[Avodah] new editions

[Arie Folger]

RMB wrote:
> Still, I recall someone on Avodah arguing the SA as a hard date. If you
> recall, the post you're replying to was a summary of positions already
> discussed *and sourced* here. Not my own thoughts.

Well, we know when it was first publoished, that is a hard date. And
in there is also written when he completed the work, which is a hard
date, but acceptance of the SA happened over time, and for that no
hard date can possibly exist.

> : So, I agree that there are different ways to attempt to figure out
> : what the Beis Yossef *really* thought (and I am quite mystified that
> : you left out his magnum opus from the sources of possible definite
> : opinion. I would consider that the most weighty source)...
>
> Because I do not recall anyone in the previous discussion who considered
> the BY definitive. It's earlier than the SA, and far more theoretical
> than a presentation of halakhah ulemaaseh.

The nosei keilim often use the BY to explain the SA, so they obviously
felt differently. The SA is rather the Cliff Notes to the BY, and I
would not call the latter more theoretical, it is also very much
concerned with psaq.

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Cows moo-ve over: camel milk coming to Europe
* Scharfe Analyse der Gaza-Flotte auf ARD
* The New Face of Jewish Studitainment
* Should Humanity Call it Quits
* Sollten wir alle Kohanim sein?
* Videovortrag: Wer hat die Psalmen verfasst?