Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLeibowitz, Aryeh J.
dc.date.accessioned2018-07-12T17:38:40Z
dc.date.available2018-07-12T17:38:40Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifier.citationSource: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 73-11(E), Section: A.;Advisors: Elazar Hurvitz.
dc.identifier.urihttp://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&res_dat=xri:pqm&rft_dat=xri:pqdiss:3519920
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12202/1322
dc.description.abstractR. Eliezer of Tukh's Tosafot Tukh on the Babylonian Talmud have served as the primary representative of the prolific Tosafist tradition of talmudic interpretation for almost three-quarters of a millennium. This dissertation analyzes the nature of R. Eliezer's Tosafot redaction and his accompanying marginal notes (Gilyonot), and puts forward a new perspective on their position in the greater Tosafist culture of northern France and Germany.;The dissertation opens with an introduction to the Tosafist enterprise. tracing the emergence and development of the Tosafist method in general, and the academy of R. Isaac (Ri) of Dampierre in specific. It was the Tosafotcommentaries that emerged from Ri's academy that laid the foundation for R. Eliezer's work.;Chapter One focuses on R. Eliezer's intellectual milieu and addresses the important question of R. Eliezer's own talmudic culture. R. Eliezer was indisputably a German Tosafist, who likely operated in the central and eastern regions of Germany.;The next three chapters of this dissertation provide critical analysis of R. Eliezer's redaction. R. Eliezer's redaction drew heavily from the highly developed commentaries of Ri's most prolific students. Chapter Two addresses R. Eliezer's sources and identifies the specific commentaries utilized by R. Eliezer in his redaction. Chapter Three delineates R. Eliezer's editing methods and demonstrates that R. Eliezer's work was generally limited to editing. That is, he rarely introduced new content, as he primarily Focused his efforts on abridging and condensing earlier commentaries.;Based on the analyses of the previous two chapters, Chapter Three outlines the salient characteristics of R. Eliezer's redaction, noting the various types of passages appearing in the redaction. This chapter also argues that R. Eliezer's redaction, in its authentic form, primarily contained French Tosafist material as it was transmitted by the students of Ri. Accordingly, the chapter maintains that R. Eliezer refrained from including material from his own German teachers and contemporaries, and even refrained from including his own original insights. Through comparisons of multiple manuscripts of R. Eliezer's redaction, this chapter shows that the instances of R. Eliezer's own teachings and those of his German contemporaries appearing in printed editions of R. Eliezer's redaction are not authentic, and are in fact erroneous additions attributable to various scribal errors.;The next three chapters of the dissertation provide critical analyses of R. Eliezer's marginal notes (Gilyonot) that he appended to his Tosafot redaction. Chapter Five discusses the relatively poor fate of the Gilyonot and identifies their remnants in unpublished manuscripts, printed rabbinic works, and even isolates a number of Gilyonot that were included in printed editions of the Talmud. Chapter Six discusses the major sources utilized by R. Eliezer in the Gilyonot, primarily his own original contributions and material that he learned from his teachers and contemporaries. Chapter Seven explores the nature of R. Eliezer's comments in the Gilyonot, and shows that the Gilyonot followed classic Tosafist dialectical methods. In the Gilyonot, R. Eliezer commented on the early Tosafist teachings recorded in the main text of the redaction. and also addressed material found in the Talmud itself.;Chapter Eight contends that R. Eliezer's redaction was a unique record of the French Tosafist tradition as it was transmitted in R. Eliezer's Germanic Talmudic culture. This contention is utilized to account for the many differences between R. Eliezer's redaction and other records of the French tradition. Additionally this perspective explains the phenomenon that R. Eliezer's redaction was particularly popular in certain German regions, whereas other redactions of the Tosafist tradition were popular in other regions.;Following the previous chapter's description of R. Eliezer's redaction as a unique redaction of the French tradition as it was transmitted in R. Eliezer's German talmudic culture. Chapter Nine considers the differing roles played by R. Eliezer's redaction and his Gilyonot. Whereas R. Eliezer's redaction recorded the French tradition, the Gilyonot were utilized by R. Eliezer as a venue for augmenting the redaction with his own teachings and those of his German contemporaries. R. Eliezer flourished in Germany in the mid to late thirteenth century, which roughly coincides with the demise of the French Tosafist tradition. Therefore, this chapter also considers R. Eliezer's role in continuing the dialectic tradition of the vanishing French academies.;The tenth and final chapter assesses the fate of R. Eliezer's redaction and Gilyonot. After outlining the various methods of identifying Tosafist texts attributable to R. Eliezer, the chapter provides an analysis of the standard printed Tosafot on twelve tractates that are ascribable to R. Eliezer. The presentation found in this chapter draws heavily from the work of E. E. Urbach, but also contains significant additions to his scholarship. (Abstract shortened by UMI.).
dc.publisherProQuest Dissertations & Theses
dc.subjectJudaic studies.
dc.subjectMedieval literature.
dc.title"Tosafot Tukh" on the Talmud: A critical analysis of R. Eliezer of Tukh's redaction of "Tosafot" and his Marginalia
dc.typeDissertation


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record