- This topic has 24 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
in Maseches Taanis?
And who is this Tosafos — that quotes the Tur?!
It’s the best imitation Rashi out there. So much so that I’m often not convinced it’s not Rashi.
Obviously a later emendation.
Actually, it lookss like a Talmid of Rashi, but I don’t know who. Tosafos quotes a Pirush Rashi.
I didn’t know they were still compiling Tosafos after the Tur.
Now that we have entered the month of Tammuz, I am actively preparing myself for Rashi’s 909th Johrzeit in 4 weeks from today on Tammuz 29th.
According to Professor Ephraim Orbach in his seminal book “Ba’alei Hatosafot”, pages 615-616, the Tosfot on Eiruvin were probably compiled in the middle 1300s, by a talmid of Rav Yitchok of Tresson, who was a talmid of Rabeinu Peretz and the Rosh. Another possibility is Rav Yitzchok of Keinon (sp.?). Prof. Orbach mentions curious possible references to the Black Plague (21: d”h amru) , which began in 1348.
–old man–
On daf ?? of eiruvin, both amud aleph and amud beis, there is no tosfos d’h amru. In taanis, daf chof alef amud aleph has one, but purely centered around the gemorrah. On daf beis, there is a d’h amar, but i fail to see how that is a possible reference to the black plague. Perhaps you could explain?
According to Professor Ephraim Orbach in his seminal book “Ba’alei Hatosafot”, pages 615-616, the Tosfot on Eiruvin were probably compiled in the middle 1300s, by a talmid of Rav Yitchok of Tresson, who was a talmid of Rabeinu Peretz and the Rosh. Another possibility is Rav Yitzchok of Keinon (sp.?). Prof. Orbach mentions curious possible references to the Black Plague (21: d”h amru) , which began in 1348.
According to Grossman in his “Chachmei Ashkenaz Harishonim”, Rashi on Ta’anit is still a mystery. There was a claim that a ktav yad was found in Spain, but no proof that it was Rashi’s, nor do we have this ktav yad. The consensus for now is that it was written by “chachmei Magentza”, a loosely defined group in Magentza (Mainz)in the eleventh century, who were the predecessors and teachers of Rashi.
Just one thing– there is no tosfos on 21 with a dibur hamaskil of “amru”
I checked again, there is a rashi on ?? amud alef with a d’h of amru…, but that also cannot possibly e what youre refering to, as he’s talking about daniel there.
Please re-check your sources, perhaps you misunderstood or misquoted?
On the contrary. It is pretty obvious that it is a later Pirush.
Dear secretagent,
Duly noted.
I’ll check again and get back to you.
Dear Secretagent,
Sorry, my typo. Due to my old age, I accidentally typed Eruvin when I meant Ta’anis, which is the mesechta we are discussing. So again, see tosfos Ta’anis 21:, d”h Amru, where according to the historians, tosfos seems to be referring to the Black Plague.
This discovery is not a shock. Ohrbach quotes the Maharshal (Shu”t Maharshal 64) at the beginning of his discussion that tosfos on Ta’anis is “?? ?????????”
Old man.
Thanks, will check up that tosfos, saw it today, just couldnt see how it possibly refers to the black plague. Will try underatand further
The issue with saying that tosfos is from the achronim, is that the ritva comments on it in many places. The beis yosef on the tur also tears apart a certain tosfos. One could be dochek this however, and say that heyre referring to other tosfos (such as harid, rabbeinu peretz etc) but its a push
HaleiVi, which tosfos is it that quotes the tur?
Apparently, all the “kach shamaati”s in rashi in taanis, is rashis talmid having heard that pshat from rashi
The Maharshal’s “Rishonim” is different from ours. Let’s not forget that there was never a meeting when the names were doled out. Anyone familiar with the Sefarim from the Maharshal’s time can see that they use “Rishonim” sometimes for Amoraim and sometimes for the early Rishonim. The Maharshal or Beis Yosef think of the generation of the Rashba, Ritva and Rosh as Achronim. And yes, this Tosafos does seem to be compiled in those later generations.
In truth, Tosafos’ mention of the Tur is in brackets, so perhaps it is not actually from the author. Usually though, brackets in Gemara and Tosafos mean that it should be read as part of the main text, according to someone. The Tosafos I’m referring to is the end of the Dibur, Lan Bitaaniso on 11b.
I noticed that Rashi in Taanis quoted a Tosafos!!
Dear secretagent,
Yesterday I wrote a long explanation about the relationship between that Tosfos and the Black plague, and also about Rashi on Ta’anis and Chachmei Magentza. Then they found the boys, the computer was taken over by the news, and my comments were not saved. I and many others will be at the heartbreaking levayahs today, and I don’t have the koyach today to reconstruct what I wrote. But I will, eventually.
To save yourself time, if you can get a hold of Ohrbach’s masterpiece “Ba’alei Hatosafot” and Grossman’s masterpiece “Chachmei Tzarfat Harishonim”, what I have to say is taken straight out of there.
Dear Secretagent,
The explanation of the tosfos and the black plague is thus:
The black plague, in addition to killing many millions across Asia and Europe, was especially devastating to pig livestock,what chachamim and others called “dever”, pestilence among the livestock .To a large degree, the pig population infected the human population. Needless to say, this affected goyim on a large scale, but relatively few Jews.
The halachic question then arose, was there enough danger to Jews to warrant a ta’anis? On the one hand, Jews were not really being affected much. On the other hand, since according to the gemara, pig intestine is similar to human intestine, then,certainly a non-Jewish human intestine would be similar enough to a Jewish intestine to justify alarm, and hence, a ta’anis.
Note that tosfos uses the phrase, “Umikan nireh”, a phrase used when tosfos is extrapolating from the gemara to a current halachic decision. So it appears that tosfos is dealing with an actual case where the ta’anis decree was being considered due to dever- the black plague raging at that time, 1348-1353 or so. Since the circumstances of the black plague fit this scenario, this tosfos is considered to have been written around that time, the mid 1300s.
I’ll just add that the actual microbiological cause of the black plague is being debated even today, so the above conclusion is not absolute proof. But it fits.
That is not enough of a proof. The tosfos only supports the black plague, if you already want it to, otherwise its simply saying that if we fast when theres dever on pigs, how much more so when theres dever on non jews. Umikan nire is not a clear enough proof
The first Daf and a half of “Rashi” is really the Peirush of Rabeinu Gershom. There is a manuscript that has been found and published that the publishers claim is really Rashi.
Dear secretagent,
Oh, no one claimed it was a proof. The historians would call it a reasonable conjecture. If you like it, fine, if not, not. Considering that it’s pretty much agreed upon that these tosfos were written towards the tail end of the tosafist period, this tosfos fits neatly into the pattern. But proof? No.
To mobico,
We have no verifiable perushim of Rabeinu Gershom. In that period, anonymity was the rule. It was written by Chachmei Magentza, a loosely defined group in the period of Rabeinu Gershom and afterwards for a generation or two. Their perushim were rendered obsolete by the greatness of Rashi’s perush.
Well, the Peirush of “Rashi” on the first Daf+ fits word-for-word with that labelled “Rabeinu Gershom” elsewhere on the page. Are you saying that this Peirush is, indeed, NOT that of Rabeinu Gershom?
Correct. It was not written by Rabeinu Gershom.
Source: Chachmei Ashkenaz Harishonim, Professor Avraham Grossman, pg. 165-174
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.