Late Middle Ages French Halakha

8/18/2019 Late Middle Ages French Halakha

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/late-middle-ages-french-halakha 1/22

1 3

Jewish History

ISSN 0334-701X

Jew History

DOI 10.1007/s10835-012-9170-6

French Halakhic Tradition in the Late Middle Ages

Jeffrey R. Woolf



1 3

Your article is protected by copyright and all

rights are held exclusively by Springer Science

+Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint

is for personal use only and shall not be self-

archived in electronic repositories. If you wishto self-archive your article, please use the

accepted manuscript version for posting on

your own website. You may further deposit

the accepted manuscript version in any

repository, provided it is only made publicly

available 12 months after official publication

or later and provided acknowledgement is

given to the original source of publication

and a link is inserted to the published article

on Springer's website. The link must be

accompanied by the following text: "The final

publication is available at link.springer.com”.



Jewish History © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

DOI 10.1007/s10835-012-9170-6

French Halakhic Tradition in the Late Middle Ages

JEFFREY R. WOOLF

Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, IsraelE-mail: [email protected]

Abstract This study examines the legal writings of the two leading rabbinic figures in French

Jewry in the mid-fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries. It characterizes their legal and

Talmudic methodology and argues that fifteenth- and sixteenth-century French scholars in

Italy were generally following in the footsteps of their predecessors in France. Furthermore,it argues for the ongoing existence of a uniquely French subtradition within the larger Ashke-

nazic tradition in the late Middle Ages.

Keywords Medieval French Jewry · Medieval French rabbinic literature · Matathias Trèves ·

Yohanan Trèves · Joseph Colon · Maharik · Moses of Coucy · Sefer Mitzvot Gadol · SMaG ·

Expulsions from France

On September 17, 1394, King Charles VI issued an edict of expulsion that

brought an end to the long residence of the Jews in France. 1 The history of

that residence had often been glorious. It included the achievements of Rashi

and the Tosafists, a moving legacy of martyrdom, and the creative resolve of

those of its leaders who had withstood the religious onslaught of Louis IX

and his descendants.2 And while it is true that the denouement, starting with

the expulsion in 1306 by Philip IV, had a pathetic air to it, the community

continued to make important contributions to Jewish history and to the his-

tory of Judaism. In particular, the controversy between R. Yohanan Trèves

and R. Astruc Isaiah b. Abba Mari forced late medieval Ashkenazic Judaism

to grapple with the structure and character of rabbinic authority.3

The departure of the Jews from the Valois kingdom left a deep and abiding

mark upon them. They longed for the land in which their ancestors had lived

1Roger Kohn, Les Juifs de la France du nord dans le seconde moitié du XIV e siècle (Leuven,

1988); Gilbert Dahan, ed., L’expulsion des Juifs de France: 1394 (Paris, 2004).2William Chester Jordan, The French Monarchy and the Jews: From Philip Augustus to the Last Capetians (Philadelphia, 1989).3Simon Schwarzfuchs, Études sur l’origine et le développement du rabbinat au Moyen Âge

(Paris, 1957); Mordechai Breuer, “Ha-Semikhah ha-Ashkenazit,” Zion 33 (1968): 15–46;Jacob Katz, “Rabbinical Authority and Authorization in the Middle Ages,” in Studies in Me-dieval Jewish History and Literature, ed. Isadore Twersky, 3 vols. (Cambridge, MA, 1979),

1:48–52; Israel Yuval, Hakhamim be-Doram (Jerusalem, 1988), 322–49.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



J. R. WOOLF

since (at least) Carolingian times.4 In particular, they mournfully recalled the

destruction of the great French centers of biblical and Talmudic study that

had totally transformed rabbinic Judaism, both Ashkenazic and Sephardic.5

This deeply felt sentiment was eloquently expressed by one of the French ex-iles, the anonymous author of the moralizing tract Orhot ha-Saddiqim.6 After

surveying the history of rabbinic literature up to the writings of Maimonides,

the author invokes the memory of the towering figures of French rabbinic

scholarship such as Rashi, R. Jacob Tam, R. Isaac of Dampierre, R. Samson

of Sens, and R. Moses of Coucy:

And there were great scholars there . . . who were very many, and

were mighty in the Torah, and their minds were very great, and as

open as the great hall of the Temple. And they studied with greatassiduity, and gave their lives for the Torah, and without having

to glance at a page they knew all of the Talmud, as well as the

commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists.7

This emphatically Talmud-centered tradition of scholarly achievement con-

tinued, the author asserts, until the great expulsion of 1394.8

Despite the author’s dour evaluation and dire prediction, the émigrés of

1394 carried forth with them a rich and varied rabbinic tradition, deeply

4Simon Schwarzfuchs, Juifs de France (Paris, 1975), 11–34. Their longing for France, and its

poetic expression, has been examined recently by Susan Einbinder in No Place of Rest: Jewish Literature, Expulsion, and the Memory of Medieval France (Philadelphia, 2009).5See Haym Soloveitchik, “The Printed Page of the Talmud: The Commentaries and Their

Authors,” in Printing the Talmud: From Bomberg to Schottenstein, ed. Sharon Liberman-Mintz

and Gabriel Goldstein (New York, 2005), 37–42.6Over forty years ago, the late Mordechai Breuer argued both for a French author and for a date

of ca. 1400 for the composition of Orhot ha-Saddiqim in “Aliyat ha-Pilpul ve-ha-Hilluqim be-

Yeshivot Ashkenaz,” in Sefer Zikkaron la-Rav Y. Y. Weinberg (Jerusalem 1970), 250–51. Hiscontention was proven in Jeffrey Woolf, “Matai Nithaber Sefer Orhot Tzaddiqim?” Qiryat Sefer 64 (1992–93): 321–22.7The Ways of the Righteous [Orhot ha-Saddiqim], trans. Seymour J. Cohen (New York, 1982),

577. The author does give a nod to sundry German rabbinic authors, such as R. Eleazar of

Worms and R. Isaac of Vienna (both of whom, it is interesting to note, are identified with

German Pietism), but he focuses overwhelmingly on French Torah study. This underscores the

French origin of the work and its author. Concerning the first sentence quoted, cf. Babylonian

Talmud (BT) Eruvin 53a: “R. Yohanan further stated: The hearts of the ancients were like the

door of the Ulam, but that of the last generations was like the door of the Heikhal, but ours is

like the eye of a fine needle.”8Cohen, Ways of the Righteous, 579; the text erroneously dates the expulsion to 1391. The

author does complain (581–87) that these heirs of Rashi and R. Tam were seduced away from

healthy, broad-based Talmud study, wasting their time with sterile casuistry ( pilpul).



FRENCH HALAKHIC TRADITION

rooted in the glorious heritage of Rashi and the Tosafists, which they re-

planted in Franche-Comté, Savoy, and the Italian Piedmont.9 Their literary

remains, which are somewhat sparse for the fourteenth century and increase

in quantity in the fifteenth century, show that French Jews, in their eastern

areas of dispersion, continued to develop their traditions of Talmud study,

halakhic decision making, liturgy, and religious practice.10

Despite its decisive impact upon Savoyard and north Italian Jewish life in

the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the specific characteristics of this late

medieval French halakhic tradition have yet to be fully mapped out. This

article attempts to partially fill that lacuna.11

Rabbi Joseph Colon (Mahariq) and the Late Medieval French Tradition

In the wake of the expulsions of 1306, 1327, and 1394, Jews of French origin

scattered throughout France and adjoining regions.12 Their most significant

9The present discussion will focus, almost exclusively, upon the rabbinic culture of northern

France, as opposed to that of Provence. Provençal rabbinic literature, to the degree that it

possessed an afterlife, had no significant impact on French scholars in the empire, Savoy,

and Italy. See Haym Soloveitchik, “Rabad of Posquières: A Programmatic Essay,” in Studiesin the History of Jewish Society in the Middle Ages and in the Modern Period, Presented toProfessor Jacob Katz on His 75th Birthday, ed. Immanuel Etkes and Yosef Salmon (Jerusalem,

1980), 17; Jeffrey Woolf, “The Life and Responsa of R. Joseph Colon b. Solomon Trabotto

(Maharik)” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1991), 26–35. Pinchas Roth has recently examined

the character and fate of the Provençal halakhic tradition in his excellent doctoral dissertation,

“Later Provençal Sages—Jewish Law (Halakhah) and Rabbis in Southern France, 1215–1348”

(PhD diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2012).10The best-known remnant of the medieval French liturgy is Nusah AFaM , which is named

for the Piedmontese communities wherein it was preserved (Asti, Fossano, and Moncalvo).

