1. This can deduced from the end of R. Moses' introduction to the negative commandments (the first volume of the work), where he writes, “and behold the two parts meant to write a book containing the positive commandments in one part, and a book containing the negative commandments in a second part.” Moreover, early citations of the work refer to it as Sefer ha-miẓvot. See, e.g., the letter of introduction written by R. Isaac of Corbeil to his ʻAmude gola (that later became known as Semak) where he states, “And whoever does not understand the commentary, should look into the Book of Commandments (be-Sefer ha-miẓvot) written by Moses, R. of Coucy (Semak, Sefer miẓvot katan (Amude gola) (Jerusalem: Yerid ha-Sefarim, 2005), 1a)Google Scholar.” In addition, R. Meir ha-Cohen in his Hagahot Maimoniyot consistently refers to R. Moses' work as Sefer ha-miẓvot. It would seem that after R. Isaac of Corbeil's book became popular and recognized as an abridgement of R. Moses' work, the title was changed to Sefer miẓvot gadol—Semag in order to contrast it with Sefer miẓvot katan—Semak.

2. As R. Solomon Luria (Maharshal), the famous sixteenth-century sage from Lublin, wrote, “for it is already a known fact that the Semag is entirely based on the Rambam and in most places he copies directly from him. He will not argue with him except in those places where the Tosefists argue with him, and without them he will not raise his hand and his foot against him.” His words are found in Sheʼelot u-teshuvot ha-Rema, ed. Ziv, A. (Jerusalem: Ḥemed, 1971), siman 67Google Scholar. See also a second formulation of Maharshal along the same lines, below.

3. The first indication we have that the scholars of France were even aware of Mishneh Torah's existence reaches us through an exchange of letters around 1203 between R. Meir ha-Levi Abulafia of Toledo and R. Samson of Sens, the famed Tosefist and student of R. Isaac of Dampierre. It has been noted that a close reading of their learned exchange indicates that it was only around this time that the French scholars came to know of Maimonides' legal code. On this exchange of letters, see Septimus, Bernard, Hispano-Jewish Culture in Transition: The Career and Controversies of Ramah (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982), 48–51Google Scholar. On the appearance of Mishneh Torah in northern French study halls at around this time, see, e.g., Woolf, J. R., “Admiration and Apathy: Maimonides' ‘Mishneh Torah’ in High and Late-Medieval Ashkenaz,” in Be'erot Yitzhak: Studies in Memory of Isadore Twersky, ed. Harris, Jay M. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005), 430Google Scholar.

4. This examination is a continuation of an earlier shorter study; see Galinsky, Y. D., “Kum ʻAseh Sefer Torah mi-shne ḥalakim: le-birur kavanat R. Moshe mi-Coucy be-ktivat ha-Semag,” Ha-Ma ʻayan 35 (1995): 23–31Google Scholar.

5. The best concise study of R. Moses of Coucy, his life, and works remains that of, Urbach, E. E.Baʻalei ha-Tosafot (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1980), 465–79Google Scholar. In addition, see Katz, Jacob, Exclusiveness and Tolerance: Studies in Jewish–Gentile Relations in Medieval and Modern Times (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), 102–105Google Scholar. See also the various recent studies of Jeffrey Woolf and Judah Galinsky cited in this study.

6. On R. Judah and his study hall, see Urbach, Ba ʻalei ha-Tosafot, 320–35, esp., 322. Further on the uniqueness of Paris as a center of Talmud study at this time, see Kanarfogel, Ephraim, Jewish Education and Society in the High Middle Ages (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1992), 58Google Scholar.

7. See Urbach, Baʻalei ha-Tosafot, 334.

8. The literature on preaching activity in Christian Europe among Christians is quite extensive. See, e.g., the review essay by Muessig, Carolyn, “Sermon, Preacher and Society in the Middle Ages,” Journal of Medieval History 28 (2002): 73–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar. With regard to the preaching activities of the mendicant orders, see Vauchez, André, “The Religious Orders,” in The New Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 5: c. 1198–c. 1300, ed. Abulafia, D. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 220–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar and d'Avray, D. L., The Preaching of the Friars: Sermons Diffused from Paris before 1300 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985)Google Scholar.

9. See Urbach, Baʻalei ha-Tosafot, 466–71, and J. D. Galinsky, “R. Moshe mi-Coucy ke-hasid, darshan u-fulmusan” (Masterʼs thesis, Bernard Revel Graduate School, 1993), 12–14, 62–64, and 106–107. Note also the two documents discovered by the late Ta-Shma, Y. M., “ʼIggeret u-derashat hitʼorerut le-ʼaḥad mi-rabotenu ha-rishonim,” Moriʼah 19.5–6 (1994): 7–12Google Scholar (reprinted in Ta-Shma, Y. M., Knesset meḥkarim [Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 2004], 2:149–56)Google Scholar.

10. See Galinsky's, Y. D. recent study “Gishot shonot le-tofaʻat mofte kedoshei ha-noẓrim be-sifrut ha-rabbanit shel yeme ha-benaim” in Ta-Shma: Meḥkarim le-zikhro shel Yisrael M. Ta-Shma, ed. Avraham (Rami) Reiner and others (Alon Shvut: Tvunot, 2011), 195–220Google Scholar, relating to R. Moses' response to the phenomenon of miracles related to relics of Christian saints.

