1,988
edits
Shulchan Aruch: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Kessef Misnheh & Beit Yosef: klalei hagemara, spectrum of shitot
MordechaiD (talk | contribs) (→Klalim: intention of shulchan aruch, bedek habayit printing) |
MordechaiD (talk | contribs) (→Kessef Misnheh & Beit Yosef: klalei hagemara, spectrum of shitot) |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
# In general, if a community with Minhagim is removed from its location for whatever reason and another community (not just individuals) eventually takes its location, the second community maintains its own traditions and is not bound by the traditions of the original one.<ref>See Beur Halacha 468 s.v. Vechumrei HaMakom</ref> However, in Eretz Yisrael, where the Minhag has been like the Shulchan Aruch, the lack of current Sepharadic community following the Shulchan Aruch does not mean that the new Sepharadic communities to settle there are independent of its rulings, because '''the Sepharadic acceptance of Shulchan Aruch is not a function of Minhag HaMakom or Mara deAtra, which could be lost, but rather, acceptance on the community and all its descendants.''' Therefore, the communities moving to Eretz Yisrael are themselves communities that already live under the banner of Shulchan Aruch, as they have for centuries, and continue to do so. Of course, if they ''never'' accepted the Shulchan Aruch, that's a different story. With respect to the Rambam, however, the acceptance ''was'' a function of Mara deAtra, so the acceptance is not binding on new communities. With the great Kibbutz Galuyot of the past century, it's worthwhile for all those gathering in Eretz Yisrael to accept Minhag Yerushalayim as a unifying force and avoid controversy in the commonly non-uniform communities that now exist.<ref>Rav Chaim David HaLevi (Shu"t Aseh Lecha Rav vol. 7 Siman 4) defending Rav Ovadia (Shu"t Yechave Da'at 1:12) against a question by Rav Avraham Sherman ([http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/niv/yesodot1-2.htm Niv HaMidrashia vol. 18-19 Iyyar 5745]). He continues to point out that the Chazon Ish's illustration (Zeraim, Sheviit 23:5) of the Minhag evolving from the following Rambam, to the Shulchan Aruch, and then to Acharonim is only relevant to Ashkenazim, who did not accept the Shulchan Aruch's rulings on themselves and their descendants, unlike the Sepharadim.</ref> | # In general, if a community with Minhagim is removed from its location for whatever reason and another community (not just individuals) eventually takes its location, the second community maintains its own traditions and is not bound by the traditions of the original one.<ref>See Beur Halacha 468 s.v. Vechumrei HaMakom</ref> However, in Eretz Yisrael, where the Minhag has been like the Shulchan Aruch, the lack of current Sepharadic community following the Shulchan Aruch does not mean that the new Sepharadic communities to settle there are independent of its rulings, because '''the Sepharadic acceptance of Shulchan Aruch is not a function of Minhag HaMakom or Mara deAtra, which could be lost, but rather, acceptance on the community and all its descendants.''' Therefore, the communities moving to Eretz Yisrael are themselves communities that already live under the banner of Shulchan Aruch, as they have for centuries, and continue to do so. Of course, if they ''never'' accepted the Shulchan Aruch, that's a different story. With respect to the Rambam, however, the acceptance ''was'' a function of Mara deAtra, so the acceptance is not binding on new communities. With the great Kibbutz Galuyot of the past century, it's worthwhile for all those gathering in Eretz Yisrael to accept Minhag Yerushalayim as a unifying force and avoid controversy in the commonly non-uniform communities that now exist.<ref>Rav Chaim David HaLevi (Shu"t Aseh Lecha Rav vol. 7 Siman 4) defending Rav Ovadia (Shu"t Yechave Da'at 1:12) against a question by Rav Avraham Sherman ([http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/niv/yesodot1-2.htm Niv HaMidrashia vol. 18-19 Iyyar 5745]). He continues to point out that the Chazon Ish's illustration (Zeraim, Sheviit 23:5) of the Minhag evolving from the following Rambam, to the Shulchan Aruch, and then to Acharonim is only relevant to Ashkenazim, who did not accept the Shulchan Aruch's rulings on themselves and their descendants, unlike the Sepharadim.</ref> | ||
=== | === Chronology of Writings === | ||
# Authorities are uncertain which work was written first, Kessef Mishneh or Beit Yosef. The number of cross citations from one book to another are too numerous in each direction to be convincing of one side or the other and, in fact, lead the Shulchan Gavoah<ref>Shulchan Gavoah (Klalim Siman 13)</ref> to determine that Rav Yosef Karo worked on both works simultaneously The Yad Malachi, however, argues that the Kessef Mishneh must have been completed after the Beit Yosef, because, in Kessef Mishneh, it says that the Shemitta is in year 5327, and in the end of Beit Yosef, it says the Sefer was completed in the year 5314. It's certainly possible, though, that he worked on both simultaneously and therefore referenced the Kessef Mishneh manuscript in Beit Yosef.