Shulchan Aruch: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Bedek HaBayit
m (Text replacement - "Sepharadi" to "Sephardi") |
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| (13 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
#The [[Chida]] writes how Maran had the Neshama of R' Yehudah Bar Ilay, who was "Rosh HaMedabrim beChol Makom"<ref>Shabbat 33b</ref>. His ruling were accepted throughout Eretz Yisrael, Turkey, Syria, Iran, etc, but not with respect to monetary matters. According to him, one who follows the stringencies of the Rama in Eretz Yisrael need not be rebuked, but one who follows the leniencies should be. The Panim Meirot says that an Ashkenazi who keeps the leniencies of the Shulchan Aruch needs Teshuvah, and the Chida says a Yerei Hashem should keep the stringencies of both.<ref>Shem HaGedolim (Sefarim, Tet 11)</ref> | #The [[Chida]] writes how Maran had the Neshama of R' Yehudah Bar Ilay, who was "Rosh HaMedabrim beChol Makom"<ref>Shabbat 33b</ref>. His ruling were accepted throughout Eretz Yisrael, Turkey, Syria, Iran, etc, but not with respect to monetary matters. According to him, one who follows the stringencies of the Rama in Eretz Yisrael need not be rebuked, but one who follows the leniencies should be. The Panim Meirot says that an Ashkenazi who keeps the leniencies of the Shulchan Aruch needs Teshuvah, and the Chida says a Yerei Hashem should keep the stringencies of both.<ref>Shem HaGedolim (Sefarim, Tet 11)</ref> | ||
#The Acharonim debate whether one can employ a [[Safek Sefekah]] leHalacha when both other sides are against Maran. Rav Ovadia is lenient,<ref>Yabia Omer vol. 9 Yoreh Deah 6:4, because we accepted Maran BeTorat Safek, not Vaday</ref> but Rav Ben Tzion Abba Shaul is not.<ref>Shu"t Ohr LeTzion volume 2 page 12</ref> | #The Acharonim debate whether one can employ a [[Safek Sefekah]] leHalacha when both other sides are against Maran. Rav Ovadia is lenient,<ref>Yabia Omer vol. 9 Yoreh Deah 6:4, because we accepted Maran BeTorat Safek, not Vaday</ref> but Rav Ben Tzion Abba Shaul is not.<ref>Shu"t Ohr LeTzion volume 2 page 12</ref> | ||
# The [[Chida]] argues that quite often the greatest of the Acharonim demonstrate that they only accepted the rulings of the [[Rambam]] and Shulchan Aruch where their positions are clear. If there is any doubt about their positions on a matter, we do not accept their rulings.<ref>Shu"t Chaim She'al vol. 2 Siman 21 s.v. Vechazeh. See Magen Avot (Orach Chaim 263:5).</ref> | |||
# There is a great debate if Sepharadim accept the person Rav Yosef Karo as their rabbi, in which case, all of his rulings across all of his works are included, or only the sefer Shulchan Aruch and not his other works. Some argue that certainly the Teshuvot should also be included, since they are more directly practical/intended LeMaaseh than the sefer Shulchan Aruch.<ref>See Birkei Yosef (Choshen Mishpat 25:28), Shu"t Chaim She'al (vol. 1 74:11)</ref> | |||
===Moroccans=== | |||
See the page on [[Moroccan Halacha]]. | |||
==Chronology of Writings== | ==Chronology of Writings== | ||
| Line 60: | Line 65: | ||
====The Remarkable Derech HaPesak==== | ====The Remarkable Derech HaPesak==== | ||
The self state methodology of Rav Yosef Karo is as follows: | |||
#The goal of the Beit Yosef is to indeed to decide which position to follow, but not with Talmudic proofs. The Chiddushim of the Rishonim are already erupting with the back and forth of Talmud Torah at levels that we are incapable of determining who is correct. Attempting to do so would be foolish, cavalier, and simply arrogant. We're incapable in our diminished state of sin to understand or outsmart them. | #The goal of the Beit Yosef is to indeed to decide which position to follow, but not with Talmudic proofs. The Chiddushim of the Rishonim are already erupting with the back and forth of Talmud Torah at levels that we are incapable of determining who is correct. Attempting to do so would be foolish, cavalier, and simply arrogant. We're incapable in our diminished state of sin to understand or outsmart them. | ||
#Therefore, I decided to use the three pillars of Halacha upon which the entire Jewish nation is supported - the [[Rif]], [[Rambam]], and [[Rosh]]. | #Therefore, I decided to use the three pillars of Halacha upon which the entire Jewish nation is supported - the [[Rif]], [[Rambam]], and [[Rosh]]. | ||
| Line 66: | Line 71: | ||
#If one of the three did not reveal his opinion, then we'll follow the eminent Chachamim who did voice an opinion on the matter. | #If one of the three did not reveal his opinion, then we'll follow the eminent Chachamim who did voice an opinion on the matter. | ||
#In locations where there was already a pre-established Minhag to prohibit something, they should uphold it, as is elaborated in Perek Makom SheNahagu<ref>Pesachim 51a</ref> | #In locations where there was already a pre-established Minhag to prohibit something, they should uphold it, as is elaborated in Perek Makom SheNahagu<ref>Pesachim 51a</ref> | ||
He received much push back from Ashkenazi Poskim for his approach, but it is evident that he did not formulate it himself. Rather, he was working with a pre-existing tradition according to some.<ref>See Birkei Yosef (Choshen Mishpat 25:29) and the discussion on the [[Moroccan_Halacha#Shulchan_Aruch|Moroccan Halacha]] page</ref> | |||
====The Name==== | ====The Name==== | ||
| Line 85: | Line 91: | ||
#The emendations of the Bedek HaBayit were not always printed on the right Siman in Beit Yosef.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Beit Yosef 39), Shem HaGedolim (Gedolim, Yud 165; Sefarim, Bet 31)</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), Shem HaGedolim (Gedolim, Yud 165; Sefarim, Bet 31)</ref> | ||
#The [[Rama]] didn't see the Bedek HaBayit,<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Beit Yosef 39)</ref> because it was printed after he died. Neither did the Sma, [[Bach]], or Tosafot Yom Tov.<ref>Beit Shmuel 15, Shach (Yoreh Deah 34), Elyah Rabbah 101:3, Birkei Yosef Yoreh Deah 286:2 and Orach Chaim 27:4 and 101, Shem HaGedolim (Sefarim, Bet 31) and Menachem Tzion ad loc., Sdei Chemed Klalei HaPoskim 14:9), Matnat Yado ad loc.</ref> Some say the [[Taz]] didn't have the Bedek Habayit either.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva Y.D. 163:3 citing the Chatom Sofer. Taz Y.D. 168:36 also implies this as the Shaar Deah 168:11 notes.</reF> | #The [[Rama]] didn't see the Bedek HaBayit,<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Beit Yosef 39). Rama Y.D. 286:1 implies he didn't see the Bedek Habayit as the Birur Halacha notes.</ref> because it was printed after he died. Neither did the Sma, [[Bach]], or Tosafot Yom Tov.<ref>Beit Shmuel 15, Shach (Yoreh Deah 34), Elyah Rabbah 101:3, Birkei Yosef Yoreh Deah 286:2 and Orach Chaim 27:4 and 101, Shem HaGedolim (Sefarim, Bet 31) and Menachem Tzion ad loc., Sdei Chemed Klalei HaPoskim 14:9), Matnat Yado ad loc. Sama 35:10 impress he didn't have the bedek habayit.</ref> Some say the [[Taz]] didn't have the Bedek Habayit either.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva Y.D. 163:3 citing the Chatom Sofer. Taz Y.D. 168:36 also implies this as the Shaar Deah 168:11 notes.</reF> | ||
#When faced with a Bedek HaBayit that permits something prohibited in the Beit Yosef, the [[Kenesset HaGedolah]] argues it doesn't indicate retraction: the Beit Yosef is a comprehensive compilation of all the opinions, so he was just filling it in but doesn't necessarily hold of it.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Beit Yosef 37)</ref> | #When faced with a Bedek HaBayit that permits something prohibited in the Beit Yosef, the [[Kenesset HaGedolah]] argues it doesn't indicate retraction: the Beit Yosef is a comprehensive compilation of all the opinions, so he was just filling it in but doesn't necessarily hold of it.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Beit Yosef 37)</ref> | ||
#According to Rav Yosef Karo's son, some of the pamphlets of Bedek HaBayit were lost, which may account for contradictions between Beit Yosef and Shulchan Aruch, as the retracting statements never made it to the page. The [[Chida]] postulates that only 1/50 of the actual Bedek HaBayit is extant and adds that had they still be available, most of the objections raised against the Shulchan Aruch would be resolved.<ref>Shem HaGedolim (Gedolim, Yud 165; Sefarim, Bet 31)</ref> | #According to Rav Yosef Karo's son, some of the pamphlets of Bedek HaBayit were lost, which may account for contradictions between Beit Yosef and Shulchan Aruch, as the retracting statements never made it to the page. The [[Chida]] postulates that only 1/50 of the actual Bedek HaBayit is extant and adds that had they still be available, most of the objections raised against the Shulchan Aruch would be resolved.<ref>Shem HaGedolim (Gedolim, Yud 165; Sefarim, Bet 31)</ref> | ||
| Line 109: | Line 115: | ||
#If Maran stipulates that something is only permissible given a certain parameter yet he himself elsewhere writes that that parameter isn't necessary, his intention here is just to say that with this additional factor everyone is lenient.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shulchan Aruch 8)</ref> | #If Maran stipulates that something is only permissible given a certain parameter yet he himself elsewhere writes that that parameter isn't necessary, his intention here is just to say that with this additional factor everyone is lenient.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shulchan Aruch 8)</ref> | ||
#When Maran writes "דברי פלוני נראין," he concurs to rule stringently but not for that Posek's reasoning. Additionally, "ויש לאסור כסברא פלוני" means he rules that way and agrees with the reasoning, too.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shulchan Aruch 9)</ref> | #When Maran writes "דברי פלוני נראין," he concurs to rule stringently but not for that Posek's reasoning. Additionally, "ויש לאסור כסברא פלוני" means he rules that way and agrees with the reasoning, too.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shulchan Aruch 9)</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> | #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). See Taharat HaBayit vol. 2 pg. 252 fn. s.v. ועינא for more references.</ref> | ||
====Stam veYesh (סתם ויש)==== | ====Stam veYesh (סתם ויש)==== | ||
| Line 191: | Line 197: | ||
#The Kenesset HaGedolah writes that Shulchan Aruch follows the Stam unequivocally and unabashedly and only presents the Yesh to give Kavod to the Rishon who maintains that position, unless indicated otherwise.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shaar HaPoskim 17)</ref> The Ginat Veradim says it's a dispensation to allow later Chachamim who invest themselves in the Halacha and come to the conclusion of the Yesh Omrim to follow it. Many Acharonim accept this Klal, including the Rama miFano, Bach, Shach, Pri Chadash, Beit David, Elyah Rabbah, Chelkat Mechokek, and Yad Malachi.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shulchan Aruch 17). See Sdei Chemed Klalei HaPoskim 13:8, Minchat Yitzchak 10:8.</ref> | #The Kenesset HaGedolah writes that Shulchan Aruch follows the Stam unequivocally and unabashedly and only presents the Yesh to give Kavod to the Rishon who maintains that position, unless indicated otherwise.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shaar HaPoskim 17)</ref> The Ginat Veradim says it's a dispensation to allow later Chachamim who invest themselves in the Halacha and come to the conclusion of the Yesh Omrim to follow it. Many Acharonim accept this Klal, including the Rama miFano, Bach, Shach, Pri Chadash, Beit David, Elyah Rabbah, Chelkat Mechokek, and Yad Malachi.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shulchan Aruch 17). See Sdei Chemed Klalei HaPoskim 13:8, Minchat Yitzchak 10:8.</ref> | ||
#A Stam VeYesh that is reversed elsewhere, meaning the Stam here is the Yesh there and the Yesh here is the Stam there, leaves us uncertain how to proceed.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shaar HaPoskim 18)</ref> | #A Stam VeYesh that is reversed elsewhere, meaning the Stam here is the Yesh there and the Yesh here is the Stam there, leaves us uncertain how to proceed.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shaar HaPoskim 18)</ref> | ||
# The Beit David proposed that whenever the Stam merely states a basic Halacha and the Yesh modifies it by introducing a new parameter (i.e. it mentions a detail that was not explicitly addressed in the Stam), the Halacha follows the Yesh. In this case, he argues, the Yesh is not opposing the stam but, rather, is adding on a layer of detail. A number of Poskim debate whether the Beit David's rule is correct or not.<ref>See Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 588:2 and 590:8, Pri Chadash to the former, Beit David Orach Chaim 409 and 441, Taharat HaBayit vol. 1 8:4 and footnotes ad loc, Keter David footnotes on Beit David Orach Chaim 409 printed in the Machon HaKeter edition of Beit David, and Birkat Yehuda vol. 5 siman 1 pp. 261</Ref> | |||
====Yesh veYesh (יש ויש)==== | ====Yesh veYesh (יש ויש)==== | ||
| Line 204: | Line 211: | ||
#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> 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> | #Sma<ref>CM 16:8, 26:13, 35:10</ref> 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, CM 16:3, Machzik Bracha Yoreh Deah 83:16. In CM he clarified that there's no difference between Veyesh and Yesh for this principle.</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=== | ||
| Line 248: | Line 255: | ||
==Sources== | ==Sources== | ||
{{Reflist|30em}} | {{Reflist|30em}} | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:Rules for Determining Halacha]] | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
