7

I noticed that when quoting Rishonim, Beis Yosef/Nosei Keilim tend to focus on Poskim (Rif (and main commentary)/Rosh/Rambam, Mordechai, Teruma, Rabbeinu Yerucham, etc.) and responsa.

Very rarely do you find "Chiddushim" seforim (like Chiddushei Rashba, Ritva, Ramban, Peirush Hamishnayos of the Rambam [except in Mikvaos], the Rash [ditto]).

Why is that? Tosfos are still fairly commonly quoted but no "Gemara peirush" since then. I would assume that the Rashba's explanations of the Gemara could bring Nafka Minas to the table. If it's because it wasn't written as a "psak", well, neither was Tosfos.

Improve this question
7
  • Very rarely do you find "Chiddushim" seforim. I wouldn't go that far at all. The Beit Yosef, for one example, cites them with some regularity - most especially the Chiddushei HaRashba. – Fred Mar 10 '15 at 2:40
  • @Fred although in some areas he cites the Toras HaBayis pretty much exclusively, and sometimes interprets it in ways contrary to the implications of the Chiddushim. I think much of it wasn't available to him. – Y     e     z Mar 10 '15 at 3:40
  • @YeZ and Toras HaBais is a "Psak" sefer – Shmuel Mar 10 '15 at 4:14
  • 2
    My assumption was that these rishonim simply weren't available to him, but it's possible that there were ideological reasons as well. I'll have to run a computer test though to see if you're right about chidushei rashba; I feel like he quotes it as often as rabbeinu yerucham or Sefer heterumah. – הנער הזה Mar 10 '15 at 13:52
  • @ShmuelBrin that was my point, yes. – Y     e     z Mar 10 '15 at 17:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .