Full text of "Geonica"
TEXTS AND STUDIES OF THE JEWISH
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF' AMERICA, VOL. I
GEONICA
BY
LOUIS GINZBERG
The Library
University of California,
GEONICA
OXFORD : HORACE HART
PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY
TEXTS AND STUDIES OF THE JEWISH
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF AMERICA, VOL. I
GEONICA
BY
LOUIS GINZBERG
I
THE GEONIM AND THEIR
HALAKIC WRITINGS
NEW YORK
THE JEWISH THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF AMERICA
1909
>M
TO THE MEMORY OF
ISAAC LEESEK
FOUNDER OF THE FIRST AMERICAN COLLEGE
FOR HIGHER JEWISH LEARNING THIS FIRST
PUBLICATION OF THE JEWISH THEOLOGICAL
SEMINARY OF AMERICA IS DEDICATED
1252856
PREFACE
THE centuries between the final redaction of the
Talmud and the beginning of Jewish culture in
the West is one of the most obscure periods in the
history of the Jews of post-Biblical times. If we
regard the literary productiveness of a people as
the only standard by which to measure its culture,
then we must confess that /this was a period of
decline ; the Geonic epoch has not brought forth
one monumental work. Yet, a period which has
produced such powerful religious movements as
Karaism and mysticism, and has for the first time
made a serious attempt to/ harmonize Hellenism
with Talmudic Judaism cannot be considered as
stagnant. The first step towards a correct under-
standing of this period must be a clear comprehension
of the institution which gave it its name : " the
Gaonate." With the exception of K. Saadia,/who
flourished toward the end of this period, we meet
with no name of the first magnitude. But, the less
important the Geonim were in themselves, the
more important must have been the Gaonate to be
able to impress its stamp upon several centuries.
The fundamental question which we have to answer
before we proceed to form an estimate of this period
is : Were the Geonim only heads of Academies, or
were they representatives of authoritative bodies ?
The first volume of this book presents some
material towards the solution of this question.
Granted that we will never be able to form an
adequate picture of the activity of the Geonim, for
the contemporary sources are too meagre for this
purpose, yet I hope to have shown that/the Gaon
was more than the president of a scholastic institu-
tion. The results of my studies are mostly directed
Vlll PREFACE
against the conception of the Gaonate as formulated
by Isaac Halevy in the third volume of his Dorot
harJRishonim (Pressburg, 1898), according to whom
the Academies were only Talmud-schools, and the
Geonim Talmud teachers. In spite of all his Kab-
binic erudition and extraordinary critical acumen
Halevy has contributed but little towards the under-
standing of the Gaonate. His bitter attacks upon
men like Kapoport, Frankel, Weiss, Graetz, and
other Jewish scholars are but poor compensation
for the lack of positive results.
In accordance with my conception of the Gaonate
as an authoritative body, I have, in dealing with
the literary activity of the Geonim, confined myself
to their HalaHc writings, since it is only in the
Halakah thaj/the authority of the Geonim found
its full expression. In the chapter, "The Halakic
Literature of the Geonim" (pp. 72-205), I have
given a survey of the literary activity of the Geonim
along the different departments of the Halakah:
Codification, Talmud exegesis, Eesponsa, and Liturgy.
I hope that my investigation about the Seder E.
Amram (pp. 119-54) will interest even those to
whom the Halakah is either a terra incognita or a
noli me tangere. Upon no other department was
the activity of the Geonim so decisive and im-
portant as upon the Liturgy, yet even this branch
of research remained uncultivated.
Conscious of the fact that in many respects I
have chosen a way which not all will be ready to
follow, I only claim credit for having undertaken
anew the examination of some important questions
relating to the history of the Geonim, which may
lead others to study this very obscure period of
Jewish history.
A considerable part of the material utilised in my
representation of the history and literature of the
Geonim is taken from the Genizah. There is no
PREFACE IX
exaggeration in maintaining that the discovery of
the Genizah by Prof. Solomon Schechter was in
no other department of Jewish learning so epoch-
making as in the history of the Geonim. Prof.
Schechter's Saadyana (Cambridge, 1903) is a fair
specimen of what we may expect from the Genizah
for the understanding of the Geonic period. Indeed
it is a veritable treasure trove for the history of
this period. New Halakic material, however, has
not been brought forth from the Genizah till now,
and yet no one will doubt, except those who are
given over to philological trifles or theological
sophisms that it is the Halakah alone which gives
us a true mirror of that time. Especially is this
the case with the Responsa which deal with life
in all its aspects. They enable us to penetrate
into the study of the scholar as well as into the
home of the everyday man.
The second volume consists of Halakic Frag-
ments from the Genizah now stored in the Taylor-
Schechter collection in the Cambridge University
Library, and in the Bodleian at Oxford l . The first
thirty-eight fragments are Geonic Responsa 2 , which
hitherto were entirely unknown, or which differ
in some way from the form in which they have
been known. I have disregarded such Geonic
Responsa from the Genizah as are identical with
those previously printed as well as those which are
written in Arabic. With the exception of a few
very badly damaged fragments, this book contains
nearly all the Geonic Responsa from the Genizah
in the above-mentioned libraries.
The Fragments coming from the Bodleian were
copied by myself, and I can therefore confidently
1 Comp. Index s.v. Mjw'n'u and froayv'vtrc. Pages 1-165 were first
published in the Jewish Quarterly Review, XVI-XX.
* Frag. XXXIV is a part of R. Nissim's Mafleah, which I have incor-
porated in this book, as the Mafteah is mainly based on Geouic Responsa.
X PREFACE
vouch for their correctness in reproducing the
original. For the copies of the Cambridge Frag-
ments I am indebted to Ernest Worman, M.A.,
Cambridge.
The Fragments reproduced here line for line,
page for page, are preceded by short introductions
describing the manuscripts and the nature of their
varying contents. I have made it a point to call
the reader's attention to certain interesting Halakic
views expressed in the Fragments. I was brought
up in surroundings where the understanding of the
Halakah was the chief subject of Jewish learning,
and even now I cannot free myself of the view
that the Halakah ought to be no less important
than the correct spelling of an Aramaic preposition.
The Appendix to the second volume contains
nine Fragments (XXXIX-XLVII) of the She&tot
and Halakot Gedolot. The importance of these Frag-
ments in the study of the early Geonic literature
is fully dealt with in the first volume (pp. 91-3,
108-9), and also in the introductory note (pp. 349-
52) preceding them.
To facilitate the use of the Fragments I have
added two Indices. The first, arranged according
to the Slmlhan *Aruk, gives the subject of the
Kesponsa; those containing explanations of Tal-
mudical passages are indexed at the end of this in
accordance with the order of the Talmudical treatises.
The second index is alphabetical, and deals with
the historical or philological matter found either in
the text of the Fragments or in the notes and
introductions accompanying them.
I desire to acknowledge my indebtedness to the
authorities of the Cambridge University and Bodleian
Libraries for courtesies shown me in connexion with
the present work.
CONTENTS
THE GEONIM
I. THE GAONATE.
PAGE
Palestine and Babylonia i
Salient Features of the Gaonate 6
Friction between the Exilarchate and the Gaonate of
Pumbedita 14
The Language of Nathan ha- Babli's Report .... 22
Nathan ha-Babli Identified 29
Nathan ha-Babli the Source for the Two Reports about the
Babylonian Academies 34
The Supremacy of Sura 37
The Title Gaon originally the Prerogative of Sura ... 46
The Origin of the Gaonate under the Mohammedan Rulers . 52
Nathan ha- Babli's Account of Ukba . . . . 55
The Last Conflict between the Exilarchate and the Pumbedita
Gaonate 62
The Predecessor of Saadia 66
The Chronology of the Geonim 69
II. THE HALAKIC LITERATURE OF
THE GEONIM.
Halakah the Main Feature of Geonic Literature ... 72
The Impulse to Geonic Literary Activity 73
Rabbi Aha of Shabha 75
The SheSltot and the Yenishalmi 78
Plan and Purpose of the SheSltot 86
Rabbi Jehudai the Earliest Halakic Writer in Geonic Times . 95
Conflicting Traditions about the Author of the Halakot Gedolot 99
Jehudai Gaon Author of the Original Halakot Gedolot . . 103
Later Amplifications of the Halakot Gedolot . . . . 108
Plan and Purpose of the Halakot Gedolot 1 1 1
Codification not Favoured 117
Prayers First Put in Writing 119
The Liturgical Part of the Seder Bab Amram . . . . 123
XU CONTENTS
PAGE
The Halakic Part of the Seder Bab Amram . . . . 144
Relation of the Manuscripts to the Printed Text . . . 151
Spurious Works attributed to the Geonim Nahshon and hia
Son Hai 154
Works attributed to the Geonim Zemah, Hai ben David,
and Hilai 159
The Importance of Rabbi Saadia in Halakic Literature . . 162
The Three Great Successors of Rabbi Saadia . . . . 167
Anonymous Codes of the Geonic Time 177
Origin of the Responsa Collections 182
The Importance of the Geonic Responsa 200
LIST OF ABBKEVIATIONS OF TITLES OF BOOKS . 206
ADDITIONS ....... . . 207
1.
THE GAONATE.
PALESTINE AND BABYLONIA.
"'THE staff shall not depart from Judah' the Exil-
archs who govern the people with the ruler's rod ; ' nor
a lawgiver from between his feet' the descendants of
Hillel who instruct the people in the Torah." This brief,
vivid characterisation of the two great Jewish institu-
tions of the Talmudic time, by a Jewish sage living at
the beginning of the second century 1 , remained no less
true in the centuries that followed. In spite of friction /
now and again between the later Patriarchs and the
intellectual leaders of the Palestinian Jews 2 , the dissension
never reached the point of causing a separation of the
Cspiritual power from/ the worldly power] in Palestine.
Though the Patriarchs were not always the actual
presiding officers of the chief academy, de jure they were
looked upon, in Palestine and outside, as the spiritual
heads of the Jews. For instance, the last important
achievement that / may be credited to the account of the
Jewish scholars of Palestine, the fixation of the calendar,
in the middle of the fourth century, is closely connected^/
with/the name of the Patriarch Hillel II, and, as late as
the second half of the same century, the surveillance of
religious conditions in [the Diaspora still lay in the hands
_of the Patriarch, Jas we may learn from the account of
a Christian author of the time. The Patriarch dispatched
1 Sanhedrin, 5 a ; this anonymous Baraita must have originated in the
time of the Patriarch Rabbi Judah I ; the earlier Tannaim make no sort
of mention of the Babylonian Exilarchs.
* Comp., for example, Yer. Sanhedrin, beg. of second chapter.
I B
2 THE GEONIM
messengers, "apostles," not only for the purpose of col-
lecting moneys, but/ also, in the words of Epiphanius 1 ,
" to maintain the observance of the law, and dismiss
unfit archisynagogues, priests, presbyters, and ministers."
In /Babylonia conditions were vastly different. From
the earliest time there had prevailed a sharply marked
JNdualismJ The Exilarchate, which/ could count upon the
support of the non-Jewish government, was a political
power and nothing more. It permitted no interference
in its province, either from within or from without 2 .
Beginning with the early years of the third century, the
scholar's estate developed more and more into an essential
element in the life of the Babylonian Jews, though it
lacked a unified expression of its authority. There were,
indeed, the Academies, especially the two great central
1 Epiphanius, Adv. Haer., XX, 4 and n, on the Jewish apostles. For
details, comp. Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreiiung des Christenthums,
237-40 ; Krauss, J. Q. R., XVII, 370-83 ; and Vogelstein, Monatsschrift, IXL,
427 et seq. Apparently the Babylonian Geonim followed this example
and sent out apostles. Rabbi Nehemiah Gaon speaks, in his letter dated
962, of mbnpn btf nrnno rrus i:bn> TpDn munn jpin rrobtn 1*0 i:Tp' T by i:nVro n:m
(J.Q.R., XIX, 106). Likewise Rabbi Samuel Ibn Hofni speaks of
nrpBi ru'c'n po in one of his letters (J. Q. R., XIV, 308). This expression
conveys the notion that the office of TpD was an old institution. In the
year 750, we find Abi 'Ali Hassan, of Bagdad, as "the head of the
congregation '' of Fostat (J. Q. R., XVII, 428). The idea suggests itself
that he was sent upon a mission by the Babylonian authorities. In
another Genizah fragment, J.Q.R., XIX, 740, ir^n Dioy 'n, "the apostle
Eabbi Amram " is mentioned, who, however, seems to have been deputed
by the Palestinian Geonim. On the other hand, Rabbi Eleazar Alluf,
in Babylonia in 850, who gave the Geonim information about Spain, '
was not a returned emissary of the Geonim, but a native Spaniard, as we
learn from the description of him in Harkavy, 201, and Schechter,
Saadyana, 76: I:WD^I pi ^rac* n no -a rpto niyto an no 3n mrr nai. He
went to Babylonia, and probably took up his residence there, for we find
him there in 875 (Harkavy, I.e.). The custom of the Academies, discussed
in G. S., p. 302, of disposing in the month of Adar of the questions
submitted to them from all parts is probably connected with the dis-
patching of the messengers, as the Patriarchs also sent their apostles out
in this month, according to Krauss's correct observation (1. c., 374, note 4).
a Sanhedrin, 5 a ; Yer. Baba Eathra, V, end ; and elsewhere.
THE GAONATE 3
bodies at Sura and Pumbedita, but they wanted the means /
of making effective powers of themselves. The Academy
in Palestine, situated in the town in which/the Patriarch
resided, was the highest (court of justic^ no matter who
and what the president might be at a given time, thus
in a measure representing the old Synhedrion l . In /
Babylonia, on the other hand, the Qmportance of an
Academy! depended upon /the learning of the presiding
chief. So long as Rab Huna and Rab Hisda were con-
nected with the Academy at Sura, it was in the lead, and
Pumbedita was pre-eminent when/ it could boast of a
R-abbah, a Rab Joseph, and other scholars of equal note.
Yet, however brilliant the respective representatives otfthe
Academies might be, neither of them could lay claim to
exclusive authority. For instance, when the Academy at
Sura, under the leadership of Rab Huna, was enjoying its
palmiest days, many a scholar, like Rab Nahman and Rab
Anan, refused to subordinate himself to its rulings 2 . /
This was exactly as it should have been. The truth of
the popular saying, Knowledge is power/Jjhas been verified
abundantly in/the course of Jewish history. Since the
destruction of the Jewish State, it has been Jewish know-
ledge that/has always kept the Jews together, though they
were scattered over all the continents. But to be a power,
intellectualism must clothe itself in a concrete form/and
for this there was no provision in the Babylonian Academies,
1 SanJiedrin, 31 b, where irirr nu is not, as Rashi holds, some place or
other at which scholars foregathered, but the Academy over which the
Patriarch presided, as may be seen plainly from Yer. Berakot, IV, 7 d, and
Yer. Sanhedrin, II, beg.
a Comp. Kelulot, 693, where Rab Anan addresses the head of the
Sura Academy as jnan win, which evokes many an unpleasant i-emark.
Rab Nahman also speaks of pin N:in, and, as Rabbi Sherira, in his
Letter, 32, 13, observes with fine insight, Rab Nahman did not acknow-
ledge the head of Sura as an authority superior to himself. Also the
passage Kiddushin, 70 a, throws light upon the relation subsisting between
Rab Nahman and Rab Huna. He did not consult with the latter
when he cited Rab Judah, the chief of the Pumbedita Academy, before
the court.
2
4 THE GEONIM
as /long as they were purely (spiritual centresjdestitute of
every vestige of temporal authority.
Keeping this state of affairs in mind, we cannot find it
surprising thai/ the Babylonian Academies were not yet
able to take the place, as they afterwards did, of those
in Palestine, when the latter entered upon a period of
rapid decline, beginning with the dominance of the^religion
of lovejthe adherents of which extirpated the Jewish
culture o^the Holy Land with fire and sword 1 .
The importance of the Babylonian Academies dates
from /the so-called Geonic time. To be accurate, it is
about/the end of the seventh century that they begin to
appear as the paramount (power of the whole of the
1 In the Geonic time, the superiority of the Babylonian Talmud was
acknowledged even in Palestine, in connexion with which the Responsum
reproduced in G. 8., pp. 50-3, is of interest. Its author was a Palestinian
scholar in the latter half of the eighth century, who, in his discussions,
refers only to the Babylonian Talmud and the Gaon Rabbi JehudaL
Also in the Ben-Mei'r controversy the Palestinians appeal to the Babylonian
and not the Jerusalem Talmud. Rabbi Paltoi, y*e, 63 b, 40, expressed
himself very harshly concerning certain Palestinian customs : p2'H avra
NDbw DJTTO Dico nb mrni rv'yi 'inp an -im NITD py prim. His words
give poignant expression to the decay of Palestinian supremacy in
Babylonia. The last demonstrable case of Babylonians applying to
Palestinians for a decision is that mentioned in Hullin, 59 b, for the
Rab Samuel ben Abbahu of this passage is the Sabora of that name,
who, according to Rabbi Sherira's statement, Letter, 34, 18, died in 505.
Neubauer's text has the incorrect reading rrnrr 11 instead of iron % as
Wallerstein has it. On the other hand, Neubauer's reading in the previous
line, 'NOIIT:, is preferable to nairn, as appears from MSS. M and O of
'Enibin, na, which have tiiro, while in the parallel passage, Menahot,
33 b, MS. M also reads iDim a corroboration of Rabbi Sherira's statement
that the name has been transmitted in two forms, <nin; and 'nirn . Halevy
remarks, in Dorot ha-Rish., Ill, 13, that Rabbi Sherira was so exact as to
record so insignificant a variant as 'Nairn and 'mm! Nor can Halevy
be endorsed in what he says (p. 7) about the colleague of Rabbi 'oirn,
'DV NON, whose name he changes into FJDV 'i. The Responsum given
in G. S., p. 53, confirms the reading 'cv NI. This unusual name was
corrupted into DV '~\ and ncv 'i, which were more familiar forms to
the copyists. Comp. Rabbi Aaron of Lunel, D"n 'IN , II, 194, who reads :
Fpv m . . . jon: '~\, in Menahot, 1. c., the first undoubtedly corrupted from
on: = 'Din:, and additions to G. S., p. 49.
THE GAONATE 5
Jewish Diaspora^ and at the same time as a properly
organised institution with well-defined rights and claims.
A homilist of the Geonic period gives a telling descrip-
tion of the importance of the two Academies, the one at
Sura and the one at Purnbedita 1 . " God made a covenant
with Israel," he says, " that the Oral Law shall never
depart from his mouth until the end of all generations,
and therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, established
these two Yeshibot, that the Torah may be studied in
them day and night. . . . These two Yeshibot have had
no captivity to endure, and/ no religious persecution.
Neither Javan (Greece) nor Edom (Rome) has had power
over them. Twelve years before the destruction of Jeru-
salem [under Nebuchadnezzar], God sent the great masters
of the Torah into exile, with Jeconiah, to Babylon, where
the knowledge of the Torah has been cherished without an
interruption until the present day."
This great distinction of the Babylonian Academies, of
having maintained the^continuity of the traditionjfrom the
Biblical to the Geonic time, is a subject frequently referred
to by the Geonim 2 . Nor can it be denied that the hege-
mony exercised by the Babylonian Jews for about four
centuries is due in part to the circumstance that/ at the
1 Tanhuma, Noah. This Derashah is introduced with the words rrx
n: rrnVin, which have no sort of connexion with the rest of the contents.
The only possible explanation is that this homily on the importance of
the Academies does not belong to the section Noah, but to the following
one, -p i 1 ?, the Pentateuch lesson read on the Nbam nnic, the Exilarch's
reception Sabbath, on which a sermon was delivered by the Geonim,
or, to be accurate, by the Gaon of Sura (comp. below, pp. 45-6 and 94).
A favourite subject for this sermon was the duty of supporting and
paying deference to the Academies. The Tanhuma passage cited is one
of these sermons, one actually held on the occasion mentioned. In the
older form of the Tanhuma, its place was at the beginning of the lesson
jV -j 1 ?, the new section being marked as such in the usual way, by
the closing words n: nnVm rnx of the previous section n:. In the
course of the many modifications to which the Ta.n1t.uma was subjected,
the piece came to stand in the middle instead of the end of the lesson n: .
2 Comp., for instance, the anonymous Responsum in pjn, IV, 73, which
here and there agrees literally with the Derashah in Tanhuma.
6 THE GEONIM
time when /Palestine ceased to be the spiritual centre of
the Jews, Babylonia, with more justification than any
other country, could boast of a steady development of
Jewish culture extending over a period of several centuries.
But to look upon the Gaonate simply as a direct[continua-
tion of/the activity of the Amoraimjwere as unhistorical as
to represent the scholars, the Q^ODH **WJ&H, of the Tannaitic
time as another appellation for thefdisciples of the prophets,]
the DWaan a of the Bible. It is true the scholar had the
same task to accomplish as the prophet 1 . Both were the
teachers and spiritual leaders of the people. But the life of
the Jewish nation during the period of the Second Temple,
politically and religiously considered, differed so essentially
from/ its life under the Judges and the Kings, that the
respective leaders in the two epochs perforce show radical
differences, in/spite of a number of ideals held in common.
And how far removed in character/Jibe Geonic Academies
were from/ the Talmudic Academiesjwill appear in part
from the points about to be discussed.
SALIENT FEATURES OF THE GAONATE.
Any Talmudic treatise selected at random will reveal
dozens of authorities on every folio, who were neither
presidents of Academies nor connected with the Academies
in any official way. From the rise of the schools in
Babylonia under Rab until the death of the last Amora,
Rabina, scarcely a dozen names of heads of Academies
can be mustered, though the number of Amoraim runs up
to hundreds. On the other hand, if we examine the
Geonic Responsa for a period of about 400 years, we
shall find that the name of hardly a single authority who
1 The following words of K. Saadia in Harkavy, Saadia, 158, are very
interesting : "As the prophets led it [the Jewish nation] in their times,
so the righteous lead it in their generations."
THE GAONATE 7
is not a Gaon has come down to us l . A phenomenon that
speaks volumes ! In the Talmudic time the Academy was
1 Muller, in his Mafleah, has recorded Responsa by Rabbi Nathan,
whom he considers the same as the uncle of Rabbi Sherira. But of the
latter, Rabbi Nathan Alluf, we have no Responsa. The former, as will
be shown below, p. 31, is Rabbi Nathan ben Hananiah, of Kairwan. We
also have Responsa by Rabbi Dosa, the son of Rabbi Saadia, but it must
be remembered that the Sura Gaonate is to be considered extinct after
the death of Rabbi Saadia, barring only the brief period of Rabbi Samuel
ben Hofni's activity. It was natural, therefore, that Rabbi Dosa, the
worthy son of his great father, should be considered the representative
of the scholars of Sura, and as such should be addressed for decisions.
The Rabbi Hezekiah ben Samuel, "the grandson of Rabbi Paltoi," men-
tioned in G. S., p. 59, is doubtless identical with the writer of the letter,
dated 953, which was published in the J. Q.R., XVIII, 401-3, and is not
the grandson, but the great-grandson of Rabbi Paltoi, as was surmised
by the present writer, before the publication of the fragment containing
the letter, J. Q. R., XVIII, 225, which now establishes the true relation-
ship. Whether this Rabbi Hezekiah wrote Responsa is questionable.
However, as the words rmite rtn:^, in G. S., p. 59, would seem to indicate,
he sent his essays on certain Talmud passages unsolicited to Rabbi
Bahlul ben Joseph. But even if questions had been addressed to him,
this would not have disproved my opinion ; it was to be expected
in the condition of the Academies at his time. Sura had no Gaon, and
Pumbedita was divided between two factions, the adherents of Rabbi
Aaron and those of Rabbi Nehemiah. The congregations that desired
to keep aloof from the dispute had no choice but to address their
questions to some distinguished scholar like Rabbi Hezekiah. The same
explanation applies to Rabbi Hofni, the father of Rabbi Samuel, Gaon of
Sura, to whom a Responsum is ascribed in 'Ittur, I, 3b. Rabbi Hofni's
activity as Ab Bet Din (of Pumbedita?) coincides with the time of
Rabbi Hezekiah's. It is, however, very doubtful whether the passage
in the 'Ittur should not read -:cn pb instead of ^cn mb. Comp. Harkavy,
Hofni, note 2. It should be noted that the remark made by Rabbi
Hezekiah, J.Q.R., XVIII, 401, bottom .... c':p 'ana, refers, not to
questions addressed to his grandfather, the Ab Bet Din Tob, but to a
friendly correspondence. He speaks first of the mwxD submitted to the
Geonim Rabbi Paltoi and Rabbi Zemah, and then of the 'ana addressed
to Rabbi Tob. With regard to Rabbi Zemah ben Solomon, the Ab Bet
Din of the Exilarchate who wrote Responsa, comp. 0. S., p. 303. Of
Rabbenu Hai we have Responsa dating from the time when he was
i"lN ; the reason he was called upon to write them was because his
father, iu his advanced years, transferred some of his duties to his son.
The Responsa bearing the name of Rabbi Eleazar Alluf were not written
by him ; they are decisions of the Geonim transmitted by him to his
8 THE GEONIM
not an institution vested with rights and authority, it was
only a gathering-place for scholars. But during the Gaonate
the Academy grew into a power, conferring dignity upon
the presiding officer, and authority as well, while the
influence of the outside scholar, who did not represent
the Academy, was purely individual, effectual only in
the measure of his personality.
The point can be proved by more positive evidence
than a mere argumentum ex silentio. From the remark
about to be quoted it appears unmistakably that it was
the exclusive right of the Gaon to reply to the questions
addressed to the Academies. Not even the N^3 B>n, the
third in rank 1 , enjoyed the privilege. In a Responsum,
probably from the hand of Rabbi Natronai 2 , printed in
G. S., p. 31, we have the following: NB>n t6n w^ ana N^ni
rvb mm t&3 pn xhx " That he [Rabbi Simonai] did not
write you regarding this question is due to the circum-
stance that he was not the head [of the Academy], but
only the Resh Kalla 3 ." Even in a case like the one dealt
with in the Responsum under consideration, in which the
countrymen in Spain ; comp. D*n, 130, and y"c, 26 b, 23. Rabbi " Asaph "
(J. Q. R., IX, 689, top) is not to be emended to Joseph ; he is the Rabbi
Asaph who was the VID 'T during the Gaonate of Rabbenu Hai ; comp.
R.&J., LV, 50. His opinion was probably given orally to Rabbi Elhanan.
Notice that in J.Q.R., 1. c., he is called simply 10, while the authorities
preceding and following him bear the title Gaon.
1 Besides "the seven mto >tto" (Rabbi Nathan, in his report, 87, i6j,
the title of the seven most prominent members of the Academy, there
must have been also " the xba rcn," who took an active part in the
instruction given at the Academy. It seems that Rabbi Hai occupied
this office before becoming -\"yn ; comp. Saadyana, 118. I do not know
whence Harkavy, Saadia, 144, note 7, derived his statement that Rabbi
Hananiah, the father of R. Sherira, became Gaon only after having
occupied the offices of D"T and VaN.
2 Comp. 3*n, 15, and 'rou.'N, III, 49.
3 The subject of 3.13 may possibly be Rabbi Haninah, so that the
passage would read, "that he [Rabbi Haninah] did not write it to you
[that the Nto 'i was of his opinion] is due to the fact that, &c." In any
event, the inference to be drawn from the passage is that the 3*1 replied
to no question, and even in a case like the one under consideration, the
Gaon made no mention of him.
THE GAONATE 9
testimony of the Resh Kalla was of importance, the Gaon
does not refer to him with a single word. The Amoraim
had found it unbecoming conduct in the Patriarch Rabbi
Simon ben Gamaliel that, using the singular in a formal
announcement, he failed to include his colleagues (Sanhedrin ,
na-b). What would they have thought of the official
style of their successors, the Geonim ? Personal arrogance,
it need not be said, can be charged neither against Rabbi
Simon nor against the Geonim. In a college of scholars,
the presiding officer is primus inter pares, but the Patriarch
in early times, and later the Gaon, were the representatives
of an institution that acknowledged one head alone 1 .
In attempting to appraise the Gaonate, the transmission
of the office from member to member in a limited number of
families, is a most suggestive feature 2 . During the last
three centuries of the Geonic period, or what was the
Geonic period properly so called, we have, for example, the
following data concerning the Gaonate of Pumbedita. The
Gaon Dodai (761), brother of the celebrated Gaon Jehudai,
bequeathed his office to his son Rabba, and no less than
six of Rabba's descendants occupied the position after him
his grandson Joseph ben Mar Rabbi and his great-
grandson Mattathias in one line, and in another line four
of his descendants belonging to successive generations,
Judah, Hananiah, Sherira, and Hai, the first of them
representing the fourth, or perhaps the fifth generation
removed from Rabba 3 . Out of a total of 277 years, Dodai
and these descendants of his enumerated here occupied the
Gaonate 102.
1 There are cases on record which the Geonim decided in opposition
to the opinion of the Academies, see Nahmanides, Milhemet, Kiddushin, 9,
and n"j, 82, 226. The frequent references made by the Geonim to the
customs of the Academies are to be taken not as marks of respect shown
to colleagues and disciples, but rather to the institution as such.
2 The data upon the Geonim families that follow, unless other references
are given, are taken from the Letter of Rabbi Sherira as their sole source.
3 Comp. below, pp. 70-1, on the de ree of kinship between Rabbi Judah
and Rabba.
10 THE GEONIM
Besides this prominent family, claiming Davidic descent,
there was another family of Geonim of great influence,
the priestly family 1 to which belonged Rabbi Abraham
Kahana (about 75)) i n all probability the successor to
his brother Natronai 2 . Rabbi Abraham himself was fol-
lowed first by his son Hanina and his grandson Kahana.
and then by his other son Abumai. Furthermore, the
Geonim Ahai 3 , his son Kimvi, and his grandson Mebasser,
seem to have been descendants of the same Rabbi Abraham.
Sherira, our only source, was not interested in family
relations, except as his own were affected, and whatever
information we glean from him upon the subject he gives
incidentally. There is no telling, therefore, to what extent
the above Geonim families were interrelated among them-
selves 4 , or how those Geonim who now appear isolated,
outside of the charmed circle, are really connected with it.
For instance, we are not acquainted with Rabbi Zemah ben
Paltoi's relation to the Geonim families, but Sherira tells
us by the way that he gave his daughter in marriage to
Rabbi Judah Gaon, the grandfather of Sherira.
In Sura the Gaonate was in the almost exclusive pos-
session of three families for a period of about two centuries.
The Geonim Mari (777), Hilai, Natronai, Hilai. Jacob, and
Joseph 5 (942), belonged to one family ; Zadok (823), Kimoi,
Nahshon, Zemah, and Hai (889), to the second ; and the third
1 In connexion with this, it may be mentioned that the Palestinian
Gaonate also was in the hands of a single priestly family.
2 Comp. below, pp. 21, 41, where arguments are given in favour of this
conjecture.
3 Perhaps Rabbi Kohen-Zedek and his son Rabbi Nehemiah, Geonim
of Pumbedita, as well as the grandson of the former, Rabbi Samuel ben
Hofni, belong to the same family as Rabbi Mebasser, so that the quarrel
between the last and Rabbi Kohen-Zedek, both of whom are described
as Kohanim, was between two branches of the same family. Rabbi
Nehemiah (J. Q. R., XIX, 105) seems to allude to his origin from a Geonim
family in the words i;vneiro Vrun.
* Rabbi Hezekiah ben Samuel (J. Q. R., XVIII, 402) reports that he
was descended from a Sura as well as a Pumbedita Geonim family.
5 In Harkavy, Saadia, 228, he is called D' 1 :''**; p p*o.
THE GAONATE II
was the priestly family which furnished the Gaonate with
four incumbents, Jacob (801), Abimi, Moses 1 , and Kohen-
Zedek (845).
Whatever view may be held on the subject of hereditary
genius, it cannot be applied to the case in hand. Among
the Geonim it must be admitted that it was not always
intellectual force, but rather the office, that was transmitted
from one member of a family to another. What explana-
tion could otherwise be offered of the circumstance that
during the whole extent of the Amoraic period a single
instance occurs of father and son, Rab Ashi and Mar, being
presidents of an Academy, while the Gaonate was controlled
by a few families throughout its who^e history ? There is
no intention of blinking the fact that the claims of sons
upon the offices and dignities of fathers have always received
somewhat more than due consideration among the Jews
since the most ancient times 2 . But this would still leave
the frequent succession of the Gaonate from brother to
brother unexplained 3 . For instance, Jacob and Abimi,
brothers, were Geonim, and so were Zadok and Kimoi,
though the father of neither pair had been in office. It
remains, then, to explain the close transmission of the
Gaonate only by the assumption that it came to be looked
upon as the prescriptive right of certain influential families.
The same explanation would cover the phenomenon that
the Ab Bet Din, the Resh Kalla, and the secretary of the
Academy, so far as we know about them, also belonged to
the Geonim families mentioned above 4 .
1 That Rabbi Moses was a son of the Gaon Rabbi Jacob is obvious from
the Genizah fragment published in G. S., p. 214.
2 Comp. Sifra, Afiare, 83 b, ed. Weiss, and Midrash Tannaim, ed. Hoff-
mann, 106.
3 An interesting analogue to this succession by brothers is offered by
that of the high priests in the Herodian time ; comp. Biichler, Priester
und Cultus, 107 et seq.
* Of the -Tax, we know only six by name : Rabbi Joseph ben Mar Rab
(Letter of Rabbi Sherira, 38, ia\ Rabbi Zemah (comp. G. S., p. 203),
Rabbi Tob (J. Q. R., XVIII, 402), Rabbi Hofni, father of Rabbi Samuel
12 THE GEONIM
In this respect the Gaonate approached the[institutions of
the Patriarchate and Exilarchate,) which/were the preroga-
(J. Q. B., 1. c.), Rabbenu Hai, and Rabbi Abraham (R. E. J., LV, 52). All
these, with the exception of the last, of whom we know nothing, were
members of Geonim families, and three of them became Geonim them-
selves in view of which it is hard to understand how Halevy, 1. c., 266,
can maintain that the i"i succeeded to the office of Gaon only in
extremely rare instances. The three whom we may be said actually to
know. Rabbi Joseph, Rabbi Zemah, and Rabbenu Hai, occupied the Gaonate.
Indeed, in two passages, Rabbi Sherira (38, 12 and 15) remarks how
extraordinary it was that the Y'lN Rabbi Joseph was disregarded in filling
the Gaonate, upon which he had a claim by virtue of being n"a . What
the duties and the nature of the office of the ViN were, it is difficult
to determine now. Its importance is attested by the fact that certain
announcements and regulations were provided with the official seal of
the Exilarch, the two Geonirn, and the two Y"iN, as we know through
Rabbi Natronai, 'Ittur, I, 44 d. Another Geonic Responsum by Rabbi
Natronai, or by his colleague of Pumbedita, Rabbi Paltoi, in j"n, 20, also
speaks of the 'iTur WCTO pn TQ nyaiN, "the four courts of justice of
the two Academies," that is, the courts of the Geonim and of the Y'ix,
and in Harkavy, 187, we find the two courts presided over by Sherira as
Gaon, and Hai, his son, as Ab Bet Din, described as TO u'Vru D':n 'm :c
'jN-mr 1 ; while from the Genizah fragment published in G. S., p. 386, we
see that only the court presided over by the Gaon was called the m
Vnjn JH. Apparently it was a courtesy extended to Rabbenu Hai
personally, to give the appellation to his court in spite of its lower
rank. The expression nytorr irtr, or its Aramaic equivalent, Nruv.an naa,
is identical with Vn;n jn rn, as can be seen from Harkavy, 156 and 215,
and i"cn. II, 31. The n"; was, as is well known, sai n rt, which
stands for NraTrr; aa H NTI. The chief judge of the Exilarch was also
called N33 n ri, in his case shortened from unnoi *m n *H, which
office, it is needless to say, has nothing in common with the other in
spite of the similarity in the names of the two offices. We are equally
at sea as to the position of the Nta '~\ . Apparently the N"?O 'TI I"IN jwj
of the Geonic time have some sort of correspondence to the triad of
directors presiding over the Tannaitic Sanhedrin, c:n n"a N'ir:, and
the 'c^oi i"2N p in the Palestinian Gaonate. But as we have no
definite information about the office of the can (see the present
writer's article upon the subject, "Jewish Encyclopedia," s. v. Hakam),
this correspondence gives us no clue to that of the N?3 'i. As will
be shown below, pp. 47-50, the title D*S was conferred upon the heads
of the Pumbedita Academy, in the time before they were called
Geonim. Besides these, we know the 3*1 Rabbi Samuel, the great-
grandfather of Rabbi Sherira, and Rabbi Amram, the maternal uncle
of Rabbi Sherira. The nbs 'YCTD mentioned in Harkavy, 201, the
THE G AON ATE 13
tive each of a family. Another common point characterising
the three institutions is a fiscal system. The Gaon received
moneys like the Exilarch, and like the Patriarch in earlier
times. In the Judaism of ancient days, and for hundreds
of years after the extinction of the Gaonate, no fees were
attached to/the office of a teacher, especially a teacher of
advanced disciples, and still more especially if the teacher's
office was connected with/ the exercise of judicial authority 1 .
Now, we know from Nathan ha-Babli (82, 5 from below),
that the Gaon received a fixed salary for his personal use, and
also Rab Amram, in the Introduction to his Seder, tells us
that one-half, or, according to another reading, one-fourth,
grandfather of Rabbi Sherira (end of his Letter ; not the grandfather
of Rabbi Hai, as Harkavy, 409, calls him), was not a xSa 'i, but secretary
to the Academy, as we are informed explicitly in a Genizah fragment
(J. Q.R., XVIII, 402). The same office was filled by the great-grandfather
of Rabbi Sherira, Rabbi Judah, before he was appointed Gaon, the
Genizah fragment just cited being authority for this statement, too.
Again, the grandfather of this Rabbi Judah occupied the same position
of secretary to the Academy, as we are told by Rabbi Sherira in his
Letter (comp. below, p. 71). What the position of Rabbi Nathan was,
the paternal uncle of Rabbi Sherira, it is hard to say. The latter calls
him F]i'?N, which may stand for N^ '"\ (comp. G. S., p. 237), but as his
father, Rabbi Judah, was secretary to the Academy, it is probable that
the son may have occupied the same office. In a Genizah fragment
(Saadyana, 60) a ni'C'rt ax jra n is mentioned, whom Professor Schechter
is disposed to identify with Rabbi Sherira's uncle (great-uncle is probably
a printer's error). But this identification is opposed to the fact that
Rabbi Sherira calls him rpx, and not -\"m. Perhaps this Rabbi Nathan
is identical with the Egyptian scholar Rabbi Nathan, Saadyana, 113.
The MD' '~\ mentioned in a Responsum by Rabbi Hai, in Harkavy, 137,
may be a Nta '-\ or an VaN. He is probably identical with ncx 'i, the
father of the two Geonim, Rabbi Zadok and Rabbi Kimoi, who is the
author of a Responsum transmitted to us in TOXTN, II, 77, as the present
writer has proved in the JRevis. Israel., V, u. The reading in Voc
should be pa F]CV . . . -nn 'tnn. This is Rabbi Joseph ben Abba, Gaon
of Pumbedita in 814. A son of Rabbi Samuel ben Hofni, Israel (?),
likewise was secretary to the Academy (J. Q. ., 1. c., 404, where ':vnnn
means "our young son," as in Saadyana, 118). Perhaps Israel is to be
read instead of Samuel in Neubauer, Chronicles, 198, end. In the fragment
in the J. Q. R. just cited, as well as in J. Q. R., XIX, 106, the sons of the
Geonim appear " as an estate by themselves."
1 Comp. Maimonides, Commentary on Abot, IV, 5.
14 THE GEONIM
of all donations sent to the Academy fell to the share of
the Gaon l . Rabbi Nehemiah, in a letter addressed to the
communities, begs them to send money for himself and the
Academy 2 . Thus we have three witnesses, independent each
of the others, testifying to the relatively large revenues
of the Geonini. The same Nathan informs us that/Babylonia
and the adjacent countries were divideo^into parishes, a part
of them under the jurisdiction of the Exilarchate, a second
part of them under the Academy of Sura, and a third part
under the Academy of Pumbedita. 1 In their respective
parishes the Exilarchs and the Geomrn exercised the right
of appointing the judges and other communal officers, and
in acknowledgment of their sovereign rights a fixed annual
revenue was exacted and delivered into the coffers of each 3 .
FRICTION BETWEEN THE EXILARCHATE AND THE G AGNATE
OF PUMBEDITA.
These jhreej points roughly stated, the pre-eminence of
the Gaon wltnin the Academy, the quasi-hereditary character
of his office, and the equipment of the Academy with power
to levy taxes and appoint communal officers prove abun-
dantly that the Gaonate was by no means a purely scholarly
1 Comp. Marx, Untersuchungen zum Seder des Gaon Rob Amram, I, n.
8 J. Q E. , XIX, 106 ; on 1 ?! i:b. He speaks of run:, free-will offerings,
mp'CE, fixed dues (comp. Rabbi Abraham Ibn Daud, 68, 4, bottom, np'Ds),
and D"iroirT, "fifths." What is meant by the last cannot readily be
determined. Perhaps the name originated in the fact that the con-
gregations had five kinds of taxes to pay, viz. for the Exilarch, each of
the two Geonim, and each of the two Academies. Dr. Poznan ski's
conjecture (1. c., 401), that a fifth part of the whole income of the members
of the congregations was paid to the Academies, is very improbable, if
only for the reason that the Rabbinical law does not permit more than
a fifth of one's income to be set aside for alms and related purposes.
If the members of the congregations had sent one-fifth of their income
to the Academies, there would have been nothing left for the home
needs. Comp. also Saadyana, 118, where irpbrra probably means "the
portion due us."
8 Concerning landed estates and the revenues of the Academies, see
J. Q. R., XIV, 389, an 1 XVIII, 402.
THE GAONATE 15
institution. What has been adduced enables us also to reach
a better understanding of the continual friction between
the Exilarchate and the Gaonate, and the not infrequent
conflicts that arose among the pretenders to the Geonic
office. Scholarly zeal, family pride, and material interests
are factors of too great potency in the life of individuals
not to leave their impress upon the course of history. In
the Talmudic time, while the Exilarchate was supreme,
without a rival, dissensions might happen to occur now
and again between the temporal power and a scholar here
and there, but with the Academies as such the Exilarchs
had nothing to do. The whole aspect of affairs changed
in the period of the Geonim, when the influence of the body
of scholars found concrete expression in the Yeshibot, the
vested privileges of which constituted them dangerous rivals
of the Exilarchs. The only historian of the Geonic time,
Rabbi Sherira (36, 13), has this to say regarding the older
epoch of his period : " The succession of the Geonim at
Sura, up to the year one thousand (689), is not quite clear
to us, by reason of the disorders and revolutions caused by
the Exilarchs; who depose Geonim and install them again 1 .''
This statement of Rabbi Sherira's, regarding the relation
between the Exilarchs and the Geonim of Sura, is rather
startling, for, leaving out of account the quarrel between
Rabbi Saadia and the Exilarch David, which sprang from
personal opposition rather than a conflict of powers, Rabbi
Sherira himself makes no mention of any sort of discord
between the Geonim of Sura and the Exilarchate for the
three centuries following the date given by him. The
appointment of Rabbi Samuel and Rabbi Jehudai, scholars
of Pumbedita, to office at the Sura Academy (Letter of
Sherira, 36, end, 37, 5), is surely not to be taken as an act of
hostility on the part of the Exilarch Solomon ben Hisdai
against the Academy at Sura. It appears, on the con-
= Nnaicnn, "revolutions" ; this passage is badly corrupted in
some versions of the text, and many an error has been caused by the
confused reading.
l6 THE GEONIM
trary, that the Exilarch was desirous of securing the most
prominent scholars of the day for the Sura Gaonate, as
Sherira himself observes. The vacancy at Sura in 843-4,
caused by dissensions (Letter, 39, 10), cannot be set to the
account of the Exilarch ; Kabbi Sherira would not have
kept us in the dark had it been so. It must have been
due to some internal disturbance in the Academy, which,
it seems, was divided into two factions, partisans of the
family of Rabbi Zadok and partisans of the family of
Rabbi Jacob. The end was that Rabbi Moses, the son
of Rabbi Jacob, gained the upper hand, while the son of
Rabbi Zadok, a younger man than Rabbi Moses, assumed
the Gaonate fifty years later.
On the other hand, Rabbi Sherira records a number
of conflicts between the Exilarchs and the Geonim of
Pumbedita. About Rabbi Natronai I (719), Sherira says
(35, 6, below), that, encouraged by his kinship with the
family of the Exilarch l , he ruled the Academy so
vigorously that the scholars of Pumbedita took refuge
in Sura, and did not return to Pumbedita until after
his death. A generation later (about 755) we hear again
that the Exilarch, actuated by personal animosity 2 , passed
by the claims of Rabbi Aha, later famous on account of
his work Sheeltot, and instead installed his secretary 3 ,
Rabbi Natroi Kahana, as Gaon of Pumbedita.
A serious conflict broke out in 771 between the Exilarch
and the Gaon of Pumbedita, Rabbi Malka. Rabbi Sherira
(36, 4) writes: 'wan na wnoab rrw uate an torn
noa *an 'Dp mm N'M winx an no na 'at by wna^aa KB>J
an -IDBKI 'mnajn K'tw 'ar oy Knsa'riD pmn jaaaw pas?
>TK K't?J "WnBJI py pi'. In view of the historical
1 The exact relationship is not given by Rabbi Sherira. He probably
was a son-in-law of the Exilarch.
2 Ibn Daud, 63, 14: rvito irso roao ':BQ. Rabbi Sherira must have
meant the same, though he does not express it in so many words.
3 mrac , comp. 'Erubin, 1 1 b, and Yebamot, 42 a, where Amoraim are
called NSQIE, which naturally cannot mean house servants, &c.
THE GAONATE 17
importance of this passage it is the only instance trans-
mitted to posterity of the Geonim interfering in a contest
about the Exilarchate it is worth while discussing it
thoroughly, all the more as it has been completely
misunderstood heretofore.
Graetz renders Rabbi Sherira's account in the following
words (Geschichte, V 3 , p. 386) : "[Rabbi Malka] had deposed
Natronai ben Habibai, when he [Natronai] was about to
usurp the dignity from Zakkai ben Ahunai, who had been
in possession of the office of Exilarch for some years past.
The two Academies united in supporting Zakkai ; they
deposed Natronai, and he had to flee to Maghreb." Weiss,
in his Dor Dor we-Doreshaw, IV, 29, goes a step farther.
He gives the following description of the incident: "In
the time of Rabbi Malka a dispute occurred between him
and the Exilarch Natronai ben Zabinai 1 , by reason of the
fact that the Gaon had determined to make Zakkai ben
Ahunai Exilarch. In this purpose he was aided and
abetted by the Gaon of Sura. With united forces they
worked to remove Natronai from his office, and put Zakkai
ben Ahunai in his place, and they succeeded. Natronai
was forced out, and, grieved by the dishonour done him,
he left Babylonia, and settled in Palestine 2 . The cause of
1 Weiss accepts the incorrect reading wit, while Graetz properly has
wan. Albargeloni, nvyn 'D, 256, writes the name wan, as Rabbi
Isaac of Vienna does in i"i, I, 114 d, though the source followed by the
last, DTIC , 28 a, reads wan .
a Graetz again displays his insight here, when he translates nyo with
Maghreb, that is, Spain and North Africa, for Albargeloni, I.e., and
the correspondents of Rabbi Hai (D':pi cnc, 56, where ncirr is a printer's
error for TIBC, the Parma MS. and Albargeloni, rrvs' 'D 'r, 108, having
the correct word TIED) have the tradition that Rabbi Natronai went to the
Maghreb. My colleague Dr. Friedlaender tells me that the Arabic writer
Ibn Hazm, a contemporary and acquaintance of Rabbi Samuel ha-Nngid,
makes sport in his Milal wa'n-Nihal, I, 156, and V, 4, of the Jews who say
that one of their sages went from Bagdad to Cordova in a day, and
horned an enemy of their people there. There can be no doubt that
this sage was Rabbi Natronai, of whom Albnrgeloni and Rabbi Hai
alike report that he went to Spain by means of -pin rcjcp. It is true
I C
1 8 THE GEONIM
the conflict was, as we can see from the Letter of Rabbi
Sherira, that Natronai was a scholar, and the Geonim did
not care to have a learned Exilarch in office."
In the first place. Rabbi Sherira makes the explicit
statement that Zakkai had been Exilarch many years
before Natronai. Then, even if it were true that the
Geonim opposed Natronai, which I hope to show was not
the case, they were not conspiring against the Exilarch in
office. On the contrary, they were giving him their support
in his struggle with an usurper of his dignity. Graetz, who
speaks in the body of his book (p. 1 74) somewhat vaguely
of the conflict between Natronai and Zakkai as a " quarrel
about the Exilarchate between two pretenders," is more
precise in his note on the passage, in which he properly
denominates Natronai a usurper. Halevy, in a long tirade
against "the German scholars" (231-2), accuses Graetz
of having perverted facts only to cast a slur upon the
Geonim, yet he himself agrees with Graetz in his statement
of the affair between the Gaon and the Exilarch. The truth
is that Graetz, and Halevy as well, misunderstood the case
that Rabbi Hai does not give credence to the story told him about
Rabbi Natronai, but his incredulity extends only to the miraculous
manner of his removal from place to place, not to the fact of his
emigration to Spain. Albargeloni furthermore relates that Rabbi Natronai
wrote the Talmud down, from memory, for the use of the Spanish
Jews. The statement of the great-grandson of Rabbi Paltoi, J.Q.R.,
XVIII, 401, that Rabbi Paltoi sent the Spanish congregations copies
of the Talmud and Talmudic explanations, in no wise contradicts
Albargeloni. Even if it is true that Rabbi Natronai wrote the whole
Talmud down for the Spaniards, it would not be at all remarkable
to find that copies of the Talmud were rare in Spain a century later.
One hundred and fifty years after Rabbi Paltoi, Rabbi Samuel ha-Nagid
(Ibn Daud, 72, 2, bottom) had copies of the Talmud made and distributed.
On the subject of the circulation of copies of the Talmud in the time
of Rabbi Paltoi, see G. S., p. 295. The Responsum discussed there (p. 294)
was probably given by Rabbi Natronai, the contemporary of Rabbi Paltoi.
Briill, Jahrbucher, IX, 117, attributes the opposition of the Geonim to
Rabbi Natronai to the fact of his putting the Talmud into writing.
They insisted upon oral transmission. But how could they have divined
what he would do after leaving Babylonia ?
THE GAONATE 19
completely. With historic insight Graetz (1. c.) recognised
the difficulty in Sherira's words : p^ tota 21 10BK1 "rmayi
myc6 f>TX x<BO wniMi py. Connecting the death of Rabbi
Malka with the departure of Rabbi Natronai for the
3iyo is altogether inexplicable, and the solution of the
difficulty offered by Graetz not at all satisfying. But this
is far from being the only knotty point in the passage in
which Sherira mentions the occurrence. He begins his
description with the words, "And Rabbi Malka deposed
Natronai/' and continues with the statement that the two
Academies, in joint session, attended also by the Exilarch
Zakkai, deposed the opponent of the latter, the same
Natronai. But if both Academies made common cause
against Natronai, then why should Rabbi Malka be
singled out as the one to depose Natronai? It is clear
that Sherira speaks of the activity of Rabbi Malka in
the first sentence, and in the second sentence of the
activity of the two Academies, which makes good sense
only if Rabbi Malka acted in opposition to the two
Academies. And that is exactly what Sherira reports,
^y , , . i> rvnriN does not mean "to depose," but, on the
contrary, to install one in office in opposition to another.
Sherira himself corroborates this linguistic usage on the
next page (38, u): no ^y TTinnNi . , . prra" 1 m no ^o mrni
*1DV *m "and after him Rabbi Isaac officiated as Gaon,
whom they [the Academy and the Exilarch] installed in
opposition to Rabbi Joseph." Sherira goes on to explain
that Rabbi Joseph, by reason of his position, learning,
and descent, had a claim upon the Gaonate, but that the
Exilarch had ordained Rabbi Isaac as Gaon " over him." In
the light of these facts the passage regarding Rabbi Malka
in Sherira's Letter reads as follows: "And he [Rabbi
Malka] installed Natronai ben Habibai as Exilarch in
opposition to the Exilarch Zakkai ben Ahunai, who had
been vested with the office for some years. The two
Academies, on the other hand, assembled in joint session,
Zakkai also being present, deposed him. Accordingly, when
c 2
20 THE GEONIM
Rabbi Malka departed this life, the Exilarch Natronai
emigrated to the West."
This case anticipates the later one of Rabbi Saadia,
when he made Hassan Exilarch in opposition to David,
who had been holding the office for many a long year.
And as, at the time of Saadia, the two Academies,
yielding to the pressure brought to bear by the Exilarch
David, divested Saadia and Hassan of their dignities, so
also it happened at the time of Rabbi Malka, for Til"Qyi,
as the correct texts read, refers to Rabbi Malka: "They
[the Academies] together with the Exilarch deposed him
[Rabbi Malka]." Later copyists, who went astray in the
same way as the modern historians, added wnB3;> after
Til-OVl l . Naturally, it cannot be supposed that Rabbi
Malka acted single-handed in his opposition to the reigning
Exilarch and the Academies. He must surely have had
his followers, like Rabbi Saadia during his suspension
from office, and it is not at all unlikely that he would
have come out victor in the end, as Rabbi Saadia suc-
ceeded in his struggle, had he not fallen during the fray.
And his death was the reason that made Rabbi Natronai
go to the West. He had to give up the contest after his
main support, Rabbi Malka, had passed away.
The accusation against the Geonim, that they incited
quarrels with the Exilarchate when the incumbent was
a scholar, is wholly unfounded. If history were written
according to such methods, the inquirer would reach the
opposite result, that the partisanship of the Geonim for
one close to them in intellectual interests led them to
1 But even if N:vno:b ^mis 1 ! were proved to be the correct reading, the
other assertion, that Rabbi Malka was not the opponent, but rather
the friend, of Rabbi Natronai, remains unassailed. It is, however,
inconceivable that Rabbi Sherira should have used the expression 'rmori
of an usurper, seeing that with him, as for instance 36, 9, it has the
meaning of removing one from an office legitimately held. And it
would be an absurdity to say that " the Exilarch removed the counter-
Exilarch from office," as though a pretender would acknowledge the
legitimacy of his opponent.
THE GAONATE 21
prefer a learned to an unlearned Exilarch. Now we
know that the quarrel about the Exilarchate at the
time of Zakkai ben Ahunai grew out of far other motives.
From the Genizah fragment given in Saadyana, 76, it
appears that Zakkai was a descendant of Bostanai and
a Persian princess, a marriage the legitimacy of which
was questioned by many. For this reason, Rabbi Malka
was prepared to support Natronai, whose descent was
unblemished. From the Genizah fragment we learn also
that the descendants of the princess tried to force the
recognition of their legitimacy by resort to the power of
the non-Jewish government. Accordingly Rabbi Malka
was justified in his opposition to Zakkai.
Scarcely ten years pass (782), and again we hear of the
Exilarch's deposing the Gaon of Pumbedita, Rabbi Haninai
ben Abraham. Rabbi Sherira, who usually drops a hint at
least as to the cause of such disputes, has not a word to say
about this occurrence. It is fair to take this as corroborat-
ing the supposition made above (p. 10), that Rabbi Abraham
Gaon, the father of this Rabbi Haninai, was a brother of
Rabbi Xatronai, and, as he belonged to the Sura Academy, as
will appear later, and received the Gaonate of Pumbedita
against the wish of the Academicians there, the assumption
is not unwarranted that the deposing of Rabbi Haninai
was due to the wishes of the Academy, which was not
inclined to accept an outsider. As to Rabbi Sherira, he
had good reason for not desiring to enter into a detailed
discussion of the case ; it hardly redounded to the credit of
his own Academy.
In the year 828 we hear once more of interference with
the affairs of the Academy at Pumbedita on the part of the
Exilarch. The two pretenders to the Exilarchate, Daniel
and David, each had " his " Gaon at Pumbedita, with the
result that even when David maintained the upper hand,
Pumbedita was supplied with two Geonim, Rabbi Abraham
and Rabbi Joseph.
It is not possible to define the part played by the
22 THE GEONIM
Exilarchs in the disputes at Pumbedita between the Geo-
nim Kabbi Isaac and Rabbi Joseph ben Rabbi in 833,
and between Rabbi Menahem and Rabbi Mattathias in
859. About Rabbi Isaac, Sherira says (38, 14) that the
Exilarch David ben Judah had installed him, but that does
not guarantee Isaac's having been his candidate as opposed
to Rabbi Joseph, because the expression used by Sherira is
irwinNl, " and they appointed him [Rabbi Isaac] as Gaon."
" They " probably means the members of the Academy *.
Finally, a feud of many years' duration broke out
between the Academy of Pumbedita and the Exilarchs,
under the last of them, David, who appointed Rabbi
Kohen-Zedek to be the Gaon, while the Academy invested
its own candidate, Rabbi Mebasser, with the dignity.
THE LANGUAGE OF NATHAN HA-BABLI'S REPORT.
To the student who regards history as more than a
mere stringing together of disconnected events, the friction
between the Exilarchs and the Geonim of Pumbedita
presents an interesting problem in various respects. Many
a question evoked by the combative relation between
Gaonate and Exilarchate clamours for a reply. In the
first place, why was it that the Academy at Sura was not
troubled by the interference of the Exilarchs in the course
of a period during which the Academy at Pumbedita felt
their heavy hand half a dozen times'? What was the
reason that the Exilarch, who lorded it over the Academy
at Sura until the end of the seventh century, assumed so
peaceable an attitude toward it during the three centuries
that followed ? And, in the third place, what explanation
can be adduced for the fact that all the wrangles between
1 Halevy, who regards the Exilarchs as universal scapegoats, holds
(p. 271), without advancing any proofs, that it was again the Exilarch
who appointed Rabbi Isaac as Gaon in opposition to the wish of the
Academy. The words maoD 121 prove nothing, because the official
ordination was always performed by the Exilarch.
THE GAONATE 23
the Exilarchs and the Geonim of Pumbedita occurred in
a single century, from 719-828 ? l
These questions can be answered only when we have
attained to intimate knowledge of the rise of the Gaonate
and its relation to the Exilarchate on one side and the
two Academies on the other, and knowledge of this sort is
accessible to us only through closer acquaintance with the
sole and only account of the Academies that has come
down to us.
Rabbi Samuel Shulam, in his additions to Rabbi
Abraham Zacuto's Yohasin, gives an account of the
Babylonian Academies and of the Exilarchs Ukba and
David, after one Rabbi Nathan the Babylonian. An
Arabic fragment of the report concerning Ukba was
published by Dr. Israel Friedlaender in the J. Q.K, XVII,
747-61. The great historical value of this document
makes the language in which it was written originally
a matter of prime importance, and it behoves us to give
our attention to this question first of all. Dr. Fried-
laender, in his learned and instructive introduction to the
narrative, is decidedly of opinion that it was written in
Arabic originally, but I venture to believe that the proofs
adduced by him are not conclusive.
The expression D^D^a jnu . . , N DIN is admittedly an
Arabism, but it had become so fluent a locution with the
Arabic-speaking Jews that it cropped up in their Hebrew
and Aramaic writings as well. Its use by Nathan, there-
fore, proves nothing. In Rabbi Sherira's Letter it occurs
three times (35, 6, below ; 40, i ; and 40, 5), yet no one
is inclined to doubt that the Letter has been transmitted to
us in its original language 2 . Dr. Friedlaender further
1 The controversy between Rabbi Mebasser and Rabbi Kohen-Zedek is
of quite another character, as will be demonstrated in detail further on.
2 The expression .... a jrro occurs frequently in original Hebrew
works ; comp., for instance, ruDErr, I, 61 ; crteiT i:3, III, 15 b ; J.Q.R., XIX ,
106, 730, 734. The phrase, derived from the Arabic, was the model for
-\3:, "known under the name"; comp. Harkavy, D':\r' CJ O'vnn, II, 10.
In the inscription on the Cattaui synagogue in Old Cairo, reproduced
24 THE GEONIM
claims the phrase DC^NI by 1^ 13rD'1 (79, 19) as a translation
of the Arabic nriDfrO") HPJH. The expression, occurring
three times in close succession, has a Hebrew equivalent in
each of the three contexts: Btn WilN WWl B*n ?ni uvum
"pvy hf inrrum. If the use of D^KI . . . mron proves
anything, it would rather indicate that the one who trans-
lated the document from Hebrew into Arabic did not
understand it, and left the original untranslated. What
Nathan says in this passage is that the Gaon of Sura
sent word in writing to his followers, either to offer their
congratulations personally to David ben Zakkai, on his
assumption of office (irwiTtP), or, if there were any l who
for some valid reason could not appear before him, to
express their gratification at his success in a letter to
the Exilarch Dt^QJ by "6 'GrD v i. In one way or another
they all were to manifest their assent to his choice as
Exilarch K>xn iniN uvwi. In the description that follows,
of the public presentation of the Exilarch, Nathan properly
omits all reference to the written homage ordered by the
Gaon. Nathan is equally precise in his account of the
homage paid the Exilarch by Kohen-Zedek. The two
dignitaries met face to face, hence the expression used
by Nathan, "pvy by inrrurn, where DVJ? is a synonym for
the K>SJ used before. For the rest, the phrase employed
by Nathan to express the public recognition of the
Exilarch as such, nta twi JTUit, throws new light upon
an expression occurring in the Talmud several times
ami Nnpiy w:ni> KIDH n mms which has caused the
lexicographers no little difficulty 2 . The Aramaic "DIN
by E. N. Adler, "Jews in Many Lands," 30, mrr does not mean "the
famous," but "named." Comp. also Harkavy, Saadia, 114, .... p rim,
and 227, note 6, and Steinschneider, Jubelschrift, 139, line 8 from bottom,
and Harkavy, 186, where ID: = 3 rim.
1 On the Tannaim mentioned in this passage, comp. Marx, J.Q.R.,
XVIII, 771, to which should be added that Rabbi Hai in the Responsum
appearing as an appendix to Rabbi Sherira's Letter, ed. Mayence, speaks
of ... o'wnn (65) ; comp. also '^nv 'c, 130, ed. Neubauer.
2 On the locution irrnnN c'Mn, in the Seder 'Olam Zutta, see Lazarus, Die
Hdupter der Vertriebenen, 100-1, and Briill, Centralanzeiger, 67.
THE GAONATE
2 5
corresponds exactly to the Hebrew rnan of Nathan.
Accordingly, the translation would run: "Rabbi Hisda
proclaimed Rabban Ukba as Exilarch, on which occasion
the new Exilarch spoke as follows." The Arabic 1"ipy^
nnDxn would be rather colourless, while the Hebrew
i'run is the very term one would expect to find here.
The expression by Toy is not an Arabism ; it is found
in the Talmudim and the older Midrashim with con-
siderable frequency. I shall adduce only a few of the
passages. D'con i^y iioj?^ i^r N^>I py spm rnrrwn pa,
" Twilight lasts but an instant, so that the scholars could
not determine its duration" (Ter. Berakot, i, 2 b, 35, and
parallel passages ; Babli, ibid., 2 b, end), by Tioy^ trp'Qt?
TinP ?W p'JO, "He wanted to determine the number of
Israelites," which corresponds exactly to the expression
used by Nathan (Yer. Taaniyot, II, 56 d, 44). The Tal-
mudic equivalent for errando discimur is by tciy mx px
era braa p DK N^N mm nm, "Man cannot fathom the
words of the Torah until he has made mistakes " (Gittin,
^3a). Regarding the motion of the celestial spheres, Rabbi
Simon ben Yohai says: nmni? IK'SX <K1 nxo nc'p nann
v!?y i^oyb, "It is so difficult a problem that man cannot
fathom it " (Genesis R., VI, 8, and parallel passages).
These quotations will probably suffice to show that
^y icy ] is an Arabism neither with Nathan nor with
Rabbi Saadia, who employs it twice (Harkavy, Saadia,
152, 20, and 170, 20).
VJ^KI by noy in the sense used here is no better Arabic
than Hebrew, v^y icy is classical Hebrew (Judges iii. 19,
2 Kings xxii. 19), and the connexion with ITK1 can be
authenticated as little in Arabic as in Hebrew. Nover-
1 In the Responsa of the Geonim this is not a rare expression ; comp.,
for instance, i*n, 143 (which is falsely ascribed to Rabbi Joseph ben
Abitur, while it actually is from the hand of a Gaon of Sura, as appears
from the reference to "my teacher Rabbi Zadok " ; the superscription
in MS. Luzzatto, pw mro -To, has probably preserved the truth for us),
and G.S., p. 284 ; also Rashi, Pesahim, 46 a.
26 THE GEONIM
theless, the expression is well chosen. It is a vivid
description of Kohen-Zedek sitting absorbed in study, his
head bent over his book, and suddenly raising it to see
Nissi standing before him, as it were, " over his head."
Moreover, the expression 1SPJO by ivy is found in an
original Hebrew letter from the last Exilarch Hezekiah
(R.fi.J., LV, 50), though it must be admitted that the
meaning there is not clear.
That the employment of the Biblical expression f"iK
, " nativeUand," in the sense of "native place," is
a result of Arabic influence, will hardly recommend itself
to acceptance. In such early passages as 2 Sam. v. 6 and
i Chron. xi. 4, piK is used in the meaning of city, in these
cases Jerusalem. Similarly in the Mishnah and in post-
Talmudic Hebrew ru'HD means both city and province.
Other variations between the Arabic fragment and the
version of the Yohasin are as inadequate to establish
the priority of the former as we have found the linguistic
peculiarities of the Arabic. As to the difference between
the Arabic and Hebrew texts, relative to the length of
Kohen-Zedek's Gaonate (78, 7), it will be shown below,
p. 66, that neither is correct. Even if we accept the Arabic
reading, the ' of the Hebrew text may still be explained
as a copyist's misreading of the Hebrew y:nK as D'ymN .
In the next line, the Hebrew has only man ptal3 vn,
while the Arabic reads pn ttn^tt iha 11 , '' whence the Dayyanim
used to be sent thither." Dr. Friedlaender notes that it
is "missing in Hebrew." The fact is that the expression
used in the Hebrew is the one current in the Talmud
(Sanhedrin, 5 a) to indicate the conferring of judicial
authorisation 1 . The Arabic is a somewhat prolix circum-
locution of a Hebrew and Aramaic terminus technicus.
The same seems to apply to the next line, where the
Hebrew has NTtM unm, "and his son-in-law Natira," while
the Arabic reads, N-VDJ nr3K JIT run5i, "his son-in-law
1 Comp. also the Genizah fragment, J. Q. R., XVIII, 402, where nvnn
is used in this sense.
THE GAONATE 27
Natira, the husband of his daughter." The only explana-
tion that can be offered for the superfluous description of
a son-in-law as the husband of one's daughter, is that the
Arabic first gave a literal translation of the Hebrew fanni }
which is the Arabic run5i, but as this Arabic word may
mean not only son-in-law (the Hebrew ijnm) j but also
father-in-law (the Hebrew unini), the translator added, in
the interest of intelligibility, " the husband of his daughter."
The fact that in the Hebrew, 78, 3, below, and in other
passages (79, 20, 25), 733 is used in the sense of Bagdad, makes
it impossible to assume that "the editor" was ignorant
of this use of 733. The correct reading of the Hebrew is
733 itan, and the sentence 733 i^en WV ny is to be trans-
lated " until the king [ = Sultan] left Bagdad," exactl}' as
the Arabic has it. Taking into consideration the Biblical
style of the Hebrew, it is not surprising to have N^
construed with the accusative instead of with JD. The
notion conveyed by the Arabic, that the Exilarch was
merely expelled from Bagdad, is certainly erroneous. In
this case, it would be inexplicable why he should have
felt compelled to journey to Africa. The Hebrew version
offers a natural solution. After the Exilarch had been
banished from the whole of Babylonia, he tried to settle
in the East, that is, in the Persian provinces. But those
regions stood under the jurisdiction of the Exilarch, as
Nathan himself observes (86, 19), and he had no choice
except to go to the West 1 . The misunderstanding, it
appears, cannot be charged against the Hebrew, nor against
" the editor." It lies with the Arabic, which attached an
incorrect meaning to 733 in the expression 733 0:3* N7t?
733 ni37 (79, 13) a rather excusable error, as Nathan
uses 733 throughout for Bagdad.
According to Dr. Friedlaender, the Hebrew is guilty of
1 The observation made by Professor Noldeke and reported by
Dr. Friedlaender, 1. c., 759, note 7, is unintelligible to me. That Ukba
migrated to Africa and not Palestine is reported very clearly at the
beginning of Rabbi Nathan's narrative.
28 THE GEONIM
a gross mistake in ascribing thaumaturgical activity to
the blind Nissi 1 , of which, he says, the document which
he holds to be the original knew nothing. On the other
hand, Dr. Friedlaender himself concedes that he is unable
to establish how the alleged Arabic original actually did
read, to produce the error, and in these circumstances,
it seems to me, the question must be left open, all the
more as so eminent an Arabist as Dr. Noldeke, whose
view is quoted in Dr. Friedlaender's article, maintains that
the Arabic fragment credits Nissi with wonder-working
powers. It may be said, parenthetically, that the mira-
culous opening of locked doors is mentioned elsewhere in
Jewish legend. Mordecai, a Midrash relates (Buber, 'D
xrnjNl, 65), surprised Bigthan and Teresh at night,
unobserved by the guards, and hindered by none, as it
is written : " I will go before thee and make the crooked
places straight. I will break in pieces the gates of brass
and cut in sunder the bars of iron " (Isa. xlv. 2).
I hold, then, that not only is there no support for the
theory that Nathan's account was written originally in
Arabic, but a comparison between the Arabic fragment
and the Hebrew version in Yohawn, reveals some features
tending to establish the priority of the Hebrew. Never-
theless, I consider that the question as to the language
in which Nathan wrote, is still open. There is one sentence
which betrays an unmistakable Arabism : rtann }l ""J^cri JO
JB>n ny^inoi jcnsn fl (83, 16). So far as I know, this use
of fo occurs only in works translated into Hebrew, not
in Hebrew originals, and it gives considerable weight to
Dr. Friedlaender's opinion as to the original character of
the Arabic text. In any event, the Arabic contains some
1 Nissi, the son of the Exilarch and brother-in-law of the Gaon Sar
Shalom, is mentioned by Kabbi Hai in his Kesponsum appended to the
Letter of Kabbi Sherira, ed. Mayence, 63. bNitra m mi D':, in DTIE,
380, is derived from the Seder Rab Amram, as can be seen from Marx,
Uiitersuchungen, &c., 8, Hebrew part, but 'n'l 'no (32) reads 'ii instead of
'D':. I have only to add that the Genizah fragments of the YerushaJ.mi
read 'p: in all passages in which our texts have wr: or nD3.
THE G AON ATE 29
readings that are preferable to the Hebrew in corresponding
passages, and they are of great value in the study of
Nathan's account.
NATHAN HA-BABLI IDENTIFIED.
Another important question must be settled, and a more
difficult one. Who was this Nathan, the Babylonian, the
author of the report we are considering ? Graetz's hypo-
thesis (Geschichte, V 3 , 47 12), that he was one of " the
four captives," and the founder of Jewish learning in
Provence is, it need hardly be said, wholly untenable.
From the Genizah fragments, we know first of all that
Rabbi Shemariah ben Elhanan, one of the four captives,
was a pupil of Rabbi Sherira (J.Q.jR., VI, 222). But
Nathan, as Graetz himself observes, wrote his account
during the Gaonate of Rabbi Aaron, and knows nothing
of Sherira. Moreover, Rabbi Hushiel's Letter, published
by Professor Schechter (/. Q. R., XI, 643-50), stamps the
whole story of the four captives as a legend, at least in
the form in which it has been transmitted to us by Rabbi
Abraham Ibn Daud. There may be an historical kernel
in it, but not more. Furthermore, the hypothesis advanced
by Graetz rests on a false construction put upon a sentence
in Zacuto's Tohasin (ed. London, 174), where a sentence
is quoted from a "Rabbi Nathan, the Babylonian, in Nar-
bonne." The practice of applying the name Babylon to
Rome is not limited to the New Testament (Rev. xiv. 8 ;
xvi. 1 9 ; xvii. 5). It is current in the Midrash as well
(Cant. -R., I, 6), and there can be no doubt that Zacuto is
referring in the passage under consideration to Rabbi
Nathan of Rome, the author of the 'Aruk, who studied
in Narbonne under Rabbi Moses ha-Darshan. To clinch
the identification, the very sentence cited by Zacuto in
the name of Rabbi Nathan, the Babylonian, is to be found
in the 'Aruk of the Roman Rabbi Nathan l .
1 On the sojourn of Rabbi Nathan, the author of the "jnr, in Narbonne,
comp. Gross, Gallia Judaica, 409-10, and Geiger, Heb. BibL, III, 4. The
30 THE GEONIM
On one point Graetz is doubtless right in assuming that
Rabbi Nathan wrote his account, not in Babylonia, but
in some other country, the Jewish inhabitants of which
he wanted to enlighten concerning Babylonian conditions.
In all probability the country in which the Babylonian
wrote was North Africa. His account, as it appears in the
Yohasin, and also in the Arabic Genizah fragment, begins
with the words : " This is what the Babylonian Nathan,
son of Isaac, told [=IDN, 'reported by word of mouth'],
what he himself partly saw and what he partly heard
in Babylonia, relative to the Exilarch who came to Africa,
Ukba, the descendant of David." Now, only a small
part of Nathan's account deals with Ukba, and it is
difficult to understand why, in the first place, Ukba
should be named as the hero of the narrative, but par-
ticularly why it should have been stated so emphatically
that he had come to Africa, a circumstance which naturally
comes out in the course of the narrative. It is therefore
not a far-fetched supposition, that this Babylonian Nathan
himself came to Africa, and the Jews there questioned him
about the celebrated exile who had once lived in their
city, for at Nathan's arrival he was probably deceased.
About the controversy of the Exilarchs, Nathan could
tell them but a few facts known to him by hearsay, 1"13D1
nvpED. It had happened before his time, or at least in
his earliest childhood. On the other hand, he was well
versed in the details of the dispute between the Gaon
Kohen-Zedek and the Exilarch David, and again between
Rabbi Saadia and the same Exilarch. Therefore he passed
adroitly from Ukba to his successor. The description of
Ukba's exile serves as nothing more than a foil and intro-
duction to the events under David. That he began his
account with Ukba shows equal astuteness, for Ukba it
was who interested the African Jews in particular.
name Nathan ha Babli was probably suggested to Zacuto by the celebrated
Tanna of the same nnme; '\ '?N f c, ed. Friedmann is taa = 'ori, R. Joshua
was in Rome, comp. Gittin, 58 a.
THE GAONATE 3!
These conjectures, which to me seem obvious, are sup-
ported by a Responsum by Rabbi Mei'r of Rothenburg 1 .
itray *iy i>"r Kpnsso fro Yn mi^ra mro 'bv owtan nuuwn
nmx PS^TEI 2^n Bnaoi nono nwirb i^nnn&'D ^>as -urn m i:n:
nniN ^Kt? V3 ^3 p-UD 13N "In my collection of Responsa
of the Geonim, I found the following by Rabbi Nathan of
Africa : Until now it was customary to permit the eating
[of butter made by non-Jews], but since they have begun
to bring it from Hamath and Giscala, where it is adulter-
ated [with fat], we excommunicate all who use it."
First of all, we are here introduced to an African scholar
of the Geonic time by the name of Nathan. One is tempted
to identify him with the Rabbi Nathan ben Rabbi Hana-
niah, a Responsum by whom is abstracted (T"lN, I, 176 b) by
Rabbi Isaac ben Moses of Vienna, the teacher of Rabbi Mei'r
of Rothenburg, from the "African" collection niyxpon 'D, pro-
bably the same Geonic collection referred to by Rabbi Mei'r
himself in his mnien ny>, 193. Muller in his Mafteak (157)
assigns this Responsum to Rabbi Nathan Alluf, the uncle
of Rabbi Sherira, an identification that cannot hold water,
for several reasons. With the exception of Rabbi Hai, who
replied to a number of questions addressed to his father, by
reason of the advanced age of the latter, there is not, in
the whole extent of Geonic Responsa literature, a single
Responsum by an Alluf 2 . Besides, Rabbi Isaac of Vienna
calls the author Rabbi Nathan ben Hananiah, and the
uncle of Sherira was Rabbi Nathan ben Judah. Miiller's
emended reading, rp::n YIK, instead of 'n '"H nna, cannot be
endorsed. What reason can there be for designating the
1 Quoted by Rabbi Aaron of Lunel in his n"n 'rn, II, 333. Rabbi
Nathan, whose views on liturgical questions are cited very frequently
by Rabbi Aaron in the first part of his work, was, as appears from
'n 'rnr, I, 43 b and io6a (bottom), a grandson of Rabbi Azriel, doubtless
Rabbi Azriel ben Nathan, the great-grandson bearing the name of the
great-grandfather. Gross, Gallia Judaica, contains Rabbi Azriel, but not
his grandson, Rabbi Nathan.
* For details comp. above, p. 7, n. i.
32 THE GEONIM
son and brother of a Gaon as the brother of his brother,
instead of in the universal way as the son of his father ?
We have, besides, positive and explicit evidence regarding
an African authority by the name of Rabbi Nathan ben
Hananiah. Such an one was a correspondent of Rabbi
Natronai Gaon, as we learn from Rabbi Samuel Ibn
(jama 1 , and also of the Gaon's younger contemporary,
Rabbi Zemah ben Solomon, the chief judge of the Exil-
arch 2 . In a question addressed from Kairwan (fur,
84 a, 3) to Rabbi Zemah [ben Paltoi?], Rabbi Nathan
and Rabbi Judah are characterised as "the scholars of
Kairwan V In another Responsum in the same col-
lection, i8b, 12, the sons of Rabbi Nathan are referred
to in a letter to Rabbi Saadia. Moreover, it is highly
probable that the Rabbi Nathan whose opinions are cited
in three passages in the Seder Rob Amram is this African
Rabbi Nathan, and not the uncle of Rabbi Sherira 4 .
Nevertheless, I hesitate greatly to identify the Rabbi
Nathan quoted by Rabbi Mei'r of Rothenburg with the
Kairwan scholar Rabbi Nathan ben Hananiah, and for the
following reasons : The passage about the butter made in
Hamath and Giscala by no manner of means bears the
interpretation that butter was exported from Palestine
to Northern Africa in the ninth century. The remark
by Rabbi Nathan becomes intelligible only when it is
1 In Graetz, Jubelschrift, 17.
2 Dukes, from an Oxford MS., in Ben Chananjah, IV, 142.
3 This passage was referred to by Zunz, Situs, 191, and he properly
identified this Rabbi Judah with Rabbi Judah ben Saul, the contemporary
of Rabbi Nathan. The same Rabbi Judah is described in t'w, II, 171 b.
together with Rabbi Nathan ben Hananiah, as a correspondent of Rabbi
Natronai. He is there called bistt? '-\ '2 rmrr 'n , which is better, it seems,
than "JINC 'T 'i rmrv '-\ 'a mirr 'i, in Luzzatto's is^n rva, 109. In Rabbi
Mei'r of Rothenburg's n"r, 193, he is also called Rabbi Judah ben Saul.
Is ci"n to be read for the corrupt CTD in Parties, 21 b ?
4 Comp. below, pp. 149-50. In this Responsum c'Tobn does not mean
young students, but, according to the general usage of Arabic-speaking
Jews, prominent scholars. Comp. Harkavy, Saadia, 43, note 5, and y"ic,
3 a, end.
THE G AGNATE 33
brought into connexion with the fact that in Babylonia
butter made by non-Jews was considered as belonging to
the forbidden varieties of food, though it was permitted
in Palestine. Hence Rabbi Nathan reports that even in
Palestine the use of such butter was prohibited, since it
appeared that it was adulterated in Hamath and Giscala,
being mixed there with forbidden ingredients. Whence
this specific acquaintance with Palestinian conditions on
the part of Rabbi Nathan of Kairwan ? If we were to
assume, what is not very likely 1 , that the Kairwan scholars
of the ninth century were in close relations with those of
Palestine, it would still have to be explained what occasion
there was for the Palestinian scholars to communicate with
the Kairwan scholars regarding the custom prevailing in
their country.
Thus the probabilities multiply for identifying Rabbi
Nathan of Africa with the Babylonian Rabbi Nathan, the
author of the account of the Academies. This Babylonian,
who must have reached Africa by way of Palestine, had
to satisfy the curiosity of his African fellow-Jews and a
real desire for knowledge as well. The scholar from foreign
parts on the one hand told them about the Exilarchs and
the Geonim, and on the other doubtful ritual cases were
referred to him, such as that in the Responsum quoted
above, in which Rabbi Nathan, inclined as a Babylonian
to agree with a prohibition forbidding the use of butter
prepared by non-Jews, strengthens his natural inclination
by reference to the fact that even the Palestinians, ac-
customed from of old to a more lenient practice, refrained
from eating it in changed circumstances 2 .
1 Rabbi Mei'r of Rothenburg in his n*UJ, 193, writes: 'iairra '3111x1
bin ':wan ibsTTC .... s-pnDM ronoo, which would indicate that this African
Responsa Collection contained decisions only by Babylonian, not by
Palestinian authorities.
3 On the use of such butter, comp. the Geonic Responsa in D*n, ip-ar,
and G. S., p. 153, according to which the prohibition against it had not
always been recognised even in Babylonia. Comp. also Miiller, r^fa
rra, 16.
I D
34 THE GEONIM
The assumption that Rabbi Nathan was an oral reporter
on Babylonian conditions, rather than an author who re-
corded his reminiscences in writing, would reconcile the
differences between the Hebrew and the Arabic version of
his narrative. The question as to the original language
would then be set aside in favour of the supposition that
the two versions are independent of each other. In the
Kairwan audience that listened to Rabbi Nathan, some
used Hebrew and some Arabic in their literary com-
positions, and thus his narrative reached us through the
medium of two languages.
NATHAN HA-BABLI THE SOURCE FOR THE Two REPORTS
ABOUT THE BABYLONIAN ACADEMIES.
The above will throw light for us upon the relation
that exists between Rabbi Nathan's narrative proper and
the piece about the Babylonian Academies preceding it.
Graetz, whose view is espoused by Weiss and other
scholars, considers Rabbi Nathan the author of the de-
scription of the Babylonian Academies at the head of the
narrative, in the same sense in which he is the author
of the narrative to which his name is explicitly attached.
Halevy, on the other hand, identifies the piece about the
Academies with a report quoted by Zacuto from Rabbi
Samuel ha-Nagid's Introduction to the Talmud. Graetz's
historical tact stood him in good stead here as so often,
while Halevy cannot see the wood for the trees. There
can be no doubt, as Halevy properly remarks, that the
two are merely versions of one and the same account ;
and also there can be no doubt that Samuel ha-Nagid's
document goes back to Rabbi Nathan. It is certain
that the description of the Babylonian Academies pre-
ceding Rabbi Nathan's account cannot have been taken
as it stands from Rabbi Samuel's Introduction, which,
Halevy maintains, seeing that it contains two important
points missing in Rabbi Samuel's the description of the
THE GAONATE 35
"reception Sabbath" of the Exilarch,and the dispute between
the Academies regarding the division of the revenues, at
the time of Kohen-Zedek 1 . Halevy (Dorot ha-Rishonim,
III, 363) passes the first point over in silence, and with
regard to the second he maintains that it dropped out
of Rabbi Samuel ha-Nagid's narrative in Yohasin through
an oversight of the copyist. But whence could Rabbi
Samuel Shulam, the editor of Zacuto's Yohasin, have
supplied the passage which was missing in his model 1 2
We see thus that not only is the account transmitted by
Shulam independent of Rabbi Samuel ha-Nagid's, but a
comparison of the linguistic peculiarities of the description
of the Academies with those of the narrative proper by
Rabbi Nathan proves beyond the peradventure of a doubt
that they have the same origin. For instance, in both
accounts pN is used in the meaning of city (78, 5 ; 79, 31).
The statement about the rights of the Geonim of Sura
during an interregnum in the Exilarchate is the same
verbatim in Nathan's narrative proper (86, n, below), and
in the description of the Academies preceding it (78, 15),
1 The following point forms an essential difference between the two
narratives. According to Rabbi Samuel ha-Nagid it was a question of
"parishes," nvvm, those under Sura being twice as large originally as
those under Pumbedita. But according to the account published by
Shulam, it was a question of the donations, which were put into a
common fund for the Academies, two-thirds being allotted originally
to Sura and one-third to Pumbedita. The rather indefinite expression
in Shulam's report, D'pSn w nVDi: , was misunderstood by Rabbi Samuel
ha-Nagid, who took the nvren of the previous sentence as the subject.
This view is proved incorrect by the words of Rabbi Nathan, WTO no to .
2 Halevy might have learnt from Coronel's introduction to the meort
D'cmcnip that the MS. of this report used by Neubauer for his edition
had been written in 1509, while Shulam published the Yohasin at
Constantinople only in 1566. On the MSS. of this report comp. Marx,
in Z.H.B., V, 57-8, and IX, 140. Steinschneider, in Geschichisliteratur, 21,
likewise entertains the supposition that Shulam's report goes back to
Rabbi Samuel ha-Nagid. It need not be said that the great historian
was too circumspect to assume, as Halevy does, that Shulam had simply
copied Rabbi Samuel's narrative from Zacuto. He is of the opinion that
the source made use of by Shulam is traceable to Rabbi Samuel's Intro-
duction, which, however, as has been shown, is equally unwarranted.
D 2
36 THE GEONIM
while Rabbi Samuel ha-Nagid has the somewhat pompous
expression iD^iy rvu^ nta >xn IDB^DI for nta ^N"i nic% and
in the same sentence he uses niKSjnn niB>n for the lh? nwnn
13ni* of the other two sources.
But as, on the other hand, Rabbi Samuel ha-Nagid's
presentation in the main agrees literally with the descrip-
tion of the Academies preceding Rabbi Nathan's report,
we are safe in assuming that Rabbi Nathan is the source
for both. The development must have been thus : Rabbi
Samuel, in his Introduction to the Talmud, where he had
to speak of the two Academies, abstracted Rabbi Nathan's
account, which may have come under his notice through
the Jews of Kairwan, with whom, it is well known, he
was in constant communication 1 . Another author, who
had heard Nathan's account from his own mouth, tried
to make up a brief sketch of the Academies. He gave
a few facts regarding their origin at the time of the
Amoraim, and then, to lend his compilation an air of
completeness, he eked out Nathan's report by the addition,
at the beginning, of a chronology from Adam to David,
the last of the Exilarchs, taken from the Seder 'Olam
Zutta. According to the notions prevailing- in the Middle
Ages as to literary practices, this compiler, who patched
together three pieces from three different sources, deserved
the name author, and, without burdening his conscience, he
could maintain silence regarding the sources used by him.
This "opus" he made the introduction to the narrative-which
he had taken down from the mouth of Nathan, honestly
introducing it with the words " and what Nathan said 2 ."
1 Even his questions addressed to the Babylonian Geonim were trans-
mitted by the Kairwan scholars ; comp. Harkavy, 107. The literal
agreement of Rabbi Samuel ha-Nagid's report with Rabbi Nathan's
disposes of the theory that the former made use of Ibn Hofni's Intro-
duction to the Talmud.
8 In his mm' Eac, 42, Ibn Verga quotes a report on the installation
of an Exilarch from D':ncwi D'aiw rvniicn, which seems to be independent
of Rabbi Nathan's, while the passage about the Exilarch Ukba, in Rabbi
Abraham ben Nathan's Manhig, 32 a, probably goes back to Nathan.
THE GAONATE 37
THE SUPREMACY OP SURA.
We return to our starting-point. The relation of the
two Academies to each other, and their relation to the
Exilarch, can in a measure be defined now. Rabbi Samuel
ha-Nagid, as well as the anonymous author in Shulam,
who, as we have seen, is none other than Rabbi Nathan
the Babylonian, are explicit upon the subject. Originally,
the head of the Academy at Pumbedita could be appointed
only with the concurrence of the Gaon of Sura. If the
heads of the two Academies met anywhere, the Gaon of
Sura was given the precedence. This was particularly
marked when they paid their respects to the Exilarch on
his "reception Sabbath." In their correspondence, the
head of Pumbedita had to address " the Gaon and the
scholars of Sura," while the head of Sura wrote simply
" to the scholars of Pumbedita." In case the Exilarchate
had no incumbent temporarily, its revenues fell to the
share of the Gaon of Sura. Sura received two parts of
the donations contributed for the maintenance of the
Babylonian Academies, and Pumbedita but one part.
This fiscal arrangement was changed in 926, under the
Gaonate of Kohen-Zedek 1 , when Pumbedita was made
equal sharer with Sura, on account of the increase in the
number of disciples in the former Academy.
On the basis of these facts, Graetz properly makes the
assertion that/6riginally the title Gaon was the prerogative
of the head of the Academy at Sura, the Gaonate not
being a duumvirate, but an institution with a single chief,
and its origin must be explained with these facts in mind.
In opposition to this sane view Halevy (p. 151 et seq.)
puts up a theory, which sets forth that in the Geonic
1 There is not the remotest warrant for supposing that Kohen-Zcdk,
the Gaon of Pumbedita, was here confused with his namesake of Sura.
The important change in favour of the Academy at Pumbedita could
naturally not have been connected with the name of the Gaon of Sura.
38 THE GEONIM
time Pumbedlta held the leading place, and the above-
mentioned privileges of Sura applied to the time of the
Amoraim, probably of Rab Ashi, with but few exceptions
not being in force in the Geonic time. But how, in the
name of common sense, can it be said that the claim
upon the larger share in the donations to the Academies
appertains to Talmudic times ? We know from Talmudic
data (Grittin, 60 b) that the revenues of the Academies
consisted of voluntary contributions deposited in boxes,
which were put up for this purpose in the house of the
head of the Academy. We should be accusing Rab Ashi
of highway robbery pure and simple, if we supposed that
he ordered the removal of two-thirds of the contents of
the box at Pumbedita to the coffers of Sura. It is hardly
necessary to defend the great leaders of the Jews against
such charges. Halevy, in particular, has no ground under
his feet when he relegates the privileges of Sura to Tal-
mudic times (p. 263), because he gives the preference to
Rabbi Samuel's version, which bases the distribution of
the moneys between the two Academies upon the parish
divisions for judicial purposes \ and such divisions, it is
well known, did not exist in the Talmudic time, as the
appointment of communal officers was in the hands of
the Exilarch.
Besides, as applied to the Talmudic epoch, what does
it mean to say that the head of the Sura Academy was
addressed as Gaon by his colleague ? Even if Gaon is not
taken literally, but as an equivalent for NmTiD B*"I, it is
not a term used in the Talmudic period in addressing a
scholar, wan and man are the titles applied to scholars
in that time 2 . The parts assigned to the heads of the
Academies on the "reception Sabbath" of the Exilarch
are altogether incongruous with the time of Rab Ashi,
about whom we are told explicitly that the Exilarch Huna
1 Comp. above, p. 35, n. i.
3 Ketubot, 69 a, pin ; Shebu'ot, 36 a, im ; comp. also Hullin, 95 b, Dip
i:-an mb .... ir.i.
THE GAONATE 39
ben Nathan subordinated himself to him (Gittin, 59 a),
while in the narratives under examination, the respect
shown the Exilarchs by the Geonim is dwelt upon in
unmistakable words.
However, Halevy adduces reasons for his opinion, that
the prerogatives of Sura do not apply to the Geonic time.
And astonishing reasons they are ! From the letter of
Sherira we know that two scholars of Pumbedita, Rabbi
Samuel and Rabbi Jehudai, occupied the Gaonate of Sura 1 .
The reverse situation is not mentioned as a fact. But, as
Dr. Elbogen justly says, " Lack of knowledge on our part
is not a counter-argument " (Die neueste Construction der
judischen Geschickte, 33). Sherira, belonging to Pumbedita,
was particularly proud of the distinction that fell to the lot
of two members of his own Academy, and records it with
great satisfaction. On the other hand, he had absolutely no
occasion to report the appointment of scholars from Sura
at Pumbedita. Quite apart from this consideration, the
installation of scholars from Pumbedita at Sura has nothing
to do with the question before us. On the contrary, from
the fact that the greatest scholars of Pumbedita were
invited to Sura, we might justly infer that Sura excelled
the other Academy in importance and dignity, and there-
fore those of Pumbedita regarded their appointment as a
distinction. The right of veto in connexion with the
appointment of a new Gaon in Pumbedita, which the
sources mention as a privilege of the Sura Gaonate, does
not affect the question as to whether, in the course of
centuries, two or three scholars hailing from Pumbedita
were installed in office at Sura.
For the rest, it can be demonstrated from Sherira's
Letter itself that scholars of Sura occupied the Gaonate
of Pumbedita. An extraordinary circumstance, to which
no attention has been paid hitherto, is that Sherira notes
1 Halevy might have added Rabbi Samuel ben Hofni, for he was
a grandson of the Pumbeditan Gaon Kohen-Zedek, and assuredly belonged
to the Academy of Pumbedita.
40 THE GEONIM
the provenance of only three of the Geonim of Pumbedita 1 .
They are Rabbi Natronai, of Bagdad, Rabbi Isaiah of
WBKOT, a suburb of Bagdad, and the successor of the latter,
Rabbi Joseph of vb or vhv. It is, of course, inconceivable
that the rest of the Geonim of Pumbedita, as many as
three dozen, should all have hailed from Pumbedita itself;
or that Rabbi Sherira should be ignorant of their pro-
venance. Rabbi Hai, for instance, reports that the Gaon
of Pumbedita, Rabbi Hai ben David, had been active,
before his accession to office, as judge in Bagdad 2 , and
what the son knew the father could surely not have been
ignorant of, and yet Rabbi Sherira does not mention the
fact that Rabbi Hai ben David's home was in Bagdad.
This striking peculiarity can be explained only upon the
assumption that Rabbi Sherira adopted the system of
mentioning the provenance of the Geonim of Pumbedita
only when they were members, not of the Academy of
Pumbedita itself, but of Sura an assumption that rises
to the degree of certainty when we remember that Bagdad
and Sura are close to each other 3 . The addition of the
words " of Bagdad " to the name of a Gaon, is tantamount
to calling him a member of the Academy of Sura. It turns
out, too, that not only Rabbi Natronai, of Bagdad, and
Rabbi Isaiah, of nxta 4 , are to be reckoned among the
1 Of course, 1 do not take into consideration the Geonim who were
in active life before or about 689. Rabbi Sherira himself was not always
prepared to give unexceptionable information regarding this early Geonic
time, and therefore he would take good care to add any detail he might
happen to know. The characterisation of the Gaon Rabbi Manasseh ben
Joseph as ro'py '3 ':n p Nin rwaiai is unintelligible ; probably the passage
is corrupt.
2 Ibn Gajat, ir'c, I, 63.
3 The distance between these two places can be determined with a fair
degree of accuracy. Al-Kasr, a suburb of Bagdad, the original home of
the Exilarch David ben Zakkai, was six miles from Sura, according
to other readings seven, and even ten miles, the variations being based
upon the resemblance of the letters 1*1"' to one another. ' Comp. Prof.
Nflldeke in J. Q. B., XVII, 760, note 3.
* Wallerstein's text even has nuab NJifOT N'cnm xnc mn
THE GAONATE 4!
scholars of Sura, but even Rabbi Joseph, of *&{?, which,
as we learn from Talmudic references, is situated close
to Sura l .
As for the supposition ventured above, that the suc-
cessor of Kabbi Natronai was his brother Rabbi Abraham
Kahana, the proof can be adduced, that he is the sole and
only Gaon of Pumbedita, in the period after 689, whose
name is not linked with his father's. The natural ex-
planation is that, being the successor to his brother, the
father's name appeared in connexion with his predecessor's,
and hence there was no need to repeat it. We should,
therefore, be justified in putting Rabbi Abraham Kahana
among the members of Sura who occupied the Gaonate
of Pumbedita. For my part, I should he inclined to
classify Rabbi Paltoi in the same way, for the reason that
he refers (Miiller, p. 88) to a custom in ^33 hv mn rvo, the
venerable old synagogue which Rab had founded in Sura,
and the scholars hailing from Sura were the only ones
who made reference to this institution 2 .
1 Berliner, Beitrdge zur Geographic und Ethnographic Babyloniens, 33, note I,
is of the opinion that ^u? must be looked for in the vicinity of Sura
or Pumbedita. But Baba Batra, 1723, shows, as the Tosafists noticed,
that it was in the neighbourhood of Rabbi Huna's place of residence, that
is, Sura. In other passages, too, it occurs only in connexion with Rabbi
Huna's presence in Sura. Comp. Bezah, 25 b ; Baba Mezia, 63 b, does not
indicate, as Rashi thinks, that Rabbah and Rabbi Joseph lived close
to >! 5. Their dwelling-place was Pumbedita, which may have been
a day's journey from 'To. The real meaning of the passage is that great
traffic in wheat was carried on there, therefore it was denominated
a wheat centre. If Rabbi Sherira, 30, 12, speaks of Rabbi Nahman's
having been in nnm T\bc, he means that after the destruction of
Nehardea he first repaired to Ttte, and then betook himself to Maho/a
in the vicinity of Pumbedita. Keeping in mind the well-known tendency
of the Babylonians to eliminate the letters n and n, the spelling '"HC for
Tibc need not astonish us ; comp. Funk, Juden in Babylonien, 155, 160.
2 Rapoport, in p'ro -py, 142, has the proper explanation of the ex-
pression so frequently used by the Geonim, boaaw irm rva, or briefly
i:'m rva, an explanation that I had myself hit upon independently of
Rapoport, and communicated to Professor Alexander Marx, who indorses
it in his Untersuchungen, &c., n. It was only later, while engaged in
the present investigation, that I discovered it in the j'to "py, to
42 THE GEONIM
If it is at all proper to constitute the appointment of
members of one Academy to the Gaonate of the other as
which I here give credit for it. Rapoport points out that the academy
and synagogue of Rab were so called in the Talmud, Megillah, 293.
Halevy (p. 105) has managed to misunderstand Rapoport's words
entirely. He had no idea of asserting that in the Geonic time taiatzj i*a
meant the Sura Academy, seeing that it occurs almost always in con-
nexion with the rrmu vro. What Rapoport did say is, that in Talmudic
times the expression was applied to the academy and the synagogue
of Rab, but later only to Rab's synagogue. The change has a good
reason. To replace the academy erected by Rab, his disciple Rabbi
Hisda (Rabbi Sherira, Letter, 30, 16) built a new and apparently a larger
structure somewhere near it. With the disuse of the old building for
academic purposes, the old name ivn n'a ceased to be employed for the
Sura Academy. On the other hand, the building erected by Rab was
used as a synagogue (Baba Batra, sb) until the time of Rab Ashi
(according to some, Mar bar Ashi ; comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc.), and the
name taoatj irn iva was retained for it, even after Rab Ashi rebuilt it.
It is this synagogue that continued to be called "main irn rva down
to and in the time of the Geonim. The fact that it had been remodelled
by Rab Ashi justifies Nahmanides (quoted by v>"tr\, end of Rosh ha-Shanah)
in saying of the Geonim that " they prayed in his [Rab Ashi's] synagogue."
Halevy (II, 594) maintains that the yi '31 Nrrana rebuilt by Rab Ashi was
not the synagogue of Rab in Sura, but a place of worship frequented
by the scholars of N'cno MHO. But though he is right in taking Sura
and N'DITO sna to be two separate places, as was proved long before him
by Hirschensohn, moan MTD, s.v., and by Berliner, Beitrage, &c., 45, yet
there is no doubt that each of the two names was sometimes applied
indiscriminately to both places together. The epithet im applied to
Rab in the Geonic time occurs in the Genizah fragment published in
the J. Q. R., XVIII, 403, in Harkavy (253), and in the MS. of Ibn Hofni's
"Introduction." Halevy's conjecture, that -urn rm was the Exilarch's
synagogue at Bagdad, fails to recommend itself for various reasons. It is
true the Exilarchs had their private synagogue ; comp. the report in Ibn
Yerga, 42. But in the first place, the Exilarchs are never called irn,
and in the second place, the synagogue in Bagdad, in which the
Geonim worshipped and preached on the vhjm rac, had a name of
its own, nbtc: ~u 'aT unurna, as Rabbi Sherira tells us explicitly, 38, 6.
If it is argued that Rabbi Sherira is here speaking of a single definite
time when the Geonim worshipped in this synagogue, then the proper
inference from the passage is that the Exilarchs had no synagogue set
apart as theirs, else it would have to be explained why they did not
worship in it on this occasion. Rapoport calls attention to the fact that
the Sura Geonim are the only ones who speak of the synagogue "mas? '~\ %
and I shall attempt to give an approximately complete enumeration of
THE GAONATE 43
a standard of superiority, we now have further evidence
in favour of the pre-eminence of Sura in the five names
of scholars of Sura who acted as Geonim in Pumbedita,
as against the two from Pumbedita who officiated similarly
in Sura, aside from the fact that the appointment of the
the passages in which it is mentioned : '"fi , go, Rabbi Natronai = n*c, 55 ;
j*n, 125, Rabbi Zemah, this being Rabbi Zemah ben Hayyiin of Sura,
not Rabbi Zemah ben Paltoi of Pumbedita, for he quotes the Sura
Geonim Rabbi Jacob and Rabbi Hanina. The same Rabbi Zemah is
the author of the Responsum in E*n, 187, where a certain usage of i*a
aa'tD is referred to. By many Poskim it is ascribed to Rabbi Zemah
ben Paltoi. However, it can be proved that it is the Suran Rabbi
Zemah. While the Suran Geonim Rabbi Natronai and Rabbi Amram
agree with Rabbi Zemah, Rabbi Hai (Ibn Gajat, j*c, II, 109, and
others) states that he had never seen, in any synagogue, the custom
described by Rabbi Zemah. The difference of opinion can be explained
only by the fact that the custom of Pumbedita varied from that in Sura
in this as in so many other respects. To continue our enumeration :
n*?, 220, Rabbi Natronai, who shares with the Sura Gaon Sar Shalom
the peculiarity of using the expression oftener than others, comp.
Albargeloni, CTiyn 'D, 172, 173, 174, 249, 281, 289; 'Aruk, s.v. -u; brViir,
50 = J?*TC, 25 a, according to the readings of MSS. S and O ; also bn'ac, 49,
where the Responsum quoted is by Rabbi Natronai ; see below, p. 192.
The passages listed by Marx, Untersuchungen, &c., from the Seder Rob
Amram probably go back to these two Geonim also. The Responsum
given in 6. S., p. 91, where aa'tt -Ta occurs, in all probability owns Sar
Shalom as author, the next Responsum but one being attributed to him
elsewhere, as I remark in G. S., p. 90. The Responsum on p. 119, which
mentions 1*3, is surely by Rabbi Natronai. In OI'DJ, 122, the text should
probably read, not jm ba? nvo'33 vuai, but with Albargeloni, I.e., 281,
irn to ncian rvaai. In n*c, 287, near the end, the text is altogether
corrupt : the words rrop wrn: -pi "mate wn ION om are unintelligible.
Perhaps what we have here is an extract from a Responsum by a
European or African disciple of Rabbi Hai, who calls his teacher iran
baaatc. The words in CTID, 46 b, bottom, are also to be traced back to
the Responsum by Rabbi Zemah ben Hayyiin just mentioned, in which
the use of baaaw Va is spoken of. The decision cited in bn'ac, 156
(= M'2n, 83), in the name of Rashi is found in DTIE, 47 b, end, and
in D*n, 187, whence also the aa*TD Va in "?n*3C and <:n, Rabbi Natronai
being the author. This array of material should suffice to convince
the inquirer that i:'n rva must have been a synagogue in Sura, and that
in turn should suffice to identify it with the iraT rva of the Talmud, the
synagogue of Rab. Comp. Marx, Untersuchungen, &c., 10-12.
44 THE GEONIM
scholars of Pumbedita to Sura may probably be ascribed
to the autocratical interference of an Exilarch l .
In his eagerness to carry through consistently his theory
of the pre-eminence of Pumbedita as compared with Sura,
Halevy actually turns a scientific somersault. Only by
violent means could he arrive at the desired result of
reversing the true relation between the two Academies.
He maintained, for instance (p. 159), that the precedence
accorded the Gaon of Sura at the " reception Sabbath "
of the Exilarch, of which the sources tell us, is due to
the circumstance that the seat of the Exilarch was near
Sura, and it was natural that first place should be ceded
the Gaon of Sura in his own judicature. But unluckily
Halevy himself quotes a passage (p. 154) from Sherira in
which the fact is stated that the address at one of the
receptions of the Exilarch in Bagdad TO"i rtan was de-
livered by the Gaon of Pumbedita, and if the heads of the
Sura Academy could lay claim to precedence anywhere,
it was surely in Bagdad, which, as Halevy himself remarks,
is situated in the immediate neighbourhood of Sura.
In point of fact, the passage in Sherira from which
Halevy draws support for his theory is indisputable
evidence in favour of the superiority of Sura. Sherira
maintains (33, 13) that the regulation, originating in the
time of Rab Ashi, according to which the Exilarch held
his reception at Sura, whither the Gaon of Pumbedita had
to betake himself, was abolished during the Exilarchate
of David ben Judah. The reason was, as Graetz correctly
remarks, that the Mohammedan government no longer put
its powerful assistance at the disposal of the Exilarchate.
From this time on, therefore, if the Exilarchs desired to
keep in touch with the Academy of Pumbedita, they had
no choice but to betake themselves in person to Pumbedita
and arrange for reception ceremonies there.
But this statement is contradicted by two other pas-
sages, one in Nathan ha-Babli's account, and one in
1 Comp. the words of Rabbi Sherira. 36, bottom, and 37, 5.
THE GAONATE 45
Sherira's Letter itself. Nathan ha-Babli says that so late
as his own time the two Geonim waited upon the Exilarch
at his reception, which took place in the residence of the
Exilarch, a suburb of Bagdad. Sherira, again, mentions
the fact (38, 6), that Eabbi Abraham and Rabbi Joseph,
Geonim of Pumbedita, went to Bagdad to wait upon the
Exilarch.
These contradictions can be harmonised. The preroga-
tive enjoyed by the Exilarch, of summoning the Geonim
of Pumbedita to Sura for the reception, was at the same
time a prerogative of the Sura Academy. Thus the
interests of the Exilarchate, in aiming to abrogate the
institution, coincided with those of the Pumbedita Gaonate.
As the first step towards their end the Exilarchs trans-
ferred their reception to Bagdad, their residence. The
Geonim of Pumbedita were only too well pleased with
the change, and hastened to pay their respects to the
Exilarch at Bagdad. The Geonim of Sura, on the other
hand, hung back for a while, appealing to their time-
honoured right, which required the presence of the
Exilarch at Sura.
This throws light upon Sherira's passage mentioning
the address delivered by the Gaon of Pumbedita on the
occasion of the Exilarch' s gala day. The chiefs of the
Sura Academy simply absented themselves, and the privi-
lege of delivering the address naturally devolved upon
the Gaon present, the Gaon of Pumbedita. In the course
of time, in the measure in which the Academy at
Pumbedita gained in strength, and at the same time the
Exilarchate declined, the Geonim of Pumbedita also be-
came derelict, and did not appear to attest their allegiance
to the Exilarchs. Interested in describing only the begin-
ning and the end of the development of the relations
between the Gaonate and the Exilarchate, Sherira had no
intention of speaking about anything except the old
institution of the Exilarch's reception at Sura and the
late custom prevailing in his youth, when the Exilarchs
46 THE GEONIM
came to Pumbedita. These questions of etiquette naturally
were determined by the relation of the Exilarch to the
Geonim at a given time, and a still more important
consideration by the influence which the Exilarch could
bring to bear upon the government. Some years after
the reception of the Exilarch is known to have taken
place at Bagdad, we find again a reference to an Exilarch
who restores the old prerogative to Sura 1 . It may, of
course, not be overlooked that at that moment the Gaon
of Sura was Sar Shalom, a son-in-law of the Exilarch,
whose predilection for Sura thus appears most natural 2 .
In his reference to the homage done the Exilarchs by the
Geonim, Nathan ha-Babli probably had conditions in mind
as they existed at the time of the Exilarch David ben
Judah, who, to judge from our data about him, was a man
likely to exact as a right the consideration due to the
Exilarchs, if need be by resort to the help of the state.
Under him, doubtless, the Geonim found it expedient to pay
their respects to the Exilarch, if not annually, at least
now and then, for the sake of peace.
THE TITLE GAON ORIGINALLY THE PBEROGATIVE OP
SURA.
It appears, then, that Sherira, so far from maintaining
that Pumbedita had precedence over Sura, can be cited
as a witness for the correctness of Nathan ha-Babli's state-
ment of the reverse. All that is necessary is to read the
text critically.
The assertion made by Nathan, that the title Gaon
originally appertained to the chief of the Sura Academy
alone, is corroborated strikingly by the following Re-
sponsum, unique in its way, sent by the Sura chief to
1 j"n, 4 ; the author is Sar Shalom ; comp. Tur, Orah Hayyim, 566, and
MS. Sulzberger of the Seder Rob Amram in Marx, Untersuchungen, &c., 16.
a Comp. Rabbi Hai's Responsum in the appendix to Rabbi Sherira's
Letter, ed. Mayence, p. 63. The Responsum was known to the author
of the Tur, as appears from Tur, Hoshen Mishpat, 7.
THE GAONATE 47
the Pumbedita chief. The mere fact that the Gaon of
Sura transmits a decision to the Gaon of Pumbedita, suffices
to demonstrate the superiority of the former as compared
with the latter. Every remnant of doubt must be banished
by the official superscription. The Responsum in question
has been preserved in DTia (28 a), in the MS. of the n^atn l
and in JJIir "I1K (I, ii4b). It contains the decision of the
Sura Gaon, Rabbi Jacob ben Mordecai (801-815), addressed
to the Academy of Pumbedita, presided over by Rabbi
Joseph ben Shila, with the attestation to the signature
of the Gaon on the part of the Sura scholars in these
words 2 : Trial n^ono xncn Nrawi *nan wonpf) pawn toro
nta> warn JMIOT ma tmaviD e>n sjw an nn jun <a!> NSH
" This document [of Rabbi Jacob] was seen by us, the
scholars of the Academy at Mehassia, and it is intended for
the court of justice of the chief of the Academy, Rabbi
Joseph ben Rabbi Shila." This official superscription
confirms the statement made by Nathan, that the Gaon
of Sura did not address the head of the Academy at
Pumbedita, but the Academy itself, and when he men-
tioned the head of the Academy, he did not call him
Gaon 3 .
Accordingly, it is highly probable that Rabbi Samuel
Resh Kalla, whose pupil, Rabbi Aha, was the author of the
Sheeltot, is none other than the Rabbi Samuel, the chief
of the Academy at Pumbedita, whose successor Rabbi Aha
would have become if the Exilarch had not hindered it.
Sherira was in the habit of conferring the title Gaon by
1 Comp. the extract from the n*'ito in iron, supplem. to the Heb.
periodical -men, II, no. n, p. 18. I am indebted to Dr. A. Marx for
this reference.
2 The text given is based upon a combination of the three sources
mentioned in the text, all of which contain many errors.
8 The question was doubtless addressed by the head of the Academy of
Pumbedita, Rabbi Joseph ben Shila, to the head of the Academy at Sura.
Mere courtesy, then, required that the reply should at least recognise
the existence of the questioner by mentioning his name. The case in
Harkavy, 276-7, does not come in the same class.
4o THE GEONIM
courtesy not only upon the chiefs of the Pumbedita
Academy, but also upon Amoraim 1 who were at the head
of schools. He applies the same title to Rabbi Samuel,
though his disciple Rabbi Aha and other sources properly
call him Resh Kalla, the title originally belonging to the
heads of the Pumbedita Academy. That he actually was
at the head of the Academy at Pumbedita appears par-
ticularly from the passage in p'V, lyb, 7, reporting a case
in law which had been submitted during several Kallas
to Rabbi Samuel, who never gave a decisive answer. But
if the case was so important that the questioners urged
a decision, why was not the opinion of the Gaon solicited 1
To say that the difficulty was brought before Rabbi Samuel
during the Gaonate of Rabbi Natronai ben Nehemiah,
with whom the scholars of Pumbedita had a feud, and
whom they therefore ignored, is an evasion dictated by
embarrassment. In the first place, one would expect the
question to be put to the Gaon of Sura in such an emer-
gency, and secondly, knowing as we do from Sherira,
that the scholars of Pumbedita took refuge at Sura during
the Gaonate of Rabbi Natronai, it would be very sur-
prising if the Resh Kalla, instead of joining them, stayed
behind in Pumbedita.
A further verification of the fact that this Samuel Resh
Kalla was the actual head of the Pumbedita Academy is
found in the report in H*n, 84 a, which tells that a certain
case was decided by Rabbi Jehudai, the head of the Sura
Academy, in common with Rabbi Samuel. The case, which
deals with the validity of a marriage between Samaritans
and Jews, being very important, the opinion of both
Academies was desired. There is one difficulty to be over-
come, for, according to Sherira, Rabbi Jehudai attained
to the Gaonate some few years after the death of Rabbi
Samuel. But Rapoport (note 24 on }n3 '~\ 'Tin) points out
that the dates in this passage of Sherira' s Letter require
1 The Midrash Temurah even has the superscription xypy 'an cVc? '3iw
THE GAONATE 49
such correction as would bring the beginning of Rabbi
Jehudai's Gaonate earlier. It is interesting to note the
modification which this passage, as cited in 1X1 TTD^n, 83,
has suffered. The names of the authorities are reversed
as compared with the order in J"n, and it is the correct
order, for Rabbi Samuel doubtless was older than Rabbi
Jehudai, who attained to office only shortly before the
death of Rabbi Samuel.
As for the identity of Rabbi Samuel, the head of the
Academy at Pumbedita, with the Rabbi Samuel who was
the teacher of Rabbi Aha, it can be demonstrated from
data in Sherira's Letter. The first is there called bxiB> 2"i
-in m no "Q (35, 2, below). The last word eluded
every attempt at explanation, and there was nothing to
do but cross it off. Now, we know from statements made
by the author of the Sheeltot, that his teacher, Rabbi
Samuel, came from the neighbourhood of Sura, from a
place situated on the river po (see Briill, Jahrbucher,
II, 149 a reference not regarded by Berliner, Beitrdge
zur Geographic und Ethnographie Babyloniens, 3, s. v.).
Accordingly, npw calls neither for elision nor emendation.
It simply means that Rabbi Samuel came from Diakara,
a town close to Bagdad and Sura. As Rapoport has
shown in his )^O Tiy, 33, it is called NTpn TPK in the
Talmud, and by the classic writers Diakara, which cor-
responds exactly to Rabbi Sherira's contracted form
np'N*r. Thus we have not only succeeded in finding the
teacher of Rabbi Aha in Sherira's Letter, but at the same
time we learn from it that he was a scholar of Sura, one
of those presiding over the Academy at Pumbedita. As
was proved above, Sherira is in the habit of recording the
Suran origin of Geonirn of Pumbedita. Moreover, it is
very probable that Rabbi Huna Alluf or Resh Kalla, for
the two titles are identical with each other (comp. G. S.,
p. 242) who is mentioned in :Tn, 8 b, is the Rab Huna
designated by Sherira as the chief of the Pumbedita
Academy at the beginning of the seventh century. The
50 THE GEONIM
passage in a"n, 34 a, should be corrected according to 2"n
ed. Hildesheimer, 170, to read Win 31 "iT. It refers to the
chief of the Pumbedita Academy, whom the author of J"n
properly calls Alluf or Resh Kalla, but never Gaon.
It appears that the head of the Pumbedita Academy,
Rabbi Judah, who was in office soon after this Rabbi
Samuel, is identical with the Rabbi Judah who is men-
tioned in j"n, aid (ed. Hildesheimer, 131), and who, though
president of the Pumbedita Academy in this early Geonic
period, bears, not the title Gaon, but the title Resh
Kalla, or its equivalent Alluf. The addition of llpa irum
to his name does not mean that he was Resh Kalla in
lips 'J, but that he hailed from that town, and was active
in Pumbedita. As the scholars of "Ppa 'J at the time of
the Geonim belonged to the Sura Academy four Geonim
Sura came thence Rabbi Judah is found to be another
of the Surans appointed to the presidency of Pumbedita.
Harkavy, however (Samuel ben Hofni, note 124), goes
astray in holding Rabbi Haninai, N33T wn, mentioned in
"w, 3 a, 17, to be identical with the Gaon Rabbi Haninai,
who does not bear the title, because at the time of Bostanai,
with whom Rabbi Haninai was contemporary, the title
did not yet exist. The passage cited refers to a dispute
among the descendants of the Exi larch. It was altogether
proper that such a case should go before "the chief judge,"
N331 'i, of the Exilarch (comp. G. $., p. 318, note a, and
above, p. la), and not before the Geonim.
Interesting as these scattered indications are, yet we
have no need of them in order to establish the supremacy
of Sura. The whole of Geonic literature bears irrefutable
testimony to it. Up to the second third of the ninth
century, the Responsa literature contains not a single
Responsum by a Gaon of Pumbedita 1 , while the activity
1 Graetz, V 3 , 400, ascribes the Eesponsum in y*TB, 24 b, 10, to Rabbi
Natronai ben Nehemiah, the Gaon of Pumbedita. His hypothesis that
moi is simply a slip for M'-im is doubtless correct, and corroborated
by the MS. reading, but the inference is by no means inevitable that
THE GAONATE 51
of the Geonim of Sura began as early as the eighth century.
The first Gaon of Pumbedita from whose hand we possess
Responsa in numbers is Rabbi Paltoi, and the first three
years of his Gaonate coincide with an interregnum in the
Sura Gaonate 1 . But even the Responsa originating in
Pumbedita after the time of Paltoi cannot compare with
the output of Sura, either in point of quantity or quality.
The Responsa bearing the names of Kohen-Zedek, Sar
Shalom, Natronai, Amram, Nahshon, Zemah, Hilai, Saadia
all Geonim of Sura practically form the Geonic Responsa
literature until Rabbi Sherira and Rabbi Hai appear upon
the scene. When the extinction of the Gaonate was immi-
nent, the Geonim of Pumbedita stepped into the foreground
by reason of the dissolution of the Academy at Sura. The
assertion that the communities of Africa addressed their
questions to the Geonim of Pumbedita, and those of Spain
theirs to the Geonim of Sura, is incorrect in both its parts.
Natronai, Zemah, Saadia, and even Samuel 2 , the last Gaon
the Responsum was written at the time of the false Messiah ':nc, as
little as Emden's zeal against Sabbatians argues his contemporaneity
with Sabbatai Zebi. The authorship of Rabbi Natronai ben Hilai is
confirmed by the fact that Responsum 9 in y*r, 243, is by the same*
Gaon as no. 10, and in the former a plain reference is made to the
Karaites. Accordingly, Natronai ben Nehemiah, who lived long before
Anan, cannot be the author. Notice also the linguistic peculiarity that
the Responsum is introduced with the expression Vura, a habit of the
Sura Gaon Rabbi Natronai ben Hilai. Comp. oVo:, 32; y*c, 21 b, 22;
and y"ic, 15 a, bis, which belong to Rabbi Natronai ben Hilai beyond the
peradventure of a doubt.
1 Comp. Pardes, aid, where Rabbi Paltoi is described as rvnve' VTO *ro VIT:.
" On Natronai and the scholars of Kairwan, comp. above, p. 32,
note 7. Of Rabbi Zemah ben Hayyim we have not alone his correspon -
dence with the scholars of Kairwan relative to Eldad, but also his
Halakic Responsum addressed to the same in DTID, 21 a. The corre-
spondence of Rabbi Saadia with the scholars of Kairwan is to be found
in y"ir, i8b-iga, referred to above, p. 32. Even Rabbi Dosa, the son
of Rabbi Saadia, corresponded with the scholars of Kairwan ; comp.
noto rftnp, 72. The correspondence of Rabbi Samuel ben Hofni with
the scholars of Kairwan is published in the J. Q. R., XVIII, 402. The
scholars of nro with whom R. Nahshon used to correspond (Pardes, 26 d)
are probably the scholars of Kairwan.
E 2
52 THE GEONIM
of Sura, were consulted by the African Jews, and, on the
other hand, Paltoi and his son Zemah, of Pumbedita, re-
ceived inquiries from Spain l .
The fertility of Sura, manifested in the Responsa litera-
ture, was no less noticeable in other departments. The
works of the Geonic period originated there rather than
in Pumbedita. Not counting the works of Hai, whose
literary activity falls in a time in which the Sura Academy
had gone out of existence, the only production by a Gaon
of Pumbedita preserved for us is the lexicographical work
of Rabbi Zemah ben Paltoi 2 . The authoritative works all
originated in Sura. The author of the 3"n 3 , and Rabbi
Amram and Rabbi Saadia, all occupied the Gaonate of
Sura. Rabbi Amram compiled his Seder in compliance
with a request addressed to him by Spanish communities,
and Rabbi Saadia his order of prayers in compliance with
a request addressed to him by Egyptian communities,
showing that in so important a matter as the fixing of
the liturgy, the communities of the Diaspora desired to
have the advice of the Sura Academy alone.
THE ORIGIN OF THE GAONATE UNDER THE MOHAMMEDAN
RULERS.
Returning for a brief resume of the results of our inquiry
into Nathan's account, we find that Rabbi Samuel ha-Nagid
derives his data about the Academies from Rabbi Nathan,
and a source that was considered authoritative by Samuel
surely deserves our confidence, too. Further, we have seen
that Nathan's report has nothing to do with the Amoraic
Academies ; it deals exclusively with those of the Geonic
period, and by no means can the origin of the latter, as
was demonstrated in detail, be relegated to the Talmudic
1 Comp. J. Q. R., XVIII, 401-2, 770.
2 And even this is doubtful ; comp. below, pp. 159-60.
3 Whoever may be designated as the author of the j'n, it is certain he
must have belonged to the Sura Academy. Comp. Epstein, by
a*n 'D.
THE GAONATE 53
time, seeing that the older epoch knew nothing of a well-
organized institution like the Gaonate, vested with great
power and unquestioned authority. At the same time, our in-
vestigation has completely corroborated Nathan's statement
that at first there was but one Gaon, the Gaon of the Academy
at Sura. Hence the transition from the schools of the time
of the Amoraim and Saboraim to the Academies of the
Geonic period requires an explanation that concerns itself
with more than the merely Jewish conditions prevailing in
Babylonia. It is in some way connected with the political
situation. It must be conceded that we possess no direct
historical information naming the Gaonate as an institution
of the early Califate, but no other political change took
place during the centuries following the redaction of the
Talmud capable of producing an institution of the character
of the Gaonate. The supposition made by Graetz (V 3 ,
895-6), that the Gaonate arose under Ali (657), remains
the only plausible hypothesis, the more so if one remembers
what Sherira says regarding the kind reception which Ali
accorded a great Jewish scholar, Rabbi Isaac, of Firuz-
Shabor. Graetz, however, can hardly be right when he
supposes that this Rabbi Isaac obtained special privileges
for Sura. It is, as Halevy says if Rabbi Isaac had been
inclined to be partial, his bias would have been in favour
of his alma mater at Pumbedita, to which Firuz-Shabor
belonged. It seems rather that what the spiritual leaders
of the people secured from the new rulers was the per-
mission to call into being, by the side of the Exilarchate,
a religious authority with definite powers and competence.
If this was so, it was natural that the chief of the old and
venerable Academy at Sura should be placed at the head of
the new board. In the course of time, as the Academy at
Pumbedita developed more and more, its chief in the same
measure gained in importance. But the parity of the two
Academies reached the stage of an accomplished fact only
in the time of Kohen-Zedek, when it is probable that Sura
happened to be without a Gaon.
54 THE GEONIM
This assumption as to the origin of the Gaonate explains
at the same time the frequent occasions for friction between
the Exilarchs and the Geonim of Sura until the year 689,
though they disappeared for ever after that crucial time.
It was natural that the Exilarchate should not accept so
powerful a rival as the Gaonate of Sura without manifesting
some resistance. It required almost two generations for
the Exilarchs to forget their former undivided power.
But scarcely had the reconciliation of the Exilarchs and
the Geonim of Sura taken place when the rise of the
Academy at Pumbedita gave occasion for new difficulties.
From the time of Mar Yanka (719), who had been installed
as Gaon at Pumbedita contrary to the wish of the Academy,
until the equally arbitrary appointment of Rabbi Isaac
(833)> there elapsed more than a century, during which
the Pumbeditans had much to endure at the hand of the
Exilarchs. The Gaonate of Sura was recognised by the
State, and therefore the Exilarchate was forced to respect
its rights ; while the Academy at Pumbedita possessed
no privileges reinforcing its claims, and was exposed
to wanton interference on the part of the Exilarchs.
Finally, in 830, when the Calif Maimun decreed that
ten members of a religious body sufficed for the election
of a chief for themselves, the disputes between Pumbedita
and the Exilarchate were silenced for ever. After this
ordinance was in effect, the Gaonate of Pumbedita took and
maintained its place by the side of the Gaonate of Sura
as an equal power. Thenceforth, neither the Academies
nor the Exilarchate could count upon the exclusive support
of the government ; it was a matter of chance which gained
its ear, and their differences had to be adjusted privately.
These circumstances explain the fact remarked above, that
Rabbi Paltoi (842) was the first of the Geonim of Pumbe-
dita who issued decisions to outside communities. As long
as the Gaonate of Sura was, beside the Exilarchate, the
only Jewish authority recognised by the State, foreign
Jews addressed their questions to the Geonim of Sura.
THE GAONATE 55
After the rescript of Maimun, it depended primarily upon
the learning of the Gaon in the one place or the other
whether the Academy of Sura or that at Pumbedita was
given the preference.
NATHAN HA-BABLI'S ACCOUNT OF UKBA.
We have again come round to our starting-point, and
I venture to think that a satisfactory conclusion has
been reached concerning the remarkable relation sub-
sisting between the Exilarchs and the two Academies.
Before leaving the subject, however, it would be advisable
to give close consideration to the last controversy between
the Academy of Pumbedita and the Exilarch.
Of this controversy we have two widely divergent
reports. At the end of his Letter, Sherira informs us
that a quarrel broke out between two factions after the
death of his grandfather Judah, in the year 917. One
party favoured Mebasser 1 ; the other, with the Exilarch
1 Steinschneider, Arabische Literatur, 70, believes the name to be a
translation of the Arabic Mubashshir, which is not very convincing to
me. Rather I should take it to be a '1:2 for Elijah, whose appellative
in Jewish literature is Mebasser, "Proclaimer of Good Tidings," without
further mark of identification. In the synagogue at Aleppo there is
an inscription dated 834, in honour of -ino 11 jn: 11 'to (Adler, Jews
in Many Lands, 161), probably the earliest mention of the name known.
In a letter dated 1029, also coming from Aleppo (D'TCW *i:a, III, i6a),
there occurs a imo p nD' ; likewise in a letter of the same year, written
in Egypt, a Din: 'a icao and a icio '2 rpv are mentioned (.7. Q. S., XIX,
254). In the J. Q. R., 1. c., 727, occur the following : 'V? p ITCUO, p mmn
iirio, and rfro p TDTD, all from the middle of the eleventh century.
That an appellative of Elijah's should be used as the name of a person
is not strange ; the widespread name Emanuel is an epithet of the
Messiah, as are also Zemah, the name of three of the Geonim, and in
common use down to our own day, and Sar Shalom (Isa. ix. 5), which is
known to have been borne by others besides the prominent Sura Gaon,
as, for instance, Sar Shalom ben Joseph, the signer of a contract in
Fostat in 750 (J. Q. R., XVII, 428), and the Chief Rabbi of Persia at
the time when Benjamin of Tudela visited the land. Comp. also
Harkavy, Saadia, 225, bottom. A propos of names in the Geonic time,
is the name of the Gaon wn, identical with N'Tn used by French Jews,
recorded in Gross, Gallia Judaica, 149 ?
56 THE GEONIM
David at its head, favoured Kohen-Zedek, as Gaon of
Pumbedita. Five years later a truce was concluded, the
Exilarch gave up his opposition to Kabbi Mebasser.
Nevertheless, Kohen-Zedek persisted, supported by a
number of influential men, who remained loyal to him.
Finally, after the death of Rabbi Mebasser, in 926, Kohen-
Zedek was acknowledged Gaon by all, and he occupied the
position for ten years, until his death.
At first sight the account of the occurrence given by
Nathan ha-Babli seems far different. He has this to
say: Between the Exilarch Ukba and the Gaon Kohen-
Zedek a dispute broke out on account of the revenues
derived from the community of Khorasan. Ukba appro-
priated them, though the moneys belonged to the Academy
of Pumbedita. The Sultan, urged by the most influential
of the Jews, banished the Exilarch, but he reinstated
him after a year's exile, and then banished him again,
this time irrevocably. Ukba emigrated to Africa. The
Exilarchate, having been left vacant for a period of four
or five years, the people demanded the appointment of
David ben Zakkai. Their candidate was endorsed by
Rabbi Amram ben Solomon, the Gaon of Sura. But Kohen-
Zedek could only be prevailed upon to acknowledge the
new Exilarch after a period of three years.
Now, it would be possible to reconcile the differences
between Sherira's account and Nathan's as they affect
the relation between Kohen-Zedek and the Exilarch. As
the facts are, it would not be impossible to assume that
a whilom enemy, once reconciled, is transformed into a
friend. But the difficulty lies elsewhere. The chrono-
logical contradictions between the two sources are so
numerous that Graetz's way of escape does not help the
honest inquirer. Graetz accepts Nathan's account in
respect to the facts of the case, and he places trust in
Sherira's chronological data. Halevy justly argues against
a method that is arbitrary and unscientific, and carries
with it the implication that an authority like Sherira tells
THE GAONATE 57
a confused and unreliable tale of events happening in
his own lifetime. Halevy himself, who represents Nathan
as an ignoramus living after the extinction of the Gaonate,
and patching his report together from older sources which
he failed to understand correctly, is even further removed
from the truth than Graetz.
It appears now that it is not sufficient for us to deal
with a detail. The question that takes precedence is
Nathan's credibility and trustworthiness. It therefore
behoves us to analyse Halevy's presentation of the matter.
The controversy, Halevy maintains, was not between Ukba
and Kohen-Zedek, the Gaon of Pumbedita, but between
Ukba and the Kohen-Zedek who was Gaon of Sura (845).
But Nathan, according to Halevy, knew nothing about the
older Kohen-Zedek, and he confused him with the younger
man, the Gaon of Pumbedita of the same name, and, as
he was aware that at some time a dispute had occurred
between the Academy of Pumbedita and the Exilarch
David, he constituted Kohen-Zedek the opponent of David,
although Sherira informs us that the opposite was the
case. As a consequence of the quarrel between Ukba
and the Sura Academy, of many years' duration, Amram
was appointed Gaon by the Exilarch, in opposition to the
incumbent Natronai (#53-6). The celebrated Gaon Amram
bar Shashna 1 , the author of the Seder, Halevy holds, is no
1 The great difficulty lies in this, that, according to Kabbi Sherira's
Letter, Rabbi Amram had himself proclaimed as Gaon during the lifetime
of Rabbi Natronai, while, to judge by the y"-\D, the relation between the
two must have been very cordial. Not only does Rab Amram speak
of Rabbi Natronai with great respect (comp. particularly his words in
Marx, Untersuchungen, &c., 2), but he also quotes his Responsa on every
page of his Seder. Indeed, the number of Responsa by Rabbi Natronai
in the y"^o is larger than those quoted from all the other Geonim taken
together. Halevy's hypothesis, so far from doing away with the difficulty,
rather increases it. For if Rab Amram, as Halevy maintains, was put
up as Gaon in opposition to Rabbi Natronai, during the quarrel between
the Sura Academy and the Exilarch Mar Ukba, then Rab Amram was
disloyal not only to Rabbi Natronai, but to the Academy as well ! This
forces upon me the conjecture that the passage in question in the Letter
58 THE GEONIM
other than Aim-am ben Solomon, who continued to preside
over the Academy at Sura, according to Nathan's state-
ment, even during the interval between the deposing of
Ukba and the installation of David. The latter was generally
accepted as Exilarch about 875, shortly after the death
of Ami-am, and he remained in office for more than half a
century. Furthermore, Halevy says, Nathan labours under
a misapprehension when he states that Hai ben Kiyyumi l
was the predecessor of Saadia in the Gaonate. The simple
explanation is that he had heard of a Gaon of Sura named
Hai, Hai ben Nahshon, and he confounded him with the
celebrated Hai ben Sherira, the last Gaon of Pumbedita,
and at once he was ready to make the latter Gaon of Sura,
and endowed him with a father of another name.
So far Halevy. For the present, we shall put aside the
question as to the time and trustworthiness of Nathan, and
shall confine ourselves to the consideration of Halevy's
theory.
by Rabbi Sherira is corrupt. I would propose the following reading :
rrrn rvmi njy> DTM? nb pw rbo mn pn >opi "And before this time
[before Rab Amram became Gaon], the Gaon [Rabbi NatronaiJ waived the
honour due to him from Rab Amram, and the latter therefore omitted
to pay his respects to him." It must be remembered that 'Tjjl* y'lc, " to
show respect," is used in the Talmud, as, for instance, Baba Batra, ngb,
and in j"n, 54, by Rabbi Natronai, in the sense of " yielding precedence ."
Furthermore rp:n rvn: is the reverse of rrnp ivr, which Rabbi Sherira
uses, 28, 5; 41, 4, to express the recognition given to a Gaon, in that
the members of the Academy, including even the most prominent
scholars, attended the lectures of the Gaon occasionally. Attention
should be called to the fact that in this passage IT"? ybs cannot be
translated by "he opposed him." For this Sherira would have used
rvbr 1 , as in 41, 4. There remains only to add that the words oiny Y'm
JW3 WITE: '-ft TTDH, quoted by Rabbi Aaron, of Lunel, in n"-itf, I, i8a,
from Nahmanides, are to be corrected so as to read Ten -p moy '-\ TIDTI
fiNa 'N:TRM 'i, as appears from Nahmanides, on Hullin, 24, who quotes
Rabbi Natronai's Responsum given in J>"ID, na. A MS. of the rViN in
the Sulzberger Collection of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America,
contains not only the corrupt text in the edition, but C2"on instead of
p"tn besides !
1 Perhaps nothing but another way of writing wp.-
THE GAONATE 59
In the first place, it is settled that David ben Judah was
Exilarch in 833. Sherira and other sources 1 are unanimous
on this point. After him, and before Ukba ruled, there
were two Exilarchs, Natronai and Hisdai, the son of Na-
tronai 2 . According to Halevy, the rule of these two
Exilarchs together could not have exceeded twelve years,
lor in 845, the date of the Suran Gaon Kohen-Zedek, he
says, Ukba was in the thick of a conflict with the Sura
Academy. Considered by itself, this brief period is not
a probability, but the assumption is stamped as an
impossibility by the fact that we meet with the Exilarch
Hisdai as an active participant in affairs as late as the
Gaonates of Natronai and Amram 3 . This disposes of
the possibility of a dispute between Ukba and Kohen-
Zedek of Sura.
From the premise set up by Halevy, that the quarrel
between the Exilarch and the Academy was caused by
the revenues from Khorasan, appropriated without warrant
by Ukba, it follows, he says, that the encroachments of
the Exilarch brought him into conflict with Sura, and not
with Pumbedita, as Khorasan is in the neighbourhood of
Bagdad, the judicature of Sura. An elementary atlas might
have taught Halevy that Khorasan lies only about 800
miles to the east of Bagdad!
As a matter of fact, the case is precisely the reverse
of its statement by Halevy. Originally, the sources of
1 Comp. Graetz, Geschichte, V 3 , 389.
1 Dukes in Ben Chananjah, IV, 141-2, from a MS. Responsum by Rabbi
Zemah ben Solomon, chief judge of the court of the Exilarch Hisdai.
3 Ibn <;;im;i. in Graetz, Jubelschrifl, 17, names Rabbi Nathan ben
Hananiah (comp. above, p. 32) of Kairwan as the correspondent of
Rabbi Natronai, and he is the same Rabbi Hananiah to whom was
addressed the Responsum, mentioned above, by Rabbi Zemah under the
Exilarchate of Hisdai. As the sons of Rabbi Nathan were contemporaries
of Rabbi Saadia (928) (comp. above, p. 32), he could not have nourished
before the-Gaonate of Rabbi Natronai (850), and the letter of Rabbi
Zemah must date from the period during which the Sura Gaonate was
vacant, probably between Rabbi Malka and Rabbi Hai ben Nahshon,
about 888; comp. Sherira, 39, 17.
60 THE GEONIM
revenue assigned to the Exilarchate and to the Sura
Gaonate were limited to Babylonia and the nearest Persian
provinces. The Academy at Pumbedita, which attained to
equality with Sura at a comparatively late day, had to
content itself with revenues gathered in the more remote
provinces. The only possible inference then is that Khorasan,
situated at a considerable distance, belonged to the parish
of Pumbedita.
The peculiarity of Halevy's method is again illustrated
by his opinion that Nathan confuses the Gaon Hai ben
Nahshon with the celebrated Hai ben Sherira and then
calls him Hai ben Kiyyumi. But how is it conceivable
that that ignoramus Nathan, who mixed up the Geonim
of Sura with the Geonim of Pumbedita, who had not the
slightest knowledge of the happenings in the Academies,
nor of the relation of the Academies to the Exilarchate
how is it conceivable that he should have hit upon so
obscure a name as Kiyyumi, he who was not even
acquainted with Sherira "?
In the earlier portion of this Introduction certain facts
were set forth testifying to the credibility and trustworthi-
ness of Nathan. We shall now pursue this subject further.
The introductory words of Nathan's account, " What he
himself partly saw and what he partly heard in Baby-
lonia, relative to the Exilarch Ukba," are a good recom-
mendation for the author. A gossip or a vagrant scribe
would not have used this circumspect clause. His exactitude
in the description of the vicinity of Bagdad displays itself
particularly in the Arabic version, as Dr. Friedlaender shows
in the above-mentioned article. A writer who is acquainted
with the name of a mistress of the Persian king in whose
honour a fountain had been erected centuries before, does
not impress one as likely not to know the leaders of his
nation at his own time, at least by name.
As to what Nathan's time was there can be no doubt.
In the Arabic version of his report he speaks of Natira,
" the father of Sahl and Ishak," showing that he lived after
THE GAONATE 6l
the death of Natira, but contemporaneously with the sons
of Natira. Accordingly, he had not been an eye-witness
of the dispute between Ukba and the Academies, in which
Natira was the chief figure, or he was too young at the
time to carry personal recollections of it away with him.
On the other hand, not only was he an eye-witness of the
quarrel of Saadia with the Exilarch David, he was actually
present when David entered upon his office in 920. Nathan's
minute description of the ceremonies at the installation of
an Exilarch he goes so far as to give in detail the exact
height and width of the throne used by the Exilarch on the
occasion admit of no doubt as to his having been present
and seen such a celebration, and it could have been only
at the induction of David into office, as Nathan expressly
calls him the last of the Exilarchs. This offers us, not only
a terminus a quo, but also a terminus ad quem. A Genizah
fragment, published by Dr. Cowley in the J. Q. R., XVIII,
402, gives the information that the Exilarchate, vacant
since the death of David, was filled again in 953. Nathan
therefore must have written his account before 953. As,
on the other hand, he mentions Aaron Sargado as Gaon
of Pumbedita 1 , who entered upon office in 943, Nathan's
account must have been composed between 943 and 953.
1 Halevy, 276, doubts the identification between nnc 'a ibs mentioned
by Nathan and Rabbi Aaron ben Joseph, Gaon of Pumbedita, though
all of seven years before the publication of Halevy's book, Harkavy had
published, in D': < TO*O I > jvoi, V, the polemics of Rabbi Aaron against
Rabbi Saadia, whence the identity of the two appears unmistakably !
The name Fjta = 3^3 (comp. J. Q. B., XI, 127) occurs in so early a document
as one dated 750, J. Q. R., XVII, 428. From the fact that Rabbi Nathan
knew no Exilarch after David ben Zakkai, it follows that his account
actually ends with the passage on Sargado. By homoeoteleuton the
passage on the Gaonate of Rabbi Hananiah dropped out at the end
of the report. The reading should be : mvr '-\ p rv:3n VVTN -|boi ICEJI
.... j'jQ'i "raD3i nsnoi c':c 'n . The various texts of Rabbi Sherira's
Letter also show signs that passages have been dropped from it in this
way. Frequently the names of the Geonim and the length of their
official term are missing, due to the fact that the sentences between
two mrai were overlooked by the copyist ; comp., for instance, ed.
62 THE GEONIM
The question as to who deserves more confidence, Sherira
or Nathan, may therefore not be decided, as Graetz does,
in favour of the latter, on the ground of his having been
closer in time to the occurrences described, for, as now
appears, they were contemporaries. One must agree with
Halevy, who insists that a Gaon, son and grandson of
Geonim to boot, must invite greater confidence than an
unknown writer. But if the two accounts are read with
a critical eye it will appear that they mutually complement,
and in no wise contradict each other.
THE LAST CONFLICT BETWEEN THE EXILARCHATE AND
THE POMBEDITA GAONATE.
The controversy between Kohen-Zedek and Ukba broke
out, according to the Arabic version l of Nathan's account,
in the fourth year of Kohen-Zedek's Gaonate. If we /
remember that even according to Sherira he was appointed^
as Gaon by/the Exilarch in the year 918, then the year
922 would have to be designated as the beginning of the
dispute. A point to be noted is this, that Sherira makes
Kohen-Zedek to be put into office by the Exilarch David,
while, according to Nathan, Ukba was Exilarch at the
time. However, the Sherira text is very doubtful in this
portion. Most of the editions mention David's name
three times in connexion with the Gaonate of Kohen-
Zedek, but Wallerstein has it only once 2 . Moreover, this
Wallerstein, 20-1. Therefore, the omission of Rabbi Hananiah's Gaonate
in Nathan's narrative proves nothing derogatory to the authenticity
of the narrator, as Halevy holds (275-6), but only to the correctness of
our text. In Harkavy, 215, Rabbenu Hai is described as the son of
Rabbi Hananiah, which, naturally, is due to homoeoteleuton. The words
between irsiiN and i:'3iiN dropped out. If Rabbi Sherira's text regarding
the length of Rabbi Zemah ben Kafnoi's term of office is correct, then
we should read Dnrin n*i n:o in Nathan.
1 The Hebrew version has the fortieth year, which is absolutely out of
the question.
2 I am indebted to Dr. Alexander Marx for the information that the
Vienna MS. of Rabbi Sherira's Letter agrees with Wallerstein.
THE GAONATE 63
passage in Sherira's Letter offers a great difficulty in the
nature of the facts set down. The Academy, it says,
appointed Rabbi Mebasser the successor to Rabbi Judah,
while Kohen-Zedek was the choice of the Exilarch, and
the conflict between the Academy and the Exilarch lasted
five years (923). Finally, the Exilarch recognised the
Gaon chosen by the Academy. But Sherira goes on and
says that Kohen-Zedek, with his adherents, persisted in
their schism until the death of Rabbi Mebasser, in the
year 926.
One would search vainly for a similar occurrence during
the whole course of the Geonic time an individual op-
posing the choice of both the Academy and the Exilarch.
If Kohen-Zedek, as Sherira is supposed to say, was put up
by the Exilarch as Gaon against the will of the Academy,
then it would seem inevitable that the victory of the
Academy over the Exilarch, when he finally confirmed the
choice of the Academy, would cut the ground from under
the feet of Kohen-Zedek. How account for the continued
opposition by Kohen-Zedek ?
In several other respects the occurrence is unique. It
is the only case in which the Academy emerged triumphant
from a contest with the Exilarch about an appointment to
the Gaonate. In all other cases the Exilarch maintained
the upper hand. And yet it cannot be said from what
we know about him that David was a weakling. A man
who was able to hold his own in opposition to Saadia
and all the prominent men connected with Saadia who
had influence at the court of the Calif, should meekly
declare himself overcome by Rabbi Mebasser!
It now behoves us to view Sherira's statements in the
light afforded by the facts reported by Nathan. From
an incidental remark of Nathan's we learn that Kohen-
Zedek was related to Ukba, and we even learn that this
relationship was the reason why he opposed the appoint-
ment of David later on as Exilarch. This supplies the
motive for a quarrel between Ukba and the Pumbedita
04 THE GEONIM
Academy he urged the appointment of a relative, Kohen-
Zedek, while the Academy installed as its chief Rabbi
Mebasser, whose father had occupied the Gaonate. Then
Ukba sought to make the most of the schism in the
Academy, and seized upon the revenues from Khorasan,
in the hope that there was no need to apprehend obstacles
on the part of " his " Gaon. But it turned out to be a case
of reckoning without one's host. Kohen-Zedek was too
conscientious and honest to sanction such high-handed
measures. Some Jews of influence at the court of the
Calif managed to cause the banishment of Ukba, and the
Exilarchate remained vacant some years. But blood is
thicker than water, and with Kohen-Zedek the feelings
of kinship were further stimulated by the recollection
of the fact that he owed his position as Gaon to this
relative of his who was deprived of his office. Therefore,
he could not make up his mind to acknowledge David
as Exilarch. He, and along with him probably a large
number of distinguished men, hoped it would prove
possible to induce the Calif to revoke the edict of
banishment issued against Ukba. But David had no
sooner been installed as Exilarch by one part of Jewry
than he hastened to conclude peace with the Academy
at Pumbedita and acknowledge the Gaon Rabbi Mebasser
chosen by it.
This explains what Sherira says, that the reconciliation
between the Academy and/the Exilarch took place in 923.
David lost no time in making amends to the best of his
powers for the unwarranted interferences of his predecessor.
But the peace thus concluded exerted no influence upon
Kohen-Zedek and his followers. They refused to recognise
David as Exilarch, and persisted in their opposition to him
and Mebasser. According to Nathan, this opposition of
Kohen-Zedek ceased only three years later, in 926. But
from Sherira we learn that this was the year of Rabbi
Mebasser's death, when all parties acknowledged Kohen-
Zedek as Gaon.
THE GAONATE 65
Here Sherira furnishes us with the motive for the
reconciliation between Kohen-Zedek and David, of which
Nathan gives us no hint, and which he seeks in a miracle
in the real sense of the word 1 . But it is unnecessarv
tf
to impose a tax upon our credulity. Kohen-Zedek no
longer had any reason for opposing David. His position
as Gaon was now assured. And to bring about complete
unanimity between Sherira and Nathan we have but to
cross oif the little word nn in Sherira's Letter, 40, 18.
The text then reads : TwaK xraTiDn pirn snata mm
. . . pnx fro m nc& nvnp jwai . . . pw n^ao an no!> ninpi
m no oy K*BO nn KB^B> vnjn 3^n r\yy WK iy sn:i^a mm
nB>3Q " There was a dispute. The scholars of the Academy,
held their meeting and chose Rab Mebasser as Gaon, while
the Exilarch [=Ukba] named Kohen-Zedek as Gaon. The
dispute lasted until Ellulof the year 233 [ = 922], when the
Exilarch David concluded peace with Rabbi Mebasser."
There is another possibility that the beginning of this
passage is to be read K'B>3 nn nil, "the uncle of the Exilarch
David." Sherira describes Ukba, the deposed Exilarch, as
the uncle of David, of whom he had spoken shortly before,
and to whom he had to refer again at once. As the last of
the Exilarchs and the opponent of Saadia, he could suppose
that his name was well known to his readers a supposition
that would not hold good of Ukba. But the copyists,
considering in in as dittography, either omitted the first
nvi, as in Wallerstein, or inserted it in the last sentence,
before tops 2 .
From the beginning of the Ukba controversy until the
recognition of David as Exilarch on the part of Kohen-
Zedek, about eight years elapsed according to Nathan, the
1 We may safely assume that the blind T 1 : played an important part
in allaying the quarrel between the Exilarch and the Gaon, even if we
are not credulous enough to accept the miracle.
8 It is, however, highly probable that Rabbi Sherira at first spoke only
of xnc: ( = Ukba), and afterwards, in connexion with the reconciliation
with the Academy, properly mentioned nnr:n TIT, and then the 7n of the
second passage was added to the NX*: of the first.
I F
66 THE GEONIM
same number of years being occupied, according to Sherira,
by the dispute between Rabbi Mebasser and Kohen-Zedek.
The only disparity between the two accounts is that,
according to Nathan, Kohen-Zedek had been Gaon in 918
for more than four years, while according to Sherira it
would be impossible, as it was only in that year that his
grandfather Rabbi Judah died, and his death was the
occasion for the dispute about the succession. There can
be no doubt that the two sources are not in disagreement.
We are evidently troubled by a copyist's error. We must
put the date of Rabbi Judah's death one year earlier in
Sherira, and we must read rut? 13, " about a year," in
Nathan (78, 7, below), which was misread as [riJB>J '3, the
1 being taken for a stroke over the . This by reading
jnnx for d^yniN, became pJB> 'l in the Arabic version.
This assumption is further supported by the variant
reading "Tn instead of f"H, for the year of Rabbi Judah's
accession, and as all agree in naming eleven years as the
duration of his incumbency, f"3*l results as the year of his
death, and not n"31. In that case, Kohen-Zedek would
have been in office about a year in rTai.
THE PREDECESSOR OF SAADIA.
Another difference, at first blush essential, between the
two sources, concerns the Gaonate of Sura. According
to Sherira, it was filled during the eight years we are
now interested in by Rabbi Yom-Tob ben Rabbi Jacob.
Nathan, however, names Rabbi Amram ben Solomon as the
Gaon at Sura during the same period. The explanation made
by Halevy of this portion of Nathan's account we repu-
diated at an earlier stage. The difference between Sherira
and Nathan can be reconciled only by assuming that the
Gaon went by two names. There is a precedent for this.
Rabbi Yom-Tob had a celebrated predecessor in the presi-
dency of the Sura Academy, who also bore the name
Yom-Tob, and after his entrance into office changed it.
THE GAONATE 67
I refer to Rabbi Tabyomi (=Yorn-Tob), the son of Rab
Ashi, who was called Mar as chief of the Academy. It
is peculiar that Halevy should oppose the identification
of Rabbi Yom-Tob with Rabbi Amram on the ground that,
although Jews occasionally have two names, a Hebrew and
a non-Hebrew, it has never happened that the same man
bore two different Hebrew names. Is it conceivable that
an historian of the Geonim should write thus, failing to
recall that a celebrated Gaon of Sura is called Rabbi Moses
in some sources, and Rabbi rvenE'D in others ? Or is
a name with the ending rp less Hebrew than 3lt3 DV?
One of the oldest of the Geonim of Sura, Rabbi Shashna,
had the name rwiB> engraved on his official seal. So
Sherira reports. In connexion with this, it is worth
noting that Sherira shortens the name of the Sura Gaon
Sar Shalom to Shalom. It is not surprising, then, that
he should be tempted to put so long a name as Yom-Tob
Amram through the same process of abbreviation, by
lopping off the first half. In a much later time the
case of Immanuel of Rome forms an interesting parallel
to the one under consideration in the Geonic time. In
the introduction to his commentary on Proverbs he calls
his father Jacob, though elsewhere he appears only as
Shelomoh, just as the father of our Sura Gaon is Jacob
to Sherira and Solomon to Nathan. The probability is
that he owned both names, nodes' apJJ', a combination not
infrequently met with in later times 1 . There is still
another Gaon whose father's name undergoes a trans-
formation in different sources. Rabbi Paltoi is introduced
as the son of Abaye by Sherira and other authorities,
while the author of the Bpiri ^3K>, 420, calls his father
Jacob.
1 An example in modern times is the "Lissa Rav,' 1 who calls his
father nxro and also nico apr. The latter may have received his second
name by means of ctrn 'i:\c, in consequence of some severe illness,
though it would be rather extraordinary that it should be Jacob, the
same name as his son's, an unusual occurrence among the Ashkenazim.
P 2
68 THE GEONIM
The only problem left unsolved in Nathan's narrative
is his statement that the successor of Rabbi Amram ben
Solomon and the predecessor of Saadia, in the Gaonate
of Sura, was Hai ben Kiyyumi, whom he describes as
" the first of his generation," and as occupying the Gaonate
for twenty years, until his death. As a period of twenty
years is out of the question here, and as 3 and 3 are
letters easily confounded, Graetz proposes to read 2 instead
of 3, so giving Hai ben Kiyyumi two years as president
of the Academy instead of twenty. The objection made
by Halevy to this emendation of Graetz cannot be taken
seriously. " How," exclaims Halevy, " is it possible to read
3 in this passage ? How could the writer [Nathan] have
been betrayed into the error of calling one 'the first of
his generation ' who officiated only two years ? Can a man
become the first of his generation within two years ? " It
is difficult to maintain one's gravity with such reasoning.
Does Halevy suppose any one would think of suggesting
that Rabbi Hai was called to the Gaonate as an infant
in arms? Nathan remarks that Hai received his exalted
office as the first, the most distinguished, scholar of his
time, and what more natural than such a remark ? Whether
Rabbi Hai, a contemporary of Rabbi Saadia, deserved the
title Tnn B>N1 cannot be determined after the lapse of time,
but Nathan surely had as good a right to apply it to Rabbi
Hai as many a modern author of Rabbinical works has
to call two and sometimes three of his endorsers, on one
and the same page, r6ian -03 $>3 t?tn.
For the rest, this Hai apparently was not an insig-
nificant personage. Saadia did not consider it beneath
his dignity to quote him. Rabbi Isaac, of Vienna, in
his yi"iT TIN, I, 197 a, top, cites an explanation with the
words pw n n oe>3 'B jiw nnyo 3-11. As both Rabbi
Hai ben David and Rabbi Hai ben Nahshon were not
living at Saadia's arrival in Babylonia, it could have
been no one but this Hai, who, according to Nathan,
died shortly before the appointment of Saadia, and, as
THE GAONATE 69
we know now 1 , Saadia lived in Babylonia for a time
before he was chosen Gaon. In this period he must
have made the acquaintance of Hai ben Kiyyumi, who
accordingly does not owe his existence to the ignorance
of Nathan, as Halevy would have us believe.
It is easy to surmise why this Hai is not mentioned
by Sherira, if one but scrutinises the words used by
Nathan. The remark introducing him, "he was the first
of his generation," yields the desired explanation. After
the death of Amram ben Solomon, or, to call him by the
name Sherira uses, Yom-Tob ben Jacob, Sura possessed
no dominant personality worthy to act as his successor
in the Gaonate. Rabbi Hai was "the greatest scholar
of his circle," and as such he presided over the Academy,
if not as Gaon, at least as the leading spirit. It was
on his death that the Exilarch was forced to entrust
the office to the alien Saadia. That is the meaning of
the sentence *niD nTt?> jrw pr im3 nn B*n rrn mm.
Sherira, who enumerates only the Geonirn, had no occasion
to mention Rabbi Hai ben Kiyyumi, who was not a Gaon.
He was content to dispose of the couple of years of hrs
activity as vice-Gaon as the time when the life at Sura
was at its lowest ebb.
THE CHRONOLOGY OP THE GEONIM.
We have reached the end of our investigation, which
has resulted in a brilliant vindication of Nathan. We
might stop here, except that it is proper to acknowledge
the fact that the dates used here for the terms of the
office of the Geonim were taken from the table contributed
by A. Epstein to the Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. "Gaon,"
1 This follows from the letters in the Ben-Me'ir Controversy, the
correspondence relating to which can now be examined in its entirety
in Sokolow, barn 'c, 19-189. It is noteworthy that while Rabbi Sherira
leaves the impression that Rabbi Saadia was called from Egypt to the
Gaonate, Rabbi Nathan properly represents Rabbi Saadia as being in
Babylonia when the call came to him.
70 THE GEONIM
though I was well aware that, in spite of the extreme care
taken in compiling it, it must remain inaccurate in some
details, because it is based mainly on Sherira's Letter, of
which we are not yet fortunate enough to possess an
unexceptionable text, and Sherira himself is not blameless
of errors and inaccuracies, especially in connexion with the
older chronology.
How careful one should be in such matters is illustrated by
the following: In a long inquiry, extending over several pages
(pp. 240-41, 248), Halevy endeavours to prove that Rabbi
Zemah ben Paltoi occupied his office, not nineteen (B' S ), but
nine ('3) years. Halevy's trouble was in vain. The great-
grandson of this Gaon, Rabbi Hezekiah ben Samuel, SMH
"no, writes in 953 l , in explicit words, that Rabbi Paltoi
and his son Rabbi Zemah officiated "about forty years."
From this there can be but one inference, that Zemah was
in office at least nineteen years, which, added to the sixteen
years of his father's incumbency, amounts to thirty-five,
the " about forty years " of his great-grandson. 2
In the discussion of the point whether Rabbi Samuel Resh,
Kalla, the great-grandfather of Rabbi Sherira, is identical
with Rabbi Samuel Resh Kalla, the teacher of Rabbi Aha
of Shabha, Halevy seems to find no particular difficulty
in the fact that the latter flourished about the middle of
the eighth century, while Rabbi Judah, the son of the
other Rabbi Samuel, died as late as 918, for Halevy
implies that this Rabbi Judah attained to the age of
one hundred and thirty years. Sherira reports that the
secretary to the Gaon, Rabbi Joseph (814) was pao '2N 'ONi
1j'2X "ON, which, according to Halevy's interpretation, means
that Rabbi Judah, who died in 918, occupied, in 814,
the high office of secretary to the Academy, and as it
is not likely that so important a position Sherira tells
us that the secretary to Rabbi Joseph managed the whole
business of the Academy would be entrusted to a man
1 J.Q.R., XVIII, 401 ; on the writer of the letter comp. above, p. 7, n. i.
2 Comp. Kiddushin, 12 a : CON? aiip.
THE G AGNATE 71
under twenty-five, we must fix the year of his birth at
about 790. It is superfluous to defend so serious an
historian as Sherira against the charge of imbecility
involved in attributing such statements to him. The
sentence quoted means nothing but this, that " the
grandfather of the Gaon, who was my grandfather, was
the secretary to Rabbi Joseph V Accordingly, not Rabbi
Judah, but Rabbi Judah's grandfather, and the father of
Rabbi Samuel Resh Kalla, was the secretary to Rabbi
Joseph, and this fits the dates naturally, without the
wrench of a miracle. Rabbi Judah, who died in 918,
was probably born about the middle of the ninth century,
and his grandfather was a personage of importance as early
as 814.
The Geonic period is thus the poorer by two miracles :
neither Rabbi Samuel nor his son Rabbi Judah lived
beyond the age of Moses. But their descendant Sherira
is the gainer in his reputation for truthfulness. Accordingly,
when Rabbi Sherira speaks of the Gaon Rabbi Abba ben
Ami (869) as i>NVDB> n no *?v 1:2 p, we may not, in imitation
of Halevy, impute to him the absurdity of meaning that he
is a grandson of Rabbi Samuel, who acted as Gaon in 733.
Sherira designates him as a " descendant " of this Gaon 2 .
1 Rabbi Sherira did not care to say fiNan ':pi UN UNI, because his
maternal great-grandfather, Rabbi Zemah, had also been a Gaon, and
the expression ':pi might have been applied to him. Also in the letter
in J. Q. R., 1. c., 'IN UN UN is used for a similar reason.
8 Com p. also Rabbi Sherira, 36, 4, below, TOTDN to m '33, naturally
not grandchildren, but descendants. Halevy should not have permitted
himself to forget the Halakah : eras en nn D':a ':i.
II.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE OF THE GEONIM.
HALAKAH THE MAIN FEATUEE OF GEONIC LITERATURE.
ALL the literary products of the Geonim bear the marks /
of a transition period. The nihia OD^n can equally well be
considered/Ian epilogue to the Talmud as y a precursor of
Maimonides' Yad.J In an appraisal of the literary achieve-
ments of the Geonim, the double character of the influence
at work in their day must be borne in mind. On the one
hand, it was the time in/which the[jtext of the Talmudlwas
/ -^^
fixed, and thec_Targumim and Midrashim received their
final redaction,) and, on the other hand, a beginning was
made in; the study of the Hebrew language, in Jewish
philosophy, and in various other branches of literature
and science that attained to full development in a later
period, the so-called Rabbinic period.
However, though poetry and philology, Targum and
Midrash, mysticism and philosophy, were all represented
in the time of the Geonim, the Geonic literature par
excellence is after all; Halakic in/character and purport. /
Rabbi Saadia is one of the fathers of Bible exegesis and
Hebrew grammar, and/he may with propriety be called
the earliest Jewish philosopher Philo was a Jew and a
philosopher, but hardly a Jewish philosopher. But Saadia's
many-sided effectiveness cannot be put to/the account of
the Geonim. If he was a notable grammarian, a pioneer /
philosopher, an original exegete, it was not because;he wasr
a Gaon, but/in spite of having been a Gaon. Even after
the decay of the Palestinian Academies, it was in the Holy
Land that the study of the Bible and the cultivation of
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 73
the Haggadah were carried on zealously ] . The Masorah
is a product of Palestine in the time we are considering,
the greater number of the later Midrashim originated, there,
and there also we must look for the beginnings of the
Piyyut and of neo-Hebraic poetry. But when we come
to the field of the Halakah, we must turn to Babylonia,
whose Jews occupy the leading place as Halakists. The
rivalry of old standing between the Palestinian and the
Babylonian scholars was decided by the work of the Geo-
nim once for all time in favour of the eastern centre.
The Babylonian Amoraim created a Talmud ; the Geonim
made of it " The Talmud." Even the Palestinians acknow-
ledged its authoritativeness 2 . The historical importance of
the Geonim may be summed up in this expression : They
transformed a textbook into a code, and their literary
activity was limited almost exclusively to the exposition
and codifying of the Talmud.
THE IMPULSE TO GEONIC LITERARY ACTIVITY.
It is difficult to determine the date from which to reckon
the beginnings of Geonic literature. The works preserved
to us originated as late as the second half of the eighth
century. But it is more than probable that written notes
of the older Geonim, as well as their oral teachings and
traditions, were embodied in the works of their successors 3 .
For instance, the important decision given in 3*n, 108 a
(ed. Hildesheimer, 442), relative to the wording of a docu-
1 The greater number of the so-called rroep 'DO are, it is true, Palestinian,
but only their final redaction falls within the Geonic time. The works
proper belong to the Tannaitic-Amoraic period. The onrc 'co, pub-
lished by Schonblum in his c'nnc: onBD nave, Lemberg, 1877, is likewise
pre-Geonic in its main contents. Rabbenu Hai, Vcr, II, 40, and s'rr,
189, quotes a Halakah as a D^EID rvnbrn wrvu, which is found literally
in onEO 'CD . 0*1210 'on alone is a Palestinian Halakic work of the
Geonim period, but the author was familiar, not only with the Babylonian
Talmud, but also with the Babylonian customs of his day. He must
have spent some time in a Babylonian Academy as a student.
2 Comp. above, p. 4, n. x.
s Comp. y'a, 46 : 7om TDTBE = Vocw, II, 53.
74 THE GEONIM
inent manumitting a slave, is cited literally by Hai, but
not from this source. He introduces it with these words l :
na 'nut? onno n^aca nrw nnx D^ijrxn innna nr nan
an
" Thus wrote the former scholars, each in his secret roll,
in which they recorded, for their own use, many teachings
originating with the authorities of remotest times, who
lived before Rabbi Jehudai."
Another passage in 3"n,96b (ed. Hildesheimer, 387-8),
is quoted by Rabbi Sherira, but again not from this source 2 .
He says: rwoin nnan 'tniao jaam NBTVB pan D'pa "The
scholars have the following explanation [of this passage]
as a tradition of the Saboraim, who lived after the
redaction of the Talmud."
A third passage in a*n, ai a, is quoted thence by Rabbi
Hai, but he adds 3 : ir6 wna wan pin nnan Nnsian
" The great men who lived after the Saboraim gave this
explanation."
What Rabbi Hai tells us regarding "secret rolls," for
the private use of their owners, may help us to form
an idea of how Geonic literature originated and developed.
When the exigencies of the time made it absolutely necessary
that the Talmud be put into tangible, permanent shape,
the prohibition against committing the Law to writing
was still not abrogated. It was merely limited in its
application to all productions except the Talmud : it alone
was exempt. However, here and there a disciple of the
early Geonim transgressed the regulation and indulged
himself to the extent of keeping a " secret roll " for his
own private use, and recording there the dicta of his
teachers which he desired to safeguard against oblivion.
Therein the disciples of the Geonim followed the example
of their Talmudic predecessors. But of actual literary
1 Albargeloni, mirren 'c, 126.
2 Halevy, 180, did not remember that this passage occurs in :"n
8 Rabbenu Nissim, on Skabbat, 12 a ; comp. Halevy, 181.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 75
activity there was none. The impulse to produce in the
real sense was supplied later, when the Geonim became
the leaders of the Diaspora, and they were addressed by
Jewish communities, remote and outlying as well as near
by, for decisions on practical questions and for explanations
of difficult Talmud passages. But the Gaonate as an
institution vested with authority dates, as we have seen,
from the second third of the seventh century. Before
its first hundred years of institutional activity had elapsed,
necessity, having first limited the application of the com-
mand against committing the Law to writing, gradually
abrogated it entirely 1 .
The Responsa are more than the beginning of Geonic
literature. They are at the same time its most important
department. The phrase current in Rabbinic literature,
" the Geonim say," or " the Geonim write," means one
thing only, " this is to be found in a Geonic Responsum."
But as their Responsa possess value collectively, in relation
to the period as a whole, rather than individually, as
indicative of the mental calibre of one or another author,
it seems desirable, before dealing with the Responsa, to
consider the Halakic-Talmudic productions of the period.
RABBI AHA, OF SHABHA.
The oldest work of the Geonic time are the Sheeltot
"Discussions 2 ," by Rabbi Aha, of Shabha. Of the author
nothing is known except that he left Babylonia about
the middle of the eighth century, and settled in Palestine.
1 Comp. below, pp. 97-8 and 119-20.
2 That mrtro means not "questions," but rather " discussions," was
first maintained by Muller, Briefe und Respotisen, 31, note 62, and this
view is justified in detail by Mendelsohn in R. A. J., XXXII, 56 et seq.
The latter makes no mention of Muller. As to the relative age of the
Slieeltot and the a*n, see below, pp. 98 and 106. In beginning the discus-
sion of the Halakic literature of the Geonim with the Sheeltot, I follow the
accepted order. My own opinion is, as I show further on, that the
nucleus of the Halakot Geddot goes back to an earlier age than the Shefltot.
76 THE GEONIM
There was a reason for his emigration. In filling the
Gaonate of Pumbedita the Exilarch had passed him by,
disregarding his claims upon the office, paramount claims
by reason of his position and his scholarship.
Rabbi David of Estella, in the Provence, who lived
at the beginning of the thirteenth century, speaks of
works written by the Gaon Rabbi Shashna. If his
statement rests upon a valid tradition l Estella confesses
that he himself was acquainted with no works by this
Gaon except Responsa we should have to remove the
initial date of Geonic literary activity to about a century
earlier than accepted facts have hitherto warranted, for
the Gaon of Sura, Rabbi Shashna, also called Rabbi
Mesharshia ben Tahlifa, occupied his office before 689.
Unluckily, we cannot put implicit trust in Estella's
assertions, as is shown by the other information he
gives us about Rabbi Shashna. He describes him as
"the Gaon ordained during the lifetime of Rabbi Aha,
of Shabha, who was passed over at the appointment."
What probably happened was that Estella wrote that
wnoJ received the Gaonate instead of Rabbi Aha, and
then he confounded this Natronai with the celebrated
Gaon Natronai ben Hilai, the author of a number of
Responsa and supposed author of a Halakic compendium 2 .
In addition, a copyist twisted wniM into WVV. The
next statement made by Estella, that Rabbi Aha lived
after Rabbi Simon N1"p 3 , he derived from Rabbi Menahem
Meiri 4 , who in turn took it from the chronicle of Rabbi
Abraham Ibn Daud. RaBeD, who had a very corrupt
text of Rabbi Sherira's Letter before him, may have based
his statement upon the passage about Rabbi Samuel, 33, 2,
below. The unusual name, "IE 3~i ID, together with the
1 A Kabbalistic author of the fourteenth century mentions a *CTDTD '",,
Z.H. B., XII, 51. Is it a fictitious name? 2 Comp. below, p. 119.
3 The origin as well as the pronunciation of this name is very
doubtful. With Kahira it certainly has nothing to do.
* Me'iri's statements about the Geonim are full of errors, as proved
below, p. 89.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 77
unusual geographical designation npsi, which, as we
have seen 1 , was misunderstood even in modern times,
was " emended " to read KTpn 'B> 11 -ovni. This supposed
passage of Sherira's is translated into Hebrew by RaBeD,
who, after mentioning the Gaonate of Rabbi Samuel ben
Mari, as he calls him, adds the words nT taicc? 'n 'oval
jnp pyot? 'n iTn (63, 6).
Accordingly, there is no good reason for removing
R-abbi Aha from the place conceded to him as the earliest
Halakic author after the close of the Talmud. But if
the time of Rabbi Aha remains as before, the scene of
his literary activity is open to question. Palestine and
Babylonia each urges its claim upon the Sheeltot. Though
the work is based exclusively upon the Babylonian Talmud,
and the Palestinian Talmud is absolutely ignored in it, yet
it is certain that Rabbi Aha did not compose his book until
after he had settled in Palestine, whither he went when the
Exilarch, for personal reasons, installed Rabbi Natronai, the
secretary of Rabbi Aha, as Gaon of Pumbedita. Halevy is
no less convinced (pp. 132, 211-13) of Rabbi Aha's having
written his work before leaving Babylonia than he is of his
having drawn upon the Palestinian Talmud in writing it,
in the use of which source, he maintains, Rabbi Aha was
like all the Geonim they all knew it 2 . I hope to treat
1 Comp. above, p. 49.
2 Halevy's remark on Rab Amram's relation to the Yerushalmi is
characteristic. In "j*j , 58, we have Rab Amram's Responsum addressed
to the scholars of Barcelona, who were led to speak of a YerusJialmi
passage in their question, because its relation to the Babli was not quite
clear to them. Rab Amram writes : " And the dictum of the Yentshalmi
similar to this [of the Babli] which you quote, is not known to us."
Ergo, reasons Halevy, it can be seen that the Yerushalmi was disseminated
everywhere ! If this passage proves anything, it is an endorsement of
Rapoport, Frankel, and Schorr, against whom Halevy directs his polemics.
Their view is that the Babylonian Geonim did not know the Yerushalmi,
but it was studied by the scholars of the aiyo , that is, of Spain and
especially North Africa. Also Halevy ignores the fact that this Responsum
is not really by Rab Amram, but by Rabbenu Hai, to whom it is ascribed
in n'c, 119, by Albargeloni, D'nyn 'c, 212, and by Nahmanides, rrcrrto,
Pesahim, X, 3.
78 THE GEONIM
elsewhere of the relation of the Geonim to the Yerushalmi
in detail. Here I shall confine myself to the discussion of
this one point, whether or not it was used in the Sheeltot 1 .
THE SHEELTOT AND THE YERUSHALMI.
Halevy believes he has found two quotations from the
Yerushalmi in the Sheeltot, enough to decide the question
in his mind. But a superficial examination of the passages
suffices to show that resort to the Yerushalmi is precluded.
In Yer. Bezah, I, 60 a, the inference is made from the three
superfluous words, nii> Kin . . . ^, in Exod. xii. 16, that,
although the preparation of food is permitted on holidays,
it is forbidden to reap, grind, and bolt. Each superfluous
word points to a prohibited form of work. The passage in
the Sheeltot, I, 158-9, supposed to correspond to the Bezah
passage, reads : " Even work necessary for the preparation
of food is permitted only if it is of a sort habitually done
on the same day, such as slaughtering, baking, and cooking,
but grinding and bolting, which can be done before the
holiday, may not be done thereon, for the Scriptures (Exod.
xii. 1 6) excluded them, saying, 'that only,' cooking, baking,
and the like, may be done 2 ."
While the Yerushalmi specifies three definite kinds of
work excluded by the use of three superfluous words in
the Scriptures, Rabbi Aha deduces a principle, applicable
to all work connected with the preparation of food. This
principle he finds implied in the 113^, " that only," of the
Scriptures, excluding all kinds of work which as a rule
are performed days before the food is prepared for the
table in the restricted sense. So fundamental is this dif-
ference between the Sheeltot and the Yerushalmi, that
even if it were impossible to trace Rabbi Aha's real source,
1 On the relation of the Sheeltot to the Yerushalmi, see the articles by
Dr. Poznanski and Dr. Kaminka, in the Hebrew periodical cipn, I,
which appeared while this book was going through the press.
2 Comp. also Sheelta, CVII, 143.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 79
we might still be sure that he was not deriving his
support from the Yerushalmi. Fortunately, we are now
able to assert that his source was the Mekilta de Rabbi
Shiirne'on, 17, where his statement is found verbatim.
Dr. Hoffmann, the learned editor of the Mekilta, would
probably not have attempted the correction of the text
according to the Yerushalmi if he had had the passage in
the Sheeltot in mind. This Mekilta, designated by Rabbi
Hai Gaon in Harkavy, 107, as 21 '31 nQ'D, in contradis-
tinction to the Mekilta of Rabbi Ishmael, which he calls
"the Palestinian," was naturally well known to the
Babylonian Rabbi Aha, and as he not infrequently made
use of the other Halakic Midrashim, his resort to the
Mekilta de Rabbi Skimeon in the passage under ex-
amination calls for no remark. Of course, there is no
intention of denying that a close connexion exists between
the Mekilta passage and Rabbi Hezekiah's dictum in the
Yerushalmi. Rabbi Hezekiah modified an old Halakah
in accordance with his own general system. The old
Halakah, as given in the Mekilta, forbade all work con-
nected with the preparation of food which as a rule is
not done on the day on which the food is consumed.
Illustrations are adduced reaping, grinding, bolting. These
and such as these are not permissible, the prohibition
being indicated by the word 113^ in the Scriptural passage.
Rabbi Hezekiah, a consistent representative of the school
of Rabbi Akiba 1 , who, took the particles IN and Nin as
" exclusives," conceived the three sorts of work mentioned,
not as illustrations of a general principle, but as an
exhaustive enumeration of specific cases, finding a justi-
fication therefor in the three Scriptural words, vob, Kin,
and -]K.
The other Yerushalmi quotation found by Halevy in
the Sheeltot, XXIH, 69, requires mere collation of the
two passages to demonstrate how untenable his con-
1 See the discriminating remark made by Epstein in nrjiaijnD, 53 et seq.
8o THE GEONIM
tention is. Rabbi Aha writes: ntf ffb KB n^ ntf ai
mb -IOK x^> 1^ tanin isio n^ -IK w ^n . In
Fer. Nedarim, X, 42 a, we read : 5>D3 7^ 1S1O 1DNB> fpn
nyi3K> |N3 pN I'M IW P "1B1K fptni . . . D1^3 "IEN X^ 7^- If
Rabbi Aha had actually used the Yerushalmi, it would
be inexplicable why he made so decided a change in the
formula for the absolution from vows by a scholar, mnn
D3n. Halevy permitted himself to be misled by a marginal
note by Rabbi Isaiah Berlin on the Sheeltot, referring to
the Yerushalmi passage. In reality, Rabbi Aha repro-
duces the wording of the Babli Nedarim, Jjb, where
1^> tan "jb 1210 is given as the usual formula for ^>jn man.
The attempts made by Reifmann, in the Bet-Talmud,
III, 52-3, to prove Rabbi Aha's use of the Yerushalmi,
are by far more serious and painstaking. Nevertheless, his
conclusions are hasty. Scrutiny reveals that not one of
the five passages adduced by Reifmann, in support of his
opinion that the Sheeltot drew upon the Yerushalmi, can
be said with certainty to have been taken by Rabbi Aha
from the Palestinian Talmud. His words in I, 2, of the
Sheeltot, regarding Sabbath garments, agree literally with
Pesikta R., XXIII, H5b, and not with Yer. Pedh, VIII,
21 b, top, an agreement to which Friedmann in his notes
on the Pesikta called attention 1 . It is therefore more
probable that Rabbi Aha used either the Pesikta or one
of the sources of the Pesikta, than that he used the Yeru-
shalmi. Weiss's statement, 25, note 6, that the Pesikta is
younger than the Sheeltot, is not a serious objection. What-
ever may be its age in its present form, no one entertains
a doubt that a very considerable portion of the Pesiktot
is as old as the Talmud.
The opinion of Rabbi Aha (XL VII, 146), that the reason
1 Comp. also Buber, Bet Talmud, III, 210, who entertains the same
opinion as Friedmann, though he does not name him. However, this
passage in the Sheelta does not seem to have belonged to the work in its
original form. It is missing in most of the MSS., as may be seen in the
first instalment of Dr. Kaminka's Sheeliot, Vienna, 1908.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 8 1
for keeping the Day of Atonement only one day, is that
a two days' fast might endanger life, has its parallel, not
in the Yerushalmi alone, Hallah, I, 57 c, but also in the
Babli Rosh ha-Shanah, 21 a, where Rabbi Nahman ex-
claims against the Palestinian who would have had him
fast a second day, " Death will be his (euphemism for
'my') end!"
Jeremiah xvii. 22, is cited by both the Yervdutlmi, at
the beginning of Shabbat, and the Babli, Bezah, 12 a, as
the basis for the prohibition of carrying burdens on the
Sabbath. Hence its use for the same purpose in the
Sheeltot, XIL, 156, proves nothing conclusive as to Rabbi
Aha's use of the Yerushalmi.
The explanation given by the Sheeltot 1 , LV, 186, of the
Babli Baba Batra, 165 a, coincides with the view of
the Yer. Gittin, IX, 50 c. Nevertheless, Rabbi Aha's words
are not a quotation from the YerusJtalmi, but merely an
explanation, his explanation, of the Babli passage.
That the formula for pen ^oa given by Rabbi Aha, LXXIV,
26-7, is not derived from Yer. Pesahim, II, 28 d, Reifmann
might have deduced from the language. Not only is it
Hebrew in the Yerushalmi and Aramaic in the Sheeltot,
but the Aramaic is Babylonian and not Palestinian. Instead
of rrovfn .... NT>en, the Palestinians would have said
nwon .... Ny^en. It is interesting to note, by the way,
that in the rituals the formulas vary between .... NTOH
iTjv:n and rrrwn .... xjwn. The Palestinian wording of
the formula and the Babylonian have come down to us
side by side. It should also be noted that the Yerushalmi
cites the formula on the authority of the Babylonian
teacher Rab. Its use by Babylonian Jews can, therefore,
be presupposed without assuming that they had to derive it
from a source foreign to them. Comp. Ratner, T^IX, ad loc.
Besides these seven passages enumerated by Reifmann
and Halevy, I would call attention to two more, which,
1 Reifmann, in his essay in the Bet Talmud, III, 53, did not know that
the Tur Hoshen Mishpat, 51, meant this Yerushalmi passage.
I G
82 THE GEONIM
at first sight, would seem to confirm the opinion that Rabbi
Aha used the Yerushalmi for his Sheeltot. But a closer
examination disposes of them as of the others. In contents
the sentence in LXXIII, 25 *, . . . N1H jy "pi tt6, comes
pretty close to the Yerushalmi statement in Hallah, II,
58 d, top. And yet it need not be supposed that Rabbi
Aha did not derive his view from the Babli Shabbat, 76 b.
The Haggadistic reason for the four cups of wine formu-
lated by Rabbi Aha, LXXVII, 36, is found in the Yer.
Pesahim, X, 57 c, top, but also in Genesis R., LXXXVIII.
As Rabbi Aha's use of the Haggadic Midrashim in other
parts of his work is not open to doubt, the probabilities
are in favour of his having drawn upon the Midrash
rather than the Yerushalmi as his source a likelihood
that is strengthened by the fact, that for centuries after
Rabbi Aha it was still customary to quote Haggadic
passages from the Midrashim, even when they occurred in
the Talmudim 2 . Moreover, Rabbi Aha's book, as a whole,
is planned after the model of the Haggadic Midrashim
on the Pentateuch, which would argue a natural preference
for the Genesis Rabba as compared with the Yerushalmi.
If, as to the last passage, it must be conceded that our
data do not permit us to go beyond the mere supposition
that Rabbi Aha drew his Haggadot from sources other
than the Yerushalmi, there can yet be no doubt that the
legend which he relates about Artaban and Rabbi, CXLV,
114, is not taken from the Yerushalmi Pedh, I, i5d,
bottom, but from a Haggadic source, and a Babylonian
Haggadic source at that. The passage ij^ DJ33 TO occurs
neither in the Yerushalmi, 1. c., nor in the parallel passage
in Genesis R., LXXXV, end. In contents it reminds one
strikingly of the Babylonian legend about the healing of
1 The words Ncno MITT "irmb mean " to mix the chaff with the grain
again.''
2 Bashi, for instance, in his commentary on the Pentateuch, frequently
quotes Genesis R. and other Midrashim, though he might have found the
same passages in the Yerushalmi.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 83
the princess by Rabbi Simon ben Yohai ', and linguistically
it betrays Babylonian origin by the use of nit?, "she-devil 2 ."
The Palestinians knew no female demons, and certainly not
the word applied to them by Rabbi Aha.
The reference to Ezra x. 8, as the Scriptural basis for
the excommunicating power of the court, in the Sheeltot,
CXXX, 45, Rabbi Aha did not derive, as might at first
.sight be supposed, from Yer. Moed Katan, III, 81 d.
His text in the Babli Moed Ifatan, i6a, doubtless read
n^wn lino bn^ wm sran pnnroi f^oi instead of j^oi
ins nw ann pennon.
The whole detailed discussion of court procedure in the
Sheeltot is taken literally from the passage in the Babli,
and it would be difficult to suggest a reason for Rabbi
Aha's resorting to the Yerushalmi for a single point,
especially as he completely ignores the only new legal
aspect presented in the Yeruskalmi 3 . The assumption
here made cannot be objected to as forced, because we
know that Rabbi Aha's text of the Babli frequently varies
from ours, and in the passage under consideration, where
our text is manifestly corrupt, the reading offered by him
is an essential improvement 4 .
1 Briefly in the Talmud, Meilah, 17 b ; in detail in :*n, ed. Hildesheimer,
601-4 ; and Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrash, VI, 128-30. About a Genizah
fragment of this legend, see a note by the present writer in the Z. E. B.,
XI, 127.
8 The Biblical mo was translated by "sedan-chair" in Palestine, and
by " she-devil '' in Babylonia ; Gittin,68&. The sources enumerated in
note a (with the exception of the Talmud reference) also use rmr in the
sense of "she-devil.' 1 The popular belief in Babylonia could not get
away from Lilith and the she-devils akin to her. Another noteworthy
expression is lac, occurring in this passage of the Sheeltot, but in this
sense not used in the Yerushalmi.
3 The Yerushalmi speaks of excommunication for a person who does not
obey a summons to court within three days. The Babli and Rabbi Aha
say nothing about the term.
4 According to our text, the same used by Rashi, mn serves as proof
for cin, which contains curses, but that curses may, in certain circum-
stances, be employed the Talmud derives from Neh. xiii. 25, where Db^Ni
is used ! Hence there can be no doubt that the correct reading is :
G 2
84 THE GEONIM
It must be admitted that circumspect care is required
in dealing with the Talmud text of Rabbi Aha. The pas-
sage in the Sheeltot, IIV, 177, on ro-a u"> spn, is a striking
illustration. In form it is much closer to Yer. Berakot,
I, 2 d, than to the corresponding Babli text, Berakot, 42 a.
In his learned scholia D^emi jvx nariK, 1 1 , ad loc., Ratner
does not hesitate to attribute it to the Yerushalmi as
Rabbi Aha's source, and yet it can readily be demonstrated,
from the words of the Sheeltot, that it goes back to the
Babli. In the first place, the dictum regarding the washing
of the hands is attributed to the same Amora, Rabbi
Hayyah bar Ashi, in the Babli as in the Sheeltot, while
in the Yerushalmi, Rabbi Zeira cites it in the name of
Rabbi Abba bar Jeremiah, and these latter personages
appeared in the Yerushalmi text of the Geonim, as can
be seen from the citations in Ratner. But there is a more
important difference, the radical difference between the
conception of the Babli and the conception of the Yeru-
shalmi. According to the Babli, the Halakah ordains that
the washing of hands must be followed at once by the
saying of grace after meals, while the Yerushalmi holds
that another subject is dealt with, the washing of the
hands before the meal, to be followed directly by the bene-
diction prescribed for it. We are here not interested in
determining which of the two is the correct conception 1 .
Rabbi Aha, however, does not leave us in doubt as to his
viw 'JXD rrbn HION '11 D'npi JMQ tab mini TKTOOT JNO tab jrnnsn }~n
murp TON .... rnr>, and not only was this the reading known to
Rabbi Aha, but it was also that of the anonymous Gaon in 01*03, 217.
What the Talmud wanted to derive from the verse is that the great
excommunication, Din, forbids all intercourse with the excommunicated.
As for the power of the court to decree excommunication, that the Talmud
derived from Ezra x. 8, as may be seen from Rabbi Aha's text. Comp.
also Rabbi Hananel on this passage, the text of which, as he had it, also
deviates from ours.
1 The attempts to harmonise the contradictory statements in the
Yerushalmi and the Bdbli on this point are futile, in spite of the fact that
Rabbi Elijah Wilna countenances them in his commentary on the Orah
Hayyim, 166, 2.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 85
opinion in the matter. It accords so entirely with the
view of the Babli, that every possibility is precluded of
tracing his citation back to the Yerushalmi. It is true,
the Scriptural passages justifying the Halakah are enumer-
ated only in the Yerushalmi, which might suggest the
idea that, though Rabbi Aha espouses the view of the
Babli, he yet resorts to the Yerushalmi for proofs. But
this suggestion may be considered disposed of by the fact
that the MS. Paris of the Babli contains the Scriptural
passages in the Babli. There is thus no reason why Rabbi
Aha should have had to resort to the Yerushalmi.
A valuable passage for the present investigation is offered
by the Sheeltot, XCVI, 104-5. A- case is there discussed
which was submitted by Samuel to his friend Rab, but
which is not mentioned in the Talmud. In his t?SJn ^J?3,
d. Berlin, zd, the RaBeD comments upon Rabbi Aha's
statement with the words, " I do not know where he found
it." But the RaBeD's father-in-law, Rabbi Abraham of
Narbonne, in his EshJcol, I, 117, gives the Yerushalmi as
Rabbi Aha's source. Whether or not the author of the
Eshkol had in mind Yer. Ketubot, II, 26 c, which contains
a statement similar to that in the Sheeltot, cannot be main-
tained with any degree of certainty. He may have used, as
is frequently done by the old authors 1 , ^em 11 to designate
some apocryphal source or other. However this may be,
that Rabbi Aha did not use the Yerushalmi passage in
Ketubot admits of no doubt. His presentation of the case
is very much more detailed than that of the Yerushalmi,
and the peculiarity of Rabbi Aha, so far from being a
tendency to elaborate a passage, is to condense the Tal-
mudic sources. There is a positive and clinching proof,
besides, to show that his source was a Babylonian and not
1 To this peculiarity Rapoport drew attention in his biography of
Rabbenu Nissim, note 39, and in recent times such so-called Yerushalmi
quotations were collected by Buber, Epstein, and Wolf Rabbinowitz, and
published in Luncz's D'telT, VII. Rabbi Aaron, of Lunel, n*-\N, II, 179,
calls our Tamid t Yerushalmi Tumid ; comp. also below, p. 157.
86 THE GEONIM
a Palestinian work. The final phrase, jwr pjniK rw -&n T
makes it plain ; this expression occurs nowhere but in the
Babylonian Talmud 1 . Another proof of the Babylonian
origin is afforded by the proverb cited, NBn K3*TO ir^n
nTDVn rcb, also a Babylonian locution. Moreover, it appears
from a comparison of this passage with "vntni, II, 145-6,
that our text of kheSheeltot has been considerably shortened 2 ;
the author of the We-Hizhir had the complete text before
him, and as he has it, it could not have been taken from
Ter. Ketubot, which is by far not so full of details. It
is not an impossible supposition that Rabbi Aha's text
of Babli Ketubot, 22 a-b, contained his whole statement,
while but a few words have been preserved in our Talmud
editions.
PLAN AND PUKPOSE OF THE SHEELTOT.
In spite of all the results attained above, it would still
be an over-hasty conclusion to infer that Rabbi Aha wrote
his work in the years of his life in Babylonia. Internal
and external reasons alike militate against this assumption.
There are, in the first place, a number of linguistic
peculiarities in the Sheeltot, which clearly betray the
Palestinian origin of the work. With a Babylonian like
Rabbi Aha, who handled the dialect of his native land
with extraordinary skill, they can be explained only as
marks left upon his style by the Palestinian Aramaic of
his later abode 3 . Here are some of the idiosyncrasies on
1 Ketubot, 22 b, and six other passages, marked in the margin of the
Talmud.
* The application of this proverb becomes intelligible only in the form
it has in the Tmm ; Brull (JahrMcfier, II, 149-50), who, contrary to his
usual habit, has treated this question of Rabbi Aha's use of the Yerushalmi
in a very superficial way, decides in the affirmative, essentially on the
basis of this passage.
3 If Rabbi Aha actually delivered lectures in Palestine, which seems
very probable, the influence of the Palestinian Aramaic is all the more
to be expected.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 87
which the assertion just made is based. Rabbi Aha uses '
NJ/n NJV:n indiscriminately for Mishnah and Baraita, while
the Babylonian Talmud is unfailing in drawing a sharp
distinction between prwno, the Mishnah, and NJroriD, a
Baraita. In this respect, Rabbi Aha follows the habit
of the Terushalmi, which conveys both concepts by NrwnD.
The interrogative pronoun NTTI, an exclusively Palestinian
expression, is frequently used by Rabbi Aha. Similarly,
the introductory formula of many of the Sheeltot, NB^,
peculiar to our author, is of Palestinian derivation. In the
Babylonian dialect the only permissible forms would be
or Nsb^ 2 . The other formula used by our author,
D"I2, is also Palestinian ; in the Aramaic of Babylonia,
D~i3 is not used at all, and the connotation given to "pY
by Rabbi Aha also corresponds to its Palestinian rather
than its Babylonian meaning 3 . In connexion with this
linguistic analysis, it must be borne in mind that Pales-
tinian forms of speech were current in official and legal
documents. With the customs and regulations which the
Babylonian Jews imported from their Palestinian brethren,
they borrowed also the language garb in which they were
clothed in their original home. From the lexicographical
point of view, the Targum Onkelos is the Aramaic of the
Babylonian dialect, but its grammatical structure stands
the most rigid tests imposed by a correct Palestinian
Aramaic. The formulas prescribed by the Babli 4 for legal
1 The passages are enumerated by Reifmann, 1. c., though he failed
to notice that they betrayed Palestinian influence. On this difference
between the Babli and th Yerushalmi, comp. Lewy, Ueber . . . Mischna des
Abba Saul, 4, note 2, and the article on "Baraita'' by the present writer,
in the Jewish Encyclopedia.
3 The root F|"J disappeared from the Babylonian, with the exception
of WETIN, which may be a Palestinian terminus technicus. Instead of it,
nV is used, to which, of course, f]"rQ belongs, not, as Kohut, s. v., says,
to rpx. He also reads mc'nto, deriving it from the Aphel, though the
other form N:cbv assures the reading HJD^N from the Kal.
* Rabbi Aha uses -pjt in the sense of "doubtful", as the Yerushalmi
does. The use of the word in the Babli is very different.
4 Comp., for instance, Gittin, 85 b, and what is said upon the passage
in G. S., p. 166.
88 THE GEONIM
documents are likewise in the Aramaic dialect of Palestine,
and it would not be unnatural to find that the turns of
speech used in the Academies and in the houses of prayer
were Palestinian. As for the formula THV D"Q, Nathan
says explicitly (84, 12) that it was used by the Geonirn
in their lectures. In view thereof, it is very suggestive
that Nathan himself offers us the Babylonian form, K^iD^,
while Rabbi Aha uses Nn^Nt?, the Palestinian form x .
These internal proofs of the Palestinian origin of the
Sheeltot are strengthened by reasons of an external nature.
The most important Halakic product of the Geonic time,
the Sheeltot are yet not mentioned by a single one of the
Geonim, excepting only the last of them, Rabbi Hai.
The latter has only one reference to Rabbi Aha's work,
to be found in Harkavy's Collection, 191. But of Rabbi
Hai we know 2 that he was in correspondence with Pales-
tinian scholars, and it is natural to conjecture that the
Sheeltot were brought to his notice through his intercourse
with them. Even in the post- Geonic time, the scholars
who make use of Rabbi Aha's work are those in particular
of whom we know in other ways that Palestinian sources
were accessible to them 3 . So far as I am aware, Alfasi
never mentions the Sheeltot in his compendium 4 , while his
younger contemporary in France, Rashi, attributes great
importance to them 5 . Also, the Italian Nathan, the author
1 On this peculiar use of srfow, comp. above, p. 75, n. 2.
2 Harkavy, 29.
3 If the -vrnm was not composed in Palestine, at least it was written
under Palestinian influence. Comp. Epstein," .R. fi.J., XLVI, 201, and
Barnstein, in Sokolow's bivrt f c, 49. Concerning the relation of the
Sheeltot to We-Hishir, see Parties, 22 a, where the text stands in need of
emendation. R. Kalonymos of Lucca quotes the Sheeltot, comp. p"j, 133.
4 The benediction for yran bTO2, in Alfasi, Pesahim, I, i, is not derived
from the Sheeltot. but from a Geonic Responsum, and the passage in
j'Vcn 'n, 15, ed. Wilna, is a gloss.
5 Rashi copies complete sentences from the Sheeltot, and always calls
the author fW3 ; comp. the Sheeltot passages cited by Rashi, in Zunz's
biography of Rashi ; also the quotation from the MS. of DTID in Azulai :
:"mr, s. v. NHN.
THE IIALAKIC LITERATURE 89
of the 'Aruk, mentions the Sheeltot several times. Now
it is well known that the Italian and the Franco-German
Jews early maintained relations with Palestinian scholars,
and this would explain their knowledge of the Sheeltot.
We are now called upon to deal with a curious com-
bination of circumstances a work composed in Palestine
ignores the Yerushalmi, though its author has the oppor-
tunity of citing it on every one of his pages. The
explanation must be sought in the nature of the author's
aim when he set himself the task of writing the book.
In the introduction to his work, rrvron JV3, reprinted in
Neubauer, Mediaeval Jewish Chronicles, II, 225, Rabbi
Menahem Me'iri has the following to say upon this subject :
" We have a trustworthy tradition that Rabbi Aha had
a son who refused to devote himself to study, and for him
he wrote the Sheeltot, that in reading the Pentateuch
portion each week, he might at the same time be forced
to familiarise himself with certain Halakic pieces."
In spite of all the reverence due to so great a scholar as
Me'iri, it is still difficult not to indulge in doubts of the
trustworthiness of his tradition. We are expected to
believe that the first work of importance after the close
of the Talmud owed its existence to the laziness of an
unruly boy. In general, Mei'ri's account of the Geonim
is a mixture of distorted and inaccurate statements 1 , and
this fact relieves us of the necessity of dealing seriously
with his legend, which, besides, is denied by the plan and
style of the Sheeltot.
First as to the plan of the book. In the editions 2 we
1 Rabbi Nahshoii is put before Rabbi Moses, Rabbi Hai ben David
officiates as the successor of Rabbi Saadia, while Kohen-Zedek and
Rab Amram are called his successors ! This specimen should suffice
to put a proper valuation upon Mei'ri's Geonic traditions.
3 First edition, Venice, 1546, to which the other editions go back, with
the exception of ed. Wilna, for which the learned editor and commentator.
Rabbi Naphtali Zebi Berlin, used manuscript material. The bibliography
on the She&tot will be found rather complete attached to the present
writer's article, " Aha of Shabha," in the Jewish Encyclopedia.
90 THE GEONIM
have of it, it contains 1 7 1 l Sheeltot, arranged according
to the weekly pericopes of the Pentateuch. Each Sheelta
consists of five elements, unfortunately not always present
in our printed edition. We shall take as an illustration
the first Sheelta, which probably has reached us com-
paratively intact. It begins thus : " Sheelta : The house
of Israel is in duty bound to rest on the Sabbath day, for
when the Holy One, blessed be his Name, created the
world, he created it in six days, he rested on the seventh
day, which he blessed and sanctified." This is the intro-
duction to the first division of the Sheelta, which consists
of a number of Halakot from the Talmud relating to the
rest of the Sabbath day and its sanctification. Then
follows the second division, beginning with the words :
sjbn^ DN TIX Dia, "But this thou must learn," which
introduce two Halakic questions whether a fast should
be broken simultaneously with the entering of the Sabbath,
as fasting on the Sabbath is forbidden, and whether the
prohibition against running on the Sabbath includes run-
ning to the synagogue or the house of learning. The
arguments for and against having been stated briefly, the
third part comes, introduced by the formula m"pl rpB> T"O
?K"1B" n*3 n>y tisbib W31 HE'D H' *?y KJlTOflDl NTI'IIK $> 3HH
" Blessed be the Name of the Holy One who hath given
us the Torah and the laws, by the hand of our teacher
Moses, in order to instruct his people, the house of Israel."
But instead of giving a decisive reply to the questions
propounded, the third division consists of Halakic and
Haggadic pieces taken from the Talmud Babli, and from the
Midrashim, all of them such as bring out the significance of
the Sabbath. After this rather lengthy portion, in the nature
of a digression, the fourth division presents the answer
to the two questions, introduced by the words : " And
regarding the questions which you put to me," Nr6w i"Jyi>
KPWT. The questions and arguments are recapitu-
1 There are two ways of counting the Sheeltot, I follow that of ed.Wilna.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 9!
lated, and on the basis of the statements of the Talmud,
a conclusion is reached. The final division is a Deraahah, of
which the text has preserved only the superscription l , and
nothing besides. While the other four parts are still more
or less distinguishable in many of the Sheeltot, the fifth
part, the Derashah, has disappeared in absolutely every
instance, and even of the superscriptions only twenty-nine
have come down to us 2 .
In an article by the present writer, on Rabbi Aha, of
Shabha, Jewish Encyclopedia, I, pp. 278-80, the conjecture
was hazarded that these Derashot were talks consisting of
Halakic and Haggadic material, and that the Sheeltot as
we now have them were abstracts of these lectures, giving
the beginning of them and the end. It now appeal's that
this conjecture requires considerable modification, by reason
of the new light shed upon the subject by the Genizah
fragment published in G. $., pp. 354-62, which constitute
the Derashah attached to Sheeita, XLIII, and pp. 365-9,
the Derashah of the next Sheeita, show the character of
the fifth, the concluding division of each of the Sheeltot.
They are neither more nor less than literal extracts from
the Babylonian Talmud, occasionally somewhat shortened,
the choice of the parts of the Talmud being influenced
1 The superscription is iarr:c otpo, the fourth section of the treatise
Pesahim. The beginning (50 b) deals with travelling on Friday, a subject
akin to the one discussed by Rabbi Aha in this Sheeita. Reifmann, 1. c.,
thinks that uniffi oipo has reference to Yer. Moi ! d Katan, III, 82 d, which
is out of the question.
8 Comp. the list in Reifmann, I.e. In G. S., p. 366, a marginal note
by a scribe or a reader gives the order of the succession of the parts
of a Sheeita agreeing with that of the editions. The probability is,
however, that originally the Derashah came in the fourth place, with
the introductory word ~pa. For reasons given further on it was later
moved to the end of the Sheeita, and then dropped entirely. This surmise
is corroborated by G. S,, p. 364, 1. 5, where -pa is followed by the heading
"Derashah" together with the theme of the Derashati, though the Derashah
itself is at the end, in p. 365, line 9 et seq. If I am correctly informed,
the order here described as original with the Shefttot is met with in MSS.
of the Sheeltot.
92 THE GEONIM
by their connexion with the subject treated in a given
Sheelta. The Derashah on Sheelta, XLIII, pp. 354-62, is
composed of extracts from the fifth section of the treatise
Baba Mezia, containing the Talmudic laws of usury, which
are discussed in the Sheelta. A similar analysis holds good
of the other Derashah given l . This being their character,
it is now plain why the copyists omitted the Derashot.
They conveyed absolutely nothing new, either in form
or in content, and in later times there was no reason for
rewriting what could be found in the Talmud copies.
The important aspect of the Derashot is that through
them light is thrown upon the purpose intended to be
served by Rabbi Aha with his book. The Sheeltot have
the purpose of introducing the Babylonian Talmud to the
Palestinians. At the time of Rabbi Aha, we may be sure
that copies of the Talmud were not too plentiful, therefore
it was his aim to extract verbatim a considerable portion
of it 2 , especially the practical material, and group it
about the Biblical laws as they succeed each other in the
Scriptures. To make his collection available for practical,
pedagogic ends, Rabbi Aha, considerate of Palestinian
taste, provided each section of his compendium with a
lecture consisting of Halakah and Haggadah, in which
a comprehensive summing up was made of one or more
of the points treated ramblingly and minutely in the
Derashah. From of old, the Haggadists in Palestine applied
the Yelamdenu Midrash for their purposes. Their method
was to take a Halakah as their starting-point, and then
pass over to their real subject. Rabbi Aha followed their
example to the extent that he did not exclude the Hag-
gadah from his lectures, but in his scheme it occupied
the same place that the Halakah had in the scheme of the
1 In this DerasJiah there are even extracts from the Mishnah. Probably
they were followed by the Talmud passages applying to them.
a If the Derashah reproduced in G. S., pp. 354-62, is a proper criterion
as to the length of the Derashot, Rabbi Aha extracted about one-fifth of
the whole Talmud !
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 93
Palestinian Haggadists 1 . The Haggadah was his starting-
point, his real subject was the Halakah. To the Haggadists
he owed also the arrangement of the material according
to the weekly lesson from the Pentateuch, which had never
before him been attempted by a Babylonian, nor was there
one to attempt it after him 2 . In Babylonia, the home
of the Halakah, a plan on this basis would have been
entirely unnatural, in view of the fact that the first book of
the Pentateuch is purely narrative, as are also large portions
of the second, fourth, and fifth, and therefore altogether
unsuitable as a basis for legal discussions. Palestine, on the
other hand, was the home of Haggadistic interpretation,
for which the Pentateuch was chosen with instinctive dis-
cernment. Kabbi Aha shows a fine sense for the peculiarity
of his new surroundings, when he accepts, for Halakic
purposes, the model furnished him by the Haggadists.
But docile as he was, he could not prevent himself from
betraying his Babylonian origin. Instead of using as
the basis of his work the triennial cycle of Pentateuch
pericopes adopted in the Holy Land, he held to the annual
cycle of his native country 3 .
In general, Rabbi Aha remained more or less consciously
under the dominance of Babylonian customs during his
sojourn in Palestine. His predilection appears notably in
the fact that he did not attach his discussion upon the
importance of the study of the Torah to the Biblical law
1 Graetz, Geschichte, V s , 162, has completely reversed the true relation
of Rabbi Aha to the Haggadic Midrashim, when he maintains that the
Sheeltot served as a model for the later Haggadic collections, by which
he means the Tanhuma Midrashim.
8 Of all the Midrashim, the #"~\ ^f\s may be designated as Babylonian,
and although it is essentially a Haggadic elaboration of the narratives
in the first book of the Bible, it still is not arranged according to the
Pentateuch lessons.
3 Doubtless the influence of the Babylonians must have made itself
felt in this respect in the time of Rabbi Aha, and probably there were
"Babylonian synagogues" in Palestine, such as had the one-year cycle
of Pentateuch lessons. On the influence of the Babylonian rituals in
Palestine see G. S., p. 58.
94 THE GEONIM
in Deut. vi. 7, in the section pnnxi. Instead, he displayed
great ingenuity in working it into the pericope called "p "p.
The reason is very simple. The " reception Sabbath " of the
Exilarch in Babylonia coincided with Sabbath *]b 'p. The
Geonim, or rather the Geonim of Sura, were in the habit
of utilising this occasion, which attracted people from
all parts, for a lecture, and naturally enough the study
of the Torah was a favourite theme 1 . And it was this
custom of his native land Rabbi Aha had in mind when
he used the Sheelta on "ft *]*? for a disquisition on lic^n
mm.
How completely the Geonic and post-Geonic develop-
ment of Halakic literature was moulded by Babylonia,
is shown by the fact that there is but a single work
patterned after the Sheeltot, the book We-Hizhir, the be-
ginnings of which are probably to be placed in the tenth
century. All that we know about the author is that he
stood under strong Palestinian influences 2 . Not only is
the We-Hizhir constructed on the same formal plan as the
Sheeltot, but it embodied copious excerpts from Rabbi
Aria's work, a circumstance which makes it most valuable
for us, inasmuch as its text of the Sheeltot frequently
differs from ours 3 . The text upon which our editions are
based has suffered additions and abbreviations as well. In
G. S., p. 353 et seq., below, Genizah fragments of pieces of
the Sheeltot missing in the printed text have been repro-
1 Comp. above, p. 5, n. i.
2 Comp. above, p. 88, n. 3.
3 On this com p. Rapoport, jn: '~\ nnrin, note 4, and Addition i, also
Reifmann, 1. c. Our SJieeltot are defective in arrangement, too. For
instance, there can be no doubt that the Sheelta CXXIII on c':no 7012
belongs to the pericope NIIT: and not to frn^yrra , as the editions have it.
Mahzor Vitry, 394, and Rashi's Siddw (Buber's Introduction to misn 'r,
84) quote this Sheelta properly as belonging to NIT: . Hurwitz, the editor
of the Mahzor, and Buber both went astray, therefore, when they were of
opinion that the Sheeltot passage in question was missing in our editions.
On Sheeltot quotations in the 'Aruk, comp. Buber's letter addressed tn
Kohut, in the latter's introduction to the -piy.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 95
duced from the Taylor-Schechter collection at Cambridge 1 .
On the other hand, the Halakot of Rabbi Aha, which are
mentioned by Maimonides in his introduction to the
Mishnah, are not a lost book, but the Sheeltot under
another name. The Halakot Pesukot of Rabbi Aha, sup-
posed to be mentioned by Rabbi Moses of Coucy in his
3"iDD, Commandement 50, is a printer's error as old as the
second edition of 1488. The first edition, before 1480,
reads properly 'XTp instead of
RABBI JEHUDAI THE EARLIEST HALAKIC WRITER IN
GEONIC TIMES.
" Since many years until this day there was none like
unto Rab Jehudai, for he was great in knowledge of
the Bible, the Mishnah, the Midrash, the Tosafot, the
Haggadot and in the practical law. It was his habit
never to say anything he had not heard from his teacher.
He was great in holiness and purity, in piety and humility,
he was zealous in the fulfilment of all commands. He
sacrificed himself for the sake of God 3 , and he drew men
near to the Torah and to obedience to the law, and none
after him was like unto him ..... Rabbi Jehudai once
said, Ye have never submitted a matter to me, and I
1 There is no telling whether all these Sheeltot fragments belong to the
original work of Rabbi Aha, or are later productions modelled after his
work. The She&ta on the Day of Atonement, pp. 373-81, shows so many
verbal agreements with the j"n that it cannot but have made use of the
latter.
2 The first to call attention to this alleged Halakot of Rabbi Aha was
S. Bloch, in his Hebrew translation of Zunz's biography of Rashi.
Reifmann, 1. c., mentions it likewise, without referring to Bloch. Comp.
also below, p. 100, n. i.
* The expression Dvaicb r^sr ns YDNO is usually applied to martyrs who
sacrifice life in the service of God, but the preceding word rrm shows
plainly that there was no idea of conveying the notion of Rabbi Jehudai's
having died a martyr's death. Rapoport's assumption, ion DID , VI, 243,
that Rabbi Jehudai died a martyr, is refuted by this fragment ; comp.
also Weiss, 41, n. 17.
96 THE GEONIM
decided it, but that I had a proof from the Talmud for
my decision, and from the practice of my teacher, who
would have it from his teacher. I never rendered a decision
wherefor I had only a proof from the Talmud, and not
from the practice of my teacher, or wherefor I had a proof
only from the practice of my teacher, and not from the
Talmud."
This characterisation of Rabbi Jehudai, quoted in G. S.,
pp. 52-3, by a younger contemporary of the great Gaon,
shows how high an opinion his own time had of his ability
and achievements. The centuries following his death felt
the same appreciation of his mental powers. He was
called the "light of the world," and a number of other
epithets betokening honour and reverence x . An anony-
mous author, probably a Gaon of Punibedita, flourishing
about the beginning of the ninth century, could find
no more effectual way of investing what he wrote with
authority than by the plea that " all I have written unto
you I did not write out of my own learning and wisdom,
but it rests upon what I have derived, in theory and in
practice, from my teacher Rabbah, the disciple of
Rabbi Jehudai Gaon, may the memory of our teacher
be unto a blessing and unto life in the future world 2 ."
1 Comp., for instance, S"ID, 45 a. Rabbi Sherira, Yi, 43, observes that
Eabbi Jehudai granted no absolution for oaths, and as a consequence
the scholars of the generations succeeding him opposed the exercise of
myntEJ mnn, since they would not arrogate to themselves greater authority
than Rabbi Jehudai assumed ! On his aversion to absolving from oaths
and vows see Nahmanides, Nedarim, end. Comp. also the Geonic
Responsum in c 'Ittur, II, 2 a, where the authority of Rabbi Jehudai is
given high praise. The epithet "light of the world" was probably
applied to him in contrast to his blindness, while that of Rabbenu
Gershom, " light of the Diaspora," is derived from Huttin, 59 b.
2 Ha-Goren, IV, 71. Harkavy's attempt to fasten this fragment,
published by him, upon Rabbi Hilai, the father of Rabbi Natronai, is
not successful. The strict interdict against fasting on roisj res? con-
tained in this fragment contradicts the view of Rabbi Natronai (comp.
G.S., p. 261, and the sources cited there in connexion with Responsum
10), and it is not conceivable that the latter would have ignored his
father's position completely. Rather is it probable that the author of
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 97
Rabbi Jehudai's learning alone could not have secured
these extraordinary honours for him. The impartial his-
torian is forced to confess that in respect to scholarship
he was outstripped by more than one of his successors.
Not to mention Rabbi Saadia, whose genius was so many-
sided that he became the pioneer on a number of fields
of Jewish science, Rabbi Jehudai's achievements even upon
the limited field of the Talmud cannot be compared with
those of Sar Shalom and Natronai, to specify only a couple
of the older Geonim. The Responsa by Rabbi Jehudai,
if they go beyond a curt affirmative or negative, offer
at best a brief reference to a Talmud passage, without
further comment. Nothing of the depth of a Sar Shalom or
the great erudition of a Rabbi Natronai. Indeed, the pane-
gyrist quoted above recounts it as one of his distinctions
that Rabbi Jehudai never said anything for which he
could not find endorsement in the Talmud or in religious
practice.
Accordingly, Rabbi Jehudai's importance must be sought
in some concrete deed which made him a commanding
figure in the eyes of his contemporaries and his successors.
And for a deed of this calibre we need not search far or
long. The words of Rabbi Hai quoted above 1 , in which
he speaks of the " secret rolls," wherein the " authorities
of remotest times," " who lived before Rabbi Jehudai"
were wont to record traditions " for their own use," suggest
the solution. Rabbi Jehudai is the earliest author, at least
the earliest Halakic author, of the Geonic time. He was
the fragment was a Pumbeditan, and his teacher, ruKi, of whom
Harkavy says that no mention is made of him otherwise, was the
Gaon of Pumbedita, Rab Abba ben Rabbi Dudai, the nephew of Rabbi
Jehudai. It is work of supererogation to prove the identity of the
names nn , nam , and NIN '-\ ; however, even the versions of Rabbi
Sherira's Letter, 39, have rm and NIN at for the same name. It only
remains to add that the prohibition against fasting on nrra rue goes
back to Rabbi Jehudai ; comp. Miiller, Handschriftiiche Jehudai Gaon
zugewiesene Lehrsatze, 1 1 and 1 8.
1 Comp. above, p. 74.
I H
98 THE GEONIM
the first to put Halakic matter down in writing for general
use, and it is from this point of view that he may and
should be regarded as a pioneer.
The objection will be raised that in the previous section
Rabba Aha, of Shabha, a contemporary of Rabbi Jehudai,
was presented as an author of a Halakic work. It is
altogether probable that this contemporary of Rabbi
Jehudai was stimulated to take up his pen when the latter,
with all the authority of a Gaon, abrogated the prohibition
against the writing down of the Halakah. The assump-
tion, in itself highly probable, that so important a change
emanated from a Gaon invested with dignity and power
rather than a private individual, finds corroboration in
the chronological data marshalled in the first part of this
Introduction. It was shown above, p. 48, that the Gaon
of Pumbedita, Rabbi Samuel, was still alive when Rabbi
Jehudai entered upon the Gaonate of Sura. Furthermore,
we know that Rabbi Aha wrote his Sheeltot after his
removal to Palestine, and this event did not take place
until after the death of Rabbi Samuel. But at bottom
the Sheeltot do not affect the present point. In Palestine
the prohibition against the writing down of Halakah had
ceased to be enforced with rigour back in the Talmudic
time 1 . So that even if the Sheeltot had not remained
unknown in Babylonia, being a Palestinian product, they
still would have had no influence upon the question of
Halakic authorship in Babylonia.
1 Comp. Temurah, 14 a ; the beginnings of the practice of writing down
the Halakah are probably to be sought in the srwoo WTUN, the written
communications sent from Palestine to Babylonia. The sharp condemna-
tion by Rabbi Johanan of the practice of writing down the Halakah,
Temurah, 1. c. , is not found in the Yerushcdmi, while there is, in Ter.
Berakot, V, 9 a, an endorsement of Haggadic writings by Rabbi Johanan.
Comp. Brull, Jahrbucher, II, 5.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 99
CONFLICTING TRADITIONS ABOUT THE AUTHOR OP THE
HALAKOT GEDOLOT.
Rabbi Jehudai's priority as an Halakic author is contested
by another, by Rabbi Simon {O^p 1 . The most important
Halakic compendium of the Geonic period, the Halakot
Gedolot, is ascribed by some old authors to Rabbi Jehudai,
but others name Rabbi Simon as the author. Rabbi
Abraham Ibn Daud maintains plainly that Rabbi Jehudai's
Halakot Kezubot are an abstract of the Halakot Gedolot
of Rabbi Simon. Halevy emends (pp. 200-13) the text
of the RaBeD so that he finds the exact reverse to be
the case, that it was Rabbi Simon who based his work
upon Rabbi Jehudai's. It is Halevy's theory that Rabbi
Jehudai wrote a Halakic compendium long before he
became Gaon, and it served as the source from which
his younger and less important contemporaries, Rabbi
Aha, the author of the Sheeltot, and Rabbi Simon, the
author of the Halakot Gedolot, drew their material. The
assumption is highly improbable to repeat what was
said above that the first step toward a fixation of the
Halakah in writing in Babylonia proceeded from a private
individual, but if it were an acceptable assumption, the
priority of Rabbi Simon would be established, for the
RaBeD puts the time of his activity a generation earlier
than Rabbi Jehudai, and no emendation can dispose of
that statement.
But there is no room for doubt as to the incorrectness
of the RaBeD's statement about Rabbi Simon. It clearly
rests upon a misunderstanding, and it is vain to try to
harmonise it with other reports of a reliable nature 2 .
Rabbi Hai, as appears from his words quoted above 3 ,
1 The most important literature dealing with a'rt is recorded by
Epstein in his a*n IDD **? T2tro.
2 How RaBeD reached this view of his, comp. above, pp. 76-7, and
Epstein, 1. c., 51.
3 Comp. above, p. 74.
H 2
100 THE GEONIM
assuredly considers Rabbi Jehudai the earliest author of
the Geonic period, and bearing this Responsum of Rabbi
Hai in mind, another passage of his, in p"a, 87, , . , , pyB> 'i
KllfT an "if pn'oyox Dp vh, admits of no meaning except
this : Rabbi Simon N"Vp, the compiler of the Halakot
Gedolot, misunderstood the opinion of Rabbi Jehudai.
Rabbi Hai's last quoted statement propounds another
problem, the solution of which is extremely difficult. In
this Responsum and elsewhere, Rabbi Hai clearly says that
the author of 3"n was Rabbi Simon NT 11 ?, and not Rabbi
Jehudai, wherein he argues with the scholars of Spain and
the Provence, and is in opposition to those of France and
Germany. The latter 1 name Rabbi Jehudai as the author
of 3'n. In his enlightening essay upon the subject,
Epstein does not hesitate to characterise the tradition
of Franco-German authorities regarding the author of 3"n
as an outright error. However, he makes no attempt to
elicit the cause of the error. It could not have been caused
by confounding J"n with the nipioa ni3/n ascribed to Rabbi
1 The older Italian scholars, as, for instance, Rabbi Isaiah di Trani
the Elder, agree with the Franco-German scholars, while the younger
ones seem to have wavered. Kabbi Zedekiah ben Abraham, the author
of the bn'ic, in most passages calls Rabbi Jehudai the author of the :*n,
yet there are places in which Rabbi Simon NT'p appears as such. Though
Rabbi Abraham ben Nathan, the author of the Manhig, studied in Northern
France, he wrote his work in Spain, hence he usually speaks of Rabbi
Simon as the author of the 3*n, but, again, in some passages, he was
dominated by the French tradition. Among the Spanish- Proven9al
authors, too, there is a tendency to variation. In y't?, 14 a, Rabbi David
nn p (Alfasi quotes him in n*3, 301) speaks of Rabbi Jehudai as the
author of j"n, and Rabbi Isaac, the author of the 'Ittur, though he almost
always considers Rabbi Simon as the author, says in one passage (II,
48 d) . . . . nobn bri ro an D'DI, which should most probably be read
'3:n 'ya mv n, since the passage quoted occurs in both versions of the
a*n, at the beginning of HDD, but it does not occur in the SheSltot. The
same slip of the pen, making sn of mv, was shown above, p. 95, to
have occurred in :*QD . There is the possibility, however, that the ' Ittur
had this passage in SheSlta LXXIII and LXXIX. The description of
Rabbi Aha as the 'frr 'ya was demonstrated above, p. 95, to occur in
Maimonides.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE IOI
Jehudai. They knew the latter work as well as the former,
and the widely varying character of the two books would
suggest separate authors rather than the same. Halevy,
applying the Talmudic maxim, D"n DTi^K nan "km "hx, to
historical data, can see no contradiction between the two
opinions. He holds that the Franco-German authors had
made Rabbi Jehudai the author of J"n, because they knew
that for this work of his Rabbi Simon fcO"p had made
constant use of the niplDS nia^n of Rabbi Jehudai. They
therefore did not hesitate to describe Rabbi Jehudai as
the author in the real sense. Apart from the improbability
of this conjecture, which imputes to scholars of the eleventh
and twelfth centuries the practice of changing the name
of the author attached to a given book, on the ground of
literary criticism, this alleged historical criticism was far
from doing honour to the penetration of the critics. The
Halakot Pesukot, it is true, are freely made use of in
the present form of the Halakot Gedolot, but these two
Halakot collections are so radically different in their under-
lying plans, that there would be as much justification for
ascribing the same author to them as for ascribing the
Halakot Gedolot to Rabbi Aha, of Shabha, whose Sheeltot,
too, have been drawn upon considerably therefor.
Now, if it were simply a matter of choosing between
Rabbi Hai's statement and the statement of European
scholars, we should not have to hesitate long. The Baby-
lonian Rabbi Hai, the Gaon of Pumbedita, was assuredly
better informed about the author of important Halakot
collections made in the Geonic time than the authorities
of Germany and France living at a distance from the time
and the scene of the activity of the Babylonian Halakists.
However, we are in possession of a Geonic tradition very
much older than Rabbi Hai's, and it tells us, in unmis-
takable words, that Rabbi Jehudai is the author of the
Halakot Gedolot. In a Responsum in G. S., pp. 85-6,
a decision occurring in the Halakot Gedolot is repudiated
on the ground that it lacks authenticity, and the view is
102 THE GEONIM
expressed that it did not emanate from the author of
the 3"n, but rather from Rabbi Jacob, the Gaon of Sura.
If it is taken into consideration that even the last of
the Geonim, Rabbi Hai and Rabbi Samuel ben Hofni,
express their opinion on Rabbi Simon N'V'P plainly, indi-
cating that they do not regard him as an authority 1 ,
the Responsum referred to would become altogether un-
intelligible on the assumption that its writer looked upon
Rabbi Simon as the author of 3"n. Instead of undermining
the authority of the decision disputed by him, he would
confirm it by attributing it to so eminent a person
as Rabbi Jacob, Gaon of Sura. The Responsum conveys
sense only if we assume that its writer considered Rabbi
Jehudai Gaon as the author of the J"n. Now a decision
emanating from him had unassailable authority in the
eyes of the Geonim, and therefore the writer of the Re-
sponsum adds that the moot passage had originated, not
with Rabbi Jehudai, but with a disciple 2 of his, Rabbi
Jacob, and the view of this Gaon he did not accept as
of unquestioned authority.
The writer of the Responsum under examination is not
1 Comp., for example, Rabbi Hai's rather incisive observation on Rabbi
Simon in p"j, 87, and Rabbi Samuel ben Hofni's patronising words in
Harkavy, 146. It may be noted, by the way, that Epstein, 1. c.. overlooked
this quotation from the 3*n by Rabbi Samuel.
2 Rabbi Jacob referred to oral instructions given by Rabbi Jehudai
in his presence (I"IN, I, H4b; DTiE, 2&&; and below, p. 31), as is
indicated particularly by the words 'NTirv 'i TO uioi pi. The end of
the Responsum by Rabbi Jacob in I"IN reads : 31 'CO 'n mo NIWD NIT<
'smrr (in me the text is corrupt), whence the inference seems to be
that the teacher of Rabbi Jacob was not Rabbi Jehudai himself, but one
of the pupils of the latter, perhaps Rabbi Hanina. As the death of
Rabbi Jacob occurred forty years after Rabbi Jehudai's, it is possible
for him to have heard Rabbi Jehudai dispense instruction, without
having been a pupil of his in the true sense of the word. Comp. also
;*rr, 125, which gives the impression that Rabbi Jacob was a disciple
of Rabbi Hanina. In the MS. of the n">}Ki, mentioned above, p. 47, the
parallel passage reads : i:"npi mrb pi ... rmo JIN: ['::n = ] 'N ! r:n 10 nm
;iJ 'NTirr n 'BO. Accordingly, it is Rabbi Haninai, and not Rabbi Jacob,
who referred to personal instructions received from Rabbi Jehudai.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 103
mentioned, but it seems highly probable that it was issued
by Rabbi Natronai ben Hilai, who elsewhere, too, accuses
Rabbi Jacob of seeking to give a view of his own undue
weight through the protection of Rabbi Jehudai's name 1 .
Also, the expression N^in pan is frequently used by Rabbi
Natronai. At all events, the rather cavalier way in which
a view of Rabbi Jacob's is rejected, indicates that the author
of the Responsum must be a Gaon not too far removed
from Rabbi Jacob in time 2 .
JEHUDAI GAON AUTHOR OF THE ORIGINAL
HALAKOT GEDOLOT.
Another circumstance adds to the difficulty of determining
who the author of the Halakot Gedolot is. We have two
widely varying versions of the book, and it is a serious
task to establish which of the two, if either, is the original
form. This is not the place to discuss in detail the rela-
tion existing between these two versions ; one point,
however, requires immediate consideration. One version,
which will be designated as J" n I, mentions no authorities
younger than Rabbi Jehudai Gaon 3 , while a"n II refers to
1 Comp. G. S., p. 31.
' Comp. R. Natronai's Responsum in G. <S., p. 319, where ma n 'c is
perhaps = :"n.
* In the author's list for 3*n, by Epstein, 1. c., Rabbi Hanina appears
the pupil of Rabbi Jehudai, from 3*n I, but it is very doubtful whether
the w:':n '~\ mentioned there is the same as the pupil of Rabbi Jehudai,
as there was an earlier Gaon of this name. Halevy's objection to the
identification, that the younger Rabbi Hanina is not designated as Kohen,
is of course untenable. In j"n, 125, likewise, won '~\ is not described
as Kohen, although it is certain that Rabbi Jehudai's pupil is there
referred to, as his reply to a question put by Rabbi Jacob is given. It
should be added that the passage in 3*n, 793, is a later interpolation,
as appears from i*w, I, 204. It was transferred thither from a'n II, 325,
where it was in so early a copy as that used by Samuel ben Hofni
(Harkavy, 146). The form of the other passage, 3*n, 138 d, betrays it
to be a gloss, as in two other passages in j*n I, in which explanations
are described as CTVC, this word properly stands at the beginning of
the clause to be explained, while here it is put at the end. It probably
is the observation of a reader who had heard the discussion of rmrra m:no
by Rabbi Hanina, which is not meant to imply that the view presented
104 THE GEONIM
Geonim l up to 890. The final redaction of the latter version
should thus be assigned to about the year 900. As the
Franco- German scholars differ from the Hispano-Provensal
in their views of the authorship of J"n, so also they differ
in their use of the versions 2 . The former are acquainted
with the first version only, the latter with the second version
only, and here we must seek the solution of the question
occupying us.
The real author of J^n is Rabbi Jehudai. His work
reached the Franco-German scholars at an early period,
originated with him. An interesting parallel is offered by Ycdkut, I, 736,
where it is said, at the end of a Midrash extract : ^mra cm ~\rJr\
pwi nine' cui :nD > : < :n mi [N:no] NSTO " And this [section] was
expounded by the head of the Academy and Gaon Rabbi Hanina in
the Academy." It would seem that Rabbi Hanina was disposed to give
his students compilations of Haggadic material and Halakic as well.
It must be admitted, however, that nobi may refer to Rabbi Samuel,
and not to Rabbi Haninai. Who D"D '~\ is, mentioned in both versions
of the j"n, cannot be made out. The father of the Pumbeditan Gaon
Rabbi Zemah is called CB in a MS. of the Letter, instead of v:E3, but
this must be merely a slip of the pen, as Rabbi Nathan also has 'x:E3.
1 Probably the reading should be 'in'p instead of 'ovp in z"n II, 548.
The person meant is the Gaon of Sura (about 832), not the Gaon of
Pumbedita (ab. 906), the father of Mebasser, as no Pumbeditan Geonim
are mentioned in a"n with the exception of Rabbi Paltoi and his son
Zemah. Responsa by a Rabbi Kimoi are to be found in the anonymous
Halakic compendium published in J. Q. R., IX, 669-81, and he is pro-
bably the same as our Rabbi '107. It is proper, however, to call attention
to the fact that Rabbi Nathan calls the father of Rabbi Saadia's predecessor
as Gaon of Sura 'ovp, and not nc'p. About jun p ipy fm \ in ;"n II, 230,
we know absolutely nothing. Is it possible that he may be Rabbi Jacob
of Nehar Pakod, who was Gaon of Sura about 715 ? His decision against
the use of phylacteries on n'mn is in agreement with Rabbi Shashna
(n'tc, 266), who officiated as Gaon of Sura about one generation earlier.
At all events, the name yyi, in its Aramaic form wan, occurs at this
time ; comp. above, p. 17, n. i. I am very suspicious about the genuine-
ness of the end of the Responsum in n*TD, 1. c. It is missing in n"c, 155,
and in I'IDD, I, 47, it forms part of a Responsum by Rabbi Moses. We can
hardly be said to know Rabbi Shashna's view on nn"im pVBn.
2 This rule, of course, has its exceptions. Rabbi Isaac of Vienna also
used the rroED'N to a'm. On the other hand, Albargeloni seems to have
known i"n I, as was observed by Halberstam in his introduction to the
m's' 'D cno, 12. Comp. above, p. 100, n. i.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 105
and they assigned it to Rabbi Jehudai as its author, on
the strength of a well-founded tradition. This work was
recast about 900. by Rabbi Simon, who made many additions
thereto, by reason of which additions the work acquired
such popularity that it superseded the original of the great
Rabbi Jehudai. Now, when Rabbi Sherira and Rabbi
Hai desire to speak of Rabbi Jehudai 's work, they designate
it specifically as Wirv 'n iro^n in contrast to the i"n par
excellence, which circulated a century after Rabbi Simon
in the form given to it by him. This "improved" version
fell into the hands of the Hispano-Proven^al scholars, who
properly referred to the J"n as the work of Rabbi Simon,
inasmuch as they did not know its older form. Again, the
anonymous writer of the Responsum in G. S., pp. 85, 86,
who lived before 900, knew none but the first version,
and there was no need for him to name the author, Rabbi
Jehudai, explicitly. In his time no Halakot Gedolot
existed except those of Rabbi Jehudai. The words of
Rabbi Hai 1 , wvr 101 rnhlJ nttbm, are therefore not to be
emended to read 'jnirr no ttchmi ni^na ni^m, as suggested
by Epstein, but "id is to be changed to ~io"i. Rabbi Hai
refers to the various readings in the a"n of Rabbi Jehudai,
without concerning himself about those of Rabbi Simon,
to which he attributed no particular importance.
It must be admitted that Rabbi Hai cites 2 a view from
the Halakot of Rabbi Jehudai which is in contradiction
to a*n I. But this can hardly be brought up as an
objection to the above explanation, if we consider that
as early as the time of the Geonim the text of a*n had
been badly tampered with 3 . We are probably dealing
with a correction of 3"n I in accordance with 3"n II, a
process not by any manner of means unique*. Though
1 Quoted in DTI QTin, 233, 119. * o'c, II, 66.
8 Comp. Epstein, 1. c.
4 Of the many proofs that might be brought forward, a couple follow :
a*OD, Prohibition 138, cited from a*n II, which we have in a*n I, 134 d,
while Commandment 63 he cites from ;*n I, with us contained in :*n
106 THE GEONIM
Rabbi Simon fell far short of enjoying the respect paid
his predecessor, Rabbi Jehudai, his work was used to
a much larger extent than the shorter compendium of
Rabbi Jehudai, who even had to submit to improvements
after Rabbi Simon.
A much more serious objection might be advanced,
based upon the presence of Sheeltot quotations in the J"n.
It is to the last degree improbable that Rabbi Jehudai
would regard the work of his contemporary Rabbi Aha,
whose activity, besides, displayed itself in Palestine, as
of sufficient importance to be excerpted by him. But
on closer examination this objection to the explanation
given develops into a supporting argument. It was
mentioned above that down to Rabbi Hai the Sheeltot
were not mentioned by any Gaon, which makes the
frequent quotations from them in the 3"n all the more
remarkable. Another point to be noted is that Rabbi
Aha, the author of the Sheeltot, is mentioned by name
four times in :"n, but his opinions are each time intro-
duced with the word "ICK. whether they are statements
of his appearing in the Sheeltot, or such as are not taken
thence. An interpretation of these facts would properly
permit us to infer that the author of the 3"n was per-
sonally acquainted with Rabbi Aha, and was told one thing
and another by him in conversation, but his work, the
Sheeltot, written in Palestine, was not known to Rabbi
Jehudai, who may have written his own Halakic collection
earlier than Rabbi Aha wrote his. Hence the Sheeltot
quotations, which on their face are passages from the
book reproduced literally, cannot have been put in by
Rabbi Jehudai himself. The same explanation applies
to them as to the fairly numerous decisions of Rabbi
II, 528. The rf~\ bsr a'rt quoted by French authors was j"n II, as appears
from Tosafot, ffullin, 46 b, catchword 'oaiN , yet it was not identical with
our text of the second version. For example, the J"OD quotes passages
from the n'n of n*i, to be found neither in 3*n I nor II. Comp. also
Freimann, We-Hizhir, II, 82-3.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE IOJ
Jehudai himself that are to be found in the 3*n doubtless
a pupil of Rabbi Jehudai inserted, in appropriate places
in his work, opinions of the master known from other
sources 1 . In the same way he enriched it with intro-
ductions taken from the Sheeltot. It is not impossible
that this same disciple may have sat at the feet of Rabbi
Aha, too, while the latter still lived at Babylonia.
Accordingly, the development of the 3"n must have
proceeded as follows: About the middle of the eighth
century Rabbi Jehudai composed a Halakic compendium,
which he named nii>na maSi 2 . This work of his was
provided with additions by a pupil. The additions were
mainly of two sorts, introductions 3 , taken from the
Sheeltot, to comprehensive sections of the work ; and
extracts from Responsa by Rabbi Jehudai, together with
other of his oral and written decisions. The result was
the work which came to the hands of the Franco-German
scholars. This same work of Rabbi Jehudai's, with the
additions and introductions inserted by his pupil, formed
the foundation upon which Rabbi Simon N"T"P, in about
900, built up a remodelled work, known to the last of
the Geonim and to the Hispano-Proven^al Jews as the
" Halakot Gedolot of Rabbi Simon NT"p>." Originally, it
is fair to assume, the latter book circulated under its
full title, pyot? 'n jpnt? mbnj nia/n "the Halakot Gedolot
[of Rabbi Jehudai, of course, there being no other in
existence] arranged [in Hebrew, the same as composed 4 ]
1 The Mishnah, the work of Rabbi, and also the Seder Rab Amram
contain teachings by their authors, who are mentioned by name, and
as this does not invalidate their claims of authorship, so the frequent
occurrence of Rabbi Jehudai's name in the j'rt testifies for his authorship
rather than against it. In the last case, the author's blindness is an
additional consideration. Many a sentence dictated by him directly
may have been set down by his pupils with the introductory words,
' Rabbi Jehudai says."
The title was probably derived from the Talmud, Shebu'ot, 458.
' Most of the SheSltot quotations are of this kind.
* On the various uses of jpn, comp. Zunz, Gtsammelte Schrtften, III, 51,
and below, p. 161.
108 THE GEONIM
by Kabbi Simon." Later, familiar use wore the title
down to the Halakot Gedolot of Rabbi Simon, and the
name of the real author dropped into oblivion.
LATER AMPLIFICATIONS OF THE HALAKOT GEDOLOT.
Besides these two principal forms of the J^n, there were,
of course, various texts of each, as was bound to happen
with books consulted and studied as industriously as
these. It was equally inevitable that they should suffer
additions and omissions. Aside from the Spanish jfn,
which, it will be recalled, is identical with i"n II, and,
according to my opinion, corresponds to the version of
Rabbi Simon, we find references in some of the old authors
to a 3"n from Palestine and also a J"n from Babylonia 1 .
In view thereof one is hardly justified in making categoric
statements regarding the origin and author of either, on the
basis of nothing more than the two printed texts of the 3*n .
On pp. 383-97, in the G. S., will be found some Genizah
fragments in the Taylor-Schechter Collection which agree
neither with j"n I nor with J"n II. I would refer the reader
particularly to p. 397, which will be seen to differ from the
printed texts (io8b ; ed. Hildesheimer, 443) containing the
expressions 'i:n plio JTN1. Again, in some other Genizah
fragments 2 Sheeltot quotations are not met with. These
1 The author of the i"w, I, n6a, introduces a quotation with the
words taan nro:o a"n, but the sentence thus introduced is to be found
neither in a"rr I, nor in a"n II. The same author speaks of bxc j"na
nrta 'UJNTi rorur JTI D'Jiwi owrc: (a similar description of 3*rt2 occurs in
p*Vn, par. 243, 49 d, to which my attention has been called by Dr. Marx),
but his meaning is not quite clear. It is possible that rnVru rvo'TTO here
does not mean a work at all, but only "in important decisions." The
author of the 'Ittur, II, 22 c, refers to '"NO 1N2C NT'p c*-n nwVrr ! Comp.
G. S., pp. 400-1, which fragment, as is explained 1. c., p. 352, is of
Palestinian origin.
3 I have in my possession, from the Taylor-Schechter Collection, a copy
of a few badly damaged leaves of the a*n, which contain the section
on Kliddush. The section begins : to imai 'npb 'ten DV nn 1121 : rfmm \riTp
.... pn, and accordingly has not the Sheeltot quotations which are to
be found in :"n I and II.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 109
variations seem to offer strong corroboration of the view
expressed above, that the original form of the a^n did not
contain the Sheeltot quotations. Likewise, the Genizah
fragments present an arrangement of the material departing
essentially from that which we are familiar with in the
printed versions J .
In defining the relation of the Sheeltot to the Halakot
Gedolot, an important circumstance must not be overlooked.
Doubtless Rabbi Aha must have embodied a number of
Halakot and Talmudic explanations, formulated in the
Saboraic and early Geonic times in his work, in their
literal wording. Such use of a common source would
account for some of the passages that agree literatim et
verbatim in the two books. As we saw above 2 , the last of
the Geonim cite teachings and explanations, in the form of
oral traditions, from the Saboraic and the early Geonic
period, identical word for word with sentences in the 3'n.
How much more may we expect to find such literal accord
between contemporaries like Rabbi Jehudai and Rabbi Aha.
They may have been disciples of the same teachers, and
certainly were members of the same academy.
Another class of Sheeltot quotations in the J'n can readily
be shown to be later additions. The passage in the a*n
on the insertion of ffoan y^ in the prayers on the Sabbath of
Hanukkah is a case in point. The section cnn B>K"rt raen
Kin snvn which occurs in both versions of the 3*n
(25 c ; ed. Hildesheimer, 85) is a repetition of Sheelta
XXVI, 85, but the following section pBD1M -paroi
demonstrates that the author of the 3"n differs essentially
from Rabbi Aha in his view of this liturgical regulation.
Rabbi Aha holds that on the Sabbath of Hanukkah, by
D'oan is to be inserted both in the 'Amidah and in the
grace after meals; the author of the a^n insists upon the
1 Comp. the fragment reproduced below, p. 382. I have noticed in
other Genizah fragments, besides, an order essentially different from the
printed versions.
1 Comp. pp. 73-4, above.
110 THE GEONIM
former only. This difference of opinion did not escape
the notice of Kabbi Jehudai's pupil. He added to the
work of his master the passage in the Sheeltot bearing
upon the question, but that Rabbi Jehudai's opinion might
not be contravened, he omitted Kabbi Aha's final sentence.
He could not avoid stating the same Halakah in two forms,
conveying the same content and differing only in their
verbal terms. Side by side with each other, we have
Rabbi Aha's view and Rabbi Jehudai's, on the insertion
of D^wn hy on the Sabbath of HanukJcah.
There are also a number of other elements whiqh, like
the quotations from the Sheeltot, do not belong to the
original component parts of the 3"n. Even when they
occur in both versions, they are still to be looked upon
as additions. At the end of the section on rv% there
are three Halakot of liturgical content totally unconnected
with what precedes enough to make one suspicious of
their right to be considered an integral part of the real
3"n. The last of the doubtful Halakot is irrefutable evi-
dence of the spuriousness of all three. It teaches that
Kaddish and Baraku may be recited with but six
worshippers present. The author of Masseket Soferim,
X, 8, informs us that as late as his time, several centuries
after Jehudai, the Babylonians insisted upon the presence
of ten men, while the Palestinians contented themselves
with six 1 . The only proper inference is that this passage
in the 2"n was interpolated at a late time, probably after
the date of Masseket Soferim, a Palestinian work cited by
no Babylonian author of the Geonic period 2 . The other
two Halakot are taken from the Seder Rob Amram 3 (26 a
1 The text of Mas. Soferim bears various interpretations. The conception
presented in 3"n agrees with Kabbenu Tarn's ; comp. Miiller on this
passage. That none of the old authors referred to the passage in j*n,
may also be adduced as a proof of its spuriousness.
2 Rabbenu Hai quotes Masseket Seforim, not Masseket Soferim. Comp.
above, p. 73, n. i.
3 Epstein, 1. c., mentions neither of these two quotations from the 2*n
in the y"ic.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE III
and 31 a). As to the first of them, it is questionable
whether its form in the Seder, as we have it, is the
original form. The words Wl^ *fyffOn in the Seder are
very likely to be a later addition, because Albargeloni,
in his DTiyn ISD, 178, says that he did not find them in
a Geonic Responsum in which this Halakah was quoted.
As the words in question were in the J"n used by
Albargeloni 1 , as he tells us, we are obviously dealing
with a comparatively old addition.
The sentences and short paragraphs which we have
been discussing and characterising as additions to the
:Trr do not exhaust the series of interpolations to which
the book was subjected. As the versions before us are
constituted, there must be parts, of considerable size, not
in the original plan of the book. But in order to recognise
them as interjected members, it is necessary to understand
clearly the underlying plan and construction of the first
Halakic compendium of the post-Talmudic time.
PLAN AND PURPOSE OF THE HALAKOT GEDOLOT.
At the time of the Geonim the Talmud; was not only
the authoritative source for/religious practices, but also
the work the study of/ which constituted the chief task of
a Jewish scholar. The vast accumulation of material in it,
anc^its discursive manner of presenting the subject-matter,
made both its practical use and theoretic investigation tasks
of huge difficulty. The Karaitic schism dating from the
time of Rabbi Jehudai demanded inexorably a codification
of the religious laws affecting practical conduct 2 . The
1 The editor of the D'nyn 'c observes that the quotation is not to be
found in our a'n !
' l Decided anti-Karaitic tendencies manifest themselves in Rabbi
Jehudai, especially in his Responsa. The most detailed of his decisions
is that on the importance of p'Dn in n"ir, 153, and it is obviously
directed against the Karaites, who would have nothing to do with
phylacteries. Also, I entertain no doubt as to the auti-Karaitic purpose
of the famous decision by Rabbi Jehudai regarding the use of DTI otD for
112 THE GEONIM
scholar and the educated layman alike had to be given the
possibility of readily distinguishing the true from the false,
the " traditional law " from/the law of the Karaites. This
goal could be reached in one of two ways. Either the
Talmud had to be shortened and reshaped, so/ as to bring
it within the capacity of the average scholar, or the
Talmudic Halakot had to be grouped anew. These two
tendencies 1 in the code literature, whose classic repre-
sentatives in a later generation were Alfasi and Maimonides,
respectively, existed in the Geonic time. By the side of
the Geonic Halakot Gedolot there were the Geonic Halakot
Pesukot or Kezubot. It cannot be supposed, therefore,
that it was lack of creative ability that forced Rabbi
Jehudai to shorten the Talmud, instead of systematising
it anew. We could not have expected him to produce
so artistic a work as the Yad of Maimonides, but it would
not have transcended his powers to systematize the Halakot
in their rudimentary form, as we have them systematized
in the Halakot Kezubot. Rather it seems that the author
of the j"n had good reasons for keeping to the arrangement
of the Talmud.
His work was intended to serve two purposes at once
it was to be a guide for the student desirous of acquainting
himself with the Talmud, and also it was to enable the
scholar to decide a case submitted to him, according to
law, without having to wade through the three thousand
folio pages of the Talmud. Taking into consideration that
it was a first attempt at these two tasks, one cannot but
admit that the 3"n was a brilliant achievement.
a nil, which caused such great embarrassment later. The Karaites denied
totally the obligatory character of nu nVlc. Likewise, his decision in
E"n, 103, on a rror who has married again without rrs'^n, is anti-Karaitic,
as appears from a comparison with 'Anan's book of laws, 170. The old
view is found also in a Responsum in y"c, 2 a, 10, which is not in
a corrupt state, as Miiller, Mafteah, 69, note 25, thinks. It represents
the old Halakah.
1 Comp. the art. "Law, Codification of the," by the present writer in
the Jewish Encyclopedia.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 113
Rabbi Jehudai's method was the following : In the first
place he set about and he succeeded in excluding from his
work almost all Haggadic elements. For religious practice
the Haggadah had no value, and as a number of Haggadic
Midrashim were at the disposal of the student, he needed
no guide to this department of literature. The exclusion
of the Haggadah at once produced a considerable reduction
in the bulk of the material. Still keeping practical needs
in mind, the author excluded also the material which no
longer had application to the religious practice of his time
and of the Diaspora \ The whole of the Order Kodashim z
excepting the treatise Hullin alone, was not included in
the j'n , nor was the treatise Hagigah of the second Order,
and the treatise Sotah of the third Order. This abbreviated
Talmud was condensed still more by the exclusion of the
discussions as far as possible. Only the results derived
from the argumentation are stated. In this way it became
possible for Rabbi Jehudai to accomplish the feat, for
instance, of compressing the eleven folios constituting the
first chapter of the first Talmudic treatise, Berakot. into
a single folio. It marks a big step forward in the direction
of an independent, systematic presentation of the Talmudic
material, that Rabbi Jehudai succeeded in his attempt to
collect certain portions from their places here and there in
the Talmud and group them together according to content.
In one and the same treatise the Talmud expounds the
prescription for the Sabbath lights and the prescription for
the Hanukkah candles, connecting with the latter also the
treatment of the Hanukkah liturgy. The same treatise
contains, besides, the laws of circumcision, being introduced
there incidentally to the special case of this ceremony
1 Of the Order Zera'im, he incorporated, beside D'xbD, rrnr, rfcn, which
had practical bearing, also HUE, probably because in ancient times the
command of Peah was executed by the pious even in Babylonia, though
meant to apply only to Palestine. Comp. the Responsum in G. S., p. aaa,
and the remarks introductory to it, pp. 217-18.
3 On the later additions comp. below, pp. 115-16.
I I
114 THE
performed on the Sabbath. The author of the 3"n has
dealt with these various subjects systematically. Whatever
the Talmud has to say on Hanukkah he put together under
the separate and independent heading roi^n JTDpn, and
whatever it has to say on circumcision went in the class
of n^D mabn . A still more striking illustration of his fresh
attitude is afforded by his gathering together what the
Talmud has to say upon the subject of proselytes, and joining
it to n^D mairi , in view of the fact that circumcision is the
conditio sine qua lion for admission to Judaism. Bold as
he was in these attempts of his at systematic grouping, he
yet, as is natural, could not give up entirely his dependence
upon the Talmud. For instance, the two subjects men-
tioned, mun 'n and n^D 'n, he inserted after rats', only because
the Talmud deals with them in the treatise Shabbat.
The aim of the J"n, to attain to an organic system
according to which to present the Halakot, is well exem-
plified in the consecutive sections on the intermediate
days of the festivals, on mourning, ritual defilement, the
priestly blessing, synagogue ordinances, Tefillin, Mezuzot,
and Zizzit. This apparent mixture of heterogeneous ele-
ments is in reality a connected series. In arranging the
order of the first two he followed the example of the
Mishnah and the Talmud, in which they come together
for the reason that the degree of abstinence from work
imposed upon mourners (during the first seven days after
a death) is the same as the degree imposed upon all during
the intermediate days of a festival, Passover or Tabernacles.
The author of the a"n logically followed up these laws for
mourners by the prescriptions important for a priest in
mourning. They set forth in what circumstances a priest
is permitted to defile himself upon a corpse. Interested in
these laws of the priest, he took occasion to speak also
of the priestly blessing at the public service. These two
sets of laws, on defilement and the priestly blessing, dispose
of all the duties and privileges of a priest in the Diaspora
and after the destruction of the Temple. But outside of
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 115
the priestly blessing, the only other element of the liturgy
requiring a communal public service, is the reading from
the Scriptures. The natural order, therefore, is to proceed
with the regulations for reading from the Torah, the
character and make-up of the scrolls, and the ordinances
for the synagogue, the place at which the law is read. In
effect, the scroll is identical with the Mezuzak and
the Te/Ulin, so far as the rules for making them go,
and in view of the holy character of the three. The
sections on the two latter subjects therefore follow of
themselves upon the one dealing with the mm 'D, and
the next, the section on Zizzit, joins that on Tefllin
without a break, both being the paraphernalia connected
with the Morning Prayer.
If we were to stop and analyse the whole of the a"n
in the foregoing way, we should find that its author
conformed as far as possible to the order of the Talmud.
His procedure was novel and independent only in that
he brought together, under single comprehensive headings,
small portions dealing with a given subject that are
scattered in many treatises.
An examination of the plan of the a'n shows that the
sections on mion n^yo roroo ninna DTQT could not possibly
have been arranged by the author himself. They contain
nothing that was of importance for the religious practice
of his time, and to such portions of the Talmud Rabbi
Jehudai, as we have seen, paid no attention in his book.
And granted that he may have changed his system when
he reached the treatises enumerated, we should still be
called upon to account for the fact that he reduced the
j 20 folios of the treatise Zebahim to a half-folio *. While
1 And even this half- folio, superscribed DTUI roD^n, contains a big
piece from Middot and the whole of the fifth section of the Mishnah
Zebahim, an unusual element in the j*n, which is in the habit of giving
extracts from the Talmud, but not from the Mishnah. This fifth section of
the Mishnah Zebahim formed a part of the prayer-book even in the Geonic
time (see 0. S., p. 116, and R. Saadia's Commentary on Berakot, aaa), and
was probably appended to the s'n by the copyists for practical purposes.
I 2
Il6 THE GEONIM
elsewhere Rabbi Jehudai excludes all Haggadic material
on principle, his n^yo 'n consists of a single legend taken
from the Talmudic treatise of the same name nothing
else! Temurah is in pretty much the same case, and if
we except the comparatively small portions dealing with
matters of practical importance, which in other parts of
the a*n are presented under the headings TW, nm, p^an,
mj?, the no folios of Menahot are reduced to a half-folio!
Moreover, the variations between these sections of Kodashim
in the two versions of the :Tn are of so radical a nature
that they can hardly be supposed to be of common origin.
Though I am not in a position to give a plausible explana-
tion of how these sections slipped into the 2"n , yet the proofs
demonstrating their spuriousness are too convincing to
admit of any doubt.
To the questionable sections enumerated above we must
also add the last section, 1SDH nia^n , a hodge-podge which
in its present form cannot have originated with the author
of the 3'n. My supposition is that it is a composite of two
independent sections, which in some way were badly mixed
up with each other. The one probably bore the super-
scription as at present, IBOn JYGPn, the other 'iSD 'n =
onao nota, " The Section on the [Biblical and Rabbinical]
Writings." A copyist must have read the second as a
single word, and, besides, confused the single letters 1 and
"l, so that the second superscription became identical with
the first, and was dropped.
Rabbi Jehudai's work, which had to submit to these
numerous interpolations, changes, and extensions, had to
serve, besides, as the basis of two other books, retaining
his name as author, viz., the 1X1 ni3?n l , called also
1 Although a great deal in it is not in our present texts of the a*n,
this does not prove that other works were drawn upon for it. As was
remarked before, the a*n as we have it now is anything but complete.
It is curious that Epstein should maintain that the passage on i:\vcm
in wi nobri, 18, and j?"nc, 45 a, is not quoted from a*n, but from the D*rt
of Rabbi Jehudai ; it occurs literally in j"n II, 148, and also in a'rt I,
37 c, though in the latter place it is in shortened form, with '131 ;
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 117
, which has been edited by Schlossberg (Versailles,
1886), after an Oxford MS., and nuixp mabn, which has
been published by Horowitz in the first part of his jmin
D^1t?N"i ^ after a Parma MS. (Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1881).
The former, the IN") rvo^n , is nothing more than a shortened
Hebrew translation of parts of the a"n (so far as known,
the first translation ever made from any language into
Hebrew), while the latter, the nmvp 'n, is an attempt to give
a resume of the J^n , by omitting the Talmudic elements.
According to a statement made by Rabbi Hai 1 , this resume
of the J*n and others of similar character were not compiled
until fully a century after Rabbi Jehudai's time, and then
outside of Babylonia. He therefore warns students to be
very cautious in using these abstracts of the J"n.
CODIFICATION NOT FAVOURED.
A century after Rabbi Jehudai, Rabbi Paltoi (died 858), /
the Gaon of Pumbedita, was asked what". was more advisable
to study, the Talmud or/ the Halakot taken from it and
systematically grouped. His answer was, that they who
devote themselves to the study of the Halakot only do not
act properly, yea, it is forbidden to do it, for they diminish
Abudraham, 142, also quotes it from the j*n. That p"n and c"n respectively
are based on 3"n, and not the latter on the former, is proved by the fact
that the old authorities speak of nrnsp ;*n and nipiDE 2*n , meaning that
the rraisp and mpiDD are taken from the :*n, Epstein, 1. c., 64, quotes
rnnsp j"n from Mordecai, Shebu'at, 788, and emends it to ninsp mrrn,
but the same expression occurs in many other places ; comp., for instance,
Vo, 244, 416 ; and Pardes, i8b. On a single manuscript leaf in the Jew.
Theol. Seminary, containing the passage from Mordecai referred to,
the reading agrees with that proposed by Epstein, but it seems to be
a later emendation. Comp. bn'ac, 147 : rmn 'D Vc D*nii !
1 Comp. I'IN, II, 177 a. The enigmatic words uno fra'jpN in this Respon-
sum by Rabbi Hai mean "City Secretary"; comp. in Harkavy, 86,
the words of Rabbi Hai, *no IED Drabip:x, and po':pn is only another way
of spelling Dio'npx, and the Responsum is cited as having been dictated
by Rabbi Hai to the communal secretary. A less likely hypothesis is
that Dio>:Ynp3M is to be read for MT.O po'jpN, as G. S., p. 37, which would in-
dicate that the Responsum was directed to Rabbi Kalonymos, of Lucca.
Il8 THE GEONIM
the Torah, and in the Scriptures it is said, " It pleased the
Lord, for his righteousness' sake, to magnify the law, and
make it honourable"- (Isa. xlii. 21). They do still more
evil ; it is they who cause the Torah to fall into oblivion.
The collections of brief Halakot were not compiled for the
purpose that they should become the real object of study,
but for the purpose that one who has studied the whole of
the Talmud, and has occupied himself with all its details,
may consult the Halakot in case one or another thing seems
doubtful to him, and he cannot explain it I .
Rabbi Jehudai's work had a fate similar to the code of
Maimonides later. Its practical advantages were so striking
that the study of the Talmud was seriously menaced, and
the Geonim very properly raised the voice of warning
against it as an authoritative source replacing the Talmud
as such. Rabbi Paltoi did not mean to deny the authority
of the Halakot. He doubtless shared the universal admira-
tion for their author. His aim was to make clear that the
Halakot were not intended to supplant the Talmud 2 , but
only to supplement it, and the above characterisation of
the 3"n goes far to strengthen the position assumed by
Rabbi Paltoi.
During a period of nearly two centuries, the interval
between Rabbi Jehudai and Rabbi Saadia, we hear of no
activity in the field of the Halakah. As we have seen, the
Geonim were disinclined from the work of codification.
Yet it must be considered that their time and energies
were absorbed in giving replies to the questions of a
1 A Responsum by Babbi Paltoi in :"n, no; in TOCN, II, 50, the
question runs : mjncp rrobni picyb IN niabni pwrfj, which may be explained
as asking which Halakot should be given the preference in study, the
Halakot [Gedolot of Rabbi Jehudai], or the nwrap rrobn extracted from
the former. The more probable meaning is that the first ni^ni stands
for Talmud, the expression having been chosen under the influence of the
following ma 1 *.
2 The judgment of Rabbi Paltoi on a"n is, mutatis mutandis, the same
as that of the -co'vn on Maimonides' Yad ', comp. the remark in his
Responsum XXXI, 9.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 119
practical and a theoretic nature put to them replies which
in part served the purposes for which one usually resorts to
compendiums and reference books. What Muller says in
his Mafteah, about Rabbi Natronai ben Hilai, Gaon of
Sura, and a contemporary of Rabbi Paltoi, that he com-
piled a series of Halakot Kezubot, cannot be proved a fact,
and in view of Rabbi Paltoi's words, it is highly improbable.
The " Brief Decisions " published by Horowitz in I"ETI, II, 5
et seq., after a Parma MS., are assuredly not attributable
to Rabbi Natronai. They are a late compilation, without
plan or system, of Geonic and old French * decisions. The
Geonic portion is taken in large part from the Responsa
and decisions of Rabbi Jehudai 2 . Another portion may
perhaps be traceable to Rabbi Natronai's Responsa as its
source 3 . As for the superscription over this conglomerate
material, pw wntM 'm roen, it is, without a doubt, the
invention of an untrustworthy copyist.
PRAYERS FIRST PUT IN WRITING.
Nevertheless, the time we are speaking of has a work to
its credit which is closely akin to the Halakah, the Seder
Rab Amram, originating about the middle of the ninth
century. When Rabbi Jehudai ventured to set aside the
old custom and permitted the writing down of the Halakah,
the prayers still remained to a large extent under the ban
against written transmission. A Responsum of Rabbi
1 Rabbenu Gershom is mentioned by name, p. 7. The Responsum
rnya niton, 6, is by Rashi, and may be found in TmVi ncns 'n 's?n, 42, in
a more correct form. Comp. Schorr, He-Haluz, XII, 97.
a The brief oral decisions by Rabbi Jehudai in 7*3, 45, are most of them
to be found here again.
3 The decision (p. 8) regarding a priest who left Judaism for a time is an
extract from Rabbi Natronai's Responsum in a'n, 54, and D*n, 8, quoted
also in biacK, I, 28. Likewise, the decision, following close upon it,
regarding any renegade who returns to Judaism, goes back to Rabbi
Natronai's Responsum in \"w, 24 b, 8. On the other hand, the Responsum
on p. 12 regarding the sick man, contradicts the view of Rabbi Natronai
as given in "jn'jc, 42 ; comp., however, 3*n, 48.
120 THE GEONIM
Jehudai s informs us that the Reader at the synagogue in
his time was permitted to use a prayer-book on the Day of
Atonement and other fast-days. Such leniency was not
extended to the festivals he was expected to recite the
prayers by heart on them 1 . At a time in which the Reader
was obliged to recite the prayers by heart, it goes without
saying that the members of the congregation surely had no
prayer-books, or at least did not use them in public.
But it did not take long for the last remnants of the
prohibition against the writing- down of religious works to
disappear. In a Responsum, Rabbi Natronai, whose period
of activity is a hundred years after Rabbi Jehudai, dis-
cusses the question whether a blind man may officiate as
Reader in the synagogue 2 . He decides that there is no
objection to his reciting the prayers, but he may not give
the lesson from the Torah, because it is imperative that the
latter must be read from the scroll. This reveals that, in
Rabbi Natronai's day, the general custom was for the
1 Miiller, Handschrifttiche Jehudai Gaon zugewiesene Lehrsutse, 10. Though
Rabbi Jehudai was a Gaon of Sura, by education he was a Pumbeditan.
Therefore it is not extraordinary for him to use the expression 0122 ~p ijn:
N11D31 in his Responsum. It is interesting that opposition to the use
of prayer-books should prevail as late as the time of Rabbi Ephraim,
as appears from his remark in Waic, 12. The identity of this Rabbi
Ephraim cannot be established with certainty. He is probably the pupil
of Alfasi, and not the Rabbi Ephraim of Bonn who lived a century
later. Buber, in his list of authors' names for brTatD, attributes all the
passages in the book to the former Rabbi Ephraim, but there can be
no doubt that the Rabbi Ephraim in 33 is the German Rabbi Ephraim,
as his correspondent is the German Rabbi Joel. From c^n 'IN, I, 5!),
bottom, it may be seen that no prayer-books were taken to the synagogue
on week-days, though, to judge from the words of the author, this
was not to be ascribed to scruples against the use of prayer-books.
What Ibn Gajat says, in vfv, I, 62, regarding the recitation of the 'Abodah
on the Day of Atonement, does not prove that in his time it was not
written down ; it means that in some congregations it was recited only
by the precentor, while the worshippers merely listened. Comp. also
brt"aj, 58, TOS n'to DTU"J, which also presupposes recitation by heart.
2 Properly ascribed to Natronai in n"c, 245, and n", I, 18 a, while in
I'IN, 42 a, Rabbi Jehudai appears as the author, which is not correct. The
prayer-books mentioned in G. S., p. 153, belong to the time after R. Amram.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 12T
Reader to use a prayer-book, else a congregation would
not have been in doubt as to the fitness of a blind man,
who could recite the prayers only by heart, for the office of
Reader.
Of course, even after prayer-books had long been in use
in Babylonia, there was no occasion for the Geonim to
occupy themselves with the task of fixing the order of the
prayers. With centuries of continuous development in
Babylonia the conduct of the divine service lay in the
hands of men who would do the right thing without the
necessity of special instruction. Moreover, the judges and
the other communal officials stood under the direct juris-
diction of the Geonim, who would be sure to watch over
the divine service and its conduct in accordance with the
accepted regulations. Of the three " Orders of Prayer," it
is certain that two were compiled at the request of con-
gregations outside of Babylonia. Rab Amram wrote his
for the Spanish congregations 1 , and Rabbi Saadia his for
the Egyptian 2 , and it is altogether probable that Rabbi
Hai, too, did not arrange his Seder for Babylonia 3 . The
countries outside of Babylonia lacked both historical con-
tinuity and a central body with acknowledged religious
authority, and there were other circumstances, besides,
standing in the way of securing an established order of the
prayers. In spite of the high respect in which the Gaonate
was held, the Jews of Europe and elsewhere were not
altogether free from Palestinian influence 4 . In the depart-
ment of liturgy this influence was most marked, for even
after the disappearance of her Academies, Palestine still
remained the home of the Piyyut and the prayers. In
point of fact the chief work done by the Geonim with
1 Explicitly stated by Ibn Daud, in his rrapn 'D, and demonstrable from
the Seder itself. * Comp. below, pp. 166-7.
3 For a hypothesis regarding the destination of Rabbi Hai's Seder see
below, p. 175.
4 Rabbi Hai knew this very well, as is shown by his remark in Rabbi
Isaiah di Trani the Elder, rnao, 42. Comp. also TT'C, II, 55, where
Palestinian customs in Spain are mentioned.
122 THE GEONIM
regard to the prayers was to guard the main, original
prayers zealously against additions, and even so they
were not wholly successful in warding off Palestinian
influence 1 .
Another current that threatened the stability of the order
of prayers was Karaism, especially its feeble offshoots,
which were close enough to Rabbinism to influence rather
than repel it. The Responsuin by Rabbi Natronai, in
the Seder Rab Amram, 37 b-^S a, is an interesting
exemplification of Karaitic influence on the Rabbinical
liturgy. The Haggadah fragment published in the J.Q. R.,
X, 42, with its Rabbinic and Karaitic elements, shows
that this influence was so strong as to leave traces in
literature.
Spain and Egypt were the countries in which these
1 The many decisions of the Geonim, partly contradictory of one
another, on the subject of insertions in the 'Amidah, especially on the
New Year's Day and the Day of Atonement, reveal unmistakable traces
of a long struggle against the Piyyut, ending finally in a compromise.
In general, the investigator gains the impression that the Geonim of
Sura were by far more kindly disposed toward the Piyyut than those
of Pumbedita, of which a comparison between the Responsum of Rabbi
Natronai in j"rt, 50, with one by Rabbi Hai in DTirn 'c, 252 (however,
see 1. c., 288), affords a characteristic illustration. It is difficult to see
how Weiss, 118, succeeds in discovering a predilection for Kalir in
Rabbi Natronai from his Responsum. Rabbi Natronai (in j'n, 50) names
two Piyyutim, nv^a yupa and mVira yaFrryi, with disapproval. The second
is probably identical with ppna mbiru by Kalir in the 'Amidah for Purim
in the German ritual ; and even the first, nvba yup, may be Kaliric, as
Kalir seems to have written more than one Piyyut for the 'Amidah of
Tisha' be-Ab. Comp. Landshut, rmiyrr mnr, s. n. As for the influence
exercised by Pumbeditan tradition on Rabbi Jehudai (see above, p. 120,
n. i), the fact is significant that he opposed any and every insertion in the
'Amidah, according to the information given in G. S., on p. 51. If the
text of the c"to, Berakot, 34 a, and of "?n"ac, 27, is correct, the opposition
to insertions extended even to yinc jn pi, which, however, can hardly
be so ; it seems certain that it is an insertion made in Talmudic times.
As for Egyptian conditions, it is to be noted that from rather early
until comparatively recent times, both Palestinian and Babylonian
synagogues flourished in Egypt, comp. J. Q. R., XVIII, n, 564 ; XIX, 460,
Benjamin of Tudela, Itinerary, pp. 90-1, ed. Griinhut ; Neubauer-Cowley,
Catalogue, 238, no. 16 ; and Poznanski, Z. H. B., X, 145.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 123
currents were distinctly noticeable l , and they are the
countries whence requests came to the Geonim regarding
the order of the prayers.
THE LITURGICAL PART OF THE SEDER RAB AMRAM.
Exclusive of small sections of the prayer-book, the Seder
Rab Amram is probably the first Order of Prayers issuing
from the hand of a Gaon. His predecessor, Rabbi Natronai,
sent to Spain a brief arrangement of the "hundred bene-
dictions," published for the first time in G. S., p. 119 et seq. 2
It is possible, too, that the Gaon Kohen-Zedek, officiating
shortly before Rabbi Natronai, put a Passover Haggadah
together 3 . But of a complete Order of Prayers not a trace
can be found until we reach Rab Amram.
In its quality as the first Seder arranged by an acknow-
ledged authority, Rab Amram' s enjoyed greater consideration
than any work of the Geonic period. While of Rabbi
Saadia's Seder only a few quotations were preserved, and
they by specialists in liturgy, so that it was until recently
considered a lost book, there is scarcely any work of
importance belonging to the centuries between the years
iooo 4 and 1500 that does not contain a reference to Rab
1 The remark by Rabbi Samuel ha-Nagid in avyn 'D, 267, throws an
interesting light upon the masked Karaism infecting Spain during the
Geonic time. The Gaon Rabbi Natronai learnt about 'Anan's book
of laws from the Spanish Rabbi Eleazar Alluf, y*-c, 38 a.
3 Rabbi Natronai seems to have arranged also regulations for the
readings from the Pentateuch ; comp. y"-\D, 29 a, and 3*n , ed. Hildesheimer,
623.
s Comp. TT'C, II, 100, Marx, Uniersuchungen, &c., 5-6, and Muller in
Handschrifttiche Jehudal Gaon zugewiesene Lehrsdise, 17, where may also be
found the information obtained from Derenbourg, to which he refers in
Mafteait, 83. Harkavy's view, in Saadia, 144, deserves to be mentioned as
a curiosity of literature. He says that pis jrta and ncta 'i, in c'xrr, 1. c.,
are one and the same person, that is, Ibn Gajat is supposed to have
called one person by two names in the same sentence ! The inn nc'NO 'CTO
mentioned by Rabbi Saadia may perhaps be the maternal grandfather of
Rabbi Sherira, 'isro (comp. above, p. 12, last line), of which 'cno is a
variant form.
4 Rabbi Sherira, in "n'ac, in, is the oldest author who cites the z"~c.
124 THE GEONIM
Amram's Seder. Though it was prepared for the Spanish
Jews primarily, it was used as extensively by the Franco-
German authorities as by the Hispano-Proven9al. From
Rashi down to the anonymous fifteenth- century commen-
tator 1 of the German prayer-book, published at Trino, 1525,
the Franco-German scholars do not leave off appealing to
the authority of Rab Amram. And the Hispano-Proven9al
scholars of the same period, from Rabbi Isaac Ibn Gajat
down to Abudraham, likewise form an unbroken chain of
authors deriving their information from the Seder Rab
Amram. Besides, it is probably the only Geonic work of
which four complete MSS. 2 have been preserved. Of
Rabbi Saadia's we have a single one, and that imperfect.
This same circumstance, that Rab Amram's Seder was
resorted to so zealously, carries with it a drawback. Due
to it, we shall probably never know its true, original form.
It was used until it was used up. To realise the whole
extent of the problem thus forced upon us, we must
remember that the Seder contains more than the prayers.
They are accompanied by a continuous chain of important
Halakot relating to the prayers. The introductory sentences
of the Seder, the words of Rab Amram to Rabbi Isaac ben
Simon, the addressee of the Seder Responsum, mention
nothing about this Halakic exposition. His words are :
" And relative to the prayers and benedictions for the
whole year, concerning which thou didst make a request
of me, it seemeth good to me to arrange them in order and
send them to thee as they have been transmitted to us, the
order of the Tannaim and Amoraiin."
1 The y"iD is quoted in the commentary on the Haggadah, with the
words anas an 'nno nspa. Also in the brief observations preceding the
prayers in tfxm nnno the Seder is quoted. It ceased to be quoted only
after printed prayer-books became common.
2 On the MSS. com p. Marx, Untersuchungen zum Seder des Goon Rab
Amram, Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1908, which reached me while this book
was going through the press. In the following pages MS. S stands for
the Sulzberger MS. in the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, and
MS. O for the Oxford MS.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 125
An argumentum ex silentio like this may not be pressed
too hard. It is to be assumed that the Spanish congrega-
tions did not ask the Gaon simply for a prayer-book.
That they could have procured from any Babylonian Jew.
They must have desired the valuable explanations and
notes accompanying the prayers, and the Gaon, in his
introduction, briefly spoke of the order of the prayers,
which in his mind included the Halakot appertaining to
them. Indeed, the probability is that the Spanish Jews
laid more stress upon the Halakot than upon the prayers.
On the whole, and certainly in all that was essential, the
latter were settled everywhere according to local custom,
which had too strong a hold upon the congregations
to permit us to suppose for a moment that they would
have given their peculiarities up for others, though the
others had the high sanction of the Geonim. Furthermore,
the quotations in the oldest authors that mention the Seder,
Rabbi Sherira, Ibn Gajat, Rashi, and Albargeloni, are from
the Halakic portions. This leaves no room for reasonable
doubt that the Seder received its dual form from Rab Amram
himself. The introductory words quoted above also show
how untenable is the tradition reported by Azulai, in his
Wa'ad la-Hakamim, s.v., which makes the Seder the work
of the school of Rab Amram. This tradition probably
originated in the fact that the name of Rab Amram is
mentioned several times in the Halakic portions of the
Seder, as are also decisions by authorities who lived after
him, Rabbi Nahshon, Rabbi Zemah, Rabbi Nathan, and
Rabbi Saadia 1 . If these decisions were the only alien
elements in the Seder, we should wonder that a book so
much used had come down to us in a comparatively
unchanged form, rather than that it had received such
additions. In fact, a critical examination of the Sedtr
shows that it was abused to an extreme degree, and the
1 In MS. O Rabbenu Hai is also quoted. Comp. Marx, Untersvchungen,
&c., ii.
126 THE GEONIM
portion that suffered most is the Order of Prayers specifi-
cally, rather than the Halakic explanations. In the
following paragraphs proofs will be adduced and they
might be increased tenfold to show that our present
Seder Rob Amram has preserved a minimum of its original
form, so far as the prayers themselves go.
The concluding sentence of notw Tita in our Seder begins
3 |HN, while Abudraham 1 , 27, gives DW2n i?3 pan
finx as the reading he finds in his copy, at the
same time calling 'our form of it just quoted the custom
of the " common people."
The formula of minn nana, as it now appears in the Seder,
assuredly did not originate with Rab Amram. As is shown
by the Responsum by Rabbi Natronai, G. S., p. 116, line 3,
the expression minn jnu was used in Babylonia, instead of
the . , , notan of the Seder. Rabbi Natronai's wording is
corroborated by 3"n, ed. Hildesheimer, 8. Rabbi Abraham
ben Nathan states, in his Manhig, 9, that minn fnu was
used at his time in Spain, while a century later, as we can
see from Abudraham, 30, the form of the Franco-German
Academies was in vogue, which is the form that agrees
with our printed text of the Seder. The version used by
Rabbi Aaron of Lunel showed still another deviation from
the original Seder Rab Amram. It had mm nana piDyi>,
instead of mm nan by, also to be ascribed to Franco-German
influence 2 .
The priestly blessing after minn nana can be traced back
at least to the time of Rabbi Jacob, the author of the Tur ;
he had it in his copy of the Seder. But the Responsum of
Rabbi Natronai shows that it was not used in Babylonia.
In the introductory note to the Responsum, in G. , p. no,
it is demonstrated that it was a French custom, and, there-
fore, is naturally missing in S and 0.
1 I quote from the edition Warsaw, 1877.
2 Comp. one, 41 c, where pcr> is denominated a Minhag of Lorraine,
as compared with the custom prevailing in Spain. MS. S has correctly
rrvm jm:. Comp. Marx, Untersuchungen, &c., 7.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 127
Our text, 2 a, calls for the recital of the verses on the
Sabbath sacrifices, while the Manhig, 9, indicates that the
Seder provides for them also on the New Moon Day.
Abudraham, 37, accuses the " common people " of having
twisted niTDDI rnrQBQ, as correctly given in the Seder, into
wcm vnaeo, but our text agrees with the wording used by
the people.
The nw in our text of the Seder forms the conclusion
of the mo^n 'plDB, but we have a trustworthy tradition
(D'nyn 'D), 249, that the recital of the rrvi? was unknown in
the principal sj'nagogues in Babylonia as late as the time
of Rabbi Natronai, the immediate predecessor of Rab Amram .
From another source, R. & J., XXIII, 234, we learn that the
first one to introduce the nTt? in Germany was Rabbi Moses
ben Rabbi Kalonymos. All this would seem to point to the
inevitable conclusion that the fiTt? in the Seder Rab Amram
is not one of its original elements, a conclusion strengthened
by the fact that, as is patent from the Manhig, 10 b, the
m^e> did not appear in the copy of the Seder used by the
author of the Manhig l . Indeed, the printed texts them-
selves betray that we owe the nw to a copyist. On
page 27 b, where the Sabbath prayers are recorded, the
conclusion of the moTi V^DS is properly given as ... D95llOI.
The omission of the passage Bnn -IIK at the end of the
first Shema* Benediction cannot but be a correction made
in accordance with the Seder of Rabbi Saadia. Rabbi
Nahshon, the successor of Rabbi Ami-am, quotes this passage
incidentally (:Tn, ed. Hildesheimer, 224), showing that he
was not aware of any objection thereto, and it was recited
in Babylonian synagogues still later, in the time of Rabbi
Sherira (!>n*at!>, 13). There is even an explicit statement
that Rabbi Saadia could not make his opinion prevail in
Sura itself. This brings out an interesting point in the
history of the liturgy. It may not be out of place to dwell
1 The MSS. have preserved the original text here only in part. See
below, p. 144. Com p. also n*M, I, 6c, and MaJisor Romania, under rone*
in the Sabbath Morning Prayer.
128 THE GEONIM
upon it here. Originally the prayers connected with the
Shema^ contained no reference to the future, the Messianic,
redemption. Zion. the Temple, and the restoration of the
house of David were prayed for only in the 'Amidah.
Gradually the three benedictions preceding the 'Amidah
were subjected to insertions dealing with the redemption.
As we have seen, Rabbi Saadia protested, though vainly,
against the presence of Knn "UK in the first Skema Bene-
diction. His objection was that the Benediction in question
was intended to be a prayer in praise of the majesty of God
revealed in the sun and the light of day, and a prayer for
redemption could not be attached to it fittingly. The
Benediction following the Shema was originally a prayer
of thanksgiving for deliverance from Egypt, and as is
demonstrated in 0. S., p. 89, the insertions bearing upon the
future redemption go back to the Geonic time, though they
established themselves in opposition to Geonic authority,
which was on the whole directed to the end of preserving
the main, central prayers intact and unchanged. In this
case, it seems their authority was here and there exercised
unsuccessfully. The second of the Shema Benedictions, the
ranx or D^iy rons, also contains a reference to the future
redemption which must be very old, seeing that no echo
of any opposition to it has come down to us. The old
dispute about the opening words of the Ahabah has nothing
to do with the insertion of a reference to the future
redemption l .
1 The supposition put forward by Dr. Elbogen, Studitn zur Geschichte des
judischen Gottesdienstes, 27, that the discussion on the opening words of
the second Shema' Benediction actually turned upon the insertion of the
Geullah, seems to me untenable. If his supposition were correct, what
explanation could be offered for the fact that all the liturgies preserved
until our time, the Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Italiani, Romania, all have
the Geullah in this Benediction, though they differ as to the initial
words. Furthermore, the Talmud itself, Berakot, ub, records a difference
of opinion regarding the introductory words, but it is hardly possible
that the insertion of the Geullah could go back to the Talmudic time.
Dr. Elbogen considers it inconceivable that so petty a variation as
between nn nan and cVw runs should have caused so much talk and
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 129
The fact that the shortened Yozer of the printed text
is missing in the MSS. of the Seder, would by itself
suggest the conjecture that it is derived from the Seder
of Rabbi Saadia, even if the MS. of the latter did not
contain it, and so make it a certainty. But the view
that this Yozer, without a Keduahah, is the Palestinian,
that is, the older form, is decidedly incorrect. The words
of the Tosefta, Berakot, I, 9, 'P'p'p "paon Dy ruiy n"m, leave
no room for doubt Yozer contained the Kedushah as
early as the Tannaitic period, and the use of "paon in the
Tosefta passage precludes the possibility of making the
reference apply to the Keduskah of the 'Araidah l . "paon
can only mean the recital of the Shema Benediction. The
''praying" of the 'Amidah is always called b^ancn. The
reasons given by Dr. Elbogen (Studien zur Geschichte den
judischen Gottesdienstes, 20) for supposing that the shorter
form of the Yozer was the original form, are inadequate.
He says that an analogous case is not known, of curtailing
a prayer once used in a long form. In reality there are
at least three parallel cases : wan, the shortened 'Amidah
for private prayer, originating in the Tannaitic time ; the
shortened 'Am&dah for the congregation, originating in
the early Geonic time, known to us from the Eshkol (I, 55)
by Rabbi Abraham ben Isaac, who quotes it from Geonic
literature ; and the shortened grace after meals, which we
have in three different forms, the one from the Talmudic
time arranged for working men, and two later forms 2 for
discussion. From the ancients he might have invited the reply p cs
O3Q Kin. In their sight it was not a petty difference, not any more
insignificant than the much-mooted question whether 1312 should or
should not close with prsrr, about which we have varying opinions,
beginning with the time of Rabbi Akiba (Berakot, III, 7), down to the
last of the Amoraim (ibid., 50 a ; Yer. Berakot, VII, n c).
1 The correct interpretation of the Tosefta passage may be found with
so early an authority as rp'iNi, Berakot, 8 a.
1 Besides the mspa o"na of the Polish Rabbis of the sixteenth century
handed down by Rabbi Joel Sirkes, in win rva, on n*N, 192, there is
a much older shortened form of the grace after meals in 'n 'mx, I, 36 d,
by Rabbi Aaron of Lunel.
I K
130 THE GEONIM
various emergencies. The shortening of the Jiton n312 is
particularly interesting, in view of the fact that the prayer
was held to be Biblical, while all the others were based
on Rabbinical authority only.
The reason for the abridgment of the Yozer is plainly
stated an individual may not recite the Kedushah. Dr.
Elbogen maintains that this prohibition is a fiction pure
and simple, based upon a misunderstood passage in the
Talmud. Nevertheless, many of the Geonim, as well as
most of the old authorities down to and including Mai-
monides, were actually of the opinion that the reciting
of the Kedushah by a single person was forbidden 1 , and
from their point of view, whether correct or not, they
were compelled to formulate an abridged Yozer. A dif-
ference of opinion existed only regarding the extent to
which it should be curtailed. Rabbi Saadia, following
the lead of the Talmud on uj'an, retained only the frame-
work of the Yozer, he omitted the numerous embellish-
ments attached to it, while others of the Geonim left the
Yozer itself as unabridged as possible, even when it was
intended for private devotion, and omitted only the
Kedushah 2 . I would venture a step further, and would
assert that the Kedushah of the Yozer is the oldest form
in which this prayer appears, the Kedushah in the 'Amidah
being specifically Babylonian 3 . This would be the only
1 The views of the Creonim regarding this point are collocated by
Dr. Biichler, in JR. K J., LIII, 220-30. Maimonides, it is alleged, changed
his view ; comp. Caro, Bet Yosef, n", 59. The long discussions on this
point in the old authorities leave the impression that the old view, based
upon the Talmud exclusively, was opposed to the recital of the Yozer
Kedushah by the individual, and the other view came into vogue only
through DnciD 'co.
2 It should be borne in mind that in the olden times an individual
absented himself from the lias nbcrt only if he had no time or if there
was sickness, hence the aim to make the TIT nbcn as short as possible.
3 In the Midrash ha-Gadol, 1, 278, the following sentence is quoted from
an unknown Midrash : ratzj 'V% raw 'Vto rwnp "> I'JN, that is, four
Kedushot for each day, viz. : (i) isv 'ip ; (a) mrrcj to rrro 'ip : (3)
'ip ; and (4) nrr:n to rrroy '?, to which are added on the Sabbath
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 131
way of making clear why the Palestinians, as late as the
year 800, continued to offer strenuous opposition to the
' Atnidah- Kedushah on week-days, which, as appears from
G. S., p. 48 et seq., was forced upon them by the Babylonians.
If it had been an old constituent part of the daily
service, what other reason would suffice to explain the
omission of the holiest part of the 'Amidah in Palestine?
It is even questionable whether the ' Amidak-Keduskah
was known to the Babylonian Talmud itself. Berakot,
21 b, is not decisive. All that may properly be inferred
from this passage is that in Babylonia, and perhaps also
in Palestine, the third Benediction of the 'Amidah con-
tained the trisagion, though not necessarily as an inde-
pendent paragraph, as we have it in our Kedushah, but
as an integral part of the Benediction, somewhat like this :
^D N^D nisas *"* em? emp en? 3VD3 iB> Niui nn tpnp 1
11133 p"lNn, corresponding to the closing sentence of the third
Benediction for nJBM BWI and 11S3, on which days, in view
of their judicial character, the verse Isa. v. 16 is used
instead of Isa. vi. 3. This would serve also to make clear
Rabbi Huna's point of view. As the passage in Berakot
informs us, he had no objection to an individual's reciting
the 'Amidah-Kedushah in his private devotion. Rabbi
Huna subscribed to the accepted principle : nB>np3B> 131 ^3
1>/ D mriQ3 NiT N!?, but he saw in the ' Amidah-fedushah
only a part of the third Benediction, the DtJ>n nsjmp, in-
tended for private as well as public worship. Furthermore,
it should be taken into consideration that the MSS.
and the old authors did not have nemp in this Talmud
passage as in our text, but tJmp. Apparently, then, the
the Huso/ Kedushah and the vmcn 'ip at the going out of the Sabbath.
Accordingly, this Midrash did know the NTIDI 'ip for the Sabbath After-
noon Service, which, as is shown in G. S., pp. 288-9, i s f Babylonian
origin. The Targum Sheni, V, i, has an interesting passage bearing on
the subject : pot rtn MOV baa snip .... !rr. At the time of this
Targum, then, the NVIDT 'ip formed no part of the regular public service.
1 It is well known that the formula nn cnp was the old ocn ncnp,
and not np nrw.
K 2
132 THE GEONIM
subject dealt with is not the Kedushah, but the words
'P'p BT7p in the third Benediction.
The 'Amidah- Kedushah received sanction and character
as an independent prayer only under the influence of the
Babylonian mystics. The conception conveyed by it is
the mystical idea that God receives his "crown" from
Israel as from the heavenly host, when they adore him
by means of the trisagion 1 . The old Kedushah contained
nothing of this notion. It merely ascribed holiness to God
in the words of the prophet Isaiah. It was against this
mystical idea that the Palestinians during Geonic times
contended inch by inch. First the Babylonians living in
Palestine achieved their purpose of inserting the Kedushah
in the Sabbath service, and this was far from being the
only Paitanic addition made to it 2 . In the end, the
Babylonian JFedushah slipped into the week-day service
as well. In Geonic times the Babylonian Jews living in
Palestine played pretty much the same part as the Polish
Jews in Germany during the last three centuries. Fault
was found with them on all sides, but after all they were
"the scholars," and, do what one would, their authority
compelled recognition. Now, as the ' Amidah-Kedushah
is the product of the Babylonian mystics, so the Yozer-
Kedushah goes back to the Palestinian mystics. Josephus
(de hello Judaico, II, 8, 5) says of the Essenes : " They
speak not a word about profane things before the rising
of the sun. but they offer up the prayers they have received
from their fathers facing the sun as if praying for its
rising." Mutatis mutandis, a Yozer is nothing but the
prayer at sunrise, and if the liturgy preserved for us had
not had a Kedushah in the Yozer, we should logically have
been compelled to assume its sometime existence there,
1 Comp. Bloch's essay on the nwra mv in Monatsschrift, XXXVII, 305.
Our author goes too far when he assigns the origin of the Yozer-Kedushah
to the Babylonian mystics.
2 Albargeloni, in OTiyn 'c, 251, expresses' 'his decided opposition to
-|nv ton. Of course, his protest against this old insertion was vain.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 133
In the whole of the prophetical literature there is nothing
suitable for a Yozer except the glorification of the Lord
by the celestial host, described by Isaiah, which we call
the Kedushah 1 .
Furthermore, the difference between the Palestinian and
the Babylonian Kedushah calls for consideration. The
Yozer-Kedushalt like the Palestinian 'Amidah-tfedushah
has nothing of the "crowning of God," which is so dis-
tinctly conveyed by the Babylonian 'Amidah-Kedushah.
When the Palestinians, acting under compulsion by the
Babylonians, accepted the ' Amidaft- Kedushah, they divested
it of this mystical concept, and fitted it into the Yozer-
Kedusfiah additional evidence for the independence of
the two Kedueliot, for while the Babylonians know only
the form with "1D3 for the 'Amidah-Kedushah, no trace
of the " crown " can be discovered in the Yozer-KedusJmh,
as, furthermore, the Palestinians have only Bnpi or IB'HpJ
for the 'Amidah-Keduakah 2 .
The above exposition can lead to but one conclusion,
that the Yozer-Kedushah is pre-Geonic and Palestinian,
and as a consequence the short Yozer in the Seder is exactly
what it is said to be, an abridgment for private worship,
and not the original Palestinian Yozer. It is nevertheless
indisputable that the short Yozer is not properly to be
accounted an original constituent of the Seder Rob Amrartt,.
There can be no doubt that it was taken from the Seder
1 Rapoport, Biography of Kalir, note 20, gives so convincing a statement
of the connexion between the Yozer and the Essenes that nothing
remains to be added to his words. Dr. Hoffmann, in the Introduction
to the cx:n cvro, goes so far as to conjecture that the Essenes were
called c'D'in after mn " the sun," but this explanation of the expression
C'C'in rfoo seems to me very forced. C'^nn would rather appear to be
nothing more than a variation of D'rnn. Then c'D'in .-ran would be u
" Collection of Proverbs."
2 Comp. G. S., pp. 48-9, where the vo formula is dealt with in detail.
The statement made there that the Italian ritual, before being influenced
by the Kabbalah, knew only vo, is corroborated by the words in bn'ic,
13 : 1.12 -raTJjmnjnrrcac. Comp. also Berliner Hoffmann, Magazin, Hebrew
supplement 31:2 ISIN, 1886, p. 1 1 , where vo is given as the Kedushah, -TS 3n:c.
134 THE
of Rabbi Saadia. Not only is it missing in the MSS,
of the Seder Rob Amram, but we know from Bondi,
Siddur des Rabbi Saadia, 13, that this short Yozer i&
actually in the MS. of the Seder of Rabbi Saadia l .
Whether the formula nil ranx for the second Shema*
Benediction is really traceable to Rab Amram, is question-
able, for as late as the time of Rabbi Sherira and Rabbi
Hai it began with D^y nanx everywhere in Babylonia except
in the synagogue of Kohen-Zedek, and there is no likeli-
hood that Rabbi Amram would have given a decision
deviating from the universal Babylonian custom. It seems
that we have again met with a ! correction " made for
the purpose of bringing the Seder into agreement with the
views of the Franco-German authorities 2 .
The addition of tan TTi for the summer is mentioned
by Rabbi Abraham, in the Manhig, 16, as a Provenfal
custom, not known to the Seder Rab Amram ; yet in our
text of the Seder it is given 3 .
Abudraham, 67, speaks with disapprobation of the
" common people " who say N^y *t&J&1 in the Ninon N^nnp,
the only correct form being IPDfa? D^yn, as the Seder Rab
Amram has it. Again our text agrees with the supposed
preference of the common people.
The addition to the Geullah in the Evening Service in
our text of the Seder, 1 9 a, is most suggestive. Rab Amram
(6 b) is peremptory in opposing the insertion of the idea
of the future redemption in the Geullah of the Morning
Service. It is absolutely inconceivable that he would have
1 From V?r, I, 52, it may even be gathered that the short Yozer in the
5*iD read other than in our text.
a It is true, so early an authority as the Gaon Rabbi Hanina, the
disciple of Rabbi Jehudai, expressed himself in favour of nan runx ;
comp. a"n, 125. But the statement . . . -|^i jan i:arm is contradicted
by Rabbi Sherira. It may be that the Minhag was changed in the later
time of which Rab Sherira speaks.
3 Accordingly, Rapoport (Kalir, note 33) is not right when he says
that Kalir and the Sephardim agree in having Va for the summer, as the
old Sephardic ritual did not have it.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 135
been so inconsistent as to permit its insertion in the Evening
Service. Moreover, from the Responsum by Sar Shalom
given in G. S., p. 91, it appears that the insertion originally
had its place in the Geullah for the morning. It is there-
fore probable that it occupied this place in the copy upon
which our text is based, as, indeed, the amplified Geullah
was most generally identified with the Morning Service *.
But the copyist of the Seder could not stultify himself
to the extent of giving the expanded Geullah side by side
with the Gaon's disapproval of it. Hence the insertion
disappeared from the Morning Prayer, while, in the
Evening Prayer, there being no remark of Rab Amram's
to deter them, the copyists followed the custom with
which they were familiar in the Geullah for the evening.
Now, as neither the Sephardim nor the Ashkenazim in
later times had an amplified evening Geullah, the inference
is that the model for our text of the Seder must have been
an old Spanish prayer-book containing these additions.
As for their origin, the Genizah fragment enables us to
say with certainty that they came from Palestine, whence
they reached also the Morning Service in the old Orders
of Prayer of the Ashkenazim and Sephardim, from which
the opposition of the Geonim did not succeed in removing
them entirely. Hence the fact that the insertion in the
Geullah is missing in the Sulzberger MS. of the Seder
proves nothing with regard to its high antiquity as com-
pared with the printed text. It belongs to a time in which
the amplified Geullah was no longer a general custom, and
the copyists of the Seder therefore had no occasion to put
it into their copies.
For the endeavour to arrive at a valuation of our text,
the noon hy B^p, i9b, is of great importance. In the
Genizah fragment published by Professor Schechter in
the J. Q. R., X, 655, there is a Shema* Benediction before
1313, running thus : PQJ31 D^B> 33b la^cnb l"3pK n*DN ^N3
nvsn. Recently, another Genizah fragment was reproduced
1 Conap. the Genizah fragment in R. E. J., LIU, 236.
136 THE GEONIM
in the R.J&.J., LIII, 240-1, by Professor LeVi, and it con-
tains a Benediction with almost absolutely the same
wording. The accepted opinion is that this Benediction
was unknown hitherto, until the publication of these two
fragments. No explanation came readily to hand when
and why this special Shema' Benediction was added to the
other two of Tannaitic origin. Another striking point is
that this Benediction is not directly before the Shema' in
the two Genizah fragments, but before 13 "13. Does it seem
reasonable to suppose that a Shema Benediction was
recited before 1313?
Light is thrown upon the bearing of this Benediction
by a Kesponsum of Rabbenu Hai's, and by the remarks
of a number of the old authorities about the Shema 1 Bene-
diction before bedtime. Rabbi Hai, T\"w, 57, decides against
the use of nanta i3^ni>i yov nnp by i"3pK n"DK '"3 before
the noon by w"\>. Thus it appears that the Shema' Bene-
diction of the two fragments contains nothing new. It is
merely a variant of Rabbi Hai's form, a form to be found
also in D^n 'ms, I, 430, Abudraham, 23, and 'Ittur, II,
34 c 1 . Its import is conveyed to us in an observation
made by Rabbi Asher ben Yehiel, on the beginning of
Berakot, which is repeated by his son Rabbi Jacob, in
Tur, Orah Hayyim, 235. According to a well-known
custom 2 the Evening Prayer was said at the synagogue
immediately following upon the Afternoon Prayer, even
if night had not yet set in. This necessitated the repetition
of the Shema' after nightfall. As the Rabbinical injunction
requires its recital at night, the authorities insisted upon
its being said before going to bed, even if it had been
prayed at the synagogue in the Evening Service. Some
1 Comp. also W;ir, 40, and Tosafot, on Berakot, 2 a, catchword
end, and Hullin, 105 a, bottom.
2 This custom must have arisen in Palestine and spread thence to the
European countries, but it gained no foothold in Babylonia, on account
of the opposition of the Geonim. Comp. Rabbi Hai's Responsum in fi, 78:
and n*r, 76 ; quoted also by many old authorities.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 137
ordered, that with the Shema 1 the two Benedictions also
were to be repeated 1 , for the reason that they, too, had
been recited in the synagogue before nightfall. Rabbi
Amram, however, says Rabbi Asher, was of opinion that
it was not obligatory to say over again the Shema' Bene-
dictions in their full wording. A brief Benediction.
according to the usual formula of the rnaia, sufficed. There
can hardly be a doubt but that Rabbi Asher found this
view of Rabbi Amram's in his Seder under noon by t?"p.
In our text it is missing, in consonance with the opinion
of the later authorities 2 , who permitted neither this nor
any other Benediction in connexion with the ntson by t/'p.
There is only one MS. of the Seder in which the ab-
breviated Benediction appears, the Oxford MS. Even there,
however, it seems probable to me that the passage Dllpi
'01 nnxnp was not derived from the Seder, but from some
other source. My reason is that as it now reads in the
Oxford MS., it contains a contradictio in adjecto. If stress
is laid upon the recital of a Benediction before the Shema'
at bedtime, and if stress is laid upon it for the reason that
the Evening Service is held before nightfall, the appointed
time for the Shema , then it would follow that the whole
Shema should be repeated, not merely the first Parashah,
as our text and the Oxford MS. provide 3 . It is also worthy
of note that the passage in question is not in its proper
place in the Oxford MS. It should have read bapb "p3Oi
DK rr<m ny ye> JD miptn rims Niipi rrobt? nw rnabo wby
patsi yiDB>. The original Shema 1 Benediction before
noon by K^p, which was nothing but an equivalent for the
two long Benedictions which accompanied the Shema 1
when it was recited before nightfall, was looked upon
later as a special Benediction 4 for noon by t/'p, without
reference to the time of saying the Shema' in the
1 Comp. rev '-\ 'Yobn, Berakot, beg., and Caro, Bet Yos?f, n*s, 335.
3 Comp. Tosafot, Berakot, beg., and Albargeloni, quoted in *n*ac, 40.
3 Comp. Rashi and Tosafot, Berakot, beg.
4 Thence the opposition of Rabbi Hai to this Benediction ; he says.
in men ITOD to c'ptn r:EO
138 THE GEONIM
Evening Service, whether after or before nightfall.
This is the conception that finds expression in the
Oxford MS., as it does in later ritualists, and it is a
conception that is not wholly in accord with Rab
Amram's view.
This analysis enables us to understand the Shema* Bene-
diction in the Genizah fragments. A substitute for the
prescribed Shema' Benedictions in the evening was a
common expedient in congregations where the Evening
Service took place in the synagogues before nightfall, as
was the case outside of Babylonia 1 . But there were cir-
cumstances requiring an alternative Benediction even in
the Morning Service, either for an individual who had time
only for the Shema', but not for the whole Morning Prayer,
or for the whole congregation on fast days and holidays,
on which the elaborate service was so long drawn out
that the Shema' might fall beyond the proper time 2 . In
such cases, and similar ones, Shema was recited in private
devotion before the regular service, with the short Bene-
diction in the Genizah fragments. For this reason it is
not given as a Shema' Benediction after nn ronx or ronx
D^iy, but as coming before wni, because only an individual,
and he only if he does not recite jflDt? ni3"in, is to recite
the short Benediction. It is, in fine, a special Benediction,
which really should have no place in a regular Order
of Prayers.
It is highly probable that the introduction of Shema 1
with the three words fONJ "jta bx is only a remnant of this
very Shema 1 Benediction. The opposition to it must have
been strong enough to force out niatal DP, which was
replaced by ita ta. Accordingly, the complete introduction
must have run thus at some time after nia^oi DP was
omitted : nsan s?BXM D^>P 33^3 ^taa few i?n ^N, and all that
remained of it were the first three words.
1 Comp. above, p. 137, n. 2.
2 Comp. Yer. Berakot, 1, 3 c ; the Geonic Responsum quoted in Albarge-
loni, D'nrn 'c, 255 ; 3>^D, 3 a, and n*N, I, 6 c.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 139
An old addition, derived from the Sephardic prayer-
book, is the congregational prayer 1K> rane", 27 b. So
early an authority as Albargeloni had it in his copy of
the Seder Rob Amram, as he tells us in DTi^n 'D, 250,
while Tur, Orah Hayyim, 57, reports the reverse about
his copy. That it was missing in the model for our text
is evident from the fact that it does not appear in the
Week-day Service, though there is no reason for reciting
this prayer on the Sabbath exclusively 1 .
The order of the verses '131 inp . . . pro inpnv is stamped
as incorrect by Abudraham, and he recommends that they
be recited as they succeed each other in the Seder Rab
Amram. But our text has the repudiated arrangement,
except in the New Year Service, where the order is that
recommended by Abudraham.
What Rabbi Abraham ben Nathan says in his Manhig,
33 a, makes it plain that in his copy of the Seder the
Talmud sections are not set down to be recited at the end
of the Afternoon Sabbath Service, and the passage KBIT *P"S
is properly enough found to be missing in the Oxford and
the Sulzberger MSS.
The formula for pin nns at the end of the Sabbath, as
given in our text, differs from that quoted in the Manhig,
33 b, from the Seder. As Maimonides agrees with the
Manhig, it remains only to assume that our text was
shortened in this passage.
The prayer , . . ^nn X"IK, on page 31 b, is known to the
Manhig only as a Spanish custom, and to justify it the
author resorts, not to the Seder, but to a Yerushalmi
passage, and we may be sure that it did not occur in his
copy of the Seder. This throws doubt upon the authen-
ticity of the whole section, from JVJHB>K until nyiB^, all the
more as it is missing in the Oxford MS. That it is, in
spite of this, an addition of respectable age may be inferred
Albargeloni, it is true, deals with the Sabbath Service, but it is fair
to assume that he had TOC name' of the Week-day Service also before him.
The editor of the own 'D observes that it is not contained in our y"-\c !
140 THE GEONIM
from its being quoted from the Seder Rob Amram by Ibn
Gajat, v"V, I, 15, as the Tur, Orah Hayyim, 299, does also.
Nevertheless, it is recognised as an interpolation by the
circumstance that it is a piece put in between the Habdalah
and the draining of the Habdalah cup. It does not seem
likely that between the Benediction over the wine and
the drinking of the wine itself so long an interval would
be interposed as is required for the recital of this piece,
the rule being that a Benediction is to be followed at once
by the enjoyment of the food and drink over which it is
said. It is therefore much simpler to assume that it was
taken from some other source, and as the copyist could not
well attach it to the Halakic portion of the Seder, there
was nothing for him to do but join it to the Habdalah.
On 41 b, in the Order of Prayers for the second day
of the Passover, the counting of the *0mer is missing. Yet
it was present in the copy of the Seder used by B-abbi
Aaron of Lunel, as appears from a remark of his in Dims
Dn, I, 84 a.
As an adjustment in conformity with the Sephardic
rite, we may consider jJDI Ti 7X in the first Benediction
of the 'Amidah for the New Year, which Abudraharn
attributes to the ignorance of the people. He accuses
them of having changed this Benediction as given in the
Seder Rab Arnra/m,. Our text again agrees with the custom
of the ignoramuses. If we call to mind how zealous the
Geonim were in denouncing any change in the 'Amidah,
there can be no doubt as to the correctness of Abudraham's
version of the Seder in comparison with our text.
Another change in the 'Amidah for the New Year is
the insertion of trip tnpo 21B DV. Of the Seder Rab Amram
it did not form a part, for which we have the clear
testimony of the author of the Manhig, 52-3. It is a
peculiarity of the Spanish liturgy, and our text was here
subjected to an importation from it.
The remark made by Ibn Gajat on the changes in the
'Amidah prescribed by Rab Amram for the Ten Peni-
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 14!
tential Days (E^t?, I, 45) proves the sentences D"r DIM,
45 a, to be an addition from the Spanish Mahzor.
The Benediction over the Shofar, in the copy of the
Seder Rob Amram used by Ibn Gajat, read jnpn^ (v"&, I,
261), while our text offers the formula prescribed by
Rabbenu Hai. On the other hand, the ivpn 7tfy0 in his
copy of the Seder had the words KM rjR3 yiprb "pa OKI.
One must despair of establishing the wording of this
Benediction original to the Seder.
The prayer n^rr.K is properly missing in the printed text,
27, while the MSS. Oxford and Sulzberger contain it as
an addition from the Sephardic Mahzor. It is, doubtless,
of Palestinian origin, as can be seen from the Mahzor
Romania, where it has a place in the Daily Prayer.
Besides, the closing Benediction *^pn Ttt> ''"Nil is known
to us to have been used as such through a passage in the
Yerushalmi Berakot, I l , and accordingly belongs to the rem-
nants of the Palestinian liturgy, which have been preserved
among the Sephardim, Ashkenazim, and Italiani.
The words npnpn wi^no VW 2 , on 47 a, make it seem
1 Not in our text of the Yerushalmi, but in the text used by the old
authors. Comp. Ratner, D'tem p'S run**, 33-4. Maimonides also has
this formula, as well as Rabbi Saadia, in his 'Abodah given by Dr. Elbogen
in his Studien, &c., 122. Curiously enough, Dr. Elbogen overlooked this,
on p. 70, n. i.
2 Weiss (IV, 49) reproaches the Geonim for calling the Academy
nmpn n:w. However, it is not the Geonirn who use the expression,
but the scholars outside of Babylonia (R. Ibn Abitur and Mosea ben Enoch,
in y*\r, 4 d, 29 ; 30 a, 9) or the correspondents of the Geonim (>":, 9). In the
latter passage, the question contains the words : rrempn nya*2 an:orr TW,
while the Gaon's reply was the simple i:3n2?3. Likewise in V^air, 172,
mmpn unjTraa is a remark made by the compiler of the Responsa.
In general, the Geonim either cite decisions by other Geonim or the
custom of the Academy, but never a decision of the Academy, which,
indeed, would have been odd coming from a Gaon, as all decisions were
supposed to be issued by him and not by the Academy. In 01*123, 44,
rronpn nruvron in Rabbi Sherira's reply is only a verbatim repetition of the
expression employed by the questioner. It is interesting that in the Re-
sponsum by Rabbi Sherira and Rabbi Hai jointly, found in the Responsa
Collection of Rabbi Solomon Ibu Adret, V, 25, a-b, n. 121, the question
contains the expression rroipn nrc'n, while the answer has instead of it
sto rrrrr.
142 THE GEONIM
very likely that mJ ^3 was missing in the original Seder,
for these words were never used by the Geonim. If,
besides, we take into consideration that m: ^D was un-
known in Babylonia, as -we are told by the Geonim of
Sura and of Pumbedita without a dissenting voice 1 , the
probability of its not having formed a constituent part
of Rab Amram's Seder rises almost to certainty. There
would be no explanation to offer for Rab Amram's pro-
cedure in first putting it into his Seder, and then character-
ising it as a " foolish custom." We probably are troubled
by two additions derived from different sources. The
first addition, the ma ^3 itself, came, in all likelihood, from
the Seder of Rabbi Saadia, and to this was joined, as a
second addition, the disparaging criticism upon it made
by Rabbi Natronai, introduced by the words xmTiDD nJB*
nefipn.
To the Spanish Mahzor, again, the prayers Kl^l nTjp and
"p!>o, on 48 a, are attributable. As we learn from explicit
statements in Ibn Gajat, w"v, I, 61, and Manhig, 60, it was
Rab Amram's opinion that these prayers were not to be
said on omaan DV. The author of the Manhig, and Abu-
draham as well (133), add that none but the Spanish rite
differs from Rab Amram. This point affords a striking
illustration of the heedless way in which the copyist to
whom we owe our text set aside the real Seder of Rab
Amram. On 47 a, where a list of the initial words of the
prayers for a"anv is given, he followed his model implicitly.
There he included neither r6y nor "pta. But two pages
further on he could not refrain from setting down what
he was accustomed to connect with the services of the day.
Our text contains no alphabetical NDn *?y, yet Abudraham,
153, cites one from the Seder Rab Amram.
The prayer for a mother on the day when the child to
1 Comp. tD"ir, I, 60-1. Rabbi Saadia is the only one who knows
Kol-Nidre, whence it follows that it was of Palestinian origin, as the
Seder of Rabbi Saadia follows the Palestinian customs closely ; comp.
below, pp. 166-7. Concerning the opposition of the Geonim to cm: mm,
comp. above, p. 96, n. r.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 143
which she has given birth is circumcised, 52 b, is a later
addition, as was proved by the present writer in the
Z. H. B. t IX, 1 06. The Geonic sources mention a prayer
for the child, but none for the mother.
The Benediction to be said at the circumcision of a
proselyte, and of a slave, as set down in the Manhig, 98 b,
from the Seder, is not in agreement with our text, which
should probably be modified according to the Manhig.
In view of all the passages instanced, it would be a
wilful perversion of judgment to make an inference regard-
ing the nature of the Geonic liturgy from the recensions
of the Seder at present available. Our printed text cannot
be looked upon as anything more or less than a Spanish
Order of Prayer with some additions from the real Seder
Rab Amram. The same characterisation applies also to
the MSS. Sulzberger and Oxford 1 , though they deviate
here and there from the printed text. Of the two MSS.
the Oxford apparently is a more recent version, the in-
sertions in which may have been taken from the Seder
of Rabbi Saadia. This supposition is strengthened by the
long passages, given by Marx, Unter&uchungen, &c.,
Hebrew part, 4, 6, 18, which are said expressly to have
been derived from Rabbi Saadia, and p. n, relative to
rim, which is quoted by various authors with the name
of Rabbi Saadia attached to it 2 . The grace after meals
in the MSS., having the same wording in the two, is also
more recent than the printed text of the prayer, as is
shown by *?2ib pron rp-O given at the end of the Seder.
The prayer after pin pm in the Oxford MS. is doubtless
a later addition 3 . Rab Amram would scarcely have sent
the Spanish congregations more than the main prayers.
Hence the difference between the forms of the nunn in
1 I have given the prayers in them only a cursory examination, but
I am convinced they agree with the printed text in all essentials.
2 Comp. Miiller in (Ewares Complets de R. Soodt'a, IX, 156.
s The sentence (28) ib inno .... ^xVo occurs almost literally in an
epitaph at Brindisi, of the year 833, published by Ascoli, Inscriziotie, 66.
Comp. also n*w, II, 635.
144 THE GEONIM
the printed text and the MSS., as none of them were
contained in the original Seder Rob Amram. There
is, of course, no need to lose time in adducing proofs that
the addition to Nishmat in MS. Oxford (24) is a late
insertion, nor that the extracts from the Hekalot, to be
found only in the printed text, most probably were not
of the original constituent parts of the Seder. It is sig-
nificant that while the Oxford MS. has no nw in the
Week-day Service (p, 3), it has it in the Sabbath Service
(13), exactly the reverse of what we find in the printed
text. As has been demonstrated, Rab Amram did not
have the PITS? in his Seder.
THE HALAKIC PART OF THE SEDER RAB AMRAM.
It now behoves us to explain how it happened that of
all old works the Seder Rab Amram was subjected to such
peculiar treatment. Like the others it suffered additions
to its essential, original form. But that is not all the
essential original form itself was not left intact, it was
so modified, abridged, and extended, that we now have
very little of what it was in the first place, when it left
the hands of Rab Amram. Prayer-book making among
Jews is a wholly modern trade. Rab Amram did not, by
any manner of means, write a prayer-book. He merely
sent the Spanish congregations the prayers prayed in
Babylonia, well knowing that, to use a Talmudic phrase,
" every stream has its own current." He had no intention
of forcing Babylonian rites upon Spanish congregations.
Incorrect readings, which had crept into some of the
prayers in the course of the centuries, were rectified in
the Halakic notes accompanying them, and at the same
time the notes served to state the principles which had
guided the Tannaim and Amoraim in settling the form
of the prayers, and which still were to be applied as norms.
These explanations of the Gaon subjoined to the prayers
were the important part of Rab Amram's Responsum for
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 145
the Spanish Jews. There was no disposition on the part
of the latter to abolish their local rites, but when the
congregations had differing customs, or in doubtful cases,
the directions of the Gaon were resorted to, consulted,
and applied. The main task of the copyists, employed
by those interested in spreading the Seder, consisted not
in reproducing the prayers, but in recording the Halakic
directions and the important variations from their prayers
given by Rab Amram. In this way we have come into
possession of Spanish prayer-books embellished with ad-
ditions from Rab Amram's Seder as well as his Halakic
instructions. Similarly, the Germans had their 3YT DniTHD
D"iy l , prayer-books embodying their liturgy together
with the Halakic portions of Rab Amram's Seder 2 .
Of the same class is the Mahzor Vitry, which contains
the major part of the Halakic element of the Seder, but
in the prayers themselves it follows the French ritual.
In view of the close relation subsisting between some
of the prayers and the Halakot accompanying them, it
may be assumed, without further evidence, that the Spanish
congregations, and here and there others as well, yielded
to the great authority of Rab Amram, and made changes
in their liturgy in consonance with his directions, such
as the excision of the reference to the Messianic redemption
from the Geullah, which, as was demonstrated above, existed
in the old Spanish forms of the prayer. Occasionally,
compromises must have been made between the local
custom and the version recommended by the Gaon. When
we find the Sephardim using ina for the Musaf Kedushah,
and je'npJ for the Kedushah of nnnsr, it is fair to conclude
1 fin, I, 26 b.
2 Naturally, many a Halakah was given a place in the Mahsorim that
had the sanction neither of Rab Amram's name nor any other Gaon's.
Hence, quotations from the y*SD in the works of the German authors
that cannot be traced. For instance, a contemporary of Rashi's grandsons
('Vi s'n 'on, 3) cites the nbn nofci of Rab Amram, of which not a trace
can be found in the r"So , and probably it never existed there.
I L
146 THE GEONIM
that we have an instance of an attempt at amalgamating
different rituals *.
The influence of the Babylonian ritual must, therefore,
have been strongest in Spain, whither the Seder was first
taken, which, however, did not hinder it from asserting
itself among the Franco-German Jews. In pursuing this
line, it must be borne in mind that frequently what is
denominated the custom according to the Seder Rob
Amram is nothing but the old Spanish rite, which agrees
with the old Ashkenazic rite, both derived from Palestine 2 .
While the liturgical part of the Seder was badly abused
by the copyists, the Halakic part has reached us in com-
paratively good condition. After what has been said, the
reason is patent. The prayers the copyists knew by heart,
and they paid little attention to their model. They wrote
as their memory dictated. Besides, they knew that the value
of their work was concentrated mainly in the copying of the
Halakot. To these they therefore devoted conscientious
care. It was inevitable, of course, that in spite of all
attention, even this portion of his Seder should receive
additions from other hands than Rab Amram's, and, also,
several Responsa by him, which he seems to have addressed
to Spanish scholars independently of the Seder, have been
inserted at suitable places. For instance, the Halakot on
pp. 26 a-b, bearing the name of Rab Amram, are abstracts
1 Comp. G. S., p. 49.
a The great respect enjoyed by the y"-iD among the Franco-German
Jews is apparent from the words of Rabbenu Tarn, in ixrrn 'r, ed. Rosenthal,
99, in which he maintains that the Seder was the chief source for the
prayers. Rapoport, jn: 'l 'n , note 29, goes too far, however, when he says
that the Germans were the only ones to accept the Seder Rab Amram,
excluding the Spaniards as he does. Yet his instinct was correct in
laying stress upon the influence exercised by the y*"iD upon the German
liturgy. In his polemic against Rapoport, Weiss, Dor, IV, 121-2, is less
close to the truth when he deduces the dependence of the Sephardic
ritual upon the y'no, from the agreement between the former and our
text of the Seder. We have seen that the relation is exactly the reverse.
Furthermore, Weiss is mistaken in calling Maimonides' Seder Sephardic
it is Egypto-Palestinian.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 147
of Responsa of his addressed to the congregation of Barce-
lona, b*3, 56-7. Ibn Gajat, e^t?, 1, 10, and Rabbi Abraham of
Lunel, Manhig, 26 a, quote these passages, but it is doubtful
whether they knew them from the Responsa as such, or
from the Seder 1 . The sentence Drroa 1^ t 37 b, did not
occur in the Seder used by the author of the Manhig (43 a) ;
it is obviously a gloss calling attention to a Responsum of
Rab Amram's, which gives support to this peculiar custom
by means of the authority of the Yeshibot and the Geonim 2
authentication which was all the more pertinent, as not
only did the European Jews know nothing of the recital of
rniri>D on Purvm, but also the Geonim themselves were far
from unanimity upon the point, as appears from TUT, Orah
Hayyim, 693. It would seem that the custom prevailed
only in Sura ; in Pumbedita no nin^D were prayed on
Purim. So far as Sura is concerned, the testimony of
Rab Amram is reinforced by the fact that Rabbi Saadia
himself composed nin^D for Purim, published by Professor
Schechter, Saadyana, 49-50. There is the possibility, of
course, that these rnn^D may have been intended for ivayn
TTIDK. The sentence nU'B" a"yx, on p. 32 a, is taken
from a Responsum by Rab Amram, quoted in full by the
author of the hi*??, IO2 3 .
Additions from the Seder of Rabbi Saadia occur in three
places in the printed text of the Seder Rab Amram, 4 b
(bis), and 52 a. But, as was observed above, the MSS.
do not contain the first two insertions, and as for the
third, we know that it did not appear in the copy used
by Ibn Gajat, as can be inferred from his words at the end
of &"v, I. It seems to have been taken from the D M n mmx ,
26 c, which cites the opinion of Rabbi Saadia in opposition
to Rab Amram's.
1 In "jn'zc, 54, it was doubtless taken from a Responsum, and not from
the Seder.
* By a slip the author of bn'ac, 157, writes poioi p:n! For the
meaning to be attached to pen in this sentence of Rab Amram's, see above,
p. 24, n. i. On p. 29 of the 'jn'niD it has, properly, pen without pom**.
3 Comp. also Hazan, ;rn n , 45 a.
L 2
148 THE GEONIM
If the superscription (i4b) Nmaoia nX m is correct,
then, naturally, we are dealing with an addition, as it is very
improbable that Rabbi Zemah could have been quoted by
Rab Amram. But one cannot help being assailed by
doubts as to the correctness of the superscription. It
is not impossible that the abbreviation 'x 'n, standing
for pnx 31, was improperly interpreted as nox 'i, and
then, to complete the verisimilitude, NJrnnoia N'n was added
after ra^, as Rabbi Zemah was Gaon at Pumbedita.
Originally, it must have read 3py pro mB* wn V""! 1 ,
without specifying the Academy. As was demonstrated
at length above, only the heads of the Sura Academy bore
the title Gaon. At first, and even later, when the heads of
the Pumbedita Academy were already called Geonim, a
distinction was still made between the 3py pJ ro'B* B'NI,
the head of Sura, and the Gaon of Pumbedita, who were
only r6tt be> mwn PNI. As early as Talmudic times
(Rosh ha-Shanah, 23 b), r6i3 was synonymous with Pumbe-
dita 2 . Later copyists, especially those in countries remote
pb, ga, has the reading rras pns', plainly traceable to the
abbreviation s"~\, for which the copyists had two explanations, prnr '-\
and nos 'i . That NTVIMIB NTT m'tra is a later addition is confirmed by
TIDTZJN, I, 33, where it does not appear. The names pm" and pns are often
confounded. Comp., for instance, Mekilta, Jethro, I, and Sifre, Deut., 38.
In both places pis is to be read instead of pn^% as appears from Kiddushin,
32 a. The name of the Gaon Zadok is misread for pni" in z"n, 56, n"n, II,
414, SrVar, an, and in many other places. Comp. also Zunz, Gesammelte
Schriften, IV, 274. MS. reads njnra p* rros n.
a What Maimonides (Commentary on Bekorot, IV, 4) has to say on the
use of these two titles at his own time is particularly interesting. He
informs us that while ipy p: ramr trsi was used in Palestine, the
Babylonians bore the title rrtu to nro' wi. The reason for the differing
practices is obvious. In Palestine they tried to perpetuate the original
title of the Gaon, while in Babylonia the title of the head of Pumbedita
was continued, as this Academy survived that of Sura by two generations.
The Hebrew text of Maimonides is corrupt. It reads nron pN instead of
?23. The Ai-abic text published by LOwenstein, Berlin, 1897, p. 22, has the
correct reading psiy'jM, and the same is to be found in the MS. of the
Arabic text of the Maimonides commentary in the Jewish Theological
Seminary of America.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 149
from Babylonia, did not distinguish the Geonim from each
other by their exact titles. The mistake having been made
of reading x'n as no* 'n , the expression 3py> pw r\yw BVI
was retained, while the words NfmoiQ NTI were added :
they bear plainly the earmarks of an explanatory gloss.
The same error of interpreting an abbreviation incor-
rectly may have changed ^antM 'n, 4b, into |lB>m '"i 1 .
It is a vexed question, the identity of the Rabbi Nathan
mentioned three times in the Seder, 35 b, and 37 a (bis).
In the last two places he is called m^ e>N"i, both in the
printed text and in the MSS., which gives no encourage-
ment to his identification with the uncle of Rabbi Sherira.
Rabbi Nathan ben Rabbi Judah. The latter was no e>Nl
r\yw, only an pta, and if the copyists had desired to
confer a more distinguished title upon him, they would
have called him Gaon, the usual epithet bestowed later upon
a very prominent scholar. But there was no Rabbi Nathan
who was a ra^ B>N"i in Babylonia, and we have the choice
of again resorting to a falsely interpreted abbreviation,
and putting }DJ for 'NJnBJ 2 , or identifying him with the
contemporary of Rab Amram, the Rabbi Nathan of Kair-
wan, who was a n^B* t?N"i in Kairwan 3 . The difficulty
of identifying this Rabbi Nathan is increased by the fact
that Abudraham, even in his first edition (Lisbon, 1489),
twice has foro 'i in citing the Seder. In the first passage,
p. 79, jorti is probably a mistake for Amram, while in the
second, p. no, corresponding to 37 a of our text of the Seder,
the dictum ascribed in the latter to Rabbi Nathan, is quoted
in the name of Rabbi Nahman. But fru would seem to go
1 Comp., R. E. J., LIV, 204, where this passage of the j?*-c is quoted,
but without the name of Rabbi Nahshon. There is no reason for doubting
that it is taken from the Seder.
* An interesting example of mistaking 3*S = 'JCITC: 'i and :"} = |ro 'T
for each other is afforded in Tur, Orah Hayyim, 190. It occurs in the
first Soncino edition, and in all following editions, while ed. Mantua,
1475, has 'terra: S as is proper, and as is confirmed by o'rt, 187 ; for
indirect testimony by Rashi see above, p. 43, line 6 from below.
s Comp. above, pp. 31-2.
150 THE GEONIM
back to }1BTU, rather than to |nJ. The name of the Gaon
is elsewhere found corrupted into pro l . Thus the reading
jr>3 becomes very doubtful. Besides, the decision given on
37 a in the name of Rabbi Nathan offers a difficulty in
the subject-matter. It contradicts a usage prevailing in
the Yeslnl)ot y if we can put implicit confidence in the words
of Rabbi Natronai, a^n, 187. The last point may be
adduced in support of the assumption that the authority
referred to is Rabbi Nathan of Kairwan, who recorded
his opinion here at variance with that of the Babylonian
Geonim.
Apart from these additions, which can be attributed to
definite authors, there probably are a number of anonymous
passages in the Halakic part of the Seder that did not
belong to it originally, but were inserted in the course
of time. For instance, it is not at all likely that the
references to the Spanish ritual, i a and 2 a, were made by
the hand of Rab Amram himself 2 . The expression nxo "p
rvniEW ni^NB>2 in the latter place is not a Gaon's way of
speaking.
1 Comp. Rapoport's Introduction to p"j, gb, and also 531*03, 47, where,
likewise, ptcn; is to be read instead of jnn:. The first edition of Abu-
draham reads p: instead of jtsna in rv:rn 'n, 135, in agreement with y"-\~,
35 b, while all the subsequent editions have pn: \ Schorr, He-Halus, VII,
144-5, insists that there was a Gaon by the name of Jon:, though none is
mentioned by Rabbi Sherira in his Letter. By way of corroboration, he
adduces the fact that Rabbi Sherira has no reference to the Gaon Rabbi
Menahem, of whose existence there can be no doubt. Schorr evidently
was carried away by his opposition to Rapoport. In point of fact, the
Gaon Rabbi Menahem is mentioned by Sherira. rr"on: is out of the ques-
tion, the only Gaon by that name, the son of Kohen-Zedek, not having
written any Responsa. In Abudraham, 139, the end of r*t~, 35 b, is
also given in the name of p: S, but this can scarcely be correct, as in
31*03, 125, and c v n 'm, 90 a, the same passage is ascribed to Rabbi
Jehudai, whom Rab Amram followed here as in many other places. i"c,
211, has fre n:3T which seems to corroborate our assumption that R. Nathan
was not a Gaon, :n is never used in connexion with a Gaon.
* Also lines 14-17, on p. 5 b, seem very suspicious to me. On the use of
I::CN, Germany, comp. the Responsum of Rabbi Paltoi in rsi'ia, 149, where
2"i::t are mentioned.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE
RELATION OF THE MANUSCRIPTS TO THE PRINTED TEXT.
The fact that an old work has been subjected to additions
does not preclude the possibility of its having suffered
abridgment as well. However, it lies in the nature of
these Halakic expositions to give suitable opportunities
for additions, especially extracts from Geonic Responsa.
It may, therefore, be formulated as a rule, that only the
material common to the printed text and the MSS. can
with certainty be considered as originally part of Rab
Amram's work. Accord between the MSS. and the old
authors is not in itself conclusive as to the genuineness of
the passages found in them. At most, it proves that such
additions, if additions they be, were made in a remote
time. And in point of fact there are but few additions
in the Sulzberger and the Oxford MSS. that cannot be
followed up in one or another old author. Some of these
parallel sources to the MSS. of the Seder Rab Amram
follow :
The resume of the ni3"n nxo in S and O, i , is met again
literally in Mahzor Vitry, 3-5, and an abstract of it, in
DW 'D, ed. Schiff, II, 235. Besides, the conclusion JNCI
"p2Q*T is cited in the Manhig, 7 b, from the Seder. Never-
theless, it does not seem at all probable that Rab Amram
would give a summing-up of the 01313 nND sent by his
predecessor to the Spanish congregations not very long
before his own Responsum.
The regulations regarding the benedictions over the
Tejttlin, the Mahzor Vitry had in the copy of the Seder
used for it, in agreement with O, 2, as appears from the
remark of the author on p. 642, while the Manhig, 7 b, is
in accord with our text *.
Mahzor Vitry, 5-6, has the section rvpint^ Kncai? in
MSS. S and O, and also TT N^J, found only in MS. S.
1 Rab Amram's view regarding the Tefillin Benediction has been trans-
mitted variously in different Poskim. Hence the actual view of Rab
Amram cannot be determined any more.
152 THE GEONIM
MS. O, 5, is like Mahzor Vitry, 14 both contain the
addition pD"M S^anem.
Mahzor Vitry (28-32) also has the long piece on ftehn
rmjJD, which is found in MSS. S and O (p. 7), and a part of
it is described by Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg, in raiBTi '"'W,
ed. Bloch, 299, as having been taken from the Seder. On
the other hand, from the Manhig, 37 a, we should infer
justly that it was known to its author as an independent
Responsum, not as a part of the Seder, into which it may
have been incorporated later.
The reading of the Mahzor Vitry, ^n instead of <I D' I 3, is
interesting. The latter is as the MSS. of the Seder and
Pardes (38 c) have it. n"N, I, 32 b, has it from the Seder.
Mahzor Vitry (78) has the addition offered by MSS. S
and O, 19, line 14, and also on 214, that on 36, line 36.
The explicit treatment of the Torah lessons in MSS. S
and O, 19-23, probably originates in the ninitfp nia^n, but,
as appears from Mahzor Vitry, 221, it was in the Seder, as
the Mahzor cites it without reference to the source, the way
of the author with quotations from the Seder, but not with
those from other Geonic sources.
Another agreement between the Mahzor and MS. S is in
the passage before the Shofar blowing (Mahz., 355 ; MS.
S, 28).
The next passage, on the Ten Penitential Days, occurs
alike in MSS. S and O and in Mahzor Vitry, but not in
D^n 'mx, I, 960.
The long excerpts from 1| 1yn TiD 1 " 1 in Mahzor Vitry,
202, 280, 355, 375, which are not found in MSS. S and O,
indicate that the Seder used by the Mahzor could not have
been identical with the model upon which the MSS. are
based. This, however, can be asserted, that MSS. S and
1 Epstein, Schemaja (reprinted from Honatsschrift, XLI), 18, note i, is of
Ihe opinion that moi inno should be read instead of 'morn ~IID', and his
view seems to be supported by the Sulzberger MS. of the original 1*0, in
which the sections on Eosh ha-Shanah and Yom ha-Kippur begin with the
passage in the printed Vn, introduced by the words 'Q-ioyrr TID\
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 153
O are more closely related to the Mahzor Vitry than to
the printed text of the Seder. The latter obviously goes
back to another group of MSS. On the other hand, the
student must guard against the error of accepting, without
further investigation, the identity of the MSS. and the
printed text as a proof of the genuineness of the passages
in question 1 . Changes must have taken place in the form
of the Seder at so early a date that all the versions that
have reached us must have been affected by them. For
example, though the long Responsum by Rabbi Natronai on
the Sabbath Evening Prayer (25 a) is literally the same in
the three versions, yet we are plainly shown by the Manhig,
23-4, and bn*3E>, 50, that it is an abridgment. In fact,
hitherto it has not been observed that a portion of the end
of this Responsum is to be found, by way of supplement, on
43 a. The observation on the formula in Dlisn was originally
a part of the Responsum given on p. 25 a. This we
learn from the Manhig, and there can be no doubt that the
author had the correct version. The copyist who omitted
it by mistake and he must have lived in very early times,
as is shown by Albargeloni, DTijn 'D, 173 atoned for his
slip by putting it in under niyi3B> JH *no. How inappropriate
a place he gave it is shown by the fact that it was over-
looked there by all the scholars of our day. Professor
Schechter published a Genizah fragment in the J. Q. R.,
X, 656, in which the formula of Dlisn has a wording
different from the one we are accustomed to, as follows :
Bt&rW HJUI $>tae* . . . Dlisn. This benediction runs in
pretty much the same way in another Genizah frag-
ment published by Professor Levi, R. . J., LIII, 235 :
Q^rrv run) pnr DPUD bane* . . . omen. This supposedly new
benediction is identical verbatim with that in a Responsum
by Rabbi Natronai, quoted in the Seder, 43 a, and in the
1 Priority is not always in favour of the versions of the Seder used
by the Poskim. For instance, there can be no doubt that what the 'irt'sc,
184, cites from the Seder is Italian Minhag, and equally i*V, 128, is not
quoting an original piece of the y"~c.
154 THE GEONIM
Manhig, 23. The Genizah fragments are doubtless of
Palestinian origin, for not only, as Professor Levi remarks,
was this formula in the Yerushalmi used by Rabbi Isaiah
di Trani the Elder, Berakot, IV, 8 c, but the reading is also
found in the Vatican MS. of the Yerushalmi. It should be
noted, in addition, that the first verse of the Oeullah in the
fragment published by Professor LeVi should read : 1J7 r\wy
N7S DB> iniPJD }VV3, to which the verse . . . nt?y in n^nx
by Jose ben Jose forms an almost verbal parallel further
proof for the Palestinian origin of this Payyetan.
.SPURIOUS WORKS ATTRIBUTED TO THE GEONIM NAHSHON
AND HIS SON HAI.
Many a work is ascribed to Rabbi Nahshon, the successor
of Rab Amram in the Gaonate of Sura, but his authorship
can be maintained with certainty only regarding one of
them, the 'Iggul, a treatise on the Jewish calendar system,
which Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob Belin, a German author
of the fifteenth century, incorporated in his book nunay,
Basle, 1527. That the others have been ascribed to him
rests upon a misunderstanding. Though Zunz in his work
Zur Geschichte und Literatur, 221, properly said that the
Rabbi Nahshon who was the author of the Halakic com-
pendium noiNn, a compatriot as well as the namesake of
the Gaon, was separated from him by an interval of five
centuries, scholars like Miiller, in his Maftea/i, 131, and
Weiss, in his Dor, IV, 123, continue to speak of the work
noiNl ascribed to Rabbi Nahshon. In view of the fact
that it is extremely rare, and that its form is very bizarre,
I shall undertake to give a description of it, according to
the copy once owned by Halberstam, now in the Sulzberger
Collection of the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary
of America.
The work consists of sixty pages last one blank small
quarto, and it was printed in the year 1565 (=DriDD) at
Constantinople, according to a MS. in the library of Don
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 155
Joseph Nasi, accompanied by a double commentary from
the hand of Rabbi Isaac Onkeneira. The title of the book,
abbreviated, runs thus : Nswn f)DV fin , , . "PS NX
iy:t? pN3 ^"T pt?ru -n"niD hnan nn nan
pro 11 . . . D3nn Nin N^n . . . pnvi . . , n"jn
'3 nx> ma enn e>N"i w ava Nr^NDnp . . . anrwa
icnp anoo spppn.
In the introduction the author names the 22nd Adar
of the year 5560 A. M., or 1300 c. E., as the date on
which he began his work, and mentions the fact that
he was the head of an Academy, TIN 'nanna -iyje> '1N3,
frequented by 400 pupils, for the use of whom he had
written his little work l . Onkeneira tells us, in the intro-
duction to his commentary, that Don Joseph received the
MS. of the book from a distinguished old man, DJivro
Dn^y 'n mrjn arryiN r~iN3, which probably means when
Don Nasi still was in Portugal. At the request of Don
Joseph, Onkeneira wrote his two commentaries on the
book, the ratio of commentaries to book being ten to
one. The last page contains the praise, in prose and
verse, of the author, the commentator, and the publisher,
Don Joseph, composed by Rabbi Joseph ben Samuel ha-
Levi. Not until we reach this last page do we discover
that the author bore the title Gaon, but Rabbi Joseph
had no intention of identifying him with Rabbi Nahshon,
the Gaon of Sura. Rabbi Joseph's own father is denominated
Gaon. So far as I can recall, Rapoport, in his biography
of Rabbi Nathan, note 30, was the first to be misled by the
title of the booklet and to identify the author with the
Gaon Rabbi Nahshon. It need not be said that if Rapoport
had seen the book itself, he would never have entertained
the idea of attributing it to the Gaon. Not only does the
author, as was mentioned above, name the year 1300 as the
date, but the book is based essentially upon Maimonides.
What Onkeneira says, that Rabbi Nahshon 's title
1 What city is meant by -ji is hard to say, probably Bagdad.
156 THE GEONIM
was composed of the two words no 1X1, "See Moses
[Maimonides]," is probably nothing more than an ingenious
conceit, but he is right in assuming the author's dependence
upon Maimonides. In point of fact, the book is scarcely
more than a brief abstract of the nanai n&ryff majl of
Maimonides. The following illustrations show how closely
Rabbi Nahshon followed the views expressed in tbe Tad :
The first sentence, rv^l na* 1 rvpTCQ, can be explained
only from Maimonides, Shehitah, I, 2. The other codes 1 ,
which follow the Talmud in their wording, speak of nmn,
which is ignored by Maimonides and our author, who
follows him.
The view, p. 14, that the slaughtering knife must be
examined after it has been used, is derived from Maimonides,
She/iitah, I, 24. It is a view not shared by other authorities.
The difference (pp. 3 1-3) between nom PSD and any other
PISPIB pSD is inexplicable without the help of Maimonides,
Skehitah, V, 3, who uses the case to exemplify his funda-
mental view on the subject of the Sinaitic Halakah.
The Halakic value of the little book is slight, as we have
seen, but the form in which it is couched deserves some
consideration. The author attempts to condense in thirty-
eight brief and tersely expressed paragraphs the important
regulations regarding ntaTiK' and nano. From the point of
view of this object, it is not a despicable achievement.
An interesting point is the author's desire to imitate the
language and manner of the Mishnah, wherein he succeeded
admirably. This is all the more noteworthy as the style
he uses in the introduction may be called Kaliric, in
strange contrast with the clear and pointed style of the
book proper. But not even there could he wholly restrain
himself from indulging his taste for the bizarre. To the
end of each paragraph he adds a JOD, which in most cases
is a conundrum, and one cannot but admire the ingenuity
of Onkeneira, who succeeded in guessing all the riddles.
1 Comp. the commentators on this passage of Maimonides.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 157
The explanations by Onkeneira which accompany the
little book are of statements of facts and linguistic points.
These are treated of in his commentary entitled mya ruav.
In his other commentary, called *rn nprn, in allusion to
Maimonides, npmn T, he deals with the relation existing
between Rabbi Nahshon's statements and those of Mai-
monides' Code. He does not attempt to enter into the
views of other authorities. In a single passage (p. 23) he
mentions Rabbi Joseph Caro, citing his Bet Yosef with
these words : Tia nxp |DV nVno D^n Tonn pnaion ain
D'O^n nytri D'nbx JV3 f)DV JV3 naoa. Furthermore, he men-
tions his grandfather, Rabbi Judah Onkeneira, three times.
On p. 12 he tells the following about him: nw npyo
rvaa nnvra nx^pca ^vr ypr o^n oann Tonn
miiT -n'rno Tonn ann nyis* jytDB D^D ^
ain vy Dp TN .... "sr 'Jpr Dn oann njrn . . . ipoa
'r6 nan vnan mim it^Ni ^y IP^JI ^ jenB> 7 j mirr.
The name of his grandfather is not attached to this passage,
but on p. 52 it is mentioned plainly, with the words Tiyoen
Ti'mo D^n oann ^PT TDnn ^ao, in accordance with which
*?"y min 11 we should read on p. 24. His uncle, Rabbi Moses
Onkeneira, is referred to on p. 42, in the words ^ao Tiyon
iD i?ape> i"n: m3p3iy nets i^nn ^ nn D^trn onnn nonn
On p. 32 a saying from the Yerushalmi is quoted which
is not found in our text. The Yet^ushalmi very probably
refers to some Kabbalistic work 2 .
The quotation occurring in a Yemen MS., published by
L. Griinhut, in R. . J., XXXIX, 31 1-12, is probably taken
from a mystical work attributed to Rabbi Nahshon 3 .
1 Rabbi Judah ben Isaac, Rabbi of Magnesia about 1500, author of
a commentary on Ruth.
2 rrooini baro'b xc'i :T rrb n'i jun 'obci'a pnawia wo'2 NJTT : WIT ;
the language is that of the Zohar ; so far as I know, however, the dictum
does not occur in the Zohar.
3 The extract published by Griinhut was known before ; comp. R. .J.,
158 THE GEONIM
The Karaite Kirkisani, as we are informed by Dr.
