woolf halakha

7/29/2019 Woolf Halakha

1/7

1EAJS Congress in 2002EAJS Membership Payment. Form

3

59

15

Essays:Campanini on Christian KabbalahWoolf on the Study of HalakhahoPelger on Gustav Salomon Oppert

24Short Study:Jackson on the Agunah Problem26Conference Reports47Books Received50Notice Board54News58EAJS Constitution

EAJS Membership Details


2/7

METHODOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS ONTHE STUDY OF HALAKHAH*Jeffrey Robert Woolf

IntroductionIn the introduction o his study, Rabad of Posquieres:A Medieval Talmudist,' the late Isadore Twerskycompared Jewish Intellectual History to a "fast-moving streamcoursing through a complex networkof tributaries and offshoots... The main~tream,however, was the Halakhah (Jewish law) -its everexpanding corpus of literature and its cumulativebody of practice." This forthright assertionof thefundamentally halakhocentric character of pre-modern Judaismserves as an important corrective othe still dominant tendency within scholarship ohighlight the non-legalpursuits of Jewish ntellectualsthrough the ages,while ignoring the critical impactwhich Halakhahhad upon the life and thoughtof theJews throughout heir far-flung exile! When histori-ans did relate to and make use of halakhic material,they did so almost exclusively in order o mine it forthe historical data it might provide.3 n this context,

the use of halakhic literature has been both massiveand decisive.4

On he other hand, ar less attentionhas beenpaidto the halakhic processand ts literature, both for itsunderstanding er se as well as for purposesof elic-iting therefroma deeper nderstanding f the culturaland historical sitz m lebenwi~in which it developed.This stateof affairs was the result of at least wo re-lated actors.As a particularly parochial discipline, Halakhahdid not fit in well with the agendaof the foundersof5Wissenschaft es Judentums. Furthermore, he dis-couraginglyopaquenature of halakhic literature anddiscoursewas far from attractive, especially when thad to compete or scholarly attention with philoso-phy, mysticism,p6etry,polemic and biblical exegesis.In suchcircumstances,ew scholars were inclined tobelieve that one could (or desire ~6), n the words ofProfessor.Haym Soloveitchik, crack "the colorlessand highly impersonalmolds into which the thoughtof the medievalperiod was cast o reveal a world ofindividuality, development and ambivalence.,,6 ns4ort, to force "fragmentaryand recalcitranthalakhica1kh.,,7exts. ..to t IstOry.

Not until the middle of the twentieth century didthere appear historians who set out spe9ifically toexplorehalakhic development er se. Much credit forthe creation of the contemporary school of halakhichistoriographygoes to Professor JacobKatz. It washe, in the 1950s,who called attention o the need osee in Jewish aw the primary material for the studyof Judaism,as well 'as of Jewish life, and who out-lined the generalparameters y which hal'4khicmate-rial is to be handled and evaluated. t may easily besaid that almost all contemporaryhalakhic historiog-raphyconstitutes footnotes o Katz".sIt is thus appropriate o open discussionof themethodologyof th~ academicstudy of HalakhahwithKatz' observation hat he scholarwho seeks o utilizehalakhic exts must ead such wice. The first time he

.The intention here is to discuss some salient methodologicalissues pertaining to the academic study orthe history of Ha1akhah.Owing to limitations of space and expertise, 1 have confined myselfto medieval and ear1y modern Europe. In addition, 1 have deliberatelyomitted 9iscussions issues related to source and manuscript use. SeeH. Soloveitchik, She'elot u-Teshubot ke-Maqor Bistori, Jerusalem1990 and the studies by Y. Ta-Shema cited in the bibliography. (I amgrateful to Professor Daniel Sperber and Dr Edward Fram for theircomments.)I I. Twersky, Rabad of Posquieres:A Medieval Talmudist, 2nded.;Philadelphia 1980, p. vii. Twersky's point was that Halakhahunderlies, guides, and interacts with the dazzling variety of pursuitsand disciplines which the Jews cultivated over the centuries in apattern/dynamic which he termed "the int(:raction of i:Ialakha and'Meta-Ha1akha"'. See I. Twersky, 'Religion and Law', in Religion ina Religious Age, ed. by S. D. Goitein, Wa1tham/MA 1974, pp. 69-"82.2 Twersky, ibid.3 See B. Weinryb, 'Responsa as a Source for History: Methodo-10gical Problems', in Essays Presented to Rabbi Israel Brodie,London 1967, pp. 399-417. Two influential examples are I. Agus,Urban Civilization in Pre-Crusade Europe. A Study of he OrganizedTown Life in Norihwestern Europe During the Tenth and EleventhCenluriesBased on the Responsa Literature, New York 1965 and S.D. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society. No responsible Jewish histo-rian has worked without reference to halakhic literature in this sense.,An important methodological caveat is in order. Law over-whelmingly re1ates o the exception, and not to the rule. Hence,extreme caution must be exercised before one arrives at far-reachingconclusions regarding the religious, social or moral fabric'of a givencommunity based upon piquant, even scandalous, cases mentioned inlegal literature. Unfortunately ,such instances are not un


3/7

must examine t with the eyesand mindsetof a tradi-tional halakhist. Only then, he cautioned,should hereexanline t with the eyes of the historian. Behindthis aphorism,of which Katz was quite fond,9 ies thecomplexof varied and subtle factors with which thehistorian mustgrapple n attempting o understan!i hehalakhist and the way in which his rulings interactwith, and reflect, the world in which he lived. It com-pels the historian to appreciate he imminent devel-opmentand requirements f halakhic tradition, whilesimultaneouslyseeking to reconstruct he externalforcesand nfluenceswhich act upon he halakhist.

process was thus self-contained and self-sufficient,14with rulings representing a reasonable interpretationof the relevant sources. In addition, judgments wereexpected to reflect accepted norms of decision-making between the opinions of previous authori-ties.ls .

Thus, prior to entering into the realm where lawencounters reality, the scholar must fltst take themeasure of the legist qua legist.16 This is importantbecause we have much to learn about schools andtrends within rabbinic jurisprudence for much of themedieval period. More to the present point, apprecia-tion of the inner workings of the process of bothHalakhah and the contemporary halakhist is criticalfor the proper evaluation of their workings withinspecific historical conditions. In other words, unlesswe develop an awareness of his normal modus oper-andi, we will be hamstrung in our efforts to determinewhether certain rulings may be considered unusual.For extlmple, was he a 'formalist,' who tended tomechanically apply the words of his predecessor, ordoes he allow himself a degree of latitude of inter-pretation of sources? Do his rulings betray a consis-tent tendency toward stringency (or leniency) in spe-cific areas? What was his attittide toward precedent?Which works were available to him, and which fea-tureprominently in his writings? Does he allow him-self to decide among previous authorities?'7 How dohis writings and methods align themselves against thebackground of the legal tradition (e.g., French, Ger-man, Provenyal, Spanish, Polish, Moroccan, Iraqi,Syrian) which he viewed himself as representing?_Considerationssuch as these provide critical 'con-troIs' in evalu,ating the legal and the historical signifi-cance of the creation, impact and influence of halakhicrulings within specific socio-historical contexts. IS

Halakhic JurisprudenceTo begin with, the study of Halakhah requires of thehistorian a healthy measure of acquaintance with andrespect for the integrity of the halakhist and thehalakhic system.IO Halakhists throughout the ageshave believed there to be a unified (though dynamic)cross-generational universe of discourse within whichthey move.!! Hence, the initiated reader expected thathe would be able to follow and evaluate the cogencyof lines of argument or rulings, irrespective of thetime or place in which they were rendered. Second,with noticeable variation, halakhists were consistentlyconscious of and sensitive to their responsibility asinterpreters of God's Law. As a result, they strove todetennine that which they believed to be the 'true'interpretation of the law, and the 'correct' ruling to beadopted in a given instance.12This was no mean un-dertaking, and there have been multiple ways inwhich halakhists have managed to overcome theirdiffidence in t11e ace of the awesome responsibilitybefore them. By extension, however, consciouslychanging law to the needs of circumstance wouldhave appeared to the~ as nothing short of blasphe-mous.13 n the eyes of its practitioners the halakhic.See Katz's intellectual testament, '/ la-Haqor ve-'/ Ie.,Hilbonen, Jerusalem] 999. 1 heard him make this point in a seminarwhich he led at Harvard in the Fa]1of ]977.10 See H. Soloveitchik, 'Responsa: Literary History and BasicLiteracy', in AJS Review 24 (1999),pp. 343-357,II This approach is self-consciously non-'Post-Modem'. See Katz,'/ La-Haqor, pp. 11-45.12 This characterization varied widely and was not infrequentlyfunction of both the personaliiy and/or the legal method of the haIa-khist. See the examples noted by H. So]oveitchik, 'Can HalakhicTexts Talk History', in AJS Review 3 (1978), pp. 178-182 and RReiner, 'Parshanut ve-Halakhah: 'Iyyun me-Hadash be-Pu1mosRabbenu Tam ve-R. Meshulam', in Shena/oil ha-Mishpa/ ha- 'fvri 2](I 99S-2000), pp. 207-240.13 SeeJ. Katz, 'The Rule of Halakha in Traditional Jewish Society:Theory and PI"axis', in Divine Law ill Hulllall Hands, pp. 17]-190and J. Woolf, 'Between Diffidence and Initiative: Ashkenazic LegalDecising in the Late Middle Ages (1350--1500)', in Journal forJewish Studies 52 (2001), pp. 85-97.

