סיפורו של המסע לכתיבת עבודת תיזה- מרעיון אמורפי למסע בן שנתיים ימים:

This is the first composition in the
Ashkenazi-Polish milieu dedicated to the interpretation of the Talmudic tale
according to masekhtot rather than topics. 
In my study I will show that through a detailed reading of the
composition and its sources, it is possible to trace the changes in the modes
of writing, organization and editing brought about by the switch to print in
Jewish sacred scholarship written in the Ashkenazi-Polish region during the
sixteenth century.

The construction of the Talmudic Aggadah and its
interpretation as a distinct area of scholarship was not an innovation of Rabbi
Moshe of Bisenz.   It began with the “Ein
Yaakov,” a work written in Saloniki in 1516 by two exiles from Spain, Rabbi
Yaakov and his son Rabbi Levi Ibn Habib, who first collected all of the
Talmudic aggadah and its interpreters (Rashi, Tosafot, Ritva, Ran, Rashba) into
one body of knowledge organized by folio and masekhtot.   The “Ein Yaakov” also reflects a social
shift in the standing of the aggadah, which from exemplary material for
homiletics and books of Musar turns into part of the daily study of Torah
scholars, who come to interpret it by the rules and structure by which the
halakhic layers of the Talmud are interpreted. 
This shift is seen in the works of Rabbi Shmuel Yaffeh Ashkenazi “Yaffeh
Mare’eh” (Venice 1595) and “Yaffeh Toar” (Venice 1597), dedicated
to the interpretation of midrashic literature and the aggadot of the
Palestinian Talmud.

A decrease in the price of production and the dissemination
of printed products as well as the strengthening of trade ties between the
centers of print production in Italy and Ashkenazi Jewry, led to the enrichment
of the Ashkenazi Torah library by a number of Torah compositions, the products
of authors whose roots were in the Iberian region.  These compositions exposed the Ashkenazi scholarly
community to the modes of writing and editing which influenced the works of
Ashkanazi authors. 

 This study locates the “Derash Moshe” as part of
this cultural shift, by means of tracing the similarities in editing, style and
interpretive assumptions between this work and the “Ein Yaakov.”  Despite these similarities these compositions
differ in their approach to interpretive writing.  While R. Yaakov Habib creates a dichotomy
between midrashic literature and his composition, which he

defines as an interpretive work, Rabbi Moshe of Bisenz blurs the distinction between these two types of literature through the adoption of midrashic writing structures in articles that are not titled as a derasha, and through the inclusion of five derashot as independent articles. The interweaving of derashot and midrashic features in the framework of an interpretive work highlights that the “Derash Moshe” was part of the tradition of Ashkenazi writing characterized by the inclusion of different styles of writing in one composition.

 Besides the confluence of Sephardic scholarship with Ashkenazi scholarship, a reading of “Derash Moshe” reveals another cultural shift which occurred with the transition to print: the exposure of bodies of knowledge considered esoteric to a greater scholarly public. This trend is seen in the interpretation of esoteric material, the citation from esoteric works (The Guide to the Perplexed, the Zohar), in references to esoteric works and in the use of terms taken from kabbalic and philosophical discourse.

 In sum, although the “Derash Moshe” did not leave a mark on the works of the period, it can be seen as a window into the cultural and social processes taking place in the Ashkenazi-Polish community with the transition to print, which hastened the meeting of Sephardic and Ashkenazi traditions of writing and enriched the Ashkenazi scholarly world both in terms of topics and in terms of style.