THE JEWISH ENX'YCLOPEDIA
Alfasi
Alfonsine Tables
Zikkaroii " aiul in " Kcrcm HcmkmI," iv. 03. vii. 250; also by GoigiT in "Divan (lis Johiuluh Im-Levi"): "
It was (or theu thiit Uit> innunliiins sliook on tbe day of SInal For Iho nnpi'ls of (mm! ii|ipn>ailii'il Ihep Anil wnitc llH' Tonili mi Ilie tiihli-ls of thy beart: TUi'y sft till' llncst <i( lis iiowiis uimjb tUy hwiil."
wfiik of Alfasi is his " Hnlakiil," oflcn Hif " (R. Is;iac Fasi) from tin- inHaliail ilcscrilnd it as "the itials of Alfasi's name. little Talmud," iK'causc it contains tlir essi-noo of the Talmud in an abinilficil form. In the His "Ha- first place, Alfasi eliminated from the Talmud all haK,ffadie conunents: that lakot." is. theserond of its two const it went elements (Ilalakah and llaii.irudah.or I,av and Homily); in accordance with the title of the hook, he retains only the Halakah. He gives the halakic discussions of the (iemara in a condensed form, adding occasionally criticisms on the interprelations and decisions further regiven by post-Talinudic authorities. duction in the bulk of the Talmud waselTected in the following way Alfasi contented himself with collecting practical Halakot only, omitting all treatises that are principally devoted to laws which are only practical in Palestine. The treatises included in Alfasi's work are therefore the following: 1, Berakot; 2. Small Halakot 3. .Shabbat 4, 'Erubin 5, Pcsahim (omitting cli. v.-i.v.); 6, Ta'anit; 7. Bezah: H. Kosh ha Slianah (omitting ch. iii.); 9. Yoma (omitting ch.
The
cliicf
rofciivil to as llie "
A
i.-vii.):
10.
iSukkah (omitting ch.
v.);
11.
Jli'gil-
Yebamot; U, Ketutiot; 1.5. Gittin; 16. Kiddnsliin; IT, Xedarim (only found in recent editions); IS. IluUin; 19. Babu Kamma; 20, Baba Mezi'a; 21. Baba Batra; 22. Sanhedrin; 23, Makkot 24, Shebu'ot (included in ch. ii. hilkot Nidlah:
Mo'ed Katan;
12,
13,
dah); 25, 'Abodali Zarah. Ever since the completioa of the Babylonian Talmud, attempts had been made to collect the Halakot it contained, and to elucid.ate. in each case, the tinal decision of the halakic discussion of the Gemara. The results of these atteiujits were such works as the "Halakot Gedolot " of the gaon Simon Kahira, " Halakot Pesukot " of the gaon Yehudai. and the "Sheiltot" of the gaon Ahai of Shabha. These collections all proved insulflcient AlMaimon- fasi's work was intended to be comides" Praise prehensive and thorough. The nierofthe "Ha- its of the "Halakot" are described Ijy Maimonides in the introduction to lakot." his commentary on the !Mishnah as
"The Halakot of our great teacher, BabIsaac, of blessed memory, have superseded all their predecessors, becavise there is included therein everything usefid for the understanding of the decisions and laws at present in force; that is. in the time of the E.ile. The author clearly demonstrates the errors of those before him when his opinion deviates from theirs, and with the excei)tion of a few Halakot whose number at the very utmost does not amount to ten. his decision.s are unas,sailable." Alfasi based his "Halakot" on the Babylonian Talfollows:
'
'
benu
mud, without, however, neglecting the Palestinian Talmud, which is frequently quoted, and the dicta of which are accepted, provided they are not contradictefl by the former. In case of difference between the two Gemaras Alfasi follows the Babylonian, arguing thus: "The Babylonian is younger than the Palestinian, and its authors knew the contents of the Palestinian Gemara even better than we do. Had they not been couvinced that the pas.sage from the Palestinian Gemara. cited in opposition to their opinion, was untrustworthy, they would never have deviated from it" ('Er., at end). " Critics, however, attacked many of Alfasi's Halakot as con-
