1. Pirenne, Henri, ′exportation au Moyen Age: Les vins de France,” Annales d′ hisloire économique el sociale 5 (1933): 225–43;Google ScholarDion, Roger, Histoire de la vigne el le vin en France des origines au XlX^e siecle (Paris, 1959) (with exhaustive bibliography). The purpose of this essay being methodological, I will hold the technical aspects of wine production to a minimum. Its proper place is in a full length study of y.n.Google Scholar

2. The halakhah (like common law) prefers local definitions and what may be defined as “wine” in regard to y.n. may very well be grape juice in other areas of Jewish law, and vice versa. The formulation here presented is medieval, not talmudic. The Talmud did not discuss the problem in terms of “wine” status; it views the juice as “wine” immediately upon extraction from the grape. It spoke rather of darkan le-nassekh—at what stage of the wine process do Gentiles begin to use it for libation (Tosefta, ed. M. S. Zuckermandel [reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1963], ′Avodah Zarah, 7:3). Medieval authors saw the matter differently. Rashi (below) spoke ofwhile the commentator par excellence of Provence, R. Abraham b. David of Posquieres, explained thus:(Perush ha-Rabad ‘al’ Avodah Zarah [New York, 1961], p. 148). One may see in this perspective a shift from genuine fear of libation to formal definition, indicative of the transition from libating societies to non-libating ones. One should note, however, that the move to formal definition was begun by the Babylonian Talmud when it defined the stages of the receptivity to libation by the categories of gemar melakhah operative in the laws of tithes (see text, sec. I).

3. ′Avodah Zarah 55a's convenience, however, I have generally cited the printed text, adducing only those variants which are of significance

4. Teshuvot Rashi, ed. Israel, Elfenbein (New York, 1943), no. 58, to which add the following manuscripts of the ′Issur ve-heter: Jerusalem 8 2623 (fol. 42), 4 749 (sec. 156); Frankfurt Stadt- und Universitatsbibliothek 8 69 (fol. 39r-v) (correct Teshuvot Rashi, introd. p. XLIX, accordingly). This passage is taken from a larger responsum as MS Bodley Opp. 276, fol. 34v demonstratesGoogle Scholar

5. Note that outside the ′Issur ve-heter it was not reproduced in any other work that emanated from Rashi's school, not to speak of being preserved in later collections.

6. See text, sec. 6.

7. Rashi reports (Teshuvot, no. 382): R.Meir b. Samuel testified that R. Isaac Ha-Levi told him that(siddur Rashi [Berlin, 1912], sec. 594 and parallel passages there cited). These texts prove something only about two leading scholars of Worms. An in-depth study, however, of the literature of the Worms and Mainz academies, found in the Ma′asei ge′onim, Pardes, and Ha-′oreh, shows the imperfect grasp that the Rhine scholars had of this tractate, one not even vaguely on par with their command of Hullin for example. A simple example of the heavyhanded belaboring of the halakhically obvious in this period (and inconceivable in any later one) is found in Ma‘asei ge’onim (Berlin, 1910), p. 81: Contrast this with the one line disposal of the problem by Rashi toward the close of the responsum cited above. The fact that the Makhirites thought these proofs worthy of being included in their work says a great deal indeed. I am not contending that no commentarial tools on ′Avodah Zarah were available. Rashi's talents alone could never have divined the meaning of Persian or Greek words; only a commentarial tradition could provide him with this information. The ′Arukh cites a Mainz commentary on this tractate twice, or possibly four times (s.v. ), but all these are explanations of difficult words or gnomic remarks in the Talmud. Not one is topical or thematic. There is all the difference in the world between a lexical handbook like that of R. Nabshon Gaon (Teshuvot ge′onim qadmonim [Berlin, 1848], pp. 39bff.) or other skeletal aids and an in-depth, running commentary, ([a] The statement of R. Meir b. Samuel is reported thus in MS Bodley Opp. 276, fol. 12v: I would prefer the common reading of the Siddur Rashi, Pardes and Shibbolei ha-leqef for the simple reason that no scribe would dream of adding on his own Actually the two texts say the same thing. I doubt that R. Eliezer Ha-Gadol literally never studied the tractate; rather, he did not have a firm grasp of it. Functionally, however, not to be clear about a basic matter and not to have studied it is one and the same thing, [b] The text of Teshuvot Rashi, no. 81 published in the Monatsschrift [cited by Elfenbein] also contains the report However, I have doubts whether this reading is authentic, [c] R. Hananel's commentary or fragments thereof may have penetrated France during Rashi's lifetime [Tarbi; 4 (1933): 27; Sefer Rashi, ed. Maimon, J. L. (Jerusalem, 1956), p. 311, n. 18; Froim Kupfer, Perush Rashi ‘al Mo’ed Qatan (Jerusalem, 1961), introd., p. 15], but there is no evidence for such an inroad in the Rhinelands.)Google Scholar

8. One could object that there is no clear indication that R. Meir actually asked a pointed question whether the decision lay with the mishnah ′aharonah or not. He may simply have asked for a general clarification of the sugyah. Personally I do not believe this to be the case; see text, sec. 8. If, however, the reader disagrees, he should feel free to strike this paragraph from the text.

9. Darmesteter, Arsene and Blondheim, D. S., Les gloses francaises dans les commentaires talmudiques de Raschi (Paris, 1929), p. 39, s.v. cuve.Google Scholar

10. Teshuvot Maharah‘Or Zaru’a (Leipzig, 1860), no. 174 (fol. 58d). The text was published from what is now Frankfurt Stadt- und Universitatsbibliothek 4 4. Corrections in the citation are from that manuscript (fol. 135). Cf. Revue des études juives 53 (1907): 267–69. (The responsum was written between the years 1171 1184. R.T. had passed away [fol. 59a: Ri's son, R. Elhanan, however, was still alive [fol. 59d]. R.T.'s death cannot be inferred from the 3"a found after his name; this may easily be a scribal addition.)

11. I.e., Rashi would have viewed this as an instance of hamshakhah.

12. See text, sec. 4, end.

13. Not even in the encyclopedic work of R. Hayyim's father, the ‘Or zaru’a.

14. They, do not discuss, for example, the problem posed by or that of submerged pulp. Note also that R. Judah of Paris attributes to R.T. the reasoning of (Shifat qadmonim ‘al ’ Avodah Zarah, ed. M. Y. Blau, [New York, 1969], p. 266) and is followed in this by our Tosafol, ad loc. and the Semag, injunction 148. From Ri's responsum it is abundantly clear that R.T. forbade what he did on emotional grounds, and that the argument of is Ri's own rationale. See below, n. 94.

15. Not too much can be garnered from the opening remarks of R. Isaac , as the term is used loosely in the tosafist period, not even signifying at times a relative.

16. The work is wholly derivative of the Sefer ha-lerumah and the Semag. It is entitled (fol. 33r). This unknown writer should not be confused with the Provencal author of the Toledol ′Adam ve-ffawah, as the most cursory study of the two works will indicate

17. Epstein, J. N., “Perushei ha-Riban u-ferushei Worms,” Tarbiz 4 (1933): 189–92;Google ScholarFrankel, Jonah, Darko shel Rashi be-ferusho le-Talmud Bavli (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, 1968), pp. 1–13 and passim.Google Scholar For bibliography on the problem, seeRoth, A. N. Z., “Mi-perushei R. Yehudah b. Natan” Sefer ha-yovel li-khevod S. K. Mirsky(New York, 1958), pp. 285–86.Google Scholar See also the remarks of Friedman, Shama, Perush R. Yonatan Ha-Kohen mi-Lunel al Bam Qamma (Jerusalem, 1969), pp. 28–29,Google Scholar and Frankel's, J. rejoinder in the published version of his thesis of the same name (Jerusalem, 1976), pp. 14–19.Google Scholar

18. MS 172 described by Moritz Steinscheider in his Catalogder Hebrdischen Handschriften in der Stadtbibliothek zu Hamburg (Hamburg, 1878) as a commentary of Rashi on ′Avodah Zarah, contains the text of the Talmud only.

19. Rashi long wavered, for example, over whether of a Gentile forbade wine , and our printed text, being a mixture of two mahadurot, shows inconsistencies. See 58b s.v. (and Tosafot. ad loc, s.v. );and the little summary found at the end of the chapter, 61b s.v. which if not actually written by Rashi, was dictated by him to his pupils (see Pisqei ha-Rosh, ad loc, sec. 13 and Tosefot R. Yehudah mi- Paris [above, n. 14], pp. 281, 294). The Parma manuscript (fol. 104v) reads for the passage 58b s.v. and in 60b s.v. lacks the of the printed text. (From the language of all the Tosafists cited above it is clear that they viewed the concluding appendix on 61b as the work of Rashi. However, in MS Mantua Comunita Israelitica 30, [see below, n. 34] the signature is found. For this type of problem, see text, sec. 4, end.)

20. For example: Rashi was long perplexed by the problem of whether rotehin and qinsa are effective in purging tarred vessels (see ′Avodah Zarah 33a–b), and in the course of his lifetime held different opinions. In the printed text (33b s.v. , and similarly MS Parma and a citation in the Temim de′im [Tummat yesharim (Venice, 1662), no. 96] he denies the efficacy of both, even post facto. Rashbam, however, reports that Rashi was willing to admit qinsa post facto and go along with the use of rotehin {′Or zaru′a [Jerusalem, 1887] 4: 170). And in the Rashi on Alfasi the entire section of the printed text from onward is missing. And a similar text was before the Rashba (Torat ha-bayit [Jerusalem, 1963], 5: 6), and it is doubtful whether the passage against rotehin was in the texts that the Tosafists used. See carefully the printed Tosafot and Tosefot R. ′Elhanan (Husiatyn, 1901), ad loc, s.v. This observation together with the one in the previous footnote points out a lacuna in the current discussion of the problem of mahadurot. No doubt the first step is to scour medieval literature to find citations of of Rashi and to compare them with the printed text or manuscripts. This alone, however, is inadequate. Only by a close study of the literature of Rashi's school, where his shifts in position are reported, can we ascertain whether other variants in manuscripts or differing citations of Rashi by other medieval scholars are actually instances of other mahadurot, though not called so explicitly.

21. Of the seven manuscripts cited by Blondheim (above, n. 9), p. LIV, six were available tome. (The Livorno manuscript is presently at the National and University Library in Jerusalem and entered as MS 4° 621. The Turin manuscript was destroyed in a fire.) The phrase is similarly missing in the commentary of R. Jonathan of Lunel ad loc. (below, n. 90). For conjectures to which this commentary could give rise, see below, n. 35

22. See above, n. 14, pp. 264–65.

23. Urbach, E. E., Baalei ha-tosafot (Jerusalem, 1955), pp. 19ff.;Google Scholar cf. Smalley, Beryl, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (reprint ed., Notre Dame, 1964), pp. 200ff.Google Scholar

24. See text, sec. 5

25. became and was then written out in full. The emendation is made on the basis of the Rashbam. See below, text, sec. 6.

26. E.g., Teshuvot Rashi, nos. 59–62, 81, 382.

27. See text, sec. 12, end.

28. Note too the concluding inquiry whether one was forbidden in which seems equally to have been generated by the conflict between the simplest meaning of the Talmud and what R. Meir witnessed every day.

29. ‘Or zaru’a (above n. 20), sec. 213.

30. This last sentence of Rashbam will be explained below, text, sec. 7.

31. This is a pattern which repeats itself in Rashbam's lesser writings. See our remarks in the Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 28–29 (1972): 242, n. 63 and the material from ′Eruvin cited by Epstein (above, n. 16), pp. 185–86 should be read in this light. See also Urbach, E. E., “Mi-toratam shel hakhmei ′Angliyah mi-lifenei ha-gerush,” Tiferet le- Yisra′el, Sefer ha-yovel li-khevod Y. Brodie (London, 1967), p. 28Google Scholar. In our case, so mechanical was the copying that Rashbam did not realize that he had switched the terms for cuve in mid-paragraph (from gigil to guma) and, more seriously, had been led into stylistic obscurity. His addendum should not have come at the end, for then the section beginning man seems to be explaining when actually it refers to why Rashi (see below, sec.7, beginning). Had Rashbam been writing freely the passage would have run thus:

32. 1 personally have found inconclusive the objections to the authenticity of the commentary on ′Arvei pesahim. If the reader differs, he should feel free to strike this sentence from the text.

33. It is indicative of Rashi's genius that there is no unevenness in his commentary on this tractate, nor does he give any indication of this being a pioneer effort, just as no difference can be detected in Maimonides′ writings between the sections on Sefer zera'im which he hammered out by Herculean labors, and those in Sefer mishpatim where he built on the work of others

34. In light of my remarks in n. 31, I have taken the liberty of transferring the structure of Rashbam's commentary to the work of Riban. Too little of Riban's commentary has survived to establish its structure independently, though our specific citation corresponds to the threestoried structure of Rashbam. Since Rashbam's work was a revised edition of Riban, it is no wonder that it displaced the latter. (A few more citations of Riban are to be found in Tosefot hakhmei ′Angliyah ′al Niddah, ′Avodah Zarah [Jerusalem, 1971]. Rashbam's commentary on Avodah Zarah is cited in extenso in the Or zaru′a and a sizable fragment was discovered by Epstein, Abraham and published in ′Osar tov, Magazin fur die Wissenschaft des Judenthums 14 [1887]: 110. Large fragments of this work are also to be found in MS Mantua Comunita Israelitica 30 ranged around the text of Alfasi. This voluminous manuscript is unfortunately unpaginated. Our tractate, ′ vodah Zarah, is found some fifty-five pages before the end.)Google Scholar

35. If one should insist contra Epstein and Frankel that the mahadurah qamma of Rashi was considerably different from the final commentary (see above, n. 17), and further argue (as I never would) that since R. Jonathan of Lunel in other tractates incorporated Rashi's earlier mahadurah into his work, his remarks in ′Avodah Zarah, ad loc. (see below, n. 90) should be taken as being those of Rashi, then the word “ever” should be struck from our formulation in the text above. Rashi initially articulated the doctrine of separation, then thought better of it, excised it and maintained this silence to the end.

36. ′Or zaru′a, sec. 213 and see above, n. 31.

37. In MS Modena Comunita Israelitica 30 we find the Rashbam cited thus: The same time span is echoed in the Sefer ha-lerumah (Venice, 1523), p. 169. This was about par for the Parisian region as we learn from Oliver de Serres, Les theatres d'agriculture et menage des champs, 2 vols. (Paris, 1804–1805), vol. 1, pt. 2, bk. 3, chap. 8.

38. See text, sec. 1.

39. 92b s.v. (printed text corroborated by MSS British Library Or. 73; Add. 27, 196; Jewish Theological Seminary, Rabbinica 833; Bodley Opp. 387; Vatican 131; Cambridge Add. 478).

40. 14b s.v. (corroborated by MSS Sassoon 517; Munich 216; Parma 808; Frankfurt 8′ 158; Bodley Opp. Add. 4 23; Jewish Theological Seminary, Rabbinica 808; 840; Parma 1299). In the last manuscript the word is missing; the meaning however is the same.

41. a) Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Ma′asrot 3:4; idem, Perush ha-mishnayot, ed. J., Kafib (Jerusalem, 1963), 1: 7, and see Alfasi, ′Avodah Zarah, sec. 1240; (b) Perush Ri Malki $edeq (of Simpont), Ma′asrot 1: 7; see the first explanation in ′Arukh s.v. IV; (c) Perush Rash mi Sens, Ma′asrot 1: 7.Google Scholar

42. Maimonides, Perush ha-mishnayot, Terumot 4: 11. See Wilhelm Bacher, “Beitrage zur semitischen Sprachvergleichung bei Moses Maimuni,” Recueil des travaux rediges en memoire du Jubile Scientifique de M. Daniel Chwolson(Berlin, 1899), p. 135 (referred to by Tosefol he arukh ha-shalem, ed. Samuel, Krauss [Vienna, 1937], p. 369).Google Scholar

43. Rashi, 'Avodah Zarah, ad. loc. and numerous parallel remarks cited by Isaac Avinery, Millon perushei Rashi (Tel Aviv, 1949), s.v. , to which add Zevahim 6a, s.v.

44. Above, nn. 41–42.

45. 92b s.v. , readings corroborated by all manuscripts cited above, n. 39.

46. Only Me′iri(Beit ha-behirah[Jerusalem, 1965], p. 202) explainsqippui. Maimonides in the first mahadurah of his Perush ha-mishnayot printed in the standard edition of the Talmud, interprets qippui as floating, as does R. Nahshon Gaon in Teshuvot ge′onim qadmonim, fol. 40a. However, the surfacing they refer to takes place after the fermentation has begun. Rabad (op. cit., p. 152) explains it as the settling of the lees, which even in the warmest climate takes place some time after Rashi's qippui.

47. Though not necessarily oblige.

48. Lexically, that is. For qippui, see above, n. 46, for shillui, see 'Arukh, s.v. IV. Shillui is explained not as separation but as transfer from barrel to barrel. This occurs after qippui which, according to the′Arukh, is separation.Doctrinally then there is no relation between this explanation and that of Rashi; lexically they are one. Me′iri adopts Rashi's explanation of qippui in toto.

49. In the course of close to a millennium, several scholars did note in passing some of these contradictions, i.e., Algazi, R. Solomon, Lehem setarim (Venice, 1664), ′Avodah Zarah, ad loc; R. Solomon Luria, Hokhmat Shelomoh, Bava Mesi′a, ad loc; R. Moses Sofer, fiiddushei Hatam Sofer (New York, 1957), Bava Mesi'a, ad loc; R. Samuel Strashun (in Rom Talmud), ′Avodah Zarah, ad loc. They made, however, no ado about them.Google Scholar

50. Cited in Abrams, M. H., The Mirror and the Lamp; Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition (New York, 1958), p. 238.Google Scholar

51. See above, n. 37.

52. Suggested by Ma′asei ge′onim, p. 81. This would have allowed them to make full use not only of their own distant vineyards but also those offered in mortgage to them

53. Labarge, M. W., A Baronial Household of the Thirteenth Century (New York, 1965), p. 106. Rashi himself makes reference to the short life span of wine in a query on another matter to R. Isaac b. Judah: (!) MS Bodley Opp. 276 fol. 35vGoogle Scholar

54. It is this (rather than any professional occupation as a vintner) that explains Rashi's oftcited remarks (Teshuvot, no. 382), The average Champagne household in the month of September very much resembled our own before Passover. The second passage usually cited in support of Rashi's supposed occupation (Ha-′oreh, p. 214, Teshuvot, no. 159) refers most probably to R. Isaac b. Judah. In the literature of his school Rashi is never called , but the former scholar is regularly referred to this way by the Makhirites in the Ma‘asei ge’onim. Indeed the presumption is against anyone being a winegrower in Troyes. Its chalky soil to this day is inhospitable to viticulture, and not surprisingly Elizabeth Chapin has found no references to vines in local documents (Les villes des foires de Champagne des origines au debut du XVle siecle [Paris, 1937], pp. 97–98. Contrast this with their frequent mention in the Bar-sur-Aube region, Ibid pp. 77–92.). A generation or so before Rashi there seems to have been one solitary owner or, perhaps, more accurately, only one major owner of vineyards among the Jews of Troyes (Teshuvot R. Me′ir mi-Rotenburg [Budapest, 1895], no. 941 and note ad loc). Undoubtedly there were some local vines, probably for private use (Rashi's words almost imply as much), but that they should have regularly produced a surplus sufficient to afford a living is asking a great deal of them. Despite all this, Rashi may nevertheless have been a vintner; but by the same measure he may have been an egg salesman.

55. Blumenkranz, Bernhard, Juifs el Chretiens dans le monde occidental (Paris, 1960), p. 20; idem, “Cultivateurs et vignerons juifs en Bourgogne du IXe au XIe siecle,” Bulletinphilologique et historique du Comite de travaux historiques et scientifiques, 1959, pp. 131–36.Google Scholar

56. ‘Or zaru’a, sec. 215, cited in text, sec. 12. I say “apparently” because the respondent's remarks about Rashi are not quite accurate; see text, sec. 12. However, 1 do not believe we would be justified in questioning the statements about R. Meir and R. Samuel. In light of our analysis of R. Meir's query (text, sec. 5), his joining in on the promulgation of the allowance would be expected

57. Tosefot R. Yehudah mi-Paris, op. cit., p. 264.

58. Ibid p. 265; and the printed Tosafot 55b s.v. end.

59. See the important remarks ofBen-Sasson, H. H.in Behinot 9 (1957): 46–49.Google Scholar

60. Albeck, Schalom, “Yahaso shel Rabbenu Tarn li-ve′ayot zemano,” Zion 19 (1954): 103–41. The article should be qualified by Ben-Sasson's observations referred to in the preceding noteGoogle Scholar

61. Rabyah (MSS Bodley Opp. 66, Jews College 115), sec. 1069, (see now Sefer Rabyah temasekhet ′Avodah Zarah [Bene Brak, 1976]), cited in ‘Or zaru’a, sec. 214; “Sefer ′Amarkal,” Le-David Sevi, David Hoffmann Festschrift (Berlin, 1914), p. 13.

62. See the critique of the Spanish and Provence school and that ofAshen, R.Hiddushei ha- Ramban, ed. Chavel, C. B. (Jerusalem, 1970), ad loc;Google Scholar Hiddushei ha-Rashba ‘al ’Avodah Zarah (Jerusalem, 1966), ad loc; Hiddushei ha-Ritba and R. Nissim of Gerona's commentary to Alfasi, ad loc; Beit ha-behirah ‘al ’A vodah Zarah (Jerusalem, 1965), pp. 205–6; Pisqei ha-Rosh, 4: 3. (As to the identity of the author of the Hiddushei ha-Rashba ‘al ’Avodah Zarah, seeRosenthal's, Abraham remarks in Kiryat Sefer 42 [1967]: 132–39). The only medieval scholar known to me to endorse R.T.'s position is Ri (Tosefot R. Yehudah mi-Paris, loc. cit.), but his position was influenced by the difficulties he encountered in explaining of the Mishnah (see his responsum cited above, n. 10). There is no evidence that R.T., was motivated by this considerationGoogle Scholar

63. Haym Soloveitchik, “The Tosafist Conception of Law.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools, Houston, Texas, December 28, 1976. See text, sec. 17, end, for the measure of inner conviction that this interpretation carried for R.T. In passing, I should add that there is no evidence, to the best of my knowledge, that R.T. earned a living from the sale or production of wine [see Urbach, op. cit., p. 57]. The presence of a large in a house proves nothing, especially in view of the quantities then consumed. Moreover the there mentioned is not R.T. but a prominent member of his community. See Temim de′im, sec. 86: and this reading is corroborated by MS London Beth Din and Beth Midrash Library 14, fol. I46v:

64. Sec. 12.

65. It will not do to argue that can also mean motion across a surface as in Zevahim 25b. It almost invariably does not, and the Tosafist did not use Hebrew after an archaic or idiosyncratic fashion, certainly not when writing expository prose.

66. Teshuvot Maharafi ‘Or Zaru’a, no. 174, fol. 59a.

67. Tosafot, ad loc, s.v. end; Semag, injunction 148. A similar report is found in Tosefot R. Peres cited in Teshuvot Ri Qolon, no. 32. Another pupil of Ri, the editor of MS Bodley Opp. 49 gives (in sec. 164) a similar report. (Parts of this work were published by Simhah Assaf in Sefer ha-yovel li-khevod A. Marx [New York, 1950], pp. 9–22, from MS Schocken 1952. On the relationship of the two manuscripts, see Urbach, op. cit., p. 196, n. 7. R. Judah of Paris may be the editor of this manuscript; see Ibidp. 197, n. 10.)

68. Op. cit., pp. 265–66; Teshuvot Maharah ‘Or Zaru’a, no. 174.

69. J. P. Migne, Patriologiae Cursus Completes: Series Latina. 104: 826; 117: 170; Julius Aronius, Regesten zur Geschichte der Juden in frankischen und deulschen Reiche bis zum Jahre 1273 (Berlin, 1902), p. 90;Hoeniger, Robert, “Zur Geschichte der Juden Deutschlands im Mittelalter,” Zeitschrift fur die Geschichte der Juden in Deulschland 1 (1887): 141; Solomon Grayzel, The Church and the Jews in the XUlth Century, rev. ed. (New York, 1966), pp. 73, 127–28. See also Speculum 42 (1967): 343.Google Scholar

70. See Katz's, Jacob discussion in Bein yehudim le-goyim (Jerusalem, 1960), pp. 55–56.Google Scholar

71. E.g., Maimonides, Hilkhot ma′akhalot ′asurot 11: 10; Teshuvot ha-Rambam, ed. Yehoshua Blau, vol. 2 (Jerusalem, 1960), p. 269; Abraham b. Nathan Ha-Yarhi, Sefer hamanhig (Jerusalem, 1961), p. 157.

72. Teshuvot Maharah ‘Or Zaru’a, no. 174, fol. 59b. It is worth noting that though Metz was part of the Empire, culturally we see it was under French sway. The exact boundaries of Sarefat and ′Ashkenaz have yet to be delineated, just as the halakhah still awaits its Klimrath line setting off Northern France (Sarefat) from Provence. Until we have such maps we will not be able to use properly the growing number of place names that manuscripts are beginning to provide us. A question coming from a city under French influence might be insignificant, but if it arose in a German area it could indicate a major change.

