Rav Leibowitz
Note: This post has been incorporated into a pamphlet on the Early Rishonim. It can be purchased on Amazon by clicking here.
R. Yosef b. Meir ibn Migash (d. 1141)
The Ri Migash was from Seville, Spain. When he was twelve years old, the Rif arrived
in Lucena, and the Ri left Seville to study with the Rif in Lucena. Eventually, the Ri succeeded the Rif and
served as the Rosh Yeshiva in Lucena for thirty-eight years. Ri Migash’s greatness was described by the
Rambam in his Introduction to the Mishna as follows: “That man’s intellectual
abilities are frightening to one who studies his words and realizes the depths
of his thinking. We can apply to his
style and approach in learning, [the verse in Kings II 23:25], “Before him
there had never been a king like him.”
Ri Migash’s Talmud commentary is the first complete
commentary we have that was written on Spanish soil. His commentary was unique in Spain due to his
comprehensive treatment of a tractate and his dialectic style of analysis.[1] Indeed, the Meiri describes the Ri Migash’s
commentary as the beginning of a new genre in Spain to included analysis with pesak.
This was unlike many of the commentaries
that were produced at this time in Spain, which focused on pesak or on
explaining specific hard words, concepts, or passages. Still, Ri Migash’s commentary is heavily based
on his predecessors, although he does not always quote them by name. When he does, he most often references the
Rif (who he calls רבינו), R. Chananel, and R. Hai Gaon.
While there are indications that Ri Migash wrote his
commentary on many tractates, we only have it on Shevuos and Bava Basra. In fact, the Reishonim also seem to only have
his commentary on those two tractates.[2]
Ri Migash maintained a correspondence with the Rabbis of
Narbonne, Provance. He is the first
known direct connection between the Torah leaders of Spain and those of Provance.
[1] Dialectic Talmud
Study - In the context of
Talmud study, dialectic analysis refers to a rigorous style of study that
questioned every aspect of a Talmudic discussion. The Talmudic dialecticians would scrutinized
every step of a Talmudic passage. They questioned
the passage’s assumptions, challenged the logic of a suggested answer, and ever
raised skepticism about reported teachings.
Beyond the fine reading of the Talmudic text, the dialecticians would
often question a Talmudic passage based on information learned from a Talmudic discussion
in another location. The position of the
Talmud in one tractate would be used to question the validity of a passage in another
tractate, leaving the dialectician to uncover a creative resolution. Later dialecticians would put the same rigor
into their analysis of the work of the earlier dialecticians.
[2] Meiri
writes that he is only in possession of Ri Migash’s commentary on Bava Basra
and Shevuos. It has been suggested that
only his commentary on these two tractates were
written in Hebrew, the rest were written in Arabic
and hence they did not survive.
The commentary on Bava Basra only survived in fragments. Current editions were edited by R. Moshe
Shmuel Shapiro zt”l, former Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivas Be’er
Yaacov. It is a mixture of the original
fragments augmented with passages from Shita Mekubetzes and Sefer
ha-Ner of Rav Zecharia Agmati.
The Reishonim also reference a work by the Ri Migash called Megilas
Setarim. The nature of this work is
not clear. It may have been on
complicated sugyos, but other suggest that it was critical comments on
the Rif’s Halachos.
No comments:
Post a Comment