7

Notwithstanding the fact that the Shakh includes a passage in the introduction to his Nequdat Kesef, claiming that his objections to other scholars are meant only respectfully, I have heard it said that several of his remarks were rather caustic. Can anybody substantiate that claim? Preferably with references to passages within his various commentaries that can then be checked.

3

Here's an example from Shakh Choshen Mishpat 85:7

וראיתי בספר גדולי תרומה ריש שער ל"ד דף קמ"ו שהאריך בפלפולים של הבל בעמוד א' וב' וג' ובקושיות בדברי הרמב"ם ושאר פוסקים ואין כדאי להשיב על דבריו כי לא ירד כלל להבין סוגית הש"ס והאמת בסוגית הש"ס ובדעת הרמב"ם כמו שכתבתי והם דברים ברורים ואמיתיים בלי ספק כלל

And I have seen in the book Gidulei Terumah in the beginning of Gate 34, page 146, that he wrote at length with nonsensical casuistry in columns 1, 2, and 3, and with difficulties in the words of Rambam and the other decisors. And it is not worth it to respond to his words, for he did not penetrate at all to understand the Talmudic topic. And the truth of the Talmudic topic and the view of Rambam is as I have written, and [my words] are certain and true without any doubt.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .