1. Elon, Menachem, Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles, trans. Auerbach, Bernard and Sykes, Melvin J. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1994), 3:1454Google Scholar.

2. Ibid., 2:976.

3. Frankel, Zacharias, Entwurf einer Geschichte der Literatur der nachtalmudsichen Responsen (Breslau: Grass, Barth, 1865), 6–7Google Scholar. Frankel defines responsa as a form prompted by a “real occurrence.”

4. Elon, Jewish Law, 3:1467 and 2:976.

5. Ibid., 3:1517–21.

6. Ibid., 3:1522.

7. Glick, Shmuel, Kuntres ha-teshuvot he-ḥadash: A Bibliographic Thesaurus of Responsa Literature Published from ca. 1470–2000 (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan Law Library Press, 2006), 1:82–83Google Scholar.

8. Ibid.

9. As this article examines the overlap between scholarly practices and printed works during the transition between manuscript culture and the beginnings of scholars printing their own works, only responsa from rabbis who lived during this moment are considered. Works of responsa printed in the Ottoman Empire (see in notes below for some examples) are beyond the scope of this study, especially since Hebrew printing in the Levant developed at a very different pace from its geographical environment. Since, at the time, there was no print industry in the Ottoman Empire other than Hebrew printing, no larger infrastructure for production (materials, technology, labor) and sale (shipping, networks) existed outside the Jewish world. Ottoman Hebrew printing therefore developed in a less stable and more precarious fashion than its European counterpart, which benefited from a much larger and well-established surrounding infrastructure. See Hacker, Joseph, “Authors, Readers and Printers of Sixteenth-Century Hebrew Books in the Ottoman Empire,” in Perspectives on the Hebraic Book, ed. Pearlstein, Peggy K. (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 2012), 17–65Google Scholar.

10. Rema's birthdate is believed to be around 1530. See Siev, Asher, Rabbi Moses Isserles (Ramo) (New York: Yeshiva University Press, 1972), 12Google Scholar.

11. Roughly 40 of the 132 entries.

12. Shlomo Luria, ShUT Maharshal (Lublin, 1574–75), §37, 18, 19, 20, 21, and many others.

13. Moshe Isserles, ShUT Rema (Cracow, 1640), §13, and Luria, ShUT Maharshal, §33.

14. Luria, ShUT Maharshal, §85.

15. Ibid., §86.

16. Elchanan Reiner, “Lineage and Libel: Maharal, the Beẓalel Family, and the Nadler Affair,” in Maharal: Overtures—Biography, Doctrine, Influence [in Hebrew], ed. Elchanan Reiner (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2015), 110.

17. Yosef Katz, ShUT She'erit Yosef (Cracow, 1590), title page:

שאלות ותשובות וביאורי׳ על המרדכי … ועל טור חשן המשפט: אשר אזן וחקר ותקן הגאון … זצ״ל יצ״ו ונקרא בשם שארית יוסף

18. Ibid., §48.

19. Such as ibid., §29: “The aforementioned rabbis disagreed on one more thing regarding the sukkah.”

20. Luria, ShUT Maharshal, §101.

21. It is difficult to discern any overt connections between this list and the responsa. Only in rare cases does material from the list appear in the responsa (e.g., the last lines on the list's first page appear in §11).

22. Despite its elaborate footnotes, the most recent edition of ShUT Maharshal (Jerusalem: Zikhron Aharon, 2019) includes the list, but provides no explanation of its purpose.

23. Luria, ShUT Maharshal, §1, for example.

24. For example, §14 mentions Plevna; §19 involves a Moshe ben Eliezer; §89 contains several full names; §11; §19; §20; 21; §33; §59, about a scandalous proposal to a respectable woman mentions names and the proposal, verbatim.

25. The few explicit dates are insufficient to establish a chronology of the work. The earliest date (1546) comes first, the latest (1572) last; intervening decades are generally chronological. The scarcity of dates, however, precludes discerning any temporal order. §4:1546/7; §8:1554; §12, Reiner dates to about 1546; §20:1559; §24:1551; §35:1547; §96:1569; §101:1572.

26. For instance, §81–82 address the time span between evening prayers and nightfall. Standard halakhic divisions, however, would not have placed these questions in one category, as their main concerns are unrelated. Furthermore, another entry concerning a similar time frame was not placed with those two. Two consecutive sections, §53 and §54, deal with the summer mourning period; if thematic connections were respected, §53–54 could have been placed with §31–32, which deal with Tisha be-’Av. The cluster §84–89 contain sedarim (orders), which do not follow the question-and-answer format. On thematic versus topical organization see Ann Blair, The Theater of Nature: Jean Bodin and Renaissance Science (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997), 78. Blair notes that Bodin's decision to organize his Theatrum in a flexible question-and-answer form combined both modes.

27. Katz, ShUT She'erit Yosef, §36, §4, and §71 are exceptions.

28. Ibid., §3, 33, and more. "שאלה מק"ק"

29. Ibid., §20, 22, and more. "נשאלתי"

30. Ibid., §24, 25, and more. "זה השבתי ל"

31. Ibid., §26, 27, and more. "שאלה מ"

32. Ibid., §15, 16, 39, and more. "בפני … נתעצמו בפני … בפנינו"

33. Ibid., §38, 43, and more. "הובררנו לדון … זאת לדעת שבא לפנינו"

34. Ibid., §35, 23, and more. "מעשה"

35. Ibid., §74. "וכמה פעמים נשאלתי על זה"

36. Ibid., §1, 2, 8, 35, 37, 62, 67, 74. On this document, see Edward Fram, Ideals Face Reality: Jewish Law and Life in Poland 1550–1655 (Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 1997), 81–95.

37. In ibid., §3–9, and §12–16 all the material forms a discrete unit.

38. The earliest dateable responsum stems from 1550; the latest from 1571, shortly before Rema's death. See Siev's introduction to Isserles, ShUT Rema, ed. Siev, 29.

39. For instance, two responsa about the same issue are separated by one unrelated responsum. Rather than placing them together, the table of contents merely mentions that §26 is “some more about the issue … above, which is in §24” (Isserles, ShUT Rema, 2b). That same topic reappears in §69—the question is even prefaced by the remark that “this responsum is related to responsum §24 above, which also discusses this issue” (ibid., §69); §24 of the table of contents mentions that the topic is discussed in §69, but under §26, dealing with the same topic, only §24 is mentioned. §69 mentions that this topic is discussed elsewhere but provides an incorrect reference.

40. For example, §25 was written by Rabbi Israel Shakhna to Rabbi Moshe ben Meshulam from Italy. The publishers, noticing the addressee “Rabbi Moshe,” assumed this was Rema and mistakenly placed it in the collection. See also Isserles, ShUT Rema, §25, §62, ed. Siev, 147n30–32.

41. Efraim Zalman Margaliot of Brod (1762–1828), Maʿalot ha-yuḥasin (Lemberg: Rohatyn, 1900), 2:

.כפי הנראה נשלחו תשו' אלו ליד הרמ"א ונשארו בין כתביו והיו סבורים שהוא תשו' להרמ"א וכן … ונדפסו

42. For instance, §29 is not mentioned, as it concerns a nonhalakhic topic and would not fit in the index; §18, however, would fit among Shabbat laws but does not appear, nor do §45 and §56.

43. For example, §6 is mentioned twice under “Laws of Menstrual Impurity.”

44. For instance, an entry under “Marriage Laws” contains a convoluted three-line account about a runaway husband, which could easily have been described in one line. “One from our country who was married … and went to the land of Togra (Turkey) and remarried, and it became known to the sages who were there, and they decreed.”

45. For example, question §77 is: “I was asked by a blind person whether he must light Hanukah candles,” whereas the index uses a general formulation: “A blind person, whether he makes the blessing on the moon and the luminaries, and whether he is commanded to light Hanukah candles.”

46. Luria, ShUT Maharshal, §94.

47. Luria, ShUT Maharshal (Jerusalem: ʾOẓar Ha-sefarim, 1969), 10.

אם מותר להולכי דרך להתנות על הידים בשחרית שלא ליטול ידים כל היום.

48. Ibid., 2a, for example, mentions that §46 deals with similar issues. It should have been §51.

49. Ibid., 2b, omitting §68.

50. That mistake may derive from the order in ʾArbaʿah turim, Yoreh de‘ah, where interest is discussed right before laws of “non-Jews and witchcraft.”

51. The first §32 reads: “§32, folio 44, regarding a testimony,” whereas the next one reads “§32, folio 47, two people.” Katz, ShUT She'erit Yosef, table of contents, 2b; §68 is misnumbered as §71. The line between §67 and §69 in the table of contents lacks a section number, providing only page and (incorrect) folio location (it starts on p. 75a, not d).

52. Since not all copies contain these additional responsa, it is likely that the work was already being distributed when the additional responsa were printed. While all copies I have seen contain these responsa, Yiẓḥak Rivkind mentions that some copies lack them; see “Dikdukei sefarim” in Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume: Hebrew Section, ed. Saul Lieberman (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1950), 401–32 (see 422–23 for mention of the copies missing this addition).

53. Perhaps it was the same anonymous person who did so for Rema's Mapah, printed by Prostiẓ, 1607, which first appeared with such references, similarly in parentheses and cursive. Rema himself explicitly wrote that he did not provide references. They first appear in the 1607 edition and are mentioned in its introduction. Meisels's press replaced Prostiẓ in Cracow around 1630, taking over much of their typographic material and employees. Chaim Ber Friedberg, History of Hebrew Typography in Poland [in Hebrew], 2nd ed. (Tel Aviv: Baruch Friedberg, 1950), 27. Possibly, they “inherited” Rema's manuscripts or copies thereof. See Shulḥan ‘Arukh Friedman Edition, ʾOraḥ ḥayim (Jerusalem: Makhon Yerushalayim, 1994), 1:35–36; see also Ḥayim Shlomo Rosenthal, introduction to Moshe Isserles, Darkhei Moshe ha-shalem, ed. Ḥayim Shlomo Rosenthal (Jerusalem: Makhon Yerushalayim, 1979), Ḥoshen mishpat, 19–34; and Siev, introduction to ShUT Rema, ed. Siev, 18–20.

