Joseph Colon Trabotto - Responsa

Responsa

Colon's responsa are among the classic productions in this field of rabbinic literature and exercised tremendous influence on the subsequent development of Jewish Law or Halakhah. His decisions had massive influence upon all subsequent legal development. His influence is particularly notable in the Ashkenazic orbit, as reflected in Moses Isserles' glosses on the Shulhan Arukh. Colon's responsa were the central pillar of later Italian halakhah, and there is scarcely an Italian rabbi of the 16th, 17th and 18th century who does not quote him. These responsa are distinguished by his encyclopedic knowledge and methodical analysis of sources. He attempts to identify the basic principles underlying his sources and to elucidate the conceptual framework within which he renders his rulings. His legal method also resembles the mode of analysis known as pilpul. Established custom (or minhag) played a unique place in his thinking and he defines its authority. In this context, he served as the defender of a uniquely French school of Ashkenazic Law and Lore. The Mishneh Torah of Maimonides enjoys a preeminent place in his writings. His extensive comments thereupon, scattered throughout his responsa and lecture notes, helped to set the agenda for later scholars. Colon's responsa are marked by tremendous deference to authorities of the past. Hesitating to decide between them, he resorted to methods of legal determination which removed or minimized this necessity (e.g. Halakha k’Bathra’i).

Colon's self-confidence is remarkable. He had a strong regard for right and justice. Firmly, though respectfully, he reproved Rabbi Israel Bruna, the foremost German talmudist of his time, for overstepping the bounds of his authority. Responsum No. 4, addressed to the congregation of Regensburg, is highly important. A number of Jews of that community having been falsely accused, and a sum of money having to be raised for their ransom, the surrounding places and neighboring communities refused to contribute, at least insofar as it was a question of paying a fixed tax instead of making voluntary contributions. Colon decided that the communities in question could not refuse to pay their share, since the same false accusation might be made against them also, and if the accused in this case were proved innocent and ransomed, they would then be safe from danger.