¹ The point about the uniqueness of Maimonides and Epstein in their comprehensive ambitions was made by Broyde, Michael J. and Bedzow, Ira, The Codification of Jewish Law and an Introduction to the Jurisprudence of the Mishna Berura (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2014), 14–15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and again in Setting the Table, 17n58, 46–47. Cf. Setting the Table, 16, 17n57 (Rabbi Yitzhak Alfasi is described as “the first attempt to craft a complete code of Jewish law.”).

² Broyde concurrently served as a translator for an English edition of Arukh hashulhan: Aruch Hashulchan in English: Orach Chaim, Chapters 242–292 (Laws of Shabbat), trans. Michael J. Broyde, Ilan Segal, Mordechai Torczyner, ed. Ilan Segal (Jerusalem: Urim Publications, 2021). For a brief, glowing review, see Ari Enkin, “Aruch Hashulchan in English,” Torah Book Reviews, October 5, 2021, http://torahbookreviews.blogspot.com/2021/10/aruch-hashulchan-in-english.html.

³ Works that deal with the jurisprudence of Arukh HaShulhan that are not referenced by Broyde and Pill (see Setting the Table, 35n9) include the following: Michael Rosen, “The Interaction of Kabbalah and Halachah in the ‘Aruch HaShulchan,” Maqom Journal for Studies in Rabbinic Literature, no. 19 (n.d.), www.maqom.com/journal/paper22.pdf; Mark Washofsky, “Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Epstein and the Arukh Hashulhan,” review of The Boldness of an Halakhist: An Analysis of the Writings of Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein, by Simcha Fishbane, H-Judaic, H-Net Reviews, December 2008, www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=23501; Shimon Yisraeli, “Torah livnei adam: ‘al darko hahilkhatit shel r. Yehiel-Mikhel Epstein besifro ‘Arukkh hashulhan” [Law for humans: Regarding the legal approach of R. Yehiel Mikhel Epstein in his book Arukh Hashulhan], Netiva 2 (2012): 185–202; Cooper, Levi, “Custom in the ‘Arukh Ha-Shulhan and Custom in the Mishna Berura,” in The Paths of Daniel: Studies in Jewish Studies in Honor of Rabbi Professor Daniel Sperber, ed. Ferziger, Adam S. (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2017), 301–36Google Scholar (Hebrew); Elazar Goldshtein, “Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein: Bio-bibliography and Halakhic Method” (MA thesis, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 2017) (Hebrew); Havlin, Shlomo Zalman, “Two Comments on Arukh haShulhan and Mishna Berura: In the Wake of the Book Ta’arokh Lefanai Shulhan by Rav Eitam Henkin H.Y.D.,” Hama’yan 60, no. 1 (2019): 432–38Google Scholar (Hebrew); Henkin, Eitam, Studies in Halakhah and Rabbinic History, ed. Henkin, Chana (New Milford: Maggid, 2021), 202–09, 279–84Google Scholar). This list could be supplemented with works discussing aspects of Epstein’s biography or other writings.

⁴ Soloveitchik, Haym, “Rupture and Reconstruction: The Transformation of Contemporary Orthodoxy,” Tradition 28, no. 4 (1994): 64–130 Google Scholar; Simcha Fishbane, The Boldness of an Halakhist: An Analysis of the Writings of Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein, The Arukh Hashulhan (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2008); Cooper, “Custom in the ‘Arukh Ha-Shulhan and Custom in the Mishna Berura,”; Henkin, Eitam, Set a Table before Me: The Life and Work of Rabbi Yehiel Mikhl Epstein, Author of Arukh HaShulhan (Jerusalem: Maggid Books, 2018), 309–17Google Scholar (Hebrew); Havlin, “Two Comments on Arukh haShulhan and Mishna Berura.”

⁵ Broyde, Michael J. and Bedzow, Ira, “The Codification of Jewish Law and an Introduction to the Jurisprudence of the Mishna Berura,” Hamline Law Review 35, no. 3 (2012): 623–54Google Scholar; Broyde and Bedzow, The Codification of Jewish Law.

⁶ This point was made by Haym Soloveitchik, who demanded that it be fiercely applied. Haym Soloveitchik, “Can Halakhic Texts Talk History?” AJS Review 3 (1978): 153–96, 174–76; Haym Soloveitchik, Yeinam [Their Wine] (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2003), 9–10; Haym Soloveitchik, “Halakha, Hermeneutics, and Martyrdom in Medieval Ashkenaz,” Jewish Quarterly Review 94, no. 1 (2004): 77–108, at 77; see also Jacob Katz, Halakha and Kabbala (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1984), 229 (Hebrew). For a softer position that accepts the basic premise but argues for a looser application, see Levi Cooper, “The Admor of Munkács Rabbi Chaim Elazar Shapira: The Hasidic Poseq: Image and Approach” (PhD diss., Bar-Ilan University, 2011) (Hebrew), 9–10.

⁷ The repeated restatement is reminiscent of Maimonides’ frequent reiteration of the 613 commandments as the framework for his Mishne torah.

⁸ Broyde and Pill refer to this principle as reliance on precedent (79, 112, 244, 253; but see 52, where different terms are used). While the term precedent resonates with common law jurists, in the context of Jewish law, the term is misleading because it is not a reference to the stare decisis doctrine. See, among others, the literature referenced in Setting the Table at 90n30 and 115n17.

⁹ Setting the Table, 38n29; 39–40nn32, 35–38, 40; 42n48; 43n50; 83n1; 91n33, 35; 189nn15, 17; 191n24; 205n94; 242n80. No footnotes refer to Arukh hashulhan ha‘atid.

¹⁰ For example, Arukh hashulhan, Yoreh de‘ah 64:41, deals with two customs that are contradictory. This is vital for principle 8 (and to a lesser extent principles 9 and 10). This is a classic issue in Jewish jurisprudence. See, among others, Natan Nuta Shapira of Hrodna, Mevo she‘arim ‘al hagahot, on Sha‘arei dura (Lublin, 1574) sec. 76, no. 60; Zvi Katz, Nahalat zvi, on Shulhan arukh, Orah hayim (Krakow, 1646–1649), sec. 8, no. 14; Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot moshe, Yoreh de‘ah [part 1] (New York, 1959), no. 136. In one case, Broyde and Pill acknowledge that being strict in practice should be favored when there is no economic cost, and that “this concept is even more pronounced” in Yoreh de‘ah (242n80, in the context of principle 10). Custom plays a different role in civil law, while in the field of marital law the stakes are higher. That is why I highlight Yoreh de‘ah, as opposed to Even ha‘ezer and Hoshen mishpat. Notwithstanding, a full data set would have to include all sections of Epstein’s code.

¹¹ Gérard Genette, “Introduction to the Paratext,” trans. Marie Maclean, New Literary History 22, no. 2 (1991): 261–72; Genette, Gérard, Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation, trans. Lewin, Jane E. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Maclean, Marie, “Pretexts and Paratexts: The Art of the Peripheral,” New Literary History 22, no. 2 (1991): 273–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹² For paratextual analysis of legal documents, see Stewart, Iain, “Mors Codicis: End of the Age of Codification?” Tulane European and Civil Law Forum, no. 27 (2012): 18–47, at 24–26Google Scholar; Levi Cooper, “Mysteries of the Paratext: Why Did Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady Never Publish His Code of Law?” Diné Israel 31 (2017): 43*–84*.

¹³ However, in the title of chapter 2 (and elsewhere in the book) Arukh HaShulchan is used.

¹⁴ Such readers might also be confused by the bibliography (395–404), which lists primary and secondary sources together. The index that follows the bibliography first lists biblical texts (405), followed by “Talmudic and Classical Rabbinic Texts” (405–06), and then “Post-Talmudic Rabbinic Texts” (406–08).

¹⁵ In that blurb, Chaim Saiman writes, “Too often, discussions of halakhic methodology proceed from a few high-profile examples … This book … presents … data-based analysis of the Arukh Hashulchan’s decision-making.”

¹⁶ Arukh hashulhan, Orah hayim, 150:3–9.

¹⁷ The standard edition could be contrasted with the 2006 Oz Vehadar thirteen-volume edition, which includes the rulings of the Mishnah berura at the bottom of each page and an appendix by Rabbi Pinhas Menahem Alter of Ger (1926–1999). For critique of this edition, see [Eitam Henkin], “‘Arukh hashulhan’ mahadurat Friedman” [Arukh Hashulhan Friedman edition], Alonei mamrei, no. 120 (2007): 119–24.

¹⁸ Arukh hashulhan, Hoshen mishpat 154:16.

¹⁹ Shulhan arukh, Orah hayim 150:4.

²⁰ Arukh hashulhan, Orah hayim 90:7, relying on Zohar 2:251a. See in Setting the Table, 181 and 288 example number 49.

²¹ The reproduced image is from Mishna berura, vol. 5, first published in Warsaw 1902. Yet the image is not from the first edition, but from a stereotypical reproduction where the printer’s name had been erased.

²² Perhaps Ben ish hai (Jerusalem, 1898) by Rabbi Yosef Hayim of Baghdad (1835–1909) might be a worthy candidate considering he was active at the same time as the two codifiers discussed. Broyde and Pill entertain such a comparison (Setting the Table, 58n44, 178n24). Or perhaps the next project is the code penned by current Sephardi Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef (b. 1952) titled Yalkut yosef. Broyde and Pill also entertain that comparison (Setting the Table, 27n92, 68n69) in addition to repeatedly referencing Yosef’s 2009 Ein yitzhak compendium of legal rules and principles (Setting the Table, 5n14, 13n48, 73n17, 74n22, 77n34, 111n5).