Take the 2-minute tour ×

The Rama wrote a series of glosses to the Shulchan Aruch to reflect standard Ashkenazi practice, as the Shulchan Aruch was weighted towards the Sephardim. These glosses have been reprinted in almost every edition since then and are introduced in the text usually with a font change and the word הגה=gloss. Sometimes, one comes across a gloss that has a different font, but is not preceded by the word הגה. Sometimes these anonymous glosses are in parenthesis and sometimes not. (One such example is here.)

Who wrote these glosses? Was it the Rama? Was it a later publisher? If they are the Rama's, why don't they start with the usual הגה?

share|improve this question
look in the early prints of the Shu"A on Hebrewbooks. –  Shmuel Brin Feb 27 '12 at 23:07
Similar: judaism.stackexchange.com/q/26283 –  msh210 Feb 14 '13 at 4:26

3 Answers 3

Those glosses printed in the same font as the Remah are indeed from the Remah even though they don't start with the usual הגה as is evident from the commentaries in such places. Not always did the Remah start of writing הגה. However, there are glosses which are printed in the same font as the Remah and are in parentheses, they usually consist of sources and/or definitions of words. These glosses are NOT from the Remah, but they are very old. They are also known for being completely wrong in many instances. The commentaries sometimes deal with these glosses, but usually do not.

Source: I am studying Semicha under Rabbi Yosef Yitzchok Lerner.

share|improve this answer
Did Rabbi Yosef Yitzchok Lerner say this, or it that just your qualification for answering? –  Double AA Feb 28 '12 at 17:55
Can you provide an example of a place where it is evident from the commentaries there that it is still the Rama writing that comment? –  Double AA Feb 28 '12 at 17:56
He said it numerous times (in fact, today again he mentioned part of what I wrote yesterday). –  Reb Chaim HaQoton Feb 29 '12 at 17:43

--edited for clarity--

it really depends on the print, a good print has almost only ramah in the actual text, and the other things are on the side.

why it is this way: over the years many smart-alec printers, thought adding their "genius" (gaon-ness) to the rama would be helpful, usually in the form of maareh mekomos. sometimes even good maareh mekomos for shulchan aruch were placed as the source for the rama, or vice-verse, and other such things. which resulted in alot of other stuff there not written by the ramah himself. but the fact that it doesn't say hagaah alone doesnt mean much (aside for the fact that you may want a newer print).

see mechon yerushalaim print of shulchan aruch orech chaim 1 intro, and sources quoted there for more info.

share|improve this answer
You have posted many answers, none of which cite any sources at all. We don't know you, so all we have is the word of an anonymous person on the Internet. Please cite sources for your answers wherever possible! Here, you've cited one source "mechon yerushalaim print of shulchan aruch orech chaim 1 intro", which is a good start. If you can do the same for your other answers (and also clarify which parts of this answer are supported by your cites source), that'd be better. (Also, sentences, with proper punctuation and capitalization, would make your answers much more readable.) –  msh210 Aug 16 '13 at 16:33

I have noticed that when the Remah has a non-hagah comment and a hagah comment within one seif the non-hagah comment is an elaboration of the Sulchan Aruchs position and the hagah comment is the Remah's own position and thoughts. I'm not sure if this plays out as a general principle but 2 examples of this is in Siman 98/(99?) of Yoreh Deah. (I will edit this to give a specific seif when I have the time to look it up.)

share|improve this answer
Interesting idea. Providing some concrete examples would be very helpful when you can. –  Double AA Aug 19 '13 at 3:01

Your Answer


