A guide to, and abbreviation of, the standard code of Jewish law, the Shulhan Aruch

"A guide to, and abbreviation (kitzur) of the standard code of Jewish law, the Shulhan Aruch -- itself an abbreviation of a much longer text. Compiled by a Hungarian rabbi in the mid-nineteenth century, this is a practical and effective code, intended for Jewish businessmen who wish to keep the Law and educate their sons without themselves engaging in halakhic investigations -- and will be equally useful to students of Orthodox custom and ritual"--Publisher's description, back cover.

The Ḥayei Adam, an abridged code of Jewish law, was written by Rabbi Avraham Danzig (1748-1820) and was first published in 1810. This code spread quickly throughout Europe, and the demand for it required a second publishing which the author printed in 1818. Beyond a Code of Jewish Law attempts to understand the implicit message of its author and discuss various approaches of its writer to both Judaism and Jewish law. While the Ḥayei Adam without any doubt unveils Rabbi Danzig to be a brilliant rabbinic scholar, with a comprehensive knowledge of Jewish law as well as a coherent and concise system of presentation, it also expresses his great concern for the Jewish community and each individual Jew. Aspects of this concern such as Hasidism, musar, kabbalah, are explored.

Index. Bibliography: p.259-263.

For more than four centuries, Jewish life has been based on a code of law written by Joseph Caro, his Shulḥan `aruk ['set table']. The work was an immediate best-seller because it presented the law in a clear and concise format. Caro's work, however, was methodologically problematic and was widely criticized in the first generations after its publication. In this volume, Edward Fram examines Caro's methods as well as those of two of his contemporaries, Moses Isserles and Solomon Luria. He highlights criticisms of Caro's legal thought and brings alternative methodologies to the fore. He also compares these three jurists, while placing their methods, and cases in their historical, intellectual, and religious contexts. Fram's volume ultimately explains why Caro's methodologically problematic work won the day, while more sophisticated approaches remained points of legal reference but fell short of achieving the acceptance that their authors hoped for.