Article:1.6.3

     Rabbi Mosheh Isserles and the Codification of Jewish Law

Levi Cooper

         Topics

• Religion, Rabbinate, Hasidism

Period	Before 1772
Region	Galicia
NLI Code	997013604472605171

         Extensions

• Ex-1.6.3-1
• Ex-1.4.3-2
• Ex-1.6.3-3
• Ex-1.6.3-4
• Ex-1.6.3-5

         Related Entries

• 1.6.1
• 1.6.2

     [[|thumb|150px|center|Rabbi Mosheh Isserles and the Codification of Jewish Law]]

Rabbi Mosheh Isserles and the Codification of Jewish Law

Levi Cooper

Rabbi Mosheh Isserles (d. 1572) is the doyen of Jewish law for Ashkenazi Jewry. A native of Kraków, he is widely known by the acronym Rema which gave rise to the motto: “U-venei yisrael yotse’im be-yad Rema” – and the children of Israel go out by the hand of Rema, a pun on the biblical verse in Exod. 14:8 where the final word means high hand and is originally spelled with the Hebrew letter heh at the end, but here spelled with an aleph to indicate Mosheh Isserles. Rema’s halakhic positions are best known from his annotations to Shulḥan ʻArukh [The Set Table] – the code of Jewish law penned by Rema’s contemporary, Rabbi Joseph Karo (1488-1575).

Rema was born in Kazimierz just outside Kraków and journeyed to Lublin to study with Rabbi Shalom Shakhna (d. 1558). At that time, a debate took place among scholars in Lublin concerning the codification of Jewish law. The issue at hand was whether it was an appropriate and worthy enterprise to write a book of rulings that summarizes the halakhic discourse and establishes clear rules of conduct. The debate in Lublin was occurring at the same time as Rabbi Karo was busy with his codificatory projects, but the two deliberations were independent of each other. Indeed, the first volume of Rabbi Karo’s halakhic work, Beit Yosef [The House of Joseph], was published in Venice in 1550, while the debate in Lublin preceded that date, before Rema returned to Kraków sometime before 1547.

The efforts to write comprehensive and summative halakhic works were related to the invention of the printing press, which triggered codificatory processes in many jurisdictions. Thus, in 1506 a collection of Latin sources of Polish law was published in Kraków. The work included the laws of the Sejm, royal edicts, international agreements, and customs (fig.1). In 1519, King Sigismund I the Old (1467-1548) approved the codification of Armenian law in Latin for the Armenians residing in his kingdom. Nearby territories responded with their own codifications, such as that of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (1529, 1566, 1588), and the province of Mazovia (1532, 1540). These cultural and intellectual trends within the Kingdom of Poland did not bypass the Jewish world.

Despite his students’ entreaties, Rabbi Shalom Shakhna refused to write a code of law, or any legal treatise. He feared that such a book might limit the freedom of future jurists to rule as they saw fit, since they might feel bound by the written word. His own approach, as his son communicated it, was to encourage “each person to make time-sensitive rulings (hora’at sha‘ah) according to his own heart.”<ref>Teshuvot mei-ha-rema (Kraków 1640), §25, fol. 59 col. 4 – fol. 65 col. 4.</ref>

One of Rabbi Shalom Shakhna’s disciples, Rabbi Ḥayim ben Betsalel of Friedberg (ca. 1525-1588), followed his teacher’s approach and staunchly opposed any type of codification of Jewish law. He specifically attacked one of Rema’s codificatory works, as well as Rabbi Karo’s Shulḥan ʻArukh. Rabbi Ḥayim’s younger brother – Rabbi Yehudah Löw, the famed [Maharal of Prague] (d. 1609) – also opposed codification of Jewish law. Rabbi Ḥayim’s resistance was articulated in the introduction to his book, which was printed many years after his death under the provocative title Vikuaḥ Mayim Ḥayim [The Flowing Waters Polemic], Amsterdam 1712.

Another student of Rabbi Shalom Shakhna, Rabbi [Shelomoh Luria], the Maharshal (1510-1573), suggested combining theoretical study with halakhic ruling, striking a balance between adherence to the argumentative discourse in talmudic pericopes and the need to reach a halakhic verdict from the inter-generational discussions and debates. This method was presented in his book Yam shel Shelomoh [The Sea of Solomon], which was written on some – though not all – tractates of Talmud.

Rema was the one student of Rabbi Shalom Shakhna who sought to contribute to the codification of Jewish law, by providing crisp rules that could be understood by all.

A royal document from 1547 affirms Rema’s status as seniori Doctorum Judaorum – the rabbinic elder with exclusive authority to approve marital engagements and to perform weddings for the Jews of Kraków and its environs, as well as to appoint agents to perform these functions. This may well have been the first encounter between the Jews of Kraków and the surrounding areas with Rema’s legal authority (fig. 2).

Upon his return to Kraków, Rema established a yeshiva, the traditional Jewish educational institution focused on the study of Rabbinic literature. From this period, Halakhic responsa written by Rema to inquirers from afar have survived. In addition, Rema’s annotations to Sefer Ha-Mordekhai – a 13^th century Ashkenazi halakhic treatise by Rabbi Mordechai ben Hillel (c. 1250–1298) – have also reached us.

It is possible that Rema began at this time to write Darkhei Mosheh [The Ways of Moses], a significant compilation of halakhic opinions that was designed to complement Rabbi Karo’s Beit Yosef. This treatise was only published more than a century after Rema’s death, and it is unclear whether it was his first halakhic work. In Rema’s own day the contents of this work was not known to those who did not have access to the autograph manuscript or copies of the work. Thus, Rema’s standing as a leading halakhic decisor and the story of Kraków’s transformation into a center of Torah learning and authority cannot be attributed to this work.

Rema’s first published work was a commentary on the Book of Esther titled Meḥir Yayin [The Price of Wine] which was printed in 1559. A decade later Rema printed a philosophical work titled Torat Ha-ʻolah [The Treatise of the Burnt Offering]. Neither of these works dealt with Halakha. Rema’s philosophical writing was not limited to these two works: he also wrote commentaries on the Zohar that were not printed, as well as writings about astronomy that have survived in manuscript. These writings are not responsible for Rema’s acclaim as a notable halakhic authority.

Rema’s first halakhic work to be printed was Zot Torat Ha-ḥaṭat (or simply, Torat ha-Ḥaṭat, or Torat Ḥaṭat) [The Law of the Sin Offering, or slight variations of this title], which was published in Kraków in 1569. The book dealt with Jewish dietary laws (kashrut) and was based on the format of the 13^th century work Shaʻarei Dura [The Gates of Dura], written by Rabbi Yitsḥaḳ ben Meir of Dura (Düren, Germany).

Three hundred years had passed since Shaʻarei Dura was written and many facets of life had changed. According to Rema, ignorance of Jewish law was rife and there was a need to lay out the most basic rules of kashrut. Shaʻarei Dura’s popularity was undisputed. It had been widely disseminated since the advent of the printing press: over the course of 30 years prior to 1569, it had been published in four editions. In addition, this book had prompted a significant body of literature annotating, elucidating, and expanding the original text. Alas, the scope of this complementary literature made it difficult for readers to extract clear halakhic directives.

Cognizant of the impact of printing on the book’s content, Rema wrote that printers had inserted commentaries and annotations into the body of the text, “and whoever sees them says that they were all spoken at [Mount] Sinai, and rules in accordance with them.” Rema’s solution was to rewrite the treatise, while retaining the original structure and offering clear halakhic rulings.

As for the legal methodology underpinning his rulings, Rema declared that he had privileged custom and given precedence to the halakhic positions of recent Ashkenazi scholars. In this way, Rema indicated that his method diverged from that of two great decisors of his generation – Rabbi Karo and Maharshal.

Rabbi Karo codificatory writings relied on principles that he himself had formulated. In particular, Rabbi Karo based his decisions on “the three pillars of instruction” – Rabbi Yiẓḥaḳ Alfasi, the Rif (1013-1103), Moses Maimonides, the Rambam (1138-1204), and Rabbi Asher ben Yeḥiel, the Rosh (1250-1327). These medieval scholars came from different locations and lived in different periods, such that Rabbi Karo had created a virtual panel of judges who never actually sat together.

Maharshal’s method was to examine legal topics from their roots in the Talmud, through the ebb and flow of the discourse over the ages. Maharshal avoided privileging the opinions of specific decisors, received traditions, or existing custom. His analytical method was rigorous, independent, and merits-based.

It should be said that as opposed to Sephardi tradition, Ashkenazi tradition was not based on codificatory writing. For this reason, Rema presented his Torat Ha-ḥaṭat enterprise as arising from the need to preserve Ashkenazi rulings and make them accessible. He depicted his efforts as a contribution to the content of halakhic discourse, and not as an intervention in its presentation as a codification of Jewish law. Despite this declaration of intent, when Rema chose a particular halakhic stance, he rejected the other halakhic positions even if they were part of Ashkenazi tradition. By presenting clear rulings in an organized manner and in accessible language with purported authority, Rema acted as a codifier of Halakha.

Rema may have begun to compose Torat Ha-ḥaṭat even before he learned of the existence of Shulḥan ʻArukh – Rabbi Karo’s second halakhic work that was printed in 1564-1565, only five years before Torat Ha-ḥaṭat was published. Stylistically, both works were codificatory works that presented the reader with succinct directives, without in-depth discussions.

In his introduction to Torat Ha-ḥaṭat, Rema explained why there was a need for a kashrut treatise, even though Shulḥan ʻArukh included kashrut laws. First, he argued that Rabbi Karo – a native of Spain who had been exiled to Portugal, Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, and Egypt, eventually settling in Safed – had not given proper voice to Ashkenazi conventions. In response, Rema sought to add Ashkenazi voices to the halakhic conversation. Second, Rema wrote for Jews “in these lands.” The title page of Torat Ha-ḥaṭat (fig. 5) – penned by Rema, the printer, or both together – specified that “these lands” referred to Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, Bohemia, Moravia, and Germany and France. In this way, Rema sought to unify Halakha for all the communities that would come to be included under the rubric “Ashkenazim.” This aspect of his enterprise provoked the ire of his former peer at the yeshiva in Lublin, Rabbi Ḥayim ben Betsalel of Friedberg, who believed in local rabbinic authority and preservation of customs and practices within each community of those lands, rather than unifying the entire region.

Another halakhic work by Rema was appended to the volume of Torat ha-ḥaṭat: The laws of Niddah [a menstruating woman] from Rabbi Karo’s Shulḥan ʻArukh, accompanied by Rema’s annotations. As Rema stated on the title page of the addendum, his annotations were intended to “make known what is the custom in these lands.”<ref>Zot Torat Ha-ḥaṭat (Kraków [1569]), fol. 85r.</ref> (fig. 6) This addendum is the first installation of Rema’s great halakhic enterprise: annotations on the entire Shulḥan ʻArukh.

In Rema’s eyes, Shulḥan ʻArukh was indeed a marvelous work, although it was marred by substantial flaws. First, as mentioned above, it did not give adequate expression to halakhic opinions and customs of Ashkenazi Jewry. Second, Rabbi Karo’s decision-making rules, especially his reliance on a virtual panel of judges, contravened the halakhic tradition that avoided ruling according to rigid rules. Third, Shulḥan ʻArukh presented Halakha as a legal system devoid of divergent opinions and steely debate. Rema sought to remedy these flaws by presenting contrary views held by Ashkenazi sages alongside the Shulḥan ʻArukh text, “in order to awaken the minds of students in every place, that they should know that his words are subject to disagreement,” as well as to document the accepted custom in his own geographic region.

Shortly after the appearance of Torat Ha-ḥaṭat with Rema’s annotations to the laws of Niddah, the first volume of the Shulḥan ʻArukh ‒ the Oraḥ Ḥayim section (dealing with laws pertaining to the rituals of daily life) ‒ was printed in Kraków together with Rema’s annotations. Rema passed away less than two years after this volume was published, and he did not see the entire work in print. Some five years later, all four sections of Shulḥan ʻArukh with Rema’s annotations were published in Kraków: Yoreh De’ah (1577-1578), Ḥoshen Mishpat (1579-1580), Even Ha‘ezer (1580), and again Oraḥ Ḥayim (1580).

Rema’s introduction to the laws of Niddah was reprinted at the beginning of each of the four annotated volumes of Shulḥan ʻArukh. There he explained his intention in writing supplementary notes to Rabbi Karo’s code: “I came after him to spread a tablecloth (mapah) on the Set Table that he composed, and [laid] upon it every delightful fruit and delicacy beloved by people.” The popular designation of Rema’s annotations, Ha-Mapah [the tablecloth], was drawn from this statement. Rema’s intention was to upgrade Rabbi Karo’s project, but it should be noted that when a cloth is spread over a table that has already been set, the table no longer appears as it was before!

What was it that endowed this native of Kraków with the status of one of the greatest halakhic decisors and preeminent legal authorities amongst Ashkenazi Jewry? How did Rema achieve this status in his own generation and retain it in subsequent ones, notwithstanding challenges from rivals like Maharshal and from opponents like Rabbi Ḥayim ben Betsalel of Friedberg and his younger brother Maharal of Prague?

The claim that Rema gained prominence because of his goal of unifying the Halakha of “these land” into a single Ashkenazi custom does not tell the entire story, since the first work that made this claim – Torat Ha-ḥaṭat – is actually his lesser-known halakhic work. It seems that the positive reception of his rulings and his place within the canon should be attributed to the way in which his decisions were published. Rather than publishing stand-alone works, Rema chose to piggyback on Rabbi Karo’s Shulḥan ʻArukh. He disseminated his opinions as annotations to a halakhic work from a different geographical region that had already been favorably received, providing an integrated text. Rema’s tablecloth transformed the appearance of Rabbi Karo’s set table, such that editions published during the 17^th century included both Shulḥan ʻArukh and the Mapah.

Shulḥan ʻArukh and Rema’s annotations, 16^th and 17^th centuries editions

Edition		Place	Year	Description
1	Shulhan ‘Arukh	Venice	1564-1565	4 vols.
2	Shulhan ‘Arukh	Venice	1566-1567	4 vols.
3	Shulhan ‘Arukh	Venice	1567	1 vol.
4	Shulhan ‘Arukh	Salonika (Thessaloniki)	1567-1568	2 vols. Oraḥ Ḥayim (OH) and Yoreh De’ah (YD). Even Ha‘ezer (EH) and Ḥoshen Mishpat (HM) – no record of their publication
5	Shulhan ‘Arukh with Rema’s annotations	Kraków	1569	1 vol. Laws of Niddah, appended to Rema’s Torat Ḥatat
6	Shulhan ‘Arukh with Rema’s annotations	Kraków	1570-1571	1 vol. OH
7	Shulhan ‘Arukh	Venice	1574	4 vols., based on (1)
8	Shulhan ‘Arukh	Venice	1574	4 vols., small format, with additions
9	Shulhan ‘Arukh	Venice	1577-1578	4 vols., small format, with additions
10	Shulhan ‘Arukh with Rema’s annotations	Kraków	1577-1580	4 vols.
11	Shulhan ‘Arukh with Rema’s annotations	Kraków	1583-1586	2 vols. OH and YD, based on (10). EH and HM – no record of their publication
12	Shulhan ‘Arukh with Rema’s annotations	Kraków	1593-1594	4 vols., based on (11)
13	Shulhan ‘Arukh with Rema’s annotations	Venice	1593-1594	4 vols., based on Kraków editions (10, 11, 12), with additions from (8) Venice 1574
14	Shulhan ‘Arukh	Salonika (Thessaloniki)	1595-1596	2 vols., OH and YD. EH and HM – no record of their publication
15	Shulhan ‘Arukh	Venice	1597-1598	4 vols., small format and large format, with additions
16	Shulhan ‘Arukh with Rema’s annotations	Kraków	1606-1607	4 vols.
17	Shulhan ‘Arukh with Rema’s annotations	Kraków	1616-1620	4 vols.
18	Shulhan ‘Arukh with Rema’s annotations	Hanau	1627-1628	4 vols., small format, based on (16)
19	Shulhan ‘Arukh with Rema’s annotation	Venice	1632	4 vols., based on (13)
20	Shulhan ‘Arukh with Rema’s annotations	Amsterdam	1641-1642	4 vols., based on (18)

At the end of the first edition of Shulḥan ʻArukh, Yoreh Deʻah, the proofreader Rabbi Abraham Menaḥem Porto (c. 1520 – 1594) wrote that publishing was like giving a manuscript “wings with which to fly throughout the world, in such a manner that wherever the word of the king reaches there is joy and happiness for the Jews.”<ref>Menaḥem Porto Ha-Cohen Ashkenazi, [untitled], in: Shulḥan ʻArukh (Venice 1565), [fol. 132r], paraphrasing Esther 8:17.</ref> These were the wings that brought the Sephardi Shulḥan ʻArukh to Ashkenazi Kraków. The integration of Rema’s annotations transformed the code into a combined work. When this combined work was published, it was able to spread its wings from east to west.

Rema’s achievement was somewhat paradoxical. On one hand, he deconstructed the uniform code written by Rabbi Karo and created a form of halakhic dialogue on each page of Shulḥan ʻArukh. On the other hand, by refashioning the work as a composite treatise of Jewish law he contributed to the acceptance of Shulḥan ʻArukh.