Harkavy 1 , who published portions of his works still in
MS., speaks of " Hai, the head of the Academy, and his
father, who translated the law-book of Anan from the
Aramaic into Hebrew, and with the exception of two
points, they found nothing that could not be traced back
to the Rabbinic writings." As Kirkisani could not have
been thinking of Rabbi Hai ben Sherira, because he wrote
before the great Hai was born, he may have meant Rabbi
Hai ben Nahshon, who studied the works of Anan with
his father Nahshon. It is possible that the calendar in-
vestigations undertaken by Rabbi Nahshon in connexion
with his f lggul led him to take up Karaitic literature, and
he naturally sought first of all to familiarise himself with
the works of the founder of the Karaite sect. If we bear
in mind that the Gaon of Sura, Natronai, barely one
generation before Rabbi Nahshon, had to be told by a
Spanish Jew of the existence of Anan's book of law 2 ,
it does not seem at all probable that an early successor
of his would make it the subject of close study. And,
in point of fact, Kirkisani's report bears the marks of
falsification. Consider the monstrous exaggeration, that
the Gaon Hai had found only two matters in the whole
of Anan's book of law that could not be shown to be
derived from Rabbinic sources, the truth being that there
are barely two lines in his book that are in agreement
with the Rabbinical authorities. It is equally out of
the question that a Gaon should have busied himself
with the translation of a Karaite book, and from Aramaic
into Hebrew at that. The Babylonian Jews mastered
XL, 128. Rabbi Nahshon is not the only Gaon whom the Kabbalists claim
as one of their own. Even Rabbi Samuel ben Hofni could not escape
them, in spite of his philosophic views ; comp. Steinschneider, Arabische
Literatur, no, note 6.
1 In his additions to the Hebrew translation of Graetz's Geschichte, III,
493-5".
* Seder Rab Amram, 38 a.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 159
both languages, we may be sure, and it is not to be
supposed for a moment that Rabbi Hai was desirous of
making propaganda for Karaism among foreign Jews
ignorant of Aramaic.
WORKS ATTRIBUTED TO THE GEONIM ZEMAH, HAI BEN
DAVID, AND HILAI.
The contemporary of Rabbi Nahshon, Rabbi Zemah ben
Paltoi, Gaon of Pumbedita, was the first of the scholars
of Pumbedita to write a book, and this first Pumbeditan
book was at the same time the first of the long line of
Talmudic lexicons. The work "yny is known to have
existed as late as the sixteenth century, in the possession
of Rabbi Abraham Zacuto, the author of the Yohasln, who
quotes from it here and there. It is, of course, astonishing
that Zacuto should be the only one known to have made
use of the work, still more astonishing that he was the
only one to make mention of it. Kohut's opinion that
Rabbi Nathan ben Jehiel resorted to the work of this
predecessor of his is not based upon sufficient grounds 1 .
In view of all this, I cannot refrain from expressing doubt
as to the reliability of Zacuto's report. He may have come
into possession of a Talmudic lexicon by some Zemah,
otherwise not known, whom he or perhaps the copyists
of the book, without taking the trouble to investigate the
matter, identified with his namesake, the Gaon of Pumbe-
dita. The restricted number of quotations from the lexicon
hardly permits speculation as to the merits of the book.
Zacuto tells us expressly that the arrangement followed
the alphabet. An interesting feature is that it contained
the names of persons and places in the Talmud 2 .
1 Comp. G. S., p. 294.
2 In the Introduction to his 'Aruk, 17-19, Kohut has put together all
the quotations from Rabbi Zemah's lexicon, following the example set
by Rapoport and Geiger. Rabbi Zemah's explanation of the oath Jiyon
mrt, declared unintelligible by Zacuto, and by Rapoport and Kohut after
him, is quite correct. Rabbi Zemah observes that ys~.n p msi 'i makes
l6o THE GEONIM
It must be mentioned that Rabbenu Hai is perhaps
alluding to a lexicographical work by Rabbi Zemah ben
Paltoi, when, in giving the explanation of a Talmudic
word, in Harkavy, 200, he uses the expression ~ipno mimi
. . . "IEX1 TOS m no "ipnB> " and in the investigation Rabbi
Zemah pursued, in which he made the supposition." If
he had been having a Responsum by Rabbi Zemah in
mind, the expression used by Rabbi Hai would be very
peculiar. That he did not mean Rabbi Zemah ben Hayyim,
or Rabbi Zemah ben Kafna, is shown by a previous
sentence, in which he gives the full name, Rabbi Zemah
ben Paltoi 1 . On the other hand, the grandson of Rabbi
Zemah, Rabbi Hezekiah ben Samuel, mentions nothing of
a dictionary by his grandfather, in his letter published in
the /. Q. R., XVIII, 401. As he was not a little proud of
the numerous writings by his ancestors, it is not very
likely that he would have forgotten the lexicon, if there
had been one. A final possibility is that this lexicon of
Rabbi Zemah is nothing but the explanation of Talmudic
passages for which he was asked, and these are included
in what his grandson says : " And also in the days of
his [Rabbi Paltoi's] son, Zemah, the head of the Academy,
my father's father, they [the Spanish scholars] sent to him
asking him for explanations of the difficult passages in the
whole Talmud, so many that several donkeys could not
carry the load." These words would seem to point to a
comprehensive work by Rabbi Zemah rather than his
activity as a Responsa writer.
The superscription reproduced in G. S., p. 28, from a
Genizah fragment containing a collection of Responsa,
"These Responsa were arranged [jpn] by Rabbi Zemah,
use of the oath, because he lived during the time the Temple was
standing, and being accustomed to swear "by this Temple," he did
not change the formula even after its destruction.
1 Attention should be called to the fact that neither R. Sherira nor his
son R. Hai refers to R. Zemah as his ancestor, though the former's
grandmother was a daughter of R. Zemah, comp. above, p. 10.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE l6l
the head of the Academy," might be interpreted to mean
that Rabbi Zemah ben Paltoi (?) had made a collection
of Responsa. This inference would receive support from
the fact, that, as is shown in the G. S. t pp. 20 et seq.,
several of the Responsa attributed to Rabbi Zemah belong
to his predecessors without a doubt. Thus he might be
looked upon as a collector of Responsa issued by earlier
Geonim. However, it is highly improbable that a Gaon
should have engaged in the task of collecting Responsa 1 ,
especially in consideration of the fact that the Responsa
Collections that have reached us were, in all likelihood,
made toward the end of the Gaonate, and then outside
of Babylonia. Accordingly, fpn should be translated by
"composed," rather than " arranged 2 ."
Among the doubtful Geonic works is the one on the
Rabbanite calendar, ascribed by the Karaites (nVJlonp ^\b,
II, 148-51) to " Hai, the head of the Academy." If this
statement is not to be dismissed as a pure invention, at
least so much may be asserted, that the author would have
to be identified with Rabbi Hai, Gaon of Sura, whose
father, Rabbi Nahshon, as was mentioned a little while
ago, also wrote upon the calendar, rather than with Hai
1 Frankel, Entwurf einer Geschichte . . . der Responsen, 71-2, misunderstood
the expressions nin'pN or rnaicn used by the old authors. It does not
mean "Responsa Collections," but simply Responsa, the plural being
employed because the correspondents in almost all cases addressed a
number of questions to the Gaon.
2 Comp. Zunz, Gesammdte Schrtften, III, 51, on the use of fi?n, "to
compile"; also Harkavy, 84: nos no ibN mtow?, "these [replies to]
questions addressed to Rabbi Zemah." Luzzatto, Bet ha-Ozar, I, 83,
maintains that Rabbi Zemah was the compiler of a collection of Geonic
Responsa. He bases his view on Mordecai, Baba Batra, 471, where the
JIM mas 211 m:w royron are spoken of. But there can be no doubt that
the text of Mordecai is corrupt, and must be read as emended by Isserles,
ad loc. The old name for Geonic Responsa was rnforo ruicn (D*rr, 45),
which later was cut down to mto*D (VncN, III, 49), or chiefly rvunrn.
The post-Geonic authors speak more frequently of nanrm m"J than of
rnVwj rvuiicn, but there are well-known Responsa Collections by later
authors that have appeared in print under tho latter title, for instance,
the pn: p mm i:'rA m^Nir nuiujn.
I M
1 62 THE GEONIM
ben David, the successor to Rabbi Zemah ben Paltoi in
the Gaonate of Pumbedita, as Harkavy does in his Additions
to the Hebrew translation of Graetz, Geschichte, III, 506.
Muller, in his Mafteah, 153, calls the Sura Gaon, Hilai
ben Natronai, the probable author of niplDB rna/rt. But
this rests upon a misunderstanding. The words of Rabbi
Hilai, in s"n, 47, HDB3 pon paj6 utnw ITia, do not refer
to a Halakic compendium but to his Responsum, D'n, 162,
which he probably sent to the same addressee.
THE IMPORTANCE OF RABBI SAADIA IN HALAKIC
LITERATURE.
As in many other fields, so in the Halakah, Rabbi Saadia
was the most important author of the Geonic time. Not
only did he enrich the various departments of Halakic
literature with numerous contributions, but also what he
wrote was so original that in many respects it served as
a model for the succeeding Geonim and later scholars.
His Halakic writings may be divided into four groups :
(i) Introduction to the Talmud and the Halakah ; (2) Tal-
mudic explanations ; (3) Codification of the Rabbinic laws ;
and (4) Liturgy. Unfortunately, most of his Halakic works
are lost to us, and the greater part of what we possess of
them still awaits publication.
In the first group belongs the nn j" B>na, published by
Professor Schechter in the Bet Talmud, IV, 235-44, after an
Oxford MS., and reprinted by Muller in (Euvres complets de
Rabbi Saadia, IX. Originally it was written in Arabic, and
it contains the fundamental hermeneutic principles applied
to the Halakah by the Rabbis, its form being a commentary
upon the "Thirteen Rules of Rabbi Ishmael." Each of
the thirteen rules is illustrated by numerous examples,
and at the same time all the variations falling under the
rule are elucidated. For instance, the application of the
first hermeneutic rule, the "iim bp, is exemplified by means
of four Scriptural injunctions. The kw, says Saadia, tells
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 163
a man that in case he marries a second wife, he has three
duties of a husband (Exod. xxi. 10) to fulfil toward his
first wife. But the law contains nothing about the duties
of a husband who has but one wife. These duties we
derive by applying the "inirn i>p, and we infer that if the
law puts certain duties upon a husband of two wives,
although the fulfilment of them is twice as difficult as
when he has only one wife, how much more is he obligated
to fulfil them when he has but one wife.
In this clear and intelligible manner, he continues to
treat of all the hermeneutic rules in succession. The
superiority of this work appears plainly on comparing it
with the " Baraita of the Thirteen Rules," at the beginning
of the Sifra. Neither in copiousness of examples, nor in
lucidity of presentation, can the latter come up to Saadia's
work even remotely. The relation of this Baraita to Rabbi
Saadia's treatise, it should be said, has not yet been cleared
up l . The Baraita, we know, contains many old elements,
but it is not certain that, in the passages in which Rabbi
Saadia's work and the Baraita are in agreement, it is always
the latter that is to be considered the primary source.
An Introduction to the Talmud by Rabbi Saadia was
consulted by so late an authority as Rabbi Bezaleel Ashke-
nazi (ab. 1609), and Azulai, in his }T1X Tjp, 36 b and 68 c,
has published bits of it, after Rabbi Bezaleel's manuscript
works. As Rabbi Bezaleel says expressly that it was
originally written in Arabic, there is no room left for
doubt as to the correctness of the supposition made by
Professor Schechter, in his Saadyana, 128, that the 3Nna
i>31O^K mentioned in a Genizah fragment is precisely this
Introduction to the Talmud by Rabbi Saadia 2 .
1 Comp. on this point Miiller, in (Euvres complete de R. Saadia, IX,
Introduction, 23-33, and Hoffmann, in Berliner-JubelschriJt t Hebrew
division, 55 et seq.
* Rabbi Saadia's 'i"n 'D contains matter of a nature introductory to
the Talmud, as he himself mentions expressly ; see Harkavy, Saadia,
152, 160. The former passage is particularly interesting. Rabbi Saadia,
M 2
164 THE GEONIM
Rabbi Pethahiah, of Ratisbon, who travelled through
Babylonia near the end of the twelfth century, reports
that the Jews there used commentaries on the Bible and
the nmo net? by Rabbi Saadia. Whether D"E> stands for
the Mishnah, or, according to later usage, for the Talmud,
cannot be determined with certainty. It is also open to
doubt whether the *tma of Rabbi Saadia on certain Talmud
passages which are mentioned in Geonic literature 1 are
commentaries on the Talmud or part of the Talmud, or
whether they are isolated explanations of definite passages
in the Talmud, which Rabbi Saadia, like many of the
Geonim, gave in his Responsa in reply to inquiries. From
the list of works published by Professor Schechter in
Saadyana, 79, it is plain that Rabbi Saadia compiled a
" Vocabulary of the Mishnah." There is, accordingly, no
reason for denying him the authorship of the Commentary
on JTisnn, published at Jerusalem, 1907, by Wertheimer,
from a Genizah fragment, under the title 2T B>TVa "iao
pw iTiyo. The epithet t2>1Ta is somewhat inaccurate, because
the book contains no explanations in the usual sense, but
only very brief lexical notes. The sixty-three folios of
the treatise Berakot are disposed of in two small leaves.
However, it is not impossible that the JTD-O by K>na before
us is only an extract from a much more detailed commen-
tary by Rabbi Saadia, in which the philological notices
alone are given, to the exclusion of all other sorts of
matter. This hypothesis gains in probability from the fact
with fine satire, takes the Talmudists of his time severely to task : " The
reason for compiling this [chronology of the Talmud] is that I have
met persons who call themselves Kabbis [Rabbanites ?], who have no
understanding of it, and who do not walk in the way of our old teachers,
whose names, however, are always upon their lips, and with whose food
they nourish themselves." These words show not only that Rabbi Saadia
was creating a new thing in this field, but also that he did it in
opposition to the Zeitgeist so-called.
1 If 'cne may be taken literally, then Rabbi Saadia must have written
commentaries at least upon Pesafnm, Sotah, Bdba Mezia, and Baba Batra ;
comp. Saadyana, 59-61, and Albargeloni, nvracn 'c, 53.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 165
that the first Mishnah l of the treatise is summed up in
such wise that it may serve as an introduction to the
discussions following in the Gemara. It cannot be assumed
that Rabbi Saadia treated only the first Miahnah in this
thoroughgoing manner, and not also the rest of the treatise.
This odd contrast between the first Mishncth and the others
would be fully explained by the supposition that we have
only an extract before us. The epitomiser contented himself
with reproducing verbatim the first paragraph of the book
of which he was preparing an abstract; thereafter he
took the shortest way possible.
Rabbi Saadia's literary activity was most fruitful in the
department of codification. Unfortunately, only scant
remains have been preserved, but at least the titles of his
works are cited by a number of old authors and in old
lists of books. This enables us to assert definitely that at
least the following ten parts of the Jewish law were codified
by Rabbi Saadia 2 : iw; mjnap; nnas?; jnpB; nwno; nicrv;
ruiro nuno ; manoi ntrnp ; mny ; mnm nsim Of these ten
books, but one has been preserved, the first-named, "the
book of the law of inheritance," which was published in
the ninth volume of Saadia's collected works. Fragments
have come down to us of two or three codes besides.
The student need not be cautioned against judging
Rabbi Saadia's achievements as a codifier by the insig-
nificant remains enumerated, the more as it appears that
the niETVn ">QD was his initial effort in the code depart-
ment 3 . Despite its shortcomings, the book nevertheless
1 Also the three passages 1 1 b, 15 a, and 18 b, are more than mere
verbal explanations.
8 Comp. Steinschneider, Arabische Literatur, 48-50, and Dr. Poznariski's
" Schechter's Saadyana," and also his remarks in the Orienlalische Litteratur-
Zeitung, VII, 306-7 ; to which is to be added Rabbi Saadia's treatise on
rvyi, published later in J. Q. R., XIX, 1 19. Numerous citations from the
'moan 'c are to be found in Albargeloni's work of the same name.
3 This view, expressed by Miiller in the Introduction to his edition
of this book, gains in probability from what is said, p. 166, below, on
the relation of the book to Rabbi Saadia's other book, the jnpcn 'D.
I 66 THE GEONIM
gave scope for the display of Rabbi Saadia's originality.
Not only is it the first Rabbinic book in Arabic, but also
in plan and execution it reveals the influence of Greek-
Arabic discipline 1 . Instead of ranging the decisions of
the Miahnah and the Talmud next to each other, Saadia
has presented the Biblical-Rabbinic laws of inheritance
in an order quite independent of their sources. This book
of his thus became in some respects the model of the
Geonim Rabbi Samuel ben Hofni and Rabbenu Hai for
their codifications, and it would not be going too far to
assert that Saadia exercised some influence on Maimonides'
code. It is interesting to note that the fragments of the
jnpan ISD, published by Professor Schechter in Saadyana,
37, 40-41, show that in this code Rabbi Saadia pursued
an entirely different system from that employed in the
nttPHYi ISD. It is not impossible that Rabbi Saadia's
method of not mentioning the Talmudic sources from which
he drew gave offence, as similar action by Maimonides
in his Tad aroused opposition. Saadia may have been
led thereby to change his method.
In the domain of liturgy, we cannot here give attention
to the numerous prayers which Rabbi Saadia composed.
We are interested in the prayer-book which he compiled
at the request of the Egyptian congregations. Unfortu-
nately, it still awaits publication, and we are, therefore,
not yet in a position to pass final judgment upon it. So
much is certain, however, that Rabbi Saadia did not, like
his predecessor in the Gaonate of Sura, Rab Amram,
execute his task according to the Babylonian ritual, but
according to the ritual of his native country Egypt.
Of course, it cannot be denied that his Seder was not
without effect on the Babylonian liturgy. Rabbenu Hai
(Harkavy, 97) states explicitly that certain changes in the
liturgy of his country were due to the influence exercised
by Rabbi Saadia's Seder. Although the Egyptian liturgy
1 Comp. Steinschneider, Arabische Literatur, 48, end, and Orient. Litt.-
Zeilung, VII, 206-8.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 167
is not free from Babylonian influences, yet, on the whole,
it is an offshoot of the Palestinian ritualistic system.
Whether the kinship that exists between the Seder, of
Rabbi Saadia and the Order of Prayers by Maimonides,
which I have pointed out elsewhere *, is attributable to
the sole circumstance that both authorities were concerned
with the needs of the Egyptian Jews, is more than
questionable. It is very probable that Maimonides was
intimately acquainted with the Seder of Rabbi Saadia, and
permitted himself to follow it in many respects.
Rabbi Saadia's place in the development of Halakic
literature can be summed up in this way : The many-
sided scholar endeavoured to free Halakic literature from
its exclusiveness. His Introductions and his methodo-
logical works tended towards a historic-critical understand-
ing of the Talmud, while as a codifier his aim was to
arrange the Rabbinic law in a unified logical system.
THE THREE GREAT SUCCESSORS OF RABBI SAADIA.
The last three Geonim, Rabbi Sherira, Rabbi Samuel
ben Hofni, and the son of the former, Rabbi Hai, all stand
1 Z.H.B., IX, 104-7. After an examination of the MS., which I gave
it later, even though it was cursory, I do not entertain the slightest
doubt that Rabbi Saadia's ITC embodies the Egyptian ritual. The Genizah
fragments comprise only a few insignificant tattered pieces of the y'to
and very large pieces of Rabbi Saadia's Seder, further evidence of the
assumption that it was destined for and went to Egypt. To the liturgical
decisions by Rabbi Saadia given by Muller, in (Euvres compkts de R. Saadia,
IX, 150 et seq., most of which are probably derived from the Seder,
a quotation is to be added occurring in Ibn Gabai, spy njAin, the section
on TOWO ifjcn. Ibn Gabai, it must be confessed, does not seem to have
taken it direct from Rabbi Saadia. The anonymous commentator of the
German Prayer Book, printed at Trino, in 1525, was acquainted with
Rabbi Saadia's Seder. He quotes it in his commentary on the Haggadah
on the verse wuyi. The passage quoted by him is not found in the
Oxford MS. of the Seder, but it occurs in the Haggadah according to
the Yemen ritual, in the 1*0, 293, in a MS. of the Haggadah according
to the German ritual, of the year 1329, in the possession of the Jewish
Theological Seminary, and was known to the author of the Vnjrt 'o, comp.
, 52, ed. Hoffmann.
I 68 THE GEONIM
under the influence of Rabbi Saadia, manifesting itself
peculiarly in the case of each. While Rabbi Samuel
followed the example of Rabbi Saadia in the field of philo-
sophy and Bible exegesis, as well as in his other interests,
Rabbi Sherira and his son Rabbi Hai remained true to
the old traditions of the Geonim. Of philosophy the latter
would none, and the study of the Bible was a subordinate
pursuit. To their core they were Talmudists, and Talmudists
only. But in their capacity and work as Talmudists they
could deny the influence of Rabbi Saadia as little as Rabbi
Samuel ben Hofni.
A work entitled D^DD nbo is ascribed to Rabbi Sherira,
but the statement is rather doubtful. In his Introduction
to his Menorat ka-Maor, Rabbi Isaac Aboab quotes a state-
ment of Rabbi Sherira's from DnnD fbjD 1 . What Aboab
meant was probably that he had taken the words of the
Gaon from the book Dnno fbso by Rabbenu Nissim. Like
his Maftea/t, this book by Rabbenu Nissim is also made
up in large part of Geonic Responsa 2 , and of these Aboab
made use in other places, too.
It is equally doubtful whether the *pliM by Rabbi Sherira,
cited several times by Rabbi Isaac of Vienna in his book
jmr "UK 3 , is an independent work, somewhat of the cha-
racter of a commentary on several treatises of the Talmud,
or explanations of Talmudic passages in the form of
Responsa.
1 The correct reading is DTTIC, not we.
a This is confirmed by the Responsum of Rabbi Hai, in the appendix
to Rabbi Sherira's Letter, ed. Mayence, 64-5, which likewise was in-
corporated verbatim in Rabbenu Nissim's cnrc 'm . Comp. also Harkavy,
in reran, V, 53 : Briill, Jahrbucher, IX, 121 ; and G. S., p. 273.
3 II, 168 a ; Baba Kama, 72 ; Baba Batra, 40. The Geonic sources used
by Rabbi Isaac, the author of the i"w, which are of great importance for
the valuation of Geonic literature, have not yet been exploited sufficiently.
Wellesz, in Monatsschrift, XLVIII, 369-71, is neither exhaustive nor com-
plete. For instance, the Sheeltot quotations from I, 159 b, II, 50 and 163,
are missing; also Rabbi Hanina Gaon. I, 209; Rabbi Nathan ben Hananiah,
I, i76b, and several others. Vow, II, 76, seems to indicate that Rabbi
Sherira wrote a commentary on Baba Baira, comp. also Steinschneider,
Arab. Lit., 98.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 169
Rabbi Sherira's reputation as one of the most prominent
authors of the Geonic period rests upon a much surer basis
than is afforded by these doubtful productions upon his
celebrated Letter to the scholars of Kairwan.
The Letter is a reply to a question addressed to Rabbi
Sherira as to the origin of the Mishnah and the other
Halakic collections by Tannaim, and as to the heads of
the Academies during the time of the Saboraim and Geonim,
together with a number of other points connected with
these two cardinal matters. The lasting value of his epistle
for us lies in the information Rabbi Sherira gives about
the post-Talmudic scholars. On this period he is practically
the only source we have, and his report is all the more
important as it is partly based upon documents in the
archives of the Geonim. But we should be doing Rabbi
Sherira injustice if we thought of him merely as a chrono-
logist. The theories which he unfolds, in lapidary style,
regarding the origin of the Mishnah, its relation to the
Tosefta and the Baraitot, on the beginnings and develop-
ment of the Talmud, and many other points important in
the history of the Talmud and its problems, stamp Rabbi
Sherira as one of the most distinguished historians, in
fact, it is not an exaggeration to say, the most distinguished
historian, of literature among the Jews, not only of an-
tiquity, but also in the middle ages, and during a large
part of modern times. But the fine historical percep-
tions which he displays in literary criticism, and his
searching investigation of the problems he encounters
are almost unthinkable in the Geonic period without the
preliminary work, or rather the personal influence, of
Rabbi Saadia 1 .
By far more direct and tangible was the influence of
Rabbi Saadia upon the work of Rabbi Samuel ben Hofni,
who was a serious competitor of Rabbi Saadia in point
of versatility and productiveness. He cannot, however,
1 Comp. the observation by Rabbi Saadia given above, p. 163, n. a.
170 THE GEONIM
vie with Rabbi Saadia in originality. The Halakic works
of Rabbi Samuel, some of them, perhaps, nothing but
works of Rabbi Saadia recast 1 , were written in Arabic
like those of his predecessor, and they share the fate of
the latter, too, in that they are completely lost save a few
fragments.
The Genizah fragments have made us acquainted with
a large number of titles of books, as many as forty, all
to be added to the Halakic writings of Rabbi Samuel 2 .
It is fair to assume that these are not independent works 3 ,
but rather parts of a great code. WTB^H "Commands,"
by Rabbi Samuel, may have been the general title, which
was accompanied by a number of sub-titles for the various
divisions of the code. The gigantic compass of the book
may readily be judged from the rwu njJP, " The Portal
of Benedictions," which was published by Weiss in the
Bet Talmud, II, 377-86. This division, doubtless an insig-
nificant portion of the code, exceeds in size the correspond-
ing parts in Maimonides' Yad and Caro's ShuUan 'Aruk
together, and it must be remembered that it has not been
preserved in complete form. Probably this prolixity is
a partial reason why both the Arabic original and the
Hebrew translation, which were in the hands of the German
authors as late as the fourteenth century 4 , have dropped
into total oblivion.
Of the other Talmudic writings of Rabbi Samuel, we
should mention a commentary on Yebamot, listed in a
1 Comp. Schechter, Saadyana, 43.
3 Comp. Steinschneider, Arab. Lit., 108-10, and Poznanski, Orientalische
Litter atur-Zeitung, VII, 313-15. In the recently published nunn nn
(Bernard Drachman, New York, 1908), 53, the nvnyn 'c (on witnesses?)
by Rabbi Samuel is mentioned.
3 A supposition made by Rapoport, Biography of Rabbi Hai, note 8.
4 The author of fcno 'DO D'Eip 1 ?, published in Coronel's 'yip 'n, quotes
Rabbi Samuel's onyizj, and also the author of mcicn 'c, living at the
same time. Some of the decisions by Rabbi Samuel, reproduced in
Miiller, Mafteah, were not Responsa originally, they are taken from his
code.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 171
catalogue, /. Q. R., XVI, 411, and an Introduction to the
Talmud, of which a considerable piece is to be found in
the Taylor-Schechter Collection.
The influence of Kabbi Saadia is patent in the nwu ''"W,
especially in the grouping of the material and in the style
of presentation. It is altogether likely that Rabbi Samuel
used the work of his predecessor as a foundation for his
Introduction to the Talmud as well as for his Code.
Rabbi Hai, the last of the Geonim, who as a Talmudist
may perhaps be called the first of them, and who in respect
of Talmudic scholarship, profundity of conception, and
incisive judgment, is excelled by none, not even by Rabbi
Saadia, is known chiefly for his numerous Responsa. How-
ever, he is the author of independent works on subjects
in every department of the Talmud, too.
Of his commentaries on the Talmud nothing has been
preserved, though it is certain that he expounded several
treatises. Quotations from his commentary on Berakot are
to be found in Ibn Gajat, SJ>"B>, 1, 14 ; Albargeloni, DTiyn ISD,
288 ; in the MS. of the nuBTi 1 of the RaBeD ; and in rr'atn,
24. Rabbi Solomon Ibn Adret makes copious use thereof
in his commentary on Berakot. We may also be sure of
his having composed a commentary on Shabbat 2 , to which
reference is made in h"l , 59, and that the expression ""C^iTM
wm in this passage does not mean an explanation made by
Rabbi Hai in one of his Responsa is evident from the word
nmeTi that follows soon after. It is obvious that in this
Responsum a difference is made between fc^Ta and maiBTi.
It is questionable whether Rabbi Hai wrote a commentary
on the treatise Hagigah. Albargeloni, in his commentary
on the book Yezirah, cites explanations of passages in this
1 I am indebted to Dr. Alexander Marx for calling my attention to
these jrutEn against Rabbi Zerahiah Gerondi ; they are in the Sulzberger
Collection of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America.
3 Comp. G. S., p. 56, and 'Aruk, s.v. Ntco p, which quotes Rabbi Hai's
explanation of this expression from Shabbat and not from Kelim I
172 THE GEONIM
treatise 1 five times, once (p. 26) as wan 'a3, and again as
penn px 'aa rcrpaa.
What is certain is that the view of Weiss, Dor, IV, 187,
cannot be correct, when he holds that whenever the author
of the 'Aruk quotes the words of Rabbi Hai with the intro-
ductory formula en^a he had a commentary of the Gaon
before him. It is curious that Weiss should have dropped
into the incorrect statement that Rabbi Nathan, s.v. HitD^N,
was quoting Rabbi Hai's commentary on Kiddushin.
The words pBTipl tnna Yaai show plainly that Rabbi Hai's
explanation could not have had a place in a commentary
on Kiddushin. In such a case he would have had to say
ppnaai. Indeed, some of the explanations of Rabbi Hai
introduced in the 'Aruk with SPTa are found in Responsa.
For instance, that s.v. TTin riTini is literally in Harkavy,
pp. 128-9. Likewise, Rabbi Hai's authorship of the brief
commentary on the Order Teharot of the Mishnah seems
to me very dubious. My reasons against the prevailing
assumption that this commentary ascribed to him is actually
his, are the following : Rabbenu Hai, like many other Geo-
nim, did not consider it beneath his dignity to give short
linguistic explanations of Talmudic passages, when he was
asked for them. We have, indeed, a large number of
such by Rabbi Hai in various places in the Responsa
Collection edited by Harkavy. On the other hand, it is
highly improbable that a Gaon, especially a scholar like
Rabbenu Hai, who was mainly concerned about a proper
understanding of the Halakah, should have composed a
commentary on a most difficult part of the Miahnah, without
making the slightest contribution to our actual knowledge
of it. The explanation offered by Weiss for this peculiar
fact can hardly be taken seriously. He maintains that as
this Order of the Mishnah was studied only by great
scholars, it required nothing but linguistic elucidations ;
1 Probably it refers to a comprehensive Responsum on the difficult
Haggadic parts of the second section of this treatise. Comp. G. S.,
P- 273-
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 173
the matter itself contained therein needed none. In other
words, Rabbi Hai might presuppose in his readers an
intelligent appreciation of the most difficult parts of the
Halakah, but not acquaintance with such words as ^DBD,
"ina, V3\o, and many similar terms. They occur frequently
in the Talmud, yet Rabbenu Hai must define them for his
great scholars 1 There are other circumstances that militate
against Rabbi Hai's authorship. In this commentary on
Teharot, Greek equivalents for certain words are not
infrequently cited, and we are certain that Rabbi Hai
understood no Greek \ The numerous quotations from
the Yerushalmi also testify against Rabbi Hai's author-
ship. Though he does now and again make references to
the Yerushalmi elsewhere, the frequency with which it is
done in this commentary arouses suspicion. Moreover,
not only is the Yerushalmi drawn upon freely, but also
contemporary Palestinian custom is cited (Kelim, XXV, 3),
which hardly fits in with our notion of Rabbi Hai. Though
Rabbi Saadia and Rabbi Nahshon are named in the com-
mentary (Kelim, XXVIII, 3), Rabbi Sherira never is, which
would be rather curious in a work by Rabbi Hai. Also
Rabbi Hai never speaks of the Responsa of the Geonim as
JT6w; he calls them nniETi, while in the commentary
m^NB> is the term constantly employed. And what ex-
planation can be given of the fact that the author of the
'Aruk quotes it seventy times without once mentioning
the name of Rabbi Hai 2 . In view of all this, Rabbi Hai's
1 The explanation of the word sophist is quoted by Rabbi Hai, as we
learn in Harkavy's Introduction, 25, note, from a work by .Alfarabi !
His ignorance of Greek is evinced also in his remark on caiiTN, Harkavy,
196-7. In another Responsum, 1. c., 23, he says with regard to the names
of certain fish in the Talmud : jm ]Y3O i: f m p :v jvri j*o pin jrw tai !
This would seem sufficient to refute Weiss' statement that Rabbi Hai
understood Greek.
3 Kohut, in his Introduction, 14, maintains that Rabbi Nathan, s. y.
nD, ascribes the commentary on Teharot to Rabbenu Hai, and calls it -co
p*u. But if this passage proves anything, it is that Rabbi Nathan did not
consider Rabbi Hai the author, inasmuch as he never calls him anything
but p*ert.
174 THE
authorship of the commentary is, to say the least, very
doubtful.
The codifications by Rabbi Hai encountered a more
favourable fate than his commentaries. Following the
example of Rabbi Saadia probably, he wrote them in
Arabic, but only the Hebrew translations have been pre-
served, and they only in part. Rabbi Isaac ben Reuben
translated l Rabbi Hai's book On Sales as early as the year
1078, giving it the title "DKO npon IQD. It has been printed
and published a number of times. To this book with its
sixty gates are added three comparatively short treatises
on the law of pledges, patron 13D ; the law of conditions,
DBB>O ; and the law of loan and sale, niwSn DBPD
. A second work of importance by Rabbi Hai in the
same field is his work on oaths, of the Hebrew translation
of which, niyDE> "Hyt^, we also have a printed edition. Of
these two works there is a metrical version, which, however,
does not own Rabbi Hai as its author, the statement of the
printed editions to the contrary notwithstanding. These
two works by Rabbi Hai are to be classed among the most
excellent achievements in the department of Rabbinic code
literature. As Rabbi Hai treats only certain portions of
the Rabbinic law, he naturally goes into detail, without,
however, dropping into the longwindedness of which his
father-in-law, Rabbi Samuel ben Hofni, is guilty. The
logical development of the subjects treated is presented in
a clear and comprehensive way, and the systematic grouping
is masterly. The 13ED1 npnn IDD is to this day the best
exposition of the Rabbinic law of sales with all its essen-
tial branches. Equally, his nijnatr nyt? shows the cunning
of the great systematiser and the acumen of the great
jurist. In the first-mentioned book, XLI, 77 a, he refers to
his work, 2 Sinn "nan, which seems to be lost. Perhaps the
treatise niNl^n 'DBIPO is nothing but a chapter of this book.
1 On the translations of Rabbenu Hai's works, comp. Steinschneider,
Arabische Literatur, 99 et seq.
2 Comp. Briill, Jahrbiicher, IX, 120.
THE IIALAKIC LITERATURE 175
Among the lost works in codification by Rabbi Hai there
is one on IJTm niDN, arranged, like the other, in "gates,"
which is cited by some old authorities l , and also a treatise
on the prerogatives 2 of the owners of adjoining possessions,
nmm Mention is made, besides, of Rabbi Hai's p^an niabn.
This may have been an extract from his Seder 3 , which
probably, like the Orders of Prayer of his predecessors,
contained the prayers and the Halakot bearing upon them.
The Seder seems to be lost irretrievably, and nothing can be
conjectured about it, except perhaps this one thing, that it
may have been put together either for the congregations
of the Crimea or for those of Byzantium. At all events,
the Jews of those regions had a tradition about having
received a prayer-book from the Geonim 4 , and as neither
Rab Am ram's nor Rabbi Saadia's could have been meant,
Rabbi Hai's naturally suggests itself. One other circum-
stance should be mentioned in connexion with the Seder of
Rabbi Hai. He himself reports (Harkavy, 105, bottom)
that young men from Constantinople studied the Talmud
under him, and it may have been at their instance that he
arranged a Seder.
A Halakic work by Rabbi Hai, his Book of Documents,
was found recently among the Genizah fragments. It con-
tains twenty-eight forms for drawing up documents, together
with brief directions. Dr. Harkavy, who publishes four of
these documents in the Hebrew Journal ruoan, III, 46-50 5 ,
1 Rapoport in his biography of Rabbi Hai, note ai, refers to a quotation
from a work of this sort. However, traces of it can be shown to exist
in several authors. Comp. DTIE, 17 b and 17 c (?), and the index to
authors in Vn*air, ed. Buber.
2 Not boundary disputes, as Steinschneider, Arabitche Literatur, roo,
says.
8 In VrVaip, 267, end of paragraph, .vn '-\ nco means his Seder ; the
author applies the same word to Rab Amram's Seder : ncca aro cio? ail.
Buber's emendation, 137, moa for ricoa is superfluous. Other references
to Rabbenu Hai's Seder in ^n'asj are 264 and 294. Comp. also Stein-
schneider, Arabische Literatur, 102.
4 Comp. the Hebrew monthly, Vocwn, I, 147.
6 The concluding sentence of the tree B3, 48, which Harkavy could
176 THE GEONIM
ascribes the book to the Gaon Rabbi Hai ben David. The
reasons for such ascription were inadequate to begin with l ,
and they have now been nullified by another Genizah
fragment, come to hand in the meantime, wherein Rabbi
Hai ben Sherira is explicitly called the author 2 .
Rabbi Hai, like his father Rabbi Sherira, and his father-
in-law Rabbi Samuel, is unmistakably under the influence
of Rabbi Saadia. This influence is betrayed plainly by the
arrangement of his works in codification. The interests of
Rabbi Hai centred largely in the civil law. His independent
works belong almost exclusively to this domain. Well aware
that his acute analysis of certain legal discussions might be
applied in dishonest ways, he tries to guard against abuse
in the following words at the end of his rnyus? l nj?B>:
"And if an interested party should derive arguments
from this presentation to twist the words and win his
cause, he will bring evil down upon himself. I am
innocent before my Creator, for I have composed this
work only for those who walk in the straight path, to
understand how to give just decisions. . . . The Holy
One, blessed be he, will be my avenger, that the readers
of my book use it in fear of God and in truth, and also the
Lord, before whom all hidden things are manifest, will
espouse the cause of my innocence, as it is written : ' As
for such as turn aside unto their crooked ways, the Lord
shall lead them forth with the workers of iniquity, but
peace shall be upon Israel.' "
not explain, must be read as follows : pcb (frf) = ) jb J'lrro (j:i = ) jw
1 Dr. Harkavy's argument, FyoNn, V, 152-6, that this nrrairn 'D must
be older than Rabbi Saadia's, for the reason that it is less comprehensive,
cannot be taken seriously. The same logic would make Rabbi Samuel,
the author of rrvya rftro, older than Albargeloni, the latter treating
seventy-three documents in his work, the former only fifty, and yet
Rabbi Samuel lived six hundred years after Albargeloni.
2 Comp. Wertheimer, D^IDW 'uj, III, Introduction, 1-3.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 177
ANONYMOUS CODES OF THE GEONIC TIME.
The transition from the works of individual Geonim
to the collective Responsa compendiums is formed by a
number of writings, most of them originating near the
end of the Geonic period, which are composites made up
of Eesponsa and one or another of the kinds of works
mentioned above. At the head of them is the D^wn "HD
DWiONl, written probably in the year 885, which has come
down to us in several recensions. Its purpose is methodo-
logical as well as chronological. It, therefore, contains
a chain of traditions from Moses until Rabbi Judah, the
compiler of the Mishnah, an array of data about the
Amoraim and Saboraim, and also a number of methodo-
logical rules for the use of the Talmud, especially its
application to the decision of practical cases.
The recensions at present available are such a medley
that it would be unfair to charge any writer with having
perpetrated it 1 . Obviously, the text was badly used by
glossators and copyists. In G. S., p. 322, proof is adduced
showing that a piece of the D H N11N1 D'wn 'D had been taken
verbatim from a Responsum by Rab Amram. This suggests
the conjecture that the rest of the little volume is made up
partly of Geonic Responsa, partly of the niyioc? current in
the Academies. These " Traditions " are mentioned by
Rabbi Saadia in two passages in his commentary on
Berakot 2 . His references to them give us no specific
notion of their character, but the word 'fm shows that
they were in writing and probably consisted of old
1 The Taiinai in and Amoraim are mixed together confusedly.
2 6 a (perhaps a gloss) and 12 a. What Rabbi Saadia tells us of these
rnyoo in the latter passage, called an enigma by the editor, seems to
me an intelligible remark, only it has happened in the wrong place.
It refers to Berakot, 37 a, and puts the question, how Rabbi Akiba came
to use the words -\i -raw rtn to his teacher Rabban Gamaliel, unbecoming
words according to Baba Batra, 158 b; he should have said "p TaiN irrm?.
Accordingly, we should read TDN im w^i, instead of the meaningless
ION iny: '2i iNVi.
I N
178 THE GEONIM
explanations of difficult passages in the Talmud *. Eabbenu
Hai, quoted in >V3, ed. Luncz, XII, 320, speaks likewise
of DnMPin bw nyiB>, apparently referring to post-Talmudic
traditions.
An extensive collection of Geonic Responsa and extracts
from the codifications of the Geonim was called 1DD
niyivpcn, which was compiled at Kairwan, perhaps during
the lifetime of Rabbi Hai, certainly not long after the
extinction of the Gaonate. This book was one of the
chief sources from which the German authors of the twelfth
and the thirteenth century drew their knowledge of Geonic
literature. The opinion of some scholars, that Rabbi
Hananel was the author of this work, cannot be defended.
Indeed, if anything can be asserted positively, it is that
Rabbi Hananel was not the author 2 .
The pan IBD was a collection similar to the one just
mentioned, and it probably belongs to approximately the
same time and place. Whether Rabbi Hefez ben Yazliah,
the correspondent of Rabbi Hai, actually was the author,
seems to me not quite certain 3 . An argument against his
1 "The books of the Academy," of which, according to the statement
of his pupils in their commentary (p. 36) on Chronicles, Rabbi Saadia
made use, do not mean Geonic writings, as Harkavy holds, in Samuel
ben Hofni, 28 ; they were books in the library of the Academy, and
have nothing to do with either rwioizj or niyno .
8 Rapoport in his Biography of Eabbenu Hananel, note 36, called attention
to many differences between the mrispan 'c and Rabbenu Hananel.
His conjecture that the 'pon 'D was begun by Rabbenu Hananel and then
elaborated and worked over by another hand is a theory faute de mieux.
The passage in fw, 1, 167 a, to which Berliner in bMin 'nsD, 20, refers,
is to be emended to read ':n m instead of ':n 'm, for, as appears plainly
from the quotations taken by Berliner from the "w, the author did not
ascribe the 'port 'D to n""i. This also disposes of Berliner's statement that
the mjrapDrt 'D was in part arranged according to the treatises of the
Talmud ; moan J"D in this passage of the i"i refers not to the 'port 'D
but to bN^n <aii. Though the 'port 'D was not written by Rabbenu Hananel,
the author must have been a North African, the only explanation that
could be offered for the frequent references to African scholars to whom
Geonic Responsa were addressed.
3 Rapoport's view, that this book, too, owned R. Hananel as its author,
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 179
authorship is the circumstance that he wrote his Book of
Commands in Arabic. Accordingly, it would be fair to
assume that he would follow the example of Rabbi Saadia,
Rabbi Samuel ben Hofni, and Rabbi Hai, in writing his
code in Arabic, as they wrote theirs in Arabic, in which
case it would be strange that pen 'D is known to the
Franco-German authors only, since 1 an Arabic work would
naturally have had vogue among the Jews of Arabic-
speaking countries.
Among the works of this class we should put the IBQ
D^m "aa by, whose author was called Gaon by so early
an authority as Rabbi Isaac of Vienna, in his ynt "ttN,
II, 52 a. Of course, Gaon need not be here taken in its
original sense. It probably means nothing more than
a great authority of the eleventh century 1 . The oldest
annot be justified. As we can see from TT"C, I, 63, and rn:o, 61 a, yrn is
not the name of a book, but of a person, and the expression yen IED is
elliptical for yen '~\ IEC. For references on Rabbi Hefez see the article
in the Jewish Encyclopedia, s. v., by the present writer, to which should
be added Steinschneider, Arabische Literatur, 107, and Bacher, Leben und
Werke Abulwalid's (1885), 89-90. Dr. Marx calls my attention to the
passage Saadyana, 53, proving that not Rabbi Hefez, but Ibn Hofni, must
be the author of the fragment published in J. Q. R., VI, 705. A mson 'D
is cited in Vow, III, 61 ; however, it is very questionable whether the
author did not have Rabbi Samuel ben Hofni's code in mind. This code
seems to be the source for the passage in VOCN, I.e., 127-9. Furthermore,
that the Halakic decisions of Rabbi Hefez come from his mson 'D is
highly improbable. The assumption can hardly be based upon the
words of the I'IN, Baba Batra, 77 ; 78 : yon *np:n D':iN3 'cai. On the other
hand, in I"IN, Baba Mezia', 275, the reading should be (mioi =) 'ison 'c3,
instead of 'i:on 'ca. To the quotations from the yen 'D, collected by
Rapoport and others, should be added that in Cod. Oxford, 692, extracted
by Professor Schechter, in J. Q. R., Ill, 343. Comp. also Gross, in Z.H.B.,
XI, 178 ; the MS. described by Gross is now in the library of the Jewish
Theol. Sem.
1 It is a well-known fact that the North Africans, Rabbi Hananel and
Rabbenu Nissim, the Spaniards, Rabbi Moses ben Enoch and his son
Enoch, as well as Rabbi Joseph ben Abitur, and the Italians, Rabbi
Kalonymos and his son Rabbi Meshullam, were called Geonim by their
successors. Likewise, Miiller's emendation in his Mafteah, 178, 19,
changing pw bxiw 'i into Nine '-i, cannot be endorsed. He is identical
with pun "jNisr '-\ quoted in c'c, I, 30, 83, probably one of the older
N 2
l8o THE GEONIM
author who refers to the book is Rashi l , and we are thus
justified in attributing a rather high age to the book.
To judge by the quotations from the book, it contained
important JTO^n 'pDB, which now and again are justified
by means of Geonic Responsa 2 . The reference to the
Responsa of the heads of the Academies in Jerusalem
and Babylonia shows plainly that the work is not by a
Gaon. It was very probably written by an author from
Frankish lands, in the eleventh century, a time in which
the Jews in Europe carried on learned correspondences
with the Palestinian scholars 3 .
A work more widely known than either of these three
was entitled rrQTDD, or NraTUD, a collection of Geonic
Responsa frequently quoted by German, Proven9al, and
Spanish authors 4 . The title was probably derived from
the fact that the Geonic views given in the book were
introduced with the words xraTiED me?, and as the author
was not known otherwise, he was called the NrOTio ^jn,
" author of the [decisions of the] Academy." The wide-
spread use of the book testifies to its antiquity and to
the respect in which it was held. Yet Rapoport's opinion,
that the author was Rabbi Hai, must be rejected absolutely,
in view of the fact that the ni:pn ^JD is quoted in opposition
North African scholars, like Eabbi Meborak, who also is called Gaon.
The JINJ torn '-\ mentioned by Miiller, I.e., whom we meet again in
Wan:, 14, in all probability is the brother of Rabbi Nathan ben Jehiel,
one of the oldest authorities in Italy. Comp. Zunz, Ritus, 192-3.
1 "n x"n w*p, 82.
2 On this Halakic collection, comp. Freimann in Z. H. B., X, 178-82,
and Sulzbach, in Jahrbuchjud. liter. Gesellschaft, V.
3 Comp. above, pp. 88-9 ; Epstein, Monatsschrift, XLVII, 340, and an
article by the same author in fun, VI, 69 et seq.
4 Quotations therefrom have been collected by Rapoport in his Additions
to the Biography of Eabbi Hai, end, and Harkavy, Samuel ben Hofni, note 73,
to which should be added DYIE, 21 c, 21 d ; 'Ittur, i b, n a, 24 a, 14 b, 52 b.
Auerbach, in the introduction to the Vow, enumerates nirr.D among the
sources cited by Rabbi Abraham ben Isaac, but I did not find it in
the three printed parts. Dr. Marx calls my attention to Nahmanides, on
Kiddushin, 59, and nmnnn 'D, 40 d, and 226 b, where niTrra is quoted.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE l8l
to Rabbi Hai 1 . Though on the whole presenting the views
of the Babylonian Geonim, the work nevertheless pays
regard to the Terushalmi. This would suggest that it
was a product of the scholars of Kairwan, who, in spite of
their respect and veneration for the Babylonian Academies,
did not neglect the study of the Yerushalmi.
The N3i NEncc? 2 is a Halakic treatise of the Geonic time
giving a short description of how phylacteries are to be
made, together with some few of the injunctions bearing
upon them. A most interesting point is that the little
tractate contains a number of Halakic and Haggadic dicta
not known from any other sources, which are set down
in the name of Babylonian Amoraim. The alternative
offered is to consider these dicta as fabricated for the
occasion, or as oral or written traditions of the Talmudic
time still at the disposal of the author. If the last is
the correct assumption, then they must have originated
in the early Geonic time, when the Talmudic tradition had
not yet been broken off entirely. The proof for the high
age of the book is not only the idiomatic Aramaic in
which it is written, but also the emphatically expressed
view that only scholars, or at least only men of some
learning, should put on phylacteries. In the controversy
between the Rabbanites and Karaites, the former, at so
early a time as Rabbi Jehudai Gaon's, the very beginning
of the Karaite schism, insisted upon the scrupulous obser-
vance of the law of phylacteries on the part of every single
individual 3 .
We are no longer in a position to form any sort of
1 Comp. 'Ittur, I4b-i5a, where Rabbi Hai's view is opposed to that
of the raviQ tea. In 'Ittur, 45 d, Nna'na m 101 should probably be read
rrnno n 101.
2 In the editions of the c'i at the end of pVcn rvobn. Comp. also
no'i 'no, 639, 641, 644-5 Watt, 193 ; and Voictf, II, 91. Rabbi Judah
Albargeloni was the probable source for all these authorities.
3 Comp. the Geonic Responsa in biairw, II, 90 ; 'Ittur, II, 26 c-d ; and
n"ir, 155, where it is wrongly ascribed to Rabbenu Hai.
I 82 THE GEONIM
idea what the D^ltW ppn l was, mentioned by Rabbi Jacob
ben Asher in Tur, QraTi Hayyim, 51. Remembering the
freedom with which later authors applied the title Gaon,
we must even begin to doubt whether Rabbi Jacob meant
the Babylonian Geonim or the old French scholars.
OEIGIN OF THE RESPONSA COLLECTIONS.
The first attempt at gathering the Responsa that had
been in free circulation for centuries, on which our twelve 2
printed Responsa Collections of the Geonim are based, must
have been coincident with the time when scholars began to
make use of the decisions of the Geonim as foundations for
independent works of Halakah. This does not take account
of the collections kept by descendants of Geonim, who
treasured them as heirlooms 3 . When and where the first
Responsa collection was made cannot be determined now.
But one will not go far wrong in fixing upon the time of
Rabbi Hai as that in which the attention of scholars was
first turned to such work. Only in the questions addressed
to the last Gaon 4 does one meet with frequent references
1 Probably identical with D'ywn :n NdQC in nm 'no, 234, NCIQC is
a synonym of ppn.
2 Muller has described eleven of these collections in his Mafteah, the
twelfth, rroVo nbnp, by Solomon Wertheimer, Jerusalem, 1899, did not
appear until after his death, and it contains Geonic Responsa from the
Genizah. Wertheimer also printed some Geonic Eesponsa in his Collection
D'btnv K3| I. Prof. Schechter's Saadyana contains but few Halakic Re-
sponsa. The one published there on p. 127, lines 77-94, is to be found
also in the Geonic Collection, ed. Mantua, 109. Dr. Harkavy has published
some Geonic Responsa in the Hebrew periodicals Jxn, c^En, and n;D2n.
3 Comp. J. Q. R., XVIII, 412.
4 Muller, in his Mafteah, 203, is not altogether accurate when he asserts
that Rabbi Hai was the first to give careful study to the Geonic Responsa.
It would have been more correct to say that this department of study
developed at the time of Rabbi Hai, and thence it came that many
inquirers addressed themselves to him and asked for explanations of
obscure points in the rnjiirn, which were cited in the questions directed
to him much more frequently than in his replies. The definition of
a scholar in yV, 91 a, is interesting in connexion with this point. It
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 183
to the Responsa of the Geonim, which would seem to
indicate that Responsa were then considered a department
of Rabbinical study. It is also noteworthy that Rabbi
Hai is the first of the Geonim to refer to anonymous
Responsa 1 . When his predecessors adduced the views
of earlier Geonim, they almost always set down their
names explicitly. While in the earlier time the name
of the Gaon was needed to give sanction to his decision,
later on it sufficed to confer authority upon a Responsum
if it was known as Geonic. Hence the indescribable
arbitrariness with which the names of the Geonim were
juggled about in the Responsa Collections preserved.
Muller made the attempt in his Mafteah to arrange the
Responsa according to the Geonim, an arrangement that
falls short of giving satisfaction in a reference-book 2 .
occurs in a question submitted to Rabbi Sherira, and specifies the
requirements to be knowledge of the third and the fourth Order of
the Talmud, and of the j"n. The n'ltt? thus formed no essential part
of scholarly equipment.
1 Comp. Muller, Mafteah, 203, note 13.
2 If it is borne in mind that there were six Josephs and six Haninas,
four Zemahs, two Kohen-Zedeks and two Hilas, three Hais, three
Natronais, and three Jacobs, among the Geonim, it will be seen readily
that it is impossible in a large number of cases to determine the author-
ship of a Responsum even when a name handed down by tradition
accompanies it. It is Muller's opinion that Kohen-Zedek II wrote no
Responsa, but we now know otherwise ; see J. Q. R., XVIII, 402. Nearly
all the Responsa containing Rabbi Zemah's name in the superscription he
attributes to Rabbi Zemah ben Paltoi, and yet there can be no doubt that
many of them belong to Rabbi Zemah ben Hayyim ; comp., for instance,
nos. a and 50 (see above, p. 43, note, second line), and no. 122, where
reference is made to a case decided by Rabbi Zadok, the Gaon of Sura.
Add to this the confusion that results from the frequently abbreviated
names ; HJ'T may stand for Rabbi Sherira, but with equal propriety for Sar
Shalom ; :*S may be read Rabbi Natronai or Rabbi Nahshon. It is not an
undue exaggeration that barely a third of all Responsa known can be
assigned to authors with any degree of certainty. Muller, desirous of
paying due respect to all the Geonim alike, frequently classified the
same Responsum under several Geonim in his Mafteah, as, for instance,
104 ('n) is assigned to Rabbi Natronai, also 67 ('i) to Rabbi Jehudai. Of
the decisions ascribed to Rabbi Natronai in c"n, 141, some appear in
Muller, 108 (i*r-n*r), among those ascribed to this Gaon, the rest are
184 THE GEONIM
As the scholars of Kairwan make most frequent refer-
ence to the Responsa of the Geonim in their questions
addressed to Rabbi Hai, the hypothesis suggests itself
that North Africa was the country that saw the earliest
attempts to bring order into what was coming to be an
amorphous mass of Responsa. It has been established
that close relations subsisted between the Babylonian
Academies and the North African congregations since
the beginning of the ninth century 1 . This would add
to the plausibility of the hypothesis. However this may
be, what can be asserted without fear of contradiction is,
that it was not Babylonia in which Responsa Collections
were made up. Although the supposition expressed in
G. S., p. 310, that the Geonim kept copies of the Responsa
sent to congregations in the country and outside, has been
corroborated by a recently published Responsum 2 , it may
nevertheless not be assumed that these copies served as
nuclei for all or any of our Responsa Collections. The
reason is this : Among the published Responsa Collections
there is not one that contains the decisions exclusively
of the Babylonian Geonim. They always include Responsa
by authors living elsewhere, either in North Africa, Spain,
or France, at about the time of the extinction of the
Gaonate. It would be too hazardous to dispose of all
Responsa of this class by declaring them to be later
additions to the Babylonian Collections. If we were
disposed to resort to so easy a subterfuge, the following
data would prevent it effectually.
The first Responsa Collection to appear in print, a"n,
contains, besides the extracts of the decisions of the
missing. On p. 218 (n"vp) a Responsum is listed among Rabbi Hai's,
but on p. 272 it is put among the anonymous Responsa. The only satis-
factory classification of these Responsa would have to be based on their
contents ; headings formulating the subjects dealt with would at the
same time provide for various versions of the same Responsum.
1 Comp. above, p. 32. The Geonic Responsa made use of by the collector
of the Parties are likewise addressed to the scholars of Kairwan.
2 Comp. J. Q. R., XVIII, 402.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 185
Geonim, only those of Rabbi Enoch of Cordova, a con-
temporary of Rabbi Hai. The important collection, p"B>,
contains, in addition to the Geonic Responsa, decisions
by Rabbi Moses of Cordova, a contemporary of Rabbi
Sherira, by his son Rabbi Enoch, and his disciple, Rabbi
Joseph ben Abitur, and by Rabbi Meshullam, the last
three contemporaries of Rabbi ,Hai ; and also decisions
by Alfasi, who was twenty-five years old at the death
of Rabbi Hai. Likewise in the Collection p"3 no authors
younger than Rabbi Hai are named. We now have two
sets of facts before us. On the one hand, we have seen
that the impulse to make Responsa Collections cannot be
proved to have manifested itself earlier than the time of
Rabbi Hai. On the other hand, we have seen that in
the three Responsa Collections instanced, certainly among
the oldest of their kind, no younger authority than Hai
is mentioned, if we except Alfasi, while the non-Geonic
authorities mentioned are contemporaries of Rabbi Hai
outside of Babylonia. This would seem to make it im-
possible to declare the Responsa by non-Babylonian authors
in the Collections as later additions. Or, we should owe
ourselves an explanation of the fact that they include no
Responsa by scholars living after Rabbi Hai.
In scrutinising the arrangement of the Responsa, two
points can be fixed upon which seem to have been of
significance to the collectors. As these two points are
incongruous in character, the result is that there is not
one of the Responsa Collections executed according to
a consistent plan. The two points are authorship and
related subject-matter.
The questions submitted to the Geonim were either
dubious cases of practical bearing, hence unconnected one
with another, or dubious cases coming up in theoretic
study which were more likely to have some relation to
one another, especially if their common point of departure
was a given section of the Talmud. An example of the
latter class is afforded us in the fragment published in
1 86 THE GEONIM
G. S., pp. 328-36, containing a number of Responsa by Rab
Amram on rwv nia^n. These have not been arranged
in the order given by a later hand. The order is original
with their author, who obviously was requested to explain
and codify the laws on nTX given in the fourth section
of the Talmudic treatise Menahot. This example shows
that it is not always safe to attribute a logical arrangement
of Responsa according to subject to the collector. It may
be the work of the Gaon in the same sense in which he is
the author of the Responsa themselves. However, it cannot
be denied that the Collectors were particularly concerned
with arranging the matter at their disposal in the most
logical manner possible.
Isolated portions of the printed Responsa Collections,
and some of the fragments published in " Genizah Studies,"
have been spared the systematising hand of the collector,
but no complete collection known has been similarly
fortunate. This lends peculiar interest to the Responsa
lists published in G. S., pp. 56-71. Their authenticity can
hardly be doubted, guaranteed as it is by the name of
the Gaon, the name of the addressee, and their checkered
contents. A comparison of one of these lists with the
printed Responsa Collections reveals how imperfectly even
such among the latter as are supposed to have reached
us in their original form have preserved the initial order
in which they were arranged. Of the thirty- two questions
on pp. 67-8, below, addressed by Rabbi Jacob ben Nissim
to Rabbi Sherira and his son Rabbi Hai, there are but
two and these two in widely separated places that occur
in the Collection published by Dr. Harkavy, which he
describes as having been planned on the basis of the
duplicates kept by the Geonim in Babylonia.
But this pitfall of not being able to re-establish the
original order of the Responsa is not the only one. Care
must be exercised not to mistake decisions by European
and North African scholars for decisions by the Geonim.
This applies particularly to the large number of anonymous
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 187
Responsa in the Collections of Geonim, not by the Geonim.
The quotations from the Responsa of the Geonim in the
older Halakic literature are an excellent guide. To the
authors of this literature Geonic Collections were accessible,
more accurate and reliable than ours. But these same
authors have a far higher function to perform in the study
of Geonic literature. Their main value is that they knew
a multitude of Geonic Responsa that have come down to
us through no other channel besides. In his Mafteak
Miiller has made the first attempt to bring them together,
and as a first attempt it is most satisfactory. But he has
not dug out even the half of the hidden treasure to be
found in numerous works, beginning with Rabbi Hananel
and extending down to Caro 500 years later l .
As an exemplification of the importance of Halakic
literature for the study of the Geonim, there follow three
lists of Geonic quotations in the works respectively of a
Spanish, an Italian, and a French scholar, parallels in our
printed Responsa Collections and in other sources being
marked.
The first list contains quotations from three works by
Albargeloni as the representative of the Spanish school :
SPANISH SCHOOL.
ALBARGELONI.
own
n*o rn'oa NTT im 17
a"n n*? im 17
''jp E*n ;n"nn*ir naitcnai 17
n*: ,'a Vwn
"jpcrtjQTnw im 1 7
1*3 ,'a Vcn
i P D n ornNcc 18
*D *)"} jwa 3
WVTC 10
2 'nn 13
nvw: 15
I'D 01*03 niwrai 17
1 David Kaufmann, in the Bet Talmud, III, 64, published two Responsa
by Rabbi Sherira and Rabbi Hai from a MS., not noticing that the same
are to be found in the Responsa of Rabbi Solomon ben Adret, V, 25 a-b,
no. 121.
a In his commentary ?
i88
THE GEONIM
b'p 'n a'n
n op
1*3 O
1*3 O
25 a 3/So
25 a y-iD
25 b S"-ID
i":
I, 7 t3"ttJ
I, 9 c"o
I, 10 \e"izj
12 d a"n
n": b"a
n"o 'n ; 12 b a"n
13 a a"n
'n ; 12
125
132
i35
mpiDDai 135
Drni^Dd 135
pa 136
Npccai 136
jwa 139
i43
H3
i43
i43
ma bn 143
ana bi 144
NpDsai 144
nbstrai 148
nai^nai 149
Cnbi^^rTiDT 149
maittnai 150
i53
i54
arm 157
1 60
160
172
173
!74
VL: myo 176
178
D: 178
182
'sn 182
rrnno 183
n 183
':niD3 183
nos 185
DTOO 189
190
190
I 9 I
mbnaai mpicDai 193
J 93
195
J 95
196
199
a"o o ioa
'n ,-p-W
a"p ,a*n
13 a a"n
13 a a"n
;n*y b'a
*'P nnso
"op
n"np
18
snnan 19
jwab 26
anbwoc 26
26
26
27
27
34
37
38
39
39
mbnaai 39
rr 43
jiwb 46
"n 4 8
49
49
52
53
56
57
64
jia 64
nawiai 65
Npcoai 66
naiirna 74
74
76
naiirrai 91
jwan 94
nipiDEai 104
pDDai 109
j:no 109
pab no
im DribNuwi 114
im 114
*^wn ii^
"Nn 116
124
mi 'aiTyi 124
nbNTCH? 124
Tmr 124
In his commentary.
2 Comp. ffi'o, I, 18-19.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE
n 260
niwnai 199
I, 69 Vow rrnrra 264
I, IO c"lZ7
cite n 199
29 a y*~\r> '10102 266
3*0 b*3
NpD'Bl! 2OO
>'Nn 267
nrrajnai 200
rrnno 267
3"3 V3
"xn 200
'nn 268
rnyo 20 1
rvnyo 208
l"3 b's
C1O3? 2O2
NY-It? 268
i*icp n'c
"nrr 203
'nn 268
1*7 n't?
D1O3? 203
rrnno 269
'3 'n ; 13 d 3*n
mpicci 204
mpicD2i nm 270
nos 204
nipiDEai 270
0*7 n*o
"n 204
28 b y"^c '*3TD: 270
I, 5 "c
'3T1B3 204
28 a 3TI3O 'ncbo 270
'a 'n ; 13 d 3*n nib
11321 mpicsai 206
"Nn 271
D^Qyc 'n\D
29 a y*iD 'N21Y23 272
I, 3 ffi c
Mnnn 207
n 275
3*3 'n ; 12 c 3*n mb
nsai mpiCDai 211
?lYnDl mj?D 275
no^ 211
'n 275
rpnrra 211
?vvnD3. mro 276
1*0 ,'n ,iac 3*n
niVnan 211
"Nn 276
n": V"3
w n 212
^l^Q/D 270
'HH 215
OYoy 277
26 b r*-o
'N311E3 2l8
NH 277
B": b*3
^Mn 222
3*2 b*3 "n 278
"j"p D*n
nnbxnjd 235
ii a J?*TD aiVo 281
B*3T n*CJ
Drt^cci 235
3*3p 0*103 >*prDa 281
23 a ; i y*tt?
on'rNii^m 235
i"?p D*n pN3 287
23 a ; 2 y*c
cnbucci 235
n 288
23 b 53 y'tu
nari 236
"xr? 288
23 b ; 6 y*c
orfowDi 236
'l '*3 ,'l y"lD n*3YTC3 289
25 b ; 18 y*ic
DnbxiCd 236
J1N3 1 ) 289
26 a ; 20 y*c
in 337
n^'w 3*3 ITDD 301
26 a ; 21 y*o
cn^Ncti? 237
"NH 304
26 b ; 27 y*\D
mi 238
|1N37 306
2 7 a ; 35 y*c
rtncfi 238
JW3 310
27 b ;37 ?*
Drr?^TC^T -| ( '
3*n rvofci 310
J1N3 240
n*sp 3*3 Drtwunoi 316
'n 248
n*sp 3*3 Vicii 316
MT1C 248
NpDDTI 317
"NTT 2T 249
'vn 337
vanes: 249
'n 339
? TO1TS2
"Nn 252
p3 341
rrnno 253
pH3 343
"xn 253
p ,-piy "Nn 347
156 n"3
nn 253
103 n*3
"xn 257
1 Are the following five quotations taken from R. Hai's commentary on Shabbatf
190
THE GEONIM
I'D ,n*3
ir'p nnro
,n*p 3*n
82
8 4
86
86
?2r\vh 87
sn p 105
124
125
126
126
n psmp
|8<
24
17
18
24
53
71
76
78
"n 114, 128
"" ^T, 138
6 Nn 149
8 nn 154
1 66
1 66
262
II, 44 Vim
II, 4 6 ->"trn
'3 ,'n ,3*n
n"3 D^PI DTO
25
26
28
74
85,86
HTT 103
The second list illustrates the Italian school by references to
the Cp^n 'fyytf by Zedekiah dei Mansi. In this list and the
third, special devices have been adopted for two purposes.
A cross ( + ) indicates that the Responsa cited are not by Geonim,
but by old French and Italian authorities, called Geonim by
courtesy. Again, when there are doubts as to the origin of the
Responsa with actual Geonim or Geonim by courtesy, a query is
put against the citation.
1 In his commentary on Baba Batra.
8 In his treatise on Witnesses ?
3 Compare Halberstam's remarks.
* Comp. Tosafot on Baba Batra, 10 b, catchword D
R. Hananel's commentary.
5 Comp. above, pp. 171-2.
* In this collection, as in Harkavy 199, the responsum is ascribed to K. Hai.
\vho quoted it from
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE
ITALIAN SCHOOL.
ZEDEKIAH DEI MANSI.
NT1TD 13
i np a a 'Mano: i
n*ap :*n TOS 13
? pNabi i
+ c<:iNan 14
D':wan 3
7 c'awab 14
22 b DTID 'Kn 14
+ c'awab 15
? 8 D'3wab 16
mro 16
Vrp a*a 'WIITD: 3
+ a pai 6
.en ,TTI? rtxco 7
1,31 ;59 XD'C D'siNab 17
1*0 a*n D':wa^ 18
p*oi 19
II, n, 12 Vim 'n 19
'MrT 8
9 wirr 8
58 a CTID "MH 20
'D rt*a c':iwan 21
' T nnco "Mn 22
+ * D':ian 9
47 b maia ,C"NT 'n 9
9 mj?c nat 22
58 a DTID n 22
I'D Va a^awan n
? pa^ 22
2*S D*n 1>NC3 II
pwaVi 22
+ n^isa? 12
+ pwab 23
pnab 23
4 b-s a y'nc Dioy 13
H"DT 'n ,a"n ptcna 13
58 a CTID B ':no: 13
44 a cmo pis ;HD 25
4by*x5 rnro 13
1 Not a Babylonian authority, the prayer Dtob is of Palestinian origin, comp.
Ratner, T*in, Berakot, 199-200, and Tur, Orah Hayyim, 46.
2 Comp. G. , p. 273, n., where cbprpi is used by R. Hai, and R. E. J.,
LIV, 195.
s Is hardly a Babylonian Gaon, the explanation shows the influence of
mysticism ; comp. Parties, 57 d~s8 a.
* German authorities, as indicated by the name rrnrr -\"i pns' 'i.
5 The text of bn'ac is to be amended in accordance with Parties and I'tn, I, 52.
* Italian authorities ; R. Daniel is the brother of R. Nathan b. Jehiel, comp.
above, p. 179, n. i.
7 Comp. Ratner, T'ITW, Berakot, 51-2.
' Comp. Tur, Orah Hayyim, 66, and the authorities given in Bet Yosef, ad loc.
9 This passage is undoubtedly of Geonic origin ; perhaps a literal quotation
from R. Hai's Seder.
19 Comp. Tur ; Bet Yosef; Orah Hayyim, 594, and c"c, I, 30.
192
THE GEONIM
a*D Q*1T33
^*^SJ^T A C
i_ ratsi 45
'a a'n wrrca 25
c'^inan 46
35 b y'-c l pa 28
I'D 'n ,a'n
nVma 46
60 d DTIS "n 28
s'p n'c
c'aisan 46
II, 42 Vcn w n 28
II, 9 b i*
D'aisan 46
19 a f"^3 cibtD ~TT 28
[pis] pa 47
jiwai 28
i*op Q'TOJ
NTTC3 48
37 b y'-ic Din? 29
s TI n c
D'aiani 49
ai'in D"n mix iv^ pN3i 29
Vp E*n
ixarvQa 49
a pa 30
25 a r'-c
9 DlVffi 50
n*: ,a"n 'anca 31
25 a y'-c
**wrfl 50
3 Dior 32
26 a y"TC
HDIOJ 51
29 a y"~c mo? 33
25 b y'lD m
mro '-i 51
+ Jisabi 33
<MITtD3
+ pa'7 33
26 b y'-c
D"1O? S 2
'Him* 33
'n a'n ; 12 c a'n
rrtDbn^i 52
n"s b'a o*3ian 34
s'sp ow
D'awn 53
29 a y'nc wnc: 35
38 a cms
L_ . !P<Jl J^
2"p ,a*a *:nsa 35
i'cp n'c
12 nrp 53
+ *p*a 37
13 n'aixan 54
8 "Nn 37
i': ')"}
DT23? 5 4
? pa 37
9 d DTID 'sip?
D':ian 56
14 b y"iD * c-itar 38
a*s Va
'^n 57
3,'ap E"H D'aina? 38
29 a y'-c
'sanoa 57
'nwcna 38
14 'isbB 58
X /p n a ^Nn 39
n?ao ,-Ts ff n
'tons: 59
i r ? a "sn 39
?
D'aiwb 59
+ D'aiwn 41
'p a'n
Jixa 60
n 'o a'n ^ ^x*i"^*^^ ^12
Vnp E*n
nns 62
M n n'c 'fconsa 44-
+
D'ainan 63
me rrerto p'm HTTO 45
I Comp. above, p. 150, n. i. 8 Comp. D*n, 190.
3 Not in the Seder, neither in 24 a nor 29 a.
4 Later than R. Hai whose opinion is quoted.
5 In his commentary on Berakott
6 Our text of the Seder has a different wording. MSS. S and agree with the
printed text.
7 The version of the bn"yc is essentially different from that given in y"ic, n a,
and Parties, 56 b ; comp. 6. S., p. 49, and Additions.
8 This responsum is ascribed to R. Nahshon in a*n ; comp. also above, 119, n. 3.
* The version of ?n"ac agrees with that in CTIE, 55 d, and not with r'lT.
10 Comp. DTiD, 55 d, and Q"ID, 120.
II Nmenp in J"TD is not Kiddush but the yatj pro ro-a.
11 In n"o it is ascribed to R. Hai.
1S Comp. Tur, Orali Hayyim, 271.
14 Comp. Voirx, II, i ; Tur, Orah Hayyim, 283.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE
193
7 a DTffl
nn 103
1 D3ian 66
31 b y*x>
'K311B3 104
TD'D 'n, a'n nobn 67
's nrtiD 'rnSna
rnrforoa 106
+ * D^IWI 70
38 b DT1D
nn 1 08
? D'3inan 71
win 1 08
a* 1 ) o*ioa craixan 72
41 C DT1D
wi 109
+ pwi 77
?
D'3iNan no
+ pai 77
D'jwa'j na
n*D nnco xmn 1 78
I, 3 w*c
''ITD^D 114
? D'aiMb 79
I, 43 bocN
"Mn 115
4- 8 pwai 79
D':iwan 115
+ pxai 80
II, 99 C'UJ
n 115
TL"?P D*n 'Miin 4 83
10 a a'n
mabnai 115
pai 83
1*3 Va
o~my 116
c'Vp D*n 'hnin 1 83
9 a a'n
'nin 116
? D':in 83
I'o Va
D':wab 116
tD /p D n vtiirp 84
1*3 ninbHrc
'KHN Il6
pai 84
I'D 'n 59 d a'n
no'vn 117
B'SW, a'a '*nin' 86
D':ian 117
I'D Va *n 88
n'sp n'i TITO
D'3iai 118
T*n n'c "n 89
8d a'n
'MTinr- 120
pHJI 90
rVo Va
10 'ITD'JD 120
4- D'3iwn ga
i'a Va
n^iNan 123
*OT n'w D'3inan 94
n'o Va
'*TCT> 126
pMabi 95
n'yuj "niman nyra
'3Dn p 126
B*p 1*0 pa 97
II, 56 i*cn
D'jiMan 126
30 a y*TD Dib 98
I
sn l DttJ < i 127
V'p 1*0 D':i:n 99
n'cw rvoian nyw
<:cn p 127
30 a y*TO cibc 99
B y\c manan *"V?TD
':cn p 127
31 a S'ID 'Hinioj 101
7 c a'n
msbm 127
31 a y'iD moy 101
1*3 'n 7 a a'n
nisVm 128
Rino ioi
">
<n vaii 128
8 rpv ioi
D'3ian 130
32 d y'no * moy 102
a'cc rvoian nyc
'3cn p 131
42 b y*iD pns 103
II, 10 VQICN
D'3iab 136
U> 53 a T 1 ^^ * '01 f]DV 103
1 Comp. Twr, Graft Hayyim, 291. 2 Comp. ibid., 382.
* Comp. Bet Yostf, Graft Hayyim, 301 end.
4 The view ascribed to R. Hai in Va is opposed to that ascribed to him
in bn'atj. 6 Comp. Miiller, Mafteah, 80.
' Comp. above, p. 147. 7 Read sax 10 na psa r\cv '.
8 Read mVna mibnai mnVwca and comp. a'n, 9 b ; ed. Hildesheimer, 67.
9 Ibn Gajat quotes it on the authority of R. Hai, but R. Hai uses the words
10 Comp. also Coronel, 57.
11 Published in Bet Talmud, vol. III.
I
194
THE GEONIM
isn ,-piy
D1/Q7 ^^? loo
33 r'lD
oioy ^37
n 166
N' 1 ?? ,a*n
C'jiNan 140
+
D:wan 167
II, 12 bl3TT
jwai 140
*op 'n ',a8 a'n
rro'mi. 171
33 b y'lD
moy 141
o'n n*i TIB
[pis] pns jns 171
1*3 a'n
1 D^wan 142
?
7 c'2wan 171
ib*i n'c
NrQTTOO ^44
I3*vi 'n ; 15 c a'n
'unn 1 1 72
ab'i n'tD
Mm^QD 1 44
-,.- ^'..
1 p U 1UJ
*c':iwn 172
1*3 mnbtj
'Mn 144
+
D':wan 173
D':wan 145
i^p 'n ,a*n
'131 na'm 174
+
D'awan 145
a^wn 175
36 a 3?*iD
DTO3J 147
rrnwn 175
M'm ,'n ,a'n
'nn 147
4-
o^ixan 176
n'n b'a
'MTin 147
a*7 ,1D*TO3
[pis] pm jns 176
142 =
'N21TO3 148
I'DI n*c
pis p3 178
*3>'lD
moy 1 50
I'D? c'n
n
Nni'D'Ju 170
I'cp D'n
^n 152
n 179
pab 153
+
o^isan 179
CnbXTTd 153
'D mnVtD
n 181
*pw 155
4-
D'JINJ'J 182
t*Ep D*n
4 TWsn 156
DT01 S 184
II, 109 Sj'tiJ
5 nos 156
n*Dp a'a
D'^Nan 197
II, IO9 M' C
*vn 156
o'p 'n ,a'n
n^iNan 201
37 b y'lo
8 moy 157
II, 53 c Tray
1*31plS p3 201
n'p n'o
D>:ian 158
40 b JJ'TD
DTiwan 202
Soadyana, 59
n'TTD 161
i*op 'n ; 30 a a'n
rnsbnn 202
I'D H'TD
"Nn 161
Denary 202
+
m3in3 161
II, 146 nn'n
"Nn 203
l*Vp 'n ; 22 b a'n
noyrn 161
+
D^iMan 203
a's n'rc
M n 162
?
D^iNab 209
D'jiNa 1 ) 162
II, 26 c'o
ni3itrn3 211
E'I n'c
C'31NJ^ 162
t'n n*c
10 'i3i pna 211
onrc
Mn 162
II, 24 j*TB
pwb 212
n*:i I'D
'131 n 163
pnai 212
n'ci n'
n'jwan 164
+
maitDni 213
a*Di n's?
D'3iab 165
1 In bn'axr, 148, ascribed to R. Natronai ; comp. also Tur, Yoreh Leah, 401.
* Comp. Marx, Untersuchungen, 20.
3 R. Samuel b. Hofni? Comp. n* 79 and Mafteah, 171.
* Comp. above, p. 43, note. 5 Comp. above, p. 43, n.
8 Comp. above, p. 147, n. 2.
7 I doubt whether this Responsum is Geonic ; notice especially the use of
the word D33i.
8 Comp. it'tt, I, 6. Comp. above, p. 153, n. i.
10 Read pm instead of prtjr, and comp. above, p. 143, n. i.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE
195
II, 120 d I'M
8 %.*-._< **.*
'Kll~ 207
>*op 'n J3b J*"
mo/n 753 217
N11J? jr,D
rr-rrc 267
y'-in 'n ; 137 c a'n
'HTn^ 217
?YYnD
n 267
1 0*3 wan 217
i*c n*S ,v*tr\
xn 267
+
D'awan 220
220 =
D'J^Nan 267
i*Dp n't?
D'jinan 220
pxaS 268
>*Dp 'n 536 a a'n
niD^na 227
6c a'n
nobn 268
x'cp 'n 536 a a'n
NT'p 228
44 a DTID
Hn 268
pnai 229
44 a DTIC
'131 DTay 268
i*yp 'n ;s6b a'n
nia^n 237
267 =
nn 269
n*3wan 242
45 a 3?*iD
D'31Na 269
Dn^MurTDi 243
maiTDna 270
+
tyainan 246
10 Dioy 270
?
pto^ 247
+
D':iwan 271
* MT'p 248
'..
P i ^
jwab 273
i'o D*n
pis jno 248
n*o ,^3
voim 276
+
D':wan 249
I, 25 TT'TD
vn 278
N ^D npn
* rnyD 252
InjRM
4.2 u, U?
Q
n 1 iiu 20 1
D'awab 254
46 b J?*TD
moy 281
II, 2 Vou?
*pnan 254
I, 42 c'c
n 281
+
D'3ian 254
i*op rrvs' 'D 'jVya
ma'w 282
a'sp o'n
5 a':ian 254
n't iyo toin 'T
M D'3iNan 283
D':isa 257
281 =
mor rnrD 284
n*:p O'TD
A .... O
H3TU? 250
n't I'D ,fn
ia nrno en 285
III, 9 c DTI anan
>*n 258
I, 44 w*w
19 D>:wan 286
+
craiMan 258
I, 43 m'rc
15 "Nn 287
n'o a'a
mwan 259
o
n^ijTD 207
I, 22 C'TD
pMab 259
50 a y'TD
Mwan 288
I, 21 tt?*1T
pxan 259
50 a y'-o
'tOltll 288
i D mrv?No
KTO 260
Q _*_ ^^'^w*.
T a D u ioa
pen: 288
n'jyn n 't
pnab 261
1'cp mn'iwD
'Hnx ago
o^awan 261
+
D':ian 295
D'3iKab 263
niTDi
n 295
i* n'c
7 p-n? pa 263
+
I4 o':ian 296
I, 50 VOTI
D'swan 266
1 Comp. j*c, II, 108-9, and 0. S., p. 185.
2 Not found in our two versions of a*n.
8 Comp. Parties, 48 a mro n ^ ^D^, accordingly not the Gaon R. Saadia.
4 Comp. also Alfasi, Ta'anit, . . . and Vru'c, 261.
s Comp. 0. S., p. 263. Comp. above, p. 104, n. i.
7 In n'c ascribed to R. Hai.
8 Comp. Muller, Handschriftliche Jehudai, &c., u, and ff. S., p. 263.
' Comp. D'ny, 252 and 288.
11 Comp. Jerusalem, VII, 167.
= n 'i, comp. c*c, I, 42.
14 Comp. Parties, 44 c.
2
19 Comp. above, p. 141.
13 Comp. (?. S., a6i.
196
THE GEONIM
I, 42 TD'TO
I'T 'n ;42b a'n
22 C DTID
,f"-\ 'n 541 d j'n
20 a ; 3 X>*ID
'n ;
n*T 'n 542 a a'n
22 b DTID
22 b ; 13 y'c
22 a 55 y'TD
22 a 53 y'\u
22 b ; 12 y'o
22 b ; ii y'ttj
I'p 'n ,a*n
i'p 'n ,a'n
i*p 'n ; 24 a a'n
n*n ">'a
1 ,:'a n*DT ,n's ,T>B
344
344
345
346
346
347
347
347
348
35
D'JiNan 350
35 2
353
354
355
355
357
357
360
362
362
364
365
366
12 'Nn 370
pa 370
pwa 371
wirr 373
W (TO 373
nos 374
Dl^tD 374
Tirr 374
'XTirr 374
pwab 374
NYV 376
48 b y'no
44 d DT1B
I'D n'?
D*p 'n ;32b a'n
c'p 'n ;32b a'n
a'cp 'n ;32d a'n
I, 89 ID'ID
I, 100 TD'\O
n'Dp 'n ;ssd a'n
II, 107 TD'TD
n* n'sj
50 b S'TD
II, 42 d T1EW
QTJJ ^1TQ3?
50 b y*~[D
34 c a'n
I, n6d n'
II, 42 n'xcn
n'jaa FJID f]'n
a'c mail f]'n
n"?
296
297
299
299
303
3<>7
rrobn 308
308
309
3"
3M
3H
rabc 315
3i5
317
322
323
325
327
328
328
rnyo 328
>n 328
'TO^D 328
328
338
330
330
33
331
333
333
B pa 333
"n 340
*wnt$ 34^
1 Not in the Halakot Gedolot.
2 C!omp. Hildesheimer, ad loc.
3 Our versions of the a'rr read differently.
* Comp. G. S., 310, and n', I. 113 e.
s The Seder is also the source for 'I/tur, . . .
I n'c has only an extract of this Eesponsum.
8 R. Amram in his Seder, 51 a, differs from this view.
Comp. above, p. 194, n. i. " The author is E. Hai.
II This is the Eesponsum to which reference is made in bn'ac, 257.
u Comp. Vow, II, 123. " Read with y'c :
* Comp. "jrr'iur, 216, 270.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE
197
I, 114 b i*w
n3*pn 'n ; 128 a j'rt
1'3 ,3*3
TD'3
.*._ .'_
3 3p J n
n'?pn 'n ; 130 a a'n
-En p 393
mwn 395
m3"?n 395
+
r;iNjn 398
3'D D'n
fwa 398
II, 26 d ticy
msbna 399
II, 86 "JOCN
nos 399
3'D C'n
':wan 399
3*D C*H
)'31M3H 399
3'3 ,3'n
'3iwn 399
ni^Sn 400
3':p n'c
'31H3P! 400
I, 46 ^'J.-l
]1NJ 400
I, 47 I'tcn
6 "xn 408
('Mb'rr) 383 =
':i3n 408
258 =
K-PP 376
n 381
38r
38i
382
<:wan 383
'**n 3 8 3
cite 383
383
383
ITOS 384
F|cr 384
ntro 384
rrunr 385
n 386
The third list illustrates the French school by means of the
no'l Time ; quotations from y*"iD not described as such aro
disregarded.
FRENCH SCHOOL.
25 a y'TD
25 a y*TD
25 b y'iD
25 b y*iD
i': a'n
II, 40 n'cn
28 a y'iD
29 a y'TD
1 I'D rfoo ,r|*'T
29 a y*TD
ii a y'TD
81
81
81
mno 83
83
87
9 1
9i
9i
93
94
94
98
99
'3 'o ,y'io
14 b y'-o
4 b y*-c
1 1 a y*io
1 1 a y'no
24 b y*io
ten ,-pny
14 b y*TD
's b'j
'i 'o ,y*-c
'n 'o ,y*TD
i i a y*TD
5
cwa 8
IttTTO 8
:TB3 23
VII 23
:rre 23
rroo 23
mas 25
26
20
S^
50
50
50
1 In n'c, 153, ascribed to R. Hai, but i*cn, I, 45, agrees with brt'ac.
2 In the 'Irtwr, ascribed to R. Hai.
3 The words rrmrrci pi are in the wrong place, they belong after mirro rroru.
4 Comp. above, p. 151, n. i, and VOCN, II, 86. * Comp. o'w, I, 5.
' = Marx, Untersuchungen, &c. ' DC ?
8 Comp. Hurwitz, ad loc.; there can be no doubt that this mystical passage is
not of Geonic origin. Comp. also O'TO, 260.
198
THE GEONIM
I ,iT3yn ,Ffn
35 b J?*TD
35 a r'TO
35 b y'-o
'n ;44a-43c a'n
20 b 59 y'rc
n'o ,y a
I, 14-15 Van
3*y o'loa
N*op 'n a'n
T 3 mnVNttJ
I, 99 tt'ro
n*3 'n ; 7 a a'n
II, 103 TD'TO
op 'n ; 29 d a"n
n'op 'n ,a"n
o'p 'n ,a'n
o'p 'n ,j*n
'op 'n ; 29 d a'n
26 b y"-\o
"n 231
D'3wan 104
JH3 232
^bn ,IITS
n^'xan 104
17'OTJI 233
Vp a'n
D'3wan 105
niTTC' 233
lb*p D*n
on'jSffiiDi 107
nine* 233
i i a y'TD
anoy 108
D'Oisan 234
30 a y"~<D
DlbXD III
niobn 242
+
a D':ian 114
31 a *TD
Dlto 115
niDbnoi 244
31 b S'-ID
31TC3 117
C'3itn 247
32 a y'no
'H31TE3 119
Tirp 249
to'yp 'n ; 35 c a'n
siin 1 139
wirr 251
n'o b'a
'NTin' 146
7 ji\zjn3 251
?
D'3ian 179
'Vn 255
a'rp 'n ; 34 d a'n
ni3bn3 194
8 'ri 255
i*p '^ ; 34 d J*n
a'ns 194
9 'tnin' 261
3*3 mrttw
nvVjmia 194
'lE^D 261
36 a 3?*no
ClblD 202
jna pis 268
n'o ,b'a
win' 203
>nn 272
36 b S'ID
unas 208
D':ian 276
37 a r*TD
'K31TE: 208
rrobn 278
I'D
2 mn'w 211
1 D'3iNan 278
37 b y'lD
jn: 211
D'3-wan 279
TO*p c"n
3 D'3iNan 212
'Tn> 279
37 a r'no
mop 213
12 nos 280
* WVP 213
'>nra 281
II, 109 TO*tD
6 n 213
nyi 281
n'' 'o r'-io
ntco 214
TW 281
43 b r'lD
'N31V.C3 228
D"\D2? 284
43 b y'-o
6 onoy 229
1 Not Geonic, conip. above, p. 193, 1. 27.
a Not a verbal quotation.
3 The author is R. Natronai, comp. above, p. 43, note.
* Read wrros in agreement with c*\c 1. c. and other authorities.
4 Hurwitz is mistaken in maintaining that R. Nathan in his 'Aruk, s.v. "?ao,
ascribes this view to R. Zemah.
6 MS. S of the Seder has likewise oro and not orn as printed text.
7 In o*ioa : 'Wnsa ; comp. above, p. 149.
8 Comp. bn'aw, 162 ; if not for this statement of brVnw I would be inclined to
ascribe this Responsum to R. Hai b. David, the contemporary of R. Hilai, and
not to R. Hai b. Sherira, who according to Mordecai, Pesahim, 583, holds an
opposite view.
' In n'tD ascribed to R. Matthetias.
10 Read pis jro. ll niNDTan ?
12 Read KS'H ; in xc'u?, V, 100 and n'c, 102: nos without the name of his
father and accordingly one of the Geonim.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE
199
JITS' 1 D W11E3
1 1 a a'n
n'o ,y a
n'o ,"5*a
Sab *TD
22 b ;n y'ffi
69 d a*n
U> 37 "J12BK
1'opn'n ;i26d j'n
III, 48
532
mro 556
nrrtna 587
n 591
608
612
614
623
am 623
624
624
1 c':wn 637
12 N-riiu 640
IS 'nn 640
wirr 642
13 DTO3? 642
rrobnai 644
D';i*on 652
740
754
755
"'NTirr 787
?36a y*iD
537 0-38 b a'n
a*:p-*i*op
50 a y"-\o
n'o 'n ,a*n
46 b J?*ID
a'ain 'n ,a*n
n*cp-n*:p
I, 24 T*ujn
!, 24-35 n'cn
a'p 'n ; 34 c a'n
50 b y"-o
42 b 2?*1D
3'in a'n
29 a 3?*1D
TVS' 'D wnBa
'anbMtrtn 353
356
D^:wan 365
WYC3 374
382
387
''Itto 387
rriyo 388
409
414
416
*ni3 1 jna 423
433
435
435
'TO^D 437
pns 440
'onor 445
Niirr 458
DID? 463
519
1 The passage of the Seder is quoted literally on p. 202, and it seems there-
fore that the source for the Responsum given on p. 353 is another one
than the Seder.
* In n*ic ascribed to R. Hai, but comp. above, p. 195, n. 8.
3 In i"n anonymously.
1 Neither in j"n I, nor in j'n II.
5 Comp. G. S., pp. 309-10.
Not in the printed text of the Seder nor in the MSS.
7 Comp. Hildesheimer, ad loc. ; our text reads differently.
' Comp. Albargeloni, rrvs' 'D 'c, 177 and 341.
9 Comp. n"c, 6, where this Responsum is made use of.
10 In his code, comp. above, p. 165.
11 Comp. G. S., 250.
12 Comp. Auerbach, in his commentary on Vorc, II, 82.
1S Comp. above, p. 151.
u Neither in a'n I, nor in a'n II.
200 THE GEONIM
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE GEONIC RESPONSA.
Defective and incomplete as is the state of the
Responsa transmitted to us, so must be our judgment of
their value. From Rabbi Shashna, about 680, until
the death of Rabbi Hai in 1038, about eighty Geonim
officiated as such, but barely more than a third are repre-
sented in our Responsa literature 1 , and yet it is hardly
open to a doubt that, if not all, at least a large majority
of them must have given written expression of one
kind or another to their views upon religious questions.
But even of the Geonim from whom Responsa have come
down to us, we know only one side of their activity, and
of that side not enough to furnish grounds for an impartial
and adequate judgment of their place in Jewish develop-
ment. In the Responsa Collections available at the present
day the Geonim appear as Halakists exclusively 2 . Even
the few Responsa that deal with Haggadic material touch
upon it merely in the course of explanations of Talmudic
passages. Thus what we know of the Geonim in relation
to the Haggadah is not their independent view, but only
their activity as commentators. And yet it was precisely
in the domain of the Haggadah, in other words, in theology,
religious philosophy, and related subjects, that the Geonim
made no attempt to harmonise their views with those of
the Talmud; their purpose was simply to explain the
Talmud regardless of their own predilections. "Know
that we are not, like some others, in the habit of explaining
any matter apologetically, in contradiction to the real
1 Almost all are on record in Miiller ; the only ones to be added are
the two Geonim by the name of Kimoi, whose Responsa are found in an
anonymous Halakic treatise published in J. Q. R., IX, 681-761 (comp.
above, p. 104, n. i), and Rabbi Hezekiahben Samuel, who, to be sure, was
not actually a Gaon ; comp. above, p. 7, n. i.
2 p*a, 15, is surely not a Responsum, and its Geonic origin is very
doubtful.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 2OI
meaning of him from whom it proceeds. We will there-
fore expound to thee the opinion of the Tanna, his real
meaning and his true purpose, without pledging ourselves
for the correctness of the assertion made by him." These
words of Rabbi Hai l , who, in opposition to Rabbi Saadia
and the philosophising school that followed him as its
head, insisted upon an unbiassed explanation of the views
of earlier teachers, characterise not only his own intel-
lectual attitude, but also the spirit prevailing in the
Academies so long as they remained untouched by alien
influences. At the same time, his words make apparent
how difficult it is to reach a knowledge of what the actual
views of the Geonim themselves were. And yet, if any
doubt had been entertained as to the theological trend of
the discussions in some of the Responsa of the Geonim,
it would have been dispelled by the list of Responsa printed
in riD7K> J"6np, 69-70, containing twenty-eight items, almost
all of a theological nature 2 . In that batch there were
Responsa on the translation of Elijah and of Enoch, on
Shabuot as the Feast of Revelation, on the suffering Messiah
of the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, on the death of the
Messiah referred to in Zechariah xii. 16, and on many other
interesting points, not one of which has been preserved
in the Responsa literature now known to us. A com-
parison of Responsa lists in nobc> r6np with our available
Responsa Collections, leaves no room for doubt as to the
guiding principle adopted for the latter. It was plainly
intended that they should consist of Halakic and Talmudic
material exclusively. This is the only possible explanation
1 "j*:, 99. The expression men 1 ) is probably an imitation of the Talmudic
x-nnx ra Sy men 1 ? in Git tin, 17 a ; comp. 'Aruk, s. v. vnn ra and F]n.
2 It will not do, of course, to assign all these Responsa to the end of
the Gaonate and ascribe them to Rabbi Hai. In fact, the list is headed
D'yihO 1 ?. It is noteworthy that the first list, a'a-'i, deals with difficult
chronological problems in the Holy Scriptures, some of them being
the data used by Hiwi Albalki as weapons against the authenticity
of the Scriptures. Dr. Poznanski in his essay on Hiwi, Jnn, VII, 112-37,
makes no mention thereof.
202 THE GEONIM
for the phenomenon that most of the Responsa of Halakic
bearing recorded in the lists just referred to have been
preserved in our Collections 1 , while those of Haggadic
content have disappeared wholly and entirely.
Limited thus to pure Halakah, the Responsa nevertheless
are of very considerable value. In the first place, they
called forth a new species of literature, which in a measure
shares with the Talmud the distinction of being the only
department that can be described as peculiarly Jewish.
Correspondence between scholars existed before Geonic
times, nor was it an activity confined to Jews. But Re-
sponsa are something more, at all events something other
than correspondence between scholars. The Geonim were
not requested to give their views upon vexed religious
questions merely on account of their scholarship and
attainments, but because they were at the same time, in
virtue of their high office, the representatives of legal
authority. It is true that in an overwhelming number of
cases the Geonim appeal to the authority of the Talmud.
The Tannaim and Amoraim had a similar relation to the
Bible as the only source of law. Yet it would be
ridiculous to say that the teachers of the Talmud did no
more than explain the Biblical law ; their activity
was equally fruitful in elaborating the fundamental
law. Halevy holds that, barring two ordinances, there
is nothing in the whole of Geonic literature not taken
from the Talmud. The same logical process would properly
lead to the conclusion that with the exception of the so-
called "seven commands of the scholars," pl*n JYIVD jae>,
the Talmudic time produced nothing but what is prescribed
in the Pentateuch. The Tannaim and Amoraim felt justi-
fied in considering their " ordinances and fences " as devised
in the spirit of the Scriptures, and the Geonim were
1 Of the fourteen Responsa in the list, p. 72, the following can be
traced : 'N in b"a, 55 ; 'a in n'cn, II, 46 ; 'T in n*:, 197 ; 'n in IITQT, I, 25 b ;
'i in nancn nynj of Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg, ed. Bloch, 177 ; 'n in y'tr,
43 b, i ; N*> in E*n, 187; i*' in b*a, 61.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 203
persuaded of their implicit adhesion to the Talmud in all
their decisions. This view taken by the Talmudists and
the Geonim of their own activity may be conceded to be
correct theoretically, but we are not thereby hindered
from recognising it as a fact that Biblical law is not
identical with Talmudic law, nor the latter with Geonic
law. Every age has its problems, and though the law
remained unchanged for all times among the Jews, the
laws underwent modification along with the times. Let
us consider only the varied development of Divine worship
in the Geonic time. Built up on principles laid down in
the Talmud, it yet is totally different in form from the
service customary during the Talmudic time. Or, to take
another illustration, in ?"&> 6? b, 60, we have the Geonic
decision that a husband may marry a second wife only
with the consent of the first. The aim of the Talmudists,
to entrench and increase the rights of women, is evident
in a large number of their enactments, and the Gaon who
gave the above decision felt himself in accord with the
spirit of the Tannaim and Amoraim, though in this given
concrete instance he was striking out into his own new
path *. And as the rights of women were developed during
the Geonic period, so also were the rights of slaves. Thus
we have a number of Geonic Responsa that grant liberty
to a slave whose master has had intercourse with her. The
reasons adduced against the validity of this Geonic decision
on the basis of the Talmud cannot be set aside lightly 2 .
No doubt, the Geonim were aware of their opposition to
the statements of the Talmud taken literally. They felt
secure in the other consciousness that they were acting
in its spirit. Rab Amram's decision 3 , that it is not per-
mitted to take usury from a non-Jew, cannot be authenti-
cated by resort to a Talmudic expression. If, nevertheless,
Rab Amram forbade it strictly, in any circumstances, he
1 Yebamot, 64 a, bottom, is another case ; comp. toc'n on the passage.
z Comp. the Responsa in Saadyana, -76-8, and i*u, I, 164-5.
3 y'tr, 40 a, 20.
204 THE
thereby proved the potentialities for development latent
in the Rabbinic law.
These examples, which might readily be multiplied
twentyfold in every department of the Rabbinic law, will
probably suffice to give an indication of the real value
of the Geonic Responsa. Viewed thus, the Responsa are
much more important than the codifications by the Geonim.
In the latter, it is the Talmud that is given the opportunity
to speak ; in the Responsa it is the spirit of the Geonic times.
For this reason, the Responsum became an example and
a model for later generations. Their leaders and teachers
used it as a means for making the Rabbinic law effective
according to the changing circumstances of the times. The
Responsa literature, created by the Geonim, developed,
as to quantity and quality, into one of the most important
branches of Rabbinic activity.
The chief distinction of the Geonic Responsa, in com-
parison with later Responsa, is that they became of
fundamental importance for other departments of Rab-
binical literature. The older commentaries on the Talmud,
those of the North African school, for instance, are scarcely
conceivable without the Responsa of the Geonim l . It may
be said confidently that Rabbi Hananel's commentary is an
outcome of the Responsa by Rabbi Hai and Rabbi Sherira.
They not only served him as a formal model for the
explanation of the Talmud, but they contain such wealth
of material for this very purpose that to this day they may
be resorted to with great profit to the student. And as for
Rabbi Nathan ben Yehiel, the great lexicographer, for him
and his investigations, especially those into Aramaic word-
structure, the Responsa were a veritable treasure -trove.
His 'Aruk is in large part a collection of Geonic glosses on
the Talmud. Let the interested student compare the frag-
1 There is no telling to what extent Rashi made use of the Geonic
writings. The different readings he offers often go back to differences of
opinion among the Geonim ; comp., for instance, Bosh ha-Shanah, 28 a
with TO'TD, I, 36.
THE HALAKIC LITERATURE 205
ment published in 6.S., pp. 318-25, containing linguistic
explanations bearing on the treatise Shabbat, with the
corresponding headings in the 'Aruk, and he cannot but
be convinced of Rabbi Nathan's dependence upon the
Geonim. Rabbi Abraham ben David, of Posquieres,
showed keen insight in judging of the value of Geonic
contributions to Rabbinic literature. He said, " At the
present time we may not explain a Talmud passage other
than the Geonim, unless we have irrefutable evidence
against their conception of it which is never the case."
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS OF TITLES
OF BOOKS
I'IN or j*N=sm TIM, by R. Isaac of Vienna.
n" or n*iN = D"n nimx, by R. Aaron of Lunel.
Vi3ttJN, by R. Abraham b. Isaac of Narbonne.
a*a = rmano D'owan nuiirn; the second volume of this book.
n*a = Responsen der Geonim, by A. Harkavy.
b*a=-o*->n pb ,a'aian rrowi.
oi'oa rroVn Vo ,-bV>n ;aiym mw awa niawn.
a*n=m l >'na mabn ed. Venice; ed. Hildesheimer is quoted as 'n a*r.
mpico rvo^n.
m ,mi3a mon.
nnsn.
, by R. Isaac b. Abbamari, ed. Lemberg, 1860.
c, by Rashi, ed. Constantinople, 1802.
rrchv nbnp, Geonic collection, ed.Wertheimer, Jerusalem, 1900.
aw, ed. Buber.
U3*\i} = nrras? 'nyc, by R. Isaac Ibn Gajat.
\cn a:*xc n
nan . . . oiNn mm.
an ma
jrrnn
Coronel = Nb'in ]3^n bonip *y C':iNa
6. S. = GenizaJi Studies ; the second volume of this book.
Graetz = Geschichte der Juden, vol. V, third edition.
Halevy = Dorot ha-Rishonim, III.
Harkavy. See n'a.
'Ittur. See 110?.
J. Q. R. = Jewish Quarterly Review.
Mafteah Einleitung in die Responsen der Geonen, by Dr. J. Miiller.
Pardes. See DinD.
R. E. J. = Rei-ue des Etudes Juives.
Sherira = Letter by R. Sherira, ed. Neubauer.
Z. H. B. = Zeitschriftfur hebrdische Bibliographie.
ADDITIONS
P. 4, n. i end. The Geonic Responsum in i>n*2B>, 38 and
E. Sherira, 33, 22 ; 34, 6 refer to the same persecution during the
reign of "1131P, and there can be no doubt that either fcrtf in
^rfyff is corrupted from ^Dim or niD'QB' from nB>3. Friedmann,
in the introduction to his edition of 'l Ifl'^N X D, 1012, has drawn
unwarranted conclusions from this corrupted passage. P. 8, n. r,
1. 8. Attention should be called to the fact, that " the Ten of the
first row" have their parallel in the -rrparroi Sena of the old
Palestinian councils. Comp. Schurer, Geschichte d. jud. Volkes, II,
253, fourth edition. P. 10, 1. 8 read Kimoi. P. 1 2, 1. 12 from below.
Nahmanides, NiVn, 28d, quotes a Geonic Responsum where the
triad (?) pK31 PJ^X D3n occurs. P. 12, 1. u from below. Comp.
Midrash STiemud, XX, 106, ed. Berber: N^N m"On m$>n pKB>
3*3. Does it refer to the triad of the presidency of the Sanhedrin ?
Yerushdlmi, Sanhedrin, II, 20 c reads nC^tJt3 PIDS. P. 13, 1. 13
(note). Attention should be called to the fact that DSN '"1, the
successor to R. Judah ha-Nassi, was his secretary, comp. Genesis
E. LXXV. P. 25, 1. 14. Comp. -|t5>Tl 'D, section pp, 773 ed. Venice,
where f*"iN=~vy. P. 25, n. i end. Comp. Midrash ha-Gadol, 190,
niTO i?y ''JT'Dyn, and the same in Gaster, nWJ?D, 4 ; the Aramaic
equivalent is: 7JJ Dp; comp. Hullin, 97 b. P. 29, 1. 12. R. Sherira
speaks ofE.Elhanan as one who was: nniBVi Eni'B'D nhnj nnt^3; "the
three rows " are referred to in Mishnah, Sanhedrin, IV, 4, and the
Midrash ha-Gadol, 741 : p3CW D'COPl n-'O^n *?V nmt^ vhw l^K
ny i>33 nn^B^. P. 32, n. 3. But more likely B>N")n is to be read,
the title of the head of the Kairwan academy. P. 40, n. 2. The
distance between Bagdad and Sura as given by Funk in the map
attached io his Juden in Babylonien, II, is by far too great.
P. 51, 1. 9 (note) read Bi*O2, 32, 86. P. 53, 1. 6 from below. In
the Egyptian academies the title JH JV3, shortened from JV3 3N
p*l, was used (Saadyana, 81), and there can be no doubt that |1N3
as title of the head of the Suran academy is shortened from
}1N3 nTB Bn. The description of the academy as 3pN' pN3
208 ADDITIONS
reminds one of the Aramaic expression Nfl I| *V1K*T Nip" 1 used by
R. Ashi, Berakot, I7b, in speaking of the grandeur of the Suran
academy, and there is no need to look for Latin or Persian models
for the }1NJ as Kohut (Aruch Completum, s.v.) and Sachs (Beitrage,
II, 83) do. Comp. also Abul K. Nathan, 25, ed. Schechter: pNJ
JJB^KI lit^N HT p-pn. P. 53, 1. 12 from below. Comp. W*W, I,
63: KTID1 KjmfU, where Njmm = KnnaDIB and J.Q.R., VI,
222. P. 58, 1. 8 (note). Comp. M. Coen ^K^DT, 297, and Jacob
Schorr D^oan Wy "VND , 2 7 b 2 8 b, concerning the use of the Talmudic
expression .TOp 3TV. P. 71, 1. 20. Comp. HBt3 D^Ha, where
Enoch introduces himself to Moses as "pUN *3X. P. 71, n. 2.
Comp. Targum, Isaiah xi. i, and Midrash Tehillim, XVIII, 157,
where p p = descendant. P. 77, n. 2 end. The scholars of
Kairwan (?) probably had in their mind the passage of Yerushalmi,
Maaserot, IV, 51 b: m:? 3"iyb = nn 'DHIon, which statement
implies that "IB>J?K& njop TOW pDD, else the Talmud would have
said TOBTI pSD3 instead of rat? 3"iy. Halevy I.e. and Eatner
DvtJTVI JVX rnnK, Pesahim, 124, are of the opinion that the
scholars of Kairwan refer to a passage not found in our text of
the Yerushalmi. P. 87, 1. 8. Comp. however NTTIN in G. S.,
390. P. 88, n. 5. Comp. I^TI 'D, ed. Eosenthal, 80 : ""NHS X 11
imp D^wab {TNT nTi:? ; for -mB> is to be read PTQ5?. P. 93,
n. i. Lerner, Jahrbuch d.jud. lit. Gesellschaft, I, 210 et seq., tries
in vain to prove the dependence of the Yelamdenu on the Sheeltot.
P. 93, n. 2. There can be no doubt that the author of the <piD
N**l was well acquainted with the Babli, but this does not imply
that he was a Babylonian. The Jewish custom spoken of in
chap, xvi is a Palestinian and not a Babylonian one, as can be
seen from D^nJD v\\?n, 37, ed. Miiller. The use of }Tn in the meaning
of "112V nvfc? in this Midrash is in all probability of Palestinian
origin ; the N^IDII 2i"IJO, an offset of the Palestinian aH3D is the
only one to use X^tn in the meaning of Qiai'3. P. 94, 1. 18.
Miiller in the introduction to his edition of DH31D 'DD, 21, main-
tains that the author of 'D r DD made use of the Sheeltot, but I
am not convinced of the correctness of this view. The Sheeltot
quotations in one version of the Tanhuma are later additions.
P. 94, n. 3. Sheelta, LXVI on JVJyn properly belongs to the
pericope NE>n, a part of which is read on fastdays, and not to
^Hp* 1 ! as the editions have it; ^n"3B>, 260, quotes this Sheelta
ADDITIONS 209
properly as ne> ^nTl Nn^NS?. P. 96, n. i, 1. 8. Comp. 'D
1B*n, 98 and 210. P. 1 08, n. i. The author of the hrfyff quotes
a number of passages from the 3'n which are not found in our
versions, comp. the list of quotations given below, pp. 1917.
P. 112, 1. 2 (note). As late as the time of Maimonides the Rab-
banites had to fight this Karaitic heresy, comp. his Responsa,
n. 149; comp. also 'n liT^K 'D, XVI, 75, ed. Friedmann.
P. 122, 1. ii (note). It is even doubtful whether R. Natronai
while speaking of the Haggadic D*BVB thought of Kalir ; the pre-
Kaliric Payyetanim, for instance, Yose benYose made use of the
Haggadah for liturgical purposes. P. 133, n. i. Comp. Wisdom,
xvi. 28 : " That it might be known that we must rise before the
sun to give Thee thanks, and must plead with Thee (="]^N ^203)
at the dawning of the light." P. 137, 1. 5 from below. Del.
the three Hebrew words. P. 142, n. i. The objection of the
Babylonians to Kol-Nidre and DH13 man in general is partly
due to the fact that there were no DTIO1D in Babylonia, while
the Palestinians continued to confer the ordination. P. 145, 1. 16.
Comp. -IBTI 'D, 82 : an 'TS ia wv nnetr 'T anan urns? -nrnca
moy 'n TIDO D'-nn. P. 145, n. 2. In IPVI 'D, 82, top, the
words JWVN y""~\ "V1D31 belong to the preceding sentence, and are to
be translated : " and the Seder of R. Amram contains it," namely
the benediction over the kindling of lights. A quotation from the
Seder not found in our texts is given in 1B"n 'D, 97. P. 149, n. i.
Comp. ^Tfyp, 42 with 3*n, 48 and To, 251 with eVca, 72. The
differences in the names go back to a different reading of the
abbreviation 3""). P. 152, 1. 21. A reference to this part of the
Seder is found in -|B*n 'D, 98. P. 167, n. The Seder of R. Saadia
is referred to in -|B>V1 'D, 82. P. 179, 1. 20 (note). The j*Bn 'D
is quoted in KH n3J?Q, section niDB' towards the end. P. 181,
n. 2. Comp. Sachs, pan 7 D, 9-14. P. 182, n. 3. Comp. however
the words of R. Hai in f&, 6 ; 94 d. P. 191 (22). Muller, Mafteah,
2 1 o refers to Pardes as the source for this Responsum of R. Hai,
but it is not found there. P. 193 (67). Comp. Hildesheimer, ad
loc. P. 193 (89). Comp. no^t? n^np, introduction, 15 et seq.
P. 193 (101). In the Seder ascribed to Sar Shalom. P. 193 (115).
Our texts of 3*1 read differently. P. 195 (258 : NH). The view
ascribed to the Gaon ( = Hai) in D'JH D'Dn is just the opposite
of that ascribed to R. Hai by the author of ^Y'3B'. P. 197 (399 :
I P
210 ADDITIONS
Comp. Mordecai, Huttin, 420, j'DD, Commandement, 63
and fix, I, 1 1 4 b, who had the same text of the J*n as ^n*3K> ;
Hildesheimer's remark to j'n, 527, n. 59, is to be corrected ac-
cordingly. P. 205, 1. 5. This remark of RABeD is found in
his MS. niJtJTl against R. Zerechiah Gerondi in the Sulzberger
Collection of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America.
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.
ARY
below.
if ^/ea-
rn isti
v.l
