This study looks anew at the interactions and possible influences between the monastic and cathedral school masters in Europe during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and the leading contemporary scholars of the Talmud in northern France and Germany known as the Tosafists. By focusing on significant commonalities in interpretational methods and institutional structures, as well as on the formulations of various critics, the contours of these interactions can be more precisely charted and assessed.
See Yizhak Baer, “Rashi and the Historical Realia of his Time,”Tarbiz20 (1949–1950): 320–332 (in Hebrew); Ezra Shereshevsky, “Rashi and Christian Interpretation,” Jewish Quarerly Review 61 (1970–71): 76–87; Menaḥem Banitt, Rashi: Interpreter of the Bible (Tel Aviv: University of Tel Aviv, 1985), 6–7; Jeremy Cohen, “Scholarship and Intolerance in the Medieval Academy: The Study and Evaluation of Judaism in European Christendom,” American Historical Review 91 (1986): 592–613, at 596–600; David Berger, “Judaism and General Culture in Medieval and Early Modern Times,” Judaism’s Encounter with Other Cultures, ed. J. J. Schacter (Northvale, nj>: Jason Aronson, 1997),” 119–121; Kirsten Fudeman, “The Linguistic Significance of the Leʿazim in Joseph Kara’s Job Commentary,” Jewish Quarterly Review 93 (2003): 397–414; Sara Japhet, Biblical Exegetes through the Generations (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 2008), 294–309 (in Hebrew); and Hanna Liss, Creating Fictional Worlds (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 19–22.
See, e.g., Aryeh Grabois, “The Hebraica Veritas and Jewish-Christian Intellectual Relations in the Twelfth Century,”Speculum50 (1975): 620–633; David Berger, “Mission to the Jews and Jewish-Christian Contacts in the Polemical Literature of the High Middle Ages,” American Historical Review 91 (1986): 576–591; W. C. Jordan, The French Monarchy and the Jews: From Philip Augustus to the Last Capetians (Philadelphia, pa>: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989), 3–16; M. Signer and J. Van Engen, “Introduction,” Jews and Christians in Twelfth-Century Europe, ed. M. Signer and J. Van Engen (Notre Dame, in>: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001), 1–8; Jonathan Elukin, Living Together, Living Apart (Princeton, nj>: Princeton University Press, 2007), 64–88, 152–183.
See T. Fishman, “The Penitential System of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz and the Problem of Cultural Boundaries,”Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy8 (1999): 201–229, at 214–218. Similarly, my “Dreams as a Determinant of Jewish Law and Practice in Northern Europe during the High Middle Ages,” Studies in Medieval Jewish Intellectual and Social History [Festschrift in Honor of Robert Chazan], ed. D. Engel, Lawrence Schiffman and Elliot R. Wolfson (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 111–143, suggests that there is ample reason to believe that the Jews were aware of some of the larger ideas and tendencies about dreams that were prevalent within Christian circles. See also Ephraim Shoham-Steiner, “ ‘For a prayer in this place would be most welcome’: Jews, Holy Places and Miracles—A New Approach,” Viator 37 (2006): 369–395.
See Anders Winroth, The Making of Gratian’s Decretum (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 136–142. Winroth offers this datum in the context of his larger thesis that Gratian’s Decretum was produced in two recensions, the first by Gratian himself before 1140, and a second (updated version) by his successors (such as Bernard of Pavia), which included the first recension within it. It was this second or fuller recension that was cited by Peter Lombard of Paris in his Sentences, which establishes that the completion of this second recension occurred before 1158, when Peter’s Sentences appeared. See also James Brundage, The Medieval Origins of the Legal Profession (Chicago, il>: University of Chicago Press, 2008), 96–105. Winroth, 144, stresses the similarity between Peter Lombard’s Sentences in the area of theology and Gratian’s Decretum in the area of canon law. Note that a key element of the second recension of Gratian’s work was its much better grasp of Roman law. Winroth shows that the study of Roman law in Bologna was undertaken in a significant way only c. 1140, when Gratian’s first recension was already nearing completion. See Winroth, The Making of Gratian’s Decretum, 171–173.
See D. Knowles, The Evolution of Medieval Thought, 79–82; R. W. Southern, The Making of the Middle Ages, 185–192; Jean Leclerq, The Love for Learning and the Desire for God (New York, ny>: Fordham University Press, 1961), 87–93; M. D. Chenu, Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelfth Century (Chicago, il>: University of Chicago Press, 1968), 300–309; Lester Little, Religious Poverty and the Profit Economy in Medieval Europe (Ithaca, ny>: Cornell University Press, 1978), 173–175; Jaeger, The Envy of Angels, 21–27.
See, e.g., R. W. Hunt, “English Learning in the Late Twelfth Century,” in Essays in Medieval History, ed. R. W. Southern (London: Macmillan, 1968), 106–108; A. L. Gabriel, Garlandia: Studies in the History of the Medieval University (Notre Dame, in>: Notre Dame University Press, 1969), 1–6; I. Ta-Shma, Ha-Sifrut ha-Parshanit la-Talmud, 1:105–111; and S. Ferruolo, The Origins of the University: The Schools of Paris and their Critics, 1100–1215 (Stanford, ca>: Staford University Press, 1985), 101–103, 125–128, 163–166, 270–271.
R. W. Southern, “The Schools of Paris and the School of Chartres,” in Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, ed. Benson and Constable, 113–132; Southern, Medieval Humanism (New York, ny>: Harper and Row, 1970), 61–85; and Southern, Scholastic Humanism, 66–88. Others disagree, maintaining that Chartres’s status was fundamentally tied to and derived from its location. See, e.g., J. Le Goff, Intellectuals in the Middle Ages, 48, and see also Southern, Scholastic Humanism, 88–100.
See, e.g., Jaeger, The Envy of Angels, 239–243; Chenu, Nature, Man, and Society, 272–290; Southern, Scholastic Humanism, 163–176, 204–212; and cf., J. W. Baldwin, “Masters at Paris from 1179 to 1215: A Social Perspective,” in Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, ed. Benson and Constable, 138–163.
See Chenu, Nature, Man and Society, 291–310; Pare, Brunet, and Tremblay, La renaissance, 110–123; J. W. Baldwin, Masters, Princes, and Merchants (Princeton, nj>: Princeton University Press, 1970), 88–101; Knowles, The Evolution of Medieval Thought, 174–175; Ivan Illich, In the Vineyard of the Text (Chicago, il>: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 60–65; Le Goff, Intellectuals in the Middle Ages, 93–106; Ta-Shma, Ha-Sifrut ha-Parshanit la-Talmud, 1:97–98.
See Knowles, The Evolution of Medieval Thought, 83–106; Kuttner, Harmony from Dissonance, 12, 24; Prefaces to Canon Law Books in Latin Christianity, ed. Somerville and Brasington, 111–117, 132–133; Winroth, The Making of Gratian’s Decretum, 16; and Brundage, The Medieval Origins of the Legal Profession, 194–196. On Ivo and his travels, see Southern, Scholastic Humanism, 252–261.
See Chenu, Nature, Man, and Society, 204–210, 216–217, 270–272, 302; Little, Religious Poverty, 26–27; and see also U. T. Holmes, “Transition in European Education,” in Twelfth-Century Europe and the Foundations of Modern Society, ed. M. Clagett, Gaines Post and Robert Reynolds (Madison, wi>: University of Wisconsin Press, 1961), 15–38; and Ian Wei, “From Twelfth-Century Schools to Thirteenth-Century Universities: The Disappearance of Biographical and Autobiographical Representations of Scholars,” Speculum 86 (2011): 42–78.
