Shulchan Aruch: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Bedek HaBayit
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 91: | 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 211: | 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=== | ||
