Anonymous

Shulchan Aruch: Difference between revisions

From Halachipedia

Shulchan Aruch (view source)

Revision as of 17:02, 15 May 2018

608 bytes added ,  15 May 2018
→‎Stam vaYesh and Yesh veYesh: separate and yesh veyesh mi sheomer
(→‎Stam vaYesh and Yesh veYesh: yafeh lelev and petach hadevir)
(→‎Stam vaYesh and Yesh veYesh: separate and yesh veyesh mi sheomer)
Line 50: Line 50:
# Maran always records the ruling in the original articulation of the Posek it comes from, even if there is some difficulty in his language that may even have practical ramifications. Essentially, he leaves room to inject whatever explanation is given for that Posek's words to the ruling in Shulchan Aruch, as well.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shulchan Aruch 11)</ref>
# Maran always records the ruling in the original articulation of the Posek it comes from, even if there is some difficulty in his language that may even have practical ramifications. Essentially, he leaves room to inject whatever explanation is given for that Posek's words to the ruling in Shulchan Aruch, as well.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shulchan Aruch 11)</ref>


===== Stam vaYesh and Yesh veYesh =====
===== Stam vaYesh (סתם ויש) =====
===== Yesh veYesh (יש ויש) =====
See [[Tur#Stam vaYesh and Yesh veYesh]]
See [[Tur#Stam vaYesh and Yesh veYesh]]
# If there's an added layer of distinction to be made, it will sometimes be appended as a Yesh Omrim to a Stam, not because it's a Machaloket but because the distinction wasn't exicit in the first opinion's presentation.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shulchan Aruch 6)</ref>
# When Maran appends "ויש חולקים" to a Halacha, some say he means to disagree with the position he just presented and side with the Cholkim, while others disagree and say he would have written it as Yesh Omrim if that was the case.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shulchan Aruch 10)</ref>
# Sma writes that Maran and the Rama use the phrase "Yesh Mi SheOmer" (יש מי שאומר) in the singular to introduce a Rishon's position that is accepted but not mentioned by anyone else. In other words, such formulations are not a Stam vaYesh or Yesh veYesh. The Kenesset HaGedolah and others accept this Klal, but the Yad Malachi<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shulchan Aruch 12)</ref> argues strongly, however, that this cannot always be true, given numerous contradictory examples. Therefore, he relegates the Sma's rule to be a general one that is true most but not all of the time. Finally, there are a number of Acharonim cited by the Yad Malachi who categorically reject this Klal, but the majority seem to indeed accept it, Chida and Maamar Mordechai included.<ref>Matnat Yado fn. 55, 58</ref>
# There are three basic Shitot in Yesh veYesh (יש אומרים ויש אומרים): The Halacha follows the first, the second, or whichever one the Posek chooses.<ref>
# There are three basic Shitot in Yesh veYesh (יש אומרים ויש אומרים): The Halacha follows the first, the second, or whichever one the Posek chooses.<ref>
# Kenesset HaGedolah, Elyah Rabbah, and Beit David write that the Shulchan Aruch and Rama accept the second Yesh. Yad Malachi (Klalei Shulchan Aruch 13) has a bunch of problematic examples and suggests that it's only applicable where there is no decisive line at the end indicating which to follow. For example, if the Halacha follows the second approach, why does Maran sometimes append a "Hachi Mistavra" to the second Yesh? Isn't the Klal sufficient to inform us that he accepts that position? Why tell us that it's logical also? The Chida (Birkei Yosef Orach Chaim 273:8) elucidates that Maran doesn't rule based on his own intellect but rather by the majority of the Poskim's. The Klal indicates which position was accepted by the Gedolei HaPoskim, and the addendum of "Hachi Mistavra" means that Maran himseld also though it logical.  
