SEFER RAV MORDECAI

THE FIRST SEPARATE EDITION OF THE MORDECAI. The earlier editions were always appended to edition of the Rif (see Benayahu,Cremona p. 114.), Abraham Halperin, “Sefer Ha- Mordecai Be-Rei Hadfasotav”, published in Iyunim Be- Sifrut Chazal...Melamed festschrift,Ramat Gan,1982,pp.323-338. WITH EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, EXTENSIVE MARGINAL NOTES WRITTEN IN A FEW 16TH CENTURY ASHKENAZIC HANDS. The author of most of these notes and comments was apparently a disciple of the Mahra”l of Prague. These notes contain extensive explanations and variant readings in the name of the writer’s teacher and master whom he refers to as “Mori”. This can be ascertained from at least two citations: firstly in tractate Gittin (ff. 116b of this volume) he explicitly states “I found in the name of Mori Mahral”; secondly,there is evidence that even when he cites “Mori” without any identification, he means the Mahra”l -see Tractate Shabbat (ff. 13a in this volume) where he cites a correction of the text in the name of”Mori”. This very same correction is cited the commentary “Chidushei Anshei Shem” (a compendium of comments and variant readings of the text of the Mordecai collected from various sources and scholars published in the standard Vilna edition) in the name of the Mahral of Prague! The 16th century writer of these marginal notes obviously had access to old manuscript versions of the Mordecai, as he constantly refers to “mem yud” which is the acronym for “Mordecai Yoshon”- an old Mordecai (see f. 168b and f. 106a- “my manuscript Mordecai”) He frequently cites decisions, comments and corrections in the name of the greatest scholars of his time- R. Shlomo Luria (Mahrsha”l), R. Moshe Isserles(Ram”a), R. Nathan (probably R. Nahan Shapiro, the author of Mevo Shearim) -see ff. 9b, 12a, 13a,162a, 169b etc. He also cites lesser known scholars e.g. R. Veidel (f. 159a) R. Chaim Katz (In the name of an old Mordecai, f. 24b). The writer obviously was a great scholar in his own right and seems to have authored a number of other independent works. He constantly refes to his longer commentary- “Biuri” for alternate explanations. He also wrote a commentary on the “Rosh” (“Biuri al Ashri “, see f. 159a) and the “Ittur” (see f. 181b). He was an outstanding independent thinker and many times disagrees with his teacher and the other classical commentators. These notes abound in many original textual corrections, variant readings and interesting comments. For example, on f. 10b he discusses a responsa of R. David of Corfu which pertains to the Mordecai. It is interesting to note that the text of this responsa (without the author’s disussion), is now reproduced in the standard Vilna editon as an annonymous note. The other notes in a different, smaller hand also contain important citations e.g. “Kitvei R. Yisrael” (f. 2b), “Kibalti mi-Mahral”(f. 6a). (f. 8b contains a signature “Binyamin”, in a slightly different hand. The Mordecai was one of the most popular halachic texts studied in the Polish and German Yeshivoth in the 16th century. See Asher Siev,”Hagahot Ha-Rama Al Ha-Mordecai”, in Hagut Ivrit Be-America, vol. I (Jerusalem,1972) pp.426-439; Abraham Halperin, “Sefer Ha- Mordecai Be-Rei Hadfasotav” in: Iyunim Be- Sifrut Chazal...Melamed festschrift, (Ramat Gan,1982) pp.323-338. These marginalia bear a striking resemblence to other marginalia in the hand of R. Yom Tov Lipman Heller, the Tosfoth Yom Tov, (see the recently published marginalia to R. Bachya on theTorah). Although the “Pe” in his signature (as reproduced in B. Wachstein, Hebraische Autographen... Wien, 1927, no. 22) is different than the “Pe” here, there are other manuscripts (in private hands) attributed to him where the “pe” is similar . The Tosfoth Yom Tov was a disciple of the Mahra”l.