14 Cf. J. Katz, 'Post-Zoharic Relations Between Halakha andKabbalah', in Jewish Thought in the Sixteenth Century, ed. by B. D.Cooperman, Cambridge 1983, pp. 283~286.15 From this vantage point, analysis of halakhic literature, bothresponsa and codes, coincides with what is broadly defined as 'juris-prudence'. See S. More]I, Precedent and Judicial Discretion: TheCase Of Joseph Ibn Lev, Atlanta 1991.16 .' This is not to suggest that 'internal' considerations developinsulated from those on the 'outside'. Consider, for example, the longstanding issue of the possible influence of scholastic thought upontosafist method. The point here is that in this stage of their researchha1akhists view themse]ves as involved in a closed, continuousendeavor.17 This point also speaks to the issue of periodization, which hasbeen the subject of some discussion of late. See I. Ta-Shema, 'TheLaw is in Accord with the Later Authority -"Hilkhata Ke-Batrai":Historical Observations on a Legal Rule', in Authority, Process, andMe/hod: Studies n Jewish Law, eds. H. Ben-Menahem and N. Hecht,Amsterdam 1998, pp. 101-J28 andY. Yuval, 'Antiquii et Moderni;Rishonim ve-' Aharonim', in Zion 57 (1992), pp. 369-394.II .Intense oyalty to one's native tradition may result from externalpressures hereupon. Thus, we find the fourteenth-century Provenyal

10


4/7

part of their search or the hidden will of God (Retzonha-Boreh)devoted hemselveso the uncoveringandenforcing of a far moredemandingsystemof law thanthat provided by the traditional Halakhah. This wasaccompanied y an ideologically motivated demandfor ever-increasing tringency n legal decising, rre-spectiveof accepted rocedural orms!2The situationproved more drastic in the case ofZoharic Kabbalah.As a symbolic, heosophicsystemKabbalahsawdivine lore reflected n every detailandnuance of the commandments.This circumstancetransformed he mostmundane egal details nto mys-tically chargedexpressions f the highestorder.As aresult, it became critical that halakhic practice andmystic lore be alignedas closely as possible,with. heresult that from the fifteenth century onwards,we arewitnesses o constant ressureby Kabbalah upon heindependentworkings of the Halakhah.23 he effectsof this pressurewere mixed,and constitutean mpor-tant leitmotiv in the history of Halakhah. On the onehand,no less a personagehan R. Yosef Karo estab-lished the place of the Zohar as an halakhic source.On he other hand,evenmystically nclined halakhiststended o resist he full ascendancy f mystical con-siderations in order to protect the integrity of thehalakhic process. he full impact, as well as the 'upsand downs' of this tension,are still in the processofbeing chartedand evaluated.

Before moving on, one further ssue mustbe con-sideredand that s the role of meta-halakhicor ideo-logical considerations n the decision-makingproc-ess.19Ostensibly, given the self-sufficiency of thehalakhic system as posited above, there actuallyshould be no place for such a possibility. However,historically this has proven not to be the case, o nosmall degreedue to the .natureof rabbinic Judaism,within which Spirituality and Law (or AggadahandHalakhah)coexist n a tense, dialecticar elationship.The latter provides form and uniformity, while theother nforms the law wit..f} ontent and provides hecommandments ith a telos for their performance.2oOfficially, eachcomponent as ts own task and pre-serves ts own integrity of method and content.Theresult is that vis-a-vis Halakhah, raditions of Jewishspirituality suchas Philosophy or Mysticism are ex-pected o serveas nterpretersof the commandments(ta ame mitzvot)and to createa spiritual world-viewwhich gives them an overall meaning. They are notsupposedo playa role in the actual determination fthe aw.In practice, however, hings did not work out sosimply. After all, if tenets of Jewish spirituality de-termined the tenor and telos of Jewish observancecould it not, ndeedshould it not, claim a role in de-termining the parametersof that observance?Andwhile the responseof Jewish philosophers o thisquestionwas somewhatmuted,21 ewishmysticswereassertively,evenaggressively, ositive. The medievalGermanPietists (HassideAshkenaz), or example,as Law and lifeNot unexpectedly, heory and researchalmost neveralign themselves with the complexity of the lifesituations which the halakhist s called upon to con-front!4 Life itself is complex, and the angle ofevaluation adopted by the halakhist will inevitablyimpact upon his choice from among he constellationof precedents nd opinions which resulted from hisresearch. Mechanical imposition of precedentwasrarely an option, in large part becauseprecedentwas

not viewed as binding!S Thus the decisor was en-dowed with a significantdegreeof judicial discretion

talmudist, R. Menahem ha-Me'iri, engaging in a polemic with disci-ples of the school of Nahmanides who questioned the legitimacylocal practice (Sefer Magen :Abat, ed. by I. Last, Jerusalem 1977, p.I I). B. Lau has explained the attempts of R. Obadiah Yosef to re-store Sephardic halakhic traditions in the Land of Israel in a similarlight. See B. Lau, ""AI Mishrnarti 'A-'amoda le-Hahazir 'Atara le-Yoshna": Ma'avaqo shel haRav Obadia Yosef le-Shemirat ha-Halakhah ha-Sefaradit be-'Eretz Yisrael', in 'Elgar ha-Ribbonul, ed.by M. Bar-On, Jerusa1em 999,pp. 214-227.19 One should mention in this context the role of what ProfessorDavid Berger terms 'religious policy', meaning overarching religiousor spiritual concems which impact upon hal~ic decisions. Unfortu-nately, space does not allow for a ful1 discussion of this dimension.In the interim, see Jacob Katz's discussion of Hatam Sofer in 'TheControversy over the Temple in Hamburg and the Rabbinical As-s~ml;lly in Braunschweig: Milestones in the Development of Ortho-doxy', in J. Katz, Divine Law in Human Hands, Jerusalem 1998, pp.216-254.20 See Twersky, 'Religion and Law', pp. 69-71 and Katz, 'Post-Zoharic Relations', pp. 283-285.21 See Katz, ibid. There are indications that rationalistically in-clined halakhists did include philosophical considerations in some oftheir legal decisions. See, e.g., Y. Ta-Sherna, 'Shiqulim Pilosofi'imbe-Hakhra'at ha-Halakhah be-Sefarad', in Sefunot 3 (1985), pp. 99-110; G. Blidstein, 'Menahem Me'iri's Attitude Toward, Gentiles -Apologetics or Worldview', in Binah 3 (1994), pp. 119-133; id., 'R.Menahem Ha-Me'iri: Aspects of an Inte1\ectual Profile', in JournalofJewish Thought and Philosophy 5 (1995), pp. 63-79.

22 See H. Soloveitchik, 'Three Themes in Sefer Hassidim', in AJSReview I (1976),pp.311-357.23 This trend intensified with the spread of Lurianic Kabbalah, withits theurgic understanding of the mitzyot.24 See Iggerot Hazon 'Ish, yo]. 1, ed. by S. Greinemann, BeneBeraq n.d., no. 36 and I. Twersky, 'The Shulhan 'Arukh: EnduringCode of Jewish Law', in Judaism 16 (1967), pp. 132-134 (- id.,Studie$ in Jewish Law and Philosophy, New York 1982, pp. 142-148).2~ cr. BT, Baba Bathra 131a and Rashbam s.y. ve-'altigmeru. SeeM. Elon, Ha-Mishpat ha- '/vri, 3rd ed., Jerusalem 1992, pp. 768-804and J. Woolf, 'The Parameters of Precedent in Pesaq Halakha', inTradition 27 (1993), pp. 41-48.

