It has been my experience that both the Sefer HaRokeach and the Levush aren't as widely studied in the realm of Halacha. Why is that? Was there something lacking within each work that was filled with the Shulchan Aruch?
Asked
Active
Viewed 106 times
-1
-
The Levush is quoted by many halachists. The same question can be asked about the Chayei Adom and Chachmos Adom which was once very much learned – sam Jun 23 '20 at 01:11
-
I second @sam's comment. They are quoted in later sefarim which are learned more, such as Beis Yosef and the Nosei Keilim of the Shulchan Aruch. See also this. – robev Jun 23 '20 at 01:33
-
Related – robev Jun 23 '20 at 01:34
-
2These are the only two books you found aren't studied much?? – Double AA Jun 23 '20 at 01:56
-
Does this answer your question? Where did the Semag Go? – Salmononius2 Jun 23 '20 at 02:07
-
The l'vush is quoted by every sefer who writes on halacha. Please name me a halacha sefer on the SA who never quotes him. – interested Jun 23 '20 at 14:13
-
@interested "The Mappah" by R' Moses Isserlis. – Double AA Jun 23 '20 at 14:15
-
@DoubleAA I am surprised at you. This was written before the l'vush. The l'vush wrote his sefer and then heard the 'mappah' was being made. So he printed something else instead to have time to look at it first. – interested Jun 23 '20 at 14:18
1 Answers
4
R. Joshua Falk, author of the Perisha and Derisha commentaries on the Tur and the Sefer Meiras Einayim on the Shulchan Aruch, leveled serious methodological critiques of the Levush in his introduction:
When R. Mordechai Yaffe (the author of Levush) would find laws mentioned by R. Moses Isserles but not mentioned in R. Joseph Caro's Beit Yosef he would write them as if R. Moses Isserles invented them on his own.
והגאון ר' מרדכי יפה כאשר לא מצה דבריהן בבית יוסף כתבן על הרוב בשם מור"ם כאילו מור"ם חידש הדינים ואינו
He would give reasons for laws that were never intended by the authors of those laws, as can be seen by researching the original sources.
גם כתב עליהן לפעמים טעמים אשר לא כוונו אליהן בעלי אותן מחברים כמבואר במקום מקור הדינים
He would ask questions based on the reasons he gave, but had he seen the authors' words they would have been resolved.
גם מכח זה הקשה ותמה כמה פעמים על אותן דינין שהביא מור"ם ואותו התמיה וקושיא הוא לפי טעמו ואילו ראה לפניו דברי המחברים היה נוח לו
Sometimes he would just leave the laws with no reasons at all.
ומהאי טעמא נמי כמה פעמים כתב הדינים בלי טעם כלל והניחם סתומים כשהיו
He would sometimes leave out some of what R. Moses Isserles wrote, those things seeming strange to him because they contradicted the reasons he gave.
וגם לפעמים השמיט קצת ממה שכתב מור"ם בהגהותיו כי היו אותן דברים תמוהין לעיניו בהיות טעמיו נסתרין ממנו
Perhaps this may have contributed to some lack of studying of the Levush, to the extent that it even exists.
Alex
- 49,242
- 3
- 120
- 228
-
The last one seems unsubstantiated. How does he know why the Levush left them out, if he didn't mention them at all? Maybe he just disagreed? – magicker72 Jun 23 '20 at 06:17
-
3This is cool, but almost certainly not why people 'stopped' learning it. How many people have ever even read this intro? – Double AA Jun 23 '20 at 11:39