A Rosh Hashanah Essay: R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan: A Renaissance commentary on the Torah'

In this essay, we will present a work of one of the great rabbis in Venice in the 16^th century. Until now much has been known about his life and illustrious family,^[1] and his important^[2] career as a doctor, but very little about his scholarship, beyond a few mentions of his views relating to Jewish communal life in Venice, Jewish mysticism and the teaching of Hebrew to non-Jews. He is also known for his interaction with Richard Croke, representative of Henry VIII, in November 1529, regarding Henry’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon. In the Oppenheimer collection at the Bodleian Library, Oxford, however, there is a manuscript of close to 400 folios of a commentary on the Torah, attributed to R. Elijah^[3] Menachem Chalfan (חלפן)^[4] ben Aba Mari, the doctor (הרופא).^[5] The little known manuscript transforms the way we perceive this distinguished Rabbi, and Jewish scholarship in Renaissance Italy. We will first explore the life and family of the author, and investigate the uniqueness of this commentary in the context of 16^th century Renaissance Italy.

 

Family

 

R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan (c. 1480 - 1550/1) was one of the first Jews who lived permanently in the Venetian Ghetto.^[6] He is the son of astronomer R. Abba Mari Chalfan, and his maternal grandfather was the leading Rabbi in Italy, R. Yosef Kolon Tzarfati (Trabiti), known as the Maharik of Mantua (c. 1410- c. 1480), the foremost authority in Jewish law in 15^th century Northern Italy, and son and disciple^[7] of R. Solomon Trabotto.^[8] R. Yosef Kolon came from Chambery in Savoy (later became modern day France in1860) before moving to Piedmont, in early 15^th century. He served as rabbi in Piove di Sacco in 1469 and then in Mestre near Venice. He later served as rabbi in Bologna and Mantua. After being banished from Mantua, he moved to Pavia, where he established a Talmudic academy. His father, R. Shlomo, came from France to Italy in 1355, and was a descendant of R. Shlomo Troy Tzarfati (1040-1105), known as Rashi. Yosef Kolon is famed for his responsa, Sha-alat u’teshuvot Maharik, first published in 1519, containing 194 responsa, covering all aspects of life of the Jews of Italy of 15^th century. He also wrote a commentary on the Torah and a commentary on Sefer Mitzvot Gadol (Semag) by R. Moses of Coucy. The source of R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan’s relation to R. Yosef Colon is in a responsa by Polish halachist R. Moses Isserles (1520-1572), in Sha-alat u’teshuvot ha-Remo, ch. 56,^[9] regarding a case when a divorce bill was found to have been invalid after it had already been given. In this responsa, R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan, while ruling that the person who claims the document is invalid need not be excommunicated and should be believed, he cites R. Yosef Kolon as ‘aba zikni,’ the description for grandfather in rabbinic writing.

 

R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan married Fioret Kalonymos (d. c.1560), daughter of R. Kalonymos ben R. Dovid, born in Naples, author of the final part (be-ta-a-mim) of R. Abraham Balmes’ Hebrew grammar, Mikve Avram,^[10] published posthumously by Daniel Bomberg.^[11] He served as a physician in Venice, and was descendant of Kalonymos of Narbonne.^[12] Elijah Menachem and Fioret had a son, R. Yechiel, who was martyred. Yechiel (ha-kadosh) had a son, R. Yitzchak of Vienna, who had two children: R. Yechiel Chalfan, and R. Chaim Menachem Man (Av Beit Din of Vienna). R. Chaim Menachem Man married Leah, daughter of R. Benjamin Aaron Slonik, author of Masat Binyamin (Krakow, 1633) and had a son R. Israel Yitzchak Man (known as Reb Isaac) (Av Beit Din of Wengrab), whose son in law was R. Rafael Dayan of Crakow.^[13] R. Yechiel Chalfan had a son, Mordechai Yollis (Tzarfati) of Cracow, brother-in-law of Shabatai Sheftel, son of the Shelah ha-Kadosh, R. Isaiah Halevi Horowitz, whose autograph, Laws of Tefillin, is held at the Bodleian Library.

 

The author

 

R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan was a rabbi, Kabbalist, composer of Piyutim,^[14] halachist and a doctor, known to have healed the wife of the important Italian literati of the 16^th century, Pietro Aretino (1492-1556). He studied Kabbalah from Spanish Kabbalist in Italy, R. Joseph Ibn Shraga (d. 1508–09).^[15] He lived in Modena in 1524, where he completed his commentary on the Torah, and cites Venice as his residence in 1545, when he wrote a responsa about teaching Hebrew to non-Jews. In 1530, he was consulted by Francesco Giorgio, on behalf of Richard Croke, regarding Henry VIII’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon. His main occupation was as a doctor, as Solomon Molcho, a close friend, refers to him as: ‘ha-rofe’ (the doctor). Solomon Molcho (c. 1500 – 13 December 1532), author of Chayat koneh (pub. 1709), was a former marrano from Portugal, known as Diego Pires, returned to Judaism, and became an ardent follower of David Reubeni (1490). After studying Kabbalah in Salonika, he came to Venice to speak with the publishing houses to persuade them to publish works containing the secret wonders of the Torah. Molcho was a friend of R. Dr. Jacob ben Samuel Mantino, before they parted, becoming enemies within a short time. The reason for this fall-out was that Molcho became a close friend of R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan, staying in his house, in 1532, as his house was a meeting place for Kabbalists and people inspired by mystical and messianic ideas. R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan was, however, a nemesis of Jacob Mantino, since Jacob Mantino did not support Henry III’s divorce, and other matters, while Chalfan did. Molcho tried to reconcile Chalfan and Mantino unsuccessfully, until Montino was forced to leave Venice due to the feued.^[16] Molcho was subsequently burned at the stake, as a heretic, in Mantua after travelling to Regensburg in a failed attempt to convince Emperor Charles V to allow him to form an army to conquer Palestine from the Ottomans. R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan subsequently created a kabbalistic chart recording some of his and Molchoʼs ideas (obtained by the Medici Library in Florence in 1570).

 

Sponsor of printing of Hebrew books

 

Chalfan had a successful career as a doctor, which provided him with an income, allowing him to be involved also in business activities, including the publication of Hebrew books. In 1546, he helped publish an important work from the Gaonim, She’iltot, published in Venice 1546, in which it states: R. Elijah Chalfan was moved by his spirit to publish the Sh’iltot.^[17]  In a printed work, Benjamin Ze-ev, by R. Benjamin Ze-ev ben Mattathias, held at the Bodleian Library, Opp. 4o 609 (575 folios), one finds a full page dedication to the principle supporter of its printing, R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan. The work was published by Daniel Bomberg in Venice in 1539 (5299), and consists of a responsa covering the whole scope of Jewish law. He has also an approbation^[18] in the Jewish legal work, Tur Yoreh Deah with Bet Yosef, published in Venice 1551, including a lengthy complaint about the decline of Torah knowledge in Venice.^[19] Rabbi Chalfan had a considerable library of his own, including many medical works, a list of which has been preserved.^[20] After his passing, there is report of his wife Rabanit Chalfan, selling one of his books. At the beginning of MS Parma 653, it states: Tuesday, 4^th day of the month of Av (5311/1551), I purchased this prayer book from the Rabbanit the widow of Rabbi Elijah Halfan.’^[21]

 

Commentary

 

R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan began writing a commentary on the Torah and the Five Megillot, in February 1523 (5283), during the weekly Torah reading of ‘Eileh Mishpatim’ (Exodus 25-27). He completed the work in the city of Modena, Italy, the following year, on the first day of Rosh Chodesh Nissan, 5284, corresponding to Sunday, 15 March, 1524.^[22] This work is currently held in the Bodleian Library, as part of the Oppenheimer collection, shelf-marked MS. Opp. 722. It is written with Rabbinic and cursive Italian characters and consists of 453 folios. The actual number of folios with written text are slightly different, as the folio numbers jump from 54 to 95, and folio no. 39 is missing, resulting in really 416 folios.^[23] There is a torn^[24] unnumbered folio, with text, between folio 290 and 291. A folio is partially torn on folio 36 and folio 446 is sixfold: 446(i) - 446 (vi). The portion of Toldot is missing. There is also some inconsistency in the headings, whereby most state the name of the Torah portion, followed by the name of the commentary, like: Chaye Sara Rabot, Chaye Sara Haramban (fol. 38). For the portion of Miketz, it is in the reverse Haramban Miketz (fol. 115), suggesting it may have been added later. The title Miketz is missing altogether next to the word Rabot (fol. 114). The text contains no corrections, aside from folio. 364 in the gematriot for Re-eh, where three lines are crossed out and restarted with a different text. On folio 36, at the foot of the folio there is some text upside down, erased. Besides the above, the work is extremely well organised and structured with great consistency.

 

Collection

 

As was the trend of Rabbis of Italy to defer to the authority of the medieval classical works of halachah, as opposed to rely on their own innovations, the commentary on the Torah by R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan was similarly a work consisting of a compilation, as opposed to original commentary. It is made up of five commentaries, organised according to the portions (parshiyot) of the Torah. In the end of the commentary, he writes (fol. 395):

 

On every Shabbat he would read and read again all these commentaries, including Rabot, Nachmanides, Bahye, Ibn Shuaib and Sefer Gematriot. I took from each of them the ‘fine flour’ (solet naki), in my humble opinion, and wrote it down for memory. May G-d’s eyes give me the merit to study in it, myself, my children, the offspring of my children, until the end of all generations, amen, amen amen, forever and ever (sela, vaed), amen, so may it be His will.’

 

Written in Italian Hebrew, it is, thus, made up of five commentaries on the Torah: 1. Rabot, known as Midrash Rabbah,^[25] 2. Nachmanides (1194-1270), 3. Rabeinu Bahye ibn Asher (1255-1340), 4. R. Joshua Ibn Shuaib (c.1280 – c.1340),^[26] 5. Sefer ha-Gematriot. The latter is divided into two sections: Gematriot (numerical value of the Hebrew alphabet) and Chudishim (novalae). While the first four sections state clearly the author above the commentary, the last section is anonymous, stating just: Gematria and Chiddushim. For the first parsha of Bereishit (fol. 4), after the word Gematria, it adds: ‘roshe tevot’ (first word acronym) and ‘sof tevot’ (end of word acronym), thus including acronyms also in this section, though the vast majority are gematriot. While no part of the commentary seems to contain original ideas, the choice of authors, citations and the rephrasing of text, are clearly the authors. No reason is given for the selection of authors, but appears to cover all four levels of biblical interpretation: ‘peshat’ (plain meaning), ‘remez’ (allegory), ‘derush’ (homiletical)and ‘sod’ (Kabbalah),a style similar to the one employed by Rabeinu Bahye, as opposed to a singular level of interpretation, as Rashi, who claims to write only on the level of ‘p’shat.’^[27] In this context, the first section ‘Rabot’ is ‘midrash,’ and Nachmanides is ‘p’shat,’ alongside ‘sod’ (mystical), as he writes in his introduction. The same is the case with Rabeinu Bahye, which is inspired by Nachmanides’ work. Sefer Gematriot is ‘remez’ (allegorical).

 

End of work

 

In addition to the commentary on the Torah, the manuscript (MS. Opp. 722) includes, on fol. 405, an alphabetical dictionary of difficult Talmudic words. On fol. 434, one finds some Gematriot, and fol. 437, an alphabetical list of Talmudic proverbs. From fol. 443, different letters are presented. On fol. 447, a letter is signed by R. Azriel ben R. Solomon Dienna (d. 1536), who came from a French family, and settled in Italy, studying under R. Nethaniel Trabot. He served first as a teacher in Reggio, before moving to Pavia for 15 years. He also lived for a period in Piedmont. Around 1517, he was appointed rabbi of Sabbioneta, where he served until his passing. In his letter to Abraham ha-Kohen of Bologna in 1531 or 1535, he distanced himself from David Reubeni but supported Solomon Molcho as did R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan.^[28] On fol. 448, a letter is signed by Yechiel Tryvish. The manuscript also includes poetry by Abba Mari, the father of R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan, R. Kalonymos, the father-in-law of R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan, and R. Eliya Chalfan, the grandson of R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan.^[29]

 

Sefer ha-Gematriot

 

While most of the commentary is clearly identified, the final two sections appear anonymous, with no name of author cited on the commentary folios, besides Gematriot and Chiddushim. On the first folio where gematriot can be found, for the portion of Bereishit, it adds also the heading ‘Roshei Tevot’ (acronym) and ‘Sofei Tevot’ (ends of words). What is the source material used for the section of Gematriot?

