NOT COMPLETED YET STILL BEING WORKED ON

==Three parts to the Kesubah==

#The First part of the Kesubah is known as the Ikar Kesubah and is a T'nai Bais Din. It is 200 Zuz for a Besulah and 100 for an Almanah. <ref>Many of the halachot noted in this article are based on a Shiur Given By R' Hershel Schachter http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/783803/Rabbi_Hershel_Schachter/Shiur_ </ref>
#The Second part is added on by the husband of his own free will, it's known as the Tosefes Kesubah. The Minhag today is to add on 100 Zekukin Cesef, from the times of the Maharil.(This Hischaivus from the Husband is effected through a Kinyan Sudar, were the Wife gives him for example a handkerchief, or the Mesadeir Kidushin or Eidim could also based off Zachin [Tosfos says that even though the handkerchief doesn't belong to her it's okay because it works through the din of Eved K'naani<ref>f</ref>
#The Third part of the Kesubah is known as the Nedunya. To explain this we first need a little background. When a woman gets married there are two types of property he can bring into the [[marriage]], Nichsei Melug and Nicsei Tzon Barzel. Nichsei Melug is when she owns the property and the husband has the right to eat the Peiros. Nichsei Tzon Barzel is propert that when she got married the value of it was written into her Kesubah. She may collect this even many years after the wedding (the value might have depreciated). <ref>Replace with desired reference</ref>

==Is Kesubah Deoraisa or Derabanan==

#Sephardim have the text of the ketubah “כסף זוזי מאתן דחזי ליכי” whereas Ashkenazim have “דחזי ליכי מדאורייתא”. This is based on a major dispute in the rishonim and if a Sephardi uses an Ashkenazic ketubah it might be pasul.<ref>*Rabbenu Tam (Tosfot Ketubot 10a) holds that Ketubah is deoritta. The possibility that a Kesubah would be Deoraisa is based on the fact that the Torah describes the concept of a gift for marrying a betulah. (Ketubot 10a, Ketubot 110b)
*But the Rambam (Ishut 10:7), Rif (Ketubot 65b), and Shulchan Aruch (EH 66:6) hold it is only derabbanan.
*The Rosh (Ketubot 1:19) explains that even if ketubah is derabbanan the text of the ketubah simply means that the chatan indebts himself to an obligation of 200 coins of which the Torah speaks about in regards to ones and mefateh. However, in reality the obligation of ketubah is rabbinic but the amount paid is according to the Tzurei coins, which is the type of coin used to pay for biblical obligations. The Rama 66:6 writes that the Ashkenazic minhag is to write “דחזי ליכי מדאורייתא” and the Chelkat Mechokek 66:26 explains the he is following the Rosh.
*Yabia Omer EH 3:12 quotes tens of rishonim and achronim who hold that for Sephardim the text should not say דאורייתא. Nonetheless, if a Sephardic couple has an Ashkenazic ketubah with those words it is valid and the Bet Yosef holds that she is nonetheless only entitled to Medina coins, which are the currency usually used to pay rabbinic obligations.</ref>

==The Value of the Ketubah==

#Ashkenazim commonly include in the ketubah a total of 200 zekukin of silver for the Tosefet Ketubah and the Nidonya. There is a dispute as to the amount of 200 zakukim. Some say that it is 45.5 kilograms of silver and some say that it is 57 kilograms of silver. <ref>http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/KETUBAH.pdf citing Rav Moshe (Igrot Moshe 4:91-92) and Chazon Ish (EH 66:21)</ref>

==Printed Ketubah==

#Some poskim recommend to fill in the blanks of a ketubah with the same script as the rest of the ketubah was written<ref>[http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/827064/Rabbi_Hershel_Schachter/Overview_of_Ketubah Rav Hershel Schachter in a shiur on yutorah.org "Overview of Ketubah" (min 23-25)] says that there's no issue with the ketubah not being written lishma but there's a concern that since the names are filled in with script and the rest is in block print that the two parts of the shtar aren't connected.</ref>, however, the minhag isn't careful about this.<ref>Nitai Gavriel (Nesuin vol. 1, p. 172, 21:5)</ref>

