I came accross a Magen Avrohom או״ח תמ״ז ס״ק י״ג that quotes a Shach that he says is בגליון does anyone know what he might be referring to?
-
1We don't have the Shach's commentary on Orach Chaim– MDjavaDec 11, 2019 at 23:07
-
1But from friedman shulchan aruch they say its the גליון באו״ח it sounds like they have access to it? Do you know such a thing existed that we don’t have anymore or are you assuming?– dov kindermanDec 12, 2019 at 1:23
-
Right, I saw in another place in mine that we don't have it.– MDjavaDec 12, 2019 at 3:37
-
You saw in your shulchan aruch that we dont have it?– dov kindermanDec 12, 2019 at 4:05
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
I saw in the ArtScroll book ׳Later Achronim׳ that the מג״א does quote a ש״ך on או״ח, more specifically on hilchos pesach, which we don't have.
The Pri Megadim (Siftei Da'at) understands the Shach in his commentary to Yoreh Deah 103:1 to be referencing his own commentary on Orach Chaim. If so, the Magen Avraham may still have had it, though it is not currently extant.
This is also noted on the Shach's Wikipedia page.
-
It's not 100% clear that the Pri Megadim is reading the acronym right. The shach may just be referring to the ShA or some particular commentary there. Indeed it's unlikely that hed only ever cross references it once if it was already written.– Double AA ♦Dec 12, 2019 at 14:50
-
True, but if the Magen Avraham is also quoting the commentary, it's far more likely to exist.– MDjavaDec 12, 2019 at 21:31
-
if it was that widely available it's also that much more surprising that we don't have it. Still pretty likely to be either a different book named ש"כ or a misreference of some sort. This is like the Yerushalmi on Kodshim. It would be a wonderfully satisfying answer to many stirot and missing references, but that doesn't make it likely.– Double AA ♦Dec 12, 2019 at 21:32
-
-
wide is relative. For the Magen Avraham on central Poland to happen to have had the only manuscript would be an amazing coincidence– Double AA ♦Dec 12, 2019 at 21:48