11


5/7

in lining up ruling and reality. Furthermore,as theTalmud alreadynoted, mechanicalapplicationof thelaw is not always ust, though Justice s inherent nthe mandateof the halakhist.26 he task, then, of thehistorian, s to follow and evaluate he manner nwhich rabbisnavigated heir ways between ompetingjudicial considerations, oth internal' and external'.The most trumpeted of all ~externa1.'onsidera-tions are the economic. Here especially historianshave underscoredhow medieval halakhists adoptedtalmudic law to economicnecessity.For example, nmedieval Christian Europe, circumstances whichdiffered drastically rom those which had obtained nancient srael or Babylonia prevented he observanceof entire areas. f Halakhah which had been ntendedto maintaina clear, eligious divide between ewsandnon-Jews!?Facing a choice betweeneconomicsur-vival and loyalty to tradition, Ashkenazi halakhistsop~ed or the former. Nor were such 'adaptations'always unconscious!8 Accordingly, due to intensepressure to allow intra-Jewish usury in twelfth-centuryFrance, espite ts being biblically prohibited,R. Jacob Tam advocated a priori use of Christianintermediariesself-consciouslyasserting hat he didso "in order o given sustenanceo the childrenof thecovenant" latet mihya e-veneberit). 29However,particularly at this uncture the historian

mustbe prudent n his evaluation.Adjustmentsof lawto life these no doubt were. However, in Kaueanterms, did halakhists behave unfettered?And evenwhen hey apparently id so, how did they understandthat which they were doing? As already noted, radi-tional halakhistsare weanedon respect or the integ-rity of the received system of Jewish law. In theoverwhelmingmajority of cases,as the bearerof areceived sacred radition, rabbis simply applied thattradition to the case at hand.3Ot thereforebehoovesus to look more closely at that which occurred, ay, n

the studiesof the tosafists when they issued ulingssuchas hoseherenoted.Such reconsiderationshows that the intellectualand methodological eality within which thesemedie-v~l halakhists moved was far more nuanced thanmight appearat fIrst glance. Did medieval halakhistsdeliberatelywreak havoc with talmudic law in orderto assureJewish economic survival? The answer othis question s, in the overwhelmingnumberof cases,a resounding No'. Halakhists, even a revolutionarysuchasR. Tam, may well have beenconsciousof thefar-reaching,evennovel nature of their rulings. How-ever, they did not perceive) hose rulings as doingviolence o the integrity of Halakhah.On he contrary,in a broad range of instances, uch as the revocationof longstandingimits on the amountof income whicha Jewmight derive from usury taken rom a Christian,resolving Jewish economic distresswas a legitimatehalakhic categorywhich a priori allowed ar-reachingchangesn hitherto accepted orms.3!The samewas rue of what appearedo be flagrantdeviations.As notedabove,according o the Mishnah,commercial elations must not be carried on betweenJewsandpagans or a period of three daysbefore oneof the latter's holy days, lest the Jew thereby bedeemed a facilitator of idolatrous worship.32How-ever, with Christianitydefined as dolatrous and Sun-

day earmarked s ust sucha holy day, observance fthis restriction would have severelydamagedJewishcommerce.33 o, from at least the end of the tenthcentury, this prohibition was effectively ignored inthe Rhineland and Northern France.34 he tosafists,rather han viewing this behaviouras a deviation roman halakhic norm, assumed ts self-evident egitimacyby innocentlyasking: "On what does the communityrely when it does business with idolaters on theirholidays?,,35n other words, by dint of the hoaryauthority of custom, his clear violation of a talmudicdictate mustperforcebe apparent.This particularexamplepresentsan exampleof theextraordinary deference shown by Franco-Germanlegists toward establishedcustom (minhag). In Ash-kenazic eyes,customswere viewed as sacred, iving

