(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Geonica"




TEXTS AND STUDIES OF THE JEWISH 
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF AMERICA, VOL. H 



GEONICA 

BY 

LOUIS GINZBE. 



The Library 
University of California, Los Angeles 




GEONICA 



II 



OXFORD : HORACE HART 
PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY 



TEXTS AND STUDIES OF THE JEWISH 
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF AMERICA, VOL. II 

GEONICA 



BY 

LOUIS GINZBERG 



II 
GENIZAH STUDIES 



NEW YORK 
THE JEWISH THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF AMERICA 

1909 




nrojn p 



5V\ 

501,5" 






HNO 



1S>52857 



CONTENTS 

PAGE 

GEONIC RESPONSA: FRAGMENTS I-XXXV1II ... i 

APPENDIX : FRAGMENTS XXX1X-XLVII (Shefltot and 

Halakot Gedolot) ....... 349 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS OF TITLES OF BOOKS . 402 

INDEXES : 

SUBJECT INDEX TO THE RESPONSA .... 404 

GENERAL INDEX 411 

ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS 419 



GESTIZAH STUDIES 

GEONIC RESPONSA 

I. 

FRAGMENT British Museum Ta, parchment, consists 
of a quire of two leaves, the middle pages of which 
are missing, and contains 19 lines on the first, 18 on the 
second, 20 on the third, and ai on the fourth page. It is 
written in a square Rabbinical hand of about the thirteenth 
century, and represents portions of a collection of Geonic 
Responsa. Although no name is mentioned in the Responsa 
there can be no doubt about their Geonic origin, as 
the first Responsum was known to Rabbi Nathan ben 
Jechiel, who made use of it in his *Aruk, s. v. "IYIK> l . 
The description of the bonfires on Purim among the 
Babylonian and Elamitic Jews 2 , as given in the 'Aruk, 
undoubtedly goes back to our Responsum 1 . But it does 
not seem that Rabbi Nathan had this Geonic Responsum 
before him. He probably took his explanation from Rabbenu 
Hananel or some other old commentator on Sanhedrin, 64, 
who had copied 'the Geonic Responsum. The Gaon 
describes the burning of Haman in effigy as follows : 
Four or five days before Purim the young men make 
an effigy of Haman, and hang it on the roof. On Purim 
itself they build a bonfire, into which they cast the effigy, 

1 p'nniD or pbnw or pbraiD in the 'Aruk gives no sense, and is to be read 
ptow as in the fragment. 

a See Hirschfeld, B. A. /., VII, p. 174, Tschorni, rwDon 'D, pp. 191-2; 
and Safir, TED J2N, fol. 86 b. 

* B 

> 



2 GENIZAH STUDIES 

while they stand around joking and singing, at the same 
time holding a ring above the fire and waving it from side 
to side through the fire. 

The purpose of the ring is not stated by the Gaon, but it 
may be assumed that the effigy was suspended from it. 
The Aramaic word for this ring is Nmit?D, " the jumper," 
and the same word is used for " stirrup." 

The second Responsum is also of " culturgeschichtlich " 
interest. It deals with the use of liE'DX, which was no longer 
known in the West, as shown in the explanations of 
Baba Mezia, 47 b, by Rabbenu Hananel and Rashi. 

According to the Gaon, pr^DX, which the Talmud explains 
by pmon TfA jo'-on pn'jn niyo, is used thus: For a silver 
coin a man purchases the right to take ten baths ; and in 
token of having prepaid the price of admission, he receives 
ten copper pieces from the keeper of the bath-house. For 
each bath one of the copper pieces is given back to the 
keeper, and these checks are called pio^DX. The Gaon adds 
that so late as his own time the same system was in vogue 
among bakers and porters. 

The third Responsum is an answer to the following 
question : One of two witnesses who had signed a bill of 
divorce declared that the divorce was not valid, because 
the husband was forced by the ruler of the place, pD^t?, to 
divorce his wife. In his answer the Gaon treats very 
exhaustively the legal maxim TJD1 inn WN 3H? Tins? JTCJ, 
showing when witnesses may modify statements made by 
them previously. 



GEONIC EESPONSA 

(Leaf i, recto.) 

m epya BWI lira p-aijn 



KIM 



pus 103 niroict? o-n J3 wvp tnTa xnian 'ttfnwoa 'OK 



8 *i*o 7 &*N pn'yso nnx >y nnx nirmo 
nini? Tn n M *] 



pn 

, L 9 (?)rrnrn 

pmp IO NV spa 7wm0 jMXBpm n^b nw pnow pap DNI 



B P PIBIK (?)rnn VB^N inoeB* jon p*n IQNI "rnw 
"pruo nmsn -"D 11 jn snis iuw nnn 13 -ayN jnon 12 ^o pntDw 
nynns prwiffii !?y nnix p^ini jcrrs mw peny omrnn a o^yi 10 
mivn nx nainb p^ow B^ mno 15 pow nnian arai D^ 
B>n n^na n^i^n nyat3 cni> ^i PT-DTCI (?) pprnw nnno omnan pnoyn 
nyapni Kniuw nsnpj nyntao nms mn w*n *nk t^sn nvo pipi 
nnsn 1^1 nx m mo ssnns? 01031 "on3 nmx p^ne* nyson *oa pi 
16 jm WTBII Kmwo wn nr Nmit? nxnpj nons 
ponpot? i^n moipon pnao na ymon n^ p^on 17 pjvjn myo 
jnu jnnon i'yni nnx pjoan ^ poasat? nvsys rn&y pmon n3^ 
woo iupro 3 }^D jnB> flgmn&& niyaoo my nrn 
i^ &yyy for 

1 Sanhedrin, 64 b. 

J The editions of the Talmud as well as the MSS. read 'Oi On. 
3 The editions have- MJIID, but the MSS. have wvttJ, see Dikduke So/mm, 
ad loc. * -vy?) of the printed text is more correct. 

* The copyist wrote N1T2 twice instead of NDM. 
6 Read NmvDiM. 7 Read HJN. 8 The copyist left out m. 

9 By some mistake the word mayn is put here instead of after Tn, line 5. 
10 Sic ! " rroo. la Baba Batra, 96 b. 

13 Read <DS ; see Dikduke Safer im, ad loc. 

14 Read amo or "?322 on the margin ; the copyist added taa which he had 
left out in the margin. 

15 Read pew. 16 Baba Mezia, 47 b. 

17 Only MS. Ham. reads forran, the editions and all the other MSS. 
have rrurrcn, w [na 

B a 



4 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Leaf i, verso.) 

jtaia nr nanoa jn^ nxn DKI yrn-n pmob naaa niyaaon jnix po nn jraoo 
13 nnbni'1 pinnai> anao t?> tiyi n.3 reny po mwa oaaai pmoa prm-i a 
>D nr ^yi pD3 rvwaW myo npM lamai 'n&ton HN w Dinnan 
i>ou nnx Dinmi? ^ N^D^ prai '-n 'ai n^on ^n^ JD^D hn 
3 'sew : i^a wnai p^o J^DW nyai nj?a W 2 n^aon pi viw no 5 
ITBH ^D i? nnna *vjw^ n^"y N!> 5ci naN xoan n 
n^a payb nrn pe6n no $na pa t^ia pa n^xun ha IK 



ina vtry at^i 6 -i>y < 'B> nvnx ia lana^ oipon wm Kin 
naa NI NDSH nna nB^t^ D'iK> pvapat? j^ye' anao a nann 



no n?nna a nti^D mxn 121 p nitry p ITT p jaai> s iaa 10 
nnai xax -i xa xoan nua atjv Nin rrn bNitJ pns^ NTSD an rbw 
n u^n NniB> nns nob Dasn ii> NI taao an lyoe' oan n^a nna 



ynu mna 12 ons DB> sw yiTa ^ya IKVD wa^ sbni 

T WTEW DIP D1K ^K> JCTa D33H^ ptf ]m pB> TTO 

lyotj'B' jva N^N oaan^ sax r n^ 'DK nw amo N^ KIBD an 
pi N^ania poo ivy NHB^ D S NI "bn^roci Kin "PDIDP ia 

nnnn p^o ppninn n^ tnxn ns 15 N s aND nrnn -ncy 'DIX 'oa p 



1 The Arabic JiJ. 

* Berakot, 6a b ; Tamid, I ; cf. '-drufc, s. v. Tc, VI, 96-7, ed. Kohut. 

8 Perhaps TON ? The editions have wron ny, some of the MSS. J3 ny.; 
see Dikduke Soferim, ad loc. 

6 Gen. xxxii. 4. 7 Gen. xxxvi. 8. 

8 Editions : iro with n, but MS. Paris has also ire. 

See leaf a, recto, line 5. 

10 Sic ! u Sic ! 

12 This agrees with the text of the Mishnah Tamid, I, I ; in the Qemara 
Berak., 62 b, iNso is repeated before nine . 

13 Read picnc. 

14 See MegiUah, 158 : brtnnrn VttD, and 'Aruk, I.e. 
14 Bead H'aa. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 5 

(Leaf a, recto.) 

nan b r6nn n n^ea D'ainan onain "ICIN vnyn 
ns UIDD a icnm any <at? lanap nTDta nny DP e*n 
y n onn DP p DK pxni px D^N n^i^a ^ m^ 
p n^ii D^PD DJ i?^ wu h . . . i ^ m* cmnt? ^B i>y IK 
njn n^"ijn nr nooa N^J Dijn ea PJ^K ni> ana I^KB> can 5 
nx UIDD *a way jnom nan ny ^jw ^a ^y CJNI nenv wn 
mDD noiK jno nnxty jva mDD nny n^ wna N!? ^ax m^ 
nsna^ h nn^ya po^ nwin^ n^a^i nn^n n^oa 
nan ton mo n^ nan nw inana rptn rwn^ xh nb PK 

vc>ay^ Di^aa j.TT'a n* cnn jw nnM n^taa HTDO IDNB> 10 
PKI nnx ny vbv yiwi nyn D3i npy!> IN i^nan^ a sin 
Taah t^Nn nenn* nprno nnenn* ns N*yini v^y paoio 
$>yan eni nprro n^sn pary ^a oy onn niypnpn nvni> 
moo *a onyn JB> lonrn iana . . . . aa DM b pT3 jnw pi rva 

nan ip^y nn*n ntaa moo noii> jno nnx xa i^ayi oan nx m^ 15 
onan JB^ inioni' B vbx 1 wnm IM *un nostr nnyi> non U^N nr 
onan N^N penny iw na^a^ wa nrvn naos ncus wnB> naoNi? nnn 
pna nn tb lain nn nai?a na -6w DTK aa^ niNnni? D^na 
a iDi^ nno mDoa Dnm ana^ nnx m^oon nyo nnxn tyn 
ntc am nna 3 KB'B' an 'ON 2 pnw ia nB'Na mvn n^ea 20 



1 See Ketubot, 19 b. 2 Ketubot, ibid. ' The editions have mcc. 



GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Leaf a, verso.) 

MDyta wo PJDMJ p 'nn vn mow IIMB> DMy wns 2110 
nm vn TODM iioii> pw uw p"3i lonn x^ xhyK KM xhyn 
> nrn i3in ns men!' vv N^N 'un pM 'DIN iyi n:n 'DIM iyi> 
DNP Dan po . . . . |no nnx on* vvo wnn vn Ny*rio now? 
....(?) IDWI s^n ntai noiD WB> mDD ^3 DTIV vn nnyi' ^jan 5 

JND ""sn n5TB> nn 'ON 'pnoMi Nin i?t32 can nr 
ino nnw 'nvDjn xanx xb KD^B njnto 
pi 'jn^ 5<i oj ^n NIO^NI fr V Np 4 n <| jni^ Tboa n^ion 
nxn noN 11 ^ TV ^MD 6 ]r\w ny mis psia D 11 ^ *oaa 'DIM nn 

b I^N onn my poni S NDP ,Ty*r,Di> n^ ^oaon nyi 10 
rrenu *3 inisnn!? DJ ni? ID N!J DN^ po^n DJIN DP 

DD n^VD ^fl^ n!?N^3 BHB 1PM3 ^13 DJ1N iT^ 

.... nn nsD -I^N ejm sin na b3Ba 'a NJHID ^IDIDI tan 

s^n Kjnio io "^Mjnina ns 10 pnosn in o^p wnn nr 
synio NM MiniD ixb N^sn n^Diiitt ITS pjn* "nnp PM 15 

xynitt I^NI MM N^yn MH^D ^a ru . . . ci on >N 
nppo paa IS D^NT a\n MSMI mio 14 ^3TM Nynio puna N^ 
px tynan vn WDM 'DM *PM nn na no 16 p"ii UN nrn 
N^ nn any 1 ? \rM nr Noyta MD PJDW 13*131 vn 
I ni> IDM ib PIDIMI mn iyn ns |^st 

DM1 ^B3 D3 1D1 MM 



Read unm. s Arakin, 21 b. * Editions: mw. 

The editions 1. c. omit mninb. 5 The editions have p D 

The editions 1. c. omit iniN pBl3 D'TDJ *oua nni nn pi. 

The editions 1. c. omit '3N nsn. 8 The editions omit op. 

Perhaps rnm'J. 10 JSaba Batra, 40 a. 

1 The editions I.e.: *mn:. M Editions omit. 

u The editions 1. c. omit nmn ibNi. " Editions : 

T, editions o3M. w Ketubot, 19 b. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 



II. 

Fragment British Museum T b, paper, consists of a quire 
of two leaves, of which the middle pages are missing, 
written in an ancient, square Rabbinic hand, not later, 
probably, than the thirteenth century. It represents eight 
Geonic Responsa, coming from a collection in which 
numbers 2-8 of the fragment formed the Responsa 16-22. 
As all the Responsa of the fragment, with the exception 
of the last three, are explanatory D'BTiQ of some difficult 
passages of the treatise Pvsahim, we may well assume 
that there is not much missing between the first leaf of 
the fragment, containing an explanation of Pesahim, 10 b ^ 
and the second leaf dealing with Pesahim, 55 a. 

The order in which the Responsa are given is probably 
the original one, and not that of the compiler who 
arranged them, as is shown by the fact that the last three 
Responsa, dealing with three difficult passages of Yoma, are 
not in accordance with the order of the Talmud. If this 
assumption is correct, then we may ascribe these eight 
Responsa to Hai Gaon, as the seventeenth Responsum is 
quoted in the 'Aruk, s. v. TJ, with the words NTip rvn psan, 
and JlNirt "par excellence" in the 'Aruk is none other than 
Hai Gaon, the D^ixjn pnnK, as Abraham ibn Da'ud calls 
him. Miiller's statement, in his Einleitung, p. 195, accord- 
ing to which the author of the nineteenth Responsum (No. 
30 in Harkavy's Collection) is the Gaon Sherira, is there- 
fore to be corrected. Besides, there is no real reason for 
ascribing this Responsum to Sherira, except that the pre- 
ceding Responsum, No. 29 in Harkavy's collection, seems to 
come from Sherira's hand. I say " seems," because Hai 
Gaon also might have spoken of Judah Gaon as his wax UK, 
in the sense of great-grandfather. 

1 The fact that Rabbenu Hananel, in his Commentary on Pesahim, 55 b, 
also made use of Hai's Responsum, misled Kohut to believe that the 'Aruk 
was quoting Rabbenu Hanauel ; see Kohut's note ad loc. 



8 GENIZAH STUDIES 

Our fragment shows further that Harkavy 1 was wrong 
in assuming that MS. I of his collection is a copy of 
the original Responsa which were kept in the archives 
of the Geonim. Numbers 30-3 1 2 of his collection, when 
compared with Nos. 19 and 22 of our fragment, prove to 
have been copied from an incomplete collection in which 
Nos. 1 6- 1 8 and 20-21 were missing. 

The first Responsum contains a long explanation of 
Pesahim, io6-na', and is a highly interesting illustration 
of the Geonim as commentators of the Talmud. It shows 
that the very concise style of the Geonim in explaining the 
Talmud, as found in many of their Responsa, must not be 
considered as the only way the Talmud was then explained. 
The passage in Pesahim,, 106, explained in this Responsum, 
is not a difficult one ; the Gaon nevertheless took pains to 
explain it in such a way that he made it possible even for 
a beginner to comprehend the Talmudic discussion. We 
may therefore assume that the Geonio B^na of the Talmud 
was by far more exhaustive than is generally believed, 
but in answering questions relating to difficult passages 
of the Talmud, the Geonim, for practical reasons, gave only 
the digest of a commentary. 

In the second Responsum the Gaon gives as the correct 
reading of the Mishnah, Pesahim, IV, 8, enpn bv nvnra, and 
adds that ""TNia is the Aramaic equivalent for Hebrew D'SJjj. 
It is worth noticing that the reading given by the Gaon is 
not found in any of the editions or MSS. of the Mishnah 
or Talmud. But perhaps nVPTJ in the Vienna MS. of the 
Tosefta (Pesahim, II, 19, ed. Zuckermandel) is a copyist's 
error, as 1 and T are often confounded in Hebrew MSS. 
The Mishnah ed. Lowe has nVDtt, thus connecting it with DM 
"to cut," and in a similar way nHti is to be explained as 
derived from T13 " to cut." 

The third Responsum contains the Gaon's explanation of 

1 Introduction to his edition of Responsen, p. viii. 

1 It is very surprising that Miiller had entirely overlooked No. 31, which 
is therefore missing in his Einleititng. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 9 

the expression DEVI i>ya in Pesahim, 86 b, where he explains 
differently from Rashi. According to the Gaon the gentle- 
man referred to in the Talmud introduced himself as ai 
NJin, because he wanted to indicate his title of 31, and this 
explanation is more probable than Rashi's, according to which 
the name N3in 31 was given to him at his birth. 

The two charms to which reference is made in the 
Talmud (Pesaibim, 1 1 1 a) are given in the fifth Responsum. 
The first charm runs as follows : " God of gods, save me 
from an evil encounter, from the evil Adversary (=JBB>), 
from grievous sickness. Guard me as the apple of the eye 
[is guarded], for in thy hand are power and strength, and 
thou art God." The second reads : " Forsake me not, and 
abandon me not ; hide not thine eye from me ; be thou 
a guardian unto me. Answer all my petitions unto thee 
with yea, and not with nay." 

The last three Responsa are explanations of the Talmudic 
passages, Yoma, 66 b, 44 b, and 28 b. The first of these 
three Responsa was known to R. Hananel, who made use 
of it in his commentary on Yoma, but it seems that he did 
not know the Gaon's explanation of Yoma, 28 b. In the 
Responsum dealing with Yoma, 44 b, the Gaon quotes a 
Midrashic passage which is found in the Pesikta de Rob 
Kahana, but unfortunately the text of the fragment is in 
very bad shape, and it is therefore doubtful if the source for 
the Gaon was the Pesikta or some other Midrash. 

(Leaf i, recto.) 

wirm p ninab vb pro 'pin nW 'ON 'am nwna IIDN Nint? a by 
jw iir:6 nai D 'iirp 'IP now "pun WIONI run BTVSH b 

'i N^HI woo bsvb 13 N$>B> nyon JOT ins penn by ppnia 
r\yb TIOD TP na IIDN Nin5j> jora cnna poynni> i . . . 2 
woo ^a&o ^IN mm Ni?i 'B>IT pw3 ^PI nop ixo ID ... 3 5 
woo bwb Nia* Nijp nya JOT IHN pn npnai? wn 'a ni . , 4 



1 Pesa/iiw, iob-ii a; JlfenaA., 67 b-68 a. 

8 [TTID.] 3 [noiyn.] * [rrra.] 



10 GENIZAH STUDIES 



inin yh enrw ^b tnnb non pcnn PK 'ON Kin f3 enn 

pa epop3 K!>K TOP ptn mwo 7113 K^K n poyn . . 2 

K2 WK1 W3 B TlD'K '3 Kin 



8 ' 



3 mpnm wno nn NVI epop T w n-rep inn 
N nnK n^N3 fe NDK* 'nw 'n 



7 
'nin* 'n tr^n t 9 . , . > ..... nbr Nnn? ns 8 naj 33 y 

nr ^3 HICK ns 10 n . . h n^pni ax nrni npnn pjyb 15 
poy snnn ipoy^ 

naopiKi penu ^ i>nN D'-poynt?' pn^n n^i pisnp 13^6? nn 

PIT'S naitwin iJ^nyn f>y ns pnai nan ^ inm irrm mm* /- i3 

N3 ww Kin TOT oo ^ poynom "wpnp p3 t^nn paj6 IOKI 

wb 13^1 ponn JD ^ra WK nyion nnx pnian ^nx n^sx H^ 20 
mm h nri? 'nin 'n e^n 13 a^ nb3 n^ Kin Kin 11 . " oy . . . 
pB> enni 'nm 'n nn wvtppn no? f?stn Kan 
m wvsppn K!?I ^ ^B'lrn pom 13 ..... by 
pro pnm b n^pDya^ pr6c>n nn nivpb now 
t6 'niiT 'm 'mm 'm 14 naf n^nb Kin tu "irm vby pnnb iv 25 
rkvvb Kin ixip nn3 '3 K^P b pnmK pa-ni 3K nw 
vby Kin pnin j*ona b3K mnoKi n^3K n^ Kin 11 xbv wvn 
K3i n^3K n^ Kin 11 K^ iB^n vb vsb nKtb vby inym 

w^nwe'D bv nowao "IHK pna pnab ^K 3n 
ny K^I 'bpi nop K!>D KNTB> D^rrr 'PIB' nK 30 
KM 18 Knn3 ^K nm pb pn^wi n^n m"xpo K^K nwo 
3i moiy 



I [nn.] 

* [TOTI : 

7 [m>pi.] "Read no:. L ... _, 

10 nnb ; see Dikduke Soferim, ad loc., where it is shown that the correct 
reading is nn, not as our editions have it, Nn. 

II Bead NOTD ? " mm ? 1S nn. " So in the MS. 

15 Editions : wvm, but MS. Oxf. : rvu, see Dikduke Soferim, ad loc., and 
'Aruk, a. v. 13, II, 166, ed. Kohut. 



GEONIC RESPONSA II 

porn 13 wem ' nwo bna b pon 'ox& 'w 'ib a b& ipi-va by 



2 



4 nx . , p naipj maiat? 3 ntrb *vnn nm mm* 'i in n^o bna 35 
un naap ins pen xb nobi natwo xnrvy b^aa i:n *a by 



(Leaf r, verso.) 

tonn pen p i?nn WNB> ^a!> Ninn p^n p panonbi nnnpb 



b pbi nnow nnB' b^ mom ^a&a woo DIN ijnu n:n a 
6 . . , n no^s 5^3^35? noNn TK w^pm intm npna pjy 
7 , , . ban pm mm* 7 n b vwnw na^n ma nan UNVO nni 'nin 'n B'B'n vb 
. abai 8 K*poa IK siJia vby 1112 'IN 'nirv 'n iaaiy N^N nenp N.T 
11 ... noK by IOID WK }N3^ 'niiT 'TTK 'nin 'n^r 10 na pno 
. , , ian ""a by jn^b n*nm nne' no^N by IOD ntn na^yn nx IDINI 
. . . 12 jyn ns iTnn jKae* jniTK pa*n N^pi vn xbi IOB* nsbo 
. S D by 13 . . . . bc> maiss? jn^b noK ccn nn^p *ib wa NO^ is^n bi 10 

14 ............. mbi nrb ijprai inrni 1200 pano 11 sb^ uwn ^ nan 

, , . . pnpio ..... pjbnnnD c^o^a nnio Nin^ |V3 eibn^o 15 

un 16 a by pp be* r.iaiaa> jn-'b innoNi nwn 12 'ab nns T'noi ins 
in nabnno ir pro rrvB*pa 17 naay np^y bax nmon pw ib Fibnn* 

mrm niB'pb xa uw IIDN i^p , . . jnv auyb mix p^no^ai 15 
, , . 18 oaa 'bn pntsnp irjty xbn 1:10x1 . . , iTnnt}> 'anb u^pni nxra my 
KD^b^K *Kon ban xn moxi nana upnpm n^no 'iin 11 'ni bana xb bax 
ioa '"nn 'i Tn^ IBBK 'bin nx ia i^ipi ban npibs? xobyn ban 19 ^aa-r 
KVW pma b^ ban nw KB^B 20 Nbm Kin KDP b^ -IB>P sbm nr 



1 About the same space is left empty in the MS. 

a ISVITI to. s Dicb. * Read n 

5 Empty space in the MS. [rucn.] 7 [^T.] 

8 This is also the reading of MS. Munich ; see Dikduke So/erim, ad loc. 

9 [nabn.] 10 Read s'ujp ni. " [naw.] 

12 [nrarn.] " [ns>a.] " [vb panw pm.] 

14 Add p3TE2 p. 

16 This is the correct reading, not as the editions have it : "tin isa . 
17 Re*dn:'N. ls N'pD'Da. l * So in the MS. 

30 Read Nbw. 



12 GENIZAH STUDIES 



13 n^bob nnx -re 'bin ns ienpi N3i nns ivo J inavb ia 20 
poaat? 'bn bans wnn cm p ic>y xbt? 'can nra 2 pi wnw nyt? *ab 
nrb m pen D'bsnn a ibnn bsn3 bsn pai -jb no lap-iai aayb 
iTVt?p b3K noxa "p'abi nr bx *ii in* onjte nra ITDID nnNB'ai 
nt3B>B3 IT PN na^ya n-'no nnsc'ai itb non IT PNI NB^HID i> 
am "axa 'nn* 'n ^ PITS NVOJ-I onnana 'am 'T-rr 'n inoy nm 25 
bs nan B by pt? ^ nnsiBK' nyna paai cnn jiaa pan TM vb 
"mn> 'ib ib ie>pn "it^Ni niyan nnx pen npH3 paa lira bns H 
I3a niBiBK'a pD 1K>N3 n3B> no^x by *]o xbi n3^ayn ns 
Nxai n^y nna nn xb ib mnio nn^n I^NI n3^3 na^y ba 3 TDK 
'i b^ injn by PTBB> ''ax n3ib la^pni p nnx lanrm K3Nia pain 30 
nai no ib'-asi niaab m rpnb 3 niDB' man ira sb bnan M3\Ti 'line 
p "IDS nrtr iaiDD by bins ms paya Dn^at^ nsn lapTBi pamw pam 
oyon jo n^nn 'cann ibxi invpoa in-vnn DS n3n3 pns^ sb^ nrn nytsn 
pnan by la^pni inion ns vby niDNb niran ON T3-Q ps sb^ nrn 
vipb pnB^ JB t^'n ^bi woo by bins DIN nyo sw DiT3 b^ nrnss 
nn 'oann SJNI DIO mnn npyt? mp3 pna* IB nia33 tjnnn n^ss 
mpb pia* IB NOC? i^^n xbi woo by bm3 ms^ >B by SJKI sjixn*? 
on ib irp' b DN -iiaan '3 pa-n xnyn by lapn^ai 4 , . . . a wvn 

(Leaf a, recto.) 



7 niB' 'TW '11 6 a^n paaon n*a nbia^ nipya DK 6 10-03 a*' 
9 " ninn ny^ ny D^D* 'a vaab & *3 



iroo 7 T >3 1310 min> 7 i nn i^x wsrpn HNTDI KWI nyn ny 
E'aao ppn 'OIN n>n wbx 10 ..... , na mpyai a^a t^aao .Tn IDIS iT-n xb 
m3ibi 'Tb Nin wfyv "... . -inn DVP *sb nbnity nbi3*B> 1T3 mpyai 5 



\yv. * Read pn. Read now. 

* [nwaa.] Pesohim, 55 a. 

The use of the word yn here is very strange, as the question is only 
whether by putting the nVuTO back he would be able to use it after rairn 



Our texts have iciD, but R. Hananel also reads uro. , 

>0 [rfrunc.] " [m'sp mm.] 



GEONIC RESPONSA 13 



'nn 'ON N>I 'a * ..... inoi 'V nv 2 oy ' 
P-PB Nin nn 'nn naabo rvwk Tno mn N^P i3noi> main 
7 ....... naxte rwjn -inio 'T 'nw '-i 6 -i3N 'jn 'i>o 'N 'INI PB>PD 5 ia . . . 

31 'ON MpTB nNT $>yi D^ '3 N3'Nn 'T3 N^ 'T3 . . . 

n I^BK rbwv m mpyj DNB> sin p MTI 9 iem 10 
'j<a 5^330 n\i 13^ ^oi nTxp ninn ny ny n^ 'a VJQ!? B ^3 

M1TH1 'T3 t^33 HM HMB^ p^ B '11.T3 ^3N 'T-3 



pm N^ 

b^a *B*3K ^3 i"i>a nwn^i *KOB' n3^ IT m^o nxvisa 'DIN MOB nn 15 

PITS pTSl 13 <B>K 3T K31 7 T ^^ ^330 JTH ni3^ JH^ B WDP H^33 

*OB n*33 vb IT min 'n n^o nx T'oyni? psnv M p 'ONI 
n*n 'ION h 'an ^3310 HM mm* 'n 'ON IB'N nn 'in iivp^ IDINB' i^^a 
iriN or> N^N mnrp "inn nys? ny ii> pN 'nn *?nvtm& ^ao 'nn 
1^ nn I^NI 'v DV nvpoi IBID ny^ hnw nytro 'n 11 nv nvpot 'in w 20 
iniN 10 }n^ni 1^33 DVH nvpo 'OIN Mn nnN nv nvpoi tf&bv D 1| 0' t 
DV nvpoi N^D nnN DV N^N b PNB> way M/ noN nvpo nn Nin nn 

nbtt njnojw in Bn s a Nin m 14 pnN N^ nxpo pnn 'a ov ' 
ja N^I m^3 ND 15 Bnpn i?^ nwoa 'ew n.3 ^a n^nni? i3mn jw a ^ 
'^3 jniN pnip PN jn o^np^n 'syi neb** wpenp fni 1B iNi3 niTNia 
PT ^3N vm tnpn *?v ni3^N ^B3y jntp nvrNian N!?N nNia 
pN3n phTa3 TNia T'na MK nmp N^N iBnpn N!? 'ni3N 'DINI 



17 ........... I^N3 n^yo PN 'DIN D-'osn^ 'Nni 'osn nnn 

19 18 



n.3 nnNi TTC& enpn 

a Read ir. 3 ['j> 

4 Reading doubtful. s I2n:n. " Read TON. 

7 ['ra cooon IQ mob] ; instead of ra, beginning of line 9, read 'ra. 

8 This is the correct reading, not Vm as the later editions have it. 

9 ? 10 See n. 6 on preceding page. u Read rrtrrouV). 
12 [w.] " Editions and MSS. : urn. 

14 This is also the reading of MS. Munich, see Dikduke Soferim ad loc. 
18 Pesahim, 55 b. w See 'JLrMfc, s. v. IQJ. " ['DV 'T pi.] 

18 Mishnah Meilah, 13 a. 

19 [pbrm fl na J'bria] ; this is a free quotation from Mishnah Meilah, 
III, 6. 



14 GENIZAH STUDIES 

1 nb>y PMB >B by SJN 'n 'DIM "pv NbN 'biai p'bn'aa 30 

8 2 }na 13 NJin 3m N.I 'wr\ jn3 B 



(Leaf a, verso.) 

13 'JN DEVI by3 ino 'bi3i win m mb 'DM "pt? no ib nN pny na pna 
'biai 5 Dapr nanDD pma 3n npi na<B*a aM 4 
ii>M jm na WM 3i l| Dt}> ns^i 7 i n^ n 

na win pawn DHMI w D o^jnv own N jru na win n: 
b jnu nan 7 *ai , . a DTII* nnx win 3n nab n"iN^ jvai 5 
N3 nnsj NSQ 3-1 'DM MD , . . . 9 s ..... 8 pnoMi Mn 'BW 

10 ..... nnan IDN^ n^n pai 1^3 TOW IN bpi IN a^a P^oan DNB> 'IN Min p 

11 ......... jn ^noi y~\ \ovrn yi yaao xn D^M b IDMB* paa bx ona 

12 ...... DI $>N onain BMH NVDJ bx nnsi miaai na Ti^a a py na pwMa 

14 ........ ni^ ^ iTn >JD n^y o^yn N^ yon N^ 13 "oaryn sb IDMK IM 10 

m i3nb nnwa I^N onan ^21 isb IDNH ^w |*n noxn 



y 'oan 

IN xan obiyb pbn ib PNI niawn I^N n^Na V3N in^% by 
n3ina Nb o^a^a pwrpi n3irm tvm 16 an 'DM 'ivr a-na jb 
0^313 nrjrbN 'n j^bani Man obiyb pbn mbaaNb ib v> na >abi perpp Nbi 
Minn ^a NIUD D nobe* by ibN^ DibB'aN by pbMPD DHNK' ny nnb INI 
onan nnnswi 'biai Non noibt? noiNn ba 17 jn^v 'n 'CN aoro na bNi{^ 'n TDNT 
na bai nbnna onbNt? Dibc>3N by nnb IN tonyb in noben 



1 [oipr> too pViTaa.] *Pea/ifm, 86 b. * [ 

* [iTOCro.] s Mishnah Sanhedrin, I, 3. Sanhedrin, 13 b. 

7 :nyac. 8 Pesahim, ma. * [DTIDE 'nra.] 

10 D'coi bM Dm Vnnoc, see Harkavy's edition of the Teshubot ha-Geonim, 
p. 8. ll '3-roc. 

12 b DDlDl ; from H2O3 to i is not found in Harkavy. 

11 3lin M 1 ? not found in Harkavy, but given by Rabbenu Hananel in 
his Commentary, ad loc. J * n:w Harkavy. 

" Yoma, 66 b ; cf. Taussig, DiVw rru, pp. 73-5 ; Wertheimer, mfra rtnp, 
pp. 42-3. 
u Sanhedrin, 21 a. 1T S/ol)6af, 56 b. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 



15 



K> 2 tn a BW nawn 
pi pTnj p:oi pn jua nnnon nx 
ona 



D p " 



non 



NBtten 25 



r nn onwoa n 
p 18 naan 



12 
nona 



onwo p 
navn N!J 17 . . . . 



pi 



T 20 naa nun ^in nnn pw 19 . . . , nnvn 
xnn ^J l| D1 S1 mayo nt^p nnuy ninnn ivy noon p nm 1 * in 



na nnoi 



nann nnw .... xn^an 



pom nini nr nan 



35 



p now 



1 [rtm or rbon.] a Foma, 44 b. 

J [pnuji]] ; the editions have prreM. 

4 [ni3im pDD3] ; see Pesikta, ed. Buber, XXIX, 186 below ib r p'n 
7 i3i iroo oca. 

* Pesikta, ad loc., PTITO, but see '^IrwA;, s. v. prrc?i3, V, 396, ed. Kohut. 
8 [n'apn sbw Niab Tro 

7 ulboda Zara, 3 b below. 

* m mDT nosi n is the reading in Harkavy's text, Responsen der Geonim, 
p. 12. 

* Foma, 28 b below. 10 [Vi3i <bm N:I.] 1J [nno.] 
1Z In Harkavy : na Vi non 'XD. 

13 Harkavy : 'DI ao'Vi m J'tnpj DTCD ^wsvc. 

14 Harkavy : yoin be jpsp nbm :n ; read sbn instead of nbrr. 

18 [NTCQMDQ icp utroxo.] 16 Gen. xix. n. 

17 Harkavy: Kbi p?n pnintna. 18 Harkavy: nnws. 

19 Harkavy: nona. a:) ..... Harkavy: Tvra F) 1 )! 'nai. 
21 Toma, 29 a. 

M Read rno ; Harkavy: nca nann im nnN i^xo ina mn 

8S nn ^M ; Harkavy : rnoim 

a * Harkavy: V. a5 Harkavy: E'p vr'yttj Ttoan norma. 

26 Read HYJW. 



l6 GENIZAH STUDIES 

IIL 

Fragment Taylor-Schechter, paper, consists of a quire 
of two leaves, one of which is here given. It represents 
the remainder of a collection of Geonic Responsa, 
of which the whole of one, the beginning of another, 
and the end of a third Responsum are preserved. 
The complete Responsum deals with the expression moa 
rmtwin occurring in 2 Chron. iii. 3, which the Gaon tried 
to explain by the Tannaitic tradition that the standard of 
measurements was changed in post-Biblical times. In his 
somewhat lengthy discourse he remarks: " Know that the 
Books of Chronicles consist of two parts ; of those Ezra 
wrote the Genealogies till D'HK v (a Chron. xxi. a), and the 
rest was done by the Men of the Great Synagogue." His 
remark shows the source of Rabbenu Hananel's explanation 
of the Baraita, Baba Batra, 15 a, and it is very probable 
that the Gaon read in the Talmud "61 ny as ed. Pesaro has it, 
and not i6 ny as all the other editions and Tosafot have it. 

The end of this Responsum seems to contain a reference 
to Saadia's Arabic translation of the Books of Chronicles, 
of which nothing is known 1 , but the text of the fragment 
is unfortunately in very bad condition, and therefore this 
fact is not very certain. 

(Leaf 3, recto.) 

rfe 1*6 DKI awe pcnn DN 1? y&rb vto ron rmw mnrn nxn 
yann vbv n^y pto nta ^a ;w ntw6 6 'nn 

2 D'o< nma nan oyo no nW IBW f r 

moa 3 HCK TWH Dn^n n^a ns nua^ no^ noin 
IBD 'a jn niiwin men n v 4 1N D^B^ met* 
1 iy i 



1 See Steinschneider, ^raWsc/ie Lffercrfwr der Juden, p. 55 ; Pinsker, Likkute 
Kadmoniyot, Supplement, p. 41. 

* Read D'OTi ; a Chron. iii. 3. 

* The Masoretic text has the pi. niON. * Read 'H. 
8 See Baba Batra, 15 a, and Dikduke Sofeiim, ad loc. 



GEONIC EESPONSA 17 

loin 'a noN "IPN nni nroN lana r6nan noaa nwtc 1 ns^ . . ni 
n on a ruwtnn moa D'nfon rva n nua^ TO^B> 
jna 'wan n^o ^ nain n*n "\y\ mnN mo orpra 

a DN no^ no nai p^a m-iot? nivni now 10 
j.T-pa vn N^ a pins DM& i^av s^ n5r iB>^n n^ian 

tayo na HNT ja nwi ra^Nnn HM nB>a poim 
n^twi moai 3 . . , . p . . , xn n^y is^oim 

nnnx nox ipy fiai w nu pa! mo yavs "xn 
paan nnno vn nn^te xh nnx yavN n n^y is^oin^ 15 
\rb pat^no ITB i>jn 4 pjo .... po^n^o vn na N^N 
nn*n 'nw .... jnmoi n^yon jo pnnnnb 
nins TOK }n^ nnfl 6 . . , . yavs ^n n^o ^ ^y mn^ ^ 
N^n Dai 7 ojrtT onai rrro na B>^ nnx nao iro mon 



an 9 D s xnaDoa nninD moa 
ppni anrn naroo pn " 



13 
15 



na nN pnv 
. , N 



(Leaf 3, verso.) 

Dai JI^NO ^ana nnW wiitb 20 n , . D 19 yoiy n^^ lan-n 
naoo nnon ncro ^ HHN D^nK' DE> K^ty ^ao n^wa nnpa no 



a Erubin, 4 a ; ibid. 48 a. * [ws 'sn .] 

* [pnw.] s [n':-u'i.] ' [iiyv] 7 See Erubin, 3 b-4 a. 

8 Read nte. Chap. xvii. 10. 10 [niOM ta.] 

11 Our Mishnah reads nvj-u'n vn nrann to ; ed. Lowe hafe: rwoaa but the 
TaZmwd Menahot, 97 a, quotes our Mishnah with the addition : nnpn:i vrro. 
The reading of our MS. rrawaa i^tt? can be explained only if we take 
VTOE'I fa as a gloss to rwira, which means a cubit of six handbreadths. 
18 [ iiD^rn aaiom .] 13 Menahot, 98 a. 

14 na nn not in our texts of the Talmud. 

15 D'nBiD. w [ia 'ov an.] 

p corrupted into na npw. 



l8 GENIZAH STUDIES 

D pi yavx wi ruoo n^na mntn yavx ^n 
pp i>y nnx frran jewa vn niox w * o>b xnaooa 
nnvi n^iss mnTD pp ^ n wi 2 naipo pp *?y nnxi 5 
nnvi nom 2 rvmyo pp bycn ynvK *xn rwo taby mrv 
y3xx npo ^ ^y mw nssoj yaxs ^n n^y 
p3own vnny na K^M HJDP nnw ni?na nns 
IODI n^yo nb iwa* N^ na r6naa pnnoi mopa 

twa n3waa *3^ isw mox ^3 TD -an i3a 10 
nn 'inaia nnoa 5l mie> onoa eniaon 4 ona }3 
mix 9 ..... n m^an jen^a w nicx 8 . . . v 7 
vbi *rnT nye' 10 nno snDDoa u3B^ ntw cnpo 
man jcnt^ 12 1 . . ^ a u mruo no^nn BTIDDI miv 
an Noyo 14 . . o 3 Tra n:o3 M nnw na^ D-IQ mata ns 15 
nrn }n>by rnata no^s M KPW na nox in nwiaK na pnx am 
win D^ w^ *ai nsn 17 ia^n jl> ixa M po ijrrc? na DN 
NI 'ai 10^ ^ unne^ii ^N n^ imy b mil '3^ n^ 
wbx b nnvi TI ano noix jinv an n^DNp " . . . . 
113 .. a n>3ij*a nosa *n3 >3B7i n3rre> "^vai vano 
noin nt^N ->a 13 BHID D-ONT nan ..... 3na3 p nnxi 

D nr lani :nt^ ^ nN KW natwnn *n . , .3 
no nr PNI n^na niyo ab at >ova i>N 2a p ..... 
vm man nx nsnn DS^ ^a i? . . 3ni vb*& 
T nyann nsn3 moxn 2S 313D . . . rbxv WM 25 



I Chap. xvii. 9-10. * Our texts have rvmro. 

* Compare note n on preceding page. * Read unc. * Read 

See the explanation of the Mishnah Middot, III, i given in Menahot, 97 b. 
7 Kelim, XVII, 9. 8 [nc.] 9 [N>n.] Jf.Wo<, I, 3. 

II Menahot, 980. [n^.] " Read nnTOTac. " [wo.] 
u Read nmr. pnro in our texts. 

17 These two words are probably added by a copyist after Abot, III, i. 
" Editions: m'-rt. ' JVDI. 

na mro. M pwrr. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 19 

IV. 

FRAGMENT T-S., paper, eight leaves, size 9 x 14 cm., is 
written in the cursive hand of the thirteenth or of the 
twelfth century. The letters often run into each other, which 
makes the deciphering of the MS. difficult. Moreover, 
the copyist was negligent, and although there is evidence 
in many cases that he was well able to mark clearly the 
differences between * and ), 2 and a, 1 and "i, yet he often 
so writes these similar pairs of consonants that they cannot 
be distinguished from each other. 

The fragment represents the remains of a collection 
of Geonic Responsa, and contains forty-two Responsa, 
which, with the exception of the first two, bear the name 
of their writers, Zemah 2 , Sherira, and Hai. 

Below, I propose to give a brief resume of each Re- 
sponsum, together with parallels to them found elsewhere 
in Geonic literature. 

i. The first Responsum, whose beginning is missing, 
deals with the use of raisin wine for Kiddush, and for 
the Seder. Isaac ben Gajat, in his nnK> njft?, p. a, quotes 
the decisions of the Geonim Paltoi and Zemah on this 
question, and the same decision of Zemah is cited in the 
Geonic collection nnJJ mn, 35. But in both these col- 
lections the wording shows variations from the form given 
in our fragment. Notice particularly the addition occur- 
ring in our fragment, according to which raisin wine 
made by Gentiles is prohibited 3 . 

i. According to this Responsum, one who eats bread 
baked by a Gentile is not subject to the punishment of 
flagellation. The same opinion is attributed, in the JYO^n 
, 2,6, to the Gaon Rab Amram. But while in the 



1 The writer begs to acknowledge his indebtedness to Professor 
S. Schechter, who was good enough to put at his disposal the Genizah 
text presented in this article. 

* Undoubtedly Zemah ben Paltoi. 

3 Comp. also DTBKI IED, p. 207 < 

C 2, 



20 GENIZAH STUDIES 

latter the pDfi, the final, authoritative decision, is stated 
simply, without argument or explanation, our fragment 
goes into a discussion of the points leading up to the 
decision. 

3. The Responsa from the third to the eighth, inclusive, 
deal with maiB, and are ascribed to Sherira. The first 
of this group, on KTirn NH33, is found in a^n, 43, and fn 
159, only in these works the Responsum is attributed, 
not to Sherira, but to Hilai Gaon and Isaac ben Jacob 
Gaon respectively. It is noteworthy that Hai Gaon, who, 
in D^tt?K1 i>B> jmin, II, 41, also has a Eesponsum on Nr>J3, 
makes no reference to his father. 

4. On nxn3 ptain. This Responsum is found also in 
3*n 1 6, and there it is ascribed to Gaon Natronai. The 
quotation at the end of the Responsum, '131 K3TD Wi, is 
found neither in the Talmud nor in the Geonic literature 
known to us. Most probably, however, it was taken from 
some Geonic nia*ia T\\>\\. 

5. In this Responsum Sherira renders the very important 
decision that the KJTWy, if on the right lung, is to be 
counted as one of the five ''JIN. Rashi on JSultin, 47 a, 
argues against this decision, which he states ne had found 
in the D$33n nttWn. It is doubtful whether tlashi had 
our Responsum before him, for there are several Geonic 
decisions to the same effect (for which see, for instance, 
Harkavy, Besponsen der Geonim, 183, and Responsum 18 
of our fragment). 

6. This is the only discussion of smwjn N3YD in Rabbinic 
literature, and it is therefore curious that none of the 
old codifiers has any reference to this decision. 

7 and 8. In a'n, 32, the poa of these Responsa is given 
on the authority of Hilai Gaon, but in a very corrupt form, 
and it is to be corrected according to the text of our 
fragment. 

9. The group 9 to 29 is ascribed to Zemah Gaon, 
but it is extremely doubtful whether all these Responsa 
issue from the same authority. The first of the group, 



OEONIC RESPONSA 21 

No. 9, codifies the Talmudic discussion (Hullin, 56 a) on 



lo-n treat of TV nt312> and eja nDlBP, and in both cases 
the Gaon decides against Bab (Hullin, 57) in opposition 
to the general rule, niD'X3 313 TD^n. 

12. This Besponsum is found in fi'n, 35, where it is also 
ascribed to Zemah Gaon. 

1 2 a. This Besponsum is a reply to the question about 
the slaughtering of a bird whose windpipe has no cartilages 
(njDta). The Gaon maintains that the case is impossible. 
It may happen that the cartilages are small and thin, but 
they cannot be lacking entirely. 

13. The thirteenth Besponsum deals with nxm X3TD. 
The Gaon decides that any NST'D makes the animal nsno . 

14. This is identical with Besponsum 14 in the S'n, 
where it is ascribed to Natronai. 

15 is the well-known Besponsum on ta 1 ^ K3TD (a^n, 15, 
and Isaac ben Moses' ynr lis, 311) given in our fragment 
in a much correcter form than in the other two sources. 
The statement at the end of our Besponsum, which does 
not occur in the parallel sources, is of historical importance : 
vbti KPn N^n D3$> 3D3 K^l H^ N"p3D nin Witt K31DD 31 1O1 

'131 owron D^BW 1 rth mm N^3 ^n. From this we see 
that Bab Semonai was a Besh Kalla, and also, that even 
in cases in which he consulted the Besh Kalla the Gaon 
did not refer to him. 

1 6. This Besponsum, on ntoin l| i>is <l t?, seems to be directed 
against the divergent opinions of other authorities. See 
t*N, I, 1 13 a, and 114 a towards the end. 

17. The Gaon decides against Bab in the case of P3D 
Q^ay i?t? (Hullin, 8 b). The justification of his decision 
lies in the fact that the opponent of Bab, Babbah bar 
Hanna, or, as the Gaon reads, Babbah bar Huna, is one 
of the later authorities, and the rule ""Kims ns^n applies. 
This statement of the Gaon is of great importance, as, 

1 rr^ mm must be read twice, to complete the clause before it and the 
clause after it. 



22 GENIZAH STUDIES 

according to the older authorities 1 , the rule cited applies 
only to a difference of opinion among later Amoraim. 

1 8. This Responsum deals with the same subject as the 
fifth of our fragment, the latter by Sherira. There is a 
difference of opinion between the two Geonim. According 
to the fifth Responsum the NJVJiry counts with the right 
lung only, according to the eighteenth it may be counted 
with either the right or the left lung. There can be no 
doubt that Responsum 183 in Harkavy, Responsen der 
Geonim, should be corrected in accordance with the text 
of our fragment. They must be identical with each 
other, both having the same author, Zemah Gaon, but 
the text as printed by Harkavy obviously contains a 
contradiction. 

19. In the nineteenth Responsum the Gaon decides that 
an animal is not made naitD by eating or drinking pro- 
hibited food immediately before its slaughter. The 
assumption is that the tissues have absorbed and assimi- 
lated the food-material, even though so short a time passes 
between the taking of the food and the death of the 
animal. 

20. This Responsum contains a curious explanation of 
the prohibition 3^ra "KJO. Proceeding from the Talmudic 
statement (Niddah, 9 a) that milk is only blood modified, the 
Gaon maintains that in eating meat and milk together 
we are violating the prohibition against the use of blood. 
Obviously, the Gaon believes that milk brought into 
contact with blood regains its status as blood. Unless 
we assume this reasoning on his part, we would expect 
milk to be prohibited in all circumstances. 

21. Here the Gaon gives a somewhat rationalistic 
explanation of the rnEHD rA He formulates the principle 
that any disease which results fatally in man disqualifies 
an animal affected by it as food. 

22. The Gaon decides, on the authority of the Talmudic 

, * See Tosafot to Kiddushin, 45 b, below. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 23 

(Ketubot, 94), that the heirs of a man who 
has left a single dwelling house are not obliged to let his 
widow occupy it. If her sustenance is provided for, she 
can be made to return to her father's house. This decision 
does not apply to a case in which the estate owns several 
houses. 

23. This deals with the case of a widow who prefers 
to be maintained by her late husband's estate to having 
her dowry paid out to her. The practice varied in 
different parts of Palestine as well as in different parts 
of Babylon. In the latter country, with the exception 
of Nehardea and its district, the widow was compelled, 
in the time of the Amoraim, to accept her dowry (Ketubot, 
54 a). For his own time the Gaon decides that in Babylonia 
the old practice with its exception should be continued, 
but beyond Babylonia the widow's preference was to be 
considered. However, the Gaon's decision was not uni^ 
versally accepted, as may be seen from Harkavy, Responsen 
der Geonim, 389. Comp. also Alfassi on Ketubot, 1. c. 

24-25. The next two Responsa also deal with dowry 
rights, in connexion with Ketubot^ 54- 

26. Here we have a lengthy discussion of the dimensions 
of the two tablets of the Law. The subject-matter and 
the temper of the discussion make it highly improbable 
that this Responsum is genuinely Geonic. Furthermore, 
bpr bw p }fO '1 pwn is quoted, which would bring the 
Responsum down to the end of the eleventh century. It 
is possible that iwrp is a copyist's error for rroin, who is 
mentioned by the Geonim Natronai and Zemah (see 
Muller, Mafteah, pp. 121, 149) 1 . It should be noted, too, 
that the statement here attributed to Nathan does not 
occur in the 'Aruk, which throws further doubt on the 
reading bKW 

27-30. These Responsa deal with mourning ceremonies, 

1 This Nathan was from Africa, and he was no relative of Sherira, 
whose uncle's name was Nathan ben Judah. Muller, Mafteah, 157, 
attributes to the Babylonian Nathan what really belongs to the African. 



24 GENIZAH STUDIES 

and, with the exception of No. 28, are found in the Geonic 
collection pl *W, III, 4, 8 ; III, 4, 4 ; III, 4, 5, where they 
are attributed to the Geonim Paltoi, National, and Hilai 
respectively. 

31-32. Both these Responsa bear the superscription 
sn m-6, and all the Responsa that follow, up to the 
last, lack a superscription. It remains doubtful, therefore, 
whether all the following Responsa are attributed to Hai 
Gaon, or only the two actually bearing his name. The 
first of these two Responsa is found also in Y"&, UI> 4 6, 
and is there attributed to Paltoi Gaon. The other, which 
is written in Arabic, will appear in the next article of 
this series, 

33-35. This group of three contains explanations of 
certain difficult words in Gittin, the most noteworthy 
among the explanations being of the word xn^ao. Ac- 
cording to the Gaon the Amoraim possessed a sort of digest 
of the most important parts of the Halakah, and this 
they called Krtao. 

36-40. This group of four Responsa deals with certain 
laws of clean and unclean (nsoic). In Responsum 36, the 
Gaon calls attention to the fact that vessels belonging to 
Gentiles are not unclean by reason of their owners, but 
only because they may have been used for prohibited 
food. He supports his opinion by reference to the Tal- 
mudic statement that the corpse of a Gentile cannot defile 
(inxn NBBD p wn non ; compare Tebamot, 61 a, Baba Mezia, 
1 14 b). On the other hand, the Gaon is very strict regard- 
ing np 7JQ r6'3B, which, he insists, must precede even the 
benediction over food as well as any other prayer. It is 
worth calling attention to the Geonic opinion concerning 
.Tinea phn bis. After the destruction of the Temple it 
ceased to be a possible practice. At first a few Perushim, 
who led a completely isolated life, succeeded in maintaining 
the practice, but later it became absolutely unattainable. 

41. The last Responsum is a very lengthy though clear 
explanation of the Talmudic topic runy in Skabbat, 85 a- 



GEONIC RESPONSA 25 

85 b. Rabbenu Hananel in his commentary on this passage 
refers to Saadia's explanation of it, but the few quotations 
adduced by Hananel do not justify us in ascribing the 
Responsum to Saadia. Hai Gaon also has a long Re- 
sponsum on this topic (see Harkavy, Responsen der Geonim, 
425), his explanation differing from that given in the 
present Responsum, which tends to strengthen doubt as to 
Hai's authorship of the latter Responsa of our fragment. 
At the end of Hai's Responsum as printed by Harkavy, 
there is a reference to a strenuous but vain attempt to 
explain the same topic. Possibly Hai had in mind the 
Responsum in our fragment. 



26 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Leaf i, recto.) 

tan vb pa-ao nt?a pnpin jva x -i^a N^an OKI tw N^ 
nan }D inp^ -now v$>y p^iaw noaa pi naea pa vi>y pcnpoi jean na 
noa ppio 11 *^ n&p noaa p* i^ PKB> DI inn ^aa p anao ia pamai 

'can n^y nw KM n-na 'a yn nan nvw ^>y oHhccw n 

pop i>jn pot? DIKD jn^a i?y nra 7 2n nox na^ na papal? 



^ND 'can ic'^ai nns nan 'B^O nnx iai ^jn nns nan wrw 'nr 'ay 'BD 
^ na^ra NODB> w pwn ^y nra prep na pro an 'ON ins nai 
D^ia^ na ^aisn 9t \J?\n 2 "iiar aatroa I^VN ^an hwnxp pirn nw 
^pi p roe^ i^an rm bx ii? 'IOIKI inis pnaio N^N nip^o vby PN 10 
^DNT T'aB' na xasi i'K-i^' 1 'naV 4 nann pnoix WK na^ nain wn 
nn f'siK'' 1 Nnsi na xasi na natj' nssn TBB^ ^rw NBNI na 'na^ 
Kona ^an nasn n^ans 'y^n N^ ^oan noKJ?ai 
nosn ^N ^T pa i^na la^anN ma na N^N wy naon 

ona^ na ^awi nxmn mion 'con Tobn van njnoB> 15 
D vi?y p ona^ na ^aisn laiji e^mon n^aa VBD njnoK> 

nai?a nnam 

?T psan mnB> la^an 7 }y n^str 
p prainn iea naai nnM ino Nt^an 8 tmm xnaa 
con Nin^ nixn H ^ *aBD painn 5Q^ ayNi niac'a nni^ 9 
Nnaai xi^nai Niaa n mmn yrw np'y !?a n^ai "IIDN mnpa 
10 ptDina pa paioo nsna pain iNxa DN 'KBW mnpa 

pp-ian pna^ n nat: oaaoB> njn o*p ana px pom jmw ab pa 
nsa 'N amn DNT ia^-i HD i> IN mn naia ^inb ^ p^MD ptain 



nn na apan Nan^o INH 'n'osn enn B>n enr t^ mytwi oina pin pw 
^IN n^on aina^i sin nw nna NO 
tb IN innna xn^aia^y saiDyo wnyo pmn 



, 97 b. 2 Shabbat, 17 b. 8 Bead -]3bm. 

4 Read wren nn. 5 J.6o<to Zara, 38 b. 

* ^16oda Zara, 35 b below. Our texts read : taw nim lyncn N 1 ), which 
can only be translated : " Do not speak to Ibo." See, however, E. Samuel 
Edels ad loo. 7 ^g. : from. 

8 Halakot Pesukot, 43 : r03T vrnn, but Hemdah Genvzah, 159, has it like 
our fragment. 

9 Bead inintD uo 13. 10 Read rwna. u guttin, 47 a. 



GEONIC EESPONSA 27 



(Leaf i, verso.) 

vntb "p N!J IK wtn MOOD join N!> rw-n 



Npm yitn paon ) 
pim pen WK pon 'N lahn xo^pn wn pon 

sin teim pon N^OBH DW jnoy n 1| j i i3' i y 
KBIB^PD 'DJJB wo ns pon nmi :^n nanoi noy 

po nna I^DN xh Nanc^o xh *n nosy 

, , 

nnev? TOD nw a*n n-'op? NHNT y3 



cy Nsnavo 3n DI^DI N^n iTin nwy TT runs 



IK tyo min WMUIJJD xoin Taan MM 
M3TD i>3 p3i niEK ^3n N!? IN nano xoin wnn 

naia nxm HOIK p Nan^Di paon nano KTIH sn^ 
p 3n*o mn pmsi (?)naw 3^n xnino 
OIKI WIN 'KBW :N"i3Di? nn p 
13 Tri:6a oy pno nsa i mB>3 IN nano in^aio nyi in 
nano IN^ DNI nsia tjio ijn n^nno NOIND panon NJINT 
INI na-io Kin n3n oipo IN!?T piD3 
N3M npnn nynx NCIN p NJIN 4 NJNip-isoi Nin 
:mB>3 IN!? DNI naia j3X3o IN sonon NSMD ni? piaovra 

N1H NJV31 DIpD 1N NJIN^ M01K 



IN^T IHN aiip ns n^jn Njrai nipn N^ nsa 'N nso ta^ 

:naia rwm win3 wm pti'Ni 



1 Read nDi. 

2 The editions of the Talmud read 10 win n, MS. Munich ID w 
without n. 

3 Ifvllin, 47 a. * ? ; E*n, 32, reads wtn. B Arabic : end. 



28 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf a, recto.) 



an }pn ! n mawn 

S i333i ppip3i ab IIDN n*yo yaa npm nanv 
ina jryiiN mb ipnn mb n3t?o 'N jn ponN pbi mtw pbn 

pom pyo '33 in tw nonao spy pbioai KTDB pna TIN mayr 

yew |3 w 'n Ditw pm 'n 'DK -inosB' noa p^pnai ppn* pyo yais 

max 'i n^ 'osn >DV 'na pnv 'mai wn na jnpn^ Nine' noa jraipj 

pon 1^3 rvyo ya nonai 13331 ppip3i 3^3 nn^3 pon 'nox ^3 

13 jona 3ii ^WDB> 3ii i^ p ytJ'in'' ^13 n^ios pho pp*ioa 

nnano SJBH Nisasn Npiai 8 pnx^ x 
nonaa ni^ noioen on xb non33 10 
iy xn ban naio nonaa 



nonaa "J 

ai ON win 3113 e>3ne>oi NS'-N w 5 epy p^y in* 
naiD3 pino spn N3N 13 n^oT an Nnxinsi ni^a ej^ya 11*15 
13 rpoT 311 sni? xn^i ma noiotr nbioa nainn ai'o Brvoa 

N l?3 31 ON n^OT 1 311 Nln 6yO ''NO 31 7 ON NJin 311^ tbl N3N 

ii5i sjiya IT root? m^a nonaa 11* noioe> ^a NP 
*Niin3 la *DV i ^NKI Ta t6x Nnnyo^ jn baa Hi 
nn*n nbiinm naio bH |iya IT noiot? >*a nrnii bii N^ni <b p 20 
nv&p ni3iBB> nb n^yi nb^ 11* noo^t^ Nnebn p jiyo^ ib 
Nnabn p pyotj' 11 *nn lo^ob i? n^N ^ND N^N 
pna nb^ nap npai moN Npi *oa Nn nno ia insi nbm in 
yi main *jiy3 IT noiOK>3 pnyos? np^oi 6 nin cnin itry 
ppy^ f]33i nap*3 NOB> n*ia npna nans n*MK pa nan 
naio nona3 11* noiDB' 31 ON mm* ai ONI nta nw^ia pnab 

n3p3 noe> naio nun sp nt3io^ niK>3 tj^ya I 
'ON jam* 11 sjiyb nN*i PN 'ON iTprni pna*n pnr ioNpi pi3*n 'ON 



1 Bead j^nn. jffuKm, 56 b. 

3 Ibid. ibid., 54 b. 

8 Ibid., 56 a. jffuZKn, 57 a~S7 b. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 29 



(Leaf 2, verso.) 



n^prn 'ni n-6y mayo rrrnj&f am ^kin tun nox nonb px 'royo *K 
vino na'an 12 w nn NDPD xanyoa now Npn ton ^'n ivb D 
JK N n*prm i>feb DKPT rrprn uw ^i^ianna 73 uw -D^J ^n 
ion ptj> bi pnv -is y.n pnv ni mi phannn pa WK *an 'B^D 

-n^ Nh^i pn5ri jimnn noxpi n^nia ^WDB> n^ opn 
p*r njp^ maiat? seao npnn "npai pna^n nn pnv 
fjiyi :pm ni bwowa npndi n^ioi nNnta mp naaxn 
jwo npro -wai nno D^pon 1^ naaa ppnu i^ naaa mo 
vh *1 mo^ xnna 091573 vba*Di Mn mo pnoix ID oyo na B DSIO 



nona nna nyno ia 
nonan p nnr ejiy^ n:p Nin pin ru nay ps no yao 

7nv inns r&vu nyats naai n^ rup na*3i W man PJID spo 
NTaaT Ntranan nanon n^-im :na >i na o ynwi^i pnpnij 
mm rwwDBQ ''DJ 'N nrna PDnon nj^n pai nanm npna nb pNi6 
pan niDKi pnatw N^n (?) s mina nn^acn a^y PJKI npna n^ px 
*b Npn nln^> lanaon ^INI jano njenn aiM N^N Kn nrran 
xanoi nn pi nano room san^o ^a bax jmoa K^ ^ 

nan^o M^I nanoi npna n^ p nnanan nywo^a ix nnanaa 20 
? many wi :nnanan oy nhy K^rw pan rwb) wwa N^KXI 
ww n3iBn JIBDD jn^^ai pns nnxi pno nns ^DIK jnty 
pm DN PBD^D inisa nsm san^D NXDJI Nm^a pm 
ma n^viao OKI nxnaa ia DI neo^ ny i5 Nai a^n np-'yo 
Nin xan'-o jm janes ipan nrni iay i^axi ii IT npinro 25 
apy^ an no w^nK^ onsn^BBn inanoi np^a ni? 
ana iab lana itray a^n Nt^anta nnix 



57 a. 2 See c'n, 35. * niva ? rn irn? 



30 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Leaf 3, recto.) 

vb IK a s in Kpa-ioa -pon xa-voa ppna ons DM 

rvtanp rrnarp N^ na wo nnv ro "iana iprnnni 
3H3D yon Txa vb wvai nmn Titra mm 
D^o^n ID unint? no srb uaenm ir 

ni? p my^n oina i^ss wa^ 
tamo IJ^K ynua iB>yn n^n KTI nimn 

Dina Tnoyv Bys't^ ^i^n s^aits vw 
nano^: si? 'notn nanta yaxao 
pw nnp^ h njna nosn oxi nsnn napa p 
nao nno n^jw onp nimn ^n 123 nnp'-jB' nsnn na 
i?n nNn DKI np^Ji nnn inoS 2 onp WN nxni 
ims jn-'Ji Nin IDIPDI i3o pin wn nw |onio 

oipo piD3 bs 'nospn rwm nman 
yniaa i-i^yn aijn ^n jb 'o^pi an 'now ^ 

11 ? rw sn-'bn ai*D *TO ^ttWh NB'SID Kin 



n 11 ? venn tarpon now *r\v an^o n 
na^ ^ mix pjmap oiai o^nax mpo ^aw 

pnax ^JNI DT3i KDmB3 naiD pi^ao peny 
}n na* xa^n xan-'Da ppnap i^ pnnpa p^v 



no anao pym* usi n'-n 

pyow un ^DJ p n^jnv }n DK nmo rrn nci 

nwe* n^B> ianoi vm wai KD-I^D apy> 
-"Dan iy^ nns nyai laoo^b*? vbi b nvt 
an 101 oia-'K an no I^VN ioaaai sa^n W^D pnab 
ib nos cnoy n^obn noai ibvx loaaai bpr D^IK: pinv 
t6 onb ION xa^n toT'D pnab n^no 



1 #uUin, 49 b. Ibid., 48 a. 



GEONIC EESPONSA 31 

(Leaf 3, verso.) 

FDTP 

Dnoixm mno WK aina -<g& "pDa^ t?oo 



aim nami nnv moe>K> nona tw troya mno 
nann nami jnnn nrwwjni nxm *3ixa Kin pimt? -jino-i 
rupa rm na&e> jvai 01^1 on oina vb\ obiyn nmn nna 
nxnn p TO a^n p"isn na* na 11 nyayaoi n 



n mlttei iNn i| i D'-otrn p wv DN way 
K> amo na^ lajnirw noi nai? i3ppntj> no nnix 
nans wjnin imao D^a^ pa apy^ an no I 
o jna nnm n^no rr-n nnoix ons? noa xS THO nn 
on DNI nia^ *ne> nyn hy may* N^ty a^n xan^o 
''BN Tiyi onip^nh tfffhsh pnn p tr 11 ^ aijmn peny 

noa sh i^ rn^s^a B>TB^ noa vnana noy apy no 
enipn no D^ ^o pa pnx an noi?i >oia^ an nob 15 
n vn apy an nobi Mnnno sh nano na b'n noxp 
my N^I imoa nt^yt^ nu^ ^n^a pro nn *3a i?a 
an no n>op pan* >a *snin* an no moN Nnb'o 
*K3'an an no oai? B>na naa xni ^aoio an noi 
nma aioD an noi na^nm xnipna iTb n5 xa^ 
*|j mm Ni?a c>n xta MB^I sbn oai? ana xhi mb xmao mn 
an 's^o 'DNTI apy* an non rr6y pj^a o^innxi 
xn^o N^N 'xmn* an no nnox N^T no'-ob xa-'N 
an noa 4 N^m .T^O n*m n^a niba^p xh rvb xnano^o 
nbnn pin*!? nn^p*a DN 5 pan 'ONT *a 

pa jan pa nbiaa npna na w ns*m 
wnp xn'-an nipo WK *nbian 'oyo *KOI *oixn sn^o ny 
:^a niyavxa onmo pxi ma*^* *ntj> amo nai 



a i a. a Bead Him. 

3 See p. 21, footnote. 

4 Bead mbm. 5 Pesahim, naa. 



32 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Leaf 4, recto.) 

21 13 K3-n e^ip EN in tn0 pon anipn IOJVN 't 

31 13 K313 ^W WK1 13 JN03 ^'m pH3y H3 )ND3 * ITTD 

wn nKina win an ia Nam xnn onDyo OPD peny UN miosi 2 :in 
an 13 K3-n *|bip 6s 3-1 : IDKPT nroa wawi in^ Dpn pc? bai 

ON 5 
rrnn 

pnn sjp 6xn IKOI piv 
rrnia ^ 

^y 'N pnn p3- nios pan trnn NH^I^K pjyi? 'BW xvm 
rbrb n^ PQIDVD jm^wy m yi |rnn pen tow tonDH 10 
paixo 
3-n rro 

pNsnn jnj now nj3no3i nsN3 nyn nn^nc' ma 't 
}n D*iab p*m mam nta ni> n^jnn xh p 5 Nmp{j>m p 
p nyo jnu n^3n nw "i^3n HN 1^31 monen ^ntr 15 
13 nDDD n^N nyi^3 nwoiaB> DK>3 N3i DNT nD^ rb 



p nyo }n:B> pa *DJ tan 7 an poi nao ma aw ma 
ma nniN^ p* iniN moiw PNB> NT 13 :3ne^M yn^jn jva 
^03 nnt^ nnnK'ty p* ini^ enn^ pw IM "vnn ^Knt^i> inm 

no^iaa 0:33^ JV3 na^ntj' ny^a nnc* ^ s ax INI ny3 
oi man bxN 11 o ^P D^J^ p^ ptwwi p n^ ^yn3 
nniN PKOBD PK ma jnntj' n^ min nwoio jnt? ma las 
ii>D3 -IOIN mm* n xftta m^s nson > nnnsw ma 8 u3B> 
ma i3^n u niw na na^n mw 'm IO TKD 'i pn^no ono 9 N^y3 jtapi 
boa n33B> nnnt^ tm&p p^ pswin pxi ^rw^ mea nmo n 



033 



, 8 b. 

11 So reads MS. H in Rabbinovicz, Dikduke Soferim, the editions have 
n*aa nn , who was a contemporary of Eab. 

3 This reading is not found either in the editions or MSS. of the 
Talmud. Compare also Rashi, ad loc. * Hullin, 47 a. 

8 Sic ! * Hullin, 71 a ; but nan and not Nai. T Miahnah Nazir, VI, i. 

8 Parah, IX, 5, comp. also Pesahim, 18 a. 9 Erubin, 96 b. 

10 Read YND T twice, to complete the clause before it and the clause 
after it. ll Erubin, 46 b. u Read WT. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 33 



(Leaf 4, verso.) 



D'oyai an Nin D^oya a^nnt? a^na -wan iri?y napii 

HNI-I WN nnaiyo HEW 'D^WN i>aa> ai>r6 T,ana Dint? pao n^n 
NEDO ninD fn "o 'Nai v*?y 2 jiu i| n^ a!>n ntpya Din in'.N N^N on 



pe> mono m^y n3icB> ':i ns^an ny twMn ^sn K^I xxi 



jn isi naa miDNi nos norm nn nns KS DN{y pio 6 
ia 'cam TBOD TKD i ny 'ai Qtrin nnipa neno mt^y 



2n nr 
nonaa uy IDN 1200 no Kim onx taija au Ni.ntr nan \>yy r: 

niaiantJ' jvai no ton ap^j DIN^ eenn^ jva TTO^ n I0 



D"yva noat^ i? yn s n mo nnp apa no DIN 
ncnaa i^ IDK ^"a^ no NIH T-O ap"j imo enps? jvai no WKI Dnx^ ^ 
TO apj onx^ la 11 !?^ jva i^n n*a^ a^n ap^ niob^ anp naipa p. 
noai niao noa ^ yn s n nap^B> nsnn nonan p>ai no wn-^ 
no ww DIN^ IBM ^y D^BM D^W noai D^JWB a 15 

a pi no Nin TO tn^ vr\v nnn ^y inis 
7 ;i ibsn N!? nanui n^aa a s n:n nianui ni^aa hvrw 'aa -tax 11 K^ 

an Mn 'ow MNP M S I na 5 i>bi waa n^an* 1 >nn nN 'NB'^ xxn 
nh n^N xh Na*n N^I ^na 'n 'a n^ n^n NDM 5 n^nypaa N^I iTn^aa *jm 
13 "na> nnx n^a Ni?x 1^ px^ -"o pu> snp'ya oan noN iar 6 Non nn N^N 30 
nvi o-na 7 n 'a 



n'-a ?N nnx n^a NN M> PNB> nsn nN in way DHO 

^'n n^i N\nB> nipo^ pnatwe' n^ n^N nijito * pnacns MNI 
obx Nnn^ pania D^T TJN vn na 'NPB>I : 5l( B^ 3i 13 noa xxm 
panM DVII^ IVT DXI nnaina nyan PNB> fora nn <| o <i ^>a nair: 25 

n ON an non^N Npi nniN picnai nn3ina 
ir ^m 7 ^' 



1 Read c"onnn. 2 ? 3 Niddah, 9 a. 4 Sullin, Mishna-h, II, r. 

5 Ketubot, 54 a. 6 Read NIH. 7 Ketubot, ibid. 

D 



34 



GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 5, recto.) 



msna 31 >33 'ois UK 

mo ppnnot? UN taioeo una msna bi Kjmna ana una 
won iy sxmnj PTI ny 'ois ust? 

T^V 

Dipo $>3 hia iti' 
pmsn nrnins n 
anao Qni> PNK> mpw :3i3 puny 

WE'D DHD3 }3 tVVO DHD 



V3 



pvn 3*13 



'Dp 113 



n 2 mairo rb P 
rkrP3& JV3K> PJDV 31 DN N 

. , 

niairo ni> p KJWW nnyn nanap 
nn3in3 nysn DN 'DIN UNI mains ni? 



jam 
T 
niano ni? px 

nnjn nam 



pn n 






ir nxnoenoi pn nm nnsma nysinB' nycr nwwo 
n:6n JNI niairo n!> r> N^N niairn n^ pN HD^TSI n^n'3 PJDV 3115 
ps nKi ps ^ n^ SJTDD ja3i niosi NH 'st^cn ^Di 11 3i3xxv 
m3ii> mD spaa 'SD^ nsm n3in33 nsms wn 'sa^ -ios 

ifiniTD i , i . 

piai pa3 n3in3? ^a 3 pi3i pa3 navDTi 7131 nimo? 

vn , , 

osi nsins np^ys nbt^ naoin nnis p^s nn'-o -ins? n 
psai o^a nc'D 0*33 n"ani nisi p3oi ypnp 
in*33 ib psi nnsb vnnc' "pot? jva f^s nains 
3in by* SM mrnn ^'n n^at? in^s tn^ani nns n3in3 
TO ps"^o ;* ruipsn m^s yai 4 n3a nsai Dip^ nmso 
io wvn3 DIB pnsn pa3 nsins 7 ois us 
*iaytpo sano pnos rrono sno U3 



1 Ketubot, Mishnah, XI, i ; 95 h. 

8 Ibid., 54 b-55 a. Ibid., 90 a. 



2 Ibid., 54 a. 
5 Ibid., 55 a. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 

(Leaf 5, verso.) 

nai 'nntryi nwo J?B nnain -itrya on nvniM noa 'i 



pai yavtf xi>a nwm nvnix DMIPI DW 
pat ana pa mwn ntrceo yavx w^oa vw ni 

ni>yo^D niynvx yansi myavs yanw onK^jn nxo roris 
nnt^y D*HK* nn nrrw DP myavs yansi ni3^D niyavs 
nixa niyavxn ^a INVEJ JQINI on^yi nxo ^y DJTIN pjoin 
o^en ntxo nrnx^-i ra^ n^yo^ nint ana 
noa nbbv annn DJIBN rumSn nnix DDn^a nr ^p JD'D 
a nn mw Ki^oa mwb nnw pai ntry n^a pn nnw noa 2 ni^xo 
anna niyavs njiDn on^y nn 3<i so niyavN yanxi nniK 
mm ana nvw njien oniry rn^a ^ t^ pani rwi 
anna niyavx mvxn on^y jnty naaen neap 
any nxo D'loya DnB'y i^p nii?n nme* 
DH^v }n TKtwn ntstw D^B* D^oya 
nn nis yt^n by onix ejDin nso nB^n D'yat? 

n:ranj 

flttw nww D*7 new nn n^apN 7y 
mm anan anm TK m^n nnw ia ^ B nn 



m^n na^nai hiin eja IO^D niyavx 
linn hnri nnii hiin D^a^N n^K' nn VTIX 
^N ai mr nit^iy niyaxs itry D^B* ^ 
nhn n^ya n ni? nKB'a mnnr 
pi>n DOBH D*B^en DVIMDJ o^a 
^I niya^N nio n^nstDi on^v i? 
ninir D^ns ^y niyavs niND yaiKi an^y nno 

nwo 



1 See Tobiah ben Eliezer's iefca/i Tob, II, 139, ed. Buber. 
3 The second mV?iE is a dittography from the preceding line. 
8 Read rieoi riep, "on both Bides." 
D 2 



36 



GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 6, recto.) 



D^Dya nyaiK i? ns^a DWHI D"nND nn nimr 
ontryi nK jno train niyavx DTitn D^^I tfnKO nn 
$B>3 D<BB>I t^nND nn nimr n^y ^y 
nn nimr nftx& niyavs yanxi ewn one train 
i* }n train niyavx m^y ^B* nsw naioan i 
pnno wm fop ^a D^iyn a lancsti' mn nnr 
napn bwi nnr B^^BI nimr yaw o^s^i D^nNoi ^K minn 
iy^B> K*naa :pn nnra D*OB*I 'NJS? napn^a nnx mr SVDJ i 
nay n^io noiKi nsn nnx no ^K nN 1| i ^na nay 

jna 'n pKan 

anw nans nw noitya n^aon nn^n DB* *3 nmo pan 
nay K*m noxa wy anm entry naiK 'os ^sh ann 
nnKB's nahn fjiyni n^aai 'aim biaa PB Nintr ib niayin ^oai 
Daa nama Km /<( nai cn^y ^y entry nsvioa nnhaao r 
nyn 11 ^oom Qpbn H aa6 na^oyn 
nsry n^ tr 11 xn^nana nyp^n 

nmnn nimr yanx na B xn^nana nyano nx nr noK 
n noK 1^ tr^tr n'-ai HOK IIIK 

u 

nimr n iNVa noKm 

naiotro nN nixo g 
% 
mr niso awi noK 

minn nsva D^nNOi d'a^N HB>>B* ptny nimr D"i 
pn rnra e^otri D>O i^y^a YTD ^o T nai nimr 

1 mma D^nxioi n^ai'N ntr^ nnx 1^1325 
nnao NvtrD moon ns pai3 nDND pan pm Kn 'BW xxvn 
ps DN yt^in^ na ^n 8 bbian eno^D JOIN ytnn* i iry^K 'i nai 
n^n YIO^K ni^ax OK *trs an pnoxn ^un ono^B* ny v^y n!>n 
jnoon n^aaa a^nns ni^ax annaB* nycroi *^ian no*no 



mr 


mr 


u 

r 


mr 


nir 



1 Erubin, aia. 



2 MoSd Katan, ST. 



3 Sanhedrin, 47". 



GEONIC RESPONSA 



37 



(Leaf 6, verso.) 

psfonm N^> IN i^y p/n^ a^n njnote ii>ina no i!> net? 'NKW xxvm 
? ihna pxtom pympp inyae> niaa nr nan *naa Diens IN Nin $>3N 
wxr pp p&n PN tjnoy e|nniw PPinn yanp baN nab panpn 
nana 'ND 'K>K>I : l ncbv j s 3np N^N p-no xh px^in xh py-np xxix 



iTa 



'loiron ni? 



ni on* 



noen 



wit^ni 3 pion ID 
w an 'ai? 
nn5 'nosn IJH 



noon e^DB'n p ai ama 
b PNB> no mw an notn NH ^y 
n33 aen^ Dipo nr a 



rna 

noon na^pn yip mtnni 
n nan!? :wn xy^vn 
porno 



jn no aini nr nan peny D^D 11 noa ny ain^ waa IK non 
? 1^33 NiD^n an ex 'can now na loipoa pawH? nypa 
v^y nea IN 't*w 6 nya^ b i^y r&aNnn DIN^ 
woo moBip mpa N^N n!?aNnD WKI !3Knn vby 
now na^ oipa pa^vi pNa poruo ^ PN IN porno ib ^ a 
mn NDV ^a min nn .T-nna^a a^a^n poruo i^ pN^ no Ninn r, 

. . *~* 

jnyn nun n-D^na rp? nnn^N n'-nana a-n^ ?nw m^y *a min 11 an 
a poroo - 7 



xxx 



10 



xxxi 



15 



xxxu 



o ~ 

g s 



i n^ o ' 
nn^na IN N^n Nnaoo 



py 



n xxxm 



npnr .TOT 

8 Ibid., 24 b. 
s 3f. iTa(., 24 a. 



1 Mishnah, M. Katan, III, 7 ; 24 b below. 
* Ketubot, 8 b. * Berakot, 46 b. 

6 Shabbat, 152 a, below. 7 Ibid., 152 b. 

8 Here occurs an isolated Arabic Responsum. The original text and 
, Hebrew translation follow on p. 38. 9 Gittin, 44 a. 



38 GENIZAH STUDIES 



"xn 



XplX *B HDX N 3T JX f TW 1 3T?X fy 

xi^xi TOftbtl yxnix npi a no^x ^x 5>3T }x n 
^x yxcnix npi IB ox:6xa xprnta jia x^i y&o [nb 
xh n^y XD^XJ mm }i3^ x^ ] nyihp ni> IIB* rusb n 
? JOD wnn ^x ^npx np nxn 11 jot rw ^a xnyB> j 
nn^axy aima n^x ^van> jx ^x na pxmi'x^x p rmrr x^yxa pa^ }x 

^T nnn^ xh a*imiN n^ rwS nmxmui 



Hebrew Translation*. 

no^n n^n ^x D33ni> into DX nrn i>y 
japnn jon nojan nu ^x oasn^ b nniDK> inar 



oy ysB ib 'n' 1 ^xi aipo b nnv i?ix , n^ann pom 
ii? nnv ^>ix .r^ann pni ninvn yapnn nya 
xn 11 x^x icvy nx 12^ f'xi .na^a vi?y aetp nai nrx 
nn 11 v^x aipn^ inn^ 11 xi> n^x c^x nxn 11 DXI . inxnoa 
imnm v^y DM^X cnn^ IB'X ny n jnaa i>ai> nnr 
nn TIDX pxi 3 pNWja nnii . imntah 



1 The copyist, under the influence of the preceding line, wrote 'y 
instead of H'tc, but noticed his error in time. 

2 I beg to acknowledge my indebtedness to my friend and colleague, 
Dr. I. Friedlaender for his kind assistance in translating the Arabic into 
Hebrew. 

8 The Arabic text has :nin "marriage," and according to it I have 
JWIXH in the Hebrew. But perhaps nin = Aramaic Jrn, which in later 
Rabbinic is used in the same sense as rroorr xmtcn. The question put 
to the Gaon would then have some justification, as there are cases when 
a person in a state of impurity is o"rrra IICN. Comp. Moed Katan, 15 b, 
Pinsker, o'pS^ supplement, p. 32, below, and n*tt! ; 176. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 



39 



nine? 



(Leaf 7, recto.) 

n !>a nivaipDp nnna nia^a wn^ao BTVB 

inx nine> N^N NW WN np^ nnx avow 
e nnN Nnao Npnr in wn^ao na NVI 



iha -ncf>nn 

lay KO 'awBi 'wi i>'a *pi Npnr n ajit? map nnN Nnaoo inioaxxxiv 
Dif>a Knbnsi KDIIB 2 haonB : irnan o^a nusn UWTB xxxv 



jna 



niana 



oian p noio px 
5>niN2 NCCO px 



6an 



p^ya 



inioa is w5>o n^o DIN TIM DNI nne N!> ona nintr^ vbv 1^10 
n WIDK nn fcnn ^22 WIB> nvy Q^W OKI jruwi vnac' pa IKXXXVH 
5>n nai nmna 'na }a DIN ^ IBWD nwvvn nwoion minn ba 

oDo Dtaa i^i i^n nisciua PNQD DH rw ^a hi'V 1 
vh 13 nncj^ ix tonn ^aa rna nar w m: nyj: i!?\s na^ai' 

i t t t 

ax wK np byai j pe> D^iw- Dnyi ppiyj p^y? b3N HJDO xxxvm 
natr Kin pn^3 yjua N^N np^y ^a D^a ND pxi 16 
ny 5>3 N^B> np i>y3 i?y KM rmi p" 

& innx^i pica JB^ runa aana yaa 
p nxi 'm 4 iab nanno np ^ya yet? 
nnp Tip ^i2D^> D^D ib PKB^ np ^ya 5 
^inxi? TUO i?ax n-ja^ "pao W*N\ ins 
ao n^aipN niiDB* jap p^o nyaix D^D oipo pai 
aea ^N inasb laini Tina iTa DN\ 'w n^sn^i 
^ '121 vafib N^N i3c> ^ awn na ^DV i DN 

, 

ins ma w 13 *DV n i p TD7nai G "inn 
pon !?N ION i^iaD^ D^ "vb *ia icsy nx 



pjyi? 
? ">noa 



n 
3n 
nina bx inn 



25 



JTOTTOID 

, 34 a 



i 

IIDN anN }Na 73N ao 



a Ibid., 37 a. 
s Sifre, Num. 158; Abodah Zarah, 75 b, but in both passages moiD and not c*ro. 

4 Berakot, Mishtiah, III, 4 ; 20 b. 

5 Berakot, 22* ; comp. Dikduke Soferim, ad loc., Tr Of ah Hayyim, 88, and iiDJn I,i. 
* Hullin, I22b-i23a. 



40 GENIZAII STUDIES 

(Leaf 7, verso.) 

^vnwpi w i^> panwo na "poron i>ai na p$"por -nynpi naxxxix 
noiy n-n iwp 121 JTTVP ny ^anni? np i>j?ai? ^ PN n^ana np ^>ya 
mpana N^>N nwDD piopD ps niTan ^3 a yn 

f3j?2- PITB3K pKI P")P3D pN HIT'S >D1 ^D1 D^ 

pi PNI^PI prnsn p^ ^31 nirsna N^N nsioia pbpo D^IDT 



nan * a P 

rva o ^ai nnnoa phn ^laxi? nwi nN* N^X xb p^ina 
B' penna m aini? pai ninoa phn p^aw vn 
phn bt6 hs p v3jn 'nrarn panynoi 



pr nrrtc ijonpn IK'NDI 4 nanyn nvm ?y 's^&i 1 XLI 



jaan a PB>KI pin 

D-OQ , 

pirn D^naD ruw Dp^nnn? o^ynr jnwn 



a 13 ^B> jniMn 15 
on nxo ^33 DK i^yB> D^Tiyon D^iynrn ^ v&P pin nics i 
ia jo N nyw pi iTan^ IN iByr^> 711? nns poo apn yans 
nata nr^ nr pa DIB TIX r6nh^ D"3iynr jnrn Tan pin 
youn ^cn pin :nio nr ipa N^B> na 
nnio no vrb& mw ^3 inwp pjnin IN PWB^P 20 



, 

youn pp pin :jn nnns r mai pvy 7 



DN ' IN 3 jnp nnip ^np IN D^pon nsnxp ayx 
pin :mpn paniyos p-o }ni jcvy ns prvsio 
nnio nnx 8 B mp imi? DJSJI n:D NXI* pi 11 mpn a^r nvr 
*a mn B'NI Kin nn Kin mpn PJID p "a ^i^ai yn* Ninp ^25 

pwinDi 9 a"3D *ab nap "nas nap 1031 Sa: ia nmn 

nyap m\ni uysn IPN nnx 10 :(])p6 noiai> PIPO Niin 

pa tiapna pa nanyn mo nx ppnao UN n^Nn D-pnn 

YerushcAmi Berakot, III, 6 c, below. * Berakot, II, 5 ; 22 b. 

Baba Batra, 60 b. Shabbal, 84 b. * Read i. 

ni^Diao from DTI. T Read inn rrrrai. 8 Read 7c. 

Exod. xxviii. 32, where our Targum reads qpo n' NTin. 
An abbreviation ? 



GEONIC RESPONSA 4! 

(Leaf 8, recto.) 

p nn naD r\mr hy r\&& tone? nany pa^na -wa niiv rvaana 
y rumi nS>aia naD 'a nawnn n^ao niN^aD 'a \n& naD 'i5 
mT ^ao ni'noi naD n^o nniN yniT 7m :o*nao 'n nwx 

'i nawnn n^aon nB> yrin HDIKD ia yniT pt^ nawnn J 

yniTi TOWD ia yniT PKB> naia^n n^aD anno SJN 

nanyn N\I IT 'N mre n^aana wai ^onn $hm 
}n }n i^xa i^x pii^pn fno 7 a nanyi'ti' naia jn jn i^^n 

_Q 



jva n^jan fa- IB- 
ynir pw njCKn n^aon nx 
...... t^Dia BJI HD^NO na 

jn^y aman nvir i ;D WIT 
p*o rwnoi ppa nao 
nx ynin ib TICD p H o 
yiT pa JK NVOJ 
^ iTn DNI jnaDD mna 
n*nia"aD bao nau am 
'naD n ^y D^nao^n runy^ naij 



J C 


3 


'J O U C 


C 






J u 






D 


3 




C 


C 


' 


D 




C 


C 






n n 






3 




C 




o o o r 




3 o n one 



nau ri'a rwswwaQ nisnD 'n n^'y: PJNI naD 'no 

ii nnim nao 'n n^jraim nau 'a 11 rw^wn nata 'a 
pp ba lyaiJ nsra yvcxa 'NI nni nn ba 'a po 'a* 
nt? n^nw p*o nau -xm p'D nao ^n i^ HIOD^ nnx nau 
naa yiiT naD rwoi naD yniT po 'a nn ^aa lynn n^naD 

, r 

na ynn PNI poan nnvn? na n^tyn n?aon nx anno HKI naD 
nT 'r }s*3 nn *rn yiT nvo^an nixbaD nt? ynin 
m pnitrpn nawBn nn^yn n^n pao^on ^aia py rwnci 
ainan ninpn ns ywn enoaa a ^aVe naia jn jn 



1 Bead ntac. 



GENIZAII STUDIES 
(Leaf 8, verso.) 



TIED nau vn myi 
KB> nx noaai ppi 
my itpoaai ^ rrarto 'N 
'a }m? rwpn 
n lynrai ma m 
ynr nn n'-yanm nv^wi 

PO 'a 11 1^ 1NVO3 ' 

'31 :mo m 



naiB^n nanya pa 

wy 



J U U U U U C 


D 


j 
D 


u u u u 


O 

c 


c 
c 


3 u u a 








J c 








3 


D 


D 




C 


c 


c 














c 


J 


D 


D 




C 


r 
















( 








"> r 








D 


D 


o n n r 


c 


c 


3 


on o o n r. 


r 


Donnonnnc 



piann ivnr? ^25 ny ax naea pa 10 
inn ^1 na-in onao nwy 1^2^ fha nx T>IX DW mo m 
mpi^nn by paitw ua^ ne'sa Ti3""i 'joS-jp n^a 
pTB' ba pi 2 nuiN nbh mm n^ pirnn bjn 

xyns wren 'cannoi nae> 'D pxn isptrni ny nai 
mnin pnv n ON nosy ^an njnoB' IJ^DN p nni :pae> '015 
J nboi 'n na baiyi D^HBD 'i nany n^iy pn 11 in^a ns nsbioij 
nany b^ naia jn b pao^n ir paa p*y nKioi nnaan noi 
ni biayn NM ysosa nepon nauom 



nvina 53K 
iy 



prim 



o o n n n 



O O O O 

O O O O 

O o O O 

O O O O 



U U U U U (J U C 



nbxn onain 



nniyen nun 



1 Shabbat, 85 b ; K3iir with 'i and not M3ic with 'T is the reading of 
the 'Aruk, see s. v. 

2 Shabbat, 150 a, below. 3 Kiddushin, 39 a 



GEONIC RESPONSA 43 

V. 

FRAGMENT 1 Am., paper, size 18x13 cm., consists of a 
quire of two leaves, of which the middle pages are missing. 
It is written in a square hand, but with a strong turn 
to cursive, and belongs to about the twelfth century. 
It represents the remainder of a collection of Geonic 
Responsa containing five Responsa by the Gaon Hai. 

The fragment has suffered very much from water and 
dampness, which have obliterated nearly the entire first 
page. The names mvr p inw, ffcOEy 12 lino, nsp in Bwy 
occur twice on the first page, in a document the nature 
of which I am unable to make out on account of the bad 
state of the fragment. On the last four lines of the page 
the following words are legible: (line 14) DNS nw&6 i?if pN3 
p-iiNK>; (line 15) ITU win ^ann u 'o; (line 16) mu DV 
DN pnaipp W ; and on the last line bina oyvb. These few 
words enable us to identify the Responsum with that 
quoted by R. Isaac Gajet in his nnot? nyt?, II, 59 a, in the 
name of Hai, in regard to the recital of the funeral prayer 
Win ^unn, and there can, therefore, be no doubt that by pw 
in our fragment Hai is meant. 

Responsum No. 2, on the question if locusts belong to 
the class of prohibited food, has been published before, by 
Harkavy in the Hebrew periodical Ha-Peles, II, 47 2 , and 
by Schechter in his Saadyana, fragment 34, page 62. Our 
fragment offers better readings than theirs. Harkavy also 
published in Ha-Peles, ibid., the third Responsum, of which 
our fragment has preserved only the beginning. 

Responsum No. 4, of which the commencement is missing, 
gives a short explanation of the passages in the Talmud 
Sanhedrin, 54 b, and Niddah, 44-45. The literal quotations 

1 This fragment belongs to David W. Amram, Esq., of Philadelphia, 
who kindly placed it at my disposal, for which I herewith express my 
thanks. 

2 Comp. also the Hebrew periodicals, Ha-Goren, II, 88, and Ha-Pisgah t 
V, 52-54- 



44 GENIZAH STUDIES 

from the Talmud in this Responsum are very interesting 
for the history of the text of the Talmud. 

Responsum No. 5 deals with the question whether the 
nnsitn nva^D nonar on the Musaf of the New Year are to be 
said by the whole Congregation or only by the JTn . A part 
of this Responsum is quoted by Ibn Gajet in his nnos? < nj?B > , 
I, 28, where Hai Gaon is given as its author. Hai's answer 
is that the additions to the rf-i *?& SJDIO should be recited 
only by the }Tn, and he adds, mn^a p rre>j tib ch\yo, "that 
they never were recited by the congregation in the syna- 
gogues of the Academies." On the later custom, compare 
Jacob ben Asher, Tur Orafy Hayyim, 591, and the authors 
quoted by him. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 



(Leaf i, verso.) 



45 



2 pnnio pnann pi pniDN ! rM>Dn fo traann pm NH 
PJN DIN mm* n prno iiyi n? TI S O D-aam ^ao 
p'opion ny p3B>oi NOB *n aan N^ion 
ninta aam feo 3 n^ ^SNI n^ND 
o^aan oxn ^f nnyo an no mn5> PPD^KI ^NJD 5 
*jn s^i pnhio 



)!> fi^" 1 ?"3 w*3ionp una niD'tf minai in 
y5 psa .T'lyo an non w^ yw N!? Nanax po 

jn^ax p3j pa IONT D^ana 'NII N^N o^no o^aan nox 10 
^B> 'won oi>jn wnaoi JOT paj& pa 
JNDI DTIO pns? ayN *nna pni> 
IN ini? --anvo rwmfa IDN pniox 



ns ?y papa nny c^ynv^ nny 
na-na!? pap ono 5>i noNT jva vb IN pi i>ya 
n^a ja^an Nni3K>a ja^am 'NO ^ai 6 
o pap ia pse> no^ pi anx h 'on 
N!? IN pn ^ya ^aaa ia nyn5> 20 



1 Not nbobo, but nV>D is the correct reading. It is a diminutive after 
the form qiitail, and is to be translated by "small basket." 
8 Abodah Zarah, II, 7 ; Gemara, ibid., 39 b. 

3 Shabbat, IX, 7 ; Gemara, ibid., gob. * i.e. WOT. 

5 Harkavy, {noun ^S, which gives no sense. Baba Batra, 403. 



46 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 2, recto.) 

tD 'ND TOB v!>y 

33B03 n31t?n m'K J3 IflX DV1 D3B> JHWl p T 

m 'N an a s :iB> 'D p KW ny 



3j jnw i^si nwp won* >y N3B> 'N an D^B> y{rn p ' m*33 5 
M>KI i'Diai jvijya pnnn 33^ KD^ rrua NDDOI ^na^ ny 
DNI IT !?y n^poji n3ron 3a i>y nonan nx ^DISI 2 ^3NO 
NVTI VT 1 ^y 3 nin^ rmns nmoxn mnyn ^3D nnx ^y N3 



nisr nsa psn 'N DVI 0*3^ 'a n3 nw3 n ^ n33{j>3 to 
'3 ra 5 pn ntrs3i 'N DVI 0*3^ '3 po 
n^y p3*rn nwp D3^ n^y N3 DNI 
^jo jinnn 33^ NDDi? n^yn n 
' n^y S3 DNI ruiran } ni>DB p^oan JD 'N n^s S3 OKI 

isn nviyn *?yo 15 
urn 312 
p -win i>y N3n 3-n 

p3 n3-ns pa ncnan 
nama xbw pa nama pa ncnan 

20 



1 Mishnah Niddah, V, 5 ; Gemara, ibid., 45 a. 

8 This is also the reading in the first edition of the Mishnah (Naples, 
1492), and in the edition of Lowe, but the later editions of the Mishnah 
and the Talmud, including the ed. princeps of Niddah (Soncino, 1487), 
have rraiina toiro. 

3 Here again our MS. agrees with ed. princeps of the Mishnah, and with 
the edition of Lowe, all other editions reading cvwio. 

* Sanhedrin, 54 b, below. 5 Niddah, 44 b. 

' = rto - ,N ; editions, including the ed. princeps of the Mishnah, read ^3nn . 



GEONIC RESPONSA 47 



(Leaf 2, verso.) 



ins now NW eyw mott 'NI 'N 

ny inain n NX* xi> yap &ann OKI ^>an nnis 
-I!?B> fjoim PNI in^n OKI nojan n^nn DN 
DX Nin p li-'jinN inr yt?nn I^N K^N ^a 
pra N^N na^a p n^yj N^ D^iyo 5 

^ano i^nsn px n^y innn 
N ^nb ^ano WN 



'pm xn Nn pan IHDN pam 
nbv OIN '^w jai an Trn Tn ba la 10 
nia-v ^jn S NO*P Ty nanai jnain n D^ann nx 
pm ye>n ^ano 'NI *iriN ^a nao sep Na 
nianar nia^D OIN psi yac> ^ano 'NI 'N ^>a nao ' 
^ann HN wmoi poi in^f n^B> N^ 
(?)anaon pi a/ ^tDa pia nai?n NP^DDI jnain n 15 

n^nn ma-'V ff^ lai' nx po^ Tnn 
V-IPIN nwy NH^I niana n^nn NW maxa 
J Da *NI n^ann SJID ijn n^ana niy Nin 
ya^ I^BN Nnt^ B>na SJDIO ip^ 

naa yt^n DINJ nant rvta n-rai 20 



1 Bos/s ha-Shanah, IV, 9 ; Gemara, ibid., 33 b. 
8 ^osA ha-Shanah, 34 b. 



48 GENIZAH STUDIES 

VI. 

Fragment 1 T-S., Loan 97, paper, size 1 8-5 x 14-5 cm., 
consists of two leaves, written in a very ancient square hand 
of about the tenth century. It is the remainder of a 
Geonic Kesponsum dealing with the nenp . Its author is a 
Palestinian scholar, the pupil, or at least a younger contem- 
porary, of Jehudai Gaon, the head of the Academy of Sura, 
about 760. The writer of this Responsum describes Jehudai 
as " one who has not had his like from early times until 
this day, being great in the knowledge of the Bible, the 
Mishnah, the Talmud, the Midrash, the Tosafot 2 , the Hag- 
gadah, and practical law" (Leaf 2, recto, lines 26-28). The 
description of Jehudai, which fills more than a page, is highly 
characteristic of the time and the country of the writer. 
The highest praise he has for the great Gaon is that " he 
never decided a legal question without having the authority 
of the Talmud and of his teacher, for his decision." 

With regard to the supremacy of the Babylonians, even 
in the Holy Land, notice the interesting information given 
in this fragment, that it was on account of the Babylonians 
who lived in Palestine that the liturgy was changed, and 
the " Kedushah " was introduced into the daily prayers, 
although in the original custom of the country, the Kedushah 
was to be found only in the nnnK> of the Sabbath. 

That the Kedushah was not recited on week-days we knew 
before (comp. Tosafot to Sanhedrin, 37 b, s. v. sp3 ; Midrash 
iha^l in R. & /., XIV, no; Maseket Soferim, XX, 7; 
Jellinek, Betha-Midrash, V, 162, and Or Zarua, II, f. 90), 
but now we know that even on U"V1 mi? the Kedushah 
was recited only with the nnnt? n^DD, and not with fpio. 
This explains the introductory formula "inn in the 1D1 'np 
according to all 3 the rituals except T33'N jruD and 



1 I beg to acknowledge my indebtedness to Dr. S. Schechter, who 
placed fragments VI and VIII at my disposal. 

3 mDCin is here not the "Tosefta," but is identical with apocryphal 
Midrashim, and therefore is mentioned after Midrash. 

3 I have compared the following rituals, all of them in the possession 
of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America : (i) 'on ; (2) TIED ; 



GEONIC RESPONSA 49 

The old introduction was undoubtedly tJHpJ, as in Ashkenaz 
and Roumania, or "I^'npJ, as in the Sephardic ritual, and "iro 
was originally used in Babylonia only on account of the 
influence of the Merkabah literature, and there nothing 
but "ina was used, as can be seen from the Seder Eab 
Amram Gaon, and the Italian ritual, which is modelled 
after that of the Babylonians. All the other countries kept 
their old CJHpJ or "]>'npJ, but when they yielded to the 
influence of the Babylonian schools and introduced the 
f|Di namp, they took over the formula ins with it. In 
connexion with this I will state that the old editions of 
the Italian "lime know only "ifD for all the niBTip, l^lpJ in 
the later editions being due to the influence of the Sephardic 
Kabbalists, who offered explanations why TTD should be 
recited only in ?1D1. The oldest Italian Timo known to 
me in which l^lpj occurs is ed. Venice 1 , 1626, Bragadini. 
But perhaps the Mahzor edited by 2 210 "an DrnnN is older 
than the one mentioned ; and in this edition we have 
the marginal note on the i>in n^np : vbw nsn n"y D'jmj B* 
Itpnpj icipoa nnow n">a n^jwai paoioi xi>K nna 'ii>. 

Another interesting point in our fragment is the tradition 
according to which the insertion of yDK> in the nt2>np had its 
origin in a religious persecution of the Jews. This tradition 
is found also in the Responsum of Sar Shalom Gaon 3 (Seder 
R. Amram, page n, Pardes, ed. Constantinople, 56 b), but 
our fragment adds some details not known before. It agrees 
with the other sources that it was a Christian persecution, 
but adds that the persecution ceased when the Christiana 
were defeated by the Mohammedans. 



(3) N'ja-n ; (4) jv:n ; (5) yraas-ip ; (6) NED ; (7) nsis (MS.) ; (8) D"E 
(MS.) ; (9) Dior '~\ -HD ; and (10) pro Tnnn, the oldest ritual known, a copy 
of which is in the possession of Dr. Schechter. With the exception of 
the TIED, I have used the first editions of the rituals mentioned. The 
third edition of TIED 'o (Adelkind, Venice, 1544) has "jicnp: in the n"?rn 
icnba and iro for the Hazan ! The second edition, and that of 1543, printed 
in Venice by Elijah Levita, has vo only. Saadia in his Siddur has -iwnp: only. 

1 The existence of this edition is doubted by Steinschneider (Cat. 2538), 
but the Jewish Theol. Sem. of America possesses a copy of the first part. 

3 He was active as an editor from 1595-1643. The copy of this Mahzor 
used by the writer lacks the title-page. The bibliographers know of no 
Mahzor edition by this Abraham Haber Tob. 

8 Clomp, also Abudarham, p. 64 b, ed. Amsterdam. 

E 



50 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(J^eaf i, recto.) 

DN ni 'mi i>pi ' 'ai epDi n^nn 0*1103 spoi n^nn niaxa pa 
^oaii r6 urn DB>n nnajn &6i nana n!> row 
noa nns by nanv row nana T.nar:n nmx 
^T 'an b i:na yujn not 2 D'yjyao an b'r a'n \w niyi noai 
moss? noai noa nnx ^y 'an 'WDD by nnx ms PI-DID 
nunyn ION pn^ na pro an ^5n WB> ntjn nnx nis 
'om Tina xa wn y pene ^N pm nn> an ^ 
w na i^ ON D^D^H ^SD 'ovya ^3301 D n*a a'na 
naia ^6 4 na TN *bbn n s a nan i> 



ira nan by nay^ aao nrpo an ow nnarn sh ro 
o nKn nnyoj va^aoi aina n.aB> bSn nna na^n lyapB' 

t i t niprnb 

'an nan by ^oian yye * nnytyn tsina I^SN vaao ny pnpno 
a^ ^faii wen 6 ,nn^o a^n nny^ mna I^BK nme is 
nix ^BK napn^ mac' ^y I^DIOO pn o^a napri 
lim iii :n ^sn na *pB> D^a pri ib N5jn3 PNB> nns 15 
n^ia nnm.n iaa N^IO nn ^NI imp np s^ c^a 
pi 7 nap^ inaB> Nin^ 3Bo nr pioaa N^N Dija N^ N^ n^x 
nnai? niDN nic&na nywtr nana !?a nanab ':n 'ns nar ^nin^ 
n.^on npi^j (?)^a noh xa nnx nis i"Din^ niow nnix 
bfaii lyapc? ny na ipbru a'n na 8 ^n-ip ( n n^o noN^ nnpn 20 
i>a ann n^Dt^ sao N3j>n na nan nox ^fan UP lat? na^n 
npnx arm n.i'D nnpn ^Nn onx ^an^ n^ia nj^n 
Dmaan nvb natwr ^xn pac> D<n' nn^yo pn 
v an n^y nn >ND Da^on n.bon pnpn 
on pnpn T.^n nN sani ostj^n n.i'D 25 
nnjw bfan upn^ nanai nana bi pi 9 sann n^niia 
nanai nana ^a ^b }si na^n lyapp ny na ip^nj a'n noa 
bi 'Nnin 1 ' no nox pi nio^na nnix 
yop n"np 



1 Berakot, 34 a, below. Our text reads rwnrn instead of D'Tioa. Comp. 
also Rabbinovicz, Dikduke Soferim, ad loc. 

8 Sukkah, 37 b ; Mishnah and Gemara. 3 Berakot, 1 1 a, below. 

* Bead m ^o nw rroi. The line under na p is to indicate that the 
writer left out some words. 

5 Baba Kama, 50 a. * Comp. Sanhedrin, 88 b. 

7 A similar passage is found in the MS. of the Midrash ha-Gadol, Dent. 
1.17, and probably it was in the original text of Megillah, 18 a. 

* Read umpn 'to 'ox^ IN 'p^ '^ "^^ DM - * Berakot, i2b. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 5! 



(Leaf i, verso.) 

nny nor^n noi^ n3E>3 nnru? 0:3^ jnix 



nipii n3B> vpajn 031x3 in onan D"BMy 
nnim pioyi? mrpjni D^por 1 1x31 n'nnn ^^ai DHK 
ioipo3 nnn nan N^N noii? TIDN &&nn^i yoty nnp Nnp^i 5 
n>npi ni>ani P'oa inm IIDNI noip 
poa ton pp-Tia nmi nai i?3i nanai nana 
iv-ipa n^en ^x n^ana V n*np no 
'nanai naij^na na^ naia N^K n-m^Ni B^BQ na^ IK 
'oa aio or ix poa nas? n^aro nn DXI uip^a aio DV 10 

nma^ ninas' on^a^ ^rum nvi onoiKB* nma poa 

nana Tnaoi now n^a nwirxn B>i?Ba nau' far^n naa 

*JB> nns "iai IN na^* Tam^ i'fan wpn x^ mip^na yaB 

nr nn n^aiai yot? nnp tnipn i?a i?fan i3B> ^^^ o^ya 

ia*ay n^i n^ WK ^-asi ! mwo 15 
a-> ' sni WK pan^ vii> twpi y'y rrh n^ IJK 
onio n:^ WK an NT o^pnaoi DHIJD DHID JDB 
^n^ jaca on^ unatt nci^ jaty i>ai 2 ni^n^ 
xa DX ^>f5n noKB nvyroxa I^BST x*n nana pyo 
nnai noa 3 D'IK nanai nana !>a pyo nanai nana ba tjioa 
IKIB-I ^3K D^JB' nanaa nonai Kan nanaa nxian nniox 
nn x\n nana fyo ix^n nxiai nanaa none) D^BTI nanaa 
niDXB pp ^ai nap^ niii^xn tr^a jae* ^ nawo nr 
np'y (t)^ai nunnK B'^ai niJi^xi B^BQ vanx ^KB^ 

iy^ I^BKI n3B*3 nfaw 3iyD^ 35 
m nn |ha nvyvcxa nxmni nrp33 nsTini ro&a ntnim 
yoa Dinnh njipTO nanat nana ^>a now &6x nji:o 
nana nnx pya K^B* noii' $>3 nana 
xa niox n^aro wnB nan3 nmx 



1 Berakot, sab. Our texts read yrro n 
8 Sukkah, 53 b, for which our fragment gives an entirely new explanation. 
s Abodah Zarah, 8 a ; comp. also p"?mr, ed. Buber, p. 268. 

E 2 



52 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Leaf 2, recto.) 

nani nan N!>N ni^ h 

rwa IN nan iniN pyjoa N^ nana anynr6 Na DN 
[ini]N pan-in nana nan IN nWa nan na^a nW any n.tan HN 
iniN D^IDI mix inaB> iniDa onN *)tfo m I^SNI 

pa IB> pnw^ nr 5 



L L 

PIDQ yDB> niciiN nnx ON T7nn joi natwn } naba 

min 1 ' an nr^N ^in }WNn PIDD y^ rvnp np^y IN 

K> n^np N\n n nnN ^N 'w yB> 
nan a!?.n naiia N^n IT nnN ^ ^N B yo^ ]3an wn myi 10 
nanxa D'oya DnniNB> nt pac' b myi 3 n^ND ^ana nabn Nan 

nnoiN N5i> niNi 4 o*ynnoi ni>yo 'ab tnyn ow 
p yenn* 'n 6i n^yo ^a inyn D^joa wnty av ^aa 

D^O nno nnNi onao pn nn niip nyanNi pnrya *b 
Nan D^iyn n wrw nnina ppoiy UN I^QN^ b rbyn -s^a inyn 15 
WIN napn Nna N^ waxy*? naic pmb uf' niDN nb-^ai ova 
n?j?ni N\n ptr n.^ ynnv 1:1 ^o^a Nnpan b aina "pp vmaai? 
n^ana N^>N "yy&fy tnnp p yoB> D^IOIN PN^ N-'.n 
PN natwi nw* ^ai nn^oai paown bN nab nat^ ^ 
na^a N^N yDB>i e>np ^nty pnNa onoiN PN r^ay ny 20 
D^invo pn na^a nnnjra na^a o^aiD 
ny npi^noi nsno wye' j^N^aa na 
nn^yi mano nN^a i>3N DV i?aa n^np 
na^a N!?N nnp tanow PN pN^aa ona 
ona pnpni JDIN p*yo PN $>n nnam nai?a oniu 25 
noa JD inia n*n N^>K> Nmn 1 ' an no paa ppTnn 
^nnoai m^nai nae'oai tnpa ^na n\n^ v^ay ny 
N^ nan nom nn N^ n^yoi? na^nai nnanai niDDinai 

1 The words in pwNT piDD are a dittography from the preceding line. 
1 Berakot, 13 b. The reading of the MS. agrees with MS. Munich ; comp. 
Dikduke Soferim, ad loc. 3 Berakot, ibid. 

* If the reading O'tfirrai is correct, then it stands for rTapn 'yc rmio ?y '01. 

* Berakot, ig a. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 53 

(Leafs, verso.) 

nnyai nwonai mnoai npnpa bn:i rrni m "DO yot? 
nN 'n^DNo H-TII fbia rmon baa pnpno mm 
inioa man Nbi nmobi mini? nvnan DN 3npo mm 
warn DHN Dnsam D-W n , , . DB> warn vnanb uaiann DnN 
mobn ITVJ Nbi mobna fbia pn ibbn Dnann !53B> nan ^no nan 5 
rnin *pnpn oph nan lino nan panh n^^ai ava ia 
io b i NTin 1 ' an no jr6 IDNB> |ra^ niv 
pai na^i nann "pon pa npna b px nny^n 
nam^na nnon pa nm naja ^nD^ pai nwrn 
i^pai can ^6^n i^y ivapna Ni^aa 7301 
an IN T'Dia nio^nn jo jni? IDN mix fni? IDIN Nin ja^no 
nnon-io jann nap^c' nxn jom 3i DN DJD na 



H3 H'-N napo (sic !) pD'DK NDN HB10 "NO 730 tf> NH 7301 

B 3P 11 : pn N^O n3 n^N nsp^a pnoN N OJ 7301 aj by PJS* "an 15 
i>Dio Nin nn T^O wntr ^20 n^a DHD 

xn "Diyob i^ ^D "Diyoij nr 

nnx Dipoo nsna nao nono r^yy nnp 
7301 Npim rvi^y ^yyo jsn piosi ^INI roTim JOTD 
nao nono nby^ onp fi "! 11 ^n ONT ejov amo niy xnt^aa 20 

NM nans cnoDi aj by CJN ap^n )van 3 Dnp irs nxna 
yaip pa "itj'yn abn jom ai NT a-no nyi bios 3p'j pmo 
nai "nix on^N^ xb obiyo^ bf 'NTin' 1 no ON niyi 4 onio U^N 
n^yob nabn "mobi niobnn jo iVNn ib B> n3T N!>N nab 
nabn na n*n N^ Tiobnn |o H^NT ib E' <| K' nan baN mo "ani "ano 25 
-nobnn jo H^NI 5 Nb PN iano nt^yob nabn n^a rrnp IN uno ntryob 
ob nabn n^a nsni mobnn jo nabn ib B>*B> nan N^N Dab TinoN Nb 
"DO nabn Nbi Nnpo "so nabn n^nio PN ^"^nn D""pb "ano 



1 The Aramaic form, instead of the Hebrew noio. 

2 Hullin, 48 a. The reading of our MS., compared with the editions and MSS. of the 
Talmud, shows many variants. Note especially the reading rpv N2H, and not '' 31 as the 
editions have it. Rabbina could never have spoken to R. Joseph, and therefore rpv MN is 
the correct reading. s Hullin, 47 b. 

* Hullin, 49 b, below. Our texts have yaiD2, and not yaij? pM. s Read r }W mo. 

6 Comp. Baiba a<ra, 130". 



54 GENIZAII STUDIES 



VII. 

Fragments T-S., Loan 90, 103, 104, 105, size 19-5 x 14 cm., 
written in a square oriental hand of about the twelfth century. 
They represent the remainder of an index to a very large 
collection of Geonic Responsa. The Geonim by whom these 
Responsa were written are Doza, the son of Saadia; Sherira; 
his son Hai ; and Samuel ha-Kohen, or, as he is usually called, 
Samuel ben Chofni. Some of the Responsa are written 
conjointly by Sherira and Hai ; but the greater part of 
the Responsa lack the name of their author. One bears 
the name of 'It^Q 133 VID Bttn $WD p .TpTn, and is addressed 
to sjDV p Wna. This Wro was a contemporary of Hai, with 
whom he stood in lively correspondence (comp. Harkavy, 
Responten der Geonim, p. 345), and accordingly " grandson " 
cannot have its literal meaning here, as there is about 
a century and a half between the time of Paltoi and that 
of Hai. I am inclined also to believe that this rrprn did not 
live in Babylonia, but in Africa or Palestine. The reason 
for this assumption is his title T1D B>fcO, the bearers of 
which known to us from Geonic times are all scholars living 
outside of Babylonia (comp. Poznariski inZ.H.B^'VII, 146), 
and this notwithstanding the fact that the title originated 
in Babylonia, where at the close of the Tannaitic time it was 
conferred upon leading scholars like Shila N^B> and Abba 
Arika (Hullin, 137 ; Letter of Sherira, p. 28, ed. Neubauer), 
while the Palestinians used the title ra'tr t?K1. But with 
the establishment of the academies in Babylonia the title 
of tmo B>n ceased, and instead of it came wu'TO B"i, and 
later Gaon. In contrast to the Babylonian xraTio, the other 
academies were only KVtD, and their leader NTiD i^n 1 . 

Among the persons to whom Responsa are addressed 
occur the following names : p pr6tt; nspta *wn ^3 ; JNlTp 33 



1 Comp., however, J.Q.R., XVIII, 404, where the C"nDn tt'Ni are men- 
tioned at the time of the reorganisation of the Academy at Sura. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 55 



p mirv ; mm : oioipix mo p ow^ ; ejw p im ; 
D'Di p 2py ; fjDV. With the exception of two, Meslmllam 
and Nahum, all these names occur in other collections 
of Geonic Responsa (comp. especially Harkavy's index to his 
edition of the Geonic Responsa). Concerning Dht?D, there 
can be no doubt that it is the great Meshullain, one of 
the founders of Jewish learning in Europe toward the end 
of the tenth century. Our fragment establishes the fact, 
beyond a doubt, that Italian- French scholars stood in 
correspondence with the Geonim of Babylonia. The first 
Responsa by Sherira and his son Hai to Meshullam with 
reference to the text of the nit^D, Zebahlm, 45 b, is especially 



interesting, as this reading of the Geonim was transmitted 
to the teachers of Rashi, and he refers to R. Meshullam in his 
commentary on Zebahim, ibid. Our fragment corroborates 
Rashi's statement and supports him against r Toa&fot(Menahot t 
iO9b, s. v. n^nro), who credited Kalonymus, the father of 
Meshullam, with the emendation of the njG?. It is note- 
worthy that the name Kalonymus is spelt DWil^lpJX , which 
suggests a Provenal origin for the name Dio^^p. The 
description of vorb as a part of France 1 , ruins pK3 "tt?M, 
is due to the fact that, among the orientals, France was 
the general name applied to any Christian country of 
western and central Europe. 

The statements summarizing the contents of the Responsa 
are very brief and vague, and therefore in many cases we 
are at a loss to say with certainty whether these Responsa 
are otherwise known or not. The compiler of the index 
gives only the first five or six words of the Responsa, and 
the name of the Talmudic treatise referred to in the 
Responsa. It is therefore obvious that in many cases it is 
impossible to tell the subjects dealt with in the Responsa. 
I have nevertheless given references to Responsa that 
suggested themselves to my mind as parallels, even though 
I may have been incurring the risk of error. 

1 Natronai Gaon, in pnj? nyir, sob, no. 12, speaks of "distant countries 
like Spain and France." 



56 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Fragment 90 ; leaf i, recto.) 

npim 



rn 
po enn ^a *6 ^ p enn ^a 



^any man pan 



"in iTop non n n^n 11 pan 

5 now N3 
rniDKn Daisys n^^ pnn um m 

6 p^in 33 
13 ran rwo Ny3i njno^n pjyh 

7 rwa 33 
any rrapion i>y DIN noiy pnn m 



H3 

J^ prwm 
9 .nnr is 

[x^n] 'n ^3 ^nhity nn ^3N nn*n m 
10 pnnn^D fa 

impSni' nsnnn panv nip^o *an ^y 

1 IfoSd Katan, 20 a ; Ibn Gajet, nnnta nytc, II, 64. 

* Toraf Kohanim to Lev. vi. 91, ed, Weiss, 33 d ; Harfcavy, JEesponsew, 328. 
3 EabaBatra, i^8b. 

* The passage referred to is not in Baba Batra, but Berakot, 30 b, and 
Menahot, 81 b. 

5 Sotah, 28 a. 

6 Hullin, 48 a. Our texts read 'n 13 "U nai, and Rabbinovicz, ad loc., 
does not give any variants. 

7 Bezah, IV, 7. 8 Ibid., V, 4. 9 ^46odoA ZaraA, 463. 
10 Sanhedrin, 4ob-4ia. Comp. Maimonides, Yad, Hilkot Sanhedrin, XII, 

a and XVI, 4. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 57 

(Fragment 90 ; leaf i, verso.) 



31D p oo 3-10 

nans pKa -IPK naii? runoo 

!>f '3K "Km JlKa Kin? 

2 DTQT K 

ino nswi 3 niN Dinars paw WKP m 

a 

1^ Tin nin^ yanxn 
a 
niyn JIBDK pan 



n^a 

7 mjnas? ii 

iiB^ira myi3^3 jin^onan Km 
D"n3Ti 
8 



max nmnp im pnotn 

f 
pnv n n^ oxn p^aa p^onji Km 



K pnaap payb 
mnin 6 

}na nij oa p K> }an 



2 Zebahim, 45 b (Mishnah}. Comp. introductory note. 

3 mrr ? Comp. the Talmudic passage referred to in the preceding note. 
* Sanhedrin, 64 a, Mishnah and Gemara. For nos. 2-4, see pp. 3-4. 

5 Baba Mezia, 47 b. 6 Berakot, 62 b. 

7 Shebuot, 6b. Comp. c ^4rwfc, s.v. nn,ed.Kohut,III, 506, and Wertheimer, 
'Tir nbnp, p. 16. 

8 Shebuot, job, lab; Wertheimer, 1. c., p. 17. 

9 Giltin, 84 a ; Wertheimer, I.e., p. 18. 

10 Horayot, 133, below. Comp.'Aruk, s.v. 1253, II, 233, and Harkavy, 195. 

11 Horayot, 13 b, below. Comp. '.4rwA-, s. v. iop, where Sherira's Kesponsum 
is quoted. 



58 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Fragment 90 ; leaf 2, recto.) 

1 mmo * 



s DTIDQ 

po:33 mian 
nrvoa 



pn 



L L > JL 

nbiy^s "ION jj; NVN nbxoi 



natrn 



pynt? naaK 3irn 



.... H3DJ1 

ano JD ana ntryoi 



<, 85 a. Comp. 'Aruk, a. v. ':m. 

2 Peaahim, 89 b, below; Wertheimer, I.e., p. 19. 

* The text seems to be corrupt. Moses is mentioned twice in Bekorot, in 
44 a and 45 a, but the words following mco give no sense. 

4 Toma, 57 a. 6 ifoSd Katan, 12 b. Shalbat, 2 &. 

T Read 'jNinabu, as in Fragment 105, Responsuin 8. Baradan is a suburb 
of Bagdad ; see Yaqut, 1,552. The 2 over }mto is the remnant of tnra, 
referring to Baba Batra, 147 b. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 59 

(Fragment 90 ; leaf a, verso.) 

*any in 2x1 i?t 
niaina >vni"aK 

vbv 'T *?y in^N nx n-won 
;a rrprn mob 

T33 110 



i>ii>na 

i>5r *JD^ ano ja 
Ty nan 



jnan 

jna yw waa iD^pn^ nvnn 

a 
pnu btw DK joro an nN 

6 D'HDB j 

IT nowa iw D^HDD anynu' no ^y 



am nan 



1 The dots are to indicate the reading 'm nsw. 

1 Ketubot, V, 8. Com p. the Geonic collection, nrw: mnn, 73. 

3 Baba Batra, 36 a ; 'Aruk, s. v., reads 'Sinn. 

4 jBemA, 15 b. * Baba Batra, 156 a. 

6 Pesahim, 1 18 b ; Eesponsa o/ </ie Geonim, ed. Lyck, no. 13. 

7 Bezah, 23 a, top. 



60 GENIZAII STUDIES 

(Fragment 103 ; leaf i, recto.) 

y ptu m ^s NW la' 



n 

NH nnnK n 3-ina pp nut? 



nny pnat an 



yan 



nnm 



nnainaa ni n^aae? n^n ni? nn*n 

T 

6 a ; 

nr nKoa 6^ n^yan j 



1203 
pap 



[n3]tan J 



1 Shebuot, 41 a, 41 b ; ': mon, 88. 8 Baba Mezia, 12 b-isb. 

* Gift in, 39 a; Baba Mezia, loob; Sanhedrin, 15 a. 
4 Git (in, 59 b-6o a ; Responsa, Lyck, 94. 

8 Baba Ifeft'a, 107, 108 ; Responsum, Lyck, 94. 

* Baba Mezia, 3, 4 ; Harkavy, Responsen, 184. T pis Ty?, 728, no. 6. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 6l 

(Fragment 103 ; leaf i, verso.) 

jwp !>T PNJ >NH mn!? N 
way nyi DrrnnN nio^o INITP J3 uro 



by i?r\ 
pa NDH n^ ni^^^K mm 



N boy 
n!?y bnyx 
NO ^D nyatrta oan ITB ian^ pn PDB 



f 



n 
imps NJ^SI n-ibo N3^a B 



NSS 3-1 



1 Kiddushin, 47 b ; BaZ>a Batra, 76 b ; Harkavy, 199. 

2 .Ba&a Batra, 132 b ; Harkavy, 220. 3 Hidlin, 61. 

4 Menahot, 40-43. This Responsum is found in MS. among the Cam- 
bridge Genizah fragments. 

* Baba Batra, 46 b. 6 Baba Mezia, 108 b. Comp. Cassel, p";n, 9. 

7 a6a Ifezz'a, 104 b. Comp. Responsa, Coronel, 5. 

8 Baba Batra, 124 a ; Harkavy, 201. 



62 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Fragment 103 ; leaf 2, recto.) 

1 nwiro 

by jn DP K^on trpb pn DNT Nm 
3 nap nb 

ran T,inb ypinn pjvano m pa 'TB 



iawi papon nan ns 

6 
4 piDB oa-inon paya unos -IB>N man ^jn 



'iw nva na nipy^ na pw an nn n 
pa p jnK's b noNP 'B^VBK pnv n 
6 nap an 

^yas HNOID anna aDapD nns DN 
7 na^an ao 

rwpoh jo ^ Npsan nnpm pan nwKn n 
8 nnna ejw no 

px N^m DV n DN pnn xn 
no 

^*BM 'IN min i jann xn 
io 

n^aani n^n OKI pan ion xni 
11 nap TO 

ua by cn^o pnw pn -wcMn n 



1 Ketubot, 44 b ; Harkavy, 247. 

* .RosA ha-Shanah, 27 b (Jf/sAnoA). 

8 a&a Ifezia, 81 b-82 a ; Besponsa Afan<., 65, 

* Kiddushin, 49 a; Harkavy, 248 

8 JlfoM Xrttan, 1 8 a, below ; Harkavy, 249. 

* Shabbat, 17 a; Harkavy, 250. T Hagigah, 12 b on the top. 
8 Nazir, 66 a (Jfi^noA). Misknah, Ketubot, IV, 4. 

10 Shabbat, 6 a. " Ibid., 51 b. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 63 



(Fragment 103; leaf a, verso.) 

1 tana no 

>xi pm xn 



JIB-IB n DNB> n^pn 
5 

1HD iT3B 1333 TTO 



nnisa pn loy B DN pm xn 



33 



n pnnn am '03 'TS 
ri3 



H3B> 13 



JKOI n^na nw^n 

ni 

n N N3N 13 H^H 'YONT NH 

no33 



1 Ketubot, VII, 6 ; Getnara, 723, 72 b ; Harkavy, 251, 252. 

2 Ketubot, 72b; Harkavy, 153; cp.'Aruk, s.v.rmn nVirc, ed. Kohut, 11,215 

3 Ketubot, VII, 8. 4 Read rrcna nnna. Harkavy, 254, 255 
6 Ibid., 256. 7 .Rosfc ha-SJumah, 34 b, 35 a ; Harkavy, 257. 

* Beraket, 338 ; Harkavy, 259. 



64 



GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Fragment 104 ; leaf i, recto.) 



'33 

2 



Sp 



-ip 



rip 



njnae>a NN vnsn x? nmiro noaisn pn 



maa^ nyi? ny n^r OKI xn 

4 nnwa fp 

npy *jpB>ni> Nip DNB' pao pan wm 

5 niniaa np 

Nan n6si !?IDD nnpn pm xn 

Dp 

DV nain i'N int^Ni? 'o 



twom 



m>n 



1 Sanhedrin, ub. 
3 Niddah, 5 b. 

6 Ibid., 43 b. 

7 Muller, 010*3, 13. 



a Shebuot, VII, 7. 
* Bekorot, 59 a. 
ZebaAim, II, i. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 65 

(Fragment 104 ; leaf i, verso.) 

1 nmaa rp 

pro* pi nx {loan Dip-ia:ip ^t^n NH 

8 mr TP 



pixn 



jiap 'DB' }3 mop in 

4 rot? f p 

nona niy Nan 'DNT n 
ftp 
nna sno'-n nn 'cxn KH 



nnaio | ........ n 

mama ap 

ninnx p^ w Q'oaj nns pan 



myaa 

8 mama asp 

H ana nr ^x n? 

1 Bekorot, 58. a ^6o&/t Zarah, 8b; Harkavy, 45. 

8 JJesponsa Mant., 167. * Shabbat, 28 a. 

5 Ibid., 104 a. ' Huttin, 95 a. 

T I do not find this passage either in Gittin or in any other place, but 
perhaps this was the reading of the Gaon in Gittin, 65 a. Cornp. also 
Miiller, QIO"J, 97, and Niddah, 463. 

8 Ketubot, II, 4. 



66 



GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Fragment 104 ; leaf a, recto.) 



Dwa ninyi' pnn sin 
1 DTIDD n6p 

S6nn ns v^y now Tan pm n 
mana top 

nix nw 'INT ^snon Tn 
top 

nnrn pit?n {m^ vn pm KH 
nop 

jna airo nisnoii w^vo 
bop 

am nna no r xn Kn 
yp 

nx jnu jinnnn 'IN 7 mvp n pm NH 

6 snna NVP 

pnnn N^iyn 'B>O n na NHN an 'on NH 

ayp 



nmna 
ni?ya 



man am 



mpn 



Atm, X, 7. 

8 Berakot, 21 b ; comp. Seder R. Amram, 4 b, below, and Maimonides Tad, 
Teflllah, VI, 17. 

* Shebuot, VII, 4; y*c, 71*. 4 Kiddushin, 47 b. * 5a&a ara, 142 b. 

* jBaba Mezia, X, 2, and the following passage is from Baba Mezia, 117 b. 
We thus have two passages belonging to our Baba Mezia quoted from Baba 
Batra. This can hardly be explained as a repeated copyist's error. We 
seem to have here a striking endorsement of the theory advanced by 
Dr. D. Hoffmann (Berliner and Hoffmann, Magazin, VI, 116-17), that 
what appears in our texts as the last chapter of Baba Mezia is in reality 
the first chapter of Baba Batra. 

7 Our texts have TV instead of min\ 

8 Demai, VII, 8. 



GEONIC RESPOXSA 67 



(Fragment 104 ; leaf 2, verso.) 



KD 



irw am im 
xc? jnata &aa naoa 
o^oa mo p apy* no 



nny: pn p 

3 

enB3 12^0 
a 
vkvb nnnnm n^yn n^na^ WN 

4 mama -i 

jnainaa pamat^ i30ipo ^JN an wm 

5 xnna ,-i 



7 mama i 

IN nt:x ms^n^ mop pm'sn 

f 
ainaa 1^ no pnn^a pm n 



1 Ketubot, 39 a; Harkavy, 74. a Fe6amo<, 1073. 

3 Ketubot, 82 b ; Responsa Mant., 179, v*^, IV, 12 ; 55 a? 

4 Harkavy, 224. 5 jBa^a Batra, 131 b. 

6 i. e. na and who is not a no rac. 

7 Kctulot, XI, 6 ; Miiller, aio":, 12. * Gittin, VII, i. 



F 2 



68 



GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Fragment 105 ; leaf i, recto.) 

'pl'VPp 1 Np 



2 



ppo 



nwyn 



nnyn 



33 

nanai 



~iy\ 



rue* 



-ia 



niK>yi> 



'INK' ns 



ii3 



no^n 



na 



paoa pnox ^n NO 



65 



PICK pam 



mn 1 mo nrvn 



PN]B> ns D^IW nvpoi> 



1 Kiddushin, 48 a, last line ; Baba Kama, 99 a. 

2 MoSd Katan, 8b. 

s NWD is a copyist's error for DTIDE ; cp. ibid., 1073, and 'Aruk, s. v. 
4 Tosefta Berakot, IV, i : Sukkah, 27 a ; cp. 'Aruk, s. v. 
8 Read DV or ^TT. ' Taanit, 19 a. 7 Pesahim, 40 h. 

e:ia, III, 7. Harkavy, 205. 10 Baba Mezia, III, 2. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 69 

(Fragment 105 ; leaf x, verso.) 



no P rmrp ano 
mr ^Sr ptu <n 

otn IM*ID 

nsna 



T y 

2 no^ 

pa minfoa p* D^I nyNoaiK n^v 

3 nwyn 

nyKoa^x ^y swoto o^n nra 

4 ppB>o "i 

1T33 D^n^K NTH lOS NIK 



o 11x2 

_/^ 

g 

'D or s 



ytsp 'JNTias jtni>K nina mo W^N-I 

i- 

7 



nr naoN nv JD^J *s n* nv NIK 

- Q -C"- 
' ^ a 

xnas pap "Ofco N^ JD:N ^n NIK -T 

1 Harkavy, 207. 2 So.'oA, 38. 3 roan, 14 a, hot. 

4 Jlf. Kat., 17 a. 5 M. A'a/.i 230. 

Ibn Gajet, ", I, 23, hot. ? 7 Pesahim, 65 b. 



70 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Fragment 105 ; leaf 2, recto.) 



a 



nmna 

ID 

ii 

DB^&G JN ^P 
ma i 



f 

enoi nan an ma 



'n^N jo i\y na nx^n^ 
6 
} oa^N yjnN 



w ID fna' Da 



x DV nasnaK pao 
Nina 



n pa jsa 



1 Deals \vith npcco miyr, Taanit, 300. a Fe&awo^, 101 a. 

3 Comp. Parties, 23 c. * Comp. Tur, II, 265. 5 Shabbat, XIX, i. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 71 

(Fragment 105 ; leaf 2, verso.) 



. *>Np mhna ma^ 
rnjnai? itb 



a f 

mica mno 'o^ n!? yn am 



nnva^x } nrtan x 

na^no DNT nto *B ID^J mBNi>n 
nao vb n^an ns naion nyo urn 
3 Nina a 

nnpnn DN N^ i^ax nyiap n^naoi 
3 Nina } i a 

n^i^Di 'ivc&n nya 

3 Nina n 

wrm w^B' ^01 o 11 

3 Nina i 

pan un naoinn JD ino^na iicsn i?y 
DN nao nan n^a n 



1 Harkavy, 2?esponsen, 312. 3 Ibid., 313. 

3 a6a Batra, 65 b-67 b. 

4 Our texts have rPcVin ; Rabbinovicz records also n'DVn 
8 Read one:? Comp. Rabbiuovicz, ad loc. 



72 OENIZAH STUDIES 

VIII. 

Fragment 2634, MS. Heb. C 18, ff. 35-38, Bodl. This 
fragment consists of a quire of four leaves, written in Syr, 
square characters, 4to, vellum. Though the writing is largely 
obliterated, the missing portions can readily be supplied, 
as will appear from an examination of the dotted words 
in the appended copy of the fragment. It must have 
belonged to a collection of Geonic Besponsa, eight of 
which are preserved in our fragment. No author is men- 
tioned, the seventh alone being elsewhere ascribed to 
Sherira, and the only indication of the time of the frag- 
ment is afforded by the reference made to the Gaon Zadok 
(about 823), leaf 38, recto, line 10. 

The first Responsum in this fragment deals with a 
peculiar modification of the law of dowry and jointure, 
as it was developed in certain places outside of Babylonia, 
In these places it was customary for the bridegroom to 
sign a contract in which his future wife's dowry, together 
with such gifts as he himself made to her at their marriage, 
were set down and appraised greatly beyond their actual 
value 1 , and the provision was made that, on the decease of 
the husband, or in the event of divorce, the woman was to 
receive the fictitious amount therein mentioned. This 
practice led to much litigation, and in many cases worked 
injustice to the heirs of the dead man. The Gaon, ques- 
tioned as to how the real value was to be. determined, 
advised strongly that the custom, which he describes as 
< robbery " and " deception," be entirely abolished, and the 
practice prevailing in the academies of Babylonia and in 
the places under their jurisdiction be adopted in its 
stead. The Gaon feels so strongly upon the subject that 
he quotes the form of contract in use in Babylonia. As 
this is probably the oldest form of the nmnp containing 
a jointure provision, it deserves to be translated here, 



Comp. pis nrir, p. 56 , No. 16 : niD:3otj OWD crrrnnroa 
noj 07^3 ^E? natn poo jnb parvoi 



GEONIC RESPONSA 73 

After an introduction, in which he lays stress upon the 
fact that the appraisal of the articles mentioned in the 
contract is strictly in accordance with their real value, 
the Gaon continues (leaf 35 verso, lines 7-13) : " And this 
is the dowry which she brought to him : jewellery and 
ornaments of such and such value ; wearing apparel of 
such and such value ; and pillows and bedding of such and 
such value ; and N. N. [the bridegroom] has consented to 
add to the prescribed marriage portion [mina] &ilk of such 
and such value ; necklaces (?) of such and such value ; 
wearing apparel of such and such value ; and garments of 
such and such value. The above-mentioned N. N. takes 
upon himself and his heirs after him the obligation to 
pay out the value of this marriage portion, together with 
the addition made by himself. And this dowry has been 
delivered to the bridegroom, and it has been clearly seen 
[by the witnesses] that its value is exactly as herein set 
down." 

The second Responsum likewise deals with the law of 
dowry. The Gaon was called upon to decide a case in 
which a creditor lays claim to the dowry of the debtor's 
widow. The peculiar feature was that though at the time 
of the man's death the husband and wife lived in harmony, 
there had been a quarrel, on account of which the woman 
had earned away, out of her husband's house, all granted 
her by her dower rights, and had deposited it with a third 
party to secure it against her husband. After this occur- 
rence the man contracted a debt, and then happened his 
death, the dowry articles all this time remaining in the 
safe-keeping of the appointed guardian. The Gaon decides 
that the creditor cannot claim them in payment of the 
money owing to him, in view of the fact that the debt 
owing to the woman, that is, her dower rights, antedated 
the debt owing to him. He states explicitly that this 
decision was not influenced by the fact that the dowry had 
been deposited outside of her husband's house ; in all cases 
the widow is the preferred creditor. 



74 GENIZAH STUDIES 

The third Responsum treats of a case classified as usury. 
Peddlers were in the habit of bartering junk, flax, wool, &c., 
purchased in the city, for wheat, barley, and other country 
produce. The wares they carried with them to the coun- 
try were purchased with borrowed money, and they stipu- 
lated to repay the debt in kind : for a certain sum loaned 
the creditor would receive a number of measures of wheat, 
or other produce. In the interval between the contracting 
of the debt and its payment on the return of the peddlers, 
the price of natural products would rise, the benefit of the 
augmented market value accruing, however, entirely to 
the creditors, and not at all to the peddler-debtors. The 
Gaon condemned the practice as usurious, and decided that 
an arrangement for the payment of a debt in kind was 
permissible only if the produce was at hand. 

The fourth Responsum deals with the law of slavery. If 
a Jewish master has had a Christian slave for a twelve- 
month, and his efforts to induce him to accept Judaism 
have been unavailing, he must dismiss him. The same 
decision occurs in several other Geonic Responsa not 
identical with ours 1 . 

The fifth Responsum warns against resorting to a legal 
fiction in order to evade the law of Sabbath rest, even as 
applying to domestic animals. A man is not permitted, 
the Responsum says, to lend his cattle to a non-Jewish 
neighbour, who will make use of them, over a holiday or 
a Sabbath ; nor is he permitted to dispose of them by mock 
sale, for if the law refuses to countenance a legal fiction in 
the case of usury and castration, surely the Sabbath law, 
which transcends these in importance, must be guarded 
against even the shadow of an infringement. Though this 
is a subject frequently dealt with in the Geonic Responsa 
literature 2 , yet the Responsum under discussion occurs in 
no other place. 

1 Comp.,for instance, x'v, p. 26*, No. 21 ; Muller, nnco, pp. 127, 132, 215, 
and 270. 

2 Comp. rnpiCB rvobn, ed. Muller, p. 66, No. 125, and no'ro n"jnp, pp. 16-19 
of the Introduction, and pp. 52-62 in the body of the book. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 75 

The sixth Responsum deals with two phases of the law 
of slavery. It decides, first, that an oral declaration before 
witnesses, by the master, that a certain slave belonging to 
him has been manumitted, is binding upon the heirs of the 
master ; in case he should die before he writes the bill of 
emancipation, they are compelled to give the slave his 
liberty by executing the written instrument. In other 
words, in Jewish law the execution of the bill may be 
but a second step in the process of manumission, the 
first step having been the oral declaration before 
witnesses. Furthermore, the manumission of a slave, 
whether by oral declaration or by a written instrument, 
need not be in Hebrew ; any other language will do as 
well. In substantiation of this decision, the Gaon refers 
to an interesting historical fact. He tells us (leaf 38, recto, 
lines 7-11): "It is related of Nathan ben Shahriar 1 , a 
member of the family of the Exilarch, that on his death- 
bed he issued the order, in Arabic, that his male slave 
N. N., and his female slave N. N., were not to be owned 
by any one after his death. There were only these words, 
no formality customary in such acts was observed, and no 
written instrument was executed. The matter came before 
our lord, the light of our eyes, our master Rab Zadok 
Gaon, may his soul rest in Paradise, and he decided that 
according to law they must be set free, and he compelled 
the heir of Nathan, Shemaiah, who was the son of Isaac 2 , 
the Resh Galuta, to write a bill of manumission." 

The law of slavery is also dealt with in the seventh 
Responsum, the only one in our fragment found elsewhere, 
namely, in p*i ^iyB>, p. a6 b , No. 29, where it is ascribed to 
Sherira. The question considered is the sort of extraneous 
indications that may be accepted as proof of the emancipa- 
tion of a slave in cases in which no bill has been made out. 
A man had sent a slave of his to school, and had had him 
taught the reading of the Torah and the Prophets, and 

1 Comp., Schechter, Saadyana, pp. 75-7. 

3 Usually known by his Persian-Hebrew name, 'ipc'. 



76 GENIZAH STUDIES 

later the slave had been married with all the ceremonial 
observed at the marriage of a free man, as, for instance, 
the recital of the " seven blessings." On the death of the 
master, who left a young son, the slave insisted that these 
circumstances indicated his emancipation. The matter 
was brought before the court, which finally granted him 
his liberty, in order to secure to the heir the dead man's 
fortune, which had been entrusted to the slave. The Gaon 
considered the decision of the court not justifiable. That 
he had educated him and had his marriage ceremony 
performed as though he had been freed, had be.n reprehen- 
sible acts, but they could not be adduced as proofs of 
manumission. Reading of the Law before a congregation 
might have been accepted as such proof, but not mere 
ability to read the Scriptures. 

The eighth Responsum is in an incomplete condition, and 
deals with the hermeneutic rule, PK nriN3 D'tan D'airo 'JB> 



GEONIC RESPONSA 77 



(Leaf 35, recto.) 

anao nanaen IT ^>y nino^ pbian? Kin pa invy 
nN pop UNI po'pam onaa n<aN ni> jrp PKIBJ nypa row PNDU 
"nmni train? iai 13 nanoa r6 jniai |nn noun nnw i>y TJV niaan 
ni>tr .Tanaa n*aK irao 'n^aKne' no oy nanoa jniK D^ni n^3 

^y una^i pa*pa D^ipoi pnno noan nann pooa IDB' vby lana^i 5 
nniinaa lanae' -no ^3 ^an hun no DS % i>na }NV npyai D*ipo noc' jnnn 
.... moK DN IN vb IN ban i?Dn^ Bn:nn DN IN si> IN 
ONI rraK n*ao nK'ant? o^naa ^IDH IN nnainaa o^ainan D^ainrn 
nyra Mos^n KOIBO nniN ^Dn NOI^ nrK3 rwyrw no hon^ pin }o 

..... DEJOI D^ n^ ana ^on DN v^sy poi noa IN 10 
noo nai^b wiw anaoB' ia^N"i p Nano ^ D s aD3 D^HND 
anaoo nyiaoi yn anao PKI i'Ni^' 1 moipo 
, nyn na:a nisw 12 B*I ^ra DIB^D ia 
nNoa nao HNO onaa rta *nN aniai na^ooa ^NI^ 'apt 
pnnoi o*ipo IDB' psn-oi piw inn !?y niKD BTCHI i!>3 ^N ^nsn 15 
fnaiiyoi nanoa nr SI^N n!> fnia K^ my N^I oa^saa 'DIN DHN no i^y 
win H!?B> K^anai Kana |niN Niipi HUN n^ jna no oy 
i^y namai ninni iTana iniN NIIP nt ^N rb 
noa pnoiK UK 13 N^> ^3 nsoin i^ pN Kin canard p DN n^ iniK 
i^ nnins nsoin Kn pM nsma nsoini naina np*y 2 nic^na o^cya 20 
S>y Kip*i UDD "IHN nanca ni? jnaB* nr v^y anisi nnn ncNn DNI 



1 Read nK'irro or rwio ^nTU. 

2 Ketulot, 90 a, and in many other places. 



78 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 35, verso.) 

p3 pib pbia' UN PN Nwaa vby naniai n-mntr N^N iiy 
nr DIP "iw by "iioyb "IPBN IMM -ippbp DIP P'P jva 
DPP p* 1 D'nsoa nNo DPP pn D'poni nxoa nxo popp 
Dipb navp ^ p s^n noxa nain pe jva o^en nsa no 
baaai nia^a an:o nana nabn pioab n^ax INM . . . h? 5 

DHJD vm poc> nbab n^ax nb jnaE^D Nin. p 
K'jna pm naina nt3B>a pamai N^HJ px^pi pitw no 
mnoai ona iai na n^naa nai ia po^an ni>.n 
pi p | IB nnaina by spoiNi PI 

pa pa "IP N'loai p p <ip NB'iabn *aN p p jo 10 
'nnna mm byi nii>y nnaoim NT nnaina nrnntt 
^nai NIB> pnn iBn sa^rni Nann n^ NT joana 
mn sbn 10*01 fytyob ba* sb n^ enao na fa nna pan panan 



ba IT!? a\Ti MN^ *M"n mtsen nainaa Plan naa n^ pnosi 15 
^BMI nb^ onaa ba PDB xi?N N'a^y n:n bp^ob nb n>b MITD nainaa 
PM 'ox bNio^i rrbyB* no pB> 'ON ai . nao^M 'jancMi n^y 
naba M^ana N^N rb PN mnio NM DNI a^a Nna^ni rvbyv no 
rrcnob-ny ibap ja pp moa \yy*& pa nNWi NIHP moa 
nbya by bna IN^ nana nN nnpy DNI : 3 yaib nyi p^bpb iyi 20 
pa jnpnm nn^ s ya jntaia nonp no nn"ao nnM^ nypa 



is certainly identical with wan?, Kiddushin, 9*, the meaning 
of which is, however, doubtful ; comp. Rashi, ad loc., and 'Aruk, s. v. 
ion (ed. Kohut, III, 437). I think that 'taa in our text is the explanation 
given by a glossator to Nro\"c, which he takes to be a kind of necklace. 

2 Ketubot, 54 a. 

* Ketubot, 63 b, below, to 64 a. * Read irwra. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 



79 



(Leaf 36, recto.) 



13^31 nnam33 n 

nmsni ntan&P 

N n!> PN rmo DX 



^3 biun no DX nWt? nr anaoi 1 :n^ya 
DIP inixa orwya jnw Snen po"-p fwarH? 
pin xm ^ ntjna DN pai D^n^ iD^ 11 2 D"n pa 
nnnK> faixn nWn rras ni> jn:^ pia^ani onaa 
nwvno moM n^N n^a^> nabm ban onm nnaa n^oai on^a 5 
a nnxi ^ ir' 1 ^ no ^3 n^oaM nax n^ao ^nNan^ no i>a fetpp nr 
^ T ^y po^ani o^naa n^pea N^-N woo yiaxp no tb PNI irvao 
a nnw in^K ny mta n^yi onix i^^ni ^a 5>jn nvni DHIN ^ID 
n^sm woo yian^ am bya ai noi ^3^1 DIN yao poo pixn mi 
no^sn N'lKn wbww pu^ani onaa |m : ni>&? nanai nnaina 10 
can osm }va ND^T IN N^IN jno niaab ain i?yai? ii? tj N^ -IN 
nnaina nvt* naa'-nt?' ny niaa^ i^ px ain ^>ya 



n3 amp 



nams 
noi 



ny 



ntry^ 



i| iD3 



rb 

ain ^>y 

nonip 'KOI naa 
pa iniNO ain ^>ya 
am i>ya O^WDI ny 
l| N 



15 



nao ppao N oam nae> DIP 'NT o n px 
naaty no ^ 'o* D^iyb naa naaty no-naai 
> mpio am ^ya^ pan nvw na^ mip p 
mam ^ya na N^P^ N^ p wan NOSI na >aa|) 2 o 
am jo n*o *a^ ain ^ya aa x 



1 This view is not accepted by all the authorities, comp. Asheri, Nach- 
manides, and R. S. B. A. to Ketubot, 63 b-64 a, and Jacob ben Asher, Tur 
Ebcn ha-Ezer, LXXVII. 

2 Read anra. s Ketulot, X, 5 ; 93 b. 
4 = 'TO:. Ketubot, 90 a. 

6 Read IT. 



80 GEXIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 36, verso.) 

lt \yn xin nrx 

air. bya yia* nann nnv OKI nnaina bs yna-n isb^n ain bya ^sb 
naina 13 pai 13 pa bba oan xb b no D"no nan 'b no sin psm 
^boo jo pa ypnpo pa noan sb pa noan pa nr am by3b nonip 
pvaipi D'o^ai noxi fnpai nwona pnaioi oneaai nn^ya pnino pnrno 
pun bjn mytj' by trna ^yao JIOD p^otn onan nxn niyan omyn o^tsn 5 

nr np p:ipi poo pbow nana DTBP 131 na fney ppoiai pniytn 
jni? ijn^ in nnB pb jnb nnio npin nn^an HK pjnia^s pn^noi \rh 
nb nnn* nosn DN nann pr on^a D^CD nay naa D^na ^yai DJIDO 
ipoat? n3 cnb un 1 DNI p^b ^aa nbn by^ni po nnb iii^tr ^6 two* b 

Kin na Drp3a p^oa: INTI poo bya n^nm npva p3ie> ini ix 10 
DTap 13 13 jnop ppoiai I^N Dnmob poo panw^ ^^x o^na ^ya pnn 
J^BNI on^naa pniyn po^n jnixb PB poo onb WVB> nyB'a DN n:na 

imo ib 5T 1 D^D pnONpT D>^B3 ^BKl |^n . . . . O HVp 

pn nr nana poan i^pni niox ib ps pnospn 2 mDN orrnaa onb ps DW 
'ON pnv> '11 D^HND nib D^ND no mb nso ib t^ win an 'ox 8 pncM 15 
rrnwia n>^n 'n ^nxpn pnx> /- i3 rabm pn^3 nos nr by mb 4 nso Nbx ib px 
tb ps p^ na^Q ib PN p na^o pny 7 nb .Tyvob nn 'n >:xn pnoxpn 
13 nnw D^ainr |nb pibo nr nana ^ni bax pao noa n^by mb ib * i 
}3 ni^yb IIDN p:>o nstn p-nyun n^tan pvaipi nn"yb pabin 
nnasai nrvya D^JN by onmob nnb & ib'axi 
5 NCN pnoxpn jn^on ppbi }.Tby nibb IIDN Divap bi 



1 These three words at the top of the page are written by a later hand, 
evidently a memorandum, referring to the chapter -|C3 Nin nvN of the 
treatise Baba Mezia, treating of the laws of rvm, under which the Gaon 
classifies the case put to him. 

2 Baba Mezia, 63 a. 8 Baba Mezia, 75 a. 

4 This is the reading of different MSS. of the Talmud, the printed text 
reads : rwc >V IT ; comp. Rabbinovicz, Dikduke Soferim, ad loc. 

5 ION. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 



8 1 



(Leaf 37, recto.) 



pi nyaiM n3iK 
nni Nan* x 



ponoi }va 



nyp 
'TDK 
nnaen 
^ nna pja*nD Kpi n^ynxa *T 



nn^y 



xnnr 



Mpi ntoip nit am JND ^ 
nt? rr6 nK 'N npen won ton 

iy IN aa KD'P ny a MOTH IHD 



np 



JNO i 

} S 
m^y 



snyt^ tonm 



'NT 



DIPO ' 



icy 



ino 

Km ^PK' Npi M3iya fon^i jva ji? 'tJ'cp nc> anKp n5wn jva 
jora an 'DKH P^PK'KP ^ IDJ ia pa DN 
nfj mron Kin wn nsyo p^n p 

synn D^NPI K^DB^ *op wnyn pasn a pnnna ppoai IN 

lay i^ tw DI na^n pi 
naioi tfrtn li? "IIDN ^\ch rwn N^I K'ln n^y 
nay npi^n *ii> p ycnn^ 

KSD am 'P pai 'rnicN i^ N^p w na^ii nai oiai> naii mm enn 15 
onay ptfpo pai wni ^a |3n3po N^ lain xa^py '11 ^nn Na^py x ia N^T 
itw tt3B> I^SNI popD pN 'IN Na s py 'i ^tyDB^ 'i nai pho P*KB> 
iai incna iaB7i^ i?Ni^^ n^ I^DNI '1!' p 
inona nn^aty ^y i?xi^ niw^ ^DO natra pa mo ova pa rri>y 

bsi piom 



jyt:;? ainai nnonai nnDNi inayi ^nai 1331 nnx '3B> 
urnh na^ aiyo iab nona naoi'i onynh 7 ai 



1 5a&a Mezt'a, 63 b ; the text of the Talmud as given here differs from 
the printed one and also from the reading found in MSS. Notice 
especially i-'ifcO instead of jcnj , and comp. Tosafot, s. v. -rani . 

2 Baba Mezia, 64 a. 3 Yebamot, 48 b. 



82 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Leaf 37, verso.) 

D.TD l IIDNI Nin poo iiDNt? n'3n nonyn Nnt?n nv:a IID'N IIDN natr 
nasjn noiyn 'IID'-N pr6n noiyn i>p TID^N ine> pN^ nvina 
IIDN noiynp noa nnN ^y minn i>aa n^y pnnoi non -IID<N 
na*i nr nay nN nin^t? ony ^y vn any 'a-^ -ION:? 3<i iN3 DIN 
an^y nirn^ v; & nn^n oa an^ ana N^I n^o lap N^ awea nr 5 
s^yoe^ p^a on^ ana ^oa >N N!> IN nvrn taaa ^ano pyp N^> IN ana 
pa^pn la'-Nn na N^ IN nrw6 IN^ pap n psi pnin >aa jn nr nayi IT 
p N^ 'NI niTn tsa pania n^o ^ap ""NT nna^n ^Noh Naita nn^n oaa 
^aN pana N^ N^> ^NI pana nn"n ca ana^oi? xnwi pa^> n^N ION ^N 
vn onyi? IONT p^a 'yo S NO nn s ni? INVI ha^ la^N ana iayn 
niTnb ir6 ipaji nn/NO nNT 'nnac' nNi nay nN ^nnn'ti'B' any 

inn^o ny^a IONB' *o pnv 'i 'ON *on an NnN^a 
ca 5 an^ paniai ai^ivn nN paia ? nio nnN!> na nayn^ 

IO^ON 'ON 
an NnN ^a rn IO^ON^ ^N an I?ON napn ^ pN 6 nay miN noi nay 

Nmyo H on am IO^ON '^ON 'm inn^o nyt^a IONB> ^o 7 pnv 'n 'ON <on 15 
*an nnna> p^a 9/ oNn nnn^ p^ba 'ON N^T nniys 'NO B'N an 8 I>DN N\T 
innNHNo ^a a^a^ pai^NT nayn Nnipoi 4 pnoNi pnin ja 'iNm *oa 
n NDP panNno "oa ^y mn I^PN 10 in!j 'ON warn rrop^ inN "Nina 
vpaon IO'ION 'osm Na^ai^ pai n^ HON KniTm Nta^a pai> panan 
^ NT3D 'on ana NaN Na^ai in^ 'ON napn b pN 6 nay miN noi nay so 
'ON N!>T Nniyo 'NOI in^ 'ON NM Nniyta *on am Nni 



1 Baba Meria, 62 b. 

* Baba Mezia, go b ; instead of Tin'M read TDS. 

8 nwi D^N is one who is not a yro yiu, to whom reference is made 
further on, line 12. 

4 Oil tin, 40 a. 6 Read rh, 

The editions of the Talmud read -rxffn. 

7 From ^n till IWDN is missing in the editions. 

8 'CM r> missing in the editions. 9 =rrroN Mn. 
10 Editions : 12^ laro'i 'op Nnmo >:IM mrw fri. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 83 



(Leaf 38, recto.) 



am farm '-n jvan NnnyB> p>n p jryp : s a ran Tnnu> 
ni"Vr6 KJP innti' p&^>a 'c 'an pnioNp pan py wnan want nwc 
nnin 11 ia ^NICKO N:N ^N a-ii> 3 ^CNi ntsnDinb n 
'hi nN t| nnn <i B'^ any *by vn any ^B^ IENK> nr 

oa in^ pani vtnv nx pawi nn^n^> IN^> nxr 'nnsp nw nay 5 
pyp pw pnin 'Ja |n o^yo^ p^a on^ ana * 
na jna i^i HN^J <aa ID nnxa nB>yD HM 
JD nnx Dina^D* i> ^nnac> 'i?Bi nay 'ba no&o nivi nns^i nay 
a-i ID ay IINO wam *P^ NHNT nin nn^n oa N^I nin pap N^ 

nn^ni? IN^H ton in^ posi py jaa n^aa Nn^a p^a pnv 10 
nnm ND^a pnb anal sn^a t^Ni pnxn nna n^yDB' jnan 
aam pn ns $>D3 pwn icy p n^im nnaen nay ii? nn 
nx D^oB'OB'o 'ninaen D^ay jnix vni u^^aa mm ipi 
nnasn nayi> ianai hnrt: mpy ny nayn 
h pao nnt6 raaa nhm Diba on^ ION *6i piKn ^aaa main ya^ 15 
pn n^a noyi pnn noi nin^n ea oni ana h pim ^aa onx 
p p pn^^ h BI nnn Da ^ lanai ncn pco nax^ N^ nayn cy 

ni>jno D^nn nana nrnx N^ IN nnayi? nayi? nnnnb 5tt pn hna^a 
pn iniNP la^n n,a N^ IN nni> i>yD pn n^a oni> una^ cai : N^ IN nni> 
mm n^B* m rwy na* N^ D s N^aa nnm nipi nson n^ai? un 



1 =rrra n. 

2 The words p' 'imi refer to 3'aTi \r S only. 

3 GW/m, 40 a. * Arabic : 
5 Read nnccni iiyn mw vm. 



84 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 38, verso.) 



B by *| nn3 'min nay nx nobn? onxb IIDM *6 p jw 'n ' 

MM K^p Kpn "lENn DM Kin -IWM nay 2 }Niy owaa min 
pana 5 Tnvi 4 nnn^ aw xb nwan rvaa ppioa ntj^t? taps? IN 3 
ji^a tni Ninm nin^ yaa n^an nya mm naon N-IPB> p nn sy 
TO pnin p nan n^n^n pncw mm naDii N-ipi mc'yn nm ^yr 5 
p bx nn*n^ KXH p^an ifj n^n innea "pno NPT p^anx mm 
psi on Dmoj onay on^a bi IICNI vasi : Kin nioa lay 2 jsny nr nay 
i^y na N^I i'NiB' 1 ' m^y jnix jn^ laT'aB' n^nn nana nnis fr6 
ntfs is^n ian^a 'pncK an r^a^ D^DIT DB> wwrw bx^ 
!? nnayh TD xa^s D pnoMi nnnb Npan ^n^ na rro spn 10 
:nn l| ni' pa3 xb n^y nn ^a ba NIID^N nay Nim jniD n^ nayo 
pnx \rh iana D *a ^y : n^a K^I wy xi? pn n^aa i!? iana^ niT'n Din 
en jmn ^a Dix^y vb D^BHV 1^ amai? nwi cin^ jna xh nine' N^ 
}n^ ni>i bi nnat^i nay mix na^a^ oi^a sh i^y xh i^y joxyo 
^K 6 pno^D ps nnxa D^an o'-ama y^ nWen nn nnio: nnay 15 
Na^n aa i>y PINI xn^o nni KBni^a nn p^naon "xnp pin 
ni nn ^ w^na N^N pnbiab p^nab n^a^ &6i xai 

nnK " DN^ p:o ia naman nnoa N^N ^ ps 7 naon 
n in^oni? ta nnxt^ nan baa in-co nnNB' ia nainan 
a nB nxnn n n^o^ Kin onn ^Nwa 'nai : Dipo i?a nam nw mo 



1 Ketubot, 28 a. 2 =)"T. 

3 Gil fin, 40 a. 4 Read 

8 = THI nn. 

' Kiddushin, 58 a, and in many other passages. 

7 Baba Mezia, 31 b. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 85 



IX. 



Fragment 2821 MS. Heb. f. 56, fol. 102 of the Bodleian, 
written in Syr. Rabb. char., i6mo, paper is a Geonic 
Responsum with reference to travelling by boat on the 
Sabbath. The permission to do such travelling on the Sab- 
bath is here shown not to be original with the Halakot 
Gedolot, but to have been inserted by the Gaon Mar Jacob 
ben Mordecai, who incorporated it in the famous collection 
to give his own decision more weight. The few decisions 
by this Mar Jacob that have come down to us show him 
to have been a man of extraordinary independence \ As 
a result he was often accused by his opponents of pretending 
to have traditional authority for his statements ; particularly 
he was accused of invoking the authority of Jehudai 2 . 
We are not in a position to decide whether these charges 
have a foundation in fact. However that may be, they 
go to show the attitude of the Geonim to the Halakot 
Gedolot in the form in which they had R. Jehudai's work. 
They felt it had been tampered with. 

Recto. 



wan 3 m | 
'3-1 um NH 'r pn-i 
'a nina '203 
'ru 'bna 'am 
n3Boa nn*a^ rb wpn 
na nn^ob *CNT 
'h no nv Tiyao ^ no 

1 Comp. Miiller, Mafteah, 73. 

a Comp. above, p. 31, line 24. 

8 Arabic -..j = Hebrew f]T. * Shabbat, 19 a. 

* Editio Venice, f. 17 a, line 15 ; ed. Hildesheimer, p. 81. 



86 GENIZAH STUDIES 



rap Diip 
piro ^n 
Km 'nn pan &6 IK 10 



spy icn 

'ya 'annD nn 



Verso. 

s 'IK 'oa p 'op pi J 



pi n3r '13 n 
N^i Kvt WK 'oa 
spy* 



'oa p 'DB' }3-3 
icy pois pays 



X. 

Fragment 3807 MS. Heb. c. 13, fol. 32, in the Bodleian, 
written in Syr. square char., 8vo, paper, on one side only. 
It is what is left of a letter addressed by a scholar at 
Bagdad to an outside community. The first seven lines 
read as follows :".... And thus whenever you have 

1 Shablaf, 19 a. 

3 The same statement is found also in R. Hananel's Commentary on 
Shabbat, 19 a. 

3 The editions read myth n;n S, while R. Hananel,ibid., and MS. Munich 
agree with the reading of our fragment. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 87 

transactions l with the Government, I admonish you to let 
us know about them, that we may consult with the 
prominent members of the Bagdad community in the midst 
of which we dwell, namely, the sons of R. Natira and 
the sons of R. Aaron ..... and then the Government will 
deal with you according as the Lord will aid your helpers. 
Thus do ye, and not otherwise, I adjure you." 

There can be no doubt that the Natira referred to is the 
well-known supporter of Saadia in his struggle with the 
Resh Galuta ; and it follows as an obvious inference that 
R. Aaron must be Aaron Sarajado, the opponent of Saadia. 
Of the children of R. Aaron we know nothing; while of 
the sons of R.. Natira the names have been preserved, Sahl 
and Ishak 2 , as well as the fact that they were among the 
most prominent Jews in Babylonia. However, as R. Aaron 
Sarajado also was a man of wealth and influential con- 
nexions, it may readily be assumed that his sons, too, were 
counted among the leaders of the community. 

The letter must have been written after the year 960, 
as it refers to R. Aaron as one who has departed this life 
(see line 5), but there is no clue as to the author of the 
letter. Unquestionably he must have been a man of 
considerable influence and high position ; the whole trend 
of the letter makes that appear clearly. Identification 
of the writer with one of the Geonim is precluded by the 
fact of his residence in Bagdad. 

Recto. 

i 



YW33 



p-on nina!? tfaoNan iar fnnK 'ID 5 



1 The Hebrew expression ntoci TEH is a locution modelled after the 
Talmudic phrase nyatc "pon. 

' Comp. Harkavy, Festschrift, in honour of A. Berliner, pp. 37-8 ; and 
Friedlaender, J. Q. R., XVII, p. 753. 



88 GENIZAH STUDIES 

mi 



won jNi ipyn p n*r 
Da^K D'arnai my mxo MK nr nnsi 
oavna^ n TIIJ& ninaini nnntn 'ana 
VWIK V<| '' 1 nixo ^y Da^y-ip nx ppnh 10 
inin bi mon HDDI n vnni it^yn no 
unain H NVJ ^i WTOM pan p *a 
pi 13^3? n^N nrn i>nan naia 
uira: mb^ a EDD^va wtsan 

l^ pK N2V p DN *3 15 



vnom vonn moa 

vxtbtt 



XI. 

Fragment 2634 MS. Heb. c. 18, fol. 40, in the Bodleian, 
written in Syr. Rabb. char. The writing is blurred in many 
places, but the illegible parts can be supplied easily, so that 
the text can be deciphered without difficulty. It contains 
seven E-esponsa, of the first of which but two lines are given, 
sufficing, however, to indicate that it dealt with a liturgical 
question. As no author is mentioned in connexion with 
any of the seven Responsa, it is an open question whether 
they were all written by the same author, and it is difficult 
to assign them to a specific date. In the view they take 
of certain Halakot, some of them show plainly that they 
belong to the early Geonic time. 

2. The second of these seven Responsa deals with the pas- 
sage BeraJcot, 5 b, '131 hhsnrh lDJ3J5y tfw. It is the opinion of 
the Gaon, that one of two persons alone in a synagogue 
may not go out before the other, lest the latter be disturbed 
in his devotions by being left behind as the sole occupant 

1 Comp. Pirke B. Eliezer, III : ... K'32 p ON and -j^ton tow 1EC, ed. 
Amsterdam, fol. 12 a. 



GEONIC EESPONSA 89 



of the synagogue. From the expression pp'Tttn } 
used in line 10, recto, it appears that the prohibition applies 
only to the services at night. This is in agreement with 
the opinion of the Geonim quoted by Rabbenu Hananel in 
the Responsa, ed. Lyck, and by Nathan ben Yehiel, ' Aruk, 
s. v. *pD, ed. Kohut, p. 19. 

3. The Gaon prohibits the insertion of a phrase like 
""< iyfyy D'P' 1 in the benediction yif} nK. He does 
not stop at this specific injunction, but goes on and sets up 
the general principle that the r6la D312 refers to the 
deliverance from Egypt, and has nothing to do with re- 
demption in the future ; hence no phrase pointing to 
the Messianic time is to be tolerated in this benediction, 
according to him. He fortifies the position he takes on 
this point by referring to the r6isa in the Morning Service 
as recited in the synagogue of the Academy, in which 
kt*W* foa follows immediately after naoa . This view 
he shares with Kab Amram (Seder Rob Amram, 6 b) ; and 
there can be no doubt that the old rh"\M contained no 
reference to the redemption of the future, as appears clearly 
from a comparison of the various rituals with one another. 
The Ashkenazic Ritual has i'NIB'' 1 TiV, and the Italian has 
nun Sa3, while the Sephardic has rmM w )&tfti. Indeed, 
it is doubtful whether, in the last, laiwa is to be taken as 
a reference to the redemption at the end of time, seeing 
that the parallel passage, in the r6isa of the Evening 
Service, has ma ^, the perfect form of the verb, hence an 
allusion to the past. It is noteworthy that the Ritual 
N'JDll also has the reading ni2K ^33 ; but these words are 
followed not by ywi, but by JWin. Is this the original 
form of the prayer, or was the perfect tense of the verb 
a later substitution in accordance with the view of the 
Geonim that the ni>iKa refers to the past, and not to 
the Messianic time? 



1 Comp. Seder R. Amram, 19 a, first line. This insertion in the 
is, however, missing in the two MSS. of the Seder B. Amram in the library 
of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. 



90 GENIZAH STUDIES 

4. The fourth Responsum deals with the question whether 
the Reader in the synagogue is to repeat 1313 for the late- 
comers. In the Geonic collection mien I| 1JNJ > , No. 205, ed. 
Leipsic, 20 d, we have a decision by Sar Shalom Gaon on 
the same question, to the effect that the Reader is to repeat 
1313 for those who have not recited the yaw. Our fragment, 
on the other hand, makes the explicit statement (lines 3-4, 
verso) that the Reader is not to repeat, even for those who 
have not recited the J!BB>. However, it would seem to me 
that the text of our fragment stands in need of a change ; 
if we read 1331 instead of il, in line 3, the difference 
between the two Responsa disappears entirely 1 . 

5. This Responsum contains an explanation of the term 
nnn p, derived by the Gaon from its use in Onkelos. 
In bl3t?N, I, i o, it is ascribed to Sar Shalom. 

6. Here we have the opinion of the Gaon on the subject 
of NTvho , discussed by the Talmud in Pesahim, 74 a-b. 
The Gaon shares the view expressed by the Rabed, in his 
niJBM on Maimonides nillDN ntaxE, VI, 17, according to 
whom the Talmudic permission covering NJVvlB extends 
to nmp a view opposed by R. Natronai Gaon and others, 
who limit the permission of the Talmud to vX*. Another 
interesting point in this Responsum is the reference to 
nmn with 1 hot water, the use of which is opposed by all 
authorities except Maimonides 3 . 

7. The last Responsum of the group contains a decision 
permitting the use of a fowl though it has been prepared 
with the liver. This must be an exceedingly old decision, 
for all authorities known declare fowl naiD if the liver 
of the bird has been cooked with it, instead of being 
removed and broiled separately 4 . 

1 Comp. Seder R. Amram, 153. 

1 Comp. nyicn nnr>, 263, ed. Leipsic, p. 24; nipro ma^n, 44 and 45; 
Maimonides, 1. c. 

3 Baal ha-Ittur, cd. Lemberg, IT, ad; Maimonidos, 1. c. ; comp. also 
Miiller, Mafteah, 279. 

* c'n, 45 ; n*c, 1. c. ; Muller, 1. c., and 70. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 
Recto. 

S>so Nina "xn a i>3N fioipo yap &6 spio n^ani 

Dii>a nan PMI DMT i'aB>i ' N^ MSW nojsn JT33 
pnorfo poani* ino rtawa D"DI Dip nnx nwan rvai> 



2 D^^ 'can noKBn if nxnoB' e>n*a wn ja 
:nb non pw MM 'wsa N^ nun!> pncn M^I D^DI }n 
noian n'-ao MIM }n nnx oipi ^annb iDJaaty 'a B^ITS pi 
HMnB> jva nojan n^aa nai? i-van nnwi nan! pnon M^I 
n^ann p iai? ipijn ppron p Ni^n^ci inyT nanoo nnb nnwjy 
pamo lysb ^ann N^B> ioa nioni iai> JID^ ia PMI 10 

PM Tisni? noMB> oipon Mm : 2 waa in^an 
v wby D'P 1 'DIMI aw noM^ n^iwa panMDB' 
la :N^ IN 4 n3Bi rain TIMDI inisani 
irra>a w^B' laty nns "oyo 'Jtw ja ICM 
ai rrinMi> 7 ai n^ai 7 a inao aiya nnnM^ 'MI rwal? 'a 15 
aw nxa ^ax IIDMI MH aiya msp nnw nanM nns 
nns ioi!> it^as IMM MM nnxn pai MM nnns^ nnx 
ni? a^^i noN IMM DJJB : MM nns xbrn rmp nnsi 
nab 'so HMV ITD N^N ip^y ba o^omi ne>pa na PM 

inia!?o 5 i?y op 10^ iB>aN IMM nM n^yci 20 
33 6/ N^ p bai noob n?3jv N^ ja 
njn D^iyi> TI!>O ^ / '' / '' N^N 'DIM WM PM 



' 



non nx ioiai yDB> y onian nas ..... 

DIN '33 ^3B3 1313 1O1N5y N1HD B* .... 25 
D3 IN : 1313 ni>B 'ONB* T6 .... 
N^ inx!? 1D333B> DIN 33 
133 B 1 * .... B>0 N^1 . . . 

Berakot, sb ; the reading of our fragment differs 
from that of the editions, as well as from that given in MS. Mun. 
3 Mishnah Berakot, I, 4 ; Gemara, ibid., na. 
* Read : s 1 ? i p nvoyb IHTC n:in. 5 =i:^y ; comp. line ia. 



GENIZAH STUDIES 

Verso. 

yiab pm PNI pen pyy no N^> IN > jnao^ pen PN 



"inN3 1D333P DTK '33 fniN DN nsfo "p N^N HT ^ HT 

D'w op N*1!D IDK ONI lOKi mrn 11 i?N yDty nnp ixnp 
nyewoa ncnn pn ; nnn pn pr '^en : NTI n^oab 5 
n ma KJM nn3^io3 naa nixini? ncn 

ncm Q^iyn D^NOtr nyea p pi 'a 
wan 'tfloa p^y iWrtn^ a^pnti> nu!?xi 
ne na^ n^m nta DK nhaann VK'I n*aa niNin 
IN naini' ptwn ^3 pnnn 2 p^Ni n^ jnai na^ na* 
IN Nnt^ NH^O nnit^yb mo pt^Ni ^33 
H 3/ an nN ^^ pnnnn nim NH^N^ 

^ nia i^aN IDNI 
rair6 jna N^ Npni ^yb noia 

i !>2N m Ninn ID p^an 4 nxn ^m DIKTD N^DNT 15 
jna i^aN pnnm nnnm nntat? 'BWDS nnnm nnbo 
nn NVCOI n^nw nhanni : nB> p^nn nami> 
n^aainn nN biNi "nan nN pnir nnso nine niD 
i33n HN pnir Nnnao n^n^ nM I^BNI n^nnaij mniioi 
no : ivyn Nin nn 133^ yao cyD no n^aann 20 
en ^Nnn i33n }o ui?BB> m 'aann HN -JOIN 

inv nun la^N 
IIDN 
-013 I^BN " 

^n 6 pm 25 

nriN 

. . , nytsa nD^n^ ona 
, , . na . . , nt3^n^ m oasa 



1 Berakot, 45 b. * Reading doubtful. 

s PesaAtw, 74 b; the editions read wbro, while MS. Bodleian has 
to = NrvMto of our fragment. * = jmsrr. s Read iVpn\c. 

' Mishnah Hullin, VIII, 3 ; Gemara, ibid., 109 a. T Read N 1 ?. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 93 



XII. 

Fragments 2760 MS. Heb. d. 48, fols. 13, 14 ; and 2826 
MS. Heb. d. 63, fols. 60, 61 Bodleian; Syr. Rabb.; 4to, 
vellum. These two fragments not only are written in the 
same characters, but they actually belong together, so that 
2826, fol. 61 is the continuation of 3760, fol. 14, and 
2760, fol. 13 is the continuation of 2826, fol. 60. Whether 
the first quire of two leaves precedes the latter, or vice versa, 
cannot be determined. The arrangement I have made is 
based upon the fact that the first-mentioned set deals 
almost wholly with the treatise of Gittin, and the other 
set with Baba Mezia. I shall hereafter refer to the set 
dealing with Gittin as Fragment A, and that dealing with 
Baba Mezia as Fragment B. 

These two fragments contain thirty-one Responsa, all, 
with the exception of four, being new material. Neither 
the author of the collection nor its date can be fixed ; 
indeed, it is doubtful whether all the Responsa have one 
and the same author.- The collection may be a later 
grouping of Responsa from different authors. Judging 
from language as well as subject-matter, Fragment A and 
Fragment B form each a unit, whatever their relation to 

O * 

each other may be. A possible exception may have to be 
made for Responsa 9 and 10, which do not seem to belong 
to Fragment A, and which, indeed, are found elsewhere, 
as will be shown presently. 

Fragment A contains the following ten Responsa : 
j . Of the first Responsum only the end has been preserved, 
but even in its fragmentary state it is of some importance 
for the textual criticism of Gittin, 77 b. This passage in 
our text of the Talmud gives an anonymous discussion 
on a decision rendered by R. Joseph. In the Responsum, the 
Gaon ascribes the discussion to Samuel and Rab Jehudah. 
We must conclude that R. Joseph cannot be the well-known 
authority of that name, who lived two generations after 



94 GENIZAH STUDIES 

Samuel, but must be identified with 'DK 1 , the older colleague 
of Samuel, whose full name was Joseph. 

2. The second Responsum also deals with Gittin (79 a). 
Besides explaining the text, the Gaon expresses his opinion 
as to the authoritativeness of the statement by Eaba with 
regard to nviBH. 

3. Here we have the very important decision, that an 
error in writing out a bill of divorce may be corrected 
between the lines without invalidating 1 the instrument. 
Though this Geonic decision was found in the Responsa 
Collection, Mantua, No. 97, none of the codifiers from 
Maimonides to the present time refer to it, though the 
view expressed in it is opposed by them all. According 
to them, a bill of divorce is rendered void by a correction 
of its text. It is characteristic of the Geonic times that 
the Yerushalmi and the Tosefta are ignored the very 
authorities used by the codifiers 2 . 

4. The Gaon holds that a Gentile cannot be made a 
messenger to carry a bill of divorce. He makes no reference 
to the decision on the same subject rendered by R. Hananiah 3 , 
who, as a rule, was freely cited by the Geonim. The 
inference that our decision anticipated R. Hananiah's is 
not unwarranted. It should be mentioned that the text, 
especially in lines 23-24, is corrupt. 

5, 6. These two Responsa contain explanations and 
decisions on matter contained in Gittin, So. The interesting 
point is, that the Gaon maintains, that decisions are to be 
made with Samuel as against R. Ada bar Ahba, while the 
codifiers, including even so early an authority as Alfasi, 
decide with the latter against Samuel. 

7. The Gaon states it as his opinion that the form of 
mp DJ had become obsolete*, as it had originally been 
instituted for the places settled entirely by priests. 

1 On the relation of 'DM to Samuel, comp. Harkavy, Responsen, 274. 

1 Comp. Tostfta Oitlin, IX, 8 ; ed. Zuckcrmandel, p. 334 ; Yer. Gittin, 
VIII, 500. 3 Comp. Mullcr, Jfc//fea7/, 72; and Harkavy, Responsttn, 312. 

* Alfasi, aa well as the other codifiors, gives very brief treatment to 
mp BJ ; they, too, considered it an obsolete form. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 95 

8. This Kesponsum is the first in the Collection not 
dealing \vith divorce matters. Possibly it belongs to 
another Collection. According to it, a guardian of orphans 
appointed by their father before his death cannot transfer 
his charge to another without further formalitiea He 
must appear in court and explain his situation, leaving it 
to the discretion of the tribunal to select a substitute. 

9, 10. These two Responsa in the same relative order 
are found also in the Responsa Collection, Mantua, Nos. 88 
and 89. The first of them demonstrates how meat may 
be used without WWO 1 . The second of them deals with 
the calling up to the reading of the Law. It decides, that 
in case not enough men are present at a public service who 
can themselves read the assigned portion, the same limited 
number of adepts may be called up a second and even 
a third time. It is noteworthy that in the Mantua Collection 
this Responsum is given in Hebrew, while our MS. has it in 
Aramaic. There can be no doubt that the latter is the 
original form. A similar decision, also in Aramaic, given 
on the authority of R. Natrona'i, is to be found in Seder Rob 
Amram, 29 a. 

Fragment B begins with Responsum n. 

11. Of this Responsum only the last sentence has been 
preserved. It deals with the subject W& njnat? fc^Tiio DIN px 
(Shebuot, 44 a). 

ii a. This Responsum also treats of a subject in Shebuot 
(38 b), the difference of opinion between Rab and Samuel 
as to the amount of a claim justifying an oath. 

1 2. Here we have a very important decision with regard 
to the Halakah, that no man may be fined on his own 
confession. According to the Gaon, this law cannot be 
applied in the case of jypQD tfi> Dsn 'N. This, however, is 
not the view of the great codifiers, as can be seen from 
Tur, Hoshen Mishpat, I, 3 a, ed. Konigsberg. 

1 In later Geonic times this lenient practice was not permitted. Comp. 
also Alfasi, Hullin, VIII, ed. Wilna, p. 28, and Muller, Mafteah, 279, and 
Baal ha-Ittur, ed. Lemberg, II, 2, below. 



96 GENIZAH STUDIES 

13. The Gaon decides : n'3n nap n'anb njoso naaon 
Mezia, 8 a). He adds that the questions raised by Raba 
do not imply that he rejected the principle ; they merely 
indicate his abstract, theoretic interest in the matter, not 
any practically valid objections. 

14, 15 are brief explanations of Baba Mezia, 10 a and 12 b. 

1 6. The Gaon explains the expression D'oa? in Baba Mezia, 
1 6 a. A Geonic explanation of the same expression was 
known to Rashi. The latter takes it to mean the inner 
chamber of the Academy, while our fragment takes it to 
mean the innermost recess of the heart. 

17. This Responsum is found also in "&?, p. 90, No. 28. 
It contains a description of the different kinds of documents 
enumerated in Baba Mezia, i6b. 

1 8. A short explanation of Baba Mezia, n a. 

19. In explaining the Talmud passage, Baba Mezia, qlo, 
the Gaon speaks of three different classes of society: 
first, the aristocratic class, consisting of the Nasi, the 
Gaon, and the Ab-Bet-Din ; second, the middle class, scholars 
and merchants ; and the third class, slaves, watchmen, 
and habitual tipplers. The expression Nasi is rather 
startling; the expected word is Resh Galuta. The sup- 
position at once suggests itself that Gaon and Ab-Bet- 
Din likewise do not refer to the Babylonian institutions, 
but to similar officials in Palestine or Egypt. But this 
hypothesis is disposed of by the fact that the words for 
" watchman" and " tippler " are Persian, and no Babylonian 
or Egyptian would have resorted to this language. We are 
therefore forced to the inference that Nasi stands for 
Resh Galuta, as it sometimes does in both Talmudim l . 

20. The Gaon gives a definition of nwn mita, and in 
explaining it he cites a Persian-Arabic saying, the meaning 
of which I confess myself unable to determine. 

21. This Responsum is interesting on account of its 
explanation of the word xnvn , which occurs in Baba Mezia, 
2i b, and, according to the Gaon, means " edge of a field." 

1 Comp. also Seder E. Amram, p 51 b : . . . D'^NJI C'Nnw, and a*n, 4. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 97 

The Gaon evidently connects the word with the root 13X l , 
meaning " to frame", " to hedge about." However, he seems 
not to be right, as tnvn occurs in the Targumim in the 
meaning of "staff," a meaning that suits the passage in 
Baba Mezia. 

22. This Responsum likewise is interesting from a philo- 
logical point of view. The Gaon explains N"ttOn (Baba, 
Me?ia, 20 b) to mean " blockhead," like the Arabic nsxin (?). 
I cannot conjecture the etymological basis for this 
explanation. 

33-25. These three Responsa are brief explanations of 
Baba Mezia, 25 a, Pesahim, 47 b, and Baba Mezia, 6 b, 
below. They contain nothing new 2 . 

26. This Responsum treats of the Halakah, Jioioa pahn px 
3lin "inx (Baba Kama, 46 a), and offers several interesting 
variae ledionis. 

27. This Responsum is allied with the last. It discusses 
a point in Baba Batra, 92 b, where the Halakah just men- 
tioned, 'W paSn pN, is fully treated. 

28-31. The last four Responsa offer explanations of 
Baba Batra, 93 a, 93 b, 95 b, 97 a. Responsum 29 is par- 
ticularly interesting. The Gaon had a reading different 
from our text, and his reading is not without Halakic 
importance. 



(Leaf i, recto.) 

y KO twppni :n TOO pan 'si 
"NO rrvb ND^J 'LJNDI ny NO^J ^02 onn 'vwa*^ No 11 : pin 
prn N^ "h nnpi n^> anpi NM omn r,i{yn cnn onnb wn 
Dnn 4 mm* nii? ^NICB' 'tax pan 



1 Did the Gaon think of NTIJ, "bank of a river"? 

3 For Responsum 25, comp. p"j, HI. * GtV/tfl, 77 b. 

4 The words mirr a^ bimu '"JO are not in our text of the 
Talmud., 

H 



98 GENIZAH STUDIES 

$ PK mn n3 "tram n-rb KDDI ny . . . . mpo 'mbptn 5 
bwni :mpo ba rrrci }na 'ib 'bn pao 'anpi mntn ma n 
'xpn Nann pan 'Dsn an rnavbyn by niaiiy 4 nnnn nxno 
aan "iiiKb jwnB> jva nb ipin JJH cnnin moiy nn\n 3> 3n 
n^ ipnn niaofe *ni r^n^o Nin nenuo IT 
Kin p^pi neniao ir nn ejnw IK pn^ aan 'c^no 10 
vnB> paa ^KTO^ 'ION mm* '-i 'DK noa^D N^ xn ntM&D torn 
ni> pnr 'ai nw^i by na^1y N^n Nan 11 ! x^n niainnnn 
nivno K^aon sa^sita Knn by nwnK noob nbyobo 
oaa 'mTOB' enb^ N2Ni 'DKT Km 'avbyn by 'nnn 

: ton nabn poa payb bax nxDn paybi na^ payb in 
ban IK pi 3 IK pM ix 6 p w nnna naio ma 'yxun 16 

IONT T'BB'i K*nb KIT p ^bn 'ystin 
n nx bin 7 nabn '-iioNpn min IBDD ua 

nn^bi pann ND^a b'Dans bi iv 
a HKDIK n^a 20 



bioa 

nbm n 11 no^nn by nnen 
pn iw 8/ t^ ibn na^na nn^ 
pwa 9 ban N^nna 25 
i^ino pin can 
naiani Noiom 
naian nby 
xin 10 n-iin 13 
jam* 'i 'OK " K3K -13 mn 3 



= yjM as in bic, Ba6a Kama, 32 b = Nrinj ; our texts read 

* Giflin, 7 7 a. * Ibid., 79 a. * =m:innnrr. 

8 Read niTO ; the copyist forgot himself, and after having written 

again wrote nvposj, which is to be read \r = ttn l JJ and nrro. 
' About the spelling with three yods, comp. Responsen der Geonim, ed. 
Hnrkavy, 13, 355, 436. 7 Menahot, sob. 

8 !b*nw. * Mishnah Gilfin, II, 5 ; Gemara, ibid., 233. 

10 Editions: rrvnn ; R. Hananel: nnna. " Editions: 'CM 31. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 99 

(Leaf i, verso.) 

mina WKB> ^ n^ya TO FWK taa i>ap^ n^t? npya iayn ^K 
Ke>pn ii> nnar may nrvn DS rrutw B i>y *|Ki pprrpi PDU 
b *6 nnar may njvn DK pay^> TO 
sn-ioi ^nsnna pbyo waio ni>y3 ins 

'oNpi KM pixm nnDB> may sn ntwe pan ^ nnar may nnn 5 
Km n^ ""ixm xna^ nn*n^ n^ttt^ ^ NITO spn n^i |nx 
nwin pia KM may IK^ nnaty Kn ^N *an 'cspi KM 'an 
^as ajno QW rpno^o <I IIK^ K!J n!? nayno K^ ixnyi nyoa 
Knww Nrvaa nwKn i^b *DKTT 1^ nror may nnM DK 
nnar may nnM ON mupp *B b n s P n ^ '1 /ClX Pi 2 n*aaK3 xaxa 10 
nonaa sa^n 1^1 "xrk nnns? oa n^ ^p^ob n-i? N'-ar ib 
woai n^ya TO niw ca ^api? n^B> n^ya nayn px pan 
3 nprna am noyo iaM 'CN nrn 'oxpi nsio ny n*op^ Kina na 
nnx ni? nap^w nca nt^yai ICK TI naiy 4 nayn 
nnnio jmnnx noKB> nvny ba 5 pnmn 'ano Km v 
ITO K^K Kwn n^ nnatw N^J ^ K^B^I nroi nro xvn maa 16 
mx nb n*Ki KD^ Ka^DJ^n p-iKin n^nnx paa 
naoai PIKI ^INI xo^yD e^aK KMn 



xaxn xa'-s nroi nro xvn S ND ao 

pan IN^ mn^a pKno K^K n^ ppa 
i? K{?PI paM ^a IK^I 'an Km n 
ncK^ nvny b N^I 
B^ inay <I KI nnniD 
6/ ano 6ai I^KO nmon niny 

PINT ^TKT TD^ IB^B^K D 

aKnpi n^nnxn nnvb naoai 
na p^in Np Nn niDi nm 
nnion niny w ^ 
nioN nniDK nnx in-* I^ND . 30 

nvny K'tr ix^ 11 iy 'ai 

1 Git fin, 23 b. 2 Read n'O'3. s Read 'cp >Tra. 

1 Read nacp. s Mishnah Gittin, VIII, 6; Gemara, ibid., 80 a. 

' Mishnah Yebamot, I, 3 ; Gemara, ibid., 13 a. 

T F&amof, 3 b, where our texts have : crrrms ivnr . . . f]N nyn ':K bia'. 

H 2 



100 OENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 2, recto.) 

nnrno jnww pnxb rnD3^ IPBK w hwn K nmon 
r6 nw paa ni> nnatro pan K^> <K : HKO Kta nn* pin 
nvny B>&? ^m pie6 iKtf3i i^sn rrmn ia^ni nvny B>B> p^.-6 
va piB^ nD3Ki pnhn nnx n nv^K IKSOSI royrwi ^n 
^ya ' . . . JD ^xh WD*an nnx ^n iNy"i nwb isvoi nionn 5 
PINT T-*^ xh M pam }b '301 : jna -6\sn a*a-vin ^ai 

xn nnvn ia^n i>y 2 pnowpi ipy ^a n^nnsn 
an 'NT wwon am rrnavn ^nn 'o^n N^ wn p 
pani 'rnn *wn 3 N^ N^ non^ rfooa nnaw o 
noKi : K^yo wt^^ IND^: ynpn ni ir6 pnn 
yoo 'o^a unb pnn sini woa nojn sa^K wnnn 



nawon am nniwn D'-n nanc^ nfya iW nswna NS^H <I DT 
xniyoa nosn Sncnnxn N"isa } Nip^yi N^n nata IK!J 

noiaai oa 11 nnoiB' ^axnpn N^NI p^pci Naiaon ana nai H n 15 
a-'na poain pe^Tp px 'CNT KM wpy 'n atDn p 
ao^i pun ^TNT ^ N"^pn ism i?3N :nnya n 

KM xa^py 'i 'ano sm np^y fe rnaa ianK N^ KH n 



ra jnoK pasn ^DS 5 N . . . N PTDK wa 20 



nnma D S K>J rnev trcn 6 pm pan 

iB'iana IK 7 ir$<a IK wio DK 
von OKI mien OKI iniona 101^ ha* nnK 
K o:n 8/ a >i a *inn 03 Kn UKOB' IK 25 
ntD Kvn n^i^K IT 



1 Read *r. ' Gittin, 80 b, and parallel passages. 

8 From the second Mb till wnp are the explanatory words of the Gaon. 

4 Sotah, i8b ; the reference rrovun >nO3 given in the text is incorrect, 
as the passage in question is not found in the fourth chapter of Sotah, 
rroiTM pic, but in the second chapter, N'IO rprr. 

Read 'ON vh IM. Mishnah Tebamot, I, I ; Gemara, ibid., 2 a. 

' Read i:'o. Mishnah Gittin, VIII, 7 ; Gemara, ibid., Boa. 



GEONIC RESPONSA IOI 



1 ana : pixi> a<no ireo v* 'OKI xa^py 'n acn pN noanb nreo vt 
xana ca^ nn^xen '121 nr^ nr ianai nmb naitn BX!> Da naio 
'Kp xonD Kep xan nnb*o tfino pan ?x nry^x 'na nai>n ix xxp 
nxi> DN Da nr nn ntcsno V&M& nx ws^oi' nc'ia nty^K 'n n^ NHK 30 



(Leaf 2, verso.) 

mpaen 2 nnnx na m an^ ^NICB' n^ NHNI Da M 
^"ni irkxb *tn an nry^N 'm Nio''!D3 n Np^ noa^ NDP torn 
mt am 3 ^NiDira -ity^x 'na paion KH^D N s ino pan pr nnNi? *ONT 
ya^ 130M ^a N^ ^n knee^ mvn *ainwb Mya 'nx 13 
noy 'DKT nan 13 m 3^ 'oh^a ^^ ^s?3^ in^ar na^ 5 
!^ n m patrv^ pr fcs "NI Iwrf' K^N n^ ^ya xa^n wn 
N p'piaoi ^WB^ 'an NH N^P ^ty 'NO ^a saxn PK ID^ 
13 mx 311 ^NIO^ snwx K^I n s n^3 ^n&v n^ Dpi je6 nKin mar 

vby po 11 ^ NJDI v^y po^^a ^an mp * Da ^NIBBO na^n nanx vn 
pnay t6i mn^ inpD DJI rvn^b mp Da nn^ni anp i^as ^nxpT 10 

mna mp Dan 'DyD NO *'Dpn mp oa!> pan mpf>Di n^y pna 
n N$n nn B^KBI icinn da^ia 60x1 'D'n'r pixm pam n 

^a ntnpD pi pan rra inra na^n ^yan .Tnin^^ N^ptD sp 
Da ama xb xntrni jn-^a ^cnaoi nap mm Kin --anan xnns 

: pan pn^ la^pm Kin 'anan Nnnx Ninn^i Ditw n^ipo vm 
IN KannK 'niDBN Kin D!> ^a Tn naoiraa xaniDax 16 



mm nTix Ninn> n*a"n x n s ac s m Kin 
yno a'-atj' KO^a janeKi :n^y lo& 
K^N n^a nuy n3n i>ai Kin n^aan Naioon 20 
b inapn no N^N bw K!J ia^n n^n N^T xaioo i?y 
m ^ pnra xaxn wn H a n:p 



1 Mishnah Gittin, VIII, 8 ; Gemara, ibid. 
3 Gttn, Sob. 

1 Read . . . tooaarn " and as to the difference of opinion between 
Samuel and R. Ada bar Ahba ..." 

* Mishnah Giflin, VIII, 10 ; (Jewara, ibid., 81 b. * Baba Batra, i6ob. 



102 



GENIZAH STUDIES 



pxn 
na 



ppibi 

maTin tfao bv ibaixb "IB>SN JN DN "N-i^ 
nann buiJ-i iiy nbye> ny nnnpn nx irmoi vaab irwoi 25 
mnx na^nn 'bnaiioi nnrn iiy nbyt? ny pi'moi inrn nnx 
D't^b nDiob TIDN nr nani itra Fbzv ny 
snani invbn nhn iy nioyb p^ia* PNE' x 
an 2l| n^noi pn xna^oa nnpn^> 'T to^i 

ejny *aoi 30 



njnas? ia"n DJP uno PKB' va no " ' 



njyta nvp mw nyB> 



(Leafs, recto.) 

tb nyiaan nyn^ s^a j^p^ t6i pa vn xi 
ruyDm pnrctj ypai Djn* pi'P^ xb 4 nJ? nyu^ B^IIO xi* 

an a^ai 5 spa 
anpi am 
/ -iDNpn JM*K pn n^n 'm 'n^non 'ya ^NO ana 5 

nn 7 ~i 'aia NirDn^s* N^T 
sni : ^nn^> twnrm *a Nion-x xn 

na n^i KM pan 'KII 

pw ^vni pw^ yi oy wncv nnaoi DJIKB> j nay ^ paa D3p ia"no pw 
jaia n^yo 12 pnr xnn icvy a ^y DIK D^C p pnha pi?n nay^ pyi 10 
!? -iox ymn* 'nb INVD n^na nnotp HDB> n\ni nay ata py nx no^o 
l4 noa ^ IDK nnnb K^T nay ^aoB> jnv nn 'N 1 
D3p ^a KD^K nnin naap wfa inana px ii? 'DK iry nx 
K^ 'CKI noyta D-IENI *ON*I sh Bnp i^ rwv n^x losy a by 
ban 'osp an nsnn by JK S ^P S ND nxin by JNB>P nosy a by Dip 15 

1 Read 'nD'ui or VTODI. 

> = D^cbcoi D':i\2? ; comp. Se^er JJ. ^Cnram, ag a, and .Response Collection, 
Mantua, 99. 

s Read Dl pn. * Shebwt, 48 a, 

5 Mishnah Shebuot, VI, i ; Gemara, 38 b. Shebuot, 39 b. 

7 =T3 Npi. 8 Read Mb i bsiraca JTibn. ' Shebuot, 70 a. 

10 Hullin, 141 a, below, where our texts read: :n3 ib NTT 'T rrb IOM 



11 Ba&a ifezt'a, 3 b. " Baba Kama, 75 a. " Not in our texts. 

14 Our texts have nnb. 15 Comp. Mishnah Sheluot, VII, 3. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 103 

i.Ta ioxy 1% \>y tbwo rvb mo u u niun ^ONI !uini> n^b o^ani 
Np oKpi n^ own NV iun-an Nniyun3 

IWVD nuaon Non na 'ONI l 'osn N.II : np'y iu Nn^o Nni> Nn^o NH xm 
npn H?K 3-6 .TIN nm nna NnN 3-1 '^DN 'n 'CNPT NNT 'abn iT'an rup nan 
nans ytr N^N p*pi>Di M*B> 2 N3 

8 T^O^K N^sn N2N1 DlBflO NOTl 31 1T3H 

wan nap N^ 3 ^oM D^iy^ n^ ^peno NPT 

5 nan -D 13 

'ON N^I ^ nan 'ONT w>nuK>D noxn QKI iT3n nap 
jna) N^O 8/ oNpi .T^ Ki3D pn 7 on jona m SJKI : ^ 3t 35 
'ON ntpp m ^ iNbon^at^ no ^ais 'ON pona 3-1 n 

NJpDO3 ja^TONl 2 NO3 n 

no nt^ 3ii fona m ai>BnD NP 

: n^n nap N!J ino no n^n nap 130 xi 
o3in '^13 IN tfny ypip3 4 janoNpn 30 
9 'ON 'noNpT io s y now n3n ^y3 KB> t3 nun 



(Leafs, verso.) 

10 pro* 'n 'ON nan 13 n3 nsn 'ON pai DK 'n 'ON jui in imp nv3 now. , . 

ni^NBni novy^ i>yia nN**o imp 1V3 nun i>y3 noiy PN ^3N xv 
pnn 13 DIVI n^N^o n^y nit^y^ ""oy *iiy^ *o*y E^i^a p3 n N3 H N H NO 
nun i>y3 '^ONP uni niiiyty D S P ""oy *ny pai nrnyK' D^P *o^y 
NDVT n^ian pun "oy -ny p3> niy^ 'n 'n 'o^y Ensa 
rp^j -i3y^o N^n niy^n KINS? N*nn3 nun ^ysi? n^ 



NOIH n^ n-6 nsyt^oT pu nvn naN^o 'o'-y rrpy ii? 
'oy niKy^ 'o^y -ny^ "-oy cnaa p3 WN N3ita IN^ nun 
n3in nni^n in^N^on p^oy n^ano 3pia n3y3 N3Nn 'ON pnv '11 : nrn 10 



ezia, 8 a. a =rrc3. 3 =' ( 

* Baba Mezia, loa. 5 Editions and MSS. read Max 12 K'Tf. 

6 This is also the reading of MS. M. T Comp. note 2, p. 106. 

8 Bezah, 39 a. * Baba Mezia, i r a. 

10 .Ba&a Mezia, n a. The reading of our fragment agrees with MS. M., 
comp. Kabbinovicz, Far. Lect., ad loc. - 1L Baba Mezia, ia U 



104 



GENIZAH STUDIES 



ninK naK^oa inu'B^ nsn iai pK Kova nir ' i-antroi p*ai 
pan DIC?O -IK-VO p n^ '^NPp tb ivan byai nnyi nooi 
Kp K^I nafc6o Dy .IK^VO n-aam 'ox ,i3Ki :iovyb 
'ox NDQ m riovyb byia nwvn Kan '>o ivan byai n 

nnan *nwa NEJN ""NDpn *ONI am ni^vr: op$6 ^naB*B* jiaa 15 
DIB^D n*an ^yan na^q Nnossp si>i n^xo N^nn^ nna^N nxia 
pan vro KO DIJD^ ijsh D*:ab 3 n^Ntni iovy^ ^yia HN-'VD pan xvi 

anx IT 4 n 



xvn 



p npan 

am ^^ 1| ^<^ pana 



5 * 



. . a 



ny nn 'NO a.T x 
xana n^a a-'nan paa paan 



N^ tnn 'OK noi 'in 8 'OK no : nwpfc wn n^ab pa^ob 

pri'ai KM KnbnD Nin niao ^o nenn^a pan : ^^a 26 
"101 NODO no IKB "101 TDK no *win ^y niBK 

Kin 'OK noi Kin 'OK no myj 'a pSi HKI.I ^y pa^ai nnoo 
:-ioia nio 101 ">oia mo 10 HKin by n^a wh 
K^r ^J^K pxi 3Kp Kin aiB'n DIK 9 pKi "^ K^P Kpi x 

OKp K^ JKO pa DK K^p KM iiait^n ilB'K K1 'JKp K1.1 31 



pan 



"KOK 



3131 

awn 



(Leaf 4, recto.) 

njp K!J Tya nap mBa aiai nK^xo 

11 'ax IK pKJ IK KB>J IK K3pD01 i13p 

ttO^ nam iKh 'ye 'xo I'-ya aiai 
IK "PDIW IK "nttD IK Kiay paa KM 

1 =~WTDO. 3 This reading agrees with that of MS. Rome II. 

' Baba M,ezia, i6a. * Editions and MS. nov n. 

* Read "iu. Baba Jferia, i6b. 

T Read n:no nctr, as given in the Geonic Collection pis nyffi, p. 90 a. 

jBa&a Mezia, n a. 9 Ibid., gb, top. 

10 Baba Mezia, ga-gb, ** 'aM = p n'2 3K. 

" m3'0=.Pers. j*~* "wine-bibb.er." 13 In Pers. "watchman." 



GEONIC RESPONSA 105 

vya "UD^ naTi IN^H nai5?n new -NI UN? n^y rwaa t&n 5 
IN 'mo IN 'can 'i>n paa Djnx DHWK i>aN : N^NP nynaa 
tana ^nb \snrn l "o'3"Na NDIN p nyo pnNn an H ai D"na 
nN3n nain SDJO an 2 r&tfeni : Tya pawn jntpa <3Np Kb T-ya xx 
nnaan NnrvN paa m'a pan pa^na uoo nwp^ poo 

pnaya ain nyoa pnoNi a nw 7 aa nr 'p 
naina r6 nop ^ya nxo --N rr6 noNi IN 3 xn^ 

'aina ni> nop Nnn^N Nnn xn^o w 'aa 'p *w i^ i>p^ 
an ps^na HJDO nwpi> KH^D nn ND^N N!? 'noNpi ^nr 'a ^rsi 
laa 'n^oan 'ox pnv 'i ^^ :i.T3 ^NO nnns nyi 7 N NDQ xxi 
men m i>a ^y ha: in^ ^NOI xnyn i?y I^TNT 3n p^nso 15 

na n^n Dpi? IHN Dp^ Dp^ nna op^ 'ow Bpi? ja 
DUSK sjwa moy an^ na 'n '^DNP *an G N-ixin oyia xxn 
mp p^ai np^y i>a Nnyo^i WTD nyn> Np tc^n ^n ia fN^ 
N^N cno yaoo N^I ^oa vb riao N^T 8 rnao xya'-D :IK> xxm 
'Dj^an ID sh JNVH JD in^i^a HJHD^I :i>a i/oi>B> yawo xxiv 
crrn 'a nay^ paa 0*3^ ^nB' p !> n3^ p n^ nnn*B pan at 
noB> 03^31 sa N^ ^N ^a^i my ^>ao y tnn r a> xxv 
nna nt^yo payb 10 T^y payi> ""iNin pa^o 'CNT "DTI 
naa PNXV r a vf.,i6v *na jop nna i^ n^yi loaia nt^y Nin nx nrxa 

ioii Nip^oa npio n^y NV 'o'n'rYnVa'a'K tsa^a paioi nnN 25 
" , . . P jva 'ta jniN Nnip Nincr a ^y | T^na 'a iy n^yo nr 



IN am nTiNia 'a^n jnaa wwai nan^ lie' nain B n^PTi xxvi 
an "No^ya j^ No-'-pi Nin ^NiK>a 'na5>m sann pan bwiotPa 'a^n 
nw M nam iTnND pcan po^P -njn 'ana ^Niotra na^n btvsri 30 



I Reading very doubtful, and as it stands gives no sense. D'3MJ sp;5 JQ, 
"he who does not belong to the average classes of men," would fit in 
very well after ^DIM in 1. 4. 2 JBa&a Mezia, nb. 

3 I am unable to explain this phrase satisfactorily. 
* The copyist was going to give Responsum XVI here, but reminded 
himself in time that he had written it on the previous page. 

8 Baba Mezia, si b. 6 Ibid., 20 b. 7 Arabic ? 

8 Baba Mezia, 25 a. 9 PesaMm, 47 b. 10 Baba Mezia, 6 b, below. 

II Read NVnr. 12 Baba Kama, 46 a; Baba Batra, 92 a. 
* 3 Bekorot, 49 b. " Baba Kama, 47 b. 



106 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Leaf 4, verso.) 

nni nraa vb& ny DN yiT PNI mnn nnaiy NVDJI men nx 
'DIN 'am D13DD nan n$> yam ms$> pw nrn D^E>D 
'"> 'DN 3ora na ^NIDP 'n 'DN 'DNP aim : mann vi>y 
onan ^>ya ns '^ mtnn i^y n*an 

h *na *a n^ KTOD jnn 2 on B> an ej 
btnora n^nn vi'y inantD &WWDO& ^nx pro ann^ 
^ aan xnp ^ Ko5 kr6o n ^K an 
bn p p^n fon: annab NHN Koi snp 
nnn nao an jonn 'ona Dpi xnoa 7i| pN2i Knn^ pan TO*rw^ parn 

nan ^NIJD^ ^TN man nna p^neM *a nao ^NID^I ^m nan 10 
N^in NJIBD pay^ ^ax NIID^N p:yi> ^*D an 8 ^rs man nna 
DID 9 Nn N^P bwov 'N nanani :na^n pi mnn i^y nano 
'n n^ani? nna nan urn ^>NIDC> xn N^P ^ND poion pa IDJDI nnx 

:rvtn NP snajN "wnaa iha nninn ba IO/ OB> N!J pnv xxvn 
^n 'oyta KO n tma^n lyjn DIDDUIP IN ajj NVDJI n^an^ 15 
'n '^m xn^na | IN 'jno p N^N nny^o IN Nnavn j^aniD 
a ^y BJKI iynr on i^ jnw pbana P*KB> m^a ^lynr 13 anani xxvm 
N3n Nnoan Npna pnoKpn 'nnNa a*n PN jn^a jnr I^BK 
NK' 3iynr N.n 'nnNa a^n pNn Nin jn^a ynr 'ONP an *DJ 
aw iynr ^n m^ aw an NJNPDD pan NO^N fnvnnNa yn 20 
n 'DIN B* ^NnNp '^n ai lynr ^on 1^ jnw ino pnc Npn 
a DN NJin ai 'cam t^D'-aia na^n D^ani nwi Nin nw 'OIK B^ xxix 
nt nn inan^ nna 



1 ]rov '-\ 'ON is not in our text, but it is found in the MSS. of the Talmud, 
comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc. 

* The writer first abbreviated NT3D J'trr to 'on, then changed his mind 
and wrote it out in full. 3 Read ib. 

* Editions and MSS. read WND or W3 instead of mr*n. 

5 Editions omit irrx, but MSS. have it. ' Read part ncEDl. 

7 Read ipim or rp'i. 8 Repeated by mistake. 

* Baba Mezia, 80 a. 10 =i:ynuj. ll 'Erubin, 82 a, top. 
lt Baba Batra, 92 b. 1S Ibid., 93a-93b. 14 Berakot, 9 a. 
15 Editions and MSS. : nc:o mcr> . 

14 Baba Batra, Mishnah, VI, 2; Gemara, ibid., 93 b. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 107 

&nny '-IDNPT tteny i^axi 'ano 'ai nsci* 'niataD ' vi>y ^ap 
N^T *DP 8 an i>apa 'BK v6 2 npx np^n p*a 'cm inn rffy KantttPM 25 
am Mm wan a^ i>an rr^y unx a ^ax 'anoa pan -netn haa Dr6 ir 



rva rm xyna anon rKfwanp ?y pnron 

i* p pyot? 'n Dicw pnv 'n 'o&n xn 7 'am : wo^ya JVNIO K^K xxxi 
ones? .,,.,. ncrn^a pan nhai> ^ n^nsb 'enp p n^wn 30 

XIII. 

Fragment Taylor-Schechter, vellum, two leaves, sizo 
28 x 22 cm., small square hand, represents the remainder 
of a collection of Geonic Responsa. The Fragment is 
badly damaged ; it is especially regrettable that the first 
two lines of leaf j , recto, are practically missing, as there is 
reason to suppose that they contained the name of the 
author. Fortunately, the few letters left on the second 
line are sufficient to give us a clue. The letters 'NJ probably 
are the last of the name Natrona'i, and the super- 
scription of the Fragment may have read as follows : i^x 
nana^ ianar wntM an no pxan IJJIN^ niaiKn. This assumption 
is confirmed by internal evidence, derived from the separate 
Responsa. As will be shown when we come to consider 
them in detail, they contain opinions known, through 
other sources, to have been uttered by Natronai ben Ilai', 
the Gaon of Sura. 

In its present form the Fragment contains eighteen 
Responsa. Of some of them the contents cannot be satis- 
factorily described on account of the damaged condition of 
the Fragment. 

i. The first Responsum deals with the question as to 
whether a benediction is to be said while washing the 

1 Read nsi:E 't. a Phonetic orthography for >ip?N ipyci. 

3 Editions and MSS. read differently. * Baba Batra, 94 a. 

5 -=ncpo, Baba Batra, 95 b. 6 Read norms. 

1 Saba Salra, 97 a. 



I08 GENIZAH STUDIES 

hands before the grace after meals on the Passover-night. 
The decision of the Gaon agrees with that given in the 
Seder Rob Amram, 40 a, which holds that a benediction 
would be out of place. The two passages coincide, not 
only as to content, but also as to verbal expressions, and 
one is thereby tempted to conjecture that Rab Amram, in 
his Responsum, excerpted Natrona'i's decision in this case 
as in many another. That the custom of pronouncing 
a blessing over the washing of the hands before the grace 
after meals on the Passover-night prevailed in those days, 
we know, and not alone from the negative proof of the Gaon's 
adverse decision. It is expressly prescribed in the Haggadah 
of the Genizah published by Mr. Israel Abrahams in the 
Jewish Quarterly Review (X, p. 42). The perpetuation 
of this custom in the Passover-night meal is a highly 
characteristic phenomenon. It is not the only one for 
which this meal has served as a medium of preservation. 
There can be no doubt that at one time a benediction was 
always said over the washing of the hands before grace 
after meals, no matter what the season or the occasion l . 
The custom fell into desuetude 2 , but it was saved for 
the knowledge of posterity by the Passover-night meal, the 
typical Jewish meal, which gathered up and preserved 
numerous customs at one time or another generally ob- 
served. The washing of the hands before eating " Karpas " 
at the beginning of the Seder can also be explained only 
on the same principle. In ancient times the ablution and 
the blessing always preceded, not only the eating of bread, 
but also the eating of a vegetable with a liquid ( 



1 Hullin, 1053. The statement of the Baraita, nain c'mnNi D'3it*n DTD, 
admits of no other explanation than that the washing of hands before 
the grace after meals was quite as important as, if not more important 
than, the washing at the beginning of the meal, the remark of the 
Tosafot (see s.v. o'o) to the contrary notwithstanding. Comp. also Tanhutna, 
ed. Buber, Balak, 145. 

* Comp. the authorities quoted by Joseph Caro in his Bet lose/, Orah 
IJayyim, 181. 

8 Some rigorists insisted upon the observance of this Halakah, even in 



GEONIC RESPONSA 1 09 

Become obsolete in post-Talmudic times, it yet lingers on 
in the Passover-night meal, though even there it is shorn 
of the benediction ; the ablution alone remains. 

2. The second is the famous Responsum by Natronai 
Gaon on the " Order of Benedictions," hitherto known to 
us only by references to it made by Amram Gaon in his 
Seder (i a et seq.), by Abraham ben Nathan in his Marihig 
(6 b, 7 b), and many others of the older authorities. As 
this Responsum forms the nucleus of the Prayer-Book, it 
will be well worth while to consider it in detail. 

In the Benediction nct?J T6x occurs NTi minD 1 , in agree- 
ment with the German and the Byzantine ritual, showing 
that KTI is not a later addition, as Baer supposes. The 
idea underlying the addition of ton 2 is that the soul, when- 
ever it is separated from its body, as it is at night, is pure, 
in spite of its owner's sins, and every morning returns to 
him pure and clean. Another noteworthy expression is 
wn instead of yoo, occurring twice in this Benediction. 
Are we permitted to assume, on the basis of the Palestinian 
word ^CM, that this Benediction is of Palestinian origin ? 

The order of the short Benedictions in the Morning Prayer 
("in&'n niDin) is the same as that given in the Seder Rob 
Amram, with the exception that it omits the blessing 
^NIG? 11 "itaiy. This can be taken as additional evidence of 
Natrona'i's authorship, as Zedekiah ben Abraham Anaw, 
in his Shibbale ha-Leket (ed. Buber, 3), states explicitly 
that in the " Order of Benedictions," by Natronai Gaon, 
the blessing btnsy itDiy is omitted. 

In the Benediction onon ^DU two considerable variants 
are offered by our Responsum. It has neither utajm 
DHDH at the end of the Benediction proper, nor 
1yi> D'QIB as the closing words of the final sentence. 
That the words btnjp* IDJ& are a later addition is corrobo- 



post-Talmudic times, but without success. Comp. Bet Yosef, Oral Hayyim, 

158. 

1 Comp. Ratner, on Yer. Berakot, 147. 

2 Comp. also Rabbinovicz, Variat Lect., to Berakot, 60. 



HO GENIZAH STUDIES 

rated by the fact that they do not appear in the Seder Rob 
Amram, and that Isaac of Corbeil in the p^DD (151, Kopyst 
edition, I2a) has IWO^ instead of them. 

The Priestly Blessing after minn n:m is not known to 
Natronai Gaon. From the remarks of the Tosafists 
(Berakot, lib, s.v. 1335?), and the Manhig (ed. Berlin, 9 b) of 
Abraham ben Nathan, we learn that to say it after the 
minn ro-O was a French custom, and we may assume that 
it was not known to the original Seder Rob Amram either, 
but was put into it as a later addition. In connexion with 
this it may be mentioned that it is equally unknown to 
the Byzantine ritual. 

The selections from the Talmud and the Midrash after 
the early morning Benedictions are the same as those in 
the Seder Rob Amram and in all other rituals, with the 
exception of the Byzantine, which does not contain inTK 
pipe. The reason assigned for the practice of reading 
these selections as a part of the liturgy is practically the 
same as that given in the Seder Rob Amram, and both 
authorities go back to the same Talmudic passage for it, 
though each has a reading of his own of the Talmudic 
passage. 

The Benediction D'ani IOK> tjnpo does not occur in our 
Responsum, and that it is of later origin appears from the 
fact that in the Roman ritual it is recited without D> or 
mata, the very form used in the text of the Manhig (ed. 
Berlin, p. 7 b) l and by Mairnonides. 

It is very remarkable that this " Order of Benedictions " 
has no blessing over the Tallit. Are we to assume that at 
the time of the Gaon Natronai the Tallit was not worn 
generally ? 

The last Benediction in the Evening Prayer as given by 
our Responsum reads : vc?y ^3 ^JJ Ton n^333 "ji>l)Dn, which 
differs from all liturgical forms known to us. 

3. The third Responsum is the decision of the Gaon, 

1 Notice that the words WTYM an in the Manhig belong to the sentence 
preceding them, and not to the following one. 



GEONIC RE8PONSA III 

based on Bdba Batra, 91, prohibiting the purchase of 
produce for speculative purposes, to raise prices and 
control the market. 

4. The fourth deals with the subject of usury, giving 
the opinion of the Gaon, that it is forbidden to charge 
a higher price for goods because they happen to be sold 
on credit. He puts this practice in the category of usury. 
The identical Responsum is found in the Geonic Collection 
p*i 'iy{? (p. 40 a), where it is ascribed to ?*? *WJ 11. It 
is usually assumed that this *17fl is a misprint 1 , or a false 
reading, for "iri, and it is therefore generally credited to 
Hila'i Gaon. But it is not impossible that the reading was 
bn '3 'r6, i. e. "iri p 'wntM m-6, which the copyist mis- 
understood. He took '3~b to be 133li>, which he abbreviated 
to 31 , and then he omitted the '2 standing for p , which in 
his reading was superfluous. 

5 and 6. These two Kesponsa deal with questions of 
inni T1D S N. The contents of the first of them it is 
impossible to make out, on account of the damaged 
condition of the Fragment. The second considers the 
question of the signs classifying a bird among the 
permitted species. The view of the Gaon is the same 
as that mentioned by Maimonides (nniDK n^3N, I, 19) 
as the view of the Geonim. Comp. also Responsum 14 of 
our Fragment, and TUT, Yoreh Deah, 82. In the course 
of the discussion the Gaon mentions that the bird MID, 
occurring in the Talmud, Hullin, 62 b, is a marsh-bird, 
which disposes of its identification with the wren, made 
by Lewysohn, in his Zoologie des Talmuds (p. 178), and by 
others. 

7. This Responsum is a brief explanation of the Tal- 
mudic passage Baba Mesia, 85 b, in which the great 
merits of R. Hayya in connexion with the revival of 
learning in Palestine are dwelt upon. 

8. The eighth Responsum tells the Gaon's opinion on 

1 Is it likely that the suffix 'i in this name is the Persian 01, as in 
for NJTDN, and in other names ? 



112 GENIZAH STUDIES 

the subject of corporal punishment in schools, in the 
following words: "Children naturally can be taught 
only with the help of the ferule. . . . Therefore small 
children, and even big ones, if they are naughty, must 
have it applied to them. It does not matter, when the 
children are healthy, if they are caused considerable pain. 
But if the teacher uses the same method with small and 
delicate children, he is a barbarian, and he should be 
warned not to do it. If he persists after two or three 
warnings, he should be dismissed." 

9-12. These four Responsa deal with liturgical questions. 
The first of them contains the decision of the Gaon, that in 
the Musaf Prayer the Biblical verses describing the sacrifices 
of the day are not to be recited. The same decision is 
quoted, on the authority of Natrona'i, by Ibn Giat, "nys? 
nnB>, II, 26. The second of this liturgical group gives 
the form of the Benediction as nvn in the Shemoneh Esreh. 
It is nearly identical with the form in Lev. R., VII, 2, in 
Pesikta, ed. Buber, XXV, 158, and in the Genizah Frag- 
ment published by Professor Schechter, Jewish Quarterly 
Review, X, 657. Of the third only a few words are 
legible, and they give the form for the D^on ro~O, which 
closes with DW~i "Utt?, as in the Seder Rab Amram and 
in Maimonides. The Byzantine ritual also has DWi 131^, 
though with the addition DHT V^3O . 

13-14. Both these Responsa deal with the question of 
the species of permitted birds, but only the second of them 
is in a legible condition. At first sight there seems to be 
a contradiction between the decision here given and that 
in the sixth Responsum, but in reality the contradiction is 
only apparent. It should be borne in mind that the 
circumstances of the two cases respectively are different. 
In the sixth Responsum we are dealing with the case in 
which plVD mryi ma, while in the fourteenth Responsum 
we have the case of {"TCD J^N "jri's. Comp. Joseph Caro, Bet 
Yosef, Yoreh Deah, 82. 

15. This Responsum, found also in the Seder Rab Amram, 



GEONIC RESPONSA 113 

1 9 a, gives the rule that every attendant at the services in 
the synagogue must conform, outwardly at least, with the 
accepted order, standing when the other worshippers 
stand, sitting when they sit. 

1 6. The Gaon here renders the decision that a scholar 
is bound to interrupt his very studies to join a funeral 
cortege if it does not count the required ten men, no 
matter whose funeral it may be, whether of a child, 
a woman, or an ignoramus. This decision is quoted on the 
authority of Natrona'i, in Ibn Giat's nroP nytP, 237. 

17. From this Responsum we learn the interesting fact 
that the custom of using Mazzot for niTVn 'aiTy is as old 
as the eighth century. The Gaon mentions Rab Phinehas as 
the first to introduce the custom, and it is very probable 
that this Phinehas is identical with Phinehas the brother of 
Mar Samuel, the contemporary of the Gaon Haninah, who 
are mentioned in connexion with the redaction of the 
Midrash Esfah. Comp. Yalkut, I, 736 *. Until now the 
custom could not be traced beyond the thirteenth century. 
Comp. Shibbale ha-Leket, ed. Buber, 71 2 . 

1 8. This short decision by Natronai has evoked a 
lengthy refutation from Hai Gaon, published by Horowitz 
in D\J1B>K"1 *?W jrmn, 251-6. The matter in dispute between 
Natronai and Ha'i is whether it is allowed to milk cows on 
a holiday, the former forbidding it, the latter permitting it 
in direct and explicit opposition to Natronai. A reference 
to this Responsum by Hai is found in the n" t| 3sn, 330, 
where it says : "]irb i6 ^3K rmpn *]inb n^m . , , . rota "piri 
anai? JIM 'Nil yf? jnn pam mypn. 



1 Comp. however, Brull, in his Jahrbiicher, II, 82, note 133. 

2 Comp. the 'JDITK, fol. 74 d (183), of the Karaite Judah Hadassi, who 
opposes this custom of the Rabbinites, and Vidal de Toulouse, on 'Erubin, 
I, 16. 



U 4 



GENIZAH STUDIES 



:i ! :i X 

-r* O n D 



c 3 r 

* r^ IT ^1 



as 



P- S 
P ~c 

*~~fv. 



el 



c % ~r^ v 

^ - S J 

C ^ " X 

P * i 8 

*" Q H- r 

*~* n 

g r^^r\ |- 



& rr 

I~ *"""" 

r Q 

C 55 



ri 



s S - 



25 



fe J^ 



gn 
^- Q 
a - 



O 



r 



!=- r 

55 ?2 



55 



n a 
c 



~ S* a 

* P- F -& 



P fa C c p <= 

j% M r^ ~r>. 

" Q 

?& n c a 

*-% j\ ,_ 

n C - - ~ 






~P 



* 

r 



n 



g & 

*-* *.f\ 

5 - *- a 

N >_ - C 1 



n 
L 



f- y 



55 



n 

o 

55 

n 

P 



a 55 

E I 



r * 

^ o 

- v n 

C v a 



55 " 

r- _r\ 
a a 



& x 
c p. c 

S i 

R^ 

^ p n 

g-S 8 

C f. n 

a n 
as 

n 



h 

q 8? 

K i 
I fe 

^ K) 
tt 



fc 

g n 



UEONIC RESPONSA 



Q -^ 

B F 



2 

F Q 



5 ~r n * v n ,P .P & E r 

I 1 B - V * 1 1 f 












2 2 







I 2 



n6 



GENIZAH STUDIES 



? E 

^ F 

as n: 

c 



P S r * s 

c ^ g^^ 

c r 1 5^^ 

S E ''~ E 

" *" _r\ ~ 



22 







& s 

j\ a 
^ S 



r n 
. S 



a 
as i 

IX C 

c n 
F ** 



X 






r ^ 

g 

n. n 



Q 

& *~ 
n *~ 

x " 

Q ^ 

r" * 



g ? 

1 r 

-^ as 



r 
'- 



t- i 
|-~? r 

x & F- 

5 ^~Q 

r I 

Q !~ 



F a E 

IT F 

S " 



r a 
n n 



n ^ 



S n 
Spa 



as S a 

3 & *~ c 

" F as .1 

? & * g 

/\ -^ c 

1^ ~^ as 

i ^ i 1 

I * * 

n a s 

p I 



f-g 

a n 



^ ? 2 

' ci 



a r 



r 

5S n 



n ^ 



( 1J 



Q ~r^ 



^ ^ 5 



^ 

n 






* n 

Ss 

n Q 
r f 

R ^" 



1- 



M 

\ 

a" R 



M 
w sT 



*r H 

5 



S"^ E E^ 

e P P 3 

*^ it n *2 "* 

^~ w 

n C ,3 



GEONIC RESPONSA 



ui 



.- ^ 



f^ n 
- 






a 



Q .JN. 

D n 
n Q 

* 

c r 



a % r 

a & 

h & S 

e a 

p 2 



- n Q 

J^ " ^ 
9 F n 



n Q 
j\ & 

i-f 

n r 



F H 

c r- 

-g 

F"t 



n S E ~J> 

C .^N. F > 

JI Q 

c JN n n 

r- SC *" 

o E i= n 

is r^ o x 



ci J^ 
^ a 



r* 

P 



^ g 



E> Q 

-s & 





P F - S 
R - r 

* 



n 

F n ~ci 



C y 



P r t- 

a - a 



~r\ 
Q 



P ? 

a r- 



t! 

fa 



t Q J3 ^ 

iT! ^L_ *^ 



13 
n 

& J 1 

R - & 

^r\ 3 s -Ji 
, o & 

a S n 
_ r- r 

O rx P 








a :; f 



c J- ^ 



" S S 

F $ 






x n 

a n 

*s/ *^ 



* r 

c 



p\ 

n 
fa 



g 

% 



c 



Q 
n 

n 

r 



Q 
~r\ 



^ q 



X 



ri P Q 



ir a 
fl ^ 



53 5 
% n 



X. C 



n -*^ 
JN 3S 
13 E> 

C? S 
E> 

y ^ 



o C 

f.i 






r CI o 






Q n 



S g 



% 1 

D 35 

f CI C 



8 



ri 

1 






n 

F S 
S 

n 
x 

X 



Q 



n8 



GENIZAII STUDIES 



iJ 



n * g 

* Jj ,J"\ t~~ 

; *" n *" 

J ? J V 

" n n ~ 

^ ?? ss 



: r g n 

Q r- 

Js 3 1 



n ' ^ 

? E 

& " 

r r 



Q & JZ *= 
n c o o 

^-g a & 



2^ 



^ I 

P r v 



as c 

r r 

P ^ 

r as 

c x 

35 



25 n 
n 



H- 25 

C r 



X 

r ^ 

l~l * 

9 ? 



5S 

* 



P E 

& n 
35 " c 

;*? 

2 



25 i? 



a 



X p 



n *~ 

^ Q 
l~ S> 

? s 

25 

Q 
P 
X 



^^ 

n 







25 Q -r\ 

- 2 r 

C Q ? 

a >5 n 



*5 ^^ 
52^ 

a ^ x 



x 



1 55 

Q 

r 

a 



.- Q 



h. n 

25 



r Cl 
P 





a r c 25 



> S5 C ^rx 

fl f-1 ^^ 



^_ a 
-? -^ n. 



^ S n 

^ n P 

*- Q 
r- 25 



J* f- JJ 



X 



a 



X 



n r- 



s S F 



J - ^ ^ E S 



25 

P" *^- 

JH 25 

n r 

x a " 

P 



25 :i 
t O 

r 



^. ^ c 






^ Q 



r n ' c 
& .. 3 



& c 
12 f- f=- 



n. 

^ ^ P 

**" n n 

*- n ^ 

Q P n. 

|3 **-- 

25 r| 

? S 



S3 



fe "2 



PH 



25 25 n Cq 



jj 

S fl 



K 



r. 

s -i- 

C T! 



fl 



g| 



GEONIC RESPONSA 




S B 
K| 

* 



120 



GENIZAH STUDIES 




JfwZifn, 63 b 
64. a, where 






mp. Hullin, 



- 

s a 

is 

Sf 

$f 



J-^r- 



GEONIC RESPONSA 



121 



r c 



S 5 , 

F " n 

*- E 

^ * 

t & 

F ^ a 
S & * 

35 P ~T>r 






K i P 

8 i = 

D P 35 






l-B 



CI 



g 



35 



Bttl 

t: 5 I * 



:i 3 

fc n 



c 

r -" 

^ a 

n , o 



E 25 

^ C " 

35 r 

o g _ 

J> C S 



a p 



_rx 
n 
13 



35 



n n - c 



Q t= 



g n 

C Q 

n I 

,- 

rt ~rx 

C 

fl ^ 

n r- 



s I i 
~ F ~? 

Ill 

n 



,. n n 



* 



35 



a r 
S - JN 

x -{> 

c n 



n 



& E 



32 



n 5 
r- 35 



r. 



C 
o. 



a 



c n 

Z 9 

55 C 

1 n 

~ n r~ 

i I & 

S n 



a 



35 p 

r o 






^ n 
r.3. ~ 

35 P 



^/\ 
E P 



r 



c 
a 
52 
c 

1 



J- f~ 



n 

35 r 



I- Q 

S F 

B 

35 35 

O 

n t 



si r "T ~ 



35 

c 

f- 
ci 

r 

r.i 
& 



S ^ -S 
En ; 



'-on 

y. r r- 

C 35 

Q l~ 

^ r 

o 

a 



a 
n 
a 

_ 5 
^\ *~ 



r 

x E 

32 "ft 

J%" F 

^ n 

^E Q 

c S 



_s ^ 
55 03 



11 

b 



; o t- 



. I 

J2 ^ 

. ^ T3 

^ S g 

Tt* 'P FH 

* 03 . 

" S 
1 03 

3 
* ., 

^ o* 

N a> 

W cS 

> -^ 

jh 

^^ 

o3 iS 

M H 



122 GENIZAH STUDIES 

XIV. 

Fragment Taylor-Schechter Collection, three leaves, 
paper, written in a large hand, square, with a tendency to 
cursive: contains the remainder of a group of Geonic 
Responsa, three of them having been preserved, and these 
not in their entirety. 

1. Of the first Responsum, a single line, the last, appears 
on the fragment. It seems to have dealt with the question 
of the guardianship of the female child of divorced parents, 
whether she remains in the custody of the father or of the 
mother. 

2. The second Responsum, of which the end is missing, 
contains a long discussion of the passage in Baba Batra, 
80 a, on the sale of the young generation of bees in a hive. 
The question is, how is the bee-keeper to distinguish 
between the old and the young, and deliver to the pur- 
chaser what he has contracted for. The Gaon replies thus : 
" When the young bees are born the hive becomes too small 
to harbour them as well as the old ones. The young leave 
the hive and swarm. To prevent them from flying away in 
all directions the keeper attracts them to a certain place by 
sweet melodies on the kettle-drum and on the flute, and 
thence they fly into the new hive prepared for them near 
by." It is noteworthy that the expression used by the 
Gaon for bee-hive is mNia, probably to be read Kuwarat, 
like the Arabic and the Persian, not Kaweret (min) as 
traditionally pronounced. Kuwarat, to be sure, is an un- 
Hebraic substantive formation, but as it is of Persian origin 
(see Frankel, Aramdische Fremdivorter) this does not 
militate against the Gaon's orthography. 

3. This Responsum, of which the beginning is lost, con- 
tains a lengthy exposition of Shabbat, 34a~35b, the passage 
which considers the determination of the time of nightfall 
(nitJ>DK7) pu). The Gaon has a contribution to make to the 
subject ; he brings out some new points, especially by his 
reference to Tosefta, Zabim, I, end, and its bearing upon 
the Talmudic text. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 123 



(Leaf i, recto.) 

:nN !>N nan a^ PNI na wan 
nvra nptai ' was? -IK>NI 
troop oman napp w 
niN-oa itray B*B> nnmn jo 
3 . . px ww 



nnian pmn Dnan . , y 

n 4 n ........ innai 



iya MM ^ra psnpjn jm pn njj 10 
IN fpna |n 



phyi yyn WIN S>y 



15 

niwan nn>a wn 
nnx NT DI Kin sin 
pi 6 u 

^ I^N >nn n^yan 
no . , pp IN n^N naow w*a^ 20 



1 Mishnah Baba Batra, V, 4 ; Gemara, 80 a. 

2 The traditional vocalization is rrwa . 

3 Read irmpaa. * Read c^cprt rw D'Snan 

5 Read ir:\o op wail , it refers to Mishnah Baba Kama, X, 2 ; Gemara, 
ibid., 1 14 a. 6 Read now 1 ;. 



124 OENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf i, verso.) 



Kin nn nr 
tew nnxia HTVB 
enia DIDO 



i , . yn anmn nx * DID . . w 5 
. . . nns ^m my 
n ...... i>jn n^ 

s an 'DN 4 n ...... an 'ON pDioo nco 

KanyD2 noKi nsr ni'oni ^nra 
i>mn ps m^n "13 *DV 'm rrow 10 
nn DiTBp Hints N^N jonoo 
w pean nx ni^isi nnnn 

PP^niO 6 ppTB Hl^ 



-ITID 15 
Hinn 



pmn 



1 Read DIDTO. ' Read'iDD. s Read mi bn. * Read rrnrr. 

s n is also the reading of MS. Rome, while all the other MSS. and the 
printed text have buratD. 

* Mishnah Baba Batra, II, 10 ; Gemara, 18 a, 35 a. 
T Baba Batra, 25 b. 8 Read nnx?. 

* The editions read nwac "bnno . . . while the MSS. have m3C ;DO. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 125 



(Leaf a, recto.) 

Mnoirfr inw p^ 



any epoa pa 
pro nat^a wnp nioini? | 
anya 



an 'ON pnotni 

pay^ yicnn 11 ann 
pa n^o^ y n&o pnia 
n pa ins w pipi? 2 pao 10 
ara pn^no n onsDiD^ PSD 
ar ^a nain 



JD TlDDl D 11 ^ D^D nN s 3 7*W 15 

Kin nn nxn nns DM pnpn 
DVH nnx HNI OKI np 



1 Shabbat, 34 b. a Bead pipbi 



126 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf a, verso.) 

Dvn D-W is irow 
ar nt nn 
nitro^n pa nnx 
rwa eniao nr nail D'-n^a 

DN DV 'l miD 'nOOtflbv 5 

*a i>y PIK rnetDswi pa nnx 
8 iT3 t^ 1 aia^oi n^ao na na 



ntn wyB> nsr ^a bjn nnix 
woB'n pa nnsi ovn nns 10 
nnsi rwwB'n pa nnx IN 
rn* ON 



DVH n^nB' mm owo 

nvn nnx is nn nnxi 15 
jn PSD .Jinoij 
avno 



1 Tosefta Zabt'm, end of the first chapter ; ed. Zuckermandel, p. 677, 
line 19. 

* Editions read na instead of 1T3, while R. Hananel in his commentary 
on Shabbat, 34 b, reads 13 . 



GEONIC RESPONSA 127 



(Leaf 3, recto.) 



PBD }n nn nwopn pa 
V run :p">p$> PSD 



sin nn DVIBD 



nonn 
a D*wn iy nonn 



pa 3 

. : 1^33 noo nxan an 
nv^to^n pa n^y5J> paa 
ny n^yi nae6 nat^ any pa 
VIC^ na^ pa niawn pa 
hn t*m in^nn IN I^QJ no 15 



pm 
onisan DM na^ 



1 The editions and MSS. read T>I, the current reading is that of Judah 
Albargeloni in DTiyn ICD, p. 23, who has J'3 na 'DV. 
a Read NraibD. 8 Mishnah Keritot, IV, 4; Gemara, ibid., 19 a. 



128 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leafs, verso.) 



pxi rwEwn p3 

'n ny j 
yenn* ' 
n pa mvbn nenyn ^y ^P^na 
N JB> IIDB ww 5 
nnvpoi nvn rrony 



: 2 inoi' nrum DV niyao nnvr 
pa n^iy ps 3 ms i| 2 Nnyot^ 
jns n^WDri? xasn ini> 'DK 10 
pa-n xmy^a tt^ n>p 
w ^pn c^n by 



pa prp pK3 15 



5 WIN is :na^n oy jn^p 

nann 1| ivB' pn s Kim 



1 KeriM, 19 b. 

* The editions have an essentially different text. 

* Perhaps the same as nDDin, i. e. nac ncoin. 

5 The later editions of the Talmud read >OKT, while the old editions as 
well as the MS. have >:ix ; comp. Rabbinovicz, Variae Lect., ad loc. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 1 29 

XV. 

Fragment Taylor-Schechter Collection, two leaves, paper, 
square hand, with a slight tendency to cursive. The frag- 
ment consists of a quire, of which one or two leaves are 
missing. It is the remainder of a collection of Geonic 
Responsa, the two preserved having been the eleventh and 
twelfth in the collection. 

1. The first Responsum of the two preserved, of which 
the beginning and the middle are missing, is a somewhat 
lengthy commentary on Kiddushin, 54 b~56 a, dealing with 
W 1C>J?. This Responsum is of great importance in the 
text criticism of the Talmud. Besides offering a number 
of variants to our printed editions, to which attention is 
directed in the footnotes, it contains a long passage, on 
folio 54 b, entirely missing in our text. The discussion in 
the Talmud (Kiddushin, 54 b) assumes that, granted the 
principle Binn poo B>*D, we must apply it not only to E>"D 
at Jerusalem, but also to B>* outside of the Holy City. 
But this assumption flatly contradicts the plain statement 
of the Talmud, in Sanhedrin, 112 b (comp. also Yer. Peak, 
VII, 20 c), that, in the opinion of all authorities, W"D outside 
of Jerusalem is ni3J pDD. The difficulty did not escape the 
attention of the Tosafists (comp. Kiddushin, 53 b, s.v. 1?VN), 
who tried to explain it away. Now, however, it seems 
that this point was actually discussed in the Talmud, in a 
passage which the Gaon knew, but which escaped from the 
text that has come down to us (i recto, lines 1-3). Un- 
fortunately, the beginning of the Responsum is missing, so 
that we are left in ignorance as to the conclusion reached 
by the Talmud. 

2. The second Responsum deals with the text of the 
Mishnah and the Gemara of Sotah, 27 b and 29 a-b. The 
Talmudic passage in question presents no difficulties, but 
as the Talmudists of the time of the Gaon were not well 
informed on details of nnntt , they turned to him with their 
questions, and he entered into them with some degree of 
particularity. 

K 



130 



GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf i, recto.) 

tnon an 'ox na^n ''cam TUB 'n nan rnn } 
PBB 13D TKB 'TT oi>B>YV3 '3t? ntrya npi^no 
'no: . 2 wn D^ya PBB nao pani wn maa 
B> yai yo3 mian 



rrn.T ' 



moo 'BIN *DV 'n pm DV '"D si moo 

wan Bnna3 n ^ITB 5l| "ia sin^ 3BB IIDN 10 

B 'na nTBy n^ ^ *a 6 Nin 
DIN ^s N$n wn maa PBB n^yri ^ 
na IK^ TTBD WB K^K 
BH 1^0 yoc > sn 'nca 
jnw ^wa ny^ ny inna^ p^son sh 15 



PBB 



1 Read pow 'o3ni or |'ino 'oam ; comp. Sanhedrin, 112 b. 
s Kiddushin, 54 b, comp. the introductory note. * Read 

4 In Kiddushin, 54 b the Mishnah reads itoo J'a, while in Ma'aser Sheni, 
V, 5 the text is the same as in our MS. 
8 The editions of the Talmud read snip noa m rrb an' <so 'O 'm NO % '?N 



* Read '131 mvu men Kin n WITS, and comp. 1. 6 of the next page (131). 
T The editions read D'nca. 

8 Yj is missing in the text of the Talmud, 1. c., but is found in the text 
of the Mishnah, Ma'aser Sheni, IV, 6. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 



131 



(Leaf i, verso.) 



'OK 



*ap vo an wn maa 
MM mm* 'n tbyk twin Dpi span 
'CNno nn torn Nosno in 
nn ^ n^ NONHD in ^ no wn 



nna 



y^oa n^y woo IB'DT NH 
i>y PIN na^Btia rupa IBTJOH *a na i-na 
n^ TIT nssoa xi> n'on npii? in: N^ 10 
ma: poo ntyyo 'ENT TXO /- n xa^s 
D-on jn 11 ^ ny na^troa napa ps niaan 
minm *|D33 msa men unat'ca tmujo 
onsin* I^SNI ^ Dpi sjoan ;n:i mN 
IOB> 'OK n^s na ^na ai 'ox jna 15 
nm 3 NBDaa N^X ia?nD xh cnpna ;n nn 
IJ^NB' p !?yi 



1 Kiddushin, 54 b ; the editions read ib . . . jroi rboi lanwo 'o 'm 
'01 Mm mm' 'T c^irt mirr 'i isb N^ N:cni TSN. 

2 Kiddushin, I, 6 ; Gemara, ibid., 28 b ; the editions read rra;n. 

3 Gittin, 53 a, where the editions read W':n, instead of w>n:, but Alfasi 
has the same reading as our MS. 



132 



GENIZAH 'STUDIES 



(Leaf a, recto.) 

rv\yo p'DUp nnn NIID'K SWNI xa^n 
nni o^oan iwp vni p -oion S' 
inn 3DM nxa Hpo'si njnopn nx 
: nro^a n^xa NDTjin ns 
em ovn u pm m 

lain ^x DHD he* T^N ^nn ^a ^ 
ntna^ 2 Nu neb b TNT "IHSDI p^trpoi 
'DIK W*K xa^py '-n twn n^n ipy 
naa by lob nnnx NOD^ NDti 11 N^K 
D ys'in' 1 'n 'CN *E?*hrn nx NDDD ww *JB> 
'DW nnnB> 'sar fa pnv jan ^yyo nsy nbv 
jo 4 ii? PNB> 3B' naa inu^ ins in Tny 
rrnnn JD i^ pt^ irwo s ai p^px minn 
an 'CK rnirp an 'cs pninsi NDD Kin ni> 



DV 



po 



minn | 15 



writ? DV 



PIDI 



' rby\ bis 



hna 



1 Mishnah, Sotah, V, 2 ; Gemara, 27 b. 

2 So/aA, 29 a. 3 Read >c^o. * Read jo ipo ib J'w. 

* Ntga'im, XIV, 3 ; the words rnyi bic are missing in our text of the 
Mishnah, but the Talmud (Pesahim, 35 a, and parallel passages) has them. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 133 



(Leaf 2, verso.) 

boa 1333 yaa DN ronra bix is?ec> anyn 
iDit?33 |^wa hoe Nine> 'JB> ^31N noinnn ID 
inn "b Nyoat? KDB 13-ira 



t? 133 12 yw DXB> Nin pi p^ira 5 
nan nuna NVD:^ p 'onn pm ^DQJ 
m n^ 'D n^y pncw n^nn iwnrre' rpy 

nunx -a 
ns xn *wm 

n ^3 hs H jwm -CNT onne' ^on 10 
n ^30 'c^ 'o^n enn ^3 T 



PKODD 

paw Np ppn ''DNT D^n^ ^cn jxoa nun 
nsni ptrN-i ni^nn v runs ian5> NVDJ 15 

"133 N1H1 n3B> ITINDB' 
NEB 13V13 lE'N ^3 I^NJ N^ 3 



1 Kelim, VIII, 5; Pesahim, 20 a, and parallel passages. 

1 Pesafiim, 2oa-aob; comp. Rabbinovicz, Variae Lectioties, ad loc. 



134 GEN1ZAII STUDIES 



XVI. 

Fragment Taylor-Schechter, vellum, 13x15 cm. (oblong), 
writing square, quire of two leaves, the middle portion 
missing. It represents the remainder of a collection of 
Geonic Responsa, the last of which in our fragment is 
numbered sixteen. 

It contains four Responsa, all of them, unfortunately, 
in incomplete condition. Neither their author nor their 
date is ascertainable. However, the assumption is war- 
ranted that they belong to the later Geonim ; and as the 
first two Responsa are elsewhere ascribed to Ha'i, the last 
of the Geonim may perhaps be accepted as the author 
of all of them. 

i. The first Responsum, the beginning of which is lacking, 
deals with the validity of a marriage contract (rains) signed 
by a number of witnesses, some of whom were related to 
the contracting parties. Though the Jewish law in general 
terms excludes relatives from acting as witnesses to 
a marriage, the Gaon declares the document valid, because, 
as there were other witnesses besides, there was no proof 
that the kinsmen had not attached their names to it as 
a coveted distinction, or been invited to do it as a 
courtesy, and the Gaon grants this latitude of interpre- 
tation even when the signature of the kinsmen occurs first 
in the order of the witnesses. This decision is based on 
the statement in Baba Batra, 162 a, b. It is noteworthy, 
that the Gaon's reading of the Talmudic text differs 
essentially from our accepted reading. Our text (162 b) 
has nupn f?y pinn, while the Gaon reads V^y pmn, indi- 
cating that the second clause in the Baraita refers, not to 
a new case, but to the same case treated of in the first 



GEONIC RESPONSA 135 

clause. That the Gaon's reading is correct appears from 
MS. M. and from Rashbam, ad loc., both of which have V^V 
as well as IDt^n ^y, the only explanation for which. is 
that the original V^y was retained even after the text was 
changed by the addition of "iDB>n hf. The probability is 
that the change finally producing our present reading was 
made by Rabbenu Hananel, who had the theory that the 
second case in the Baraita was entirely different from 
the first ; hence 1t3B7J ?y had to be inserted as the beginning 
of the new sentence. 

Our Responsum is practically identical with that given 
in Harkavy, 42, but it offers a number of more acceptable 
readings. Comp. also :Tnn, ed. Coronel, 102. 

2. The second Responsum, of which a few lines are 
missing at the end, deals with a dispute between brothers 
on account of the water supply in a house inherited by 
the two jointly from their father, and divided between 
them soon after his death. Some years later one of them 
claimed for himself exclusive rights upon the water supply 
gathered from that section of the roof which covered his 
part of the house, thus proposing to withdraw from his 
brother some of the water that had flowed into the cistern* 
at his end of the property, the only cistern with which the 
house was furnished in their father's time as well as their 
own. The Gaon decides against him, on the ground that 
the second brother had by this time acquired prescriptive 
rights (nprn) upon the whole water supply as well as the 
cistern at his end of the property. These were privileges 
to which a definite value should have been assigned at 
the time of the division of the property, and the division 
should have been made with their valuation as part of 
the inventory. The second brother's water supply could, 
therefore, be curtailed only by an act of injustice. 

This Responsum is essentially the sarnie as that given 
by Harkavy, 41, so that our two Responsa, both of them 
attributed to Hai, occur in Harkavy reversed. 

3. In this Responsum a few lines are missing- at the 



136 GENIZAH STUDIES 

beginning. It deals with the Talmudic passage in Pesahim, 
7 1 a. The Gaon first of all establishes the correct text, 
TO nnotTj not V? as it was read by his correspondents, 
probably residing in an Arabic-speaking country, in which 
TO and ^3 were pronounced alike. They must have re- 
presented the phonetic identity orthographically. The 
main difficulty in connexion with the text which the 
Gaon was called upon to solve was of a theological nature. 
It is an accepted principle with the Rabbis that fvaiK D^na 
psano pbyni (Pevahim, 59 b), atoning power resides even 
in those portions of the sacrifices eaten by the priests, of 
those sacrifices, that is to say, that are not wholly consumed 
upon the altar. Several questions arise with regard to this 
point, How is jt with the Dmaan DV i>B> nw, the priestly 
portions of which cannot be eaten until after the Great Day 
has passed, and atonement has presumably taken place? 
Still more difficult of solution the question becomes if the 
Pay of Atonement falls upon a Friday. As the priests' 
portions cannot be prepared on the Sabbath, they lie over 
a second night, which renders them unfit. The same 
difficulty inheres in all the sacrifices brought on Sabbaths, 
and on holidays falling on the Sabbath, intended to be 
partly eaten by the priests, which, however, they cannot 
use until the Sabbath is over, The Gaon 1 reaches a 
solution by a peculiar explanation of P&J31 pbaiK D'Jna 
insane. His view is that atoning power resides, not in 
the act of eating, but in the character and state of the 
sacrifice. If the sacrifice is of the right sort, and there is 
nothing in it to prevent the priests from using the portions 
assigned to them for food, it does not matter whether these 
portions are eaten by the priests or not : they are not 
deprived of their atoning power. This explanation covers 
the case of all Sabbath sacrifices, and it also covers the 
case of the sacrifice on a Day of Atonement falling on any 
4ay except Friday, because we know beforehand that 
the priests will be able to eat their portions immediately 
1 Cotnp, also Tosafot on Pesahim, 59 b, catchword 'jiy. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 137 

the Sabbath or the Fast is over ; the delay will not have 
rendered them unfit. It is otherwise with the sacrifice 
of the Day of Atonement falling on a Friday. Then 
a second night must pass before the priests can prepare 
their portions, and the law is that no sacrifice may be eaten 
after more than one night has passed over it. The Gaon 
must resort to another explanation for this case. Basing 
his view on the statement in Shebuot, 8 b, he holds that on 
the Day of Atonement the atoning power is confined to 
the Azazel ; the other sacrifices, of which the priests have 
portions assigned to them, do not possess their full 
atoning power on that day ; they have only a preventive 
action ; they avert suffering from the sinner whose sin 
cannot be atoned for by the scapegoat, because it is of 
such a nature as to require the expiation of death. 

It is highly interesting to compare the Gaon's conclusions 
with those of St. Barnabas, in his Letter, VII, 4. He says : 
" And they shall eat of all the rams sacrificed for their sins 
on the day of fasting. And note well what I am about 
to say! the priests alone shall eat all the inner parts, 
unwashed, together with vinegar!" Up to this time it 
has not been noticed that the argument of St. Barnabas 
is also based on the principle of piaano p^jni pbiK D^nD, 
according to which the atonement of the Day of Atonement 
could become effective only after the priests had eaten 
the parts allotted to them. His assumption that the 
priests ate their portions during the day itself, while 
the people were fasting, is, of course, wholly incorrect, 
though I cannot believe, with Giidemann (Religions- 
geschichtiiche Studien, p. 106), that it is an intentional 
misrepresentation. Barnabas simply put together several 
Rabbinic statements, and drew an unwarranted conclusion. 
He knew, as is said in Pesohim (1. c.), that on Sabbaths, or 
holidays falling on the Sabbath, the priests would eat their 
portions of the sacrifices unboiled, in order not to delay 
the atonement 1 the act effected. Also he knew that it 
1 Cornp. Rabbenu Hummel on Pesaltim, 71 a. 



138 GENIZAH STUDIES 

was not a transgression to drink vinegar on the Day of 
Atonement, because it is not customarily used as a drink 
(Yoma, 8 1 b). These two statements he combined, and 
obtained a conclusion that cannot hold water. 

There is an apparent contradiction between Pesahini, 71 a, 
and Mishnah Menahot, XI, 7. In the former passage, it is 
assumed that it was the custom of all the priests to eat 
their sacrificial portions raw on Sabbaths and holidays 
falling on the Sabbath ; while the other text limits the 
practice to the Day of Atonement falling on Friday, and 
even then it is described as the habit of the less cultured 
priests l . The contradiction disappears if we accept the 
view of the Gaon, that the Dmsnn DV ^ "vyw had no 
atoning power, and hence there was no need for the priest 
to hasten his meal. 

4. The fourth Responsum, the end of which is missing, 
deals with the correct reading of the Mishnah text in 
'Erubin, III, I. The Gaon calls attention to the fact that 
the Babli and the Terushalmi have substantially different 
readings of the passage. From the discussion of this 
Mishnic passage in 'Erubin, 30 b, we see that our reading 
of the Mishnah is as old as the Babylonian Amoraitn, 
though the Talmudic discussion may be a Saboraic 
interpolation. 

1 My conjecture is that the Mishnah ought to read jrc3\c instead of 
jnmc, ?C3 in this passage having the meaning of "stomaeh." Conip. 
Maimonides in his Commentwy, ad loc., and Ginzberg, Orientalische Studicn 
(Theodor Noldeke sum siebzigsten Geburistag}, II, p. 612. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 139 



(Leaf i, recto.) 



NCB> PIOIN Dinn Nin PN-O DN ejsi ontran onyn 

nnyn npnn la^i* rwo twpn |Nci> p'at? 

>rt 
PNB> oioy m 'ON 'rt&Mttt PNW UN pi 

m^ jna 21 n>^ 'ON PICN nannN ntrpo on^ 
onyn HN p^nin N^m nb 'CN NH ^ w moy 5 
nnx not?' !?IDS anan jo pat? TIE? 
p^rsi *ND nsnci nnx nu^ 2 in^ 
nc'a po nine ^IDB snan jo pu^ *3^ nnyn HN 
jno nnx wfoai vby pDinn nny nBTorn nyaix vn 
n^ woo iNB'a nnyn opnn bioa IN anp 10 

nn ntra n'anpa inN^o n^prn 'DNI mptn^ 
3 nn^Nt^n : n:a na PNI m^a IT naina 'a -naru 

Tn nnm n^a W mam nxna 
nnvn PIT mpoa maiy 4 Tiv baoi 

wnm nvnn ip^n cn^nias niaNO nyiap rmn 15 
V33N3 imN np> nriN ^ yrB> n^' b psy ^y 

1 Baba Batra, 162 a. 2 Ibid., 162 b. 

3 Comp. rmrr pat, 48, by Rabbi Judah ben Rabbi Asher. 

4 Harkavy, Responsen, 42, has also "m, but perhaps it is to be read 



140 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf i, verso.) 

uy ex an DN 12 try nae> baai 13*321 nsjn 
poy by nano cn'ra nbw na-in D-W wan ipbnc? 
DO ^y ib ps 'CNI D*cn TII nnxn onoi poo. 
nann nr *3n ii> 'OK ip^nc^ D"nxn "Dan nost? no i?y 
t<b yi ji^n |H N^I D*on HDN p sh Tin p jnb pN 5 

pnn mi^ fiw inN inv *na^n xh 'n^tr 
np^nn nnx D3t? najw jva pn ^a ^a M^NI 13 
NI npmn moy nn oamoa jnaiy rrom 



*im jn PK nr y m TIT nnt? px B>nan Km 10 

D 11 :^ nniN pp^ww nvn a Nin *p pnni TIT 
nvn TIII ia nnsn n*n^ pvnn nvn inxb baui 
^^^ pynn by npibnn nns oyab j^ vby nwan 
piD ariDni nnx TSD 0*33^3 o^on vn ON pi 
103 Dcn HN nnynb i^y px y\o insb ^B3i ia 15 
nnsn 



1 Baba Batra, 7 b. 3 Read -pn p . 



GEONJC RESPONSA 



141 



(Leaf 2, recto.) 



mni 

nrwi 'n K^K na:?3 p^aro p p s s& ratta 
DV NX* nn hpaasi rai? svn^ ny 33j?D DNI 2 : wi* s nn 
s^i p^i o^nan n^ono nwi nnDtr N^n rat? 
ir nrw PKB> nnx pnB pnsi NQS 31 xnsi 5 
nnoB> nnsna^ : sin niyo 'n jra J^K' 

NH3D?D3 BniB T^Xl J KD5> -n3 nHDl^ K^K WH p 



nva 



onana 10 



ps nairn sam 
*o 12^!? mvn 
p:nw vn p Cf 
ran iJDsy ova mis pbaix trcnan 
"iann Kin p N^ ova n tf 
piaan*o orrnwy I^N 



:*n 

iva cnana 

naanj x^ 1 15 



1 The copyist first wrote T~M and changed it to pic. 
3 Pesahim, 71 a. * ' 

* Menahot, XI, 7 ; Gemara, ibid. 99 b. s ' 



142 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 2, verso.) 

mean -nyi oniaan DV JT:yn nN nnn IT nb'ax 
ny in <ibnt? no nbin -iCNn DNI brNtybp Typa ,Tibn 
py aba 'iK"i Diba iaa PN riNunn nN o^nan 
PNI n^nna nyn^ na B* nxoon nwn* pjy^> pn J 

n^in oniaan DV o^aa n&'jwn Tyt? sjioa ny^n> na 5 
nnxo ^31 ni?y 2 pnoi inn n^iya N*3*i ^ yivcr ny 
N^3 no no DKB' ID snn 7 n ' nhn nob naso MB 
p vby pr6 " N^N npnoo nno no DN NSN-I nb 'ON py 
norina V-'h pa nnab panyo 'OI^KW :pnion v 
uoy en nxo iab nB^pnai phna SJN 'IN oiaoio 10 
ana 11 pinna IOIN oiaoio N^N pbina SJN pa psi 
wn aina^i pnpnn nona 

n^so ny biaoi na*n 
'IN Diacio PDII:B> ^ 'NII WTani NDTan ^n 
pDiia ,ha baa 'can baN 'ntr* piNa wo Nb'N pbina j- 15 
nann 'a ina sjib^n tbNb ibN pa BI pbina 'IN 



3 Shetnt'ot, I, a Gemara, ibid., 2 a. * Shebu'ot, 8b. 

3 Our texts read nan TDS nb ; Rabbinovicz, Var. Led., offera no variants. 

* 'Entbin, III, i ; Gemara, ibid., 26 b. 5 'Enibin, 30 b. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 143 



XVII. 

Fragment T-S., three leaves, 21x16 cm., writing small, 
square, with a tendency to cursive ; the numbers and mar- 
ginal notes, except the sheet mark at the top, are in a later 
hand, and in black ink, while the text is brown. It 
represents the remainder of an unusually large collection 
of Geonic Responsa, in fact, the very largest known. The 
numbers run up to 593' f which our fragment contains 
from No. 498 to No. 505 consecutively ; then from 568 to 
577 consecutively, and finally from 585 to 593 consecutively. 
The large number of 497 are missing from the beginning, 
and there is, of course, no telling how many more there 
were after 593. They cover a number of branches of 
Rabbinic law, the various subjects being noted in the 
margin by a later hand. The annotator used the classifica- 
tion of the Code of Maimonides, but he was either ignorant 
or careless, for he allows a glaring mistake to stand on 
the first page preserved. Misled by the word ^3D, which 
occurs prominently, he classifies one Responsum under 
pnn'J? which actually belongs under panic?. All the 
Responsa preserved are anonymous, and as only a very 
few of them occur in other collections, there are no means 
at hand for determining their authorship and date. We 
may, however, assume that they belong to a number of 
different Geonic authors of various epochs. 

1 [498]. The first Responsum in our fragment, the 
beginning of which is missing, deals with the case of 
a man's giving his property to his mother before his death. 
The Gaon rules that on the death of her son she can make 
no use of the property, nor dispose of it in any way, until 
she has paid the dowry to the widow, her daughter-in-law. 

2 [499]. The second Responsum gives the decision of 
the Gaon in a dispute regarding an alley- way ('12ft). One 
of the several parties having a common alley-way moves 
from his house, and he makes a claim upon his former 



144 GENIZAH STUDIES 

neighbours, asking them to pay him for his share of the 
alley, which he is no longer using. The Gaon decides 
against his claim. 

3 [5]' This Responsum is identical with the one 
attributed to Nahshon Gaon in the Geonic collection 
PIS nytr, Hi b, 17. The subject dealt with is the sale of 
a slave under false pretences. His physical condition \vas 
impaired, yet his master asked and obtained the value 
of a slave in perfect health. The purchaser discovered 
the fraud practised upon him, and, after having had the 
slave cured, he demanded from the former owner a sum 
of money equal to the difference between what he paid 
for him and what his real value was at the time. The first 
master declared his willingness to take back the slave 
and return the money, a proposition to which the second 
master would not agree, as he had taken the trouble and 
gone to the expense of having the slave put into good 
condition. The Gaon decides that the purchaser's claim 
is justified. 

4 [501]. The third Responsum in the fragment deals 
with a note of indebtedness, signed by two witnesses, 
which the alleged debtor refused to honour. The witnesses 
recognised the handwriting as theirs, but as they could not 
remember the sum of money mentioned in the note, their 
testimony was of no value, and the maker of the note could 
not be held to the payment of the sum therein mentioned. 
Comp. Y"W, &4 a, i ; and Miiller, Mafieah, pp. 237, 487. 

5 [502]. An agent was sent to Egypt to purchase 
merchandise. On his journey he was attacked by brigands, 
who threatened his life. To save himself he showed the 
highwaymen where his employer's money was hidden. 
He now contended that he was not called upon to make 
good the loss, since, in any case, even if he had sacrificed 
his life, the money would have fallen into the hands of 
his assailants. The Gaon supports, him in this contention, 
provided he can prove by means of witnesses, or will 
asseverate by means cf an oath, that his supposition is 



GEONIC RESPONSA 145 

correct, that the brigands would in any case have found 
the money. 

6 [503]. The Gaon decides that a debtor may force his 
creditor, who holds a promissory note against him, to take 
an oath that he has not paid up his indebtedness, as he 
himself maintains he has done ; and this right belongs to 
him even though the creditor is willing to waive his alleged 
claim, if only the debtor will take the oath. There can 
be no doubt that this Responsum is the same as that 
quoted in a Responsum addressed to Hai (ntl^ men, 136), 
where it is ascribed to Natrona'i Gaon. 

7 [504]. To this very day, the Gaon says, priests are 
under the obligation to avoid defilement. It is very 
probable that this Responsum is merely an extract from 
a much longer one found in the collection DT133 men, 55, also 
attributed to Natrona'i Gaon. Comp. p"j, 4. 

8 [505]. A debtor sends the amount of his indebtedness 
to his creditor through a messenger. The debtor receives 
a letter from the creditor acknowledging the receipt of 
the money. Later the creditor denies having written the 
receipt. Before the matter is cleared up, the creditor as 
well as the messenger die, and the heirs of the creditor 
claim the money due to their father. Though witnesses 
are found to testify that the handwriting is the creditor's, 
the father of the present litigants, they continue to urge 
their claim, basing it upon the contention that there is no 
way of establishing that the receipt refers to the trans- 
action under discussion rather than some other debt owing 
from the same debtor to their father. The Gaon's decision 
is missing. 

9 [568]- Of this Responsum only the last two lines have 
come down to us, and they contain the rather interesting 
statement of the Gaon based on a Talmudic passage 
(Taanit, lib), that study is of greater importance than 
fasting, but fasting surpasses almsgiving. 

10 [569]. Here we have the Gaon's view on nonx *iin\ after 
the recital of PNIIM n:m Comp. f'v, 19 b, 14 ; and 58 b, 24. 

L 



146 GENIZAH STUDIES 

1 1 [570]. The Gaon writes out the formulae for several 
sorts of deeds of gift from a father to his children, the 
expressions differing according to whether the deed becomes 
operative during the father's lifetime or after his death. 
Comp. rX45a, 5- 

12 [571]- Here we have a case in which the dowry is 
paid out, though it be the woman who insists upon the 
divorce. Comp. ")"cn , II, 46, and p*B>, 59 a, 30. 

13 [572]. "A bachelor made out a deed of gift. Later, 
when he married, he made out a second deed of gift, 
transferring the same property to his wife, and in the 
presence of the first recipient, who uttered neither protest 
nor objection." The Gaon decides that the second trans- 
action, and not the first, is valid. 

14 [573]. The Gaon decides that an oath taken on 
a prayer-book is as sacred as one on the scroll of the law, 
and he who takes such an oath cannot be absolved from it. 
This Responsum is attributed in one source to Saadia, and 
in another to Ha'i ; comp. Miiller, Mafteah, p. 230. 

15 [574]. The Gaon rules that a Jew who owns orchards, 
the fruit in which must be gathered day by day, so that 
cessation from worl on Sabbaths and holidays would entail 
a serious loss, may sell an average day's pickings to a 
Gentile on the eve of the Sabbath or of a holiday. The 
Bale must be completed before the day of rest enters, so 
that the Gentile does no work for the Jew on a holy day. 
Comp. Q"n, 125; an d Fragment XXI, 2, recto, below. 

1 6 [575]. Though butter churned by Gentiles may be 
bought and eaten by Jews, the Gaon advises against it. 
This Responsum is found also in the Geonic collection 
mitm nyt?, 188, where it is attributed to Natrona'i Gaon. 

17 [576]. This Responsum contains the decision of the 
Gaon with regard to initt Dl. It is not improbable that 
this is the Responsum to which Maimonides expresses 
his vigorous opposition; comp. Maimonides, ns^a H1DN, 
XI, 15, and rTt?, 173. 

1 8 [577]. The Gaon goes into details as to the character 



GEONIC RESPONSA 147 



of the testimony admissible in the case of an rwuy. The 
end of this Responsum is missing. 

19 [585]. The contents of the Responsum are difficult 
to determine exactly, because the beginning is missing. 
All that can be gathered from what remains is that the 
c/ise dealt with is what the judge of a certain town. 
suspects is a mock divorce, desired for the purpose of 
escaping the payment of debts. The debt owing to a divorced 
woman, namely, her dowry, must be paid by the husband 
before all others. If, then, a man is hard pressed, the 
expedient of divorcing his wife may occur to him, the in- 
tention being, of course, to re-marry the woman, and again 
come into possession of the dowry. The judge in our case 
was willing to grant the divorce on condition that the 
husband took an oath not to re-marry the woman. The 
Gaon shares his suspicions, and sustains his decision. 
It is noteworthy that the Responsum mentions in full the 
name of the judge, David 1 , and of the parties concerned. 

20 [586]. This Responsum contains the interesting state- 
ment that the old-established custom, reaching back to 
Talmudic times, of taking an oath publicly on the sacred 
scrolls in the synagogue, was discontinued in the day 
of the Gaon. Instead, when the occasion required it, 
a conditional excommunication was proclaimed in the 
synagogue, as follows : " If thou, N. N., owest money 
to N. N , and dost not acknowledge the debt, thou art 
under the ban." Judging by the style of the Responsum, 
and the views expressed in it, we shall not go far wrong 
in ascribing it to Ha'i. Comp. especially his Responsa in 
Y"&, 73 a and 76 a. In the latter Hai' writes thus : " Such 
a thing as taking an oath on the sacred scrolls has come 
under our notice neither personally nor through the reports 
and traditions of scholars from generations ago. Our 
procedure is as follows : The draped bier is brought [into 
the synagogue] ; and in it is a cock (Aram. N12J), symbolic 

1 David Ibn Hagar ? Comp. about him Steinschneider, ArabiscJie 
Literatur, p. 143. Comp. also Y'aTi, II, 36-7. 

L 2 



148 GENIZAH STUDIES 

of man (Aram. N133) ; lights are kindled, symbolic of the 
soul of man ; ashes are strewn under the feet [of the one 
who is to take the oath], to indicate that man is but dust 
and ashes ; empty, distended hides are put before him ; 
they threaten him, saying, Behold, all these shall be signs 
unto you ! Then children come with trumpets (nnsvj'), 
while the man is led up to the place before the Ark, and 
the precentor stands on the platform next to the Ark, and 
says : N. N., who does not confess the truth, may he be 
overtaken by thus and thus [the curses of a ban] V 

21 [5^7]. This Responsum deals with the limitations 
of the rights of a husband in the property of his wife. 
Comp. a"n, 25. 

22 [588]. The Gaon gives the formula of the oath to be 
taken by a widow who makes demand for her jointure from 
the estate of the heirs of her late husband. This Responsum 
is identical with that found in the Geonic collection J^n, 26, 
where it and the previous one, No. 21, are ascribed to 
Rabbi Zemah. Comp. also Y"&> 6 5 b, *P '> an( i Miiller, 
Mafteah, 148, for it appears in the former that it was 
still customary to take oaths in the time of the Gaon 
addressed. 

23 [589]. The Gaon renders the decision that a widow 
left with an infant at the death of her husband may not 
withdraw her dowry from the estate until the child has 
reached the age of two years, the period during which 
a mother has the duty to nurse a child, and during which 
re-marriage is prohibited. 

24 [590]. A dies, and B of his own accord pays his heirs 
money which he confesses he owed to the departed, though 
no memorandum of the debt was found. The heirs wish 
now to force him to take an oath that he has acknowledged 
the full extent of his indebtedness. The Gaon decides 
against the heirs. Comp. "&, 7 2 a, 5. 

25 [591]. The Gaon decides that a widow claiming her 
dowry from her late husband's estate must take an oath 

1 Comp. c"n nmN, II, p. 503 ; n"ic, ed. Lyck. 10; and y"c, 69 a, 72. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 149 

asseverating the justice of her demand, even when the 
estate does not suffice to satisfy her claim in full. 

2,6 [592]. This Besponsum deals with the status of 
a child born out of wedlock, a certain man being designated 
by the mother as the father of the child. The Gaon's 
decision is that such a child is not to be considered 
a bastard ("ITDE) ; nevertheless, the alleged father cannot 
be held responsible for the maintenance of the child, 
nor is the child to inherit his estate after his death. If 
circumstantial evidence corroborates the woman's allega- 
tions, the man is to be excommunicated and exposed 
to public disgrace. Comp. \>"), 39, and p"e>, 46 b, n. 

27 [593]. This last Responsum of our fragment, of which 
only the beginning has been preserved, deals with a 
promissory note whose genuineness is denied by the 
supposed debtor. It is perhaps another version of Responsum 
133 in the Collection wra>n nyp. 



150 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Leaf i, recto.) 



noi ifc ropm i ain ny 

n:a n^> ropnp noo roprn ;nnE> Nin pni ota in ne>y xb njpn:? 

nnaina ^DVIB' nnxh n-w noens Kin nynza nnba naina 

nna jai> 'nmn new nvnrw no ^a nap6 in nntwe> no b nnba 



nnvn B> ia t^i yanN anntr ^aoi ? inn nnnx IK 5 
non t^^ ^ un IK nnvn ^pab ]rb 'ow inx Dipc^ inns ns . , . . pp 



ja pnn no uoy nvn Nia nib ^ JJH N^ i^ 'OIK i^ni D^on ^ wn IN 
ny ixnn ns pp^in pxt? 'ON pna N^ voi IN v^n ^ i:n 'ost? nr^ u s jo 
pp^in pxtr i~n^ K!JN 'V<?y WNB' ^ao ptj> ^ai 2 ^a nr^ nioN x n na Nn't? 
'-n ^o yn 3 IUK IN Tin NJH nM 'ONT rnvT- 'na 'W "a ^y *\xv ^a imx 10 
jn b noKB' noi xa^ TIJ WN niax xan ^ax niii N^? IN nro nN i 
yy nnN DTIN w 4 pma ^ now pna oy ini Nia N^N nw n^> p:nu 
nat^n ia^ |N^y nan n^ai pnno jn^K pb nun -w 
np pnnon n'-aa wnn 11 ! nnay n^ np uyi> 'OIK ntw nn io 
ph nby ybsn Na^i N'-n na^n Nn^nn Nini nan nna DBW 15 
'on i^ 1 nnn^ ji^xin i?y B ue'n WHK wa^ni poio u vm 5 an^ nay 



noa w pcio 
lay *b innm 
DIN ania 7 pan 'ONI Nni itpft :voio on ib jn^ 

X ONI nu^ by mp nn ponm Na\n D^B> noa inN? I^SN n^by n*yoi 20 
noa DN 'iNn nca wiiDDa f? a y<\>z vb ino IPOJ p* nionn Nm NJH a *ep 
K\m pnnt^o NPI fva Nnotj' ^Nna pnay pan Ni? IN Nio^a anai 
mn 'iNn noa NJiooa 10 <jrpa N^I jva 9/ ^n -N jinoia ^y j^aao inn 11 
NJIOO ^ ina N^ pnoN NPT jva pnc^s iy pn:o K^I Nnnnoi 
n'5o p^ao NP ''Noa no-'oi? n^NT Ta p-iuo si> ^in noa Nioc'a 25 
D'p N^ noN Np w"SfQ tuny Nn onyn Nio^oa mii> fo N:IOO 
jaiN-i iph : N-IOB> n^ ynn^N nai?ni wiooa \b 
na i^ ni3p^> D'ainr '10 'yoc' loy naB> Dnrc& ^n ^ . . a 



1 Bead rc?T DM. 3 Baba Batra, I, 6; Gemara, ibid., na. * Baba Batra, 133-13 b. 

4 Ibid., 13 a ; as the quotation is from a Baraita, and not from a Mishnah, the correct reading 

would be N-in-n, and not prm. * =rv;irrt. =fN"prr. T Ketubot, 20 a. 



GEONIC RESPONSA. 15! 

(Leaf i, verso.) 

ixv J 'voi? fnb^ria J 'SD^ as?o nan n'ox-ux IOP Wpcfc DJ33 mino 
6 3n3 n3i ynw no i>33 isni^ ana 
oy vnti> n^ainr 5>3i a^-iyn fo ^oy vnB> 



i>c? o'ainr npy HE^B* x^x 

i^sni poo^ u^y INVI inyi f>y Tiayi? x^ ^an oy 
HD b >a^a 'niDN 73 'n^n^ p3i -JDn^ noyi ony 'Jin^ni ^y n\ntr no 

oni? IOIK^ 3Dio DTO nbsn ^ px nsy 
nnna mB>n DIP!J 'oy 1^31 'ainr 'I'D K&po&ia ^ {^ 
nm ora 'n^Ji 'ycB* ^ 'ainr 'I' 
n nr ' 

pixn I 11 ! tfyysiD piann vn I^N wn 73 pnn T^' ^ 
^sn tbefy 3m wn nan poos invy ^sn xnia |ni? jnix jrm pooi? jna 
n^N^n ^ pN 'oy nnB> no b 'CNI 'INI jyDiy 'KM ti'iiacB' ioa ax ^ax 
'ainr 'I'D fniKB> jaiNi ya^ D'-ny li? px DNI IDDJ iaa any B DX DTO 
puo^ m^oa na VHB* wrpoimn nm 'ai yt^a xi'i ona na*^ N^J 'yep ic* 15 
DNI n^a D^anrn D "vriBO N^I DI^D n^n ni? nnM xh 



3in no^ N^cn pJ 'nyUBTj jo pisi n^a 11 m^sa pcn ^ 

'oxi nan i? 



nnx 

tnai *iph : nyi3B xba naia ni^^ mi> u^xn nxi 
3'w wxi 73 xi? ix nip^o a^n 4 pra no ia B^EJ' nna ix nnapn n-'aa 

no n 
pixi lipri :'ai xoD 11 xi> c'Djb mox minni ohy n^np wBmpn nipta 

anaa 'yo^ ana 'aixn anai >^ oy n^ pnrv man xnu^ x^a n:n 'yoa* ^y n^ HM 
BB* ooinr 'a ^ ;n ib 'ox 'yo^a jaixn yaa av 'b nnx^ omnr '3 7^x0 -6 xun "a n 
^3 ana <nana xh nhyo nnan vn x^ ib 'ex ^ 'yep no 7^ a^nn^' 'ox 7^x0 ^ 25 
^i^ }aixn ana-^ ana 'yoB* N^m 'yotr nx lyani vBn^ noyi 'ih pixn noi 

.i s n nnx am not? panvn ^ nox pixn T- ana Kint? 

ay wan pixn b^ VP ana xin^ ^HB 'yot? na-yo x^xi 
natrx x^xn nann psn : pixi ^nv ay ix 



* Read mn pu. 



152 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Leaf 2, recto.) 

rwyn *?ix : n^yno spy 'in 'D^m p*yr NnnyDt? p^n } 

: uiDD3 nri 13133 nre> npivn p nnv n^yn nbna 2 nry^N 'i 'DNI spy n-jyn 

nana oniN 12131 nama ni> anai pwp rb TUI nt?Nn nN D-iKon 'pen 



IX ncy "inTiD nas naa trm rin ioy 
133 PNI rv3K n"33 3 Nvii ns3 nnK K^S noy nn^nnij nnicB' irtn 5 
3 3ns s^i viTu 



rono 

inanp snn inn^s "ins^ vra 13 mr^ ;> OKI N!' IN u mm^ S3 11 nno 

icy p5>ia px ina nni> IN wab njno anian^ win 13 5 IN 
NI na ipvnn vb n:no IDB' fr6 IDIO N^ ON ^>3N mno "101? |n^ IIDD-B' np^yi 

noy DN inn-'o ncno rwno fn:i sin yno a^^ DNI Dib naoo n^a 10 
-N3 n^no ^3N inanoa inn ny I^NB> b 'DIM UN I3t inn 
N na nan nrv inN^ n3T"^ na o w no nnxi' IN 123^ no^n IDDI n' 

o na ana N^> DNI 
nn 

in:no nn^D insh ovno ana vbv nn *nn*o "IHN^ N^N na nar N^ n:no 15 
^13" I^NI nB'N Nenan UB 'Btsn NS?]i : "ini'ND na naw mioa n 
nninN3 *osy ns* pma ynn TIIN 



naoini nainaa Nvn j? 'ovy ^nioo nnt? ib nsry no 1? n 

3cy N"3in33i nsoinai n3in33 1:00 Ksnv MKI 13 : S^IN n^ 
naina rb jni:i inc^N nN B'paa I^N^ *oa nB'yj ^iy3^ ha* PN^ Nini ii> novy 20 

nc'Na 'ovy. pna 'DNtr nn ntnjoi n^N n^ao ncy nN^n^ N^HJI naoini 
^"i-N 'DN 7/ D3n IIDN 13^ iniN nmo PN IN^ DNI imN nnao nsn DN 
"phn nama ;n'i NW na SIN ^DN 'n 'DN wins Nnn'-Na ^NB'S 
mno ansty IUB '^Bn iyph :nNxw N^nai naoini nnama r^Btt IT 

iniN *jaa new N'n mno nniN n^ anai ntrN N&*JI iDy 13 -IHNI nnN^ 25 
nsw 

atrH-in n:no nniN nNHD rwy N^I nyn>y N!?I nipins i^ jiw 

ID n^ua nano nnw^ I^NI ia nb pnno 's-ni? n3 paao N^I 
Da ia nno N^I ny^y N^I vjaa intw^ nanat? n"a^ 'ys "ND in^N npma N'-n 
ypnp in^'N^ T-^I vja^ voaa ^3 3ni3n 'D3n MIDNB' neb rb PDID I:NI 



1 Taanit, 1 1 b ; our texts read mnwun wabs bis' 1 ?. 2 Berakot, 32 b. 

3 The line over NVTI indicates that this word is to be cancelled. * Baba Batra, 135 b. 

6 Comp. Targum Jonathan to Deut. xxiv. 6. 6 Read mnwa . 7 Yebamot, 65 a. 

8 Comp. Baba Batra, 40 b. Peah, III, 7. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 153 

(Leaf 2, verso.) 

'pbnoa 'ex bx^oe'i PIT by jnb naroa ai 'ox l p^piaoi nnaina nia'-x xintr ba 
in:no i^x nrio xbi pnen *V3aa mB>xb nanaB p'a nw X3n npniB* XMI n^ab 
'oix poix iya nby onn niB>n by myn 2/ o3n iioxc> nob nb p^oio ny 
iirx nr ^'x i^b^n mist nx ia^x 'oix 'oani 'joo n&?p pt^xini 'b ni3 ^^n 

b^i o^wnn iao bo:^ o 'B>Bn j>i?ph ntj'xn i>a n3no moyi in:no 5 
nb w na oinn3^ p^ai nunn nyiara xnn nyiatr nnix na 



^" min IBD no minn IQD nyia^a inxnae^ WNI ia :NPIN man 
apn h? niDen niNip jna B m^an^Bn n^iann nao ^^ napii ta niosy ia 
IBDKDI mp^oi jnt33 Dia i^ ^K 'i^ V^i "l!Jpn ' man inyu^ pro 
natra jnw anjn icpta u* OKI ej^sa nn^a N^JHOB' ^ao DVI ni 11 ba 10 



1:00 mn^i ns^y 1^3 7113 pion OB' B M I IU^P DIM 

inio^ irxi 13 xb ix nara ^3 wopbi na^ aiyo isb 
103 nac' aiyo D^OI ib fn^i na^a 'un i^opbi naB* aiyo ^ub 
3 iTb ^o^pjo xnatra nn 'ina xniamt^ nayi 'xp'nio in:n 3/ oan 
"O3 X3ni bi3 inb XIK' xan 'opb mx 'IB" n^b D"p3o xat^a 15 
in p^Din DXI ^b nna nna ox^ bpt^oa xbi onoa na^ aiyo 

inb o^pi jva inio ix IIDX 013 ba> nxon 'BW n^pfl inio 

niiiox nibsxo 
nbapo nyin PXB* xbx inio ioiy wx XOD ioiy unu abm 

DI nnxiB* nap3 mbv 'B'B'i Wpn inio baixi myi na 11 ^ 
n nb B* DV i* 1 iy 01 nxii n3"xi oin mix n30M poai o^o 11 nB'b^i 20 



1300 01 pDB53> }V3 MTOW WN1 13 N^1X 1^ Dllp .1^ 

ov i< inxb nsn OKI n^yn!? nimoi biaoni D^PJ o^o 11 nyacr nson 
s nua 5/ oxi sin '11 ^y itray ux paioDB D w pj nyaB' atwiB* nanx 
^aio nrx ni^v woipoa ^ax bib jovy by ii^onn ;n 
nin3 na^D np^o N^n^s .INII OKI nbyab ninioi nap^b pa iarb pa ov 25 

pxi nna jimn Vc^i TSJph Dpa nyaB vby 
13 xbix NB3i> ninio in^x im^in by TyoB* 'D xbi 

f)Ni ins> minx noNn by noy D pxi inxiiB* D pxty p3B* 
iprnM 7/ o3n IIOXB' :ao imn mix3 ibpn xb mwya 'oan ibpn^ a by 
px ox bax nnaB* *aoi lay --DO ib^sxi ntrx ao iy "so iy px^o nvnb 30 

1 Baba Balra, 132 a. 2 Ketabot, XIII, 6; Gemara, ibid., 109 a. 3 'Abodah Zata/i, 22 a. 

* Our texts read: Nra\n iru ?s^"i unaura C',77 n^:T. 5 Niddah, 66 a. * Read 

7 Yubamot, XVI, 7 ; Gewjara, ibid., 122 a. 



154 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Leaf 3, recto.) 

. . . , b b n<n vbw nn nn na prer ny TH in ^ ' paaoop 'a ^y SJKI P 
. . . nwyv K'aiapai rw na prwn rrn^o Kpnao x ...... n ja prop ^ 



npy xin yna 'Dvp <i ya > i nay Kwno'KTi KD . . . nwiaK tnaon 'xn 
nx^n nnxh pi rvaa lyani' Kan -phn pina xta ia p^iy "p^ai? pina 
, . . JVN1 wn waup Tam n^oa ^3 IN^I D^iyi? rb mno xh pn n^a nyn iin pn n^na 5 
mon ny oan ^D p^n n^aaa D"poi 'n^ ^ pi n^a "ai^n sr^aaa ^yon 
TIT a~6 nniNB > n^n na prop n^s 3 b ^ -\&n Napiy na prw 
nairo nt3t? p^ani : an^ Tina tonro N^ ^ ^ns ^ya NJKI n^s . . . 
an n^aa mawvh Kan naa n^ ann b pBUVi^ na nK n . . . . 

N33ia na n-'xn Nn^o Kpnao KTI sam mv noanK N^I yan^ni s^nn N . . . 10 
nina^a npai any <i iiQ <i ^a n"inn i| h nowin naia nn na prnr ^a . . . . 

-ja nB>y^ aaDi D^ 11 ^ ny nvD^a -na i?aa D*a[ib] 
in an nay Teen rraaw Dia^ prx n-'bn pyain 'nt^ bi pni> ...... 

nvo-aa ^na ba npai any n-cnnxi n^nio^i nn na pn^i? n^mrd ^ . . . . 

W WD^ Kan jo n^ n"N T^-n naitrna nnm n^a xnai-n NW JD . . . xm n . . . 15 
na piwb N3iD ynan ny nn na prw n^ yani n^ xn . , . n noa ny KaneaK . . . 
"aa n^ p^yatw ^n nnm naoa ni? j:"yaBiD a KHIVK ifiph : Kapiy 
aM xnaai prai> pt^^ni n^ pjnew nn^a^ nn^y P^TK IN n^ p"ya^o 
nnm naoa 'yia^x^i yan^on pi> nn^a Kjn 'DianN^ pan mos a n^ 
^a pt? ^ai nina^n ^y pni^n D*JN ya an nrn |ra i>3K nuionp o^^a 20 
^Ta njrarnijq ly^oa ^ pcin* oajD nynaa naoi>K px 

pan oayat nnjna^a Kamno N^ 5 wn\n nnWi n 
ya *cp nnnan nKan Ninna mow 

nonp <KI nnyia^a np . . xh naioo 
N3in am n'-cp^ TIX*T nao^K K*nn 6 janoKn nyarr^N Km nnavia rb p^aao 25 

nnK roo^i6 naina 1| ai N^ ann ^ Tayx 'so ni> 'ox nnaina nyan 
'OK ni^a ""nainDD in^ana ox 'xas ^n n^o 'Knainao | D <i ann iThjn /y no^ n^ 
pK pn n^aa K/B pai pn n^aa pa 'OKI an i^aK nyai^ai nxaipa an nmo 
wn pn n^aa i?NiD^ ^as mo nsaipa nnaina ni ^a:o xh nniK pya^o 
nnin naoa p^yatyo xi? 5 Katrpm : nb ya^o pn n-a^ pin rb yacj>D N^n 30 
^ n^x ^K ^'a n:x p^noK^i na3K3 *niaB> nspi xnnna ni? p^aytao : B^WK^ 
nninb ^TK ...... DKP ^xn fffvb 'trn Kno^a mo N^ na: Kaioo 



1 YECTTOC ? J Comp. Baba Batra, 48 b. 3 Comp. the expression 1:00 ' 

4 Grt'Wt'n, IV, 3 ; Gemara, ibid., 34 b. 5 =:TKn. 6 GMin, 353 



GEONIC RESPONSA 155 

(Leaf 3, verso.) 

nao DNK> 'pan itrva 122 aita <Daa naop n^Ni B 
noy PNYVI poaaai en ne>N ^oaa aw 'Da'a -pm jva noi 3&D "oaa 



jva n^ya "na nnoi ni?yai> n^sn man DNI ninipi> jo p.-6 Npao n 

.Taia a nap nt?Kn nnoc? icrayi ji-pnn'B 5>a^ ^>ya^ piayi^o jnty 
nao 'oa IN rbyib nt^xn mao ^ax ninip^n I^D wo b'2n ypnp^ 5 
pD^arn onaa ^a en aita ^oaai : na^n pi ^ar in^^ar >in on 11 :^ 
nax is la^aa DNtr frnnnN ^yan b"p xh nbya!? ntrx no^a^ 
nya nnaina nyant? nai?N fiSDJi *aii? ""Daa p&npa fnvinxa 
nrn p^i?a : nno^y by\ na^a ^y I^SN IN nnatnao Di^a ntran N^ nmx 



ny^va iya 7 ;na N nnix pya^ro 10 
ni'ta N^ n^y p^aci : 'aoa nnnx nx IN-PI ioa mx jw^ Kin nn 
* J^N rkyz '"na naaa K^ nya^ni? ivn ON ^ax n^ya nn s nns Dib 



of ^3 IN 'yew '-\ 5 jam ^a nyat^ni? pha" pN 'ITD nyan N^> ^ax nnaina 
nnaina nyani naoi>K N"nNi 'm 11 'a na sna p^at^i PINT a-atn Ka^n 

Naay *n3 ^ND ncno Kn^KOT c^nao K^J ni;y ja^aayo 'o?n IN w 
ny ni> ja^an 11 N^I n^y paaym Nin Nan nW naa nN npao nono 

'ynv 'aa poo PIKI TpaNi Ka*n ipn ^>Ta naa nN np'aoi 'anpn 

_;npa 
IN nyias5> i^y w PINT Htnw lanai jnpan 'yoty K^xini noi nnty N^a nci 

ya I^NT nnt^ K^a n^aa TPSNI jva^ y*Ni -ja j niaai max a^oa ^iny 20 
IN piKi yam 'yo^ no ON pi : 6 niDai in max a^oa 'iyo 'nan vn N^ 'ON 
: ^a nyia^ i.T^y n^i maN 'a^o in 'inv Na^i 'yaw ^nv nN 

^y SJK N^ IN rh pyyyQ nnaina n^po n'-ani n^ya noK' nt 

____ . . , , 

^N maiyo moNB> niaa i^pn nyia^a N;N Diba piD^n N? nvpo rr-anp 

r Na 
irxai DV nr^Na pao'-o naniai nnanp N^noN nana N'-ni n^niaia^a Nini '^ao 25 

/ m 

nias pin no " no 'oya nca nana n^na naai ^iaa t?Kn iniNi ny % ^ 

ns?N nnai 7 10N nN ^ao uw ION nN Tao^ Nin vine' n^ i^ m^^ ir 
oan I^BNI :iniN trni 11 pNi vmairoa ^Nn miN an PNI f>npa Nai? ic'ai n^ 
n &r\ D'-ana iaii?p yiinh inna^ a^n Ninn p]Niai n^ fa'pao 



mo Kp K : 8 ni^o IN m^> ya^a ^o n* ana WN nr 'ONI 1^ an KVIB> n 11 ana v/y 30 
jyoai 

Nin papa N^yo NIO^ tMTi nn aao naia n s an ...... Nin n* anasr nr 

1 Baba Batra, 50 a. 2 Read n;b. 3 Read D % CD3. 

4 Ketubot, IX, 6; Gemara, ibid., 86 b. 5 Ketubof, IX, 8; Gemara, ibid., 87 b. 

6 Comp. pis ny\c, 72 a, 5. 7 Read va>. 8 Comp. nmcn ^rc, 133. 



156 GENIZAH STUDIES 

XVIII. 

Fragment T-S., paper, four leaves, two joined and two 
separate, 17x13 cm., neat, small square hand. It repre- 
sents the remainder of a Geonic collection of Responsa, 
of which nine have been preserved to us, five in an incom- 
plete condition. 

1. The first Responsum, the beginning of which is 
missing, deals with the relation of the second holiday to the 
first, especially with regard to the burial of the dead. The 
Gaon decides, on the authority of the Talmud, Shabbat, 139 b, 
that on the first day the work connected with the burial 
of a body must be done by Gentiles, but on the second 
day it must be done by Jews. It is practically identical 
with a Responsum attributed to Natrona'i Gaon found 
in the Geonic collection rTl?, 184, but our fragment presents 
it in a more complete form by far. Especially noteworthy 
is the orthography of the name of the city referred to in 
the above cited passage in Shabbat, in our Responsum *ot?3, 
not "Pea as it appears in the editions of the Talmud and 
in the rTc? (ibid.). That the reading "13B>3 is correct is 
corroborated by ' Aruk, s. v. NTunDN (ed. Kohut, 206) \ 
and by the MSS. of the Talmud (comp. Rabbinovicz, on 
Yoma, loa; also Fragment XXV, i, recto, line I, below). 

2. The second Responsum is a brief version of No. 57 
of the Geonic collection anyoi mro wto 'n, where it is 
ascribed to Natronai Gaon. But, though a shorter form, 
ours is the better, the one in the collection named being 
in a very corrupt state. The Gaon here decides that it is 
not permitted to keep Sabbath dishes hot by putting them 
into ashes on Friday. 

3. The third Responsum, perhaps also by Natronai 
Gaon, concerns itself with the materials permitted for 
the Sabbath lights, and is also found in Rabbi Judah bar 
Barzillai Albargeloni, DTiyn 'D, p. 17. 

1 Kohut refers twice to an article oto, but no such article can be found 
in the book. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 157 

4. Of the fourth Responsum only the beginning is 
preserved. It deals with the same subject as the previous 
one, and like it is found in the DTiyn 'D (1. c.). 

5. This Responsum, the beginning of which is missing, 
contains an explanation of the Talmudic passage Ketubot, 
10 a, and the norm for such cases as are there discussed. 

6. The Gaon decides that an individual whose morals 
are not above suspicion is qualified as a witness to a 
marriage, but not as a witness in an inquiry as to whether 
a woman is a widow or divorced. Comp. f'&, 85 b, 13. 

7. This Responsum, of which only the beginning is 
preserved, is identical with the somewhat lengthy one 
given in BVtoa, 86, and deals with the question whether 
a witness may retract a statement of his made outside 
of the court. 

8. In exchange for part of a debt, a debtor agrees to 
give his creditor the use of a shop for a definite time. 
Before the time has elapsed, the debtor has an opportunity 
to sell his shop, and he desires his creditor to leave it. 
The Gaon decides against the debtor. Comp. "&, 99 a> 22. 

9. The last Responsum of our fragment is identical with 
that ascribed to Nahshon Gaon in the collection f'w, 98 b, 20, 
than which it is better phrased and lengthier. What is 
particularly noteworthy in our text is the explanation 
of the word rv'Sn, which is entirely new. The case dealt 
with is that of a day-labourer who has undertaken a day's 
job for a stipulated hire. In the middle of the day he 
refuses to go on with the work. His employer represents 
to him the difficulty of securing another working-man at 
that time, and also that he will have to pay a proportion- 
ately larger wage to the man who consents to do a half- 
day's work. The Gaon decides against the working-man, 
and rules that the employer may withhold his hire until 
he has paid the new labourer what he may demand, while 
the first one must then be content to take the difference 
between this sum and that agreed upon for his whole 
day's hire. 



158 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf i , recto. ) 

pnv '-p nabn pnv '-n ait? *B 
any 'aw 'nrnoa nba^ai 313 n 
nc&ri iwoBn 2 3i njpn ps'-fo? o^ 
nvTDi :nra miDN n?3 m^ 

nabn 131 irrrna 5 

a 3-n n"ni3 

no N3i 'DNT 3/ 3n 13 p\ip no 
w Dva pocy 13 ipoyn- pe^xn aio 
'nun n ppoyno w 
rwaa p PKB> HD nr^n inr^ DUID 10 



133 

onw : mm ^3 pK jnty 
om ons mm nsaro mm ya 

"13^3 ^33 D3^ DI^S^ 15 

W^B^ o*awn nnx t6x 
jni jni } ; :itb^ nnnp 'vw\ 
moaa mix posoi n3B> 3"ij?D pona 
pjHD3i pnpBib paa *itnn 

1 From to to nniDD not in n'c, 184. J Bezah, 4 b. 

3 Shabbat, 139 b. 

* Ibid., 139 a ; our texts read n3u:2, and Rabbinovicz has no variants. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 159 



(Leaf i, verso.) 

hni np6i:Di nvixnn nr^a 
NJJ12 wn *a pena moon nat? " 
naoDn ba> I^NI 15 'TON 
NP Dipo ^>5a Nsya 'NO 
pan NE&N }*D-in jirbD 11 



fDinn x 

IN 'MFD IN NDp NJH3 fN03 

NI ia JID^D 'n 
omm cjunp^ ja 
mi 'can 3 pnoK NPT pw nvni 
an 'DN wna am wa xa-'x NDP 



no N^N ^ pN 'DK *pnv 'ni n^y -wn 

NH Va'i 'can 8 utt' 15 
nano ^aN 6 Nyan 



IN naia na^n }na pp^no pN 

1 From -IICN to ycna not in ni'nj ; the copyist jumped from the first 
ii to the second. 

2 Shabbat, II, i ; Gemara, ibid., 20 b. 

3 Shabbat, 24 b. * Ibid., 26 a. 

5 Our texts read 1T2NT, but MS. M. has also -n^tt?. 6 Shabbat, 21 a. 



l6o GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 2, recto.) 

pan 2 on Nan FINI ]/ hai mo 
'oDn i^yin no p DNT jDNJn n 

'rnio DTK PN nprn Nan 'ox jn:pna 
tnuD fero an INI : m^oaoi miyoa 
am n^cpb NHNI snaa Ninm JOMH n^ 5 
an in^> 'ON* TINVID nins nna n^ 'ON joru 
n^ Noun Nn^nao nsu maox jcna 
jona an m jon: ani> n^ pnj'pci 
mna nns 'ON DN 'ONI Nin 



10 

NHN nina NJNPDO NnK'm 
|N3 wo NHN an 'noNp.T Nin 
pa irnsn noi %5a iai 
nna pa yv> wrM? rh -von p"a 
a-Dj N^T pa nina JOMDI nine i:\x^ 15 
irt;^ nnzb mna nns pa yT N^> ^a n^ 
JOMO N^I nina 
nvnyn ^y iwnn V^'i 

1 KetuM, 10 a. 2 Read cnn. 

3 T?ie words 'ir: and i\r3 irxir between the lines is the explanation 
of the copyist of the Talmudic text referred to by the Gaon. 



GEOXIC RESPONSA i6l 



(Leaf a, verso.) 

nny pai Nobyn nny pa iyrb mo 
n^ ivo rbyz ^an TnDNi fua nt?N 

n jnm tm pan 
ny^> ntja nviyn ^y nwnn 7 on 
'ox 'hai r6y n^cy an nb t] s pni 5 
'ON hosn n5fN nny p:yi? jon: an mioi 
ycru ani Nan 'ON N^ NDD an NOTPNI Nran 
N n^ N^otn ni?yao npiaN^ N^N 
f"no nnN ^ya tfarb n^vyi? bs 
anl ND^EJ pnosi n*jo Npnno 10 
^ Nany NH NOTH ino 'nsoi Nin 
fraa nnm nnN ^ya ni^na 'inon 
noN N^T jb 'OB^DNP ipno' n^aiM 
; at2 n^ 2 tnnnn noai N^N pan 

naSn jai Nn^i 15 
nw yot^> nnya jnv HM jaiNn 
4 piNn }ni> 'ONI mim *b 3 ^opi> 
\saa snnnsy rrfy n^N 



1 Sanhedrin, 26 b. 

2 in'OT, belonging to him only; comp. the reading of the MSS. in 
Rabbinovicz, on Sanhedrin, 26 b. 



* In 01*03 the text reads prsc Jin? IO.ST, but pyctc must not be 
taken as the subject of ICNI. 



162 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 3, recto.) 

1 NJV33 NW in n^ ym nan 
7 , , , 30 . . i pm innnsb N^I pmn 

NJ^BI NTH? Nrran p^ai pat? pnin iy 
wnan Kin *b naix fnixni? mb 'OKI i^ xnx 
3 h? 'aw n^ nynsn n^n W3\T NJNI 5 
nann nan ^w 
ny 'yos? n^ ' 

^y ^ n'-xT pat? pnin Katy 

snun ^ n^N xn jaixn n^ 'cxi 
njo no^nc^m nun Nnni? KTIPT 10 
n nprm WP^BJ N^ 'DK PJK> pnin 
n^ nana ^N PINT 
TO N^N pyi-a n^ n N^ n*ana 



pa Nia pa Knwrn iTo NN n n 15 
pan "IIBKI urn KD ton Nnnrnxa 
rrvyy n*ann xaM snt? Nnjasro nno 
'ia n^ awi Knun n^ at^oi nan 



from MJ, and not from ro:. 2 }n siav jo pin. 

* = nbc. * Text not very clear ; probably to be read 'V 

s Baba Mezia, 68 a. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 163 



(Leaf 3, verso.) 

jo 



pan :s> I 

pi&o n 'C 



3ty pnnn JNDT ny 5 
in wnnw Nni3n ^ n^s n-6 
'yo o HTDS 
v nn 'nx I^SN 'NT 
noa naana^ ^as 
now tw 21 'ON a/1| iNpn pyoen na 10 

Nroac^D *KO n^ono snoi 
nai NJH^ wo Nps3 ^Ni? naa 
I^BN DIN Di^b naiarij ia w 

yan pra unso na^ 
Mnwna .T^ naibnb ptr 5>ai naa 15 
patron am :W 

^3 N^ iT^ C^ID N^T 3J 

Tina 'pnoKpi patr pnnn ny n* 

1 Kead m. s Bdba Mezia, io8b. 3 J5a6a Kama, 79 a. 



M 2 



164 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 4, recto.) 



*n 13 p 
5)032 rupa ypnpnp 

nprrai -icirai 
wp NE^N ypnp niT3^ nprnai itawn 

' 5 



nno Nmjn n paswi pi3H n-sT'iS 
NHB' } nnaa mno pnso nn b* 



o^yia na pn^^ xb nan 
a^s "Nina pnay s^ *D3 
f yjyy n^ 'DKI NDV n^ian ^n laxa N^ 15 
roi> n'-ya ^N nasi ^ 



1 Read n'mDW >ni:n W'nn 1 ? rr? IOHT. 2 Baba Mezia, 68 a. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 165 



(Leaf 4, verso.) 

W "rk nJN ^ WID*! fNO 

Nirri NJnn pan ND NJH piat? 
i!>yn*5 D^jnu nawn 'Np'oa naa 
nrm nix NinB> nan i>ai m^on JD 
m n 



ma '^m jna^ na pro an 'OK 



xan n^niNi a: y w\ fm 
n^yanN ny nn^y nai^ na ny 

p:a onn IOHJ an npTQi m i 
n^ia pyoB' rr'b ivn IN 4 onn n^an 
nap na ny jaixn n^y n:N N^NI raaiD 
n^N jo ppee n^b an N^ pyosn 
n^b n^an nNap jiaai tnyn^o nu? 
py pawn D^a n^an Nnn n^TS ^am 15 
. . . . N hfin NHNI nmn --vna ^yia npatn 
'INT n'-nNh rwva^ . 



Mezia, VI, i ; Gemara, ibid., 75 b below. 

2 Our texts read DXB J'KC, but MS. R, as well as the Miehnah, ed. Lowe, 
agree with our reading. 

3 .Ba&a Mezia, 78 a. 

4 Probably a repetition from the previous line. 

5 Read p'coi . . 'INTZJ mn N'TI .... inn "JSID NHKU 



l66 GENIZAH STUDIES 



XIX. 

Fragment T-S., paper, four leaves, 19x13 cm., small, 
neat square hand; first page not copied, because rubbed. 
It represents the remainder of a Geonic collection of 
Responsa, of which six have been preserved, two, the 
first and the last, in an incomplete condition. 

1. The first Responsum, the beginning of which is missing, 
contains an explanation of the Talmudic passage, Niddah, 6 a, 
which deals with the question whether the laws of Levitical 
purity were observed after the destruction of the Temple. 

2. The second Responsum gives the reasons for the 
orthography of the words in a bill of divorce prescribed in 
Giitin, 85 b. The text of the Talmud before the Gaon 
differed essentially from our present text. It did not 
contain the words in ^ ya>cn "jriE^ nin:6 nh, which are 
a variant of the next phrase inty? sina? N71, for we may 
properly assume that none of the explanations now in the 
Talmud formed a part of the original text. It further 

appears that the words paxm p^ayilH perron are also 

an amplification of the original text, and at the time of 
the Gaon were not yet accepted as an integral part of the 
Talmud. The reason for the three yods in p^ym p"i;rrm 
according to the Gaon is to distinguish the second person, 
feminine, of the imperfect, from the third person, feminine, 
with the suffix of the first person singular. In general, 
it may be said, that the stress laid upon the orthography 
used in a bill of divorce is partly due to the fact that the 
language of this legal instrument was not the Aramaic 
spoken in Babylonia, but that of Palestine, and all efforts 
were directed to the end of maintaining the historical 



GEONIC RESPONSA 167 

peculiarities of the wording. It was nevertheless necessary 
to guard against the false readings that might arise from 
the peculiarities of the Babylonian dialect. Therefore they 
spelled i.V^nn l (with three yods) to indicate the consonantic 
value of yod as well as the i-sound appertaining to it, and 
distinguish it from Il^n, to be read with the a-sound. 
From this point of view, we understand, and agree with, 
the Gaon when he holds, that an infringement of these 
regulations does not in all cases invalidate the bill. They 
do not touch the essential points of the document 2 . 

A noteworthy feature is the way in which the Gaon 
quotes (leaf 2, recto, line 13) the Palestinian saying: NTJ 
nntpb wi'BE'i p-mra, putting the Babylonian yson for the 
Palestinian pllTH, and '-vxp for NB"3. 

This Responsum is more or less identical with that found 
in the collection of Harkavy on p. 229, where it is ascribed 
to Rabbi Hai Gaon 3 . In part it is repeated in the same 
collection on pp. 5 and 129. 

3. The third Responsum also deals with one of the 
regulations for bills of divorce. It gives a full explanation 
of the words D^n runo. In the course of his explanation, 
the Gaon quotes Kiddushin, 72 a, his version being widely 
different from that in our text of the Talmud, as well as 
from that in the manuscripts 4 , neither the printed text nor 
the manuscripts containing the word 5 NTiriDT after NT^n. 
There can be no doubt that the reading of the Gaon is 
correct. It is manifestly absurd to mark the boundary of 
a country by "the second bridge," without stating the 

1 The Babylonian form is without nun, but it seems that the longer 
form was sometimes used, and then the yod had its consonantic value. 
Comp. incn, V, 235-7, 49^ ? an( ^ ^> 3 2 5~9> where several unsatisfactory 
explanations of the longer form are given. 

2 Comp. Maimonides, pern, IV, 19, and the quotation from a Geonic 
source in Rabed ; also p. 98 above ; and y"u. N . 15 a, 28. 

3 Miiller has no reference whatsoever to the Responsum in his Maficah. 
* Quoted by Berliner. Beitrage sur Geographic und Ethnographic Babyloniens, 

p. 21. 

6 This is also the reading of Rabbi Sherira Gaon in y'cr, 15 b, 30. 



1 68 GENIZAH STUDIES 

situation of the bridge. Mahoza, as is well known 1 , lay on 
the Tigris, so that the expression " the second bridge " 
becomes intelligible when it is connected with Mahoza. 

4. The fourth Responsum, similar in character to the 
third, defines the term NH1D with precision : " NniD comprises 
a number of districts Damascus, Aleppo, Mabbok extend- 
ing to Haran; all the country along the upper Euphrates 
is called NniD V 

This Responsum occurs in Harkavy's collection, p. 230, 
where it follows the second Responsum of our fragment, 
and like the latter it is ascribed to Rabbi Hai Gaon. 

5- The fifth Responsum contains an explanation of the 
passage Moed Katan, 3 b, dealing with the Sinaitic Halakah 
'131 myBJ 1B>y. Strangely enough, the Gaon omits the 
main point, that the permission to cultivate land for 
the benefit of trees refers, not to the Sabbatical year proper, 
but to a short season preceding it, JVjrnt? my. 

6. The sixth Responsum, the end of which is missing, 
contains the Gaon's decision, that a lamp used on the 
Sabbath may not be handled even after the light is extin- 
guished. Similar decisions on the same subject are cited in 
the Geonic collection n"K>, 236 and 237, on the authority 
respectively of Rabbi Natronai and Rabbi Zemah. But 
the present Responsum is identical with neither of these 
two. 

1 Comp. BeraJcot, 59 a ; Baba Kama, 30 a. 
3 Comp. Maimonides, Terumot, I, 3. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 169 



(Lcjif i, verso.) 

'na an rrc>jn 1 nyyo rby 
W3 'OK nry^x 'na ro^n jw "orat? nns^ 
moK pmn nyua v^y TIED^ -ITJ&K 'n sin 
3n *o3 nonn mm wn nnm Nnb^n 
mn 3*n 3i *o*3 BHP enpi nicx ^K N^N 5 
pno Nnan K^y 'OKT xhyna p J3 l| p"ist: < i 



131 pi 

NTH ^3*7 nyDi vita ^ITSI pm nb 
IBID NVDI ima^n 
ns pn^33 IK pnnvpos 



rtwpfb ino xn^3 Kin KJD<T N^N onni p^nn 15 
Nnyoi^ KVI pan *nta^ iT3noi ND^ xinn!? 
ni 3in3^ N^ wa 3^n3T so KH 3K 'OK 



fn vb 



6 a, end. 2 Git tin, 85 b. 



1 70 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Loaf a, recto.) 

nniri ainaw na psoicn pan 

yct?n x^xi p^avnn p'inma nv 
pai*vm ixia n<a "pita p'axm P'inn 



pann yovn x^xi ppn^n xn 
pm ana IK xin pan irwoyoi 5 



paiTn IBD 7 anD-o? -wy 
ana 1x1 ^^ n^anan pan^n nso iny pnn 
>rn Nyxiai? n^ ^xn xh inoi? 
^a^n^ n^ann noi^a pint? fvjo 10 
nivx a^na ix p s jy^i xa'.nb ix 
navB> ntrxi nwr s "ix p^a xiin 
X:^D?:I ^xrsna xTj 1 *?&Q t?"i ni? n^y 
\s* n^ 'oxp an ''xm no'e^ ^nxi n*xpi> 
nr Kin wni ppia^t? nS ^ n*3r nx ni5 15 
D ia PNP pn nai pe^ na n?i ana >xi 
'nxi iTt?nD pan 'nan ^ci xin 
pn onan a^n 1 ' n^ann na 
pv nn^n Dnai ^m *.* --xTia xbt? 

n nan ixi? p^avni p^inna 20 
*W p^inn n^j 'cxp -am yctw x/n 
pan^na DTJ pann xani ^Hi> p^avni 



1 Pesiktx, ed. Buber, XI, 96 a ; Tcinhuma, ed. Buber, Dent. 21, and in 
many other places quoted by Buber, but in all these places puna is used 
instead of ':cn. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 1 71 



(Leaf a, verso.) 

pann ISD yci^D N^n ib n:nii> ppiaen 

onmao D'tMN nao iota pp3B> maw 

Nina' pann mrvth T"ixi Deafly D<B>:N IN 

nwian nsoi ppnu mjN v& nioi!> pBma 

pawn niain nvni> nr b 5 
^aK> noun ro wn^ nan pa 
^ya n^ ann Nam n 
na 131D nym D^ ua anans^ 
rrnN ^NT ND^D pnvpToa IN pnha 

JDl NISD^ J nWM 'N ^3N H^ ppnD 10 
HK'N iT3 NaD3^ IN ND'J NHN 

'nN 'N *NII rf? p 

NP an pm a^nDi ^xn 'ONI nyni'D "-NP 
pan^n nQD 7^ ana H oi Nin wn 'n 
3 nii N^I Nin an nna n*3n3T n IN 15 

'JN robtn ND^NT nai rvanai *n IN 
ni? jyaoao N^ ni o^oa D^pn onana 
rra n^xn ND^ Nna xao:^ N 4 ohy^ 
IN jta IN NnNiyD >:n nspo 
nna 5 pm Nvn N!? jna 20 
D^ . . . naain 



1 Read rrrrt. a Read rn. 3 = ma Kbs? tea Earn ma c sin ':n. 

4 See Harkavy, p. 229 : w DViyb rn, which is incorrect. 

5 Gitlin, Mishnah, VIII, 5 ; Gemara, ibid., 79 b. 



172 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Leaf 3, recto.) 

mroa mn man jannbi man p-oa^ jv 



mo Nvn mica anai anym anym anai 
now IDS? rwtp nroi nro w nansn rr.oi 
$>ai moi mo N?n nmy DPI wy DP 
DIPD IDS* p^poi rn J i^n D^mn 5 



Njuon an S/ DNI 
wast? yaDD ratyon ^a IKD 'n nn 



5 'DNT naio mya p^yi? pe> bi -VKD 'mi> 10 
'n nan ir an 'CN N3in an 'OK Nax 7 n 
"wo n^in 6 nNtfj DN 'DIN 'can bx 
n^y DB> noun IDB> m^a TKD 'nb 'can 
3 pn^no ^N an 'ON nrco nijina* nn'-y 
KI n H y 08? no^i i^ m^ ^npn 'wpi 15 
in^anya TNB 'n NO^^N 8 |N nn^y 
m nnospn *KD bax pan wb S^N . 
N3M N>ya^ N^ n^ni' man^oi 



p^pno N NI n^ipn NniB'n [ an 1 " N 
NniB>n nsio t^ am I^BN N^N ^an nani 20 



paw panx on ony S 

i>ya pni? ami oipoa 

V 7 n pa* pi n^a DJ 



' Our texts read ibn. 2 Our text of the Talmud reads *?n. 

