[Avodah] KSA, MB, AhS, Chayei Adam and other codes

[Richard Wolpoe]

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org> wrote:

>
> In another post there sent 6 minutes later (Wed, 12:27am EDT):
> :                                                  Reminds me of a story I
> : heard about the Chofetz Chaim (IIRC, B'sheim R' Berel Wein). The Chofetz
> : Chaim said, "I could have written the MB without the BH, but then people
> : would have thought that I wasn't a Lamdan." The explanation for the
> : statement was that had he written it in the same style as the Kitzur,
> people
> : would have looked down at the MB. Now that the BH was there, people would
> : know that the CC really _was_ a Lamdan, and now they would learn the MB.
>

A friend who was a talmid atof Chofetz Chayyim yeshiva in Forset Hills
mentioned that there was a cynical rumor that the Ba'al Mishnah Brura "
merelywanted to join the bandwagon of nos'ei Keilim on the SA]  Sort lof
like joining an exclusive club.  Neither he, nor I, subscribe to this rumor,
but it was out there 20 years ago and might still have some life to it...



>
> I think the need for something more than a code for use as a code is
> more than just establishing credentials.
>
> One is supposed to follow a pesaq, not a book.


Sometimes books are not for psak for for Halachic education.
If you need a decision you might need to research deeper.
But I guess for a quickie you can pick a "rebbe" [e.g. MB or Cheyi Adam] and
go along with him.



> How is one supposed to
> know when the din in the code is zil qeri bei rav hu, and when one should
> CYLOR (consult your local O rabbi)? IOW, not a question of the opinions
> that came before but the opinions that are still around. Examples like
> the short retzu'ah are in the minority, frankly.
>
> Truth is, the MB surveys before giving a pesaq, so the BH wasn't needed
> for knowing which are the still-open questions.
>
> The AhS suffers from this problem sometimes. While he gives sevara, it's
> often entirely explaining the single shitah that he pasqens according to.
> Unless you're a purebred Litvak who needs to hold as they did in Litta
> a century ago, there are going to be questions you don't know to ask.
>
> OTOH, the AhS by providing some sevara, rather than a straight code
> or a code + survey has the advantage of being a more interesting read.
> Something as pragmatically necessary as convincing the reader to take
> the author seriously.
>
>
> -Micha
>

FWIW When I was at ner Yisrael they told us to never learn the AhS w/o SA
[or at least Tur] beforehand because the Ahs is really only adressing a
subset of the issues.

I have a friend [DK] who read the entire AhS w/ oaid of SA or Tur and said
the sefer satands on its own.

Maybe DK is rigth but I think Micha's criticsm is fair [hey we actualyl
agree}  Maybe you CAN read the AhS alone but yo uwill get a narrow view.
The MB has a lto of ma'alos in giving a wider range.

My conte6ion tion with MB is this: I am nto comfortable wit hTeimanim
"deifying Rambam"
and I'm eually uncfortable with the "velt" diefying the MB. That does not
mean it is not avaluable work. I'd be a lot happier if the "velt said
something like the MB is the ikar over 90% of the time, but not always.
[same maight be said for KSA,. too]

If you are heavily rationalistically inclinded [as where I teach] a
combination of Rambam and AhS would work nicely.  I would consider
interpolating the Chayei Adam/Chohmas Adam in order to get a summary of SA
and nos'ei Keilim


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe at Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080806/c031e556/attachment-0002.htm>