247) RABBI ARYEH KAPLAN – THE MAN BEHIND THE BOOKS:

INTRODUCTION:

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan (1934-1983) was a nuclear physicist and a highly respected rabbi who authored over fifty books. Although he passed away at the untimely age of 48, during his short life he managed to get listed in the Who’s Who in Physics, was credited with being a major player in the Baal Teshuvah Movement, and he revived and reconstructed ancient Jewish meditation practices from original texts.

His scholarly books speak for themselves and his authority is widely recognized.

In this article, however, we will take a look at the even more fascinating human being behind and beyond the books.

LEONARD MARTIN KAPLAN:

Aryeh Moshe was born Leonard Martin in the East Bronx in 1934 to non-religious parents, Samuel and Fannie Kaplan. His mother passed away when Leonard was only 13 years old, and his sisters, Sandra and Barbra, were sent to a foster home.

Leonard, or Len as he was known, was expelled from a public school in the Bronx and became a street kid.

On one occasion, the young Len saved a Chassidic boy of about his age from being attacked by a gang. This lad, Henoch Rosenberg happened to be a Klausenburger Chassid and he encouraged his new friend to say Kaddish for his mother and he started to teach him Chumash. Apparently, Len then joined the Klausenburg Yeshiva and became close to the rebbe, who later suggested - after some time at Yeshiva Torah Vodaas and Mir Yeshiva in Brooklyn - that he go and further his studies in Israel.

Len then became Aryeh and he enrolled at Mir Yeshiva in Jerusalem. In 1956, he received his rabbinical ordination from Chief Rabbi Yitzchak Hertzog and also from R. Eliezer Yehudah Finkel, Rosh Yeshiva of Mir.

In the late 1950’s R. Kaplan returned to America and began his secular studies in various universities where he excelled at physics and emerged a Nuclear Physicist.

A sample of  R. Aryeh Kaplan's secular work.

Then, in the mid-1960’s he decided to go back to his first love and to seek work as a rabbi.

R. ARYEH KAPLAN’S RABBINIC APPOINTMENTS:

The following extract is from his 1956 ordination certificate issued by the Mir Rosh Yeshiva:

“I have the opportunity to recognize the honor of Rav Aryeh Moshe Eliyahu Kaplan from Brooklyn, New York...[who has] merited to good name and is well-known as a genius, an expert in Shas, Rishonim, Acharonim, and for all laws to be given Yoreh Yoreh Yadin Yadin.

And that it will be that he’ll be one of the great of our generation and that many will come to the light of his Torah and fortunate is the congregation that will have him as a rabbi and teacher.”

The ‘fortunate congregations’ he served at are surprisingly interesting:

From the Globe-Gazette, page 8, Mason City 1965.

From 1966 to 1967, R. Kaplan became the rabbi of B’nai Shalom, a Conservative synagogue in Tennessee.

From 1967 to 1969, he serves at Adath Israel, a Conservative synagogue in New Jersey.

From 1969 to 1971 he moved to Albany where he presided over Ohav Shalom, again a Conservative synagogue.

According to Dr Alan Brill[1]:

“He seems to have done quite a few weddings jointly with Reform and Conservative clergy.”

THE BRESLOV CONNECTION:

A strong influence in R. Kaplan’s life was R. Tvi Aryeh Rosenfeld (d. 1978) who pioneered the spreading of Breslov teachings in America and throughout the English speaking world. The two partnered together on a number of Breslover publications. This was at a time when, unlike today, very few had even heard of the name Breslov.

[On a personal note, my teacher R. Chaim Kramer told me how he sat together with R. Kaplan as youngsters at the shiurim of R. Rosenfelt, and how he remembers R. Kaplan writing meticulously in minuscule handwriting, filling volumes onto a single page. R. Kramer eventually married R. Rosenfelt’s daughter and went on to found the Breslov Research Institute and he and R. Kaplan continued to work together on other projects. See The Sweeter Side of Breslov.]

R. KAPLAN’S INTERFAITH EXCURSIONS:

R. Kaplan was not in the least hesitant to actively participate in interfaith events, and boldly expressed his views on the subject of faith.

According to the Mason City Globe Gazette in 1966:

“St. John’s Episcopal Church Sunday night became the first Episcopal Church in the state reported as electing two women to its vestry...

