2

While reviewing Hilchos Chanukah in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, I noticed something quite peculiar. The very last si'ef (26) discusses Tu B'Shevat, and seemingly has no connection with the rest of the siman (139) at all. At first I thought that it was a misprint in the version I was reading (The Kleinman Edition from ArtScroll), but I looked on Sefaria and saw that it ends the same.

Why does Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 139, which discusses Hilchos Chanukah, end with a si'ef about Tu B'Shevat? It seems extremely out of place.

  • 5
    might it just be an issue of the calendar? After Kislev, there is nothing other than 10 Tevet (which would be included in any discussion of fasts) and Tu B'Shvat might not merit anything more than a quick mention. – rosends Dec 11 '17 at 1:33
  • @rosends Sounds plausible. – ezra Dec 11 '17 at 1:33
  • 3
    Its not the worst of places. There is only one line to say about it, so it doesn't get its own section. Like Hannuka, it isn't a biblical holiday (although it may be relevant to biblical laws), and calendrically it follows Hannukah. Its not like there was anywhere obviously better to put it. – mevaqesh Dec 11 '17 at 1:35
  • @mevaqesh IIRC, there are a few places where there is a chapter with just one "item". – DanF Dec 11 '17 at 16:31
1

As noted by various commenters, this is clearly due to the order of the calendar. My only addition to this answer is that similarly (although likely due to error), in almost all old editions of Mishnah Berurah, laws of the 4 Parshiyos (which take place in Adar) are included in Hilchos Chanukah. See here (next page too), for example.

| improve this answer | |

You must log in to answer this question.

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