Misplaced Pages

#286713

95-575: The Mishnah was redacted by Judah ha-Nasi probably in Beit Shearim or Sepphoris between the ending of the second century CE and the beginning of the third century in a time when the persecution of Jews and the passage of time raised the possibility that the details of the oral traditions of the Pharisees from the Second Temple period (516 BCE – 70 CE) would be forgotten. Most of

190-526: A code but does not know the reason for the ruling; such a one walks like a blind person. 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

285-517: A number of different approaches. The main work discussing the Mishnah is the Talmud, as outlined . However, the Talmud is not usually viewed as a commentary on the Mishnah per se , because: the Talmud also has many other goals; its analysis — " Gemara " — often entails long, tangential discussions; and neither version of the Talmud covers the entire Mishnah (each covers about 50–70% of the text). As

380-418: 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 the Shulchan Aruch . Yehuda Heller Kahana (d. 1819) said that the reason one can not rely on a view not formulated in

475-542: A result, numerous commentaries-proper on the Mishna have been written, typically intended to allow for the study of the work without requiring direct reference to (and facility for) the Gemara . Mishnah study, independent of the Talmud, was a marginal phenomenon before the late 15th century. The few commentaries that had been published tended to be limited to the tractates not covered by the Talmud, while Maimonides' commentary

570-535: A ruling was revisited, but the second ruling would not become popularly known. To correct this, Judah the Prince took up the redaction of the Mishnah. If a point was of no conflict, he kept its language; where there was conflict, he reordered the opinions and ruled, and he clarified where context was not given. The idea was not to use his discretion, but rather to examine the tradition as far back as he could, and only supplement as required. According to Rabbinic Judaism ,

665-456: A single paragraph of the work, i.e. the smallest unit of structure, leading to the use of the plural, " Mishnayot ", for the whole work. Because of the division into six orders, the Mishnah is sometimes called Shas (an acronym for Shisha Sedarim – the "six orders"), although that term is more often used for the Talmud as a whole. The six orders are: The acronym "Z'MaN NaKaT" is a popular mnemonic for these orders. In each order (with

760-477: A source and a tool for creating laws, and the first of many books to complement the Tanakh in certain aspects. Before the publication of the Mishnah, Jewish scholarship and judgement were predominantly oral, as according to the Talmud, it was not permitted to write them down. The earliest recorded oral law may have been of the midrashic form, in which halakhic discussion is structured as exegetical commentary on

855-614: A special tune for the Mishnaic passage "Bammeh madliqin" in the Friday night service ; there may also be tunes for Mishnaic passages in other parts of the liturgy, such as the passages in the daily prayers relating to sacrifices and incense and the paragraphs recited at the end of the Musaf service on Shabbat . Otherwise, there is often a customary intonation used in the study of Mishnah or Talmud, somewhat similar to an Arabic mawwal , but this

950-429: A tradition that unattributed statements of the law represent the views of Rabbi Meir (Sanhedrin 86a), which supports the theory (recorded by Sherira Gaon in his famous Iggeret ) that he was the author of an earlier collection. For this reason, the few passages that actually say "this is the view of Rabbi Meir" represent cases where the author intended to present Rabbi Meir's view as a "minority opinion" not representing

1045-428: Is a form of editing in which multiple sources of texts are combined and altered slightly to make a single document. Often this is a method of collecting a series of writings on a similar theme and creating a definitive and coherent work. On occasion, the persons performing the redaction (the redactors) add brief elements of their own. The reasons for doing so are varied and can include the addition of elements to adjust

SECTION 10

#1732772732287

1140-492: Is arranged in order of topics rather than in the form of a Biblical commentary. (In a very few cases, there is no scriptural source at all and the law is described as Halakha leMoshe miSinai , "law to Moses from Sinai".) The Midrash halakha , by contrast, while presenting similar laws, does so in the form of a Biblical commentary and explicitly links its conclusions to details in the Biblical text. These Midrashim often predate

1235-405: Is common when source texts contain alternative versions of the same story, and slight alterations are often made in this circumstance, simply to make the texts appear to agree, and thus the resulting redacted text appears to be coherent. Such a situation is proposed by the documentary hypothesis in the academic field of biblical scholarship , which affirms that multiple redactions occurred during

1330-463: Is considered authoritative by many adherents of Orthodox Judaism , especially among those typically associated with Ashkenazic yeshivas . The Ben Ish Chai , Kaf Ha'Chaim , and much more recently, the Yalkut Yosef are similar works by Sephardic Rabbis for their communities. Sections of the Shulchan Aruch are studied in many Jewish schools throughout the world on a daily basis. There

1425-401: 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 the Shulchan Aruch on the lack of an existing and widely accepted custom to the contrary. Eventually though, the rulings of

1520-462: Is not known whether this is a reference to the Mishnah, but there is a case for saying that the Mishnah does consist of 60 tractates. (The current total is 63, but Makkot was originally part of Sanhedrin , and Bava Kamma (literally: "First Portal"), Bava Metzia ("Middle Portal") and Bava Batra ("Final Portal") are often regarded as subdivisions of one enormous tractate, titled simply Nezikin.) A number of important laws are not elaborated upon in

1615-630: Is not reduced to a precise system like that for the Biblical books. (In some traditions this intonation is the same as or similar to that used for the Passover Haggadah .) Recordings have been made for Israeli national archives, and Frank Alvarez-Pereyre has published a book-length study of the Syrian tradition of Mishnah reading on the basis of these recordings. Most vowelized editions of the Mishnah today reflect standard Ashkenazic vowelization, and often contain mistakes. The Albeck edition of

1710-499: Is often used in a narrower sense to mean traditions concerning the editing and reading of the Biblical text (see Masoretic Text ). The resulting Jewish law and custom is called halakha . While most discussions in the Mishnah concern the correct way to carry out laws recorded in the Torah, it usually presents its conclusions without explicitly linking them to any scriptural passage, though scriptural quotations do occur. For this reason it

1805-675: The Arba'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 Sephardic poskim . In place of Karo's three standard authorities, Isserles cites "the later authorities" (chiefly based on

1900-621: The Beit Yosef , Karo read opinions in books he hadn't seen before, which he then included in the Shulchan Aruch . In his famous methodological work Yad Malachi , Malachi ben Jacob HaKohen 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

1995-580: 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 Halakha § Orthodox Judaism and Yeshiva § Jewish law re its contemporary function and status. The author himself had no very high opinion of

SECTION 20

#1732772732287

2090-737: The Code of Jewish Law , is the most widely consulted of the various legal codes in Judaism. It was authored in Safed , Ottoman Syria (today in Israel ) by Joseph Karo in 1563 and published in Venice two years later. Together with its commentaries, it is the most widely accepted compilation of halakha or Jewish law ever written. The halachic rulings in the Shulchan Aruch generally follow Sephardic law and customs , whereas Ashkenazi Jews generally follow

2185-638: The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel . After the First Jewish–Roman War in 70 CE, with the end of the Second Temple Jewish center in Jerusalem, Jewish social and legal norms were in upheaval. The Rabbis were faced with the new reality of Judaism without a Temple (to serve as the center of teaching and study) and Judea without autonomy. It is during this period that Rabbinic discourse began to be recorded in writing. The possibility

2280-514: 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

2375-461: The Midrash . The Mishnah consists of six orders ( sedarim , singular seder סדר ), each containing 7–12 tractates ( masechtot , singular masechet מסכת ; lit. "web"), 63 in total. Each masechet is divided into chapters ( peraqim , singular pereq ) and then paragraphs ( mishnayot , singular mishnah ). In this last context, the word mishnah means

2470-551: The Rosh 55:9). 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

2565-499: 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. 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 (known as "Maharal", 1520–1609) wrote: To decide halakhic questions from

2660-417: The Shulchan Aruch has been printed with Isserles' annotations in small Rashi print —and indicated by a preceding "הגה"—interspersed with Karo's text. Surrounding this are the primary commentators for the section: On the margins are various other commentaries and cross references; see below . As commentaries on the work proliferated more sophisticated printing styles became required, similar to those of

2755-426: The Shulchan 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. The strongest criticism against all such codes of Jewish law is the contention that they inherently violate

2850-681: The Shulchan Aruch . 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 of God ?" 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

2945-483: The Shulchan Jewry. 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

Mishnah - Misplaced Pages Continue

3040-461: The Torah , with the oldest surviving material dating to the 6th to 7th centuries CE. Rabbis expounded on and debated the Tanakh without the benefit of written works (other than the Biblical books themselves), though some may have made private notes ( מגילות סתרים ) for example of court decisions. The oral traditions were far from monolithic, and varied among various schools, the most famous of which were

3135-671: The composition of the Torah , often combining source texts with different narratives, which have rival political attitudes and aims, together; another example is the Talmud . Redactional processes are documented in numerous disciplines, including ancient literary works and biblical studies. Much has been written on the role of redaction in creating meaning for texts in various formats. Shulchan Aruch The Shulchan Aruch ( Hebrew : שֻׁלְחָן עָרוּך [ʃulˈħan ʕaˈrux] , literally: "Set Table"), sometimes dubbed in English as

3230-437: The debate on the matter, and (ii) the judgment that was given by a notable rabbi based on halakha , mitzvot , and spirit of the teaching ("Torah") that guided his decision. In this way, the Mishnah brings to everyday reality the practice of the 613 Commandments presented in the Torah and aims to cover all aspects of human living, serve as an example for future judgments, and, most important, demonstrate pragmatic exercise of

3325-476: The minhag as an object of great importance, and not to be omitted in a codex. This point, especially, induced Isserles to write his glosses to the Shulchan Aruch , that the customs ( minhagim ) of the Ashkenazim might be recognized, and not be set aside through Karo's reputation. Karo wrote the Shulchan Aruch in his old age, for the benefit of those who did not possess the education necessary to understand

3420-471: The tanna appointed to recite the Mishnah passage under discussion. This may indicate that, even if the Mishnah was reduced to writing, it was not available on general distribution. Very roughly, there are two traditions of Mishnah text. One is found in manuscripts and printed editions of the Mishnah on its own, or as part of the Jerusalem Talmud . The other is found in manuscripts and editions of

3515-642: The 'destroyers of the world' and should be protested." 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" ( בית חדש , commonly abbreviated as the Bach ב״ח ), and Meir Lublin , author of the commentary on the Bach entitled the Shut HaBach ( שו״ת הב״ח ): It is impossible to rule (in most cases) based on

3610-541: The Babylonian Talmud ; though there is sometimes a difference between the text of a whole paragraph printed at the beginning of a discussion (which may be edited to conform with the text of the Mishnah-only editions) and the line-by-line citations in the course of the discussion. Robert Brody, in his Mishna and Tosefta Studies (Jerusalem 2014), warns against over-simplifying the picture by assuming that

3705-474: The Biblical laws, which was much needed since the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE . The Mishnah is thus a collection of existing traditions rather than new law. The term "Mishnah" is related to the verb "to teach, repeat", and to adjectives meaning "second". It is thus named for being both the one written authority (codex) secondary (only) to the Tanakh as a basis for the passing of judgment,

3800-665: The Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud, Volume 3 The Literature of the Sages: First Part: Oral Tora, Halakha, Mishna, Tosefta, Talmud, External Tractates. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum , Ed. Shmuel Safrai, Brill, 1987, ISBN   9004275134 The first printed edition of the Mishnah was published in Naples . There have been many subsequent editions, including

3895-691: The Mishnah in its original structure, together with the associated Gemara , are known as Talmuds . Two Talmuds were compiled, the Babylonian Talmud (to which the term "Talmud" normally refers) and the Jerusalem Talmud , with the oldest surviving Talmudic manuscripts dating to the 8th century CE. Unlike the Hebrew Mishnah, the Gemara is written primarily in Aramaic. The Mishnah teaches the oral traditions by example, presenting actual cases being brought to judgment, usually along with (i)

Mishnah - Misplaced Pages Continue

3990-658: The Mishnah is written in Mishnaic Hebrew , but some parts are in Jewish Western Aramaic . The term " Mishnah " originally referred to a method of teaching by presenting topics in a systematic order, as contrasted with Midrash , which followed the order of the Bible. As a written compilation, the order of the Mishnah is by subject matter and includes a much broader selection of halakhic subjects and discusses individual subjects more thoroughly than

4085-709: The Mishnah using a variety of melodies and many different kinds of pronunciation. These institutes are the Jewish Oral Traditions Research Center and the National Voice Archives (the Phonoteca at the Jewish National and University Library). See below for external links. Both the Mishnah and Talmud contain little serious biographical studies of the people discussed therein, and the same tractate will conflate

4180-659: The Mishnah was redacted after the Bar Kokhba revolt , Judah could not have included discussion of Hanukkah, which commemorates the Jewish revolt against the Seleucid Empire (the Romans would not have tolerated this overt nationalism). Similarly, there were then several decrees in place aimed at suppressing outward signs of national identity, including decrees against wearing tefillin and tzitzit; as conversion to Judaism