 

A small amount of the gematriot can be found in the following three sources:

 

1. The commentary of R. Jacob ben Asher (c. 1270-1340), known as Ba’al ha-Turim. This was initially written as an appetizer (par-pe-ra-ot) to his main commentary on the Torah, but, due to its popularity, ended up being published as a stand alone work in Constantinople 1514. It contains many teachings of gematria and other teachings following the method of ‘remez.’.

 

2. The commentary on the Torah by Tosafist Rabeinu Efraim ben Shimshon;

 

3. Sefer Gematriot by R. Judah ha-Chasid (1150-1217). R. Judah ha-Chasid’s Sefer Hasidim, written in Regensburg, was well known and first printed in Bologna in 1538, but his work Sefer Gematriot long assumed lost, was recently discovered complete in the National Library of Israel in Jerusalem, shelfmarked: MS. Heb. 28°7234 (63 double sided folios),^[30] published by R. Jacob Israel Setel in Jerusalem in 2005 under the title: Sefer Gematriot l’Rabeinu Yehudah ha-Chassid. The work in its original, however, has no title and no author.^[31] The work by such a name - Sefer Gematriot - is first mentioned by R. Zedekiah ben Abraham Anaw in the 13^th century, in his legal code Shibole Haleket (Siman 137),^[32] but without the name of an author. He writes: ‘I have found in Sefer Gematriot that the words in the verse (Ezekiel 4:14): ‘eat their bread, impure, among the nations’ (lach-mam ta-me ba-go-yim) has the same numerical value (gematria) as: ‘without drying the hands’ (be-lo ni-guv ya-da-yim).’ This teaching is indeed found in Sefer Gematriot (NLI Ms. Heb. 28°7234) in Vayera (2). Similarly, bibliograph R. Chaim Yosef David Azulai, known as the Chida (1724 – 1806) writes in Shem Ha-gedolim (vol. 2, letter ‘vav,’ number 3): ‘Midrash va-yechulu in Sefer gematriot, by the disciples of R. Yehudah ha-Chasid, on old parchment, in which it mentions Midrash va-yechulu.^[33] This teaching can also be found in Sefer Gematriot (Ms. Heb. 28°7234 section 166).

 

4. Some of the gematriot in MS Opp. 722 appear also in a work by R. Elazar ben Moshe Hadarshan, grandson of R. Yehudah ha-Chasid, held in manuscript form at Bavarian State Library, in Munich, Germany, shelfmark Cod. hebr. 221 (beginning on fol. 83).^[34] On the first folio, it states: ‘Likkutim m’Sefer ha-Gematriot al kol parsha ve-parsha (compiled from Sefer ha-Gematriot oneach Parsha), composed byR. Eliezer son of R. Moshe Hadarshan.

 

5. Despite teachings found in the above sources, the majority of the gematriot do not appear in those places, and none of them are called Sefer Gematria in their original, suggesting a further, more complete source exists.The work where all the gematriot may be found,^[35] with only occasional variants, perhaps when needed correcting,^[36] is an anonymous commentary on the Torah, found in the Bodleian Library, shelfmarked: MS. Opp. 27 (Neubauer catalogue no. 268) (folios 1-230),^[37] published in three volumes under the title: Pirush Harokeach al ha-Torah. For example, the gematriot for the whole Parshat Re-eh (fol. 364), totalling 50 gematriot, can be all found, without exception, with the precise wording in MS. Opp. 27,^[38] though R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan omits some of them, as he claims to only select the ‘finest of the flour’ for his commentary.^[39] As he selects when citing from the other commentaries, he does the same with Sefer ha-Gematriot. The identity of the author of this work, as R. Eleazar of Worms, is also suggested by Adolf Neubauer in his catalogue. This has been however rejected by Yosef Dan in an article in Kiryat Sefer, published in 1984 (vol. 59),^[40] claiming that the author could not have been R. Elazar of Worms, as he always encrypts his name in the opening of his works.^[41] Furthermore, the colophon of the manuscript states the author is anonymous. The title page states:

 

Great work on the Torah, and the five megillot, according to peshat, remez, sod, derash, and gematriot and roshei tevot (acronym). Amazing and wonderful. Contains reasons for the hidden letters in the verse of the Torah and parshiyot from the Torah, Neviim and Ketuvim. And the name of the author is unknown.’

 

It is however most likely from a student of the Chasidei Ashkenaz.^[42] In the title page, in the manuscript, it suggests the author might be 11^th century R. Tobiah ben Eliezer, author of Lekach Tov, known as Pesikta Zutratha, as well as a commentary on Eliezer Ha-kalil. The mention of a piyyut from Eliezer Ha-kalil in the commentary on Parshat Re-eh, fol. supports this. The lack of explicit mention of the name of the author explains why there is no explicit mention of the author of the fifth section in MS. Opp. 722 by R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan.^[43]

 

Identifying Sefer ha-Gematriot

 

The above dispute about the author of Sefer ha-Gematriot notwithstanding, the finding of all the gematria material cited by R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan, in MS. Opp. 27, supports the notion that, despite omitted in the colophon, the title of this work (MS. Opp. 27) is the renowned Sefer ha-Gematriot (with the prefix ‘hei’), as recorded byR. Elijah Menachem Chalfan in his introduction to MS. Opp. 722 about the content of his commentary. This raises the possibility also that the Sefer Gematria mentioned in the Shibole ha-Leket, and the Chida^[44] may also refer to this anonymous Sefer ha-Gematriot - MS. Opp. 27.^[45]

 

Chidushim (novelae)

 

The additional section, Chiddushim (novela), which is a collection of non-gematria comments, remains however somewhat mysterious, as some of the commentary can be located in Ba’al ha-Turim, some can be found in MS. Opp. 27, and some in Rabeinu Efraim at ha-Torah, all of which includes additional material, besides just gematriot, but as many teachings cannot be found in any of these works, the source is unclear. It is argued that the Jews of Italy had midrashim that is no longer extant, as wehave midrashic material that they did not have in their possession. This would make this work unique, in that it provides us with lost material of rabbinic writings.

 

A further consideration: Since the index of the context of the collection of this commentary by Chalfan provided by the author does not mention any additional commentary, besides the five mentioned, the additional section ‘Chiddushim’ should be seen as part of the Sefer Hagematriot, even though most are technically not gematriot. The same is the case with Sefer Gematriot (MS. Heb. 28°7234), where you can a variety of other teachings that are not gematriot, but nevertheless included in the work called Sefer Gematriot by R. Yehudah ha-Chasid. In the case of R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan in MS. Opp. 722, he chose to divide this section of the commentary into two sections: the strictly gematriot section and the part that is not strictly gematriot, placed them in a section called Chiddushim. If this is the case, the source text for the fifth section of the book (Sefer Gematriot and Chiddushim) must be from a different source, which incorporates not just the gematriot but also the Chiddushim section, which has not yet been identified. Since the index statement, written by R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan, with no mention of the Chiddushim section, was written after the work was completed, as evidence from the completion date included, it is not possible to say the Chiddushim section is in truth a different source material than the gematria section and was added later as an addition, drawn from a variety of sources. The author, by writing the index statement at the end, forces us to say that the Chiddushim section is also material from the Sefer Hagematriot, the source material of which is thus as of yet remains unknown. An alternative possibility is that Sefer Ha-gematriot might referring to a collection of material from a variety of works of gematriot, as opposed to a single work. Be as it may, the final section, includes many teachings, under the title Chiddushim, which remains unidentified as to the source for the material being used.

 

Abridged commentary

 

The method how R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan chooses to cite from the above four commentaries (Rabot, Nachmanides, Rabeiny Bahye and Ibn Shuaib) is the same for all the commentaries: selective citations, omissions, rewording and abridgment of the source material.The selection from Rabot mostly includes the first verse and chapter of the Parsha in Rabot, and always in order of the verses. In many cases, however, there may be a number of midrashic teachings on a verse, but Rabbi Chalfan will select only one of them, guided by unarticulated consideration. In many cases, the selection relates to a parable that the midrash cites to explain a concept in the verse. In a great number of cases, the citation of a midrashic teaching is reworded as a shortened version of the midrash, omitting repetitions or apparent redundancies. When citing a midrashic teaching with the name of the teacher, the name is many times shortened: In Parshat Matot (Numbers Rabba 22:1), it states: Rabbi Abba of Rumanya said.’ In the citation (fol. 340), it leaves out ‘of Rumanya.’

 

The selection of text from Nachmanides is also many times an abridgement of a longer section. This occurs in three ways: a. a shortened citation of a lengthy comment, without changing the wording, but sufficient to express the concept that Nachmanides is discussing, In such cases, he may cite another commentator, like Ibn Ezra, as in Parshat Korach (Numbers 16:30). b. In a case where Nachmanides argues with another commentator, like Rashi, the citation will omit the first commentator, and also the question posed on the first commentator. It will instead cite just the view of Nachmanides.^[46] c. On occasion, he will cite the question (huk-sha li) that serves the rejection of the other commentator, but omit the view of the first commentator. This may be found in Shoftim 17:16 (fol. 367), relating to the reason for the prohibition for a king to have many horses. Nachmanides first cites Rashi’s reason, not to cause Israel to return to Egypt, to buy horses, followed by Nachmanides’ own explanation – for the purpose of trusting in G-d. In the manuscript, it poses the question, but omits citing Rashi’s actual comment (not to cause Israel to return to Egypt), on which the question is being posed.^[47]

 

The same is the case with Ibn Shuaib, whereby a few selections are cited from a whole derasha, but not always clear the methodology used for the selections, since the selections make most sense when read as part of the derasha as a whole. On occasion, citations are taken from the various parts of the derasha, summarising the idea of a particular part of the derasha. Combined, they may act as an aid to recalling the whole derasha. As in many cases, the derasha draws on a lot of varied material from all parts of the Torah, it’s possible that in 16^th century Italy, still in the infancy of printing, stand-alone citations of Ibn Shuaib themselves might have been worth citing. This can be found in parshat Re-eh where a teaching from the Jerusalem Talmud is cited regarding the extreme piety of the sages regarding returning a lost article. The citation appears to make no sense without the overall context of the derasha, but nevertheless, illuminating in its own right. The most precise part of the commentary is the Gematriot, due to the need for the gematriot to make sense, and their calculations accurate. As mentioned, it draws direct quotes from MS. Opp. 27. Nevertheless, as mentioned, not all the gematriot are cited, and it is unclear the reasoning employed by which some gematriot are recorded and some omitted.

 

Illuminations - Manicule

 

In parts of the manuscript, there appears illuminations in the form of a little hand, known as a manicule, pointing with its index finger to a particular text. This has its origin in the 12^th century, as can be found in a 12th century English text, Leges angliae (Laws of England), decorated with manicules, and became a favourite of the Renaissance humanists. They would take classical works and decorate them with pointing hands to indicate words or lines of interest. There are various styles, including a basic style of a fist with an index finger extended, some have a fist and five fingers, as found in the work of fourteenth-century Italian scholar Petrarch, while some more accurately portrayed with just five fingers.^[48] As a renaissance era work, the manuscript displays these techniques, though it’s unclear whether they were added by the author at the time of writing the commentary or later on to indicate sections of particular interest. As manicules are mostly added by the reader,^[49] it is most likely that readers of this manuscript added the manicules, explaining also the various styles of manicules in the manuscript. In the case of Chalfan MS Opp. 722, it is most likely that the readers and the ones who inserted these manicules were his family members, as he writes at the end of the commentary: he would like the work to be read by his children and progeny.

