2

I haven't checked if this is true elsewhere, but I keep noticing in Yoreh Deah that the Pischei Teshuvah +80% of the time cites the Ba'er Heitev in the name of the Shach or the Taz. He could have simply cited the Shach or Taz directly. He sometimes does this, but it's definitely not the norm.

For example, Pischei Teshuva to Yoreh Deah 89 #2, 89 #7, 91 #2 all quote the Ba'er Heitev in the name of the Shach/Taz.

Pischei Teshuva to Yoreh Deah 91 #10, 92 #1 he quotes the Shach directly. Is there a reason for this? Did he not have access to the Shach/Taz? Doesn't seem like it, as he sometimes cites them directly.

Improve this question
4
  • I would think it's just as an aid to the reader. It would be inconceivable for someone as well-read as the author of the Pitchei Teshuvah not to read the Shach and Taz. The Sha'arei Teshuvah, which is apparently the model for the book, also refers to the Ba'er Heitev 99% of the time (maybe this is what @interested was hinting at) – b a Dec 24 '20 at 12:46
  • I think it is very likely the first edition of the pischai tshuva was printed on a YD with only baer heytev. I seem to remember seeing one. The MB also insisted his sefer should be printed with baer heytev and shaarai teshuva although it increased the cost considerably. – interested Dec 24 '20 at 15:32
  • The Be'er Heitev summarizes the Shach and Taz often so he is quoting the summarization as opposed to the whole piece, plus the halachic takeaway – sam Dec 24 '20 at 16:33
  • @sam actually more often than not the Ba'er Heitev is a direct quote of the Shach/Taz, and that direct quote is what the Pischei Teshuva cites – robev Dec 24 '20 at 17:02

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .