Who wrote the Shulhan Arukh?
At first glance, the question “Who wrote the Shulhan Arukh?” is almost rhetorical-R. Joseph Caro. As I mentioned in a previous post, there are certain scholars who entrust no small part of their research and writing to students and research assistants. Among those who have been accused of such a methodology was none other than R. Joseph Caro. His Shulhan Arukh (SA) was subject to much criticism for two main reasons. The first being that there are many opinions that are brought in the SA and Caro does not seem to decide between them, the second being that there are a number of contradictions between different parts of the SA (see Elon, pp. 1367ff. and E. Shochetman). Among the numerous explanations given to explain these problems was that Caro himself was not responsible for the writing of the Shulhan Arukh.
שמעתי אומרים שהרב מהר”י קארו מסר לתלמידיו כתיבת קיצור ספרו הגדול בית יוסף, הלוא הוא ספר השלחן ערוך, ויען כי לא אחד היה הרב המסדר שניהם נמצאו מזה קצת השינויים בדעות ובנסחאות וקשה לזווגם ולתקנם יחד בלתי דוחק הרבה המביא להוציא הדברים מפשוטם
(שו”ת דבר שמואל, סימן רנה, הובאו באלון עמ’ 1142)
I have heard it said that our teacher, Rabbi Joseph Caro, entrusted the abridgement of his great work, Bet Yosef, to his students; the result was the Shulhan Arukh. Since both were not edited by the same person, there are some inconsistencies in substance as well as in style, and it is very difficult to harmonize them without resorting to a tortured explanation that departs from the plain meaning of the text.
-Samual Aboab (Responsa Devar Shemuel, no. 255, Elon, p. 1371)
If Joseph Caro himself says in his introduction that he wrote the Shulhan Arukh, how could someone think that he wasn’t its author?
דנראה פשוט שמרן הקדוש לא יניח ספר שעשאו להורות לכל ישראל ביד תלמידיו אף שהיו גדולים שיבא מכשול, וכל שכן שלא יחלק ההלכות לזה אחת ולזה אחת או כיוצא, דנפיק מיניה חורבא, ואם חס ושלום היה כן א היה כותב שהוא חיברו, דכל קהל עדתו עליו יסמוכו והוא לא ידע אלא תלמידיו וחס ושלום למרן הקדוש שתצא תקלה מתחת ידיו (שם הגדולם, ספרים, אות ש, סימן עה, הובאו באלון, עמ’ 1143 הע’ 18)
It seems clear that our holy master [Caro] would not leave to is students, no matter how great they were, [the writing of] a work intended to be a code for all of Israel, because that would lead to error. He certainly would not have divided the work among his students, or done anything similar, because the result would be enormous confusion. Furthermore, if, God forbid, he had done this, he would not have written that he wrote it, knowing that everyone will rely on it, while he himself would not know [what the book contained], but only his students [would know]. God forbid that he should be responsible for such a disaster.
Shem ha-Gedolim, Books, shin, no. 75, Elon, p. 1372 n. 18
This is just one of the many issues involving perhaps the most influential post-Talmudic halakhic code.
Sources:
Menachem Elon, Jewish Law=המשפט העברי; Eliav Shochetman, “Al ha-Setirot be-Shulhan Arukh”, Assufot 3 (We intend to devote an entire post to Shochetman’s theory about the nature of the SA); Yaakov S. Spiegel, Amudim ba-Toldot ha-Sefer ha-Ivri: Ketivah ve-Ha’atakah, pp. 39-41 (Surprisingly Spiegel doesn’t mention the theories regarding the authorship of the SA).