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei HaKessef Mishneh 1-2)</ref> The Chidah disproves this claim, because the first printing of Beit Yosef was in 5310, and Kessef Mishneh was complete but not printed until the end of Rav Yosef Karo's life. As long as he was alive, he continued to work on the Sefer, and he passed away in middle of the printing endeavor.<ref>Shem HaGedolim (Sefarim, Maarechet Bet Ot 59, Maarechet Kaf Ot 50), Matnat Yado fn. 17. See Sdei Chemed (Klalei HaPoskim 13:28)</ref> | # Authorities are uncertain which work was written first, Kessef Mishneh or Beit Yosef. The number of cross citations from one book to another are too numerous in each direction to be convincing of one side or the other and, in fact, lead the Shulchan Gavoah<ref>Shulchan Gavoah (Klalim Siman 13)</ref> to determine that Rav Yosef Karo worked on both works simultaneously The Yad Malachi, however, argues that the Kessef Mishneh must have been completed after the Beit Yosef, because, in Kessef Mishneh, it says that the Shemitta is in year 5327, and in the end of Beit Yosef, it says the Sefer was completed in the year 5314. It's certainly possible, though, that he worked on both simultaneously and therefore referenced the Kessef Mishneh manuscript in Beit Yosef.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei HaKessef Mishneh 1-2)</ref> The Chidah disproves this claim, because the first printing of Beit Yosef was in 5310, and Kessef Mishneh was complete but not printed until the end of Rav Yosef Karo's life. As long as he was alive, he continued to work on the Sefer, and he passed away in middle of the printing endeavor.<ref>Shem HaGedolim (Sefarim, Maarechet Bet Ot 59, Maarechet Kaf Ot 50), Matnat Yado fn. 17. See Sdei Chemed (Klalei HaPoskim 13:28)</ref> | ||
# Rav Yosef Karo wrote a commentary called Klalei HaGemara on the Sefer Halichot Olam, which discusses Klalei HaTalmud. The Beit David claims Maran wrote the Klalei HaGemara later in life after completing his other works, but the Yad Malachi<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Beit Yosef 42)</ref> thinks the reverse is more likely. The Chida<ref>Ein Zocher Lamed 14</ref> sides with the Beit David and adds that when Maran wrote his other Sefarim, he kept a list of Klalim that he extrapolated along the way and that eventually became Klalei HaGemara. <ref>Shem HaGedolim vol. 2 Ot Chaf 24. Matnat Yado fn. 110. In fn. 111 he quotes the Ein Zocher (ibid) who writes how the Kenesset HaGedolah did the same.</ref> | |||
=== Beit Yosef === | |||
# The Kenesset HaGedolah laments how sometimes the Beit Yosef will quote another Rishon quoting the Rambam, when the Rambam's ruling is already written explicitly. He suggests that the secondary source must have added an additional dimension to the idea to warrant its inclusion.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Beit Yosef 35)</ref> | # The Kenesset HaGedolah laments how sometimes the Beit Yosef will quote another Rishon quoting the Rambam, when the Rambam's ruling is already written explicitly. He suggests that the secondary source must have added an additional dimension to the idea to warrant its inclusion.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Beit Yosef 35)</ref> | ||
# Rav Yosef Karo usually rules stringently by Safek DeOraita, so it's astonishing when he doesn't.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Beit Yosef 36)</ref> | # Rav Yosef Karo usually rules stringently by Safek DeOraita, so it's astonishing when he doesn't.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Beit Yosef 36)</ref> | ||
# The Beit Yosef does not employ the mechanism of Kim Li to determine a ruling but rather, if none of the three Amudei Horaah elicits an opinion, he finds one of the commonly accepted Poskim ("Mefursamim") who did and rules like him. Some take issue with his exclusion of Kim Li in favor of his Amudei Horaah rule in monetary cases.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Beit Yosef 38)</ref> | # The Beit Yosef does not employ the mechanism of Kim Li to determine a ruling but rather, if none of the three Amudei Horaah elicits an opinion, he finds one of the commonly accepted Poskim ("Mefursamim") who did and rules like him. Some take issue with his exclusion of Kim Li in favor of his Amudei Horaah rule in monetary cases.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Beit Yosef 38)</ref> | ||
# When many Rishonim share a position, the Beit Yosef does not list off all of their names but rather shares it in the name of the most notable Posek who says it.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Beit Yosef 40)</ref> | |||
# According to the Kenesset HaGedolah, the style of the Beit Yosef is to collect sevarot, so sometimes opposite ideas will be separated by an "Aval" but not always, because his intention is to inform us of the spectrum of opinions and for the Posek to decide.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Beit Yosef 41)</ref> | |||
=== Bedek HaBayit === | === Bedek HaBayit === | ||
# The emendations of the Bedek HaBayit were not always printed on the right Siman in Beit Yosef.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Beit Yosef 39)</ref> | # The emendations of the Bedek HaBayit were not always printed on the right Siman in Beit Yosef.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Beit Yosef 39)</ref> | ||