54. For instance, Isserles, ShUT Rema, §6, 15a; §17 includes testimony about adultery. Throughout the discussion, original sentences from the testimonies appear in Yiddish.

55. For instance, ibid., §26. Rema writes that he has already “answered my part in this,” i.e., that he has previously addressed a responsum to this issue. The reference to that responsum (§24) appears in parentheses.

56. Some remarks appear in the first person, e.g., ibid., §7: “In any event, my proofs are not rejected,” and, in parentheses after “proofs” is added “(those that I wrote at first).” Thus, Rema himself wrote this remark on his copy of the responsa. Other first-person remarks, however, adopt an editorial voice, such as before ibid., §5: “This responsum was already printed in ShUT Maharshal … therefore I shortened the responsum … only [I included some of it] to append the ending, which was not printed there.”

57. See also Siev, introduction to ShUT Rema, ed. Siev, 20.

58. For example, in Isserles, ShUT Rema, §60, one reads only the statement: “60, already printed in the ShUT Maharshal, §50.” Similarly, ibid., §61, merely mentions that this responsum was printed in Maharshal's collection, sending the reader not only to the relevant responsum in that work but also to a related responsum in ShUT Rema itself. It would have made more sense to place the whole remark next to the existing responsum, rather than in an empty entry! Moreover, the reference is incorrect.

59. For instance, §4 is omitted, because it appears in Luria, ShUT Maharshal, §49. The table of contents, under §4, provides the correct reference, but the body of the work sends the reader to ShUT Maharshal, §91. §18 was omitted because “it is printed in the responsa of Rabbi Luria, §11.” Isserles, ShUT Rema, table of contents, 2b. Rema's contribution appears in §21, which is confusingly described as “response to the gaon, the author, about dipping in the ritual bath … which is in the responsa of Rabbi Luria §6, and it was not printed there.” The description in the body of ShUT Rema is clearer: “The topic of this question is written in the responsa of Rabbi Luria §6, but this responsum [§21] is not printed there.” Isserles, ShUT Rema, §21.

60. The answers in §95, for instance, address questions posed only in §113.

61. He cites both his and Rema's earlier letters in later writings throughout §5–7.

62. Perhaps the publishers thought it acceptable to print after the death of both correspondents.

63. Daniel Bomberg's press in Venice printed this work and the responsa of Rabbi Joseph Colon in the space of about two months.

64. See Edward (Yeḥezkel) Fram, “ʿAl seder ha-teshuvot ba-mahadurah ha-mudpeset shel sefer Terumat ha-deshen,” ʿAle sefer 20 (2008): 81–96; Pinchas Roth, “Ha-siman he-ḥaser be-sefer Terumat ha-deshen,” ʿAle Sefer 21 (2010): 179–81; Moshe Friedman, introduction to Terumat ha-deshen, ed. Moshe Friedman (Jerusalem: Makhon Shlomo, 2016), 119–23.

65. Shabbetai ha-Kohen, Siftei kohen, Yoreh de‘ah, §196:1.

דהלא נודע שהשאלות שבתה״ד עשה מהרא״י בעל התשובות עצמו ולא ששאלוהו אחרים כמו בפסקי כתביו.

See also ibid., §196:20; David ha-Levi, Turei zahav, Yoreh de‘ah, §328:2; Yoel Sirkis, Bayit ḥadash, Yoreh de‘ah, §196.

66. “I had to explain this at length for my students because they already found [a wrongful explanation] … in a book with an iron pen [a printed book], and it is hard for them to separate from this.”

הוצרכתי להאריך בעבור התלמידים לפי שמצאו דברי מהר”ר איזיק שטיין כבר בעט של עופרת בספר וקשה להם לפרוש מאתו.

Shlomo Luria, ʿAmudei Shlomo (Pillars of Shlomo) (Jerusalem: Makhon Shlomo Auman, 1993–1996), 3:180, under ʿasseh (positive commandment) 50 §3. He is referring to the work of Rabbi Yiẓḥak Stein (ca. Nürnberg 1430 – Regensburg 1495). His Bi'urim (Commentaries) on Rabbi Moshe of Coucy's thirteenth-century Sefer miẓvot katan (Small book of commandments) were printed by Bomberg together with that work in Venice in 1547.

