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

ha-Kohen, who help develop a sophisticated method of critico-conceptual study;
Alfasi, R. Ephraim, R. Joseph ibn Megas and Maimonides; however, in Italy no
achievement of similar magnitude or cohesiveness or influence. The thirteenth
century sees intense new creativity in Spain from R. Me'ir ha-Levi AbulaHa and
R. Jonah Gerondi to Ramban, Rashba and R. Aharon ha-Levi, with a steady
flow of hiddushim and criticaI review of the Mishnèh Toràh as a constant; rabbinic
litrature in Provence, moving on a plateau whose elevation was fixed by
the giants of the preceding century, is concerned with criticaI commentary on
Alfasi and Maimonides, independent study and explication of the Talmùd in
depth, composition of new up-to-date codes - see R. Manoal;, R. David ben
Levi, R. Meshullam ben Moses, R. Judah Lattes, R. Me'ir ha-Koben, R. Aha­
ron ha-Kohen, R. David ben Samuel d'Estella, R. Yerul)am, R. Menal,em ha­
Me'iri; in northern EuropeJ there is the proliferation of Tosafot, codification
and consolidation of earlier breakthroughs by an ever-increasing cadre of Talmudists,
culminating in the school of R. Me'ir of Rothenburg and the several
works of R. Asher b. Yehi' e1. Here Italy emerges on tbe scene, primarily in
the personna of R. Isaiab ben Mali of Trani (Rid), a prolific autbor building,
as we have noted, on North Africa-Spanish works, using Raslll as the literaty
substratum of his own books, and relating freely and critically to the burgeo­
ning Tosafists.21
2. Against this background and with this perspective, we may comment briefly
on Rid, the pivotal, powerful personality in tbe curt, compressed chronicle of
rabbinis literature in Italy. His output 'l,Tas volurn1noUS and variegated, including
rosafOt, pesaqim, responsa ·and collections of essays or dissertations (e.g.,
Sefer ha-Makhria') on selected topies of recognized difllculty or controversiality.
As the volume of rabbinie literature grew through the ages, halakhists had to
disentangle the ever-increasing multiplicity af possible meanings and suggested
interpretations - this generalization fits tbe Sefer ha-Makhria' and so­
me af tbe long responsa. His writings are quoted by R. Isaac ben Moses
of Vienna in his Or Zarua' and in tbe Shibbolei ha-Leqel; one of the last
great Tosafists, R. Me'ir of Rothenburg (Maharam), mentions him in the same
breath with Alfasi, Maimonides, and Rabbenu Gershom, four mighty, nearly
invincible scholars with whorn no oue should ever disagree.22 This is indeed
high praise by association, even stripped of the eulogistic epithets. Examina-
21 See M. HIGGER, Halako!. wa'-Aggadot, New York 1933, pp. 11-27. A. WERTHEIMER,
see n. 1 above; A. ROSENFELD, Piskei ha-Rid, in Sinai, LIV (1963), pp. 290-301; S. ABRAM­
SON, Se/er ha-Lelf.et, in Sil1ai, LXV (1969), pp. 103-108; GUEDEMA},'N, Ha-Torah weha-
1Jayyùn, III, p. 161, is more realistic than Cassuto in saying that the great ltalian Talmudists
(i.e. Rid) appeared on the scene wo late " after the pioneering and formative achie­
vements of the Spanish and French Talmudists " and could not therefore create a tradition
and school of their own.
2 2 Teshuvot Maharam, Berlin, p. 286.
392
tion of bis impressive and comprehensive productivity dernonstrates its richness,
representativeness and greatness. His praise is well deserved.
Given a large measure of uniformity in medieval rabbinic literature, how
does one evaluate the individuaI works of this genre and what significant
features does one seek to identify in them? Inter alla, the following aspects
come to the fore: (1) halakhic novelties in theory and practiee; (2) cultivation
of special literary genres for halakhic writing; (3) methodologieal advances or
refinernents or, at least, the generaI methodological orientation; (4) refIection
of social and historieal realities or biographieal data; (5) integration of material
from cognate areas of nonhalakhic learning (e.g. philosaphy, mystieism,
philology, exegesis) and elaboration of meta-halakhic themes (particularly
tatamei mizvo!), which reveai ideological commitrnent. In alI these respects,
the works of Rid, many of which have just recently been published, are suggestive
and significant and wartant intensive analysis.
Bis works are also quite representative of contemporary rabbinic preoccupations
and bis attitudes on many standard issues - such as use of the
T osefla and Palestinian Talmùd, dialectieal attitude to Ge' onim or to predecessors
in generaI - are typieal. He may thus profitably be referred ta when discussing
major trends in medieval rabbinic literature or when trying to pinpoint
the views and positions of such key contemporaries as R. Barukh (Sefer ha-Terumot),
Nru,manides, R. Isaac Or Zarua' , or R. Me'ir of Rothenburg; let me
mention, as a way of concretizing this generalization, that I found it useful to
refer to him regularly in analyzing and characterizing the opinions and positions
of his influential predecessor Rabad.
However, even when tracing typological features, bIand reductionism must
be avoided. Scholars cliffer from each atber intel!ectual!y as they do physical!y
and emotionally. Streaks of individuality, speciaI nuances or emphases, terminological
peculiarities, polemical thrusts, interpretative strategies, exegetical
noverties and literary fIourishes, personal attitudes and aspirations, selfrevelatory
glimpses - al! must be noted and appraised. The complexity of
any creative individuaI, immersed in and bound by tradition, changes the tidy
simplicity of ideaI types. Rid's resounding declaration in behalf of intellectual
freedom and progress in the halakhic process clearly illustrates this point.
The passage from his Teshuvot which makes the case for intellectual freedom
and independent judgment as prelude to his analysis of a disputed halakhie
issue is frequently noted - deserved1y so - by modern scholars and often
repeated by pre-modern autbors, but I think has not yet been completely analyzed.23
Let me attempt such an analysis briefly by suggesting that there is a
three-tiered structure to his argument.
23 Teshuvot, n. 62; see also n. 1 (see appendL"\:, belo\v). My students and friends,
Bezalel Safran and Bernard Septimus, read this artide after I had mailed it to the confe­
rence organizers. I aro grateful for tbeir observatlons. Both commented on a point which
clearly needed to be elaborated namely the possible relation or correlaction between Rid's
393