Misplaced Pages

#524475

133-542: The halachic rulings in the Shulchan Aruch generally follow Sephardic law and customs , whereas Ashkenazi Jews generally follow 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

266-430: A classic work on penitence (titled Shaarei Teshuva , "The Gates of Repentance") during his soul-searching. Thus the work of Maimonides, notwithstanding the sharp attacks upon it, soon won general recognition as an authority of the first importance for ritual decisions. According to several authorities, a decision may not be rendered in opposition to a view of Maimonides, even though the latter apparently militated against

399-462: 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

532-697: A cousin of Nachmanides (Ramban) who was initially a member of the vocal opponents of the "Yad". He was involved in the burning of a number of copies of the Sefer ha-Madda in the 1240s. Regret followed, when he saw the Talmud being burnt in Paris in 1244, which he interpreted as a sign from Heaven that he had been mistaken. He set out to the Land of Israel , to ask forgiveness on Maimonides' grave in presence of ten witnesses, but failed to continue to his destination. He composed

665-511: A decision may not be rendered in opposition to a view of Maimonides, even where he apparently militated against the sense of a Talmudic passage, for in such cases the presumption was that the words of the Talmud were incorrectly interpreted. Likewise: "One must follow Maimonides, even when the latter opposed his teachers, since he surely knew their views, and if he decided against them, he must have disapproved their interpretation." The Mishneh Torah

798-709: A distinction was established between the Babylonian ritual and that used in Palestine , as these were the two main centres of religious authority: there is no complete text of the Palestinian rite, though some fragments have been found in the Cairo Genizah . Most scholars maintain that Sephardic Jews are inheritors of the religious traditions of the great Babylonian Jewish academies , and that Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of those who originally followed

931-494: A doubt – except for those who seek something to be involved with all their lives, even though it doesn't achieve a purpose. Maimonides defended himself. He had not composed this work for glory; he desired only to supply the necessary, but lacking, code, for there was danger lest pupils, weary of the difficult study, might go astray in decisions of practical importance. He noted that it had never been his intention to abolish Talmudic studies altogether, nor had he ever said that there

1064-454: A process lasting from the 16th through the 19th century, the native Jewish communities of most Arab and Ottoman countries adapted their pre-existing liturgies, many of which already had a family resemblance with the Sephardic, to follow the Spanish rite in as many respects as possible. Some reasons for this are: The most important theological, as opposed to practical, motive for harmonization

1197-420: A question of Jewish law. See Yeshiva § Talmud study ; Yeshiva § Jewish law ; Halakha § Codes of Jewish law . Prominent recent authorities who have written commentaries on the work include Rabbis Meir Simcha of Dvinsk ( Ohr Somayach ), Chaim Soloveitchik ( Chiddushei Rabbeinu Chaim ), Yitzchok Isaac Krasilschikov ( Tevunah ), Isser Zalman Meltzer ( Even HaEzel ), and, more recently,

1330-416: 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

1463-793: A rule of the Oriental Jews to follow the latter, although the European Jews, especially the Ashkenazim, preferred the opinions of the Rosh in such cases. But the hope which Maimonides expressed, that in time to come his work and his alone would be accepted, has been only half fulfilled. His Mishneh Torah is indeed still very popular, but there has been no cessation in the study of other works. Ironically, while Maimonides refrained from citing sources out of concern for brevity (or perhaps because he designed his work to be used without studying

SECTION 10

#1732772825525

1596-489: Is a regulation of the Geonim", while the opinions of Isaac Alfasi and Alfasi's pupil Joseph ibn Migash are prefaced by the words "my teachers have decided" (although there is no direct source confirming ibn Migash as Maimonides' teacher). According to Maimonides, the Geonim were considered "unintelligible in our days, and there are but few who are able to comprehend them". There were even times when Maimonides disagreed with what

1729-568: Is also a daily study program known as the Halacha Yomit . Sephardic law and customs Sephardic law and customs are the law and customs of Judaism which are practiced by Sephardim or Sephardic Jews ( lit. "Jews of Spain"); the descendants of the historic Jewish community of the Iberian Peninsula, what is now Spain and Portugal . Many definitions of "Sephardic" also include Mizrahi Jews , most of whom follow

1862-634: Is an appellation originally used for the Biblical book of Deuteronomy , and its moniker, "Book of the Strong Hand", derives from its subdivision into fourteen books: the numerical value fourteen, when represented as the Hebrew letters Yodh (10) and Dalet (4), forms the word yad ('hand'). Maimonides intended to provide a complete statement of the Oral Law , so that a person who mastered first

