7

If you look in the Tur Yoreh Deah Siman 168 (so too the Shulchan Aruch), you'll notice that there's nothing there.

Was it lost sometime in history? It looks like the Shulchan Aruch also didn't have anything there, so it should have been lost not long after publication (they lived around two hundred years apart).

  • Never noticed that. Huh! ....just checked on my computer's Torat Emet, and I have סימן קסחקסט right after סי' קסז. Odd. +1 – MTL Nov 3 '14 at 5:28
  • 2
    Siman 168: Mi Yodeya? judaism.stackexchange.com/q/5293/759 (I feel bad taking the answer from you, but you better hurry because not everyone else will) – Double AA Nov 3 '14 at 5:52
  • 3
    In this edition of the Tur from 1564 what we have as 167 is labeled 168 and there is nothing labeled 167. It skips from 166 to 168. The Tur was one of the first Jewish books printed in 1485, but hebrewbooks only has the volume on Orach Chayim. – Double AA Nov 3 '14 at 6:59
12

In the footnote of the Machon Yerushalayim edition of the Tur, he explains that various editions of the Tur with different commentaries divided up the sections differently - one missing a siman (not 168), another dividing up a siman into 2 or more simanim. So in order to line up the Tur with all its major commentaries it was decided in more recent editions to skip/merge siman 168.

  • 4
    Ok, but which Siman was originally divided in two, and where was that division?? – Double AA Nov 3 '14 at 14:17
  • In all the newer editions they did not skip any numbers, but made one siman have 2 numbers. This siman is referred to as "סימן קסח-קסט" or סימן" קסח-ט". – RibbisRabbiAndMore May 7 '18 at 23:15

You must log in to answer this question.

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