Day #1 of AJS Conference 2009

Yesterday (Sunday), I attended the first day of the 41st annual conference of the Association for Jewish Studies which happened to be conveniently located nearby, in LA. Instead of attending the first session, I skipped it to have coffee with the same friends’ of whose wedding I attended last year instead of going the first day of the conference. For the second session, I attended one on Issues in Genesis and Its Interpretation. The first presenter, Marzena Bogna Zawanowska, spoke on the same author as she had last year, albeit on a different topic: “Between the Holy Text and Its Unholy Context: Polemical Overtones in Yefet ben ‘Eli’s Commentary on the Book of Genesis”. In her paper, she pointed out where he writes polemically: he writes against the Rabbanites (namely, Rabbi Sa’adia Gaon), other Karaite scholars, only twice mentioning Christian thought, and barely mentioning Islam (he even mentions the Badriyyah and the Sadducees, but doesn’t write against them, since they no longer existed). Dr. Zawanowska pointed out that he seemed to not bother with, for the most part, Islam and Christianity since they did not have the same beliefs in God or the Bible as did the Jews, so he mostly wrote against fellow Karaites as well as Rabbanites (and, obviously the Badriyyah and the Sadducees were not around, so they were irrelevant).
The next paper, “The Death of Isaac,” was presented by Tzemah Yoreh, wherein he discussed the binding of Isaac and his seeming death that occurred. He pointed out that “fear” is a common occurrence regarding Abraham…. He said that the juxtaposition at the end of Genesis 20 of closing up the wombs in the house of Avimelekh with Sarah becoming pregnant at the beginning of chapter 21 may seem to give the sense that she became pregnant through him and not Avraham and that, due to the "doth protesteth too much" principle about the text saying that Isaac is the son of Avraham multiple times, maybe that isn't the case (he didn't say that that was necessarily the case, just that the text might hint at that). Yoreh also mentioned that, after the binding of Isaac in the E texts, Isaac is no longer mentioned, and that, in the E text, it stands as a faith model (Bilaam, as well). Whether or not I found what he said convincing, Yoreh hewed closely to the texts, which was good.

The next presente

r was Charlotte Katzoff, who spoke on “Abraham: A God-fearing Man or a Knight of Faith”, which dealt with the problem with promise to Abraham and God’s command, which explored a person’s evidence and belief and she tried to show a convincing picture of Abraham's cogniti

ve state. She was saying this was a larger story about his faith and that, in this story, justice is not at stake – God not presenting this as tit-for-tat. Following the paper, there was a meta-discussion on morality of the akedah and so forth with regard to reading into the text, etc.

Session 2: The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context

Lawrence Schiffman was unable to be there, but his paper, “Purity as Separation: Comparing the Dead Sea

Scrolls, Rabbinic Literature, and the New Testament” was read by Alex Jassen

Mentioned in Mark and Matthew and then in Acts and Apostles (later texts), set aside are purity issues
Rabbis – food purity discontinued due to lack of the Temple
Paula Fredrickson responded by saying that this issue is more complicated with NT texts, since there’s also the issue of sexual stuff.

Ron H. Feldman “Taming the Wild and Wilding the Tame: The Shifting Relationships between Humans, God, and Nature in the Qumran and Rabbinic Calendars”He was presenting on how different ways time is understood – studying the different calendars as texts for understanding the ways in which is understood. The lunisolar calendar is something we know from rabbinic texts and the 364-day calendar is known from Jubilees, 1 Enoch, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. There are similarities and differences between the two: both of them evolve from the Babylonian calendar. The rabbinic calendar favored ר"ח over שבת, while the 364-day calendar favored the opposite.
It seems that they reflect wild and tame notions of time: wild notion of time is reflected in the lunar calendar, since the moon was created before man and since it needs to be recognized by men to be announced; while the tame notion of time is reflected in the 364-day calendar, since it is שבת-based, which was created after man and is very regular.Interesting that שבת is the only time that is referred to as קדש in the Bible, whereas ר"ח is not
Jubilees is not just polemical against the lunisolar calendar, but also against the other 364-day calendars, as well.
The lunisolar calendar in the mishnah is observational
The key divine marker temporal marker is ר"ח and, therefore, one can break שבת to testify.
Wild time – uncertainty at center
Response to dysfunctionality of 364-day calendar
Second stage – observation began to wane and movement to control it but subtle – effort to assert control over wild time
Two ways of relating to time and cosmos

Alex P. Jassen “Connecting the Dots in the History of Halakhah: The Restriction on Thinking about Labor on the Sabbath in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jubilees, and Rabbinic Literature”Presented various texts from the DSS and rabbinic literature (nothing in Jubilees) on the topic of the problem of going out to one’s field on the Sabbath.

Robert R. Cargill “The Current State of the Archaeological Debate at Qumran”
I had previously seen him on a show on the History Channel, where he spoke on the same topic, which was interesting. He opened up by saying just as there is a State of the Union address, he was going to give a State of the Archaeological Debate at Qumran, basically considering why is this topic so contentious? For me, this was incredibly helpful, since I have been to the ** at the Israel Museum and had seen some stuff, but never knew what was so contentious about the study of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Cargill said that Qumran was well-documented in the mid-19th century, before the discovery of the DSS located nearby and that the discovery of the DSS radically changed the understanding of archaeology of Qumran in 1949. Initially, it was considered to have been either a Roman or a Hasmonean fort, but after the discovery of the DSS, a Qumran-Essene Hypothesis was advanced, perhaps that Qumran was established by sectarian Jews.
The discovery of the DSS then influenced scholars looking at the archaeological site (which warranted a comment that good archaeologists should examine the site first and then afterward consider other data).
The site appears to have been established as a highly defensive site with an excellent view of the crossroads, but had been expanded into less of a defensive building.
Cargill said he believes it to have initially been built in 140-130 bce as a Hasmonean fortress, which was abandoned, but then reoccupied and settled by sectarian Jews, who then expanded the building.
He said the debate will go on and his nice four-minute conclusion may be seen here.

Session 3: Narrative Voice in the Redaction of Rabbinic Texts
First up was Aaron Neale Amit “’This Mishnah was taught in the days of Rabbi’: On the Development of the Terms Mishnah and Talmud in the Bavli and Yerushalmi”, who discussed a particular beraita in the Babylonian Talmud and showed how it was originally found elsewhere in the Yerushalmi.
Yonatan Feintuch spoke on “The Role of the ‘One Hasid’ Stories in Halakhic Contexts in the Babylonian Talmud” - The term חסיד אחד appears seven times in the Bavli, four of which appear in closed literary halakhic סוגיות and three of which are mentioned merely in passing; it was on the former upon which Feintuch focused.
The first instance is found on Berakhot 32a-b (mentioned previously on my blog), which appears to possibly be a reworking of a Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai story on Berakhot 26a, here seemingly replacing a named character for an unnamed character. The second instance is on Bava Kamma 80a, which is very similar to a story found in Tosefta Bava Kamma 8.13 involving Rabbi Yehudah ben Bava.
The third instance is found on Shabbat 150b. The fourth instance is found on Bava Kamma 50b.
While Bavli wanted greater leniency, redactors showed a way to be stringent using anonymity of a sage to demonstrate.
Binyamin Katzoff “A Story in Three Contexts: On the Relation of Halakhic and Non-Halakhic Material in the Redaction of Rabbinic Works” - His main point was that, when reading the Tosefta, it should be done as a text on its own and not as a text dependent upon the Mishnah. This was a simple yet important point for anyone studying the Tosefta.
Kris Lindbeck was not there, but Natalie Polzer read her “Humor, Violence, and Resignation: Elijah Tries to Bring the Messiah”
Story from Bava Metzia 85b and tried to promote the need for utilizing oral formulaic studies in understanding rabbinic stories since it helps identify stories by similar formulae, also for discovering motifs which were widely distributed and how they were meant to be used/understood, and it increases sensitivity to linguistic similarities and also how stories fit with a formula but then can be overturned. Elijah is often in disguise to do good, while other supernatural visitors appear in disguise to do bad.

Association of Jewish Studies Conference #41: I'm There

Just as I attended last year's Association of Jewish Studies conference (albeit only the second day and the third day), I am at this year's AJS conference. Granted, it's a lot easier to get to, since I'm about a half-hour's drive or so from where we are living.

I hope to be able to type up what's been going on, because it's good stuff. In the meantime, you can enjoy this four-minute video of the conclusion to Richard Cargill's very informative paper on "The Current State of the Archaeological Debate at Qumran", wherein he sums up the importance of the DSS and Qumran studies:

Orthodox American Rabbis Visit Desecrated Mosque in Kfar Yasuf (Press Release)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Orthodox American Rabbis Visit Desecrated Mosque in Kfar Yasuf

Kfar Yasuf, Israel - December 15, 2009 On Tuesday, rabbis representing Open Orthodox communities in the United States and Israel visited the community of Yasuf, expressing shared pain and condemnation for the desecration of the Yasuf Community mosque, allegedly committed by Jewish extremists.

Wearing their kippot, Rabbi Avi Weiss, founder of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah and rabbi of the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, and Rabbi Yair Silverman, formerly of Beth Israel of Berkley CA and now rabbi of Moed in the Zichron Yaakov community in Israel, told a crowd outside the mosque: "We come in peace to express deep pain for what occurred. We condemn it with all our hearts and souls. As a people that has experienced such desecration, we come to reach out to you in the spirit of brotherhood."

The visit was conducted without press or military escort. "Just this morning, I looked in the papers and said, 'Wow, [the vandalism] was unacceptable,' and I felt it was very critical to reach out, human to human" said Rabbi Weiss. "There needs to be a strong voice of Torah protest against this."

At first, the visit created tension. "When we first arrived, people were confused why we were there. They were also angry. The pain of the community was palatable," said Rabbi Silverman. "But we needed to bear witness to the pain acknowledge that any desecration of one's religious worship is unacceptable."

When the rabbis initially extended their hands the community did not return the gesture. After some sign language and the help of an Arab interpreter, the mood changed. Eyad, a driver for the rabbis, said "I told the people that these rabbis have put their lives in danger to come and be by your side, to help as Jews. Listen to what they have to say."

The rabbis offered support to the rebuilding efforts and met with Munnir Abushi, local governor. "We joined them as brothers to share in their effort to rebuild, as we celebrate the hanukah message together that a bit of light can chase away the deepest darkness."
" said Rabbi Silverman. By the end of the visit, the two groups reached an air of respect and understanding and the rabbis departed to handshakes and warm wishes.

When asked about the outcome of the encounter, Rabbi Weiss said "In spiritual activism, I measure the success of an action by its purity- is it right or is it wrong. To come here today was the right thing to do. It's what the Torah is all about."

Contact:
Ari Hart
ari.hart@gmail.com
011-972-542-8393

International Rabbinical Fellowship Press Release: "New Orthodox Rabbinical Group Established"

International Rabbinic Fellowship

347 West 34th Street

New York, NY 10001

Press Release

Contact: Rabbi Jason Herman, Executive Director

Phone: 917.751.5265

Email: jlherman@jlherman.net

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

9 A.M. EDT, November 20, 2009

new orthodox rabbinical Group established

Rabbis from across the United States, Canada, South America, Israel and Hong Kong came together last week to officially establish a new and long awaited organization of Orthodox Rabbis. The International Rabbinic Fellowship (IRF), several years in the making, is the brainchild of Rabbi Avraham Weiss of the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale in Riverdale, the Bronx, New York, and founder of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical School, and Rabbi Marc D. Angel, Rabbi Emeritus of New York’s oldest Jewish congregation, Shearith Israel, and director of the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals.

