10

Can someone who has knowledge of both explain the difference- other than price and space- between Machon Yerushalayim Shulchan Aruch and Habahir Edition. I currently use the Habahir and am happy with it in all respects. However, I have heard that the Friedman edition is definitely the best. Is it basically more meforshim, and maybe some improvement and corrections in girsa? Any help greatly appreciated.

  • tsurat hadaf is better because of the minimal space he takes you can also learn it in hebrew books searcing the chelek, the halacha and the siman – kouty Jan 11 '17 at 12:55
  • 2
    Yitzchak Tzvi, welcome to Mi Yodeya, and thanks for bringing your question here! I look forward to seeing you around. You may be interested in this very related post. – Isaac Moses Jan 11 '17 at 13:39
  • 1
    for Friedman it the best but it is not necessary to learn all the time in the best. the volume of the whole SA is gigantic – kouty Jan 11 '17 at 14:31
  • 1
    Thank you kouty for the thoughtful advice, and thank you Isaac for the warm welcome. – Yitzhok tzvi Jan 12 '17 at 0:00
3

The "classic" editions of Shulchan Aruch contained many errors - some of which crept in due to confusion between abbreviations, between source text and citation, etc, but most of which are just incorrect citations due to lack of checking.

The Tzuras HaDaf and to some extent Bahir editions attempted to find and correct as many editions as possible. But they did not actively cross-check every citation (a mind-bending proposition on any single page of Shulchan Aruch - try it).

The Friedman did. It just took them some 20 years to achieve.

It would be nice to have a Friedman available (i.e. in the beis medresh, or at a neighbour) if you ever hit a reference which seems to be wrong, but you will probably never notice.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .