The Responsa of the Babylonian Geonim as a Source of Jewish History

THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM AS A SOURCE OF JEWISH HISTORY By JACOB MANN, Jews' College, London. INTRODUCTION...

Author: Jacob Mann

52 downloads 773 Views 12MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

THE

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM AS A SOURCE OF JEWISH HISTORY By JACOB MANN, Jews' College, London. INTRODUCTION.1

THE period of the Babylonian Geonim, extending over four centuries and a half of great importance for the history of the Jews, runs in a parallel line with the rise of the new religion of IslAm and the wonderful political ascendancy of the Arabs. In the time of the earliest Geonim falls the Hegira of Muhammed (622 C. E.), and during the whole of the Gaonic period (till about io50 C. E), the fate of the greater part of the Jews was coupled with the vicissitudes of the Moslem Empire. We have only to recall to memory the importance of such Jewish communities as Bagdad and Wasit, Kufa and Basrah, Fustat and Cairo, Kairowan and 1

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS n1, = 'Responsen der Geonini', ed. Harkavy, in Studien undMitteilungen, vol. 4, Berlin, 1887. v = hifnln i tI, Vienna, ed. Coronel. = 5~531K~11n:)wf,Lyck, 1864, ed. Musafia. nl~ rl"I , wnnn ln'JZIVI,Mantua (re-edited by Rabbinovitz, Vilna, i885).

4Imw , ed. Miiller, in the periodical 7$rin i?-, vols. min IV and V (also in a separate reprint). ed. Cassel. Berlin, i848. 33 = rrnnnlp nl1lw nalm, D"ll - WrINWI In 11i1MOD 111Zs'l, ed. MOiller,Cracow, i893. ~'M= o'1?I D'lnn WI,ril 'JIVI', ed. Wolfensohn, Jerusalem. j 11pTh -n =31Y W~b~INr1'31 , ed. Modai, Salonica. f ed. Fischl, Leipzig, i858. ri"V = r'IlZI s' DV Vb lr1ln'2V, = v r PartsI and II, ed. Horowitz, ?rVtIln mnairv .)/,V~ll [See over. Frankfort, i88i. VOL. VII. Hh 457

-01,1==:vn

H,

458

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Fez, in order to realize the close connexion between the history of the Arabs with that of the Jewry of that period; all these cities were foundedby the Arabs during the time of their wonderfulterritorialexpansion. What the landing of the Arabs in Spain (711 c.E.) meant both for the Jews of

that country and for Jewry at large is well known. The internalhistory of the Jews of that period is characterized by the spread and the general acceptance of Rabbinic Judaism as embodied in the BabylonianTalmud and by the opposition it was subjected to on the part of the sectarians in Israel, especially the Karaites. The greater part of our knowledge, scanty and fragmentary as it is, about the life of the Jews of that period,is derived from the Gaonic responsa. These letters of reply which the Geonim, as the recognizedleaders of Jewry, sent to their correspondentsall over the diaspora, comprise the greater part of the literaryactivity of the Geonim; in other literary works this period was far from being prolific, and still less productivein historical books. It should be kept in mind that even in the chronology of the period,from the Geon. I = Geonica II, containing 'iRK ntSl In DInil mIInlrl mn5w ed. Ginzberg, New York, I909. '1Y1YDZ, JQR. = Jewish QuarterlyReview. R.J. = Revue des AtudesJuives. Monatsschrift=Monatsschrftfur Geschichteund Wissenschaftdes Judentums. Einleit. - Einleitung in die Responsen der Babylonischen Geonen,by Dr. Joel Mfiller, Berlin, x89r. ZfHB. = Zeitschriftfir tHebraischeBibliographie. Gr. V = Graetz, GeschichtederJuden, vol. V, fourth edition, 1909. Sherira's Letteris quoted according to Neubauer's MediaevalJewish Chronicles, vol. I (Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series, vol. I, part iv, i887). The dates of the Geonim are given according to the 'Synchronistic List of the Geonim of Sura and Pumbedita' by Epstein and Bacher in the Jewish Encclopedia, sub ' Gaon'.

RESPONSA

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

459

time of the last Amoraim till the end of the Gaonate,we would not find our way were it not for such a responsum known as the Letter of Sherira.2 In fact, these responsa, as far as they are extant, are a real treasure-trovefor the knowledge of the life of the Jews of that period,especially in such points where the informationto be obtainedfrom external sources entirely fails. The responsa furnish in particularample materialfor our knowledgeof the internal life of the Jews: their relations to the authorities and to their non-Jewish neighbours,their economic position,their communal organization,and their standard of culture and morality. All this materialhas not yet been made use of sufficiently; the Jewish history of that period was rather treated as a collection of biographies of the prominent spiritualand communalleaders. Important as this aspect of historical treatment is, the life of the people as a whole is of sufficient importance to be investigatedand understood. In this treatise therefore the latter course of historicalinvestigationwill chiefly be followed. In the following pages the responsa of the Babylonian Geonim only are considered,so that the general results obtained can hardly claim to be exhaustive and complete. In using the responsa for the purpose of reconstructing history great care has to be exercised. These responsa, when sent by the heads of the two great Babylonian Academies,had formalheadingsand conclusions,3according 2 Likewise the report of Nathan the Babylonian about the installation exilarch (in Neubauer, Med. Jew. Chronicles, II=Neub. II, 83-5) is the of quoted by Ibn Verga in his ShebetJehuda, No. 42, as found in 'the responsa of early Geonim (1iWStl WMZ) 1nlr113). 3 Some concluding phrases of the responsa are similar to those of the

Muhammedan FetwAs, see Goldziher, ZDMG., LIII, 645-52 and Mtiller, Vienna OrientalJournal, XIV, I71.

Hh

460

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY REVIEW

to the fashion of that age, in which the dates of composition as well as the names of the correspondents and the positions they held in their communities were mentioned. Unfortunately in most responsa at our disposal these formalities were not preserved, The several collectors of these responsa were chiefly anxious about the preservation of the Halakic decisions of the Geonim, and everything else was regarded as superfluous and was accordingly omitted. For the same sake of brevity the letters of question which the correspondents addressed to the Geonim are in most cases either abridged or not extant.4 Thus it results that in many cases the names of the Geonim are not mentioned at all, or there are differences in the various collections as regards the authors of the responsa, especially when they deal with similar cases. In a still less degree have the names of the correspondents, their places of residence, and the dates of composition been preserved. As a result, it is often very difficult to fix the place and the time of an event or custom we learn from the responsa. Similarly only on rare occasions are the names of the parties concerned given in the responsa. The men are called as a rule by the names of the twelve tribes in the order given in the Pentateuch, e.g. Reuben, Simeon, &c., or they assume other Biblical names; whereas the women are named after Jacob's wives, Leah, Rachel, &c. (cp. e. g. Likewise it is difficult to ascertain the p"', No. 132). amounts of money invested in partnerships or in other business transactions. When copying the responsa, the ' W?v'DnnNvwl 4Cp. e.g. n"1, No. I53: ~n nn: itpom th I'W was made in the where reference 5 #l nW"I, complete form of ^%1Y 1"'sl question to an historic event concerning the Jews, as the answer of the Rabbi or Gaon shows.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

46I

scribes usually used the Talmudic expressions: Ioo Minae (rnn r o)or 100 denarii (ip"r n ,n, cp. e.g. '"n, No. 49). is used for any country to be The expression W, nmrDm reached by sea from the place of the correspondent.5 As regards such responsa, the place of destination of which is unknown, it may be argued that they were sent For the to communities distant from the academies. nearer communities there was no need for written answers; the scholars and the disciples that visited the two Academies during the large gatherings in the Kallah-months,6 hailing from the various communities around the academies, brought with them theoretical as well as practical questions and received the required answers orally from the Geonim. Only the distant communities in Persia, and especially those outside Babylon, sent written questions, for which written answers were required. Thus there actually exist responsa to the distant community of Basrah at the Persian Gulf, as will be shown later. R. Hai Gaon in a responsum to Kairowan (in Or Zarua, II, ? 432, p. 177) mentions that the Halakhas of R. Yehudai Geon were known in Babylon only a hundred years after his death, when Jewish captives from Christian countries brought them to Babylon (cp. p. 21, and also EppenEpstein on the Halakot Gedolot ( P"n), stein, Monatsschrift, 19II, 732, note 1). This shows that 5 Cp. also the interesting remarksby the correspondent in twD r"i " n',1 No. II4 (cited in 'l?nnl rT:, I, 5 ff.), about the collections of Gaonic

i-m n%m mnimnw lznrin DiypKm1 n5ry Responsa:t:'in?'M3M 5y DW:MW l^D ,n1 nt-l rto nl:r nt 'ID;n tIMpTOtn nup IDP;t n In nin Dnnmnvrn3 rsv bnmn,nln m3,1n'P n6t nbrs:i K pIn nnnx won vvwnI n il rn ?nnb nnlnltn :rnKnnI . 6 Cp. the description in the report of Nathan the Babylonian (in Neub., S :=5:n See also n"., No. 312: ,I1i 1 n Sbnn 531 II, 87-8).

...3s

,s:n wn= jtlK=

"i nDns '=3nn nIsW

1hi ,i:m.

THE JEWISH

462

QUARTERLY REVIEW

these decisions of R. Yehudai were originally sent to congregations abroad. We find further R. Hai having no knowledge of responsa of his predecessors which his correspondents from foreign countries quote (see n"l Nos. 80, 26o, 376, and 383). All this proves that most of the extant responsa were sent to communities distant from the academies. (About the various collections of the responsa 7 see Muller, Einleit., chs. 1-3.)

I.

THE

JEWRIES

OF TIE

DIASPORA

TIONS WITH THE BABYLONIAN

AND THEIR RELAGEONIM.

The influence of the Geonim extended over a wide field, Babylon, Asia Minor, the countries around the Mediterranean,including even France and Germany, are all representedin the great numberof responsathe Geonim sent to their correspondentsall over the Diaspora. From these letters of the Geonimwe learn either of the existence of Jewish communitiesin the above countries,or we obtain new informationabout those that are alreadyknown from other sources. There convergedat Sura and Pumbedita,as 7 Most of the responsa contained in the collection which forms a part of Brit. Mus. Add. 26,977 (see Margoliouth, Catalogue, II, No. 566, and cp. Marx, ZfHB., XIII, 172) are the same as found in S'#, though the order is somewhat different.-Of more interest is Brit. Mus. Add. 27,I8r (see Margoliouth, 1. c., No. 565) containing extensive extracts from Juda Albarceloni's s'll ' 3!D, a part of which formed 1n)'l li 'D from which considerable extracts are also to be found in the MS.; Halberstam's edition of ;lp '12 nl'DPI'W t-' (x898), from Bodl. 890o, should be compared with these extracts. As is the case with the other writings of Barceloni, the Gaonic responsa as well as those of Alfasi have been fully cited in this tI'nl 'D. Several of these responsa are not to be found in the other collections.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

463

it were, connecting links from all the various communities, which transmittedon the one hand instructionand spiritual guidance from both those centres of Jewish learning,and recordedon the other hand the conditions of Jewry in the countriesof its dispersion. At the beginning of the Gaonic period the influence of the Geonim probably extended only as far as Babylon. This fact will account for the very small numberof responsawe possess from the earlier Geonim. Only with the growth of the Arabianexpansion to the north and east of Arabia, and especiallyto the west reachingto Spain,and occasionallyeven to southernFrance and southern Italy, the sphere of activity of the Geonim widened, and the connexions of the academies with the outside communities increased. In the time of R. Hai (998-1038),the last of the Geonim,this intercoursereached its maximum. We shall now consider in detail the relations of each countrywith the Geonim. i. Irck (Babylon,).Irak was the most importantcentre of Jewry during the Amoraic times and large numbers of Jews must have lived there. This position of importance Irak retained throughout the Gaonic period. It was only towardsthe close of the Gaonatethat the centreof gravitation was transferredto Spain and otherEuropeancountries. During the time of the Amoraim till the beginningof the Gaonic period, the bulk of the Jews of Irak must have lived aroundNisibis, Nehardea,Mehusa,Sura, and Pumbedita. Already at the beginning of the third century, when Rab came to Sura, many Jews lived in that district.8 Of the large Jewish communities at Nisibis and Nehardeawe learn already from Josephus(Ant., XVIII, 91, 8 See Sherira, Letter,29, top: M11'irl nnln on w-ri wN: 5)VB &DntDrnn ..l . nn;

n0 sin &nD. Km

'sl:i

p'IpnwrIRn

464

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

and 99, ? 379). Several other Jewish com?? 31I-I2 munities in Babylon are referred to in the writings of the Geonim. Most of them are known already from references in the Babylonian Talmud. The references, however, that are to be found in the Gaonic literature, show us that these communities continued their existence for several centuries later. The Gaon of Pumbedita in 589 was R. Hanan of Iskiya, which place is perhaps identical with Sekia on the eastern bank of the Euphrates (see Briill, Jahlrbiiclher, II, 54, note 80). The community of Nehar Pekod was represented at the Academy of Sura by three Geonim, viz. R. Haninah in 689, R. Jacob in 715, and Mar R. Mari ha-Cohen in 751. The Gaon of Pumbedita after 689, R. Hiyya, hailed from the province of Messene (we'), near the Persian Gulf. R. Ahai, the well-known author of the Sheeltolh, was from Shabha. The community of Naresh had the honour of having one of its sons, R. Nehilai, attain the dignity of Gaon of Sura (697). The Gaon of Pumbedita in 798 hailed from Shilha (4nSw; about this place see Geon. I, 41, note i). From a place called Vntq3, near Bagdad, came R. Isaiah, the Gaon of Pumbedita in 796 (Letter, p. 37, 1. I : tn'in

JVpn'n&na *'lS_).

The last two centuries of the Persian rule in Babylon were for the Jews centuries of suffering and persecution for their religion, as we learn from the scanty information Sherira gives in his Letter (p. 35, top, and p. 33, bottom; Gr., V4, 3-I6). Some details as to the dealings of the Magians are to be obtained from nr", Nos. 297-8. There used to be a weekly tax upon every household to contribute wood for the fire-temples, and Jews had to contribute as well. Further, on a certain night, called ns, the Magians used to exact from every house candles for illuminating

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

465

their temples. With the advent of the Arabs (637-43 c. E.), the lot of the Jews was changed for the better, and the religious persecutions ceased. Peroz-Shabur, or Anbar,9 must have been then an important Jewish centre. Ali, the fourth Caliph, on his coming to Ir&k in 655, was received near Per6z-Shabur by the Gaon R. Isaac at the head of a procession of ninety thousand Jews (Sherira in his Letter, 35, note I6, according to one reading). The town of Bagdad, however, founded by al-Mansur in 762, but not finished till some years later, soon became the principal centre for the Jews of Irak. A vivid picture of the enormous trade that flourished there is drawn by Kremer, Culturgeschichte des Orients, in the chapter headed ' Die Stadt des Heils' (vol. II, C. 2; see also Weil, Geschichte der Kalifen, II, 76-7, and Aug. Miller, Der Islam im Morglnu. Abendland, I, 471 ff.). Jews settled in Bagdad soon after its foundation. Graetz (V4, 179) refers to the fact that R. Natroi, the successor of R. Samuel (748) to the dignity of Gaon of Pumbedita, was from Bagdad, as Sherira reports in his Letter (p. 35, bottom: 3 Nminn ;n1 mn 'l in^M). But it is hardly possible that the Bagdad founded by Mansur is here referred to. R. Natroi's successor, R. Dodai, became Gaon already in 761, i. e. before the foundation of Bagdad! The Gaon R. Natroi must have therefore come from the town called Bagdad that existed in that neighbourhood before the coming of the Arabs (see Berliner, Beitriige zur Geographiie i. Ethznographie Babyloniens, p. 25). From other references, however, we learn of the growth of the Jewish community in the Bagdad of Mansur which soon outstripped its other namesake both in fame and greatness. About 814-I6 the Jewish community there 9 About Anbar, see Gr., V4, 444, n. I.

466

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

was already so important that the two rival Geonim of Pumbedita met there for the Kallah (ni) meeting of the Academy (Sherira, Letter, 38, 1. 5 ff.). Probably they held this gathering in the presence of the Exilarch, who must have had his residence in Bagdad, the seat of the central government of the empire since the accession of the Abbasides (761). As the political head of the Jews, the Exilarch had often to confer with the central government at the court of the Caliph (see Nathan's report in Neub. II, 84, bottom, and 85, top). When Jews had grievances against the authorities, they would turn to the Exilarch for intervention by the central authorities on their behalf. That the Exilarchs Ukba and David b. Zakkai lived in Bagdad we learn from Nathan's report (Neub. II, 78 ff.), where i:: seems to be identical with Bagdad (so also Gr. V4, 454, note 2). Al-Kasr, a suburb of Bagdad, was the birthplace of David b. Zakkai (Nathan, ibid., 79, cp. Ginzberg, Geon., I, 40, note 3). There lived also in Bagdad Jewish magnates of great influence at the Caliph's court. In the quarrels between Ukba and Cohen-Zedek, as well as between David b. Zakkai and Saadya, we see these magnates exerting their influence in favour of the one side or the other (see Nathan's report, ibid. II, 78 ff.). A somewhat legendary account of the influence of the Jewish magnate Netirah has been edited by Harkavy in Berliner's Festschrift, Hebrew part, 35 ff. Netirah's sons, Sahl and Isaac, were also both prominent men at the Caliph's court. After the death of David b. Zakkai, it seems that these magnates continued the practice of the Exilarch in intervening at the Caliph's court on behalf of the Jews. Thus in a responsum by some Rabbi the leaders of the community, to whom this responsum is

RESPONSA

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

467

addressed, are requested to inform the Rabbi of their petitions and requests, who in his turn would instruct the influential Jews of Bagdad to intervene on their behalf with the central authorities (Geon., II, 87: i: pr

tN 4z Dr;Mi

. . .'15i

114ms b1P

w

inrw I "^nK M

nn o D:1r

-n

D nlz5nn

bz3, nw

nWK

1

nn

tWi

-IV

wnw

I,.

. 1N

C
-

Tn

n,bwi 4 ^3

fTin

miii mx n&<

' 1 1 NTD: t:D

n).

These 'sons of Aaron' are probably identical with those whom the Gaon R. Nehemiah (of Pumbedita, 962) in a letter (published by Cowley, YQR., XIX, o16) mentions as the treasurers of all the donations sent for the Academy (1. 23: is D 1VWDns< : ^' ry i ln nr,nW). Perhaps the above responsum was also sent by R. Nehemiah, to whom, as it seems, the influential Jews of Bagdad lent their support. Ginzberg (Geon., II, 87) thinks that the author could not have been a Gaon, since he lived in Bagdad. But from casual references it appears that both Sherira and Hai carried on their official duties for some time at Bagdad. Thus we find R. Hai (see infra) in n"`, No. 278, using V14 the same phrase, nOll lwy W nrtmnnru:n Ktn i the was sent from Wtni. Probably t-:I responsum that city. See further the extract from a Genizah letter (cited by Poznadski, Babyl. Geonim im nachgdon. 1w nn , ;trn y,p Zeitalter, p. go):'ifrin p plwn nr Sherira in a responsum (Geon., II, 2o6,1. 7 ff., missing in n"=m,No. 44, where it is ascribed to Sherira) writes i1 n 5,[n D, ; nan ,., aD t g'nnn:i rrwa jDmtmnn Dmnpjmn m 0 n m, 'wn , yi a0 i' : vy in (probably Kfn =) -,, nnn Still more noteworthy is MS. Bodl. (Hebr. c. 28. 49) containing a deed, apparently the confirmation of a will, drawn nilam.

10 Read lDlpJ'V (so also Aptowitzer, Mschr., 19x1, 378).

468

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY REVIEW

up at the rixn n"a of Sherira which met in Marheshwan, 1309 Sel.=998 c. E. at Bagdad rpnr KptW,.11 Lines 6-io read as follows: mnw.r [N]vi n=:nantnin [3] , , (6) sn:lnn K n,n 3 :qnr ntZ[-] (7) ~n,n4 5:q:aN ....n[,]3 ,

m[']5 l,z

xvyn n:[n n]nm r[eiss nw.n] (8) jlnnr ;'~vw '

mrm

tpWav mS[,~]'1 n[,3] bp,ny

,nx (9) n[5-]vry-r 3 N5 [s3nmnpj 3. 'n1 [nnmni] 5riln P, n,a ,5s im,nensn(10), 'm: [,Y']n~D ;3jn a,n ?z. The document is signed (1. 23) by Dri, ;3 nrv[D[:] inni3 ia n4mn and countersigned by c Sherira (3n yI! nnnsI 1 nrnrn3ni '5r). The former [Nseem to have been N:31 1:2\ of Sherira's 5inn in": at Bagdad. This fragment is of importance in showing us that in the very year of his resignation (or a year before, if we take Sel. to begin in 312 B.C.E.), Sherira presided over the supreme court of the Academy which sat at Bagdad. This will throw new light on the disputed question about the two separate courts of Sherira and Hai in the period of their common activity (see especially Aptowitzer, yQR., N.S., IV, 35-8). The superscription of nr", No. I98, mentions that the responsum came to n,n3 5n n nnninm nnim. atSl13m~ v ~mi5nninp~i , t iryv i.v =6nn iivl ri 4:6 )l ,p -7= I-l2441- VN-1 lW 133'1 nnnr. s.1 No. 5s Likewise n", 371, mentions VVw nlm,n W 1nn i

11Dr. Cowley (in CatalogueofHebr. MSS., vol. II, 378,49) thought that the 'in n'1" ' comprised rn/t3N12?fi'1 N1W' irit2 and jn i' nfl'n ifln'. But it is evident that the fragment speaks of Sherira the son of Hananya. We find Sherira addressed in this way in grIl, Nos. 315, 329, 371 and 419. Poznaiiski, in ZfHB., X, 143-4, failed to note this, and thus suggested that IHananya was Dayan in Bagdad. I have consulted Dr. Cowley on this point, who in reply kindly sent me his own copy of the fragment. I find that there he also conjectured this. My thanks are due to him for his kind permission to extract the lines in the text from his copy. 12 Bodl. 26694, Arabic responsum, is the same as n"`, No. 198.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

469

's n:WV',and also in Ittur, I, 6id, n:n W, :z ?Z H"lnS ^JW? IIW n pi n4 I V5 Now to explain all these passages to refer exs;n :r. clusively to the period between Sherira's abdication and demise, about 998-0oo0, when out of deference to the retired Gaon his name was inserted in the documents issued by the Academy, as Aptowitzer does, is forced. It is more likely to assume that Hai, after having been ordained as ''"K, looked after the affairs of the Academy at Pumbedita while Sherira presided over the in,n1n" at Bagdad. Thus responsa had to be sent up from the Academy to Sherira for ratification. After Sherira's death Hai presided over the [inrin 1",N at Bagdad, and thus we find him writing from this city. Likewise the Gaon Nehemiah (962) might have lived in Bagdad as the president of the supreme court. The transfer of the court from Pumbedita to Bagdad probably took place during the interregnum of the Exilarchate after the death of David b. Zakkai. There was need for a central Jewish authority at the capital of the empire and as a substitute for the Exilarch's supreme court, the snrin' s33 (see infra), the Gaon of Pumbedita had to transfer his supreme court to Bagdad. From the letter of the Exilarch Hezekiah II, dated Nisan, am D^l

~ pNi^W we

read

n'n n'f5l

(published by Kamenetzky, REJ., 1332(?) Sel.=xo2o(?) LV, 51-3), we know now about the intervals in the occupation of the Exilarchate after David b. Zakkai.13 However, this Exilarch seems to have re-established his own supreme court (cp. 1. 24: n N' won nM mnSwNw wa irvri -1i1n?' Tl i vviip tnlt p ti"X:nprn jmD 41R' Pt. Thus after the death of David b. Zaccai there was an interregnum. David's grandson, Hezekiah I, only again assumed the dignity. Hezekiah's son, David, again does not bear the title of "`1, only his son Hezekiah II. IS 11.

I-4:

tnrN W

470

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

a ;r:: ;jmi (i. e. Hai and Samb.b.Hofni) mn'lv '13m pi: i':1 who seems to have been the nin7 K:nt mn-'). Next to Bagdad there must have been an important Jewish community in Basrah, which city was founded in 635. Owing to its favourable position, Basrah soon became the centre of the maritime trade of the empire, especially after the foundation of Bagdad, when it was connected with this town by means of canals (cp. Aug. Miiller, ibid., I, 235). The Jewish community there was under the jurisdiction of the Sura Academy, as Nathan tells us in his Accordingly we have report (Neub., II, 86, bottom). responsa addressed to Basrah by the Sura Geonim R. Moses, $23 (Geon., II., 212-13; therein is also mentioned a small Jewish community in nirn, Obolla) and R. Nahshon, 874-82 (Geon., II, 33, bottom, and 34, top). Only in the time of R. Hai we find questions from Basrah sent to the Academy of Pumbedita (Geon., II, 7I; probably n", Nos. 221-2, 422 are also by R. Hai). In Geon., II, 71 the correspondents of R. Hai state that disciples have learned the passage of Talmud, which formed the subject of their questions to the Gaon, before the head of the Academy of 11D. mSn).'4 NSura (ND;nD:In D uRt ma Probablythis refers to Samuel b. Hofni, the last Gaon of Sura. After his death in 1034, the scholars of Basrah sent their difficulties to R. Hai. There is no proof for Eppenstein's statement (Monatsschrift, 1911, 469) that after Saadya's death the activities of the Sura Academy were continued in Basrah. It is true that Saadya's opponent, Joseph bar Satia, not being able to keep up the Academy at Sura after Saadya's 14 Poznanski's inference from this passage that 'there was in Pumbedita a residence for the scholastic president of Sura' (JQR., N.S., III, 416) has no foundation, as the responsum came from Basrah.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

471

death, s'ettled in Basrah (Letter, p. 40)., But it is nowhere mentioned ~that he, held any official position there as the head of, a school. Fro'm Nathan's report concerning the income which the Exillarchs as well as the academies derived from the Babylonian communities (Neub., II, 86-7), we learn that Jews live'd in the districts of Nahrvan and Hlolwan as well as in the provinces of Fars (0%) and Chorasan. This we find corroborated in Gaonic responsa. Sherira and Hai speak of Jews in Media, Persia, and Elam (in a responsum published by Harkavy in the periodical wipi1 II, p. 89). So also R. Hai in another responsum (quoted in bsii nw ed. Schorr, p. 27) mentions communities in' Elam and the islands of Persia'.1, Of particular

further Geon., II, 279, 11.I2-113. About the Jews of Charasan, cp. Harkavy, Jtrm goi (in y4~nl,' i879, 8I) where he quotesMoses Ibn Ezra in the name of Saadya, f11~ ~= N-NV ii-1p-(~: n6 ir"$ nrlv) roitni

. tN-

v~ mnn~ IN

From

-ItVN 04V

Nathan's

report (Neub.,

II, 78) we learn that Charasan belonged to the sphere of influence of the Pumbedita Academy and that the deposal and exile of the exilarch Ukba was due to his attempt to deprive the academy of the revenue from this province. This is corroborated by an interesting responsum by Hai which I have copied from Brit. Mus. Add. 27,181 (cp. above, note 7) fol. 15 2 (nl"%.

ntn

nyan

12U-I-V-I

i v-i-1) i 'vn '

119I)14)-4

'pv n pv i4v

-13

im:n n4in

o1:11W' N5V

3flti.-

'1'?)V1. We see

472

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY REVIEW

Jewish communities mention should be made of Nehavend from whence the well-known Karaite Benjamin (800-820), and of Isfahan in Persia where the imposter Abu-'Isa declared himself Messiah in the reign of the Caliph AbdulMelik, 685-705 (see Gr., V4, 173-5 and note I5). In Nisibis there lived a member of the Davidic family who, but for an unfortunate event, would have succeeded David b. Zakkai to the dignity of Exilarch (cf. infra). Among the Babylonian Jews there settled a number of Jews from foreign countries. A number of Jews, whom Omar drove out from Haibar in Arabia (about 640), settled near Kufa (Gr.,V4, 119). R Hai reports a responsum (above, p. 465) of Jewish captives from Christian countries that were brought to Babylon, probably during the wars the Arabs had with the Byzantines in 863-4 (see Epstein on the nin :ni,n, p. i2). Finally, owing to the large trade between on carried Egypt and Babylon, many Egyptian Jews settled in Babylon, as R. Hai tells us in a responsum in n"~,No. 285, end.l6 2. The next country to be considered after Babylon is Palestine. Very little is known about the conditions of the Palestinian Jewry during the Gaonic period (see Gr., V4, 17-32, and now also Krauss, Studien sur Byzantinischjid. Geschichte,Vienna, i9I4, p. I ff.). Some new information is to be obtained from Genizah Fragments. The persecutions which the Palestinian Jews were subjected to under Heraclius, immediately preceding the advent of the Arabs, thus that it was the Pumnbedita Gaon, R. Juda b. Mar R. Samuel (906-18), the grandfather of Sherira, who induced the Jews of Chorasan to alter their custom in uniformity with that of Irak (?31). 16 Is 5:1: b5 jwilv:9ono nmni jlw P .* NZI oNKz!z nY2 nl This aW t '3n1:r1. n':3i probably pS ID .NRl1N,5 refers to Jews.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

473

are described by a supposed contemporary of R. Jehudai of Sura (760). The Byzantine rulers decreed that the Palestinian Jews should neither read the Sh'ma nor say their prayers, but they allowed them to assemble in the synagogues on Sabbath morning for the purpose of reciting Psalms.17 As soon as the Arabs conquered Palestine all these persecutions were stopped. At the beginning of the Muhammedan rule there took place some influx of Arabian Jews who were expelled by Muhammed and Omar. A part of the Banu Kainuka settled in Palestine in 624, a group of the Banu Nadir followed them in 625, and finally a number of Haibar Jews in 640 (see Gr., V4, IO9 and I I ; Leszynsky, Die Juden in Arabien z. Zeit Mohammeds, 63, 72-4 and 114). Very little is known of the Palestinian Jews in the time of the early Geonim. From the fact that R. Aha of Shabha left Babylon for Palestine about 760 (Letter, p. 35 bottom and 36 top), where he composed the well-known mnlnsw, a collection 17

Geon.,II, 50-51 (see ibid., pp. 48 f.): 1"lt?

4" iDn"K . ri1Wv .

1.1

KI11OWn'lFp iK^pFyhw iS-wI yp^ *n 5y prn'3n i'il 1"i^rnF `10 n4rnttr 'm 't ninn n: ,nms F,m1 91 nv:: nvrnnyDm3: ;nz 1w:pED318319iin Din:-1lDWlLill Dni i 11iOW WlUp 1'7yot nnWny in:1 b1CK nlDiar,lnp, plDybbEnbznl b>^Dr m 1^ i,nnnta 1 ;19DW I. tr p Geon., I, 207, top, and II, 420.) Ginzberg (p. 48) (Cp. assumes that the author of the responsum was a Palestinian. This is not clear from the fragment; nor is it certain that it constitutes a part of a responsum. It may perhaps be a part of RK=al'1!1N n '1:l jP I 1p: , who in his turn was the disciple of Yehudai Geon (cp. especially, Schechter, Hoffmann-Festschrift, Hebrew part, 262). As Ben Bebai's master was Yehudai's disciple, it is only natural that Yehudai should figure so prominently in Ben Bebai's lplD, as we find in the fragment in Geonica. It would be of interest to compare the handwriting of fragment Schechter with that of Geon. (T.-S. Loan 97). It should be added that T.-S. Io K, 9t also contains a colophon KNK'.. ^41=K K[Kz "nrmnl jIl Ip"Ea rVOL. VOL. VI. VII.

in

I Ii

THE JEWISH

474

QUARTERLY REVIEW

of sermons delivered on Sabbaths, it was inferred that there must have existed then Jewish communities in Palestine Likewise the pilgrim Willibald who (see Gr., V4, I79-80). visited Palestine in 765 writes,' ibi (Tiberiade) sunt multae ecclesiae et synagogae Iudaeorum' (quoted by Graetz, ibid., I1, 3). The responsum of R. Jehudai's contemporary, mentioned above, adds new information about the Palestinian Jewry of those times. There existed several communities in Palestine and in some of them, including Jerusalem, Babylonian Jews that settled there were in such considerable numbers, that they could enforce their will in matters concerning the ritual of the synagogue.'8 We learn further from rn`', No. 39, that Jews from Africa as well as from Babylon married women in Palestine and settled there. Probably these Babylonian Jews continued their connexions with the Geonim and their Academies. Among the countries that sent material support to the Babylonian academies Palestine is also included (Ibn Daud, n ed. Neubauer, p. 67: n-mw n"pn n? nD1O5mm noipl

Dm,DIKtpnIQI:nynn y'Ki 'm9DP:ynD'5m, ,nwnwmw

iw pin Yet only a few responsa are extant wherein it is expressly stated that they were sent to Palestine.l9 R. Hai

,rInyit). 18

Geon., II, 52, 11.20-24:

MnWn

S Y13fl1WV'I-'p /

nD1

i

-i5z n4nioInDI IN ,ni n Invy \t6:1:1 n 5:3 nWlnp 7D%),7n5yli1pWUpnpimnvl

tVw v:f)

51Q= nwl

1?! n rin nznwm

s ps< p^N5aa,na rKyW &'onK ("s

bn~Dl i.nN GDt.33

nJll:1'gnl:sUo :tW3

i!R

w1*

n:e,3 ,t< EIrnp.

19 On the other hand, cp. abpT '1T1i55 a (cited by Berliner, ZfHB.,

4 Iv, 149): il 'n n5n pmKt'-iny 3-i ib lpDn-p in1inswnSnNl ,nw -11n1 87bb 10 tnli< nK n4np nsKwi51-7U) ,JFSSW rpt ? KS1 21n. The well-known responsum in V"n, No. 93 (cf. J, No. 8, and a"n, No. 166 in the name of Hai) is headed in Or. 1054, fol. 87 a tln'D. (see Margoliouth, Catalogue, III, 509, col. a) 521=:'W' 'i r .. This can hardly be correct as in the responsum (in T"nand in 5&) it is ItiIn

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

475

mentions in n"', No. 64, a question that reached him from n 'the scholars of Jerusalem' (Dtrn':mnvw n:nn,nnn). It is difficult to ascertain who these scholars were and whether they held any official dignity. Thanks to the Genizah finds we know now a good deal about the academy founded in Jerusalem, the heads of which bore WVN(see now especially also the title of 1npVpI&n: PoznaAski, Babylon Geonim, &c., 8I ff.). But it is as yet very obscure what relations existed between the Babylonian Geonim and the Palestinian Academy. No clear case has so far been established that Sherira and Hai corresponded with the Palestinian Geonim. It is very doubtful whether the letter of Sherira and Hai to a la,2w wvo, dated I3th of Ab, I300 Sel. = 989 C.E., and containing the interesting l nm,2w w wt in1o wpz: nprn n,5 passage nnmn , ;v 5 nrw W '1i nlnnnm

n lS

ntrw'3p:

n::lt

was really sent to the

Palestinian Gaon, Joseph ha-Cohen, as Dr. Marmorstein, who published this letter from a MS. Adler in ZDMG,, LXVII, 630, maintains. It is rather strange that the '`i without mentioning letter should end abruptly with Dom his priestly descent nor his official dignity. It is possible that iD1 'n' forms the beginning of the next item in the MS. Adler which thus requires further investigation.20 The mK5:1 nD3n. But the above expressly mentioned DWMl "J1 5-1 denote that it should be deleted. in which overlined is Or., may heading 20 After having examined this manuscript, I find my doubts about Marmorstein's identification fully confirmed. The fragment consists of two joined leaves in the same handwriting (detached in MS. Adler, No. 4009; a facsimile of leaf i a is, I understand, to appear in the forthcoming Catalogue of Mr. Adler's MSS. Collection). The first half of leaf I a covers the part of the letter by Sherira and Hai (to W"' nwr Ki1 ji). Removed from this stands in the middle of the line 9D0l it. Then follows on the next line a letter by Joseph ibn Abitur, covering the remainder of leaf i a and the following three pages. This letter is addressed to Samuel Ii

476

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY REVIEW

reading of the Gaon's letter in public need not refer to the custom prevailing in Palestine which mostly took place on Mount Olivet on Hoshana Rabba, as Poznadski, I.c., 85-6 thinks. We find in )"n, No. 37, the Gaon Aaron ha-Cohen (of Pumbedita, 943) writing to his correspondents: VniDNnrtn,nw,n 5w ;nlwnn I'-pN nipTn winp1ln On the other hand it appears from a letter of the Palestinian Gaon Solomon b. Jehuda (Saadyana II3=Y7QR., XIV, 483, 11.42-6) that in his time there arose friction between the Babylonian (i.e. Pumbedita) and Palestinian schools over their respective spheres of influence in Egypt (niprln mta nD

ntr i m= Nn n3

[nr] Inw ip

IMnrl niplm

nn

IDw

5i

ntn

,n1n=n~,n r,Nn ?Y v prnn,W,ev nvp[ vpnrD=an"tV,pnr 4=5 imn ,nll[: nx ranr1 NmnD, nS nrn). Anyhow, the existence of an Academy in Jerusalem since, at least, the middle of the tenth century would account for such a small number of responsa having been sent to Palestine by the last Pumbedita Geonim. What one would like to know is whether the Babylonian Jews residing in Palestine, whom we have seen above (p. 474) in considerable numbers already in the middle of the eighth century, continued throughout the centuries their connexions with the academies of their native country. Perhaps further Genizah finds will enlighten us concerning this point. ,,, n.

n~2i'n NWK b. Joseph Np0y Jil W KnI (cited by Marmorstein, . c., 637, n. i). As both letters are in the same handwriting, it is evident that they are only copies from the originals. The copyist thus placed FtD1i in front of Joseph's (ibn Abitur) letter, i. e. written by him! Hence the letter of Sherira and Hai was never addressed to Joseph (ha-Cohen, Gaon of Jerusalem). More probably it was sent either to Fustat or KaiThe remarks of rowan; in both places there existed schools (ill'B'). Poznafiski (Babylon. Geonim, 85-6), based on Marmorstein's publication, will have to be cancelled.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

477

3. The most frequent intercourse, however, the Babylonian Academies had with the north-African communities and also with Spain. We shall begin with Egypt, the nearest North-African country on the way from Babylon to the Occident. The connexion between Babylon and Egypt became the more easy after the conquest of Egypt by the Arabs under 'Amr ibn al-'As in 639-42. This famous general founded Fustat and connected it with the Red Sea by repairing the neglected canal between the Nile and the Gulf of Suez (see Aug. Muller, ibid., I, 266). In a short time a very important Jewish community sprang up there. Already in 750 there existed in Fustat a Jewish community under the leadership of a Babylonian Jew, Abu-Ali Hasan of Bagdad (see YQR., XVII, 426-30). Many Jews from Babylon as well as from Palestine settled there, forming two separate communities, the so-called 0,:nnn, nvDD) 'synagogue of the Babylonians' (p"4pmnrKt, and the 'synagogue of the Palestinian Jews' (Ip,vs's, see especially Worman, YQR., XVIII, I-39; Bacher, ibid., 564, and Poznaiski, Ry., XLVIII, I57-60). In a fragment published by Goldziher, R.7., LV, 58, we read: nw 13 13nD1 nD331 nnD^WlnF, nDz: inp n1ilyn;l nvnp,n .,.., rnirnpi; nRnpn n:1 rn n'v nD:i1 r~,[n

w5n t\l ; 'n (see now also

It is only Shapira, Mdlanzges H. Derenbourg, 1J2-30). natural that the great number of Babylonian Jews in Fustat should have turned to the Babylonian academies for religious instruction. Yet only a few responsa of the Babylonian Geonim are expressly mentioned as having been sent to Egypt. We find chiefly the later Geonim, especially Sherira and Hai, maintaining some connexions with Egypt.21 In a letter from FustAt to Hai (cited by 21 Cp. '1", No. 290, beginning, probably by Sherira and Hai, see Einleit.,

THE JEWISH

478

QUARTERLY REVIEW

Worman, 1.c., Ia) it is mentioned that the synagogue of the Babylonians in FustAt was named after the Pum. e n1:w W'ti bedita Academy (rnrnpn uIK uD i,, nS. rw In:a, at

5I

The letter of

n,M1pnDnI5:n nol3:: n5lnnfn).22

Solomon b. Jehuda (above,p. 476) also tells us of Egyptian communitiesapparently under the influence of the Babylonian Academy. Of course, Saadya, who hailed from 43-4; "'t3J,no. 312, by R. Samuel b. Hofni; ", No. 61, and 13nYil 'WI, ed. Schorr, p. 3, by R. Hai, seems to have been sent to Egypt; p"3, No. 72, fol. 24 a, 1. 6. See also VrI, No. 27, by R. Zemah, probably of Pumbedita, 872-90. In Wertheimer's ilDS rlnSp, p. 72, there are printed the headings of nine responsa by Sherira and Hai to Egypt (nflwn vlDi~ 2w"1n [n'Dll I 'Kll t1nlV VIt'1 ). Cf. also Pozna6ski, RtJ., VM 5"t IJ 1,1 .p XLVIII, 16I-2; LI, 57-8; JQR., N.S., III, 462, note I4. 22 The following lines, which I have copied from this Genizah fragment (T.-S. i6'3i8), will bring out more clearly the great reverence in which R. Hai was held. [n]rlp) nSrl nSD) nIrlI n lS 'N[rJ] ,. . (5)

,inS

Ten'

Vn115'rn

:

n [nv i 1$z mrinnomma 5 j 11(nI<' 1K p18 1-n

p 4X

n

1v'anrn 'l'l

IV 4=_Wb 51 n

nw

(6)

3 nN (8) 'IND1

,p,tnl nmxnnup,nyn nilleWn3,E2,nIND (9) s
nbtwI mDn=a Nim it appears that the honour of calling the synagogue by the name of the Academy was given by Hai. The correspondents mention a letter which Hai sent to Abraham, styled '1n '1' {ip mnl, 9lK1and nZwM n?n.. (11.21-23 V1'I' 1t5 MlMK "n n1z n1 im o11 i3'1 ID [nnnM I,"': n v 1nfl). Very likely Abraham b. Sahalon is meant here who, as will be shown elsewhere, was the spiritual head of the Babylonian community at Fustat, corresponding to the dignity of Ephraim b. Shemarya of the Palestinian congregation. Abraham's successor was his son Sahalon, styled p1iKand 15.:3'W)l. InMIMi1n(I5) 14wnin ,

.

nKmo3 y 1.1n

Wl'n rnl3 n[Dnn. From lines

13-14

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

479

Fayum, must have kept up close relations with his native country during the whole period of his Gaonate (cp. e.g. yQR., XVI. 290-3, 295-7). In discussing the relations of Sherira and Hai with Egypt, some remarksmust be added on the famousscholars Shemaryaand his son Elhanan. In spite of the important Genizahfinds hithertopublished,the position these scholars held in Egypt and their relations both with the schools of Babylon and of Palestine are still not clear enough,and require further elucidation. To begin with, it is not yet certainwhetherShemaryaresidedat Cairo,as it is generally assumed,though without any basis, or at Fustat (so now Poznanski, Babyl. Geonim, p. 98; in tI1'p vwm, No. II, he begins with Fustat and ends up with Cairo). According to Ibn Daud, Shemarya,after having been ransomed from slavery at Alexandria, settled in Wnmn,which generally stands for Fustat; but the famous account of Ibn Daud about the' four captives' is now much questioned(cp., e.g. Schechter, JQR., XI, 643 if. and Poznaiski, jmwvpwma, No. I8). We know now that already Shemarya's father occupied an official dignity, and very likely in Egypt (see yQR., XIX, 729, No. XX: Pl5nw i:5 5V nD~nw' plnSK 23 wvnn:nn nS~in and yQR., i:V 5v pfi n, 3t nDWmv, rl 1 XI, 643 ff., 1. 24, 111D 3:1 ,Illn N:3 ,3:n lp). Eppenstein's suggestion (Mschr., I911, 6I9-~o) that Shemarya

was a Nagid is hardly likely. All the evidence tends to show that he was an eminent scholastic (and not a political) authority. If Shemarya resided at FustAt,as seems 'l 31^, but here he is called 'I"N, 2s Shemarya is also styled WKI1 while his son was already TDOi1 WYN. It thus seems that the title T"31 Wf was superior to that of VIDn , which was probably the same as 3?1 wVK'n (ag. Poznafiski, 1lKVp 'MWY,p. 14, note I).

480

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

more probable, it would be of consequence to ascertain over which community he wielded influence, whether the Babylonian or the Palestinian congregation.24 This point has not yet been considered. From the important fragment published by Neubauer (YQR., VI, 222-3) we gather that both Shemarya and his son Elhanan studied at a Babylonian Academy, and very likely it was Pumbedita (see Halberstam, ibid., 596). There it seems that Shemarya zi 'l1 obtained the title '"nt (cp. p. 223,. 17, 1mW r1ni 1h, which perhaps means wmnoof the Gaon, i.e. n"n:). Thus it would be natural that in Egypt he should have represented the interests of the Babylonian Academy. But no questions from Shemarya to Babylon have so far been preserved. On the other hand, from letters by Sherira, addressed probably to Shemarya (Saadyana, XLV and XLVI, cp. p. I19, 1. 17 and p. I24, 11. 85-6; see also Eppenstein, 1.c., pp. 473 ff.), we learn of the Gaon's complaint that the Academy is neglected as regards material support and is not consulted in religious affairs. The Gaon reminds his correspondents that their forefathers used to send all their religious questions to the Academy (p. 10o, 11. 13 ff., p. 124, 11. 75 ff.). However, Elhanan, Shemarya's son, sent his difficulties both to Hai and Samuel b. Hofni (,Y', Nos. I and 314, QR., XVIII, 430=

Geon.,II. 59). As regards the relations of Shemarya and Elhanan with the Palestinian Academy, not enough is so far known to render a definite opinion possible. But it appears that they were strained. The Gaon Solomon b. Jehuda seems to 24 Shemarya's residence at Fustat would also be borne out by the fact that he signs a legal document drawn up at Fustat and dated Tuesday, 14 Elul, oo002c. E. (see JQR., XI, 646, note 2).

RESPONSA

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

481

have had a rather unfavourable opinion about Shemarya and Elhanan. In the interesting letter to Shemarya b. Ephraim (published by Dr. Marmorstein, RyJ., LXVIII, 1914, 44-5), Solomon b. Jehuda writes: a :-1KN 5p 117qnDrl nnw 1n,, :' nrnr D,prn nD I D1v pw.inn (i.e. his own) i z owipn inKl inK bwnlw-Klnn b-iWrin rinv

ini

lm

nw ivn pZlnn :nr-K: tnniK'/ nKN m)i

: v'tI

tny

D-nD

"nnl;,

nwynl .r.2 The Gaon admits that he wrote these words, which he declares to have been in accordance with the facts jp 4' 54 n414 8: 9 :n 'r '= nI Nes) 'min ,n). in the obscure somewhat Further, fragment, dated Adar ()332 Sel.==Io2o C.E. (published by Kamenetzky, RA7., LV, 49-50) we find Elhanan apparently trying to constrain the Palestinian Gaon in the carrying out of his authority (11. 2-7: wVn (pnIr ) Inn 4:1 nenm - InnKN: 4. (? nn) =n (r. perhaps 1:) li? 'ln l,wnp. w '

4 I 1Trn nv vb in rit -ni r w ' J- -wK ir D N znn nw 531 nl:s Dwl 1=pl'p. ). By 'M1jlm it seems that the Pales-

tinian Gaon is meant (against Poznanski, ibid., 246).26 From these details it will appear that there existed some friction between Shemarya and Elhanan on the one side and the Palestinian Academy on the other. Here, again, we must look forward to further Genizah finds for elucidation. 4. Turning from Egypt to the next North African 25 For ifl read D pni'1 Di.'lKIn. This important nDtv1pi DWWn1t letter (it is T.S. I3 J 92 and not I3 I 22), which has not been edited with sufficient care, will be fully discussed in another connexion. 26 Poznanski (p. 246, note) also noticed that 1'Y'j1* usually denotes the Palestinian Gaon (cp. 'SZ n'It' ; also OX-= Palestine in Saadyana, 89, 1. 26); but he dismissed the suggestion with the statement that the Palestinian Academy was not in existence till after 1020. Of course, it is now well established that the Palestinian Gaonate dates back much earlier (cp. above, pp. 475-76).

482

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

country, comprising the two Arabic provinces of Ifrikiya and Maghreb (modern Tunis, Algiers, and Morocco) we find the Jewish communities maintaining throughout the greater part of the Gaonic period the closest connexions with the Academies of Sura and Pumbedita. There existed in these two provinces a group of more or less important Jewish communities, viz. Cabes, Nefusa (^-,,, see Yakut, Geographisches Worterbuch, ed. Wiistenfeld, IV, 800) and Tobna or Tobya in Ifrikiya, as well as Tahert (modern Tuggurt), Tlemsen, Ashir, Fez, and Se6elmessa in Magreb (Morocco). The most important community, however, was that of Kairowan (see particularly Poznafski's article on NIVIp VW , in Harkavy's Festschrift, Hebrew Part, 175-220, and also in a separate reprint). We find many references in the Gaonic responsa to the 'people of Africa' (Np'Dm Vm), which show that their correspondence with the Geonim goes back to a very early date. The important responsum of R. Natronai (in ~"n, No. 15 = Geon., II, 30) was in all probability sent to correspondents in Kairowan. The whole geography of the places referred to therein points to Kairowan which used to be frequented by Jews from Fez and Andalusia.27 This being so, we infer that the Kairowan Jews already had responsa from R. Jehudai (760-4) as well as from his disciple R. Haninah. 27 1"n, No. 15: i"t

w^ Nn

In -n

lNMV1Vi n1lIf I= 1z4mew nI"nni nin

l 1n5 brnr InNvW Wri- 4tilF

1F1

p -no

Kti 15yr

'a981 IK rr1'uiYn

n Zfil3 /'D KWm : ^3 oDZKDt1? nS fntLrlI Dv~I i: (Andalusia)D'5ir'1 nspm pl anng l':W .61np1'4njlWn lV . . "nTII wlvtn'rpK IVnB .puII 1tr m y3w PK DRNiW is a corruption for ObtKD (Fez); the reading DBlD in Geon., II, 30, 1. 17, is still more corrupt; yet Pozn., JQR., N. S., III, 418, regards this as the better reading. In Geon., ibid., this responsum is ascribed to R. Zemah, probably of Sura, 882-87 c. E.

RESPONSA

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

483

Likewise they sent their questions to the other Sura Geonim: R. Moses, 832, R. Cohen Zedek, 845, R. Sar Shalom, 849, and R. Natronai, 853 ("n, No. I5).28 Further, R. Hilai of Sura (either of 792 or of 825) received questions from Kairowan (r"n, No. 199 end: lKNWX1in ;1* 4t6i0 -n iD p,ninl I-

b W= I?3 134nn1WK twni il

ran3n3).

In short,,almost every Gaon of renown, whether of Sura or Pumbedita, was consulted in religious as well as in social questions by the scholars that lived in Kairowan.29 Besides the Jews that lived in the villages around Kairowan (n':, No. 5), there existed a considerable community in Cabes in the time of Sherira and Hai (see index to n'J under D:3p; to No. 59 see the superscription from a Bodl. MS. (printed by Neubauer, 7QR., VI, 223-4); ,oS~wnrnp, Nos. 3-7 : i"Pt ,n 1:n b r,r fi: nrDID, cp. ls)p and N6. Pozna6ski, Mschr., XLIV, I42-3; p"J, ":, No. I; 85, [f n1n'W1in nlnDD(Shabb. VI, 3) nINS:'z Bodl. 286210: R. Hai mentions a Gaon, R. Abraham of I:mp)Ip[ n,in. 28 Poznainski,in his essay, did not consider this responsum in connexion with Kairowan. 29 Of particular scholars that corresponded with Kairowan we may mention R. Zemah, the judge at the court of the Exilarch IHisdaib. Natronai (Dukes in R=l:n l, IV, 141-2, and I'", p. 389); R. Zemah, probably the Gaon of Pumbedita, 872 (n*I",No. 210); R. Zemah b. Hayim concerning Eldad ha-Dani (printed by Epstein, fJlg 1'i15, pp. i ff., and note i, p. 9); Saadyah corresponded with the Kairowan scholars while he was still in w n3np, 72); but chiefly Fayum; R. Dosa, Saadya's son (Wertheimer, Sherira and Hai (see index to ,13). Cp. further i"l, Nos. 234,389; Geon., I, 51, note 2. See further D"1'lD tl'Tl, ed. Bloch, p. 193, No. 99: /"1 lmpn

nn

wnn Mninn ^m "iaDb nn nlnmwn 6 n4 Kp'S)natlmln5ww na n

Ktrlm I=:

ni nnn

, w3n Dnnir 5n3 ^w^S:n riNwr spnms nDn n 1 I3ta-Ii KR3n m:nrm NDnD tnin 3snnn tyn mi, -inD

nnto51n:orDnipr 'mitnni mnir nplni rl131 miniw^ ni^^.

9Il 5ieswv-n1 ni137 n1in81

484

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY REVIEW

nn, 'n 3 1n^Ni Cabes, in 829 (~";, No. 33: i"'t '3sp Dnpr nnwvl i=rn n,n ntlwv n"pK nw3 n,nw). In case this scholar is identical with the Gaon R. Abraham of Pumbedita (816-28), we have then the case of a family from Cabes that settled in Babylon one of whose members attained the dignity of Gaon. The first Gaon to have sent responsa to Cabes was R. Natronai (n"=, No. 67). The Jewish community in Nefusa is mentioned in a responsum of R. Haninah of Pumbedita, 938, where the Gaon mentions that the town was sacked and burned in his time, but was soon rebuilt on the return of its former inhabitants, including the Jews (x"w,26 b, No. 26, cp. n"in, No. 47; x"w, 99b, No. I and 56 a, No. T6 probably refer to the same event). The existence of Jewish communities in Tobya, or Tobna, and Ashir can be inferred from the heading of a responsum (quoted by Miiller, Einleit., 54, note 4, beginning, from a Parma MS.), where it is stated that a number of Jews, that settled in Fez and Ashir, were captives from r) $np?Nnvt"n riNw nnwn Tobya (1w4[i] Dsb nl;rimnvt ,ri :mn=nntio5rKxnw3s). In n;, No. 38, and Y'nm,No. 133 the correspondents from Tlemsen also mention the case of Jews that were exiled to Ashir (n's stands for mwrv= Ashir, see Harkavy, n":, p. 348 note to p. 15). The Geonim also had correspondence with scholars fiom Tahert (n"a,No. I6),30 Tlemsen, Fez, and Segelmessa. In Tlemsen there existed an organized community with representative scholars in its midst. This we find especially the case in time of Sherira and Hai (in", Nos. 37-43; n"tn, II, 3I, No. 9; n"1:, No. 133). Fez, as the capital of the 30 Cp. also the Genizah Book-List III, 1. 13 (published by Pozn., Zl'1 rln'n ZfHB., XII, II9-20) 4rN1 m'SwKV, i.e. questions from Tahert sent to Hai Gaon.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

485

dynasty founded by Idris, who built the city in 808 (see Aug. Miiller, ibid., I, 550), must have had a leading Jewish community. Yet we find chiefly Sherira and Hai sending responsa to this community (n":, No. 47, end, and No. 386; Warnheim's

Dn:ln ni1np, 109-1O;

Geon., II, 43).31

Finally,

Segelmessa possessed a permanent court, with probably an academy, in the time of R. Hai. This fact will show that the local Jewish community must have been of some importance (cp. the superscription to n,", Nos: 68-8I). Several respQnsareveal the fact that the scholars of Segelmessa possessed responsa sent by some other Geonim (n"~, Nos. 69 and 71, where R. Zemah, probably of Pumbedita, 882-7, is mentioned; cp. further Nos. 70, 77, 79, and 80; Saadya;na, p. 62=-2QR., XIV, 230, and Goldberg, Introduction to Ibn Koreish's Risdla, p. xvii). 5. Of European countries, the country that maintained the closest relations with the Babylonian Geonim was Spain. The sad plight of the large number of Jews in Spain, during the reign of the Goths, was entirely changed for the better with the advent of the Arabs in 711. The Jews could henceforth occupy in Spain the position to which both their numbers and their degree of culture entitled them. The large Moslem empire, extending from the boundaries of India to Spain, facilitated to a very large extent the relations of the Spanish Jews with the Babylonian Academies. Though it took more than a year 31 A letter by Sam. b. IHofni to Fez (JQR., XVIII, 404) alludes to persecutions from which the Jews of Fez suffered: DnlnytYiln3 :I 1 lvpn1 l wlwnprn y I 111= Innn Ipn1mD i1^nlq rn$ izn3

01lz:M1n :11n,wrrl

' $ lvnvin:$nrlnn,iyl VWry411 :1 ln15NnS wb :wui1 n-niNinmn nDm1 wnhv1pn i4l1 . . . ,n-1bn-1nr nmz6i , n DMSD n nCnSM2nDw$vi n-,IKllNw jian.-6.

486

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY REVIEW

for a letter from Spain to reach Babylon, as we learn from y"f, 20b, No. I2, yet very many questions

were sent from

Spain to the Geonim. The connexions between Spain and Babylon go back to the times immediately succeeding the landing of the Arabs in Spain. Sherira (Letter, p. 36) reports that the Exilarch Natronai b. Habibai, after his deposal (about 772), left Babylon for the West (nnr), which most probably refers to Spain, as other sources show (see Geon., I, 17, note 2). R. Jacob of Sura (8oi-5) probably had correspondence with the Jews of Andalusia (:Tn, No. 15, cp. above, p. 482). Much new information about the relations of the Geonim with the Spanish Jews is to be found in the interesting Bodleian Genizah Fragment (published by Cowley, yQR., XVIII, 399 ff.). The writer of the letter (dated 953), who was a descendant of the Gaon R. Paltoi, tells us that several Geonim of Sura on the one hand, from R. Zadoc, 823, to R. Nahshon, 874-82, as well as several Geonim of Pumbedita, from R. Paltoi, 842-58, to R. Cohen-Zedek, 926-35, on the other hand, were fre quently consulted by the Spanish Jews. It is further stated there that R. Paltoi sent to Spain the whole Talmud, together with a commentary on it. Well-known is the I: '2' Prayer Book, the so-called 'Dy , which R. Amram sent to the community of Barcelona (see heading of "', No. 56).32 It was only since Innl : 1'ID (=Y'D)= the middle of the tenth century, when R. Moses and his 32

Saadya also had correspondence with the Spanish communities, as \l5J 1lKnWW:n in It^= '6 5 nt1 , ::i ;n:M?D5Xi sait nIp n;pi? i^ln31tiri 5"t n'iTl'3 iD m1 Ibn David (Neub., I, 74) writes:

nm1K nIW 5(Nw, ,'-I ji: n?rn1nvrmn lmr ni~Wlm ImaNtDpi fT'll1lO:. Perhaps this was a circular epistle in connexion with the Ben Meir dispute concerning the calendar.-Saadya's son, Dosa, corresponded with Hasdai ibn Shaprut (Ibn Daud, 1.c,, 66).

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

487

son R. Enoch flourished in Cordova as heads of a large school, that the Spanish Jews became independent of the Babylonian Academies with regard to their religious instruction. Few responsa comparatively were therefore sent to Spain by Sherira and Hai (see especiallyabout the relations of the Geonim with Spain, Eppenstein, Monatsschrift, 1912, 80-95). Special mention should be made of the intercourse which R. Natronai of Sura, 853-6, maintained with the community of Lucena. From a responsum of his we learn that in his time practically the whole town of Lucena was inhabited by Jews. Cordova had also a preponderant majority of Jews.3 From Lucena there came a scholar, R. Elieser, to Sura, where he occupied the position of Alluf (cp. n"a, No. 386; " , 3 a, No. 7 ; 25a, No. 15; and nnr n 1', ed. Warsaw, 38 a). 6. Only scanty information is to be obtained about the other countries to which the influence of the Geonim extended. A Genizah fragment (published in Geon., II, 57, top) establishes the fact that Sherira as well as Hai carried on correspondence with the famous Rabbi Meshullam b. a nD w Kalonymos of Lucca in Italy (3=n :11:wnn: "N1,m1I1M KNIVw Vh:21

1mmn n rwl

-

i:n319n'

ID3D olv:4livpm

This superscription proves that Rappoport was "'r//"). right in his suggestion (Bikkure ha 'Ittim, I839, 91, and Introduction to P"~,I2 b) that R. Meshullam lived in Lucca. Graetz's (V4, 545, note 2) contention that he lived in 3s tnD:')n nil:p,

ed. Warnheim,

. . ?:p ,lu-Ipn 1'4M 81.??PT tyn also

Ioo:

t'1

55 M4z'

$3Wl DlpD ,iDwR \I'W

nIn, r^M n,:D^n ^T^Ir nmin3 mipt 'rEWmTln n j 6 ti^DW nvlY '"1tM, No. a6: 'IDSW 1 I' 1 IlNDgI?

itvwnn

. I . D=4?y.

5wir. ni 1, nmF.

Cp. . .

488

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY

REVIEW

Zalcona, Catalonia, is thus disposed of by the above Genizah Fragment.34 These connexions between ItalianFrench scholars and Babylonian Academies can be traced to still earlier times. The responsum in P"`, No. II8, the last of the group of responsa assigned to Kalonymos, ends with ,nn1n1nne 1lni"12, which probably refers to one of two of Babylon. R. Natronai's reference in academies famous *"w,2o b, No. i (see above, p. 486) to trinn also shows that the Geonim stood in correspondence with the Jews in southern France and Italy.3s There are several references in the responsa to nt1iK Dn 'the scholars of Edom', which name denoted all countries under Christian rule, especially Italy and the Byzantine Empire.?6 In particular, correspondents from Kairowan to Sherira and Hai refer to these 'scholars of Edom', by whom in all probability Italian scholars are meant.37 From n"a, No. 2,5, we learn that there came to R. Hai disciples from Constantinople (n4vDy,p)

tn v:6p

Ms1nDn

notvn Q,n'nnn

nm

lbsw

4wVlWV).

84 Cp. further on this point Miiller, Responsen des R. Kalonymos aus Lucca, pp. 2-3, and Responsen des R. Meschullam, p. 4; Epstein, R)J., XXIV, I49-5I1 and XXVII, 8I-9o; Gross., Monatsschrift, I878, 249. 35 I'JID used to denote both France and Italy (cp. Geon., II, 55). 36 Cp. also NK17 1VW 'IV u1`nGw 'r Ktl 41: 3 ? 82: NW "p , P'IN3D5W. We thus find this Gaon already corresponding with Italian scholars. But we should have expected the Gaon sending the responsum to the scholars of Rome, and not the reverse (124niV). 37 Cp. R. Hai (in Rabed's n No. 119): plX'In 13'fl1 NW b'n,3 V , t . "1 ; further, in Ashkenazi's bI/ ''1N< =Dn Iy 1n= 1 nfl3n 1 "'M 4n=1 nt 'o D - ID'IN *=3n t:QpT>57 f.: '' DInn3wI ntn r7* From tD"'D, No. 34, it appears that there tK1N "i'D nWv:N 1?Ill:n. came to the academy of Kairowan disciples from Italy; but the place of provenance of the question is not certain. Miller's note (No. i) is impossible, since the Gaon speaks of disciples, who came to the place of the correspondents.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

489

One responsum (ascribed in n'", No. 230, to R. Mattithiah of Pumbedita, 86I-9, but in Yn"n,II, 57, No. 4, to R. Hai) deals with the question of feeding the silk-worms on the Sabbath. This responsum was probably sent to Greece, where the cultivation of silk was very common (see Gr. V4, 256, note I, and now also Krauss, 1.c., 74, note I). Finally Sherira and Hai received questions from Wadi'l KurA in Arabia (n"2, z0o-3 and Geon., II, 6I). Since the expulsion of the Jews from Arabia by Mohammed and Omar, this is the first reference made to a Jewish community in that country. The existence of a community in Wadi'l Kuri in the time of Sherira and Hai tends to strengthen the opinion of those scholars who maintain that Omar drove out in 640 the Jews of Haibar only, but not those of Wadi'l K urr (see Harkavy, nr, 397, and Leszynsky, op. cit., I13). Leszynsky states from Arabic sources that still about the year Iooo the majority of the inhabitants of Wadi'l KurA were Jews (see now also Friedlaender, 7QR., N. S., I, 249-5I). The whole of this chapter forms a kind of an introducIn order to obtain tion to the following investigations. a picture of the life of the Jewry of that period, as far as can be gathered from the Gaonic responsa, it was necessary to give a prefatory sketch of the extent of the influence of the Geonim on the Jewry all over the Diaspora. In two of the responsa collections, p"l and "?Zm,there is incorporated a considerable number of responsa sent by Spanish and Italian-French scholars who were contemporaries of Sherira and Hai. These responsa contain important material for the knowledge of the life of the Jews in Spain and southern France. Since in the time VOL. VII.

K k

490

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY

REVIEW

of Sherira the Jews of these countries became more and more independent in religious instruction of the Babylonian Academies, the responsa of the above scholars had to be used for supplementing the material required for the purpose of this treatise.

(To be continued.)

THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM AS A SOURCE OF JEWISH HISTORY* BY JACOBMANN, Jews' College, London. APPENDIX

TO CHAPTER

I

NEW GENIZAH MATERIAL. THE following pages will include a number of hitherto unpublished Genizah fragments which I have found long after the above chapter had been written. With the exception of three fragments in the custody of the British Museum and one from the Bodleian, they all belong to the famous Taylor-Schechter Collection at Cambridge.38 I am much indebted to the staff of the University Library for their courtesy and ready assistance in my work. The additional information about the Babylonian Geonim and their academies, which these fragments furnish, will be discussed in the first part of the Appendix. The second part will deal with Elhanan b. Hushiel of Kairowan, who, both father and son, were in recent years brought to the historical foreground by the well-known Genizah letter published by Dr. Schechter in the eleventh volume of the 7QR. (pp. 643-50). The new material given here will again raise the problem of the famous ' Four Captives', and will at the same time indicate a solution on a new line. * See Vol. VII, 457-490. 38 They will be designated here as Or., Bodl., and T.-S. respectively.

339

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

340

The Gaon Isaac Sadok of Sura (823).

i.

This well-known Gaon, usually going by the name of Sadok, is sometimes mentioned as Isaac Gaon. Comp. 1"n, no. I56, lim prn 3 'n v'p'm1, which reads in n'", no. 217, 5'p?mVln'K p' r)mn :'" -1 ' P;l I"n:w, ed. Buber, 1XV n o ^:m 311 p 5inn=inK '#Y$"yt: ? 255, has 3n mnI 'r

S"rtnP&pn', R. Nahshon evidently referring to his father We further find Ibn Daud (ed. Neub. I, 65, 1. 5) w :1 pnl' 3n when referring to our Gaon Sadok. writing A variant (ibid., 11. Io- I) reads pni' -: nvm n: instead of R. Nahshon b. Sadok. Rappoport (Introd. to p"I, 9 a) was of the opinion that 'Isaac' in Ibn Daud was either a mistake or a synonymous name for Sadok, while Harkavy decides that in all the cited passages the correct reading should be Sadolk (n" , 396, see pp. 355-6). It is now possible to state definitely that the Gaon was the bearer of both names. I have found in T.-S. Box F 4 three detached parchment leaves, very damaged and stained, containing Gaonic responsa; they now bear the press-marks T.-S. 12. 854-56. The fragments are probably of Babylonian provenance, as the parchment and the early handwriting show. The third leaf (12. 856) has on recto, middle, the superscription irnn iS, containing a responsum by this Gaon with the following interesting heading: Sadok.

[,n ])

&
mn

wsi pmn pnr p[n[)]

[irrn] njiii nnz33 m[n]n Sg3 ,!i [Kn^]: ?nySt l^9 sW io ;rn !pyrK3n::

,,,,[?^] snpns

? ml4nn xn

K3

srw

Dp ,,,,.,

met1 KNW rrnn"n i3nkn

KODn3 n1

f Kp3n tnStiw nirva n N4n'vl , .,

N KnD

Kn3nn

?.

[KFy31] .,,

N ,N't3W

NMnKW pn

j:nrt KNDmpI

RESPONSA

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

341

v1iinp N'pI 1W nn71 (r. KiM33n or sMaMK)wnz3 pinr' [^b] pnn3K)"Y1 n3nni QrnnniDp3ii Km 'innt'-

s n m6 ts onann

. .

5

3 -npDDl Ktlpbi pm1: 3nrD NKmiz ...... ......, <'W jn

The doubtful letters I have marked with dots on the top. The place of residence of the correspondent could not be ascertained. It seems that his letter, enclosing the questions and undoubtedly the customary donations as well, reached the Gaon during the Passover, three years prior to the date of his answer. 2. Nehemiah, Gaon of Pumbedita (961-68). When Nehemiah assumed the dignity of Gaon after Aaron b. Sargado, Sherira and many members of the academy refused him recognition.39 The academy laboured under deplorable conditions, and the Gaon must have had much to contend with during his period of office. The letter written by Nehemiah in 962 (published by Dr. Cowley, now the only one known by J7R., XIX, io5-6)-till him-is ample evidence of the state of affairs in his Above academy (cp. also Poznadski, ibid., 397-40I). I (VII, 467) have also pointed out that probably the small letter in Geon., II, 87 emanates from him. The 'sons of Aaron', the influential grandees of Bagdad, are mentioned in both epistles. They cannot have been the 'sons of Aaron' (Sargado), as Ginzberg, ibid., thinks. They would not have been the supporters of Nehemiah who opposed their late father.40 There can be little doubt that this 39 Sherira's Letter (p. 41): k~i s (p. 4 K0 Cp. Sherira' Letter 40

Cp. Sherira's Letter (p. 4I):

nMw 'qIP 1ID3

: 1in

(n) ppmi n2nl

IMnM(m1)

-in

'TO pp- mn .nI (nI)rii nrp 3Wni.in IV1i Nh1. PtOR31 -in t13i: ;o

mD

1

n tnnsp ' *T^y 3'l3

nn3

'll lnnl nn inzi

pfnt pRm 1 D-1t3

THE JEWISH

342

QUARTERLY REVIEW

Aaron is identical with Aaron b. Abraham b. Aaron who, together with his brother Moses, is so highly spoken of in the letter from the Pumbedita Gaon in 953 (7QR., XVIII, 402).41 In this epistle the Gaon directs his correspondent in Spain to send his letters through this Aaron (p. 403, "3t I f. ;T . I6 5 mi wN n 4 r1 ;p p'n)-um 1i1'1). Next to the Exilarch and Netira, this Aaron seems to have been one of the most influential Jews in Bagdad. After his death, his sons, the inrns,=, were the patrons of the Pumbedita academy, and to these Nehemiah refers in his letters. The fact that both epistles found their way to the Cairo Genizah tends to show that they were either sent to Egypt or to communities beyond, and were copied at Fustat in the process of transmission. Of the way how the correspondence between the Geonim in Babylon and the communities of Maghreb and Spain as well as other European countries passed through Fustat, the leading Egyptian community, more will be said later on. Now, whereas the letter published by Dr. Cowley may have been addressed to a community beyond Egypt (Pozn., ibid., 400, indeed thinks it is not the original), the epistle in Geonica could have only been sent to Egypt. The Gaon assures his correspondents that their requests will find influential support at the Caliph's court in Bagdad through the intervention of the sons of Netira and of Aaron. Till 969, when Jauhar conquered Egypt for the Fatimid 41 L. I5ff:

irnn

3 np mrin

l'nK j'i,K nnl

U a Iwv nK in:nT y3 rnVn= 1=1 n 3 I jti uKmruir-N IT Dn OYz 7'

i; nTW, nt ni

n ,Np1lV unp K:N11 ln

n W wrn

im1

4NnNr\11 w ptz K

''ID :: Dowg nI*rn D"n^D"W:nwonK:ln nD lannia^n3wn, .,l.

anlI DMMtNn'Zp

12n=K r.zn

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

343

al-Mu'izz, a vestige of authority remained there still with the Abbasid Caliphs of Bagdad. Their suzerainty over North Africa was done away with by the Fatimids several years before. Between 961 and 968 the Jews of Egypt could still obtain some assistance from influential advocacy on their behalf at the court of Bagdad. The details mentioned in these two letters enable us at once to identify the two fragments printed here as also coming from Nehemiah. The first (A) is very fragmentary and damaged, with beginning and end missing. I have found it in a box of fragments belonging to the Cambridge University Library Collection, and it is to be placed between glass.42 The brownish paper and ink, as well as the handwriting, at once betray Babylonian origin to one who has seen similar documents from Babylon. The ut~Q '42 are mentioned in line Ie, and it may safely be assumed that the fragment is a part of an original letter from Nehemiah to Egypt. The representative of the academy, Solomon b. 'Ali b. Tabnai, and a son of Aaron of Bagdad, who are mentioned in the letter in 7QR., XIX, occur here again. It seems that this Solomon b. 'Ali, the ?pp5,lived in Egypt, where he acted as central representative of the academy for receiving all donations, even from the countries beyond. As far as the fragment allows reconstruction, Nehemiah writes to a 'WK in Egypt who had some quarrel with a Itn (1. 3), as well as with his own community (1. 5). On that account the Gaon refrained from writing to him till peace should be restored. He now complains that his appeal for the annual support of the academy has been ignored by the umu2S =~ vrnm,most likely the community of the wt, 42 lhe

class-mark of this fragment is now T.-S. I2. 851.

Arabic writing apparently of later date.

Verso contains

344

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY

REVIEW

to whom the Gaon writes. The disappointment of the members of the academy is great. Nehemiah bitterly complains that his circulars appealing for support, sent out every year, are of no avail (11.9-14). It seems that when this letter was written Nehemiah had occupied the Gaonate already for some years. Of similar complaints we read in his letter of 962 (7QR., XIX, 11.9-II). The Gaon goes on to state in our fragment (11.I4-I5) that he spent much on writing appeals to double the number of people of former years; none that was known to him by name has been left out. The s'K in Egypt, to whom Nehemiah writes, is very likely none else but Elhanan, the father of the well-known Shemariah. Elhanan, his grandson, in a letter to Malij, describes

himself as n,'ln

p 5Inrw 5:

~'

?n

WnK pnK

1pi:n i: rn 1pi n4r 3N (T.-S. i6. tWKn p3nri 134, cited by Worman, 7QR., XIX, 729, no. XX). Also T.-S. I2. 193 contains the heading of a letter to Kairowan beginning with 'ri'v p (2) 5nWr' 5:5v 'Tnn wn pnfS (I) n'tlyn i5 (4) KSi'n :man Pins p: (3) 5qWI 5Vw ,n n,3 : 431n?, nw.

s ^rnpn 5npn..,

(6) ,,,

mnt:n.

As

will be

shown further on, Sherira and Hai corresponded with Shemariah in 991, and then Elhanan, his father, was no longer alive. It is therefore quite in accordance with the chronology that between 961-68 Nehemiah should have corresponded with Elhanan the elder. As spiritual leader of the Fustat community, he would have been appealed to for the support of the academy. Lines i6-I7 of our fragment seem to mean that the Gaon sent half the number of his circulars of appeals to 43 Shemariah also signs a document of

~w[~n :nl (JQR., XI, 646, n. a).

I002,

as tn3

iT'ljD:'l ~'1I

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

345

Solomon (b. 'Ali), the TpI, 'through the son of Aaron'. Evidently the donations would be sent to this Bagdad grandee, who would supervize their proper distribution. The other batch of circulars were entrusted to X. b. Sa'id It is b. pnIv (or pyln) 'through his brother, the Alluf'. a brother of difficult to ascertain whether this Alluf was 'the son of Aaron', since in the other letters we find Nn mentioned, or a brother of this unknown X. b. Sa'id, Dnn who evidently was a representative of the academy like Solomon b. 'Ali. Fragment B (T.-S. 8 J 203) is still more damaged. Therein recur the DinM4: and a certain Tob Alluf (1. 9), who is perhaps identical with the Alluf mentioned in fragment A. As to the name mt~, I refer to the Ab =tu, the son of Semah b. Paltoi (7QR., XVIII, 402 top). But the clearest proof that our fragment emanates from Nehemiah is the mention of N'V:wI[pwn:], 'the two boorish young men' (11.5-6), who opposed the Gaon and sent letters to the communities with the purpose of undermining his authority. The Gaon urges upon his correspondents to counteract the possible effect of his opponents' epistles. These two people are known from the letter of 962 (YQR., XIX, Io6, 11.24-5). As Pozn. (ibid., 40I) acutely remarks, KNs'wi tlwnn may be nicknames for N1'lwl lwrm. Thus Sherira, who refused Nehemiah recognition, may have been the object of the Gaon's invectives. The rest of the fragment is again an appeal for donations to be accompanied by questions and requests (1. 7 5 ythis suggests the reading of rivi n .n in t; yrn ,rmw; The representative (unmv, Geon., II, 87 for nriw 1'n i:). the above-mentioned Solomon b. 'Ali 11.IO-II) is probably 1. 11. 25-6). (cp. yQR., c.,

THE

346

JEWISH

REVIEW

QUARTERLY U

I -

II

v

*

' ' 0 ' O~~~~~~~~~~~' . ia 7' ? r

r=

^

. _ ~r

.

-R

.~ '

.

n

h

r

-

'~

3 -

.

?9 F

LJ n

Xr ^ ^S n

r>J^ ?

?

r

*-

E

ca

~I

n

-

_

7

&

a

r

n r_

r

*

*

ITr~~~~~rt . rl

-0 r-H ^ 35~~~~ ~

-

.

~~- ~* rl

Ia r_3

a. Zlorrz r-^a % 2; .- -- - *~~7r F : I rz --

r_

rl

r

,

r

?

-r

~~ ~ ?

t

n ~ ~J ~~

rz

r~~~~~~~~~~~i

~

~

~

d~

r

El

r

n

~

r-n

I

r_C !I

r

L3

,rl

nI -?

*

r

aSG

E;

nr

---i rr~~~~~ ~? 3_

r

.

S!

1 F -^

r l a ~~~~~~~~~2

~a ~ ~ . ~'z ? f~ ~z

n

x r

rl~~~r

-' rZ - J' -. ~ ~o" f n r F r -J J J^ ar ~~~~~~~~ c ~~ 35

r-

3

:^

rl

r

.

.

.

r b(~~~~~3

L'' r rZ

- -

*_

r

r-

a

~

:

,

r

'n

rZ- ? &

- ^

*

~

a~~~~~~i

-

*

I

r_,

l

'7,1

*

I

.

'

|

*^

zf:

r rr:

5 f2

. 131 ^Q

o?.

LI

t~

c

*S^i?:

I

nE

*

.zn

.

I-

-

Z,

E-

?

I

-

ri

ar

a'~,~

's

?

I

r

rz

ra"~~~~~IZ a~~~~~~~~Z

. rx

o

OF TIIE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

RESPONSA

347

u-

'

r IV-

F

rn

a

,:,

r ,,

r9

5

y

E-

i,

:

r

rC rr 3

13

' *

Z

U-

F, n :r

r

r_ -

C6 o n

-r

8

- ~ .

.

,

.

.

.;

+--

:

.

r

.

^Im

opr--

i r'

.

X

-n

a-

S-

o

n. p- c ?

. & I-- i > ?i i _f

r3 rs

iQ

r

~r

;

-

^

C 3I

r:

.

0

t. 0

. ,c,

._

.

.

~ n

. .

!

c r '

6

t?

348

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY REVIEW

3. Sherira and Hai. Above (VII, 467 if.) it has been pointed out, for the first time I believe, that Sherira, the Gaon of Pumbedita, apparently had his supreme court, the anm1 I tn3, in Bagdad. Probably the Ab Bet-Din resided in Pumbedita, where during the Kallah months the great meetings of the school were held. As the letter in Geonica (II, 87) has been shown above to have most likely been written by Nehemiah, this Gaon also resided in Bagdad. Farther on another letter by an anonymous Gaon from this city will be printed. As evidence for Sherira's supreme court at Bagdad a few essential lines were cited above from Bodl. 2876. I now subjoin here the whole fragment (A), according to the copy made by Dr. Cowley, who very kindly placed it at my disposal. A few remarks only have to be added as to the locality of the NPmrly Lplv at Bagdad. Le Strange in his Bagdad during the Abbasid Caliphate, I900, mentions a Suk al-'Atikah (p. 90) in the Sharkiyah Quarter, viz. that portion more on the river bank (of the Tigris) bore the name of an older suburb known as al-'Atikah (see map On the other hand a (or the) Jewish facing p. 47).48 quarter seems to have been farther west of the city. There existed a Kantarah-al-Yahuid which crossed the Karkhaya Canal (p. 150). Interesting for the cosmopolitan composition of the Bagdad Jewry is the mention of such names as 'Ali b. David the Palestinian (1. ii) and Nahum b. Aaron of Baalbek (1. i2). As regards Hai, the lines from T.-S. 13 J. I314 were n n~nDV Mn 'in;,ruM cited: n ;nrni Itwnnn rp= l;m 'In nlrln; mz^n14S,1-nDn 48

i 4w

Nn -,10%:

1 * 4wn SW

niur,

According to Yakit (see Wiistenfeld, ZDMG., XVIII, 399) the village Sunaya that stood on the western bank of the Tigris before the erection of Bagdad was afterwards called al-'AtTkah.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

349

as showing that Hai resided at Bagdad (above, VII, 467). Pozn. (Babyl. Geonim, p. 90), who printed these lines, was not clear about them, and also doubted Solomon's (b. Judah) authorship of the letter. As will be shown in another connexion, Yahya was a son of Solomon b. Judah who went to Bagdad to study under Hai. The Jerusalem Gaon in this letter to an Egyptian dignitary mentions that an epistle from his son enclosed a letter from Hai. As further evidence of Bagdad having been the place of residence of Hai, I refer to the Genizah book-list, published by Pozn. in ZfHB., XII, 119-20 (No. III). Lines 17-18 read P. Pozn. remarks (p. 122), Dn nilwvn t,n :-i .,. l'i1: 'Responsen aus Bagdad an Hai, wohl: Responsen auf Anfragen aus Bagdad'. It is very unlikely that such a near community as Bagdad should have sent written questions to be answered by written responsa. As was pointed out above (VII, 461), this procedure was only the case with distant communities such as Basrah, and especially the countries outside Babylon. But now that we know of the Gaon's residence at Bagdad, there is little doubt that the above item in the book-list means 'Responsa (to some unknown community) by Hai (min :'wi) from Bagdad'. The fact that they existed in Fustat shows that they were either addressed to or passed through Egypt.49 Of considerable interest is fragment B, Or. 556I B, fols. 9-0o, parchment, brownish ink, square, very stained and 49 Cp. further Bodl. 287710 containing a letter from 51pf PplF DiD) iP to Joseph b. Jacob b. ~57 of Fustat. The correspondent says VTI pl

n ,zp Kt win Nni mrnn 4np $ t Pnnn 1 1m X ;em -IMJ i3n

i mnw sn- 6ii

rsn

n1:

K f ni

yn

m*

l u:

K

n Nxwvo y

jo.

The date 12I3 is impossible, more likely 10I3. The correspondent is perhaps the son of the Kairowan scholar Joseph b. Berachiah (cp. note 59). VOL. VIII.

Aa

35?

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY REVIEW

damaged. Neubauer published in JQR. (VI, 222-3) a fragmentary letter (Bodl. 26689 = MS. Heb. e. 44, fols. 80-I) which contained the well-known remarks about Shemariah (b. Elhanan), as a former NK,1,nri nnlw Kws of the academy, and his son Elhanan. Unfortunately the text was not edited with sufficient care. Neubauer failed to point out, in the first instance, that between fols. 80 and 8I there must be a gap, as is evident from the context. This gap is now partially filled up by fragment B, though there is evidently another gap between fols. 9 and Io of Or. I have convinced myself by comparing the two fragments that they are similar as regards the parchment, size, and handwriting, the only difference being that Bodl. has been very well preserved and is clearly legible, whereas Or. is much damaged. Moreover, the context proves Or. fol. 9 to be a continuation of Bodl. fol. 80, while Bodl. fol. 8I follows Or. fol. 10. In the latter case, especially the verse of Prov. ;ni 15' I [tni] nDii: runs on from io. 6, tDn ,iD5 5i;' one page to the other; the dots above the letters are in both fragments. The letter must have been of considerable length; with beginning and end missing and the gap between fols. 9-Io-it should be noted that both fragments are joined parchment double-leaves-it must have been double the present size.60 From the continuation it is now clear that the R. Jacob, mentioned at the end of Bodl. fol. 80 b, was not Jacob b. Nissim of Kairowan, as Neubauer, 1.c., and Halberstamm, ibid., 596, held for certain. He is the son of Joseph, most likely the same (b. 'Awkal or 'Awbal) whom Sherira and 50 It is now hardly necessary to add that the doubts of Halevy (n''l'1 iD'WKunl, III, 299) as to the authenticity of the Bodl. Genizah fragment are entirely unwarranted.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

351

Hai eulogize so much in the letter printed by Marx, !QR., N. S., I, Ioi. He had rendered signal service to the academy during his stay in Babylon, and looked after its interests when residing in Egypt. Our fragment reflects a very depressed spirit of Sherira and Hai. That the letter emanates from them is clear from fol. 9, verso, 1. 8, ZK 1W IpI n:l, i.e. Hai. Sherira and Hai had evidently to encounter some opposition, as fol. io, recto, shows in particular (cp. 1. 4, nrt

D

n'np QN, and 1. 15, Qr~i

w).

But

who this opponent was is obscure. It is likewise difficult to ascertain who this Alluf was to whom this letter is 1tu:r i'm (fol. 9, addressed, and who is called [13vw] nmni verso, 1. 7). Eppenstein (Aschr., I9II, 476), who rightly suggested that R. Jacob at the end of Bodl. fol. 80 b was Jacob b. Josef (b. 'Awkal), is certain that the Alluf, to whom the letter was sent, was Jacob b. Nissim of Kairowan. Fragment B renders this suggestion highly improbable. The Alluf was evidently the representative of the academy to whom all donations were sent. Thus he transmitted the gift of Jacob b. Joseph (b. 'Awkal). He also had legacies for the academy (fol. Io, verso, 1. I ff.). It is very unlikely that Jacob b. Joseph should have sent his donations from Egypt to Jacob b. Nissim of Kairowan. The money would have to be sent back to Egypt for transmission to Babylon. The dangers of travelling in those days render such a procedure hardly likely. This Alluf must have lived in Egypt, where he acted as principal agent for the academy. He had friendly relations with Jacob b. Joseph (b. 'Awkal), Shemariah, and his son Elhanan, and also with Jacob Alluf b. [Nissim, as fol. Io, verso, 1. 15, is to be completed] of Kairowan. The people who left the legacies for the academy, viz. iD X. and David b. Joseph, apparently Aa 2

352

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

the Alluf's cousin, are quite unknown. This applies also to Hasan b. X. (fol. 9, verso, 1. I), with whom the Alluf corresponded. We come now to Bodl. fol. 8i, wherein Shemariah and Elhanan are mentioned. Besides minor omissions,51 a curious misreading of Neubauer obscured for so long an interesting and important detail of the inner organization of the academy. The colourless expression nrrw vKI 3lnnrm(! (p. 223, 1. I2), reads in the fragment nInw n KmY-im! We learn thus that the first of the three rows of the Pumbedita academy was called 'the row of the Nehardeans'. This suggests that when the famous school of Nehardea was closed, probably after the destruction of the town by Odenathus in 259,52 its scholars joined the newly-formed Pumbedita school and were granted the privilege of occupying the first row. In course of time the name remained, though its occupants were no longer scholars exclusively from Nehardea. We see that Shemariah was head of this row and yet he very probably came from Egypt, where his father held the dignity of w~', to Pumbedita for the purpose of study, just as his son Elhanan visited the school after him, and Solomon b. Judah sent his son Yahya to study under Hai. A suggestion may be ventured here that the 'row of the Nehardeans' was connected with the work of the In JQR., VI, p. 223, read i'T13 11'1 (11.3-4), 'lKR1'3 JliN n (1. la), 'V" C; (1. 23), brllIKnD n;1 (1. a6). Several words have rpI hIV Babylonian vowel-signs, while others have Tiberian. 52 Cp. Sherira's Letter Not t nK Vpn (p.29): rlMInI J11 n15 w 51

'n ann mm lnnt5 4nrb6v ,3=t=S5m3.=Nnl3 1}4 p3

IWnI) Mm-3 m53. 1541 Pa311

51tn g '-n;'m

N3-1-1 m3N2t nn

nlW nrl Nr1 piD (v. 1. nN"1315r ni1: 13yin Jew. Encyc., I, I45 b.

.

13! c011 See also Bacher,

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

353

Eastern Massorah. The Massoretic differences between Suranese ('t~D) and Nehardeans ('imn,m)are well known. R. Nahman, the well-known Amora of Nehardea, is mentioned as a Massorete in the Massorah Magna to ~ Gen. 27. 3 (prnm 2i ',n mn, cp. Ginsburg, n:r anan tnn Massora, I, 611i and Introduction, pp. 213 and 6II). A Massoretic fragment from the Genizah, which will be discussed in another connexion, mentions Nni' n'2i 'n'D. 'The house of Yelta' is probably the Massoretic school of R. Nahman. It was named so in honour of his wife Yalta, the daughter of the Exilarch (cp. Ber. 5Ib top, Shabb.

54b,

Gittin 67b, and Hullin I24a).

The work of the

Eastern Massorah53was hardly completed in Talmudic times. It is more probable that it was continued in the schools during the Gaonic period. Suranese had their academy, but the Massoretic work of the Nehardeans was carried on in the Pumbedita school, in particular by the occupants of the ritnm; nlw. It should be added that in the only instance in which Judah b. Ezekiel, the famous disciple of Rab and Samuel and founder of the Pumbedita school, is mentioned as a Massorete, he agrees with the Nehardean school. See the item in Ginsburg, Massora, I, 713a, which reads in the Genizah fragment mentioned before, ',n n,:1

i ,Dn1:nmn"ii 5SpTn, 1: ,^ D [i] ,hz inm (Deut. 32. 6) in nr4 N Nnr 4mi6i ntn'i w rT nnn Hpnnn Nnim .

nirib "l4

To return to Shemariah and his son Elhanan. About their activities in Egypt more will be said elsewhere. Here we are concerned with their relations with the Babylonian Geonim. As till now no responsum by Sherira and Hai to Shemariah was known, it will not be superfluous to cite here 53 About this Massorah in general see Kahle, Der MassoretischeText .. der Babyl. Juden,

1902,

and Die Massoreten des Ostens, I913.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW 354

354

a few lines from Bodl. MS. Heb. e. 98 (not yet catalogued), fols. 22-3.14 They contain the beginni'ng of a pamphlet of Gaonic responsa, much damaged and torn. Fol. 22a reads : nnm~

Shem ria.

?~

i-- n Ber 13b, is Talmudmopy read

Asitanh,p.ea2,n.f).on

otom

cp

the onthertthand theaKairowasnetex

involves the difficulty of the Talmud adducing a verse about VriNv i: 1'Z3

(2 Sam. 20.

23) as an inferencefor

vr 13 ~ritii. Yet this text was the correct one in accordance with the reading of the Babylonian schools. This we learn from an interesting passage in R. Nissim's Maftea~ on Sanhedri'n (as published by Israel Le'vi, RA.ZY, XLIV, 294-7, from a Genizah fragment).55 For our purpose here 54 I am under obligation to Dr. Cowley for facilities granted to me in reading this manuscript. 55 P. 296: V143 4%??1I'N-1?- m t .. IN 12 P1V14 ~Mlitntg

RESPONSA

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

355

it is of interest to learn that in 991 Sherira and Hai sent responsa to Shemariah. The pamphlet (kvi) of responsa used to be called after the beginning of the first question. See in en"3,No. 314 Vva'1i-1=1 VV0? 16)m 'v1 vti-i

72-1P

PZi1irc

pn5 b

'lrb

nl?2nNzn

n4 t&In7?2m

txalva,

and Thus the

the indices of responsa in Geon., II, pp. 57 ff. pamphlet of responsa to Shemariah was called #iltN 1V

[imlv'pin]nulnz miDn. Neubauer (j7QR., VI, 222) writes that Shemariah emigrated to IKairowan. For this there is no evidence whatsoever, and as far as I can see, this has been accepted by no other writer. But about his son Elhanan, it became an accepted opinion that he emigrated to KIIairowan. This is a suggestion of Pozn. (R_7., XLVIII, i6i, and 1-m

lm2

i l11-K n a

on ;l`~, no. i (p. 2, 11. 2-4) ji v 1K1Jim wn1 p pn5m ~6 5V

based

jM)''r3 IMM, no. ii), i

This has been accepted by Eppenstein (Msckr., igii, 614) while Dr. Davidson (7QR., N.S., I913-14, 53) calls Elhanan 'the well-known scholar of Kairowan'. All this rests on a very weak foundation. We have only to consider that questions from Spain and North Africa had to pass through Egypt on the way to Babylon, and that these usually enclosed donations for the collection of which the central representative was in Egypt, then there is no ground for Elhanan's supposed stay in KfIairowan. When Jacob's ,immi urn i1 ynnim ~wmbt NnnwtviKl-) %ringor' -i 'nm nixrnni 1111NIM TN.I-n "ni

bi

'lnl ~ri$'gn$'ur~ ~rin~n

rrlino it visnP P-rur '1:31 rr -IV ~IIrr 72. R. Meir ha-Levi Abulafla(rl"7y,

Ii

cited by DikdukeSoferim,Sanh., 1.c.) quotesa responsumby Hai aboutthe readingof this Talmudicpassage; very likely our responsumis meanthere.

356

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

(b. Patruin) questions to Sherira and Hai arrived from Kairowan in Egypt, Elhanan b. Shemariah, who probably arranged their transmission to Babylon, enclosed his own questions to the Geonim.56 This process of transmission has to be kept in mind in order to understand the fact that copies of several epistles from Babylon to North Africa and Spain have been preserved in the Cairo Genizah. Again, the indices of responsa to Meshullam b. Kalonymos, to Fez and other countries (as preserved in Geon., II, and in Wertheimer's nra. ninp) clearly indicate that the responsa were copied by Fustat scholars for their own purposes. Reference is also made to the item in the above-mentioned book-list (1. I3), 1in iu1 nrritmnnriw, which shows that the 'questions from Tahort (in Morocco) to Hai' were copied in Fustat. In this connexion the following lines (the only ones I could make out) from T.-S. 8 J. 2812, vellum, damaged and torn, will be of some interest, especially as the persons mentioned therein are known from Gaonic responsa.57 The address (on verso) reads: 56

After writing this I have found a Genizah fragment, which will be published in another connexion, containing a letter by Elhanan to Damascus. Herein he states that report reached him of his son-in-law having been drowned in the sea and that his daughter was left behind in Kairowan. The l ri' corresponding lines read 12"11 l1niDn1D lkil 'm urii-rnwr ql 1 nbK 1I1nD ^i

M42 13t3t3 (r. linnn) uinnn nYlW

mnnmnmis,INvpzi1DnnnD,nin-w

W, 1;n

N123vnirnl

0 n imm yWnwrFn

rll"l yi31. Assuming that Elhanan's son-in-law was a native of Kairowan, it is possible that Elhanan visited this city on the marriage of his daughter. 57 This fragment is probably identical with the one cited byWorman, JQR., XIX, 730, no. xxv. The contents of Aram. box 64 have now, I understand, been transferred to bound volumes.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

~r (5)

On the recto I read the following lines 3n4m' tv~ NYINI16DN)~yn

i (8)

witht Sherira and Hai (cf).

no-5(.

7 a~nd(6 ~Q.

.fl~ nos.

VI 223-4;

b.Arhm~mni oterp.ni loknownfrom

7,pns

lv~

mmn%N 1=

known fom othr Gatoni resp9 'onsaashain ... 351-69

357

correspovnded

J~- -iz

z~

.i~ n. 67).n Samuel4as having crepne

sent questions to Hai. We find him, according to our fragment, travelling with a caravan from Tahort to Egypt. On the way he passes K~abes, and Moses b. Samuel ibn jama' writes hastily a question to R. Hai which Sam. b. Abr. is to take with him to Egypt.5 There all the questions (as well as the donations) pass through the hands of Joseph b. Jacob (b. 'Awbal), who transmits them to the Gaon. This Joseph evidently transmitted in return the responsa from the academy to the communities of North Africa and beyond. This representative of the academy is clearly the son of Jacob (b. Joseph b. 'Awbal) who has been 58 The letter was given to a non-Jewish memiber of the caravan because Sam. b. Abr. had to leave in advance on account of the Sabbath (11.9, io).

THE JEWISH

358

QUARTERLY REVIEW

dealt with above. Continuing his father's tradition, Joseph looked after the interest of both the Sura and the Pumbedita academies in Egypt. This is evident from the letter of n3:l n1 Pt1: Samuel b. Hofni (YQR., XIV, 309, cp. 621: n . .,, 3p^ pppi P 1PN s1 10 5K). q [n]W

14p ntrnw4n nyrn

Joseph's sons were called Hillel and Benjamin. These are referred to in 1. I6 of our fragment. In addition to the few letters addressed to Joseph b. Jacob, as mentioned in the Bodl. Catalogue (II, Index),69 the following fragments are cited here. Or. 5542, fol. 22, contains a letter which reads on verso: :lZy p : plP tDW, 1p p: D1 , . YADMKI:I '11 60 ['D]p:Kal

nilp i sa gr

;Dnrwin

'mn.

tol'm

Likewise

Or. 5563, C, fol. 19, is addressed (on verso) ,D"mn ,1tl ID ii

^MV 1I I3W

tP qD

(2)

a-DiX

'2

i"b

:W

I 55NV NWSK

plnhDK;3 iD-Kt. Several persons are mentioned in the and nm tp lDr' letter, among them nmp[te ;MnVD r nnmD Finally in T.-S. 13 J. 2615 Joseph is styled wv ilo~ ;np wtn npr p . . . . :. His sons Hillel and Benjamin are nzn.?61

also mentioned. We thus learn that both he and his father bore the title of r: wt'n. 59 Bodl. 28779 contains a business letter, in Arabic, from 9: 3D.1l [Dl 0

,^3C1 to our Joseph b. Jacob. Probably the first of the correspondents is identical with the Kairowan scholar referred to farther on (under 4). W e shall thus learn that he had a brother called Nissim. 60 This Joseph b. Jacob of Tripoli, who is also the correspondent of the Bodl. letters, is probably identical with Il: Niq iD 'ILDlpl)Dt3 :p lD in the document of ny XVI, 575-6). (JQR., np)i 5'lfi o034 '5D D,pO This Tripoli is most likely the port on the North-African coast, east of Kabes (cp. map attached to Wiistenfeld, Geschichteder Fatimiden Chalfen). 61 Probably identical with the person mentioned in the deed drawn up at Kairowan in 1050 (Bodl. 2805. 23).

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

RESPONSA

359

A (recto) : 1 ......

.....

(4) nplp

...

.

. (3) K .....(2)

yW.....

(I)

mn ... .....' L. .. j13 ptn:ln,n .. rn (5) ] wmn tllwn'3 nrl nn^ntn ws- KzNn nIK-in n[*r]3 [nn31no nl . rK'rn mI *nl nn"n ns[3n] [J]' K..... , Kpny Kp^l3 n3 K9[FA]'n 3[([3]nip'Wwny nK[n n]5ni ?[5K nzw8] 53 K[D'P] mwn[n3n]n 62]tDKU n[i8] 8 i^8 88528 3K1 NPD

n3,Dpe nim 'rop3 [i'd] inwr note, 5y '6D 4nD

c. 5IE 'nn 'r'D inS'3on Kn'nast;

itself ntherive placdonbing

n [n nnngris

D 'K nw eof course 5, n'3 'a adlnD ins,

i

nrp

,n [!D 3n]3 Kn '^ nii 5nanp,Zn n l3 t
KN1Y .. nNSK ?%t'1i Kwnm?n3Dn3i

Q3nSs33311Snan pi

*1 Snn I5

n'?3 K:n"i^n3n^t iK ,8nin3mwSx

6 SipSfnRa Kn yg*ntKB SnnDSnLSK v T1'mYpK %i&
[]in,n ygn 3t:3rKI3<

ann-31 'in

.3

3n DN n:nD: KnSK= nnmKrnu

w }3 41jntt DK-I'n KuI8tIW lnt3

62

p

mn ,D1 =n

[D:] Dnn3) pn i'TN=n:niTni-

ni5p

Read perhaps :KN, nN,

shore, coast; cp. Pinsker, p"5, QnaDD, of course Bagdad 3IKf3K5K;

43, note, nK^JDKtKmW5y Kn33 4ntl t itself being placed on the river Tigris [nWJ]. 68 B. Batra 175 a.

1t3

360

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

B Bod. 266819 (fol. 8ob, bottom) = YQR., VI, 233, 11.6-8. VIz1D 'M 11114'nniwn r:nlyS %M *,,t ON9 nlw *wm iznlm InMI- 5yl 3pp wzomivn 1)34 -7rnrn mn3n.MK nnv, l ymmnn (Or. 5561 B, fol. 9, recto)

psp 3nn '1WKi[i 5r] nOw K3['ii K:D] qi^o 'nni1, p1'*. ., , p'< jpl 7[pi rn1] . . . . 5 ZD aDD3 f1K p7 mDnT .

'2 DDI1DyM IP'::

l3. .

..

.

.

pi' 13,ON tnl

5^ ...

unSnn1 ,..........

5

...

DnWIU ;0 iD13 Kh '[3,

'

M [

[]D

l ,hY?] rn[y]n nmonD ,m[D[ntn

, .

'

??

nqlmNn ninSlzn . . . v:n

wS n

.

.**...

m w nCnn I]w l[lsn g nnno w hw wsn . rn n11n3 ehestppdth

. . , , . 10 *.

**

ne[n,. R

niy

.m..e... or h

' v

(fol. 9, verso) I Vj,O nrnrnW

?? 1,I'mI[a3..i[

la] ;Dn i6

SN

i^S[nr]'?33 ,ni n[3n]3 LWHph5 tnMN& ?

nws m1x'n 1'ln rims ns w~,ml nmrt

64 Can also be read 'jl=: , which would make no sense. Read 133S3, i. e. 'he stopped the oppression which was in our heart', viz. he relieved our cares. 'I-Yi can also be read as nS1~D, but would again give no meaning.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

ny lm .,,.. .ih :S m *n ,... -wK]

36I

n3t n-i inlnl-inn 5 1i ninNin nI

... . 'r1 [n,2nn].. nn&I$o1 nSn nm n~nm.. .in ... nn~ ^^i iu'm5Io m61p3D [i3]wmmnnmanwn'L:n"S],n65tpSm. 66 [C1]W

: 5v i=5 5K n&d rinK a1w: 3 D3"N, 'I"ltD ^1'

.331.

ni 310,n'

(fol. Io, recto) . u-1S'O binpl,' 13D
i-33 S nlnnD1 1

IU QNtOnDI 1[3D] 1 137 1p nI4

nnlq 67u,n',n

my nrw, mnM: nK

nt ts nmp bN tpnK IDK im -tr[*] n: n13wn nm 1 inn'u3[.nI3 ,5 5s ] Dmq1$ u;,n uma n: nqn[,un~',, ] nnn n 3n,..... bpn5 nIro bint ,rl . Sn oK

Wpn)1 y4Nn

QD 7 n :3 ni,p

W'51.-

+.

515yn;ti nwtr..? , ] n*v9n'[nl *T[m

I0

nit n'nzyptqtzrgn,n E3n1"n[, 13]

m tShl W 6hi w Dtt

" ;j [Sin] 6:DM.5

y~zn -,p,n[,]i5 *w 1Iy qmnnwnln [i]i;

ii 31

wrn

'w^ W

lt;l 1M

:nn[Ia(?]

15

65 Read P5023. 66 The first letter looks more like a [t than V. If D, then read ['JDYP. 67 68 Isa. 28. 2o. Cp. Job 30. I.

THE JEWISH

362

QUARTERLY REVIEW

(fol. o1, verso) n]66:ni

69f,jr *D

n K*

,*o

i 6i l

n

p Kn 63D1

nrw

O

'on6i5nro rri

,rr -1 DD 5 nvyn [D]:pn K INUK 7?'n0Y r y]np 'nNt nyr ['ry] wn 5K n'nA 53K [;Dwmns n]nnn;lnmiynnnm nn-in It 5 . ... ntpn >,26681] . .]p;, (fo.-rn nn8n=eni, Bod 9 n Ct71 Npp 5 n^ Q^ )K ., ....

b. so Israel. iSamuel n wn . and his ofn ...c. oi nXIV, [1YQR

A,N T.r Fragment PiP

3ao nme ntions t

aby Syh [ent entered upon

nagre

a ]ad1 Hall

[rnl] In 9Dv' [iD] I

rn oi nwyn

,^n: [tD nl]atn 53 ri: ni'81

l r t>K

nnD 15 qi 5 jpp DWD] p 3jp 6i nn [WKR] ntl5ni sMTniKi 3:;nn iK1 [i

Bodl. 66819 (fol. 81 a, top) = y oIn 71 ' D6n

4.

Samuel

b.

., VI,

33, 1. 9.

.t6i3igw

4i bi ?in

Yaofniand his son Israel.

The two small fragments printed here can without difficulty be assigned to Samuel b. Hofni. Fragment A, T.-S. 12. 733, vellum, square, 16 x 16 cm., has a counterpart in the letter from this Gaon, published by the Rev. Margoliouth, J7QR., XIV, 308. There the Gaon mentions the agreement entered upon by him and Sherira and Hai that all 69 PS. 33. 770 Sanh. 1o3 b; Yoma g b; cp. Yalk. Isa. ? 436 and Kings 1 read ). 71

Prov. o10.6.

?

246.

For

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

363

general donations should be equally divided between both academies of Sura and Pumbedita. Only in case a donor assigned his contribution to any of the Geonim by name, he would be entitled to retain it for himself. The same agreement is spoken of in our fragment (11.1-2). After the death of Jacob n;1r: n (b. Nissim) of Kairowan, Joseph b. Berachiah became his successor in representing the academies (11. 2-7). In JQR., I.c., he is styled pi nlwn. Joseph b. Berachiah is also known from questions addressed to Sherira and Hai (in"a,no. I78). It appears that this Joseph, just as Jacob b. Nissim before him, was the representative of the academies for North Africa (and perhaps also for Spain), receiving the donations as well as the questions addressed to them. These the representative would send from Kairowan to Egypt, where Joseph b. Jacob (b. Awbal) would arrange their transmission to Babylon. From 11.5-6 of our fragment it is evident that Iny ?p 9ulmn '-in who sent to Hai (? rnlt? D'n) I50 Dirhems (7QR., XIV, 308) was none else but Jacob b. Nissim.72 The Gaon states that the names and the questions of the correspondents of former times are preserved in the The same we read in the letter of academy (11. io-II). 953 (YQR., XVIII, 401, bottom). Interesting is Samuel b. Hofni's reference to his commentaries on the Bible, Mishnah, and Talmud (11.I213). Besides his Bible commentaries and Talmudic compendiums (cp. Harkavy, Studien u. Mitteilungen, i880, III, 3-4; yQR., XIV, 311; ZfHB., VII, 183, no. 3), only one Talmudic commentary is so far known by Samuel b. 72

Eppenstein (Mschr., 1911, 471, n. i) is certain that the late scholar was Jacob b. Awbal (there is an obvious confusion in this note of the names Jacob and his son Joseph).

364

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY REVIEW

Hofni (cp. the Bookseller's Catalogue (yQR., XIII, 52-6), no. 55, ,=n pl nrim'vn lin, and Pozn., ibid., 326-8). Fragment B (Or. 5538) is described in the Rev. Margoliouth's Catalogue of British Museum Hebrew and Samaritan MSS., III, 19I5, 561a. The last line but one is printed there as (!)N'wn n:w,2,n w' 1p 5Kv "=DD, which gives no sense. But the first word really looks more like KMthan =nn and thus perfectly restores the meaning. 'And I, Israel son of the Gaon, send many greetings' (ImlyaIn :1 10w ..). The letter was written in Elul 1315 Sel. = 1004. Israel was then already of an age to collaborate in his father's He is responsa. Probably he drew up the epistle. mentioned as nm'win'51D in the letter by Samuel b. Hofni to Fez (yQR., XVIII, 404, 1. 9: o' n 1[ID t' =] ' InI '11 ' [nnin3 =] ha ?nn [n:,v'nil=]).73 Probably this son of Samuel b. Hofni is identical with pninintw '" mentioned r InWr in Giat, wt, I, 70 (,rn ,m D-:i in1n x1m) after Sherira and in 83 (tnzn KtnW,,:m npoDm 'D rn). Steinschneider, B. H., IV, 60, wants to alter Israel into Samuel (b. Hofni) because ' der Name Israel scheint tiberhaupt nicht vorzukommen'. Ginzberg (Geon., I, I79, n. i) relegates this Israel tiln, to North Africa. All this is now superfluous. The fragment does not tell us who these two correspondents were who sent the questions to Samuel b. Hofni (last line 1;5~[lKi]1li5nv 'w). The donor of the contribu13 By the by, these very abbreviations, as well as the others occurring in this Genizah-letter, show that it is not the original but a copy made in FustAtwhen transmitted to Fez. - Marx's suggestion (ibid., p. 77I), followed by Pozn., pl'pn,II, 94, to read t'n 'IDID [IDt] W [p1] j11 tD= needs no refutation now. In RAJ., LXII, 120-3, Pozn. withdraws this suggestion and gives the correct rendering of this passage. The existence of an Israel Gaon, the son of Samuel b. Hofni, is now beyond doubt. (See also JQ?., N. S., VIII, 7.)

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

365

tion which their letter enclosed is called Jacob b. Maimon. The last name points perhaps to Spain. A l :nq nn4wmi

(recto)

rn nw n=3,nml nilnwn

{ n[n Qn]

rwmn-iniWn m nWK:31inn 1nSmyS nnpr1rw3np[-n] inan 7'5Y

--nn

Pw n

.1l..pT ,n:r m:t

p9im 1Nw

a10 'V1-l 3K31

viID

in]

;

Zj

1

In=

3 l'rnv1nnvi

Qal Lnni

'31 lpy P1J iD:n K93

10n[1]pnrn181 im; 1,1nyi *n: **nK*

lvKis

': IN

5

.mi11 mn rn1p12

,

< Jlln^nan nTO 5tn 13wnlo I'nml;lm [il]9[] ri pn arin= nD1Kwnznv irr =n[ ixi n5v[n]wn[l]

S nRK

wR^1W[KN:] nipipn nnlirwl nnrnw ^: t-p th 149Dwn nnrmnzwn5l$ nitlInn[l] 5K nmina wrmz nywr Pt^

tn WnID .n

10

13inn I3 ziinni

nImmi wpnp[n] : l3PlgnlUDnnimmyn'n t} ni[nD]DDI^wTI [CK<"pDn] -lWfi m3n*s.13

4z1

p13}ltn

,

....

B 6i13 wnvli ni[n*) :1n "44'i im[w]n

rinmi lwn btw[*]

lOinwi t"o3 ["t3] p apy '-in ixivi nrn wnnz [n]y ^vni . . .4.Ps. 2!. Psn 5 . 23. 75'nz '11 , it p . iRi31r1 1vo-[m] [ni]313 t1w3nf3[l]

[i)= nam833 tB [nnvy] iKNI4 r5SK

. g, ,, flin-l

31u n3li3 =l,p[n]

lIK 16n31 DnIDni5i[mn],,..rni

74 PS, S5. 23.

VOL. VIII.

nwn

[3n3l 5

75 PS. 21. 4.

Bb

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY

366

REVIEW

n^lnnnimaDn ns6n^iin^wnmnW[yil] vznlibnwIn[] ., . a greetng nlSwnl m'Num. =wm p roer y na priest.s n5.

nn

nnllwv in4inn Ni wt;h5 [LmK [5m]4lrr in'z' z] mvian wJ1 i:w nzw 5IS^ W1 '1I K'ovn E11W!, Wt : p1 76 15W

nzn

yowyj31 o^ 76

i3 [^^]1 1:^') s

nK

Num. 25. I2, a proper greeting by a priest.

(To be continued.)

CORRIGENDA IN VOL. VII, 457 if. P. 468, note 12. For Bodl. 26694, read Bodl. 2669g. P. 471, note 15, 11.3 and 7. For Charasan, read Chorasan. P. 472, 1. 12. Read R. Hai reports in a responsum. For p. 465, read p. 461. P. 473, note 17, 1. Io. For Geon, read Gaon. P. 475, 1. I6. Read I'JnBl21 n i%'y; 1. i8; for 630, read 636. P. 478, 1. 4. For n13nnn, read 55r nn,; note 22 i. 4, for 1n, read 1'nn ; 1. ii, for nilNnpn, read NI1'pHl. P. 48I, 11.2-3. For Shemarya b. Ephraim, read Ephraim b. Shemarya.

THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM AS A SOURCE OF JEWISH HISTORY* BY JACOBMANN, Jews' College, London. APPENDIX 5.

TO CHAPTER

I (concluded).

Two anonymous letters by Babylonian Geonim.

THE two fragments printed here bear the evident stamp of Babylonian provenance. Fragment A, T.-S. 13 J. 25`, paper, square hand, brownish ink, is a long part of an appeal for support of the academy. Only a few lines seem to be missing from the beginning of the letter which contains bitter complaints and reproaches about the complete indifference the outside communities show towards the school in Babylon. The fragment has a close resemThe same blance to Saadyana, nos. XLV and XLVI. them. of all of is characteristic tone Emphasis plaintive is given to the fact that the school is deteriorating owing to want from which its members are suffering. Only with great difficulty are talented young men prevailed upon to remain in the school. Rather than suffer want, they prefer to seek a livelihood elsewhere (cp. our fragment, 11.I9 if.). The verse of 2 Chron. 31. 4 (1. 30) is also quoted in Saadyana, no. XLVI, recto, 1. 67. Interesting is the mention of DnMnn rw.' (1. 21), which seems to have consisted of the study of the Mishnah attended by still youthful disciples (11.XI-2). The "nvil tnmnnr (1. 23) were already grown-up scholars themselves, having children who refrained from attending the academy * See vols. VII, 457-90, VIII, 339-66.

I39

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

140

owing to their being obliged to earn a living. The nmwn of the school are also mentioned in another Genizah-letter from a Babylonian Gaon (cp. JQR., XVIII, 404 (:rnnm fi1nr0), 7771; see also Ahimaas Chron., Neub. II, I30, WnM^l 0n4rni? m nw, in). Of more intrinsic importance is fragment B, which I have found in T.-S., Box K 21, marked on the wrapper as ' Didactic letters'.7 It consists of four leaves of a quire, paper, size 17 x I2 cm., square hand with a turn to cursive. After examination, the leaves turned out to contain specimens of letters for various occasions. Complimentary letters of no special interest cover leaves I and 2. There is a gap between leaves 2 and 3. Fragment B then follows on leaves 3 and 4 (verso, first line). The rest of verso of leaf 4 contains a specimen of a letter of condolence (nrnn,). It is evident that a copyist made a selection of letters emanating from a head of a school. Thus fragment B is not the original, but there is no ground for doubting that the copyist had before him an original letter by a Gaon residing in Bagdad (fol. 4, recto, 1. 7). The Gaon requests his correspondent to send questions on subjects concerning Bible, Mishnah, and Talmud, and also the usual donations The same request we read in the letter by (11. I6-i8). a Gaon of Pumbedita, dated 953 c.E. (7QR., XVIII, 403, 11. 19 ff., i1 ;i' n:2 1.n 1pP

pnlni, Kmp)rT.n ji':

...

-lnnm

-ni[nn).

But the chief interest of the fragment lies in the author's defence of the Rabbinic tradition. A number of traditional laws, not mentioned in the Pentateuch, can be derived from the other books of the Bible. This proves that they existed in early times. Some of them are mentioned in the 77

The permanent class-mark of this fragment is now T.-S.

13J. 31.

4.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

14I

Bible, exclusive of the Pentateuch, but most of them were known to the scholars and handed down from generation to generation (fol. 4, recto, 11.I-5). In deducing a number of traditional laws from the Prophets and the Hagiographa, the writer of the letter shows in several points independence from the Talmudic method, a fact unexpected from a Babylonian Gaon and one that does not fail to enhance the interest in the argument which will be discussed here in detail. The verse of i Sam. 20. 27 is evidently cited to prove the existence of two days Vin aI' (fol. 3, recto, 11.I-2). Rashi and Kimhi translate uw,n wtnn nron a's the second day of the month. But Targum apparently took the phrase to mean the second day of New Moon.78 We find Benjamin Nehawendi accepting this inference.79 Also Saadya took the verse in this meaning, against which Jefet b. 'Ali polemizes (cp. Pozn., yQR., X, 25I).80 Also Salman b. Jeruham 78 Ed. Lagarde, XNr,n

KU 1 KNl'f '1v Ir1nm'nlnn I, 'on the the of the second month second day i.e. was the which '1?12 ', day following r'~i, for which the technical term is '131. Dr. Buchler has drawn my attention to the fact that it is not the preceding month that is called '1t3 , as is generally assumed and stated, but the new month. In Erub. -W'l tVNWi, 4l~' Wl 39a (Mishnah and Baraita) we read -:Iynn Nx?w not Elul, but ;T"' would be "131l; Rashi supplements '31"' WYNP f 13:t1n )1N, which is not in the Mishnah. See also Shebiit io2, tDnlWv The commentators nn n n. rInn in ,nt in1 n pmi untD m ny1?nZ supply ~1I after wifnn. But in the light of Erub. 39 a W'nnI here is the month on which the day of New Year falls, viz. Tishri. Thus in Targum 'T1Y 'r^i'n Inn'P (for K31'n KiT'11 'gly) can only be translated 'the the second of (or new) month', i. e. the second day of New Moon. )13Z 79 Cp. the extract printed by Harkavy, Studien u. Mitteilungen,VIII, 176, 5 a, b. Eijah, 0 rn , 'also aannen ann vin ewr, 'W 1 wn t wnrnnsninv: ,^ -nN^1. QW 1 "WKi W tnnsnon nFwnn 80 Aaron b. Elijah, jy jp, 5 a, also quotes Saadya's view, nrt, naln ;ltl D'3 w rn WvKi1Wyz mni ntl wrn nnrnn mn CnK1S i

142 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

142

argues against the two days of New Moon in the diasporaA'8 Likewise the K~araite Aaron b. Joseph in DIIV 113D ed. Firkowitz, Koslov,i835, to ?i Sam. (7a), refutes the deduction of the second day of New Moon from this verse.8 Jer. I7. 22 tells us about the prohibition of carrying burdens from **Nnrilr IInV' which is not menMV~Ito DNXIM tioned in the Pentateuch (fol. 3, recto, 11.7-1o). The very same argument was used by a disciple of Saadya, Jacob b. Samuel (cp. about him Pozn., Kaufmnannz-Gedenkbuch, ?i69if.), as is evident from the retort of jefet b. eAli.83 Likewise Isa. 58. 13 as denoting that no common talk (~1rnNnf) should be indulged in on the Sabbath (fol. 3, recto, 11.io-i2) is a point of dispute between jefet b. 'Ali and Jacob b. Samuel.8 Meshullamnb. K~alonymosin his polemics against the Karaites (printed by Freimann, Judaica: Festschnift HermnannCohen, 569 if.) also uses this verse The K~araiteJeshua b. of Samuel to prove VlThi' n1v? (no. I, P. 570). Juda likewise refutes this deduction (cp. Pozn., Karaite Literary Opponents of SaadYa, 52).

p")$,~ 81Cp Pinsker,

; nyir Mhi

84

5W . -

Ivtn

Pinsker,1c.2:

21-2

i:

Di"X W

~'T ~.

iyumli'iiIn

nnr rirw n'z- I gD

2I-2

" nW '

11)llNl134=

ip

1V

But Aaron b. Joseph to Isa. (1. c., 39 a) comments, V11 'IYT '1211 To this prohibition in general, cp. Schechter's Zadokite Fragment

RESPONSA

OF THE BABYLONIAN

GEONIM-MANN

143

The Halaka that in the jubilee year a present has to be returned to its donor is deduced from Ezek. 46. I17 The Mishnah (Bekor. P5b) records (foil. 3, recto, 11.i2-i6). it as a dispute between R. Me'ir and his contemporaries But it is to be noted that the Biblical inference in Babli is

from Lev. 25. flK rni$. 1111n

10,

1-1i'jl

P.01

1t11"MID4m

nnn

Im tWP

nl

The author of our fragment prefers to adduce the explicit verse of Ezekiel. Instructive is the next item (fol. 3, recto, 11.i6-i9, verso, 11.i-2). From Haggai 2. i 2 we learn that if not the n'lp)nvn itself but a thing in contact with it touches any other object, it does not impart ' sanctity' to it (n"ip ym m n-p N~. Thus the verse of Haggai is explained according to its literal meaning. Well known, however, is the quite different explanation in Pes. 17 a. e'lip nv is taken to mean NIZ nv which imparts 'defilemeht' to the cloth, and this is transmitted in succession to the articles of food mentioned in the verse (cp. the exposition of this Talmudic explanation in Maimonides, Introd. to Mishnah Comment. on nrvi-iu 'ii towards end). We find Ibn Ezra to Haggai, 1.C., polemizing against this explanation of the verse and insisting on its natural meaning.85 Also the K~araite Jacob b. Reuben gives this explanation.86 But in our -K ,V K, and Yer. Sabb. r5 b, top (H. part io, 11.27-8), jD'11~2 111 VX bVVJ1D1110N5 11-3-5 Z* 1 -iii-z4rp 4i121 yIZV pN"

V

DK5 -'int

fi'22 Ism'

v - A

a NI

i

THE JEWISH

144

QUARTERLY REVIEW

fragment we see the Gaon taking Haggai 2. 12 in its natural meaning long before Ibn Ezra. This necessitates to explain Lev. 6. 20, to which Ibn Ezra refers, again in a way different from the Talmud, viz. that if e"ip nwn has immediate contact with an object, it will 'sanctify' it. But the Talmudic deduction is that this takes place only when the object touches and also absorbs some substance from the 'np'wV (cp. Pes. 45 a, top, and parallels: ivK i: tPW NIy inwI3 Y'n ny5 Kt "MK^Z '121 np1' nnv=m pV From Ruth 4. 7 the Gaon infers that if a person makes a declaration (I: i; 'r,1,), it is legally ratified by the symbolical exchange of a shoe or any other thing (fol. 3, verso, 11. 2-6). Evidently the inference is from the last clause of the verse mKW: nlynn ntli in the meaning of testimony, ntI attestation. So also Ibn Ezra a. 1. (nll nnr nilmwynn min jplisnn;i 3n1= nl9ri

nn

n nn = t wismn wD

svq:

1W,-nt

y

i2:1n)and Jacob b. Reuben, notn 'D (I4a), nrnl min nmynn ISnWo. The Gaon's inference essentially agrees with the Halaka. Thus, e.g., that the i:p is not restricted to 'shoes' only, but can consist of any other thing (i twIz:a )" S '~2z Nip mqn iu jpKW< '52), cp. B. m. 47 a, Kidd. I3a, .rlw in Yet which the is the inference defined shows n'=U,n way independence from the Baraita in B. m. 47 a ('131 en3). Ps. 51. I9 evidently refers to ni5 (fol. 3, verso, 11.6-io), because the next verse reads 'Do good in Thy favour unto Zion, build Thou the walls of Jerusalem'. It should be noted that the Agada does not agree with this explanation of the verses. Joshua b. Levi seems to take Ps. 51. 19 to n2n5 i~nn y'wv nf nnn:M ! 282,

IN

n pI3pir m nlni

nlK imnin

end, 283, 284, beginning.

tN1 n'p.

1n-1:2

' nvN w

nNon

Cp. also Hadassi, Eshkol, Alph.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

145

refer to Temple-times. When the Temple was standing, if a man brought a burnt-offering, he had only the reward of his sacrifice. But he of the contrite spirit is regarded as if he had offered all kinds of sacrifices, as Ps. 5I. 19 shows (Sanh. 43b, top; Sotah 5 a). For other Agadic explanations of this verse, see Lev. r. c. 7; Pesikta 158 a. Ingenious is the inference from Job 42. I5, that each of a man's daughters is entitled to a tenth part of his The Halakah of rnw'g property (fol. 3, verso, 11. 10-14). t'D~: is well known (cp. especially the Baraita in Ket. 68 a, bottom, and Ned. 39 b, bottom). But its deduction from this verse of Job I could not trace in the Talmud.87 In conclusion it should be noted that Job 15. I8 is explained in an early Agada quite different from the meaning the author of our fragment gives to it in fol. 4, recto, 11.3-5 (cp. the Baraita in Sotah 7 b). Who the writer of our fragment was is impossible to gather from the part that has been preserved. We only know that he lived in Bagdad and was regarded as an authority by the people (fol. 4, recto, 11. 5-I2). He evidently tried to defend the tradition against the attacks of the Karaites, and in doing so he endeavoured to take to his aid the verses of the Prophets and the Hagiographa. In order to forestall the retorts of his opponents, he gave the verses their natural meaning and avoided the Talmudic method of deduction. The nearest thought is to identify the writer of this letter with Hai b. David, who was Dayan at Bagdad prior to his assuming the Gaonate of Pumbedita. According to Kirkisani, Hai and his father David trans87 Cp. also Rashi to Job, v. 1.: D) nrnl r n1 , ;nm3w'in Dn In t ,wrn tn-N,".- For the Karaite view about a daughter's share in the inheritance, see Pozn., JQR., VIII, 692, note 3. L VOL. IX.

146 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

z46

lated 'Anan's Book of Prece.pts from Aramaic into Hebrew, and examined its sources (cp. Harkavy, Hebrew Graetz, III, 503). Probably this Hai' sznr~m omi is referred to by jefet b. 'Ali and Sahl b. Masliahi as the author of a book against the Karaites (cp. Pinsker, C"N, , 148-51 and i183). But as the writer of the letter requests his correspondent to send to Bagdad questions as well as donations, it seems that he was the head of an academy there. It is therefore more probable that he belongs to a later period, when the Pumbedita Gaon had his residence at Bagdad. A

nm m:v14

92

~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~91lm

i: nN

(recto)

rm

-v-

in

Nznz

zv

b m mfw"

tv w-pipr In=i 901:~

89 Ps. 78. 3. 90 Cp. Cant. 8. 6. no read meaning; gives mm Z,ITCM plivni and MVI being d. synoniyms for prayer, eP. Ps. 55. 3; 77. 4, and see Zunz, Literaturgeschz. syniag. Poestie, 398 and 402, S. V. '2 CP. Jer. I7. I. 13 Referring to the phylactery on the arm. 94 Cp. Isa. 49. i6. 95 Cp. Isa. 30. 2.

" Ps.

91

71.

223.

13ii

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

RESPONSA

,n rIn oy mnnrw ,pIa np

[3o]

n p 'ins.1i

i3zm -on .nwn

sn NM

1nMyKwn limn [tl]D'n

1: rni1

DKln3p3 r[v]

nsmnn

97

bu n

nr, ..n.Im

N D.'

3

n D nm K1, n5 h

1ni uah 7 b.InyD 47 a, b; Temn

wiin Dgin nm, &
E344Iv IniND 1

15

mnn in

nmn Dw

Q p^nipn n biil DOrn Rni K3i DS'(; '

;n111 nS ri

imDnni

5r inp n ni;S3 Il.pt

pnnv

nn ^y : vnvWpn

WK N

2 Cp. n 1[ t^nn:o AS 0 Isa.I.ns ullDS3. Hm].& a.an n 4 Sontah .3 92az irrri, 13v

96 i'nrDwD&M y

147

NZ 20

n ,lCyDnMi I^Dn

1D3 wmnmnWVn1n:1in^

irnnw

Dgn V1n1I

i nvy) n6innnni1t3 K'D w4 1rKmnyinrwDn Wmn 5inr nni6r nin -i mnwan Dr-I trinn nS-OKDo ntwnnnrnwnsiw nn nn< nl.KoS nDnsr utK nnn-n itmmn DnDniN -ir ix rinDv i13^S1i -DnwnS QnnDnmn mrw

InK

nNi pnrnK [D]iwnD-wi ib?W' niiy nNt iz n[-in wynm i:]N 25 [mnm]nimtO tDll^n^ paD 3Q6 D[M]n5 Diri 1n6 innin n< I[[],nS

j

rhn bi mnllm

3

iDOnn ;i:n h33 lDlnn

n

,m n:h 4nr.6 ,6y

lIY'l nn- ib

-Cmy Dg?n nm 13 nilny

Dnn [1]mln[in

n ;ozn

3rX1mIg5 ll'ln K^I

103w$p:is

saD 102 Dw:

p^*

n,r

Dws

n

:

Dn St=

nh

&(?' nISlDws nmn [mnnn *nn4nnI3 96 Ps. 13715-6. 98 Ps. 82. 5. 101 Isa. I. 30. 103 Hullin

MIS5: nrn git Nsi

] " '1 ibpii

' g:13 m D:'s

,ln

n

;n}

4n& i

lnD51 In5i

m16 1 h=3

wnvnzn 30

100 loo

Mrw rn Q^n jl ni 1y

i1

?

13Drpi nr

btt6

t6 iyn)

Mn56n"w *Nmlsby$

n< Y4[v]n 1'5Doii Dni Yam ivN Wi 1v rjh N5 nn&3 isR imiAin,l n jimn5i ,nn 3M 'w

Inv

tlanz25IM w

n-trI5

ipn;iyn$ c4si D:hfnmil

uit z

nnn bin

nihz

OWnsnUi Dinvynn ivwD irnoWv

ri 1t^1

Dni DUD nNi mnn, i^5y

ii icR

1)

n ...

..

*9s Ivm nNw nIt

r nSrni

nn'ni

.

06

.,,,

mnt iDa3

97 Jer. 33. 25. 99 Exod. I6. 4. t00 2 Chron. 31. 4. 102 Cp. Sotah 47 a, b ; Temurah I7 b.

92 a.

L2

35 m1^]

148

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

B

(fol. 3, recto) rD:l 104

' t1on

w'1:

3 pD

n:m WiySnnm 'n3 1'05.:M_ [Yn n:r:

n 5n5wr n, nmmNs

': :nwm

5n

IIDK': WT'D,n^'' 5DDil '
fnln Io

nwtUbln n:n nlinnSm1DK':

Wt:n

SDDnI108 'm

'nnn

)3I1 lysrn Wty

twn m 'N Wsz D i 4iNptnl lnDn K 'I'nn in'

y

T'

nS.nnFn^

: nn'nn

S1nn n:*

snItD15z fnnh 'n^n,

, w:? aDI: 109

m n3B

mn

pm KingsJr. 8. .4. N N0KEzek. 46. n.a ;p 1S^3wn 9^l :2

n::n

nw I. 5.

N'1 w311p

3 -1w3

104 I Sam. 2o. 27.

105Cp. Tos. Ber. 31i, Babli 30a, and Yer. 8 b bottom. Dan. 6. II is also used for this inference in Ber. 3I a (cp. Yer. c. 4,. beginning). See also nwmi n nrwg ;1D : il nls ip y p^y p, 69d, bottom, Inn nr\mx

^3wn inM; nn tMN'8DNI3nNtIn

4nint

J:

nr Syp3in ^is:W iD3 K03 tip1n ln n4nw anor, ^3nv *wnnDnyn rwn :rpn wpm

inwv YpN:wynz K1mn. 106 I Kings 8. 48.

109Ezek. 46. 17.

107 Jer. 17. 2.

108 Isa. 58. I3.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

(fol. 3, verso) K1 pW SiK pn, iK1 'nr 6'T n:n

--D31Il-l s:K. n

i-3 '.K T -

1TO Q^lip C": 1aW9by

npS

K

5K1Pn

x 'nn^ rD^nKl : aar: T": i' nninnn ipl n;llKn ; W^Ts 5

^& W 5DD31'aI l'1igZ W'K

i

W:'2na-i-n 'n:: nn3 nnpn n ;mn

Sm;I nrw r?n?r

C!8

:

:31n:m=,:3 3: nn]3 :

D5 nSn

nin Dmn:iK IO Igs~'IuK uD' n112 mn nwG^nnK ni

nl uir nin:n -i

'nm a mn,n nT?l 'l:

nSm brnn:1

IDDzsln;i)I n14nn03w:

r

I

smpFl 'n;n n131 Fi1:1 wnn Di Dmwl ni'6mm nN lin5 n:Mn l'r b-immI 114a.i n3n 0nZ) n: 1-jn~j wi lyl ^nHaggaII'-i il "1 :n^nK w1n1

n:in

Il5saa:1 nTn w[*']

. Rh. itlW&n

n^

53

annpo n,i 3n33 Kik ni?3p3 'n33 DWnsi1w^r3hlzn' nrnn5r Dnlnu r nn' nnTO 110 Haggai 2. I2. 112 Ps. 51. I9. 115 Read n'l.

nl*' D:3n CWS 1'

'ial n6yl^n mn3 nDn7a,n 113

Job 42. 5.

5

111 Ruth 4. 7. 114 Neh. 8. i8. 116 Job 15. I8.

I49

I50

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY REVIEW

a^?t?^?

oMo D^x~r

rCT&Is

'l p.3 g* -i&ielDnl r)n t n nl

M nlYn1 ~'vW 1,~ n 10 n7 Wlm1 p I~ D*S!n?!:ni1 mw1' 1irrW5K D"ny r

'-r1i tonn SnDrm

n"iinnn

4 (fol.n

,

vers

n p3n niri^nn Dnn 118zr

twice theabove name, wastilln< now nhwnentirely which nwn1 unknown. ;pti3itn^r3 , nllnl

lsr, o^wn

3MnVi3Z3 1'"Y1

Dlnn

53pnm1^n

.V 20

(fol. 4, verso)

,

:#

ny3 i*m5-n%ni

6. Nahum twr^iza trn5K [o Geon.,II,pp. 58 aid 69]. The long index of responsa printed in Geon., II, contains twice the above name, which was till now entirely unknown.

On p. 58 the item reads ?nS5 Nnm r3n n nn n si io #n6nn :t*13N~ 119 [3j]. Further, in a list of questions from Judah b. Joseph (of Kairowan, cp. about this scholar, Poznanski, n t4nW ? F1 i1'P? W'Mt,no. 22) we read 4:zrr Ftn&K mDin: '5YI~p. It therefore seems that this lm, a native of Bagdad (Bardan being a suburb of this city), was for a time in 117 x Sam. 12. a3.

118 119

1rn, referring to nrK5t, would be more suitable. Thus very likely is the lacuna to be completed.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

151

Kairowan. The following fragment, T.-S. io J. 43, will help to elucidate this point, and will also furnish interesting information about the connexions between the Jewries of different countries. Our Nahum travelled from Bagdad as far as the Magreb (probably Kairowan).120 There he bought antimony powder, valuable as an eye salve, and Hebrew books, among them a set of Talmud. These he sent to Egypt, where his representative, Hillel b. Isaac, was to sell the powder, but to take the books to Jerusalem. Afterwards Nahum made over to his son Jannai the amount his representative owed him. Now both Nahum and Jannai are dead, and the latter's heirs, Joseph and Nahum, claim from Hillel b. Isaac, who lives in Ramlah, the amount due to their father. Their representative (in Palestine) is Masliah b. Elijah, the Sicilian. The last fact tends to show that the plaintiffs still lived in Babylon, probably Bagdad, and that our fragment is a part of a document drawn up at the Supreme Court of the academy at Bagdad. It has been sent to Egypt for the purpose of taking further proceedings against Hillel b. Isaac, who refused to repay the sum he was owing to Nahum and his heirs. Interesting is the mention of copies of the Talmud being sent from Kairowan to Egypt and Palestine. Above (VIII, 354) a copy of Berakot from Kairowan, containing 120This Nahum is perhaps identical with Nahum b. Joseph, who writes an Arabic letter, dated 22nd Ab, 310 Sel =998, from Kairowan to his master Samuel b. Hofni (published by Goldziher, REJ., L, I82-8). Leaving his family in 'Irak, Nahum b. Joseph travelled as far as Andalusia, and also stayed in Mahdiya. He mentions a letter sent by Samuel b. Hofni to I ZN ID (11.I4-15), who is probably the Kairowan scholar
THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

I52

a difficult reading, which Shemariah b. Elhanan used, was mentioned. In earlier times, however, we know of copies of the Talmud being sent from the East to the West. Thus Paltoi Gaon sent to Spain a Talmud with a commentary (yQR., XVIII, 401, bottom). Also Hasdai ibn Shaprut bought copies of the Talmud from Sura (cp. Marx,

ibid., 768). (recto) Y 12minznn^ t3mbSh[i,n]w nwwy :X:n3SaEmzmi3 (w i33 rmm[i]5 [ql]wri jp s b' uniK anr'n upn'Wv m'i:N[5K])n Dmim m:an iPm 3p ltnl ,n3rw mpw i

1zz35 sN

D,nIDC ny [1n2]

122nn Ynrw

m $zp$pnmY ri 55;n'- [nt] m,Dnvwwnnunr

n[Cn]nD

-n$im-'n iSK

Sn DnaD,3n$yi1 :niinDon nIIn5D1

Si Dvi?15 DwnwDnri$i9rn i:l Sn4 $nuL

K

wtnS>n K1

n snn $ri

i:n i n: p [n]nw $5 ipn Drn: ,nD DnIn^Dni$nz Sm,nn-inu:- K 1bi] i 1=3$vK zN 4Cmi' 5 K[b]' Z Ws, 123Njpl nD Zn I33 l :j)

': 55n q 5$ ,1pDn,~NK n qi: nN53^

nK [tl]m nltD m.u- v

n,n ~ m 5,t tIn qi Sn3 S ,nlnDN mnin gn[53]ni1 in^^t3&

31 'Imn1

i tjn pnm Ss]nino1

tpn [mnm Wtim

DsaD,n Sy rS ^mmw ,. .. 121

tr

122J

,

nt 55n i

3pw,

.,,

..

,

,.,,

is left out; perhaps read T'3 for n13. antimony-powder; eye-salve.

1

10

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

153

7. A Panegyric in honour of a Babylonian Dignitary. Or. 5554, B, folio o0,parchment, square writing, size, I9 x 14 cm., forms a part of a poem in honour of a great celebrity. The fragment contains twenty-one strophes, which give the acrostic . 3i n .. It ?i5 6bD wi nSir ntl is evident that the poem is incomplete. At least two strophes at the beginning, commencing with the letters : and t respectively, and one strophe at the end, with n as its first letter, are missing in order to complete the acrostic [-1]Y *"1

.,

n1 D I[?:].

The poem has for its hero the same person to whom are devoted the remarkable poems published by Schechter in Saadyana (XXV, pp. 67-74=yQR., XIV, 23I-42) from a Cambridge manuscript. Acrostic and style are similar, while the same names occur in both fragments.124 There is little doubt that the panegyric is in honour of a prominent leader of the Babylonian Jewry. This is clear from the reference to the academy of Sura (lntrn, S. 66, 1. 8 ff.) to which he imparted new life, and from the fact that he is eulogized as 'the strength of the dispersion in Babylon and Edom' (S. 73, 1. 26), whose 'authority is in Shin'ar and his awe reaches 'Ar, and his repute goes through all countries' This has been rightly pointed out by (S. 72, 11.I5-I6). Schechter (p. 63). The full acrostic in S., nT I:n nnD:iK 'ii n1l-n tli niA, proves that his name was Abraham. This at once disposes of the tentative identifications of the hero of the poems with Saadya or Samuel b. Hofni, as Schechter, 1. ., and Ginzberg (ZfHB., XIV, 85-6) suggest. Surely the supposed author of the poems, Abraham Hakkohen 124 For brevity's sake the British Museum and the Cambridge fragments are cited as Or. and S. respectively, the latter according to the pages in

Saadyana.

I54

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY

REVIEW

(according to Schechter, 64, n. 8), would not style himself Marmorstein (!JQR., N. S., VI, I57) printed a few lines from Or. and rightly pointed out its resemblance to the poems in Saadyana. But his identification of the subject of the poems with Abraham b. Sahlan in Egypt, a correspondent of Solomon b. Judah, the Jerusalem Gaon, is again entirely unwarranted. Apart from the fact of Abraham b. Sahlan living in Egypt and not in Babylon, he was not of such prominent a standing as to be the subject of such a panegyric. As will be shown elsewhere, Abraham b. Sahlan was the '3n of the Babylonian community in Fustat, and held a position similar to that of Ephraim b. Shemariah of the Palestinian community. One of Abraham's two sons was Sahlan, styled ql5fn, ,n[ WK', and also wN1 tiDn. But the subject of the above poems had four sons, one of whom was called Sahl. Surely a Sahl b. Abraham does not at once justify the identification with a Sahln. b. Abraham. Leaving the question of identification in abeyance, we gather from the poems several details about the entourage of their hero. Schechter (p. 64) assumed that he had three sons called Baruch, Jannai, and Solomon (S. 66,1. 2). But it is clear that n,rl ,rMl '11TnI ,t was none else but mm mentioned in line i (cp. also Pozn., ZfHB., VII, I72). But both Schechter and Poznadiski found line I obscure. u125:w 3 ,% 'nw m,rn. It reads nmlinn ninm,: 4K*w't3s nJ The evident meaning is that the subject of the poems has 125 How Ginzberg (ZfHB., XIV, 85, n. 5) could find in this line an allusion to Israel, the son of Sam. b. Hofni, is inexplicable to me. Nor can I detect the 'direct reference to Samuel b. Hofni ' in S. 67, 1. II, 'ID[ 'IDI npln J1nY (and not DD?N \l7il '1j- !).

RESPONSA

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

155

a synagogue of his own where Jews assemble for prayer. The reader, Nahum (the father of Baruch, Jannai, and Solomon), recites the liturgical compositions (Kmw '~n being a poetical metaphor for w,' nrtn) in a pleasant way. This allusion to 'wr nmtn is borne out by S. 73, 1. 24: M.t Nt nr:, IT tKl 5Knlimn (i. e. Jannai and Eleazar Kalir). Perhaps the suggestion may be ventured that the reader Nahum is the same Nahum r':n':K MIlnSmentioned above. He makes over to his son Jannai the value of the antimony-powder and the books as a present. Bodl. 2838 I 12 and 2709 G, a, 37 contain liturgical compositions with the acrostic D1nn.126Possibly they emanate from this Bagdad reader. Bodl. 2821, 5 b also contains a composition '1SK 'O 1vW3: 'wl:n Dln5 (evidently in honour of a Nasi) with the acrostic ptn rn Dnm T nn~r. This liturgical writer may be the second of Nahum's three sons. Finally, BodL 2712, 21c; 2730, 6g; 2847, 20e,f; 27053, and 2848,9d contain several liturgical compositions with acrostics qSo (?)'I n3: nm, l evidently an abbreviation of K':5ntK, SWKn':, Nlm ,K,

4'wiI'Kn5

u:n

,

n'

]W,

t,nl qe;.

Perhaps

the author is the

grandson of Nahum Nm'%Kr'itnrS mentioned in the document printed above (under 6). To return to the subject of the poems. In S. he is alluded to as the father of three sons (68, 1. 22) and two daughters (66, 1. 23; cp. 1. 25 f.). The author wishes his hero another son (67, 1. 19). In Or. already four sons are mentioned (verso, 11.11-12). It is therefore evident that Or. was written at a later period. Altogether the poems were probably composed on various occasions when the author found it appropriate to eulogize his patron. Or. 126

Zunz, Litgesch. d. synag. Poesie, 492, states only 'mutmasslich' that Nahum came from the south of Spain or Fez not later than 1300 C. E.

THE JEWISH

i56

QUARTERLY REVIEW

seems to have been written after an illness of the celebrated person (recto, 11.4-5). There are further mentioned both in S. and Or. an unnamed brother of the subject of the poems, his sister's two sons, one by the name of Hasan, and also a son of his uncle ('his mother's brother'), 'Ali Hakkohen. Finally, Abraham ha-Cohen, his secretary, and perhaps the author of the poems, Israel Hakkohen and 'Amram Hakkohen, conclude the number of persons mentioned in the poems. These will be referred to in the foot-notes to the text. In spite of the several persons mentioned in the poems, it is still difficult to ascertain who the person thus eulogized was. If the identification of Nahum 3K'l5r lnS is correct, it would give a clue that may lead to a solution. The general impression from the poems (especially from Or.) is that the celebrated person as well as his brother were more political than scholastic celebrities, probably Jewish grandees at Bagdad. Netira's sons are out of question, as their names are known to have been Sahl and Isaac, and the former, the more prominent, had only one child called Netira (cp. Harkavy, Berliner Festschrift, part H, pp. 34-43). But next to Netira's sons, there were also the influential 'sons of Aaron'. As was shown above, their father was Aaron b. Abraham b. Aaron. Now just as the name Aaron recurs in the family, one of these I;nn z= very likely was called Abraham.127 This 'son of Aaron' may perhaps have been the subject of this panegyric. He was the patron of the Pumbedita academy, and for all we know the father-in-law It should be pointed out here that rilNK Il '', of Aaron b. Sargado, who arranged the peace between Saadya and David b. Zaccai (cp. Neub. II, 82), is evidently an older contemporary. Our Aaron was still alive in 953. 127

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

RESPONSA

157

he might have used his influence in restoring the Sura academy. The lines 28-30 of Or., recto, would aptly describe all he stood for as regards the welfare of the academy. It is interesting to note that Netira's son Sahl had a synagogue of his own where services were held every Sabbath. The equally influential 'son of Aaron' might also have been the owner of a synagogue where the services were conducted by Nahum KminSK R itnK. With our very scanty knowledge of the internal affairs of the Bagdad community during the life-time of the Geonim Nehemiah, Sherira, and Hai, the above identification can only claim the rights of a suggestion. But it seemed to me more in accordance with probability than all the identifications suggested hitherto. (recto) l inUI 121 -nnw-13 DWn 14n%

" :t nsimvn n n1: lnl

mI iny:

niv

m ynm

nnDi 4n n: nOn -iD

130: 1 NO K non D: lirvy l'lK i

nSir *n D

n*nnW, 113N

5i

lcmp

'l'K w-14

lqp!

i:nll

:1n

5:

ptnn

^mi

*?58,n

'*S:gO18i

c :nnni r

i:

TK

n

131: 1w14 nP9Vp1*:f 1.33

Q^jN ,n,a ''

nS

-JD

1 -4M 1329^

5

IO1

by wwo,n nKu FUr

'^ %mnnnn*l

128

Cp. Job 39. i6; S. 73, 1. a5, ;ntmp, see Zunz, Synag. Poesie, 403. 129 Evidently the subject of the poem was just recovering from an illness. 130 See Ps. 75. 9. 151 Evidently the hero was a great political force, probably at the Caliph's court at Bagdad. 132

=

133.

133 From

?n51n,

Hos. II. 3.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

I58

11-i-1KP N NT T 'm

1-j1

lw

l'p.

5poDDF^ om33 onnn n:S ^ . Ti:inz ONn *nJI,'rz nun WitnKm

nri?Irilrnn n.'wn

' *ns.n.n

nl1lnl l ID?. '"''

1Un

D0y K'

jlDO

15

n'i ln3 zi

,.19n

v['D]n

;~nnaDU'Da1o m1:'iD nll3 nrnn, ',n~n. 134 ry nEno

? u58 v.i ^w,,9

1

rtu

yr

n6.nDnr.z,

oy 20

Q'Dn? 135WPr IlTI

3 IC: 136 l D S.I 138 PanHop ofp rticipl 1 3 Cz 14 np Enond 21v

13 Dn -I4.10 137

np nrt

n Jer. .I.

nlnmet :nnalludes

wnill 141,;n

5i

,THwI^ 1,nl410[5]

rY,^ inln^

wnin

3c *,Nl14nvr n1nl

n11J

ininvinu^D *9rw,n4l

:nn7nD

i

rm:

30

best explanation of this nmuchdiscussedword (Pozn., The

n 25

134Cp. Exod. 28. 36. 135 Dan. 4. I0, 20. 136 loan-word Persian meaning bni. usual designation in the187 Jer. 14.of9. "dux Participle Hophala ofvery 138 Ps. ' :agminis, prninceps the author, presumably Abraham Hakkohen, populii" Possibly 105.6, 42.

alludes that he is the namesake of his hero. 139 Cant. 8. 2. 140See Isa. c. 7. Is here a possible allusion to the hero's descendance ? from the Davidic family family?. 141 The best ?WD , explanation of this much-discussed word (Pozn., j8N8Vp p. 47; Davidson, JQR., N. S., I, 235, 235, note 50; 5o; Chajes, ZfHB., XIV (i9Io), (191o), 25; 82-3) as being a 25; and Ginzberg, ibid., 87-8) is that by Bacher (ibid., 82-3) Persian loan-word %.51 I a very usual designation in the meaning of " dux " agminis, princeps populi '.

RESPONSA

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

159

(verso) DW^i 'nwglD ,wNtKt tnwl'p nD^OO53 aW?19KSi 1v 1 nws 5z Itn ?n=3p41 nwpo: 143n

'42'nrnninn tnol p nr1 14

1= na

.4n,:r

n?i3

m '

N'n rK

rn?i ?ZKnl .* pin fIwK :sCr.X DOonnrn&r

.5

TTT T

n p'n 1 rny ynlr7 iTn^lsll y: D

145:

144 r

9t5 o nW

nilpn* nn n3 a Readnc pner

Kn p'n, 4 . Z: Ji lnn

nn penn,e p.Prov.

p. 8. s.

1^132':

*nnwcntD

are te

nniW n:s?nrDYK ?n

'5 zonn ' nmSwnrirl CD5nn-vr

148:51-13 lnKN nnK nrn *t3nN

n1vil(ni lV

IIIS :n

io

nnw

n-inn

ryIvyW iNyl ysw vn 34 =3 3nn1

:;5 I15

'gryn

Dan n1tDn ny DInEMl

plS. n1.rn

i

1.n

nin to in m33S.,1. Df.6 n1. 4, anK Reerr

1. ' 6,.D

i ;nr

in

naes of his for on D i

1 p,fI D.nnln S. 466 inn 1p. 147: nCpn. *6 ,n4gy IW^K Q".31

n

i

mn.8

Tese

n i

-1

rt rjT

*,nYf ni nn wi rn

rwnn^J n

^ ,i

rrIi t: n 1:Jl

and6'i

n

n

M ni :n^nia n:^3 Dnni1r 149

tjn nKnp IIrlln N5 p5lODlnnn wlip

20

nDIran 5n

142

CP. PS. 27. 3. 14S CP. Yer. Ber. IV, 7, and Babli Taan. 2Ib.

This shows that the hero's father was also a prominent man. 144 Read perhaps rlM 13, cp. Prov. I8. 10. 146 These are the names of his four sons. 145 CP. Isa. 58. I. 147 CP. S. 66, 1. 23 ff. 118 Referred to in S. 67, 1. I ff., 69, 1. 24, and 71, 1. 7. 149 Cp. S. 67, 1. 4, and 69, 1. 25.

I6o

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY

Imrq 3 ~ i: 'WMn

REVIEW

Rt~nn ~)n^ in^

vni'q 'D~R~ 150?'rqq ;,,o'n 12 nn

151;: nr

'D*I ~;qn*mq

1,'q,'n i8'n

in:

Dnnlr

s:ty D!nDn

152* wnn,n-1 :: wnn nwlnKn

ny)Ew

nnn

25

?D),s n1n p1:5 *no^oDnonwa1iWniny

: mnpsl n;In: nnawnn zn ^5

II Elhazhanan b. Hzishiel of Kairowan. This scholar was entirely unknown till I899, when Schechter published from the Genizah a letter by IHushiel to Shemariah b. Elhanan, which aroused much interest (JQR., XI, 643-50). The preamble of the letter contains the acrostic 5~rWn 'r-n pn[5K], showing that he collaborated in the composition of this alphabetic eulogy of Shemariah. Hushiel styles his son pnSK '" (11.56 and 62), again indicating that he was already of the age and status of a scholar. But more could not be gathered from the epistle. What position Elhanan held in Kairowan after his father remained completely obscure. His name turns up again in a document of 1034 (7QR., XVI, 576) as n,:n rm n,nrSn wrin :l'n pnri which, as Pozn., ;T'1p yte, no. Io, has rightly pointed out, must This document read iz':: m:13n3mn 5iRln 'nn: pn S. could have already supplied information as to Elhanan's status at Kairowan, had it not been entirely misunder150 Cp. S. 67, 1. 6. 152 Cp. S. 67, . 3, and 69,1.

151 Cp. S. 67, 1. 24.

I

.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

I6i

stood. It has not been drawn up in Kairowan, but in Fustat (nryz). This is clear from the signatures Sahalon b. Abraham and Saadya b. Ephraim. As indicated above (p. 154), and as will be shown elsewhere, Sahlan b. Abraham was the spiritual leader of the Babylonian community at Fustat, a position his father held before him. Saadya b. Ephraim was Sahlan's uncle. Both bore the title Alluf; the latter was also called nSi wTn. They thus sign the document, probably not as witnesses, but as the judges of the Bet-Din of the Babylonians at Fustat.'53 Now this document of 1034 includes a deed drawn up at the Bet-Din of Kairowan two years previously (1032), and signed by KN'in 'n: prInM,r,r'n '3 nmn, and Abraham b. Daniel (for ~K'5, cp. Pozn., 1.c., no. 3), again not as actual witnesses, but very likely as the judges of this court. Hence Elhanan b. Hushiel is head of the court, 1",2 'a1n. The two Genizah fragments printed here, more than fifteen years after Schechter's publication, will throw new light on Elhanan b. HIushiel's position in Kairowan. Fragment A (T.-S. 12. 194, 26 x 18 cm., paper, small Rabbinic square writing, doubled into four columns, of which three are occupied by the letter) is a responsum by our scholar. As question and answer are in the same handwriting, it is clearly not the original hut a copy. Elhanan is addressed as x lmn mn. The last title was also ?1n nFeC[] 1i n'n2 N's borne by his father Hushiel.154 When this responsum was written Hushiel was no longer alive, as is evident from 153Thus nos. 40 and 4I should be removed from the list of Poznanski's R. Nissim in nnIr-n 'DD (ed. Goldenthal, 3 a): n ^ Ws VO"tSL.w, L. 1X.3 ,nwlpn ,n :nMn 1trs 15'

VOL. IX.

inp3

nwn2l nTi ,s MI

162

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY

REVIEW

the signature. The case dealt with in the question did not demand the display of great Talmudic erudition.155 But as the hitherto only known evidence of Elhanan's learning, the responsum well merits publication. The Rabbi shortly recapitulates the case under discussion before giving his decision. The pious conclusion, 'May the Rock in His mercy make me one of those who possess the insight 15 to give a true decision and a righteous judgement', reveals a modest and sympathetic trait of Elhanan's character. Of more historic interest is fi-agment B, T.-S. 24. 6, vellum, square wrviting, forming a long letter from the 'community of Sicily', its 'Bet-Din and elders', to the congregations of IKairowanand the neighbouring Mahdiya. By Sicily, probably Palermo, the leading congregation of the isle, is meant.157 This important letter is much damaged on both edges, especially towards the end. Yet the remainder adds several points of interest to our scanty knowledge of the life of the Sicilian Jews. The epistle opens with an alphabetic eulogy of the communities addressed; three words, mostly alliterations, are assigned to each letter of the alphabet (11. 2-5). As heads of the Kairowan community are addressed Elhanan pi n' (i. e. head of the court) b. Hushiel i,i and Jacob -rnn b. 'Amram. Probably this Nagid exercised some political 155 For a similar responsum, cp. #"D,

no. I88 (by Meshullam). not in the Karaitic sense. 157 Paltiel, of Ahimaas Chronicle fame, is said to have been Nagid pl'Zr * i ny ?8 r1 S5m * ^w ::inn (r. n::rnU) p&IKs DQD 156

flI^:tn,

nn6npS

ZSrtyVn,rvt

5131 Np'nsNI (Neub. II, 130). Palermo stands here . for the whole isle.-In 878, when Syracuse was captured by the Arabs, the local Jews were brought to Palermo, where their coreligionists ransomed them. Likewise, on the capture of Aversa in 925, the parents of Sabbattai Donnolo were fi-eed by the community of Palermo (cp. Zunz, Zur Gcsc/i.u. Liter, 486).

