Sefer miẓvot gadol (Semag) by the French Tosefist R. Moses of Coucy was a most influential halakhic work in medieval times. Originally titled Sefer ha-miẓvot (The Book of Commandments),Footnote 1 it was written in northern France in the first half of the thirteenth century and in many ways reveals the influence of Maimonides' Mishneh Torah.Footnote 2 Indeed, to understand R. Moses of Coucy's legal project properly, it is important to comprehend the availability of Mishneh Torah in Europe at the time. Whereas Maimonides completed his Mishneh Torah circa 1180, the work seems not to have reached the study halls of the French Tosefists before 1200.Footnote 3 In this article, I explain R. Moses' purpose and program in writing his Sefer ha-miẓvot, examine the format he chose, and clarify who his presumptive reader, or readers, may have been.Footnote 4
R. Moses of Coucy and His Sefer ha-Miẓvot Footnote 5
At some point in the beginning of the thirteenth century, R. Moses of Coucy studied at the bet midrash of R. Judah Sir Leon in Paris.Footnote 6 R. Judah, a major Tosefist of his era and a student of R. Isaac of Dampierre, died around the year 1224.Footnote 7 Between 1235 and 1238, R. Moses, already an established scholar, embarked on a preaching mission, reminiscent of that undertaken by the Christian friars of the time,Footnote 8 to Spain and other Christian countries.Footnote 9 The goal of his mission, as it emerges from the various sermons preserved in his book, was to raise the level of religiosity among his people and to strengthen their faith.Footnote 10 A possible catalyst for his preaching activities may be traced to the widespread messianic expectations at the time, as the Jewish millennium (corresponding to the year 1240) was fast approaching.Footnote 11 Following his return to France, he wrote his legal work, the Sefer ha-miẓvot, which was completed in 1247.Footnote 12 It is worth noting here that he began working on this book around the time of the Talmud trial of 1240 in Paris, an event in which he was a minor participant.Footnote 13 The Sefer ha-miẓvot is divided into two parts, covering the negative and positive commandments respectively.Footnote 14
R. Moses' reputation was built primarily on his activity as author of a legal work. No doubt he was a learned Talmudist, a Tosefist who wrote Tosefot on the Talmud,Footnote 15 but he does not seem to have attracted a following as a teacher of Talmud.Footnote 16 We are not aware of any students composing Tosefot under his tutelage or reporting legal decisions in his name, as was the case with some of his contemporaries, namely R. Jeḥiel of Paris and the brothers of Evreux. We may reasonably assume that during his lifetime R. Moses was acknowledged as a learned and skilled preacher, but it is his legal work that brought him long-lasting esteem.
In scope and structure, Sefer ha-miẓvot was unique compared to other legal works by Tosefists before R. Moses, such as the Yereʼim by R. Eliezer of Metz and Sefer ha-terumah by R. Barukh b. Isaac. Sefer ha-miẓvot is a wide-ranging work, summarizing all areas of Jewish law, including items irrelevant to his time and place, such as laws relating to the Temple and its service. In structure, as well, R. Moses' work was unusual. Each part of the two-volume work (positive and negative commandments) is organized so that related laws are listed in one section and developed in a coherent manner. In contrast, as illustrated in this article, the two previous Tosefists' works lack such organization.
Program and Purpose of R. Moses' Sefer ha-Miẓvot
Sefer ha-miẓvot is a well-organized and structured work, based on the model of Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, with some modifications.Footnote 17 Its broad scope may be the result of R. Moses' reliance on Mishneh Torah,Footnote 18 for it is very likely that he was convinced by Maimonides of the religious importance of summarizing the entire Oral Law in a cogent work.
Nevertheless, we note three structural differences between R. Moses' work and that of Maimonides. First, in contrast to Maimonides, R. Moses of Coucy divided his work into two parts: prohibitions (lo taʻaseh) and positive commandments (ʻaseh). Second, in his treatment of the law, he included extensive citations from talmudic (and rabbinic) sources. Last, he cited conflicting legal opinions by medieval scholars, mainly from northern France. In short, one can say that R. Moses of Coucy transformed the Maimonidean code into a French legal summary, with the addition of talmudic references as well as conflicting rabbinic opinions. I will now explain the program and motive underlying the unique book of commandments as reflected in R. Moses' statements to that effect.
1. A Tosefist's Supplement to the Talmud
One of the author's more straightforward statements of purpose is found in his introduction to the book of positive commandments, in which he emphasizes how his work will enhance the reader's ability to study God's Torah. Midway through the introduction, he writes:
A man may learn his entire life and still fail to attain knowledge of a particular commandment, and this is due to the length of the Talmud, the dialectic reasoning, and to the fact that one commandment may appear in several places. The Torah cautioned [regarding the miẓvah of Torah study] “And thou shalt impress them diligently upon thy children [Deuteronomy 6:7],” [and that] the Torah's commandments must be “finely honed” in your own and in your children's mouths . . . so that if someone asked [regarding a commandment] you will not stammer; rather, you will reply immediately. . . .Footnote 19
The vast scope of the Talmud, with its inherent lack of order and the complexity of its dialectics, did not allow most students of the law to achieve the necessary mastery of the material. The verse “And thou shalt impress,” as talmudic sages understood it, necessitates a work like R. Moses' Sefer ha-miẓvot. Obviously, a composition of such nature must include all the commandments and all the laws, not only those relevant to medieval Christian Europe, as he points out in the first part of his introduction:
And there are those among the common folk who say, “What do the commandments in Seder Kodashim [Hallowed Things] have to do with us, and even more so this is true of Seder Zeraʻim [Agricultures] and the commandments contained in the order of Toharot [Purities] which are inapplicable in our day and age?” Let no man say this, for there is a religious duty to know the foundations of the commandments which the Master of the universe commanded even though they are not applicable in our time, for we have been commanded concerning all the commandments, “And teach them.”Footnote 20
These two passages seem to indicate that R. Moses' purpose in composing his work was to provide a study aid for serious-minded Jews interested in fulfilling their religious obligation of Torah study, Talmud Torah, in a most complete manner. In Franco-German Jewish society, this religious duty was not merely one of the 613 commandments but rather its primary religious ideal.Footnote 21 R. Moses' work should therefore be viewed as a supplement rather than a replacement to Talmud study. Given that in Franco-Jewish society mastery of the Talmud was limited to the scholarly elite, we may deduce from this introduction that R. Moses' target audience was quite narrow. He does not seem to be addressing the broader Jewish society nor the learned layperson who was not too conversant with the Talmud. Rather, he seems to have had in mind students who had studied the Talmud in the past and had retained sufficient skills so as to enable continuing study throughout their lifetimes.
2. An Itinerant Preacher's Continued Mission
A second statement of purpose occurs at the end of his lengthy introduction to the book of negative commandments.Footnote 22 Here, R. Moses describes the historical circumstances that led him to write his Sefer ha-miẓvot. After recounting the development of halakhic literature from the past, from geonic times until the Mishneh Torah of Maimonides, and after lauding and critiquing the latter, he shifts to the recent past and the present. R. Moses first describes his preparations in anticipation of his preaching mission to the Jews of the Diaspora, “arranging the commandments by-heart . . . the basis of each of the commandments, without all of their ramifications, so that I would not err in my rebuke.”Footnote 23
R. Moses traveled to a number of diaspora communities to rebuke them for their laxity in observing the commandments. He went to Spain and to other unnamed Jewish communities in Christian Europe, convincing many to observe miẓvot such as tefillin and mezuzah, to refrain from violating various prohibitions, and in general to educate about the law and its ideals.Footnote 24 It was in preparation for this mission that he reviewed the main points of the law.Footnote 25 Immediately following the description of his preparatory measures, he relates that “in several localities, they [i.e., his audience] asked of me to transcribe the principles of the commandments along with their sources, in the form of a book.”Footnote 26 In the body of the work he refers to this request: “Subsequently I was in other lands and my words were well received everywhere. And they requested me compose a book explaining the commandments in concise form.”Footnote 27 The response to R. Moses' sermons seems to have been largely positive. Jews in some localities encouraged him to compose a work that would serve as a substitute for his teachings.Footnote 28
R. Moses, however, was hesitant. He stated, “I was afraid to do so, to compose a Torah scroll for the masses, ‘for I am brutish, less than a man; I lack the wisdom of humans’ [Proverbs 30:2].”Footnote 29 He then relates that he experienced a heavenly vision demanding of him to overcome his fears: “Arise! Compose a Torah scroll containing two parts.”Footnote 30 This revelation gave him the needed impetus to proceed with his project, as he concludes, “And, therefore, I, Moses son of Jacob, have given my attention to composing two books. . . .”Footnote 31 In short, according to R. Moses' words in this introduction, the genesis of his Sefer ha-miẓvot can be traced to his preparatory activity prior to leaving France and to the requests he received during the course of his preaching activities among Jewish communities.
One may question the accuracy of the events depicted,Footnote 32 and one might also be skeptical about the extent to which R. Moses' final product was a response to his audiences' request. Nevertheless, it is evident that he viewed his role as an author, in some way, as an extension of his activities as a preacher.Footnote 33 In his mind, the book was a continuation of his work of “strengthening the people of Israel in Torah and improving their ways” (“le-ma'an yitḥazku yisraʼel be-torah ubi-tokhaḥa”).Footnote 34 In attempting to reveal R. Moses' purpose in writing his work and to define his target audience, this is an important point. A preacher's audience would have to include individuals from many walks of life, with diverse levels of education, and of varied religious observance. His readers would include a much wider cross-section of Jewish society than a limited circle of Talmud students.
3. A French Scholar's Version of Mishneh Torah
A third purpose, somewhat less explicit than the previous one, but no less important, emerges from his introduction to the negative commandments. As noted, the final section of R. Moses' introduction is dedicated to describing the history of the Oral Law. Before introducing his book, R. Moses details the sequence of events that led to the redaction and writing down of the law. He begins his description with the Mishnah and ends with the Mishneh Torah.
R. Moses' description of post-talmudic, halakhic literature is quite striking. The works written after the sealing of the Talmud merit only his brief mention, with the exception of the work of Maimonides, which he treats at length, providing both high praise and pointed criticism. Regarding the post-talmudic compositions prior to Mishneh Torah, R. Moses writes:
And the Geonim who arose after the Amoraim realized that they could not manage to teach the entire Talmud to the many, so they produced brief works containing halakhic rulings in order to maintain [the existence of] Torah in Israel. Rav Yehudai Gaon produced the Halakhot gedolot, and R. Isaac from Fez produced a composition he called Rav ʼAlfas, and so [did] many, each [producing] his own book.Footnote 35
In contrast, he wrote the following about Maimonides the scholar and his work:
And behold, later, their words also became occluded for the hearts [of man] had diminished. And the great man, Rabbenu Moses son of Maimon, arose. He was from Cordova, in the land of Ishmael, and he produced a composition encompassing the whole Torah, a fine and praiseworthy composition, and he illuminated the eyes of Israel. And he was a master of all knowledge; there was no one like him in these later generations. And many were strengthened in Torah by means of his books that spread in the lands of Christendom and Islam [lit., “the land of Edom and the land of Ishmael”].Footnote 36
R. Moses of Coucy was evidently very impressed by Maimonides the person, his varied accomplishments, and most importantly, by his extraordinary legal work. R. Moses also praises the contribution of Mishneh Torah in spreading Torah among the people of Israel.Footnote 37 Maimonides, however, is not immune to his critique. R. Moses deplored the lack of talmudic sources corroborating the halakhic rulings in Mishneh Torah and the total absence of northern French halakhic contribution. He states the following:
However, this luminary [ga'on] did not cite any proofs in his works, so that any individual who offers halakhic rulings based upon his books and is asked to provide some proof-text or source, if he did not learn the proof for this, or if he had learned it and forgotten it, this matter [Maimonides' decision] will be for him as a dream without a resolution.Footnote 38
Indeed, medieval scholars had discussed this problematic aspect of Maimonides' code.Footnote 39 However, it is the second issue mentioned by R. Moses, and it is unique to a scholar steeped in the French talmudic tradition and writing for a readership raised within the Franco-German legal culture:
Moreover, in several places his interpretations and his halakhic rulings are disputed by the pillars of the Torah and its great men, namely, Rabbenu Solomon b. Isaac [Rashi], and Rabbenu Jacob b. Rabbenu Meir [R. Tam], and Rabbenu Isaac b. Samuel [Ri of Dampierre], from whose waters all the wise men of the latter generations drink.Footnote 40
Following these broad concerns, R. Moses shifts his focus, in a way that may be described as punctilious, to several disagreements between Maimonides and the French sages on the enumeration of specific commandments.Footnote 41 He then describes the exact circumstances, mentioned above, that prompted him to write his own work.Footnote 42
R. Moses' decision to position his work within the context of all previous halakhic compositions, in particular that of Mishneh Torah, reveals that he perceived his Sefer ha-miẓvot as yet another stage in the development of halakhic codes. Furthermore, his focus and critical assessment of Mishneh Torah above all other compositions strongly implies that he viewed his objective as providing a corrective to deficiencies he had found in the Maimonidean Code, while at the same time preserving its positive qualities.
