Skip to main content

Full text of "Addenda to 'The Responsa of the Babylonian Geonim as a Source of Jewish History' ("JQR.", N. S., Vols. VII-X)"

See other formats


STOP 



Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 
purposes. 

Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early- 
journal-content . 



JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 
contact support@jstor.org. 



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 con- 
siderable 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 (Jahrbucher, II, 146, note), who writes that he 
could not have hailed from this town since it was only 
founded later on by al-Mansur. Therefore Sherira (in his 
Letter) defines the locality as ' from the Bridge ' (NnTnin JD) 
or 'from the outer Bridge' (N"n K"vnin |o), 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 (hntq^k, see 
above, VII, 477). See also Houtsma's Encyclopedia of 
Islam, I, 564, col. 1, s. v. Baghdad, 'The 'Arab authors are 
also quite explicit that al-Mansur's foundation must not be 

433 



434 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW 

considered as an entirely new settlement of a hitherto 
uninhabited district. They mention a whole list of pre- 
Muhammedan places which had gradually arisen in the 
area filled by the 'Abbasid capital. The most important 
of these was Bagdad, 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-'Atikah in Bagdad. Thus we 
read in the account of the inner organization of the schools 
(in Neub. II, 78, 11. 4-5) ny jrvnt? nawi 'two roprv dn myi 

'131 vbtt yspnrb p^ntf men 5>3M npTiy pN3 nta B*n. 
As 733 stands here for Bagdad (see also above, VII, 466), 
there is little doubt that by np»ny px 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.e., 80, 11. 3-4), 
m nvn? np»ny pN3 yw 1333 "ran (^31 p vvb) 17 wan -nai 
ik3b> ny M*iy n^iorsi Q'-w onow vn 733 nine -iyc7 lya.-tKoi 
1? wan -ie>n -rann ?s. 

A highly interesting responsum by Hai 1 (preserved in 
e>"t?, I, 63-4; shortened in JVUDri, a*r, 61 b) tells us about 
the residence of the Pumbedita Geonim in Bagdad, urn "idni 
«!DiD3i jvwa s"3nv3 mny no -idi? dmtud 13 Dn3n3 new "xn 
■p-o fiDi»3 n?k mny mo ;w -ionc mny 3*1 -ice> Dmsc m 
Nin 13 oney 3-1 -idkc no np'yn 13 yn n"-i3 mypn *idike> 
-101? (r. N11D3) NniD3 x?i ajmrua vb jnu i-pn n? jot iniN3i 
rn nt *m nn^y Mr»p ima maa ?ax . . . spina n?k mny -nD 
mn3 pn nw in 3*1 no ;a pto «kh 3*1 101 jvwa na DneiK 
»d r6nn sim Darooo nyDnb ha» rrn xi> ini3iwi> mip nm D'oc 

1 His Arabic name was Abu Bishr, as is evident from a letter in Jewish 
Arabic (T.-S. 10 J 25 1 ) wherein the writer mentions that he sent an epistle to 



THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM — MANN 435 



impb> mmrn mruo rvvyh onqy bibi Tuaa trwan p pec 

D3TIUN JrUDQ DW 5>N DDK tJN nKTD IpnC Dfl DJ 11533 Vint*. 

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 
middle of the night (/. c, 79, 1. 25 f, nma rvni N rb'b iW ly 

ncjn vbx jwrre> ly d'Sjmb i rb'bn lmx nna nea bi2 ^ii»o bs 
nWn 'xro DIM Win NVDl ipso S>y. But the Arabic text, 
JQR., XVII, 755, 1. 19, has no reference to the locality). 
Probably Yehudah Gaon, Sherira's grandfather, meant 
Bagdad when instructing the Jews of Khurasan to follow 
l>3miD (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. 42a) 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 ('Nl 'n rWD, see Steinschneider, Jiid. 
Zeitschrift, II, 301-4, 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 REJ., LV, 49-51, see above, VII, 481) ru^eri 'nan DJi 
ibn TTJ5 ba m \:rbx id Nrn •a ny bx, D'Tato (i. e. Hai's) 



436 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW 

noi>nn v:sb diu wn •o rnnm a!> 5r non twn 2 *]dn 3-1 no vta 

'131 1D13D D11M. 

As a resident of Bagdad Hai mentions in his responsa 
local customs. See t?"c, I, 89, \rb» WDJ3 T133 pe>iy "ilmaHi 
!>nib« aruo pi nisiD; II, 73-4, pnyni> uyruo px «Kn 31 idni 
(r. TM33) nj33 non nx pi3ipt? B* si's ioipo3 i3po non nx 
i3ioi> uiyen dib i3y i>s niKDiB noa lniN dwxio for into 
u"n nipoi> Dipoo rwttn nioxy npnyn p«6i . . . fiD't?^ "poDii 
nione'3 B"ysi ... 73 mcyi' t6v nt» nos Dnoix oyprn ;o pyoitr 

1310 i>N luxe 1 n<a i>K ma[oJ nrvu riN D'niw mien ne>x 
'131 1313 j'N HD'K 'Nil jiwvT. (There is no doubt that 
113KB' "H'B is a corruption for Peroz-Shabur = Nehardea, 
as already Bamberger, pi' pnv, note 735, remarks.) Burial 
at Nehardea must have been regarded as a great honour. 
Probably in B»V, I, 23, Ws irni3UD i>33l i>333 "KH 31 1DX1 
row iTinn ioin t6x nyu mi nnoix p« roeo m\ii> 3N3 'b 
'131 niJ-p, a Bagdad custom is meant. Both R. Semah and 
R. 'Amram maintain that neither Dytt w nor Tins nxr 'JNl 
in JT'vi' N31 be said, but Hai quotes the Bagdad custom of 
omitting the first only. See also 'Ittur, II, 45 c, top, 
Tiype> t6t 3"v 3iy nruoa y"v mnrw aroo px iok -sn ''an 
mure i>333. 

Nehardea, as the district including Pumbedita, is some- 
times mentioned where we should expect the latter. See 
Gr., V 4 , 444, note 1, and o"j, no. 44 (cited above, VII, 4<57). 3 

2 He is probably identical with p!3»B> 3D pDS 13 *)DN 101, mentioned 
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. 421. 

3 See also lioy (ed. Venice, 1608, fol. 102 d, top) b]l 711110 TIUIBTOI 

3"Dpnn rwa <k-ii3d pan (wpma) wpmo (r. run) ivjh nS>ya 

MV1301SO JISO M31 (r. 101) ID W31 D11DB' pao!? (651 c. e. = ) nilDC^ 
NrlJ3 1DN1 Nlil l^KI yj (r. KUDO) N'TDO JltU Mil 31 1D1 N3 101 



THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM — MANN 437 

In Khalaf b. Sarjado's lampoon against Sa'adya (Harkavy, 
Stud. u. Mitteil., V, 230) we read, |3K "itoa ton ~\y(?p rbnn 
a-n iv6yai fnw nye> i>t< nyio^n mam ntwtM (or wto) wtu 
nj» s|n anpn 'ana oy nnvan nnn nnw D'bok iitn -\pzbn 
"f? tOXDD 1K^»3 Kjmn:. 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. na'BTt "IJ?E> 
I take to mean the Sura school, whither reports of Sa'adya's 
doings reached. By KjnTO njtf apparently the disciples of 
the Pumbedita school, situated then in Bagdad, are meant. 
Likewise Shemarya b. Elhanan was 'vmns mit? trtO under 
Sherira (above, VIII, 352). Perhaps the responsum from 
Bagdad (above, IX, 145-6) emanates from Sa'adya during 
his stay there. Its tendency to combat Karaism 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 18, 
and 73, note 4) speaks of a school with Geonim in Bagdad 
apart from those of Sura and Pumbedita. In the Intro- 
duction, 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 
xnapn pnay v6 dtyid noa»a ^>a« . rwpj newn torn <mi wto 
vh nbsa anan wo nnainao nt?sn ^ vnon tons wo*pi xraprb 
t6n i«di . byin niVD -int6 tnn a«" -ina n^> p^ni nro jj'pao 
pai tyrnnri sna^no fa ttfiaiba ton ba ni> anan ^soa nt?sn 

(r. KTID1) tOllDn Nna'n?^ . 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 nTTlD (see also above, X, 122). About the date 651 c.e. 
see also Graetz, v 4 , 401. 



438 THE JEWISH 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, 471. Jews from Khurasan visited the Khazar 
dominion. See the fragment published by Schechter 
{JQR., N. S., Ill, 206, 11. 36-8) pi Tua ;o mai> DHiirn km 
\ian 3N nn33 iprnm ptsn \«k no lpnnm jv pxoi jdto. 

VII, 480 ; VIII, 350. Elhanan b. Shemarya received 
from Hai a pamphlet explaining the difficult words in 
'Aboda zarah (see Steinschneider, If. B., IV, 107; Jild. 
Zeitschr., I, 313, note 20). 

VII, 484-5. The whole community of Fez seems to 
have been deported to Ashlr. This we learn from the 
correct text of MS. Parma (given by Lewin, Jahrb. d.jud.- 
liter. Gesellsch., VII, 254) D'pnyicn dnb bnp iWe» mW *bx 
'131 trow U3HK ye^o. The responsum was written by Hai 
and thus begins, W> NrUTiD 85>n Kins? n3 N33T WH "Wi 
ItWDtMH TB>K DX33 JirV3niDn ni3«il W131 JWH^D^ni KM3n 

'i3i 'Tro nTD i^po ond dns ronee. Accordingly, •axts is 
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 1298 Sel.=987 c. E. Probably Samuel b. Hofni's 
letter to Fez (see above, VII, 485, note 31) refers to the 

4 Hai in his famous responsum about mysticism and • practical Kabbalah ' 
(in CJpt DJ?t5 , 56, top), after referring to the amulets which the Sura Gaon, 
Moses Hakkohen, 832-43, was reported to have made frequent use of, writes 

rv3i ^33 runck onnp nn 13 D3ii hx onsn ivi k-iid row^i 

DEt5 D'pim 13K1 "1XH313J. Here Babylon is not Bagdad but the old 
Babylon in which neighbourhood Sura was (see also Graetz, v«, 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, 
par rmn -nyc \o pn rra nnxa laaa "nh^ n'ra^Di). A clear 
proof that the Ab of the school is identical with its 
X33T sn (see above, X, 339, and also Mann, /. 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 a 1 (paper, 
square hand, size lof 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, nE>D ma W3 
(see Steinschneider's mien m», no. 18, in t by pap, I) is 
repeated four times. But in the scribbling the beginning 
of a pamphlet of responsa has been preserved. It reads, 
D-iDB» 2py to 'M mnan ioi on-ox no iW new i^k mW 
bran Y'^ao rbvbw ru'E* nye>» wisbn dnd runo -aan d-w- 
naa ''an rraan wans -non apjr pxa na-E" cwi N-ine> want^p 
bv Yu as "kh wi*ikS>b> bnan Y'aoi ''an mi.T wanx 
'iai utnpi to '"an K-me> uwk mon apy p,tu na'K" 
naion jam xn DnWr x (there follows the usual formula) 
my» i>e> nam nciy nap "b rwsb nani> nip» (B. b. ioo b ). This 
heading is repeated on the same page in the scribbling in 
a somewhat shortened form. 

5 Against Eppenstein in Graetz, v*, 134, note 5. 



44° THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW 

A highly interesting letter from R. Hai to these brothers 
in Fez, dated Adar 36th (1)315 Sel. = 1004 c. E., is pre- 
served 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 

na-iai> -or Birun tuni no wa omaN warn no 

in d-w tnw mrun raa-ii 
myD'i tnya 

Qirun in the second column is a slip for apy as is evident 
from recto. Besides the Hebrew address there is one in 

Arabic wherein the word J»Ua .ill is still visible. The 

epistle was probably sent in the first instance to Fustat for 
transmission to Fez (cp. above, VIII, 355 fif.). 

(recto) 

rbvbv town wi tnne> p rbvbw Town w[tn «»n] 

.1333^ "WWDI .13CB3 H'TI [«nn] WDI .ifJ^J? HOno] (1. 1) 

Qiaicnn D'jrpNn nnnxn D<oann mron wni noi DmaN mm no 

wa[-ii] (3) no Ma D^UDn Duiann an»aj[n] . . . (2) 

1KB* ... (4) ... abvn aariN y\y abw nwy na-iai> nat apy 
i^> dhioi b^e> UN wnta 'cma 'a rnwi '•can ba joi woo mta 
^y . . . Koaxpa n&N i>NON u^rjy nono n> Noa^N wasna (5) 
nam nyo . . . 1 ^n (6) no p ^n ftney -ie a«oi>N 'ax »t 

?t6ni nypio ypn bvn i^n [■ajNna »b nasa mbttt? S'btc 

uwy tono axna bn<n (7) -on^n mWiw "'B nta 

(8) nsJN np ruN m!» nail nry ni^N bnin bji^k ?ib5»k 'ax 

•on hndi kA -iaii ibi rrbft bin noi NnaNia oorbtn- 

■jin jxai na-iai> pnx nar |inNe> p (9) t\\bx apy anno spv 
nruNaN no n?a wo . . . yNsaiw atwofo dvS>k brio nan» [aNna] 
»b [na-ia]i» nat n^y nnsDi [n^y] nbbx (10) '•in n>i>y jtni?N |o 
. . . inonT 1 b^ew* niw n^y nyNO^N naai yoj^N <bi [naTie$>N] 
There follow five more lines, very faded. On line 14 we 



THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM — MANN 441 

read 31D^ f"D]r »|DV i p f|li>a -i NrnBJtt nion pj>3D. The 
epistle is continued on verso where nine lines are given. 
On 1. 8 there is mentioned rh 03 D3E> ^n p D^n i» p noh? 'io. 
It concludes (1. 9) an yc 11 fw iw -nx3 is nan* aac^en. 

R. 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 Abu'l Faraj Alluf 
(no doubt identical with the Alluf (= Resh Kallah) Abu'l 
Faraj Joseph b. Jacob b. 'Aukal of Fustat. 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 Shahun 6 of Kairowan to whom Sherira 
sent his well-known Letter. 7 This report caused the Gaon 

• R. Hai spells the name pnKC? and not pi"IKE>. About the meaning of 
the latter see Rappoport, B , D3 '~\ niT>in, 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., fXl^p »EMN, no. 26). To these T.-S. 8 G 7 3 (two paper 
leaves, damaged, size 7 X5J inches) should be added. On fol. 1, recto, top, 
the passage of Ta'anit 12 a, from \by hyp n5?C rPJJjn ^3 i>81CE> nDX till 
WW T\ii laniM bean, is given as ND"1\1 (text). Then we have the 
explanation (RCYVB) for which the following responsum, dated 991 c e.. is 
quoted: 13WB> 3^> 3T 3K "KH 1331 133V |1M Nine 133"6 nau5>[n] 

ii rrn 3T m wba nWao . ae> rue 'jkitp D'dj -ia apy -iD[i>] 
13 xiDj . Ni3Di tnca yxn -idr;; cn ini no" dx -in »ana ppdb> 

-"131 1311TIB -J31 UBTB -IK>N3 WD. ("6x3 is explained as prayer, as also 
adopted by R. Hananel and Rashi a. 1. The latter also mentions another 
explanation which, however, his master did not accept, pEO 'HDSn WK 
miD UT ptfl . . . ins.) The responsum is continued till 1. 9 of fol. 1, 
verso. 

On 1. 10 if. another responsum is given. a'BTlB' ?f |1K3 "XH 1J3~I^ 

b ^ki[db> dn] iny3D3 mnnn ibdh jo vnpny[n] fxnv 'K'jx^ 

'131 DV 11JDD fbv [n]?3*p t6t? rwy[n]. There follows the whole 

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 



442 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW 

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 
1003 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 1030 c. E. at Fustat (Bodl. 3805*). 

Another responsum of R. Hai to Fez is mentioned in 
T.-S. 20. 91, dealing with the Talmudic law of inheritance, 
wherein we read ms ps£ bi pso tnnt? u:nt6 rmtwi WXD1 
. . . nn'o -iriN/i [Dvn]ro aro t6"\ d"jj& vdsj anas? (r. sna) nxa 
bi "xn wjTix npDsi nbv Dnm ^f Kins' ujhk ntrva mien Km 
-idkb> b wvdi DNS bnp ^ib nTDTion jj-.n inha ncyoa mro 
'i3i 'JNp ab ravo "in^i dvhd ra nna n^h n:riD J>3. 

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. 2624 17 , 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. 13 F a 1 (described above, p. 439) is also his copy. Very likely Bodl. 
2878", containing Geonic Responsa, are also in Joseph's hand, because we 
have a similar superscription as above, 132*1 1331 |lty KTHt? 13"07 

nnTiijj3D3 Dinnn nacn jd rmpnyn . jwyp "■:£ «wj> hb 5r [«Nn]. 



THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM — MANN 443 

VII, 483-5. Of other North-African communities who 
had relations with Sherira and Hai are known Kabes, 
Tahort, and Sejelmessa. T.-S. 10 G 5 5 contains the tops 
of two leaves, brownish paper. On fol. 1, recto, the 
following can be read in large handwriting : | S3Dm d[e>3] 
o[2xp •'ja] I nypi mnn ru[n» "33] | mebn iW "ik>x bx [nbxv] 
inn tvs> I . . . [n]D-inD (verso) . . . wish [ixai] | n»v omn 
xb I . . . min [ibd] rb)x !?i "sn waii>i | in kthb> waii* niait5>n 
npna wm nnins «h toidd | vb\ nipDD n^i pan kS 115? ^k> 

| pijwn jo nns na pae xbx nivai | [ijionn. Verso 

evidently contained an index (fihrist) of the responsa. The 
pamphlet dealt at the beginning with a scroll of the Law. 
Fol. 2, recto, reads Dn[s] 1K"ipl WIXI [apy] }1KJ na^K" £>tn N-me> 
'13 13 , 3Bi', the usual formula. The beginning of this heading 
of a new pamphlet is not preserved. WIDE rr^ rVN jaisi s 
rpsnsD^ iTn^i xnpTn xnsrb pyot? rr6 ^?ni -iaeai onj?a pyoc ^5? 
'131 J31K"I7. Verso evidently is the conclusion of the 
pamphlet, robn ■'[pid]^ | ma ^>jj nan [d]^ Dsnx nar Vi 
I v ^zb Tia ^31 1 |na -icxjn ;ni«D | laenni v hidI? wini ruipna 
-pj'a nita a*ii. 

A responsum of Hai to Kabes is mentioned in c"e>, 1, 1 14. 
His responsum to Sejelmessa concerning the consumption 
of dead locusts is also cited by Samuel b. Jacob ibn Jama' 
in his treatise on Shehita (Steinschn., Jild. Zeitsckr., I, 313, 
note 18 ; see Arab. Liter., § 155). 

VII, 487. About Natronai's connexions with Lucena 
see also 'Amrams Siddur, 1 a, aw 13 niaia nsn bx mDi 
ruND'i'N ^np vJ? toonc xrxn xnaTio en ^n Y'a 'tuntM an 
yrj? 11NO spv H» ^JJ- Probably the following responsa by 
this Gaon were also sent to Lucena. c"b>, II, 20, an yvn pi 
j«e nnenn jcte> nnWK> Data cena ^aca ujwk-6 '•Namtsa 
'i3i ;dij enni> ; II, 44, ^Dr6 dn "njiidj an idS wwtn iW 

H h 2 



444 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW 

'131 im. Ibn Gayyat, as the Rabbi of Lucena, mentions 
the local correspondents of Natronai as ' our early (scholars) '. 
About Lucena see also Harkavy, B>3Ur< DJ Win, VII, 25 
.(in Hebrew Gr., IV). See further, j>"")D, I, 43 a TTEH NH1 
K»0SDK3 n py$> J1NJ Wnt3J 31. 

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 (Jiid. 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 D'rtbs "1133 (printed in Constantinople, 
1585, cited in H.B., XIX, 4a) (!)"3^ »:iav (!) ]»)-\?bx nwa pi 
nvbv nr\b b*i ,pN3 131D3 amn^ nna de> b» d'D' <jb> i^no 
WBDn njntai »avn pn!» N3 nw Dno nnx wn "D3i trinao 
db> 3B«i W3i> N3 1331 nnx mi? by bvi mm mDn «|id du ijddi 
(r. dto ^3?3) dtd p"m e)^x 103 one -10x1 inm di* dv^c ids 

fltMD t33B-'D d5>131 ."inX N'EO DiT^jrl 3Hp3. 

VIII, 340. On the variant names Sadok and Isaac for 
the same Gaon, see also Zunz, Ritus, 185. 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. Kafhai, 935) is syled in 
D"nDD iDlp^ (ed. Amsterdam, 9*) as Isaac Semah, liw 
'131 NJTH3C1B Kin 3p]P JIM (r. ri3*B») rO'B" CK~I nDV pnV' 3T »OpD. 
Also an Exilarch Hezekiah in 1055 c. E., perhaps the 
successor of Hai, is mentioned as nb)i e>x"i irprn pnv 3n "id 
(see R&J., LXVIII, 42, note 1). If it be not a mere 
coincidence, why just the name Isaac ? 

A re-examination of T.-S. 12. 856 revealed the fact that 
the correspondent of Nahshon Gaon b. Sadok was called 



THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM — MANN 445 

y>2V (1. i, read [3»]ae> (tm!)). He was a prominent scholar in 
Kairowan. Nahshon's son, Hai(Gaonof Sura, 889-96 C.E.), 
evidently also corresponded with this scholar. T.-S. 13. 77 
contains a very damaged vellum fragment, brown, square 
writing, forming a portion of a Gaonic responsum. 
(evidently end of question) UWiN ffiD^ . . . (r., 1. 5) 
jiw vb& ^ttn an no awrw niicn[n] omsm (6) [jd i3x]-in p 
1N131 pa [anW]&» n nWa (7) [nanai? amp] -or rFono 
. . . [D]na , -isa' wnii .jnn ^1 . . . (v., 1. ,5) 'iai :wn 
. . . irono pxj w^ "xn mo ij^nsba* irn nai&na ... (6) 

. . . B» NJ3"I1 3PV K331 |3 3 , 3E> N331 PISH !>[j>] ... (7) 

. . . 3»3E> 31 it n3[ie>]ra onsn ... (8) The 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. 10 G 3 contains twelve leaves of Gaonic Responsa, 
eight of which apparently emanate from 'Amram Gaon. 
Fol. 5, recto, ends Nnt&KB' pSx pbo. Fol. 5, verso, begins 
j^inm spu "hi na vP rw naum pnxn (kdnW=) 'W ain. 
Thus these questions arrived at the school on Hanukah 
(1)170 Sel. = 858 C.E., when the chapters epo (Yoma IV) 
and fvinn (Yeb. IV) were expounded. 8 The first responsum 
after the above superscription begins BTPp bw Dia tyrbamn 
'iai nb IN V"int6 nana Jiyta. It is the same responsum as 
found in b"i, no. 56, with the important heading showing 

8 After 1?3 understand D'OS. Well known is the expression D'JD H?3Dn 
na^na Kpt? mina (Abot 3 U ). Of course there is also an interpretation of 
the Torah na,TD. A similar heading we have in Geon. II, 326, 1. 11 ff. 

(B. k., ch. ix) ;na tb sai n"iay ?mn ws na b6p nia» mta jjons 
warn nna -vtra '3-6 n^dhd siron Knavio &>to ww na Diny 

'131 fjDV. 



446 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW 

that it was addressed to Barcelona. But the text in our 
manuscript is more correct. Also the next responsum (fol. 6*) 
begins p |W Blp03 nsn by bisrb no i>'NW1 (wherein the 
opinion of R. Sadok is quoted), while the one following 
(fol. 6 b ) is the same as ^"a no. 57. There follow other 
responsa not contained in b"i , whereas b"i no. 58 is not found 
in our manuscript which breaks off (fol. 8 b ) with pn b'ttwn 
310 BV3 itjpiw D'aJjn D , ^n in an^ty 'twin 310 ova nww. 
It is evident that the collector of b"i left out several 
responsa contained in this pamphlet. b"l, no. 58, is probably- 
taken from the missing part. 9 

8 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. 1, r., 1. 17, concludes a responsum. We then have the 
same heading as in ?"i no. 56, but without the words WlOa B'Ylfl 
tUl^na ! It reads |)31 fof> DPID NJ1DT itfWlO Cn WW 13 BID]? 

[euoi^jBMJ'osb omnNi anaaa onp* b*cw wm -inb>i B'To^ni nam 
wi joi saaT m*h nov i -icoi uoo aita )byp tyb b~iv\ nan 11 
aipoa friB> 'dvd »33|oi h^hj b m:D aipoa jnc? auiaon a oiii boi £a 

(evidently to be deleted) 0311 B^TO^m 'Wfl B^Oan INE'DI DJBp 'TlJD 

a«om p^paoi naoibt? p^Nic un Daoitaa p-po[no a]ha ru'cap 
D31TV3 »m aa^y pvi tot B'3-in vorna 03^5? nip BriTS? QS^y 
3iN3»i ^m i>aoi nuy-iis boi nnsi niy-i bo oansri B3-ioe»i 
roi>wi . V3si> oaxnip nys B3nt5>pai Ba»m!?Ne>e b oai? jm 

p JT3 3N Uyab MW3 IMsi* BJ11N INipi WIV WJS^O tS)b[KV'p 

jm rise no i>y unejn ana ujianm an'o^m B'oam [b^Jni 

B^OCD UWTH "731. Here follow (fol.i , r.and v.) the first two responsa as 
in T.-S. 10 G 3. There is a gap between fols. 1 and 2. Fol. 2 a contains 
a responsum on ntwn T>J |01B> (see Tur l'v § 65) DUB^ B» !>N[Wl] 

awip ba~0 > 13 uruBOi np^y i>a nup£> px uob6 rnwn tj pa 
unci yn pan mosn xn 'We>i . nan i>ai» ntwn t:d inset? wk 

"131 JWlpT ('A. z. 33 b). This responsum ends fol. 2, middle, whereupon we 
have the conclusion of the pamphlet B3DN1 Wlltf rOPB> pii »3B^O J1V1 »iT 

n3^>n 1313 5>boj n^i irviM6 nox pi pnh nnet6 na!>n N<vini> 
neM>i mo^ lami ro»a nyci nosn nyoi mm *w pii B3$> nnsn 

» To be deleted. b = mfUD, 



THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM — MANN 447 

Between fols. 8 and 9 there is a gap, but the handwriting 
is similar. Fol. 9, recto, begins [sODno] snoT pmTiD (1) 
ma duid d'csidi mvo i>sn [nojam (2) min by* aw K33-ii> 
pan S»a 5>jn pa-n n^y "•in"'^ xw jd mi kcW (3) Hpy* smn 
inTiaa 13de> pwn a^nani 'S>o oyipi> K>nan 'bw JNvrp-i (4) 
^b Mi iJUt nwat V3K *m [vn>i>. This is the same re- 
sponsum as given in T.-S. 12. 856 ; only in T.-S. 10 G 3 
the superscription is shortened. It is clear that in the 
latter manuscript after 'Amram's responsa there followed 
a pamphlet of such, emanating from his successor in the 
Sura Gaonate, Nahshon b. Sadok. 

Kairowan had very close connexions with both Babylonian 
academies (see above, VII, 482). It is therefore only natural 
that R. aw b. Jacob should have corresponded with the 

BTva 5>»ne* nixisj pa»pa oaya ma"6 larm naroi nitrj&i tidb& 
3n3 miyai ruipna nnrwa moB^i nuicrui nraa anpn "vy 
jdk awp3 nTin ninD3na nwn ninct?. 

Thereupon a new pamphlet of responsa begins : P6t"ltJ'' , ?a!3 nS' fD'D 

mw trsn iTnno imhn S>e> na^n iye6 uyai> ins 1 ' ita m^str 
5>k> nDan 3iy3 py emrn vjs!? jwm m imhk lion apy pw 
Decani D'aii>N noB3E> nnxi> d^e> yanxi D'jOBn nsoi s^x rut? 
iris nDan ^ ixw -iro6i irva5 b*n ct6k>3 [ljrjata Dnvabrn 
3inat5> no »sbi nm luunni onix mxi wjb^ 1x31 D'Dann ^y u-ue>i 

na^H (so in manuscript) ^lam SmiD ^71 113N "ION' rb HKT3 }fl3 
pD'MDt? DlpD pi>ar6t5> mUJJD (Men. 35 a, top) }»Oipn3 TDD nBtti> 

'iai din »de> rv3 nrp w noa pratbn ^iv . pi^erw njnsn 13 

(Kelim n 1 , Menah. 31 a, top). This heading is of interest 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 recognized. This was 
the case aftei the death of Menahem Gaon, Mattitya's rival. It thus 
establishes the reading 1171 Sel. (859 c. e.) as the year of Menahem's 
demise (see Sherira's letter, p. 38, bottom DWD 31 IDT W£J rUI 
NJ!p r)3C3, where a variant has iiyp, 864 c. E.). 



448 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW 

contemporary Pumbedita Gaon, Semah b. Paltoi (873 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 Graetz-Jubelschrift, p. 17; Buber, by 
some of his emendations, still adds to the confusion of the 
text) nra nro wkm a-io xriNWi nron xnbo xin (s. v. Dxax) 
wiNi-inx ixe^i ixwpb w^n id -n jru -\zh tvb (r. mw) 
(^3^=) xnb u xb um "V]ha no njin »a (bxiB»n=) 10 e>h 
xrow (r. xrrji) xnm k^h dnsn nxpo xjjns ti^ni no w 

ana (xm3Dis=) ens (r. pxa) tinj 12,| id^s 210 p nox 3-101 

DN3N1 . . . njvdp xnWn (xmrra) armaria "a'at? nota ni>wa 
n«i^n '*s n'ro ewo mm. 

To prove that DNax means a ' loan ', Samuel b. Jacob 
quotes from the writings of the ' heads ' (of the schools), viz. 
Natronai wrote to Nathan b. Haninah of 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) u we 
paid our debts and the academy was pleased'. Also Semah 
b. Paltoi in the pamphlet of questions coming from R. a'at? 
uses the expression DNax in 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. 8-11. 
Verso, 11. 5-6, mentions another Massorite (Jer. 39. 3) DHD a"i 
np nm (a»na=) na in xax an na mru i (nox=) son. 
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 E*T. 

12 Cod. Cambr. 'ID^S 310, an obvious corruption. 
' 3 Cod. Cambr. 3»3B> ID^tT ni!)KB>a. 

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 Massoiah of R. Nahman (b. Isaac) see 
also Le win, Tahkemoni, 1 1 ( 1 9 1 1 ), 24 ff. Graetz {Monatsschr., 
1 87 1, 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, 19 13). 

VIII, 0,$$, top. An extensive volume of responsa by 
Hai is mentioned in T.-S. 8 G J s , recto, 11. 1% ff. U3HN 3r)3 
micro ^run (r. -J-D3) Tiaa wto ya mWa S>? ptu ««n 
i^x pnaa dtidb-j toddd s^m mWn paob d^bti x[\-ii] nfotyn 
na [cnic ne>y] njn-ita nsvtME> j>x pm votr an 15 nDaa Dnan 
nm pB>?3 ?ta TO. 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*J, no. 178, p^x njin^W 
nb>ntiq 'a piroen pam nym 'am no p spv Kja-n no men 
'131 D'DJ 3T na x^>3 CXI 3pjr 31 noi . In the anonymous 
Halakic compendium (printed in JQR., IX, 681 ff.) we also 
read (p. 706, 1. 8) d'dj wyibw tmon rvab Si kj "xn m anwn 
nnan fe£a Si. Cp. also Pozn., /.<:., 104. 

VIII, 358. Joseph b. Jacob b. 'Aukal is also mentioned 
in a fragment of an epistle (T.-S. 10 G 5 8 , brownish paper, 
both top and bottom torn) which evidently emanates from 
a Babylonian Gaon. either Hai or Samuel b. Hofni. 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.). aw nnjn (recto, 11. 9 ff.) 
nrn nain wn nv inon nx vnrb 13S bx ~\]h vc spSts uSvu 

15 Pes. 70 a. 



45° THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW 

5>npa in«np» (perhaps r [jkit]p) . . . p ta pann us ib>k mjxm 

[i>]M UTirux ti[>] r£e> ncx rutptna ncy ^ ana -i^Nai 

. lEt'jj" 1 r6x D3 'ai nwa icy: rowana ^ new p niaipo 

e»a-n no bw [urm]i uab enroi mono n[-i:iN uj'ja^ nsa mm 
mMiri in[not}»i w]np irrw biy p *pi>K apv' toa-n no p epv 
UN ns>K nifii nmoana ny^> tv epta wean 'a nana^> vas L~id]t vn 

BUS NltM Vn^N l»tJ> li-| D3 S)l^« nptX3 13 »S111 [iJniNli' B'OpD. 
This Alluf evidently acted in his community as a repre- 
sentative 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 D'tOJl of the school are also mentioned 
by Sam. b. Hofni in his responsum to Fez (above, p. 438), }»i 
''tan pan, and by 'Amram (?"}, no. $6). See also Graetz v 4 , 
456, note 3, and Epstein, Der Gaonaische Kommentar zur 
Ordnung Tohoroth, 1 915, 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 WICK are also mentioned in a Gaonic 
document (published by Aptow., JQR., N. S., IV, 25, 
II, 1. 3) WiBtfi ,- iBD pan byn. The function of these scholars 
probably consisted of teaching and expounding the Gemara 
to more advanced students of the school. 

IX, 159, 1. 5. nam is a synonym for Torah, cp. Ps. 119. 96, 
Job 11. 9, and Erubin 21 a. Likewise we read in the 
Ahima'as Chronicle (ed. Neub., Med. Jew. Chron., II, 113, 
1. 3 from bottom) namn H'oirn . nwn t5>tn By buido. Cp. 
also Kaufmann, Mschr., XL, 544, note 1. 



THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM — MANN 451 

IX, 160-1. I have re-examined the original of the 
document dated 1034 C.E. (JQR., XVI, 576; cp. Fraenkel's 
remarks, ibid., XVII, 384-6). The included deed from 
Kairowan, dated 103a C. E., ends as follows: 

(verso, 1. 4) 

ru?o a neb® in ^n s|[J»a] hbtd "U b^n -irrc^N 
naiin ^wn mi pr6n mint? ovp rnatn rrnrv in 

Swjn p DiTUN iT313 13 D'D3 
Thus the witnesses were Hillel b. Moses, Khalaf Hallevi b. 
Solomon, and Moses b. Yehuda (the latter is not enumerated 
in Poza, JNWp 'E'3X ; no. 16 is to be rectified accordingly). 
The testatum (DVP) 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 well- 
known Kairowan scholar Joseph b. Berakhya (see above, 
VII, 358, note 59 ; no. 20 in jnwp 'tWN is to be rectified 
accordingly). 

The end of the document, drawn up in Fustat in 1034 c.E., 
is as follows : 

nrvseb not? w -nan so n av unsnarl (1. ia) 
e»n 3 biin -onn 6n to 

Dm3N p ;t6nD mine- n-vv^ wii 
[e>]jn men ^bun rin -non b>k-i 

•nnn onsN i3 nnj© 
n^so p Dm3N -itj&k p new nn-ox p pw 
nn»D 13 pa jn^v 
Accordingly Sahlan's father, Abraham, held the titles 
rnits»n Trn vfixn n3nn -non twi, while Sahlan himself was 
styled JWtwn men tfbttn ~i3nn mDn Btn. Indeed, in a 
marriage document (T.-S. 20. 6), drawn up in Fustat, Elul 
1348 Sel. = 1037 C. E., both father and son bear the above 



45 2 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW 

titles. Sahlan is called in addition mwi ;jd, a title also 
held by Joseph b. Rerakhya in Kairowan (above, VIII, 363). 
Sa'adya b. Ephraim was Sahlan's uncle and also bore 
the title Alluf, as is shown elsewhere. 16 JN^X Hakkohen 
b. Sa'adya is mentioned in a document dated Kislev 1355 
Sel. = 1043 c. E. at Fustat (nnvo, Bodleian 2876 41 ). Now 
that we know Abraham b. Sahlan's titles, my suggestion 
(above, VII, 478, note 22) is fully confirmed that he was 
a correspondent of Hai Gaon. 17 (All the signatories of the 
deed of 1034 lived in Fustat and not in Kairowan, and 
should therefore have no place in Poznaiiski's jNVVp Win.) 

IX, 161, bottom. MS. Adler 4012 contains the end of 
Megillat Bustanai in Jewish Arabic with the following 
colophon : 

.1K3K JD TlbpJ KO» \V*3 \T\3 11 n» ^JSTl 

tj>n btwnn noi>y[o] p [$i] owipn nuwi 
rw\avk :rV f\btt ruo nvna iw iiif pan <a 

It seems that Nathan Gaon incorporated in his book what 
' his teacher's son, Hushiel Resh be-Rabbanan ', reported to 

16 See my work, /. c, vol. I, p. 99. 

17 In that letter (T.-S. 16. 318) the correspondents mention a previous 
epistle of theirs to the Gaon apologizing for the delay in sending the due 
contributions ('fifths' = D'Etoin, see above, VIII, 347, 1. 3) from the 
(Babylonian) congregation for the upkeep of the school. The bearer of that 
letter was 'Attat Hallevi b. fob. 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. 15 fl., continuing the Hebrew, "bft tOaSTD p3D np 

wrinjw w aiu na i& ""bn sjndj? 'no t >by iyb tc imiw msn 

rkhti KflKDH HD^K NJ3 DNem DNMK^K ban "V"m TJKD |J? 

tup[i]tp sonaii njn toi mua ntaaa mnro d"ub> |o pnu xoai 
d»3b> vhw avn n^N nh^jn nnnxn am nm ^n wyfjorn). 



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 ioia Sel. = iooi C. E. Who 
this Nathan Gaon was is not clear (see Pozn., Babylonische 
Geonim, 109, for the latest discussion). Dr. Marmorstein's 
statement (mwi niTDn E>Tto, 1917, p. 76) that Nathan 
Gaon was Hushiel's son, and brother of Hananel, needs no 
refutation. 

IX, 167. T.-S. 10 G 5 4 , contains a quire of six paper 
leaves of which the tops are torn. Fol. 3, recto, 1. 8 from 
below, reads as follows : (kidj=) M |D j nbvtbtt rcbrbtt TDsn 
-or =) 3^ pt twin 3-in | apjp T3 d<m i:m | Nitidb rap trx-n 
nhy I nioy abxiw ^xksnS'k nnxD^x js? 5>p: no 3Dn | (nana!? trnp 
hran mn !>(iwn mil mo bn | -iiv nt? -ie>k px "pivo nitn 
. . . (fol. 3, verso) | )33ii vnoi vnuen w Tif 1 TO mv ij' 1 | pnaion 

v-iirai .nTiDi 1 i-iv ^sja pjn- | . . . . 1 . | .nan lot? | . . . 

pm ii 6 KrrvDBn *b ni?ND I . nn j*v l^jn . nry nw 
nix ln-w I ^-it?" 1 pxa piB>n nns^ ny 1!? a-ann np^n | nxn 
lmin ai>noi ,ipe» npnn poi .ipn | d^i .ipix jwa inaorvi 
. ipnc ii> 3'ik I i>ai ippin* n«n nsDai . ipse" ta nsiS | . lp'r 
nivo3i minai . ipis* hxt? to | Nini . ipn ljta is? wan* k^i 
jn a>:& nwn nya-ix | in rrrp no p . ip^n rue | .tti . iprrp 
'131 i:tii3t bap '^i3i D'aW> | rat? cxn p"j inxa. 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 pre- 
served). 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 



454 THE JEWISH 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, 163). 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., 1911, 737, 741-2) 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, 17a 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. 365, apparently in North-African cursive writing, 
damaged, right-hand top corner missing) contains some 
details of interest. It is addressed to (verso) rblll Tiaa^ 
, . . nann nnotr aviD na . . . ncmp. I doubt whether the 
well-known Ephraim b. Shemarya of Fustat is meant as his 
father is never styled Haber. On recto (1. <S ff.) we read 
hn nana jtoi n|>n»!>N] dnt "t>d ana -pawi p nfylai -dsji . . . 
■vn&m %i]2ias> x'c? fo:an '1 rnvna T[na]^ sjd ny»n?xi 
rb yoss rb anp "orb j/o?' 1 naii jto n-ini nay rb . KD3 . . . jn 

-\ibx "a -isKD rbm nay jn ib-ijj a\-bti p ruDta in? h^ki Taa y»a 

17a See especially my work, /. c, vol. I, pp. 50 if. 



THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM — MANN 455 

? ? 

i?nb menus nya> «n rb vpT aS pv!> rr£j> in5 ns3 ^n in- 
Tnata Dar6x aaonxs m^nota dni n^ y[o]afo mbx naxa "in 
ta aaoa nvoa iobn no ^y 'sa noi nu nn^y n^i m^x yoai 
lfotn ^t? naaia iDax xaw 'aa jani>N i an» nnnew nta amx 
pc6a rnvp Tna nnsa ;naicn awai> rpiai navn p niW w 
Nine p rnnrn K'ni "xn 'aa^o ^rran p n'ao unaai ^svee" 

jvM>k nnt? na^n tftn. 

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 in- 
teresting 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 |V^"iD (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. 1, recto, concludes 
a pamphlet of fourteen Gaonic responsa of which nos. 
12 (end)-i4 are preserved. No. 13 reads anaa DIN \n ini 



456 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW 

wo .(Sanh. 22a) y]nb \rb nana wons? ;va i^ min mw: nr 
nwb' anan nwi yrni> p:itw b»i j»jr6 unoi> no wtc . fjnb 

BHipn [pB>b B»in]lBD B'BDa B»NXV ftHJIl BTTDn [HU iJ'BOJ? 
[n]w nil nr ana |rpi>s!B\ There follow our Alphabet and 
beneath each letter the Samaritan script. (Cp. also if a, 
no. 358, and R. Hananel to Sanh. a. I.) 

On fol. 1, verso, 1. 9 ff. we read iriN W It N[n^KB>] 
.n[a]i> mar btvwn imhn [p] ^Njjn whn 'jb!>d onvo ['oajo 
jnu 's . cost, id ^iaa naB»i 1! .-6[nb>] rmeri iyi> tv wan uin^ 
DNj n^N t ^n mw!>N »a ^Np .(^Njm=) yn n^x ^xp no 
ni^N bvsbtt »a (Deut. ch. 23) Nvn 13 nana 'a (qn^d^n n^j?=) 
[D arras r6y n^ pi (i>tn&"=) is" .io^ao^ r6v jo rra r w o 
'iai r6oa nnn^Nao tw n^> jo btodi no [not nya nno^ao ni>y». 
There is a gap between fols. 1 and 2. The latter is in 
Aramaic and deals with the question of 31JIJW DT 
(Zeb. 77 b ). 

X, 129, note 192. 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 20). 18 The corresponding lines in MS. Adler 4009, 
fol. 2, verso, 11. 19-23. read as follows: '•ypi [f]pr »a maa jm 
'ina pa rnibyo -pjnh maoa na'|_Pjn it nrffvi ,8a i j'-n bditv 
no N^cBDNa nirvo i w>p torn 3au i>a -ins nana pa (mina=) 
twin DNp^n^ 01c imp Dich . ps6 pna v6it!> piY 1 n$>b> 
nnn iix yea n\i raB>i> rma-n ".eoyoiennitap. Ibn Abitur 

18 This letter is now printed in R£j., LXX, 101-4 ; see my correction, 
ibid., LXXI, 1 10-12. It is fully discussed in my work, /. c, vol. I, 67 ff. 

I8a = UWitt*. 

19 Either = 'grievous' (BUJK) or man (tJ'lJN), '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 pro- 
nounced 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) 
nsao ^30 (viz. the Karaites) atnJl . . . «|DV /_ i tPtwn pmroc "ly 
cmr6 nvn vbw ^ao orb jrw pp inx nvaroo pn n*$*de>p 
nrn jon niCBJ W D'on put?. 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. 
Adret (Diana NS»3 t&5> T rUTia malaria) is cited on this 
question whether the help of the non-Jewish court may be 
invoked in case the defendant flouts the decision of the 
Bet-Din. 

X, 144 ff. From the formula of a deed of sale for slaves 
in Hai's Kitab al-Shetarot (in Wertheimer's nbwv va, 
III, 3a) we learn the respective nationality of the slaves 
in Jewish households (no doubt in Arabic countries), either 
Indian, Slav, Byzantine, Lybian or ntUJT (?). pro rrb man 
"b jvtn ntast is nxsb it* nwon in ntwyaa in nt«vun tnay. 

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. 26432 s 
contains a responsum of Sherira which deserves to be cited 

20 Cp. also Maimonides, Mishnah Comment., Hullin 1. 2, miDDC 5H1 

}w rrfan pn nt lrjoic tfo-io a-a-i anm nbapa utvoko lTTa 
CDiip^BKn bas nrvo way nave 5»oero t6t< nr p« nwsa "oh 1a 
nx itdb* xbc na nisnnab fnis pmn arwiisn an ^aa D'pnsni 
nann trews ncyoi? nabn nro t<r naai ruioNn natn btots" 
}bia anyon nirita. 

VOL. XL I i 



458 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW 

here. Fol. 145 a has the following superscription ni>D»iw 
n . . . . rrbx, and on the margin we have the letter a indi- 
cating that it formed the second one in the pamphlet. It 
begins bik ya noJ? pin v6y vm pac w-10^ «n pitcn nWtn 
tsjno ~nn x^n man «^i na f>j? ;noi nnosw one B^sram i'sac* 
'i3i B"i:6e> -inh "3 !>xk D^Kyotw [;o injx i^n p^aa sini. 
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. DW (read 3Vie>, no doubt 
identical with the Kairowan scholar dealt with above, 
pp. 445 f). He writes (fol. 145, v., 1. 14), nW D31BTI \b man 
(r. &T) iter |iw toe»e> na B-ioy an -10 \>a$>e ai> at aac an We> 
toiao rrnm ^i pyae> nn 'p^a mn pisi W (fol. T46, r.) pi 
;ma nim prwB hpervb into ^ataa k^k ypnpa pae» xh aud 
^ypnpa punan fva ^pe> •oti man ;a (r. nnop) nnacn anpi 
nd^h is b*pv mjn jndi wipoa ^b^bd ini» nn ^b^bb i^axi 
'ayb ^b$>bb3 na^p ^ax ^pe*oi> ^b^bbi ypnpa B'anan "xn 
xnta wii NnxaTiB prnn hcnt p:e> ia pi jnw nnaicn in 
^iai> una unai ^b^bbd new namai main ^ja "1206 pnnna 
"laymo (fol. 146, v.) "on pxn xh mkh bi mdudk parn ttxky 
^b^bb p ntw namai main ^jn "iajN$> ^-itj» b urm rFnan ;d 
^bS>bb3 nanp ^ax amxa mi "^pnpaa ^o^aa \rh nn sncm 
•NnsaTiB pmn irpm unjpn tons toa-ii> n^ njpob> t6 «to^ 
|b i^axi ntu .-mat? onpn bi 'jrpnpra ^b^bbt tuan jn^ 
parn mra (r. prp'n) pJ'P'in t& »3tui w (w =) ini i^aa 
naj naac no naai anpt? nniNB am i>ya naSi. 

As this change of the Talmudic law took place in 
787 c. E. (above, X, 310, note 223), R. 'Amram's responsum 
was written in 870 C.E. (eighty-three years afterwards). The 
Sura Gaon decided that movable property is fully alike 



THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM — MANN 459 

to immovable property as regards priority of the claims 
(nonp). Now the questioner cites a responsum of Sherira 
to the Magreb opposing this view. He writes it nbtft? pjybi 

anyon ijab (wcm nnoi=) 'm j'd wrtx nianas? nawn utreo 
mini xnjpn Wins* pic ■ovn (fol. 147, v., I.14) 'iai nanin nti 
Kb 'ndx (fol. 148, r.) mbaa tnnnx btr p rvae> mm w nnbiTa 
tnuy 11 id (icxm =) cxm .lnaityna nr nan uwk Tain 
naum ub vr> naa mat? no nnai Dnpe> nrriND ain b$n nabn in 
am byaa (i.e. Sherira's father) IWik UN bf psa man 31 n»0 
aw ir rrWa tcno p'jra 'iai naa xb naat? no naai nnpt? -ihikd 
WDia inaitrn. 

Interesting is the beginning of Sherira's reply : baa Kaa^S? 
(fol. 148, v.) vna» *p"va pnb rvx jinbia -)b ie>pn ^enpi nanan »kd 
Nanbo 'aipixbn -i^> nanD'n xbi m»v an in ?o kbhj? xabni 
sni rr-riKib |mn Dnoy an no >a nojjd ]anatw is n^n toanoxp 
jinn xab nnan'K nai '"iiod pnn xab rvx toin xanaxn *jntd naa 
•jb itppn "tnpi ip'sd ^brico xnbvoa nawa nai wnn nodb 
a^ban jxa btne» baa xa^bi wn nctc»p nnay an nnaxn xnapnn 
n^n Nnsinns baa na »ana xp nv baa B>&yo sntrn ns?i na 
pan xnapn cjid syiDb rvtaxa nan nanasn Nnbo snna kw sb wo 
xa^b (fol. 149, r.) wnnx Dinoi 'ypnpaa 'babaob paxwb x-n 
'131 xnapna. 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. 

X, 327, note 248. However, Harkavy points out (DHin'n 
D'lxbDn nae'l, 31, note 93) that it is not likely that Jews 
from one district spoke all these languages. He therefore 
suggests to read for rraxnKnbx, n'ONasnbx, Rabbanste Jews ! 

X, 324, note 257. This Gaonic responsum is evidently 
referred to by Alfasi (cited in trjn can in one* nan, ed. 

I i 2 



460 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW 

Venice, 1622, no. 63, fbl. 14a, top) (i.e. t|*n) b\ ann ana iiy 
^ nw itd xinn ^ mtr n^ -icxi xana nnan n^ -wn xym 
nan wmn una pam jninnsa a^no n^> n>i>iTJ warn 123 
'lai wiynoo mtr pam kvi xnta tun:m «n 'sa f? N»«pi. See 
also Ibn Daud's remark (Drnax idn). 

X, 340. Cp. also 'Anan in his Book of Precepts (ed. 
Harkavy, 116, no. 51), who conforms here with the general 
custom in the Rabbanite communities, navr i>an ~[b Dm NP 
i^d !>a twi^p ii"D h 1 ^ wn rra f^jnp ^tncn Kara »dj wki 
x'Tiai .niako bunz* p ps-a sh oti "a ttbap pna n H x t6n 
'lai oypn 'n 'a 'so D^prn ^>n a>nan Ton ind tun ■'tob uw. 

X, 344. The shaving of the head as a punishment was 
also practised in Egypt in the Arab period. See Graffin- 
Nau, Patrologia Orientate, X, 546, ' Ya'kub 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 (= Fustat) 
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 Migash, no. 122 (in the question), 
iniDn Iran lniN ww nniN sew Dipcn nna win um- 
About the passage in Sanh. 9 s , see further Aptowitzer, 
Mschr., 1908, 194-7 ; 1912, p. 321, note to p. 28. 

X, 345 f¥l As regards the oaths imposed by the Bet- 
Din, it will be of interest to cite the following passage from 
T.-S. 8 F 3 6 , consisting of two leaves, the first of which 
contains an Arabic glossary of Talmudic words. There is 
a gap between fols. 1 and 2. The latter begins as follows : 
ma urm nnna kdn3 ibide>i nitnn man!> xh mx[o] muni' 
xnctyo t6i \h*. snonnsi NnTis^ r\h nnrn wispm i>ai cm* jtod 



THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM — MANN 461 

ora 2I 'ro nt Nncnnxi .Ttran nDipj[D] , . . 1 pni wo-ino nS>i 
-a W> NniBn ivn wn tape nS i>a Ninn mnno laiNi 2t< ?h 

DJTPD D1C3 N3^1 D»U3 1T6 inDD {?T»0^> iT^H p i>JJ3 n^ mm 23 E» 

.mnoi wn ^ap" 1 24 i&i n^j? inc^ Nn^m n^ jvk n3-i n-uni 
us inn by t6 rrb tunDN nin jnnpn nin u msvw E i>p 
unison de>3 wmnew 25 inx pyaco unjn ^v n^n "jnN pyusyo 

"ON^y JO WD fKD bl 27 B>' VIN N3V " BE>3 n'nN "ICN n\!N31 "3 

,oi>ijj3e> nn^ b i^jj notoi mimi e» 'iiN3 pbn ^ tm t6 p^N 
nianyo 'pin canan 3tw e" sis niN3¥ « "ns mion njroc it 
r6«B>i 28 T'">n « '33« ^aiyni pjjn lira td ins K"^ ionc b» 

IDS? "01E>1 iTnN 29 N nMN 'JN lOJf 1311 nJD.l -)in» ^>N Tn3 ne>D^ 

intwi D'3 -iwe>i nixo ri hind (verso) e>b> i^> iiwi ijno S^nd 
e>sn[i niTnj?] naisi nvb jnm ni33^> npin nTo jvdd Nino 
Q'-pi ti « Nini nioi^n p3Di nipioy n^joi n«»v mysDi nnriDJ 

The first paragraph is the end of the document known 
as Nn'ns and NnoiriK (both combined, see above, X, 349). 
It is similar to the one published by Aptowitzer (JQR.^ 
N. S., IV, 27, top), having, however, the addition that 
in case the person excommunicated does not comply 
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, 143). The last two 
paragraphs contain the introductory formulae of the lenient 
and the stringent oaths. They evidently date from the 
time when oaths were still administered (above, X, 345). 

In conclusion, some addenda of hitherto unpublished 

21 =N3TD. 22 = , Jlbs- 23 = isNlK". 

24 The dots beneath and above N seem to indicate that it should be 
deleted. Hence read p^pvl ' in order that he should accept '. 

25 ?lp would be more correct. 

26 Cp. Yoma 18 b and 19 b, top. 

27 = J3N1E" 'ni)N niN3V. 28 = jrifjN. 29 = nsw. 



462 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW 

Gaonic responsa (apart from those cited before) are given. 
So far no responsum of the Gaon Kimoi b. Ahai (of Pum- 
bedita, 898 C. E.) was known. In the important Halakic 
compendium {JQR., IX, 681 ff.) responsa of R. Kimoi 
are mentioned twice (pp. 684, 1. 2 ff, 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 1). T.-S. 10 G 5 1 , 
contains four leaves, brownish paper and ink, torn and 
damaged. Fol. 4 b, 1. 6 from below, reads WHO sp?' . . . 
(evidently end of question which begins on fol. 3, verso), 
'mi 'jnoT son rv:£ 'ravon *.iKb tuonp npsj nt an^w 
'nan ^K[n] p dni pro t\h (uanw men =) ns on pro wp 
ithci pjwi pinti snons iy»cn 'ewn iw i^xn NT xn^wa, 
131 prrity. As similar introductory phrase of a responsum 
we find in d'icj, no. 76, and J**e>, 48 a, no. 24. In both cases 
the question ends with Wio t\b\ while the answer begins 
tn xnWa (Danana) Tnana sin a"x (see Muller, Einleitung, 
pp. 14, note to fv, no. 24, and 170, 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. 10 G5 2 , verso; recto blank) begins 
NnaviD e>ki mm* xmi xnon nd^nb' nyirao nmcn 6m oca, 
so^ca icy D'ahr^ D'ainr pvdb6 jnj pun worn 63. 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"j, no. 371, where Sherira and Hai write Wix dji 
.naina nti ncsa twunn jw5>n nnaicn anai>. T.-S. 8 G 6 2 , 
contains a pamphlet of Gaonic responsa in Jewish Arabic 
(six leaves). Fol. 3 a begins .W» "VKO uyflN yai> l^N n6w 
ujns p rW>e> na'cn b*o "xn i>tne* *u ni'ij; nix .irm -u 



THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM — MANN 463 

ra^n S>n lyw nj?a wru« onm nh^tr n3'B»n cm mini uanx 



non ncto ^nvdb* pc^a jn3it?n 3W my w?t?3 itnpi voai> iN-m 
uun uno^ cot? psi3 ya<y »bai iin'N ^3 mama. There 
follow the questions and responsa in Jewish Arabic. 

On the other hand, scholarly correspondents of the 
Geonim endeavoured to write in Aramaic. Thus in n"j, 
no. 325 (from Kabes to Hai, dated 1016 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 
the case (see p. 311, pa6a ptan uwn vsb nxtn rbttwn i:jxn 
pin "6y30 nMP 103 rV3-|j>). Bodl. 2851 21 (fols. 45-9, im- 
portant for the wording of the Talmud text ; several 
passages translated into Arabic) concludes (fol. 49 b, l.io ff.), 
'dj wrat? f[K p3~n Nsxnjoa n'ons pe6a toonp jo pnWn maS 
mui^i "web pan' fzrb #nw Jon p pamavn nwoi> mtpb 
nvr Da^i ui> inna^i tobk S>j> im i3T yroh ^do ncoi> na^na 
no^i mm -i[n]ai> ui>a nam btrni n;iani nym mini noan 
Nnx^NC p^jn xnavn wnai 3np3 30 nn:a pnx mio 'bd na^n 
fL-'Jac »joni pysrni jnsoi xsbx [t\]wi p[»: nj-va. 

pfn [an ye>]\ This responsum, written in 987 C.E., no 
doubt emanates from Sherira." 1 

So far no son of Hai is known at all. But Bodl. 368a 1 

so i. e. ' of Israel ' (cp. Ps. 80. 16, -JJ'D' HJJDi nJ31). 

31 For similar endings of responsa pamphlets by Sherira and Hai see 
n"3, nos. 36, 47, 67, 208, 219, 264, 314, 328, 344, 369, 418, 442. In this 
connexion it is of interest to cite responsa by a certain scholar, Sa'adya 
b. Yehuda (probably of Egypt), who apologizes lor 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 T.-S. 8 G 7 c , consisting of four paper leaves, large square 
hand, of the eleventh or twelfth centuries. Fol. 1, recto, begins "iniT3 

bv Ton i>Nitpn rnin' na myo Tainx mo .(Dan. 12. 3) 131 yp-in 
"3ij3 -jnans »a ws yn .;ox wto™ mpcn -jbnp diVi -pita 



464 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW 

contains a treatise by R. Hai (fols. 1-2), then (fol. 3 a, in 
different handwriting) a responsum about the second day 
of the Festivals (W B"v, cp. b"i, no. 1), 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), bi pr6x ii> 3KD3 "na ^ £f xxw n^i. It was 
in reply to Elhanan's question about this very problem of 
DUltD ana 11 lae*. The responsum ends on fol. 6 b, followed by 
another decision W W ""3ah a!> 5r hian nn epv 133^ roieri 

'»3 caiax an inu ni33i>n uras amaa a'aias? •■a bv isi npm 
13ins t^ a^yan 12T\2 yarn .(Prov. 27. 19) ji a^aa^ a'aan anas '3c 
nyi S>nn» iniK wipi -jNunca (r. naiaxn) naiavnn nnnsnsi 13 'nncen 
(r. mcon) intwn iwnba (i. e. hastened) Tfoin «i)i vrap aai Ian 
tiwi enip |it?i>3 [ijnW anrnb tpxii mrna vnrDi mar ep!> 
TnijKtf nniETi nam rimy jiE>i>3 ^ 3n3 i3na3. 

The responsa touch upon several topics. The following details are ex- 
cerpted here: 3lb nii>KE> JTiaiBTI H3JJ |KS nnS 11 n3 nt?yD KDK1 (1, verso) 
. . . pB"6N 133 [KDK1] (2, verso) ; . . . O Bn3D ninNI nftDD nini FpTVD 
}K Ni»K NH'S W^J>a Nln isKpB Orb* lb |D B3n ^31 >B D^NDI 

nxiy ^kdd naia son -jn aba w Kn"a nay sin Dinsnbi) Knnwi kd 
yawa Kixa Noitapi Ka^-ia ;y ntaai an3D rnnto nh^dw i>tciDB> ii> 'i> 
smDN 'a ibxD nonn pan noni . . . xn3Nij ybx 3naa Krrfjy 

kdd^n ""a tntain ixnx nnnn pan btfpa pmbb> pb. 

A new set of responsa begins on fol. 3, recto : W^nT) 711313 

.eispi^s 13 yiTn s|dv i3 prop i ^y 3inxn . . . t|ptu aibeM . . . n 
net?n aym ltaiyon ■'bv roon 73113 sat? 'nxi) ynrb pnaa toto 
nan vuitrrn yvnb tpxii ttiiVne'3 13 nn3n3B» r.e i>y Tunyi 
ptrSo ;n (r. viuie>ri) -narn na.11 nxi 11 ab kdb> tiidk tmpn ptrin 
•any. 

Concerning a certain question our scholar writes : an3D l* 1 iTa n?ND1 
KX'K Kin ^HC3 ib 1311 'Dll^K. F ° L 4, verso, ends, 1? nJ13 miK fNl 

D'»3n^ ive* jk n^pan^Ni niano ns^n nyo niDao ntaine' nnbn 
Dna'ariK ybx Dnaia in nnyD *b n^ jki. 



THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM — MANN 465 

idmjbo p 3 P PtPini mw p^y "jna n\*i "ww anew uk 8*310 
'131 pt6 (cp. V"*, p. 5 a, 1. 11, from below). Most likely l*3i> 
is a scribal error for 1*3"6 ! 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 7 2 consists of two paper leaves, of which the first seven 
lines of fol. 1, recto, conclude a responsum dealing with the question of the 
number of days between Passover and Pentecost ("11V35? y3t5>). From 
1. 8 ff. we read, E»DS "JOSI "HBP t71Sl it5» 331 **D1» 3*in **ai>a rb&) 

N*vin pitn . . . "jjrr sta tik Dion xbw iiv nsan vbw n* prnn 

li* E"B* BT!31 IVn . . . V3K D2> ^>J) 31D3 n'.-ii pi na Ma^ "lOt? 
nt pitn ;j?di nnotr p*ni> an rw Mat n'm ansa at*BDa3 }t*33 
ma3n3 -nin \J? cna*i (2, r., 1. 23) . , . pi rya *:ai> jet n*e> leoy 
nin d^5?3 lis -dk> nap* i>t* wki rntrvi insni . rain lruai n3mn 
3in3E> ncs Nin p dk ns win ***ai* nt*v* it nW :tan ahs&i 

. . . 1^13 pjJKI ^31 tUH '3 'Dpi? tOOK' P"Bt* pitm n3. 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, /. c, I, 
pp. 67 ff.). 

The well-known responsum by R. Hai (7"", no. 1, referred to 
above) really formed the thirty-first of a pamphlet. This we learn from 
T.-S. 8 G 7 7 , consisting of four paper leaves. On fol. 4, verso, we read 

sm n:a xb bx rbvnbx (Erub. 6 1 ) "-pirn ay mn **n ;a **xn ii* 

(as is b"i) '131 TYtbl bv 0<31*3 B*a* ">X? lOrVtn. 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. 4 a, middle, we read : in |1tU nHJffi 1*'3"1 S|X11 

nhx *i*a 3ii""»* .ina*n.-6 iSbd ijjnB* ma :0*6ip3=) ip3 *j^i pin 
0*1*2 itn inav* "b net* mt^aja n*n*n p*it« *ivp .man *3 by 

inonni ia'3ni. This responsum, concluding with (fol. 4, verso) 1103'' "1 
1*1731 i"ia3n '"WC ~\b, is probably Gaonic. A couplet from a liturgy by 
Sa'adya on Purim is cited. 



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 (D'DVn 'd, 
pp. 277-8 ; b"i, nos. 92-3; n"e>, no. 84, seems to have been 
copied from DTiyn 'D). 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"j, no. 210 ; see DTiyn '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 im- 
portance 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 W nmn being men- 
tioned already in Masek. Soferim 13.6. A question 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 (n"j, 

no 248, cp. also DTiyn '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 

~OWi being spelt with a double pE>, and with the larger 

question why the letter pe» should so frequently do the 

function of "]DD (namely B> = D). He quotes Ben Asher 

and Ben Naphtali (to my knowledge for the first time in 

his responsa), and also niTm nnDn pis (known to us as 

Midrash IJaserot Wiserot), the text of which had different 

versions. 

(Fol. 4, verso, 1. 7.) 

Qrkxwm ia 

Dunn r6yoo minn nrnnb w r6yo no 

Dinn hm neb) mb jjtm &< m awajn 10 

^1 ia b» o p-iow ^atra nx D'ainan 

na psi udj> "iddn rtao nunn n:n ppn 

Dsi a'ainan nnn <d Tiyi • j*pi> p-or 

wr ypn pnar-ia tw Tain j'pn ^aeo 

nam min be> dutti -njn ,- isb" -ix^m 15 

ninm -)i6 dn -iscn J>y nwan rvaa Mowb 

us px ni>nn -)t& dn Kin nam 33 minn 

main i>y mirta? Dunr6 n^yo b*b> a ,, inT' 

n^yon ;o b*b> no na n^n awaj i>e> 

n-nrbw amni jsu Dwaai i>y new mir6 20 

.tot 1 i 'ox 3 * na mox nn awaa i>e>i 

.-run ^tr D«in xas na rv»n i kotpki 

33 From the answer (fol. 6, r., 1. a ff.) it appears that Hai was also 
asked about the Targum to be recited together with the Haftarah. Hence 
read here mOBilD DUTTrt or D , t? , a37t5' DUini which comes to the same. 

34 Meg. 3 a. 



468 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW 

(fol. 5, recto) 

Wire "ii nry^N "i 'bd now nan Di^aiN 

■>a» n»N bwrv p \rw awxbw Diann 

^n-ib" px nytjnn 'as^ci nnar -an 

nDna nitw win ^jj nons niND panx 

nno n^at? nr Nin <e nnDNi i>ip na nnsn 5 

ncNi vhn b Swiy p jn:v noy dts "aa^ 

niaab n^i ms yab inns w^at? kvi •>:« 

na nnias^ n^n wbt> N3N n'a niasi) t& 

Diann rnbab cpu tans^a nipbno un" 1 n^c 

-pn ii> mow hp na nNvi noma hw 10 

Dianni p^poi • mB>D pp ina n^n oitsno 

an ds xm • no« nan di^pjin nmn ^ 

ixnpn an dn ^>saan an dn pax n3 np'n 

nr cniBD n-\pa nr 35 Dv6xn min nsD3 

•onDn nrni ninac fa'pisoi Diann 15 

nnDN n^o main t£n nmcfii] new 

nnDN n^aoa pp icn pp^ par ia px iaoy 

Kin i\*wna non^ N3'n sc in T3nj> '•wd 

D^na in onw n^a in nonsi* saw 

ncN id oa^ p ,, JD-[Daji'SNB' Diann *njn 20 

Diann n^a «i> ^ntiv p fnav nae <a 

(verso) 

nW Da^sN <imn nr pa -\p*y i>a D'aman 
iNa tw n^n my n^>i moving Diann 



nr d'oipd D'oia noa nnDN Diann baa 



nicmoi nann nisom ia e» nnx nr» 



raaa *b no^> onncN new ia pn nnto ,5 
nde» "nNK'a nxBom ppn pnar 13 e»b» no 

35 Neh. 8. 8. »» - 'S. S7 Read 1NCV 



THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM — MANN 469 

nu-inn jd abs nb:bv btp na lnyjot? ^o^x 

na H' ^jjc jvai ja rrcnjj rrn numa ^>e> 

nain n^ya ircS xc^ vb ;»x j?:dj i>ip 

*:ai mx ya^t? [Djnjpna D^jnr own ^ to 

no xta Dn^> aio npx D^sm" 1 wx mx 

<3D D3 '•a jnoix ^1 own jd cyTvc 

mnn iw;ijj ja ;rov j?dc 'ax^Di rmar yn 

on^xwi traina^ na 

i>y nDjan rvaa Dnr6 sin nam 15 

\xti [m]Dsnn by\ rrnnn nsDa xnipn 

mc^D nw nabn xvi "o rfcnn xm nivo 

joninn <pn u , tue>d[3] wts niyi owajn 

ntyjjo cuino x/i xnpj pitn hk'vd S8 j:m 

(fol. 6, recto) 

xh xnpj "wn DJ-inDi x-ipj ppx-in i>jy 

nia^va Dwajta mnn '•pin pi onno 

rins 1 " «{> mina xmpn 39 pm * rntjann x\ie> 

plDSD -1)T DJinoi' Xnp 11 X^l PP1DS rtB^CD 

na 13 ;«a n^y jj'-idxi nt^t? x'3:i3i inx 5 

dt6n •i 1 " nox na <a ornao: wn « idx 

ns ^ no nnjji 'n:ie>xn3 [»o]p it onvo 

mina pho pxi toaja paho ;:ni "•'i' 1 d[x:] 

P'ds' xi«5> na 15; x^aja ah" 1 noa ijn 

dtiW ■new • [|ea-n]non 10 na 
pjic ijca nsw 3n3» dsjd no 
pxiipc e* mix px-iip d^s ■oe> <a isn 

38 Meg. 25 a. 39 Meg. 23 b, bottom, 24 a, top. 

*° Isa. 52. 3-5. 



47° THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW 

;wipK> r>i * tod "into )»b> inx -ofe^* 
*:b> iniN ppje nbtn i3^>a tod -oferj* 
Ta tod rnina bmb' nx ppj[db> e«] -D'am 15 

N^N pE&3 pNVIO PKC »B ^N [«|tflj "OW? 

HPJcc [e>]i nnjPDi ^nsj |[a] nri nnx 

nnn popn icdi [t]dd mina pts>N-in by 

41 -th iniN HpiD i[»n] ltaa T^cni] ptMnn 

;a ntrjJD Kin nn noota [xt>i ni>j)]obo x^> 20 

[3najn p no^> most? no p:j£i 42 "inyDi nc'N 

(verso) 

nnots> pw nat? pu nnx nix p-iipi niN 
nuwnn matron e» * pa nwai -icyo 



ru»Ni ni-pm rmDn pis riNipjty njco 
na en NTi ruico x^n inn nD: no^iDo 
memon ;niNi nam EnirEa nam memo ? 



c«tr orm pnoix UN new p nrun paa 

"oe> panw [v]n xnpoa i^x '3 p^jj tiod^ 

[t]od3 pNipii pea pa sw:i nncen pwi 

urw p«npi nmnaa i^k nn pnow wvi 

miD[o^] ox en topzb e* dn •o e>-iTnb to 

pbw nai i^qn ania Kine> no bae> wap 

«->"ij«? t>j)b> nnoen pw -oe> an« wx 

una t6 »a jnu pea n^n pa xvvai 44 ink» 

41 This N? here is only to fill up the line. 

42 About this difference between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naftali see in 
particular Ginsburg, Introd. to Massoretico-Critic. edit, of Bible, 2500". The 
first reading "lafe'e^ is reported in the name of Moses b. Mohah 'cp. Pinsker, 
Likkfite, Appendices, 98). 



THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM — MANN 47 1 

w bwo pt? aba unvrb •bbn Dnm 
-\k>d wavh u e*i ft? Nin urna niniN* 15 
ipTi[yni n]rn }its6n naiD urw mpoa 
nnsiD NTpo 45 piw i dn x[i]n pi pi p airo^ 

DW CDS? p« [p«] HO DnSID llD'J? 

m[-i]ow n[i^o]n rbtt bs »a oxp 'an 
•o'dd nc[o^> n3^]n ^N-ic^b ono^i ona[iDn] 20 

DW D'0[C] p.K p.X fl33 D'lBID N~pO Dn 
Here the MS. breaks off. 

45 Ned. 37 b.