RESPONSA

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

163

authority over all the North-African communities within the Fatimid realm, except Egypt and Palestine. Another Nagid of Kairowan, Abraham b. 'Ata, is known fiom a poem by Hai and other Genizah fragments (cp. Pozn., 1.c., pp. 4-5, and Davidson, 7QR., N. S., I, 23I ff.). It is now clear that Gabirol in his poem to R. Nissim (in Brody and Albrecht, "'wvn v, 36-7), sent greetings to Elhanan (b. Hushiel) and Jacob Nagid when concluding [n nSrti] 13DT rl PI'5p; in n pnrt5. Probably this Jacob is identical with the Nagid spoken of in the letter of 1035 written to Ephraim b. Shemariah of Fustat (JQR., XIX, The writer, who probably lived in Kairowan, 255-6). 'mentions therein that the Nagid is staying for a time in Mahdiya (11.I8-2I); on the Nagid's return (i.e. to Kairowan) the case of the donation of 60 Denars which the Palestinian Gaon retained for himself will be discussed. We shall thus learn that the Kairowan people would also support the Palestine school under Solomon b. Judah. In a Genizah fragment, to be discussed elsewhere, we find this Gaon corresponding with Samuel b. Abraham of Tahort who has been dealt with above (VIII, 357). Finally, it should be pointed out that r,hinnr in Hushiel's letter (7QR., XI, 650,11. 69-70) clearly stands for Mahdiya whither Juda nS=.; and Joseph b. Berakhya departed. A son of the former is perhaps r~nn='i", mrin'n s, C! q=1 (cp. 7QR., XVI, 691, 5rt and Pozn., ibid., XVII, I68-70). To return to our letter. It has been written with the object of recording the great services two Jews, IHayyim (alias Khalaf) b. Jacob the Spaniard and his son Nissim, rendered to the Sicilian Jewry (11. I3-I6).158 It appears 158 About 1040 Samuel ibn Nagdela also was able to do some good for this Jewry (Zunz, 1. c.). M 2

164

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY REVIEW

from 11. 6o-i that the writers of the letter requested from their Kairowan brethren to transmit their epistle to other communities in order that the noble example of these two Jews should find followers elsewhere. Thus it resulted that the original letter, for such our fragment clearly is, as the different signatures and the beautiful clear writing on vellum show, came to Egypt and has been preserved in the Cairo Genizah. It is an interesting way of appreciation of communal service that developed among the Jewries of those times. The testimonial was not presented to the person who merited it, but was circulated among the important Jewish communities that his 'fame go forth throughout all the provinces', and that others 'see from him and do likewise'. As far as the fragment allows reconstruction, the service of these two Jews consisted in the first instance of reducing a special impost and also obtaining a release from taxes for many poor Jews (11.I7-20). Moreover, a disaster befell many traders by the loss of ships laden with merchandise to Egypt. This must have happened near the Sicilian coast. When the part that had been saved was landed, the ruler ordained that goods belonging to people not present on the boats should be sold by auction, and the yield to go to the exchequer. While this actually was the case with the merchandise of the non-Jews, the two communal leaders succeeded in saving the goods of their coreligionists and having them returned to their owners As to the trade between Sicily and Egypt, (11. 2I-7). reference is made to the heading of a responsum in Geon. II, 65 n4,-p,D 'SO'W

my (7pI)n =) 'NW n'w

pnv

.

Also there was some trouble about the burial ground. A certain official, it seems, made a new survey of the

RESPONSA

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

165

ground which would have resulted in a number of Jewish as well as non-Jewish tombs being outside its confines, and thus becoming desecrated. But these communal leaders frustrated this design, while the non-Jews could save their tombs only by means of bribery (11.27-31). The remainder of the letter is obscure. A certain Jew, Hakim, had been excommunicated, but he obtained influential support from non-Jews with the purpose of harming ;n: m:1 n, evidently his opponent. The case involved some monetary claim which concerned also the tax-collector. Several people are mentioned, viz. Abr. b. David b. Labrat, Sam. b. Moses (1. 47), a certain Abu'l Faraj who was to travel to Egypt (1. 49), Moscs b. Yahya the perfumer, and 'Omar b. Juda of Aleppo (1. 58). The last name is of interest as showing the connexions between the Jews of different countries. We learn also of Sicilian Jews travelling to Egypt.l59 Finally, among the signatories of the letter a name like Pappos b. Sabbattai at once recalls namesakes usual among the Italian Jewry. The additional information as to Elhanan's position at IKairowan as ,"r nNnW', after his father's death, opens up anew the question of the 'Four Captives'. The letter of Hushiel to Shemariah has been regarded to have definitely relegated the well-known account of Ibn Daud to the realm of legend. Hushiel writes '18n l:m^ln Y"S 1n'm '3 zn,

^s nnn

nlI

L1p 4n"

ir

non

N^Ww

pamn-n,^

Hence he voluntarily came from a non-Arabic country, probably Italy, to Kairowan on his way to Egypt to visit Shemariah (cp. Schechter, 7QR.,XI, 643 ff., Pozn., i;s'rP '4=,. 159 Cp. also above kp. 15r), Masliah b. Elijah the Sicilian at Ramlah. In IoI6 a Sicilian Jew, 'Amrun b. Elijah, had Ephraim b. Shemariah arrested in Fustat to answer for monetary claims (REJ., XLVIII, 17I).

i66

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY REVIEW

no. I8, Eppenstein, /Ischr., 1911, 324 ff., 620 if.). But Ibn Daud never said that Hushiel the father of Elhanan was one of the four captives, but Hushiel the father of Hananel. Schechter's suggestion that the name of Elhanan had been changed in Iairowan into Hananel needs now no further refutation. We find Elhanan using this name after his father's death in the responsum printed above, and also in the document of 1032. The people of Sicily also address him as Elhanan. It should be noted that the letter to Shemariah must have been written before 1012, in which year the famous Egyptian scholar died, as will be proved elsewhere. Thus at least twenty years afterwards he still retained the name of Elhanan, which was that of his grandfather. But were Elhanan and Hananel brothers ? This assumption is now rendered highly improbable. On one hand Hushiel in his letter mentions only one son Elhanan. But this can be explained that Hananel was not yet of an age to be mentioned in his father's epistles. Inexplicable, however, is the fact that Samuel ibn Nagdela in his wellknown letter of consolation to Hananel on the death of his father, Hushiel (printed in *::n, VIII, 245-6, and by Kaufmann, Magazin, V, 68 ff., 31u 1Ns,64-8), entirely fails to even refer to Hushiel's other son, Elhanan. The late Rabbi is eulogized for having merited such a son as Hananel, who is called rn 'p1l ';D and other complimentary titles.160 This shows, by the way, that Hananel was already a prominent scholar on his father's death; it raises again the 160) 2Iot

saina1

1

, 1878, p. 67, 11. 5ff.:

ntphi

nsnponwse iltwn E,lbn; o

N:Dn nijwi j1'

ti N

rmn: nl

'"^lI8

LI^'

n

ln s?n-n:iT KNin)rv NnKi, L'IE j .1*1,,, Dn1 ill

said about the supposed other son, Elhanan.

[R:n

.,,

$32n

M

5'l

i

N-1-1Z DliNw 'D. Not a word is

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

167

above difficulty of his not being mentioned in the letter by Hushiel. But the chief question is, why was the supposed elder son of Hushiel, Elhanan, entirely ignored by Samuel ibn Nagdela? Surely a son that bore his father's title of P:: '*: sM, and was the recognized spiritual head of the Kairowan Jewry, as the letter by the Sicilian community clearly shows, ought to have been at least alluded to in a letter of condolence on his father's death sent to his supposed younger brother Hananel. The solution must therefore be ventured that Hushiel, the father of Elhanan, is not identical with his namesake, the father of Hananel. The former left voluntarily his Christian native country in order to visit Shemari4h at Fustat. This probably took place between g99 and 10I2, during which time we find Shemariah holding the position of WKn at this city. Very likely Shemariah began his activities there before g99, in which year Sherira and Hai sent responsa to him. But some years must have passed before this Rabbi's fame spread so far as a European Christian country to induce Hushiel to set out on a journey in order to visit him. On his way to Egypt Hushiel passed Kairowan, and was persuaded to make his home there. He must have had a great reputation as a scholar, and probably Nissirn b. Jacob sat at his feet. Hence the reverential reference to him in nntrn 'D quoted above Also the poem of Samuel ibn Nagdela (printed in Magazhin V, 3iu 'nxs, p. 68, and Brody, Berlinzer Festschrift, part H, pp. 11-12,

and T':n

lntW '-

n'W i:, 14-15)

was probably

written in honour of our H.ushiel. The line ln:l'n nu,:: rMn:2w4pt'~: nYnpl ns:3 is certainly more applicable to a man that came to Kairowan voluntarily than to a prisoner (cp. Pozn., lsPWP4'=;, no. iX).

168

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Prior to the arrival of Hushiel b. Elhanan, Kairowan had the good fortune of ransoming one of the' four captives', viz. Hushiel, to whom later on a son was born, who received the name of Hananel. The native countries of these captive scholars has really no bearing on the veracity of Ibn Daud's account. Shemariah was probably a native of Egypt, where his father Elhanan presumably held already the dignity of w's (above, VIII, 3-2). But Shemariah undoubtedly attended the Pumbedita academy, where he gained the position of' head of the row of the Nehardeans'. Likewise Hushiel may have been a native of Italy or of Spain (as indeed Meiri reports, in Neubauer, A/ed. Yew. Chrowzicles,II, 225). But he studied in Babylon and was a colleague of Shemariah. Owing to the great monetary difficulties under which the Pumbedita school laboured, as the fragments printed above, in addition to those known before, clearly and unmistakably prove,161four scholars were sent to the West for the purpose of collecting funds. On their way from Babylon they must have first visited Egypt, then North-Africa, and probably crossed the sea to Spain. From there they went to Italy, and, after completing their mission, they took the boat from Bari to Egypt wherefrom they would return to their academy.';2 Their capture by the admiral of the Spanish caliph must have been near the coast of Egypt. This can 161

A statement like this, lInn

&

I 33n3n nl-IN'

K

1:3:'

1

'a11 C,n'irMn=nU=I'D1 553 WnS1on nrn MSW n:n DI NDln D1 = D:1nn,l Dnn: ,D2,=nIn n,unDL' KN (Halevy, 2lKi:n nnln,h III, 286;

the words are overlined by me), needs now no further comment. 162 Is appears to me that ` D'PD `11BD (Neub. I, 67: n:3 rn

[1in 1:'81D5) is a corruption for UUDnD, which Ibn Daud usually calls 'DnO (cp. p. 68). Their destination would have been this central community of Egypt. tnl'DD

n-I,

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

I69

be gathered from the fact that the admiral (or his henchman) on the return journey touches Alexandria first, where Shemariah is ransomed, then Ifrikiya, and finally Spain. In general outline Ibn Daud's account probably is based on a genuine tradition, though hardly correct in detail. It is very unlikely that the capture took place during the reign of an-Nazzr (91 2-6i). Shemariah was probably 'Abdurrahmtnan ' n, already under Sherira, as the Bodl. fragment rV,im,nniw (YQR.,VI, 223) tends to show; hence after 968. Moreover, from the year of Shemariah's death (Io12) it can be gathered that in 955, the year which Rappoport, Leberecht, and also Marx (ZfHB., XIII, 74) fix for the event of the capture, Shemariah was still of a tender age. More likely the admiral's exploit happened in the reign of Abdurrahman's son, al-Hakam II (961-75), probably about 970.'63 There 163Ibn Daud himself states

l21

(Neub. I, 69): IjV S14

wynInn ;n nnn In (v. i. iwn, ii;n) in

vis

1it '1T :'

n

zri p1 nnp.

Whatever reading is adopted, Abdurrahmanwas no longer alive then. His name was so famous in later times that it was brought into connexion with the coming of R. Moses to Cordova. The date Sln = 970 is to be preferred to inh, since already in 991 we find Sherira and Hai sending responsa to Shemarya, who must have sent his questions some time before, and had already then an established connexion with Klairowan(cp. above, VIII, 354); nhj'n is now out of the question. - It is interesting to note that Ibn 'Usaibia also makes the independence of the Spanish Jews in religious matters from the Babylonian scholars to have commenced from the time of al-Hakam. 'Hasdai b. Isaac (ibn Shaprut) ', he writes, 'was among the foremost Jewish scholars versed in their law. He opened to his coreligionists in Andalusia the gates of knowledge of the religious law, of chronology, &c. Before his time they had to apply to the Jews of Bagdad on legal questions, and on matters referring to the calendar and the dates of the festivals. But when Hasdai was raised by al-Hakam to a very high position, he was able to procure from the oriental Jews all the works he required. Since then the Jews of Andalusia learned what they knew not before, and we relieved of their former trouble ' (cited by Munk, La Philosophie chez les Jutfs, p. I7). The purchase of books from the Orient, mentioned by Ibn 'Usaibia, recalls

170

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY REVIEW

is also a romantic feature in Ibn Daud's description of the four captives hiding their identity and pretending to be ordinary travellers. It is evidently more in accordance with the facts that their captor calculated well the heavy ransom he would be able to obtain for their release. He thus brought Shemariah to Alexandria where, as the son of presumably the w'x of Fustat, the captive probably fetched a high prize. Knowing that the Jewry of one country164 would be unable to pay the exorbitant ransom for all the four captured scholars, the admiral proceeded next to Ifrikiya, where he extorted his full prize for Hushiel. With the other captives he finally arrived in Spain, where he probably made the Jews pay dearly for the freedom of their scholars. As they probably visited the countries from Egypt to Spain during their mission of collecting funds for the academy, they must have been well-known when they were brought as prisoners. The above solution of two scholars bearing the same name of Hushiel and living in Kairowan, will not find, it is admitted, ready acceptance. But it is the only one that appeared to me capable of solving the problem of Elhanan and Hananel. With our hitherto scanty knowledge of the internal life of this important community, it is natural that the fact of Hasdai having bought copies of the Talmud from Sura (above, p. 152). But it stands to reason that this independence was chiefly due to a scholar of R. Moses' type having settled in Cordova, as Ibn Daud reports 1 u1N p:i= W = r pQl SD (1. c., 68 bottom): i: IN1BI :y1)PnI y-DN

v nr) lw ,nw m, ^ n i:: rb nmnpr ) n,nSnn. 161 It should be kept in mind that about 970 conditions were very critical in Egypt. Subsequent to the upheaval in connexion with Jauhar's invasion of the country in 969, a great famine raged in Egypt till the winter of 971-2 (cp. Lane-Poole, History of Egypt in the Middle Ages2, o04). Thus probably the Egyptian Jews were unable to ransom all the four scholars, and only Shemariah was freed, while the others were taken to other communities.

r ,nn7 1=rz )5K ni1m:

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

17I

the existence of the two namesakes Hushiel has not been realized. In 1057 I1Qairowanfell a prey to the Bedouins and probably the local Jewish community came then to an end. The fame of HJananel,the Talmud commentator, and of his father Hjushiel was preserved to posterity. His contemporary who bore a similar name, Elhianan,and whose father was also a Hushiel, had been cntirely forgotten till the Genizah finds recovered his name from oblivion. Hence it resulted that some references to his father HJushiel by contemporaries, as R. Nissim and Samuel ibn Nagdela (cp. above, p. i67), were taken to apply to H2ushiel, the father of Hananiel. A (recto, col. i)

~~m~nP~T'-

v1 wn~ Dni inin'h r

mri:~~v nnNw

jnj jjj

N ,

NI4

V I

15

1115 15

~

~judge,

~

,I

mzagistrate.

11)

N l

iii

166 16c,

Rea Read

172

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY

'^n'

REVIEW

i'8' tD W',tyi n 13n2 i:n?' pi in ,-nW r1p^= nm,xnn ' nnm,imnh 1e nnne Z ron,n1 20 rDn nnp DM3sN

TV : *

D irn 4n=D

b^nn VNSItf

Xw,iW w1imi:n ,n0nM4

V13ffil

wQi"v mplnriv ti6

iw nWi1

i3

Is

13 p^ mimit~ p^ ^ in o.t3'13nrin

25

rnmj

ilSN^ n aDw ;C['s] sn^in ^isS ' pirn m13fl]sVin'

[nn,l

[n,:n pis
nKe

30

nnne3,]m1 'I (recto, col. 2)

[plJN wIln

nno nD^n

n 1,niDI1

Dn,p

QTOi'n1? i3'W,n iWKn'&<^i )i wt D1 D 5p

wmmWi nni,ND 1z1 Dnnpnl nD3::n

nN:3

IDIMnn

inlnln

rivv imnnnimi^ninv -i 1:I W,D1"n DDD Q K6

7nD

n^: 10nl

.Y Ibwn: z'4 1km 1K ,167 kamma B.,14 a.

167 B. kamma

II4 a.

n o

RESPONSA

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

r "^'

n IrSKn nN't

K

4'WVn *n: 168N-n1iD

DNlviat3n D1Vnn

ia'N

;N3 I1]

rnvitn Isuin mnn:n

, I $~Kn:"i)f nrnn $nu~[,n

1K69$n

$n

zn['

%i'p]

170 TK1osKeulKbt8nK in.2n1b

ri? nn. wnn ninDin-n cnn= nc ni6uz svv =pD,11 C4pvz^Dvn 1718s ReadPI

n^ylu

Mn$Iw6n$Innn il

nD=: ns$ i-^nnn nzz[v 1G8 169 170 171

The marks on n denote that the letter should be deleted. Gittin 58 b. Tos. Ketubot 8, 3, B. l,amma IO, 23; B. m, 21 b. Read MC2.

15

173

174

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY

17

172 Cp.

.

B. 1k.69 a and b.

REVIEW

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

I-

.

n 0

..

r)

n

rr

n

.i

r C

F n

I-

3snrm,

r

icn P i FL

I __

,r

rr r

r13

r

- r n-' r

n

rL

r

o

-

!,

r

ri r

J

0

Fr n

r i:

,

r'

4 \o NO m

r

ni;

z ,r

>

r_:'

.-

,1

r

Li

Lrr n 2

L

r

.b Fr

f:

r

Li

.

,

3

nr

ni

F

ri

r

r.

.

Cl C-4

r

ci

co, F

,-

C-

rl ri

r-

r Li r_' U ri

^

rF

a

;^

r

Li .

1-

r-

CEa r

Li

*

J

r

Fs

11

a

i

l

n

r

rb

*

n

"

,a

r-

r

r_

,J

L

-j

13 J r; I-" n rnF * r ri

Wr Q

ri 0J? 52

r

L 52

-.

F

J

"

I:

yr

rr

~-

Lr

-IN.

Z

a

C -P

13 n3 JEI ri

Li

r r_

r_

,

,

n

^

r:

r

~-

1E

i

trLS tr ' n F-

n f 1-

rF

r

pr

^ 9n

r

rF Li

a.

z

j-

m

n

r

r

*

o

.

r

3

o

x

.

e

?

i-I.-

r

Li p

? m

4->

S)

r i I

* L

5(

175

Q

' u' '? r' 1*L fl 3

r Li

:3

L

-

_

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

I76

0o

0 oF

Q

-

fi

::L

*

n

*

ct

.'

V

E.

a

C

$

.

.I

?L Li -1

:^ r c>

X

LJfi

'

-p

,

E Q n*'

.

12LEl F^ asi;

. FF

r

a

a

a

_

r ;3.E

: 1)

00 0 r1-f

c f

,-

n *

an,'

rF

r

hr

cd

.

U

M

n

3n 'ws

nt a

i

n'

f*-

ri

E '

r

w r

r

n

r

?i < r-^ra ar "r: r-

^r-7

xn ^>

rr

L .-

n

F _rNL

-Fr

P~ F

^

r

r_

cL t

0

r rL

r 3i

-

n-rIr

r n

-

r:

r^

rr

m

*

r rl f-i

ct-s

U2

_ I F

r:r r a

Li r

Lir

-El

d\

sr l L

^ ?

If

_

-

r s

x.

L ;

-

1$ *;^? 1

?

r

,-

o

r nr Fn_

n

-JF

r

n r

~.

n

r3 . ***

r

--

o

r

rl _

i

' o

.

n * -5'

Fs .r'.

F

^ n . m Li F

K I

.2 F L.

~a

~

2 Li^

U ;0 n:'

*a

F *r

t-

RESPONSA

??e,,

o?

.e

.,o

,*4

.,,

.

r-

.

r ~~~~~~~r rr

rr

177

~~~~~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~u f< ~~~~

~~

,,.

GEONIM-MANN

ul

?/?

~

"~~

OF THE BABYLONIAN

r-- ?I?g ^t?& r

.,*

e.

,

.,

s

& |' 11

c~~~~~~~~~~c C~~~~if~~~~~~~~~~~~~

c

.I

r

13 c IrI_;' -?^a^

a z_

f~

r;

~~~r ~~~~~~~7~r

-

~

a " ,_ r: ~;

z

CI a n

rr,^L~~~~J rr ,-r

~s

~-

fZ

13 r_

c

r_ ,-

?srl

r= gS^n^^n

.

n r

13c~3JI C

r-

r= fZ

* --E!, F^ .g g

z5 r=

r

-c

S~_6g

;-

-.3 |"E

3

g

nJ

IZ~~~I

1 5 r-ar

?

.~

f=-

n-

VOL

VOL. IX.

,.-

I

re-r-. -z

r:_

r--m

I~ r

o

I~ r rl

IC c*

........~--r

o(r'~

~~rl

n....E ,

h

,X

rC~~~~~~~ ;r .......~

. )i

C r_

c

_ X.

rz

.*

~

o

f

s~

l~

~~~ r: rl

1

r

-J~

n

~J I".~~

_ r

a-

?n rl

c

I~

?r

~~~

~r .

