Shulchan Aruch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Shulhan 'arukh)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shulchan Aruch
Brockhaus and Efron Jewish Encyclopedia e9 327-0.jpg
AuthorJoseph Karo
CountryOttoman Palestine
SubjectJudaic Law
Publication date
1565, Venice
Preceded byBeit Yosef 

The Shulchan Aruch (Hebrew: שֻׁלְחָן עָרוּך[ʃulˈħan ʕaˈrux], literally: "Set Table"),[1] 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.[2] Together with its commentaries, it is the most widely accepted compilation of Jewish law ever written.



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:

  2. Yoreh De'ah – laws of kashrut; religious conversion; mourning; laws pertaining to Israel; laws of family purity

Page layout[edit]

Page of Shulchan Aruch, with Karo's and Isserles' combined text in the center of the page, top

References are given in two ways; those to the Shulchan Aruch are found in the later work Be'er ha-Golah, and those to Isserles' work are in brackets after the latter's comments. Since the 17th century, the Shulchan Aruch has been printed with Isserles' annotations in small Rashi print interspersed with Karo's text. As commentaries on the work proliferated, more sophisticated printing styles became required, similar to those of the Talmud.[citation needed]

Beit Yosef[edit]

Its premise and style[edit]

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.[3] 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.[4]

The standard authorities[edit]

Karo initially intended to rely on his own judgment relating to 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:[5] "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.[citation needed] 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.[6] 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.


  • Karo intended to give not merely the results of his investigations (as Maimonides' code did), but also the investigations themselves.[7] 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.

Moses Isserles[edit]



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.



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. The author himself had no very high opinion of the work, remarking that he had written it chiefly for "young students".[10] 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.

The history of the Shulchan Aruch is, in a way, identical with the history of rabbinical literature of the Jews in Poland for a period of two centuries. 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",[11] 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.[12] 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.[13]

Criticism by Karo's contemporaries[edit]


Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel[edit]

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

To decide halakhic 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 of Talmud, 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.[14]

Rabbi Shmuel Eidels[edit]

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."[15]

Rabbi Yoel Sirkis[edit]


Other criticisms[edit]


A modern commentator, Rabbi Menachem Elon explains:

This rule dates from the Geonic period. It laid down the law and states 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 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 the Geonim may be differed from him ... just as the statements of the Amoraim 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 the Rosh 55:9).




Major commentaries[edit]




Later collations[edit]


Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi wrote a "Shulchan Aruch" at the behest of the 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 (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.


Halacha Yomit[edit]



  1. ^ Also spelt Shulhan Aruch; Shulhan Arukh.
  2. ^ Codex Judaica, Mattis Kantor 2005
  3. ^ Responsa: Ginat Veradim, section Even Ha'ezer rule 4:30
  4. ^ Malachi ben Jacob ha-Kohen, 'Yad Malachi', Principles of the Shulchan Aruch and Rema Sec.2, p.549.
  6. ^ Introduction to Beit Yosef, sec. 'Orach Chaim', Karo
  8. ^ Darkhei Mosheh to Yoreh De'ah, 35
  10. ^ Shulchan Aruch, Introduction
  11. ^ Yom Tov Tzahalon, responsa, no. 67, beginning
  13. ^ Chazon Ish Zeraim, sec. Sheviis 23
  14. ^ Netivoth Olam-Netiv HaTorah (end of chapter 15)
  15. ^ Chiddushei Aggados, Maharsha, Sota 22a
  17. ^ Tzemach Tzedek, responsa, ch.9
  19. ^ Responsa Pnei Yehoshua 2:51
  20. ^ Urim Vtumim Choshen Mishpat,25:124
  21. ^ Kuntras HaSfeikos 6:6

External links[edit]


Study resources[edit]