scholars—comes from Song of Songs 2:4: “He brought me to the banquet hall and he marked me with his love ("298 *y 17271)” Several medieval Ashkenazic texts (following a passage in Talmud Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2) point out that the gematria value of ve-diglo equals forty-nine, corresponding to the notion that the Torah may be interpreted in forty-nine different and truthful ways.’
Israel Ta-Shma has noted that the main goal of talmudic interpretation in Western Europe during the High Middle Ages was to seek a kind of enhanced peshat that pursued the halakhic ramifications of the talmudic sugya well beyond its simple meaning. Moreover, in the medieval Jewish mindset in general, and especially within medieval Ashkenaz, peshat, derash, remez (and perhaps even sod) were equally valid ways of ascertaining and presenting the truths of the Torah, given the possibility of multiple interpretations and exegesis inherent within the Torah itself. As opposed to the methods or rules of modern interpretation, Ashkenazic rabbinic scholars believed that the truth could be revealed quite effectively by non-peshat approaches as well."
Thus Rashbam and others could engage in “enlightened” peshat and other critical forms of biblical interpretation while maintaining their roles as leading Tosafists and talmudists, just as other Ashkenazic talmudists could be involved at the same time in the study of mysticism or pzyyut.'** Sara Japhet has identified the essence of Rashbam’s interpretational strategy in his biblical commentaries as achieving “complete freedom from the [existing] exegetical traditions ...with full allegiance to context and the interpretation of the [biblical] word based on its grammatical origins and parallel usages” Moreover, “each biblical text has only one peshat. The text may be considered from different perspectives and angles, but the final result must be a single and unified interpretation (perush ahid ume-ubad) that is the ‘truth of its simple meaning’ (amitat peshuto). Therefore, multiple interpretations to one topic are not found in Rashbam’s [biblical] compositions, and formulations such as davar aber, ‘inyan ‘aber, or perush ‘aber are completely absent from his commentaries” Japhet goes on to note that although Rashi also limits the number of exegetical possibilities in his biblical commentaries, certainly as compared to the variety of different interpretations presented by midrashic texts, he, unlike Rashbam, believes in the multi-meanings of the biblical text. This approach also characterizes the commentary of R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, as we shall see. According to Japhet, Rashbam, in contrast, believes in the uni-meaning of the biblical text as a fundamental property of peshat.'”
Although this assessment may perhaps be correct with respect to Rashbam’s biblical commentaries, it does not hold true for Rashbam’s other interpretational activities, such as his talmudic commentaries and Tosafot formulations, even where these commentaries deal with biblical verses.'™ Thus, for example, a talmudic passage in Bava Batra suggests that the term moshlim in Numbers 21:27 refers to those who can control or rule over their own inclinations (moshlim be-yizram). Rashbam comments here that according to the pashteh di-gera (the simple, contextual meaning of the verse), this term refers to Bil‘am and his prophetic colleagues who were able to control or channel their prophecies. At this point, however, the information this verse imparts in retrospect was no longer especially vital, and the verse becomes somewhat superfluous (PX)... 77 ANDY PAS TT A API TWA AN anv pry). Nonetheless, Moses included it in the Torah so that it could serve the talmudic derashah (1379 awa Tand AwIT? 4D97).'”
Indeed, even R. Judah he-Hasid, whose full corpus of biblical interpretations takes a variety of approaches and forms ranging from peshat to sod, was not above suggesting both a notariqon and an at-bash methodology to clarify points of interpretation within Rashi’s Torah commentary.'” The availability of this kind of interpretational freedom and variety also allowed Hasidei Ashkenaz to be comfortable with Ibn Ezra’s stipulation of verses that may have been added to the Torah after the revelation at Sinai,'"’ and for a number of Ashkenazic exegetes to espouse theories of biblical redaction.'”
