5

Was it always a straightforward presumption ("davar pashut") that in general the Ashkanazim should decide Halachic questions ("pasken") in accordance with the Rema over the Machaber/Beis Yosef (when they disagree)? Or did one of the Achronim come along and say that in general the Ashkanazim would/should pasken in accordance with the Rema over the Machaber, but before that particular Achron it was not necessarily for an Ashkanazi posek to rule thus?

Improve this question
9
  • 1
    I don't know how much of it are hard-and-fast rules, but quite often an Ashkenazi posek would see that the Mechaber had only considered Rif (Morocco), Rambam (Egypt), and Rosh (relocated-to-Spain), playing best-two-of-three; and that Ramah was considering Tosfos (France), Maharil (Germany), Terumas HaDeshen (Germany), so it made sense to follow that.
    – Shalom
    Commented Jan 21, 2013 at 13:30
  • 1
    Also most early achronim just paskined like the rishonim. I don't know that it is such a simple thing that Ashkenazim always paskin like the Rama. Ashkenazim paskin like current Ashkenazi poskim, who paskin similar to the previous Ashkenazi poskim, who paskin similar to the previous Ashkenazi poskim etc. all the way back to poskim before the Rama. Where is the uniqueness of the stage where the Rama is?
    – Double AA ♦
    Commented Jan 21, 2013 at 14:25
  • @DoubleAA The uniqueness of the Rema is the fact that it's coming together with the Shulchan Aruch (that already paskened in many matters.) I'm of the opinion and feelign that it's quite pashut to continue in the derech of the psak from before and therefore to take the shita of the Rema. However an Adom Gadol questioned this (or at least entertained the question) and said perhaps this needs to be established and referred to a Taz and Chasam Sofer (both of which need to be found.)
    – Yehoshua
    Commented Jan 21, 2013 at 19:56
  • @Yehoshua Not sure, but maybe you're looking for this Taz (OC 10:9): ופסק הלכתא כר"פ שהוא מסקנא דגמ' כנ"ל בדעת הרמב"ם ולא כהב"י שפי' שיטה אחרת להרמב"ם.... ולפי' שזכרנו הוא מרווח מאוד והיה ראוי לפסוק הלכה כמותו וכמו שהכריע ב"י וש"ע אלא דאין לנו אלא דברי רמ"א שהכריע כרש"י והרא"ש והטור וכפי מ"ש בפירוש דבריהם.
    – Fred
    Commented Jan 21, 2013 at 21:00
  • 1
    @Yehoshua My understanding was that the Rama wrote a gloss on the Shulchan Aruch because the latter was comprehensive, well-organized, and user friendly, yet written from a generally more Sefaradi-oriented halachic standpoint. The Rama's gloss made the Shulchan Aruch more usable to Ashkenazim because his p'sak was generally more oriented to Ashkenazim; points of disagreement became readily apparent. This doesn't mean that all Ashkenazim followed the Rama all of the time, but his gloss made the ShA much more usable to Ashkenazim in general.
    – Fred
    Commented Jan 22, 2013 at 7:42

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

Actually, it's the other way around:

The Bet Yosef wrote the Shulchan Aruch (as a summary of the Tur).

The Rema noticed that it was comprehensive, but went against some Ashkenazi accepted Psak. So he decided to add those in-line.

Result: Ashkenaz Psak is like the Rema and Sefardi Psak is like the Bet Yosef.

It's not a presumption, it was purposely written that way.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .