Halakha - Sarcasm Wiki

The word halakha originates from the Hebrew root halakh – meaning “to walk” or “to go.” [5]: 252 Taken literally, therefore, halakha translates as “the way to walk,” rather than simply “law.” The word refers to the entire corpus of rabbinic legal texts, or to the overall system of religious law. The term may also share a connection with Akkadian ilku, a property tax, which in Aramaic is rendered as halakh, signifying one or several obligations. [6] It is thought to descend from a hypothetical reconstructed Proto-Semitic root *halakh- meaning “to go,” which also has cognates in Akkadian, Arabic, Aramaic, and Ugaritic. [7]

Halakha is often contrasted with aggadah (“the telling”), the diverse corpus of rabbinic exegetical , narrative, philosophical, mystical, and other “non-legal” texts. [6] Nevertheless, since writers of halakha may draw upon aggadic and even mystical literature, a dynamic interchange occurs between these genres. Halakha also does not encompass those parts of the Torah that are not related to commandments.

Halakha constitutes the practical application of the 613 mitzvot (“commandments”) found in the Torah, as developed through discussion and debate in the classical rabbinic literature , particularly the Mishnah and the Talmud (collectively known as the “Oral Torah ”), and as codified in works like the Mishneh Torah and Shulchan Aruch . [8] Because halakha is developed and applied by various halakhic authorities rather than a single, monolithic “official voice,” different individuals and communities may arrive at different answers to halakhic questions. With few exceptions, controversies were not settled through authoritative structures, especially during the Jewish diaspora , when Jews lacked a singular judicial hierarchy or appellate review process for halakha.

According to some scholars, both the words halakha and sharia literally mean “the path to follow.” The fiqh literature, which deals with Islamic jurisprudence, parallels rabbinical law developed in the Talmud , with fatwas being analogous to rabbinic responsa. [9] [10]

Commandments (mitzvot)

• Main articles: Mitzvah § Mitzvot and Jewish law , and 613 commandments

According to the Talmud (Tractate Makkot), there are 613 mitzvot within the Torah: 248 positive (“thou shalt”) mitzvot and 365 negative (“thou shalt not”) mitzvot, supplemented by seven mitzvot legislated by the rabbis of antiquity. [11] Currently, many of the 613 commandments cannot be performed until the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem and the universal resettlement of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel by the Messiah . By one count, only 369 can currently be observed, meaning that 40% of mitzvot are not presently performable. Of these 369, 77 are positive mitzvot and 194 are negative. [12]

Rabbinic Judaism divides laws into categories: [13] [14]

A Sefer Torah at the Glockengasse Synagogue (museum exhibit), Cologne A full set of the Babylonian Talmud

The Law of Moses , which are believed to have been revealed by God to the Israelites at biblical Mount Sinai . These laws are composed of the following:
- The Written Torah , the laws written in the Hebrew Bible .
- The Oral Torah , the laws believed to have been transmitted orally prior to their later compilation in texts such as the Mishnah, Talmud, and rabbinic codes.
Laws of human origin, including rabbinic decrees, interpretations, customs, and so forth.

This division between revealed and rabbinic commandments can influence the perceived importance of a rule, its enforcement, and the nature of its ongoing interpretation. [13] Halakhic authorities may disagree on which laws fall into which categories or the circumstances (if any) under which prior rabbinic rulings can be re-examined by contemporary rabbis. However, all Halakhic Jews hold that both categories exist [citation needed] and that the first category is immutable, with exceptions only for life-saving and similar emergency circumstances.

A second classical distinction is between the Written Law, the laws inscribed in the Hebrew Bible , and the Oral Law, the laws believed to have been transmitted orally before their eventual compilation into texts such as the Mishnah, Talmud, and rabbinic codes.

Commandments are further divided into positive and negative commands, which are treated differently in terms of divine and human punishment. Positive commandments require an action to be performed and are considered to bring the performer closer to God. Negative commandments (traditionally numbering 365) forbid a specific action, and violations are understood to create a distance from God.

A further division is made between chukim (“decrees” – laws whose reasons are not readily apparent, such as shatnez , the prohibition against wearing clothing made of mixed linen and wool), mishpatim (“judgements” – laws with obvious social implications), and eduyot (“testimonies” or “commemorations,” such as those related to the Shabbat and holidays). Throughout history, various rabbinical authorities have classified the 613 commandments in numerous ways.

A different approach divides the laws into the following categories: [15]

Laws in relation to God (bein adam laMakom, lit. “between a person and the Place”), and
Laws concerning relations with other people (bein adam le-chavero, “between a person and his fellow”).

Sources and process

Eras of Jewish law

Chazal (lit. “Our Sages, may their memory be blessed”): Encompasses all Jewish sages from the Mishnah , Tosefta , and Talmud eras (c. 250 BCE – c. 625 CE).
The Zugot (“pairs”), referring both to the 200-year period (c. 170 BCE – 30 CE, the “Era of the Pairs”) during the Second Temple period when spiritual leadership was held by five successions of “pairs” of religious teachers, and to these pairs themselves.
The Tannaim (“repeaters”) were rabbis living primarily in Eretz Yisrael who codified the Oral Torah in the form of the Mishnah; 0–200 CE.
The Amoraim (“sayers”) lived in both Eretz Yisrael and Babylonia . Their teachings and discussions were compiled into the two versions of the Gemara ; 200–500 CE.
The Savoraim ("reasoners ") lived primarily in Sassanid Babylonia due to the suppression of Judaism in the Eastern Roman Empire under Theodosius II ; 500–650 CE.
The Geonim (“greats” or “geniuses”) presided over the two major Babylonian Academies of Sura and Pumbedita ; 650–1038 CE.
The Rishonim (“firsts”) are the rabbis of the late medieval period (c. 1038–1563), preceding the Shulchan Aruch .
The Acharonim (“lasts”) are the rabbis from c. 1500 to the present.
See also: Rabbinic literature

The development of halakha in the period before the Maccabees , often described as its formative period, remains largely obscure. Historian Yitzhak Baer argued that there was little purely academic legal activity during this era, and that many laws originating at this time were produced through neighborly good conduct rules, similar to practices observed by the Greeks in the age of Solon . [16] For instance, the first chapter of Bava Kamma contains a formulation of the law of torts worded in the first person. [5]: 256

The boundaries of Jewish law are determined through the Halakhic process, a system of religious-ethical legal reasoning. Rabbis generally base their opinions on the primary sources of halakha as well as on precedent set by previous rabbinic opinions. The major sources and genres of halakha consulted include:

The foundational Talmudic literature (especially the Mishnah and the Babylonian Talmud ) with commentaries;
Talmudic hermeneutics : the discipline that defines the rules and methods for the investigation and precise determination of the meaning of the Scriptures. It also includes the rules from which the Halakhot are derived and which were established by the written law. These can be seen as the foundational rules from which early Jewish law is derived.
Gemara – the Talmudic process of elucidating the halakha.
The post-Talmudic codificatory literature, such as Maimonides’s Mishneh Torah and the Shulchan Aruch with its commentaries (see #Codes of Jewish law below);
Regulations and other “legislative” enactments promulgated by rabbis and communal bodies:
- Gezeirah (“declaration”): “Preventative legislation” enacted by the rabbis, intended to prevent violations of the commandments .
- Takkanah (“repair” or “regulation”): “Positive legislation,” practices instituted by the rabbis not directly based on the commandments .
- Minhag : Customs, community practices, and customary law, as well as the exemplary deeds of prominent (or local) rabbis.
- The she’eloth u-teshuvoth (responsa , “questions and answers”) literature.
Dina d’malkhuta dina (“the law of the land is law”): an additional aspect of halakha, recognizing non-Jewish laws and non-Jewish legal jurisdiction as binding on Jewish citizens, provided they are not contrary to Jewish law. This principle applies primarily in areas of commercial, civil, and criminal law.

In antiquity, the Sanhedrin functioned essentially as the Supreme Court and legislature for Judaism, possessing the power to administer binding law, including both received law and its own rabbinic decrees, upon all Jews. Rulings of the Sanhedrin became halakha; see Oral law . That court ceased to function in its full capacity in 40 CE. Today, the authoritative application of Jewish law is generally left to the local rabbi and local rabbinical courts, with only local applicability. Within branches of Judaism that follow halakha, lay individuals make numerous ad-hoc decisions but are generally not considered authoritative in deciding certain issues definitively.

Since the time of the Sanhedrin, however, no single body or authority has been universally regarded as having the power to create universally recognized precedents. As a result, halakha has developed in a manner somewhat different from Anglo-American legal systems, which often feature a Supreme Court capable of providing universally accepted precedents. Generally, Halakhic arguments are effectively, though unofficially, peer-reviewed. When a rabbinic posek (“one who makes a statement,” “decisor”) proposes an additional interpretation of a law, that interpretation may be considered binding for the posek’s questioner or immediate community. Depending on the stature of the posek and the quality of the decision, an interpretation may also gradually be accepted by other rabbis and members of other Jewish communities.