In the general annual meeting which followed a potluck meal, the group heard Rabbi Leonard M Kaplan of Adas Israel Synagogue say: ‘We often spend much effort in making a god out of our particular religion. Shouldn’t we spend just as much effort in making our religion a religion of God?’

Rabbi Kaplan called for efforts to appreciate strange and often exotic religions, understanding that each one speaks for God and may even have a message for us...

‘In a sense, every religion is an open eye upon God, giving us its own flat, one-dimensional view...It is only the totality of them all that can give us a multidimensional view of the Divine and a panorama of infinite depth...

The eye does not hate the ear for not seeing. The ear does not despise the nose for not hearing. The many religions perceive God, each in a different way. But as long as they all look toward God, they are one.’”

YENTL:

In the early 1980s, R. Kaplan was a rabbinic consultant for the movie Yentl. Years ago, when I saw that movie, I remember thinking that it was unusually accurate in its depiction of religious Jews – now I know why:

“Rabbi Leonard Kaplan enjoyed advising the cast on ritual and its meaning. He showed them how to sway and bend while they pray, explained what it means to study the Talmud and in general helped the cast understand the outlook of a religious Jew.”

The movie is about a girl who dresses up as a boy so that he/she could study Talmud. R. Kaplan was quite comfortable in his role as a consultant in such an unusual movie because, as he said, even if “It is an abomination...so what?”

THE PSAK OF R. MOSHE FEINSTEIN:

R. Kaplan was concerned about whether it was permissible to invite people to services on Shabbat if it was probable that they would drive to the synagogue. He wrote to R. Moshe Feinstein who subsequently addressed the following responsum[2] to R. Kaplan:

R. Moshe Feinstein essentially said:

“...Regarding the matter of making a service...even for young people under Bar Mitzvah, who will definitely arrive by motor vehicles because of the long distances [they would have to travel to the synagogue] and thereby desecrate the Shabbat – it is simple and clear that it is forbidden...”[3]

According to R. Ari Kahn:

 “...based on the other rabbinic positions he takes – notably Iowa – which...only had ‘late’ Friday night services, it would seem that he [i.e. Rabbi Kaplan][4] did not accept Rav Moshe’s psak.”[5]

ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF BORO PARK:

In 1971 R. Kaplan moved to Brooklyn where he remained until his passing in 1983 but he never took a position of rabbi again. He settled in the outskirts of Boro Park.

Perle Besserman[6] describes how, during the late seventies, R. Kaplan’s living room was a sort of centre for gatherings, which attracted, amongst others, such diverse crowds as modern orthodox psychologists; Jews who had just returned from India; as well as those “ who just crashed on his couch.”

Shaul Magid writes[7] that:

“Kaplan’s decision to live on the margins of Boro Park was more than symbolic...Kaplan decided to stay on the margins of that world.”

His books on Kabbalah had been printed by a New Age press in Maine and this apparently “bothered some of the more conformist haredim in Boro Park...”

THE PAINTER:

Shaul Magid describes R. Kaplan’s phase as a painter:

“His dining room was adorned with a series of bizarre oil paintings. At some point, with no training as an artist, Kaplan decided to refrain from study for a year and devoted himself to painting. After the year he stopped and never painted again.”

THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE:

Although many believe the world to be close to six thousand years old (starting from the first Shabbat), R. Kaplan took the position that the Big Bang occurred “approximately 15 billion years ago.” This, he said corresponded to the views of the 13^th century Kabbalists, and to the views of other rabbinic sources. He presented a paper on this matter to the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists.

(According to ESA’s Planck project of 2015, the age of the universe was set at 13,799 +/- 0.021 billion years.)

KABBALISTS AND MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCES:

R. Kaplan wrote that some medieval Kabbalists may have used psychedelic drugs[8] to achieve lofty states. Also, cannabis, known as k’nei bosem (sounds similar) was used in the anointing oil.[9]

WHEN THE MYSTICS BEGAN TO DOMINATE JEWISH THOUGHT:

In a 1980 interview[10] R. Aryeh Kaplan said:

“I consider The Handbook the most important thing I’ve ever done. I wrote most of it about 12 years ago. While I was writing it, I gradually realized that Jewish philosophy almost comes to an abrupt end in the 14th and 15th centuries. And from there on, almost all of Jewish philosophy and Jewish thought and theology is dominated by Kabbalah.”

R. Kaplan was able to ascertain that rationalist/philosophical thought was abruptly ended around the 1300s and that the mystical tradition thereafter dominated most of Jewish thought. This is an interesting cut-off date for those interested in the understanding of when Jews were finally weaned off rationalist thought and philosophy.

EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE:

R. Kaplan appears to have believed in the possibility of extraterrestrial life. To this end, he cited a number of classical rabbinic sources including Chasdai Crescas[11] and the Kabbalisic work Sefer ha Brit[12].

He wrote that “[t]here may be other forms of intelligent life in the universe, but such forms do not have free will, and therefore do not have moral responsibility – at least in the same sense as human beings.”[13]

EPILOGUE:

On another personal note – not that I have strong feelings one way or the other on the subject of extraterrestrial life – but I once gave a talk and mentioned, in passing, the possibility of extraterrestrial life being compatible with some rabbinic sources as documented by R. Kaplan. The next day I received an email from an authoritative institution asking me to rather stick to ‘more conventional sources’. 

R. Kaplan and his sources, it seems, were not conventional enough. Anyway, I sent them a long list of rabbinical sources and many years have since passed but I haven’t heard back from them since.

R. Aryeh Kaplan appears to have been as normal as he was exceptional. 

It seems that he had a great sense of humour; he had hippy as well as scholarly friends; he sometimes skipped class at Yeshiva but he graduated with distinction; he once wore a toupee; he loved growing cactus plants; he researched, wrote, painted, and above all he always thought out of the box.

R. Pinchas Stolper - R. Kaplan’s original sponsor - described him, essentially, as a man who was never afraid to speak his mind. 


With a mind like his, it is no wonder that some had difficulty in keeping up with, let alone understanding him.

UPDATE:

See here for how a complete chapter of R. Aryeh Kaplan's Handbook of Jewish Thought was censored out of his published work because it presented evolution 'as part of the basic tenets of Judaism'.

---

[1] The Book of Doctrines and Opinions; Lost Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, Part II.

[2]Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim, Siman 98.

[3] My loose translation of a short extract of the responsum.

[4] Parenthesis mine.

[5] The Book of Doctrines and Opinions; Lost Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, Part III.

[6] Pilgrimage: Adventures of a Wandering Jew

[7] Piety and Rebellion: Essays in Hasidism, by Shaul Magid.

[8] Meditation and Kabbalah, by Aryeh Kaplan, p. 156.

[9] The Living Torah, Aryeh Kaplan, p. 442. 

[10] Conversations in the Spirit: Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan.

[11] Or haShem 4:2.

[12] By R. Pinchas Eliyahu Horowitz.

[13] The Aryeh Kaplan Reader: On Extraterrestrial Life.

246) DISPLACING MAIMONIDES' MISHNEH TORAH:

Sefer Mitzvot haGadol by R. Moshe miKotzi (1200-1260).

INTRODUCTION: 

                           

It is fascinating to see just why and how so many different Codes of Jewish Law sprung up in the aftermath of Rambam’s Code, the Mishneh Torah.

Jewish Law is essentially and broadly Jewish Law, and Halacha doesn’t fundamentally change in any significant manner that it warrants new and ‘more authoritative’ works that – besides a bit of give and take here and there – do not dramatically depart from the original Law as presented in Mishneh Torah.

We have explored this matter in a previous essay Theological Politics Surrounding the Emergence of the Shulchan Aruch, and will continue here to look at yet another new Code of Jewish Law, the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol[1], or Semag, authored by the northern French Tosafist R. Moshe of Kotzi (Coucy)[2] (1200-1260).

To clarify the chronology and context, Rambam passed away in 1204 and R. Moshe miKotzi completed his Semag a mere 43 years later in 1247.

