History of responsa in Judaism

The responsa of the first five centuries are not contained in special works; they are scattered through the writings of both Talmuds (the

In the Tannaitic period (100 BCE to 200 CE) statements, publications, contributions concerning the calendar, and notifications were the only documents regularly committed to writing. On the other hand, it can not positively be asserted that no ruling at all had been given in writing before the completion of the Mishnah: certain exceptions were doubtless made.^[2]

In the Talmud

Immediately after the completion of the Mishnah, when the prohibition or reluctance against writing halakhot had in great part disappeared, the responsa literature began to appear, traces being preserved in the Talmud. Often questions were settled by a single letter, as was later the case with the Geonim, who exchanged a series of responsa. The replies were signed by pupils and colleagues, so that, strictly speaking, the responsa were issued by a board.^[2]

With the beginning of the third century of the common era, responsa begin to frequently appear in letters from

During the Geonic period (650–1250 CE), the Babylonian schools were the chief centers of Jewish learning; the Geonim, the heads of these schools, were recognized as the highest authorities in Jewish law. Despite difficulties that hampered the irregular communications of the period, Jews who lived even in most distant countries sent their inquiries concerning religion and law to these officials in Babylonia. It was common for Jews outside of Babylon to ask to be sent a section of the Talmud along with “its explanation” or to ask the scholars in Babylon to settle Jewish arguments for which they could not find any precedent. The length of a responsum from this period can span from less than a sentence to a large book. Many of the responsa are still being studied today in the Cairo Genizah. In the yeshiva during this time period, students and scholars would discuss these halakhic questions during kallah and then the head of the yeshiva would announce his decision and the leaders in the yeshiva would sign it. Another type of responsa were those that were more time-sensitive, so the gaon usually responded to them right away and with many different sections in order to answer multiple questions that were posed. Later Geonim also referred to the responsa and commentaries of earlier Geonim when writing responsa.^[3]

Later in the geonic period (from the mid-tenth to mid-eleventh centuries), their supremacy suffered, as the study of the Talmud received care in other lands. The inhabitants of these regions gradually began to submit their questions to the heads of the schools of their own countries. Eventually they virtually ceased sending questions to Babylonian Geonim, so that during this period responsa of eminent rabbis of other lands appeared side by side with geonic rulings.^[2]

Rishonim

The period of the rishonim, or the First Rabbinic Epoch, primarily consists of the writings from 11th and 12th century Spanish and French schools.^[2] With the decline of the gaonate in the first half of the eleventh century, it ceased to be seen as the central spiritual authority for Jews worldwide. From then on, questions were sent to the rabbinical authorities of one's own or a neighboring country. Thus, inquiries sent during this period to Babylonia were rare and exceptional.^[2]

Characteristics

• The questions were not all practical. Many were theoretical, concerning the correct interpretation of a
  Spanish scholars are noteworthy for the untrammeled scientific spirit that permeates them, far more than those of the French school. Even in responsa that are practical in nature, a distinction may be drawn between the two schools.^[2] Although these responsa can still be found in significant response anthologies today, they are not as significant as the responsa written during the Geonic period.^{[citation needed}
  ]
• The responsa of the epoch came from various countries, and from schools having different tendencies, thus showing the position and the type of spiritual life in general and of Talmudic learning in particular, since all these factors prevailed in the different countries at the time. Especially noteworthy is the divergence between the French and the Spanish school in the twelfth century, the second half of this period. For the most part the rulings of this period receive their basis or their confirmation from a passage in the Talmud, and in this motivation the difference between the French and the Spanish exegesis of the Talmud is clearly shown. The Spanish school was the more logical, and strove for brevity and lucidity in the deduction of its rulings from the Talmud, while the French school was more dialectic, and frequently gave full play to casuistry at the expense of clearness.[2]

• The chief representative of the French school in the eleventh century was Solomon ben Isaac (
  Mahzor Vitry. His decisions are written in Hebrew, without formulas either of introduction or of conclusion, although an interesting phrase that is peculiar to him, and was apparently invented by him occurs once: "I, the undersigned, was asked whether ... thus have I heard from my teachers, and thus is my own opinion likewise inclined,..." the ruling being followed by the signature "Solomon b. Isaac", without any concluding formula (Mahzor Vitry, pp. 434–435).^[2]
• The leader of the Spanish school in the same century was
  Arabic, and were translated into Hebrew at an early date, being extant only in this version.^[2]

• The chief representatives of the French school of the twelfth century were
  Jacob Tam, Abraham ben David of Posquières, and Eliezer ben Nathan of Mayence.^[2]
  • The responsa of Rabbi Tam are contained in his "Sefer ha-Yashar" as well as in the works of other authorities, such as Meir of Rothenburg and Mordechai ben Hillel, "the Mordecai".^[2]
  • The responsa of Eliezer ben Nathan, contained in his "Even ha-Ezer", are partly exegetic in character and partly devoted to practical decisions.^[2]
  • The responsa of Abraham ben David are included in the collection titled "Tummat Yesharim" or "Temim De'im" (Venice, 1622).^[8] Particularly noteworthy is his injunction that Jewish law obligates Jews to follow the laws of the land, i.e., to follow the laws of the secular government in which a Jewish community found itself living. This ruling is based on the Talmudic saying: "The law of the land is valid" (ib. responsum No. 50).^[2]
• The chief representatives of the Spanish school in the twelfth century were
  Arabic and later translated into Hebrew, while the greater portion of the second category was composed by the author himself in the Talmudic Hebrew idiom.^[2]

The Second Rabbinic Epoch consists of responsa from Spanish and Frenco-German schools in the 13th and 14th centuries. Nahmanides and R. Solomen ben Adret were two of the big scholars during this period. These responsa were written about a wide range of topics including Talmudic passages, ethics, religious philosophy, and more.[2] In this period the difference between the Spanish and the Franco-German forms of responsa vanished. On the one hand, the scientific spirit of the Spanish school partially entered the academies of southern France, and, on the other hand, the dialecticism of the French rabbis steadily increased in influence in Spain.^[2]

• The chief representatives of the Spanish responsa in the thirteenth century were
  Nissim ben Reuben.^[2]
  • Very few responsa by Nahmanides have been preserved. Those that exist are contained in a work titled "She'elot u-Teshubot" (
    Zolkiev, 1798), in which are included in great part the responsa of Solomon ben Adret. To him came questions from the most distant communities. His responsa number about three thousand, and in content are partly practical and partly devoted to exegesis, ethics, and religious philosophy. The exegetic rulings interpreted difficult passages of the bible, the Talmud, and the works of older authors, while the practical responsa comprised decisions as to the ritual, civil and marital law, communal relations, and the contemporary political affairs of the Jews.^[2]
  • The responsa of Solomon ben Adret fall into five parts. The first part (
    Pentateuch apparent discrepancies of this kind are found, so that one of the sons of Simeon is called Zohar in Gen. 46:10 and Ex. 6:15, and Zerah in Num. 26:13, but since both names signify 'magnificent', the double nomenclature is explained." In responsum No. 395^[10] he describes his abolition of several superstitious customs, one of which was to kill an old cock, and to hang its head at the door on the occasion of the birth of a boy. Particularly noteworthy is responsum No. 548,^[11] in which he gives a decision regarding a marvelous child at Avila, who had originally been idiotic, but later frequently fell into trances during which he composed works whose contents he declared had been communicated to him by an angel.^[2]
• The chief representative of the German school in the thirteenth century was Rabbi
  Moses Bloch published at Berlin a new corpus of unedited responsa of Meïr of Rothenburg under the title "Sefer Sha'are Teshubot Maharam".^[2][14] Maharam, famously, rules that a man may not hit his wife, "since,he may not hit another man, despite not owing him honour, whereas he owes her honour...".^[15] The special interest of Meïr's responsa is the picture they give of the condition of the German Jews of his time, and of their sufferings from the caprice of princes and from heavy taxation. The collections of the responsa of Meïr of Rothenburg contain also the rulings of other older and contemporary rabbis of the Franco-German school.^[2]

The principal representatives of the fourteenth century were Asher ben Jehiel (RoSH) and Isaac ben Sheshet Barfat.^[2]

• The responsa of the RoSH first appeared at Constantinople in 1517 under the title "She'elot u-Teshubot",^[16] while an enlarged edition was published at Venice in 1607.^[17] This collection of responsa is arranged according to 108 subjects, each of which has a special chapter, called "kelal", while at the head of every rubric stands a résumé of its contents and a numerical list of the responsa treating of each subject. This arrangement, however, was not the work of Asher himself, but was made probably by one of his pupils, possibly by his son Rabbi Judah. From the responsa of Rabbi Asher may be gleaned many curious customs of the Spanish communities. To a question addressed to him from Burgos, Asher responded (No. 68, 10)^[18] that according to Talmudic law no arrests could be made for debt, even in cases where the debtor had pledged his own person, although, on the other hand, he noted that it was the custom of the communities in Spain to imprison one who had failed to pay his quota of the royal tax until he should discharge his debt.^[2]
• The 518 responsa of Isaac ben Sheshet were published at Constantinople in 1546-47 as "She'elot u-Teshuvot".^[19] These responsa contain many disquisitions illustrative of the conditions of the times, including rulings on marriage and marital relations in the case of Jews who had been forcibly baptized, as well as other decisions relating to those who had been compelled to accept Christianity (e.g., Nos. 1,^[20] 4,^[21] 6,^[22] 11,^[23] 12,^[24] 43^[25]). Especially interesting are responsa that describe prevailing customs and regulations of the communities of the period, as in No. 158,^[26] which contains a noteworthy account of the seven days of mourning after the death of a kinsman.^[2]

Acharonim

The period of the Achronim, or the Third Rabbinic Epoch includes response of Italian, Turkish, German, and Polish rabbis. Given the political climate and various persecutions the Jews were experiencing throughout this time period, the majority of these responsa were written in response to questions concerning legal matters.

Characteristics

These rulings are different from those of the previous periods in the nature of the problems presented, in the method of treatment, and in the arrangement of subject-matter.^[2]

• Since the Acharonim saw themselves as no longer having the independence of the Rishonim, they sought to base their decisions on the older authorities. The field had already been thoroughly worked, and the respondent was consequently obliged to make a careful search for the question asked or one analogous to it, in order to provide an answer.^[2]
• Previously, the questions had covered many departments of knowledge, both sacred and profane, being concerned with ethical and philosophical problems as well as with halakhic and exegetic themes, so that there was scarcely a subject of human activity or thought on which the responsa might not expound. Among the Achronim, however, the responsa were restricted almost entirely to legal regulations. Since the pronouncement of judgment was regarded as a religious duty, and since in most countries the Jews were unwilling to submit to a non-Jewish court, legal questions formed a large part of the responsa.^[2]
• Previously,
  Joseph Caro, so that many of the responsa were arranged according to these two works, while among the later scholars this practice became the rule.^[2]
• Earlier responsa had been so lucid that the reader could easily follow them. Among the Achronim this changed completely, for pilpul, which had been in vogue since the mid-fifteenth century in Talmud study, forced its way into responsa literature as well. The responsa are remarkable for the hair-splitting dialectics that characterizes them, and often robs them of lucidity.^[2]

Fifteenth century

• The most important German respondents of the fifteenth century were Israel Isserlein and Israel Bruna.^[2]
  • The collection of the responsa of Israel Isserlein, "Terumat ha-Deshen", comprises 354 decisions, which are important as describing many characteristic features of the time. Several of them (Nos. 341-346) discuss the apportionment of the
    apostate (No. 198). Particularly interesting is the responsum (No. 197) devoted to the problem whether Jews might so disguise themselves as to escape recognition in countries where they were absolutely forbidden to reside.^[2] He was lenient in cases of widows who lacked a divorce document (agunah).^[27]
  • The responsa of Israel Bruna, titled "She'elot u-Teshuvot",^[28] likewise contain many interesting allusions to contemporary conditions, as in the case of No. 71,^[29] which discusses the problem whether the Jews might attend races.^[2]
• In Italy the chief representatives of the fifteenth century were
  Joseph Colon and Judah Minz.^[2]
• Especially important in the responsal literature of this century were the Turkish rabbis, among whom the chief were
  concealment of the hair in the case of a married woman (No. 35, pp. 94 et seq.)^[2]

The chief Polish representatives of the sixteenth century were Moses Isserles, Solomon Luria, and Meir Lublin; the responsa of these scholars throw a flood of light on the condition of the Jews of the period, who evidently took high rank in Poland and were not unfamiliar with military arts, since they offered their services to the duke or to the prince on the outbreak of a war (comp. responsum. No. 43 of Meir Lublin).^[2]

The chief Turkish respondents of this period were

In the seventeenth century rabbis of various countries prepared responsa, but the Polish scholars were in the great majority.[2]

• The chief German representative of responsal literature was
  Jair Hayyim Bacharach.^[2]
• Among the Italian respondents the most important was Samuel Aboab, whose decisions appeared at Venice in 1702 under the title "Debar Shemu'el".^[2][33]
• Of the Turkish authorities the most prominent were Joseph ben Moses di Trani (MaHaRIT) and Jacob Alfandari, whose responsa, titled "Muẓẓal me-Esh", were published at Constantinople in 1718.^[2]
• The principal Polish rabbis of the seventeenth century who wrote responsa were
  dayan, and the president.^[2]

In the eighteenth century the rabbis of various countries contributed to responsa literature, but the most important were still the Polish scholars.[2]

• The chief representative of Germany was Jacob Emden, whose responsa form the collection titled "She'elot Ya'abetz".^[2][35]
• Among the many noteworthy Polish scholars are
  Ezekiel Landau.^[2]
  • The Responsa of Meir Eisenstadt, titled "Panim Me'irot" contains one "particularly interesting" ruling, in which he stigmatizes as presumptuous arrogance the practice of ostentatiously wearing white garments in the fashion of the Kabbalists, while the general custom was to wear black clothing.^[36][2]
  • The collection of responsa by Ezekiel Landau, known as "Noda' bi-Yehudah", was esteemed by rabbis and scholars, as distinguished both for its logical discussion and for its independence with regard to the rulings of later authorities as contrasted with its adherence to the writings of earlier scholars.^[2]

Nineteenth century to early twentieth century

In this period, many responsa deal with problems taken from modern experience. Responsa have been inspired or necessitated by economic growth, social movements, and advances in technology, which wrought sweeping changes in the lives and living conditions of the Jews in different countries, as well as within Judaic streams; e.g., those of Reform Judaism and Zionism.^[2]

The movements for the reform of Judaism evoked many responsa in reply to questions concerning the location of the