Shulchan Aruch

This article is about the work by Rabbi Yosef Karo. For the work by Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, seeShulchan Aruch HaRav.For the work by Lithuanian rabbi and posek Yechiel Michel Epstein, seeAruch HaShulchan.

Shulchan Aruch

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" ),sometimes dubbed in English as theCode of Jewish Law,is the most widely consulted of the variouslegal codesin Judaism. It was authored inSafed,Ottoman Syria (today inIsrael) byJoseph Karoin 1563 and published inVenicetwo years later.Together with its commentaries, it is the most widely accepted compilation ofhalakhaor Jewish law ever written.

The halachic rulings in theShulchan Aruchgenerally followSephardic law and customs,whereasAshkenazi Jewsgenerally follow the halachic rulings ofMoses Isserles,whose glosses to theShulchan Aruchnote 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 Aruchinclude this gloss, and the term "Shulchan Aruch" has come to denotebothKaro's work as well as Isserles', with Karo usually referred to as "theMekhaber"(Hebrew:הַמְחַבֵּר,"author" ) and Isserles as "the Rema" (an acronym of Moshe Isserles).

Due to the increased availability of theprinting press,the 16th century was an era of legal codification inPoland,theOttoman Empireand other countries. Previously unwritten laws and customs were being compiled and recorded; theShulchan Aruchwas 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 ofMoses Isserlesand the 17th century Polish rabbis.

Structure

Page ofShulchan Aruch,Even Ha'ezersection, laws ofketubot.

TheShulhan Arukh(and its forerunner, theBeit Yosef) follow the same structure asArba'ah TurimbyJacob ben Asher.There are four volumes, each subdivided into many chapters and paragraphs:

1. Orach Chayim– laws ofprayerandsynagogue,Sabbath,holidays;
2. Yoreh De'ah– laws ofkashrut;conversion to Judaism;mourning;laws pertaining to Israel;niddah
3. Even Ha'ezer– laws ofmarriage,divorceand related issues;
4. Choshen Mishpat– laws of finance, financial responsibility,damages(personal and financial), and the rules of thebeth 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, theShulchan Aruchhas 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:

• onOrach Chayim,Magen AvrahamandTaz
• onYoreh De'ah,ShakhandTaz
• onEven Ha'ezer,Beit ShmuelandChelkat Mechokek
• onChoshen Mishpat,ShakhandMe'irat Einayim

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.Additionally, many recent publishers have reformatted this work with the intent to make it more accessible to the reader.

Beit Yosef

Its premise and style

Main article:Beit Yosef (book)

TheShulchan Aruchis largely based on an earlier work by Karo, titledBeit Yosef.Although theShulchan Aruchis 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.In his famous methodological workYad Malachi,Malachi ben Jacob HaKohencites a later halachic authority (Shmuel Abuhab) who reports rumors that theShulchan Aruchwas 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.

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 wrote that he abandoned this idea because:"Who has the courage to rear his head aloft among mountains, the heights ofGod?"Hence Karo adopted theHalakhotof 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.The net result of these last exceptions is that in a number of cases Karo rules in favour of the Catalan school ofNahmanidesandShlomo 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"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 theItalian 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 officiatingrabbiin 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 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 IsserleinandIsrael Bruna,together with the Franco-GermanTosafists) as criteria of opinion.While theRoshon 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 theTur,entitled Darkhei Moshe, to focus only on rulings which differ fromBet Yosef.

The halachic rulings in theShulchan Aruchgenerally 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 Aruchinclude 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 theminhagas 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.

Reception

Karo wrote theShulchan Aruchin 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 Aruchhas been "the code" ofRabbinical Judaismfor all ritual and legal questions that arose after the destruction of theTemple in Jerusalem;seeHalakha § Orthodox JudaismandYeshiva § Jewish lawre 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 hisresponsa,but always to theBeit Yosef.TheShulchan Aruchachieved 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 Jewishauthorities 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 Aruchas a book for "children and ignoramuses",and Jacob Castro, whose workErekh ha-Shulchanconsists of critical glosses to theShulchan Aruch.Moses IsserlesandMaharshalwere Karo's first important adversaries in Eastern Europe. Further in response to those who wished to force the rulings of theShulchan Aruchupon those communities followingRambam,Karo wrote:

Who is he whose heart conspires to approach forcing congregations who practice according to theRaMBaMof 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 theRoshor 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 Aruchon the lack of an existing and widely accepted custom to the contrary.Eventually though, the rulings of theShulchan Aruchbecame 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 ofprevious codes of law.

Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel

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

To decidehalakhicquestions 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.

Rabbi Shmuel Eidels

Samuel Eidels(known as the "Maharsha", 1555–1631), criticized those who rule directly from theShulchan Aruchwithout being fully conversant with the Talmudic source(s) of the ruling: "In these generations, those who rule from theShulchan Aruchwithout knowing the reasoning and Talmudic basis... are among the 'destroyers of the world' and should be protested. "

Rabbi Yoel Sirkis

Another prominent critic of theShulchan AruchwasJoel Sirkis(1561–1640), rabbi and author of a commentary to theArba'ah Turimentitled 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.

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 thelatersages; this principle is commonly known ashilkheta ke-vatra'ei( "thehalakhafollows the later ones ").

A modern commentator,Menachem Elonexplains:

This rule dates from theGeonicperiod. It laid down the law and states that "until the time of RabbisAbbayeandRava(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 theGeonimmay be differed from him... just as the statements of theAmoraimdiffered 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 theRosh55:9).

The controversy itself may explain why theShulchan Aruchbecame an authoritative code, despite significant opposition, and even against the will of its author, whileMaimonides' (1135–1204)Mishneh Torahrulings 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.

Praise

The later major halachic authoritiesdefer to both Karo and Isserles and cite their work as the baseline from which furtherhalachic rulingsevolve. The 17th-century scholarJoshua Höschel ben Josephwrote,

[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.

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 can not rely on a view not presented by theShulchan Aruch.Yehuda Heller Kahana(d. 1819) said that the reason one can not rely on a view not formulated in theShulchan Jewry.

Major commentaries

A large body of commentaries have appeared on theShulchan Aruch,beginning soon after its publication. The first major gloss,HagahotbyMoses Isserles,was published shortly after theShulchan Aruchappeared. 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:

• Magen Avraham( "Abraham's shield" ) byAvraham Gombiner(onOrach Chayim)
• Turei Zahav( "Rows of Gold", abbreviated asTaz) byDavid HaLevi Segal(onOrach Chayim, Yoreh Deah and Even ha-Ezer)
• Siftei Khohen( "Lips of the priest", abbreviated asShach) byShabbatai HaKohen(onYoreh DeahandChoshen Mishpat)
• Beit Sh'muelbySamuel ben Uri Shraga PhoebusandChelkat MechokekbyMoses ben Isaac Judah Lima(onEven ha-Ezer)
• Ba'er Heiteiv( "Well-Explained" ) byJudah AshkenaziandZechariah Mendel ben Aryeh Leib
• Peri Chadash( "New Fruit" ) byHezekiah da Silva
• Peri Megadim( "Choice Fruit" ) byJoseph ben Meir Teomim
• Shaarei Teshuvah( "Entry toResponsa") byHayyim Mordecai Margolioth
• Machatzit HaShekel( "Half-Shekel" ) bySamuel Loew

While these major commentaries enjoy widespread acceptance, some early editions of theShulchan Aruchwere 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-ChoshenandAvnei 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 Aruchhas 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'Chaimis a similarSephardicwork. See furtherbelowre 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,other law codes,commentaries, andresponsa,and thereby indicates the various sources forHalachicdecisions.Beiur HaGra,by theVilna Gaonas mentioned, traces the underlyingmachloket(deliberation), including how it eventually plays out, and evaluates this practice in light of the various opinions ofrishonimhere.

Later collations

In the late 18th century, there were several attempts to recompile the major halakhic opinions into a simpler, more accessible form.

RabbiShneur Zalman of Liadiwrote a "Shulchan Aruch" at the behest of theHasidicleader, RabbiDovber of Mezeritch.To distinguish this work from Karo's, it is generally referred to asShulchan Aruch HaRav.RabbiAbraham Danzigwas the first in theLithuanian Jewishcommunity to attempt a summary of the opinions in the above-mentioned works in hisChayei AdamandChochmath Adam.Similar works areBa'er HeitevandSha'arei Teshuvah/Pitchei Teshuvah(usually published as commentaries in most editions of theShulchan Aruch), as well asKitzur Shulchan Aruch(by RabbiShlomo Ganzfriedof 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 ofhalakhaby RabbiYisrael Meir Kagan(the "Chafetz Chaim") is a collation of the opinions oflater authoritieson theOrach Chayimsection 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 Yosefare similar works bySephardicRabbis for their communities.

Halacha Yomit

Sections of theShulchan Aruchare studied in many Jewish schools throughout the world on a daily basis. There is also a daily study program known as theHalacha Yomit.

External links

Articles

• Initial textof this article from the 1906 public domainJewish EncyclopediaArchived2011-06-28 at theWayback Machine.
• Historical background on when Rabbi Karo wrote the Shulchan Aruch and whyfrom the 1906 public domainJewish EncyclopediaArchived2011-06-28 at theWayback Machine.

Study resources

• Hebrew edition online
• Shulkhan Arukhlimited English translation includes chapters not inWikisourceas of August 2010.
• The Sefaria Libraryincludes translations of most of Even Haezer, and a small part of the rest of Shulchan Aruch.
• Torah.orgOrach Chayim summary:covers the whole book.
• Torah.orgYoreh De'ah summary:covers the whole book.
• Mishna Berura § External linksincludes links to resources which translate not just parts of the Mishna Berura, but also the corresponding parts of Orach Chayim.
• Shulchan Aruch with its major commentaries
• 'אליעזר פאפו' (Eliezer Papo)."List (mostly in Hebrew or Ladino) of Ladino words used by the Shulchan Aruch"(PDF).Archived fromthe original(PDF)on August 2, 2020.RetrievedJuly 29,2024.