Biur Zeh Yatza Rishonah – Ruling of Rabbi Moshe Provençal in the Tamari-Venturozzo Affair – Mantua, 1566

Biur Zeh Yatza Rishonah – Ruling of Rabbi Moshe Provençal in the Tamari-Venturozzo Affair – Mantua, 1566

Biur Zeh Yatza Rishonah – ruling of R. Moshe Provençal and R. Pinchas Elia de Melli. Mantua: [Meir son of Efraim of Padua, 1566]. Only edition.
Printed during the course of the Tamari-Venturozzo controversy (R. Moshe Provencal, Rabbi of Mantua, was the main supporter of Venturozzo; see below). After R. Moshe Provençal refused to present himself before the Beit Din of Venice, the rabbis of Venice held a court hearing in his absence, and issued an excommunication against him until he retracts the aspersions he cast on the divorce they had arranged. Likewise, they forbade him and his colleague R. Pinchas de Melli to rule, declaring them unfit to serve as rabbis for a period of three years. In response, R. Moshe Provençal composed the ruling published in the present booklet, in which he discusses the validity of arbitration in matters other than monetary laws (this question was one of the central points of contention between the two sides).
[11] leaves. 20 cm. Good condition. High-quality paper. Complete leaves. Stains. New leather binding. Placed in matching slipcase.
Provenance: The Valmadonna Trust Library.

The Tamari-Venturozzo Divorce Scandal
In the 16th century, a scandal known as the Tamari-Venturozzo affair, roused the Jewish public throughout Italy. It began as a halachic controversy over a divorce, and with time grew to involve most of the rabbis of Italy as well as some rabbis of Salonika, Constantinople and Eretz Israel. Even the clergy and government of various Italian cities were embroiled in the dispute.
The two main players in this affair were Yosef son of Moshe HaKohen Tamari – a Venetian physician, with considerable influence both in the Jewish and Catholic circles in the city, and Shmuel Shlumiel HaKatan, known as Ventura or Venturozzo – son of Moshe of Perugia. In 1560, Shmuel Venturozzo betrothed Tamar, daughter of Yosef Tamari (in those times, the Kiddushin was performed at the time of the betrothal, and they were therefore halachically considered married). Three month later, after a dispute had broke out between Venturozzo and his father-in-law, Venturozzo left Venice. He claimed that he had to flee the city since his father-in-law reported him to the authorities. In the following years, wherever he went, Venturozzo was pursued by Tamari, who demanded money Venturozzo allegedly owed him. After four years, Tamari requested the intervention of Maharam Padua. On 4th Adar 1564, Maharam Padua ruled that Venturozzo must either consummate the marriage or divorce Tamar within a month. After extensive legal proceedings, Venturozzo agreed to return to Venice and divorce his betrothed. However, the affair did not end there, since Venturozzo later contended that the divorce was extracted under duress, and was thus not valid. Both sides requested the intervention of the clerical and secular authorities of Venice, Florence, Ferrara, Mantua and other cities. The majority of Italian rabbis were involved in the dispute. Tamari was backed by the rabbis of Venice, while Venturozzo's cause was mainly advocated by R. Moshe Provençal, rabbi of Mantua. The rabbis of Venice placed a ban on Venturozzo, concurrently ruling that the divorce was valid. On the other hand, R. Moshe Provençal ruled that the divorce was invalid and that Tamari's daughter was not allowed to remarry until matters were clarified. This aroused much ire against R. Moshe Provençal, and when he refused to arrive in Venice to explain his position in person, the rabbis of Venice issued a ruling demoting him. Both parties also sent a circular to the rabbis of all Italian communities, thus drawing more rabbis into the affair. From amongst the rabbis of Eretz Israel, R. Moshe Provençal earned the support of R. Yosef Karo and the rabbis of Safed, while R. David ben Zimra (the Radbaz) joined the rabbis of Venice. Each party printed leaflets and books supporting their position, and publicized the rulings of the rabbis on their side.
Offered here are three books printed during the course of the affair, in 1566: Hatzaah al Odot HaGet (item 14), printed in Venice by Tamari's party (originally printed in installments, later gathered together as a book), the book Eleh HaDevarim printed in Mantua by Venturozzo's party (item 12), and Biur Zeh Yatza Rishonah – the ruling of R. Moshe Provençal, also printed in Mantua (item 13).
For more details on the affair, see: S. Simonson, The Scandal of the Tamari-Venturozzo Divorce, in Tarbiz, Vol. 28 (1959), pp. 375-388 and in History of the Jews in the Duchy of Mantua (Hebrew), II, Jerusalem 1965, pp. 364-367; Y. Yudlov, Bibliographical Notes on the Tamari-Venturozzo Affair, in Alei Sefer, Vol. 2 (1976), pp. 114-115; E. Kupfer, Further Clarifications Concerning the Tamari-Venturozzo Divorce Scandal, in Tarbiz, Vol. 38 (1969), pp. 54-59; R. Tz. Gertner, Parashat HaGet Tamari-Venturozzo – New Discoveries from the Beit Midrash of the Beit Yosef, Moriah, year 16, Iyar 1988, p. 9 onwards.