293) A TOSAFIST PERSPECTIVE - ‘WE HAVE BOOKS, WE DON’T NEED TEACHERS OR PERMISSION TO TEACH’:

The Ri haZaken is well-known for his Tosafist commentary, but he was also a radically independent thinker who believed that in an age of books, the function of the rabbi is diminished. 

INTRODUCTION:

Around the thirteenth century, while most of Europe was becoming comfortingly institutionalised in their communal structures, a number of Tosafists were proclaiming the right to remain independent and autonymous both in their institutions and also in their thinking.

In this article, based extensively on the research of Rabbi Professor Ephraim Kanarfogel[1], we will examine the processes involved in establishing an academy in Ashkenaz (northern France and Germany) during the Tosafist period (c. 1100-1300) with an emphasis on how some rabbis were determined to remain unconstrained by the establishment.

Before we examine the protocols of opening up an academy in Tosafist Ashkenaz, let us first turn westwards and look at Spain during that same time period.

SPAIN:

In Spain, it was the leading scholars who - in principle - were in charge of granting permission for an academy to open and operate. Once the scholars approved of the candidates to run the yeshivot, it was up to the individual communities to appoint a particular Rosh Yeshiva and pay him. In Spain, the various communities always appointed and paid the approved candidates for their institutions, whether teachers or communal rabbis.[2]

But this was not the case in northern France and Germany.

ASHKENAZ - NORTHERN FRANCE AND GERMANY:

In Ashkenaz, the Tosafist academies were run independently as small and private institutions. Very often the school was in the actual home of the Rosh Yeshiva who had established it in the first place. 

As a sign of independence, it was named after the Rosh Yeshiva and not after the town or city in which it operated. But this independence came at a price – the teachers were not paid and the students received no stipends.

Kanarfogel writes:

“Unlike Spanish Jewish society, Ashkenazic Jewry believed, as a matter of religious principle, that it was inappropriate to offer any direct financial support to its scholars.”[3]

He points out that, in northern France, this was not a uniquely Jewish state of affairs  as similar practices were found in the Cathedral schools, which were also named after their teachers and not the towns. 

In both Jewish and Christian communities, the institution had no real energy of its own  - as modern universities like Harvard and Oxford, for example, do -  but the personality of the individual teacher was the only determining factor to draw the student. 

In both Jewish and Christian circles, the student referred to the teacher under whom he studied, and not the place where he studied. This is evidenced by the fact that when the teacher died or moved on, the academies simply closed down.

Then things began to change as a more top-heavy and bureaucratic system developed.

From around 1200,  Christian schools required accreditation through a licentia docendi in order to operate and some of the earlier autonomy was lost due to the institutionalisation of teaching. 

Similarly in Jewish communities, the semicha or ordination compliance was required before a school could open. Slowly the teachers lost their independence and certainly by the fifteenth century, Ashkenaz had a well established and an institutionalised structure in their Torah academies.

There is some debate as to exactly when the shift from independence to the institutionalisation of schools began in Ashkenaz, but clearly, some Tosafists were intent on perpetuating their autonomy for as long as possible.

What follows are three examples of Tosafists who held out for as long as they could, in an attempt at maintaining their independence:

1) R. SHMUEL AND HIS BROTHER R. MOSHE OF EVREUX:

In a text ascribed to the thirteenth century Tosafist brothers R. Shmuel and R. Moshe of Evreux[4], in Normandy - northern France - it is evident that academies in that region opened without permission and the teachers sometimes openly went against the rulings of their rabbis.

‘WE HAVE BOOKS, WE DON’T NEED TEACHERS OR PERMISSION TO TEACH’:

The Tosafist brothers of Evreux wrote that it was no longer necessary for students to uphold the views of their teachers. This was because teachers were no longer the only source of the law. They now lived in an era where books and texts abounded and were thus not beholden to their rabbis as the sole purveyors of Torah knowledge:

“For the Talmudic texts, the commentaries, the novellae, the [halakhic] compositions, they are the teachers of men. And all [is determined] by one’s perspicacity [discernment].

Thus, it was usual in their locale (be-‘iram) that a student opened his own study hall...without concern for [the Talmudic dictum that] ‘one who decides a matter of law in his teacher’s presence is punishable by death’.

Similarly, the student, by means of superior reasoning, could contradict his teacher[‘s ruling].”[5]

Kanarfogel explains this interesting Tosafist text as follows:

“The brothers maintained that due to the vicissitudes of time, written sources had replaced human instructors as the most effective teachers. As such, there was no longer a concept of rabbo muvhhaq (one’s major teacher) for whom deep respect or honour had to be shown....

A student was no longer required to seek his teacher’s approval in order to decide matters of law in his presence or to open an academy in his town.”

This position, taken by the brothers of Evreux, must have been regarded as a revolutionary stance against the establishment who wanted a more streamlined and hierarchical institutionalised pedagogic structure.

It appears as if other students in the region of Evreux also freely opened up academies without going through the ‘correct’ channels and some had been doing so in other locations for some time as well.

2) RABBEINU TAM AGAINST R. MESHULLAM OF MELUN:

This sense of freedom that was in the air during the early Tosafist period may have been the backdrop to the incident relating to R. Meshullam of Melun (b.c. 1120). He got embroiled in an argument with Rashi’s grandson, Rabbeinu Tam (1100-1171) the most renowned of the Tosafists, who accused him of slighting his grandfather, of leniency in the halacha and even of tampering with Talmudic texts![6]

Kanarfogel suggests that R. Meshulam and his colleagues: “had set out on their own without formal recognition,” and opened up their own academies.

Rabbeinu Tam’s response to R. Meshullam and his colleagues was:

“I have also told the rabbis face to face, that there are those among them about whom it would be proper to decree that they should not be able to maintain an academy.”[7]

Thus, Rabbeinu Tam, representing the ‘official’ Tosafist stance, censures R. Meshullam of Melun for not respecting the office of authority and he is not happy with those of R. Meshullam’s ilk operating independent yeshivot in the region.

But Rabbeinu Tam had met his match. R. Meshullam responded in kind (although more gently) accusing Rabbeinu Tam of similar things. He also had access to other texts which may not have been known to Rabbeinu Tam.

R. Meshullam was one the Tosafists who held on to the notion of absolute independence in Torah thought without interference by the establishment[8].

3) R. YITZCHAK OF DAMPIERRE IN THE TEXT OF THE SEMAK MI-ZURICH:

Kanarfogel explains that:

“[T]he practice of allowing students to open academies without authorization was indeed prevalent in northern France well before the brothers of Evreux.”

His support for this notion comes from the fourteenth century Semak miZurich[9], who quotes R. Yitzchak ben Shmuel of Dampierre, known as  Ri haZaken (d. c. 1185), as saying something very similar to the brothers of Evreux.

  
[Note: R. Yitzchak ben Shmuel of Dampierre,  was called Ri (R. Yitzchak) haZaken (the Elder) to differentiate between him and R. Yitzchak ben Avrahan haBachur (the Younger), also known as Riba or Ritzba.]

According to the Ri haZaken:

“[The Talmudic teaching that a student may not decide matters of law within three parsangs of his teacher, only applies] in the period of the Tannaim and Amoraim who derived...their rulings from a depth of analysis and from [great] knowledge....

However, now[10] that the legal rulings and decisions...are in written form, and everyone can look into legal rulings [and books] and render a decision, a rabbi does not retain as much honour as in those days. [Therefore a student may rule] if he is not right in front of him.”

This is an astounding text, especially from someone like the Ri haZaken, who was so intrinsically connected to the Tosafist establishment. He was the nephew and student of Rabbeinu Tam, his father was the son of R. Simcha ben Shmuel, a student of Rashi and the author of Machzor Vitry, and his wife was the daughter of a great-grandson of Rashi. And Ri haZaken is mentioned on almost every printed page of Tosafist commentary on the Talmud.

