The laws of the Mishnah are usually formulated casuistically rather than normatively, that is, a certain legal norm is expressed in the form of a factual case and not by a mere statement of the legal principle without embodiment in a concrete example. For example, the normative principle that a person – even if he acts in his own region – must protect himself from harming his neighbor is expressed in a long series of practical cases of prohibitions or orders: that a man cannot dig a pit near his neighbor`s property or that he must remove his salt or lime from his neighbor`s wall, etc. (BB 2.1ff.). This casuistry method is characteristic of halakha, which has evolved and kept pace with everyday realities, thus being transmitted from generation to generation. Sometimes Mishnayot is reproduced in a combined casuistry-normative manner (bb 1:6; 3:1; Git. 2,5-6) and there are some rare cases of purely normative formulation (Bk 1,2). This form, adopted for the first halakhic codex compiled according to written law, shaped all subsequent codifications and was even preserved in Maimonides` Mishneh Torah. From the point of view of the possible development of law, this method is recommended, because it allows a great differentiation between one subject and another. An important feature of the Mishnah as a code is its style, which is a concise but clear and clear Hebrew that served as the basis for Maimonides` style in the Mishneh Torah (see Sefer ha-Mitzvot, Introd.) and is still a general and rewarding source of the Hebrew style, especially in legal language. The Shulḥan Aruch omits not only halachic sources and scholarly names – as is the case in the Mishneh Torah – but also anything that is not essential to the rule itself, such as moral and ethical statements, biblical authority, and the justification of the rule.
Therefore, Caro`s work is much shorter than that of Jacob b. Ascher or even Maimonides (compare, for example, Yad, Tefillah, 11:1-2, with Sh. Ar., oḤ, 150:1-2; Yad, To`en 12:5 with Sh. Ar., Ḥm 144:1; Tur, oḤ 1 with Sh. Ar. oḤ 1:1). In its unified and integral creation, as well as in the clarity and beauty of the style, the Mishneh Torah has retained its position of supremacy; But from the point of view of brevity and determination, the Shulḥan Arukh comes first, a factor that undoubtedly contributes to its acceptance as the standard “book of pesakim” of halakha. The Mishnah, the first halakhic codification according to biblical law, was completed in Lower Galilee at the end of the second century; About 1350 years later, in 1563, the last authoritative codification in Upper Galilee was completed and once again “the law passed from Zion” to the entire diaspora. In 1565, the four parts of Shulḥan Aruch were first printed in Venice, and Caro saw his work reprinted several times and distributed among all the communities of Israel. Codification means putting laws or rules into a systematic code. The codification process may consist of taking judicial decisions or legislative acts and converting them into codified law.
This process does not necessarily create a new law, it simply orders the existing law, usually by subject, in a code. Recodification refers to a process in which existing codified laws are reformatted and rewritten into a new codified structure. This is often necessary because the legislative process of amending laws and the legal process of interpreting laws over time lead to a code that contains archaic terms, replaced text, and redundant or contradictory laws over time. Due to the size of a typical government code, the legislative process of recodifying a code can often take a decade or more. On the other hand, the compilation of the codes has raised fears that any neglect of the study of Talmudic literature itself tends to alienate Halakha from its sources. In the middle of the ninth century, Paltoi b. Gaon Abbey said, “The majority of people lean towards Halakhot Ketu`ot and say, `Why should we bother with the complexity of the Talmud?` Paltoi`s response was to condemn this attitude by stating that it would lead to the oblivion of the study of the law, adding that “the Halakhot Ketu`ot were not put together to be studied intensively, but rather so that they could be mentioned by those who have studied the whole Talmud and who have doubts about the correct interpretation of everything in it” (Ḥemdah Genuzah, No. 110; S.
Assaf, Teshuvot ha-Geonim Mi-Tokh ha-Genizah (1928), page 81 It is possible that such a negative attitude towards codification by such an eminent scholar was responsible for the fact that during the rest of the geonic period almost no other “book of halachot” was written. From then on, halakhic creativity was expressed mainly in the form of responsa and, from the first half of the 10th century, in a new literary form: complete and summarising monographs, written mainly in the field of civil and family law, as well as the laws of evidence and procedure, in which the law was applied in Jewish communities and in their courts (e.g. Sefer ha-Ishut, Sefer ha-Pikkadon etc. of Saadiah *Gaon; Sefer be-Dinei Kinyanim, Sefer ha-Arevut, etc. by Samuel b. *Hophni Gaon; Sefer Shevu`ot, Sefer ha-Mikkaḥ ve-ha-Mimkar, of Hai *Gaon; See also Beit ha-Beḥirah in Avot, introd.). It is more than likely that this eventual solution to the problem of codification would have been further delayed if fateful historical events had not invaded the Jewish world at the time. The generation of “armed” commentators of Shulḥan Aruch saw Jewish life in Central Europe once again disrupted, this time by the unrest of the mid-17th century, when the Chmielnicki massacres of 1648 led to the liquidation of many Jewish communities and halakhic centers. Once again, such a disruption spurred the trend towards codification, but this time there was a complete and finished code waiting for the support of the leading scientists of the generation. Thus, Menachem Mendel *Krochmal, the respected German scholar of the 17th century, explained that “in the publication of the Beit Yosef and the Shulḥan Arukh, followed by the glosses of Isserles, and their distribution throughout Israel. we have nothing but their declarations” (Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek No.
9). Over time, it has been pointed out that the Shulḥan Aruch became the authoritative and binding halakhic codex with the addition of its above commentaries (Pitḥei Teshuvah, yd 242:8). At the same time and in the following generations, several other “Books of Halakhot” and “Pesakim” were compiled, dealing mainly with the theme of Tur Oraḥ Ḥayyim and Yoreh De`ah. These include: the Abudarham of David b. Joseph* Abudarham, a 14th century Spanish scholar; der Agur Jakobs b.