 | |
| Author | Joseph Karo |
|---|---|
| Language | Hebrew |
| Subject | Halakha |
Publication date | 1565 (Venice) |
| Publication place | Ottoman Syria |
| Preceded by | Beit Yosef |
TheShulchan Aruch (Hebrew:שֻׁלְחָן עָרוּך[ʃulˈħanʕaˈrux], literally: "Set Table"),[1] often dubbed in English as theCode of Jewish Law, is the most widely consulted of the variouslegal codes in Judaism. It was authored inSafed, Ottoman Syria (today inIsrael) byJoseph Karo in 1563 and published inVenice two years later.[2] Together with its commentaries, it is the most widely accepted compilation ofhalakha or Jewish law ever written.
The halachic rulings in theShulchan Aruch generally followSephardic law and customs, whereasAshkenazi Jews generally follow the halachic rulings ofMoses Isserles, whose glosses to theShulchan Aruch note where the Sephardic and Ashkenazi customs differ. These glosses are widely referred to as themappah (literally: the "tablecloth") to theShulchan Aruch's "Set Table". Almost all published editions of theShulchan Aruch include this gloss, and the term "Shulchan Aruch" has come to denoteboth Karo's work as well as Isserles', with Karo usually referred to as "theMekhaber" (Hebrew:הַמְחַבֵּר, "author") and Isserles as "the Rema" (an acronym of Rabbi Moshe Isserles).
Due to the increased availability of theprinting press, the 16th century was an era of legal codification inPoland, theOttoman Empire and other countries. Previously unwritten laws and customs were being compiled and recorded; theShulchan Aruch was one such compilation. In the century after it was published by Karo (whose vision was a unified Judaism under the Sephardic traditions) it became the code of law for Ashkenazim, together with the later commentaries ofMoses Isserles and the 17th century Polish rabbis.[3]
TheShulhan Arukh (and its forerunner, theBeit Yosef) follow the same structure asArba'ah Turim byJacob ben Asher. There are four volumes, each subdivided into many chapters and paragraphs:
In the aside page, Karo's and Isserles' combined text is in the center of the page, top; since the 17th century, theShulchan Aruch has been printed with Isserles' annotations in smallRashi print—and indicated by a preceding "הגה"—interspersed with Karo's text. Surrounding this are the primary commentators for the section:
On the margins are various other commentaries and cross references; seebelow. As commentaries on the work proliferated more sophisticated printing styles became required, similar to those of the Talmud.[citation needed]Additionally, many recent publishers have reformatted this work with the intent to make it more accessible to the reader.
TheShulchan Aruch is largely based on an earlier work by Karo, titledBeit Yosef. Although theShulchan Aruch is largely a codification of the rulings of theBeit Yosef, it includes various rulings that are not mentioned at all in theBeit Yosef, because after completing theBeit Yosef, Karo read opinions in books he hadn't seen before, which he then included in theShulchan Aruch.[4] In his famous methodological workYad Malachi,Malachi ben Jacob HaKohen cites a later halachic authority (Shmuel Abuhab) who reports rumors that theShulchan Aruch was a summary of Karo's earlier rulings in Beit Yosef which he then gave to certain of his students to edit and compile. He concludes that this would then account for those seemingly self-contradictory instances in theShulchan Aruch.[5]
Karo initially intended to rely on his own judgment regarding differences of opinion between the various authorities, especially where he could support his own view based on the Talmud. But he wrote that he abandoned this idea because:[6] "Who has the courage to rear his head aloft among mountains, the heights ofGod?" Hence Karo adopted theHalakhot of RabbiIsaac Alfasi (theRif),Maimonides (theRambam), andAsher ben Jehiel (theRosh) as his standards, accepting as authoritative the opinion of two of the three, except in cases where most of the ancient authorities were against them or in cases where there was already an accepted custom contrary to his ruling.[7] The net result of these last exceptions is that in a number of cases Karo rules in favour of the Catalan school ofNahmanides andShlomo ibn Aderet ("the Rashba"), thus indirectly reflecting Ashkenazi opinions, even against the consensus of Alfasi and Maimonides. Karo very often decides disputed cases without necessarily considering the age and importance of the authority in question, expressing simply his own views. He follows Maimonides' example, as seen inMishneh Torah, rather than that of Jacob ben Asher, who seldom decides between ancient authorities.
Several reasons induced Karo to connect his work with the"Tur", instead of Maimonides' code.
The "Rema" (Moses Isserles) started writing his commentary on theArba'ah Turim, Darkhei Moshe, at about the same time as Yosef Karo. Karo finished his work "Bet Yosef" first, and it was first presented to the Rema as a gift from one of his students. Upon receiving the gift, the Rema could not understand how he had spent so many years unaware of Karo's efforts. After looking through the Bet Yosef, the Rema realized that Karo had mainly relied upon Sephardicposkim.
In place of Karo's three standard authorities, Isserles cites "the later authorities" (chiefly based on the works ofYaakov Moelin,Israel Isserlein andIsrael Bruna, together with the Franco-GermanTosafists) as criteria of opinion.[9] While theRosh on many occasions based his decision on these sources, Isserles gave them more prominence in developing practical legal rulings. By incorporating these other opinions, Isserles actually addressed some major criticisms regarding what many viewed as the arbitrary selection of the three authorities upon whose opinions Karo based his work.[10]
After realizing this, the Rema shortened his work on theTur, entitled Darkhei Moshe, to focus only on rulings which differ fromBet Yosef.
The halachic rulings in theShulchan Aruch generally follow the Sephardic custom. The Rema added his glosses and published them as a commentary on theShulchan Aruch, specifying whenever the Sephardic and Ashkenazic customs differ. These glosses are sometimes referred to as themappah, literally, the 'tablecloth,' to theShulchan Aruch's 'Set Table.' Almost all published editions of theShulchan Aruch include this gloss.
The importance of theminhag ("prevailing local custom") is also a point of dispute between Karo and Isserles: while Karo held fast to original authorities and material reasons, Isserles considered theminhag as an object of great importance, and not to be omitted in a codex. This point, especially, induced Isserles to write his glosses to theShulchan Aruch, that the customs (minhagim) of the Ashkenazim might be recognized, and not be set aside through Karo's reputation.
Karo wrote theShulchan Aruch in his old age, for the benefit of those who did not possess the education necessary to understand theBeit Yosef. The format of this work parallels that adopted by Jacob ben Asher in hisArba'ah Turim, but more concisely; without citing sources.
Shulchan Aruch has been "the code" ofRabbinical Judaism for all ritual and legal questions that arose after the destruction of theTemple in Jerusalem; seeHalakha § Orthodox Judaism andYeshiva § Jewish law re its contemporary function and status. The author himself had no very high opinion of the work, remarking that he had written it chiefly for "young students".[11] He never refers to it in hisresponsa, but always to theBeit Yosef. TheShulchan Aruch achieved its reputation and popularity not only against the wishes of the author, but, perhaps, through the very scholars who criticized it.
Recognition or denial of Karo's authority lay entirely with the Polish Talmudists.German Jewish authorities had been forced to give way to Polish ones as early as the beginning of the sixteenth century. Karo had already been opposed by several Sephardic contemporaries,Yom Tov Tzahalon, who designated theShulchan Aruch as a book for "children and ignoramuses",[12] and Jacob Castro, whose workErekh ha-Shulchan consists of critical glosses to theShulchan Aruch.Moses Isserles andMaharshal were Karo's first important adversaries in Eastern Europe. Further in response to those who wished to force the rulings of theShulchan Aruch upon those communities followingRambam, Karo wrote:
Who is he whose heart conspires to approach forcing congregations who practice according to theRaMBaM of blessed memory, to go by any one of the early or latter-day Torah authorities?! ... Is it not a case ofa fortiori, that regarding theSchool of Shammai—that the halakhah does not go according to them—they [the Talmudic Sages] said 'if [one practices] like the School of Shammai [he may do so, but] according to their leniencies and their stringencies': The RaMBaM, is the greatest of all the Torah authorities, and all the communities of the Land of Israel and the Arab-controlled lands and the West [North Africa] practice according to his word, and accepted him upon themselves as their Chief Rabbi. Whoever practices according to him with his leniencies and his stringencies, why coerce them to budge from him? And all the more so if also their fathers and forefathers practiced accordingly: for their children are not to turn right or left from the RaMBaM of blessed memory. And even if communities that practice according to theRosh or other authorities like him became the majority, they cannot coerce the minority of congregations practicing according to the RaMBaM of blessed memory, to practice like they do. And there is no issue here concerning the prohibition against having two courts in the same city ['lo tithgodedu'’], since every congregation should practice according to its original custom ...
Similarly, many later halachic authorities predicated the acceptance of the authority of theShulchan Aruch on the lack of an existing and widely accepted custom to the contrary.[13] Eventually though, the rulings of theShulchan Aruch became the accepted standard not only in Europe and the diaspora, but even in the land of Israel where they had previously followed other authorities.[14]
Following its initial appearance, many rabbis criticised the appearance of this latest code of Jewish law, echoing similar criticisms ofprevious codes of law.
RabbiJudah Loew ben Bezalel (known as "Maharal", 1520–1609) wrote:
To decidehalakhic questions from the codes without knowing the source of the ruling was not the intent of these authors. Had they known that their works would lead to the abandonment ofTalmud, they would not have written them. It is better for one to decide on the basis of the Talmud even though he might err, for a scholar must depend solely on his understanding. As such, he is beloved of God, and preferable to the one who rules from a code but does not know the reason for the ruling; such a one walks like a blind person.[15]
Samuel Eidels (known as the "Maharsha", 1555–1631), criticized those who rule directly from theShulchan Aruch without being fully conversant with the Talmudic source(s) of the ruling: "In these generations, those who rule from theShulchan Aruch without knowing the reasoning and Talmudic basis ... are among the 'destroyers of the world' and should be protested."[16]
Another prominent critic of theShulchan Aruch wasJoel Sirkis (1561–1640), rabbi and author of a commentary to theArba'ah Turim entitled the "New House" (בית חדש, commonly abbreviated as theBachב״ח), andMeir Lublin, author of the commentary on the Bach entitled theShut HaBach (שו״ת הב״ח):
It is impossible to rule (in most cases) based on theShulchan Aruch, as almost all his words lack accompanying explanations, particularly (when writing about) monetary law. Besides this, we see that many legal doubts arise daily, and are mostly the subject of scholarly debate, necessitating vast wisdom and proficiency to arrive at a sufficiently sourced ruling.[17]
The strongest criticism against all such codes of Jewish law is the contention that they inherently violate the principle that halakha must be decided according to thelater sages; this principle is commonly known ashilkheta ke-vatra'ei ("thehalakha follows the later ones").
A modern commentator,Menachem Elon explains:
This rule dates from theGeonic period. It laid down the law and states that "until the time of RabbisAbbaye andRava (4th century) the Halakha was to be decided according to the views of the earlier scholars, but from that time onward, the halakhic opinions of post-talmudic scholars would prevail over the contrary opinions of a previous generation" (seePiskei Ha'Rosh, Bava Metzia 3:10, 4:21, Shabbat 23:1 and also the Rif writing at the end of Eruvin Ch.2.)
If one does not find their statements correct and is able to maintain his own views with evidence that is acceptable to his contemporaries...he may contradict the earlier statements, since all matters that are not clarified in the Babylonian Talmud may be questioned and restated by any person, and even the statements of theGeonim may be differed from him ... just as the statements of theAmoraim differed from the earlier ones. On the contrary, we regard the statements of later scholars to be more authoritative because they knew the reasoning of the earlier scholars as well as their own, and took it into consideration in making their decision (Piskei Ha'Rosh, Sanhedrin 4:6, responsa of theRosh 55:9).