Thus already as early as the twelfth century, there were Tosafists who held fast to what must have been considered a radical departure, not just from Tosafist norms, but even from some Talmudic standards.

ANALYSIS:

According to these radically independent Tosafists, the notion of being a talmid muvhak or having a Rav muvhak (consulting only with one’s primary teacher and not relying on other rabbis, never mind books) was now being challenged because the teacher could be replaced by books and self-learning. 

These Tosafists’ views were never to become mainstream as even to this day the notion of one’s authoritative rabbi remains very strong.

However, one cannot begin to imagine what R. Shmuel and his brother R. Moshe of Evreux, R. Meshullam of Melun and his colleagues, and R. Yitzchak of Dampierre, would have said had they lived - not just in an age of books – but today, in the age of the internet where we now have access to texts that people living in those times would never have even seen or known about.



[For more on the radical and independent stance of Ri haZaken, see The Changing Status of the Convert in Tosafist Literature.]

---

[1] Kanarfogel, E. Rabbinic Authority and the Right to Open an Academy in Medieval Ashkenaz. Kanarfogel’s emphasis is primarily on the mechanisms by which the new academies were opened during the Tosafist period. I have extracted, and focused on, the common trend of independence found within some of these Tosafists who went against the establishment because they were now in an age of many books, which had replaced the teacher and which had become the new ‘teachers of men’.

[2] Neuman, A.A 1942. The Jews in Spain. Philadelphia 2,  86-91.

[3] Kanarfogel, E. Compensation for the Study of Torah in Medieval Rabbinic Thought.

[4] Pronounced ‘Ivru’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS0Kq4gYXmU.

[5] Elon, M 1987. The Law, Books, and Libraries, National Jewish Law Review 2, 16-18.

[6] Sefer ha-Yashar le-Rabbenu Tam, Responsa vol. ed. by F. Rosenthal (1898), nos. 43–50.

[7] Ibid. p. 105.

[8] R. Meshullam’ son, Natan and their descendants - known by their family name ‘Official’ - are also referred to as the zealots, or mekanne’im as they were experts at polemics, or religious debates,  with church leaders. See Israel Moses Ta-Shema, Encyclopaedia Judaica.

[9] Not to be confused with R. Yitzchak of Corbeil (d. 1280), author of Sefer Mitzvot Katan.

[10] This may have some bearing on the notion of when the Talmud was written down in its final form. See Everyone Knows When the Talmud was Written Down.

180) MYSTICAL FORAYS OF THE TOSAFISTS:

A typical page of Talmud with Rashi toward the centre (in this case on the right) and Tosafot towards the outside (in this case on the left).

INTRODUCTION:

We often form various perceptions around the personalities of rabbinic sages and, in a sense, put them into conceptual boxes – as if they are individuals who are easy to define.

Sometimes the personalities are indeed easy to categorise – but that is not always the case.

One fascinating group of prolific rabbinic writers who appear to have been easily categorised as sober and scholarly legal commentators, are the Ba’alei haTosafot, or Tosafists - but, as we shall see, they are more complex than commonly imagined:

THE TOSAFISTS:

The Tosafist period - spawned by Rashi (1040-1105) - lasted about two hundred years, encompassing the 12^th and 13^th centuries, and ending with R. Meir of Rothenburg (d. 1293). The term Tosafists generally refers to the rabbis of the early period of the Rishonim (1038-1500) who lived specifically in Ashkenaz (Northern France and Germany).

The Ba’ale haTosafot are regarded and respected as expert Talmudic commentators and great legal decisors. Anyone who has ever studied Gemara would know that ‘Tosafot’ is more challenging than any other section of the Talmud.

Incidentally, the term ‘Tosafot’ is a misnomer because there was not a person by the name of ‘Tosafot’ – as there was a ‘Rashi’ – rather it refers to the many Franco-German rabbis of that two hundred year period who fell under the umbrella of the ‘Ba’alei haTosafot’.

They are known primarily for their scholarly legal glosses and addenda to Rashi and to general Talmudic teachings – and form the basis of much of the responsa literature which went on to inform the various legal codes.

