DOCSLIB.ORG

The Emergence and Development of Tosafot on the Talmud

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Emergence and Development of Tosafot on the Talmud 143 The Emergence and Development of Tosafot on the Talmud By: ARYEH LEIBOWITZ Introduction It is generally known that the Tosafot commentary on the Talmud is a compendium of Talmudic scholarship produced in France and Germany over a period of a century and a half. Less known are the stages of its development and the different elements of its produc- tion. By charting the development of the Tosafist academies in Northern France through their final editing stages in France and Germany, this article suggests three distinct elements in the produc- tion of the Tosafot commentary and provides the reader with a gen- eral perspective of the printed editions of Tosafot that adorn mod- ern-day editions of the Talmud. The Tosafist Enterprise Dialectic study, the sine qua non of rabbinic Judaism in the period of the Amoraim, seemingly fell into disuse in the centuries follow- ing the final redaction of the Talmud. The talmudic commentaries that emerged from the Geonic era primarily focused on straight- forward explanations of difficult talmudic lexicons or on the eluci- dation of specific complicated passages. Additionally, Geonic atten- tion was turned toward the issuance of legal rulings for the many communities that looked toward the Babylonian academies for legal decisions. If dialectic study of the Talmud was engaged in by the Geonim, very little was recorded and available for the emerging ________________________________________________________ Aryeh Leibowitz is a musmakh of REITS and earned his Ph.D. from Yeshiva University. He is the Assistant Dean of the Moty Hornstein Institute for Overseas Students at Yeshivat Sha‘alvim. Ḥ akirah 15 © 2013 144 : Hakirah,̣ the Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought Tosafist schools in Germany and France.1 The re-emergence of dialectic study was seemingly initiated by the Tosafist scholars of Northern France and Germany in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.2 The focus of the Amoraim had 1 Avraham Grossman addresses the lack of Talmud commentaries in the Geonic period in his “Social Structure and Intellectual Creativity in Me- dieval Jewish Communities (Eighth to the Twelfth Centuries),” Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature, ed. I. Twersky and J. M. Harris (Cambridge, 2000), 3:1–19. In addition, see his Hakhmei Zarefat ha- Rishonim (Jerusalem, 1995), 429–436. For examples of Geonic commen- taries on the Talmud, see Seridim mi-Toratan Shel Geonim ve-Rishonim mi-Genizat Kahir, ed. E. Hurvitz (New York, 1986). 2 Various approaches have been suggested to explain the re-emergence of the dialectical movement as an internal Tosafist movement. Haym Soloveitchik writes that the “multiple panzer thrusts of R. Tam’s intel- lect” led to a “rediscovery” of the methods utilized by the Amoraim to analyze the mishnaic corpus and that R. Tam applied those methods to the talmudic corpus. See Haym Soloveitchik, “Three Themes in the Sefer Hasidim,” AJS Review 1 (1976): 339, idem., “Can Halakhic Texts Talk History?,” AJS Review (1978): 179, and idem, “Rabad of Posquières: A Programmatic Essay,” Studies in the History of Jewish Society in the Middle Ages and in the Modern Period, ed. E. Etkes and Y. Salomon (Jerusalem, 1980), 19. However, Avraham Grossman has argued that the dialectic method popularized by the Tosafists emerged before R. Tam in the elev- enth-century talmudic academy in Worms, Germany; see his Hakhmei Ashkenaz ha-Rishonim (Jerusalem, 1981), 343 and 419, idem., Hakhmei Zarefat ha-Rishonim, Chapter Seven and specifically 447–449, and idem., “Social Structure and Intellectual Creativity,” 1–19. The relationship be- tween the Tosafists and the early German academies was first suggested by Jacob Nahum Epstein, “Perushei ha-Rivan u-Perushei Vermaiza,” Tarbiz 4 (1933): 167–192, especially 177-178. [We also find remnants of such study in R. Nissim b. Jacob’s 11th century work, Sefer ha-Mafteah le- Man'ulei ha-Talmud. See for example tractate Shabbat 80a.] Hayyim Hillel Ben-Sasson, “Hanhagatah shel Torah,” Behinot be-Bikkoret ha-Sifrut 9 (1956): 39–53, suggested that the Tosafists’ writings merely represent an intensification of classic talmudic methodologies encouraged by the suc- cess of Rashi’s Talmud commentary. Other scholars have looked to explain this re-emergence by noting simi- larities between the Tosafist dialectics and the methods of other intellec- tual movements of the time, suggesting a possible cross-cultural influence. See José Faur, “The Legal Thinking of the Tosafot: A Historical Ap- The