Q&A: Acceptance of the Shulchan Arukh
Acceptance of the Shulchan Arukh
Question
Hello, honored Rabbi,
First of all, thank you very much for the enlightening words yesterday at the demonstration.
Second, regarding acceptance of the Shulchan Arukh. I know that the Rabbi says that the only formal authority we have is the Talmud, and that it cannot be disputed. The Rabbi cites Rabbi Shlomo Fisher’s reasoning that this is because we accepted the Talmud upon ourselves—what might be called authority from below upward.
It follows from this that one may decline to accept the rulings of the Shulchan Arukh and act according to one’s own understanding of the passage, if one is qualified to do so. (The Rabbi also says that the Shulchan Arukh itself rules that since the Talmud, there has been no authorized institution for determining Jewish law in a way that binds the entire public, in Choshen Mishpat 25. I didn’t find it there, and I’d be glad if the Rabbi could point me to the relevant text.)
As for the matter itself: today the Shulchan Arukh is the basis of halakhic ruling; people conclude discussions with it, and certain commentators begin with it and build on it. Most importantly, the Jewish people in practice accepted the Mechaber and the Rema upon themselves, even if people disagreed with them already in their own time. (At least, that is according to the Rabbi’s words; I don’t know who disagreed with them in their own time.)
So why is the Shulchan Arukh not binding as well? Why is it not also considered a formal and binding authority?
Thank you very much!
Answer
This question has come up here more than once. The Shulchan Arukh was not accepted as a binding text by the entire public. Its commentators already disagree with it, and of course there are also disputes between the Mechaber and the Rema. But of course its words carry weight, and if you do not have a clear position, it is certainly proper to follow the Shulchan Arukh and the Rema.
Discussion on Answer
No need to go far. It is there in סעיף א in the Rema:
"However, some say that if it appears to the judge and to the members of his generation, on the basis of compelling proofs, that the law is not as mentioned by the halakhic decisors, he may disagree with them, so long as it is not mentioned in the Talmud" (Tur in the name of the Rosh).
And its fuller source is in the Rosh, Sanhedrin, chapter 4, siman 6.
Following up on the question: he mentioned that the Rabbi cited the Shulchan Arukh in Choshen Mishpat, siman 25, as saying that from the moment the Talmud was sealed, there is no longer any formal authority regarding the establishment of Jewish law that would bind the entire public. I also personally didn’t find that there. I’d be glad to know the source for this.