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, such as
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 Samuel 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
Joel Sirkis (1561–1640), rabbi and author of a commentary to the ''
Arba'ah Turim entitled the "New House" (, commonly abbreviated as the Bach
), and Meir Lublin, author of the commentary on the Bach entitled the Shut HaBach'' ():
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,
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 the criticism and influence of
Abraham 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 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. The 17th-century scholar
Joshua Höschel ben Joseph wrote,
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 cannot rely on a view not presented by the
Shulchan Aruch.
Yehuda Heller Kahana (d. 1819) also said that was the reason one cannot rely on a view not formulated in the
Shulchan 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
Moses Isserles, was published shortly after the
Shulchan Aruch appeared. Isserles' student, 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
Avraham Gombiner (on
Orach Chayim) •
Turei Zahav ("Rows of Gold", abbreviated as
Taz) by
David HaLevi Segal (on
Orach Chayim, Yoreh Deah and Even ha-Ezer) •
Siftei Khohen ("Lips of the priest", abbreviated as
Shach) by
Shabbatai HaKohen (on
Yoreh Deah and
Choshen Mishpat) • ''Beit Sh'muel
by Samuel ben Uri Shraga Phoebus and Chelkat Mechokek
by Moses ben Isaac Judah Lima (on Even ha-Ezer'') • ''
Ba'er Heiteiv'' ("Well-Explained") by
Judah Ashkenazi and
Zechariah Mendel ben Aryeh Leib •
Peri Chadash ("New Fruit") by
Hezekiah da Silva •
Peri Megadim ("Choice Fruit") by
Joseph ben Meir Teomim •
Shaarei Teshuvah ("Entry to
Responsa") by
Hayyim Mordecai Margolioth •
Machatzit HaShekel ("Half-Shekel") by
Samuel Loew 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
below re these types 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, and responsa, and thereby indicates the various sources for Halachic
decisions. Beiur HaGra
, by the Vilna Gaon as mentioned, traces the underlying machloket (deliberation), including how it eventually plays out, and evaluates this practice in light of the various opinions of rishonim'' here. ==Later collations==