Texualism and the Mishnah Berurah by R. Micha Berger

llevine · May 31, 2015, 5:20pm

--=====================_52486115==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

From http://www.aishdas.org/asp/texualism-and-the-mishnah-berurah

The author [of the Mishnah Brurah, the Chofetz=20
Chaim] is clear: the purpose of the book was not=20
to provide his own ruling, but to survey the=20
later posqim who have added complexity to the=20
field so that someone looking to reach a decision=20
knows who wrote on the matter.

Yes, the CC (or his son or other students who=20
worked with him) often gave his own opinion,=20
including our =93ba=92al nefesh yachmir=93, but it is=20
unclear to me he intended that opinion to be a=20
pragmatic ruling rather than a theoretical=20
statement. This would explain why the Mishnah=20
Berurah=92s rulings diverge from accepted practice=20
so much more often than the Arukh haShulchan (a=20
contemporary work from the same region). Halakhah=20
lemaaseh, pragmatic rulings, need to take such=20
precedent and continuity into account; discussions of textual theory do not.

As further evidence that the Mishnah Berurah was=20
not intended to be a practical law guide, we have=20
a lot of testimony that shows that its own author=20
often followed the common Lithuanian practice=20
over his own =93ruling=94. Despite the origin of=20
wearing one=92s tzitzis strings out being in the=20
MB, the CC did not. His qiddush cup doesn=92t hold=20
as much wine as the MB would require. (It is=20
still in the hands of the Zaks family and has=20
been checked repeatedly.) He advocated for=20
building city eiruvin for carrying on Shabbos=20
despite BH 364 =93ve=92achar=93. The Chafeitz Chaim did=20
not say =93Berikh Shemeih=94 when taking out the=20
Torah.=20
Etc=85<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/texualism-and-the-mishnah-berurah#footnote=
_0_4329>1

I am suggesting that the CC=92s textualist and=20
formal stance in the MB is simply because the MB=20
was a book for studying texts. And he did not=20
intend to deemphasize mimetic tradition (the flow=20
of practice transmitted culturally).

This shift happened when the Chazon Ish in Israel=20
and a number of American rashei yeshiva (such as=20
R=92 Aharon Kotler) promoted the idea of using the=20
Mishnah Berurah as a poseiq acharon.

See the above URL for more. YL

--=====================_52486115==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
<body>
From
<a href=3D"http://www.aishdas.org/asp/texualism-and-the-mishnah-berurah" eud=
ora=3D"autourl">
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/texualism-and-the-mishnah-berurah 
</a>The author  [of the Mishnah Brurah,  the Chofetz Chaim] is
clear: the purpose of the book was not to provide his own ruling, but to
survey the later posqim who have added complexity to the field so
that someone looking to reach a decision knows who wrote on the
matter. 
Yes, the CC (or his son or other students who worked with him) often gave
his own opinion, including our =93ba=92al nefesh yachmir=93, but it i=
s
unclear to me he intended that opinion to be a pragmatic ruling rather
than a theoretical statement. This would explain why the Mishnah
Berurah=92s rulings diverge from accepted practice so much more often than
the Arukh haShulchan (a contemporary work from the same region).
Halakhah lemaaseh, pragmatic rulings, need to take such precedent
and continuity into account; discussions of textual theory do
not. 
As further evidence that the Mishnah Berurah was not intended to be a
practical law guide, we have a lot of testimony that shows that its own
author often followed the common Lithuanian practice over his own
=93ruling=94. Despite the origin of wearing one=92s tzitzis strings out bein=
g
in the MB, the CC did not. His qiddush cup doesn=92t hold as much
wine as the MB would require. (It is still in the hands of the Zaks
family and has been checked repeatedly.) He advocated for building city
eiruvin for carrying on Shabbos despite BH 364 =93ve=92achar=
=93.
The Chafeitz Chaim did not say =93Berikh Shemeih=94 when taking out
the Torah.
Etc=85<a href=3D"http://www.aishdas.org/asp/texualism-and-the-mishnah-berura=
h#footnote_0_4329">
1</a> 
I am suggesting that the CC=92s textualist and formal stance in the
MB is simply because the MB was a book for studying texts. And he did not
intend to deemphasize mimetic tradition (the flow of practice transmitted
culturally). 
This shift happened when the Chazon Ish in Israel and a number of
American rashei yeshiva (such as R=92 Aharon Kotler) promoted the
idea of using the Mishnah Berurah as a poseiq acharon. 
See the above URL for more.  YL 
 
</body>
 
</html>

--=====================_52486115==.ALT--