Novel Additions

By: Jonathan Seidel

Tosfot rabbinic authority and reform 

Tosfot’s scholastic style was novel to the talmudic logician. Accordingly, the Talmudic corpus was perceived as uniform teachings. While there were diverse teachings, consistency was necessary. With this Tosfot did the same.

Tosfot did model their teachings after the the talmudic hermeneutic. In this regard it wasn’t novel. Exchanging sugyot for braitot. For Tosfot, the talmudic extrapolations needed to be consistent across the board instead of a bunch of fragmented sayings across the tractates. There needed to be unification just as there is in Tanakh and the braitot. Tosfot copied the Sages and put forward a dialectical program that compared and contrasted various sugyot. How could this braita say this or Rava say this when this other braita or Rava says this over there. In the same vein mimicking the Gemara, Tosfot argued, how can this sugya say this when it says this over there. It wasn’t a foreign methodology even if casuistry became more popular in France. The Sages played with casuistry too just in a different way. They didn’t have a text to investigate to harmonise. Rather they harmonised the received traditions that could arrive from anywhere not merely printed in a book.

This big difference played out only due to the textual canon. The Gemara was an anthology to the geonim and a constitution to Tosfot. The geonim saw the diverse traditions collected and then harmonised per tradition. If all was passed down orally it still ought to fit with other texts. The teaching need not contradict others as it was purely transmitted from generation to the next. It is plausible to bring multiple opinions but consistency is necessary. If a Sage said such then he must consistently decide in accordance elsewhere. The Gemara is about harmonisation insofar as it is authenticating the truth. It seems this Sage made a remark that disagrees with this point well then it is plausible that either this Sage did not make this claim or that it was regarding a different situation. Both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel can propose their approaches but then they both need to remain along the same heuristic in other cases. If they are not that needs to be explained. Tosfot mended these clarifications concerning disparities that the Gemara did not analyse. At times it is less about the Sage and more about the finalised law.

There are conceptual differences between the two. More than just argumentation is perception of the Talmud as a codified text rather than an anthology. A great example is how Maimonides doesn’t always paskin by the bottom line law the Talmud accepts. Rather this was the law as it was passed through the ages. Different customs emerged that overruled the Talmudic ruling or it wasn’t accepted. Tosfot instead held by the Talmudic conclusion. The Talmud is the book of law and its final conclusion is the dogmatic solution. The geonim didn’t accept this. They placed the Mishnah as a canonical text and like the Amoriam happily countered the talmudic conclusion according to custom. They legislated slightly but were more enamoured by generational practice. In this sense, when Tosfot unravelled the geonic law due to its deviation from the Talmud they were in a sense uprooting over half a millennium of halakhic practice. Especially if the geonim continued the custom of the Amoriam and Saboriam, the talmudic bottom line may never have been in practice. Yet due to their presentation of the Talmud as a constitution they couldn’t accept the geonic way except for their legislation. 

While this itself forces a scrutinising perspective of Tosfot presentation and its evident novelty, it is also demonstrates the preoccupation with casuistry. Later Geonim and Andalusian scholars annotated the text at times providing small extensions and clarifications. The text was never corrupted nor amended. It was merely analysed for more food for thought. The Geonic-Andalusian tradition persisted custom and catalogued these rulings with respect to the Talmudic corpus in books as the ruling may differ from the Talmud. The Talmud was an anthology not the final word of the law. Tosfot did not accept this conceptually or legally. Tosfot did not seek to clarify but to legislate. To harmonise in order to conform all under a single cohesive narration. Each tractate complementary with the other. Unifying all tractates under a single doctrine of truth. If there was disagreement in the final ruling then there was something else to be gleaned. There can’t be contradictions rather like the Talmud misinterpretations. Really this Sage meant this and not this. Tosfot cleaned up other seemingly remaining contradictions the Sages apparently missed. Tosfot saw themselves as continuing the tradition. 

Unlike Rashi, they tried to be consistent in their wordplay. Rashi was no formidable linguist linguist but he didn’t see the Talmud in the same way as his grandsons. Each tractate onto itself would be narrated and analysed. Each sugya had its own format. Rashi did not care for morphology or syntax but rather suitable explanations. Extending on the text to harmonise elements internally. Why is the Gemara asking this question or this is thereon for the Gemara’s position here. Tosfot challenged Rashi in many respects because they were both contextualists. Tosfot would counter Rashi’s sugya-centric position with a corpus-centric position. Rashi how can you say that when this braita over here says this. It is not at all clear that the contextual  spiderweb Tosfot constructs is as complementary as they would hope. Nevertheless, their united program does not let for inconsistency or uncertainty. Rashi did begin the process. He shied away from the pure linguistic elements. Reading the text not as it means but as it ought to mean. How could this be better explained under more conceptual logic rather than linguistic semantics. Rashi opened the floodgates but it wasn’t entirely out of bounds. It was novel but it did divert attention from the texts actual meaning to what seemed to fit best.

