 |
| 12th-century Tosafist Rabbeinu Yosef Bechor Shor of Orleans, Northern France. |
INTRODUCTION:
In this article, we will look at some Tosafist rabbis
who stood out from their colleagues as being exceptions because they refused to
believe that G-d has a body!
I draw, once again, from the scholarly research of Rabbi
Professor Ephraim Kanarfogel[1],
who has shown how the Tosafist rabbis - who lived in Northern France and
Germany between the 12th and 13th centuries[2]
- were largely mystics and were heavily influenced by the German pietists known
as the Chasidei Ashkenaz.
THE MYSTICAL TOSAFISTS:
Already
from around the late 1100s, the Chassidei Ashkenaz were
reviving an older form of mystical literature known as Heichalot literature[3]
which flourished in the post-Talmudic period.
This
mystical literature, according to Professor Kanarfogel, preceded the appearance
of works like the Zohar and Bahir and was not
yet familiar with the system of the Ten Sefirot.
There
were a number of Tosafists who got involved with this theurgical[4]
(magical) system of Kabbalah and used Divine and angelic names in
an attempt to achieve higher spiritual states and manipulate certain outcomes.
Many Ba’alei
haTosafot got involved in what Professor Kanarfogel refers to as ‘white
magic’.
This
revelation is quite astonishing as the Tosafists were generally regarded
as the more sober and legally precise of the Talmudic analysts and commentators,
and are not usually associated with this type of mysticism. [For more, see here and Mystical Forays of the
Tosafists.]
THE
ANTHROPOMORPHISM OF THE TOSAFISTS:
Perhaps more
surprisingly, the Tosafists indulged extensively in anthropomorphism.
This means that they attributed some type of form or shape to G-d. Put
differently, they were corporealists who believed that G-d has a body. [See The Notion that G-d has a
Body – In Early and Modern Rabbinic Writing.]
THE NON-ANTHROPOMORPHISM
OF RAMBAM:
As to be
expected, it was Rambam (1135-1204) who severely countered this belief of many of the Tosafists that G-d has a body. According
to Rambam, G-d could only be perceived in the mind and imagination
of the beholder, but He could never manifest in any physical form.
Rambam
maintained similar views with regard to the Angels, which also could only be
perceived in the mind or in a dream or vision but not in reality. [See Angels in Rabbinic
Literature.]
Interestingly,
no one is quite sure where to position Rashi in the spectrum of debate between
corporealism and non-corporealism.
On the other
hand, Rabbi Avraham ben David or Raavad (1125-1198), was a famous Talmudic
commentator and father of Kabbalah[5] who frequently argued with Rambam. He clearly disagreed
with Rambam’s position that believing in a form of corporeality was against the
Torah, because ‘many people even greater and better than Rambam’
did espouse of some form of corporeality.[6]
Although Rambam
lived (in Egypt[7]) during the period of the Tosafists,
it took some time for Rambam’s rationalist writings to penetrate the region of
Northern France and Germany where the Tosafists lived. And when his
views were eventually known by the Tosafists, they were largely met with
fierce theological hostility.
EXCEPTIONS
AMONG THE TOSAFISTS:
However,
although Rambam and the Tosafists often crossed swords, R. Kanarfogel
points out that:
“...contrary to some of the assumptions...a number of
Tosafists...in northern Europe during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries plainly
assert that the Divine presence cannot be characterized or defined through
anthropomorphic terms of physical dimensions.”
R. YOSEF
BECHOR SHOR:
One such
exception was the northern French Tosafist (who studied with Rashi’s
grandson Rabbeinu Tam) namely, R. Yosef ben Yitzchak of Orleans (d. 1171).
Besides his
valuable computations regarding the Jewish calendar, he wrote many Selichot,
and also a commentary on the Torah according to the peshat (plain,
literal and non-Midrashic interpretation) under the name Yosef Bechor
Shor.
R. Yosef Bechor
Shor begins his commentary on Genesis 1:26:
“Let us make man in our image and form.”
To which he
comments:
“This [verse] does not mean that these [G-d and man] actually
have a comparable physical image, for no physical conception or image can be
attributed to the One above.”
This simple and
rather benign interpretation or commentary, which wouldn’t really attract our
attention if read today, would have been taken as somewhat subversive during
his time and in his place.
