<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Eli Turkel <<a href="mailto:eliturkel@gmail.com">eliturkel@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<<Remember Rambam, SA and Kitzur SA all cite no sources.<br>
Tur does at times.>><br>
<br>
A little unfair as R. Karo relies on his commentary Bet Yosef<br>
There are some discrepancies but they are minor<br>
<br>
--<br>
<font color="#888888">Eli Turkel<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>My point is NOT a critique of RY Karo who relies upon the BY<br>My critique is with the phenomenon that the SA was enshrined as THE Halachic work despite this shortcoming.<br><br>That is a bit confusing so let me state this:<br>
Printers SHOULD have pritned Tur/BY and then the SA/Rema on the bottom of the siman or some simliar device.<br><br>Silly? See the Traditional [not the new edition!] of the Toras habbayis. tTheTB hakatzar is on the SAME PAGE as the TB ho'orcuh!<br>
<br>EVERY early edition of the SA said SA on Tur Orach Haim, on Tur YD etc. But the Tur and BY are missing. True the Be'er hagolah made up for this deficit but what bothers me is that it seems that people did not WANT a sefer that had the sources! Think about how popular the Rambam/SA/KSA are compared to the BY or the Darchei Moshe!<br>
<br>What is also SOMETIMES the case the SA differs from the BY. This is even more baffling<br>E.G. my debate with r. Zev Sero re: fish and milk. Clearly in the BY&clearly omitted from SA. Also see the order of Talllis & Tefillin<br>
BY: Tadi v'sheino Tadir...<br>SA: ma'alion bekodesh...<br><br>As a teacher, it is really difficullt to hve to point these things out. <br><br>-- <br>Kol Tuv / Best Regards,<br>RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com<br>see: <a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a>