Article:1.6.3
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml"
xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"> <meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15"> <meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 15"> <link rel=File-List href="1.6.3.Rema-textforLiat.files/filelist.xml"> <link rel=Edit-Time-Data href="1.6.3.Rema-textforLiat.files/editdata.mso"> <link rel=dataStoreItem href="1.6.3.Rema-textforLiat.files/item0001.xml" target="1.6.3.Rema-textforLiat.files/props002.xml"> <link rel=themeData href="1.6.3.Rema-textforLiat.files/themedata.thmx"> <link rel=colorSchemeMapping href="1.6.3.Rema-textforLiat.files/colorschememapping.xml"> <style> </style> </head>
<body lang=en-IL link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style='tab-interval:36.0pt; word-wrap:break-word'>
<a name="_Hlk207276208"></a>Rabbi Mosheh Isserles and the Codification of Jewish Law<o:p></o:p>
Levi Cooper<o:p></o:p>
Rabbi Mosheh Isserles (d. 1572) is the doyen of Jewish law for Ashkenazi Jewry. A native of Krak w, 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 <a name="_Hlk208138135">Joseph </a>Karo (1488-1575). <o:p></o:p>
Rema was born in Kazimierz just outside Krak w 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 Krak w sometime before 1547. <o:p></o:p>
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 Krak w. The work included the laws of the Sejm, royal edicts, international agreements, and customs. 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. <o:p></o:p>
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. <a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn1' href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><![if !supportFootnotes]>[1]<![endif]></a> <o:p></o:p>
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 L w, 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. <o:p></o:p>
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. <o:p></o:p>
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. <o:p></o:p>
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 Krak w 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 Krak w and the surrounding areas with Rema s legal authority. <o:p></o:p>
Upon his return to Krak w, 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 13th century Ashkenazi halakhic treatise by Rabbi Mordechai ben Hillel (c. 1250 1298) have also reached us. <o:p></o:p>
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 Krak w s transformation into a center of Torah learning and authority cannot be attributed to this work. <o:p></o:p>
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. <o:p></o:p>
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 Krak w in 1569. The book dealt with Jewish dietary laws (kashrut) and was based on the format of the 13th century work Shaʻarei Dura [The Gates of Dura], written by Rabbi Yitsḥaḳ ben Meir of Dura (D ren, Germany). <o:p></o:p>
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. <o:p></o:p>
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. <o:p></o:p>
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. <o:p></o:p>
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. <o:p></o:p>
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.<o:p></o:p>
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. <o:p></o:p>
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. <o:p></o:p>
<v:line id="Straight_x0020_Connector_x0020_18" o:spid="_x0000_s2050" style='position:absolute;left:0;text-align:left;flip:y; z-index:251670528;visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square; mso-width-percent:0;mso-height-percent:0;mso-wrap-distance-left:9pt; mso-wrap-distance-top:0;mso-wrap-distance-right:9pt; mso-wrap-distance-bottom:0;mso-position-horizontal:left; mso-position-horizontal-relative:margin;mso-position-vertical:absolute; mso-position-vertical-relative:text;mso-width-percent:0;mso-height-percent:0; mso-width-relative:margin;mso-height-relative:margin' from="0,327.3pt" to="288.75pt,328.1pt" o:gfxdata="UEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQC2gziS/gAAAOEBAAATAAAAW0NvbnRlbnRfVHlwZXNdLnhtbJSRQU7DMBBF 90jcwfIWJU67QAgl6YK0S0CoHGBkTxKLZGx5TGhvj5O2G0SRWNoz/78nu9wcxkFMGNg6quQqL6RA 0s5Y6ir5vt9lD1JwBDIwOMJKHpHlpr69KfdHjyxSmriSfYz+USnWPY7AufNIadK6MEJMx9ApD/oD OlTrorhX2lFEilmcO2RdNtjC5xDF9pCuTyYBB5bi6bQ4syoJ3g9WQ0ymaiLzg5KdCXlKLjvcW893 SUOqXwnz5DrgnHtJTxOsQfEKIT7DmDSUCaxw7Rqn8787ZsmRM9e2VmPeBN4uqYvTtW7jvijg9N/y JsXecLq0q+WD6m8AAAD//wMAUEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQA4/SH/1gAAAJQBAAALAAAAX3JlbHMvLnJl bHOkkMFqwzAMhu+DvYPRfXGawxijTi+j0GvpHsDYimMaW0Yy2fr2M4PBMnrbUb/Q94l/f/hMi1qR JVI2sOt6UJgd+ZiDgffL8ekFlFSbvV0oo4EbChzGx4f9GRdb25HMsYhqlCwG5lrLq9biZkxWOiqY 22YiTra2kYMu1l1tQD30/bPm3wwYN0x18gb45AdQl1tp5j/sFB2T0FQ7R0nTNEV3j6o9feQzro1i OWA14Fm+Q8a1a8+Bvu/d/dMb2JY5uiPbhG/ktn4cqGU/er3pcvwCAAD//wMAUEsDBBQABgAIAAAA IQD1xUj7wQEAAHYDAAAOAAAAZHJzL2Uyb0RvYy54bWysU8tu2zAQvBfoPxC815Lc2kkEyznEcC99 BOjjvqZIiQBf4DKW/fddUo6bpreiOhDLXXK4Mzva3J+sYUcZUXvX8WZRcyad8L12Q8d/fN+/u+UM E7gejHey42eJ/H779s1mCq1c+tGbXkZGIA7bKXR8TCm0VYVilBZw4YN0VFQ+Wki0jUPVR5gI3Zpq WdfravKxD9ELiUjZ3Vzk24KvlBTpq1IoEzMdp95SWWNZD3mtthtohwhh1OLSBvxDFxa0o0evUDtI wJ6i/gvKahE9epUWwtvKK6WFLByITVO/YvNthCALFxIHw1Um/H+w4svxwT1GkmEK2GJ4jJnFSUXL lNHhJ8208KJO2anIdr7KJk+JCUq+X69vmuWKM0G1pl6ubrOs1QyT4ULE9FF6y3LQcaNdZgUtHD9h mo8+H8lp5/famDIZ49hEmHf1ioYngAyiDCQKbeg7jm7gDMxAzhMpFkj0Rvf5egbCOBweTGRHoOk3 +w93N7tyyDzZz76f06uavtkGlCazvEoTjQtMofQHfm56BzjOV0rpwty4/L4sBrxw/K1vjg6+PxfZ q7yj4Rb0ixGze17uKX75u2x/AQAA//8DAFBLAwQUAAYACAAAACEAHVdTgt0AAAAIAQAADwAAAGRy cy9kb3ducmV2LnhtbEyPwU7DMBBE70j8g7VIXBB1iEgKIU6FkCqOiFJxduIlCcTrYDtp+vdsT/Q4 O6uZN+VmsYOY0YfekYK7VQICqXGmp1bB/mN7+wAiRE1GD45QwREDbKrLi1IXxh3oHeddbAWHUCi0 gi7GsZAyNB1aHVZuRGLvy3mrI0vfSuP1gcPtINMkyaXVPXFDp0d86bD52U1Wwefj8fW7nqe39tdv Zb/PUrwZU6Wur5bnJxARl/j/DCd8RoeKmWo3kQliUMBDooI8u89BsJ2t1xmI+nTJU5BVKc8HVH8A AAD//wMAUEsBAi0AFAAGAAgAAAAhALaDOJL+AAAA4QEAABMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFtDb250 ZW50X1R5cGVzXS54bWxQSwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEAOP0h/9YAAACUAQAACwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAv AQAAX3JlbHMvLnJlbHNQSwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEA9cVI+8EBAAB2AwAADgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAu AgAAZHJzL2Uyb0RvYy54bWxQSwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEAHVdTgt0AAAAIAQAADwAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAbBAAAZHJzL2Rvd25yZXYueG1sUEsFBgAAAAAEAAQA8wAAACUFAAAAAA== " strokecolor="#71a1dc" strokeweight="1.5pt"> <w:wrap anchorx="margin"/> </v:line>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 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.<o:p></o:p>
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. <a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn2' href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><![if !supportFootnotes]>[2]<![endif]></a> This addendum is the first installation of Rema s great halakhic enterprise: annotations on the entire Shulḥan ʻArukh. <o:p></o:p>
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. <o:p></o:p>
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 <a name="_Hlk165277823">Oraḥ Ḥayim</a> section (dealing with laws pertaining to the rituals of daily life) ‒ was printed in Krak w 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 Krak w: Yoreh De ah (1577-1578), Ḥoshen Mishpat (1579-1580), Even Ha ezer (1580), and again Oraḥ Ḥayim (1580). <o:p></o:p>
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!<o:p></o:p>
What was it that endowed this native of Krak w 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? <o:p></o:p>
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 17th century included both Shulḥan ʻArukh and the Mapah. <o:p></o:p>