73. Rabyah, sec. 1050, published byAgus, I. A. in Teshuvot ba′alei ha-tosafoi (New York, 1954), pp. 75–76 and in Sefer Rabyah (above, n. 61), p. 16Google Scholar

74. ‘Or zaru’a. 3: 199, correction from MS British Library Or. 2859, fols. 278–79 from which the text was published

75. E. E. Urbach, op. cit., pp. 163–64.

76. See Greenwald, J. J., Kol bo ‘al ’ avelut, reprint ed. (New York, 1973), pp. 217ff., 223ff. and Pithei leshuvah, Yoreh de′ah, 363: 7–8. Menahem Alon in his Herut ha-perai be-darkhei geviyyat Ijov ba-mishpaf ha-′ivri (Jerusalem, 1964), pp. 238–40 has already raised this point.Google Scholar

77. Urbach, loc. cit.

78. (cited Ibid).

79. Objection will immediately be made that R.T. himself was a great poseq. Indeed he was (see above, n. 60), but he was a creative poseq not a manipulative one. He did not balance off multiple factors or seek technical shortcuts to a goal, but forged bold new doctrines and ruled on their basis. His greatness in this area stemmed from the fact that his daring and creativity were not confined to theory but overflowed into practice.

80. M. Alon, loc. cit.

81. Ketubbot 86a.

82. Strike both phrases from the text and the responsum reads naturally. The opening already stated If the debt were in doubt one could not have collected it from Reuben even if he were alive, not to speak of heaping disgrace on his body after his death.

83. Sec. 17.

84. See above, n. 73. The first emendation is from the manuscript; the second is my own. 1 would not attach too much importance to the after R.T. found in the text. This could easily be a scribal addition. R.T. is referred to as in R. Joel's reply that follows immediately in the manuscript (fol. 287v). From experience, however, I have learned to be very wary of such notations. (See below, n. 86 and note the surprising absence of any mention of R.T.'s doctrine of for hames). See above, n. 10 and below, n. 115.

85. Sec. 215. The correction is made on the basis of the Mordekhai. sec. 845, and see above, n. 56.

86. Note incidentally the concluding remarks of R. Shemaryah (I. A. Agus, op. cit., p. 76). No halakhic discussion follows. This is simply the report of one German rabbi to another of R.T.'s activities as a poseq. In each of these decisions, R.T. was breaking either German tradition or that of his fathers (). See the vociferous German reaction to his ruling that hames was in Raban, sec. 10.

87. Tosafot, 55b s.v.

88. There is no mention of flow out of the press; rather is made the criterion.

89. Pardes (Constantinople, 1802), fol. 16a, s.v. (sec. 259 in the Warsaw edition). See also Teshuvot hakhmei Sarefat ve-Lotir (Vienna, 1881), no. 9; Teshuvot Rabbenu Gershom Me′or Ha-Golah (New York, 1957), no. 22.

90. Rabyah, sec. 1069; Roqeah, sec. 492; Pisqei ha-Rosh, 4: 3; Or zarua, sec. 213–15; R. Jonathan of Lunel on Alfasi, ad loc. (found in the edition of the Talmud published by ′El ha- Meqorot and Pardes-Israel, Inc. [Jerusalem, 1963]); Beit ha-belfirah, ad loc. Both Nahmanides (Hiddushim, ed. C. B. Chavel, ad loc.) and R. Jonah Gerondi (Hiddushei lalmidei Rabbenu Yonah [New York, 1957]) realized Rashi's accomplishment and added this accolade: Anyone familiar with the writings of medieval halakhists knows how rare compliments are. (Rabad too perceived the principle of separation [op. cit., p. 149, s.v. sec. 107], but could not explain as smoothly as Rashi did how this process inevitably occurred on the treading floor. And his successor, R. Jonathan, abandoned the Provencal explanation for that of Rashi.)

91. R. Joel apparently had sections of either Riban's or Rashbam's commentary which had penetrated Germany anonymously. See his closing remarks MS Bodley Opp. 66, sec. 1050, Sefer Rabyah (above, n. 61), p. 20:The term "gaon," as is well known, was used in thirteenth and fourteenth century Germany for distinguished predecessors, especially of the period before the rise of the Tosafists. But outside of this fragmentary reference there is no evidence of penetration. From Raban's remarks in his work ad loc, it is equally clear that he does not know of any doctrine of separation

92. Similarly, Raban never elicited this doctrine from Rashi's words (see previous note).

93. Teshuvot Maharah ‘OrZaru’a, no. 174, fol. 59b

94. In light of Ri's explicit statement here and elsewhere (Ibid fol. 59c bottom), one should discount the report of R. Judah of Paris in his Tosafot (ad loc.) that R.T. forbade treading because of the mishnah aharonah. This was Ri's conjecture as to a possible legal basis for R.T.'s ban. Law, however, dislikes visceral reactions and soon Ri's thoughts were viewed as the reason motivating R.T.'s stand. In some schools though memory of the non-halakhic nature of R.T.'s stand lingered on even after its transformation, and we read in the Semaq Zurich (e.g., MSS British Library Add. 18,684; Parma 172; 583), ad loc;

95. R. Nissim of Gerona wrote: (Alfasi, ad loc). Nahmanides (Hiddushim, ed. Chavel, ad loc.) followed by R. Aaron Ha-Levi (Perush ha-Rah in Shitat qadmonim ‘al’ Avodah Zarah, ed. M. Y. Blau, [New York, 1959], p. 135) do indeed forbid treading on the basis of the mishnah ′aharonah. However, their views were not accepted by their own disciples. See Torat ha-bayit 5: 2; Hiddushei ha-Rashba ‘al ’Avodah Zarah and Hiddushei ha-Ritba, ad loc. It must also be remembered that even Nahmanides′ doctrine (and that of Rah) is premised on the assumption that hamshakhah can take place on the treading floor. This being so, a precautionary ordinance against Gentile treading makes sense. R.T.'s doctrine, however, ruled out such a possibility and R. Isaac subscribed to it (see above, n. 62).

96. This phrase should be taken quite literally. There may be an allusion to for the full sentence reads: These are but rationalizations and poor ones at that. For if there is a fear of hamshakhah or of , Gentile touch should then be forbidden equally, and Ri explicitly permits it. (Indeed treading possibly creates a less serious danger of y.n. than touch, for [′Avodah Zarah 56b].)

97. It is possible that the repugnance was heightened by the fact that Gentiles trod barefoot (Friedrich von Bassermann-Jordan, Geschichte des Weinbaus unter besonderer Berucksichligung der Bayerischen Rheinpfalz [Frankfurt, 1907], 1: 254–56; Moriz Heyne, Fünf Bücher deulscher Hausalteniimer von den dltesten geschichtlichen Zeiten bis zum 16 Jahrhunderl [Leipzig, 1899–1903], 2: 259–60) while the Jews, as Innocent III already noted, wrapped sheets around their feet (Grayzel, above, n. 69). It would further appear (Bassermann-Jordan, op. cit.) that in the Rhine country even Gentiles did not tread barefoot, but rather beat the grapes with sticks; this might explain the utter shock of German scholars at the French practice. (Note R.T.'s concluding remarks to R. Shemaryah, text, sec. 12.) I would add that the Ashkenazic reaction to tub treading shares little in common with that which R. Abraham b. David of Posquieres registered in Temim de′im, sec. 83. In the case under discussion there, the upshot of a certain doctrine would be to destroy a good deal of the raison d'etre of y.n. That is to say, the logical conclusions of a theory are so startling that they cast overwhelming doubts as to the validity of its premiseae a common enough mode of reasoning. In Gentile treading, however, no accepted principle of y.n. is endangered, and no premise in turn challenged. The repugnance is self-contained and logically indefensible. 1 can see no other basis for it other than a religious (and possibly an aesthetic) one.

98. See above, sec. 11.

99. Rabyah, sec. 1069; Roqeah (Fano, 1505), sec. 492.

100. Louis, Finkelstein, Jewish Self-Govemment in the Middle Ages, reprint ed. (New York, 1964), p. 225Google Scholar

101. R. Isaac of Corbeil makes no mention of R.T.'s ban or of any injunction against treading in his influential Semaq ([Constantinople, 1509?], sec. 225, in later editions sec. 223). His contemporary R. Perez reports: ona (Teshuvot Ri Qolon [Venice, 1519], no. 32). As R. Perez, to the best of my knowledge, never referred to Provence in his Tosafot, we might suspect that the closing remark is a later gloss. This report of French practices, however, is corroborated by R. Aaron of Lunel, who wrote disapprovingly in his ′Orhot hayyim (Berlin, 1902), 2: 248: ([a] The printed text of the Semaq, with the absence of any mention of R.T., is corroborated by all manuscripts of the work that I checked, [b] On the Provencal practice, see Beit ha-beljirah, p. 206, top; She′elol u-teshuvot min ha-shamayim, ed. Reuben Margulies [Jerusalem, 1917], p. 30. It is possible, however, that Me′iri's statement refers to northern France.).

102. In the century-long discussion by the French Tosafists of the Yerushalmi (see below, n. 117) no mention is made of the fear of admixture (with the exception of Tosefot R. Yehudah mi-Paris, under the special circumstances thai y.n. is adjacent and would ordinarily be added). Their entire discussion revolves around the fear of hamshakhah. R.T.'s rejection was probably based on the fact that the Mishnah ruled that . If R. Judah Ha-Nasi feared not an admixture, it would be gratuitous on the part of others to fear it. See also ′Avodah Zarah 12a and the discussion in the ‘Or zaru’a, ad loc. The German school, i.e., Roqeah (sec. 492) and Rabyah (sec. 1069) interpreted the fear of the Yerushalmi as being one of admixture. In other words, the instinctive apprehensions to which R. Shemaryah gave voice in the first letter became the interpretational basis of the j; second.