See Daniel Goldschmidt, “Leqet, Shikhah u-Pe’ah le-Mahzor AFaM,” in Mehqarei Tefillah u-

Piyyut (Jerusalem, 1979), 118–36; Yom Tov Assis, “Nusah APaM: A Medieval Liturgical Sur-vivor,” in Ebrei Piemontese: The Jews of Piedmont , ed. J. Woolf (New York, 2008), 49–54. See

also Elisabeth Hollender, Clavis Commentariorum of Hebrew Liturgical Poetry in Manuscript (Leiden, 2005). Uniquely French halakhic traditions are also preserved in the anonymous work

Sefer ha-Niyyar: Sefer Halakhot mi-Poseq Qadmon, ed. Gershon Appel (Jerusalem, 1994).11Cf. Isaiah Sonne, “Tiyyulim ba-Maqom she-Metzi’ut ve-ha-Sefer-ha-Historia ve-ha-

Bibliografi’a—Noshqim Zeh et Zeh,” in Sefer ha-Yovel le-Alexander Marx, ed. Saul Lieber-

man (New York, 1950), 109–35; Robert Bonfil, Rabbis and Jewish Communities in Renais-sance Italy, trans. Jonathan Chipman (Cambridge, 2000), 255–62; Jeffrey Woolf, “Between

Diffidence and Initiative: Ashkenazic Legal Decision-Making in the Late Middle Ages (1350–

1500),” Journal of Jewish Studies 52 (2001): 85–97, and “New Light on the Life and Times of Rabbi Joseph Colon Trabotto (Maharik),” Italia 13–15 (2001): 151–80.12See Gérard Nahon, “‘Tam in Gallia quam in Occitana. . .’: Livres et savoir des Juifs de

France (1306–1394),” in Dahan, L’expulsion, 31–32; William Chester Jordan, “Home Again:



J. R. WOOLF

concentration was in the Duchy of Savoy, especially its capital city, Cham-

béry.13 In the first quarter of the fifteenth century, after the region reverted

to the House of Savoy (1410), French Jews moved across the Alps into the

Italian Piedmont. Within a half century, the Piedmontese city of Savigliano

inherited Chambéry’s place as the center of French rabbinic scholarship.14

Savigliano owed that distinction to the presence of the leading represen-

tative of the French rabbinic tradition, R. Joseph Colon b. Solomon Trabotto,

or Mahariq (ca.1420–ca.1480).15 His school attracted young and seasoned

scholars from all over Italy and Savoy, most of whom were of French ori-

gin.16 Mahariq viewed himself, and was viewed by his contemporaries, as

the premier representative of the French legal tradition.17 Hence, by contrast-

ing his responsa with those of his German contemporaries, one can single

The Jews in the Kingdom of France, 1315–1322,” in The Stranger in Medieval Society, ed.

Frank R. P. Akehurst and Stephanie C. Van D’Elden (Minneapolis, MN, 1997), 30–31. I agree

with Jordan that (contra Brown) there was an additional expulsion in the 1320s. See Elizabeth

A. R. Brown, “Philip V, Charles IV, and the Jews of France: The Alleged Expulsion of 1322,”

Speculum 66 (1991): 294–329; Jordan, “Home Again,” 27–28.13In the first quarter of the fifteenth century there was also significant rabbinic activity in

Trévoux. R. Yohanan Trèves lived there in 1417, and it appears that other scholars also

resided there; this is implied by the prominence of the many rabbis and religious functionaries

who bore the patronymic “Trabotto” (i.e., from Trévoux). See Isidore Loeb, “Un episode de

l’histoire des Juifs de Savoie,” Revue des études juives 10 (1885): 32–59; Yosef Green, “Mish-

pahat Trabotto,” Sinai 79 (1964): 147–64; Henri Gross, Gallia Judaica (Amsterdam, 1969),

219–23; Hen Melekh Merh. avya, “Ketav Yad Sefaradi-Latini al ha-Ma’avaq neged ha-Talmud

be-Tehillat ha-Me’ah ha-15,” Qiryat Sefer 45 (1969–70): 592–604; and Eric Zimmer, “Yedi’ot

Biografiyot al Yehude Italia me-Ito shel Avraham Graziano,” Qiryat Sefer 49 (1974): 440–44.

See also Kohn, Les Juifs de la France, 271–72; Thomas Bardelle, Juden in einem Transit-und Bruckenland: Studien zur Geschichte der Juden in Savoyen-Piemont bis zum ende der Herrschaft Amadeus VIII (Hannover, 1998), 68–72.14Renata Segre, The Jews in Piedmont , 3 vols. (Jerusalem, 1986), 1:ix–xxii; Bardelle, Judenin einem Transit- und Bruckenland , 72–74. Gedaliah Ibn Yahya lists no fewer than thirty-one

rabbinic scholars who lived in the Piedmont over the course of the fifteenth century; see his

Shalshelet ha-Qabbalah (Venice, 1587; Warsaw, 1877), 28b.15Woolf, Life and Responsa, 1–61. Mahariq was preceded in Savigliano by a scholar of Ger-

man origin, R. Raphael Bellin. See Eric Zimmer, “Pereq be-Toldot ha-Rabbanut be-Ashkenaz

ba-Me’ah ha-16,” Sefer Bar Ilan 20/21 (1983): 223; Segre, Jews in Piedmont , documents 142

and 146; Bardelle, Juden in einem Transit- und Brückenland , 69.16See, e.g., the halakhot preserved in New York, Jewish Theological Seminary, Rabb. Ms.

1087, fol. 40a. The author was identified by Yitzhaq Yudelov as R. Ben Zion Denoit (1435–

1504), himself the scion of a French rabbinic family; see Yudelov, “Mi Hu Hakham u-Poseq

Italqi? Le-Toldot Mishpahat Rabbanim Sarfatit Italqit min ha-Me’ah ha-15,” Italia 10 (1993):

9–16. Cf. Isaiah Sonne, “Ha-Va’ad ha-Kelali be-Italia,” Ha-Tequfah 8 (1948): 642–44. See

also Abraham Marmorstein, “Hakham u-Poseq Italqi,” Devir 2 (1923): 223–24.17Mahariq’s responsa are contained in two collections: Teshuvot Maharik (Venice, 1519) and

Teshuvot u-Pisqei Mahariq ha-Hadashim, ed. Eliyahu Dov Pines (Jerusalem, 1984). The for-

mer will be referred to here as shorashim and the latter will be cited by their numbers. More of




out those characteristics that distinguished fifteenth-century French halakhic

writing.

There are four main areas where Mahariq’s responsa, and those of his

disciples, differ from those of contemporary German rabbis such as Maharil,

R. Jacob Weil, R. Moshe Mintz, R. Israel Isserlein, and R. Israel of Brünn. 18

(1) In marked contrast to German rabbis, Mahariq extensively employed log-

ically rigorous casuistic reasoning and analysis as an integral part of his le-

gal argument. He weighed and explored different lines of interpretation of

both Talmudic and post-Talmudic passages, homing in on the multiple im-

plications of key words. He based his approach upon the assumption that all

halakhic texts, including those composed by great interpreters such as Rashi

and the Tosafists ( Rishonim), were written so precisely as to justify basing le-gal conclusions on fine distinctions between different possibilities of formu-

lation. German responsa, on the other hand, are generally marked by string

citations, arranged by topic. They are not, of course, totally devoid of anal-

ysis, but the latter plays a much smaller role and carries much less weight

in their presentation and final decisions.19 Mahariq was especially inclined

to employ this method of interpretation when faced with differing opinions

among the great authorities of the past. Owing to his deep-seated reverence

for the illustrious rabbinical authorities of the High Middle Ages, he tried to

minimize the need to decide between them by “proving” that in the case un-der consideration all would agree on the specific ruling (hashva’at ha-de’ot ).

Through careful interpretation of the manner in which the relevant writers

formulated their opinions it would be “shown” that all concurred. As there

was effectively no difference of opinion, no decision was required. 20

his responsa remain in manuscript (e.g., Budapest, Magyar tudomanyos akademia, Kaufmann

Collection, Mss. 150A and 151).18For all of these, see Yedidyah Dinari, Hakhmei Ashkenaz be-shilhei Yeme ha-Beinayim(Jerusalem, 1984). I have prepared a full-length monograph on Mahariq’s premier disciple,R. Azriel Diena, which is slated to appear in the journal Italia.19Dinari, Hakhmei Ashkenaz, 110–12.20See ibid., 108; Woolf, “Between Diffidence and Initiative,” 91–92. This raises the question

of the objection by the author of Orhot ha-Saddiqim to French pilpul. The difference, it appears

to me, lies in the manner in which casuistry was applied to the interpretation of text. Careful

reading of legal sources (e.g., making fine conceptual distinctions) is a permanent character-

istic of Jewish legal thought, especially in the Tosafist tradition. So long as that method was

applied to a broad spectrum of sources and as part of a quest for legal truth, it was acceptable.

Late medieval pilpul, however, was monoreferential in character. It often interpreted Talmudic

sources and/or their commentaries without reference to context or parallel sources and withoutgrounding the effort in the search for their legal ramifications. It was against this purely the-

oretical type of casuistry that the author of Orhot ha-Saddiqim inveighed. Nor was he alone.

Mahariq himself questioned the value of the enterprise. He was skeptical of the value of “in-



J. R. WOOLF

(2) Mahariq’s halakhic universe was overwhelmingly French. His responsa

abound with references to Rashi and the great French Tosafists such as R. Ja-

cob Tam, R. Isaac of Dampierre, and R. Samson of Sens. He relied mas-

sively upon the authority of the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol of R. Moses of Coucy

and the Sefer Mitzvot Qatan of R. Isaac of Corbeille, as well as upon the

glosses to the latter by R. Peretz of Corbeille. He viewed R. Peretz as an

especially weighty authority because he viewed him as the “last representa-

tive” (batra) of Tosafist France. On the other hand, with the prominent ex-

ception of R. Meir of Rothenberg and his disciples, Mahariq cites hardly any

German Tosafists or Tosafist works.21 A significant exception to this rule is

Mahariq’s massive use of the encyclopedic collection Sefer Mordekhai by

R. Mordekhai b. Hillel ha-Kohen (ca. 1240–98), a disciple of R. Meir of

Rothenberg. He used this work extensively, indexed it, and sought out andused a number of recensions of it. The Mordekhai contains vast amounts of

German Tosafist material, whether cited explicitly or anonymously, and this

does have an impact on his writing.22 Nevertheless, the authorities that he

cites explicitly from the Mordekhai are usually French.23 Even more striking

is the absence of any significant reference in his responsa to the writings or

opinions of the great German scholars of the late fourteenth and early fif-

teenth centuries, such as R. Alexander Süsskind, R. Israel Krems, R. Shalom

terpretive approaches that we develop nowadays, during the Tosafot semester, wherein each

person interprets an entire passage, be they true or false” (Teshuvot Maharik, shoresh 169).

See below.21This includes such ubiquitous works as the She’arim of R. Isaac of Dura. See Israel Ta

Shema, “Qavim le-Ofya shel Sifrut ha-Halakhah be-Ashkenaz ba-me’ot ha-13 ha-14,” Ale Se- fer 4 (1977): 21–36. Mahariq cites the She’arim only once and, characteristically, in a polem-

ical context; Pines, Teshuvot u-Pisqei Mahariq, no. 49.22As Simcha Emanuel has noted, the Mordekhai preserves extracts from a large number of

“lost” German Tosafist works: Simcha Emanuel, Fragments of the Tablets: Lost Books of theTosaphists (Jerusalem, 2007), 1–48.

23Mahariq’s use of Sefer Mordekhai is discussed at length in Woolf, Life and Responsa, 105–8.

His index of the Mordekhai, known as the Mar’eh Maqom, is found in Oxford, Bodleian Li-

brary, MS Opp. 621; it is also preserved on microfilm in Jerusalem, Jewish National and

University Library, Institute for Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts (henceforth IMHM), cata-

log number F20525. The anonymous Sefer ha-Niyyar , which was current among scholars in

Savoy and the Piedmont, is overwhelmingly French in the authorities it cites and the legal po-

sitions it espouses. See Appel, introduction to Sefer ha-Niyyar , 14–21. The anonymous reader

of this article suggested that since most of the German works that are cited in the Mordekhaihad long disappeared by Mahariq’s time, it might well be that the latter’s resort to the work

was out of a desire to utilize as many of these as he could. The point is well taken, and that

would be in fully in character with Mahariq’s tendency toward wide-ranging and all-inclusivediscussions. At the same time, the importance of the Mordekhai was also rooted in Mahariq’s

reverence for R. Meir of Rothenberg as the last major—and summarizing—figure of classical

Ashkenaz. My thanks to the reader for pointing this out.




of Wiener-Neustadt, R. Jacob ha-Levi Moelin (Maharil), or R. Jacob Weil,

whose writings form the backbone of mid-fifteenth-century German ha-

lakhah.24 In addition, Mahariq was unaware of many well-known German

customs.25

(3) Maimonides’s Mishneh Torah played a central role in Mahariq’s responsa.

He cites him at every turn, and he devotes great attention and care to the elu-

cidation of his views and his implicit interpretation of the relevant Talmudic

passages. This is in marked contrast with contemporary German scholars, for

whom the writings of Maimonides had little, if any, resonance.26

(4) Mahariq’s responsa are notable for their extensive use of R. Jacob b.

Asher’s Arba’ah Turim.27 He cites and interprets the Turim more than any

other contemporary halakhist and, a fortiori, more than those of previous gen-erations. Fifteenth-century German scholars, by way of contrast, were loath

to read, much less cite, the Turim. No less a figure than R. Judah Mintz noted

that “there are rabbis who do not wish to even read Tur , Orah Hayyim. They

explain this as due to the fact that lay people study it.”28

A century separates the first expulsion of the Jews from France and the

apogee of Mahariq’s career. Even though he prided himself on being the heir

to the French halakhic tradition, it has yet to be determined which (if any)

of these characteristics represent the tradition of scholarship that was handed

on to him by his father, R. Solomon Trabotto, and the other “great ones of Savoy” among whom he was raised and which were a function of his own ge-

nius and creativity. One way of gauging such things is by taking the measure

of the work that preceded Mahariq and comparing it with his oeuvre. While

it is true that we possess relatively little fourteenth-century French rabbinic

literature,29 what we do possess was penned by R. Matathias Trèves and

his son, R. Yohanan Trèves, themselves the preeminent French authorities of

their day. An examination of these may provide answers to our question.

24See Dinari, Hakhmei Ashkenaz, 169–79. On the rare occasions that Mahariq does cite anyof these German writers, it is in response to their mention by others. See, e.g., his Teshuvot Maharik, shorashim 38 (citing the fourteenth-century German code Sefer ha-Agudah), 102

(citing R. Moshe Mintz), and 169 (citing R. Jacob Weil), and his Teshuvot u-Pisqei Mahariq,

nos. 3 (citing R. Israel Isserlein) and 14 (citing R. Jacob Weil).25Teshuvot Maharik, shorashim 21, 41, 79, and 92.26See Jeffrey Woolf, “Admiration and Apathy: Maimonides’ ‘ Mishneh Torah’ in High and

Late Medieval Ashkenaz,” in Be’erot Yitzhak: Studies in Memory of Isadore Twersky, ed. Jay

Harris (Cambridge, 2005), 427–53.27See Yehudah Galinsky, “Arba’ah Turim ve-ha-Sifrut ha-Hilkhatit shel Sefarad ba-Me’ah

ha-14: Aspektim Histori’im, Sifruti’im ve-Hilkhati’im” (PhD diss., Ramat Gan, 1999).28 Resp. Ha-Ga’on Mahari Mintz, ed. Asher Siev (New York, 1995), no. 15, s.v. u-ve-inyanha-de’ot .29Nahon, “Tam in Gallia quam in Occitana,” 31–32.



J. R. WOOLF

The Heritage of the House of Trèves

R. Matathias Trèves (ca. 1325–ca. 1385) was the son of R. Joseph b. Yohanan

Trèves and a scion of one of the leading rabbinic families of France. Born inProvence, he was sent to Barcelona to study under R. Nissim Gerondi and

R. Peretz b. Isaac ha-Kohen, most likely owing to the persistent royal prohi-

bition against Talmud study.30 In 1363, after the recall of the Jews to France,

he was appointed chief rabbi of Paris by King Charles VI and became, de

facto, chief rabbi of the kingdom.31

R. Matathias attracted numerous students whom he taught and ordained

as rabbis. Judging by the praises that R. Isaac b. Sheshet Perfet heaped upon

him, he was viewed by his contemporaries and by posterity as a scholar of

substantial stature. Despite his renown, however, we possess only two sig-nificant works by him. The first is a responsum contained in a manuscript

in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris.32 The second is a collection of com-

ments and novellae to different portions of the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol. We will

examine these in that order.

R. Matathias was called upon to address the case of an unnamed indi-

vidual who had taken an oath and now wished to have it annulled. While

this was a fairly common procedure, in the present instance the questioner

had reinforced his oath by declaring that he adopted it “on the authority of a

group of people” (al da’at rabbim) and that his oath would bind him both inthis world and in the next.33 At least two other rabbis were consulted on the

matter before the question reached R. Matathias.34

30 Resp. R. Isaac b. Sheshet , 2 vols., ed. David Metzger (Jerusalem, 1993), nos. 268–

72. See Nehemiah Brüll, “Das Geschlecht der Treves,” Jahrbuch der Jüdisch-LiterarischenGesellschaft 1 (1874): 91–95; Jordan, “Home Again,” 30–31.31The universal regard in which he was held finds expression in the encomia heaped upon him

by Perfet and the intensity with which both R. Yohanan Trèves and R. Isaiah b. Abba Mari

struggled over his legacy. See Yuval, Hakhamim be-Doram, 322–25.32Paris, BN heb. 676 (IMHM F11554), fols. 47–48. The responsum was published in Israel

Daiches’s Bet Va’ad la-Hakhamim (Leeds, 1902), 7:39–45. I have compared the transcription

with the manuscript and found it to be accurate.33Cf. BT Gittin 36a. Medieval Jews frequently took oaths and vows that they reinforced with

all sorts of conditions; often they regretted these later and sought to be freed from them. The

enormous amount of space devoted to such discussions in halakhic literature (especially re-

sponsa) provides mute testimony to the ubiquitous nature of the phenomenon. An examination

of the subject promises to enrich our understanding of medieval Jewish spirituality. To date,

however, the only serious discussion of the subject that I have found is Samuel Morrel, “The

Samson Nazirite Vow in the Sixteenth Century,” Association for Jewish Studies Review 14(1989): 223–62.34The manuscript contains three responsa, of which only the first two were published. It ex-

plicitly identifies the author of the second responsum as R. Matathias Trèves. The first text in




In the end, R. Matathias ruled in favor of annulling the rash oath taker’s

words. But the legal particulars are not so crucial as are some formal charac-

teristics of his discussion. To begin with, his ruling is remarkable for the total

absence of direct citations from the Talmud. Those Talmudic references thatdo appear are either paraphrases or are cited by an intermediary source.35

Otherwise, the entire discussion revolves around medieval authorities such

as Sefer Mordekhai, R. Peretz of Corbeille, Rashba, and the Arba’ah Turim.

This pattern, which is also true of the letter that was sent to R. Matathias, re-

flects the circumstances that obtained in France where the ban on the Talmud

remained in force, despite the recall of the Jews.36 Still, aside from Rashba

and R. Isaiah de Trani, French authorities (R. Tam, R. Isaac of Corbeille, and

R. Peretz of Corbeille) are at the center of the discussion.37

In casting his argument, R. Matathias proposes and considers alternate in-

terpretations of his key sources, choosing one based upon a precise reading

of those sources. He strives to demonstrate that despite differences of opinion

on the pertinent legal points in the case under consideration, all authorities

would agree with his ruling (hashva’at ha-de’ot ).38 As we have seen, both

of these traits were highly pronounced in the writings of Mahariq and his

disciples. The latter was of special significance, as it was rooted in an axi-

ological unwillingness to decide among the great medieval authorities who

the manuscript is clearly not by R. Matathias, for it is to him that the second responsum replies.

It is unclear, though, to whom the first author is reacting. That unnamed scholar may or may

not, himself, have been R. Matathias. If it was R. Matathias, that would open up the possibility

that he was involved in extra-halakhic study, as the writer describes him as versed in the writ-

ings of Ghazali and Aristotle ( Abu-Hamid ve-Aristo); Daiches, Bet Va’ad la-Hakhamim, 7:39.

That R. Matathias was versed in basic geometry and algebra emerges from his discussion else-

where of the area required for a round sukkah (London, British Library, Add. 27129 [IMHM

F5804], fol. 40b, s.v. sukkah agulah.) The third responsum is in extremely poor condition andto date I have been unable to decipher it satisfactorily.35See the responsa of R. Solomon b. Aderet in Resp. Rashba (Jerusalem, 1998), 6:134 and

7:241.36This conclusion is further borne out by the list of manuscripts provided by Nahon, “Tam in

Gallia quam in Occitana,” 31–32.37There are significant differences between R. Matathias’s citations of R. Isaiah and those

in the better manuscripts of Pisqei ha-RiD: compare the passage at the end of the respon-

sum (Daiches, Bet Va’ad la-Hakhamim, 7:45) with that in Pisqei ha-RiD: Mo’ed Qatan, ed.

Abraham Wertheimer (Jerusalem, 1971), 388–89. These may reflect different lectiones or

R. Matathias may have been quoting from memory.38See Daiches, Bet Va’ad la-Hakhamim, 7:44, where R. Matathias squares his ruling with the

prima facie and opposing view of R. Peretz of Corbeille. The latter was a touchstone of late

medieval French halakhah, which made accepting his opinion all the more important.



J. R. WOOLF

had preceded him. This reticence was, it seems, rooted in the conviction that

contemporary halakhists inhabited a different, and by definition inferior, era

than that of their predecessors.39 Since even a great scholar would not have

the temerity to decide among the giants of the past, the best strategy was toresolve the apparent difficulty by demonstrating that, at least as far as the

present case was concerned, all authorities would agree.40

R. Matathias clinches each step of his argument with a citation from the

Arba’ah Turim, implying that this compendium was the final authority in

halakhic discourse. Now, as has been previously noted, Mahariq viewed the

Turim as standing at the end of the previous era of Talmudic commentary and

codes, summing up the wisdom of a distant era. Its authority, he declared, was

based on the principle that “the Law is in accordance with the later author-

ities” (hilkhata ke-batrai). It was, literally, the last word.41 R. Matathias’s

attribution of such weight to the Turim, in contrast, is a bit surprising, insofar

as the work had been completed less than forty years before.42

While the rule hilkhata ke-batrai was invoked in R. Matathias’s era, these

“later authorities” were usually scholars who had lived a full generation be-

fore R. Jacob b. Asher, the author of the Turim.43 It therefore seems reason-

able to assume that R. Matathias resorted to the Turim as a result of the ban

on the Talmud.44 In the absence of the latter, the Turim provided background

information along with the definitive rulings of the author’s father, R. Asherb. Yehiel.45

39Dinari, Hakhmei Ashkenaz, 15–27; Israel Yuval, “Antiqui et Moderni: Rishonim ve-

Aharonim,” Zion 57 (1992): 384–86.40See Woolf, “Between Diffidence and Initiative,” 91–92.41See Israel Ta Shma, “The Law Is in Accord with the Later Authority—‘Hilkhata Ke-Batrai’:

