Originally published in Journal of Jewish Studies 31:2.
Z. Dimitrovsky (ed.), Mehkarim u-Mekorot (‘Texts and Studies’, Analecta Judaica, Vol. I), Jewish Theological Seminary of America and Ktav. New York, 1977. 510pp.
This is the first volume of a proposed series in which monographs by members of the Faculty and graduates of JTS present the fruits of their learning. As Chancellor Gerson D. Cohen remarks in his Foreword, the aim of the series is twofold: to provide the scholarly world with original contributions to Jewish scholarship and to forge closer links, by the use of Hebrew, between Jewish scholars in the U.S.A. and Israel. In an interesting aside, Chancellor Cohen observes a new tendency in the kind of work here published and to be published in the series. While 19th century scholars of Talmudic literature were moved, on the whole, to dismiss as unworthy of attention the work of the aharonim, which they saw as pilpulistic and entirely lacking in critical and historical sense, the more recent scholars have acquired a better appreciation of the idea that truth is not necessarily the sole preserve of the rishonim and that, in any event, the works of the aharonim are themselves part of the process in which the ‘Oral Torah’ has been developed and is thus deserving of study in its own right. While this is no doubt correct, I seem to detect, particularly, the new thrust (to be seen, especially, in the monographs of Israel Francus and Shamma Friedman) in the application of form-critical method to the Talmudic sources. The use of the method for these sources is still in its infancy but, as these two excellent articles demonstrate, it can result in real illumination. This is not to deny that a strong element of guesswork inevitably enters into the picture, whenever it is suggested, for example, that the original meaning and order of Talmudic statements were really otherwise than those recorded in setama de-gemara, the framework of the sugyot, the authorship of which becomes more and more elusive as scholarly investigation advances.
In addition to these two studies, there are three lengthy essays on post-Talmudic texts. Dov Zlotnick writes on Ahavah ba-Ta’anugim, a commentary to the Mishnah by the 17th century Kabbalist, Abraham Azulai, who emerges as, also, a creative Halakhist. Menahem H. Schmelzer publishes, for the first time, together with a full scholarly apparatus, the commentary on 13 Aramaic piyyutim for Shavuoth, entitled Perush Alfabetin, which he attributes to the 13th century Abraham Min Ha-Anavim. Daniel Boyarin publishes in a modern critical edition, the section on Bava Metzi’a, Chapter 4, of the work Meharerei Nemerim, a work of early pilpul, in which is preserved what is apparently a student’s notes of the lectures and discussions in the Yeshiva of R. Isaac Aboab (late 15th century) of Castile.
LOUIS JACOBS