This thesis is an annotated original translation of the material in the Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim on the laws concerning the Holy Day of Yom Kippur, Hilkhot Yom ha-Kippurim, found in chapters 604-24. The body of the thesis consists of three major parts. The first section is an extensive introduction which gives a synopsis of Jewish legal code literature produced from the Mishna of Judah ha-Nasi in about 200 C.E. until the Shulḥan Arukh of Joseph Caro along with the notes of Moses Isserles, a product of the sixteenth century. Major works of codification are cited along with their authors, and the contributions these works made to the development of Jewish law are discussed. The second part of this thesis consists of a translation of the material found in the above mentioned chapters of the Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, together with the notes of Moses Isserles called the Mappah. The material added by Isserles is designated by the introduction word Hagah, note. The translation is as literal as possible. Words and/or expressions are set off in parenthesis when a purely literal translation is unclear. The final section of this thesis consists of extensive notes of explanation on the translation of the text. Any term or concept given in the text is noted and explained. When a source is cited, it is discussed along with a short biography of the author of that source. Throughout the text, at points of interest additional commentaries from recent literature and also from the traditional rabbinic sources are added as a means of further explanation; these sources include the Tur, Magen Avraham, Turei Zahav, Notes of the Wilna Gaon, and short discussions from the Talmud. A conclusion is found at the end of this thesis which briefly summarizes the general findings and trends of the material discussed in the Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, on the Laws of Yom Kippur.

“A Code is a unified and coordinated body of law superseding all previous laws within its scope, or the reenactment of existing law in a systematic and improved form. There are few Jewish codes under the first head, but many under the second.”¹

The Shulḥan Arukh, שולחן ערוך, “the Prepared Table,” written by Joseph Caro in the middle of the sixteenth century is today considered the culmination of the codification of Jewish law, halakhah. The Shulḥan Arukh is the text to which one turns to obtain the final authoritative decision on an halakhic matter in a short, concise form. There are no discussions nor proof texts to authenticate the conclusions, rather the law is stated in an organized and systematic manner. The Shulḥan Arukh does not stand alone in Jewish legal codification literature. Vast quantities preceded this work of Caro’s and contributed to its structure. Halakhic codification has also followed the Shulḥan Arukh, but none has superseded its authority and acceptance as the approved source of traditional Jewish halakhah. The body of this rabbinic thesis examines only one small part of one section of the Shulḥan Arukh, the Laws of Yom Kippur found in the section Oraḥ Ḥayyim which concerns itself with daily commandments, Sabbaths, and the festivals. In order to better understand the position and importance this material occupies, it is necessary to briefly look at the Shulḥan Arukh in respect to the codification literature which preceded and influenced it and then to examine the structure and the acceptance of the Shulḥan Arukh as it appears today.

(Note that the purpose of this introduction is only to give a brief digest of halakhic codification literature so as to better appreciate the position the material covered in the body of this thesis occupies in the totality of Jewish halakhic codes. In no way do I presume to totally cover all the works written in this area. I will attempt to merely mention and place in perspective major codification works representative of the various stages through which this type of literature developed. Omissions and superficiality are inherent in this method of treating over one thousand, four hundred years of material in a few pages.²)

When one speaks of halakhah and its codification, one is basically concerned with the Oral as opposed to the Written Law. Judaism separates Oral and Written Law in terms of its origin and transmission. Written Law is the Torah (and biblical material) given to Moses during the Revelation on Mount Sinai earlier and later during the forty years of wandering in the desert of Sinai and from its very beginning committed to writing. These scrolls of Jewish literature were then passed down from generation to generation in this written form. Traditional Judaism believes that at the same time as God gave Moses His Written Law, God also transmitted an Oral Law to Moses which was not originally committed to writing, but rather it was preserved in an oral fashion and passed down through a direct, unbroken line of descendants who could be traced back directly to Moses. This oral material remained fluid over the centuries and grew as each generation encountered new situations not specifically dealt with by the previous generations. According to tradition, God was revealing more and more of His Oral Law to each generation. After numerous successive centuries when the law was expanded upon itself, it became almost impossible for any single person to retain the Oral Law and pass it on in its entirety and accurately to his successor. There was a fear that the material being oral and without organization would at least be altered if not lost over the years. There was a need, therefore, that this Oral Law be compiled and finally be preserved in a written form.

The first halakhic code extent that was compiled after the Written Law was the Mishna. It was compiled by Judah ha-Nasi in around the year 200 C.E. It contained the entire scope of Jewish law that was in existence at the time of its formulation in its six tractates. The halakhot of the time of Judah ha-Nasi were assembled according to their subject matter. Prior to the Mishna the Oral Law had been preserved in various different ways. Before the tannaitic period there might have been more uniformity to halakhic material. Laws were decided upon by the Sanhedrin, which served as the supreme legislative and judicial body for the people. The Sanhedrin’s majority decision became the law without mention of authorship. As the Sanhedrin weakened differing opinions were formulated, and the names of those scholars who expressed them were associated with the dispute. There were internal problems of authority between the Pharisees and the Saducees and between the scholars of Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai. When the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 C.E. and scholars were forced to migrate, there was an increased occurrence of halakhic disputes that were never resolved. Therefore there was a need at the time of Judah ha-Nasi to once again unify the vast amount of halakhic material into an authoritative code, limiting the divergent views as much as he could. There was also the fear that the material would be lost or incorrectly transmitted. Thus there was a need for a codification of the law that the Mishna became.

The Mishna does not always merely state the law, but offers the law as part of a factual case including those conditions which lead up to the final situation. This is referred to as the casuistic method which enabled the law to continue its development and meet new situations which surfaced that had not been encountered before.

Following the compilation of the Mishna we find the most vast and singly authoritative work of all of Jewish legal literature, the Talmud. The large and predominately accepted Babylonian Talmud as well as the less extensive Palestinian Talmud are works which combine the Mishna, the Law, with its accompanied Gemara or “commentary.” The Gemara includes deliberations of the sages, halakhic commentary by the legal authorities known as the amoraim, responsa material, and decisions which made the law alive by considering every conceivable situation connected with a possible law and what the final halakhic decision would be. The Talmud as a whole is accepted as the authentic and binding halakhic work from which all decisions must be based. Yet from a literary point of view it is not considered a code.

The literary forms found in the codes are basically three: (1) “books of halakhot,” books which simply collect the conclusions pertaining to a certain aspect of the Jewish law with a brief discussion and reference to its talmudical sources; (2) “books of pesakim or decisions,” which state the conclusions of the halakhic rules in a certain area of the law arranged according to halakhic subject matter without any mention of the underlying sources; and (3) a combination of the two in varying forms.

Halakhic codification literature belonging basically to the category of “books of halakhot” appeared during the Geonic Period from the eighth century onward. The first of these books was Sefer ha-She’iltot by Aḥa of Shabḥa, Babylonia. It is a collection of homiletic discussions. Scholars quoted from this work for the purpose of deciding halakhic questions in accordance with it; therefore, it is classified as a code. It is arranged according to the weekly Pentateuchal portions with the laws related to that particular part of the Torah included in the discussion of that section.

Yehudai b. Naḥman Gaon wrote Halakhot Pesukot during the first half of the eighth century. It was the first of the “books of halakhot.” It was arranged according to both subject matter and the talmudic tractates. Yehudai Gaon only included laws that were relevant and in practice at his time, thus establishing a principle followed by almost all of the authors of code material who followed him. Laws that no longer existed were omitted.

In the ninth century the greatest halakhic work of the Geonic Period appeared. It was called Halakhot Gedolot. Most scholars agree that the author was Simeon Kayyara of Basra, Babylonia. It was arranged according to talmudic tractates and a brief review of the sources appeared before the conclusions of the law.

Scholars during this period of time were concerned with codifying Jewish law for basically two reasons. One was to ease the study of the voluminous and difficult talmudic material. The second reason was attributed to the rise of the Karaites in Babylonia during the eighth century. The Karaites rejected rabbinic law and the geonim, as a response produced vast amounts of halakhic and philosophical works so as to formulate a normative, traditional Jewish attitude based on Oral Law. This caused a need for codified material that would summarize easily the accepted laws. But as a result other problems arose. People began studying the codes material and neglecting the source, the Talmud, rather than using the codes as they were designed, as a tool to simplify the study of the Talmud. Because of this criticism virtually very few other books of codes appeared during the Geonic Period. Responsa literature began to arise which answered new specific halakhic questions through an examination of the halakhic sources.

At the close of the Geonic Period there arose again the need for a codification of the halakhah. This resulted from the fact that Babylonia was no longer the center of the Jewish Diaspora. New centers of Jewish life emerged in North Africa and Europe resulting in different customs and rules regarding the halakhah. In the eleventh century a very important work in Jewish law under the category of “books of halakhot” was written, the Sefer ha-Halakhot by Isaac b. Jacob ha-Kohen Alfasi, who was known as the “Rif.” It was arranged according to the tatlmudic tractates and included only the laws in practice at the time. Alfasi gave a more extensive talmudic discussion of each conclusion than did the geonic authors, and he also included aggadic statements which had halakhic importance. Therefore this work is also referred to as the small Talmud, Talmud Katan. Alfasi made use of the Jerusalem as well as the Babylonian Talmud but decided according to the latter in areas of dispute between the two because of its later redaction. Alfasi’s work became accepted as decisive and binding, praised and used by both Maimonides and later Caro as pillars of their works upon which halakhic decisions were based.

The twelfth century was dominated by Maimonides who created a new literary form of the “book of pesakim, decisions” for the codes which is exemplified by his book the Mishneh Torah. “Books of halakhot” were originally to be used only as a method of reference to the Talmud itself. As the centuries passed, though, scholars became less and less able to accurately examine the Talmud and derive from it alone the proper, reliable decision. Halakhic material became more and more voluminous. There arose a need around the time of Maimonides for a book which would derive its authority from other great scholars as well as the Talmud, yet would stand by itself as a single work, serving as the basis of deciding the halakhah usable by scholars as well as laymen. Maimonides, who had magnificent respect for his own ability (which has been proven vastly deserved), established his objective of designing an authoritative compilation by which the halakhah should be decided. There was no question in his mind that there would be no contradiction between his book and previous halakhic literature, and therefore he named his book the second Torah, Mishneh Torah which he wrote over the ten year period from 1177 until 1187. Its authority was only superseded by the Written and Oral Law themselves.

Maimonides used four basic criteria for his codification: (1) He wanted to locate and compile all the material of Jewish law from the Written Law until his time by a systematic and scientific process. Therefore only the actual Written Law and Maimonides’ book were needed for every detail of the halakhah. His work was exhaustive and his preparation complete.

(2) Maimonides subdivided and classified all the material according to its subject matter. (He divided his work into fourteen books. Fourteen rendered in the numerical letter equivalents in Hebrew is י״ד, yad, which is the word for hand. The Mishneh Torah is therefore also referred to as Ha-Yad ha-Ḥazakah (Deut. 34:12), “the Strong Hand.”) The fourteen books were each subdivided into eighty-three parts called hilkhot, these were again divided into perakim of one-thousand chapters, consisting of some fifteen thousand paragraphs, each called an “halakhah.”

(3) Maimonides decided upon a single halkhic rule, and he made no reference to disputing opinions nor did he designate the post-pentateuchal sources. This was a true break in the tradition of preserving the name of the author of a particular law or its talmudic source. His reasoning was not to break the chain of authority and tradition, but rather so as not to confuse the law and limit the use of his code. Therefore this work was considered a new form of code literature, a “book of pesakim, decisions” where only a single statement of a law was given without qualifying it or citing the non-biblical sources. The only qualified halakhic rulings among the fifteen thousand were one hundred and twenty new ones added by Maimonides himself and fifty rulings where he decided between the geonim and the rishonim.

(4) The final criteria employed by Maimonides was his use of language. He chose the clear, legalistic Hebrew of the Mishna. The language of the Pentateuch was not adequate to express all the laws, and the talmudic Aramaic was not sufficiently understood in his time. Maimonides in reality created a new, clear, lucid legal Hebrew language. Maimonides maintained the casuistic method of previous halakhic material by not making simple normative statements so that all the legal facts could be included in the talmudical style familiar to most at the time.

Maimonides’ work received most of its criticism from the fact that he omitted the names and talmudic sources, so much a part of halakhic material prior to his work. Maimonides defended himself by stating a halakhic rule that “the law was transmitted by way of the many to the many and not from a single individual to another individual.” He did admit, though, that in a separate work he should have given the sources of a particular law.

Maimonides was also criticized for his omission of different opinions which deprived a person from chosing between other sources to arrive at his decision. Asher b. Jehiel, the Rosh, stated that one would get the wrong understanding of the law based on Maimonides if he were not also familiar with the gemara from which Maimonides took the law. Every dayyan, judge and decision maker, had the right to refer to differing opinions in order to come to a valid individual decision. It was reiterated that a code could only serve as an aid in finding a law in the talmudic literature itself. With all its criticism, Maimonides’ method had great influence on codes and the decisions on Jewish law. Joseph Caro in the Shulḥan Arukh used Maimonides as his “second pillar” of halakhic decisions (Alfasi was the first), and he employed Maimonides’ basic premise as his methodology.

The Mishneh Torah influenced many supporters who wrote additional works to defend the goal of Maimonides. The most famous is called Hagahot Maimuniyyot, written in the thirteenth century by a pupil of Meir b. Baruch of Rothenburg supplementing the laws of Maimonides with those found in France and Germany. It is ironic that the result of Maimonides’ halakhic works was the direct opposite of what he sought out to achieve. Rather than producing the final, single halakhic source, he influenced the writing of hundreds of books which complicated halakhic problems, making the halakhah even less uniform than it had been before.

After Maimonides and the criticism he received, it was necessary to produce “books of halakhot” which preserved the link with talmudic sources. A representative fourteenth century work of this type was the Piskei ha-Rosh or Sefer Ashrei by Asher b. Jehiel. In his codification of Jewish law he wanted to preserve the dayyan’s freedom to decide between differing opinions. He followed (based on Alfasi’s Sefer ha-Halakhot) the talmudic tractates and gave a synoptic statement of the talmudic discussion which resulted in the halakhic law. He was a scholar in both Germany and Spain. In his work he included opinions from both cultures and decided between the two, being very widely excepted. Caro used Asher as his, “third pillar” two hundred years later.

Other works of codification appeared during this period of time which later influenced the work of Caro. “Books of mitzvot” were written to decide law. In the thirteenth century a Frenchman, Moses of Coucy wrote the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol which was divided into two parts, negative and positive precepts, each one being accompanied by talmudic sources and opinions of other scholars, followed by the halakhic conclusion. Another similar book appeared later, entitled Ammudei ha-Golah or Sefer Mitzvot Katan by Isaac b. Joseph of Corbeil. This book also had laws accompanied by a short statement on their talmudical sources, but this book was divided into seven parts corresponding to the seven days of the week, with laws traditionally being associated with those days (or homiletically connected) discussed in that particular section.

Other books of code’s material were arranged according to the desire of the author. For example, according to the appearance of letters in a certain passage (Ittur Soferim a twelfth century work by Isaac b. Abba Mari).

Solomon b. Abraham Adret who lived in Spain in the mid-thirteenth century, in his work Torat ha-Bayit combined both the forms of a “book of halakhot” and a “book of pesakim.” The first part is a “book of halakhot” entitled Torat ha-bayit ha-Arokh where Adret gave talmudic sources and differing opinions arriving at an halakhic decision after a full discussion. The second part of his work was called Torat ha-bayit ha-Kaẓer and was a “book of pesakim” where he merely stated the halakhic conclusion he determined in the first part of his book. Adret wanted to avoid criticism yet employ the best aspects of both methodologies.

The problem with the attempts at codification in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was that even though there was the development of a rich and vast body of halkhic literature, none of it was easy to use as a code nor was it decisive. Also there was a tremendous amount of material produced by tosafists in Germany, France, and western Europe in the form of responsa, novellae, and commentaries that were used as the basis of halakhic decision making by the dayyanim but had never been codified. Some of these tosafists were Rabbenu Tam and Meir of Rothenburg. In the Spanish school there was Meir ha-Levi Abulafia, Naḥmanides, and Solomon b. Abraham Adret. In addition to the above there were differing opinions and customs in the various Jewish communities of the world without any useful code.

In view of this situation a dayyan in Toledo, Jacob b. Asher, the third son of Asher b. Jehiel, in the first half of the fourteenth century compiled a code in the form of four columns which he called Turim. He generally decided according to Alfasi, but when this was disputed by Maimonides or others, he accepted the opinions and decided according to his father’s responsa or opinions. Jacob b. Asher combined both the qualities of a “book of halakhot” and a “book of pesakim” in that he gave the essence of each rule yet he did not give the exact talmudic sources or the names of the scholars along with it, he did so only at the beginning of a tur or a group of rules. He followed each rule with a brief statement of differing opinions given by post-talmudic scholars, and from all these he made his decision. This methodology produced a convenient and clear format while still maintaining a connection with halakhic sources.

Jacob b. Asher divided his code into four parts and in it he included only the laws in practice at the time. Each of the four turim is divided into halakhot and simanim. Tur Oraḥ Ḥayyim dealt with laws pertaining to man’s day to day conduct, the laws of prayer, blessings, Sabbaths, and festivals. Tur Yoreh De’ah was concerned with dietary laws, ritual purity, circumcision, visiting the sick, mourning, and some other ritual laws. Tur Even ha-Ezer covered family laws, marriage, and divorce laws, and monetary relations between man and wife. Finally, Tur Ḥoshen Mishpat dealt with civil law as well as criminal law, courts, judicial authority, evidence and the like. The arrangement of a code of Jewish law in this manner was totally original and had a great influence on all that came after it, especially its small, clearly defined units.

In addition to the halakhic statements, Jacob b. Asher also included his own opinions on ethical and moral issues and aggadic sayings along with talmudical sources at the beginning of each tur. Jacob b. Asher assembled all the halakhah at his time in a clear and concise manner. Communities of the Orient continued to follow the Mishneh Torah of Maimonides, but those of the west quickly adopted the Turim. Other works developed at this time which dealt with parts of what Jacob b. Asher covered, but none reached his scope. The Turim stood for over two hundred years as the basic code of Jewish law and inspired works based on it by scholars of the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries.

As the result of the Black Death (1348-50), the persecution of German Jews and the expulsion of Spanish Jews in 1492 there was a great movement of Jews due to uprooting. Old centers of Jewish life and authority were replaced by the new communities founded by the migrants of Germany in Poland, and in the oriental countries of Turkey, Ereẓ Israel, Egypt, and North Africa from those Jews forced out of Spain. This vast movement of people brought on many new halakhic problems. Laws were decided with virtually no authority behind them. Responsa literature became very popular and relatively creative. There arose a need for this halakhah to be assembled, summarized, and reduced so as to be of use.

Joseph Caro was born into this world of upheaval. He was born in Spain in 1488, and finally settled in the city of Safed in the Galilee of Ereẓ Israel where he was a member of the Great Rabbinic Court which decided halakhah. In view of the need of a new codification, Caro thought to compile one work made up of two parts which differed from each other in form and content but which supplemented each other.

The two parts are the Beit Yosef and the Shulḥan Arukh. The Beit Yosef was written first and its scope was much more extensive than its companion work, The Beit Yosef included all halakhic material in use at the time. It included the talmudic sources and the differing opinions of post-talmudic literature to its day. Caro used the Turim of Jacob b. Asher so that he did not need to repeat halakhic material already stated there, but he added extensively to it from the works of thirty-two halakhic scholars whom he mentioned by name as well as sayings from the Zohar. Caro in addition wanted to decide the law and make it uniform therefore he used the writings of his three pillars, Alfasi, Maimonides and Asher b. Jehiel. When all three dealt with a certain law he decided according to the majority except when that differed from a majority of halakhic scholars and there was a custom contrary (to the majority of the three pillars) in existence. If a matter had only been considered by two of the three and those two disagreed then he consulted five other authorities and decided according to their majority. The five were Naḥmanides, Solomon b. Abraham Adret, Nissim Gerondi, Mordecai b. Hillel, and Moses b. Jacob of Coucy. If none of his three pillars dealt with a subject, Caro decided the matter according to the majority of famous scholars. Caro did not go back and examine the correctness of each rule in terms of talmudic sources, arguing that this was too laborious in view of the large number of rules requiring decisions.

Having done the ground work upon which to substantiate a briefer work that would definately meet the requirements of a simple and easy to use code, he set about writing a book of halakhah in a simple, undefined, and summarized form. He thus compiled a book he called the Shulḥan Arukh, “The Prepared Table” in which the conclusions he reached in the Beit Yosef were stated briefly and in a clear language. The book was designed for all, both scholars and laymen, as a quick reference guide to the accepted halakhah. He divided the Shulḥan Arukh into thirty parts so that one part could be read each day thus enabling it to be completed in one month. Caro realized that one book could not do all, therefore he wrote a short synoptic “book of pesakim” to supplement a “book of halakhot” which gave the source to the varying opinions. Caro considered the Beit Yosef his primary work and he spent twenty years writing it and twelve years annotating it.

Caro divided his Shulḥan Arukh into four parts based on the Turim by Jacob b. Asher employing the same titles and basic content as the four Turim. He then further divided the Turim into one hundred twenty halakhot. one thousand seven hundred simanim, and thirteen thousand, three hundred fifty se’ifim. Caro did not divide the larger units into smaller ones, as Jacob b. Asher had done. Caro gave each siman a title and shortened the names of the halakhot when they were too long, or he added to them when they did not sufficiently describe the contents. He also added topics that did not appear in the Turim or left them out if they were no longer halakhot in practice.

The Shulḥan Arukh omitted the halakhic sources, names of scholars, ethical and moral statements, scriptural authority, and everything except the basic rule itself. In terms of a code, it was a very brief work being quite decisive. For this reason it eventually became the standard “book of pesakim”, decisions, of the halakhah. Caro completed the Shulḥan Arukh in 1563, and it was first printed in Venice in 1565, one thousand three hundred and fifty years after the first code of Jewish law, the Mishna was compiled in the second century.

One can not mention the Shulḥan Arukh or consider its impact without taking into account the role of Moses Isserles in the wide spread acceptance of Caro’s work. Isserles was a leading Polish Jewish scholar when Caro’s code reached Poland. Isserles was born in Cracow in 1525, or 1530 and died in 1572. His name was Isserel-Lazarus which was shortened to Isserles, but he was usually referred to as “the Rema” (Rabbi Moses Isserles). His father was very wealthy and he was sent to Lublin to study in the yeshiva of Sholom Shachna until 1549, Isserles studied Talmud, codes, philosophy, astronomy and history. He was a well respected scholar and a world renowned posek, decider of halakhic issues. He was considered to be the “Maimonides of Polish Jewry.”

Isserles’ teacher, Sholom Shachna, was opposed to codifying the halakhah. He felt that every dayyan was obligated to consider each question individually from the sources. The existance of a code did not encourage this. A dayyan would take the latest authority, namely the code, as binding and be deprived of the individuality of deciding an issue.

Isserles was at first going to compile his book, Darkei Moshe, following the Turim, to make it easier for the dayyan to find the material by assembling it in a brief form which was to include differing opinions without deciding between them. While he was writing his book he received Caro’s Beit Yosef and he realized that Caro had already assembled the material. Instead of stopping his work, he completed it because Caro had left out a good deal of material that had been contributed by Ashkenazi scholars, and also because he did not agree with Caro’s methodology of deciding the halakhah according to the majority opinion of “the three pillars,” Alfasi, Maimonides, and Asher b. Jehiel. Isserles felt later scholars had to be consulted equally. Isserles completed his Darkei Moshe basing his decisions on later scholars but not making his decisions binding on any dayyan who wanted to decide an issue as a result of his own investigation.

Isserles produced a second work of codification, namely Torat Ḥattat which dealt mainly with dietary laws. When Isserles finally received the Shulḥan Arukh he decided to add his own glosses to it, the “Mappah” or “the Table Cloth” over the Shulḥan Arukh, the Prepared Table. (The notes of Isserles are also called Hagahot). In his glosses Isserles cited different Ashkenazi opinions and customs not present in Caro’s work and decided among them according to the accepted principle of giving authority to the most recent scholars, and enabling each dayyan to interpret and decide for himself. Isserles maintained the brief and concise style employed by Caro in the Shulḥan Arukh. Isserles wanted each dayyan, even in a brief statement, to realize that there were differing opinions and it was incumbent upon him to reach a decision through his own struggling with the material. Isserles often changed Caro’s (the meḥabber’s) wording, explained unclear passages, pointed out contradictions between different decisions, or added a rule, thus refining the major work. With the additions of Isserles the Shulḥan Arukh became a code which embraced the many differences existing in the various Jewish centers throughout the world. Isserles saw the need for a work such as the Shulḥan Arukh to accompany a more extensive “book or books of halakhot” and through his editing and additions made the Shulḥan Arukh eventually an authoritative and binding code of Jewish law for Israel. The Shulḥan Arukh became acceptable to both Sephardim and Ashkenazim.

In his discussions of the law, Isserles strove to give the minhag, or custom, the same force as the halakhah itself even when the minhag had no halakhic source. There are times when Isserles even accepted a custom as binding when it conflicted with the halakhah. He also stated at times throughout his glosses to the Shulḥan Arukh that “the custom is a wrong one” or “if I had the power I would abrogate the custom, for it is based on an error and there is no reason to rely on it.” The majority of the customs which Isserles followed were of course those which developed among Ashkenazi Jews. It must be noted that Isserles was frequently lenient when an issue involved stress or when there was a considerable financial loss involved. He was among the very few posekim who decided many issues leniently.

The importance Isserles placed on the minhag. his leniency in cases of loss, and his codification through the glosses of the Shulḥan Arukh caused him to be severely criticized by his contemporary scholars, especially one who studied with him in Lublin under Sholom Shachnan, Ḥayyim b. Bezalel. Despite the numerous reasons offered by Ḥayyim and other contemporary scholars to oppose Isserles, his rulings and customs became accepted as binding on Ashkenazi Jewry.

The Shulḥan Arukh along with the glosses of Isserles received much criticism from oriental as well as Ashkenazi communities. Some critics noted discrepancies between the Beit Yosef and the Shulḥan Arukh. Many scholars thought the work to be too simplistic, aimed at minors and ignoramuses. Even though many oriental scholars disagreed with Caro’s method of deciding according to the majority opinions of Alfasi, Maimonides, and Asher b. Jehiel, the fact that two hundred rabbis of Caro’s generation accepted this method as well as the majority of later scholars countered that criticism. Despite all the criticism, Caro’s decisions were accepted by the majority of oriental scholars even in his own lifetime.

Ashkenazi criticism, even with the glosses of Isserles, was much more severe of Caro’s work. The main criticism stemmed from the fear that with the code, students could know the law without any effort and that the proper method of study by mastering scripture, Mishna, and Talmud would be neglected. One had to study and understand the law to make decisions based on talmudic and post-talmudic discussions. Polish Jewry especially thought it preferable to occasionally make a mistake in a legal decision through honest study than to base a decision on one single work without knowing what went into the basic reasoning. In addition Ashkenazi scholars found value in the non-uniformity of halakhah. This increased the possibility for deciding a law according to the dayyan’s own opinion, thus enabling the law to bend to existing circumstances. Others criticized the “compromise” decisions when no definite solution was clear. Halakhah, it was often felt, should only have been decided by the Talmud, and there were cases where Caro made a decision of a law that was not finally decided in the Talmud. Mordecai b. Abraham Jaffe, stated that his objection to Caro was that the Beit Yosef was too extensive to study from, and the Shulḥan Arukh was too brief, therefore he wanted a balance between the two extremes. (He wrote Levush Malkhut which attempted to achieve this goal.)

The criticism of Caro’s and Isserles’ code continued even into the seventeenth century basically because it deprived the dayyan of the mental exercise of wrestling with the halakhic material and coming to a decision employing the knowledge and underlying reasoning. It seemed that no code would become acceptable to all Jews, but two factors changed this. Joshua b. Alexander ha-Kohen Falk, who was a pupil of Isserles and Solomon Luria (who leveled criticism against the Shulḥan Arukh) found no fault in the form employed by the Beit Yosef. Falk regarded the Shulḥan Arukh as a work which intended the law to be decided according to it only after the study of the talmudic sources through the Tur and the Beit Yosef. Falk said that people were making a mistake by deciding simply according to the Shulḥan Arukh without totally understanding the substance of the decisions. Therefore Falk wrote a commentary on the Shulḥan Arukh itself. He wanted it to explain the Shulḥan Arukh and actually become a part of it, the Shulḥan Arukh not to be studied without his commentary. He felt this would eliminate any misunderstanding of the law if it were studied along with it. He called his commentary Sefer Me’irat Einayim or the “Sma” (the book of enlightening the eyes). He quoted the sources of each law and different opinions expressed, in addition to new rules. It is only found with the section Hoshen Mishpat.

Joel Sirkes, who wrote a commentary on the Turim entitled Bayit Ḥadash, had the same idea as Falk. He composed a commentary that would provide a link between the commentary and its sources. After Falk and Sirkes a number of other commentaries arose, each one making the Shulḥan Arukh more binding and authoritative. They included the Turei Zahav or “Taz” by David b. Samuel ha-Levi, on all the four parts of the Shulḥan Arukh; the Siftei Kohen or “Shakh” on Yoreh De’ah and Ḥoshen Mishpat by Shabbetai b. Meir ha-Kohen; the Ḥelkat Meḥokek by Moses Lima on the Even ha-Ezer; the Beit Shemu’el by Samuel b. Uri Shraga Phoebus also on Even ha-Ezer; and Magen Avraham on Oraḥ Ḥayyim by Abraham Abele Gombiner.

In addition to the commentaries of eminent scholars attached to the Shulḥan Arukh, external factors also attributed to the speedy acceptance of the Shulḥan Arukh as The Code of Jewish Law. Jewish life in the middle of the seventeenth century was disrupted in central Europe. The Chmielnicki massacres of 1648 destroyed many Jewish communities and halakhic centers. When there was such a disruption in Jewish life, a desire for codification and preservation of Jewish law resulted. This time a code was available and only required the approval of the leading scholars of the generation. One of the most respected seventeenth century German scholars, Menaḥem Mendel Krochmal, gave his support to the Beit Yosef and the Shulḥan Arukh which by this time had become the authoritative and binding halakhic code.

Even though there was a revival of codification literature every one to two centuries in the Jewish world since the geonic period of the eighth century, there has been no recognized authoritative code since the Shulḥan Arukh, but then the entire structure of the Jewish community has changed since the emancipation the Jews experienced in Europe beginning in the eighteenth century. Jewish society took on non-traditional elements to which an authoritative halakhic code was not only not binding but also of no significance. Halakhic interest lessened as did the number of works associated with it. After the eighteenth century only laws of regular daily life were of concern to the traditional Jew who was afraid to revitalize the authority of the individual dayyan to offer new decisions based on his own struggling with the talmudic sources for fear of a too radical change in the law. The Shulḥan Arukh thus remained binding. The laws of sections such as Ḥoshen Mishpat (civil and criminal law) were mostly academic with Jews bound by the secular laws of the states in which they lived. (The Arukh ha-Shulḥan by Jeḥiel Mikhal Epstein (died 1908) was an exception for it dealt with all four parts of the Shulḥan Arukh.) But nothing since the Shulḥan Arukh has replaced it as the authoritative code on Jewish law. All that has come after it is merely part of the commentaries surrounding the Shulḥan Arukh.

There has been a development in halakhic literature since the Shulḥan Arukh, and it made up a significant contribution to this field which must be taken into account by modern day halakhic decision makers. This development has consisted of responsa, commentaries, and novellae in addition to changes, takkanot, decreed in the laws and differences in customs as the daily life of a Jew has altered. But for the most part these new contributions look back on the Shulḥan Arukh as the authoritative work in halakhah.³

The body of this rabbinic thesis is an annotated, original translation of the material found in the Shulḥan Arukh along with the glosses by Rabbi Moses Isserles concerning the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur. The original Hebrew is found in the section Oraḥ Ḥayyim, chapters 604-624. Hilkhot Yom ha-Kippurim, the Laws of Yom Kippur, are presented by Joseph Caro in an orderly and systematic method. The Holy Day is covered chronologically in the Shulḥan Arukh from prior to its arrival, through the evening, night, morning, afternoon, evening, and following the conclusion of the holiday. Almost all conceivable circumstances or conditions that one would encounter are covered in the code as to what is the correct action to take or not to take. Situations involving pregnancy, sickness, fire, prayer, children, food, clothing, mental attitude, marital relations and the like are included in these chapters. The Shulḥan Arukh on the Laws of Yom Kippur fulfilled its original goals of having a short, clear, concise, and authoritative guide of Jewish halakhic decisions assembled in a usable form (if one could read the original Hebrew, for prior to this thesis, the total original material had not been translated into English). The Shulḥan Arukh on this subject does not stand alone as a source for the original talmudic logic and scholarly debate that went on to form the halakhic decisions, nor would it be sufficient if it were the only text consulted in formulating a reaction to a new situation that required a dayyan to make a new halakhic decision, but it is a useful code which serves as a digest of the halakhah concerning Yom Kippur.

Yom Kippur is to the Jew the most holy day of the entire year. It is rich with special customs, prayers, thoughts and emotions for every Jew regardless of his philosophical or theological leanings. I offer this work in the hope that through it some might be able to find more understanding and meaning in the tradition which surrounds this Day of Atonement, so that it might become a way for each person to find peace with oneself and with God’s world.

1. Louis Ginzberg. On Jewish Law and Lore. Cleveland, New York, Meridan Books, The World Publishing Company; Philadelphia, The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1955, p, 153.

2. ibid., pp. 153-84; and Encyclopaedia Judaica. Jerusalem, Macmillan Company, 1971; R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, “Caro, Joseph ben Ephraim”, volume 5, pages 184-200.Menachem Elon, “Codification of Law”, v. 5, pp. 628-56.Simḥa Katz, “Isserles, Moses ben Israel”, v. 9, pp. 1081-85.Louis Isaac Rabinowitz, “Shulḥan Arukh,” v. 14, pp. 1475-77.The entire introduction to this work is based on the above credited articles. The structure of the introduction is that which is found in the article, “Codification of Law”, volume 5, pages 628-56. Much of the introduction is a paraphrase of parts of this article, and at points short phrases are used directly. This introduction should not in any way be interpreted as individual research by the author of this thesis. The body of this work is an annotated translation of the text of the Shulḥan Arukh dealing with the Laws of Yom Kippur in the section Oraḥ Ḥayyim along with the glosses of Moses Isserles. The introduction is offered only as a guide to help the reader place the body of this work in its proper perspective as the final authoritative code of halakhah in a long tradition of Jewish codification literature.

3. ibid., all of the above including the commentary offered by the author of this thesis.

Agnon, S. Y. Days of Awe. New York, Schocken Books, Inc., 1965.

Agus, Irving Abraham, Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg, His Life and His works as Sources for the Religious, Legal and Social History of the Jews of Germany in the Thirteenth Century, 2 volumes. Philadelphia, Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning, 1947.

Alcalay, Rueben. The Complete Hebrew-English Dictionary. Jerusalem, Massada Publishing Company, 1970.

Asher, Jacob b. Arba'ah Turim, Orah Hayyim. Jerusalem, Mekhon Ḥatam Sofer, 5725; 1965.

Ashkenazi, Shmuel and Yarden, Dov. Oẓar Rashei Tavot. Jerusalem, Rubin Mass, 1973.

Arzt, Max. Justice and Mercy: Commentary on the Liturgy of the New Year and the Day of Atonement. New York, Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1963.

The Babylonian Talmud; Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indicies, edited by Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein. London, The Soncino Press, 1952.

Birnbaum, Philip. Daily Prayer Book; Ha-Siddur Ha-Shalem. New York, Hebrew Publishing Company, 1949.

Bokser, Ben Zion. The High Holyday Prayer Book, Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur. New York, Hebrew Publishing Company, 1959.

Caro, Joseph. Shulḥan Arukh, Orah Ḥayyim. Jerusalem, Mekhon Ḥatam Sofer, 5726, 1966.

Cohen, Boaz. "The Shulhan Arukh as a Guide for Religious Practice Today", (Law and Tradition in Judaism). New York, The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1959.

Daiches, Dr. Samuel. "Jewish Codes and Codifiers", (Reprinted from The Jewish Chronicle). London, "Jewish Chronical" Office, 1909.

Encyclopaedia Judaica. Jerusalem, Macmillan Company, 1971.

Freehof, Solomon Bennett. Reform Jewish Practice and its Rabbinic Background, 2 volumes, Cincinnati, Hebrew Union College Press, 1944-52.

Ginzberg, Louis. "Laws, Codification of", (Jewish Encyclopedia, Volume 7, pages 635-47). New York, Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1904.

————. On Jewish Law and Lore. Cleveland and New York, Meridian Books, The World Publishing Company; Philadelphia, The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1962.

Goodman, Philip. The Yom Kippur Anthology. Philadelphia, The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1971.

Greenwald, Leopold. Ha-Rav Yoseph Karo U'zmano. New York, P. Feldheim, 1953.

———. Kol Bo al Aveilut. New York, "Moria" Printing Company, 1947.

Guttmann, Alexander. Rabbinic Judaism in the Making. Detroit, Wayne State University Press, 1970.

Hertz, Dr. Joseph H. The Authorised Daily Prayer Book; Hebrew Text, English Translation with Commentary and Notes, New York, Bloch Publishing Company, 1957.

Hess, Rev. Emanuel L. "Origin, History, and Importance of the Schulchan Aruch, an Essay". Shreveport, Louisiana, P. E. Price, Book and Job Printer, 1886.

Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. New York, Pardes Publishing House, Inc., 1950.

Lehrman, Rabbi Dr. Simon Maurice. Rabbi Joseph Karo, His Life and Times. London, Jewish Religious Educational Publications, Woburn House, 1953.

Maḥzor for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, A Prayer Book for the Days of Awe, edited by Rabbi Jules Harlow. New York, The Rabbinical Assembly, 1972.

Oẓar ha-Tefillot. New York, Published by Sefer, 1946.

Schauss, Hayyim. Guide to Jewish Holy Days, History and Observance. New York, Schocken Books, 1969.

Steiman, Sidney. Custom and Survival; A Study of the Life and Work of Rabbi Jacob Molin (Moelln) Known as the Maharil (c: 1360-1427) and His Influence in Establishing the Ashkenazic Minhag (Customs of German Jewry). New York, Bloch Publishing Company, 1963.

Tchernowitz, Chaim. Toldoth Ha-Poskim, History of the Jewish Codes, 3 volumes. New York, Published by the Jubilee Committee, 1947.

Waxman, Meyer. A History of Jewish Literature, From the Close of the Bible to Our Own Days, II. New York, Bloch Publishing Company, 1930-41.

Werblowsky, Raphael Jehudah Zwi. Joseph Karo; Lawyer and Mystic. London, Oxford University Press, 1962.

Zimmels, Hirsch Jakob. Ashkenazim and Sephardim: Their Relations, Differences and Problems as Reflected in the Rabbinical Responsa. London, Oxford University Press, 1958.

It is quite interesting to take a document from the sixteenth century which gives, in the form of a code, a summary of Jewish law on a specific subject and be able to use it as an authoritative source for traditional Jewish practice in the twentieth century. The Shulḥan Arukh achieved its goal of becoming an accepted and binding short code of Jewish law which one could use to easily find out what the (latest) accepted decision was on a certain topic without being bogged down with long discussions and sources which went into deciding the final law. It was not written to take the place of exhaustive study which must go into the process of deciding a law for a new situation. The code is a useful way of quickly determining the accepted halakhan. Other works provide one with the information necessary to trace the development of a law through its original sources and discussions.

The beauty of the Shulḥan Arukh is in its cleanness, conciseness, and organization to which it is indebted to a considerable extent to the Arba'ah Turim by Jacob b. Asher. Laws on similar subjects and common areas are grouped together, but not only that. The laws in each section dealing with a specific subject are systematically organized. As an example, the Laws of Yom Kippur are listed chronologically. Situations are dealt with as one encounters them in his observance of the Holy Day. In each time period of the day, the laws that are applicable are given. Every conceivable situation is considered in relation to the Day of Atonement including special liturgy, type of dress, personal care, mental attitude, sickness, study, children, food, atonement, confession, and marital relations to name a few.

The richness of the basic Shulḥan Arukh by Joseph Caro is only enhanced by the glosses of Moses Isserles. Caro supplied mainly the customs and accepted halakhah of his Sephardi tradition while Isserles enabled the Shulḥan Arukh, through his addition of the customs and halakhot practiced in the Ashkenazi communities, to be a code for the whole of world Judaism. The Shulḥan Arukh was able to survive and be binding on Jews because it contained in it the accepted laws and practices of almost all Jews wherever they lived with the inclusion of the notes by Isserles. Isserles often disagreed or expanded upon what Caro had stated so as to supply the customs and special practices of the Ashkenazi communities. This did not weaken the work as a binding code, but rather it had the opposite effect of making the total work more complete. When there was a disagreement between Caro and Isserles on a certain point, in certain areas Isserles was more lenient than was Caro; in other areas he tended to be more strict.

The Shulḥan Arukh has not been surpassed by any other code of Jewish law since it was written. The traditions preserved by Judaism have not changed that significantly since the time of the Shulḥan Arukh to warrant a whole new code. Instead the code as we have it today has been extensively commented upon by successive generations. These notes and comments serve a similar function to that of the glosses of Isserles, in that they provide customs and variations which developed in different lands over generations. These additional notes on the Shulḥan Arukh enrich this code even more by adding a wealth of explanations, interpretations, and variances unique to separate Jewish communities throughout the world, thus keeping the Shulḥan Arukh alive and authoritative for traditional Jews.