Emergence and Development of Tosafot on the Talmud : 145 been dialectic analysis of the Mishnah in light of the entire Tannaitic corpus. Every Mishnah had to be understood in the context of all other relevant Tannaitic sources. This required cross-referencing from the Baraita and Tosefta collections, as well as collation of the many explanations and traditions of the various Tannaitic sages. The Tosafists approached the talmudic text with a similar per- spective: talmudic passages could be understood only in light of the greater Amoraic corpus.3 The Tosafist schools set out to analyze the entire Talmud using all relevant talmudic passages as a context and backdrop for the text under scrutiny. For two centuries the Tosafist academies searched the Talmud noting contradictions and relevant passages. Their dialectic analysis and hairsplitting distinctions pro- cured for the Tosafists a sacred position within the intellectual his- tory of talmudic study, described by one historian as the “immortal accomplishments” of the Tosafists.4 The product of the meticulous work undertaken during these two centuries is well represented by the Tosafot commentary that graces the page of the printed Talmud. proach,” Dine Yisrael 6 (1975): 43–72, Ephraim Urbach, Ba‘alei ha-Tosafot, 17–31, 87, fn. 9, and 744–757. Note that these remarks of Urbach appear in the 1980 edition and are a revision from what he originally wrote in the 1955 edition, 27-28. Ephraim Kanarfogel, Jewish Education and Society in the High Middle Ages (Detroit, 1992), 168 fn. 27, writes that these revi- sions were made in response to Isadore Twersky’s critical comments in his 1957 review article of Urbach’s work that appeared in Tarbiz 26 (1957): 218–220. See also A. Grossman’s remarks in Hakhmei Ashkenaz, 423, especially fn. 58. For other cross-cultural similarities, see Ephraim Kanarfogel, Jewish Education, 70–73, and Israel Ta-Shma, “Halakhah and Reality—The Tosafist Experience,” Rashi et la Culture Juive en France du Nord au Moyen Âge, ed. G. Dahan, et al. (Paris, 1997), 313–329. In general, see also Salo Baron, Social and Religious History of the Jews (New York, 1958), 6:27–56 and 6:340-341. 3 Urbach, Ba‘alei ha-Tosafot, 679 – 680 and 744. 4 Haym Soloveitchik, “Three Themes,” 339. In another essay, “Catastrophe and Halakhic Creativity: Ashkenaz – 1096, 1242, 1306, and 1298,” Jewish History 12:1 (1998): 72, Soloveitchik remarks, “If, as Whitehead once aph- oristically said, all philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato, we can say, with far less exaggeration, that all subsequent halakhic thought has been a series of footnotes to the Tosafists.” 146 : Hakirah,̣ the Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought Elements of the Tosafist Enterprise It is possible to identify at least three distinct elements in the devel- opment of the Tosafist Talmud commentaries. These elements are also manifest as distinct stages in the Tosafist period—for different generations showed propensities toward one element or another.5 Similarly, when speaking of a particular generation, we can identify three different roles that individual Tosafists assumed in their own work. We will address these elements as stages and speak in terms of generations, but it should be stressed that most Tosafists engaged, to varying degrees, in each of these roles. Element One: Independent Dialectics Rashi’s line-by-line explanations of the entire talmudic corpus opened the book of the Talmud in a way that was previously un- paralleled.6 However his commentary was a local commentary, and he did not seek to analyze each line of the Talmud in context of the entire talmudic corpus. Rashi’s Talmud commentary focused on the local discussion, and he chose explanations that presented the local passage with the most clarity, even if this required ignoring a rele- vant discussion in another tractate. This was not the case with the Tosafists. Working with an as- sumption that the entire talmudic corpus was one unified text—an assumption that Rashi likely agreed with but did not focus on when 5 Compare to Israel Ta-Shma, Ha-Sifrut ha-Parshanit la-Talmud (Jerusalem, 1999), 1: 94. 6 Unlike the commentaries of R. Hananel, R. Gershom, or the other vari- ous commentaries that preceded his commentary, Rashi’s method high- lighted key phrases in the talmudic discussion (dibur ha-mathil ) instead of the paraphrasing commentary style of the aforementioned scholars. His commentary quickly spread throughout France and Germany, replacing the previously utilized commentaries. Now that the Talmud had found its authoritative commentary, a path was laid for the Tosafist enterprise. For more on this relationship between the commentary of Rashi and the Tosafist enterprise, see Urbach, Ba‘alei ha-Tosafot, 21-22, and Grossman, “Social Structure and Intellectual Creativity,” 11, and idem, Hakhmei Zarefat ha-Rishonim, 439-440. The Emergence and Development of Tosafot on the Talmud : 147 composing his commentary—the early Tosafists focused their work on more global, corpus-wide analysis.7 Yet their broader focus did not preclude their attention to local issues. Before engaging in any dialectic analysis, the Tosafists en- gaged in a close reading of the local passage, providing further eluci- dation of the talmudic discussion.8 Indeed, the early Tosafists were likely seeking to complement, and not replace, the commentary of their ancestor Rashi, and it could be that for this intention they re- ceived the name Tosafot, meaning additions.9 With a more corpus-wide perspective, the early Tosafists pored over the Talmud, seeking to identify difficulties in talmudic passag- es or Rashi’s explanations based on parallel, or at least relevant, dis- cussion in other locations in the talmudic corpus.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TALMUDIC STUDIES Ephraim Kanarfogel
    chapter 22 TALMUDIC STUDIES ephraim kanarfogel TRANSITIONS FROM THE EAST, AND THE NASCENT CENTERS IN NORTH AFRICA, SPAIN, AND ITALY The history and development of the study of the Oral Law following the completion of the Babylonian Talmud remain shrouded in mystery. Although significant Geonim from Babylonia and Palestine during the eighth and ninth centuries have been identified, the extent to which their writings reached Europe, and the channels through which they passed, remain somewhat unclear. A fragile consensus suggests that, at least initi- ally, rabbinic teachings and rulings from Eretz Israel traveled most directly to centers in Italy and later to Germany (Ashkenaz), while those of Babylonia emerged predominantly in the western Sephardic milieu of Spain and North Africa.1 To be sure, leading Sephardic talmudists prior to, and even during, the eleventh century were not yet to be found primarily within Europe. Hai ben Sherira Gaon (d. 1038), who penned an array of talmudic commen- taries in addition to his protean output of responsa and halakhic mono- graphs, was the last of the Geonim who flourished in Baghdad.2 The family 1 See Avraham Grossman, “Zik˙atah shel Yahadut Ashkenaz ‘el Erets Yisra’el,” Shalem 3 (1981), 57–92; Grossman, “When Did the Hegemony of Eretz Yisra’el Cease in Italy?” in E. Fleischer, M. A. Friedman, and Joel Kraemer, eds., Mas’at Mosheh: Studies in Jewish and Moslem Culture Presented to Moshe Gil [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1998), 143–57; Israel Ta- Shma’s review essays in K˙ ryat Sefer 56 (1981), 344–52, and Zion 61 (1996), 231–7; Ta-Shma, Kneset Mehkarim, vol.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Jews, Gentiles, and the Modern Egalitarian Ethos
    Jews, Gentiles, and the Modern Egalitarian Ethos: Some Tentative Thoughts David Berger The deep and systemic tension between contemporary egalitarianism and many authoritative Jewish texts about gentiles takes varying forms. Most Orthodox Jews remain untroubled by some aspects of this tension, understanding that Judaism’s affirmation of chosenness and hierarchy can inspire and ennoble without denigrating others. In other instances, affirmations of metaphysical differences between Jews and gentiles can take a form that makes many of us uncomfortable, but we have the legitimate option of regarding them as non-authoritative. Finally and most disturbing, there are positions affirmed by standard halakhic sources from the Talmud to the Shulhan Arukh that apparently stand in stark contrast to values taken for granted in the modern West and taught in other sections of the Torah itself. Let me begin with a few brief observations about the first two categories and proceed to somewhat more extended ruminations about the third. Critics ranging from medieval Christians to Mordecai Kaplan have directed withering fire at the doctrine of the chosenness of Israel. Nonetheless, if we examine an overarching pattern in the earliest chapters of the Torah, we discover, I believe, that this choice emerges in a universalist context. The famous statement in the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 4:5) that Adam was created singly so that no one would be able to say, “My father is greater than yours” underscores the universality of the original divine intent. While we can never know the purpose of creation, one plausible objective in light of the narrative in Genesis is the opportunity to actualize the values of justice and lovingkindness through the behavior of creatures who subordinate themselves to the will 1 of God.
    [Show full text]
  • Designing the Talmud: the Origins of the Printed Talmudic Page
    Marvin J. Heller The author has published Printing the Talmud: A History of the Earliest Printed Editions of the Talmud. DESIGNING THE TALMUD: THE ORIGINS OF THE PRINTED TALMUDIC PAGE non-biblical Jewish work,i Its redaction was completed at the The Talmudbeginning is indisputablyof the fifth century the most and the important most important and influential commen- taries were written in the middle ages. Studied without interruption for a milennium and a half, it is surprising just how significant an eftèct the invention of printing, a relatively late occurrence, had upon the Talmud. The ramifications of Gutenberg's invention are well known. One of the consequences not foreseen by the early practitioners of the "Holy Work" and commonly associated with the Industrial Revolution, was the introduction of standardization. The spread of printing meant that distinct scribal styles became generic fonts, erratic spellngs became uni- form and sequential numbering of pages became standard. The first printed books (incunabula) were typeset copies of manu- scripts, lacking pagination and often not uniform. As a result, incunabu- la share many characteristics with manuscripts, such as leaving a blank space for the first letter or word to be embellshed with an ornamental woodcut, a colophon at the end of the work rather than a title page, and the use of signatures but no pagination.2 The Gutenberg Bibles, for example, were printed with blank spaces to be completed by calligra- phers, accounting for the varying appearance of the surviving Bibles. Hebrew books, too, shared many features with manuscripts; A. M. Habermann writes that "Conats type-faces were cast after his own handwriting, .
    [Show full text]
  • In the Following Verses from Devarim, Moshe Recounts the Events of Revelation at Sinai
    In the following verses from Devarim, Moshe recounts the events of revelation at Sinai. How does he describe his role? What inner contradiction comes from a comparison of verses 4- 5? Deuteronomy 5 (1) And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them: Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and observe to do them. (2) The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. (3) The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day. (4) The Lord spoke with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire. (5) I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to declare unto you the word of the Lord; for ye were afraid because of the fire, and went not up into the mount, saying: To think about: What is a “face-to-face” encounter? What does it mean that Hashem spoke to the nation in such a manner at Sinai? Why might God have chosen to do so? According to verse 5, Moshe acted as an intermediary to “tell [the nation] the word of God.” How can this be reconciled with the direct encounter described in verse 4? What would be the point of Hashem speaking via a mediator? What does Moshe mean when he says “for you were afraid because of the fire”? Had the nation not been afraid, would the experience have been different? Why would God have chosen to frighten the people anyway? Did we hear the Ten Commandments directly from Hashem or did Moshe act as an intermediary? Right after the description of Hashem relaying the Ten Commandments, Moshe recounts how the people approached him, filled with fear: Deuteronomy 5 (20) and ye said: ‘Behold, the Lord our God hath shown us His glory and His greatness, and we have heard His voice out of the midst of the fire; we have seen this day that God doth speak with man, and he liveth.
    [Show full text]
  • The Religious Implications of an Historical Approach to Jewish Studies
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 482 214 SO 035 468 AUTHOR Furst, Rachel TITLE The Religious Implications of an Historical Approach to Jewish Studies. PUB DATE 2001-00-00 NOTE 59p.; Prepared by the Academy for Torah Initiatives and Directions (Jerusalem, Israel). AVAILABLE FROM Academy for Torah Initiatives and Directions,9 HaNassi Street, Jerusalem 92188, Israel. Tel: 972-2-567-1719; Fax: 972-2-567-1723; e-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.atid.org/ . PUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (141) EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MF01/PC03 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Curriculum Development; Discourse Communities; *Jews; *Judaism; *Religion Studies; *Religious Factors; Research Methodology; Scholarship IDENTIFIERS Historical Methods; *Jewish Studies; *Torah ABSTRACT This project examines the religious implications of an approach to "limmudei kodesh" (primarily the study of Talmud) and "halakhah" (an integration of academic scholarship with traditional Torah study and the evaluation of the educational pros and cons of a curriculum built on such a synthesis) .In the concerted effort over the past century to develop a program of "Torah U-Madda" that synthesizes Torah and worldly pursuits, Torah scholars have endorsed the value of secular knowledge as a complimentary accoutrement to the "Talmud Torah" endeavor, but few have validated the application of secular academic tools and methodologies to Torah study or developed a model for such integrated Torah learning. The Torah scholar committed to synthesis seeks to employ historical knowledge and methodological tools in the decoding of halakhic texts as a means of contributing to the halakhic discourse. Traditional "Talmud Torah" does not address the realm of pesak halakhah, but it is nonetheless considered the highest form of religious expression.