==Signing the Ketubah==
'''Predating the Ketubah'''

#Many have the practice to sign the Ketubah before the kiddushin at the Chosson's tisch. However, some sign it underneath the chuppah. <ref>Rav Ovadia Yosef (Sova Semachot 1:5:12) </ref>
#It is proper to have the ketubah dated the same date as the chuppah occurs, however, after the fact if it was predated and there was a kinyan at the time of the signing on the earlier day, some allow such a ketubah<ref>Nefesh HaRav (p. 260) records Rav Soloveitchik's practice later in life to allow a predated ketubah if they did a kinyan at the time of the signing. Ketubah K'hilchata (p. 21, 4:12) allows writing the daytime date if they also do the kinyan at that time. Rav Asher Weiss (Shu"t Minchat Asher 2:87) defends the practice to predate the ketubah since the witnesses that sign the ketubah are only attesting to the fact that the husband has created a financial lien for his wife, not to the fact that they are getting married per se. </ref>, while others reject such a ketubah.<ref>Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe EH 4:100, EH 4:105, OC 5:9) was opposed to predating ketubot since, through the ketubah, the chatan creates a lien on his possessions to pay his kallah if (G-d forbid) they need to divorce. This lien applies on the property chatan owns as of the day when ketubah is signed. With this said, the other obligations of a husband towards his wife only begin the day they marry. If the ketubah is predated before the wedding, should the chatan acquire or divest property in the days in between, the kallah will get more or less than what she should be receiving should the couple divorce later.

[http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=13101&pgnum=61 Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach in a teshuva] writes that it is signing a lie to sign a ketubah that was predated even if they did the kinyan since they didn't actually get married then and the ketubah states that they got married. Ketubah K'hilchata 4:10 cites both opinions and sides with stringent opinion.
Those who allow a predated ketuba maintain that if a husband wants to obligate himself in more possessions, that is his prerogative. As to Rav Shlomo Zalman's concern about signing a lie, the ketuba never references the kiddushin/chupah (Ketuba K'hilchata). ([https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/880893/rabbi-michoel-zylberman/ishus-5777-5-filling-out-a-kesubah/ Shiur] by R' Michoel Zylberman, RCA/Beis Din of America) </ref> To avoid such an issue, some advise to postdate the ketubah so that the date on the ketubah matches that of the chuppah if the chatan's tisch occurs before sunset of the day of the wedding.<ref>As a ketuba/shtar m'euchar (later document) is kosher, provided the date on it matches the date of the chupah and it avoids the issues posed by Rav Moshe Feinstein (see earlier footnote).

With this said, some who knew Rav Moshe Feinstein personally recount that he himself was not personally stringent and allowed for a ketuba to be predated.

</ref>
#If the ketubah was predated, that is, it was dated for a day prior to the actual wedding and prior to the actual kinyan for the ketubah, the ketubah is invalid.<ref>Rosh Hashana 2a, Ketubah K'hilchata (p. 20, 4:10)</ref>
#Initially it isn't proper to date a Ketubah for the night if it is signed during the day, though if one did so, it is kosher.<ref>Ketubah K'hilchata 4:13</ref>

''' Filling Out Names'''

#One should be extremely careful to correctly write the Hebrew names of the Chatan, Kallah and their last names exactly as they are usually spelled. Misspelling even one of the names to the point where it either colloquially becomes a different name (even if there is just a one letter discrepancy (e.g. Gershom/Gershon)) or that it becomes a name that is non-sensical renders the entire Ketubah invalid.<ref>Mishpat HaKetubah 2:14:28
Exceptions may include if it is a name that is often known to have two versions (e.g. Yeshaya vs Yeshayahu), if the name written is a well known nickname of the person's real name (e.g. Avi for Avraham, Benny for Binyamin, Tzipi for Tziporah) or if the error does not result in an appreciable change in pronunciation of the person's name (e.g. an extra yud after the pey in Pinchas, an extra vav in the name Ziva).
All of these rules also apply with spelling errors in last names or in placing nikudot underneath the letters of any names.</ref>
#The general custom is to use the official names of the Chatan and Kallah and not specify any commonly used nicknames.<ref>Mishpat HaKetubah 2:14:5
This stands in contrast to a Get where both spouses' official and nicknames are specified. This is largely because unlike Gittin, last names are written in Ketubot, making it possible to easily identify the various parties without using nicknames. Nonetheless, if it there is a doubt as to which name to put on the Ketubah (the original or nickname), some suggest mentioning the nickname either in parenthesis (as is the opinion of Rav Elyashiv), or within in the text in the following format (Igros Moshe, Even HaEzer 4:102):
"יוסף '''דמתקרי ג'ו''' בן יהודה" </ref>
#

