A Forgotten Legend

By: Jonathan Seidel

Rif’s prestige from Andalusia to Provence through the Achronim (Rabad, Nimukei Yosef, Mabit etc.)

Rif while somewhat forgotten in the Ashkenazi history of talmudic commentary and the fame of Maimonides and Shulchan Aruch, was truly the most important Sage for half a millennium. 

The most famous Jewish writer is either Maimonides or Rashi. Most would appeal to Rashi as he wrote a commentary on both Torah and Talmud. Maimonides wrote on the Mishnah, halakha and philosophy (even if a biblically centred was not a traditional line by line commentary). Rashi’s works have always been centerstage. Just like Plato, Rashi while overcome by Aristotle but not forgotten by his successors. Some even prioritised Rashi over Tosfot. While respecting Tosfot’s dialectical program, they saw Rashi’s commentary as more evidential of textual notation and sugya-centric. There was never another Rashi-like model. Rosh wrote a small commentary with a Tosfot format and one with a Rashi format but his most famed was his Rif format of Piskei HaRosh. Ritva may be the closest as he interprets the text quite succinctly. Unlike his predecessors he wasn’t all too obsessive with the dialectical nor the conceptual paradigm. While called Chiddushim like his mentor Rashba and grand teacher Nahmanides, many of his comments begin with “peirush” or “perish Rashi”. While not entirely a neo-Rashi as that would also require a similarity in beliefs. Yet the style has remnants of the old guard even if swamped with Nahmanidean influences. 

Rashi endured especially in his biblical commentary but even talmudically. Tosfot was the obvious fan favourite but later scholars reincorpated Rashi into the mix reexamining his position, reinterpreting it or simply harmonising it. The same can not be said of Rif. Despite his influence in the first half of millennium by the second half he had been overshadowed by his successors. This is due in part to Rif’s own weakness being somewhere in between a commentary and a code. Like Piskei Rosh which comes out to near replica commented on the talmud without the discussion. Bottom line law from the sugya. Yet this was unhelpful for those learning the sugya because it omitted much of the debate and it was complicated for readers. Those desiring a pocket book of codified law were forced to entertain the sugya to understand yet while missing it. Instead Maimonides and then Tur proposed a classified and straight to the point book of law away from the Talmud. Bringing from the talmud but cutting the cord and enabling people to learn the law of the talmud without the talmud. One could learn the halakhic discussion and then learn the halakhic practice. The printed code was for ease not replacement. With Rif not entirely in either camp his work was eventually overwhelmed and ignored. 

Until the codes truly became prominent, Rif remained at the top of the mountain. His code was preferred since it linked the talmud to the law. Scholars wrote their own commentaries on Rif to figure the law. Whether agreeing or disagreeing, they saw Rif’s decisions as the foundation for halakhic decision making. Beginning with Provence Sages of Rabad III, Razah, R Yonatan Lunel (Rabad II’s Sefer HaEshkol does fit into this group but has been debunked as a forgery), R Berzilai, R Yonah, Nahmanides, Ramah, Ran, Nimmukei Yosef and some Acronim including R Efraim, Bach and Chavot Yair. The amount of commentaries in the ensuing generations to tens of generations after. His primary commentators were those close to his passing in Provence. Rif passed away right around Rabad III’s birth which begins his legacy in Provence from differing Provencal rabbis debating his legacy and the halakha. It is truly amazing how influential the book was with an entire generation and its successors looking towards it for advice, comment and criticism. Rif had passed and yet his words lived on in his books. If Provence believed the Rif was worthy so did Spain. It was a unified attempt to realise the brilliance of a Sage. It may be said if not for Maimonides Mishneh Torah, Rif’s halakhot would still be studied. Maybe the Kesef Mishneh would be the Kesef Rif.

Rif was the preeminent authority. For Provence, the bulk of literature was assigned to halakhic labelling. Rif was the foremost debater and attraction. A legacy would be built or destroyed on covering Rif. Razah survived for his critical remarks on Rif and R Yontan Lunel survived for his impressive commentary on Rif. Looking to Rabad it was his commentary on Rif that was more appreciated than his talmudic work. His comments on Maimonides are a mainstay as well but his notes on Rif ought not be forgotten. The same can be said of R Barzilai. In the following generations Rif remained a top of the mountain of halakhic authority. It was his code that was regarded with such prestige by his successors in Provence. Only the Franco-German world, Provence felt closer to the Andalusia. His authority was felt through the ages and esteemed by those who followed in Spanish history. Especially in Provence when seeking halakhic psak, it was the eminent  leader they looked to for advice and wisdom. If Shmuel HaNagid was the patriarch then Rif was the leader. Shmuel HaNagid was the Abraham to Rif’s Moses. Shmuel HaNagid was incredibly well versed in talmudic literature but much of his responsibilities were political lending the cultivation of a thriving community while Rif enchanted generations with practice. 

