Jump to navigation Jump to search
- Like his father the Rosh, the Tur only discusses matters that are relevant to Halacha. Moreover, only cases mentioned or hinted to in the Talmud are discussed in the Tur. Of the topics discussed, he writes the spectrum of positions that arise in the Talmud, Geonim, and Poskim.
- Halachot whose source Gemarot have unresolved textual variants (Safek Girsaot) are omitted by the Tur.
- Some say that if the Tur omits a Halacha from its appropriate context, one cannot infer that he still accepts it based on a Halacha written in a different context of the Tur, because this is its proper place. For example, if a certain Halacha about lighting Shabbat candles doesn't appear in the Siman about candlelighting, one cannot infer it based on a Halacha in a different, unrelated Siman. Others disagree. At the same time, some say the Tur will directly quote the Rambam or a different Rishon's articulation of a ruling, though he himself does not completely subscribe to the ruling and all its details, because he's relying on having written his own view in a different location.
- At the same time, the Tur will outline a debate between the Rosh and other Rishonim in one Siman and then assume like the Rosh's position on the issue in other Simanim without mentioning the other opinion.
- When writing how a Rishon concurs with a statement, the Tur will use the language "Al Derech Zeh Katav HaRambam" to means that it's not exactly the Rishon's Shitah, but similar - i.e. there are some differences. "Ken Katav HaRambam" is an indication the Rishon entertains the same position.
- The Tur himself concurs with a previously stated ruling when he writes "Nireh Li" to introduce the next idea, while the language "Li Nireh" introduces his own dissenting opinion.
- Sometimes, a ruling will be written in the name of the Rambam, even though it's explicit in the Gemara, because the Rif and Rosh omitted it.
- When the Tur or another Posek responds to a statement he quotes with "I don't know why" (איני יודע למה), it is not a sufficient indication of his disagreement.
- The Tur will point out how the Rosh is unlike the Rambam but not the Rif.
- Poskim of the same position are grouped together. The entire group of one position is outlined first, and then the next group.
Stam vaYesh and Yesh veYesh
- In line with the general rule, know colloquially as "Yesh veYesh Halacha KeYesh Batra," the Acharonim write how one should follow the last of a series of positions presented by the Tur. The Yad Malachi adds how this is also written regarding the Rif, the Tur's understanding of the Rosh, and the Samag, but he notes how the Beit Yosef takes contradictory approaches to this with respect to the Rosh. In the Tur, this is true when it's "Yesh Omrim... veYesh Omrim..." or "So and so says this, and so and so says that;" however, If it's a case of "Stam vaYesh, then the Halacha follows the Stam
- The rule is most compelling when the two positions are not listed in chronological order.. Some say this is true even regarding Shulchan Aruch.
- If the verbiage is of the formulation "LeDaat Ploni Assur u'leDaat Ploni Muttar," this rule does not apply.
- Independently of the "Yesh veYesh" rule, if the Tur writes "Aval" to introduce an additional position, it's an indication that this is the opinion he accepts.. However, if he elucidates the reasoning of the first opinion before introducing the second, there's firm reason to believe he leans towards the first one as primary. This Klal also has import in understanding the position of the Beit Yosef when he records debates among the Rishonim.
When Quoting Baalei HaTosafot and Rosh
- If the position of the Rashba quoted by the Tur contradicts what the Rashba himself writes in his Sefarim, the former is actually the Rash MiShantz, not Rav Shlomo Ben Aderet.
- When the Tur writes "My father decided this way" based on proofs, then the idea has import to other topics, as well, while "This is my father's conclusion" does not.
- The Tur always follows his father's view when he writes "And my master, my father wrote this way, as well" (כן כתב אדוני אבי הרא"ש). As above, in general, he follows the last position presented in a series of opinions, unless the first opinion was written anonymously. This is in line with the common rules of "Yesh veYesh" always following the last one and "Stam vaYesh Halacha KeStam."
- The Tur will attribute the unsourced statement of the Rosh to one of the Baalei HaTosafot, such as the Ri.
- Ri (ר"י) without a Heh refers to R' Yitzchak Baal HaTosafot, and HaRi (הר"י) with a Heh refers to Rabbeinu Yonah.
- "Ken Daat Adoni Avi" (כן דעת אדוני אבי) means the idea is not explicit in the Rosh; "Ken Katav Adoni Avi" (כן כתב אדוני אבי) does. Similarly, "Lo Katav Adoni Avi HaRosh Ken" (לא כתב אדוני אבי הרא"ש כן) means that it's not understood from the Rosh.
- There is a fleet of Acharonim who assert the Tur does not disagree with his father without doing so explicitly; therefore, we always work hard to reconcile any inconsistencies.
- Even if there are those who disagree with the Rosh, the Tur will not necessarily quote them to contrast.
- Rosh's position is usually quoted last, not first, to indicate this is the position the Tur accepts.
- Although the Rosh might agree with the position of the Baalei HaTosafot, the Tur will suffice with quoting the position in name of Tosafot and not mention the Rosh's agreement.
- Wherever the Tur writes "And my father the Rosh would say..." (ואדוני אבי הרא"ש ז"ל היה אומר), the Beit Yosef often points out how it was an oral communication between father and son, not a written ruling. 
Kitzur Piskei HaRosh
- The Kitzur Piskei HaRosh were written by the Tur. When they contradict the Tur itself, the latter should be followed, as it was written later.
- In Kitzur Piskei HaRosh, the Tur writes no more than the explicit point of the Rosh.
- When referring to the Rambam, the Tur is exclusively referring to Mishneh Torah, as Perush HaMishnah was not available to him. 
- The Tur only had the Rashba's Torat HaBayit HaKatzar, not HeAruch.
- The Rosh Yosef thought the Rav Amram mentioned in the Tur is not the same as Rav Amram Gaon, but the Chidah argues they indeed are the same person.
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 1)
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 14)
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 14)
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 17)
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 3) and Matnat Yado fn. 4
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 11)
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 27)
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 12)
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 13)
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 19)
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 25)
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 29)
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 31)
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 5)
- Korban Netanel (Klalim 5)
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 7)
- Matnat Yado fn. 24
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 8)
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 9)
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 10)
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 2)
- Perishah Choshen Mishpat 182:14, Korban Netanel (Klalim 4)
- Korban Netanel (Klalim 5)
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 16)
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 18)
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 20)
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 23). It is noteworthy, however, that the Taz Yoreh Deah 240:2 elucidates that the Tur does disagree with his father a number of times in Choshen Mishpat but does so by quoting someone else of the same position as his father and disagreeing with that Rishon instead. This way, it's "Shelo beFanav," in terms of Hilchot Mora Av.
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 24)
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 30)
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 32)
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 34). See Sdei Chemed (Klalei HaPoskim 12:7) for a discussion of this rule and its exceptions. Matnat Yado fn. 99. Same is true for "היה מתיר."
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 21)
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 22)
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 26), Matnat Yado fn. 87
- Beit Yosef (Yoreh Deah 112:5), Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 15)
- Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 33)
- Shem HaGedolim vol. 2 "Seder Rav Amram"