Talk:Acharonim

Shulkhan Arukh is not from Rishonim era

We may not state as a fact that the Shulkhan Arukh is from the Rishonim era. That is only the opinion of some people. Many other Orthodox rabbis note that the Shulkhan Arukh is actually from the era of the Acharonim.

See this analysis. http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v27/mj_v27i48.html#COF

Even more interesting, see this Orthodox conclusion: http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v27/mj_v27i51.html#CPI

In Nefesh HaRav (page 239) , Rav Schacter states that "...even though the Beis Yosef and the Rema were in the same time period the Beis Yosef was a Rishon and the Rema was an Acharon because the dividing line between the Rishonim and Acharonim was not the same in all places. The period of the Rishonim lasted longer among the Sefardim than the Ashkenazim.

Also, Margaliot (Encyclopedia L'Toldot Gedolei Yisrael) brings Rabbi Yosef Karo down as an Acharon, not a Rishon.

Also, it is a Jewish folk-myth that an Acharon cannot disagree with a Rishon. 'In fact, such a position is not a part of Jewish law! We cannot present such positions as facts, when they are merely accepted folkways, not halakhot.

Who says an acharon can't disagree with a rishon? I have also seen that statements that acharinim after 1664 (gezerot tach vetat) cannot disagree with acharonim before then. Also that acharonim today cannot disagree with the Mishna Berura. Nevertheless, this is always being done. A most famous case (recent daf yomi) is the Vilna Gaon (and also shulchan Arukh harav) disagreeing with Tosaphot and almost all rishonim on the definition of halachic sunset. It turns out that Rav Sherrira gaon and Rav Hai Gaon agree with the Vilna Gaon whoever it is doubtful that the Vilna Gaon knew this. In any case he does not quote them in his commentary to Shuclchan Arukh. There are many other cases were the Vilna Gaon and his contemporary the Shaagaot Aryeh disagree with Rishonim. Even in our day Rav Feinstein has disagreed with the Meiri and Toasaphot haRosh. Those these are "recent" finds one would expect that in the absence of other authorities one could not disagree. In fact that is the attitude of Chazon Ish on the international dateline who relies on Kuzari and Baal Ham or since they are the only rishonim that hint at the problem.

http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v27/mj_v27i55.html#CQL

The preceding unsigned comment was written by RK

The Rabbonim between 1492 and 1648 was called the Kov'im. --Shaul avrom 22:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Explanation

I read this statement in the article, and very soon got completely confused:

"According to Orthodox Jewish tradition, scholars in one era within the history of halachic development do not challenge the rulings of previous-era scholars, and hence Acharonim cannot dispute the rulings of rabbis of previous eras unless they find support from other rabbis of previous eras."

This needs explanation. What are scholars not allowed to challenge? And why? What determines the beginning of period? Even understanding that, as suggested above, this is a folk-myth...explain it! Piano non troppo (talk) 07:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

When will this era end?

Will the Acharonim era ever end? If so, when? And what will be the name of the era that succeeds it? FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Good question, making calculations you see that the present one is going to be the longest era by the year AD 2089... But it wouldn't extend much longer if you place the end of the world in the Jewish year 6,000. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Ben Ish Hai mentioned twice

Under Josef Chaim and Ben Ish Chai on the bottom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.127.140 (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Acharonim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051109101043/http://www.tzemachdovid.org/gedolim/jhistory/index.html to http://www.tzemachdovid.org/gedolim/jhistory/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)