Although a peshatist
or literalist, he interprets all the various scriptural references to G-d
having eyes and hands etc., as a means of expressing lofty concepts to the average
man in a way that he can understand and relate to. He refers to the prophet
Ezekiel’s visions, where G-d and other heavenly figures appeared, as occurring
only within the ‘prophet’s mind’ and not as appearing in reality.
He continues
that the same may also be said also for the Talmudic sages who, according to
the Talmud, recorded how G-d and the angels appeared to them.
WAS YOSEF
BECHOR SHOR ACQUAINTED WITH RAMBAM?
On reading Yosef
Bechor Shor’s commentary it is very tempting to think that he may have been
acquainted with the writings of Rambam. Although they lived at the same time
and although it is possible that Rambam’s writings may have penetrated from
Egypt to Northern France before R. Yosef died[8],
Kanarfogel suggests that this is highly unlikely. Instead, Kanarfogel
understands Yosef Bechor Shor to be:
“a clear-thinking rabbinic scholar who had to confront the
vexing but obvious dilemma...How can God, who is essentially non-corporeal,
appear to man in seemingly human form?”
Furthermore, he
points out that R. Yosef Bechor Shor’s commentary on Genesis “is not
expressed in authentic philosophical terms”, as perhaps one would expect
from a Maimonidean student or reader.
If Kanarfogel is
correct, it is astounding how Yosef Bechor Shor intrinsically and naturally
came up with so many other rationalist ideas which also correspond to Rambam.
These include
Yosef Bechor Shor’s view on the sacrifices, which also happen correspond with
Rambam’s view that they were granted to a people who had just emerged from
idolatrous practices and were familiar with a primitive system of sacrifices,
as a type of temporary concession - until they advanced intellectually, weaned
themselves off the practice, and developed a more ethereal form of
communicating with G-d. [See Outspoken Rabbinical Views Claiming
that the Torah Recorded Superstitions of its Day.]
Similarly, Yosef
Bechor Shor held a belief consistent with Rambam that many details of Kashrut
were incorporated into the Law for hygienic reasons.[9]
SUPPORTERS OF
RAMBAM’S VIEWS:
Whichever way
one chooses to explain the similarities between the Yosef Bechor Shor and
Rambam - Yosef Bechor Shor appears to have been an exception among the Tosafists
who generally were mystics who took Midrashim and anthropomorphisms
quite literally.
This is borne
out by a statement (in a letter) of R. Shmuel ben Mordechai of Marseilles, a
scholar from Provence (Southern France) and a great supporter of Rambam during
the Maimonidean Controversies, who wrote quite tellingly:
“[T]he majority of the rabbinic scholars in northern France
[accept] anthropomorphism.”[10]
Lest one be
suspicious of this letter from a supporter of Rambam - in another letter from a
mystic and opponent of Rambam, the Ramban (Nachmanides, 1194-1270) to the
rabbis of Northern France (around 1232) - he mentions that the Tosafists insisted
that Rambam was mistaken in believing that G-d has no shape or form.[11]
MORE TOSAFIST EXCEPTIONS:
a) Rashbam.
d) R. Avraham ben Azriel of
Bohemia[14]
and his Arugat haBosem.
e) R. Isaiah di Trani[15]
(or Rid, 1170-1240) and his peshatist Torah commentary Nimukei
Chumash, which quotes at length, on three occasions, from Rambam’s Moreh
Nevuchim (Guide for the Perplexed)!
In his commentary on Genesis 1:26 he
writes about how he encountered some Magshimim (anthropomorphists) who
believed that G-d had a body - and he used the Moreh Nevuchim to
challenge that approach!
PROFESSOR KANARFOGEL’S
CONCLUSION:
Kanarfogel’s concludes by
referring to the letter of Rambam’s supporter, R. Shmuel of Marseilles -
mentioned earlier - claiming that most of the Tosafists of Northern
France were corporealists:
“Such
a claim about the ‘rabbis of northern France’ as a whole now appears to be
exaggerated, certainly with respect to leading northern French Talmudic
scholars or the rabbinic elite...In any case, the overall spiritual outlook of
the Tosafists appears to be much more variegated than we are accustomed to
thinking and the non-anthropomorphism strain has a number of distinguished
adherents.”
