[Avodah] new editions

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:25:15PM +0200, Arie Folger wrote:
: 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.

I was trying to say that the SA being accepted as THE code makes those
that precede the SA more authoritative -- because they can be used to
justify divergances from that code, whereas acharonim can't.

Therefore regardless of acceptance, it presents a line between those the
SA could have possibly consulted and those after. Those whose authority
outweighs our use of the code, and those who don't. Not a hard line,
a generational line that allows for "R XYZ rishon hu upalig", a parallel
to the generation that lived through the mishnah. But again, that is my
own opinion, not the one I was trying to summarize in my initial survey.

...
:> 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.

I would say it's more concerned with existing shitos than the SA's own
pesaq. Of course, one shapes the other. But the chiluq we're discussing
presupposes talking about a case where the two disagree. In which case,
it is easily arguable that the BY was speaking lomdus, and the SA,
lemaaseh.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha at aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie