Bidspirit auction | 16th Century. ”Biur Zeh Yatza

16th Century. ”Biur Zeh Yatza Rishonah” The psak of Rav Moshe Provençal in the Tamari-Venturozzo affair, Mantua, 1566 ”Biur Zeh Yatza Rishonah” - The psak of Rav Moshe Provençal in the Tamari-Venturozzo affair that encompassed a discussion regarding the application of borerus in hilchos ishus . Pedigreed copy from the library of Rav Nachum Ber'enu of Sadigura , grandson of Rav Yisrael of Ruzhin and son-in-law of the first Sadigura Rebbe, stamped with his name and קנין כספי on the title page. Original binding from this library and original bookplate with red ink. The Tamari-Venturozzo get generated one the largest, most infamous halachic polemics of all time. Beginning as a halachic polemic between the rabbanim of Mantua and Venice, it eventually crossed borders until it involved many of the rabbanim of the time, including the rabbanim of Turkey and Safed. Background: In 5320/1560 Shmuel Venturozzo betrothed (with Kiddushin) Tamar bat Yosef Tamari HaRofei of Venice. Shortly afterwards, the father-in-law demanded a get for his daughter, which Venturozzo refused to give for a long time. In 5325/1565, he arrived in Venice and, on the 8th of Tishrei, he gave the get . Shortly after, he claimed that he had been anus , forced to give the divorce because of excommunications that had been issued and because his father-in-law started judicial proceedings against him. The groom traveled to Mantua and told his story to Rav Moshe Provencal, who annulled the get , in opposition to the rabbanim of Venice who upheld it and permitted the former bride to marry someone else. Both sides sent letters to rabbanim, and soon the whole rabbinic world was involved in the argument. The Beis Yosef and other Safed rabbanim supported Rav Moshe Provencal's opinion, while the Radbaz and other rabbanim sided with the rabbanim of Venice. This kuntress primarily discusses the Venice beis din's authority. They demanded that Rav Moshe Provencal appear before them, while Rav Moshe of Mantua disagreed. He was of the opinion that his beis din in Mantua had the authority to decide the issue. This is a rare remnant of the famous polemic. Bibliography: S. Simonson, Tarbiz 28, 1959, p. 375-388; Y. Yudlov Alei Sefer 2, 1976, p. 105-120; Moriah, Iyar 1988, p. 9-18. ***** Mantua [1566] Pagination: [11] leaves. Size: 20 cm. Fine condition.