Book Reviews of Baalei HaTosafot III
The third review of Baalei HaTosafot which we will write about is that of Jacob Katz (Kiryat Sefer 31=Halakhah veKabbalah, 340-352). Without a doubt one of the most influential Jewish historians of the 20th century, Katz’s writings are some of the most important in the field of the history of Jewish Law. Early in his review Katz admits that there are some topics in Urbach’s book which he will not touch upon, since he doesn’t feel that his level of competence allows him to comment upon them. Instead Katz chooses to focus on Urbach’s methodology in the study of halakhah, and specifically Urbach’s comparative analysis between the Tosafot and non-Jewish literature. Katz criticizes Urbach for not addressing the issue of influence, and says that Urbach seems to be content with saying that what is common is the external textual framework between the two, comments upon a text. This doesnt really add to any better historical understanding of the Tosafots methodology. Katz asks as to what the use of comparison is if one does not address the question of influence. One can say that there wasn’t any influence, but that has to be proven. Katz also critiques Urbach’s claim that common conditions brought about both the Tosafot and the Glossators, but Katz asks what were those common conditions and how did they result in these phenomenon? In general Katz feels that Urbach’s comparative analysis is haphazard and lacking in direction. Katz says that Urbach is comparing the Tosafot to other types of literature when he hasn’t even explained the origins of the Tosafot.
Another criticism of Urbach is that he calls the method of the Tosafot critical-dialectic, but Katz says that Urbach never really defines what he means by this term. Katz also criticizes Urbach for giving psychological explanations for halakhic disagreements, saying that a historian should point out the disagreement while a psychologist should try and explain it. I felt that much of Katz’s criticism is that Urbach is using methodologies which he is either not competent in using, doesn’t use responsibly, or are inappropriate for his study. Katz concluded by saying that with a book as comprehensive as Baalei HaTosafot, it is impossible to comment upon many of the specific claims made in the work, rather “essentially the job of the review is only to establish the place of the work within the history of scholarship and to note the direction which it takes.