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.
