Jump to content

Acharonim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

InJewish lawand history,Acharonim(Hebrew:[(ʔ)aχ(a)ʁoˈnim];Hebrew:אחרוניםAḥaronim;sing.אחרון‎,Aḥaron;lit. "last ones" ) are the leadingrabbisandposkim(Jewish legal decisors) living from roughly the 16th century to the present, and more specifically since the writing of theShulchan Aruch(Hebrew:שׁוּלחָן עָרוּך‎, "Set Table", a code of Jewish law) in 1563 CE.

TheAcharonimfollow theRishonim,the "first ones" —the rabbinic scholars between the 11th and the 16th century following theGeonimand preceding theShulchan Aruch.The publication of theShulchan Aruchthus marks the transition from the era of Rishonim to that of Acharonim.

The Acharonim are thus contemporary with theEarly Modern Period,the foundation ofHasidic Judaism,Jewish emancipationin Europe, theHaskalah(Jewish Enlightenment),Zionism,theHolocaust,the foundation of theState of Israeland theJewish exodus from the Muslim world.

AcharonimRishonimGeonimSavoraimAmoraimTannaimZugot

Consequences for Halakhic change[edit]

The distinction between theAcharonim,RishonimandGeonimis meaningful historically. According to the widely held view inOrthodox Judaism,the Acharonim generally cannot dispute the rulings of rabbis of previous eras unless they find support from other rabbis in previous eras. Yet the opposite view exists as well: InThe Principles of Jewish LawOrthodox RabbiMenachem Elonwrote:

[such a view] "inherently violates the precept ofHilkheta Ke-Vatra'ei,that is, the law is according to the later scholars. This rule dates from the Geonic period. It laid down that until the time of Rabbis Abbaye and Rava (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. See Piskei Ha'Rosh, Bava Metzia 3:10, 4:21, Shabbat 23:1

Hilkheta Ke-Vatra'eican be interpreted such that the Orthodox view does not constitute a contradiction, with an appeal to understand it within the greater context of Torah. While authority may go to the scholars of a later generationwithina particular era, the Talmud does not allow scholars of a later era to argue with scholars of anearlierera without support from other scholars of an earlier era.

This is displayed in “hundreds of instances" in the Talmud in which Amora’im are challenged by Tanna’itic sources with the term מיתיבי and the Amorai'm unable to “deflect the challenge”. An Amora called Rav is challenged by Tannai’tic sources “and is vindicated by the statement,Rav tanna hu upalig” -“Rav is a Tanna and disagrees (inEiruvin50b,Kesubos8a, and elsewhere). A similar case exists for Rav Chiya, a borderline Tanna inBava Metzia5a.This clearly implies that the only reason they are able to get away with disagreeing is because they are Tannaim. There are “only a handful of possible exceptions [to the rule] that theAmora’imdid not, in fact argue with theTanna’im.”[1]

The question of which prior rulings can and cannot be disputed has led to attempts to precisely define which rulings are within the Acharonim era. According to many rabbis the Shulkhan Arukh is from an Acharon. Some hold that RabbiYosef Karo'sBeit Yosefhas the halakhic status of a work of a Rishon, while his laterShulkhan Arukhhas the status of a work of an Acharon.[citation needed]

Notable Acharonim[edit]

Note: This list is incomplete and is only intended to provide a small selection from the broad list of prominent rabbinic figures of the Acharonic era.

16th century[edit]

Yosef Karo

17th century[edit]

Isaac Aboab da Fonseca

18th century[edit]

Shneur Zalman of Liadi

19th century[edit]

Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin
Israel Meir Kagan

20th century[edit]

Menachem Mendel Schneerson
Ovadia Yosef

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^Meiselman, Moshe (2013).Torah, Chazal and science.pp. 113–114.ISBN9781600912436.OCLC864716896.

External links[edit]