'''Mentioning the Fathers' Names in the Ketubah'''

#The Chatan and Kallah should mention their names in the Ketubah as "(Chatan/Kallah's hebrew name) ben/bat (father's hebrew name) L'mishpachat (person's last name)"
#There is a question as to how to phrase the above clause when the child is adopted and/or the father's identity is unknown. Some of are of the opinion that the mother's name should be mentioned instead. Others suggest using the phrase "ben/bat Avraham" (referring to Avraham Avinu), using the formulation of "(child name) ben/bat ('''adopted''' father's name) HaMigadlo/Hamigadla (who raised him/her)", or leaving out the father's name entirely such that it reads, "(child's name) L'mishpachat (last name)".<ref>Shu"t Minchat Asher 2:87, Mishpat HaKetubah 2:15:28.
Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe, Even HaEzer, 1:99) advised against using the formulation of "ben Avraham Avinu", as the term implies the person is a Ger. Such an assumption is misleading and could cause the person to marry those who are prohibited to him because of this miscommunication in status.
Rabbi Dr. Melech Schachter (father of Rav Hershel Schachter) was of the opinion, as expressed a [http://download.yutorah.org/1982/1053/735663.pdf RJJ journal] article on adoption, that one should should use the formulation of "X ben Y Hamegadlo". While this formulation must be written in the Ketubah , the word "Hamegadlo" does not need to be read out loud when reading the Ketubah at the Chuppah. </ref>

#

==Further Reading==

#Dinei Ishut ([http://www.otzar.org/wotzar/book.aspx?600307&pageid=P0001 vol. 1], [http://www.otzar.org/wotzar/book.aspx?600308 vol. 2]) by [https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/עזרא_בצרי Rabbi Ezra Batzri], Former Dayan in the Beit Din HaRabbani HaGadol and Av Beit Din in Yerushalayim.
#The Chief Rabbi of Bat Yam, [https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/אליהו_בר-שלום HaRav Eliyahu Bar Shalom], has an encyclopedic, eight volume masterpiece entitled [http://www.lehmanns.co.uk/mwpt-hktvbh-h-krkim.html Mishpat HaKetubah], in which he addresses every aspect of Hilchot Ketubot.

==Sources==
<references />
[[Category:Marriage]]

Introduction to Kesuba

2020-04-01T17:58:50Z

Leibyd: /* Signing the Ketubah */

NOT COMPLETED YET STILL BEING WORKED ON

==Three parts to the Kesubah==

#The First part of the Kesubah is known as the Ikar Kesubah and is a T'nai Bais Din. It is 200 Zuz for a Besulah and 100 for an Almanah. <ref>Many of the halachot noted in this article are based on a Shiur Given By R' Hershel Schachter http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/783803/Rabbi_Hershel_Schachter/Shiur_ </ref>
#The Second part is added on by the husband of his own free will, it's known as the Tosefes Kesubah. The Minhag today is to add on 100 Zekukin Cesef, from the times of the Maharil.(This Hischaivus from the Husband is effected through a Kinyan Sudar, were the Wife gives him for example a handkerchief, or the Mesadeir Kidushin or Eidim could also based off Zachin [Tosfos says that even though the handkerchief doesn't belong to her it's okay because it works through the din of Eved K'naani<ref>f</ref>
#The Third part of the Kesubah is known as the Nedunya. To explain this we first need a little background. When a woman gets married there are two types of property he can bring into the [[marriage]], Nichsei Melug and Nicsei Tzon Barzel. Nichsei Melug is when she owns the property and the husband has the right to eat the Peiros. Nichsei Tzon Barzel is propert that when she got married the value of it was written into her Kesubah. She may collect this even many years after the wedding (the value might have depreciated). <ref>Replace with desired reference</ref>

==Is Kesubah Deoraisa or Derabanan==

#Sephardim have the text of the ketubah “כסף זוזי מאתן דחזי ליכי” whereas Ashkenazim have “דחזי ליכי מדאורייתא”. This is based on a major dispute in the rishonim and if a Sephardi uses an Ashkenazic ketubah it might be pasul.<ref>*Rabbenu Tam (Tosfot Ketubot 10a) holds that Ketubah is deoritta. The possibility that a Kesubah would be Deoraisa is based on the fact that the Torah describes the concept of a gift for marrying a betulah. (Ketubot 10a, Ketubot 110b)
*But the Rambam (Ishut 10:7), Rif (Ketubot 65b), and Shulchan Aruch (EH 66:6) hold it is only derabbanan.
*The Rosh (Ketubot 1:19) explains that even if ketubah is derabbanan the text of the ketubah simply means that the chatan indebts himself to an obligation of 200 coins of which the Torah speaks about in regards to ones and mefateh. However, in reality the obligation of ketubah is rabbinic but the amount paid is according to the Tzurei coins, which is the type of coin used to pay for biblical obligations. The Rama 66:6 writes that the Ashkenazic minhag is to write “דחזי ליכי מדאורייתא” and the Chelkat Mechokek 66:26 explains the he is following the Rosh.
*Yabia Omer EH 3:12 quotes tens of rishonim and achronim who hold that for Sephardim the text should not say דאורייתא. Nonetheless, if a Sephardic couple has an Ashkenazic ketubah with those words it is valid and the Bet Yosef holds that she is nonetheless only entitled to Medina coins, which are the currency usually used to pay rabbinic obligations.</ref>

==The Value of the Ketubah==

#Ashkenazim commonly include in the ketubah a total of 200 zekukin of silver for the Tosefet Ketubah and the Nidonya. There is a dispute as to the amount of 200 zakukim. Some say that it is 45.5 kilograms of silver and some say that it is 57 kilograms of silver. <ref>http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/KETUBAH.pdf citing Rav Moshe (Igrot Moshe 4:91-92) and Chazon Ish (EH 66:21)</ref>

==Printed Ketubah==

#Some poskim recommend to fill in the blanks of a ketubah with the same script as the rest of the ketubah was written<ref>[http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/827064/Rabbi_Hershel_Schachter/Overview_of_Ketubah Rav Hershel Schachter in a shiur on yutorah.org "Overview of Ketubah" (min 23-25)] says that there's no issue with the ketubah not being written lishma but there's a concern that since the names are filled in with script and the rest is in block print that the two parts of the shtar aren't connected.</ref>, however, the minhag isn't careful about this.<ref>Nitai Gavriel (Nesuin vol. 1, p. 172, 21:5)</ref>

==Signing the Ketubah==
'''Predating the Ketubah'''

#Many have the practice to sign the Ketubah before the kiddushin at the Chosson's tisch. However, some sign it underneath the chuppah. <ref>Rav Ovadia Yosef (Sova Semachot 1:5:12) </ref>
#It is proper to have the ketubah dated the same date as the chuppah occurs, however, after the fact if it was predated and there was a kinyan at the time of the signing on the earlier day, some allow such a ketubah<ref>Nefesh HaRav (p. 260) records Rav Soloveitchik's practice later in life to allow a predated ketubah if they did a kinyan at the time of the signing. Ketubah K'hilchata (p. 21, 4:12) allows writing the daytime date if they also do the kinyan at that time. Rav Asher Weiss (Shu"t Minchat Asher 2:87) defends the practice to predate the ketubah since the witnesses that sign the ketubah are only attesting to the fact that the husband has created a financial lien for his wife, not to the fact that they are getting married per se. </ref>, while others reject such a ketubah.<ref>Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe EH 4:100, EH 4:105, OC 5:9) was opposed to predating ketubot since, through the ketubah, the chatan creates a lien on his possessions to pay his kallah if (G-d forbid) they need to divorce. This lien applies on the property chatan owns as of the day when ketubah is signed. With this said, the other obligations of a husband towards his wife only begin the day they marry. If the ketubah is predated before the wedding, should the chatan acquire or divest property in the days in between, the kallah will get more or less than what she should be receiving should the couple divorce later.

[http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=13101&pgnum=61 Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach in a teshuva] writes that it is signing a lie to sign a ketubah that was predated even if they did the kinyan since they didn't actually get married then and the ketubah states that they got married. Ketubah K'hilchata 4:10 cites both opinions and sides with stringent opinion.

Those who allow a predated ketuba maintain that if a husband wants to obligate himself in more possessions, that is his prerogative. As to Rav Shlomo Zalman's concern about signing a lie, the ketuba never references the kiddushin/chupah (Ketuba K'hilchata). ([https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/880893/rabbi-michoel-zylberman/ishus-5777-5-filling-out-a-kesubah/ Shiur] by R' Michoel Zylberman, RCA/Beis Din of America) </ref> To avoid such an issue, some advise to postdate the ketubah so that the date on the ketubah matches that of the chuppah if the chatan's tisch occurs before sunset of the day of the wedding.<ref>As a ketuba/shtar m'euchar (later document) is kosher, provided the date on it matches the date of the chupah and it avoids the issues posed by Rav Moshe Feinstein (see earlier footnote).

With this said, some who knew Rav Moshe Feinstein personally recount that he himself was not personally stringent and allowed for a ketuba to be predated. </ref>
#If the ketubah was predated, that is, it was dated for a day prior to the actual wedding and prior to the actual kinyan for the ketubah, the ketubah is invalid.<ref>Rosh Hashana 2a, Ketubah K'hilchata (p. 20, 4:10)</ref>
#Initially it isn't proper to date a Ketubah for the night if it is signed during the day, though if one did so, it is kosher.<ref>Ketubah K'hilchata 4:13</ref>

''' Filling Out Names'''

#One should be extremely careful to correctly write the Hebrew names of the Chatan, Kallah and their last names exactly as they are usually spelled. Misspelling even one of the names to the point where it either colloquially becomes a different name (even if there is just a one letter discrepancy (e.g. Gershom/Gershon)) or that it becomes a name that is non-sensical renders the entire Ketubah invalid.<ref>Mishpat HaKetubah 2:14:28
Exceptions may include if it is a name that is often known to have two versions (e.g. Yeshaya vs Yeshayahu), if the name written is a well known nickname of the person's real name (e.g. Avi for Avraham, Benny for Binyamin, Tzipi for Tziporah) or if the error does not result in an appreciable change in pronunciation of the person's name (e.g. an extra yud after the pey in Pinchas, an extra vav in the name Ziva).
All of these rules also apply with spelling errors in last names or in placing nikudot underneath the letters of any names.</ref>
#The general custom is to use the official names of the Chatan and Kallah and not specify any commonly used nicknames.<ref>Mishpat HaKetubah 2:14:5
This stands in contrast to a Get where both spouses' official and nicknames are specified. This is largely because unlike Gittin, last names are written in Ketubot, making it possible to easily identify the various parties without using nicknames. Nonetheless, if it there is a doubt as to which name to put on the Ketubah (the original or nickname), some suggest mentioning the nickname either in parenthesis (as is the opinion of Rav Elyashiv), or within in the text in the following format (Igros Moshe, Even HaEzer 4:102):
"יוסף '''דמתקרי ג'ו''' בן יהודה" </ref>
#

'''Mentioning the Fathers' Names in the Ketubah'''

#The Chatan and Kallah should mention their names in the Ketubah as "(Chatan/Kallah's hebrew name) ben/bat (father's hebrew name) L'mishpachat (person's last name)"
#There is a question as to how to phrase the above clause when the child is adopted and/or the father's identity is unknown. Some of are of the opinion that the mother's name should be mentioned instead. Others suggest using the phrase "ben/bat Avraham" (referring to Avraham Avinu), using the formulation of "(child name) ben/bat ('''adopted''' father's name) HaMigadlo/Hamigadla (who raised him/her)", or leaving out the father's name entirely such that it reads, "(child's name) L'mishpachat (last name)".<ref>Shu"t Minchat Asher 2:87, Mishpat HaKetubah 2:15:28.
Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe, Even HaEzer, 1:99) advised against using the formulation of "ben Avraham Avinu", as the term implies the person is a Ger. Such an assumption is misleading and could cause the person to marry those who are prohibited to him because of this miscommunication in status.
Rabbi Dr. Melech Schachter (father of Rav Hershel Schachter) was of the opinion, as expressed a [http://download.yutorah.org/1982/1053/735663.pdf RJJ journal] article on adoption, that one should should use the formulation of "X ben Y Hamegadlo". While this formulation must be written in the Ketubah , the word "Hamegadlo" does not need to be read out loud when reading the Ketubah at the Chuppah. </ref>

#

==Further Reading==

#Dinei Ishut ([http://www.otzar.org/wotzar/book.aspx?600307&pageid=P0001 vol. 1], [http://www.otzar.org/wotzar/book.aspx?600308 vol. 2]) by [https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/עזרא_בצרי Rabbi Ezra Batzri], Former Dayan in the Beit Din HaRabbani HaGadol and Av Beit Din in Yerushalayim.
#The Chief Rabbi of Bat Yam, [https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/אליהו_בר-שלום HaRav Eliyahu Bar Shalom], has an encyclopedic, eight volume masterpiece entitled [http://www.lehmanns.co.uk/mwpt-hktvbh-h-krkim.html Mishpat HaKetubah], in which he addresses every aspect of Hilchot Ketubot.

==Sources==
<references />
[[Category:Marriage]]

Introduction to Kesuba

2020-03-30T21:04:27Z

Leibyd: /* Signing the Ketubah */

Introduction to Kesuba

2020-03-30T18:15:50Z

Leibyd: /* Signing the Ketubah */

Introduction to Kesuba

2020-03-30T18:15:00Z

Leibyd: /* Signing the Ketubah */

Taz

2020-03-29T20:06:47Z

Leibyd:

#The [[Chavot Yair]] laments how the Taz and [[Magen Avraham]] didn't publish second editions of their commentaries to [[Shulchan Aruch]], leaving their works containing mistakes, enigmatic language, and incorrect rulings.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shear HaMechabrim 42). Matnat Yado 74. See Sdei Chemed (Klalei HaPoskim 15:20)</ref>
#In Yoreh De'ah, the [[Shach]] wrote a commentary refuting the Taz known as "Nekudot HaKesef," which wasn't always included in full in old prints of Shulchan Aruch.<ref>Shem HaGedolim (Sefarim, Nun 41)</ref>
#"עט"ז" quoted by the Taz and [[Shach]] in Yoreh De'ah is a reference to the Levush's עטרת זהב.<ref>Shem HaGedolim (Sefarim, Ayin Kuntress Acharon 1)</ref>
#There is a story from the Vilna Gaon alleging that when the Shach was seeking to publish his commentary on the Shulchan Aruch, as was the custom at the time, he approached the Taz for a haskama (endoresement). Upon seeing that the Shach's commentary was perhaps greater than his own, the Taz tried to suppress its publication. As a result of this, the Halacha on Orach Chaim and Yoreh De'ah matters are mostly adjudicated in favor of the Magen Avraham and Shach respectively against the Taz, and the Taz is not prominently featured on the pages of Even HaEzer and Choshen Mishpat. <ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_B._Soloveitchik Rav Yosef Dov HaLevi Soloveitchik] (1903-1993), as reported by Rav Hershel Schachter in Nefesh HaRav (Pg. 19). Rav Soloveitchik mentioned that he heard this story from his father, Rav Moshe Soloveitchik (son of the famous Rav Chaim Brisker), confirming its authenticity. Rav Schachter notes that other versions of the story exist from different talmidim of Rav Soloveitchik's, each resulting in the same Halachic consequences.</ref>

See also Shem HaGedolim (Sefarim, Tet 16).
==Sources==
{{Reflist}}
[[Category:Klalim]]
<references />

Taz

2020-03-29T20:04:55Z

Leibyd:

