We are privileged nowadays to be blessed with an abundance of
Torah SheBaal Peh that previous generations never had.
This includes many commentaries of Rishonim never
before published, such as some parts of the Me'iri, the
Tosafos HaRosh on Pesochim, the Ritva on Shabbos,
and many others. Furthermore, many seforim of
Rishonim are being published in new editions,
corrected according to manuscripts and replete with cross-
references, comparisons, and critical notes.
Surely those engaged in this meleches hakodesh have a
great zechus, for they are helping publicize divrei
Torah and chiddushim of the Rishonim. These
editors are undoubtedly being mezakeh horabim. HaRav
Yechezkel Sarna zt'l writes, in his approbation to the
edition of the Rosh's commentary on Shekolim, that
editing and publishing commentaries of the Rishonim
"in general brings a brocho for other works more than
for itself." HaRav Isser Zalman Meltzer zt'l once
remarked: "Because I engaged in publishing the Ramban's
seforim I was privileged to publish my own
seforim, the Even HaEzel."
It is a tremendous zechus -- but also a singular
responsibility -- to transmit Torah to future generations in
the most exact and correct form. Chazal's statement
(Eruvin 13a), "My children! be careful in your work,
since you are engaged in meleches Shomayim; you might
leave out or add one letter, and by doing so destroy the
whole world," is absolutely relevant here.
I will try to examine the difficulties and doubts facing
those who edit commentaries of Rishonim. Furthermore,
I will point out areas I think need improvement -- without,
of course, citing details that will identify the improper
publications.
First of all, the editor's task is to present the reader with
the most accurate text possible. The principal basis for the
text is the earliest known copy of a work, whether a printed
edition or a manuscript. Any readings differing from that
primary text must be conclusively proved to be correct before
they can be accepted. There is a cheirem from the
kadmonim not to change any sefer's text by
relying only on logic.
We must demonstrate a source that we can depend upon for
corrections, and show that it is more accurate than the
earlier text that we feel must be rejected. Generally only
manuscripts written near the time and place where and when
the author lived are usually included in this category. It is
necessary, after studying and examining them, to conclude
whether the scribe copied them from an accurate source and
whether he copied precisely, without skipping, changing or
adding words or letters -- all of which are of course
mistakes. The editor should not rely on a manuscript blindly.
There is no scribe, no matter how exactly he tried to copy,
who did not add his own mistakes. We should not ruin a good
text because of a manuscript.
There are those who base the text of a new publication on
three or four manuscripts and choose in each case what they
feel is the correct version from among those. This method
results in a text not exactly like any one manuscript, and we
are totally dependent upon the editor's skills in making the
right decisions.
Then the editor must carefully compare the text of the first
printed edition with the manuscripts and consider the
differences. Naturally the decision as to what changes to
accept or reject will come only following intensive study of
the sugya according to the Rishonim and
Acharonim. It is essential for the editor to have a
photocopy of the manuscript handy throughout his work so he
can continuously check doubtful points in the text that are
liable to emerge during the editing.
I have many times seen publications of Rishonim that
include in the introduction a photograph of pages of the
manuscripts used. Unfortunately, frequently when I inspect
these photographs and compare them to the corresponding parts
of the publication, I find that the manuscript texts are
better than the one published. An extreme example of what can
happen is my discovery, on one occasion, that the facsimile
of the manuscript shown was not even used by the
sefer.
Sometimes in the seforim of Rishonim and
Acharonim who still learned from manuscripts (before
the advent of printed editions), the author quotes another
sefer. We should not "correct" his quote according to
our text of the sefer he quoted from, since we cannot
know whether our text is more correct than his or vice versa.
Moreover, sometimes the author did not at all intend to offer
a precise quote, and only wanted to cite the basic content of
the passage together with his explanation (naturally the
footnotes should point this out). For example, we should not
correct or change texts in the Shittah Mekubetzes or
the Beis Yosef according to our texts of
Rishonim who quote them, nor should we do the
opposite.
We must consider seriously and at length whether it is
possible to change texts even by relying on other
seforim by the same author -- such as the Chidushei
HaRashbo according to his other sefer, the
Toras HaBayis, or according to his numerous
teshuvos -- or conversely whether we may correct those
seforim according to the Chidushei HaRashbo. We
must furthermore consider whether it is at all proper to
enter corrections within the text itself, even if gedolei
Yisroel have made them, and surely we must consider if
our own reasoned-out changes should be implanted in the new
text when the old texts seem corrupt. We should also be
cautious when emending according to corrections indicated in
footnotes in the manuscript, since they were not always
written by someone reliable.
In preparation for printing a new edition (and of course
there must be a careful proofreading for typographical
errors, since we have accomplished nothing if new mistakes
are added to the old ones), the editor must indicate in the
introduction his basis for the new edition. In the footnotes,
he must point out the differences between the various
manuscripts and when the decision which one is right is not
clear-cut and both can possibly be correct. He should
indicate only the differences that will benefit the reader
and not bother mentioning variant spellings when their
meaning is identical. (I have seen in the footnotes of one
Rishon six forms of writing "Beis Shammai
say.") Likewise, I believe that there is no need to refer to
obvious mistakes or skipped text in the manuscripts.
We must also protest against new editions of Rishonim
that are termed "scientific editions." What does science have
to do with a beis midrash? It is likewise not clear to
me why it is necessary to enumerate the number of lines per
page in the manuscript whose photocopy is shown in the
introduction. There are those who are even "mehadeir"
to specify how many letters there are in each line. Many
write in the beginning of the book a list of Rishonim
mentioned in those chidushei Torah. I do not
understand what benefit it is for those studying the
maseches (except for an editor especially occupied in
the chidushim of one of those Rishonim).
The text should be divided into sections and properly
punctuated. In the footnotes of recent editions we see two
methods: one is to offer minimal references and notes, while
the other tries to explain and emphasize the author's school
of thought through comparing it with his other works,
comparing it with other Rishonim who differ with him,
citing the logical source or perhaps different readings in
the gemora that caused the disagreement, pointing out
practical halachic distinctions, and referring to
seforim that explain what this Rishon writes in
another way, and other such techniques. I do not feel it
proper to concentrate on merely compiling a list of
Rishonim who concur with the first opinion, and
another of those who follow the second opinion, and in what
seforim these opinions are mentioned.
During the pagination and preparation for printing an attempt
should be made to maintain the appearance of the sefer
as much as possible as it was in its previous, familiar
editions. Those seforim cited by Acharonim and
Poskim by the page in the first printed edition or the
currently popular edition, should continue to be numbered
that way in the new edition so that it will be easier to
locate the indicated section. In fact this is what was done
in the new Tur HaSholeim.
In conclusion, the profession of preparing new editions of
commentaries of the Rishonim requires know-how and
much experience. It would be fitting for some recognized body
to organize serious training courses for those engaged in
this area. I would say that it is also probable that a
rabbinical committee will be established in the future that
will supervise this area, which is undoubtedly no less
important than rabbinical committees on children's books.
A painful problem that we must find a solution for is
preventing dual publications of works on the same topic. The
acute agony of an avreich who has toiled for a year or
more on one sefer and suddenly sees the same
sefer published by another institute cannot be
imagined. Attempts have already been made to solve this
problem, but it requires the entire public's cooperation.
HaRav Moshe Rosner heads the editing project of Mifal
HaRosh. Address for comments: POB 5106, Yerushalayim