4275-484: The Mishnah was vocalized by Hanoch Yelon , who made careful eclectic use of both medieval manuscripts and current oral traditions of pronunciation from Jewish communities all over the world. The Albeck edition includes an introduction by Yelon detailing his eclectic method. Two institutes at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem have collected major oral archives which hold extensive recordings of Jews chanting

4370-517: The Mishnah-only tradition is always the more authentic, or that it represents a "Palestinian" as against a "Babylonian" tradition. Manuscripts from the Cairo Geniza , or citations in other works, may support either type of reading or other readings altogether. Complete manuscripts (mss.) bolded . The earliest extant material witness to rabbinic literature of any kind is dating to the 6th–7th centuries CE, see Mosaic of Rehob . The Literature of

4465-462: The Mishnah. The Mishnah also quotes the Torah for principles not associated with law , but just as practical advice, even at times for humor or as guidance for understanding historical debates. Some Jews do not accept the codification of the oral law at all. Karaite Judaism , for example, recognises only the Tanakh as authoritative in Halakha (Jewish religious law ) and theology . It rejects

4560-402: The Mishnah. These include the laws of tzitzit , tefillin (phylacteries), mezuzot , the holiday of Hanukkah , and the laws of conversion to Judaism . These were later discussed in the minor tractates . Nissim ben Jacob 's Hakdamah Le'mafteach Hatalmud argued that it was unnecessary for "Judah the Prince" to discuss them as many of these laws were so well known. Margolies suggests that as

4655-526: 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 type of works. Several commentaries are printed on each page. Be'er ha-Golah , by Rabbi Moshe Rivkash, provides cross-references to

4750-699: The Oral Torah ( Hebrew : תורה שבעל-פה ) was given to Moses with the Torah at Mount Sinai or Mount Horeb as an exposition to the latter. The accumulated traditions of the Oral Law, expounded by scholars in each generation from Moses onward, is considered as the necessary basis for the interpretation, and often for the reading, of the Written Law. Jews sometimes refer to this as the Masorah (Hebrew: מסורה ), roughly translated as tradition, though that word

4845-533: The Prince recorded the Mishnah in writing or established it as an oral text for memorisation. The most important early account of its composition, the Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon (Epistle of Rabbi Sherira Gaon) is ambiguous on the point, although the Spanish recension leans to the theory that the Mishnah was written. However, the Talmud records that, in every study session, there was a person called

SECTION 50

#1732772732287

4940-615: The Prince went through the tractates, the Mishnah was set forth, but throughout his life some parts were updated as new information came to light. Because of the proliferation of earlier versions, it was deemed too hard to retract anything already released, and therefore a second version of certain laws were released. The Talmud refers to these differing versions as Mishnah Rishonah ("First Mishnah") and Mishnah Acharonah ("Last Mishnah"). David Zvi Hoffmann suggests that Mishnah Rishonah actually refers to texts from earlier Sages upon which Rebbi based his Mishnah. The Talmud records

5035-685: 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

5130-504: 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. The importance of the minhag ("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

5225-636: The Talmud Yerushalmi and the Talmud Bavli, and in variances of medieval manuscripts and early editions of the Mishnah. The best known examples of these differences is found in J.N.Epstein's Introduction to the Text of the Mishnah (1948). Epstein has also concluded that the period of the Amoraim was one of further deliberate changes to the text of the Mishnah, which he views as attempts to return

5320-478: 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. In the late 18th century, there were several attempts to recompile

5415-420: The Talmud. Additionally, many recent publishers have reformatted this work with the intent to make it more accessible to the reader. 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

5510-607: The Vilna edition, the text cited line by line in the Gemara often preserves important variants, which sometimes reflect the readings of older manuscripts. The nearest approach to a critical edition is that of Hanoch Albeck . There is also an edition by Yosef Qafiḥ of the Mishnah together with the commentary of Maimonides , which compares the base text used by Maimonides with the Napoli and Vilna editions and other sources. The Mishnah

5605-531: 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 . The Mishna Berura ,

5700-435: The accepted law. There are also references to the "Mishnah of Rabbi Akiva ", suggesting a still earlier collection; on the other hand, these references may simply mean his teachings in general. Another possibility is that Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Meir established the divisions and order of subjects in the Mishnah, making them the authors of a school curriculum rather than of a book. Authorities are divided on whether Rabbi Judah

5795-477: The arbitrary selection of the three authorities upon whose opinions Karo based his work. 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

SECTION 60

#1732772732287

5890-470: The basis of the Sephardic tradition for recitation. As well as being printed on its own, the Mishnah is included in all editions of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds. Each paragraph is printed on its own, and followed by the relevant Gemara discussion. However, that discussion itself often cites the Mishnah line by line. While the text printed in paragraph form has generally been standardized to follow

5985-626: The beginning of the 3rd century CE. Modern authors who have provided examples of these changes include J.N. Epstein and S. Friedman. Following Judah the Prince's redaction there remained a number of different versions of the Mishnah in circulation. The Mishnah used in the Babylonian rabbinic community differing markedly from that used in the Palestinian one. Indeed within these rabbinic communities themselves there are indications of different versions being used for study. These differences are shown in divergent citations of individual Mishnah passages in

6080-449: 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", 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

6175-532: The binding Jewish legal code. 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, [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

6270-407: 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

6365-416: The codification of the Oral Torah in the Mishnah and Talmud and subsequent works of mainstream Rabbinic Judaism which maintain that the Talmud is an authoritative interpretation of the Torah . Karaites maintain that all of the divine commandments handed down to Moses by God were recorded in the written Torah without additional Oral Law or explanation. As a result, Karaite Jews do not accept as binding

6460-505: 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. Several reasons induced Karo to connect his work with the "Tur" , instead of Maimonides' code. The "Rema" ( Moses Isserles ) started writing his commentary on

6555-541: 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

6650-435: The exception of Zeraim), tractates are arranged from biggest (in number of chapters) to smallest. The Babylonian Talmud ( Hagiga 14a ) states that there were either six hundred or seven hundred orders of the Mishnah. The Mishnah was divided into six thematic sections by its author, Judah HaNasi. There is also a tradition that Ezra the scribe dictated from memory not only the 24 books of the Tanakh but 60 esoteric books. It

6745-410: 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

6840-433: The first and second centuries CE. Judah ha-Nasi is credited with the final redaction and publication of the Mishnah, although there have been a few additions since his time: those passages that cite him or his grandson ( Judah II ), and the end of tractate Sotah (which refers to the period after Judah's death). In addition to redacting the Mishnah, Judah and his court also ruled on which opinions should be followed, although

6935-628: The halachic rulings of Moses Isserles , whose glosses to the Shulchan Aruch note where the Sephardic and Ashkenazi customs differ. These glosses are widely 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, and the term "Shulchan Aruch" has come to denote both Karo's work as well as Isserles', with Karo usually referred to as "the Mekhaber " ( Hebrew : הַמְחַבֵּר , "author") and Isserles as "the Rema" (an acronym of Moshe Isserles). Due to

7030-552: The increased availability of the printing press , the 16th century was an era of legal codification in Poland , the Ottoman Empire and other countries. Previously unwritten laws and customs were being compiled and recorded; the Shulchan Aruch was 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

7125-895: The late 19th century Vilna edition, which is the basis of the editions now used by the religious public. Vocalized editions were published in Italy, culminating in the edition of David ben Solomon Altaras , publ. Venice 1737. The Altaras edition was republished in Mantua in 1777, in Pisa in 1797 and 1810 and in Livorno in many editions from 1823 until 1936: reprints of the vocalized Livorno editions were published in Israel in 1913, 1962, 1968 and 1976. These editions show some textual variants by bracketing doubtful words and passages, though they do not attempt detailed textual criticism. The Livorno editions are

7220-446: The later authorities ( acharonim ) include but are not limited to: 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

7315-458: The later commentaries of Moses Isserles and the 17th century Polish rabbis. The Shulhan Arukh (and its forerunner, the Beit Yosef ) follow the same structure as Arba'ah Turim by Jacob ben Asher . There are four volumes, each subdivided into many chapters and paragraphs: In the aside page, Karo's and Isserles' combined text is in the center of the page, top; since the 17th century,

7410-503: The main work of halakha by Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan (the " Chafetz Chaim ") is a collation of the opinions of later authorities on the Orach Chayim section of the Shulchan Aruch . Aruch HaShulchan , by Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein , is a more analytical work attempting the same task from a different angle, and covering all sections of the Shulchan Aruch . The former, though narrower in scope, enjoys much wider popularity and

7505-522: The major halakhic opinions into a simpler, more accessible form. 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

