TEXTS AND STUDIES OF THE JEWISH THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF AMERICA, VOL. H
GEONICA
BY
LOUIS GINZBE.
The Library University of California, Los Angeles
GEONICA
II
OXFORD : HORACE HART PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY
TEXTS AND STUDIES OF THE JEWISH THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF AMERICA, VOL. II
GEONICA
BY
LOUIS GINZBERG
II GENIZAH STUDIES
NEW YORK THE JEWISH THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF AMERICA
1909
nrojn p
5V\
501,5"
HNO
1S>52857
CONTENTS
PAGE
GEONIC RESPONSA: FRAGMENTS I-XXXV1II ... i
APPENDIX : FRAGMENTS XXX1X-XLVII (Shefltot and
Halakot Gedolot) ....... 349
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS OF TITLES OF BOOKS . 402
INDEXES :
SUBJECT INDEX TO THE RESPONSA .... 404
GENERAL INDEX 411
ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS 419
GESTIZAH STUDIES
GEONIC RESPONSA
I.
FRAGMENT British Museum Ta, parchment, consists of a quire of two leaves, the middle pages of which are missing, and contains 19 lines on the first, 18 on the second, 20 on the third, and ai on the fourth page. It is written in a square Rabbinical hand of about the thirteenth century, and represents portions of a collection of Geonic Responsa. Although no name is mentioned in the Responsa there can be no doubt about their Geonic origin, as the first Responsum was known to Rabbi Nathan ben Jechiel, who made use of it in his *Aruk, s. v. "IYIK> l. The description of the bonfires on Purim among the Babylonian and Elamitic Jews2, as given in the 'Aruk, undoubtedly goes back to our Responsum1. But it does not seem that Rabbi Nathan had this Geonic Responsum before him. He probably took his explanation from Rabbenu Hananel or some other old commentator on Sanhedrin, 64, who had copied 'the Geonic Responsum. The Gaon describes the burning of Haman in effigy as follows : Four or five days before Purim the young men make an effigy of Haman, and hang it on the roof. On Purim itself they build a bonfire, into which they cast the effigy,
1 p'nniD or pbnw or pbraiD in the 'Aruk gives no sense, and is to be read ptow as in the fragment.
a See Hirschfeld, B. A. «/., VII, p. 174, Tschorni, rwDon 'D, pp. 191-2; and Safir, TED J2N, fol. 86 b.
* B
>»
2 GENIZAH STUDIES
while they stand around joking and singing, at the same time holding a ring above the fire and waving it from side to side through the fire.
The purpose of the ring is not stated by the Gaon, but it may be assumed that the effigy was suspended from it. The Aramaic word for this ring is Nmit?D, " the jumper," and the same word is used for " stirrup."
The second Responsum is also of " culturgeschichtlich " interest. It deals with the use of liE'DX, which was no longer known in the West, as shown in the explanations of Baba Mezia, 47 b, by Rabbenu Hananel and Rashi.
According to the Gaon, pr^DX, which the Talmud explains by pmon TfA jo'-on pn'jn niyo, is used thus: For a silver coin a man purchases the right to take ten baths ; and in token of having prepaid the price of admission, he receives ten copper pieces from the keeper of the bath-house. For each bath one of the copper pieces is given back to the keeper, and these checks are called pio^DX. The Gaon adds that so late as his own time the same system was in vogue among bakers and porters.
The third Responsum is an answer to the following question : One of two witnesses who had signed a bill of divorce declared that the divorce was not valid, because the husband was forced by the ruler of the place, pD^t?, to divorce his wife. In his answer the Gaon treats very exhaustively the legal maxim TJD1 inn WN 3H? Tins? JTCJ, showing when witnesses may modify statements made by them previously.
GEONIC EESPONSA
(Leaf i, recto.)
m epya BWI lira p-aijn
KIM
pus 103 niroict? o-n »J»3» wvp tnTa xnian 'ttfnwoa 'OK
8*i*o 7&*N pn'yso nnx >y nnx nirmo nini? Tn «»n M *]
pn
, L 9(?)rrnrn
pmp IONV spa 7wm0 jMXBpm n^b nw pnow pap DNI
BP PIBIK (?)r»nn VB^N inoeB* jon p*n IQNI "rnw "pruo nmsn -"D11 jn snis iuw nnn 13-ayN jnon 12^o pntDw nynns prwiffii !?y nnix p^ini jcrrs mw peny omrnn »a o^yi 10 mivn nx nainb p^ow B«^ mno 15pow nnian arai D^ B>«n n^na n^i^n nyat3 cni> ^i PT-DTCI (?) pprnw nnno omnan pnoyn nyapni Kniuw nsnpj nyntao nms mn w*n *nk t^sn nvo p»ipi nnsn 1^1 nx m mo ssnns? 01031 "«on3 nmx p^ne* nyson *oa pi 16jm WTBII Kmwo wn nr Nmit?» nxnpj nons ponpot? i^n moipon pnao na ymon n^ p^on 17pjvjn myo jnu j»nnon i'yni nnx pjoan ^ poasat? nvsys rn&y pmon n»3^ woo iupro »3 }»^D jnB> flgmn&& niyaoo m»y nrn i^ &yyy for
1 Sanhedrin, 64 b.
J The editions of the Talmud as well as the MSS. read 'Oi O»n. 3 The editions have- MJIID, but the MSS. have wvttJ, see Dikduke So/mm, ad loc. * -vy?) of the printed text is more correct.
* The copyist wrote N1T2 twice instead of NDM. 6 Read NmvDiM. 7 Read HJN. 8 The copyist left out m.
9 By some mistake the word mayn is put here instead of after Tn, line 5. 10 Sic ! " rroo. la Baba Batra, 96 b.
13 Read <DS« ; see Dikduke Safer im, ad loc.
14 Read amo or "?322 on the margin ; the copyist added taa which he had left out in the margin.
15 Read pew. 16 Baba Mezia, 47 b.
17 Only MS. Ham. reads forran, the editions and all the other MSS. have rrurrcn, w [n»a »
B a
4 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf i, verso.)
jtaia nr nanoa jn^ nxn DKI yrn-n pmob naaa niyaaon jnix po nn« jraoo 13 nnbni'1 p»innai> anao t?> tiyi n.3 reny po mwa oaaai pmoa prm-i «a >D nr ^yi p»D3 rvwaW myo npM lamai 'n&ton HN» w Dinnan i>ou nnx Dinmi? ^ N^D^ prai '-n 'ai n^«on ^n^ JD^D hn 3 'sew : i^a wn»ai p^o J^DW nyai nj?a W 2 n^aon pi viw no 5 ITBH ^»D i? nnn»a *vjw^ n^"y N!> 5cinaN xoan n» n^a payb nrn pe6n no $na pa t^ia pa n^xun ha IK
ina vtry at^i 6-i>y<'B> nvnx ia lana^ oipon wm Kin naa »NI NDSH nna nB^t^ D'iK> pvapat? •j^ye' »» anao »a nann
no n?nna »a nti^D mxn 121 p nitry p« ITT p» jaai> s iaa 10 nnai xax -i xa xoan nua atj»v Nin rrn bNitJ« pns^ NTSD an rbw n u^n NniB> nns nob Dasn ii> NI taao an lyoe' «oan n^a nna
ynu mna 12ons DB> sw yiTa ^ya IKVD wa^ sbni
T WTEW DIP D1K ^K> JCTa D33H^ ptf «]m p«B> TTO
lyotj'B' jva N^N oaan^ sax rn^ 'DK nw »amo N^ KIBD an pi N^ania poo i»vy NHB^ DSNI "bn^roci Kin "PDIDP ia
nnnn p^o ppninn n^ tnxn ns 15NsaND nrnn -ncy 'DIX 'oa p
1 The Arabic Ji»J.
* Berakot, 6a b ; Tamid, I ; cf. '-drufc, s. v. T»c, VI, 96-7, ed. Kohut.
8 Perhaps TON ? The editions have wron ny, some of the MSS. J«3 ny.; see Dikduke Soferim, ad loc.
6 Gen. xxxii. 4. 7 Gen. xxxvi. 8.
8 Editions : iro with n, but MS. Paris has also ire.
• See leaf a, recto, line 5.
10 Sic ! u Sic !
12 This agrees with the text of the Mishnah Tamid, I, I ; in the Qemara Berak., 62 b, iNso is repeated before nine .
13 Read picnc.
14 See MegiUah, 158 : brtnnrn VttD, and 'Aruk, I.e. 14 Bead H'aa.
GEONIC RESPONSA 5
(Leaf a, recto.)
nan b r6nn n n^ea D'ainan onain "ICIN vnyn ns UIDD »a icnm any <at? lanap nTD»ta nny DP e*n y n» onn DP p« D»K pxni px D^N n^i^a ^ m^ p n^ii D^PD DJ i?^ wu h . . . i» ^ m* cmnt? ^B i>y «IK njn n^"ijn» nr« nooa N^J D»ijn ea PJ^K ni> ana I^KB> can 5 nx UIDD *a way jnom nan ny ^jw ^a ^y CJNI nenv wn m»DD noiK jno nnxty jva m«DD nny n^ wna N!? ^ax m^ nsna^ «h nn^ya po^ nwin^ n^a^i nn^n n^oa nan ton »mo» n»«^ nan nw inana rptn rwn^ xh nb PK
vc>ay^ Di^aa j.TT'a n* cnn j»w nnM n^taa HTDO IDNB> 10 PKI nnx ny vbv yiwi nyn ««D3i npy!> IN i^nan^ «a sin Ta»ah t^Nn nenn* nprno nnenn* ns N*yini» v^y paoio $>yan »eni» nprro n^sn pary ^a oy onn niypnpn nvni> moo *a onyn »JB> lonrn iana . . . . aa DM b« pT3 jnw pi rva
nan ip^y nn*n ntaa m»oo noii> jno nnx xa i^ayi oan nx m^ 15 onan »JB^ inioni' B« vbx 1wnm IM *un nostr nnyi> non U^N nr onan N^N penny i«w na^a^ wa nrvn naos ncus wnB> naoNi? nnn pna n«n tb lain n»n nai?a na -6w DTK »aa^ niNnni? D^na »a iDi^ nno m»Doa Dnm ana^ nnx m^oon nyo nnxn tyn ntc am nna 3 KB'B' an 'ON 2 pnw« ia« nB'Na mvn n^ea 20
1 See Ketubot, 19 b. 2 Ketubot, ibid. ' The editions have mcc.
GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf a, verso.)
MDyta wo PJDMJ p« 'nn vn mow II»MB> DMy wns 2110 nm vn TODM iioii> pw uw p"3i lonn x^ xhyK KM xhyn > nrn i3in ns men!' v«v N^N 'un pM 'DIN iyi n:n 'DIM iyi> DNP Dan po . . . . |no nnx on* vvo wnn vn Ny*rio now? ....(?) IDWI s^n ntai noiD WB> m»DD ^3 DTIV vn nnyi' ^jan 5
JND ""sn n5TB> nn 'ON 'pnoMi Nin i?t32 can nr ino nnw 'nvDjn xanx xb KD^B njnto pi •'jn^ 5<ioj ^n NIO^NI fr V» Np 4n<|jni»^ •Tboa n^ion nxn noN11^ TV ^MD 6]r\w ny mis psia D11^ *o»aa 'DIM nn«
b I^N onn my poni SNDP ,Ty*r,Di> n^ ^oaon nyi 10 •rrenu *3 inisnn!? DJ ni? ID» N!J DN^ po^n DJIN DP
«DD n^VD ^»fl^ n!?N^3 BH»B 1PM3 ^13 DJ1N iT^
.... n»n nsD -I^N ejm sin na b»3Ba 'a NJHID ^IDIDI tan
s^n Kjnio io "^Mjnina n»s 10pnosn in o^p wn»n nr synio NM MiniD ixb N^sn n^Diiitt ITS p»jn* "nnp PM 15
xynitt I^NI MM N»^yn MH^D »^a ru . . . ci on >N nppo paa ISD^NT »a\n MSMI mio 14^3TM Nynio puna N^ px tynan vn WDM 'DM *PM nn na no 16p"i»i« UN nrn N^ nn any1? \rM nr Noyta »MD PJDW 13*131 vn I ni> IDM ib PIDIMI mn iyn ns |^st»
DM1 ^B3 D3 1D1» MM
Read unm. s Arakin, 21 b. * Editions: mw».
The editions 1. c. omit mninb. 5 The editions have p D
The editions 1. c. omit iniN pBl3 D'TDJ *oua nni« nn« pi.
The editions 1. c. omit '3N nsn. 8 The editions omit «op.
Perhaps rnm'J. 10 JSaba Batra, 40 a.
1 The editions I.e.: *mn:. M Editions omit.
u The editions 1. c. omit nmn ibNi. " Editions :
T, editions o»3M. w Ketubot, 19 b.
GEONIC RESPONSA
II.
Fragment British Museum T b, paper, consists of a quire of two leaves, of which the middle pages are missing, written in an ancient, square Rabbinic hand, not later, probably, than the thirteenth century. It represents eight Geonic Responsa, coming from a collection in which numbers 2-8 of the fragment formed the Responsa 16-22. As all the Responsa of the fragment, with the exception of the last three, are explanatory D'BTiQ of some difficult passages of the treatise Pvsahim, we may well assume that there is not much missing between the first leaf of the fragment, containing an explanation of Pesahim, 10 b ^ and the second leaf dealing with Pesahim, 55 a.
The order in which the Responsa are given is probably the original one, and not that of the compiler who arranged them, as is shown by the fact that the last three Responsa, dealing with three difficult passages of Yoma, are not in accordance with the order of the Talmud. If this assumption is correct, then we may ascribe these eight Responsa to Hai Gaon, as the seventeenth Responsum is quoted in the 'Aruk, s. v. T»J, with the words NTip rvn psan, and JlNirt "par excellence" in the 'Aruk is none other than Hai Gaon, the D^ixjn pnnK, as Abraham ibn Da'ud calls him. Miiller's statement, in his Einleitung, p. 195, accord- ing to which the author of the nineteenth Responsum (No. 30 in Harkavy's Collection) is the Gaon Sherira, is there- fore to be corrected. Besides, there is no real reason for ascribing this Responsum to Sherira, except that the pre- ceding Responsum, No. 29 in Harkavy's collection, seems to come from Sherira's hand. I say " seems," because Hai Gaon also might have spoken of Judah Gaon as his wax UK, in the sense of great-grandfather.
1 The fact that Rabbenu Hananel, in his Commentary on Pesahim, 55 b, also made use of Hai's Responsum, misled Kohut to believe that the 'Aruk was quoting Rabbenu Hanauel ; see Kohut's note ad loc.
8 GENIZAH STUDIES
Our fragment shows further that Harkavy1 was wrong in assuming that MS. I of his collection is a copy of the original Responsa which were kept in the archives of the Geonim. Numbers 30-3 1 2 of his collection, when compared with Nos. 19 and 22 of our fragment, prove to have been copied from an incomplete collection in which Nos. 1 6- 1 8 and 20-21 were missing.
The first Responsum contains a long explanation of Pesahim, io6-na', and is a highly interesting illustration of the Geonim as commentators of the Talmud. It shows that the very concise style of the Geonim in explaining the Talmud, as found in many of their Responsa, must not be considered as the only way the Talmud was then explained. The passage in Pesahim,, 106, explained in this Responsum, is not a difficult one ; the Gaon nevertheless took pains to explain it in such a way that he made it possible even for a beginner to comprehend the Talmudic discussion. We may therefore assume that the Geonio B^na of the Talmud was by far more exhaustive than is generally believed, but in answering questions relating to difficult passages of the Talmud, the Geonim, for practical reasons, gave only the digest of a commentary.
In the second Responsum the Gaon gives as the correct reading of the Mishnah, Pesahim, IV, 8, enpn bv nvnra, and adds that ""TNia is the Aramaic equivalent for Hebrew D'SJjj. It is worth noticing that the reading given by the Gaon is not found in any of the editions or MSS. of the Mishnah or Talmud. But perhaps nVPTJ in the Vienna MS. of the Tosefta (Pesahim, II, 19, ed. Zuckermandel) is a copyist's error, as 1 and T are often confounded in Hebrew MSS. The Mishnah ed. Lowe has nVDtt, thus connecting it with DM "to cut," and in a similar way nHti is to be explained as derived from T13 " to cut."
The third Responsum contains the Gaon's explanation of
1 Introduction to his edition of Responsen, p. viii.
1 It is very surprising that Miiller had entirely overlooked No. 31, which is therefore missing in his Einleititng.
GEONIC RESPONSA 9
the expression DEVI i>ya in Pesahim, 86 b, where he explains differently from Rashi. According to the Gaon the gentle- man referred to in the Talmud introduced himself as ai NJin, because he wanted to indicate his title of 31, and this explanation is more probable than Rashi's, according to which the name N3in 31 was given to him at his birth.
The two charms to which reference is made in the Talmud (Pesaibim, 1 1 1 a) are given in the fifth Responsum. The first charm runs as follows : " God of gods, save me from an evil encounter, from the evil Adversary (=JBB>), from grievous sickness. Guard me as the apple of the eye [is guarded], for in thy hand are power and strength, and thou art God." The second reads : " Forsake me not, and abandon me not ; hide not thine eye from me ; be thou a guardian unto me. Answer all my petitions unto thee with yea, and not with nay."
The last three Responsa are explanations of the Talmudic passages, Yoma, 66 b, 44 b, and 28 b. The first of these three Responsa was known to R. Hananel, who made use of it in his commentary on Yoma, but it seems that he did not know the Gaon's explanation of Yoma, 28 b. In the Responsum dealing with Yoma, 44 b, the Gaon quotes a Midrashic passage which is found in the Pesikta de Rob Kahana, but unfortunately the text of the fragment is in very bad shape, and it is therefore doubtful if the source for the Gaon was the Pesikta or some other Midrash.
(Leaf i, recto.)
wirm p ninab vb pro 'pin nW 'ON 'am nwna IIDN Nint? »a by jw iir:6 nai D 'iirp 'IP now "pun WIONI run BTVSH b
'i N^HI woo bsvb «13» N$>B> nyon JOT ins penn by ppnia r\yb TIOD »TP na IIDN Nin5j> jora cnna poynni> i . . . 2 woo ^a&o ^IN mm Ni?i 'B>IT »pw3 ^PI nop ixo ID ... 3 5 woo bwb Nia* Nijp nya JOT IHN pn npnai? wn '•a ni . , 4
1 Pesa/iiw, iob-ii a; JlfenaA., 67 b-68 a.
8 [TTID.] 3 [noiyn.] * [rrra«.]
10 GENIZAH STUDIES
inin yh enrw ^b tnnb non pcnn PK 'ON Kin f3 enn
p»a epo»p3 K!>K TOP ptn mwo 7113 K^K n poyn . . 2
K2 WK1 W3 B» TlD'K '3 Kin
8 '
»3 mpnm wno nn NVI epo»p »T w n-rep inn N nnK n^N3 fe«» NDK* 'nw 'n
7 'nin* 'n tr^n t 9 . , . > ..... nbr Nnn? ns 8 naj »33 y
nr ^3 HICK ns 10n . . h £ n^pni «ax nrni npnn pjyb 15 poy snnn ipoy^
naopiKi penu «^ i>nN D'-poynt?' pn^n n^i pisnp 13^6? nn
PIT'S naitwin iJ^nyn f>y «ns pn»ai nan ^ inm irrm mm* /-i3
N3 ww Kin TOT «oo ^« poynom "wpnp p»3 t^nn paj6 IOKI
wb 13^1 ponn JD ^ra W»K nyion nnx pnian ^nx n^sx H^ 20 mm «h nri? 'nin» 'n e^n 13 »a^ nb»3« n»^ Kin Kin11 . " oy . . . p«B> enni 'nm» 'n nn wvtppn no? f?stn Kan m wvsppn K!?I ^ ^B'lrn pom 13 ..... by pro pnm b n^pDya^ pr6c>n nn nivpb now t6 'niiT 'm« 'mm 'm 14 naf n^nb Kin tu "irm vby pnnb iv» 25 rkvvb Kin ixip «nn3 '3 K^P »b pnmK pa-ni «3K nw vby Kin pnin j*ona b3K mnoKi n^3K n^ Kin11 xbv wvn K3i n^3K n»^ Kin11 K^ iB^n vb vsb nKtb vby inym
w^nwe'D bv nowao "IHK pn»a pnab ^K 3n n»y K^I '•bpi nop K!>D KNTB> D^rrr '•PIB' nK 30 KM 18Knn3 ^K nm pb pn^wi n^n m"xpo K^K nwo 3i moiy
I [nn.]
* [TOTI «:
7 [m>pi.] "Read no:. L... _,
10 nnb ; see Dikduke Soferim, ad loc., where it is shown that the correct reading is nn, not as our editions have it, Nn.
II Bead NOTD ? " mm ? 1S nn. " So in the MS.
15 Editions : wvm, but MS. Oxf. : »rvu, see Dikduke Soferim, ad loc., and 'Aruk, a. v. 13, II, 166, ed. Kohut.
GEONIC RESPONSA II
porn 13 wem ' nwo bna «b pon 'ox&» 'w 'ib «a« b&» ipi-va by
2
4 nx . , p naipj maiat? 3 ntrb *vnn nm mm* 'i in n^o bna 35 •un naap ins pen xb nobi natwo xnrvy b^aa i:n *a by
(Leaf r, verso.)
tonn pe»n p i?nn W»NB> ^a!> Ninn p^n p panonbi nnnpb
b pbi nnow nnB' b^ mom ^a&»a woo DIN ijnu n:n »a 6 . . , n no^s 5^3^35? noNn TK w^pm intm npna pjy 7 , , . ban pm mm* 7n b vwnw na^n ma nan UNVO nni 'nin» 'n B'B'n vb •. abai 8K*poa IK siJia vby 1112 'IN 'nirv 'n iaaiy N^N nenp N.T 11 ... no»K by IOID WK }N3^ 'niiT 'TTK 'nin» 'n^r 10 na pno . , , ian ""a by jn^b n*nm nne' no^N by IOD ntn na^yn nx IDINI . . . 12jyn ns iTnn jKae* jniTK pa*n N^pi vn xbi IOB* nsbo « . SD by 13 . . . . bc> maiss? jn^b noK ccn nn^p *ib wa» NO^ is^n «bi 10
14 ............. mbi nrb ijprai inrni 1200 pano11 sb^ uwn ^ nan
, , . . pnpio ..... pjbnnnD c^o^a nnio Nin^ |V3 eibn^o 15
•un 16»a by pp be* r.iaiaa> jn-'b innoNi nwn 12 '•ab nns T'noi ins in nabnno ir pro rrvB*pa 17na»ay np^y bax nmon pw ib Fibnn*
mrm niB'pb xa uw IIDN i^p , . . jnv auyb mix p^no^ai 15 , , . 18 oaa '•bn pntsnp irjty xbn 1:10x1 . . , iTnnt}> 'anb u^pni nxra my KD^b^K *Kon ban ••xn moxi nana upnpm n^no 'iin11 'ni bana xb bax ioa '"nn» 'i Tn^ IB»BK 'bin nx ia i^ipi ban npibs? xobyn ban 19^aa-r KVW pma b^ ban nw KB^B 20Nbm Kin KD«P b^ -IB>P sbm nr
1 About the same space is left empty in the MS.
a ISVITI to. s Dicb. * Read n
5 Empty space in the MS. • [rucn.] 7 [^T.]
8 This is also the reading of MS. Munich ; see Dikduke So/erim, ad loc.
9 [nabn.] 10 Read s'ujp ni. " [naw.]
12 [nrarn.] " [ns>a.] " [vb panw pm.]
14 Add p3TE2 p®.
16 This is the correct reading, not as the editions have it : "tin isa . 17Re*dn:'N. ls N'pD'Da. l* So in the MS.
30 Read Nbw.
12 GENIZAH STUDIES
13 n^bob nnx -re» 'bin ns ienpi N3i nns ivo J inavb ia 20 poaat? 'bn bans wnn cm p ic>y xbt? 'can nra 2p«i wnw nyt? *ab nrb m pen D'bsnn »a «ibnn» bsn3 bsn pai -jb no« lap-iai aayb iTVt?p b3K noxa "p'abi nr bx *i«i in* onjte nra ITDID nnNB'ai nt3B>B3 IT PN na^ya n-'no nnsc'ai itb non IT PNI NB^HID «i> «a»m "axa 'nn* 'n ^ PITS NVOJ-I onnana 'am 'T-rr 'n inoy nm 25 bs nan »B by pt? ^ nnsiBK' nyna paai cnn jiaa pan TM vb "mn> 'ib ib ie>pn "it^Ni niyan nnx pen npH3 paa lira bns «H I3a niBiBK'a pD 1K>N3 n3B> no^x by *]»o xbi n3^ayn ns Nx»ai n^y nna n»n xb ib mnio nn^n I^NI n3^3 na^y ba 3 TDK '•i b^ injn by PTBB> '•'•ax n3ib la^pni p nnx lanrm K3Nia pain 30 nai no ib'-asi niaab m rpnb 3niD«B' man ira sb bnan M3\Ti 'line p "IDS nrtr iaiDD by bins ms paya Dn^at^ nsn lapTBi pamw pam oyon jo n^nn 'cann ibxi invpoa in-vnn DS n3n3 pns^ sb^ nrn nytsn pn»an by la^pni inion ns vby niDNb niran ON T3-Q ps» sb^ nrn •vipb pnB^ JB t^'n ^bi woo by bins DIN nyo sw DiT3» b^ nrnss nn 'oann SJNI DIO mnn npyt? mp»3 pna* IB nia33 tjnnn n^ss mpb pia* IB NOC? i^^n xbi woo by bm3 ms^ >B by SJKI sjixn*? on ib irp' «b DN -iiaan '3 pa-n xnyn by lapn^ai 4 , . . . a wvn
(Leaf a, recto.)
7 niB' 'TW '11 6a^n paaon n*a nbia^ nipya DK 6 10-03 a*' 9 " ninn ny^ ny D^D* 'a vaab & *3
iroo 7T >3 1310 min> 7i n»n i^x wsrpn HNTDI KWI nyn ny E'aao ppn 'OIN n>n wbx 10 ..... , n»a mpyai a^a t^aao .Tn IDIS iT-n xb m3ibi 'Tb Nin wfyv "... . -inn DVP *sb nbnity nbi3*B> 1T3 mpyai 5
\yv. * Read pn. » Read now.
* [nwaa.] » Pesohim, 55 a.
• The use of the word yn here is very strange, as the question is only whether by putting the nVuTO back he would be able to use it after rairn
• Our texts have iciD, but R. Hananel also reads uro. ,
>0 [rfrunc.] " [m'sp mm.]
GEONIC RESPONSA 13
'nn 'ON N>I 'a * ..... inoi 'V nv 2 oy ' P-PB Nin nn 'nn naabo rvwk Tno mn N^P i3noi> main 7 ....... naxte rwjn -inio 'T 'nw '-i 6-i3N 'jn 'i>o 'N 'INI PB>PD 5ia . . .
31 'ON MpTB nNT $>yi D^ '3 N3'Nn 'T3 N^ 'T3 . . .
n I^BK rbwv m mpyj DNB> sin p »MTI 9iem 10 'j<a 5^330 n\i 13^ ^oi nTxp ninn ny ny n^ 'a VJQ!? B» ^3
M1TH1 'T3 t^33» HM HMB^ p^ B» '11.T3 ^3N 'T-3
pm N^
b^a *B*3K ^3« i"i>a nwn^i *KOB' n»3^ IT m^o nxvisa 'DIN »MOB» nn 15
PITS pTSl 13<B>K 3T K31 7T ^^ ^330 JTH ni3^ JH^ B« WDP H^33
*«OB» n*33 vb IT min» 'n n^o nx T'oyni? psnv M« p« 'ONI n*n 'ION «h 'an ^3310 HM mm* 'n 'ON IB'N nn 'in iivp^ IDINB' i^^a iriN or> N^N mnrp "inn nys? ny ii> pN 'nn *?nvtm& ^ao 'nn 1^ n»n I^NI 'v DV nvpoi IBID ny^ hnw nytro 'n11 nv nvpot 'in w 20 iniN 10}n^n»i 1^33 DVH nvpo 'OIN M«n nnN nv nvpoi tf&bv D1|0't DV nvpoi N^D nnN DV N^N b PNB> way M/noN nvpo nn Nin nn
nbtt njnojw in B»nsa Nin m 14pn»N N^ nxpo pnn 'a ov ' ja N^I m^3 »ND 15 B»npn i?^ nwo»a 'ew n.3 ^a n^nni? i3mn jw »a ^ '^3 jniN pnip PN jn» o^np^n 'syi neb** wpenp fni 1BiNi3 niTNia PT ^3N vm tnpn *?v ni3^N ^B3y jntp nvrNian N!?N nNia pN3n phTa3 TNia T'na MK nmp N^N iB«npn N!? 'ni3N 'DINI
17 ........... I^N3 n^yo PN 'DIN D-'osn^ •'Nni 'osn nnn
19 18
n.3 nnNi TTC& enpn
a Read ir. 3 ['j>
4 Reading doubtful. s I2n:n. " Read TON.
7 ['ra cooon IQ« mob] ; instead of ra, beginning of line 9, read 'ra.
8 This is the correct reading, not Vm as the later editions have it.
9 ? 10 See n. 6 on preceding page. u Read rrtrrouV). 12 [w.] " Editions and MSS. : urn.
14 This is also the reading of MS. Munich, see Dikduke Soferim ad loc. 18 Pesahim, 55 b. w See 'JLrMfc, s. v. IQJ. " ['DV 'T pi.]
18 Mishnah Meilah, 13 a.
19 [pbrm f«l na J'bria] ; this is a free quotation from Mishnah Meilah, III, 6.
14 GENIZAH STUDIES
1 nb>y» PMB» >B by SJN '«»n 'DIM "pv NbN 'biai p'bn'aa 30
8 2 }na 13 NJin 3m N.I 'wr\ jn3 B
(Leaf a, verso.)
13 'JN DEVI by3 ino 'bi3i win m mb 'DM "pt? no ib n»N pny na pna 'biai 5D»apr nanDD pma 3n »npi na<B*a »aM 4 ii>M jm na WM 3i l|Dt}> ns^i 7i n^ »n
na win pawn DHMI w »D o^jnv own N jru na win n: b jnu nan 7 *ai , . »a» DTII* nnx win 3n nab »n"i»N^ jvai 5 N3 nnsj NSQ 3-1 'DM »MD , . . . 9 s ..... 8 pnoMi Mn 'BW
10 ..... nnan IDN^ n^n pai 1^3 TOW IN bpi IN a^a P^oan DNB> 'IN Min p
11 ......... jn ^noi y~\ \ovrn yi yaao »£»xn D^M b« IDM»B* paa bx ona
12 ...... DI $>N onain B»MH NVDJ bx nnsi miaai na Ti^a »a py na pwMa
14 ........ n»i^ ^ iTn >JD» n^y o^yn N^ y»on N^ 13 "oaryn sb IDM»K» IM 10
m i3nb nnwa I^N onan ^21 isb IDNH ^w |*n noxn
y 'oan
IN xan obiyb pbn ib PNI niawn I^N n^Na V3N in^% by n3ina Nb o^a^a pwrpi n3irm tvm 16an 'DM 'ivr a-na jb 0^313 nrjrbN 'n j^bani Man obiyb pbn mbaaNb ib v> na >abi perpp Nbi Minn ^a NIUD »D nobe* by ibN^ DibB'aN by pbMPD DHNK' ny nnb I»NI onan nnnswi 'biai Non noibt? noiNn ba 17 jn^v 'n 'CN »aoro na bNi»{^ 'n TDNT na bai nbnna onbNt? Dibc>3N by nnb I»N tonyb in» noben
1 [oipr> too pViTaa.] *Pe«a/ifm, 86 b. * [
* [iTOCro.] s Mishnah Sanhedrin, I, 3. • Sanhedrin, 13 b.
7 »:nyac. 8 Pesahim, ma. * [DTIDE 'nra.]
10 D'»coi bM Dm Vnnoc, see Harkavy's edition of the Teshubot ha-Geonim, p. 8. ll '3-roc.
12 b» DDlDl ; from H2O3 to i» is not found in Harkavy.
11 »3li»n M1? not found in Harkavy, but given by Rabbenu Hananel in his Commentary, ad loc. J* n:w Harkavy.
" Yoma, 66 b ; cf. Taussig, DiVw rru, pp. 73-5 ; Wertheimer, mfra rtnp, pp. 42-3. u Sanhedrin, 21 a. 1T S/»ol)6af, 56 b.
GEONIC RESPONSA
15
K> 2 tn» a BW nawn pi pTnj p:oi p»n jua nnnon nx ona
D p "
non
NBtten 25
rnn onwoa »n p 18naan
12 nona
onwo p navn N!J 17 . . . .
pi
T 20 naa nun ^in nnn p»w 19 . . . , nnvn xnn ^J»l|D1 S1m»ayo nt^p nnuy ninnn i»vy noon p nm1* «in
na nnoi
na»nn nnw .... xn^an
p»om nini nr nan
35
p« now
1 [rtm or rbon.] a Foma, 44 b.
J [pnuji]] ; the editions have prre»M.
4 [ni3im «pDD3] ; see Pesikta, ed. Buber, XXIX, 186 below ib «r p'n 7i3i iroo oca.
* Pesikta, ad loc., PTITO, but see '^IrwA;, s. v. prrc?i3, V, 396, ed. Kohut. 8 [n'apn sbw Niab Tro
7 ulboda Zara, 3 b below.
* «m mDT nosi «n is the reading in Harkavy's text, Responsen der Geonim, p. 12.
* Foma, 28 b below. 10 [»Vi3i <bm N:I.] 1J [«nn»o«.] 1Z In Harkavy : na» «Vi non 'XD.
13 Harkavy : 'DI ao'Vi «m J'tnpj DTCD ^wsvc.
14 Harkavy : yoin be jpsp nbm «:n ; read sbn instead of nbrr.
18 [NTCQMDQ icp utroxo.] 16 Gen. xix. n.
17 Harkavy: Kbi p?n pnintna. 18 Harkavy: nnws.
19 Harkavy: nona. a:) ..... Harkavy: Tvra F)1)! 'nai. 21 Toma, 29 a.
M Read «rno ; Harkavy: nca na»nn im» nnN i^«xo ina mn
8S nn« ^M ; Harkavy : rnoim
a* Harkavy: «V«. a5 Harkavy: «E'p vr'yttj Ttoan norma.
26 Read HYJW.
l6 GENIZAH STUDIES
IIL
Fragment Taylor-Schechter, paper, consists of a quire of two leaves, one of which is here given. It represents the remainder of a collection of Geonic Responsa, of which the whole of one, the beginning of another, and the end of a third Responsum are preserved. The complete Responsum deals with the expression moa rmtwin occurring in 2 Chron. iii. 3, which the Gaon tried to explain by the Tannaitic tradition that the standard of measurements was changed in post-Biblical times. In his somewhat lengthy discourse he remarks: " Know that the Books of Chronicles consist of two parts ; of those Ezra wrote the Genealogies till D'HK v (a Chron. xxi. a), and the rest was done by the Men of the Great Synagogue." His remark shows the source of Rabbenu Hananel's explanation of the Baraita, Baba Batra, 15 a, and it is very probable that the Gaon read in the Talmud "61 ny as ed. Pesaro has it, and not i6 ny as all the other editions and Tosafot have it.
The end of this Responsum seems to contain a reference to Saadia's Arabic translation of the Books of Chronicles, of which nothing is known 1, but the text of the fragment is unfortunately in very bad condition, and therefore this fact is not very certain.
(Leaf 3, recto.)
rfe 1*6 DKI awe pcnn DN 1? y&rb vto ron rmw mnrn nxn yann vbv n^y pto nta ^a ;w ntw6 6 'nn
2D'o< nma nan oyo no nW IBW f r
moa 3 HCK TWH D»n^«n n^a ns nua^ no^ noin IBD 'a jn niiwin men «»n v 41N D^B^ met* 1 iy i
1 See Steinschneider, ^raWsc/ie Lffercrfwr der Juden, p. 55 ; Pinsker, Likkute Kadmoniyot, Supplement, p. 41.
* Read D'OTi ; a Chron. iii. 3.
* The Masoretic text has the pi. niON. * Read 'H. 8 See Baba Batra, 15 a, and Dikduke Sofeiim, ad loc.
GEONIC EESPONSA 17
loin 'a noN "IPN nni nroN lana r6nan noaa nwtc 1 ns^ . . ni n on »a ruwtnn moa D'nfon rva n« nua^ TO^B> jna 'wan n^o ^ nain n*n "\y\ mnN mo orpra
a DN no^ no nai p^a m-iot? nivni now 10 j.T-pa vn N^ »a pins D»M& i^av s^ n»5r iB>^n n^ian
tayo na HNT ja nwi ra^Nnn HM nB>«a poim n^twi moai 3 . . , . p . . , xn n^y is^oim
nnnx nox ipy fiai w nu pa!» mo yavs "xn paan nnno vn nn^te xh nnx yavN »»n n^y is^oin^ 15 \rb pat^no ITB i>jn 4pjo .... po^n^o vn na N^N nn*n 'nw .... jnmoi n^yon jo pnnnnb nins TOK }n^ nnfl 6 . . , . yavs ^n n^o ^ ^y mn^ ^ N^n Dai 7o»jrtT onai rrro na B>^ nnx nao iro mon
an 9Ds xnaDoa nninD moa ppni anrn naroo pn "
13 15
na n»N pnv . , N
(Leaf 3, verso.)
Dai JI^NO ^ana nnW wiitb 20n , . »D 19yoiy n^^ lan-n naoo nnon ncro ^ HHN D^nK' DE> K^ty ^ao n^wa nnpa no
a Erubin, 4 a ; ibid. 48 a. * [ws« 'sn .]
* [pnw.] s [n':-u'i.] ' [iiyv] 7 See Erubin, 3 b-4 a.
8 Read nte. • Chap. xvii. 10. 10 [niOM ta.]
11 Our Mishnah reads nvj-u'n vn nrann to ; ed. Lowe hafe: rwoaa but the TaZmwd Menahot, 97 a, quotes our Mishnah with the addition : nnpn:i vrro. The reading of our MS. rrawaa i^tt? can be explained only if we take VTOE'I fa as a gloss to rwira, which means a cubit of six handbreadths. 18 [ iiD^rn aaiom .] 13 Menahot, 98 a.
14 na nn« not in our texts of the Talmud.
15 D'nBiD. w [ia 'ov »an.]
p« corrupted into na» npw.
l8 GENIZAH STUDIES
D pi yavx wi ruoo n^na mntn yavx ^n pp i>y nnx frran jewa vn niox w * o>b xnaooa nnvi n^iss mnTD pp ^ n wi 2 n»aipo pp *?y nnxi 5 nnvi n»om 2rvmyo pp bycn ynvK *xn rwo taby mrv y3xx npo ^ ^y mw nssoj yaxs ^n n^y p3own vnny na K^M HJDP nnw ni?na nns IODI n^yo n»b iwa* N^ •na r6naa pnnoi mopa
twa »n»3waa *3^ isw mox ^3 T«D -an i3»a» 10 nn 'inaia nnoa 5lmie>» onoa eniaon 4ona }3 mix 9 ..... n m^an jen^a w nicx 8 . . . v 7 vbi *rnT» nye' 10nno snDDoa u»3B^ ntw cnpo m»an jcnt^ 12 1 . . ^ »a u mruo no^nn BTIDDI miv an Noyo 14» . . o »3» Tra n:o3 Mnnw na^ D-IQ mata ns 15 nrn }n>by rnata no^s MKPW na nox in nwiaK na pnx» am win D^ w^ *ai n»sn 17ia^n j«l> ixa Mp«o ijrrc? na DN NI 'ai 10^ ^ unne^ii ^N n^« imy b mil '3^ n^ wbx b« nnvi « TI «ano noix jinv »an n^DNp " . . . . 113 .. a n>3ij*a nosa *n»3 >3B7i n»3rre> "^vai vano noin nt^N ->a 13 BHID D-ONT nan ..... 3na3 p nnxi
D nr lani :nt^ ^ n»N KW natwnn *°n . , .3 no nr PNI n^na niyo ab at >ova i>N 2a p ..... vm man nx nsnn DS^ ^a i? . . 3ni vb*& T nyann nsn3 moxn 2S 313D . . . rbxv WM 25
I Chap. xvii. 9-10. * Our texts have rvmro.
* Compare note n on preceding page. * Read unc. * Read
• See the explanation of the Mishnah Middot, III, i given in Menahot, 97 b. 7 Kelim, XVII, 9. 8 [«nc.] 9 [N>n.] » Jf.Wo<, I, 3.
II Menahot, 980. » [n«^.] " Read nnTOTac. " [wo.] u Read «nmr. » pnro in our texts.
17 These two words are probably added by a copyist after Abot, III, i. " Editions: m'-rt. '• JVDI.
na mro. M pwrr.
GEONIC RESPONSA 19
IV.
FRAGMENT T-S., paper, eight leaves, size 9 x 14 cm., is written in the cursive hand of the thirteenth or of the twelfth century. The letters often run into each other, which makes the deciphering of the MS. difficult. Moreover, the copyist was negligent, and although there is evidence in many cases that he was well able to mark clearly the differences between * and ), 2 and a, 1 and "i, yet he often so writes these similar pairs of consonants that they cannot be distinguished from each other.
The fragment represents the remains of a collection of Geonic Responsa, and contains forty-two Responsa, which, with the exception of the first two, bear the name of their writers, Zemah 2, Sherira, and Hai.
Below, I propose to give a brief resume of each Re- sponsum, together with parallels to them found elsewhere in Geonic literature.
i. The first Responsum, whose beginning is missing, deals with the use of raisin wine for Kiddush, and for the Seder. Isaac ben Gajat, in his nn»K> njft?, p. a, quotes the decisions of the Geonim Paltoi and Zemah on this question, and the same decision of Zemah is cited in the Geonic collection nnJJ m»n, 35. But in both these col- lections the wording shows variations from the form given in our fragment. Notice particularly the addition occur- ring in our fragment, according to which raisin wine made by Gentiles is prohibited3.
i. According to this Responsum, one who eats bread baked by a Gentile is not subject to the punishment of flagellation. The same opinion is attributed, in the JYO^n , 2,6, to the Gaon Rab Amram. But while in the
1 The writer begs to acknowledge his indebtedness to Professor S. Schechter, who was good enough to put at his disposal the Genizah text presented in this article.
* Undoubtedly Zemah ben Paltoi.
3 Comp. also DTBKI IED, p. 207 <
C 2,
20 GENIZAH STUDIES
latter the pDfi, the final, authoritative decision, is stated simply, without argument or explanation, our fragment goes into a discussion of the points leading up to the decision.
3. The Responsa from the third to the eighth, inclusive, deal with maiB, and are ascribed to Sherira. The first of this group, on KTirn NH33, is found in a^n, 43, and fn 159, only in these works the Responsum is attributed, not to Sherira, but to Hilai Gaon and Isaac ben Jacob Gaon respectively. It is noteworthy that Hai Gaon, who, in D^tt?K1 i>B> jmin, II, 41, also has a Eesponsum on Nr>J3, makes no reference to his father.
4. On nxn3 ptain. This Responsum is found also in 3*n 1 6, and there it is ascribed to Gaon Natronai. The quotation at the end of the Responsum, '131 K3TD Wi, is found neither in the Talmud nor in the Geonic literature known to us. Most probably, however, it was taken from some Geonic nia*ia T\\£>\\.
5. In this Responsum Sherira renders the very important decision that the KJTWy, if on the right lung, is to be counted as one of the five ''JIN. Rashi on JSultin, 47 a, argues against this decision, which he states ne had found in the D$33n nttWn. It is doubtful whether tlashi had our Responsum before him, for there are several Geonic decisions to the same effect (for which see, for instance, Harkavy, Besponsen der Geonim, 183, and Responsum 18 of our fragment).
6. This is the only discussion of smwjn N3YD in Rabbinic literature, and it is therefore curious that none of the old codifiers has any reference to this decision.
7 and 8. In a'n, 32, the poa of these Responsa is given on the authority of Hilai Gaon, but in a very corrupt form, and it is to be corrected according to the text of our fragment.
9. The group 9 to 29 is ascribed to Zemah Gaon, but it is extremely doubtful whether all these Responsa issue from the same authority. The first of the group,
OEONIC RESPONSA 21
No. 9, codifies the Talmudic discussion (Hullin, 56 a) on
lo-n treat of TV nt31»2> and eja nDlBP, and in both cases the Gaon decides against Bab (Hullin, 57) in opposition to the general rule, niD'X3 313 »TD^n.
12. This Besponsum is found in fi'n, 35, where it is also ascribed to Zemah Gaon.
1 2 a. This Besponsum is a reply to the question about the slaughtering of a bird whose windpipe has no cartilages (njDta). The Gaon maintains that the case is impossible. It may happen that the cartilages are small and thin, but they cannot be lacking entirely.
13. The thirteenth Besponsum deals with nxm X3TD. The Gaon decides that any NST'D makes the animal nsno .
14. This is identical with Besponsum 14 in the S'n, where it is ascribed to Natronai.
15 is the well-known Besponsum on ta1^ K3TD (a^n, 15, and Isaac ben Moses' ynr lis, 311) given in our fragment in a much correcter form than in the other two sources. The statement at the end of our Besponsum, which does not occur in the parallel sources, is of historical importance : vbti KPn N^n D3$> 3D3 K^l H^ N"p3D nin Witt »K31DD 31 1O1
'131 owron D^BW 1rth mm N^3 ^n. From this we see that Bab Semonai was a Besh Kalla, and also, that even in cases in which he consulted the Besh Kalla the Gaon did not refer to him.
1 6. This Besponsum, on ntoin l|i>is<lt?, seems to be directed against the divergent opinions of other authorities. See t*N, I, 1 13 a, and 114 a towards the end.
17. The Gaon decides against Bab in the case of P3D Q^ay i?t? (Hullin, 8 b). The justification of his decision lies in the fact that the opponent of Bab, Babbah bar Hanna, or, as the Gaon reads, Babbah bar Huna, is one of the later authorities, and the rule ""Kims ns^n applies. This statement of the Gaon is of great importance, as,
1 rr^ mm must be read twice, to complete the clause before it and the clause after it.
22 GENIZAH STUDIES
according to the older authorities1, the rule cited applies only to a difference of opinion among later Amoraim.
1 8. This Responsum deals with the same subject as the fifth of our fragment, the latter by Sherira. There is a difference of opinion between the two Geonim. According to the fifth Responsum the NJVJiry counts with the right lung only, according to the eighteenth it may be counted with either the right or the left lung. There can be no doubt that Responsum 183 in Harkavy, Responsen der Geonim, should be corrected in accordance with the text of our fragment. They must be identical with each other, both having the same author, Zemah Gaon, but the text as printed by Harkavy obviously contains a contradiction.
19. In the nineteenth Responsum the Gaon decides that an animal is not made naitD by eating or drinking pro- hibited food immediately before its slaughter. The assumption is that the tissues have absorbed and assimi- lated the food-material, even though so short a time passes between the taking of the food and the death of the animal.
20. This Responsum contains a curious explanation of the prohibition 3^ra "KJO. Proceeding from the Talmudic statement (Niddah, 9 a) that milk is only blood modified, the Gaon maintains that in eating meat and milk together we are violating the prohibition against the use of blood. Obviously, the Gaon believes that milk brought into contact with blood regains its status as blood. Unless we assume this reasoning on his part, we would expect milk to be prohibited in all circumstances.
21. Here the Gaon gives a somewhat rationalistic explanation of the rnEHD rA He formulates the principle that any disease which results fatally in man disqualifies an animal affected by it as food.
22. The Gaon decides, on the authority of the Talmudic
«, * See Tosafot to Kiddushin, 45 b, below.
GEONIC RESPONSA 23
(Ketubot, 94), that the heirs of a man who has left a single dwelling house are not obliged to let his widow occupy it. If her sustenance is provided for, she can be made to return to her father's house. This decision does not apply to a case in which the estate owns several houses.
23. This deals with the case of a widow who prefers to be maintained by her late husband's estate to having her dowry paid out to her. The practice varied in different parts of Palestine as well as in different parts of Babylon. In the latter country, with the exception of Nehardea and its district, the widow was compelled, in the time of the Amoraim, to accept her dowry (Ketubot, 54 a). For his own time the Gaon decides that in Babylonia the old practice with its exception should be continued, but beyond Babylonia the widow's preference was to be considered. However, the Gaon's decision was not uni^ versally accepted, as may be seen from Harkavy, Responsen der Geonim, 389. Comp. also Alfassi on Ketubot, 1. c.
24-25. The next two Responsa also deal with dowry rights, in connexion with Ketubot^ 54-
26. Here we have a lengthy discussion of the dimensions of the two tablets of the Law. The subject-matter and the temper of the discussion make it highly improbable that this Responsum is genuinely Geonic. Furthermore, bpr bw p }fO '1 pwn is quoted, which would bring the Responsum down to the end of the eleventh century. It is possible that iwrp is a copyist's error for rroin, who is mentioned by the Geonim Natronai and Zemah (see Muller, Mafteah, pp. 121, 149) 1. It should be noted, too, that the statement here attributed to Nathan does not occur in the 'Aruk, which throws further doubt on the reading bKW
27-30. These Responsa deal with mourning ceremonies,
1 This Nathan was from Africa, and he was no relative of Sherira, whose uncle's name was Nathan ben Judah. Muller, Mafteah, 157, attributes to the Babylonian Nathan what really belongs to the African.
24 GENIZAH STUDIES
and, with the exception of No. 28, are found in the Geonic collection pl¥ *W, III, 4, 8 ; III, 4, 4 ; III, 4, 5, where they are attributed to the Geonim Paltoi, National, and Hilai respectively.
31-32. Both these Responsa bear the superscription «sn m-6, and all the Responsa that follow, up to the last, lack a superscription. It remains doubtful, therefore, whether all the following Responsa are attributed to Hai Gaon, or only the two actually bearing his name. The first of these two Responsa is found also in Y"&, UI> 4» 6, and is there attributed to Paltoi Gaon. The other, which is written in Arabic, will appear in the next article of this series,
33-35. This group of three contains explanations of certain difficult words in Gittin, the most noteworthy among the explanations being of the word xn^ao. Ac- cording to the Gaon the Amoraim possessed a sort of digest of the most important parts of the Halakah, and this they called Krtao.
36-40. This group of four Responsa deals with certain laws of clean and unclean (nsoic). In Responsum 36, the Gaon calls attention to the fact that vessels belonging to Gentiles are not unclean by reason of their owners, but only because they may have been used for prohibited food. He supports his opinion by reference to the Tal- mudic statement that the corpse of a Gentile cannot defile (i»nxn NBBD p« »wn non ; compare Tebamot, 61 a, Baba Mezia, 1 14 b). On the other hand, the Gaon is very strict regard- ing np 7JQ r6'3B, which, he insists, must precede even the benediction over food as well as any other prayer. It is worth calling attention to the Geonic opinion concerning .Tinea phn bis. After the destruction of the Temple it ceased to be a possible practice. At first a few Perushim, who led a completely isolated life, succeeded in maintaining the practice, but later it became absolutely unattainable.
41. The last Responsum is a very lengthy though clear explanation of the Talmudic topic runy in Skabbat, 85 a-
GEONIC RESPONSA 25
85 b. Rabbenu Hananel in his commentary on this passage refers to Saadia's explanation of it, but the few quotations adduced by Hananel do not justify us in ascribing the Responsum to Saadia. Hai Gaon also has a long Re- sponsum on this topic (see Harkavy, Responsen der Geonim, 425), his explanation differing from that given in the present Responsum, which tends to strengthen doubt as to Hai's authorship of the latter Responsa of our fragment. At the end of Hai's Responsum as printed by Harkavy, there is a reference to a strenuous but vain attempt to explain the same topic. Possibly Hai had in mind the Responsum in our fragment.
26 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf i, recto.)
tan vb pa-ao nt?a pnpin jva x -i^a N^an OKI tw N^ nan }D inp^ -now v$>y p^iaw noaa pi naea pa vi>y pcnpoi jean na noa ppio11*^ n&p noaa p* i^ PKB> »DI inn ^aa p» anao ia pamai
'can n^y nw KM n-na 'a yn nan nvw ^>y oHhccw n
pop i>jn pot? DIK«D jn^a i?y nra 7»2n nox na^ na papal?
^ND 'can ic'^ai nns nan 'B^O nnx iai ^jn nns nan wrw 'nr 'ay 'B«D »^ na^ra NOD»B> »w pwn ^y nra prep na pro an 'ON ins •nai D^ia^ na ^aisn 9t\J?\n 2"iiar aatroa I^VN ^an hwnxp pirn nw ^pi p roe^ i^an »rm bx ii? 'IOIKI inis pn»aio N^N nip^o vby PN 10 ^DNT T'aB' na xasi i'K-i^'1 'naV 4«nann pnoix WK na^ nain wn »nn f'siK''1 Nnsi na xasi na natj' nssn TBB^ ^rw NBNI na 'na^ Kona ^a«n nasn n^ans '•y^n N^ ^oan noKJ?ai nosn ^N ^T p«a i^na la^anN m»a na N^N wy naon
ona^ na ^awi nxmn mion 'con Tobn van njnoB> 15 D vi?y p« ona^ na ^aisn laiji e^mon n^aa VBD njnoK>
nai?a nnam
?T psan mnB> la^an 7}y n^str •p prainn iea» naai nnM ino Nt^an 8tmm xnaa con Nin^ nixn H» ^ *aBD painn «5Q^ ayNi niac'a nni^ 9 Nnaai xi^nai Niaa «»n mmn yrw np'y !?a n^ai» "IIDN mnpa 10ptDina pa paioo nsna pain iNx»a DN 'KBW mnpa
pp-ian» pna^ n» nat: o»aaoB> njn «o*p ana px pom jmw ab pa nsa '•N amn DNT ia^-i HD «i> IN mn naia ^inb ^ p^MD ptain
nn na ap»an Nan^o INH 'n'osn enn B>n enr t^ mytwi oina pin pw « ^IN n^on aina^i sin nw» nna NO tb IN innna xn^aia^y saiDyo wnyo pmn
, 97 b. 2 Shabbat, 17 b. 8 Bead -]3bm.
4 Read wren nn. 5 J.6o<to Zara, 38 b.
* ^16oda Zara, 35 b below. Our texts read : taw n»im lyncn N1), which can only be translated : " Do not speak to Ibo." See, however, E. Samuel Edels ad loo. 7 ^g. : from.
8 Halakot Pesukot, 43 : «r03T vrnn, but Hemdah Genvzah, 159, has it like our fragment.
9 Bead inintD u»»o 13. 10 Read rwna. u guttin, 47 a.
GEONIC EESPONSA 27
(Leaf i, verso.)
vntb "p N!J IK wtn MOOD join N!> rw-n
Npm yitn paon ) pim pen WK pon '•N lahn xo^pn wn pon
sin teim pon N^OBH DW jnoy «n1|jii3'iy KBIB^PD 'DJJB wo ns« pon nmi :^n nanoi noy
po» nna I^DN xh Nanc^o xh «*n nosy
, ,
nnev? TOD nw a*n n-'op? NHNT y»3
cy Nsnavo »3n DI^DI N^n iTi»n» «nw»y »TT runs
IK tyo min WMUIJJD xoin Taan MM M3TD i>3 p3i niEK ^3n N!? IN nano xoin wnn
naia nxm HOIK p Nan^Di paon nano KTIH sn^ p «3n*o mn pmsi (?)naw «3^n xnino «OIKI WIN 'KBW :N"i3Di? n«n p 13 Tri:6a oy pno nsa i« mB>3 IN nano in^aio nyi in nano IN^ DNI nsia tjio ijn n^nno NOIND panon NJINT INI na-io Kin «n»3n oipo IN!?T piD3 N3M npnn nynx NCIN p NJIN 4NJNip-isoi Nin :mB>3 IN!? DNI naia j»3X3o IN sonon NSMD ni? piaovra
N1H NJV31 DIpD 1N NJIN^ M01K
IN^T IHN aiip ns n^jn Njrai nip»n N^ nsa '•N nso ta^
:naia rwm win»3 wm pti'Ni
1 Read nDi«.
2 The editions of the Talmud read 10 win n, MS. Munich ID w without n.
3 Ifvllin, 47 a. * ? ; E*n, 32, reads wtn. B Arabic : end.
28 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf a, recto.)
an }pn !«n mawn
Si333i ppip3i ab IIDN n*yo yaa npm nanv ina jryiiN mb ipnn mb n3t?o 'N jn ponN pb«i mtw pbn
pom pyo '33 in tw nonao spy pbioai KTDB pna TIN mayr
yew |3 w 'n Ditw pm» 'n 'DK -inosB' noa p^pnai ppn* pyo yais
max 'i n^ 'osn >DV 'na pnv 'mai wn» n»a jnpn^ Nine' noa jraipj
pon« 1^3 rvyo ya nonai 13331 ppip3i 3^3 nn^3 pon« 'nox ^3
13 jona 3ii ^WDB> 3ii i^ p ytJ'in'' ^13 n^ios pho pp*io»a
n»nano SJBH Nisasn Npiai 8 • pnx^ x nonaa ni^ noioen »o«n xb non33 10 iy xn ban naio nonaa
nonaa "»J
ai ON win 3113 e>3ne>oi NS'-N w 5 epy p^y in* naiD3 pino spn N3N 13 n^oT an Nnxinsi ni^a ej^ya 11*15 13 rpoT 311 sni? xn^i m»a noiotr nbioa nainn ai'o» Brvoa
N l?3 31 ON n^OT1 311 Nln 6yO ''NO 31 7ON NJin 311^ tbl N3N
i»i5i sjiya IT root? m^a nonaa 11* noioe> ^a« NP *Niin3 la *DV i ^NK»I »Ta t6x Nnnyo^ »jn baa Hi nn*n nbiinm naio bH «|iya IT noiot? «>*a nrnii bii N^ni <b p 20 nv&p ni3iBB> nb n^yi nb^ 11* noo^t^ Nnebn p jiyo^ ib Nnabn p pyotj' 11 «*nn lo^ob i? n^N ^ND N^N •pna nb^ nap np»ai moN Npi *oa Nn nno ia insi nbm «in yi main *jiy3 IT noiOK>3 pnyos? np^oi 6nin cnin itry ppy^ f]33i nap*3 NOB> n«*ia npna nans n*MK pa nan naio nona3 11* noiDB' 31 ON mm* ai ONI nta nw^ia pnab
n3p»3 noe> naio nun sp nt3io^ niK>3 tj^ya I 'ON jam* 11 sjiyb nN*i PN 'ON iTprni pna*n pnr ioNpi pi3*n 'ON
1 Bead j^nn. » jffuKm, 56 b.
3 Ibid. « ibid., 54 b.
8 Ibid., 56 a. « jffuZKn, 57 a~S7 b.
GEONIC RESPONSA 29
(Leaf 2, verso.)
n^prn 'ni n-6y mayo rrrnj&f am ^kin tun nox nonb £ px 'royo *K vino na'an 12 w nn NDPD xanyoa now Npn ton ^'n ivb D J»K »N n*prm i>feb DKPT rrprn uw ^i^ianna 73 uw -D^J ^n ion ptj> bi pnv -is y.n pnv ni mi phannn »pa WK *an 'B^D
-n^ Nh^i pn5»ri jimnn noxpi n^nia ^WDB> n^ opn p*r njp^ maiat? seao npnn "npai pna^n n»n pnv fjiyi :pm» ni bwowa npndi n^ioi nNnta mp naaxn jwo npro -w»ai nno D^pon 1^ naaa ppnu i^ naaa mo vh *«1 mo^ xnna 091573 vba*Di M»n mo pnoix ID oyo na B» DSIO
nona nna nyno ia nonan p nnr ejiy^ n:p Nin pin »ru nay ps no yao
7nv inns r&vu nyats na»ai n^ rup na*3i W man PJID spo NTaaT Ntranan nanon n^-im :na>i na» o ynwi^i pnpnij mm rwwDBQ ''DJ '•N nrna PD»non nj^n pai nanm npna nb pNi6 pan niDKi pnatw N^n (?)smina nn^acn a^y PJKI npna n^ px *b »Npn nln^> lanaon ^INI jano njenn »aiM N^N K»n nrran xanoi n«»n pi nano room san^o ^a bax jmoa K^ «^«
nan^o M^I nanoi npna n^ p« nnanan nywo^a ix nnanaa 20 ? many wi :nnanan oy nhy K^rw pan rwb) wwa N^KXI ww n»3i»Bn JIBD»D jn^^ai pns nnxi pno nns ^DIK jnty pm DN PBD^D inisa nsm san^D NXD»JI Nm^a pm ma n^viao OKI nxnaa ia DI» neo^ ny i5» Nai a^n np-'yo Nin xan'-o »jm janes ipan nrni iay» i^axi ii» IT npinro 25 apy^ an no w^nK^ onsn^BBn inanoi np^a ni? » ana» iab lana itray «a^n Nt^anta nnix
57 a. 2 See c'n, 35. * niva ? rn irn?
30 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 3, recto.)
vb IK «asin Kpa-ioa -pon xa-voa ppna ons DM
rvtanp rrnarp N^ na wo nnv ro "iana iprnnni 3H3D yo»n Txa vb wvai nmn Titra mm D^o^n ID unint? no srb uaenm ir
ni? p« my^n oina i^ss wa^ tamo IJ^K ynua »iB>yn n^n KTI nimn
Dina Tnoyv Bys't^ ^i^n s^aits vw nano^: si? 'notn nanta yaxao pw nnp^ «h njna nosn oxi nsnn nap»a p nao n»no n^jw onp nimn ^n 123 nnp'-jB' nsnn na i?n n»Nn DKI np^Ji nnn inoS 2onp WN nxni ims jn-'Ji Nin IDIPDI i3»o pin wn nw |onio
oipo piD3 bs 'nospn rwm nman yniaa i-i^yn aijn ^n jb 'o^pi »an 'now «^
11? rw sn-'bn «ai*D *TO ^ttWh NB'SID Kin
n11? venn tarpon now *r\v an^o n na^ «^ mix pjmap oiai o^nax mpo ^aw
pnax ^JNI D«T3i K»DmB3 naiD pi^ao peny }n na* xa^n xan-'Da ppnap i^ pnnpa p^v
no anao pym* usi n'-n
pyow u»n ^DJ p n^jnv }n DK nmo rrn nci
nwe* »n^B> ia»noi vm wai KD-I^D apy> -"Dan iy»^ nns nyai laoo^b*? vbi b nvt an 101 ••oia-'K an no I^VN ioaa»ai sa^n W^D pnab ib nos cnoy n^obn noai ibvx loaaai bpr D^IK: pinv t6 onb ION xa^n toT'D pnab n^no
1 #uUin, 49 b. » Ibid., 48 a.
GEONIC EESPONSA 31
(Leaf 3, verso.)
FDTP
Dnoixm mno WK aina -£<g& "pDa^ t?oo
aim nami nnv moe>K> nona tw troya mno nann nami jnnn nrwwjni nxm *3ixa Kin pimt? -jino-i rupa rm« na&e> jvai 01^1 on oina vb\ obiyn nmn n«na nxnn p TO a^n p"isn» na* na11 nyayaoi n
n mlttei iNni|i D'-otrn p wv DN way K> amo na^ lajnirw noi nai? i3ppntj> no nnix nans wjnin imao D^a^ p«a apy^ an no I o jna nnm n^no rr-n nnoix ons? noa xS THO n»n on DNI nia^ *ne> nyn hy may* N^ty «a^n xan^o ''BN Tiyi onip^nh tfffhsh pnn p tr11^ aijmn peny
noa sh i^ rn^s^a B>TB^ noa vnana noy apy no enipn no D^« ^o p«a pnx an noi?i >oia^ an nob 15 n vn apy an nobi Mnnno sh n»ano na b'n noxp my N^I imoa nt^yt^ nu»^ ^n^a pro nn *3a i?a an no n>op pan* >a *snin* an no moN Nnb'o *K3'an an no oai? B>n»a naa xni ^aoio an noi n»ma »«aioD an noi na^nm xnipna iTb n»5» xa^ *|j mm Ni?a c>n xta MB^I sbn oai? ana xhi mb xmao mn an 's^o 'DNTI apy* an non rr6y pj^a o^innxi xn^o N^N •'xmn* an no nnox N^T no'-ob xa-'N an noa 4N^m .T^O n*m n^a niba^p xh rvb xnano^o nbnn pin*!? nn^p*a DN 5pan 'ONT *a
pa jan pa nbiaa npna na w ns*m wnp xn'-an nipo WK *nbian 'oyo *KOI *oixn sn^o ny :^a niyavxa onmo pxi ma*^* *ntj> amo nai
a i a. a Bead Him.
3 See p. 21, footnote.
4 Bead mbm. 5 Pesahim, naa.
32 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 4, recto.)
21 13 K3-n e^ip EN in tn£0 pon anipn IOJVN 't
31 13 K313 ^W WK1 13 JN03 ^'m pH3y H3 )ND3 * ITTD
wn nKina win an ia Nam xnn onDyo •OPD peny UN miosi 2«:in an 13 K3-n *|bip 6s 3-1 : IDKPT n»roa wawi in^ Dpn pc? bai
ON 5 rrnn
«pnn sjp 6xn IKOI piv rrnia ^»
«^y 'N pnn p3-» nios pan trnn NH^I^K pjyi? 'BW xvm rbrb n^ PQIDVD jm^wy «m yi« |rnn pen tow tonDH 10 paixo 3-n rro
pNsnn jnj now nj3no3i nsN3 nyn nn^nc' ma 't }n D*iab p*m mam nta ni> n^jnn xh p 5Nmp{j>m p» p nyo jnu n^3n nw "i^3n HN 1^31 monen ^ntr 15 13 n«DDD n^N nyi^3 nwoiaB> DK>3 N3i DNT n«D»^ rb
p nyo }n:B> pa *DJ tan 7a«n poi nao ma »aw ma ma nniN^ p* iniN moiw PNB> NT 13 :»3ne^M yn^jn jva ^03 nnt^ nnnK'ty p* ini^ enn^ pw I«M "vnn ^Knt^i> inm
no^iaa 0:33^ JV3 na^ntj' ny^a nnc* ^sax INI ny»3 oi man bxN 11 «o ^P D^J^ p^ ptwwi p« n^ ^yn3 nniN PKOBD PK ma jnntj' n^ mi»n nwoio jnt? ma las ii>D3 -IOIN mm* n xftta m^s nson >» nnnsw ma 8u»3B> ma i3^n uniw na na^n mw 'm IOTKD 'i pn^no ono 9N»^»y3 jtapi boa n33B> nnnt^ tm&p p^ pswin pxi ^rw^ mea nmo n
033
, 8 b.
11 So reads MS. H in Rabbinovicz, Dikduke Soferim, the editions have n*aa nn , who was a contemporary of Eab.
3 This reading is not found either in the editions or MSS. of the Talmud. Compare also Rashi, ad loc. * Hullin, 47 a.
8 Sic ! * Hullin, 71 a ; but nan and not Nai. T Miahnah Nazir, VI, i.
8 Parah, IX, 5, comp. also Pesahim, 18 a. 9 Erubin, 96 b.
10 Read YND T twice, to complete the clause before it and the clause after it. ll Erubin, 46 b. u Read WT.
GEONIC RESPONSA 33
(Leaf 4, verso.)
D'oyai an Nin D^oya a^nnt? a^na -wan iri?y napii «
HNI-I WN nnaiyo HEW 'D^WN i>aa> ai>r6 T,ana Dint? pao n^n NEDO ninD fn» "o 'Nai v*?y 2jiui|n^ a!>n ntpya Din in'.N N^N on
pe> mono m^y n3icB> ':i ns^an ny twMn ^sn K^I xxi
jn isi na«a miDNi nos norm nn» nns KS»» DN{y p»io 6 ia 'cam TBOD TKD i ny 'ai Qtrin nnipa neno mt^y
2n nr nonaa uy IDN 1200 no Kim onx taija au Ni.ntr nan \>yy r:
niaiantJ' jvai no ton ap^j DIN^ eenn^ jva TTO^ n I0
D"yva noat^ i? ynsn mo nnp apa no DIN ncnaa i^ IDK ^"a^ no NIH T-O ap"j imo enps? jvai no W»KI Dnx^ ^ TO apj onx^ la11!?^ jva i^n n*a^ a^n ap^ niob^ anp naipa p. noai niao noa ^ ynsn nap^B> nsnn nonan p>ai no wn-^ no w»w DIN^ IBM ^y D^BM D^W noai D^JWB a 15
a pi no Nin TO tn^ vr\v n«nn ^y inis 7;i ibsn N!? nanui n^aa asn:n nianui ni^aa hvrw '•aa -tax11 K^»
an M«n 'ow MNP MS«I na 5i>bi waa n^an*1 >nn nN 'NB'^ xxn nh n^N xh Na*n N^I ^na 'n 'a n^ n^n NDM 5 n^nypaa N^I iTn^aa *jm» 13 "na> nnx n^a Ni?x 1^ px^ -"o pu> snp'ya oan noN iar 6Non nn N^N 30 nvi o-na 7n 'a
n'-a ?N nnx n^a NN M> PNB> nsn nN »in way DHO
^'n n^i N\nB> nipo^ pnatwe' n^ n^N nijito *£ pnacns MNI obx Nnn^ pania D^T TJN vn na 'NPB>I :5l(B^ 3i 13 noa xxm panM DVII^ IVT DXI nnaina nyan PNB> fora n«n <|o<i ^>a nair: 25
n ON an non^N Npi nniN picnai nn3ina ir ^m 7^'
1 Read c"onnn. 2 ? 3 Niddah, 9 a. 4 Sullin, Mishna-h, II, r.
5 Ketubot, 54 a. 6 Read NIH. 7 Ketubot, ibid.
D
34
GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 5, recto.)
msna 31 >33 'ois UK
mo ppnnot? UN taioeo una msna bi Kjmna ana una won iy sxmnj PTI ny 'ois ust?
T^V
Dipo $>3 hia iti' pmsn nrnins n anao Qni> PNK> mpw :3i3 puny
WE'D DHD3 }3 tVVO DHD
V3
pvn 3*13
'D»p 113
n» 2mairo rb P rkrP3& JV3K> PJDV 31 DN N
. ,
niairo ni> p« KJWW nnyn nanap nn3in3 nysn DN 'DIN UNI mains ni?
jam T niano ni? px
nnjn nam
pn n
ir nxnoenoi pn nm nnsma nysinB' nycr nwwo n:6n JNI niairo n!> r> N^N niairn n^ pN HD^TSI n^n'3 PJDV 3115 ps n»Ki ps ^ n^ SJTDD ja3i niosi NH 'st^cn ^Di11 3i3xxv m3i»i> m»D spaa '•SD^ nsm n3in33 nsms »wn '•sa^ -ios
ifiniTD i , • i . »
piai pa3 n3in3? ^a 3pi3i pa3 navDTi 7131 nimo?
vn , ,
osi nsins np^ys nbt^ naoin nnis p^s nn'-o -ins? n psai o^a ••nc'D 0*33 n"ani nisi p3oi ypnp in*33 ib psi nnsb vnnc' "pot? jva f^s nains 3in by* SM mrnn ^'n n^at? in^s tn^ani nns n3in3 TO ps"^o ;*« ruipsn m^s yai 4n3a nsai Dip^ nmso io« «wvn3 DIB pnsn pa3 nsins 7ois us *iaytp»o sano pnos rrono sno U3
1 Ketubot, Mishnah, XI, i ; 95 h.
8 Ibid., 54 b-55 a. • Ibid., 90 a.
2 Ibid., 54 a. 5 Ibid., 55 a.
GEONIC RESPONSA
(Leaf 5, verso.)
n»ai 'nntryi nwo J?B» nnain -itrya on nvniM noa 'i
pai yavtf xi>»a nwm nvnix DMIPI DW pat ana pa mwn ntrceo yavx w^oa «vw ni«
ni>yo^D niynvx yansi myavs yanw onK^jn nxo roris nnt^y D*HK* nn nrrw DP» myavs yansi ni3»^D niyavs nixa niyavxn ^a INVEJ JQINI on^yi nxo ^y DJTIN pjoin o^en ntxo nrnx^-i ra»^ n^yo^ nint ana noa nbbv annn DJIBN rumSn nnix DDn^a nr ^p JD'D a nn mw Ki^oa mwb nnw pai ntry n^a pn nnw noa 2ni^xo anna niyavs njiDn on^y nn 3<iso niyavN yanxi nniK» mm ana nvw nji»en oniry rn^a ^ t^ pani rwi anna niyavx mvxn on^y jnty naaen neap any nxo D'loya DnB'y i^p nii?n nme* DH^v }n TKtwn ntstw D^B* D^oya nn nis» yt^n by onix ejDin nso nB^n D'yat?
n:ranj
flttw nww D*7« new nn n^apN 7y mm anan anm T«K m^n nnw i»a ^ B« nn
m^n na^nai hiin eja IO^D niyavx linn hnri nnii hiin D^a^N n^K' nn VTIX ^N a«i mr nit^iy niyaxs itry D^B* ^ nhn n^ya n ni? nKB'a mnnr pi>n DOBH D*B^en DVIMDJ o^a ^I niya^N ni«o n^nstDi on^v i? ninir D^ns» ^y niyavs niND yaiKi an^y nno
nwo
1 See Tobiah ben Eliezer's iefca/i Tob, II, 139, ed. Buber. 3 The second mV?iE is a dittography from the preceding line. 8 Read rieoi riep, "on both Bides." D 2
36
GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 6, recto.)
D^Dya nyaiK i? ns^a DWHI D"nND nn nimr ontryi nK» jno train niyavx DTitn D^^I tfnKO nn $B>3 D<B£B>I t^nND nn nimr n^y ^y nn nimr nftx& niyavs yanxi ewn one train i* }n» train niyavx m^y ^B* nsw naioan i pnno wm fop ^a D^iyn »a lancsti' mn nnr napn bwi nnr B^^BI nimr yaw o^s^i D^nNoi ^K minn iy^B> K*naa :pn nnra D*OB*I 'NJS? napn^a nnx mr SVDJ i nay n^io noiKi nsn nnx no ^K n»N1|i ^na nay
jna 'n pKan
anw nans nw noitya n^aon nn^n DB* *3 nmo pan nay K*m noxa •wy anm entry naiK 'os ^sh ann nnKB's nahn fjiyni n^aai 'aim biaa PB£ Nintr ib niayin ^oai D»aa nama K»m /<(nai cn^y ^y entry nsvioa nnhaao r nyn11 ^oom Q»pbn Haa6 na^oyn nsry n^ tr11 xn^nana nyp^n
nmnn nimr yanx na B« xn^nana nyano n»x nr noK n noK 1^ tr^tr n'-ai HOK IIIK
u
nimr n iNV»a noKm §
naiotro n»N nixo g % mr niso awi noK
minn nsv»a D^nNOi d'a^N HB>>B* ptny nimr D"i pn rnra e^otri D>O i^y^a YTD ^o Tnai nimr
1mma D^nxioi n^ai'N ntr^» nnx 1^1325 nnao NvtrD moon ns pai3 ••nDND pan pm Kn 'BW xxvn ps DN yt^in^ na ^n 8bbian eno^D JOIN ytnn* i iry^K 'i nai n^n YIO^K ni^ax OK *trs an pnoxn ^un ono^B* ny v^y n!>n jnoon n^aaa a^nns ni^ax a«nnaB* nycroi *^ian no*no
mr |
mr |
u r |
mr |
nir |
1 Erubin, aia.
2 MoSd Katan, ST».
3 Sanhedrin, 47".
GEONIC RESPONSA
37
(Leaf 6, verso.)
psfonm N^> IN i^y p/n^ a^n njnote ii>ina no i!> net? »» 'NKW xxvm ? ihna pxtom pympp inyae> niaa nr nan *naa Diens IN Nin $>3N wxr pp p&n PN tjnoy e|nniw£ PPinn yanp baN nab panpn « nana '•ND 'K>K>I : l ncbv js3np N^N p-no xh px^in xh py-np xxix
«iTa
'•loiron ni?
ni on*
noen
wit^ni 3pion ID w an '•ai? nn5 'nosn IJH
noon e^DB'n p» ai ama b PNB> no mw an notn NH ^y n»33 aen^ Dipo nr »«a
rna
noon na^pn yip mtnni n nan!? :wn xy^vn porno
jn no aini nr nan peny D^D11 noa ny ain^ waa IK no»n ? 1^33 NiD^n an ex 'can now na loipoa pawH? nypa v^y nea IN 't*w 6nya^ b i^y r&aNnn DIN^ woo moBip ° mp»a N^N n!?aNnD WKI !»3Knn vby now na^ oip»a pa^vi pNa poruo ^ PN IN porno ib ^ a mn NDV ^a min» nn .T-nna^a a^a^n poruo i^ pN^ no Ninn r,
. . *~*
•jnyn nun n-D^na rp? nnn^N n'-nana a-n^ ?nw m^y *a min11 an § a poroo - 7
xxx
10
xxxi
15
xxxu
o ~
g s
i n^ o« ' nn^na IN N^n Nnaoo
py
n xxxm
npnr .TOT
8 Ibid., 24 b. s 3f. iTa(., 24 a.
1 Mishnah, M. Katan, III, 7 ; 24 b below. * Ketubot, 8 b. * Berakot, 46 b.
6 Shabbat, 152 a, below. 7 Ibid., 152 b.
8 Here occurs an isolated Arabic Responsum. The original text and , Hebrew translation follow on p. 38. 9 Gittin, 44 a.
38 GENIZAH STUDIES
"xn
XplX *B HDX N 3T JX f TW 1 3T?X fy
xi^xi TOftbtl yx»nix npi »a no^x ^x 5>3T }x n ^x yxcnix npi IB ox:6xa xprnta jia» x^i y&o [nb xh n^y XD^XJ mm }i3^ x^ ] nyihp ni> IIB* rusb n ? JOD wn»n ^x ^npx np nxn11 jot rw ^a xnyB> j nn^axy aima n^x ^van> jx ^x na pxmi'x^x p rmrr x^yxa pa^ }x
^T nnn^ xh a*imi»N n^ rwS nmxmui
Hebrew Translation*.
no^n n^n ^x D33ni> into DX nrn i>y j»apnn jon nojan nu ^x oasn^ b nniDK> inar
oy ysB ib '•n'1 ^xi aipo b nnv i?ix , n^ann pom ii? nnv ^>ix .r^ann pni ninvn yapnn nya xn11 x^x icvy nx 12^ f'xi .na^a vi?y ae»tp nai nrx nn11 v^x aipn^ inn^11 xi> n^x c^x nxn11 DXI . inxnoa imnm v^y DM^X cnn^ IB'X ny n jnaa »i>ai> n»nr nn TIDX pxi 3 pNWja nni»i . imntah
1 The copyist, under the influence of the preceding line, wrote 'y instead of H'tc, but noticed his error in time.
2 I beg to acknowledge my indebtedness to my friend and colleague, Dr. I. Friedlaender for his kind assistance in translating the Arabic into Hebrew.
8 The Arabic text has :nin "marriage," and according to it I have JWIXH in the Hebrew. But perhaps nin = Aramaic Jrn, which in later Rabbinic is used in the same sense as rroorr xmtcn. The question put to the Gaon would then have some justification, as there are cases when a person in a state of impurity is o"rrra IICN. Comp. Moed Katan, 15 b, Pinsker, o'pS^ supplement, p. 32, below, and n*tt!; 176.
GEONIC RESPONSA
39
nine?
(Leaf 7, recto.)
n !>a» nivaipDp nnna nia^a wn^ao BTVB
inx nine> N^N NW WN n»p^ nnx avow e nnN Nnao» Npnr in wn^ao na NVI
iha -ncf>nn
lay »KO 'awBi 'wi i>'a *pi Npnr n ajit? map nnN Nnaoo inioaxxxiv Dif>a Knbnsi KDIIB 2 haonB : irnan o^a nusn UWTB xxxv
jna
niana
o«ian p n«oio px 5>niN2 NCCO px
6an
p^ya
inioa is w5>o n^o DIN TIM DNI nne« N!> ona nintr^ vbv 1^10 n WIDK nn fcnn ^22 WIB> nvy Q^W OKI jruwi vnac' pa IKXXXVH 5>n nai nmna 'na }a DIN ^ IBWD nwvvn nwoion minn ba
oDo D»taa i^i i^n nisciua PN»QD DH »rw» ^a hi'V1 vh 13 nncj^ ix tonn ^aa rna nar w m: nyj: i!?\s na^ai'
i t t t
ax w»K np byai j pe> D^iw- Dnyi ppiyj p^y? b3N HJDO xxxvm natr Kin pn^3 yjua N^N np^y ^a D^a N»D» pxi 16 ny 5>3«» N^B> np i>y3 i?y KM rm»i p"
& innx^i pica »JB^ runa aana yaa p« nxi 'm 4iab nanno np ^»ya yet? nnp «Tip ^i2D^> D^D ib PKB^ np ^ya 5 ^inxi? TUO i?ax n-ja^ "pao W*N\ ins ao« n^aipN niiDB* jap p^o nyaix D^D oipo pai a»ea ^N inasb laini Tina iTa DN\ 'w n^sn^i ^» '121 vafib N^N i3c> ^ awn na ^DV i DN
,
ins ma w 13 *DV n i»» p« T«D7nai G "inn pon !?N ION i^iaD^ D^ "vb *ia icsy nx
pjyi? ? ">noa
n»« 3»n nina bx inn
25
JTOTTOID
, 34 a
i
IIDN anN }Na 73N a»o
a Ibid., 37 a. s Sifre, Num. 158; Abodah Zarah, 75 b, but in both passages moiD and not c*ro.
4 Berakot, Mishtiah, III, 4 ; 20 b.
5 Berakot, 22* ; comp. Dikduke Soferim, ad loc., T«r Of ah Hayyim, 88, and iiD«J«n I,i. * Hullin, I22b-i23a.
40 GENIZAII STUDIES
(Leaf 7, verso.)
^vnwpi w i^> panwo na "poron i>ai na p$"por -nynpi naxxxix noiy n-n iwp 121 JTTVP ny ^anni? np i>j?ai? ^ PN n^ana np ^>ya mpana N^>N nwDD piopD ps niTan ^3 »a yn
f3j?2- PITB3K pKI P")»P3D pN HIT'S >D1 ^D1 D^
pi PNI^PI prnsn p^ ^31 nirsna N^N nsioia pbpo D^IDT
nan * »a P
rva »o» ^ai nnnoa phn ^laxi? nwi nN* N^X xb p^ina B' penna m aini? p»ai ninoa phn p^aw vn phn bt6 hs» p« v»3jn 'nrarn panynoi
p»r» nrrtc ijonpn IK'NDI 4nanyn nvm ?y 's^&i1 XLI
jaan »a PB>KI pin
D-OQ ,
pirn D^naD ruw Dp^nnn? o^ynr jnwn
a« 13 ^B> jniMn 15 on» nxo ^33 DK i^»yB> D^Tiyon D^iynrn ^ v&P pin nics i •ia jo N nyw pi iTan^ IN iByr^> 711? nns poo apn yans nata nr^ nr pa DIB£ TIX r6nh^ D"3iynr jnrn Tan pin youn ^cn pin :nio nr ipa« N^B> na nnio no« vrb& mw ^3 inwp pjnin IN PWB^P 20
,
youn »pp pin :jn nnns rm»ai pvy 7
DN ' IN 3 jnp nnip ^np IN D^pon nsnxp ayx pin :mpn paniyos p«-o }ni jcvy ns prvsio nnio nnx 8B« mp imi? DJSJI n:»D NXI* pi11 mpn a^r nvr *a mn B'NI Kin nn Kin mpn PJID p "a ^i^ai yn* Ninp ^25
pwinDi 9a"3D *ab nap "nas nap 1031 Sa: i»a nmn
nyap m\ni uysn IPN nnx 10:(])p6 noiai> PIPO Niin
pa tiapna pa nanyn mo nx ppnao UN n^Nn D-pnn
YerushcAmi Berakot, III, 6 c, below. * Berakot, II, 5 ; 22 b.
Baba Batra, 60 b. « Shabbal, 84 b. * Read i.
ni^Diao from DTI. T Read inn rrrrai. 8 Read 7c.
Exod. xxviii. 32, where our Targum reads qpo «n' NTin. An abbreviation ?
GEONIC RESPONSA 4!
(Leaf 8, recto.)
p nn naD r\mr hy r\&& tone? nany pa^na -wa niiv rvaana y rumi nS>aia naD 'a nawnn n^ao niN^aD 'a \n& naD 'i5» mT ^ao ni'noi naD n^o nniN yniT 7«m :o*nao 'n nwx
'i nawnn n^aon n«B> yrin HDIKD ia yniT p«t^ nawnn J
yniTi TOWD ia yniT PKB> naia^n n^aD anno SJN
nanyn N\I IT '•N mre n^aana wai ^onn $hm }n }n i^xa i^x pii^pn fno 7a nanyi'ti' naia jn jn i^^n
_Q
jva n^jan fa- IB- ynir pw n»j«CKn n^aon nx ...... t^Dia BJ«I HD^NO na
jn^y aman nvir i ;D WIT p*o rwnoi ppa nao nx ynin ib TICD pHo yiT pa J»K NVOJ ^ iTn DNI jnaDD mna n*nia"aD bao nau am 'naD n ^y D^nao^n runy^ naij
J C |
||||
3 |
'J O U C |
C |
||
J u |
||||
D |
3 |
C |
C |
|
' |
D |
C |
C |
|
n n |
||||
3 |
C |
|||
o o o r |
||||
3 o n one |
nau ri'a rwswwaQ nisnD 'n n^'y: PJNI naD 'no
ii» nnim nao 'n n^jraim nau 'a11 rw^wn nata 'a pp ba lyaiJ nsra yvcxa 'NI nni nn ba 'a po 'a* nt? n^nw p*o nau -»xm p'D nao ^n i^ HIOD^ nnx nau naa yiiT naD rwoi naD yniT p»o 'a nn ^aa lynn n^naD
, r
na ynn PNI poan nnvn? na n^tyn n?aon nx anno HKI naD nT 'r }s*3 nn *rn« yiT nvo^an nixbaD »nt? ynin m pnitrpn nawBn nn^yn n^«n pao^on ^aia py rwnci ainan ninpn ns ywn enoaa »a ^aVe» naia jn jn
1 Bead ntac.
GENIZAII STUDIES (Leaf 8, verso.)
TIED nau vn myi KB> nx noaai ppi my itpoaai ^ rrarto 'N 'a }m? rwpn n« lynrai ma m ynr nn» n'-yanm nv^wi
PO 'a11 1^ 1NVO3 '«
'31 :mo m
naiB^n nanya pa
wy
J U U U U U C |
||||||
D |
j D |
u u u u |
O c |
c c |
||
3 u u a |
||||||
J c |
||||||
3 |
D |
D |
C |
c |
c |
|
c |
||||||
J |
D |
D |
C |
r |
||
( |
||||||
"> r |
||||||
D |
D |
o n n r |
c |
c |
||
3 |
on o o n r. |
r |
||||
Donnonnnc |
piann ivnr? ^25 ny ax n»aea pa 10 inn ^1 na-in onao nwy 1^2^ fha nx T>IX DW mo m mpi^nn by paitw u»a^ ne'sa Ti3""i 'joS-jp n^a •pTB' ba pi 2nu»iN n»bh mm n»^ pirnn bjn
xyns wren 'cannoi nae> 'D pxn isptrni ny nai mnin pnv n ON nosy ^an njnoB' IJ^DN p nn«i :pae> '015 Jnbo»i 'n na baiyi D^HBD 'i nany n^iy pn11 in^a ns nsbioij nany b^ naia jn b pao^n ir paa p*y nKioi» nn»aan noi ni biayn NM ysosa nepon nauom
nvina 5»3K iy
prim
o o n n n
O O O O
O O O O
O o O O
O O O O
U U U U U (J U C
nbxn onain
nniyen nun
1 Shabbat, 85 b ; K3«iir with 'i and not M3«ic with 'T is the reading of the 'Aruk, see s. v.
2 Shabbat, 150 a, below. 3 Kiddushin, 39 a«
GEONIC RESPONSA 43
V.
FRAGMENT1 Am., paper, size 18x13 cm., consists of a quire of two leaves, of which the middle pages are missing. It is written in a square hand, but with a strong turn to cursive, and belongs to about the twelfth century. It represents the remainder of a collection of Geonic Responsa containing five Responsa by the Gaon Hai.
The fragment has suffered very much from water and dampness, which have obliterated nearly the entire first page. The names mvr p inw, ffcOEy 12 lino, nsp» in Bwy occur twice on the first page, in a document the nature of which I am unable to make out on account of the bad state of the fragment. On the last four lines of the page the following words are legible: (line 14) DNS nw&6 i?if pN3 p-i£iNK>; (line 15) ITU win ^ann u 'o£; (line 16) mu DV DN pnaipp W ; and on the last line bina oyvb. These few words enable us to identify the Responsum with that quoted by R. Isaac Gajet in his nnot? nyt?, II, 59 a, in the name of Hai, in regard to the recital of the funeral prayer Win ^unn, and there can, therefore, be no doubt that by pw in our fragment Hai is meant.
Responsum No. 2, on the question if locusts belong to the class of prohibited food, has been published before, by Harkavy in the Hebrew periodical Ha-Peles, II, 47 2, and by Schechter in his Saadyana, fragment 34, page 62. Our fragment offers better readings than theirs. Harkavy also published in Ha-Peles, ibid., the third Responsum, of which our fragment has preserved only the beginning.
Responsum No. 4, of which the commencement is missing, gives a short explanation of the passages in the Talmud Sanhedrin, 54 b, and Niddah, 44-45. The literal quotations
1 This fragment belongs to David W. Amram, Esq., of Philadelphia, who kindly placed it at my disposal, for which I herewith express my thanks.
2 Comp. also the Hebrew periodicals, Ha-Goren, II, 88, and Ha-Pisgaht V, 52-54-
44 GENIZAH STUDIES
from the Talmud in this Responsum are very interesting for the history of the text of the Talmud.
Responsum No. 5 deals with the question whether the nnsitn nva^D nonar on the Musaf of the New Year are to be said by the whole Congregation or only by the JTn . A part of this Responsum is quoted by Ibn Gajet in his nnos? <nj?B>, I, 28, where Hai Gaon is given as its author. Hai's answer is that the additions to the rf-i *?& SJDIO should be recited only by the }Tn, and he adds, mn^a p rre>j» tib ch\yo, "that they never were recited by the congregation in the syna- gogues of the Academies." On the later custom, compare Jacob ben Asher, Tur Orafy Hayyim, 591, and the authors quoted by him.
GEONIC RESPONSA
(Leaf i, verso.)
45
2pnnio pnann pi pniDN !rM>Dn fo traann pm NH PJN DIN mm* n prno iiyi n«? TISO D-aam ^ao p'opion ny p»3B>oi NOB *n aan N^ion ninta aam feo 3n^ ^SNI n^ND o^aan oxn ^f nnyo an no mn5> PPD^KI ^NJD 5 *jn» s^i pnhio
)!> fi^"1 ?"3 w*3ionp una niD'tf minai in y5 psa .T'lyo an non w^ yw N!? Nanax po
jn^ax p3j£ pa IONT D^ana '•NII N^N o^no o^aan nox 10 ^B> 'won «oi>jn wnaoi JOT paj& pa JNDI DTIO pns? ayN *nna pni> IN ini? --anvo rwmfa IDN pniox
ns ?y papa nny c^ynv^ nny na-na!? pap ono 5>inoNT jva vb IN pi i>ya n^a ja^an Nni3K>a ja^am '•NO ^ai 6 »o pap ia pse> no^ pi »anx «h '•on N!? IN pn ^ya ^aaa ia nyn5> 20
1 Not nbobo, but nV>D is the correct reading. It is a diminutive after the form qiitail, and is to be translated by "small basket." 8 Abodah Zarah, II, 7 ; Gemara, ibid., 39 b.
3 Shabbat, IX, 7 ; Gemara, ibid., gob. * i.e. WOT.
5 Harkavy, {noun ^S, which gives no sense. • Baba Batra, 403.
46 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 2, recto.)
tD '•ND TOB v!>y
33B03 n31t?n m'K J»3 IflX DV1 D»3B> JHWl p »T
m 'N an as:iB> 'D p KW ny
3j jnw i^si nwp won* >y N3B> 'N an D^B> y{rn p ' m*33 5 M>KI i'Diai jvijya pnnn 33^» K»D^ rrua NDDOI ^na^ ny DNI IT !?y n^poji n3ron »3a i>y» nonan nx ^DISI 2^3NO NVTI VT1 ^y 3nin^» rmns nmoxn mnyn ^3D nnx ^y N3
nisr nsa psn 'N DVI 0*3^ 'a n3» nw3 n ^ n33{j>3 to '3 ra 5 pn ntrs3i 'N DVI 0*3^ '3 po n^y p3*rn nwp D3^ n^y N3 DNI ^jo jinnn 33^» NDDi? n^yn n« '« n^y S3 DNI ruiran }» ni>DB p^oan JD 'N n^s S3 OKI
i»sn nviyn *?yo 15 urn 312 p -win i>y N3n 3-n
p3 n3-ns pa ncnan nama xbw pa nama pa ncnan
20
1 Mishnah Niddah, V, 5 ; Gemara, ibid., 45 a.
8 This is also the reading in the first edition of the Mishnah (Naples, 1492), and in the edition of Lowe, but the later editions of the Mishnah and the Talmud, including the ed. princeps of Niddah (Soncino, 1487), have rraiina toiro.
3 Here again our MS. agrees with ed. princeps of the Mishnah, and with the edition of Lowe, all other editions reading cvwio.
* Sanhedrin, 54 b, below. 5 Niddah, 44 b.
' = rto-,N ; editions, including the ed. princeps of the Mishnah, read ^3nn .