376
trary to the decisions of the Babylonian Talmud. In all siuh ca.ses it will be found that the criti<- and the author diller in reality as to the right interpretation of the Talmudic jiassage. for in truth Alfasi never deviates from w h;it he recognizes as the tinal decision of the Babylonian Talmud. Alfa-si is exceedingly .self-con.scious. decided, and firm iu asserting the correctness of his decisions, and in rejecting the opinions of those Its Charac- who dilTer from him (Ket. x. 115, ed. Sulzbach, 1720; Ber. vii. 396). He teristics. Of jirevious rarely wavers or doubts. authorities he mentions by name Gaon Ilai. Gaon .ludah. and Gaon Moses(Ket. iv,84/<); others he cites by the general term "Some of the rabbis." In three jilaci'slrt. X. wall, 119;viii. lUlijlie refeisloa lengthy explanation in Arabic, which he originally gave as an appendix to the treatise Ketubot. convinced "that he who will read these explanations will arrive at the true sense of the text of the Talmud." These explanations havi' been detached from their original place, and arc at present known only by two Hebrew translations, the one being included in a collection of respon«i bv Menahem Azariah di Fano (Nos. r27129). the other in " Temim De'im " (Nos. 318-220, the third partof "Tummat Ye.sharim"). The latter work contains also a few responsa of Alfasi, translated from the original Arabic by Abraham ha-Levi tDnp3K
(Xos. 221-223).
The "Halakot" of Alfasi became famous both on account of the reputation of the author and of
His Commentators.
their intrinsic value. The work studied like the Talmud, and soon its
commentators and
its critics.
was had
The
principal connnentators are the following: Jonah, on Berakot; IS'issim, on Seder Jlo'cd, JIakkot. Shebu'ot. '.Vbodah Zarah. Seder Nashim (except Yebamot). ami llullin; Joseph Habiba. on the smaller Halakot. Seder Nezikin (except JIakkot. Sheliu'ot. and 'Abodali Zarah). and Yebamot .loshua
Boaz
in his
conmientary "Shihe ha-Gibborim"
in-
cludes notes of various scholars, both for and against Alfasi. The so-called commentary of Hashi, found in some editions, consists merely of extracts from Ra.shi's general commentary on the Talmud. Alfasi's chief critic is Zerahiah ha-Levi of Liniel. whose work "Ila-JIaor" (The Luminary) consists of two parts, entitled respectively. "The Great Lmninary" (Zerahiah. the stuOand "The Small Luminary" (Lunel.the moon), the forner on Berakot and Seder Jlo'ed, the
other on Seder Xashim and Seder Nezikin.
Nahmanides in "Milliamot Adonai" (The Wars of tlie Lord) defended Alfasi. liabad attacked Zerahiah's criticisms in defense of Alfasi. but at the same time wrote //<(«.'<rt,/Mcriticisms) of his own on the "Halakot " (see "Temim De'im "). Even a disciple of Alfasi. Ephraim. is found among his critics ("Temim De'im." No. OS). A long list of cmendationsis given by Joseph Shalom iu " Derek Tamim. " In addition to these commentaries and criticisms, there are to be mentioned the "Kelale ha-Rif," contained in "Y'ad JIalachi " (pp. 123^:, 124i). These rides .show how to detect the different degrees of decisiveness which -Vlfasi desired to indicate in the "Halakot," when quoting the opinion of other authorities. Alfasi's "Halakot" appeared without commentaries (Cracow. 1597, 8vo; Basel. 1602, 8vo); the above-mentioned commentaries, and further notes and emendations, were added in stdiscfpient editions (among others. Talmud and Alfasi. Warsaw, 18.59. fol. ). Besides the "Halakot." there is a collection of Alfasi's " Responsa," ed. Judah Aryeh Loeb Ashkenazi (Leghorn, 1821, 4to). The collection contains 320 questions, mostly referring to civil law cases only a few