A broad-based search for truth and knowledge was underway in medieval Europe during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in precisely the same geographic area in which the Tosafists of northern France flourished. Stephen Ferruolo has argued that the various masters and faculties of the cathedral schools in Paris, and the diverse and sometimes antagonistic disciplines they represented, came together by the early thirteenth century to form the nascent university at Paris in order to “advance their mutual search for wisdom and truth” on the basis of common intellectual methods and aims. Many of these masters had come to Paris in the last quarter of the twelfth century from other leading cathedral schools, such as those at Chartres, Laon, and Rheims. These scholars came together ultimately because they believed that the pursuit of all possible forms and levels of truth was best undertaken from the vantage point of multiple disciplinary perspectives.''* There may have been issues of professionalism and autonomy at stake for these masters that contributed to their amalgamation of several approaches which were not applicable to the Tosafists and to their study halls.'"* Nonetheless, the desire to seek truth along multiple lines, in a collaborative fashion that would help to eliminate mistakes, diminish the possibility of weak reasoning, and allow for the probing of available texts and sources, appears to have been a common goal of both the rabbinic scholars of northern France and their Christian counterparts in the cathedral schools and universities.
To be sure, Israel Ta-Shma has suggested that these developments may have been somewhat different in Germany, where the formation of the universities did not occur until the mid-fourteenth century. Indeed, the subtle differences between the nature of talmudic dialectic and its application by rabbinic scholars in northern France and those in Germany may well have been related, at least in part, to this distinction.’ Nonetheless, a fundamental aim of dialectic, as practiced by both Tosafists and Christian scholars during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, was to reach conclusions that were carefully tested, broad-based, and unequivocal. Dialectic was meant to minimize the possibility of error.'”°
Although there was no shortage of penetrating biblical peshat interpretations and talmudic dialectic to be found within medieval Ashkenaz, this book will argue that other significant methods and interpretative techniques were also employed (by the same rabbinic figures). Intellectual wellroundedness is a function of the pursuit of truth, and many Ashkenazic rabbinic scholars believed that truth could best be achieved if it was pursued along multiple interpretive and disciplinary paths. We should not be surprised to learn that some of the Tosafists were involved in quite a number of varied disciplines in addition to their talmudic and halakhic studies, much of which has received scant attention in modern scholarship. These include sustained biblical interpretation beyond the (well-known) peshat school of the twelfth century, the writing of pzyyut as well as pyyut commentary, a range of esoteric studies, as well as focused inquiries into matters of faith and belief.
Just as the truth of the Torah is manifest in multiple halakhic interpretations, so can it also be manifest in multiple disciplines or approaches to Torah study and thought. Thus although the Tosafists and other Hakhmei Ashkenaz were axiomatically and fundamentally talmudocentric, and the leadership of the Tosafist study halls was entrusted to those rabbinic scholars whose greatest strength was in the area of talmudic studies, many of these scholars were deeply involved with other disciplines as well, as they searched for the truths of the Torah and the Jewish legal tradition. In short, Ashkenazic authors preferred not to confine themselves to a single, simple, true Torah interpretation that was based on a lone text or approach. Rather, they believed in pursuing a multitude of approaches and disciplines, and in multiple “interpretational voices” within a particular text.'””
Chapter 1 will focus more comprehensively on the differences between northern France and Germany with respect to talmudic and halakhic studies, and on the possible impact of Christian learning on talmudic studies in medieval Ashkenaz. These important “longitudinal” issues will also help set the stage for the comparison across disciplines to follow in the subsequent chapters. The ability to compare and to distinguish within the corpus of talmudic literature, and thereby to expand and correctly identify new halakhic results, formed the intellectual base of all Tosafist talmudic studies. The assumption of the Tosafists was that the Oral Law allowed for such hiddushim—that is, to identify “new” halakhah that was not found so overtly in the Talmud, through close readings and the application of dialectics.'"* As we shall see, this assumption also stood at the heart of the intellectual freedom that came to typify rabbinic scholarship and culture in medieval Ashkenaz.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق