Talk:Rishonim

Untitled

This Sentence: the author has presented a paper (Appendix D to the volume) that argues (quite convincingly) that there was a distinct major trend of scholars between the Rishonim and the Acharonim. in the introduction is not meeting with wikipedia's editing standards, particularly the editorial comment "(quite convincingly)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.94.82 (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

1250

That is an extremely late date to begin Rishonim. Rashi and Rambam were not Rishonim? The Rif? Rabbenu Bahya ibn Pakuda? Dovi 09:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree... 11th century would be more appropriate. jnothman ^talk 16:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Shulkhan Arukh is not from Rishonim era

We may not state as a fact that the Shulkhan Arukh is from the Rishonim era. That is only the opinion of some people. Many other Orthodox rabbis note that the Shulkhan Arukh is actually from the era of the Acharonim.

See this analysis. http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v27/mj_v27i48.html#COF

Even more interesting, see this Orthodox conclusion: http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v27/mj_v27i51.html#CPI

In Nefesh HaRav (page 239) , Rav Schacter states that "...even though the Beis Yosef and the Rema were in the same time period the Beis Yosef was a Rishon and the Rema was an Acharon because the dividing line between the Rishonim and Acharonim was not the same in all places. The period of the Rishonim lasted longer among the Sefardim than the Ashkenazim.

Also, Margaliot (Encyclopedia L'Toldot Gedolei Yisrael) brings Rabbi Yosef Karo down as an Acharon, not a Rishon.

Also, it is a Jewish folk-myth that an Acharon cannot disagree with a Rishon. 'In fact, such a position is not a part of Jewish law! We cannot present such positions as facts, when they are merely accepted folkways, not halakhot.

Who says an acharon can't disagree with a rishon? I have also seen that statements that acharinim after 1664 (gezerot tach vetat) cannot disagree with acharonim before then. Also that acharonim today cannot disagree with the Mishna Berura. Nevertheless, this is always being done. A most famous case (recent daf yomi) is the Vilna Gaon (and also shulchan Arukh harav) disagreeing with Tosaphot and almost all rishonim on the definition of halachic sunset. It turns out that Rav Sherrira gaon and Rav Hai Gaon agree with the Vilna Gaon whoever it is doubtful that the Vilna Gaon knew this. In any case he does not quote them in his commentary to Shuclchan Arukh. There are many other cases were the Vilna Gaon and his contemporary the Shaagaot Aryeh disagree with Rishonim. Even in our day Rav Feinstein has disagreed with the Meiri and Toasaphot haRosh. Those these are "recent" finds one would expect that in the absence of other authorities one could not disagree. In fact that is the attitude of Chazon Ish on the international dateline who relies on Kuzari and Baal Ham or since they are the only rishonim that hint at the problem.

http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v27/mj_v27i55.html#CQL

I think calling it a "folk myth" is just wrong. It is certainly not simple, but it also is real. Rav Shachter's point aside, the Beis Yosef was a very powerful force in creating the dividing line between Rishonim and Achronim, by means of his decision, announced in its introduction, that the sefer Beis Yosef would primarily make its decisions by majority rule among the main Rishonim. The Maharshal complains bitterly about this in the Yam shel Shlomo, that this is an abdication of responsibility. But that was the approach of the Beis Yosef, not a folk myth, and it seems to be the standard view mostly; we respect the Maharshal but we don't hold like him on this issue.

The example you brought from Rav Moshe Feinstein is similar: he distinguishes between the "main line" of Rishonim, and those that were not known throughout most of the following halakhic history, such as the Meiri and Tos. Harosh; he holds that the "main line" is what carries the authority. And even the Vilna Gaon rarely disagreed with _all_ Rishonim. As you carefully pointed out, it is much more usual for him to choose sides, picking ones that he agreed with more, as in the case of the Gaonim on sunset.

It wouldn't be a bad thing to have more of this kind of presentation in the article, but that would take a lot of research for sources. Certainly the presentation with the long quote from R' Menachem Elon is pretty one-sided, showing undue deference to what I think is a clear minority view. MikeR613 (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rishonim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051109101043/http://www.tzemachdovid.org/gedolim/jhistory/index.html to http://www.tzemachdovid.org/gedolim/jhistory/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Counterpoints to "Acharonim can argue on Rishonim"

The article brings down the idea that Acharonim cannot argue on Rishonim, and then brings down that some disagree with this idea, along with their evidence.

The article doesn't mention why the period of the Rishonim ended (i.e. the Spanish Expulsion and the publishing of the Shulchan Aruch), nor does it bring the Expulsion and the Shulchan Aruch as evidence that Acharonim cannot argue on Rishonim, due to them ending the level of scholarship of the Rishonim, and therefore their era, similar to how the Mishna ended the Tannaitic era.

Without this counterpoint (which is why most poskim hold Acharonim cannot argue on Rishonim), the article remains unbalanced. Shibolet Nehrd (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)