Every single line of the Talmud was analyzed acutely and
tested, sometimes by uncovering contradictions between it
and other statements in the sources, and sometimes by draw-
ing from it the most extreme inferences and conclusions pos-
sible. Precisely because they perceived the Talmud to be the
eternal source of halakhic decision, the tosafists considered
it incumbent upon them to compare, to question, and to
solve contradictions between the cases in the contradictory
sources by formulating “distinctions” (h:illuqim). In this
manner they hoped to advance the determination of the
halakhah by supplementing what was already explicit in the
Talmud.
The efforts of the tosafists were directed toward the veri-
fication of the accurate text of the Talmud. Rabbenu Tam
condemned those who emended texts in order to remove dif-
ficulties and problems, and he and his disciples developed a
whole methodology for textual criticism. The principles and
explanations they elaborated to explain the development of
defective texts anticipated modern philology.
In their work supplementing the commentary of Rashi
and expanding its bounds, the tosafists had at their disposal
a number of additional sources, such as the commentaries of
H:ananDel ben H:ushiDel and the Talmudic dictionary, Sefer
ha-Earukh, of Natan ben Yeh:iDel, an eleventh-century rabbi.
They relied primarily on their broad knowledge of the classi-
cal sources, however, including not only the Babylonian Tal-
mud but also the Tosefta, the halakhic and aggadic midrash-
im, and the Palestinian Talmud (Jerusalem Talmud). While
using these works the tosafists also contributed toward the
establishment of their correct versions and toward a better
understanding of their contents. Nevertheless, the tosafists’
main aim remained the clarification of every sugyah of the
Babylonian Talmud from all possible angles, including the
testing of the logical arguments, distinctions, and classifica-
tions that they posited and the marshaling of support for
their conclusions. All this activity was directed toward the at-
tempt to see every subject and problem in its widest context.
Every dictum of the tosafot demonstrates the extent to which
the tosafists had assimilated the way of learning embodied
in the Babylonian Talmud; they studied until they were will-
ing and able to comment on what is the “way of the sugyah”
and what is the “method of the Talmud.” Taken together,
the principles governing their study constitute a complete
methodology. Their formulations describe the use of the
“rules for expounding scripture”; the relationship between
the Talmud and baraitot (teachings of the tannaim that were
not included in the Mishnah); the proper identification of
tannaim and amoraim; the proper definition of the terms of
the sugyah; the order of the Mishnah; and the editing of the
Talmud. In this aspect of their endeavor, also, several of the
tosafists’ conclusions anticipated modern research.
THE METHOD OF TOSAFOT IN DECIDING HALAKHAH. The
tosafists did not ignore the normative aim of the Talmudic
discussions. Although their comments generally do not ex-
plicitly contain halakhic summaries or decisions, the clarifi-
cation of the various strains of Talmudic thought neverthe-
less essentially contributed to the formation of the halakhah.
This fact justifies the work of the author of Pisqei tosafot (The
decisions of tosafot)—whether he was Rabbenu Asher or his
son YaEaqov—who abstracted the halakhic decision from
each dictum of tosafot. Indeed, the later rabbinic authorities
(decisors) learned much practical halakhah from the tosafot.
While the tosafists used the books and responsa of the
geonim and the halakhic codices of the decisors, such as Rif
(Rabbi Yitsh:aq Alfasi), the Talmud remained for them the
primary source, and they evaluated the decisions of the
geonim and the decisors in its light. Rabbenu Asher ex-
plained: “Who is as great in our estimation as Rashi, may the
memory of the righteous be a blessing, who enlightened the
entire Diaspora with his commentary? Nevertheless his de-
scendants Rabbenu Tam and Riy, may their memories be a
blessing, disagreed with him in many instances and refuted
his positions, for the Torah is known as ‘the torah of truth,’
so we do not allow flattery of anyone” (commentary to San.
4.6). Likewise he wrote elsewhere, “[We do not flatter the
geonim] for respecting any subject not explicitly dealt with
in the Talmud which Rav Ashi and RavinaD edited, anyone
can rise and build up [arguments], even if he opposes the
conclusions of the geonim” (Responsa 54.10).The tosafists’ method of study provided them with pow-
erful tools to harmonize, circumvent, and redefine, but nev-
ertheless their contemporary reality, with all its conflicting
claims and conditions, sometimes asserted itself as a chal-
lenge to their methods. The tosafists had to take account of
“everyday occurrences” and justify “generally accepted cus-
tom.” Thus, just as they found means to abrogate laws and
customs well supported in the sources, they likewise man-
aged to include within the system of halakhah late develop-
ments that were without a basis in the sources. To a certain
extent, the willingness to venture bold new explanations was
a function of the differing personalities of the tosafists, who
differed from one another in their personal inclinations and
in their spiritual characteristics. However, they were united
in their intention to continue the formulation and further
the organic development of the Talmudic project as a way
of life.
THE TOSAFISTS AND THE GLOSSARISTS. Several scholars
have noted the similarity between the method of the Scholas-
tics and that of the tosafists. Some of these scholars speak in
terms of influence, but the spiritual meeting ground between
Christians and Jews took place in biblical exegesis; there is
no hint of direct contact in the fields of law and halakhah.
The tosafot were not known to the glossarists, nor were the
tosafists familiar with the works of the Roman and canonical
legal scholars. Nevertheless, comparison of the tosafot and the
glosses shows similarities both in the way they came into
being and in details of terminology and presentation. Both
presume that contradictions in the sources could and must
be resolved, whether by distinguishing the cases from one an-
other or by clarifying differences in the time, place, and social9246 TOSAFOT [FIRST EDITION]