November 11, 2010 12:02 am at 12:02 am #592982psach libi bsorasechaMember
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?November 11, 2010 1:17 am at 1:17 am #709885Y.W. EditorKeymaster
The Alter Rebbe authored the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (also known as the Alter Rebbes Shulchan Aruch).November 11, 2010 1:19 am at 1:19 am #709886deiyezoogerMember
The Shuchan Aruch was written by Rav Yosef Cairo. The Shulchan Aruch Harav (kind like kitzur shulchen aruch) was written by the Alter rebbe.November 11, 2010 1:44 am at 1:44 am #709888oomisParticipant
Definitely R’ Yosef Cairo. You are thinking of something else, no doubt.November 11, 2010 1:49 am at 1:49 am #709889
The title page of the Shulchan Aruch Harav only says “Shulchan Aruch”. Harav is only added to distinguish between them when nessasary.November 11, 2010 3:46 am at 3:46 am #709890
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).November 11, 2010 3:59 am at 3:59 am #709891psach libi bsorasechaMember
What is the difference between the two?November 11, 2010 4:16 am at 4:16 am #709892Smile E. FaceMember
in case it wasnt clear, R’ Yosef Cairo 🙂November 11, 2010 4:25 am at 4:25 am #709893oomisParticipant
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.November 11, 2010 4:48 am at 4:48 am #709894
Psach libi, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav reflects the halachic opinions of Rav Shlomo Zalman of Lyady.November 11, 2010 4:57 am at 4:57 am #709895
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”November 11, 2010 8:14 am at 8:14 am #709896
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 ChaimNovember 11, 2010 1:57 pm at 1:57 pm #709897theprof1Participant
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.November 11, 2010 11:09 pm at 11:09 pm #709898rabbiofberlinParticipant
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.November 12, 2010 2:20 am at 2:20 am #709899
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.November 12, 2010 3:08 am at 3:08 am #709900metrodriverMember
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.November 12, 2010 3:21 am at 3:21 am #709901
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.November 12, 2010 12:39 pm at 12:39 pm #709902
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.November 12, 2010 2:15 pm at 2:15 pm #709903theprof1Participant
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.November 14, 2010 3:57 am at 3:57 am #709904
“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.November 14, 2010 5:42 am at 5:42 am #709905popa_bar_abbaParticipant
Perhaps, but that only leads the question back to why was it translated before the aruch hashulchan.November 14, 2010 5:49 am at 5:49 am #709906
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.November 14, 2010 6:14 am at 6:14 am #709907WIYMember
“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.November 14, 2010 6:32 am at 6:32 am #709908
So are you saying that anyone who does not understand written hebrew is not medakdek in halochos?November 14, 2010 12:48 pm at 12:48 pm #709909
” 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.November 14, 2010 1:10 pm at 1:10 pm #709910
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.November 14, 2010 3:44 pm at 3:44 pm #709911shlomozalmanMember
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.November 14, 2010 7:31 pm at 7:31 pm #709912
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.November 14, 2010 8:12 pm at 8:12 pm #709913
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 deathNovember 14, 2010 8:33 pm at 8:33 pm #709914
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.November 14, 2010 8:49 pm at 8:49 pm #709915
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 YeshivosNovember 14, 2010 8:58 pm at 8:58 pm #709916
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)November 14, 2010 9:06 pm at 9:06 pm #709917so rightMember
Rav Elyashev too is not a Rov, yet is the Posek HaDor.November 17, 2010 3:25 pm at 3:25 pm #709918HaLeiViParticipant
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.November 17, 2010 5:37 pm at 5:37 pm #709919
“It’s true it’s only on Orach Chaim”
That was what I meant when I said it was shorter.November 17, 2010 5:40 pm at 5:40 pm #709920
“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.November 17, 2010 8:57 pm at 8:57 pm #709921
But it lav davka contains less words. And that’s what matters.November 17, 2010 9:11 pm at 9:11 pm #709922arcParticipant
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.November 17, 2010 9:12 pm at 9:12 pm #709923
And there is a significant segment of the ashkenazi Charedin who consider Harav Wosner the ???? ????
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.