Within this system, there exists a tension between the relevance of earlier and later authorities in constraining Halakhic interpretation and innovation. On the one hand, there is a principle in halakha not to overrule a specific law from an earlier era, once it has been accepted by the community as law or a vow , [17] unless supported by another, relevant earlier precedent. On the other hand, another principle recognizes the responsibility and authority of later authorities, particularly the posek handling a current question. In addition, halakha embodies a wide range of principles that permit judicial discretion and deviation.

Notwithstanding the potential for innovation, rabbis and Jewish communities differ significantly in how they implement changes in halakha. Notably, poskim frequently extend the application of a law to new situations but do not consider such extensions to constitute a “change” in halakha. For example, many Orthodox rulings concerning electricity are derived from rulings concerning fire, as closing an electrical circuit may cause a spark. In contrast, Conservative poskim consider that switching on electrical equipment is physically and chemically more akin to turning on a water tap (which is permissible by halakha) than lighting a fire (which is not permissible), and therefore permitted on Shabbat. Reform Judaism, in some cases, explicitly interprets halakha to align with its view of contemporary society. For instance, most Conservative rabbis extend the application of certain Jewish obligations and permissible activities to women (see below).

Within certain Jewish communities, formal organized bodies do exist. Within Modern Orthodox Judaism , there is no single overarching committee or leader, but Modern US-based Orthodox rabbis generally adhere to the views set by consensus by the leaders of the Rabbinical Council of America . Within Conservative Judaism , the Rabbinical Assembly has an official Committee on Jewish Law and Standards . [18]

It is important to note that takkanot (plural of takkanah) generally do not affect or restrict the observance of Torah mitzvot. (Sometimes takkanah refers to either gezeirot or takkanot.) However, the Talmud states that in exceptional cases, the Sages had the authority to “uproot matters from the Torah.” In Talmudic and classical Halakhic literature, this authority refers to the power to prohibit some things that would otherwise be biblically sanctioned (a concept known as shev v’al ta’aseh, “to sit and not do”). Rabbis might rule that a specific mitzvah from the Torah should not be performed, such as blowing the shofar on Shabbat, or taking the lulav and etrog on Shabbat. These examples of takkanot might be enacted out of caution, lest individuals inadvertently carry these items between their homes and the synagogue, thus violating a Sabbath melakha . Another rare and limited form of takkanah involved overriding Torah prohibitions. In some instances, the Sages permitted the temporary violation of a prohibition to maintain the integrity of the Jewish system as a whole. This was part of the basis for Esther ’s relationship with Ahasuerus (Xeres). For general usage of takkanot in Jewish history, refer to the article Takkanah . For examples of this being used in Conservative Judaism, see Conservative halakha .

Historical analysis

• • Rabbinical eras

• Chazal • Zugot • Tannaim • Amoraim • Savoraim • Geonim • Rishonim • Acharonim

• v • t • e

The antiquity of the rules can only be determined by the dates of the authorities who quote them; generally, they cannot be safely declared older than the tanna (“repeater”) to whom they are first ascribed. It is certain, however, that the seven middot (“measurements,” referring to [good] behavior) of Hillel and the thirteen of Ishmael predate Hillel himself, who was the first to transmit them.

The Talmud provides no information concerning the origin of the middot, although the Geonim (“Sages”) regarded them as Sinaitic (from the Law given to Moses at Sinai ).

The middot appear to have been first formulated as abstract rules by the teachers of Hillel, though they were not immediately recognized by all as valid and binding. Different schools interpreted and modified them, restricting or expanding them in various ways. Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael and their scholars particularly contributed to the development or establishment of these rules. “It must be borne in mind, however, that neither Hillel, Ishmael, nor Eliezer ben Jose sought to give a complete enumeration of the rules of interpretation current in his day, but that they omitted from their collections many rules which were then followed.” [19]

Akiva focused particularly on grammatical and exegetical rules, while Ishmael developed the logical ones. The rules laid down by one school were frequently rejected by another because the principles guiding their formulations were essentially different. According to Akiva, the divine language of the Torah is distinguished from human speech by the fact that in the former, no word or sound is superfluous.

Some scholars have observed similarities between these rabbinic rules of interpretation and the hermeneutics of ancient Hellenistic culture. For example, Saul Lieberman argues that the names of Rabbi Ishmael’s middot (e.g., kal vahomer, a combination of the archaic form of the word for “straw” and the word for “clay” – “straw and clay,” referring to the obvious [means of making a mud brick]) are Hebrew translations of Greek terms, although the methods of those middot are not Greek in origin. [20] [21] [22]

Views today

• See also: Talmud § Present day

The artistic freedom of Aggadah (left, represented by Solomon ) and the legal divine judgment rulings of Halakhah (right, represented by Aaron and his sons) on the Knesset Menorah

Orthodox Judaism holds that halakha is divine law , comprising the Torah, rabbinical laws, rabbinical decrees, and customs. Although Orthodox Judaism acknowledges that rabbis made many additions and interpretations to Jewish law, they did so only in accordance with regulations they believed, as Orthodox Jews still believe, were given for this purpose to Moses on Mount Sinai . [23] [24]

Conservative Judaism holds that halakha is normative and binding, and that it is developed through a partnership between people and God based on the Sinaitic Torah. While there is a wide spectrum of Conservative views, a common belief is that halakha is, and always has been, an evolving process subject to interpretation by rabbis in every time period.

Reconstructionist Judaism asserts that halakha is normative and binding; however, it also views halakha as an evolving concept. The traditional halakhic system, according to this perspective, cannot produce a code of conduct that is meaningful and acceptable to the majority of contemporary Jews. Reconstructionism’s founder, Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan , believed that “Jewish life [is] meaningless without Jewish law.” One of the planks of the Society for the Jewish Renascence, of which Kaplan was a founder, stated: “We accept the halakha, which is rooted in the Talmud, as the norm of Jewish life, availing ourselves, at the same time, of the method implicit therein to interpret and develop the body of Jewish Law in accordance with the actual conditions and spiritual needs of modern life.” [25]

Reform Judaism holds that modern understandings of how the Torah and rabbinic law developed imply that the body of rabbinic Jewish law is no longer normative (i.e., binding) on Jews today. Those in the “traditionalist” wing believe that halakha represents a personal starting point, holding that each Jew is obligated to interpret the Torah, Talmud, and other Jewish works for themselves, and that this interpretation will create distinct commandments for each individual. Those in the liberal and classical wings of Reform believe that in this era, most Jewish religious rituals are no longer necessary, and many hold that following most Jewish laws is actually counterproductive. They propose that Judaism has entered a phase of ethical monotheism and that the laws of Judaism are merely remnants of an earlier stage of religious evolution and need not be followed. This view is considered incorrect, and even heretical , by Orthodox and Conservative Judaism.

Humanistic Judaism values the Torah as a historical, political, and sociological text written by their ancestors. They do not believe “that every word of the Torah is true, or even morally correct, just because the Torah is old.” The Torah is both disagreed with and questioned. Humanistic Jews believe that the entire Jewish experience, and not only the Torah, should be studied as a source for Jewish behavior and ethical values. [26]

Some Jews believe that gentiles are bound by a subset of halakha called the Seven Laws of Noah , also referred to as the Noahide Laws. According to the Talmud, these are a set of divine imperatives given to the “children of Noah” – that is, all of humanity. [27]

Flexibility

Despite its inherent structure, halakha possesses a degree of flexibility in finding solutions to modern problems not explicitly addressed in the Torah. From the very inception of Rabbinic Judaism, halakhic inquiry allowed for a “sense of continuity between past and present, a self-evident trust that their pattern of life and belief now conformed to the sacred patterns and beliefs presented by scripture and tradition.” [28] According to an analysis by Jewish scholar Jeffrey Rubenstein of Michael Berger’s book Rabbinic Authority, the authority that rabbis hold “derives not from the institutional or personal authority of the sages but from a communal decision to recognize that authority, much as a community recognizes a certain judicial system to resolve its disputes and interpret its laws.” [29] Given this covenantal relationship, rabbis are tasked with connecting their contemporary community with the traditions and precedents of the past.

