- This topic has 39 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I know that the Shulchan Aruch was written by Rav Yosef Cairo. However I just heard someone say that it was written by the Alter Rebbe (Lubavitch). So I looked it up on the internet and of course it shows that it was written by Rav Yosef Cairo. Then there is a different site that says it was written by the Alter Rebbe. Can someone shed light here?
The Alter Rebbe authored the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (also known as the Alter Rebbes Shulchan Aruch).
The Shuchan Aruch was written by Rav Yosef Cairo. The Shulchan Aruch Harav (kind like kitzur shulchen aruch) was written by the Alter rebbe.
Definitely R’ Yosef Cairo. You are thinking of something else, no doubt.
The title page of the Shulchan Aruch Harav only says “Shulchan Aruch”. Harav is only added to distinguish between them when nessasary.
????? dear
Watcha ya talkin about???
I just checked my copy of the ???? ???? ??? and right there on the title page it says ????? ????? …. ???? ????? ???’ ?????? ???? ???”? and the title page of the Bais Yosef & Rema’s Shulchan Aruch has their names in full (both the edition with Mishan Berura & the full size with ?”?,??? ????? ??
Here is short description of the Shulchan Aruch HaRav is
Rabbi Shneur Zalman is equally well known for the Shulchan Aruch HaRav, his version of the classic Shulkhan Arukh, an authoritative code of Jewish law and custom commissioned by Rabbi Dovber of Mezeritch. The Maggid of Mezeritch sought a new version of the Shulchan Aruch for the Hasidic movement. The work states the decided halakha, as well as the underlying reasoning. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav is considered authoritative by other Hasidim, and citations to this work are many times found in non-Hasidic sources such as the Mishnah Berurah used by Lithuanian Jews and the Ben Ish Chai used by Sephardic Jews. Rabbi Shneur Zalman is also one of three halachic authorities on whom Shlomo Ganzfried based his Kitzur Shulkhan Arukh (Concise version of Jewish law).
in case it wasnt clear, R’ Yosef Cairo 🙂
The title page of the Shulchan Aruch Harav only says “Shulchan Aruch”.
Hence the necessity for authors to get the exclusives rights to the names of their work nowadays.
Psach libi, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav reflects the halachic opinions of Rav Shlomo Zalman of Lyady.
chad pami:
You misunderstood me. Their names are mentioned in the title page but both works are simply titled “Shulchan Aruch” If I were to make a statement that “the Baal Hatanya writes in the Shulchan Aruch that…” I would not include the word “Harav”
The rulings are very different, based on different approach. While we usually go with the Shulchan Aruch (R’ Yosef Karo with Mapa by R’ Moshe Isserles) the Shulchan Aruch HaRav is considered a major achron in the world of Halacha. Hence, Shulchan Aruch and Shulchan Aruch HaRav. As I understand, Chabad uses the Shulchan Aruch HaRav as their primary source of Halacha, as opposed to the Remah. Elu Elu Divrey Elokim Chaim
There’s an edition of the Mishna Brura with a commentary by Rabbi Avrohom Noach Klein that notes every halachic difference between the psak din of the Chabad Shulchan Aruch and the Mishna Brura. Before the M’B was published, Polish chasidim used Shulchan Aruch Harav as their primary source of psak halocho. Thoday almost everybody but Chabad uses the Mishna Brura. Many of the differences are purely chasidic in nature. Basically the Baal HaTanya wanted to make a chasidic kitzur.
well, allow me to contradict prof1. While many jews-those mainly following the Lithuanian customs- have accepted the Mishne berurah as the latest possek , the hungarain jews continue to regard the Chassam Sofer and ,to a lesser extent the Kitzur, as their possek. The galicianer jews follow a multitude of poskim, many the brezhaner gaon (Rav sholom Shvadron) and the Polish chassidim their individual rebbes. in none of these communities is the Mishne berura the posske of last resort.
in none of these communities is the Mishne berura the posske of last resort maybe but the Mishne Berura is by far the first resource. If I a Hungarian needs to know a Halacha right now,I head for my Mishna Berura. Only when I found out that things ain’t that simple and I need further guidance does my heritage come into play.
Poster #5; Bezalel: The distinction of how the Shulchan Aruch Harav (Baal Ha Tanya)is addressed, depends by whom. If by a Chassid, then they simply say “Harav”. If by a non-Chassidic scholar, then they say “Baal HaTanya”. The Mishna Berurah addresses the author “HaGaon Reb Zalmen”. As for the content, and distinction bet. R. Caro’s (Not Cairo.)Shulchan Aruch. It is a compendium of the original Shulchan Aruch with some of the previous commentators’ works and his own opinion added sometimes.
A lot of communities follow the Aruch HaShulchan, written by Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein z’tz’l, in preference to the Mishnah Berurah, a position endorsed by Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin z’tz’l. Unlike the Mishnah Berurah or the Kitzer Shulchan Aruch, it covers most of the halachah of the (original) Shulchan Aruch.
Thank you Doc! I would add that in Eretz Yisrael, specifically in Bney Brak, many rely on the Chazon L’Ish L’Kulo U’L’Chumra, who frequently and often dramatically disagrees with the Mishnah Berurah. And yes, there is a Chazon Ish Mishnah Berurah , that lists whenever the Chazon Ish disagrees.
While many yeshivish circles paskin like the aruch hashulchan, who often is at odds with the mishene brura, most american yeshiva grads and rabbonim paskin almost straight mishne brura. I have yet to see a “black hat” shul or chasidish shul without a mishne brura. Every kolel which learns halocho has MB as the secondary resource, after Tur, as the source for the mechaber. Rav Moshe Feinstein generally went with aruch hashulchan because he said that the author was a rov and has special seyato dishmayo that rabbonim have not to make mistakes while, although the chofetz chaim was a great gaon, he was considered by litvakin as just a talmid chochom baal habos. I heard this from Rav Yakov Kaminetsky. I can’t believe that anyone can argue that the MB in our generation, is the prime resource for a baal habos to look up a quick fix halocho answer. Across all communities and heritages.
“I can’t believe that anyone can argue that the MB in our generation, is the prime resource for a baal habos to look up a quick fix halocho answer.”
I suspect that a major reason for that is simply that it has been translated into English, while the Aruch HaShulchan has not been.
Perhaps, but that only leads the question back to why was it translated before the aruch hashulchan.
Charliehall, I’m sorry, but it is preposterous — those who need an English translation of the MB do not medakdek in Halocha in the first place.
mdd
“those who need an English translation of the MB do not medakdek in Halocha in the first place.”
Wow you really should get off your high horse! Not everybody makes a great reading of Hebrew seforim, that doesnt make them someone not medakdek in Halacha! Besides there are people who can read some Hebrew but not all or it takes them very long and to spend a half hour to try to figure out what a MB is saying may be very discouraging. Additionally there are many in the BT community who cant read Hebrew well yet. They care plenty about Halacha but feel handicapped with their lack of Hebrew reading skills.
mdd:
So are you saying that anyone who does not understand written hebrew is not medakdek in halochos?
” that only leads the question back to why was it translated before the aruch hashulchan”
Well for one thing it is MUCH shorter! It only covers 1/4 of the Shulchan Aruch. And the author of AHS restates the Shulchan Aruch in his own language, the MB is in the form of a separate commentary.
Dayan Michael Broyde is currently directing a project to translate the Aurch HaShulchan.
What i meant was that those who do not understand Hebrew well and care about dikduk Halacha are a minority among the medakdekim and would not be able to tilt the balance in favor of the MB over the Aruch Hashulchan. That’s all.
There is no such thing as a perfect translation that can convey the meaning, nuance and spirit of the original. I hope no one would suggest that we learn chumash from an English translation and ditch the original. Therefore, those who do not have a good understanding of rabbinic Hebrew cannot fully appreciate halachic nuances that are inevitably “lost in translation”. Instead of relying on these translations and feeling that this is enough, do your utmost to learn the original;there is no adequate substitute.
Charlihall, I’m sorry again. I do not know if the MB is shorter. It’s true it’s only on Orach Chaim, but the Chofets Chaim wrote a lot in the MB. Plus, add to it the Biur Halocha.
Am I a ????? ?? ???? ????? if I doubt the quote from Reb Moshe Z”tl?
What is the special seyato dishmayo ????? ????? granted a Rav? Zchus Harabim? Navardok the seat of the Aruch HAshulchan may have been a large kehila. Was it a larger tzibur than those who follow the Mishna Beura? Btw Reb Moshe Z’tl himself was no longer a Rav when he was THE Posek Hador. The Pri Megadim became a Rav in the last decade of his life after he completed his Sefarim http://revach.net/stories/gedolim-biographies/Rav-Yosef-Teumim-The-Pri-Megadim-Holds/3711
Reb Efraim Zalmen Margolies was not a Rav. The ???”? Was a Rav for a short time. His quip ??? ???? ??”? is well known. Correct me but I seem to remember that the Chazon Ish did not have ???? ?????
Rav Henkin Became Rav Henkin After serving as rabbi and Yeshiva head in a number of Russian towns, and emigrating to America in 1922 and in 1925 became Director of Ezras Torah, which provided assistance to scholars. He served in that capacity until his death
Addendum:
The Baal Hatnya/Harav/Hagraz and his Grandson The Tzemach Tzedek were Amudei Horoah but not Rabanlm.
Rab Yaakov Z”tl whom you quoted was not a Rav the last 38 years of his life those years when we had the greatest impact.
Rab Aharon Z”tl was not a Rav.
Chad Pami-
R’ Aharon certainly paskened many shaalos and held unique shaalos in halacha; he has two chalakim of teshuvos (Teshuvos Mishnas Reb Aharon), some very fascinating. Though primarily he certainly was the father of all Roshey Yeshivos
Reb Shlomo Zalmen Auerbach Z’tl was a Rosh Yeshiva and ????”?
his Talmid Rav Neuwirth ??? ??”? is not a Rav.
Who remembers that Rav Eliashiv Shlita was a member of the official Rabbinate (there are many who dont want to remember)
Rav Elyashev too is not a Rov, yet is the Posek HaDor.
Oh my. He was a Posek but not a Rav?? Are you serious? What he is saying is that when faced with a choice of who to follow, he’d follow the one who actually had a position to Pasken, and who’s writings are based on real world P’sakim. The reason we Pasken like Shmuel by Dinim is because he had experience. We Pasken like Rav in Issurim because he experience in that. Even in their own times Shmuel would tell you that the Halacha is like Rav, although he actually firmly held his own point.
“It’s true it’s only on Orach Chaim”
That was what I meant when I said it was shorter.
“Rav Elyashev too is not a Rov, yet is the Posek HaDor. “
Only for part of the non-Chasidic Ashkenazic Charedi community in Israel. Neither the Dati Leumi community nor the Sefardic community follow him even in Israel.
But it lav davka contains less words. And that’s what matters.
whoa, whoa, whoa, mdd if you cant fully understand the MB you arent midakdek in halachah and are the minority. you are very wrong.
in US today the MB is the most common sefer for psak but many people have other sources that they follow.
And there is a significant segment of the ashkenazi Charedin who consider Harav Wosner the ???? ????
@Rak Od Pa’am
Are you saying that poskei hador didn’t get smicha?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.