It is utterly fascinating that even beyond Provence, Rif remained a staple of consideration. Provence demonstrated reverence and extensions to Spanish Jewry but the same need not be of Tosfot and even Nahmanides. Both Ra’a and Rashbam wrote small notes of Rif. His halakhic wisdom was incredible. His reach extended into Ashkenaz including later scholars such as Mordechai and Chavot Yair. It is truly cross-cultural. For Tosfot to be influential in both spheres is amazing but it is style rather than practice. To consult an entirely different sector of Judaism for wisdom and preference is globally noted. Though the surviving heirs are few and far between. The more noticeable were Spanish scholars invested in the Tosfot talmudic commentary but adhering to their Spanish heritage. It is in this light that Andalusia never was forgotten. Not only amongst Nahmanides but his students and contemporaries. R Yonah, R Abba Mari and Ritva. Ran and Nimmukei Yosef added to the mix but truly wrote commentaries not just halakhic notes. For a scholar to remain a top of the pinnacle of halakhic authority multi-generationally. Over and over consulted and debated, is a feat achieved by a few. It is one thing to be a book that is read but it is another that is written about and derived from. Many have written about Maimonides but Rif has more halakhic commentaries. Even more than Tur and Shulchan Aruch combined. The most revered legal code is not the Mishneh Torah or the Shulchan Aruch but the Hilchot Rav Alfas. 

It is not shocking why Rif’s commentary stood for so long. It was dissimilar to the ensuing codes. Shulchan Aruch, Tur, Aruch HaShulchan all followed Maimonides method. The model of a code is a separate work from the Gemara. The code is a stand alone work that is consulted for practical law. Rif removed the debated parts but kept in the genuine talmudic discussion. For Rif the talmudic aspect was ever important. While it may be difficult for one to do so now given the amount of poskim that succeeded the text. Yet it is not so crazy to allow the Gemara to speak for itself with a smaller commentary noting the present law. Something akin to Mishneh Berurah. Instead of having a commentary below the Shulchan Aruch it would be a commentary below the Gemara. Like Rif, certain layers, sentences and notes are halakhic psak that was passed down and ruled in favour or against. By Rif’s time ruling by the Gemara was still strong as Geonic authorities held sway but insufficiently. Ironically, within the 500 years after completing the Talmud it was still held by but into the ensuing millennium new positions were offered. No longer was it since Rava says but since R Tam or Maimonides says. Fairly so Rif took his own stances in cases ruling against the Gemara and against the Geonim. Not an uncommon sight. It was probably for this reason that his work was readily commented on since his work set the tone for others to deliberate and disagree. It was structured sufficiently by talmudic standards and pointed to the law as it was derived from the talmud. Whether the law remained as it was foretold half a millennium earlier was under consideration.    

Rif’s longevity was a staple of the Spanish obsession with applied law. The talmud was a method reaching the legal aptitude and decision making. Sidelining for theoretical endless study was undermining the commitment to the divine word. By linking the talmud with the prevailing practice, Rif linked the past to the present. The Spanish world held his work to be worthy of commenting upon for their own halakhic opinions. Instead of focusing on literary elements of the text, Rif deduced from the sugya that was presented. The law is like R Meir now what? Rava says such and such do we still do so? The dialectical harmonisation played a little role since Rif was simply compiling the law as it was bestowed so neatly in the talmud. The discussion ended a ruling given and thus one to annotate and conclude. It was heavily available and comparable. It was probably for this reason that Ran and Nimmukei Yosef commented upon. Since for their efforts Rif was linked to the talmudic tradition unlike Maimonides whose pocket law hardly presented the classical talmudic text. Maimonides’ linguistic arrangement of talmudic discussion was of pocket law derived sequentially and orderly from the talmud but unlike Rif lacked the clear talmudic visual. Rif’s work offered the scholar the chain of tradition while Maimonides offered the layman a basic guide of action. 

It appears that it was Rosh’s or even Tur that replaced Rif. While commentators continued into the Achronim they weren’t as frequent. With the exception of R Boaz who wrote Shaltei Giborim (the same guy who put together the Ein Nishpat Ner Mitzvah and the Mesorat Hashas). Otherwise it was less studied after other halakhic works became more apparent and concise. Tur and eventually Shulchan Aruch became central for practical law. Structured like Maimonides but thorough in their quotations and talmudic realisations even if no talmudic text. There were now codes and commentaries. Rif as a hybrid had lost his touch. While still printed and found in the back of the Vilna Shas, it seems it has more to do with Ran then Rif. Rif’s commentary is enlightening but against the contextual framing of Rashi and the dialectical gymnastics of Tosfot, Rif is plain law. Moreover since Rif is more legal based his comments only appear periodically and are short thin bursts. Yet what is quite emphatic is lining up R Chananel’s notes and Rif’s. Rif follows R Chananel’s version in many cases commenting on similar aspects and concluding with different readings than the standard shas/Rashi had. Rif’s small notes in between the law and even his quick decisive explanations yield fascinating points. Yet many times his commentary is the talmudic text till the law without any identifier of his own hand complementing the process. In those instances that his brush does swirl it makes waves with novelties blistering. 

A scholar who has long been forgotten in the chain of halakhic psak but who began the codified adventure. Even his insights can assist the scholar trying to understand the sugya. Sometimes if R Chananel is not present on the text, Rif may illuminate the conversation a little more clearly with his own small indications. It isn’t always obvious but alongside his commentators whether stridently offensive in Baal HaMoer or relatively defensive in Nimmukei Yosef there is much to glean from his commentary. It is no wonder Meiri refers to him as Gidolei HaPoskim.