12

How many se'ifim (not simanim) are there in the entire Shulchan Aruch? Not just Orach Chaim and not the Kitzur, but the entire, unabridged sefer.

I'm trying to figure out scheduling for reviewing large parts of it.

Double AA
  • 98,894
  • 6
  • 250
  • 713
David
  • 189
  • 7
  • 3
    There are some seifim which are much longer than others and some which are tiny. To review based on the number of seifim might be difficult. – Mennyg Nov 23 '18 at 06:44
  • 2
    @David Then something like this may serve you well for your agenda; SA is divided by total content size to finish in a year (only SA & Rama). Other publications have a similar break-up in four volumes. – Oliver Nov 23 '18 at 14:19
  • 1
    Similar to what @Oliver said, you can just pick up the volume(s) that you intend to study from, divide the total number of pages by the time you want to review it, and you have a schedule! i.e. if your volume has a thousand pages and you want to complete it in a year, 1000/365 (or 354) will mean you've got to do about 3 pages a day. As a bonus, this'll keep the physical number of pages consistent between days regardless of the size of specific Seifim. – Salmononius2 Nov 23 '18 at 19:32
  • why not use the dovor b'ito. which has all daily learning for everything. – patient Nov 26 '18 at 20:29
  • 1
    This is very tempting to take on ,but wonder how long it would take to get the numbers. – sam Nov 28 '18 at 03:52
  • 1
    This must be a really Jewish questing considering how each answer is so different from the next.... – user6591 Nov 29 '18 at 17:21
  • 1
    The things people will go through to get fake points on a website... – רבות מחשבות Nov 29 '18 at 17:29
  • 1
    Thanks to everyone for all their alternatives. I have experience using these different approaches and they didn't work for various reasons. Wrt the SA in one volume, I own that and have used it, along with two other of their editions (pocket and four volume), but it is not standard (so if I don't have the sefer I can't do the limud) and the different volumes have different schedules (!) so I can't even use the pocket size for travel and the large one for home use. – David Nov 29 '18 at 18:16
  • The issue with splitting up the volume(s) is that not everyone has a full set of SA available to use in all places and in order for this to work it needs to be accessible. I also use my phone a lot for this, which doesn't have the tzuras hadaf. Additionally, when doing Orach Chaim I use a mishna berura for the limud and with other sefarim I will use the tzuras hadaf. The only alternative seems to be division by se'ifim. – David Nov 29 '18 at 18:21
  • 2
    Division by simanim would also theoretically work, but they seem to vary in size much more than se'ifim. – David Nov 29 '18 at 18:27
  • @David! I’d love to know what you ended up doing with this info. – Dr. Shmuel May 30 '19 at 00:13

4 Answers4

26

Total

There are 13,550 seifim in Shulchan Aruch.

Breakdown

  • Orach Chaim — 4,170

  • Yoreh Deiah — 3,700

  • Even HaEzer — 1,988

  • Choshen Mishpat — 3,692

Methodology

I looked at the beginning of every siman where it says how many seifim are in that siman. I input all the data into an Excel sheet and let it calculate the totals.

In Orach Chaim the original Venice 1565 edition had no siman 603. The modern edition that I used simply took the second seif from siman 602 and made it its own siman using the number 603. The total number of seifim was not affected by this.

In Yoreh Deiah there were two places where the siman numbers are corrupted. In the original Venice 1565 edition, 169 was skipped. In the modern edition that I used they simply labeled that siman as 168/169 with 27 seifim. In the original edition the number 296 was used twice (in the modern edition I used it was 297 that was used twice) so they appear as two separate simanim.

There were also (at least) two simanim that had the wrong amount of seifim listed in the title. Siman 234 lists 72 seifim in the title but actually has 74 seifim (both in the modern edition I used as well as in the original Venice 1565 edition.) Siman 340 lists 40 seifim in the title but actually has 39 seifim in the original edition. The modern edition corrected the title to list 39 seifim.

In Even HaEzer there were two sections with no siman numbers. Seder HaGet and Seder Chalitza were counted as their own simanim, with 101 and 57 seifim respectively.

Based on the numbers provided by Josh Friedlander in his answer from Wikisource and Sefaria, I checked every discrepancy against the original Venice 1565 edition. In every instance except one, the Tzuras Hadaf edition that I used had the same number of seifim as the original edition; the Wikisource differed from the original edition in two places; and Sefaria differed from the original in 5 places:

  • In O.C. 106 the original edition has 3 seifim while the Wikisource has 2 (it incorporates seif 2 into seif 1).

  • In O.C. 219 the original edition has 9 seifim while Tzuras Hadaf and Sefaria have 10 seifim (both of them break off the last bit of the last seif into a new seif, yet they both only list 9 seifim).

  • In O.C. 601 and 602 the original edition had 2 seifim in each. However, the original edition skipped the number 603 for the next siman (i.e the siman after 602 is 604) so other versions tried to compensate to keep the numbers accurate. The Tzuras Hadaf edition and the Wikisource simply separated the second seif from 602 and called it siman 603, thus the total number of seifim is unchanged. Sefaria also split off that seif into a siman 603, but for some reason it has the first seif of 602 twice in siman 602, so the total number of seifim becomes off by 1.

  • In Y.D. 32 the original edition has 7 seifim while the Wikisource has 8 seifim (it splits off the last bit of seif 7 into a new seif).

  • In C.M. 41 Sefaria duplicates the last seif, so it has 5 seifim instead of 4.

  • In C.M. 74 Sefaria duplicates the last seif, so it has 8 seifim instead of 7.

  • In C.M. 76 Sefaria duplicates the last seif, so it has 4 seifim instead of 3.

Limitations

My data is based on the siman titles in the Tzuras Hadaf edition. If there are any mistakes in the siman titles regarding the number of seifim in the siman then my data for that siman will be mistaken.

Additionally, it is possible that I may have made data entry errors, in which case some of the numbers might be incorrect.

However, as per above, I corrected errors by consulting the original edition in any case of discrepancy. So unless there was a case where the Tzuras Hadaf edition, the Wikisource, and Sefaria all differed from the original edition in the same siman with the exact same difference, any errors were presumably caught.

Data

Here is the data that I entered into the Excel sheet. Anyone can feel free to check it for mistakes and point them out if they find any. (I realize this is rather messy; if anyone has any ideas of how to better present this, please suggest it.)

O.C.

9
6
17
23
1
4
4
17
6
12
15
3
3
5
6
1
3
3
2
2
4
1
4
6
13
2
11
3
1
5
2
52
5
4
1
3
3
13
10
8
1
3
9
1
2
9
14
1
1
1
9
1
26
3
22
5
2
7
5
5
26
5
9
4
3
10
1
1
2
5
7
5
4
6
6
8
2
1
9
1
2
2
5
1
2
1
3
1
8
27
6
10
4
9
4
2
5
5
3
1
4
5
3
8
1
3
4
12
3
8
3
2
9
9
1
1
5
1
4
1
3
3
6
12
2
4
2
45
2
1
8
2
1
2
14
1
6
1
11
3
8
2
5
4
3
4
8
1
1
5
12
1
22
15
2
1
1
13
20
15
4
10
2
2
2
1
20
17
3
22
5
2
3
8
6
1
5
7
6
5
10
7
12
6
5
2
4
10
2
5
3
2
6
3
3
4
4
1
11
2
4
18
8
13
5
6
1
18
3
2
6
2
3
1
4
14
8
9
9
2
2
4
6
13
10
1
3
3
2
5
1
3
2
2
4
4
1
2
2
17
1
1
2
6
6
5
6
4
4
2
2
7
5
9
3
1
8
1
7
2
4
3
17
10
4
13
3
13
1
2
17
10
7
4
12
5
5
1
7
2
1
7
1
7
7
5
1
10
2
2
6
2
3
5
1
8
5
15
10
1
51
13
27
3
23
14
22
52
5
9
9
10
10
12
13
12
7
19
17
20
19
6
10
15
16
13
4
49
9
11
10
4
3
27
5
13
4
8
7
14
3
1
1
2
19
3
1
1
5
3
1
2
3
2
5
2
3
14
1
3
2
12
36
5
8
15
1
5
1
8
6
19
1
4
4
4
1
5
2
4
7
20
1
2
4
9
1
1
1
2
2
8
3
3
1
2
18
11
11
1
1
1
1
1
9
1
3
4
13
3
1
1
1
2
4
5
1
5
1
2
1
7
4
1
3
4
1
8
2
1
2
2
11
4
1
3
4
2
4
4
2
11
3
8
3
4
12
7
1
7
27
7
9
4
6
3
2
1
6
7
5
7
3
1
3
6
16
10
1
3
3
16
7
1
7
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
10
9
2
1
4
3
4
3
17
20
5
6
7
4
2
4
1
9
7
2
7
11
4
3
8
11
9
3
4
9
5
1
3
4
4
2
2
12
24
2
4
1
8
2
5
3
3
4
16
6
14
8
5
2
3
2
11
5
12
20
2
4
18
12
2
25
2
1
1
1
10
5
5
13
1
1
6
8
3
12
2
3
3
3
1
5
13
16
1
1
3
3
4
9
2
4
5
23
3
5
9
9
8
4
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
2
1
1
2
1
4
6
4
1
4
2
10
12
4
2
2
4
10
6
1
6
4
6
5
1
3
4
3
19
13
10
4
10
4
1
2
3
2
8
10
1
1
3
2
9
11
2
22
6
2
15
2
2
1
1
1
1
9
1
3
1
3
3
11
2
1
1
2
1
3
8
2
4
2
3
5
4
1
1
2
2
3
1
3
7
3
2
8
6
18
11
4
4
4
4
8
1

Total: 4170

Y.D.

14
11
1
7
3
4
1
1
1
3
4
2
6
6
3
12
3
20
8
4
5
2
6
20
3
2
1
24
1
2
4
7
11
10
10
17
7
5
25
6
10
9
6
10
2
6
5
12
5
3
4
7
5
5
13
10
21
12
2
3
33
4
2
21
14
10
6
15
21
6
3
4
6
1
3
6
1
1
3
6
9
5
10
17
3
10
11
2
4
4
8
9
1
9
7
5
3
9
7
4
9
4
7
3
14
2
2
7
2
10
7
16
16
12
3
7
1
13
20
16
7
12
26
27
11
7
4
5
20
10
2
7
7
13
16
1
6
11
15
1
8
15
6
2
9
15
5
12
5
3
14
2
4
2
3
3
3
2
3
23
11
5
3
4
1
3
1
27
2
1
6
19
8
8
8
40
3
19
12
12
6
1
12
4
5
14
6
34
54
1
5
1
14
17
13
5
48
13
1
75
9
7
4
2
5
1
5
1
3
4
1
3
2
6
12
48
6
3
23
14
1
4
1
1
3
3
51
9
1
1
20
1
72
6
6
12
23
17
25
9
36
9
18
22
26
4
8
16
5
14
12
12
2
2
6
11
13
6
1
1
7
5
6
13
14
85
12
11
2
7
4
6
7
6
13
1
4
5
2
5
19
5
2
2
23
2
15
6
1
3
13
5
28
7
69
40
16
2
2
7
15
2
2
1
31
12
3
5
2
3
1
3
7
11
7
6
3
6
4
7
23
5
1
14
2
5
5
3
10
9
146
1
14
48
10
3
1
2
5
39
6
1
2
20
8
1
3
3
4
1
2
4
7
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
5
6
7
7
2
4
6
3
1
1
6
2
9
11
11
4
3
13
5
25
6
5
2
5
3
1
2
2
8
7
3
3
4
6
3
3
2
1
14
2
7
12
10

Total: 3700

E.H.

14
11
9
37
14
18
23
5
2
7
8
4
14
1
31
6
58
1
2
2
7
20
7
1
10
4
10
23
10
11
9
4
2
4
15
12
27
39
7
8
4
5
2
12
3
8
4
7
3
7
1
1
3
1
7
4
1
2
4
1
2
13
2
6
4
13
11
10
7
12
4
1
9
12
5
13
5
8
3
18
2
8
2
1
19
2
2
12
4
20
5
8
32
7
7
21
2
7
2
16
4
9
8
6
7
2
10
3
4
2
17
18
10
12
10
6
11
19
11
11
8
2
5
9
23
50
13
7
34
22
9
4
3
10
5
7
5
4
18
11
69
19
23
7
10
5
3
2
7
4
1
12
1
24
101
22
13
10
6
7
8
9
5
8
8
5
9
6
9
56
57
20
10
16
17
7
14
8
5
22

Total: 1988

C.M.