103. Op. cit. (above, n. 61), p. 13.

104. Or if R.T. only later arrived at his doctrine of hamshakhah (see text, sec. 12, middle), then we must assume that he hastened to inform R. Shemaryah that France was moving yet one more step toward leniency

105. Aptowitzer, Victor, Mavo le-sefer Rabyah (Jerusalem, 1938), p. 152.Google Scholar

106. Sec. 845, thus in MSS British Library Add. 19,972, Vienna Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek 73. The printed text reads . See below

107. All Hebrew and Gentile sources attest to this. See text, sec. 2; Bassermann-Jordan, op. cit., pp. 25Off.; Roger Billard, La vigne dans I′antiquite (Lyons, 1913), pp. 439–42. The average person could hardly afford to build a winepress, even if he lived in an area where the right of press was not one of the lord's banalites. I have been unable to find one manuscript illumination or frieze from the Middle Ages showing contemporary treading in any other place than in a cuve. (1 say contemporary treading, for an illustration of a biblical verse where a winepress is mentioned would, not surprisingly, portray a winepress.) See J. C. Webster, The Labors of the Months in Antique and Medieval Art till the end of the Twelfth Century (Evanston and Chicago, 1938) and the literature there cited; i. Senecal, “Les occupations des mois dans l′iconographie du Moyen Age,” Bulletin de la Societe des antiquaires de Normandie 25 (1924): 33–90. (The illustrations given on pp. 38–40 are symbolic and not descriptive.) All the manuscript illuminations referred to by O. Hassel in his unpublished Subject Index of Illuminations in the Bodleian Library under the headings “pressing” and “treading” were personally checked and no press was found. I would like to thank Mr. Hassel and his staff for the unfailing courtesy that they extended to me.

108. MSS Hungarian National Museum at Budapest 2 1; Sassoon 534; Cambridge Add. 490.1 (see gloss); British Library Add. 19, 972; Vienna Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek 72; 73; Hechal Shelomoh, Jerusalem, 4; 5. The only manuscripts known to me to contain the reading gat are that of Hechal Shelomoh 3 and apparently some copy of the ‘Or zaru’a used by the printers of the 1598 Cracow edition of the Mordekhai. (Our printed ‘r zaru’a is an accurate transcription of MS British Library Or. 2860, fol. 62v6.)

109. MSS Hungarian National Museum at Budapest 2 1; Vienna Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek 73; British Library Add. 19,972; Hechal Shelomoh 5 have it in the first person, the citations from the Mordekhai in the commentary ranged around the Blondheim Alfasi (above, n. 21) have while the passage is missing entirely in MSS Sassoon 534, Cambridge Add. 490.1, Hechal Shelomoh 4.

110. Sinai 12 (1943): 103–4.

111. In MS Hechal Shelomoh 5 it actually appears as a gloss in the margin, though this could have arisen simply from a scribe who having skipped it in his initial transcription then proceeded to add it to the margin

112. A close study of the Sefer ha-yashar will show just how much of subsequent tosafist thinking R.T. anticipated. The printed Tosafot do not reflect the protean nature of R.T.'s thought.

113. Below, n. 117.

114. See text, sec. 8, middle

115. If someone insists that R.T. was no longer alive at the time of the correspondence (see above, n. 84), he may either discount our reconstruction or assume that R.T. quietly notified someone, but not R. Shemaryah, of his retraction, and reports of this note were picked up by late thirteenth century editors. (I suspect that the word wia, above, n. 106, should be read nsoina, i.e., in a gloss, and should not be understood as a reference to any of the famed novellae of the French academies. No one in France, to the best of my knowledge, was aware of R.T.'s retraction.)

116. Teshuvot M aha rah ‘Or Zaru’a, no. 174, fol. 59c.

117. Ibidno. 174, fol. 59c-d.; Tosefot R. Yehudah mi-Paris (op. cit.), pp. 264–66, 294–96; Sefer ha-terumah, sec. 169; Semag, injunction 148; Semaq, sec. 225 (223); Tosafol, ad loc; “Amarkal,” (op. cit.), pp. 13–14; Pisqei ha-Rosh, 4: 3.

118. Sec. 1069.

119. Sees. 213–15.

120. Intellectually that is. Distinctive practices and customs continue for quite a while.

121. R. Meir of Rothenburg, the Tashbef and the Haggahot Maimoniyyot make no mention of the matter altogether, while R. Asher (ad loc.) adopts the French position. R. Mordecai cites Rabyah's fears of admixture alongside the French allowance and makes no mention of the ancient injunctive custom. (The first sign of the weakening may be found in Roqeah, sec. 492, if our printed text is correct. It is corroborated by the one extant manuscript of the Roqeah, MS Bibliotheque Nationale 363, fol. 188r. One would much prefer better support, since this is a late fifteenth century copy and closely related to the manuscript from which the Roqeah was published. Personally, I suspect that a gloss has crept into the text. I should add that if the text is authentic, our case is not typical. The Roqeah generally is a very conservative work and free of substantive French influences. SeeSoloveitchik, Haym, “Three Themes in the Sefer Hasidim,” AJSreview 1 [1976]: 348–49.)Google Scholar

122. See above, n. 101.

123. The Blondheim Alfasi referred to above, n. 21.

124. Popular practice relied, apparently, upon the language of flat allowance found in the Mishnah. See above, n. 102.

125. MS Bodley Mich. 613, fol. 64r.