GEONIC RESPONSA 47
(Leaf 2, verso.)
ins now NW eyw mott 'NI 'N
ny inain n» NX* xi> yap &ann OKI ^>an» nnis -I!?B> fjoim PNI in^n OKI nojan n^nn DN DX Nin p li-'jinN inr yt?nn I^N K^N ^a pra N^N na^»a p n^yj N^ D^iyo 5
^ano i^nsn px n^y innn N ^nb ^ano W»N
'pm xn» Nn pan IHDN pam nbv OIN '^w jai a«n Trn Tn» ba la 10 nia-v ^jn SNO*P Ty nanai jnain n» D^ann nx pm ye>n ^ano 'NI *iriN ^a nao sep Na nianar nia^D OIN psi yac> ^ano 'NI 'N ^>a nao ' ^ann HN wmoi poi« in^f n^B> N^ (?)anaon pi a/^tDa pia nai?n NP^DDI jnain n» 15
n^nn» ma-'V ff^ lai' nx po^ T»n»n V-IPIN nwy NH^I niana n^nn NW maxa J ••Da *NI n^ann SJID ijn n^ana n»iy Nin ya^ I^BN Nnt^ B>na SJDIO ip^
naa yt^n DINJ nant rvta n-rai 20
1 Bos/s ha-Shanah, IV, 9 ; Gemara, ibid., 33 b. 8 ^osA ha-Shanah, 34 b.
48 GENIZAH STUDIES
VI.
Fragment1 T-S., Loan 97, paper, size 1 8-5 x 14-5 cm., consists of two leaves, written in a very ancient square hand of about the tenth century. It is the remainder of a Geonic Kesponsum dealing with the nenp . Its author is a Palestinian scholar, the pupil, or at least a younger contem- porary, of Jehudai Gaon, the head of the Academy of Sura, about 760. The writer of this Responsum describes Jehudai as " one who has not had his like from early times until this day, being great in the knowledge of the Bible, the Mishnah, the Talmud, the Midrash, the Tosafot 2, the Hag- gadah, and practical law" (Leaf 2, recto, lines 26-28). The description of Jehudai, which fills more than a page, is highly characteristic of the time and the country of the writer. The highest praise he has for the great Gaon is that " he never decided a legal question without having the authority of the Talmud and of his teacher, for his decision."
With regard to the supremacy of the Babylonians, even in the Holy Land, notice the interesting information given in this fragment, that it was on account of the Babylonians who lived in Palestine that the liturgy was changed, and the " Kedushah " was introduced into the daily prayers, although in the original custom of the country, the Kedushah was to be found only in the nnnK> of the Sabbath.
That the Kedushah was not recited on week-days we knew before (comp. Tosafot to Sanhedrin, 37 b, s. v. sp3» ; Midrash iha^l in R. & «/., XIV, no; Maseket Soferim, XX, 7; Jellinek, Betha-Midrash, V, 162, and Or Zarua, II, f. 90), but now we know that even on U"V1 mi? the Kedushah was recited only with the nnnt? n^DD, and not with fpio. This explains the introductory formula "inn in the «1D1» 'np according to all3 the rituals except T33£'N jruD and
1 I beg to acknowledge my indebtedness to Dr. S. Schechter, who placed fragments VI and VIII at my disposal.
3 mDCin is here not the "Tosefta," but is identical with apocryphal Midrashim, and therefore is mentioned after Midrash.
3 I have compared the following rituals, all of them in the possession of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America : (i) 'on ; (2) TIED ;
GEONIC RESPONSA 49
The old introduction was undoubtedly tJHpJ, as in Ashkenaz and Roumania, or "I^'npJ, as in the Sephardic ritual, and "iro was originally used in Babylonia only on account of the influence of the Merkabah literature, and there nothing but "ina was used, as can be seen from the Seder Eab Amram Gaon, and the Italian ritual, which is modelled after that of the Babylonians. All the other countries kept their old CJHpJ or "]£>'npJ, but when they yielded to the influence of the Babylonian schools and introduced the f|Di» namp, they took over the formula ins with it. In connexion with this I will state that the old editions of the Italian "lime know only "ifD for all the niBTip, l^lpJ in the later editions being due to the influence of the Sephardic Kabbalists, who offered explanations why TTD should be recited only in ?1D1». The oldest Italian Timo known to me in which l^lpj occurs is ed. Venice1, 1626, Bragadini. But perhaps the Mahzor edited by 2 210 "an DrnnN is older than the one mentioned ; and in this edition we have the marginal note on the i>in n^np : vbw n»sn n"y D'jmj B* Itpnpj icipoa nnow n">a n^jwai paoioi xi>K nna 'ii>.
Another interesting point in our fragment is the tradition according to which the insertion of yDK> in the nt2>np had its origin in a religious persecution of the Jews. This tradition is found also in the Responsum of Sar Shalom Gaon 3 (Seder R. Amram, page n, Pardes, ed. Constantinople, 56 b), but our fragment adds some details not known before. It agrees with the other sources that it was a Christian persecution, but adds that the persecution ceased when the Christiana were defeated by the Mohammedans.
(3) N'ja-n ; (4) jv:n« ; (5) yraas-ip ; (6) NED ; (7) nsis (MS.) ; (8) D"E (MS.) ; (9) Dior '~\ -HD ; and (10) pro Tnnn, the oldest ritual known, a copy of which is in the possession of Dr. Schechter. With the exception of the TIED, I have used the first editions of the rituals mentioned. The third edition of TIED 'o (Adelkind, Venice, 1544) has "jicnp: in the n"?rn icnba and iro for the Hazan ! The second edition, and that of 1543, printed in Venice by Elijah Levita, has vo only. Saadia in his Siddur has -iwnp: only.
1 The existence of this edition is doubted by Steinschneider (Cat. 2538), but the Jewish Theol. Sem. of America possesses a copy of the first part.
3 He was active as an editor from 1595-1643. The copy of this Mahzor used by the writer lacks the title-page. The bibliographers know of no Mahzor edition by this Abraham Haber Tob.
8 Clomp, also Abudarham, p. 64 b, ed. Amsterdam.
E
50 GENIZAH STUDIES
(J^eaf i, recto.)
DN n»i 'mi i>pi ' 'ai epDi n^nn 0*1103 spoi n^nn niaxa pa ^oaii r6 urn DB>n nnajn &6i nana n!> row noa nns by nanv row nana T.nar:n nmx ^T 'an b i:na yujn not 2 D'yjyao «a»n b'r a'n \w niyi noai moss? noai noa nnx ^y 'an 'WDD by nnx ms PI-DID nunyn ION pn^ na pro an ^5n WB> ntjn nnx nis '»om Tina xa wn y« pene ^N pm nn>» a«n ^» wna i^ ON D^D^H ^SD '•ovya ^3301 »D» n*a a'na naia ^6 4na TN *bbn nsa nan i>
ira nan by nay^ »aao nrpo a«n ow nnarn sh ro o n«Kn nnyoj va^aoi aina n.aB> bSn nna na^n lyapB'
t i t niprnb
'an nan by ^oian yye * nnytyn tsina I^SN va»ao ny pnpno a^ ^faii wen 6,nn^o a^n nny^ mna I^BK nme is nix ^BK napn^ mac' ^y I^DIOO pn o^a napri lim iii :n ^sn na *pB> D^a pri ib N5jn3 PNB> nns 15 n^ia nnm.n i»aa N^IO nn« ^NI imp np» s^ c^a pi 7 nap^ inaB> Nin^ »3Bo nr pioaa N^N Dija N^ N^ n^x nnai? niDN nic&na nywtr nana !?a nanab ':n 'ns nar ^nin^ n.^on npi^j (?)^a noh xa nnx nis «i"Din^ niow nnix bfaii lyapc? ny na ipbru a'n n»a 8^n-ip(n n^o noN^ nnpn 20 i>a ann n^Dt^ sao N3j>n na nan nox ^fan UP lat? na^n npnx arm n.i'D nnpn ^Nn onx ^an^ n^»ia nj^n Dmaan nvb natwr ^xn pac> D<n' nn^yo pn v an n^y nn >ND Da^on n.bon pnpn on pnpn T.^»n n»N sani ostj^n n.i'D 25 nnjw bfan upn^ nanai nana bi pi 9sann n^niia nanai nana ^a ^b }si na^n lyapp ny na ip^nj a'n noa bi '•Nnin1' no nox pi nio^na nnix yop n"np
1 Berakot, 34 a, below. Our text reads rwnrn instead of D'Tioa. Comp. also Rabbinovicz, Dikduke Soferim, ad loc.
8 Sukkah, 37 b ; Mishnah and Gemara. 3 Berakot, 1 1 a, below.
* Bead m ^«o nw rroi. The line under na p» is to indicate that the writer left out some words.
5 Baba Kama, 50 a. * Comp. Sanhedrin, 88 b.
7 A similar passage is found in the MS. of the Midrash ha-Gadol, Dent. 1.17, and probably it was in the original text of Megillah, 18 a.
* Read umpn 'to 'ox^ IN 'p^ '^ "^^ DM- * Berakot, i2b.
GEONIC RESPONSA 5!
(Leaf i, verso.)
nn»y» nor^n noi^ n3E>3 nnru? 0:3^ jnix
nipii n3B> vpajn 031x3 in onan D"BMy nnim pioyi? mrpjni D^por1 1x31 n'nnn ^^ai DHK ioipo3 nnn nan N^»N noii? TIDN &&nn^i yoty nnp Nnp^i 5 n>npi ni>»ani P'oa inm IIDNI noip poa ton pp-Tia nmi nai i?3i nanai nana iv-ipa n^en ^x n^ana V n*np no 'nanai naij^na na^ naia N^K n-m^Ni B^BQ na^ IK 'oa aio or ix poa nas? n^aro nn« DXI uip^a aio DV 10
nma»^ ninas' on^a^ ^rum nvi onoiKB* nma poa
nana Tnaoi now n^a nwirxn B>i?Ba nau' far^n naa
*JB> nns "iai IN na^* Tam^ i'fan wpn x^ mip^na yaB»
nr nn n^aiai yot? nnp tnipn i?a i?fan i3B> ^^^ o^ya
ia*a»y n^i n^ WK ^-asi ! mwo 15 a-> '« sni W»K pan^ vii> twpi y'y rrh n^ IJK onio n:^ WK »an NT o^pnaoi DHIJD DHID J«DB» ^n^ jaca o«n^ unatt nci^ jaty i>ai 2ni^n^» xa DX ^>f5n noKB» nvyroxa I^BST x*n nana pyo nnai noa 3 D'IK nanai nana !>a pyo nanai nana ba tjioa •IKIB-I ^3K D^JB' nanaa nonai Kan nanaa nxian nniox nn x\n nana fyo ix^n nxiai nanaa none) D^BTI nanaa niDXB» pp ^ai nap^ niii^xn tr^a jae* ^ nawo nr np'y (t)^ai nunnK B'^ai niJi^xi B^BQ vanx ^KB^
iy^ I^BKI n3B*3 nfaw 3iyD^ 35 m nn |ha nvyvcxa nxmni nrp33 nsTini ro&a ntnim yoa Dinnh njipTO nanat nana ^>a now &6x nji:o nana nnx py»a K^B* noii' $>3« nana xa niox n^aro wnB» nan3 nmx
1 Berakot, sab. Our texts read yrro n« 8 Sukkah, 53 b, for which our fragment gives an entirely new explanation. s Abodah Zarah, 8 a ; comp. also p"?mr, ed. Buber, p. 268.
E 2
52 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 2, recto.)
nani nan N!>N n»i^ h
rwa IN nan iniN pyjoa N^ nana anynr6 Na DN [ini]N pan-in nana nan IN nWa nan na^a nW any» n.tan HN iniN D^IDI mix «inaB> iniDa onN *)tfo m« I^SNI
pa I»B> pn»w^ nr 5
L L
PIDQ yDB> niciiN nnx ON T»7nn joi natwn }» naba
min1' an nr^N ^in }WNn PIDD y»^ rvnp np^y IN
K> n^np N\n n nnN «» ^N « 'w y»B> nan a!?.n naiia N^n IT nnN ^ ^N »» B» yo^ ]3an wn myi 10 nanxa D'oya DnniNB> nt pac' b myi 3n^ND ^ana nabn Nan
nnoiN «N5i> n»iNi 4o*ynnoi ni>yo '•ab tnyn ow p yenn* 'n 6«i n^yo ^a inyn D^joa wnty av ^aa
D^O nno nnNi onao pn nn ni»ip» nyanNi pnrya *b Nan D^iyn «n wrw nnina ppoiy UN I^QN^ brbyn -s^a inyn 15 WIN napn Nna N^ waxy*? naic pmb uf' niDN nb-^ai ova n?j?ni N\n ptr n.^ ynnv 1:1 ^o^a Nnpan b aina "pp vmaai? n^ana N^>N "yy&fy tnnp p yoB> D^IOIN PN^ N-'.n PN natwi nw* ^ai nn^oai paown bN nab nat^ ^ na^a N^N yDB>i e>np ^nty pnNa onoiN PN r^ay ny 20 D»^invo pn na^a nnnjra na^a o^aiD ny npi^noi nsno wye' j^N^aa na nn^yi mano nN^a i>3N DV i?aa n^np na^a N!?N nnp tanow PN pN^aa ona ona pnpn»i JDIN p*yo PN $>n nnam nai?a oniu 25 noa JD ini»a n*n N^>K> ••Nmn1' an no paa ppTnn ^nnoai m»^nai nae'oai t«np»a ^na n\n^ v^ay ny N^ nan nom n»n N^ n^yoi? na^nai nnanai niDDinai
1 The words «in pwNT piDD are a dittography from the preceding line. 1 Berakot, 13 b. The reading of the MS. agrees with MS. Munich ; comp. Dikduke Soferim, ad loc. 3 Berakot, ibid.
* If the reading O'tfirrai is correct, then it stands for rTapn 'yc rmio ?y '01.
* Berakot, ig a.
GEONIC RESPONSA 53
(Leafs, verso.)
nnyai nwonai mnoai npnpa bn:i rrni m "DO yot? nN 'n^DNo H-TII fbia rmon baa pnpno mm inioa man Nbi nmobi mini? nvnan DN 3npo mm warn DHN Dnsam D-W n , , . DB> warn vnanb uaiann DnN mobn ITVJ Nbi mobna fbia pn ibbn Dnann !53B> nan ^no nan 5 rnin *pnpn o«ph nan lino nan panh n^^ai ava ia io b £i ••NTin1' an no jr6 IDNB> |»ra^ niv pai na^i nann "pon pa npna b px nny^n nam^na nnon pa n«»m naja ^nD^ pai nwrn i^pai can ^6^n i^y ivapna Ni^aa 7301 an I»N •T'Dia nio^nn jo jni? IDN mix fni? IDIN Nin ja^no nnon-io jann nap^c' nxn jom 3i DN »D»J»D na
H3 H'-N napo (sic !) pD'DK NDN HB10 "NO 730 tf> NH 7301
B 3P11: pn N^O n3 n^N nsp^a pnoN NOJ 7301 aj by PJS* "an 15 i>Dio Nin nn T^O wntr ^20 n^a DHD
xn "Diyob i^ ^D "Diyoij nr
nnx Dipoo nsna nao nono r^yy nnp 7301 Npim rvi^y ^yyo jsn piosi ^INI roTim JOTD nao nono nby^ onp fi0"!11 ^n ONT ejov amo niy xnt^aa 20
NM nans cnoDi aj by CJN ap^n )van 3Dnp irs nxna yaip pa "itj'yn abn jom ai »NT a-no nyi bios 3p'j pmo nai "nix on^N^ xb obiyo^ bf '•NTin'1 no ON niyi 4onio U^N n^yob nabn "mobi niobnn jo iVNn ib B>»» n3T N!>N nab nabn n»a n*n N^ Tiobnn |o H^NT ib E'<|K' nan baN mo "ani "ano 25 -nobnn jo H^NI 5Nb PN iano nt^yob nabn n^a rrnp IN uno ntryob ob nabn n^a nsni mobnn jo nabn ib B>*B> nan N^N Dab TinoN Nb "DO nabn Nbi Nnpo "so nabn n^nio PN ^"^nn D""pb "ano
1 The Aramaic form, instead of the Hebrew noio.
2 Hullin, 48 a. The reading of our MS., compared with the editions and MSS. of the Talmud, shows many variants. Note especially the reading rpv N2H, and not '' 31 as the editions have it. Rabbina could never have spoken to R. Joseph, and therefore rpv MN is the correct reading. s Hullin, 47 b.
* Hullin, 49 b, below. Our texts have yaiD2, and not yaij? pM. s Read r }W mo.
6 Comp. Baiba £a<ra, 130".
54 GENIZAII STUDIES
VII.
Fragments T-S., Loan 90, 103, 104, 105, size 19-5 x 14 cm., written in a square oriental hand of about the twelfth century. They represent the remainder of an index to a very large collection of Geonic Responsa. The Geonim by whom these Responsa were written are Doza, the son of Saadia; Sherira; his son Hai ; and Samuel ha-Kohen, or, as he is usually called, Samuel ben Chofni. Some of the Responsa are written conjointly by Sherira and Hai ; but the greater part of the Responsa lack the name of their author. One bears the name of 'It^Q 133 VID Bttn $WD» p .TpTn, and is addressed to sjDV p Wna. This Wro was a contemporary of Hai, with whom he stood in lively correspondence (comp. Harkavy, Responten der Geonim, p. 345), and accordingly " grandson " cannot have its literal meaning here, as there is about a century and a half between the time of Paltoi and that of Hai. I am inclined also to believe that this rrprn did not live in Babylonia, but in Africa or Palestine. The reason for this assumption is his title T1D B>fcO, the bearers of which known to us from Geonic times are all scholars living outside of Babylonia (comp. Poznariski inZ.H.B^'VII, 146), and this notwithstanding the fact that the title originated in Babylonia, where at the close of the Tannaitic time it was conferred upon leading scholars like Shila N^B> and Abba Arika (Hullin, 137 ; Letter of Sherira, p. 28, ed. Neubauer), while the Palestinians used the title ra'tr t?K1. But with the establishment of the academies in Babylonia the title of tmo B>n ceased, and instead of it came wu'TO B»"i, and later Gaon. In contrast to the Babylonian xraTio, the other academies were only KVtD, and their leader NTiD i^n1.
Among the persons to whom Responsa are addressed occur the following names : p pr6tt; nspta *wn ^3 ; JNlTp »33
1 Comp., however, J.Q.R., XVIII, 404, where the C"nDn tt'Ni are men- tioned at the time of the reorganisation of the Academy at Sura.
GEONIC RESPONSA 55
p mirv ; mm : oioipix mo p ow^ ; ejw p im ; D'Di p 2py ; fjDV. With the exception of two, Meslmllam and Nahum, all these names occur in other collections of Geonic Responsa (comp. especially Harkavy's index to his edition of the Geonic Responsa). Concerning Dht?D, there can be no doubt that it is the great Meshullain, one of the founders of Jewish learning in Europe toward the end of the tenth century. Our fragment establishes the fact, beyond a doubt, that Italian- French scholars stood in correspondence with the Geonim of Babylonia. The first Responsa by Sherira and his son Hai to Meshullam with reference to the text of the nit^D, Zebahlm, 45 b, is especially
interesting, as this reading of the Geonim was transmitted to the teachers of Rashi, and he refers to R. Meshullam in his commentary on Zebahim, ibid. Our fragment corroborates Rashi's statement and supports him against rToa&fot(Menahott iO9b, s. v. n^nro), who credited Kalonymus, the father of Meshullam, with the emendation of the njG?». It is note- worthy that the name Kalonymus is spelt DWil^lpJX , which suggests a Proven£al origin for the name Dio^^p. The description of vorb as a part of France1, ruins pK3 "tt?M, is due to the fact that, among the orientals, France was the general name applied to any Christian country of western and central Europe.
The statements summarizing the contents of the Responsa are very brief and vague, and therefore in many cases we are at a loss to say with certainty whether these Responsa are otherwise known or not. The compiler of the index gives only the first five or six words of the Responsa, and the name of the Talmudic treatise referred to in the Responsa. It is therefore obvious that in many cases it is impossible to tell the subjects dealt with in the Responsa. I have nevertheless given references to Responsa that suggested themselves to my mind as parallels, even though I may have been incurring the risk of error.
1 Natronai Gaon, in pnj? nyir, sob, no. 12, speaks of "distant countries like Spain and France."
56 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Fragment 90 ; leaf i, recto.)
npim
rn po enn ^a *6« ^ p« enn ^a
^any man pan
"in iTop n»on» n n^n11 pan
5 now N3 rniDKn Daisys n^^ pnn um «m
6 p^in 33 13 ran rwo Ny3i njno^n pjyh
7 rwa 33 any rrapion i>y DIN noiy pnn «m
H3
J^ prwm 9.nnr is
[x^n] 'n ^3 ^nhity nn ^3N n»n*«n «m 10 pnnn^D fa
impSni' nsnnn panv nip^o *a«n ^y
1 IfoSd Katan, 20 a ; Ibn Gajet, nnnta nytc, II, 64.
* Toraf Kohanim to Lev. vi. 91, ed, Weiss, 33 d ; Harfcavy, JEesponsew, 328. 3 EabaBatra, i^8b.
* The passage referred to is not in Baba Batra, but Berakot, 30 b, and Menahot, 81 b.
5 Sotah, 28 a.
6 Hullin, 48 a. Our texts read 'n 13 "U nai, and Rabbinovicz, ad loc., does not give any variants.
7 Bezah, IV, 7. 8 Ibid., V, 4. 9 ^46odoA ZaraA, 463. 10 Sanhedrin, 4ob-4ia. Comp. Maimonides, Yad, Hilkot Sanhedrin, XII,
a and XVI, 4.
GEONIC RESPONSA 57
(Fragment 90 ; leaf i, verso.)
31D p oo 3-10
nans pKa -IPK naii? runoo
!>f '3K "Km JlKa Kin?
2 DTQT K
ino nswi 3niN Dinars paw WKP m
a
1^ Tin nin^» yanxn a niyn JIB»DK pan
n^a
7 mjnas? ii
iiB^ira myi3^3 jin^onan Km D"n3Ti 8
max nmnp im» pnotn
f pnv n n^ oxn p^aa p^onji Km
K pnaap payb mnin 6
}na nij oa p »K> }an
2 Zebahim, 45 b (Mishnah}. Comp. introductory note.
3 mrr ? Comp. the Talmudic passage referred to in the preceding note. * Sanhedrin, 64 a, Mishnah and Gemara. For nos. 2-4, see pp. 3-4.
5 Baba Mezia, 47 b. 6 Berakot, 62 b.
7 Shebuot, 6b. Comp. c^4rwfc, s.v. «nn,ed.Kohut,III, 506, and Wertheimer, 'Tir nbnp, p. 16.
8 Shebuot, job, lab; Wertheimer, 1. c., p. 17.
9 Giltin, 84 a ; Wertheimer, I.e., p. 18.
10 Horayot, 133, below. Comp.'Aruk, s.v. 1253, II, 233, and Harkavy, 195.
11 Horayot, 13 b, below. Comp. '.4rwA-, s. v. iop, where Sherira's Kesponsum is quoted.
58 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Fragment 90 ; leaf 2, recto.)
1 mmo *
s DTIDQ
po:33 mian nrvoa
pn
L L > JL
nbiy^s "ION jj; NVN nbxoi
natrn
pynt? naaK 3irn
.... H3DJ1
ano JD ana ntryoi
<, 85 a. Comp. 'Aruk, a. v. ':m».
2 Peaahim, 89 b, below; Wertheimer, I.e., p. 19.
* The text seems to be corrupt. Moses is mentioned twice in Bekorot, in 44 a and 45 a, but the words following mco give no sense.
4 Toma, 57 a. 6 ifoSd Katan, 12 b. • Shalbat, 2 &.
T Read 'jNinabu, as in Fragment 105, Responsuin 8. Baradan is a suburb of Bagdad ; see Yaqut, 1,552. The 2 over }mto» is the remnant of tnra, referring to Baba Batra, 147 b.
GEONIC RESPONSA 59
(Fragment 90 ; leaf a, verso.)
*any in 2x1 i?t niaina >vni"»aK
vbv 'T *?y in^N nx n-won ;a rrprn mob
T33 110
i>ii>na
i>5r *JD^ ano ja Ty nan
jnan
jna yw waa iD^pn^ nvnn
a pnu btw» DK joro an n»N
6 D'HDB j
IT nowa iw D^HDD anynu' no ^y
am nan
1 The dots are to indicate the reading 'm nsw.
1 Ketubot, V, 8. Com p. the Geonic collection, nrw: mnn, 73.
3 Baba Batra, 36 a ; 'Aruk, s. v., reads 'Sinn.
4 jBemA, 15 b. * Baba Batra, 156 a.
6 Pesahim, 1 18 b ; Eesponsa o/ </ie Geonim, ed. Lyck, no. 13.
7 Bezah, 23 a, top.
60 GENIZAII STUDIES
(Fragment 103 ; leaf i, recto.)
y ptu m ^s NW la'
n
NH nnnK n 3-ina p«p nut?
nny pnat »an
yan
nn»m
nnainaa ni» n^aae? n^n ni? nn*n
T
6 a;
nr nKoa 6^ n^yan j
1203 pap «
[n3]tan J
1 Shebuot, 41 a, 41 b ; ': mon, 88. 8 Baba Mezia, 12 b-isb.
* Gift in, 39 a; Baba Mezia, loob; Sanhedrin, 15 a. 4 Git (in, 59 b-6o a ; Responsa, Lyck, 94.
8 Baba Ifeft'a, 107, 108 ; Responsum, Lyck, 94.
* Baba Mezia, 3, 4 ; Harkavy, Responsen, 184. T pis »Ty«?, 728, no. 6.
GEONIC RESPONSA 6l
(Fragment 103 ; leaf i, verso.)
jwp !>T PNJ >NH mn!? N way nyi DrrnnN nio^o INITP »J3 uro
by i?r\ p«a NDH n^ ni^^^K mm
N boy n!?y bnyx NO ^D nyatrta oan ITB ian^ pn PDB
f
n imps NJ^SI n-ibo N3^a ••B
NSS 3-1
1 Kiddushin, 47 b ; BaZ>a Batra, 76 b ; Harkavy, 199.
2 .Ba&a Batra, 132 b ; Harkavy, 220. 3 Hidlin, 61.
4 Menahot, 40-43. This Responsum is found in MS. among the Cam- bridge Genizah fragments.
* Baba Batra, 46 b. 6 Baba Mezia, 108 b. Comp. Cassel, p";n, 9.
7 £a6a Ifezz'a, 104 b. Comp. Responsa, Coronel, 5.
8 Baba Batra, 124 a ; Harkavy, 201.
62 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Fragment 103 ; leaf 2, recto.)
1 nwiro
by jn DP K^on trpb pn DNT Nm 3 nap nb
•ran T,inb ypinn pjvano «m pa 'TB
iawi papon n»an ns
6 4piDB oa-inon paya unos -IB>N man ^jn
'iw nva na nipy^ na pw an nn «n pa p« jnK's »b noNP 'B^VBK pnv n 6 nap an
^yas HNOID »anna »aD»apD nns DN 7 na^an ao
rwpoh jo ^ Npsan nnpm pan nwKn »n 8nnna ejw no
px N^m »DV n DN pnn xn no
^*BM 'IN min» i jann xn io
n^aani n^n OKI pan ion xni 11 nap TO
ua by cn^o pnw pn -wcMn »n
1 Ketubot, 44 b ; Harkavy, 247.
* .RosA ha-Shanah, 27 b (Jf/sAnoA).
8 £a&a Ifezia, 81 b-82 a ; Besponsa Afan<., 65,
* Kiddushin, 49 a; Harkavy, 248
8 JlfoM Xrttan, 1 8 a, below ; Harkavy, 249.
* Shabbat, 17 a; Harkavy, 250. T Hagigah, 12 b on the top. 8 Nazir, 66 a (Jfi^noA). • Misknah, Ketubot, IV, 4.
10 Shabbat, 6 a. " Ibid., 51 b.
GEONIC RESPONSA 63
(Fragment 103; leaf a, verso.)
1 tana no
>xi pm xn
JIB-IB n DNB> n^pn 5
1HD iT3B 1333 TTO
nnisa pn» loy B« DN pm xn
33
n pnnn »am '03 'TS ri3
H3B> 13
JKOI n^na nw^n
ni
n »N N3N 13 H^H 'YONT NH
no33
1 Ketubot, VII, 6 ; Getnara, 723, 72 b ; Harkavy, 251, 252.
2 Ketubot, 72b; Harkavy, 153; cp.'Aruk, s.v.rmn nVirc, ed. Kohut, 11,215
3 Ketubot, VII, 8. 4 Read rrcna nnna. • Harkavy, 254, 255 6 Ibid., 256. 7 .Rosfc ha-SJumah, 34 b, 35 a ; Harkavy, 257.
* Beraket, 338 ; Harkavy, 259.
64
GENIZAH STUDIES
(Fragment 104 ; leaf i, recto.)
'33
2
Sp
-ip
rip
njnae>a NN vnsn x? nmiro noaisn pn
maa^ nyi? ny» n^r OKI xn
4 nnwa fp
npy *jpB>ni> Nip DNB' pao pan wm
5 niniaa np
Nan n6si !?IDD nnpn pm xn
Dp
DV nain i'N int^Ni? 'o«
twom
m>n
1 Sanhedrin, ub. 3 Niddah, 5 b.
6 Ibid., 43 b.
7 Muller, 010*3, 13.
a Shebuot, VII, 7. * Bekorot, 59 a. « ZebaAim, II, i.
GEONIC RESPONSA 65
(Fragment 104 ; leaf i, verso.)
1 nmaa rp
pro* pi nx {loan Dip-ia:ip ^t^n NH
8 mr TP
pixn
jiap 'DB' }3» mop in
4 rot? f p
nona niy Nan 'DNT «n ftp nna sno'-n nn 'cxn KH
nnaio |« ........ n
mama ap
ninnx p^ w Q'oaj nns pan
myaa
8 mama asp
H» ana nr ^x n?
1 Bekorot, 58. a ^6o&»/t Zarah, 8b; Harkavy, 45.
8 JJesponsa Mant., 167. * Shabbat, 28 a.
5 Ibid., 104 a. ' Huttin, 95 a.
T I do not find this passage either in Gittin or in any other place, but perhaps this was the reading of the Gaon in Gittin, 65 a. Cornp. also Miiller, QIO"J, 97, and Niddah, 463.
8 Ketubot, II, 4.
66
GENIZAH STUDIES
(Fragment 104 ; leaf a, recto.)
Dwa ninyi' pnn sin 1 DTIDD n6p
S6nn ns v^y now Tan pm »n •mana top
nix nw 'INT ^snon Tn» top
nnrn pit?n {m^ vn pm KH nop
jna airo nisnoii w^vo bop
am nna no r»xn Kn yp
nx jnu jinnnn 'IN 7mvp n pm NH
6 snna NVP
pnnn N^iyn 'B>O «n« na NHN an 'o«n NH
ayp
nmna ni?ya
man «am
mpn
Atm, X, 7.
8 Berakot, 21 b ; comp. Seder R. Amram, 4 b, below, and Maimonides Tad, Teflllah, VI, 17.
* Shebuot, VII, 4; y*c, 71*. 4 Kiddushin, 47 b. * 5a&a £a£ra, 142 b.
* jBaba Mezia, X, 2, and the following passage is from Baba Mezia, 117 b. We thus have two passages belonging to our Baba Mezia quoted from Baba Batra. This can hardly be explained as a repeated copyist's error. We seem to have here a striking endorsement of the theory advanced by Dr. D. Hoffmann (Berliner and Hoffmann, Magazin, VI, 116-17), that what appears in our texts as the last chapter of Baba Mezia is in reality the first chapter of Baba Batra.
7 Our texts have TV instead of min\
8 Demai, VII, 8.
GEONIC RESPOXSA 67
(Fragment 104 ; leaf 2, verso.)
KD
irw am im xc? jnata &aa naoa o^oa mo p apy* no
nny: pn p
3
e»n»B3 12^0 a vkvb nnnnm n^yn n^na^ WN
4 mama -i
jnainaa pamat^ i30ipo ^JN an wm
5 xnna ,-i
7 mama i
IN nt:x ms^n^ mop pm'sn
f ainaa 1^ no« pnn^a pm «n
1 Ketubot, 39 a; Harkavy, 74. a Fe6amo<, 1073.
3 Ketubot, 82 b ; Responsa Mant., 179, v*^, IV, 12 ; 55 a?
4 Harkavy, 224. 5 jBa^a Batra, 131 b.
6 i. e. na and who is not a no rac.
7 Kctulot, XI, 6 ; Miiller, aio":, 12. * Gittin, VII, i.
F 2
68
GENIZAH STUDIES
(Fragment 105 ; leaf i, recto.)
'pl'VPp 1 N£p
2
ppo
nwyn
nnyn
33
nanai
~iy\
rue*
-ia
niK>yi>
'INK' ns
ii3
no^n
na
paoa pnox ^n NO
65
PICK pam
mn1 mo nrvn
PN]B> ns D^IW nvpoi>
1 Kiddushin, 48 a, last line ; Baba Kama, 99 a.
2 MoSd Katan, 8b.
s NWD is a copyist's error for DTIDE ; cp. ibid., 1073, and 'Aruk, s. v. 4 Tosefta Berakot, IV, i : Sukkah, 27 a ; cp. 'Aruk, s. v. 8 Read DV or ^TT. ' Taanit, 19 a. 7 Pesahim, 40 h.
e:ia, III, 7. » Harkavy, 205. 10 Baba Mezia, III, 2.
GEONIC RESPONSA 69
(Fragment 105 ; leaf x, verso.)
no P rmrp ano mr ^Sr ptu <«n
otn IM*I»D
nsna
T y
2 no^
pa minfoa p* D^I nyNoai»K n^v
3 nwyn
nyKoa^x ^y swoto o^n nra
4 ppB>o "i
»1T33 D^n^K NTH lOS NIK
o 11x2
_/^
g
'D or s
ytsp 'JNTias jtni>K nina mo W^N-I
i-
7
nr naoN nv JD^J *s n*» nv NIK
- Q -C"- ' ^ a
xnas pap "Ofco N^ JD:N ^n NIK -T
1 Harkavy, 207. 2 So.'oA, 38. 3 roan«, 14 a, hot.
4 Jlf. Kat., 17 a. 5 M. A'a/.i 230.
• Ibn Gajet, «"«, I, 23, hot. ? 7 Pesahim, 65 b.
70 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Fragment 105 ; leaf 2, recto.)
a
nmna
ID
ii
DB^&G JN ^P ma i
f
enoi nan an ma
'n^N jo i\y na»« nx^n^ 6 }» oa^N yjn»N
w ID fna' Da
x DV nasnaK pao Nina
n» pa jsa
1 Deals \vith npcco miyr, Taanit, 300. a Fe&awo^, 101 a.
3 Comp. Parties, 23 c. * Comp. Tur, II, 265. 5 Shabbat, XIX, i.
GEONIC RESPONSA 71
(Fragment 105 ; leaf 2, verso.)
. *>Np mhna ma^ rnjnai? itb
a f«
mica mno 'o^ n!? yn am
nnva^x }» nrtan x
na^no DNT nto *B ID^J mBNi>n nao vb n^an ns naion nyo urn 3 Nina a
nnpnn DN N^ i^ax nyiap n^naoi 3 Nina •} i a
n^i^Di 'ivc&n nya
3 Nina n
wrm w^B' ^01 o11
3 Nina i
pan un naoinn JD ino^na iicsn i?y DN nao nan n^a n«
1 Harkavy, 2?esponsen, 312. 3 Ibid., 313.
3 £a6a Batra, 65 b-67 b.
4 Our texts have rPcVin ; Rabbinovicz records also n'DVn 8 Read one:? Comp. Rabbiuovicz, ad loc.
72 OENIZAH STUDIES
VIII.
Fragment 2634, MS. Heb. C 18, ff. 35-38, Bodl. This fragment consists of a quire of four leaves, written in Syr, square characters, 4to, vellum. Though the writing is largely obliterated, the missing portions can readily be supplied, as will appear from an examination of the dotted words in the appended copy of the fragment. It must have belonged to a collection of Geonic Besponsa, eight of which are preserved in our fragment. No author is men- tioned, the seventh alone being elsewhere ascribed to Sherira, and the only indication of the time of the frag- ment is afforded by the reference made to the Gaon Zadok (about 823), leaf 38, recto, line 10.
The first Responsum in this fragment deals with a peculiar modification of the law of dowry and jointure, as it was developed in certain places outside of Babylonia, In these places it was customary for the bridegroom to sign a contract in which his future wife's dowry, together with such gifts as he himself made to her at their marriage, were set down and appraised greatly beyond their actual value1, and the provision was made that, on the decease of the husband, or in the event of divorce, the woman was to receive the fictitious amount therein mentioned. This practice led to much litigation, and in many cases worked injustice to the heirs of the dead man. The Gaon, ques- tioned as to how the real value was to be. determined, advised strongly that the custom, which he describes as <£ robbery " and " deception," be entirely abolished, and the practice prevailing in the academies of Babylonia and in the places under their jurisdiction be adopted in its stead. The Gaon feels so strongly upon the subject that he quotes the form of contract in use in Babylonia. As this is probably the oldest form of the nmnp containing a jointure provision, it deserves to be translated here,
Comp. pis nrir, p. 56 », No. 16 : niD:3otj OWD crrrnnroa noj 07^3 ^E? natn poo jnb parvoi
GEONIC RESPONSA 73
After an introduction, in which he lays stress upon the fact that the appraisal of the articles mentioned in the contract is strictly in accordance with their real value, the Gaon continues (leaf 35 verso, lines 7-13) : " And this is the dowry which she brought to him : jewellery and ornaments of such and such value ; wearing apparel of such and such value ; and pillows and bedding of such and such value ; and N. N. [the bridegroom] has consented to add to the prescribed marriage portion [mina] &ilk of such and such value ; necklaces (?) of such and such value ; wearing apparel of such and such value ; and garments of such and such value. The above-mentioned N. N. takes upon himself and his heirs after him the obligation to pay out the value of this marriage portion, together with the addition made by himself. And this dowry has been delivered to the bridegroom, and it has been clearly seen [by the witnesses] that its value is exactly as herein set down."
The second Responsum likewise deals with the law of dowry. The Gaon was called upon to decide a case in which a creditor lays claim to the dowry of the debtor's widow. The peculiar feature was that though at the time of the man's death the husband and wife lived in harmony, there had been a quarrel, on account of which the woman had earned away, out of her husband's house, all granted her by her dower rights, and had deposited it with a third party to secure it against her husband. After this occur- rence the man contracted a debt, and then happened his death, the dowry articles all this time remaining in the safe-keeping of the appointed guardian. The Gaon decides that the creditor cannot claim them in payment of the money owing to him, in view of the fact that the debt owing to the woman, that is, her dower rights, antedated the debt owing to him. He states explicitly that this decision was not influenced by the fact that the dowry had been deposited outside of her husband's house ; in all cases the widow is the preferred creditor.
74 GENIZAH STUDIES
The third Responsum treats of a case classified as usury. Peddlers were in the habit of bartering junk, flax, wool, &c., purchased in the city, for wheat, barley, and other country produce. The wares they carried with them to the coun- try were purchased with borrowed money, and they stipu- lated to repay the debt in kind : for a certain sum loaned the creditor would receive a number of measures of wheat, or other produce. In the interval between the contracting of the debt and its payment on the return of the peddlers, the price of natural products would rise, the benefit of the augmented market value accruing, however, entirely to the creditors, and not at all to the peddler-debtors. The Gaon condemned the practice as usurious, and decided that an arrangement for the payment of a debt in kind was permissible only if the produce was at hand.
The fourth Responsum deals with the law of slavery. If a Jewish master has had a Christian slave for a twelve- month, and his efforts to induce him to accept Judaism have been unavailing, he must dismiss him. The same decision occurs in several other Geonic Responsa not identical with ours1.
The fifth Responsum warns against resorting to a legal fiction in order to evade the law of Sabbath rest, even as applying to domestic animals. A man is not permitted, the Responsum says, to lend his cattle to a non-Jewish neighbour, who will make use of them, over a holiday or a Sabbath ; nor is he permitted to dispose of them by mock sale, for if the law refuses to countenance a legal fiction in the case of usury and castration, surely the Sabbath law, which transcends these in importance, must be guarded against even the shadow of an infringement. Though this is a subject frequently dealt with in the Geonic Responsa literature2, yet the Responsum under discussion occurs in no other place.
1 Comp.,for instance, x'v, p. 26*, No. 21 ; Muller, nnco, pp. 127, 132, 215, and 270.
2 Comp. rnpiCB rvobn, ed. Muller, p. 66, No. 125, and no'ro n"jnp, pp. 16-19 of the Introduction, and pp. 52-62 in the body of the book.
GEONIC RESPONSA 75
The sixth Responsum deals with two phases of the law of slavery. It decides, first, that an oral declaration before witnesses, by the master, that a certain slave belonging to him has been manumitted, is binding upon the heirs of the master ; in case he should die before he writes the bill of emancipation, they are compelled to give the slave his liberty by executing the written instrument. In other words, in Jewish law the execution of the bill may be but a second step in the process of manumission, the first step having been the oral declaration before witnesses. Furthermore, the manumission of a slave, whether by oral declaration or by a written instrument, need not be in Hebrew ; any other language will do as well. In substantiation of this decision, the Gaon refers to an interesting historical fact. He tells us (leaf 38, recto, lines 7-11): "It is related of Nathan ben Shahriar1, a member of the family of the Exilarch, that on his death- bed he issued the order, in Arabic, that his male slave N. N., and his female slave N. N., were not to be owned by any one after his death. There were only these words, no formality customary in such acts was observed, and no written instrument was executed. The matter came before our lord, the light of our eyes, our master Rab Zadok Gaon, may his soul rest in Paradise, and he decided that according to law they must be set free, and he compelled the heir of Nathan, Shemaiah, who was the son of Isaac2, the Resh Galuta, to write a bill of manumission."
The law of slavery is also dealt with in the seventh Responsum, the only one in our fragment found elsewhere, namely, in p*i¥ ^iyB>, p. a6b, No. 29, where it is ascribed to Sherira. The question considered is the sort of extraneous indications that may be accepted as proof of the emancipa- tion of a slave in cases in which no bill has been made out. A man had sent a slave of his to school, and had had him taught the reading of the Torah and the Prophets, and
1 Comp., Schechter, Saadyana, pp. 75-7.
3 Usually known by his Persian-Hebrew name, 'ipc'».
76 GENIZAH STUDIES
later the slave had been married with all the ceremonial observed at the marriage of a free man, as, for instance, the recital of the " seven blessings." On the death of the master, who left a young son, the slave insisted that these circumstances indicated his emancipation. The matter was brought before the court, which finally granted him his liberty, in order to secure to the heir the dead man's fortune, which had been entrusted to the slave. The Gaon considered the decision of the court not justifiable. That he had educated him and had his marriage ceremony performed as though he had been freed, had be.n reprehen- sible acts, but they could not be adduced as proofs of manumission. Reading of the Law before a congregation might have been accepted as such proof, but not mere ability to read the Scriptures.
The eighth Responsum is in an incomplete condition, and deals with the hermeneutic rule, PK nriN3 D'tan D'airo 'JB>
GEONIC RESPONSA 77
(Leaf 35, recto.)
anao nanaen IT ^>y nino^ pbian? Kin pa invy nN pop UNI po'pam onaa n<aN ni> jrp PKIB»J nypa row PNDU "nmni train? iai 13 nanoa r6 jniai |nn noun nnw i>y TJV n»iaan ni>tr .Tanaa n*aK irao 'n^aKne' no oy nanoa jniK D^ni n^3
^y una^i pa*pa D^ipoi pnno noan nann pooa IDB' vby lana^i 5 nniinaa lanae' -no ^3 ^an hun no DS% i>na }NV npyai D*ipo noc' jnnn .... moK DN IN vb IN ban i?Dn^ B»n:nn DN IN si> IN ONI rraK n*ao nK'ant? o^naa ^IDH IN nnainaa o^ainan D^ainrn nyra Mos^n KOIBO nniN ^Dn NOI^ nr»K3 rwyrw no hon^ pin }o
..... DEJOI D^ n^ «»ana ^on DN v^sy poi» noa IN 10 noo nai^b wiw anaoB' ia^N"i p Nano ^ DsaD3 D^HND anaoo nyiaoi yn anao PKI i'Ni^'1 moipo , nyn na:a nisw 12 B*I ^ra DIB^D ia nNoa nao HNO onaa rta *nN aniai na^ooa ^NI^ 'apt pnnoi o*ipo IDB' psn-oi piw inn !?y niKD BTCHI «i!>«3 ^N ^nsn 15 fnaiiyoi nanoa nr SI^N n!> fnia K^ my N^I oa^saa 'DIN DHN no i^y win H!?B> K^anai K»ana |niN Niipi HUN n^ jna» no oy i^y namai ninni iTana iniN NIIP nt ^N rb noa pnoiK UK 13 N^> ^3 nsoin i^ pN Kin canard p DN n^ iniK i^ nnins nsoin K»n pM nsma nsoini naina np*y 2nic^na o^cya 20 S>y Kip*i UDD "IHN nanca ni? jnaB* nr v^y anisi nnn ncNn DNI
1 Read nK'irro or rwio «^nTU.
2 Ketulot, 90 a, and in many other places.
78 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 35, verso.)
•p3 pib pbia' UN PN Nwaa vby naniai n-mntr N^N iiy nr DIP "iw by "iioyb "IPBN IMM -ippbp DIP P'P jva DPP p*1 D'nsoa nNo DPP pn D'poni nxoa nxo popp Dipb navp ^ p« s^n noxa nain p«e» jva o^en ns»a n«o baaai nia^a an:o nana nabn pioab n^ax INM . . . h? 5
DHJD vm poc> nbab n^ax nb jnaE^D Nin. p K'jna pm naina nt3B>a pamai N^HJ px^pi pitw no mnoai ona iai na n^naa nai ia po^an ni>.»n pi p |» »I»B» nnaina by spoiNi PI
pa pa "IP N'loai p p <ip NB'iabn *aN» p p jo 10 '•nnna »mm» byi »nii>y nnaoim NT nnaina nrnntt ^na»i N»IB> pnn »i«B»n sa^rni Nann n^ NT joana mn sbn 10*01 fytyob b»a* sb n^ enao na fa nna pan panan
ba IT!? a\Ti MN^ *M"n mtsen nainaa Plan naa n^ pnosi 15 ^BMI nb^ onaa ba PDB» xi?N N'a^y n:n bp^ob nb n>b MITD nainaa PM 'ox bNio^i rrbyB* no p»B> 'ON ai . nao^M 'jancMi n^y naba M^ana N^N rb PN mnio NM DNI a^a Nna^ni rvbyv no rrcnob-ny ibap ja pp moa \yy*& pa nNWi NIHP moa nbya by bna IN^ n»ana nN nnpy DNI :3yaib nyi p^bpb iyi 20 pa jnpnm nn^sya jntaia nonp no nn"ao nnM^ nypa
is certainly identical with wan?, Kiddushin, 9*, the meaning of which is, however, doubtful ; comp. Rashi, ad loc., and 'Aruk, s. v. ion (ed. Kohut, III, 437). I think that 'taa in our text is the explanation given by a glossator to Nro\"c, which he takes to be a kind of necklace.
2 Ketubot, 54 a.
* Ketubot, 63 b, below, to 64 a. * Read irwra.
GEONIC RESPONSA
79
(Leaf 36, recto.)
13^31 nnam33 n
nmsni ntan&P
N n!> PN rmo DX
^3 biun no DX nWt? nr anaoi 1:n^ya DIP inixa orwya jnw Snen po"-p fwarH? pin xm ^ ntjna DN pai D^n^ iD^11 2D"n pa nn»nK> faixn nWn rras ni> jn:^ pia^ani onaa nwvno moM n^N n^a^> nabm ban »on»m nnaa n^oai on^a 5 a nnxi ^ ir'1^ no ^3 n^oaM nax n^ao ^nNan^ no i>a fetpp nr ^ T ^y po^ani o^naa n^pea N^-N woo yiaxp no tb PNI irvao a nnw in^K ny mta n^yi onix i^^ni ^a 5>jn nvni DHIN ^ID» n^sm woo yian^ am bya «ai noi ^3^1 DIN yao poo pixn mi» no^sn N'lKn wbww pu^ani onaa |m« : ni>&? n»anai nnaina 10 can osm }va ND^T IN N^IN jno niaab ain i?yai? ii? tj« N^ -IN nnaina nvt* naa'-nt?' ny niaa^ i^ px ain ^>ya
n»3 amp
nams noi
ny
ntry^
i|iD3
rb
ain ^>y
nonip '•KOI naa pa iniNO ain ^>ya am i>ya O^WDI ny l|N
15
nao p»pao N oam n«ae> DIP '•NT o n» px naaty no ^ 'o*« D^iyb naa naaty no-naai > mpio am ^ya^ pan nvw na^» mip p mam ^ya na N^P^ N^ p wan NOSI na >aa|) 2o am jo n*o *a^ ain ^ya aa x
1 This view is not accepted by all the authorities, comp. Asheri, Nach- manides, and R. S. B. A. to Ketubot, 63 b-64 a, and Jacob ben Asher, Tur Ebcn ha-Ezer, LXXVII.
2 Read a«nra. s Ketulot, X, 5 ; 93 b. 4 = 'TO:. Ketubot, 90 a.
6 Read IT.
80 GEXIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 36, verso.)
lt\yn xin nrx
air. bya yia* nann nnv OKI nnaina bs yna-n isb^n ain bya ^sb naina 13 pai 13 pa bba oan xb »b no D"no nan 'b no sin psm ^boo jo pa ypnpo pa noan sb pa noan pa nr am by3b nonip pvaipi D'o^ai noxi fnpai nwona pnaioi oneaai nn^ya pnino pnrno pun bjn mytj' by trna ^yao JIOD p^otn onan nxn niyan omyn o^tsn 5
nr np» p:ipi poo pbow nana DTBP 131 na fney ppoiai pniytn jni? ijn^ in nn»B pb jnb nnio npin nn^an HK pjnia^s pn^noi \rh nb nnn* nosn DN nann pr on^a D^CD na»y naa D^na ^yai DJIDO ipoat? n»3 cnb un1 DNI p^b ^aa nbn by^ni po» nnb iii^tr ^6 two* «b
Kin na Drp3»a p^oa: INTI poo bya n^nm npva p3i»e> ini» ix 10 DTap 13 13 jnop ppoiai I^N Dnmob poo panw^ ^^x o^na ^ya pnn •J^BNI on^naa pniyn po^n jnixb PB« poo onb WVB> nyB'a DN n:na
imo ib 5T1 D^D pnONpT D>^B3 ^BKl |^n» . . . . O HVp
pn nr nana poan i^pni niox ib ps pnospn 2mDN orrnaa onb ps DW 'ON pnv> '11 D^HND nib D^ND n«o mb nso ib t^ win an 'ox 8pncM 15 rrnwia n>^n 'n ^nxpn pnx> /-i3 rabm pn^3 nos nr by mb 4nso Nbx ib px tb ps p^ na^Q ib PN p na^o pny 7nb .Tyvob n«n 'n >:xn pnoxpn 13 nnw D^ainr |nb pibo nr nana ^ni bax pa»o noa n^by mb ib »* »i }3 ni^yb IIDN p:>o nstn p-nyun n^tan pvaipi nn"yb pabin nnasai nrvya D^JN by onmob nnb & ib'axi 5 NCN pnoxpn jn^on ppbi }.Tby nibb IIDN Divap «bi
1 These three words at the top of the page are written by a later hand, evidently a memorandum, referring to the chapter -|C3 Nin nvN of the treatise Baba Mezia, treating of the laws of rvm, under which the Gaon classifies the case put to him.
2 Baba Mezia, 63 a. 8 Baba Mezia, 75 a.
4 This is the reading of different MSS. of the Talmud, the printed text reads : rwc >V IT ; comp. Rabbinovicz, Dikduke Soferim, ad loc.
5 ION.
GEONIC RESPONSA
8 1
(Leaf 37, recto.)
pi nyaiM n«3iK n»ni Nan* x
ponoi }va
nyp 'TDK nnaen ^ nna pja*n»D Kpi n^ynxa *T
nn^y
xnnr
Mpi ntoip nit am JND ^ nt? rr6 n»K 'N npen won ton
iy IN »aa KD'P ny ••a MOTH IHD
n«p
JNO i
}» »S m^y
snyt^ tonm
'•NT
DIPO '
icy
ino
Km ^PK' Npi M3i»ya fon^i jva ji? 'tJ'cp nc> »a«nKp n5w«n jva jora an 'DKH P^PK'KP ^ IDJ ia« pa DN nfj mron Kin wn nsyo p^n p
synn D^NPI K^DB^ *op wnyn pasn »a pnnna ppoai IN
lay i^ tw »DI na^n pi naioi tfrtn li? "IIDN ^\ch rwn N^I K'ln n^y nay npi^n *ii> p ycnn^
KSD am '»P pai 'rnicN i^ N»^p w na^ii nai oiai> nai»i mm enn 15 onay ptfpo pai wni ^a |3n3«po N^ lain xa^py '11 ^nn Na^py xia N^T itw tt3B> I^SNI po«pD pN 'IN Naspy 'i ^tyDB^ 'i nai pho P*KB> iai» incna i»aB7i^ i?Ni^^ n^ I^DNI '•1!' p inona nn^aty ^y i?xi^ niw»^ ^DO natra pa mo ova pa rri>y
bsi •piom
jyt:;? ainai nnonai nnDNi inayi ^nai 1331 nnx '3B> urnh na^ aiyo iab nona naoi'i onynh 7ai
1 5a&a Mezt'a, 63 b ; the text of the Talmud as given here differs from the printed one and also from the reading found in MSS. Notice especially i-'ifcO instead of jcnj , and comp. Tosafot, s. v. -rani .
2 Baba Mezia, 64 a. 3 Yebamot, 48 b.
82 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 37, verso.)
D.TD l IIDNI Nin poo iiDNt? n'3n nonyn Nnt?n nv:a IID'N IIDN natr nasjn noiyn 'IID'-N pr6n noiyn i>p TID^N «ine> pN^ nvina IIDN noiynp noa nnN ^y minn i>aa n^y pnnoi non -IID<N na*i nr nay nN ••nin^t? ony ^y vn any '•a-^ -ION:? 3<iiN3 DIN an^y nirn^ v; & nn^n oa an^ ana N^I n^o lap N^ awea n«r 5 s^yoe^ p^a on^ ana ^oa >N N!> IN nvrn taaa ^ano pyp N^> IN ana pa^pn la'-Nn na N^ IN nrw6 IN^ pap n psi pnin >aa jn nr nayi IT p N^ '•NI niTn tsa pania n^o ^ap ""NT nna^n ^Noh Naita nn^n oaa ^aN pana N^ N^> ^NI pana nn"n ca ana^oi? xnwi pa^> n^N ION ^N vn onyi? IONT p^a 'yo SNO nnsni? INVI ha^ la^N ana iayn niTnb ir6 ipaji nn/NO nNT '•nnac' nNi nay nN ^nnn'ti'B' any
inn^o ny^a IONB' *o pnv 'i 'ON *on an NnN^a ca 5an^ paniai ai^ivn nN paia ?nio nnN!> na nayn^
IO^ON 'ON an NnN ^a rn IO^ON^ ^N an I?ON napn ^ pN 6nay miN noi nay
Nmyo Hon am IO^ON '^ON 'm inn^o nyt^a IONB> ^o7 pnv 'n 'ON <on 15 *an nnna> p^a 9/oNn nnn^ p^ba 'ON N^T nniys '•NO ••B'N an8 I>DN N\T innNHNo ^a a^a^ pai^NT nayn Nnipoi 4pnoNi pnin ja '•iNm *oa n «NDP panNno "oa ^y mn I^PN 10in!j 'ON warn rrop^ inN "Nina •vpaon IO'ION 'osm Na^ai^ pai n^ HON KniTm Nta^a pai> panan ^ NT3D '•on ana NaN Na^ai in^ 'ON napn b pN 6nay miN noi nay so 'ON N!>T Nniyo 'NOI in^ 'ON NM Nniyta *on am Nni
1 Baba Meria, 62 b.
* Baba Mezia, go b ; instead of Tin'M read TDS.
8 nwi D^N is one who is not a yro yiu, to whom reference is made further on, line 12.
4 Oil tin, 40 a. 6 Read rh,
• The editions of the Talmud read -rxffn.
7 From ^n till IWDN is missing in the editions.
8 'CM r> missing in the editions. 9 =rrroN Mn. 10 Editions : 12^ laro'i '«op Nnmo >:IM mrw fri.
GEONIC RESPONSA 83
(Leaf 38, recto.)
am farm '-n jvan Nnny»B> p>n p jry»p :s»a ran Tnnu> ni"Vr6 KJP innti' p&^>a 'c« 'an pnioNp pan «py« wnan want nwc nnin11 ia ^NICKO N:N ^N a-ii> 3^CNi ntsnDinb n 'hi nN t|nnn<iB'^ any *by vn any ^B^ IENK> nr
oa in^ pan»i vtnv nx pawi nn^n^> IN^> nxr 'nnsp nw nay 5 pyp pw pnin '•Ja |n o^yo^ p^a on^ ana * na jna i»^i HN^J <aa ID nnxa nB>yD HM JD nnx Dina^D* «i> ^nnac> 'i?Bi nay 'ba no&o nivi nns^i nay a-i ID »»a»y IINO wam *»P^ NHNT nin nn^n oa N^I nin pa»p N^
nn^ni? IN^H ton in^ posi py jaa n^aa Nn^a p^a pnv 10 «nn»m ND^a pnb anal sn^a t^Ni pnxn nna n^yDB' jnan »aam pn ns $>D3 pwn icy p n^im nnaen nay ii? n»n nx D^oB'OB'o 'ninaen D^ay jnix vni u^^aa mm «ipi nnasn nayi> ianai hnrt: mpy n»y nayn h pao nnt6 ra»aa n»hm Diba on^ ION *6i piKn ^aaa main ya^ 15 pn n^a noyi pn«n noi nin^n ea oni» ana «h pim ^aa onx p p pn^^ h B»I nn»n Da ^ lanai ncn pco nax^ N^ nayn cy
ni>jno D^nn nana nrnx N^ IN nnayi? nayi? nnnnb 5»tt» pn hna^a pn iniNP la^n n,a N^ IN nni> i>y«D pn n^a oni> una^ cai : N^ IN nni> mm n»^B* m rwy na* N^ DsN^aa nnm nipi nson n^ai? un
1 «=rrra« «n.
2 The words p'« '«imi refer to «3'aTi »\r« S only.
3 GW/m, 40 a. * Arabic : 5 Read nnccni iiyn mw vm.
84 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 38, verso.)
»B by *|« «nn3 'min nay nx nobn? onxb IIDM *6 p jw 'n '
MM K^p Kpn "lENn DM Kin -IWM nay 2}Niy owaa min pana 5Tnvi 4nnn^ aw xb nwan rvaa ppioa ntj^t? taps? IN 3 ji^a »tni Ninm nin^ yaa n^an nya mm naon N-IPB> p» «»nn sy »TO pnin p n»an n^n^n pncw mm naDii N-ipi mc'yn nm ^yr 5 p bx nn*n^ KXH p^an ifj n^n innea "pno« NPT p^anx mm psi on Dmoj onay on^a bi IICNI vasi : Kin nioa lay 2 jsny nr nay i^y na» N^I i'NiB'1' m^y jnix jn^ laT'aB' n^nn nana nnis fr6 ntfs is^n ian^a 'pncK »an r^a^ D^DIT DB> wwrw bx^ «!? nnayh »TD xa^s »D pnoMi nn»nb Npan ^n^ na rro« spn 10 :nnl|ni' pa3 xb n^y» »nn ^a ba« NIID^N nay Nim jniD»« n^ nayo pnx \rh iana »D *a ^y : n^a K^I wy xi? pn n^aa i!? iana^ niT'n Din en jmn ^a Dix^y vb D^BHV 1^ amai? nwi cin^ jna xh nine' N^ }n^ ni>i bi nnat^i nay mix na^a^ oi^a sh i^y xh i^y joxyo ^K» 6pno^D ps nnxa D^an o'-ama y^ nWen nn nnio: nnay 15 Na^n aa i>y PINI xn^o nni KBni^a nn p^naon "xnp pin ni» nn ^ w^na N^N pnbiab p^nab n^a^ &6i xai
nnK "« DN^ p:o ia naman nn»oa N^N ^ ps 7naon n in^oni? ta» nnxt^ nan baa in-co nnNB' ia nainan a n«B nxnn n« n^o^ Kin onn ^Nwa 'nai : Dipo i?a» nam nw mo
1 Ketubot, 28 a. 2 =)"T».
3 Gil fin, 40 a. 4 Read
8 = THI nn.
' Kiddushin, 58 a, and in many other passages.
7 Baba Mezia, 31 b.
GEONIC RESPONSA 85
IX.
Fragment 2821 — MS. Heb. f. 56, fol. 102 of the Bodleian, written in Syr. Rabb. char., i6mo, paper — is a Geonic Responsum with reference to travelling by boat on the Sabbath. The permission to do such travelling on the Sab- bath is here shown not to be original with the Halakot Gedolot, but to have been inserted by the Gaon Mar Jacob ben Mordecai, who incorporated it in the famous collection to give his own decision more weight. The few decisions by this Mar Jacob that have come down to us show him to have been a man of extraordinary independence \ As a result he was often accused by his opponents of pretending to have traditional authority for his statements ; particularly he was accused of invoking the authority of Jehudai 2. We are not in a position to decide whether these charges have a foundation in fact. However that may be, they go to show the attitude of the Geonim to the Halakot Gedolot in the form in which they had R. Jehudai's work. They felt it had been tampered with.
Recto.
wan 3m | '3-1 um NH 'r pn-i 'a» nina '203 'ru 'bna 'am n3»Boa nn*a^ rb wpn na nn^ob *CNT 'h no nv Tiyao ^ no
1 Comp. Miiller, Mafteah, 73.
a Comp. above, p. 31, line 24.
8 Arabic -..j = Hebrew f]T. * Shabbat, 19 a.
* Editio Venice, f. 17 a, line 15 ; ed. Hildesheimer, p. 81.
86 GENIZAH STUDIES
rap Diip piro ^n Km 'nn pan — &6 IK 10
spy icn
'ya '•annD nn
Verso.
»s 'IK 'oa p 'op pi J
pi n»3r» '13 n N^i Kvt WK 'oa spy*
'oa p 'DB' }3-»3 icy pois pays
X.
Fragment 3807— MS. Heb. c. 13, fol. 32, in the Bodleian, written in Syr. square char., 8vo, paper, on one side only. It is what is left of a letter addressed by a scholar at Bagdad to an outside community. The first seven lines read as follows :".... And thus whenever you have
1 Shablaf, 19 a.
3 The same statement is found also in R. Hananel's Commentary on Shabbat, 19 a.
3 The editions read myth n;n S», while R. Hananel,ibid., and MS. Munich agree with the reading of our fragment.
GEONIC RESPONSA 87
transactions l with the Government, I admonish you to let us know about them, that we may consult with the prominent members of the Bagdad community in the midst of which we dwell, namely, the sons of R. Natira and the sons of R. Aaron ..... and then the Government will deal with you according as the Lord will aid your helpers. Thus do ye, and not otherwise, I adjure you."
There can be no doubt that the Natira referred to is the well-known supporter of Saadia in his struggle with the Resh Galuta ; and it follows as an obvious inference that R. Aaron must be Aaron Sarajado, the opponent of Saadia. Of the children of R. Aaron we know nothing; while of the sons of R.. Natira the names have been preserved, Sahl and Ishak 2, as well as the fact that they were among the most prominent Jews in Babylonia. However, as R. Aaron Sarajado also was a man of wealth and influential con- nexions, it may readily be assumed that his sons, too, were counted among the leaders of the community.
The letter must have been written after the year 960, as it refers to R. Aaron as one who has departed this life (see line 5), but there is no clue as to the author of the letter. Unquestionably he must have been a man of considerable influence and high position ; the whole trend of the letter makes that appear clearly. Identification of the writer with one of the Geonim is precluded by the fact of his residence in Bagdad.
Recto.
i
YW33
p-on nina!? tfaoNan iar fnnK 'ID 5
1 The Hebrew expression ntoci TEH is a locution modelled after the Talmudic phrase nyatc "pon.
' Comp. Harkavy, Festschrift, in honour of A. Berliner, pp. 37-8 ; and Friedlaender, J. Q. R., XVII, p. 753.
88 GENIZAH STUDIES
mi
won jNi ipyn p n*r Da^K D'arnai my mxo MK nr nnsi — oavna^ n« TIIJ& ninaini nnntn 'ana VWIK V<|''1 nixo ^y Da^y-ip nx ppnh 10 ini»n «bi mon HDDI n vnni it^yn no unain H» NVJ ^i« WTOM pa«n p *a pi 13^3? n^N nrn i>nan naia uira: mb^ »a EDD^va wtsan
l^» pK N2V p« DN *3 15
vnom vonn moa
vxtbtt
XI.
Fragment 2634 — MS. Heb. c. 18, fol. 40, in the Bodleian, written in Syr. Rabb. char. The writing is blurred in many places, but the illegible parts can be supplied easily, so that the text can be deciphered without difficulty. It contains seven E-esponsa, of the first of which but two lines are given, sufficing, however, to indicate that it dealt with a liturgical question. As no author is mentioned in connexion with any of the seven Responsa, it is an open question whether they were all written by the same author, and it is difficult to assign them to a specific date. In the view they take of certain Halakot, some of them show plainly that they belong to the early Geonic time.
2. The second of these seven Responsa deals with the pas- sage BeraJcot, 5 b, '131 hhsnrh lDJ3J5y tfw. It is the opinion of the Gaon, that one of two persons alone in a synagogue may not go out before the other, lest the latter be disturbed in his devotions by being left behind as the sole occupant
1 Comp. Pirke B. Eliezer, III : ... K'32 p« ON and -j^ton tow 1EC, ed. Amsterdam, fol. 12 a.
GEONIC EESPONSA 89
of the synagogue. From the expression pp'Tttn }» used in line 10, recto, it appears that the prohibition applies only to the services at night. This is in agreement with the opinion of the Geonim quoted by Rabbenu Hananel in the Responsa, ed. Lyck, and by Nathan ben Yehiel, ' Aruk, s. v. *pD, ed. Kohut, p. 19.
3. The Gaon prohibits the insertion of a phrase like •""< iyfyy D'P'1 in the benediction yif} n»K. He does not stop at this specific injunction, but goes on and sets up the general principle that the r6l«a D312 refers to the deliverance from Egypt, and has nothing to do with re- demption in the future ; hence no phrase pointing to the Messianic time is to be tolerated in this benediction, according to him. He fortifies the position he takes on this point by referring to the r6isa in the Morning Service as recited in the synagogue of the Academy, in which kt*W* foa follows immediately after naoa «. This view he shares with Kab Amram (Seder Rob Amram, 6 b) ; and there can be no doubt that the old rh"\M contained no reference to the redemption of the future, as appears clearly from a comparison of the various rituals with one another. The Ashkenazic Ritual has i'NIB''1 TiV, and the Italian has nun S£a3, while the Sephardic has rmM w )&tfti. Indeed, it is doubtful whether, in the last, laiwa is to be taken as a reference to the redemption at the end of time, seeing that the parallel passage, in the r6isa of the Evening Service, has ma ^, the perfect form of the verb, hence an allusion to the past. It is noteworthy that the Ritual N'JDll also has the reading ni2K ^33 ; but these words are followed not by ywi, but by JWin. Is this the original form of the prayer, or was the perfect tense of the verb a later substitution in accordance with the view of the Geonim that the ni>iKa refers to the past, and not to the Messianic time?
1 Comp. Seder R. Amram, 19 a, first line. This insertion in the is, however, missing in the two MSS. of the Seder B. Amram in the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America.
90 GENIZAH STUDIES
4. The fourth Responsum deals with the question whether the Reader in the synagogue is to repeat 1313 for the late- comers. In the Geonic collection mien I|1JNJ>, No. 205, ed. Leipsic, 20 d, we have a decision by Sar Shalom Gaon on the same question, to the effect that the Reader is to repeat 1313 for those who have not recited the yaw. Our fragment, on the other hand, makes the explicit statement (lines 3-4, verso) that the Reader is not to repeat, even for those who have not recited the J!BB>. However, it would seem to me that the text of our fragment stands in need of a change ; if we read 1331 instead of «i»l, in line 3, the difference between the two Responsa disappears entirely1.
5. This Responsum contains an explanation of the term n»nn p, derived by the Gaon from its use in Onkelos. In bl3t?N, I, i o, it is ascribed to Sar Shalom.
6. Here we have the opinion of the Gaon on the subject of NTvho , discussed by the Talmud in Pesahim, 74 a-b. The Gaon shares the view expressed by the Rabed, in his niJBM on Maimonides nillDN ntaxE, VI, 17, according to whom the Talmudic permission covering NJVvlB extends to nmp — a view opposed by R. Natronai Gaon and others, who limit the permission of the Talmud to vX*. Another interesting point in this Responsum is the reference to nmn with1 hot water, the use of which is opposed by all authorities except Maimonides3.
7. The last Responsum of the group contains a decision permitting the use of a fowl though it has been prepared with the liver. This must be an exceedingly old decision, for all authorities known declare fowl naiD if the liver of the bird has been cooked with it, instead of being removed and broiled separately 4.
1 Comp. Seder R. Amram, 153.
1 Comp. nyicn nnr>, 263, ed. Leipsic, p. 24; nipro ma^n, 44 and 45; Maimonides, 1. c.
3 Baal ha-Ittur, cd. Lemberg, IT, ad; Maimonidos, 1. c. ; comp. also Miiller, Mafteah, 279.
* c'n, 45 ; n*c, 1. c. ; Muller, 1. c., and 70.
GEONIC RESPONSA Recto.
S>so Nina "xn »a i>3N fioipo yap &6 spio n^ani
Dii>a nan PMI »DMT i'aB>i ' N^ MSW nojsn JT33 pnorfo poani* ino rtawa D"DI Dip nnx nwan rvai>
2 D^^ 'can noKBn if nxnoB' e>n*a wn ja :nb non pw MM 'wsa N^ nun!> pncn M^I D^DI }n» noian n'-ao MIM }n» nnx oipi ^annb iDJaaty 'a B^ITS pi HMnB> jva nojan n^aa nai? i-van nnwi n»an!» pnon M^I n^ann p iai? ipijn ppron p Ni^n^ci inyT nanoo nnb nnwjy pamo lysb ^ann N^B> ioa nioni iai> JID^ ia PMI 10
PM Tisni? noMB> oipon Mm :2waa in^an v» wby D'P1 'DIMI aw noM^ n^iwa panMDB' la :N^ IN 4n3B»i rain TIMDI inisani irra>a •w^B' laty nns "oyo '•Jtw ja ICM ai rrinMi> 7ai n^ai» 7a inao aiya nnnM^ 'MI rwal? 'a 15 aw n»xa ^ax IIDMI MH aiya msp nnw nanM nns nns ioi!> it^as IMM MM nnxn p»ai MM nnns^ nnx ni?« a^^i noN IMM DJJB : MM nns xbrn rmp nnsi nab 'so HMV ITD N^N ip^y ba o^omi ne>pa na PM
inia!?o 5 i?y o»p» 10^ iB>aN IMM nM»» n^yci 20 33 6/N^ p»» bai no»ob n?3jv» N^ ja njn D^iyi> TI!>O» ^/''/'' N^N 'DIM WM PM
'
non nx ioiai yDB> y onian nas .....
DIN '33 ^3B»3 1313 1O1N5y N1HD B* .... 25 »D3 IN : 1313 n»i>B» 'ONB* T»6 .... N^ inx!? 1D333B> DIN »33 133 B1* .... B>0 N^1 . . .
Berakot, sb ; the reading of our fragment differs from that of the editions, as well as from that given in MS. Mun. 3 Mishnah Berakot, I, 4 ; Gemara, ibid., na. * Read : s1? i« p nvoyb IHTC n:in. 5 =»i:^y ; comp. line ia.
GENIZAH STUDIES
Verso.
yia»b pm PNI pen pyy no N^> IN > jnao^ pen PN
"inN3 1D333P DTK '33 fniN DN nsfo "p N^N HT ^ HT
D'w op N*1!D IDK ONI lOKi mrn11 i?N yDty nnp ixnp nyewoa ncnn pn ; n»nn pn pr '^en : NTI n^oab 5 n ma KJM nn3^io3 n»aa nixini? ncn
ncm Q^iyn D^NOtr nyea p p«i 'a wan 'tfloa p^y iWrtn^ a^pn»ti> nu!?xi ne» na^ n^m nta DK nhaann VK'I n*aa niNin IN naini' ptwn ^3» pnnn 2p^Ni n^» jnai na^ na* IN Nnt^ NH^O nnit^yb mo pt^Ni ^33 H 3/an n»N ^^ pnnnn «nim NH^N^
^ n»ia i^aN IDNI rair6 jna N^ Npni ^yb noia
i !>2N m Ninn ID p^an 4nxn ^m DIKTD N^DNT 15 jna i^aN pnnm nnnm nntat? 'BWDS nnnm nnbo nn NVCOI n^nw nhanni : «nB> p^nn nami> n^aainn nN biNi "nan nN pnir nnso nine niD i33n HN pnir Nnnao n^n^ nM I^BNI n^nnaij mniioi no : i»vyn Nin nn 133^ yao cyD no n^aann 20 en ^Nnn i33n }o ui?BB> m 'aann HN -JOIN
inv nun la^N IIDN -013 I^BN "»
^n 6pm 25
nriN
. . , nytsa nD^n^ ona , , . na . . , nt3^n^ m oasa
1 Berakot, 45 b. * Reading doubtful.
s PesaAtw, 74 b; the editions read wbro, while MS. Bodleian has to = NrvMto of our fragment. * = jmsrr. s Read iVpn\c.
' Mishnah Hullin, VIII, 3 ; Gemara, ibid., 109 a. T Read N1?.
GEONIC RESPONSA 93
XII.
Fragments 2760 — MS. Heb. d. 48, fols. 13, 14 ; and 2826 — MS. Heb. d. 63, fols. 60, 61 Bodleian; Syr. Rabb.; 4to, vellum. These two fragments not only are written in the same characters, but they actually belong together, so that 2826, fol. 61 is the continuation of 3760, fol. 14, and 2760, fol. 13 is the continuation of 2826, fol. 60. Whether the first quire of two leaves precedes the latter, or vice versa, cannot be determined. The arrangement I have made is based upon the fact that the first-mentioned set deals almost wholly with the treatise of Gittin, and the other set with Baba Mezia. I shall hereafter refer to the set dealing with Gittin as Fragment A, and that dealing with Baba Mezia as Fragment B.
These two fragments contain thirty-one Responsa, all, with the exception of four, being new material. Neither the author of the collection nor its date can be fixed ; indeed, it is doubtful whether all the Responsa have one and the same author.- The collection may be a later grouping of Responsa from different authors. Judging from language as well as subject-matter, Fragment A and Fragment B form each a unit, whatever their relation to
O *
each other may be. A possible exception may have to be made for Responsa 9 and 10, which do not seem to belong to Fragment A, and which, indeed, are found elsewhere, as will be shown presently.
Fragment A contains the following ten Responsa : j . Of the first Responsum only the end has been preserved, but even in its fragmentary state it is of some importance for the textual criticism of Gittin, 77 b. This passage in our text of the Talmud gives an anonymous discussion on a decision rendered by R. Joseph. In the Responsum, the Gaon ascribes the discussion to Samuel and Rab Jehudah. We must conclude that R. Joseph cannot be the well-known authority of that name, who lived two generations after
94 GENIZAH STUDIES
Samuel, but must be identified with '•DK1, the older colleague of Samuel, whose full name was Joseph.
2. The second Responsum also deals with Gittin (79 a). Besides explaining the text, the Gaon expresses his opinion as to the authoritativeness of the statement by Eaba with regard to nviBH.
3. Here we have the very important decision, that an error in writing out a bill of divorce may be corrected between the lines without invalidating1 the instrument. Though this Geonic decision was found in the Responsa Collection, Mantua, No. 97, none of the codifiers from Maimonides to the present time refer to it, though the view expressed in it is opposed by them all. According to them, a bill of divorce is rendered void by a correction of its text. It is characteristic of the Geonic times that the Yerushalmi and the Tosefta are ignored — the very authorities used by the codifiers2.
4. The Gaon holds that a Gentile cannot be made a messenger to carry a bill of divorce. He makes no reference to the decision on the same subject rendered by R. Hananiah3, who, as a rule, was freely cited by the Geonim. The inference that our decision anticipated R. Hananiah's is not unwarranted. It should be mentioned that the text, especially in lines 23-24, is corrupt.
5, 6. These two Responsa contain explanations and decisions on matter contained in Gittin, So. The interesting point is, that the Gaon maintains, that decisions are to be made with Samuel as against R. Ada bar Ahba, while the codifiers, including even so early an authority as Alfasi, decide with the latter against Samuel.
7. The Gaon states it as his opinion that the form of mp DJ had become obsolete*, as it had originally been instituted for the places settled entirely by priests.
1 On the relation of 'DM to Samuel, comp. Harkavy, Responsen, 274.
1 Comp. Tostfta Oitlin, IX, 8 ; ed. Zuckcrmandel, p. 334 ; Yer. Gittin, VIII, 500. 3 Comp. Mullcr, Jfc//fea7/, 72; and Harkavy, Responsttn, 312.
* Alfasi, aa well as the other codifiors, gives very brief treatment to mp BJ ; they, too, considered it an obsolete form.
GEONIC RESPONSA 95
8. This Kesponsum is the first in the Collection not dealing \vith divorce matters. Possibly it belongs to another Collection. According to it, a guardian of orphans appointed by their father before his death cannot transfer his charge to another without further formalitiea He must appear in court and explain his situation, leaving it to the discretion of the tribunal to select a substitute.
9, 10. These two Responsa in the same relative order are found also in the Responsa Collection, Mantua, Nos. 88 and 89. The first of them demonstrates how meat may be used without WWO1. The second of them deals with the calling up to the reading of the Law. It decides, that in case not enough men are present at a public service who can themselves read the assigned portion, the same limited number of adepts may be called up a second and even a third time. It is noteworthy that in the Mantua Collection this Responsum is given in Hebrew, while our MS. has it in Aramaic. There can be no doubt that the latter is the original form. A similar decision, also in Aramaic, given on the authority of R. Natrona'i, is to be found in Seder Rob Amram, 29 a.
Fragment B begins with Responsum n.
11. Of this Responsum only the last sentence has been preserved. It deals with the subject W& njnat? fc^Tiio DIN px (Shebuot, 44 a).
ii a. This Responsum also treats of a subject in Shebuot (38 b), the difference of opinion between Rab and Samuel as to the amount of a claim justifying an oath.
1 2. Here we have a very important decision with regard to the Halakah, that no man may be fined on his own confession. According to the Gaon, this law cannot be applied in the case of jypQD tfi> Dsn 'N. This, however, is not the view of the great codifiers, as can be seen from Tur, Hoshen Mishpat, I, 3 a, ed. Konigsberg.
1 In later Geonic times this lenient practice was not permitted. Comp. also Alfasi, Hullin, VIII, ed. Wilna, p. 28, and Muller, Mafteah, 279, and Baal ha-Ittur, ed. Lemberg, II, 2, below.
96 GENIZAH STUDIES
13. The Gaon decides : n'3n nap n'anb njoso n»aaon Mezia, 8 a). He adds that the questions raised by Raba do not imply that he rejected the principle ; they merely indicate his abstract, theoretic interest in the matter, not any practically valid objections.
14, 15 are brief explanations of Baba Mezia, 10 a and 12 b.
1 6. The Gaon explains the expression D'oa? in Baba Mezia, 1 6 a. A Geonic explanation of the same expression was known to Rashi. The latter takes it to mean the inner chamber of the Academy, while our fragment takes it to mean the innermost recess of the heart.
17. This Responsum is found also in ¥"&?, p. 90, No. 28. It contains a description of the different kinds of documents enumerated in Baba Mezia, i6b.
1 8. A short explanation of Baba Mezia, n a.
19. In explaining the Talmud passage, Baba Mezia, qlo, the Gaon speaks of three different classes of society: first, the aristocratic class, consisting of the Nasi, the Gaon, and the Ab-Bet-Din ; second, the middle class, scholars and merchants ; and the third class, slaves, watchmen, and habitual tipplers. The expression Nasi is rather startling; the expected word is Resh Galuta. The sup- position at once suggests itself that Gaon and Ab-Bet- Din likewise do not refer to the Babylonian institutions, but to similar officials in Palestine or Egypt. But this hypothesis is disposed of by the fact that the words for " watchman" and " tippler " are Persian, and no Babylonian or Egyptian would have resorted to this language. We are therefore forced to the inference that Nasi stands for Resh Galuta, as it sometimes does in both Talmudim l.
20. The Gaon gives a definition of nwn mita, and in explaining it he cites a Persian-Arabic saying, the meaning of which I confess myself unable to determine.
21. This Responsum is interesting on account of its explanation of the word xnvn , which occurs in Baba Mezia, 2i b, and, according to the Gaon, means " edge of a field."
1 Comp. also Seder E. Amram, p 51 b : . . . D'^NJI C'Nnw, and a*n, 4.
GEONIC RESPONSA 97
The Gaon evidently connects the word with the root 13X l, meaning " to frame", " to hedge about." However, he seems not to be right, as tnvn occurs in the Targumim in the meaning of "staff," a meaning that suits the passage in Baba Mezia.
22. This Responsum likewise is interesting from a philo- logical point of view. The Gaon explains N"ttOn (Baba, Me?ia, 20 b) to mean " blockhead," like the Arabic nsxin (?). I cannot conjecture the etymological basis for this explanation.
33-25. These three Responsa are brief explanations of Baba Mezia, 25 a, Pesahim, 47 b, and Baba Mezia, 6 b, below. They contain nothing new2.
26. This Responsum treats of the Halakah, Jioioa pahn px 3lin "inx (Baba Kama, 46 a), and offers several interesting variae ledionis.
27. This Responsum is allied with the last. It discusses a point in Baba Batra, 92 b, where the Halakah just men- tioned, 'W paSn pN, is fully treated.
28-31. The last four Responsa offer explanations of Baba Batra, 93 a, 93 b, 95 b, 97 a. Responsum 29 is par- ticularly interesting. The Gaon had a reading different from our text, and his reading is not without Halakic importance.
(Leaf i, recto.)
y »KO •£ twppni :n TOO pan '»si "NO rrvb ND^J '•LJNDI ny NO^J ^02 onn 'vwa*^ No11: pin prn» N^ "h nnpi n^> anpi NM omn r,i{yn cnn onnb wn Dnn 4 mm* nii? ^NICB' 'tax pan
1 Did the Gaon think of NTIJ, "bank of a river"?
3 For Responsum 25, comp. p"j, HI. * GtV/tfl, 77 b.
4 The words mirr a^ b«imu '"JO« are not in our text of the Talmud.,
H
98 GENIZAH STUDIES
$ PK mn «n3 "tram n-rb KDDI ny . . . . mpo 'mbptn 5 bwni :mpo ba» rrrci }na '»ib 'bn pao 'anpi mntn ma n 'xpn Nann pan •'Dsn »an rnavbyn by niaiiy 4nnnn nxno aan "iiiKb jwnB> jva nb ipin JJH cnnin moiy nn\n 3>3«n n^ ipnn niaofe «*ni r^n^o Nin nenuo IT Kin p^p»i neniao ir nn ejnw IK pn»^ aan 'c^no 10 vnB> paa ^KTO^ 'ION mm* '-i 'DK noa^D N^ xn ntM&D torn ni> pnr '•ai nw^i by na^1y N^n Nan11! x^n niainnnn nivno K^aon sa^sita K»nn by nw»nK noob nbyobo o»aa 'mTOB' enb^ N2Ni 'DKT Km 'avbyn by 'nnn
: ton nabn po»a payb bax nxDn paybi na^ payb in ban IK pi3 IK pM ix 6 pw«n»nna naio ma '•yxun 16
IONT T'BB'i K*nb KIT p ^bn '•ystin n nx bin 7nabn '-iioNpn min IBDD ua
nn^bi pann ND^a b'Dans «bi iv a HKDIK n^a 20
bioa
nbm n11 no^nn by nnen pn iw 8/t^ ibn na^na nn^ pwa 9ban N^nna 25 i^ino pin can naiani Noiom naian nby xin 10n-iin 13 jam* 'i 'OK " K3K -13 m»n 3°
= y«jM as in «»bic, Ba6a Kama, 32 b = Nrinj ; our texts read
* Giflin, 7 7 a. * Ibid., 79 a. * =m:innnrr.
8 Read niTO ; the copyist forgot himself, and after having written
again wrote nvposj, which is to be read \r = ttnlJ«J and nrro. ' About the spelling with three yods, comp. Responsen der Geonim, ed. Hnrkavy, 13, 355, 436. 7 Menahot, sob.
8 «!b*nw». * Mishnah Gilfin, II, 5 ; Gemara, ibid., 233.
10 Editions: rrvnn ; R. Hananel: nnna. " Editions: 'CM 31.
GEONIC RESPONSA 99
(Leaf i, verso.)
mina WKB> ^ n^ya TO FWK taa i>ap^ n^t? npya iayn ^K K»e>pn ii> nnar may nrvn DS rrutw »B i>y *|Ki pprrpi PDU b *6 nnar may njvn DK pay^> TO sn-ioi ^nsnna pbyo waio ni>y3 ins
'oNpi KM pixm nnD»B> may sn ntwe pan ^ nnar may nn»n 5 Km n^ ""ixm xna^ nn*n^ n^ttt^ ^ NITO spn n^i |nx nwin pia KM may IK^» nnaty Kn ^N *an 'cspi KM '•an ^as ajn»o QW rpno^o <IIIK^ K!J n!? nayno K^ ixnyi nyoa Knww Nrvaa nwKn i^b *DKTT 1^ nror may nnM DK nnar may nnM ON mupp *B b ns Pn^ '1 /ClXPi 2 n*aaK3 xaxa 10 nonaa sa^n 1^1 "xrk nnns? oa n^ ^p^ob n-i? N'-ar ib woai n^ya TO niw ca ^api? n^B> n^ya nayn px pan 3nprna »am noyo iaM 'CN nrn 'oxpi nsio ny n*op^ Kina na nnx ni? nap^w nca nt^yai ICK TI» naiy 4nayn nnnio jmnnx noKB> nvny ba 5pnmn 'ano Km v ITO K^K Kwn n^ nnatw N^J ^ K^B^I nroi nro xvn maa 16 mx nb n*Ki KD^ Ka^DJ^n p-iKin n^nnx paa naoai PIKI ^INI xo^yD e^a»K KMn
xaxn xa'-s nroi nro xvn SND ao
pan IN^ mn^a p»Kno K^»K n^ p»pa» i? K»{?PI paM ^a IK^I 'an» Km n ncK^ nvny b N^I B^ inay <IK»I nnniD 6/ano 6ai I^KO nmon niny
PINT ^TKT TD^ IB^B^K »D
»aKnpi n^nnxn nnvb naoai na p^in Np Nn niDi nm nnion niny w ^ nioN nniDK nnx in-* I^ND . 30
nvny K'tr ix^11 iy 'ai
1 Git fin, 23 b. 2 Read n'O'3. s Read 'cp >Tra.
1 Read nacp. s Mishnah Gittin, VIII, 6; Gemara, ibid., 80 a.
' Mishnah Yebamot, I, 3 ; Gemara, ibid., 13 a.
T F«&amof, 3 b, where our texts have : crrrms ivnr . . . f]N nyn ':K« bia'.
H 2
100 OENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 2, recto.)
nnrno jnww pnxb rnD3^ IPBK w hwn £K» nmon r6 nw paa ni> nnatro pan K^> <K : HKO Kta nn* pin nvny B>&? «^m pie6 iKtf3i i^sn rrmn ia^ni nvny B>B> p^.-6 va piB^ n»D3»Ki pnhn nnx £n nv^K IKSOSI royrwi ^«n ^ya ' . . . JD ^xh WD*an nnx ^n iNy"i nwb»« isvoi nionn 5 PINT T-*^ xh «M pam }b '301 : jna -6\sn a*a-vin ^ai
xn nnvn ia^n i>y 2 pnowpi ip»y ^a n^nnsn an 'NT wwon am rrnavn ^n»n 'o^n N^ wn p« pani 'rn«n *w»n 3N^» N^ non^ rfooa nnaw o noKi : K^yo wt^^ IND^: ynpn ««ni ir6 pnn yoo 'o^a unb pnn sini wo»a nojn sa^K wnnn
nawon am nniwn D'-n nanc^ nf»ya iW nswna NS^H<IDT xniyoa nosn Sncnnxn N"is»a }» Nip^yi N^n nata IK!J
noiaai oa11 nnoiB' ^axnpn N^NI p^pci Naiaon ana »nai»Hn 15 ••a-'na poain pe^Tp px 'CNT KM wpy 'n »atDn p ao^i pun ^TNT ^ N"^pn ism i?3N :nnya n
KM xa^py 'i 'ano sm np^y fe rnaa ian«K N^ KH n
ra jnoK pasn ^DS 5 N . . . N P»TDK wa 20
nnma DSK>J rnev trcn 6pm pan
iB'iana IK 7ir$<»a IK wio DK von OKI mien OKI iniona 101^ ha* nnK K o:«n 8/a >i »a *in»n »03 Kn UKOB' IK 25 ntD Kvn n^i^K IT
1 Read *r. ' Gittin, 80 b, and parallel passages.
8 From the second Mb till wnp are the explanatory words of the Gaon.
4 Sotah, i8b ; the reference rrovun >n«O3 given in the text is incorrect, as the passage in question is not found in the fourth chapter of Sotah, rroiTM pic, but in the second chapter, N'IO rprr.
• Read 'ON vh IM. « Mishnah Tebamot, I, I ; Gemara, ibid., 2 a.
' Read i:«'o. • Mishnah Gittin, VIII, 7 ; Gemara, ibid., Boa.
GEONIC RESPONSA IOI
1 ana : pixi> »a<no ireo v* 'OKI xa^py 'n »acn pN noanb nreo vt xana ca^ nn^xen '121 nr^ nr ianai nmb naitn B»X!> Da naio '»Kp xonD Kep xan nnb*o tfino pan ?x nry^x 'na nai>n ix x»xp nxi> DN Da nr »nn ntcsno V&M& nx ws^oi' nc'ia nty^K 'n n^ NHK 30
(Leaf 2, verso.)
mpaen 2 nnnx na m« an^ ^NICB' n^ NHNI Da M» ^"ni irkxb *tn »a»n nry^N 'm Nio''!D3 »««n Np^ noa^ NDP torn mt« am 3^NiDira -ity^x 'na paion KH^D Nsino pan pr nnNi? *ONT ya^ 130M ^a N^ ^n knee^ «mvn *ainwb M»ya 'nx 13 noy 'DKT nan« 13 m« 3^ 'oh^a ^^ ^s?3^ in^ar na^ 5 !^ «n m patrv^ pr fcs "»NI Iwrf' K^N n^ ^ya xa^n w»n N p'piaoi ^W»B^ 'an» NH N^P ^ty •'NO ^a saxn PK ID^ 13 mx 311 ^NIO^ snwx K^I nsn^»3 ^n&v n»^ Dpi »je6 n«Kin mar
vby po11^ ••NJDI v^y po^^a ^an mp * Da — ^NIBBO na^n nanx vn pnay t6i mn^ inpD DJI rvn^b mp Da nn^ni anp i^as ^nxpT 10
mna mp Dan 'DyD ••NO *'D«pn mp oa!> pan mpf>Di n^y» pna n N$n nn B^KBI icinn da^ia 60x1 'D'n'r pixm pa»m n
^a ntnpD pi pan rra inra na^n ^yan .Tnin^^ N»^ptD sp Da ama xb xntrni jn-^a ^cnaoi nap mm Kin --anan xnns
: pan pn^ la^pm Kin '•anan Nnnx Ninn^i Ditw n^ipo vm IN KannK 'niDBN Kin ««D!> ^a» Tn £ naoiraa xaniDax 16
mm nTix Ninn> n*a»"n x nsacsm Kin yno a'-atj' KO^a janeKi :n^y lo& K^N n^a nuy n3n i>ai Kin n^aan Naioon 20 b inapn no N^N bw K!J ia^n n^n N^T xaioo i?y m ^ pnra xaxn wn Ha n:p
1 Mishnah Gittin, VIII, 8 ; Gemara, ibid. 3 Gt«tn, Sob.
1 Read . . . tooaarn " and as to the difference of opinion between Samuel and R. Ada bar Ahba ..."
* Mishnah Giflin, VIII, 10 ; (Jewara, ibid., 81 b. * Baba Batra, i6ob.
102
GENIZAH STUDIES
pxn na
p»pibi
maTin tfao »bv ibaixb "IB>SN JN DN "•N-i^ na»nn buiJ-i ii»y nbye> ny nnnpn nx irmoi vaab irwoi 25 mnx na^nn 'bnaiioi nnrn ii»y nbyt? ny pi'moi inrn nnx D't^b nDiob TIDN nr nani itra Fbz»v ny snani invbn n»hn i»y nioyb p^ia* PNE' x »an 2l|n^noi pn xna^oa nnpn^> 'T to^i
ejny *aoi 30
njnas? ia"n» DJP u«no PKB' va no " '
njyta nvp» mw ny«B>
(Leafs, recto.)
tb nyiaan nyn^ s^a j^p^ t6i p»a vn xi ruyDm pnrctj ypai Djn*» pi'P^ xb 4nJ? nyu^ B^IIO xi*
an a^ai 5 spa anpi am /-iDNpn JM*K «pn n^n 'm 'n^non 'ya ^NO ana 5
n«n 7~i 'aia NirDn^s* N^T sni : ^nn^> twnrm *a Nion-x xn
na n^i KM pan 'KII
pw ^vni pw^ yi oy wncv nnaoi DJIKB> j nay ^ paa D3p ia"no pw jaia n^yo 12 pnr» xnn icvy »a ^y DIK D^C p« pnha pi?n nay^ pyi 10 !? -iox ymn* 'nb INVD n^na nnotp HDB> n\ni nay »ata py nx no^o l4 noa ^ IDK nn»nb K^T nay ^aoB> jnv nn« '•N 1 D3p ^a KD^K nnin naap wfa inana px ii? 'DK iry nx K^ 'CKI noyta D-IENI *ON*I sh «»Bnp i^ rwv« n^x losy »a by ban »« 'osp ••an nsnn by JKS^P SND nxin by JN»B>P nosy »a by Dip 15
1 Read 'nD'ui or VTODI.
> = D^cbcoi D':i\2? ; comp. Se^er JJ. ^C»nram, ag a, and .Response Collection, Mantua, 99.
s Read Dl« pn. * Shebwt, 48 a,
5 Mishnah Shebuot, VI, i ; Gemara, 38 b. ° Shebuot, 39 b.
7 =T3» Npi. 8 Read Mb i« bsiraca JTibn. ' Shebuot, 70 a.
10 Hullin, 141 a, below, where our texts read: «:n3» i«b NTT 'T rrb IOM
11 Ba&a ifezt'a, 3 b. " Baba Kama, 75 a. " Not in our texts.
14 Our texts have nnb. 15 Comp. Mishnah Sheluot, VII, 3.
GEONIC RESPONSA 103
i.Ta ioxy 1% \>y tbwo rvb mo u u niun ^ONI !uini> n^b o^ani Np o»Kpi n^ own N¥V iun-an Nniyun3
IWVD nuaon Non na '•ONI l 'osn N.II : np'y iu Nn^o Nni> Nn^o NH xm n»pn H?K 3-6 .TIN nm nna NnN 3-1 '^DN 'n 'CNPT NNT 'ab»n iT'an rup n»an nans y»tr N^N p*pi>Di «M*B> 2 N»3
8 T^O^K N^sn N2N1 DlBflO NOTl »31 1T3H
wan nap N^ 3^o»M D^iy^ n^ ^peno NPT
5 nan -D 13
'ON N^I ^ nan 'ONT w>nuK>D noxn QKI iT3n nap jna) N^O 8/oNpi .T^ Ki»3D pn 7 on jona m SJKI : ^ »3t 35 'ON ntpp m ^ iNbon^at^ no ^ais 'ON pona 3-1 n»
NJpDO3 ja^TONl 2 NO3 n
no nt^ 3ii fona m »ai>BnD NP
: n^n nap N!J ino no n^n nap 130 xi o»3in '^13 IN tfny ypip3 4 janoNpn 30 9 'ON 'noNpT iosy now n»3n ^y3 KB> t3 nun
(Leafs, verso.)
10 pro* 'n 'ON nan 13 n3 nsn 'ON pai »DK 'n 'ON jui in imp nv3 now. , .
ni^NBni novy^ i>yia nN**o imp 1V3 nun i>y3 noiy PN ^3N xv pnn 13 DIVI n^N^o n^y nit^y^ ""oy *iiy^ *o*y E^i^a p3 n N3HN HNO nun i>y3 '^ONP uni niiiyty DSP ""oy *ny pai nrnyK' D^P *o^y NDVT n^ian pun "oy -ny p3> niy^ 'n 'n '•o^y Ensa rp^j -i3y^o N^n niy^n KINS? N*nn3 nun ^ysi? n^
NOIH n^« n-6 nsyt^oT pu nvn naN^o '•o'-y rrpy ii? '•oy niK»y^ •'o^y -ny^ "-oy cnaa p3 WN N3ita IN^ nun n3in nni^n in^N^on p^oy n^ano 3pia n3y3 N3Nn 'ON pnv '11 : nrn 10
ezia, 8 a. a =rrc3. 3 ='(
* Baba Mezia, loa. 5 Editions and MSS. read Max 12 K'Tf.
6 This is also the reading of MS. M. T Comp. note 2, p. 106.
8 Bezah, 39 a. * Baba Mezia, i r a.
10 .Ba&a Mezia, n a. The reading of our fragment agrees with MS. M., comp. Kabbinovicz, Far. Lect., ad loc. - 1L Baba Mezia, ia U
104
GENIZAH STUDIES
ninK naK^oa inu'B^ nsn iai pK Kova nir '» i-antroi p*ai pan DIC?O -IK-VO p«£ n^ '^NPp tb ivan byai n»nyi nooi Kp K^I nafc6o D»y .IK^VO n-aam 'ox ,i3Ki :iovyb 'ox NDQ m riovyb byia nwvn Kan '£>o ivan byai n
nnan *nwa NEJN ""NDpn *ONI »a»m ni^vr: op$6 ^naB*B* jiaa 15 DIB^D n*an ^yan na^q Nnossp si>i n^xo N^nn^ nna^N nxia pan vro »KO DIJD^ ijsh D*:ab 3n^Ntni iovy^ ^yia HN-'VD pan xvi
anx « IT 4n
xvn
p npan
am« ^^1|^<^ p»ana
5 *
. . a
ny n»»n '•NO a».T x xana n^a a-'nan paa paan
N^ tnn 'OK noi 'in 8 'OK no : nwpfc wn n^ab pa^ob
pri'ai KM KnbnD Nin niao ^o nenn^a pan : ^^a 26 "101 NODO no »IKB» "101 TDK no *win ^y niBK
Kin 'OK noi Kin 'OK no myj 'a pSi HKI.I ^y pa^ai nnoo :-ioia nio 101 ">oia mo 10 HKin by n^a wh K^r ^J^K pxi »3Kp Kin aiB'n DIK 9pKi "^ K^P Kpi x
•OKp K^ JKO pa DK K^p KM iiait^n ilB'K »K1 'JKp K1.1 31
pan
"KOK
3131
awn
(Leaf 4, recto.)
njp K!J Tya nap mB»a aiai nK^xo
11 'ax IK pKJ IK K»B>J IK K3pD01 i13p
ttO^ n»am iKh 'ye '•xo I'-ya aiai IK "PDIW IK "ntt»D IK Kiay paa KM
1 =~WTDO. 3 This reading agrees with that of MS. Rome II.
' Baba M,ezia, i6a. * Editions and MS. nov n.
* Read "iu. « Baba Jferia, i6b.
T Read n:no nctr, as given in the Geonic Collection pis nyffi, p. 90 a.
• jBa&a Mezia, n a. 9 Ibid., gb, top.
10 Baba Mezia, ga-gb, ** 'aM = p n'2 3K.
" m3'0=.Pers. j*°~* "wine-bibb.er." 13 In Pers. "watchman."
GEONIC RESPONSA 105
•vya "UD^ naTi IN^H nai5?n new -NI UN? n^y rwaa t&n 5 IN 'mo IN 'can '»i>n paa D«jn»x DHWK i>aN : N^NP nynaa tana ^nb \snrn l "o'3"Na NDIN p n«yo pn»Nn »a»n Hai D"na nN3n nain SDJO »a»n 2 r&tfeni : Tya pawn jntpa <3Np Kb T-ya xx nna»an NnrvN paa m'a pan pa^na uoo nwp^ poo
pnaya ain n«yoa pnoNi »a nw 7aa »nr 'p naina r6 nop ^ya nxo --N rr6 «noNi IN 3 xn^
'aina ni> nop Nnn^N N»nn xn^o w 'aa 'p *w i^ i>»p^ an ps^na HJDO nwpi> KH^D «nn ND^N N!? 'noNpi ^nr 'a ^rsi laa 'n^oan 'ox pnv 'i ^^ :i.T3 ^NO nnns nyi 7»N NDQ xxi men m» i>a ^y ha: in^ ^NOI xnyn i?y I^TNT »3«n p^nso 15
na n^n Dpi? IHN Dp^ Dp^ nna op^ 'ow B«pi? ja DUSK sjwa moy an^ na« 'n '^DNP *an GN-ixin oyia xxn mp p^ai np^y i>a Nnyo^i WTD nyn> Np tc^n ^n ia fN^ N^N cno yaoo N^I ^oa vb riao N^T 8rnao xya'-D :I»K> xxm 'Dj^an ID sh JNVH JD in^i^a HJHD^I »:i>a i/oi>B> yawo xxiv crrn 'a» nay^ paa 0*3^ ^nB' p !>»« n3^ p n^ nnn*B pan at noB> 03^31 sa N^ ^N ^a^i my ^>ao «y tnn ra> xxv n»na nt^yo payb 10T^y» payi> ""iNin pa^o '•CNT "DTI naa PNXV ra vf.,i6v *na jop nna i^ n^yi loaia nt^y Nin nx nrxa
ioi«i Nip^oa npio n^y NV 'o'n'rYnVa'a'K tsa^a paioi nnN 25 " , . . P jva 'ta jniN Nnip Nincr »a ^y «|« T^na 'a i«y n^yo nr
IN am nTiNia 'a^n jnaa wwai n»an^ lie' nai»n Bn^«PTi xxvi an "No^ya j^ No-'-pi Nin ^Ni»K>a 'na5>m sann pan bwiotPa 'a^n nw Mn»am iTnND pcan po^P -njn '•ana ^Niotra na^n btvsri 30
I Reading very doubtful, and as it stands gives no sense. D'3MJ sp;5 JQ, "he who does not belong to the average classes of men," would fit in very well after ^DIM in 1. 4. 2 JBa&a Mezia, nb.
3 I am unable to explain this phrase satisfactorily. * The copyist was going to give Responsum XVI here, but reminded himself in time that he had written it on the previous page.
8 Baba Mezia, si b. 6 Ibid., 20 b. 7 Arabic ?
8 Baba Mezia, 25 a. 9 PesaMm, 47 b. 10 Baba Mezia, 6 b, below.
II Read NVnr. 12 Baba Kama, 46 a; Baba Batra, 92 a. *3 Bekorot, 49 b. " Baba Kama, 47 b.
106 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 4, verso.)
nni» nraa vb& ny DN yiT PNI mnn nnaiy NVDJI men nx 'DIN 'am D13DD nan n$>£ yam ms$> pw nrn D^E>D '"> 'DN »3ora na ^NIDP 'n 'DN 'DNP aim : mann vi>y onan ^>ya ns '^ m»tnn i^y n*an
h *na *a n^ KTOD jnn 2 on »B>« an ej btnora n^nn vi'y inantD &WWDO& ^nx pro ann^ ^ a«an xnp ^ Ko5» kr6»o »n ^K an bn p p^n fon: ann»ab NHN »Koi» snp nnn nao an jonn 'ona Dpi xnoa 7i|pN2i Knn^ pan TO*rw^ parn
nan ^NIJD^ ^TN man nna p^neM *a nao ^NID^I ^m n»an 10 • N^i»n NJIBD pay^ ^ax NIID^N p:yi> ^*D »an 8^rs man nna DID 9N«n N^P bwov '•N nanani :na^n pi m«nn i^y nano 'n n^ani? nna na»n urn ^>NIDC> xn N^P ^ND poion pa IDJDI nnx
:rv»tn NP snajN "wnaa iha nninn ba IO/OB> N!J pnv xxvn ^n 'oyta »KO «»n tma^n lyjn DIDDUIP IN ajj NVDJI n^an^ 15 'n '^m xn^na |» IN 'jno p N^N nny^o IN Nnavn j^aniD a ^y BJKI iynr »on i^ jnw pbana P*KB> m^a ^lynr 13 a»nani xxvm N3n Nnoan Npna pnoKpn 'nnNa a*n PN jn^a jnr I^BK NK' »3iynr N.n 'nnNa a^n pNn Nin jn^a ynr 'ONP »an *DJ aw iynr ^»n m^ aw »an NJNPDD pan NO^N fnvnnNa yn 20 n 'DIN B* ^NnNp '»^n »ai lynr ^on 1^ jnw ino pnc« Npn «a DN NJin ai 'cam t^D'-aia na^n D^ani nwi Nin nw 'OIK B^ xxix nt nn inan^ nna
1 ]rov '-\ 'ON is not in our text, but it is found in the MSS. of the Talmud, comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc.
* The writer first abbreviated NT3D J'trr to 'on, then changed his mind and wrote it out in full. 3 Read ib.
* Editions and MSS. read WND or W3 instead of mr*n.
5 Editions omit irrx, but MSS. have it. ' Read part ncEDl.
7 Read ipim or rp'i. 8 Repeated by mistake.
* Baba Mezia, 80 a. 10 =i:ynuj. ll 'Erubin, 82 a, top. lt Baba Batra, 92 b. 1S Ibid., 93a-93b. 14 Berakot, 9 a. 15 Editions and MSS. : nc:o mcr> .
14 Baba Batra, Mishnah, VI, 2; Gemara, ibid., 93 b.
GEONIC RESPONSA 107
&nny '-IDNPT tteny i^axi 'ano 'ai nsci* 'niataD '» vi>y ^ap» N^T *£DP 8»an i>ap»a 'B»K v6 2npx np^n p*a 'cm inn rffy KantttPM 25 am Mm wan »a^ i>an rr^y unx »a ^ax 'anoa pan -netn haa D»r6 ir
rva rm xyna anon rKfwanp ?y pnron
i* p pyot? 'n Dicw pnv 'n 'o&n xn 7 'am : wo^ya JVNIO K^K xxxi ones? .,,.,. ncrn^a pan nhai> ^ n^nsb 'enp p n^wn 30
XIII.
Fragment Taylor-Schechter, vellum, two leaves, sizo 28 x 22 cm., small square hand, represents the remainder of a collection of Geonic Responsa. The Fragment is badly damaged ; it is especially regrettable that the first two lines of leaf j , recto, are practically missing, as there is reason to suppose that they contained the name of the author. Fortunately, the few letters left on the second line are sufficient to give us a clue. The letters '•NJ probably are the last of the name Natrona'i, and the super- scription of the Fragment may have read as follows : i^x nana^ ianar •wntM an no pxan IJJIN^ niaiKn. This assumption is confirmed by internal evidence, derived from the separate Responsa. As will be shown when we come to consider them in detail, they contain opinions known, through other sources, to have been uttered by Natronai ben Ilai', the Gaon of Sura.
In its present form the Fragment contains eighteen Responsa. Of some of them the contents cannot be satis- factorily described on account of the damaged condition of the Fragment.
i. The first Responsum deals with the question as to whether a benediction is to be said while washing the
1 Read nsi:E 't. a Phonetic orthography for >ip?N ipyci.
3 Editions and MSS. read differently. * Baba Batra, 94 a.
5 -=ncpo, Baba Batra, 95 b. 6 Read norms.
1 Saba Salra, 97 a.
I08 GENIZAH STUDIES
hands before the grace after meals on the Passover-night. The decision of the Gaon agrees with that given in the Seder Rob Amram, 40 a, which holds that a benediction would be out of place. The two passages coincide, not only as to content, but also as to verbal expressions, and one is thereby tempted to conjecture that Rab Amram, in his Responsum, excerpted Natrona'i's decision in this case as in many another. That the custom of pronouncing a blessing over the washing of the hands before the grace after meals on the Passover-night prevailed in those days, we know, and not alone from the negative proof of the Gaon's adverse decision. It is expressly prescribed in the Haggadah of the Genizah published by Mr. Israel Abrahams in the Jewish Quarterly Review (X, p. 42). The perpetuation of this custom in the Passover-night meal is a highly characteristic phenomenon. It is not the only one for which this meal has served as a medium of preservation. There can be no doubt that at one time a benediction was always said over the washing of the hands before grace after meals, no matter what the season or the occasion l. The custom fell into desuetude2, but it was saved for the knowledge of posterity by the Passover-night meal, the typical Jewish meal, which gathered up and preserved numerous customs at one time or another generally ob- served. The washing of the hands before eating " Karpas " at the beginning of the Seder can also be explained only on the same principle. In ancient times the ablution and the blessing always preceded, not only the eating of bread, but also the eating of a vegetable with a liquid (
1 Hullin, 1053. The statement of the Baraita, nain c'mnNi D'3it*n DTD, admits of no other explanation than that the washing of hands before the grace after meals was quite as important as, if not more important than, the washing at the beginning of the meal, the remark of the Tosafot (see s.v. o'o) to the contrary notwithstanding. Comp. also Tanhutna, ed. Buber, Balak, 145.
* Comp. the authorities quoted by Joseph Caro in his Bet lose/, Orah IJayyim, 181.
8 Some rigorists insisted upon the observance of this Halakah, even in
GEONIC RESPONSA 1 09
Become obsolete in post-Talmudic times, it yet lingers on in the Passover-night meal, though even there it is shorn of the benediction ; the ablution alone remains.
2. The second is the famous Responsum by Natronai Gaon on the " Order of Benedictions," hitherto known to us only by references to it made by Amram Gaon in his Seder (i a et seq.), by Abraham ben Nathan in his Marihig (6 b, 7 b), and many others of the older authorities. As this Responsum forms the nucleus of the Prayer-Book, it will be well worth while to consider it in detail.
In the Benediction nct?J T6x occurs NTi minD1 , in agree- ment with the German and the Byzantine ritual, showing that KTI is not a later addition, as Baer supposes. The idea underlying the addition of ton2 is that the soul, when- ever it is separated from its body, as it is at night, is pure, in spite of its owner's sins, and every morning returns to him pure and clean. Another noteworthy expression is wn instead of yoo, occurring twice in this Benediction. Are we permitted to assume, on the basis of the Palestinian word ^CM, that this Benediction is of Palestinian origin ?
The order of the short Benedictions in the Morning Prayer ("in&'n niDin) is the same as that given in the Seder Rob Amram, with the exception that it omits the blessing ^NIG?11 "itaiy. This can be taken as additional evidence of Natrona'i's authorship, as Zedekiah ben Abraham Anaw, in his Shibbale ha-Leket (ed. Buber, 3), states explicitly that in the " Order of Benedictions," by Natronai Gaon, the blessing btnsy itDiy is omitted.
In the Benediction onon ^DU two considerable variants are offered by our Responsum. It has neither utajm DHDH at the end of the Benediction proper, nor 1»yi> D'QIB as the closing words of the final sentence. That the words btnjp* IDJ& are a later addition is corrobo-
post-Talmudic times, but without success. Comp. Bet Yosef, Oral Hayyim,
158.
1 Comp. Ratner, on Yer. Berakot, 147.
2 Comp. also Rabbinovicz, Variat Lect., to Berakot, 60.
HO GENIZAH STUDIES
rated by the fact that they do not appear in the Seder Rob Amram, and that Isaac of Corbeil in the p^DD (151, Kopyst edition, I2a) has IWO^ instead of them.
The Priestly Blessing after minn n:m is not known to Natronai Gaon. From the remarks of the Tosafists (Berakot, lib, s.v. 1335?), and the Manhig (ed. Berlin, 9 b) of Abraham ben Nathan, we learn that to say it after the minn ro-O was a French custom, and we may assume that it was not known to the original Seder Rob Amram either, but was put into it as a later addition. In connexion with this it may be mentioned that it is equally unknown to the Byzantine ritual.
The selections from the Talmud and the Midrash after the early morning Benedictions are the same as those in the Seder Rob Amram and in all other rituals, with the exception of the Byzantine, which does not contain inTK pipe. The reason assigned for the practice of reading these selections as a part of the liturgy is practically the same as that given in the Seder Rob Amram, and both authorities go back to the same Talmudic passage for it, though each has a reading of his own of the Talmudic passage.
The Benediction D'ani IOK> tjnpo does not occur in our Responsum, and that it is of later origin appears from the fact that in the Roman ritual it is recited without D£> or mata, the very form used in the text of the Manhig (ed. Berlin, p. 7 b) l and by Mairnonides.
It is very remarkable that this " Order of Benedictions " has no blessing over the Tallit. Are we to assume that at the time of the Gaon Natronai the Tallit was not worn generally ?
The last Benediction in the Evening Prayer as given by our Responsum reads : vc?y» ^3 ^JJ Ton n^333 "ji>l)Dn, which differs from all liturgical forms known to us.
3. The third Responsum is the decision of the Gaon,
1 Notice that the words WTYM an in the Manhig belong to the sentence preceding them, and not to the following one.
GEONIC RE8PONSA III
based on Bdba Batra, 91, prohibiting the purchase of produce for speculative purposes, to raise prices and control the market.
4. The fourth deals with the subject of usury, giving the opinion of the Gaon, that it is forbidden to charge a higher price for goods because they happen to be sold on credit. He puts this practice in the category of usury. The identical Responsum is found in the Geonic Collection p*i¥ 'iy{? (p. 40 a), where it is ascribed to ?*? *WJ 11. It is usually assumed that this *17fl is a misprint 1, or a false reading, for "iri, and it is therefore generally credited to Hila'i Gaon. But it is not impossible that the reading was »bn '3 'r6, i. e. "iri p 'wntM m-6, which the copyist mis- understood. He took '3~b to be 133li>, which he abbreviated to 31 , and then he omitted the '2 standing for p , which in his reading was superfluous.
5 and 6. These two Kesponsa deal with questions of inni T1DSN. The contents of the first of them it is impossible to make out, on account of the damaged condition of the Fragment. The second considers the question of the signs classifying a bird among the permitted species. The view of the Gaon is the same as that mentioned by Maimonides (nniDK n^3N», I, 19) as the view of the Geonim. Comp. also Responsum 14 of our Fragment, and TUT, Yoreh Deah, 82. In the course of the discussion the Gaon mentions that the bird MID, occurring in the Talmud, Hullin, 62 b, is a marsh-bird, which disposes of its identification with the wren, made by Lewysohn, in his Zoologie des Talmuds (p. 178), and by others.
7. This Responsum is a brief explanation of the Tal- mudic passage Baba Mesia, 85 b, in which the great merits of R. Hayya in connexion with the revival of learning in Palestine are dwelt upon.
8. The eighth Responsum tells the Gaon's opinion on
1 Is it likely that the suffix 'i in this name is the Persian 01, as in for NJTDN, and in other names ?
112 GENIZAH STUDIES
the subject of corporal punishment in schools, in the following words: "Children naturally can be taught only with the help of the ferule. . . . Therefore small children, and even big ones, if they are naughty, must have it applied to them. It does not matter, when the children are healthy, if they are caused considerable pain. But if the teacher uses the same method with small and delicate children, he is a barbarian, and he should be warned not to do it. If he persists after two or three warnings, he should be dismissed."
9-12. These four Responsa deal with liturgical questions. The first of them contains the decision of the Gaon, that in the Musaf Prayer the Biblical verses describing the sacrifices of the day are not to be recited. The same decision is quoted, on the authority of Natrona'i, by Ibn Giat, "nys? nn»B>, II, 26. — The second of this liturgical group gives the form of the Benediction as nvn in the Shemoneh Esreh. It is nearly identical with the form in Lev. R., VII, 2, in Pesikta, ed. Buber, XXV, 158, and in the Genizah Frag- ment published by Professor Schechter, Jewish Quarterly Review, X, 657. — Of the third only a few words are legible, and they give the form for the D^on ro~O, which closes with DW~i "Utt?, as in the Seder Rab Amram and in Maimonides. The Byzantine ritual also has DWi 131^, though with the addition DHT V^3O .
13-14. Both these Responsa deal with the question of the species of permitted birds, but only the second of them is in a legible condition. At first sight there seems to be a contradiction between the decision here given and that in the sixth Responsum, but in reality the contradiction is only apparent. It should be borne in mind that the circumstances of the two cases respectively are different. In the sixth Responsum we are dealing with the case in which plVD mryi ma, while in the fourteenth Responsum we have the case of {"TCD J^N "jri's. Comp. Joseph Caro, Bet Yosef, Yoreh Deah, 82.
15. This Responsum, found also in the Seder Rab Amram,
GEONIC RESPONSA 113
1 9 a, gives the rule that every attendant at the services in the synagogue must conform, outwardly at least, with the accepted order, standing when the other worshippers stand, sitting when they sit.
1 6. The Gaon here renders the decision that a scholar is bound to interrupt his very studies to join a funeral cortege if it does not count the required ten men, no matter whose funeral it may be, whether of a child, a woman, or an ignoramus. This decision is quoted on the authority of Natrona'i, in Ibn Giat's nroP nytP, 237.
17. From this Responsum we learn the interesting fact that the custom of using Mazzot for niTVn 'aiTy is as old as the eighth century. The Gaon mentions Rab Phinehas as the first to introduce the custom, and it is very probable that this Phinehas is identical with Phinehas the brother of Mar Samuel, the contemporary of the Gaon Haninah, who are mentioned in connexion with the redaction of the Midrash Esfah. Comp. Yalkut, I, 736 *. Until now the custom could not be traced beyond the thirteenth century. Comp. Shibbale ha-Leket, ed. Buber, 71 2.
1 8. This short decision by Natronai has evoked a lengthy refutation from Hai Gaon, published by Horowitz in D\J1B>K"1 *?W jrmn, 251-6. The matter in dispute between Natronai and Ha'i is whether it is allowed to milk cows on a holiday, the former forbidding it, the latter permitting it in direct and explicit opposition to Natronai. A reference to this Responsum by Hai is found in the n"t|3sn, § 330, where it says : "]irb i6 ^3K rmpn *]inb n^m . , , . rota "piri anai? JIM 'Nil yf? j«nn pam mypn.
1 Comp. however, Brull, in his Jahrbiicher, II, 82, note 133.
2 Comp. the 'JDITK, fol. 74 d (183), of the Karaite Judah Hadassi, who opposes this custom of the Rabbinites, and Vidal de Toulouse, on 'Erubin, I, 16.
U4
GENIZAH STUDIES
:i !• :i X
-r* O n D
c 3 r §
* r^ IT ^1
as
P- S P ~c
*~~fv.
el
c % ~r^ v
^ - S J£
C ^ " X
P * i 8
*" Q H- r
*~* n
g r^^r\ |-
& rr
I~ *""""
r Q
C 55
ri
s S -
25
fe J^
gn ^- Q a £-
O
r
!=- r
55 ?2
55
n a c
~ S* a
* P- F -&
P fa C c p <=
j% M • r^ ~r>.
" Q £ • £ •£
?& n c a
*-% »j\ ,_
n C - - ~
£~P
*
r
n
g &
*-* *.f\
5 - *- a
»N •>•_ »- C1
n £L
f- y
55
n
o
55
n
P
a 55
E I
r *•
^ o
£- v n
C v a
55 "
r- _r\ a a
£ & x c p. c
£ S i
R^ £
^ p n
g-S 8
C f. n
a n as
n
h
q 8?
K i •I fe
^ K) tt
•« fc
g n
UEONIC RESPONSA
Q -^
B F
£ 2
F Q
5 ~r n * vn ,P .P & E r
I 1 B •- V * 1 1 f
0
«
2 2
£
I 2
n6
GENIZAH STUDIES
? E
^ F
as n:
c „
P S r * s
c ^ £ g^^
c r1 5^^
S E ''~ E
• " *" _r\ ~
22
0
& s
j\ a ^ S
r n . S
a « as • i
IX C
c n F **
X
r ^
g
n. n
Q
& *~ n *~
x "
Q ^
r" *
g ?
1 r
-^ as
r '-
t- i |-~? r
x& § F-
5 ^~Q
•§ r I
« Q !~
F a E
IT F
S "
r a n n
n ^
S n § Spa
as S a
3 & *~ c
" F as .1
? & * g
/\ -^ ° c
1^ ~«^ as
i ^ i 1
I * *
n a s
p ££ I
f-g
a n
^ ? 2
£ ' ci
a r
r
5S n
n ^
(1J
Q ~r^
^ ^ 5
^
n
*• n
Ss
n Q r f»
R ^"
1-
§
•M
\
a" R
— M w sT
*r H
•5 «
S"^ E E^
e P P §3
*^ it n *2 "*
^~ w
n C ,3
GEONIC RESPONSA
ui
.- ^
f^ n - £
a
Q .JN.
D n n Q
*£
c r
a % r
§ a &
h & S
e a
p 2 »
- n Q
J^ " ^ 9 F n
n Q j\ &
i-f
n r
F H
c r-
-g £»
F"t
n S E ~J>
C .^N. F £>
JI § ° Q
c JN n n
r- SC *"
o E i= n
is r^ o x
ci J^ ^ a
r*
P
^ g»
E> Q
-s &
§
P F - S R - « r
* £ §
n
F n ~ci
C y
P r t-
a - a
~r\ Q
P ?
a r-
t!
fa
t Q J3 ^
iT! ^L_ *^
13 n
° & J1
R - &
^r\ 3s -Ji , o &
a S n _ r- r
O rx P
£•£
a :; f
c J- ^
" S S
F £ $
x n
a n
*s/ *^
* r
c °
p\
n fa
g
%
c
Q n
n
r
Q ~r\
^ q
X
ri P Q
ir a fl ^
53 5 % n
X. C
n -*^ JN 3S 13 E>
C? S E>
y »^
o C
f.i
r» CI o
Q n
S g
% 1
D 35
f CI C
•8
ri
1
n
F S • S
n x
X
Q
n8
GENIZAII STUDIES
iJ
n § * g
*—— Jj ,J"\ t~~
; *" n *"•
J£ ? J V
" n n ~£
^ — ?? ss
: r g n
Q r-
Js 3 1 »•
n ' ^
? § E
& " —
r r
Q & JZ *=• n c o o
^-g a &
2^
^ I §
P r v
as c
r r
P ^
r as
c x
35 £
25 n n
H- 25
C r
X
r ^
l~l *
9 ?
5S
*
P E
& n 35 " c
;*?
2 »
25 i?
a
X p
n *~
^ Q l~ S>
? s
25
Q P X
^^
n
0
25 Q -r\
- 2 r
C Q ?
a >5 n
*5» ^^ 52^ °
a ^ x
x
1 55
Q
r
a
.- Q
h. n
25
r Cl P
£
a r c 25
£> S5 C ^rx
fl f-1 ^^
^_ a -? -^ n. §
^ S n
^ n P
*- Q r- 25
J* f- JJ
X
a
X
n r-
s S F
J- ^ ^ E S
• 25
P" *^-
JH 25
n r
x a"
P «
25 :i t« O
r —
^. ^ c
^ Q
r n ' c & .. 3
& c £ 12 f- f=-
n.
^ ^ P
**" n n
*- n ^
Q P« n.
|3 **-£-
25 r|
•? S
S3
•fe "2
PH
25 25 n Cq
jj
£ S fl
K
r.
s -i-
C T!
«fl
g|
GEONIC RESPONSA
S B K| •«
* •§
120
GENIZAH STUDIES
JfwZifn, 63 b 64. a, where
mp. Hullin,
-•§
s a
is
Sf
$f
J-^r-
GEONIC RESPONSA
121
r c
S 5 ,
F "•£ n
*-£ E
^ *
t &
F ^ a S & *
35 P ~T>r
K i P
8 i =
D P 35
l-B
CI
g
35
Bttl
t: 5 I *
:i £3
fc n
c
£ r -•"
• ^ a
n , o
E £ 25
^ C "
35 r
o g _£
J> C S—
a p
_rx n 13
35
n n •- c £
Q t=
g n
C Q
n I
£ ,-
rt ~rx
£ C
fl ^
n r-
s I i ~ F~?
Ill
n »
,. n n
* £
35
a r S -JN
x •-{>
c n
n
& E
32
n 5 r- 35
r.
C o.
£ a
— c n
£ Z 9
55 C £
£1 n
~ n r~
i I &
S n
a
35 p
r o
^ n r.3. ~
35 § P
^/\ E P
r §
c a 52 c
1
J- f~
n
35 r»
I- Q
S F
B §
35 35
» O
n t
si r "T ~
35
c
f- ci
r
r.i &
S ^ -S £ En «;»
'-on
y. r r-
C 35
Q l~
^ r
o
a
a n a
_ 5 ^\ *~
r
x E
32 "ft
J%" F
^ n
^E Q
c S
_s ^ 55 03
11
b «
;£ o t-
. I
J2 ^
. ^ T3
^ S g
Tt* 'P FH
•* 03 .
"«S 1 §03
•§ £ 3 * ® .,
^ o*
N a>
W cS
> -^
jh
^^
o3 iS
M H
122 GENIZAH STUDIES
XIV.
Fragment Taylor-Schechter Collection, three leaves, paper, written in a large hand, square, with a tendency to cursive: contains the remainder of a group of Geonic Responsa, three of them having been preserved, and these not in their entirety.
1. Of the first Responsum, a single line, the last, appears on the fragment. It seems to have dealt with the question of the guardianship of the female child of divorced parents, whether she remains in the custody of the father or of the mother.
2. The second Responsum, of which the end is missing, contains a long discussion of the passage in Baba Batra, 80 a, on the sale of the young generation of bees in a hive. The question is, how is the bee-keeper to distinguish between the old and the young, and deliver to the pur- chaser what he has contracted for. The Gaon replies thus : " When the young bees are born the hive becomes too small to harbour them as well as the old ones. The young leave the hive and swarm. To prevent them from flying away in all directions the keeper attracts them to a certain place by sweet melodies on the kettle-drum and on the flute, and thence they fly into the new hive prepared for them near by." It is noteworthy that the expression used by the Gaon for bee-hive is mNia, probably to be read Kuwarat, like the Arabic and the Persian, not Kaweret (min) as traditionally pronounced. Kuwarat, to be sure, is an un- Hebraic substantive formation, but as it is of Persian origin (see Frankel, Aramdische Fremdivorter) this does not militate against the Gaon's orthography.
3. This Responsum, of which the beginning is lost, con- tains a lengthy exposition of Shabbat, 34a~35b, the passage which considers the determination of the time of nightfall (nitJ>DK7) pu). The Gaon has a contribution to make to the subject ; he brings out some new points, especially by his reference to Tosefta, Zabim, I, end, and its bearing upon the Talmudic text.
GEONIC RESPONSA 123
(Leaf i, recto.)
•:n»N !>¥N nan a^ PNI na wan nvra nptai ' was? -IK>NI troop oman napp ••» w niN-oa itray B*B> nnmn jo 3. . px ww
nn«ian pmn Dnan . , y
n 4n ........ innai
i»ya MM ^ra psnpjn jm pn njj» 10 IN fpna |n
phyi yyn WIN S>y
15
niwan nn>a wn nnx NT D«I Kin sin pi 6 u
^ I^N >nn n^yan no . , pp IN n^N naow w*a^ 20
1 Mishnah Baba Batra, V, 4 ; Gemara, 80 a.
2 The traditional vocalization is rrwa .
3 Read irmpaa. * Read c^cprt rw D'Snan
5 Read ir:\o «op wail , it refers to Mishnah Baba Kama, X, 2 ; Gemara, ibid., 1 14 a. 6 Read now1;.
124 OENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf i, verso.)
Kin nn nr tew nnxia HTVB enia DIDO
i , . yn anmn nx * DID . . w 5 . . . nns ^m my n ...... i>jn n^
s an 'DN 4 n ...... an 'ON pDioo nco
KanyD2 noKi nsr ni'oni ^nra i>mn ps m^n "13 *DV 'm rrow 10 nn DiTBp Hints N^N jonoo w pean nx ni^isi nnnn
PP^niO 6 ppTB Hl^
-ITID 15 Hinn
pmn
1 Read DIDTO. ' Read'iDD. s Read mi bn. * Read rrnrr.
s n is also the reading of MS. Rome, while all the other MSS. and the printed text have buratD.
* Mishnah Baba Batra, II, 10 ; Gemara, 18 a, 35 a. T Baba Batra, 25 b. 8 Read nnx«?.
* The editions read nwac "bnno . . . while the MSS. have m«3C »;DO.
GEONIC RESPONSA 125
(Leaf a, recto.)
Mnoirfr inw p^
any epoa pa pro nat^a wnp nioini? | anya
an 'ON pnotni
pay^ yicnn11 ann pa n^o^ y» n&o pnia n pa ins w pipi? 2pao 10 ara pn^no «n onsDiD^ PSD ar ^a nain
JD TlDDl D11^ D^D nNs3 7*W 15
Kin nn nxn nns DM pnpn DVH nnx HNI OKI np
1 Shabbat, 34 b. a Bead pipbi
126 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf a, verso.)
Dvn D-W is irow ar nt nn nitro^n pa nnx rw»a eniao nr nail D'-n^a
DN »DV 'l miD 'nOOtflbv 5
*a i>y PIK rnetDswi pa nnx 8iT3 t^1 aia^oi n^ao na na
ntn wyB> nsr ^a bjn nnix woB'n pa nnsi ovn nns 10 nnsi rwwB'n pa nnx IN rn* ON
DVH n^nB' mm owo
nvn nnx is nn» nnxi 15 jn PSD .Jinoij avno
1 Tosefta Zabt'm, end of the first chapter ; ed. Zuckermandel, p. 677, line 19.
* Editions read na instead of 1T3, while R. Hananel in his commentary on Shabbat, 34 b, reads 13 .
GEONIC RESPONSA 127
(Leaf 3, recto.)
PBD }n nn nwopn pa V run »:p">p$> PSD
sin nn DVIBD
nonn a D*wn iy nonn
pa »3
. •: 1^33 noo nxan a«n nv^to^n pa n^y5J> paa •ny n^yi nae6 nat^ any pa VIC^ na^ pa niawn pa hn »t*m in^nn IN I^QJ no 15
pm onisan DM na^
1 The editions and MSS. read T>I», the current reading is that of Judah Albargeloni in DTiyn ICD, p. 23, who has J'3« na 'DV. a Read NraibD. 8 Mishnah Keritot, IV, 4; Gemara, ibid., 19 a.
128 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leafs, verso.)
pxi rwEwn p3
'n n»y j yenn* '• n pa mvbn nenyn ^y ^P^na N »JB> IIDB ww 5 nnvpoi nvn rrony
•:2inoi' nrum DV niyao nnvr pa n^iy ps 3msi|2 Nnyot^ jns n^WDri? xasn ini> 'DK 10 pa-n xmy^a tt^ n>p w ^pn c^n by
pa prp pK3 15
5 WIN is «:na^n oy jn^p
nann 1|iv»B' pns Kim
1 KeriM, 19 b.
* The editions have an essentially different text.
* Perhaps the same as nDDin, i. e. nac ncoin.
5 The later editions of the Talmud read >OKT», while the old editions as well as the MS. have >:ix ; comp. Rabbinovicz, Variae Lect., ad loc.
GEONIC RESPONSA 1 29
XV.
Fragment Taylor-Schechter Collection, two leaves, paper, square hand, with a slight tendency to cursive. The frag- ment consists of a quire, of which one or two leaves are missing. It is the remainder of a collection of Geonic Responsa, the two preserved having been the eleventh and twelfth in the collection.
1. The first Responsum of the two preserved, of which the beginning and the middle are missing, is a somewhat lengthy commentary on Kiddushin, 54 b~56 a, dealing with W 1C>J?». This Responsum is of great importance in the text criticism of the Talmud. Besides offering a number of variants to our printed editions, to which attention is directed in the footnotes, it contains a long passage, on folio 54 b, entirely missing in our text. The discussion in the Talmud (Kiddushin, 54 b) assumes that, granted the principle Binn poo B>*D, we must apply it not only to E>"D at Jerusalem, but also to B>*» outside of the Holy City. But this assumption flatly contradicts the plain statement of the Talmud, in Sanhedrin, 112 b (comp. also Yer. Peak, VII, 20 c), that, in the opinion of all authorities, W"D outside of Jerusalem is ni3J pDD. The difficulty did not escape the attention of the Tosafists (comp. Kiddushin, 53 b, s.v. 1?VN), who tried to explain it away. Now, however, it seems that this point was actually discussed in the Talmud, in a passage which the Gaon knew, but which escaped from the text that has come down to us (i recto, lines 1-3). Un- fortunately, the beginning of the Responsum is missing, so that we are left in ignorance as to the conclusion reached by the Talmud.
2. The second Responsum deals with the text of the Mishnah and the Gemara of Sotah, 27 b and 29 a-b. The Talmudic passage in question presents no difficulties, but as the Talmudists of the time of the Gaon were not well informed on details of nnntt , they turned to him with their questions, and he entered into them with some degree of particularity.
K
130
GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf i, recto.)
tnon an 'ox na^n ''cam TUB 'n nan r£nn }» PBB 13D TKB 'TT oi>B>YV3 '3t? ntry»a npi^no 'no: .2wn D^ya PBB nao pani wn maa B> »yai yo3 mian
rrn.T '
moo 'BIN *DV 'n pm »DV '"D si moo
wan Bnn»a3 n ^ITB 5l|"ia sin^ »3BB IIDN 10
B 'na nTBy n^ ^ *a 6Nin DIN ^s» N$n wn maa PBB n^yri ^ na IK^ TTBD WB K^K B»H 1^0 yoc> sn 'nca jnw ^wa n»y^ ny inna^ p^son sh 15
PBB
1 Read pow 'o3ni or |'i»»no 'oam ; comp. Sanhedrin, 112 b. s Kiddushin, 54 b, comp. the introductory note. * Read
4 In Kiddushin, 54 b the Mishnah reads itoo J'a, while in Ma'aser Sheni, V, 5 the text is the same as in our MS. 8 The editions of the Talmud read snip noa «m rrb a»n' <so 'O 'm NO%'?»N
* Read '131 mvu men Kin n WITS, and comp. 1. 6 of the next page (131). T The editions read D'nca.
8 Yj is missing in the text of the Talmud, 1. c., but is found in the text of the Mishnah, Ma'aser Sheni, IV, 6.
GEONIC RESPONSA
131
(Leaf i, verso.)
'OK
*ap »vo »a»n wn maa MM mm* 'n tbyk twin £ Dpi span 'CNno nn torn Nosno in nn ^ n^ NONHD in ^ no wn
nna
y^oa n^y» woo IB'DT NH i>y PIN na^Btia rupa IBTJOH *a na i-na n^ TIT nssoa xi> n'on npii? in: N^ 10 ma: poo ntyyo 'ENT TXO /-n xa^s D-on jn11^ ny na^troa napa ps niaan minm *«|D33 msa men •unat'ca tmujo onsin* I^SNI ^ Dpi sjoan ;n:i m»N IOB> 'OK n^s na »«^na ai 'ox jna 15 nm 3NBDaa N^X ia?nD xh cnpna ;n nn IJ^NB' p !?yi
1 Kiddushin, 54 b ; the editions read ib . . . jroi rboi lanwo '«o« 'm '01 Mm mm' 'T c^irt mirr 'i isb N^« N:cni TSN.
2 Kiddushin, I, 6 ; Gemara, ibid., 28 b ; the editions read rra;n.
3 Gittin, 53 a, where the editions read W':n, instead of w>n:, but Alfasi has the same reading as our MS.
132
GENIZAH 'STUDIES
(Leaf a, recto.)
rv\yo p'DUp nnn NIID'K SWNI xa^n nni o^oan iwp vn«i p -oion S'« inn 3DM nxa Hpo'si njnopn nx : nro^a n^xa NDTjin ns em ovn u pm «m
lain ^x DHD he* T^N ^nn ^a ^ ntna^ 2N»u neb b TNT "IHSDI p^trpoi 'DIK W*K xa^py '-n «twn n^n ipy naa by lob nnnx NOD^ NDti11 N^K »D ys'in'1 'n 'CN *E?*hrn nx NDDD ww *JB> 'DW nn»nB> '•sar fa pnv jan ^yyo nsy nbv jo 4ii? PNB> »»3B' naa inu^ ins in Tny rrnnn JD i^ p«t^ irwo sai p^px minn an 'CK rnirp an 'cs pninsi NDD Kin n»i>
DV
po
minn |» 15
writ? DV
PIDI
' rby\ bis
hna
1 Mishnah, Sotah, V, 2 ; Gemara, 27 b.
2 So/aA, 29 a. 3 Read >c^o. * Read jo «ipo ib J'«w.
* Ntga'im, XIV, 3 ; the words rnyi bic are missing in our text of the Mishnah, but the Talmud (Pesahim, 35 a, and parallel passages) has them.
GEONIC RESPONSA 133
(Leaf 2, verso.)
boa 1333 yaa DN ronra bix is?ec> anyn iDit?33 |^wa hoe Nine> 'JB> ^31N noinnn ID inn "b Nyoat? KDB» 13-ira
t? 133 12 yw DXB> Nin pi p^ira 5 nan nuna NVD:^ p» 'onn pm ^DQJ m n^ 'D« n^y pncw n^nn iwnrre' rpy»
nunx -a ns xn *wm
n ^3 hsH jwm -CNT onne' ^on 10 n ^30 'c^ 'o^n enn ^3 T
PKOD»D
paw Np ppn ''DNT D^n^ ^cn jxoa nun nsni ptrN-i ni^nn v runs »ian5> NVDJ 15
"133 N1H1 n«3B> ITINDB' NEB 13V13 lE'N ^3 I^NJ N^ »3
1 Kelim, VIII, 5; Pesahim, 20 a, and parallel passages.
1 Pesafiim, 2oa-aob; comp. Rabbinovicz, Variae Lectioties, ad loc.
134 GEN1ZAII STUDIES
XVI.
Fragment Taylor-Schechter, vellum, 13x15 cm. (oblong), writing square, quire of two leaves, the middle portion missing. It represents the remainder of a collection of Geonic Responsa, the last of which in our fragment is numbered sixteen.
It contains four Responsa, all of them, unfortunately, in incomplete condition. Neither their author nor their date is ascertainable. However, the assumption is war- ranted that they belong to the later Geonim ; and as the first two Responsa are elsewhere ascribed to Ha'i, the last of the Geonim may perhaps be accepted as the author of all of them.
i. The first Responsum, the beginning of which is lacking, deals with the validity of a marriage contract (rains) signed by a number of witnesses, some of whom were related to the contracting parties. Though the Jewish law in general terms excludes relatives from acting as witnesses to a marriage, the Gaon declares the document valid, because, as there were other witnesses besides, there was no proof that the kinsmen had not attached their names to it as a coveted distinction, or been invited to do it as a courtesy, and the Gaon grants this latitude of interpre- tation even when the signature of the kinsmen occurs first in the order of the witnesses. This decision is based on the statement in Baba Batra, 162 a, b. It is noteworthy, that the Gaon's reading of the Talmudic text differs essentially from our accepted reading. Our text (162 b) has nupn f?y p»inn, while the Gaon reads V^y p»mn, indi- cating that the second clause in the Baraita refers, not to a new case, but to the same case treated of in the first
GEONIC RESPONSA 135
clause. That the Gaon's reading is correct appears from MS. M. and from Rashbam, ad loc., both of which have V^V as well as IDt^n ^y, the only explanation for which. is that the original V^y was retained even after the text was changed by the addition of "iDB>n hf. The probability is that the change finally producing our present reading was made by Rabbenu Hananel, who had the theory that the second case in the Baraita was entirely different from the first ; hence 1t3B7J ?y had to be inserted as the beginning of the new sentence.
Our Responsum is practically identical with that given in Harkavy, 42, but it offers a number of more acceptable readings. Comp. also :Tnn, ed. Coronel, 102.
2. The second Responsum, of which a few lines are missing at the end, deals with a dispute between brothers on account of the water supply in a house inherited by the two jointly from their father, and divided between them soon after his death. Some years later one of them claimed for himself exclusive rights upon the water supply gathered from that section of the roof which covered his part of the house, thus proposing to withdraw from his brother some of the water that had flowed into the cistern* at his end of the property, the only cistern with which the house was furnished in their father's time as well as their own. The Gaon decides against him, on the ground that the second brother had by this time acquired prescriptive rights (nprn) upon the whole water supply as well as the cistern at his end of the property. These were privileges to which a definite value should have been assigned at the time of the division of the property, and the division should have been made with their valuation as part of the inventory. The second brother's water supply could, therefore, be curtailed only by an act of injustice.
This Responsum is essentially the sarnie as that given by Harkavy, 41, so that our two Responsa, both of them attributed to Hai, occur in Harkavy reversed.
3. In this Responsum a few lines are missing- at the
136 GENIZAH STUDIES
beginning. It deals with the Talmudic passage in Pesahim, 7 1 a. The Gaon first of all establishes the correct text, TO nnotTj not V? as it was read by his correspondents, probably residing in an Arabic-speaking country, in which TO and ^3 were pronounced alike. They must have re- presented the phonetic identity orthographically. The main difficulty in connexion with the text which the Gaon was called upon to solve was of a theological nature. It is an accepted principle with the Rabbis that fvaiK D^na psano pbyni (Pevahim, 59 b), atoning power resides even in those portions of the sacrifices eaten by the priests, of those sacrifices, that is to say, that are not wholly consumed upon the altar. Several questions arise with regard to this point, How is jt with the Dmaan DV i>B> nw, the priestly portions of which cannot be eaten until after the Great Day has passed, and atonement has presumably taken place? Still more difficult of solution the question becomes if the Pay of Atonement falls upon a Friday. As the priests' portions cannot be prepared on the Sabbath, they lie over a second night, which renders them unfit. The same difficulty inheres in all the sacrifices brought on Sabbaths, and on holidays falling on the Sabbath, intended to be partly eaten by the priests, which, however, they cannot use until the Sabbath is over, The Gaon1 reaches a solution by a peculiar explanation of P&J31 pbaiK D'Jna insane. His view is that atoning power resides, not in the act of eating, but in the character and state of the sacrifice. If the sacrifice is of the right sort, and there is nothing in it to prevent the priests from using the portions assigned to them for food, it does not matter whether these portions are eaten by the priests or not : they are not deprived of their atoning power. This explanation covers the case of all Sabbath sacrifices, and it also covers the case of the sacrifice on a Day of Atonement falling on any 4ay except Friday, because we know beforehand that the priests will be able to eat their portions immediately 1 Cotnp, also Tosafot on Pesahim, 59 b, catchword 'jiy.
GEONIC RESPONSA 137
the Sabbath or the Fast is over ; the delay will not have rendered them unfit. It is otherwise with the sacrifice of the Day of Atonement falling on a Friday. Then a second night must pass before the priests can prepare their portions, and the law is that no sacrifice may be eaten after more than one night has passed over it. The Gaon must resort to another explanation for this case. Basing his view on the statement in Shebuot, 8 b, he holds that on the Day of Atonement the atoning power is confined to the Azazel ; the other sacrifices, of which the priests have portions assigned to them, do not possess their full atoning power on that day ; they have only a preventive action ; they avert suffering from the sinner whose sin cannot be atoned for by the scapegoat, because it is of such a nature as to require the expiation of death.
It is highly interesting to compare the Gaon's conclusions with those of St. Barnabas, in his Letter, VII, 4. He says : " And they shall eat of all the rams sacrificed for their sins on the day of fasting. And — note well what I am about to say! — the priests alone shall eat all the inner parts, unwashed, together with vinegar!" Up to this time it has not been noticed that the argument of St. Barnabas is also based on the principle of piaano p^jni pbiK D^nD, according to which the atonement of the Day of Atonement could become effective only after the priests had eaten the parts allotted to them. His assumption that the priests ate their portions during the day itself, while the people were fasting, is, of course, wholly incorrect, though I cannot believe, with Giidemann (Religions- geschichtiiche Studien, p. 106), that it is an intentional misrepresentation. Barnabas simply put together several Rabbinic statements, and drew an unwarranted conclusion. He knew, as is said in Pesohim (1. c.), that on Sabbaths, or holidays falling on the Sabbath, the priests would eat their portions of the sacrifices unboiled, in order not to delay the atonement1 the act effected. Also he knew that it 1 Cornp. Rabbenu Hummel on Pesaltim, 71 a.
138 GENIZAH STUDIES
was not a transgression to drink vinegar on the Day of Atonement, because it is not customarily used as a drink (Yoma, 8 1 b). These two statements he combined, and obtained a conclusion that cannot hold water.
There is an apparent contradiction between Pesahini, 71 a, and Mishnah Menahot, XI, 7. In the former passage, it is assumed that it was the custom of all the priests to eat their sacrificial portions raw on Sabbaths and holidays falling on the Sabbath ; while the other text limits the practice to the Day of Atonement falling on Friday, and even then it is described as the habit of the less cultured priests l. The contradiction disappears if we accept the view of the Gaon, that the Dmsnn DV ^ "vyw had no atoning power, and hence there was no need for the priest to hasten his meal.
4. The fourth Responsum, the end of which is missing, deals with the correct reading of the Mishnah text in 'Erubin, III, I. The Gaon calls attention to the fact that the Babli and the Terushalmi have substantially different readings of the passage. From the discussion of this Mishnic passage in 'Erubin, 30 b, we see that our reading of the Mishnah is as old as the Babylonian Amoraitn, though the Talmudic discussion may be a Saboraic interpolation.
1 My conjecture is that the Mishnah ought to read jrc3\c instead of jnmc, «?C3 in this passage having the meaning of "stomaeh." Conip. Maimonides in his Commentwy, ad loc., and Ginzberg, Orientalische Studicn (Theodor Noldeke sum siebzigsten Geburistag}, II, p. 612.
GEONIC RESPONSA 139
(Leaf i, recto.)
NCB> PIOIN Dinn Nin PN-O DN ejsi ontran onyn
nnyn n»pnn la^i* rwo twpn |Nci> p'at?
>rt PNB> oioy m 'ON 'rt&Mttt PNW UN pi
m^ j»na 21 n>^ 'ON PICN nannN ntrpo on^ onyn HN p^nin N^m n»b 'CN NH ^ w» moy 5 nnx not?' !?IDS anan jo pat? TIE? p^rsi *ND nsnci nnx nu^ 2in^» nc'a po nine ^IDB snan jo pu^ *3^ nnyn HN jno nnx wfoai vby pDinn nny nBTorn nyaix vn n^ woo iNB'a nnyn o«pnn bioa IN anp 10
nn ntra n'anpa inN^o n^prn 'DNI mptn^ 3 nn^Nt^n : n:a na PNI m^a IT naina '•a -naru
Tn nn»m n^a W mam nxna nnvn PIT mpoa maiy 4Tiv baoi
wnm nvnn ip^n cn^nias niaNO nyiap rmn 15 V33N3 imN np> nriN ^ y»rB> n^' b psy ^y
1 Baba Batra, 162 a. 2 Ibid., 162 b.
3 Comp. rmrr pat, 48, by Rabbi Judah ben Rabbi Asher.
4 Harkavy, Responsen, 42, has also "m, but perhaps it is to be read
140 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf i, verso.)
uy» ex an DN 12 try nae> baai 13*321 nsjn poy by nano cn'ra nbw na-in D-W wan ipbnc? D»O ^y ib ps 'CNI D*cn TII nnxn onoi poo. nann nr *3»n ii> 'OK ip^nc^ D"nxn "Dan nost? no i?y t<b y«i ji^n |H N^I D*on HDN p sh Tin p jnb pN 5
pnn mi^ fiw i«nN inv *na^n xh '•n^tr np^nn nnx D»3t? najw jva pn ^a ^a M^NI 13 NI npmn moy nn oamoa jnaiy rrom
*im jn PK nr y m TIT nnt? px B>nan »Km 10
D11:^ nniN pp^ww nvn »a Nin *p pnni TIT nvn TIII ia nnsn n*n^ pvnn nvn inxb baui ^^^ pynn by npibnn nns »oyab j^ vby nwan piD ariDni nnx TSD 0*33^3 o^on vn ON pi 103 D»cn HN nnynb i^y px y\o insb ^B3i ia 15 nnsn
1 Baba Batra, 7 b. 3 Read -pn p .
GEONJC RESPONSA
141
(Leaf 2, recto.)
mni»
nrwi 'n K^K na:?3 p^aro p« pss& ratta DV NX* nn hpaasi rai? svn^ ny 33j?D DNI 2 : wi* snn s^i p^i« o^nan n^ono nwi nnDtr N^n rat? ir nrw PKB> nnx pn»B pnsi NQS 31 xnsi 5 nnoB> nnsna^ : sin niyo 'n jra J^K'
NH3D?D3 BniB T^Xl J KD»5> -«n3 nHDl^ K^K WH p
nva
onana 10
ps nairn sam *o 12^!? mvn p:nw vn p Cf ran iJDsy ova mis pbaix trcnan "iann Kin p N^ ova n tf piaan*o orrnwy I^N
:*n
iva cnana
naanj x^1 15
1 The copyist first wrote T~M and changed it to pic». 3 Pesahim, 71 a. * '
* Menahot, XI, 7 ; Gemara, ibid. 99 b. s '
142 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 2, verso.)
mean -nyi oniaan DV JT:yn nN nnn IT nb'ax ny in <ibnt? no nbin -iCNn DNI brNtybp Typa ,Tibn py aba 'iK"i Diba iaa PN riNunn nN o^nan PNI n^nna nyn^ na B* nxoon nwn* pjy^> pn J
n^in oniaan DV o^aa n&'jwn Tyt? sjioa ny^n> na 5 nnxo ^31 ni?y 2pno«i inn n^iya N*3*i ^ yivcr ny N^3 no no DKB' ID£ snn 7n '»« nhn nob naso M»«B» p vby pr6 " N^N npnoo nn»o no DN NSN-I nb 'ON py norina V-'h pa nnab panyo 'OI^KW :pnio»n v uoy en nxo iab nB^pnai phna SJN 'IN oiaoio 10 ana11 pinna IOIN oiaoio N^N pbina SJN pa psi wn aina^i pnpnn nona
n^so ny biaoi na*n 'IN Diacio PDII:B> ^ 'NII WTani NDTan ^»n pDiia ,ha baa 'can baN 'ntr* piNa wo Nb'N pbina «j«- 15 •nann 'a ina sjib^n tbNb ibN pa B«I pbina 'IN
3 Shetnt'ot, I, a • Gemara, ibid., 2 a. * Shebu'ot, 8b.
3 Our texts read nan TDS nb« ; Rabbinovicz, Var. Led., offera no variants.
* 'Entbin, III, i ; Gemara, ibid., 26 b. 5 'Enibin, 30 b.
GEONIC RESPONSA 143
XVII.
Fragment T-S., three leaves, 21x16 cm., writing small, square, with a tendency to cursive ; the numbers and mar- ginal notes, except the sheet mark at the top, are in a later hand, and in black ink, while the text is brown. It represents the remainder of an unusually large collection of Geonic Responsa, in fact, the very largest known. The numbers run up to 593' °f which our fragment contains from No. 498 to No. 505 consecutively ; then from 568 to 577 consecutively, and finally from 585 to 593 consecutively. The large number of 497 are missing from the beginning, and there is, of course, no telling how many more there were after 593. They cover a number of branches of Rabbinic law, the various subjects being noted in the margin by a later hand. The annotator used the classifica- tion of the Code of Maimonides, but he was either ignorant or careless, for he allows a glaring mistake to stand on the first page preserved. Misled by the word ^3D, which occurs prominently, he classifies one Responsum under pnn'J? which actually belongs under panic?. All the Responsa preserved are anonymous, and as only a very few of them occur in other collections, there are no means at hand for determining their authorship and date. We may, however, assume that they belong to a number of different Geonic authors of various epochs.
1 [498]. The first Responsum in our fragment, the beginning of which is missing, deals with the case of a man's giving his property to his mother before his death. The Gaon rules that on the death of her son she can make no use of the property, nor dispose of it in any way, until she has paid the dowry to the widow, her daughter-in-law.
2 [499]. The second Responsum gives the decision of the Gaon in a dispute regarding an alley- way ('12ft). One of the several parties having a common alley-way moves from his house, and he makes a claim upon his former
144 GENIZAH STUDIES
neighbours, asking them to pay him for his share of the alley, which he is no longer using. The Gaon decides against his claim.
3 [5°°]' This Responsum is identical with the one attributed to Nahshon Gaon in the Geonic collection PIS nytr, Hi b, 17. The subject dealt with is the sale of a slave under false pretences. His physical condition \vas impaired, yet his master asked and obtained the value of a slave in perfect health. The purchaser discovered the fraud practised upon him, and, after having had the slave cured, he demanded from the former owner a sum of money equal to the difference between what he paid for him and what his real value was at the time. The first master declared his willingness to take back the slave and return the money, a proposition to which the second master would not agree, as he had taken the trouble and gone to the expense of having the slave put into good condition. The Gaon decides that the purchaser's claim is justified.
4 [501]. The third Responsum in the fragment deals with a note of indebtedness, signed by two witnesses, which the alleged debtor refused to honour. The witnesses recognised the handwriting as theirs, but as they could not remember the sum of money mentioned in the note, their testimony was of no value, and the maker of the note could not be held to the payment of the sum therein mentioned. Comp. Y"W, &4 a, i ; and Miiller, Mafieah, pp. 237, 487.
5 [502]. An agent was sent to Egypt to purchase merchandise. On his journey he was attacked by brigands, who threatened his life. To save himself he showed the highwaymen where his employer's money was hidden. He now contended that he was not called upon to make good the loss, since, in any case, even if he had sacrificed his life, the money would have fallen into the hands of his assailants. The Gaon supports, him in this contention, provided he can prove by means of witnesses, or will asseverate by means cf an oath, that his supposition is
GEONIC RESPONSA 145
correct, that the brigands would in any case have found the money.
6 [503]. The Gaon decides that a debtor may force his creditor, who holds a promissory note against him, to take an oath that he has not paid up his indebtedness, as he himself maintains he has done ; and this right belongs to him even though the creditor is willing to waive his alleged claim, if only the debtor will take the oath. There can be no doubt that this Responsum is the same as that quoted in a Responsum addressed to Hai (ntl^ men, 136), where it is ascribed to Natrona'i Gaon.
7 [504]. To this very day, the Gaon says, priests are under the obligation to avoid defilement. It is very probable that this Responsum is merely an extract from a much longer one found in the collection DT133 men, 55, also attributed to Natrona'i Gaon. Comp. p"j, 4.
8 [505]. A debtor sends the amount of his indebtedness to his creditor through a messenger. The debtor receives a letter from the creditor acknowledging the receipt of the money. Later the creditor denies having written the receipt. Before the matter is cleared up, the creditor as well as the messenger die, and the heirs of the creditor claim the money due to their father. Though witnesses are found to testify that the handwriting is the creditor's, the father of the present litigants, they continue to urge their claim, basing it upon the contention that there is no way of establishing that the receipt refers to the trans- action under discussion rather than some other debt owing from the same debtor to their father. The Gaon's decision is missing.
9 [568]- Of this Responsum only the last two lines have come down to us, and they contain the rather interesting statement of the Gaon based on a Talmudic passage (Taanit, lib), that study is of greater importance than fasting, but fasting surpasses almsgiving.
10 [569]. Here we have the Gaon's view on nonx *iin\ after the recital of PNIIM n:m Comp. f'v, 19 b, 14 ; and 58 b, 24.
L
146 GENIZAH STUDIES
1 1 [570]. The Gaon writes out the formulae for several sorts of deeds of gift from a father to his children, the expressions differing according to whether the deed becomes operative during the father's lifetime or after his death. Comp. rX45a, 5-
12 [571]- Here we have a case in which the dowry is paid out, though it be the woman who insists upon the divorce. Comp. ")"cn , II, 46, and p*B>, 59 a, 30.
13 [572]. "A bachelor made out a deed of gift. Later, when he married, he made out a second deed of gift, transferring the same property to his wife, and in the presence of the first recipient, who uttered neither protest nor objection." The Gaon decides that the second trans- action, and not the first, is valid.
14 [573]. The Gaon decides that an oath taken on a prayer-book is as sacred as one on the scroll of the law, and he who takes such an oath cannot be absolved from it. This Responsum is attributed in one source to Saadia, and in another to Ha'i ; comp. Miiller, Mafteah, p. 230.
15 [574]. The Gaon rules that a Jew who owns orchards, the fruit in which must be gathered day by day, so that cessation from worl£ on Sabbaths and holidays would entail a serious loss, may sell an average day's pickings to a Gentile on the eve of the Sabbath or of a holiday. The Bale must be completed before the day of rest enters, so that the Gentile does no work for the Jew on a holy day. Comp. Q"n, 125; and Fragment XXI, 2, recto, below.
1 6 [575]. Though butter churned by Gentiles may be bought and eaten by Jews, the Gaon advises against it. This Responsum is found also in the Geonic collection mitm nyt?, 188, where it is attributed to Natrona'i Gaon.
17 [576]. This Responsum contains the decision of the Gaon with regard to initt Dl. It is not improbable that this is the Responsum to which Maimonides expresses his vigorous opposition; comp. Maimonides, ns^a H1DN, XI, 15, and rTt?, 173.
1 8 [577]. The Gaon goes into details as to the character
GEONIC RESPONSA 147
of the testimony admissible in the case of an rwuy. The end of this Responsum is missing.
19 [585]. The contents of the Responsum are difficult to determine exactly, because the beginning is missing. All that can be gathered from what remains is that the c/ise dealt with is what the judge of a certain town. suspects is a mock divorce, desired for the purpose of escaping the payment of debts. The debt owing to a divorced woman, namely, her dowry, must be paid by the husband before all others. If, then, a man is hard pressed, the expedient of divorcing his wife may occur to him, the in- tention being, of course, to re-marry the woman, and again come into possession of the dowry. The judge in our case was willing to grant the divorce on condition that the husband took an oath not to re-marry the woman. The Gaon shares his suspicions, and sustains his decision. It is noteworthy that the Responsum mentions in full the name of the judge, David 1, and of the parties concerned.
20 [586]. This Responsum contains the interesting state- ment that the old-established custom, reaching back to Talmudic times, of taking an oath publicly on the sacred scrolls in the synagogue, was discontinued in the day of the Gaon. Instead, when the occasion required it, a conditional excommunication was proclaimed in the synagogue, as follows : " If thou, N. N., owest money to N. N , and dost not acknowledge the debt, thou art under the ban." Judging by the style of the Responsum, and the views expressed in it, we shall not go far wrong in ascribing it to Ha'i. Comp. especially his Responsa in Y"&, 73 a and 76 a. In the latter Hai' writes thus : " Such a thing as taking an oath on the sacred scrolls has come under our notice neither personally nor through the reports and traditions of scholars from generations ago. Our procedure is as follows : The draped bier is brought [into the synagogue] ; and in it is a cock (Aram. N12J), symbolic
1 David Ibn Hagar ? Comp. about him Steinschneider, ArabiscJie Literatur, p. 143. Comp. also Y'aTi, II, 36-7.
L 2
148 GENIZAH STUDIES
of man (Aram. N133) ; lights are kindled, symbolic of the soul of man ; ashes are strewn under the feet [of the one who is to take the oath], to indicate that man is but dust and ashes ; empty, distended hides are put before him ; they threaten him, saying, Behold, all these shall be signs unto you ! Then children come with trumpets (nnsvj'), while the man is led up to the place before the Ark, and the precentor stands on the platform next to the Ark, and says : N. N., who does not confess the truth, may he be overtaken by thus and thus [the curses of a ban] V
21 [5^7]. This Responsum deals with the limitations of the rights of a husband in the property of his wife. Comp. a"n, 25.
22 [588]. The Gaon gives the formula of the oath to be taken by a widow who makes demand for her jointure from the estate of the heirs of her late husband. This Responsum is identical with that found in the Geonic collection J^n, 26, where it and the previous one, No. 21, are ascribed to Rabbi Zemah. Comp. also Y"&> 6 5 b, *°P '•> an(i Miiller, Mafteah, 148, for it appears in the former that it was still customary to take oaths in the time of the Gaon addressed.
23 [589]. The Gaon renders the decision that a widow left with an infant at the death of her husband may not withdraw her dowry from the estate until the child has reached the age of two years, the period during which a mother has the duty to nurse a child, and during which re-marriage is prohibited.
24 [590]. A dies, and B of his own accord pays his heirs money which he confesses he owed to the departed, though no memorandum of the debt was found. The heirs wish now to force him to take an oath that he has acknowledged the full extent of his indebtedness. The Gaon decides against the heirs. Comp. ¥"&, 7 2 a, 5.
25 [591]. The Gaon decides that a widow claiming her dowry from her late husband's estate must take an oath
1 Comp. c"n nmN, II, p. 503 ; n"ic, ed. Lyck. 10; and y"c, 69 a, 72.
GEONIC RESPONSA 149
asseverating the justice of her demand, even when the estate does not suffice to satisfy her claim in full.
2,6 [592]. This Besponsum deals with the status of a child born out of wedlock, a certain man being designated by the mother as the father of the child. The Gaon's decision is that such a child is not to be considered a bastard ("ITDE) ; nevertheless, the alleged father cannot be held responsible for the maintenance of the child, nor is the child to inherit his estate after his death. If circumstantial evidence corroborates the woman's allega- tions, the man is to be excommunicated and exposed to public disgrace. Comp. \>"), 39, and p"e>, 46 b, n.
27 [593]. This last Responsum of our fragment, of which only the beginning has been preserved, deals with a promissory note whose genuineness is denied by the supposed debtor. It is perhaps another version of Responsum 133 in the Collection wra>n nyp.
150 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf i, recto.)
noi i»fc ropm i ain ny
n:a n^> ropnp noo roprn ;nnE> Nin pni ota «in ne>y xb njpn:?
nnaina ^DVIB' nnxh n-w noens Kin nynza nnba naina
nna jai> 'nmn new nvnrw no ^a nap6 in n«ntwe> no b nnba
nnvn B> ia t^i yanN anntr ^aoi ? inn nnnx IK 5 »non t^^ ^ un IK nnvn ^pab ]rb 'ow inx Dipc^ inns ns . , . . pp
•ja pnn no uoy nvn Nia nib ^ JJH N^ i^ 'OIK i^ni D^on ^ wn IN ny ixnn ns pp^in pxt? 'ON pna N^ voi IN v^n ^ i:n 'ost? nr^ usjo pp^in pxtr i~n^ K!JN 'V<?y WNB' ^ao ptj> ^ai 2^a nr^ nioN xn na Nn't? '-n »^o yn 3 IUK IN Tin NJH n»M 'ONT rnvT- 'na 'W "a ^y *\xv ^a imx 10 jn b noKB' noi xa^ TIJ WN niax xan ^ax niii N^? IN nro nN i yy nnN DTIN w 4pma ^ now pna «oy ini Nia N^N nw n^> p:nu nat^n ia^ |N^y nan n^ai pnno jn^K pb nun -w np pnnon n'-aa wnn11! nnay n^ np uyi> 'OIK n»tw nn io ph • nby ybsn Na^i N'-n na^n Nn^nn Nini nan nna DBW 15 '•on i^1 nnn^ ji^xin i?y B» ue'n WHK wa^ni poio u vm 5an^ nay
noa «w pcio lay *b innm DIN ania 7pan 'ONI Nni itpft :voio »on ib jn^
XONI nu^ by mp nn ponm Na\n D^B> noa inN? I^SN n^by n*yoi 20 noa DN '•iNn nca wiiDDa f? ay<\>z vb in»o IPO»J p* nionn Nm NJH ••a *ep K\m pnnt^o NPI fva Nnotj' ^Nna pnay pan Ni? IN Nio^a anai mn •'iNn noa NJiooa 10<jrpa N^I jva 9/^n -N jinoia ^y j^aao inn11 NJIOO ^ ina N^ pnoN NPT jva pnc^s i»y pn:o K^I Nnnnoi n'5o p^ao NP ''Noa •no-'oi? n^NT •Ta p-iuo si> ^in noa Nioc'a 25 D'p N^ noN Np w"SfQ tuny Nn onyn Nio^oa mii> fo N:IOO jaiN-i iph : N-IOB> n^ ynn^N nai?ni wiooa \b na i^ ni3p^> D'ainr '10 'yoc' loy na»B> Dnrc& ^n ^ . . a
1 Bead rc?T DM. 3 Baba Batra, I, 6; Gemara, ibid., na. * Baba Batra, 133-13 b.
4 Ibid., 13 a ; as the quotation is from a Baraita, and not from a Mishnah, the correct reading
would be N-in-n, and not prm. * =rv;irrt. • =fN"prr. T Ketubot, 20 a.
GEONIC RESPONSA. 15!
(Leaf i, verso.)
ixv J 'voi? fnb^ria J 'SD^ as?o nan n'ox-ux IOP Wpcfc DJ33 mino 6 3n3 n3i ynw no i>33 isni^ ana oy vnti> n^ainr 5>3i a^-iyn fo ^oy vnB>
i>c? o'ainr npy HE^B* x^x
i^sni poo^ u^y INVI inyi f>y Tiayi? x^ ^an oy HD b >a^a •'niDN 73 •'n^n^ p»3i -JDn^ noyi ony '•Jin^ni ^y n\ntr no
oni? IOIK^ 3Dio DTO nbsn ^ px nsy »nnna m«B>n DIP»!J '•oy 1^31 'ainr 'I'D K&po&ia ^ {^ nm ora '•n^Ji 'ycB* ^ 'ainr 'I' n nr '
pixn I11! tfyysiD piann vn I^N w»«n 73 »pnn T^' ^ ^sn tbefy 3«m wn nan poos invy ^sn ••xnia |ni? jnix jrm pooi? jna n^N^n ^ pN '•oy n»nB> no b 'CNI 'INI jyDiy 'KM ti'iiacB' ioa ax ^ax 'ainr 'I'D fniKB> jaiNi ya^ D'-ny li? px DNI IDDJ iaa any B» DX DTO puo^ m^oa na VHB* wrpoimn nm« '•ai yt^a xi'i ona na*^ N^J 'yep i»c* 15 DNI n^a D^anrn D "vriBO N^I DI^D n^n ni? nnM xh
3in no^ N^cn pJ 'nyUBTj jo pisi n^a11 m^sa p»cn ^
'oxi nan i?
nnx
tnai *iph : nyi3B» xba naia ni^^ mi> u^xn nxi 3'w wxi 73 xi? ix nip^o a^n 4 pra no ia B^EJ' nna ix nnapn n-'aa
no n pixi lipri :'ai xoD11 xi> c'Djb mox minni ohy n^np wBmpn nipta
anaa 'yo^ ana 'aixn £ anai >^ oy n^ pnrv man xnu^ x^a n:n 'yoa* ^y n^ HM B«B* ooinr 'a ^ ;n ib 'ox 'yo^a jaixn yaa av 'b nnx^ omnr '3 7^x0 -6 xun "a n» ^3 ana <nana xh nhyo nnan vn x^ ib 'ex ^ 'yep no 7^ a^nn^' 'ox 7^x0 ^ 25 ^i^ }aixn ana-^ ana 'yoB* N^m 'yotr nx lyani vB»n^ noyi '•ih pixn noi
.isn nnx am not? panvn ^ nox pixn T- ana Kint?
ay wan pixn b^ VP ana xin^ ^HB» 'yot? na-«yo x^xi natrx x^xn nann psn : pixi ^nv ay ix
* Read mn pu.
152 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 2, recto.)
rwyn *?ix : n^yno spy 'in 'D^m p*yr NnnyDt? p^n }
: uiDD3 nri 13133 nre> npivn p nnv n^yn nbna 2 nry^N 'i 'DNI spy n-jyn
nana oniN 12131 nama ni> anai pwp rb TUI nt?Nn nN D-iKon 'pen
IX ncy "inTiD n»as n»aa trm r»in ioy 133 PNI rv3K n"33 3 Nvii ns3 nnK K^S noy nn^nnij nnicB' irtn 5 3 3ns s^i viTu
rono
inanp snn inn^s "ins^ v»ra 13 mr^ ;>«» OKI N!' IN u mm^ S311 nn»o
icy p5>ia» px i«na nn«i> IN wab njno anian^ win 13 «5» IN NI na ipvnn vb n:no IDB' fr6 IDIO N^ ON ^>3N mno "101? |n^ IIDD-B' np^yi
noy DN inn-'o ncno rwno fn:i sin yno a^^ DNI Dib naoo n^a 10 »-»N3 n^no ^3N inanoa inn n»y I^NB> b 'DIM UN I3t» inn N na nan nrv» inN^ n3T"^ na owno nnxi' IN 123^ no^n IDDI n'
o na ana N^> DNI nn
in:no nn^D insh ovno ana vbv nn *nn*o "IHN^ N^N na nar N^ n:no 15 ^13" I^NI nB'N Nenan »UB 'Btsn NS?]i : "ini'ND na naw mioa n nninN3 *osy ns* pma ynn TIIN
naoini nainaa Nvn j? '•ovy ^nioo nnt? ib nsry« no 1? n
3cy N"3in33i nsoinai n3in33 1:00 Ksnv M»KI 13 : S^IN n^ naina rb jni:i inc^N nN B'paa I^N^ *oa nB'yj ^iy3^ ha* PN^ Nini ii> novy 20
nc'Na 'ovy. pna« 'DNtr nn ntnjoi n^N n^ao ncy nN^n^ N^HJI naoini ^"i-N 'DN 7/D3n IIDN 13^ iniN nmo PN IN^ DNI imN nnao nsn DN "phn nama ;n'i NW na SIN ^DN 'n 'DN wins Nnn'-Na ^NB'S mno ansty IUB '^Bn iyph :nNxw N^nai naoini nnama r^Btt IT
iniN *jaa new N'n mno nniN n^ anai ntrN N&*JI iDy 13 -IHNI nnN^ 25 nsw
atrH-in n:no nniN nNHD rwy N^I nyn>y N!?I nipins i^ jiw
ID n^ua nano nnw^ I^NI ia nb pnno '•s-ni? n3 p»aao N^I Da ia nn»o N^I ny^y N^I vjaa intw^ nanat? n"a^ 'ys "ND in^N npma N'-n ypnp in^'N^ T-^I vja^ voaa ^3 3ni3n 'D3n MIDNB' neb rb PDID I:NI
1 Taanit, 1 1 b ; our texts read mnwun wabs bis'1?. 2 Berakot, 32 b.
3 The line over NVTI indicates that this word is to be cancelled. * Baba Batra, 135 b.
6 Comp. Targum Jonathan to Deut. xxiv. 6. 6 Read mnwa . 7 Yebamot, 65 a.
8 Comp. Baba Batra, 40 b. • Peah, III, 7.
GEONIC RESPONSA 153
(Leaf 2, verso.)
'pbnoa 'ex bx^oe'i • PIT by jnb naroa ai 'ox l p^piaoi nnaina nia'-x xintr ba in:no i^x nrio xbi pnen *V3aa mB>xb nanaB» p'a nw X3n npniB* XMI n^ab 'oix poix iya n»by onn niB>n by myn 2/o3n iioxc> nob nb p^oio ny iirx nr ^'•x i^b^n mist nx ia^x 'oix 'oani '•joo n&?p pt^xini '•b ni3 ^^n
b^i o^wnn iao bo:^ ••o 'B>Bn j>i?ph ntj'xn i>a n3no moyi in:no 5 nb w na oinn3^ p^ai nunn nyiara xnn nyiatr nnix na
^" min IBD no minn IQD nyia^a inxnae^ WNI ia :NPIN man apn h? niDen niNip» jna B« m^an^Bn n^iann nao ^^ napii ta niosy ia IBDKDI mp^oi jnt33 Dia i^ «^K» 'i^ V^i "l!Jpn ' man inyu^ pro natra jnw anjn icpta u*« OKI ej^sa nn^a N^JHOB' ^ao DVI ni11 ba 10
1:00 mn^i ns^y 1^3 7113 pion OB' BMI IU^P DIM
inio^ irxi 13 xb ix nara ^3 wopbi na^ aiyo isb 103 nac' aiyo D^OI ib fn^i na^a '•un i^opbi naB* aiyo ^ub 3 iTb ^o^pjo xnatra ••nn •'ina xniamt^ nayi •'xp'nio in:n 3/oan •"O3 X3ni bi3 inb XIK' xan 'opb mx 'IB" n^b D"p3o xat^a 15 in p^Din DXI ^b nna nna ox^ bpt^oa xbi onoa na^ aiyo
inb o^pi jva inio ix IIDX 013 ba> nxon 'BW n^pfl inio
niiiox nibsxo nbapo nyin PXB* xbx inio ioiy wx XOD ioiy unu abm
DI nnxiB* nap3 mbv 'B'B'i Wpn inio baixi myi na11^ n nb B* DV i*1 iy 01 nxii n3"xi oin mix n30M poai o^o11 nB'b^i 20
•1300 01 pDB53> }V3 MTOW WN1 13 N^1X 1^ Dllp .1^
ov i< inxb nsn OKI n^yn!? nimoi biaoni D^PJ o^o11 nyacr nson s nua 5/oxi sin '11 ^y itray ux paioDB» Dwpj nyaB' atwiB* nanx ^aio nrx ni^v woipoa ^ax bib jovy by ii^onn ;n nin3 na^D np^o N^n^s .INII OKI nbyab ninioi nap^b pa iarb pa ov 25
pxi nna jimn Vc^i TSJph D«pa nyaB» vby 13 xbix NB»3»i> ninio in^x im^in by TyoB* 'D xbi
f)Ni ins>« minx noNn by noy »D pxi inxiiB* »D pxty p»3B* iprnM 7/o3n IIOXB' »:ao imn mix3 ibpn xb mwya 'oan ibpn^ »a by px ox bax nnaB* *aoi lay --DO ib^sxi ntrx »ao iy "so iy px^o nvnb 30
1 Baba Balra, 132 a. 2 Ketabot, XIII, 6; Gemara, ibid., 109 a. 3 'Abodah Zata/i, 22 a.
* Our texts read: Nra\n iru ?s^"i unaura C',77 n^:T. 5 Niddah, 66 a. * Read
7 Yubamot, XVI, 7 ; Gewjara, ibid., 122 a.
154 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 3, recto.)
. . . , b b n<n vbw nn n»»n na prer ny TH in ^ ' paaoop 'a ^y SJKI P . . . nwyv K'aiapai rw na prwn rrn^o Kpnao x ...... «n ja prop ^
npy xin yna '•Dvp <iya>»i nay Kwno'KTi KD . . . nwia»K tnaon 'xn nx^n nnxh pi rvaa lyani' Kan -phn pina xta ia p^iy "p^ai? pina , . . JVN1 wn waup Tam n^oa ^3 IN^I D^iyi? rb mno xh pn n^a nyn i»in pn n^na 5 »mon ny oan »^D p^n n^aaa D"poi 'n^ ^ pi n^a "ai^n sr^aaa ^yon TIT a~6 nn»iNB> n^n na prop n^s» 3 b ^ -\&n Napiy na prw nairo nt3t? p^ani : «an^ Tina tonro N^ ^ ^ns ^ya NJKI n^s . . . „ «an n^aa mawvh Kan n»aa n^ ann b pBUVi^ na n»K n . . . .
N33ia na n-'xn Nn^o Kpnao »KTI sam mv noanK N^I yan^ni s^nn N . . . 10 nina^a npai any <iiiQ<i^a n"inni|h nowin n»aia n«n na prnr ^a . . . .
-ja nB>y^ »aaDi D^11^ ny nvD^a -na i?aa D*a[ib] in an nay Teen rraaw Dia^ prx n-'bn pyain 'nt^ bi pni> ......
nvo-aa ^na ba npai any n-cnnxi n^nio^i n«n na pn^i? n^mrd» ^ . . . .
WWD^ Kan jo n^ n"N T^-n naitrna nnm n^a xnai-n NW JD . . . xm n . . . 15 na piwb N3iD» ynan ny n«n na prw£ n^ yani n^ xn . , . n noa ny KaneaK . . . "aa n^ p^yatw ^n nnm naoa ni? j:"yaBiD »a KHIVK ifiph : Kapiy •aM xnaai p»rai> pt^^ni n^ pjnew nn^a^ nn^y P^TK IN n^ p"ya^o nnm naoa '•yia^x^i yan^on pi> nn^a K«j»n •'DianN^ pan mos »a n^ ^a pt? ^ai nina^n ^y pni^n D*JN ya an nrn |»ra i>3K nuionp o^^a 20 ^Ta njrarnijq ly^oa ^ pcin* ••oajD nynaa naoi>K px
pan oayat nnjna^a Kamno N^ 5wn\n nnWi n ya *cp nnnan nKan Ninna mow
nonp <KI nnyia^a np» . . xh n»aioo N3in am n'-cp^ TIX*T nao^K K*nn 6 janoKn nyarr^N Km nnavia rb p^aao 25
nn»K roo^i6 naina 1|ai» N^ ann ^ Tayx '•so ni> 'ox nnaina nyan 'OK ni^a ""nainDD in^ana ox 'xas « ^n n^o 'Knainao •|D<iann iThjn /y no^ n^ pK pn n^aa K/B» pai pn n^aa pa 'OKI an i^aK nyai^ai nxaipa an nmo wn pn n^aa i?NiD^ ^as mo nsaipa nnaina ni» ^a:o xh nniK pya^o nnin naoa p^yatyo xi? 5 Katrpm : nb ya^o pn n-a^ pin rb yacj>D N^n 30 ^ n^x ^K ^'a n:x p^noK^i n»a3K3 *niaB> nspi xnnna ni? p^aytao : B^WK^ nninb ^TK ...... DKP ^xn fffvb 'trn Kno^a mo N^ na: Kaioo
1 YECTTOC ? J Comp. Baba Batra, 48 b. 3 Comp. the expression 1:00 '
4 Grt'Wt'n, IV, 3 ; Gemara, ibid., 34 b. 5 =«:TKn. 6 GMin, 353
GEONIC RESPONSA 155
(Leaf 3, verso.)
nao DNK> 'pan itrva 122 aita <Daa naop n^Ni B» noy PNYVI poaa»ai en ne>N ^oaa aw 'Da'a -pm jva noi 3&D "oaa
jva n^ya "na nnoi ni?yai> n^sn man DNI ninipi> jo p.-6 Npao n
.Taia »»a nap nt?Kn nnoc? icrayi ji-pnn'B 5>a«^ ^>ya^ piayi^o jnty nao 'oa IN rbyib nt^xn mao ^ax ninip^n I^D w»o b'2n ypnp^ 5 pD^arn onaa ^a en aita ^oaai : na^n pi ^ar in^^ar >in on11:^ nax is la^aa DNtr frnnnN ^yan b"p xh nbya!? ntrx no^a»^ nya nnaina nyant? na»i?N fiSDJi *aii?» ""Daa p&npa fnvinxa nrn p^i?a : nno^y by\ na^a ^y I^SN IN nnatnao Di^a ntran N^ nmx
ny^va iya 7 ;na N nnix pya^ro 10 ni'ta N^ n^y p^aci : 'aoa nnnx nx IN-PI ioa mx jw^ Kin nn * J^N rkyz •'"na naaa K^ nya^ni? ivn ON ^ax n^ya nns» nns Dib
of ^3 IN 'yew '-\ 5 jam ^a nyat^ni? pha" pN 'ITD nyan N^> ^ax nnaina nnaina nyani naoi>K N"nNi '•m11 'a na sna p^at^i PINT a-atn Ka^n
Naay *n»3 ^ND ncno Kn^KOT c^nao K^J ni;y ja^aayo 'o?n IN w ny ni> ja^an11 N^I n^y paaym Nin Nan nW naa nN npao nono
'ynv '•aa poo PIKI TpaNi Ka*n ipn ^>Ta naa nN np'aoi '•anpn
_;npa IN nyias5> i^y w PINT Htnw lanai jnpan 'yoty K^xini noi nnty N^a nci
••ya I^NT nnt^ K^a n^aa TPSNI jva^ y*Ni -ja j niaai max a^oa ^iny 20 IN piKi yam 'yo^ no ON pi :6niDai »in max a^oa 'iyo 'nan vn N^ 'ON : ^a nyia^ i.T^y n^i maN '•a^o ••in '•inv Na^i 'yaw ^nv nN
^y SJK N^ IN rh pyyyQ nnaina n^po n'-ani n^ya noK' nt
____ . . , ,
^N maiyo moNB> n»iaa i^pn nyia^a N;N Diba piD^n N? nvpo rr-anp
rNa irxai DV nr^Na pao'-o naniai nnanp N^noN nana N'-ni n^niaia^a Nini '^ao 25
/ m
n»ias • pin no £"• no 'oya nca nana n^na naai ^iaa t?»Kn iniNi ny%^
ns?N nnai 710N nN ^ao uw ION nN Tao^ Nin vine' n^ i^ m^^ ir oan I^BNI :iniN trni11 pNi vmairoa ^Nn miN a«n PNI f>npa Nai? ic'ai n^ n &r\ D'-ana iaii?p yiinh inna^ a^n Ninn p]Niai n^ fa'pao
mo Kp »K : 8 ni^o IN m^> ya^a ^o n* ana WN nr 'ONI 1^ a«n KVIB> n11 ana v/y 30 jyoai
Nin papa N^yo NIO^ tMTi nn ••aao naia ns an ...... Nin n* anasr nr
1 Baba Batra, 50 a. 2 Read n;b. 3 Read D%CD3.
4 Ketubot, IX, 6; Gemara, ibid., 86 b. 5 Ketubof, IX, 8; Gemara, ibid., 87 b.
6 Comp. pis ny\c, 72 a, 5. 7 Read va>». 8 Comp. nmcn ^rc, 133.
156 GENIZAH STUDIES
XVIII.
Fragment T-S., paper, four leaves, two joined and two separate, 17x13 cm., neat, small square hand. It repre- sents the remainder of a Geonic collection of Responsa, of which nine have been preserved to us, five in an incom- plete condition.
1. The first Responsum, the beginning of which is missing, deals with the relation of the second holiday to the first, especially with regard to the burial of the dead. The Gaon decides, on the authority of the Talmud, Shabbat, 139 b, that on the first day the work connected with the burial of a body must be done by Gentiles, but on the second day it must be done by Jews. It is practically identical with a Responsum attributed to Natrona'i Gaon found in the Geonic collection rTl?, 184, but our fragment presents it in a more complete form by far. Especially noteworthy is the orthography of the name of the city referred to in the above cited passage in Shabbat, in our Responsum *ot?3, not "Pea as it appears in the editions of the Talmud and in the rTc? (ibid.). That the reading "13B>3 is correct is corroborated by ' Aruk, s. v. NTunDN (ed. Kohut, 206) \ and by the MSS. of the Talmud (comp. Rabbinovicz, on Yoma, loa; also Fragment XXV, i, recto, line I, below).
2. The second Responsum is a brief version of No. 57 of the Geonic collection anyoi mro wto 'n, where it is ascribed to Natronai Gaon. But, though a shorter form, ours is the better, the one in the collection named being in a very corrupt state. The Gaon here decides that it is not permitted to keep Sabbath dishes hot by putting them into ashes on Friday.
3. The third Responsum, perhaps also by Natronai Gaon, concerns itself with the materials permitted for the Sabbath lights, and is also found in Rabbi Judah bar Barzillai Albargeloni, DTiyn 'D, p. 17.
1 Kohut refers twice to an article •oto, but no such article can be found in the book.
GEONIC RESPONSA 157
4. Of the fourth Responsum only the beginning is preserved. It deals with the same subject as the previous one, and like it is found in the DTiyn 'D (1. c.).
5. This Responsum, the beginning of which is missing, contains an explanation of the Talmudic passage Ketubot, 10 a, and the norm for such cases as are there discussed.
6. The Gaon decides that an individual whose morals are not above suspicion is qualified as a witness to a marriage, but not as a witness in an inquiry as to whether a woman is a widow or divorced. Comp. f'&, 85 b, 13.
7. This Responsum, of which only the beginning is preserved, is identical with the somewhat lengthy one given in BVtoa, 86, and deals with the question whether a witness may retract a statement of his made outside of the court.
8. In exchange for part of a debt, a debtor agrees to give his creditor the use of a shop for a definite time. Before the time has elapsed, the debtor has an opportunity to sell his shop, and he desires his creditor to leave it. The Gaon decides against the debtor. Comp. ¥"&, 99 a> 22.
9. The last Responsum of our fragment is identical with that ascribed to Nahshon Gaon in the collection f'w, 98 b, 20, than which it is better phrased and lengthier. What is particularly noteworthy in our text is the explanation of the word rv'Sn, which is entirely new. The case dealt with is that of a day-labourer who has undertaken a day's job for a stipulated hire. In the middle of the day he refuses to go on with the work. His employer represents to him the difficulty of securing another working-man at that time, and also that he will have to pay a proportion- ately larger wage to the man who consents to do a half- day's work. The Gaon decides against the working-man, and rules that the employer may withhold his hire until he has paid the new labourer what he may demand, while the first one must then be content to take the difference between this sum and that agreed upon for his whole day's hire.
158 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf i , recto. )
pnv '-p nabn pnv '-n ait? *B any 'aw 'nrnoa nba^ai 313 n nc&ri iwoBn 23i njpn ps'-fo? o^ nvTDi :nra miDN n?3 m^
nabn 131 irrrna 5
a 3-n n"ni3
no N3i 'DNT 3/»3n 13 £p\ip no w Dva pocy 13 ipoyn- pe^xn aio 'nun n ppoyno w rwaa p PKB> HD nr^n inr^ DUID 10
133
onw : mm ^3 p»K jnty om ons mm nsaro mm ya
"13^3 ^33 D3^ DI^S^ 15
W^B^ o*awn nnx t6x jni jni };:»itb^ nnnp 'vw\ moaa mix posoi n3B> 3"ij?D pona pjHD3i pnpBib paa *itnn
1 From to to nniDD not in n'c, 184. J Bezah, 4 b.
3 Shabbat, 139 b.
* Ibid., 139 a ; our texts read n3u:2, and Rabbinovicz has no variants.
GEONIC RESPONSA 159
(Leaf i, verso.)
hni np»6i:Di nvixnn nr^a NJJ12 wn *a pena moon nat? " naoDn ba> I^NI 15 'TON NP Dipo ^>5a Nsya 'NO pan NE&N }*D-in jirbD11
fDinn x
IN 'MFD IN NDp NJH3 fN03
NI ia JID^D 'n omm cjunp^ ja mi 'can 3pnoK NPT pw nvni» an 'DN wna am wa xa-'x NDP
no N^N ^ pN 'DK *pnv 'ni n^y -wn
NH Va'i 'can 8u»tt' 15 nano ^aN 6Nyan
IN naia na^n }na pp^no pN
1 From -IICN to ycna not in ni'nj ; the copyist jumped from the first ii to the second.
2 Shabbat, II, i ; Gemara, ibid., 20 b.
3 Shabbat, 24 b. * Ibid., 26 a.
5 Our texts read 1T2NT, but MS. M. has also -n^tt?. 6 Shabbat, 21 a.
l6o GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 2, recto.)
pan 2on Nan FINI ]/hai mo 'oDn i^yin no p DNT jDNJn n
'rnio DTK PN nprn Nan 'ox jn:pna tnuD fero an INI : m^oaoi miyoa am n^cpb NHNI snaa Ninm JOMH n^ 5 an in^> 'ON* TINVID nins nna n^ 'ON joru n^ Noun Nn^nao nsu maox jcna jona an «m jon: ani> n^ pnj'pci mna nns 'ON DN 'ONI Nin
10
NHN nina NJNPDO NnK'm |N3 wo NHN an 'noNp.T Nin pa irnsn noi %5a i«ai nna pa yv> wrM? rh -von p"a a-Dj N^T p»a nina JOMDI nine i:\x^ 15 irt;^ nnzb mna nns pa yT N^> ^a n^ JOMO N^I nina nvnyn ^y iwnn V^'i
1 KetuM, 10 a. 2 Read cnn.
3 T?ie words 'ir: and »i\r3 irxir between the lines is the explanation of the copyist of the Talmudic text referred to by the Gaon.
GEOXIC RESPONSA i6l
(Leaf a, verso.)
nny pai Nobyn nny pa iyrb mo n^ ivo rbyz ^an TnDNi fua nt?N
n jnm t«»m pan ny^> ntja nviyn ^y nwnn 7o«n 'ox 'hai r6y n^cy an nb t]spn»i 5 'ON hosn n5fN nny p:yi? jon: an mioi ycru ani Nan 'ON N^ NDD an NOTPNI Nran N n^ N^otn ni?yao npiaN^ N^N f£"no nnN ^ya tfarb n^vyi? bs ••anl ND^EJ pnosi n*j»o Npnno 10 ^ Nany NH NOTH ino 'nsoi Nin fraa nnm nnN ^ya ni^na •'inon noN N^T jb 'OB^DNP ipno' n^aiM ;at2 n^ 2tnnnn noai N^N pan
naSn jai Nn^i 15 nw yot^> nnya jnv HM jaiNn 4piNn }ni> 'ONI mim *b 3^opi> \saa snnnsy rrfy n^N
1 Sanhedrin, 26 b.
2 «in'OT, belonging to him only; comp. the reading of the MSS. in Rabbinovicz, on Sanhedrin, 26 b.
* In 01*03 the text reads prsc Jin? IO.ST, but pyctc must not be taken as the subject of ICNI.
162 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 3, recto.)
1 NJV33 NW in n^ ym nan 7 , , , 30 . . i pm innnsb N^I pmn
NJ^BI NTH? Nrran p^ai pat? pnin iy wnan Kin *b naix fnixni? mb 'OKI »i^ xnx 3 h? '»aw n^ nynsn n^n W3\T NJNI 5 nann nan ^w ny 'yos? n^ '
^y ^ n'-xT pat? pnin Katy
snun ^ n^N xn jaixn n^ 'cxi njo no^nc^m «nun Nnni? KTIPT 10 n nprm WP^BJ N^ 'DK PJK> pnin n^ n»ana ^N PINT TO N^N pyi-a n^ «n» N^ •£ n*ana
pa Nia pa Knwrn iTo NN n n 15 pan "IIBKI urn «KD ton Nnnrnxa rrvyy n*an«n xaM snt? Nnjasro nno 'ia n^ awi Knun n^ at^oi nan
from MJ, and not from ro:. 2 }n siav jo pi»n.
* = nbc. * Text not very clear ; probably to be read 'V
s Baba Mezia, 68 a.
GEONIC RESPONSA 163
(Leaf 3, verso.)
jo
pan :s> I
pi&o n 'C
3ty pnnn JNDT ny 5 in wnnw Nni3n ^ n^s n-6 'yo »«o HTDS v» nn '•nx I^SN 'NT noa naana^ ^as» now »tw 21 'ON a/1|i»Npn pyoen «n»a 10
Nroac^D *KO n^ono snoi nai NJH^ wo Nps3 ^N»i? n»aa I^BN DIN Di^b naiarij i»»a» w
»y»an pra unso na^ Mnwna .T^ naibnb ptr 5>ai n»aa 15 patron «a»m :W
^3» N^ iT^ C^ID N^T 3J
Tina 'pnoKpi patr pnnn ny n*
1 Kead »«m. s Bdba Mezia, io8b. 3 J5a6a Kama, 79 a.
M 2
164 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 4, recto.)
*n 13 p 5)032 rupa ypnpnp
nprrai -icirai wp NE^N ypnp niT3^ nprnai itawn
' 5
nno Nmjn n paswi pi3H n-sT'iS NHB' }» nnaa mno pnso nn b*
o^yia na pn^^ xb «nan a^s "Nina pnay s^ *D3 fyjyy n^ 'DKI NDV n^ian ^n laxa N^» 15 roi> n'-ya ^N nasi ^
1 Read n'mDW >»ni:n W'nn1? rr? IOHT. 2 Baba Mezia, 68 a.
GEONIC RESPONSA 165
(Leaf 4, verso.)
W "rk nJN ^ WID*! fNO
Nirri NJnn pan »ND NJH piat? i!>yn*5 D^jnu nawn 'Np'oa naa nrm nix NinB> nan i>ai m^on JD m n
ma '^m jna^ na pro an 'OK
xan n^niNi a: y w\ f»m n^yanN ny nn^y nai^ n»a ny
p:a onn IOHJ an npTQi m i» n^ia pyoB' rr'b ivn IN 4onn n^an nap na ny jaixn n^y n:N N^NI raaiD n^N jo ppee£ n^b a»n» N^ pyosn n^b n^an nNap jiaai tnyn^o nu? py« pawn D^a n^an Nnn n^TS ^am 15 . . . . N hfin NHNI nmn --vna ^yia npatn '•INT n'-nNh rwva^ .
Mezia, VI, i ; Gemara, ibid., 75 b below.
2 Our texts read DXB J'KC, but MS. R, as well as the Miehnah, ed. Lowe, agree with our reading.
3 .Ba&a Mezia, 78 a.
4 Probably a repetition from the previous line.
5 Read p'coi . . 'INTZJ mn N'TI .... inn "JSID NHKU
l66 GENIZAH STUDIES
XIX.
Fragment T-S., paper, four leaves, 19x13 cm., small, neat square hand; first page not copied, because rubbed. It represents the remainder of a Geonic collection of Responsa, of which six have been preserved, two, the first and the last, in an incomplete condition.
1. The first Responsum, the beginning of which is missing, contains an explanation of the Talmudic passage, Niddah, 6 a, which deals with the question whether the laws of Levitical purity were observed after the destruction of the Temple.
2. The second Responsum gives the reasons for the orthography of the words in a bill of divorce prescribed in Giitin, 85 b. The text of the Talmud before the Gaon differed essentially from our present text. It did not contain the words in» ^ y»a>cn "jriE^ nin:6 nh, which are a variant of the next phrase inty? sina? N71, for we may properly assume that none of the explanations now in the Talmud formed a part of the original text. It further
appears that the words p»axm p^ayilH perron are also
an amplification of the original text, and at the time of the Gaon were not yet accepted as an integral part of the Talmud. The reason for the three yods in p^ym p"i;rrm according to the Gaon is to distinguish the second person, feminine, of the imperfect, from the third person, feminine, with the suffix of the first person singular. In general, it may be said, that the stress laid upon the orthography used in a bill of divorce is partly due to the fact that the language of this legal instrument was not the Aramaic spoken in Babylonia, but that of Palestine, and all efforts were directed to the end of maintaining the historical
GEONIC RESPONSA 167
peculiarities of the wording. It was nevertheless necessary to guard against the false readings that might arise from the peculiarities of the Babylonian dialect. Therefore they spelled i.V^nn l (with three yods) to indicate the consonantic value of yod as well as the i-sound appertaining to it, and distinguish it from Il^n, to be read with the a-sound. From this point of view, we understand, and agree with, the Gaon when he holds, that an infringement of these regulations does not in all cases invalidate the bill. They do not touch the essential points of the document 2.
A noteworthy feature is the way in which the Gaon quotes (leaf 2, recto, line 13) the Palestinian saying: NTJ nntpb wi'BE'i p-mra, putting the Babylonian yson for the Palestinian pllTH, and '-vxp for N»B"3.
This Responsum is more or less identical with that found in the collection of Harkavy on p. 229, where it is ascribed to Rabbi Hai Gaon 3. In part it is repeated in the same collection on pp. 5 and 129.
3. The third Responsum also deals with one of the regulations for bills of divorce. It gives a full explanation of the words D^n runo. In the course of his explanation, the Gaon quotes Kiddushin, 72 a, his version being widely different from that in our text of the Talmud, as well as from that in the manuscripts 4, neither the printed text nor the manuscripts containing the word5 NTiriDT after NT^n. There can be no doubt that the reading of the Gaon is correct. It is manifestly absurd to mark the boundary of a country by "the second bridge," without stating the
1 The Babylonian form is without nun, but it seems that the longer form was sometimes used, and then the yod had its consonantic value. Comp. incn, V, 235-7, 49^ ? an(^ ^> 325~9> where several unsatisfactory explanations of the longer form are given.
2 Comp. Maimonides, pern, IV, 19, and the quotation from a Geonic source in Rabed ; also p. 98 above ; and y"u.N. 15 a, 28.
3 Miiller has no reference whatsoever to the Responsum in his Maficah. * Quoted by Berliner. Beitrage sur Geographic und Ethnographic Babyloniens,
p. 21.
6 This is also the reading of Rabbi Sherira Gaon in y'cr, 15 b, 30.
1 68 GENIZAH STUDIES
situation of the bridge. Mahoza, as is well known 1, lay on the Tigris, so that the expression " the second bridge " becomes intelligible when it is connected with Mahoza.
4. The fourth Responsum, similar in character to the third, defines the term NH1D with precision : " NniD comprises a number of districts — Damascus, Aleppo, Mabbok — extend- ing to Haran; all the country along the upper Euphrates is called NniD V
This Responsum occurs in Harkavy's collection, p. 230, where it follows the second Responsum of our fragment, and like the latter it is ascribed to Rabbi Hai Gaon.
5- The fifth Responsum contains an explanation of the passage Moed Katan, 3 b, dealing with the Sinaitic Halakah '131 myBJ 1B>y. Strangely enough, the Gaon omits the main point, that the permission to cultivate land for the benefit of trees refers, not to the Sabbatical year proper, but to a short season preceding it, JVjrnt? my.
6. The sixth Responsum, the end of which is missing, contains the Gaon's decision, that a lamp used on the Sabbath may not be handled even after the light is extin- guished. Similar decisions on the same subject are cited in the Geonic collection n"K>, 236 and 237, on the authority respectively of Rabbi Natronai and Rabbi Zemah. But the present Responsum is identical with neither of these two.
1 Comp. BeraJcot, 59 a ; Baba Kama, 30 a. 3 Comp. Maimonides, Terumot, I, 3.
GEONIC RESPONSA 169
(Lcjif i, verso.)
'na »an rrc>jn 1nyyo rby W3 'OK nry^x 'na ro^n jw "orat? nns^ moK ••« pmn nyua v^y TIED^ -ITJ&K 'n sin »3n *o»3 nonn mm w»n n»nm Nnb^n mn »3*n »3i *o*3 BHP enpi nicx ^K N^N 5 pno Nnan K^y 'OKT xhyna p« J3l|p"ist:<i
131 pi
NTH ^3*7 n»yDi vita ^ITSI pm nb IBID NVDI ima^n ns pn^33 IK pnnvpos
rtwpfb ino xn^3 Kin KJD<T N^N onni» p^nn 15 Nnyoi^ KVI pan *nta^ iT3n»oi ND^ xinn!? ni 3in3^ N^ wa 3^n3T so »KH «3K 'OK
fn vb
6 a, end. 2 Git tin, 85 b.
1 70 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Loaf a, recto.)
nniri ainaw na psoicn pan
yct?n x^xi p^avnn p'inma nv pai*vm ixia n<a "pita p'axm P'inn
pann yovn x^xi ppn^n xn pm ana IK xin pan irwoyoi 5
paiTn IBD 7 anD-o? -wy ana 1x1 ^^ n^anan pan^n nso iny pnn >rn Nyxiai? n^ ^xn xh inoi? ^a^n^ n^ann noi^a pint? fvj£o 10 nivx a^na ix psjy^i • xa'.nb ix navB> ntrxi nwr s»"ix p^a xiin X:^D?:I ^xrsna xTj1 *?&Q t?"i ni? n^y \s* n^ 'oxp »an ''xm no'e^ ^nxi n*xpi> nr Kin wni ppia^t? nS ^ n*3r nx ni5 15 D ia PNP pn nai pe^ na n?i ana >xi '•nxi iTt?n»D pan '•nan »^ci xin pn onan ••a^n1' n^ann na pv nn^n »Dnai ^m *.* --xTia xbt?
n nan ixi? p^avni p^inna 20 *W p^inn n^j 'cxp -am yctw x/n pan^na »DTJ pann xani »^Hi> p^avni
1 Pesiktx, ed. Buber, XI, 96 a ; Tcinhuma, ed. Buber, Dent. 21, and in many other places quoted by Buber, but in all these places puna is used instead of ':«cn.
GEONIC RESPONSA 1 71
(Leaf a, verso.)
pann ISD yci^D N^n ib n:nii> ppiaen
onmao D'tMN nao iota pp»3B> maw
Nina' pan»n mrvth T"ixi Deafly D<B>:N IN
•nwian nsoi ppnu mjN v& nioi!> pBm»a
pawn n»iain nvni> n«r b 5 ^a»K> noun »£ro wn^ nan pa ^ya n^ ann Na»m n na 131D nym D^ ua anans^ rrn»N ^NT ND^D pnvpToa IN pnha
JDl NISD^ J nWM 'N ^3N H^ ppnD 10 HK'N iT3 NaD3^» IN ND'J NHN
'nN '•N *NII rf? p
NP »an pm a^nDi ^xn 'ONI nyni'D "-NP pan^n nQD 7^ anaHoi» Nin wn 'n 3nii N^I Nin »«an nna»« n*3n3T »«n IN 15
'JN robtn ND^NT nai rvanai *«n IN ni? jyaoao N^ »«ni o^oa D^pn onana rra n^xn ND^ »Nna xao:^ ••N 4 ohy^ IN jta IN NnNiyD >:n nspo nna 5 pm • Nvn N!? jna 20 D^ . . . naain
1 Read rrrrt. a Read rn. 3 = ma Kbs? tea Earn ma c« sin '«:n.
4 See Harkavy, p. 229 : w DViyb rn, which is incorrect.
5 Gitlin, Mishnah, VIII, 5 ; Gemara, ibid., 79 b.
172 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 3, recto.)
mroa mn man jannbi man p-oa^ jv
mo Nvn mica anai anym anym anai now IDS? rwtp nroi nro w nansn rr.oi $>ai moi mo N?n nmy DPI wy DP DIPD IDS* p^poi rn J i^n D^mn 5
Njuon an S/DNI wast? yaDD» ratyon ^a I»KD 'n n»n
5 'DNT naio mya p^yi? pe> bi -VKD 'mi> 10 'n nan ir an 'CN N3in an 'OK Nax 7n "wo n^in 6nNtfj DN 'DIN 'can bx n^y DB> noun IDB> m^a TKD 'nb 'can 3 pn^no ^N an 'ON nrco nijina* nn'-y KI nHy 08? no^i i»^ m^ ^npn 'wpi 15 in^anya TNB 'n NO^^N 8|N» nn^y m» nnospn *KD bax pan wb S^N . N3M N>ya^» N^ n^ni' man^oi
p^pno N »NI n^ipn NniB'n [ an1" N NniB>n nsio t^ am I^BN N^N ^an nani» 20
paw panx on ony S
i>ya pni? ami oipoa
V 7n pa*« pi n^a »DJ
' Our texts read ib«n. 2 Our text of the Talmud reads *«?n.
3 Gitfin, 80 a. 4 Not in our texts in this passage.
8 Oiflin, 80 b. 8 nsffij c« not in our texts.
7 Our texts read '131 n:'\r n:':n IM J:N F]« .
8 Our texts read NO^1^ rn »:np JKO srt.
9 Gittin, Mishnah, VI, 7 ; Gemara, ibid., 66 b.
GEONIC RESPONSA 173
(Leaf 3, verso.)
bvun jn ivab 'OK ib-axt^ fi 'n rrby 'rbai nb um larm nob* nabn *an 'ON bNiot? "ONI WIN E*N rwarn
'bNK>an '•DV 'ia °nS
DM naneo 122 snon 2 pm Nn 5 ^an e^Tsa pna^NT n-n nano wa '•so DM wno ^xiB''1 p« •'aa^ nwnon
p« '•oinn onso a^rv xp
n-n^n ^a '^ p« oinna my^aiom
a I^BKI n^ n«p o^n nano bvmp PK jo
• ponv paj& N^I poy p»aj^ Nip^yo •'oa
no'-y ^n^ pNi Nany baa pom* p^yin
'ON an 5baa pnosi 4nib pn«n ny sbaab 15
'i a^moi pD^ab bvrvy* pnxa KM nn
npii nirob Dpno 'OIN mm* 'n .TOT
•oma it^vtn omb |^pe«ee mroa
baa xm pava iayi pavb 'w TNO yn pm NO^P hne>* pan 20 O 'n i^aNi pD^b V11 piN3 NM nn baa bax xanpm laya xbx 'oxp Nb
1 Gittin, 66 b. 2 Gi/tin, Mishnah, I, i ; Gemara, ibid , 2 a.
3 Kiddushin, 69 b. * rv? jpn«i ir x^r rte Nbi? s Cft/^w, 6 a.
174 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 4, recto.)
aao nab r6 piso Nini rh a<mc xin «b nai ?&£> baa '»inn 'spv an aw xpn nt^n Kjvwi xany ny ban •Kin D\n runea nro pro urn «n 'Wen 5
nr *
p&?cn p33 x^n nwno noa NHID nioip» jnix pn nyi piaoi
noen wmo p'np nns 10 way NinB> ^DIID anai >DII
by »3«niD iniN pxnpi i?i33
nmy
pyyb my'DJ n^y 'TQ *eiD ntro 15 bath ynta eninb 'cm nox D^ ty DK bax mtraa' nasij noai nw^NH ^a^a tninb
nyi HKCD »^DD n^ob na^n
6 nvrbi mtryo nmoi tnin 8 pm mow sin mtrn 7 'n'lYy^K ba p^nin n«o n^a -pro nnneo
nnnt? naiy • j^ae'a HKD rva
1 Kiddushin, 733 ; conip. the introductory note. 2 Gittin, 8 a.
3 3foed Katan, 3 b. * Read -)TC'3i. 5 Read »:DO
• Read rrcnVi. 7 Cancelled by the scribe. 8 SAebi'tt, I, 6.
GEONIC RESPONSA 175
(Leaf 4, verso.)
roi?n D'o • jnn ^ nyatr ba D»D * pacn^ • woo
UIDQ ta!?D^ 1TO *blW1
lai tunn pan TOP nnixa v6y p^inp cnn u ptabuo 2 M'jm IIDMP ton inn 5
'i mirr 7i nm JB» N!J i?3N a' i3D pn bu^i' inio nano^ w pyoB' 'i na^ nrma na inio naa nae' nni«3 p^in 1:0 pn P^D^DD a: by ejw pi'Dc^ '13 xna!?*n n^i ni»D^ob 10 'i 'DM mn ia ia nai 4'DNi ^NO »an xna^n n^ pyop 'ia na \a^a 5'DK aim n>b MTSD N^ rvh 'CM 'ia na^n roB>n baa 'DM nn xraii NHN 'DM im • DWD neno nvpnoo ia 15 ia pyot^ 'ia na^n ^D3 DW»D ia ip^hn^ ia irra »MDI na^n jai pyo^ 'ia na^n px rbt&zb IIDNI IIDNH ianb o^oa n D inio ^ai n»3^ niDioa 7 MIIH 'i 'CM 'DM 20 v MM nrmi nabni 9 psn yM^ pirn 8 nat^a sina M3M*^i» >JN^^ nn Ka-xi M3M bai »an icn'-x '•x M^M p^aoo Nina K3B^» Mpn
' Read pozisc. 2 Shabbat, 44 a.
3 Our text and the MSS. read pzbEtD rvn:n b3. * Shabbat, 45 b.
5 Ibid., 157 a. ' Read m. T Read «r:n '-\ 'CM 'ON p\n.
8 Shabbat, 121 a, end. s = jNMNn.
176 GENIZAH STUDIES
XX.
Fragment T-S., paper, two leaves, 19 x 15 cm., square writing, with a slight tendency to cursive. It contains eighteen Geonic Responsa, three of them incomplete.
1. The first Responsum, the beginning of which is missing, contains the decision of the Gaon regarding a childless widow and the Yabam who had been converted to another religion. The case was as follows: The brother of the
O
deceased husband had given the woman Halizah, and at the same time turned the inheritance from his brother over to her, the transfer being effected by a Gentile court. The other heirs of the husband objected, but the Gaon upheld the right of the Yabam to dispose of his brother's in- heritance, quite as though he had remained a Jew, and also endorsed the transfer as made by the Gentile court.
2. The second Responsum contains the law regarding the legal majority of women, based on Gittin, 64^-65 a. It must be noted, however, that the Gaon's statement, i recto, lines '19-2 1, is not a direct quotation from this passage, but is a combination of it with Yebamot, 108 a, as is proved by what he says about niDiya (line 23). We may, therefore, conclude that the Gaon had the same text in Gittin as Alfasi, and as Maimonides, Ishut, IV, 7, which in turn agrees with that of Rab Amram Gaon in Dl'iM, 97. These identical texts would seem to disprove the opinion of Rabbi Zerahiah Gerondi, that Alfasi s reading goes back to Rabbi Hai Gaon, who changed the original text of the Talmud. Our Responsum agrees with Rab Amram Gaon in other respects, too. Both maintain that a woman of 'N DV1 3"' or D'JBD nx^ntf is considered to be of age. But while Rab Amram holds with Rabbi Mei'r, in Niddah, 52 a-b, our Respousum holds with Rabbi Jehudah.
GEONIC RESPONSA 177
3. The third Responsum seems to be an extract from Rabbi Zemah Gaon, in the collection fv, 27 a, 30. It contains the decision that the word of a slave who asserts that he has become a Jew, but does not live as one, does not deserve credence, and his owner may, if he likes, sell him to a Gentile. Comp. DTiyn 'D, 238.
4. The fourth Responsum contains explanations of various passages in Yebamot, without, however, offering anything of importance. It is a matter for regret that the Gaon did not explain the expression ruao in the phrase HJ3» mVJ, variously interpreted by the later commen- tators and by the lexicographers *. By the mistake of copyists, who did not understand the expression, n:3D appears twice as rmo in the Jerusalem Talmud, Terumot, VII, 44 d, and Kiddushin, IV, 66 a.
5. The fifth Responsum, like all the rest to follow, except one, deals with Halakic questions concerning the Passover, It contains the Gaon's explanation of Pesahim, 45 b. He reads ns^, and explains it as meaning a spherical mass, while our text has na'3. Compare, however, Rabbinovicz, Dikduke Soferim, *Aruk, IV, 307, and v"v, II, 80.
6. The sixth Responsum contains the Gaon's explanation of nonn, which he connects with Din, potsherd, the material of which the vessel was made in which the nonn was kept. A similar etymology is given by the author of the *Aruk, s. v. D"in and nonn, who has in mind the clayey con- sistency of the mixture. Needless to say that both ex- planations are false ; as its form 2 proves, nonn indicates something that has been scraped off, and is related to Din only in so far as this word means a thing with which one can scrape.
7-8. The seventh Responsum is merely the question addressed to the Gaon without the reply given by him. There is the possibility, however, that lines 12 (beg. «i>)-
1 Comp. 'Aruk, IV, 252, and Eashi, ad loc.
2 Comp. Earth, Nominalbildung, § 43 c.
N
178 GENIZAH STUDIES
17 (DTIQU), on leaf 2, recto, which we numbered as the eighth Responsum, may be the latter part of the Gaon's opinion, the intermediate portion having been omitted by an oversight of the copyist. The question concerns itself with the preparation of certain sorts of Passover pastry, and it may be conjectured that the Gaon was led to give an explanation of fio^n in Pesahim, 39 b.
9. Here we have the decision of the Gaon that no marriages are to be performed on the intermediate days of Passover and Tabernacles. The same opinion is held by different Geonim, as appears from Responsa in other Geonic collections. Compare Q"n, 156 ; »r»3, 81 ; and n"v, 218. Our Responsum, however, is not identical with any of these.
10. The tenth Responsum gives the opinion of the Gaon, that nvo baked by a Gentile under the supervision of a Jew may be used during Passover for all purposes except for mvo nro. The same view is held by the Geonim Kohen- Zedek and Rabbi Hai, while the Gaon Rabbi Joseph ben Mari prohibits the use of such unleavened bread entirely. Compare t/V, II, 92-3; Jfe>, 291 ; »l"»3, in ; and D"n, 166. Our Responsum is nearly identical with the one found in the collection Dl"D3, in, and its probable author is Kohen-Zedek.
11. This is the decision of the Gaon that the blessing is to be recited over each of the four cups drunk at the Passover meal. The opinion is shared by many Geonim. Compare t?X II, 99, and Muller, Mafteah, 84, 1 10 l. The ascription of the opposite view to the Gaon Kohen-Zedek 2 in Tur, Orah Hayyim, 477, contradicts our fragment, which ostensibly gives the opinion of Kohen-Zedek. The Tur probably made use of the passage in w"W just referred to, and was misled, by an ambiguous expression used there, into attributing to Kohen-Zedek a view opposite to that actually held by him. Comp. also nV, 287 ; Kohen-Zedek's
1 Comp. also TSM mino, 276.
8 It is improbable that Tur refers to Kohen-Zedek, II.
GEONIC RESPONSA 179
opinion as there given agrees with our fragment Responsa 282-2^7 in rTeJ are perhaps extracts from a Seder Haggadah by Kohen-Zedek1.
1 2. In this Responsum the Gaon explains why the bene- diction is not recited before Hallel at the Passover meal. The author is probably Rabbi Zemah Gaon. Compare v"wt II, 99, 100, and n'V, 102.
13. The Gaon decides that the blessing over the two cakes of unleavened bread at the Passover meal must be said over one cake that has been broken, and one whole cake. The same procedure is prescribed by the Geonim Rab Amram, Kohen-Zedek, and Rabbi Joseph. The only dissenting opinion is held by Rabbi Hai Gaon, who main- tains, that while two whole loaves are required for every other holiday, on the Passover the cakes may either be broken or whole2. The natural sense of the passage in Berakot, 39 b, endorses the opinion of the three Geonim, and contravenes the opinion of Hai. It seems, however, that in the time of the Amoraim the origin of the custom of using one broken cake and one whole cake was no longer known. In the days of the Temple, two whole cakes were used at the Passover meal as at any other holiday. But, unlike our present custom, the recital of the Haggadah took place after the meal3, when only bits of the cakes remained to illustrate the story. The broken nvo thus became identified with the Haggadah, and remained so even after the new custom of reciting the story before the meal came in vogue, when there was no longer any necessity for the broken pieces. Again, the holiday cha- racter of the Passover required the use of a whole cake, too. Thus the two cakes, the broken cake and the whole cake, were made to serve each a purpose of its own, the
1 Comp. J. Derenbourg, in Geiger's Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift, V, 398 ; Miiller, Mafteah, 83, and Handschriftliche, Jehudai Gaon zugewiesene Lehrsatse, 17.
2 tc*tt, II, 103 ; comp. nE'i 'no, 279; and S'a, 102.
3 Comp. R. Mordecai ben Hillel on Pesahim HDD to iiD ; comp., however, Mekilta de R. Shime'on, 33, and Hoffmann's note thereto (4).
N 2
l8o GENIZAH STUDIES
one to perpetuate an old habit, the other to mark the holiday character of the Passover.
Another Passover meal custom, the }r6v<?n DTpy, " re- moving the table," underwent a similar development. As we have seen, the Haggadah was recited originally after the meal. The "removal of the table/' marking the end of an Oriental meal *, became the signal for the beginning of the Haggadah. Later, when the meal came after the story, the custom of " removing the table " was continued as a part of the Passover ceremonial.
14. The fourteenth Responsum deals with one who forgets to count the 'Omer. Partly, it is identical with the decision attributed to Rabbi Jehuda'i Gaon2; but it con- tains a rather obscure amplification, found in no other source, which makes a distinction between an intentional omission and real forgetfulness.
15. This Responsum is a note on *Erubin, 53 b, which, in spite of its brevity, throws entirely new light on the passage. According to our present text of the Talmud, the Galilean woman, typically careless of her speech, says *n3^B> instead of V13W. But even the most ignorant could not mistake a 3 for a 3 in pronunciation; the two letters are often interchanged in writing, but not in speaking. Besides, there is no such word as TOvt? in any Aramaic dialect, to cause a slipshod pronunciation. The Geonie reading, therefore, which puts n»ri33t5>b3 instead of our nm3r6, is undoubtedly correct. What happened was that the woman wanted to say TI335? (my neighbour), and did actually say Via&P, which in the Galilean pronunciation sounds like
jt?, meaning " my ransom V The woman said : " May
1 Comp. :n*n, ed. Coronel, 57, 58; and ed. Lyck, 48.
2 c*«, II, 108. Comp. also i'ru, ed. Hildesheimor, 146 and 6ra ; and C*n, ed. Schlossberg, 17.
* Read nmawb ; comp. also the reading Nraac1? in Rabbinovicz, ad loc.
4 See Nedarim, 66 b, for an interesting anecdote about a Palestinian- Galilean woman. Instead of 'ibs (calf's foot jelly), which her Babylonian husband had ordered for dinner, she gave him 'nc'r£ (lentils). It was not
GEONIC RESPONSA l8l
a lion devour thee for mo," instead of, "My neighbour, take some milk." The reading v\yb& with 3 instead of V&bt? with 3 is corroborated by MS. M, which reads *nv£t?, merely a different spelling of TOW J. It should be noted that the expression, "may a lion devour thee," was a common curse among the Jews of Talmudic times (comp. Kelubot, 72 b). It is, therefore, improbable that there should be a connexion between X3^ and 3r6, or VF&ffV and rar6t5>.
16-17. These two Responsa deal with certain kinds of pastry and their use on Passover2. According to the Gaon, the cakes referred to in the Responsa may be eaten during the Passover, but they cannot serve as nivo nvo. The same decision occurs in w"&, II, 93 ; and n"K>, 284 and 100. The sixteenth Responsum is possibly the one ascribed to the Gaon Kohen-Zedek in r\"v, 284.
1 8. The last Responsum of the fragment, of which only the question has been preserved, deals with the same subject as the tenth, HVD baked by a Gentile who is supervised by a Jew. It is probably identical with the decision by Kohen-Zedek in the Geonic collection n'V, 291, where these two, the tenth and the eighteenth of the present fragment, are combined into one.
her goodwill that was at fault, but her Galilean tongue and ear, the one unable to pronounce a n, the other unable to distinguish it when pro- nounced. To her 'cVs sounded like Ttcro. It is, however, not impossible that the husband with his Babylonian peculiarities may not be guiltless. He may have mispronounced TID'TO as 'BTE.
1 Comp. also the reading Tiyba: in ed. Salonica.
a I am unable to give a satisfactory explanation of PTTC:, leaf 2, verso, line 25: S
1 82 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf i, recto.)
DB>» n*a rvb nna .T!> rrv !ri> rvm ^r
i 13103 nna pnnon 73 iapna nn nn »un . . , oaa 1
tK"t Kina N^yi* tmao . . . . ona nai ^jm 2 m . . . . rvb ram nnt war *N D»«a nWan n^ 5
r ojno nana I^S »jaw oyn^o ni^a mna
nnama nyan NP x Kiajn nnsea
noitro wnn jo nenn* «»nnb iTnar N^ ^»DKI 10 jo 'BB n^ano 0^033 w pro wnt6 nanx n»j>o n:an KM noitron ncnnn jva nnainai fe» N^ rmKna« n^ anai n^ anai n^nxi HDBKI Van i>T3 ojno oi^a nyano^ n^nv
-PR- b ^K 'a'j'^ysN s DWDJK ja n^n n 15
. . JNO!> nanx na»K rrorrrp IDB^ n^ia* nrsiy
}3 ru^n '13 H3^n ijNIOE' 'N iTHiT 31 'W
no»a IDB^ n^ia* n^K^ wopa pi nnv pa n:naoe> b jna^a 4no^ nha» T3i!> IK rwiTf^ nta^a pa runaot? b^ twb 20 nnx PND nanv penTp pa»j6
>*Yi6 nan ww iovyi> nan iboui nas ronx nioiyan ^a^ njram mojn m»KO K^ naop 6w 'na nabn rrawo nn on 7K-vna p mvn 'n DVJTD 35
rrn na K^e> K^ m»na p
1 Baba Batra, 54 b ; our texts read 12103. a Read
s Fe&amoi, Mishnah, XIII, 2; Gemara, ibid., 107 b, 108 a ; the strokes over ij^EM indicate that the word is to be cancelled. 4 Read 'jip'j, and comp. Git tin, 64 b. * Git tin, 64 b-6s a.
6 Yebamot, io8a. T Read on on TIDN.
• Read inxb n3'D: N'n 1331?® xb. fl Read n^.
10 Read vhx. " i. e. ;ao nvi»« «?i.
GEONIC RESPONSA 183
(Leaf i, verso.)
nai>ini JTONOD nnt?y n<nt? i>a mop Jxan 'x
XS1D3 n^> pDplDI J3'D»plD1
naop 2pv' ny
'ho »an nx<an nprn npna ran* px r KM xna^n twbn pa»y5> bs njNCD sh p^o 5 npna na»"w PN JVTVQW bkb ny^n^ n:op 'ran 'xi • D^IKO pj^yi? ^o ^n pa^o n^an nprn npna N^ya nv^n pa»yb i>3K WKDO xh n»M nnae' xana ^m mirr /-ia nnaiob nmo D»M nt^yo rwyo bai n^nw1 »JK 10 4mns DN 'BW :"«nmt no
neo n^nai nutya ino npitra
mtropo an^y pn ccip»i> nnnn nann nnsiDK' nmx 'can mypi nwn 15 nanna nij a D»PE& nnnm n^nai nnsistj' r
n*op '^JDV an 'x pnn ja yenn nt^p ntj'pn n^p n^op ino xan :wa onan wnp 'ox 7pnoK ^an ^ai ao
pan mcpK 8njao nnva IHD lai? voy raw SJN pnv 'n mi? 'oxpn nyioy nxr D^D»y wo nsan ni>ina K»3n5» fvoyo 10nKBDin nan nay raso nnva 9nnDi«
DM n3snrDb n^ya T.W ntrxa maiy 35 TTP nonn TON -ym ih rvh \nntwi :nh wnn^ mntj'aw rvo»K n»mi>» ja • pK nrai^Ni ono yo^o "Ninas 'nx ny ntryn nna
1 Niddah, 46 a, read sn '«7.
* Read )riu"n p'pni wb '3i NETS nb piopim
3 = N2i, compare note 4 to p. 194.
4 Yoma, 35 a ; text unintelligible to me. s Yebamot, 15 a. 6 Ibid.,6ia. 7 Kiddushin, 44 b. ' Yebamot, 77 b. 9 Read mow n«n. 10 Yebamot, 80 b. " Ibid., 80 a.
184 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 2, recto.)
r&trfy mm? 1 TIN^S? na^a '
nnn nmnh n^y a^i? mm noa IN 13 :n^3Ko nrn: nmao IN n^3«o ipiw jra not? Np-n • NVD* i?ai HNT i>a n^y -niy ww s 'x 2V JN^N na prra> 31 'NT , 3 'nonnn n*3 .Y^D 0*03
DJTIN 31
peny PTBW piw np^no »D3i JOB'S 10 nop
nra rie')ni'B' ymp iniN NIH mi
n!» p^o N^I • nrpj«DN3 15 D^nnn Q^on N^P^T o»f>pi
ino 'Btn niaN
DN ^Ni^i? nixo 20
ni? n^y mxcn HN Dmoen ':B> main n-- rwu nnun ^ ONI »n^ ny^a H mra oni> ni> niDiN^
1HN W> jrrB> H3
nsNt^ no n^nna e 25
;n 'NI !>N-IB« nsKB' noo JVD iniN i?y paiao ono 10*13 DIN N!>BD D^IJ^ mp^a nso ^ss*^
1 Pesahim, 45 b ; comp. introductory note. 3 Thus in MS. ! c
3 Pesahim, 30 b.
* Ibid., 39 b, last line ; our texts read >VS3 with ' and not with i.
6 = JHJ7. 7 Pesahim, 40 a.
GEONIC RESPONSA 185
(Loaf 2, verso.)
poo n mi nnnta nna
DK pB*iy pN r&VD^
naiN NI.IKOI B& Nineo >un
D1pO31
na^n nos^ HIDD njan«
0121 012 b i>y ni po iDxy yaa nwo nnxi nnx b Tnv .Tnyn NHDD nWm NJTUN na nsw * 'an panao pn
^y nni? NtsyD *ND jma-i n^e* nina none noiyn nTBD 'B*K> : DiTne* ^y yixa^ 71x1 a^nan niy mio WN pe«"in ova *ao N^n JND 15
nWn iNB'ni wh "nn *on mnaK* yatr
TTD DB>D DW * N^^3 WIO DV3 TOO N!? DN
OKI prca ^jno 'ON rrn33e6 moan Bino
K Nn 7 N^TO N3^n »^3K NH NH 20
pi eai3 jo^ai }«3 noan ^3 no^yn en^ noan ^oi> INBQI ^iy on^ ntyo N^N po^n Di{ro N^> oan W N!?N niox S|ID*P PKB> ^0?^ * "inio
n^ mm
T3 pa "-s^p^-^a nani? nmo »paiBa rnm^ ino 35
.m^y nuy DB>O nios JWKTH na >3N 'BI • ncaa nwri3 no^y p»3nnb ino >13 TD^B . : n»w ^1^3 Dityo "N K^ IN n? 13-6 napn
1 Read »ti }ENSJ. * Read ^ttJ2%N '««. 3 Read »"?ro.
4 = j can no WTW ; 'w = nnbstcc. 6 'Erubin, 53 b.
6 = nb moN. 7 Read 'x »m = mox s»m.
8 Read nco. 9 Comp. introductory note. 10 ?
1 86 GENIZAH STUDIES
XXI.
Fragment T-S., paper, six leaves, 22 x 15 cm., square hand, tending to cursive. The two outside pages are too much rubbed to be copied ; also leaf 6, recto, is in a very damaged condition, only a few lines being legible. There- fore, from leaf i, verso, to leaf 6, recto, is all that could be copied. As much of the fragment as can be deciphered contains fifteen Responsa, some of which have been pre- served in the printed collections of Geonic Responsa.
1. The first Responsum, the beginning of which is missing, is identical with Responsum 47, in the Geonic collection p"a , where it is ascribed to Sar Shalom Gaon l. It deals with the circumstances in which a Gentile may be trusted to handle wine without its becoming }« Dno. Our MS. enables us to correct some mistakes in the printed text, as, for instance, the senseless ^ b& 13" WH?3, instead of which we must read, with our fragment, leaf i, verso, line 6, \yyv\ VQ *?v ««B>.
2. The second Responsum also deals with p nno. The decision of the Gaon is that a winepress made of clay, used by Gentiles, cannot be used by Jews, even if the glazing is first removed.
3. The Gaon enumerates the conditions under which a Jew may associate himself in business with a Gentile who traffics on the Sabbath and on holidays. This is a favourite subject in the Geonic literature of Responsa. There is hardly any other that is touched upon so often in the questions put to the authorities, showing that partner-
1 Comp. also /n, 117 where it is ascribed to Kabbi Zemah Gaon.
GEONIC RESPONSA 187
ships between Jews and Gentiles must have occurred with the utmost frequency l.
4. This Responsum also deals with a subject connected with a partnership between a Jew and a Gentile. The question addressed to the Gaon reads as follows : " May a Jew enter into partnership with a Gentile in agricultural enterprises, if the Gentile works on the Sabbath with the cattle belonging to both partners, muzzles the ox while he is treading out the corn, and ploughs with an ox and an ass together?" The Gaon decides that the muzzling or coupling of animals by the Gentile forms no objection to the partnership, because the laws against these acts do not grow out of the relation between the possessor and the animal possessed, but aim rather to regulate the relation between the worker and the animal used. The Sabbath prohibition, on the other hand, is based on the fact of ownership. It is the duty of the Jew to secure a day of rest for an animal belonging to him, and from this duty he is not released when the Gentile uses it. The Gaon's opinion is novel in its leniency. Most of the codifiers refuse to sanction a partnership in which a Jew might expose animals belonging to him to being muzzled or coupled by a Gentile partner 2.
5. The fifth Responsum contains the following state- ment : An ass and an ox may be used together by a Jew without any scruples in threshing, the prohibition against coupling divers animals having application only to plough- ing. This statement is so extraordinary that one would like to attribute its strangeness to a corrupt text, but this easy escape from the difficulty is cut off by the rare state of preservation of this part of the fragment. It remains for some ingenious interpreter to tell us on what grpunds
1 Comp., for instance, Responsa of the Geonim, ed. Lyck, 65, 67, 68 ; Eesponsa of the Geonim, ed. Mantua, 43; 01*03, 53-56; c"n, 10; and the next Responsum of our fragment.
2 Comp. Maimonides, nw3«?, XIII, 3 ; R. Moses of Coucy, J'DC, prohibi- tion 184 ; D*n, 9; comp., however, Tur, Hoshen Mishpat, 338.
l88 GENJZAH STUDIES
the Gaon ventured to oppose the whole chain of Jewish tradition, from the Tannaim down to the latest codifier, the author of the Shulhan 'Arulc1. Indeed, the view of the Gaon contradicts, not only the Rabbinic tradition, but even the Karaite interpretation, as can be seen from the state- ments of Elijah Bashyazi, in his Aderet Eliahu, Supplement, 130; and Aaron ben Elijah the Younger, in his Keter Tor ah, on Deut. xxii. 10. It should, however, be noted that both these Karaite teachers refer to the opinions of some Rabba- nites, who maintain that the expression " plough with an ox and an ass together" is only a euphemism for hybridization. But it seems that this opinion is based upon a misunder- standing of what Maimonides says in Moreh, III, 49. He does, indeed, hold that the prohibition against working a field with divers animals is aimed against giving an opportunity for hybridization, but he does not thereby deny the simple and direct meaning of the law against coupling. Attention should also be called to the opinion of Rabbi Joseph Gaon in sfn, 10. He explicitly forbids threshing with divers animals. It must be admitted that the very emphasis he puts upon the prohibition may indicate the existence and expression of varying opinions upon the subject.
It is highly interesting that the view mentioned above, ascribed by the Karaites to the Rabbanites, is found in Karaitic sources only, and in a book of the founder of the sect himself. In Anan's nwon nao, reproduced by Harkavy, in Studien und Mitthettungen, VIII, we read on p. 4 : " And the Scriptures use the expression cnnn ' plough/ to teach us two things, the prohibition against hybridization and against ploughing as well, for r»B>nn ' ploughing,' is the expression for njj'31 'hybridization,' also, as it is written, 'rtayn Dnsrin tbb ' If ye had not ploughed with my heifer.' " As Dr. Harkavy remarks, on p. 194, the text here does not seem to be in good condition. However, it is certain that,
1 Comp. M ishnah Kilaim, VIII, 2 ; Slfre, Deut., 231 ; Maimonides, Kilaim, IX, 7 ; Yoreh Deafi, 297, 10.
GEONIC RESPONSA 189
according to Anan, ennn is an euphemistic expression for jrmn. From Anan's words, we may at the same time infer that in his opinion the prohibition is directed against ploughing and hybridization.
6. Here again we have a partnership between a Gentile and a Jew dealt with. The Gaon decides, that if a Jew gives money to a Gentile for the purchase of cattle, he is responsible for their Sabbath rest from the moment his partner-agent acquires them, even before he himself has come into actual possession of them. Strangely enough, in discussing the point whether the Jew becomes the rightful owner of the beasts from the moment the Gentile buys them with his money, the Gaon disregards the distinction made by the Talmud, Bekorot, 13, between a Jew and a Gentile in the law of acquisition.
7. The seventh Responsum denounces all legal fictions invented for the purpose of evading the law of Sabbath rest. If a sale is consummated in perfect form and without mention of any condition, but it is proved a subterfuge by the return of the Jew to his business at the end of the Sabbath, the Gaon condemns it as an evasion, as a decep- tion of God and man, a public desecration of the Sabbath and of the name of God, for the law opposes double-dealing even in indifferent matters, let alone, then, in so sacred a concern as the sanctification of the Sabbath. Comp. pp. 81-83, above.
8. The eighth Responsum is identical with that found in Y"®> 26 a, 20. There it is ascribed to the Gaon Kohen-Zedek, but it is probable that the author is Hai Gaon l. The Responsum deals with the case of a master whose slaves refuse to embrace Judaism, and as well with the case of a master who is unwilling to have his slaves embrace Judaism. In the former case, the Gaon decides that if at the end of a year the slaves persist in their refusal, they must be sold ; in the latter case, he knows no
1 Comp. c»nyn 'c, 237, and Miiller, Mafteah, 82, note 21.
190 GENIZAH STUDIES
excuse for delay ; as soon as a Jew acquires slaves who are willing to accept Judaism, the master is bound to make Jews of them, and he is not allowed to sell them to Gentiles.
9-10. The beginning of the ninth Responsum is missing. It, as well as the tenth, deals with the prohibition against making any use whatsoever of anything that appertains to a heathen sanctuary.
In the first of the two Responsa the spelling nsay (leaf 4, recto, line 14) instead of DWN is noteworthy. The former is the correct orthography of the word in Mandaic. It is also to be noted that pm (4, recto, line 20) is used before quoting a Baraita, while on leaf 4, verso, line 6, we have twrn before a Mishnah. Are we to assume that originally these two terms were used indiscriminately before quota- tions from any Tannaitic source, or are we dealing here with a copyist's error11? Sherira Gaon, in Harkavy, Responsen der Geonim, 103, maintains that N'on can be used before a Mishnah and before a Baraita as well, while pn may be placed before a Mishnah only. In our texts of the Talmud, with but a very few exceptions, pn is used before a Mishnah, and K'on before a Baraita. This progress from Sherira to our texts apparently gives support to the assumption that there was a development in the use of these terms. Accordingly, it may well be that before Sherira they were not at all differentiated, but were applied indiscriminately.
ii. The eleventh Responsum deals with the distribution of the property of a man who has left sons from two wives, upon each of whom a jointure had been settled, p3 Miro j'-OT. The Gaon's decision is based on the laws upon the subject given in Ketubot, 90 a. One would be inclined to ascribe this Responsum to one of the earlier Geonim, as the pa miro was obsolete so early as the time of Rabbi
1 Comp. p. 150, above; in the Oxford MS. of the Seder Rob Amram, as also in the Genizah fragment of the Sheeltot, reproduced on page 364, below, pn is also used before a quotation from a Baraita.
GEONIC RESPONSA IQ1
Mattathiah. Notwithstanding the fact that the Geonim Rabbi Hilai, Rabbi Hananiah, Rabbi Dosa, and Rab Samuel agree with Rabbi Mattathiah in declaring it obsolete, Hai maintains that we have no right to abolish the Talmudic institution1. Hence a reference to it in a Responsum cannot be taken as proof of the early authorship of the opinion.
However, it is highly probable that our Responsum is from the hand of Rabbi Moses ben Jacob, Gaon at Sura, for the view expressed in the fragment agrees with that given in p":, 152, in the name of Rabbi Moses. It may be noted, by the way, that the anonymous Responsum in which it is quoted, in p"3 is by Rabbi Kalonymos of Lucca, as may readily be inferred from a remark made by Rabbi Mei'r, of Rothenburg, in his miBTl njW, ed. Bloch, 176, but the corrupt text of Rabbi Meir ought to be emended in accordance with p"j.
12. The twelfth Responsum contains an explanation of Shebu'ot, 41 a, the passage dealing with the differences between oaths of various kinds. The Gaon's definition of ND213 occurring in the passage is extremely interesting. He connects it with D33, to wash, and takes it to mean the same as what in German is called Wdsche, under- garments, &c. This is undoubtedly the explanation of the word given by the author of the *Aruk, s. v., IV, 186, ed. Kohut, where the reading VB'ni'Dl is correct, as is proved by the words EOanon e>toi>». The emendation made by Kohut, changing Wtt^O3 into venaoa, is therefore erroneous.
13. The end of the thirteenth Responsum is missing. It is probably identical with that ascribed to Rabbi Sherira Gaon and his son Rabbi Hai jointly, in Harkavy, Kesponsen der Geonim, 50 ; comp. also ¥"w, 93 b, no. 2, and j"nn, ed. Coronel, 5.
14. The portion of the fragment containing the four- teenth Responsum is so badly rubbed as to be unde-
1 Comp. tc"»o on Ketubot, 52 ; also y*\r, 57 a, 17.
GENIZAH STUDIES
cipherable. Only so much can be ascertained, that it deals with a Halakah based on Baba Mezia, 67 b, as appears from lines 10-12 and line 18. It is not impossible that these lines and the lines preceding them belong to the previous Responsum.
15. Of this Responsum only the beginning is preserved, and even this is in a mutilated condition. It deals with the expedients to be adopted, after ordination ceased to be practised, in imposing fines for which, according to the law, ordained judges are required. This is a subject discussed in a number of Geonic Responsa, as, for instance, in Y*V> 29 a» x-4> and 3//n» 60, lao. Our Responsum, however, is identical with none of them.
GEONIC RESPONSA 193
(Leaf r, verso.) 1333
T3 onim nnaoi 122 irn«3 nn NIK* pm p$>r£ pNi iry^N '13 mW rpnea inio pT3 ^NIB» 12 put? i33^> bsnt^ 11 B^ nsa pa • N^K n^a canim nnaoBa sin bsiB''1 bty p11^ 5
nvan pa i 10 «n? 3333 vy tyenj px
n
na
3333
•pro 311 rmrr 3n pp^tn IIJ^ -ITV^X }3 pyoB' /-i 'ION mm* 3-n n 'n '»N pro 311 pboiab pn^n *6i ION ^pnb p^oia!? }3^m 'ON Tonnb iryi'N p pyoE' 15 Kpn NHH3 n-'nxia N^m pra 312 xna^n 'i »i*jff 'ON pro 3in rrnwo N^n ••3SO nnx n-'ia men 'ON iryi>N 'i p ri33
H333O »
«i niino
1 'Abodah Zarah, 61 b ; our texts of the Talmud read rra yn».
2 '^16oda/i Zarah, Mishnah, V, 1 1 ; Gcmara, ibid. , 74 b.
194
GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 2, recto.)
nn trm 'na^n 121 minx ir nn narn 's*v6a 'p'i TIPO nin *
inmx
imirvas mi? D7ini in!> mi? mm pan ma nra nyt? >a^ I^DS ovpb nan «wr »a*n mby p^an s Nian paia 5 'earn awn n"n» 7i D^J^ 'eram Npn pn^no onoa snnan pan "nam ir nn nsrn nx iSv ^s *?y *\x vvbin
m:na
ny 10
icy n:nn
arwoa
nrm N np^yi imo
i3B> nn 3iy b nnx ^3 N^N narinr nnn jo 15 mp^yo rono W»K OKI im» mn
wan
L WTT L
inp NIB> tnqp9
1 'Abodah Zarah, 74 b.
a Eead p"p = D^p:p, the Hebrew for »cVn in our text, but comp. also Kelim, II, 2, according to which p*i, if it stands for C'pi, is correct.
* Read D'pio »aii ; the spelling nn for »»n is found also on line i of this page.
5 = nn:no. 6 'Abodah Zarah, 22 a. 7 Our texts read iVa»pw.
GEONIC RESPONSA 195
(Leaf 2, verso.)
jn&* iin
tinin na irnxi ntynna nan ny rnanit? •norm niea tnim na cm ma -a ooim :nr "iaib napn w crbxw
' »3BD DJ?Q HD "11DK HU'nn D1B>OB' U»K1 13 5
nonai nn^n i»n»^» nonaa t^mnc' nona fei 'JB> wica nn^^ni? n^y nniio win na B>mn ^ no mra^ 3'irop jvai ^a« niDN »u p sin pa na na enin ^ no trm hn^^ VHB *•« QDin DN rwon oitw 10 sjian nain no»on roves? '•aao binr *3*n na nna 'o^can uen nona nain xh NST Dionn ^a 'B>D -niy WN nsiana ' ba 'VQ naiy nn^yoai nonna 'sw naiy U»K 'B^^ innaa enp *iai oonn 15 'BTD naiy na^B> innaa tniy '»»! oonn ^3 dion »«b 'B^ ib ION I^BK N^N my N!>I conn i>3 wno irb wyytn nnio na BTII 'ION »a na vm »ms mon na^ an i?aN n^po nio^Ki na^a map »w^ 20 ^ KD!JH IK «b wb mown imo ta-i&" ^« mso NE* iioa roj» j
1 Read yn p«. a Baba Mezia, 90 a. 3 Read rrcpcni.
0 2
196 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leafs, recto.)
nonai nniB> Da np^ run ixpy np1'!' b \TUV |va naea jna enim imm norm pin? 'p IN »« tfix naps?
nbyp nonai p-nt? fnix <a • pap mark wn N!?^ ••s i?y SI NI nas^o iJa 't^yn N^> 'BTO jn^y nniyi jn
rnino ... ,
nuip niyo »an 2ln»N OBID N? i^
eiD pyan K»^ya mra mfa niip na»B>o no« oyo no •6 T.DK iahn n«bya T»*n IB"WM ^ nony mw^ B'paDB' ijsn^ ja mam n&'vb onw ^»y i^ B>»» »u isnw oy nap anya ^ pnaioi ia»»i npohp a^ anao m nat5> -inxij UDD }npif> 7-1* PNI nnan *3B> »aao ja mtrj& nioxi 15 mam onw ^on ^NI^ npi> «b DN -ia»t? c^iya onana K^M »«n p p m^yb mosi ^a n^ao ia pw Diba m mioa nn^ao b naoi D"»T laoo npi> IT niam I^N onw ^ rnaDtr ony 20 ninnnp na» i?y ioy nanoc> }va p
nony npyt? »aBo TIDK ruiaa
1 The status of the ;n, "Jewish heretic,'' is essentially different from that of the »u, "Gentile." Probably we should read poor? p, instead of p w.
a Boba Jlfefta, 47 b, and comp. the introductory note.
GEONIC EESPONSA 197
(Leaf 3, verso.)
nano pNi mica n-pao b nac I^DN K!>»K :NVI
pap »u isapi " Vvinp na» >y icy 3i inn nat? tnnoat? nonyaa' nann lain
fa B*I wian nyni nav^y nyi awah 5 yea Dtrn h^m nat^ h^m . J nicnn nana ^ax | . . a . . ncnyn yb 2pai n^ nosi nony
i?y ciwSi Nin ND^ya nia^
10
J^B> p -iayo ^HN N pano Namv p na^a nun nrvnsT nax^o
ia B^I nxi is jN'ctj' bny nay
'a11 »y b^a^ IN nn^x^ nao^ 15 fad? iai nvn N^J? nay Brunei nay p n^a^i rraB' n^N^3 B'11 bna non nain «^n :nvn W*K mi ho^ wsy p^pro naiy p HBW nw' ?*jnv vn nay bo^ i noiy nio^a DVI DV b3i xai ho* tan ^y 20
n^nn inx ho11 N^N c^ia^ naio^ i^ TIDN ni'SKn ho*B> ny u wr\VTh mcxi '^
Text corrupt. 2 SAabbat, 139 b. s Our texts read n:in.
198 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 4, recto.)
mny n-a TOD wv3 .IMP »o J pm pjpiai i> 2xnn pap Np Km n^y p^poi 'hai i>afl rva n^ Tayi NTIDO n^n 3*1 'ON mr Koan rva n^ T»ajn unijiw »i?K3 Km n^a n3B'3B> ^3 yi3V Kin nr »K no rcN Km 5 3Yiaa ruol|piKT 23 i?y SJKI ov •pm 4 naijn niopsy mr may ^ 3^3
hna n»Dsn inm v^a JH»DBDI
B> ny 3<i3n nx ppno nnio IN -noN I»DB» "mi iivaa n»a 1:31 mr 'yb n^o mr 'y njno ppnoe' no 5>3fr*i»K rrn 6naDy no mr may n^3o N^XIOE' IN!? DK ibt? nx 't^ ppno DN mr msy^ 15
p»a mr may^ loan no «pno mr may$> psi xin V"1^ H^DBI mo NP »ai -imo na nn N^I
T 7V3 TDK N^l niD Np KTJVUI PHD Kp
7oix jna 7i 7 pm »jiio IN njnjj IN N^N 20 3*3 iiM* noNn OKI ^ni 8nruio mr 'ayK' mr m3y *wsvo mr 'ay ^OB^O nr •iB»ai» ysin »pm naire' ny pniDN PN
1 'Abodah Zarah, Mishnah, III, 6 ; Gemara, ibid., 47 a. 3 The printed texts of the Talmud read nmo «p, but MS. M. and some old authorities agree with the reading of the fragment, 3 Readyrm. * Read -my inspnw. s Read «irr wja inspot.
6 = nDD«. 7 'Abodah Zarah, 138.
8 Read nroo mi rmayc DI».
9 'Abodah Zarah, Mishnah, I, 7 ; Gemara, ibid,, 16 a,
GEONIC RESPONSA 199
(Leaf 4, verso.)
1 -imo rop na DNI nry^N 'n 'OKI ^'131
IT '3V "VBVVV K1P1 H . .
p"on p» miro pjyh vnjrt? ny
pry!? pnosp ^ "iniD pun p« JH^N nn'-o 5 vn s«»jm jbaoi prmoaa »IK*O btau
no-ins -- nhoi won «3»n K^N my s% pi3n pn
«3 33 pm nnn3n^ imo i
Kin noi n^^ N^ nnni n^n mo 'DI? pncw raw^nn »B>IV^ ponip 15
H31H3 fr6 B>» in«3 HHN1 VH3
n3in3 TO»D 'ot^ PPB' N^^S* Nn nsipn Kin rmiar^ nnin
3-1 SjVnOT 33 y S|K1 T3yBTO NS1D N
H^J ps* im»3 nnNi i«ru nns G^O*K ohyi? PK B^D»K o5>wh :pi3n pa
1 'Abodah Zarah, 19 b.
2 Bckorot, Mishnah, VIII, 9 ; Gemara, ibid., 51 b.
3 =jn-ntt3'? or pmrt. * Read inra N3"n nby nxi 5 Ketubot, Misfmah, X, i ; Gemara, ibid., 90 a. 6 = -
200 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leafs, recto.)
irno K3W Kan ytwsn nmar6 nnKi vna nriK 'cspn Kru^fia v£ p*cp*o ami '103 nnKi vna nnK wvo K'am JKVI "Kan ini»a am 'DB>» nan no 3 '»K nabn 2 T , . . pyn I^SKI b . . jni> ^ tfnoa nnxi i«na nnx Nna^n XSD 5 inio n^yj minai pnan pa
pomp naswnn n IT ^N ncnip IT "-N VD33D niaii> N^K pian pa naina
am ^ya n:» nyoc' n^y 'cspn >a 33 ^y 5)N naa naeno xna^ni roa na:Bio n
naa si? naatro nro nyioc> wnn« naai onpB> nmwo am i>ya 'loya *ND 5panya rropa "-NH nw 3-6 wan I»N naa n jxoh n^ janaao inch 6Nnyot^ '^ai 15
pa K^K }3*na» IK ja^no^D yy\rbi & by nnby pa sa^K »KD 7Bm»a iai yana^> maa pa ^niDB' Nnyiatr i&d? Nasx jaamb KH^KI Nnyu^ ^aao i>io^i yam ya^i? jrw . . ivna' paa 20 pi ^«i pD^ro xh pyat^a nnmac' pya^a 'yia^ yainb yana p nyia^ is^ob jn-'atr in an na n»h ja^aax N^ jaam ja'aas KnniNT inb pin Nnyap p^aax *Da pam 'csn >B>N
nnisn pa ws *KD p ox '•nn -o rmv 25 nyiatr amnac' >ca
1 Ketubot, 90 b. 3 Read HD^rt -[3 on
3 Ketubot, 91 a ; our texts read NITDII .
4 Ketubot, Mishnah, X, i ; Gemara, ibid., 90 a.
* 'Arakin, 7 b. • Shebu'ot, 413.
GEONIC RESPONSA 2OI
(Leafs, verso.)
p'nm B'ra x yane>D x yantj»» xh ' awen , , . . patron J
jinn rrsa^ p'nm N!> nw r-nsa 'ONT 2l|Dx 'n paih 'ONPI 'hai |6pi n6iB> Knn 5
rvoa^ p»nra N^ pamo '5>DK yan:^ n^ p^notro N^N yaim wn »a nboen P^n v^y B« nr nr e
m inyiaB> mien pxi yaw p«i paino njnap 10 yainb n»nnK 3 IDIN 10^3 in . . 20 nn . , ^a
Np '•an »B>K ai 'D« : i
p^notro no^ ^'131 nnj: 'DNOI ny «h n^y pan 4<ipnai nyiat^ yan^^o Np BV ^ ny noa njn
•pntsan n p^pan »DI» 'ro^ai 'unnp 'sxa opn a^no nin wnnisno w5»n n^o DIB' B^IPB N^I n^ nabn 'n mi '\> nr B^i? &8W D^y nyuB' 20 nr B*3^ li^orw B^B> hiuav 'c« '»NPT 7naNna nanoD nan X»N Nyvoxij natrn 'n nn 'p nw i»3K n«^nni» noiyi nt^nn^ ni nn vmyo ^ ^ew nr nrrso^ noun
w I^SN 'OK N:i3»n am vmyo Hs^ i>bij 25 nasna nai>m j«DKi> nspn nnxb noijn
1 Read pmo njyiao? rr^ pyn»m. 3 = 'D'i'.
3 Bead n'nn« IOIN Nin inoco nnnca. 4 iVicm?
5 Read wciip'EKa. • Read pntcci n'b jrpac 'nv ft) '
T Ketubot, 93 a, end.
202 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 6, recto.)
pn
3 mitn Kin
, K . . . . D
.......... 3TQ i . . a wn sn ...... DN n> 5
\r\\o ........ nai tnn nym 'cm msn myi
13 ......... ' {ween 'cy6 NianDD
m ....... 3 ... ON K3»a*n pano Krn
ID 'C«p 33 i?y SJK1 2 p^3N N^> »B« mi 'D3 311
mm *T» ^SNT SN»T 'oyo *Nts KIOIT 10 3K ....... {fraNpn 3: ^y ej« ixb nrn«
ycy Ton y . . r wro 'n^B 'n Di^WP
»:»... ospn nat^b nnaap ^3 . . y^ bpe> D'o'b 'o'o yi?D iiH3isi y^o jna 3 pm yi^D Nim nn 'n jirjba niNnaiB 'no y^o p:tr 'taoi y^o D^PB »»> 15 .... mi . . nn^ pnaia njtr ^3^ >t:o pjp
N^K "bx «in *S?K 311 »BB 3-11 NJH3 3"I3
IK ioDin ix n* hx yup pa ntn
20
. x nwa ni&* pin 'ex Natni spian NT1
Nicj ;o mjo p'pao N^> oan ••N ^333
nya-ian p . . x^ai xo^a xpr: ia^a
1 Ketubot, 93 b. 2 Baba Mezia, 67 b-68 a.
3 "Ardkin, Mishnah, VII, i ; Getnara, ibid., 253. * Baba Kama, 84 a. 8 Ibid., 15 a.
GEONIC RESPONSA 203
XXII.
Fragment T-S., paper, two consecutive leaves, 19 x 12 cm., square hand, tending to cursive. The fragment contains two Responsa, in incomplete condition, the beginning of the first and the end of the second not being preserved.
i. The first Responsum is identical with the end of Rabbi Sherira's, found in El"»3, 44, dealing with the question whether the ritual bath is obligatory at this time when its object can only be partially attained, since the ashes of the red heifer cannot be sprinkled upon the candidate. In spite of its fragmentary condition, the pre- sent Responsum throws new light upon the subject, especially through the statement on lines 7-9, which is missing in the Responsum in Dl'iM. The Gaon transmits to us that intercourse with those in a state of impurity was viewed with a considerable degree of leniency in earlier times, while the Jews dwelt chiefly in Sura1, Nehardea, and Pumbedita. The practice became stricter only after they settled in large numbers in cities like Bagdad, and the Rabbis feared that the prevailing laxity might lead to abuses in the new and more complex sur- roundings. At first sight, it might seem that the view of the Gaon is contradicted by the statement found in the Geonic Collection n'V, 172, which affirms that there is a difference between Babylonia and Palestine with regard to intercourse with one in a state of impurity, such intercourse occurring in Babylonia, but not in Palestine. The contradiction disappears, however, if we assume, as we may, that this statement refers to those
1 For . . . 2C, line 8, on leaf i, recto, read mica.
204 GENIZAH STUDIES
earlier days during which, the Gaon himself admits, a more lenient practice prevailed in Babylonia.
Whether the change from leniency to rigour coincided with the removal of the Jews to the large cities, as the Gaon maintains, is extremely questionable, in view of the fact that the severer practice obtained in Palestine alike in the earlier and in the later days, and in spite of the fact that there were no populous centres there. A more plausible explanation is offered by a consideration of the influence exercised by the Karaites upon the Rabbanites. As is well known, the Karaites laid great stress upon the observance of the laws of clean and unclean l. In Palestine their rigour reacted upon the Rabbanites, who stood in friendly relations with them2. The effect in Babylonia was the reverse. There the heads of the academies were inclined to slight customs which in principle they cordially endorsed, merely because their opponents, the Karaites, insisted upon them. In the time of Sherira, when the bitter feud between the two parties had been pretty well fought out, the influence of the Karaites made itself felt even in Babylonia, and this would explain the prevalence of a stricter practice in his generation. Also, the fact may not be overlooked, that the Karaites did not actually create the severe practices separating the clean from the unclean in a community. They merely raised them from the plane of custom to that of law 3. How far-reaching the influence of the Karaites in this and similar respects was appears from Maimonides, Issure Biah, XI, 15, and from the Geonic Responsum, p. 153, no. 576, above.
2. The second Responsum is the Gaon's decision in a lawsuit. A erects a building on a waste lot, having neither received the consent of the owner, who is away from
1 Comp. Elijah Bashyazi, Aderet Eliahu, 73 d, nurnca rpnn ; Judah Ha- dassi, Eshkol ha-Kofer, noe, no. 295 ; and Harkavy, Sludien und Mittheil- ungen, VIII, 130, note is.
3 Comp. Pinsker, Likkute Kadmoniyyot, Supplement, 33.
3 Comp. Schorr, yifon, VIII, 51 ; Miiller, Mafteah, 228 (o); and Rabed, icr, I, end.
GEONIC RESPONSA 205
the city at the time, nor been apprised of his objection. On the return of the owner, he insists upon J.'s removal from the building, while A, the squatter, equally insists upon being indemnified for the building. The Gaon decides that A's claim is valid only if it can be demonstrated that the owner of the lot makes use of the building. In all probability, this is the Responsum to which reference is made in Alfasi, Baba Mezia, 101 a. Rabbi Hai Gaon decides differently in his naodl npD, VII, ai a. Nahmanides, however, in commenting upon the passage in Alfasi, asserts that Rabbi Hai later changed his view of the case, and came to agree with that held by the Gaon in our Responsum.
206 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf i, recto.)
jo frrrp:) . i^yiD am no f&iirb rnno
ii6iJ£)D rivm-a r6»jn» my n»i npn
epoD pai n^iiriD p YJTV pa ynr naap
nNDitD ^» pnni? NM PIWD N^N 5 D n^ iiovy K*ar6 DIX^ 1^ iniciy >a i?y cjxi 'oann ona pjrto vn iWn nnmn ^21 'nxoo no DJ Ky-nrun vnv pn ranon nsnana Maya pj^ i^ay bs*
PB> pn *a tfoann isn 10 sj« nnB^Dm myn oy nnh ns^b ib^n pxn ny ^ nn pns nnx^ pstmiB' ^a ^y
nana
penn PN^ ia iTonm n-jin a^D i^yi nana 15 PKI nabn 4j3notna wm 07122 nxn wru on^ann bai p pmo
nB>yn K^I npim nra rv
1 Read isapjc or ijnpc.
2 = »»ypD ; on line 7, verso, it is spelled with 3.
3 Read c>c. * Menahot, 36 b.
GEONIC RESPONSA 207
(Leaf i, verso.)
. . . . pro
nx f . , TIE , . . , 3 D^^N , , n .......
poy i3nnm .............. ^n 5
nnna mr^ Kin mioxi ' NIPNB' ^x »a }*"ia pnab mm11 x^i
p nvn
rabn D3^p33 ^ n^y^ ja 33^ y n3i na^ man
H331 4 n . n3'iy3 DB> p*i»o p^jan vn xh 3 n^ya
p'333 15
x nxnn i>y3 i^ o« NV 733M1 n^y ^D 5nvt2n IN on . . >3«33 --DT si? jnnB> ny
1 Read M^pN D^B'N, and comp. Prov. viii. 4. 2 Sukkah, 26 a.
4 5 nvi:n?
208 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf a, recto.)
... ..... 3-13 ........
Dfiy'3 B» DyiCWn fjK
orno 'n^x «MM i>y nr ni^na N^ n 4 •& pyorc> PN is "6 pyow
s 'OK nw an ib yoiB' 'OK
'o
mnn wa^
Nin pyan ^yae' pra IT
ypnpn ^yai yaw vy ^ow y« i>y35r n3/{^ n^s^3 jxa ba« i!? me6 'DIM ^yai 1^1 V33M1 vvy nr ^10* 'DIM yjnpn ^ PM pnn muw pyan hs B'pao pysn 15
!>ID i^ "in!? nvnn ^yai? en pysn n"n N? v53Ni vsy bwb wn eps i^Mt pnv 'n n3n nns? D^DI ha^ vby
pM3 I^BW ^ pyD1B
pnoix p n»3» 20
1 Reading doubtful ; in inw? 2 £a6a Jtfezfa, 101 a.
3 = n^rt and comp. verso, line 5.
* The last six words not in the printed text of the Talmud, but found in the MS. ; comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc. 5 Reading doubtful.
GEONIC RESPONSA 2OQ
(Leaf 2, verso.)
Mrva nno^ rp5*-rcn nth
nn »D DIM lisa* M> w nap pna woo D^aia pM j»w p« om ^ panx vsy 8 N^n hw vbx p^an *oi 5 cm D^yan nit^na N!?^ njaty i?ya »Ta nvwa D^ron HN n^oi nmpn nxnn ^yn n^jr no na nns fN1"i yp">pn IHM n*3o Mini j":an iniM i>y nnpo DM vanv « pnin 4 niypnpo nnnj nwi 10 Minn »a pna inyi uoo pboiai vby n^ XOM am n^opi' Mnxn Minn 5 ^ n"^ 'CM rr6
^ 'DK rh niDJO Mpi n-nan 15 : rwbyn ^y i-i^i n^ DW ^n ^ . . . run vnimn a»^o n^an nM ^pon •layjw nnwai n^^^n nMi n^^n. nMi muwnn HM mai mai noy DM XOIM ^Di1- 7n IHM pa«no JM rvyann HM 20
1 I do not know whether any letters are missing in the first line.
2 Yebamot, lib. 3 = nbn. 4 Text corrupt.
8 Ba6a Mezia, 101 a. ' Sa6a Batra, Mishnah, I, 3 ; Gemara, ibid., 4 b.
210 GENIZAH STUDIES
XXIII.
Fragment T-S., vellum, one leaf, 28 x 23 cm., small square writing. It contains four Responsa, all dealing with laws of rairD. Of the first Responsum but a single line has been preserved, from which only the subject in general can be inferred, but not the specific content.
2. The second Responsum contains a decision by Rabbi Zemah Gaon, regarding a woman who lost her Ketubah. It is identical with that quoted by Rabbi Sherira, in Harkavy, 97-8, in opposing the view set forth by Rabbi Zemah in our Responsum. Strange to say, the opinion expressed in f&, 57 a-b, 16-17, by Rabbi Haninah, is not in agreement with that attributed to him by his son Rabbi Sherira.
3. The Gaon specifies the circumstances in which the heirs are not obliged to provide a residence for the widow. It is identical with Responsum 22, p. 33, above, and is given in the form of an explanation of the Talmudic passage Ketubot, 54 a. *npa l is defined as " one house," and it is taken to be the same as ^nyp>3, though it is difficult to see how the latter can be made to have the meaning the Gaon gives it. He may have been thinking of Tiyp:! in the meaning of " narrow hole," thence applied to .a " small dwelling-place," sufficient for a single family, " one house." Rabbi Zemah Gaon's explanation of the same passage in pV, 53 b, 2, is somewhat different. But as our Responsum is likewise ascribed to Rabbi Zemah, it may be assumed that jOp JV2 in ¥*& is only a different -expression for iriK TV3 in our fragment.
1 Comp. Perles, Etymologiscfie Studien, p. 83.
GEONIC RESPONSA 211
4. The last Responsum begins by quoting the very lengthy question put to Rabbi Moses Gaon. In spite of its prolixity, it is far from clear in its purport, as the Gaon himself complains. The case is the annulment of a marriage with a woman suffering from an incurable disease, which had been kept a secret from the husband at the time of the marriage. The decision of the Gaon has been preserved only in part. It starts with a lengthy explanation1 of the passage in the Talmud, Ketubot,j$ a— 76 b, the locus classicus for the annulment of such marriages.
Attention should be called to the excellent idiomatic Aramaic in which this Responsum is couched, the question as well as the reply. It resorts to the use of Persian words, like 2NpJTiN, »pJBPM, and MDin, which shows that at this time Arabic was not yet the only language of the Jews of Babylonia.
1 On the prolixity of Eabbi Moses Gaon, com p. Miiller, Mafteah, 75.
2 The word occurs a single time in the Talmud, twice in the Skeeltot, V, 15 and 16, ed. Rabbi Naphtali Zebi, Berlin, and once in j'na, ed. Hildesheimer, 209.
212
GENIZAH STUDIES
5 x
r as
IP
II
2
5= as
n .ir>.
c as
* n
C 32 Q
as F £ C a c
§231
c Jr ix *-
o.
Q
E E
o
M
Q Q
c Q « I"
n r /x 52
t= P
? 52 F
g as £
p "as as
= ct » g**
6 F
S *
£ g-aS S . r B "
Z P £ s?
i? •.»•«•.. a
E» C _£ *~
*~ *^ C Q ^ &
52
n I
n
£ -as
£ 3
. -n
* 52 " JX
S» p
*~ Q
e -1"
E n n
5 ^
S 2 2 ? : 2 2 i
-r n n n ? g
o S S
52 ^ C
sn
^ fc C
r* *•• 2. as a
£ 5 c
52
& a ?s f
1= F jg *~
o G"^
s &gi
52 52 p
_r\ 1 ' C
._ ^ o 1C
? C
as £
n as
c "
E S
c j^
*~ £
j— -J"\-
£ E
f- K
»-• *_f^
D as
n
S a j% c
as E
h Q
a a
Jig
^J £ ^ ~« &
c -
n •
£ r!
*- as
? n
S r
52
s. a
rv C
F^
P
- S»
n ,-
r as
. c
5S
Q
H n
E ?
»= E
v Q
'- IT
y
S3 5\
:
?2 ^
n C
^ S n '
Q £
§ E n
E fc P a
n f- c
' * D
la?
-K E E
f—
*J^ f~ *~
a 2 *
a ^ P J= r~
f- £ X
^ '' P n a F
5* p S
rv C
&?
5 E-B
or
Jig
IT
as c
r
eP
in as
as p
~£ Q
n r
£ r
as n
p^
8
n _
S *
j] as
^ n
as Q
o a as
E E g
vas ~£ ^
»v S ^1
GEONIC KESPONSA
213
s ft
S §!.
-£ as
p F
S3
as
O c as
c S E
§i 2 * r
g "r- g _*
P 3 a « -
- * i» §.-£
as _ n o p
^ i-S F F
o ,-, as •-
* | & S g.
a & n Q as
k- P c
P 2 c
tr ?^ *• —
n n as c r -r*. n f:
&•£••
- O.
r ~c & ^ S. P "
? .n a n &
IT C _/x
n n n c
as P' c p
' — as T c
»- ' *T *•
as _r\
n _
n • .55
•£ — -^
•as «
as f
as
as g ? 2
»n 1= *
r *-
o S.|
as
R p
n r
i i
r §
? ^_
' n
as c
as ;
n as
£ %,
a
as as
o P i
n ?*
— c
E-fi s. r
«^ r— *•
Q r« £ as a F
? a
as
s P h £
j- ^ n i^ n
~ r
r P
n
n
^ - § 8
as
*= as
- P E n as ^R
*"i P ' 5 a
r> *" ^ |- S> S=*
£: g as S ~as p o >«
n as
n o
Cl
as
as
c
r 8
i S
X ^»
p
-^ as -JN ^» g
g 8 ai I
»• h "-K £ t
*- £ o ^ X ^r\
P fi s"^ al
g £ j3 ~ I *~ F «-i *~ O
~P 1 £ r z? ^ C n fc F &
c «=- ' as E
-S x
6 E
s 9 ?
r
as
o
a
l>.^
_5 i- c
.
„ X. M 0
" o' 1
£
n r- z
D «w
f •- °
^' c r "g
cq f 'S ®
8>. -
g •
s «
IK
•§ s
•S o
n n
214
GENIZAH STUDIES
GEOKIC KESPONSA
§
w> .2
C! J=
^23
W
.- -O P C
? g -O
* -rf* a
'oS ^ •-
® .» s
M ^ O
2l6 GENIZAH STUDIES
XXIV.
Fragment T-S., vellum, two leaves, 23 x 34 cm., square hand ; much mutilated, but the missing words and letters have been supplied, and are indicated by dots over the letters. The fragment contains the remainder of a collec- tion of Geonic Responsa, thirteen of which have been preserved, though not all in their entirety. The name of no Gaon appears upon the fragment, but the probability is that the author of most of them is Rabbi Natrona'i Gaon, since a number of them are identical with those known from other sources, as will be shown when we deal with the individual Responsa.
i. The beginning of the first Responsum is missing. The Gaon decides in it that the work connected with the burial of a body, on the second day of a holiday, is to be done by Jews. He bases his view on the Talmud, Bezah, 6 a, and he maintains that Rabina's contrary view, j^tjmn nan NITST Nrrwi, was applicable only to times and places under Persian jurisdiction. According to the Gaon, Rabina was influenced by the fear that, if the Jews per- formed such labours on a holiday, the ''nan might force them to do the same for non-Jews. This is doubtless the correct explanation. It is found again, literally, in Rabbenu Hananel and in the 'Aruk, s. v. "Dn, and in a modified form in Rashi. To connect Rabina's statement with the objection of the fire-worshippers to burial, as some modern scholars do l, is absolutely false. In this Talmudic passage nan cannot be taken in its usual sense of fire-worshippers. To translate Rabina's words with "now when there are fire-worshippers," is out of the question. Such an interpretation would make it appear that Rab Ashi and Raba, the authorities preceding Rabina, had lived under other conditions, when, in point of fact, fire-worshippers had been in Babylonia centuries before them. Obviously, Rabina used "nan for the followers of Mazdak2, who had the upper hand in Persia about 480,
1 Comp. Kohut, in his 'Aruk, s. v. -on.
3 Comp. NOldeke, Aufsdtse sur persischen Geschichte, 109.
GEONIC KESPONSA 2 17
the time of Rabina II, the compiler of the Talmud. In accordance with their doctrines of a socialistic and commu- nistic tendency, the Mazdakites, insisting upon an equal division of work and means, opposed the holidays of the Jews, which interfered with the operation of their system.
The same view is set forth in Fragment 18, p. 158, above, a Responsum ascribed in rW, 184, to Rabbi Natronaii Gaon. In the former source the city to which reference is made is "OKO (comp. p. 156, above), probably the same as the place called natja in the present Responsum, by the substitution of 3 for 3, which occurs frequently in old MSS.
2. The second Responsum contains the Gaon's decision with regard to D"On »nfe, maintaining that the prohibition applies only to a case in which wheat, barley, and grape seeds are sown together. He bases his view on Kiddushin, 39 a, and other passages in the Talmud, without considering the difficulty involved l.
3. The third Responsum is a brief explanation of Mish- nah Bezah, I, 6, and the Gemara upon it, ibid., 12 b.
4. Here we have the very important decision of the Gaon regarding the law of nnnn and similar agricultural provisions, in their application outside of Palestine. The view of the Gaon is that they are limited to Palestine, and were never binding upon the Jews resident in other countries. According to him, the frequent references to the operation of these laws in Babylonia found in the Babylonian Talmud, are to be taken as descriptive of the practices indulged in by extremely pious men desirous of reproducing Palestinian conditions as far as possible upon alien soil. They never intended that their course of action, taken from choice, should be made the rule of con- duct obligatory upon all the members of the community. The only other authority 2 holding the same view is Rabbi Zemah Gaon, as can be seen from his Responsum quoted in mai nnaa, XV. Nevertheless, our Responsum cannot be declared identical with Rabbi Zernah's, on account of
1 Comp. 'Aruk, s. v. rnn, Harkavy, 224, and 7";, ed. Lyck, 106.
2 Comp. the long discussion on this question in Tosafot on Huttin, 6 b, catchword Trim.
2l8 GENIZAH STUDIES
the widely different tenor of the two Opinions1. The passage in the Jerusalem Talmud, Hallah, III, 60 a, may be adduced in corroboration of our Responsum. We read there: D"in p^nao vn rbvsv wrvai, showing that the practice of giving the priests their lawful portions in Babylonia was merely a custom, and it prevailed only among the scholars and the pious2. However, it is surprising that the Gaon pays no attention to the statement of the Mishnah Yadayim, IV, 3, which calls the application of the agricultural laws to Babylonian life a prophetical institution. Comp. also Sukkah, 44 b, from whence it appears that the Sabbatical year was generally observed in Babylonia.
5. The fifth Responsum is a brief explanation of the Talmudic passage, Bezah, 34 a, the text quoted by the Gaon being different from ours. Notice especially the form paano, instead of panano.
6. This Responsum is identical with cVea, no. 77. It deals with the question whether a Gentile servant is permitted to kindle a fire in a Jewish house on a holiday, the circumstances being such as to make it possible for him to use freshly cut wood.
7. The Gaon specifies the circumstances in which an oven may be used after Gentiles have cooked and roasted prohibited food in it. It is noteworthy that the Gaon, in agreement with MS. B, reads, in Pesahim, 30 b, not ptPD, as we have it in our present text, but pBB>, a later form of pnotJ>. In a short form we meet with the same decision in a"n, 13, and it may be ascribed in all probability to Rabbi Zemah Gaon.
8. The Gaon decides that bread baked by a Gentile may be eaten by Jews only if a Jew has had some part in the preparation, however trifling. The same decision is in brief found in D"n, 13, immediately after the Responsum corresponding to the seventh of our fragment, and we cannot go wrong in ascribing the eighth to the same author as the seventh, namely, Rabbi Zemah Gaon. Comp. also ^OB>K, III, 129.
1 Our Responsum is, however, quoted in •rosy, I, 29 a, ed. Lemberg. a The expression nVuanj irrran includes the scholars and the pious; comp. Yer. Kilaim, IX, 32 c.
GEONIC RESPONSA
9. This Responsum deals with a case similar to the subject of the eighth Responsum, and it is identical with that found in T\"&, 2 73. The words \xnsiff 1»3, leaf 2, recto, line 27, prove that this Responsum and the sixth (and the seventh ?) of the fragment have the same author, but who this author is cannot be easily determined. It will not do to attribute it to Rabbi Natronai, as Miiller and Bamberger do, on the ground that a similar decision in &"&, II, 87, is by him, because, although the two Responsa are alike in tenor, yet the verbal differences between them are too radical to permit of our ascribing them to the same person.
10. The Gaon explains Pesafyim, 46 a. His explanation of ennn pX2 coincides with that of the 'Aruk, and our Responsum shows that the emendation suggested by Kohut is incorrect. The explanation of ^33^ by the Gaon is altogether new. It differs from that of Rashi as well as that of the 'Aruk l. This Responsum is found, in a very corrupt form, in n'V, 94, and its author is Natrona'i Gaon, as can be seen from hatJ'N, I, 50. Miiller was mistaken in his assumption (Mafteah, 274) that Rabbenu Hai is the author, as the mention of Hai by Rashba, on BeraJeot, 15 a, does not apply to our Responsum, but refers to that found above, pp. 38-9, or to that quoted in ta^N, I, 49.
11. The eleventh Responsum contains the decision that if the Passover eve falls on Saturday, the leaven need not be removed on Friday. In a shortened form it occurs in T\"&, 93, where it is attributed to Rabbi Natronai' Gaon ; comp. 1H3P, 48 d.
12. Here we have the decision that the leaven may be destroyed in other ways beside burning. This view is referred to as a Geonic decision by Rabbi Zerahiah Gerondi on Pesahim, I, catchword ytJTi rron , and by Rabbi Jacob in Tur, Or ah Hayyim, 445. Comp. Saadiana, 126.
13. Of this Responsum only a part has been preserved. It deals with various questions connected with the Seder, as, for instance, whether it can be properly observed without the use of wine. It is identical with a"n, 165, where it is ascribed to Rabbi Natronai Gaon.
1 Comp. also Tosafot on Hullin, 122 b, catchword bub.
220
GENIZAH STUDIES
n n
O Q
a j,
^ n
f ?i
22 22
-^ C
ri *-*
a g
a o
n p.
& 1
*-» n
« a
5 2 '£
• E •
£» f
25 ^
- P §
j% 3
*~ n £
n ^ 5
X % ?
o r ••
a c
_ c f-
§ ?
a
,- Q
n
r c n ' 22
X
•*- 22
3i 22
y l~ 55 n
X
22 J= t
22 r1
S s
f~
s;- n
K S
r1 ~§ P
£ 5-
» a
It
-
i=- r
I ^ ?» "
- t
22
a
P g
c n
22 Cl
r a a r t*
m 22 .. C~
n ._ £»
^ g «
c »-
£ Q
£ C ^
E n: n r v*^ 3 C fl FSS^§nfcn-^ £•§
f- £
n ^> a r .,. j=
*: »- " rl -^^ —
E fc|
C c o
f ~£ ^
^ * ~rv
:5 n 3
Q n ^
" r
a ZA
i !^
C p E
J- C 2-
; i 2S
22 F -r
-r\ n
•a p ^
22 ^-gj
ru 5?" ^~
c S ^
n F
n D
55
r £ ~ :" v, C n .
a £ IT 25 .
. « p p •
n * y p.
r s £
? J^ :? ^ »-
fc- *^i 'y 13 C
r\ **-^ ^* »T~ *^
22
a -~ n .n
n
5 f c E £
2 n p P a
P\ £1 Q
F £
IL -n
J -22
25 :r
£ a
* 22 22 ^
. n
PS
? n
8
c a
s
' a r 9 22 n
F 22
Q
r ^ & * * r. L
25 '' E *^ —
H
n
g 2 -£ £
22
C ?
M
U ri C •*•
Jr W *^ £ *—
n -I-x Q n a J^
GEONIC RESPONSA
221
222
GENIZAH STUDIES
i> C
55 f-
n S
-r>. rr
2 S
fc> C & n
3 £
& £
fE -^
55 r- r Q
Cj=^ r-t
^ J%
cr s^-
a I,
r f-
M
c ?.
Q n
ci »
r ^
Q fc
i P
*-• *^» rx
a Q -Ji »-
a § 2
Q
n £
£ j-
*• n ,- c
Q j:
a
•E *•«
;r :E
£ "
a r
,_ ci
-rx r
Q
O
r
S ° .f-
£•%
L? n
c o
^ %
Q F1
:p- -n
••-i f;
'& 1=
J^r !> a
a r
n a ^
-J> p —
^~ «J^
S C C
55
n *; £
Jr ~r\ c;
52 r
F Q o
£ ^ S
a
55
Q P
r" fi
n S s_
Cl ;A
P *~ 55
^ n 'c
•^^ '£
c "52 '&
A *='
^Jjx E
n n
Q »^
Q p
ci £
n u
n „.
0 ~0
55 n
f—
•I »s \ —
— 25 •—
~ " 55
£ 55
n n
-^ 25
•^ j—
r »
•a - :5 :^
"^. p n c
55 ~ I
E. .E -
' C/N n
j% . r~
25 X. .
n :f~ - Q -^
:5:I-p g n a S
5-» f~ ^^
f~ *
:.P n *~
— ir -n
i- ^ .?
:£ s- a
-r- -22
' n tz x
•n •c
o
. c
J- Q
i f^
r c
n 55
x F 5
P 55
X
-V ii
l~ ^ .,
* "3Si «v *~ • t~
•*^ *• f-i
• a ^r\ u
* — — y *.P
• ^| 4U .^
• P ~r\ ci
* s ' *- •°
cj n 5*
8 s :r P 2
F a *" *
^ Cl . y=
r E ^ ? 2
Q *" oc Q O O
C s.
p X £ Z%\
E •= ?
Jx 25
GEONIC RESPONSA 223
2£rJ??S~£Enarx . S . tg
R £ £~£ a 2 Q £~C E * 5* S&
§s**£t.£-££gg M^':§
£" fj s. >• ^ — r ^ 73 " £ ®
'~*~Fp£1~22S2"r:rIJl. 3 J! - *3
rl fc- y O X n "* «» 0
X ;s>^5?^.a^-22f;Q B"- 60 r ;-"
~*rxPe"--£~J>r-£ I I * I
oax&r-ji^Saa I 3 fc p
?03S-.-^nPrrpn 5 " 'tl^f-in r~ rv IP
n a c Q ! 35 £ _r\ ^ j^ -I> ;;
r^cEj£i?nS2E- 5 c «• £ •& jx S
k ^ '
» » «^ S"8 £ pfc
n-Q DQn^o
Pvi-f^.«v 2222r.Q
n r-§rna~ob:^
pf-IJ^p-'ri;iJ22j—
^^ 1= «1 22 JS *^ -fN 22
X
f H r § ^ * -§2
rt€^'^>1CIn Sil-
SSa^srSa I r
.0 ;g £ j= ^ ? g a a o | b ^
•r £= £ 2 -A | -^ R P F ~ ? ^j -g
C. JT rv ~J% » *^ ®
t|°s?^5i|g^ * r
^J^ p^fFFF^-^ ^
— TX |— ^. ^ I^. f 4^. r—
ci-*^I-^f^>l^^'r^*-« i^
^a^Q32Lrrasr_ar 5
JJ <^ *g _| Q *—
Ji! 2C * — *- % « % r\ >• ^ — C*" ~S t3
c^ jr -^ JjJ? _£.£ S^. ^ §|
c~g^ § P n ^ n g^ J< f| |
^2eEs^^2s ll-il
~Sna^-||qSa 1§^5
nna§ ^^^^n ^°g.o
22 n ^8
C ^ Q « !3 r- §"
>% » ,— JJ CC r
r ^S^- * ft CL
c; *- n J^
c r, B <n
1 1 * e 1
« ta- «i P .2,
224
GENIZAH STUDIES
c C 5
"^ F
n ^- ^
Q *"! _/x
a S £
ri n n
n rr
f^ »—
r
X
& r £" 2
G %
ZA r=
_rx 25
.-TX
a
r~ r
2 X ?
C ? "
^rx n ^
*- *— -^
•Q 5—
.f f^
^ S F
g P
•° .s j, 'c
•H> -n
•r •-
•n
•r- -fl n
•n -n r
•S» .
•r & 25
^ r n ri
§- F
n n •^ r
'- x
n c
r £
55 n
-C> 25
? n
& fl
n r r n
r- j% /- a ss n
%5-k f— • y SJ _rx *•
C Z* X *~
~~ {= f~ *~ *~
g R ° £ p |
fc I" o.
n r- »~ a
f~ _R
n 25 fc^ n *~ 25
25 r 25 „ -ft ? "^
I I
c £
p I
r: n
S g o. «*-'
25 --
Q fL a
n. 25
X £
25 P
^ n
,- 25
a
§ x
a "^
Q rr
25 ^
j% r"
as F
(?- c
5" C |- J^
n Q p c f
2
" n
.P "ft ^
{I n 'n
E -rx '
S n rr
^ 25
a a _
2 ^ rr a
n *» *~»
^pgi
a a 2 ' c ^ 5 ^
y 2u
^ -a n p
32 ;Q p ^
- "S t p
r ,
a &
C 55
n
X Q t±
' n t n JN
r- ^ -jx -a
C*-' ^i f~
—T\ f *"•
P P Q P X
t~ E ^" *~ t~
•v * A S S
a S iE ^
*• n "-T-— i
a •>— ri n
w fl n ~rx
rr a E ~J> n
0 . 25 , . p.
25 f -
a n r j^ a s^
» r
& n
' §
Q r:
fi -fi
n c
II
I "
Q
c r
^ Q ~£i «"l "
-r s :°
R n £
25
J3
GEONIC RESPONSA
225
E t> a 9
P c
a JA
s *- ;
n £> F p
52 *- f -K *- Q v: "-a
c £ ix b -^ a 32
P S3
p _rx a £ 52
F
'•- n •S
52
n
D
C 52
£ S -
n ' " o
o f- O
iS ri S3
n c n
32
c '- » a ?v .-
52 S
Q
52 ~J>
£ H fi
32 n »
^ *n
g S r & P
r c a
n "
n n 52
C 5. o
n ' jr
^ a a 52 n
c. c -^ —^
a 52 32 r-
l~ st» a S ^i
jr p $3 '- JJ C *^~
•n S i~ S3 ~
c a ^ ^- Q
n *" x n C.
a ^- r £
c '
Q
c sc
- is a a i
r Q
S3 52
& S2 *
c ^~ S3
r ^ r
s z ^
S 52 2
S f f
52
C) 52 f- S3
§ r
^ S3
s £ ~? a J? * r
p £ ^ &-£ n n
Q
C'«-I
S3 i= ?
o n n
a P n
^ ^ 5s
*- n *
^-^ n
n a
n ^{ ^- 55
•*^ 32
*y -™ ^^
r S §^
£ ' ^ x
S3 C ^/x 2
^ ^3 5&
n a ^
^ rv ' ^
^ -i> |- 32
S« &' n.
n a
*^ 32
n o
i- -n * *
n j- 0 35
^ * ? -§
j^ 52 a
^ ? Q C
n £_ 32 p
r- n c '
& J^ J-« f\
a n &
t?
5 « n
f *
S.
Q
5 e •*
1.2 S ^ ^3 3
« 1 S S
r3 a
.0^
M |^
•^ " -g o.g
5>| «"-§
s? Co
I W
2 a
.2 B4
5 W ^M
03 qjj cs
^3 a; rg~
O I—N CQ
•§.s I
p. ^
^j ^ *« -D
" .° O
2 r- *• S
E rt 'C c3
a *• s? a «g
^ ? ^^ 2
.§ S £ 83
^ § .2
M PH H P5 7
226
GENIZAH STUDIES
J= fe-
a ?
-a
as
•fi-
•o
as £
i~ v
o -as
* P
!> P
as as
- °
n as «- :& F » •as
as as as
n t~ o
^ i F
a c »
^ J! ^
^ *- i>
ri r—
r * s
Ada
Q
O C -Vi •T" r
:E ?