Rashi’s rendition becomes the way to read the text. His definitions become the new lexicon. Even if there is zero consistency. While it is not the place here to analyse Rashi’s apparent linguistic conflict it is important that Tosfot at times did not accept this. Then again, it was not Tosfot who attempted to explain the word by word. Even Rashi’s line by line was not actually like the Steinsaltz version but rather a summation based on previous context. All was monitored into a consecutive format. All is to point out that neither focused on language but rather context. The small obscurities were interpreted by the context of the situation not their actual meaning. Consistency is not about terms but flow. Fluidity was more relevant. How does this make sense. The dialectical result gained by his grandsons was more about editing the simplicity rather than complicating semantics. Tosfot furthered this program with less indulgence. As it had to fit the overall corpus. The need for fluidity was an all time high through all the sugyot not just per sugya. Like The Gemara harmonisation to fit the qualified logic was necessary for the sequence to finalise itself adequately. 

Therefore the issue Tosfot was not necessarily their dialectical program since such method was of yore. The question was rather could post-talmudic rabbis mimic the talmudic rabbis. One reason the Geonim didn’t inscribe to this model was because they had accepted the post-talmudic canon as sufficient. This is the famed argument of Maimonides. Geonim rarely instituted reforms and prioritised custom as the leading method of practice. Maimonides offered a legal theology that divided the talmud world and the post-talmudic world. In this regard, the use of dialectical investigation and textual emendation was foreign. It sought recover the apparent corruption to the text yet such models were unheeded in the Sephardic world. Maimonides Mishneh Torah as well as Rif's halakhot while not commentaries per se did evoke talmudic sugyot in order to explicate the law. The issue for Tosfot was to critically examine the text and apply logic to it. It was one thing for the Amoriam or Saboriam to do so such a thing but for a new breed of scholars to engage in post facto scrutiny was challenged. It was not the model of the past half millennium. It doesn't offer to undermine Tosfot's program but it does venture to question the tactics and optics of their methodology. While accepted in the mainstream and popularised through the ages, it emerged after a long hiatus to recapture the hearts of the scholar. Yet the issue isn't so much its reappearance but whether scholars of the day were permitted to do so. 

Nevertheless, Tosfot's model prevailed as it extended into the conceptualist worldview of Nahmanides and eventually to Poland pilpulists. The transfiguring of texts to align with a special logic evaporated into the modern era with countless voices of opposition. It mellowed with Maharshal and Pnei Yehoshau before blasting off with the Brisker Derech and its incumbents. The model does not chuck language out the window but it does reduce the level of oral transmission of adequate translations. It relies on horizontal symmetry even if the situations are different. Two words may have the same spelling but mean to different things. Homonyms exist in the Hebrew/Aramaic language. It is not all that implausible. Yet for Tosfot it was less the linguistic issue and more the legal affinity. These laws are presumably aligned and there are partially incorrect parallels, how are they to be solved. They act similarly to the Amoriam but lack the potential authority to do so. The real question remains the editors apparently did not think it important to solve the lasting riddles of Amoriac complications. It is this that has yet to be inquired. If Tosfot is correct, why didn't the editors fix the Amoriac mistakes. Whether it was the stam or merely R Ashi and his students, there is clearly according to Tosfot stones left unturned. Either they didn't think it important or the style flamed out. 

Whatever the significance, Tosfot sought patterns and analysed them as they clearly distinguished between various sources. While Tosfot's system took off and has been embroiled in controversy for a millennium it begs the question concerning the adequate text of talmudic discourse. Much of R Chananel and R Nissim's commentaries were either lost or never written. Their mission was to elucidate that which was complex or troublesome. They did not entertain cross-country debates. In no way to demean the Tosfot enterprise but to recognise the novelty in its assessment. It was innovative but it wasn't necessary correct. In some cases Tosfot's challenge to Rashi is misdefined because Tosfot adheres more to the horizontal symmetry than to the sugya in front of them. Rashi's linguistic understanding was fortunately sufficient to analyse the crux of a single sugya even if at times there are forced assumption that have been recorded against previous fluent scholars. Tosfot's system runs into a range of issues that were ignored in the face of constitutional talmudism. A motto that carefully regulated the previous deviators to the recesses of space. While noting their accomplishments, their assertions contrary to the talmud would be avoided. Tosfot paired time and effort into reforming the text for a struggling European community. It was through this effort that talmudic learning took shape and European Jewry launched its profound logos. 

Tosfot was unique and a maverick in their time yet it ought to be classified under their novelty against the backdrop of their era. While there were some dialecticians prior to R Tam and Ri, it didn't manifest as profoundly nor as extensively until the grandsons bursted onto the scene. A variance of the classical Amoraic augmentation resupplied in the Middle Ages. A time of robust conversation and conservation. A time of debate and struggle but most of all intense learning.