The Maharshal (16^th C) wrote:

“...for it is already a known fact that the Semag is entirely based on the Rambam and in most places he copies directly from him”[3]

Why did Moshe miKotzi deem it necessary, just a few decades after Rambam, to produce his Sefer Mitzvot Gadol or Semag, which by his own admission was based on, and almost identical to, the Mishneh Torah?[4]

To answer this question we turn to the writings of Professor Judah D. Galinsky, lecturer in the Department of Talmud at Bar Ilan University, from whose research I have extensively drawn.[5]

R. MOSHE MIKOTZI:

R. Moshe miKotzi studied under a master Tosafist, R. Yehudah Sir Leon in Paris as well as R. Yehuda heChasid (a leader of the mystical Chassidei Ashkenaz). When he was 35 years old, Moshe miKotzi became a travelling preacher (something which was also common amongst the Christian Friars of that time) and found himself in Spain and in other unnamed countries, where he hoped to inspire the people and promote religious awareness. He emphasized the observance of Teffilin, Tzitzit and Mezuzah amongst the masses.

A MYSTICAL COMPONENT?

It is no accident that a resurgence of basic observance was encouraged at that time because a great messianic fervour was prevalent in the Jewish world as the new millennium (corresponding to 1240) was eagerly awaited and anticipated.

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). These Baalei haTosafot of Northern France and Germany were early Rishonim and were also (surprisingly) known mystics, many of them influenced by Chassidei Ashkenaz [see Mystical Forays of the Tosafists and And What Does Rashi Say?] and steadfastly opposed the spreading of Maimonidean rationalism[6].

This possible mystical association should not be overlooked because, as we shall see, it may have some bearing on just why Moshe miKotzi decided to write his Sefer Mitzvot Gadol.

SEMAG / SEFER MITZVOT GADOL:

Interestingly, Moshe miKotsi, although contributing to the Tosafist commentary on the Talmud, did not become an outstanding Tosafist, nor do we know of any of his students who wrote Tosafist commentary.

Moshe miKotzi also played a relatively minor role in the Talmud Trial of 1240 [see The Disputation of Paris].

However, it was in his legal and Halachic writings, as published in his Sefer Mitzvor Gadol or Semag, that he achieved his fame.

It has been suggested that the reason for this work was a direct result of the thousands of Talmudic manuscripts being burned after the Disputation of Paris. Because these texts were no longer available, he needed to present a Halachic summation of their contents, hence his Semag.

However, again as we shall see, there may have been another reason as well.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SEMAG AND MISHNEH TORAH:

The Sefer Mitzvot Gadol differed in three main ways from Mishneh Torah:

1) The Semag is a two-volume work, divided into both negative and positive commandments (i.e., do’s and don’ts) - this distinction is absent in Rambam’s Mishneh Torah. Still, as mentioned, Moshe miKotzi essentially based his work on the Mishneh Torah with slight variations. He rearranged the order of the last four sections of Mishneh Torah so that all practical Halacha would be kept together and the laws relating to past and future were moved to the end of his Semag.

2) Additionally, Moshe miKotzi included references and sources which were absent in Mishneh Torah and which remained a point of contention amongst the critics of Rambam.

3) Moshe miKotzi introduced dissenting legal opinions into his Semag, mainly from his fellow Tosafists of Northern France. 

THE HEAVENLY CALL:

While travelling and preaching through Spain, Moshe miKotzi records that:

“...in several localities, they [i.e., his audience] asked me to transcribe the principles of the commandments along with their sources, in the form of a book.”[7]

Then later he writes:

“Subsequently I was in other lands and my words were well received everywhere. And they requested me to compose a book explaining the commandments in concise form.”[8]

Incidentally, the claim that authors write in response to widespread demand is common to much of medieval literature.

Nevertheless, after Moshe miKotzi informed his readers of the organic demand to write his book, he expresses his humility at so doing:

“...for I am brutish, less than a man. I lack the wisdom of humans [Proverbs 30:2]”

But then he hears a Heavenly call!

“At the beginning of the sixth millennium, a dream vision appeared to me:

‘Arise! Compose a Torah scroll [i.e., a book][9] containing two parts [i.e., the two volumes of positive and negative commandments][10]’”[11]

MOSHE MIKOTZI’S CRITICISM OF RAMBAM:

Moshe miKotzi greatly respected Rambam but that admiration did not prevent him from being critical when necessary:

“However this luminary...did not cite any proofs in his works, so that any individual who offers halakhic rulings based upon his books and is asked to provide some proof-text or source, if he did not learn the proof for this...[Maimonides’ decision] will be for him as a dream without resolution.”