#The [[Chavot Yair]] laments how the Taz and [[Magen Avraham]] didn't publish second editions of their commentaries to [[Shulchan Aruch]], leaving their works containing mistakes, enigmatic language, and incorrect rulings.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shear HaMechabrim 42). Matnat Yado 74. See Sdei Chemed (Klalei HaPoskim 15:20)</ref>
#In Yoreh De'ah, the [[Shach]] wrote a commentary refuting the Taz known as "Nekudot HaKesef," which wasn't always included in full in old prints of Shulchan Aruch.<ref>Shem HaGedolim (Sefarim, Nun 41)</ref>
#"עט"ז" quoted by the Taz and [[Shach]] in Yoreh De'ah is a reference to the Levush's עטרת זהב.<ref>Shem HaGedolim (Sefarim, Ayin Kuntress Acharon 1)</ref>
#There is a story from the Vilna Gaon alleging that when the Shach was seeking to publish his commentary on the Shulchan Aruch, as was the custom at the time, he approached the Taz for a haskama (endoresement). Upon seeing that the Shach's commentary was perhaps greater than his own, the Taz tried to suppress its publication. As a result of this, the Halacha on Orach Chaim and Yoreh De'ah matters are mostly adjudicated in favor of the Magen Avraham and Shach respectively against the Taz, and the Taz is not prominently featured on the pages of Even HaEzer and Choshen Mishpat. <ref>Rav Yosef Dov HaLevi Soloveitchik (1903-1993), as reported by Rav Hershel Schachter in Nefesh HaRav (Pg. 19). Rav Soloveitchik mentioned that he heard this story from his father, Rav Moshe Soloveitchik (son of the famous Rav Chaim Brisker), confirming its authenticity.

Rav Schachter notes that other versions of the story exist from different talmidim of Rav Soloveitchik's, each resulting in the same consequence on subsequent Halacha.</ref>

See also Shem HaGedolim (Sefarim, Tet 16).
==Sources==
{{Reflist}}
[[Category:Klalim]]
<references />

Taz

2020-03-29T20:02:57Z

Leibyd:

#The [[Chavot Yair]] laments how the Taz and [[Magen Avraham]] didn't publish second editions of their commentaries to [[Shulchan Aruch]], leaving their works containing mistakes, enigmatic language, and incorrect rulings.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shear HaMechabrim 42). Matnat Yado 74. See Sdei Chemed (Klalei HaPoskim 15:20)</ref>
#In Yoreh De'ah, the [[Shach]] wrote a commentary refuting the Taz known as "Nekudot HaKesef," which wasn't always included in full in old prints of Shulchan Aruch.<ref>Shem HaGedolim (Sefarim, Nun 41)</ref>
#"עט"ז" quoted by the Taz and [[Shach]] in Yoreh De'ah is a reference to the Levush's עטרת זהב.<ref>Shem HaGedolim (Sefarim, Ayin Kuntress Acharon 1)</ref>
#There is a story from the Vilna Gaon alleging that when the Shach was seeking to publish his commentary on the Shulchan Aruch, as was the custom at the time, he approached the Taz for a haskama (endoresement). Upon seeing that the Shach's commentary was perhaps greater than his own, the Taz tried to suppress its publication. As a result of this, the Halacha on Orach Chaim and Yoreh De'ah matters are mostly adjudicated in favor of the Magen Avraham and Shach against the Taz, and the Taz is not prominently featured on the pages of Even HaEzer and Choshen Mishpat. <ref>Rav Yosef Dov HaLevi Soloveitchik (1903-1993), as reported by Rav Hershel Schachter in Nefesh HaRav (Pg. 19). Rav Soloveitchik mentioned that he heard this story from his father, Rav Moshe Soloveitchik (son of the famous Rav Chaim Brisker), confirming its authenticity.

Rav Schachter notes that other versions of the story exist from different talmidim of Rav Soloveitchik's, each resulting in the same consequence on subsequent Halacha.</ref>

See also Shem HaGedolim (Sefarim, Tet 16).
==Sources==
{{Reflist}}
[[Category:Klalim]]
<references />

Taz

2020-03-29T20:00:22Z

2020-03-25T04:37:47Z

Leibyd: /* Further Reading */