When confronted with contemporary issues, rabbis engage in a halakhic process to ascertain an answer. The classical approach has permitted new rulings concerning modern technology. For example, some of these rulings guide Jewish observers on the proper use of electricity on the Sabbath and holidays. Often, regarding the applicability of the law in any given situation, the directive is to “consult your local rabbi or posek .” This notion grants rabbis a certain degree of local authority; however, for more complex questions, the issue may be escalated to higher rabbinic authorities, who will then issue a teshuvah, a responsum that is binding. [30] Indeed, rabbis continuously issue differing opinions and constantly review each other’s work to maintain the most accurate sense of halakha. This process allows rabbis to maintain a connection between traditional Jewish law and modern life. Naturally, the degree of flexibility varies significantly among the different denominations of Judaism, with Reform being the most flexible, Conservative occupying a middle ground, and Orthodox Judaism being considerably more stringent and rigid. Modern critics, however, have argued that with the rise of movements challenging the “divine” authority of halakha, traditional Jews exhibit a greater reluctance to change not only the laws themselves but also other customs and habits than traditional Rabbinical Judaism did before the advent of Reform in the 19th century.

Denominational approaches

Orthodox Judaism

• See also: Semikhah § Concept , and Yeshiva § Jewish law

Hasidim walking to the synagogue, Rehovot , Israel.

Orthodox Jews believe that halakha is a religious system whose core represents the revealed will of God. Although Orthodox Judaism acknowledges that rabbis have made numerous decisions and decrees regarding Jewish Law where the written Torah itself is nonspecific, they did so only in accordance with regulations received by Moses on Mount Sinai (see Deuteronomy 5:8–13). These regulations were transmitted orally until shortly after the destruction of the Second Temple . They were subsequently recorded in the Mishnah and explained in the Talmud and commentaries throughout history up to the present day. Orthodox Judaism maintains that subsequent interpretations have been derived with the utmost accuracy and care. The most widely accepted codes of Jewish law are known as the Mishneh Torah and the Shulchan Aruch . [31]

Orthodox Judaism encompasses a range of opinions regarding the circumstances and extent to which change is permissible. Haredi Jews generally hold that even minhagim (customs) must be retained, and existing precedents cannot be reconsidered. Modern Orthodox authorities are more inclined to permit limited changes in customs and some reconsideration of precedent. [32]

Despite the Orthodox view that halakha was divinely given at Sinai, Orthodox thought (especially modern Orthodox thought) encourages debate, allows for disagreement, and supports rabbis in enacting decisions based on contemporary needs. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein states in his introduction to his collection of responsa that a rabbi who studies the texts carefully is obligated to provide a halakhic decision. That decision is considered a true teaching, even if it is not the absolute truth in the eyes of Heaven. [33] For instance, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik believes that the role of a halakhic decisor is to apply halakha—which exists in an ideal realm—to people’s lived experiences. [34] Moshe Shmuel Glasner , the chief rabbi of Cluj (Klausenburg in German or קלויזנבורג in Yiddish), stated that the Oral Torah was designed as an oral tradition to allow for the creative application of halakha to each time period, and even to enable halakha to evolve. He writes:

Thus, whoever has due regard for the truth will conclude that the reason the [proper] interpretation of the Torah was transmitted orally and forbidden to be written down was not to make [the Torah] unchanging and not to tie the hands of the sages of every generation from interpreting Scripture according to their understanding. Only in this way can the eternity of Torah be understood [properly], for the changes in the generations and their opinions, situation and material and moral condition requires changes in their laws, decrees and improvements. [35]

Conservative Judaism

• Further information: Conservative halakha

A mixed-gender, egalitarian Conservative service at Robinson’s Arch , Western Wall

The view held by Conservative Judaism is that the Torah is not the literal word of God. However, the Torah is still regarded as mankind’s record of its understanding of God’s revelation and thus retains divine authority. Therefore, halakha is still considered binding. Conservative Jews employ modern methods of historical study to understand how Jewish law has evolved over time and are, in some cases, willing to modify Jewish law in the present. [36]

A key practical distinction between Conservative and Orthodox approaches is that Conservative Judaism holds that its rabbinical body’s powers are not limited to reconsidering later precedents based on earlier sources. The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS) is empowered to override Biblical and Tannaic prohibitions by takkanah (decree) when perceived to be inconsistent with modern requirements or ethical views. The CJLS has utilized this power on several occasions, most notably in the “driving teshuvah”, which permits driving to synagogue on the Sabbath under specific circumstances for individuals unable to walk and whose commitment to observance might otherwise wane. More recently, it issued a decision prohibiting the taking of evidence on mamzer status on the grounds that implementing such a status is immoral. The CJLS has also held that the Talmudic concept of Kavod HaBriyot permits the lifting of rabbinic decrees (as distinct from carving out narrow exceptions) on grounds of human dignity, and used this principle in a December 2006 opinion lifting all rabbinic prohibitions on homosexual conduct (the opinion held that only male-male anal sex was forbidden by the Bible and that this remained prohibited). Conservative Judaism has also implemented several changes concerning the role of women in Judaism , including counting women in a minyan , [37] permitting women to chant from the Torah, [38] and ordaining women as rabbis . [39]

The Conservative approach to halakhic interpretation is exemplified by the CJLS’s acceptance of Rabbi Elie Kaplan Spitz’s responsum decreeing the biblical category of mamzer as “inoperative.” [40] The CJLS adopted the responsum’s view that “the morality which we learn through the larger, unfolding narrative of our tradition” informs the application of Mosaic law. [40] The responsum cited several examples where rabbinic sages declined to enforce punishments explicitly mandated by Torah law, including the trial of the accused adulteress (sotah), the “law of breaking the neck of the heifer,” and the application of the death penalty for the “rebellious child.” [41] Kaplan Spitz argues that the punishment of the mamzer has been effectively inoperative for nearly two thousand years due to deliberate rabbinic inaction. He further suggested that rabbis have long regarded the punishment declared by the Torah as immoral and concluded that no court should agree to hear testimony on mamzerut.

Codes of Jewish law

A page from the Shulchan Aruch ; Even Ha’ezer section, laws of Ketubot Shulchan Aruch HaRav

The most significant codifications of Jewish law include the following; for complementary discussion, see also History of responsa in Judaism .

The Mishnah , compiled by Judah haNasi in 200 CE, served as a basic outline of the state of the Oral Law at his time. This provided the framework upon which the Talmud was based; the Talmud’s dialectic analysis of the Mishnah’s content (the gemara ; completed c. 500 CE) became the foundation for all subsequent halakhic decisions and later codes .
Codifications ) by the Geonim of the halakhic material found in the Talmud.
An early work, She’iltot (“Questions”) by Ahai of Shabha (c. 752 CE) discusses over 190 mitzvot, exploring and addressing various questions related to them. The She’iltot significantly influenced both of the subsequent works listed below.
The first legal codex proper, Halachot Pesukot (“Decided Laws”), by Yehudai ben Nahman (c. 760 CE), rearranges Talmudic passages into a structure manageable for the layman. It was originally written in vernacular Aramaic and subsequently translated into Hebrew as Hilkhot Riu.
Halakhot Gedolot (“Great Law Book”), by Simeon Kayyara , published two generations later (though possibly written c. 743 CE), contains extensive additional material, primarily from the Responsa and Monographs of the Geonim. It is presented in a form closer to the original Talmudic language and structure. It was likely distributed amongst the newly established Ashkenazi communities as well.
The [Hilchot HaRif* was written by Rabbi Isaac Alfasi (1013–1103). It provides summations of the legal material found in the Talmud. Alfasi transcribed the Talmud’s halakhic conclusions verbatim, omitting the surrounding deliberation, and also excluded all aggadic (non-legal and homiletic) matter. The Hilchot soon superseded the geonic codes, as it contained all the relevant decisions and laws of the time and additionally served as an accessible Talmudic commentary. It has been printed with almost every subsequent edition of the Talmud.
The Mishneh Torah by Maimonides (1135–1204). This monumental work encompasses the full range of Talmudic law, organized and reformulated into a logical system comprising 14 books, 83 sections, and 1000 chapters, with each halakha stated clearly. The Mishneh Torah remains highly influential to this day, and several later works reproduce passages verbatim. It also includes a section on Metaphysics and fundamental beliefs . (Some scholars suggest this section draws heavily on Aristotelian science and metaphysics, while others propose it aligns with the tradition of Saadia Gaon .) It serves as the primary source of practical halakha for many Yemenite Jews – particularly the Baladi and Dor Daim communities – as well as for a growing community known as talmidei haRambam .
The work of the Rosh, Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel (c. 1250/1259–1328), is an abstract of the Talmud, concisely stating the final halakhic decision and quoting later authorities, notably Alfasi, Maimonides, and the Tosafists . This work superseded Rabbi Alfasi’s and has been printed with nearly every subsequent edition of the Talmud.
The Sefer Mitzvot Gadol (The “SeMaG”) by Rabbi Moses ben Jacob of Coucy (first half of the 13th century, Coucy , northern France). The “SeMaG” is organized around the 365 negative and 248 positive commandments, discussing each separately according to the Talmud (in light of the commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafot ) and the other codes extant at the time. The Sefer Mitzvot Katan (“SeMaK”) by Isaac ben Joseph of Corbeil is an abridgement of the SeMaG, including additional practical halakha, as well as aggadic and ethical material.
“The Mordechai” by Mordecai ben Hillel (d. Nuremberg 1298) serves both as a source of analysis and as decided law. Mordechai considered approximately 350 halakhic authorities and was widely influential, particularly among the Ashkenazi and Italian Jews communities. Although organized around the Hilchot of the Rif (Rabbi Isaac Alfasi), it is, in fact, an independent work. It has been printed with every edition of the Talmud since 1482.

An illuminated manuscript of the Arba’ah Turim from 1435.

The Arba’ah Turim (lit. “The Four Columns”; the Tur) by Rabbi Jacob ben Asher (1270–1343, Toledo, Spain ). This work traces halakha from the Torah text and the Talmud through the Rishonim , with the Hilchot of Alfasi as its starting point. Ben Asher followed Maimonides’s precedent in arranging his work topically; however, the Tur covers only those areas of Jewish law that were in force during the author’s lifetime. The code is divided into four main sections; almost all codes since that time have followed the Tur’s arrangement of material.
- Orach Chayim (“The Way of Life”): Worship and ritual observance in the home and synagogue , through the course of the day, the weekly Sabbath, and the festival cycle.
- Yoreh De’ah (“Teach Knowledge”): Assorted ritual instructions and prohibitions, dietary laws, and regulations concerning menstrual impurity.
- Even Ha’ezer (“The Rock of the Helpmeet”): Marriage , divorce , and other issues in family law.
- Choshen Mishpat (“The Breastplate of Judgment”): The administration and adjudication of civil law.
Agur (c. 1490) by Rabbi Jacob ben Judah Landau comprises principally an abridged presentation of the first and second parts of the Tur, emphasizing practice. It also excerpts from other works and includes Kabbalistic elements. The Agur was the first sefer to contain a Haskama (rabbinical approbation) and was influential on subsequent codes.
The Beit Yosef and the Shulchan Aruch by Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488–1575). The Beit Yosef is a massive commentary on the Tur in which Rabbi Karo traces the development of each law from the Talmud through later rabbinical literature, examining 32 authorities , beginning with the Talmud and concluding with the works of Rabbi Israel Isserlein . The Shulchan Aruch (literally “set table”) is, in turn, a condensation of the Beit Yosef, stating each ruling simply. This work follows the chapter divisions of the Tur. The Shulchan Aruch, along with its related commentaries, is considered by many to be the most authoritative compilation of halakha since the Talmud. In writing the Shulchan Aruch, Rabbi Karo based his rulings on three primary authorities: Maimonides, Asher ben Jehiel (Rosh), and Isaac Alfasi (Rif); he considered the Mordechai in inconclusive cases. Sephardic Jews , generally, use the Shulchan Aruch as the basis for their daily practice.
The works of Rabbi Moshe Isserles (“Rema”; Kraków , Poland , 1525–1572). Isserles noted that the Shulchan Aruch was based on the Sephardic tradition and created a series of glosses to be appended to the text of the Shulchan Aruch for cases where Sephardi and Ashkenazi customs differed (based on the works of Yaakov Moelin , Israel Isserlein , and Israel Bruna ). These glosses are called ha-Mapah (“the Tablecloth”). His comments are now incorporated into the body of all printed editions of the Shulchan Aruch, typeset in a different script. Today, “Shulchan Aruch” refers to the combined work of Karo and Isserles. Isserles’ Darkhei Moshe is similarly a commentary on the Tur and the Beit Yosef.
The Levush Malkhut (“Levush”) by Rabbi Mordecai Yoffe (c. 1530–1612). A ten-volume work, five volumes discuss halakha at a level “midway between the two extremes: the lengthy Beit Yosef of Karo on the one hand, and on the other Karo’s Shulchan Aruch together with the Mappah of Isserles, which is too brief.” It particularly emphasizes the customs and practices of the Jews of Eastern Europe. The Levush was exceptional among the codes in that it treated certain Halakhot from a Kabbalistic standpoint.
The Shulchan Aruch HaRav by Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi (c. 1800) was an attempt to re-codify the law as it stood at that time, incorporating commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch and subsequent responsa , thus stating the decided halakha as well as the underlying reasoning. The work was written partly to enable laymen to study Jewish law. Unfortunately, most of the work was lost in a fire prior to publication. It serves as the basis of practice for Chabad-Lubavitch and other Hasidic groups and is quoted as authoritative by many subsequent works, both Hasidic and non-Hasidic.
Works structured directly on the Shulchan Aruch, providing analysis in light of Acharonic material and codes:
- The Mishnah Berurah by Rabbi [Yisroel Meir ha-Kohen] (the “Chofetz Chaim”, Poland, 1838–1933) is a commentary on the “Orach Chayim” section of the Shulchan Aruch, discussing the application of each halakha in light of all subsequent Acharonic decisions. It has become the authoritative halakhic guide for much of Orthodox Judaism Ashkenazic Jewry in the postwar period.
- Aruch HaShulchan by Rabbi [Yechiel Michel Epstein] (1829–1888) is a scholarly analysis of halakha from the perspective of the major Rishonim. The work follows the structure of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch; laws dealing with vows, agriculture, and ritual purity are discussed in a second work known as Aruch HaShulchan he’Atid.
- Kaf HaChaim on Orach Chayim and parts of Yoreh De’ah , by the Sephardi sage [Yaakov Chaim Sofer] (Baghdad and Jerusalem , 1870–1939) is similar in scope, authority, and approach to the Mishnah Berurah. This work also surveys the views of many kabbalistic sages (particularly Isaac Luria ), when these impact the Halakha.
- Yalkut Yosef , by Rabbi [Yitzhak Yosef], is a voluminous, widely cited, and contemporary work of halakha, based on the rulings of Rabbi [Ovadia Yosef] (1920–2013).
- Piskei T’shuvot, by Rabbi [Ben-Zion Simcha Isaac Rabinowitz], is a commentary on Orach Chayim and the Mishna Berura, drawing on contemporary Acharonim. Generally oriented towards the decrees of the Hassidic poskim, it includes practical solutions and instructions for modern Halakhic issues. P’sakim U’T’shuvot by Rabbi Aharon Aryeh Katz (Rabinowitz’s son-in-law) is a similar work on Yoreh De’ah.
Layman -oriented works of halakha:
- Thesouro dos Dinim (“Treasury of Religious Rules”) by [Menasseh Ben Israel] (1604–1657) is a reconstituted version of the Shulkhan Arukh, written in Portuguese with the explicit purpose of assisting conversos from Iberia in reintegrating into halakhic Judaism. [42]
- The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch by Rabbi [Shlomo Ganzfried] (Hungary , 1804–1886), is a “digest” covering applicable Halakha from all four sections of the Shulchan Aruch, and reflecting the very strict Hungarian customs of the 19th century. It gained immense popularity after its publication due to its simplicity and remains popular in Orthodox Judaism as a framework for study, if not always for practice. This work is not considered binding in the same way as the Mishneh Torah or Shulchan Aruch.
- Chayei Adam and Chochmat Adam by [Avraham Danzig] (Poland, 1748–1820) are similar Ashkenazi works; the first covers Orach Chaim, the second extensively covers Yoreh De’ah, as well as laws from Even Ha’ezer and Choshen Mishpat pertinent to everyday life.
- The Ben Ish Chai by [Yosef Chaim] (Baghdad , 1832–1909) is a collection of laws on everyday life – parallel in scope to the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch – interspersed with mystical insights and customs, addressed to the masses and arranged by the weekly Torah portion . Its wide circulation and comprehensive coverage have established it as a standard reference work in Sephardi Halakha.
Contemporary “series”:
- Peninei Halakha by Rabbi [Eliezer Melamed]. Fifteen volumes thus far cover a wide range of subjects, from Shabbat to organ donations. In addition to clearly presenting the practical law – reflecting the customs of various communities – it also discusses the spiritual foundations of the Halakhot. It is widely studied in the Religious Zionist community.
- Tzurba M’Rabanan by Rabbi Benzion Algazi. Six volumes cover 300 topics [43] from all areas of the Shulchan Aruch, “from the Talmudic source through modern-day halachic application.” It is similarly studied in the Religious Zionist community and, outside Israel, through Mizrachi in numerous Modern Orthodox communities (15 bilingual translated volumes).
- Nitei Gavriel by Rabbi [Gavriel Zinner]. Thirty volumes cover the entire spectrum of topics in halachah, known for addressing situations not commonly found in other works and for delineating the varying approaches among the Hasidic branches. For both these reasons, they are often reprinted.
- Temimei Haderech (“A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice”) by Rabbi [Isaac Klein] with contributions from the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly . This scholarly work is based on previous traditional law codes but is written from a Conservative Jewish perspective and is not accepted among Orthodox Jews.