Shulḥan ʻArukh and Rema s annotations, 16th and 17th centuries editions<o:p></o:p>
|
Edition<o:p></o:p> |
<o:p> </o:p> |
Place<o:p></o:p> |
Year<o:p></o:p> |
Description<o:p></o:p> |
|
1<o:p></o:p> |
Shulhan Arukh<o:p></o:p> |
Venice<o:p></o:p> |
1564-1565<o:p></o:p> |
4 vols.<o:p></o:p> |
|
2<o:p></o:p> |
Shulhan Arukh<o:p></o:p> |
Venice<o:p></o:p> |
1566-1567<o:p></o:p> |
4 vols.<o:p></o:p> |
|
3<o:p></o:p> |
Shulhan Arukh<o:p></o:p> |
Venice<o:p></o:p> |
1567<o:p></o:p> |
1 vol.<o:p></o:p> |
|
4<o:p></o:p> |
Shulhan Arukh<o:p></o:p> |
Salonika (Thessaloniki)<o:p></o:p> |
1567-1568<o:p></o:p> |
2 vols. Oraḥ Ḥayim (OH) and Yoreh De ah (YD). Even Ha ezer (EH) and Ḥoshen Mishpat (HM) no record of their publication<o:p></o:p> |
|
5<o:p></o:p> |
Shulhan Arukh with Rema s annotations<o:p></o:p> |
Krak w<o:p></o:p> |
1569<o:p></o:p> |
1 vol. Laws of Niddah, appended to Rema s Torat Ḥatat<o:p></o:p> |
|
6<o:p></o:p> |
Shulhan Arukh with Rema s annotations<o:p></o:p> |
Krak w<o:p></o:p> |
1570-1571<o:p></o:p> |
1 vol. OH<o:p></o:p> |
|
7<o:p></o:p> |
Shulhan Arukh<o:p></o:p> |
Venice<o:p></o:p> |
1574<o:p></o:p> |
4 vols., based on (1) <o:p></o:p> |
|
8<o:p></o:p> |
Shulhan Arukh<o:p></o:p> |
Venice<o:p></o:p> |
1574<o:p></o:p> |
4 vols., small format, with additions<o:p></o:p> |
|
9<o:p></o:p> |
Shulhan Arukh<o:p></o:p> |
Venice<o:p></o:p> |
1577-1578<o:p></o:p> |
4 vols., small format, with additions<o:p></o:p> |
|
10<o:p></o:p> |
Shulhan Arukh with Rema s annotations<o:p></o:p> |
Krak w<o:p></o:p> |
1577-1580<o:p></o:p> |
4 vols.<o:p></o:p> |
|
11<o:p></o:p> |
Shulhan Arukh with Rema s annotations<o:p></o:p> |
Krak w<o:p></o:p> |
1583-1586<o:p></o:p> |
2 vols. OH and YD, based on (10). EH and HM no record of their publication <o:p></o:p> |
|
12<o:p></o:p> |
Shulhan Arukh with Rema s annotations<o:p></o:p> |
Krak w<o:p></o:p> |
1593-1594<o:p></o:p> |
4 vols., based on (11) <o:p></o:p> |
|
13<o:p></o:p> |
Shulhan Arukh with Rema s annotations<o:p></o:p> |
Venice<o:p></o:p> |
1593-1594<o:p></o:p> |
4 vols., based on Krak w editions (10, 11, 12), with additions from (8) Venice 1574<o:p></o:p> |
|
14<o:p></o:p> |
Shulhan Arukh<o:p></o:p> |
Salonika<o:p></o:p> (Thessaloniki)<o:p></o:p> |
1595-1596<o:p></o:p> |
2 vols., OH and YD. EH and HM no record of their publication <o:p></o:p> |
|
15<o:p></o:p> |
Shulhan Arukh<o:p></o:p> |
Venice<o:p></o:p> |
1597-1598<o:p></o:p> |
4 vols., small format and large format, with additions<o:p></o:p> |
|
16<o:p></o:p> |
Shulhan Arukh with Rema s annotations<o:p></o:p> |
Krak w<o:p></o:p> |
1606-1607<o:p></o:p> |
4 vols.<o:p></o:p> |
|
17<o:p></o:p> |
Shulhan Arukh with Rema s annotations<o:p></o:p> |
Krak w<o:p></o:p> |
1616-1620<o:p></o:p> |
4 vols.<o:p></o:p> |
|
18<o:p></o:p> |
Shulhan Arukh with Rema s annotations<o:p></o:p> |
Hanau<o:p></o:p> |
1627-1628<o:p></o:p> |
4 vols., small format, based on (16) <o:p></o:p> |
|
19<o:p></o:p> |
Shulhan Arukh with Rema s annotation<o:p></o:p> |
Venice<o:p></o:p> |
1632<o:p></o:p> |
4 vols., based on (13) <o:p></o:p> |
|
20<o:p></o:p> |
Shulhan Arukh with Rema s annotations<o:p></o:p> |
Amsterdam<o:p></o:p> |
1641-1642<o:p></o:p> |
4 vols., based on (18) <o:p></o:p> |
<o:p> </o:p>
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. <a style='mso-footnote-id: ftn3' href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=""><![if !supportFootnotes]>[3]<![endif]></a> These were the wings that brought the Sephardi Shulḥan ʻArukh to Ashkenazi Krak w. 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. <o:p></o:p>
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. <o:p></o:p>
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. <o:p></o:p>