•Q ^
V*
r r:
c
as r- o - ~r\
«
C *- l~
&•*!
•-~ *^
n *= C c
- n c n " a
*T» *-
as n-
I;
o «- y
Q
a r a
Si * f~
as Q
5* *=- n s-
•s
•r= .Q •c. C
Q Cl
n J=- ~ JJ_ --
*-k .Jx •*—
Cl Cl
~ r fa I
P Q
2~B
J% fi- , a
£ Q
P ^
a Q
c n
Cl ;*
~
-c^ r 25
a ^
a rz
t^ S
ri 5,
f~ ^
n Q
J| SS p
;' a"fi
as a
a r as Q
c ^
fj
^ n
•£. P S
^ c
n 5
a *-
•- Q
O 5~
i^- O
as Q
Q J
£__ *•
\l
a f_
as
n a
C »jx
S fc f
^ »
•r -^ •Q :£»
P S :S.
J>. r: ;^ 52 -Q. -ci
^ I
as ^
§
a
n £- r S»
IT Q n Q
3-S
C n
5 ^
GEONIC RESPONSA
227
55 -Q ~£
n P n
-jx ij
I £ 2
X 55 n
? r
' P
rl «/%
•£3
f* I n
*- * — r~
n n 55
t E
L c :
__ Q 5»
^ ? 2
o. n
fc o r
c: n £3
•f
55 '°
^- -F
I- o ri.
o n
~J\.
c. *-
» S S
c 1 .
^ § I
y *~
i- n Q o
^g
I 2
I §
r ?i
1 JA 35
Q P- S-
C ^
ii p '
7" ^ p "£ J5
r- r JR
rr r-
r
g 55~ n v° 55 ^
Vi r— 55
r Q £L c r 55
55 -f-
O n ^r\ n rr
r~ Si 55 .J^ ^
lr r n -^ *~
-^ Cl n. *- 55
n
Z- 55
•r P
~ p E
*" f~ *^
n & ? f~ h r
^ x i ^ •"
MI
55 Si n cr Q S3
•^ Q C P E p •s. ^
r
£ £
C 55
rr Q
, 55
J\ 55
ij
' r ^ *
E S
a M p C
2 P n ^
C F £T -fx
C ^
£ 3 ~
•- c »
C -' Q
*~ £.
t- c n n
£ g
^ S
55 fc-
P *"
*- % H
^rx n Si
f «*J^»
a C **
£ p
•-. n
IN. ftk JJ
*— 5^ *» fT
n 55 0 Q ' ^\ ^ g £, a
c —
c Q
J-~ 55 55
n n «. n
n £1 ?
C £ ^ c rr
"~»5 ^
CS O VO U
S" 1
i
^"^ I
t||
Q 2
228 GENIZAH STUDIES
XXV.
Fragment T-S., vellum, one leaf, 26 x 17 cm., clean, square hand, containing five Geonic Responsa, the first and last in incomplete form.
1. The first Eesponsum deals with the legal status of a deaf-mute, especially with the question as to whether his written order has validity. The Gaon decides, that a deaf-mute may transact business by means of orders in writing, with the one exception, however, that he cannot divorce his wife in this way if he married her before becoming a deaf-mute.
2. In this Responsum, the decision is handed down, that a man is not obliged to provide for his divorced wife, unless she has an infant at the breast, even if she is in a state of pregnancy. But his duty toward her begins from the moment of the birth of the child, which, according to Jewish law, remains with the mother. It is noteworthy that the question addressed to the Gaon refers to the opposite view held by older authorities, that a man divorcing a pregnant woman has duties toward her. So far as I know, the view here attributed to older authorities exists nowhere in Rabbinical literature *. It is possible, however, that Maimonides did know of it, which would explain his distinctly setting down his opposition to it in Ishut, XXI, 17, whence the later codifiers must have taken their paragraph upon the subject agreeing with the Geonic decision in our Responsum.
1 Com p., however, Responsa, ed. Coronel, 76, and above, p. 214, line 2 ; and also Geonic Collection, ed. Mantua, 175, this Responsum being repeated in 322.
GEONIC RESPONSA 229
3. Here we have a brief decision against the view held by the author of the Halakot Gedolot on the question, whether in all circumstances heirs attempting to collect bills are to be made to take an oath affirming that their father, the testator, had not received payment. It is the resu7ti6 of the Responsum found in Harkavy1, no, the same one to which reference2 is made in Tur, Hoshen Mishpat, §82.
4. The fourth Responsum is concerned with the question, whether coined gold is to be considered as money or as merchandise. The author of this Responsum is probably Rabbenu Hai, as may be inferred from the view quoted as his by Alfasi, Baba Mezia, IV, i, near the beginning, which coincides with the decision given in our Responsum. Comp. also Harkavy, 45, of which our Responsum may perhaps be the resume 3.
5. The fifth Responsum deals with the law of Nruno «m»B. The Gaon's view upon the subject is lost to us through the incompleteness of the fragment. Its probable author is Rabbenu Hai, with whose Responsum in Harkavy, 35, ours has several points of discussion in common.
1 The passage in a"n , to which reference is made in the text, is found on p. 431, ed. Hildesheimer, and p. 105 d, ed. Venice.
2 Comp. also Miiller, Mafteah, p. 242.
s Comp. Miiller, Mafteah, Introduction, p. 41 (n"y), who properly ascribes it to Rabbenu Hai, though in the body of the book no reference is made to it under Hai.
GENIZAH STUDIES (Recto.)
230
NIP! NEp Kim iT»J?D Wlt DJ p 'y»B> pi
INT Ni^-in Npi vr 2ri3i WI^D Nin ni>y N^ N^P NJINI mn 3 'boa p 'yop pi by vi2n v^>y pp^n pro* 2 ION N^ nw '»NpiD N»P Njn 'EN NP pinnae ripen I^ENI N:W NSD 21 iTi> n>N nim wbn n» ina inx Ma^n N^ 5
21 'ON wna 21 nb 'o«p mpo ba» nb *uw> xb
•pno 121^ ^un? ^ by SIN ru*o p^xn Npi nns^iy
PJN ^Di11 2113 rrjnftj5» N^HN pn^no pnoN nin 2nan
'ONPI nn^m ,-WD ^piax' JN^DN Knnm 22 i>y i»
pjyi? 5>3K D^DJ pjy!? ^^D wn ^3^
^a N^N '.12 ybsn JND «3^ n>in nwnoi
p"N1 Np 0321 «2N Kill * UH3
QIQ Trb ni? a^pioi n^ y«o» nnn NHJ^S n^y 15
D ^3 1N^ i?2N D2H3 iSJD N^l DiTBDI 12^2 HHy2 KniVN Jin^NtJ^l 1^3 D2H3
noro WD ni? 2n1|Dij 2-|1|rT'O n^y2 niopn Nni2yo n»Ni "NBP pnst^Ni N^IN NiN2iy Ninn i2yn 6 pn^no NHN in^cyo wpiNi rb ynh 20
noiina pin
NIID-'N
NHN
IN
2 = '
IN * .1 pN 25
* ^21 N3M
p3.i NJHJN
* Gittin, 71 b.
1 =
4 = iDbn. 5 Reading doubtful ; «np">roN?
' Febamoi, Mishnah, VII, 4 ; Gemara, ibid., 67 b.
GEONIC RESPONSA 231
(Verso.)
pn'onoi npwo nap xb\>w\ 'on^n ny na 2w si? nwitD arm Kin N-vnni niaiy»i> nuwo anaa i>y nw KIKOJI «bi prvano rwanay NP pam Naraw panai tttmb na N nnnN ^y am IDB' wnnns? D^oin11 3 nia^na Kxoan ^asra 5 mx I^SN Kin ynat? pyat^j wn yna Dnsirvi? nnb now N^ niaijna reman KH^D xm ana *yna WKB> omaK N~IJH ^a^a • nii>wa n^mao nnawn ^i N^n pna »a»n ^oi>BD pa^ ^ypnpo pa *oa: TKB^ NI^S ^aaij xarm N^I ana N^IK ^aoa pia wpi xya^a iisn ••» mn 10 ni^N^a ntyniao nnait^n s^i KI^B N!>K NH 4mim an 'ON jwkwn
naioa pnosi n^ia na jraao K
nntr ''DNa nn^ moon •'N •'DNT ^n Nn:n» 15 H •OB' '•JNpn trinn ^y IN n«jn ^y a^nan . . p N^N Nn-" xi? sn^DKa NiDt^ Ninn mn xta my
Niopn p*an wnn pan wno ^ IN Tan ^y i^ ana 7N»3n tern n»"»b *ya»o Nina ND^P rano IT nn njn»a ^ mina HK> B>inn 20 naioa Nnna NH Nropin<iNT nowaa IN ^»D '•nin ny n:p N^> nao -iBtra ^NIOB> '»N »ai nnyn n pnoN NH Nnna NHO wwon an n'- am nnjn ^BD im^ nai»a rb pna» urn n mn^ B>pa mnoa pnj am NDB>» iia D^DO ^a^a 35 inia nN nia^i? na na» pe6 ii> ana no^i N&i>yn »3*at nNsw ^KB> nnyn »JBD men Np na11 pyai moo i>Mni> nxn Nin^ nai» "Nna Nni"» jnu *an jro runoa s<iNn pn»N y»ar ana -I^BNI paro
1 Readnmbn. * Read -pc.
3 j*n, ed. Hildesheimer, p. 431, end ; ed. Venice, p. 105 d.
4 BabaBatra, 40 b; «rvroB = WTVDTD. * Read nrro.
* Reading doubtful ; «n ':w 'NOT? T £a&a £a<ra, 51 a.
232 GENIZAH STUDIES
XXVI.
Fragment T-S., one leaf, 25x21 cm., vellum, squarish hand, rather careless, not tending to cursive, written below the line. It contains a single Eesponsum, the beginning and the end of which are missing, notwithstanding which its contents can be made out satisfactorily. A man had given power of attorney to two others to write and execute a bill of divorce. The appointed agents, instead of carrying out his instructions to the letter, had the instrument written by a scribe. The question put to the Gaon was, whether their deviation from his orders did not invalidate the divorce. The decision was favourable to its validity, on the ground that it could not be made to appear that the principal had specific reasons for entrusting the actual writing of the bill to his agents. This view is based on Gittin, 29, the passage which deals with the law of the messenger bearing a bill of divorce who deputes his errand to another, and the Gaon agrees with the interpretation of the text given anonymously in Alfasi. It may possibly be this very Responsum of ours which is referred to by Alfasi. The Gaon, it is worth while noting, holds that the norm, according to which Rabbi Johanan's opinion prevails against Rab's and Samuel's, is applicable only when he is pitted against Rab alone or Samuel alone, not when the two explicitly agree with each other, and to- gether oppose him — a much mooted point among the later methodologists l.
1 Comp. Heilprin, Seder ha-Lorot, ed. Maskileson, II, 204 ; Lampronti, Pahad Yizhak, i, 86 a ; Malachi Co6n, Yad Maleaki, no. 558.
GEONIC RESPONSA 233
(Recto.)
N'ano ....... n«m lama ««m aa «»M mum ....
"ilia T.be>io ftfvy nsa ^BDpro * niaa ib^io nvn? w . . , . Dnyn 2 'aNnpn Nnapn pan nay Dinnb nny pyn> Nbn nan . . . 'ONI 'onin PN ny 'bim 'boa p 'yocj> pn 'DM 'iai pynpo Qinnb 'jrii> PNB> 'boa p 'yot? 'm 'yo »MD nrybN 'n 'ONI 4 'yot? 'biai not? 3 sans ..... s •nwwy DIB>D xn;pn pan nay MriMan N»aa pai :Bnw«y ^MIB^ niia W DJ M»aon 6 pm rjpn pan may DM nanooi 'c^1 }»"IN» DJ N^aoni ^y t\xn nnx Ta in^ nr nn ni?m J?Mn^ psa jva I»HM n^B> in "iiK'i? Nnityi n^ an* x^i n^» : rvta »IB>D MHWI ^ n^n M^I xni^n i^ n^i N^ n^ nos sh 10 onyaa 101x1 in^i pn n^a neny 7*JNnp o»n nanoo 6h M^aon n^n MB^B pn n^n N3xa an 'DM nby 'noMi 'nna ysa anaa «a'aa T Nniix rbr\ '•JxnpT »Mm nbn M^n aa by SJMT pnn in 'o»m ino N nbm im T'hn ^DMI 'D»M n^ya IN p»p6Di na i^ini f? 'ciop '•axnp M»n 'Da p r»^ 'n 'WK n^ya IM yM» nbni i^in ns 'boNT 'D»M n^ya 15 N ina'M '« 'ab IN *WM^> Da 8iana D^^b -IDN xnavr, p^amoi bya byan 'wap Ditro M^M 'oyra sin nns sl|aN 'DM^ N ^xp '»a»nMi T^n DN n^ 'DNP sh Dit^o MnWi 'oybn
in n« n^ 'DMT3 'n»ano pnoxn ;va NJiapn pan iiayn nans p^yDt? nbn xbn aa by ^N *]"bin HM 'box xbn xa^n 20
pa^yb niapn pbna pan iiayn aa by SIN Nn^Di : nbn " Nbia pa nbrri pa nby pn»Ni 'ano '121 aan ba 12pni Tva&fy nb anai a^nan n»trb pya nava
'iai ptwn ib^sN 'DM bNio^i P^NID pn namaa pbioa jbia an ^aN 'ON pnv 'n pnnxn p pn 'inaa 'bois PN obia 'ON '•Tyn '10^1 ai jinnN pa^yb nainaa ^boa Nb 'DNT nbiaa pnv 'n a'bs »oa . . . 25
MHD^ Nnna po'-p bwo^i an nsa '•yvoN pa^ybi JNnB11^ Nina po«p
^o »an prn11 xna nabn pnr 'ni bNioty pnv 'na nabn pnv 'ni an pnoN "ai
nnn 'c^a D'-Npn WN bax bNioen 'o^ai am 'o^a n^Npn wbn Na"n
1 Gittin, Mishnah, VI, 6 ; Gemara, ibid., 66 a. * Git tin, 9 b and 19 b.
8 Read 1*01 ;NO rrnp. * = Mnyrac «bi3i. 5 Gittin, 19 b.
' Gittin, Mishnah, III, 5 ; Gemara, ibid., 29 a. 7 Gittin, Mishnah, III, 6 ; Gemara,
ibid., 29 b. 8 Read nn. 9 Our texts read jvn ; comp. introductory note.
10 Read sb. u Read H?T. 12 G*7h'n, Mishnah, III, i ; Gemara, ibid., 24 a-24b.
234 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Verso.)
jNi6 2 'DNI 'ano 'ta '-^a t^n enaon ' pni jam* 'na na!?ri 'n»N N^ pnro
'iy^ 'DIN nryi>N p pyot? 'n jam KM -iryi>N p pyop 'n mpm 'ON Nan
n No<n iivaN 'ON pnv '11 103 in 8/n»i rb lan^i -mm naoo itan? iy aa
iiainao a ^DB^ >NOI 13 foa*i> inwpi ^Nin jan ywe' ION pal^n
)'3 ^ pa »3^ N^N ^DNT p»3 Kin hDSI 3J ^ P]XT H^D
hi* nri n^ XN^ ni? 'rm 'n^ raco ^on srupn r6 nay ITV^N p ni aW nti^ »D3»a ni> IDS 4 N^m 'yi>K p 'yop '•« *3n ^NOI iiii •itbc' pa rvi> >JNB> N^ nry^N p pyot? 'i n^ mm xiai bwv ny 'iai 6*B> iy Nrupn ni? n»b ia^n u ^DB^ inwpn n^ NI^DI ^B!> K^K^ nr
. . . . i? ions ^a11 «h n ^DB^ inNJp 5 maa iTn^nNoan naoo 10 ..... am nt3K> ^oa^a »aa »oa '•a ••ai^ xaxa nnb »TD rwvap «m psi ''DNI m^oan }xoa am itaty mnpn 6^a ton soan aa ^y SJNT n^ 'p^ai nro n^p^o 71^ N^I nhoab xh m^anb K^ man pa»p DW nb N^T n» nainab xhsfina Npn p*a ^sb N^N »aa :K*ao naa sin n^ 'ON pai DIN W> nnni» HN nn n!? 'OKI n^ n^ a»m mm n^ ^pen iy ni? 15
:DJ Ninna m0an*6 Nnapn n^ nay onn pai «aKn nina una DNI 7janTa n:a »a^ab N^N!? ana^o manan ninna nan ««n^ n«w mp*yon p»ai nnna IBD 'om 'ONI Nn^-on aa i?y PJNI «ann« NS3N3 nao m^iw !>»a» N^> n^ p^no »a NBJN inna
ha11 N^> nainan jo n ^o&h "iao m^ien jva 'oyu ^NOI 'DB ipnon 20 oa in Nina mao:Ni iyta IN wia »«n »a i?ai Noi'y^ ma »nini»6 nao Dip jo we* N^ ^DNT "i^s^ N^yo NJ^nN oa anai ^ya mn pan nnai pmno NP napn nai p»ai pwo»a ina NJ^ N^I PNID': iyo IN mnjn ^y niay t6i n»ap N^ pyo^ i?y n^apn Nin PINT ^y Dnyf> n»NT «a\n pae> ^ai »otn "VBB> N^yo ua ni? ana pa inai 35.
I onm anai IBID^ p^N IIONI »nt8>K^ uni oa lana onyi vefyyo ninna p^a noab m^N NMni? ma»o npna i?yan oa pana p^N pmn nan oa na^na^ n*bv 11^1 iyoi Nin
1 Giitin, Mishnah, IX, i ; Gemara, ibid., 82 a. * Giltin, 84 b.
* The words TCJ . . . f> not in any texts of this passage, but in Gitfin, 78 a. 4 Gitfin, 788. 5 Read nu. 6 Read po.
7 Gittin, Mishnah, IX, i ; Gemara, ibid., 82 a ; our texts have not DNI, but it is found in the Mishnah, ed. Lowe.
GEONIC EESPONSA 235
XXVII.
Fragment T-S., two leaves, paper, 17x12 cm., square hand tending to cursive, very minute writing, thirty-five lines occupying only 13^ cm. The copyist who made the copy before us must have had a faulty model, as appears from several disjointed sentences, and from the fact that leaf i, recto, contains but five lines at the top of a page, the rest of the page being left blank. The fifteen para- graphs into which I have divided the contents of the fragment are in part only regular Responsa ; the rest are merely short decisions, niplDS rrobn. Possibly, the ex- planation of the latter is also to be sought in the circum- stance that our copyist's model was not accurately written throughout, and he therefore perpetuated only the final decision without attempting to reproduce the disconnected argument.
i. The first Responsum contains an explanation of Bezah, 2; and, as said above, is in a very incomplete form as follows : —
rwa nTia mna iwa mp^ pro rrvii crti'D N!>K niD^s fro PN jsia \nw na^G? HITS 'ha rrvra^ mna -may oip^ DHDK }n w ppira 6itj>6 3iD ova mhac? rwa mna nwnn p* }n» aio ova iar^ D»aay
2. Of the second Responsum, the beginning is missing. It contains an explanation of Sukkah, 6, without offering anything of importance.
3. The question is who is to be held guilty of trans- gressing the prohibition against coupling and muzzling
236 GENIZAH STUDIES
animals — whether the one who works with them or the one who actually coupled and muzzled them. The decision is in accordance with the statement in Baba Mezia, 90, which holds that the prohibition is aimed against working with animals illegally muzzled and coupled, not against the preliminary preparations for work. It is worthy of mention that the Gaon reads Nathan, instead of Jonathan, as found in our present texts of the Talmud, a circumstance important in fixing the dates of Rabbi Siniai, to whom Nathan or Jonathan, as the case may be, addresses the question. Comp. Halevy, Dorot ha-Rishonim, II, 55.
4. The Mishnic jWs is explained by the Persian dashnag ; comp. Lagarde, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 35, 91, and 'Aruk, s.v. JWB.
5. The fifth Responsum is introduced with the words : "The Head of the Academy said," and it gives an ex- planation of a number of names of plants occurring in the Talmud. Unfortunately, our text is in very bad con- dition, as in all probability that was from which our scribe copied it. The Gaon apparently identifies the two Mishnic words D^2^n l and D'Oiy^n] with the Aramaic NSN^n and K33^n 2 respectively, whether correctly or not we must leave those to determine whose botanical knowledge is less limited than the present writer's. The two Aramaic words occur nowhere else in Jewish literature, but attention should be called to the interesting fact, that Rabbenu Hai, in his commentary on Ohalot, VIII, i, explicitly states that the word N^TI was used by the Geonim.
6. The sixth Responsum opens with the formula N^lp, very unusual in Geonic literature. It calls attention to the difference between the view of Rabbi Nahman, as recorded in Hullin, 40 a, and in 'Abodah Zarah, 54 a. The incongruity between the two Talmud passages did not escape other authorities. The Gaon's solution of the
1 Written D'2'a1? 'n in our fragment.
8 It is hard to tell whether these two words are spelled with rr or with n as their first letter in our fragment.
GEONIC RESPONSA 237
difficulty is lost to us. Comp. the Geonic collection p*j, 41 b, and Introduction, 14 a, and Tosafot Hullin,4ob, catchword pro 31.
7. This Responsum deals with Menafiot, 37 a, but further than this nothing can be said about it. Our scribe did not go beyond the first line, apparently discouraged by the state of his model.
8. Here we have a decision by a 1N^3 K>N1. A deposit was left with a man, the act having no witnesses and not being recorded in writing. The deposit was lost, the depositary maintaining it had happened through an un- foreseen accident, in which case the law exempts him from responsibility. The Gaon decides that the man's word must be taken, seeing that he might have denied ever having received a deposit. Compare the Geonic collection, ed. Mantua, 66 and 321.
o. This Responsum, like the sixth, begins with tf'tjnp,
j/ A * O
but this time we have, not alone the difficulty in the Talmudic passage about which the Gaon was consulted, but also the Gaon's solution. The passage in question is Menahot, 53 a.
10. Here we have the Gaon's explanation of the mnemo- technic sign D3j?p3£J in Yebamot, 74 b.
11. The eleventh Responsum describes itself as an ex- planation by Rabbi rrtPiE'D. This Rabbi is probably identical with the Gaon Rabbi Moses2, whom Rabbi Sherira Gaon calls ?W1B>» in his famous Letter. The Responsum is nothing more than a translation into Aramaic of the Talmudic passage Ketubot, 5 a, end, on the formation and texture of the ear-flap. It is curious that the translated sentence should stand alone, without so much as a
1 There are three Babylonian »"JD 'On, whose opinions are quoted in the Geonic literature: (i) Rab Huna, in j*m,8b; (2) Rabbi Judah, ibid., ed. princeps, 21 d, and ed. Hildesheimer, 131 = avwn 'c, 310 ; (3) Rabbi Samuel, comp. Muller, Mafteah, 64, and Epstein, in pjn, III, 80.
2 Comp. Rapoport's biography of Rabbi Nathan ben Yehiel, note 25, and Muller, Mafteah, 63 and 72.
238 GENIZAH STUDIES
reference to the Talmudic text. It would almost seem as though the copyist had been attracted by the translation evidently quoted in a discussion for a purpose, without being interested in the discussion itself, or it may be that his faulty model prevented him from preserving any more of the Responsum. However that may be, so much is certain, the Aramaic in which the Gaon rendered the Talmudic sentence is perfect — another evidence that the author of the Responsum is Rabbi Moses, who elsewhere shows himself a master of Aramaic. Comp., for instance, p. 212, above, and introductory note, p. 211.
12. This Responsum bears the superscription ^N fjD^ D^IXJ, " to some Geonim," which must refer to the rest of the Responsa in our fragment, and probably to a number of others which have not been preserved, at least not as a part of our fragment. In contents this twelfth Responsum is identical with that ascribed to Rab Amram in Dl"»3, 23. It occurs also in Rabbi Judah Albargeloni's DT!yn 13D, 49- 50, where it is combined with another Geonic Responsum l. It is an explanation of the Talmudic passage, 'Erubin, 42 a, on the law of poinn.
13-14. These Responsa are probably by the same author as the preceding one, and they supplement the explanation given there.
15. The last of the Responsa in this fragment, which is incomplete, though it is likely that only a few words are missing at the end, contains an explanation of the ex- pression "iin tJ>Ki occurring in Sukkah, 6 b. It is probably the source of the 'Aruk, s. v. Comp. t/V, I, 68.
1 Read in the passage in DTOH'C, 'TE, instead of T"£, and comp. Perles, BeitrCtge, 57-69 ; Graetz, Jubelschrtft, 18; and Harkavy, 'rtjn 'D, 70.
GEONIC RESPONSA 239
(Leaf i, verso.)
rr6 'DN raio »o» INKO n-ppa PNI nae&P m* iniN ' me>a -"nfj i^> >pi p-onv N^I *an 'atm Np N^I "Nm 2 pan Dn pN N3N~i •votn JUsi u-D pnDN naioo NTom nap twifcTi win naiD3 »»IIVD na KO^JH nina^ »D» -IKBQ »hotab pntMn ps? ^3 N^> nap JD sbvi mnoa N^m Nioin!? 5 nwno nc'sna n-pBon^ rrb p'«wi naioa p^pon
rnci ccnn
D»ioaa na^o nt^-in pjjfc n^n pjy? cntbaa awsm j !J nn na BHT nM»« nn na ami nn noom xaMi pnospn ^n^i em a^mm Ninn N^N com Ninn a^n^o 'no fro 'n n^^o sya 3pno«pn a^irm sin ne'yo 10
IN K3"Nm pya ^na IIP oonn N^ ino pnao K naioa pnoNpn nae^i p^D rr6 D^BI N3^ NHI pya ne»n D-'on ^iTn N^ n^n nyt^a »oa Nan nna» nn»n N^ nN-a ny^a an:n^ nye» ny •'oa D^x^aa anoi a«n^n ne*yo nycya N^N jnpa a^m o^yanxn nx aaio amen 4pnini 'a^moi jna 15
m pno«p D^b pa^ 5nn n^ixn ns aaio nn N^N a^n^o N^ a^iron Ninn jnpa ^^o<|D Npn Ninni a«n»on o^N^a rra paenD NPT pnpa a'- np'-yi a«mo pipa patjns Npn niona ^ni> pna -i 'DN 6p^a*s '•ND j 'D^a naooa n«iae» IT nacr» 20 p\n po^o Nna^nro LTNI DK 'nnoia pirn aitrn w& p
n*an ncna nn^n SN:IH an 'CK N^ip <7<iJN3iiNi }»na an a^n^o *niDN IHN J^D n3 DnK^ }V3 'ry
niNt^n e>i^ rrby a«n mr may^ pina nat^a nNtan 25 naa N^iy^ n^ n»N ipia pna ai in^ 'ON *9onn n^ n»ao vb ia IONI 'ON N.II "^N ^wwi "fW^ NJin an n»ann "Tina "pna ejioa I^DN ha11 xji man ma -JN 'yy *zb Non t&a e^sn 'DK 'onn N^n nSahm onn pbn HN 'D^ 6n nnan vn N^ n^ 'DN '•ya^Ni la^D N"ioe> N!?3 n»aa ppaon 30
N^ip *iDJN3 'D^ ha* 1^ vnnrnn nsa ""N nhyo
nano ^N^ ha11 " nn^na^ ninaon ba nian^ nmo n^na nniN nma nniN n^np^aN Nni nn« ^n o^aan onh nn^n ^ne* ?)N nniN »MD iTninai NIP 'n^a p DN 'pn-nai? pn'-na «h
1 Sukkah, 7 a, end. 2 = '02 on ; comp. note 5.
8 Ea&a Mezia, 90 b ; the printed text of the Talmud has jmv, but MS. M. and others read fro ; comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc.
4 Kilalm, VIII, 3. 5 = F]« ; comp. Harkavy, 353. 6 Baba Mezia, 84 a.
7 Comp. introductory note. * Hullin, 40 a. 9 'Abodah Zarah, 54 a.
10 Menahot, 37 a ; our texts and MSS. read 'anm ; comp. also Baba Kama, nb. u The second Tra is to be cancelled. I2 Ifenahot, 75 a.
240 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 2, recto.)
i?af> f'3o 'JION "no NT-IB n wo Nya ''nnn runs yot? ^>B> iniN p-iot?oi pn^iaa metta? nimon noai nivo nnN onion 'fiai noao • • non 'ona x pona N^I nona N^> pi^n N^ nt?N 2 wan nimo '33 jn nwia D'^n DIB»O 4onn spv an 'OK 'TB 5
B> 'TB • }n prnr owa t^oin fain \y\vb IIDK nna
yoB"i> vbn pawa n nypaa n3{y btwor 'ON jom an 'ON n^iN2
n"n IT nypaa NVIO nnN '8mrno mB'pni D*W i«ai na^i HON D'B^N nthv hy no«
Dipoo n"ni ns'no ir nypn^ D'i2 n nn bJ? HON HINO t^oni D^N '^ n^noi? 15
niNo B>on jniNi ioinn «po D'a^N ny ' ^>y fna i?obt2o d'i3 ma'pn^ nyno lyi ioinn SIIDO n^'no 0^12 is'pm ivan ^Nioiri? n^ NTaoi npnr pnoNi THM ni^n iN^a N^I Tn'n nwna n^ N'IH 'NO nhaa n^nna^ bvb&fy N^OT Tn'n nit^ia IN 20 D'i2 iNan jvan nitro ^O^OOT Nin Npnt 'T ^y nin DV niyao N^ noxy na^a nvno npma N^N '102^ IN!?I 9n^ia natj>n b mow nac> nvpo n'oyoa D'a^Na T^no 'ON N2in am i?Nio^ nNty an^> n'i> NT3D1 yaiNa N^N ^D^DO pN ^aN ^NIOBH 25 'na N^N 'fyxhtA »T^ nc> N^I N'on n^onaai N3in N!? 'ho^oi 'n win an!? p^poi <%ia^a i^t? ni»N ^^ 'ON npnr 'T ^y nbiaa ^obo'3 n'ama ^oboo npnr 'T i>y 'bioi?oi? n'i> ntn '02 'an PN win an niNo t^on jniNa ivan 10 t^nnN "jv^o' NOK> p'-in N^N 30 p'^po p'-nnv D'12 nvno nyi ioinn "PI'DIOT noN 12"iDN ioinn nnN^n noN IYINO ^on jniN nrnn noN D'a^Na ivan nnN IP& NOB> INT pnr6 N^ NJin an n'i> TON 'D3 D'ai?N3 .TnniN 'a WJDO Nin ioinn N.TO ioinn ppD'on noN niNo B'on H3n n'i?. PTDNT 'hoi?^ 35
, 53 a ; read 'ON instead of pON. ' Pesahim, 42 a.
3 Our texts read differently, but the MSS. agree with the reading of this fragment ; comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc.
* Hullin, 123 b ; the quotation from the Talmud consists only of the
words jn pm c^ro. s Ftbamo^, 74 b. 6 rc'3 or TD'\n:.
7 Comp. introductory note^ 8 'Erubin, 42 a. 9 Ibid., 70 b.
10 Read mnc inn. 11 Read rc'm. u ION?
GEONIC RESPONSA 241
(Leaf 2, verso.)
nvna nbn poinnn noK D'B^K »ap |ini> urn mrro nyi
'OK an na rrm ni> niDKn •an na ii*n 'OK pi 'OIK pnoKpn win ana
nKitaa mnaap nvno 'OKn »asi no •£ 'oKn win an^ jryppKi DIB"D n^ moKn Dipoi? 5 •'ja ^y *?Kbwo xbi *«n nnosi yinxa ^O^D^ nnio IK ivsn nnx i^o1' NOB' nnna nypan D^Q^NI Nin ivsn
nnioa Tn»n mcn? N"»T N? i«in nn a'yD nrya n«^oa noai nsi^on nnnio mox nrya svit? nxn^a nsna:^ n^non xani niox p*o "pry nnaa no« nixo tmn nioxn oipob ntyyo nn^n DnWin j • npnr ^i11 ^y loinna ^D^tD^ 15 imc* n^n po 3nD3in n^n nnpn *OKI '•a^n micas nni«c> Vy'x nnp^n na^n o^aaaD nnpn nnpn na^n o^aaao IHTO ^101 P'a riios HDD min Nynx ny Nonoi Nnmn jxoa nnpn ru«^ nnrn •inv nnpn »a 4 pncsp^a 12 ^ta^ta^ b nnion nna n^> 20 mp*n na^ ^oj xan Kntwno n*nK niai Dnioi no n*nK nwi nn inisa ^D^D^ nrnoi y-wn ny a^ nmoi p«n ny nnain nnp'-n nat^ naa xan nyanx j^yan jya Nnsvno PHDS niai nn inixa paa nao ny niyao^a Jjn na^ ^y 33 n nira yanxa 25 nat? ^y psiyai mew ^on jnaa nun -I^N po^nipB' n naio nsn pnoix niox t^on inaia nvintj> ^n nioN twn '•va naoo »m n^ nvno bi Kim piainnB' i»a jniK psn 7p^nip^ ni»K
wnvi naja >ctn ^n • tsn^n^n • Nnxyno p'aN ma 30
niaan ^n^ npy ir naio '^ITB p 8nin K'Kn naaai
jani n^nnra jan Kn^ncra n^cinn jaim n^anyta jan
jna^na n"n^ pan wn 9 pnioxpi ravbv nnn'-a
rroyp p^n nata jniK n^y pnoKi nao I^BK
niom ph? IOD n-'nnra jana nnajna an 'OK 35 Kpn Kvrn Kwn naaa Kin nn nyw ^nty naiD^> n^>
1 Read nipn'i. a 'Erubin, Mishnah, I, 8; Gewara, ibid., 15 b.
a 'Erubin, 42 b. * Sukkah, i8b, top. 5 Ibid., 4 b.
6 Text corrupt. T Read j'D'Wp'nD-
8 Sukkah, 6 b, below-7 a, top. 9 Ibid., 6 b.
R
242 GENIZAH STUDIES
XXVIII.
Fragment T-S., two leaves, vellum, 31 x 23 cm., good, regular square writing, between lines. It contains Geonic explanations of thirty-six separate passages in Bdba Kama, occurring on seventeen folios, between fol. 51 a and fol. 82 a. Such a collection of Talmudic comments is a rare phe- nomenon in Geonic literature, from the point of view of the number of passages commented upon, passages, more- over, that follow each other closely in the same treatise. There are only two parallels, the collection at the end of p'j, by Rabbi Nahshon Gaon, on the treatises Sanhedrin and 'Abodah Zarah, and the one by Rabbi Hai Gaon, in Harkavy's Responsen der Geonim, pp. 144-5. That our fragment contains actual replies to actual questions put to Geonim, and is not merely an extract from a Talmudic commentary, is proven by such phrases as Dn^NWi (leaf i, verso, line 29, and leaf 2, verso, line 27), and jy!B> UK "p (leaf 2, verso, lines 17 and 19), and similar phrases. Though the comments are very concise, they contain excellent material for the text criticism and exegesis of the Talmud.
The following are the chief points of interest in the fragment : —
II. From the Gaon's explanation of the passage on Bdba Kama, 51 b, it is obvious that his text of the discussion on fTVn differed from ours. According to the present reading, Rabbi Eliezer accepts nT~n, and his colleagues, the D^rin, reject it; while according to the Gaon, the reverse is the case. But what is of still greater importance is the Gaon's contention, that n"Vi3 in this passage has nothing to do with the legal maxim which bears this name in Talmudic literature. Furthermore, it is safe to assume that the Gaon's text lacked Rabina's statement ; otherwise his opinion would be wholly untenable. The Gaon's reading
GEONIC RESPONSA 243
and his explanation of it would do away with the difficulty experienced by a number of commentators and codifiers in reconciling the contradictory statements regarding the principle of mna in the Talmud. Comp. Rabbenu Nissim Gerondi, on Nedarim, 45 b, and the authorities cited by him. The only authority whose explanation of the passage approaches the Gaon's is Rabbi Aaron ha-Levi, quoted in Rabbi Bezaleel Ashkenazi's nvaipo nta^, on Baba Kama, 51 b. There can be no doubt that Rabbi Aaron had the same text as the Gaon ; our present text would make the explanation impossible.
VII. The words fy3nr6 K>pm are doubtless a lapsus calami. The Talmudic discussion in 95 a refers to D^x^a, and not to nyain. Comp. Rabbi Samson of Sens on KUalm, I, 6.
IX. The Gaon justly compares the Aramaic Kltrp with the Arabic 3Dp, and explains it as meaning a certain kind of palm-tree, while the author of the *Aruk, s. v. 2vn, misled by similarity of sound, explains it as meaning cane- sugar, which, of course, is incorrect1, notwithstanding the endorsement of Maimonides. But attention should be called to the fact that, in our passage of Baba Kama, even the c Aruk defines 2B>p like the Gaon.
XL On 58 b, the Gaon reads pm, not Prn, as our printed text has it, while the manuscripts and many of the old authorities agree with the Gaon's reading. Comp. Rab- binovicz, Dikduke Soferim, loc. cit., and on 'Erubin, 106, i. Low (Aramaische Pflanzennamen, p. 155) was therefore not wholly justified in rejecting the reading pm, which has the weight of authority in its favour, ^he Gaon's explana- tion of ptn, as young plants of wheat or barley before they have developed stalks, is found literally in Rabbi Bezaleel Ashkenazi's nvaipD nePB>, on Ketubot, 60, where it is explicitly quoted from a Geonic collection.
XIV. The Gaon's reading pWDK in place of the pilBDK of our text is probably correct. It may possibly stand for
1 Comp. LOw, Aramtiische Pflanzennamen, no. B 2
244 GENIZAH STUDIES
Ispeara in Armenia. Comp. Neubauer, La, geographic du Talmud, p. 387.
XVIII. The explanation of &my as mint? rfoay rvaB is very strange. A water-pitcher, mac, is entirely out of place in this Talmudic passage. There can be no doubt that it should read t^SD, tapestry. Furthermore, the Gaon's description of the colour as black is probably due to the etymology of the word N3¥y, depressed, gloomy, dark- coloured. Comp., however, Bekorot, 45 b, and c Aruk, s. v.,
ITBB.
XIX. The explanation here given for n»TT1p is found literally in the *Aruk, s. v., the author of which may have had access to our source.
XXL The definition of ND311N is found in Rashi, who explicitly admits having taken it from Geonic Responsa. It is worthy of note that the Gaon reads ND3TIN, with our printed text, and not NnailK, as most of the old authorities have it. Comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc.
XXV. The Gaon's reading nrvsn is found in a single MS. of the Talmud, while all other MSS. read with the printed text JV^n. Comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc.
XXIX. The Gaon's explanation of onso D'3^3 is highly interesting as the probable source, direct or indirect, of Maimonides in his commentary on Kila/im, I, 6, the Arabic
text J of which reads : ^K 31D3D W&K a^K naa n^a
frnpta Ml "ISD. This would lead to the supposition that the proper reading of W3 is naia. It is not likely that the Gaon would characterize the dog as Ethiopian and Chinese in almost the same breath. Concerning the " Chinese dog," compare Dozy, Supplements, s. v., and Friedlaender, Der Sprachgebrauch des Maimonides, s. v. ; and also mmpD no11^, ad loc., where an explanation of >-iai3 2^3 is quoted from a Geonic source nearly identical with that given by Maimonides, except that "1313 is taken as the name of a place. Rashi has various explanations in different pas-
1 Edited by S. Bamberger, Berlin, 1889.
GEONIC RESPONSA 245
sages. Comp. ad loc., and on Yebamot, 59 b ; comp. also ' Aruk, s. v., 1B3.
XXXI. The explanation by the Gaon of ptsnin as meaning " ploughed fields," is very strange. The passage permits of no explanation except " woodland."
XXXII. The fragment is probably corrupt in this passage. Instead of "HIT, the reading should be nin, or, as n and n are almost indistinguishable from each other in old MSS. it may possibly be ITin, the more so, as the Gaon goes on to explain 13in as the branch, and nin as the trunk, of a tree. The Gaon's explanation of nin is quoted in Rashi from Geonic sources.
XXXIV. The text here is not altogether clear. It seems that the question put to the Gaon must have been, Why does the Talmud repeat the word fpTi with the last of the ten institutions of Ezra"? The Gaon's answer cannot be made out very well. Perhaps the question was based upon misreading D^lp as DWlp, the false reading suggesting that the tenth of Ezra's ordinances provided that one "called up " to the Torah had to take a ritual bath.
XXXV. Here we have the Gaon's decision that the tenth of the institutions of Ezra, the one on the necessity of a ritual bath in a case of impurity, remained in force in the Gaon's time. Comp. above, pp. 40 and 206.
246 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf i, recto.)
2 . , . n B3n & 'ONI noyo on »»«^n NnnN3i mew ninab can ' PN i ntjTon IN c'nat: nysiN nun NnnN iyi "W^B icnao D^HBD mwy N^nm
TTJ&N 'n n^naD mpy nn D^nao ntjw nnma na'K n»vy NnnNi H nbiN ONI ^ run n»3r6 IKJNI tyo nSnion 3 MOB' Nin wto mna B» 'IN
13^B >N»3 »^1 li> TDD»B»D 'IN 3py» p ITjrfo 'l BWIBtt inOHJTO 3»n 5
nann Nin nna nr B'DnB'o'j ibirn inootr jva 4mna tr* nno ny 133 nnna px nao 3py p nry^N 'n otwi 13 3»nrui CTNns ^no wnB» B^n IN ry Bn»3D»nD Nino »T^ TD njmnB*3 Nno-'n 3*1 OB^ Wan }» onN trn is' inns nstwj Nirn |Nsn RV1 rrro • SID N^ Tii3 nyhDty 6 noo ntno B«»n nb ntjny MNV ^y ISN nin* 10 nw» ^s- 7 -IDN 13 *iMn »KD "Qnwi' IBID on i3Jivr6 raioi ^Nin iv ^^ T33?
• j , WVOD
NTI n3iD7 nbnn 3in3.n u nnsi 3D33 n3iD7 n*wi3 3n3^ 3ro: N^ l3rtST6 nini^m nn3in SJIDB* OBOI 3ita '•s nixn
»» ons ny3iN 8 pnoNi fn vi?D 7 po OVDB 3iD Niny v ID mim OI^DB V3N nN ^SND tr11 •«: 'pnoNi vben OVDB ^3ipi 15 9 prao vx*3 m • «3n 'niaiy nt»33 nns: pw DOBD v»3 nn nonn ^n^3 0^3 *nnn '•nin x:yo Nm t^mto n^3 Nin Nin N^yo NH inans^ vwo5> N'-ns N^iyn NDE'D nnx n3 NnN 31 'DNPT »«m
JOVi O
D»on nyann PIN TIDN naan PJ»OT nyain no ra^b pwn n»n
srya
3»n*D B»i>n IN D"N^3 DIB>D yrm N^I Nin wo in N^ Knm 35 u i3io »a onn £w miy^h non^ *»i Ni>n POB nanam ny3in ^y NDU^I Nfy I^NI IIDB p«^ nvin3 poo Nin i>pn 12 nn3no N3^p j>pi N133 Ninn • jinnn by
ON nbia t^Ni ib "»»N '3Dp iniN pNiip D^Nyiot^i anon ions -i33on • nm ono»a PNI irb IT nipm nnN jp3 jn wbv 3° IN D^n^ ynr Nino 13 prn • Nin TIDD pNiyi inN n-iise' x K * 1S pin Nipa Nin D^13B> niB'yb B>pin N^ jNiyi p
Kama, 51 a. 3 Read ntnca. s 5a&« Kama, sib.
4 Comp. introductory note. * Baba Kama, 523. 6 Read «no = MOID.
7 Boba JTama, 55 a. • Toma, 75 b, our texts read '"jrp with ».
' Kiddushin, 31 a, end. 10 Read JTUQ or j'HDon. " Read inrra.
12 Baba Kama, 58 b. 13 Our texts read rm ; com p., however, the introductory note.
GEONIC RESPONSA 247
(Leaf i, verso.)
pn 2 nna NP enm Nnav • naan haa <am ilia paw UK na ' 'an via MI p pyes? 'ai 'DM DIN »ano TIBS ppi noun enn T3 myan nN r£wn i>3N naoD p^nni na^i r6na i!> ID»B> N^N us? N^> iTprm NCBTD w\b 'n 'iTprn 13 MPTI 'yo »MD aTi ni>t?D myia NW p»a na.-6&» ^ IDD IIDQ ni'BiD nnyu Ninc^ ^a by *$* *DJ nan^ty 1^ no» I^SN XDN jam1 5 •r6 ^DCDI n^ iyao ^TN Np Kim n^ ona NpT enm Nnas xyo ^NO
nahm naaaa N!?N n^yo^ npbn }W myan NIHD 4nsaaa xm n^y an NIH oan DK> • pnu *a«n ejov an 'ON • mv mv xiv ^ aaa N^N an X»N NnyoB'i N^PDO »av» ^iran K/I laatro xv 6 janoMpi wapi n»a *«w n^ya nw n^yai i?ay ^M 10 M^I »aMpn jaan ncM n^ra triN^ na*am xa'-na naip B^M^MI p^a mas ^y mm Min Nnnixi pain IN jva n^ra 'aa '•oa Nan »Mm iTnwna rh NCP na-'o nixo ra <DMI N^ MC-^H IN «Mm n^niena ni> N»p na^o mMD wn jaam rpTi> »MHM NiiDNa n^ra nn^ »MPM N-i^nna maN 15 'DN tjor an N<n jaam nabmi .INDD pa'-y!? n •••aNp N^ ••Da pa-no I^BMI '•asp N^ na naNi n^^a^ noan vi>y nayi }*cn ^ra naxi^ spi* an nn B^N^no nr noaa j'lon »aa Nan niap^ rwn nn ^N-'no nn Na'n
n»a»niM * noan Nnio^xa mp^n n^ Nn^a N^T mapi> nvn PM 20 N^T MOWS tJ^N11 '•aai? ND^a IN no*M ^iran N^I laanp naNni? «3N inic?n3 wa no Maom 'ON enp in^a HN e>np» ^a SJ^NI e>npo »so na^o ycBi KHN^ IHN IN^ N^N misna ba «JM neio '•aNnpn NST Mnxnno NivanD mao^m Mai r»N ^aNp N^ mm p-'a aaB'D nnajn Nioy ^ran NO^IN »CMI »a»n Sran N^ 25
^MD N^N »3Mp N^T 'ONT JMD Na^N ^D n&>y»
snpon nnam pip ^ran soa Man B>OO aa&ra p3coa nona nniy HN naycn PIT jnNot3» na^no PM ^ia ^ai D^b riNt 8 IIM»CD MO on^SfBl • piw 5>a II pm^ o^ya |n^y pa^no DN jnaN^D moaa t6 9 TN nytj' D^a 30 •10pm pai nviB> n^yoa nN»itai nat^noT HMDID p^apo n^a »TD p/iy PNI na^noa jnNcta T pmv o^an f>a
1 Baba Kama, 59 a. * Ibid., 59 b. ' Read »pvn na» «vn.
4 Ba6a Kama, 60 a. 5 Ibid., 65 b. ' Ibid., 66 a. 7 Read man rrb
8 Read rwoiE. 9 Read jsirro = J«ISIT. 10 JTeZfm, XXV, 9.
248 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf a, recto.)
nasta pnon vw mpo i>a a p lap Nayy N^m * ns?yo -wea xvn
2Ni>>N jriNDOO n3BTIO PN naN^D pID'H pNB> DlpO JHNOBO
»3BD • nipn mynn naoo yspoi miner rbuy ITBB N3*y xvm ntry -001 naoi 33: ni"vay K^B> "oyp jva sNon3 en/wap
iK pan» 4 T3n ona • son rwnvn ia nrvm xonn xix sin »ym Diaa' ^an *jn*i nay NH^ »na nons noisn no-m 6 • «in ^ino nm IN Kin nna im mna n^ n^K • «OD i^na-"! xx pao p» nphn pnn m^ nr pa runani nnan Kin ina nan n^yo mev nonn jn nn vmsd? T'ny
nciin pa mna i^ t^ lao TND /-i nnen ^nio ye> naw 10
ao iiyoty xni »DV '11 mw 'm nnien nio naim iae>
NnaniNn 6 pnoKp * nnien bmo PN p^ni mna ib PN xxi }V3 'ON VN an poo ^yn IN n^p NJ^D DBHO^ m*o Npsa nnna n>^6 n^ity Nsnitr ^y NJH p n^ynoi JD .T»i> N^ won NJIDID "NHI NJ^Q n^|? o^sn INT runs Npa: 15 na »DKI 'ON 6 IIDS N^nni a^n n3^3 naoi 333 * o^am ••ND xxn 3<>n<io Npn p^a nns1-:: ^ rapm WKHD 7ra»Kn Dipy ib n»iN3 NOH i>si poibtrnn jo nioa WM3 p*nn bn ppl^twi n^y n N^ n^ 'ONT »M iTvao j»3*ybi * poo D^ PN iB' >y PIN N^N »iKn m>ao3 n3 n»b ypo NPT p^a nun^ ny ^ rupn 20
ono NaNii 7<3Kpi 1200 naoo n^ ':po Npn »3Knan a; rh ans nN-»a niinan jva ION ^y Na I^BKI mm HIDN N^N ypim b Krr»3 N!> n»^ 'DNT p^a soj Kan n»3 Ninp poana nabn onia^an ova naoi aaa • ^ar 8 n»a»n ^iNn -ona xxra ^poi nc>oni nyaiN w&vn D^WO nmaan ova naoi aaa pm 25 ^n TKD '"i w «n ^aN 'ON D^I npii? pN noi npii? PNI Km noi npi^ PN KTI nmn na^rn iTHKia Nna^n n^i D^BTDI npii> na 'ONT niana nun nin na^n £ tw'pi • octroi npib PNI xxiv 'ON ^rh nix "ani? nn^sn nnn »KO • p'ppoi 9 mr mny p xxv nnoiN nnN ony TD ^nt^ vnB> paa 10 vbans ann N33 «3K 30 pyoK' N3 ejio^i nniN nt^nam nnnN nN3i pyoir nN piNi
ann N3 n^ mm »«n xxvi
1 Baba Kama, 66 b. 2 Add 1*31. 3 Baba Kama, 68 a.
* Ibid., 69 a. 8 Baba Kama, 70 a. • JBa&a Kama, 70 b. ' Text corrupt, and to be emended according to Baba Kama, 70 b. 8 Read rrrn.
* Baba Kama, 73 a ; Nedarim, 87 a. 10 £aba Kama, 74 b. u Ibid., 78 b, top.
GEONIC EESPONSA 249
(Leaf 2, verso.)
nxooo mina Kb .Tno nona xbi nonao n^n xb nnayno px abiyb nnayno n>n 'OIK vnp inpbnoi nrybtf 'no pn .ninao nxoo xbi pyop 'TI 6Q»^o ma p oibpo -rb^i najntn nw 'n 'ONI nonao npibn ba NIHD 2 la^na ynai aaa « l lo^b non iani wxn n»nw ny xxvn o uunm nmna nunn s pnn napn mpa i^ jna^ nao ^y WTO nne 5
•pnD in-ia11! D'SMK jnix iNi11 M^ MpT'Ji ^N^M inawj xh xxvm
• ^ ab mix pxnip D^Nyro^i Kin »ena ab 5 ansa u»aba xxix • nnaay p» 6 Nim ppn .Tpitn N^nni NX"IB> m^n ^ po^o i^ni
nby p«on Npn *on pne> po 7na^a pn ^y pynnro xxx "pan a»an paa nia^n i?y nisai nwannon nvjyna ^D 10 n'apn N^an^ prw ^^ p jrew xn 'DNI K'a^a «n n^ pnt^a sn N^P VITB> • nyiayax prre> wi 7J^ traaao ^a111! pinao n^ onxon ^y xxxi nona ^»D ^n san 'DNI nnsr n^nna jnona pjno "ptnina pjno npn n^nna npn nona bax nan nx TVIDBB PNB> noa mynna npn N»nB> npn n^nna noa nona paB> ^ai nann N^ moao N»ne> 15 twi^a na Bii6 n«tw •nt^n pixa n^yj) nayn n^ 9nDa-ioi lain p paw WK na j^Nta 10 pixn p ino « nona ^at<D^ xxxn i^T'j pjnin NIHET nin p && I^N nnf^ ^ay p nir p K^ pbna nnao^ "no w^ la N^N paw UN na N^ ann ban ami a11 'yy nomb ann ban N^D boa^ xbx niy xbi nnM 20 sion "lanoNn NM a^ann ^n N^anDNa bt3i» no NSO xxxm nn DP pro a^a-irw aipo baai nbna x^baai a^naxa UUP na in BnbNB'K' noa xb UDWIP '•byab n^ao fp^n xxxiv nhai wonai uwa mina pxnip 14^rfp niry fp^n nupn irnto na babab pan nrm njnopn nbyi 13 a^np ^yab n^ao jp^ni 25 15Nninapn *ai wonai UP nnina pxnip ww new nyiop pxn p nwDio anbxppi 17 iTpnpni nnx nnx ipi&<ai 16 NM mxo xbni xxxv 7ap nnno baisb 'np11 pxa NNT nnion nKDio xbiN ton nnion Tns pnxb nnnai np by nixo ir ynt naap uoo xvn »a P^NI
p Nvvn pan prn mo rronowai prr * nnry napna nbuo xxxvi aa , . 'Nai napa uoo pboui vby panu pbnn »B byp rr 18pm a^bnan 31
1 Bekorot, 7 a. z 5a6a ^Tawia, 79 a, top. 8 ^16o<, III, 16. * Baba Kama, 79 b.
5 Ibid., 80 a. 6 Add jrart mpan? 7 £a&a Kama, Sob. 8 Ibid., 81 a, top.
9 Read nDDTOi. 10 I3i«i ? ll Bead no'. 1J JBofca Jfejia, 29 a.
13 jBa&a Kama, 82 a ; for awip read D'Nnp or D'np. 14 Read vrro. 15 irr« jpn ?
17 Comp. introductory note. 18 'Ervhin, Mishnah, IX, 4 ; Gemara, ibid., 98 b.
250 GEN1ZAH STUDIES
XXIX.
Fragment T-S., paper, 22 x 15 cm., writing square with tendency to cursive. It contains three incomplete Responsa, the last of them numbered twenty-two (22).
1. The first Responsum, the beginning of which is missing, is a part of a long Responsum by Hai Gaon found in Harkavy, 164-7. It deals with the law of njnin ^102. It is noteworthy that in our fragment, as in the manuscript used by Harkavy, a blank space occurs after the word TiDU in the first line of leaf i, recto, yet that the two are not copies one of the other appears from their differing orthographies. This Responsum is also quoted by Albargeloni, in his nnorn 'D, p. 18.
2. The second Responsum contains an explanation of a Talmudic passage, Menahot, 55 a-56 a. The text as quoted in the Responsum differs in some details from our printed texts.
3. A passage in Menahot (fol. 37) forms the basis of the point discussed in the third Responsum. The question relates to Zizit and Sha'atTiez. Unfortunately, besides the query addressed to the Gaon, only a few lines of his reply are preserved. There can be no doubt, however, that this Responsum is identical with that quoted by Rabbi Abraham ben Isaac, of Lunel, in his ha^X, II, 101, the author of which, as Miiller has shown in his Mafteah, 215, was Hai Gaon.
GEONIC RESPONSA 251
(Leaf i, recto.)
nnMP3M ^jn wsr ^yn ht^a pjyh war
MIDBH XDBIDD it^n D'jrw vn 1231 runoa M!>I ^na N!>
n:no
uwa 1210 ini? 'DM »ai ana N:P M^ Min DWM IM^M panMai 10
M^ xyii» IDD vb 'DMI 3a ^y PJM
pan 15
pan Tna « pan 3»n3»Mi 'yrio ^103 DJIM? yno
w MP panai DJHVD ms
p»npn JMD nay pani na an 'DM J pnoMn M»nn 20 mn n^
Batra, 47 b.
2 Gomp. Theodor's remark in his edition of the Midrash Rabba, 141, note i.
252 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf i, verso.)
win 'f? 'BN jom an 'DK ^anoK ronsi
PK
i n»a yna anyofr
'•NT
oaa rn npjn »n«r3Ni ^an pan a^nsan in »b»D '•tnaanh Nnts^i xnaitrb 10 'OK Nynio noNo nai JND
irn
a yo ny 15
11HD iTJHlDl D
yno N!J ^
Nyii» Ninn htaan
jor sin pan
1 Baba Batra, 47 b.
GEONIC RESPONSA 253
(Leaf 2, recto.)
nmny i>yi nn^ by p3«m ' •IKBK 2xaa ai 'OK YKIKDJ vnrvaK nnxi nnany ^y nnx DW 3«n noi y«np Km p^pon nn«BK y Km nw nevo K*n^ mnvo nn«BK 5
K^J 3Nny»E> KiTT nun3
low 133 K^m Tio^n no }»nn yon iievn N^ 'OKJP ^sb pon
no^i nnsn ^33 n^aK naxn K^ 10
mnw n«BK no n^x trpn^ nosy <i:a3 n»^y p3«m Tn» ntj»yo
^31 nnsnxn nnc^^ K»3K > eiio*p *H«6 n3B> » pnoK NP psn novy ^33 15
•Ti3n Tiyn Kn sin nasi Kin Kin iiy DK xo^n xin n 33 vn^w Y3vn nns Nin
Km 20
1 Mishnah, Menahot, V, a; Gemara, ibid., 55 a. a Menahot, 563.
3 Ibid., 55 b, top. * Ibid., 37 b.
254 GENJZAH STUDIES
(Leaf a, verso.)
xnp pt^x x^m xnaaa 'nw an na KDO *a 'T» xS n^ 'ex xb n p'oa^x anno n^ '»x .TO p»j» nr h*ai wi^Tt^jn mrsx xb neb t3inn:i waxn ^y p^osiB' 5 jn^s pi on ••N n^n noa mD n^D2 in^D nn ••xn jntra n^n^ '•x x^x mn ^xn ••x pncn s» n*3 pa^ TDX mx^ 10 11^ ny rattjw 2pn»xi xn niyi xna^n nai »«ai yi{y rnoa DIB>B nvsa proa 8pnra
'oxp on sabn ix »«3 x^i yiB> xi? xn 15 np^y wanK wi? ixn11 »wa ix yitr ix
. . onp^y no nai vi'm yity ni^ion i^x
MTia xn^Di xann pan a'a TDXT xin xtro Dit^oi 4nnai u yanx pns:n» ip^yi Taoyt^ Dims xh 20
1 Menahot, 37 b. 3 Kt7afm, IX, 8. * Ifenatiot, 40 a -40 b.
4 Text corrupt.
GEONIC RESPONSA 255
XXX.
Fragment T-S., paper, two pages, 27x18 cm., upright square hand, not early, rather small, possibly a part of the same manuscript to which Fragment XVII belongs. Both fragments have catchwords in the margin. The present one contains three Kesponsa, apparently nos. 67, 68, and 69 of a collection of Responsa.
1. The first Responsum, of which the beginning is missing, and the end is badly mutilated, deals with a ca;ie of conflicting testimony. The parties concerned are mentioned by name, Elisha and Yazliah.
2. The second Responsum contains the Gaon's decision that a kinsman three times removed may act as a witness, a view held by Alfasi as well, while Rabbenu Tarn decided against the fitness of such a witness. Comp. II, Tur, Hoshen Mishpat, 33, and Harkavy, 253. The author is probably Rabbi Nahshon Gaon, whose view, as quoted in jnnT 11N, IV, 10 b, agrees with that expressed in our fragment. The same Rabbi Nahshon is the author of a lengthy Responsum on the qualification of witnesses in
P% i.
3. Here we have a lengthy exposition of the rights of a husband and wife in their joint property, a case dealt with above, p. 155, top ; comp. the introductory note on p. 148.
256 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Recto.)
ny nanuvo jniTy PN 'pnoNpn K3»nnK pinpo pan nra^i K*inp in 'na Sn }^> 'o'pi nr nnx nn i^aN 'OIK Nnnp p ytw 'm into DW wn ainp »oa is pnnnp N^a-oi p'-in ntnn nran pnoN w Nnnp p mh3^> njno bnpo ^jn NO^P tf BHV nprna nerv »JJKDT HWK pTajn ny nnn Nrvonp pr ny jr^i»K^ n>b ^p mm b n^ nw n^y NPSD^J * iT-ron 5
naon D'-nxo 'OIK inNi nao 'OIK nnx nyn pnnjn pa»n ^ nb Kjnn»K K3io pnnnnt? KJ^ yiao xh n^ xpso» nm JOT 'OK nn w pnnnn^
jpnnnnw
Ky-irro NPI nKa by p^aooi nop '•xni nKa »Kn TO mn nnnnb i
13^^ NH^DT Knino nan11!' pr wa^ jwmA Kn^o pnfj NPSDD "" nprna nenin ton xcn11 n^ mm &nn njn» i^npio ^>y "im^ pn-pso bai . . . . pa pnb p-'soo ix iD^in in^no pr^ mna^ wn nano i>apo ^yi NO trcn pa p^ rwn^ Kp^aon NnB> mb mm pmn p '•in^ pmni> n^y n^Kanw pnnw P»^t6 rr6 n^T Kaa*n
1
pjo'-noi -"iN.n o^nvn Nin nwn xn^pNn NnnnB> } . . , . m 15
mm
....... a Kpivaa
PDK IN . , a^pin xnyc> ?o po ..................... T nprn
in pns ..... p . , y\ n .....
nny payh • j . . , . 3 sax an . n 4 'cxpn nrb nr p^an WNT na K^K
an na no p^xna CJK 'ON N3ni n^a ^3 »B^B> 'bn xon na spv
na ww ann N»B>O xnoiT no cnn ^K 3n n3 noa 'Sn ns7
^ 'ON xon n3 ^D^ 3n^ N33 3n n^ nben »a NnnyoB> ^n ^33 x^n "{yx
x pi ni? p^no paia PK WK n^ 'ON -"xo jom 3nn xn 5xnt2ir no^ x^an 25
> xsna '^n n^ 'ONP xh ^N 3n na noa ^n rrb 'oxp xn ^x 3n x3nno p^pnao xp xbi in FISDIO xsnno *p\Qvb ix 'ONP 3ini X3xna '^n
xon n3 SIDV ani? X33 3n mb n^ p^xnsn 'oxp *an xan n^o X33 3ni pB>xn3 xin n^ao xpi 'oxp n^an 'oyo Nan Nnyn
1 Ketubot, 26 b. 2 nnn? s Baba Batra, 41 b. 4 Ibid., laSa-raSb.
This is the correct reading, and not jonj , as the editions have it ; comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc.
GEONIC RESPONSA 257
(Verso.)
a^a'D Np »ata»« itb N3-i na'o yop N^>N N3mo »PIBK^ "-NO
wan ID N^IN n nirn^ jno nns bw jin^nn in^Ni ^yi wan
p npl> ' 'ONPTO nnaviab n^ in" *oa IN nrairoa rb 3nn «a»n nan 'ON 2 rby pnow o«p inpo naa-s ^D3 inpo n^xn p nph irrn 5
rb irre* nnw nnsinsa r6 anat^ nnx nin^ nbr jniss NJIH an 13 rf? ^"yn *«o^ ITDKBH paa -DNT »a*m 3 1^» ow rb D^SHB* nnsi p np^ ^Di D^DSJ "IN^» MD^ IN 'NO <Biyc& 2 pnoKi nvinwo ton PDJI ni?
K^a» N^ 'KEN SI-ID^^ HB'N N^3^ N^l D^p IHpD H^NH JO Hp^l ntlil B^KH
o^o^ N^a11 nahn nrvoai pann^a nn3 n^-y n^ 'oxn .............. h 10
njo up xb *an y2"D N^ D^DSJ iNBan na^o p^yoan ^ya^ ^n^y nn nna vby ni?ya p upi ina na^o up fao* N^N nnainaa
.... nna
113DB* H^NI B»K
NI itry K rwwn p upi irm y3o upn «3*n ID^ON 'ON »ai nppo 15
NPDD *n»« N^NI n^oi in"N pan na w 'm »ai ja'a-iT Nnapn3 pani in^x b*wn nw *n»K pan a"yNi »a*ar IINH 4 n . . ^ N . . , , <oa IN jvan 'oyo '•NO ^yai> Twy nn nna
mn na»o up nnyno 11 ... '•N innopiN nniB'na mpyon to N^I juno^piK nnwia mp^yo «m na»« D^J N^n mn «h in n*mn DN n^ ino ino ON aita nay jn I^N 5 'DKPT . . . b , . . b , . Napoo pin pi ninnx n^y ^ap vfa byi by junoB> N^ia »DKT N^N ^oa inpo nirNn p np^i nrm ^yao npb *a ai^o ••DDan "ONT nry^N 'is 'ONI -WON 'O^N n»ya INI pnoNi p«mo Npno 25 N^I 'hai 13D3 u'KB* ^ nn vnnn P*KB* ^ nr Q^ov IN ova pB" n ^ya i* ^yiio UNP mm n^Nno UNPI ny '•oa ai^o *oaa IO^ONT a"yN ninnN b'pi n^y panoB^ ni>yai> mB» nouam «a*m nainnnn ^y rbyib DIB» noaaon 6 non'-N noxpn uiar^ bw xb n^nwia pannan pin 'ON 7 min 31 »o cy pin jnu UN D^OI 'OIN Nim n^tsu UN ^a 'ON N^ni 3°
1 Mishnah, Gitfin, V, 6 ; Gemara, ibid., 55 b. 2 Baba Batra, 4gb-5oa.
3 Comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc. * Read minb »n'« n»b «:m, and comp. Rabbinovizc, ad loc.
5 Mishnah, Yebamot, VII, i ; Gemara, ibid., 66 a. 6 Yebamot, 66 a. 7 Read mirp.
S
258 GENIZAH STUDIES
XXXI.
Fragment T-S., vellum, one leaf, 25x17 cm., square writing, but not careful or uniform. The fragment con- tains thirteen Geonic Responsa, the first and the last incomplete, and the rest not legible in all parts on account of the blurred writing.
1. The Gaon holds, that as a rule the blessing over the light in the Habdalah ceremony at the going out of the Sabbath may be recited by one person, the rest of the occupants of the room following in silence. An exception must be made in the Bet ha-Midrash, where it would cause an interruption ; there each one should do it himself. The same question is discussed in Berakot, 53 a, where, in our text of the Talmud, the opinion arrived at is the opposite of that advanced by the Gaon. But there can be no doubt that the text as we have it requires emendation, in ac- cordance with what, to judge by the decision he rendered, must have been the reading of the Gaon, an assumption which finds corroboration in Tosefta, Berakot, V, 6, and in the reading of Ibn Gajat, w"w, 1, 15. Comp. Coronel, fro JT3, 32, and Rabbinovicz, ad loc.
2. The second Responsum gives two reasons for the custom of looking at the hands * while reciting the blessing over the lights in the Habdalah ceremony. It is noter worthy that the Gaon speaks of looking at the hands, not with Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, XX, and Seder Rob Amram, 32 a, at the finger-nails. Our Responsum is perhaps identical with that found in rTc?, 102, 103 (comp. also B>*t?, I, 15), and the author of this Responsum as of the previous one is probably Hai Gaon.
1 Comp. Nahmanides, on Genesis v. i, who quotes Sherira Gaon on palmistry ; and comp. Halberstam in Kobak's Jeschurun, V, 40.
GEONIC KESPONSA 259
3. This Responsum is a brief explanation of Ta'anit, 26 b, concerning the dances on the fifteenth of Ab. Curiously enough, the Gaon refers not to Ta'anit, but to the end of pr6a» ita, the last chapter in Moed Katon, a lapsus calami attributable, in all probability, not to the Gaon, but to the copyist.
4. In the fourth Responsum several passages in Berakot, 5 b, are explained. A notable interpretation is contained in what the Gaon says about the recital of the Shema before retiring. According to the Gaon, the Rabbis pre- scribed it to give the unlettered an opportunity to comply with the injunction regarding the study of the law, at least to the extent to which the opportunity may be said to be afforded by the Shenia. The learned are therefore dispensed from the duty of HDOH ^y w"\>. The Gaon does not stand alone in his conception of the Shema' as study rather than prayer. The same idea is expressed in Menahot, 99 b, and Yer. Berakot, I, 3 b (pa'p nn }U*B> nt). But what one fails to see is why the theory should require a third saying of the Shema, the iiDon ^y B^'p, seeing that two recitals of the same Biblical passages precede it on every day.
5. Here we have a brief explanation of Sukkah, 25 a, concerning the obligation of parents to induct their minor sons into the duty of " dwelling " in a Sukkah.
6. This Responsum deals with Berakot, 44 b, where the Talmud gives hygienic laws with regard to certain fishes.
7. In this Responsum, probably suggested by the previous one, we are given the Gaon's opinion as to the permissi- bility of eating fish cured by Gentiles, or otherwise handled by them. The decision is that small salt fish are per- mitted, because they can be eaten without being cooked ; large fish, however, which require cooking to render them edible, are forbidden if they have passed through Gentile hands.
8. In this Responsum, the Gaon decides, that on all public fasts (ntt'X JVJyn) the Pentateuch lesson is to be
s 2
260 GENIZAH STUDIES
Ex. xxxii. ii et seq., and the Prophetical lesson Hosea xiv. a et seq., with the exception of the Ninth of Ab, when Dent. iv. 35 et seq. is read from the Pentateuch, and Jer. viii. 13 from the Prophets. We have two points of importance here. First, the Pentateuchal and Prophetical lessons mentioned are to be read only on the fixed fast- days, a view held also by Amram Gaon (comp. Tur, Orah Hayyim, § 566), and Kab Paltoi l Gaon (comp. Rabbenu Nissim, on Alfasi, Taanit, I), while Sar Shalom Gaon maintains that they are to be read at any public fast2 (comp. Tur, ibid., and a"n, 3).
The other point is rather novel. According to the Gaon, Maftir is read at the morning service on a fast. So far as known, none of the rituals bears the Gaon out in this respect. The Ashkenazim have Maftir on all fasts, but only during the afternoon service, and then the passage read is from Isa. Iv. 6 et seq. The Sefardiin, Italiani, and the Yemenites have no Maftir on any fast except the Ninth of Ab 3, when they read Shubah.
It is open to serious doubt, whether the text of the fragment is in good condition. It is not improbable that nmoa is to be inserted on line 10, verso, after p"VDa»l. If this reading is accepted, the Gaon is concerning himself only with the Maftir of the afternoon service. That the text of the fragment stands in need of emendation is patent. On line 11, verso, T"n DM 'n DM should read r'n DM »"n DM, otherwise the very next line, giving the lesson for the Ninth of Ab ('n DW), would contain a contradictory statement. It should, however, be mentioned that the custom of reading Maftir at the morning service of fasts
1 Muller, Mafteah, under Paltoi, has no reference to this decision.
2 The Responsum by Sar Shalom is found also in the Sulzberger MS. of the yVo. Comp. Marx, Untersuchungen sum Seder Rab Amram, 16.
* In Mahzor Romania, ed. Venice, 61 a, in connexion with mca mrr, mention is made of Maftir lum for the afternoon service, but with the remark p lan: Kb -ONI, while under isa m-ujn it is said: pTOEOiD mVrrp rcn ittrn. These nV>np must certainly be those in Romania. Maimonides knows no Maftir from any s*n.
GEONIC RESPONSA 261
is not entirely unknown. Comp. Maseket Soferim, XVII, 7 ; Isaiah di Tram the Younger, on Alfasi, Taanit, II, 2, quoting Geonic authorities for the custom of reading icm on fast days (in the morning ?); :"n, I441; and Geonic Responsa, ed. Lyck, 79. Comp., however, sn"D, 28 b.
9. The Gaon decides that those who deny themselves meat and wine during the three weeks from the Seven- teenth of Tammuz to the Ninth of Ab, should not abstain from them on the Sabbath, even a Sabbath which is the eve of a fast. On the latter point, comp. the Geouic Responsa quoted by Abraham ben Nathan, in the Manhig, 50 a, and Sar Shalom, in B"n, 192.
10. Due to the fact that the skin on which the fragment is written is greasy and blurred at this point, the tenth Responsum is not quite legible. So much, however, can be made out, that the Gaon permits the reciting of peni- tential prayers and supplications on New Year's Day and the Sabbath following. In a"n, a Responsum dealing with the same question follows that by Sar Shalom referred to in the previous paragraph. Comp. also nV, 64, and the passage quoted by Miiller in his notes on a"n, 192. The second volume of the Seder Rab Amram, as well as the liturgical collection ni3J"l TIBB>, contain penitential prayers for n"n and nnip V. Comp. pan, IV, 73-4.
11. The Gaon decides, that if the owner of orchards discovers that his Gentile watchmen persist in doing work on the Sabbath, in spite of his repeated injunctions, he is obliged to dismiss them. Comp. nttta n^np, 59.
12. The twelfth Responsum defines the term DHiQn railE.
13. Of the last Responsum but two lines have come down to us. It is probably identical with that found in the Geonic Responsa, ed. Lyck, 85, and in n"B>, 26.
1 Comp. j"m, ed. Hildesheimer, 623; in this Responsum also ' is to be cancelled.
262 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Recto.)
TOO into inN hv i
n»a TIN D»JE& warn amen jvai paw vn '»3n inNi inN ^3 'DIN ^M n'3i ftia^ iino inN 'DIN ••NOB' mm tan NS^NI tmon n^aa Npni i&i ivaa na^m iDsyi? }n>T nN pnma cyo no 'wi : 2 oha^ TIID inN Tooa i>3N 5 ^ mm npi3N TIND »ump na n^s? poionwa
3N3 ^H3 'B' /C1B 'D11 Vil N
vn N^ M^NNB> b ?wy HN ^3^ N^t? 6i ..... is!? no^ noyo
8/n'63i 111331 p«nn?a 'in11 vn 6^'»jh n^a^o nm 10 j^ia WB> na ni^Ni^ N^N me^ano vm
nar 33 noi pa^nai 'annoi 7nD3i pax moo jnwm : pwo^ ^ ]rb ww mpn nm«a
OKI N1D33 N3^1 D1T& V^311 PQ^ 15TN1 NpH "Dmi 15
12Dmi pax moo jnan win 'n 'ON 131 TIV I^N xin 'oan '»irii :p«n ny N3^ N^> 'c6n nyo nnv WK ['ojan 6n 18pnv 13 pro an XDN 131 moo f>y }no*o by yDt? nnp nnpb 'B« pa^n nyn no na ION ina poiy •i^onB' jva '•Nil 'con 'o^n 'pai 133^31 ID»P»B> na 20 n'i> NnNi V 13 pro 313 nabm pa^n PN niina
^» m 'o« N^>N v^y
moo i>y N^N ypipn !?y 3^ pan mmos N!J Niipni na»DNi "^DN 7i NnNi moo ^y nnpi> nnx 'osn 'ON nae'
:i33K>3i D^pb na oyo no 'aat^D i?y ^NI irn IBNIPN 25 n3<iryD nna "'nob 16}prn 'DB^P in^a 16pm ^NOB> n^3 pp^n
naioo 'iioa 'aopi 'i3y
1 Berakot, 53 a. 2 Comp. introd. note ; and Rapoport, jre 'i, note 21.
3 This word and a few others have super-linear vocalization. * = iy. 6 Mishnah, Ta'anit, IV, 8 ; Gemara, ibid., 26 b. c Read D>!JIN\C nnja rvmrab. 7 Read i>«c.
8 =
"p331 r^"1^3 » comP- Shabbat, 20 b. 9 =
m:i ; the passage referred to is not found in JTT^Q iVs but in rnrbica ; comp. note 5. 11 = mbrn. ia Berakof, 5 b ; our texts read xrin 1*1 «on S.
13 Berakot, 4 b, end ; pn:r 11 not in our texts, but in the MSS. and old authorities.
14 MS. M and moj? 'T iir, p. 19 a, also read 'cs*, and not 'cv, as our texts have it. 15 Read Nip '«o.
16 Mishnah, Sukkah, II, 8 ; Gemara, ibid., 25 a. 1T Read nab.
GEONIC EESPONSA
263
(Verso.)
nanyo nnai bi ..... }a rriivi riany»i mpna naB>y inba 'bn pto naoa 3»n jxtbp <NDB> -DDT jop b'3ea raa by
mo pan P-TOM T.a i
bi IDK xbi inxian wot? triiaD D'U ^1^3 oinD ona p« *jnn biy PNT inxi »ru jne> moa p^atuu» nnx 'oyo |n3 ^ o^na bax na
PTDBDI p"iip nnntra
pnip i^a 'rn ow 'n mvi xnn oivai '•a pnip i»vy a«3 rD3 |j3N ' ^xt^^i :4n*yn •'jai wpooa IN ppy ••xn 3N3 'o njn nona 'r»o p*i 3N3 rn any i^aNK' pjny *BB nat^ auyn jejny jjy
n'-jyn 10
raw
"i^a in
n bais
pi>wan 'a 3N3 XD 3
nyi ncna
nirvbo ncib nmo 'aan orb 7 r\ ^naa D^cma nmnbi 8 Qns by . . b
/»an note
nb
9/aan nv nap B'NI patr D»D» 'DIIBI nwa nDt^b D> 10 '
isioni
paw " ppiy p«B> onya nnoy nan11!
. . . -nyi hoa a yTyi^ bna jna 12 nivo i?a by «an min nao nnaJB' p-a "xain xi 13 nan 18'» Nnni 3-1 n^b NHX nabn nan3 ib'-ax -oib
1 Bsrakot, 44 b. 2 Read NnMienn. s Read pii niDN? nn>».
* Megillah, 31 b. 5 Ta'anit, 30 a. s Read bsw or ";n o«, and comp.
Ta'anit, 29 b. 7 Read n:u? xr«i pffi nacai. 8 Reada"n.
9 Bosh ha-ShanaJi, i8a. 10 = ^pin'Si nnJiTa 'JUDTI p«n.
11 Read niac1 "j^iu1 TOicb nccN c«\u nnib "jns )'« ; the copyist had before him"tt?' "w = iiaaj11 "ttTTO'1, but he thought the second "ST to be a dittography.
12 Horayot, 12 a; comp. introductory note. 1S Read O"NT Nim.
14 Sotah, 39 a , top ; our texts read N:in -1*2 «n ; comp. Seder R. Amram, 28 a.
264 GENIZAH STUDIES
XXXII.
Fragment T-S., vellum, one leaf, 27x18 cm., square writing, tending to cursive. It contains four Geonic Responsa, all dealing with rb%r\ 'n.
i. The first Responsum, the beginning of which is missing, contains the Gaon's view as to the time of the Evening Prayer. He holds that no conclusion is reached in the Talmudic discussion, in which some of the authorities maintain that the time of the Evening Prayer follows immediately, without an interval, upon the end of the time set for the Afternoon Prayer, and others maintain that the time of the Evening Prayer begins with nightfall. The Gaon considers it advisable, though not obligatory, to adopt the latter view in practice, that is, recite the Evening Prayer only when night has set in. Furthermore, it is the Gaon's opinion that the week-day service in the evening, the Sabbath Eve prayer, and the Evening Prayer at the conclusion of the Sabbath, all alike are to be recited at the same time of day. However, if it happens that the prayer is recited on the eve of the Sabbath before night, the worshipper cannot at once go on with the Kiddush ceremony, for the Sabbath must be ushered in at the proper time. And again, the recital of the Evening Prayer before nightfall on the day of the Sabbath does not give leave to the worshipper to enter upon secular occupa- tions before nightfall. This Responsum may, perhaps, be merely another version of that found in Rabbi Judah Albargeloni's DTiyn 'D, 34-41. Comp. j"ra, 12 d, ed. princeps, or 45-6, ed. Hildesheimer, and also Bl"»3, 142, and Miiller's note upon it. What Rabbi Isaac Ibn Gajat says in K>"B>, I, 19, seems to be partly directed against the view expressed in our Responsum.
GEONIC KESPONSA 265
2, 3. These two Responsa, probably by the same author as the previous one, contain explanations of Berakot, 27 b, which also forms the main basis for the discussion in the lirst Responsum of our fragment. A point of particular interest is what the Gaon says in defence of Rabbi Joshua in his controversy with Rabban Gamaliel, given in the Talmudic passage just cited. However, his acquittal of Rabbi Joshua of the charge of having resorted to a sub- terfuge hardly carries conviction to the mind of the reader. Another noteworthy point is the Gaon's attitude regarding the removal of public officials from their posts. Only immoral or irreligious acts, or tyrannical exercise of their power, are valid reasons for deposing them; but such reasons are imperative, they leave no choice of action.
4. The fourth Responsum, the end of which, though probably not more than a line, is missing, explains the passage in Berakot, 30 a, dealing with the form of "pin n?sn.
266 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Recto.)
NEW anyo 'op rvany »h» w anyn ny rvany "to nnaon r6an JOT pp^rn pry p nnaon ai>a ny 'ONI mirr 'n «B>a pai na^a pai nap anya pa ^o 'am n^any r6sn
anyn p nao 'an n^any ni?3n pr ni>nna ppi^n iNvoa 'ON ann pny 'n^ tnDTt an n^ "ox J pnowp »am pi? DTIP nao »am 5
P»HB«M '•NO wan ppnsia Knn^naa pni bwn mm* 'na na^n wana an anya T&thv ^vo amo pN nn»a NID^H an 'ON H^O N^>I n^ 'ON N^ win anno namx N^NI p^poi niw 'na na^n na»o yo^ na^ N^-I twip Dpi jaana na^n na^o yosr NnniN^ ny li'vo N^ pan irtaai 2 n^o '•oa pani Nam ana N^I ^Niocn ana N^> Kna^n Nop N!?I ina^N 10 non^N N^n nn^n p>noNn pana N^I mm* 'na vh na^n NOP N^i Nin pnm nay noa nayni nay noa nayn noa Nna^.n N^I noa nayn Nin pn.n NPNDB NHNnyo^ nnna pONn aa *?y S\M NJNPDO ^ pan nNtn Nain ann jvai nay noa nayni nay noa na^ ^N^ioa N!?I na^ natr anya d> xnniN^ ny ivany 15 nay pan nayn p »a ^y f)Ni n^ana nayo^ ^ny pan ^ini?^ i?ina 'na nainnN natsp nnao a^a nna roxihv ^voi rrh Nn-on INOI t^nNp na nvn PIT? baN Nnoini? naN^o p ^nNa NaNn"y Ninn 'poi •nainnN ruep nnao a^a nna na^a na^ wyxbv ^xon JNOI NOV P^non ny ^inaN^ ^aN11 N^I naa> NVH^ ny nax^o nayo^ ^ax11 N^J 20 'n 'ON >DN 'n 'ON NTT 'n 'oNn Nn n^NK'E'i :na
'iai nat? anya rcufav '•an ^ana nT nioy nva 3N3^an 'n 'ON nry^N in^o }Noa in-rina paNn a^ani mark nioy pa N^iy a^ani nioy nva \b 5naay *NOI N3Npoo na n'^ NH^O Nn Nnyoc^ Nyot^ 'n IN rvn sor 7iini.T 'n na nry^N 'ni n»n nnon nxa IN STO 25 noa N^ noa N^ Nna^n non^N N^n NPDO NnyoK> n\n -w 'n na pi^n^ onN v* Dib ijN'-^oa pn 3/oNn r^Ktvi i^n Nin vbm pan rri> 'ON '•NON ixb y^in11 'n rr1!? 'ONI nr nana iyfyy IN^ 8|nn^oN n"^ PWN No^ya pnc^o 'o^a INI vnnn sp^na 8nnaoi ^yi? Namn p^awi rrb c|^» ntwo ^Nn nNnn INO iNh n^ p-'opio Noa 30 'n n^oyi na vrcn n.^an ny nioy y^in* 9n^oNpn N^N my N!?i 'n 9n^oNpn yt^n11 'n 015^0 pan mayn ••NOI 'iai vijan by
1 Berakot, 27 a. 2 ? s Berakot, 27 b. * Read xopirrN.
5 «= nsav ; comp. p. 119, above. 6 Read rrn.
7 The dots over mirr indicate that this word is to be cancelled.
8 ? • Written as one word.
GEONIC RESPONSA 267
(Verso.)
nabna N^B> 'boa pi "ONI Ditro 'vii lay IN *piaab N^N nvy PNI nilan PNI noan PNI yenrr 'n niaao spy nin "-S pbyo n»o3 Km wi layob wo *a»n nnay»3 2im IONII **« . . riNnni un <DWK rwtw »m pan PION pan pinio xh pra *|Ni v^n by ioiy iraw '11 anni aw 'boa pi rrw "nsr . , 5 »anna 'boa pn i!? Bn^B> 4pnn nas? K'sna nrn^ oniaan ov ^n^ ova Tiniy»3i aba ^oa pn -i»N^ai waa i^y pi^n NH^ rwn n»n vb »a» PKB> y»nn» 'n^ inyn nn»n p nr nana » . . N . , nnonD 7 Dp^no panai i^y pi!?n ••JNK' nr aB>i»a -i»i!> n^n 10 . Tin 8/»K tr^nan^ ^nn ta» INNT IONI vbn ^y ywn» /-i n»ytr nn 9 . . . fN»rv 'ON iK>Na mi»a y^in^ 'n ib ION
pi Tnn I^N Nobyi' Naiin p'awi n^ ej1'^ n^y» nain^> niB>n pa n^ana npbn ^ax niONpn »a mox "nan ^oa 10 . , . . TI rrmb insi NM naim nao e|iD PJID n^o TIN xanin >NO 15
<fti atPio inisa wp^nea oi^a ytwn» 'n by p« nahn »ao na mn »ao wb nabna «^ 'ONT Ditro ^oa pnb *nnay . . . o N^n nayo xn^o xn »a 'yn P^D y^n1- '-n niaao tfn na^na N^ noib pianoi onno n\n^ «N piiaot^ IN
an na *a^a xnn xioja NO11? xbptj'on }N»a nnwi iy 20 jnan n^yr 'ON 12l|oj pnoNpi nain pya na nan «oyi }NoSi n^ pinnoo sb n»a«*ovj NI^I }va nwn rvaiy nbsn 'ONT y^n^ 'm i-naai «nN nnayai IB'SN ^••ni n^ j^niao nain pnio Nh e>npa pi?yo payh nnyv yor nnbni Nain tjny nyx I^BKI p^onn I^QNI py vby NXOJ I^SNI pimo pN D^iyb 1*6 25 jnnio faani Niyx DIB>O baN pnnio PNT Nin Nn^y N^a N^N pai xp »KD niyND^b nc>^ ai 13n^oNi Nn n^Nt^^i
inn nbsn -6*0 Npi op^o «Np ^n^oN NIDTI ai »avi 14yi Nipn ^N aits nvno »bs*«i JOPIN »D3 n^ '•bxo '•aM "]iin nbsn payb y^ai NM nina n pai 30 Npi i^no Nint^a i^aN 'ON nc'^ ai ioiy Nint^a 'ON «io»n ai o^ry UNO nM n^ty an ^^^b \rvyy IN^ nnN oys ••a tnso l^iio Nint^a inban nN IOIN nna brUTDBDr 15nioo rr»m no VT3 "ID^N Nintr initro DN n^t^ ai ^NB> Nio^n ai aayru jva 1S n^oN "jnn n^Qn bbanoi ioiy Nin nn ib ION nny Nin 35
mo »a ^snNB> »3i»oyn ^N ?IN loiyo ^ano ini ipy n^ ^oa PIDIN nn niTDn mo n»ny "ninvna »a iioyb Nin nin»
1 Read vj 'ray >N. 2 Read in no«m. s Read nsra n>o ns nn\
4 Read pm. 5 EosA ha-Shanah, Mishnah, II, 9 ; Gemara, ibid., 253.
6 Read ^JUTOna. 7 Read Dpinn. 8 Readn«. ' Read J«Q 'mn« IICNI.
10 Read ^pnpnm »ti&. •" >rrn N!) ? 12 Shabbat, gb ; our texts read "3N, but
comp. «3i*D3, 141. 13 Written in one word. M Berakot, 30 a.
15 "IJT? " Readinw. 1T Read -niy
268 GENIZAH STUDIES
XXXIII.
Fragment T-S., paper, one leaf, 19 x 13 cm., small square writing, scarcely a tendency to cursive. It contains three Responsa, probably by Rabbenu Hai, as will be shown later on.
1. The first Responsum is complete all but the Question. It contains the decision of the Gaon with regard to the use of fowl bought from Gentiles, without first subjecting them to an examination as to whether their limbs are unbroken. In discussing the point, the Gaon quotes the main Talmudic passage bearing upon it, Hullin, 51 b, with some variants as compared with our text. Another noteworthy feature is the grammatical distinction made by the Gaon between •Q"»p*» and 'O'lpo, the former being the participle of the Etpiel, the second the participle of the Aphel.
2. In a corrupt form this Responsum is found in Eshkol, I, 56, where it is ascribed to Hai. Instead of «lW>l, the latter has *3^W1, which Auerbach, the editor, makes vain efforts to explain.
3. The end of the Responsum is missing, so that it is difficult to tell what was the Gaon's view of the question put before him about the meaning of the word noN^a * in the Mishnah, Sukkah, III, 6. There can be no doubt that our Responsum is identical with that quoted by Ibn Gajat in e>*e>, 105, and attributed by him to Rabbenu Hai. The expression Dpli> SWO, which Bamberger, the editor of e>*B>, could not explain, is used by the Gaon to describe the top or blossom ends of fruit, the persistent remnant of the
1 Mishnah, ed. Lowe, irwros ; other texts of the Mishnah and the Talmud have inoBE. Comp. also Niddah, V, 8.
GEONIC RESPONSA 269
flower, to distinguish it from the tail end, at which the stalk is inserted. The latter might analogously be described as j^N ^sbz. The correspondent of the Gaon was probably from Kairwan, as he refers to the Jerusalem Talmud, which at this time was well-known in North Africa, but not in Spain or Babylonia. As to the meaning of the word HEID'S, see 'Aruk, s. v., and Rashi, ad loc.
270 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Recto.) »K 13 "
K!H ^
p*B»n K^I Kin KP^D pison no^ j^ n<K * ^S n-w Kn^oi n^y np^oi' xa-'S PK: UOHK WTD^ trn^ K^T D^B
nm KVDJ i3B> myn n3n3B> nm
N^>K p WKl '•nip^D K^l IK ''l"lp<'»l
3ina KXDJB' »mp*D ViT2i »anp»D 10
HDK3 |iTB> UlpD ^1^31 |»31pnO }H H1VD K1H1
^DOi oyon HK piao UK nm sjiy I3nn Kin 13 nn^pitr no DK
Kinn O^B IK KO^J ^V ^BJI pNH ^y
i^K pion o\vo p^^n «|iyn i^y 15 B^J Kinn '^y ^ Kinm oityo ejiyn <ii3i|K nnop ppnnei K^^K n^ss n
nno-'p ppnno K^ nnn-'K pion JKDI p^ona psn PK onaw Pion 20
pane Kin *a nyo K^ nntsp p i>y ejiyn Dam DK^ 'en-pa nai no in^pi nunpo Kiniy mo^o »aa by
1 Hiittin, 51 b. 2 = ororoi. * Read n'«? »o = n
4 The copyist indicated his error by dots.
5 = f]"£ ; compare Rabbinovicz, ad loc.
6 "The correct meaning," "the essence."
GEONIC RESPONSA 27!
(Verso.)
i>aai Damp »O3 Nin nn nra nr onninoi pp*iinn
Minn 'BNTi inn^N iponna not? jan^m pNn by
rao pan nn3 •Tom ^»7 IN D^ai
T3jn inaM PMI "p Min^ : p^n M? M3n»a 5
train no 2*io DNT xn non bx nip^ M^ jna ppi»
IN HTH f»D H1DM
imp pjy^ N^N HMDID p^y^ nr 13*7 10 no
nnpo
in» I^MK' ••ai'yaMi non nx notion pi
nnpo pn TDMT Nin niON ymx iin onni in^y ^nn 15
pn
nt? awn
pi e>n^ ayii? DI^O n3 n^ xn^o Mm 6pym Nn ni>N&? n^Ni 0:nv ^33 pan p
oy noDia Nn ^ioa moio^a n^D^a annN pay!? 20 8nen ^1^ J^IN ?T«5^rffi npib »a!>3i N>n nninn ny IN Ti^t? noDiaai ia lyotyoi ina^i^ n^>a annNn nN pniisty CHIP |^N3 pmn oip»3
1 Hullin, 57 b. a Berakot, i8a. 3 np'3?l?
4 Berakot, Mishnah, II, i ; Gemara, ibid., I7b. 5 Berakot, i8a.
6 Sukkah, Mishnah, III, 6; Gemara, ibid., 34 b.
' Fer. Sukkah, III, 53 d. 8 "Takes it to be identical with."
272 GENIZAH STUDIES
XXXIV.
Fragment T-S., two small leaves, square writing, rather thick and free. The first page is blank, with the exception of the owner's name in the left-hand corner at the top: jfj nnyo Y»3 ^n iwot? rt3pc> ^pa. In the right upper corner of leaf i, verso, the letters ITS are scribbled in a large hand. About the middle of the same page the following occurs : —
pis
an* nyaiK an 'DM n-nrv an pan . Mnpi Min'M pan panoM K^ 'yo D rvatn ^ pnno ••Nnpn WHJ^ ahn I^BM P^IVD nain nnanrbi c
The leaf following contains a lengthy explanation of Berakot, 59 b-6o a. There can be no doubt that something is missing between the two leaves, as there is no connexion between the contents of the one and of the other. Again, we have no reason for suspecting that the superscription, b"pT D^DJ '~b nMnn pna BTVB, does not apply to all that follows. Accordingly, it appears that leaf i , verso, restores to us a portion of Rabbenu Nissim's Mafteah on Berakot, 54 b, missing in our edition, and leaf 2, recto and verso, makes an addition, hitherto unknown, to the same work.
The matter on leaf i, verso, is identical with Rabbenu Hai's Responsum quoted by the author of the 'Aruk, s. v. yanx 3. This is not the only case in which Rabbenu Nissim
1 Bead no. The owner, Samuel Halevi, is identical with the Samuel in Saadyana, 1 16, and Harkavy, Samuel ben Hofni, note 76.
2 Berakot, 54 b. 8 Comp. also n;v '-\ »Tobn , Alfasi, Berakot, IX.
GEONIC RESPONSA 273
used the method of incorporating Geonic Responsa in his Talmudic commentary. The famous Responsum by Hai, on the anthropomorphistic passages in the Talmud, to be found in the Geonic Collection, ed. Lyck, 98, is quoted from Rabbenu Nissim by Rabbi Jacob Ibn Habib in his "En Yafab on Berakot, IX. That Ibn Habib did not confuse names, but actually found Hai's Responsum in Rabbenu Nissim's Mafteak, is proved by a Genizah fragment in the T-S. Collection of Cambridge University. There we find the Responsum followed by Rabbenu Nissim's explanation of Berakot, 59 a *. The incomplete state of the Mafteah as published may be due to the fact that the work was written in Arabic, the Geonic Responsa quoted being reproduced in it in their original Hebrew. The translator of the book may have rendered only the Arabic portions. That Arabic is the original language of the Mafteah, of which even Steinschneider in his Arabische Literatur, p. 103, and Addenda, was not certain, is no longer open to doubt. In a Genizah fragment, T-S. Collection, I found the following remark by a commentator on the Talmud, who must have lived a short time after Rabbenu Nissim, as he knows neither Alfasi nor Rashi: nuni i/'tfr D*oy mi
1 This fragment begins in the middle of the Responsum with the words : pn HBO MS» V?N3. Thereafter it is complete until the end, which follows : WVEHJ 103 VJN pn pncra N^N nnn» nnri ia an 'THM nun rr#m -nnm nwrn iNDivi runnel ~ra,n< •unsvb 'ion 13 izj'n? -m cibci en N^'I
by\ D'oo -pan xnb . . . up rru'pn D;5%n o^o i^ii to ion? o'jprvi
ni '131 in:: rnrtm n\nj? i«b -]:n IBM N-Q ni« mmn
j'p'in by noibi rv"v bicnj ntow "a« -no «p n nrracto •oiVs
nmcinn by\ ...... an byi D'piin bn nimn b rriyiin bri
p ritoy1? I«T pNtt iao «3ii :n'\r«ii mri2? irm abi» »io inbo -j-na 'QIN Kin 'a? 'DIM nsonira ni:i«»nn cy nvotD j'«i . . Vtt? btaa miTONnna c'ttn ... TO Nto nrai3? ina 712"? nsn 'ON D7^an byi mnnn bn D'o^Sn bri mynn ten fp'in bn nnnn 73? bi« Nin bia' oViy «bo imaa? fra "jnab nsn 'n«i «in bi3» n'CNii cbij? ^"70 mis® -pa1) bi3' ;;« rnmorr byi rmnan bjji o'^'n byi nwaan. That Rabbenu Nissim made use of this Responsum of Rabbenu Hai on anthropomorphisms in the Talmud is proved also by his essay on the subject published by Geiger, in Heilberg's D':QM Ttto: .
T
274 GENIZAH STUDIES
Attention should be called to the fact that Rabbenu Nissim's reading of Berakot, 59 b-6o a, was essentially different from ours. Notice especially the difference he makes between pa NXV3 rowy 1^ J>N and pa NVi>3 -jnwy "6 p«B>. Maimonides, nia^a 'n, X, a, seems to have had a similar reading in his text. Comp. also the reading of MS. P in Rabbinovicz, ad loc.
GEONIC KESPONSA 275
(Leaf 2, recto.)
nrr rupi irm njp m Ni'3D
'•Din sow ^nni? -pi* PN bn
mp inb NI-QD ii-vim ^30 tnro |NE fun •pi!' TIIV PN i?3n
pnao Nin noi pni» 'n ip»y ^3 w^nb Nnyo^ z/yn
ni? NP^D win in!?
wnn pm * njn^o nn o^xp s 10
31
win 31 'DN JKIM 'NT NJIH 31 T-NQ '13 Npi »«ni »a^a nsi napi irm n:p3 I^SXT pin
pani min» 'n ms nyiin^ ib ^3 qbe^D 15 pm 3/in 0^
PKB> j»T3 ^na yn win 31 'oxp 'nnt?
pr 4i
Nb |H3 NVV3 1^ B" DN !>3N n313 H313 T
1 Berakot, 59 b-6o a. 2 = TOT Npto ; but ran is out of place here,
and is to be cancelled. 3 = D'ttnn. 4 Text corrupt ;
nrnni roprc -
T 2
276 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf a, verso.)
na-ia fiyop Nin JDT twnn tnna tvwb wai 'iin1* 'TI -wo 7-n }»ra nana prwno mna*n »a win an ' nip DN bx vb« y»im WIB> wp n^n
va 5
oya nip oss? n*«o 'ni? n^ tnao mn wi MVP »a ^y IN o»ban jmta nnx mn N$> MOT ^ ima n»itD n>n K^N jna oya jna «wa nap
pa iwa way
nipi nrm nip
rna toin an
-ia pnv 7-n |na «wa ^ pw nip iin» 'na prn» 7n Nina W&kh «b»« Tiv p sinx mpi nrni ^ pe^ nip 20
niis Dya nipB> jva 'ONT win an
1 Bead imunn i«2'
GEONIC RESPONSA 277
XXXV.
Fragment 2669 — MS. Heb. d 47, f. 3 a~3 b of the Bodleian, written in Syr. square characters, 8vo, vellum — is the intro- duction to a Responsum by Rabbenu Hai addressed to Rabbi Judah Alluf of Kairwan. Of the Responsum itself not a line has been preserved, and even of the introduction the beginning is missing, and also a few words at the end. It is unique in more than one respect — as to length, as to style, and as to contents. The first twenty-four lines are Paitanic in form, each hemistich ending with the syllable nn. Then comes the name of the addressee, and the following eleven lines are in prose. Though Rabbi Judah was a man of worth and eminence, yet it cannot be denied that the terms applied to him and his father in this letter go to an extreme of extravagance unusual even in an Oriental writer. Obviously, we have before us a last desperate effort to maintain the interest and allegiance of foreign supporters and patrons of the Babylonian Academy.
278 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Recto.)
rrhv
/ T
rninp Dai sna»a»jn Q"1 pnam /rnm3Di KCD niaa nsj ny nae» rnnoi *nap
N^ inna ."60 ny rwa^i ^SIBTO 1^ np^rn ioy:»a i^nn »n» nynxa ivy ba nx T1! /miac'oi in^ya wpnb ^ pavi 5 mipi nonama D»« lanan-" iai /nnnoh 'misn ns^ nn^ nsa rifyanbi rrv ton waiw ^a nni? /n"no»pi n^iy i^a ^an 'by non
n^npo
8 myuno nam «»n rwo inaiDi / nncino npax pai po^pi no nips n^ nira^ an ibx^ N^a jnu Nim ,.112031 9nj»» ••DI m^nn ipn1* VDI ni66''N3 irfas^ SI^K nxo onaai ^na ica in^ya ibpBisa ^K am 10 n»xa inyai) ix bi .nmnpai soa ^y 3^3 f?ai> T^D n nrnx nw« ^HH ^aa yiu nsw "ion nfcy mik mnao , . , baa ip> ni?m i?a »an ^ism nena ciai uvr nnna nyt^ »a^ '•njan one bax mtno *fyy oai ia mux
/ T** • ~"
n»nppt lsn^naix '•HIDKI /»rnBnaa HKODI nrw laa e|^KDi> 15 mi»ai njinoaa NM naim ^isino in^ai nbpitro rpawoa naen nxteai t^ana *ab npnoai ^noaai any ny «*ne«nn unni nya Naanoa »a n»Na »a*an ^nnino »a»b '•ai 1)n<iB> ani spoy ojn maim
1 In the Talmud synonymous with Voj. 2 Perhaps msi.
3 Head TOIDSI ; rmip, "and yet it is too small."
4 Comp. 'Amk, s. v. pnbo. s = wnite. 6 Bead nnon. T From TDH ; in Talmud mono. 8 = myittjo from -irirn, "estimate." » njp> ?
10 ion nrcsb ri« ^31. u Read n\
12 Comp. 'Aruk, s. v. IIDD. ls Read rrno^. n nrra = ipia.
15 Read »nwnn. 16 Comp. Mishnah, Berakot, V, 5.
iraa
GEONIC KESPONSA 279
(Verso.)
IBID bi can *?£ ..... /mmnb l iai> nm n-nu? "i'tJai a*a nsm-6 3 nre> ^y / maiyi ^na aya npr6 .... mana nany^ now6 ifcrpan ,mu3»pa nw»yb loyab n^naa mnon^ Gmh bai? /rr^Doa paooa nnye' nx nn« nn^ -iiopni ansni ^"ipo «"ip ^nn *?y\ nat? i>aa nnx Nip 5
nnns pi awn DKO ni?nnnn mifw nonnNi no»DK na ram
/ T T T .-
nnx wyan N nnx oya
wnan ^y p i^van nt^Ka bs waa^ mtoxw nxr ns
py <mpa ^ai ITJ^D ija pa nta ^aaa naao ram . onai D^y iyi njran snioi nit^x njn nn rvwnin nr xh WBD 9/nn 'oa NIT^D t^xi 'Ton o^yoiB'
onny maj ON »a nm^ IB'N nnB' b D.Tj>ya naa 15 MID D^yoi D^non ^"Dini? mar Qipon WSK ^y man '3B> jyya ion11 K^ vD^pnai pj-'Dini ^n iy^> n»yn TIN nw— 'Ka 'nn 'B>n» ns n^e* nyi pw iy ^ w wnn
1 Read 'ib Dm, " my heart desires ; " en = rran. Comp. Jer. iv. 19. 'ib on would be out of place here.
2 = mow. s = »nnnp. * = TDW. s
6 Comp. Tamid, I, i. 7 Comp. the last Mishnah. 8 Ton
9 n:nrn nnto:.
280 GENIZAH STUDIES
XXXVI.
Fragment 2680 — MS. Heb. d 34, ff. 89-92 of the Bodleian, written in Syr. Rabb. characters, 8vo, vellum — contains seven Responsa, some of them in incomplete form. In the margin the second Responsum is numbered twenty-six, and four is numbered as two, and six as three. As the hand- writing is uniformly the same throughout, these curious discrepancies can be accounted for by the fact that the subjects dealt with in the Responsa were of so diverse a character that the compiler divided them into groups according to their contents. No two leaves of the fragment being continuous, there is no way of telling the extent of the collection originally. But the circumstance that these Responsa are all to be ascribed to the same Gaon, in all probability Hai, as will appear later on, is a guarantee that the number of missing leaves cannot be excessively large.
2. The concluding lines ( 16-2 2, leaf i, verso) of the second Responsum give the name of the addressee, Rabbi Judah, Resh Kallah, undoubtedly Rabbi Judah ben Joseph of Kairwan, the well-known correspondent of Rabbenu Hai, as has been noticed by Dr. Cowley in his Catalogue. As to the subject-matter of the Responsum, it is the Gaon's view concerning the difference of opinion between Rabbi Johanan and Resh Lakish in Pesahim, 37 b.
3. Of this Responsum the beginning is missing. It is found also in Harkavy, 27, but there the question put to the Gaon is not reproduced. From the Responsa preceding and following it in the Harkavy Collection, we may infer with certainty that it should be ascribed to Rabbenu Hai
GEONIC RESPONSA 281
as its author. This assumption has been made by Harkavy, as well as Miiller, Mafteah, 340.
4. The fourth Responsum, the end of which is missing, is identical with p"B>, 83 b, 29, where it appears anonymously, as it does in our fragment As in the case of the previous Responsum, so here, the fact that it is preceded and followed by Responsa belonging to Hai, suffices to establish its authorship.
5. This Responsum, the beginning of which is missing, is identical with »1"»J, 133. In the latter collection, however, the question as well as a part of the answer are missing, so that we are only now in a position to become acquainted with the contents.
6. The sixth is identical with 01*03, 134, and "Wn, II, 32, and as Miiller, in his note, justly observes, it deals with another possibility of the very case considered in the previous Responsum.
7. The seventh Responsum, of which both the beginning and the end are missing, has preserved the question in part, and the answer in part, of the Responsum in Harkavy, 18, where only the answer appears. The portion that has reached us enables us to fix its exact date ; comp. leaf 4, recto, line 20. It is probable that np"i3, the place whence the Gaon was addressed, is identical with Barco l, in Italy, which would establish the fact that in the time of Hai a connexion was kept up between Italy and the Babylonian academies, and would corroborate the facts conveyed to us in the superscription to a collection of Responsa, above, P-57-
1 Comp. leaf 4, recto, line 5. That it is a town in Christian Europe is proved by the use of the era anno mundi, at this period current with Jews in Christian Europe, while the Seleucidan era was current with the Jews in Arabic countries. Comp., however, Saadyana, 114, top, which would seem to indicate that npl is in Egypt.
282 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf i, recto.)
n pr nn»i nnrvo w n^nr P<D»
wi— Q^n^r PDIDS 5
"•rnno ""Ni pnoiyn nmsi rrp
nnno «!> w 2rva p^n nSn ya: jb
&6i n3 p^ri'TD K^ n^n yaa ji?
TOND rbvnb rb p»3nso 10 I :nya33 {^ na^s «bi ra p«rn nnyn n»3 nu»3D3 n^i yu INI ni3 NP^D Kpi «3nn jxoa n^ ^ 'NI n>3 py«n n^n yai f? nnno nn p^ro xh •Tin |5> nsa^N N^ 15
onnon
panw nWi 1*3 h NT»»D pnpii» 20 rvb pisjn
nn3
1 Negaim, II, 4. 2 rri refers to ra: and not to nw.
3 Read <mn« xnam. * Niddah, 41 b ; the quotation is not literal.
GEONIC EESPONSA 283
(Leaf i, verso.)
vwb pnay
v^y panao <M» J:SD mi maim ^o K-na 'OKI jwo rvtn
nanai wtm 5 no nana «h «^ pay nr ^ax ntry nr^xa x
n^nnm xa^n n^na a*"ni ns«n niana ^an nai 10
P 'yBt? 'm Nn:iQ n-nnn
p pyoB> 7m n iri?y Tiao xh n^nn p
n^na n^ a^no jaw '11 15 nnw— "jam* 'na na^ni no 'nm
innaa min ia na^pn 20 yoc''1^ no bai narni Tai»3 oioa
1 Read iJTOb. 2 Pesahim, 37 b.
3 Comp., however, Alfasi, ad loc., and biswN, I, 40.
284 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leafs, recto.)
''3K "ra nan i msrn x own neo D"P '3K nvrco nai i»» ^ny»B> I^K my xh voajn i^ncn !>y ITOJM 'as oy nano »n«n vn >WD ^N^ nuiatyn nao nm yyan^ nsa 5 Tana y^antya 'IKI ii> 'DK pa^m nxvin 7^y -ji? iDih ^i>anh 1^^ ^n^n sh Tirana a N!? n»y <rnjnnje>3 pi ^y man ••nani vh ^N »a n^y^ noa TPX-IK> DIBID n*»n N^ w noa »n»yi N^ PI« li> »n*is sh 10 inofe*— wrapoa Tao '•JN ^ pwn^ vnwyoa ^ DN pin pyon 'INI vntj» p»a ^ iron is n*n DJHJOI m ^K nr parrot? PNI unaa 'y»e> jn11 nan nni? 'yos? *x* 'isn 15
non nain nr nn i^asi? nr& 7^ *iana N^ 'DK ' *3K^ nr6 ^ nnox now ' 13 ^a by pini n^asb nnb PSD 13 PNB> 'isn^ uns
vnnai
25
1 The same reading in Harkavy, but nNno, "protest," does not give a satisfactory sense.
GEONIC RESPONSA 285
(Le&(2, verso.)
mbon Nna!>n 'ON NSNTT n*OB>o Naa 31 D'oan isnai> in* PN Qnyn wan DN IN n» 'yoa> ^x b TPTW 'ixn 'a i> 'OK K »3r&»n ^ >a^n ii» 'OKI mo 'DB^
»i^ Dy 'IKI isnna IOT nnsi? ony yea 1!? jn 5 ^a »^K y»an N!> ^ 'ON ruon V^K jran ox <bt*v *b vnna naa pyoc' £ -IOM 'yoty ^SK 'IKI "jta ony. yea ib nnb i? rrn 'INI ^ 'ON 'yoe> ^ 'ON imyfo K
anaoa WB>y »aw any Ka ioy jn^
^ DN pin n^o WJHK wno^ DIN ^ja «»KI 13—1x55 DN ffih^ ^n^ pa tjnan 5» naon nx nni> 'yop nN 'ixn nix xi? DXP 15 ony ysa ib nn!> a^n 'yoa> px any wa pai »an^B> pa nr nana enan pxi a^a 'yo^ ^ jna N!> ^ 'ON BKI an 'ON N3Ni 'ox 2pnoxn noaai ii> »nnaB» }n jn nc'xn nx -6 «jnpi ixv B«ae6 'ox jona 20 pi pBTW3 pi I'ny }n jn vni^ pnox niaiDD wi paybi nuioo ^nya iT3n nx ni^on n3D xp •'x wa jnny3 pyau *an anys iyna^ inb 'ox n^ ja«an» xh 'nox ••XT 25
Shebu'ot, 4ib. 2 Kiddushin, 43a~4sb.
286 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leafs, recto.)
vny boia nr Mwtrai invry by aniaa nivi vby p-nyo '6iN b'oani U»JB» nn TNO '-i ••nan nrbfc? vny boia nn
DN baN pblDB IX panp JflB» rTNl ftfby N'QOE' JDT3
pan mono Np sn -PNO 'ni» I^BW £DS^> ha^ PN pin» vn nr nm noN11 emp na t^p^ P nyot? /-i 'ON 2 now 5 pn ^ nWa -lows? nr na^b— 3NWN iTb noi xin nny 13 ixb ^"Q *a o»jnv ons nny p U»M noa nian^ iann 71^ onyn i?y ttmo «B» ^a 4noMB» noa I^BK SDS i^y NVD: OKI n 'ON a^Si }6 ij;N J^IN Tna N^I nwoa K^I 1 nyn i?y Ni65 DN nro n^p nan p«y bai B noa i?nhn p.i ^iy ^ fniny n^aipoi nny jDN5 b'Jin pa pij^n i?y 'ON SJDI* an 'ON
enon 5»«B» DN inxn ^ax wb B^W o^n^i oya 'ONI niaa nr 15 ioa nfi ...... by nr wab PINT »ao nynbi
jnioa iiirii pi n^ab iNai p n^ab pn o^oya npon pby
o^oya nt^on pby yat^n nnNi nnx ba by pa»n naa
oyb no 'yoK' 'i 'ON nnN Nbx pa«n PN naai pn n»a ysa
7nnmh mrnb pbia* PNI bwn 20 pai pi nua pa nyia^
1 Sanhedrin, Mishnah, III, i ; Oemara, ibid., 233.
2 Sanhedrin, 23 a, 24 b. s = 'b'O rroai n:D'pi« ; comp. Harkavy, 33. 4 Kiddushin, Mishnah, I, 10 ; Oemara, ibid., 40 b. 5 Kiddushin, 40 b. 9 Baba Batra, 128 b ? 7 Shebuot, Mishnah, IV, 3 ; Gemara, ibid., 31 b. 8 Shebu'ot, 32 b.
GEONIC KESPONSA 287
(Leafs, verso.)
PN Iv6n nmn TIKIIO nyj> ppn pn 'ON -IPNI pn n»33
N nnyn no*pnj N!> ON N^N woo jnu pNi pin 121 ^3t?3 i^y n^aipD nny PNI nniN D«PD m pin xin p njrap ppn pn ns }NHn 3«n n^Ni nr ns yn^nb b ps mia33 hn^ nnyn no^pna N^ DN 5 n^ unpo pp^rnwn fn^N '•oaj nx pp^np iy vnx ^n IOK^SI "mm p!?n 71*3 ^ ^ pi *p no\n njn3B^ i^nno man nns^ yni* VK ^ »3 y3K>3 xin HDI NJIODI NINIT ainai— man in nr »3 yw ^NI ^ 'DK xh tax nm nnvn Dn^ iTn -njn IT n^N^ HOD p nnN n npn w »p^nn nmcn nnvnn ^ jnn^ rwin DN i>nan ppn X nn
^^K> yB> nnxi y noa^ ojno *pn ^JN rain 15 nxnn ^^ npN^ ^ 2cns «b ^JNI n^y IDS' nnnxn p3i np^ hnan ^pn^ nnntnn pni imn nno nmn nn^n nn jopn i^ 'OKI nnvn n npn ON bnjn 'ONI npN5y ^ B« yn mpo3 nnoi
unv DipD ^aa npi?n npne> IN 4 nn£Ne> IN 20 n npi^> inN5? ^ i>y SIN ^D WNI pi— pin
1 In ai'nj, 133 : 'i^n . . . mraa ! 2 Bead pn' as in n"«jn, II, 32.
3 oi*O3, 134: nrvsrin !
4 Read 'moxic ; ' ' whether you take those houses of which I spoke or you, take your part in each house."
288 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 4. recto.)
yp-ipn nr ib »mao naa ypipn jvrw von by -lira "pi na H3 -inxb rrora nKD iby «nnni bin -ios3B> bvun pn by njnoB> nta na ^ B^I pnty paib «ni x npiaa 5 *b {^ 'OKI mn by nan byn i6y *njn eiiioon pbnn nvni nenn* nxnn >vn fprn n^n xbw yn» nmn nanoa in»K^ nnw ana xbc' wninb nniK nna xbx 10 *mn nr uyDt? now? anp nr -pnb B«I Knnn mow npKn naym onyn I^N noK n^nin mma nnsi nano nnx n»ana 15
DV noK N^N jom noK nynr '•JN PK nevn moKi nbyn by •aion *a« n»n niyi Diba nann nro nainan pn ^no^aa mip »naina anai
anyn ibxi *a^n na^a 20
1 Comp. introductory note. 2 Head tyron, <; hasty."
3 = a'*wm D'Dbs 'n, 4713 A.M., 953 C.E.
GEONIC KESPONSA 289
(Leaf 4, verso.)
mjnjn forn 'nixn onb rvn
nnx nna mao^ m»Ni 'bvian na
yp~ipn n"W» pn* S!?B> nioix n^iii
IINJ wans mv nnx nii N^N
"iK>KD p ON— nn pin niic' T« 5
Dip11 DNB' WNi ^ IT nWn tinia
nab nvnn »vn nna isn S3 iiin
nprnm m^ni ?|D32 papa niniis jn
' 'CK 8nby pncsi 10
nano nacy DX NK ixo iaia hian pn n H:DTK> paa nano nawa nny n nn nx D'-nyn naia nipnb 15 noa nairon iBB'n n« INI »a nbyob wtn^BB'
46n DN bK no«»p nny n nn vn
i = Vnjn ]an na. 2 Kiddushin, Mishnah, I, 5 ; Gemara, ibid., 263.
3 Kiddushin, 26 a. 4 Harkavy, 18.
GENIZAH STUDIES
XXXVII.
Fragment 3669 — MS. Heb. d 47, f. 45 \ Bodleian ; Syr. cursive characters ; 4to, vellum — contains four Geonic Responsa. It is a remnant of a large Geonic collection, as the third and fourth Responsa are numbered 442 and 443 respectively. The name of the Gaon is not given, but we may assume with a high degree of certainty that they are the Responsa of an authority in Pumbedita. This assumption is based on the statement found in our fragment, recto, lines 25-6. The Responsum hands down the Gaon's view with regard to 23 N, agreeing with the view of Rabbenu Hai, as given in Harkavy, 93, who supports his opinion by reference to the Geonim of Pumbedita, inraxi Kjruo. On the other hand, we know that Saadia and Hilai (Harkavy, 90 and 93), as well as Samuel ben Hofni, the contemporary of Rabbenu Hai ("TiDy, 1, 4 c), hold the opposite view2. Thus it hardly admits of a doubt that the Responsum originated in Pumbedita, though we cannot attribute it to Hai himself on account of peculiarities of style different from his.
1 Fol. 44, in the same hand, is a part of an abstract of /m.
2 Comp. also the Geonic Responsum quoted in Parties, 24 a.
GEONIC RESPONSA 291
(Recto.)
ITD upp fva nny baK n^ainm ntaw WK 13 pnnnb ypnp ib PKB> fva pnoiK ««n m jaiKn n.abin ypnpn nnK K>snb "JIM Kbi ps^bna nniK naip K'n n«rn nanon "bai miriDi nnaai pbobtao p3 mypnp pa nospn mvis n^ya ib rrntp no ba nityb iTi ipBD* nKi nw inbab nbKn n-ainrn nn -iw jnn jn^i nnsoi by »B>3 n^i isna by mm nso bio^ wi-nan yae^ norn DMI . i? . . 5 IB» wm mine' no inbn xb^ybi nans WD b^DD IK ypnp nrn nt3B>n nj'-n: nya ^b iniN pyntw UN inyn by xbw xnv »in ib noN11 iniyaB»K> onipi JDK noxn nny pjyn nn ny\y& nxrn ntwn by pjo— nnwn TDB^I PT nn nyn byi unin by sbx nny »* DK bn« nn^n nb nna nyn n-'onb rpnp no ba by ya^nb nbn> n^^si
IK niypip jnT« im noB'n nn'-na nyn piKib ib •T'n »a mna njn* pyiv 10 mn nb jn-'b n^rai IBWJ KbK pwn HK yntfj xb 112^3 D^man n^inrn Q«D MOD bion niK-a w^B3 nw ony N^n OKI mm .T-KT K^nb n^byi jnon '•ba pD^ann bax o^inrn DIDDD inwn TIDSI|I Kin y3^ -im ony K^nn Kb OKI nb 'OKI inbab PIKT K^n -IPK n^n Mtms&n *ba bai niyroi 3nri ?iD3 ••bai onnm p nnKi Dn»no» jy»b vnvnKi ;.DKI jnnn »3« n»ny3 JDT -IHK oibo:i on ^ jnnn 15 OKI noy pi3 nioybi ooipob Dinnnb p3«m onnmn ^D» pK nn i:bt^ nb n»K nrn*1 ^KIU vn n^biK^ ^i nn nnb »a jnvpm IK |bi33 mna n^Kn nnb nw nno n^xn bion nan n"Ki nnb Kxo11 Kb OKI n^Kin n Tioyn ntrKb IK fbiab Tioybi nonya minpb -IPK HK T-rnnb ibKn panpni nKm 3Kn pyrw pyoi 'OK "Km ^TH 'OK ^Kn nn ^ nby K^J^OKP iim Knit? Kinn J pnoiK UK p ^ pia 20 noo HHI '•nnoo PK 'o^ob b^a^ «3K 'OK Kaboi 2 K^amab moo WD nn nnp wna jimno po'-pi nb -nnon ny n^b j^notj^ KbK n^^oa bia Kan rrb 'OK nanaa nK --a na^a Fjoa yauo n^anb njno jnub pn» Kb ^a i:b man: nm
no 3i by f|D3 ^ yaoo ib amaB> jor ba '•ai ia pnnnb bia11 Kin^ ypip aa by
by in^anb nK^nn anian <3i Kinn yaoon mp1" Kb ia p^rnnb bw PKB> 25
yjinp Kb naip I^KI n>b^ wj» u pnnnb bia11 WKI yn11 i^Kt? 'n^ pK3 ypnp
. , . . i PTJH njno anian pa B>nsn noi nbKt? -MM pboboo Kbi
niyp-ip-i pibn nn':a w »a 3 yn nnK bab naynt^ no iaoao IK voaao amab 13100
pii nn poo )Dia pup nine^n ••nbir nan bai spam anrni D^nayrn b"t3om
........ pboboon bai pjoani anrm nnayni ypnpn n-'oa: pe6 bbaa 30
ba ib 4 K^oin iaoa ^ono KbK npib I^K ^soa .... noK' HKI
1 Bdba Kama, 1173. 2 Comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc., and 'Aruk, s.v.
3 Comp. Baba Batra, 150 3-150 b.
U 2
292 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Verso.)
Bnan noi rhxw T^XI !3D"fi pwn tbnerrb 'IXT on»i ini "i3oi n:np^ 1T3 oam n^ 1x3 p nnxi ota \b n»n x^i nano ama pa rupo^ nw TOO x^x rono ^apo nip"1 x^ insi? arnan »a umpn -oai $>y «jxi rop* x^> ota nxjpnn nya ii? rwi J £ DX T.a^ Ta^a nx^pnn nya 'mi DT3»i p nnK Q^oaj rup DN p^ ^31 n»a turn nnnx D^DSJ n:p^ »D 5 ^3 nx ^han ^bni TOIND tbnvrb mno ^ 2 ana ib PNB> DB>nini OKI »3p*Ki iana» x^ nuno nopa *a unow inuonpn IB« xin nb« noB'a i?ax mwnb xa x^ nan rupo DTK jw ^a^ mb b»jjv x^ «na» jno D^n^nb p nn« rrtbn TOP»B> D-'DDin ^a naynt^i '•JP^XT pania am npii?n T*DI envn TO Knn» ^nin ix naoi njp i^ax 'IKI inxi^n mbon to
^ai THX ^y vax ncxi niaa xin^ ia pprnio pprmo vn ra-i WTD{>» i>iPoe6 xoaxT xipx ya n^ m^ s ponia -ex p 'xioc' TO b psnoJB' |vai ino -voa xintr nnx !?y vax noxi niaa xin^ ia m 'D£ onx jcxj mi.T 7n 7»x p»o nnnx^ i3i»a* IDKB' 'na na^nn pi nenna p nr 'o^ 'ow na "iiaa \ja nr 7»ii? DTX pxj^ otrai niaa ^a 15 nxtrin parna mb n^ JDXJ ux 7»ix 'oam n»xT pana na^n ix nvbn xnp n^ y^Doi TO11 'nan ••jn joxa ax 'CXT m^n* 'n^ x»^a pnoxi n6 nr *opio pan pnoxi pam xnyix p^pia i*a» ^ xob }DXJ px noxi paib x^x TTX X^T p"a «Km pnr» xh yn11 M»KB> man Tnva xnp rnm i»3»i» n^ p-nn lisa xin^ m^ir by iio'h V3x jcxypx ni^a xin^ ia pprmoi man 20 D»3» »D n-b xsn^io^ nTDK ^x Nna^n SXD^> man 71x3 ^x p3-£ p^pxi n-'S1' sna^tt!? si? nio^ njno ^ a^n1- x^o nnx IDX xo^ya nano x^x xn11 xb n^ rch nano bapo I^XT ™no i?ap^ niaa pa man n^x pan i35ri naT iTan!? rupo DTK px f? KD«PT nanoT nny JTJH n^oaaa x^x ^>p^o^> Tyi nny ny jo 3x!? p^an D^DSJ }» >T^D ^pu>ob bs3^ xh 4 im^i3 irxcj' 35
mio ny Tyi innan nyo V3x^ i^ajB> D^DDJD ^P^ 1133 ib w inio ny
DDU 3X '•in T3 o^iy^ xa x^ 13T ran^ napo DTX 'DXT T»X» /-i^ x5nv -ioM
3: i?y PIKI DDi: Kirroo ib i^a:ic> D^oaaa b»pe> nisai n^no antei? iJi5^ ii^xi
xm 13 pjoi11 'ani? xax 'T n^ rbv 6 pnoxpT rrr\tr> 'T3 na^n 5 p3T .......
pirn by 'DIKH p»x"moi pew px x»x pm» 'ni }»x: o^an pa pij^n by nDixn 30 xna^n pnoxi pana pK3 px 'ox pnv 'ni mm^ 'na pw xin -ilia b^ari pi
1 Read «b. 2 Read aniarft. s Baba Batra, 127 a-b. * The expression
used by the Gaon is not exact, he really meant D7W N2 sbc -ui and not ^n•.1D^2 13'Mir im, which implies an entirely different principle of law.
5 Read j:ai v'w ipbrac. ' Baba Batra, 128 b.
GEONIC RESPONSA 293
XXXVIII.
Fragments 2760, MS. Heb. d. 48, fols. 11-12 ; and 2826, MS. Heb. d 63, fols. 62-73, Bodleian ; Syr. Rabb. charac- ters, 4to, paper. These two fragments are written in the same characters, on the same kind of paper, with the same ink, and the same number of lines to a page, and also the contents prove that they actually belong together. Fols. 62 and 63 of Fragment 2826 form a part of the Responsum on fols. 11,12 of Fragment 2760, though there is a gap between the two parts. We shall first consider Fragment 2760, in connexion with fols. 62 and 63 of Fragment 2826, leaving fols. 64-73 °f the latter fragment to be dealt with separately.
The fragment under examination contains fifty short explanations of the treatise Shabbat, the first of them of a passage on fol. 3 a, the last, on 57 a. Obviously the fragment is incomplete, possibly to the extent of a quire of two or three leaves, which must have covered the text of Shabbat between 8 b and 17 b. There is, of course, no telling whether the commentary did not run on after 57 a to the end of the treatise, as the last explanation preserved breaks off in the middle. Nearly all the com- ments are brief, and concern themselves mainly with linguistic points, giving special attention to the names of plants, animals, and similar things. The name of the author does not appear. It was probably mentioned at the beginning, which, it should be noted, is missing. The uniform style and character of the explanations leave no room for doubt that all of them were made by one and the same authority. The only clue to the authorship is
294 GENIZAH STUDIES
to be found in Responsum 23, which forms part of the collection 3"n (No. 95), where it is ascribed to R. Natronai Gaon l. In any event, it is certain that the author is one of the older Geonim, which may be inferred from the use of Persian expressions and also Aramaic expressions other- wise unknown. The importance of this fragment lies in the fact that the author of the 'Aruk made extensive use of it, as will be shown in analysing the separate paragraphs. It is interesting to note, that though he quotes more than thirty explanations contained in our Responsum, he yet does not mention the author, probably due to its having come into his hands as an anonymous Geonic document.
Remarks upon a selected number of the explanations follow below, and we begin with the second paragraph.
2. In this Responsum the Gaon explains the meaning of the term Tina "O, which he justly2 brings into connexion with mna. He adds, that some read Titfa instead of Tina, which he asserts are synonymous words, Ti[K]a being used as in Num. xxiv. 17. Sifre Num. 85 has a bearing on this point. There pvp, " prince," is derived from nvp, " end." Analogously, TINS, " ends," is taken by so early a Jewish authority as Targuni Onkelos, as meaning "prince." The author of the 'Aruk, s.v., made use of cur Responsum 3, but the words }n ymm "D Dm, leaf i, recto, line 10, must have been missing in his copy of it, wherefore he deviated from the Geonic explanation4. In point of fact, neither the explanation of the e Aruk nor the explanation of the Gaon is satisfactory. In the Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud,
1 Comp. also Rabbi Isaiah di Trani the Elder, yoan, 31, who also ascribes it to Natronai Gaon.
2 Comp. the Assyrian lei pihati, which corresponds exactly to the Talmudic expression.
3 Kohut, Introduction to his 'Aruk, p. 17, is mistaken in assuming that the 'Aruk has drawn upon the lexicographical work of Rabbi Zemah Gaon. The two authorities have different explanations of VINE.
4 The words 'im nabni D':B "h rrmzj are, however, not found in the editions and only in some of the MSS. of the 'Aruk, and are probably a later addition.
GEONIC RESPONSA 295
n is often softened to N, so that 'DSD and Tina are only orthographic variations of the same word.
3. The explanation of NTis appears literally in ' Aruk, s.v. Yet one fails to see, at first sight, how the Gaon happens upon it in dealing with the treatise Shabbat, where it does not occur. It cannot be assumed for a moment that he was led to it by the resemblance of the word to TINQ. The only acceptable hypothesis is that the passage in Shabbat, 4 a, in the Gaon's text must have read [KIMIK NTia] '131 r6y ^"DTi W, the first two words having been omitted from our text out of deference to Rabba. The strong expression NMIN NTia is elsewhere l often employed by Rab Nahman, the very one who is administering a rebuke to his disciple Rabba in the passage quoted.
4. The Gaon's explanation of ^pDIB is also reproduced literally by the author of the 'Aruk, s.v., with the rather curious addition that NpDB is an expression of the "holy tongue," while in reality it is a word of Persian origin.
5. The explanation of VOD is quoted, not only by the 'Aruk, s.v., but also by Albargeloni, in his DTiyn 'D, 301.
6. This Responsum is quoted, though in a somewhat shortened form, in ' Aruk, s.v. *]n (5), ed. Kohut, III, 462.
8. The Gaon's explanation of onno rta» is found literally in the 'Aruk, s. v., with the addition of a copyist's error. Instead of the reading mo^ro uw, it has THoira pw, which of course cannot be correct. All authoritative Halakot must be based on the Talmud, if they are not found there explicitly. The most interesting information yielded by the Responsum is contained in the Gaon's statement about the use of the Talmud, showing that at so early a period as his time it was widespread.
13. This Responsum appears in the 'Aruk, s.v. nVDDy.
15. The 'Aruk does not contain this Responsum. On the other hand, it is quoted by Rashi, ad loc., who mentions
1 Pesahim, 88 a, and Megillah, 14 b ; also Berakot, 500. Eabbi Saadia, in his newly discovered commentary on Berakot, explains it as a compliment !
296 GENIZAH STUDIES
a Geonic Responsuin as his authority. As to the reading 'IT, comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc., and 'Aruk, s. v. 13.
1 6. This Responsum is quoted by three authorities, by the 'Aruk, s. v. i>nn, by Rabbenu Hai Gaon on Kelim, XVI, 5, and by Rashi on Shabbat, 81 b, catchword ND'EDD. Apparently, our Gaon must have written another Responsum upon the same subject, to which the words Dr6 WT3 "pi probably refer1. A better reading would be 1331 instead of 131.
17. This Responsum was known to the author of the ' Aruk, as can be seen from his definition of NTNT , though his reading of it must have been essentially different from ours.
19. From what the Gaon says about NJintf, we may justly infer that his text of the Talmud differs from ours. It must have read sn3ix ran^Nl WNinK 'J7N3 f«» 1DNT xinn . Notice also the spelling NJinx and WNins, our texts reading Winx or KJlinx.
20. The twentieth Responsum is literally quoted by the c Aruk, s. v. tOSt?, and probably was known also to Rabbi Judah Albargeloni. The Arabic equivalent of X"I3B> given by Albargeloni in his D'nyn 'D, 13, is the same as that appearing in our fragment.
21. The word Ti3lJtJ>, with which the Gaon explains Nn»3X, is found nowhere in Jewish literature. However, there can be no doubt that it is identical with the Syriac
>, " moss." It is to be noticed also that the Gaon reads , not NDO31N. This would suggest that Nn»3N has nothing to do with ND31N, " black," but is only a different form of NDJN, " marsh land." WIE3N would thus mean a growth in a pond or a marsh. In Hebrew, the word DJK as used in Jer. li. 33, would furnish an interesting parallel, if the traditional meaning could be accepted without reservation.
22. There can be no doubt that the text of this Responsum is corrupt. It must read p'pl , . . f)lV 'DIK (MOV =)
"131 IBP ^rpn NHSJ^I IDN . . . prre* 3*11 ioa>. The words
1 Comp., however, below, pp. 310 and 321.
GEONIC RESPONSA 297
are the Gaon's explanation of XTpn This Responsum was known both to Rabbi Hai Gaon and the author of the 'Aruk, where its use is implied in what he says under Nip. Hai's reference to it occurs in a Responsum of his own reproduced in Albargeloni's DTijjn 'D, 13, where the Arabic is quoted in so corrupt a form that it may not be superfluous to set it down here again 1 : — cnpn JD PPB ^Npi (D*DK) DD-K Nin D^ pr^x (TWO) YIPD KTP (fop) fop^K an )D (mno*) a-ono11 jrn rax «oruo IPIK php (mom) monta NO jo (mno11) aiano* jm in ^>Np (-ON
P"ID
The Hebrew translation of the above runs as follows : — ru w»»!> vn nu'N D<i3iti>sini ,[mpo] DB> ITNI ne'an inn srp ,aa nov wjna jo NVVH jDt^ wnB> I»K nn 'anyni — pno ^^N Nn^i^v .nn^s *oo KSIM JOB'
The expression NJaiaiKH in our fragment, occurring a second time in Responsum XLI, is noteworthy ; it stands for NJS1J "i»jn, as T1D1 in Responsum XLI stands for ST^J? IDjn. Neither of these two words is found elsewhere in Rabbinic literature, but N:si:nD is found in Syriac. Cornp. Low, Aramdische Pflanzennamen, 92.
23. The 'Aruk, s. v. JD^I^Jt, quotes the Responsum. Probably it was also known to Hai, as is shown by his Arabic Responsum quoted above.
24. This Responsum is nearly identical with that found in n"^, 233, where it forms part of a Responsum ascribed to Hai. But not much value can be attached to the superscriptions in the Responsa Collections, as is proved by the very next number, 234. Hai is given as its author as well, although it is beyond the peradventure of a doubt that it belongs to Rab Amram 2. The 'Aruk, s. v. *icnn , quotes the explanation of our Responsum from niniKTi. Comp. Alfasi, Shabbat, II, i .
1 The words in parentheses are the readings of the D'rwn 'c ; comp. Harkavy, in pan, VI, 28.
2 Comp. below, p. 316.
298 GENIZAH STUDIES
25. As to the recipe here given for making ink, comp. Low, Aramdische Pflanzennamen, 199.
26. This Responsum is identical with that found in j"n, 95, where it is ascribed to Rabbi Natronai Gaon1. It contains the very interesting statement that in olden times Maftir was read at the afternoon service, as well as at the morning service, and that the custom fell into desuetude during a period of oppression by the Persians. The persecutions were directed with particular force against the study of the Law. Accordingly, the readings were restricted as much as possible; Maftir in the afternoon was dropped, and not reinstated after the pressure from without was removed. The persecution to which the Gaon refers is probably that of Mazdak2. It is, however, very doubtful whether the Gaon's explanation of the change that took place in the reading of the Maftir is correct. From a Responsum by Hai, quoted by Rabbi Zerahiah Gerondi3, in his TiND, on Shabbat, 21 b, we know that so recently as his own time, the eleventh century, Maftir was still recited in the afternoon among the Persian Jews. If the afternoon Maftir had actually been dropped by reason of persecutions in Persia, one would hardly expect to find the custom there at so late a day. At all events, the statement of the Gaon as to the existence of the custom itself cannot be doubted, corroborated as it is, not only by Hai, but also by the Midrash Aggadat Bereshit, which is partly based on the prophetical lessons read in the afternoon4. The author of this Midrash beyond a doubt lived somewhere in the neighbourhood of Constantinople, and flourished about the time of
1 Comp. above, p. 49, a similar tradition regarding the rronp, which makes both statements doubtful.
2 Comp. above, p. 49 ; but see also, above, p. 217, and Halberstam in Kobak's Jeschurun, VI, 127-30.
3 Comp. also Rabbi Isaiah diTrani the Elder, jrTjon, 31 ; niry, II, 45 d ; D'nyn 'D, 271 ; and Miiller, Mafteah, 210.
* These lessons may, of course, not have been Maftir ; see the following page.
GEONIC KESPONSA 299
Hai. Thus we have a witness to the prevalence of the afternoon Maftir custom among European Jews as well as among the Persian Jews. In any event, there are traces left in all the rituals pointing to the fact that there was a time when lessons from the Prophets were read at the afternoon service, though not as Maftir. This assumption is the only one that enables us to explain the presence of the NTJDT NB>np in the afternoon service. From a Responsum by Rabbi Natronai (in the Geonic Collection, ed. Lyck, 90 ; n"tJ>, 55 ; and Mahzor Vitry, p. 26) we know that the NVim NtWp in the daily morning prayer had its origin in the custom of reading from the Prophets after the end of the service; this XK'np corresponding to the Maftir's Benedictions after the Prophetical lesson on Sabbaths and holidays. The NTiDl NK>11p in the afternoon service, therefore, proves that a Prophetical lesson was read in the afternoon, only it was not read as Maftir with its customary Benedictions. This conjecture is abundantly confirmed by an old Responsum, quoted by Rabbi Judah Albargeloni l, which explicitly mentions the custom of having a lesson from the Prophets on Sabbath afternoons, and reading it, not in connexion with the regular Pentateuch lesson, but at the beginning, before the service has started. The service at the conclusion of the Sabbath presents a development the reverse of what took place in the Sabbath afternoon service. While in the latter the Prophetical lesson was put at the beginning, in the former the reading from the Hagiographa 2 was pushed on to the end, where-
h 'D, p. 289, where, on line 25, trail should be read instead of , as the context shows, 'iiroi crept in on account of the use of the word in the previous line. On line 26, read N'ooi instead of wmi.
2 The custom at Nehardea originally was to read from the Hagiographa at the afternoon service, probably at the end. As to the expression X-IID 702, there can be no doubt that Rashi explains it correctly. It refers, not to Maftir, as some maintain, but to readings from the Hagiographa, independent of the Pentateuch lessons. Comp. Sqferim, XIV, 4, which probably also refers to public readings from the Hagio- grapha. For other explanations see N*San, and Friedmann in pan, IV, 25.
300 GEN1ZAH STUDIES
fore we have a NilDI Nt?np after the conclusion of the na&? ^si» service. The reciting of Psalm xci at the service at the going out of the Sabbath is a remnant of the readings from the Hagiographa. This is what is meant to be conveyed by the statement of a Gaon found in the Oxford MS. of the Seder Rob Amram l: , . . i^nao Tim jnoa nai ^an maa im nn ^a <DTH fs'-nx »aa pjm i3&oaB> UT^K ina TJNI ai *a in. A further corroboration of Rabbi Natronai's theory, that the XKTJp NTTD1 concludes a reading from the Prophets or from the Hagiographa, is offered by the custom of reciting it 2 after the reading of the Megillah on Purim, and the Book of Lamentations on Tisha be-Ab.
28. This Responsum is given literally in the 'Aruk, s. v. P'N vbn, where the JTiaifcTi, Geonic Responsa, are referred to as the source.
30. Also this Responsum is quoted literally by the author of the ' Aruk, s. v. bta , and probably was known to Hai, in whose commentary on Kelim, XXVIII, 7, a*in must be emended to read ain.
31-32. Of these two Responsa, the second is quoted literally in the 'Aruk, s. v. D1E~in , and the first was probably made use of in the explanation of Tip (i) ; ed. Kohut, p. 767.
35. This Responsum, the end of which is missing, was probably known to the author of the 'Aruk, whose explanation of fpD (2) seems to have been taken from it.
39. A reference to this Responsum is found in the 'Aruk, s. v. pta .
41. It is interesting to notice that the 'Aruk, in making- use of our Responsum, s. v. fjv (7), substitutes the expressions
1 Originally they had readings from the Hagiographa for the people, later the readings were abolished, and a iiruj from the Kabbinical literature by the scholars took its place. The same development occurred in the daily morning service ; comp. Kabbi Natronai's Responsum quoted above.
2 There are many explanations for the reciting of NTIDT 'np at various occasions, but they are all unsatisfactory ; comp. Abudraham, ed. Warsaw, 67, 68, 96, and 138 ; and cvn nimn, I, 219.
GEONIC RESPONSA 301
in common use for the unique words X3Dia IE, T1O, and '•ano. The last term, though of Arabic origin, seems to have been used by Aramaic-speaking peoples. It occurs, for instance, in Syriac.
42. The explanation of ixw JV3 in our Responsum seems to be identical with that given by the 'Aruk, s. v., though, it must be admitted, Rabbi Nathan is not altogether clear in what he says on the subject. A noteworthy point in this Responsum is the use of the Persian fNina , juruban, for collar.
43 and 45. These two Responsa are quoted by the ' Aruk, s. v. pnstf and P|¥ (7).
47. The explanation of sna1^ isy is accepted by the 'Aruk, s. v., though a second explanation is there added.
48. The explanation of pODHNSDD by plpata , a jasmine mixture by bed-cover, is so odd that there can be no doubt of the corruptness of the text before us. The alternative is offered us either to read pDlpiSa 1, y\vKvppi.£a, or, which is more probable, to assume that the Gaon was giving an explanation of the word plpfi'&a occurring in the Talmud on the page next to that on which pDD'HXSD'in is found.
49. This Responsum is quoted literally by two authorities, by the ' Aruk, s. v. xnoip^D, and by Rabbi Judah Albargeloni,
'D, p. 32.
Fols. 64-73, Fragment 2826, form a consecutive collection of fifty-one Responsa, by Rabbi Amram Gaon, with the exception of the first ten lines of fol. 64 a, which contain six disjointed Haggadic quotations, five of them from known sources, the sixth not found in existing Midrashic literature. The fragment is unique in the earlier Geonic Responsa lite- rature in giving, not only the name of the Geonic authority to whom questions about certain difficulties were addressed, and the name of the questioner to whom the Responsa
1 The form ppovu for pmprj is not improbable. Comp. Krauss, Griechische und lateinische Lehnwtrter, I, 114.
302 GENIZAH STUDIES
were sent, but also the exact date when they were written, or, rather, when the letter of inquiry was received l. The month of the date is Adar, corroborating the statement, hitherto resting upon the unsupported authority of Rabbi Nathan ha-Babli 2, that the Kallah of Adar was the occasion on which the Geonim submitted the questions addressed to them from the outside to the prominent members of the Academies. At all events, our Responsum testifies to the prevalence of the custom a century and a half before Rabbi Nathan's day. The year 169 of the Seleucidsean era (=857 c. E.) is also of importance, settling, as it does, the date of the beginning of Rabbi Amram's Gaonate, which some scholars set at a considerable number of years later3. It is possible that our Responsum contained an allusion to the recent death of the Gaon's predecessor, running somewhat like this : no pitfiwi Wily lonatP 'a by *|Nt? «rnnp»D min npoe xb rmr S?:a nm:6 nat pw wnBi m. The date is confirmed by Rabbi Isaac ben Abba Mari, who, in his "ilDy, II, 30 a, refers to a Collection of Responsa by Rabbi Arnram handed down in the presence of the Ab Bet Din and the prominent members of the Academy in the year 169 4, and the analysis of the separate Responsa will demonstrate that the *11BV has our collection in mind. The introduction to the collection is couched in practically
1 JNTIN on leaf 5, recto, line n, may mean " submitted " in the Academy for discussion.
2 For the time of Sherira, comp. "ma> , I, 53 a : rv« JOn NT-TO im aroi ppDj? ID"T n;o m«a rfoi Nnrnai «:mp [1. TIN]. The text is somewhat corrupt, after ppt» the name of the Talmudical treatise or chapter is left out which was studied in the Academy in the month of ns"-i TIN.
3 Comp. Miiller, Mafteah, Amram, note 3 ; Halevy, Dorot ha-Bishonim, III, 245-6 ; and Halberstam, in Kobak's Jeschurun, V, 138, where the date 1208 is incorrect; the Parma MS., from which it is copied, probably has 1298.
* The text of the Trc» needs to be emended; read (vum~a =) 'iwa p rv} 3« '3D1 nanajiu ; and comp. ibid., 32 a, where, however, 1*3 rniN is a copyist's error for n"a 3N ; the MS. of the TITDS in the Sulzberger Collection of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America reads in the first passage quoted MM 'icna. Miiller, Mafteah, 125 (na), reads nu jn , but, as the parallel passage shows, |n n'l IN is the correct reading.
GEONIC EESPONSA 303
the same phraseology as that used by Rab Amram at the beginning of his Seder, and also of a Responsum of his quoted in the Geonic Collection, ed. Lyck, No. 56. The designation of Rabbi Zemah as Ab Bet Din, while in the Responsum in the Lyck collection referred to he is described as Dayyana de Baba, is independent proof, in addition to all the other indications we possess1, of the identity of these two offices. It cannot be determined with certainty which Rabbi Zemah is meant. Probably it is the one who became the Gaon of Sura eight years after the death of Rab Amram 2.
The greater part of the collection consists of Responsa dealing with questions connected with rwx 'n. They all, with the exception of a very few, were known to Rabbi Isaac ben Abba Mari, and he made use of them in his lltay, quoting them on the authority of Rab Amram. There can be no doubt, however, that also the few not relating to n<l5PX originated with Rab Amram ; some of them, indeed, are ascribed to him elsewhere. Apparently, the copy of our collection in the hands of the author of the TiDy was not so complete as the Genizah copy, as he fails to refer to Rab Amram in a number of cases on which the Gaon's
1 Comp. Sherira's Letter, p. 38, lines 12 and 15 ; Harkavy, Studien und Mittheilungen, III, note 124, and Briill, Jahrbucher, II, 35, note 42.
2 With regard to this Rabbi Zemah, comp. Miiller, Mafieah, 140 («) ; Lazarus, Die Haupter der Vertriebenen, pp. 177-8, 180 ; Buchler, in Revue des etudes juives, L, 158 ; and Epstein, }"n IDD by IONO, end. My reason for identifying Rabbi Zemah ha-Bet Din with Rabbi Zemah ben Hayyim is that it seems very improbable to me that the Gaon would refer in a Responsum to the Ab Bet Din at the court of the Exilarch. The relations between the Gaonate and the Exilarchate were never of so intimate a character as to make the other assumption acceptable. The only Responsum by Zemah ben Solomon, the Ab Bet Din at the court of the Exilarchate, preserved to us (comp. Dukes, Ben Chananjah, IV, 141), was probably written at a time when the office of Gaon was vacant, possibly after Rabbi Hilai of Sura. Oddly enough, Epstein refers to Rab Amram's Responsum, Geonic Collection, ed. Lyck, 56, as quoting the Ab Bet Din Zemah ben Solomon, at the same time remarking upon the strangeness of the fact, when in reality Rab Amram writes Rabbi Zemah simply.
3<M GENIZAH STUDIES
opinion might have been derived from the MS. now under examination. Comp., for instance, II, 320, concerning flD ^"inn ; ibid., concerning NDSIp >73j 32 d, concerning n^yn tron ; and 46 c, explaining the Talmudic passage, bw nnDK min. Miiller, Mafteah, 125 (n"»), quotes a decision by Rab Amram on the subject of JiTX from the T)0y not found in our fragment. But this is due to a slip. The words of the moy, 30 c, 3"3 vnnr^ra Nnrrno t?n Dnroy 3-11, do not refer to the preceding sentence (wvyp 'l), but are the beginning of a separate statement, a quotation of Rab Amram's Responsum (III) in our fragment. Miiller's next Responsum ("To) also calls for a word of explanation. It is by Rab Amram, on the same subject of rwv, and Miiller quotes it from the "ViDy (p. 32 b) without realizing that it is found in the Seder (5 a). Rabbi Abraham ben Isaac, of Lunel, a compatriot of the author of the "ntay, and a contemporary of his as well, quotes the same Responsum in his Eshkol, II, 98, and gives the source correctly. And still again, Miiller (p. 124, N"11) goes astray in a similar manner. He failed to notice that the Responsum by Rab Amram referred to by Rabbi Aaron of Lunel in his ''"n mrnK, 32 c ('n), also goes back to the Seder (39 b).
An abstract of nearly all the Responsa bearing on JTW is given in a"n, 70, Rab Amram being named as the authority. It is noteworthy that the order of the Responsa in a"n coincides with the order in our fragment, so that there can be no doubt that the two go back to the same document as their original. Though the Responsa under examination are in the form of a commentary on the fourth chapter of Menahot, the Talmudic passage con- cerning itself with JVVV, they nevertheless present a genuine, if primitive, attempt at codification. This is the reason why the order of the Responsa does not agree strictly with the sequence of the passages explained as they occur in the Talmud.
i. The first Responsum consists of a lengthy explanation of the Talmudic passage Menahot, 1 03 b, concerning the
GEONIC RESPONSA 305
size of the meal offering. The Responsum contains nothing new, but one reading of the text by the Gaon is worth noting: ^yh N^W i'NB', a reading preferable to the one in our texts, which themselves offer the same reading in Shabbat, 30 a. On the other hand, the MS. as written presents a point of very great interest. In the Biblical verses quoted in our Responsum1, there are never more than two words written out; the rest of the words of the verse are merely indicated by means of their initial letters. This abbreviated system is not an expedient of economy, as might be supposed at first sight. To save space and time, the scribes resort to 'ui and '131. The true explanation goes back to the old ordinance in both Talmudim, Babli, Gittin, 6 b, and Yer., Megillah, III, 74 a, forbidding the writing of more than two consecutive words in a Biblical citation without D1B"iK>. To escape from the necessity of observing, in very early times, the Shirtut, or the "npJ , which was substituted for it in Geonic times 2, the scribes invented the system of abbreviations, to be applied to all the words of a verse after the second. As this ordinance regarding the writing of Scriptural sentences fell into desuetude 3, we are justified in assuming, that if our fragment is not a copy made directly from the original, it is at least not far removed in age from it, and in any event was made by a conscientious scribe.
3. In the second Responsum, a view of far-reaching importance is preserved for us, regarding the authoritative character of the Tannaitic sources not embodied in the Talmud. The Gaon maintains that the opinions of the Tosefta and the Tannaitic Halakic Midrashim are valid only if they are supported by Talmudic views, or at least are not contradicted by Talmudic statements4.
1 Comp. also Eesponsum XVII.
2 Comp. n"tr>, 39 ; V;, 46 ; 'nw, II, 43 ; and n*Dn, in J. Q. R.t IX, 687.
3 Comp. Tosafot, Menahot, 32 b, top.
4 About the meaning of the words Nin D'lDQ «Vi Nin Trap -UT N"J, leaf 6, recto, line 10, there can be no doubt. The Gaon maintains that a state- ment found in Tannaitic sources not embodied in the Talmud, is neither
X
306 GENIZAH STUDIES
In any other case, they have no standing. His argument runs as follows : As the Amoraim repeatedly pronounce against statements in the Mishnah, by far the most com- manding work of the Tannaim, as being merely the opinions of individuals, how much less can the other Tannaitic sources lay claim to undisputed authority? The general argument is sound, but the proofs adduced in detail seem unfortunately to be based on an inaccurate use of Talmudic sources. While the Gaon's contention, that certain Mishwiyyot are declared by the Talmud to be individual opinions, is correct, yet, to my knowledge, the expressions JT3 *J» 'jn» NTI 'Kop and NVI ntrrrp 'ano do not actually occur in the Talmud. It is true that the latter expression is found in one MS. of the Talmud, Moed Katon, 19 a, only it refers there, not to a Mishnah, but to a Baraita. It will not do to suppose that the Gaon did not have the intention of making a literal quotation from the Talmud, for in that case the expression $y\>y 'n "OO 'jn» would be a useless
decisive nor authoritative, in the sense of being an accepted, settled view. In his resume, the Gaon uses the synonymous expression snp'CD NnVo, just as the Yerushalmi, Berakot, V, 8 a, uses niaisp rvobn for the term in the BaUi, ibid., 31 a, npiDD robn (Bacher mentions neither of these technical terms in his Terminologie). As to the use of D'lco as a synonym with aisp, comp. Rabbenu Hai's Responsum, quoted in the Eshkol, II, 49, where he employs exactly the same expression in characterizing the Yerushalmi : D'lDQ ir« m nan. Friedmann, in his Introduction to the Mekilta, p. 48, misled by the false reading of Azulai's text of the Seder Tannaim we-Amwaim, and misunderstanding the exact meaning of the terms lisp and E'IDD, forces an entirely foreign notion into the text. The expression maisp is hardly borrowed from the Palestinians, as Epstein,
I. c., 64, maintains. True, it does not occur in the Babylonian Talmud. NTUD is in the same case; it is found in the Yerushalmi, but not in the Babli, yet no one would assert that the Babylonians went to Palestine for it. Comp. aisp -QI, quoted from y'lD in rrco, 60.
It may be of interest to call attention, by the way, to a passage in Harkavy, Geonic Responsa, 396, bearing on ">E3 in the Responsum by Rabbenu Hai, which baffled the editor of the Eshkol. We learn from it that a case of bB3 was decided differently in Palestine and in Babylonia. The an:o 'i:sj mentioned by Harkavy in another passage, immediately preceding the one under discussion, is by no means so new as he would have us believe, seeing that it occurs three times in the Yerusltalmi, Berakot,
II, 4b, and parallel passages. Comp. Muller, n'rr, 33.
GEONIC RESPONSA 307
repetition of NM riNTrp 'jno. Some of the sources con- taining the present Responsum, to be quoted later on, do, indeed, give different readings of this passage, and though they do not rid us of the difficulty pointed out above, yet the very variations go to show that we have, to say the least, an incorrect copy of the Responsum before us, so far as these readings go. The most acceptable solution would be to assume that the expression N^py 'n 'JD 'JHD is an old gloss explaining KM riKTrP 'JDE, which has crept into the text of the Responsum. This would in part do away with the difficulty.
Our Responsum has a rather interesting literary history. The greater part of it, to begin with, was incorporated in the oldest methodology of the Talmud, known as the Seder Tannaitn we -Amor aim, which has come down to us in as many as six versions 1. That our Responsum is the primary source, and not the Nl"nD, is proved by the faulty readings occurring identically in all the versions 2. We must guard ourselves against ascribing the Seder Tannaim we^Amoraim to Rab Amram. Any desire to do so would be nullified by the fact that this Gaon is on record with views diametrically opposed to some expressed in the book. The Gaon, in six cases, decides with Bet Shammai against Bet Hillel (Seder Rab Amram, 5a; and comp. also Responsum 18 of our frag-
1 First version by Azulai in his a'osrt in ; the second and third by Luzzatto according to two MSS. (Prague, 1858), repTinted from non 013, IV ; the fourth version in Filipowski's edition of the pcnv ; the fifth in Oraetz, Einleitung in den Talmud (Breslau, 1871), and the sixth from the famous Munich MS. of the Talmud, by Taussig, cito rro ; comp. also Steinschneider, Geschichtsliteratur, 12-14, an(i Nachfrag, 173.
2 Notice, for instance, the reading wro '-\ instead of win '-\ ; the author of the Tver also had the false reading in his text of the Ni'no. Rabbi Amram in his Responsum speaks only of ncc, meaning by it the Tannaitic Midrashim to Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, which is explained in the text of Ni'no by an additional sentence. In nvrm 'in, ed. Venice, 143 d, end, nro for neon Nntoo, and in so late a writer as c"«i (Nedarim, 36 b, end), we find the use of nco for all the Tannaitic Midrashim except Sifra. Comp. Rashi in TmV> 'isn 't?n, No. 25.
X 2
308 GENIZAH STUDIES
ment), while the Seder Tannaim we-Amoraim decides thus in a single case.
The author of the Titty knew our Responsum both from the Seder Tannaim we-Amoraim and from the Rab Amram Collection. Miiller, in his Mafteah, p. 124 (a"'), completely misunderstood the expression vnuitfTD D"i»y 211 !WDn "HD, with which the "iiay, II, 340, introduces a quotation from our Responsum. The expression can be taken to mean only that the Responsum is found with Rab Amram and also in the Seder ha-Mishnah, which is the designation commonly used for the first part of the Seder Tannaim ive-Amoraim. A MS. of the *UDy in the Sulzberger Collection of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, formerly in the possession of Halberstam, reads thus: ruBTon TIDI nniBTQ. The printed text goes back to nation TiDl iroitWU, which there can be no doubt is the correct reading.
This Responsum seems to form the introduction to the Responsa that follow dealing with rvyx, it being a question of rpyx that affords the Gaon the opportunity to enunciate, and at the same time apply practically, his theory regarding the relation of the Tannaitic sources to the Amoraim. a"n> 7°j contains nothing of the Gaon's theory as to the authoritativeness of the Tannaitic sources, but it illus- trates his practical use of it as applied to JITS. The practical decision again appears in n"K>, I591, where a number of regulations are given bearing on rW¥.
3. The third Responsum is quoted in the "HEy , II, 30 c, and n"c?, 159. The author of the Eshlcol, II, 97, also refers to it as }1N:6 miBTO. It probably reached him as an anonymous Responsum. The last sentence quoted in the Eshkol, 'tti pnnnn "it^pl, which has no meaning, is an abstract of Responsum 1 7 in our fragment, which probably
1 The superscription <i"\ Dibc -TO refers only to the first part of that Responsum ; from pi b3 n^'ii to the end abstracts from several Responsa in our fragment are given.
GEONIC RESPONSA 309
followed the third Responsum in the MS. at the disposal of the author of the Eshkol.
4. Abstracts of this Responsum are found in the Tltoy, II, 30 b, and in the 'Aruk, s. v. TU (4), in the latter source without any mention of Rab Amram.
5. The "itDV does not quote this Responsum explicitly, but perhaps it is referred to in the words pwn 'IKTQ, on p. 31 a. If the conjecture is correct, we are forced to assume that the author had a text differing from ours. s"n and n"B>, 11. cc., both have abstracts of the Responsum.
6. The Gaon's decision, that the TVtfnf may not be attached by a Gentile, is found in the lltay, 34 b, and in a"n, 1. c.
7-8. Neither of these two Responsa is referred to in the "iltjy, and even a"n has an abstract of the first only. It seems that at the time these abstracts were made, custom1 had already declared against attaching rwx to shrouds. Therefore the epitomizer neglected the Gaon's opposing view.
9. The explanation of MenaJiot, 41 b, is highly interesting, as it is based on a reading essentially different from ours. The author of the "I1DJJ, 330, who noticed the difference between our Talmudic text and the text before the Gaon, s"n, I.e., reproduces of the Responsum only so much as bears upon the practical question dealt with ; the ex- planation of the Talmudic text is not referred to.
10. The Gaon explains f^x &6p by Persian and Arabic equivalents. There can be no doubt that aW> should be read 3J?v2, the Persian word for lilac. Comp. Dozy et Engelmann, Glossaire, p. 297 ; and Low, Aramdische Pflanzennamen, p. 348. The ' Aruk's explanation of f^N a^P as iplJ^x does not differ from that given by the Gaon.
n. In discussing the length of 7W¥, the Gaon mentions the fact that in his time as many as one hundred myrtle branches were used on Sukkot. This statement seems to
1 Comp. Tur, Yoreh Detih, 351, and Nahmanides, Torat ha-Adam, 32 a et seq.
2 : and 3 can hardly be distinguished in the MS.
310 GENIZAH STUDIES
contradict Responsum 189 in Q"n, ascribed to Rab Amram. The latter source gives sixty-eight as the number of myrtle branches commonly used. It is probable, however, that the Responsum in Q"n does not belong to Rab Amram, but rather to Rabbi Natronai, to whom a very similar Responsum is attributed in nV, 312. Comp. ^"rat?, 322-3.
12. It is rather surprising that the Titty, though it discusses the subject of our Responsum in detail, has no reference whatsoever to it. B"n, I.e., and n"B>, 159, both have abstracts of the Responsum.
13. The meaning of this Responsum is doubtful. The expression irpjtjnsi may be explained by UCHQ "031, referring to a Responsum in which the Hebrew and Arabic equiva- lents of *plW3 were actually given. But there is a more probable explanation, which applies also to the other passages in which the expression occurs in our fragment l. It seems fairly certain that the Geonim were in the habit of keeping copies of the Responsa they sent out. When the replies to questions were simple, or in their opinion not worth recording, it may be assumed that they merely noted the fact that an answer had been dispatched, without taking the trouble to keep an exact copy of the wording, or even an indication of the character and trend. This assumption would explain the last sentence in Responsum 38, where a passage from the Talmud is quoted without the explanation. Obviously, the Gaon meant merely to record the fact that the passage had been expounded for the benefit of his correspondent, without considering it necessary to set down the explanation, which he may have regarded as self-evident.
14. This Responsum is quoted not only in the ")1By, 33 b, and in s"n, I.e., but also in nV, end of 159, and Eshkol, II, 1 02. The fragment enables us to correct a mistake
1 Comp. p. 320, line 19, and p. 321, line 9. The explanation in the text will not do for p. 321, as we have a number of explanations which are of a very simple nature in the Responsa preceding and following it.
GBONIC RESPONSA 311
which crept into this Responsum. The last two words read "isir1 ^Nl , instead of which, by an error of some scribe, n"B> has the reading TiQn 'SN1. This corrupt reading antedated the Eshkol, which found it necessary to explain it by a whole sentence, so interwoven with the text of the Responsum that it cannot be distinguished as a foreign addition, and yet so foreign to the original meaning of the Gaon that it actually contradicts his conception of the subject treated.
15. The fifteenth Responsum is found in the TIDV, 29 b, end, and B"n, 1. c.
1 6. Also this Responsum is found in the "I1DJ7, 31 b, and D"n, I.e., and besides, as noticed above1, it occurs in the Eshkol joined to another Responsum.
17. This Responsum is found only in a"n, I.e., not in the nicy.
1 8. This Responsum contains Rab Arnram's famous decision concerning JVW3 pio, quoted by many of the old authorities. Comp. Eshkol, II, 98 (where it is given anony- mously) ; Rabbi Zerahiah Gerondi, in his "NK», on Shabbat, 25 b; andniDy, 3 2 a. It is found also in a"n, I.e. RabAmram refers to his view upon this subject in his Seder, 5 a, and it is not to our Responsum, but to this passage in the Seder to which the three authorities just mentioned go back. The author of the Eshkol and Rabbi Zerahiah Gerondi give the Seder explicitly as their source. As for the TIDJ?, 32 b, though the author refers to a Responsum of Rab Amram, the text shows that it is the Responsum as incorporated in the Seder. In accordance with this, Miiller, Ma/teak, 1 25 (1"»), should have referred to the Seder instead of the "iioy. By a"n (74) another Responsum dealing with the same question is ascribed to Rab Amram, but as the style militates against his authorship of it, we are inclined to accept Hai as the author, in agreement with the Eshkol, II, 96, corroborated by the manuscript reading of the
1 Comp. pp. 308-9.
312 GENIZAH STUDIES
3 2 a. The latter reads Ttfyn instead of '^X For a com- plete understanding, it should be noted that the words '131 no NUN D1K>D WWII are quoted by Hai from an earlier Responsum by a Gaon of Sura, whose name was omitted, probably by a copyist's error.
19. The Titty, 32 b, in quoting this Responsum, does not name Rab Amram as the author, but as it follows im- mediately upon the quotation from the Seder discussed in the previous section, we are justified in inferring that the name of the authority given is meant to apply to both Responsa. This is probably the reason the expression VJTQltJTQ is used here as well as in connexion with the Responsum quoted from the Seder.
20. The twentieth Responsum is found not only in a"n, 1. c., but also in Eshkol ^ II, 96. In the latter it is quoted anonymously, and Miiller, Mafteah, 218 (r*Sp), misled by the expression ilfcM^, ascribes it to Rabbenu Hai, while it agrees verbatim with the Responsum in our fragment. Attention should be called to the fact that as quoted in a"n and Eshkol, the Responsum contains a definition of D^-in men not found in our fragment. It is probably a later addition. It is true, however, that the view under- lying the definition, here ascribed to Rab Amram, was held by Sar Shalom; comp. J"n, 70. Rabbi Judah Albargeloni, in his DTiyn 'D, 306, quotes an anonymous Responsum very similar to ours as given in a"n and in Eshkol.
21. Though the present Responsum does not deal with JViTO 'n, yet it stands in close relation with the previous one, both occupying themselves with the question of carrying on the Sabbath. As to the subject-matter, comp. Geonic Collection, ed. Coronel, 84. The Geonic origin of this Responsum, it should be said, is doubted by Miiller, Mafteah, Introduction, 31 (l^a).
The twenty-first Responsum concludes the collection on rW¥. The rest of the fragment deals with miscellaneous subjects. The greater number of those that follow relate to Pesab, Hanukkah, and Purim.
GEONIC RESPONSA 313
22. The twenty-second, the first of the new series, treats of a case of inm niD^x. An abstract of it is found in s"n, 44, so brief that it is open to misconstruction. The real meaning could only be conjectured, which Miiller did correctly, as we now see from our fragment. Rashi, Pardes, 32 a, probably made use of our Responsuin. Comp. also, above, p. 92, and Muller, TW^l nsrft 'con nnittfi, 71. The author of the 11BJ? seems not to have known the Responsum under consideration, as appears from what he says upon the subject it treats of, in his work, II, 7 a; in fact, he appears to have known none of $hose that follow in our fragment. As, on the other hand, the iltoy quotes practically all the Responsa on TVW 'n, it would seem that our fragment is not a unit, but rather a compilation of Responsa by Rab Amram, given on various occasions and on various subjects.
23. This Responsum is found in s"n, 86, and in better shape than in our fragment.
24. The seven Responsa beginning with the twenty- fourth concern themselves with noa 'n . The first of them appears in shortened form in £1 "»3, no, where, not "\&3&, but "D»K> should be read, with MS. Parma and our fragment. Parts of our Responsum are quoted also by Ibn Gajat, vfv, H, 83; and -may, II, 500. In Muller, Ma/teak, 126, nos. 3"J and T"J are parts of the same Responsum, as our fragment now enables us to discern.
25. This Responsum is quoted by Ibn Gajat, 1. c., 96.
26. The Geonim Sherira, in n"B>, 96, and £>"n, 164, and Hai, in n"B>, 269, seem to have made use of our Responsum, at least so far as the etymological explanation of E&i is concerned. As to the subject-matter, Rab Amram has a far more lenient view. He maintains that nvo prepared by no^n may not be used for niXD nxo, while Sherira and Hai prohibited it.
29. The twenty -ninth Responsum is found in »1*03, no, and is quoted by some of the older authorities. Comp. Muller, in his note 30. Dealing with the question of nvo
314 GENIZAH STUDIES
prepared by a Samaritan, and whether its use is permitted or prohibited, this Responsum, one of only two in the whole of the Geonic literature making reference to the relations between the Jews and the Samaritans, is of peculiar interest. Rab Amram's view agrees with that of Rabbi Jehudai Gaon, in r\"V, 272. Curiously enough, the only other decision regarding Samaritan relations is by the same Rabbi Jehudai Gaon. See Muller, Ma/teak,
69 (3*3).
31-32. These Responsa, though they do not treat of HDD 'n, yet have7 a degree of connexion with the previous ones, in that they, like them, are based on passages in the treatise Pesakim.
The explanation of NJVBIS is the source for the Geonic tradition given in the ' Aruk, s. v.
34. Muller, Mafteah, 124 (N"11), quotes a similar decision by Rab Amram from the D^n mniN of Rabbi Aaron of Lunel, 34 c ('n), but the contents in the latter source show plainly that it is not considering the matter discussed in the Responsum in our fragment. He has reference to Rab Amram's opinion on the washing of the hands before reciting the grace after meals given in the edition of the Seder, 39 b, and in the MSS. of the Seder. Comp. Dr. A. Marx, Untersuchungen zum Seder des Gaon Rab Amram, p. 7.
Attention should be called to two points of interest. In Berakot, 42 a, the Gaon reads TIN n, the reading of the Munich MS. also. This does away with the conjecture made by Isaac Halevy, in his Dorot ha-Rishonim, II, 183, who corrects TIN 11 to read TIN 11, in four passages in the Jerusalem Talmud1, not knowing that the former name TIN occurs in Zacuto's Yohasin, s. v., as well as in the Munich MS. of the Babylonian Talmud. As to the origin of the name, nothing can be said with certainty.
1 Ratner, }vs niriN, Ma'aserot, 122; a Genizah fragment of Yer., Kid- dushin, I, 61 c, and the Vat. MS. of Ma'as. read TIN and not TTN ; bn"air, 28, has nrw.
GEONIC RESPONSA 315
It may be connected with the Biblical names TIN, MVN, and ^IVX, and no less with 'B», which is spelled also n?'N, if it is derived from B>', Aramaic TIN. It is true that the name ^ appears in Aramaicized form as TN, or in its lengthened form, pw 1. The explanation of 'B>N as an abbreviation of I^N is untenable. Comp. Riviata Isr., V, 1 1.
The second point of interest in our Responsum is con- nected with the expression NBVDt pn. As the context shows, the Gaon meant by this the latest redactors of the Talmud, practically the same as Saboraim. In a Responsum by Sherira, found in Harkavy, 138 (also B^BJ, 143), NBVD is used in the same sense, though it must be admitted that the Responsum as a whole is rather unclear 2. From other passages it appears that the NBVD1 'l3 were tutors, " coaches," agreeing with D"D, "to repeat," as used in Baba Kama, 117, and Baba Batra, 22 a. In modern Yeshibotythe corresponding office is performed by the lira Itn.
35. An abstract of the thirty-fifth Responsum occurs in a*n, 185, and in full it is given by Rabbi Judah Albargeloni, in his DTiyn 'D 4, 277. The Gaon's explanation is very attractive ; it completely establishes the connexion between the two statements of the Talmud in MegiUah, 32 a. The Responsum shows that the Gaon, like Rashi and the Tosafists, takes Dny as descriptive of mm nso, and not, with Maimonides5, mm 'D of &W1, or Trnsn, as the case
1 Comp. Harkavy, 365 and 417 j row, II, 37, 'TUN -10 n, who is identical with 'ST '-\ in Harkavy ; and the name ''TTN, for b^rr, in 'Erubin, iaa, end.
2 The explanation given by Kazan, D'n «», 108 a, is certainly wrong.
3 Comp. Halberstam in Kobak's Jeschurun, V, 136-40 ; and the Genizah fragment published by Cowley in the J. Q. R., XVIII, 404. Halberstam is, however, mistaken in reading »CVD instead of navp, in Responsa, ed. Lyck, 56. The lorp '2 are the wop im '2. As to the grammatical form, comp. above, p. 98, note i.
* Comp. Rabbinovicz, Variae Led., Megillah, end, where this Responsum was printed before the J?"D was published.
5 Comp. p2':2 ':a in the Wilna edition of the T, where attention is called to this view, of Maimonides, and reference is made to Rabbi Manasseh Ilier. It is very strange that Schwarz, Mishneh TJiorah, 83, note 3, does not mention the remark by the author of -j^n ':a.
316 GENIZAH STUDIES
may be. The view of the former is corroborated by Yer., Shabbat, XVI, 15 c, line 13 (from below), which assumes the prohibition not to touch the scroll unless it is covered.
36. Here, as well as in a"n, 190, this Responsum is incomplete. In our fragment, the sentence explaining pDWD is missing, and in a"n that explaining pano.
37. The Gaon's explanation of nnos differs from that of all other authorities. Comp. Rabbenu Hai, rTe>, 204 l ; 'Aruk, s. v. ; Rashi, ad loc. ; and Tosafot, on Menakot, 32 b, catchword pTIIB xn . The only authority that quotes Rab Amram's explanation is Rabbi Isaiah di Trani the Elder, in his ynaon.
38. In explaining the passage in Shabbat, 23 b, the Gaon quotes a p^D which does not occur in our text of the Talmud, and which I find myself able to interpret only partly : DM stands for npbo »DJ naa.
39. This Responsum is nearly identical with Responsum 24, on fol. 62 b of our fragment. It proves that the tradition with regard to ^»"in is well authenticated, and finds corroboration in the Assyrian naramdu, meaning a certain kind of wood.
40. The fortieth Responsum is ascribed to Sar Shalom Gaon in a"n, 132, while in n"fc>, 233-4, the three Responsa last enumerated are found in somewhat modified form with Rabbenu Hai as the author.
41. The lenient view of the Gaon with regard to beer manufactured by Gentiles is rather extraordinary, opposing, as it does, the view accepted by all the codifiers.
43. The Gaon's explanation of ponv 'D is very interesting, especially his rationalistic view regarding hitob i>*xcn NBTT.
44. The explanation of nan as meaning the "height of power" is well worthy of consideration, notwithstanding
1 This Responsum by Rabbenu Hai is quoted by many of the earlier authorities, comp. -rosy, II, 46 c ; Vow, II, 40 ; and Me'iri on Megillafi, i6b. Auerbach, the editor of the Vow, tries in vain to explain his text, not knowing that the Responsum as given in n"c, 204, as well as in Mei'ri. is self-explanatory.
GEONIC RESPONSA 317
the fact that Rashi as well as the lAruk define it differently.
47. This Responsum is quoted by Ibn Gajat, B>"e>, I, 21, end.
50. In explaining the passage Yoma, 20 b, the Gaon quotes the first Mishnah of the fifth chapter of Shekalim in a reading different in many points from the printed text, and agreeing with the MSS. and with ed. Lowe. The student should note especially that the Gaon in his text did not have the identification of Pethahiah with Mordecai. It was put in between the lines by the copyist. Mishnah, ed. Lowe, agrees with the reading of the Gaon, and there can be no doubt that it is the correct reading. Also the name N'HN is to be noted instead of KDN, and comp. Tosefta, Yebamot, end, where the name nns p occurs .
51. The last Responsum throws new light on the Responsum in p"a, no, found also in the Geonic Collection, ed. Lyck, 15. In the latter two, the reading HHn must be adopted, instead of linn or linn, as the Geonic explana- tion is based on in, mountain.
318 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf i, recto.)
Npi D'a-in 'Bna n^ nabi TITO ' : WD pr£ 'yim pppci pi>aix n^an wyon ' *ano an iTa jnai wan nai TITO rwna iciy fro wnno wn rrb paan p"a *j6iK a^n pn^ N^I 'BT npy »i>i p»a KD^n IN a^ni »Dnn iopo» pan npiya pyo 5 ?ya !>o3i D»:ai> n» ns ^yn D^Q 2':Nnpn >3 iDpoo sin pan n te« iToa DiT3t8> K^yim roinb ina^ IN n^n» n-an •U»D IBUI 3«nna ^au nna n> 'oyo »MD n^ non wtn a^n
: o^twnn ninsm '*ran ^anai na »nna na : n^ n pn» 'nan Mn ^anan na om ^nsa na po-in pan 10 « "nw M^N poioa 'DNT ^a n^ata Noais JWIB :asiD m n^ np »NO^ n-ao 7wo pm mip THN DB> i^ B
pa 10V13D :NpDsD THN DB> ^ B»1 tUMn^t9 9 pDIU IV, v
n^ann Via i»iyi VDD o^ab VBD H/DNPI wn omoyn 15 jrvtanam n^iDDsn nypai & ^as "jwm in n^naai
nwi n^a pam nrjr^K /-i »a^a ls<ia%.a<in vi N^N «uoi» nun p^ai K^T p»a no« pan d"ain ni^na N^ n^nan o^y ^UD^ prppa: ppm «h D^y pa^noi n^ai ppmn paon p"a i? 'ON ITJT^K 'ni 20 ^N /-i 'DNT "now n»spi IDNT n-ann niena p^n ns »an IONT D*ann mena o^ann
3 a. 2 Sltabbat, Mishnah, I, i ; Gemara, ibid., a a.
3 Bead NY-U. * Read jn. 6 =TIMB.
6 Bekorot, 45 b. 7 Read jrro or jno.
6 Bekorot, 45 b. 7 Read jrro or jno.
8 Shabbat, Mishnah, XVII, 6; Gemara, ibid., 125 a; our texts have rrwpasj, MS. M. «'»npa«, but in Yerushalmi *w>j:ac.
9 Shabbat, 5 a. w Ibid., sb.
11 Pesahim, 13 b ; our texts read VEDO D':D7. 12 Shabbat, 6 a.
13 Shabbat, 6a; our texts read apr Ja nir?« 'i, but the MSS. agree with the reading of this fragment ; comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc.
14 Read Tra\< ; comp., however, Anan's o*nr, 119, where -mit* = ins:.
GEONIC RESPONSA 319
(Leaf i, verso.)
rrnp NN !'aia»n jn noi
D'taa ipT N!?B> ounn msrb JWN-I PK'VIDK* Dunn nnnv MOD pTWi ia paaint? ^man DN onx »aai
nonn «
4 . . , a : ioin ounn nienan 'ION *D nna vu ao nnno rbyo JDUI pivot? nipo i»^y piz> vm D^na M^NB' nw^n ISD pya mpios ma^n na pa :nnno n^ao Kip'J ia»ai> mx b {>VN ix mc'y laina pro? n»a :ia-ioNK> VDD NIHT x '» ny K^K n^yo^ na»K nunn ni^n nyna ia /1(b n y*P"i^» ny nhy n»n»n nwn 'DNPT Trvn 'en n^yoh D^HDD niB>ni> nmai '^ na^ve VITPI 'nets '< ^n n PKB* n»a nn ^n D^naD '* ia PKB> puts' ^D^D^ niox uma ounn b nim laina ^D^U^ IIDKI n^ffn men ntrya p» r6yr^ 15 ^ maan pun 7biaa ^oi> nmta laa i>y tounn nitna n^
«as 'ON D:& tJ'ia^ 'tsw nwn 'B'l n^ mn D^nsu xi nnia PIT "as 'ON 'oxp p»n 8ouin mvnb n~na pnr nanni ni?yo^> D'-nao '» nmaa DN tnpfa? N»m xn^n w T a"n^o un 'oyo ^NO nioa ounn n»T^ npin 'nao '1 20
nanni D^nao '» wmaan pu w rnis i>3N p3 tnnu IN naip
1 Shabbdt, 6 A. 2 =niTip n?»«. s Comp. n. 14, on previous page.
4 Read «>BTD. E Read irobro . 6 Shalbat, 7 a.
7 = i"?i33. 8 Shabbat, 8 a. 9 Superlinear vocalisation.
320 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 2, recto.)
an £»n nrwm 'Bxpn nrvbi NTpy o^a nn»3B> xn ton *KDP rpa D'ba nrpas? Nan JND ^DX an 'DK p npiaxb »KOB> rva Tonsb inoyjn *«m Tassvib
p«3 pbvup 'JDP »J»OD nvooy j «na^n xm noa jna p^n DHI jnnx p^aoi 5
2wm ^n nua rc&np imo na^n ny payi? nniy D'jnu px 'DIN ^n rvai 3Dr niyan icyyty na K^N nax n^a vn parru 'fea ja 'D^ pn 'ONT jrai ; nau o^aiai? 4)n^ -6a panw n^aa 'boa p '»^ 'i n»b nin axna :n3t^o na»K bbn n^a mpm xv nia»BD3 jniN pajnoB> mans mbn: 15 p-iip »w n^oiN ji^ba nw^aoi minob IDNT nspioa in »m ''aiai jva 'IDNPI
nonai 6Nnm nina xvi pai onb WB>TB 8iai pp pjipD»"ini t^nai pen paa nii^N ^ pjay NTNT xvn
neny pa P-ID ^« pa jna N^a bai ppoism 21 9ppfDi ND3D?oi spienai nbia :»nna pen na xvm
1 Shabbat, i8a. 2 Shcibbat, Mishnah, I, 8, 9 ; Gemara, ibid., I7b-i8a.
3 Our texts and MSS. read bbn nu piaai.
4 Editions : p^ 'ta ; MSS. : frfno pb ^3 ; comp. Eabbinovicz, ad loc.
5 Shabbat, 19 b ; comp. introductory note. 6 Eead NTTI.-
7 Shabbat, aoa and sob. 8 "i»i (?) ; comp. introductory note.
9 Shabbat, ao b ; our texts and MSS. read
GEONIC RESPONSA 321
(Leaf a, verso.)'
tnao naa 'NJVIN j}n N-una NW jfcj i&n ftf-ven xix nanyi? w NnaiNi "Nna-iN rontsw NJNIHN »yta JNO nfiVBY naiN na-iN nave* 3pnoN Npn »a sin a^i>c> Nna-)Nijt? rw»»D onsan wu 1231 aW wo Npa: 'NO buy nbp nby jab n^ nip 4 p^nox Npi »a NJIHS NWB> 5 t »a»Di 5i>»nn 1»^ *any jn^a NintJ' :^D^ non n^ai xx nnva wn Dm wn p»'D po iy-in basa PNI Nin D^ynr
nnm '•noax :nanr ia ^B> ^ inx pmen xxi
vim '•Kruw pnb pB>n'D ^IINT my ps^a notin onsn ^a ^yt? Kpn» xxn
?)iy 'DIN wst? 11 pp^n 133 "NTPT n jtDB> "ION min* am rrna prw ani 71»K> nrpi
noaa triaoi navi jvpp xxm Nin pio I^NI -uoipoa K'1 IHN J^N na^^x 15 n tw »o bi Nin PJOD poi p»> ;no penjn pa^yna pip uotsn 10yinia '•any jie^a IOK>I uoo nnw nann nonn }oc?i 12p ovy v* ^Nionn :ujnntt inn IHN xxiv \rb PNI jn'-^NO phyi jna pp^ooi jrwo D^ay pN^aoi o«3V n^any^ jnaN^oo o^ia ponyi pna^^ai o^on 20 ••vn IN ny^ niy^ jnaN^oa m^a pmtj^ jva noin iniNO wro ^y nnN n^an N^ao nnN b
1 Shabbat, so b ; our texts and MSS. read wnnM or winw.
2 Comp. introductory note. 3 Shabbat, 36 a. * Sukkah, 34 a. 5 J^». 6 Shabbat, ai a.
7 Our texts read rj-oa c» nn« Fiiy >b IT:NI NO' »rvm 'ja'j inrn^c 'JNIDTD ION TOXD p'pi D'n, but the MSS. and the old authorities agree with the reading of our fragment, except that they read p'pi instead of «ipi ; 'not? of our fragment stands for b^ioc .
8 Our texts and MSS. read NipT Mnrao. 9 =«3D«
10 - u *J- 12 =
322 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leafs, recto.)
im *«|W3 :wNwm &&n Kpoa »D "»Npi nn o»nnvi> xxv 4a»x I»B>I 3pa-ion b» n^ nruoa KM33 "peaon vie ' vn TUBE nnacn pip vrreo 'it^n nnm
ny*»»3 5
PplDB *
:imp^D xxvn
8<i»3 D'NBO Dnoai mopn DID^SI ppi» msana j hnn 10ni»Di nvn p «»n naop nn»3 9frx *bn xxvni
13 B»1 Kin 10
3T3r N»3iy3i KPD»B> '•IOIN ji^ai D^BB> 13 '
: " bbon p pn : 13 ta^i n^»i? i^ pnpj rw xxx y^ Mnm p»a nisnvx 'a i>y niynss 'a N!>N nun PM» pn an« ra ^y 'a N^im Npni HNED nbp» ahya 15 naa n^nna anw I«BTDB> 11^ inr ^D ^on p n»a naa *?v sjay «im niynxs 7a ra niy^ nan ins DPI an«^ ^DSO PN any n.ptn in :17-np ^»op pi^aa :16anin *3iy ji D^Bebinn ayn^tn m^y^ jn paipmn 'a }an»Np 20 :i^x nnn 'ao K^K ppmn »i«n x^n onnn 'a iT3 nw mn sh K»«n mn
1 Shdbbat, 21 b ; our texts and MSS. read 'Mimin . Comp. note 2, p. 343.
* Skabbat, 23 a ; our texts read F]iop, but comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc.
s Read pDltun. 4 uiyi ^-*-» . 5 Shabbat, 24 a. 6 Ibid., e6 a.
7 Read rjtop mm. . 8 Comp. Onkelos on Gen. xliii. 10.
• Shabbat, 28 a. 10 Read mmai. " <_>^J1. 11 Read '«. 1S Shabbat, 28 b. 14 Ibid., 29 a. 15 Comp. note a, p. 330, below. 16 v** • n Shabbat, 33 a.
GEONIC RESPONSA 323
(Leaf 3, verso.)
nn vapa nx nnaw ^n .Tn N^N n^a u>n pan no VSQ ia"B>pBi :vapa nx nneio rrnp ppmna a '»&n Mnwi vapa nx nnwDi pa icrcya wiy iTn pn^n '•ym K^wa p.'waa p^tDpi mp '•^tap pt^aa
pan «an IDKT |i> '»i : won int* p«nno PK» 5 nan n«iv nan nynx nan jnr naat?' nan pne> nan m wA n^ >np NPI 'nan PPT pan D^n ns nan ppmn xxxn poonn 8n»nn po»nn :mp ^tsp^ iBnn»a inn mp D^onina i^as 'DNT *a 4<iann }n onfii pynrsJ 'v* pnxa :5miyD nw»p3 in^ pbisi b«6a n^oya 'n inx pphpt? 10
7 nasn nwwe'n pa pi^yb IO'D 6 ••snia TJIMM »wo xxxm niB'DB'n pa y»an ON yn^ nnroi? »ixn KPT anyo inn poison nija BTDO nnro ^a nnao i?ai3 mn mr» nna nmna K»ne' xnia :xni n pa yao^ p-o SIN nnr»b any»o pai anyo r\rb 15
nioa nnro »aa PO^KD any»a norm npp^ yaoi pnaia PN 8/»Npn ^ p^nn ns ia pnaiap ^a nr nnaa xxxiv 10 nni^y 9 pnotn xnno IDBH nnaaa pnn nx n 7n 'DKPI |ai na pxty n "n^ivaa nn^a TOTD n»h 'ai ^onan B^ni? nbjr D»"fitt&» 20 13 : nsan ^ab noin in biays? fva^ nnaai? xxxv
spi 'D«P nios ii? HBM
.
2 Bekorot, 44 b; our texts read S*T IQ« «2^Dp n*t« n*T ia nn -ION.
3 Shdbbat, 34 a; our texts and MSS. have nom 'Dmin. 4 =rmn. 6 Bezah, 25 b ; as to the reading, comp. Rabbinovicz, Berakot, 38 b.
6 Shabbat, 35 a. 7 Our texts and MSS. have *ui.
srtavvai, 35 a. • vur MNUB H.JUU. ouoo. navo NJ
Shabbat, Mishnah, XX, 3 ; Gemara, ibid., 140 a. Pesahim, 119 a. 10 Read nwy or rmos .
11 Our texts have mi2D3. 12 =msa. 1S Shabbat, 38 a.
Y 2
324 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 4, recto.) '-D 132 N^N 13i> PK 13K '»K pW '"11 *'OK Xpl niW03 p"HK XXXVI
niDx DT "wa p3 nnx vra ni'O'o pa muo ^as 2iT»nn ^otn SIDV 3-n nan 'thd? -nota »KO moyoi r
D»ann n^a nn nipo rh yaip DINT DIB>» ^3^ 'tifab 5 o^nn 3^a n*n 'i DIJW ^NIOC' 'DNI nip» n^ vaip 4nann 'DS X^N j3>vnnoi npna!> nip» nb yaip DTNT oitw vb ptanpi : }3>ipl|Dy nv^nb^ niwoa K^K D^nn xxxvn nnno ^D^D^ »ai inTi »a r'nwTD pan Q«3x6 D»3y 10 nnnoa na win spn
N JH3 Ht3
ponp »an irn 'o^n »ai :i»Dip DI^O nnro naai DW3X^ ww vn3a s^nni pan p
p3>yi> JN^ an^y^ o«jy naa ^ax an»B^ nn^y 15 Vy^ nn 'nao X3 ^y DTIBD 'a u ^^ ^33 pnoNp n«oD
na PNB> 6ni^t3» itwvy naa »np»Di xxxvm naa npci o^ay^ N^N n^iKi px niyaw jm aa i?
a jn D^vy 'n noo^p pa^o noon ni33^o xxxix nansa 8 naioa .... a noon ani-6 'ai no»n
1 Shabbat, 45 b. 2 =irpnn. 3 KeadnVa.
* Our texts have "in. MS, Oxford agrees, however, with the reading of our fragment.