11. See Urbach, Baʻalei ha-Tosafot, 334; Katz, Exclusiveness, 104; and Galinsky, “R. Moses of Coucy,” 87–90. Israel Yuval has emphasized this aspect of R. Moses' life's work, both his preaching mission and the composition of his halakhic work. See Yuval, I. J., Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, trans. Chipman, J. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006), 257–74Google Scholar and his “Moshe Redivivus—ha-Rambam ke-ʻozer la-melekh ha-mashiaḥ,” Zion 72 (2007): 186–87Google Scholar. The sermon published by Ta-Shma (see note 9) does much to strengthen this hypothesis. On the various calculations about the coming of the messiah during this time, see also Kanarfogel, E., “Ḥishuve ha-keẓ shel ḥakhme ashkenaz: mi-Rashi u-bne doro ve-ad le-tkufat baʻale ha-tosafot,” Rashi—Demuto ve-yiẓirato, ed. Grossman, Avraham and Japhet, Sara, (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2008), 2:388–89, 393–94, and 395–400Google Scholar.

12. Regarding 1247 as the plausible year for the completion of the work, see the comment of Y. M. Peles in his introduction to Sefer miẓvot gadol ha-shalem (Jerusalem: Machon Yerushalayim, 1993), I:23Google Scholar.

13. On the effect of this event on his work, see Woolf, J. R., “Some Polemical Emphases in the Sefer Miswot Gadol of Rabbi Moses of Coucy,” Jewish Quarterly Review 89 (1998): 86–93Google Scholar and Galinsky, Y. D., “Mishpat ha-Talmud be-shnat 1240 be-Paris: ‘Vikuaḥ R. Yeḥiʼel’ ve-‘Sefer ha-Miẓvot' shel R. Moshe mi-Coucy,” Shenaton ha-Mishpat ha-Ivri 22 (2001–2003): 45–69Google Scholar.

14. The implication of the format and the division into parts shall be elaborated below.

15. On his extant Tosefot written while studying with R. Judah in Paris, see Urbach, Ba ʻalei ha-Tosafot, 477–78.

16. On the study halls of the Tosefists in northern France, see Kanarfogel, Jewish Education, 57–60 and 66–74.

17. Urbach, Baʻalei ha-Tosafot, 472 has already noted the major differences in that R. Moses of Coucy inverted the order of Maimonides' last four books, namely Sefer Nezikin (Damages), Sefer Kinyan (Acquisitions), Sefer Mishpatim (Judgments), and Sefer Shoftim (Judges), which he placed before Sefer Hafla'ah (Promises), Sefer Zeraim (Seeds), Sefer ʻAvodah (Temple service), Sefer Korbanot (Sacrifices), and Sefer Tohorah (Ritual purity). The motivation for the rearrangement seems to have been the author's wish to keep all practical halakhah together and move the laws relevant to the past and future to the end of the work. There are a number of additional minor discrepancies, but I will mention only one of interest. As a fitting coda to his book, the author ends his section on negative commandments with two miẓvot that he “rescues” from the middle of the Book of Judges, hilkhot mamrim: the prohibition of adding and of subtracting biblical commandments. He may have decided to place these commandments at the end of the book because of their relationship to the five rabbinic positive commandments that he places at the end of his section on positive commandments (also a deviation from the Mishneh Torah structure). The message that emerges from these changes is that one may not alter the Law of Moses, given at Sinai by adding or subtracting from it; however, the talmudic sages did have authority to add rabbinic commandments. This may be a polemical response to Christian attacks on Judaism in general, and the Talmud in particular, during this time. It should be noted, however, that even regarding this twofold deviation, R. Moses was influenced by Maimonides. See Maimonides' comments regarding rabbinic commandments in Mishneh Torah and their relationship to the above-mentioned negative commandments found at the end of the list of commandments, Mishneh Torah, Sefer ha-madda, Shabse Frankel edition (Jerusalem and Bene Berak, 2001), 20–21Google Scholar. See also note 83.

18. An alternative explanation would be to relate the inclusion of laws relating to the Temple and to the land of Israel in his work to the messianic expectations that were widespread at this time. See note 11.

19. Sefer miẓvot gadol, miẓvot ʻaseh 1–96, ed. Shlezinger, Elyakim (Jerusalem, 1995), 1Google Scholar.

20. Ibid. The italics in the above passage as well as all italics for the purpose of emphasis found within this study were added by the author (J.G.) and are not found in the original source.

21. On the centrality of Torah le-shma in medieval Ashkenaz, see Ta-Shma, Y. M., Ha-Sifrut ha-parshanit la-Talmud be-Eropah u-Ẓefon Afrika 1000–1200 (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1999), 16–21Google Scholar; Kanarfogel, Ephraim, “Progress and Tradition in Medieval Ashkenaz,” Jewish History 14 (2000): 287–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Galinsky, J. D., “Halakha, kalkala ve-idialogya be-veit midrasha shel ha-Rosh be-Toledo,” Zion 72 (2007): 388–93Google Scholar.

22. The introduction deals mainly with proving the authenticity of the Oral Law. See Woolf, “Some Polemical Emphases” and Galinsky, “Mishpat ha-Talmud.”

23. Sefer miẓvot gadol ha-shalem, 13.

24. In his sermons, R. Moses stressed the importance of repentance, warned against prohibited relations with non-Jewish women, spoke about belief and trust in God, and demanded a higher moral standard especially in business dealings with Gentiles. One of his most central themes was the observance of divine commandments, in particular those of Tefillin, Mezuzah, and Ẓiẓit.

25. We may learn about the basic structure of R. Moses' sermons from his introduction to the positive commandments. After citing at length from an inspirational sermon dealing with the purpose of the law and the eternal nature of the Torah, R. Moses concludes, “This introduction I preached to the exiles of Jerusalem in Spain and to the other exiles in Christian Europe [literally ‘exiles of Edom’] to draw their hearts to the service of the God of Israel, and afterwards I would preach to them about the commandments.” (Sefer miẓvot gadol, miẓvot ʻaseh 1–96, ed. Elyakim Shlezinger, 11).

26. Ibid.

27. This report is found at the end of positive commandment 3. Sefer miẓvot gadol, miẓvot ʻaseh 1–96, ed. Elyakim Shlezinger, 17–18.

28. It is worth noting the similarity between R. Moses' description of his preparations “arranging the commandments by-heart . . . the basics of each commandment, without all of their ramifications” and the way he describes the request of his audience for “the principles of the commandments together with their sources, in the form of a book,” and “a book explaining the commandments in concise form.”

29. Sefer miẓvot gadol ha-shalem, 13.

30. Ibid.

31. Ibid.

32. The claim of writing not from one's own initiative but in response to others is a commonplace in medieval literature; see Curtius, E. R., European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, trans. Trask, W. R. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990), 83–85Google Scholar; nevertheless, it would seem that at least “in some places” he was actually asked to compose a work on the commandments, a request he mentions not only in his introduction but later in the body of the work as well. In addition, see Ta-Shma “ʼIggeret,” where a thirteenth-century scholar, possibly R. Moses himself, describes in a letter the request by a Spanish community that he remain and teach them Torah instead of returning home to his family.

33. One can surmise that this is the reason for including throughout his work selections from the various sermons he delivered. See note 9.

34. Sefer Miẓvot gadol ha-shalem, 14. This appears in the last line of the introduction.

35. Sefer miẓvot gadol ha-shalem, 12.

36. Ibid.

37. We discuss this aspect of R. Moses' description below.

38. Ibid.

39. See Twersky, Isadore, “The Beginnings of Mishneh Torah Criticism,” in Biblical and Other Studies, ed. Altmann, A. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), 161–83Google Scholar.

40. Ibid.

41. Ibid, 13.

42. That is, his preaching mission, his audience's request for a book, and the heavenly vision.

43. Often R. Moshe will slightly revise Maimonides' formulations to align them with the Tosefists' positions. See Shlezinger, Elyakim, Pne Moshe (Jerusalem, 1997)Google Scholar, which is devoted to revealing R. Moses' editorial changes that influence the content of the law.

44. In the Talmud (Bava Batra 82a), the trunk and the root serve the same purpose. The distinction between the trunk and the root is that one is seen by the naked eye and the other is hidden underground.

45. She ʼelot u-teshuvot ha-Maharshal (Jerusalem: Alef Bet, 1969), siman 35Google Scholar.

46. See Galinsky, “Kum ʻaseh Sefer Torah,” 23–31, and see Woolf, Jeffrey who has argued in a similar vein in his “Maimonides Revised: The Case of the ‘Sefer Miswot Gadol,’” Harvard Theological Review 90 (1997): 175–205Google Scholar.

47. It is possible that Karshavya (Kreshebya) was residing only temporarily in Paris. R. Solomon Luria in his list of medieval scholars (She ʼelot u-teshuvot ha-Maharshal, siman 29) writes cryptically, “Karshvya be-drom” (literarily “in the south”). Most scholars have understood this to be a scribal error for “be-dros” from the city Dreux (which comes from Latin “Drocae”). The samekh can very easily be misread as a mem sofit, especially by scribes unfamiliar with the French town. See, e.g., Urbach, Ba ʻalei ha-Tosafot, 337, n. 25 and 462. See also Gross, H., Gallia Judaica (Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1969), 180Google Scholar, where he reads Luria's words as referring to Dreux. Since, however, there is no corroborative evidence for placing our Cresbien le Ponctateur in Dreux, we must remain somewhat skeptical with regard to this report.

48. In the gloss cited by Kupfer below, he calls himself KRSHBYA. However, in the colophon to Mishneh Torah he writes KRSHBYAHU. Similarly in the fable that he appended to the Berechiah ha-Nakdan's fox fables, Mishle shu ʻalim, A. M. Haberman edition (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Schocken, 1946), 132–35, he refers to himself at times as KRSHPYA and at times KRSHPYAHU.

49. Cresben is the northern French equivalent of Catalan Provençal Crescas. Both Crescas and Cresben may be a Romanization of Joseph on the basis of the biblical verse ben porat Yosef. Joseph is a fruitful vine, and the Latin verb crescere, means “to grow” or “to increase.” I would like to thank Cyril Aslanov for assisting me in clarifying the various aspects relating to KRSHBYA's name and possible place of residence in Dreux.