 

Here is a brief overview of the various styles of manicules found in the Chalfan MS Opp. 722, some with two fingers, some with three fingers, plus the index finger, while some have a cuff added to the hand. A manicule with a cuff can be found on fol. 5. On folio 6, it has two fingers plus the index finger. In both these cases (fols. 5 and 6), it’s pointing to a comment in the chidushim (novalae) on the portion of Bereishit. On fol.16, pointing to a comment in the chidushim (novalae) on the portion of Noah, ithas three fingers, plus the index, with a cuff. Onfol. 21, pointing to a comment in Rabot on Lech Lecha, ithas three fingers, plus the index finger, as can be found also on fol. 23, pointing to a comment in Rabeinu Bahye on Lech Lecha. On fol. 45, pointing to a comment in the chidushim (novalae) on the portion of Chaye Sara, the hand has no cuff at all, and the index finger is coloured in. On folio 110, pointing to a comment in the gematria section on the portion of Vayeshev, the hand has three fingers, plus an index finger, with a cuff, as can be found also on folio 347, pointing to a comment in the chidushim (novalae) on the portion of Devarim, andfol. 351, pointing to a comment byNachmanides on the portion of Va-etchanan. Two pointing hands adjacent to each other can be found on folio 34, pointing to two comments in the gematria section on the portion of Vayera. An indication to the purpose of the pointing may be gleaned from the wonderous nature of the comment being pointed to on fol. 369 - a comment byRabeinu Bahye on the portion of Shoftim: ‘I have heard that the carcass of the calf forms worms according to nature, which goes and kills the murderer wherever he is. Behold, this is a creation by the celestial ministering angel of the river, and this is a wonder of the mystery of nature.’

 

Bracket manicules

 

In addition to manicules in the form of pointing finger, one can find elongated brackets, perhaps meant to reflect also a hand, bracketing a few lines or a whole paragraph. These bracket style manicules also appear in varied forms. They are found in all parts of the commentary, not limited to a particular commentary author. In fol. 5, there is an illumination of a single bracket in the margin, highlighting a comment of Rabot on the portion of Bereishit; in fol. 10, there is a bracket in the margin, bracketing a comment of Rabot on the portion of Noah; on fol. 14, there is a bracketing of a comment byRabeinu Bahye on the portion of Noah; on fol. 101,itbrackets a comment byRabeinu Bahye on Vayishlach; on fol. 345, it brackets a comment byRabeinu Bahye on the portion of Devarim; on fol. 349, it brackets a comment on Va-etchanan Rabot; on folio 354, there is a double linked bracket, round two comments in the gematriaot section for Va-etchanan; on folio 370, there is a single bracket for two comments in gematriaot section for Shoftim. In fol. 370, 345, and others, to a lesser or greater degree, the brackets have a line projecting outward from the bracket. The most elaborate bracket can be found on fol. 133, bracketing a comment in the chidushim (novalae) section on the portion of Vayechi, relating to the end of days (acharit ha-yamim). It is unclear the purpose of these brackets and their variations, similar to the unknown precise intent of the pointing fingers. They maybe a form of footnoting, as found in early printed works.^[50]

 

Illuminations

 

Illumination in the form of word design can be found along the bottom of the four sides of folios 19-20, in the Rabot section for Lech Lecha. There is a single drawing in the manuscript that can be found on folio. 96, in the chiddushim (navalae) section for Vayetze, depicting the layout of the tents of Rachel, Leah, Bilhah and Zilpah as linked, to each other, like a cul-de-sac, off a public domain, with the front tent that of Rachel, followed by an entrance within it to Leah’s tent, followed by Bilhah and Zilpah. The picture is drawn to help better understand the biblical text (Genesis 32:34) about Laban searching for his lost idols in the tents of his daughters and maidservants, after Jacob and his family fled the house of Laban.

 

Mitzvah to eat meat on Rosh Hashanah - Unknown source

 

As mentioned above, the only unidentified complete source for a section of the Chalfan MS Opp. 722, is the section containing Chuddishim. We will present in this context an example of a teaching in the Chiddushim section, not found in MS. Opp. 27 (published as Pirush Rokeach al-ha-Torah) or any other identifiable source. This can be found as a comment on folio 365 about eating meat as a display of joy and festivities on Shabbat, Jewish festivals, and, in particular, for the purpose of this essay, on Rosh Hashanah.^[51] The teaching is based on Deuteronomy 12:20, where it states: ‘When the L-rd, your G-d, expands your boundary, as He has spoken to you, and you say, "I will eat meat," because your soul desires to eat meat, you may eat meat, according to every desire of your soul.’ The manuscript cites the words: ‘When He expands’ (ki yar-chiv), and states:

 

The three times it mentions ‘meat’ (basar) in the verse corresponds to the three festivals, when it is a mitzvah to eat meat. And also: brit, Shabbat, Rosh Hashanah the acronym (roshe tevot) of which makes up the word ‘ba-sa-r’ (meat), as it states (Nechemiah 8:10): ‘eat choice foods and drink sweet drinks.’^[52]

 

Shabbat

 

Due to the uniqueness of this unsourced teaching, we will present thebackground to this teaching relating to Rosh Hashanah.On the Shabbat, there is a commandment from the prophets to enjoy (oneg) the Shabbat. This is understood to refer to fish and meat. The Talmud states (Shabbat 118b):

 

With what does one delight in the day of Shabbat? Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav: With a dish of beets, and large fish, and heads of garlic. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: Even with regard to a small item and one prepared it in deference to Shabbat, it is a delight. The Gemara asks: What is the small item mentioned? Rav Pappa said: Small fried fish.

 

The Talmud also states (Shabbat 119a):

 

The sons of Rav Pappa bar Abba said to Rav Pappa: People like us, for whom meat and wine is found on our table every day, in what manner can we change it on Shabbat? He said to them: If you are accustomed to eating your meal early, make it later on Shabbat; if you are accustomed to making it late, make it earlier on Shabbat. This difference will underscore the uniqueness of Shabbat.

 

The implication is that this relates to a wealthy person who has plenty already, but another person may just slightly increase in the meat served to honour the Shabbat. Thus, Maimonides writes: ‘A person should have more meat, wine and treats, to the best of his ability.’ The Talmud illustrates this (Shabbat 119a):

 

Rabbi Abba bought thirteen plain staters [astirei peshitei] worth half a zuz of meat from thirteen butchers in deference to Shabbat, so that he would have various types of fine meat. And he would place the meats at the door hinge at the entrance to his house to hurry to bring another type of meat. And he said to the cooks, in order to rush them: Hurry and prepare it, hurry and prepare it.

 

The Talmud further states (Shabbat 119b):

 

Rabbi Abbahu at the conclusion of Shabbat a third-born calf, and he would eat one kidney from it. When his son Avimi grew up, he said to his father: Why do you waste so much? Let us leave a kidney over from Shabbat eve, and you will not need to slaughter an entire calf for that purpose. Indeed, they left the calf and did not slaughter it, and a lion came and ate it. This teaches that one should not be miserly when it comes to honouring Shabbat.

 

According to the midrashic work Tanna DeBei Eliyahu Rabbah (26), even if one cannot afford it, one should eat a bit of meat and drink a little of wine, in honour of the Shabbat. Maimonides codifies in Mishneh Torah, laws of Shabbat (30:10): ‘Eating meat and drinking wine on the Sabbath is a form of pleasure for a person, provided this is within his [financial] capacity.’ R. Abraham Gambiner clarifies (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 572:3): ‘one is not however obligated to eat meat on Shabbat and the festival.’^[53] In Shulchan Aruch Harav, Orach Chaim (242:1), it states: ‘There is no specific obligation to eat meat or drink wine on Shabbos. The common practice is to partake of them only because most people presumably derive pleasure from eating meat more than eating other foods and from drinking wine more than drinking other beverages. For this reason, people should be generous in their consumption of meat and wine according to their capacity and financial resources.’

 

Festivals

 

The same applies with the three festivals of Passover, Shavuot and Sukkot, where it says (Deuteronomy 16:14): ‘you shall rejoice in your festival.’ The Talmud (Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 1:2:3) states two opinions: R. Eleazar said, joy mentioned there refers to the peace offering in the Temple. R. Joshua ben Levi said, ‘and you shall enjoy,’ even from a butcher shop (the duty to eat meat on holidays is biblical also after the destruction of the Temple when sacrificial meat is not available). Midrash Lekach Tov comments: ‘from here we derive that joy is only possible where there is meat.’ This is codified in Jewish law (Shulchan Aruch Harav, Orach Chaim (529:4): ‘one should increase the [amount of] meat, wine, and delicacies [he serves] according to his [financial] capacities.’

 

Rosh Hashanah

 

However, when it comes to Rosh Hashana, there is question whether it is considered a festival and that one should be also joyous or not? In Nehemiah 8:10, it states that Ezra said to the people on the first of the seventh month (Rosh Hashanah): ‘Go, eat the fat and drink the sweet.’ R. Sa-adiah Gaon explains that this took place on Rosh Hashana when the people wanted to fast, so Ezra told them they should eat the fat food (meat), so that the year will be fat in good deeds, since fat refers only to meat. This is codified in Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim (597:1): ‘One eats, drinks and is merry on Rosh Hashanah. We do not fast, whether on Rosh Hashanah, nor on Shabbos Shuva (the Shabbos of Repentance which is between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur).’ There is a dispute, however, regarding the nature of the holiday: the Jerusalem Talmud (Nedarim 5) writes that R. Yonatan would fast every year the day before Rosh Hashanah. In Peskita, it states it is a mitzvah to do so. Rav Natronai Gaon (9^th century) writes that one should fast on both days of Rosh Hashanah. Rav Hai Gaon, Rav Nachshon Gaon, Mar Shalom Gaon, and Rav Yehudai Gaon say, however, it is forbidden to fast on Rosh Hashanah, since it is called a ‘chag’ (festival) in Psalms 81:4: ‘the appointed time for the day of our festival (chageinu).’

 

This is also the opinion of German Tosafist R. Eliezer ben Yoel HaLevi of Bonn, known as Ra’avyah (1140–1225), based on the verse in Nechemiah (8:10-12): ‘He further said to them, “Go, eat choice foods and drink sweet drinks and send portions to whoever has nothing prepared, for the day is holy to our Lord. Do not be sad, for your rejoicing in the L-rd is the source of your strength.” The Levites were quieting the people, saying, “Hush, for the day is holy; do not be sad.” Then all the people went to eat and drink and send portions and make great merriment, for they understood the things they were told,’

 

Also, in the Jerusalem Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 1:5), it states:

 

Rebbi Simon said, it is written (Deuteronomy 4:7): ‘for who is a great people.’ Rebbi Ḥama ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Hoshaia. One said, is there a people like this people? Usually in the world a person who knows that he will stand in trial dresses in black, wears black headdress, and lets his beard grow, since he does not know how his trial will end. But Israel are not so, but they wear white, wear white headdress, cut their beard, eat, and drink, and are happy. They know that the Holy One, praise to Him, will perform wonders for them.

 

Similarly, in the book of I Samuel (25:36-38), it states:

 

When Abigail came home to Nabal, he was having a feast in his house, a feast fit for a king; Nabal was in a merry mood and very drunk, so she did not tell him anything at all until daybreak. The next morning, when Nabal had slept off the wine, his wife told him everything that had happened; and his courage died within him, and he became like a stone. About ten days later the L-rd struck Nabal and he died.

 

The Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 18a) comments that the delay of ten days before Nabal was struck are the ten days of repentance between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, implying that the ‘feast in his house, a feast fit for a king; Nabal was in a merry mood and very drunk’ was the celebration of Rosh Hashanah.^[54] The same dispute is found regarding the liturgy on Rosh Hashanah.^[55] Some^[56] include in the prayers the line: ‘holidays for joy, pilgrimages and times for happiness,’ as one does on the three pilgrimage festivals. Jewish law (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 582:8) says not to recite it on Rosh Hashanah. The reason given by R. Joel Sirkis, known as the Bach (1561-1640), is that these days were not given for rejoicing and gladness, but rather a time of judgement and repentance.

 

Foods to eat on Rosh Hashanah

 

There is similarly ambiguity whether there is a mitzvah to eat meat for the purpose of being joyous on the festival, as with the other three festivals. The Talmud in tractate Keritot (6a) mentions foods one should eat for a good omen for the upcoming year:

 

Abaye said: Now that you have said that a sign is a substantial matter, a person should be accustomed to eat, at the start of the year, gourd, fenugreek, leeks, beets, and dates, as each of these grow and multiply quickly, which is a good omen for the deeds of the upcoming year.^[57]

 

This is codified in Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim (583:1):

 

One should eat beans, leeks, beets, dates, and pumpkin. And as one eats the beans (rubiya), they say: G-d, may our merits increase (yirbu)! Eating leeks (karti), they say: G-d, may our enemies be wiped out (yekartu)! Eating dates (tamri), say: G-d, may our enemies disappear (yetamu)! Eating pumpkin (kra), say: G-d, may our judgement be ripped up (yikra) and may our merits be called out (yikrau) before You!

 

In the Ashkenazi tradition, R. Moses Isserles, known as the Rama adds additional foods:

 

Some have a custom of eating a sweet apple in honey, and saying: May a sweet year be renewed on us! This is what we do. Some eat pomegranates, and say: may our merits be as many as pomegranate seeds! And we are accustomed to eat fatty meat and all sorts of sweets.^[58]

  

Although the custom to eat meat is added, conspicuously, the Rama is silent whether this is for the purpose of a good omen for the deeds of the upcoming year or as a mitzvah to be joyous on the New Year, as with the other three festivals and Shabbat. The tension is found also in Chassidic teachings in the 18^th century, where Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi writes^[59] that Rosh Hashanah is not a Yom Tov, since on every Yom Tov there is a revelation of the ‘intellect’ (hitgalut mochin de-ava) of the Divine sefirot, channelled through the Divine emotions (midot), into the feminine attribute of ‘kingship’ (be-nukva). On Rosh Hashanah the flow is direct, not through the intermediary of the emotions. The result is a fear of G-d and nullification of man’s will before G-d. In a further discourse he interprets the verse in Psalms (2:11): ‘rejoice with quaking’ (gilu bi-re-a-dah), as referring to Rosh Hashanah, when joy remains inward, and does not manifest itself openly until Sukkot.^[60]

 

In this context, the teaching found in the commentary of R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan is significant. It states: ‘it is a mitzvah to eat meat on Shabbat, a Brit Milah (circumcision) celebration, and also Rosh Hashanah, based on the verse in Nechemiah (8:10),’ thereby interpreting the verse not as merely a good omen for the increase of good deeds in the coming year, but an intrinsic mitzvah to be joyous on the holiday, as other festivals.^[61][62]

 

Connection between the collection of commentaries

 

There is no obvious thematic or structural connection between the different commentaries that are used to make up Chalfan’s manuscript content. The commentary of Nachmanides in a particular parsha, does not necessarily follow on or relate to the issues raised in the Rabot, and neither does Joshua Ibn Shuaib follow on or relate to Rabeinu Bahye. It appears to be a collection of commentaries relating to the parshiyot with no clear underlying connections between the different commentary authors.^[63]

 

As they mostly relate to the reasonings behind the mitzvot, with many of the citations beginning with the words: ‘ta’am’ (reason), followed by the symbolism or philosophical reasons for the particular mitzvah or aspect of a mitzvah, the aim of the work is aimed at presenting a comprehensive rationalisation of the mitzvot, and concepts in Judaism, similar to Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed, through the citation from the midrash and three of the commentaries: Nachmanides, Bahye and Ibn Shuaib.

 

Subject headings in margin

 

For this reason, throughout the work, to assist the reader, one can find in the margin short notes referencing the subject matter discussed in the commentary. This is done extensively and covers all of the four first sections, including Rabot, Nachmainides, Rabeinu Bahye and Ibn Shuaib. There are also repeated themes indicated, suggesting the work is not an organised collection of ideas, organised by themes, but rather a collection of commentary on the Torah, with the margin being used for subject heading, sometime a single word, like ‘Teshuvah’(repentance) or ‘din’ (law),or ‘inyan hamizbeach’ (the concept of the alter), ‘bitachon hamelech be-Hashem’ (trust of a king in G-d).^[64] This is not consistent, however as many comments don’t have a subject in the margin, suggesting it is primarily a text for study, as mentioned above, with references of subject to help the reader. The subject headings may have had a purpose to assist in researching material for classes and sermons.

 

Nachmanides, Rabeinu Bahye and Joshua Ibn Shuaib

 

The reason for selecting the three commentaries, besides Rabot, of Nachmanides, Rabeinu Bahye and Joshua Ibn Shuaib is twofold: they have interconnecting intellectual paths, making them a suitable choice for a combined commentary of the same period, and also content. Firstly, Rabeinu Bahye and Joshua Ibn Shuaib were both disciples of R. Shlomo ben (Abraham ben) Aderet, known as Rashba (1235-1310). Rashba was a disciple of R. Jonah of Gerona (c. 1200 - 1263), author of a commentary on Proverbs, Ethics of the Fathers, and R. Isaac Alfasi, known as the Rif, as well an influential work on Repentance (Sharei Teshuvah) and piety (Sharei Yir-ah). R. Jonah of Gerona was a cousin^[65] of Nachmanides, and took sides, in 1232, with his teacher R. Abraham of Montpellier, against the ‘corrupting’ convergence of philosophy and traditional Torah study, presented by Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed. He later, however, regretted this, particularly after the Franciscan burning of Jewish texts in 1242, and vowed to pray at Maimonides’ grave in Israel to beg for forgiveness.^[66] Nachmanides wrote a lamentation after R. Jonah’s untimely passing.

 

On a practical level, these three commentaries were printed at the time R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan wrote his commentary, reflecting their popularity, and this accessible. Rabeinu Bahye was printed for the first time in Naples 1492, and a second and third edition in Pesaro, in 1507 and 1514.^[67] A fourth edition in Venice in 1544. Nachmanides’ commentary on the Torah was first published in Lisbon in 1489. As mentioned, the work by Ibn Shuaib was published in Constantinople in 1523, the same year Chalfan’s commentary was written. A second printing took place in Krakow in 1573. Alternatively, he used a manuscript of the derashot of Ibn Shuaib, which still exists from ca. 1460-1470, entitled: pe[rush] he-hakh[am] Joshua ibn Shuaib za”l talmid ha-Rashb"a za”l al ha-Torah. The provenance is: Solomon Halberstam.^[68]

 

A connection between the three commentaries: Nachmanides, Rabeinu Bahye and Ibn Shuaib is that they include commentary according to Kabbalah, introduced at times with the phrase: ‘al pi kabbalah.’ The teachers of Nachmanides are R. Ezra and R. Ezriel, both Kabbalaists, disciples of R. Yitzchak Sagi Nahor, son of the R. Avraham ben David, known as the Ra-avad. Sagi Nahor studied the Kabbalah from Elijah the Prophet.^[69] Similarly, Rabeinu Bahye, followed the model of Nachmanides, who was the first major commentator to make extensive use of the Kabbalah as a means of interpreting the Torah, even though he does not reveal any of his Kabbalistic sources, other than generally referring to Sefer HaBahir and the works of Nachmanides. He only mentions the Zohar twice. In Parshat Shoftim, on the verse (Deuteronomy 15:16): ‘justice, justice pursue (Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof), he cites Sefer Habahir. In most cases, however, he just writes: ‘al derech hakabbalah’ (by way of the Kabbalah), even though the teaching can be found also in Nachmanides. Chalfan chooses to cite it as a Kabbalistic teaching from Bahye, as opposed to bringing it as part of his citation of Nachmanides. Nevertheless, the aim of brining Rabeinu Bahye is not for the purpose of citing Kabbalah, as Halfan also selects Rabeinu Bahye’s comments when it is ‘p’shat,’ as on Deuteronomy 17:3: ‘velashemesh..kasher tzivesi.’ In this case, Rabeinu Bahye cites ‘p’shat,’ followed by Kabbalah, but Chalfan only cites the ‘p’shat,’ omitting the Kabbalah on this verse. This suggests his use of Rabeinu Bahye, while it incorporates Kabbalah, it’s not the sole aim of incorporating it in his collection.

 

A reason Chalfan chooses the Kabbalistic comment in some cases and not in other cases, may be due to whether the Kabbalistic teaching is cited by Nachmanides. This can be seen in Rabeinu Bahye on Deuteronomy 16:20, cited by Chalfan, where Nachmanides brings the Kabbalistic interpretation also, whereas Nachmanides does not bring the Kabbalistic commentary on Deuteronomy 17:3, and is thus omitted by Chalfan. This provides a perspective in his strategy of the commentary: Halfan cites Kabbalah teachings in Rabeinu Bahye, particularly when those teachings are also found in Nachamindes. On occasion, Chalfan will cite Rabeinu Bahye when the text of Rabeinu Bahya is actually a continuation of a text also found in Nachmanides on a particular verse, already cited earlier in Halfan’s citation of Nachmanides. This can be found in Deuteronomy (parshat Shoftim) on ‘Ne-onen u’menachesh’ (fol. 368). In any event, a reason for bringing the two commentaries Nachmanides and Rabeinu Bahye is the fact that they both incorporate teachings of the Kabbalah.

 

The same may be said for including Ibn Shuaib. Joshua ibn Shuaib (ca 1280 - ca 1340) was a rabbi who lived in Spain, a member of an aristocratic family of Tudela, and student of Rashba, whom he frequently references in this work. He was the teacher of Menahem ibn Zerah and ibn Sahula. As mentioned, his sermons were first published in Constantinople, in 1523, and a second time in Krakow in 1573. They consist of homilies, based on sermons delivered by ibn Shuaib in the synagogue. Each sermon begins with a verse from Proverbs, interpreted literally, allegorically, or in a midrashic manner, quoting from many sources, including both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, Midrashim, and halachic works, some of which are no longer extant and known to us only from this work. He then proceeds to creatively link various parts of the Torah portion to a broad ethical or theological theme, connected also to the verse in Proverbs cited at the beginning. In these derashot, he also quotes from Kabbalistic works, as the Sefer Yezirah, Sefer ha-Bahir, and the Zohar, as well as from kabbalistic passages in the commentary of Nachmanides.

 

A connection between two of the commentaries: Rabeinu Bahye and Ibn Shuaib, despite their very different styles – one a classic commentary, the other derashot (homiletical sermons), is that they both cite a verse of Proverbs in the beginning of their commentary. In the case of Rabeinu Bahye, he cites from R. Jonah’s commentary on Proverbs.^[70] Ibn Shuaib also cites a verse from Proverbs at the beginning of each week’s commentary. The method is however different, in that Rabeinu Bahye cites from R. Jonah’s commentary without a particular connection to the content of the commentary, as the commentary is verse based, with each comment explaining a particular verse, without any themed connections between the commentaries, while Ibn Shuaib selects and utilises a verse in Proverbs to construct an ethical discourse weaving through many of the verse in a particular parsha of the Torah. The selection of verses for each selection, found in Rabeinu Bahye and Ibn Shuaib, are different to each other, though some parallels can be found, as in parshat Ki Tavo from Proverbs 3:9-12: ‘Honour the L-rd with your wealth, with the best of all your income, and your barns will be filled with grain, our vats will burst with new wine. Do not reject the discipline of the L-rd, my son; Do not abhor His rebuke, for whom the L-rd loves, He rebukes, as a father the son whom he favours.

 

Reason for writing the commentary – Renaissance influence?

 

Despite no contextual reason offered by the author for writing the commentary, a few ideas will be explored as motivation for writing this collection of commentary: a. it was written with the benefit of Renaissance Italy in mind, when there was great fascination in the Hebrew language, its ancient texts and the mystery of its laws, b. Personal family inspiration to study Torah, c. combination of both: a traditional collection of classic rabbinic commentary on Torah, but written in a particular milieu, thus, in a sense, constituting a unique Renaissance period commentary on the Torah.