26 Cf. BT,Baba Metzia 83b and commentariesaa loco27 See Katz, Exclusiveness and Tolerance, chs. 1-3.28 Though, it must be admitted, some of them were. A good exam-ple is provided by the manner in which trinj~rial1ism was recognizedas monotheistic, at least as far as Christians are concerned. See J.Katz, 'Shelosha Mishpatim 'Apologeti'im be-Gilgulehem', inHalakhah ve-Qabbalah, pp. 175-183.29 Sefer 'Or Zaru 'a, no. 202. See the pioneering studies of H.Soloveitchik, 'Pawnbroking: A Study in Usury and of the Halakah inExile', in Proceedings of he American Academy or Jewish R~search38 f. (1972), pp. 203-268 and id., Halakhah, Kalkalah ve-DimuiAtzmi: Ha-Mnshkona 'ut be-Yeme ha-Beynayim, Jerusalem 1985. See,especially, Soloveitchik, 'Ribbit', pp. 250-252. For the later period,see E. Fram, Ideals Face Reality: Jewish Law and Life in Poland,I55Q-I655,Cincinnati1997.30 TI1is point is enunciated by Professor Moshe Rosman in hisforthcoming study, 'Prolegomenon to the Study of Jewish CulturalHistory', in 'Areshet I ( in press). (My thanks to Professor Rosmanfor sending me a typescript of his article.)

31 See Rosh, Baba Metzia 5:52. It should be noted, though, that thedegree to which this might be true was a matter of personal judg-ment.32 Avodah Zara 1,1. See Katz, Exclusiveness and Tolerance, bid.33 BT, AbodaZara 7b (compared to the Munich manuscript).~ Regarding Provence, see y, Ta-Shema, "'Yeme 'Eydeyhem":Pereq be-Hitpathut ha-Halakhah be:'Yeme ha-Beynayim',in Tarbiz47 (J978),pp. 197-215.35 Tosafot ad lac., s.v. nosim. The text of the gloss was compiled inthe second half of the late thirteenth century by Rabbi Peretz ofC'orbeille and thus represents the full gamut of tosafist thinking onthe matter.

12


6/7

halakhic sources.Sometimes, hey were baseduponlong-standing oral traditions which the Jewsof me-dieval Franco-Germany ad brought with them fromSouthern taly or beyond.36 ore often, as n the pres-ent nstance,suchpracticeswere actually he resultofeconomic or social pressureswhich rendered he tal-mudic norm inapplicable.3?However, because hesemodes of behaviour had been practiced and thussanctified by 'our sainted ancestors' ('avotenu ha~qedoshim) hey were overall accepted,as the em-bodimentsof legal norms.38 s such, hey were casu-istically harmonized with written traditions, ust asintra-talmudiccontradictionswere resolved.39n otherwords,here too, despite he objective historicalgene-sis of the abandonment f the Mishnah's dictate, asfar as he halakhistwas concerned, is enterprisewasmethodologically elf-contained.4OThis type of awarenesss not merely a legal ni-cety. The tense, dialectical relationship between'written text' and living text' had many mplicationsfor Jewish aw. For one thing, the requirement hatany ruling (or resolution) based upon a reasonableinterpretation of the relevant sources, placed clearlimits upon he ability of the halakhist o manoeuvre.Any ruling offered by a decisorwas not only an ex-pressionof his conviction that it reflects a credI"bleinterpretationof the official sourcesof Jewish aw. It

ultimately had to pass muster with the halakhic con-sensus s t developedover ime.41Then again,purely theoreticaldevelopmentsn thestudy of the Talmud could generate far-reachingchanges n the economicand so.ciallivesof a Jewishcommunity. Such a case was described by HaymSoloveitchik in his study of the laws governing theproduction of kosher wine in the Central MiddleAges.42 he Talmud prohibits either consumptionofor trading in wine which was manufactured or eventouched) by gentiles.43 he question which arises,then, is at what stage does the liquid derived fromgrapes become 'wine' and hence subject to theseinjunctions. As Soloveitchik points out, the regnantpractice had been o treatcrushedgrapesas wine. Theresult was that gentiles could not be employed intreading grapes,a disability which engendered sig-nificant burden upon the tiny Jewishpopulations ofthe Rhineland and Northern France.44However,working in Troyes on his talmudic commentary n thelast quarterof the eleventhcentury, Rashi discoveredthat the Talmud had decided hat wine is born onlywhen uice and must are separated.4shis discoveryautomatically ed to greater atitude in the allowanceof non-Jewish abor in the harvestingand treadingofthe grapes.Thus a development,which startedpurelyas a theoretical observation, effectively neutralizedthe previous restrictive practice, with significant m-pact upon subsequent ewish ife. Ironically, more-over, he caseof wine manufacture rovides an exam-ple wherein egal theory, combined with strong eco-nomic need, combined to overcome the aforemen-tioned authority of custom.Recent esearch as revealed another ype of 'liv-ing text' whose mpactupon eligious law in medievalFranco-Germanyappears o have been significant.Over he past wenty years or so, through he applica-tion of anthropologicalmodels, important work hasbeendone in an attempt o understand he manner nwhich AshkenazicJews perceivedof time, of space,

