Structure
The ''Shulchan Aruch'' (and its forerunner, the ''Beit Yosef (book), Beit Yosef'') follow the same structure as ''Arba'ah Turim'' by Rabbi Jacob ben Asher. There are four volumes, each subdivided into many chapters and paragraphs: #Orach Chayim – laws of Jewish services, prayer and synagogue, Shabbat, Sabbath, Jewish holiday, holidays; #Yoreh De'ah – laws of kashrut; Conversion to Judaism, religious conversion; Jewish mourning, mourning; laws pertaining to Israel; laws of family purity #Even Ha'ezer – laws of Jewish view of marriage, marriage, divorce and related issues; #Choshen Mishpat – laws of finance, financial responsibility, Damages (Jewish law), damages (personal and financial), and the rules of the Bet Din, as well as the laws of witnessesPage layout
In the aside page, Karo's and Isserles' combined text is in the center of the page, top; since the 17th century, the ''Shulchan Aruch'' has been printed with Isserles' annotations in small Rashi script, Rashi print - and indicated by a preceding "הגה" - interspersed with Karo's text. Surrounding this are the primary commentators for the section: *on Orach Chaim, Avraham_Gombiner#Magen_Avraham, ''Magen Avraham'' and David HaLevi Segal#Works, ''Taz'' *on Yoreh Deah, Shabbatai HaKohen#The "Shakh", ''Shakh'' and ''Taz'' *on Even Ha'ezer, Samuel ben Uri Shraga Phoebus, ''Beit Shmuel'' and Moses ben Isaac Judah Lima, ''Chelkat Mechokek'' *on Choshen Mishpat, ''Shakh'' and Joshua_Falk#Works, ''Me'irat Einayim'' On the margins are various other commentaries and cross references; see #Major_commentaries, below. As commentaries on the work proliferated more sophisticated printing styles became required, similar to those of the Talmud.Beit Yosef
Its premise and style
The ''Shulchan Aruch'' is largely based on an earlier work by Karo, titled Beit Yosef (book), ''Beit Yosef''. Although the ''Shulchan Aruch'' is largely a codification of the rulings of the ''Beit Yosef'', it includes various rulings that are not mentioned at all in the ''Beit Yosef'', because after completing the ''Beit Yosef'', Karo read opinions in books he hadn't seen before, which he then included in the ''Shulchan Aruch''. In his famous methodological work ''Yad Malachi'', Malachi ben Jacob ha-Kohen cites a later halachic authority (Shmuel Abuhab) who reports rumors that the ''Shulchan 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 the ''Shulchan Aruch''.The standard authorities
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 abandoned this idea because, as he wrote: "Who has the courage to rear his head aloft among mountains, the heights of Names of God in Judaism, God?" and also because he may have thought, though he does not mention his conclusion, that he could gain no following if he set up his authority against that of the ancient scholars. Hence Karo adopted the ''Halakhot'' of Rabbi Isaac Alfasi (the ''Rif''), Maimonides (the ''Rambam''), and Asher ben Jehiel (the ''Rosh'') 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. The net result of these last exceptions is that in a number of cases Karo rules in favour of the Catalan school of Nahmanides and Shlomo ben Aderet, 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 in Mishneh 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 ''"Tur"'', although not considered as great an authority as Maimonides' code, was much more widely known; the latter being recognized only among the Spanish Jews, while the former enjoyed a high reputation among the Ashkenazim and Sephardim, as well as the Italian Jews#Italian rite Jews, Italian Jews. * Karo intended to give not merely the results of his investigations (as Maimonides' code did), but also the investigations themselves. He wished not only to aid the officiating rabbi in the performance of his duties, but also to trace for the student the development of particular laws from the Talmud through later rabbinical literature. * Unlike the Tur, Maimonides' code includes all fields of Jewish law, of both present-day relevance and those dealing with prior and future times (such as laws of sacrifices, Messiah, Kings, etc.). For Karo, whose interest lay in ruling on the practical issues, the Tur seemed a better choice.Moses Isserles
The "Rema" (Moses Isserles) started writing his commentary on the Arba'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 Sephardic Posek, poskim. In place of Karo's three standard authorities, Isserles cites "the later authorities" (chiefly based on the works of Yaakov Moelin, Israel Isserlein and Israel Bruna, together with the Franco-German Tosafists) as criteria of opinion. While the ''Rosh'' 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. After realizing this, the Rema shortened his work on the ''Tur'', entitled Darkhei Moshe, to focus only on rulings which differ from ''Bet Yosef''. The halachic rulings in the ''Shulchan Aruch'' generally follow the Sephardic custom. The Rema added his glosses and published them as a commentary on the ''Shulchan Aruch'', specifying whenever the Sephardic and Ashkenazic customs differ. These glosses are sometimes referred to as the ''mappah'', literally, the 'tablecloth,' to the ''Shulchan Aruch's'' 'Set Table.' Almost all published editions of the ''Shulchan Aruch'' include this gloss. The importance of the ''minhag'' ("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 the ''minhag'' as an object of great importance, and not to be omitted in a codex. This point, especially, induced Isserles to write his glosses to the ''Shulchan Aruch'', that the customs (''minhagim'') of the Ashkenazim might be recognized, and not be set aside through Karo's reputation.Reception
Karo wrote the ''Shulchan Aruch'' in his old age, for the benefit of those who did not possess the education necessary to understand the ''Beit Yosef''. The format of this work parallels that adopted by Jacob ben Asher in his ''Arba'ah Turim'', but more concisely; without citing sources. ''Shulchan Aruch'' has been "the code" of Rabbinic Judaism, Rabbinical Judaism for all ritual and legal questions that arose after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem; see and 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". He never refers to it in his responsa, but always to the ''Beit Yosef''. The ''Shulchan 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. History of the Jews in Germany, 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 the ''Shulchan Aruch'' as a book for "children and ignoramuses", and Jacob Castro, whose work ''Erekh ha-Shulchan'' consists of critical glosses to the ''Shulchan Aruch''. Moses Isserles and Maharshal were Karo's first important adversaries in Eastern Europe. Further in response to those who wished to force the rulings of the ''Shulchan Aruch'' upon those communities following Rambam, Karo wrote: Similarly, many later halachic authorities predicated the acceptance of the authority of the ''Shulchan Aruch'' on the lack of an existing and widely accepted custom to the contrary. Eventually though, the rulings of the ''Shulchan 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.Criticism by Karo's contemporaries
Following its initial appearance, many rabbis criticised the appearance of this latest code of Jewish law, echoing similar criticisms of Halakha#Codes of Jewish law, previous codes of law.Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel
Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel (known as "Maharal", 1520–1609) wrote:Rabbi Shmuel Eidels
Rabbi Samuel Eidels, Shmuel Eidels (known as the "Maharsha", 1555–1631), criticized those who rule directly from the ''Shulchan Aruch'' without being fully conversant with the Talmudic source(s) of the ruling: "In these generations, those who rule from the ''Shulchan Aruch'' without knowing the reasoning and Talmudic basis ... are among the 'destroyers of the world' and should be protested."Rabbi Yoel Sirkis
Another prominent critic of the ''Shulchan Aruch'' was Rabbi Yoel Sirkis (1561–1640), author of a commentary to the ''Arba'ah Turim'' entitled ''Bayith Chadash'', commonly abbreviated as ''Bach'', and Rabbi Meir ben Gedaliah: "It is impossible to rule (in most cases) based on the ''Shulchan 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...."Other criticisms
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 the ''later'' sages; this principle is commonly known as ''hilkheta ke-vatra'ei'' ("the ''halakha'' follows the later ones"). A modern commentator, Rabbi Menachem Elon explains: The controversy itself may explain why the ''Shulchan Aruch'' became an authoritative code, despite significant opposition, and even against the will of its author, while Maimonides' (1135–1204) Mishneh Torah rulings were not necessarily accepted as binding among the Franco-German Jews, perhaps owing to Abraham ibn Daud, Abraham ben David's (1110–1180) (known as the "Ravad") criticism and influence. The answer may lie in the fact that the criticism by Ravad undermined confidence in Maimonides' work, while Isserles (who actually corresponded with Karo) does not simply criticize, but supplements Karo's work extensively, with the result that the Ashkenazim then accepted the ''Shulchan 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.Praise
The later major halachic authorities defer to both Karo and Isserles and cite their work as the baseline from which further halachic rulings evolve. In one of many similar statements by his peers reflecting this unique authority, the 17th century scholar Joshua Höschel ben Joseph writes that "from 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..." Various halachic authorities also make note of the unique divine assistance with which both Karo and Isserlis were blessed, and which serves to further bolster their authority. Rabbi Jonathan Eybeschutz in particular writes at length about how 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 can not rely on a view not presented by the ''Shulchan Aruch''. Rabbi Yehuda Heller Kahana, however, says that Eybeschutz's reasoning is farfetched. He contends that the reason one can not rely on a view not formulated in the ''Shulchan Aruch'' is because the ''Shulchan Aruch'' was accepted by all of Jewry.Major commentaries
