![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ymarkovAn excerpt from a paper entitled "Mishneh Torah in Medieval Ashkenaz", in "Be'erot Yitzhak" (a memorial volume published by the talmidim and friends of the late Talner Rebbe, R' Yitzhak Twersky), by Dr. Jeffrey Woolf of Bar-Ilan University.
——————————————————————
Some, such as Avraham Grossman, have highlighted the absence of sources from the MT as a major cause of Ashkenazic discomfort therewith. 23 In addition, in the wake of the Maimonidean Controversy of the early 1230s, in which Sefer Ha-Madda and the Guide of the Perplexed wert. placed under the ban by a group of French sages,24 objection to the work was intensified by rejection of its philosophic tenor and content, especially as it related to the allegorization of aggadot.25 In addition, lack of enthusiasm for the MT may equally have been due to the latter’s claim to represent the authoritative presentation of the Oral Law.26 This claim to universal unilateral authority violated the democratic, decentralized nature of rabbinic authority and mode of study in Ashkenaz.27
To these explanations one should add another. As has been widely noted, it appears from Rambam’s various programmatic statements that his goal in writing the MT was not only to collect data, but rather to establish unitary, legal truth. Maimonides abhorred controversy, if only on the philosophical grounds that since Truth is by definition unitary, the maintaining of differing opinions is undesirable, if not outright blasphemous.28
Hence, the goal that Rambam set for himself in casting the MT as an authoritative, often apodictic, code was to advance the establishment of unassailable, universally accepted legal truth, as well as unity of Jewish practice and observance. Indeed, it is this search for unity that, I would suggest, is the most significant implication of Rambam’s assertion that alongside the Bible and the MT “one will have need for no other book.”29 Such a quest for universal halakhic truth was totally foreign to the Ashkenazic Weltanschauung. The scholars of medieval Franco-Germany moved comfortably in a world of multiple interpretations, rulings, and opinions. Controversy was not deemed by them to be a sign of intellectual lassitude, to be tolerated begrudgingly. The revival of the dialectical method by R. Jacob Tam and his disciples had created an ever-expanding universe of halakhic discourse, one to which the possibility of finality was ultimately foreign.30
This point is beautifully expressed by a comment preserved in the writings of the thirteenth-century French scholar, R. Peretz of Corbeille. R. Peretz, who flourished toward the second half of the thirteenth century, was viewed by posterity as the quintessential representative of the French halakhic tradition.31 Commenting on the talmudic dictum that “Both of these are the words of the Living God,”32 R. Peretz writes:
How is it possible that both should be the words of the Living God, when this one prohibits what the other permits? And they explained, that when Moses ascended on high to receive the Torah, they showed him that on every issue there were forty-nine sides favoring a prohibition and forty- nine sides favoring permission. And when he [i.e., Moses] asked the Holy One, blessed be He, regarding this, He replied that the matter will be entrusted to the sages of
Those whose outlook found expression in words such as these would have turned a jaundiced eye to Rambam’s striving for finality and finitude. Furthermore, along similar lines, it may well be that the Tosafists found the MT somewhat irrelevant. The dramatic expansion of the horizons of Jewish Law, which was the hallmark of the Tosafist Revolution, yielded a much richer literary harvest than that presented by the MT. In a word, it may be maintained that, in the eyes of the rabbis of Franco-Germany, two of the MT’s key achievements, finality and comprehensiveness, were neither desired nor required in the Ashkenazic world.34 Hence, while the MT surely piqued scholarly interest and certainly commanded tremendous respect, it is not surprising that it was cited en circonstance and then only as one (albeit weighty) opinion among several. This last point may be born out by examining not only where the MT is cited, but also how it was cited and used.
As noted above, instances of citation of the MTby Ashkenazic scholars are extremely rare prior to the middle of the thirteenth century.35 This pattern, however, changed toward mid-century. Prominent scholars such as R. Isaac b. Moshe of Vienna, his son R. Hayyim Or Zaru’a, R. Moses of Coucy, and above all R. Meir of Rothenberg, began to cite the MT to a degree far and away greater than any of their predecessors.36 This development is significant in its own right, and stands as testimony to the strengthened ties that connected Franco-Germany with the centers of rabbinic scholarship in Provence and Christian Spain.37
23. Grossman, “Me-Andalusia,” 124—25. Most discussions of this point have focused upon R. Moses of Coucy (see below). However, Grossman notes that it already appears in the reply sent by RaSh to Ramah (Kitab al-Rasa’il, 131—32).