67. One version was printed with tractate Ḥullin, the other with tractate Bava Kamma. See Luria, Yam shel Shlomo on tractate Ḥullin, introduction. See Fram, (untitled, forthcoming), chapter 2, who suggests that these approbations, which were eventually printed with another work of Maharshal's, had been intended for Yam shel Shlomo.

68. Alexander Hacohen, Sefer ha-ʾagudah (Cracow, 1571), introduction:

איך אסף בקיצור נמרץ ישנים גם חדשים מכל … אחריו לא נמצא ספר מפורס על כל התורה.

69. Ibid., continued: לכן אמרתי ויהי מה אעסוק במצוה זו שלא יבוא ספר המפואר הזה כמעט לידי גניזה.

70. Ibid., continued: ב׳ מיני סימנים … הא׳ … כנהוג בשאר הספרים … ועוד נמצא בו בהתחלה דבר חדש.

71. Ibid., continued: כי פועלי הדפוס אצים לומר כלו מעשיכים.

72. Rema's Torat ḥatat deals with Sh‘arei Dura, a medieval work that existed in many editions. Realizing that most readers in his day had the printed Sh‘arei Dura, Rema consciously followed the order and division of sections as found in a specific printed edition (Venice, 1547–48). See David Dvelaitzky, introduction to Yiẓḥak Düren, Sh'arei Dura, ed. David Dvelaitzky (Bnei Brak: Elon, 2016), 22n124.

73. In the introduction to Isserles, Mapah, an abridged version of Darkhei Moshe, he adds, “and I hope, by God, that my longer work [Darkhei Moshe] will also be published.” The publishers of the responsa also express hopes at publishing Darkhei Moshe, as the following statement in Isserles, ShUT Rema, introduction (not paginated, emphasis mine) indicates: “If he who awakens to help sees that he desires the Torah of Moshe, he should shed from his money and expenditures to lead you also in the ways of Moshe (Darkhei Moshe).”

74. When the book was finally published, the foreword briefly mentions the responsa before discussing the still-unpublished Darkhei Moshe, thrice mentioned in larger type. Perhaps even in 1640 the responsa were published mainly to attract investors to print Darkhei Moshe.

75. James Daybell, The Material Letter in Early Modern England: Manuscript Letters and the Culture and Practices of Letter-Writing, 1512–1635 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 183.

76. Isserles, ShUT Rema, §40: כל דברי מועתקים אות באות מגוף כתיבתי כי קשה עלי המשא לכתוב כל ענין פעמיים.

77. Stallybrass analyzes filing methods through Jan Gossaert's Portrait of a Merchant, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC; Peter Stallybrass, “String, Pins, Thread, Wire, Laces and Folds, the Gathered Text” (Lecture with PowerPoint, Bodleian Library, Oxford, UK, September 3, 2010).

78. David Ginsberg. “Private Brivn funm yohr 1533,” Yivo Bletter 13 (1938): 331.

לכן אהובי ורעי אל תעשה כאופן שעושים בני אדם שקורין הכתב ואח”כ דוקרים הכתב בקיר ויניחנו.

79. Daybell, Material Letter, 218.

80. For instance, “a question from the holy community of …,” in Katz, ShUT She'erit Yosef, §3 and §33 and many similar endorsements mentioned earlier.

81. Isserles, ShUT Rema, §40:

אני מניח גוף הכתב באוצרותי, ואני מניח להעתיק הדברים לשלחם למעלתך או לאחרים השואלים ממני. אבל חלילה לי לשלוח דבר ולחתום עליו עד שאדע ואחקרנו אם הוא כענין.

82. Ibid., §12–16 contains a document copied from a Prague court.

83. Megillat Ta‘anit, chapter 7: למחר זה פורע את חובו … ונמצא שם שמים מוטל באשפה

84. Isserles, ShUT Rema, §6 (emphasis added): אפשר שכן ההרגל אצלך כתיבתי אבל כתביך הם לי לעטרת פז

85. Ibid., §7: רק אני גונזם תוך שאר ספרי קודש כראוי להם, כי כל דבריהם תורה

86. Judah Minz and Meir Katzenelbogen, ShUT MahaRY Minz (Venice, 1553), introduction:

בדק בספריו אנה ואנה ומצ’ קצת קונטרסי’ גנוזים בתוך הספרים אחת הנה ואחת הנה עד שקבץ יחד י”ו פסקים והביא’ אלי.

87. Ibid., §40.

כל שאילתך מיום פרידתך מעמי וכן תשובתי עליהם הם מועתקים אצלי מחוברות עם תשובתי … ולכן הכל הוא לנגד עיני בכתבי למעלתך, וכן תעשה כדי שיהיו הדברים קשורים זה בזה דבר דבור על אופניו. ובדרך זה אין אנו צריכין לחזור תמיד הדברים הראשונים.

88. Ibid., §4, introduces a responsum as follows: “I said, I shall tell this law so that the later generation shall know for what reason I permitted.” The responsa are copied as a record for posterity, and provide material to defend his decisions should they be contested.