)6 And, as il now increasingly appears, fi"om the Land of Israel. SeeR. Bontil, 'Tra Due Mondi: Cultura Ebraica e Cui Iura Cristiana nelMedioevo', in Itaiia Judaica: Atti de/IX Congresso inLernazionaie.settembre /992: L 'Ebraismo dell'lta/ia Meridionale Peninsularedalle origini al 1541, Napoli 1996, pp. 3-64; Y. Ta-Shema, 'HaJak-hah, Minhag u-Massoret be-Yahadut 'Ashkenaz ba-Me'ot ha-11 ha-12 ('Iyyunim Rishonim)', in Sidra 3 (1987), pp. 85-161 (= id.,Minhag 'Ashkenaz ha-Qadmon, Jerusa1em 1999, pp. 13-108); A.Grossman, 'The Cultural and Social Background of Jewish Martyr-dom in Germany in 1096', in Juden und Christen zur Zeit der Kreuz-ziige, ed. by A. Haverkamp, Sigmaringen 1999, pp. 73-86 and J.Woolf, 'Medieval Models of Purity and Sanctity: AshkenazicWomen in the Synagogue', in Purity and Holiness: 77ze eritage ofLeviticus, ed. by M. Poorthuis and J. Schwartz, Leiden 2000, pp.263-280.37 See, for example, J. Katz, ExclusiveneSs and Tolerance, NewYork 1959 and id., The "Shabbes Goy": A Study n Halakhic Flexi-bility, trans. Y. Lerner, Philadelphia 1992.31 Another significant example was the neglect of the mitzvah todon phylacteries (cf. Tosafot ad Rosh HaShanah 17a, s.v. qarqatta.)There were, of course, exceptions (see Tosafot ad Shabbat 49a s.v.ke-'Elisha; Baba Bathra 2a, s.v. be.gevil and Resp. Ba'ale ha-Tosafot,no. II).39 See J. Katz, 'Alterations in the Time of the Evening Service(Ma'ariv): An Example of the Interrelationship Between ReligiousCustoms and their Social Background, in Divine Law,pp. 88-127and the more recent summary in J. Woolf, 'The Authority of Custom(Minhag) in the Responsa of R. Joseph Colon', in Dine Yisraei 19(1997-1998), pp. 143-173. ;40 The best, and most exhaustive, discussion on the protean issue ofcustom is D. Sperber, Minhage Yisrael, vols. ]-6, Jerusalem 1989- .1998. Dozens of the cases examined by Sperber provide examples ofthis point.

41 A case n point is the far-reaching license of R. Tam concerningthe use of Christian intermediaries. Here, his interpretation of therelevant talmudic passage Baba Metzia 70b) was considered too far-fetched and hence rejected. See Soloveitchik, 'Ribbit', p. 252. See S.Albeck, 'Yahaso shel Rabbenu Tam le-Ba'ayot lemano', in Zion 19(1954), pp. 104-141.42 Haym Soloveitchik, 'Can Halakhic Texts Talk History?', in AJSReview 3 (1978), pp. 153-196. Professor Soloveitchik wit] soonpublish a much longer monograph on this topic. (My thanks toProfessor Soloveitchik for making a typescript available to me.)43 Cf. BT, Aboda lara 31 band 59a; and Mishneh Torall, Hil.Ma'akhalot 'Assurot, XI-XIII.44 Soloveitchik, 'Can Halakhic Texts', pp. 153-156.4$ Fol. 55b s.v. mi~shehitl,il. The sources are co11ected n H.Soloveitchik, Yahas ha-Gomlin Beyn ha-Halakhah ve-ha-Metzi'ut,Jerusalem 969.