A board and officers was elected consisting of the next generation of Orthodox Rabbis who have shown themselves to be at the forefront of modern Orthodox leadership. The organization’s 120 or so founding members elected Rabbi Barry Gelman, Rabbi of the United Orthodox Synagogues of Houston, Houston, Texas, as the IRF’s first President, Rabbi Hyim Shafner, Rabbi of Bais Abraham Congregation, St. Louis, Missouri, as Vice President of Education and Communication, Rabbi Nissan Antine, Rabbi of Beth Sholom Congregation and Talmud Torah, Potomac, Maryland, as Vice President for Membership and Conferences, Rabbi Joel Tessler, Rabbi of Beth Sholom Congregation and Talmud Torah, Potomac, Maryland, as Vice President, Rabbi Saul Strosberg, Rabbi of Congregation Sherith Israel, Nashville, Tennessee, as Treasurer, and Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky, Rabbi of Congregation B’nai David-Judea, Los Angeles, California, as Secretary. A code of ethics that will bind the new group was provisionally adopted.

This first conference of the International Rabbinic Fellowship included the voting into reality of several new initiatives that promise to transform the Orthodox community and perhaps the Jewish world. A committee to formulate new procedures for Orthodox conversions, so much in the news in Israel and the United states as of late, was appointed. The committee is tasked with presenting to the IRF a final outline of requirements and processes for Orthodox conversions to be adopted by the membership in June at its annual meeting. The committee’s chairs are Rabbi Dov Linzer, Head of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical School in New York City and Rabbi Joel Tessler, Senior Rabbi of Beth Sholom Congregation and Talmud Torah, Potomac, Maryland.

Though Orthodox Judaism does not ordain women as rabbis, several Orthodox women who serve in a handful of Orthodox congregations in rabbinic capacities were present. A long discussion was held at the conference on the question of admitting women acting in a rabbinic capacity as full voting members among the Rabbis. The group voted to task the membership committee with creating criteria for the potential consideration of admission of women. If the IRF votes to admit women, criteria for membership will also be voted on in June. The IRF recognizes that there are highly capable women serving in rabbinic roles and as such the group might benefit from their presence, ideas and guidance. This heralds the first time that an Orthodox rabbinical group has entertained the possibility of admitting women as full members into its ranks.

For more information about the International Rabbinic Fellowship and the proceedings of its seminal inaugural conference held this past Tuesday and Wednesday November 17-18, please contact any of the following members:

Rabbi Barry Gelman, tel. 713.723.3850, email

Rabbi Hyim Shafner, tel. 314.583.4397, email

Rabbi Nissan Antine, tel. 301.279.7010 x 209, email

Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky, tel. 310.276.9269, email

Rabbi Marc D. Angel, tel. 212.724.4145, email

Rabbi Jason Herman, IRF Executive Director, tel. 917.751.5265, email

Vlog Post On Our Last Week in New York

More on Meiri

A few weeks ago, I mentioned that I attended an AJWS event where Professor Moshe Halbertal spoke to past attendees of their Rabbinical Student Delegation trips (of which I was one, having gone to El Salvador), wherein, although he spoke about Rabbi Menachem Meiri,* he nicely framed the larger discussion. Professor Halbertal wrote an article on the aforementioned Meiri several years back that is pretty well-regarded on the topic.

What isn't as well-known is that Rabbi Aryeh Klapper gave a lecture (“Paskening Like the Meiri: Reflections on Jewish Attitudes Toward Gentiles and Halakhic Integrity”) which I attended a few years ago (although I re-listened to here and here). Although I found many ideas interesting in the lecture, I'm going to transcribe several interesting excerpts.

The first is on the interest in the Meiri:

In the draft of an article I am trying to write about this,** I think the fun paragraph I wrote about this was:

The mere existence of the Meiri has been a source of comfort for Orthodox Jews with universalistic tendencies. The reason that one wants to pasken like the Meiri is because of his unique position about Jewish-Gentile relations that appeal to those of us who have discomfort with laws that make sharp distinctions as to the obligations one has toward Gentiles as opposed to Jews and particularly those laws that seem to imply that basic standards of ethics are limited within the Jewish community.

A very fascinating section was where he discussed the importance of Meiri's writings and how they were attempted to be suppressed:

One is I want to preserve the uniqueness of Judaism, so if I say that all that you need to be a good person is x, then what’s special about Judaism? Secondly, one has the sense that somehow that being part of a community means that you relate to members of the community differently than you relate to non-members of the community. So then there should be some way that family members see themselves as obligated differently to each other, they’re should be some difference.

Now the Meiri offering a way possibly to level all of those distinctions, therefore, was seen as, both because he is seen as diminishing the uniqueness of Judaism and diminishing the unique bonds of Jews to each other was seen as very threatening. And because of this, a whole series of objections were raised. A stark way of framing this – and I’m going to quote this article again where I said

Meiri’s evident willingness to subject halakhah to moral critique and Meiri’s position to say not just "I think this is the halakhah", but I think if you don’t think this is the halakhah, then you’re doing something very wrong. And not just technically wrong, but morally wrong, because there is no justification for treating people like this. So Meiri’s evident willingness to subject halakhah to moral critique raised alarm among traditionalists. As a result, various legends and methodological positions have grown up with the purpose of limiting Meiri’s halakhic and hashkafic impact. These include the claim that Meiri’s works were unknown in halakhic tradition before the 20th century, that his work was published by the memorized transmission of unique manuscripts in the Vatican library, and, therefore, the Jesuits had infiltrated pro-Gentile glosses into the text.

When I was in yeshivah, there was, in fact, a very elaborate story about this: that Meiri was unknown to many for many years. One man who had a photographic memory was allowed into the Vatican library one day a year; he would read the Meiri and come back and write it down very quickly. That’s how the Meiri was published and the Meiri was unknown before this. Now one has to be suspicious because isn’t it funny that a work which exists only in the Vatican library happens to have these pro-Gentile glosses.

All very nice but regrettably not true. Not true at all. If you look at the Harvard Library catalog, you’ll see that the Meiri is published as early as 1830….

Another interesting quote:

The fundamental claim that Halbertal makes is that Meiri thinks that there is no avodah zarah in Christianity and, therefore, you can be engaged with their worship – all those prohibitions are moot. And Rabbi Henkin claims no, you can’t do that. Halbertal makes this claim based on this terminological precision. Here, I have to make a reference to quote Rabbi Saul Berman, who taught me the notion of Predictive Principles in Halakhah. If I want to set up the claim that A always goes with B, I have to know in advance whether a certain object is going to be B or not. So Professor Halbertal has these three categories, which are Civil Discrimination, Indirect Contact with Idolatry, and Social Contact. And there are 60-70 cases. So I had my students – what I did was, instead of giving them Professor Halbertal’s neat categorizations, I gave them all these cases in the order in the Talmud, and I said “Take every case and put it in either category A, B, or C.” And it turns out that the categories are not good predictive principles. On the whole, except for a few cases, the students distributed randomly as to whether these laws fell into category A, B, or C. So, it’s difficult to test Professor’s Halbertal’s thesis on a broad level.

Another:

Whenever Meiri makes these radical claims, he only makes them by implication. For example, he says here עובדי אלילים, one is not obligated to save them because they have no דת. This is the law regarding paternity of people who have no דת. When he makes the non-radical claims, he says "but, with regard to those who have דת...,". When he makes the radical claims, he leaves out the "but". He just does the implication. Pretty consistent. So you have to wonder: does this mean that Meiri really believes these things but can't get away with it or he's just seeding the tradition and hoping someone will come along and pasken like it? Is he cluing you in that this is really just apologetic and don't believe any of the other places he said it, either? I don't know. It's tough to imagine that he says it in so many times and yet, at the same time, there is a pattern - to me, and I have to show you all of the cases - that the more radical he gets halakhically, the less likely it is for him to spell out the implication.

One last one:

...Rabbi Henkin's really compelling argument is there's some silence - there's so many places that Meiri has the opportunity to just tell us "Christians are not עובדי עבודה זרה." He says the Sefardic rabbis write that Muslims are not עובדי עבודה זרה. He never says it about Christians. He has so many opportunities, it's suspicious.

-

* Meiri had previously been discussed on my blog here.

** The paper on which he was working was presented as "The Meiri’s Halakhah about Christians and Christianity: A Response to Halbertal" at the Association for Jewish Studies 39th Annual Conference in December 2007.

Is There a Jewish View on Same-Gender Marriage In the Public Sphere?

With the votes in Maine and Washington today, I saw some stuff on Twitter that made me think about it, especially Alan's tweet that says "Doesn't understand these anti-marriage-equality folks in DC: why do they think their (dumb) religion has say over CIVIL marriage? Jews don't."

This got me to thinking: is this so? Does Judaism believe that a same-gendered marriage may occur?
What makes this a not simple discussion begins with the following midrash, commenting on Lev. 18.3 (even though verses 2-5 are part of the introduction to verses 6-23, with verses 24-30 being the conclusion to the middle section), the rabbis treat verse 3 as referring to something not [necessarily] in verses 6-23 (Sifra 9.8):

כמעשה ארץ מצרים וכמעשה ארץ כנען לא תעשו, יכול לא יבנו בניינות ולא יטעו נטיעות כמותם תלמוד לומר ובחקותיהם לא תלכו, לא אמרתי אלא בחוקים החקוקים להם ולאבותיהם ולאבות אבותיהם ומה היו עושים האיש נושא לאיש והאשה לאשה, האיש נושא אשה ובתה והאשה ניסת לשנים לכך נאמר ובחקותיהם לא תלכו

"Like the actions of the land of Egypt or like the actions of the land of Canaan you shall not do" - Is it possible that [this means that] there shall not be built buildings nor shall there be planted plantings like them? What can be learned out from this passage is that "In their particular ways you shall not walk" - I would have only said 'in their particular ways which they have distinguished as being particular to them and to their fathers and to the fathers of their fathers.'

So what did they do [that was problematic that this verse is prohibiting]? A man would marry a man and a woman would marry a woman; a man would marry a woman and her daughter and a woman would be married to to men. Therefore, it is said, "In their particular ways you shall not walk."

If that were the end of the story, it could just be that these are things Jews, alone, are to avoid, while whether or not gentiles are to avoid them is unclear. However, what further complicates the matter is the notion of the 7 Noahide commandments, which, according to Jewish tradition, are to be followed by gentiles. One of these seven is widely known as Sexual Morality - included in this commandment are a number of sexual prohibitions, including incest, bestiality, and adultery, but also includes homosexual sex between two men (but not between two women).

However, if this sexual morality aspect were to include the prohibition on marriages mentioned in the midrash, then, according to Jewish tradition, not only for Jews is same-sex/gender marriage prohibited, but also for non-Jews. And, if Jews are supposed to be the light to the nations, then we shouldn't be helping the rest of the world in a direction that is not in their best interests. On the other hand, this discussion could only arise when Jews could be able to contribute to the conversation....

My Visit to the Hospital Today

Today, I went to Columbia-Presbyterian Hospital for the first time ever (which is interesting since this is the main hospital in the area (and I ran past it many times when I used to be able to jog) and I have lived here for five years and my last week here).

My pain started earlier this week. On Tuesday, when I was riding the subway, because of how another rider was sitting, I sat next to my wife, albeit on a ridge between seats. Although I experienced some uncomfortability in my tailbone, I thought nothing of it. The next day, I woke up with a little soreness there; the following day, a little bit more. I had merely thought I had bruised my tailbone and was hoping it would get better on its own. By Friday evening, the pain was certainly not a little bruise, but I couldn't just go to the doctor's office. On Saturday, I began to have trouble walking and, by Saturday night, my walking was very limited. So, today, we headed over to the hospital to get my pain checked out.

The doctor who saw me identified the issue as a pilonidal cyst, which is an abcess of pus near my tailbone. When I told him what I thought had caused it (the pressure from the subway seat, he dismissed that idea (although, it's unclear, precisely, what causes pilonidal cysts).

The procedure consisted of various local numbing shots and then a cut to open up the pocket of pus (none of which was comfortable). I then waited about 15 minutes for it to air out (for the [bad] bacteria to die. I thought I was past all of the pain, but the next part where there was string put in the area where the pus had been and it was surprisingly painful. And with a bandage put on top, that was it.

We then headed out of the hospital (thank you, honey, for waiting for me the entire time with our daughter), had a friend graciously give us a ride back to our apartment, and now it's time to recover.

Criticism and Acceptance of the Shulhan Arukh

On Thursday, while waiting at the doctor's office, I came across the following quotation from Asher Siev's 1943 PhD dissertation "The Period, Life and Work of Rabbi Moses Isserles" (Yeshiva University) on page 73 concerning criticism of the Shulhan Arukh:

R. Moses Yafeh, a pupil of R. Isserles, felt that the Shulchan Aruch, both of R. Caro and R. Isserles, is inadequate because it fails to give the sources of each law. This caused him to compose his Levushim in which he elaborates, gives the origin and reason of the law, and often disregards Rabbis Caro and Isserles together. R. Meir of Lublin (MaHaram of Lublin) opposed the Shulchan Aruch and also the Levushim on the ground that many stumble and misinterpret the law as a result of consulting such abbreviated works.
There were others who objected to the Shulchan Aruch. These objections resulted from a belief that the simplification and codification of the Law will do more harm than good, for it will discourage intensive study and also will serve as a tool in the hands of ignorant people who, with the aid of such a digest, will pose as Rabbis and scholars.

However, Siev continues on pp. 73-74 concerning the acceptance of said work:

Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch was accepted by the greatest majority of the Rabbis of the day. The Sefaradim accepted the authority of the Bet Yoseph, while the Ashkenazim reserved the right to follow R. Isserles whenever the two disagreed. The pupils of R. Isserles helped in spreading his works as well as influence amonth the Rabbis of all lands. The more prominent of these are R. Joshua Falk (סמ"ע) and R. Benjamin Ashkenazi (בעל שו"ת משאת בנימין). The former, being the first to place a commentary on the Shulchan Aruch, endeavored to side with its authors and to explain every difficulty and objection that was raised against them. He took special pains to justify R. Isserles and was even accused of inserting in the writings of his teacher interpretations of which the latter never dreamt. R. Salnik wrote: “In all the lands of the Ashkenazim, the opinions of R. Isserles were accepted and we follow him in everything.” Also, “since this decision came from my teacher, R. Moses Isserles of blessed memory, far be it from me to be lenient and lift my head against him.”
After these eminent authorities, there followed a host of others who strengthened the influence and authority of the Shulchan Aruch. Of them, we may mention R. Isaiah Segal Hurwitz (השלה), who testified that, already in his day, the decisions of R. Isserles spread in all lands, R. Joel Sirkish (ב"ח), R. YomTov Heller (תוס' יו"ט), R. Jacob Joshua b. R. Zvi (בעל שו"ת פני יהושע), R. Samuel Zeinvil, R. Menachem Mendil of Nikelshpurg (צמח צדק) and his son-in-law, R. Gershon Ashkenazi (עבודת הגרשוני) etc.
The authority of the Shulchan Aruch was even more strengthened after the two valuable emendations of R. David Segal (ט"ז) and R. Shabtai Katz (ש"ך). These eminent scholars added invaluable lucidity to the texts and put the seal of final approval to the great work of the Bet Yoseph and R. Isserles.

On Our Cultural Epistemic

I found the following quote to be tremendously interesting (from here):

we denizens of the third millennium CE make constant recourse to specialists whose art has no basis in empirical discovery or other Enlightenment values. We shape our moral and aesthetic imaginations through reading Lord of the Rings or watching The Matrix series. We sate our appetites for stylized violence by watching Pulp Fiction and Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. We depend on an acupuncturist for healing and we practice yoga. We are pulled in by Yom Kippur or the Old Rugged Cross.