A large body of commentaries have appeared on the ''Shulchan Aruch'', beginning soon after its publication. The first major gloss, 'Hagahot' by "Rema" (Moses Isserles) was published shortly after the ''Shulchan Aruch'' appeared. Isserles' student, Rabbi Yehoshua Falk HaKohen published ''Sefer Me'irath Enayim'' (on ''Choshen Mishpat'', abbreviated as ''Sema'') several decades after the main work. Important works by the later authorities (''acharonim'') include but are not limited to: * ''Magen Avraham'' ("Abraham's shield") by Rabbi Avraham Gombiner (on ''Orach Chayim'') * ''Turei Zahav'' ("Rows of Gold", abbreviated as ''Taz'') by Rabbi David HaLevi Segal (on ''Orach Chayim, Yorei Deah and Even ha-Ezer'') * ''Siftei Kohen'' ("The Lips of the Kohen", abbreviated as ''Shach'') by Rabbi Shabbatai ha-Kohen (on ''Yorei Deah'' and ''Choshen Mishpat'') * ''Beit Shmuel'' by Samuel ben Uri Shraga Phoebus, Rabbi Samuel Phoebus and ''Chelkath Mechokek'' by Moses ben Isaac Judah Lima, Rabbi Moses Lima (on ''Even ha-Ezer'') * ''Ba'er Hetev'' ("Well-Explained") by Yehudah ben Shimon Ashkenazi and Zechariah Mendel ben Aryeh Leib. * ''Peri Chadash'' ("New Fruit") by Hezekiah da Silva * ''Peri Megadim'' ("Dainty Fruit") by Joseph ben Meir Teomim * ''Shaarei Teshuvah'' ("Gates of Answer") by Chaim Mordechai Margoliot * ''Machatzit HaShekel'' ("Half a Shekel") by Rabbi Samuel Neta HaLevi. While these major commentaries enjoy widespread acceptance, some early editions of the ''Shulchan 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 the ''Ketzoth ha-Choshen'' and ''Avnei Millu'im'', ''Netivoth ha-Mishpat'', the Vilna Gaon, Rabbi Yechezkel Landau (''Dagul Mervavah''), Rabbis Akiva Eger, Moses Sofer, and Chaim 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 of ''Shulchan 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 similar Sephardic work. See further #Later collations, below re these type of works. Several commentaries are printed on each page. ''Be'er ha-Golah'', by Rabbi Moshe Rivkash, provides cross-references to the Talmud, Halakha#Codes_of_Jewish_law, other law codes, commentaries, and History_of_responsa_in_Judaism, responsa, and thereby indicates the various sources for ''Halachic'' decisions. ''Beiur HaGra'', by the ''Vilna Gaon'' as mentioned, traces the underlying wikt:machloket, ''machloket'' (deliberation), including how it eventually plays out, and evaluates this practice in light of the various opinions of ''rishonim'' here. Rabbi Moshe Meiselman (1997)Later collations
In the late 18th century, there were several attempts to recompile the major halakhic opinions into a simpler, more accessible form. Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi wrote a "Shulchan Aruch" at the behest of the Hasidic Jew, Hasidic leader, Rabbi Dovber of Mezeritch. To distinguish this work from Karo's, it is generally referred to as ''Shulchan Aruch HaRav''. Rabbi Abraham Danzig was the first in the Lithuanian Jewish community to attempt a summary of the opinions in the above-mentioned works in his ''Chayei Adam'' and ''Chochmath Adam''. Similar works are ''Ba'er Heitev'' and ''Sha'arei Teshuvah''/''Pitchei Teshuvah'' (usually published as commentaries in most editions of the ''Shulchan Aruch''), as well as ''Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (book), Kitzur Shulchan Aruch'' (by Rabbi Shlomo Ganzfried of Hungary). Danzig's and Ganzfried's works do not follow the structure of the ''Shulchan Aruch'', but given their single-voiced approach, are considered easier to follow for those with less background in halacha. The ''Mishna Berura'', the main work of ''halakha'' by Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan (the "''Chafetz Chaim''") is a collation of the opinions of Acharonim, later authorities on the ''Orach Chayim'' section of the ''Shulchan Aruch''. ''Aruch HaShulchan'', by Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein, is a more analytical work attempting the same task from a different angle, and covering all sections of the ''Shulchan Aruch''. The former, though narrower in scope, enjoys much wider popularity and is considered authoritative by many adherents of Orthodox Judaism, especially among those typically associated with Ashkenazic ''yeshivas''. The ''Ben Ish Chai'', ''Kaf Ha'Chaim'', and much more recently, the Yalkut Yosef are similar works by Sephardic Rabbis for their communities.Halacha Yomit
Sections of the ''Shulchan Aruch'' are studied in many Jewish schools throughout the world on a daily basis. There is also a daily study program known as the Halacha Yomit.References
External links
Articles
Study resources