position of the various personalities. The way in which the
tosafot spread and the way in which they were studied also
parallel the success of the activities of the glossarists of both
Roman and canon law. Despite the differences between the
political and social contexts of the Jewish and Christian com-
munities, which lived in a constant, unequal struggle with
one another, their assumptions and aspirations were similar.
Both communities acknowledged the authority of the Bible
and considered themselves commanded to draw from it in-
struction for their day-to-day existence. Thus both commu-
nities greatly esteemed the intellectual ability, sharp-
wittedness, and breadth of knowledge that made it possible
to solve contradictions and deal with social change in the
context of the tradition.
THE INFLUENCE OF THE TOSAFOT. Tosafot came to occupy
a central role in the system of study and education of the
Jews. It is true that Yehudah Löw ben BetsalDel (known as
Maharal of Prague) bitterly decried the teaching of tosafot to
children, but only few paid any attention to his objections,
and until the modern period the traditional schoolbook re-
mained gemaraD, the commentary of Rashi, and tosafot. In the
more advanced stages of education the tosafot were learned
not only in relationship to the Talmud but also as indepen-
dent sources whose own internal contradictions required res-
olution. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the circles
of YisraDel Isserlein, YaEaqov Molin, Yosef Qolon, and
Yitsh:aq Stein in Germany devoted much energy to deriving
positions implied by tosafot. The tosafot stood in the center
of the course of study of the Polish and the Turkish scholars.
In Vlorë, Albania, scholars of the sixteenth century debated
about the tosafot, which they called “the short profundities
of Touques.” In the contract of Italian rabbis, the rabbi “ac-
cept[ed] upon himself the obligation to come to the syna-
gogue and teach the tosafot for an hour or more before the
afternoon prayer.”
Suspicion of casuistry and excessive exhibition of sharp-
wittedness were concerns already of the first tosafists. Rab-
benu Tam, who understood the power and possibilities of
casuistry as few others did, decried “casuists” who find “bun-
dles and bundles” of answers to every question. In similar
fashion, Mosheh al-Ashqar (1462–1542) declared himself
against “those who scrutinize the words of the tosafot and say
senseless things about the redundancies in their language”
(Responsa 29–30). The influence of the methodology of tosa-
fot far exceeded the tendency toward dialectics that arose in
their study. This influence is clear in the works of the deci-
sors, in the responsa, and in the works of novellae of inter-
preters trying to get at the simple sense of the text, as well
as in various aspects of modern Talmudic research.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Research on the tosafot first concentrated on biography and bibli-
ography. Leopold Zunz edited a list of tosafists and sages
mentioned in tosafot that appears in his book Zur Geschichte
und Literatur (Berlin, 1845), in which he refers to the manu-
script of the important book by Heimann J. Michael, Or
ha-h:ayyim (Frankfurt, 1891). Isaac H. Weiss discussed the
activities of the tosafists in Dor dor ve-dorshav, vol. 4 (Vien-
na, 1887); he also wrote a monograph on Rabbenu Tam that
appeared in Beit Talmud, 3 (1883). Heinrich Gross gathered
important information about the French tosafists in his book
Gallia Judaica (Amsterdam, 1897). Abraham Epstein’s criti-
cism of the book, printed in the Monatsschrift für Geschichte
und Wissenschaft des Judenthums (MGWJ) 41 (1897): 464–
480, is especially valuable. A similar work, dealing with the
German sages, is Germania Judaica, published in two parts,
edited by Marcus Brann et al. (Frankfurt, 1917–1934). Vic-
tor Aptowitzer devotes a long chapter to this subject in his
MavoD le-sefer ha-RaDvyah (Jerusalem, 1938). The principles
of the Talmud described in tosafot were collected by P. Buch-
holtz in his article “Die Tossafisten als Methodologen,”
MGWJ 38 (1894): 342–359. On the methodology of the to-
safists, see Chaim Tchernowitz’s article “Lederekh ha-
limmud shel baEalei ha-tosafot,” in Festschrift Adolf Schwarz,
edited by Samuel Krauss (Berlin, 1917). Following publica-
tion of my book BaEalei ha-tosafot (Jerusalem, 1956), there
ensued intensive activity in the publishing of tosafot; most of
the newly published works were from manuscripts that had
never been printed, but new editions of tosafot that had previ-
ously been published in corrupt editions also appeared.
There have also been a number of studies of the historical
and social reality discernible through the compilations of the
tosafists, as well as works on their ideas and influence. A sum-
mary is given in Salo W. Baron’s A Social and Religious Histo-
ry of the Jews, vol. 9, 2d ed., rev. & enl. (New York, 1965).
A full bibliography can be found in the expanded and cor-
rected fourth edition of my book mentioned above (Jerusa-
lem, 1980).
E. E. URBACH (1987)
Translated from Hebrew by Akiva GarberTOSAFOT [FURTHER CONSIDERA-
TIONS]. Research conducted during the early twenty-first
century focuses on identifying and evaluating more precisely
the distinctions between northern French and German To-
safists, integrating newly discovered collections of Tosafot
texts and bringing to the fore Tosafists whose writings and
contributions have not been fully assessed, reconsidering the
extent of Christian intellectual influences on Tosafist meth-
ods, and examining the non-Talmudic disciplines with
which the Tosafists were significantly engaged.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FRANCE AND GERMANY. Tosafot
texts produced in northern France failed to cite leading Ger-
man scholars who were active circa 1200 (with barely an ex-
ception), including those who authored prominent books
such as Judah b. Qalonymus of Spires (d. 1199; Sefer Yihusei
Tanna’im va-Amora’im), Eliezer b. Joel ha-Levi (1160 to
1165–c. 1235; Sefer Rabiah), Barukh of Mainz (1150–1221;
the no longer extant Sefer ha-Hokhmah), Eleazar of Worms
(1176–1238; Sefer Roqeah), and Simhah of Speyer (c. 1230;
the partially extant Seder Olam). At the same time, these Ger-
man works cite few northern French Tosafists after Rabbenu
Tam (c. 1100–1171) and his immediate students. BetweenTOSAFOT [FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS] 9247