Jeffrey R.

Woolf

R. Isaac Lampronti’s Paad Yiaq:

Medieval or Modern?

In a well-known essay, the late Professor Ephraim Urbach, observed that the hi-
story of Italian Halakic Literature begins with an encyclopedia (dizionario), the Sefer
‘Aruk of R. Natan b. Yeiel of Rome (d. 1106) and ends with an encyclopedia (also
described as a dizionario), the monumental undertaking, Paad Yiaq by R. Isaac
Lampronti (1679-1756). 1 He noted, however, that there is a marked contrast betwe-
en the two works. The author of the ‘Aruk, the first significant Italian halakic work,
stood at the crossroads of Italian (and, more broadly, Aškenazic) rabbinic culture. 2 It
reflects the transition from the academies of the Geonim in the East, to the new cen-
ters of Talmudic scholarship in the Rhineland. On the one hand, the work contains
great swaths of Geonic literature. At the same time, it preserves extensive portions of
the Talmudic commentaries that emerged from the academies of Mainz and Worms. 3
Urbach concluded that since the ‘Aruk bestrode eras of both Babylonia and Aškenaz,
it should be viewed as a harbinger of the great renaissance of halakic creativity that
was about to burst forth in the academies of Northern France, Germany and Italy. 4
Urbach’s view of Lampronti’s work was much less happy. While he outlined,
in broad strokes, its many positive elements, he made much of the fact that Paad
Yiaq was be the last significant work of Jewish Law to be composed in Italy; mar-
king the end of the glorious tradition of Italian Halakic creativity.

1 Ephraim Elimelek Urbach, Rabbi Yiaq Lampronti we-ibburo Paad Yiaq [Hebrew],

in Meqarim be-Madda‘e ha-Yahadut, I-II, ed. M.D. Herr and Y. Fraenkel, Magnes, Jerusalem
1998, pp. 385-390.
2 With the exception of the responsa of R. Meshullam b. Qalonymos (c. 950 - c. 1010), earlier

literary creativity was expressed primarily in liturgical poetry (piyyu). See Avraham Grossman,
akme Aškenaz ha-Rišonim [Hebrew], 2, Magnes, Jerusalem 1989, pp. 68-75 and Ezra Fleischer,
Hebrew Liturgical Poetry in Italy: remarks Concerning its Emergence and Characteristics, in
Italia Judaica, I, Bari 1983, pp. 415-426. On the relationship between Italy and Medieval Franco
Germany, see Jeffrey Woolf, The Fabric of Religious Life in Medieval Ashkenaz (1000-1300):
Creating Sacred Communities, Brill, Leiden and Boston 2015, pp. 2-3.
3 Ibidem, pp. 385-386. The latter material is referred to by R. Natan as «the commentaries

of Mainz» (Peruše Magena), and were, erroneously, attributed to R. Gershom Me’or ha-Golah
(d. 1027). See A. Grossman, akme Aškenaz, cit., pp. 165-174; Israel Ta-Shma, Ha-Peruš ha-
Meyuas le-Rabbenu Geršom Me’or ha-Golah la-Talmud [Hebrew], in Knesset Meqarim, Mos-
sad Bialik, Jerusalem 2004, pp. 3-20.
4 The Mainz Commentaries served as the basis for Rashi’s Talmudic commentary, which

was composed at the same time as the ‘Aruk. See Avraham Grossman, akme arfat ha-Rišonim
[Hebrew], Magnes, Jerusalem 1995, f. 215.
2 Jeffrey R. Woolf

I believe that Urbach’s judgements, regarding both works, should be reexami-

ned. It is true that Sefer ha-‘Aruk summarized and organized the extant traditions
of Talmudic commentary. It did not, however, presage the revolutionary new era
of Talmudic study that was about to dawn in the academies of France. The work is
comprehensive, but static. 5 There is no sign therein of the Talmud-wide vision that
was the sine qua non of Tosafist dialectic. 6 The work marks the end of an age, whe-
rein Italy and Germany ceded Talmudic preeminence to France. Urbach’s judgement
of Paad Yiaq also requires reevaluation. Lampronti himself did not foresee any
cessation in Italian halakic creativity. Indeed, in eliciting approbations of his work
from rabbis throughout Italy he made a point of requesting that these warn against
unauthorized copying of the work. 7 His incorporation of scientific and medical di-
scussions is a decidedly modern stroke and casts the weight of the work forward,
rather than toward the past. Nor was Lampronti’s optimism misplaced. Even though
his encyclopedia was not destined to play a formative role in future developments,
Italian halakic creativity did not end in the eighteenth century. As David Malkiel has
demonstrated, despite the much-changed circumstances of Post-Emancipation Italian
Jewry, Italian rabbis continued to toil in the vineyard of Jewish Law, and were very
much part of European rabbinic discourse in the modern era. 8 At the same time, the
marked tendency by scholars to emphasize the modern, contemporary moment in
Paad Yiaq, hides an equally valuable line of examination that has not received
its full due. I refer to its place as a significant link (perhaps, the last) in the chain of
Italian halakic creativity, and an expression of its long-term trends, from the early
years of the Quattrocento until the turn of the Ottocento. 9 In seeking to appreciate
its status, different questions should be posed to the work: In terms of its literary
and methodological frames of reference, where does Italian Halakah appear to have
stood in the first half of the eighteenth century? What sources underpin the work, and
which do not? What points of continuity and discontinuity may be discerned between
Lampronti’s writings, and those of his predecessors?

5 By way of contrast, Rashi’s commentary does foreshadow later developments, though it also

summarized and/or preserved the earlier, Rhenish traditions.

6 Cf. Haym Soloveitchik, The Printed Page of the Talmud: The Commentaries and Their

Authors, in Collected Essays, I, Oxford 2013, pp. 3-10. A similar note of criticism may be directed
at the late Y. Ta-Shma’s discussion of the ‘Aruk. He argues, persuasively, that R. Natan b. Yeiel
modelled the ‘Aruk upon extant Italian encyclopedias, particularly Pappias’ work, Elementarium
Doctrinae Rudimentum, which was completed around the year 1040. However, as sometimes
happens when arguments from influence are posed, these two works stood at different points of
development in their respective traditions. While Sefer ha-‘Aruk was a work of summary and con-
clusion, Pappias’ undertaking stood at the beginning of the great medieval encyclopedic tradition.
See Y. Ta-Shma, Ha-Reqa‘ ha-Ialqi le-Sefer ha-‘Aruk šel Rabbi Natan b. Rabbi Yeiel me-Romi
[Hebrew], in Knesset Meqarim, III, Mossad Bialik, Jerusalem 2005, pp. 3-8.
7 The approbations (Hakamot) were issued by rabbis from (in order of appearance in the

work): Venice, Leghorn, Ancona Mantua Verona, Torino, Padua, Reggio, Monferrat, Alessandria,
Pesaro, Pianella, Fano, Lugho, Rovigo, and Casale Monferrato. Paad Yiaq, I, Venice 1750,
iv-xii.
8 David Malkiel, «Yeirah ve-Sugeha be-Sifrut ha-Halakah be-Ialia ba-‘Et ha-adašah [He-

brew]», in Italia, 86-87, 1981, pp. 258-296.

9 One important effort in this direction is David Malkiel, «The Burden of the Past in the

Eighteenth Century: Authority, Custom and Innovation in the Pahad Yitzhak», in Jewish Law
Annual, XVI, 2006, pp. 93-132.
R. Isaac Lampronti’s Paad Yiaq: Medieval or Modern? 3

This emphasis, again, requires that we bring into the discussion elements of the
work that have been less remarked. For, while almost all of the published studies of
Lampronti focus upon his activity as a halakic decisor or as a physician (and the in-
terface between them), broad swaths of the Paad Yiaq are devoted not to practical
Law, or to the challenges to tradition posed by the Scientific Revolution, but to que-
stions of legal and Talmudic theory, per se. Here, unencumbered by considerations of
an imminent reality pressing in on him, Lampronti could give free rein to his mind,
memory, research and creativity. If we are to arrive at a full measure of the man and
his work, where he came from and what he achieved, these more theoretical portions
of his ouevre must be brought into the discussion. 10 Such an undertaking, though, is
daunting since the work is so massive and unruly. For purposes of the present (very
preliminary) discussion, I would like to first offer the results of my own schematic re-
view of the work as a whole. After that, I will focus on one highly repercussive entry
in the encyclopedia, which concerns the legal status of engagement gifts (Siblonot). 11
This latter was a subject that was consistently at the top of the Italian halakic agenda
throughout the Renaissance and Baroque eras. Taken together, these provide initial
answers to the above questions and suggest future lines of inquiry. The first thing
that strikes one when surveying the Paad Yiaq is the vast array of sources that the
author employs. His range and obvious mastery thereof is nothing less than stunning. 12
Similarly striking, though, is what, and whom, Lampronti does not cite. From the
Fourteenth through the Sixteenth centuries, the back story of Italian Halakah is pro-
vided by the interaction, between at first three, and after 1492 four, distinct Jewish
Legal traditions: French, German, Italian and Spanish. 13 Each came armed with its
own premier and preferred authorities, rules of decision-making, and tradition of
liturgical and religious custom. Despite the fact that they all had much in common,
each struggled throughout the Quattrocento, Cinquecento and Seicento to preserve
their unique identities. This circumstance was expressed graphically in Joshua Bo-
az’ sixteenth century annotations to the Talmudic folio, ‘En Mišpa / Ner Mivah.
These referred the student of the Talmud to Maimonides (who was relied upon by
Spanish-Portuguese and Italian Jews), the Sefer Mivot Gadol (SMaG; which served
as the key authority for French Jews), and the Arba‘ah urim (which, despite initial
objections, came to dominate German halakic discourse). 14
Yet, to judge from the Paad Yiaq, one would never know that this four-way

10 Concerning the authority of custom (minhag) in Lampronti’s thought, see D. Malkiel,

Burden of the Past, cit., pp. 118-132.

11 Vol. VII, Paris/Lyck 1866, s.v. Siblonot (2a-8b).
12 A catalogue of the Italian rabbis whose responsa are cited by Lampronti was commenced

by Boaz Cohen in Mazkeret Meabrei Ha-Tešuvot be-Sefer Paad Yiaq [Hebrew], in Sefer
Ha-Yovel le-Kevod Professor Alexander Marx, ed. D. Fraenckel, New York 1943, pp. 41-58 and
continued by Y.A. Klausner in Kiryat Sefer, 23, 1960, pp. 70-78. An full index of the work (in
light of the manuscripts is, of course, a major lacuna and desideratum).
13 Cf. Robert Bonfil, «The Book of Honeycomb’s Flow by Judah Messer Leon: The Rhetoric

Dimension of Jewish Humanism in Fifteenth-Century Italy», in Jewish History, 6, 1992, pp. 21-33.
Scholars have concentrated on the earlier period, prior to significant Spanish migration into Italy.
The impact of Spanish scholars on rabbinic culture has yet to be systematically examined.
14 This was famously noted by Isaiah Sonne, iyyulim be-Maqom še-ha-Mei’ut we-ha-Se-

fer- Hisoria u-Bibliografiah-Nošqim Zeh et Zeh [Hebrew], in Sefer ha-Yovel le-Kevod Alexander
Marx, Hebrew Section, New York 1950, pp. 209-235.
4 Jeffrey R. Woolf

split had ever existed. The Sefer Mivot Gadol (and its ubiquitous twin, Sefer Mivot
Qaan) are nowhere to be found. The ur is much diminished, and frequently invo-
ked only en passant in the process of discussing the opinion of R. Joseph Caro, rather
than serving as a focus of attention per se. Even Maimonides’ code, while a central
element in the encyclopedia’s warp and woof is much less frequently invoked as the
final legal word. 15 In addition, the writings of the preeminent scholars of the fifteenth
and sixteenth centuries such as Maharil (1360-1427), R. Moshe Mintz (1450-1480),
R. Israel Bruna (d. c. 1480), R. Moshe Provenzalo (1503-1576) and the many mem-
bers of the Trabotto and Treves families, do not play a significant role (if any role,
at all). Indeed, it is interesting to note that the only real exceptions to this rule are
the responsa of R. Israel Isserlein (d. 1460), known as Terumat ha-Dešen and those
of R. Joseph Colon Trabotto (Maharik; 1420-1480). For these two authorities loom
large in the glosses of R. Moses Isserles to the code-commentaries of R. Joseph Caro,
Darke Mošeh and the Mappah. 16
The obvious explanation for this development is the successful establishment
of R. Joseph Caro’s Bet Yosef, and later Šulan ‘Aruk as the preeminent halakic
authority not only in Italy, but throughout the Jewish world. Thus, by the end of the
seventeenth century, the struggle between different halakic cultures had been resol-
ved. The French halakic and liturgical tradition had effectively disappeared. 17 The
German, Italian and Spanish traditions partially survived, but essentially as liturgical
or customal traditions. Judging from Lampronti’s work, and the responsa he cites,
the world of Italian halakic discourse had become fairly universal. Differences of
opinion continued to characterize the halakic world. However, the many and va-
rious disputes revolve around the interpretation of sources, the application of rules of
decision-making and the evaluation of the specific circumstances. This development
is exemplified by Lampronti’s discussion of the legal status of siblonot. The point at
bar is whether the engagement gifts presented to a bride in advance of the wedding
actually serve to wed her to her groom (Qiddušin). If this were to be the case, in the
event that the marriage were to be cancelled (as not infrequently occurred), then the
bride would require a formal “Bill of Divorce” (Ge). Controversy raged around this
question, at least from the fifteenth century on. In fact, the issue became a leitmotif
both of Italian Halakic literature and social history. 18

15 Concerning Maimonides, see D. Malkiel, Burden of the Past, cit., pp. 102-105. See, ho-

wever, infra. See the important discussion by Robert Bonfil in his recent book, Hilkot Malveh
ve-Loveh: Madrik le-Mašlona’ut me-Ialya Mi-Yeme ha-Renaissance [Hebrew], Jerusalem 2015,
pp. 142-145.
16 The question of availability is secondary, as all of these were either available in print or

cited in extant literature.

17 The only exception is the continued use of the old French Liturgy for the High Holy Days

in the communities of Asti, Fossano and Moncalvo (Nusach AFaM.) See Yom Tov Assis, Nusah
APaM: A Medieval Liturgical Survivor, in Ebrei Piemontesi: The Jews of Piedmont, ed. J. Woolf,
Yeshiva University Museum, New York 2008, pp. 49-53 and Jeffrey Woolf, ŠuT Ziknei Yehudah
le-R. Yehudah Aryeh Modena: Reef bli Temurah, in Aryeh Yišag: R. Yehudah Aryeh Modena we-
Olamo, ed. D. Malkiel (Special Issue of Italia), Jerusalem 2003, pp. 55-68.
18 See Roni Weinstein, Marriage Rituals Italian Style: A Historical Anthropological Per-

spective on Early Modern Italian Jews, Brill, Leiden 2004. As is true of so much of Italian Hala-
kic History, we lack in depth studies of specific cases (many of which became Apennine causes
célèbres); such as that preserved in Yacov Boksenboim, Parshiyyot, Tel Aviv 1986, pp. 234-345.
R. Isaac Lampronti’s Paad Yiaq: Medieval or Modern? 5

For years, a central pivot of these controversies lay in the attempt by French and
German halakists to impose their strict interpretation of the Law upon Italiani rabbis
and communities. The Talmud had left the determination whether siblonot effected
marriage to the regnant custom in the locale where the bride and groom lived. This
position was adopted by the Italiani, who did not to view siblonot as being any more
than expressions of affection to the bride on the part of her intended. German and
French rabbis, who came to dominate Italian halakic culture, aggressively advanced
the position that one can never know the custom of a given location, with the result
that one must always require a Ge if the match is ended, with the personal and social
trauma that such a demand engendered. 19 Italian Jews, from the middle of fifteenth
century, increasingly deferred to German and French rabbis. This deference to the
German tradition of halakic agnosticism was actively opposed by the fifteenth cen-
tury authority R. Joseph Colon Trabotto (himself of French origin), and his broad
shoulders carried the defense of the Italian lenient tradition from then on. His defense
of Italian tradition was part of a broader attitude of “Halakic pluralism”, which as-
serted the integrity of different halakic traditions and customs, even if these did not
necessarily accord with his own. 20 By the turn of the seventeenth century, however,
Italian halakic discourse was essentially German. Lampronti devotes fully twelve
printed pages to the issue of Siblonot, testimony to the enduring importance of the
issue. His discussion is especially notable for a long summary of the laws of siblo-
not that he cites in extenso from R. Moshe Hagiz’ (1672-1750) notes on the Šulan
‘Aruk, Leqe ha-Qema. 21 He enthusiastically endorses Hagiz’ summary, asserting:
«Whoever wishes to understand the various aspects of the subject, should examine it
and slake his thirst». 22 The bottom line of Hagiz’ presentation is an endorsement of
the position that each community’s custom must determine the status of the siblonot,
and that the aim of the legal decisor should lean toward freeing the bride to remarry.
Lampronti’s effective conclusion is a ringing affirmation of Italian tradition, and a
summary rejection of a trend that had dominated Italian Jewish Life for two centuries.
Lampronti’s position transcends the subject itself. It exemplifies the fundamen-
tally pluralistic position that characterizes his attitude toward multiple halakic tradi-
tions. He frequently ends long disquisitions with the blank observation: «such and
such is the custom in Ferrara/Mantua/Venice». The upshot is that custom is self-vali-
dating, requiring no further defense. Furthermore, his openness to multiple practices
is not limited to questions of ritual (whose ramifications tended to be limited), but
extends to issues of personal status, which impacted upon the broader community
insofar as it determined one’s eligibility to marry. 23 Thus, refusal to accept the vali-
dity of a get, could result in the inability of the woman to remarry, and, if she refused
to accept the ruling, bring the taint of bastardy on her future children. The fact that
Lampronti published multiple forms of gittin that were issued by different rabbinic

19 This is but one example of the type of Halakic imperialism that was visited upon Italian

Rabbinic culture by Aškenazic, and later Spanish, scholars. It, too, is a subject that still awaits
detailed study.
20 See Jeffrey Woolf, «The Authority of Custom in the Responsa of R. Joseph Colon (Maha-

rik)», in Dinei Israel, 19, 1997-1998, pp. 43-73.

21 Cf. Leqe ha-Qema, Hamburg 1711, 91ff and Even ha-‘Ezer, 45, pp. 1-2.
22 Paad Yiaq,VII, Paris/Lyck 1866, s.v. Siblonot (3b).
23 This point is borne out in Amedeo Spagnoletto’s contribution to this volume.
6 Jeffrey R. Woolf

courts, constitutes an implicit endorsement of them all. In fine, Lampronti may have
largely ignored the halakic literature of the era preceding the Šulan ‘Aruk, his stan-
ce on issues such as these harks back to the era prior to the German ascension. This
attitude is directly related to Lampronti’s approach toward the power of precedent
in Halakic discourse and of prior rabbinic authority. In contrast to others who have
addressed the issue, and more in line with his attitude on questions of the relationship
between contemporary science/medicine and (at least), Post-Talmudic traditions,
Lampronti did not believe in halakic finality or in automatic deferral to authority.
This message is built into the warp and woof of the Paad Yiaq. Consider
its structure. Lampronti provides massive references, starting from the Talmud and
ending with his contemporaries. The implicit expectation is that the student will do
his own research, consider the different opinions and reach his own decision. This
message stands in sharp contrast to the attitude adopted by his contemporary, R.
Samson Morpurgo (1681-1740), who took Lampronti severely to task for daring to
differ with R. Joseph Caro’s ruling in the Šulan ‘Aruk, on the grounds that R. Caro’s
work had become universally accepted. Morpurgo’s opinion reflected the juggernaut
of deference to the Šulan ‘Aruk that overwhelmed contemporary rabbinic discourse.
Indeed, a generation later, the Chief Rabbi of Prague, R. Eliezer Fleckeles (1754-
1856) would assert that beginning halakhic analyses with sources that predate the
publication of the Šulan ‘Aruk is a total waste of time. This is not to say that Lam-
pronti was a halakic revolutionary, or that he did not revere tradition. His writings
are characterized by a careful balance between autonomy and deference, intellectual
daring and intellectual humility that is a permanent moment in post-Talmudic rabbi-
nic literature. While deference toward the authorities of the past did not include their
scientific opinions, it most definitely was a factor when he approached their halakic
views. Returning to our point of departure, it emerges that Paad Yiaq represents
a confluence of qualities. In its openness to scientific and medical innovation and by
reflecting contemporary trends in halakic discourse and literature, it anticipated the
challenges of modernity and lines of engagement therewith. On the other hand, its
legal and intellectual orientation are deeply rooted in mediaeval halakic thought, and
reflect a dynamic that marked Italian rabbinic culture in the Late Middle Ages. As
such, it is a work both of summary and of anticipation. One can only wonder what
might have been, had Emancipation not come as it did, and permanently alter the
rhythm of Jewish Life.