If anyone still reads this blog they would notice that for the last few months I have been absent without leave from this page. The product of those many months was a paper on the Baalei Tosafos. I am beginning to think that this paper will mark a new phase in my learning and probably this blog ( well at least some of my learning).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27037062/Tosafist-chiddush-final-1
A Different Kind of Joy
7 years ago
16 comments:
Hatalzachah rabba on the new project! As long as you keep sharing these more serious articles on the blog, I'll keep Google Reader subscribed to pick up the rare offerings.
-micha
Thanks Micha!
I am iyh going to be posting a bit more frequently...
Yashar Kochacha, nice essay (although I see that you have given up any pretense of anonymity)
Based on your theory how do you explain issues like "Talmud Kodem l'maaseh shehatalmud mayvi liday maaseh" see the Tosfos on bava kamma 17a and on kiddushin 40a which seem to put an emphasis on pratical ramifications of talmudic analysis?
Also in what way do you think that this will change your Limud?
Thank you Yaakov, I appreciate your kind words. I have to look at those two areas again and get back to you. In terms of how it affects my learning, well, I am beginning to see something that I had felt for a long time about the Rishonim in general ( meaning not just the Rambam) and I am viewing them in that light. Much of this entire essay was inspired by a comment that Rabbi Zucker made in front of me after his Kuzu bemuchzaz Kuzu shiur, but that will iyh be the topic of the next post...
and the anonymity? it was never really there
Nice work Jacob. I look forward to Shabbat when I plan to read the entire thing. Are you planning on submitting it for publication?
My advisor had mentioned that briefly and then never mentioned it again, I wouldnt know where or how to submit it for publication but if I made sure it was tight enough I would... if you know of anywhere that I should try for please let me know
You have to find a journal you like and that you think would be a good fit. Then try and find an article to that is close in topic to your article and look at the style and content of those articles. Every journal has information available on submissions. They will tell you style requirements and the like. Knowing the style and requirements of the journal you want to submit to helps the "tightening" process. I have been working on an article that I plan to submit so I am a little bit familiar with the process - I will give you more details when I actually submit. What graduate program are you in?
Nice paper, Jake! I know Yaakov asked this question already, but I'd like to echo it: How does this mark a new phase in your learning, and how does it mark a new phase in this blog?
Yehuda-
Thanks for the info, I will look into it.
Matt-
Thanks for the kind words. I will have to really think as to how to define my statement, but for now I will leave you with just a little taste of part ( not all) of what I am thinking and it is a quote from the baal Rambam System NRV
"I see nothing wrong with using the thoughts of one Rishon to serve as a bridge to another. There is a core commonality of Mesorah that all spring from that allows for this sort of bridging within the realm of rationality."
That being said, when the two rishonim differ so greatly on an area that it seems that there is no way to connect them at all, it is good to remember that they stem from the same source , which prompts me to go over that source again, and again...
I will try to formulate it in Toto
over the yom menucha and get back to you
Jake
Jake
Quite a lot of work went into this, my goodness!
The ideas are good, but I think the paper could use some significant editing to smooth up the language if you wish to publish it.
There are a couple of points I differ on:
1- Neither your portrayal of the Tosafists nor that of Agus (or Ta Shema's variant thereof) address the most obvious feature of the Tosafist project -- holism. Rashi explains the gemara before us. In contrast, Tosafos try to make a single picture out of gemaras that appear to contradict. E.g. when they disagree with Rashi, it's most often because Rashi's explanation of this particular gemara doesn't fit statements elsewhere.
2- What Agus and Ta Shma picked up on that you play down is that their result often does end up being consistent with pre-existing Ashkenazi practice. Unlike Agus, I don't believe this was an actual conscious part of the project; to somehow turn talmud bavli into The Talmud despite not always fitting practice. (Because Ashkenaz included many emigres from Italy, whose families came from Israel, and thus inherited some of its practices from places ohter than Bavel.)
Rather, in trying to unify a picture from conflicting sources, wouldn't the one that is consistent with practice be the most plausible?
Mayim acharonim is one example.
But you spend much time on Rabbeinu Tam and learning gemara as a way to learn all three modes at once. You neglect the point that this was a justification for an already existing practice. The question before Rabbeinu Tam wasn't only how to divide one learning time into thirds and still be safe against dying before completing all three. It was also how to explain the fact that in practice his fellow Ashkenazim were only learning gemara. How do we get a single consistent picture from all these disparate sources?
-micha
RS-
Thanks Rebbi it did.
Micha-
Thanks for the thorough response. I am modeh that it would need work,I think I even said that but thanks for the reminder.
As per your points
1. I would not disagree about the holism, it simply was not my essential theory, I do not believe it is contradictory though.
2. it is true that many areas were not changed, the areas that were changed were used as an illustration of my point and should not be taken to mean that every matter of psak or every inyan was somehow uprooted by the tosafists, on the contrary, I am only here to respond to those that would read other motivations into the Baalei tosafos
3. I do not completely buy the idea that Rabbeinu Tam was simply finding a convenient halachic construct for an already existant practice, something in that theory smacks of a problem
I am a little bit ignorant of the history are you suggesting that this chiddush of Rabbenu Tam (ie the continuation of the Talmud) is unique to the Baalei haTosfos? Didn't Chachmei Sfarad and Provence have it also?
No I am not suggesting that it was essentially unique at all. Not at all.
I think Rabbeinu Tam was simply out to justify existing practice from the wording (Qiddushin 30a):
ור״ת פי׳ שאנו סומכין אהא דאמרינן בסנהדרין (דף כד) בבל בלולה במקרא משנה ובגמרא דגמרת בבל בלול מכולם
In particular, "she'anu somekhin" implies this was being done already. Not "yeish lismokh" or the like.
We see the same thing in the first Tosafos on Sanhedrin 24a:
פירש רבינו תם לבתלמוד שלנו אנו פוטרין עצמנו ממה שאמרו חכמים (מסכת ע״ג לף יט:) לעולם ישלש אדם שנותיו...
Also, speaking of what we do, not what ought be done going forward. The most clear statement, perhaps, that Rabbeinu Tam was speaking of existing practice, is the version on AZ 19b:
ונראה לר״ת דאנו שעוסקין בתלמוד בבלי דיינו הוא בלול במקרא במשנה ובתלמוד כדאמרינן בסנהדרין...
-micha
Micha,
Thanks again for the close attention that you paid to my paper, it means a lot to me.
I think that your points are all valid on the idea of shlish, in terms of the lashon there, im drawing a blank on which lashon pushed me towards inclusion of it, but your point is certainly accepted, I am modeh to that lashon
Post a Comment