Rabbi Dr. Asher Siev’s Excellent Studies
Rabbi Moshe Isserles, whose Hagahot (glosses) on the Shulkhan Arukh became law for Ashkenazi Jewry, was born in Cracow.
His principal teacher was Rabbi Shalom Shakhna of Lublin who was also his first father-in-law.
After his return from Lublin to Cracow he became a member of the Beth Din of his home town, serving there as rabbi and Rosh Yeshiva until his death on Lag Ba’Omer 5332 (1572).
His writings included Hagahot (Hamappa) on the Shulkhan Arukh,which added the laws and customs of the Ashkenazi Poskim to Rabbi Joseph Caro’s code: Darkei Moshe, comments on the Tur, Torath Hattat on Issur VeHetter; the philosphical Torah HaOlah,which also discusses the Temple, its vessels and the sacrifices; Mechir Yayin (a commentary on Esther) and responsa.
Great was the veneration of the Rema. “From Moshe (Maimonides) to Moshe (Isserles) there arose none like Moshe,” was inscribed on his tombstone. Jews from all over Poland used to come to his grave in Cracow’s old cemetery and in the adjacent Rema Shul. Rabbis lectured on his decisions on Lag Ba’Omer, the anniversary of his death.
For more than thirty-five years, Rabbi Dr. Asher Siev, a member of the faculty of Yeshiva University has been writing about Rabbi Moshe Isserles. He wrote about the Rema in a variety of publications. Mossad HaRav Kook published his biography of Rabbi Moshe Isserles in 1956. In 1971, Siev put out an annotated edition of the Rema’s responsa, and a year later on the occasion of the four hundredth anniversary of the Rema’s death, he reissued the biography in a much enlarged edition.
The four hundred page Hebrew volume describes the life of the Rema, tells of his colleagues and students, and discusses his writings. Other chapters are devoted to a characterization of his decisions; the prominent place of the Minhag in his code; his approach to the Aggadah and his attitude towards Kabbala and philosophy. The Rema was greatly influenced by Maimonidies’ Moreh Nevukhim. He read the medieval Jewish philosophers as well as the Zohar and other Kabbalistic works aad asserted that there was no contradiction between Torah, Kabbalah and true philosophy.
Throughout the volume Siev displays his thorough knowledge of the works of the Rema, of the writings of his contemporaries and of the many modern studies of that period.
Rabbi Siev proves the correctness of the vew that Rabbi Moshe Isserles was born about the year 1530. He was only twenty years old when he was made a member of the Cracow Beth Din and died at the young age of forty-two!
Writes Siev in his foreward: “It is remakble that this eclectic scholar who left an indelible mak on the spiritual development of his people, lived only some forty-two years. and that his creative activity spanned a period of a mere twenty-two years.”
The essays on the Rema’s colleagues and students include fine studies on Rabbis Meir Katzenellenbogen of Padua, Shlomo Luria, Benjamin Solnik, Avraham Horowitz, David Gans and other well-known rabbinic personalties. There are also biographies of persons about whom not much has been written before such as Rabbis David Darshan, Yosef Katz and Hirsch Elzisher Schor.
Rabbi David Darshan was a very interesting personality. He was a student of both Rabbi Moshe Isserles and Rabbi Shlomo Luria. He was a preacher in Poland, served as proof-reader, wrote a short commentary on the Jerusalem Talmud, travelled in Italy and had a large collection of books.
Siev describes not only the Rema’s better-known works, mentioned above but also his lesser known writings, among them glosses on Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi’s supercommentary on Rashi, historical additions to Yitzhak Yisraeli’s Yesod Olam, and a commentary on an astronomical work, which is still in manuscript.
The Remas’ Torath Hattat was sharply criticized by R. Hayyim be. R. Bezalel, an older brother of the Maharal of Prague, who studied with the Rema at R. Shalom Shakhna’s Yeshiva. R. Hayyim’s Vikuach Mayyim Hayyim was directed against the Torath Hattat. The latter treaties also caused a rift between the Rema and his older colleague and relative, R. Shlomo Luria.
The Rema planned a commentary on the Tur. While writing it, Caro’s Beth Yosef appeared, causing the Rema to change the nature of his commentary including in it criticisms of and additions to Caro’s work. This commentary, Darke Moshe, subsequently, was used by the Rema for his Hagahot on the Shulhan Arukh.
(Siev published his book thirteen years ago. In more recent years the examination of mansucripts of Darke Moshe has furnished us with additional information about the editions of this work. See Rabbi H. Sh. Rosenthal’s introduction to Darke Moshe HaSHalem, Machon Yerushalayim 1979).
There were Polish rabbis who opposed the Rema’s Hagahot and the Shulhan Arukh as they were in general against brief codes and digests. Eventually, however, the Rema was recognized as the Posek par excellence of Ashkenazi Jewry.
According to Siev – contrary to the view of the late Rabbi Reuven Margulies – only the part of Orah Hayyim with the Rema’s Hagahot and not the entire Shulhan Arukh was printed during Rabbi Moshe Isserles’ lifetime.
Siev’s book which is illustrated with many pictures of the Rema’s tomb and the Rema shul in Cracow contains several appendixes, including an annotated bibliography of books, articles and stories about the Rema, a genealogical study about the Rema’s descendants (among these were Rabbi Ephraim Zalman Margulies, Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk, Rabbi Sholem Rokeach of Belz and Rabbi Yitzchak Yaakov Reines) and a number of indexes.
(To be continued)
The Jewish Press, Friday February 22, 1985