The controversy itself may explain why theShulchan Aruch became an authoritative code, despite significant opposition, and even against the will of its author, whileMaimonides' (1135–1204)Mishneh Torah rulings were not necessarily accepted as binding among the Franco-German Jews, perhaps owing to the criticism and influence ofAbraham ibn Daud (known as the "Ravad", 1110–1180). The answer may lie in the fact that the criticism by ibn Daud undermined confidence in Maimonides' work, while Isserles (who corresponded with Karo) does not simply criticize, but supplements Karo's work extensively. The result was that Ashkenazim accepted theShulchan Aruch, assuming that together with Isserles' glosses it was a reliable authority. This then became broadly accepted among Jewish communities around the world as the binding Jewish legal code.[18]
The later major halachic authorities[19] defer to both Karo and Isserles and cite their work as the baseline from which furtherhalachic rulings evolve. The 17th-century scholarJoshua Höschel ben Joseph wrote,
[F]rom their wells do we drink and should a question arise (on their work), not for this shall we come to annul their words, rather we must study further as much as we can, and if we are unable to resolve (our question) then we will ascribe it to our own lack of knowledge and not (as a reason to) annul the words of these geniuses.[20]
Jonathan Eybeschutz (d. 1764) wrote that the great breadth of the work would make it impossible to constantly come to the correct conclusion if not for the "spirit of God". Therefore, says Eybeschutz, one cannot rely on a view not presented by theShulchan Aruch.[21]Yehuda Heller Kahana (d. 1819) also said that was the reason one cannot rely on a view not formulated in theShulchan Jewry.[22]
A large body of commentaries have appeared on theShulchan Aruch, beginning soon after its publication. The first major gloss,Hagahot byMoses Isserles, was published shortly after theShulchan Aruch appeared. Isserles' student, Yehoshua Falk HaKohen publishedSefer Me'irath Enayim (onChoshen Mishpat, abbreviated asSema) several decades after the main work. Important works by the later authorities (acharonim) include but are not limited to:
While these major commentaries enjoy widespread acceptance, some early editions of theShulchan Aruch were self-published (primarily in the late 17th and early 18th centuries) with commentaries by various rabbis, although these commentaries never achieved significant recognition.
A wealth of later works include commentary and exposition by such halachic authorities as theKetzoth ha-Choshen andAvnei Millu'im,Netivoth ha-Mishpat, theVilna Gaon, RabbiYechezkel Landau (Dagul Mervavah), RabbisAkiva Eger,Moses Sofer, andChaim Joseph David Azulai (Birkei Yosef) whose works are widely recognized and cited extensively in later halachic literature.
In particular,Mishnah Berurah (which summarizes and decides amongst the later authorities) on the Orach Chaim section ofShulchan Aruch has achieved widespread acceptance. It is frequently even studied as a stand-alone commentary, since it is assumed to discuss all or most of the views of the major commentaries on the topics that it covers.Kaf Ha'Chaim is a similarSephardic work. See furtherbelow re these type of works.
Several commentaries are printed on each page.Be'er ha-Golah,[23] by Rabbi Moshe Rivkash,[24] provides cross-references to the Talmud,other law codes, commentaries, andresponsa, and thereby indicates the various sources forHalachic decisions.Beiur HaGra,[25] by theVilna Gaon as mentioned, traces the underlying machloket (deliberation), including how it eventually plays out, and evaluates this practice in light of the various opinions ofrishonim here.[26]
In the late 18th century, there were several attempts to recompile the major halakhic opinions into a simpler, more accessible form.
RabbiShneur Zalman of Liadi wrote a "Shulchan Aruch" at the behest of theHasidic leader, RabbiDovber of Mezeritch. To distinguish this work from Karo's, it is generally referred to asShulchan Aruch HaRav. RabbiAbraham Danzig was the first in theLithuanian Jewish community to attempt a summary of the opinions in the above-mentioned works in hisChayei Adam andChochmath Adam. Similar works areBa'er Heitev andSha'arei Teshuvah/Pitchei Teshuvah (usually published as commentaries in most editions of theShulchan Aruch), as well asKitzur Shulchan Aruch (by RabbiShlomo Ganzfried of Hungary). Danzig's and Ganzfried's works do not follow the structure of theShulchan Aruch, but given their single-voiced approach, are considered easier to follow for those with less background inhalacha.
TheMishna Berura, the main work ofhalakha by RabbiYisrael Meir Kagan (the "Chafetz Chaim") is a collation of the opinions oflater authorities on theOrach Chayim section of theShulchan Aruch.Aruch HaShulchan, by RabbiYechiel Michel Epstein, is a more analytical work attempting the same task from a different angle, and covering all sections of theShulchan Aruch. The former, though narrower in scope, enjoys much wider popularity and is considered authoritative by many adherents ofOrthodox Judaism, especially among those typically associated with Ashkenazicyeshivas. TheBen Ish Chai,Kaf Ha'Chaim, and much more recently, theYalkut Yosef are similar works bySephardic Rabbis for their communities.
Sections of theShulchan Aruch are studied in many Jewish schools throughout the world on a daily basis. There is also a daily study program known as theHalacha Yomit.
| Branches | |
|---|---|
| People | |
| Education | |
| Politics | |
| Rabbinates | |
| Organizations | |
| Laws | |
| Philosophies | |
Authority control databases: National |
|---|