It is no wonder that the Maharshal Rema s contemporary and kinsman, but also his halakhic adversary<a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn4' href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title=""><![if !supportFootnotes]>[4]<![endif]></a> wrote to him: About you it is fitting to say: From Moses to Moses, there was no one like Moses. <a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn5' href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title=""><![if !supportFootnotes]>[5]<![endif]></a> Today, on Rema s tombstone in Krak w 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. <o:p></o:p>
Thus, from his home in Krak w, 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. <o:p></o:p>
Select Bibliography<o:p></o:p>
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 <o:p></o:p>
Cooper, Levi. Tabling Codification of Jewish Law: Perspectives on Sixteenth-Century Ventures, Jewish History 37 (2024): 323-356, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10835-024-09461-5">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10835-024-09461-5</a> <o:p></o:p>
Davis, Joseph. The Reception of the Shulḥan ʻArukh and the Formation of Ashkenazic Jewish Identity, AJS Review 26 (2002), 251-276<o:p></o:p>
Elon, Menachem. Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1994, vol. 3, 1309-1366<o:p></o:p>
Fram, Edward. The Codification of Jewish Law on the Cusp of Modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022<o:p></o:p>
Haberman, Jacob. Hitḳablut ha-shulḥan ʻarukh ke-sefer musmakh ba-masoret ha-yehudit, Mahut 10 (Spring 1993), 35-42<o:p></o:p>
Reiner, Elḥanan. Yashan mi-pnei ḥadash: ʻal temurot be-tekhanei limmud be-yeshivot polin ba-mei ah ha-16 ve-yeshivato shel Rema be-Krak w . In: Zekhor davar le-ʻavdekha: Essays and Studies in Memory of Dov Rappel, ed. Shmuel Glick, Jerusalem: Lifshitz College of Education, 2007 <o:p></o:p>
Reiner, Elhanan. The Ashkenazi Elite at the Beginning of the Modern Era: Manuscript versus Printed Book, Polin 10 (1996), 85-98<o:p></o:p>
Rosenthal, Ḥayim Shlomo. Mavo , In: Darkhei Mosheh ha-shalem [ha- arokh] ḥoshen mishpaṭ, Jerusalem: Machon Yerushalayim, 1979-1983, vol. 1, 19-34<o:p></o:p>
Schatz, Andrea and Pavel Sl dek. The Editor s Place: Samuel Boehm and the Transfer of Italian Print Culture to Cracow, Jewish Quarterly Review 112 (2022), 468-519<o:p></o:p>
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]<o:p></o:p>
Siev, Asher. Rabbi Moses Isserles (Ramo), New York: Yeshiva University Press, 1972<o:p></o:p>
Siev, Asher. She[ elot] u-te[shuvot] ha-Rema. Jerusalem: Hemed, 1970, Introduction<o:p></o:p>
Twersky, Isadore. The Shulḥan ʻArukh: Enduring Code of Jewish Law, Judaism: A Quarterly Journal 16, no. 2 (Spring 1967): 141-158<o:p></o:p>
<![endif]>
<a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn1' href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><![if !supportFootnotes]>[1]<![endif]></a> Teshuvot mei-ha-rema (Krak w 1640), 25, fol. 59 col. 4 fol. 65 col. 4. <o:p></o:p>
<a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn2' href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><![if !supportFootnotes]>[2]<![endif]></a> Zot Torat Ha-ḥaṭat (Krak w [1569]), fol. 85r. <o:p></o:p>
<a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn3' href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title=""><![if !supportFootnotes]>[3]<![endif]></a> Menaḥem Porto Ha-Cohen Ashkenazi, [untitled], in: Shulḥan ʻArukh (Venice 1565), [fol. 132r], paraphrasing Esther 8:17.<o:p></o:p>
<a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn4' href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title=""><![if !supportFootnotes]>[4]<![endif]></a> 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.<o:p></o:p>
<a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn5' href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title=""><![if !supportFootnotes]>[5]<![endif]></a> Teshuvot me-ha-Rema, 67, fol. 132, col. 2.<o:p></o:p>
</body>
</html>