ALFASI, ISAAC (RI”F). Sepher Halachoth Rav Alfas [Rabbinic code]. 

FIRST COMPLETE EDITION. 

With commentaries,  Chidushei Rabbeinu Nissim, .

 [Vinograd, Const. 13; Yaari, Const. 5; J.Hacker,Constantinople in: Aresheth,  V, p. 474 no. 5 (corrections to Yaari); St. Cat. Bodl. 5310:1 “Ed. extremae raritatis”; S. Shefer, Ha’Rif U’Mishnato (1967) pp. 108-11;  I. Rivkind, Dikdukei Sophrim, Kiryat Sepher, vol. II, p. 58.].  Constantinople, David and Samuel Nahmias: 1509.

 FIRST COMPLETE EDITION, EXTREMELY RARE.  Isaac Alfasi brought the Geonic period to a close. His fame rests on this great work, whose purpose was to  provide a comprehensive compendium for ready reference to facilitate Talmud study. 

The RI”F is the most  important halachic compendium prior to the Yad Ha’Chazakah of the Ramba”m, and indeed paved the way  for all later Codifi ers. 

The work remains an important and widely admired Code. R. Joseph Caro regarded  Alfasi’s scholarship with utmost respect and determined the laws in his Shulchan Aruch upon his authority. 

 This Constantinople edition represents the earliest complete edition of Alfasi’s magnum opus. Small fragments  have been discovered of a Spanish incunable  edition of this important Code. 

The largest fragment  (7ff. according to Goff, Heb. 44; or 8 ff. according to  A.K. Offenberg, Hebrew Incunabula no. 4) is found in  the JTSA.

 Oxford and Cambridge have smaller fragments.  It remains unknown whether the entire RI”F  was published in Spain. See H. Z. Dimitrovsky, Sridei  Bavli (1979). 

 The Constantinople editio princeps contains  important textual variances from the Bomberg  1521 edition. According to Rabinowitz, (Maamar  Al Hadfasath Ha-Talmud, pp.296 -7), the Bombeg  edition is based upon a manuscript which contained  insights that were not by Alfasi and the  resulting contradictions in the text caused much  scholarly confusion. Indeed R. Tam ibn Yachya  in his Derech Tamim ( Tumath  Yesharim,1620) suggested that certain passages of  the Bomberg RI”F should be omitted.

 Centuries  later, even the Romm Vilna edition only added to  the confusion, despite its’ stated desire to adhere  to the more faithful text of the Constantinople  edition.

 The critical edition of the published by  Nissan Zaks (Jerusalem,1969) is based upon this  Constantinople edition, nevertheless a complete  scientifi c edition is still desired.