Scholarly Snippets

By: Jonathan Seidel

Lost Legends: innovative talmudic exposition and the pre-eminence of Tosfot clarification—Raavad, Ramah and Meiri

Few scholars have been as popular and fearsome and yet as abandoned and ignored. Such was the fate of the great talmudists who were cast aside in favour of more earnest and familiar models of learning. Nevertheless, the scant remains illuminate a unique wisdom that has contemporary students craving more and pondering the elusive activity of their scholarship.   

A millennium has passed since the first talmudic commentary by R Chananel followed by R Nissim. It is unclear if there was ever other their geonic works as not much else has survived. Neither has the Geniza findings provided ample evidence of fragments. R Paltoi Gaon and his son Tzemah were the first to explicitly comment on the Talmud’s textualism but it could hardly be considered a commentary. It was a tool for decision making not learning inside. Though apparently Tzemah did compile a lexicon for assistance in learning. Even Saadia presumably had a talmudic commentary that has not stood the test of time. It was the last of the Geonim who focused on difficult terms and complex phrases. It is only R Chananel that truly elucidated a commentary of annotating and explaining sentences. Clarifying the sugya with much of it still missing. While Rif didn’t write a commentary on the Talmud in the classical sense, his halakhic work does possess some liturgical and annotated explanation of the sugya. While seemingly relying on the textual approbation of R Chananel he also added some much needed in-text explanation to allow the text to the flow. While R Chananel added small clarifications, Rif cut out much of the back and forth debate but added in any means of formally understanding the text. Even sometimes fixing he Aramaic so it would make sense semantically. There are apparent others of R Giat and his contemporaries but nothing has borne to light. 

Whether the western sephardic tradition did indeed have a multitude of commentaries they have not survived but such is not the case of Ashkenazi Jews. There is a little evidence of R Gershom and his successor interest in affixing some difficulties but it was Rashi who majorly innovated the process. Beginning with Rashi down to Tosfot and Nahmanides and the Maharam. The extensive influence of rabbinic writing and talmudic engagement has eclipsed. It has remained alive on the shelves and quoted in books. Following the greats to the Ran ended abruptly with the expulsion and the various programs. Talmudic scholarship revived in Poland and reinvigorated a dialectical program even if too extreme for some including Maharal and Maharshal. A more text based focus led to the Volozhin and the reanimation of conceptualism brought Brisk to the forefront. In the span of a thousand years many commentaries have been written and many have been stored. Not even just saved but used extensively. The deep connection to Talmudic engrossment continued from Rishonim to Achronim. While Sephardic Jews had their share of scholars including R Campton, many were privy to Nahmanides’ school trying to merge both traditions. While seemingly never as devout about the conceptual hold, as halakhic matters were prioritised or more so biblical literature, the Talmud flourished in eastern Europe. Despite the turmoil boiling, the talmudic efforts were not lost but persisted with pristine energy. 

The elephant in the room is evidently the Sephardi scholars. With the exception of Nahmanides school which while Sephardi fused Ashkenazi and Sephardi together. Ran was probably the “most Sephardi” of the bunch as he looked to Maimonides in many instances. His commentary was foremost a commentary on Rif while a second commentary on the Talmud itself remained a close aid to the tradition. Hasdai nor Rivash compiled any survivable commentaries that would continue his tradition. Yet the clear successor to the school was Nimmukei Yosef who like is teacher wrote a commentary on Rif. Tashbatz like his teacher Rivash spent enormous time on both responsa and philosophic works with lasting commentarial notes showing up in fragments of later anthologies. The most promising Sephardic scholars were the ones that are typically perceived with Ashkenazi eyes. After the expulsion R Karo learned from R Birav in Israel and wrote both the Beit Yosef and Shulchan Aruch. Both his teacher and grand teacher R Abovav wrote halakic works and Mabit wrote like Ran on both Rif and Shas. While it generally is looked with disdain that Sephardic scholars were dubious, they wrote a fair amount on halakha. Prioritising halakha over talmudic exposition. A continued tradition back to Rif. Ironically, Mabit was following the same pattern as Nimmukei Yosef who was following the pattern of Ran and further back to the sages of Provence. Rabad II and R Yonatan Lunel wrote commentaries on Rif. Maimonides was the sole successor of Rif who didn’t write a typical commentary. Even Nahmanides wrote a defence of Rif. 

A simple way of understanding the history of Jewish commentary is: Ashkenazim wrote talmudic works and halakhic works and Sephardim wrote Rif works and halakhic works. Much of Provence including Rabad II, Rabad III, R Yonaton Lunel, R Yehuda bar Barzilai, Abba Mari ben Yosef and even R Yonah. Razah attacked and Nahmanides defended. Rif was the sephardi talmud. For Sephardim textual annotation was of little relevance but halakha as an expansion and extension on Rif was a priority to contemporary halakha. In this sense there is already a picture forming why certain sephardic scholars lost their work. If it wasn’t halakhic or a Rif commentary it was avoided. It had nothing to say of the religious picture of sephardic Judaism. Ashkenazim had their own commentators to look at so they had either no time or no way of retrieving this gold standard. Rivash and Tashbatz’s talmudic extensions may have been lost at the onset of the expulsion or they were forgotten in the particular learning style of Ran’s academy. Since Ran has both a Rif and a talmudic commentary, it may be a combination of both or maybe Ran was ahead of his time. His commentaries were well rounded but into the sixth generation of the Nahmandean school, it didn’t have the same prowess nor interest. Brisker style learning is still dominant but it is nowhere near the originality of R Chaim nor the Rav. R Lichtenstein did an incredible job but the interest has weaned in favour of more broadened diachronic and allegorical assimilations. It is not only age but social shift. There are a number of reasons for Brisk’s decline which may find similarity in Nahmanides’ fall off. 

Leading us to the three most impressively reported but forgotten. Works of immense knowledge and influential capability. With only sections to marvel at the truly incredible possibilities. Pondering what ifs. Rabad III, Ramah and Meiri. While there are scholars whose work has been lost or fell out of circulation including the early sages of R Gershom and R Giat, it is these three who really capture this loss. As their impact was so unique, it couldn’t be just they were lost or forgotten, there must be some extra to the list. They weren’t merely notes but extensive elaborations on the talmud. For three sephardic commentators it was a far cry from home. It was presumably this foreign aspect to their work that left them in the dust with only fragments remaining of their illustrious work. While scholars can point the blame on their contemporaries, neither of these sages wrote after the printing press nor in adequate locations. Both Rabad and Meiri were in Provence and Ramah was born in Spain but a generation prior to Nahmanides. Though they overlapped like Rabad, he was a little too soon. It is merely a question of chronology and fate that both Rabad and Ramah suffered a similar fate. They were exceptional in their analysis but due to the recent demise of Spanish Jewry, the contemporary scene did not hound talmudic logic like their French brethren next-door. Both scholars despite their differences in style and commentarial genius were highly influential and devoted to clean deductions. Yet it was all for nought as it was trampled by the French dialecticians.

As noted, the issue at hand is not so much the unfortunate measure of time. R Chananel’s commentary may have been lost due to time but it also may be due to acceptance. The modern perception is how could it go missing if it was published? Why wouldn’t people learn it? Why wouldn’t they take it with them? It must be that they revered the work but when they were chased out the files were lost in the flames of destruction and dropped while deserting the dangerous mob. While some of this is genuine it may also be due to a lack of interest. R Chananel’s commentary may not have been as necessary even if accessible. Rif’s priority evidently trumped earlier Sages. While there is a real chance of loss it may be disinterest or choosing one over another. Rif became the new R Chananel with curious similarities between the two. With a strong emphasis on halakha rather than talmudic commentary, R Chananel’s commentary wasn’t all too needed. Even if Franco-German Jews did have R Chananel’s commentary its style may have been confusing and difficult given its Judeo-Arabic liturgy. R Gershom may have written little or a lot but as Rashi’s commentary dominated it was no longer necessary and the pages were lost. There wasn’t a folder to keep files stored away. Manuscirpts could be lost easily if not cared for. It wasn’t about pogroms but interest that didn’t lead to ripped or abandoned books. It wasn’t easy to write nor copy an old manuscript. The Geniza fragments were collected piles of statements from all over. Not necessarily from pogroms but time. The same can be said of Shita Mikubetzet, he was able to find passages here and there to glue together as they were legendary comments that had been out of circulation yet able to recover as much as possible. 

In a single word, no one in the near generations quotes R Giat or quotes Rabad. Rabad II nor R Yonatan Lunel did so. Razah does but they had a fearsome rivalry. Nahmanides quotes but more so uses Rabad as the backbone for his unifying commentary. If members in your own generation do not take your work seriously then there is not much else you can do. The irony is that Rabad’s other works were heavily critiqued and he responded boldly. His debate with Razah was in cases other than his talmudic commentary. It wasn’t a common course or tract to study. In France, Talmud 101 was a given by Tosfot’s time but in Provence, it was Rif 101. This also explains Ramah’s absence as his work was highly irregular in his own scene. While he was born after R Tam’s innovative fiasco, his work was a commentary halakhic package. A weird mix that had little of the French decorum but also wasn’t truly Spanish. He was a judge with R Isaac Ibn Migash the son of the esteemed R Joseph Ibn Migash, Maimonides grand teacher and Ravan Yerchi/Baal HaManhig. Both were halakhic writers or commentators while Ramah remained as a talmudic commentator. His commentary did have a halakhic flare but he engaged the text directly instead of focusing solely on the Rif as many prior had. While not a classic Spanish commentary, it held simairlites to Rif while being written in Aramaic with a few words in Arabic for the inarticulate. Both Rabad and Ramah were subjected to their time with little assistance in bolstering their prestige through dialogue and debate. They were on separate islands floating nowhere. 

It wasn’t only time but style that differed their commentaries. Ramah wrote notes on each page scouring for extensive ideas. Writing brief articles on each idea. Lining up Ramah’s commentary next to Rabad’s is Muggsy Bogues standing next to Manute Bol. Though even Nahmanides and Tosfot do not come close. Most scholars will highlight a line and extend on that line. This is true of Rashi, Tosfot, Nahmanides and even Rabad. Yet Ramah keeps going, trudging along. He doesn’t even have a dibbur hamatchil. He numbers and heads off. Due to its legal affinity, it had strength on its own merit. It is a highly productive work with a close encounter with the text but a legally indefensible one. Rif and RI Migash use the text as a backdrop for their conclusions, Ramah points to them before extending into a heated battle of halakhic debate. It isn’t about the simple answer. RI Migash elongates Rif and Ramah goes even further. While in the spirit of Andalusian liturgy, the tradition was falling short with the pre-eminence of Tosfot and Nahmanides (“cow-towing”). Ramah uses the text to cultivate proper halakhic conclusions. It the text that assists not the other way around. A commentator approaches a text humbly offering his interpretation of the text before moving onto the next sentence. Ramah brazenly forwards his agenda and graciously borrows the text as support for his conclusion. Ramah regulated his numbering to the topic at hand. Yet unlike Nahmanides who used the text as a springboard, Ramah used it as a scouting report. Unlike the Franco-German style, the text was the foundation and the constitutional paradigm. It was not something to investigate in a lab before applying one’s conclusions. Ramah’s model while impressive was not regarded in the talmudic world. 

Rabad lived nearly a century earlier than Ramah crossing paths with R Tam. Away in Provence he was surrounded by Rif successors and subordinates. His father-in law was Rabad II who wrote Sefer HaEshkol on Rif (though previously acclaimed as a forgery--yet given the Rif obsession in Provence he may written something similar or intended to do so that was not this work). His lifelong feud with Razah was primarily a Rif and halakhic issue. When Maimonides wrote his Mishneh Torah, he found someone else to battle with. He was one to challenge and duel. He desired to duke it out and see who the victor was. His commentarial strings were small notes of extensions. Insights would be the best description of his labour impact on the text. Incredibly delightful and ingenious. Asking questions that laid beyond the text. Already hinting into the conceptual program. He wasn’t satisfied with talmudic  debate and inquired on his own before adding those few notes of elaboration. Much of his commentary uses specific question words. Looking for an answer drenched behind the curtain. A critic in search for a solution. He needed more conversation and more deliberation. There is truly no one more critical than Rabad. Challenging RIf, Maimonides, Razah and all who would dance with him. His commentary was the only time he was able to write without any ears ringing. It was smooth insights but at times he was his own adversary. Questioning and answering his own question. If Razah was more of a commentator and there was a stronger commentarial environment maybe his work would’ve survived but that wasn’t the case. Like Rabad, Meiri may have also suffered for his Provence residence. While Provencial scholars excelled in philosophy, mysticism and halakha, talmudism was not on their priority list. Since there was nothing to rival with, his successors of the Nahmandean school challenged him and awarded him but unfortunately too late to respond.  

Finally, Meiri who lived after both. He lived like Rabad and wrote like Ramah. Meiri respectfully referred to Rabad as the greatest commentator. Not Rashi but Rabad (though he referred to Rashi as Gadol HaRabbanim--elevating him even beyond just a commentator) and referred to Ramah (at least in Yevamot) as a member of sephardic Sages. While no one was more central to Meiri than Maimonides, Rabad and Ramah were both astutely noted. Meiri quotes both and notes their fame and their prestige. If Yevamot Sephardic Sages is Ramah here both on 36b are mentioned. Meiri makes the expansive elaborate Ramah look small comparatively. Meira’s work while a commentary is a farther away style than even Ramah. Its breath and extensive nature is enclosed like his master Maimonides. It is undoubtably a commentary that forces one to know the Gemara at hand. Unlike Ramah, Meiri turns to the text to extend but it is more than a brief window. It is a single line that encompasses an entire shuir. Even if one doesn’t know the sugya reading through Meiri’s Beit HaBichira will spell it out clearly to deduce the case and the laws surrounding as well as some commentarial support and distractions from the technicalities. Linguistically his similarities to Rif and Maimonides are apparent. He doesn’t just write an extension but brings the entire paragraph into focus. It is all apart of the chain. Not just an intro to the ensuing novelty but an entire debate surrounded by the Aramaic jargon and argumentation. Referring back and forth to prior points made to align and harmonise. It isn’t the talmudic text but his text that is united into a coherent novella. Just as the Gemara recalls from a far so does Meiri. 

Meiri’s superb novelty was his downfall. Not only did his life end around the destruction of Provence in 1306 but furthermore not much of his community truly changed. What stands out from Meiri are his philosophical points derived from his commentary as well as other works. He was an outstanding figure for Maimonidean philosophy and not so much unfortunately for Maimonidean talmudism. His commentary while not as ordered or revolutionary as the Mishneh Torah did well to synthesise Maimonides Peirush Mishnayot and Mishneh Torah into a single talmudic edifice. It was an incredible novelty that would make Maimonides proud. Yet it was probably this sort of novelty that caused his work to be abandoned. If not for R Ashkenazi’s daring attempt to recapture the lost archives, none of these figures would have much to say today. Their works so bold but also too bold. A world impressed by talmudic commentary didn’t need a stand alone halakhic work but a decisive commentary like Rashba. Had Meiri and Rabad switch places both could’ve been successful. Though location may have been the biggest issue. Provence may not have been the place for talmudic commentaries. Nevertheless, there is so much to glean from their incredible deductions. It is truly through their innovative styles that they were able to compile novelties. It was their individualism and passion that led to their near absence and exclusion or worse forgotten legacy. Meiri has been revived and is beloved. While his work is a stand alone, incorporated as a true commentator finds his allegiance ever helpful against Tosfot’s harmonisation and Nahmanides’ conceptualism. Meiri provides much needed analysis and anthological formation. 

These scholars were revered in their day and completed difficult tasks but were mere names that aroused an aura yet not for their esteemed successes. Ramah is known for his polemic against Maimonides beginning the first stage of the controversy. Rabad is known as Maimonides bitter rival who commented on every law he disagreed. Meiri is known for his tolerant view on christians and his defence of philosophy. Neither is regarded for their erudite scholarship. Luckily Rabad wrote diversely sufficiently to endure the sands of time. If the commentary woudn’t hold he had a commentary on the Mishnah if not a commentary on Rif and worst comes to worst a commentary on Maimonides. While not intended to keep his legacy alive, he was able to do so better than most. Ramah’s name has received its shortcomings due to Maimonides grace which elevates Meiri for his advocacy. Yet neither truly envisaged their talmudic genius. Time and place are fated and can be entirely representative whether a scholar lives on or passes on. R Chananel’s commentary in full would be rather helpful with the revival of Hebrew and a separate quasi-lexicon to consult. Otherwise the multitude of commentators broadens the arena of talmudic learning. More knowledge to attain and more leaders to befriend. Different styles to entertain and various compilations to explore. It provides the vast array of Jewish history but unfortunately time nor interest has been on the people’s side. Pogroms and divisions have only heightened the struggle. More so with little technology to preserve older texts, they were inevitably headed for cessation. 

There is much to gain from entertaining each scholar especially the one’s fragmented. With only so little to rely upon, gems can be found and acquired. Their lacking sustenance is not necessarily their fault. They were a product of their time. Their contemporary and successors may not have deemed their work worthy of entering the canon at the moment. Such resistance led to its eventual fall from grace and out of circulation. Later scholars may not feel the same way. No more harmonisation or conceptualism. It is time realise the short snippets or the long heralded articles. Whatever the case may be there is some thing to be learned from these three scholars. It should be just a taste of the lost scholarship and desire to learn more from said individuals including R Gershom and R Giat found almost exclusively in Sefer HaNer. It is worth a read and worth a consideration.