Dans tous les écrits de la jurisprudence de nos sages juifs du Moyen âge, on peut trouver une trace de science, de système, çà et là; niais dans les écrits de quelques uns cette Tendance est tellement prononcée qu’on peut les considérer comme complètement systématiques, scientifi­ques, et modernes. Ainsi le grand Maimonide, Juif d’Espagne, fut le premier qui codifia scientiquement les lois contenues dans “l’Océan du Talmud”, et celles qui proviennent du dévelop­pement postérieur au Talmud. Mais Maimonide a méconnu l’ordre et le classement adopté dans le Talmud. En classifiant toutes les lois, il n’a pas suivi l'ordre du texte, mais, au contraire, il les a arrangées d’après un nouveau système qu’il a fait lui-même. Dans son grand et fameux livre le “Michné Torah,” il omet aussi toute la discussion, et toute l'argumentation du Talmud. Il ne nous donne que le résultat du débat: c’est le verdict, la “Halakah.” Comme il dit lui-même dans l’introduction, il l’a fait ainsi de façon que le lecteur, soit-il juge ou étudiant, sache la loi sans devoir lire toute la discussion du Talmud.C’était très bon; mais le savant, l’érudit, que ferait-il? Ceux qui veulent rechercher et aller à la source de chaque chose, où trouveront-ils une explication scientifique, c’est à dire systématique, qui suivra l’ordre du texte? Pour cela, il fallait attendre notre Provençal Ménahcm Méiri.Ménahem ben Salomon ben Méir (d’où le nom “Méiri”), ou comme il s’appelait en pro­vençal “Don Vidal Salomon,” naquit en 1249 (l’année 5060 du calendrier juift, dans la ville de Perpignan en Provence. Bien que nous sa­chions très peu de son père, nous avons quelques vieux manuscrits qui indiquent qu’il était un Juif savant et pieux, et surtout un homme libéral. Dans son adolescence, Méiri devint l’élève du Rabbin Reuben ben Hayyim de Narbonne, qui fut bien connu dans les cercles talmudiques de son âge. C’est lui qui a aide Méiri à atteindre plus tard, la position de “Rab­bin et guide de la Communauté de Perpign…

PREFACE: In this study of the life and works of Menahem Ha'Meiri, one of the comparatively recently discovered "Rishonim" (Talmudists of the Middle Ages), I will attempt to present not so much a comprehensive biography of the man as a summary of his works and opinions, showing how he was affected by his environment, how he affected others and his proper place among the Rishonim from the historical perspective. In this case it is the lack of information about Meiri's personal life that prevents me from giving a detailed biographical picture of the man. In the case of one like Meiri, however the paucity of strictly biographical material is excusable when we realize that he put his life and energy into his works and major decisions. It is from a study of his system, his attitudes towards philosophy, certain methods of interpreting the Bible and other paramount problems in Jewish religion and theology that contemporary scholars have come to know and respect Meiri. It is through these works and decisions that Meiri has won immortality, and it is because of these that he is so avidly studied by logic-loving students of the Talmud.Menahem ben Shlomo (Solomon) ben Meir, most popularly known as Meiri (after his grandfather Meir), was born on the third of Ellul, 5060 (1249 C.E.) in the Provencal city of Perpignan, which today is in France. In Provencal, Meiri was known as "Don Vidal Solomon," the "Don Vidal" serving as an honorary prefix to names of people of respectable station.Little or nothing is known about Meiri's early life and family. Gross, in his *Gallia Judaica* (history of French geography famous in Jewish history), however, writes about some manuscript found in Perpignan which indicates that Meiri's father was a city clerk, a fact which carries much weight since the position of city clerk was, in those days, reserved for the intellectuals. This would also mean that Meiri's father had a secular education, also a fact of great importance. Gross also records discove…

Like God, a Zionist: Towards the end of his life, wasted away by a fatal cancer and suffering from severe and unrelenting pains, Chief Rabbi Abraham Isaac Hakohen Kook was visited by a delegation of the leaders of the Jewish National Fund. As soon as they saw him, the distinguished visitors realized that this would be the last time they would see him alive. Rav Kook began the discussion by asking Menahem Usishkin, the leader of the group, “Have any new areas been redeemed lately?” Usishkin, who knew full well that the query was much more than a casual opening for a conversation, replied, “We bought a small plot in Emek Hefer, but we are beset by grave problems. As soon as we are ready to buy, the Mufti applies pressure on the sellers, threatens them — and the sale is called off abruptly. We need considerable amounts of money simply to buy off all kinds of people interested in causing us needless trouble.”“And what,” asked the Rav, “is your financial condition at present?”“As usual,” Usishkin sighed, “the income doesn’t begin to cover the expenses.”“In that case,” said the Rav, whose eyes suddenly had regained their old sparkle despite his desperate illness, I shall immediately address a special open letter to the Jews of Poland, asking their enthusiastic support for the J.N.F.”“That would certainly help,” said Usishkin. "The Rabbi’s letter two years ago to Lithuanian Jewry produced excellent results.”When the J.N.F. leaders left the sick-room. Rav Kook called in his secretary and dictated to him a moving appeal to Polish Jewry on behalf of the J.N.F. The secretary hazarded the comment that by his unqualified support of the J.N.F. he might incur the wrath of his rightist critics, the zealots who were unalterably opposed to the New Yishuv. Rav Kook, usually modest to a fault, replied impatiently, “So what? What can they say about me?”The secretary answered, smiling, “they will accuse the Rabbi of being a Zionist.”“Is it at all possible,” exclaimed Rav Kook with a twi…

Dr. Louis Finkelstein, in his recently revised edition of The Pharisees (3d ed., Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1962) reaffirms the major thesis of his original version of that work, and of his biography of R. Akiba (Akiba: Scholar, Saint and Martyr (New York: Couici-Friede, 1936), namely the sociological interpretation of the Halakhah in the Tannaitic period. In both books, Finkelstein refers the study of Torah to the socio-economic differences between the Hillelite-plebeian and the Shammaite-patrician groups within Pharisaism. This thesis, as well as its specific application to the popular study of Torah, has been subjected to exhaustive criticisms by, among others, Gedaliah Allon The pre at ramarks are meant as an addition to Allon’s strictures. '' Study, according to Prof. Finkelstein, was cherished by the plebeians, such as R. Johanan B. Zakkai and R. Akiba, whereas the provincials, and the aristocrats descended from them, had only contempt for book learning. Finkelstein’s arguments are largely based on isolated remarks in Avot which are more in the nature of personal aphorisms ה"־א היה אופר -- and are not normative and conclusive as are halakhot, and therefore cannot serve as sufficient basis for re-constructing a whole philosophy. The danger of reliance on stray observations is amply illustrated, in this context of the problem of the Study of Torah, by the assertion of Finkelstein that R. Simeon b. Gamaliel was a defector from the Hillelites to the Shammaites. Finkelstein finds patricianism reflected in such statements by R. Simeon b. Gamaliel as "Not the Study but the Practice of the Law is essential," ' which he considers con-sistent with Shammai’s negative attitude to Torah study as seen in Shammai’s "Say little and do much."^^ Referring to R. Simeon, Finkelstein adds: ...this child of the most culturally distinguished family in Judaism tried to assume the manners of the backward provincial and patrician landowners. He acted as thoug…