13


7/7

~T':'c

space' interacted with the 'written text' in defmingtile parameters f medievalHalakhah.52That Halakhah,with its variations, ntrepid navi-gators and clearly defmedbanks and course must ieat the epicenter of Jewish scholarship, and be re-spectedon its own terms if it is to be made to 'talkhistory'.

and of the Christian 'other,.46 Of late, it has emergedthat in the Central Middle Ages, Jews re"lated o theirsynagogues as literal embodiments of, and (tempo-rary) replacements for, the Temple in Jerusalem. Thisperception had significant implications for Jewishliturgy and law, of which one should be singled outhere;47

One of the residual obligations attendant upon thepriests (kohanim) after the destruction of the Templein 70 CE, was that of blessing the people each morn-ing at the daily prayer service.48The only requirementfor their doing so, was that they ritually wash their49 .hands. However, a longstandIng custom had it thatpriests only blessed the people on the High Holy Days(Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur) and on the ThreePilgrimage Festivals (Pesah, Shavu'ot, Sukkot).50This curbing of the priestly blessing, it would appear,was due to the position that its rendering required notmerely hand washing, but total immersion in a ritu-alarium (miqveh). However, there is absolutely nolegal basis for such a requirement which involves theproactive annulment of the biblical commandmentthat the priests bless the people. As I demonstrate in aforthcoming study, this requirement is primarilyfounded upon the equation of the synagogue with theHoly Temple in Jerusalem, wherein ritual functionsdid require immersion in a miqveh.5! The result wasthat the practical abolition of the daily priestly bles.,-ing by Franco"German Jews was not viewed as,prob-lematic simply because he status of the Synagogue '4cSersatz Temple was so self-evident. Here too, then,'unwritten texts' in the form of perceptions of 'sacred

JeffreyRobert Woolf s SeniorLecturer n the Depart~ment of Talmud at Bar Ilan University,Ramat Gan,Israel.

" Obviousry. ti)is raises the larger issue of the contrast of ecclesiaandsynagoga in Jewish Christian relations. perceptions and (in thecase of the Christians) art. On tllis point see the above noted studiesby Yuval. I am presently engaged in a broad study which furtherexplores just this point. In addition, Mr Alec Isaacs is engaged in adoctoral project under the guidance of Professor Robert Bonfil whichalso engagessignificant parts of this issue.

46 Here ~ecjal mention must be made of work by Robert Bonfil,Ivan Marcus, and Yisrael Yuva1. See R. Bonfil, 'Mito, retorica,storia; saggio sui "Rotolo di Ahima'az"', in Tra duemondi, pp. 93-133; id., Jewish Life in Renaissance Italy, Los Angeles 1994; I. Mar-cus, Rituals ofChildhood: Jewish Acculluralion in Medieval Europe,New Haven 1996; Y. Ta-Shema, 'On Ivan G. Marcus, "Rituals ofChildhood; Jewish Acculturation in Medieval Europe" (1996)', inJewish Quarlerly Review 87 (1996), pp. 233-239; and Y. Yuval,'Jews and Christians in the Middle Ages;: Shared Myths, CommonLanguage', in Demonizing Ihe Olher, ed. by R. Wistrich, Amsterdam1999, pp. 88-107; id., Shne Goyyim be-Vitnekh, Tel Aviv 2000.47 In general; see Y. Ta-Shema, 'Miqdash Me'at: Ha';Semel ve-ha-Mamashut', in Kenesset 'Ezra: Mehqarim ha-Mugashim le-Kh~odProfessor Ezra Fleisher, ed. by Sh. Elitzur el al.. Jerusalem 1995, pp.351-364; Woolf, 'Medieva1 Models of Purity', pp. 270-280 and id.,'Bet ha-Kenesset be"'Ashkenaz: Dimui ve-Halakhah', Kneshla 2(forthcoming).48 Mishnah, Sotah VII, 2 and 6; BT, Sotah 32a-40b; MishnehTorah, Hil. Tefi11ah,XIV-XV.49 BT, Sotah 39b. See E. Zimmer, 'Mo'ade Nesi'af Kapayim', in'O!am ke-Minhago Noheg, Jerusalem 1996, pp. 135-]40. iso Sef~r Hassidim, ed. by Wistinetzki-Freimann, Berlin 1892, no.1613. The statement s a report, not a pietist injunction.51 Woolf, 'Bet ha-Kenesset'.

14

woolf halakha

Documents