# Kenesset HaGedolah, Elyah Rabbah, and Beit David write that the Shulchan Aruch and Rama accept the second Yesh. Yad Malachi (Klalei Shulchan Aruch 13) has a bunch of problematic examples and suggests that it's only applicable where there is no decisive line at the end indicating which to follow. For example, if the Halacha follows the second approach, why does Maran sometimes append a "Hachi Mistavra" to the second Yesh? Isn't the Klal sufficient to inform us that he accepts that position? Why tell us that it's logical also? The Chida (Birkei Yosef Orach Chaim 273:8) elucidates that Maran doesn't rule based on his own intellect but rather by the majority of the Poskim's. The Klal indicates which position was accepted by the Gedolei HaPoskim, and the addendum of "Hachi Mistavra" means that Maran himseld also though it logical.  
Line 60: Line 58:
See [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=7658&st=&pgnum=303 Yafeh LeLev Orach Chayim vol. 1 159:6] who adds another challenging citation to the Yad Malachi's list, [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=7976&st=&pgnum=297 Petach HaDevir vol 3 pg 296 col 3], and Sdei Chemed (Klalei HaPoskim 13:14-15, as cited in Matnat Yado fn. 71.</ref>
See [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=7658&st=&pgnum=303 Yafeh LeLev Orach Chayim vol. 1 159:6] who adds another challenging citation to the Yad Malachi's list, [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=7976&st=&pgnum=297 Petach HaDevir vol 3 pg 296 col 3], and Sdei Chemed (Klalei HaPoskim 13:14-15, as cited in Matnat Yado fn. 71.</ref>
# "Yesh veYesh" means "Yesh Omrim X veYesh Omrim Y," but "Yesh vePloni," such as "Yesh Omrim X, veHaRambam Omer Y" would not qualify under this rule; rather, Maran is highlighting the opinion of a Yachid that we do not follow.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shulchan Aruch 14</ref>
# "Yesh veYesh" means "Yesh Omrim X veYesh Omrim Y," but "Yesh vePloni," such as "Yesh Omrim X, veHaRambam Omer Y" would not qualify under this rule; rather, Maran is highlighting the opinion of a Yachid that we do not follow.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shulchan Aruch 14</ref>
# When Maran presents the first opinion in the plural "Yesh Omrim" (יש אומרים) and the second in the singular "Yesh Mi SheOmer" (ויש מי שאומר), the Ginat Veradim and Kenesset HaGedolah understand that he accepts the first position and is implying that the latter one is a Yachid. However, the Yad Malachi<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shulchan Aruch 15)</ref> feels the Kenesset HaGedolah eventually retracted his position in his Klalim, while others argue that he misunderstood the second Klal and there was never a retraction.<ref>Matnat Yado ad loc</ref>
# If there's an added layer of distinction to be made, it will sometimes be appended as a Yesh Omrim to a Stam, not because it's a Machaloket but because the distinction wasn't exicit in the first opinion's presentation.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shulchan Aruch 6)</ref>
# When Maran appends "ויש חולקים" to a Halacha, some say he means to disagree with the position he just presented and side with the Cholkim, while others disagree and say he would have written it as Yesh Omrim if that was the case.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shulchan Aruch 10)</ref>
# Sma writes that Maran and the Rama use the phrase "Yesh Mi SheOmer" (יש מי שאומר) in the singular to introduce a Rishon's position that is accepted but not mentioned by anyone else. In other words, such formulations are not a Stam vaYesh or Yesh veYesh. The Kenesset HaGedolah and others accept this Klal, but the Yad Malachi<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shulchan Aruch 12)</ref> argues strongly, however, that this cannot always be true, given numerous contradictory examples. Therefore, he relegates the Sma's rule to be a general one that is true most but not all of the time. Finally, there are a number of Acharonim cited by the Yad Malachi who categorically reject this Klal, but the majority seem to indeed accept it, Chida and Maamar Mordechai included.<ref>Matnat Yado fn. 55, 58</ref>


==== Authorship ====
==== Authorship ====
Retrieved from "http://localhost:80/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/20985"