The result was that it became difficult – both practically and intellectually – to read Rabbi Karo’s codification without hearing the intervention of Rema’s voice. Each page offers more than one halakhic tradition and the work in its entirety represents two different cultures. Those who study the work hear two voices that are constantly in dialogue. In this manner, Rema’s status in the annals of Halakha was sealed.

It is no wonder that the Maharshal – Rema’s contemporary and kinsman, but also his halakhic adversary<ref>See, for example, Maharshal’s harsh critique of Rema’s reliance on Aristotle, printed in Teshuvot me-ha-Rema, §6, fol. 9, col. 4, and fol. 10, col. 4 – fol. 11, col. 1.</ref> – wrote to him: “About you it is fitting to say: From Moses to Moses, there was no one like Moses.”<ref>Teshuvot me-ha-Rema, §67, fol. 132, col. 2.</ref> Today, on Rema’s tombstone in Kraków similar praises are inscribed: “He taught Torah in Israel, raised myriads disciples who were champions of Israel, from Moses to Moses, there was no one like Moses in Israel.” (figs. 8, 9).

Thus, from his home in Kraków, during his relatively short lifetime, Rema left an indelible mark on the world of Halakha; a stamp that persists to this day. To the extent that Ashkenazi Jewry “go out by the hand of Rema,” it is fair to say that Jews who seek to learn and to teach, to observe and to perform the commandments “go out” holding on to the precious tomes of Shulḥan ʻArukh with Rema’s annotations.

Select Bibliography

Ben-Menaḥem, Naftali. “Ha-defusim ha-rishonim shel ha-Shulḥan ʻArukh”. In: Rabbi Yosef Karo: ʻIyunim u-meḥḳarim be-mishnat maran baʻal ha-Shulḥan ʻArukh, ed. Yiẓḥaḳ Refa’el, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1969, 101-120

Cooper, Levi. “Tabling Codification of Jewish Law: Perspectives on Sixteenth-Century Ventures,” Jewish History 37 (2024): 323-356, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10835-024-09461-5

Davis, Joseph. “The Reception of the Shulḥan ʻArukh and the Formation of Ashkenazic Jewish Identity,” AJS Review 26 (2002), 251-276

Elon, Menachem. Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1994, vol. 3, 1309-1366

Fram, Edward. The Codification of Jewish Law on the Cusp of Modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022

Haberman, Jacob. “Hitḳablut ha-shulḥan ʻarukh ke-sefer musmakh ba-masoret ha-yehudit,” Mahut 10 (Spring 1993), 35-42

Reiner, Elḥanan. “Yashan mi-pnei ḥadash: ʻal temurot be-tekhanei limmud be-yeshivot polin ba-mei’ah ha-16 ve-yeshivato shel Rema be-Kraków”. In: Zekhor davar le-ʻavdekha: Essays and Studies in Memory of Dov Rappel, ed. Shmuel Glick, Jerusalem: Lifshitz College of Education, 2007

Reiner, Elhanan. “The Ashkenazi Elite at the Beginning of the Modern Era: Manuscript versus Printed Book,” Polin 10 (1996), 85-98

Rosenthal, Ḥayim Shlomo. “Mavo”, In: Darkhei Mosheh ha-shalem [ha-’arokh] … ḥoshen mishpaṭ, Jerusalem: Machon Yerushalayim, 1979-1983, vol. 1, 19-34

Schatz, Andrea and Pavel Sládek. “The Editor’s Place: Samuel Boehm and the Transfer of Italian Print Culture to Cracow,” Jewish Quarterly Review 112 (2022), 468-519

Siev, Ascher. “The Glosses of the Ramo on the Mordecai”. In: Hagut Ivrit Be’Ameriḳa, ed. Menahem Zohori, Arie Tartakover, and Haim Ormian, vol. 1, Tel Aviv: Brit-Ivrit Olamit, 1972, 426-439 [in Hebrew]

Siev, Asher. Rabbi Moses Isserles (Ramo), New York: Yeshiva University Press, 1972

Siev, Asher. She[’elot] u-te[shuvot] ha-Rema. Jerusalem: Hemed, 1970, Introduction

Twersky, Isadore. “The Shulḥan ʻArukh: Enduring Code of Jewish Law,” Judaism: A Quarterly Journal 16, no. 2 (Spring 1967): 141-158

<references />