50. In general, see Golb, N., Les Juifs de Rouen au Moyen Age: portrait d'une culture oubliée (Rouen: Université de Rouen, 1985), 343–51Google Scholar. On his relationship with R. Moses and other luminaries, see 347. In the earlier Hebrew version of this study (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1976), this material can be found at 151–57, esp. 152–55 and n. 443.

51. A survey of the various glosses that he appended to his copy of R. Moses of Coucy's Sefer ha-miẓvot (positive commandments 19, 21, and 25) reveals his specialization in the area of copying Torah scrolls, public reading of them, and copying tefillin. The gloss related to commandment 25 was preserved in the printed edition of Sefer ha-terumah siman 201. The three glosses on commandment 19 and the additional one at commandment 21 are found in the standard printed versions of the Semag.

52. Kupfer, Ephraim, Teshuvot u-psakim (Jerusalem: Mekize nirdamim, 1973), 325Google Scholar. Kupfer (n. 8) suggests that this passage was one of Karshavya's glosses to the Semag; on some other glosses, see note 51.

53. The copy is to be found in Cambridge—University Library, add. 1564. See Reif, S. C., Hebrew Manuscripts at Cambridge University Library (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 161Google Scholar.

54. Found on pages 1–4 of the manuscript. We shall elaborate on this composition and its relationship to Mishneh Torah below.

55. Found on page 275b of the manuscript.

56. See also the additional evidence for this suggestion brought in the conclusion of this study.

57. As noted above, each part of the work followed the structure of Mishneh Torah with some variations.

58. Maimonides in his introduction to his Sefer ha-miẓvot describes at length the rationale behind his decision to structure his work according to topics and not commandments. See Twersky, Isadore, Introduction to the Code of Maimonides (Mishneh Torah) (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1980), 27–28Google Scholar.

59. In this practice they were following the scholastic culture of German Jewish scholars, active in the Rhineland during the eleventh century. It is worth noting that both cultures valued the writing of responsa literature. At some point in time, the scholars of Germany (in contrast to France) fused these two areas of interest by writing books on the Talmud where they integrated their important responsa. For examples of this genre during the late twelfth and the thirteenth century, see Emanuel, Simcha, Shivre luhot: sifre halakhah avudim shel ba ʻale ha-Tosafot (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2006), 134–35Google Scholar.

60. For a possible explanation of this phenomenon within France, see Grossman, Avraham, “Rashi's Rejection of Philosophy—Divine and Human Wisdoms Juxtaposed,” Jahrbuch des Simon-Dubnow-Instituts 8 (2009): 95–118Google Scholar. See, however, David Berger's response, “Polemic, Exegesis, Philosophy, and Science: On the Tenacity of Ashkenazic Modes of Thought,” ibid., 27–39.

61. It is worth noting that with regard to halakhic content, however, ha-terumah played a more central role than Yereʼim.

62. Urbach, Baʻalei ha-Tosafot, 347–54.

63. The complete list of topics treated in Sefer ha-terumah is 1. Sheḥita; 2. ʼIssur Ve-heter; 3. Ḥalla; 4. Nidda; 5. Gittin; 6. Ḥaliẓa; 7. ʻAvodah Zarah; 8. Yayin Nesekh; 9. Sefer Torah; 10. Tefillin; 11. ʼEreẓ Yisra ʼel; and 12. Shabbat.

64. It is, however, worth mentioning that R. Barukh appended an abridgement to his work to serve in the dual capacity of a short practical summary of the larger work as well as a table of contents for it. See meanwhile Galinsky, Y. D., “Ha-Rosh ha-Ashkenazi bi-Sefarad: ‘Tosafot ha-Rosh,’ ‘Pisqei ha-Rosh,’ Yeshivat ha-Rosh,” Tarbiz 74 (2005): 406–407Google Scholar.

65. See Urbach, Baʻalei ha-Tosafot, 159–62.

66. Introduction, Sefer yere'im, ed. Schiff, A. A. (Vilna, 1892)Google Scholar; Urbach, Ba ʻalei ha-Tosafot, 160.

67. Examples of simanim with Tosefist type dialectics [in the parenthesis in this note and the next I will describe briefly the topic of the excursion]: 7 (kidushin); 52 (hameẓ); 148 (ḥallah); 253 (birkhat ha-mazon); 277 (ha-nikhnas le-bet ha-mikdash tamme); 419 (teki ʻah be-rosh ha-shanna); and 420 (ʻinuy be-yom ha-kippurim).

68. Examples of simanim with extensive legal treatment: 26 (niddah); 47 (ḥeilev); 48 (dam); 63 (bassar be-ḥalav); 118 (ribbit); 274 (shabbat); 304 (ʼissur melachha be-tom tov); 399 (tefillin); 400 (mezuzah); 401 (ẓiẓit); 402 (mila); 422 (lulav); and 456 (sheḥita).

69. In addition to this basic division, the author subdivided each pillar into various numbers of hooks (vave ha-ʻamudim), the number dependent on the content of the pillar. The hooks in Yereʼim define the level of prohibition according to severity of the punishment, so that in every pillar one can find at least one, though usually there will be a number of the following types of prohibitions, according to the following order (see source 10B): 1. punishment by stoning; 2. by burning; 3. by sword; 4. by choking; 5. by excommunication (karet); 6. death from the hand of heaven; 7. negative commandments (not punishable by death); and 8. positive commandments. The first seven categories are almost always negative commandments, with various degrees of punishment, and the eighth category is the positive aspect of the religion. Note that this internal subdivision was inspired by that of the Halakhot Gedolot, the classic list of miẓvot that was R. Eliezer's source. The division into seven pillars, however, was his creation.

70. It is worth contrasting this diffusion of commandments and laws related to Passover as found in Yereʼim to their placement in R. Moses of Coucy's work. In the later work one can find all the special laws of Passover located in two areas according to the two-part division of his work. In the negative commandments, prohibitions 76–79, one will find all the laws relating to hameẓ on Passover, with the exception of the positive commandment to eliminate all hameẓ from one's possession before the holiday. In the positive commandments, commandments 39–41 in addition to the aforementioned requirement of hameẓ elimination prior to the holiday, one can find all the various other laws relating to the Passover holiday in one section.

71. On these unique qualities in Mishneh Torah, see Twersky, Introduction, 188–23. With regard to Maimonides' language and style, additional qualities that endeared him to R. Moses, see ibid., 324–55. See also, most recently, Soloveitchik, Haym, “Mishneh Torah: Polemic and Art,” in Maimonides after 800 Years: Essays on Maimonides and His Influence, ed. Harris, Jay M. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Center for Jewish Studies, 2007), 327–43Google Scholar.

72. Sefer miẓvot gadol ha-shalem, 13. It is likely that he chose the image of a Torah scroll to describe his legal work because of the vision he received instructing him to write such a scroll, as shall be seen below—although it would seem that in the original version of the work he wrote simply “sefer le-rabim.”

73. We do not know of any other famous French Tosefist who left his country in order to preach to Jewish communities throughout Christian Europe.

74. Although it is unclear whether all the Tosefists agreed to sign the letter banning the study of Maimonides' philosophical works. See recently Kanarfogel, E., “Varieties of Belief in Medieval Ashkenaz: The Case of Anthropomorphism,” in Rabbinic Culture and Its Critics: Jewish Authority, Dissent, and Heresy in Medieval and Early Modern Times, ed. Frank, Daniel and Goldish, Matt (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2008), 117–59Google Scholar.

75. This fascinating issue in Maimonides' legal program was already raised in his lifetime and has been treated extensively by scholars; see most recently, Moshe Halbertal, “What is the ‘Mishneh Torah’? On Codification and Ambivalence,” in Maimonides after 800 Years, 81–111, and Friedman, Shamma, “Ha-Rambam ve-ha-Talmud,” Dine Israel 26–27 (2009–2010): 221–37Google Scholar.

76. Sefer miẓvot gadol ha-shalem.

77. See Ta-Shma, Y. M., “Sheʼelot u-teshuvot min ha-shamayim,” Tarbiz 57 (1988): 51–66, esp. 63–66Google Scholar (reprinted in Ta-Shma, Knesset meḥkarim [Jerusalem, 2010], 4:112–29, esp. 126–29]Google Scholar, and Kanarfogel, E., Peering through the Lattices: Mystical, Magical, and Pietistic Dimensions in the Tosafist Period (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2000), 194–95, 228–29Google Scholar.

78. See note 125 for another possible influence on R. Moses' thinking.

79. For a somewhat similar step by a later halakhic scholar, R. Moses Isserles, in presenting his Torat Ḥatat to the reader, see Reiner, Elchanan, “The Ashkenazi Elite at the Beginning of the Modern Era: Manuscript versus Printed Book,” Polin 10 (1997): 85–98, esp. 95Google Scholar.

80. One can see the two additional lists of miẓvot in Rav Yitzchak Shilat's edition of Mishneh Torah, titled Rambam Miduyak, or in the Shabse Frankel edition of Mishneh Torah. In most standard printings the list at the beginning of each book was omitted. On the centrality of the enumeration of the commandments within Maimonides' legal thought, see Halbertal, Moshe, “Sefer ha-miẓvot le-Rambam, ha-arkitektura shel ha-halakha ve-ha-tiorya ha-parshanit shela,” Tarbiz 59 (1990): 457–80Google Scholar.

81. See M. Halbertal, Rabi Moshe ben Maimon (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2009), 97–101, esp. y 99Google Scholar. I would like to thank David Henshke for discussing this issue with me.

82. Additional assistance may have come from Karshavya ha-Nakdan who at this exact time was compiling such a list based on the list of miẓvot according to the order of Mishneh Torah; see note 98.

83. An interesting structural consequence of this shift from code to book of commandments relates to the placement of the rabbinic commandments in these two books. Maimonides, who was writing a code, was easily able to allot space within his work for these commandments. E.g., he includes a section dealing with the laws of Purim and Ḥanuka or those of ʻEruven within the book of Zemanim (i.e., Holidays), though they are purely rabbinic in nature. In contrast, R. Moses, who was writing a book of biblical commandments, was much more restricted in this regard. He therefore delays his treatment of all five rabbinic commandments until he completes his examination of the biblical ones, placing them at the end of the positive commandments. See also note 17.

84. This topic has recently drawn the attention of a number of scholars. See Woolf, “Admiration and Apathy” mentioned in note 3; Soloveitchik, H., “The Halakhic Isolation of the Ashkenazic Community,” Jahrbuch des Simon-Dubnow-Instituts 8 (2009): 41–47Google Scholar, and recently E. Kanarfogel in a lecture titled “The Diffusion of Maimonides' Mishneh Torah in Thirteenth-Century Ashkenaz” delivered in Toronto at the AJS Conference in 2007. I would like to thank Professor Kanarfogel for sharing his conference paper with me. As will be clarified below, my interest and treatment of this issue is somewhat different from these previous studies. I am interested neither in clarifying the question of Mishneh Torah's influence on French halakhah nor in describing the exact level of engagement of both French and German scholars with the work. My interest pertains rather to the question of readership: was the Mishneh Torah a work that aroused interest among educated readers in France and Germany in the first half of the thirteenth century or was it ignored?

85. In the combined work of both scholars R. Isaac and R. Pereẓ I have found altogether only some twenty-five citations.

86. See Soloveitchik, “Halakhic Isolation,” where he vigorously argues that true engagement with Mishneh Torah in France and Germany occurred only within the walls of R. Meir of Rothenburg's study hall.

87. On this, see the perceptive observations of Soloveitchik, H., “Three Themes in the Sefer Ḥasidim,” AJS Review 1 (1976): 339–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Soloveitchik, , “Can Halakhic Texts Talk History?,” AJS Review 3 (1978): 180–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

88. See E. Kanarfogel's book-length study, The Intellectual History of Medieval Ashkenazic Jewry: New Perspectives (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, forthcoming). Meanwhile, see his “Ben yeshivot baʻale ha-tosafot le-bate midrashot ʼaḥerim be-ʼashkenaz be-yime ha-benayim,” in Yeshivot u-Bate Midrashot, ed. Etkes, I. (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2006), 85–108Google Scholar.

89. For an initial survey of the manuscript evidence for the spread of the work in Ashkenazi society during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, see notes 106 and 107. As we shall see, only one dated manuscript from the mid-thirteenth century has come down to us, as well as one from the end of the century and an additional one tentatively dated as thirteenth–fourteenth century. However, there are a good number of undated manuscripts that have been tentatively dated as from the fourteenth century. Only a closer examination by an expert will confirm this dating. It is entirely possible that many of the manuscripts that are dated as from the fourteenth century may actually be from the thirteenth. It is also of interest to note that while strong indications show that R. Moses of Coucy's work was already recognized as important among the scholarly class of France and Germany already in the thirteenth century, the number of manuscripts from that time period is not overwhelming either. There are only three dated manuscripts from the last quarter of the thirteenth century and only three undated ones that have been estimated from the “thirteenth–fourteenth century.” This means that on the whole the majority of the twenty-five surviving copies of Semag from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries are from the fourteenth century (nineteen manuscripts). In a word, although I believe that one can establish the popularity of a work based on a large number of extant manuscripts, one should not necessarily assume that the converse is correct. There may be various external and internal factors that could affect and determine the fate of a medieval manuscript and its survival into the twenty-first century.

90. Even if Maimonides and his halakhic rulings were clearly not treated as authoritative among the scholarly class.

91. See ʻArugat ha-bosem, ed. Urbach, E. E. (Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1939–64), 4:272–73Google Scholar. It is worth noting that in Urbach's listing of sources, volumes 2 and 3 are mistakenly switched a number of times.

92. Abraham's citations from Maimonides' laws of kidush ha-ḥodesh include both halakhic and scientific statements relating to the Jewish calendar.

93. Abraham cites from the nonhalakhic portions of Mishneh Torah around fifteen times and from the halakhic portion around thirty-five times. One can assume that there are even more nonattributed references to the work, as is usually the case with medieval authors who borrow without explicitly citing their sources.

94. See H. Soloveitchik, “The Halakhic Isolation,” 44.

95. Shin‘ar is the early biblical word for Babylonia (see, e.g., Genesis 11:2). Here it stands for the tradition of the Babylonian amoraim and geonim; Karshavya is saying that Maimonides is the heir to that tradition.

96. Karshavya is making an untranslatable pun on two interpretations of the word nashku in Psalms 2:12. One interpretation of the verb is “to kiss” (or even, as Rashi quotes in the name of Menaḥem, “to desire”); another is “to supply food,” also cited by Rashi on that verse. Karshavya is using both meanings of the verb, so I have translated it twice (with the second time in brackets): “to kiss them [for they supply],” or “are supplies of.” I would like to thank Gavriel Wasserman for assisting me in understanding the various passages from Karshavya's poetic introduction cited in this study.

97. See notes 53 and 54; N. Golb has transcribed the text in its entirety in Toldot ha-yehudim ba-ʻir Ruan be-yime ha-benayim (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1976), 208–27Google Scholar; the introduction cited above is at 208.

98. See above where we described the two basic lists of miẓvot to be found in Mishneh Torah. However, Karshavya tells us in this same paragraph that in preparing his poem he needed to modify Maimonides' list slightly. The list of miẓvot according to the order of Mishneh Torah was structured exactly according to their order of appearance in the book. This meant that the positive and negative commandments were not divided into two distinct lists but rather were integrated. Karshavya, for the purpose of writing ʼAzharot, had to divide Maimonides' list into its two distinct components, the positive and negative commandments respectively.

99. The work was published as the first part of Sefer ḥasidim (Bologna, 1538), simanim 1–152 that became the standard edition of the work. On the earliest dated manuscript of the work, see Soloveitchik, , “Piety, Pietism and German Pietism: Sefer Hasidim I and the Influence of Hasidei Ashkenaz,” Jewish Quarterly Review 92 (2002): 465–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

100. See Soloveitchik, “Piety, Pietism,” 455–93. See also Marcus, Ivan G., “The Recensions and Structure of Sefer Hasidim,” Proceedings—American Academy for Jewish Research 45 (1978): 131–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

101. See Soloveitchik, “Piety, Pietism,” 488–90 (app. II). Soloveitchik reached this conclusion based on the fact that R. Jonah of Gerona was clearly acquainted with the work and left the study halls of northern France around the mid-1220s.

102. It is at least possible that R. Jonah became acquainted with the work only when he returned to France during the controversy over the philosophic works of Maimonides ca. 1232–33.

103. See Marcus, “Recensions and Structure,” 153; Soloveitchik, “Piety, Pietism,” 466.

104. Soloveitchik, “Piety, Pietism,” 458–60.

105. It is worth noting also that R. Aharon ha-Kohen, author of Sefer ha-gan, active around the year 1240, cites Mishneh Torah twice in his commentary to the Bible. One of the sources appears in the recently published edition of Sefer ha-gan, edited by Orlian, J. M. (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 2009)Google Scholar, on the verse in Leviticus 21:4. For the second citation, see Tosafot ha-shalem, ed. Gellis, Y. (Jerusalem: Ariel, 1982), 1:65–66Google Scholar. On the importance of this passage, see Kanarfogel, “Varieties of Belief,” 146–47, n. 30.

106. Using the catalog of the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts, I noted that out of the twenty-four manuscripts of Mishneh Torah in Ashkenazi script only seven are dated (two from the thirteenth and five from the fourteenth century). Of the seventeen undated manuscripts, the catalog lists one as “13th–14th century” and the remaining sixteen as “14th century.” The dating, however, is to be considered only an initial estimate and must be substantiated by an expert.

107. I have limited myself to manuscript copies of the work that contain at least one of the fourteen books of the Yad. It should be noted that this number of manuscripts (twenty-four) is quite a substantial amount for an halakhic work copied in Ashkenazi script during this period, indicating that at least by the fourteenth century, Mishneh Torah had become a widely circulating work among Ashkenazi readers. For the sake of comparison, it is worth noting that the number of surviving manuscript copies in Ashkenazi script of major sections of R. Moses of Coucy's Sefer ha-miẓvot from this time period is roughly the same (twenty-five).

I will add that a major development at the end of the thirteenth century clearly paved the way for the work's positive reception in France and Germany during the fourteenth century, namely the composition of R. Meir ha-Kohen Ashkenazi's glosses, Hagahot Maimoniyot, to Mishneh Torah. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that out of the twenty-four surviving manuscripts, six copies still do not include the glosses of R. Meir, and at least one (Budapest 77) had the Hagahot added more than a hundred years after the work was initially copied (altogether seven manuscripts which originally did not include Hagahot). The particular case of Budapest 77, which includes dated colophons for both the work and for the Hagahot copied later, alerts us to the necessity of carefully examining all the sixteen copies of Mishneh Torah with Hagahot in order to ascertain when these Ashkenazi glosses were added to Maimonides' work.

Finally, it is worth noting that out of the twenty-four manuscripts, some six were clearly written for people of means, judging from the professional level of the layout and the writing as well as the aesthetics of the illuminations or designs. It is also interesting that three of these six luxurious manuscript copies do not have (or did not originally have) the Hagahot of R. Meir. These data may point to the existence of a reading audience that was not necessarily rabbinic but rather lay. I hope to return to all of this manuscript evidence at a later date.

108. See, however, Twersky, Introduction, 519.

109. See above at note 36.

110. On the movement of students from Germany and countries east of Germany to study in northern France, such as R. Isaac Or Zarua and R. Meir of Rothenburg, see Kanarfogel, Peering through the Lattices, 221 and the references cited there. On Isaac, see Reiner, Avraham (Rami), “From Rabbenu Tam to R. Isaac of Vienna: The Hegemony of the French Talmudic school in the Twelfth Century,” in The Jews of Europe in the Middle Ages (Tenth to Fifteenth Centuries), ed. Cluse, Christoph (Brepols: Turnhout, 2004), 273–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

111. On the lack of usage of Mishneh Torah among the rabbinic elite in Italy, see Ta-Shma, I. M., “The Acceptance of Maimonides' ‘Mishneh Torah’ in Italy,” Italia 13–15 (2001): 79–90Google Scholar. This of course cannot teach us anything about its acceptance among the secondary elite or among the readership of learned laypeople.

112. According to the above suggestion, there may be room to reevaluate the statement of R. Isaac Israeli who wrote at the beginning of the fourteenth century in Toledo, , “And as soon as the work [of Maimonides] was made public and disseminated throughout the Diaspora, all of Israel agreed to rule in accordance with its dictates on all matters of law, rabbinic ordinances, and custom” (Yesod ʻOlam [Berlin: Kornegg, 1848], part 2, sec. 4, chap. 18, p. 35a)Google Scholar. At first glance, this description smacks of unsubstantiated hyperbole. However, on second thought, one could argue that even if this description does not accurately reflect the reality in Ashkenaz or Ẓorfat, there may be some truth to his claim, at least with regard to readers of halakhic works who were not part of the scholarly elite.

113. From R. Moses' perspective, it was irrelevant whether Maimonides was aware of the French teachings and ignored them or whether he was never exposed to them. In the final analysis, he did not make use of French legal positions when formulating his halakhic decisions.

114. One can learn much about such anxiety from the reaction of the sixteenth-century Ashkenazi scholars to the spread of R. Joseph Karo's impressive legal works, Beit Yosef and Shulkhan Arukh, in Germany and Poland. See Spiegel, Y. S., ʻAmudim be-toldot ha-sefer ha-ʻivri: hagahot u-magihim, mahadura shneya (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 2005), 302–306Google Scholar, where he assembles evidence that demonstrates that the leading scholars of the time were fearful that R. Karo's works were becoming too influential on the halakhic practice of the reading public, including of their students. Although these students of R. Moses Isserles, R. Solomon Luria, and other scholars clearly realized that Joseph Karo's halakhah was not the same as their own, they nevertheless studied the work and were implementing it le-halakha (in practice) because of its utility and other inherent qualities. It is true, as Spiegel emphasizes, that the powerful impact and influence of print technology made R. Karo's works a real and immediate threat. Still, I would suggest that a similar fear and anxiety was at work on R. Moses of Coucy, albeit on a smaller and a much slower-paced scale. He felt that he had to act to combat the creeping influence of Mishneh Torah during the thirteenth century.

115. See the full citation at note 38.

116. Both scholars noted that Maimonides does not mention the names of authorities from previous generations nor include conflicting legal opinions. Rabad criticizes, as well, the lack of talmudic proof texts behind the decisions. Both felt that the work was written in a way that did not allow for the serious engagement of scholars. On these earlier critiques, for Rabad, see I. Twersky, “The Beginnings of Mishneh Torah Criticism,”, 161–83, esp. 171, and for Samson, R., see his response to R. Meir b. Todros ha-Levi (Ramah) Abulafia, in Kit'ab al Rasa'il, ed. Brill, Jehiel (Paris: Brill 1871), 131–32Google Scholar. See also Kanarfogel, E., “Progress and Tradition in Medieval Ashkenaz,” Jewish History 14 (2000): 292CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

117. On Maimonides' wish to be accepted as the authoritative code of Jewish law and the way he went about trying to accomplish this, see Ben-Sasson, Menachem, “Mishneh Torah le-Rambam: le-darkhe yeẓirat kanon be-ḥaye miḥaber,” in Ha-kanon ha-samuy min ha-ʻEyn: Ḥekre kanon ve-geniza, ed. Ben-Sasson, M., Brody, Y., Lieblich, A., and Shalev, D. (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2010), 133–72Google Scholar.

118. See Sklare, David E., “R. David ben Saʻadya al-Ger ve-ḥiburo Al-Ḥawi,” Teʻuda 14 (1998): 110–11Google Scholar.

119. In the Perek Ẓorfati he writes somewhat less accurately, “All [the laws] that we determined in this book.”

120. See notes 53 and 55. The passage can be found in the middle of second column.

121. Sefer miẓvot gadol, miẓvot ʻaseh 1–96, ed. Elyakim Shlezinger, (ʻaseh 82), 433.

122. This is the reading of the text in the printed version of Sefer ha-miẓvot as well as nine medieval manuscripts that I checked, including Paris—Bibliotheque Mazarine 4472, which usually preserves R. Moses' original formulations. On the various authorial recensions of the work, see Peles (note 12), 17–24 and his introduction to Sefer miẓvot gadol ha-shalem (Jerusalem: Machon Yerushalyim, 2003), 2:17–24Google Scholar.

123. Compare to the passage in his introduction cited above at note 40: “Moreover, in several places his interpretations and his halakhic rulings, are disputed by the pillars of the Torah and its great men . . . from whose waters all the wise men of the latter generations drink.”

124. See Hobbins, Daniel, Authorship and Publicity before Print: Jean Gerson and the Transformation of Late Medieval Learning (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009), 183–216, esp. 183–91, 216Google Scholar.

125. It is plausible that R. Moses of Coucy's decision to structure his work in such a way was in some measure influenced by Karshavya (Kreshbeya)'s use of Mishneh Torah in composing his ʼAzharot. Both scholars were clearly frustrated by the lack of structure and order to be found in classical French works, as in the listing of miẓvot in previous French ʼAzharot, such as those of R. Eliyahu or in their explication by R. Eliezer of Metz's Yere ʼim.

126. On the success or failure of R. Moses in appealing to this type of audience, see Soloveitchik, “Halakhic Isolation,” 43–44. I hope to return to this topic in the near future.