Editing Shulchan Aruch (section)

===Criticism by Karo's contemporaries===

Following its initial appearance, many rabbis criticised the appearance of this latest code of Jewish law, echoing similar criticisms of [[Halakha#Codes of Jewish law|previous codes of law]].

====Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel====

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

{{quote|To decide ''halakhic'' questions from the codes without knowing the source of the ruling was not the intent of these authors. Had they known that their works would lead to the abandonment of [[Talmud]], they would not have written them. It is better for one to decide on the basis of the Talmud even though he might err, for a scholar must depend solely on his understanding. As such, he is beloved of God, and preferable to the one who rules from a code but does not know the reason for the ruling; such a one walks like a blind person.<ref>Netivoth Olam-Netiv HaTorah (end of chapter 15)</ref>}}

====Rabbi Shmuel Eidels====
[[Samuel Eidels]] (known as the "Maharsha", 1555–1631), criticized those who rule directly from the ''Shulchan Aruch'' without being fully conversant with the Talmudic source(s) of the ruling: "In these generations, those who rule from the ''Shulchan Aruch'' without knowing the reasoning and Talmudic basis ... are among the 'destroyers of the world' and should be protested."<ref>''Chiddushei Aggados'', Maharsha, Sota 22a</ref>

====Rabbi Yoel Sirkis====
Another prominent critic of the ''Shulchan Aruch'' was [[Joel Sirkis]] (1561–1640), rabbi and author of a commentary to the ''[[Arba'ah Turim]]'' entitled the "New House" ({{lang|he|בית חדש}}, commonly abbreviated as the ''Bach'' {{lang|he|ב״ח}}), and [[Meir Lublin]], author of the commentary on the Bach entitled the ''Shut HaBach'' ({{lang|he|שו״ת הב״ח}}): {{quote|It is impossible to rule (in most cases) based on 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.<ref>''Shut HaBach, 80'', Sirkis, and ''Shu"t HaBach Hachadashot, 42''</ref>}}

====Other criticisms====
The strongest criticism against all such codes of Jewish law is the contention that they inherently violate the principle that halakha must be decided according to the ''later'' sages; this principle is commonly known as ''hilkheta ke-vatra'ei'' ("the ''halakha'' follows the later ones").

A modern commentator, [[Menachem Elon]] explains:
{{quote|This rule dates from the ''[[Geonim|Geonic]]'' period. It laid down the law and states that "until the time of Rabbis [[Abaye|Abbaye]] and [[Rava (amora)|Rava]] (4th century) the Halakha was to be decided according to the views of the earlier scholars, but from that time onward, the halakhic opinions of post-talmudic scholars would prevail over the contrary opinions of a previous generation" (see ''Piskei Ha'Rosh'', Bava Metzia 3:10, 4:21, Shabbat 23:1 and also the Rif writing at the end of Eruvin Ch.2.)}}

{{quote|If one does not find their statements correct and is able to maintain his own views with evidence that is acceptable to his contemporaries...he may contradict the earlier statements, since all matters that are not clarified in the Babylonian Talmud may be questioned and restated by any person, and even the statements of the [[Geonim]] may be differed from him ... just as the statements of the [[Amoraim]] differed from the earlier ones. On the contrary, we regard the statements of later scholars to be more authoritative because they knew the reasoning of the earlier scholars as well as their own, and took it into consideration in making their decision (''Piskei Ha'Rosh'', Sanhedrin 4:6, responsa of the [[Asher ben Jehiel|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 the fact that the criticism by ibn Daud undermined confidence in Maimonides' work, while Isserles (who corresponded with Karo) does not simply criticize, but supplements Karo's work extensively. The result was that Ashkenazim accepted the ''Shulchan Aruch'', assuming that together with Isserles' glosses it was a reliable authority. This then became broadly accepted among Jewish communities around the world as the binding Jewish legal code.<ref>Tzemach Tzedek, responsa, ch.9</ref>