    [Show full text]
  • KS 3 Talmud Page Layout Copy
    Page Chapter name Tractate name Chapter number Ein mishpat, Ner mitzvah Rashi’s commentary –Rashi (an acronym for Rabbi (Hebrew: Well of justice, Lamp of Shlomo Yitchaki) was a major Jewish scholar active in the commandment) Compiled in 11th century France. Rashi compiled the first the 16th century this provides the complete commentary on the Talmud. The Mishnah source references to the laws are written in in a brief, terse style without being discussed on the page. punctuation and Rashi’s commentary is directed towards helping readers work through the text and understand its basic form and content. Tosafot (Hebrew: additions) These Mishnah and Gemara The central column of the page contains medieval commentaries were written in verses of the Mishnah followed by verses from the Gemara. the 12th and 13th centuries. They are the The Mishnah is the primary record of the teaching, decisions work of various Talmudic scholars and disputes of a group of Jewish religious and judicial scholars primarily living in France and Germany. known as Tannaim, active from about 10 to 220 CE. Originally transmitted orally, it was edited into its current form and written down in 200 CE by Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi. Written primarily in Hebrew, it is divided into 63 tractates and organized into six sections or ‘orders’. The Gemara is an analysis and expansion on the Mishnah. There are two versions - the Other commentaries Various other Babylonian Talmud (the most commonly studied) and the commentaries appear in the margins Jerusalem Talmud. The Gemara is written primarily in Aramaic of a printed Talmud page.
    [Show full text]
  • Female Homoerotic Sexual Activity – Sources
    Feminist Sexual Ethics Project Gail Labovitz Senior Research Analyst, Feminist Sexual Ethics Project Female Homoerotic Sexual Activity – Sources: The sources addressing female homoerotic sexual activity in rabbinic literature (link to glossary) are very few, and far less clear than those regarding sexual activity between men. There is a great deal of ambiguity in these texts as to what activities are forbidden, the consequences for women who engage in them, and the nature (that is, the source and/or the authority) of whatever prohibition does exist. Reading these sources suggests several potential reasons why rabbinic thinking on female homoerotic sexual activity is less developed than regarding male homoeroticism; these possibilities will be discussed in the course of the analysis of the texts below. Tannaitic Midrash There is no direct prohibition on female homoerotic sexual activity in the Hebrew bible, indeed, no explicit discussion of such activity at all. Biblical laws of forbidden sexual couplings (notably Leviticus 18 and 20) are generally addressed to male listeners/readers. With the exception of the prohibition against bestiality (Leviticus 18:23 and 20:15-16), in which the prohibition against women committing this act follows on the prohibition to men,1 sexual acts which do not involve male participants are not discussed. Nor do the Mishnah (link to glossary) or the Tosefta (link to glossary) discuss sexual acts between women in any way. Only one midrashic (link to glossary) text from this period addresses any form of homoeroticism between women. As midrash, that is, as a form of exegesis of scriptural text, to Leviticus 18:3, this passage thus invokes the authority of scripture for its discourse on female homoeroticism; it links marriage between two women to the practices of the Canaanites and Egyptians, which this verse and numerous others explicitly forbid, as well as to a number of other sexual/marital connections explicitly or implicitly forbidden in scripture [cite the verse?].
