Extension:Ex-1.6.3-5
Darkhei Mosheh
In Rema’s introduction to his annotations on Shulḥan ʻArukh – the so-called Mapah – he expressed the wish that “his long treatises [lit. words] would also spread throughout Israel.” It seems that Rema was referring to the work Darkhei Mosheh. However, unlike his famous annotations, this work did not enjoy the same fortune. It was only in 1692, that one of the four parts of the work was first printed. This was more than a century after Rema’s death and after he was already a recognized and authoritative figure in the world of Halakha. Additional printings of this part together with the other three parts were rife with omissions and corruptions, and they became known by the title Darkhei Mosheh Ha-Kaẓar – the abridged Darkhei Mosheh. All four parts of the full Darkhei Mosheh would have to wait until the end of the 20th century before being available to the public in print.
The tale of this work presents Rema in a different light, so much so that it is difficult to reconcile the image of Rema as reflected in the introductions to Torat Ha-ḥaṭat and his annotations with the image that emerges from the introduction to Darkhei Mosheh. The introduction to the latter work differs stylistically from the introductions to Torat Ha-ḥaṭat and the annotations, and it tells a story that does not appear in Rema’s other autobiographical introductions.
According to the Darkhei Mosheh introduction, Rema had decided to collate halakhic rulings from the previous centuries and attach them to an existing codification that had already been well received: Arbaʻah Ṭurim by Rabbi Yaʻaḳov (1269-1343) the son of the Rosh. Rema’s goal was to make it easier to locate individual laws and trace their development over time. It is not clear whether Rema had intended from the outset to decide among different opinions, although in the process of collecting the opinions he did sift the “good ones from the bad ones.” Rema had already written a significant portion of the work before he learned about the printing of Rabbi Joseph Karo’s first codificatory effort, Beit Yosef – also a compilation of legal opinions, published alongside the text of Arbaʻah Ṭurim. This indicates that the codification debate that began in Lublin and continued in Kraków predated the arrival of Rabbi Karo’s codificatory writings in Kraków.
Rema realized that Rabbi Karo’s work was strikingly similar to his own, and even bested his own efforts. “I was seized with horror, and trembling overcame me,” wrote Rema, who felt that he had labored in vain and was at a loss about what he should do.
After some days of confusion and prayer, Rema understood that he must abandon his original plan, and shelve what he had already written. The fate of the presumably lengthy manuscript of this abandoned project is unknown.
It was then that Rema decided to undertake a different project. Instead of gathering sources and attaching them to Arbaʻah Ṭurim, he chose to write a work that would be added to the integrated text of Arbaʻah Ṭurim and Beit Yosef. The purpose of this work would be to summarize the opinions in the combined text, add sources that Rabbi Karo had excluded from his Beit Yosef, and offer a decision-making method that favored the later decisors and regnant custom. This work was titled Darkhei Mosheh.
Rema never had the chance to see the book to press. However, the Darkhei Mosheh manuscript helped the Kraków printers when they added sources to Rema’s annotations in the Shulḥan ʻArukh edition that they published in 1606-1607. In 1640, when Rema’s nephew printed a collection of his uncle’s responsa, he noted the demand for Darkhei Mosheh. The nephew hoped that publishing the responsa would help him secure funding to publish Darkhei Mosheh. Alas, this was not to be.
In 1692, one volume of Darkhei Mosheh was published; the other three volumes remained in manuscript. Then, in 1702-1703, an entire abridged Darkhei Mosheh was printed, and this work became known as Darkhei Mosheh Ha-ḳaẓar. Alas, this abridged version was full of printing errors and corruptions. As a result, scholars who had access to the surviving manuscripts preferred to study the work from the unabridged version. It would take centuries before Rema’s “long” – or more precisely “authentic” – Darkhei Mosheh was completely published.
According to Rema, Darkhei Mosheh served as the basis for his Shulḥan ʻArukh annotations.[1] Indeed, in many instances Darkhei Mosheh provides the key to understanding the Mapah which was written in a laconic style – hence the importance of Darkhei Mosheh. It should be remembered, however, that until the publication of Darkhei Mosheh, the Torah-learning public could not have known the work without access to precious manuscripts.
- ↑ Teshuvot me-ha-Rema, §35, fol. 83, col. 2; §131:2, fol. 252, col. 1.