24. As reported by Nahmanides in Terem E’eneh, 338. See also Y. Shatzmiller, “LeTemunat ha-Mahloqet ha-Rishona at Kitve ha-Rambam,”
25. Grossman,ibid. SeeHil. Yesode ha-Torah 1:9—11;2:4,12,6:3;Hil. Teshubah8:4—5 (and RaBaD’s gloss, ad toe.); and Hit. Melakhim 12:1.
26. See Maimonides’ famous declaration in his introduction to the MT: “Hence, I have entitled this work Mishneh Torah, for the reason that a person who first reads the Written Law and then this compilation will know from it the whole of the Oral Law, without having to consult any other book between them.” Regarding Rambam’s desire for legal finality, see Twersky, “Non-Halakhic Aspects,” 106—11; idem, Introduction to the Code, 121—33 and Woolf, “Reflections,” 125—31.
27. Ta-Shma, “Qelitatam,” 197. Ta-Shma is referring to Ashkenazic reticence regarding the Halakhot of RiF. However, in light of the similarity between
28. Two key statements on the subject may be found in Guide 1,71 and in “Haqdamah le-Ferush ha-Mishnah,” in Haqdamot Ha-Rambam la-Mishnah, ed. Y. Shailat (Ma’aleh Adumim, 1997), 40—41. In maintaining this position on the nature of legal truth, Maimonides reflects the Babylonian-Andalusian tradition. See I. Ta-Shma, “The Law is in Accord with the Later Authority—Hilkhata ke-Batrai: Historical Observations on a Legal Rule,” in Authority, Process and Method: Studies in Jewish Law, ed. H. Ben-Menahem and N. Hecht (
29. Introduction to the MT. This was a goal that even the great sage of Fostat could not achieve. As Professor Twersky (Introduction, 121—33) documented, the MT is riddled with multiple opinions, divergent customs, and moot points of law. Cf., e.g., Hil. Berakhot 8:5 and 14; Hil. Shabbat 29:14 and Hil. Gerushin 3:8.
30. It is my conviction that this trait is an essential characteristic of the Ashkenaz legal tradition from the early Middle Ages until the present day. However, for the present purpose its appropriateness vis-à-vis the Tosafists will suffice.
31. See Urbach, Ba’ale ha-Tosafot, 571—85 and Woolf, The Life and Responsa of R. Joseph b. Solomon Colon Trabotto (Maharik) (Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1991), 30 and 94—95.
32. BT ‘Erubin 13b. R. Peretz’ comments are best known through Ifiddushe HaRitba, ad bc., s.v. elu va-elu. See also A. Sagi, Elu va-Elu: Mashma’uto shel ha-Si’ah ha-Hilkhati: Iyyun be-S f rut Yisrael (Tel-Aviv, 1996); J. Woolf, “Samkhut u-Khefifut ba-Pesiqah haAshkenazit be-Sheihe Yeme ha-B enayim,” in Beyn Samkhut Ic-A utonomia be-Massoret Yisrael, ed. Z. Safrai and A, Sagi (Tel Aviv, 1997), 292—93; Y. Silman, Qol Gadol yeLo Yasaf Torat Yisrael Beyn Shlemut le-Hishtalmut (
33. His comment is based upon a passage in Midrash Tehillim (12,4).
34. See H. Soloveitchik, “Rabad of Posquieres: A Programmatic Essay,” in Studies in the History of Jewish Society in the Middle Ages and in the Modern Period Presented to Professor Jacob Katz, ed. E. Etkes et al. (
35. Grossman, “Me-Andalusia,” 24—25.
36. Ibid., 26—27.
37. On the development of these connections, see A. Grossman, “Bryn Sefarad le-Zarefat: ha-Qesharim Beyn Qehillot Yisrael she-be-S efarad ha-Muslimit u-Veyn Qehillot Zarefat,” in Galut Aar Golah: Sefer ha-Yovel le-Professor Hayyim Beinart, ed. A. Mirsky et al. (