See G. R. Evans, Bernard of Clairvaux, 7–8, 42–43; and Clanchy, Abelard: A Medieval Life, 37–38. Cf., Chenu, Nature, Man, and Society, 95; and Jews and Christians in Twelfth-Century Europe, ed. Signer and Van Engen, 165.
See Evans, Bernard of Clairvaux, 42–56, 71, 102–105, 141–142; Clanchy, Abelard, 7–9, 35–37, 40, 216, 244; Giles Constable, “Renewal and Reform in Religious Life,” in Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, ed. Benson and Constable, 59–60; Classen, “Res Gestae,” 404–407; Jean Leclerq, “The Renewal of Theology,” in Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, 71, 77–87; J. Le Goff, Intellectuals in the Middle Ages, 41–44, 61–62; Southern, Scholastic Humanism, 225–228; and Ta-Shma, Ha-Sifrut ha-Parshanit la-Talmud, 1:109–110.
See Ta-Shma, Ha-Sifrut ha-Parshanit la-Talmud, 1:89–92; 2:116–117; and my “Religious Leadership during the Tosafist Period: Between the Academy and the Rabbinic Court,” Jewish Religious Leadership, ed. J. Wertheimer (New York, ny>: jts> Press, 2004), 265–305.
See, e.g., Mordechai Breuer, “Nedudei Talmidim ve-Ḥakhamim—Aqdamot le-Pereq mi-Toledot ha-Yeshivot,”Tarbut ve-Ḥevrah be-Toledot Yisraʾel Bimei ha-Benayim, ed. R. Bonfil et al. (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1989), 445–468 (in Hebrew); Mordechai Breuer, Ohalei Torah (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 2004), 431–441; my Jewish Education and Society, 49–52; and Rashi’s commentary to the Song of Songs, 5:16 (in Judah Rosenthal, “Perush Rashi ʿal Shir ha-Sirim,” Jubilee Volume for S. K. Mirsky, ed. S. Bernstein and G. Churgin (New York, ny>: Vaʿad ha-Yovel, 1958), 169) (in Hebrew).
See Urbach, The Tosafists, 1:264; I. Twersky’s review of Urbach, in Tarbiz 6 (1957): 226 (= I. Twersky, Studies in Jewish Law and Philosophy (New York, ny>: Ktav, 1982), Hebrew section, 53) (in Hebrew); and my Jewish Education and Society, 59–60.
See Urbach, The Tosafists, 122–123; R. Reiner, “Rabbenu Tam u-Bnei Doro: Qesharim, Hashpaʿot ve-Darkei Limmudo ba-Talmud” (PhD diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 2002) 70–84; and cf. my Jewish Education and Society, 28–29.
Urbach, The Tosafists, 1:79, 122. Cf. my “Rabbinic Authority and the Right to Open an Academy in Medieval Ashkenaz,” Michael 12 (1991): 239–240. Interestingly, although Talmudic interpretations by R. Elijah are cited within northern French Tosafot, his halakhic rulings and responses are cited mostly by German rabbinic authorities throughout the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. See Urbach, The Tosafists, 123–124.
See R. Reiner, “Parshanut ve-Halakhah: ʿIyyun me-Ḥadash be-Polmos Rabbenu Meshullam ve-Rabbenu Tam,”Shenaton ha-Mishpat ha-ʿIvri21 (1998–2000): 207–239 (in Hebrew); and Reiner, “Rabbenu Tam u-Bnei Doro,” 283–321. In light of the focus of Tosafist enterprise on resolving contradictions between divergent Talmudic texts and between rabbinic texts and a number of Ashkenazic customs, it is interesting to note that Abelard wrote to Bernard on the subject of discrepancies between the Gospels, and the role and status of custom. This follows on the heels of a formulation by Anselm of Canterbury (d. 1109) that custom establishes an “ought” (i.e., “one ought to do this by custom”). See Evans, Bernard of Clairvaux, 141.