Talner Rebbe (R' Yitzhak Twerski) on Raba"d vs. Ram"o

For the sake of further characterization of this group of hassagot by means of comparison and contrast, mention should be made of the annotations (hagahot) of R. Moses Isserles on the Shulhan Aruk. Professor Louis Ginzberg, comparing the influence of the Mishneh Torah and the Shulhan Aruk as affected by the criticism of Rabad and Isserles respectively, has maintained that Rabad’s blunt criticism destroyed confidence in Maimonides, while Isserles’ annotations actually supplemented Karo’s code extensively, with the result that it was accepted in its corrected form. While Rabad’s critique is undoubtedly more personal than that of Isserles and stylistically harsher, it is perfectly clear that Rabad did not aim solely at sabotaging the Mishneh Torah. He did much to bolster it. As a matter of fact, together with such works as the Hagahot Maimuniyot of Franco-German provenance — which are an accurate counterpart of Isserles’ Hagahot — Rabad’s annotations may even be said to have helped supplement the Mishneh Torah, give it some local color, and bring it up-to-date. With regard to the “some-say” category of annotations in particular, there seems to be a basic difference between Rabad and Isserles; although the latter’s criticism may at first glance seem less obtrusive and more constructive, its effect was actually more damaging. For, while Isserles usually employs the “some-say” device to indicate the proper practice, prevalent custom, or most tenable theory over and against the view of Karo, Rabad uses it to present theoretical alternatives to Maimonides’ statements, to recall the other side of a standard controversy without deciding between them. Sometimes, to be sure, such an annotation intimates the proper course of action, but for the most part these hassagot are neutral. Consequently, Rabad’s strictures could often remain as companions to Maimonides’ statements, while Isserles’ annotations were designed to supersede Karo’s conclusions. [emphasis mine] They usually conclude reticently “and this is the custom” or “such is the common practice” — and custom played a key role in Isserles’ concepts of law — meaning in effect that Karo’s formulations, “holding fast to original authorities and material reasons,” were worthless. It is true that Isserles’ annotations merged formally with Karo’s text, but often only to repudiate it; Rabad’s “some-say” comments, on the other hand, are neither as exclusive nor as conclusive.

Y. Twerski, "Rabad of Posquiers", p.154-155