1995-624: Is basically similar to that of the Sephardim. There are of course customs peculiar to particular countries or communities within the Sephardic world, such as Syria and Morocco . An important body of customs grew up in the Kabbalistic circle of Isaac Luria and his followers in Safed , and many of these have spread to communities throughout the Sephardi world: this is discussed further in

2128-463: 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

2261-650: Is founder of 'Halikhoth Ahm Yisroel' and Makhon Mishnath haRambam, and head of the marriage department of the Rabbinate of Israel, as well as chief rabbi of city of Kiryat Ono in Israel. Arusi and the organization Makhon Mishnath haRambam have published several books filled with commentary on various parts and aspects of the Mishneh Torah as well as topics related to the Yemenite Jewish community. Besides

2394-590: Is likely to have belonged to a Palestinian-influenced European family, together with the Italian and Provençal , and more remotely the Old French and Ashkenazi rites, but as no liturgical materials from the Visigothic era survive we cannot know for certain. From references in later treatises such as the Sefer ha-Manhig by Rabbi Abraham ben Nathan ha-Yarḥi (c. 1204), it appears that even at that later time

2527-400: 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

2660-558: 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… The in-depth study of Mishneh Torah underwent a revival in Lithuanian Judaism in the late 19th century. The Lithuanians did not use it as a source book on practical halakha , as they followed the Ashkenazi authorities such as Moses Isserles and

2793-536: Is what is currently known as Minhag Edot ha-Mizraḥ (the custom of the Oriental congregations). Other authorities, especially older rabbis from North Africa, reject these in favour of a more conservative Oriental-Sephardic text as found in the 19th century Livorno editions; and the Shami Yemenite and Syrian rites belong to this group. Others again, following R. Ovadia Yosef , prefer a form shorn of some of

SECTION 20

#1732772825525

2926-464: The Aruch ha-Shulchan . Instead, they used it as a guide to Talmudic interpretation and methodology. Given the fact that the Mishneh Torah entirely omits these topics, this reading seems paradoxical and against the grain. Their method was to compare the Talmudic source material with Maimonides' final decision, in order to reconstruct the rules of interpretation that must have been used to get from one to

3059-675: 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

3192-663: 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 . 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

3325-580: 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

3458-687: The Bet El yeshivah . These rulings and observations form the basis of the Baghdadi rite: both the text of the prayers and the accompanying usages differ in some respects from those of the Livorno editions. The rulings of the Ben Ish Ḥai have been accepted in several other Sephardic and Oriental communities, such as that of Jerba . In the Sephardic world today, particularly in Israel, there are many popular prayer-books containing this Baghdadi rite, and this

3591-514: 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

3724-502: The Land of Israel .) Following the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, Jewish law was codified by Joseph Caro in his Bet Yosef , which took the form of a commentary on the Arba'ah Turim, and Shulḥan Aruch , which presented the same results in the form of a practical abridgement. He consulted most of the authorities available to him, but generally arrived at a practical decision by following

3857-583: The Liturgy section below. In some cases they are accepted by Greek and Turkish Sephardim and Mizrahi Jews but not by Western communities such as the Spanish and Portuguese Jews . These are customs in the true sense: in the list of usages below they are distinguished by an L sign. For the outline and early history of the Jewish liturgy, see the articles on Siddur and Jewish services . At an early stage,

3990-679: The Lubavitcher Rebbe , Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson ( Hadran al HaRambam ), Elazar Shach ( Avi Ezri ), Nahum Rabinovitch ( Yad Peshuta ), and Rabbi Yosef Kapach . See also: List of commentaries on Mishneh Torah Many scholarly speeches (e. g., the traditional Rabbi's speech on the Shabbat preceding Pesach and Yom Kippur ) often revolve around a reconciliation between two passages in Maimonides' work. Rav Soloveitchik's work Al haTeshuvah discussing repentance in

4123-603: The Mishneh Torah as their choice code of Jewish law by which to live. They may consider it a return to the original ways of their ancestors. One individual who contributed to this phenomenon was Rabbi Yiḥyah Qafiḥ , the founder of the Dor Daim movement in Yemen. The Mishneh Torah had always been a leading authority in the Baladi (local, traditionalist) Yemenite community – as a matter of local custom. Scholarly work in this vein

Shulchan Aruch - Misplaced Pages Continue

4256-553: The Mishneh Torah is well known in itself as a defense for the keeping of halakha according to the Mishneh Torah . During his lifetime, Yosef Qafiḥ was a leading figure in the Baladi Yemenite community as a whole, as well as the Dor Daim or strict "Rambamists". After Qafiḥ died, Rabbi Rasson Arusi has largely filled his place as the leading public representative of the Baladi and Rambamist communities. Rabbi Rasson Arusi

4389-710: The Mishneh Torah was made in 1832 by Herman Hedwig Bernard , professor of Hebrew at Cambridge University. Bernard's work is titled The Main Principles of the Creed and Ethics of the Jews Exhibited in Selections from the Yad Hachazakah of Maimonides, with A Literal English Translation, Copious Illustrations from the Talmud, &c. . Bernard's work includes a glossary of words and concepts which appear in

4522-551: 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

4655-758: The Sassanian period and was the product of a number of colleges in Babylonia. The two principal colleges, Sura and Pumbedita , survived well into the Islamic period. Their presidents, known as Geonim , together with the Exilarch , were recognised by the Abbasid Caliphs as the supreme authority over the Jews of the Arab world. The Gaonim provided written answers to questions on Jewish law from around

4788-498: 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

4921-682: 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 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;

5054-556: 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 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

5187-425: 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

5320-679: 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

5453-482: 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

Shulchan Aruch - Misplaced Pages Continue

5586-627: The Tosefta and the Jerusalem Talmud as against the Babylonian Talmud. Especially sharp was the blame heaped upon Maimonides because he neglected to cite his sources; this was considered an evidence of his superciliousness, since it made it difficult, if not absolutely impossible, for scholars to verify his statements, and compelled them to follow his decisions absolutely. Yet, despite all this, Maimonides remained certain that in

5719-510: The Written Torah and then the Mishneh Torah would be in no need of any other book. Contemporary reaction was mixed, with a strong and immediate opposition which focused on the absence of sources and the belief that the work appeared to be intended to supersede study of the Talmud . Maimonides responded to these criticisms, and the Mishneh Torah endures as an influential work in Jewish religious thought. According to several authorities,

5852-417: 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

5985-416: The "Mishne Torah" which were solved in many creative and different ways by the scholars throughout the generations; many of these questions don't arise in the first place if the version is corrected based upon reliable manuscripts. In order to determine the exact version, scholars use reliable early manuscripts (some of them containing Maimonides' own signature), which are free of both Christian censorship and

6118-641: 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

6251-516: The 18th century Ḥemdat Yamim (anonymous, but sometimes attributed to Nathan of Gaza ). The most elaborate version of these is contained in the Siddur published by the 18th century Yemenite Kabbalist Shalom Sharabi for the use of the Bet El yeshivah in Jerusalem: this contains only a few lines of text on each page, the rest being filled with intricate meditations on the letter combinations in

6384-700: The Ashkenazic world, which adopted the Lurianic-Sephardic ritual, on the theory of the thirteenth gate mentioned above. This accounts for the " Nusach Sefard " and " Nusach Ari " in use among the Hasidim , which is based on the Lurianic-Sephardic text with some Ashkenazi variations. From the 1840s on a series of prayer-books was published in Livorno , including Tefillat ha-Ḥodesh , Bet Obed and Zechor le-Abraham . These included notes on practice and

6517-445: The Israeli Chabad and Religious Zionist communities. Adin Steinsaltz produced a similarly positioned commentary, published by Koren in 2017. As for halakha l'maaseh (practical application of Jewish law), although the majority of Jews keep Jewish law according to various other Rabbinic codes organized around the Shulchan Aruch , an increasing number of Yemenite Jews , as well as various other individuals, are being attracted to

6650-417: The Judaean or Galilaean Jewish religious traditions. Others, such as Moses Gaster , maintain precisely the opposite. To put the matter into perspective it must be emphasized that all Jewish liturgies in use in the world today are in substance Babylonian, with a small number of Palestinian usages surviving the process of standardization: in a list of differences preserved from the time of the Geonim , most of

6783-408: The Judaeo-Spanish communities of the Balkans, Greece and Turkey, and therefore had rubrics in Ladino , but also had a wider distribution. An important influence on Sephardic prayer and custom was the late 19th century Baghdadi rabbi known as the Ben Ish Ḥai , whose work of that name contained both halachic rulings and observations on Kabbalistic custom based on his correspondence with Eliyahu Mani of

SECTION 50

#1732772825525

6916-489: The Kabbalistic additions and nearer to what would have been known to R. Joseph Caro, and seek to establish this as the standard "Israeli Sephardi" rite for use by all communities. The liturgy of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews differs from all these (more than the Eastern groups differ from each other), as it represents an older form of the text, has far fewer Kabbalistic additions and reflects some Italian influence. The differences between all these groups, however, exist at

7049-425: The Kabbalistic additions to the prayers, but not the meditations of Shalom Sharabi , as the books were designed for public congregational use. They quickly became standard in almost all Sephardic and Oriental communities, with any local variations being preserved only by oral tradition. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, many more Sephardic prayer books were published in Vienna . These were primarily aimed at

7182-547: The Maimonidean leanings of the kehillah contradict the historical evidence that has the Jews arriving in Kaifeng no later than 1126, the year in which the Sung fled the city --and nine years before Maimonides was born. In 1163, when the kehillah built the first of its synagogues, Maimonides was only twenty-eight years old, so that it is highly unlikely that even his earliest authoritative teachings could by then have reached China [...] The compliance of their descendants with certain uniquely Maimonidean interpretations implies that

7315-455: The Mishnah , he refrained from detailing his sources, considering it sufficient to name his sources in the preface. He drew upon the Torah and the rest of Tanakh , both Talmuds , Tosefta , and the halachic Midrashim , principally Sifra and Sifre . Later sources include the responsa ( teshuvot ) of the Geonim . The maxims and decisions of the Geonim are frequently presented with the introductory phrase "The Geonim have decided" or "There

7448-464: 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

7581-437: The Raavad, and to trace Maimonides' sources to the text of the Talmud , Midrash and Geonim . Later codes of Jewish law, such as Arba'ah Turim by Rabbi Jacob ben Asher and Shulchan Aruch by Rabbi Yosef Karo , draw heavily on Maimonides' work, and in both, whole sections are often quoted verbatim. Also there were many attempts down to the present time to force those who follow the rulings of Maimonides to change to

7714-465: 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

7847-465: 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

7980-447: 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

8113-404: The Sephardic practice set out in the Shulḥan Aruch represents standard Jewish law while the Ashkenazi practice is essentially a local custom. So far, then, it is meaningless to speak of "Sephardic custom": all that is meant is Jewish law without the particular customs of the Ashkenazim. For this reason, the law accepted by other non-Ashkenazi communities, such as the Italian and Yemenite Jews ,

SECTION 60

#1732772825525

8246-490: The Sephardim took their liturgy with them to countries throughout the Arab and Ottoman world, where they soon assumed positions of rabbinic and communal leadership. They formed their own communities, often maintaining differences based on their places of origin in the Iberian peninsula. In Salonica , for instance, there were more than twenty synagogues, each using the rite of a different locality in Spain or Portugal (as well as one Romaniot and one Ashkenazi synagogue). In

8379-460: The Shulchan Aruch or some other latter work of Minhag/Halakha. In response to this 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

8512-402: The Spanish rite preserved certain European peculiarities that have since been eliminated in order to conform to the rulings of the Geonim and the official texts based on them. (Conversely the surviving versions of those texts, in particular that of Amram Gaon, appear to have been edited to reflect some Spanish and other local usages.) The present Sephardic liturgy should therefore be regarded as

8645-546: The Talmud in a way consistent with these customs. A theory grew up that custom trumps law (see Minhag ): this had some Talmudic support, but was not nearly so prominent in Arabic countries as it was in Europe. Special books on Ashkenazic custom were written, for example by Yaakov Moelin . Further instances of Ashkenazic custom were contributed by the penitential manual of Eleazar of Worms and some additional stringencies on sheḥitah (the slaughter of animals) formulated in Jacob Weil 's Sefer Sheḥitot u-Bediqot . The learning of

8778-464: The Talmud or other sources first), the result has often been the opposite of what he intended. Various commentaries have been written which seek to supply the lacking source documentation, and, indeed, today, the Mishneh Torah is sometimes used as a sort of an index to aid in locating Talmudic passages. In cases where Maimonides' sources, or interpretation thereof, is questionable, the lack of clarity has at times led to lengthy analyses and debates – quite

8911-419: The Talmud than what most people possessed at his time. The latter has been confirmed to a certain extent by versions of the Talmud preserved by the Yemenite Jews as to the reason for what previously were thought to be rulings without any source. The Mishneh Torah is written in Hebrew , as the Mishnah had been. As he states in the preface, Maimonides was reluctant to write in Talmudic Aramaic , since it

9044-419: 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

9177-506: The Talmud. Over time many textual errors and distortions have appeared in the various editions of Maimonides' Mishneh Torah . These inaccuracies are in the text of rulings, in the drawings made by Maimonides, as well as in the division (and thus the numbering) of rulings. There are various reasons for these inaccuracies. Some are due to errors in the copying of manuscripts (before the age of printing) or mistakes by typesetters of later editions. Others are due to conscious attempts to "correct"

9310-442: The Torah'), also known as Sefer Yad ha-Hazaka ( ספר יד החזקה , 'book of the strong hand'), is a code of Rabbinic Jewish religious law ( halakha ) authored by Maimonides (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon/Rambam). The Mishneh Torah was compiled between 1170 and 1180 CE (4930 and 4940 AM ), while Maimonides was living in Egypt , and is regarded as Maimonides' magnum opus . Accordingly, later sources simply refer to

9443-517: The Tosafists, but not the literature on Ashkenazic customs as such, was imported into Spain by Asher ben Yeḥiel , a German-born scholar who became chief rabbi of Toledo and the author of the Hilchot ha-Rosh - an elaborate Talmudic commentary, which became the third of the great Spanish authorities after Alfasi and Maimonides. A more popular résumé, known as the Arba'ah Turim , was written by his son, Jacob ben Asher , though he did not agree with his father on all points. The Tosafot were also used by

9576-508: The Venice edition of the Spanish and Portuguese prayer book. The theory then grew up that this composite Sephardic rite was of special spiritual potency and reached a "thirteenth gate" in Heaven for those who did not know their tribe: prayer in this form could therefore be offered in complete confidence by everyone. Further Kabbalistic embellishments were recorded in later rabbinic works such as

9709-531: 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 ,

9842-418: The absence of sources and the belief that the work appeared to be intended to supersede study of the Talmud . Some criticisms appear to have been less rational in nature. Indeed, Maimonides quotes the Talmud in stating that one should study the Talmud for a third of one's study time. The most sincere but influential opponent, whose comments are printed parallel to virtually all editions of the Mishneh Torah ,

9975-476: 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

10108-432: The aside page, Karo's and Isserles' combined text is in the center of the page, top; since the 17th century, 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

10241-512: 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

10374-530: 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

10507-653: The changes of later readers who tried to "correct" the text on their own, without manuscript evidence. Since the middle of the 20th century there have been five scientific printings of the book: Mishneh Torah itself has been the subject of a number of commentaries, the most notable being Magid Mishné by Vidal de Toulouse , Migdal Oz by Shem Tov ben Abraham ibn Gaon Kesef Mishné by Yosef Karo , Mishné la-Melech by Judah Rosanes , Lechem Mishné by Abraham de Boton , Rabbi David ben Zimra (Radbaz) and Haggahot Maimuniyyot by Meir HaKohen (which details Ashkenazi customs). Most commentators aim to resolve criticisms of

10640-588: The channels of communication between the kehillah and extra-Chinese Jewish centers were still open several generations after its establishment. The work was being used by the Jews of India during Maimonides' lifetime. In response to a letter from the Rabbis of Lunel , France requesting him to translate his Guide of the Perplexed from Arabic to Hebrew, Maimonides applauded their piety in light of what he viewed as

10773-407: 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

10906-505: 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

11039-647: 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

11172-571: The early Song dynasty . Beyond scriptural similarities, Michael Pollak comments the Jews' Pentateuch was divided into 53 sections according to the Persian style. He also points out: There is no proof, to be sure, that Kaifeng Jewry ever had direct access to the works of "the Great Eagle", but it would have had ample time and opportunity to acquire or become acquainted with them well before its reservoir of Jewish learning began to run out. Nor do

11305-410: 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

11438-567: The families that left Spain during the Expulsion of 1492 and those families that remained in Spain as crypto-Jews , fleeing in the following few centuries. In religious parlance as well as in modern Israel , the term is broadly used in reference to all Jews who have Ottoman or other Asian or North African backgrounds, whether or not they have any historic link to Spain, but some prefer to distinguish Sephardim proper from Mizraḥi Jews. For

11571-614: The form of a letter sent from Safed , Israel, to Italy in 1535. In it, David del Rossi claimed that a Tripolitan Jewish merchant had told him the India town of Shingly ( Cranganore ) had a large Jewish population who dabbled in yearly pepper trade with the Portuguese. As far as their religious life, he wrote they: "only recognize the Code of Maimonides and possessed no other authority or Traditional law." The first known English translation of

11704-625: The form of an edited and abridged Talmud. This in turn formed the basis for the Mishneh Torah of Maimonides . A feature of these early Tunisian and Spanish schools was a willingness to make use of the Jerusalem Talmud as well as the Babylonian. Developments in France and Germany were somewhat different. They too respected the rulings of the Gaonim , but also had strong local customs of their own. The Tosafists did their best to explain

11837-494: The future the Mishneh Torah would find great influence and acceptance. This is boldly expressed in a letter to his student Rabbi Yoseph ben ha-rav Yehudah : And all that I've described to you regarding those who won't accept it [the Mishneh Torah ] properly, that is uniquely in my generation. However, in future generations, when jealousy and the lust for power will disappear, all of Israel will subsist [lit. "we be satiated"] on it alone, and will abandon all else besides it without

11970-436: The general stagnation of religiosity throughout the rest of the Jewish world. However, he commented: "Only lately some well-to-do men came forward and purchased three copies of my code [the Mishneh Torah ] which they distributed through messengers... Thus, the horizon of these Jews was widened, and the religious life in all communities as far as India revived." Further support for the Mishneh Torah circulating in India comes in

12103-446: 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

12236-403: The level of detailed wording, for example the insertion or omission of a few extra passages: structurally, all Sephardic rites are very similar. Yamim Noraim Hanukkah Passover Counting of the `Omer period See List of Sephardic prayer books . Mishneh Torah The Mishneh Torah ( Hebrew : מִשְׁנֵה תוֹרָה , lit.   'repetition of

12369-465: The light of Rambam's work, is widely studied and referenced (in Modern Orthodox communities) in the days leading up to Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur . Today, thousands of Orthodox Jews , particularly Chabad Hasidim , participate in one of the annual study cycles of Mishneh Torah (one or three chapters a day), innovated by the Lubavitcher Rebbe , Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson , in

12502-577: The liturgies of different parts of the Iberian peninsula: for example the Lisbon and Catalan rites were somewhat different from the Castilian rite, which formed the basis of the later Sephardic tradition. The Catalan rite was intermediate in character between the Castilian rite and that of Provence : Haham Gaster classified the rites of Oran and Tunis in this group. After the expulsion from Spain,

12635-503: 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

12768-522: 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

12901-455: The majority among the three great Spanish authorities, Alfasi, Maimonides and Asher ben Yeḥiel, unless most of the other authorities were against them. He did not consciously intend to exclude non-Sephardi authorities, but considered that the Ashkenazi school, so far as it had anything to contribute on general Jewish law as opposed to purely Ashkenazi custom, was adequately represented by Asher. However, since Alfasi and Maimonides generally agree,

13034-464: The merits of the Shulḥan Aruch, felt that it did not do justice to Ashkenazi scholarship and practice. He accordingly composed a series of glosses setting out all respects in which Ashkenazi practice differs, and the composite work is today accepted as the leading work on Ashkenazi halachah. Isserles felt free to differ from Caro on particular points of law, but in principle he accepted Caro's view that

13167-461: 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

13300-406: 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

13433-519: 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

13566-471: The opposite of the brevity he sought to attain. On the other hand, this only became an issue for students and scholars who studied the Mishneh Torah' s sources. According to Maimonides himself, deducing law from the sources had already become a precarious proposition (for a number of reasons) – even in his own times. This necessarily relates to different subjects – like the influence of the exile, language skills, lack of time, censorship, and alternate versions of

13699-549: The other. It thus remains an integral part of the Yeshiva curriculum. As regards Talmud study, it is one of the primary works referenced in analyzing the Talmudic text from a legal point of view, as mentioned. It is also a primary text referenced in understanding the Halakha as presented in the Arba'ah Turim and Shulchan Aruch ; and Mishneh Torah is thus one of the first post-Talmudic sources consulted when investigating

13832-504: The overall result was overwhelmingly Sephardi in flavour, though in a number of cases Caro set the result of this consensus aside and ruled in favour of the Catalan school ( Nahmanides and Solomon ben Adret ), some of whose opinions had Ashkenazi origins. The Bet Yosef is today accepted by Sephardim as the leading authority in Jewish law, subject to minor variants drawn from the rulings of later rabbis accepted in particular communities. The Polish rabbi Moses Isserles , while acknowledging

13965-578: The prayers. Other scholars commented on the liturgy from both a halachic and a kabbalistic perspective, including Ḥayim Azulai and Ḥayim Palaggi . The influence of the Lurianic- Sephardic rite extended even to countries outside the Ottoman sphere of influence such as Iran (Persia) . (The previous Iranian rite was based on the Siddur of Saadia Gaon . ) The main exceptions to this tendency were: There were also Kabbalistic groups in

14098-517: 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

14231-788: The product of gradual convergence between the original local rite and the North African branch of the Babylonian-Arabic family, as prevailing in Geonic times in Egypt and Morocco. Following the Reconquista , the specifically Spanish liturgy was commented on by David Abudirham (c. 1340), who was concerned to ensure conformity with the rulings of halachah , as understood by the authorities up to and including Asher ben Yehiel. Despite this convergence, there were distinctions between

14364-507: The purposes of this article, there is no need to distinguish Iberian Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews , as their religious practices are basically similar: whether or not they are "Spaniard Jews" they are all "Jews of the Spanish rite". There are three reasons for this convergence, which are explored in more detail below: Jewish law is based on the Torah , as interpreted and supplemented by the Talmud . The Babylonian Talmud in its final form dates from

14497-631: 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

14630-505: The same traditions of worship as those which are followed by Sephardic Jews. The Sephardi Rite is not a denomination nor is it a movement like Orthodox Judaism , Reform Judaism , and other Ashkenazi Rite worship traditions. Thus, Sephardim comprise a community with distinct cultural, juridical and philosophical traditions. Sephardim are, primarily, the descendants of Jews from the Iberian Peninsula . They may be divided into

14763-705: The scholars of the Catalan school, such as Nahmanides and Solomon ben Adret , who were also noted for their interest in Kabbalah . For a while, Spain was divided between the schools: in Catalonia the rulings of Nahmanides and ben Adret were accepted, in Castile those of the Asher family and in Valencia those of Maimonides. (Maimonides' rulings were also accepted in most of the Arab world, especially Yemen , Egypt and

14896-431: The sense of a Talmudic passage, for in such cases the presumption was that the words of the Talmud were incorrectly interpreted. Likewise: "One must follow Maimonides even when the latter opposed his teachers, since he surely knew their views, and if he decided against them he must have disapproved their interpretation". Even when later authorities, like Asher ben Jehiel (the Rosh ), decided against Maimonides, it became

15029-602: The spring of 1984. Parallel to the three- or one-chapter(s)-a-day cycle, there is a daily study of the Sefer Hamitzvot "Book of the Commandments", also authored by Maimonides . A popular commentary, Rambam La'Am ('Rambam for the Nation'), was produced in 1971 by Rabbi Shmuel Tanchum Rubinstein  [ he ] (published by Mossad Harav Kook ). This 20 volume set is widely used in daily Rambam study, in

15162-406: The text, and yet others to Christian censorship (in countries under its control). In addition, Maimonides himself frequently edited the text of his own autograph copy, such that manuscripts copied from his own book did not preserve his later corrections. Thus, the received version may not be the text that Maimonides intended us to read. Often the distortions in existing versions prompted questions on

15295-587: The usages recorded as Palestinian are now obsolete. (In the list of usages below , Sephardic usages inherited from Palestine are marked P , and instances where the Sephardic usage conforms to the Babylonian while the Ashkenazic usage is Palestinian are marked B .) By the 12th century, as a result of the efforts of Babylonian leaders such as Yehudai Gaon and Pirqoi ben Baboi , the communities of Palestine, and Diaspora communities such as Kairouan which had historically followed Palestinian usages, had adopted Babylonian rulings in most respects, and Babylonian authority

15428-546: 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

15561-471: The work as " Maimon ", " Maimonides ", or " RaMBaM ", although Maimonides composed other works. Mishneh Torah consists of fourteen books, subdivided into sections, chapters, and paragraphs. It is the only medieval -era work that details all of Jewish observance, including those laws that are only applicable when the Temple in Jerusalem is in existence, and remains an important work in Judaism. Its title

15694-471: The work proliferated more sophisticated printing styles became required, similar to those of 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

15827-543: 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

15960-478: 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

16093-545: The works of Qafiḥ and Arusi, there are a number of other commentaries to the Mishneh Torah written by leaders of the Yemenite Jewish community. Scholars specializing in the study of the history and subculture of Judaism in premodern China (Sino-Judaica) have noted this work has surprising similarities with the liturgy of the Kaifeng Jews , descendants of Persian merchants who settled in the Middle Kingdom during

16226-647: The world, which were published in collections of responsa and enjoyed high authority. The Gaonim also produced handbooks such as the Halachot Pesuqot by Yehudai Gaon and the Halachot Gedolot by Simeon Kayyara . The learning of the Gaonim was transmitted through the scholars of Kairouan , notably Chananel Ben Chushiel and Nissim Gaon , to Spain , where it was used by Isaac Alfasi in his Sefer ha-Halachot (code of Jewish law), which took

16359-474: Was Rabbi Abraham ben David of Posquières (Raavad III, France, 12th century). Many critics were especially bitter against the new methods which he had employed, and the very peculiarities which he had regarded as merits in his work failed to please his opponents because they were innovations. Thus they reproached him because he departed from the Talmudic order and introduced a division and arrangement of his own, and because he dared to sometimes decide according to

16492-624: Was accepted by Jews throughout the Arabic-speaking world. Early attempts at standardizing the liturgy which have been preserved include, in chronological order, those of Amram Gaon , Saadia Gaon , Shelomoh ben Natan of Sijilmasa (in Morocco) and Maimonides . All of these were based on the legal rulings of the Geonim but show a recognisable evolution towards the current Sephardi text. The liturgy in use in Visigothic Spain

16625-464: Was being taught in the name of the Geonim. A number of laws appear to have no source in any of the works mentioned; it is thought that Maimonides deduced them through independent interpretations of the Bible or that they are based on versions of previous Talmudic texts no longer in our hands. Maimonides himself states a few times in his work that he possessed what he considered to be more accurate texts of

16758-468: Was continued by his grandson, Rabbi Yosef Qafiḥ (also spelled Gafah, Qafahh or Kapach). Yosef Qafiḥ is credited with the publication of an almost encyclopedic commentary to the entire Mishneh Torah , including his own insights, set to a text of the Mishneh Torah based upon the authoritative, hand-written manuscripts preserved by the Yemenite Jewish community. The introduction to his edition of

16891-443: Was criticized for not including sources by his contemporaries. Maimonides later regretted not adding sources but ultimately did not have time to update his work. Mishneh Torah contains a widely quoted list of eight levels of charitable donation, where the first level is most preferable, and the eighth the least (see Tzedakah ). The Mishneh Torah was strongly opposed almost as soon as it appeared. Major sources of contention were

17024-468: Was forced to acknowledge that the work of Maimonides was a magnificent contribution, nor did he hesitate to praise him and approve his views in many passages, citing and commenting upon the sources. Later works (e. g., Yosef Karo 's Kesef Mishné ) set out to find sources for Maimonides' decisions, and to resolve any disputes between him and the Raavad. Special mention should be made of Yonah of Gerona ,

17157-549: Was later adapted for an Ashkenazi audience by Meir HaKohen in the form of the Haggahot Maimuniyyot . The work consists of supplemental notes to the Mishneh Torah with the objective of implanting contemporary Sephardic thought in Germany and France , while juxtaposing it to contemporary Ashkenazi halakhic customs. Maimonides sought brevity and clarity in his Mishneh Torah and, as in his Commentary on

17290-524: Was no need of the "Halakot" of Rabbi Isaac Alfasi, for he himself had lectured to his pupils on the Gemara and, at their request, upon Alfasi's work. However, he did state that for the masses, there was no need for Talmud study, as the Mishne Torah , along with the written Torah, would suffice. He also stated that in-depth study of Talmudic discussions was "a waste of time", for the sole purpose of study

17423-500: Was not widely known. His previous works had been written in Judeo-Arabic . The Mishneh Torah virtually never cites sources or arguments, and confines itself to stating the final decision on the law to be followed in each situation. There is no discussion of Talmudic interpretation or methodology, and the sequence of chapters follows the factual subject matter of the laws rather than the intellectual principle involved. Maimonides

17556-404: Was the Kabbalistic teachings of Isaac Luria and Ḥayim Vital . Luria himself always maintained that it was the duty of every Jew to abide by his ancestral tradition, so that his prayers should reach the gate in Heaven appropriate to his tribal identity. However he devised a system of usages for his own followers, which were recorded by Vital in his Sha'ar ha-Kavvanot in the form of comments on

17689-418: Was to know how to practice the law. He said that his omission of his sources was due solely to his desire for brevity, although he regretted that he had not written a supplementary work citing his authorities for those halakot whose sources were not evident from the context. He would, however, should circumstances permit, atone for this error, however toilsome it might be to write such a supplement. Raavad

#524475