Shulchan Arukh

The ''Shulchan Aruch'' ( he, שֻׁלְחָן עָרוּך , literally: "Set Table"), sometimes dubbed in English as the Code of Jewish Law, is the most widely consulted of the various legal codes in Judaism. It was authored in Safed (today in Israel) by Joseph Karo in 1563 and published in Venice two years later. Together with its commentaries, it is the most widely accepted compilation of Jewish law ever written.

The ''halachic'' rulings in the ''Shulchan Aruch'' generally follow Sephardic law and customs, whereas Ashkenazi Jews generally follow the halachic rulings of Moses Isserles, whose glosses to the ''Shulchan Aruch'' note where the Sephardic and Ashkenazi customs differ. These glosses are widely 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, and the term "Shulchan Aruch" has come to denote ''both'' Karo's work as well as Isserles', with Karo usually referred to as "the ''mechaber''" ("author") and Isserles as "the Rema" (an acronym of Rabbi Moshe Isserles).

Due to the increased availability of the printing press, the 16th century was an era of legal codification in Poland, the Ottoman Empire and other countries. Previously unwritten laws and customs were being compiled and recorded; the ''Shulchan Aruch'' was one of these. 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 of Moses Isserles and the 17th century Polish rabbis.

Structure

The ''Shulchan Aruch'' (and its forerunner, the ''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 prayer and synagogue, Sabbath, holidays;
# Yoreh De'ah – laws of kashrut; religious conversion; mourning; laws pertaining to Israel; laws of family purity
#Even Ha'ezer – laws of marriage, divorce and related issues;
# Choshen Mishpat – laws of finance, financial responsibility, damages (personal and financial), and the rules of the Bet Din, as well as the laws of witnesses

Page 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 print - and indicated by a preceding "הגה" - interspersed with Karo's text.
Surrounding this are the primary commentators for the section:
*on Orach Chaim, ''Magen Avraham'' and ''Taz''
*on Yoreh Deah, ''Shakh'' and ''Taz''
*on Even Ha'ezer, ''Beit Shmuel'' and ''Chelkat Mechokek''
*on Choshen Mishpat, ''Shakh'' and ''Me'irat Einayim''
On the margins are various other commentaries and cross references; see 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''. 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 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 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.
* 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 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 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. 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 previous codes of law.

Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel

Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel (known as "Maharal", 1520–1609) wrote:

Rabbi Shmuel Eidels

Rabbi 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 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 Rabbi Samuel Phoebus and ''Chelkath Mechokek'' by 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