s . ~~~~~~~~~~~~3 ~~~ nn ::3

~~~~~~~..',,-

r

r_ f "

,-I

nr

rr_

r_

,,-::_

,

J" ^^ -'-

si

r-

r

(-

b r

r 1::

~r,,_

~

1

r

c

r-~ El~~~r f rt -I ;^ ^S-

r.

1_

n

p&'^^pce0;;

aF_-

r

.r

_

-

'

.

"- ^? Cf~~~~~~~~1 !1"

3r

rz

n-

'

Ir:

-'

rt-j^nacgr rJlff

?

r~~~~~j n nr

jjj-.-'.nr

i~~~~~~~~~~~~rJ rr .3

~ a

r .~3nIGf E^h^. n"-~~~~

-

u^ r /a1

. N

N

c

THE JEWISH

I78

J~

o

e .

e

.

e.

. .

.

.

*

.

..

.

*

'

'i

r

rC'rEr c)

,,

a3

?* ^

S:

. .1 2

=

~

r\^

* -

.

,

rn-

E

..

^:

e

.

-

'

r

S

r .f ^r

-

n -n

r,: !

.. .

a

a r

r -

o

.

*

*r

o

. *.

X*

r

>_

REVIEW

QUARTERLY

r_

,

isx

n arc : r: a:: :r_:'- :z r

r ~_

r Z

rn ?

?

!

S;!

n

. n .a

*

l

,

.

.

g)

lr .,, o o e .. ,, .,

~

.

.

o

.,.

-

.

~

o

.. . .

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

RESPONSA us

o

*0 0Q

.

.

.

.

+

*

**

*

*

*

*

.

.

**

,

.

.

.

*

.+

.

_

t

_

.

0*

*

j

*

* * *

*

*

r:sr

)

.

F

.

.

.c _

*

f

*

-;

*

*

L

o

?o \Q

*3

-*

179

.n

r

n

L I-

?*

t:

Cu :r h

j

E

F

~ Jr-_

r: r_

r

r

'

r

3r.n. -

.z . '

1 F .

.

. .

* 0IPLI.

._ n

~9 .)

C

*

n.

.

*

f

:5

=.

;'

r

.

* *

. .a.

.

.-

*

*

r

.

*

*

** .

..

_

.

:.

9

*

.

.

-

.

*

..

.

.*

9.

.3

.

nN

2

~ *

r

r

r

r

r

F . .

. r r9

:

.....

. *.

1

.F

.I:

51

r

.*r

= r

J .

n

'

i:'

r_ .

_-

'r-

'i

r

s

rr r rn

r

r

9

9

9

9

-

THE

RESPONSA

OF THE

BABYLONIAN

GEONIM AS A SOURCE OF JEWISH BY JACOB MANN, Jews' College, II.

HISTORY *

London.

THE POLITICAL STATUS OF THE JEWS.

AFTER having discussed the extent of the influence the Geonim had over the Jewries of the various countries of the diaspora, an attempt will be made in this chapter to describe the political status of the Jews. In the light of the material the Gaonic responsa furnish, we shall consider in particular the relation of the Jews to the secular authorities and to their non-Jewish neighbours, their attitude towards the non-Jewish courts, and finally their treatment of their slaves. (a) It is generally assumed that with the advent of the

Arabs to 'Irtk (637-43) the Jewish ecclesiastical authorities, the so-called Bet-Din that existed in most of the Jewish communities of 'Irak, and the members of which were appointed either by the Exilarch or by the Geonim, continued to have full autonomy and could act entirely in accordance with the Talmudic law. The Gaonic responsa, however, show that the Muslim conquerors encroached occasionally more or less upon the sphere of activity assigned to the Jewish courts or the Jewish communal leaders. The first innovation the Geonim had to make not long after the Arab conquest of 'Irrk was in all probability due to such an interference on the part of the Arab rulers. Sherira in his Letter (p. 35) states that the Geonim * See vols. VII, 457-90, VIII, 339-66, 121

IX, 139-79.

122

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

R. Raaba of Pumbedita and Huna of Sura (both held office after 660 C.E.) instituted that a woman, who defied her husband and was thus rendered liable to the charge of being a nnn% (in the Talmudic phrase), should be divorced at once. The Talmudic practice was to defer the divorce for twelve months in order that meanwhile a reconciliation might be brought about between husband and wife (see Ketubot 64a). Sherira himself explains in a responsum that the Geonim were forced to make this innovation because they saw 'that the daughters of Israel went and attached themselves to non-Jews in order to obtain a divorce through them from their husbands. These had in some cases to grant the divorce under compulsion '.18 This statement probably means, as Weiss (il"nn, IV, 8-9 and note 14) has pointed out, that the Muslim authorities could force the Jews to grant divorce in such cases, and in order to prevent such enforced divorces, which according to the Talmudic law are null and void (;nriwD m), the Geonim ordained that in the case of mn)'n the husband should at once divorce his wife by his own free will and was also bound to pay the amount of the Ketubah. The objections of Rabbinowitz (Graetz, Heb. ed., III, I31) against this assumption cannot hold good. The same phrase nn: rlnvyn[n: occurs also in another responsum of Sherira where it must also mean the protection afforded by a Muslim court or by some influential Arabs to a Jew ' nI1:m '1'W.v ltn, No. I40 = t'W, 56a, No. I5: mI35n i Inn Slaw nh5 nlmi; tnt ynsn D3Ol r) D3il tIS =V)w see also pD', No. 91, by Sherira. In l"1n, No. 89, the reason is: i'v 4i1 I31' W mVL mSI' :Xn which amounts to the same. Cp. also ,nyll n1nf Schechter's Saadyana, 147 (=JQR., XIV, 515), 11. if. . b =' nt ,, IW 151

,

iRii . , I,1w:NV

w,1z"maw nw

IDi' fW inpinw. ntn5wn rpnn

RESPONSA

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

123

against the ruling of the Bet-Din. The case (n"w,No. I82, see Einleit., 21 note) deals with a Jew that committed some transgression on the Sabbath for which he was to be flogged, and the fear is expressed that he might escape and try to obtain the protection of the non-Jewish court or of some influential Arab (si Tr: 1ixlt nrnil, see also n'n, No. I46, and n"n, No. 135). This decree about a ' defiant' wife (nnmn) which was promulgated soon after the conquest of Babylon by 'Omar probably applied to this country only. We have the evidence of Maimonides that it was not accepted by the majority of the Jews.182 A question that very frequently occupied the Jewish communities as a whole was the assessment of taxation. Generally the whole community of a district was made responsible for the entire amount of taxes that was imposed upon it. After the conquest of 'Irak and Syria by the Arabs under 'Omar, the Arab conqueror in organizing the new state fixed a poll-tax for all non-Muslims ('..), certain burdens in connexion with the quartering of Muhammedan soldiers,183and a graduated land tax (-\>, see Aug. Mtiller, ibid., I, 272). This organization of the state by 'Omar was probably adopted by the Arabs after their conquest of North Africa and Spain. As regards Babylon, Graetz assumes that the Exilarchs were responsible for the taxes which were collected from the Jews (V4, 13I and 435-6). But from the responsa it appears that the Arab authorities collected the taxes directly from 182npmn T1, nm, N

',n, 414:

nmv 5KNrvmu:1n

rr awsbS6i

Probably R. Natronai refers to this in a responsum in ''wn, II, 20, based on D 1S9 SY 'lS r1DI, n1= '35D ni313 5: ;1nDi Besah, 21 a. See also Aug. Miiller ibid., 274. 185

i.

12:

THE JEWISH

124

QUARTERLY REVIEW

the Jews. The Gaon R. Sheshna of Sura (before iooo Sel. = 689 c.E.) writes in a responsum that ' if the ruler or the tax-collector sends to the community and enjoins the pronouncing of a ban in his interest, and it is impossible to disobey on account of the compulsion, this tax that was imposed by means of the ban is not binding. But if they impose an oath, the community should refuse to administer the oath to the person concerned'.184 This responsum shows that the authorities availed themselves of the coercion practised by the Bet-Din for their own purpose, and thus in order to obtain a true estimate of a man's taxingpower, they ordered the Jewish courts or the communal leaders to announce a ban against or impose an oath upon a Jew for this purpose. The Gaon to whom this responsum is assigned was one of the earliest Geonim whose sphere of influence probably did not extend beyond Babylon and Persia, and we may therefore assume that the responsum refers to the conditions that existed in these countries alone. The Gaon's opinion is that the enforced oath should not be administered by the communal leaders and that the ban, though announced, would be rendered null and void, in order to counteract the extortions of the authorities. The tax-collectors mentioned in this responsum were certainly non-Jews. Had they been Jews appointed by the Exilarch, or by the communal leaders,

EW nDnisV liSwli Monm DnnnM DwoIW MSw *W3K I 1* nyl:Wi:N 5 wI n W3Zaw

*s 1S4 isYDni 1"pm 5uIvz nsnnM65qnp=14-w

D:3 init 1

fs'1 tn3n I5 6W 1z Ipl5v n. IDS Dn3D 53 Ilt ux

wDnw

No. I95; D'n, No. 121; nI'fl, I, 49, No. 13; 1"1 No. 26, and (nt, Dt), No. 26). Cp. also #3, No. 4o. This R. Sheshna was certainly the Gaon and not the father of the Gaon 'Amram (856-74) of whose official capacity as a scholar to whom questions were addressed nothing is known (see also Weiss, "1''i, 9, note 5i).

RESPONSA

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

I25

to collect the taxes, the Gaon would not have decided against them.'85 The whole tone of the responsum shows that the authorities were extortionate in their coercion of the Jewish community. In the same responsum is also mentioned the case of a Jew that was executed, and his property confiscated. Thereupon the authorities enjoined the Jewish communal leaders to announce a ban against anybody that concealed some money of the criminal in order to preserve it for his heirs, instead of handing it over to the authorities. In the time of R. Nahshon of Sura (874-82) we learn that the taxes and impositions weighed heavily upon the Jews in Babylon. On a question, that came probably from some community abroad, whether the scholars should be asked by the community to contribute their share to the amount of the taxes due to the government, the Gaon answers that 'though the king and his councillors impose taxes without a limit and make the burden still heavier upon the community', yet the scholars should not be taxed.l86 Probably the Gaon reflects here the deplorable state the Jews of Babylon must have been in, especially during the period of the decline of the 'Abbasid dynasty after the death of Mutassim in 842 (see Aug. Muller, ibid., I, 523 ff.). In the communities outside Babylon, in Palestine, North Africa, Spain, and southern France, we learn from the responsa that fixed amounts were imposed upon whole communities, and the communal leaders had the task and 185

Cp. D#?ID?,No. xo: when the community collected the taxes and one of the members declared that he possessed nothing, he was adjured.

1AnM Jlbn lS' j Ltt, "Yr W W tn ,nr.. in", No. 537: nm1 n-nnin pnp45 -D1N vgn 5. $y Irr7z.n pn S: IvPrnn1w 186

., ,01 3.--About the great number of taxes that existed under the Abbasid caliphs, cp. Kremer, . c., I, 278, and II, 488 ff.

THE JEWISH

I26

QUARTERLY REVIEW

the responsibility to assess each member of their community in accordance with his economic position. Thus the people of Tlemsen style their late communal leader 'the eye of the community and the first in every charitable affair as well as in the taxes and the impositions exacted from the community'.187 Often disputes arose in the communities as to who should contribute the most, whether the traders or the people who owned landed property, as we learn from responsa of French scholars, contemporaries of Sherira and Hai (see 3"?', Nos. 165 and 2o5). In n")*, No. i65, it is also stated that the community had to collect an amount of money for bribing the officials not to expose them to extortion and oppression.188 That the extortions of the authorities in the district of Kairowan became intolerable in the time of Sherira and Hai we can gather from a responsum of theirs preserved in rn", No. 346 (cp. Geon., II, 5). A Jew was much harassed in his place of residence by penal impositions, and he could not leave the town as his wife would be arrested instead and treated in a similar way. Accordingly people advised that Jew to write a bogus document of divorce to his wife, in order that she should be able to take possession of her husband's property as being her dowry, and her husband be at liberty to escape.189 It is expressly stated that some of the towns187

wn,

,II, 3

No. 9 ;1.t,

No. 37, by R. Hai: NKIWYl' . . .

m;1 nipn in, nnuzt loanwi 11 IjEWK: myn tpv.p1a Ilnp'mlYl p3f *Z i WY1, 'fine', was then the usual expression for tax. See n"1D, No. io: 1v5P 4wmnw ln5 s3 p^K-InN 1D* i DIt= nm3b5 KNzv. 188 wn5r mn'wrn nnrm~nr IZ. rbon pSri Pl1wt=w

5

189 aiwnnxsy rtn nw4lJ i n:Din ly m nlj 1:ti Win n pz5r DVN 413 nIVpID1VP MW139Y1 n1nCM.,1nn lslln Inw nK ^ Mr1ns311 nmivl minaln1:)h WW p ipni 5.Wnvanmr Inw5 5iDa tw allnJ-

RESPONSA

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

I27

people used to avail themselves of such devices in order to escape the impositions of the governor. That such devices had to be used is sufficiently eloquent of the position of the Jews in those districts. The screw of taxation was made more and more tight, so that people were compelled to leave their places of residence. A similar case is reported in another responsum (''"n, II, 58, No. 7). Jews who had to flee from their town, settled in another place where they were taxed by the Jewish community. But now the members of their former community bring forward claims against them, because they had undertaken in common the responsibility for the taxes. In the responsum it is stated that the authorities would exact the amount assessed irrespective of the actual number of the members of the community.190 In Palestine also, under the rule of the Egyptian dynasty of the Fatimids, the burden of taxation weighed heavily upon the Jews. In a letter to Ephraim b. Shemarya, head of the Palestinian synagogue of Fustat, the Jewish community of Jerusalem complain that they' suffer the yoke of the non-Jews who put all burdens' upon them. Though there was a famine ilnv ri 1p r1p'i 7yl

nD

= ,V1nnnnnm

inwK NKt nn

ns'

. This responsum belongs to the * jltW;l 'YV rn l1W i3 n:nX sent to in of Kairowan 991 c. E. (%"', Nos. 345-50, see group responsa p. 179, note i). It is interesting to note that the authorities did not confiscate this man's estate on his departure from the town. Further, the document of divorce, Ut, seems to have had legal recognition in the eyes of the authorities, and the wife was allowed to take possession of her former husband's estate in lieu of her dowry (1IJ:ll), in precedence to the claims of the authorities. *

?r= 1yZpi ?r-p^ irnrw by5fP p l:il2 '1l n In '=:lW 1ii This is S 5[D1 l nnrl'1. ' n11 responsum seemingly by R. Hai like the one preceding it. Miiller, Einleit., 34, note (last line) assigns it without any proof to R. Isaac the Tosafite. 190

-i5br

I28

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY REVIEW

in the country, the Jewish community had to find the usual amount of taxes imposed by the government, and had thus to appeal to their compatriots in Egypt for support.191 Several responsa deal with confiscation of money and property belonging to Jews, and with other kinds of interference on the part of the authorities. In some cases it may have been due to the punishment inflicted upon individual Jews that transgressed the law of the country (see t'9, 34b, No. 5 and 4 b, No. 38 by Saadya; "`, No. 3; n`, Nos. 9 and o09; D"D', No. 189). Some interesting points are contained in a list of headings of responsa quoted by Muller (Einleit., 53, note) from a Parma MS. Non-Jews give evidence against Jewish young people about their indecent behaviour, and the governor appoints a Jewish official to collect the fines he imposed upon .these young Jews, while granting this official a commission of ten per cent. Informing amongst Jews was an evil rampant in those times which often endangered the lives of many Jews while causing still further material loss. Accordingly the Bet-Din and the communal leaders dealt very severely with informers. Anybody that suffered from denunciation could pronounce a ban against those that denounced him to the authorities (see in, No. 333, end, by R. Hai; rn~n, 191Geniza Letter (published by Cowley, JQR., XIX, pp. 107-8, and V also by Wertheimer, niq3 rns 'IIt, II, 17): tWV'n b3:i'1 5W1N

SaIn^5yns31o 1imn nmmi* mWi ji;11n nmin v1npn Jn1tn n1ilnn 1n

MwM 43

V1 10n 'nn3 13

n;

Rn ...

n

3rl

mi nnlu D':1wm

1 I:5V nwSW1n 31n n11,n DuD >W ~n=1y illmp niWI ^naDo ' Nsh tw ri nn55 13x3.ml I neW,nvwvsnlb5 41 53n D'pWmv 3 Nis s z-l n3D3 uin 1=n nwv -y 1mW i S-Din ,n: (r. %ID:) It

4 D13,n tnD'nm1 I=

D^3 i:1n n3",nl1 Drl'n5D

RESPONSA

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

129

No. 193, by R. Joseph Ibn Abitur, and No. 195, end).l92 One of 'Omar's decrees was that a non-Muslim should 192 No indication is to be found in the Gaonic Responsa, as far as they are extant, that informers were sentenced to death by the Bet-Din in conjunction with the communal leaders. The responsa of the contemporary Spanish scholars also show no trace of this penal procedure. It is therefore surprising to find this drastic treatment of informers quite general among the Jewish communities chiefly in Spain. The first authority mentioned as having inflicted capital punishment on an informer, is R. Joseph Ibn Migash of Lucena, the disciple of Alfasi (see R. Juda b. Asher in fllltl

m185'f. 55: *1'w5^1KI m "! InN -1=D wvr p tjln Spa w rv1=w 1 n "m15,1). rwV nywl nwn n^ nr, an Maimonides, writing in Egypt, also refers to this punishment as quite usual in the 'towns of the West' (1~3iDl '1i32), i. e. Spain and Morocco, which latter country contained then II, ). Highly important is many Spanish Jews (nptlnU?l , p ^lri iin VIII, the letter of Solomon b. Aderet concerning the case of an informer in Barcelona (published by Kaufmann, JQR., VIII, 1896, pp. 228 ff., where he also discusses this question of Jewish informers in the Middle Ages on See further the important responsum of Asheri in tll"' pp. 2I7-28). W"'lBt, XVII, i. On the whole, the material available tends to show that chiefly in Spain informers paid the penalty of death for their denunciations. There the communities seem to have had the permission of the secular authorities for such a procedure. Altogether in Spain the communal leaders seem to have been invested with very great powers, amounting even to the right of inflicting capital punishment in some cases; a fact that greatly astonished Asheri when he came from Germany to settle in Toledo, as he writes in the important responsum in t"t?1 nl't, XVII, 8. Whether in the Gaonic period the Jewish communities anywhere in the diaspora, including even Spain, possessed such rights, is very doubtful. It is certainly surprising that in the numerous Gaonic responsa no mention is made of such formidable authority vested with the communal leaders. t' :lL' See further D"I'ID'11n1, ed. Bloch, p. 208, No. 137: n1"n tD 4^ 5zb n iD rnqW: 3 Nvt

r n" tj 5"1 p-l11m

nniN

nrlolDDl 14=n

nine nrywi nyrn 5V,plmnrvv nyvnt3 .. , wn n-p n5 inrDnr l nns -IDIbK m nD;n 6ni nn nwe W, Nrn 5 un isnN I, I*. n1 rin 1 "n1n. This responsum deals 21 1p inn pnll 'ln'`D '1nITnnT inr with conditions in Germany, where it seems informels were removed with the assistance of non-Jews (cp. further, ibid., p. 50, Nos. 313 and 3r7). In view of the above remarks, the responsum in Y'E, I82, 3n1DD 1I1Dln K VOL. X.

THE JEWISH

130

QUARTERLY REVIEW

suffer capital punishment in the case of his having spoken disparagingly of Muhammed and his religion (see Aug. Miiller, ibid., I, 273). A member of the Exilarch's family, who was to succeed the well-known David b. Zakkai, was denounced in Nisibis for such an offence and suffered the penalty.193 From a responsum we learn further that if a Jew was converted to Islam and then repented and returned to his former religion, he had to flee to another place where he would be unknown, else he forfeited his life.194 On the whole it may be assumed that a Jew found some protection on the part of the authorities and Courts against robbery and oppression by non-Jews. This was more or less the case both in Muhammedan and Christian countries. The responsa supply proofs for this assumption. Thus we read in a responsum of R. Semah (probably of Pumbedita, 872-90) about a Jew that traded in Egyptian towns, and while attempting to ford a river was drowned. When the relatives searched for the body, the non-Jews living by the side of the river gave evidence that they had seen the body floating but they did not pick it up for fear mn m IN

. I

,, . 5t

n nnym bnptr ia innnm wDwnr nm Q-iaap n ,p in1D lno Tn,1 v -rz ' -W'1 ni

in

i1 wv r,

n 5nn

5KtrF 5w "I -DIDI rpy KN5

mnlD:pi-n ing imnrln ly nzwn ?Kt6

en i 51K, is very 5 -iniojD1?5 inrnfln n1tr rv -DinSv 4'D st a a Gaon but not scholar. by Spanish likely by Babylonian 193 Report of Nathan the Babylonian (Neub., II, 82-3): rInlK K13 K1I DNDN ; a1KNn toh ini rp vin 4= rnl;vw nsN NF N;"n mrrwvW

inKl

my Dnv nn w n3 1i -^w inx mi

irztpDnN51 rna

o. 18 R. Monso3. n1n r1I Db n 5y vw 1i4 V"W, 26b, No. a8, by R. Moses of Sura, 832-43 c. E.: Tn ni' srW v 51 nn aMin.w D, 1 ., .
iv

R1 ,. ,,

w pD1 n5t rn51inN i'snD

RESPONSA

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

I31

of the governor.95 Probably they were afraid lest the authorities would accuse them of having murdered this Jew. As regards a Christian country, we see that R. Meshullam in nY'h, No. 188, decided in a case where non-Jews forcibly deprived Jews of their estates, fields, and vineyards, and afterwards other Jews took over from these robbers their spoil, that since there were non-Jewish courts and authorities with whom the plundered Jews could have lodged their complaints, they had relinquished their right of ownership by not taking legal proceedings and allowing other Jews to recover their property from the robbers.l96 But frequently in disturbed times the authorities were powerless or callous about giving protection to Jews against thefts and robberies. Two responsa supply us with highly interesting material. Correspondents from probably some North African community write to Sherira (0"'V, 3 a, No. 2o) concerning the case of a Jew that lost something or other, or was robbed by non-Jews, and afterwards another Jew bought back the stolen goods from these non-Jews, of course much below their value. Now the owner claims back his goods and intends paying back the other man's outlay. In the long argument which the owner of the stolen or plundered goods uses, three characteristic alternatives are enumerated as to how a Jew of those times could make good his loss. Either he finds out the culprits and brings them before the governor or the non-Jewish courts. Or he strikes a bargain with the 195

1n, No. 27:

J1

In'nin mS,yn5 wi'nn I,ni5b

m1l1p.

196

K5.4pKr li w nK:y . ji1 wKSnl I,N n11 5nI b. Hushiel (above, IX, x17 ff.). *

nw .

3n . . '1 1p3 ^ Cp. also the responsum of Elhanan

THE JEWISH

I32

QUARTERLY REVIEW

brigands to return him at least a part of his belongings. It is stated in the responsum that other Jews had to do likewise. The third alternative would be to parley with the elders and influential people amongst these brigands and persuade them by bribes to recover the stolen goods. Though there were prohibitions by the governors against stealing and robbing as well as against buying such goods, it seems that this 'trade' flourished considerably. The Jewish communities, long before the time of this responsum, had to make an institution that the owner of the lost, stolen, or robbed property should be entitled to recover it from the Jewish buyer after paying back his expenses. This institution was common to all communities in that district, which shows that robberies and thefts must have been of very frequent occurrence.91' From the answer of the Gaon we gather that this institution was unknown in Babylon. Accordingly the responsum refers to the conditions outside 'Irak, probably in some North African district. In the other responsum in p", No. 93 (perhaps by R. Meshullam, see MUller, Einleit., 25, note) we find Jewish business-men 197

tD1

ri 21 1 nlinpljn

n1p=13 ;Fssr 4:1

i1lr^=

nK

nnw. wp3p ,nm I rV3YI

4nDo,lrv$4nt ninrmn

nnvw

i- w4m

srs

n4 I= umN~ :m,nmt i , m, =:: $=vm .n,nm ra n=nn= p3 n1:1nnS?T PrNat31;a4n tn in I$1 Dnns
RESPONSA

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

133

taking the law into their own hands and paying back in the same coin to non-Jewish traders who constantly spoliated and harrassed them. 'A Jew said to a co-religionist, The people of the town N. have captured our city and have robbed us. Now the traders of that city usually go to the town, wherein you reside, for business purposes. If you can spoliate them by the authority of the rulers of your town, do it and let me have the spoil. But the other Jew answered, Were I able to make these traders pay the penalty, I should do it myself, because I have also lost a great deal in their town. At length it happened that once these traders came with their goods to the town of the second Jew, and he, risking his life, fleeced them after bribing the authorities of his town.' 198 The Jew seeing that no redress was to be obtained from the authorities, especially when towns were on the warpath against each other, had to risk his life and procure retribution for himself. Several responsa tell us of towns sacked wherein Jews lived and also of cases of exile, either of whole communities or of individual Jews. Unfortunately only a few of these responsa can be adequately identified. R. Meshullam must refer to some upheaval in Lucca and the surrounding places when he writes at the beginning of his responsum (p", No. 6i), 'May God in his great mercy relieve us in distress and put an end to the upheavals among us, our

^nmw 1^ 3 4tn a my ^w ni= isKw .1p anl 515w5=~n ns .ln,~ Innnn?p=ilnn,vn nms 5 i' pnmn n ,5 snmnno 5u nN'v 4w-n=3 3r!,n,,n Mi5snWmmn 1n5ono ,~ ,m 5 w ~W,nsx nm~ n,in .inD1 nw nmfnemn n1551w w i^;wl wIm Inm^ 155|wr 1mn ID bTI;IT nnl; nD^ nTn .., plDmntnnw ^m31,npnrr. 198,

I5

n4nv 1m^y

nmtl

I34

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY REVIEW

brethren and the children of our congregations.l99 Above (VII, 484) we had the case of the town of Nefusa that was sacked and burned by the enemy. Another responsum tells us of an Arabic commander of an army who entered a town and captured many women, Jewish and nonJewish. These captives had afterwards to be ransomed (n"o=, No. 47, see Miiller, note I).200 Another

responsum

(p"~, No. 5I, probably by R. Meshullam, see Einleit., 25, note) tells us further of a town that was sacked and all the inhabitants were led away as captives, with the exception of one Jew who escaped. From the responsum it appears that this Jewish community was not long after reorganized. In '"fln,No. 153 (probably by some French or Italian scholar, see Mtiller, note I) we read of the exile of Jews from a whole district. Before the exile a Bet-Din existed there, and thus there must have been an organized Jewish community in that town. The estates of the exiled Jews were not confiscated, and from the lawsuit it appears that the children of these exiles returned to their former place of residence and could take possession of these estates. Perhaps this responsum refers to the banishment of the Jews of Limoges in 1oIo C.E. (see Gr. V4, 380), where the bishop of the town had Christianity preached to the Jews for a whole month, and when this was of no avail, had them exiled. We learn further of Jews of Tlemsen that were exiled to Ashir but their property was not confiscated 199I^nnl

4 \ 3 nW1 1h 1y:3nM I=:nnnimwnn ,5Z1

14nnm

m Kn

ll~Nj5p 4n=1. See above, VII, 487. 200 Asheri, Responsa, XXXII, 5, quotes this responsum as follows: ' Nm w=1 IDa tn1n n -1 nrn rvrt ll 'o3 nIn&D S,ID4 Siw ' 3 N 1 m ,1lb m;ll jlrY p ji utn^n nsa a-i tni r: i ' ri:nl n/lt11v? 'Xn1/u~ Ofl,"'l n W.f Accordingly only one Jewess was among the captives. The same reading is often found in the Responsa of R. Moses Alashkar, no. 95 (el. Sabionetta, 1553, fol. ISI b).

nwnm

RESPONSA

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

135

and their heirs could become the owners of their parents' possessions (n"`, No. 33 and n"in, No. I33, by R. Hai, see also above, VII, 484). (b) The next point to be considered is the relations that existed between Jews and their Gentile neighbours. It is only natural to assume that Jews had many business connexions with Gentiles. This is corroborated by many responsa, as it will be shown in the next chapter. Thus in many cases friendly relations must have sprung up between Jews and non-Jews. R. Nahshon, in a responsum, is of the opinion that no charity should be accepted from a non-Jew (1":,No. 26). This responsum shows that there must have been sometimes non-Jews that wanted to contribute to the charitable needs of Jewish communities. Some interesting details about the relations between Jews and Christians in Babylon are to be found in the Judicial Decisions of the Catholici (published by Sachau, Syrische Rechtsbiicher, vol. II). The people of Hira (IHertha) used to practise circumcision according to Jewish rites (1. c., Jesubarnum, ? 27, cp. Timotheos, ? 16). The Catholicos Jesubarnum (? 1i8) prohibits both priest and layman to 'eat and drink with Jews and to keep friendship with the son of the crucifiers' (I.c., p. 170, 11.I3-I4: 1 Jtlo

: LJ?6o0

. Jo )F

%D

:I.sJ

LAhoD

ol .sa.:so

% \!Z ol

, zo*). The same Catholicos ordains exJcL <j p; communication from the Church on those that marry 'a heathen, Jew, or a member of another religion' (?? Io, II, 119). These decisions of the Catholici allow us a glimpse of the relations, which appear to have been of a friendly character, between Jews and Christians in Babylon in the first half of the ninth century (see also Aptowitzer, Die syrischen Rechtsbiicher u. das Mosaiscie Recht, pp. 5-6, in

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

I36

Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. 163). But on the whole the Jew's life among his non-Jewish neighbours must have been precarious and exposed to dangers. We find the Geonim adopting the maxim, as found in the Talmud, that 'a non-Jew generally is an extortioner' (Nin NDm sJ inn ,"t:fl, No. IO1, by R. 'Amram; n":, No. 242, by Sherira or Hai to the Kairowan Jews). Characteristic is the statement by R. Natronai of Sura, 853-6 c.E., in a responsum, to the effect that 'generally if non-Jews get hold of a Jew's money they have no pity '.20 It must have been sad experience only that made the spiritual leaders of Jewry view the non-Jew in such a light. Thus it is only natural that the Jews disliked having non-Jews as their nearest neighbours, for fear of violence. Jews preferred to live by themselves in special quarters. This tendency helped to erect the Ghetti which later on, in the times of persecutions, were made obligatory on the Jews. The Talmudic law was that if a Jew sold his field or house to a non-Jew, his Jewish neighbours could force this Jew to undertake the responsibility for any harm their new non-Jewish neighbour might do them. This law we find in full practice in the Gaonic period as several responsa show (cp. x"e', 33 a, Nos. 21 and 22 (cp. n" , No. 142), probably by Sherira; *`t1, No. 9, by R. Semah to IKairowan; n2"1n, No. 158, anonymous: a whole quarter inhabited by Jews). Yet some responsa tell us of Jews living promiscuously with non-Jews and knowing the affairs of each other (see ?'Th, No. 95). A responsum mentions that all the inhabitants of a town, including the Jews, were dressed alike as soldiers (n'=l, No. 69). Another 201

Pardes 24 c: 111 inrn

n1^Wn iar

1,21 nxt7 IW cp. DBn] nmD in 1s bD)IY nMDIKVT 5DVw (cp. B. kamma 117 a).

laP.

RESPONSA

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

137

responsum tells us of a case of a Reader (rtn) who was immoral, and the non-Jews were blaming the Jews for retaining such a man as their reader in the synagogue (ne'n, No. 17, probably by R. Joseph Ibn Abitur; see also above, p. I28). We find further cases of Jews who in trying to exact monetary claims from co-religionists by violence would hire non-Jews and instruct them to waylay their victims and extort whatever they demanded (n"'n, No. 22, by Saadya; n"', No. 39, to Tlemlsen, see Einleit., 39, note).202 All these disconnected details scattered here and there in the responsa give us some glimpse of the mutual relations between Jew and non-Jew in these times. (c) A point of much interest is the attitude of the Jews of the Gaonic period towards the non-Jewish courts. It is only natural that a non-Jew when having a claim against a Jew would summon him before the non-Jewish court. A gentile generally distrusted the Bet-Din (see ;15, No. 324, by R. Hai to Kabes; 5"J, No. 40, by R. Hai; n"tn', No. 153; No. 204 by JHanok b. Moses). Likewise a Jew had to summon a non-Jew before the secular courts. The Bet-Din had certainly no power of coercion over a non-Jew (see, e.g. n"nIm,No. o02by Sar Shalom of Sura, 849-53 C.E.; Nos. 2oT and 2o4). But as regards disputes that arose between Jew and Jew, the Geonim as well as the communal -leaders strongly disliked any attempt to bring these disputes for settlement before the non-Jewish courts instead of the Jewish ecclesiastical court, the so-called There were many affairs that could not be Bet-Din. divulged before courts frequently hostile. The screw of 202

Miller, Einleit., 53, note, quotes also a responsum from a Parma

sl manuscript: KNl.ni fnnn 1Mty=3 Dlrr,.

w vlnn

n 5n rim

jtw

w714

THE JEWISH

I38

QUARTERLY REVIEW

taxation and impositions would have been made tighter, if the whole extent of business carried on by Jews would have become known through such monetary lawsuits brought before the courts. Further, for fear of non-Jewish competition, the Jew found it inadvisable to reveal the particulars of his trade. We find the Christian ecclesiastical authorities in Babylon of the same period exhibiting the same dislike of seeing Christians bring their lawsuits before Muslim courts. In the Judicial Decisions of the Catholicos Mar Timotheos (about 805) as well as those of the Catholicos Jesubarum (820-24) Christians are enjoined to bring their disputes exclusively before Christian courts.203 The Geonim in opposing Jewish lawsuits being brought before the non-Jewish courts followed the Talmudic precepts. Already R. Tarfon (end of first century, C.E.) was against attending non-Jewish courts (see Gittin 88 b, m v. A R. Meir) nlw'1:l sNi ,nnsW*"Z 7niN 1pDno'" ,'n ni i nN

1ni6ppiv) wnni

'nw zN

nw

Nrln D

n"wP DN-= iw).

In a responsum (quoted by Miiller, Einleit., 54, note 4, end, from a Parma MS.) the Gaon declares that if a Jew hands over a co-religionist to a non-Jewish court, even in monetary affairs, he is regarded as an informer (lDon).204 On the whole Jews acted according to the injunctions of their spiritual leaders and tried to settle all their disputes before the Jewish courts. Thus in the case of the stolen goods (above, pp. 131-32) we find the claimant arguing to 203 See 1. I3-14:

Sa hau, Syrische Rechtsbiicher, j^t.

]a

Pt'3

e

}

0

vol. ?o9

II, Berlin, t-; ;J1J

I908,

p. 56,

IO

*d..t; so Mar Timotheos; cp. further, ?? I2-13 (pp. 66-8), r*!j,ts0oo and Jesubarnum, ? I15 (pp. 168-9). See also Aptowitzer, 1.c., 46 ff. 204 p>pDy Jn^ tV bN )I N p3 33 )1)C p:j) 7 l-in nK D-Inn iD W"3 [ ilW?)3 pDY bY '17D1 'lpV Alfasi.

pI3t.

See also n"J, No. 491, by

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

139

the defendant that because he must not summon him before a non-Jewish court he is worse off than if non-Jews had bought the stolen goods.205 Yet the responsa mention several cases of Jews seeking redress against their coreligionists at non-Jewish courts. A Genizah Fragment of the year o106 (published by Poznarnski,RAy., XLVIII, I7I) tells us of a Jew, 'Amriin b. Elijah of Sicily, who had Ephraim b. Shemaryah arrested by the Muslim courtofficials in Fustat because the latter did not want to appear before a Muslim court to answer on the former's monetary claims. The arrested Jew justifies himself before the Muslim Judge that as Jews they had a court of their own for settling their disputes.206 In a responsum R. Moses b. Hanok ("w', 30 a, No. 9) decides in the case of a Jew who had his co-religionist arrested that he should pay all expenses which his co-religionist incurred through his imprisonment (see also r"ih, No. 2IO). Since Jews frequently brought their lawsuits before non-Jewish courts, repeated injunctions had to be made by the spiritual leaders of Jewry against this practice. In a Cambridge Genizah Fragment (published by Dr. Marmorstein, Monatsschrift, I906, 599) we read of an institution in a community that any Jew that brings his lawsuit before a non-Jewish court 205tnr l

;^an

2s0 8S

n7 - n8) ,1,n

2V06

1I8) nn^

mnl

) nl,S ;J n

nunrlz

%:9X

-InriDxn nNx

fln,,.

nn, *i3p1? i n '1 5 In

3*, 8p . D^^ln

ni,

*

'

ml In=

tnm

*m y'ln MnITn n^V:1 N3'N11Tz MIT=3IPW:).V ?n'lM 'il I QNvwirln;-im 206

(11. I7-r8)

IN-11 VIDpO.VZifi<^i

a 14V I.V til

,

41I in1

tp^in".

THE JEWISH

140

QUARTERLY REVIEW

should pay a fine.207 In an undated fragment from Fustat (in the possession of Mr. E. N. Adler, M.A., London) we find the Nagid enjoining that no Jew should go to a non-Jewish court before bringing his case before the Jewish court of Cairo.208 The question often arose whether deeds of property or transaction drawn up in non-Jewish courts possessed legal value in Jewish courts. The Geonim were frequently asked to legalize such documents (see n"a, No. 82; nt"ul1,Nos. 94 and 199). Some responsa by Spanish scholars as well as by Hai, throw interesting light on the way the Muslim courts administered justice in Spain and Babylon respectively. In the former country the Muslim courts seem to have been held in great disrepute by the Jews at the end of the tenth and the beginning of the eleventh centuries. R. Moses b. Hanok of Cordova, in dealing with the case of a Jew who was found guilty by the Arab authorities on the charge of murder and hadhis property confiscated, writes that 'their justice is no justice even when Muslims only are concerned, how much less when Jews are concerned. They also rely on witnesses that are false .209 The Rabbi criticizes the too ready acceptance of witnesses by these courts without first ascertaining their veracity. The 207

jmLn

iw nilo-lyn

w cnna j,^4pninpw in:?nn nSvn,nn nno ri-i (?)nrw

iKwn

rD. (1 23) jp 1"1 Itrw 208 m, i, ,n3n .p 5Qpn

. . .*17rl?p

114

?nY', No.

I79:

IKN

t5y T1imw ND nW i,npn 5:

r nnnr Si also No. I66: See nrv5 Rornn. Y"', pi' pn;n, als" ?No

'F prinntH 1 * 4 . D1An pin V11 t3yg win) ji 209

iyl

w nrei

p13p \

/ ipnrpn. n

1n

4w

n

atnwtv"m1lnvS ;,n 4i15Upl 4ir n sS 1pi Dn^mn ps< w1v i , I . sa1w31 InDnn nrs -pw y tD^,1 ,H 1n'"13 1 g rnDi.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

I41

same disparaging opinion about the Arab courts was prevalent among the Jews of IKairowan and North Africa (n"r, Nos. 237, 278, and 324). A still more scathing criticism we find in another responsum by a Spanish scholar of that time (tr'"n, No. i99, see Miiller, note i). The Rabbi maintains that, firstly, the Arabic documents of the courts are unreliable because by adding or omitting one dot over or beneath a letter in the Arabic script the whole meaning of a sentence can be changed. Secondly, the courts accept witnesses without knowing them, and rely on identifications the witnesses give about themselves.210 MUller (note 6 to this responsum) is surprised at this procedure as being against the Muhammedan law, but we shall see later on that R. Hai in Pumbedita knew that in some parts of the Muslim empire such a scandalous administration of justice was practised (see also Miiller, Die Responsen der spanischen Lehrer des l ote Yahzrhunderts, p. 6 in the seventh report of the Berlin Lelranstalt, I889). Entirely different was the state of affairs in Babylon. There a whole system of jurisdiction was devised and brought to a high level of efficiency by the legal school which had as its founder the famous lawyer Abu Hanifa (d. 766 c.E., see Kremer, ibid., I, 491-7 and 504). This high standard seems to have been maintained for several centuries. The Gaon Hai testifies that in his time the courts of Bagdad and of other large cities excelled themselves in their care exhibited in administering justice. Great care was shown in accepting witnesses, and therefore 210

nN nM,Snn

5~ &inS1,sW 0

,,.

?nS

nnr mnp in

n 9l4n ;n

014 [n:nS i,nnlm I"m

nws KwEnnt -mIw

ir rn=

nwIa m%n mn V1 InN.

I,nta a ,s

. 'm

,

142

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY REVIEW

deeds of property drawn up at these courts were accepted as legal by the court of the Gaon. Yet R. Hai knew that there were 'villages and distant places', where the courts did not come up to that standard of perfection, and accordingly documents from such courts found no legal recognition in the opinion of the Jewish courts.211 We thus see the Jewish scholars estimating the Muslim courts not from the point of view of fanatics, but of lawyers primarily concerned about fair and upright administration of justice. That the Jewish authorities themselves solicited the cooperation of the secular authorities, the so-called m'1 '32, is apparent from several responsa. In monetary lawsuits, whenever the Bet-Din or the communal leaders found that their powers of coercion were inadequate, they used to secure the help of the secular arm. Correspondents from Kairowan (n"r,No. 233 in the collection of responsa to KIairowan, Nos. 230-64) inquire of the Gaon with reference to the Jew A, who was sentenced by the BetDin to pay to B a sum of money, but does not obey the ruling of the Bet-Din. Those witnesses that were accepted 211

No. 339, a similar "1"1,No. 278 (in all probability by Hai since 1"N1, ' )3 is n In W 1W tnsfNl 4lV1 nt; inl I33 by him): responsum,

in*K&i'jN ,m 13K l Di:: 3 nrwfT ,wl.

umWsin n'nns m n n4m' IS'pl nitwniY nwDw^y1rg wntrp ,1^ Kin NW31 "-im In 73 nnv pI~Dn Drn tW ,~Din3 e, [aa8W nnmblnnnnKn

tn3 npw m? t:KW apnon ni np o^ 3pwKSK n N 3tt ni i n^niD D,,r nnn tyw 1r p'nIm

Q'al3 mnipD , p1x1a. inn

Cp. also Nl", No. 324, probably written in ioI6 by Hai to Kabes, see Harkavy, ibid., p. 156, note 8; "M, No. 233; X"W,84 b, No. 4; V'L,No. 51.

RESPONSA

OF THE BABYLONIAN

GEONIM-MANN

I43

by the Jewish court will not be accepted by the Arabic judges, and the question arises whether influential people of the Jewish community may go to the Muslim court and give evidence on the strength of the sentence of the BatDin, in order that justice should be carried out by the help of the secular authorities. The Gaon allows this procedure, especially if there are indications that the defendant B is going to escape. A similar responsum we have in V"e, 84b, No. 4 (assigned by the 'Ittur to Sherira). In the place of the correspondents there was no fixed Bet-Din, but the communal leaders used to settle disputes arising between Jews. If their ruling is not obeyed, the Gaon decides, the help of the secular authorities may be procured.212 In a Genizah Fragment (published by Schechter in Berliner's Festschrift, Hebrew Part, I I) we find the Dayan Elijah complaining that 'from the majority of our congregation it is difficult to recover anything unjustly appropriated, unless through the power of the ruler'.213 This letter was hardly sent from Egypt, as Schechter maintains; 11. I8-I9 show that the writer only passed through Egypt (cp. also PoznaAski, R3_., XLVII, 139, and Babyl. Geon., 99, note I). Perhaps this Dayan held his office in Damascus where there existed a Karaite community. Probably Sahl b. Masliah had this practice of the Rabbanite authorities in mind when he accuses them wnmv1o5 wwin 6t:tn 14w Wiprn 8a nn 11111 212 i D'j1 13 m i11 Cp. further 'Gaonic Decrees and Documents' (published by '12n. ~2 5$1 .. . Aptowitzer, JQR., N. S., vol. IV, p. 27); No. V (nl.sTi): aI,nOD S n5 n, nrNbS egnning) itmn wt R.er bm,Ilw nit,N 4Se 6Olyn. See also R. Yeruham, IViWV, I, 12 (beginning) s1rilvtW 10

213inD5

n1n n

3

0w nnn

, lrht

blvh

^w uny z33.

144

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY REVIEW

of enlisting the help of the secular power (nK nD1 n,S1nn D:,n n'?ii, in Pinsker, Np1i nrrn Dn-ini 1n 'nNl-Dv wy nr=i3p, ntaD3, 3I, bottom).214 From some community the complaint came to R. Hai that there were refractory people who did not listen to the Bet-Din and committed evil deeds, while 'the government was a grievous one' and afforded no assistance to the communal leaders.215 The whole problem of the power of the Jewish courts and the communal leaders will be discussed fully in the chapter next but one. (d) We shall now discuss the material which the responsa furnish concerning Jewish masters and their slaves. It is generally assumed that the Jews of the Gaonic period were very active in slave-trade (see Heyd, Geschichte d. Levante-handels im Mittelalter, I, 139, and Dr. Abrahams, 7ewish Life in the Middle Ages, 96 ff.). It is noteworthy that of the considerable number of responsa that deal with slaves in the service of Jews, only a few refer to slave-trade as a trade carried on by Jews. R. Nahshon of Sura (874-82) was asked by some community about slave-trade. 'In our place people are used to buy slaves cheaply, and there is no better trade than this. May we sell them at once without initiating them into Jewish rites, because only one out of a hundred abide in his newly accepted religion, and we get great profit from this trade?'216 The Gaon 214

Yet Benjamin Nahavendi also advocates this practice: N31' Q tIRl A 4ni t ji4 zij) NS0i n 1Wrnw-1imn st DIl nlsnyx niK ed. 2 i4 a 'n Firkovitz, V5i' n4'rl nVnO, -'nW (jIrn p'" bottom). 216 Dnll, No. 42: Vm5 K' '5 I'Fy tS in'pi pJ n' *,

ni^vn

-12n5

b5 53' RI1 rNil ivml l-

? .. Nm" 11n2. 216 x", 26b, No. 27: Itl

i5Vn n1T

nl3inl

im Inwp Intl p': 2llp

nl: re , u1 mrn'

N5n nn1S,vW

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

145

permitted this trade. Had the Talmudic law (Yebamot 48 b) been carried out to its full extent, slave-trade could not have been carried on by Jews. This Talmudic law requires that every Jew should have his male slaves circumcised and his female slaves initiated into the rites of Judaism. With their acceptance of Judaism such slaves must not be sold any more to non-Jews. Some Geonim seem to have been very strict about these laws. Thus R. 'Amram (x"', 25 b, No. I8) does not allow a slave to be retained even for a month unless this slave consents to become a Jew. Only circumcision is allowed to be postponed for a year (based on Yebam. 48 b). According to the Talmud (Gittin 44 a) a Jew who sold his slaves that had accepted Judaism to non-Jews was to be fined by the Bet-Din ten times the value of the slaves. This fine which was spent on charity we find imposed by the Geonim ('"w, 26 a, No. I9) by R. Kohen-Sedek (either of Sura 845 or of Pumbedita 926); 27 b, No. 37, by R. Natronai; see ^, 23 a, No. 3, end). The Catholici in 'Irak likewise excommunicated Christian masters that sold their Christian slaves to members of another religion (Jesubarnum, ? 65, and Timotheos, ? 77, in Sachau, op. cit.). But it seems that the Geonim had difficulties in enforcing all these laws amongst the people. Slave-trade was lucrative in those times, and the temptation was great. Several Jewish masters disliked to circumcise their slaves, because they would not be able to sell them any more to non-Jews. R. Hai in a responsum wonders that there should be a Jew [nT=O1vrn

-nnlr nrnro ,ni Other references to slave-trade as carried on by Jews are perhaps to be found in "W,8i b, No. 17; Geon., II, 150 (pT") ; ;i" , No. 435. See also "Wl,27 b, No. 38, by R. Natronai. L VOL. X.

hiisl v mnnHs tn nly vts I1l,'ln M1n 13 Wv nDnD nrN NNb.

i3

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

146

whose slave desires to become a Jew, but whose master prevents him (see u"w,26 a, Nos. 2o and 21 (Einleit., I5, note) and Geon., II, I97). Thus, in spite of the opposition of the Geonim, slave-trade apparently flourished among Jews. .The Arabic geographer Ibn Kordadbeh, in the middle of the ninth century, in his famous report (published first by Sprenger, Yournal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, vol. 14, Part 2, I844, 519 if., discussed in the next chapter) tells of Jewish business men that travelled from the country of the Franks so far as to China, and who on their way back used to bring slaves, both male and female, and eunuchs to the Occident. It should be pointed out that Jews themselves were prohibited by a Talmudic law to castrate their slaves, and this could be done only by non-Jews, as we learn from a Gaonic responsum.217 In Jewish households slaves were as frequent as in any non-Jewish household. In Arabic-speaking countries it appears that Jews were allowed to keep only Christian slaves but not Muhammedan. An interesting question from Tlemsen sent to Hai shows us how Jews obtained slaves for their households. R. Hai's correspondents write that there are places where Jews find only Christian female slaves for sale. These a Jew is allowed to acquire legally: Muhammedan slaves he can obtain only secretly and at great danger. Now some of these Christian slave-girls accept Judaism at once, others ask for some time for consideration, but the majority refuse to accept Judaism. The correspondents describe how a Jewish household without a femlale slave is in great trouble, since the wife No. -1d: mp1 4I =D~1D n,3Y 15 1 5I N'i"1?1M nn'B J3 I't "ilnIt nn.

2171',, ,*.

Do1n-i

np5w5inws.

NiS Wrv

t'~

SyS

Cp. "v, 23 a, No. 3:

RESPONSA

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

147

or the daughters of the Jew would have to fetch water from the wells, wash the linen by the side of the river, and go to the baker's. They will thus come into contact with non-Jewish and profligate slaves and be exposed to dangers and disgrace. The Gaon permits these Jews to retain their female slaves, in spite of their not accepting the rites of Judaism. He only enjoined the Jewish masters not to employ their slaves on the Sabbath.218 This interesting responsum, besides giving us a glimpse of the social conditions of those times, shows in the first instance that Jews were not allowed to have Muhammedan slaves. This is further corroborated by '"n, Nos. I2 and 13 (probably by R. Paltoi of Pumbedita, 842-58) especially according to Halberstamm's MS. (see Einleit., 27, note 3). A slave told his master 'Either liberate my son or I shall become a convert', i. e. he would become a Muslim and thus eo ipso liberate himself (4znnN r-nw n-i -1w nty ,nznl rnnm KS? N1). We learn further from the above question from Tlemsen to R. Hai that even in Muhammedan countries Christian slaves could not be forced to become Jews. This is corroborated by several responsa. Especially 218

,'I3 mnnt

b, No. 6 =-n, w 1 i ini . l1a N rin

y^,t

23

nrr=pn1

tnn p nnww4

No. 431:

'1M INV tW lripD '11y PsC ml the bad Salonim aprint of the nnwer

i^1 ni-144nnw

;rptIn

mon

nozr

;v 1 Wsi ,;Tt ]1vw niwlpm jnlSn tl:WIun 1 :Wv'ltwivi 53 nwil1 n wnz, In w 'IlNn11331 :mnr' 1 Kt6W n'rz tri t}rn:iv n' 5N-WI nlmnl i4'y1r1n'I5 nln3r by FIrIS nsS I nm:yn1nin nlirn in the bad Salonica print of the VtW,where oll3D31 1l4t:l nifiN. 1 are put so closely as to appear as a n, really stands for nlS2'1). (Examine the word M'll'3 in ""W,20 b., No. I3). In T" 2 b, No. I7 it is clearly printed rn1'lM. See further ^"l, p. 224, note Io. The abbreviated ntl. responsum in il", No. xi, has also nlW"l nir L2

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

I48

male slaves could not be forced to become circumcised even after the lapse of twelve months given for consideration (cp. above, p. 145, and v"v, 23 a, No. I). But as regards female slaves who required only the ritual bath for their initiation into the Jewish rites we find cases of forcible action on the part of the Jewish masters. Sherira (x"', o=n[ nrx ip n5:p msWnnxl: nnvW 5 b, No. I6, Dzi-n:mn nnn:i [:) decides rightly that such an enforced ritual bath has no effect, and the slave remains a Christian anyhow. But Sar Shalom (of Sura, 849-53) is of a different opinion 27 a, No. 32=n"W, No. 255 = "`ln,No. I6). It should (W"V', be kept in mind that for a Jewish household, a slave that did not accept the Jewish rites was of no use. The slave could neither cook, nor prepare the food, nor touch the Jew's wine, nor perform other domestic duties (see x"w, No. I5). In some places 23 a, No. 3; n"', No. 254 = "R'n, Jewish masters were afraid that slaves, who did not accept Judaism, would be used by their non-Jewish enemies as a tool for denunciation and slander.219 On the whole we may assume that the slaves were treated humanely in Jewish households. The very fact that they became half-proselytes helped to raise their status and to elicit sympathy from their employers. Thus they were regarded almost as members of the family. In x"w, 27 a, No. 3 (by R. Semah = Geoz., II, I83, 1. 9) there is mentioned the case of a slave, who pretended to have adopted Judaism, in order not to be sold to non-Jews. We find further cases of masters having their slaves or the 219

i", No. 43I (end), and No. 4v

nn-ii nWPZ & 1%21)

ii:

i Q'12n

D Itn1

tn D1p?il ;ID

rr=t6n vW rp=n8 N -lW ID M55 l[1 . This again shows us the attitude ,Y 1'l n lpIv i: nml jrltpn of the populace in Arabic countries towards the Jews. niwD

RESPONSA

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM -MANN

149

children of their slaves, instructed in the Bible ("'W,26 b, No. 29, by Sherira; 27 b, No. 36, by R. Nahshon (see Einleit., 14, note); Geon., II, 83-4). But it seems that the Geonim disliked this practice. Sometimes slaves were entrusted with the entire management of their masters' affairs (see "w',26 b, No. 29; 73 b, No. Io, by R. Natronai No. 79; P"', No. 50, which Muller, (Einleit., 14, note) =l, Einleit., 25, assigns to R. Meshullam or R. Gershon, hence, a case of slaves in Christian countries). The Roman custom of manumitting a favourite slave before or immediately after the death of his master, which we find in vogue among the Jews in the Talmudic times, was also continued in the period of the Geonim. From several responsa we learn that the practice was for a man to liberate before his death his favourite slave. Likewise the death of her mistress would result in a female slave regaining her liberty (see w, 27 a, No. 31; Geon., II, 83). Female slaves were frequently included in the dowries given to daughters on their marriage (x"w,45 b, No. 7, by Samuel b. Hofni; 54 b, No. 8, probably by Sherira; '"l=5,No. 22o). Generally we find the Bat-Din looking after the interests of the slaves and affording them protection. Following the Talmudic maxims, the Geonim would force, for example, the heirs of a man, that declared his slaves to be free after his death, to carry out the will of the testator (see "r^, 26b, No. 25; 25a, No. I4; 27b, No. 36, end). Once R. Sadok (of Sura, 823-5) even forced the son of the Exilarch to comply with the Talmudic rule in such a case, and grant freedom to the slaves of his testator, a late member of the Exilarch's family.220 The Christian eccle220

Geon., II, 83: 11 'n1 I1n

Km'nnaw z1

izy43n^ -r9D

WYn nSWJ 41 jr ns ,Tn ID ] m- 1i 1tnniw nar 5 i^m i4jrnwtn

I50

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

siastical authorities in Babylon likewise forced the heirs, by excommunicating them from the Church, to fulfil the wishes of their testator and grant freedom to his slaves that had been declared free (so HenAnis6, V; Jesubarnum, ? 66 in Sachau, op. cit.). Another case R. Nahshon mentions in a responsum in uV, 27 b, No. 33: 'A slave swore not to serve his master.' Seeing the great binding force of the oath with Jews, the slave wanted to gain his liberty in this manner. But the Gaon decided to take no heed of the slave's oath. On the other hand we find the BetDin imposing flagellation on a slave because he assaulted certain people (x"", 29 b, No. 4, probably by Sar Shalom, see Einleit., 14, note). If a slave of a Jew did not observe the rites of Judaism into which he was initiated, his master was allowed to sell him to non-Jews. We have the evidence of the responsa that the greatest majority of the slaves in the service of Jews did not observe the Jewish rites (see V 23 a, No. 3, but cf. n" m, No. 49; rn", Nos. III and W, 431, by Sherira as regards the Sabbath; V"w,27 a, No. 30, by R. Semah). Likewise if a Jewish master was discovered committing immorality with his female slave, the master was severely punished and the slave sold to non-Jews ("W', 2 b, No. I7, cp. 25a, Nos. I3 and I5). All the responsa discussed in this paragraph, when taken together, acquaint us with the position of the slaves in the service of Jews. However great an evil slavery was in those times, it should not be overlooked that in Jewish

lrni-l ,OnlpS1 mnN(cSa^x))*M r-4^ ) 1-in ;D ni nrwr1in4 44 i^ nam . . . Yi)pt m.r rw:)w tn 8D m?Z' "w1 A similar case we have in RN[ tln yi. Kml'tn' Kt3,N nnl nM5i plnr p the Decisions of the Catholicos IHenaniso, No. VII (Sachau, ibid., p. 14). See Aptowitzer, ibid., 12 ff.

RESPONSA

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

I51

service the slaves enjoyed perfect rest on the Sabbath and the Jewish Festivals, just as their masters. Further, their having adopted Judaism made their lot more tolerable. They were therefore treated with more consideration. In p?%,No. II8, the Rabbi, probably IKalonymos of Lucca, writes that the well-known prayer for the dead, the Kaddish, should also be recited for slaves that observed the Jewish rites (we'p t 1m In 'y 15s1). ,ln fnlm2rb n n ,r?n'wn,w No. another responsum (x"', 23 b, 5) we find the case of a slave whom his Jewish master sold to a non-Jew, and who on gaining his freedom from his second master desires to remain henceforth a Jew. Finally, the Jewish master was personally free from the blame of the cruelty o f castrating his slaves (see above, p. 146).221 221 Yet Dozy (Geschichteder Mauren in Spanin, II, 38) writes, 'The Jews, who speculated on the misery of the nations, bought children of both sexes and brought them to ports where Greek and Venetian ships called to transport them to the Saracens. Other slaves, destined for attendance at the harems, came from France where there existed large establishments for eunuchs managed by Jews . As Harkawy ('Ct1,ni S,D1il 1877, 219, 4) rightly remarks, Jew-hatred rather than the actual facts is the reason for the above statement as well as for the assertion of the Arab writer Muhammadal-Mukaddasi al-Bashari that the slaves from the Slav countries are brought to Baganah (near Almeria in southern Spain, see above, VII, 486, note 32) whose inhabitants are Jews and who castrate them there.

(To be continued.)

THE RESPONSA

OF THE

BABYLONIAN

GEONIM AS A SOURCE OF JEWISH

HISTORY*

BY JACOBMANN, London. III.

THE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF THE JEWS.

Geonim did not intend to give a full account of the occupations of the Jews of their time. Yet from occasional questions addressed to them concerning religious problems, e.g. the Sabbath, and concerning the Jewish civil law it is possible to form a good idea of the activities of the Jews both in agriculture and in commerce. This material has been entirely overlooked till now, so that our knowledge of the economic position of the Jews in the Orient and in Spain under Arab rule was declared to be very scanty (see Caro, Social- 2ud Wirtschaftsgeschickte TIE

der yuden im Mittelalter, Leipzig, I908, p. 469; notes to pp. I24-7).222 The only reference to Jews themselves cultivating their fields Caro could find was in 'Anan's arrangement of the Karaite calendar (ibid., p. 469). In four pages (1I4-7) Caro disposes of the economic position of the Jews of that period. Heyd, Gesch/ichte des Levantehandels, I, 138-42, characterizes the Jews in the early Middle Ages as 'fast azisschliesslich den Handelsgeschaften lebend'. But the Gaonic Responsa establish the fact beyond the shadow of a doubt that to a very large extent the occupa* See vols. VII, 457-90, VIII, 339-66, IX, 139-79, X, I21-51. About the occupations of the Jews in the Byzantine Empire, see now Krauss, Studien zur Byzant.-Jiid. Geschichte,Vienna, 1914, 70-76. 309 222

310o

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY REVIEW

tion of the Jews of that period consisted of agriculture. A great number of Jews possessed fields, gardens, and, especially in Spain and southern France, vineyards which they frequently cultivated themselves or by means of tenants (t,WnI) as was especially the case in Babylon. It is only towards the end of the Gaonic period, when persecutions became frequent in France and Germany, that the Jews were gradually compelled to gain a livelihood entirely by commerce and money-lending. On the other hand, from the Responsa we learn of the considerable trade, both inland and maritime, carried on by Jews particularly in the North African ports. The part that the Jews of that period played in the Levantine trade must have been considerable, as the evidence of the Responsa proves. Heyd, ibid., not taking this material into consideration, regards the participation of the Jews in the Levantine trade as problematic. (a) Agriculture. i. In the second half of the eighth century the Geonim of the two Academies of Sura and Pumbedita in conjunction with the Exilarch abrogated a Talmudic law and instituted that debts from orphans should be exacted also from movable property, whereas before that time only landed property could be claimed by the creditors of the deceased parent of the orphans.223 The reason for this institution is clearly given in a responsum of the Gaon R. Moses (832 c. E.) who held office forty-five years after 223

Sherira (Letter, p. 36, 11.9-io) states: C1

n`"r 4=6 i;n izni rnn1ni

i)mrpn -nr

i"' nf

i3

wn xp

1F1 ICD M'111n

pl

nrn -n n t35on=D"n'l (cp. p. 37, 1I. Io-II). The institution was made in 1098 Sel. = 787, c. E., according to Isaac Albarceloni, nl'3Yfl "4'IW,end. m:

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

311

its introduction, and must have known well the motives and the conditions that occasioned this institution. The Gaon states that the scholars instituted the exacting of a woman's dowry, as well as other debts from movable property belonging to orphans, because in the districts around the academies most people had no fields, whereas in other places where the majority of people have fields, this institution applies only partially.224 We thus see that a change in the economic conditions of the Jews in 'Irak necessitated an institution which must have been the result of a long development. Perhaps the building of Bagdad in 762, which soon became a large commercial centre and attracted many Jews (cp. above, VII, 465 ff.), contributed to a considerable extent to the necessity of this institution. But to conclude from this that under the Caliphs the Jews over the whole Moslem Empire abandoned agriculture and devoted themselves to commerce, as Graetz (V4, I96), does, is entirely erroneous as the responsum of the Gaon R. Moses, cited above, clearly shows. It is true that the decree of this institution, signed with the seals of the Exilarch and the two academies, was sent to all Jewish communities in the diaspora for practical application, as the author of the 'Ittur (ed. Venet. o a, 77 b) states. But this does not imply that all over the diaspora the

.. ,inS 1 l:npn "n, No. 65: UtDDD '"D n"1 nlWv nmn n Vpn 21aNn rm 7 wo n m , .. pn,nS *nyt nn: S tr:z slvp,nl 224

YpV-ipDpn,S n^4 wtnw

N-mI nl rpm )wn

n ins ;tlwnvS ^6nw

Mb

Nnrnl nn 4m U nnnrn NS 4Nrv:1 NiN n."MonWK nrim rnn -44a was This sent to some North-African probably responsum ,,, *)pptpD. . community, since the group of responsa consisting of Nos. 62-7 seems to have been sent to one and the same community (notice the beginnings 213i), and in No. 63 the correspondents write: ;4npmIi3nD' jlnr^l

rvinnM4zo3 =63-n.

3I2

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY REVIEW

same conditions existed. Certainly if a Talmudic law was changed by the Geonim, its acceptance by all the Jews had to be enjoined in order not to create divisions in Israel. Anyhow, we see that in 'Irak proper the Jews turned more to commerce than to agriculture. The latter was often found unprofitable since the country was frequently devastated by the wars between the opposing forces amongst the Arabic conquerors. In particular, during the whole reign of the Omeyade dynasty till it was supplanted by the 'Abbasids (661-749), 'Irak was the hotbed of opposition against the ruling dynasty. In addition the land-tax, hardj, which 'Omar imposed at the conquest of Babylon, was fixed in accordance with the extent of the estate without any regard to its real produce. All this contributed to the pauperization of the peasant-class in 'Irkl. In the time of 'Abdulmalik (685-705), i. e. about fifty years after the conquest, the revenue of the 'IrAk fell from loo to 40 million Dirhems per year. The whole canal-system of Mesopotamia, on which its agriculture so greatly depended, was much neglected during these fifty years. Some improvements were made by IHajjaj, the governor of 'Abdulmalik in 'Irdk, but special attention to the improvement of agriculture in 'Irak was only paid after the accession of the 'Abbasids. The hardj-system was also changed into a tax on the produce of the estates. But even this was very high, at first half the produce, later on twofifths.225 We can now understand why most Jews in 'Irak gave up agriculture and occupied themselves with commerce and trade as the above institution of the Geonim in the year 787 shows. 225 Cp. Aug. M/iller,

ibid., I, pp. 467; also Kremer, ibid., I, 276 ff.

272,

28I

(bottom),

and 282,

395, and

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

313

Yet there must have been a considerable number of Jews in 'Irak who possessed landed property even after 787. We find the Gaon R. Sadok (of Sura, 823) imposing oaths in connexion with claims put forward on estates and fields though the Talmudic law, as laid down in the Mishna (Shebuot 61), is that in such lawsuits no oaths are imposed.226 As the Geonim were very careful not to change a Talmudic law unless the requirements of the time were pressing, we may assume that lawsuits about estates and fields amongst Jews were frequent, and the Geonim found out that people took dishonest advantage of the fact that no oaths were imposed in such lawsuits, and therefore the Gaon R. Sadok boldly put an end to this state of affairs (cp. also Weiss, I,wvrn1m 11n, IV, 38-9). We see thus that fields in the possession of the Jews in Babylon must have been quite a common occurrence even in later times. In an appeal for the support of his academy made by a Gaon in 953 it is stated that the scholars of the academy were in need because they had lost their landed property.227 Very likely these scholars did not cultivate their fields themselves, but only through tenants who took a third or a fourth of the produce as it was the custom with Babylonian Jews centuries before in the Talmudic times (cp. Funk, Die Yuden in Babylon, I, I5). This is further corroborated by a question sent to R. Hai, the last of the Geonim (998-1038), which probably came from Babylon.228 The correspondents state 226

I , N. No.

(p.

3D

No43):

:w

^ : 5^6 tkn 9?nllUUw nnw y11: MpT Y D33 227

Cp. the letter cited above, VII, 486: I1:n

3i~nWpStU 13EI^D3I

13DS

y

-I! m^

nn

;ra 1h WINlt nlmr;r tlnil -nMr1

nlp

. .

(sc.pm8 ) nlVpflj -iw )1ZN (ibid.,

p. 402, fol. 42). 228

~%, No. 65 -- l'Iw II, 57, No. 3:

nill n'Dr1 nln ih W I:N

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

314

that the people in their community have gardens as well as other estates which some may irrigate whenever they like, while other people may do that only on Sabbaths according to an ancient usage. These owners of the fields have non-Jewish tenants who receive a fifth of the produce and do all the required work, while the owners take no part in the cultivation of their estates. This probably refers to the system of irrigation by means of canals as it was practised in Babylon where the fields adjacent the canals would be irrigated in turns according to a fixed order. On the other hand, there are several responsa that refer to Jews cultivating their fields and especially their vineyards. The responsa unfortunately do not tell us to which country they were addressed. In the case of responsa that deal with the cultivation of vineyards we may assume that most likely they were sent to Jews in Spain and southern France. They cannot refer to Babylon because wine-growing was rare in that country. But some of the other responsa that deal with the cultivation of fields probably refer to Babylonian conditions. So many responsa deal with cases of landed property that the conclusion forces itself upon one that landed property in the possession of Jews was the most usual thing.229 A poor Jew Qonrni IVwI jDr 9z mnp1r^nVjpni^^ Wnm112 rSpn 1= 4Y KSilpn nwvn

no 5i: Ir,pl i'p nDID 1. 22 f. 229

tyD

;Di -5, I rtW pz n?rw Inn ;n5pw pin na5 rs

rSz ~ t6s

m nrea'yni swrn i,nplS tnm jio,ns 15 wv, ;n

t17 tN'ln-

,nm11n11vr'W.

Cp. also Geon., II, 263,

The following is a list of responsa referring to landed property, excluding those discussed in this chapter: R. Natronai: fW, 46 a, Nos. 9 and Io. R. Sheshna: W, 46 b, No. I4.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

3I5

as soon as he acquired some money, had it invested in fields (a"n, No. 138, by R. Hai). These were given as dowry to daughters (X"r, 62 a, No. 35, by Saadya; 67 a, No. 55, by R. 'Amram; 'i"'n, II, 28, No. 5==" 53, No. 138; t:"r, No. 87) and were inherited from generation to generation. A newly married couple would invest their dowry in fields (*"'Im,No. 91). A responsum by R. Natronai tells us of the majority of a whole community gaining a livelihood only from their vineyards which they cultivated themselves.230 Many Jews were occupied in gathering the grapes and treading them in the wine-presses, since according to the Talmudic law this could not be done by non-Jews.231 2. Some of the responsa referred to above might have been sent to the communities in North Africa. But even those responsa, expressly stated as having been sent to these Jewish communities, testify that Jews generally owned fields and orchards, and probably the small holders themselves cultivated their fields. Thus we find landed property in the possession of Jews of Tlemsen (nY'i5, No. 133 and ,"', Nos. 38-9, by Sherira or by Hai), of Kabes (n";, Nos. 318, 322, 324, and 342-3), of Nefusa, ('"V, 56 a, Nos. T6 and I7, cp. above, VII, 484), and chiefly of IKairowan. An interesting responsum describes the devices Jewish moneyR. Nahshon: N'Vl1, II, 30, No. 8; p"D, No. 7 (probably); XT', 53 a. No. 53 (cp. Miiller, Einleit., I4, note). R. Sam. b. Hofni: V"W,45 b, No. 7; 48 a, No. 24. R. Hai:

Vrn, No. I35.

Anonymous: Y"', 39 a, No. 14; 39 b, No. I5 ; 46 a, No. 2I. 1 j123?D 230 Y'1?Z, No. 86; ?S nr ?l Zpon rW3

j'

W

CP7DnD pnlK. 231 t5, No. 6, by R. Paltoi (842-58); 1nwW,No. 2Ir = Sar Shalom, cp. further, Geon., II, I53 ('Tipn).

NM,No. T56, by

THE JEWISH

316

QUARTERLY REVIEWV

lenders used to employ in order to evade the law of usury when they advanced money on fields in mortgage.232 Yet in Kairowan people frequently required money for investing in commerce which flourished there. Kairowan was an important station on the caravan-route from Spain to Egypt and farther, and close by there were important ports for the maritime trade with the above two countries. Thus it resulted that already in the period of the earlier Geonim a considerable number of Jews there possessed no fields. When a power of attorney (,nKWrln-t?W),which according to Talmudic law required the possession of at least four cubits of ground, was drawn up, recourse had to be taken to a device to rely on the four cubits of ground which every Jew was suppossed to possess in Palestine as a national heritage though at present occupied by usurpers.233 That such a device had to be found shows clearly that a considerable number of Jews in Kairowan possessed no landed property but occupied themselves solely with commerce and trade. 3. Above (p. 314) it was pointed out that the responsa of the Babylonian Geonim that deal with the cultivation 232

2,,3,

36 a, No. 12 (probably by Hai, cp. Eizleit., I4, note): ;1~W ,7

'ip il Ixn.6 nlYn. , * m,m= pnp,P233

r m- s.-Vw ,r iWW r-n InK iy 'tnl n1n p3s l,w.

iA, , Nos. I99-200,

by R. Hai. The correspondents from Kairowan

n,n nWm,imV '^DnD iniim ypnpnSi 1'Vw inn h5w vplp nlrp g3^ ip nn

state:

n nnisa

ninn nmL

n1D:lWruIn

Ir.zn bDFlT ;nlK1

. V, According to this statement this jpli i[ 'Kn ^1 iDn Qn'BR. legal device goes back to the time of R. Hilai (either the Gaon of Sura in 792-801 or his namesake in 825-9). Cp. also Pardes, DLIDlp124 a, and Harkavy, #"i, p. 359, note to p. 9o.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYIONIAN

GEONIM-MANN

317

of vineyards were most likely sent to communities in Spain or southern France. In addition there is a collection of responsa by Spanish and French scholars, contemporaries of Sherira and Hai, which throw much light on the question we are dealing with here. We find again landed property the most common possession in the hands of Jews. It appears that Jews as owners of fields, and particularly of vineyards, were more frequent in Spain and in France than in North Africa or Babylon. Vineyards as a part of a woman's dowry were the usual thing. So we find R. Meshullam in a responsum which was probably sent to southern France dealing with the case of a man who married three wives in succession and each had vineyards for her dowry (p", No. I32).234 It seems as if the only possession of the middle-class people amongst the Jews were these vineyards. A Jew having to pay an imposition of the governor, sells his vineyard (n"'v3,No. 2o1, anonymous). Likewise in another case a woman in trying to obtain money in order to pay a debt to a non-Jew, pledges her vineyard (ibid., No. 204, by R. Hanok). In many cases the Jews themselves probably cultivated their estates, especially as the last stages of gathering the grapes and producing the wine had to be done by Jews only.235 A responsum states that the majority of the Jews of a com234 As

regards Spain, cp. D1#"D3,Nos. 175-6, 2o2, 203, and 206 (all by R. Hanok of Cordova). 235 Cp. D"1D, No. 202, by R. Enoch: 1;nZNR I' 1'N nl= B ~W

nw

mb4N ;n =DnrF

ww rw,v n 1nnzl ,nm^ lynn nS rwmvn

For further responsa referring to fields and DI: T1it .'1V S. see R. Meshullam: [;", No. 139; n#5D=, Nos. I73, i88 by vineyards, (cp. above, p. 314), I89 (probably, cp. Muller, note i); XW, 40 b, No. 23; by Spanish scholars: D'IDA, Nos. I96 (cp. Miiller, note I), 197, 200, and 2I0 (by R. Moses b. I.lanok), 207, 208-9 and 211 (by R) IHanok). nl:yID

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

3[8

munity possessed oxen, horses and asses, animals required for the cultivation of fields and vineyards.236 This must have been the case in other communities as well. We see thus that till the beginning of the eleventh century both in Spain and in France the Jews occupied themselves much with agriculture, and particularly with the cultivation of vineyards (see also Miller, Die Responsen der spanischen Lehrer des ro. yahrhutiderts, pp. 6-7). Only when the persecutions became more and more frequent in Germany (cp. Gr., V4, 384-7) and in France, and frequent expulsions of Jews from certain towns and districts took place, did the Jew find it safer to invest his money in commerce or in money-lending in order to be able to convert his belongings into cash the more easily in time of need. This development of the economic conditions of the Jews in France is best illustrated by the change that took place in the method of taxation in use amongst the Jewish communities. The earlier custom was to distribute the tax evenly-for which the whole community was responsible to the government-on the Jewish owners of fields in the adjacent villages and on the business men, as we learn from the evidence of two responsa.237 But in the 236

pN", No. 92 (cp. Einleit.,

25,

note to No. 93):

5IEN

nINmI

i: ,, nmnlln

*'z tmnIP'iZ4' 1u,m1'47Onem O'DIDmI 0nliW1, vW l oji p jN6 'VDMI a0'2i :n1- tW 14'NI :,nS Imn,11Z n -1-17:w p wn 12D . (Cp. Fl", No. 214 (see Miiller, ... 1nr:n,nlrnnd 1Dn 1SN Einleit, 2I, note) and No. 22z). 237 D'l.1, No. I65 (probably to a French community): 15:3pWj[p

..

m DmIn'I i hm m '.V1z 2S trei pV n1 3nmnD rnwnp

n y i5= *wI 5,, iz itDlull J-613 .1-7nMnVn1)nV,n 'V IsnlypD1 n1in 4I -E31 mm:53 ,., =n,t[,1 D=MnM pDi, T',nvVnw. 'q"1;,No, 205 (seemingly by R. Nathan the Babylonian of Narbonne, a contemporary of R. Moses b. I,Ianok, see Muller, note i): 'I=21 * . .

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

RESPONSA

319

middle of the eleventh century the tax on fields was no longer continued and the traders, who must have formed the majority in the communities, were asked by the communal leaders to contribute the whole amount. R. Joseph Bonfils, a well-known French scholar, in a responsum to the Jews of Troyes in justifying this change explains that the possession of fields in his time by Jews was entirely unprofitable, because they used to let them to tenants who took half the produce, and there were other expenses that caused the profit accruing from the cultivation of fields to dwindle. Whereas money invested in commerce brought great profits and could easily be withdrawn, a quality very essential to the Jews in their peculiar position of uncertainty and threatening persecutions.238 This important responsum helps us to understand the gradual change in the economic position of the Jews so that they became exclusively a commercial people estranged from the soil. Fw In .y brhn 5sunuN wrn ,lzNw Dip11r3)pn Irw: aroDDD liW iR nminD!b,nlt Sw 15 tW sD is< Mpip: . .

anwn i Kn 19

NIIM-n.

238

This responsum is quoted by R. Meir of Rothenburg ('ltnD nll'rn, to Baba batra, ch. I, ? 481): n[K ed. Prague, No. 941 =I-3 ]K

Wnv nn yvD2n ,nneep' mw

4ns, ner v wyV mI qolr r1 na,wn msw iy Swann lrnlwn,mlW nil Sw 1 NIV nnz Mw nlinDn $:: tFx nnm K'nl NNtIPIriD D1 1n: 4 t-ny W)V stit7 rm nS nnnnnIN Dan 3 nv-m .1: w IEDtDl nnSY)I NDIID ^ j)5b< Dt-ID f1 Km)K n1r n[l0 4pna1n ^ ] .,nnn SpwrO I I IN1 ,nti,tlD^ nn 3n nWmsIN ^bn 1K INnnn 1i 1r=3 DInw Mnj1?ra.niv . D;I RW .*1 IsnnSi j5 ni^. [ritw]p. jrK 3^n,il KD?aIP:

ni^Dl ntnin

1np1nI-lm. P Q&< ,,,n I4up:a

VOL. X.

Y

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

320

(b) Commerce and Trade. With the wonderful expansion of the Muslim Empire large possibilities were opened up for the commerce from the Orient to the Occident and vice versa. Caravans could traverse the great distance from India to Spain passing through the provinces of one and the same empire. Likewise the greatest part of the coastline of the Mediterranean was in the possession of the Arabs, and thus a large maritime trade could spring up (see especially Kremer, Culturgeschichtedes Orients, II, 273 ff.: Handel u. Gewerbe). It was strictly prohibited to impose customs on goods transported from one province of the state to another (Kremer, ibid., I, 457). Only later on in the period of the decline of the Califate, when the empire was split up into several semi-dependent states, was this freedom of trade greatly restricted (Kremer, ibid., II, 494). That the Jews availed themselves of these opportunities is only natural; especially those Jews that lived in large commercial centres like Bagdad and Basra, FustAt, .Kairowan, and Tlemsen, and the Spanish towns situated along the eastern coast of Spain. Above (VII, 465 ff.) we have seen how in Bagdad there grew up a large Jewish community owing to the considerable trade that flourished there. In Babylon the Jews possessed mills, inns, public baths and, particularly, olive presses.29 Often they let these to non-Jews who could carry on business even on Sabbaths. The same applies also to the 239 Cp.

H#, No. 64 a1n3nri mil irKi1 Yn, No.

(by R. Hai): W' i31 l:13 'rj

oll w>

niNs 11n4

o1 i

'D W'

nwi5^ nnN -v;

io (either by R. Paltoi or by R. Natronai); Dl1"a, No. 15 (anonymous). See also DtIM), No. 164.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

32I

Jews outside Babylon who owned in addition public ovens (mnra, cp. p"~, Nos. 62 and 123, by R. Meshullam; n"l*), No. IIO by R. 'Amram). There were certain trades like the preparation of wine, butter, and cheese, and parchment, which on religious grounds Jews had to conduct by themselves; thus we find the Geonim having a good knowledge of how parchment was made.240 Several responsa show that Jews frequently travelled on the large navigable rivers like the Tigris, Euphrates, and Nile, and traversed the Mediterranean in pursuit of a livelihood. The Geonim were consulted as to the observance of the Sabbath on board ship.241 Similar questions were asked how the Sabbath should be kept while travelling in caravans (D',n, No. I55, by Sherira; n"nlm,No. 27; t"V, t2 a, No. ii, see In one responsum Sherira Miiller, Einleit., 14, note). mentions that Jews from the west (probably from Spain or Morocco) would come in caravans to Egypt traversing a great distance through desert land.242 Jews used to travel far and wide in their business enterprises, which often kept them away from their homes for years (see t'w, 76b, No. 26; ~"n, No. 49; p"', No. I7). This must have 240 See Nos. 33 and 46; #lDM, No. 155; "#in, Nos. 113-17; pt, "If, No. 5 (to Kairowan); pj', No. I27, by R. Meshullam; nfl, No. 333. 241 [, No. 6I (probably to Egypt by R. Hai): niltn,i=ilh olln

sz , . nntS

1 . t0nnT

i['3sn

nDnn

*

D ,nmnn igllnnon ,nw l nNY

,,,n.

3 K-i

01531

nlnin n5i nnaI 5

Bnn nDms mini 'lnr'n na

5N7nn

Mw hS '1

K nlmn

nrnnn

(probably Fustat)

DnX1

w ., nm4Dnn nvW1l^now 143n1?:w4snw. .

See further: 5"l, No. 45 (p. 17 b and I8 a by R. Jehudai, 760-64); "lnl,No. 31 (by R. Sema.h) and 43 (by R. Nahshon). ? t^5Y M:: V 242 In Dnnin ')DD, ed. Schorr, 76: $"t J^WvY 4 pi . I . nDi= K lil ill '4 jla3 IT1-1n215r Nmz5 Pon=W :rItyn

.,.

n 1 n.n=5 nsilI :11 nln nn ^Mw

w[zn4n lonn mn1n Y 2

is].

THE JEWISH

322

QUARTERLY REVIEW

happened very frequently so that the Bet-Din had to take the matter in hand, since it entailed many hardships for women who were left without their husbands for years. R. Natronai (of Sura, 853-6) states that the Bet-Din used to warn and to enjoin those that left their homes for business purposes not to stay away too long, especially when their wives objected to their husbands taking long and dangerous journeys.243 From the responsa we learn further of partnerships between Jews who lived in different countries, and that in many cases the goods had to be sent by ship from the place of one partner to that of the other (see "', 78 b, No. 8, by Saadya; 40 b, No. 24="w'n, II, 34, No. 13, by Hai). One responsum speaks of partners that lived apart a distance of two months' journey ("n, No. 42, by R. Nahshon, 874-82). In particular there must have been a brisk interchange of goods between the North African ports and the Spanish coast towns (see '"1niNo. 19 by R. Semah ; partners, one living in Kairowan and the other in Spain; n"', No. 59, to Kabes; n"'n, II, 31, No. 9 = n"i, No. 37, question came from Tlemsen). Probably R. Nahshon's responsum in a"n, No. 49, refers also to Spain. It speaks of a Jew who came to Ifrikiya and entered there into partnership with another 243

"Yn, No. 8I:

Ml~N=

nM1:I b :n.:U:

11K IK tC

t:t

'v

'

3

ninoS

;rn tnr ;n5y :\t:il 5]w ( nni] 5 mw1n?n ;'W"l2nr 1n 13^f"1'1I. See also "P, 9 b, No. 2: a Jew, who was betrothed to a woman, left for abroad where he was held up and forced to sign a document of divorce. Probably this refers to the Bet-Din there who forced him to divorce his betrothed because he left her. Cp. further, 1"~3, N ininnnnm: n^1rW No. I63: 'Iy nIIIT=: a WQ16 tvWr in t:

pm:n:

;Drn inr, ., wnlN.

lnn $5 nl:l

Dn tsW

l:p 1m

m

ninn 5 m1n

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

323

Jew, and then he left for abroad (ain':1I), where he traded with the goods from town to town. Another responsum (nlY'n, No. i92) speaks of a Jew who left Spain for some Christian country for business purposes and stayed there for six years (cp. also n`"r, No. 224; '"W,93 a, No. I; p", No. 5I). On these journeys Jews frequently encountered dangers on account of robbers and brigands, and had to give up all their money in order to save their lives.244 Various must have been the experiences of such Jewish travellers; frequently they were exposed to chicanery on the part of the various authorities of the many towns and municipalities through which they passed, and this constant struggling of the Jew with the circumstances around him made him versatile and able to help himself in every emergency. Responsa containing the legal decisions of the Geonim about monetary disputes amongst Jews are only a reflex of real life; the preponderant part of commercial dealings amongst people are settled without the necessity of bringing them before the courts. Yet even so, some responsa preserved read like fragments of the history of the time of their composition. In addition to the responsa discussed above (pp. 13I-3) two interesting responsa will serve as examples of the vicissitudes Jewish 244

Cp. IN, No. 426 from Tlemsen; Geon., II, I50 ("npn); .I", No. 7 and DZ", No. 94: these responsa deal with the dangers that were lurking on the road to Egypt; 1?"t1D,No. 213: Jews while travelling were captured by Arabs who brought them to Spain, where they were redeemed by their co-religionists; p", No. 66 by R. Meshullam; 'Int,No. 27 by R. Semah; V';, No. 41. Cp. further, Bodl. 287631, containing an undated letter, in Arabic, from 41^7 [lPDn to Dnl-l i1 pn '. He went from D1tiJR (Andalusia) to Alexandria on business.-A Cambridgefragment (published by Dr. Hirschfeld, JQR., XVI, 573 if.) tells us of a family from KIabeswhose members lived in Sicily, Marseilles, K.airowan, Tripoli, Alexandria, Fustat, and 'Akko.

QUARTERLY REVIEW

THE JEWISH

324

merchants passed through on their journeys. One responsum in n"nm, No. 2I6, tells us how B used to travel to maritime countries and A would be his assistant in transporting the goods. Once they agreed to share the profits of a certain kind of goods, and they travelled together because they were acquainted with the authorities of the route they took. On the way, while staying in a certain town, A had a mishap and had to bribe an official. At the port of embarkation they had to leave their money, which was confiscated by the authorities. When they arrived at the port of destination, B had to go back for the money which he could obtain only after bribing the officials.245 The other responsum in "g, 93 a, No. i, tells us how A, after having concluded a partnership with B, left for a maritime country where he traded for several years with much success. Wanting to return home at last, he took a boat with other Jews, but this soon foundered in a storm, and the passengers had to escape half-naked to the shore of the sea, leaving all their fortune behind. There this Jew A carried on business (to his discredit even 245

The responsum, which is fragmentary and obscure, runs as follows:

i^aw n,iinr I

nZJ jnp 1i'e

nt bty d t p itDnni s 'n oae jynW countr nytaaNf1 srtae.:

I n cstoso

jl

nnw W ipn

np n rn5

forcoins tha wIere exported from th znnD nns tINSi

In,n nF, naw 5y ,nnnwnnK n^ySQK1:u n13D nnlrs3bliFw Uns Mvls5 nrmv nnvn.il nwit nizo mmc tsni D v D? V3NDOlMlly ns^ bi nv nnwnntD nnisma n4n In ,sinKDwi1n nv ,r,n .13410nnli ,,n,i

,. ..

nwgw ini

D^IDIna"Tpy3

ni m inyn 1nn

il N ol p^Dty w tpin:Pnn i

5ZlnE D31 D1

53.

It seems that they had to pay customs for coins that were exported from the country to a foreign state.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM--MANN

325

with blackmail), was successful, then lost his money, and then was again successful. Such responsa give us an inkling of the extensive trade carried on by Jews in that period. Of great furtherance for the expansion of the Jewish trade must have been the solidarity that existed among Jews all over the diaspora. Jewish business men could always find in the various communities of all the different countries friends among their brethren who could supply them with information about markets and other business concerns. Further, a Jew from whatever country when trading with his co-religionist would always find protection and redress at the hands of the Bet-Din or of the communal leaders of the different communities he visited on his travels far and wide. The Talmudic law by which the Jews of the Gaonic period were guided in all their affairs knows no difference between Jews of different countries; every Israelite is entitled to the same right. In a responsum (n"vn, No. r95, end) the Rabbi indignantly writes: 'If a stranger comes to a town do we deprive him of his money? Far be it from that! Such a thing shall never be in Israel!' 24 In addition, the fact that generally, with small exceptions, the Jews of that period could write and thus transmit their thoughts in writing, must have contributed much to the development of the Jewish trade. The religious duty of teaching every Jew the Law was practised from times of yore, and this had the result that almost every Jew could read Hebrew script. Thus in a responsum (n"j, No. 231, p. lo9) the Gaon states that 'as a rule a Jew knows the Hebrew script' (Yi 246

2n3 ;pln

Irnn NS !nr5n

!Si^wKnK13 rnwyn,k6.

5bw'

?.niD

npmn ntri inlr

. ,).

From being

mvy Ka^ mFpnapQ

wo:z)

THE JEWISH

326

QUARTERLY REVIEW

able to read to the ability of writing down the same letters is only a small step, and probably the large majority of Jews could write in the Hebrew script. Thus whatever vernaculars the Jews of the different countries might have spoken, be it Arabic or French, they could express their thoughts in their own language by means of the Hebrew script. That the Jews wrote Arabic in Hebrew script is well known. This was the case with the Jews of Arabia even in pre-Muhammedan times (cp. Gr., V4, 77 f.). There exist also a large number of responsa, both by earlier as well as by later Geonim, written originally in Arabic in the Hebrew script (cp. e.g. n"J,pp. 305I8, 339-41). Accordingly business correspondence could be carried on quite easily, and the other activities pertaining to clerkship performed in a time when the preponderant majority of non-Jews were analphabets. Several responsa tell us of proper business accounts kept in writing and of correspondence going on between partners who lived apart in different places. This must have been quite the general custom amongst Jewish traders. A responsum (V"s',74 b, No. 13, probably by Saadya) tells us of a Jew who died and his heirs produce ledgers and accounts and have them audited by reliable Jewish merchants. They ask now their opponent to produce counter-accounts 'in accordance with the. usage of business men' (rTnlDronl nn. Kiwlr'i nr 247 WnIW E1V). 247 See further,

i'l,

nmKn

No. 59 = Geon., II, 284 (written

in 1015 to Kabes,

cp. lp/", p. 32, note I): two partners who lived in different countries would carry on their business nY'W'

nn 1r11m

?nl

by means of correspondence ,itir

nir pr'nlm

na

(QIzNi N'Pw lp'i ; rn I ;wYrmw pprw

*,

5iK ?1a; n' see especially the TI nni5 ~lnn lw' ,, , ]2mI continuation of this responsum from a Bodl. MS. (in JQR., VI, 24):

.,.

nsin 1'i inavlm

515 y

wi1ix

,,

5

n m=vwn Do ,nim ...;

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

327

All these factors enabled the Jew to travel far and wide in his business enterprises and to maintain commercial relations with the remotest countries. Thus we can understand how Jewish business men could travel from the country of the Franks to China as the well-informed Arabic geographer, Ibn-Kordadbeh, in the middle of the ninth century reports (see above, p. I46). Jewish merchants, Ibn-Kordadbeh writes, called Radanites,248 who speak Persian, Rumish (Byzantine Greek), Arabic, Spanish, and Sicilian (Italian) would travel from the land of the Franks by boat to Egypt, where they landed at Farama, loaded their goods on animals, and would travel for five days to Kulzum (Suez). Once arrived there, they took the boat again and travelled along the Red Sea, stopping at al-Jar, the port of Medina, and at Jidda, the port of Mecca, till they reached the Indian Ocean. Another route these merchants chose was to land at the estuary of the Orontes and travel via Antioch, Aleppo, to the Euphrates, and then downwards this stream to Bagdad, whence they would pass on through a canal to the Tigris, Persian Gulf, and the Indian Ocean. Their ultimate goal would be the estuaries of the Indus, and the coasts of India and China. On their return they used to take the same route. But some of these merchants would go to Constantinople to dispose of their goods while others went directly bacl to the land of the Franks. When they preferred a landroute to a trip over the Mediterranean, they would travel ,"1, Nos. 5 and 423; Geon., II, 151, 1. 2 ff.; ibid., I,pr ; p"~, No. 146, No. 4 = ~", No. 5; "vlDn,No. 2; DZ",No. 32 by R. Meshullam; "tT1Df, 248 Perhaps these Jews were from the district of the Rh6ne, so that their proper name would be 'Rhodanici' (see Eppenstein in Gr. V4, 556, note to p. 203).

328

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY REVIEW

in caravans along France, Spain, Gibraltar, the whole of North Africa, Syria, Babylon, the southern provinces of Persia, Farsistan, and Kerman, and thence to India and China.243 Some merchants would take their way via Germany, the Slav countries to the town of the Chazars, Itil (above the estuary of the Volga), then traverse the Caspian Sea, reach Balk, Transoxania, and the countries of Tagazgaz. These Jewish merchants would bring from the Occident to the Orient eunuchs, slaves, both male and female, silk, swords, and furs. Whereas from the Orient they would return with musk, aloe, camphor, cinnamon, and the like products. This remarkable report of IbnKordadbeh throws much light on the commercial activities of the West-European Jews of those times, and shows what spirit of enterprise they possessed to undertake such journeys from the Frankish Empire to China, journeys which must have taken them years to accomplish. Many of the goods mentioned in this report in which the Jews traded are also mentioned in the Gaonic responsa. In France we find Jewish women making expensive gloves, embroidered with gold, and similar expensive garments. When these were sold the money was invested in expensive furs (p":, No. 66, by R. Meshullam). Likewise Jews traded in silk wares (tn3z, p", No. I50, cp. Rapoport, Introd. to p"7, 7b). In the time of R. Meshullam money-lending began to be a favourite occupation of the Jews in France (cp. p"I, No. 14I). In spite of all the prohibitions of the Church Councils we find a Jew in the service of the Bishop of Narbonne acting as his banker and the administrator of 249 The responsum of Sherira quoted above in note 242 probably refers to these long caravan journeys.

RESPONSA

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

329

his financial concerns.250 We learn further of a Jewish banker in the service of the Duke of Anjou. When the latter captured the Duke of Aquitania and received a large ransom for his release, he ordered his Jewish banker to carry out the required transaction of money-exchange.251 In money-lending a special kind of business developed amongst the Jews in France and Spain, called tNm'n 252(cp.

p"~,No. 15I a, 49; n"nt, No. 174). Jewish bankers would each have a number of Gentile clients whom they advanced all the money they required. The Bet-Din prohibited any Jew from taking away a client belonging to another 250

p#", No. I40:,

',,

2 Z1.nn ' W=N~'

" Im'" y171

nfl

Wln'inN'

DW5 CW1tW FU3 DM 'nDP^'1 NK 1*3IN nSp! 0l*pn onrcWDN DSp , 1ID3 Fn rK 1: nn 1n nj'n 14i. D41pi1nI cDtpIyO n m t3 lltnl P)D3s15in 511N 'uITyni. Dn 1M .,,npr3E: 1tnl This defines the scope of the transactions carried out by this banker of the bishop. t113n- (originally 7'^yEcpv,leader) was the Hebrew expression in those times for a bishop. 1 =OnW 251 . . , T3 ?YD', No. 152: Iy pDI nusn D-1r This event probably refers to the innRinpS , . pt1D 3l Onl I nK1t3. capture of either William VI, Duke of Aquitania, by Geoffrey of Anjou in 1037, or of his son, William VII, by the same in 1045, when Tours was taken (see Miller, note 4). 252 N'"S1 seems to me to be connected with the Syriac js., oo. See -s J' amoney-changer, cp. Pesh. Mark II. 15: . os Rapoport, Introd. to p"', 7 b, ? i6, but NRB'3D is never mentioned by Babylonian Geonim, only by Spanish and French scholars (see also Miiller,

n"n1mmn, pp. 2-3, V^n' n-srx ,ti ninr,n, XXXVII). ,l"n?D also uses this expression (see REJ., LVII, I98). Rapoport connects this word with the Arabic .>;, to be acquainted with, or to define, but this gives no proper meaning.-The nature of NS13'I is explained in D~nI^p

T",

II, n',

?

28:

Se aIs8o5i?

n aIso nnnt mnn155nlrl, p1eL;: r 8ilW

.. .n:w

Wo1In"' n4.in niW

15N.I45 a^ N ^ i ) D^ See also j"lK:, No. I04. pWllS

nNSn

33?

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Jew's firm. Sometimes this prohibition was strengthened by a ban (cp. n'"m, No. 174; (?)n1nZpn n,: n'ln rlnw 'nlV p"nn Tn?i 5v n1n'lr:n

DNIn:

sW, see Miller,

note 6).

Above (p. 317) we have seen that many Jews in France and Spain possessed vineyards. As a result many Jews were wine merchants. Already Agobard, the notorious Bishop of Lyons, attacked the Jews on the ground that they sold adulterated wine (about 829 c. E., cp. Gr.,V4, 24I). The responsa also refer to this wine-business in the hands of Jews (cp. "'Dm,Nos. I55 and 205). Coming back to the responsa of the Babylonian Geonim, we find references to several trades practised by Jews in Babylon and in the North-African communities. R. Natronai in a responsum (l"n, No. 82) makes mention of Jews who traded in expensive clothes and in bullion (na2ns '1%' nl 1?tINDl 2n,t

nn

1I).

In another

responsum

(n"lo, No.

149, by R. Paltoi) it is stated: 'Germans (?) usually come to us with goods mostly in the summer and rarely in the winter. Usually they would bargain over our cloths and depreciate their value. But when they hear of another caravan coming behind them, or if they have suddenly to depart, they would hurriedly sell and buy all the required goods.' Further, large business usel( to be carried on in silk-wares. Saadya in a responsum (n"~,No. 556) mentions two partners investing large sums of money in silk (sn'nn n1W2''lz, cp. ,n", p. 277, note 2). One partner contributed about a thousand gold Dinars (a Dinar = about 30s.), a large sum in those days (see also t"Y'1, No. 135, from Tlemsen).253 From Kairowan a business transaction is 253About the silk trade see also above, p. 328, and further, Geon., II, 65: ' ' IYW 3. Brit. Mus. Add. 27,18I 4nN5 ~)V r i_ CY 'W ;p X } N,'l ~h1 ^.d1 (cp. above, note 7), fol, i6a (No. 61): DtiN1

(nl"p):

RESPONSA

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

331

reported of a Jew selling to another Jew a large quantity I ed. Wertheimer, 7I a, of pepper on board ship (nr[W nInp, 'N). We find further casual references to trading in wheat, animals, and property (V"w',77 b and 78a, Nos. 3-5, by R. Nahshon). Several responsa deal with cases of Jews buying bullion which they used to give to the mint to be coined. In those times no standard and uniform coinage existed. For example, the various provinces of the Muslim Empire had different standards. The Dinar of Yemen was much inferior in value to the Dinar of 'Irak. This brought about exchange-business in the coins of the different countries.25 In an Arabic question to Sherira there is mentioned the case of a Jew who possessed a grindstone for grinding the dust of gold and silver (,n", Nos. 370-I). Many responsa referred to above show that very close business relations existed between Jews and non-Jews. Especially in such undertakings as mills, inns, public baths, and landed property which required to be carried on also on the Sabbath, Jews would enter into partnership with -i6n mpn

Vnill 4V* nTbiNK

-NK

4

iI

cns l's rn~[ '1mDa[y[ s= s~ t na p p itbu

bwniTnmvpi?

Ptn

n:isn i1

vwntc

Kitw.

Cp. n.1, Nos. 386 and 424 (written in Arabic, translated by Harkavy into Hebrew, i'"13 P. 316ff.); X#"', 34a, No. 4, by Sar Shalom (cp. Einleit., I4, note): A bought gold in bullion from B, the banker, on a month's credit; ";', 34 a, No. 3 == "a, No. 52: the Gaon Sar Shalom is against those who lend defective coins and ask in return coins of full weight, lend silver in bullion and ask back coined silver, because this is usury; Z"',No. 165: a Jew possessing silver in bullion and being afraid that the coinage at the mint would be delayed, asks another Jew who was held in great honour by the master of the mint to give the bullion to the mint in his name.Mubaddasi (boru at Jerusalem in 946, began his work in 985) writes: In the province of Syria also, for the most part, the assayers of coin, the dyers, bankers and tanners are Jews, while it is most usual for the physicians and the scribes to be Christians' (cited by Le Strange, Palestine under the Moslems, 22). 254

332

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY

REVIEW

non-Jews who could thus conduct the business on the Jewish festivals (cp. n'=" , Nos. 53 and 55; V"'n, II, 57, No. 5; Geon., II, I86,3; 194, 1.9 ff.; 195 top and bottom; 196, 1. II if.; "n, No. xo). Other cases of Jews forwarding money to non-Jews for business purposes are mentioned in the responsa i'", Nos. 67 and 68. All this will show that the prohibition of R. Sar Shalom (849-53) that no Jew should enter into partnership with a non-Jew (n"1m, No. nry1W ~I2 I DI) was never carried 102, 1 3I nlmnlW ilW out in actual life. The responsa of the Spanish and French scholars referred to above (pp. 318-I9, 328-9) prove that at the close of the Gaonic period the Jews in France occupied themselves more and more with money-lending to nonJews on interest; no permission was any longer required for taking interest from a non-Jew. Characteristic is the question in V"', 35 b, No. 7 (anonymous) from some correspondent, whether a Jew who takes interest from a non-Jew should be excommunicated. This shows that in the place of that correspondent money-lending was quite unusual, but from the responsum it is impossible to gather whence it was sent. From the responsa we learn further of various combinations of partnerships, especially in cases where one partner was the capitalist and the other the salesman. Saadya, in a responsum (V"/', 96 b, No. I2) mentions a typical example of such a partnership. Two Jews invested 5,000 Dinars, a large sum of money in those days, in a banking business and in the sale of property, the proportion of the money invested by the two partners being 6 to 4, but since the second partner was the active business man the profits were fixed in the proportion of 5 to 7.255 Reference is also made in a responsum to the 255Cp. further "'/t, 93 b, Nos. 2 and 5 (by Sherira); No. 3, by Natronai;

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

333

way poor Jewish pedlars used to carry on their barter trade in the small towns and villages (probably in North Africa). They used to obtain loans from well-to-do Jews which enabled them to buy cheap crockery, flax, wool, and spices. These they would barter for wheat, barley, wax, and other articles. When advancing the money, the creditors would fix with the pedlars the prices of wheat and the other articles which the latter would bring them later on in payment of their debts. At times it would happen that the prices of these articles would rise before the money was due, so that it amounted to usury on the part of the lenders.256 All these casual and scattered references in the Gaonic responsa to the occupations and the economic position of the Jews which were discussed in this chapter, are only the reflex of the actual conditions. Only when disputes arose were they brought to the notice of the Geonim, who were asked to give their legal decision in accordance with the Talmudic civil law. But even these casual references in the responsa allow us to form an idea of the extent and the way Jews took part both in agriculture and trade in the countries of their diaspora. In conclusion of this chapter, mention is made of the interesting responsum in Arabic

VD"lD,No. go, by Saadya; I1.`, No. 235, from Kairowan; Yq", No. 43; "W, 98 b, No. 2I, by Saadya, translated from the Arabic. See also "W',96 a, No. xI by Saadya: two Jewish partners travel twice by ship with goods to ~5:3, which probably refers to Bagdad. 266 Geon., II, 80-8I: l4lDl" p".o1DnDV"1n=. n11"1S rjn,n "nm"D

n N'o.1ouon m'KW iY1

IYWI

.Xp3r

rwnl mrni ;nMI

tirp J.3i 13 anr ppDln nwir Tnp yDnigw iv 3tgn 1n )1. p13r1 nt npo prvnI Mirp0 ptt:D t-Dr14 n1:1. cp. also^n, No.

120.

334

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY REVIEW

concerning money-orders from one country to another.257 The Gaon maintains that according to the principles of the Talmudic civil law no legal claim can be brought forward should money sent in this way be lost in transmission. However, the Bet-Din began to deal with such claims because they saw that many people sent such moneyorders, and the Bet-Din did not want to place obstacles in the way of commercial relations between people. 257

H^, No. 423 (Hebrew translation by Harkavy on p. 316): 1:'1

t lbv * wn na m ^M . ,uw {,a ,r, [E-r'nn1] m ^ntn n1V3n? IrmjfW inUnn sNW Pn:r bp jly irninnin . . * wnnun, ronn r1nj;1?5lbpi wvnmm nPnnonr. ..3

7I

RESPONSA

IV.

THE

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

335

POWER OF THE BET-DIN

AND THE ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMUNITIES.

I. IN the preceding chapters we have seen how the spiritual leaders of Jewry greatly opposed the practice of Jews submitting their disputes to the decision of non-Jewish courts. On the whole it may be assumed that the bulk of the people followed the injunction of their spiritual leaders, and preferred to settle their cases before Jewish judges; both on religious and political grounds, the procedure of the secular courts found no favour in the eyes of the Jews. We have also discussed the occupations of the Jews, and have seen to what extent the Jews of those times occupied themselves both with agriculture and commerce. Thus for the common welfare of the Jewish communities there was a real need of an efficient Bet-Din. The Jewish judges usually worked hand in hand with the elders of the community ('Isn :pt), who, as we have seen above, were responsible for the taxes. Whenever the Bet-Din or the communal leaders found that their ruling was flouted or disobeyed by their coreligionists, they used to avail themselves of the power of coercion with which the secular authorities were invested, But the secular authorities could lend their assistance in monetary disputes only (see above, p. 142 ff.). In religious affairs, however, and on the whole the only coercive means at the disposal of the Bet-Din was the ban. It is true that VOL. X.

Z

336

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY REVIEW

flogging (nlipn) was the punishment inflicted by the Jewish courts for several transgressions. But if a Jew refused to undergo this punishment, he could only be coerced by means of excommunication (cp. also above, p. 129, note I92). It is no wonder therefore that the Geonim were anxious to make this only means of coercion as effective as possible. The welfare of the communities, both as regards morality and honest dealing, demanded that the ban should effectively take the place of imprisonment, and the other ways of coercion at the disposal of the non-Jewish courts. It must be admitted that the ban was a little too freely made use of, especially in the case of small transgressions in religious matters (to a great extent due to the opposition against the Karaites). Moreover, the Exilarchs frequently handled this social weapon for their own purposes, either to extort taxes or to impose their will on the Geonim (as the quarrel between David b. Zakkai and Saadya shows). Yet a strict enforcement of the ban was on the whole necessary when we review in general the great responsi, bilities that rested on the Bft-Din to ensure the peace and the good name of the Jewish communities. We find that the spiritual head of the Christians in Babylon, the Catholicos, could enforce his will on his co-religionists only by means of excommunication from the Church, refusal of sacraments, and prohibition of intercourse with Christians, just in the same way as the Bet-Din enforced its ruling. The legal decisions of the Catholici Henni1sh6 (686-701), Timotheos (780-823), and Jesubarnum (820-4) (published by Sachau, Syrische Rechtsbiicher, vol. II). show us several parallels between the methods of the Catholici and their subordinate local ecclesiastical courts on one hand, and of the Geonim and the local Jewish courts on

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONiM-MANN

337

the other, in enforcing their ruling on their respective coreligionists. (See, e. g. Henanish6, Nos. 5, 8, 9, II, iz: the ban was announced in the churches of the respective district on festivals; I4: the coercion is to be carried out also with the help of the secular authorities, in case the ecclesiastical authority is disobeyed; 5 ; Timotheos, ?? 9, I3-14; Jesubarnum, ?? 34, 36-9, 65-6, 115, and 125.) 2. The chief source of information about the organization of the Jewish courts in Babylon is to be found in Nathan's report (Neub., II, 85-6). The responsa supply several supplementary details. In Babylon the exilarchs were entitled to appoint judges for the communities that were within their sphere of influence. The Geonim also undoubtedly possessed the same right in the districts under the jurisdiction of their respective academies (see Neub., II, 81 and 82, beginning, and 86, and also Aptowitzer, YQR., N. S., IV, 3I).258 The diploma given to such judges is preserved in a Gaonic responsum, according to which they were invested with the authority of settling legal disputes and of supervising the practice of all ritual commandments, religious laws, and moral conduct.259 Such 258 It is of interest to learn that Saadya's rival to the Gaonate of Sura, Khalaf b. Sarjado, could appoint his nominee as Dayan of the distant community of Mossul (see Harkavy, Studien u. Mitteilungen, V, 207,11. 9-1:

: lSj

r=3 n

-p *n^ K'wD [13]

nIDS 45N r 13'1')

:1.p

:wD

5u1DiS 1I-r nSniuD). n.x, No. I80 (probably by Hai to Kairowan, written in IonI, see ri:v -m n t"a ibid., 76, note 4): 5n3 ,nn ,in 51i: PDF In 259

nrINl

Mp^=

ln^t

-inipl

n]wi

mn:

m1 1rnr xm3W

wi-

15 r;nini

19w

1^rs

n~ ,n1 n Kpnn n' snimi lpnvD n,mt rp n 494 i , rwnnitl ^4F: 1tnh N1W i'nn)D 1^ ln M l Mn inpD sin)lXD snm~ 51smot'1 5by ,~n,Wn,SnnlEn,nm 'Xw p :rn: tD^yn tm^r nt':n^ Knswb n^ l1tna. ,nii nR (See also t"u1, No. T56, and nl"r, No. 217). Z2

338

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY REVIEW

a judge, on his arrival at his new place of activity, had to select two assessors from amongst the respected members of the community, in the first instance in order to constitute a proper Bet-Din which had to consist of at least three members, but chiefly for the purpose of being informed of the affairs of the community by members of long standing. The elders of the communities would supervise the activities of the respective judges, and could demand from the Exilarch, or the Geonim respectively, the deposal of unworthy judges. The Exilarch had a high-court situated at his place of residence, which, as we have seen above (VII, 469), was Bagdad since the times is mentioned nr of Manstr. This high-court, or NK'Wn sb, in tn", No. 555: sa*;=

m1I sNnnl K-

s

p NDn'

-W ptD znn

.n* uvn pIn sannm, aW , i If the Exilarch happened nnVYD 1b: n 1m1'nmWT n r: sn tnnn. -Pm: wn3vp5 ,np p?nlr

to be a scholar, it is only natural that he would preside over the high-court. Thus in tn", No. 555, we find the expression that "the Exilarch (David b. Za,kkai) gave judgement based on substantial Halakot and clear arguments' (Nnwma:ssns31n ;e s w,nsmnn nnt snN -Wsnpirm But since most of the Exilarchs were not 'r': InDl).260 learned and owed their exalted position merely to their descent from the Davidic family, they usually had a prominent scholar presiding over their High Court. We possess a responsum by a president of this High Court, R. Semah, sent to Kairowan.261 He must have attained 260About the learned Exilarch Solomon b. Hisdai, see Halevy, ni'B'T cD1VIYW, III, 213-14. 261 Dukes in s tn , IV,I41-2 prints from an Oxford MS.:sD1tD 18

1 nV4 o:t w: :IW,W rn6r wr win N: ,ZbVTnw1r vh^ w nt:)i 1 sn6 n 14 3 n: 535 ,nT3nPNf n1 K; 33

l tnan lnlwnrivitl

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

339

considerable reputation that such a distant community asked for his opinion in religious matters. Probably the local judges in the communities under the Exilarch's jurisdiction consulted the High Court in difficult cases. Moreover, one of the parties concerned in a lawsuit could refuse to submit to the decision of the local judge and demand that the dispute should be settled by the High Court. From a Gaonic Document, published by Aptowitzer, YQR., N. S., IV, 25, No. i,262 we know that this was the case as regards the High Courts of the Academies. In all probability the same procedure was in force at the Exilarch's High Court. The High Court of each of the two Academies was also presided over by an eminent NVt I (see Ginzberg, scholar, the so-called tr7 n: :'I or m::' This Geon., I, 11, note 4; Aptowitzer, ibid., 35-8). the Court of was second Academy president of the High in rank to the Gaon, the supreme authority (but see above, VII, 468 ff.). It appears that the decisions rendered by the Exilarch's High Court had to be ratified by the High Courts of both Academies, as the responsum in ,n"i,No. 555, quoted above, p. 338, clearly shows. Moreover, it is well known that the quarrel between David b. Zakkai and Saadya arose because the latter refused to ratify a docubD:n a^rDin . Kp'nas nDnD1 j%nTpl 3smn,Dnn 7kwl \33dpn See also I1"#,p. 389. This R. Semah seems to have been identical with the N::'1 WWI mentioned by R. 'Amram at the beginning of his Siddur 3 a, No. I7, there is mentioned "3W'n :1 "ID (cp. 5", No. 56). In #".W who after the death of Bustanai issued a deed of freedom t N:IZI NMKV1, to the exilarch's widow, the daughter of the Persian king Khusrau, in order that her children, the sons of Bustanai, should be in the status of freedmen. Cp. Eppenstein, Monatsschrift, I908, 336--7. "262% Ipl=nvpi ' y3Zn l 5p ipn , P.Sw .32 )nma im' rS,

m 3v. Cp., ibd., p.32. 3 w"DrIl 4gSP1.V'4 p 1 ,i3I5Wn '1 Nzza wnnlp ynvn 4np4iyzn). Cp., ibid., p. 32.

Nnz,nn1n

i

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

340

ment issued by the former's High Court, whereas Kohen Sedek complied with the request of the Exilarch (see Nathan's report in Neub., II, 8o-81). In Babylon the judge of a community had fixed emoluments from every member of his community above the age of twenty, and he also took fees for all legal documents which none but his scribe was allowed to draw up (Nathan in Neub., II, 85-6) As regards the communities outside Babylon, we may assume that in Egypt the Nagid generally had the power of appointing judges over the communities under his jurisdiction. But in other countries each community used to elect a judge of its own accord. We find references to communities that possessed no permanent Bet-Din. In such cases the elders of the community used to settle by arbitration disputes arising amongst Jews. Thus the iesponsum in l"w, 84b, No. 4, speaks of a community which has no permanent Bet-Din, but where the elders, the disciples, and the respected members of the congregation 'settle all disputes arising amongst the Jews'.263 Likewise in x"w, 90 a, No. 29, the Gaon mentions 'the people that are fit to settle disputes amongst the members of a community that has no permanent Bet-Din' (a~ntm a,wKn mp~?2 i,M:1Dl"n pKW ,n p: nnv'). On the other hand, several responsa refer to communities with permanent courts (cp. n"l, No. 80oand " b,90 b, No. 33). The Geonim were careful in recognizing the authority of such judges 263

1Sln1 V..ni's

1ln2m ,.

\5 ) WWP niSWC

alsinpu1"

I,r a1mlnIDWInnml n n aptmrn 5 Iamni ,I

4 pWNo DIpn:

, ? inpm 1r

i'n, tIn 1V5I ..W nD 15 `Fiw iniN. Cp. also n"., No. 233: ,i,,.

bM'pr,:

anSD m-rn,xl7 wNy3"snn n

,. . cni^tn.

,n,5in 6i~ t,n

,= N=,

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

341

who had not their authorization in communities abroad. R. Hai was consulted by his correspondents in Kairowan as to the case of a Jew who swore not to attend at the local Bet-Din, though the members of the community established a permanent Bet-Din, and undertook to submit all their disputes to its decision. The Gaon in his answer draws the distinction between a judge appointed by thb High Court of the Academy and one that had no such authorization. In the case of the former, any person that pronounced such an oath would be forced to appear before the Bet-Din and would be flogged (npmn) for his oath. Whereas in the case of the latter, such a procedure cannot be enforced (n"j, No. I8o). From some community there came the complaint to R. Hai about the scandalous procedure of the local judges who would allow the beds of the poor, as well as their other belongings, to be taken as pledges, in contradiction to the Talmudic law (n"r', No. 86). The Gaon rightly gives vent to his indignation at such proceedings, and strongly urges upon his correspondents to do everything in their power in order to bring about the deposal of such judges. This can only refer to some community outside Babylon, since in Babylon the High Court of the-Academy had the authority to remove such judges. All that the Geonim demand of such courts in countries outside Babylon is that they should be eminent and command the respect of everybody (see the definition of nln '"l: in ;n", No. 240, and cp. n"a,No. 14 = No. 255, end). Each community probably provided from the public funds for the maintenance of its Bet-Din. A responsum in 1'", No. 82, mentions the case of a Jew who bequeathed the rental of his house for the use of the synagogue. The communal leaders, however, used the

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

342

rent for the salary of the judge of their community (,rS S MnDnw, rni ;',w ,n~'~ pO:nw, see also D"~,No. 7). 3. On the whole, the Talmudic law was the guide of the Jewish judges in their dispensation of justice. For religious transgressions, flagellation in various degrees was inflicted, whereas in monetary lawsuits oaths would be administered. But in order to enforce its ruling, the B6tDin in the Gaonic times, as well as long afterwards, had only one means at its disposal, and that was the ban. All this was in use in Talmudic times. From the Gaonic responsa, however, we obtain a detailed account of the procedure of the Bet-Din. (a) Corporal Punishment. There were two grades of flagellation, the so-called Mnp)Dfor transgressions against Biblical commandments, and nritn n:n for acting contrary to the prohibitions of the Rabbis (n"', No. 9). The former, as is well known, consisted of thirty-nine stripes. But there are conflicting statements as regards the latter. R. Natronai states in a responsum (x"W,91 b, No. 39= a"n, No. 89; cp. n"', No. i8I) that the so-called flagellation of minj was no longer practised in his time, whereas the nvvnz n:n had no fixed number of stripes, but was continued till the person concerned submitted to the decision of the BetDin.264 But from responsa by Sherira and Hai it is evident that flagellation, consisting of thirty-nine stripes, was in practice still in their time (see 'n", No. 440 (sent 264

i,nnIrl ,nr:nn

1 IKsi3p,W 7pn1P IniK

noJnin tN nrln 1nrsis

j3 P1 m

im 5 NnlKInw nn~ n3n11,'is Dn 'n

rnyV. In this connexion cp. the statement of Samuel ha-Nagid in a responsum (quoted in nIfIl 'ISD, ed. Schorr, 267) concerning people who were suspected of heresy and whom the early Spanish authorities had flogged:

I'n.

1,p,n

t1nn

inni nlpn5a

Mrlw

nVw

1nn 1pM

)jl7p1.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

343

to Kairowan in 997; cp. ibid., p. 235, note i)= "en, II, 4I, No. 6). It seems that this punishment was inflicted for transgressions that could not be repaired, e. g. desecration of the Sabbath. Whereas for the purpose of enforcing the ruling of the Bet-Din, the flagellation went on till the culprit acquiesced. However, ;U~n : n vrnio nsD is mentioned by R. Yehudai (760-4) for transgressions that could not be repaired (cp. i"'vn, I, 29, and II, 18; see also n"w, No. I5, and Einleit., to, note).265 During the flagellation corresponding verses from the Bible were recited, and the culprit had to make confession and ask for divine forgiveness (n"j, No. 440='I"'n, II, 41, No. 6). It seems also that the culprit was adjured not to repeat his sin (n"w, No. 7, and the responsum quoted by Mullerl, Einleit., 6, note 4). 265Quite a new distinction between and lWn n1: s is introduced nlp5n d. 'D 'Iw (Jahrb. Jiud.-Liter.Gesellschaft,Frankfurt, V, Hebrew YVy

in nlm

part, p. 67, No 2o):

' nein t ITnm L ppSw op

,DI 1-nnjlnl pnw

L nzmrws vw nw1DEW

nniwvn n 1n?nllzwn43 nnrD nnn.

As the responsa of the Babylonian Geonim, which we have discussed, do not know of this distinction, the above summary rather represents the views of the Palestinian Geonim than those of the Babylonian scholars. J. N. Epstein (in Jahrbuch, vol. VIII, 450) could not find what was 'obscure' in the summary of Et'nl V"Vy-'n 'D. But his references to 'similar' responsa by Natronai and Hai (Xt'W,V, 7 (9g b) No 39, and ntw, No. 15) are hardly to the point in question.-According to a responsum by Saadya (cited by Poznanski, JQR., N. S., III, 427) nlnID FrD consisted of thirteen stripes for the transgression of a' traditional precept, such as hair-cutting on Dnirl or wearing shoes during the days of mourning. This must have been the lenient side of n1lI'D I3t for slight transgressions. This number of thirteen stripes is also ordained by R. Hai, unnoticed by Poznanski (in a responsum cited by Muller, Einleit., 6, note, from ni,"2Q, II, ? 150), 31 .*,.

n,

nrin,6

ilZ ,,, nrwnn nn1Djrw

5 ) . , nD7*l? tni

lin pm :n1

R jv

51rR 1321

3f

: muj)p D 14= 1in nipm

'/ Inm p in WnnD= 3l 13i11 i'lmnm rhJzIDnnr"s

WW4.

344

THIE JEWISH

QUARTERLY REVIEW

For certain transgressions, flagellation was accompanied by shaving the culprit's head and beard. Thus in Vew, 25 a, No. 13 (anonymous; in i,n, No. 94, by R. Natronai), we read that if a Jew be found guilty of having committed adultery with his female slave, he should be flogged and his hair shaved off. Likewise, in the case of adultery with a married woman, both culprits were flogged and had their hair shaved off (i"vn, I, 29, among the nrl:p nrn' of R. Yehudai = n'"n, II, i8, 1. II, among the responsa of R. Natronai). The same punishment was inflicted for desecrating the Sabbath (n"'n, II, o2). This strange punishment, which, as far as my knowledge goes, is not found in the Talmud,266must have been borrowed by the Jews from the secular authorities. This punishment was practised in Spain under the Visigoths. One of the decrees of King Erwich, 680-7, was that the Jews who within a year from the publication of the decree, were not themselves or had not their children baptized, should be punished by a hundred stripes, cutting of the hair of the head, banishment, and confiscation of property (cp. Caro, Social- U. Wirtschaftsgeschichte der 7uden, 73). This punishment of shaving the hair must have been usual in the Middle Ages ini many countries. Cp. further Dr. Biichler, 'Das Schneiden des Haares als Strafe der Ehebrecher bei den Semiten' (in Wiener Zeitschrift fiir die Kunde des Morgenlandes, XIX, 91 ff.). It seems that there existed a kind of communal prison for the internment of culprits pending 266 Perhaps a reference to this kind of punishment is to be found in Sanh. IIo a top, where the wife of Korah is supposed to have said to her 'he Z husband: NnI'I ' 125 5D'l V1'5-t" *WIl :?zn5 (Moses) shaved you all over and sports with you as (with a prisoner) in the stocks' (to &nlI1S, cp. also Jastrow, Dictionary, s. RMl'ZI). Rashi, however, gives a different explanation.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

345

their trial at the Bet-Din. Thus, if a Jew committed some transgression on the Sabbath or on the Festivals, when he could not be flogged, he was imprisoned for that day, in order to prevent his escape kt"ln, No. 146, by No." and Sherira; n', 135, by R. Paltoi of Pumbedita, 842-58; n"w, No. I82, cannot be by Sherira, as it contradicts n"^n, No. 146, whereas it agrees with -",n, No. 135). In all these responsa there is expressly mentioned the communal prison (n,,Dn na). Likewise, in the Frankish Empire it seems that the Jewish authorities had the right of imprisoning a Jewish culprit. Thus in the year 576 C.E., we are told, St. Germanus on his journey from Tours to Severiacus found the Jew Amantius in chains and led by Jews, because he refused to obey the Jewish laws (see Aronius, Regesten zur Geschichte der 7uden im frdnkischen und deutschen Reiche, p. 13, to the year 576). However, confinement in a prison for a certain period as a punishment for transgressions was imposed by Jewish law only in a very few cases (cp. Sanh. 93, p'vnb nMw5inis, as regards a homicide against whom there are no witnesses, and also as regards a culprit who persists in his transgression for which he had received already twice flagellation, see Frankel, Der gerichtliche Beweis, p. 167, and the instructive note in Lewy, Abba Saul, p. 35, note 85). (b) Oath. The proper oath, which was accompanied by the laying of the hand on a scroll of the Law (,nmnmna), was abolished by the Gaon R. Sadok, 823-5. The reason for this abolition was because people were ready to take the oath without much consideration, and the Geonim were afraid of the serious Divine punishment consequent upon perjury (O"n,No. 22, by R. Natronai = p"), No. 43; op. Geon., II, 154 (0"pn), x"v, 73 a, No. 9, by R. Hai). This

THE JEWISH

346

QUARTERLY REVIEW

change introduced by R. Sadok spread only gradually. In the time of R. Paltoi we find judges still continuing to adjure people with the proper oath, ,mrnn nylMw(cp. i", No. io). As a substitute for the proper oath, curses used to be pronounced against any one who gave false evidence in monetary lawsuits. In order to make these curses, called snnT, effective, they were pronounced in the synagogue accompanied by a solemn ceremony, which we find fully described in two responsa (["', No. 1o, by Paltoi, 842-58, and Y"v, 76 a, No. 2, by R. Hai). The scroll of the Law was taken out from the ark, while the person concerned was familiarized with the curses that occur in the Bible. A bier was brought to the synagogue, and on it lay the shroud of the dead. Ashes were strewn under the feet of the person concerned, and inflated bladders as well as a cock were brought to the synagogue. The candles were lighted and the school-children were present. Then to the accompaniment of horns, the delegate of the Bet-Din pronounced against the person concerned curses which would be fulfilled, in case he was making false statements. All the details of this ceremony, so strange and gruesome as they appear to us, had symbolical meanings, and were meant to impress upon the adjured the responsibility he undertook in making his statements before the court.267 Generally, this ceremony 267 5,", No. Io:

m*l

Ww ml

Ill'

ntOi3 i

,nIIyl IR;twV Dntp:rno lnl

nllilnI

.

naM :nn=1

p n ' rSno 55ittn

tnhS

. v

nti

I n'li*nl nrnm I w 4xmsFn DMnW1;m5=n.5? 1i'0D='13re. .ni n ~ ;'wn)m nh rns -'1rWY1Dr'llD nrV ImN

Ynr=nnwiK ivY

=17K=

nID

11 n6

' 1~5ni

l nf ,wn w nes iPTnmns pp,'Inns t.I nvs:n ptOthese details.n Someof "ID4N W =3I m1l:l ~rlnL. pSmn

0 . . nai1 3D1lll

ttillnltin-zivz14tP

1

'T (M1 /p

nnzw

Someof thesedetails

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

347

used to take place in the synagogue on Mondays and Thursdays after the morning service, whilst all the worshippers were present (S"a, No. 9, probably by R. Hai). Even married women had to go through the same ceremony in public ("w', 69 a, No. 72, by Natronai, which agrees with the responsum quoted in i", No. 9, in the name of R. Semah). Later Geonim, however, seem to have spared married women this publicity, and allowed them to be No. 9). adjured privately in the presence of three Jews (%"a, Another kind of adjuration was administered in cases of suspicion. For example, if a Jew suspected another Jew of having stolen something from his house or of having denounced him to the secular authorities, he could, after having substantiated his suspicions, obtain from the BetDin the permission of having a ban or curses announced in the synagogue anonymously against anybody that caused him harm. This permission, which was called snmin' spn (ni", Nos. i and 333), was, however, not accompanied by the ceremony described above (cp. ~"n, No. 137, by R. Hai; n"/2t, No. 193, by R. Joseph Ibn Abitur of Cordova; p'", No. 13). The same permission was granted by the BetDin, on the demand of one of the parties concerned in a lawsuit, against any person that refrained from coming to the Bet-Din and giving his evidence (see the Gaonic Document published by Aptowitzer, YQR., N. S., IV, 28, No. VII). R. Hai, as well as his predecessors, were very are found in Lev. R. c. 6: 1'D:'nKZ bZIN

W11asinNtnnr1n ,n1

n nm ns nll 5nnK

tpl3Nn

'

:n

1ns Is

nlnrmr6a n i n11 mnnln

; Pes. R. c. 22 (ed. Friedmann, 113 b): ?tD~tp'l 81Tin 1~W1t tfl i nN bwr:wi 4* mnni: 311:m^ b 'In! rn nrnmprn t3Denwl ;PoD 'n

i r= G1n 14 p mow 1p bil wl nl "N9n ni1? nalwv wpinl nMpD rnnK nrnb 7ptnL n1 1DD333^9 Dtp nKm IsmD =tvw n i: I szn.

THE JEWISH

348

QUARTERLY REVIEW

careful in giving such a permission to claimants, and they would grant it only on the demand of orphans or their guardians to be used against anybody that concealed money entrusted to him by their father.268 (c) Excommunication. To enforce obedience to and acquiescence in all their decisions, the Bet-Din had only the ban at its disposal, by means of which the culprit was entirely separated from Jewish society. The Geonim, as the spiritual leaders of Jewry, were anxious to make the ban as effective as possible. The ban announced against some Jew used to be sent to all the communities of the district or the country wherein the person concerned resided. In this way, the effectiveness of the excommunication was to be secured. The utter separation from all intercourse with his co-religionists must have weighed heavily upon the excommunicated, especially in those times when a Jew almost exclusively moved in Jewish society. A full description of the extent of the ban is given in a responsum by R. Paltoi, 842-58 (5"', No. o1, and with some changes in "P., 75 a, No. I4).269 There was a milder degree of 268

izz% No.

Ssf-r4-,i y- r

22:

1nJS NFl nn

K1

lzN

1t9t

IlW14

.

.

N 1.-: N$N -i1: nnc) : =4 W nns i-in -in SN5 nN wsrnm $r ts innn

nus wiln ,-nN nN w3-=lN l

rnlN$$pminn

XnrruU$n Kpni pnnriw5$zlJw11n$

W412 iS

b'Y 'wI: 17''K.

Cp. VIM., No. 22, end, by Saadya. 269 The text in 5i". is more correct. Thus the terrible phrase '1pl3 'l1D11t in X'Wreads in 5" :-lnntl1D 1pr1 parallel to V'n11Y 11nn. With 5"J agrees the GaonicDocument published by Aptowitzer, ibid., 26, No. IV. The Karaite ban was likewise stringent. See Benjamin Nahavendi (nSI1N 2 a bottom) 'pj1N 3F '1n '55pD [ 1"' n5"l)] K'1:' 5 tl P=i,

si

i5se' 11~3mSv=

MS

12 tr'

nx nplt, 'nrTnn -f'1 tr

't 'f'

RESPONSA

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

349

excommunication, called n13 or snzWe, which enjoined the people to keep aloof from the excommunicated. The document called snTna, issued by the Bat-Din to this effect, was valid for thirty days (cp. n"r, Nos. 41-2, by R. Hai; n":, No. I82, and p. 357 note to p. 84; Gaonic Document, No. III, published by Aptowitzer, ibid., 26). If the excommunicated remained obstinate, the more severe form of excommunication, the so-called snnnns or tnn, was used. The effect of this ban must have been crushing, if carried out in all its severity. In all the synagogues of the neighbouring communities the ban was announced, declaring the food and drink of the culprit to be like that of a non-Jew and forbidding, under penalty of excommunication, any Jew from keeping company with the excommunicated person, or to circumcise his son, or to teach his children in the public schools, or, finally, to assist at the burial on the death of a member of his household. Sometimes the ban went so far as to declare those who ventured to talk to the person under the ban, as being eo ipso in his position (n"', No. 42, by R. Hai, and r"'l, No. 217). It would be unjust to attack R. Paltoi for this frightfulness of the ban (as Weiss, T"I't, IV, p. 15 top, note o1, and p. iI6, does), since R. Paltoi was not the inventor of this form of excommunication. It must have been in practice long before him (see also Gr. V4, I39, note 4). The ban was handled with as much severity also by the contemporary Christian ecclesiastical authorities in Babylon. In fact, it was in the general way of coercion in that period,

m1nnVs eN

1;,nn 5=pn n"^i5s-

3

n7 nn 111wnMl I=me.

350

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY

REVIEW

and one person ought not to be blamed for not being above and beyond his time. In the time of R. Hai, the grim severity of the ban was somewhat relaxed. The Gaon is of the opinion that the new-born son of the excommunicated should be circumcised, and also that if the man died during the term of his excommunication, he should be buried (h"w, No. 41). It must be admitted that those affected by the ban suffered considerably under its weight. However, a strict handling of the ban, as the only means of coercion at the disposal of the Bet-Din, or of the communal leaders, was on the whole necessary for the preservation of the prestige of the authorities. This becomes evident when we consider in particular the ends which the ban served to attain. 4. The duties which were entrusted to the care of the Bet-Din in every community can be divided into two chief branches. The one consisted in the dispensation of justice in monetary lawsuits, while the other comprised the supervision of the practice of morality and religion by the masses. In carrying out their duties in both these spheres of activity, the Jewish courts must have made frequent use of the ban, in order to bring pressure to bear upon refractory people. (a) Monetary Affairs. The procedure of the Bet-Din in helping a creditor to recover his money in case the debtor declared his insolvency is fully described in a responsum by R. Natronai in "w',86 a, No. 15. Naturally, the procedure described in the Talmud served as an example for the Bet-Din in the Gaonic period. But nowhere in the Talmud is there to be found such detailed descriptions of the procedure of the Bet-Din as in the Gaonic responsa. To take the case of insolvency, the creditor

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

351

was entitled to recover his money from all those people who bought property from the debtor after the date of his loan. To this effect the Bet-Din would issue to the creditor a document of exactment, tFYU ntW,while destroying his original bond issued by the debtor. In case the people who bought the debtor's property refused to pay to the creditor his due, the milder form of the ban would be declared against them to be in effect for thirty days. If after this time the excommunicated persons persisted in their obstinacy, the severer form of the ban, the so-called tntMMN,was brought to bear upon them to last for the same time of thirty days. If this had no effect, the the allowed creditor to enter perforce B&t-Din finally the property of the buyers, and to appropriate with the help of the surveyors appointed by the lBet-Din, a part of the property covering the amount of his loan. To this while his 1snU wt effect, the creditor received Nnniw ntLW was destroyed. Finally, when already in possession of the property, the creditor received a deed of property signed The same by the Bet-Din in lieu of the ,n:rmsi'D. the case of a was use in in debtor procedure refusing to if he the left the before or court, appear country after an adverse decision of the Bet-Din (see the Gaonic Decrees and Documents published by Aptowitzer, yQR., N. S., IV-VI, 25-8; ,n", No. 234, by R. Hai). Several other instances of coercion by means of the ban in civil lawsuits are discussed in several responsa (cp. n", Nos. I84 and 233; V"', 77a, No. 32; 84b, No. 4, and 87a, No. I7). In short, the Bet-Din endeavoured to safeguard the just claims of people and to forestall any dishonest dealings. An interesting case is reported in Geon., II, I54, 1. I ff., about a debtor who tried to avoid paying his debts by VOL. X.

A a

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

352

attempting to give a bogus document of divorce to his wife, who in her turn would claim all the property of her husband for her Ketubah and in this way outwit the creditors. In this case again, the ban was useful for bringing pressure to bear upon the debtor.270 Of special importance was the duty of safeguarding the interests of orphans. The B&t-Din is styled 'the father of orphans'. Thus the Jewish court had to demand from the guardians accounts as to how they managed the affairs of orphans = No. 5, n"', entrusted to them (see n"r, No. 178 -Y'"1, No. 324, and n"`t, No. 217). No guardian could relegate his charge to other people without the permission of the Bet-Din (Geon., II, ioI (VIII)). In case there was no trustee appointed by the testator, the B6t-Din would appoint a respectable and worthy person to act as such NtIw, published by (cp. the Gaonic Document sN'nMs The Bet-Din further No. Aptowitzer, ibid., 29, IX). watched carefully over the credibility of witnesses who gave evidence before Jewish courts. If a witness was found out as having given false evidence, he was excommunicated, flogged, and publicly declared to be a false witness (see Y"m:,No. 88, end; pN",No. 3, by R. Nahshon; "p8,85 b, No. 13; 87a, No. i6; 88b, No. 22; 89 a, No. 5; 92 a, No. 42; 92 b, No. 45). In all cases such as discussed above, a firm handling of the ban was undoubtedly essential in order to secure honest dealing and general peace in the communiities. (b) Religious and Moral Supervision. In this sphere of activity we shall find instances of coercion by the B&tDin which appear excessively harsh to modern people. 270 nwnrS znm Nmawnnrw i:: 0,1F1 ninwa pvn :ny cn

o^r)'r U. mDn=.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

353

We shall, however, see that some of these cases were due to the opposition of the Karaites. Religious practices, by themselves of minor or of no importance, became the battle-cry of the two opposing parties of Rabbinites and Karaites. The practice of quite an insignificant custom became the criterion of a man's adherence to the one or the other party. Accordingly, the Geonim acted as only partisans could act, and proceeded with great severity against those that showed the slightest sign of disloyalty to Rabbinism, as conceived by the heads of the Academies. As regards matters of public morality, it is well known that from times of yore the spiritual leaders of Jewry were very anxious to maintain the standard of purity of the Jewish home as high as possible. Accordingly, the Geonim were relentless in their severity against the offspring of illegal marriages, in order to prevent their mixing with the bulk of the people. These offspring were entirely excluded from the society of Jews, and were regarded as the outcasts of humanity (see the important responsum of R. Natronai in '"', 24 a and b, Nos. 7 and 1o, concerning the children of Jewish sectarians who desired to rejoin the general body of conforming Jews; ,n", No. 535, p. 264 top). We have seen above (p. 344) what a severe punishment was meted out in cases of adultery (cp. also Geon., II, I55, 1. 29). On the other hand, the B&t-Din was very careful in accepting any evidence which would cast a slur on the respectability of any Jew. No investigation was ordered by the B6tDin unless there were persistent rumours about a Jew's moral behaviour.271 Sometimes, in the case of evil rumours In1 Il:n T#V, 27 b, No. 38, by Natronai: rnnl1l 3 min rivWmvio Ni1 .. . n1inO 1p4N bw bi inprntmn tO 3 j,p,n :n 1l. tPrn mny 14n ^m53 l,*. m:1tn4l b;ilpw) Cp. n1/w, No. 7. 271

p 1myn 4nl tm^n1 Nlilv. Aa2

354

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY REVIEW

persistently recurring about certain people, the Bet-Din would act according to the Talmudic principle of ~i 1pIDt nilntn nmi sN. But the Bat-Din was very judicious in such matters. Under no circumstances would this principle be applied to a woman, in order not to cast a slur on her children (see n"', No. 179; 2"n, No. 94, by R. Natronai; Pardes, 25 b). In order to put a stop to rumours which malicious people were ready to invent and spread, the Bet-Din would order that flogging should be meted out to anybody that came singly with evidence against people in matters of morality and religion (n"', No. 8). According to Jewish law, the guilt of a man could not be established unless on the evidence of two people, whereas the testimony of one witness would serve no other purpose but to spread unsubstantiated rumours about innocent people. The religious supervision of the Bet-Din was variegated and many-sided. Sherira reports that already from early times the Bet-Din used to have a kind of secret police, who searched whether people did not hide anything containing leavened bread (rnn) during the festival of Passover.272 Owing to the opposition against the Karaites, the Geonim adopted a strict attitude in the case of some minor transgressions. Thus for doing work on the intermediate days of the Festivals ('ilrn ~in), excommunication as well as flagellation were meted out to the culprit.273 Ifl: 1n', No. 270, end: ',l t7p1 s1 l N1Hl -l1D'l 11t I-1 n Dr1i }I< -iinn 1ipTi irr'n iWvEv,nrnvw nni innon 4i-1 n Wi vO 1W D in:X snlwv Di v w nr7i j5 t7nn ;Kn 53n 272

m t:~D' DrSW'I1 tRy '';3KRil. jtt1, No. 216, probably R. Natronai, to whom probably the whole belongs: IWDYKtN rEpt 531 . . . group of responsa, Nos. 2I3-20,

,,.

273

WDNw lon K r pi WQ D 82N^ b3

D [4wi ani trI a 1 I wn I

D01pi?

RESPONSA

OF THlE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

355

The sam-e punishment was inflicted on one that married on a Festival or on inn ~irn(h"v, No. !zi8, end), or had his hair cut on *YThrn, or wore shoes during the seven days of mourning.27 To such length did this opposition against the K~araites go, that R. Natronal in a responsum enjoins that a Jew who does not eat warm food on the Sabbath, prepared in the traditional manner of lnutin, should be excommunicated from the Jewish community.275 This Gaon was particularly vehement in his opposition against the K~araites. In a passage preserved in V"it (ed. Warsaw, 37 b), we find R. Natronai giving vent to his strong feelings as regards those people who shorten the reading of the ilagada of Passover by leaving out the Agadic portions. By doing so, they were held to betray K?araiteleanings, since, as is well known, the IKaraiteswere opposed to the Talmud as a whole. Whoever changed the traditional text was in the eyes of the Gaon a heretic who should be excommunicated.27

274 275

.

,

,

See above, P. 343, note!265, end: h3)I)fl? M :N14"N fI'IV, No. 34 : Ir1lN '6

)'IN

~n,z iHz

*

note

*

T.

s

l-pi~l

~

,

zl

Nv

nri~vn)riHn ~n -ps4m

nt=71.

)

ZZCp.

imvn4-:- rm

Schorr, Hehaluz, XIII, 49,

356

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY REVIEW

Apart from the zeal of the partisan, intolerance was rampant in those times within all religious communities. Even the Geonim were not free from this general foible. On the whole, the B&t-Din acted with strictness in cases of transgressions against important laws. For desecrating the Sabbath, which in olden times entailed capital punishment, the Geonim imposed the punishment of flagellation, and the culprit was publicly abused (n"w, No. 45, by Hai; cp. ~"W,91 b, No. 38). Similar was the case with a priest (,n:) who married one of the class of women prohibited to him in the Bible (cp. n"e, No. i80, by Sherira; ?"n, No. 88, by R. Samuel b. Hofni; -"in, II, 7, 11.11-15). Even if the priest renounced his priesthood, he would remain under the ban until he repented. From R. Hai's responsum in n'", No. 231, we gather that in his time there were many priests who married illegally and disobeyed the warnings of the Bet-Din.277 From a responsum in "'1zl, No. 103 (this detail is missing both in n"r, No. 142, and in Y5",No. 36), it seems that the ban could be extended even to a non-Jew in case he blasphemed the name of God. This ban was probably intended to prohibit Jews from having intercourse with the offending non-Jew. For further details about the use of the ban by the BMt-Din, see 3"n, No. i5, by R. Natronai = Geon., II, 30 ff., by R. Semah; a"n, No. 26, by R. 'Amram; and Gcon., II, 26 (II), by 277 Surprising is the statement of R. Semah, in rnW', No. 177, and D"l, No. 84, concerning a priest who married a woman that had been divorced: s n iY nrrnwm5 im WT )NI n rp" i) WnD wSr ,nD/1n D^Wn1 tnnrl

15

sw tIS pirtin nia iN Nirn . .. n'nn' D~'"' RS tan1n ,n' jpy3p1n*nThJn. Had the Bet-Din in those times the power of inflicting such punishment?

w?II

,n 1'SP Tiln,1Onn'D

r1;

RESPONSA

OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM--MANN

357

R. Nahshon. The general attitude of the Geonim in matters of religion and morality is well summed up by n tqm Sherira (n"5i, No. 44 = Geon., II, o26-7): n'aw, ,r 33 na Nl "I .,,+ 1 sin ^wn p ,13p ,Xn 53 p nlw;1.4 Another the branch to welfare of important 5. relating the communities, and which the Bet-Din had to attend to, was the maintenance of public order. Cases of insults and fights arising between people, included in the Talmudic term of nDo3pVt=, could, according to an old custom, be settled only by Jewish courts in Palestine (Baba kamma 84; cp.

"w, 29 a, Nos. I and 2).

However,

such a state of

affairs became dangerous to the peace of the communities in Babylon as well as in other countries outside Palestine since by being scot-free, violent people would frequently take recourse to insults and violence. Accordingly, the Geonim had to find some device of overriding the Talmudic rule of =n=nnrDp 4:: jplr: p1s. This they did by simply forcing the culprit, by means of the ban, to conciliate his victim. The Bet-Din could not impose the fine on account of the Talmudic law referred to. Thus they left'it to the culprit to come to an agreement with the person whom he made to suffer. As long as no such settlement was agreed to, the culprit would remain under the ball The first to introduce this device for the sake of public order and safety was R. Sadok of Sura, 823-5 (cp. '"w/, 29 a, No. 2, by R. Natronai; '"n, No. 60, and x"w, 31 a, No. 14, R.. Sadok's by R. Semah, probably of Sura, 882-7) was his followed Several successors. by practice responsa, dealing with cases of insults and personal injury, show us clearly the practice of the Geonim after R. Sadok (ren, No. 94, by R. Natronai; Pardes, 24d and 25a top, by R. 'Amram, 856-74, and R. Mattithiah, 861-9; s"', 29a,

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

358

by Sar Shalom, 849-53; cp. V"a, 29 b, No. 4).278 In IVI were attended to by the Palestine, however, these nMP01 Be't-Din even in the time of the Geonim. The Jewish judges used actually to fix the fine for insults and personal injuries.279 From responsa by R. Meshullam of Lucca we learn the interesting fact that in Italy and France, to which countries R. Meshullam in all probability sent his responsa, the Jewish judges used to fix the fines just as in Palestine. It seems that in these countries they took the Talmudic maxim of h31 rnup vir IN= "NM to refer only to Babylon, but not* to the other countries of the diaspora; whereas the Babylonian Geonim understood it to include Babylon 'and how much more the other countries' (nmrimiNxp'5zrn u"V 29 a, Nos. i and 3). Thus, in Italy and in France, they had no need of taking recourse to the device introduced by R. Sadok. There used to be fixed fines for insults. However, when the 'insult and damage were outrageous, the B6t-Din would considerably augment the fixed fine.280 There were sever-al other instances wherein the BettNo.

278

3,

See also DflZ Vy' 'IV" -' (1. c., No.

22):

5t

P llllt

V

M.N*

vi6r pW?V N

Cp. further, Iiefes b. Yasliah, ed. Halper, 2:22=JQR. N. S., V, AOOI 1. 12 ff. 279 Cp. Y% 3o a, No. 7: responsum from Palestine; 30 b, No. 13 . , ,; Pardes 24 d: MWD 110jZ Oltl 7V'1i, II, 34, No. I5: 4""C l l -ini t~l 1 bN #t z3'1 i . . . ,,,N jlu1 r ly nin I?1 'l)3:N y1=11) N)NI N1 I VV It11bb1)N-r~yz ,*. nlwri)

n~wvrw~

,, Iny inim M~vv280 Cp. P"), No. 125;

.*n*n izrIvii*i No. 44.

1W11 No.

235 =

innnr imrnnti"4

"'Vi 31 a,

rim

No. i6:

vrniopImrNanz

~znv I*

See also

1"1,

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

359

Din imposed its decision by means of the ban. To a very good purpose was this coercion exercised by the Bet-Din, e.g. in the case of a woman who demanded her divorce after her husband-in those days of polygamy-added another wife to his household as a rival to his first wife ('"rV, 67b, No. 60). Sometimes it would happen that though the married life became intolerable, a husband would refuse to grant divorce unless his wife renounced her claims upon the Ketubah (y"', i5 a, No. 27 = 69 b, No. 74; cp. n"a,Nos. 319 and 345). In all like cases, the Bet-Din compelled the husband to grant the divorce. Moreover, if a husband left for abroad without providing for his wife, the Bet-Din used to sell a part of his property for the maintenance of his wife (cp. "t', 63 b, No. 38, by R. Paltoi). R. Hai reports that there existed a covenant strengthened by a ban not to divulge the secrets of mysticism to unworthy people.281 On the whole, in order to assert its prestige, the Bat-Din usually made use of the ban. Above (p. 34I), mention was made of the fact that if, e.g., a Jew took an oath not to obey the summons of the judges of his community, he would be coerced by means of the ban to forgo his oath. However, we learn from the responsa that in some communities the Bet-Din was unable to enforce its ruling on the members of the community (cp. above, pp. I43-4; n"1S, No. 153, by some Spanish or French scholar). 6. The last paragraph of this chapter will deal with the powers invested with the Exilarchs in Babylon as well as with the communal leaders outside Babylon. Sherira in his Letter (p. 33) tells us that during the reign of the 281

Nos. 29 and 3I; rn'w, No. 14: No,s

'l\ 4NS1Wtn3nd Jriln 12 m1W)

nsi

lT

nn D:I MM

2

,t,

nDnr plNW. 5 KNSK

QUARTERLY REVIEW

THE JEWISH

360

Persians the Exilarchs used to wield great power with the help of the secular authorities. The Exilarchs retained this influence for a long period after the advent of the Muslims. It was only in the time of David b. Yehuda that the Exilarchs lost much of their prestige by being deprived of the Caliph's support.282 What this reduction of power amounted to, is explained by a statement of an Arabic writer, Othman al-Gahiz (died in 869), published by Goldziher, RAy., VIII, I2 if. This writer, who probably refers to the conditions that existed in his time, states that 'neither the Catholics nor the Exilarch have the right in the Muslim Empire to condemn any of their respective co-religionists to imprisonment or flagellation. They possess only the power of excommunication.' But it has been sufficiently shown in the preceding pages (p. 342 ff.) that the Bet-Din continued to inflict the punishment of flagellation, and even imprisonment, down to the time of the last Geonim (cp. also Weiss in tn1in n':, V, 268). Possibly before the change referred to above, the secular authorities would assist the Bet-Din, through the intervention of the Exilarch, in carrying out its decisions even in religious matters. Whereas in later times, a culprit could seek protection with the secular authorities, in order to escape flagellation (see above, p. 122-3). Thus it resulted that the only means of coercion at the disposal of the Bet-Din was the ban. A culprit would remain 282 S.1n,

nQD?I

Nf:

1i Wn16

nn nl

n,wfl ln5w1 V r=h i n^

r

'iI-m

n nNslis wn TNr :SlNrvnW

4v

WKiN:1

n.=m.,

+

^D:Dr

3 n Nv3w' '4v YYn ., . . w5 4:t 11 '11 DI N'KnliDW jD '15DnW'. .. Cp. Gr. V4, 445 f. According to Barhebraeus this happened in 8a5, during the reign of the Caliph Maamun, Nmr{,t i(u.. i,rl,l)

813-33.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

36I

under the heavy burden of excommunication as long as he did not submit to the flagellation imposed by the Jewish authorities. As regards the powers of the Exilarchs after the curtailment of their influence, we learn from Nathan's well-known report that the Exilarch David b. Zakkai wielded great authority, and that he was greatly assisted by the Caliph's authorities (Neub., II, 86, see 8I bottom). In view of all this evidence, the above statement of Othman al-Gahiz cannot be accepted without certain qualifications, at least as far as it refers to the Exilarch. Very little is known of the procedure the Jewish communities, both in Babylon and in the other countries of the Diaspora, adopted in appointing their communal representatives. Whereas it is known that the Exilarch, as well as the Academies, appointed judges to officiate in such Babylonian communities as were under their jurisdiction, it is nowhere mentioned that the Exilarch could, for example, foist his nominees upon the communities to occupy the office of 'heads of the community', lw' ,npn, whom Nathan mentions in his Report (Neub., II, 85-6). Interesting is the fact that a certain Nagid of Egypt in an account of his installation (published by Mr. E. N. Adler, 7QR., IX, 717-I8) states that he is holding his office with the permission of the Exilarch HIisdai.283But this Exilarch (also styled Nasi) probably resided either in Palestine or in Egypt. There is at present no further material available to give us a clear idea about the authority the Exilarchs possessed over the Jewries outside Babylon. ,283

n:Nr nv6 niwrhn

wan

l:znr

Wrin

'Innm 7 DoY mnYv

':N '01

wnrIl=7s NniKzwptnne 15I:n InI'Dn D:v nnn n,): 5snlW i5: =1'Z4 ln)iWn. See Kaufmann,JQR., X, 163-4; on the Nagid in general, see Neubauer, JQR. VIII, 551-5. See also Pozn., Babyl. Geoiirm, 112-13,

362 ~TIlE, JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

362

In Gaonic documents addressed to Jewish communities the commiunal representatives are mentioned in the following order: 'the scholars, the judges, the heads of the community, the learned of the community, the scribes, the Parnasim, other communal workers, and the pupilteacher's '*. Aptowitzer has already pointed out that Graetz (V4, 139) was wrong in making the Parnasim (r Drz~i)the heads of the community, whereas they are mentioned only after the communal scribes. Another mistake of Graetz, which Aptowitzer omitted to point out, is to take -nnz1, mentioned in '"o' to m-ean 'the electors' of the commiunity (Borrerimi, m4ni) who, according to Graetz, elected the heads of their community 'in accordance with sorme unknown system of franchise'. The parallel 284

Gaonic Documents published by Aptowitzer, JQR., New Series,

IV, 2-6,Nos. III and IV: [4 2J 4:11 (~ 11)111Pni~l

~

4ln

ojn4-ti

Z) NIIV1~'f~M'1r 4)471N Nrv

The parallel in V"

vNX-11n:M v) 14 reads : lls)=~*W"1~ nin Cp. Aptowitzer's remarks, PP. 4i1 2.-Ben Meir addresses the Babylonian communities as follows (RP_IJ., XLII, i8o, 1. 24 ff.): 1Y;Th4nl~rlpliniZ1

75 a, No.

Of interest is the documientof appointing a president (VN'I) of a community as preserved in Albarceloni's YI'rIVV 'D (eP. vol. VII,, 462, note 7). It seems to me that Albarceloni fouindthis document already in Saadya's work. 1 = 'N' Brit. Mus. Add. :27,1i81, fol. 26 a, reads,: ~1I1,1 J" fl1?DY i;n r'lI (ed. Halberstar-n(Bodl. 89o) reads '?Z) i3 ~'NVzl ~rr)T 4 * ** 'Nlri n4:pwt-MPIMr-II ?i'IVrll* rlvIr; 27 a bott. : -iv1

*

, ~l~~X;p.

8:

NV=h~

SD~~f jw

ImmNf

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

in Aptowitzer's

363

Gaonic Documeznts which reads '1mDl

makes it clear that tnn:5l in

".' is nothing

else but the

correct form for the more usual jnS=5 (librarius = n35), scribes! Interesting details about the internal organization of the Jewish community in Egypt are given by Gottheil (7QR., XIX, 499-501) in extracts from the work of al-Kalkashandi (d. 824 A.H.) who in his turn has as his authorities writers of the eighth century A.H. As the period dealt with in our present treatise ends about o050, al-Kalkashandi's statements cannot be discussed here fully. I should only like to point out that the distinction al-KIalkashandi draws between the Hazzan, who 'must be well versed in preaching' and who 'ascends the Minbar (= Almemar) and exhorts them (i.e. the people)', and 'the Sheliah-Zibbar, i.e. the Imam who leads them in prayer', is not borne out by Jewish-Arabic writers in Egypt. Thus, e.g., Maimonides in an Arabic responsum (published by Friedlaender, 7QR., N. S., V, 7 ff.) uses the terms "Inand x"w promiscuously

for the reader.

On special occasions, the Geonim invested the communal leaders with great authority. When the Jewish community of Nefusa (cp. above, VII, 484) was reorganized after the town had been sacked, many communal questions demanded settlement. A matter that called for particular attention was the fact that all the Ketubas were burned. This gave rise to many disputes as to the amount of dowry each woman claimed, especially since many women had the amount of their dowries twice or three times overestimated in their Ketubas. The Gaon R. Hananiah, 938-43, advised the communal leaders to convene a meeting for estimating each woman's dowry according to the

THE JEWISH

364

QUARTERLY REVIEW

economic position of her husband. These resolutions were then to be enforced by means of the ban.285 Likewise, for the purpose of obtaining a true estimate of each member's taxing capacity, and in this way a just distribution of the taxes that were imposed upon the whole of the community, the leaders used to announce a ban against those that made false statements about their economic position (cp. _"l'm, No. 205). Usually in the communities where there existed a Bet-Din, conjoint proceedings would be taken by the Bet-Din and the communal leaders. In places where no permanent Jewish courts were established, the communal leaders, probably conjointly with the scholars of the town, settled monetary disputes and cases pertaining to public order. In the responsa that deal with these cases ,np usually stands for the communal leaders (cp. p"~,No. I125; '" , No. , 7; No. 4; n"i, No. 346, sent to 84 IKairowan in 99I; cp. ibid., I79, note I). In 1"', No. 82, there is mentioned the case of some Jews giving evidence before the ,npto the effect that certain of their co-religionists spoke heresy. One of the suspected takes the oath to prove his innocence. R. Aaron, Gaon of Pumbedita, 943-61, concludes his responsum ('"n, No. 37) with the demand that the elders should, on receipt of his responsum, meet for the purpose of reading the Gaon's answer and acting n i nD nw mn npn n ' .,, p ' 46 pn tnrnnnnna1prilnn n SDS vwyn mnrt:nun: pyrnr 4v 1 m1t. 3pyNi, t, ,il ,^Mt 46 l It Dnnl 4T1-gl 1Irwy 1)vY 285

lnrw

N tn uaDW pin1 nis5 m. n nN InvW K CW i n Im 8 rtwla Inlln1 inn r I, ni i'Z5 nrnv nipn pn 1 p r nnli-W l I-ii nlDyri 4:pT bl'Yy 1nv nSpn ipn* rl pl

1pi4v ipri

Np y4

1n1NIM , Dz

.

, .1ij)nv

nnD n4iy 4)n nN.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

365

in accordance with its contents. Usually the communal leaders had the supervision of the charitable legacies (see above, p. 341). In n"inD, No. 173, there are mentioned communal workers who looked after the poor in their

tolw niltnl ~y.. ,.).2S6 y lnpipD3 Interesting is the custom of whole communities binding themselves by means of an oath or a ban, publicly announced, to adhere to some institution agreed upon for the communal welfare, or not to use the public funds until they reached a certain amount. Sometimes it would happen that the new institution could not be followed by the majority of the community; or, to take the second case, that some important events demanded the immediate use of the communal funds. In such eventualities, the Geonim were consulted as to how to dispose of the incubus of the oath or the ban entered upon by the community on an earlier occasion. Usually the Geonim allowed the community in question to alter its decision in accordance with the pressing requirements of the changed conditions (see n"', Nos. 33, I39, and 339; 5 , No. 4I; D"n, No. 116/. community

(. , ,n.

286The Bet-Din possessed also the right of supervising the communal charitable legacies, probably conjointly with the heads of the community (cp. 1?"'1~, No. I62, and "W, 83 a, No. 22).

(Concluded.)

ADDENDA TO 'THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM AS A SOURCE OF JEWISH HISTORY' (JQR., N. S., Vols. VII-X) BY JACOB MANN, Baltimore. OWING to conditions in consequence of the War the instalments of my treatise appeared at intervals of considerable length. In the meanwhile further reading as well as research among the Genizah manuscripts suggested a number of additional remarks which could not be inserted in the proofs without much derangement. VII, 465. About the Gaon Natroi from Bagdad see also Briill (7ahrbiicher, II, 146, note), who writes that he could not have hailed from this town since it was only founded later on by al-Mansuir. Therefore Sherira (in his Letter) defines the locality as 'from the Bridge' (rnnvnrnj;) or 'from the outer Bridge' (:n mn,mnnp;), i.e. the eastern bank of the Tigris. But that there was a Bagdad in the neighbourhood prior to al-Mansur is evident from the fact that already in 750 c. E., we find in Fustat a 'head of the congregation', Abu-'Ali Hasan of Bagdad (?m1i:n t, see above, VII, 477). See also Houtsma's Encyclopedia of Islamn,I, 564, col. i, s. v. Baghdad, 'The 'Arab authors are also quite explicit that al-Mansuir'sfoundation must not be 433

THE 434

434

JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

considered as an entirely new settlement of a hitherto uninhabited district. They mention a whole list of preMuhammedan places which had gradually arisen in the area filled by the 'Abbasid capital. The most important of these was Bagddd, a village of Christians on the western bank of the Tigris'. VII, 468 f.; VIII, 348 f. The Exilarch seems to have resided in the quarter of al-'Atik~ah in Bagdad. Thus we read in the account of the inner organization of the schools (in Neub. II, 78, 11.4-5) D3Villn M2V1' 4Vl "IM4~JON -T1V1 As ~2f1stands here fur Bagddd (see also above, VII, 466), there is little doubt that by rijMrw r-w the above quarter is meant. Likewise in Nathan Habbabli's report of the recognition of Daniel b. Zakkai as Exilarch by the Gaon Kohen-Sedek and his school we read (I. c., 8o, 11. 3-4),

v-m i N-yi- ,N A highly interesting responsum by Hai 1 (preserved in I, 63-4; shortened in nrnn n"~r,6i b) tells us about v"'f' the residence of the Pumbedita Geonim in Bagdad, i~n n

Hoisz A4raic namewas AbczBish,sis evidentrmnaz NoJ2')hre-iny h theo wrtrmntosta

ic (T..S ArabZ

Niii nyz -1i

in v

n

inm

4z pt

it"in

letter iN Jewish etaeitet nil)

iiN

THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

435

1 o n,o S^ }paw 02 rinN&. N OnNsN ntr rrpnw, O-n; Accordingly the first Pumbedita Gaon to live in the 'Abbasid capital was Hai b. David (890 C.E.) who acted there as Dayyan several years previously. The reason for this change of residence is not known. Anyhow we find the later Pumbedita Geonim in Bagdad, where no doubt the school, still going by the name of Pumbedita, also found a home. That Kohen-Sedek lived in Bagdad appears from Nathan's account of Nissi-al-Nahrwani's visit to him in the n,r^ ni-'w.n , middle of the night (1.c., 79, 1. 25 f., nnia rm MWW DM1wam nnWMn 3an:D MaI=rnnrwy

rniznlm anr n wn

V1rN ?nTy?

nr,hn

n Ii n i: inniN nnDa wnviznz^wn Py i) wi yrivnw mn-D:-' iniN YDniw'Si Iv. But the Arabic text,

7QR., XVII, 755, 1. I9, has no reference to the locality). Probably Yehudah Gaon, Sherira's grandfather, meant Bagdad when instructing the Jews of Khurasan to follow -nwD :: (above, VII, 471, note 15). Nehemia's as well as Sherira's residence in Bagdad was discussed above. As to Hai, it should be added to the data given before (see also above, p. 422) that Masliah b. al-Basek, Dayyan of Sicily, visited the Gaon in the 'Abbasid capital, and on his return presented to the Nagid Samuel ibn-Nagdela a sketch of Hai's life (,n 'I ,nnD,see Steinschneider, fiid. Zeitsc/zrift, II, 30I-4, and Arab. Liter., ? 85). Masliah reports that during one of Hai's lectures the difficult verse of Ps. 141. 5 was discussed, and the Gaon asked him to go to the Katholikos and inquire of him its meaning. As is well known, the Katholikos of the Christians in 'Irak resided in Bagdad. Also Elhanan b. Shemarya visited the school there as we read in an interesting letter (printed in RET., LV, 49-5I, see above, VII, 481) ,nrn , rDn Qm 1rn t ~1

g nt ipnN m:p n inD

a

ny

=: nr:rno (i. e. Hai's)

436

436 THE

JEWISH

QUARTERLY REVIEW

As a resident of Bagddd Hai mentions in his responsa Jfl?' local customs. See V"'V, L, 89 21, I~'3~ ~ ~K-vl1-1 J:1 fl-; II 73-4, 1)J*1VM~ i,NNnai-m

~

(There is no doubt that IIN "I' is a corruption for Peroz-Shahur = Nehardea, as already Bamberger, pv jpnr,note 73,5-,remarks.) Burial at Nehardea must have been regarded as a great honour.

/1'13'

3 I'

10z

i nvvz~n.

Probably in V'V I, 23, ~nzrr.o

=~nzIw

z-

o

/Izl nvjp, a Bagddd custom is meant. Both R. Semahi and R. 'Amram maintain that neither nj1) In nor ~Irllzn31X?

in '1V Nt1 be said, but Hai quotes the Bagddd custom of omitting the first only. See also 'Ittur, II, 45 c, top,

Nehardea, as the district including Pumbedita, is sometimes mentioned where we should expect the latter. See Gr., V4,~444, note i , and z".i2no. 44 (cited above, VJJ, 467).3 ? , mentioned 2 He is probably identical with 1 oN~ ;Nvv~56 pm in a Genizah fragment containing several decisions of Babylonian Geonim (JQR., IX, 689). Abraham b. Solomon cites an explanation of his, together with Hai Gaon's (Hebr. Bibliogr., XX, 9). See also above, P. 42I. 3See also 'MO (ed. Venice, ii6o8, fol. 10,2 d, top) 5v J1..fln 1111MZ * IM N11'12

::21 r. -?1D) 'It IMZI

11V'=

(65r c. E. =) n11LVb

THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

437

In Khalaf b. Sarjado's lampoon against Sa'adya (Harkavy, n 11p nSnn Stud. u. Mittei., V, 230) we read, .NKn1K xvi :na n^PnI ;%wn, nw is nVlvwn mlnn n&m= (or D:N:) wm^ N^p s]N vilpn 4:n: in wnyx nnn nnW nwvm l1wi IP:

1[ wd=ln 1~: Ntinm3. These scurrilous attacks seem to refer to Sa'adya's enforced stay in Bagdad after he had left Sura owing to his conflict with David b. Zakkai. rn,l:InIx,W I take to mean the Sura school, whither reports of Sa'adya's irn: doings reached. By lrmvn apparently the disciples of the Pumbedita school, situated then in Bagdad, are meant. Likewise Shemarya b. Elhanan was lnrm n"nl w'n under Sherira (above, VIII, 352). Perhaps the responsum from Bagdad (above, IX, I45-6) emanates from Sa'adya during his stay there. Its tendency to combat KIaraism by deducing several Rabbinic laws from the Bible is quite in agreement with the whole attitude of this powerful defender of Tradition, Sa'adya. But Hai b. David could just as well have been its author, since under him the Pumbedita school was transferred to the 'Abbasid capital. Albeck in his new edition of Haeshkol (pp. 6, note i8, and 73, note 4) speaks of a school with Geonim in Bagdad apart from those of Sura and Pumbedita. In the Introduction, c. 6 (which is inaccessible to me and has probably not been published yet), he promised fully to substantiate his opinion. But the data, discussed here, prove clearly N nm nw: ins . m*n^ np nWK,: S5U :n IniK Kn3tn \W-v K ,~nnmnmn nwmn m K'mnnN3r'KKN4piNmnpn? t6 n5Iryn:n 'KD = rh4 -n nz. rpmn nw^ ppsmn p';1 Nyrnin Nnwnn pN mnain Nnn S3 ,ni mrnl Nn nean

Kt8 Kti . iYnn rnn3n -nF6 wn

(r. SC'ID) KniD'I xnrTn1Dr.There is no doubt that Nehardea stands here for Pumbedita, as its Gaon, together with the principal of Sura, decided upon the change in the law of n1lTn see also Graetz, v4, 401.

(see also above, X, I22).

About the date 651 c. E.

THE JEWISH

438

QUARTERLY REVIEW

our contention that the school of Pumbedita found a new home in Bagdad. This removal took place, as Hai tells us, during the Gaonate of Hai b. David (890-8 c. E.).4 VII, 47I. Jews from Khurasan visited the Khazar dominion. See the fragment published by Schechter 3' i1 nnn rn, (_QR., N. S., III, 206, 11.36-) m^,nKlt orn

zN n4n=

n

iptnnm

vm

4iz j3l4m i'nnl

n'N"nl

jiD

D.

VII, 480; VIII, 350. Elhanan b. Shemarya received from Hai a pamphlet explaining the difficult words in 'Aboda zarah (see Steinschneider, H. B., IV, 107; Yiid. Zeitschr., I, 313, note zo). VII, 484-5. The whole community of Fez seems to have been deported to Ashir. This we learn from the correct text of MS. Parma (given by Lewin, ahlrb. d.jiid.liter. Gesellsclh., VII, 254) Dpnvinn DK Snp 1rwW nl5tv Ir '11 KN,nw 1=ns< 4Qn. The responsum was written by Hai

and thus begins, ~5 iw D,Non

v 1N,nwK ''n1 'nz

nnm:n 4s4rN

in~nn wi, Kn,w 1.n,',tN2a' : n ,n1

mnnv *nnm pi,"rnnin wn"? mt0o DNr nr,'u . Accordingly, vnt is nivnanic

not a geographical name but an adjective referring to the people of Fez, who are complimented as 'good, superior, select, &c.' This responsum was written during the Kallah of Adar I298 Sel.=987 c. E. Probably Samuel b. Hofni's letter to Fez (see above, VII, 485, note 3I) refers to the 4 Hai in his famous responsum about mysticism and *practical Kabbalah' (in D'p!t tDl't, 56, top), after referring to the amulets which the Sura Gaon, Moses Hakkohen, 832-43, was reported to have made frequent use of, writes

n11=i:! 3 l3 n

lt31 lt K-lD nnwrn n tz Qn111 64 i 1=1Cnp b; 3. Here Babylon is not Bagdad but the old 1mn1 min'1 Dtn D^pnl Babylon in which neighbourhood Sura was (see also Graetz, v4, 445). Besides, in the time of Moses Hakkohen the school was still situated in Pumbedita. Probably by the statement 'and we (were) far from it', the Gaon means the school over which he presided.

THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

439

persecutions prior to the expulsion of the local Jews to Ashir, whither also Jews from Tlemsen were compelled to depart. In this epistle Samuel's son, Israel, is already mentioned as the secretary of the school (see VIII, 364, and also above, p. 414). Hai styles himself in the above responsum as 'Dayyan of the Gate'. We know from Sherira's letter, written in the same year, that Hai became Ab Bet-Din about two years previously (Neub., I, 41, 1iw ;lnn

ni'w n ;"n n,I nl3: 3 iMz

nr,h :DD,1i).

A clear

proof that the Ab of the school is identical with its :X:31N4'n (see above, X, 339, and also Mann, 1. c., vol. I, 273, top).5

Of Sherira and Hai's correspondents in Fez two are mentioned by name. They were the brothers Abraham and Tanhum, the sons of Jacob. T.-S. 13 F 21 (paper, square hand, size 104 x 7 inches) contains on verso the beginning of Maimonides' Introduction to his Mishneh Torah. On recto there is a great deal of scribbling. Thus the poem in honour of Maimonides' work,;lwr nn3 13 ' r I) is (see Steinschneider's ,in,n min, no. 18, in V y3p, in times. But the scribbling the beginning repeated four of a pamphlet of responsa has been preserved. It reads, 6 64V -wl 1i4N nlrtw n inl ,nirl in* D nnwl pinp 16 3n - ywn r m 'v Dn 1nri n'i#= nribv raw n3nDn 30n nnv w K:8U l:5MlhW t33 ':''a nzzn 1::InS nn n 3py p.s n3" WK'I iz3

i<m-privir 4l"rn

wvnW in;:nrN -nnn 3pp' iaK

n3wr

bDpr (B. b. Ioob).

This

l Dnni " N (there follows the usual formula) n3n K;pn3Rn n1lyn 5w nrn n.ity i3p 15niily5 '3n$

heading is repeated on the same page in the scribbling in a somewhat shortened form. 5

Against Eppenstein in Graetz, V4, I34, note 5.

THE JEWISH 440

440

QUARTERLY REVIEW

A highly interesting letter from R. Hai to these brothers in Fez, dated Adar 26th (1)35 Sel. = I004 C. E., iS preserved in T.-S. 12~. 829. Unfortunately the epistle is damaged and very faded. I give here what could be safely deciphered. The address (verso) reads mn: mnm -it ni -i 4:i

01113N ):1I

vinm in the second column is a slip for "PVas is evident from- recto. Besides the Hebrew address there is one in is still visible. The Arabic wherein the word JU.6t6.W1 epistle was probably sent in the first instance to Fustdt for transmission to Fez (cp. above, VIII1, 3.55 if.). (recto)

IN

*

*

,*(8)

(4)*

.

nivzo-nN

r)

i~ r~in nn~

nz4

1V

nr npvp

MN-IN N n6N

N

There follow five more lines, very faded. On line 14 we

THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

read 31t

fl]l? 901V i

P 911z

441

IwNn *4ivzo. The

epistle is continued on verso where nine lines are given. On 1.8 there is mentioned ri~ t5, nnv "a 01 _i,z n. hm n p mr It concludes (1. 9) Zn V rre' rM' %rtN i5 uijn nnnn'I iR. Hai previously wrote to his friends in Fez through 'Amran Hallevi b. Hillel, evidently enclosing responsa on three questions. He also refers to a pamphlet of other responsa. A letter reached him from Abfi'l Faraj Alluf (no doubt identical with the Alluf (= Resh Kallah) Abfi'1 Faraj Joseph b. Jacob b. 'Aukal of Fustt.4 who was a great patron of the Babylonian schools, see above, VIII, 357-8) containing the sad news of the demise of the famous Jacob b. Nissim ibn Shahtin 6 of Kairowan to whom Sherira sent his well-known Letter.7 This report caused the Gaon 6 R. Hai spells the name 'llKN' and not NINV. About the meaning of the latter see Rappoport, '41 "I n11'6I, notes 2 and 6, and Steinschneider, JQR., XI, 614. 7 Numerous responsa were sent to this scholar by Sherira and Hai (see the list in Pozn., '41V no. 26). To these T.-S. 8 G 73 (two paper leaves, damaged, size 7 x 5 inches) should be added. On fol. i, recto, top, the passage of Ta'anit 12 a, from )4Vy twjp K N nflfl 'f~z ?Nm nn till J is as rr wnn NVT.1 (text). Then we have the n given ' explanation (N'V1~) for which the following responsum, dated gg9 C E.. is ~ 1NZ'V 1 It 1 Il quoted: 1'14V fl? 1 nm ii nlIn zli I'MT~- nixXvvl . t n:v 4:Nrrii, awm -la nr)v -InN

'In 1:1i-1e In

IN f wvn I. (15Y= is explained as prayer, as also adopted by R. Hlananel and Rashi a. 1. The latter also mentions another Explanation which, however, his inaster did not accept, " ?V54-nKN N:4 Vlln 4Z' "M . . . il'.) The responsum is continued till 1. 9 of fol. i, verso. p On 1. io ff. another responsum is given. t'ti

~n 4ew[na

bN] nynnz minnn ntom p i4nmiy[n] xvvip v:N~ There follows the whole 014 D'1 rW3n 1'i3V .l]. Y14h' K explanation of the passage, ending on fol. 2, recto, bottom. It seems that some time after R. Jacob b. Nissim's inquiry, the Kairowan scholars again VOL. XI. H h

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

442

great grief like on the days of national misfortune and calamity. He held memorial services for the departed scholar at the academy and also before the congregation, probably in one of the synagogues of Bagdad. His sermon moved the audience to tears. Considering the time that must have elapsed till the news of R. Jacob's demise reached Fustat and thereupon transmitted to Bagdad, the Kairowan scholar must have died early in the summer of I003 C. E. We read also of a donation of 70 Dinars (for the school) which a certain Khaluf b. Joseph sent. Solomon b. Hakim is perhaps identical with the signatory of a document, dated I030 C. E. at Fustat (Bodl. 28054). Another responsum of R. Hai to Fez is mentioned in T.-S. 20. 91, dealing with the Talmudic law of inheritance, we read nDK iX j4 -lm i~s 3i nK' ml1 'lK nNten ... nn,= IMnsi [n,n]n 6nn KI1 n:",: 1,D=: nnwv (r. in=) ,nwK i KNnT, i=-w n-W,t. nn:,n Nm wt,1n i:'Nt ip= riS: onm 't

wherein

"1N

19

i3' DN1 3m

'm '::p s5 nn,i

r pn

i,p p"n ,nn,:n in; -in5

nsS~re,n= i.m r:! ,n ^N

I nD

nn zn

.

inquired of R. Hai the meaning of this passage. Sherira was probably no longer alive then. The copyist. who had Hai's original letter before him, was Joseph Rosh Hasseder b. Jacob Rosh be-Rabbanan of Fustat who flourished at the beginning of the thirteenth century (see the colophon in Bodl. 262417,and also above, p. 426). He was an author of standing, but still more a prolific copyist of other people's literary productions, ranging from Talmud and Commentaries to Gaonic Responsa, Sa'adya's Siddur, and other liturgical works, Maimonides' writings, philosophy, medicine, and astronomy. The Cambridge Genizah Collection contains a vast number of leaves in Joseph's handwriting which none who went through this Collection could fail to notice. The identification of the above responsa as having been copied by him rests on my recognition of his handwriting. It should be added that T.-S. I3 F 21 (described above, p. 439) is also his copy. Very likely Bodl. 287844, containing Geonic Responsa, are also in Joseph's hand, because we have a similar superscription as above, '"l1 W 11 NP 11W '"PI 1h11

unnnn r,n,imynU

D>:n Di n,npnyln . l;mip '=~ l,':.% t; i t [, n].

443

THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

VII, 483-5. Of other North-African communities who had relations with Sherira and Hai are known Kabes, Tahort, and Sejelmessa. T.-S. io0 G 55 contains the tops of two leaves, brownish paper. On fol. i, recto, the following can be read in large handwriting: I wnnn 65[v] Ml *11

(verso) .

* r21

[nno]

n~)

~fls4w

. .

[:]I

z-

rv

nri

~v I [4noz ....I ?'Ilvil 'IM Verso pNVN evidently contained an index (fihrist) of the respoi-isa. The pamphlet dealt at the beginning with a scroll of the Law. 'in In6 the usual formula. The beginning of this heading 4 Iof a new pamphlet is not preserved. Nn t~n r Verso evidenitly is the conclusion of the

'1I~ 1"N

pamphlet.

14-H

i:

nx

~

nrnnNrnT

4

A responsum of Hai to IKabesis mentioned in V"'e,LI114. His responsum to Sejelmnessa concerning the consumption of dead locusts is also cited by Samuel b. Jacob ibn Jama' in his treatise on Shehita (Steinschn., _7iid.Zeitschr.,I,3, 1 3 note i 8 ; see A rab. L iter., ? 15.5). VII, 487. About Natronai's connexions wit'n Lucena see also 'Amnrarn'sSiddur, i a, fl1V1njIn rVMIMrlixt ~N 1-~

Probably the following responsa by this Gaon were also sent to Lucena. tVt',v II, 20, Znzvil" 9)

IlN

Hh

2

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY

444

REVIEW

Ibn Gayyat, as the Rabbi of Lucena, mentions the local correspondents of Natronai as' our early (scholars) ' About Lucena see also Harkavy, bJ'w nwmn, VII, 25 .(in Hebrew Gr., IV). See further, p"'D, I, 42 a nv't KNr '1m1i:n.

WVODDN3

: 111n jlm3

'wriU

- 1.

Sicily should be added to the European countries which had connexions with the Babylonian Geonim. Naturally Masliah b. al-Basek (above, p. 435) kept up correspondence with Hai. A question of his to the Gaon is expressly mentioned (yiid. Zeitschr., II, 303-4). VII, 489. An interesting statement about the Jews of Wadi'l Kura' in post-Gaonic times is to be found in Abraham ibn Megas's n,SK n1:l: (printed in Constantinople, 1585, cited in H.B., XIX, 42) (!)"-~'zao5 '

, v, m,vw anW1 nr1 m,lZDD,n 3ml -n, w

. r'n ,~ny, ns

Ni3

v nnv 31n3 wrn, sn&< K1

nK 5m i viV -1331InN

(!) 'F-lpwSK JK1 pi1

wvr

Q ,D nnnK n13 ini1n KNlim

n,=, ,w '175n n~ IID D3 iVlpiu

z v ins nl DWv l 1?D3 (r. nsn: 's5I3)nn3 p"nm9]s 13n:nnv nwenu3=' nS131. ns s,W3 n,l5 3'p13. VIII, 340. On the variant names Sadok and Isaac for the same Gaon, see also Zunz, Ritus, I85. It should be noted that two more people have the name Isaac in front of their names. The Pumbedita Gaon Semah (either b. Paltoi, 872 C.E., or b. Mar R. Kafnai, 935) is syled in ~D-inn ,top (ed. Amsterdam, 9a) as Isaac Semah, 1K5s n 3i1zlpp jlK: (r. n;w4) rzwnvvKN n y3nm '1.3 NnKn3^?

nprn.

Also an Exilarch Hezekiah in 1055 C.E., perhaps the K nrrm pnx successor of Hai, is mentioned as n5 WKn 1nI -n 1 If note it be a not mere RAj., LXVIII, 42, (see i). coincidence, why just the name Isaac? A re-examination of T.-S. i2. 856 revealed the fact that the correspondent of Nahshon Gaon b. Sadok was called

THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

445

:,WV(1. I, read [:]z:v wni1'). He was a prominent scholar in Kairowan. Nahshon's son, Hai (Gaon of Sura, 889-96 C.E.), evidently also corresponded with this scholar. T.-S. I2. 77 contains a very damaged vellum fragment, brown, square writing, forming a portion of a Gaonic responsum. (evidently end of question) uvi'm I .ntDS . (r., 1. 5) 14n m n nvwn;w n3rwn[-P]nmnn (6) [-n irml n In pIa ib3vW l^,D 1p"D [nniN]W Irt rbwN (7) [n:n:8 Mlp] itr >TDr l . (v., I. 5) M , . ,'t1 .i [n]nvomi1U:35' . 3'f:nn l MD=. . 13re Ivnn ;a . ..* :*PW

.

'Kn3rnn

vn': 1p '1T L:[Wi]n

I3'3n^vl

:n' Mn::

, *,:: 2

D-,l.

tirn nz3n

mnn pnen []. The (8) .. *

*. . (6) , * *

(7) name of

R. Shebib's colleague, who apparently addressed together with him the question to the Gaon Hai (of Sura), is not preserved. The author of the above responsum was no doubt also a Gaon of Sura who held office subsequently. T.-S. Io G 3 contains twelve leaves of Gaonic Responsa, eight of which apparently emanate from 'Amram Gaon. Fol. 5, recto, ends sni'rw

1IP

pDm.

Fol. 5, verso, begins

:4nri n rnm p:u )a i3 1pmnwrninm (NnxS'w=) '%t5wzn. Thus these questions arrived at the school on Hanukah (1)I70 Sel. = 858 c. E., when the chapters 9pt (Yoma IV) and ylnrn (Yeb. IV) were expounded.8 The first responsum iw D1 DnnWmw after the above superscription begins vWrp 't Xi. 1NK It is the same responsum as tin l. mns n3'n2 no. with the in found 'i", 56, important heading showing Well known is the expression tDn, ;15nI n;11n5D 5w ,nJn1 (Abot 311). Of course there is also an interpretation of A similar heading we have in Geon. II, 326, 1. iI if. the Torah ;,inI. ch. 1NitD"1I 5II'N IX) Ni;3 1' (B. k., "n t DDj n3W' iK'n,Kns 8

After 15) understand I:D.

ni'i1 '1I1 DP'.

/ 'IqD 1 "n

twN Nw. nD nrIDNrNnTDn nID'

1- nnD I

THE JEWISH

446

QUARTERLY REVIEW

that it was addressed to Barcelona. But the text in our manuscript is more correct. Also the next responsum (fol. 6&) lp"1'm mp?3 nan 5I ,an,3n ,ni'e ,rwm

begins

(wherein the

opinion of R. Sadok is quoted), while the one following (fol. 6b) is the same as i"~ no. 57. There follow other responsa not contained in 5",whereas '5"no. 58 is not found in our manuscript which breaks off (fol. 8b) with pr'l 'twrV :1D3 w:

16v iDP0w

z

n4n

I^ znw ';M

3iu

isn

nrz3

iyw.

It is evident that the collector of 5"J left out several responsa contained in this pamphlet. 5";,no. 58, is probably taken from the missing part.9 9 The same pamphlet of responsa is apparently partly reproduced in T.-S. 20. 183, consisting of two vellum leaves, brownish ink, torn and damaged. Fol. i, r., 1. 17, concludes a responsum. We then have the same heading as in i#. no. 56, but without the words n'13. bQ'llM n V? n M4w N:1r6m'1! It reads 1n h:b n NIsU17 ?112)nO K'U1n n 1 bFU n b NPi)4 1K4W M lwl nnnbnl 6=nl 1D D'11N=1 [n=67V 1Y)6 lzsnE = i n ni Nz1 wl ,T^ nlv n nny i nrn3 I9wr)^ KNr i
;nl nV2 nT 5

VnrD nniz inrinnl nvninm n,Dnm[nD1]NS 31

Here follow (fol. r, r. and v.) the first two responsa as in T.-S. io G 3. There is a gap between fols. i and 2. Fol. 2 a contains a responsumon lJMnl1I' j1I3 (see Tur -1'1 ? 65) nrl'w w *[[tl]

IJ1; Q'~t3DW

aW,1)p

'131Tp.

5i~Nw

13

vm1=

y 1ipi5

numvp,s imvwnra m r,:

IN rim= -1D^N 3ImN-TO n iS ,nn w '-,awVI. m. Im D , tnn ends fol. This z. 2, middle, whereupon we /131 51JpI11 responsum ('A. 33 b). 11 of n the S have the conclusion Y -l i pamphlet tD3nK1 nvlh i) pD,n

n25n nnij

TInesD nn:3 Sv3: pe i1etd 11^

3m i3r t ndeleted. 3To a To be deleted.

nes run be n

in

nrS1n ln =1 nnbs5 4yln p 'b

=

1-1lnjD.

447

TIIE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

Between fols. 8 and 9 there is a gap, but the handwriting is similar. Fol. 9, recto, begins [wont] tAnr-i m-it (1)

~~ ~

(3) ZP-

[r~]~rn (2)

rism [rn]m~. This is the same responsum as given in T.-S. i2. 856; only in T.-S. io G 3 the superscription is shortened. It is clear that in the latter manuscript after cAmrms responsa there followed a pamphlet of such, emanating from his successor in the Sura Gaonate, Nalhshon b. Sadok. Kairowdinhad very close connexions with both Babylonian academies (see above, VII, 482). It is therefore only natural that R. =v~ b. Jacob should have corresponded with the m~i r

i14

t~ r-

Thereupon a new pamphlet of responsa begins:

~ri (so M"i

in manuscript) N$inmVn.!

%NjN=V rM14DnV

j)Ir

-?N 4r

~Mg'v~Z

44zN

w

)bjrwvIInV

4

a

(Men. 35 a. top) yn?jW1: 1~D,7=

(Kelim iii, Menahti.1a, top>. This heading is ofinterest for the information it furnishes as to the internal organization of the school. It also appears that Mattitya was then, in 863 C. E., already generally reccgnized. This was the case aftei the death of Menahiem Gaon, Mattitya's rival. It thus establishes the reading II7I Sel. (859 C. E.) as the year of Menahiem's demise (see Sherira's letter, P. 38, bottom Drln :m ltn1 1im rim f5j~m1yz,where a variant has Mfl5, 864 c. E:.).

THE JEWISH

448

QUARTERLY REVIEW

contemporary Pumbedita Gaon, Semah b. Paltoi (872 c. E.). This we learn from an interesting passage in Samuel b. Jacob's (ibn Jama') additions to the 'Arukh, which owing to its corruptness has not been fully understood. It reads (see ed. Buber in Graet-Y7ubelschrift, p. 17; Buber, by some of his emendations, still adds to the confusion of the n-,=n wn nSD Krn (s. v. DOK) 3 N3r U 3n text) nwnz3 1 1wii

tnwnnb

(NZn1=)

*ijKn t:p

N ,Nr 11'

V4 WFI

-i :n n CO

ir

-n

C

n'o

1n ;m

n^ KnK

(r.

(9N1W1==)

-i-i)

V8 Wi

q nriD n w'n, tmn2nn(r. nm,li)Nnni Nb5I DmKNngprD w'- vn" 2 =nD (Knln'-i=lD=) mnr(r. ;lR.) nN 12 t nil"m np p :,'U n K nVIe,: DaN,,,. Kn'np (snmlnna) snnn3: 'In DZv ' nSsnV To prove that Don= means a 'loan', Samuel b. Jacob quotes from the writings of the 'heads' (of the schools), viz. Natronai wrote to Nathan b. IHaninahof Kairowan informing him that when El'azar Resh Kallah (=Alluf) arrived (from Lucena, see above, VII, 487) and 'brought what he brought (viz. a certain amount of donations for the school) 14 we paid our debts and the academy was pleased'. Also Semah b. Paltoi in the pamphlet of questions coming from R. :'w uses the expression DNNKin the reply to the first query. VIII, 353. The Massoretic fragment is Or. 5554, A, fols. 3-4, and the lines are cited from fol. 4, recto, 11.8-ii. Verso, 11.5-6, mentions another Massorite (Jer. 39. 3) DnD 1n ,'-p

mnl(=rnD=)

in 'n

s

=n m1 mmbn)i

(nes=)

KOM.

Yehuda b. Ezekiel as Massorite is also mentioned in 10 So Codex Cambridge, no. 376, fols. 233-6, which I have also consulted. 11 Cod. Cambr. has only W4'. 12 Cod. Cambr. UmOSB l1n, an obvious corruption. 13 Cod Ca. Cambr. noW.. p3arWn'1 14 See also Pozn. in Hakkedem, II, Hebr. part, 98, no. 4.

THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

449

fragments of the Firkowicz Collection in Petrograd (see H. B., XIV, 105, and Neub., Aus der Petersburger Bibliothek, 104, top). On the Massorah of R. Nahman (b. Isaac) see also Lewin, Tahkemoni, II ( I ), 4 ff. Graetz (Monatsschr., I871, 49-50; 1872, 9) deals with the same Massoretic gloss, as cited from the above Genizah manuscript, and denies that there were separate Massoretic schools in Nehardea and in Sura. But this is now a well-established fact (see especially, Kahle, Massoreten des Ostens, 913). VIII, 353, top. An extensive volume of responsa by } Hai is mentioned in T.-S. 8 G 78, recto, 11. I2 ff. 18 n n"l nnln in'n1: (r. jn:n) TInn w1wn 4: n6rt 5i ilm '4%ml nn n~ rD .m mv n==== j an ps3 w' nai,n .[,m] n^S.un i= '5,

,8

runlW C-i] .^pVK3 n

i4n

Z ;'nD

V mn ynw

1n

n5nDs

wn-

ntn p?v5 5i 'n. The questions probably came from Kairowan where there was a celebrated house of study under Hushiel, Jacob b, Nissim, and his son R. Nissim. See, e.g., the superscription of ,n", no. 178, pi'5x tnK'KW i'npwU j:88 n'n ;ln 'n3 -1 '1M1n'D= Ip K'-I pKW:n'D '

*'nFD p PvD'lK z!81 n I1tW -i -1Z-7. In the anonymous

Halakic compendium (printed in yQR., IX, 68i ff.) we also read (p. 706,1. 8) w'iD1n':rW w`l'l' n':ii R ;, ;: s : 1:Nn W n-n 3:, 5if. Cp. also Pozn., 1.c., 104.

VIII, 358. Joseph b. Jacob b. 'Aukal is also mentioned in a fragment of an epistle (T.-S. IO G 58, brownish paper, both top and bottom torn) which evidently emanates from a Babylonian Gaon, either Hai or Samuel b. HIofni. The Gaon writes to a certain Alluf who may be identical with the scholar in Egypt who was the recipient of the letter discussed above (VIII, 349 ff.). mnw nnli (recto, 11. 9 ff.)

nt; i

wrn

4

rlnDn

nNPes. ona 1 15 Pes. 70 a.

.

1YS

r n'

1p in

THE JEWISH

45?

QUARTERLY

REVIEW

no l^ nm w^ ,nr inp1' (perhaps r [i1X
niS

na 11 nMs 1rzinna

wKn

: ,,.,,, n,,^

1p nrnpn

mi: DInu1mnm [nnl:n]l 'lvi vnl Inn n nlN:s u],D rns n:mn D 1in11 1^[nnDnIl]rW]p in^m ilypp zpp' N=n81s-1 p PI qiNK I 13 I^N nVmninun:n1 Irb vn qiN n4i, i:1 r3s< [nx r]t%,n1 ni 63 PII^ np:X3 : ^K8i [;]nrKfi "3D81W; 1I,K D1/ <^DpD. This Alluf evidently acted in his community as a representative of the academy. He would forward the Gaon's epistles to distant communities, and thereby induce them to contribute to the upkeep of the school. We read also of the Gaon's request to have one of his letters read in public before the congregation (see above, VII, 477-8). IX, 140, top. The D0s:n of the school are also mentioned Sam. b. Hofini in his responsum to Fez (above, p. 438), Pt by 4rn ip:n, and by 'Amram (", no. 56). See also Graetz v4, 456, note 3, and Epstein, Der Gaondische Kommnentarzur Ordnuztg Tohoroth, 1915, pp. 40 and 157. Pozn., Mschr., 1917, 228-9, doubts whether these scholars had the special function in the academy to quote the Baraitot whenever called upon. From our fragment it appears that their task consisted of teaching those young disciples who were ' freshmen' the Mishnah and Tosefta. Hence their name Tannaim. The wlr.N are also mentioned in a Gaonic document (published by Aptow., yQR., N. S., IV, 25, The function of these scholars II, 1. 3) "mwl mmnDD S1 p 5. probably consisted of teaching and expounding the Gemara to more advanced students of the school. IX, 159,1. 5. ,2nn is a synonym for Torah, cp. Ps. 119. 96, Job ii. 9, and Erubin 2I a. Likewise we read in the Ahima'as Chronicle (ed. Neub., Med. 3ew. Chron., II, 113, 1. 3 from bottom) nrnn 'nrSn . r^nw,n s' nly DoIDD. Cp. also Kaufmann, Mschr., XL, 544, note I.

THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

451

I have re-examined the original of the IX, 160-i. document dated I034 C.E. (7QR., XVI, 576; cp. Fraenkel's The included deed from remarks, ibid., XVII, 384-6). Kairowan, dated 1032 C.E., ends as follows: (verso, 1. 4) ith n i wn3r3^ i j4nnn jn4 nrw 51i[3]

,nIn i nnSw13 In inn [ ,p]n mni-

,n mniv3

Thus the witnesses were Hillel b. Moses, Khalaf Hallevi b. Solomon, and Moses b.Yehuda (the latter is not enumerated in Pozn., iMt'p t''N; no. i6 is to be rectified accordingly). The testatum (Dl'p)was signed by the members of the court, Elhanan b. Hushiel, Nissim b. Berakhya, and Abr. b. Daniel. Nissim is very likely the brother of the wellknown Kairowan scholar Joseph b. Berakhya (see above, is to be rectified 'w VII, 358, note 59; no. 2o in itn'p accordingly). The end of the document, drawn up in Fustat in 1034c.E., is as follows:

nnIV s w i3 i,

-3nn in D

l:w m%nmn n n,nx n (1.12)

n-I

ann3 tp ;KnbDrlnw r^n88 'ixwn [w]:j, nmnn qiXn nin no. WKm 3nn, Dra ii3 inN'y n^rv ;3 nin3IKntr^ p non WnM3N 1; pnP Accordingly Sahlan's father, Abraham, held the titles -n3nnnDin 4snNn n: q WK, while Sahlan himself was n n3nnlion Ni . Indeed, in a styled rnr'wn nnn ilr marriage document (T.-S. 20. 6), drawn up in Fustat, Elul 1348 Sel. = 1037 C.E., both father and son bear the above nm4rn

452

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY

REVIEW

titles. Sahlan is called in addition n:'wb:ipPD0, a title also held by Joseph b. Berakhya in Kairowan (above, VIII, 363). Sa'adya b. Ephraim was Sahlan's uncle and also bore the title Alluf, as is shown elsewhere.'6 im:: Hakkohen b. Sa'adya is mentioned in a document dated Kislev I355 Sel. = I043 C. E. at Fustat (D'nYn,Bodleian 287641). Now that we know Abraham b. Sahlin's titles, my suggestion (above, VII, 478, note 22) is fully confirmed that he was a correspondent of Hai Gaon.l7 (All the signatories of the deed of 1034 lived in Fustat and not in Kairowan, and should therefore have no place in Pozna6ski's 7Tq1rp 'Ws.) IX, I6I, bottom. MS. Adler 4012 contains the end of Megillat Bustanai in Jewish Arabic with the following colophon:

w't bi,,vn ,n=b[=] 7=[i}] =,npn n3,w,n I wr= D n= w tp-iP1 l nnruwwZ/4F9 mN It seems that Nathan Gaon incorporated in his book what 'his teacher's son, Hushiel Resh be-Rabbanan', reported to 16

See my work, 1. c., vol. I, p. 99. In that letter (T.-S. i6. 318) the correspondents mention a previous epistle of theirs to the Gaon apologizing for the delay in sending the due see above, VIII, 347, 1. 3) from the contributions ('fifths' = D'tlrl, for the upkeep of the school. The bearer of that (Babylonian) congregation letter was 'Attat Hallevi b. Tob. They also mention that certain prisoners had to be ransomed for a large sum. (Perhaps reference is made to the Jewish captives from Byzantium, who were brought to Egypt in the twenties of the eleventh century; see my remarks in JQR., N. S., IX, 420). The previous epistle was dispatched three years ago and yet no answer arrived from the Gaon (1. x5 f., continuing the Hebrew, N Nm Dl p II)n3pl 17

Mrlim Y

3 no 14itH^1m

wr

-''-o

4rv-Iyg

4wm) )m;1^m^n

:3 sOen= ',Sin ;~i mnm.nD=KD=K5n nvI5K,nnn Nn=;N m,n n ,5 'ii n^'an =8 D W vS3v l*nW= p, Knn u) =,=p[l]W ,n.': WfW , ,n nn^ b'DW b1h K,nr ,1598 m1i tE piOn1). Inm

t

THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

453

him in the name of the 'Fathers' of the schools. This work was copied in Fustat in IOI2 Sel. = IooI C.E. Who this Nathan Gaon was is not clear (see Pozn., Babylonische Geonim, o09, for the latest discussion). Dr. Marmorstein's statement (nrmwnnrn4Dn;nnn, 1917, p. 76) that Nathan Gaon was Hushiel's son, and brother of Hananel, needs no refutation. IX, 167. T.-S. Io G 54, contains a quire of six paper leaves of which the tops are torn. Fol. 3, recto, 1. 8 from | n ZDrn below, reads as follows: (tK= =) ,i?t In ni,n? t'n=) in pI KN nnn | NDPn mv vW I \"I Z . pnI,D1 m,1 .I 57Nnt6N nuowt tytP Ei% nDn | (on13n VrIin 3?6MNK ^nIn 3nn ^itln ^'-1i1r3n i3n I m1^nw Ywt ?Y*'?1D n 'lD" . 1i inlZt.nS rwnn . 1 .. (fol. 3, verso) bis nsa adkann., n131 | 4-lnp

in 1n | ,*. . . * | .nntn1w | . t no t frst ineD .th | rxpln e r o pny i d i n irnn nrl 1in^r srt nnK ny nra SI| pown YKna ( Jeln .p I npr'n inDnn^ Innrd ,p1 .ilpn ;n: inaln ;reir Xw.l

| . ,, * inPlDsn

nD'.n 'Irn1'

*ipn=' ni^om

In for

| zi

i nC1nnl

vppin

lp^r .ipia'

nw 'nynN

tn

\IV

t|

wmn

.

.

iDni

.ip3W

mn ,I N1

yp

sohin elpotan

| K nys)i ipj*

1

n

y7

a 1n'r

mfir .t

Ki lprn

j m D4 irnN. '$i: wnO |IW Thus R. Nissim was asked by his intimate friend Sadok b. Yahya, who lived in Palestine, about the explanation of the first Mishnah of Rosh Hashshana with its calculations of the calendar. He sent Sadok a commentary (in Jewish Arabic) as he had it from his great teachers Hushiel and X. (unfortunately the name of his second teacher is not preserved). The eulogies bestowed upon them no doubt emanate from R. Nissim. Of great interest is the fact that he had connexions with scholars in Palestine. Sadok b. Yahya must have visited Kairowan previously; he may

'1/1 UVnI-niip

THE JEWISH

454

QUARTERLY REVIEW

have been a native of this town. The relations of the Gaon of Jerusalem, Solomon b. Yehuda, with Kairowan have been referred to above (IX, I63). This explains in the most natural way the fact that both R. Nissim and R. Hananel were thoroughly acquainted with the Yerushalmi. Very likely the connexions of Kairowan with the Holy Land go back to several centuries before. The study of the Yerushalmi in that great intellectual centre of Jewry in the Middle Ages, .Kairowan, was hardly first introduced by Hushiel, who is supposed to have been a native of Southern Italy, as Eppenstein (Mschr., 19II, 737, 74I-2) states. Thanks to the Genizah finds, the obscurity that enveloped the history of the Palestinian Jewry from the Arab Conquest till the first Crusade is gradually being illumined. The academy of Jerusalem, which was in existence at least a century before Ben-Meir,'17 was well known to Jewry all over the Diaspora. So far no responsum from Hai to Hananel b. Hushiel has been preserved, though there can hardly be any doubt that they were in communication with each other. A letter (T.-S. 8. 265, apparently in North-African cursive writing, damaged, right-hand top corner missing) contains some details of interest. It is addressed to (verso) nil ,1:25 rnw , .. nnn nn nm : . ... . I doubt whether the nwmp. well-known Ephraim b. Shemarya of Fustat is meant as his father is never styled Haber. On recto (1. 8 if.) we read iY

n nz

Tn,ios

,ii[:nnSe

,=[n~]n^

n1 yue.> ,- n5 -jis5

DeIs 'pcl] x',w

m lp n1)

nyw D

i5m=n '-

.

j

nniynn ,[n]i5

v>: nvnn.?m

Ym? n=-mij, 3ni. NMD: SmIn ..

;DD mnDI1 1e See p1l myv y 17a

nn 'k n[.v]?i.,npi

n Lw c v5o n:; ? Ipp ok . y5i

See especially my work, 1. c., vol. I, pp. 50 ff.

No

1

THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

i,

r,w "n nmnnngs

v ipj'

D1

l6 rrvIg

SNI nv

455

4LK Tf1

mlnnrDD3nn5N 33Dnn5 rnnLbnt Don 4'TD1y[*];N inr;K n=K iS rsn 1ri nn n^v ntiDnNt 1:y3 K 33D3 1 ir n, ynn^l Y 4= "i /: Ni mTin nrnnm n4 IcNKt itrWi FtiK.-13 1D3K nS tD:N ptwz n^p T-m- nn&o ;n3nwnnin3z tpnl niw,4 - ijn n)iw 4nw smnw ;3 ns1'^^ ws: '*1n :Xin 51:n p n:n lzn=:l Npynr ??

rnil5r ^nn ,nw\

WH1.

The epistle probably emanates from Kairowan. The writer was anxiously awaiting a letter from the 'head of the school' (Hai? But if his correspondent was Ephraim b. Shemarya, then the Palestinian Gaon Solomon b. Yehuda might be meant). On arrival of the letter he met with a certain al-Kathir at Hananel's residence. We read interesting details about collections of money for 'the head of the school' (either Hai or Solomon b. Yehuda of Jerusalem) in Rome. Unfortunately the representative of the school was robbed on board ship which was captured by pirates while making for Bari (the locality jlrD (Serraleone?) I could not identify), and thus the Gaon derived no benefit by the generosity of the Italian Jewry. The writer inquires of his correspondent in Misr (Fustat) concerning certain pamphlets which he sold to Elhanan, no doubt the son of Shemariah. When the letter was written Elhanan was no longer alive. Finally, the writer mentions that two questions were sent to Hai with the request to reply concisely in Arabic. This the Gaon did. Probably the queries came from R. Hananel and his circle. As to the latter's relations with Egypt, it is of interest to cite here a leaf in the T.-S. Collection containing two damaged paper leaves of responsa. Fol. I, recto, concludes a pamphlet of fourteen Gaonic responsa of which nos. i2 (end)-I4 are preserved. No. 13 reads nn: tiS ~:' inir

THE JEWISH

456

QUARTERLY REVIEW

rl I n: ll1 .(Sanh. a 2a) r.V- ini

tunvw j

D^3'Jz1]UD Q4w3 w1'

ni1pn [pw3

nin

inMM ,t

13nn 1- 13I:

KnII yrnr4 pvWv W'1 ryr

NlWw Nnin

-

iw"

wnlnv

ji4ul

r.n

[F142'3 1]zp

[<]1n ntnnr Zn: rn'[',.

There follow our Alphabet and beneath each letter the Samaritan script. (Cp. also n'", no. 358, and R. Hananel to Sanh. a. I.) On fol. I, verso, 1. 9 ff. we read rnmsW It F[nFIsw] ,n[i]1? nD^t iswln i133ni<[p] IN::n 1i:1v "iD L46]n 'n^o 7.13^'nF i^in i n[Nw] nnZin -yL ln j3 !is1C:l' 1n ;' ?3 .? ,b8; 6^3t 'n33^ if

4iNs i[x[s

,

en Dn;n3

nx,

'1

lIln^n^i ?) i8 *('iNn)=) nKj (Deut. ch. 23) txn '3 n,a'

*8

tmnl

$ ,eivnD (?t~n,=) .s i

= nn6dS n.D? and

deals

'

teri-n)5

ijw

with

the

ni5

(ntLDq[

2.

question

,'i5y=)

tr niSy

n n:m M ts;xrtIY3

There is a gap between fols. i and Aramaic

gn

4!D

nnDs5Dn

n^i'.

The latter is in of

:iynrW

b'

(Zeb. 77b).

X, I29, note I92. Very interesting information as to the infliction of capital punishment within the Spanish Jewry is found in Ibn Abitur's letter to the Palestinian Gaon Samuel Hakkohen b. Joseph (see above, VII, 475, note 2o).18 The corresponding lines in MS. Adler 4009, fol. 2, verso, 11. 19-23, read as follows: [l]pt V:1ni'3 ylv -jpT? 'n3 plt ITliyD -riln nTID3 njpjr n 'llnnl,n "i' :^ tDnn)T n, KsD,es nminDi r,p mm,r.^3: 5= 'ns nm~ t'P (nlmn==)

h r"sb y~wnn n~pini umy ,T,nw. po ] =, n3,1 m111I n?3t sm11 '3rxMg ,n,

inmt in: N,Sa p ynl lwnKip. Ibn Abitur

18 This letter is now see my correction, printed in RiJ., LXX, IOI-4; ibid., LXXI, 11o-12. It is fully discussed in my work, 1. c., vol. I, 67 ff. 18a

= 1-:1nSi.

19 Either = 'grievous' (tl13) or man (W1.3), 'the scourge of man', a second Attila. Evidently the name Satanas, by which Ibn Abitur's family went, is derived fiom this nickname, which should really be p-onounced Shotenosh or Shotanush.

THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

457

speaks of the grandfather of his grandfather, four generations or about a century before him, i.e. the end of the ninth century. We learn thus of a communal authority in Spain wielding very great power, no doubt by permission of the government. See also Ibn Daud (in Neub., I, 79) 'sln hn (viz. the Karaites) inl .. . 9D 'I 'nWi ptnnw ny 4=n m^s ta n,6 anrv nnm ,nn et2 nDlwQ rl WIn cmtp.

tnw

i inN 'nyn ;Up

yln NnUvWp

It seems had the Nasi wished, he could have ordered their execution and would have been authorized by the government.20 X, 142 ff. See also Responsa of R. Besalel Ashkenazi, no. 40, where an interesting responsum of R. Solomon b. Tn3nD nmwnn) is cited on this Adret (D1SlWtKTn Kw whether the help of the non-Jewish court may be question invoked in case the defendant flouts the decision of the Bet-Din. X, I44 ff. From the formula of a deed of sale for slaves in Hai's

Kitab

al-Shetarot

(in Wertheimer's

nw5rr

'tJ,

III, 3a) we learn the respective nationality of the slaves in Jewish households (no doubt in Arabic countries), either Indian, Slav, Byzantine, Lybian or ,nKt (?). Irn1 ,n nIpnt 5 n

IN ribtn

rw ilKt 1i sh

It r^iwK INKnrn,n

Nny,

X, 310 ff. Concerning the change of the Talmudic law permitting movable property to be taken away from orphans in payment of their father's debt, Bodl. 264326 contains a responsum of Sherira which deserves to be cited 20

Cp. also Maimonides,

nL.rnpn Osw

il

lw

Mishnah Comment.,

DFmn a'n

Hullin I. 2,

nQ^-i

nlDnD'

Y'1

n5nInIrnun itnn

4NI N5N-itNt nivs3 4^4'13 ^mmw W011p^nDN5Zb rnn nn^^rv nN 18D9' ITD ;NnnN 5W jnli= prnin nnnly^n:-n t3 n%)1ynl 11=1 01=4Z rt51mmI1771N1 S :11=5 r15i itt: r--:1 5Nm-I' t1

o nynn N33N. VOL. XI.

I i

458

THE JEWISH

QUARTERLY

REVIEW

Fol. 145a has the following superscription n4trS5l and on the margin we have the letter i indin, ... fin, that it formed the second one in the pamphlet. It cating

here.

f1'I5 pmin begins DK ,i3 n= n^,n n~n 5i n~ utw KsS, .13

4 prnr nrewit m p3W nnS ,n rri nn n,5Knw,l 5shwy ;inol niw3

, h131n,u5e -1m

5xY nlYnw , [r:Dnn]s '15n pSuSue 11m. The scholar, who wrote the question, discusses the new point whether movable property is also alike immovable property with regard to the priority of the claims as indicated by the respective dates of the creditors' bills, and he cites a responsum of R. 'Amram to R. nw (read :'sw, no doubt identical with the Kairowan scholar dealt with above, pp. 445 f). He writes (fol. 145, v., 1. 14), rnSw nnln i5 nbWr 3 ID it W -31 5NW ^2^n iS n3 PNf)rf ;1M N3 II' I1 Q-lny 1 nmn1',1 S'n n3 nn t Nv s:nn IyW ',pe tl, 5n (fol. 146, r.) "P tnini ^ 53pwtJ9inti '5uD^ KS6l yPip p3^ I ;in3 ;Ir^8 KS:s'5t3 'n4, m4nnntn (r. :e intq ir: pm1nis l,pr p l 1npuin Mp"n: w) 1? Nno4-1I^ t n ^D1^ '*^^ i^a^ N4jv D4Y7P)T ;nI ^pipnt (r.

*n:r

p tiUI' Kn&QW pnpn IIxEmLT

jj

^

77n i. 5pabnnpI n 1ND noenpin3 uSi NAr nR nn

^ ;nn3tn

ns

i?i

nu 5nml

n movabl p isalike e fully nnnd that Sura Gaon decide roperty

K KR.'(1Amram's K 1UDSO i .1cn,lzD(foel.(r. 6,ilFP,n) 1i =) responsu v.) 31t9:pn note K23) Myn7 aw yr (tm =)erwars). T p . Ep:n) (igtn th 1Di1r nvvInw =ns min ri= m:=rnn,m= L9n

wna wri nenin (r

As this change of the Talmudic law took place in 787 c. E. (above, X, 3IO, note 223), R.'Amram's responsu-m, was written in 870 c. E. (eighty-three years afterwards). The Sura Gaon decided that movable property is fLullyalike

THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

459

to immovable property as regards priority of the claims (;nrnip). Now the questioner cites a responsum of Sherira to the Magreb opposing this view. He writes it ,KN t1pi s inln3w n3wn 1myo D 2-ir3n NnS (wtni nnD3nn=)''n 1Y1n nnin Nnrpn vi;n p3y -ni (fol. I47, v., 1.14) 'I3I rnnin ntn b6 KNK (fol. 148, r.) runm, ;i4nnNiw r i nmw tnt: S1 nn;irt QDnp 31 Ci("i Kn= ) 6N11 Jl zlnni ,t 131 i3Wi ti^tn A nv nIllK i min S3 n-^5n 9i Irain 1ih va%n:: mm rn r3i mrn lP:: (i.e. Sherira's father) 1:zW.nts 4N p$: n^::n i:n nt 01 31'I1 it 1N^r3 &
irDl: lnzlUln. Interesting is the beginning of Sherira's reply: :3 Kiy ,in 1 ipip tWipl n3zn3i PKn (fol. 148, v.) p3,nnrpsnE iin n^ 'rl' up in mental atit udtl5en 3 Nn 1i 43 :-n w^ ,nw Dve s thin grea representati t

res onnum wellbeoves N
po in ts out , Harkvy (r'InWK X (fol. 149, nor.) inHower '131Kn3prn3.This independent, and at the same time modest, mental attitude taken up in his responsum well behoves this great representative of the Babylonian Gaonate, Sherira. D,lomni nnl,, 31, note 93) that it is not likely that Jews

from one district spoke all these languages. He therefore suggests to read for findpndnis, a,n3asns, Rabbanite Jews! note 257. This Gaonic responsum is evidently X, 324, referred to by Alfasi (cited in nlr1rD2vnin wnlv nnn, ed. Ii

46o

460 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Venice, i1622, no. 63, fol. 14 a, top) (i.e. l~

~f ~TI"ML V13

also Ibn Daud's remark (mrinnN X, 340. Cp. also 'Anan in his Book of Prece.pts (ed. Harkavy, i116, no. 5i), who conforms here with the general custom in the Rabbanite communities, N1111~ Dst-iN1

X, 344. The shaving of the head as a punishment was also practised in Eglypt in the Arab period. See GraffinNau, Patrologia Orientalis, X, 546, gYackiib b. Ibrahim, the representative of a prince of the Muslims (i. e. the governor appointed by the caliph), took an unjust judge and paraded him through the streets of Misr (= Fustdt) after shaving his beard and baring his head'; this took place after 849 C. E. X, 345. The communal prison is also mentioned in the Responsa of R. Joseph ibn Migdsh, no. 122 (in the question), About the passage in Sanh. 93, see further Aptowitzer, .Zllschr., 1908, 1947 7; 19-12, P. 321, note to p. 28. X, 345 if. As regards the oaths imposed by the BetDin, it will be of interest to cite the following passage from T.-S. 8 F 35, consisting of two leaves, the first of which contains an Arabic glossary of Talmudic words. There is a gap between fols. i and 2z. The latter begins as follows:

THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

461

N.1 21'nI, 7, top), havin aitionn Nt n,ip[nh ] ,.te in cse tKn n eommu pron nictd dos 2 not ompnnlnny 2 with the decision of the Bet-Din, the plaintiff i maynvoke g ive evidence th24ere(see above, X, n3). nThe last two n I npa phs cntain' th ntrodctory uen form nye of len25 et i n and the str3inZgen2oat. y dae finKm Tey evidentlp ti ^ wl;1K j<1:y;o ij1 2( *^ s DW .Tn,KICK n?n^Kn ^3 :K'*3& n r sn .ntim nn oaths were stll ndnninister pi(n iab , X, 3K l5JWr l

28 1^^w

;,y,'i nD z:D,nn i?^ iTn,^K nI:D nrwn isn -13

^ PlsUl 'D:K

8

8 li^ mn8Wln8,nK

The first paragraph isaddend the eIt is similar

to dth e o

w^S mnIDws ^nn nWDi?

of the document known

publishedtby

N. S., IV, 27, top), having, however, in case the personeecortmply

Aptowitzer(QR.'

the

addition

that

e

with the decision of the Bet-Din, the plaintiff may invoke the help of the non-Jewish court, and co-religionists may give evidence

there (see above, X,

43).

The

last

two

paragraphs contain the introductory formulae of the lenient and the stringent oaths. They evidently date fr-om the time when oaths were still administered (above, X, 345). In conclusion, some addenda of hitherto unpublished 21= N<:rn3.

22= ^^1s. 23= ^nv. 24 The dots beneath and above B seem to indicate that it should be deleted. Hence read i (:^se ' in order that he should accept '. 25 iSpwould be more correct. 26 Cp. Yoma 18 b and I9 b, top. 27 = KZi '^nK nl3Y. =miK. 28 = 29 = niW.

THE JEWISH

462

QUARTERLY REVIEW

Gaonic responsa (apart from those cited before) are given. So far no responsum of the Gaon Kimoi b. Ahai (of Pumbedita, 898 C. E.) was known. In the important Halakic compendium (7QR., IX, 68 iff.) responsa of R. Kimoi are mentioned twice (pp. 684, 1. 2 if, 688, bottom), but their author may have been R. Kimoi b. Mar R. Ashi (of Sura, 829 C. E.; cp. also Geonica I, 104, note i). T.-S. io G 5', contains four leaves, brownish paper and ink, torn and damaged. Fol. 4b, 1. 6 from below, reads xNrn 94[ . . . (evidently end of question which begins on fol. 3, verso), 'n=n1 'vrnu 'n:8

'M[m]

Nrl

ni? 'nnmnn

tp

n nK1 11m P

KwKlw Kwlpr npaj (inm1r

Imn

=)

K:a Nn&'KW 6n

is

j;w

4nip

, I5K K: KnIKw v jillS :K K I iy' ly ) wn IllilWt jp;Wl 1n1 p1,iy. As similar introductory phrase of a responsum

we find in n"1m,no. 76, and 'rV,48 a, no. 24. In both cases the question ends with KrnD 94'', while the answer begins N"N (see Miller, Einleitzzg, NK mnSN:a (Dn:'n:'3):nnin min pp. 14, note to r"w, no. 24, and I70, note 13).

They are

attributed to Samuel b. Hofni, but who knows whether their author was not really Kimoi b. Ahai? Another leaf (T.-S. Io G 52, verso; recto blank) begins 21 Kn1KWnvi1mD? ninzin inm iw KnnWnn : ,8n'M KMnn= N'I1"M In ln

arh9,

'>nnr ^ym

;n3 p"nm sNnn=

uj.

This

Gaon is Sherira's grandfather. The Babylonian Geonim usually wrote their responsa in Aramaic. Only when the questions were written in Arabic the reply would be in the same language. See, e.g.,

n", no. 371, where Sherira and Hai write VI On K,n IW&23WK'NNlnn pI5 ,nnmwn :nn5. T.-S. 8 G 62,

mn n contains a pamphlet of Gaonic responsa in Jewish Arabic i~ 1 ni,KW 'K is )NWlK (six leaves). Fol. 3 a begins .'n'lm IDfIUK p

riWlb

n-I4iIn WK- 4n LMUK v

1 Dnl

ClS .:Inm

m:

THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

VN1~11n~

nlnZti 412

463

There

niY3n

follow the questions and responsa in Jewish Arabic. On the other hand, scholarly correspondents of the Geonim endeavoured to write in Aramaic. Thus in ri% no. 325 (from IKabes to Hai, dated ioi6 C. E.), the writers, so to say, apologize for sending the legal question in Arabic because it reached them so from the parties concerned in W n2bp4rT the case (see P. 311I, ijvz wi

1NV1i

rl1-1Ni

v

Bodl. 285 121 (fols. 45-9, imiz mnvr). ~I i 4yz of the Talmud text ; several the for wording portant passages translated into Arabic) concludes (fol. 49 b, l. io if.),

rmn -[nz

i~~nrni-i

m

rullnn

nw-in 1-rinri -i~n:

~3~' This responsum, written in 987 C.E., no P-1 doubt emanat-es from Sherira."l So far no son of Hai is known at all. But Bodl. 2682' i. e. I'of Israel' (cp. Ps. 8o. i6, 71r3fl 11YM M1). For similar endings of responsa pamphlets by Sherira and Hai see In this '1~,nos.36, 7 7 208, .2i9, 264, 314, 328, 3442 369, 1,42 couinexion it is of interest to cite responsa by a certain scholar, Sa'adya b. Yehuda (probably of Egypt), who apologizes for replying in Arabic. He would have wished to write in Hebrew but had to make use of the language in which the questions were drawn up. The responsa are contained in T1.-S.8 G 7 6 consisting of four paper leaves, lar-ge square hand, of the eleventh or twelfth centuries. Fol. i, recto, begins ~IMIln 30 31

THE JEWISH

464

REVIEW

QUARTERLY

contains a treatise by R. Hai (fols. i-2), then (fol. 3 a, in different handwriting) a responsum about the second day of the Festivals ('w 'r^, cp. ", no. I), no doubt also by this Gaon. On fol. 4b, end, there begins another responsum by him, in Arabic, addressed to Elhanan (b. Shemarya, see above, p. 435), ti pnS i6 3un :4 m i M rni1. It was in reply to Elhanan's question about this very problem of The responsum ends on fol. 6 b, followed by n,31~ t'n :. another decision c =3 an^lsY an 3ninN

w3n i

'n'

W 3051iS 51T rt ~n 3mingr

in

n3,n

w a-lm s ww = mN nn3nlm33n rimn Sy,g np lmp 3n3 1P5,n1 .(Prov.27. 19) ii w:6D n-3Qn 4n=3':

rin5nnmnr ,-innpp 'lnsnzi 1innnmwi 3:inmn: (r.;3ixyn) n;1rDsnn %nYin Sn) p (r.lintn) lnM,n 3wSflnS(i.e. hastened) nqKI5rn 3 n3 r 3i: ,n,~n vnlp l~vSw[]]nbtv :3ni5 ,nxil nimrmn n:nn TnSv nlniin ;nm1n,n:y nv: '5 3 13l]n3:. The responsa touch upon several topics.

'viY tE cerptedhere: 1'$5nl5mWnmnln

The following details are ex-

IK MSKK,! i

a 'sb tii8, O*m ps1 nr

r(M (i, verso) DD ni11 ,D ; n uinm

nne n1wJn3

, . . 'D'S~ 1:3 [?K~1] (2, verso) ;... * n nnD n

i53 ;1D a3n >rn 4DnSNDi

n i ?D ^ nmn NjnD mnnltI)imwn)Vy niD:l n3mn ,nn,n nir:nw n N D ID ..ro *Dnn nrtK 'an ., * zn= 1n1iK N3r1 jr3a ov ) NaDSK'N3riin rlsIts nnnil rpn SKPa VscW A new set of responsa begins on fol. 3, recto:

nsWn D1: 3

m~n ,

nmnl:n 13

;na;n

3wniS rF n

'nmi 'nlznl

Fnawn3

ns,'S :, 3nbW ymn:in ,nl

1N nn3n3w

nil33

yp[rln

3nm3 nnns

rs

r, 7

nnm~ wn-pn pjl~i mm2 jllv: -n (r. -nl3Wn) 'n:n mnmnn, ~Nw K Concerning a certain question our scholar writes: K,s

N

n ne3 ,5 3'1 'n'Ss.

nn3=

i1^

n,3ends, 15 ; Fo1.4, verso,

nIS1D1 n

'n~m

WDzn55ne jtN n3lbn r;p:nKimnlinnD n3S,nnYnn;iDs nminw rn nSx nw Drr:WIn 1Q ,il
THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

r n:'n FK)I DI=W p13j" pVWln4n=40D ;pi'y T13

lDJ30

nDw I1n

465 Dn1l

'1fi pn'6 (cp.

i", p. 5 a, 1. l, from below). Most likely )n: is a scribal error for 1:nn ! Probably R. Joseph ibn Migash is meant here.32 Finally, three interesting responsa from a collection composed by Hai are edited here. T.-S. 8 G 5 contains 32 However, the author of the above responsum may be identical with a celebrated scholar to whom a question was addressed from Fustat in 992 c. E. T.-S. G 72 consists of two paper leaves, of which the first seven lines of fol. r, recto, conclude a responsum dealing with the question of the number of days between Passover and Pentecost (njrlV: 113w). From 1. 8 ff. we read, tNut '3'r1l I1y W I'Il1 ia' '2' qD1' 1i1 IlD m nir WV,iln

pim....

1? rvw

3rzl

. .Jl s K vi N -inm,,

.l

Div n?uJFI'I-l npI1211'I3YU -3Tn mn=3n3

N

umin Nht

Inv iQ y

n nl n,w IDI=t

=13^5 t s, (2, r., i. 23),,,

In,n nap' 3131*iT13W

ih'

ui' Knwn

min,ew n=nxitn ?= x 1nnn,lN N 'I , . . '1=3 ;Wl l 5=1 NI '23tpD5 "nIUw

w,n in

nznn Ks, p?mtn 'C V.nill Tn n -iou s*p e D DDm Ml " -S1 unD2 1

jnp

m

inyn,

''1ri n virt,

,:

iW,n:V lw,y

^^ nxSw :,=n mnaln

n:

lnnnin

rnmin S 21N'1' n;1. The responsum is not yet completed at the end of fol. 2, verso. This Rabbi may be identical with Joseph ibn Abitur who has been compelled to leave Spain, and who during his wanderings stayed for a time in Egypt (see my work, I. c., I, pp. 67 ff.). The well-known responsum by R. Hai (5"^, no. I, referred to above) really formed the thirty-first of a pamphlet. This we learn from T.-S. 8 G 77, consisting of four paper leaves. On fol. 4, verso, we read ' n 6ii 'lh. ,w'li Ni 5 niSD15N (Erub. 61) s'":ml Dtp NM&n t ;n 'i (as is ^5") '1y1 nl'5 i tDY 1D nn''n . Fols. 1-4, verso, contain an Arabic responsum, the beginning of which is missing, dealing with several topics, viz. with Hezekiah's Passover (2 Chron., ch. 30), with the query of Sharezer and his companions about the fasts (Zech., chs. 7 and 8), and with Purim. On fol. 4a, middle, we read: 5it pjS 1'r"w inyD '1w

iz1ivtw 31^ 1) :i(,nip=iia lnr6-)ns ,iinvn mW wlin wi lnnD 1-iS v nwsnD 'm1m r:3i

ip) 19i fa3 4z Sy

nrp ,inn

This responsum, concluding with (fol. 4, verso) nnl I1 ,lnrn'ny3' ], is probably Gaonic. A couplet from a liturgy by is on Purim cited. Sa'adya ilDnni'l ID1ni'.

,n1

466

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY

REVIEW

six paper leaves of responsa. Between fols. 3 and 4 there is a considerable gap; on fol. 3 a one responsum is marked as 6, while another on fol. 4 a is given the number 23. We reproduce here nos. 23, 24, and 25, the last being incomplete. R. Judah al-Barceloni evidently had the first two responsa in front of him, stating expressly that they were by Hai. But he excerpted from them only the decisions, leaving out just those parts of interest for modern readers (D121n,'D, pp. 277-8; ~", nos. 92-3; n"', no. 84, seems to have been copied from wny,n '/). The third responsum deals, where the MS. breaks off, with the Massoretic passage of Ned. 37 b, which formed the subject of another question from Kairowan to Hai (,n", no. 2IO; see nrny1n'D, p. 257 f., where the same responsum is expressly quoted in the name of this Gaon). But our responsum was obviously written on another occasion. Hai was asked (no. 23) about the difference in importance between the Targum on the Pentateuch and that on the Prophets, and also why that on the Hagiographa was hidden. It is said that the last Targum was hidden because therein the time of the advent of Messiah was revealed. But the questioners possessed a Targum on Esther wherein no allusion was made to this topic. They inquired who the author of the Hagiographa Targum was, and contended that its Messianic passages ought to have been expunged while leaving the remainder for posterity. The Gaon in his reply denies that the Targum on Esther emanates from Jonathan b. Uzziel, and states that in Babylon (Bagdad) there exist various recensions of this Targum, some having many Agadic additions while others are literal translations. We possess two Targumim to Esther, the so-called ' Dlinn being mentioned already in Masek. Soferim 13.6. Aquestion concerning

THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM-MANN

467

the Palestinian Targum (on the Pentateuch) was addressed by Jacob b. Nissim of Kairowan to Sherira and Hai (":", no 248, cp. also Ca n,'D, p. 256, end of ? 175). It is likely that the above inquiry also came from Kairowan. In no. 25 the Gaon deals with the reason of the word D''iw being spelt with a double i'V, and with the larger question why the letter t'g should so frequently do the function of lnD (namely w = D). He quotes Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali (to my knowledge for the first time in his responsa), and also nMI'n n mlDn p'r (known to us as Midrash .Iaserot Wiserot), the text of which had different versions. (Fol. 4, verso, 1. 7.)

annS~vw mnDn ,n n nmnn nSnn nSv nynnn

jj

Qnl:n r^j3nD^i7ntr7 j,n^: wFns an*X:: INrW 5n 3n D^iln3n M :13Wn3 nlz '1

IO

n i'KI

IMM lnDKnSr n~n ,; ypn Zn DnMnIn w wl n3 QnI W2n1n *^

1:1 V4 WIr?rMpn pi'rX-u

I5

~Izvz

3inr rpWn

' 'IP i^lll 15

1-i- ^w a's n '711 *'I I1n3i1n -mr-c, nDj:m nm: nrivN? lrinni nwDNK 1nS nnn3v Dnun5vninn v niKn nn:on,n ;)

n1nn

nDnS,DrN Fwnz:a F nnltnwDnmini;.nu n','3n 5 nD1 nln51 2,0 m8DT j

w

nN 34t)a 1):nN9 4.1,n n44:3

S1

,nlin Sw mnAnK2^ m1 i,nn i ?n'n' 35 From the answer (fol. 6, r., 1. 2 ff.) it appears that Hai was also asked about the Targum to be recited together with the Haftarah. Hence read here mnDDln DlInnl or rTN%33^ tl011ni which comes to the same. 34 Meg. 3 a.

THE JEWISH

468

REVIEW

QUARTERLY

(fol. 5, recto) t i 1DOnrK

in m wti YW1n

nD',OipZlX ,nnDt :n

,nyyI ?mXnl

V'nwF.11

D1 MnDanml bnnD

INnPlK prN Sv nDlD NI n4nK , 5lpnt nnrl 5 niwi nKr y ;ey istlDr

~\ 1 'iJ:

NI 017;

'1?n:

N:Z1 "8

n

wn5^%w win

="ni? 1inm

N^ nNvy 4m

ll TN7U

7v

;nv

KNK n4Z -nn1

4:

Ni1

D\nJnnli: Vp4z^Niz' nlpinD 1iLn KN 1f: 1-mnDKNi 5ip nz nNs1 DvnnnziW IO Qin:mp4pyni 'nNwnilp riz nmn n^ i n n 6,S
DK bNolnPK ) ' InJ

w

rln

nip'l n31 i5N b:n n-i 6N pzN mz Njp1N v nr W1nD Nlip nr35i 5iKw nnwln

itDn

'DnllrD'1ntyni mDnzW;pIDni

ri*n , QnVDN[K] CtK1

inDK n;n -nDK n9;nz

ri

i pcK rjl):'t

1NK=:nv

3G nX8Di CpnS nnDN KI^ K p^

-INV nN51nzIN n4-14Vw,1 s'K nn

15

tnn

1

r^ SKn

nl

N:4N-7

lvrn5

plU20

i n=n

w ni jsi^[nDsw

r t6 oNnljv D31 nwr&in

mv

zn i2 (verso)

Y nytvl nsri n p

=6

V KN'K 1N1 ni RI WW

Q^ ntt D:t1^3DJ

irn

murnnw Dirain l

n : InDK mlnn 12 I

n.i8nDi nain niDiln

nW

35 Neh. 8

3-INV)

~. 8.

: walQinn

-jNU:,jnil 3f, _ 9.

p

jpl3t

w nns 1:

ralt?

WtyW ,n

s7 Read -NK . *. T .

THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM--MANN

469

nI Q;nnn ;n arS

mhin 9p n3 in?p:n ronS n3 't bpw 3 p^ir nw Irn 3lnn 5 "mn, nSg3 tn'5 siw^Sv 15bpb wJ 51ip :31 niN =3^W[n]]n^n3 nsy-i nrw, ^ 10O

D

nK ia rwn

npnv4w 4i;

iy nD3=nn4z nrinn Nin5i,mIn \s'n [,1n-iJD,1^1i n1nno-:D Ni1pip nivDn rniin

nz^:w,nK:

,Inn

Kn ,yn^

pmin pn vn=n^w[3] '-IS'tipri vn Q:^n n' NL Inplj 3iN-1 ntn

ownn s8

n1nL1

(fol. 6, recto) K;I K:p: ":w,

DJ:nr

M:?: jl p'K:

nnV nnta N7 ,niCn3 biiPn 39 nunluaXnn inr Wlnn*

PIOr,

i

Kp1'

naE ''

'*3^31

5

IDK n3 ,3 D'1nn3^nDn C i?K

nD ,1nnvi ',nwNs3

Clnin p'J7

wrn

4p0riDlW[n

,3 i3 n^JP,'7 j I ln^S , ?:Nsnn D'7K'

75y

pi x33

Pnin

[4n]v t:' vnynT p

40'*

M[N]

3'D3 K W 1: ^ 8'53 J7U' no3Up1 CWK + InK [In:n]nn

1O nj

j'K13D Wjlnl3 j'KUl3b33D NW no1pU 38

Meg. 25 a. 40 Isa. 52. 3-5-

39 Meg. 23 b, bottom, 24 a, top.

470

REVIEW

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY

'5

ino vir[i p1^tnK ni lp N,l 5nI 1ow, i11 Ilnrn 2Vw Vn p 'ni nSn ^53 lpv i

*t 14N-iij

3 1nD nmrn nonDz

e''] *wrni 15

nTtU4p[w

vlnrrlD 'nn: t53l

rnpjzr: [w]n

n]tn -ns

nriinntpiwn1v

nnn yrrmn [fl =^mD1 s: lTnlKoihs'iWllll u-in 41KS pr ii[]

bti nwe

bn nBt n

-[nnlnn'nnNt AV^i p .rb

.e [rN1 nB^e]n5

nD

42l InDol

a 20 KS -IK

(verso)

nnDwp^w V -1p* 3 'InNni piI"pllniN jonz .,n nWtn niny,nn nri:nv W ;ra nm rinlvnsl nlnDn 1na nKnp^W r:on n3 WF1K',^Knw nlDin

r nmm nrwnir

inN nDm nnioDD

nnn Q-ninn ninr

n nrw^nD5

V'VW Qnn81p':nlK13: ItNS1jrnnnlanp1a 1cWpI1nn

[1r]n

1pD34N 1'K;3

mnpni' p ,3 3nltw t^n^1pInlinin

fl]=D3

-in'111DS

-wri wv1'1 nn? tvWi n'n inn^w v:4^n

1i4N

nmiD^[] bs wFlKm?npws DN : w*mn1 1o trin ImN5^mS3nl3 V4intt 5VwIwl o ? nnlrI jIV-w 41-,4w rSY

unz:

^13 P^3D '3 gnS<

1 14N nm1

P1; 13N1yn1

44,WN

41 This NS here is only to fill up the line. About this difference between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naftali see in particular Ginsburg, Introd. to Massoretico-Critic.edit. of Bible, 250 ff. The first reading '1*0W4 is reported in the name of Moses b. Mohah 'cp. Pinskcer, 42

Likkifte, Appendices, 98). 43 . = t3-% =;r.

4*

THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIANGEONIM-MANN

Inw nwn ~,I pt6

rwnT,61in wn1

IOD vtw^I 1u W1 tvE KNi 1n3i3 ninm 1 ip4n[pnmn]rmnpiv^n '-iCDi1amim31pn 45 pnp i

--

N[1],n in p tp nlnmS nnvTnnv rN [er'i] rn Qalo niul

^nDI1D &dpn

3

ai[:inww n[li]^ n ,^

2i0: arni

40Dn^ n^W[ n ^]n

D^T

D [W]

rYN 8t

na[lDn]

pa mlSlm NCpD nD

Here the MS. breaks off. 45

^ 4: 6
Ned. 37 b.

20

471

The Dragons of Autism: Autism As a Source of Wisdom

Read more

A History of the English Bible as Literature (2000) (A History of the Bible as Literature)

Read more

Lipids as a source of flavor

Read more

Perceptions of Jewish history

Read more

Jewish Messianism and the History of Philosophy

Read more

The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud

Read more

A dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic periods

Read more

The Babylonian theory of the planets

Read more

The Source of Magic

Read more

The Source of Magic

Read more

A History of Mediaeval Jewish Philosophy

Read more

The Source of Magic

Read more

The Source Of Magic

Read more

The Source of Magic

Read more

The Source of Magic

Read more

The Source of Magic

Read more

Babylonian Life and History

Read more

The Source of Magic

Read more

The Source of Magic

Read more

The Source of Magic

Read more

The Source of Magic

Read more

A History of Medieval Jewish Philosophy

Read more

The Source of Magic

Read more

The Source of Magic

Read more

The Source of Magic

Read more

The Source of Magic

Read more

The Source Of Magic

Read more

The Source of Magic

Read more

The Source of Magic

Read more

The Source of Magic

Read more

Recommend Documents

The Dragons of Autism: Autism As a Source of Wisdom

The Dragons of Autism of related interest Snapshots of Autism A Family Album Jennifer Overton ISBN 1 84310 723 6 I’m...

A History of the English Bible as Literature (2000) (A History of the Bible as Literature)

This page intentionally left blank A H IS TO RY OF TH E ENGL I SH BIBLE A S L I T E R AT U R E Revised and condensed...

Lipids as a source of flavor

Lipids as a Source of Flavor In Lipids as a Source of Flavor; Supran, M.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Socie...

Perceptions of Jewish history

Jewish Messianism and the History of Philosophy

Jewish Messianism and the History of Philosophy Jewish Messianism and the History of Philosophy contests the ancient op...

The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud

The Culture of The Babylonian Talmud Also by the Author Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition, and Culture ...

A dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic periods

The Babylonian theory of the planets

...

The Source of Magic

The Source of Magic