89. Daybell, Material Letter, 27.

90. See, for instance: Dirk van Miert, “Confidentiality and Publicity in Early Modern Epistolography: Scaliger and Casaubon,” in For the Sake of Learning: Essays in Honor of Anthony Grafton, ed. Ann Blair and Anja-Silvia Goeing (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 1:3–20.

91. Luria, ShUT Maharshal, title page: הלא הוא הגאון המופלג עלה לישיבה שבשמים.… ז"ל תהא נפשו צרורה בצרור החיים אמ'ן

92. Ibid.:

לכן אל תחוסו על הזוזים אשר המה עגולות. כגלגל שחוזר בעולם מגלגלות. וקחו במחיריהן ספר יקר מכל סגולות. ובפרט תלמידי דמר המה יחוסו בלי עצלות. כי ימצאו בו דברים הרבה אשר המה לו מועילות.

93. Ibid., fol. b: “His responsa declare the immense wisdom of our master. Who left us…. In order to show his greatness to the world … we print these questions and his responsa.”

המה יעידון יגידון רוב חכמתו. שאלות ותשובות של מורינו. שנפרד מאתנו והלך לכבוד מנוחתו. אוי נא לנו כי גרמו עוונתינו. להראות את העמים גדולתו. בראותינו את זה אמרנו בלבינו. להדפיס שאלות ותשובותו.

94. The copies in question are at the Jewish Theological Seminary and the Bodleian libraries.

95. Isserles, ShUT Rema, §5. As the original responsum was by Rabbi Shaltiel Ḥen, the last lines rhyme with Shaltiel. Yiẓḥak ben Sheshet, ShUT Ribash (Constantinople, 1546–47), §369 and ShUT Rema, ed. Siev, 18n1.

96. See Yehudah Boksenboim, ed., ’Iggerot yehudei ʾItalyah be-tekufat ha-Renesans, mivḥar me-ha-me'ah ha-16, vols. 6 and 7 (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1994); David B. Ruderman, The World of a Renaissance Jew: The Life and Thought of Abraham ben Mordecai Farissol (Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 1981), 17–18; and Yehudit Halevy Zwick, Toldot sifrut ha-’igronim ha-‘ivriyim (Tel Aviv: Papyrus, 1990). Five Hebrew letter-writing manuals were published in the sixteenth century; the first three have not been attributed to any single author or compiler. According to Carlebach, this is “a sign that such collections had been circulating in manuscript for decades, or even centuries.” See Elisheva Carlebach, “Letter into Text: Epistolarity, History, and Literature,” in Jewish Literature and History: An Interdisciplinary Conversation, ed. Eliyana Adler and Sheila Jelen (Bethesda, MD: University Press of Maryland, 2008), 22, 118.

97. ’Iggerot shelomim (Augsburg, 1534).

התחלתי בעניין המבקש כי כן דרך העולם לבקש אדם מחבירו, וחיברתי אחריו עניין מיאון כי כן דרך העולם שממאן אדם בשאילת חבירו. וחברתי אחריו ענין כעס והתראה, כי כן דרך העולם לכעוס על מי שממאן בבקשתו.

98. ShUT Maharshal, 4b: איך ששכב עם אחותו בעולת בעל במטה ורחץ עמה באמבטי אחת. The case could have been described in less vivid terms. For example: “A case of slander against siblings, and the brother claims that the stain on his reputation has impacted his livelihood, and the sister’s husband wants retribution for his wife’s shame.” Perhaps the table of contents was designed to catch the interest of potential customers by highlighting the more extreme and sensationalist elements. Beyond the goal of piquing the reader’s interest with titillating stories, it also emphasizes that Maharshal was trusted not only with intricate problems of scholarship but also with delicate questions of personal status.

99. Daybell, Material Letter, 179–88, explains that letter-books were closely tied to the early modern construction of self, representing a form of life-writing before Rousseau introduced a new form of autobiographical writing.

100. Ibid., 180.

101. Ibid., 179.

102. Blair, Theater of Nature, 70.

103. Paul Nelles, “Reading and Memory in the Universal Library: Conrad Gessner and the Renaissance Book,” in Mind and Memory in Renaissance Culture, ed. Donald Beecher and Grant Williams (Toronto: Center for Reformation and Renaissance Studies, 2009), 147–69.

104. Fabian Kraemer and Helmut Zedelmaier, “Instruments of Invention in Renaissance Europe: The Cases of Conrad Gesner and Ulisse Aldrovandi,” Intellectual History Review 24, no. 3 (2014): 321–41. See also Ann Blair, “Note Taking as an Art of Transmission,” Critical Inquiry 31, no. 1 (Autumn 2004): 85–107.

105. Gesner's inability to recall this particular letter prompted an explanation of his correspondence habits. The citation is from a letter to Johann Bauhin, mentioned in Brian W. Ogilvie, The Science of Describing: Natural History in Renaissance Europe (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2006), 180.

106. Kraemer and Zedelmaier, “Instruments of Invention,” 328.

107. Volker Hess and J. Andrew Mendelsohn, “Fallgeschichte, Historia, Klassifikation: François Boissier de Sauvages bei der Schreibarbeit,” NTM Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin 21 (2013): 61–92; and Volker Hess and J. Andrew Mendelsohn, “Case and Series. Medical Knowledge and Paper Technology, 1600–1900,” History of Science 48, no. 3/4 (2010): 287–314.

108. Michael Hunter, “Mapping the Mind of Robert Boyle: The Evidence of the Boyle Papers,” in Archives of the Scientific Revolution: The Formation and Exchange of Ideas in Seventeenth-Century Europe, ed. Michael Hunter (Woodbridge, UK: Boydell, 1998), 121–36.

109. Marie Joan Lechner, Renaissance Concepts of the Commonplaces (New York: Pageant, 1962); Ann Moss, Printed Commonplace-Books and the Structuring of Early Modern Thought (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996); Ogilvie, Science of Describing, 180.

110. Elisabeth Décultot, “Introduction: L'art de l'extrait: définition, évolution, enjeux,” in Lire, copier, écrire: Les bibliothèques manuscrites et leurs usages au XVIIIe siècle, ed. Elisabeth Décultot (Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2003), 9 (translation mine). Yair Ḥayim Bacharach's writings (d. 1702) offer an Ashkenazic example of such an archive. See David Kaufmann, R. Jaïr Chajjim Bacharach und seine Ahnen (Trier: Sigmund Mayer, 1894). Some of these writings are now at the National Library of Israel, NLI Ms. Heb. 5220=38.

111. Décultot, “Introduction,” 11.

112. For instance, Fabian Krämer, “Ein papiernes Archiv für alles jemals Geschriebene: Ulisse Aldrovandis Pandechion epistemonicon und die Naturgeschichte der Renaissance,” NTM Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften, Technik und Medizin 21 (2013): 11–36. Scholarly use of these archives are termed “paper technology.” See Volker Hess and J. Andrew Mendelssohn, “Paper Technology und Wissensgeschichte,” NTM Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften, Technik und Medizin 21 (2013): 1–10.

113. Asher Siev, preface to ShUT She'erit Yosef, ed. Asher Siev (New York: Yeshiva University Press, 1984), 36.

114. As Siev remarked in his preface to ShUT She'erit Yosef, 22–23.

115. Several clusters seem to have been one letter, originally; e.g., §66–67, §70–71, and §49–50 each contain one formal opening statement in the first of the pair, followed by one question without a formal closing or signature. The second of the pair lacks a formal greeting and closing with a signature. These may have been originally one document.

116. For instance, Isserles, ShUT Rema, §13, and Luria, ShUT Maharshal, §3, mentioned earlier. Inversely, Yam shel Shlomo contains statements such as “behold here the responsum, which I already wrote,” followed by parts of a relevant responsum from his ShUT. Luria, Yam shel Shlomo, Beiẓah 1:§1. More examples: ibid., 3:§5; Yevamot 6:§41, “here you have a responsum that I wrote in my youth” (referring to ShUT Maharshal, §14); ibid., Kiddushin 1:§40, 2:§19, and 3:§2.

117. For example, Luria, ShUT Maharshal, §43, §73, §33, and more. See also Meir Rafeld, “Ha-Maharshal ve-ha-Yam shel Shlomo” (PhD diss., Bar-Ilan University, 1991), 96–97.

118. Parentheses in first edition, probably added later.

119. Isserles, ShUT Rema, §131.

120. For instance, Isserles, Mapah, ʾOraḥ ḥayim, §339:4 refers to the same case as §125 in the responsa.

121. Peter N. Miller, Peiresc's History of Provence: Antiquarianism and the Discovery of a Medieval Mediterranean (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 2011).

122. Ogilvie, Science of Describing, 212.

123. Ibid.

124. Isserles, ShUT Rema, §38: וכן מצאתי כתוב במרדכי שלי … ועיין בספר המרדכי של מהר"ר מרדכי מפוזנא ותמצאנו שם.

125. Ibid., §132.1: גם העתקתך תהיה שמורה אצלי עם שאר העתקות הנמצאים מדבריו בעירנו

See also Isserles, ShUT Rema, ed. Siev, 515n34.

126. Luria, Yam shel Shlomo, Ḥullin, chapter 1, §29.

איך עלה על דעתך להשיג עלי ולא עיינת בהגהתי באו”ה שלי גם לא ראית בספרי הגדול בפ”ק דחולין

See also Luria, Sha‘arei Dura with Mekhonot Shlomo (Basel, 1599), gate 4:§8.

שוב ראיתי במה שרצה מהר”ם להשיב עלי בספר תורת חטאת שלו … חוץ לכבודו לא עיין בהגהתי ולא בספרי אלא שהציץ מן החרכי’ ולא ראה י ה.

127. Yam shel Shlomo on Ḥullin was first printed in Cracow, 1733–35.

128. Isserles, ShUT Rema, §132.

129. Ibid.: “And I do not know if this was from God [Psalms 118:23], or if I corrected it at the time of printing.”

130. Rabbi Shmuel of Böhm, Ḥokhmat Shlomo (Cracow, 1581–52):

אם המעיין מתקשה באיזה עניין … יוכל לשלוח על ידי איש מוקדם או הוא בעצמו כאשר הוא מורגל ותדיר שנוסעים ליריד לובלין, ושמה יוכל לראות בגוף הגמרות של הגאון ז”ל אשר הם ביד בנו.

131. Eliezer Altschul, “Epilogue and Apology of the Copyist and Proofreader,” in Shlomo Luria, Yam shel Shlomo, Bava Kamma (Prague, 1616):

וללקוט בעמרים … לא מנעתי מלהעתיק כמה ספרים ישנים וחדשים … ובכללם גם החיבור הגדול י״ם ש״ל שלמ״ה … שהעתקת הספר מכתיבת ידו להמחבר עצמו.

132. See Elchanan Reiner, “A Biography of an Agent of Culture: Eleazar Altschul of Prague and His Literary Activity,” in Schöpferische Momente des europäischen Judentums in der frühen Neuzeit, ed. Michael Graetz (Heidelberg: Winter, 2002), 236–37.

133. Eliyahu Loenẓ (1555–1636), ʾAderet Eliyahu, ed. Shatland (Jerusalem: Sha‘arei Ziv, 1998), iv.

גם שם מצאתי … דרכי משה, אשר העתקתי עלי היתה קשה, כי היה מהדורא קמא … כי נתבקש בישיבה של מעלה … בטרם הסיר ממנו הטעיות והקמשונים, ודברים רבים כתובים ביני חטי ועל הגליונים והעתקתיו לילה באישון ואני הייתי המעתיק הראשון.

134. Clearly, he was alive during printing (perhaps he was ill, hence the prayer). Katz, ShUT She'erit Yosef, title page:

וה' … ישביזנה מכל צרה ויחדש כנשר נעוריו יאריך ימי הדרת יקרת תפארתו … דברי המחוקק העומד מעל הדפוס יצחק בהר"ר אהרון מפרוסטיץ.

135. Glick does not list it among responsa printed in the author's lifetime: Kuntres, 1:96–97, 101.

136. Katz, ShUT She'erit Yosef, introduction (not paginated):

בשאלות עולות מכל קהלות תהלות ישראל הן ממקום קרוב הן ממקום רחוק.

137. Ibid.: שלא כתבתי זאת רק להיות בידי לצורכי לזקנתי מפני יראת השמר לך פן תשכח וגומר

138. Siev, preface to ShUT She'erit Yosef, 33.

139. For instance, Ḥayim of Friedberg, Vikuaḥ mayim Ḥayim (Amsterdam, 1712), 4a.

140. Aron Prostiẓ of Cracow printed some tractates of the Babylonian Talmud with Rema's glosses on Rosh's talmudic commentaries (Cracow: Prostiẓ, 1602). He mentions having these glosses from Rema's handwriting, ממש מכתיבת ידו. See Friedberg, History of Hebrew Typography, 21.

141. Isserles, ShUT Rema, introduction:

אלו התשובות שהיו גנוזות מתחת כסא כבוד. המחבר הגאון מהר״ר משה בעל המפה … ה״ה הגהות הש״ע.

142. Ibid., opening poem (not paginated, emphasis in the original):

התשובות החביבות שהיו גנוזות עד הנה בעיניך לראותם. מפרים לאכול ומימיהם המתוקים לשתותם. כן תוכל לחזות בנועם ה׳ ובדרכי משה לילך בארחותם.

143. Blair, Theater of Nature, 67.

144. Shane Butler compares Poliziano's actual correspondence to the collection printed by Manutius and shows that Poliziano had corrected and edited not only his own letters but also those addressed to him, in preparation for publication. Angelo Poliziano, Letters, ed. Shane Butler (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), 1:292–93.

145. Ogilvie, Science of Describing, 212.

146. See Elizabeth Labrousse, Pierre Bayle: Héterodoxie et Rigorisme (Den Haag: Springer, 1964), 2:48n97.

147. Anthony Grafton, “Editing Technical Neo-Latin Texts: Two Cases and Their Implications,” in Editing Greek and Latin Texts: Papers Given at the 23^rd Annual Conference on Editorial Problems, ed. John Grant (New York: AMS, 1989), 183.

148. Martin Lowry, The World of Aldus Manutius: Business and Scholarship in Renaissance Venice (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1979), 218–19. See Ernst Philip Goldschmidt, Medieval Texts and Their First Appearance in Print (London: Oxford University Press, 1943), 13, 23, on commercial incentives for prioritizing printing older works.

149. Glick, Kuntres, 1:91.

150. Although some individual responsa were printed, these should be considered ephemera, like almanacs and broadsides intended for immediate, practical use. For instance, Pesakim shel rabanei ʾItalyah (Venice: Bomberg, 1519), regarding a contemporary controversy. See Alexander Marx, “A Jewish Cause Célèbre in Sixteenth-Century Italy,” in Abhandlungen zur Erinnerung an Hirsch Perez Chajes, ed. Victor Aptowitzer and Arthur Z. Schwartz (Vienna: Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1933).

151. The responsa of Rabbi Shlomo ben Aderet, and those attributed to Rashi and Naḥmanides, for instance, and the responsa of fifteenth-century Ashkenazic rabbis. Regarding this situation and its importance for R. Karo's enterprise, see Kelman, Tirẓa, “Ketuvot be-‘et barzel u-ve-‘oferet be-defus: Mahapekhat ha-defus ve-yeẓirat ha-ḥibur Bet Yosef,” Pe‘amim 148 (2016): 20Google Scholar.

152. The two exceptions to this phenomenon, Terumat ha-deshen and ShUT MaharY Colon, were both printed by Bomberg and edited by Ḥiyya Meir b. David in Venice, 1519. Regarding the main categories of Hebrew books printed until 1500, see Israel Mehlman, “Bikurei ha-defus ha-‘ivri,” ʾAreshet 5 (1972): 455. The halakhic texts printed were mainly codes, small practical works, and responsa, almost exclusively of deceased rabbis. Between 1470 and 1599, other halakhic works were printed almost three times more frequently than responsa. Glick, Kuntres, 1:70.

153. Décultot, “Introduction,” 11.

154. Miller, Peiresc, 6.

155. On the initial resistance and ultimate acceptance accompanying its reception: Tchernowitz, Chaim, The History of the Jewish Codes [in Hebrew] (New York: Jubilee Committee, 1946–1947)Google Scholar; Reiner, “Ashkenazi Élite”; Davis, Joseph, “The Reception of the Shulḥan Arukh and the Formation of Ashkenazic Jewish Identity,” AJS Review 26, no. 2 (2002): 251–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 263–65; and Fram, Edward, “The Use of Codified Law in the Rabbinic Courts of Frankfurt am Main on the Eve of the Enlightenment,” Jewish History 31 (2017): 129–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar. (Note Fram's point that while Shulḥan ‘arukh was authoritative as a legal code for rabbinical court decisions, this reliance on Shulḥan ‘arukh was less pronounced when it came to responsa.)

156. Elon, Jewish Law, 3:1522–23. Elon mentions the Turim alongside Shulḥan ‘arukh. He means the printing of these works, not their manuscript publication, as the fourteenth-century Turim preceded the change that Elon mentions. The nineteenth-century Rabbi Avraham Ẓvi Eisenstadt created Pitḥei teshuvah (Vilna, 1836; Lemberg, 1876), a finding aid for the Shulḥan ‘arukh, which inserted halakhic conclusions of almost two hundred works of responsa in their correct location in the code.

157. Neither Rabbi Yoel Sirkis's ShUT ha-Baḥ (Frankfurt am Main, 1687) nor ʿAvodat ha-Gershuni (Frankfurt am Main, 1669) were organized in this manner; they contain a topical index but the four volumes of the Tur are not mentioned. R. Yair Bacharach's ShUT ḥavat Yaʾir (Frankfurt am Main, 1699) is the first Ashkenazic work of responsa indexed according to the Tur. Rabbi Shmuel de Medina (1506–1589) produced the first work of responsa organized according to the Tur; published in separate volumes (Salonica, 1594–1597). The next to include such an index was Rabbi Moshe Benbenishti (1608–1677), whose responsa, Pnei Moshe, were printed in several volumes (Constantinople, 1669–1671). Rabbi Mordekhai ben Yehudah ha-Levi of Egypt's responsa, Darkhei no‘am (Venice, 1697), similarly included such an index.

158. Margaliot, Maʿalot ha-yuḥasin, 23:

שמעתי מא״א המאוה״ג ז״ל ששמע בילדותו מפי אנשי אמת איך שמחמת דבר ר״ל או מחמת סיבה אחרת ישב הרמ״א זמן מה בכפר אחד סמוך לקראקא, ומחמת הסיבה הנ״ל נשארו שם הרבה כתבים שלו והובאו לבית גנזיו של השר הנ״ל. ומאז שישב הרמ״א שם נתעלה השר מאוד והיה הלוך וגדול והחזיק בכתביו אלו ולא רצה למסרם לשום אדם, וציוה ליורשיו אחריו לנהוג בהם כבוד, ובכל שנה שוטחים אותם לאויר ורוח היום שלא ירקבו ויתעפשו וכמדומה שאמר לי מפי איש שראה בעת שהוציאום ושטחום לשמש ומי יודע אם לעת כזאת עודם קיימים שמה.