Shulchan Aruch: Difference between revisions

In his acclaimed introduction to the Beit Yosef, Rav Yosef Karo sets down his monumental rules of Pesak, to follow the three Amudei Horaah, the Rif, Rambam, and Rosh, upon whom the entire Jewish nation relies. We are simply incapable of decide for ourselves who is correct from among the dominating figures of the Rishonim. There exist a number of approaches to understanding the Beit Yosef's approach to Halacha and the extent to which it has been accepted among the Jewish people. Such discussions also appear regarding the acceptance of the Arizal's rulings. These are some basic approaches to elaborated on further below.<ref>This overview section is based heavily on the [http://www.otzar.org/wotzar/book.aspx?198570&pageid=19857000527 Darkei Horaah section of Orot HaTahorah], by Rav Zecharia ben Shlomo. It also appears in the back of his other Sefarim, Hilchot Tzava and Orot HaHalacha.</ref>

# '''Peulat Tzaddik (Maharitz)''': Minhag is to follow Shulchan Aruch in general in addition to the stringent opinions of the Rambam.<ref>Peulat Tzaddik vol. 2 Siman 251. See Klalei Maharitz by Rav Yitzchak Ratzabi printed at the end of Shulchan Aruch HaMekutzar and [http://www.maharitz.co.il maharitz.co.il]. Similarly, Rav Ovadia (Yechaveh Daat vol. 1 Siman 27) argues Teimanim who move to Eretz Yisrael should accept the positions of the Shulchan Aruch, such as by reciting a Beracha on lighting Yom Tov candles.</ref>

# '''Shtilei Zeitim<ref>Hakdama to Shtilei Zeitim</ref> and Revid HaZahav<ref>Revid HaZahav Siman 26, page 37</ref>''': Teimanim follow Shulchan Aruch completely, with a sprinkling of Minhagim like the Rama, but not the Rambam.<ref>See Iggerot Moshe Yoreh Deah vol. 3 Siman 117</ref>

# '''Rav Yosef Kapach''': The custom in Teiman was to follow the Rambam almost exclusively.<ref>Hakdama to Biur on Mishneh Torah, pages 21-22, He told HaRav Zecharia Ben Shlomo on more than one occasion that there are cases where they do not follow the Rambam</ref>

# In general, if a community with Minhagim is removed from its location for whatever reason and another community (not just individuals) eventually takes its location, the second community maintains its own traditions and is not bound by the traditions of the original one.<ref>See Beur Halacha 468 s.v. Vechumrei HaMakom</ref> However, in Eretz Yisrael, where the Minhag has been like the Shulchan Aruch, the lack of current Sepharadic community following the Shulchan Aruch does not mean that the new Sepharadic communities to settle there are independent of its rulings, because '''the Sepharadic acceptance of Shulchan Aruch is not a function of Minhag HaMakom or Mara deAtra, which could be lost, but rather, acceptance on the community and all its descendants.''' Therefore, the communities moving to Eretz Yisrael are themselves communities that already live under the banner of Shulchan Aruch, as they have for centuries, and continue to do so. Of course, if they ''never'' accepted the Shulchan Aruch, that's a different story. With respect to the Rambam, however, the acceptance ''was'' a function of Mara deAtra, so the acceptance is not binding on new communities. With the great Kibbutz Galuyot of the past century, it's worthwhile for all those gathering in Eretz Yisrael to accept Minhag Yerushalayim as a unifying force and avoid controversy in the commonly non-uniform communities that now exist.<ref>Rav Chaim David HaLevi (Shu"t Aseh Lecha Rav vol. 7 Siman 4) defending Rav Ovadia (Shu"t Yechave Da'at 1:12) against a question by Rav Avraham Sherman ([http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/niv/yesodot1-2.htm Niv HaMidrashia vol. 18-19 Iyyar 5745]). He continues to point out that the Chazon Ish's illustration (Zeraim, Sheviit 23:5) of the Minhag evolving from the following Rambam, to the Shulchan Aruch, and then to Acharonim is only relevant to Ashkenazim, who did not accept the Shulchan Aruch's rulings on themselves and their descendants, unlike the Sepharadim.</ref>

# Authorities are uncertain which work was written first, Kessef Mishneh or Beit Yosef. The number of cross citations from one book to another are too numerous in each direction to be convincing of one side or the other and, in fact, lead the Shulchan Gavoah<ref>Shulchan Gavoah (Klalim Siman 13)</ref> to determine that Rav Yosef Karo worked on both works simultaneously The Yad Malachi, however, argues that the Kessef Mishneh must have been completed after the Beit Yosef, because, in Kessef Mishneh, it says that the Shemitta is in year 5327, and in the end of Beit Yosef, it says the Sefer was completed in the year 5314. It's certainly possible, though, that he worked on both simultaneously and therefore referenced the Kessef Mishneh manuscript in Beit Yosef.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei HaKessef Mishneh 1-2)</ref> The Chidah disproves this claim, because the first printing of Beit Yosef was in 5310, and Kessef Mishneh was complete but not printed until the end of Rav Yosef Karo's life. As long as he was alive, he continued to work on the Sefer, and he passed away in middle of the printing endeavor.<ref>Shem HaGedolim (Sefarim, Maarechet Bet Ot 59, Maarechet Kaf Ot 50), Matnat Yado fn. 17. See Sdei Chemed (Klalei HaPoskim 13:28)</ref>

# Rav Yosef Karo wrote a commentary called Klalei HaGemara on the Sefer Halichot Olam, which discusses Klalei HaTalmud. The Beit David claims Maran wrote the Klalei HaGemara later in life after completing his other works, but the Yad Malachi<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Beit Yosef 42)</ref> thinks the reverse is more likely. The Chida<ref>Ein Zocher Lamed 14</ref> sides with the Beit David and adds that when Maran wrote his other Sefarim, he kept a list of Klalim that he extrapolated along the way and that eventually became Klalei HaGemara. <ref>Shem HaGedolim vol. 2 Ot Chaf 24. Matnat Yado fn. 110. In fn. 111 he quotes the Ein Zocher (ibid) who writes how the Kenesset HaGedolah did the same.</ref>

# The Kenesset HaGedolah laments how sometimes the Beit Yosef will quote another Rishon quoting the Rambam, when the Rambam's ruling is already written explicitly. He suggests that the secondary source must have added an additional dimension to the idea to warrant its inclusion.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Beit Yosef 35)</ref>

# The intention of Maran and the Rama was for Shulchan Aruch to serve as a tool for review by those who have already learned the Tur and Beit Yosef. The purpose is not to rule from the sefer itself. The Sma<ref>Sma Hakdama</ref> laments how in his day, centuries ago, many people wanted to learn the entire Torah on one foot and would rule from the Shulchan Aruch alone. The Beit Yosef himself<ref>Shu"t Beit Yosef Even HaEzer Dinei Gittin Siman 4</ref> himself makes this point. As the Sdei Chemed<ref>Sdei Chemed KHP 13:2</ref> puts it, if you don't know the source you won't understand the din. The Acharonim, notably the Maharsha<ref>Chiddushei Aggadot Sotah 22a</ref>, term such mistaken people "destroyers of the world," but nowadays with the many commentaries on the page of Shulchan Aruch, there's a strong argument to be made that this isn't as relevant of a concern, because the reasoning and source will be explained among the commentators, as well.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva Yoreh Deah 242. Yad Malachi (Klalei Shulchan Aruch 1) and Matnat Yado ad loc.</ref>

  [https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%99_%D7%A8%D7%97%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%94%D7%95 Rav Rami Berachyahu] delivers a clear treatment of this in [http://www.otzar.org/wotzar/book.aspx?164141&pageid=16414100319 Tal Livracha vol. 2 Siman 38] and concludes that many Acharonim agree with the Chida that the Halacha follows the Shulchan Aruch except for in three types of cases: the case is uncommon, the idea is obvious, or it's hinted to in another place. Of course, each instance requires its own investigation, though.</ref>

# Kenesset HaGedolah, Elyah Rabbah, and Beit David write that the Shulchan Aruch and Rama accept the second Yesh. Yad Malachi (Klalei Shulchan Aruch 13) has a bunch of problematic examples and suggests that it's only applicable where there is no decisive line at the end indicating which to follow. For example, if the Halacha follows the second approach, why does Maran sometimes append a "Hachi Mistavra" to the second Yesh? Isn't the Klal sufficient to inform us that he accepts that position? Why tell us that it's logical also? The Chida (Birkei Yosef Orach Chaim 273:8) elucidates that Maran doesn't rule based on his own intellect but rather by the majority of the Poskim's. The Klal indicates which position was accepted by the Gedolei HaPoskim, and the addendum of "Hachi Mistavra" means that Maran himseld also though it logical.  

# Sma writes that Maran and the Rama use the phrase "Yesh Mi SheOmer" (יש מי שאומר) in the singular to introduce a Rishon's position that is accepted but not mentioned by anyone else. In other words, such formulations are not a Stam vaYesh or Yesh veYesh. The Kenesset HaGedolah and others accept this Klal, but the Yad Malachi<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shulchan Aruch 12)</ref> argues strongly, however, that this cannot always be true, given numerous contradictory examples. Therefore, he relegates the Sma's rule to be a general one that is true most but not all of the time. Finally, there are a number of Acharonim cited by the Yad Malachi who categorically reject this Klal, but the majority seem to indeed accept it, Chida and Maamar Mordechai included.<ref>Matnat Yado fn. 55, 58</ref>

# The Ra'ah's Bedek HaBayit was not available to Maran.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTur 15)</ref>