EPHRAIM A. BUCKWOLD Rabad – Disrupter of Tradition? A Response to Haym Soloveitchik’s “Rabad of Posquieres: A Programmatic Essay” s one who had marveled at the attention showered on Rambam two decades ago on the 800th anniversary of the completion of his A magnum opus, the Mishneh Torah, I had no illusions that Rabad would be as fortunate. But, quite honestly, I had cherished a hope that the 800th anniversary of Rabad’s passing1—his yahrzeit—would elicit some special excitement and interest. Indeed, I myself was involved in an effort to persuade the mayor of Vauverp, France—modern-day Posquieres —to fete their greatest son on this occasion. Alas, the celebratory gesture never came to pass. Wherein lies the greatness of Rabad? Rabbi Avraham ben David of Posquieres was much more than a great scholar of 12th century Provence (southern France). Rabad was one of those early rishonim whose work made a profound and ongoing impact on Halakhah and talmudic exegesis. Indeed, R. Menahem ha- Me’iri called him “the greatest of the commentators,” gedolei ha-mefarshim, EPHRAIM A. BUCKWOLD serves as Rabbi at Congregation Simtat ha-Givah, Savion, Israel, and as Rosh Kollel at Bet Midrash Tiferet Israel, Savion. He published an annotated edition of Rabad’s Ba‘alei ha-Nefesh (supplemented with an anthology of Rabad’s scattered commentaries on mikvaot), presenting the several editions in which Rabad revised his work. 24 The Torah u-Madda Journal (12/2004) Ephraim A. Buckwold 25 as well as “the greatest of the critics,” gedolei ha-maggihim. Ramban and Rashba often refer to him as “ha-Rav.” Even though most of his writings were lost,2 the imprint of this towering genius was preserved through those that survived,3 and through the citations and responses in the later rishonim. Before the spirit of the octo-centennial passes entirely, I would like to give a different presentation of the history of Halakhah, and Rabad’s role in particular, from the powerful presentation penned by Professor Haym Soloveitchik in his “Rabad of Posquieres: A Programmatic Essay.”4 This provocative essay does represent a significant contribution to mod- ern scholarship in that it documents the true breadth of Rabad’s achieve- ment, as well as the nature of his subsequent influence. It demonstrates that Rabad’s influence on the later rishonim derived mainly from his commentaries and works of halakhah—not the famed hassagot on the Mishneh Torah. However, there is a second major theme in the “Programmatic Essay.” Rabad is presented there as a revolutionary rishon who “disrupt- ed” and “basically dispensed with” the Geonim who preceded him. “The works of Rabad,” we are told, “will reveal to us the declaration of European independence from Geonic thought.” “Not that they5 over- threw the past—Heaven forbid; they simply rendered much of it irrele- vant. And it is not for the meek to discard 500 years of tutelage” (pp. 11- 14, 37).6 A third major theme of the “Programmatic Essay” (pp. 30-36) is Rabad’s contribution to the development and evolution of Halakhah. We are told “how he transformed his heritage.” “Law . has an antipa- thy to radical change; thus the revolutionary jurist must disguise his innovations—at times even from himself” (p. 31). We will attempt to show that these latter two contentions do not stand up to close scrutiny. • • • Let us begin by examining the sole evidence marshaled for Rabad’s sup- posed indifference to the teachings and authority of his predecessors: the seemingly diminished Geonic presence in his work. As Soloveitchik puts it, “take away the Geonim from Rabad and the loss is barely noticeable.”7 He observes a basic distinction between the works of Rabad and those who preceded him. Rabad is found “to confront talmudic texts unaided . to penetrate into those areas where no commentarial tradi- 26 The Torah u-Madda Journal tion was available,” whereas his predecessors’ writings “are a storehouse of Geonic literature.” Apparently, Soloveitchik is attempting to present evidence that the absence of Geonica in Rabad’s writings proves that he ignored Geonica.8 His essay, however, does not cite specific examples of omissions by Rabad of a known Geonic teaching relevant to Rabad’s discussion. The only evidence presented is a superficial observation of his writings: “take away the Geonim from Rabad . the loss is barely noticeable.” Accepting, for a moment, Soloveitchik’s claim, we must realize that its significance will depend on the following premises being true: Premise 1—Rabad possessed Geonic knowledge—but ignored it—in those areas where he does not mention Geonic teachings. Premise 2—When Rabad does not cite any source, he is not relying on a Geonic source. Let us note parenthetically that many rishonim—perhaps most—regularly state the opinions of their predecessors without citing them as such, but rather as if the opinion stated is their own. If only one of these premises turns out to be unfounded, the argu- ment founders. Let us start with the first premise. To properly assess whether or not Geonic literature was ignored by Rabad, we have to know just what litera- ture they produced. This information is supplied by R. Menah.em ha- Me’iri, in his monumental introduction to Avot.9 Me’iri also places Rabad in historical context, and briefly characterizes his unique achievement. To better appreciate Me’iri’s presentation, let us first take a glimpse at the literature the Geonim left behind. What does this literature have to offer on any given talmudic text? As can be seen from the great anthology of Geonica, Oz. ar ha-Geonim, Geonic texts come basically in two forms: commentary and responsa. The Geonic commentaries are few and generally very technical, addressing textual issues (nush. a’ot) in the Talmud, and providing technical and literal explanations. The responsa, on the other hand, contain mainly halakhic decisions. An attempt to study a talmudic text with the aid of Oz. ar ha-Geonim alone will quickly reveal that this combined literary corpus lacks both elucida- tions of the talmudic discourse as well as interpretations and definitions of talmudic concepts.10 Me’iri explains that the famed yeshivot of the Geonim had supplied this knowledge. The explanations of talmudic discourse in these yeshivot Ephraim A. Buckwold 27 were so clear, that there was no need to commit them to writing.11 This does not mean that no problems existed that required discussion. Indeed, a contemporary of the Geonim reports how all the great schol- ars would gather together periodically at the great yeshivot for discus- sion and debate.12 But none of this discourse was written down.13 The closing of the Geonic yeshivot and prevailing harsh conditions led to a dearth of knowledge and understanding in the succeeding peri- od. Geonic literature, as noted, was extremely limited. As Me’iri puts it: “It does not satisfy the hunger of the students at all,” iucgr rca ovc iht kkf ohsnk,nv.14 Me’iri describes this period and the literary role played by post-Geonic scholars—what we call “rishonim”—in filling this gap: b/ngr hshg/ vjfnhu tv/wjcv ngk/ vjhctwhu tvihwtahu. nibh anzny irhw/ anzny nibh tvihwtahu. vjhctwhu ngk/ tv/wjcv vjfnhu hshg/ b/ngr wc veh dskt vmwt/, tdbc kc vcwht/ k// e/ vgtku ckcu, nwtc mwfu ekht kwtc ekht mwfu nwtc ckcu, vgtku e/ k// vcwht/ kc tdbc vmwt/, dskt veh wc vgtkhu tvnxhu tv/ajtw/ tvdzhwt/ tngnx vetnt/ gkhbt. tgcw zny vdetbt/ tvdhg vdetbt/ zny tgcw gkhbt. vetnt/ tngnx tvdzhwt/ tv/ajtw/ tvnxhu vgtkhu zny vwcbt/ . tb/ngrt vjfnhu. tcjnk/ v' gk gnt, cqtu ejs nghw tntme gmnt tntme nghw ejs cqtu gnt, gk v' tcjnk/ vjfnhu. tb/ngrt . vwcbt/ zny aku, wtev gmnt njthc kih znbt kvtghk ketn/t feaw htfk, tvhv n/qy gmnt n/qy tvhv htfk, feaw ketn/t kvtghk znbt kih njthc gmnt wtev aku, kvwct/ cjhctwt cnf/ct, nvu swl ixq , tnvu swl ihwta. ihwta. swl tnvu , ixq swl nvu cnf/ct, cjhctwt kvwct/ The knowledge of the scholars (of the post-Geonic era) dwindled and the prominence of the (codificatory) writings and the commentaries expand- ed. For since the passing of Rav Hai, troubles have increased, and people have misled themselves into placing the world [materialism] in their hearts, owing to their great need for it as a consequence of the many yokes, taxes, forced labor, decrees and the burden of the nations placed upon us. The Geonic period passed and the Rabbinic period arrived . and the scholars dwindled. (But) due to God’s mercy for his nation, one (scholar) in a city would arise and find himself complete (as a scholar), and would see himself obligated for his time to benefit his nation to the best of his ability, and would address himself to (the task of) authoring numer- ous written compositions, some in the form of halakhic decisions and some in the form of commentaries.15 The scholars of the new “post-Geonic” era, continues Me’iri, wrote either works of halakhic decisions or commentaries. Alfasi wrote clear- cut halakhic decisions16 anchored in the talmudic discourse, while Ibn Giat wrote a general anthology of Geonic rulings of Halakhah, Halakhot Kez. arot.17 R. Yehudah of Barcelona wrote an even more comprehensive collection of halakhot, H. ibbur Kolel18 which included a major collection of Geonica. (Sefer ha-Eshkol of R. Avraham Av Beit Din of Narbonne, Rabad’s father-in-law, was basically an abridgement of R. Yehudah’s Sefer ha-Ittim.19)Preserving these remnants of the august Geonic era was one of the first steps necessary for the new era.