Historical Observations on a Legal Rule,” in Creativity and Tradition: Studies in Medieval Rabbinic Scholarship, Literature, and Thought (Cambridge, 2006), 142–65; Yuval, “Antiqui

et Moderni”; Woolf, “Between Diffidence and Initiative,” 92–97.42The Turim was completed by 1340, only forty-five years before R. Matathias died. See

Galinsky, “Arba’ah Turim,” 1–2.43See Resp. Maharil ha-Hadashot , ed. Yitzhak Satz (Jerusalem, 1980), nos. 37, 56, 77, and

81. See also Israel Ta Shma, “Zikkaron Histori, Zikkaron Sifruti u-Be’ayat ha-Perspektiva,”

Zion 69 (2004): 241–46.44R. Matathias’s correspondent utilizes the Turim in the same manner; Daiches, Bet Va’ad la-Hakhamim, 7:40. The citation of the Turim by R. Matathias should now be added to the

other sources discussed in Yehudah Galinsky, “‘Ve-Zakha Zeh he-Hakham Yoter me-Kulam

she-ha-Kol Lamdu me-Sefarav’: Al Tefutzat ‘Arba’ah Turim’ le-R. Ya’aqov b. ha-Rosh me-

Zeman Ketivato ve-ad le-Sof ha-Me’ah ha-15,” Sidra 19 (2004): 24–45.45The Turim thus filled the same role as that played by the Halakhot ha-RiF of R. Isaac Alfasi

during the Counter-Reformation in Italy. See Bonfil, Rabbis and Jewish Communities, 262–64.

R. Yohanan Trèves, on the other hand, does not cite the Turim in any of his extant responsa.




After his death in 1385, R. Matathias was succeeded as chief rabbi of

France by his son, R. Yohanan Trèves (d. 1429).46 After the 1394 expul-

sion R. Yohanan wandered to Franche-Comté, and from there he made his

way first to Savoy and then to Italy.

47

He was renowned as an outstand-ing halakhist, as evidenced by the respect that was shown to him by lead-

ing contemporary scholars, such as R. Jacob Moellin (Maharil; d. 1427).48

For Mahariq, he was nothing less than the “wonder of the generation.”49

R. Yohanan’s written legacy is somewhat less meager than that of his fa-

ther. We possess ten of his responsa, which were preserved as part of larger

exchanges of letters with contemporary German scholars.50 R. Yohanan’s re-

sponsa exhibit the same methodological characteristics of those of his father.

He relied overwhelmingly on French sources. His presentations were much

longer, more intricate, and employed more casuistic interpretations than thoseof the German rabbis who addressed the self-same questions. As with his

father, he carefully weighed different lines of interpretation of all relevant

sources. Finally, again echoing R. Matathias, he strove to resolve apparent

disagreements among early authorities through casuistry, instead of deciding

between them.51

Commentary on the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol

From the late thirteenth century onward, the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol (SMaG)

of R. Moses of Coucy stood at the center of French rabbinic scholarship and

46He served in that capacity until the final expulsion from France in 1394. In addition to

the sources listed in notes 3 and 14, see Simon Schwarzfuchs, “Yohanan Trèves et le dernier

refuge de l’école talmudique franchises après l’expulsion de 1394,” in Rashi et la culture juiveen France du Nord au moyen âge, ed. Gilbert Dahan, Gérard Nahon, and Elie Nicolas (Paris,

1997), 83–94, and “Le refuge allemand des Juifs de France après l’expulsion de 1394,” inDahan, L’expulsion des Juifs de France, 241–5247Yuval, Hakhamim be-Doram, 322–25.48Satz, Resp. Maharil ha-Hadashot , no. 97.49Teshuvot Maharik , shoresh 69.50Satz, Resp. Maharil ha-Hadashot , nos. 53 (sec. 1), 100 (secs. 2, 4, and 5), 185 (sec. 3), and

206 (sec. 3); Metzger, Resp. R. Isaac b. Sheshet , 1:268, 270.51E.g., the case cited in Satz, Resp. Maharil ha-Hadashot , no. 100 (secs. 2, 4, and 5), involves

an apparent difference of opinion between Rashi (commentary on Niddah 66a, s.v. ve-im yesh)

and the Mordekhai (Shavu’ot 2, col. 1). An overwhelming number of late medieval authorities

worked under the assumption that they really did disagree. R. Yohanan, on the other hand,emphatically denied it. Cf. R. Israel Isserlein, Sefer Terumat ha-Deshen, vol. 2, Pesaqim u-Ketavim (Jerusalem, 1972), 47. See also Ya’aqov Boksenboim, introduction to Resp. R. Azriel Diena, 2 vols. (Tel Aviv, 1977), 1:32–35.



J. R. WOOLF

decision making. It would retain this standing for another three centuries.52

Its initial ascendancy was, in large part, a direct result of the virulent cam-

paign waged by the Catholic Church and the French Crown against the Tal-

mud and its study.

53

In the wake of the many confiscations and burnings of the Talmud, circumstances became so dire that R. Samuel b. Solomon could

lament to R. Meir of Rothenberg that “we have nary a book to study and into

which to delve.”54 The Sefer Mitzvot Gadol filled that vacuum.

R. Moses’s book deftly interwove the rulings of Maimonides with the

essentials of the Talmudic discussion upon which they were based and added

summaries of the Franco-German discussions and rulings pertaining to them.

As a result, the SMaG presented itself as a natural textbook for the continued

study of Jewish law in France.55 Over time, especially as the edict against the

Talmud continued to be enforced, it held pride of place as the backbone of French rabbinic writing and scholarship.56 Even after French Jews settled in

Italy and copies of the Talmud and its commentaries were readily available,

the SMaG retained its preeminence as one of the two major sources of French

halakhic practice.57

Commentary on the SMaG is a signal leitmotif of French rabbinic literary

activity from the fourteenth through the end of the sixteenth century. In their

academies, the morning study session was frequently dedicated to a daily les-

52R. Moses of Coucy, Sefer Mitzvot Gadol [Great book of the commandments; hereafter

SMaG] (Venice, 1547); Ephraim Elimelech Urbach, Ba’ale ha-Tosafot, 5th ed. (Jerusalem,

1986), 465–79, 571–85.53See Hen Melekh Merhavia, Ha-Talmud be-Re’i ha-Natzrut (Jerusalem, 1970), pt. 2; Gilbert

Dahan, ed., Le Brûlement du Talmud a Paris 1242–1244 (Paris, 1999).54R. Samuel b. Solomon to R. Meir of Rothenberg in Resp. Maharam (Prague 1895), no. 250,

quoted in Urbach, Ba’ale ha-Tosafot, 455; Yehudah Galinsky, “Mishpat ha-Talmud be-Shenat

1240: ‘Vikkuah R. Yehiel’ ve-‘Sefer ha-Mitzvot shel R. Moshe mi-Coucy,”’ Shenaton ha-

Mishpat ha-Ivri 22 (2001–4): 45–69.55During the anti-Talmud campaign of the Counter-Reformation in Italy, the abridged ver-

sion of the Talmud known as Halakhot ha-RiF by the eleventh-century North African scholar

R. Isaac Alfasi filled a similar role; see Bonfil, Rabbis and Jewish Communities, 262–64.56The ongoing vitality of that tradition in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Italy is attested to by

the publication of the SMaG in Venice in 1547 and by its inclusion in the threefold reference

system En Mishpat Ner Mitzvah (1495) of R. Joshua Boaz (together with Maimonides and the

Turim). See Bonfil, Rabbis and Jewish Communities, 256–57.57Ibid. The other source was R. Isaac of Corbeille’s mid-thirteenth-century work Sefer Mitzvot Qatan, usually accompanied by the glosses of his disciple, R. Peretz of Corbeille. Of the 235

full and partial manuscripts of the SMaG that are listed in the catalogue of the Institute forMicrofilmed Hebrew Manuscripts in Jerusalem, over 70 percent are of Italian provenance.