    [Show full text]
  • Medieval English Rabbis: Image and Self-Image Pinchas Roth
    Medieval English Rabbis: Image and Self-Image Pinchas Roth Early Middle English, Volume 1, Number 1, 2019, pp. 17-33 (Article) Published by Arc Humanities Press For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/731651 [ Access provided at 2 Oct 2021 13:24 GMT with no institutional affiliation ] MEDIEVAL ENGLISH RABBIS: IMAGE AND SELF-IMAGE PINCHAS ROTH “The neglect of the British situation is explicable largely on the grounds that, compared with other northern, Ashkenazic communities, the Anglo-Jewish community was not perceived to have produced the scholarly superstars so evident in France and Germany.”1 tantalizing about the Jews of medieval England. So much about them is unknown, perhaps unknowable, and even those facts that are well known There is someThing and ostensibly unquestionable have drawn attempts2 There to were bend, no crack, Jewish or communitiesotherwise move in Anglo-Saxonthem. The chronologically England.3 first fact known about this Jewish community is that itHistory came intoof the being Jews onlyin England after the Norman Conquest. 4 The end of the But, medieval as Cecil Anglo-Jewish Roth commented experience on the is first also pageclear—the of his Edict of Expulsion of 1290 did, not“Fantasy allow hasfor any… attempted continued to Jewish carry presencethe story inback England. to a remote5 That hasantiquity.” not stopped various people from believing that Jews continued to live in England for * Boyarin and Shamma Boyarin for their kind invitation and extraordinary hospitality at the University I am deeply of Victoria. grateful to Menachem Butler for his unflagging help, and to Adrienne Williams 1 Patricia Skinner, “Introduction: Jews in Medieval Britain and Europe,” in The Jews in Medieval Britain: Historical, Literary, and Archaeological Perspectives, ed.
    [Show full text]
  • The Contribution of Spanish Jewryto the World of Jewishlaw*
    THE CONTRIBUTION OF SPANISH JEWRYTO THE WORLD OF JEWISHLAW* Menachem Elon Spanish Jewry's contribution to post-Talmudie halakhic literature may be explored in part in The Digest of the Responsa Literature of Spain and North Africa, a seven-volume compilation containing references to more ? than 10,000 Responsa answers to questions posed to the authorities of the day. Another source of law stemming from Spanish Jewrymay befound in the community legislation (Takanot HaKahal) enacted in all areas of civil, public-administrative, and criminal law. Among themajor questions con sider edhere are whether a majority decision binds a dissenting minority, the nature of a majority, and the appropriate procedures for governance. These earlier principles of Jewish public law have since found expression in decisions of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel. *This essay is based on the author's presentation to the Biennial Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture, Madrid, June 27, 1992. JewishPolitical Studies Review 5:3-4 (Fall 1993) 35 This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.205 on Tue, 27 Nov 2012 04:27:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 36 Menachem Elon The Contribution of Spanish Jewry to theWorld of Jewish Law The full significance of Spanish Jewry's powerful contribu tion to post-Talmudic halakhic literature demands a penetrating study. To appreciate the importance of Spanish Jewry's contri bution to the halakhic world, one need only mention, in chrono logical order, various halakhic authorities, most who lived in Spain throughout their lives, some who emigrated to, and some who immigrated from, Spain.
    [Show full text]
  • Bal Tashchit : the Jewish Prohibition Against Needless Destruction Wolff, K.A
    Bal Tashchit : the Jewish prohibition against needless destruction Wolff, K.A. Citation Wolff, K. A. (2009, December 1). Bal Tashchit : the Jewish prohibition against needless destruction. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/1887/14448 Version: Corrected Publisher’s Version Licence agreement concerning inclusion of doctoral thesis in the License: Institutional Repository of the University of Leiden Downloaded from: https://hdl.handle.net/1887/14448 Note: To cite this publication please use the final published version (if applicable). BAL TASHCHIT: THE JEWISH PROHIBITION AGAINST NEEDLESS DESTRUCTION Copyright © 2009 by K. A. Wolff All rights reserved Printed in Jerusalem BAL TASHCHIT: THE JEWISH PROHIBITION AGAINST NEEDLESS DESTRUCTION Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van Doctor aan de Universiteit Leiden, op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof. mr P.F. van der Heijden, volgens besluit van het College voor Promoties te verdedigen op dinsdag 1 december 2009 klokke 15:00 uur door Keith A. Wolff geboren te Fort Lauderdale (Verenigde Staten) in 1957 Promotiecommissie Promotores: Prof. Dr F.A. de Wolff Prof. Dr A. Wijler, Rabbijn, Jerusalem College of Technology Overige leden: Prof. Dr J.J. Boersema, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Prof. Dr A. Ellian Prof. Dr R.W. Munk, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Prof. Dr I.E. Zwiep, Universiteit van Amsterdam To my wife, our children, and our parents Preface This is an interdisciplinary thesis. The second and third chapters focus on classic Jewish texts, commentary and legal responsa, including the original Hebrew and Aramaic, along with translations into English. The remainder of the thesis seeks to integrate principles derived from these Jewish sources with contemporary Western thought, particularly on what might be called 'environmental' themes.
    [Show full text]
  • Introducción Al Estudio De La Torá
    FUENTES DEL PENSAMIENTO JUDAICO LAS OBRAS Y LOS PERSONAJES MÁS IMPORTANTES Por Roberto J. Ayala 1 LA TRADICIÓN INTERPRETATIVA “Rabí Meir refirió una vez: Cuando Israel se acercó a Di-s para recibir la Torá, Di-s les dijo: ‘Dadme garantías de que la observaréis.’ El Pueblo contestó: ‘Nuestros antepasados, cuya piedad es el ejemplo de nuestras vidas, aseguran que nosotros guardaremos la Torá.’ Pero Di-s contestó: ‘Vuestras garantías necesitan garantías a su vez, pues, yo he hallado falta en ellos.’ Entonces contestó el pueblo: ‘Permite que nuestro profetas se pongan de pie y respondan por nosotros.’ Pero Di-s contestó: ‘También en ellos he encontrado fallas.’ Entonces el pueblo de Israel dijo: ‘Nuestros hijos garantizarán la observancia de la Torá por toda la Eternidad.’ Y Di-s aceptó entonces esa garantía, y les dio la Torá.” (Cantar de los Cantares Rabá 1:4). Según la tradición Moisés recibió la Torá en el Monte Sinaí en el año 2.448 de la creación del mundo (1313 A.E.C.). La opinión de los rabinos al respecto es que la Torá que Di-s entregó al pueblo de Israel, estaba escrita de manera tal que además de poder estudiarse mediante un entendimiento literal del texto, también era posible llegar a niveles más profundos de comprensión mediante otros sistemas interpretativos de las escrituras que no contradecían la literalidad del texto, sino que complementaban el entendimiento del mismo. Por lo tanto los rabinos entendieron que la Biblia podía comprenderse de múltiples maneras al expresar: Shivím Paním LaTorá que quiere decir: ‘Setenta rostros tiene la Torá’ (Midrásh, Números Rabá 13:15), lo cual es una referencia a las diversas formas de interpretarla, considerándolas como verdaderas y entendiendo que provinieron de una misma fuente: El Creador del universo.
    [Show full text]
  • Greek Philosophy and the Mishnah: on the History of Love That Does Not Depend on a Thing*
    Greek Philosophy and the Mishnah: On the History of Love that Does Not Depend on a Thing* GABRIEL DANZIG In the fifth chapter ofAvot we read: כל אהבה שהיא תלויה בדבר—בטל דבר, בטלה אהבה; ושאינה תלויה בדבר — אינה בטילה לעולם. איזו היא אהבה שהיא תלויה בדבר, זו אהבת אמנון ותמר; ושאינה תלויה בדבר, זו אהבת דויד ויהונתן Any love that is dependent on a thing – when the thing is gone, the love is gone; but a love that is not dependent on a thing will never dissolve. What is a love that is dependent on a thing? This is the love of Amnon and Tamar. And one that is not dependent on a thing? This is the love of David and Jonathan.1 (Mish. Avot 5.16) Anyone familiar with Greek philosophical reflections on love and friendship will immediately sense a resemblance. The distinction between love based on sexual pleasure and higher forms of love is found in both Plato and Aristotle. In Plato’s Symposium we find the following: * The Bar Ilan responsa project enabled me to locate many of the passages referred to in this paper. I thank Steve Harvey, Lawrence Schiffman, Joel Kaminsky and an anonymous reader for comments which substantially improved this paper. I also thank Prof. Schaps for his many invaluable suggestions and improvements as editor. This paper is a small token of my admiration for Ranon, and for his unique ability to combine the intellectual and personal virtues of the world of Torah learning with those of the academic world. 1 All translations are my own.
    [Show full text]