ANALYSIS:
It is fascinating, for a
searcher of the truth behind the Hashkafic views of the various rabbinic
movements, to see just how difficult it sometimes is to arrive at that truth.
My impression, and I may be
wrong, is that Rabbi Professor Kanarfogel experienced just such intellectual
angst. In a sense, it was he who pioneered the notion that the Tosafists
were not just Talmudic commentators but were also mystics. Not many scholars
were previously aware of this.
Yet his intellectual honesty
brought him to a counter-intuitive conclusion, through this research, that yes
they were mystics but many Tosafists also had a rationalist streak,
certainly when it came to the question of whether G-d has a form.
Consider the fact is that we have
descriptions like this:
“A
letter written from Narbonne to Spain in the 1230s severely ridicules the
‘great men of Israel among the Zarefatim [French] and their scholars, their
heads and men of understanding,’ for their magical uses of Divine Names,
angels, and demons through conjuration, referring to them as ‘madmen full of
delusions’ and the like.”
Yet at the same time we now
know that some important Tosafists sailed very closely to Rambam when it
came to opposing Hagshama (corporealism or anthropomorphism).
How exactly, then, do we
define the Tosafists when our spectrum starts with ‘madmen full of
delusions’- incorporates Kabbalistic traditions - delves into ‘white
magic’ - runs through complicated Talmudic commentary - and ends somewhere close
to Rambam’s rationalist Guide for the Perplexed?
Furthermore, a great irony
exists:
Many of the Tosefists
who were influenced by the depths of mysticism, somehow imagined the
concretization of the Infinite - while those under the influence of Rambam and the
breadth of the rational mind, would not allow the Infinite to be constricted
within the physical.
[1] Anthropomorphism
and Rationalist Modes of Thought in Medieval Ashkenaz: The Case of R. Yosef
Bekhor Shor, by Ephraim Kanarfogel.
[2]
Essentially the Tosafist period encompassed the two centuries between
Rashi (1040- 1105) and R. Meir of Rothenberg
(d. 1293). Many of the Tosafists were either the family or
students of Rashi.
[3] Not to be
confused with Merkava literature which is mysticism dating
from a much earlier period.
[4] Theurgy is defined as: ‘the
technique of compelling...a supernatural power to do or refrain from doing
something.’
[5] Raavad is credited with drawing up the
diagram of the Etz Chaim, Tree of Life with the positions of the Kabbalistic
Sefirot. The actual drawings were done by his son, Yitzchak the Blind.
[6]
See Raavad’s commentary on Rambam’s Hilchot
Teshuvah 3:7.
[7]
Because he lived in Egypt, he was not regarded as a Tosafist.
[8] R
Yosef passed away in 1171 and Rambam passed away in 1204.
[9] Cf.
Perushei R. Yosef Bechor Shor Deut. 18:22 and Rambam’s Moreh Nevuchim 3:48.
[10]
MS Neofiti 11, fol. 210v.
[11]
Kitvei haRamban, Chavel, vol. 1, 345f.
[Interesting,
it seems that Ramban may have actually sided with Rambam on this issue because
he also writes:
a) The important Tosafist R. Yitzchak
ben Avraham, who also studied under
Rabbeinu Tam and commented on several Talmudic treatises, endorsed Rambam’s Mishneh
Torah. And Ramban mentions this in the context of Hagshama or
anthropomorphism.
b) Ramban cites from R. Eleazar of Worms (one of the last major members of Chasidei Ashkenaz, which - as mentioned earlier - was instrumental in influencing the Tosafists towards mysticism) who also did not concur with the prevailing views regarding anthropomorphism.
c) And Ramban mentions that there were ‘right-minded’ (although unnamed)
Chachmei Tzarfat (rabbis of northern France) who did not concur with the
prevailing view either.]
[12] Gan
has the numerical value of 53. Sefer haGan is a Torah commentary on
the 53 weekly Torah portions.
[13] Pa’aneach
Raza was composed around 1280 which places it at the end of the Tosafist
period.
[14]
R. Avraham was a student of R. Eleazar of Worms and compiled Arugat haBosem
in 1235.
[15]
Also known as Yeshaya haAshkenazi.