Moshe miKotzi continues to express his displeasure with Rambam for not including the French Tosafists like Rashi, Rabbeinu Tam and Ri.

For these (and other) reasons, Moshe miKotzi presented a ‘revised version’ of Mishneh Torah although he adopted its ‘scope, structure, language...and...content.’ And he additionally offered references and sources and, particularly, the opinions of the French Tosafists.

WRITING THE SEMAG FOR FRENCH READERS:

Galinsky argues that, based on all this, Moshe miKotzi originally wrote specifically for a French and German audience. As a support for his hypothesis, Galinsky cites Karshavya[12] haNakdan the grammarian and scribe.

Karshavya got permission from Moshe miKotzi to copy a section of what was to become the Semag, before it was completed. In one place, he inserted what he called Perek Tzorfati, or the French Chapter, and writes:

“Written by the Rav R. Moses b. Jacob from Coucy who argues...according to the tradition of the French Sages.”[13]

It is interesting to note that this was called a perek or chapter, while still a ‘work in progress’, which may indicate that at that stage the Semag was primarily intended to just be a parallel copy of Mishneh Torah with some slight (French) variations.  

Somehow and at some stage, the work morphed into a more ‘independent’ statement when it was formatted around the positive and negative commandments.

Galinsky then proceeds to explain why Moshe miKotzi later decided:

 “...to abandon the Maimonidean model of an integrated legal code and to replace it with the format of a two-part book of commandments.”

EARLIER TOSAFIST ATTEMPTS AT WRITING LEGAL CODES:

Up until the time of Moshe miKotzi, the French Tosafists were primarily occupied with technical and dialectical commentaries on the Talmud. 

The few attempts at Halachic codes such as the Sefer haYere’im and Sefer haTerumah[14] were nowhere near the scale of the Semag:

The Sefer haTerumah read more like a Tosafist commentary than a formal Code, and the Sefer haYere’im was more of a pietist attempt to “internalize the source of the commandments.”[15] Nevertheless, the author couldn’t get away from his training as a Tosafist and therefore he couldn’t produce a practical Code.


In other words, the Tosafists up to the time of Moshe miKotzi, had been unsuccessful at producing a practical universal Code of Law.

THE CONTROVERSIAL RAMBAM:

We must remember that at that time, Rambam – because of his other non-legal and rationalist writings - was beginning to be seen as an extremely controversial figure especially by the (mystical[16]) French Tosafists.

Rambam had even accused the Tosafists of believing in a form of corporeality in entertaining the notion that G-d has a body.

Many Tosafists reacted by signed a ban prohibiting the study of Rambam’s philosophical writings. 

Additionally, they were not happy with Rambam’s remarks even in his introduction to Mishneh Torah that it is sufficient to only study Tanach (Bible) and Mishneh Torah, without any extensive study of Talmud. This was something professional Talmudic commentators like the Tosafists could never accept.

Clearly, for these reasons, R. Moshe miKotzi would not have wanted to be perceived as being too close to Rambam.

HOW WIDESPREAD WERE RAMBAM’S WRITINGS IN FRANCE?

The Tosafists, in the printed versions of the Talmud, refer to Mishneh Torah no more than three times. Only towards the end of the 1200s are more references found, particularly within the circle of the last Tosafist, R. Meir of Rothenburg (d. 1293).

Although the manuscript evidence is inconclusive, it does appear that already in the early 1200s, the Mishneh Torah had reached France and Germany. Arugat ha Bosem, for example, from around 1234, quotes quite extensively (about 50 times) from Mishneh Torah.

Furthermore, in Moshe miKotzi’s own introduction to his Semag, he writes about Rambam:

“And he was a master of all knowledge; there was no one like him in these later generations.

And many were strengthened in Torah by means of his books that spread in the lands of Christendom and Islam.”

This indicates that even in Moshe miKotzi’s days (early to mid 1200s) the writings of Rambam had spread to France and many people were aware of, and influenced by, them.

For the mystically associated Tosafists of Northern France, this was a warning signal.

WHAT WAS THE REAL REASON FOR THE WRITING OF THE SEMAG?

Galinsky then presents his considered opinion:

“I would then suggest that what prompted R. Moses of Coucy to write his ‘French’ version of Mishneh Torah was his desire to counter the spread of Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah...

...had he not offered an alternative, the code of the Spanish sage [i.e., Rambam][17] would eventually circulate widely and become accepted as the authoritative guide in France and Germany, affecting actual halakhic practice there.”

‘SONS OF FRANCE’ BECOMES ‘ALL OF ISRAEL’:

It appears that Moshe miKotzi reached a stage where he was not only concerned about shielding the Jews of Northern France and Germany from the rise in Maimonidean thought and authority but wanted to protect all of Israel as well.

This may be borne out by a seemingly insignificant textual change between the French Chapter or Perek Tzorfati (as copied by Karshavya) mentioned above, and the final version of Moshe miKotzi’s Semag.

In Perek Tzorfati,[18] Moshe miKotzi writes that a certain matter follows the rulings of some Northern French Tosafists “...of whom all the sons of France drink from their waters and accept their decisions.”

In the final Semag version, a change is made, and instead of referring only to the local ‘sons of France’, reference is instead made to ‘all of Israel who drink from their [the Tosafists] waters.”

This suggests that the authority of the Tosafists and their anti-Maimonidean campaign which followed in its wake, was no longer only the concern of Northern France and Germany but had been raised to a universal level.

ANALYSIS:

Moshe miKotzi started out with a dream to ‘sanitize’ Rambam for French and German audiences by elevating the opinions of the Baalei haTosafot. It seems that with time his aspirations grew to present this ‘improved’ version of Mishneh Torah to ‘all of Israel’, thereby elevating the dominion and influence of the Tosafists over the Rambamists.

There was now a more ‘sanctioned’ alternative to Rambam’s Mishneh Torah.

This was a strategical move because in Judaism, he who controls Halacha controls the future. 

Moshe miKotzi could not allow the rationalist Rambam to be seen as the final arbiter of Jewish Law. Ironically he used Rambam’s content but remarketed it through the inclusion of Tosafist material so that Halacha would be seen to remain firmly in the hands of the Tosafists.

A similar pattern was later repeated when R. Yosef Karo, from the group of 16^th century Safed kabbalists [see here] compiled his Shulchan Aruch, which has remained the legal standard to this day.

The same may be said about the emergence of the Shulchan Aruch haRav, which put Halacha squarely in the hands of the modern mystics or Chassidim.

Are these developments not just be ripple effects in the long line of classical Maimonidean Controversies, where the mystical Tosafists, Kabbalists and Chassidim were, systematically, determined to displace (while still respecting) the political and Halachic prominence of Rambam and his Mishneh Torah?

If  Rambam's legal writing were unequivocally endorsed, then his authority would be uncontested, and of necessity, his non-legal and more controversial ideas would run the risk of being equally considered acceptable.

[For more, see How Rashi was Used as ‘Leverage’ During the Maimonidean Controversies, and The South will Rise Again?, and The Tosafists –Somewhere between Magic and the Guide of the Perplexed?, and The Maimonidean Brotherhood.]

---

[1] Originally titled Sefer haMitzvot.

[2] Also known as Moshe miKotzi.

[3] Shealot uTeshuvot haRema, siman 67. (Translations by Judah D. Galinsky)

[4] Other Baalei haTosafot also composed legal works such as the Yere’im, by R. Eliezer of Metz, and the Sefer haTerumah, by R. Baruch ben Yitzchak. These were not on the same scale as the Semag.

[5] The Significance of Form: R. Moses of Coucy’s Reading Audience and His Sefer Ha-Mitzvot, by Judah D. Galinsky.

[6] Although Rambam’s rationalism is not evident in his Mishneh Torah, which is strictly a legal work, it was his other philosophical and rationalist writings that aroused the ire of the mystics.

[7] Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, Mitzvat Aseh (Shlezinger) 11.

[8] Ibid 17-18.

[9] Parenthesis mine.

[10] Parenthesis mine.

[11] Ibid 13.

[12] Also known as Kreshebya.

[13] Semag Mitzvat Aseh 82.

[14] See note 4.

[15] Introduction to Sefer haYereim.

[16] To be clear, Galinsky does not dwell on the mystical nature of the Tosafists, although he does cite E. Karnafogel’s Peering through the Lattices: Mystical, Magical, and Pietistic Dimensions in the Tosafist Period.

[17] Parenthesis mine.

[18] Commandment 82.