[Avodah] AH"S

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 02:12:58AM -0500, JOEL RICH via Avodah wrote:
>> (And, by the editor's insistence, I did have to throw in a few words
>> comparing the AhS to the MB. But I think that's unfair to both sefarim.)

> FWIW R' Etam Henkin HY"D agrees with you, especially on printing the
> AH"S with MB as footnotes. (See Taaroch Lfanai Shulchan)

I have no problem with the footnotes, actually. (And in the Buchman
edition, the "Pisqei MB" footnotes include a lot of SA haRav.)

In the early days of AhS Yomi there were people who were annoyed by the
encroachment of MB, as though the AhS isn't stand-alone. Whereas the
lack of a MB with AhS footnotes implies that the MB is more so than the
AhS.

In practice... far more people do consider the MB their "poseiq acharon"
text. So, yeah.

But more than that, I felt like that whole "team AhS" vs "team MB"
mindset was wrong. They're both holy sefarim. Even if you tightly follow
one of the other, remember how Beis Hillel learned halakhah -- you need
to value Beis Shammai's contribution too!


My problem is that

1- I think the books differ more because their goals did than because the
CC and RYME had different legal philosophies.

2- When you define A in contrast to B, you are assuming both work in the
same paradigm, but provide different answers to the same questions. But
what if they are asking different questions? (Even if I thought the MB
were written for halakhah lemaaseh?)

But here, you are comparing someone writing a more up-to-date addition
to the SA (again, if I thought the MB was meant as halakhah lemaaseh)
so someone continuing the discussion in the BY.

An article that extols the virtues of halakhah-as-dialectic shouldn't
mention a code or a survey of codes. It makes it sound like there is a
flaw in the second book.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Imagine waking up tomorrow
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   with only the things
Author: Widen Your Tent      we thanked Hashem for today!
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF