ITALIA JUDAICA. Atti del I Convegno internazionale. Bari 18-22 ...

certain midrashic compilations are, in their final form, of Italian provenance;
(3) Shabbetai Donnolo's report about the death of ten prominent scholars in
925 )1; (4) the achievement of R. Meshullam ben Kalonymos of Lucca, most
of whose work was done in Italy rather than Germany, and the generai role
of Italy as intermediary in transmitting Palestinian teachings to Afhkenaz
(emphasized since the time of S. Y. Rappoport), even though the great for­
mative influence of Babylonian teachings is now being more fully assessed u;
(5) the reports of Al;imaiiz concerning his family contributions to Talmudic
scholarship, liturgical poetry, and statesmanship as well as his comments
concerning Abu Aharon of Bagdad who found 'already established' schoals
at Oria; (6) the powerful Italian-Byzantine axis, suggested by the above and
abetted by numerous other indications; (7) the 'Arukh composed by R. Natan
b. Yehi'el of Rome; (8) the two important manuscripts of the Mi'Shnàh
which originated in Italy at the end of the eleventh century 13; (9) the Mifhnàh
Commentary (on Zera'im and !,oharot) of R. Isaac b. Melkizedek of Siponto,
the 'Greek rabbi' apparently used by Maimonides, lavishly praised by some
contemporaries, and sharply criticized by Rabad, as well as references to his
father and son (Shilo); (10) R. Solomon ben ha-Yatom and his commentary
on the Talmudic tractate Mo'ed qatan (or Mashkin); (11) references to hakhme
Romi both those living in Rome and those emigrating elsewhere (e.g., Wotms);
(12) the scholars mentioned by Benjamin of Tudela; (13) R. Tam's rhapsodic
declatation in his Sefer ha-Yashar concetning Bari and Otranto '''N:! ':'
't)l"t)'N 'l'l '1::" ;''1,n NlIn ; (14) the Tanya Rabbati 14; (15) R. Isaiah ben Mali
of Trani (Rid), a prodigious author to whom we shall return; (16) R. Zedekiah
ben Abraham Anaw and his important compilation Shibbolai ha-Leqet. While
sketching this histoty, the fol!owing piace names would be mentioned: Bari,
Brindisi, Lucca, Milan, Oria, Otranto, Pavia, Rome, Siponto, Taranto, Trani,
Venosa, Verona - and they would ring a bel! al! were seats of learning.
1 1 Se-e A. SHARF, The Universe 01 S. Donnola, New York, 1976. Prof. S. Abramson
has shown how R. Moses of Coucy made use of Donnolo's Ifakhmoni in the Sefer Mizwot
Gadol; see Sinai, LXXX (1976/77), pp. 211-213.
U See especially, A. GROSSMAN, lfakme Ashkenaz, p. 31 and the review by 1. TA­
SHEMA, Kiryat Seler, LVI (1981), pp. 344·352.
13 This was already noted by Cassuto. Prof. J. Sussman reviews the matter in bis
artide on the history of MiJhnàb manuscripts which is to appear in the Proceedings of tbe
Seventh World Congress of ]ewish Studies. I was pleased to receive a copy of the gaIleys.
lt is dear from this that MiJhnàb study was prominent in southern Italy, but there
is not much that we are able to say about it on the basis of impersonaI paleographic evidence.
Tbe role of Italian scholars as transmitters is also underscored, but again without
much personal or methodological information.
14 See tbe basic study of Y. Z. PEINTOCH in Sinai, LXXX (1976/77), pp. 14-25. This
book is frequently quoted in later times (e.g. by R. JOSEPH KOLON) and is seen as a repository
of Italian customs (e.g. R. GEDALYAH IBN YAHYAH); see M. SHULVASS, lfayye ha
Yebudim be-'Italyah, New York 1955, p. 256.
388
These Ìtems, in short, together with a revÌew of contacts and infIuences
from and upon other centers as \Vell as references in related genres (such as
Jacob Anatoli's Derashot or Hillel of Ve onù Tagmulei ha-Nefesh), are the
chapter headings for a history of rabb1nlC hterature 1n Italy. !h matenal
is indeed substantive and significant. If \Ve then revert to ha-Me In s sc:I:eme,
\Ve are ali the more puzzIed by his omission of I taly. We would expect hiffi to
have mentioned someone - perhaps R. Natan ben Yehi'e! of Rome - as
fifth «father of Talmudic study », alongside of Rash1, R. Juda Albargelom
and R. Isaac Alfasi. There is no reason te assume that ha-Iv1e In, extremely
erudite and generally comprehensive, was tottIlly unaware of these developments
nor is there reason to accuse ha-Me'iri of parochialism or intentional neglect.15
There \vere literaty and personal connections between Provence a d Italy. hat
then is the meaning of his silence concerning Italy in light of h1S generai histo­
rical scheme and the many details concerning the other centers ? It can
only be that in addition to the geographic-territorial lack of unity - : - Italy
has been described by historians as a «geographic expreSSlOn », Iackmg any
politica! unification unti! modern times : - ha-l'vie'iri . dd not perceive an !
conceptual, literary, or methodological umty and contlllmty. Apparently, 1t
was 110t even a geographic.cultural idea comparable to Asbkenaz or Sefarad.
(Liturgical custom - minhag Italiani or minhag Rami - is a sep rate issu ;
it certainly indicates unity an2 continuity in an important sphere, \V1th halakhlc
repercussions, but is not a surrogate for hard-core rabbic li er ture).16 !he
development must have appeared to him as sparse nd epIs . odIC m cO lpanson
with the other major centers which he was chroniclmg succmctly and 111 broad
strokes. Finally, their achievements were not, in his opinion, \videly influen­
tial or famous, an important criterion for him. There was no 'Schoo . l. .
Moreover, it would appear that the Italian rabbis themselves exh1blted no
awareness of continuity and made no explicit or implicit c1aims to bemg part
of 'a local schooI. From the very beginning it was more of a receptive center,
across which successive ripples or waves of influence washed. It transmitted
to Ashkenaz and, in turn, received, for example, from R. Gershom. R, Natan
of Rome, who te be sure trave1led to several ltalian cities and was both stu­
dent of and successor to his father as head of the ROlLe yeshivah, also went te
Narbonne to study with R. Moses ha·Darshan, inter alia. His • Aruklp appatently
inteo-rates material from Geonic traditions, R. Hanan'el's commentaries, the
Ashkenazic teachings emanating from Mainz, and Provençal interpretations.
R. Isaac ben Malkizedek cites R. Daniel of Rome together with R. Hai Gaon
and R. Nissim Gaon. Both use multi-lingual vernacular glosses. There is
15 To be sure a cursory inspection reveals that these are very few references to Italian
scholars but he does mention thc (Arukh. The question of his knowledge and use of
I talian abbis deserves a full and careful review.
16 See, e.g., tbe relevant chapters in E. D. GOLDSCHMIDT, Me1;.ere Tefillah u-Fiyyut,
Jerusalem 1980.
389
Hl
'. '.1
,