 

Dispute about teaching Hebrew and Torah

 

We will first explore the idea that the commentary was written with his Christian Hebraist neighbours in mind, aware of his well-known dialogue with them, including the most important Italian literati of the 16^th century, Pietro Aretino (1492-1556), who relied both on Rabbi Chalfan’s competence in medicine and knowledge of Judaism.^[71] Aretino wrote to him that ‘the Pope himself. . . should listen to your inspired voice.’^[72] An obvious aspect of the work is that it explains the reasons, including esoteric, for the laws of the Torah. Indeed, many of the citations taken from the source commentary begin with the section that says the reason for the particular mitzvah. This may be seen in the context of R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan’s declared support of teaching Hebrew to non-Jews, at a time when Christian Hebraists, during the 16^th century, had great interest in the Hebrew language and its sacred texts (Hebraica Veritas) to expand their horizon of learning. Some Christian Humanists believed that knowledge of Hebrew would allow them a more effective means to win Jews over in debate, drawing on intimate knowledge of their texts, while others thought that universal truth will only be revealed thorough the convergence of Christian teachings and the ancient Hebrew texts, including the esoteric teachings of the Kabbalah. Others had authentic interest in G-d’s sacred word in the ‘language of the Creator.’ The humanists of this persuasion included Johannes Reuchlin, Poggio Bracciolini, Giannozzo Manetti, Pico della Mirandola, Egidio da Viterbo, the Medici pope Leo X, Domenico Grimani, Francesco Zorzi, and others, who applied themselves to the study of Hebrew. Other humanists were opposed to this, as Erasmus of Rotterdam, claiming it would only reinforce the Jews in their convictions. Two of the greatest Christian thinkers to study not only Hebrew but also the Kabbalah were Pico della Mirandola and Johannes Reuchlin.

 

Many Jews were however forcefully opposed to the idea of teaching Hebrew to Christians, as evidenced by the case of humanist scholar Giannozzo Manetti (1396–1459), who lead his Hebrew teacher to baptism.^[73] The principal source for the opposition is the statement in the Talmud (Chagigah 13a): ‘R. Ami said: The words of Torah may not be transmitted to a gentile, as it is stated (Psalms 147:20): “He has not dealt so with any nation, and as for His ordinances, they have not known them.”’ Similarly, in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 59a): ‘R. Yoḥanan says: A non-Jew many not study Torah, as it is stated: “Moses commanded us a law [Torah], an inheritance of the congregation of Jacob” (Deuteronomy 33:4), indicating that it is an inheritance for the Jewish people.’^[74] Maimonides, however, writes that one may teach the Torah to Christians because they believe in the Divine origin of the Torah, and will help them understand the correct interpretations.^[75]

 

Italian R. Isaiah b. Elijah di Trani the Younger (d. c.1280), known as Ri’az, wrote,^[76] in the 13^th century, applied a similar idea but only regarding the Prophets and the Hagiographa: ‘a Jew who teaches a non-Jew Torah is like ‘placing a stumbling block before the blind,’ but only in regard to the Pentateuch. It is permitted to teach the Prophets and the Hagiographa, as a non-Jew will see in them the promises of comfort (ne-cha-mot) told to Israel, and the beliefs that provide answers to the heretic, so that he may join the Law of Israel.’ He also was opposed to teaching midrashim and the works of the rabbis, as they would scoff at them. For this reason, R. Isaiah composed works to explain the midrashim and the intentions of the sages to remove embarrassment.

 

Others, like R. Johanan Treves, argued that one should not refuse instructing gentiles the study of the Hebrew language, its vocalisation and vocabulary, as well as the meaning of the Torah, since they have in any case at their disposal Greek and Latin versions of their own. This is based on a line of reasoning found in the Tosafot (Chagigah 31a), comparing it to the prohibition to (Avodah Zara 6b) hand a cup of wine to a Nazarite, who is prohibited from drinking wine, according to Biblical law. One is only liable, however, for ‘placing a stumbling block before the blind’ (Leviticus 19:14) if one hands the wine across a river, thus being the only way to receive the wine. While the Tosafot maintain it remains nonetheless prohibited to teach Torah to a non-Jew, based on the verse in Psalms 147:20: ‘He has not dealt so with any nation, and as for His ordinances, they have not known them,’ one is not violating the Biblical law of ‘placing a stumbling block before the blind.’ 16^th century R. Johanan Treves, author of Machzor Kimcha de-Avishana (Bologna 1540),claimed this is sufficient to permit teaching Torah to Christians. R. Shmuel Eliezer Edels, known as the Maharsha (1555 – 1631), author of Chidushei Aggadot, makes a distinction between the laws and their reasons and esoteric meaning. It is the latter that is negated by the verse in Psalms.

 

Support for teaching Hebrew to non-Jews was seen by the fact that Italian philosopher and nobleman, founder of the tradition of Christian Kabbalah, Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494) and German humanist Johannes Reuchlin (1455-1522), author of De rudimentis hebraicis (1506), both had Hebrew teachers. Reuchlin’s teachers were R. Jacob ben Jehiel Loans^[77] and Elijah Levita, as well as R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan. In addition, R. Obadiah Sforno, a famed Biblical commentator, taught Reuchlin^[78] between 1498 and 1500.^[79] Kabbalist R. Yochanan Alemanno (c.1435-c.1504) and Elijah del Medigo (c. 1458 – c. 1493) taught Pico. Other teachers were R. Abraham de Balmes, who taught Cardinal Grimani; Jacob Mantino, who taught Guidoi Rangoni; Elia Levita, who taught Egidius of Viterbo.

 

Chalfan’s responsa

 

In 1544, Elijah Menachem Chalfan was invited to give a halachic ruling in Venice on this subject. The question posed was: should one protest someone who teaches the Hebrew language (Lashon Hakodesh), grammar (dikduk) and scripture (mikra) for one’s livelihood to a non-Jew? Is it sinful and deserve protest or is it not necessary to protest? The responsa was compiled in a collection of rabbinic responsa by R. Abraham Joseph Graziano of Modena (d. 1685). Chalfan responded that it is permitted to teach Hebrew to non-Jews, as well as to teach the Torah on the plain level of understanding (peshat), but prohibited teaching the Kabbalah.^[80]

 

His constructed his view in the following argument: In Talmud Sotah 35b, it states:

 

The Sages taught: How did the Jewish people write the Torah? Rabbi Yehuda says: They wrote it on stones, as it is stated: “And you shall write on the stones all the words of this law” (Deuteronomy 27:8). And afterward they plastered them over with plaster. Rabbi Shimon said to him: According to your statement that they plastered over the writing, how did the nations of the world study Torah? (Rashi: was it not the case that He said to him: The Holy One, Blessed be He, granted them an extra degree of understanding, and they sent their scribes [noteirin], and they peeled off the plaster and copied it down. And on account of this matter their decree to be sent to the pit of destruction was sealed, as once the Torah was in their possession they should have studied it, and they did not study.

 

We derive from here that for the purpose to forfend the argument that non-Jews never had the opportunity to learn the Torah, and keep the seven Noahide laws, it is permitted to teach Torah.

 

In Bava Kamma (38a), it further states:

 

The Sages taught the following story: And the Roman kingdom once sent two military officials [sardeyotot] to the Sages of Israel, and ordered them in the name of the king: Teach us your Torah. The officials read the Torah, and repeated it, and repeated it again, reading it for the third time. At the time of their departure, they said to the Sages: We have examined your entire Torah and it is true, except for this one matter that you state, i.e., that with regard to an ox of a Jew that gored the ox of a gentile, the owner is exempt from liability, whereas with regard to the ox of a gentile that gored the ox of a Jew, whether it was innocuous or forewarned, the owner pays the full cost of the damage. But we will not inform this matter to the kingdom. 

 

In the Jerusalem Talmud (Bava Kamma 4:3), it elaborates:

 

It happened that the [Roman] government sent two officials to study Torah with Rabban Gamliel. They learned from him Bible, Mishnah, Talmud, practice, and homilies. At the end, they told him: All of your teachings are beautiful and commendable except two things which you say: “A Jewish woman shall not act as midwife to a Gentile, but a Gentile woman may act as midwife for a Jewish woman; a Jewish woman shall not nurse the child of a Gentile, but a Gentile woman may nurse for a Jewish woman with her consent; what was robbed from a Jew is forbidden but from a Gentile it is permitted. At that moment did Rabban Gamliel decide that what was robbed from a Gentile be forbidden because of desecration of the Name.

 

Tosafot argues that teaching by force or for the purpose of conversion is not the same. R. Chalfan derives from the fact that the sages did not just teach them scripture but also Mishnah, Talmud, practice, and homilies, that it is permitted. Also, the teaching must have happened prior to them deciding to convert.

 

The argument against teaching Torah to non-Jews is the statement in the Talmud (Chagigah 13a):

 

Rabbi Ami said: The secrets of the Torah may be transmitted only to one who possesses the following five characteristics: “The captain of fifty, and the man of favour, and the counselor, and the cunning charmer, and the skillful enchanter” (Isaiah 3:3). And Rabbi Ami said further: The words of Torah may not be transmitted to a gentile, as it is stated: “He has not dealt so with any nation, and as for His ordinances, they have not known them” (Psalms 147:20).

 

R. Chalfan, however argues that the word ‘transmitted’ (mosrin), instead of ‘limud’ suggests the Talmud is talking only about the secrets of the Torah (Kabbalah) that is passed down ‘from mouth to mouth.’Also, the phrase inPsalms 147:20: ‘He has not dealt so (ken) with any nation.’ The word ‘ken’ (so) has the gematria (numerical value) of 70, the same as the value as the Hebrew word: ‘sod’ (secrets). A further argument to allow non-Jews to study Hebrew is from the Talmud Sanhedrin (59a):

 

Rabbi Meir would say: From where is it derived that even a gentile who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest? It is derived from that which is stated: “You shall therefore keep My statutes and My ordinances, which if a man does he shall live by them” (Leviticus 18:5). The phrase: Which if priests, Levites, and Israelites do they shall live by them, is not stated, but rather: “A man,” which indicates mankind in general. You have therefore learned that even a gentile who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest. The Talmud answers: There, in the baraita, the reference is to a gentile who engages in the study of their seven mitzvot.

 

R. Chalfan thus concludes that since non-Jews are obligated to study the seven Noahide laws, this is only possible if they have knowledge of Hebrew. Furthermore, since in our generation there are many who have become apostates,^[81] misinterpret the Torah and spread their corrupt understanding of scripture, it is better for Jews to teach the correct meaning of the Torah, but this only applies to the Hebrew language and the plain meaning of the Torah, but not the Kabbalah.

 

Dispute about teaching Kabbalah to Jews

 

The background to this debate is the question about whether it is even permitted for Jews to study the Kabbalah. Salo Baron writes Chalfan tried to remove the prohibition of teaching the Kabbalah to Jews.^[82] There are two opposing views expressed in Jewish texts regarding the studying of the Kabbalah: The Zohar (Pikudei p. 247b) elaborates about the punishment for those who don’t study the secrets of the Torah and the reward for those who do. Similarly, in the Midrash, (Proverbs 10) it states: ‘G-d asks a person on the day of judgment: if he had studied Talmud, had he also studied the merkava?’ R. Chaim Vital (1543-1620), the foremost student of Rabbi Yitzchak Luria, writes (Sha’ar ha-Gilgulim, Introduction 11) that the study of Torah includes all four levels of interpretation, and one must study all of them to the best of one’s ability, including the esoteric, and if one leaves out one of the four, he must return in reincarnation. He bases this on the Zohar (Balak p. 202a), which compares the different levels of the study of Torah to a tree planted on a stream of water, that consists of, a stem, branches, leaves, flowers and sap, all connected to one tree.

 

This obligation is however limited to sages of the Torah who have ‘filled their bellies’ with the entire Talmud and works of Jewish law. This restriction is on the Talmud (Chagigah 13a):

 

The Rabbi Ami said: The secrets of the Torah may be transmitted only to one who possesses the following five characteristics: “The captain of fifty, and the man of favor, and the counselor, and the cunning charmer, and the skillful enchanter” (Isaiah 3:3).’“A captain offifty,” do not read it as “sar ḥamishim,” rather read it as “sar ḥumashin”; this is one who knows how to engage in discourse with regard to the five books of [ḥamisha ḥumshei] the Torah. “And the man of favor”; this is one for whose sake favor is shown to his generation, such as Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa and Rabbi Abbahu, in the house of the emperor. “The counsellor,” who knows how to intercalate years and determine months, “The cunning”; this is a student who makes his rabbis wise, “Charmer [ḥarashim],” that when he begins speaking matters of Torah, all are as though deaf [ḥershin], as they are unable to comprehend the profundity of his comments. “The skillful,” this is one who understands something new from something else he has learned. “Enchanter [laḥash]”; this one who is worthy of having words of the Torah that were given in whispers [laḥash], i.e., the secrets of the Torah, transmitted to him.

 

This view led to R. Shmuel Eliezer Edels, known as the Maharsha (1555 – 1631), to write that the Kabbalah should remain concealed and warned against those who preached this wisdom in public. This limitation was also the view of the great Kabbalists, including R. Chaim Vital, R. Moses Cordovero (1522-1570) (Ohr nerav 1:6 and 3:1), R. Isaiah Halevi Horowitz (1555-1630), known as the Shelah (Asara ma-marot 29b), R. Moses Isserlis (1530 – 1572) (Yorah Deah, ch. 246:4; Torah ha-olah 3:4). This apprehension continued for the generations after the 16^th century, including by R. Elijah of Vilna (1720-1797) (Commentary on Proverbs 21:17), who wrote a commentary on the Kabbalah. R. Chaim Yosef David Azulai, known as Chida (1724 - 1806) (Maerecht gedolim, erech R. Isaac Luria), as well as Kabbalist R. Moses Zacuto (c. 1625 – 1697), known as Ramaz, would study Kabbalah but only through the secondary work of the Arizal. The Chief Rabbi of Prague, Rabbi Yechezkel Landau, known as Noda b'yehuda (1713-1793) (Yoreh Deah 93), furthermore condemned those who engaged in the Kabbalah as having forsaken the two works of the Talmud, and destructive, calling his generation an orphaned generation, conceding it is best not to inform those who will not heed.^[83] Already, in the 13^th century, the rabbis who engaged in Kabbalah warned about its dangers. Nachmanides (1194-1270), who incorporated Kabbalah in his commentary on the Torah extensively, qualifies it with a warning in his introduction:

 

Now behold I bring into a faithful covenant and give proper counsel to all who look into this book not to reason or entertain any thought concerning any of the mystic hints which I write regarding the hidden matters of the Torah, for I do hereby firmly make known to him [the reader] that my words will not be comprehended nor known at all by any reasoning or contemplation, excepting from the mouth of a wise Cabalist speaking into the ear of an understanding recipient. Reasoning about them is foolishness; any unrelated thought brings much damage and withholds the benefit. Let him not trust in vanity, deceiving himself, for these reasonings will bring him nothing but evil as if they spoke falsely against G-d, which cannot be forgiven, as it is said (Proverbs 21:16): ‘The man that strayeth out of understanding shall rest in the congregation of the shades.’ Let them not break through unto the Eternal to gaze, For the Eternal our G-d is a devouring fire, even a G-d of jealousies.

 

Based on the above, Rabbi Chalfan supported^[84] and engaged personally in teaching Hebrew to non-Jews, alongside Elijah del Medigo, Johannan Alemanno, Elijah Levita and Obadiah Sforno,^[85] and also supported teaching the Oral Torah to non-Jews, more generally, as Maimonides, despite the opposition of his cousin Yochana Treves, who only allowed teaching Hebrew grammar for the sake of their better understanding the literal meaning of scripture.^[86] He also supported the study of Kabbalah by Jews, evident from his treatise on the Kabbalah, and his own work on a sefirotic tree, together with his teacher Abraham Sarfati in 1533,^[87] but in 1544, stated that he did not support the teaching of Kabbalah to non-Jews. Kabbalist R. Mordechai Dato (1527-1601) and Chalfan’s relative grammarian R. Abraham de Balmes also opposed the teaching of the Kabbalah to non-Jews, seeing its convergence with Christian thought as a danger to Jewish faith, as they would misappropriate kabbalistic imagery for their own views.^[88] We can conclude, therefore, that since his collection of commentary on the Torah incorporates mystical teachings from Nachmanides, Rabeinu Bahye and Ibn Shuaib,^[89] it would not have been written for the purpose of teaching to non-Jews, though, no doubt, it would have had a useful purpose for Jews to be more knowledgeable in the reasoning of the mitzvot to counter disparagement of Jewish law,^[90] similar to the view of R. Isaiah di-Tirani, and Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed.

 

Family heritage to study Torah

 

The reason for writing the collection of commentary, if not for external purposes, was to inspire his own community and, in particular his family, providing them with a text to study on Shabbat. He suggests this at the end of his commentary, where he writes: ‘May G-d’s eyes give me the merit to study in it, myself, my children, the offspring of my children, until the end of all generations, amen, amen amen, forever and ever (sela, vaed), amen, so may it be His will.’ The different manicules found in the manuscript suggests it was indeed studied with by more than one person, and from the state of the manuscript - well-worn, with some torn folios, it appears to have been well used, though unpublished.

 

Sefer Gematriot – a Hebraist interest

 

Despite the work being a traditional work, to inspire Torah study, the work reflects the humanist Hebraist society Chalfan lived in, fascinated by the Hebrew language and the Torah in its original lettering, believing they contained the hidden secrets of reality being the language of G-d in creation. There was thus interest in Venice in the device of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, as Venetian painters would inscribe scriptural quotes in Hebrew in their pictorial representations.^[91] There was a particular interest in the system of gematria and letterpermutation techniquesbyHebraist Francesco Zorzi (1466-1540), with whom Chalfan forged a connection, when he was involved in the support of Henry VIII’s divorce around 1530.^[92] Daniel Bomberg alludes to this when he writes in the introduction to Abraham Balmes’ grammar, Mikneh Avram:^[93] ‘There are Divine mysteries in the words and the letters themselves of the holy text, mysteries that cannot be perceived by means of the Latin or Greek.’ He published the 13-14^th century Kabbalistic work, Sefer Hatemunah, in 1523, attributed to 1^st-2^nd century sages R. Nehunya ben HaKanah and R. Ishmael, that focuses on the Hebrew letters. It was in this society that R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan wrote his commentary on the Torah. The inclusion of the fifth section of the commentary from Sefer Gematriot, which otherwise appears out of place,reflects the interest in this subject by the Hebraists, and his own dialogue with them, even if this may not have been his motive in including it.

 

Levirate marriage in the commentary

 

The idea that the commentary on the Torah was an internal rabbinic work for his own study and that of his family, as opposed to a work aimed for a wider readership, may be seen from a critical subject that R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan was involved in, in 1530s Venice. After writing the commentary, R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan was involved in the support for Henry VIII’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon. This period represented one of the most transformative, albeit turbulent, periods in British history, known as the reformation – the break-away of the British crown from Rome. This took place after Henry VIII was unable to receive annulment of his marriage from his sister-in-law Catherine of Aragon, to marry Anne Boleyn and produce a male heir to the throne. This issue preoccupied England between 1527 and 1535. Richard Croke who was in Bologna at the time travelled to Venice to consult the rabbis and wrote back that the Jews confirmed that while Deuteronomy allowed for levirate marriage, the law is not obligatory and not observed in practice.^[94] This was conveyed to Henry in the name of two Venetian Jewish figures: Jewish convert and professor of Hebrew Marco Raphael^[95] and physician R. Elijah Menachem Halfan.^[96] Raphael first argued that if Henry wants, he may marry a second wife according to Jewish law. When this view was rejected, Raphael suggested that based on the laws of levirate marriage the marriage was invalid. The rationale was since the purpose of the marriage was to sustain the offspring of his brother, the fact that Henry did not have a male child from Catherine, the marriage in the first place was evidently not to continue his brother’s line, thus invalidating the marriage in the first place.^[97] This opinion was included in the collection of opinions presented to Parliament. Henry however requested to receive their opinion in writing stating that the Levitical law has always been holy and intact, and never abolished or weakened. On the other hand, the law of Deuteronomy was never in force except when the conditions therein expressed were present, thus permitted by the Levitical Law, but was never observed, even by the Jews themselves, since the destruction of Jerusalem, except in matters concerning inheritance.^[98] Other rabbis were opposed, as was Physician Rabbi Jacob Mantino (d. 1549) - despite loyalist John Casale referring to him as ‘his very great friend and a most learned man,’^[99] he did not support the divorce.^[100] Rabbi of Modena Jacob Raphael ben Yechiel Chaim Peglione also did not support Henry, writing in a responsa that both Leviticus and Deuteronomy were valid and the latter was applicable when the brother had no children. In addition, the supporters of Henry were not willing to put their support in writing so as not to be seen as rebelling against the established authority.^[101] The seeking for support of Italian Jews for Henry’s position came to an end when a Roman Jew was compelled to marry the widow of his brother, who died without children.^[102] Without the support of the Jews of Italy, in June, 1530, the strategy changed to challenging the jurisdiction of the pope over England.

 

As the episode with Henry VIII’s divorce took place around 1530, and R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan wrote his commentary on the Torah in 1533-4, his citing of teachings relating to the portion of the subject of levirate marriage may offer some insight into his views on this topic, especially as he testifies, he would read and repeat the reading of his commentary every week. We in fact find mention of commentary relating to the laws of the levirate marriage in his commentary on the verses (Deuteronomy 25:5-10):

 

When brothers dwell together and one of them dies and leaves no offspring, the wife of the deceased shall not become that of another party, outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall unite with her: he shall take her as his wife and perform the levir’s duty. The first child that she bears shall be accounted to the dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out in Israel. But if that party does not want to take his brother’s widow [to wife], his brother’s widow shall appear before the elders in the gate and declare, “My husband’s brother refuses to establish a name in Israel for his brother; he will not perform the duty of a levir.” The elders of his town shall then summon him and talk to him. If he insists, saying, “I do not want to take her,” his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, pull the sandal off his foot, spit in his face, and make this declaration: Thus shall be done to the man who will not build up his brother’s house! And he shall go in Israel by the name of “the family of the unsandaled one.”

 

In his gematria section of his commentary there are two comments on these verses, both based on the Talmud, which we will present in this context. The Talmud writes two explanations on the laws of the levirate marriage text:

 

1. In tractate Yevamot (54a), it states: ‘When it says (Deuteronomy 25:5): “he shall take her as his wife and perform the levir’s duty (ve-yib-mah),” it teaches that it is a valid levirate marriage even if it is performed against her will.’^[103] This is found also in R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan’s commentary in the form of a gematria. It states (MS. Opp. 722, fol. 375): The Hebrew words: ‘le-i-sha ve-yib-mah’ (as his wife and perform the levir’s duty) has the same gematria (398) as the Hebrew words: ‘ve-yib-mah ba-al kor-chah’ (perform the levir’s duty by force).

 

2. The Talmud states (Yevamot 101b):

 

When it says (Deuteronomy 25:8): “They shall speak to him,” it teaches that they give him counsel appropriate for him (ei-tzah ha-ho-ge-net lo). If he was a young boy and she was elderly, or if he was elderly and she was a young girl, they would tell him: What are you doing with a young girl? What are you doing with an elderly woman? Go be with someone like yourself, and do not bring a quarrel into your household.

 

R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan, in his commentary, cites also this teaching in the form of a gematria: ‘The Hebrew words (Deuteronomy 25:8): “vedib-ru ei-lav” (and talk to him) has the same gematria (265) as: ‘zo be-ei-tzah ha-ha-gu-nah’ (this is counsel appropriate for him). Both these gematriot may be found in their exact wording in MS. Opp. 27, published with the title (erroneously): Pirush ha-Rokeach al ha-Torah.

 

These two teachings on levirate marriage represent two opposing views on levirate marriage: the first a more cautious approach, only in a case when it is suitable, while the second, the complete opposite: it is valid even when performed by force. The first appears to reflect Rabbi Chalfan’s earlier support for Henry’s annulment of the marriage, while the second reflects a further consideration that ex post facto the marriage is valid, even under compulsion. This latter view is especially poignant considering the fact that the seeking for support of Italian Jews for Henry’s position came to an end when a Roman Jew was compelled to marry the widow of his brother, who died without child. The teaching by Rabbi Chalfan would reflect this view, thereby rejecting any purposeful connection between the commentary and the issues of the day Rabbi Chalfan’s may have been engaged in, furthering the argument that the aim of the commentary is an internal work of Torah study for his own personal and family use.

 

Conclusion

 

We have presented a recently discovered work by one of the well-known Rabbis of Venice of the 16^th century, Rabbi Elijah Menachem Chalfan. It consists of a collection of commentary on the Torah, organised by the Torah reading (parsha) of the week, each reading divided into citations from five rabbinic works: Midrash rabbo, Nachmanides, Rabeinu Bahye, Johshua Ibn Shuaib and Sefer Gematriot. We identified a compelling candidate for the anonymous part of the commentary - Sefer Gematriot, as well as exploring the sub-section ‘Chiddushim’ (novalae) that remains a mystery as to its source. One such teaching, without a source relates to the mitzvah to eat meat on Rosh Hashanah, reflecting the Jewish New Year as a time of celebration, contrary to the view of others who focus only on judgement and the call to repent. We explored the connections between the disparate parts of the commentary and possible reasons for writing the commentary, arguing that despite the author well connected with the wider society in Renaissance Italy, and a prominent teacher of Hebrew to Christian Hebraists, his commentary is a reflection of a traditionalist rabbi, with a strong desire to inspire his community and family in the path of Jewish tradition and the reading of the classic works of the commentaries of the Torah every Shabbat for all future generations. At the same time, the emphasis on citing the rational and mystical reasons for the mitzvot, as well as incorporating a medieval Ashkenazi work on Gematria, both subjects of great fascination to Christian Hebraists of his day, reflects a person who successfully straddled both the traditionalist rabbinic world of authentic tradition and rabbinic scholarship, while living well ensconced in the milieu of Renaissance Italy,

 

 

---

 

^[1] Solomon Molcho referred to his family as illustrious.

^[2] Called: ‘Rofe ha-noda’ (famed doctor) by Molcho and ‘rofa hamuvhak’ (expert doctor) by R. Benjamin Ze’ev ben Mattathias, in Oxford Opp. 4o 609, foil. 575b.

^[3] אליא (Oxford MS Opp. 4o 609, fol. 575b); אלי-ה (MS Opp. 722, fol. 395); ‘אלי (in the first page of MS Opp. 722, where it has a description of the work and the name of the author).

^[4] Salo Baron, vol. 13, p. 165, spells the surname: Halfon. In Jewish Life in Renaissance Italy, Robert Bonfil, p. 175, it spells it: ‘Halfan.’

^[5] His grandson was Dr. Elia Chalfan, was born in Prague around 1561 to Rabbi Dr. Abba Mari Chalfan and Rachel Kuh. On 5^th July, 1598 he was granted permission to move to Vienna by Emperor Rudolf II. Only 31 Jewish families lived in Vienna at that time. When in 1599, the Jews of Vienna were unable to pay a tax of 20,000 florins, they were ordered to leave Vienna on February 5, 1600 within fourteen days. All but eleven families and Dr. Elia obeyed the order, but were soon allowed to return. According to a list of Jewish families from 1600, Elia lived with his wife Rebekka bat Heschel and five children in the house of Hannsen Mader in the Wimmer Viertel, the only Jew in that part of town. The address is now Schultergasse 10. Elia died February 2, 1624 in Vienna and was buried in the old Roßauer cemetery in the Seegasse. During the Nazi era his gravestone was brought to the Zentralfriedhof Tor. IV and buried. A large fragment was recently discovered there, and it should be restored and moved back the Seegasse cemetery. The grave inscription was published by Bernhard Wachstein in 1912. According to Gerson Wolf, Studien zur Jubelfeier der Wiener Universität in Jahre 1865, p. 27 (1865), many books and manuscripts belonging to Dr. Elia Chalfan are in the Austrian National Library. These likely include manuscripts written by his ancestors from Italy Rabbi Dr. Eliyahu Menachem Chalfan and the Astronomer Kalonymos ben David Kalonymos. See: https://schoenblog.com/?p=3009.

^[6] Fabrizio Lelli, Connecting Histories, p. 104.

^[7] In Shu”t Maharik 63, R. Shlomo is cited and referred as ‘Aba Mori’ (my father, my teacher): https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1142&st=&pgnum=74.

^[8] Teshuvot ha-Remo 56: https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=45203&st=&pgnum=246.

^[9] https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=45203&st=&pgnum=246.

^[10] https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=45883&st=&pgnum=287.

^[11] https://datashare.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10283/2070/Database%20of%20Italian%20Humanists%20and%20Jews.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 17 Sep, 2024.

^[12] See: https://archives.balliol.ox.ac.uk/Modern%20Papers/gelles/Descent%20from%20Kalonymos%20of%20Narbonne%20and%20Delmedigo%20Chalfan.pdf.

^[13] Shlashelet Hayuchsin (p. 12).

^[14] Neubauer Catalogue No. 948, 6.

^[15] Moshe Idel, Kabbalah in Italy 1280-1510, p. 304. See: https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/joseph-ibn-shraga.

^[16] Chayat koneh, p. https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19694&st=&pgnum=56&hilite=.

^[17] Rabbis and Jewish Communities in Renaissance Italy (The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization), p. 190.

^[18] Kiryat Sefer (Venice, Bragadin) has an introduction by Chalfan.

^[19] Rabbis and Jewish Communities in Renaissance Italy (The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization), p. 267: He writes: ‘Those who study and those who teach (Torah) have almost disappeared.. for the vain ones there many, and the scholars are rare, and there is no one to teach knowledge to or understand tradition, save one in a city or two in a family…then each one, who was unique in his generation, strove to leave behind him a blessing… in their compositions. They tirelessly tried to establish the halakhic ruling… setting forth markers so that the readers might find in their books a prepared table, with little difficulty. However, because of their (excessively) great wisdom and drowned in the deep waters, so that those who came after them nearly brought up broken vessels (i.e. were no successful in following in their predecessor’s steps) because of the large number of authorities and numerous books which have been published in the world since dissemination of the works pf the press (invention of printing). Each one takes the crown to himself, to compose books and to glean after the sheaves, in saying that our forefathers left us enough to show our skill..

^[20] Rabbis and Jewish Communities in Renaissance Italy (The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization), 190, f. 10. The list may be found in Appendix 1 in the Hebrew edition of the above book, item no. 36.

^[21] Rabbis and Jewish Communities in Renaissance Italy (The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization), p. 77 f.186.

^[22] MS. Opp. 722, fol. 395.

^[23] The note on the inside of the cover omits the missing folio no. 49, thus stating total 417 folios.

^[24] First page of Beha-alotecha Rabot is torn and missing.

^[25] In Re-eh Ibn Shaub cites a midrash that does not seem to appear in our midrash: A parable of a king who appoints a minister for his government and instructs him, face to face, to be responsible for his kingdom, conduct himself in particular a way, and not change from this path and instruction for any reason in the world at all, even if a person comes in my name, and brings my writ with my seal, do not believe it, but rather the minister should not do anything other than fulfil his command. Even if a number of righteous and trustworthy people come with my seal, he should not transgress, and if he does, he will forfeit his life. In the same way, we the house of Israel, were at Sinai, and we heard the commandments: ‘I am, and there be no other gods.’

^[26] At times, Chalfan cites Shuaib but adds in the same section from other places, as in Shuaib on parshat Korach, the continuation about Joseph is not found in ibn Shuaib’s drasha in the printed edition.

^[27] Many argue Rashi is also midrashic, but following his comment on Genesis 3:18 and the conversation with his grandson, Rabeinu Tam, the focus was aimed at only ‘peshat.’ This is also the view of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson in his extensive commentary on Rashi between 1965 and 1988.

^[28] https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/dienna-azriel-ben-solomon.

^[29] Neubauer catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, p. 204-5, No. 948.

^[30] https://www.nli.org.il/en/discover/manuscripts/hebrew-manuscripts/viewerpage?vid=MANUSCRIPTS#d=[[PNX_MANUSCRIPTS990025627120205171-1]].

^[31] Thank you to R. Yaakov Yisrael Setl, editor of Sefer Gematriot l’Rabeinu Yehudah Ha-chasid, for sharing this information.

^[32] https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8919&st=&pgnum=151.

^[33] https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=30595&st=&pgnum=47.

^[34] See: https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/view/bsb00103808?page=166,167 and https://www.nli.org.il/he/manuscripts/NNL_ALEPH990000823130205171/NLI#$FL50966396.

^[35] R. Chalfan leaves out a few and includes in the gematria section other teachings also, like ‘roshai tevot,’ under the heading gematria.

^[36] A variant can be found in the teaching in Bereishit about the twenty times in mentioned ‘oichlin’ (eats) in the parsha of the serpent, corresponding to the twenty fasts throughout the year. In a footnote to Pirush Rokeach al ha-Torah it states that the text needs fixing.

^[37] The NLI link to the details of the manuscript is: https://www.nli.org.il/he/discover/manuscripts/hebrew-manuscripts/itempage?vid=MANUSCRIPTS&docId=PNX_MANUSCRIPTS990000882750205171.

^[38] They can be found partially in Sefer Gematriot of R. Yehudah ha-Chasid, partially in Ba-al ha-Turim, and some in Sefer ha-Gematriot of R. Elazar ben Moshe Hadarshan.

^[39] It’s unclear the intent of this statement and how he decides what is the finest.

^[40] Thank you to Yaakov Yisrael Setl, editor of Sefer Gematriot l’Rabeinu Yehudah Ha-chasid, for sharing this information and access to the article.

^[41] See the statement about the rejection of the identity of the author at: https://www.nli.org.il/he/discover/manuscripts/hebrew-manuscripts/itempage?vid=MANUSCRIPTS&docId=PNX_MANUSCRIPTS990000882750205171.

^[42] Thank you to Yaakov Yisrael Setl, editor of Sefer Gematriot l’Rabeinu Yehudah Ha-chasid, for this information.

^[43] A further commentary by R. Elazar of Worms may be found in the Bodleian Library: MS. Opp. 720, Kabbalistic commentary on the five megillot. Other manuscripts in the Bodleian Library with gematriot include: MS. Opp. 41 (Neubauer 759), fol. 150-188, commentary on the Torah (Gematriot, beginning with Noach), by an unknown author; MS. Michael 46, fol. 104 (approx); MS. Opp. 202 Gematriot and Notariqon on Exodus by a grandson of R. Sh’muel of Spiers; MS. Michael 246 Gematriot on the Pentateuch by Daniel ben Hayyim Kalif of Amsterdam, originally from Hasenput in Kurland; he composed it in the year 1786. The MS. contains only the preface and the section Bereishit; MS Opp. 722, fol. 434, some Gematriot; MS. Op. 233 Aggadic notes and Gematriot on the Pentateuch, Esther, Ruth, and Lamentations, by R. Mosheh ben Isaac Engralsh of Cracow; he finished it the 7th of Shevat 5321 = 1561; MS. Opp. 721 Agadic notes and Gematriot; MS. Opp. 225 Fol. 27. Notes (mostly Gematriot) on the first 27 chapters of Genesis by a French Rabbi (followed on fol. 41 by a note on the time of the arrival of the messiah). Nos. 4 (?), 11, and 12 were written by Ezriel bar Eliezer, finished on Monday the 14th of Marcheshvan 5313 = 1512; Sha'are Binah by R. Elazar of Worms, in which, interpreting Biblical verses by the system of Gemaṭriot, he shows the origin of many haggadot of the Talmud. This work is frequently quoted by Solomon al-Ḳabiẓ, in his Manot ha-Levi.

^[44] In Sefer Gematriot, p. 18 f.70, it leaves this issues as an open question.

^[45] Likkutim m’Sefer ha-Gematriot al kol parsha ve-parsha (compiled from Sefer ha-Gematriot oneach Parsha), composed byR. Eliezer son of R. Moshe Hadarshan, Cod. hebr. 221, may therefore also have its source material the original Sefer Ha-gematriot: MS Opp. 27. Alternatively, there is a further, earlier Sefer Ha-gematriot, that is the source for both MS. Opp. 27, Cod. hebr. 221 and Chalfan’s MS. Opp. 722, which has been lost and is only known of by name and much of the material, found in the above manuscripts, and referenced by Shibole Ha-leket and Shem Hagedolim.

