[Avodah] : [Areivim] KSA

[Richard Wolpoe]

On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin at juno.com>wrote:

> From: "Eli Turkel" <eliturkel at gmail.com>
> <<I joke that if the SA were written today it would have an introduction
> that it is not le-halachah le-masseh >>
>
> No joke;  it was meant for quick chazara.  Halacha lema'aseh required the
> Tur and Beis Yosef.
>
> <<Where did you get that from?>>
>
> In the hakdama to Shulchan Aruch he describes it as a quick reference, to
> be reviewed every 30 days.  The inference is that deeper understanding, for
> nonstandard situations, remains with the Tur and Beis Yosef.
>
> Gershon
> gershon.dubin at juno.com
>
I more or less a gree but I would like to quibble.f

Everything above is true more or less but the SA was a book of peskkim. The
idea of a separation of Halacha and peskakkim ws foudn amonst a nubmer of
Rishonim including the Toras habayyis [oruch vs. katzar]

AISI there is a caveat  The SA WAS meant to be used for bottom line p'sak
PROVIDED thatthe Rav  already understood the dispute and was MERELY looking
for a decision.  So in THAT case no other sefer was needed.  This is
tantamount to the Rav either

   1.  having learned the Tur/BY already
   2.  or its equivalent

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tangent:

 And indeed the SA was a review book so that everyone would be familiar with
Halachah. As such it was intended as a TEXTBOOK for students - a lot like
the KSA  300 years later - w/o any sources etc.

Obviously the SA morphed over time and the Be'er hagolah gave kemoros, as
did his descendant the GRA.

I think the Levush could have won the day because he really set out to be
mekztzer the BY but in a much more thorough way, thatn the SA did himself
But the levush also omitted sources and also put in a lot of his own
opinions w/o support [Rambam-like].

If you want to read a different Kitzur of the BY WITH sources and more
Ashekanzically oriented I would suggest the new edition of the Darchei Moshe
Ho'oruch. Imho it edges out the prisha as a quick commentary on the Tur
allthough both bote together might serve as a good shorcut for the BY which
can be daunting at times.

As I posted once, in my prep to teaching issur v'heter this year I did the
following exercise:

I divided Issur V'heter by the tradtional 3 subjects

   1. Melicha
   2. Bassar v'chalav
   3. Ta'aruvos

Then I went throgh each Subject [Cheilek in the new Tur/SA] with each of the
following Codes

   1. Tur
   2. Sa/Rema
   3. Levush

I challenge anyone to do this on ANY topic.  EG. try Hilchos RH. Go throuh
the Tur, then the SA/Rema then the Levush and see what you know

for Review you can Try MB and/or AhS and see how much is added by doing the
latest Acharonim.

If you really have a lot of time, insert SA harav and Cahyei Adam after
l;evush and before AhS and MB.

If you omit MB, you will have read ONLY codes w/o commentaries. it has a
different feel.  You can do things in chunks or with taking breaks much
easier than using a Code with A commentary. You also get the smoothness of a
single author each time  [except SA/Rema of course]

If you are the kind that compares notes between poskim then you have to
juggel a lot. if you are a gestalt type, your subconsious will tkae care of
that and you get the picture more by intuitve feel than by hard-core analysi
of the details.


-- 
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/20080808/742984e9/attachment-0002.htm>