However as Rabbi Professor Ephraim Kanarfogel explains, we only know part of their story from their published and printed works – yet their unpublished manuscripts reveal so much more about who they actually were, and these unpublished manuscripts - some only recently discovered –reveal a very different side to their authors from the way they are commonly perceived.

Professor Kanarfogel is a specialist in the period of the Tosafists and particularly in their unpublished manuscripts.

This article is an adaptation of one of his lectures[1] in which he shares some hitherto unknown ideas found in some of these unpublished manuscripts.

Before we look at the Tosafist manuscripts, though, we will glimpse at two other writers of the same early Rishonim period, who were Sefaradim (and technically not Tosafists) whose multifaceted works are well-known:

SEFARADIM:

RAMBAM (1135-1204):

Maimonides, born in the south of Spain, is best-known for the legal writings of his Mishneh Torah. But he is also equally known for his philosophical writings such as the Guide for the Perplexed. It was only because both works were published and widely distributed that we know of the duality of his interests - which were so poles apart that some even suggest that the same person could not have written both books.

And those weren’t the only works he authored as we know he also wrote on science, medicine and astronomy.

RAMBAN (1194-1270):

In a similar sense, Ramban, born in the north of Spain, is best-known not only as a legal decisor, but also  as a great expounder of Jewish mysticism, as can be seen from his introduction to his published commentary to the Torah where he says that he writes about the ‘secrets of the Torah’.

In both abovementioned examples, Rambam and Ramban were expert interpreters of Talmud and masters of Halacha - yet each, additionally, pursued profoundly different intellectual interests: Rambam wrote on philosophy and Ramban on Kabbalah. We know this only because their secondary writings were published and thus popularised.

Imagine if all of those non-legal texts had not been published – we would never have been able to fully comprehend the complexity and composite of their personalities.

However, this was not always the case with the Tosafists - the Ashkenazi (or Franco-German) rabbis of that same period - who were not all so fortunate as to have all their non-legal writings published.

RABBEINU TAM:

Rashi’s grandson, Rabbeinu Tam stated that while his grandfather, Rashi, was able to comment on both Talmud and Tanach - the Tosafists had to content with just Talmud as they were nowhere near the level of the previous generation.

This was taken at face value until very recently when documents were discovered revealing that Rabbeinu Tam did indeed compose some Biblical commentary, namely to the Book of Iyov and also to the Book of Ester.

Thus, recent evidence shows that Rabbeinu Tam was indeed active in Biblical commentary and not just Talmud[2]

Something else that is not widely known about Rabbeinu Tam is his writing of Piyyutim or liturgical prayers, such as Yetiv Pitgam, which is recited on Shavuot.

YOM TOV BEN YITZCHAK OF JUANI:

Yom Tov ben Yitzchak of Juani, a student of Rabbeinu Tam, also wrote Piyyutim. Additionally, he composed about one hundred interpretations to verses in the Torah. His style, being simple and precise, is similar to that of Rashi. A small number of these commentaries have been published, but Professor Kanarfogel discovered many more in manuscript form - and unpublished - in various libraries in London, Germany and Russia.

One such interpretation which was hitherto unknown is to a verse in Shemot where Moshe asks to see G-d’s glory. The Torah responds, rather abruptly by saying that; “No man can see Me and live.” R. Yom Tov explains this terse verse in a softer manner: G-d is so magnificently lofty that were one to perceive Him, one would no longer want to live down here on this earth. Moshe still had much work to accomplish in the earthly realm, that had he seen ‘G-d’s glory’ he would not have wanted to continue with his worldly mission.

Professor Kanarfogel has found that there were about six Tosafists who offered such interpretations to the verses of the Torah – which shows that a significant component of Torah interpretation would have been lost to us were it not for these hidden manuscripts.

MOSHE BEN YA’AKOV OF COUCY:

Moshe ben Ya’akov of Coucy (also known as Moshe Mikotzi) was the author of one of the earliest codifications of Halacha, known as Semag or Sefer Mitzvot Gadol (which was largely influenced by Rambam’s rulings).

He was an interesting personality, known as a darshan, because he delivered fiery speeches to wide audiences and particularly encouraged them to observe tefillin, mezuzah and tzitzit. He also strongly advocated that Jews be more ethical to their gentile neighbours both personally and in terms of business. 

He also participated in the Disputation on the Talmud which took place in Paris in 1240.

Although a Halachist, he too wrote a commentary to the Torah which can be found sporadically in some published works. 

One of his less known very pragmatic interpretations is when Leah gives birth to her third son from Ya’akov and she calls him Levi because: ‘Now my husband will accompany (yelaveh) me.’

R. Moshe Mikotzi simply and sensibly explains that Leah happily recorded that now her husband would help with the child rearing as she, the maidservant and her husband would - all three together - be able to take care of all three children. Her husband was thus forced to ‘accompany’ her and to get involved in domestic affairs.

MYSTICAL TOSAFISTS:

Besides writing liturgical prayers and commentating on the Tanach, what is most surprising is that many Ba’alei haTosafot got involved in a form of mysticism which Professor Kanarfogel refers to as ‘white magic’.

As a stated principal, legal decisors do not normally allow any form of mysticism to influence or have any bearing on legal rulings. The two disciplines are theoretically to be kept distinct from one another.

The Noda biYehuda[3] writes; “We do not rule Halacha from the Zohar[4].” This principle goes right back to Talmudic times where Shmuel states: “We do not learn (Halacha) from Mishna, nor from legends, nor from any additional teachings, but only from Talmud.”[5]

Yet that was not always the case with the Tosafists as we shall see:

INFLUENCE FROM THE CHASIDEI ASHKENAZ:

Already from around the late 1100’s the Chassidei Ashkenaz or German Pietists were reviving an older form of mysticism known as Heichalot literature[6] which flourished in the post-Talmudic period from about 500 to 1000 CE.[7]

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 earlier theurgic system of Kabbalah and used divine and angelic names in an attempt to achieve higher spiritual states and to accomplish certain objectives.

[Theurgy is defined as: ‘the technique of compelling...a supernatural power to do or refrain from doing something.’[8]]

This is interesting because it was commonly believed that these practices were limited to Chassidei Ashkenaz and not generally performed by the Tosafists (although there are scattered references to such activities in some of the published works of the Tosafists).

YITZCHAK BEN YOSEF OF CORBEIL:

One example of a known and published reference to this form of Tosafist theurgy is found in the Semak or Sefer Mitzvot Kattan, by Yitzchak ben Yosef of Corbeil[9]. Although somewhat an abridged form of the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol and hence primarily a Halachic work, it includes a section on R. Yehudah HaChassid, the leader of Chassidei Ashkenaz, who describes exactly when divine names can be used for divine protection from highway-men and natural danger.

This mystical reference was commonly regarded as an anomaly of the Halachic Tosafist literature until the recent discovery of other Tosafist manuscripts where this type of practice appears to be more commonplace than previously believed.

YITZCHAK BEN YITZCHAK:

A manuscript filled with mystical formulae - found in the National Library in Paris and dating from the mid-1200’s - was written for the Tosafist R. Yitzchak ben Yitzchak who was connected to the study hall of Évreux in Normandy, northern France. This study hall was known to have had an affiliation with the mystics of Chassidei Ashkenaz.

Interestingly, later copyists who were unfamiliar with Yitzchak ben Yitzchak, decided to attribute the work to Rabbeinu Tam. This was a great irony because Rabbeinu Tam was one Tosafist not generally considered to be overtly involved in mysticism at all.

ELIEZER BEN SHMUEL OF METZ:

However, Rabbeinu Tam’s student, Eliezer ben Shmuel of Metz (d. 1175) who authored Sefer Yereim, endorsed a mystical practice whereby one person could bind another, while still alive, to appear after death to his companion and answer questions of the afterlife.

R. YECHIEL OF PARIS:

R. Yechiel of Paris, who attempted to defended the Talmud during the Disputation of the Talmud in Paris in 1240 which sadly resulted in many Talmudic and other manuscripts being burned (see The Dangers of Translating Hebrew Texts) apparently received a visitation by an aggrieved soul who claimed he was thrown upwards by the angels but not caught on the way down – as punishment because he spoke during a section of the Friday evening prayers[10].

This ruling was later incorporated in the Tur with a similar explanation, except it is attributed to R. Yehudah haChassid. The Tur[11] was the son of the Rosh[12] who was a pupil of R. Meir of Rothenburg who was clearly known to be involved in mystical teachings.

R Yechiel also commented and elaborated in a very mystical manner on the Keil Adon hymn which is included in the Shabbat morning prayers, which itself is already taken from the Heichalot literature.

YESHAYA BEN MALI DE’TRANI:

Yeshaya ben Mali de’Trani (1180-1250) known as Rid, was an Italian Tosafist who permitted the recitation of various mystical formulae to locate lost objects and to find a thief – provided one only made use of divine names and not those of demons.

This was later incorporated in the Tur who quoted his father the Rosh, who permitted locating lost objects even by using the names of demons.

YITZCHAK BEN ELIYAHU:

R. Yitzchak ben Eliyahu permitted the use of names of demons not only for finding lost objects but even to ‘know the future’.

R. MEIR OF ROTHENBURG:

One of the last of the Tosafists was R. Meir of Rothenburg (1215-1293). In one published responsum, he writes that once a person has decided to die a martyr’s death, he will not feel any pain regardless of the means of execution. He bases this thesis, partially, on a section taken from the Heichalot literature. 

R. Meir of Rothenburg also offered formulae for protection, participated in Dream Questions and practices which bring about a state of Petichat haLev (Opening of the Heart) which is said to aid in the retention of one’s studies.

SUMMARY:

Professor Kanarfogel concludes by saying: “Manuscript research reveals dimensions of Tosafist thought and interest...that would have remained relatively unknown if we were to rely only on printed texts and books...Overall these findings suggest that the Tosafists were not simply excellent and committed Talmudic scholars who had little interest in other disciplines or areas of study – rather the Tosafists emerged from the manuscripts as rabbinic scholars who participated in quite a range of additional intellectual...fields which they took quite seriously. These include independent Biblical interpretation, the writing of liturgical poems...magical and mystical teachings and practices...”

ANALYSIS:

To what extent the Tosafists actually ruled Halachically after being influenced by mystical experiences and practices would be a fascinating study. It would be enlightening to quantify the percentage of rulings which were based on mystical methodologies.  (See Dreams as a basis for Halacha? for examples where rulings were actually instituted based on such non-legal activities).

While reverting to Kabbalah may have been more widespread than generally imagined, it certainly does not appear to have been an absolute norm.

Perhaps some purists would argue that the influence from theurgic Kabbalah was nevertheless too strong and impacted too much on the Halachic process.

On the other hand, it does seem that for the most part, the Tosafists exercised great restraint - in that although expressing interest in mystical practices, they still did not allow those activities to impact in an overwhelming manner on their legal decisions.

---

[1] Hidden Treasure: The Intellectual Life of Medieval Ashkenazi Jews.

[2] Rabbeinu Tam’s published version suggesting he had no involvement in Tanach commentary may have been made out of humility. Or perhaps it was made when he was younger and circumstances changed as he got older.

 [3] R. Yechezkiel Landau (1713-1793). See Noda biYehudah, vol. 1.

[4] Although he mentions the Zohar specifically (which only started appearing in Spain in the late 13^th century) the reference would most likely include all forms of mysticism.

[5] yHag 1:8

[6] Sifrut haHeichalot.

[7] Not to be confused with Merkava literature which is mysticism dating from a much earlier period.

[8] Merriam-Webster dictionary.

[9] He was a son-in-law of R. Yechiel of Paris.

[10] During the Bracha Me’ein Sheva.

[11] R. Ya’akov ben Asher (1270-1340)

[12] R. Asher ben Yechiel (1250-1327)