All these newly highlighted distinctions between Ger-
many and northern France can account for a number of sys-
temic differences in halakhic rulings and outlook between
the two regions. At the same time, their commonly held cus-
toms, basic methodologies, and interpretational values often
led to an unwavering consensus, whether in specific practices
and matters of belief, or in the need to formulate valid
halakhic justifications for economic and other societal prac-
tices that appeared prima facie to contradict Talmudic law.
To be sure, the issue of intentionality in developing these jus-
tifications has been the subject of renewed, vigorous discus-
sion in recent years, just as it was when Urbach’s Ba’alei ha-
Tosafot first appeared.
Urbach essentially reverses his original position on pos-
sible Christian influences on Tosafist dialectic, whether by
canon lawyers and masters of theology or by Christian schol-
ars of Roman law, in the revised edition of his work. Then,
after adducing additional parallels in method and terminolo-
gy, Urbach concludes that it is difficult to argue for more
than zeitgeist. Disparate geographic centers and differences
in textual valence were at the core of the critiques of Urbach’s
original view. More recent research suggests that the argu-
ment for influence should not be abandoned. New para-
digms, such as the jurists at Pavia, have been suggested. In
addition the presence of nascent dialectic at the yeshivah in
Worms already in the last quarter of the eleventh century
(not to mention the presence of critical dialectic within the
Talmud itself) lessened the role that external influence would
have to play. Influences transmitted by passing personal con-
tacts and conversations rather than through literary sources
must also be considered.
Although Urbach notes at various points in his work
that certain Tosafists produced writings that were not related
to Tosafot texts or halakhic treatises, the impression fostered
by his presentation is that Tosafists were involved only mar-
ginally in these other disciplines. So-called Tosafist Torah
commentaries (perushei BaDalei ha-Tosafot Eal ha-Torah) are
mentioned by Urbach mostly because they also contained
parallel or reworked Tosafot texts to the Talmud. At the end
of his long and nuanced discussion of the Tosafot corpus of
Ri, Urbach writes that Ri and his son, R. Elhanan (d. 1184),
“tried their hand” at the composition of liturgical poems
(piyyutim), referring the reader to the listings of Leopold
Zunz (1794–1886) for details. Urbach refers only in passing
to Abraham b. Azri’el of Bohemia (c. 1230), a student of Ele-
azar of Worms better known for his large and important trea-
tise of piyyut commentary EArugat ha-Bosem (which Urbach
edited as well) than as a Talmudist. This further supports the
perception that Tosafists did Talmud and legal studies, while
other disciplines were handled by specialists, a change from
the situation in Ashkenaz before the First Crusade when
leading scholars typically embraced several different disci-
plines.
Current research is beginning to question this supposi-
tion. Although the impact of twelfth-century legalism caused
some Tosafists (and leading ones at that) to focus exclusively
on Talmudic and halakhic texts and studies, manuscript evi-
dence and a concomitant reevaluation of published texts sug-
gest that others displayed interest in virtually the same variety
of disciplines as did their Ashkenazic predecessors from the
pre-Crusade period. The more than two hundred manu-
script collections of perushei Ba’alei ha-Tosafot Eal ha-Torah
have barely been analyzed by modern scholarship. Many of
them do contain a large amount of Talmudic and halakhic
material. But at the same time, some display a much greater
interest in forms of simple or literal biblical interpretation
(peshat) than has been imagined.
To be sure, there is greater interest in the peshat ap-
proach favored by the Tosafist and biblical commentator
Yosef b. Isaac Bekhor Shor of Orleans (d.c. 1200) than in
the more radical peshat of the earlier northern French Tosaf-
ist and biblical scholar Rashbam. Also, the Tosafist biblical
collections or compilations of the mid- and late thirteenth
century often blend (and perhaps blur) peshat interpretations
with unrestrained midrashic- or gematria-based comments.
Nonetheless, it is possible to identify a group of Tosafists
writing in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries that
cultivated peshat interpretations on their own terms, while
also serving as a kind of super-commentary to Rashi. In this
role they were interested in verifying not only the Talmudic
and midrashic underpinnings of Rashi’s Torah commentary,
but also his approach to peshat and his consistency as a peshat
exegete. Among these figures are Jacob of Orleans (d. 1189),
Isaiah di Trani the Elder (d. c. 1240), and Moses of Coucy.
Interestingly, they are joined by R. Yehudah he-Hasid
(d. 1217) in a number of the exoteric biblical comments that
have been attributed to him. At the same time, Tosafist fig-
ures such as Rashbam’s brother, Rabbenu Tam, and Ri Sam-
son and R. Samson of Sens (d. 1204) play almost no role in
these endeavors.A similar reevaluation has also been undertaken with re-
gard to the writing of liturgical poetry. Some scholars suggest
that no piyyut was composed by northern French Tosafists
after Rabbenu Tam. Although German Tosafists and rabbin-
ic scholars such as Ephraim of Regensburg, Menahem of
Worms (d. 1204), Barukh of Mainz, and Meir of Rothen-
burg out-produced northern French Tosafists by far in this
realm in terms of quantity, a number of northern French To-
safists including Elhanan the son of Ri, Yosef Bekhor Shor
(of Orleans), Tuvyah of Vienne (d.c. 1260), and Isaac of
Chinon (c. 1250) produced particular genres or patterns of
piyyutim, suggesting that their involvement was intentional
and focused. In any case the German Tosafists just noted ap-
pear to have received Spanish material in this discipline (as
was the case with respect to biblical interpretation in the pre-
ceding discussion). As will be seen shortly, a number of Ger-
man Tosafists who composed piyyutim were also involved
with mystical teachings. Lesser-known Tosafist figures such
as Avigdor Katz of Vienna and Samuel b. Abraham of Bop-
pard (d.c. 1250) also composed piyyutim.TOSAFOT [FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS] 9249