French Jews predominate among those who are recorded as either ordering or purchasing

copies of the work.




son in the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol.58 Every leading French scholar in that period

commented extensively on it. We thus possess learned correspondence and/or

complete commentaries on the work from R. Matathias Trèves, R. Yohanan

Trèves, R. Solomon Trabotto, Mahariq, R. Azriel Diena, R. Azriel Trabotto

the Elder, R. Azriel Trabotto of Macerata, and R. Obadiah Yaré of Berti-

noro.59

R. Matathias’s comments are found in a hitherto unexamined fifteenth-

century manuscript collection of novellae on the SMaG.60 The text is divided

into sections covering the SMaG’s discussions of the laws of shofar, sukkah,

lulav, Tisha b’Av, Hanukkah, and Megillah.61 Each section is prefaced by

headings that attribute the material to R. Matathias Trèves.62 The text, how-

ever, actually includes glosses by Mahariq and his disciple and noted Mish-

nah commentator, R. Obadiah Yaré of Bertinoro.63

The scribe/compiler noted

58In German yeshivot , this role was filled by the glosses on Maimonides’s Mishneh Torah,

known as Hagahot Maimuniyot . See David Messer Leon, Sefer Kavod Hakhamim, ed. Simon

Bernfeld (Jerusalem, l971), 79–80, 101–2; Robert Bonfil, “Sefer ‘Alilot Devarim: Pereq be-

Toldot ha-Hagut ha-Yehudit be-yeme ha-Baynayim?” ‘Eshel Beer Sheva 2 (1980): 241–44. In

general, German scholars did not devote themselves to focused study of the SMaG. R. Isaac

Stein (Regensburg and Nuremberg; d. 1497), who did write such a commentary, was excep-

tional in this regard. See Yuval, Hakhamim be-Doram, 395–97.59Comments on the SMaG by these scholars are preserved in the following sources:

R. Yohanan Trèves, cited in Pines, Teshuvot u-Pisqei Mahariq, no. 185; R. Solomon Trabotto,

cited in Eliyahu Dov Pines, ed., Hiddushei u-Perushei Mahariq ha-Hadashim (Jerusalem,

1998), 284–308; Mahariq, cited in Pines, Hiddushei u-Perushei Mahariq, 193–349; R. Azriel

Diena, Resp. R. Azriel Diena, ed. Y. Boksenboim (Tel Aviv, 1979), 2:671, s.v. SmaG; R. Yehiel

Trabotto, “Hiddushim al Sefer Mitzvot Gadol,” Rome, Biblioteca Casanatense 3058 (IMHM

F110), fols. 50b–61b; R. Azriel Trabotto the Elder, “She’elot u-Teshuvot u-Pesaqim,” London,

Montefiore Library, Ms. 480 (IMHM F7281), fols. 487b–490a; R. Azriel Trabotto of Macer-

ata, “Qovetz She’elot u-Teshuvot,” Budapest, Magyar tudomanyos akademia, Kaufmann Col-

lection 158 (IMHM F32250), fol. 246. Regarding R. Matathias Trèves and R. Ovadiah Yaré

of Bertinoro, see below.

60The material is found in two practically identical manuscripts: Warsaw, Zydowski Insty-tut Historyczny, MS 204 (IMHM F11102), fols. 48a–65a, and London, British Library, Add.

27129 (IMHM F5804; henceforth BL Add. 27129), fols. 22a–32b. Both manuscripts are writ-

ten in Italian half-cursive script. Here, I will refer the latter as it is more complete, more

legible, and better preserved.61SMaG, Positive Commandments [Mitzvot Aseh] nos. 42–44 and Rabbinic Commandments

[Mitzvot mi-de-Rabbanan] nos. 3–5. With one exception (Hilkhot Hametz u-Matzah), these

are the same subjects covered in Pines, Hiddushei u-Perushei Mahariq, 193–349.62BL Add. 27129, fols. 22, 39 and 42.63While of Italian origin, R. Obadiah was French in his Talmudic orientation. In his biogra-

phy of R. Obadiah, Israel Lerner erroneously describes the manuscript containing Bertinoro’scomments on Mahariq’s novellae on the SmaG; Rabbenu Obadiah me-Bartenura: Hayyav u-Terumato le-Perush ha-Mishnah (Jerusalem, 1988), 214. The journal Pe’amim dedicated an

entire issue to R. Obadiah’s life and writings (no. 37, 1988).



J. R. WOOLF

the abbreviated name of the author of each gloss at the end of his com-

ments.64

Very little scholarly attention has been paid to glosses on the SMaG. Con-

sidering their highly technical and occasionally gnomic style, this is notreally surprising. Still, it is unfortunate, for these texts allow one to enter

into the studios of these leading rabbis and to take a more complete mea-

sure of their intellectual activity than might otherwise have been possible.

While a full analysis of this material goes beyond the scope of the present

discussion, we will make a start by broadly characterizing salient themes in

R. Matathias’s glosses on the SMaG.

One striking feature of these comments is the almost total absence of

the writings of Maimonides. In marked contrast to parallel comments on

the SMaG by Mahariq and his students, R. Matathias Trèves devotes pre-

cisely two comments to the Mishneh Torah—albeit one of them is a long and

learned excursus. In the course of discussing the proper blessing to be recited

when blowing the shofar on Rosh Hashanah,65 R. Matathias uses the oppor-

tunity to explore Maimonides’s famous position that laws that are derived

from the traditional rabbinic rules of hermeneutics are of lesser standing than

those explicitly mentioned in the Bible.66 The second passage addresses the

length of the shofar call, the Teru’ah. R. Matathias attempts to square the

opinion of his teacher, R. Nissim Gerondi, with that of Maimonides.67

Taken

64BL Add. 27129, fol. 25a. This heading suggests a chronological range for the creation of

this collection. Maharik is described as having died and Bartenura as still alive. The former

passed away in 1480, and the latter departed for the land of Israel in 1488. It seems reasonable

to assume that this collection was put together during that eight-year period.65BL Add. 27129, fol. 25a. Cf. Pines, Hiddushei u-Perushei Mahariq, 264–65. The precise

blessing was much mooted. Most authorities, including Maimonides, ruled that the bless-

ing was “to hear” the sound of the Shofar (cf. Mishneh Torah, Shofar 3:10). The regnant

French practice, however, was to say “to blow the Shofar,” reflecting the opinion of R. Tam.See R. Simh. ah ben Samuel of Vitry, Mahzor Vitry, ed. Simon ha-Levi Horowitz (Nurem-

berg, 1923), par. 506; R. Abraham b. Nathan of Lunel, Sefer ha-Manhig, ed. Yitzhaq Refael

(Jerusalem, 1994), 315; R. Eliezer b. Joel ha-Levi, Sefer Ravya, ed. Victor Aptowitzer (Berlin,

1913), 2:534; and R. Asher b. Yehiel, Hilkhot ha-Rosh, BT Rosh Hashanah 4:10.66Cf. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Ishut 1:2 and 3:20, and the corresponding commentaries

by R. Matathias.67BL Add. 27129, fols. 27b–28a, based upon BT Rosh Hashanah 33b–34a, and R. Nissim of

Gerona, Hiddushei ha-RaN (Jerusalem, 1995), s.v. tanna didan. In his remarks, R. Matathias

seems to say that he is quoting directly from R. Nissim’s comments. However, his citation

only roughly approximates the text in our possession; either he possessed a different text or heis merely paraphrasing. In that connection, it is worth noting that RaN’s parallel comments on

the Halakhot of R. Isaac Alfasi (on BT Rosh Hashanah 10a, s.v. tanna didan) are formulated in

a significantly different manner than either his novella or the report conveyed by R. Matathias.




together, his comments show him to be an astute and careful student of the

Mishneh Torah.68

Yet, as far as the extant material is concerned, that is all there is. Nowhere

else, in dozens of other comments, does R. Matathias so much as mention

Maimonides or the Mishneh Torah. This is true even in places where such

comparisons suggest themselves. For example, the author of the SMaG opens

his discussions of the laws of Sukkah and of the “Four Species” ( Arba’at ha- Minim) by citing relevant verses from Leviticus.69 R. Matathias notes that in

this the SMaG deviates from its discussions of other commandments, which

the author normally introduces with the phrase “It is a positive commandment

to [do such and such].” He then suggests reasons to explain the deviation.