6
1
4
1
5
1
12
5
8
4
6
20
7
8
5
5
12
6
3
1
1
3
1
1
5
4
2
26
3
14
4
2
18
35
14
2
22
1
17
2
4
15
29
11
23
38
2
1
10
1
7
2
1
5
2
7
2
5
1
12
16
1
2
1
24
42
38
2
6
6
23
45
20
7
25
3
11
8
14
2
32
13
4
5
7
9
39
33
6
16
9
14
18
9
6
6
30
11
8
3
11
5
11
16
6
3
12
21
6
11
24
5
3
7
6
2
7
4
6
2
12
9
15
1
10
23
2
2
22
7
14
6
7
6
2
2
3
8
4
15
20
3
4
4
7
25
5
2
31
7
3
1
20
32
44
7
13
9
4
3
6
7
6
8
1
1
2
2
2
2
17
9
4
5
63
51
5
3
1
1
3
12
9
2
10
2
4
6
1
18
4
16
1
3
11
5
7
15
4
12
2
15
10
11
12
4
21
1
10
3
7
9
2
13
8
14
7
25
6
18
1
4
5
2
6
6
39
20
2
10
28
23
1
4
28
9
2
3
2
4
12
10
25
1
11
17
5
13
5
26
2
2
33
1
9
4
7
2
9
11
4
21
3
8
1
5
27
5
6
3
5
18
18
1
31
6
15
10
6
12
10
1
3
4
10
5
3
2
5
28
28
22
4
6
3
8
1
2
1
4
10
2
15
6
7
8
7
7
5
3
6
20
4
2
4
3
4
1
1
5
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
5
3
6
8
4
3
4
20
9
11
8
8
1
2
4
2
19
1
8
5
1
1
1
4
6
3
10
3
12
12
10
8
13
11
9
2
4
6
1
11
7
4
3
3
6
9
1
1
9
4
4
1
1
5
4
2
4
1
16
20
12
12
1
4
6
1
10
2
5
5
4
2
1
3
2
3
5
4
2
4
38
7
5
3
2
3
1
7
18
3
44
14
2
4
11
5
1
10

Total: 3692

Grand Total

13550

Alex
  • 49,242
  • 3
  • 120
  • 228
  • Intresting, I used the Shulchan Aruch in one vol,wonder why we got a diff number – sam Nov 29 '18 at 14:17
  • @sam can you post your Siman by Siman data into your answer like he did here? Then we could easily compare the two – Double AA Nov 29 '18 at 14:58
  • 1
    Yes ,I will do later today,dont have access to it now – sam Nov 29 '18 at 15:01
  • This seems to be the most accurate, since the numbers were provided, but can anyone verify this? I'm not exactly sure how to choose the correct answer since there are conflicting ones... – David Nov 29 '18 at 18:23
  • @David You don't have to accept any answer. – Alex Nov 29 '18 at 18:30
  • @Alex Would you consider
     tags a better presentation? It takes up more vertical space but it allows copying and pasting the data as a list instead of as a block of numbers. I edited it so you can see, but revert it if you see fit (even if you revert, having the list in edit history might help for copying the data)
    
    – b a Nov 29 '18 at 19:14
  • @ba After I posted it I started changing it to a vertical list, but I wasn't necessarily convinced that it was better, so i didn't actually save it. It doesn't matter that much to me; whatever is more convenient for people to read is fine. I guess I'll ask people for their opinions in Chat. – Alex Nov 29 '18 at 19:19
  • 1
    Hey Alex, thanks for doing this work and for posting your specific counts. I used a script to count and compared mine with yours, found the discrepancies, and double-checked them with my source (WikiSource, see my answer below for more). Here is where my source differs from your count - format is ‘siman (my count, your count)’. OC 35 (1,4) 106 (2,3), 288 (10,102) 312 (10,1) 562 (13,16) YD 32 (8,7) 233 (74,72) EH None CM 390 (12,1) Some of these may be differences between editions, and some look like typos. – Josh Friedlander Dec 04 '18 at 12:00
  • @JoshFriedlander O.C. 35 was a typo. O.C. 106 actually does have 3 (both in the edition I used, and in the original edition). O.C. 288 was a typo. O.C. 312 was a typo. O.C. 562 was a typo. Y.D. 32 actually does have 7 (both in the edition I used, and in the original edition). Y.D. 233 (for me it's 234, because as mentioned in <cont.> – Alex Dec 05 '18 at 20:44
  • <cont.> my answer, 169 was skipped) lists 72 in the title but actually has 74 (both in the edition I used, and in the original edition). C.M. 390 was a typo. I have corrected the ones that were mistakes, and our totals are now only off by 6. Thanks for the help. – Alex Dec 05 '18 at 20:45
  • Do you mean to say that after all this I was only 17 off? I am thus impressed on all sides. – Dr. Shmuel Dec 07 '18 at 17:03
  • @Dr.Shmuel If my analysis is correct. However, the totals are only 17 off but the individual sections vary a lot. In O.C. you have 62 fewer, in Y.D. you have 15 fewer, in E.H. you have 2 fewer, and in C.M. you have 62 more. (But that's partly because you counted a section in C.M. that's not part of the Shulchan Aruch, which gave you an extra 25 seifim.) – Alex Dec 07 '18 at 17:10
  • I see. I image my OC so far off is because I entered the numbers in a very unorganized and impressive way, so that they became incorrect on account of entry. But that is neither here nor there. Thanks – Dr. Shmuel Dec 07 '18 at 17:15
  • @Dr.Shmuel Do you have the data you entered? Then we could compare siman by siman to see where the discrepancies lie. – Alex Dec 07 '18 at 17:27
  • Looks like sefaria may have fixed the duplication errors (unless i didn't understand what you were referring to) – Double AA Jan 22 '21 at 15:42
  • @DoubleAA Looks like it's still an issue. Here's an image. You can see that it has the same text twice in a row, first labeled as Seif 4 and then as Seif 5. – Alex Jan 24 '21 at 04:39
12

I believe this would make an enjoyable web-scraping project, which might yield a more easily reproducible (and checkable) result. I've scraped the numbers from WikiSource, and gotten a total for Orach Chaim of 4175 (one away from Sam's answer). The fact that people have gotten such disparate answers implies to me that different editions might count se'ifim differently.

WikiSource is missing se'if numbers for at least some simanim in the other three sections, but I think I can get around this by scraping one level down - isolating the links to individual simanim, crawling each one programmatically and counting the number of headings with the word "סעיף". But it might take me a while. In the meantime, my code is available (in a Jupyter notebook) here. EDIT: Finished, code is on Github.

OC: 4169
YD: 3701
EH: 1988
CM: 3692

Grand total: 13556

Using Double AA's recommendation (and code) to count line breaks in Sefaria's repository, I get the following numbers:

OC: 4172
YD: 3712
EH: 1988
CM: 3695

Grand total: 13597

By comparing the simanim with discrepancies one by one, the following emerged:

In OC 106 and 219, Sefaria splits seifim in a way that WikiSource does not, not in line with the traditional split. Siman 602 erroneously duplicates a siman. That also happens in CM 41, 74 and 76. Thus, I believe the counts of OC 4169/4171 and CM 3692 most accurate.

On EH, the counts concur on 1988 seifim.

On YD, the method I used to parse Sefaria's raw text made some mistakes which don't appear in Sefaria's text itself. I believe the most accurate answer is 3701 seifim.

Thanks to Alex for valuable feedback.

A table with my count and that of Sefaria is found here: OC, YD, EH, CM

Josh Friedlander
  • 1,340
  • 7
  • 18
  • Wouldn't it be easier to work with Sefaria's data? https://github.com/Sefaria/Sefaria-Export/blob/master/txt/Halakhah/Shulchan%20Arukh/Shulchan%20Arukh%2C%20Orach%20Chayim/Hebrew/merged.txt and then just count line breaks. – Double AA Dec 04 '18 at 17:00
  • Something like sum([1 for __ in [_ for _ in merged.split('\n')[merged.split('\n').index('Siman 1'):] if _] if 'Siman ' not in __]) where "merged" is the entire merged.txt read in as one string like open("merged.txt", "r") – Double AA Dec 04 '18 at 17:04
  • I've added a comparison to Sefaria in my answer, and in the repository. Thanks! – Josh Friedlander Dec 05 '18 at 20:20
  • Can you identify which Simanim are different between Sefaria and wikisource? – Double AA Dec 05 '18 at 20:21
  • 1
    I did in the code on Github, though it's a bit messy, and I've uploaded links to a table you can look at. From some sample testing it seems like Sefaria is pretty accurate, and WikiSource has some mistakes. – Josh Friedlander Dec 05 '18 at 20:25
  • @JoshFriedlander I checked all the Yoreh Deiah discrepancies. In every case except one, the Wikisource count accorded with the original edition: – Alex Dec 05 '18 at 21:02
  • Y.D. 94 ,Y.D. 113, Y.D. 139, Y.D. 151, Y.D. 189 The only exception was Y.D. 340 which has 39 seifim but 40 listed. Wikisource has the former, Sefaria has the latter. – Alex Dec 05 '18 at 21:02
  • Sorry, I missed Y.D. 185, Y.D. 240 and Y.D. 297 where Wikisource also matches the original edition. – Alex Dec 05 '18 at 21:44
  • But the sum of the seifim for Sefaria in the table is only 3,712. – Alex Dec 05 '18 at 21:49
  • Are you sure the code you used for Sefaria is entirely accurate? I checked some of the discrepancies on Sefaria and they all actually had the same number of seifim as the Wikisource. – Alex Dec 06 '18 at 02:10
  • I finished checking all the discrepancies. Only 7 of the cases where your Sefaria results showed a different number from the Wikisource results were actual discrepancies (as documented in my answer). – Alex Dec 07 '18 at 03:38
10

So I decided to try counting for Orach Chaim ,and surprisingly did not take long at all (one hour around). I used excel to calculate the sum of all the seifim in all the simanim.

Orach Chaim = 697 simanim which has a total of 4174 seifim. The avg amount is 6.04 seifeim in a siman. The max is 52 and min is 1.

The other 3 are a work in progress.

sam
  • 41,686
  • 4
  • 80
  • 141
7

TOTAL: 13,533

Orach Chaim (697 chapters): 4,108

Yoreh Deah (403 chapters): 3,685

Even HaEzer (178 chapters): 1,986

Choshen Mishpat (427 chapters): 3,754

I used the Shulchan Aruch in one volume mentioned in a comment by Oliver and counted the seifim. I scanned the page (optically) and mentally added as I turned the pages. Usually when I got to a high enough number and I didn't want to lose the count, I wrote the number down. Occasionally I stopped to read an interesting siman.

When I had one section completed I pasted that number here to get the sum.

Still, I don't know why you would want to set up a study system like this when there are things like the volume mentioned above which even includes the 'Beis Yosef's 30 day review schedule'. Nonetheless, for fun these are the numbers you'd have to complete in an example review system (in approximation):

6 Months: 75.18 per day

1 Year: 37.59 per day

1 Month: 451.1 per day

8 Months: 56.38 per day


Notes:

During the count I noticed some very big simanim (in terms of seif count). So, for trivia, chapter 331 in YoreH Deah has 146 seifim, the most in Shulchan Aruch.

Second place is in Ever Haezer, the nameless siman between 154 and 155 (i.e. Seder HaGet) has 101.

In Choshen Mishpat there is a another numberless siman between 25 and 26 (and Even Haezer between 169-170), all of which were included in this count.

My counts may contain human error; but it'll get you to where you need to go.

Dr. Shmuel
  • 633
  • 1
  • 19
  • 69
  • 2
    (In your concluding sentence I -understandably- read: “My counts may contain humor”) My my, the discrepancies between all these answers... – Oliver Nov 29 '18 at 16:14