Having examined R. Moses' work and compared it to Mishneh Torah, I believe that Sefer ha-miẓvot was to a large extent a revised version of Maimonides' classic legal code. R. Moses adopted much from Mishneh Torah as far as scope, structure, language, list of commandments, and even a considerable amount of halakhic content. His significant contribution, however, was the inclusion of numerous source citations from the Talmud, as well as most of the halakhic material drawn from the legal traditions of French sages.Footnote 43 There are also some minor revisions in the listing of the commandments based on French teachings.
R. Moses of Coucy did not hide the fact that Mishneh Torah was at his side when he wrote Sefer ha-miẓvot; he cites the author by name more than 250 times in the work. Indeed, one can reasonably say that his reliance on and adoption of many of Mishneh Torah's features went far beyond those specific instances in which he cites Rabbenu Moshe.
The sixteenth-century sage R. Solomon Luria correctly captured the relationship between R. Moses and R. Moses b. Maimon, when R. Luria wrote:
And, presumably, the Semag is not disagreeing with the Rambam—for one who carefully examines the words of the Semag and the Rambam will find that the trunk and root of the Semag [geza ha-Semag]Footnote 44is the Rambam, and its nourishment is from him [ve-yenikato mimeno], except where he cites opposing views, such as those of Rashi or Rabbenu Tam or Ri. However, when [he cites halakhot] anonymously, [he is taking them all from the Rambam] at one stroke—take a look, and you shall find [it thus].Footnote 45
The modeling of the French Tosefist's legal work on the code of Maimonides has led me to consider that R. Moses of Coucy's primary motivation stemmed from his desire to provide his audience, particularly the French and German reader, with a revised and enhanced version of Mishneh Torah, one that had all its virtues without what he considered to be its shortcomings. Despite the fact that R. Moses never explicitly states this purpose, both the body of his work and his introduction speak clearly to this motive.Footnote 46
Support for this hypothesis comes from an individual who was part of R. Moses of Coucy's circle of acquaintances in Paris, one who received permission to copy a section from his work while it was still very much a “work in progress.”Footnote 47 I am referring here to Karshavya (Kreshebya)Footnote 48 ha-Nakdan, or as it was pronounced in French, Cresben (Cresbien) le Ponctateur,Footnote 49 an expert punctuator or “grammarian,” copyist of books, scribe, and religious poet.Footnote 50 To the best of our knowledge, however, he was not an important Talmudist.Footnote 51 In one instance, probably in a gloss appended to R. Moses' Sefer ha-miẓvot, he wrote, “So said Karshavya [or more accurately Kreshebya] ha-Nakdan . . . in the days of R. M. of Coucy and R. Jeḥiel of Paris; I was in the city of Paris in the presence of R. Jeḥiel . . .”Footnote 52 Around 1242–1243, he copied Maimonides' entire Mishneh Torah,Footnote 53 appending two additions related to the Maimonidean code.
The first addition, found in the opening pages of the manuscript, is Karshavya's original poetic composition, summarizing the 613 commandments, in a genre known as ʼAzharot, customarily read on the holiday of Shavuot.Footnote 54 The second addition is a chapter from R. Moses of Coucy's yet-to-be-completed work, which eventually became the Sefer ha-miẓvot. Karshavya placed this excerpt within Mishneh Torah between Chapters 7 and 8 of the laws of Sheluḥim ve-Shutafim (Agents and partners) with the heading, written in capital letters, “PEREK ẒORFATI,”Footnote 55 “[A] French Chapter.” He then continues in normal lettering size, “written by the Rav R. Moses b. Jacob from Coucy who argues on the sixth chapter, according to the tradition of the French Sages.” This chapter appears, with minor variations, in R. Moses' Sefer ha-miẓvot, at positive commandment 82. It would seem that the characterization of R. Moses' chapter as a “French Chapter” that disagrees with Maimonides, based on French halakhic tradition, was not Karshavya's own but was rather conveyed to him by the author, R. Moses, who was busily writing his work at precisely this time.
Moreover, Karshavya's reference to R. Moses' work as “PerekẒorfati written by the Rav R. Moses b. Jacob from Coucy,” and after the citation as “the end of the chapter [salik pirka] written by the Rav R. Moses b. Jacob from the city of Coucy . . .” indicates that at this stage of his composition, R. Moses had not yet decided to present his work as a book of commandments. It is likely that at this initial stage the book was loosely structured as chapters, perakim, that ran parallel to the perakim of the Mishneh Torah. Had R. Moses' book already been organized as a sefer ha-miẓvot, a book of commandments, one would have expected Karshavya to have at least alluded to its format as such. In short, the evidence from Karshavya's Mishneh Torah reinforces the hypothesis that R. Moses' primary purpose in writing his book was to present an alternative French version of Mishneh Torah to the reading public.Footnote 56
If I am correct in this characterization of R. Moses' program, it becomes essential to explain his decision to abandon the Maimonidean model of an integrated legal code and to replace it with the format of a two-part book of commandments.Footnote 57 Such an innovation could only have appeared as artificial, and less user-friendly, to readers familiar with Mishneh Torah. What, then, possessed R. Moses to destroy a beautiful edifice and replace it with one far less pleasing and even more then a tad unwieldy?Footnote 58 To understand his decision to shape his halakhic work as a two-part book of commandments, it is worth considering its revolutionary nature within its French context.
The Revolutionary Nature of R. Moses of Coucy's Books
French talmudic legal culture at the time was primarily a scholastic venture of the study hall. Eleventh- and twelfth-century scholars focused their attention on writing commentaries on the Talmud and did not devote much attention to the composition of practical legal works.Footnote 59 This is not to say that the Tosefists, or Rashi for that matter, were oblivious to the practical side of lived religious life; rather, they felt that the needs of the students and scholars in the bet midrash were of primary importance.Footnote 60 During the Middle Ages, the French became famous throughout the Diaspora as commentators and interpreters of the Bible and Talmud.
When R. Moses contemplated writing a book on halakhah, only two possible works from within the French orbit could have been considered as precedents for his undertaking. Neither was a particularly fine model. I am referring here to the early thirteenth-century Sefer ha-terumah, by R. Barukh b. Isaac, a student of the famed Tosefist R. Isaac of Dampierre, and the earlier Sefer ha-yereʼim from the late twelfth century by R. Eliezer of Metz, a student of R. Tam, the founder of the French Tosefist movement. Beginning with the later work, I will briefly describe both in order to demonstrate their incompatibility with R. Moses' goals and needs. I will then go back in time to the Yereʼim, which is the more relevant precedent for R. Moses, at least with regard to the format and structure of the book he ultimately chose to write.Footnote 61
Sefer ha-terumah was a legal summary of practical halakhah. It emerged from the study hall of R. Isaac of Dampierre.Footnote 62 From the Tosefist commentarial enterprise, R. Barukh gleaned those elements with halakhic relevance and put them into book form. He dealt with topics limited to certain areas, beginning with the laws of ritual slaughter and proceeding to those relating to menstruation, divorce, idolatry, and various other areas of halakhah. He concludes with the laws of the Sabbath.Footnote 63 The work was by no means an all-encompassing code, and the author does not seem to have attempted to devise a coherent structure.Footnote 64
The body of the work reads like a Tosefot on the Talmud, with lengthy intricate dialectic, albeit with a clear practical orientation. In addition, it is worth noting that the internal order of each section of laws basically follows the order of the corresponding tractate of the Talmud and related Tosefot. In short, Sefer ha-terumah was not exactly a work of practical halakhah but rather a collection of scholarly Tosefot on the Talmud, with practical ramifications limited to specific topics. The work was a natural extension of the Tosefist movement, bringing to its practitioners and to a wider learned audience, within France and beyond, the practical implications of the Tosefist approach to the Talmud.
The nature of the earlier Sefer ha-yereʼim differed from that of the Terumah.Footnote 65 According to the author's introduction to the work, his was a book of commandments whose purpose was to inculcate Talmud students with a reverence for God, commandments, and laws. According to R. Eliezer, a Jew could enhance personal awareness of God's presence in his daily life by being attentive to God's commandments and knowing their biblical and rabbinic sources. He writes:
My thoughts and ponderings leave me in distress, when I see those students of Torah (lit., “the Torah poor”; ʻaniye torah) toiling in the field of dialectics (lit., pilpul ha-kushiyot) of the talmudic discussion, while failing to internalize the source of the commandments, what the Creator has commanded. How can they carry out His ordinances and His laws? Their fear is by rote, as they do not place the fear of the Rock before themselves. [Consequently], the commandments with which they are familiar are observed, and those with which they are not will be forgotten. Thus, the receptacle [i.e., the soul] will be filled by the whims of the heart [lit., “that of his heart”] and not for the sake of God. Footnote 66
R. Eliezer felt the need to sensitize the student toward an awareness and fear of the Lord, in order to balance out the very strong emphasis on intellectual study practiced in the Tosefists' schools.
Despite this clear religious agenda, an analysis of the work reveals that in actuality, Yereʼim was comprised of three distinct elements:
1. A list of commandments, miẓvot, with their biblical and talmudic sources, as enumerated in the classical list by the ninth-century Babylonian sage, R. Simon Kayara, author of Halakhot gedolot, and accompanied at times with the rationale for the respective commandments;
2. Scholarly Tosefist dialectical interpretations of selected miẓvot; andFootnote 67
3. Lengthy practical halakhic treatments of specific miẓvot.Footnote 68
It would seem that as a Tosefist writing for fellow students of the Talmud, R. Eliezer could not write a work with a sole focus on detailing the commandments and their sources without occasionally adding some advanced talmudic dialectics and practical halakhah. The purpose of the work was to enhance awareness of God through knowledge of the biblical commandments. It was not meant to be a practical legal code with the goal of codifying halakhah and instructing readers on how to lead their lives (as was Mishneh Torah), nor was it a collection of Tosefist teachings and rulings such as Sefer ha-terumah.
It is worth noting the complex structure of the work. It is divided into seven pillars:
1. Prohibited sexual unions;
2. Commandments relating to eating;
3. Commandments relating to prohibited benefit;
4. Monetary prohibitions that are the result of taking or withholding money;
5. Wrongs to God and human beings (and positive commandments) that do not involve financial benefit;
6. Acts related to speech that offend God but cause no harm to human beings; and
7. Acts unrelated to speech that offend God but cause no harm to human beings.
A glance at these categories alone indicates the difficulty in using R. Eliezer as a model for a practical halakhic guide. Such a structure, including its additional subdivision that could at times total eight subcategories,Footnote 69 could not facilitate straightforward systematic study of the law.
To demonstrate the problematic nature of Yereʼim's structure, I now will list, according to the order of the book, its placement of the various commandments relating to Passover. The first commandment is the prohibition of eating hameẓ and is found at siman 52. This location is within the second pillar of the work, devoted to commandments relating to eating and within the subcategory of prohibition whose punishment is excommunication. The second and third commandments are the positive commandment of eating maẓa, at siman 91, and of eating maror, at siman 93. The placement of these two commandments is also within the “eating” commandments; they appear, however in the subcategory of positive commandments, thus the distance between the prohibition of hameẓ and the commandment of maẓa and maror. The fourth commandment concerns the prohibition against benefit from hameẓ and is found at siman 103. The location of this commandment is in the third pillar, devoted to commandments relating to forbidden benefit. The prohibition of owning hameẓ is at siman 301 and 302; the commandment to observe all laws of Passover the entire seven days is at siman 416; and burning the hameẓ is at siman 437. Each of these three topics appears in the seventh pillar, devoted to acts unrelated to speech that offend the Lord. They are, however, in different subcategories: the first in negative prohibitions and the next two in positive.Footnote 70
Based on the structure and content of the work, it seems obvious that the character of the Yere ʼim is not of an organized halakhic work but rather of a sophisticated sefer ha-miẓvot—book of commandments. As noted, the author may have included within this work a considerable amount of halakhic material and Tosefist dialectics; however, the nature of the text is of a book of commandments, with the goal of educating students of the bet midrash.
To summarize, we can reasonably say that northern France, in contrast to Spain, lacked a strong tradition of writing legal works. Before R. Moses of Coucy, no one there had written a well-structured book of laws, independent of the Talmud, and it would be hard to imagine that anyone in France prior to R. Moses had contemplated summarizing the entire Oral Law. After Maimonides completed his project, however, at least one Frenchman was prompted to emulate him. The impressive scope of Mishneh Torah, together with its structure and form, captured the heart and mind of R. Moses.Footnote 71
R. Moses of Coucy's Heavenly Vision and the Format of His Book
Sometime before implementing his ambitious plan, and while the draft of his work on halakhah may yet have been loosely structured as Perakim Ẓorfatiyim (French chapters), parallel to Mishneh Torah, R. Moses understandably hesitated, saying, “and I was afraid to do so, to compose a Torah scroll for the many [sefer torah le-rabim].”Footnote 72 He was clearly aware of the novelty of this new literary genre. The lack of tradition and true precedent for such a legal work—a summary of the oral law—from within the glorious French school of Talmud study could deter even one of the more adventurous spirits of the Tosefist movement.Footnote 73 In addition, one has at least to consider that at the time, Maimonides was a somewhat controversial figure because of his philosophic writingsFootnote 74 and because of his claim, in the introduction to Mishneh Torah, that there was no need for any other works besides the Bible and his legal code.Footnote 75 R. Moses may not have wanted to be perceived as too much of a follower of the Spanish sage or as a scholar interested in writing a work that would replace the Talmud and its study.
I believe that it was at this juncture that a heavenly vision, so to speak, intervened and showed R. Moses the way out of his quandary:
And at the beginning of the sixth millennium, a dream vision appeared to me: “Arise and make a Torah scroll [sefer torah] of two parts.” And I contemplated [the meaning of] the vision, and beheld the two parts meant to write a book containing the positive commandments in one part, and a book containing the negative commandments in a second part. And, therefore, I, Moses son of Jacob, have given my attention to composing two books. . . .Footnote 76
The message of the heavenly vision was cryptic, as medieval visions of these sorts usually were, and required interpretation.Footnote 77 After giving it much thought, R. Moses understood the vision's content to be a directive telling him how to introduce his work to a Franco-German audience. He understood that he had to take the Mishneh Torah model and transform it into a book of commandments, as such a work had good precedent in the composition of R. Eliezer of Metz. He would not completely abandon, however, the Maimonidean structure for that of Yereʼim, for that would defeat his entire purpose of producing a properly organized legal code. Rather, he would modify the format of Mishneh Torah by converting it into two separate books, one containing laws related to the positive commandments and the second related to the negative commandments.Footnote 78 This editorial choice regarding the presentation of halakhic material would enable him to introduce his work within the French tradition, following in the footsteps of R. Eliezer of Metz.Footnote 79
The heavenly vision may have given R. Moses the idea, but the hard work of its implementation was left for him to complete. He had to learn to rearrange the legal content of Mishneh Torah into its positive and negative components and reconstruct it into two separate books that mirrored each other. He did, however, have the generous assistance of the “Great Eagle” himself. Maimonides, in his preface to Mishneh Torah, not only copied the list of positive and negative commandments from his own book of commandments but also appended a separate listing according to the order of Mishneh Torah. This second list was so central to Maimonides' legal thought that he copied it twice more in his work. At the beginning of each of the fourteen books (e.g., Book 2, ʼAhava; or Book 3, Zemanim), he copied the list of miẓvot relevant to that book. Then at the beginning of each collection of Halakhot (e.g., “laws of Tefilla,” “laws of Shabbat”) he included the list of miẓvot relevant to that collection.Footnote 80
This repeated listing of the miẓvot has led Moshe Halbertal to conclude that the commandments served as subtitles for the various books of the Maimonidean legal code.Footnote 81 It is likely that R. Moses made good use of the list according to the order of Mishneh Torah as he went about structuring his own book.Footnote 82 In fact, one could argue, along Halbertal's suggestion, that R. Moses of Coucy's most basic structural modification of Mishneh Torah was his decision to elevate Maimonides' “subtitle” to the status of “title.”Footnote 83 It was this slight adjustment in Mishneh Torah's structure that allowed R. Moses to introduce his work as an authentic expression of traditional Tosefist scholarship.
The Reception of Mishneh Torah in Thirteenth-Century Europe
To understand R. Moses' mindset as he wrote his work, as well as to define his potential target audience, we will examine the reception of Mishneh Torah in Christian Europe in the first half of the thirteenth century, particularly in the area known as Ashkenaz.Footnote 84
Until the late thirteenth century, there is no evidence that the Tosefists of France and Germany, with the exception of R. Moses of Coucy and R. Isaac ʼOr Zaruʻa of Vienna, engaged with Maimonides' work. Mishneh Torah is not mentioned more than three times in the printed Tosefot on the Talmud. Moreover, explicit references to Mishneh Torah are few even in the practical halakhic work of R. Isaac of Corbeil, Semak, accompanied with the glosses of R. Pereẓ.Footnote 85 It was only late in the century, and mainly in the study hall of R. Meir of Rothenburg, that one can note a serious and sustained engagement with the work.Footnote 86
Once we leave the rarefied air of the Tosefists' study halls and the talmudic scholars studying there, and examine other types of readers, I would tentatively suggest that a somewhat different picture emerges. Not all educated Germans and Frenchmen were Tosefists. Then, as today, in addition to basic talent and determination, talmudic dialectics demanded a certain cast of mind.Footnote 87 There were talented individuals who had studied Talmud and Tosefot and even knew their content, but who chose to focus attention on varied areas of Jewish religious culture, such as religious poetry (piyyut), exegesis of piyyut and/or Bible and religious-ethical thought, Christian–Jewish polemics, and more.Footnote 88 I would think that many of these educated individuals remained conversant in Talmud study, to varying degrees, without it being their main preoccupation.
For such a readership, whether learned or less learned, a work like Mishneh Torah would have been a very welcome addition to a library. The usefulness of a well-structured summary of the Oral Law composed in accessible mishnaic Hebrew should have appealed to those who were not full-time Talmudists. A well-organized abridgment of the Talmud would have been of interest to French and German readers, even if they had no intention of basing their religious practice on Maimonides' legal opinions. The primary motivation for studying Mishneh Torah was to broaden one's talmudic knowledge without the difficulties of engaging in intensive and time-consuming study of the Talmud.
Although the manuscript evidence for circulation of the work during the thirteenth century is ambiguous at best,Footnote 89 three independent literary sources from the first half of the thirteenth century imply that shortly after it reached France and Germany, Mishneh Torah aroused interest among various types of readers within Ashkenazi society.Footnote 90 The earliest dated piece of evidence is from Bohemia, in R. Abraham b. Azriel's commentary to religious poetry, ʻArugat ha-Bosem. R. Abraham, a learned student of R. Elazar of Worms, completed his extensive commentary around 1234 and cites from Mishneh Torah both in areas of Jewish thought and of halakhah. Using E. E. Urbach's source index from Volume 4 of his edition,Footnote 91 we find R. Abraham referring explicitly to positions of R. Moshe b. Maimon from the sections “Principles of the Torah” (Yesode ha-Torah), “Repentance” (Teshuva), “Reciting Shema” (Keriat Shema), Tefillin, Ẓiẓit, “Blessings” (Berakhot), “Circumcision” (Mila), Shabbat, “Festivals” (Yom-Tov), Lulav, and “Sanctification of the New Moon” (Kidush ha-ḥodesh)Footnote 92 —altogether some fifty quotations.Footnote 93 I believe that such unaffected use of Mishneh Torah, or certain sections of the work, close to the time of its appearance in northern Europe, indicates its appeal to a certain kind of religious intellectual. R. Abraham, a talmudic scholar who had an impressive library at his disposal, was familiar with the ḥibbur of the Spanish sage, or parts of it, and used it in the specific areas of his interest.Footnote 94
Moreover, at around the same time in the area of Paris, lived the copyist, grammarian, and religious poet Karshavya (Kreshbeya), whom we met earlier, who not only copied the entire Mishneh Torah but also composed his own version of ʼAzharot, the religious poem traditionally read in synagogue on Shavuot. The poem, which he titled ʼAzharot Maimoniyot, summarizes the commandments and is based on Maimonides' Mishneh Torah. Apart from Karshavya's use of Maimonides' work, his words of praise for the work of the “great eagle,” written not later than 1242–1243, can teach us much about the enthusiasm that the work evoked among certain circles. He writes:
I examine this matter—the structure, the numbering of the miẓvot, and the reasoning, which Moses [Maimonides] included in his book of laws, the Yad ha-Ḥazaka. He never tired, and never let his eyes close, but rather kept his tongue constantly sharp, [discussing] the words of the first Moses, which are written in the book [of the Torah]. . . . I begin to feel a strong yearning for thee, like a burning-fire, a fire-offering upon its sacrificial pyre; [I am roped] up by the flame, and fettered by love. And I say: “Oh now, let me come to thee—for the glory of the Lord hath shined upon thee, and brought forth blossoms and glorious flowers.”
And the spirit of the Lord passes over me, and sparkles within me, for my heart becomes warm with feelings of flaming love for these two men, each prominent in his generation, more beloved than gold, the two Hebrews from the Land of Egypt, but quite removed from the arrogance [of that land]—the first Moses and the second; one the [adoptive] son of Bithiah [daughter of Pharaoh], and one his [spiritual descendant]. The house of [the latter] is all clothed in crimson, and his storehouse [of knowledge] is filled to the ceiling, and his spirit is enwrapped in the mantle of Shin‘ar. Footnote 95He sits at the gate, and his name is Taḥkemoni [full of wisdom], the prince, my master, who comes from Mt. Sinai.
And I, from the midst of the fire of love, call out, [in] the blaze. And as the flame ascends, I am desirous of his golden language, and of his mantle of glory and splendor. Oh, would that I could even be the capital of a pillar in the structure which he built about the miẓvot; I could then fight its battles, in its gates! I desire his works, and take them, to kiss them, [for they are supplies]Footnote 96of sustenance and food. And whenever my desire burns strong, in my home, the laws and Torah [of Maimonides] are pleasant song for me.Footnote 97
Karshavya describes Maimonides as one who has “brought forth blossoms and glorious flowers,” actually comparing him to the biblical Moses, writing of him as one who “sits at the gate, and his name is Taḥkemoni, the prince, my master.” He alludes to the unique qualities of Mishneh Torah—its language and structure—writing, “I am desirous of his golden language, and of his mantle of glory and splendor.” He ends his paean of praise, declaring his appreciation for the entire work by stating, “I desire his works, of sustenance and food and take them, to kiss them. . . . And whenever my desire burns strong, in my home, the laws and Torah [of Maimonides] are pleasant song for me.”
These lines eloquently describe the work's uniqueness and attraction for a certain type of reader. Moreover, in the paragraph that follows, Karshavya criticizes earlier French authors of ʼAzharot for not attempting to properly organize the miẓvot. He feels that the earlier poets subjugated rational order to the rhyme scheme, creating groups of miẓvot that lack internal order—thus his wish to correct this basic flaw by writing ʼAzharot using Maimonides' list of miẓvot organized according to the order of Mishneh Torah.Footnote 98
The final source is undated, and there are questions regarding its exact provenance. Nevertheless, its use of Mishneh Torah is most telling. The book is titled Sefer ḥasidut, and the earliest surviving dated manuscript of the work is from 1299.Footnote 99 This work has recently been analyzed at length by Haym Soloveitchik,Footnote 100 who suggests that it may have been written earlier than 1220.Footnote 101 Even if we were to assume a more conservative estimate, it would still have had to be written no later than 1230.Footnote 102 The second unresolved question relates to its place of origin. As Soloveitchik and others have noted, there are strong indications, based on French glosses found in the work, that it was written in northern France. The book, however, was clearly influenced by Sefer ḥasidim of the German pietists, and may have been composed in the Rhineland area of Germany, where French was still in use.Footnote 103 Nevertheless, even if the work originated in Germany, we know that it reached study halls in France at the latest around 1220–1230. For our purposes, it is important to note that this Franco-German work of Jewish pietism relied on the formulations of Mishneh Torah. As Soloveitchik teaches us, Maimonides' treatment of repentance, prayer, and proper conduct (“the Golden Path”) take central stage in Sefer ḥasidut, replacing the unique doctrines of the German pietists and of Sefer ḥasidim on these issues.Footnote 104 The early thirteenth-century Ashkenazi authors of Sefer ḥasidut clearly had access to Mishneh Torah and used it in revising and modifying Sefer ḥasidim.
We have seen three different works of Franco-German religious culture, known as Ashkenaz: a commentary to liturgical poetry, a liturgical poem, and a work of pietism, all composed in the first half of the thirteenth century circa 1215 and 1242. The cumulative effect of these sources may indicate that beyond the walls of the Tosefists' study halls, Mishneh Torah was beginning to circulate and make its mark. Once we add the names of R. Moses of Coucy and R. Isaac ʼOr Zaruʻa to the list of early readers of Mishneh Torah, it would seem that although Maimonides' work was not seriously engaged within the Ashkenazi study halls until the late thirteenth century, there is a good possibility that it had begun to gain a readership much earlier on.Footnote 105 In addition, it is possible that interest in Mishneh Torah was not limited to creative individuals, but included learned laypeople of the various Ashkenazi lands. Admittedly such a claim would not be easy to substantiate for the thirteenth century. It would necessitate an in-depth study of the twenty-four surviving manuscriptsFootnote 106 copied in Ashkenazi script from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, in particular those that do not contain the glosses of R. Meir ha-Kohen.Footnote 107
Based on this evidence, I would recommend examining R. Moses of Coucy's introduction, cited earlier, that in my opinion has been somewhat overlooked in the scholarly discussion relating to the spread of Mishneh Torah in thirteenth-century France and Germany.Footnote 108 Regarding Maimonides, R. Moses writes:
And he was a master of all knowledge; there was no one like him in these later generations. And many were strengthened in Torah by means of his books that spread in the lands of Christendom and Islam.Footnote 109
In this passage, R. Moses refers to Maimonides' code as having circulated in countries of Christian Europe, a testimony that probably included the area he knew most intimately, northern France and Germany.Footnote 110 While one may argue that in these lines he was referring only to certain Jewish communities of Christian Europe, such as Christian Spain, southern France, and possibly Italy with the exclusion of France and Germany,Footnote 111 there is no indication of such a distinction from his words. I would argue that the evidence cited above supports taking R. Moses' report at face value.Footnote 112 It is possible that already at this time at least some people in Ashkenaz “were strengthened in Torah” by Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, even if the work was not accepted by the rabbinic elite as authoritative or seriously studied in the bate midrash.
I would then suggest that what prompted R. Moses of Coucy to write his “French” version of Mishneh Torah was his desire to counter the spread of Maimonides' Mishneh Torah not only in Spain and southern France, but also in France and Germany. Although R. Moses recognized and genuinely appreciated Maimonides' “fine and praiseworthy composition” that “illuminated the eyes of Israel,” he could not endorse it, essentially because the work did not take into account northern French legal teachings.Footnote 113 Even if in his time Mishneh Torah was not yet widespread and influential, he may have feared that had he not offered an alternative, the code of the Spanish sage would eventually circulate widely and become accepted as the authoritative guide in France and Germany, affecting actual halakhic practice there.Footnote 114
With this in mind, it is revealing that R. Moses chose to formulate his critique of Mishneh Torah from the perspective of an “individual who offers halakhic rulings based upon his [i.e., Maimonides'] books.”Footnote 115 According to R. Moses, such a reader would probably fail in his task since he would be unable to substantiate his ruling with the proper prooftext from the Talmud, and because his decision would not correspond with French legal tradition. This point of view, of an average scholar deciding the law, can be contrasted with the earlier critique of both R. Abraham b. David (Rabad) of Posquières (end of the twelfth century) and R. Samson of Sens (beginning of the thirteenth) who portrayed the weaknesses of the work from the perspective of an established legal scholar, but not one who would entertain deciding the law according to Mishneh Torah.Footnote 116
In short, although the readership of Mishneh Torah in France and Germany around the middle of the thirteenth century may still have been limited, the potential for the work's spread was real, especially among reading communities not attached to the Tosefist's bate midrash. This was because of the inherent qualities of the work, as described by Karshavya and R. Moses himself. It was this vision of the masterful and accessible Maimonidean code slowly penetrating the Jewish communities of Christian Europe, including Ẓorfat and Ashkenaz, that is reflected in R. Moses' critique of Mishneh Torah,Footnote 117 and it motivated him to devote his days to composing his own French version of the work.
One can learn about the primacy of the French audience for R. Moses by paying close attention to his comment made in the context of partnership laws. The passage appears not only in his Sefer ha-miẓvot (positive commandment 82) but also in his Perek Ẓorfati, appended by Karshavya to his copy of Mishneh Torah. This “French Chapter,” as noted above, reflects an earlier stage in the formulation R. Moses' work. A comparison of R. Moses' comments as they appear in these two sources allows us entrée into R. Moses' thoughts at the very time he was pondering the purpose and program of his work.
After summarizing many of the laws relating to partnership, R. Moses comments on the centrality of the work Sha‘are shvuʻot that he attributes to the eleventh-century Spanish sage R. Isaac Alfasi,Footnote 118 in his treatment of the topic. He writes at first, “All [the laws] that we determined [kol mah she-pasaknu] in the laws of partnershipFootnote 119 are according to Rav Alfasi's rulings in his Shearim and the way they emerge from the words of R. Shlomo [i.e., Rashi], as we have explained.” He then adds that at least in one instance he cannot accept R. Alfasi's decisions because his understanding goes against that of the French sages. Thus he writes in his Perek Ẓorfati:
For Rav Alfas diverted only slightly from the words of the Tann'aim according to the interpretation propounded by Rava in the chapter Ezehu Neshekh. And in this deviation he is disputed by Rabbenu Shlomo [Rashi] and Rabbenu Yaakov [R. Tam] and Rabbenu Yishak [Ri], of whom all the sons of France drink from their waters and accept their decisions [she-kol bene ẓorfat shotim memehem ve-tofsim ikar divrehem].Footnote 120
R. Moses, as I have argued, when writing his Perek Ẓorfati, wrote with a local French audience in mind; hence, he notes that R. Alfasi's interpretation goes against the accepted interpretation of the French scholars, whose authority was acknowledged by all Jews in France.
When R. Moses, however, inserted the above passage into his Sefer ha-miẓvot at positive commandment 82, he made a seemingly minor change in the wording that may be of telling significance. Instead of writing about the sons of Ẓorfat accepting the authority of Rashi and the Tosefot, he substituted “she-kol yisraʼel shotim memehem ve-tofsim ikar . . .”Footnote 121—that all of Israel drink from their waters and accept their words as law.Footnote 122 This minor revision may indicate that some time after writing his perakim and completing his book of commandments R. Moses began to contemplate the possibility that his work could appeal to readers far beyond his vicinity. Hence the change from bene ẓorfat (sons of France) to kol yisraʼel (all of Israel), a change echoed in his introduction to the negative commandments.Footnote 123
R. Moses may have wished that his work would be acknowledged as an improvement on the earlier Mishneh Torah and adopted by Jews all over. Realistically, however, his primary reading audience was destined to remain French, and possibly German, Jews to whose sense of pride for their indigenous legal traditions he could appeal.Footnote 124
Conclusion
In this study we have analyzed R. Moses of Coucy's program and purpose in writing his Sefer ha-miẓvot. Although it would seem that the initial impetus for his project came during his preaching mission outside of France and to answer the requests he received, once he started to write, he wrote as a Frenchman, more concerned with the short- and long-term fate of the Tosefist's legal traditions.
R. Moses' work was to serve as an alternative to Mishneh Torah, incorporating many of its unique features, such as scope, structure, language, and even a fair amount of its legal content. At the same time, his Sefer ha-miẓvot diverged from its model in a number of crucial areas, notably in its overall structure. Wishing to remain grounded within French tradition, R. Moses decided to convert the Maimonidean format of an integrated legal code to that of a book of commandments, a format with good French precedent, as in the work of R. Eliezer of Metz's Yereʼim. He accomplished this by dividing Mishneh Torah into two parts, according to its most basic building blocks, the positive and negative commandments.Footnote 125 Two other areas differentiated R. Moses' work from that of Maimonides—the centrality of French legal traditions, mainly of the Tosefists, and the inclusion of talmudic sources for each of the laws.
A close reading of both introductions (negative and positive commandments) indicates that R. Moses had two main reading audiences in mind when he wrote his book. The first consisted of students of Talmud and mature talmudic scholars, whose free time was almost solely devoted to Talmud study. For this reader he offered a Mishneh Torah-type book that would serve as a supplementary aid to the Talmud, as an instrument to assist both scholar and student alike in fulfilling the all-encompassing religious obligation of Talmud Torah, Torah study. The second group consisted of readers who were not full-time Talmud scholars, and included the learned layperson. For this reader he offered a work that would serve as an alternative for the Maimonidean code, Mishneh Torah, whose work was spreading throughout the Jewish communities of Christian Europe.
In the final analysis, R. Moses may have entertained hopes that his work would spread throughout Christian Europe, but even he realized that his true readership remained quite close to home. His most basic wish was to transform Maimonides' grand idea into an idiom that was not only understandable but also acceptable to all the different reading audiences of France and Germany: students of talmudic law, religious intelligentsia, and learned laypeople.Footnote 126