5 Shabbat, 47 a. 6 Comp. note 2, p. 330, below. 7 =D»:aj?.
8 roiDi pnotoa? comp. Sukkah, lob-na.
GEONIC RESPONSA 325
(Leaf 4, verso.)
<JW »a by *|« 'DTia '31 nnvp j 2 D3ip D'bt? . . D>nib : nmbo fmx snip jn 'ns? XL payn 4Tnoni wQuncn »aina paa DBUD nox 3nos XLI jnun :natj>3 6-iwn rva p-i"n» ;5>m» I man xh mna b& INIX n»ai 1022^ 0212^ Din s^ao 8nnwa ino N^T ^m 7|Nana na man WN Bin imxa' jvai i^itjn vby n»a pnnia sb bas mvn n^a n»nrrb nat?2
PM jni }»D DN jna potytb paaio PNB> jva mi nob *i^yn 10 ins po "pipiaa N^prn Nn«nn 10nvnn :}nix pbote XLIV, XLV
pxi :na^vai ppmaa psxv wam Kin pnoi PIIDI naitwi TI IDS K^N nao by pbpm «w»pn 13«bnD ppma :nat>n by XLVI rrb mm ppniaa tjoa ••bao pn K'-jn na^ab NI« p P^aa na 16
i »Kmnay wia'ab nay :pi« n^yo XLVU, XLVUI nniD^N Nnoip^bo wna^op 16}npaiba po XLIX wwai NBO11 sbi maa nb py-n wo piayn
|nn»n jsoa ^DNT mm naben bon^x p 20 mpyob moNi niaino »a nb N^in sbisi nen NW 19»anaK p jn "poanoi namta :w*o inn p n3^3 L
mna '11 onsp?
2 Reading doubtful ; it is probably to be read mnpDTO Q'mb ; comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc., and 'Aruk, s.v. nb.
3 Shabbat, 48 a. 4 =>vr inyTi «JBU ion; comp. introductory note. 5 j-nD=Arab. \j*j*- 6 =iwisn.
7 Comp. p. 301, above. 8 =rm«'>S 'a. 9 Shabbat, 503.
10 Our texts have mnn.
11 This is the correct form ; comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc.
12 ^n3n >:no ? ; comp. Shabbat, 56 b. ls Read N'jpo, " polish." 14 =Arab.^J^, Heb. mm M Read pxn NDD13.
16 j'cnpi'ja, fXvKvWifa'! Comp. introductory note. " Read rt^T 'N.
18 Shabbat, Mishnah, VI, i ; G^ewiara, ibid., 578.
19 'Aruk in MS. Oxf. WEN, our texts and MS. M. WIBN ; comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc.
326
GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leafs, recto.)
IVTN 1rvrtt6 pixi HINI jva vnx 'ivi MI
i . . mm 3py ^iiv 3n*n*n ipa D»aa
: 4 vi'N 'y ie6 ii> 'yb pao nvv "yy naa^x u?y nit 'ay nnno jpnih nir 'aj6 nit!>a3 nvi> jrw TV yn» s^« iw }va iwin"11) 6 C|<|<!| *jai5 TV 1123 n ^ moaa nra^ ^wa 5
n»s pan H^DDT NS^K »^A N^D nin n^y :6Kn-n^ n^ni »b no^ in y^i DN no^ p D vja '33 ^ M»B>\n TO 'VD^ YT^ apy ^a^ p»a in^ai j7.^11!! maioBn 'vna )na> onso nua i?y jnyn un11 :8Nin xan D^iyn }a^ mnaan nob D^ya 'a nin nin nn^in n^N 10 iij sal o^vy ^ran "jn^ na 66p nstjn nxa js^nN
13 Dioy :9fna
tei
rrn» D'ncn p mran-n n
pi MOD
D*anoi
txr pnn
mpon vtb nan nxnn i33n3i 12l)3in ens /iai 13ni3iy p "
19
nmo DIN
}3ni
}33i
niroo
I Read rn«b or Tnro^. 2 S(/re, Deut., 355.
3 Super-linear vocalization. 4 Comp. Genesis Rabba, LXIII, 6.
B Comp. ibid., LXIII, 10 and XXXVII, 3. • ?
7 Pesikta Zuttarti on Exod. i. i.
8 Comp. Genesis Rabba, XXXVIII, 12.
9 Baba Kama, IX ; Yoma, VII, i.
10 He is mentioned as a correspondent of Rab Amram in Rabbi Mei'r of Rothenburg's Responsa, no. 40, ed. Prague.
II Readm in. " =nrin. 1S Comp. Harkavy, 117, line a. 14 =i:iNirm? nna. 15 Menahot, icab. 16 ?
17 Ifenahot, Mishnah, XII, 4 ; Qetnara, ibid., 103 b.
GEONIC BESPONSA 327
(Leafs, verso.)
na» na^ ^33 nx'3» 'D ny N^K D^a '33 K»3nh rmt3$> TH* PKI
p 'a ?y BJK inx p-ipyi 'x ^33 'D K»ao 'KB -IDKI 3*13113 BKI
» / *^3 «*3D 6 ly no yaoi :nn«
pn }»^3 n^i3i> 'nruo i>3e> 0^3 pm a^an onh an^n ^ntn now nmoi 5
nraoi on^n ^np pp pyo p«i m«^ pyo a^an an^ nsioi 'ry 'a ny 'osn nyen rui3^ K^I JDP N^ s/oin 'rooi mw? miiT 'no K^J& ^NP W 4'»an now na* p^3J ps r«D ^33 'D N^OP 'py 'KB ^y nn n»ixi? p^o 5<iNy^N 'n 13 ^Ny^N 'n 13 mm* 'n nns 'p xh '3 «h 7B rns noh :nns ^33
3 N>3D innf M»«3 }3^ -|»JO DlpO ^33 a*T31On
•rrvi? in 6Vy 'KB n3{y3 nvni? ^HB> an!?B> jiBwm 310
31t3 DV3
yj/a'a'a «^ nb anaipm 13 'JB> 'KB n3^3 nvn^ i?np jnbtr VKI^P 15 'a np3 b 613 anmoi •a^D»on 7/y'N'p '33 V 'KI
'D^ ana 'J11!? INXJOJ nnsn ^33^ 8/py 'yi nnsn xi> '3 'npy 'y\ 'n p nn ^y 'T a^33 'n^i 'py 'n '3i '03 nn Vy 'en '<on V '3 '3 'p rapn awi 73 i^ n»x 'KB pnn a^anyn p3^i nnp h? pnsn nsy n^^a I^K a»»aa I^KI a^Ki ana
1 Read n'jVab -p2. 2 Menahot, Mishnah, V, 3 ; Gemara, ibid., 59 a.
3 Our texts and MSS. have the reverse order nw:p nrooi «cin nn:m.
4 Menahot, 103 b.
8 Editions : W^N -ia mirr I'D rfrffch rfi>vm VMC ; MS. M. : nbsrab nVwo 'JIWD a mim I'D.
6 =D»:ntw, neither in the editions nor in the MSS.
7 = D'Q'on icy nyn« rctn »:a D'iD23 D':w D'?NI icy rrobw ipa '23 nno ; the Masoretic text has D'b« and not D^MI.
8 pea n1?!^ nn:n nSo D'3iu» '3«n in«n neb pea nViba rrn:o nbc n':i«y T
pwi in^n b'w1?.
328 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 6, recto.)
nro pbbaj PN D'anyn pa 'ibw nnrwa ib^N nan jnb'ba ibw nhba nrao bai 'OIK in nn ib noN nnN -ION ib 2 TDM nr by joea bba>b nbia1*^ nmo N'an nnin moN 8nanm 'pa 4mTo bai pn ib -ION pbbaa PN 'ND pbbaa 'D \rwsn ib -ION o HND 'oa 5 na N^va IJ^VD pai }n^y ej»Din!> p«i p 'can 5 nvaa .'butDb ha* PN abnip ion 'D baic vi nipo
PN nnx row n^on 'a by 'a DTTO NDDD 'a by 'a 'aix
: |n*by Tioob wno Nnsoin 'bstrBn : o-no H
mini Nnsoin^ »aso Kin 7woo «bi 6sin awp nai xb 10
nabn |n^ |no B>* Nn^na niobna •JDJ? na»oi o^na
.•vby ppibn p«» sn^Kia ba nvr^a nabn pstr jno K-^
DIN noiy n\n 9paa nmoa nabn mox pan mobna
baai ppai jana icxy noano nr nn 10nny ony m^a
lab HN noa»B> ny bbsn^ Nb baN yDiy nnp Nnipi nan 15
Nb>N niy Nbi ni»bna n>by ppibn pjw NM nabn wia it
'ON »o»a« na Na-'bnn an 'ON " niobnn |o yvo nb B^B>
yoB> nnp N-iipi nb'-ab pn IPNI NVIO any nb^aa
n p"anion mtw n^nst: /|( nmaa PNB> nb^aa n
'np 'np^i nb^ab pn iiwi N^r Nb ony nb^aa }^n Nnavn ao
'nao '» Nn^aan nb'aa WKI 'xv Nb «»ani Nn 'pnsoi yoty
noiyb non IT nabn new '•JNnpn *oa Np*n n^ai N^DH nb
1 Editions and MSS. jnVSa ibxi rnniD
2 This is the correct reading, and not iinx, as the editions have it ; comp. Eabbinovicz, ad loc.
3 Editions, max liD, but MS. M. agrees with the reading of our fragment. * Editions and MSS. read mo to ib nnx.
B From pni till in not ill the editions or MSS., and these words are probably by the Gaon. 6 Comp. introductory note.
7 D'lpo in the British Museum MS. of the Ni'n 110 is either a misreading or a misunderstanding.
8 Read JOCTD ; Filipowski, IQSJC, probably a misprint.
9 Tostfta, Berakot, II, 15. The quotation is not a literal one. 10 Dittography. " Sukkah, lob.
GEONIC RESPONSA
329
(Leaf 6, verso.)
onm yop mp Nipi libra w«n '»» Nbe> ony ivaa DMBB '*o nmna 'n^ann IN bba KBU »DSO Nb p3B> bai , Nip'ob .Tb nan ••ONI m --Daoi 7i:n «V3 baai &>pi pna nosrp ttnaa 2N3'N Nbn jiw n^y pa^ai WTK-D bi :n^ano 3^n> bw Nip*i 5 TOSS 'SMDI '»M-O» Npm 4/nom nnn wis^n n^
pjor nnws '3^n rr6i
by K^N wnrw jynox N^T KM '3^1 pr -iDib MO /-I»N win mn pin ^ nan 'ONI pr^ pro 7 ban '121 'o^n IN 'ION IHN Np prb prcn |V3 'isan on mjf
i>y I^SN N3N feN mM» 31 <Dp5> NHN HS1D3 '»Np W »31
^N <inNi Kne6 Nnt? jo ^03 Nipn pr WON ••oj xmn Nip :wnnt? 'ONT KM prb pro *nKi b by NO^N 15 by w»nnB> p»3i3D Nb i&n pr nb y3p Nb IN Nns^on IN Nnsoina ppbinc' nipo bai 'jno 'OTIDT fNoa nabn pnao nna 'ano 'o*noi n-'b Nn^Nn33 'o'noi n3 y^a pn^nosi Nnb"o bai
NBH3N 1H2N 'n b^TNl HOHD^O 8 "ONI NH^NIS 7Mn3 '3^M 20
Nnb^o Na^b ns^n :pbhn3 nbiai 'OB' Dim 'm 'OTI ^ 9/a»D
3 Read tearc ; Azulai : n^oc maVso bxair, which is a better reading, as we deal here with roc rwip = c'O\c note 'Jij? n"?ap, and not with nten.
4 =}TV3nn «m. 8 Megillah, 2&; Bekorot, 30 a.
6 Tostfta, Berakot, VII, 10. MS. E. and editions read warro, but MS. W. agrees with our fragment.
7 'Erubin, "40 b, chapter pnro taa. 8 Yebamot, 42 b.
9 =nETn jnc'D «ncDira. Comp. Rabbenu Tarn's Pt'yul oanc a'S», where the same division of Tannaitic sources is given, including the Mekilta in
330
GENIZAH STUDIES
naio
(Leaf 7, recto.)
cN lovyb abib rrenymTai w»nw nob« l naio >oNn N^ aWn naiob .TOT^ «»n nrcon jva
;or ba 2 nibo 'ONPI : JOT nb yap N^ rvrv JOT |v6 mm* an 3 'cspn na^n IDI ova D»oye noa I^SNI n^y 1120 na NISV ^3 nnaci iTn^a WNT IBWTB^ xn^an '•on 5
4l|ani :royn
xin |»r ^
oin
nu>y
<ima 1120 4l>ani ^ai nan
i sin '-wren : rwva
m
by «I»DV xb «|»mDm 15
an y«e> snav wovn rvij-ia n^y
rr6 ••oao nnm i 'ns nina11 N^ nnian in» vn na V* n^a ni>an iT.n^a 6 nnx n»inm n^ab nvx^ nnx an 'ON nmn11 na NJIH an 'ON 'oNpn 'a nniyt^ noai nan "pat? nban an noN nax na rvon11 an 'ON noai mn« DHN n^ia N^N na ^n^ N!? i^aNi ym ^t^i njt^i nna^ •'na 'OIN *an N^n n^in 20
m 7nvbn ya^o nina11 N^ nman NJNO ' ^nno in^a pnio nvNai 'ai 7nvbn 'r by
1 Tosefta, Serakot, VII, 9, 10 ; Talmud, Sukkah, 46 a.
2 rvbTD ? but the spelling with i is consistent in our fragment.
3 Menahot, 43 a. 4 =nom.
5 Menahot, ibid. 6 Ibid., 393.
7 Not in our texts, nor in the MSS., and was perhaps added by the Gaon.
GEONIC RESPONSA 331
(Leaf 7, verso.)
jinnnn -rap in^ ^nia rpn Tm p^>a D«DO D«DD iwai p^a
rr^yi p^e> rvhni r&H&P n-^yi ?3&p nns rr^in
ir6yi rbatbv rr^yi p&p rr6in rv^yi nbnta rvinn
OKI yasro ninQ11 «^ wn mi }V^yn -it?p nenpi p^e>
n jo nNpy : nrn moa PI^DID a' ny SI^DIH^ nvi iv n p : 2 nhoa po»on pi J pman pi po^n pi p»pn 6 pa x»TTin pa pann pa pnoNn pa IN NI D'Boai D^nn^ n»v trxio pxip
DN 1»V3^ pO»31 10MB> yi N^
po»an p pai nhoa rw* n^yi pxip jnwo m« 10
»^ jna an^y »!>i n^yv JHD nt^yi n»v «tia3B> pom mix nosh? ija ant?ti> anix jiaa J pman p nrx jni^y^ IID« naa inrnj^ nns^ »h£n p nvypa po*o rwnt pai> }me^ niDN nova tw 'OK i?Kioin n'V'B'a 'ON an iwopi an ppi^n any^i 15
'a^m aa ^y «JNI ^«io^a na^m no^ n»io "pan 4 pa 'oxn n^oyo nano'-m 'oc>a 'a^n «na nio^a ana '•aa p'pooi 'naioa 'nvn 'oyoa p«im :noe6 n
Dr6 HTS nn^ iiryi n^ wn o^na »a»na pa poy pa psip pa p^n noa^ am 'oyoi? n^pan 20 ns 6xtrun : n*S*^ bios PD»D pa * p*na v a nyi !?nia n^po na^n j'a Tina IK inia ntrp
. 2 Menahot, 42 b. s
4 =pn?l. 5 SvJckah, 9 a.
332 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 8, recto.)
'a "pna pn^ TM pain 'n T.ab'n 'NBB an '
frws rw&v pnN rrrw na 'yanN T™ pnv 'n 'ON apy 'n 'ON jopb 'noNi ya¥N 'n NS>Q an inoxw 'now ppn |o biu n^p N^O pnn^ N!>T 'j Tin NJON mn NDS a-no ^NI apjr 'm 5
xoai nin apy
rwyv ivroi :niyavN 7a isn w.nt^po vi p^o an 'ON mm* an 'ONT n^ioa hvn&b by fix<| :2wi DISH N^I 2<i5ryi "^ -oa iB'yi 'IB" »33 i?N nan '3P 10
N nb i:no »an p« 'jno ^an jn« ^N ani? »amo an ^ONT SJ3 ^N nan 'tot? mnpap »«a nvxb PJO an 'ON mirr an 'ON •"jw ana nabm 'mo amb nn^b jonnN nnb wyi Nin TWM pa-'n NDSIP 4i?ai :nhos »wa n^ Noaip »ba bNiOB> 'ON NJDip na -aia an 'ON BNnna 'oNpn 15 an '•ab ybp^N N:nn an na nan pnoNp Tiyi n^^a pa'-n tN naioa pnoNi :nbiaa mbo 7oaon n^rn 6}om nain NTI ejun na^n nnao »D boN ••nnnN i|Dat|Ni :pa«n NDDipa pmio D^an ba NO^N nb *on 8m vm n ^n »a nb p^on 'NTI Nnyt^ N^nna 'oNpn ribn 20 rb noo 9min^ am Nni nrwy pinn B>nb ayb 'JK> owro ix rh o^n wan ND^D nb Tay n^n an
1 Menahot, 42 a.
2 The editions have icy, but MS. C. agrees with our fragment.
3 Superlinear vocalization. 4 Read ^31 . 5 Menahot, 41 a.
6 This is also the reading of MS. M. ; the editions have pro n na N3 comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc.
7 =T3m. s '11 = ^1? 9 Menahot, 4ib.
QEONIC RESPONSA
333
(Leaf 8, verso.)
« 'DPI "ua^ 1330 nw pnTio p« 'OK an non»K r6y»i? r6n jo nai> 'noa Tay ion ^D fe "a« 'OKI '121 pn'no mirr an '»no« naa^ naao p-vno p« an 'own aam 'iai 'oeo *n^n ^ ni? wya i^on nn ^>ox D^ata^ n^nioa^ n^ noo
naa^ .T'onai ^n naan nnn6 ^JHK n^p^o »b noi^a 5 :niDan o^y npam nha nantt ND-'D n^» -ray 3an J *3s tbv lhai nioan p n^ JK mnK nioai? n^on vnioao
ni? o»»n wan ^i n^pn n^ fna
n nn«rm *uai? naao pn^no px 'CKI }ini> xn^ao ana p«yno ^Kio^a T»ayn 'j »an p nai?
ny nDoi? my^ px rbyzb nwin nnr ny nianxn
noo^
10 x, xi
niyavx yanx
:yanx
'a^n 'on KSB am xn i?y pnospi
naai
r6
15
nnrx no«i nn^na ja 7jnw n^y ai>iij ia rb w vb ahi? ia' u
p«
niycj'
rh
1 Bead 113.
2 Fi'om 'JOM to nbn not in the editions nor in the MSS. of the Talmud.
3 Read rran n ; comp. the last line on the previous page.
* lȣLJ. s J-o. sReadiby.
7 Editions ^:nv, but MS. C. and many old authorities agree with our fragment.
8 Our texts read ntcob Tiro nb «» bo« rhyob Tirw rrt p«.
9 Editions and MSS. ••»: >3n.
334 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 9, recto.)
nnny ^nc^s po-tn 'a 'OIK i>Ny»&" 'n thy/eh b pw nnN annNi ins a^p n^a 'DIN «a<py 'n :nnN ann«i UN »nn vpajn nBB^ "iw nr JnnN nanyi inn Din na nw 'Ban unae* irtn nioip» nBaa pai :2/P ny peny ^n sas an 8/D&nni :«»n na nw «IN ni>y»i> ww 161 x *BB> n^a la^a^i DIB^D 'n ne^wa enSv nina nyans 6 'i 'DIN ^NOB' n^a }ni3 sin pcin noa pan wi ^n n>ai n^a B^WD »nn ntsai 4fbDiai enbt? 'BIM i?^n n^a ITBK pan inxi :4niya^N 'a 'DIN bbn n^ 4niyavN 4pom 'a 'DIN min> 'n 'n ne^itw 'T Tina 'n win an 'DN 10 apy» na NnN /-i 4niyasN 'a nvhve pp^ 4/yass 'a iBirs 'v py«n rn »DNT ^naiB n^Dn^ am 'n pr«n Tina VB>ay peny 'uwwa 'n^ D^isa pom 'n nabn P^DBD!? NBQ
'T nhsa 'iri NnntJ' 'yavN 'n 'tj6iB>D ppi? 'yavN 'a 14
e6a 8v&Bnai 7l|pnxD :ntrn*s ton nn na n»«n }na -nani B>I^D pn nynpac' ni^o xiv a man^ N^ vbv i[\r\ naa mm n^y w 'a by by w^v jna PNB> nvabt3Da QID 'DN Npi »a naa mm nn^n JNOSI rh b^ai }Nnn Vyb N!?I jNnn D^ayb N!? ine> 10 piB>n }D iwwBn n^a npibm : nan^ xv :U/DD tavnnn JD NJ^ »KBI iB'a nann JB NJB' 21 pibi nann vby D^JN paiBDt? jva nan
1 SuJtkah, Mishnah, III, 4 ; Gemara, ibid., 34 b.
2 Refers only to nmy. s Menahot, 41 b.
4 Explanation by the Gaon. B Menahot, 42 a.
6 =I:NTD ana. 7
9 Sukkah, 1 6 a. 10 JHmo^o<, 438.
6EONIC RESPONSA 335
(Leaf 9, verso.)
PNI *nDan sbw iaioo by pni -ana pnpioi na-in
ryi> viw MW vbv na rvro btnp» nk iboiw rota na onn i>aN iB>a 'an DIB>O iaoo pnp"6 PN awi nvon nns ni^D N^N ib p«ty jva -un ia*K«? in nn 'DB na'-a!' n^ nnr» ppnpio 5 pan >^n i«»n ov 6 ^a in^vx enn^ DIN ^ix *^flWi x
m^ya nv!6 nn-'Ni noan pan ^n pan pnnn nppi ^^y B''1^ '•JB'I ^n: B>»^ «aw ^iy JOT ba nnix B>in^ pan mnnoK xb inipoa jvi'y n'-aja 'n n^ya nbtn nnjo iai nap I^SNI nap»na «b»« WK IN xn IOIN nnx "a «h rn yais no «n -n»N 'n n^ya nn na noan IPK TDI
«bi XT 4/oa 'aa yanx 'n 'n ^aa wv 'n nbya ••:« na-io 'a r6ya
mo nn 'n xa ^aa p«p 'a n^ya »a« 15 mp» ^aa pntaia D^n^ai nov ^SBW xvm p^oy n^^a 6pnyo^ ^a N^N ja n^-an po^y no Nin 7/^ai nox TD^ea nca^ Nino
j nt^yn nna raoyp pan N a^nan p^a NOT 20 nann 'ONI POPBI io*a D^nc^a NJB' N^ n'-n^aa nox jnt^a Dim }nB>ai?^3 p-iDia nox »oin mw an -ION
1 Bead TDD'. 2 Comp. introductory note.
3 Menahot, 43 b.
4 =iniD3 rnD33 ; not in our texts, but in MS. M.
5 i.e. not JtMDC '"i. 6 .JfenaAof, 39 b.
336 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 10, recto.)
pro m '»&n joru rrvBn KS^I N'JDD KP
po pat? ^ai tn»D u B»B> 5?s pan I^BN b^n JVM na^m 5 rwy ^nx no 'DNI aa ^y sjw ;wx i{» p^no p« jntwa niVD ^3 »^o ^n TJtayc' t^abn N^ n^ »m if? tvyyn D in ovan jva 'v^v nivo ^as »TO ni? p'-oao N^I Ton wn
na mro 10 tnx on^m jo»bi n"x nioa niB'D HTM 'nfennai 'pp'-ho noaa
a«no xi? myi 'OKI NP niya 'xnn aa ^y ej« KM naa n»B»i •vyi'B' «»n :^n naa np^jn np'-y nna 5/ir pnoK 15 *ip»jn "ip^y ina 6||T ^»NT sp naaa n*wr aa ^y BJK in ^ -QDP sjaa ina ^TK ^NHN ani jv^xn jo miosi in my my spa is naM naa ejaa ix np^y ejaa nsKnp fjasa nvsn }va K»n n^cia as Tina n3tra nvx ib npoa:^ »D : mioa xx n*a-.n men DKI ewn law in^ab K3^ ny .13 nosno 20 N3B>^ ^BW 3-1 n3 n»3 's^rn ^nntr iy moB>Di 3Bn<i M
tnna
Aoi, 40 a. 2 =nrn NP. s Shabbat, 25 b.
4 Menahot, 40 b. 5 =Vn. 6 =Vl. 7 Menahoi, 38 a.
GEONIC RESPONSA 337
(Leaf 10, verso.)
iB>nnt5> ny PIOPDI a&>v IN TvpaB IN N^N >bzbi£> TIDN nina nina ia^i» lx»Nn pny 'na 'ahn niy» :pn^ 'na ppiy PN onaa nNBn ynspi DN nwan n^a nna» pai nat? anyn hont* roB>i to\ni xxi j>»cp pi rhnKth iK*ao aiTy nn ^i Kin naswo T'ya 5
a^n PMB> jop N^ao xin T-HM mtn^ n^oiao nw in pnv^ an 2/oNpn Kin -6 noN11 N^ na^ai injni> ma 'm rvDp^ xnx KK'mo »an mnna» n^ inac^i n^ax onn 1^03 vbm »^ piso pn n^a px ni^a: ^ax pp naop NO^N 4ni?
:pam '»naa r6 pnDpioi Navn vh IOT nx tnnoi iynp aSn 6 'ONPT »a ynpa N^
ja rr»^ pnoNp »h nnirDi ih^a nn« iynip Kin a^ p«3B>w xynp 'yxa N^ ^na ^as nynp »yai in ai>
aN nynpa n^ ^D N^ ^na nynpa n^ »aon 15
i N^ pair6tMe> pa nynp N^a ^an11^ x^a^aa Ntrn 6/ONpn ^ p yna N^T N»yu wo nip'-o n^n jmsM n-nnx nen a^Ni aT'o no»rw jva ninai : TDNI n^on n^ NIP '•oa Nan TDNI xxm •nbnai nonna ^N^' nniDNi mnan bzh nnr n^yj 'wh 20 vb nN^Jty }na na 7pm onnN^ pai n^a pa na pai DnriN^ pa n^ pa 'nDNp NDOD 'oinna
1 Shdbbat, 153 b. 2 Fe6a»wo<, nsb, end.
3 = Ti'n'w ; our texts have IDDTN . See D'bm 'U "» "van, I, in Jahrb. d. jud.-lit. GeseUs., V, Heb. pt., where the reading agrees with our fragment.
4 Our texts have -QDp NO'TN in1? TPO i;fj 'HDOTD '«i cnn I^E^I.
5 Hullin, xogb. 6 Pesahim, 93 b.
7 Fe&a»no<, Mishnah, VII, i ; Gemara, ibid., 66 a ; the quotation is not literal.
8 The words 'u^b rvn»® na crept in from the previous line.
338 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf n, recto.)
pa nb&> pa nbn xbi nonn xb basn tb ' nonn ib'axi nnns nonnb lovy nonn pa bp ats>mi na aina nnp nbna n»nna nawn
» IN nab iron naDtp ^NI^I :'ai ncnn Dab xxrv nonyn DB> pw inn na n^o DN mioa njnna ib 5 wn *jmD xb'-K D^E^ iNt^a p niK'yb b*ai ww 'KD nan }» noan nnx laoo np»bi "wnb 't^ b 'D*PI mnitna n»b Dp rvaswi na iT»apn aabt? pn apm nb»a«a inin HDQ nnx IN 'rwno nn^n WD }:n»si nxana imo noan vby 10 Nfiioa 3pnsi nn ib»a«i 'DNP NOHD ^n mm* KI /<p3N:i nni» «an*D n^b »»a»Ki win :n«ana imo »naian «an nsana TIDN •nboi Dnabt? nun 4pan uni :nb*a«3 nnio noa nnx DK> NVDJB' ^on DB> p«wi pwaa '"it^ •'bjnai onabtr 15 aim "nsana noib T>IV w nb*a«a nnio noan
"inio jona am» SJNI jnx^na pa nb*a«a pa n nsv P^aa mn pm aT-a pin »a xan 'own
naian pom nsjna pbn ba p fanw '121 sno^an ao
noiy pN*aoE> ppno rnxana nmc noa ins xxv penyi pban ^a^o iKea IN pbab^aai paa nnix
2 Pesa^'m, Mishnah, II, 2; Gemara, ibid., 28 a. But comp, »T»M. 4 Pesahim, 31 b.
5 The editions have woi, but some of the MSS. read »itoi ; comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc.
' Comp. introductory note. 7 Pesahim, 30 a.
GEONIC RESPONSA 339
(Leaf u, verso.)
on^ya pp'pn vm ptsw n^oya D^ana 2 p ptjny PKI >pn 2p ppno ptsny 'BIK »m» 'n iroan
'nn* pan wn nnio noaa nro *T pa nw6i rratpD&3 naa n»Nn DNI noan pTison 'no^i n«-nm n^pj nan p own i>K» nr nan mw rn 'DK 'an 'xon 'no peny ps 'osn HP 5
ayap^i ny 'lai
n^nn »JBD puny px pa nwyi? IB®^^ »a ^y «|K ppHD Kpin peny PNBOI puny p« NO^N 'nifc o*nu »p»"io pmos i»3K po*n H^ D^sai pa pmen prnt pw paoiK W«B> on« ^a h? Dya pnv 'n 'na nry^N 'n 'OKT nni» |n prnn jn pawjw poinna^ 10 N^X no« poinm^ xi? nosn torn naioa 'ON 'noaai nns naa 4no^nm no^yo :Kina NJB^a ^m on« PODIBW pnnn D*D p^ae :pe&a& *aa ^y nop nn nop *aa ^y pt^ao no^n :jna nnho n»i
in ni?n pa»yb nn 15
pa»no *KOI '121 nr paaa»o : ^y on^ niv» 'OK 'omi pa»K oni? ix^n pa nain
pawan in^n^ nb pnay 5jnDB>j jon aanaa in xxvn a^ IN B>an pxta pe> pa Nvi^ai 8attB>ia p^y P'D'N "nana mix paiK pa^an 'oien 20 xntyo pn^y nKe*i tn^aaoa pnl» pnrnoi rvbrn ;rknn JD 'IOB D^a 'o^ni 'nm 'aion pan jam nijni? xxvm
37 a.
2 Editions and MSS. ','02, but the '^4ru&, s.v. pic, agrees with our fragment.
3 Superlinear vocalization. 4 Pesahim, 37 b. 5 Persian.
Z 2
340 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 12, recto.)
p yaw 'n B*TBO Npn » i 'Dm 'DN yy nr6 noa p^yb !?3N DipD3 u paiNP inn baai n-paai -o-naa niaNi? mo *J*ff& xxix
DDN ^3N J.T^yD pJTW 13N pKI '•niD 13OV pN WK 113n p«B>
"p -inxi v^y IN vnnn ppoop i>a 021*3 rvn* nr fe 5 nan nx p»3TD OKI :nm»i pn »T^ N3 p« nan ns p|iD3^i n^nnn 3/Dspn -now nni?» NOB> 2w»Bnn P^D^D noan 4 nia^tr m»i : TIDN nTnn PJIDS^ p»3i»n nnio xxx
mmio *ntt 6niVD 5p3i i:m mni» 'oa p 'o^ 'n nn» 'npna 8pjrpa pwy ^ai> now 7nry^ 'n noan 10 'n 'nosi 'B^D n*n* nn 'pie 9<imn ownia ra xrnn^ rm» ^a 'DIK DP N3n pn Na^s 'piaDi N»P wn w»n 6oa p inn Niop wm »nw *«n na pnns xh '-IINS IN nao 7D3 p 'OB' /-ii P^rnx N^I 23 ^y «|M na ipnnnK* 'so ^a »«n w»an» '^poi :xi> pnn« N^ IN PN 15
Na^N N^N J3«3B>D1 N"1^? NO^Npl : iT^ WD H3 Ip^THH DN
by PIN Na^na N^T jva NCP wni pnnNi Na^na N^T in^^a jrai :pnn« pnnNT jva nao '03 p 'yoe* 'ni N^ pnnNi aa HID "Na^na 'nan pnnN-i N3'ina N^na '03 p '»t? p*n psm n3-ina mxo nvon jvai : panb ^03 p pyoB> /-i vib 1Z HID 20
p pyDB> pn n>b mn »n mins 'a^n rv6i n»n» n^b nin IDNI
1 Pesa/iim, 373. 2 =owin. s Pesakim, 37 a.
4 Bead Trote. B Hullin, 43. 6 Bead nsD.
7 This is the correct reading, and not TO^N, as the editions have it; comp. Babbinovicz, ad loc.
8 Our texts have jwpa, MS. M. jwpa and p?»pD. 9 =nann.
10 Bead on '«. J1 Bead wnrm Kn. 12 Dittography.
18 Pesahim, 24 a, end.
GEONIC RESPONSA 341
(Leaf 12, verso.)
nnao KBW :IVTJ 'any ptj6a noen »n NOB ani xxxn IN 'aan DV any!> IN noan anyb anow no!? nroo abai mop t^anyn pata Ton p3*yb 'oan 'ONP no nbnn :'aiB 'on pa nt?yn ypn paan DNI Tona a-nai nr ny nr noai n pa 'B>» my 5>a inx lonen nosa aTDi n^aiyn 5 'ano 3/)3i tan^a nnsn wa^i :noaij Ton D^ipnh nww W»B> wnoi»i> sai nnsm n^xm moa 'nyn pa ia ama Ton 'DIN ia»n pa N^ I^KP ni»na nnao nnpa IT Nrr-sna n«a :bioa rrcnDi t^^a IDHB'^ pai pa po^ UN naooi :nJDp nrxi n!>na ':» irx 10 a na^K' nnaoi paoio n^ani? pa i?in^ n^an a* jnnaiy na*«B> mso ny '121 ni^an 'a vaa^ vn xxxm 5<ian r i>aN an ^na'n '•DIN p^a JOBH nrb nr ppiann nnaa w ^aw TYWV »3so T"na N^I ap W> nnaa 'i «ap^ 'aa »aa i5 jw an 'DK :nyacn n^axi n»iN£y '•nya^ N^ 4fnj?B> no^a nann 15
pajn nr pna an 'ON :nf i^n^a ny :ain waa ny 'm ana »i^n nan p« jam an 'ON K^N *an a< ^y nn^a j6t?
N on^npnni ^MBW j '121 annxt^ i?a N^N xxxiv
na^n p 6/iai D^JinnN D^D I^N 'snip on*m an 'ON 7nvrNana N^N IT ni»a pania UN PN 20 wna ana pin »a ^N an 'ON iaayo p» |»B>a an 'ONT N.n »a N^N 'yoB' un baa wna^n n^i 'DNI }b aayo
a- ; comp. I. Low in Orientalische Studien, I, 552.
2 Berakot, 26 b. 3 PesaAtm, Mshnah, V, i ; Gemara, ibid., 58 a.
4 Superlinear vocalization.
5 Berakot, 42 a, top; read win n ; comp. 'Aruk, s.v. "pa.
6 Berakot, 53 b, end. 7 = 1S'313 ; Berakot, 42 a. 8 Comp. introductory note.
342 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 13, recto.)
pm 2Ti w 2T1 '121 'a>2n 'a 21 'ON *B>N 12 n«n »B« 2-1 ira nn»K N»VDI pan MNI nw 2-12 n2^n
in22 'na^n £ 'D*pi "anna pr6 wn pap xxxv mm TDD 8&wn 'oxpi IPITD 12 amm iao ni>a» ^KI nnaoo KI &? nnsD»2 ^ha N^N any T2pa any 5
mm ISD oy n^aai ^iai> i^ia pa aoio JTO pya nTin TSD!? i!> vn p^ian j^ 4 sy xb yTaoi? n^a» mipn : mm TQD n^a11 i»Ni nnat3» innsi HK^D ^21 innNi mrrn WTD »aa Nw» p» pa2 pn*o :jnfioi» inr enTwnK »o»3 <ini|ii ny hn 0^1 10 ny NTpi aa*jn '•nun oa nyi 'IWIK wi wi »PD»D :aa»y I^D^ jon TIO^I ny NTpi 22^yi pieo iyT mn N^
:7nrno» n> »rnoi :nae> n^ao'Di o*pm nn» paa n no«2 15 piaiy DTK ya J8pie>n JD fcn nbn^ ny nawn nivo xxxvm nni'nnn) :onaan ^n '»nan ^2 jn^aT2 paen
pipr p« nn22 'a^m np^inf) a^n px po nine ps nnaai Vpoi :10Da2 'na^m :p»o oa oa DT 20 IN!? ^N» pwwi JD i>aT nbn^ ny nniso ^ b pipr N»^N ni» p^no Tin
1 =w. 2 Megillahj 32 a, end.
8 Our texts read mi«n ; comp. introductory note.
* Megittah, Mishnah, II, i ; Gemara, ibid., 17 a. 5 Megillah, i8a.
6 Ibid., i6b. 7 Ibid., 19 b. 8 Shabbat, ai b. 9 Ibid., 23 b.
10 Read : . . . 02 m = nnna . . . IID« x inio pipi] '« [ttjonttn1?] inio pipi
GEONIC RESPONSA 343
(Leaf 13, verso.)
i> nw w P^ID pwn JD ^n np!>DD nw IN naao nvn DN np^VT JK J lyi pi^n jo bi nrfan
nD n^y nonn f*ep°
:D3»na nonm »an? pro^ n^ss N^n pn^aoi 4J1VN jnc' 5 I^D r^rffvyo DX pnn mw :nnx nxna nann D^JNI XL ye^ nSy nva v\v rh wv ino nnx in n!?i3 pwn* joB'n mn K>NIO KIIT 'moi "wi jot? nnyp N!J^D wm 'moi DTK nroo mnh aan^ nsnn ^ns N^JD 7ninnwa xoi'N 6wiaa
a 10 :'iai nnsi ins i>a^ 12 piiom in^ai XLI
pa onorn pni »D*m pi ntj> "NO-INT sna^ »«n 21 'DJH nt? rr»b J^eao s^ «b'« n^DNT Ditw ^i> pnoKi :rryD VNM N^ '•"ja iTrn 14 13 P^DD fnty iva QMa^ 10ypisi :9/i3i n^ v^ *P^ x^11 }V3 "pom11 IQD :11DN i'B'iao o^iye' n»p XLIU
nosi nna^Di 'at^ i>3 triTa n vn mm ^ya noai na vn 'pn» D»«»33 noai na vn ppano vn na vn hoai o:a n»3i na i pouan jo ppmnoi D*3im ponvo Dy piannoi 20 pynv vn N^ nn^ry ms» nnai jnia trt^n wjJtr pa iTn no pyiv vn N^ pvy ;n i^asi ipai* nnat^o
i =j«-jyi. 2 Shabbat, 21 b. It cannot be determined whether the
correct reading is *rrain or «nmn. s Read in>oin = prro\n.
4 Read pr«. 5 Shabbat, 23 b. 6 Ibid., 238.
7 Read mcrwra. 8 Shabbat, 21 b. 9 '^Cfcodafe Zarah, 31 b.
10 Arab, p Uii , a beverage made of barley. u Pesahim, 62 b.
344 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 14, recto.)
•6 naain ruw nsw Mtsnan {53 'o^Dan nDNP HDD
noa :Dnwa vn noi it^y no rnna^D ntryD tjnn» XLIV aayo-i nr nN m ppnn bana 4 'ata 'a^N ^n^ pant? pva 3 paiyo
vn xh DJ nt^yj n^n 'Bm»3i : HMD *ib p«ai m nn nr 5 DIN ny»n: xi? obipo 'can 'ON -\3V roao n^ pN3 vn N!>I
paa a »DII »aa pjntwp 7»on naa :6n^»nn pi nntya XLV
nnyni nmoaai nnaiaai nniooh
"itin ?Ji :pnnn nr»i yiap ai wp XLVI rnaoo ^T N^ nr nan 8/oiN nhyn niioix 'Danp pjnap 10
iap^ TIV^ in nn^m nio^N «h jn nit^aj »am nawn »an noNB' »B ^y SINK> 'an puna p '•a i>y map Wa ND^N paxa anpxn mnna n^ay ia»«n N
'oxpn »annl> nanai *9n2Nn N3 nna y»s^» pnnn pnnn NBHI N^nnn :10Ntrn Nna*»i N»nnn Nanoa NO^HI 15
niyi :«Nnnaa 'a^n ^ 'D»PI joipoa pnoiy wnann na na nan 'DNn naxn^ n^ y»oo nna»BDn nx naiann
nnn ny 'ai xnia »nra '•sn^D^ nnnanNi 'iai nan ^oan pai :nrin h^a ND^N ni> nbpt^i 'anb N^a^a 7»iN 'oana na^n ira^ 'iai nai?n» non nva 'DIN obiyn HIDIN 20
n^ai paaw 12n«^y ovaty on>nan p«na ^an 'DNn 'yn pwn WK na nw :na ^an ^y "pi^nNB' nnN PNB> pnnn
1 Kiddushin, 70 a. 2 PesaAim, 62 b. 8 Ibid., 64 b.
4 =D'DI?« »Db«. 5 Read payoi.
6 Nothing bearing on it is found in Tamid. Either read nONi and comp. V, ii ; or the two words belong to p. 345, line 18, and comp. Tamid, III, 8.
7 Pesahim, 87 b. » Ibid., 94 b. 9 Our texts read ap»' 13 ^n« at.
10 This is also the reading of MS. B. and some of the old authorities; «omp. Kabbinovicz, ad loc. n Bdba Batra, 74 a.
11 Editions and JdSS. have ni^^so. 1S Read pibn'ffi.
GEONIC KESPONSA 345
(Leaf 14, verso.)
map lyaxx vwv onxb IIDKI ^an -IDB> noa JHB> niryoa XLVH peny UK nai NTI nabn 1/-iaan ova •WKP "pia axa 'on
xpn 'a by ejK 'ean ova 'Dxpn omaan DVD asa 'D epny N^T
vn DN isu ba IBW nvpD pmb IIDK now? 5
XLVIH
ai
••a tnn '•NH nasn XDK 7nwyn moa 9ma ^aa :'iai N^y KDW^ xnn xoinn pa L noatj'na D-ITI nbnna o^nab rnani? B>npoa HJIDD 10 vna> PJIDD jn I^NI 10wm "ja n^y mi "p nt^ys nr a rrriD nin^on !?y n»n« nioninn ^y DTOB ja pnv
nnia mt
•pyo ^in f»y .TTIX ja p^ o^ya^a ynvi jtrini onan ja onyt? n^yj i?y naa p nia y»aa prw Tam K»airu 15 iva -awn by >ib p DIJN i?v^n by «n« p y^an by "waa nrybx niop npy» by D^oas n^a D^an onb n^y» by noy 'DIN .Tn no ma »a»aa 9 'Dan uen : cnabon onaa nanan
ibip n»m oaiDyob 'B« o:anb D^ib namiayb o^na nDiy rww DIPD "nnn wa :niMna 'aa yD^j LI pnnoi nbntjiDn n^jw «ima» DipD pi^b obvrt pa 21 3B> pa nnn nDiba pix nanob 'pn» naiD pa n\n naiDi pb^D 'a
1 Pesahim, 54 b, end. 2 Fowa, 77 b.
3 Fowza, Mishnah, VI, 3 ; Gemara, ibid., 53 b. 4 =TO« «n.
B Foma, 54 b, end. 6 Ibid., 21 a, top. 7 Ta'anit, 25 b.
8 Our texts and MSS. have «bry ; perhaps it is to be read "a calfkin." 9 Yoma, 20 b.
10 Shekalim, V, i ; comp. introductory note.
11 Ybma, Mishnah, VI, 8 ; Gemara, ibid., 68 b.
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
XXXIX-XLVII
THIS appendix contains, either in their entirety or in part, nine fragments (XXXIX-XLVII) of the Sheeltot and the Halakot Gedolot, belonging to the Taylor-Scheehter Collection. Their important place in the study of the Halakic literature of the Geonim is demonstrated in the first volume of this work, pp. 91-2 and 108-9.
XXXIX contains a single leaf, vellum, the first twelve lines of which are given. The rest of the fragment is identical with the beginning of Sheelta IV in the editions. The portion reproduced here is closely connected with the end of Sheelta III in the editions. Both deal with the question whether r6a nojan is more important than rwi>n non. Our text of the Sheeltot has preserved nothing of the material treated in the present fragment, and, as the latter also is incomplete, it is not possible to determine the exact size of the Sheelta.
XL consists of eight consecutive folios, and it contains the Derashah meant to be attached to Sheelta XLIII, which, like all the Derashot, is missing in the editions, and, besides, it contains a considerable portion of Sheelta XLIV in a form differing essentially from the text as printed. Although the additions made by the fragments to what we possessed of the Sheeltot are almost entirely quotations from the Talmud, it was still thought well to reproduce the whole here, especially in view of its value for the text criticism of the Talmud.
XLI consists of two folios. The first twenty-five lines are the beginning of a Sheelta, not preserved in our printed texts. To judge by the Halakic material in the piece now
350 GENIZAH STUDIES
rescued from oblivion, it was intended for the pericope yirn, or yniVD, or ni» nns. Only so much of the fragment has been copied here as contains the Sheelta. The rest consists of extracts from Halakic and Haggadic works, one piece being particularly interesting. Apparently, it belongs to the Tanna debe Eliyahu Rabba and Zutta, and, differing from our version, as it does, it is of great importance in the study of this Midrash.
XLII contains two leaves, vellum, thirty-seven lines to a page. The part published here consists of the last thirteen lines of leaf i, recto, and the first thirteen lines of leaf i , verso. It is the end of the Sheelta belonging to the Pentateuch lesson jnrce. The rest of the fragment is in our printed texts.
XLIII is written on paper and contains six leaves, the last page blank ; pp. 1-8 in neat square writing, while p. 9 is nearly cursive, and large; pp. 10-11, square writing. The first page is blackened and rubbed, and further muti- lated by two holes. I have tried to supply the illegible and missing words. What is reproduced here corresponds to nine consecutive pages, containing a Yom Kippur Sheelta. The last two pages are part of a Piyyut, probably from an <Abodah for the Day of Atonement.
This Sheelta is quite new, and it has a number of interesting points. I venture to call attention to some of them.
Leaf i, recto, line 7, a Haggadah is quoted from the Midrash Tehillim with the introductory words D'tot? moi, plainly indicating that the author of the Sheeltot had before him a Midrash on the Psalms arranged according to Sedarim. The oldest authority known up to the present as having had access to such a Midrash was Rabbenu Nissim of Kairwan1, who lived three centuries after the author of the Sheeltot.
For the history of the liturgy, the Confession of Sin, on leaf i, recto, lines 26-9, is extremely important.
1 Comp. Buber, Introduction to his edition of Midrash Tehillim, p. 66.
APPENDIX 351
Although badly mutilated, it can still be recognized as identical with the form occurring in Palestinian sources, and different from that in the Talmud Babli l. Yet one must guard against drawing the unwarranted inference, from this agreement between Rabbi Aha and the Pales- tinian sources, that he gave the preference to them. If there is any statement that can be made with certainty concerning Rabbi Aha, it is that it was his constant aim to establish the authority of the Babylonian Talmud as the court of highest resort. Our information about the liturgy of the Babylonian Jews of Geonic times is so inadequate that the utmost caution is required in dealing with what- ever concerns it. The view, universally held2, that the 'Amidah, published by Professor Schechter in the J. Q. R., X, p. 654 et seq., is of Palestinian origin, becomes less certain when it is recalled that so late as the time of Rabbi Natronai (see above, p. 119, end) an lAbodah com- monly considered Palestinian was used in the Babylonian synagogues.
The reason given, on leaf i, verso, u. 8-n, for the choice of the Pentateuch passage read in the afternoon of the Day of Atonement 3, is cited by Rabbi Abraham ben Nathan, of Lunel (JTUB, 61 a), as a " French tradition." It is not at all improbable that the old French Jewish scholars may have derived their tradition from this very Sheelta.
The source for the parable, leaf 3, recto, n. 4-6, is not known to me. Obviously, Rabbi Aha must have had it in his text of the Talmud, Sanhedrin, 99 a. In any event, it is the short, original form of the New Testament parable of the prodigal son.
XLIV is on paper, six consecutive leaves, square, black
1 Comp. Yer. Yoma, end ; Lev. R., Ill, 3 ; and Babli Yoma, 87 b.
2 Comp. Prof. Schechter's remarks, and Dr. Elbogen, Studien 2. Oeschichte d. jud. Gottesdienstes, p. 49 et seq.
3 The reason given is probably correct. In view of the fact that in olden times folk-dances took place on 11D3 between men and women, leading to marriages, the reading of the Biblical laws of marriage is highly appropriate.
352 GENIZAH STUDIES
writing. It contains a piece of the 3"n. There is very little new material of importance, but the arrangement is characteristic, differing widely from that of the printed texts of the a^n.
XLV, two leaves, vellum, square writing. Like the previous fragment, it contains a piece of the 3*1. Fol. 4 follows our printed text rather closely, but fol. 2, varies greatly from it. I have therefore copied only the latter portion of the fragment.
XLVI, one leaf, vellum, small square writing. It is a piece of the Halakot Kezubot of Rabbi Jehudai Gaon corresponding to that published by Horowitz, in VB>n, I, pp. 15-16, but containing a considerable number of variant readings as compared with it.
XL VII, one leaf, vellum, thick, regular, square black hand. It seems to be an extract from a version of the 3"n essentially different from ours. With the exception of the first eleven lines, which are contained in 3"n, ed. Hildesheimer, 623, it is not to be found in the 3"n. Notice especially that our fragment speaks of X?DJ , and not of ''jm D"D , thus betraying itself as a Palestinian version, since it was only in Palestine that the prohibition against ''jm applied to all sorts of plantings, and not merely to vineyards1. The view that ''JQI is to be buried in the cemetery is, moreover, in opposition to the 3"n and to the nini>KtJ> 2, and probably is another Palestinian custom 3.
1 Comp. Tur, Yoreh Deah, 294, and j^n, ed. Hildesheimer, 644.
2 Comp. j"n, i6a ; ed. Hildesheimer, 643, and Sheeltot, C, 114, 116.
3 In a"n, ed. Hildesheimer, 643, xypco is not to be translated with the editor " river " but " depth," by which the depth of the soil is meant.
APPENDIX 353
XXXIX.
'* D-D l pjwano -inv 2 nrb hyin nspoi rrnna 3n3oi> ^o ^aa rrb man , . . . na win 'Top N . . NI rbzbv not* ^ \r\rbv van *N ..... a^o NJM xaaB' nnpD mm m»D n^yn $>y3D mn
. , . T^ lap ^ym -inni nany mxo n^yn 101^ ^on DN 5 ...... T *N WN-D ama nn^o '•o11 nyn^ n<b nnpn inn
ins .TnB> nn n»am 3yo^ xn ni^ax ^o11 a^ noK IN ;
•iiio n^yi ^ym naini? n^an nsi jnnn nx mnb n»n nhB>on '•o1' nyaa> ama ino nx naip na nnxi
n»2® ,
p }B» Nin n-'D1' jn«ai nibaN ^D* nyaiy nban j» PO»BOO pyaio pxi a^an pa na
Kama, 93 a. 2 Kead no ncinb . 3 Ketubot, 3 b.
A a
354 GENIZAH STUDIES
XL.
(Leaf i, recto.)
. , . . . jp pot xnnioDK '•sn NDQ 31
..... rrrbtrK >jp N^ mm mta xpn
Nnsno xnx an rrb '« *j
TlttS^ '•OJ '•N nitK iTSBDN . . ^N NDbni 5
pnn NIIJ Ninn >jp NVINN -rep , , D ........ b %rn ^
"12 11 ID'1 NQQ 21 12D . . t 10
2 ixb nxi nuia 'be .... ^ *U3* .... ^N n^ 'N .. N ....
. 1 11DN »3 ID^D^ XBS 11 ........ ..... N .. OH
r^p H:nri' N^T NVIN pa ..... ^ ........ N'jp xb
. . Kp N^ '•NT b NBQ nib NJin 31 .Tb '« »n ......
. . IN nil . . 13^.1 NsJp N!? 'a^DN '31 11DNT . ...... 15
. . nuro3 r^no joru 31 i3Dp . . b» . , . ib IN . . . .
.. in 3*1 'K n'oni? bpn HITS naion iDrvN N ......
13
pBO N »3W 1 ........ IK
rur . . m 3
N nbiia DK n .....
. . 1D3 «b .......
... H31 K ....... 25
Mezia, 66 b. • The reading of the last three words doubtful.
1 Baba Mezia, 67 a.
APPENDIX 355
(Leaf i, verso.)
DB vb »BB ^ax p'pao ' rvm ryan pas psi Nin ivan pas
nwva xnaiy »PK an nay no tann ITDB>D fov am nna 8 nos n
13 N> ''03 Kn
'osn jNoi' K^N twiwp «n^ 'osn na »a^B xni^p
nrn Nnp 'DK nn ny n^ 'oxn jua nit iw w^a« ^w p»o xn . . ni NH Kjvaa N^a w^as pj{j> B>on ny niosn
osn N3^i ^ nynai MIT ii> nnn ny ..........
sni^p *»sn ^^n N^N n ..... N ............ 15
...... p3t? K'Dn ny rrb anan .............
. . anan ... oa
1 BabaMezia, 6^ a. s Ibid., 67 b, top.
A a 2
356 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf a, recto.)
....... aw KJK mb nios »npn wax *
....... Npiea p^y Kpi Tana nnna »aa
..... D KB^B TDK t6w np H^ Htt 'K KTHBtt
T
. . . tte> n * . N <aa N3»p ny w ttp K^OW jva KDW iry JIK ai^ 2 1^ n*n »an >»3 N»an £ 'etsp »DT nnso 5 'oto n»an INXD ^niia nx nm^i v^ni ^^ mn />in-m:DB> no i? niao nn^in Typ no
-non n^ niao »an nos "nos nai ^ «»an ton »oi Tsty , /an
'
*N 'i n mari Npn in^s w sn^n N^NT ^n 10 win am 4Naa ai :8inana wnnx ^ns v6 Npoa
'ONI ywn» am
na ^u naarn woo na« am ^yn p« »«n NIDIT no 'NI nnooBTD nvasw none £»BM n^ PV^DO ^DDI Ninxa 15 nuna npibb^ v^a SI|»NT Nt£i '•JP ^D»Da »naa« w an n^D N3p*»i' 71* N^ 'DM an np£ nap 1210
am nna
an *a« « NJ'a . . . KD nn 20 ^ »B« am wna a ... ^a« mm *TD ^»a« 'ONI jo N»yo ^
mm aa i?y SJK wb nnn« n nyansa ini? e
1 jBoba Jfezfo, 64 a. 2 Read ibinn or nbin rvn. s Reading doubtful inrona or imna? * Baba Mezia, 67 b. * «=TOST jNoVi.
Afezt'a, 68 a.
APPENDIX 357
(Leaf a, verso.)
nnrw mm* mm »TB ^ax vb DVTSK nnspiN warm wn Bnpn nnns rrw . . *B>K an 'K rvana ntwnnB sin nxi^n «an . . .
»epn wnrrcn >ntDB>3 s ^IQNQT 5
xmn
N n-i? ID 2iT?N xron M.T pr 3 swn NH n^ 'NI JOMO ins *
mn 10
mm K? n^yns paw WJP »an panan »^H yp 4 Knana nr mm pJTy n»a n
na ^NT TBB> 15
JIWB 'li? np^ myo 1^ jn» N!>I natr ra
PN B3 yiaa ..... a» jnw p DK prvoi p^ay PBB> px na^ rwro^ pbaninn HN 0 ... nat^ i!? jnu p DK N!?N na^ mrnB^ 20 DipBai IBK oy n^oi ION oy i>:y p« pbyB my^b ejna
1 5a&a Ifezio, 68 a, top. a =rrt ION. 3 =n:>n ; « for n as in
many cases. * Read Nmrort = rnrwn. 5 Not in our text of the
Mishnah, but quoted in the Talmud, 68 b, from Tosefla, Baba Mezia, V, 6.
358 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leafs, recto.)
3N '
natfta finish? taa ^>yiaa wo naxta Mian pywN ••« ttaanw :tm»Nn ny
rrfc rvh 'aun ^a« nwa £ npii? i>3N MHTO n^ noa pan wn fr s inop n^ 2 »ar T» K^K wy bta si> i^as 5
'n n»«D 'n nan noyio pa nanioa pa nat? Nin icy i»a« N^ i^fiK n^a N^N IDV bta «b I^BN 'IN ii> inu 'IN »nr p py»B> 'n nas? NNT ir nriK nnana nn xh nny N^ PDB> PN 'an un :D^O nw 'i nac' nvno^ i?aixi nitryi' lamp nan in Nbi 10 nnn *!• nnhn }HB> ^BD onyn nx po» 'IN nnin* n/iannn nxi niDnioi niBow nima \rw '•in «^ af>ni nna N»P wn nany ^nt?
»a^s xb mby ^ia a^ni nraa WITBI i^oy 'Dsn masa ni? nan nnin11 'n*a nov 'n nrnm ^avoaa 15 'na ni? nao N»p NJn n^a N^N ivy bo «b I^SN pan wn :D^ na^ li? jnu 'D«n »nv ja pyoc' pmnaN -^a nnan^ n^aann ntrx nnatro nhaann nnnan^ nosn^ n^x nnnioi naea n^ 'or 'n 'an o^mnsNa pi^nn i?v onni "*?w 2 5 nry^N 'n : nnno D^va Na'-x lanioi i^oy natr ni?
'm . ,
n-9 aw mnn Nt^ns xinn rr9 mn x^niaNo mn nnna rb a^B '•a n^ D'-QBI 6nan rri? pan
nan* Nh mc^ xn^xa i? a^a xi>n >xn inn^an 25
1 Ua&a Jtfezta, 68 a end to 68 b. 2 ='ao. 3 =
* Abbreviation for rw. 5 Bo&a Ifezia, 69 a. 6 Read rram.
.— -APPENDIX 359
(Leafs, verso.)
n<7 a7B v
an
WIT wiswi n^ana nnn^o nn w inna nnita «
DHD
131TD
'IK 'oa p 'DB> pn
jnaoi IDK Dy irfcn IDK ny ?ay po» 10 4 pan un : rran otw ewn w»w im^ ?y 7BB7 a^n ^no ny wan? nona o»n naiD^ nn7ia 'DIK DISDID nnha n»na
P17H7 N3 DK1 BHIH Tl 5 nWJ3 CH1H 1B^
noh M»K 72N v?y aayo nan wor lira 15 nnnx nae^v n^is^c? IT »no ny nan? nona ot^n DV S noaa nr 7'' npna nn?o ^so11?
a 'IN nmn> 'Ta S
Kan no ID^D^ '•aao »ND nano 20 nvno nrm i7{y nvno 7Qia 17x1 pns nipn
1 Baba Mezia, 69 a. s -pm ? 3 Mishnah, Baba Jfezia, V, 5 ;
Qemara, ibid., 69 b. * Ba&a Mezia, 69 a.
360 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 4, recto.) , . , , » n NpE> NHIJ N^JO 31
wn
, , , .
Kin rub u;w mpo inn p aba JKO mb '« nim <Nni3 nn iron i^nr W unit? mpo ^ ^a W3»o in J>TK mn nna nieiiw in!> 5
!»rK »D»pi ^BT K»a -nr joro ai ' »«n paa xaa an XN nnam
,
»Ki »yT 'oby »? p Nicn Nb n>> ' Dn 10
.
noa »nr |cna 3-1 XK naw JD-DS K?
3*1
*" "
t ' t L ^
OT VDP KB^aa KDV ?a nn lao mn n K^I nioK mm n*o nao >ND Nnp^yo son 15
n-nn x xnt ?w»ya nmn mo T s%b Km nnna yn» m» na»ya K*nn loii? nnanb \rvvb wvb rvb n» xan '« nnna
b 'yts »KO wbsb manK n^ KD»ii nir nyaiK 7« m^ nni?» nKan 'n»a"i N^N mm moK 20
n^ noK nn •? nnani? jnnab «^3»Ki> n^ nv
!7N mtfl
1 Saba Jfezia, 69 a. 2 Ibid., 69 b, top.
4 Comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc.
APPENDIX
361
(Leaf 4, verso.)
by P-IBO Kin nn<»K nap son l mb» , . . . o
wa pan lan :n*an BIPO twnn law nn«
nia tfisw* mt? ib n^atpn urn? by pnao
OKI no;n:Bi m DTINB 'b jn ib nox na&>:i
by «b pee p« bnx nniD -112 anby ^ n^yx 5
nb ^^ nn-no na nwl> ni3n ^naon i>y jtin nwnn
na nurb nun n^acn ^jn nunn D toas
-
nrao an
i .,
aip <ov ail wna-ai m no«
NTJN NP xnaa •>{< xnaa N an n^ p*ne> xp 7yo »K
an
••by fwy n nona ib '»NI n»ano nona N!?^ »s& nmo enha ybo *]b n^yx »aw nan
nnsb o^Dia nsby baK a«no snaai Nnax na^ao sna^n NBB 'an 'OK n ny^a snaa na'-B'D ny^a xnas nea 'aa saina 20 xana»a
N py an 'N
py anb pna an n^ 'N nuna
nnio
xnaiyn NBVJ n
• wpat? nna
25
Mezia, 69 b. s These two words, written over something
else, are a note by the scribe calling attention to the fact that he had written a part of the sentence on the previous line; read rporo*». 3 Baba Mezia, 70 a, top. * inr:
362 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 5, recto.)
mm mn Ninn n 'K 1 mn
T- • : -
n ..... »pp ^pan i>'pni aw b»pn i>xiDp -ID mm KnnB 'K Nnns N!> KT:K '•N 2>jpB3n ^3 n'rins -uxi
B> "DJ yjpna 'I^SK nM KJU »NiT3 m^» 7K KnJK N^>
TO33 NK'nj rrnns rrby ^apn jva 'yo ^NO 5 ?n nw an '« ••01 T» rvnsn pinii na^b anp
on ^a Q«p tnpon n-'a^ pra nian i?a "b cnp 10
'31 TIC
S 'W H3IDH »3
1H D1D
jots DID ^ya nnsi on nns i^ n»n» Di^3i 'an ny nyn o^p 'pen '»3 PNB> )»r3i n^p enpon
KOIO KIB>D^ mow : onnJ? bs3i mo 13
>np»« , ,
13 nw N7 DID 73\ 'M t^OO iT3
T33
)7BM1 13 sin
13 H"m K^ N^N ^ PK 13 '.T N^ DID ^3 KWT 11DK
DID ba ^ 7^n onnx n» ^y i^ onr K^ PJD o»Ta DID
TDK , ,
n»a n^riDn 33 'y xsi : DID bs DNI DID XDK 20
si? onen n3yni osni? mb ^rnoi ny
n"i> pnoK N^N no^nt? nnsi? JDID^J rvb
•we
min» n IDID ns nKioi niasn ns
1 J5ab« 3fezio, 70 a. 2 -|«JE: no ? 3 Read MraVn.
S*e?Wo, XLIV, 136, ed. N. Z. Berlin.
APPENDIX 363
(Leaf 5, verso.)
TIDN nnoio *B ^y vbw on^ai i>wn IN an pyat? ppm pnv 'IN nan na -ia na no ppaatr poioa wtaa noNi "a^a N
101 pyas? ppn 'IDS epaap poio pnra nan '11 T'NO '-i ^ NO'pn aa ^v ^KV pnra si? nao 5 Si. ^NIDB' '« ;on3 an 'NT -PN» 'na xna mw 'ia '^n niaa n^ jvtn nncio I^MO vnnnaa T>N» 'ia T'lv N^N nigfia^ Nin nn N^ NDID n^a nw nsn DIN nniaan ^ «»am . . . nnsij lmn?rw^ rva n^n^n niaa I^N :ona nosy maao pn 10 Nova oar6 H^ITHN^ Nin no xata sova NOIO nvpi» Ditra n*a n^N '•o n^a^oi rrorwoi
iTa nn^NT «avn noi Nvo^n DNI nxpi» nin N 15
D11UQ .
n^a rvx »D n<ip'iy nn^on ""yT1! pnaion
N!J sin pnaio Dim ynn ;va pnos 3N^s* •T^ p^pnro IN yn11 sin |va 'o^n •'N n'hjno »
'11 mm* /-i na »a^a a^o Nin nspi» N^N ofn mm* '-n aa 'y 'NI N3ia ^na nxpio wri N^» '« min* /-n 20 'ON pyot? xni n^y rrnjn «m 2N^n nspioa none nty pyo^ /-n aa 7y 'xi nvpio wn wia ^s p'pnron NO" '•o XNI IDN «an 'obya
1 Edition n^ir^, but in the following sentence as in our fragment.
2 The scribe could not read his copy in this passage, and left space indicating that words were missing. Bead NVirra and Vpo *«n.
364 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 6, recto.)
NVI 'N»I D3n m>
»i ny BIB n w DN ntn»i Nnm& m* 'IK IBIB PNP b 'IN pyBp 'n mro* N!> IN!> DNI •pia jiyofc* '13 ^N '-iim '13 'i^n pi»n JD w»« aita av 'en :p3y$>i noan 2'Z ptamc' poio i^x by :
N^rn nin xb »ao Kova mn rww ^ 4Nin nau •>»« 'n xm nn N^T nay
nin
nnsp 'NT Ninn ^3 NSPID n»a n^ in»i? nnt? Np mm BN»V ^yon N^BN Nisia
NHI NJT'Nn n n^ 'N n^Diob n^rn nts«i •T'OID!' n-'S non 6rpN IN^T nntr n11!? »nw
T10N , ,
Nin wi Nnaiyn n^au n s? I"ION m? 'N m^n b^y •'Xim ND^ 7n!? myt? »on Np mn ^ 15 N!> n^ 'N mb n^N KD^H in^ 'N n^na^ Npoai PN 12 nw N^ DID b «»an NHTO NTON »D mb JD»K 131 V1 ib>N tons :»D3»K :mbi3 Din 12 rwy
|3nOK »D N^N nWON IP^D 'B |iT3B jn3N • 7 T TB |B»nB N^ mb ^a« ^m }V3 ao
nni33 irfoai jva }33i mi? wm Nin aoro
ppB KB^H }331 in^ 1B>n NTIH pn*3Bn Nin
21 'N -IDIVNT xB>n }33i inb wr\ N^> '^ ^23 HBIB
........ 'N
1 The printed text has N'jm , though the passage quoted is a Mishnah. On the other hand in p. 379, 1. ss below, the printed text has *nm, but the MS. j:m, though it is a Baraita. For an explanation of this vague use of the terms }:m and &wm comp. above, p. 190.
3 This sign stands for nx. Comp. above, p. 358, note 4.
3 *nau 'in rowm 'ON 'T, and comp. note 2 on p. 363 above.
4 Read Ninn mn, and comp. note a on p. 363 above.
5 Read NIB NOV. ' = n«.
7 Read mm, and comp. note a on p. 363 above.
APPENDIX 365
(Leaf 6, verso.) }D D»3B> T")* 'B* 1133 pfiD tM'Bp 31 ......
hin PP^ ^3M Nim JND 'ya *MD vi>y Tyn$> p . . . pryo o^ya 'DM jom mi |D\TD «i
pa n»a va-'W ^3 'DIM nov /-i nw ......
M^M 3«no n»MD '11 nwnon
: Mini x : nro yDtr pan ini? wn M^
DinOH JO 13TM HDJ3J 1133H HN pDITW 10
nspa mon N^ 'BYM npnoj iiyn JD 3pj1|nt}> bs n^11 «»n irs nvyv is p •'or /-i m
y7B> on : vry3 c>nj pn h^3n pn wjn nm 15
niHB>3 D33J1 •TT'DS pDISH p^ h^3fl l3n3n pi>3 p»lD PM85> DID W»M J3^3
DV a nne'B' b yi3p n3i3n inns pynpn 1in3 'oya 3 VIM ppii3 'IN DJJ^JM p rr33n '-i
i?3M pynpn D*DH jn I^MI or a 20 ^3 nnsi B>3»n HN ^>3N5? ix frfafat? vnn rb ea'n ns ^3«w ny DID W»M nbn nx
1 The Derashah missing in the editions of the Sheeltot consists of the entire chapter "VI of Mishna Bekorot, and of Mishnah, IV, 3, of the same treatise.
2 =Tnnn? Or did the scribe confuse nnwr, "albugo," with nanin, "serpent"?
366 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 7, recto.)
. . . BP piDapi D3B3P1 3p»ap loom n^n
IDD ...... i 10:1335? nwwnn vein npnosp noawp
ID ppnto pN 'N oua&aK p rraan '"i npysp nvD'aan fix N!> ^3N D^aS niD^snon
p 33tn Daaa ipoai rofthv nnyni pirn 5 c
aarn pNn nmp IN pnan p N? 73N osyn fc_
nvin7 nvin pa nt^a B'^K' IN Dvy 'n nnN nv3 N!?N b PN D^3 i^ pN
ia*pio 'IN na^py '"i nnN nya N^N i^ pN nnN 10 fe.
naio rwa DK> p» DN nyona main p npian nNV»ai ontj'ai n«y «bi iyoa^
:nw p pm» /-i "IDNI /i(py /-i T-nm a
N^N ^ PMPI vn
i3^T noopap 73 .Jinp in?HN v D^y 13P3 nni3a un^D 17 mm n33'3 N:D i7"N PDID na^a la^xp n?N nN layDp N? IIDN ^-oin np7P niyi 'oan -§•
Trn7P7 non vai D1N7P3 7iay la^y 7373^ onnnN7P pn n'a 131P77P isnon 3n 7DI|3P20 a pnnnn «6nr npyo PDID i7'N nn IIDN v^ nn IIDNI '3n7 'oa p 'DP pn 7NP1 ji^yn ?y fjniy
1 Bead * Read
3 Arabic : this is the order of arrangement ; first ttrfafe, then z~\2, then n:, then pyb-, then s«ni.
APPENDIX 367
(Leaf 7, verso.)
nriN ovy na»« DN DID IHN ox
JWZJ1
TTH7 non NVWP >bian 3a? 'N '703 p man
'DIN D33B3K p maan 'n DID nr nn nv^n nta nn if'n Dvyi n* ovy poeatj' wya nha^ nx nnw n^na nnx va*» vae ^ DW DJB^ 5 bns n^noa naop nnxi n^na nnx vam nhia vroo nnsi 'IN min^ a^MB' ijayn aar . . . 'can ii> inin s p o^ay n^iD hi ....... nip ... ^ nyao
i t
r«a ninn»a jn JW8D }n^ pr 73 10
3ipny3 'DIN oaa^oaK p n-aan 'n
von pyup pw 15
313
m . . IDI mxn rmnen
DID pN 'IN ^NyD^11 /-1 iT3H03 N71
na . . N7N 1133 I^N 'DIN 'am nto 7ina ontrai Tiaan nN HNII nnoio WNET *D p :in»ao D?B^ "i3p^ m nn va i»y HN a«m 3«nn nx nsni pin HN
368 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 8, recto.)
. nx -I.TOI -iinon nN NO-BI
pn n-a rrn DN in-ao
nnoio
n . , . yni om n^nan prna « praon n*ai nmj.T n^i in^jn i^^n p it^y DNI I-DB' . . , nnpyoi nonn xh i^nn N^> 'DWI 'ax '« 'ON »6n rp-a nnncn 'IN 'nan
i 'DIN >NO 'on 3 * n^pwoi 'ion 10 liana i'aDij pawn '& noa ny N^ D^ya rra 3 I"N nov 'n ov 3 noni or % npn nona irun nrn for iina jna h 'ON DNI ^JBO ntw an 'N ..... D »WD i^ no : ma j nman n^a ......... on 15
n
na
jp^n N^N yoon jnaa n^b n^im n^ paroi ^>yni nr niaa wwnn -ioif> {nan p ........ 6 em
iiaa n^yb nsio i»y PJDNJ b ....... 010 20
nr nn 1^1 ma^JB' IT nyopay wy no ..... N
I^BN 'IN nov 'n no:a »aa wh? ^a i»y on .....
: Nnoio ^s i>y N^N oin^ N!> n^en onw ......
. , , vbv ny jnwi naoi noan nN 01 .....
1 =ND'JNIB ; SheSlta, XLIV, 138. 2 Read prrti . . . N"3p
s Read »"> nn'oi wb. * = rrb n^wi. * Read naon 'Ji
' The Derasha, missing in the current editions of Mishnah, Bekorot, V, 5-6 III, i- ?
APPENDIX 369
(Leaf 8, verso.)
D'mn , .
TIK }m "mn-O 173K 73NB> no . . nKin
own riK on? nitrn na i?a . . . K?E> . , o
i .... }n? nnm .............. D awn HK
inn wm nt?an ........ n , . jn . . 7aK ...... no 5
on 'IK o^ab «... nao D»D . . . nK jn^ in . . an , . o noro npi!?n . , . nano *on . b 10^ m ry 'IN ken^* 'n m^a N!? DKI rnou DK jn . . . na ^nn pan sjbw p*o }nai> ........ a nni^
»33 . . . om ma pan -£m pna ...... ^ '•xnn 10
'n -6 'N pan ^m p^o
Tat^ . . ne>K3i mp nom BIW»O npn nonn a^ jK3 p . , m^l|3B' yn^ b ^an nr n .....
1D1C3 ^aK . . pan OKI |nab nr nn m^n xb ...... 15
"nn ny&tw noj nom 'K 'py^ p ry^N 'n o^y .....
'3 'DC? pn miaan ID moa^i lap^n if nn DT . . ma KD .......... WK ''lan ID np^o nona npi^n
..... a ..... njoi my im^ waj mn nnnx ^
......... u^in U*K nnaao P»KB^ nsi mp^o 20
..... a ir^ nja KDB> IK IT !?VN ii> iK3 ir^ vn
• ® t
niaan n« om^n 'IK DTIB^D p »DV 'n ir
.... y^n HK t^ini p'oi pns
Bb
GENIZAH STUDIES
MOW* tULjV0,
Gli
cn!
r? &
S> n
F r-
n a
a
X
* INCHl. QUILL! Nu S
::.7._- ::.-._•,._ ,.-'-....i_ r.-.i.. :.: _s
O ir.
s £
22
n -
f- n
c E
a ,
c ^
22 ^
^-^
^ n
i- £, as
r x a Z
c a
; p
5 o
•*~* -iz
:^
g
a a
n ^-
t> n ^ SA
G -3 -^
U :j=. -n i~ •» c n -c
^ E n o -j> c« r 22
*• 22 a n
c c n a , *^ •- .9
?\ ?= -J"x
a ^
J3
C *-
0
C 22 >•
^ n Q r~ x ** n "
p rt -^
^ $3 22 C a P
Q 22
J- C
22
P
n •ft
C 22
? P
22 Jr
-
- n ;- J-- a '
22 1
P r r
t~ J3 « ^
§ 5I s
IX Q Si P
22 ix Q
a
-e-R
'^ I
r n 22 p
F P i
"E- i ^ ^ n E
^ E |
S ^
a
n S n
P Q a |
n 22
n
-
« a
n n Q
Jc r '
2 Q S ^. ? l-
•- ~r\
s ^
- s
*x ^ IT
n ? -
5 e^
C fl C
x Ji q P o
22 £3 n
C x C O
£. S
n J^ r *
t-« *J%
n
xC *- °
f- n c a P n
v £ P
C Jx
Q •'£ a
t^ c
r
c ^
at
APPENDIX
371
• -0 Q O
Q O Q
* f~i «J"^ -J"x
3^ O —TX »J^
s c c fc
^ , a a
r ? n n
P "*•£•*
o „ ~P ?
£- as
1 Q C '
_ X
.JN
as z,
as *
Q
as n
f &
Q n
g E
ft n
? Q
i o
S» g
^r\ C Q
& r
~ B as ^
Q U C M
r £ n :
Q S»
M
:•
S I
§ P n
J^ o tz.
n ~rx §
K C
^ Q
c I
n f= as c
»*K r- Q
as E
P E g
C ^
*^ S
& n
r «
Q
•f &B
a n
£ ** c r *~
c c. ^
n ? o SA
« 5^
? n ^
a Q a
•jy E p
S 3 a
S ^ & £
a 2?
f r n
° & Q
B i P
n ^- -c a
P F
^^ d^
f! 25 ?
" ^
P ~ S
d ^ P
F 2 c
c <= as
5 n js
C ?v ~S
c •-
as J_ ir
Q
a
as
9 C >9
2 Jil
e 1 - -5 ci
.™ S - -S pi
Ti * V
. 5 ^ S
•^ « S ft
|* 5 ^.
®
•§ . .1
I*-*!
* o? ~ *. «
'" I' is -2
A» ^ .2
8 I £
« r- • O Q
co ^ o - ^3
1 -s i- f -9
05 s 1 1 -g
- M OH :2 O
B b 2
372
GENIZAH STUDIES
XLIL
(Recto.)
nT3 trb B*D&TI none KOI «nm KWTK I^K Din 25
nono m nxiin ' p3i uni y»B> xn N^IK n^> i?r\ K^K &»OB>n si? I^NI po ww^w men ru«wn oya oya n^oBio &*OBTI nono DI nnxn inxb n
nosy pram ^n B'nsB'n vb i?tx\ p»o i>y TID nnaoi pi^n JTBB* n^sist? n«»ao novy npin iv nrxai 30
nnaoa nhn rao n^ B» DSI nnou nhn noi nb ^ DN pnxn p nhn rpa&»
nao
N 8Niny roo «m p lyoB* ^ 'OK mw
DID HJI^D nna» DI PIMM mot* upo
b pstr n^ 'OK 'OK 4
nosy pram prn»
OK DI
1.13.1
DI 6
(Verso.) DI .1X11
a nny3 Dip nns
IT
mat^i no's i?a '•03 ••N nsairm rbyss\ na!?n 1.13.1 33 «b ^K KM • ninn *N nwn6 ^vt^ T*1^ ^ n"int3 *ov3 mno nsv3 xnx 11.11 nine *ov3 sniiN^ pasn JKD I^K Di3
Knyi
N^> T'OH
an rrrra panv »o .11,10
1 Niddah, 65 b, end. * =ncn»n. s Explanation of
* Text corrupt. * Our texts, nan. * Head mrra. 7 Comp.
Niddah, 66 a, end. 8 Niddah, ia b, top.
KM .11.131 }Va K»1 IN
}i3<inij<iNB' K3na ai 8/»Ni ai ^o p3i jnx ^a ynrp 311 nn3 win 3111 mo N!J n»« npm
APPENDIX 3-73
XLIIL
(Leaf i, recto.)
........ an IDN ta^n »jwim wiym ' <nxt:n
, . . y&Bfi jiy KW3 n»tf HK>D 2 yjiyenm nnym 3 ........ h . . i ni3n . . , . y mine n\nt? 'ytja n
.......... N 'wm VJab mat? jn
....... 3Nn 'CM 'nytr
......... y moan nans nabn an 'CM
M , , , , n aib . . . $>M ina triBDo 0^08? Min /-i;i 'pn ysb TH nnx SM!? 'n 'ON 4m panm »ain NJNI ai n^M nx nSy ^ n . . . pn-m pnr6 p^aen nen an 6n^« an »a "Jiy^ nn^oi '»» ^DB' nmc n^ana niaan MDV ^yoa nno moi^yni D^iy m jni11 nnM xmiyoa a^nxn »opo ini>an nnno iTnjn MTitro N»^>H ••PIDSNT 15 aiy *ITI mvD pan wm 8ynvN^ b*3M» M^I mine D^osn noM ^ax na^n oy omaan uiyn epD'n N»^ n^n^i n^ax mip |»p Min nnt5«i i'3N<iB> onip miring ^s i?y PJNI miyo3 131 ynN^ . , . net? nnt^i i»3M^ "inNi? mine 20 , , , , 10 any minnp »B ^y SJMI nmyoa n^p^p PJD1D3 nnirp n^iici* nnnt^ mine jaSni n^yj3 linih^ nn3»3 nruoa nnin11
25
.... Wvyv noa . . . na^n nyn nnnat^ 9 I»JB^ ^ 733^0 pin NT . M^ ...... ^iy VM aw
i'incni wa ^3 by ^ naahB' wnbN
'na . . .
riibob !ia^? *a iinbs bxi taorrvi 3o
1 Zoma, 36 b. 2 Read i;3Wim uiyni? comp. Rabbinowicz, ad loc.
8 nia^cn tei rnamn by cmno D'nm ? * Read 21 yccn . * Midrash
Tehillim, XIX, 172. 6 Read rf?«b wi. 7 a'rr, 30 d ; ed. Hildesheimer, 154. 8 Read 'nw"j. 9 Comp. Lev. R., Ill, according to which the text is to
be supplemented.
374 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf i, verso.)
PN nr omaan DV onby 'minrw
"ins omaan DV Drr6y mwp T^*
DV D.-vijy mirvp in* ona rop DNI
minni ona rat? N$> DNI ins omaan
'DIN 'nan vi>y ins omaan DV Dn^y 5
'DIN 3pjp p nryta 'n INT ^ ^B> aba
^x WE ^a 'ay nnitro nr nn pe> ^>ai
'oan wpn n»h nnan naa »n«Drf jnx
on not? oniaan ova nvnyn nnpi>
yoB« on» nn«3 DIN ^a: DI^I 10 D«po ^N TO N^N niiB'n nu>yi innm men m»ay nnyt? nr INV i>y ae> aba inytr jva win n '»NT N3in /-na na i^ ninin b mnin na r\xr\ nTay DHN Tnna b n^y: ND^N N^N xnjn Npi>D 15
onb wjn 'at? Nenn HN ona 'DIN Na^py 'n rrnrt* 'i nan anr 'n
N on!? iB>yi D^PD ^JN no N^N n wun 'in 'na 'pn ":ab jwo IDN ant 20
nn-ann^ ann ?iD3 ^ Dia Nin H noi^n on^nina^ BV ^ 2<|i^ P yenrr '-I»N by na pnna jn^ na N^N rvyyo nr oaai? n*m in11 ns 'nan nai^n ^ya^ 25 b »mvo b HN IOB^I ^ oni? n
1 'ON mi.T an 'we . . oa . . 'tai nNon »IDS y^a 3«no^ onh^ anyi mi»i n^y 30 ':rn . . . D
1 Foma, 86 b. 2 'Abodah Zarah, 4 b, end ? ; our texts and MS. read
differently. s Read VJKDE ncaoi. 4 Read rp'n n »:m mc»3i wavbjwa , and comp. 3*n, 31 a, ed. Hildesheimer, 155, end.
APPENDIX 375
(Leaf 2, recto.)
Dawpfia riN Drvjyi »nano payno ni'B>y3 N$>m pjyno nyB>n3 *3i wr>3 nmc?n ^ixn ^3 ^^ 10^ N^K , , , n?n »j?B>n nayna i^w 3insn vi>y n^yo nae> n^y nnx p piaTn n^yi 5
m »3 J nnv , . , 3 n»b na amp 33-n ;niN paano i?3N jmx
21 'DK n M*y3»D m nnp paano 10 «n n33 «n n HM jnix
p pnv 'n 'ONT pm» 'n 5ioa |nix paaro 15 |nis paano njcj* mtyy *ins DVI mt
VI rue>
n3 'DNT pm» 'T3 Nna^n ji? ND^PI 20 c^^o THN nvi mt DVI n-it^y B>^ p
pi11 u: ^y^ TV ee«pb p s)x ND . . omaan ovn nania^ 25
H3 "«8>3n*Dn JV3 K1
. . . naib nniain DVI
r 30
1 Read rmsm rrb. 2 Towza, Mishnah, VIII, 9 ; Gemara, ibid., 82 a.
3 "Ui. * Toma, 82 a. 5 = nosn rroD ; the text following is corrupt.
6 Yoma, Sob. 7 Yoma, Mishnah, VIII, 9 ; Gemara, ibid., 85 b.
376 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 2, verso.)
DV mpi£ ons pat? rvrvay ' PN nun pai was? ^aao DN row •jy^y ny naao nniaan ov 'ON rwin 'n 'OK 2iTy^N '") 'ON nun PKS? KBn nnon " us£ DaTiNtan bo 5 onsan or 'in 'in 'pn K^K « n^na 'now IHKO 'n n\n 1!? p^mo nauwi n is onni^D
•'SNn 130O
i»3 an 'ox min" an 'ON roicn niic'Nn cya n*a ni^ay im nniNa miiT an ^no njo\n min> inn pis iniNa nipo iniNa
HNDH '•IDS y^S ''WJ n^N 'H3 >ON1 15
p N^p N^ r\^ N!J iiyt^s HD3O 'nai
WNS? NDH3 p DDIIQOn 5 D^SOH N^H3
fN3 3i 'ON rraio in NIDH 3n DDIISO nn"aya }N3 nun^ onN pas? nn^aya
'n ia »DV 'n N^n oipo^ DIN pat? 20 pbrno n3i^N"i oya muy na^y QIN IOIN ^mo w&bv b pi'nio 6 m , , cni? i?y '« "ION na '35? i^ p^nio PN jn T'CNI m^N t6 nyan« bxn ^NI^ ••NO -133 oy ^B? D^oya ^N by& n^N 25
^3 7 pni11 'n 'ON N3N na n«ii 'n 'ON N!?
^y3^ N^N iN33n: xb 8i^a nnxn N^J py omoj D^pnx i?3N
1 Yoma, Mishnah, VIII, 9 ; Qemarah, ibid., 85 b. " Keritot, 25 b.
3 Yoma, 86 b. * Read cim«. 5 The scribe wanted to write
n, but wrote D'Don, which he cancelled. 6 Read n"3tu i^.
8
7 SanJwdrin, 99 a. 8 Read
APPENDIX 377
(Leafs, recto.)
p« poiy naien
..... b aitaa *]bn nnx o^a w «b wit? Dita cnbt? 'j&» J nyn niannb «y rnp^yo rn^ay nan» pirn ^
nan ^y na nna vaxta '« 8«na v^ani pm '-\ paai nan i>ipa ^ e^n ni> IDN Kn»noo NMH 10 mow ^DTI »n»o
T38JH }S» n
H T-ayi p ni? ION "sn '•ND n^
nrn chya ataio Nna a«3 15
mn '•N n^ KIO« 4xan an XDN naitrn ^ya ^XT "^n n^> Njnyv» mn oys n^ miay nan xatr i>a a-i 'CK mw» nnixa min^ an >inD umn hrci naitwi »* 6pan un pna vvna oipo inisa n«w 20 ns n^^a N^ wnin^ nt^K jno en n^y» ^w on^on
e* « 25 n^an n^ oypon ba wan na
nany DN
nypn
1 From mn — -jN'm not in our text of the Talmud ; for xb read 1s?.
2 Kiddushin, 40 a. 3 12111 ? The spelling of i for ELamez is found elsewhere ; comp., for instance, below, p. 388, line 2, 1101 = "mi.
4 From rrcno — san not in our text of the Talmud ; after ITDTO a word or two are missing ; read rpxcwo inin or something like it, and comp. Baba Mezia, 59 a : ... imy VD'C.
fi Fo»wa, 86 b. 6 Sukkah, 53 a. 7 Foma, 87 a.
378 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leafs, verso.)
-pa
arni oainn -j^ ^n epa nxa nman p&0a ID^ inm pn .
5
mtry NUO innx -I"DN PJDV m ^ TiNnn noNi nap ^y nHoy»i NI ia *n^anc' nr ^i^sSi ^sn^ *nb« s n»3no n^no K>p3cn ^a wjn na 'yy n^cys nvt^vo n^n1* «oo ppa» 10
y^a nj xv na« ejw^ noxn na '21 NJ KB' nnyi ito nyn
'3» nrax xn> N^t "J1 n^ni'N NST) D»r6«n ^N nn ny if> i>nD3 pw D^iyaB> poo ^a -6 jn: 15 *a B^NH n^x ae>n nnyi wo^n trpa1"^
Nin NU:
i»vy iyv '•on ^as ntj'ia nyx w ny ^ ^HDJ PN nvaii ^s ba anpn •vayen i?a 3Nasn 'CN wosn t^pa11 20
y "aiyi py naiy Nnt^ »D^ py rrb D^SD N^ NH n^ D^SD m
1 Read 'rviyn. a Baba Kama, 92 b ; our texts differ essentially from
the reading of the fragment. s Rosh ha-Shanah, 173. 4 Read 'Ni.
APPENDIX 379
(Leaf 4, recto.)
mpn
py wsra -pea i>x <o 'nai naiy «mp »o^ py 'na >nxn NJIH an mbro r6nro v»yo i?3n TDHI 'nai vam 5 'na n3«n nry^N 'n i*on P|ioa^ pnx nnx »a non '« ^i nnx »a ni?nna non '« ii»i pjioa^i
pnr 'n X»N 'ai /<(> N /1|S xnp^i we 10 ntMj^ na'SN ^ ains xnpo IDT b ntw^ 'p 'n £ next? on!? fjmo yto nrn nnoa nt^y '•JB^ onp wn '•jx orprwy ^a
nx^ wn yw 15 non am D^SN inx pjni Dinn bit ny\vn
nnina nna nmn* an 'DM npn nnnn PKB> nn»D 'n 'ION nna nna 'aJM nan 2KTDn pyot5> n "DM MJTD na i>MJM3n 20
na pjyno PMS? nia^ n^jyn b no b »K»3ni n^jyn ru-^ ^nt^ ••yt^a x^ ^jn rwy ^y nnaao nawn no DVI ni?in nawn no ^yi wyn nmna ^y naa» oniaan 25 »3 n^yn xi? ^jn pn n>a 'OIK nry^K rn
1 Bosh ha-Shanah, 173, b. 2 Keritot, 6b; our texts read *«n
instead of bN33D. 3 Comp. Yoma, Mishnah, VIII, 8; Gemara, ibid., 85 b. , 86 a.
380 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 4, verso.)
w npj11 xb now iaap npj -i»ii> n^a^s 'N npa -ION: -iaap npy « npj» ww o»3B6 Nin npjo minap nn»ay b ^y D11! nmon WB> N^I ni!?p Mae> N^ npjcn wn 5
nix a nea^o N nn»o ona K^ D«TO p« x rwnna T'OST pno« NP 10 in* V3B i^axi ejian ^aa p
TDK! pn»K *D3 'N 1»1 '^KJ 3S 15
nantaa
iNcn ^rai nnwi mi nbn nnaaa nmyc' 4nii33 inn a^nan 20 nia a^rro N^T pnoN NP NH nina n»i^ KXNEn DNI na
IN NnniNTO NIID^X .T3 iT3
jvan nijrBOD n^a KIID»N aw 25 nnao nma NIH
1 Read MSQTI n«i. 2 Read 'VBM:«. 3 The strokes indicate that
this word is to be cancelled. 4 Read nnsn. 5 Reading
doubtful ; ronim ?
APPENDIX 381
(Leafs, recto.)
mn Kn»iWTo TDK 'nnriE nina mn pa-n» iw Knoirta jmmto Np ions t&ph pam nwsn »jnn BWK vmi n^nen n^as »i«^»y 5 "a 'an nonsn t^D^n nrn nw ovyn myn
nab n^nen n^a« ^y KD^T IK ym x*na N»no myn *b pnox 10 pnhas Tp^»n wy ina a^na ma
INT n«nw n^ax inrj 'N» nia 15
ina
4 pnn y»t? xn • in^apn n»o^ DVT nn^» pnaao ^m otwrt nawnn oy onsan o
1 Read man. * =«a'3 ••». 3 n»o TTDI? * Yoma, Mishnah,
VIII, 8 ; Gemara, ibid., 85 b.
382 GENIZAH STUDIES
XLIV.
(Leaf i, recto.)
x 'aiy 'nyDtroa 'ioa 'c?a 'xe> >a B^N B»K 'at? DniDa jn 'KB> 'is apy» p 'ry^K '"i 'jrn lajn 'an m^ ivpfa na»p6 rrbto jnn K^ 'moa jn ptnn nb jnn K^ ':w jn '102 ma^ 'w /CID:J K> «IDV 'n ym potman ni»^2 ppn» N^ nonn 5
K'OB'oty }«DTB anao na ana11 vb& 'wn i?a win 'n 'NT sain 'nb n^ KJP»DB )r jnnina jnn N^V maaa »m naaa sax
nsiNi naniD n^yai? irony n nsjnyi HD^IO ib nyvci nan ns np^ci r^raD) 10 vb\ 'BIK N^ 'mo N^ nnx nnsc' i!? no^aan a^ en^ nai ns 'WD '»w 't^ao na^x n I^EJN 'is 'ry^x 'n Nm^npa naen* yans no^on ni'Dantj' irovn m^yb naia ninaB> HND ib
ns T'lDn 'IN taa ja ycty pi non n^ 15 n^oam? naina jn»i «*w nat^a nantao NOSN 'jn 'i>D 3/nit3 : 'n 'NT n«n 'na K^I nyno NT-T
pan ^an naa nx '*a»^ : nt^sn ^pan * NN n^s ps 20 •J^NI |a^» t?nn nyanw pipy ny i^im pav pia'-n
1 Ketubot, 47 b. 2 Ketubof, Mishnah,y, 5; Gemara, ibid., 59 b.
3 Ketubot, 59b-6oa. * Read 'r'HOrft.
APPENDIX 383
(Leaf r, verso.)
wsn yaiK I^SN 'IN ynrp 'n 'ry^N 'n 'an ppty pjva
D^H ntj^t? int^na noai VIM pnno |»M ma pp
NJN Mnp»3o mcM NTi J'Wii :ye>vp '13 ^n ejov 'n 'CM
%^D 'IN Mim *M13^ ft'!'
nf? 'IN fjya : p^yo Wrtpxb n^ NJN ttxa^e n^ 'ION
o^Mb n^ yn11 ^N jnina Nn!?n 132 ^D ym naaon
nni
pinna unMaai •'ja n^ n^Mi n^pa vbi Npni 'a^ iiD^y i^pcy po^o nai pa^n 'DSJ JD jnaan N^n^ya '•N jaw^n N:nHya jMn^on NIH ^n a: i?y CJM nnjia jn^a \n^ <i31|<ir NP --NI 15
N^I jaojM w JN^HD N^n Nin nan 'bw pjn^nx ^IHM pno«n 4/w niD"y jnab HJO^N ^^ni :n»vy^ n^n* 'nu'yoi pnMn ny
nn*a nnina jn^ ^ ovnn pab 'ibm 'na 20 jna n»an DN n^i^N nnNi HJ^M nnN
1 j"rt, 71 b. 2 a*n, 71 d. s Written over something else, and reading is doubtful; read '3 DTOO pnoNi DI«?O DJ?B »«Q. * ='D3'3. s a'rr, 583.
384 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 2, recto.)
rnrno ru»« pn myo wa TW^JS? 76
vn K
"ina ^ D11^ ib m»Ni »r»ivn ^y mrrn o^a n^ vm
vm '•y^ni' ns^j nn» 5 ny
tos-n t nprmn /1(asi ' nprmn »ai p3B> ixw mna mm Na^ni n^ nsN 'ma ^ax n:oo maa^ nar
»Ti wnnso paa
K»nn 'yo ^so 'wa KW myo n»n» nxa --HII ••NT 15 «ioi NI^ NiDin wya N^N sraii nn^B «»nen wm nama nb »aaoi sayta n mmi
pas? ua ^»BN xb KIDK N*m nainaa 20
1 3*n, 68 d. * Head «im. s Read M>m. 4 Read «m.
APPENDIX 385
(Leaf a, verso.)
aa i>y SJN 'y& '•NO naow NVI 'ON -an ' Npmo N^> N^aNn JTiVN DN -iriN3 nana 'IN Nin :r6 jiaoa t6i D»TH« nb pt^ mn 'rybs nn V 7n 'ON ^BK nn^n 'ON N*m »n
o^o^ WNT na i?y PJW HJONJ «»n jnoNi 5 nin Ni? nr6n vfa&n \nb ••N nnsn r
rb pB>*»n pi
NMI '•ja ni> ivh p:e» iB'y nn^ N^T H N^NI : n>^5 o>p yb Nim pna n-w» I^NT Nirr
onn
»o "on ^n nnyoj ^yano pan IIONT ncno HNS !?3N njytD none nxa n^xn Na^n m aa i>y PJKI mirp ^D^ni NVH n:yt3
rib rv nsb n^a-'Ni Kim in^N i?y pt^j noa 3p«
1 Add 'vi. 2 Read rvrovui or rrc
3 = DIN ; the spelling with ] is frequently met with kin the C4enizah Fragments of the Yerushalmi ; comp. also below, p. 390, line 5.
C C
386 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 3, recto.)
ny»a ba ixb rvb xaayo w
'4 *wn Tiaina 'b am jtrva
nyat? nnamao nb prims nbya by nmion pro
rue jypso s nnainao nyT'ts NB^BH 5
n!> n^
PPDB Np »an Nnxa^nD pmna *^nan p nnainao ND»sm a: by ej n!> p^an^i byab n^ pmnoi runs *jn »ND bax bya nb anan 'N»a ba N^sn tb pai n^b Ntyfln pa m nb jyan^i wn mn n^ya mnb pmn ^ypipo r na ^bm VVB ba ^ypipo ian^ 15 pm n»n pwm »o»n paa NLM nb a»n» NPT nainon nnD bai Kin byan wfym ba »an inan aa by «JK ^bn sb nb aw Npn Kny^ twinan jva
1 :*n 1*33 not in the printed texts of the j*n. Was the original reading, in Rabbi Jehudai's a*n, simply a'n n*33, indicating the seat of the Gaon of Sura, to which later NDNaTio pmni was added, without removing the original reading? Then it may be assumed that the printed texts take this next step of removing the original reading, as useless. It is, however, more probable that the a*rt 1*2 of the two Academies refers to the court presided over by the Gaon in opposition to the court presided over by the i*2».
APPENDIX 387
(Leaf 3, verso.)
mpo IN 'yDP 'n 'm mn jw« ina^bn x Dipoi nnNva ma yvin nno^aa inia penbnn nrvo 'spa inia na« nno'aaa ima pnpij pnaincm )^K> Yai n^ nno^aa ypnpn JD «a»m : 'y»K> '13 pna^m n^ Yai by nnD*»a 5 mSi iJn m^i ncna '•x m^i nre^ .T!> N^^yn jmn WBM ninsen nsia nonai ij niona nbiia paii n^an ^sn a: by rinss? nb« bynb aibo nona ibii 'ai hia aibo nona nbii wy X»N maan n aibo nnsB> ib« ^N byab aibo 'na nbn no B' 'ON n«n na n:in rn 'ONI nionai NHNHDN ^3I^ jNn^ n ID p^opio mn nnbn Naw n*b '•NDD nb p*an» ffo^N oipoa in in 15 N:n s^x Nn^nb ^n N^ .Taan NobtJ'a pnoN ^o: aibo nona nbii I^BN nn^ob e«»n 'N N»P nona nbn I^SN nn^ob {^"n N^ ^N *vra rnwn an 'ON p^pnaoi »ma byai ^»a aibo nona nSi ^NC'I nn»ob s^*n D^iyb 20
C C 2
388 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 4, recto.)
«n iWK KIND nw »to men a^an Kin KBtprni xnp «^a xp xh KJHT pns^n N$> 'DK '101 mvo^ jwn 'OK riB2> IN nora nn^o »«nn «3*n ^3N nn nn im^n nn^i -jan jo p»opio nnhi 5 pni ihyi pnb ^pjy NnNK>i r6 j^nn^i n>D*« np^i nao^ ovpr ninBBn pi3y nb 1^33 ^»3 wn pj^pu nn^a ^JIN Kim vpip |H3
NHD rr wonai »n»nD *D3 '•N HID NP in nn imn nni>« ^n p p^opio i?yn» in tnsen ni? 'an-'i IT»»N
15
pm
n^ n^^yn »m ian JD spo^y ni^y NS^NT Nnxni n^i3 Npo^y mnrb 20
1 = nan ; i for Kamez according to the Ashkenazic pronunciation ; comp. above, p. 377, line 7. 2 Bead iSos
APPENDIX 389
(Leaf 4, verso.)
DIP byao <pitt& nb ivb rrninno Mpaa Npi NJW
nnanaa n^» injjvana N^n N^n »^o <:ni ayro
rk pnrv D^h^M ^rin ;N^ w^y iwrn^
N\T Npaj Npi «a»n 1^0 ym '•ypipoo 5 p»aao '•ypipo n^ n^x na n^ p'sn Npn
a in'K ni? anan pa nnainaa
a nyiatj>
K^a pa 'DK ono ND^K na ^KB> «2N ''an pm 10 jo pa 'tyy -pj pa ma ^pj pa 'n^ N^a pa in: PN pt5>iv pa Nin pa pb« soa^a jo pa "oa^ yna11!? san 'an 'DNST ntpjw no ^ax nnis pyairo '10^ 'ION j»n3 'n 'ow 'latsa N^N yiD11 N^ pown jo nx a^Knon pni :nno na 2/ioty xasa 7ai?n 15 m nn N^antaisN r\yis& IN n^iun ^I nyiwn 'enn N^ rwnns' }or b I^SN 'IN 'ry^N 'n nya^ni? ^ WN m nn N IBB M!> nr nn 'an un :nno»y bjn na^a o^ IN n^wn HKEV 'la^n pi man p me** 20 'wn N|J nxTB' pr ba nyaaio nr nn 'DIBM
1 = pn and not »n. z Read VIMW as in line 10, where the scribe
first wrote 'won? and then corrected it to VINUJ ; comp. below, p. 390, 1. 19.
390 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 5, recto.)
' WN nr nn 'maN ru»o
nr nn 'DISK '^o xi>i rwron 'pin N!> I^BK IK ryta 'n ? PNB> nsnn? jor ^3 ny»3B>D ro^a ^y ni>y3 wrn nnx nye> I^BK 'max 'y^K 'ii : na*apa ^ni oy m * PK px irjr^K 'n^ i!> 'ON 5 JED 'D^K 'yoc' 7i ND^DI ywi Kpi 'ana ^n "nil pam ya^D penv nnaina nyain^ pyatro ptnrn pK nnaina nyain rh vr\ sp tn*nK 'yo^ 'n sn pnoKi
xaa an XCN p^ooi »nhao 10 B>im aa y s\x nao 'yo^ /-n pa-ii 'ty^K ' y*ae>o '•vo N^ ^a ^ya 'BIBK nnis pyat^D pt^iv 'yo^ 'n 'CK
^ N^aan Ka»n nnix y^ajro ^yan PNI aa ^y v\x i?ya ^ax ni> py»aB>»*r Kin 15
s ^x» N^ 'DIBK ™*DI rvaiun pam TH* n^ mn 'yo» '11 pain a; /-in NO^P Npn» N^N paia ^»n an 'ONI anon NO^K ia 2/ioi^ ^03 Naa an Nnxi nnon ND^K na ^KB> «3Ka ao •n^a Nnyop K^DI 'yo^ 'ni? nvnm nnnan
1 Comp. above, p. 385, note 3. 2 Comp. above, p. 389, note a.
APPENDIX
391
(Leafs, verso.)
iriNi> n^
nayoa Ni>e> pyasw w jprvano »IM cnoi nwsram nvxm psiDieNni ponsm psni^n o xi? ^ya N»i>x rvan pi n»an nina nanui 5
yna^n > nnnina noaian jam nnaina nyns x\n^ nTyo nnx lyi 'lac^a nynaam 'in* ^D33»i pnajntw poaao 'u^a xi»N 10 nnaina ncaisn r'la^a N^N y-iB'n tb vasa rtapnn rfo 'CN nr PI^N nnawia nn\n
yna^n xi? nao N^N »ni>apnn vb 'IN NNII ni?apnn ni? 'EN *wa 'ne K^ne' m»yo ins nyi nyna N^ntr m»yo int* njn 'pnn N^ IN N»ni 'wu 15
poaao :'i3B>3 N!?N yns^n N^> n }D nyns^a NMI pnro6 voaa 130 voaa n^ani no nya 'in11 ^oaao 'n^a N^N yns^n > 'm»n p 'a^a M»m 'in11 »»^ m DM runo^ b i?n 2/'3 waa N^ nyna^am 20 ^N 'a^n *b "33 N^B> nyna^a
392 GENIZAH STUDIES
(Leaf 6, recto.)
rrno n^> B» not? i?ax
nan* '^x nxe»a runoi> nan* na*x maa poaa
nnn^o ni> OKI ninoi> 'nx nxt^ai man mno^
r6 rrx axn "Da^ao xarrvo NPT 1Na*m :m»DBn
niaam Si6po ion» QKI s^nan ny ^a«T sp w :'a»3 Vy nb n^N nnaa «^n aa i?y ni? JVN N^HD «H aa ^y ejw nnaia x^n^a »n« x^n N\n KQio^a msw janoNi 'yo »KD 'a-a ' 'ncMi 'a^a 'e^y ni> n^ N^no «bi Na^
^bobooD N^I <|yp"ip»» wrn*o »ai pan^ns »^n« 10 niaani n«wn 'ITD nww jnoansi? pa niairob pa 7sn Niaa 3Ninn :'a»3 V'y 2«a\Ti ^ya 'ana noa-ia *paron nin Nain an 'ON mayon ^rh 'ao 4 paten ^»m nap N!> 'iy^ 5iaiom
h 'NT wnn : nap n^n^ai? nap xb 15 n^ 'ox nna nn D^xp nin VD 7^ vim paai> <|l|Daiia pnao nna nap ^r n^ 'ox n*o xh xa^ya x^ xaxi n>oT» '-n pax 'n inan^b *na« xm iap x!> mi nan mpoa vebcb p^n n^ n-'X xn nox x^x^o 'm noxn xnxsa pnv^ 'ni »BB n'-aan '-n xinax 'n x^aa 20 xnaa xinn '^n jai x^aa nipoa x^o^ pi>n n^
1 a'n, 71 d. 2 pm?
3 3*n, nib; ed. HildesLeimer, 455.
* Read rorarr. 8 Read n;rarn.
APPENDIX 393
(Leaf 6, verso.)
"3p spv 'n 'ON "33h »NnriN^ '3*3 'N ]nn«^ nivm 'IN 'n jwmo r6 WON wo epv '"i ' hi »jp 'hni 'no 'ah rrano 'nt6 'a
•"INI -EN 'n 'ON innm^ "N-IBH »PDB ni> men
o ^ni 'ai> nwa^ »wnm 'ab pab 5 p^as? N^ NnN^a n^ n^N i>3N
wnn jn^na? mtwi n^nwa pap v
N13 H^ Hln «3ai> '3*3 1f£ 'NT
10
^33 nna nn!? ^JN »-wp N^> mn %HN Np ':n "331 «aN 'ON "HN Np runoa rvtnsb na^o-h ^prn »3Nm*3 Nohi N3NT n^ 'ON :D'Bnn p ON N^N tt3ph? D^ina D'ano D"J3 VHP nn : nn:y jn^N »33i 'ON CIDP 'n a«»5>« N^S ^ai 15 o Nia iai Nna n"^ nin vJ3i? '3^3 irb 'NT
Np N/1 N^N N13
"n« Np npvro iTia 13^ npi^oh HBHTD N"i3 no Nia Nia ia^ nNpn P^N n^ay 'ON wan an
N13 N13 n3^ N-|poi? B>»3K T3y N^ 'ON "PN 31 "13 20
-inio pan ;o iT3n mion »B>K an -a non
394
GENIZAH STUDIES
Q "•£ v
^ rt n n
g
- fc.
X!
L
[r ^rx r~
Q ' rt
Cl .,
Q a ?
r- «= i-
c E
r- f- I *^
r:
Q p i £
B K
C! «~ iJ .J"^
L
C
£ n -'
-£• r
C ~r>
~D f"
n
£ i
C Q n £-
s "^ i= fc^B
^* — r\ ^ ^ C
c a jj £,
f -* F -
P ^ ri
Q rt -T^.
5 F
J- S? J3
c
Cl
I
Q rt C
I
^ a
rt v x "fc
C i"
a r
5 fe
" i^-
F n
c n
ci r
c as
c F
£! i
fi. as
as
~r% Q
•8 ^v as «-
--« rt
F v«~
rt -J> C »
§ tt r: E»
* s §^
c as i " Q
£ ~G *~ IT C E *£ |
J£ r: £-
III .
^ Q
*- n M 35 fi % ~
Q ?-
rt Jf
PS
P F Q
E f- E. as
p a r s_
n P T ^
-ft E a ^
i— ^
QJ2: V* y
v r ^>
? as as p
J3 ^ I C
n Q c g
E- Ji E -^
as
a a P a
a ;-
c ~^j
j~ rt
Q rt
v rt
P n
f, &» § ?» £ f^ -^^
? E35
^ §
s p £' ;
C r» -rt M
f »
»i £.
r h'x g :fc fc
a * - ^ -n
» c 51
rt f£
g -as as
•a
APPENDIX
395
£ P 2 s-S
£ £ - n r
r- 5^ 35
•r P J r &
? ^_ p n 53
r~ *^
c n
C *
: 2-* & ^ R
; i *^
Q C ~£
c 5
-^ ~r 1 52 ' fj
§P:
F §
» 2 t~ ^
n c
R a
c ~fj S r\ E. j>. 55 n
fc Q £
« 22
Q
r c
o
Q
o
f-
n
%
r: <~
o Q n 55
*•$ a
r r • i ? P E
g, Jj_ C • -Q
25 ~J
• f~
i- K,
C S
a . 25 «
D
n 8
n
£.*
xr c £ ^~
55
£> -£:
£ ;
-& ~25
~ 55
Q
& IZ Q ^
x F
^ § Q n
_ n-
52 n
C —
t~ Q
n
Jr- J. |— *? y-_ • .,
•?^ «IX *^ O *~ . . *^a *"~
fc 25
Q 55 ^
•a r- •£ °
' fk
S £
^3 UN
a Z
? Q
f— r~
n J=-
% X
r *~ X r= 1
o *- c F n fi
^ ^^
-J> & ^
? S
: So
^ •- n
P j P
£J n; tJ
X
f C
r c
55 Z-
JN ^J
fc P
Y.
a o
UN
Q q
r £
ri a
r\. F
X • 4Q
•«t * 'O
I 78
*3 P«
i, S 2
« 8 «
3 iT
V *«b M
I'M
•« n -3
and * ldesh
e5 fc <*
line ed. H
omp. eime an
c shei 65 a
.. o
?s%r
I
ri r T?
'r |
». |
jj |
||
•Q |
^f- |
'i — |
||
C |
" |
e* |
X |
|
o |
d p« |
^- |
•P |
|
5 |
1O |
f; |
•e" g |
|
a |
tf |
o |
||
« |
* |
|||
JD c |
_S 'i 3 |
| |
M i— i M |
|
a |
S 2 |
tf • |
• |
H |
S |
z- fe |
of |
||
T" A |
s |
• |
396
f= n e • n E P ' fc.
n ,_
Q
L
.: r n i~
n
s
'F i *
S E c ? E 5
1" S
n: n §
F p £ F
r~ ?»
Js
n 'f_
n as
5 R r n
9 2 n £:
3& i- — =5
^
as ^ F if
n
•D :fj -rr Q j^ *.? as :jr .£. as
.- K § fi 4& ?. ^ S * 8
OQPr:r§n£n
V If * •& *" *" 5^ ^f\.
C r» C P '" ~P
r3 f~ —Tv. SJ *~* *• <-» '- r- '—
it f~ *" f~ ?~ "-^
^~ *- , ? n as c: is '.
O ^" *J\ I f U I ^-"
^ CT
£ *
a c S
a ^
Q
n -
P P
n r
Q
c £ r:
n ?^
i~ E n' i
5 f I |
n n
O 2 §[
% n^ Q
r r as
£ 5 E
§ £ E
P 11
p , 3
n J^- as
» as
n
as -i> n
P-8
n |^
r n n
as t: i~ n ^— £2.
2-^ £ -
as c
a £»
n f—
r ^ p
£ c
' r
n r:
£
^ as
r v '-
n a -r- Q P n
*- E»
n as ^
r as a
-ft c rv
n n
a
^
k fc c g
r .
n r
;i u,. uii QOILULL c-^c.?..
APPENDIX
397
P _R
O rl
«~i "
•c r
*j~ »j"v
•55 r
55 C
Q »
: i
• *~ r^' f
n s-
£* £*
55 _r\ s* n
£ f f- o
f *
O ft
II -
n c E 2
*^ ci c
»-« y l~
^ £
f- r* "
n ?;
n p 52
P a
r ••
s>
n Q Q
K~ r.
_rx f
55 '
&1
^ P
» E
^v.
J1- 55
« C
a p n
p'
f;' tj
ti IT
E. f
n I=-
c n
n g
n ?=
a r £
n ^
*J n
„ !L r
rt _r n
^ "^ -
* Si 55
* S
i -
r a
n ^_ Q
iJ §
g
n
r:
I,
| |
" n ^ - n r- r ~£
n
C IT
* 3
•*•
Q r
a E n c
a jEI
n r
2 £
£* ^
n **
*^- r
o
n K
r &
'" S
~£ c
-£ g
v Q-
? c. a ~D
5 • D *
5. in _K £»
e 5 s F
S ;5
c n^
r- r
Q- ,-
Fr S n
Q p
a f-
^r\v
/N. Q
p •* - o
?5 »=. Q
X
a r
P 2>- *"
n 55
? n
c n
c _
J3 C
~ c n
n ^
~£ n
n Q
', 55 b n O
* 2 n S
I 2 ^ n
f! Q
•n £
.Jj IT _Tj
•S O 7-
55 r
y ^» n-£
IT
n
5 r
? a
fc 8
n £
n F
~^* P
•Q
H
p
r 5
a a
•55 ~&
r g.
io ed
309. . n line 25 n
hei
o mrn
:^
a S
£ I r
:P S P
* 1 i
n o ? g
T3 « "
g J
13 <B
ltd
10 1 ^
— *
^^ F
/ 3 1
« w s
- 4*
<o »
398 GENIZAH STUDIES
XLVI.
(Kecto.) ....... T1 ' DTiaD-l .......
jrpa'J i>y rupi jm ..... ........
ONI ir>»NK> p^ya im»i avvy ntnjn c^ana IN D^ya iiB>iy ii»N D»B^N i^b into runioij runoi -ryi> -vyo T^i> nxi rnp^ , , , . nya w p nns DON i^aN inv Tyn nniN npirn DN !>aN 5 pn nni i?3 JD n'-oiw D»ND iniroi I^B> WIDD pinn n»N B>a: b» . . rb . . inx nxmoi> ^ nvn DN bnx • nnns HON D^S^N Tiy
pnni» TOK D^S^ND nnv npinn NMB> »a ^y ?]« min nao IN , v , , , wo nna mix n^ nwaon pn npoa» omn ni^n TIT DNI jp i?ty D^nnan •pnaB' msao
D^nna uyo11 n^a nanon i?3 jai *an*ya nt D^y nr bi£>vb D^n pnoK Npi3 an^ya pnnioi nna mix pya nevi n^ana IN
nao ^331 • -iiDN niy3Dni n35r3 js^inb pimo myopn n3^3 pnnio 15
11DN1 imo nn na^nn I^BNI n^y n3t?»3 nNian onanb inio pa t^DB^n ^a bai imo ii? PN DN tpbnn^ 1^ t^B>a na^3 o^a n n^3N -pixi> i3n ^a ^ pai no>n i?^ p3i py iwna na naty DNI 'Dvn ^>a n^ne' ^i n^aN h? nnyan ny pinn^
bi • nniDi nniyo vhv pro uoo N^V ^aN1* no 20 ni? DN j^aiN^ imai '^na»a jpnw ratra I^BN 2i|ajip nwyh oyo 7\xtpv taba nc^naoa ipnwb IIDN hnm moa NHn^ nnvo na^apa IN maaai nan ^3N njaa n»ajn ^NI nnio -im!?i na^n nan^ pnh IIDN no^no ba^ no»no n^ Na^ N^ n^ j^ ynn no w Dinnn ima natr DHip noaaae' nraoi nnio niv» 25
joapi D^ ...... p ..... na^ ^a^a N^N D« . . , ^ni DWOT jn .
1 Halakot Kezubot in i*cn, I, 15-16. a =pc'i:if.
APPENDIX
399
(Verso.)
, ... & ... DM pn DN i>a , . a»D
, B> , , . N^t? p31 n3B>D Nn»
nnypa IN ^aa N^N nat^a D11 . , }» ana
wo«n D'a^p D<a f^W^ "iiDNi DTiaa nyanN
'^D b kiN WDD nin«!6 ini» pvyi? n^» pN^ao D^ naea
poo ^i icvy^ *ia j^aw IN 'ity^ »w wxw & . . . y
nay ^aN »ao nva pa na^a pa fno ^N^ TIDN per
i«3 DN ^»aN oinnn Tina pnnio p^oa DN j
DN nnN 'njr'i' pnniio '-ity ^3{ya iNa DNI PIIDN 10
.. DO nat^a haNi? inns . . an ID ncn ns • 'n^ pin yn . . . .
t . . b N!> iwnB>r6 .... 01 D*M hs> nnnon n«a aonn , . i5
. ap . . E^N n^ . . ir£ pn'-anx ^a ;n^ nipy!> nhni'i n . . i? ... i> .... DI
.-6ina jai D^»^ 'n Tina nn^vb tr^n DIO D'-N IIDN . . nc
'•w PSD no pso ^n PSD DB> WN PSD DP Nin PQD DIN ^y ^a . . a ^>DJ
10!? . , . N .... h hsw *D3 pi • nat?a . . N v^y p^no "u PBD
B* . . ownb i^y D^oa m^ ^SN . . mivioa i^ss*
. . . i . . D"in nan^i ^r\rh inwi WSIDI ni'in n . . . B> n-'an . . , . yc> ^ p» n^ ni^nh no . . ta
'Tk^ Nia" DNI . n^a . , «»m ^ann Tno n^yc' niniom nNn? 20
, . fv nan ba IN bs^aa IN nonaa mitrn upi> D^an bp IN D«3B> ^ nxnn ^BD an*y T">^ . . , N . . W> n . . N D , iWi nvnn ba i'oi'ui? abiao
nniD ^aN niDN nan p nap «f>i . . .
n»N
400
XLVIL
(Recto.)
naunai D'ann wo ppoBD bab nxan nae^i xbx pnnn pxi omaan ovai nnoyoai nnynai nniaai pi n3B>3 nvnb 310 ova nnao bn iva nv&ns mob D'o'1 -noa p-np p« naiD nyi nap crtn JOB' ^'•onai rbrwzi na^i 210 ova nmoa pi ninna iioa N^N 5 liar njn lawno jna snip wwn na nnpi? jo NIP ^sn^i p« *n»a i>y ina»an» ny mar JD nxr £w loan ii? ny «TI jo snip '•yam ywi ^ N-M *B^ H» D^OB' ^N N^N »a ny icon ii> jo ny ntj^nan ns Q«DD ^atn : ntw Na^i ny KB>S ^ jo 10 n>b STDKI :^ i*fii 'can inyrw JD»DI nanan
Snn pa a^a pa ^ ..... b . . K pa nw pa '•0110^ ^ne« nab
rna mb o« saba *D ............ o NDir p nx I^N^ pioix
nn Kpnn NDIID bww? 3 'IN ........... h nasnNati' i?a iB>yn vh
»aira »n« DHKO na^n nan N^ ........ Nnbn ^yoi yansi N3B>a 15
'v pi n^ai rbyzbw pn n^a^ ^a ..... 'yn
no3"iKT ya-isi yaixn yans YIDK nyi : B'Ni NnwD inVw 'yoni PIBTH yaixi yanxi p-uryn ntai Nnnvyi KOV »^yo Nnaao ib ............... ib »j
nn Di^'» Km^yn KOV ^yo ...................... ba by pan ao-
IT ins IT jnix biD11 xb ................. nm mac
4 bni:a D^DIDI ................... no b»nno
jiaa 6 nn bia^ xbi : n ............... x ir DW
xbi nnbn IN Kin ^ax ................. »jra paa
Ninnai ^osa nnb . . . ........... nn »n»4 25
2 Comp. Sheeltot, CV, 140. * Comp. Shvlhan 'Aruk, Orah Hayyim, 260, i.
1 a"n, ed. Hildesheimer, 623. 3 =onN ; comp. Shabbat, isgb. 5 Pesahim, 109 b et seq.
APPENDIX 401
(Verso.)
IN NTH IN N^N w Tnn ab^ N^I rp"W«6 iTewriD mm pmn a'D3 w 'pmn IWN ac^ N!J 'jaan IION pam DHN "pa^i '& .Tail me wp^ BWK awoi jnion noa pna :'31 m^ na o*ni>« nn nnx nna inao n^p-ia^^ ^Nai men IDB n^ >im IND -I^NT 5
« nriN
i?y nr nirsn IBB nemp ^inn 'INI n^yobi myo ne^vo l~iao 2ryai y&J pna |na^ nan jniji nm
••yai yt33 pna ^y uivi 'voa i:tnp "IB'N 'no wn^N « nnN ina 10 '~\ oyo «*aoi o»B>3K whv . . , f> ....... 01 'iai w^nne' nna
nr mna nennp hnn 'INI on11 ......... *ND N-aoi WCD ma . .
: s nnapn n-'aa omN ni ............ pitjn oniya' i^n ......
15TN nna Tiao ........... a^ 4 an^y nnyn ^ai
nnvo ^aa nan n ........ an'-y nivo i?y uw rnivca 15
n»ao nne^i ^10 . . h »!>vy^ ^piaNi? ^ n» Nn^ pia 'n na'kWi n^iri? n^Toi ~na^ n^aoi nvni? n^aoi n^a^ ^>n^ aio DV ..... ai : IT nvna^ 'K» bh ninN
nv any^ ............ n^D na^ anya IN nae>a
-IN ................ *mo nae^a ••y^an Nin^ aio 20
'n 'n ............... aoi n^o IN ^i^ an IN m&
nivo ^y vw 'voa ' ba^i 13^ ................ o nayoh
'13 n^i3 ................. : nNr
N piou
1 Pesakim, lisa.
2 Comp. :*n, ed. Hildesheimer, 643, and Shelllot, C, 114, 116. 5 Read : Tup' -]D -irwi cnwwn cnw1? j'
* Comp. i*cn, I, 15.
D d
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS OF TITLES OF BOOKS
nim«, R. Aaron of Lund's Code, I, Florence, 1750 ; II, Berlin, 1902,^
the first part quoted by folio and column, the second by page. or town, R. Abraham b. Isaac of Narbonne's Talmud-Compendium,
I-III, ed. H. B. Auerbach, Halberstadt, 1867-1869, quoted by page. yni tin, by R. Isaac ben Moses of Vienna; I-II, Sitomir, 1862, quoted by
folio and column. jnTi = nVv.Ti mabn bra, a Geonic compendium of law, ed. Venice, 1608,
quoted by folio and column. A different version, ed. Hildesheimer,
Berlin, 1888-1892, quoted by page. V*a = la'in p'b D':iNjn niavcn.
01*03 = airoi mm ':W3 mai«?n, ed. Miiller, Berlin, 1888. j*n. See a'na.
n"crr = mm ire rvobn, an anonymous compendium, published in J.Q.R., IX. mpicD rrabn, ed. Miiller, Cracovie, 1893. c'n = mpiDD rwbn.
n*n = Lr3n:o rjibn, ed. Miiller, Vienna, 1878. rrn:j men, a collection of Greonic Responsa, Jerusalem, 1863.
T = Maimonides, Mislmeh Torah.
mci in23, by Estori Parhi, quoted by chapter.
oir"? = nv:oip '•cipb, by S. Pinsker, Vienna, 1860.
•'mn 'c, by R. Saadia Gaon, in Harkavy, Studien und Mitlheilungen, V,
St. Petersburg, 1891. o'riD = msnn IED, by Anan, the founder of Caraism, in Harkavy, Shulien
und Mitt/ieilungen, VIII. JO"D «= bna mso -\tc, by R. Moses of Coucy. pn'c = pp mso ncc, by R. Isaac of Corbeil. yi"D = ar\oy ai nic, by R. Ami-am Gaon, Warsaw, 1865.
Tiry, the legal code of R. Isaac ben Abba-Mari, I-II, Lemberg, 1860,
quoted by volume, folio, and column. D'nrn ncc, by R. Isaac Albargeloni, ed. Jacob Schor, Berlin, 1903.
n"?np, a Geonic Collection, ed. S. A. Wertheimer, Jerusalem, 1900. n = '17H b«v p -iir^N im, author of a compendium of law, quoted
from a manuscript.
atD or pbn'ic = ^pbn 'bate, ed. S. Buber, Wilna, 1886, quoted by page. nrc, a Geonic Collection, ed. N. Mod'ai, Salonioa, 1792, quoted by
folio and number. — pis '-C?\L\
LIST OP ABBREVIATIONS OF TITLES OF BOOKS 403
nrmv nyir, by R. Isaac ibn Gajat, I-II, ed. Bamberger, Furth, 1861-
1862. ni"tt.', ed. Lyck. See '•j'a.
xc"u? = nrroc nss?.
naiffin nrw, a Geonic Collection, ed. Leipzic, 1858.
n'tt? «* naicn njnc.
p'n = D»:imp D'awa rraitrn, ed. D. Cassel, Berlin, 1848.
m?oi mra »ai»o 'n. See ni'oa.
an'n = o'ai«an rmiari, ed. N. Coronel, Vienna, 1871.
Baal ha 'Itlur. See -nzj>.
Eshkol. See bi3ffi«.
Harkavy, Responsen der Geonim, in Studien und Mittheilung., IV, Berlin, 1887,
quoted by page.
J. Q. R. ** Jewish Quarterly Review.
Afafteah, by Muller, Berlin, 1891. *
Maimonides. See T. Manhig, by R. Abraham ben Nathan, ed. Goldberg, Berlin, 1855, quoted
by folio and column. Muller. See Mafteah. Miiller's Einleitung. See Mafteah. Parties, by R. Solomon ben Isaac (TC'I), Constantinople, 1807, quoted by
folio and column. R. E. J. = Revue des Etudes Juives. R. S. B. A. = Rabbi Solomon ben Adret. Rabbinovicz, Variae Lectiones in Mishnam et in Talmud Babylonicum, I-XV,
Munich, 1877-1886 ; XVI, Przemysl, 1897. Ratner, Ahawath Zion We-Ieruscfialaim, I-IV, Wilna, 1901-1907 ; V,
Petrikoff, 1908. Responsa, Coronel. See an'n. Responsa, Lyck. See b"a .
Responsa, Mant. = D':warro manrm nibwr, Mantua, 1596. Saadyana, edited by S. Schechter, Cambridge, 1003. Steinschneider, Cat. = Catalogus Librorum Hebraeorum in Biblioiheca Bodleiana,
Berlin, 1852-1860. Vidal de Toulouse, author of the commentary, Maggid Mischneh, to
Maimonides, Mishneh Torah. Talkut = YaUcut Shimeoni ; Part I to Pentateuch ; Part II to Prophets and
Hagiographa, quoted by paragraphs.
Yaqut = Mugam Albuldan, by Alyaqut, ed. Wiistenfeld, Leipsic, 1866-1873. Yentshalmi, the Talmud of Jerusalem, quoted by treatise, folio, and column
of ed. Krotoschin, 1866. Z. H. B. = Zeitsciiriftfiir Jiebraeische Bibliographic.
D d 2
•rfcani v"? niana 'n
114-17
283 ^Bb'N rroyo
262 ,n::an byvc tt)*pn ITOD can Tobn
262 ,yppn by aci "pa i:w imoa by TT'P wnp
92 ,ina norm y:
91-2 ,»mb linns? m» '33 b*3tc3 ma monbi nnn1? irra y'c
91 ,mrro be nbiwa r^mnb J»N
341 ,nn:o abm n:cpi n'rru nnio pi
266 ,n'3iy nbcn pi
91 ,i">'3n by jTionb i"n TH« ta bbDnnb iD;3:w D^tz? ^TO cwpan ,mva nnpb CTIIV? 'i pwc cipo 120 ,T»nsn Dy Toy i« inr
nnrs 'n
332 331, 332 ,nJ:rr pp p n'2's rpmn
332 ,rv2'23 «TT rro non nna
332 ,.TS'23 p3"n NDClp 'to
333> 334 ^ri'S's jiis -nrs? 335 ,in-S'2 xnnb -JHS DN 335 ,D^E33 'n nbr3 rvbo 335-6 ,CH:I toa PTCIE CN ,D'ntrci IDS 336~7 >"pi2 ram in'
r6*nm natr 'n
320 ,n3'cn ny xr'y yasb n»b3 jn? imo 81-2, 196-7 ,nic« naw nanyn -81 ,c'*3 p rocs ]'a n-by 263 ,n3\c3
194-5 ,m:ra
195 ,rron:n ^
195-6 ,rac3 jns ttjTin nD:ni mnn3 np'b '-o:b mro jn:ic 153 ,ratt?a n3:n i.Bpb'aj n3 c*y3 ns:b im3 niaob
175 ,P3izn Tbr ip'birnn C J59 >n'i p«?3 H'T« j'p'JTD p« '•owe peri '13 nsbn
85-6 ,nrBC3 r'jEon 337 ,ruo 3iyo nbn be 121 ,mTi'n »3iT 263 , 262 ,-cn .13133 CH'n pnniE nob
405
'n
327 ,rroa yon TOT
225, 340 ,ncEa Nn no 'me-
338 ^ns:1} ison i3o«j ^NIIC'
184 ,]oeoi nopo %i\ryn no
185 ,»pcp
185 .paitra mcub ino
185 ,n:?o mcx1? ino nj TtcSo
338-9 ,j'7ctai ]Q3i rtms fcto rrcy
340 ,'no Vc nsn
184-5 T"132 'T ^ n-° n'EM
185 ,moi3 '
185 ,V:n
185 .rr
26 ,mci3 '15 ;';:T3S b« j«
227 ,^pco "iNttJ 'TJ? bbm m:n ^o«"j Via' DM
114 ,HDD ^Sa iQ"nn mip D'T ni'm to joiao p«
185 jTDiyn m'ED n:o N'JO TD
iD DV 'n
222-3 (P ^^ W*'3 ^33
220 /:TD ^i*u
158 ,':C Cl"' 119 ,F]D1O pip 'P
184 ,i;ion
37 ,on"ina. no 47 ,rt;tDn TTNI rpio ?c niana rac
naum 3N2 ny^n ins n»ayn '
152 ,npi 152 ,nr.3?no r|
345 >^"'n3
* n
29 ,m3: n:'N x-irao« rjiy 33 jpiE'TO n*' crs 27 ,':i» 'n j»:oo n::n num NO M 27, 32 ,':i« 7nb ncviso xmn Nn':i3'« DX 28 ,«]iyi KOSNT spia 26 ,n«n2 psin 31 ,nsm ':IN npna 29 ,rwin na^o nzTiy 'a pa-c jiEoca WD 27 ,pncT soiw WIN
406 rYQiKnn nnsD
29-3 r >yy
29 ,mo nb rtuso: «be FJW 28 ,rrc;N pa n:jo n 27
33 ,ibna ici iiD'N cro
26 ,t 337 O
118 ,p'nmy2 ibararcc mciy 102 ,rrz*m 'T te rrmto ' 92 92 prsn or nVcarow nVu:vt
118-19 >ni? '-1130
120 ,c'sa ':oci ?]W ':OD 45 >p
oTay <23M9 ,a\"3y 'n
be in'a fina i3iye 1*5 be
J93-4 »r D1*:3y ™ 11Dyc Din 263 ,GIJ 'bnri men DTIDM C'
J53 >D'« ^
26 , join's be p'
193 ,nD: n'aa bsic1 be p
32 ,mc TM nba -jc: p
224 ,ci*3y m ibse N:TID 26 ,c'ij be no
224-5 ,ci*3y n> br ';-IIE:I ncwe nc 343 >D^33 be i3e
118 ,'
117-18 ,nwc nsi« 80-1 ,n>Tcrt npn 3n"j<i cnmcb poo i:n:e cvo 'bra
mm iion 'n
119 ,IWM mprn 121 ,non n'lbn cieo ntobn bsa* DN
J53 ,mcio c'o11 noa nap: rnbv 206-7 ,n3nboa NTT mo rra 38 ,:3"na3 bbon^ c>» ai 39, 40, 249 ,np by3 n^ac 'ri 39 ,cn3:
407
•worn ntrnn ,ncm ^a 'n
339 ,0'Nja awo
195 pram Tiica rro"»n
195 ,n'c coin Dia'rm rronaa pcrmc ci3*n tow
onny ..'n
83 jD^Nrour pirba -nine 03 197 ,Vrob jMonrc 'JTT na»
8l ^iO1? HST Nbc "IS13 139
83-4 peon nub 121 ic^arro 11? 82-3 ,niTn Eja J':p 183 ,DI"D» niryo n'ttryoi <:« nnin' movw? r
na 'n
151 ,mn pn IQI* 337-8 jb
nnina ,nie« '
212-15 ,msa 'imp I'Trnjrn DM pom n? \u'ffi 77-8 ,VYI« i'Q\u -jw Nin no
J55 5 a57 >xfo "02:
78 j'ma JN2? rr:nj nn\mc HICN
79-80 ,nn lEiub jrna noniptt? HUJN nains
139 ,c'-m?3 D'T» cy ounp
155 ,nnawD njnimu
155 ,n»-iain3 nspo by ca njobs? prams
212 ,nnavi3 mas*D rroM
199-200 ,pT3i p:a natna
poa 'n
5-6 ,t33a i:iaT vn mmn •nn«\r D'ny
233-4 ,ain3b ICID"? IIDM cm 'ntrxV -£.1 i:m laro onr? IDMW "jya
230 ,«n« ^3' CM ansn IIHO ^3^IJ ViD'c \mn
98 ,rvnwn pa n-nn '.can na'naa nyxc IEID
171-3 ,137^ vro '£3n na'nsa rrycc IBID
98-9 ,13 M»ari7 blCD '1D3
152 jbiyab Vi3» pN n'wac '3oo 103 nraxi ntt«
160 ,nmD nnc p?ran 230 ,maiyo «'n CM C3 xicna m3M»33 a"n 'wan p«
153 ,n3i3y irw-'M ^73 n«iw 'o p«i -pia 3^n:n
'n
182-3 ^noS nro 182 ,^0
4o8
nny 'n
356 ,0'anp nny
256 ,rn nn nt pTr'naow on?
161 ,iDa an'w Tyns? iy
1 60, 161 ,rynb ino nviyn by
45 ,iynb D'3is ON nc by ppa nny D'jnvw
}jna
ana 'D by fpa N'sinic jsvz '11 nn;xa pn-ui pwo vn proci
bni IT ana
150 ,biTDi yarn iioNb bia- nibn 339 ,ic:>»3 noi1? Vij» D'iy 'ta nun b
153 jmbcn w D'iisnn icoa 154 ,rro>o i'yaco ym TO'N1? prawa y*» v«nv p« nm any 'ba fiycro bs« rpon PINT
nxt^nni jritt&i 'n
163-4 ,ia "ninb Via' j'« mbn aii'p pib nun puran
150 .npibnb poio 'm Tinn1? a"n ^^•lon in'airm poio ia «?'« iay npibn
150 ,10171 pin onan p« baN DHT no'nn po'pnc ony
291 ,'*Na inn bab win ypip »aj by nnsin aman
'n
150 ,npibnb pa «b 'iao
201-2 ,iacn j'pbm -)>« cob ib^onc 'a
151 ,iTan Jiooa iD^y b'snc n^biD
385 ,icia 'ibi any 'ba 'ibb poo jn: jai«i n'bc j-yoc
njnci naoBi npo 'n
231 ,niTD i« yaToo am -on
292 ,«mni 1301 n:pb n'b na an*«i oiba ib n'n Nbi n:no anian ]>a rra
291-2 jiccao amab voasra n:no aman }'a nn
152-3 ,n»an »:oa incxb noiy n;no nm« ana an'm nunb n:no aman
153 ,v;ab n:no aman -n
391 ,-IBW »T by r|ca yaion iTanb ronra j,-vb IITEN 'N 251-2 ,n:nn Tt\ea nyno bica p
286-7 ,miiaaa icia popm 1133 '3N IOIN bnsn ,CTTN ':c
287 jDn^'a jmx ip1"1' T** n13"1 nii»sn onb triz? D'nn »JXD
139-40 ,nain }r» la pnnn« inx »:in by o'on -pi oinob nsii mum D'nw ':«
288-9 ,n\rn«n nmw D'ai 'cm C»TT: 'nwa ni:ai o»:a n«3ni no jaixi
ioi-3 pcipsa inn rruob nsiixe CIET-ICH
nnsa
bairn nbu ,n^jna niTac* 'n
164-5 02 inn1' ^13 207-8 ,iT2n D3Tin3
409
5271 ,cein no ,i8a 591 (-p^n1? nous? cipo ,n a 5262 ,irrco pun ,5 a ,nm3 new 'T rrt 'ON ,30 a 5266-7 ,OIK «?> cito ,27 b 5266 ,m -no? -m ,275 ,on*33 pi«v vn,saa 5263 ,jop JT ,44 b 5341 ,>cn 3*>,42a 5267 jTryocb ; 273 ,n:>TCp m ,59 a 5272 jnrnnb p'-c? 'i ,54 b 5341 ,ansnpnm ,53 b 5262 4^5 »i^ fib's ,62 b 5275-6 ,n:pi iim n:p ,60 a
5320 ,r8a ,D^3 nnnc ,i8a 5319 ,rrvo p-»i ,8 a 5319 ,o'Tiorn p ,7 a .ram 5322 ,nn:o3 vsron ,24 a 5321 ,343 ,'niioin ,21 b ; 342 J'JJT n'?3nc ,21 b ,85 a 5324 ,D"35? nja ,47 a jio1? p« u« ,45 b 5127-8 ,mcott:rt p ;34b 5220 ,«TDn Dioj? '~\ ,139 a 542 ,XD«IC ,85 b 542 ,j:nv 'T '« ,85 b ;nmj? 37 ,]'Qn:o i1; JWD no ,152 a 5121 ,m« cmo ,i44b 5240-1 ,nrpa2 me ,42 a 5142 ,iow 013010 ,26 a 536 ,otnsn bs ,21 a ,piTj?
185 ,«i7n -J'-'JSWT >'n ,53 b 5241 ,rvin mpn ,42b
nc'ro ,37 b 5339-40 ,p;Dicn ,37 a 59-13 ,nmn' '-\ -\u >oi ,na-iob ,D'ncD ,«jinn pia ,46 a 5184 ,-n««? ncis ,45b 5184 .obn1? >^ ,39b 5339 ,rrcii!7ri ,TDiprr "rw rvica ,55 b 5227 ,ruc3 bmz? i*' ,49 a 5226-7 ,733? ,46 a 5225 ,ncn fr3 ,86 b 5141 ,»n3 nntnDi ,71 a 5343-4 ,piyo HOD ,62 b 513-14 14 ,to»3 nno: ,ma 5344-5 ,chiyn mow tsn ,94 b 514 ,66 b 515 ,sco'un xorni ,28b 5345 ,s»n~i ,21 a 5345, vro '3'3J ,2ob ,KOT
345 ,iiii" »"P3 ,68 b 5345 ,^SO3 ,53 b 514 ,vra Tfto 271 ,inoraE nbr: ,34 b 5262-3- ,irt3 mb» ,25 a 5241 ,»svn na:3 ,6 b-7 a ,n3io 222 ,c«in n« pabio ,34 a 5220-1 ,nbn ps^io j'« ,i2b ,rr^3
262 ,D'3TO D'O1 ,26 b ,n»3rn
342 ,nncT£O ^3n ,32 a 5342, yizrh ,17 a 5342 ,min ^TD nnos ,i6b ,n^3o cnc'\io ,27 a ; 37 ,c(I33x roi3 ,24 b ; 37 Yn': ,24 a ; 174-5 ,rnj»B3 '' ,3 b ,]rp ino
36 jbbisn
,77b 5240 /oVr'pVD ,74b 5183 ,-crp ,61 a 5183 ,np-c3 ncyo ,15 a ,mor , 107 b-io8 a ; 183, rwEcin HIT ,80 b ; 183 ,in3N VN ,80 a ; 183 ,n33O mva
182-3 ,Di3UTQ:» p rr::n '-\ n':n3 ,54 a 533 ,c'VriT 'C3« ,54 a 533 ,212 ,v\p'33 xVi »n»aa ,52 b ,ni3ir3
34 ,p3i ]'33 nsmsVi ,55 a 534 ,rrc3ici 263 ,nnc:\i? p'3 ,39 a 5132-3 ,1^ J'HT -IHNOI ,29 a
^nb-oi «ciic ,37 a 539 ,'I;ET ,34 a 5174 ,N'-no ,8 a 5173 ,cvr n:no ,2 a , ta ,80 a 598 ,ni3innnn rwno ,79 a 537 539 ,jnr5o3 p? ,44 a 539 "3N '« ,85 b ; 101 ,mp B3 ,81 b 5101 ,^3 ICID 2H3 ,80 b 599 ,rmy
169-171 ,JKQ 'wrr 130-131 ,T3T ro: mien ,54 b ,pt
5246 ,c»o nbion ,51 b 5246 ,TD3n px ,51 a 5105 pic ^3l'2^ ,46 a ,«op •,247 ,anm nri3s ,59 b 5247 ,'3nv -p-o ,59 a 5246 psncrrb JEICI ,55 a
5248 ,w:n3 C-UIC:TD ,68 a 5247 ,p3T be ,66 b 5247 ,n:ip varu ,66 a ,-iun ns -jin ,73 a 5248 ,0^01 npib p« ,71 a 5248 PIED *nnm ,7ob
5249 ,iE(r"3 rnci ,79 a ; 248 ,^po isrui ,78 b 5248 ,ann was ,74b 5248 ban ,81 b 5249 /-imco ,81 a 5249 ,j'tnin3 ,81 a 5249 ,-|iynrt "jy ,80 b
249 ,nV3c ;p\-ii ,82 a 5249 ,nn
4io
rraron ,8 a ; 105 ^NVI piaa ,6 b ; 102-3 jin^rro «wc VE ,3 b ,»r:ra «a 'o« no ,11 a ;ios ,toio rwso ,ioa 5104-5 ,3-iirn DIN ,gb 5103 jrwso ; 104 ,»n»cbn nsca ,17 b ; 104 ,D'3Bb ,17 a ; 103 ,t» teas ,12 b ; 104 ,«in
3-4 ,pQ'DS ,47 b 5 JQS jVnao Win ,25 a
,nyj "aijrn ,93 a ;io6 ,iar naran ,92 b 5123-4 ,pico rroa ,80 a ,»nna j*aa 292 ,Trt vfro ,127 a 5107 ,ncpo ,95 b 5106 ,niE3b »a ,94 a 5106
3 ,»mcn .Nrmwaa .64 b 546 ,ai no« ,54b-55a ,pin:D 200-1 ,rpDiiaa n-ops ,61 a 5102 ,n:rEn an 'N ,39 b ,mnaw 26 ,w.-cn »5 ,ssb ,rm 263 ,cHjaa narra ,12 a ; 33° ,nmcn ,39 a ; 253-4 ,VpTO mn uran ,37 b ; 239 ,«on 'a 'OT ,37 a ,mn:o ;334 ,«na'n NEC i*« ,41 b 5334 ,nnp3TC n^n ,41 a 5336 ,1:3 Vo «'n ,40 b 5334 ,njri20 n'SB ,43 a 5331 ,f2ipn jn ,42 b 5332-3 ,»ni*pi n5? IDO ,41 b 326-8 ,ai3no jiosa-iosb 5239 ,nnw mns ,75 a 5253 ,«EE i*« ,56 a
318 ,-nnc ,45b ,mvaa
>47a J339 >rwaT iTan rrana ,40 a 532 ,ci*a? bn? pea anncn ,8 b ,pin ,56 b 528 jN'DCXT xpia ,54 b 5270-1 ,unpt3i 'brN ,51 b 526 ,':w 'n
28 ,a"?a )a-npa
82, 83, 97, 102, 105 ,rn
266, 269
103, 199 ,"|b NQ'
D'HSN 'y
318, 319 ,
316, 342 ,rmn 30
55, 57
105 ,c"y^o« c'te:N 87 ,NVQ: p pnc'K
TIED 'S — 322 ,N'OEC'N
243-4, 246 ,mpo cr jimscN ,pico«
in ,(nTn:) pnjp — 'ipcN
152 ,F]iir:) »T by ?TD«
230 ,n"rcan: = MP'JPD'S
mtenn ^nn: 'y D"CM
30 fspncN
317 ,«?»« DBJ ,«n»
244, 248 ,s*roiiM
yiT3 'y ,yi«
55 ,npT«
203, 804, 217, 2l8, 320 ,^-llT pM
D'Jnao F]i?n ,y» 'y — 323, 306, 352
,rro-np ,,-iibcnn
358 ,
315 ,'«JN '
nibcnn 'nci: 'y — 420 ,t:3ffi
98 ,VCM =^ ''TC
326 ,(apy> p) te
ion: 'y — 279 ,-nc
337, 394 ,Tiin»
359 ,^
266 ? SOPTD'N
88 .c'rjDn1; iin 66 ,ninxnn '*w TIC ,
214
57. 59, 6l, 67, 104 ,p JV3 3M = 2N
96, 104, 302, 303, 326 ,p rra OH
386
249 ,JTN "«? in»
182, 251, 252 ,
345 151
169 ,nna'M OQffi 'y cnn
385, 39° »m« = P«
26, 29, 34, 60, 83 ,nii3n inn ,i:':nM
270, 284, 285, 287, 289
302, 326 ,rron win ,m«
321, 396 ,nos oa ,N:inx
67, 87 ,pW ,pTHM 230, 256, 257, 266, 381, 397 ,'« = i«
,nv/cnn 'ncn 'y ,]v;ri«
ISVNO 'y is IVN
394 ,niEN by m ,"?i«
337 ,'TOIIN
211,213,340 ,'p:m
296, 321 ,nns cc ,«:in« 363 ,w»
nn 'noi: 'y— 55, 281 ,N'TE'N , 358 ,(n"» p) pT» ,i:T'N
30, 31
296, 321 ,nos cc ,
nc3T? 'y
*»3«'biia 'y
319 ,nb»
Din: 'y •O
109 ,nmr: ••n?**
54, 59 ,moc p pmn
256 ,rc'SM
67, 42o,(n'3ny) p3?n
,:nyo 'y anrrsbN
279, 326 ,z*vfa ,r\-b*i
18 ,(n
80, 356
412
320 ,rp ,«nru
396 ,nrv3
180-1 ,y«
301, 325 ?povfo
prose 'y ,11*3
379 ,T3131 = TIQ3
316, 317, 344 ,'on to 301, 325 ,(rvcne) n«isn n'3 314, 340-41 ,n D
325 , an, 213 , 167, 174 ,winon 320 ,
305, 306, 328 ,3i<?p 131
1 6, 17 ,ai3'n i3i 'D
321 ,(n'3iy) pit? pa ,ymi3 ]mi
147, 154 Til
58, 6r, 191 ,pw ,NDVI
303 ,N33i »3"i
174 ,Fom
169 irn = ^|
138 ,rc: nri3iro3 ,nn
354j 375 ,«DDM = NHEIT
98 ,mi«j ,«-n 57. 59> 61, 67, 69 ,(rvrw) ,cnt::ip .3-11
71,85 349 ,mnbxtt?:
336. 339 >0"i'CiE) nvc'D 2in ,O:«JT
7, 19, 20, 24, 25 ,(NV-IC p) pw 'Nn 37, 43, 44, 54, 55, 57, 61, 67, 69, 71, 113, 134, 135, 145, 146, 147, 167, 168, 176, 178, 179, 189, 191, 205, 219, 229, 236, 242, 250, 258, a68, 272, 273, 277, 280, 281, 290, 297, 298, 306, 311, 312, 313, 316 212, 213 ,Ty DC ,nmn 301, 326 rm;n 179 ,ncc to man 245, 249 ,p>n b«j mrt 300, 322 ,(n'iny) %o .aim 3to, 334 ,^W rnrt 53 ,-IION i:osy7 nai 39°
if 3, 48, 49, 5a, 78, 203 ,z^32 ,- 'oif* pcb ,Ta?n 'y — 204, 217, 279
72,
351
'3iT
87, 88, 206 ,-n.-3 85 ,DttJ ^^D>^ nr:jn '"3 jXix'Sm 86, 88, 93, 277, 280, 290, 293
214 ,2':wan be ten '3
222 ,D1pa DC ltD'3
386 ,Vnan pi rva
myo 'y yninr? n'3
301, 325 ,^isn n'3
91, 119 ,i:'3T n'3
54, 55, 59 ,ncv P •<|l'r'3
294 ,(nmTEn) \nnD b3
379 , (prodigal son) ,nyT nuin J3
87 ,piriN n'a '33
87 ,«viD3 n*a '33
mD-130 'y ,CD3 87, 96, 105 ,D',-I3 '?y3
33, 71, 2I2, 213 ™?3 ISO ,D'«'p3-plF3
33, 210, 212 ,Knyp3 ,Nnp'3 J37, !38 ,(St. Barnabas) ,i 294, 318 ,'nnc ,VND 194 ,«nn3 = i- 58, 69 ,cipo EUJ p ,co IXL-X nr3jn »*a ,Dirio '13 5109, no ,anon ton n3^3 5109, 1 10 ,°?«-nr' nciy S3 5401 '13 ; 1 12 ,c'3i3n '13 ; 1 10 ,D';m3 401 ,prc3n 'y S3 -,401 ,rvnsn 281, 288 ,-ry DC ,npi3 242, 243, 246 ,rm3 351 ,ncnn nna 10 ,mys nyocoa ,«nna 3°5-6, 328-30 ,wv>m
131T3 'y ,131T3
323 ,t)rra ics
89. 91 ,rf?Bn TO , 7, 8, 43, 58, 59, 68 ,icnc) c':i«3 ,pw 104, 140, 142, 240, 270, 284, 287, 289, 386
104 ,(n'ri2) in-re: ,pm»3
8, 13 ,nvTO3,«= ni'wi3
252 ,p>u = ;^v
TCSJ 'y ,ni2:nr» nnu
413
243, 246 ,n<:i' cir jv,n , 54, 59 ^NTCtt p
288 ,t}ioi ,avt:n
288 ,paa? jm1? «n
J54 >pn:r '2M ,n«n
174 ,ciro DC jabn
236, 239 ,nos DUJ ,«N?3Tr
236, 239 ,no2 cw ,«:a^n
236, 239 ,TOJJ D«J ,D'S3un
•wfjnio 'y brrbn
40 ,mrroa pVin
306 jbaai '*« pro ovinso rfton
252, 266, 331, 354, 356 ,N3in = «3in
370, 372, 374, 379, 382, 387, 392
357 ,'3yn 361 , m:n
r35 .(^'tcin p) bwojn 31 ,'Niin» 'T Tn^n p»a 'uran ,n:'jn
94, "3 191, 210 ,p»j rrnn' 'n p n>::n
360 ,C»3fTU ,'3'Cn
295, 318-19 ,'cicn 366 ,iTuin 'y ,mnn
174 ,pn 177, 184 ,ncnn 296, 320 ,N7,-in
420 ,'lcbD 'l 3TO
ci: 'y ,jniTQ 17 ,rminto 'D 325 ,nD^:o • 238 ,n»TQ J^W^Q
353 ,)'TD'«?:B
239 ? 180, l
16, 19, 48, 54, 107, 122, 129, 134,
143, 156, 166, 176, 186, 203, 210,
216, 228, 232, 235, 242, 250, 255,
258, 264, 268, 272, 349
330, 332) 334, 335, 336 ,,TTD = ro
no ,n'
2°3-4
339
295, 3J8
362 ,>
209 ,rf>n =
20, 24, 290, 303 ,(-wnE: p) pw '» 'y
'y ^'i-a'n 394 ,«?'ocrt '133 ,i?n 21 ,'MVO3 na-rr 48, 52, 53 ,nwyt)l> n3"jn 306 ,npico nabn 222, 271 ,nyioo 63, 7r> 85, 86, 229, 231 ,n
352, 382-97, 400-1 235,
304 ,D^o^ 'nb rvs's n 306, 352, 398, 399 ,niaisp 26, 27, 150, 256, 332 ,-p^n = fabin
109 ,'3OD = 'JO'H
•5*1 nana 'y ,Vrt 103, 106, 160, 226, 239 ,'oj 103 ,ort
394
i, 2, 3 ,prr
pD:n nci: 'y pc:n
310 ,ni2icnn pnyn
398 ,nmrn c'lcn
301, 325 jpncn
302, 303, 326 ,o"2cn jo inton
323, 326, 340 ,nain = 'nn
13 ,D'-ai2 -pnrr ,rrnn
325, mnn
an ,«:mn
sn, 345
54, 6 r ,oipo cc? np b« »T«I 351 ,3n*v to 'm 52 ,j
296, 320 ,r|:y ,NI«I 322 ,(n'aiy) JTN Nbn ,am
358 ,'JD = '31
320 ,m:'ED ,»n
332, 336, 36r, 364 ?*i =11 ,'i 249 ,p'i
397 ,TTO1» DttJ ,"331
37, 343 ,>"'' = »in
345, 249 »!** »» mi
245, 249 ,^'x to lain 216-17 ji^rircH) nan
178, 179, 181 ,(?
185, 189
361 ,?r?
362 ,;y.3
1iTN3 'y ISO
187, 189 ,rrori3 '«"«
244, 249 ,nD3 '3 ,'rD '3 ,«tt?13 3b3
302 ^"JHI TIH nmn ,Nto 177 ,na 26 ,*mm wrc3 nibsnn 'noia 'y NE3
HBE33 'y f]D3
3^3 'y nc3
295-6, 320 ,'in *o~o 1 08 ,ocn3 198 ,rn3 = nro
3">3 'y 'W13
339 j(n'onE) ,np'no nt3 ,ai3wi3
156, 158, 217, 220 ,D1pO DHJ O3C3
325 ,)'non WCD13 321 ,(n'3iy) .
322
278 ,^p pbn ,
323 ,p"jrr ,Kni3
314 ,DWI3
72, 73, 77, 78 ,nairo ntrnp 'y ,in3
9, 14 ,»n"j 55, 57 ,W CW jMib 309, 333 ,(rvcns) ,fr« «bp ,aaW 236, 239 ,7102? cic ,c':i?b
10, 96, 104 jD'JE1?
166, 167, 211, 237, 238, 294 ,'D-IM pirb
T7J ,733 ,bW1ffi» y*1M y — 295, 320, 322
82» 83> 321, 322 ,»a-»y jC'bNyntt?11 ptcb
n"y:2 'r— 334, 341 96, 104, 236, 301, 309, 333 ,'ciD Jicb
339
-np 'r ,-np pw'' 95 ,m3nmn ptt'b 334 ,«np pcb
83 ,ii23rt ^^^n ,1:': 326 ,rcv '
40
43 ,J>noy '3
105
244, 248 ,TTEC 224 ,C'DyT
334
318 jbpcns ,«: 295, 3i
rnn nu?3 'y
55, 69, 277, 279 ,rj-te» ,r]Dv '3
280, 283 31, 48, 50, 52, 53, 85, 180 ,pna '
183 ,
236 ,('«t3'D 'i -isn) |n:v
120 ,H3i ni2c NTT = Vnan TOC <rr
136, 141, 142 ,cmc3n DV
178, 179, 188 ,p« no N3N '3 FjCV 326 ,TMQ 'T '3N F|-V
55, 59 jVi'TO '3« F]cv
55, 59. 278 ,mirr '3« »)cv
420 ,DID i"5Q ,-nar
326 ,13'3M 3py
29, 30, 31, 85, 86 ,p»a ono '3 apr 214
55, 67 ,C'D'3 '3 3pr
154 ,n"n 13 pns'
154 ,nw '3 pn^'
154 ,>»3piy n3 pns'
75, 83 >^i3 ^N"1 ?ns'
256 jH^S'
207 ,irp>
52
b^ic1 pH T.obn 'y '
3°, 3i, 34, 47, 78, 91 ,n«'ttj'
—185, 212, 277, 302, 326, 386,
ro'w on 'y
'y iT'ri— 49, 51, 83, 174 jcr'T
328, 341, 372
154 ,F"S' *3» ,rwr> 43 ,rnirr '3 ^rrynr
375, 38o 78 ,*na
191 ,NC313
323 ,rr\33
415
398 ,nsno
43 jiri^r '3t* ,ntco
191, 211, 212, 214, 237 ,pw ,mrn
238. 240 17 ,1:^31 ,rroo
;wj ,rrco '5—240 ,p}« ,rrtnco 246 ,rv3i3rco
55. 57 ,cio>3ibip3« 310 '2 obiico 278 ,myvc
182 j
306, 307, 357 ,n:Tcn
58 ,fop mo D3DO ,J'P«JO
ru-tt." cm ,nyw 'y wnvio
214 ,rrcno «no
278, moino
306, 329 ,N'rr 'NOW m MD prwno
306, 329 ,«TT MTIT frrcno
191 ,jwj ,rrnnn
206, 299 , 131 ,'
55» 58, 69 ,'
420 ,'oin: 420 ,pn: 26, 34, 144, 242, 255 ,p
87 ,
108 ,nvvDV
108, 114, 314 jD^TinN D'O nVs: 400 ,a'riES n"?'T£:
20, 23, 24, 55, 90 ,pna '»'yrr 'a 'wns: 95, 107-14, 145, 146, 156, 216, 219, 294, 298, 299, 300, SOG, 310
247 jDcca:
98, 32°> 338,^3 = ">3i2 3°9, 333 ,(rrai3?) ,jb'« «Vp ,^3 321 ,(nunr) ,D^on »3E tec npw »n3 326 , 105
1 66 ,can TTDI: nnns 'r ,rr2inD 'nci: 104 ,j:B:n nci: 549 ,p':3i» 549 ,D"B« ;rr»Dnn 'nci:
•p« 548, 49, 89, IIO, 260 jN'bE'N
48, 49, 50. 51, 52, 109, 112 ,"»oc'
,-23 548, 49, 89, 200 ,133CM 5351
rTiE 549, 52, 107-12, 260, 351 ,an^o ;49,SE3 ; 49 , (J»TVE
174 ,p13-3
36 ,ncr rrtjo
S'Si 339 -P27""0
295? 3 '9 ,cnno rfao
16-18 ,n'W7«ji n'3c ,njic>n rrro
52, 57, 206, 212 ,T3? TOCCO3,
344 ,ninDrro niLTQ 50 ,Vnjn 350 ,o»^nn '» — 549 ,pwa 'o 549 ,»3»»te»H Tiino
322, 324 ,n'1
101 ,no , 305, 306 ,moTD by 'o ; 24, 39
104
307
306 ,«nF'
300, 324 87, 88 ,naa 300, 322
281 ,Q»3 3°5, 306, 328 ,
50 ,n2*pn btj inaw by 327
2, 3, 4 jjorb p:ren niro 265, 267 ,pTiTO j' 51
298, 299 ,ruu? be nn:o3 raco 260-61 ,1135 n'syna TTDEO
286 ,KC3S H'b J37BQ 2l6, 217, 298 ,'CTD \T»« DXD
217-18 ,fi«3 nvibnn
mbcnn TICV 'y — 326 ,
38 ,
388 ,10= 282 , 42
59,67, 69,31 10-310
297, 321, 325 ,N3E13 1Oy = M3E131O
317 ,1'M* p '3T1O
86 ,J1N3 3pr '3» ,'3110
301, 325 ,(nw) ,f E »':Tra 206 ,^y
297, 325 ,'«» 338 ,T
272 ,
288 ,:icc3 meyrr nono ,33-0 319 ,rrobn IED 343-4 .(Trabmc) ponv IED 60 ,»»n '-V? niyiarc IED 153 ,c>:i:nn 'D, m^cn ,^DD rmn '? ,>TIE'D ODD'N 'y ,T»CD 305, 306, 307, 326, 328 ,nDT> 325 ,njms ,bpo 65 ,>N DC ,n»^»p'D
71^ 203, 312 ,NTID
168, 174,279,387 ,«niD 174 ,'
74, 8 1 ,nsi3 n 341 ,m ,
4» 5, 84, 99, 104, 246 ,py ,J» 1? ,;N 34i, 343 43 ,nco 'a 190, 266 ,nE3'« =
213 ,? «'b» i, 3, 279 ,«$? 46-7 ,na«n irVy 130, 131 ,nro?
10, 12, 13, 130, 131, 284 ,"j? -raj? ,-ra? 43 ,-pnn '2« ,^oy
295, 320 ,nVDDT
43 ,!•«? rn':an ''
19, 176, 179, 238, 260, 297 ,p«a , 301, 302, 303, 304, 306, 308-16,
.CT2j? 'T ^^D 's — 326 301, 325 ,Hnra7 i 279, mEi
244, 248 ,> 154 ,pns> '3 180 ,p"ji
'y ,)'Vc3n n*y ,nwsrr '3 294 ,D'2iN3
ipr: 'y ,pny
326 ,115?
35-6 ,m-u-in n«?y
372 236, 239 ,p^D
401 piQn ire 'D- ,T?n yn: pnc
314. 340-1, NTPCIE
5420 ,2iy 548, 260 pnro 548, 49 49 ,'on ; 49 ,pc:cip ; 49, no ,,-IEIS 549, 89, no, 260 ,«':OTI ;N'^«'yi man ,nyi>« ,. . . nsii 'y — 260 ,JOTI ,minn nsnp ,ncnp ,11000 ,HDD be
55, 67 ,3py S '3« D'D'3 272, 273 jiTD-ll1? 1\TT<D ,C»D'3
ncnp 'y ,-[2'iy:
p'pcn 'y pea
392 ,«nnE:
138 ,M310'DC'»» ,nyOC02 ,CEO
ice ,niy 'y — 174 305 ,nvrn«n by ,rrernp 'y ,T 316 ,mioN3 ^y DW ,
249
83, 96, 104 , 339 ,0"V
23 ,rp::n p jn3
•jny 'y— 23, 36 ,^SYP 'a jru
75» 83 pxnrro ]3 jru
236 ,'ND'D '•> 12H JH3
306 ,
III ,Fjiy CW jNJID
,ui 'y ,UD
277 ,»3TD"D J123D
109, no, 114, ,'N:nT03 'ib ni3i3 IID "5-n
108, 178, 179, HDD ^B 1TO
49, 89, 108, 109, no ,DToy '~\ ~\TD 258, 260, 261, 262, 300, 303, 304, 307, 3". 3", 314
306, 307, 308 ,D»NTTON1 C'»3H TO
n»rnn trrno 'y ,013® mo
87 ,«-i^i '3 too
96, 105 .
295, 318 ,1
wovn pn 'y . 45 ipcp to , wp^no'M .'r — 101 ,^1
301, 325 .NnDip 278 ,n
316, 342 jTTO^r
21, 31 ,N^3 cn 'mice ,'s:mo 1 6. 25. 45, 146, 290 ,pj« ,rrii-D
417
48, 49, 5', 52, 53
297, 321 »*p °s> >N1p 244, 248 ,rvwp
300, 322-3 ,1Tp 'VtDp
325
3°9, 333 ,^ 181
Dwyfr)p:» 'y
36 , 322 230,
iyE3yrc — TiVffi 'y ,
377 i (imps) pp
339 ,(rvtnC3) npiD p .n:p
Mitcp 'y 3Dp
aisp in 'r zisp
1 88, 189, 203 jD'Mlp
299-300 ,ra»a ouiroi n'H'33 nsnp
259 ,rrann by yan? nunp
ym ; 351 ,3*nv to nn:cn minn
260 ,T
54 ,
324 ,J"^
r.V?Bnn 'ncia 'y
243, 246 ,
13
y ,n« 53 ,n"«
69 ,nnrnob« C« 71 ,«niD nrrra CN w\T3 'y — 75, 83 ,nVu C« 2, 8, 54 ,«nrno (ten) CNT ,mto' c«
59> 69, 71, 3I4, 236, 239, 326 ,F|I^M 'y— 21, 31, 237, 239 ,»"£ xcn ,ITN
54, 59, 279 ,«VPD en OTD ^>"
232 , 233 ,]:m> Si m
in ,'^n n
379 ,n = an
224, 225, 247, 323, 344
221,253,254 ,«'3T = «3'
68 ,« 218 jn
315, 342
221 jQ'riWl p31
,>nuT 'y ,rm
'y mi
268, 271 ,noiz'
105 jDJ1!
19, 24, 54. 59, 360 ,p»a 319 ,pic
206, 290 ,«nH3O1E
113, 121
43
246 ,'
299
9, 15 ,«:n3 Vn 343 i(n|3i») law 340 ,j^p3
301, 325 ,PP1B
278 ,m'pBn-mpE
55
291 ,;3amB *mrn scnp ,jnn 'y 339 , 55, 57 inns ,nanc
35 ,D3-1B
30, 216, 217, 220, 236 ,D'»cnB ,DIE ,'cns PC'S ,nan 'y— 294, 298, 322 .noffi ,pisn 116 ,yotj by DTIE 212 jCnen 'y DIB
67 ,
56 ,ruiD 242 jD'rwrfj iiobn 'urns
295, 318 ,NO31M H'HE 78 ,
30, 31, 75, 83 ,P«a ,p 297, 321
322 ,(nt3i») m:V>« FJITC po p^s 19 ,(nD"jttj '3 ,'ic?D '3 ^"n '3) pus rros
20, 22, 23, 28, 149, 177, 179, 210, 212, 217, 2l8, 294, 303, 326
300-1, 325 ,'E'S
309 ,-!O '31303 H'S'2
'y ,55 ,ncis
1 8 ,Tb ION s
49
68 ,
105, 278
299, 300 ,N-\Tm
E e
418
— TiVE 'y
339 ,1>*P1D='V<P
225 jNTioN DC ,rra
305
258 .nn'
19, 20, 22, 26, 55, 57, 61 ,pNJ MVTO 67, 75. 19°, !9ij 203, 210, 258, 302,
326 ,p«3 o-ray 'n ^N ,»:TCXC 187 ,013"? cy witr mcmir
36 ,(fu«?
278 ,rro-i:nn nmn
322
nVjcnrr TTDI: 'y 300, 322 ,jV 239 ?'
306, 307, 319, 328, 329 ,Tvchr\
39, 94, 138, 142, 177 fa-w p» mnbn
218, 259, 271, 306, 314, 316
96, 105 ,131330
moirro 'y ^n^
6 ,»wn=n:n
357 .rwn-wn
I9«>, 364, 379 .p'"1 >«'3n
71, 94, 126, 305, 306 jSPEDin ,nc-in
328, 329, 357
48 ,rnEtnn
rninn nsnp ,TCEQ 'y 1132 rv:yn
28 ,pn
15, 42, 90, 91, 104, 262 ,3wn ,ainn
318
68 ,MO»3in
326 ,^maN '3,« ,nin
297,316,321,343 ,'TOin
323 ,j'cnnn
niso 'y rrann
357, 358 ,nbiJ3in ^:nin ,]^awn
305,306, 328, 329 ,D':m3 min
8, 250 ,UDin nss'n D':'«jn norm
minn
4 ,(n'2iy) yasn
ni^Dnn 'noi3 'y '•on 167, 170 ,nD at? ,>
nV?cnn 'noi: 'y ,N':
341 ,nyiu: yT N1? w» ,]i3yn
nsna 'y yn
112,351 ,rrrny3 ,rrs-i
J3O jnnuo8? mnic ami1: bTfjm nsn
51 jnacb
3i2',rac^ D^nn men 54-71 ,a':w:
305, 327 ^b 349-51 ; 353-8 1 ,>«™-I*T
382 , 50 ,
148, 154 ,nyiatJ 181, 185 ? 296, 321 ,nos DC, 104 ,iJ«j
42
251 ,' 75, 83 O TBDD 'y
218, 224 ,mD»= 121, 353 ,n>? , go, 186, 260, 261, 308, 312 ,p«3
316 59, 191, 290 ,p»3 ,s:cn '3 "?«TO«?
113
272 ,nny
54, 59
94, 101 ,«anN na NH« 232, 233 ,pnv ,'inn 'y— 49, 50, 51, 52, 298, 322 ,-ra«j
105
17, 256 ,N)3ttJ=rra\D
irwnn 'y D'ow
75, 83 ,rt^: c>o pns' p rryn«
279 55, 59 .pnVn
84 ,in 296, 321 ,TTO:» cc ,'«n:i
mycra 'y
ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS
P. i, top. Comp. below, p. 57, n. 4. — P. i, n. i. Corap. Dr. Davidson, Parody in Jewish Literature, 21—2. — P. 2, 1. 3. The effigy was first crucified and then burnt, hence the accusation against the Jews that they do it " in contemptu Christianae fidei." Comp. Corpus Juris Civilis, lex u, Codex Justinianus I, 9, and Cassel in Ersch und Gruber, Encyclopcidie, XXVH, 79. We may well assume that on account of this false accusation, the Jews living in Christian countries changed the old custom of burning Haman to that of " knocking." — P. 2, end. This Responsum is identical with that found in Responsa, Mantua, 178, and Harkavy, 173 — P. 3, 1. 15, read 1^^311.— P. 4, 1. 6, read pn»N"n.— P. 4, 1. 7. Comp. Wertheimer, }1NJ nHjD 'n BHI^S, 22b, whore "1W is explained to have the meaning of "IP ; some may have put this explanation into the text of the Talmud and therefore the question in our Eesponsum. — P. 4, 1. 18, read IJinn. — P. 4, n. i. Comp. N^tsn and p^BT in ^rf'lW, 172 = {/'{}>, I, 6; for f6on in fWT\ B"^ n33n, 62, read pD^. — P. 4, n. 9. Comp. Index, s. v. ] the above-quoted passage from R. Saadia's Commentary, '"i jDJ, ed. Schechter, 164, and 3"n, 12 c. — P. 5, 1. 3. Harkavy, DB> DK!— P. 5, 1. 14, read 1onn "na. — P. 6, 1. 4, read Ban poyk— P. 6, 1. 5. Harkavy, DiTJS^ 1D1OV— P. 6, 1. 13, read ^3B>3 »3.— P. 6, 1. 17, read xyni».— P. 6, 1. 18, read ntn.— P. 6, n. 9. Har- kavy, nun11:. — P. 6, n. 15, read DWNI. — P. 7, 1. 9 from below. Comp. Conforte, nnnn NTlp, 5 a, ed. Cassel, and below, p. 59, top. — P. 8, 11. 9 and 14, for 106 read 10 b. — P. 8, 1. 2 from below. Comp. R. Saadia's Commentary on Berakot, 6b. — P. 13, n. 16. Add. and a— P. 16, 1. 22. Comp. Albargeloni's rrvy rD WIB, 335. — P. 1 6, 1. 23, read r6. — P. 16, last line, read D'DTt. — P. 17, 1. 15, read *m— P. 18, 1. 6, read *?V !?y.— P. 20, 1. 12, add. The authorship of R. Hai is however very doubtful. — P. 20, 1. 4 from below. Comp. Parties, 310, where this Responsum is ascribed to R, Zemah.— P. 21, 1. 16. Comp. ^TflV, 399.— P. 21, 1. 18, read 411, U4b. — P. 21, 1. 25. Comp. vol. I, pp. 8-9 and 47. — P. 22, 1. 30. Comp. Pardes, 21 b-2i c, and Epstein in pan, VI, 70. —
E e 2
420 ADDITIONS AND COKRECTIONS
P. 23, 1. 34. Comp. Dr. Aptowitzer's instructive note on this Responsum in J.Q.R., XVIII, 135-40. — P. 24, 1. 30. Comp. below, p. 219. — P. 26, 1. 2. The usual spelling NTTWK is met with below, p. 32, 1. 9. — P. 38, n. 3, end. Comp. R. Abraham Ibn Sabba, "11»n "linv, 970 (ed. Venice, 1567): D33J DN
ni»K 'n mmi OTISD '» maa wro ib jw nwan
iy nnann cr^ -nxa DB> onioiyn. Ibn Sabba does not
give his source for this statement, but we may well assume that he drew on a Geonic writing. Comp. also Horowitz, NDpTiy, V, 26. — P. 39, 1. 4. 'Aruk, s.v. ]S~l, reads likewise our texts of the Talmud have '•USI. — P. 39, 11. 8 and 15, read ffolW. — P. 46, 1. 15, read ni"l1»xn. — P. 48, 1. 5 from below, read Bet ha-Miclrash.— P. 48, last line. The 'my JfUD, given in Berliner- Hoffmanns, Magazin, 1886, n, has "ID3 for mnfc?'. — P. 49, 1. 12. That the old Italian ritual knew only IDS can be seen from pn*!3£f, 38. — P. 49, last line. Comp. vol. I, 207 top, where a Geonic Responsum is quoted, according to which the insertion of yotJ> in the nB>np had its origin in the religious persecution of the Jews by the Persian king Yesdegerd (about 456). Another change in the liturgy is also ascribed to a religious persecution by the Persians, comp. below, p. 298, probably that instigated by Yesdegerd. The statement of Samuel al-Maghribi (Monats- schrift, XLII, 123 et seq.) goes back to these Geonic traditions. Attention should be called to the fact that Kalir had before him yotJ> in the flB>np, as can be seen from his Kedusliah for Bosh ha-Shanah in the German Mahzor. — P. 50, n. 7. Comp. '*TD
D^ysn, Bereshit, end: IOB> ins ^y ^rno uw $Ttt» m"pn bn by —
P. 51, 1. 2. 1»yo is about the same as HIGH 'pi Da which precede r6sni yct2> ni3"Q. — P. 51, 1. n. Concerning this insertion, comp. my note in Z.H.B., IX, 106. — P. 52, 1. 12, read "ttDISI. — P. 52, 1. 1 8. This statement regarding 10B> rupn seems to contradict the statement on p. 51, 1. 2, according to which yotf was recited ?|D1D3, but this contradiction disappears if we take here 5|D1O3 to have the meaning "in addition." — P. 53, n. 2. Comp. vol. I, 4, n. i, and E.. Moses of Coucy, JlD^D, Commandement, 63. — P. 54, 16. Comp. vol. I, 7, n. i, where this Hezekiah is identified as the grandson of R. Tob and great-grandson of R. Paltoi. He was a prominent member of the Pumbeditan Academy and my theory
ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS 421
concerning the title 11D K>X"I is accordingly untenable. Comj). also the Babylonian R. Asaph, TlD '"1, in R. fi. J.} LV, 50. — P. 54, bottom, read np^X. — P. 55, 1. 24. The Spaniard E. Yom- Tob (xa'Bn; Gittin, 76) calls R. Moses of Tachau (Bohemia) and in the same way is the German B. Meir of Bothen-
burg described as H31V .... DU^ tWl by the Provencal R. Menahem Meiri in the introduction to his JTTnan JTQ. On the other hand R. Isaac of Corbeil uses T33BW instead of n2"l¥ in the introduction to his.p"»D. DD1V was the general name applied by the Spaniards and Provencals to any European country except their own, while the Germans and the inhabitants of Northern France applied T33B*X to an)' European country which was not "nSD or Plains. Even to-day we describe the Jews in Slavic countries as D'toSB'X, by which term we distinguish them from the . — P. 56, if 3. Comp. Responsa, Lyck, 59. — P. 57, 1. 1. aT^X
, in Hebrew ^ann DintDaipn. — P. 57, 1. 2. 3-in=3n ID. —
P. 58, 11. 11-18; in Hebrew = -IKK>1 nrwn ; pD nnx m/XB> »ne>
pun .... n3K»n rntw« .... r6ty nan *?y rb&v Tiyi tffa&n
pyOB' ro nK NB'Jtr.— P. 58, 1. 2 f. below, the text is unintelligible to me and seems to be corrupt. — P. 58, n. 3. Read : 5 a and 44 a. — P. 59, 1. 2 ; in Hebrew=KTTl mnN n^Xtn.— P. 59, 1. 4 ric6 = 21 1»i>. — P. 59, 1. lOeH^onn DniMlpn. — P. 60, 1. 4 from below,
iii Hebrew = p:p N^i IDC' i^ PKB> nap nyn^ TIYI. — P. 60,
bottom='l^onn DneJIpn. — P. 60, n. 5. Bead Responsa. — P. 61, 1. 5 = pw NDH rn^ n^X ni^N^l.— P. 61, 1. 6. The Hebrew for nnxaDX^X would be niJPWn or n^nson, but neither of the two makes any sense; perhaps iTDX"lX3/'S = Hebrew D"1Q and comp.
Hullin, 61 b. — P. 61, 1. 8=nmj?3 p DJ ruyvi nm. — P. 61, 1. 10 = i>y. — P. 61, 1. 12 = nxis nis^ r6in. — P. 61, 1. 14 =
"13 "13H pT 13 -OWS? JH pDS. — P. 6 1, 1. 16= , . . N3^33 .— P. 6 1, 1. i7=Wn Dn031pn.— P. 65, n. 7. Read : iii any other place except Ketubot, 45 a.— P. 67, 11. i-5 = pi>nn» [ro»Bn] inT 3H3» npnyn . inx onojip xin oai »B^^n p^nn n»i&n ;^BT» nix not? jnsn ^EMT [?an33]. — P. 67, 1. 10. This R. Aaron is
undoubtedly R. Aaron Sargado, the Gaon of Pumbedita. — P. 69,
1. i^ytrnn onojipn. — P. 69, 11. 3-i5 = rawi trx n» ^y nx3e> H^BTI n^xE'm o*« n* ^y if^ew n»aa n
n*pon gran ; Dn"j>3 fns n»n xh ^wnv nnv ; . . . 31 no ^e> ; nnx cwx ^y »na nrac' nrn
422 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS
The last Responsum deals with the question whether the blessing over the light in the Habdalah ceremony may be recited by the Hazan, the congregation following in silence. Comp. below, p. 258. — P. 69, 1. 17. For ir read H311 ; in Hebrew
= 3N2 njRwa [? Dnn] myth jni»n nxn.— -P. 69, 11. 19-23 = irsi y3«M&» v ; nni» ratia W joy hv i""1 ; PDQ JXTOD jmn mm me? nnvo Dip» B* nwan rvnn U^VN ('n) ni>iyb -in DW rup»
ttbixb.— P. 70, 1. 2 = iyr6N [?1!DN> DK] 1OK *6l ^Hl W BHP! comp. Nahmanides, miDr6l9,.3era&o£,VII,end. — P. 70, 1. 4, Hebrew =
bi3' ni?yn DN npaioo nn^n^ntw. — P. 70, 1. 6 = hvr\w psn^ n»K
DVn 5)iD2 TOK* mj?n miyo I^S11 N^. The meaning of the Arabic is very obscure, it may refer either to DpDSdn miJJD or to
.— P. 70, 11. 8-22=2:1 mj na^o ; mi naeno ^y ;B«^ n 'no nns nw [n^nn IK p^nn] nxnc' nni» DN N nvnan ''antr no ; on^ N^I pbni> N^ nyn
; iniN 1^10> D^3N nO3 ^3^ ,1T»O 1^3 DN
nnh h^h bw DK ip-isij yjn t6e» ">yi ; nn^n ova P. 71, l. 2 = n»x niSma nu^n ^ync'.— P. 71, l. 4=ns yainn
'33 py»B>.— P. 71, 1. 8=1^ ynn jnJB' }3iNi.— P. 71, 11.9-12
'
"nna 13K«. — P. 72, end. Comp. the Respon- sum by R. Nathan b. Hananiah of Kairwan in yi"tf "UN, I, 176, and the formula for a Ketubah by R. Hai Gaon in rUDSn, III, 46, 7. — P. 74, 1. 15. The Responsum in Responsa, Man., 120, is an extract of that in our Fragment. — P. 76, end. Cornp. 'Ittur, II, 18 c, who quotes a Geonic Responsum contradictory to the view given in our Fragment. — P. 81, end. Comp. below, pp. 196-7. — P. 85, top. This Responsum is fully discussed by me in vol. I, pp. 101-3. — P. 85, 1. i of the Hebrew. The superscription, D^yrn^N, is a note by the copyist indicating that he took this Responsum from a quire (=311), which began with an explanation on Berakot, 44 a, top, DiTJfib W3n, and continued till D'23yi D^ND ^3S. Our texts of the Mishnah and Talmud, Eerakot, 1. c., read wsb, but MS. M has the plural Dni>, and in a similar passage, Tosefta, Berakot, IV, 8, we have likewise D!li> ; Berakot, 43b, DrTJE^ lN'3n.— P. 87, 1. II. Comp., however, J. Q. R., XVIII, 402, and XIX, 106, where references are made to a prominent man by the name of R. Aaron, who flourished about this time. — P. 87, end of the English. The writer of this letter is perhaps R. Joseph, the opponent of R. Saadia.
ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS 423
It is true R. Sherira in his Letter, 40, 1 1 , informs us that R. Joseph settled in Bozrah, but he may have stayed for a short time in Bagdad. — P. 87, 1. i of the Hebrew. For "pan is perhaps to be read pan. — P. 89, 1. 6. Comp. R. Saadia in his commentary, ud-loc. — P. 89, 1. 8. This insertion in the Geiillah is found in a Genizah Fragment, comp. R.lZ.J., LIII, 236 — P. 89, end. Comp. vol. I, pp. 134-5, where this question concerning the Geiillah is fully discussed. — P. 89, n. i. Read in the MS. — P. 91, 1. 24, read Diian. — P. 94, 1. 20, readHaninah instead of Hananiah. — P. 95, end. The language of this Responsum is rather obscure ; D^BH may refer lo the person as well as the property. — P. 96, 1. 10. Comp. above, p. 10, last line. — P. 96, u. R. Sherira in his Letter, and R. Nathan ha-Babli use fc^tJO and rtN^J for the exilarch; comp. also above, p. 83, the Chronicle of Ahimaaz, 130, 15, and Hekalot, ed.Wertheimer, 9b. —P. 98, n. 6. Comp. below, p. 166. — P. 99, 1. 4 : fhyQ " related." — P. 101, 1. 1 6. Comp. Bet Yosef, Hashen Mishpat, 290, 30. — P. 102, 11. 9 and 13, read DJp. — P. 103, 1. 6, read 13JJB>D. — P. 103, n. 7, read Dn, and comp. Index, s.v. R. Amram in his Responsum quoted in 'Aruk, s.v. 1D3 likewise uses Dn in the meaning of 'O3. — P. 106, 1. 14, read n3JJ naioni. — P. 106, n. 2. For DH read Dn, and comp. addition to p. 103, n. 7. — P. 106, n. 15, read Baba Batra, 94 a. — P. 108, 1. 4. Attention should be called to the fact that the benediction has D^T nym and not D'T n^tM ; the use of the same expression by the author of the nvN *31 WH would rather indicate the Geonic time, and not the Mishnic as Friedmann maintains in his introduction, 126. — P. no, 1. 22. R. Saadia in his commentary on Berakot, 22 a, explains JlVTUI by DTT3T *?V fOlpD! 7113X1 TDD. — P. no, 1. 5 from below. A Geonic Responsum in p"3n, 31, describes min ^3 in the following words: JV^¥3 i*VtJ>33 j^VDl ^3, and this statement seems to corro- borate my assumption that the Tallit was not worn generally. — P. in, 1. 19. The text in p. 118, 11. 10-12 can, however, be restored; read fnai ffwmjn jn^a maW D»fc6m D»H3 yfcrb IfflO
^aon ivai . . . n^ana TIDNB' w»jn 12 I^NI ^aa. The decision
of the Gaon agrees with D1 TIDW ai?n "IID^X DltTD jn jmDN, the opinion given in Shulhan 'Aruk, Yoreh Deah, 68, 10. — P. in,
n. i. Is ^n an = '•i^n la'a /-i?— P. 112, 1. 15. In a"n, 100 this
decision is ascribed to R. Paltoi. — P. 112, 1. 21. Comp. below, P- 351- — P- IJ3' 1- I5- Perhaps na'B* t^SI Qna^a '~\ ; comp.
424 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS
Harkavy, Saadia, 114. — P. 114, 1. 3, read fwn. — P. 115, 1. 19, read TOW Si^N. — P. 115, 1. 23: DV.— P. 116, 1. 14, read n¥V.— P. 116, n. 5. For K^ read urn— -P. 118, 11. 10-12. Comp. additional note to p. in, 1. 19. — P. 118, n. 3. Our texts read. —
P. 119, 11. 20-21, read jro ni:& p3B"j nt?jn . . . rvyy no. — P. 119, 1. 25 : CTJDpn by.— P. 1 19, L 26 : 0nn6 ^ " removed."—
P. 119, 1. 99 : |J:ri3B> wan.— P. 131, l. 10 : nroynk— P. 138, u.
Comp., however, Yeruxhalmi, Peak, VIII, 2 1 a, according to which HB' is a euphemism for ni>phpO. — P. 141, 1. 27, read : pp. 70 (/a), 139 (a^), 149 (0*a), and comp. Responsa, Mant., 91. — P. 145, 10 end, read: as that found in Responsa, Mant., 139, and also quoted. — P. 145, 1. 29. This Respousum is perhaps only a different version of that by R. Nahshon Gaon, quoted by R. Bezalel Ash- kenazi in his n¥21pD riDB>, Ketubot, comp. Muller, Mafteah, 134. — P. 146, 1. 9. Coinp. also Responsa, Mant., 122 ; the author is R. Hai. — P. 146, 1. 14. This Responsum is found in Responsa, Mant., 226. — P. 147, bottom. A similar symbolic use of a cock is its use as mS3 ; comp. R. Solomon ben Adret's Responsa, I, 396. — P. 148, 1.17, read: found in Responsa, Mant., 15, and in. — P. 149, 1. 2. This Responsum is identical with that found in Responsa, Mant., 29. — P. 149,1. 12. Our Responsum is shortened from that given in Responsa, Mant., 16. — P. 149, 1. 17. This Responsum is found in Responsa, Mant., 17. — P. i52,n. 5. Comp. also Sachs, Beitrage, I, 63, and Griinbaum, Gesammelte Aufsdtze, 421-3. — P. 157, 1. 20 read : This Responsum is identical with that by R. Nahshon given iu ¥"&> 43 b> 48, of which 99 a, 22 is perhaps another version. — P. 160, n. 2. Comp. Index, s.v. Dfl. — P. 167, n. i. After having written this I found that Mr. A. Epstein has given a similar explanation of the three yods in p^irprvn, comp. the Hebrew periodical, D13H, 1887, 87-88. — P. 176, 1. 15. Comp. R. Saadia's Commentary on Berakot, note 121. — P. 191, 1. 17. Comp. no^t? nbnp, 72 (l), where the Respousum by R. Sherira and R. Hai concerning jn3T P32 fOIDS is referred to. — P. 204, n. 3. Comp. D^n, 15, 1 6. — P. 218, n. 2. In Midrash Jia-Gadol I, 709 is wnUN corrupted from UVVan. — P. 258, 1. 20. Comp. also Yalkut MaTdri on Mislile, ed. Griinhut (= D'Ulp^ VI, 14 a), where the reading is the same as in our Fragment. — P. 290, 1. 13, read: we know that the Geonim of Sura, Saadia. — P. 299, 1. n. In the Talmud passage, Sotali, 49 a, N1TDT NBmp is N~iTD
ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS 425
pID in opposition to the following NJTUX. Rapoport, misunderstood the proper meaning of it. — P. 306,
I. 4 (note). Comp. also Midrash ha-Gadol, 632 131D *iriN. — P. 307, n. 2. Comp. also minn ?y HIBDin, Exod. xii. 30, where HBD = NnSa». — P. 339, 1. 1 8. Perhaps 3JBD3 is to be read instead of amaa, coinp. p. 283. — P. 343 (XLIII). Comp. Sachs, Beitrdge,
II, 156-8. — P. 343, 1. 18: ITOTCn or Bnaijon by.— P. 366, 1. 17. Comp. E. Hai, n3»D1 npO, 82 a, who has the reading j'n H3O I^N.— P. 388, n. i. The spelling "fl!D — from which UTID as title among the Ashkenazim ! — is found in 1N"I HID^n, 121.
II
Pf
University of California
SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
305 De Neve Drive - Parking Lot 17 • Box 951388
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90095-1388
Return this material to the library from which it was borrowed.
WL'
Form L9-25m-7,'63(D8618s8)444
BM 501.5
v.2
.
'
•
. •
-
-
'
•
,
•