7600-461: 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 the Rosh or 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

7695-520: 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 of Nahmanides and Shlomo ibn Aderet ("the Rashba"), thus indirectly reflecting Ashkenazi opinions, even against

7790-484: The points of view of many different people. Yet, sketchy biographies of the Mishnaic sages can often be constructed with historical detail from Talmudic and Midrashic sources. According to the Encyclopaedia Judaica (Second Edition), it is accepted that Judah the Prince added, deleted, and rewrote his source material during the process of redacting the Mishnah between the ending of the second century and

7885-517: 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: 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

7980-417: The rulings do not always appear in the text. Most of the Mishnah is related without attribution ( stam ). This usually indicates that many sages taught so, or that Judah the Prince ruled so. The halakhic ruling usually follows that view. Sometimes, however, it appears to be the opinion of a single sage, and the view of the sages collectively ( Hebrew : חכמים , hachamim ) is given separately. As Judah

8075-631: The rulings of the Shulchan Aruch upon those communities following Rambam , Karo wrote: Who is he whose heart conspires to approach forcing congregations who practice according to the RaMBaM of blessed memory, to go by any one of the early or latter-day Torah authorities?! ... Is it not a case of a fortiori , that regarding the School of Shammai —that the halakhah does not go according to them—they [the Talmudic Sages] said 'if [one practices] like

8170-697: The text to what was regarded as its original form. These lessened over time, as the text of the Mishnah became more and more regarded as authoritative. Many modern historical scholars have focused on the timing and the formation of the Mishnah. A vital question is whether it is composed of sources which date from its editor's lifetime, and to what extent is it composed of earlier, or later sources. Are Mishnaic disputes distinguishable along theological or communal lines, and in what ways do different sections derive from different schools of thought within early Judaism? Can these early sources be identified, and if so, how? In response to these questions, modern scholars have adopted

8265-472: The underlying conclusions of the text to suit the redactor's opinion, adding bridging elements to integrate disparate stories, or the redactor may add a frame story , such as the tale of Scheherazade which frames the collection of folk tales in The Book of One Thousand and One Nights . Sometimes the source texts are interlaced, particularly when discussing closely related details, things, or people. This

8360-546: 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

8455-544: 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

8550-479: The works of Yaakov Moelin , Israel Isserlein and Israel Bruna , together with the Franco-German Tosafists ) as criteria of opinion. While the Rosh on 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

8645-567: The written collections of the oral tradition in the Midrash or Talmud. The Karaites comprised a significant portion of the world Jewish population in the 10th and 11th centuries CE, and remain extant, although they currently number in the thousands. The rabbis who contributed to the Mishnah are known as the Tannaim , of whom approximately 120 are known. The period during which the Mishnah was assembled spanned about 130 years, or five generations, in

8740-655: Was against Roman law, Judah would not have discussed this. David Zvi Hoffmann suggests that there existed ancient texts analogous to the present-day Shulchan Aruch that discussed the basic laws of day to day living and it was therefore not necessary to focus on these laws in the Mishnah. Rabbinic commentary, debate and analysis on the Mishnah from the next four centuries, done in the Land of Israel and in Babylonia , were eventually redacted and compiled as well. In themselves they are known as Gemara . The books which set out

8835-479: Was and still is traditionally studied through recitation (out loud). Jewish communities around the world preserved local melodies for chanting the Mishnah, and distinctive ways of pronouncing its words. Many medieval manuscripts of the Mishnah are vowelized, and some of these, especially some fragments found in the Genizah , are partially annotated with Tiberian cantillation marks. Today, many communities have

8930-504: Was felt that the details of the oral traditions of the Pharisees from the Second Temple period (530s BCE / 3230s AM – 70 CE/ 3830 AM) would be forgotten, so the justification was found to have these oral laws transcribed. Over time, different traditions of the Oral Law came into being, raising problems of interpretation. According to the Mevo Hatalmud , many rulings were given in a specific context but would be taken out of it, or

9025-512: Was written in Judeo-Arabic and thus inaccessible to many Jewish communities. Dedicated Mishnah study grew vastly in popularity beginning in the late 16th century, due to the kabbalistic emphasis on Mishnah study and as a reaction against the methods of pilpul ; it was aided by the spread of Bertinoro's accessible Hebrew Mishnah commentary around this time. Commentaries by Rishonim : Literary redaction In literature , redaction

#286713