^[46] This can be found in Numbers 16:1. In comments on 16:1 and 16:30, the citation of Nachmanides are cases where Nachmanides is explaining the simple meaning of the text: in 16:1, it is explaining ‘to kill us in the dessert,’ and in 16:30, it is explaining the phrase ‘yivra’ and ‘the earth covers them.’ It omits however the mention the opinion of Rashi and the criticism of Rashi’s opinion, and instead brings only the section that presents the contrasting view of Nachmanides.  The comment may begin with: ‘ve-ha-nir-eh be-eini’ (it seems in my eyes). This can be found in Shoftim about the reason for the prohibition in Deuteronomy 16:22: ‘And you shall not set up for yourself a monument.’ Rashi writes: ‘monuments (matzeivah) used to be cherished before G-d but became prohibited when accustomed by idolatry.’ Nachmanides rejects this view and asks: if so, alters also should be prohibited? Nachmanides gives an alternative reason: the stone monument refers to the custom to erect a large stone at the entrance of the temple for the priests to stand upon, in addition to an altar on which to bring sacrifices to their gods. They would also plant a tree outside the temple to show the way for those who visit. Now, Holy one, blessed be He, who hates their deeds, left only the altar for the purpose of offerings, etc. In this case, R. Chalfan (fol. 367) cites Nachmanides’ own view, while omitting Rashi’s opinion, as well as the question on Rashi.

^[47] Ideas of the author include: a. Sorcery have real power in the world but not in the heavens. This power however has been lost and people who practise today are like people who perform healing without knowledge causing harm, while some by chance healed. (Ibn Shueb, Re-eh). b. Anyone can become a future teller (kosem) or prophet (novi), like Pythagoras was said to have practiced divination and prophecy, following the view of Ibn Ezra. c. The concept of prophecy is the control of the power of intellect over ‘medameh’ and ‘devarim’ – follows Nachmanides (Iben Shueb, Re’eh). d. Free will – principle of Jewish faith (Rabeinu Bahye, Re-eh)

^[48] https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/09/the-manicule-a-hand-with-a-pointing-index-finger-becomes-a-common-marginalia-during-the-renaissance.html. Accessed 18 Sep, 2024.

^[49] https://library.missouri.edu/specialcollections/exhibits/show/glossary/page7. Accessed 18 Sep, 2024.

^[50] This appears in the printed Shulchan Aruch.

^[51] The proceeding comment on the folio is found in MS. Opp. 27, but the following comment about meat is not in any source. A further reference to Yomim Noroim may be found on fol. 347 relating to the word: ‘Zahav.’

^[52] In Sefer Gematria of R. Yehudah ha-Chassid, there is a related teaching about the number of times one should eat meat during the year, based on the verse (Numbers 11:19): ‘You shall eat not one day, not two, not even five days or ten or twenty, but a whole month.’ This corresponds to the 70 days, when one is obligated to eat meat, including 52 Shabbatot, 7 days of Passover, one day of Shavuot, one day of Rosh Hashanah, Erev Yom Kippur, 8 days of Sukkot, Purim. This is also found in the word titled (erroneously) Pirush ha-Rokeach al ha-Torah (MS. Opp. 27), and cited by R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan on Parshat Beh-alotecha (fol. 311).

^[53] Shulchan Aruch Harav, Orach Chaim, 242:2.

^[54] See Likkutei Sichot, vol. 24, p. 304, footnote 22: the reason for the joy on Rosh Hashanah is due to it being the time of G-d’s coronation that invokes great joy in the people: https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14947&st=&pgnum=319&hilite=.

^[55] Hagahot Maimoniyot, Laws of Rosh Hashanah 1:1. Mordechai, Rosh Hashanah 1:1.

^[56] The Tur mentions different opinions on this subject.

^[57] With Rashi commentary.

^[58] In the next halacha it states: ‘Eat a head of a lamb saying: Let us be as a head and not a tail. It is also a remembrance of the ram of Isaac.’

^[59] Likkutei Torah, Nitzavim, Inyan Rosh Hashanah ve-Yom ha-Kippurim.

^[60] Likkutei Torah, Nitzavim, sos assis.

^[61] See Mishnah Chullin 5:3.

^[62] A related teaching relating to Rosh Hashanah, is found in MS Opp. 722, fol. 6 (with slight variants from MS. Opp. 27, perhaps a correction of the text, as required, as noted in the footnote in the printed edition): ‘The word ‘eating’ (achilot) is found 20 times in the parsha of the serpent (nachash), corresponding to the twenty fasts: Erev Rosh Hashana, seven days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, Yom Kippur, Monday-Thursday-Monday (fast of baha”b) after Sukkot,  Monday-Thursday-Monday (fast of baha”b) after Passover, the four fasts (Fast of Gedaliah, tenth of Tevet, 17^th Tammuz, 9^th of Av) and Fast of Esther’ (total 20).’ The inclusion of Erev Rosh Hashanah and exluding Rosh Hashanah itself reflects an ambiguity about the nature of Rosh Hashanah itself. See Mordechai on Rosh Hashanah 448. In Chidushei Anshe Shel it cites that R. Yehudah ha-Chassid would fast on Rosh Hashanah.

^[63] For example in Naso, the Midrash Rabba relates to Me-ilah and the other authors to other parts of the Parsha. On occasion, as in parshat Re’eh, a theme can be found: on the prohibition to consult magicians, and witchcraft, despite the real power they possess.

^[64] Fols. 366 and 367.

^[65] R. Abraham, father of R. Jonah, was the brother of Nachmanides’ mother. Introduction to Rabeinu Bahye (Mossad Harav Kook).

^[66] Maimonides is mentioned in the Halfan’s commentary (fol. 367 ) in the context of Nachmanides’ commentary. In parshat Shoftim (Deuteronomy 18:3), it states: The Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] writes in the Moreh Nebuchim that the cheeks [are given to the priests] because they are the first part of the body, the shoulder is the first of the extremities of the body, and the maw is the first of the inwards, for the first of them all is given to the ministers of G-d’s name.

^[67] The commentary was first printed at Naples in 1492; Later editions of the commentary appeared at Pesaro, 1507, 1514 (Pesaro: https://hebrewbooks.org/42322), and 1517; Constantinople, 1517; Rimini, 1524; Venice, 1544, 1546 (Venice: https://hebrewbooks.org/24570, https://hebrewbooks.org/42321), 1559 (Riva di Trento: https://hebrewbooks.org/11507), 1566 (Venice: https://hebrewbooks.org/42472), 1726 (Amsterdam: https://hebrewbooks.org/36533), 1842 (Warsaw: https://hebrewbooks.org/30834), 1852 (Warsaw: https://hebrewbooks.org/30835), 1942 (Grosswardein: https://hebrewbooks.org/38018), and later.

^[68] https://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2004/important-hebrew-manuscripts-from-the-montefiore-endowment-n08040/lot.53.html.

^[69] https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=30594&st=&pgnum=57.

^[70] MS, Bodleian Library.

^[71] See Fabrizio Lelli’s chapter: On the Mysteries of the Law: A Conversation Between Pietro Aretino and Rabbi Elijah Menahem Halfan.

^[72] https://ikonavenezia.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Ikona-Venezia-Finding-Fioretta-Images-Family-Tree.pdf.

^[73] https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/manetti-giannozzodeg.

^[74] Rashi explains the reason is because it is a form of theft for them to engage in the Torah that was given to the Jews.

^[75] Teshuvot ha-Rambam (makitze nirdamim) vol. 1: 149. https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1730&st=&pgnum=299. See b’emareh habezek, vol. 2:88, f.5 that cites the view that it is only permitted to teach a non-Jew Torah if it is for the purpose of coversion, similar to the story of Hilel and the converyt in Shabbat 31a, Chiidushe Agadot..

^[76] Me-at de-vash P. 11. https://tablet.otzar.org/?lang=en#/b/150040/p/10/t/1726405251058/fs/0/start/0/end/0/c/1726405279316.

^[77] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_ben_Jehiel_Loans.

^[78] Jewish Life in Renaissance Italy, Robert Bonfil, p. 175.

^[79] https://datashare.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10283/2070/Database%20of%20Italian%20Humanists%20and%20Jews.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 17 Sep, 2024.

^[80] Kaufmann, David (1897), ‘Elia Menachem Chalfan on Jews Teaching Hebrew to Non-Jews’, in The Jewish Quarterly Review 9/3: 500–508.

^[81] David Reubeni mentions he met 45 Jews in Rome who had converted to Christianity.

^[82] Salo Baron, vol. 13, p. 165.

^[83] https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1497&st=&pgnum=144&hilite=.

^[84] David Kaufmann, ‘Elia Menahem Chalfan on Jews teaching Hebrew to Non-Jews,’ Jewish Quarterly Review 9 (1896), p. 500-508.

^[85] Jewish life in Renaissance Italy, Robert Bonfil, p. 174-5.

^[86] Fabrizio Lelli, Connecting Histories, p. 109-10.

^[87] Fabrizio Lelli, Connecting Histories, p. 108.

^[88] Fabrizio Lelli, Connecting Histories, p. 108.

^[89] See fols. 101 and 102, portion of Vayishlach, where it includes the Kabbalistic interpretation of Rabeinu Bahye, with subject title ‘Kabbalah’ in the margin.

^[90] Salo Baron, vol. 13, p. 165.

^[91] Fabrizio Lelli, Connecting Histories, p. 106.

^[92] Fabrizio Lelli, Connecting Histories, p. 110-111.

^[93] Fabrizio Lelli, Connecting Histories, p. 112.

^[94] Katz, David S., The Jews in the History of England 1485-1850, p. 24.

^[95] Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 4, 1524-1530 – see 14 citations in the index: Raphael, Mark, a Jew, 6156, 6236, 6239, 6240, 6250?, 6266, 6300, 6375, 6398, 6414, 6541, 6656, 6786. Raphael, p. 1395. By 4^th March, 1531, Marco Rafael, who had renounced Judaism, was resident in England, and was in great favour with the King for having written against the dispensation granted by Julius II. He was employed by the Signory as a secretary in the cypher department (Calendar of State Papers Relating To English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, Vol. 4, 1527-1533, pages vii-xxxvii. www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/venice/vol4/vii-xxxvii . Accessed 25 August, 2017). He was subsequently also rewarded by being granted a license to import six hundred tons of Gascon and two woads in 1532 (Gardner, Letters and Papers of Henry VIII, v. 485). It’s not clear if he converted before giving his opinion about the divorce or after, thus allowing him to move to England.

^[96] Son of astronomer Abba Mari Halfan, and grandson of Joseph Colon.

^[97] Yaakov Bar Yosef, H Schonfield, History of Jewish Christianity, p. 98.

^[98] Katz, David S., The Jews in the History of England 1485-1850, p. 30.

^[99] Calendar of State Papers Relating To English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, Vol. 4, 1527-1533, pages vii-xxxvii. www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/venice/vol4/vii-xxxvii . Accessed 25 August, 2017.

^[100] Mantino, born in Spain, left with the expulsion of the Jews 1492, graduated in medicine from the University of Padua in 1521, and practiced first in Bologna, then Verona in 1527 and Venice in 1528, where he lived with special privileges exempted from wearing the Jewish hat (Judenhut). In 1529, he was consulted by Clement VII regarding the divorce and in reward for opposing Henry’s supporters, who also sought his support, was appointed lecturer in medicine in Bologna. In 1533 he was invited to Rome and in 1534, Pope Paul appointed Mantino as his personal physician, while serving in Rome as rabbi with the title Gaon. Between 1539-41 he was appointed professor of practical medicine at the Sapienza in Rome. In 1544 he returned to Venice and died in 1549 while accompanying, as physician, the Venetian ambassador to Damascus (Encyclopedia Judaica).

^[101] Katz, David S., The Jews in the History of England 1485-1850, p. 35.

^[102] Ibid, p. 41.

^[103] The same is true if it is against his will. See discussion in Talmud Yevamot 54a. The reason is since the consummation of a levirate marriage entails merely the completion of a marriage that is automatically in existence upon the death of the brother.