But the very same question could be asked of the Mishneh Torah. There,

too, Maimonides diverges from his practice of using this same introductoryphrase (“It is a positive commandment,” etc.) and jumps immediately into a

discussion of the details of these two commandments.70 It is highly unlikely

that R. Matathias was unaware of this circumstance, so his silence vis-à-vis

the Mishneh Torah is striking.71

The truth of the matter is that, broadly considered, it is difficult to gauge

the degree to which the Mishneh Torah played a role in the halakhic deci-

sions of the rabbis Trèves, if indeed it did play a role. On the one hand, the

Mishneh Torah is not cited in most of their responsa. On the other hand,

there are indications that the Mishneh Torah was a source of some impor-tance, at least for R. Yohanan Trèves. Thus, when the latter complains that

he cannot properly respond to a complicated inquiry because his books have

been seized by the authorities, he writes: “Don’t you know? Haven’t you

heard that for the vicissitudes of our generation, already for a year and a half

our feet are weighed down and our books have been seized; the Talmud, the

Rulings of Maimonides (Pisqei Maimuni), the Qatzar [Sefer Mitzvot Qatan],

and the Alfas?’72 Moreover, as already noted by Mordechai Breuer and Israel

68R. Matathias also cites the introductory portion of Maimonides’s Sefer ha-Mitzvot (Jerusalem, 1995), shoresh 1. This is noteworthy, as Sefer ha-Mitzvot was not cited very often

by Ashkenazic halakhists. It is interesting to note that R. Matathias calls the various sections

of the first part of the work ‘iqqarim instead of shorashim.69SMaG, Positive commandments 42 and 44, citing Lev. 23:34–43.70Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Sukkah 4:1 and Lulav 7:1. The SMaG’s introductory para-

graph was, apparently, adapted from R. Elazar of Metz, Sefer Yere’im (Jerusalem, 2008), com-

mandments 421 and 422. Cf. Urbach, Ba’ale ha-Tosafot , 474.71Cf. Pines, Hiddushei u-Perushei Mahariq, 181.

72Satz, Resp. Maharil ha-Hadashot , no. 100 (sec. 2). Concerning the campaign against Jewishbooks in Savoy and Piedmont, see Segre, Jews in Piedmont , 1:xv-xxii; Hen Melekh Merhavia,

“Ketav Yad Sefaradi-Latini al ha-Ma’avaq Neged ha-Talmud be-Tehilat ha-Me’ah ha-15,”

Qiryat Sefer 45 (1970): 271–86 and 590–606.



J. R. WOOLF

Yuval, R. Yohanan Trèves’s theory of rabbinic authority and the parameters

of rabbinic ordination (semikhah) was profoundly Maimonidean in content

and character.73 The Maimonidean corpus, then, was an element—even a sig-

nificant element—of fourteenth- and early fifteenth-century French halakhic

discourse. And yet, in marked contrast to the school of Mahariq, it does not

appear to have figured in the curriculum of French circles of study. More

research is required before this matter can be resolved.74

Returning to the manuscript, we find that R. Matathias focused primarily

on a close reading and study of the text of the SMaG.75 His concerns are

several. Unclear or gnomic comments or discussions are expanded, elabo-

rated, and set in textual and theoretical context.76 R. Matathias tries to square

R. Moses of Coucy’s formulations with their Talmudic source.77 Discerning

difficulty with his proof texts, he attempts to elicit the underlying logic behindthe SMaG’s interpretation.78 Noteworthy, again, is the fact that his intellec-

tual frame of reference is overwhelmingly confined to the opinions of Rashi

and of French (in contrast to German) Tosafists.79

R. Matathias’s comments are in fact student notations of his lectures.

Not surprisingly, especially in light of the associative and holistic nature

73Breuer, “Ha-Semikhah ha-Ashkenazit,”16–20; Yuval, Hakhamim be-Doram, 333–40. Cf.

Robert Bonfil, “Le Savoir et le pouvoir: Pour une histoire du rabbinat a I‘époque pre-moderne,”’ in La Société Juive à Travers l’Histoire, ed. Shmuel Trigano, vol. 1, La Fabriquedu peuple (Paris, 1992), 162–69; Simon Schwarzfuchs, “Yohanan de Treves et le maintien

de la tradition culturelle de judaisme français avant et après l’expulsion de 1394,” Revue desétudes juives 149 (1990): 509.74At this point, it appears likely that the central place that Maimonides occupied in French

halakhic writing from the late fifteenth century onward was a later innovation (contra Woolf,

“Admiration and Apathy,” 448). French scholars who traveled south settled in two areas that

were powerfully Maimonidean in their halakhic orientation, Savoy and Italy. Further insight

into this question may be provided by a study of the Sefer ha-Niyyar , which was composed

in the early fourteenth century and makes significant use of Maimonides’s code. The contentis fundamentally French, though it might have been composed in southern France, where

Maimonides stood at the center of things. It is also heavily glossed, and its strata have yet to

be separated and examined. Cf. Appel, introduction to Sefer ha-Niyyar , 21–37.75Overall, the text of the SMaG, as R. Matathias cites it in the manuscript, is identical to that of

the editio princeps (Venice, 1547). In some places, the lemmas diverge from the printed text.

Some are clearly the result of scribal error (e.g., omission of words). Others reflect documented

variants. Discussion of the textual comparisons requires separate treatment elsewhere.76See, e.g., R. Matathias’s discussion of Zech. 6:11 in BL Add. 27129, fol. 22a (s.v. u-mashe-amar ), based upon SMaG, Asin de-Rabbanan no. 3, s.v. Be-Pereq Qamma de-Gittin.

77BL Add. 27129, fol. 22a, s.v. ika, fol. 23b, s.v. amar Rava, and fol. 30a.78BL Add. 27129, fol. 31a, s.v. ve-lo mihu.79I have found no reference to any of the great German Tosafists (e.g. Ravya, R. Isaac b.

Moshe of Vienna, or even R. Meir of Rothenberg).




of Talmudic discourse, these digress from the text itself. Discussion of the

SMaG’s opinions leads him to broad theoretical legal analyses on issues as

varied as the halakhic status of non-Jewish property and modes of acquisi-

tion, the biblical or rabbinic status of the restrictions observed on the Day of

Atonement, or even the difference between Sabbath and Hanukkah lights.80

And, while the overwhelming number of his comments are theoretical in na-

ture, R. Matathias occasionally addresses questions of practical law as well.81

R. Matathias’s comments also shed light upon their author’s involve-

ment in the development of late medieval casuistry ( pilpul).82 One inter-

pretive technique that characterized pilpul was that of “avoidance” (shemi-rah). As pointed out by Israel Yuval, pilpul grew out of the same sense

of radical deference to the past that produced the doctrine of halakha ke-batrai.83Accordingly, late medieval Ashkenazic scholars assumed that the

authors of earlier, now canonical texts not only stated their own opinions but

also formulated those opinions with such precision as to anticipate and parry

alternative lines of argument.84 They “avoided” the objections of their crit-

ics, in advance. R. Matathias employs precisely this technique in analyzing

R. Moses of Coucy’s choice of words.85

Aficionados of pilpul established a distinct canon of Talmudic passages

and theoretical questions that served as grist for their casuistic analysis.

These were known as “weighty” or “grave” passages (sugyot hamurot ).86 In

the mid-fifteenth century, one passage that was very popular among French

scholars was BT Rosh Hashanah 34a, which discusses the order of blowing

the shofar on the New Year.87 Our text preserves R. Matathias’s extensive,

pilpul-like discussion of precisely this passage.88

80BL Add. 27129, fols. 35a, 42b, and 43a.81BL Add. 27129, fols. 35a and 42a. In light of the central role that the SMaG played in

Franco-Jewish halakhah, it is somewhat surprising that there are not more such discussions.82On the early development of pilpul, see Urbach, Ba’ale ha-Tosafot , 753–70; Israel Ta Shma,

Ha-Sifrut ha-Parshanit la-Talmud (Jerusalem, 2000), 2:122–44. An excellent, and accessible,

description of pilpul is provided by Dov Rappel, Ha-Vikkuah al ha-Pilpul (Jerusalem, 1979).83Yuval, “Antiqui et Moderni,” 17.84Cf. Breuer, “Aliyat ha-Pilpul ve-Hilluqim,” 248.85BL Add. 27129, fol. 40a, s.v. assur . R. Yohanan Trèves recalled that this is the way he had

been trained (Teshuvot Maharil ha-Hadashot , ed. Yitzhaq Satz [Jerusalem, 1977], no. 188, s.v.

ve-al asher ). He attributed the great precision of the medieval authorities (e.g., Rashi and the

Tosafists) to nothing less than divine inspiration.86Prominent examples are Qol ha-Qavu’a (BT Ketubot 15a) and Toqfo Kohen (BT Baba Met-

sia 6b). Cf. R. Joseph Colon, Resp. Mahariq (Venice, 1519), shoresh 88.87On BT Rosh Hashanah 34a, see, e.g., Pines, Hiddushei u-Perushei Mahariq, 276–83, which

preserves the comments of Mahariq and members of his circle. Concerning the passage itself,see Menahem Mendel Kasher, Yom Teru’ah-Yom Yevava (New York, 1960).88BL Add. 27129, fols. 27b–28a. Another difficult Talmudic passage (sugya hamura) that oc-

cupied R. Matathias’s attention and that of many others, though not Mahariq, revolved around



J. R. WOOLF

We may now revisit the question of continuity between the fifteenth cen-

tury Franco-Italian school of Mahariq and that of Rabbis Matathias and

Yohanan Trèves. On the basis of the four leading characteristics of the

Franco-Italian school mentioned above, it is fair to conclude that in terms

of legal method (no. 1 above), Mahariq’s school continued and built upon

a legacy that was bequeathed to it by the rabbis Trèves and their succes-

sors (among whom were his own teachers).89 The same is true of the pri-

marily Francocentric character of their frame of reference, in particular the

critical and central place that the SMaG occupied in their halakhic universe

(no. 2).

When it comes to their use of R. Jacob b. Asher’s Arba’ah Turim (no. 4),

the situation is a bit murkier. R. Matathias Trèves cited the work and relied

upon it as the final authority, while his son did not. On the other hand, Ma-hariq explicitly relied upon the Turim because its rulings, in his view, decided

between the great authorities of the previous era of halakhic creativity based

upon the principle of halakhah ke-batrai. This posture of total deference to

the giants of the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries characterizes the

writings of both R. Matathias and R. Yohanan (although they likely drew the

line a generation earlier). In that sense, Mahariq’s extensive use of the Turimwas a natural outgrowth of their shared methodological assumptions.

It is only as regards the role of Maimonides’s Mishneh Torah (no. 3)

that Mahariq’s academy seems to have diverged from that of his intellec-

tual forbears. But even when Maimonides’s writings became a central focus

of French scholars in Italy, they took their place alongside those of eminent

Ashkenazim, especially those of France. They never overruled the latter but

were studied according to the methodological rules and canons of legal de-

cision making that characterized the leading French scholars in the previous

century.90 Increased focus on one work, as great as the work and as intense

as the focus may be, does not create a school of thought. Method and intel-

lectual self-awareness, on the other hand, do. In this sense, the penetration of Maimonides into the world of French halakhah was not substantively a game

changer.

the theoretical possibility that the famed cruse of oil that featured in the miracle of Hanukkah

should have been technically impure. Cf. ibid., fol. 43a and Tosafot ad (BT Shabbat 21b), s.v.

she-haya.89Cf. Ibn Yahya, Shalshelet ha-Qabbalah, 28b; Daniel Cohen, “Iggeret Meqorit shel ha-

Maharil al Gezerot Savoia u-Gevi’at Ma’ot ha-Bulot be-Shenat 1418,” Zion 44 (1979): 173–89; Schwarzfuchs, “Yohanan Trèves et le dernier refuge,” 83–94; and Woolf, Life and Re-sponsa, 8–13.90Woolf, Life and Responsa, 114–15.




Conclusion

In the collective memory of its eastern European heirs, medieval Ashkenaz

was an undifferentiated whole known as “France and Germany” (Tzarefat ve-Ashkenaz).91 Thus, R. Moses Isserles (ca. 1525–72) explained his adop-

tion of a certain legal stricture as due to the fact that “such is the practice

of the earlier ones [qadmonim] in Germany and France, whose descendants

we are.”92 Similarly, R. Joel Sirqes (1561–1640) proudly referred to his de-

scent from both the French Tosafists and the German Pietists.93 Culturally

speaking, the two wings of Ashkenazic Jewry were perceived to be of one

piece.

Scholars have confirmed the perception that multiple bonds of tradition

and blood connected the Jewish communities on both sides of the Rhine.Nevertheless, even in the High Middle Ages, the Jews of northern France and

those of the Rhineland and central Germany represented identifiably unique

cultural entities.94 And, while each dominated the other at different times, at

no time was the identity of either submerged.95

After French Jews were expelled from Capetian and then Valois France,

and as they resettled in Spain, Germany, and Italy, their rabbis faced a twofold

challenge.96 They sought to preserve their unique heritage and group identity

while engaging and confronting colleagues from other traditions. In Italy,

they succeeded in this task for two centuries. In the end, however, the heritage

91This conflation of France and Germany was also common among late medieval Spanish

and Oriental scholars. See, e.g., R. Isaac b. Sheshet Perfet, Teshuvot R. Isaac b. Sheshet (Jerusalem, 1993), no. 176; R. Elijah Mizrahi, Teshuvot Elijah Mizrahi (Jerusalem, 1984),

no. 56; R. Moshe Alashqar, Teshuvot Maharam Al-Ashqar (Jerusalem, 1984), no. 48; and

R. Samuel di Medini, Teshuvot Maharashdam (Warsaw, 1882), Yoreh De’ah, nos. 1 and 53.92R. Joseph Caro, Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah (Jerusalem, 2009), sec. 39, par. 18. See also

(inter alia) ibid., sec. 55, par. 1; and R. Moses Isserles, She’elot u-Teshuvot Rema (Jerusalem,

1971), nos. 18 and 28.93R. Joel Sirkes, She’elot u-Teshuvot ha-BaH (Jerusalem, 1981), nos. 13, 65, and 79. Cf. Haim

Hillel Ben Sasson, Hagut ve-Hanhagah (Jerusalem, 1959), 11–12; and see the cautionary

remarks of Haym Soloveitchik, “Piety, Pietism, and German Pietism: Sefer Hasidim I and the

Influence of Hasidei Ashkenaz,” Jewish Quarterly Review 92 (2002): 487–88.94See Avraham Grossman, Hakhmei Ashkenaz ha-Rishonim, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem, 1989),

and Hakhmei Zarefat ha-Rishonim (Jerusalem, 1995); Ephraim Kanarfogel, “Bein Yeshivot

Ba’alei ha-Tosafot le-Vatei Midrashot Aherim be-Ashkenaz be-Yemei ha-Beinayim,” in

Yeshivot u-Batei Midrash, ed. Immanuel Etkes (Jerusalem, 2007), 85–108.95Haym Soloveitchik, “Three Themes in Sefer Hassidim,” Association for Jewish Studies

Review 1 (1976): 349–51; Israel Ta-Shma, review of A. Grossman’s Hakhmei Zarefat ha- Rishonim, Zion 61 (1996): 232–34.96Cf. Yom Tov Assis, “Juifs de France refugiés en Aragon (13e–14e siècles),” Revue desétudes juives 142 (1983): 285–322.



J. R. WOOLF

of Troyes and Rameru, Paris and Chambéry disappeared. How that came

about must await a separate study.

Acknowledgements This article is based on papers I presented at the Fourteenth World

Congress of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem in August 2001, at a conference on the history of

the Jews of France sponsored by the Dahan Institute of Bar Ilan University in May 2005, and

at the Italia Judaica Jubilee Conference held at Tel Aviv University in January 2010.

Documents

Late Middle Ages French Halakha