1,988
edits
Shulchan Aruch: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Yesh veYesh (יש ויש): rav bentzion cohen's chiluk
MordechaiD (talk | contribs) |
MordechaiD (talk | contribs) (→Yesh veYesh (יש ויש): rav bentzion cohen's chiluk) |
||
| Line 177: | Line 177: | ||
# 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> | # 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> | # 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]]<ref>Birkei Yosef Orach Chaim 672:1, Machzik Bracha Yoreh Deah 83:16</ref> and Maamar Mordechai<ref>Ma'amar Mordechai 273:1</ref> included.<ref>Matnat Yado fn. 55, 58<. See also Sdei Chemed (Klalei HaPoskim 13:22), Yabia Omer (vol. 2 Orach Chaim 4:3), and Elkabetz (Aflalo, vol. 1 Even HaEzer 1)</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]]<ref>Birkei Yosef Orach Chaim 672:1, Machzik Bracha Yoreh Deah 83:16</ref> and Maamar Mordechai<ref>Ma'amar Mordechai 273:1</ref> included.<ref>Matnat Yado fn. 55, 58<. See also Sdei Chemed (Klalei HaPoskim 13:22), Yabia Omer (vol. 2 Orach Chaim 4:3), and Elkabetz (Aflalo, vol. 1 Even HaEzer 1)</ref> Some argue that this doesn't mean the Shulchan Aruch holds like that opinion; rather, ''we'' follow it because it's the only opinion known on the topic. If someone were to uncover more opinions on the matter, we would be ready to follow them if they were more compelling.<ref>Rav Bentzion Cohen in Ohr Torah (Av-Elul 5753, Siman 167, page 502)</ref> | ||
=== Authorship === | === Authorship === | ||
