430 —נוסחאות שונות בשולחן ערוך הרב בנוגע למשחק בכדור ביום טוב

B"H, Fifth Night of Chanukah, 5709.

Haraha"ch veHaraha"g vavac"h iy"a etc. Mahor"y.

Shalom u'Vrachah!

Your timely letter was received, and enclosed is the kuntres Lita"k that was just published.

In response to your question regarding what I asked you earlier about Shulchan Aruch HaRav Orach Chaim siman 308 seif katan 3, where it says: "It is forbidden to play with a ball on Shabbos or Yom Tov... and some permit moving it and playing with it in the public domain." You wondered why it does not specify that only on Yom Tov is it permitted, rather than relying on the reader's understanding. There are further difficulties here:

A. It should have said "even in the public domain," as is the usual phraseology in such cases, and so it appears in the Rama (OC 518:1): "And it is permitted to play with a ball even in the public domain." See also here at the beginning of this very siman: "A woman may measure her child even in the public domain," etc.

B. Since this is within Hilchos Shabbos and not Yom Tov, he should have clarified the law for Shabbos and left Yom Tov implicit (if he wished to be brief and rely on the reader's understanding), not the reverse.

In my humble opinion, it is clear there is a scribal error here. At first I thought perhaps one word was omitted and it should read: "and to play with it on Yom Tov in the public domain," which matches Tosafos as cited in the margin notes. But this still does not resolve both of your above points.

Upon further investigation I found that in the first printed edition of our Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch it says: "and to play with it be-RH"—without a reish at the end of this abbreviation. Therefore, I think that in the original manuscript it said "be-RH-Yud"—with a yud at the end—meaning "on Yom Tov." The copyist mistakenly omitted this yud. Thus, in the first print edition it appeared as "be-RH." Later editors came along and 'corrected' this by assuming RH stood for "reshus ha-rabim (public domain)," so they added a reish at the end. Then came Vilna printings and others after them who added yet another 'correction,' printing out explicitly: "reshus ha-rabim (public domain)."

I saw someone who wanted to emend Shulchan Aruch OC 308:3 to read: "and to play with it on Shabbos be-reshus ha-yachid (private domain) and on Yom Tov even be-reshus ha-rabim (public domain)." But I do not agree; there is no compelling reason here to say that several words were omitted from our case. As above, omitting just a yud or a small mark suffices.

* * *

While discussing scribal errors in our Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, I will quote what I was asked regarding Yoreh Deah siman 233 seif katan 2: The commentary explains that 'mar'eh' means she can return [the food], while 'ha'la'atah' means she cannot return [the food]. This is opposite all other commentaries and Gemara (Shabbos 175b). From where did Admor HaZaken derive this innovation?

I answered that there is no innovation of Admor HaZaken here; rather, it's a scribal error by a copyist. Admor HaZaken himself holds that 'ha'la'atah' means she can return [the food], while 'mar'eh' means she cannot return [the food]. Based on three witnesses: Admor HaZaken Hilchos Shabbos siman 324 seif 6; tzt"z's ruling here Yoreh Deah siman 233 second edition seifim 1-2; tzt"z there siman 233 second edition seif katan 2. It is obvious that if this were contrary to Admor HaZaken's view, tzt"z would not have passed over it silently.

I conclude with wishes for all good things and regards as usual.

Summary

This letter demonstrates careful textual analysis of halachic sources, showing how apparent contradictions or ambiguities may stem from minor copyist errors rather than substantive disagreements among authorities. Attention to detail preserves accuracy in Torah study.