Talmudic Transcript

By: Jonathan Seidel

Or Zarua and Aruch HaShulchan: a faithful historical halakhist

Halakhic codes dominate but some halakhic works provide more history and demonstrate a keen eye to halakhic development. Two of these greats begin with the Talmud before tracing lineage.  

A halakhic sefer provides the Jew with the law. How one is to act and when one is to do it. Yet such bottom law halakha is unique to codes but not all of them are written in the same breath. Some halakhic works are more collections than codexes. These collections trace laws rather than give the law over semantically. Codes are about action while collections are about information. A code is straightforward while a collection is a myriad of possibilities. The code is direct while the collection is vague. The collection doesn’t necessarily incline towards a specific opinion but rather acts as an encyclopaedia for knowledge purposes. Here are the numerous opinions on the subject rather than this is how one fulfils the law.

The code-collection archetype is more a spectrum. Some are more collection like and so more code like. Or Zarua (OZ) and Aruch HaShulchan (AH) act on different ends of the spectrum but yet have a common denominator. Both are code-collections. A hybrid-middle that brings various opinions and then decides from amongst them. While this is evident in the Tur and other modern works, the method of doing so is very different. Unlike Tur, the former two are less collectors and more tracers. They do not just bring up different opinions but order them. They establish a chronology of opinions all the way back to the Gemara. The sugya is the foundation to which the rest of halakha unfolds. The Gemara is the starting point for every halakhic derivation. OZ’s obviously shorter than AH’s by virtue of half a millennium between the two. More scholars more analysis more chronology. Still the method of beginning with the Gemara is to not only respect the base but use it as a source in of itself in graphing the development of halakha.    

Focusing first on OZ is his consistency. Every chapter begins with the Gemara. Whether it is a short paragraph or a denser analysis, they all begin the same way. In this way it is quite commentarial. OZ takes the Gemara analyses and then brings in his predecessors. If we take 1:21 as an example. The first words are of the Gemara’s opening question “what does he bless? R Yaakov bar Idi said in the name of R Oshia ‘Yotzer or uboreh choshech”. Similar to Rif, he cuts out unnecessary shakla vetarya and adds “viahava raba”. Yet his next line revisits the shakla vetarya of why not substitute choshech with noga or say ahavat olam. OZ analyses the accepted law through the talmudic analysis. It may be out of order but instead of omitting it like Rif, he is reshaping it into a standard discussion. For ahava rabba he sees RYBI as ahava rabba but Rabbanan say ahavat olam two possibilities without choosing one. With Shmuel’s claim that unless one said kriyat shema/ahava rabba they have to make a blessing on learning. He quotes Rabbenu Channanel that by saying ahavat olam and not ahava rabba according to Shmuel one does not fulfil the blessing. Gaonim decided to do ahava rabba in the morning and ahavat olam in the evening to fulfil both. In the end do what the people of the town do. 

In the ensuing chapter, OZ continues with where he left off. Throughout he quotes Rashi to get a better sense of the Gemara’s meaning before leading to his conclusion. He adds in variables whether one is a synagogue or at home or how many times he learned. The entire digest is the explanation of the Gemara. OZ was part of the Tosafist. His work is unique but it is in line with dialectical style. This tracing is not a compendium of various sources like the Beit Yosef. His goal here is not to collect all those views and for the reader to decide. Rather his goal is to analyse the Gemara along with the commentaries available to figure the Gemara’s intent. What is the law following the Talmudic discourse. Like a good Tosafist he brings the text as well as other complementary Gemaras. How the sugya fits is a puzzle that needs to be resolved. The shakla vetarya is didactic. The Gemara goes through stages in an orderly fashion slowly analysing and responding to each text but OZ instead takes all that discussion and reformulates it. He is the updated version of the Gemara’s archaic factory model. The Gemara is the legal leeway it just needs modified clarification. 

AH operates differently. The fact that he is an acharon instead of a rishon does play a big role yet the methods are also different. AH as a later work is much longer. While frequently beginning with the Gemara, he is not as consistent as OZ. OZ prides himself as a commentarial digest rather than a chronological digest. Yet for AH, the Gemara is the beginning of the law. Looking at OH:59, “Men of the Great Assembly instituted ‘Yotzer Or’ and ‘Ahava Rabba’, ‘Ga’al Yisroel’ and ‘Hashkivenu’, this what the Mishnah meant Shacharit two before and one after Arvit two before an two after". He begins with Mishnah and then straight to the rishonim. First the Rashba’s opinion that Shema blessings aren’t real blessings of Shema since then there would be a blessing “to read shema” but just blessings for themselves as Gaonim conceded therefore if said without blessings go back and repeat them on their own. [Yet despite this] the custom is to go back and repeat both Shema and blessings as noted in the Yerushalmi. 

Returning to the blessings, he notes the Gemara that concludes “Yotzer or” with “boreh at hakol” despite Isaiah saying “boreh ra” because don’t say evil in a blessing to God. He then analyses the prophet’s intent and the intent of the blessing on a machshava tangent that God indeed made both light/dark and good/evil—the need for evil was for free will. Continuing why not switch the word “dark” in order to remind us of night. He then goes through the blessings of them beginning and ending with “baruch” unlike berchot hashachar so the former are long blessings and he latter are short blessings. Skipping a little for some juicer illustration. Rama writes if he heard the blessing from the shaliach tzibur he has fulfilled his obligation. Yet he argues that based on the Gemara this only works in a minyan. Even though Rosh Hashana says that an expert is not fulfilled, for these berachot just like all other berachot by answering amen. Bringing Magen Avraham who says that field workers are not experts so it shouldn’t work. Yet Rashi seems to say otherwise and Maimonides, Tur and Ran did not differentiate between prayer and blessings. Thus according with Rema. 

The subsequent chapter discussed “ahava rabba” and “ahavat olam”. Arguing that the ashkenazim do ahava rabba and the reason Rif doesn’t because he had a different version. Confused with Rif’s version he then states that ahava rabba is superior according to the Arizal but not in our days and therefore both are permissible. AH reflects on his predecessors and analyses their approaches but persistently returns to the talmudic model. So Rambam says this or Magen Avraham says that, what does the Gemara say. OZ focuses extensively on the Gemara but AH also despite his youthfulness in some regard he never forgets the Gemara. The Gemara is a staple of halakhic thinking and thus any deviation is problematic. Configuring different texts to arrive at an answer dialectically may overshadow and even reject a predecessor’s opinion. While having some advocates of you own is important, reading the text accurately is the most important. Even AH’s periodic tangents tend to link the philosophy to the law. In a Maimonidean kind of way, he adds a small extension to the historical reason behind the terminological change.

OZ and AH have different functions but they both approach the Gemara first. As poskim they are articulating their halakhic approach by analysing the sources in their text. Showing the reader their thought process. Their stream of consciousness rectifies the blatant codex format and short commentarial translation of text instead of compiling it into a compendium format. One that brings the texts in unison to arrive at a proper halakha. Beginning with the talmudic foundation is to begin from scratch. A posek must not copy his predecessor or merely add footnotes. He is to begin with the first source and trace the line. One he understands the sugya he can configure it through the sources presented. Rashi provides this clarification, Maimonides makes this point. Do these insertions fit the intent of chazal? It is a subjective deductive scheme. One that requires vigour and integrity. Beginning with the Gemara is essential to understanding the source material before entering the halakhic castle. To master sword training before swinging it on the battlefield. 

Both OZ and AH present a unique style that revert to the origin of oral law. Concentrating on the talmudic text before engaging the rest of the sources. Following in their footsteps even if they fail to explicitly rate the influence of the Gemara on their work. Rashi is a commentary, while does not quote the sugya, his entire work rests on the text. Maimonides does the same even if his work is more lexicographical. OZ doesn’t quote while AH sometimes quotes. Copying the words or referring to a specific text is a citation without providing the the abbreviated notions. That being said unlike Rashi and Maimonides, OZ and AH grapple with the text. They do no just quote or deviate but demonstrate dialectically how this Gemara fits or doesn’t. They show the sequential augmentation. The Gemara is a tool that permeates the rest of halakhic development. It ought to always be reverted to as the bedrock of the sugya. The Gemara’s case holds up in the face of scrutiny. These two works reckon with the Gemara’s prowess as codes and compilations void it for preceding works. 

A halakhic work on the one hand ought to provide the bottom line law but also the chronological tracing. Where does the law begin and where does it continue. If Maimonides truly wished to replace the Gemara he would’ve written a code that compiled an extensive shakla vetarya. Instead he replaced Rif with dialectical commentaries to the Gemara remaining. Including the original sugya as the basis does add to the extensively of the sugya but also is a guide to evaluating opinions. Deviating from the Gemara based on a reading of a rishon or acharon needs re-evaluation. The Gemara is the dogmatic pedestal of halakhic art, is the beacon of halakha that will never be extinguished. It would be rather nice though lengthy for contemporary poskim to follow this style and recall the Gemara into the deeper analysis. For the reader to not only learn the law but learn about it. See how the halakhic process works through the posek’s analysis gaining a greater appreciation for Gemara and halakha.