288) DID THE POST-TALMUDIC STAMMAIM CONTRIBUTE TO TALMUDIC AGGADA?

INTRODUCTION:

Years ago when I was a yeshiva student, I was always upset when our teachers told us to skip over the Aggada sections on a page of Talmud. Aggada refers to the stories and narratives that are often interspersed amongst the more legal Talmudic texts.

I could never understand why they discouraged us from reading Aggada and no one could ever really explain what the issue was. 

This article, which I have based on the research of Professor Jeffrey L. Rubenstein[1], may just shed some light on the matter, although I’m not sure my teachers would have known about this.

Rubenstein suggests that the post-Talmudic Stammaim may have contributed to much of the Aggadic literature in the Talmud. They could do so because they were, in fact, the editors of the Talmud.

WHO WERE THE STAMMAIM?

The Talmudic Period was from around 200 to 450 CE. For the next century and a half, we had the Savoraic Period which was followed by the Gaonic Period from 589 to 1038.

Not much is known about the intermediate period of the Savoraim other than that they were editors of the Talmud.

Professor David Weiss Halivni specializes in that intermediate period of the Savoraim and refers to the rabbis of that period as Stammaim which more accurately describes their role as editors of the Talmud.[2] The Stammaim were mostly anonymous. He contends that the Stammaim actually wrote the Talmud (Gemara) in the final form as we know it today. 

The Stammaim would have based their deliberations on the ‘original’ Talmud compiled by the last rabbis of the Talmudic Period, Rav Ashi (d.427) and Ravina ( d. 420), which would have been a much smaller compilation than the one we are accustomed to today. It would have more resembled the style of the earlier Mishna and Tosefta, and - significantly - also without elaborate discussion and dialectics.

STAMMAIM AND AGGADA:

Rubenstein, following this thread from Halivni, has researched the notion that the Stammaim may also have been responsible for contributing to much of the Aggadic literature of the Talmud.

He writes:

“That the Stammaim took a deep interest in aggada is beyond doubt...

The fact that they included so much aggada in the Bavli [Babylonian Talmud] - a great deal more proportionately than the redactors of the Yerushalmi [Jerusalem or Palestinian Talmud]- indicates that their concerns went beyond halakha [Jewish law][3].”

Then Rubenstein asks the question around which this article pivots:

“Were they [i.e., the Stammaim][4] collectors, transmitters and commentators, or also creators[5]?

Did they substantively rework antecedent Amoraic aggadic sources and even formulate new aggadot?

Or did they transmit Amoraic traditions in substantially the same form as they received them, adding analysis and comments, but not modifying the core Amoraic tradition to any significant degree?

Rubenstein believes the Stammaim not only contributed to, but may have created some of the Aggadic content of the Babylonian Talmud!

“Indeed, since aggada has less authority than halakha, we should expect the Stammaim to have been more active in the production of aggada. They might well have felt more free to modify aggadic traditions, to rework and change Amoraic aggadic sources, given the lesser stakes involved.”

Thus, as anonymous editors, the Stammaim may have taken more latitude to include their creative contributions in the form of Aggada since they did not need to be as scrupulous in that regard as they were when it came to recording actual legal texts.

THE END OF HORA’AH (LEGAL INSTRUCTION/DEVELOPMENT):

In this context, it is relevant and interesting to note that the Talmud itself states:

“Ravina and Rav Ashi are the end of hora’a [Talmudic development and instruction]”[6]

Rav Ashi and Ravina were the last of the Talmudic Sages who instructed during the Talmudic (Gemara/Amoraic)[7] period. Because hora’a or legal development had ended, the Stammaim would have felt relatively free to engage in non-legal Aggada.

AGGADA, ARAMAIC AND DIALECTICAL STYLE:

But it wasn’t just in the sphere of Aggada that they were creative. The Stammaic[8] editors seem to have done more than merely introduce, innovate and rework Aggada, but were also instrumental in two other aspects of their presentation; enhancing the dialectical style of analysis and debate as well as a focus on Aramaic over Hebrew.

DIALECTICAL AND ANALYTICAL STYLE:

Rubenstein writes that after the period of hora’a or instruction/development had ended with Rav Ashi and Ravina, the Stammaim:

 “...continued to subject Amoraic halakhic traditions to dialectical analysis.”

Thus the Stammaim, as editors, not only added to the Aggada but also introduced a more pronounced style of analytical or dialectical debate which has become the hallmark of Talmud study. As mentioned, the original Talmudic texts and traditions which the Stammaim worked on would have resembled a terser form closer to the Mishnaic style.

This is fascinating because the well-known dialectical or argumentative style that we have come to equate Talmud study with, may have been more of a contribution by the later Stammaic or Savoraic editors than the actual Amoraic participants themselves!

ARAMAIC LANGUAGE:

Furthermore, on this view, even the dominance of the Aramaic language used throughout the Gemara, may similarly have been largely the work of Stammaic editors reworking Talmudic texts that resembled the earlier Hebrew of Mishnaic and Tosefta texts! While certainly, Aramaic would have been the vernacular of Babylonian Jewry, it seems that the medium of study was still Hebrew – until the period of the Stammaim.

Rubenstein writes that from the Stammaic period we begin to see shifts:

“...from the Hebrew of Amoraic [i.e., original Talmudic] dicta to the Aramaic of the Stammaitic commentary; 

from the terse style of Amoraic dicta to the verbose, expansive style of the Stammaitic analysis; 

and from apodictic [i.e., beyond dispute][9] Amoraic pronouncements to the dialogical give-and-take of the Stammaim.”

Accordingly, the Stammaic contribution to the Talmud was extensive.

AGGADA IS OFTEN ANONYMOUS:

Our focus, however, is on the strata of Aggadic literature within the Talmud.

A common feature of Aggada is that it is often presented anonymously. If the Stammaim had drawn from earlier sources one would imagine they would have quoted the authors.[10]

A probable reason for the anonymity of the Stammaim was that once the Talmudic period of hora’a or instruction/development had officially been concluded with Rav Ashi and Ravina, it would have been audacious for the next generations of Stammaim to use their names.

This notion of anonymity is borne out by their very title ‘Stammaim’. Comparing the terms Amoraim (Talmudic Sages) and Stammaim (Editors): - Amoraim means 'those who say' (i.e., primary Talmudic sources), whereas Stammaim means 'closed, vague or unattributed sources' (i.e., anonymous and secondary sources) projected back onto the Talmud. 

TELLTALE SIGNS OF STAMMAIC EDITING:

Rubenstein[11] points out several telltale signs which may indicate Stammaic activity. 

These include:

The language used - Aramaic instead of Hebrew.

Grammatical forms of later Gaonic Aramaic as opposed to those of earlier Babylonian Aramaic.

Clumsy syntax.

Excessive length.

Repetition.

A phrase used overwhelmingly bt earlier Amoraim present in a statement of later Amoraim.

A ‘wandering’ thought process

A clustering of variant readings.               

Rubenstein also analyses the same events portrayed in other contemporaneous rabbinic texts such as the Talmud Yerushalmi and compares them with how they are presented in the Babylonian Talmud.

He writes that he compared:

“ ... source-critical evidence, namely parallel texts from Palestinian compilations, to confirm that traditions were changed in the course of time. The question then becomes, Who introduced the changes, Amoraim or Stammaim?, and these criteria point to the Stammaim.”

R. SHIMON BAR YOCHAI EMERGES FROM THE CAVE:

A simple example of telltale signs of Stammaic activity can be seen in the change of language in the following Aggadic story[12] of R. Shimon bar Yochai emerging from the cave after thirteen years:

When R. Shimon bar Yochai sees his father-in-law[13] Pinchas ben Yair, the latter expresses concern that he looks weathered from his time in the cave. Pinchas ben Yair says: “Woe is me that I have seen you like this.” And R. Shimon bar Yochai retorts: “Happy are you for seeing me like this, for had you not seen me like this you would not have found me so [learned].”

At that point, the narrative shifts from Hebrew to Aramaic and an explanatory comment is added:

“For originally when R. Shimon bar Yohai raised an objection (qushia), R. Pinhas b. Yair solved it with twelve solutions (paroqei). Subsequently when R. Pinhas b. Yair objected, R. Shimon bar Yohai solved it with twenty-four solutions.”

Although the initial narrative is in Aramaic, the exchange takes place in Hebrew and then dramatically shifts back to Aramaic and also changes from the first to the third person.

The parallel versions recorded in the Talmud Yerushalmi and other Palestinian midrashim do not contain the commentary about the twenty-four solutions. This makes it very likely that the Aramaic commentary is a Stammaic insertion.

This is an example of a Hebrew Amoraic dicta being enhanced by Aramaic Stammaic explanations and comments. However, according to the research, this is just a mild example of a commentary to, and amplification of, a text because in some instances there is evidence of total reworking of a text and also the production of new texts.

After a number of other more technical examples, Rubenstein concludes that:

“[t]he contributions [of the Stammaim][14] are quite diverse, ranging from brief editorial notes, glosses and additions to the end of an earlier narrative and interpolations from other Amoraic sources to wholesale reworkings of Amoraic narratives and the production of new aggadot.”

RABBI YAAKOV ELMAN – OVER HALF OF THE TALMUDIC TEXT IS STAMMAIC:

R. Yaakov Elman of Yeshiva University comes to the same conclusion:

 “This [Stammaic] framework, post dating the statements of identified figures [in the Talmud[15], introduces questions, often provides solutions, and, in general, controls the interpretation of the earlier sources.”[16]

But he goes much further by quantifying just how much editing the Stammaim actually did.

Elman writes that the editorial work of the Stammaim:

 “...constitutes just over half [17]of the total text of the Babylonian Talmud and...frames the discussion of the rest.”

OBSERVATION:

As mentioned in the article in the link provided above, I looked up the definition of ‘Redaction’:

“Redaction is a form of editing in which multiple source texts are combined (redacted) and altered slightly[18] to make a single document.”

                     

According to the research of Rubenstein and Elman, it seems that the Stammaim have even overstepped the dictionary definition of editors and redactors, as their stylistic alterations were, to say the least, more than ‘slight’.

ANALYSIS:

The arguments of Professors Rubenstein, Halivni and Elman are fascinating and compelling. They also seem to fit into the historical notion that the Babylonian Talmud was redacted in its final form much closer to the end of the period of the Gaonim (1038) than to the end of the period of the Amoraim (450).

[See Everyone Knows When the Talmud was Written Down.]

However, not everyone agrees with this.

Professor David Kraemer, for example, strongly supports the more mainstream view that the Babylonian Talmud was not radically reworked by its editors, the Stammaim. He argues that the Talmud intentionally leaves the conclusions of its argumentation unresolved – to teach that truth is multi-layered and the result of a conversation with many voices.

He shows that dialectics and argumentative interpretation was always used by the Talmudic rabbis (although he does agree that it became even more common and widespread towards the later generation of Amoraim). And because there was an evolution of the process of dialectical argumentation, the dialectic style could not have been an invention of the Stammaic editors (although he does agree that the final editors made some radical determinations).[19]

Contrast David Kraemer’s view with the view of David Weiss Halivni:

“The luxurious and flowing texture of the Talmud is the achievement of the Stammaim; prior to them there were only short dialogues and comments strung along the Mishna and Braithoth. The Stammaim created the sugya, a semi-independent, sustained, multi-tiered ‘give and take’. They redacted the Gemara from incomplete and truncate [i.e., short][20] traditions.”

For the inquisitive student of Talmud - who is interested in the simple matter of ascertaining when the work second in importance to the Torah was essentially written and by whom - there is still much to be clarified.

FURTHER READING:

Were the Editors of the Bavli more Powerful than its Writers?

The "Talmud of Persecution" vs "The Talmud of Exile". 

When a Yeshiva is not a Yeshiva - A Scholarly Debate.

---

[1]Jeffery L. Rubenstein, Criteria of Stammaitic Intervention in Aggada. See also: Jeffery L. Rubenstein, "Introduction" in Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, ed., Creation and Composition: The Contribution of the Bavli Redactors (Stammaim) to the Aggada.

[2] David Weiss Halivni has revised his previous view and now dates the Stammaic Period from 450 to 650 CE and the Savoraic Period from 650 to 750 CE.

[3] Parentheses mine.

[4] Parenthesis mine.

[5] Emphasis mine.

[6] Bava Metzia 86a.

[7] The terms Talmud, Gemara and Amora(ic) are used interchangeably.

[8] Sometimes referred to as Stammaitic.

[9] Parentheses mine.

[10] Although a Talmudic ma’aseh or uvdah may also sometimes be anonymous.

[11] Basing himself on the work of Professor Shamma Freidman.

[12] Shabbat 33b.

[13] Sefaria translates ‘chatnei’ as son-in-law, however historically, Pinchas ben Yair was the father-in-law of R. Shimon bar Yochai.

[14] Parenthesis mine.

[15] Parentheses mine.

[16] See: Yaakov Elman, “The Babylonian Talmud in its Historical Context.”

[17] Emphasis mine.

[18] Emphasis mine.

[19] See David Kraemer, The Mind of the Talmud: An Intellectual History of the Bavli (1990).

[20] Parenthesis mine.

249) WHY WERE THE TEACHINGS OF CHASIDEI ASHKENAZ SO ELUSIVE?

INTRODUCTION:

Based on a letter[1] by Rav Sherira Gaon (906-1006) and other sources including the Meiri[2] (1249-1310) as well as manuscript evidence, the Talmud - although completed around 500 CE - remained essentially an oral tradition until centuries later towards the end of the period of the Gaonim (650-1038CE) when it was finally put into the written form we know today.[3]

This is why soon after committing the Talmud to writing, we see an explosion of commentaries. Rashi (1040-1105) and the Baalei haTosafot[4] began to produce copious written commentary on Talmud, and  Rambam produced his Mishneh Torah which was a summary of the entire Talmud, as it had relatively recently[5] ceased to be an oral tradition and was now available in a ‘hard copy’ format, easy to access and comment on without the need for oral expounders.

[See: When Was the Talmud Written Down? and Everyone Knows When the Talmud was Written Down.]

In this article, we are going to show how the Chasidei Ashkenaz - a German Pietist and extremely mystical and somewhat controversial if not superstitious movement (see here) that flourished during the 12^th and 13^th centuries - also responded to the newly textualized Talmud; but instead of embracing the new written format as did Rashi, the Tosafists and Rambam - the Chasidei Ashkenaz reacted to it in a most unusual way.

I have drawn from the research of Professor Talya Fishman who is highly regarded as an expert in the inscription of the Oral Tradition (Torah she’bealPeh) and its transmission.[6]

BACKGROUND TO CHASSIDEI ASHKENAZ:

The movement’s seminal work was the Sefer Chasidim, ascribed to R. Yehuda heChasid (1150-1217)[7], but parts are attributed to his father R. Shmuel heChasid and also his[8] student R. Eleazar of Worms.

There are two volumes to the work. The first section appears to have borrowed some moralistic and ethical teachings from Rambam, while the second and more mystical section deals with gematria (numerology), demons, miracles, cures, folk beliefs (some apparently borrowed from the local Christian culture[9], and possibly even from Christian monks[10]). All in all, Sefer Chasidim contains over two thousand stories.[11]

The Chasidei Ashkenaz were overwhelmingly concerned with creating a mystical culture, particularly out of the prayers, leaving behind a legacy of some 73 volumes of commentaries on the prayers.[12] They counted and interpreted the individual letters within the prayer texts and were infatuated by their numerical values and meaning.

BORROWING IMAGERY FROM LOCAL TRADITION:

That some of the Chasidei Ashkenaz teachings reflected local Christian tradition, can be seen in the Christian story of the same period, about a conversation between a priest and the devil, called Tutivillus.

The priest asks Tutivillus why he was carrying such a large and bulging sack on his back - and the devil responds that it was full of the:

 “...syllables and slurred utterances and verses of Psalms which the clergy had stolen from God when they enunciated their prayers incorrectly.”

This was paralleled in the Jewish tradition where it was taught that if the prayers are recited hurriedly or incorrectly, then crippled and deformed angels emerged from them.

THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE CORRECT VERSION OF THE PRAYERS:

R. Yehuda heChasid and his students rebuked the Jews (especially the French and English Jews) for praying from inaccurate texts. This was not, according to him, just textually incorrect but it was spiritually damaging and destructive.

In a similar fashion, according to another work of that time, Arugat haBosem,[13] there could not be multiple versions of the prayers but only one correct version, or nusach.

Eventually, the prayer text of R. Yehuda heChasid became accepted as Nusach Ashkenaz (the German prayer-rite) [- although scholars like Ephrain Urbach point out that R. Yehudah heChasid, in fact, disregarded the nusach of his father, R. Shmuel heChasid, and also disregarded the nusach that had been used in Ashkenaz (Germany) for centuries dating back to Gaonic times!]

PRAYERS ARE THE SACRIFICES:

The Chasidei Ashkenaz maintained that the prayers not only represent and remind us of the sacrifices of old, but absolutely mimic and resemble them and are indeed their exact spiritual form and counterpart. Therefore those who deviate even one iota from the correct formula of the prayers:

“...invent from whole cloth [i.e., fabricate with no grounding][14] and add several words...which never arose in the hearts of early hasidim[15], who established the prayers

for us in place of sacrifices. 

And every prayer and blessing that they established

is like [the sacrifices][16] in measure, and meter, in letters and words...

For if this were not so, then our prayer, God forbid, would be like the melody [zemer] of the uncircumcised gentiles.”[17]

NUMEROLOGY:

In keeping with its intense interest in numerology, the Sefer Chasidim writes about a certain sage who chose the smaller of the two synagogues in a town because they prayed at a slower pace, thus giving him time to get involved with:

“...enlarging the Holy One blessed be He [va-ani marviyah laKadosh

Barukh Hu] when I draw out, counting on my fingers how many alefs and

bets in that Psalm, how many of each and every letter. And afterwards, when

I return to my house, I come up with a reason why [there are] such and such

[numbers].”[18]

The extremely slow deliberation over the prayers of Chasidei Ashkenaz was obviously an issue because, in one instance, it prompted R. Baruch of Mainz to question R. Yehuda heChasid on this matter:

“For sometimes ‘keriat shema’...lasts three hours, and thus the proper time [for its recital][19]...passes.”[20]

A ‘DIZZYING ARRAY OF ASSOCIATIONS’: 

As a general rule, R. Yehuda heChasid always maintained that numbers are “...connected by clasps and loops, and they all have reasons and many mysteries [i. e., sodot]”[21] - however as Fishman points out “those connections are not spelled out.” 

In his Pirushe haTefilah, R. Eleazar of Worms presents a “dizzying array of associations, all linked only by number,” - a sample of this style of literature is included in the Appendix below.

The reason why these ‘connections’ (intentionally) remained shrouded in mystery will become clearer in due course.

THE TEXTUALIZATION OF THE TALMUD:

Why were the Chasidei Ashkenaz so overly and technically obsessed, seemingly more than most other movements, with such mysterious if not magical tangential correlations?

Fishman believes that it was a reaction to the then most important and relatively recent event in Jewish history - the final committing to writing, or textualization and inscription, of the Talmud; and the transformation, finally, from a largely oral to a formalized written tradition.

The textualization of the Talmud was a theologically cataclysmic event. The oral means of Torah transmission which always required a master teacher, gave way to an easily accessible and new written format which everyone suddenly had access to without the need for an intermediary or a master.

It is fascinating to note that Fishman regards this major disruptive historical event - the textualization of the Talmud - as something which is ‘largely-unexamined’ and often  overlooked:

“Many of the perceived novelties of hasidut Ashkenaz, I suggest, can be explained as reactions to a particular historical development that has gone largely-unexamined: the textualization of rabbinic culture that transformed every aspect of Jewish society in medieval northern Europe.”

A TEACHER, NOT A BOOK:

Fishman explains:

“The Pietist’s weave of disparate strands of thought...reveals the...tradition in ways never seen before, making him, in effect, a living bearer of revelation.”

In other words the Chasidei Ashkenaz created such complicated and even random associations in their literature that the student would always be forced to turn to the teacher/rabbi for ‘guidance’ and ‘explanations’: 

“[R. Yehuda heChasid] preserved and transmitted these mysteries in a most elusive manner, so that they remained enigmas to anyone not privy to face-to-face explication [i.e., explanation][22] from a master.”

This way, at least in Chasidei Ashkenaz circles, the newly written and now textual Tradition would never override or sideline the teacher/rabbi, because in their system the teacher would always be required to unravel the mystery. This alleviated the danger of written texts, now available to all, supplanting the primacy and importance, if not supremacy, of the teacher/rabbi.

They shrouded their ideas in such mystery that without a personal relationship with a master who could crack the code, the ideas would remain essentially incomprehensible. If one wanted to understand, one needed a rabbi, not a book.

RAMBAM WAS ALSO PERCEIVED AS A THREAT TO RABBINIC SUPREMACY:

Although Fishman does not touch on this point, it’s interesting to note that a similar threat was perceived against the primacy of the teacher/rabbi after Rambam presented his Mishneh Torah which was essentially a summary of the Talmud. Much of the opposition to Rambam was not only his controversial philosophical views, but also the fact that by facilitating easy access to the Law, the dominant role of the teacher was again considered under threat as the student could simply consult Rambam’s written code which even came with an index. 

Now, it was feared, no teachers would be required to explain the intricacies of Talmud study, which Rambam claimed in his Introduction to Mishneh Torah, was no longer necessary, anyway, because he had summarised all its salient points. In fact, in a letter to a student, he stated: “If one spends time studying commentaries [of the Talmud] and the disputes in the Talmud … then one is wasting one’s time.” [Igrot haRambam, Isaac Shalit edition, vol1, 312.]

Therefore, many felt that the role of the teacher/rabbi, would be diminished with the Rambam’s democratization of the Law.

THE ‘SECRET SCROLLS’:

During the height of the period of the previous Oral Tradition, there were indeed some texts that were used. These were known as megilot setarim or secret scrolls. They were kept private and used by individual teachers as their personal notes, having no specific authoritative status whatsoever:

“...the only authorized version of Oral Torah was one that was truly oral, learned by heart, in a living encounter with a Geonic master. Jews of early Ashkenaz clearly considered themselves disciples of the Geonim...”

Accordingly, although not averse to putting their thoughts down in writing, the Chasidei Ashkenaz, saw themselves as continuing with that tradition of maintaining the old master-student association and relationship that had been so crucial during the previous centuries of Oral Torah transmission.

COUNTERING THE NEW ‘GENTILE DIALECTIC’ OF THE TALMUDIC SCHOLARS:

It was precisely because the Book had begun to replace the Teacher that:

“[The Chasidei Ashkenaz] pointedly perpetuated older modes and patterns of social hierarchy, pedagogy and cultural transmission.”

Where other students of rabbinic culture frequented academies named for the famous glossators at their helm, Pietists [i.e., Chasidei Ashkenaz][23] criticized “gentile dialectic” [dialektika shel goyyim], attacked the pride of authorship, and turned for guidance to sages [hakhamim] whose authority was not a function of their scholastic prowess.”

THE WRITTEN PRAYER-BOOKS:

The democratization of Judaism which occurred with the writing down of the Talmud, also occurred with the prayer-books which were also textualized around the same time. Most well-known of these is the Machzor Vitry written around 1130 by a student of Rashi.[24]

Again, the most outspoken critics of these written prayer-books were the Chasidei Ashkenaz who nostalgically longed for the days of old when authority was vested in a chosen shaliach tzibur or prayer leader.

“But nowadays … it is an everyday occurrence that Reuben prays [leads] shaharit [i. e., the morning prayer], Shim’on reads Torah, and Levi prays [i. e., leads] musaf [i. e., the additional prayer for Sabbaths or Festivals].”[25]

The role of the teacher had been diminished and in a sense both the approach to studying and praying had become so democratized that it was described as a free for all.

To counter this, the Chasidei Ashkenaz again felt compelled to say that if just anyone leads the services, his prayers could be damaging to both the community and himself.[26] This resonates with the need to fix the nusach or prayer-rites according to the version of R. Yehuda heChasid (as mentioned earlier) while all other versions were deemed inaccurate (and therefore potentially dangerous as well).

Again Chasidei Ashkenaz had to emphasise (or create a construct) squarely placing the authentic power and tradition, the secret knowledge, and the purity of soul, only within the hands of a select few. 

And they did this by fostering a culture of mystery, obscurity and opaqueness through which only the teacher could help navigate.

ANALYSIS:

In some sense, the fears of Chasidei Ashkenaz were indeed justified because as recorded by the Tosafist academy of R. Moshe and his brother R. Shmuel Shneur of Evreux:

“...the ruling that ’awe of your teacher should/must resemble awe of heaven’ is no longer said [i. e., upheld].

So too, the rulings that obligate a disciple to his teacher have been nullified. For books and compositions and commentaries – they are [now] those that teach us.

And everything depends upon one’s mental acuity, and on reasoning...”[27]

On the other hand, it does appear that some, like R. David Abudraham, a century later, took a different position. He wrote very poignantly about how he absolutely disregarded the teachings of Chasidei Ashkenaz which he had learned while at an Ashkenazi yeshiva in Toledo, and which he now regarded as disingenuous:

 “There are people who counted the words in each and every blessing of the Eighteen [Benedictions] and, for each blessing therein, they brought verses whose words add up to the number of words in the blessing.

I, too, made a computation like this at first, and then I saw that it had no foundation or root.

For you will not find any place in the world in which they all say the same thing regarding each and every word of the Amidah. Rather, there are those who add words or delete.

Therefore, this count doesn’t help anybody but the one who made it, and nobody else. So why should we burden the scribes by having them write it?”[28]

TODAY:

The old fears of Chasidei Ashkenaz were legitimate fears, although probably more prevalent in mystical circles than in rationalist ones, and they clearly did not disappear with the demise of the movement. They continue to this day, certainly after the printing revolution of the mid-1400s, and especially after the advent of the new format of cyberspace – each of which further challenged the authority of the Teacher.  

Have the old tactics largely remained the same today or have new ones emerged to protect the authority of the Teacher and to prevent the student from (as Moshe and Shmuel Shneur of Evreux wrote) relying on “mental acuity, and on reasoning”?

Amazingly, a modern-day piece of writing reflects this very idea of negating the mind and relying solely on teachers known as the gedolim whom we are told to consult:

“...not only in Torah matters, but in all matters...”

This, once more, ensures the master’s supreme role, because:

“One of the biggest missteps a man can make is to use his own judgement to make decisions...”[29]

---

[1]This refers to the more accurate French version (as opposed to the Spanish version) of Rav Sherira’s letter to the Jews of Kairouan, now Tunisia.

[2] See Becoming the People of the Talmud, by Talya Fishman p. 165.

[3] Of course there are many who steadfastly claim the Talmud was completed and written down in around 500CE.

[4] The Tosafist period - spawned by Rashi - lasted about two hundred years, encompassing the 12^th and 13^th centuries, and ending with R. Meir of Rothenburg (d. 1293). 

[5] Estimates regarding just when the Talmud was finally written down vary from around the late 700s till around 900s CE. See: HEBREW CODICOLOGY Historical and Comparative Typology of Hebrew Medieval Codices based on the Documentation of the Extant Dated Manuscripts Using a Quantitative Approach, by Malachi Beit-Arié.

[6] Rhineland Pietist Approaches to Prayer and the Textualization of Rabbinic Culture in Medieval Northern Europe, by Talya Fishman. 

[7] This is the view of the Chida. However, the Vilna Gaon claimed it was written by his student R. Eleazar of Worms (Yeshurun vol. 4, p. 250.)

[8] I.e., R Yehuda heChasid’s student.

[9] Based on a lecture by Dr Henry Abramson: R. Yehudah he-Hasid.

[10]  Cross-dressing among Medieval Ashkenazi Jews, by Lena Roos.

[11] Interestingly, Sefer Chasidim also extracted a degree of mysticism from Rav Saadia Gaon (d. 942) who, like Rambam, is usually more associated with rationalism. The Chasidei Ashkenaz, who couldn’t understand Rav Saadia’s original Arabic, used an inaccurate Hebrew translation of his Emunot veDeot and thus his views were distorted. They did not have access to the more accurate Hebrew translation by Ibn Tabon. The alternative translation was only recently discovered by Ronald C. Kiener.

[12] Jewish Liturgy as a Spiritual System: A Prayer-by-Prayer Explanation of the Nature and Meaning of Jewish Worship, by Arnold Rosenberg.

[13] Arugat HaBosem laRav Avraham ben Azriel (Jerusalem, 1963) vol. 4, p. 97. This work was authored around 1230. R. Avraham was a student of R. Eleazar of Worms, who in turn was a student of R. Yehuda heChasid.

[14] Parenthesis mine.

[15] ‘Hasidim’ in this context would be referring to the Ezra and his court (the Anshe Keneset haGedolah).

[16] Parenthesis mine.

[17] Sefer Hasidim, (Wistinetzki ed.), p. 154.

[18] Sefer Hasidim no. 1575.

[19] Parenthesis mine.

[20] Recorded in Tashbetz no. 219.

[21]See  Perushei Sidur Hatefila laRokeah, p. 312.

[22] Parenthesis mine.

[23] Parenthesis mine.

[24] R. Yaakov ben Shimshon.

[25] Sefer Or Zarua 1, no. 115. This book was written by R. Yitzchak ben Moshe in the mid-1200s. He was one of the teachers of the last of the Tosafists, R. Meir of Rothenburg.

[26] Sefer Chasidim no. 785.

[27] Ba’alei HaTosfaot, E. E. Urbach, (2nd edition 1980), p. 479.

[28] Cited in Beit Yosef, on Tur, Orach Chaim, 113.

[29] Torat Avigdor, based on the writings and teachings of R. Avigdor Miller, Sefer Bamidbar, p. 13.

[30] Cited by Professor Fishman.

APPENDIX:

A sample of the mystical computations of Chasidei Ashkenaz:[30]

“I will now write for you the correspondences [that explain] why they [i. e., the rabbis of antiquity] established the Eighteen Benedictions: [The word] ‘voices’ [i. e., kolot] appears [in Scripture] eighteen times: thirteen [mentions of] ‘voice’ in [the account of ] Revelation, and five [mentions of] ‘voices’ which makes [sic] seventeen and one [mention of] ‘with the voice, ’which makes eighteen. And once in conjunction with the Tabernacle [Nu. 7:82], ‘and he heard the voice speaking to him’ – which corresponds to the nineteenth benediction, ‘And for the apostates.’

There are eighteen vocalization marks which appear underneath [the letters]. (There follows a listing of all the vowels, linked to the letter alef, in which each unconnected stroke, whether a point or a line, counts as one

mark – T. F.). This makes eighteen [marks below the letter] below, and one above, which corresponds to nineteen.

There are eighteen festive days: seven [days of] Matzot, one ‘ Atzeret, one Rosh HaShanah, one Yom Kippur, seven Sukkot, one Shemini [‘Atzeret], which makes eighteen from the Torah, and one received from tradition,

Purim. It is written [Gen. 28:17], ‘ and this is the gate to heaven’: the Upper Temple is eighteen miles taller than the Lower [Temple]. The verse [Deut. 3:23], ‘ And I pleaded’ has eighteen letters, not counting the [Divine] Name.

There are eighteen years in the cycle of Aries. It is written [Nu. 8:4] ‘This is the work of the menorah,’ teaching that [BT, Men. 29b] the menorah was eighteen spans high. For this reason, three [scriptural appearances of the word] ‘the menorah’ are [written] in plene Spelling [with the optional letter vav, whose numerical equivalent is six]. And six vav’s make eighteen.

The spine has [BT, Ber. 28b] eighteen links, and one tiny one called luz.

There are eighteen [mentions of] ‘teachings’ in Psalms between [Ps. 25:4] ‘teach me’ and [Ps. 94:10] ‘He that teaches,’ referring to the Shekhina. And corresponding to [the nineteenth benediction] ‘and for the Apostates,’

[Ps. 132:12] ‘and I will teach them my testimony.’

Eighteen Benedictions correspond to the Redemption from Egypt; therefore [BT, Berakhot 28b] the [prayer discussing] Redemption must be proximate to the ‘Amidah prayer ‘…Who redeems Israel. Lord, open my lips.’

There are eighteen [scriptural mentions of] strengthening Pharaoh’s heart and of making it heavy, and one [Ex. 7:3], ‘And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart,’ or [Ex. 14:17] ‘strengthening the heart of Egypt’.”

[Perushei Sidur Hatefila laRokeah, vol. 1, pp. 365–366.]

R. Eleazar of Worms is also known as the Rokeach. The numerical value of Rokeach (perfumer) is equal to Eleazar.