3 Gitfin, 80 a. 4 Not in our texts in this passage. 

8 Oiflin, 80 b. 8 nsffij c not in our texts. 

7 Our texts read '131 n:'\r n:':n IM J:N F] . 

8 Our texts read NO^ 1 ^ rn :np JKO srt. 

9 Gittin, Mishnah, VI, 7 ; Gemara, ibid., 66 b. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 173 



(Leaf 3, verso.) 

bvun jn ivab 'OK ib-axt^ fi 
'n rrby 'rbai nb um larm nob* 
nabn *an 'ON bNiot? "ONI WIN E*N rwarn 

'bNK>an 'DV 'ia nS 

DM naneo 122 snon 2 pm Nn 5 
^an e^Tsa pna^NT n-n nano wa 'so 
DM wno ^xiB'' 1 p 'aa^ nwnon 



p 'oinn onso a^rv xp 



n-n^n ^a '^ p oinna my^aiom 

a I^BKI n^ np o^n nano bvmp PK jo 

ponv paj& N^I poy paj^ Nip^yo 'oa 

no'-y ^n^ pNi Nany baa pom* p^yin 

'ON an 5 baa pnosi 4 nib pnn ny s baab 15 

'i a^moi pD^ab bvrvy* pnxa KM nn 

npii nirob Dpno 'OIN mm* 'n .TOT 

oma it^vtn omb |^peee mroa 



baa xm pava iayi pavb 
'w TNO y n pm NO^P hne>* pan 20 
O 'n i^aNi pD^b V 11 piN3 NM nn 
baa bax xanpm laya xbx 'oxp Nb 

1 Gittin, 66 b. 2 Gi/tin, Mishnah, I, i ; Gemara, ibid , 2 a. 

3 Kiddushin, 69 b. * rv? jpni ir x^r rte Nbi? s Cft/^w, 6 a. 



174 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 4, recto.) 

aao nab r6 piso Nini rh a<mc xin b 
nai ?&> baa 'inn 'spv an aw xpn 
nt^n Kjvwi xany ny ban 
Kin D\n runea nro pro 
urn n 'Wen 5 

nr * 



p&?cn p33 x^n nwno noa NHID 
nioip jnix pn nyi piaoi 

noen wmo p'np nns 10 
way NinB> ^DIID anai >DII 

by 3niD iniN pxnpi i?i33 



nmy 

pyyb my'DJ n^y 'TQ *eiD ntro 15 
bath ynta eninb 'cm nox 
D^ ty DK bax mtraa' nasij 
noai nw^NH ^a^a tninb 



nyi HKCD ^DD n^ob na^n 



6 nvrbi mtryo nmoi tnin 
8 pm mow sin mtrn 7 'n'lYy^K 
ba p^nin no n^a -pro nnneo 

nnnt? naiy j^ae'a HKD rva 



1 Kiddushin, 733 ; conip. the introductory note. 2 Gittin, 8 a. 

3 3foed Katan, 3 b. * Read -)TC'3i. 5 Read :DO 

Read rrcnVi. 7 Cancelled by the scribe. 8 SAebi'tt, I, 6. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 175 



(Leaf 4, verso.) 

roi?n D'o 
jnn ^ nyatr ba DD * pacn^ woo 

UIDQ ta!?D^ 1TO *blW1 

lai tunn pan TOP nnixa v6y p^inp 
cnn u ptabuo 2 M'jm IIDMP ton inn 5 

'i mirr 7 i nm JB N!J i?3N 
a' i3D pn bu^i' inio nano^ 
w pyoB' 'i na^ nrma na 
inio naa nae' nni3 p^in 1:0 pn P^D^DD 
a: by ejw pi'Dc^ '13 xna!?*n n^i niD^ob 10 
'i 'DM mn ia ia nai 4 'DNi 
^NO an xna^n n^ pyop 'ia 
na \a^a 5 'DK aim n>b MTSD N^ rvh 'CM 
'ia na^n roB>n baa 'DM nn xraii NHN 
'DM im DWD neno nvpnoo ia 15 
ia pyot^ 'ia na^n ^D3 DWD 
ia ip^hn^ ia irra MDI 
na^n jai pyo^ 'ia na^n px 
rbt&zb IIDNI IIDNH ianb o^oa n 
D inio ^ai n3^ niDioa 7 MIIH 'i 'CM 'DM 20 
v MM nrmi nabni 9 psn yM^ pirn 8 nat^a 
sina M3M*^i >JN^^ nn Ka-xi M3M bai 
an icn'-x 'x M^M p^aoo Nina K3B^ Mpn 



' Read pozisc. 2 Shabbat, 44 a. 

3 Our text and the MSS. read pzbEtD rvn:n b3. * Shabbat, 45 b. 

5 Ibid., 157 a. ' Read m. T Read r:n '-\ 'CM 'ON p\n. 

8 Shabbat, 121 a, end. s = jNMNn. 



176 GENIZAH STUDIES 



XX. 

Fragment T-S., paper, two leaves, 19 x 15 cm., square 
writing, with a slight tendency to cursive. It contains 
eighteen Geonic Responsa, three of them incomplete. 

1. The first Responsum, the beginning of which is missing, 
contains the decision of the Gaon regarding a childless 
widow and the Yabam who had been converted to another 
religion. The case was as follows: The brother of the 

O 

deceased husband had given the woman Halizah, and at 
the same time turned the inheritance from his brother over 
to her, the transfer being effected by a Gentile court. The 
other heirs of the husband objected, but the Gaon upheld 
the right of the Yabam to dispose of his brother's in- 
heritance, quite as though he had remained a Jew, and 
also endorsed the transfer as made by the Gentile court. 

2. The second Responsum contains the law regarding 
the legal majority of women, based on Gittin, 64^-65 a. It 
must be noted, however, that the Gaon's statement, i recto, 
lines '19-2 1, is not a direct quotation from this passage, 
but is a combination of it with Yebamot, 108 a, as is proved 
by what he says about niDiya (line 23). We may, therefore, 
conclude that the Gaon had the same text in Gittin as 
Alfasi, and as Maimonides, Ishut, IV, 7, which in turn 
agrees with that of Rab Amram Gaon in Dl'iM, 97. These 
identical texts would seem to disprove the opinion of Rabbi 
Zerahiah Gerondi, that Alfasi s reading goes back to Rabbi 
Hai Gaon, who changed the original text of the Talmud. 
Our Responsum agrees with Rab Amram Gaon in other 
respects, too. Both maintain that a woman of 'N DV1 3"' 
or D'JBD nx^ntf is considered to be of age. But while Rab 
Amram holds with Rabbi Mei'r, in Niddah, 52 a-b, our 
Respousum holds with Rabbi Jehudah. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 177 

3. The third Responsum seems to be an extract from 
Rabbi Zemah Gaon, in the collection fv, 27 a, 30. It 
contains the decision that the word of a slave who asserts 
that he has become a Jew, but does not live as one, does 
not deserve credence, and his owner may, if he likes, sell 
him to a Gentile. Comp. DTiyn 'D, 238. 

4. The fourth Responsum contains explanations of various 
passages in Yebamot, without, however, offering anything 
of importance. It is a matter for regret that the Gaon 
did not explain the expression ruao in the phrase 
HJ3 mVJ, variously interpreted by the later commen- 
tators and by the lexicographers *. By the mistake 
of copyists, who did not understand the expression, n:3D 
appears twice as rmo in the Jerusalem Talmud, Terumot, 
VII, 44 d, and Kiddushin, IV, 66 a. 

5. The fifth Responsum, like all the rest to follow, except 
one, deals with Halakic questions concerning the Passover, 
It contains the Gaon's explanation of Pesahim, 45 b. He 
reads ns^, and explains it as meaning a spherical mass, 
while our text has na'3. Compare, however, Rabbinovicz, 
Dikduke Soferim, *Aruk, IV, 307, and v"v, II, 80. 

6. The sixth Responsum contains the Gaon's explanation 
of nonn, which he connects with Din, potsherd, the material 
of which the vessel was made in which the nonn was kept. 
A similar etymology is given by the author of the *Aruk, 
s. v. D"in and nonn, who has in mind the clayey con- 
sistency of the mixture. Needless to say that both ex- 
planations are false ; as its form 2 proves, nonn indicates 
something that has been scraped off, and is related to Din 
only in so far as this word means a thing with which 
one can scrape. 

7-8. The seventh Responsum is merely the question 
addressed to the Gaon without the reply given by him. 
There is the possibility, however, that lines 12 (beg. i>)- 

1 Comp. 'Aruk, IV, 252, and Eashi, ad loc. 

2 Comp. Earth, Nominalbildung, 43 c. 

N 



178 GENIZAH STUDIES 



17 (DTIQU), on leaf 2, recto, which we numbered as the 
eighth Responsum, may be the latter part of the Gaon's 
opinion, the intermediate portion having been omitted by 
an oversight of the copyist. The question concerns itself 
with the preparation of certain sorts of Passover pastry, 
and it may be conjectured that the Gaon was led to give 
an explanation of fio^n in Pesahim, 39 b. 

9. Here we have the decision of the Gaon that no 
marriages are to be performed on the intermediate days 
of Passover and Tabernacles. The same opinion is held 
by different Geonim, as appears from Responsa in other 
Geonic collections. Compare Q"n, 156 ; r3, 81 ; and n"v, 
218. Our Responsum, however, is not identical with any 
of these. 

10. The tenth Responsum gives the opinion of the Gaon, 
that nvo baked by a Gentile under the supervision of a Jew 
may be used during Passover for all purposes except for 
mvo nro. The same view is held by the Geonim Kohen- 
Zedek and Rabbi Hai, while the Gaon Rabbi Joseph ben 
Mari prohibits the use of such unleavened bread entirely. 
Compare t/V, II, 92-3; Jfe>, 291 ; l"3, in ; and D"n, 166. 
Our Responsum is nearly identical with the one found 
in the collection Dl"D3, in, and its probable author is 
Kohen-Zedek. 

11. This is the decision of the Gaon that the blessing is 
to be recited over each of the four cups drunk at the 
Passover meal. The opinion is shared by many Geonim. 
Compare t?X II, 99, and Muller, Mafteah, 84, 1 10 l . The 
ascription of the opposite view to the Gaon Kohen-Zedek 2 
in Tur, Orah Hayyim, 477, contradicts our fragment, 
which ostensibly gives the opinion of Kohen-Zedek. The 
Tur probably made use of the passage in w"W just referred 
to, and was misled, by an ambiguous expression used there, 
into attributing to Kohen-Zedek a view opposite to that 
actually held by him. Comp. also nV, 287 ; Kohen-Zedek's 

1 Comp. also TSM mino, 276. 

8 It is improbable that Tur refers to Kohen-Zedek, II. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 179 

opinion as there given agrees with our fragment Responsa 
282-2^7 in rTeJ are perhaps extracts from a Seder Haggadah 
by Kohen-Zedek 1 . 

1 2. In this Responsum the Gaon explains why the bene- 
diction is not recited before Hallel at the Passover meal. 
The author is probably Rabbi Zemah Gaon. Compare v"w t 
II, 99, 100, and n'V, 102. 

13. The Gaon decides that the blessing over the two 
cakes of unleavened bread at the Passover meal must be 
said over one cake that has been broken, and one whole 
cake. The same procedure is prescribed by the Geonim 
Rab Amram, Kohen-Zedek, and Rabbi Joseph. The only 
dissenting opinion is held by Rabbi Hai Gaon, who main- 
tains, that while two whole loaves are required for every 
other holiday, on the Passover the cakes may either be 
broken or whole 2 . The natural sense of the passage in 
Berakot, 39 b, endorses the opinion of the three Geonim, 
and contravenes the opinion of Hai. It seems, however, 
that in the time of the Amoraim the origin of the custom of 
using one broken cake and one whole cake was no longer 
known. In the days of the Temple, two whole cakes were 
used at the Passover meal as at any other holiday. But, 
unlike our present custom, the recital of the Haggadah 
took place after the meal 3 , when only bits of the cakes 
remained to illustrate the story. The broken nvo thus 
became identified with the Haggadah, and remained so 
even after the new custom of reciting the story before 
the meal came in vogue, when there was no longer any 
necessity for the broken pieces. Again, the holiday cha- 
racter of the Passover required the use of a whole cake, 
too. Thus the two cakes, the broken cake and the whole 
cake, were made to serve each a purpose of its own, the 

1 Comp. J. Derenbourg, in Geiger's Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift, V, 398 ; 
Miiller, Mafteah, 83, and Handschriftliche, Jehudai Gaon zugewiesene Lehrsatse, 17. 

2 tc*tt, II, 103 ; comp. nE'i 'no, 279; and S'a, 102. 

3 Comp. R. Mordecai ben Hillel on Pesahim HDD to iiD ; comp., however, 
Mekilta de R. Shime'on, 33, and Hoffmann's note thereto (4). 

N 2 



l8o GENIZAH STUDIES 

one to perpetuate an old habit, the other to mark the 
holiday character of the Passover. 

Another Passover meal custom, the }r6v<?n DTpy, " re- 
moving the table," underwent a similar development. As 
we have seen, the Haggadah was recited originally after 
the meal. The "removal of the table/' marking the end 
of an Oriental meal *, became the signal for the beginning 
of the Haggadah. Later, when the meal came after the 
story, the custom of " removing the table " was continued 
as a part of the Passover ceremonial. 

14. The fourteenth Responsum deals with one who forgets 
to count the 'Omer. Partly, it is identical with the 
decision attributed to Rabbi Jehuda'i Gaon 2 ; but it con- 
tains a rather obscure amplification, found in no other 
source, which makes a distinction between an intentional 
omission and real forgetfulness. 

15. This Responsum is a note on *Erubin, 53 b, which, in 
spite of its brevity, throws entirely new light on the passage. 
According to our present text of the Talmud, the Galilean 
woman, typically careless of her speech, says *n3^B> instead 
of V13W. But even the most ignorant could not mistake 
a 3 for a 3 in pronunciation; the two letters are often 
interchanged in writing, but not in speaking. Besides, 
there is no such word as TOvt? in any Aramaic dialect, 
to cause a slipshod pronunciation. The Geonie reading, 
therefore, which puts nri33t5>b 3 instead of our nm3r6, is 
undoubtedly correct. What happened was that the woman 
wanted to say TI335? (my neighbour), and did actually 
say Via&P, which in the Galilean pronunciation sounds like 

jt?, meaning " my ransom V The woman said : " May 



1 Comp. :n*n, ed. Coronel, 57, 58; and ed. Lyck, 48. 

2 c*, II, 108. Comp. also i'ru, ed. Hildesheimor, 146 and 6ra ; and 
C*n, ed. Schlossberg, 17. 

* Read nmawb ; comp. also the reading Nraac 1 ? in Rabbinovicz, ad loc. 

4 See Nedarim, 66 b, for an interesting anecdote about a Palestinian- 
Galilean woman. Instead of 'ibs (calf's foot jelly), which her Babylonian 
husband had ordered for dinner, she gave him 'nc'r (lentils). It was not 



GEONIC RESPONSA l8l 

a lion devour thee for mo," instead of, "My neighbour, 
take some milk." The reading v\yb& with 3 instead of 
V&bt? with 3 is corroborated by MS. M, which reads *nvt?, 
merely a different spelling of TOW J . It should be noted 
that the expression, "may a lion devour thee," was a 
common curse among the Jews of Talmudic times (comp. 
Kelubot, 72 b). It is, therefore, improbable that there should 
be a connexion between X3^ and 3r6, or VF&ffV and rar6t5>. 

16-17. These two Responsa deal with certain kinds of 
pastry and their use on Passover 2 . According to the Gaon, 
the cakes referred to in the Responsa may be eaten during 
the Passover, but they cannot serve as nivo nvo. The same 
decision occurs in w"&, II, 93 ; and n"K>, 284 and 100. The 
sixteenth Responsum is possibly the one ascribed to the 
Gaon Kohen-Zedek in r\"v, 284. 

1 8. The last Responsum of the fragment, of which only 
the question has been preserved, deals with the same subject 
as the tenth, HVD baked by a Gentile who is supervised 
by a Jew. It is probably identical with the decision by 
Kohen-Zedek in the Geonic collection n'V, 291, where these 
two, the tenth and the eighteenth of the present fragment, 
are combined into one. 

her goodwill that was at fault, but her Galilean tongue and ear, the one 
unable to pronounce a n, the other unable to distinguish it when pro- 
nounced. To her 'cVs sounded like Ttcro. It is, however, not impossible 
that the husband with his Babylonian peculiarities may not be guiltless. 
He may have mispronounced TID'TO as 'BTE. 

1 Comp. also the reading Tiyba: in ed. Salonica. 

a I am unable to give a satisfactory explanation of PTTC:, leaf 2, verso, 
line 25: S 



1 82 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Leaf i, recto.) 

DB> n*a rvb nna .T!> rrv !ri> rvm ^r 

i 13103 
nna pnnon 73 iapna nn nn un . . , oaa 1 

tK"t Kina N^yi* tmao . . . . ona nai 
^jm 2 m . . . . rvb ram 
nnt war *N Da nWan n^ 5 

r ojno nana I^S 
jaw oyn^o ni^a mna 



nnama nyan NP x Kiajn nnsea 

noitro wnn jo nenn* nnb iTnar N^ ^DKI 10 
jo 'BB n^ano 0^033 w pro wnt6 nanx 
nj>o n:an KM noitron ncnnn jva nnainai 
fe N^ rmKna n^ anai n^ anai n^nxi HDBKI 
Van i>T3 ojno oi^a nyano^ n^nv 

-PR- b ^K 'a'j'^ysN s DWDJK ja n^n n 15 

. . JNO!> nanx naK rrorrrp IDB^ n^ia* nrsiy 

}3 ru^n '13 H3^n ijNIOE' 'N iTHiT 31 'W 

noa IDB^ n^ia* n^K^ wopa pi 
nnv pa n:naoe> b jna^a 4 no^ nha 
T3i!> IK rwiTf^ nta^a pa runaot? b^ twb 20 
nnx PND nanv penTp paj6 

>*Yi6 nan ww iovyi> nan iboui nas 
ronx nioiyan ^a^ njram 
mojn mKO K^ naop 6 w 
'na nabn rrawo nn on 7 K-vna p mvn 'n DVJTD 35 

rrn na K^e> K^ mna p 



1 Baba Batra, 54 b ; our texts read 12103. a Read 

s Fe&amoi, Mishnah, XIII, 2; Gemara, ibid., 107 b, 108 a ; the strokes 
over ij^EM indicate that the word is to be cancelled. 
4 Read 'jip'j, and comp. Git tin, 64 b. * Git tin, 64 b-6s a. 

6 Yebamot, io8a. T Read on on TIDN. 

Read inxb n3'D: N'n 133 1 ? xb. fl Read n^. 

10 Read vhx. " i. e. ;ao nvi ?i. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 183 

(Leaf i, verso.) 

nai>ini JTONOD nnt?y n<nt? i>a mop J xan 'x 

XS1D3 n^> pDplDI J3'DplD1 

naop 2 pv' ny 

'ho an nx<an nprn npna ran* px r 
KM xna^n twbn pay5> bs njNCD sh p^o 5 
npna na"w PN JVTVQW bkb ny^n^ n:op 'ran 'xi 
D^IKO pj^yi? ^o ^n pa^o n^an nprn 
npna N^ya nv^n payb i>3K WKDO xh 
nM nnae' xana ^m mirr /- ia 
nnaiob nmo DM nt^yo rwyo bai n^nw 1 JK 10 
4 mns DN 'BW 
:"nmt no 

neo n^nai nutya ino npitra 

mtropo an^y pn ccipi> nnnn 
nann nnsiDK' nmx 'can mypi nwn 15 
nanna nij 
a DPE& nnnm n^nai nnsistj' r 

n*op '^JDV an 'x pnn 
ja yenn nt^p ntj'pn n^p n^op ino xan 
:wa onan wnp 'ox 7 pnoK ^an ^ai ao 

pan mcpK 8 njao nnva IHD lai? 
voy raw S JN pnv 'n mi? 'oxpn nyioy 
nxr D^Dy wo nsan ni>ina K3n5 f voyo 
10 nKBDin nan nay raso nnva 9 nnDi 

DM n3 s nrDb n^ya T.W ntrxa maiy 35 
TTP nonn TON -ym ih rvh \nntwi 
:nh wnn^ mntj'aw rvoK nmi> ja 
pK nrai^Ni ono yo^o "Ninas 'nx 
ny ntryn nna 



1 Niddah, 46 a, read sn '7. 

* Read )riu"n p'pni wb '3i NETS nb piopim 

3 = N2i, compare note 4 to p. 194. 

4 Yoma, 35 a ; text unintelligible to me. s Yebamot, 15 a. 
6 Ibid.,6ia. 7 Kiddushin, 44 b. ' Yebamot, 77 b. 
9 Read mow nn. 10 Yebamot, 80 b. " Ibid., 80 a. 



184 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 2, recto.) 

r&trfy mm? 1 TIN^S? na^a ' 



nnn nmnh n^y a^i? mm noa IN 13 
:n^3Ko nrn: nmao IN n^3o ipiw jra 
not? Np-n NVD* i?ai HNT i>a n^y -niy ww s 
'x 2 V JN^N na prra> 31 'NT , 
3 'nonnn n*3 .Y^D 0*03 



DJTIN 31 

peny PTBW piw np^no D3i JOB'S 10 
nop 



nra 
rie' ) ni'B' ymp iniN NIH mi 

n! p^o N^I nrpjDN3 15 
D^nnn Q^on N^P^T of>pi 



ino 'Btn niaN 

DN ^Ni^i? nixo 20 

ni? n^y mxcn HN Dmoen ':B> main n-- 
rwu nnun ^ ONI n^ ny^a H 
mra oni> ni> niDiN^ 

1HN W> jrrB> H3 

nsNt^ no n^nna e 25 

;n 'NI !>N-IB nsKB' noo JVD iniN i?y paiao 
ono 10*13 DIN N!>BD D^IJ^ mp^a 
nso ^ss*^ 



1 Pesahim, 45 b ; comp. introductory note. 3 Thus in MS. ! c 

3 Pesahim, 30 b. 

* Ibid., 39 b, last line ; our texts read >VS3 with ' and not with i. 

6 = JHJ7. 7 Pesahim, 40 a. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 185 

(Loaf 2, verso.) 



poo 
n mi nnnta nna 

DK pB*iy pN r&VD^ 

naiN NI.IKOI B& Nineo >un 

D1pO31 

na^n nos^ HIDD njan 

0121 012 b i>y ni 
po iDxy yaa nwo nnxi nnx b 
Tnv .Tnyn NHDD nWm NJTUN 
na nsw * 'an 
panao pn 



^y nni? NtsyD *ND jma-i n^e* nina none 
noiyn nTBD 'B*K> : DiTne* ^y yixa^ 71x1 
a^nan niy mio WN pe"in ova *ao N^n JND 15 

nWn iNB'ni wh "nn *on mnaK* yatr 

TTD DB>D DW * N^^3 WIO DV3 TOO N!? DN 

OKI prca ^jno 
'ON rrn33e6 moan B ino 

K Nn 7 N^TO N3^n ^3K NH NH 20 

pi eai3 jo^ai }3 noan ^3 no^yn en^ 
noan ^oi> INBQI ^iy on^ ntyo N^N po^n Di{ro N^> 
oan W N!?N niox S|ID*P PKB> ^0?^ * "inio 

n^ mm 



T3 pa "-s^p^-^a nani? nmo paiBa rnm^ ino 35 



.m^y nuy DB>O nios JWKTH na >3N 
'BI ncaa nwri3 no^y p3nnb ino >13 TD^B 
. : nw ^1^3 Dityo "N K^ IN n? 13-6 napn 



1 Read ti }ENSJ. * Read ^ttJ2 % N '. 3 Read "?ro. 

4 = j can no WTW ; 'w = nnbstcc. 6 'Erubin, 53 b. 

6 = nb moN. 7 Read 'x m = mox sm. 

8 Read nco. 9 Comp. introductory note. 10 ? 



1 86 GENIZAH STUDIES 



XXI. 

Fragment T-S., paper, six leaves, 22 x 15 cm., square 
hand, tending to cursive. The two outside pages are too 
much rubbed to be copied ; also leaf 6, recto, is in a very 
damaged condition, only a few lines being legible. There- 
fore, from leaf i, verso, to leaf 6, recto, is all that could be 
copied. As much of the fragment as can be deciphered 
contains fifteen Responsa, some of which have been pre- 
served in the printed collections of Geonic Responsa. 

1. The first Responsum, the beginning of which is 
missing, is identical with Responsum 47, in the Geonic 
collection p"a , where it is ascribed to Sar Shalom Gaon l . 
It deals with the circumstances in which a Gentile 
may be trusted to handle wine without its becoming 
} Dno. Our MS. enables us to correct some mistakes 
in the printed text, as, for instance, the senseless ^ b& 13" 
WH?3, instead of which we must read, with our fragment, 
leaf i, verso, line 6, \yyv\ VQ *?v B>. 

2. The second Responsum also deals with p nno. The 
decision of the Gaon is that a winepress made of clay, 
used by Gentiles, cannot be used by Jews, even if the 
glazing is first removed. 

3. The Gaon enumerates the conditions under which 
a Jew may associate himself in business with a Gentile 
who traffics on the Sabbath and on holidays. This is 
a favourite subject in the Geonic literature of Responsa. 
There is hardly any other that is touched upon so often in 
the questions put to the authorities, showing that partner- 

1 Comp. also /n, 117 where it is ascribed to Kabbi Zemah Gaon. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 187 

ships between Jews and Gentiles must have occurred with 
the utmost frequency l . 

4. This Responsum also deals with a subject connected 
with a partnership between a Jew and a Gentile. The 
question addressed to the Gaon reads as follows : " May 
a Jew enter into partnership with a Gentile in agricultural 
enterprises, if the Gentile works on the Sabbath with 
the cattle belonging to both partners, muzzles the ox 
while he is treading out the corn, and ploughs with an 
ox and an ass together?" The Gaon decides that the 
muzzling or coupling of animals by the Gentile forms 
no objection to the partnership, because the laws against 
these acts do not grow out of the relation between the 
possessor and the animal possessed, but aim rather to 
regulate the relation between the worker and the animal 
used. The Sabbath prohibition, on the other hand, is 
based on the fact of ownership. It is the duty of the Jew 
to secure a day of rest for an animal belonging to him, and 
from this duty he is not released when the Gentile uses it. 
The Gaon's opinion is novel in its leniency. Most of the 
codifiers refuse to sanction a partnership in which a Jew 
might expose animals belonging to him to being muzzled 
or coupled by a Gentile partner 2 . 

5. The fifth Responsum contains the following state- 
ment : An ass and an ox may be used together by a Jew 
without any scruples in threshing, the prohibition against 
coupling divers animals having application only to plough- 
ing. This statement is so extraordinary that one would 
like to attribute its strangeness to a corrupt text, but this 
easy escape from the difficulty is cut off by the rare state of 
preservation of this part of the fragment. It remains for 
some ingenious interpreter to tell us on what grpunds 

1 Comp., for instance, Responsa of the Geonim, ed. Lyck, 65, 67, 68 ; 
Eesponsa of the Geonim, ed. Mantua, 43; 01*03, 53-56; c"n, 10; and the 
next Responsum of our fragment. 

2 Comp. Maimonides, nw3?, XIII, 3 ; R. Moses of Coucy, J'DC, prohibi- 
tion 184 ; D*n, 9; comp., however, Tur, Hoshen Mishpat, 338. 



l88 GENJZAH STUDIES 

the Gaon ventured to oppose the whole chain of Jewish 
tradition, from the Tannaim down to the latest codifier, the 
author of the Shulhan 'Arulc 1 . Indeed, the view of the 
Gaon contradicts, not only the Rabbinic tradition, but even 
the Karaite interpretation, as can be seen from the state- 
ments of Elijah Bashyazi, in his Aderet Eliahu, Supplement, 
130; and Aaron ben Elijah the Younger, in his Keter Tor ah, 
on Deut. xxii. 10. It should, however, be noted that both 
these Karaite teachers refer to the opinions of some Rabba- 
nites, who maintain that the expression " plough with an ox 
and an ass together" is only a euphemism for hybridization. 
But it seems that this opinion is based upon a misunder- 
standing of what Maimonides says in Moreh, III, 49. He 
does, indeed, hold that the prohibition against working 
a field with divers animals is aimed against giving an 
opportunity for hybridization, but he does not thereby 
deny the simple and direct meaning of the law against 
coupling. Attention should also be called to the opinion 
of Rabbi Joseph Gaon in sfn, 10. He explicitly forbids 
threshing with divers animals. It must be admitted that 
the very emphasis he puts upon the prohibition may 
indicate the existence and expression of varying opinions 
upon the subject. 

It is highly interesting that the view mentioned above, 
ascribed by the Karaites to the Rabbanites, is found in 
Karaitic sources only, and in a book of the founder of the 
sect himself. In Anan's nwon nao, reproduced by Harkavy, 
in Studien und Mitthettungen, VIII, we read on p. 4 : 
" And the Scriptures use the expression cnnn ' plough/ to 
teach us two things, the prohibition against hybridization 
and against ploughing as well, for rB>nn ' ploughing,' is the 
expression for njj'31 'hybridization,' also, as it is written, 
'rtayn Dnsrin tbb ' If ye had not ploughed with my heifer.' " 
As Dr. Harkavy remarks, on p. 194, the text here does not 
seem to be in good condition. However, it is certain that, 

1 Comp. M ishnah Kilaim, VIII, 2 ; Slfre, Deut., 231 ; Maimonides, Kilaim, 
IX, 7 ; Yoreh Deafi, 297, 10. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 189 

according to Anan, ennn is an euphemistic expression for 
jrmn. From Anan's words, we may at the same time infer 
that in his opinion the prohibition is directed against 
ploughing and hybridization. 

6. Here again we have a partnership between a Gentile 
and a Jew dealt with. The Gaon decides, that if a Jew 
gives money to a Gentile for the purchase of cattle, he 
is responsible for their Sabbath rest from the moment his 
partner-agent acquires them, even before he himself has 
come into actual possession of them. Strangely enough, 
in discussing the point whether the Jew becomes the 
rightful owner of the beasts from the moment the Gentile 
buys them with his money, the Gaon disregards the 
distinction made by the Talmud, Bekorot, 13, between 
a Jew and a Gentile in the law of acquisition. 

7. The seventh Responsum denounces all legal fictions 
invented for the purpose of evading the law of Sabbath 
rest. If a sale is consummated in perfect form and without 
mention of any condition, but it is proved a subterfuge 
by the return of the Jew to his business at the end of the 
Sabbath, the Gaon condemns it as an evasion, as a decep- 
tion of God and man, a public desecration of the Sabbath 
and of the name of God, for the law opposes double-dealing 
even in indifferent matters, let alone, then, in so sacred 
a concern as the sanctification of the Sabbath. Comp. 
pp. 81-83, above. 

8. The eighth Responsum is identical with that found 
in Y"> 26 a, 20. There it is ascribed to the Gaon 
Kohen-Zedek, but it is probable that the author is Hai 
Gaon l . The Responsum deals with the case of a master 
whose slaves refuse to embrace Judaism, and as well with 
the case of a master who is unwilling to have his slaves 
embrace Judaism. In the former case, the Gaon decides 
that if at the end of a year the slaves persist in their 
refusal, they must be sold ; in the latter case, he knows no 

1 Comp. cnyn 'c, 237, and Miiller, Mafteah, 82, note 21. 



190 GENIZAH STUDIES 

excuse for delay ; as soon as a Jew acquires slaves who 
are willing to accept Judaism, the master is bound to 
make Jews of them, and he is not allowed to sell them 
to Gentiles. 

9-10. The beginning of the ninth Responsum is missing. 
It, as well as the tenth, deals with the prohibition against 
making any use whatsoever of anything that appertains to 
a heathen sanctuary. 

In the first of the two Responsa the spelling nsay 
(leaf 4, recto, line 14) instead of DWN is noteworthy. The 
former is the correct orthography of the word in Mandaic. It 
is also to be noted that pm (4, recto, line 20) is used before 
quoting a Baraita, while on leaf 4, verso, line 6, we have 
twrn before a Mishnah. Are we to assume that originally 
these two terms were used indiscriminately before quota- 
tions from any Tannaitic source, or are we dealing here 
with a copyist's error 11 ? Sherira Gaon, in Harkavy, 
Responsen der Geonim, 103, maintains that N'on can be 
used before a Mishnah and before a Baraita as well, while 
pn may be placed before a Mishnah only. In our texts of 
the Talmud, with but a very few exceptions, pn is used 
before a Mishnah, and K'on before a Baraita. This progress 
from Sherira to our texts apparently gives support to the 
assumption that there was a development in the use of 
these terms. Accordingly, it may well be that before 
Sherira they were not at all differentiated, but were 
applied indiscriminately. 

ii. The eleventh Responsum deals with the distribution 
of the property of a man who has left sons from two wives, 
upon each of whom a jointure had been settled, p3 Miro 
j'-OT. The Gaon's decision is based on the laws upon the 
subject given in Ketubot, 90 a. One would be inclined to 
ascribe this Responsum to one of the earlier Geonim, as the 
pa miro was obsolete so early as the time of Rabbi 



1 Comp. p. 150, above; in the Oxford MS. of the Seder Rob Amram, 
as also in the Genizah fragment of the Sheeltot, reproduced on page 364, 
below, pn is also used before a quotation from a Baraita. 



GEONIC RESPONSA IQ1 

Mattathiah. Notwithstanding the fact that the Geonim 
Rabbi Hilai, Rabbi Hananiah, Rabbi Dosa, and Rab 
Samuel agree with Rabbi Mattathiah in declaring it 
obsolete, Hai maintains that we have no right to abolish 
the Talmudic institution 1 . Hence a reference to it in 
a Responsum cannot be taken as proof of the early 
authorship of the opinion. 

However, it is highly probable that our Responsum is 
from the hand of Rabbi Moses ben Jacob, Gaon at Sura, for 
the view expressed in the fragment agrees with that given 
in p":, 152, in the name of Rabbi Moses. It may be noted, 
by the way, that the anonymous Responsum in which it is 
quoted, in p"3 is by Rabbi Kalonymos of Lucca, as may 
readily be inferred from a remark made by Rabbi Mei'r, of 
Rothenburg, in his miBTl njW, ed. Bloch, 176, but the 
corrupt text of Rabbi Meir ought to be emended in 
accordance with p"j. 

12. The twelfth Responsum contains an explanation of 
Shebu'ot, 41 a, the passage dealing with the differences 
between oaths of various kinds. The Gaon's definition 
of ND213 occurring in the passage is extremely interesting. 
He connects it with D33, to wash, and takes it to mean 
the same as what in German is called Wdsche, under- 
garments, &c. This is undoubtedly the explanation of 
the word given by the author of the *Aruk, s. v., IV, 186, 
ed. Kohut, where the reading VB'ni'Dl is correct, as is 
proved by the words EOanon e>toi>. The emendation made 
by Kohut, changing Wtt^O3 into venaoa, is therefore 
erroneous. 

13. The end of the thirteenth Responsum is missing. 
It is probably identical with that ascribed to Rabbi 
Sherira Gaon and his son Rabbi Hai jointly, in Harkavy, 
Kesponsen der Geonim, 50 ; comp. also "w, 93 b, no. 2, and 
j"nn, ed. Coronel, 5. 

14. The portion of the fragment containing the four- 
teenth Responsum is so badly rubbed as to be unde- 

1 Comp. tc"o on Ketubot, 52 ; also y*\r, 57 a, 17. 



GENIZAH STUDIES 

cipherable. Only so much can be ascertained, that it 
deals with a Halakah based on Baba Mezia, 67 b, as 
appears from lines 10-12 and line 18. It is not impossible 
that these lines and the lines preceding them belong to the 
previous Responsum. 

15. Of this Responsum only the beginning is preserved, 
and even this is in a mutilated condition. It deals with 
the expedients to be adopted, after ordination ceased to 
be practised, in imposing fines for which, according to 
the law, ordained judges are required. This is a subject 
discussed in a number of Geonic Responsa, as, for instance, 
in Y*V> 2 9 a x -4> an d 3//n 60, lao. Our Responsum, 
however, is identical with none of them. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 193 



(Leaf r, verso.) 
1333 



T3 onim nnaoi 122 irn3 nn NIK* pm 
p$>r pNi iry^N '13 mW rpnea inio 
pT3 ^NIB 12 put? i33^> bsnt^ 11 B^ nsa pa 
N^K n^a canim nnaoBa sin bsiB'' 1 bty p 11 ^ 5 



nvan pa i 10 n? 3333 vy tyenj px 

n 

na 



3333 

pro 311 rmrr 3n pp^tn IIJ^ 
-ITV^X }3 pyoB' /- i 'ION mm* 3-n n 
'n 'N pro 311 pboiab pn^n *6i ION ^pnb 
p^oia!? }3^m 'ON Tonnb iryi'N p pyoE' 15 
Kpn NHH3 n-'nxia N^m pra 312 xna^n 
'i i*jff 'ON pro 3in rrnwo N^n 
3SO nnx n-'ia men 'ON iryi>N 'i p 
ri33 



H333O 

i niino 



1 'Abodah Zarah, 61 b ; our texts of the Talmud read rra yn. 

2 '^16oda/i Zarah, Mishnah, V, 1 1 ; Gcmara, ibid. , 74 b. 



194 



GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 2, recto.) 

nn trm 'na^n 121 minx ir nn narn 
's*v6 a 'p'i TIPO nin * 



inmx 

imirvas mi? D7ini in!> 
mi? mm pan ma nra nyt? >a^ I^DS ovpb 
nan wr a*n mby p^an s Nian paia 5 
'earn awn n"n 7 i D^J^ 'eram 
Npn pn^no onoa snnan pan "nam 
ir nn nsrn nx iSv ^s *?y *\x vvbin 



m:na 



ny 10 



icy n:nn 



arwoa 



nrm N np^yi imo 

i3B> nn 3iy 
b nnx ^3 N^N narinr nnn jo 15 
mp^yo rono WK OKI im mn 



wan 



L WTT L 

inp NIB> tnqp9 



1 'Abodah Zarah, 74 b. 

a Eead p"p = D^p:p, the Hebrew for cVn in our text, but comp. also 
Kelim, II, 2, according to which p*i, if it stands for C'pi, is correct. 



* Read D'pio aii ; the spelling nn for n is found also on line i of this 
page. 

5 = nn:no. 6 'Abodah Zarah, 22 a. 7 Our texts read iVapw. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 195 



(Leaf 2, verso.) 



jn&* iin 

tinin na irnxi ntynna nan ny rnanit? 
norm niea tnim na cm ma -a ooim 
:nr "iaib napn w crbxw 

' 3BD DJ?Q HD "11DK HU'nn D1B>OB' UK1 13 5 

nonai nn^n in^ nonaa t^mnc' 
nona fei 'JB> wica nn^^ni? n^y nniio 
win na B>mn ^ no mra^ 3'irop jvai 
^a niDN u p sin pa na na enin ^ no 
trm hn^^ VHB * QDin DN rwon oitw 10 
sjian nain noon roves? 'aao binr *3*n na 
nna 'o^can uen nona nain xh NST 
Dionn ^a 'B>D -niy WN nsiana ' 
ba 'VQ naiy nn^yoai nonna 
'sw naiy UK 'B^^ innaa enp *iai oonn 15 
'BTD naiy na^B> innaa tniy '! oonn ^3 
dion b 'B^ ib ION I^BK N^N my N!>I conn i>3 
wno irb wyytn nnio na BTII 
'ION a na vm ms mon na^ 
an i?aN n^po nio^Ki na^a map w^ 20 
^ KD!JH IK b wb mown 
imo ta-i&" 
^ mso NE* iioa 
roj j 



1 Read yn p. a Baba Mezia, 90 a. 3 Read rrcpcni. 



2 



196 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leafs, recto.) 



nonai nniB> Da np^ run 
ixpy np 1 '!' b \TUV |va naea jna enim 
imm norm pin? 'p IN tfix naps? 

nbyp nonai p-nt? fnix <a 
pap mark wn N!?^ s i?y SI 
NI nas^o iJa 't^yn N^> 'BTO jn^y nniyi jn 

rnino ... , 

nuip niyo an 2l nN OBID N? i^ 

eiD pyan K^ya mra 
mfa niip naB>o no oyo no 
6 T.DK iahn nbya T*n IB"WM ^ 
nony mw^ B'paDB' ijsn^ ja 
mam n&'vb onw ^y i^ B> u isnw oy 
nap anya ^ pnaioi iai npohp 
a^ anao m nat5> -inxij UDD }npif> 
7-1* PNI nnan *3B> aao ja mtrj& nioxi 15 
mam onw ^on ^NI^ npi> b DN 
-iat? c^iya onana K^M n p 
p m^yb mosi ^a n^ao ia pw Diba 
m mioa nn^ao b naoi D"T laoo npi> 
IT niam I^N onw ^ rnaDtr ony 20 
ninnnp na i?y ioy nanoc> }va p 

nony npyt? aBo TIDK 
ruiaa 



1 The status of the ;n, "Jewish heretic,'' is essentially different from 
that of the u, "Gentile." Probably we should read poor? p, instead of 
p w. 

a Boba Jlfefta, 47 b, and comp. the introductory note. 



GEONIC EESPONSA 197 



(Leaf 3, verso.) 

nano pNi mica n-pao b nac I^DN K!>K :NVI 



pap u isapi " Vvinp na >y icy 
3i inn nat? tnnoat? 
nonyaa' nann lain 

fa B*I wian nyni nav^y nyi awah 5 
yea Dtrn h^m nat^ h^m . 
J nicnn nana ^ax | . . a . . ncnyn 
yb 2 pai n^ nosi nony 



i?y ciwSi Nin ND^ya nia^ 



10 



J^B> p -iayo ^HN N pano Namv p 
na^a nun nrvnsT nax^o 



ia B^I nxi is 
jN'ctj' bny nay 

'a 11 y b^a^ IN nn^x^ nao^ 15 
fad? iai nvn N^J? nay Brunei 
nay p n^a^i rraB' n^N^3 B' 11 bna non 
nain ^n :nvn W*K mi ho^ wsy p^pro 
naiy p HBW nw' ?*jnv vn nay bo^ 
i noiy nio^a DVI DV b3i x ai ho* tan ^y 20 



n^nn inx ho 11 N^N c^ia^ naio^ i^ TIDN 
ni'SKn ho*B> ny u wr\VTh mcxi '^ 

Text corrupt. 2 SAabbat, 139 b. s Our texts read n:in. 



198 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 4, recto.) 



mny n-a TOD wv3 .IMP o J pm pjpiai 
i> 2 xnn pap Np Km n^y p^poi 'hai i>afl 
rva n^ Tayi NTIDO n^n 3*1 'ON mr 
Koan rva n^ Tajn unijiw i?K3 Km 
n^a n3B'3B> ^3 yi3V Kin nr K no r cN Km 5 
3 Yiaa ruo l| piKT 23 i?y SJKI ov 
pm 4 naijn niopsy mr may ^ 3^3 



hna nDsn inm v^a JHDBDI 



B> ny 3 <i 3n nx ppno 
nnio IN -noN IDB 
"mi iivaa na 1:31 mr 'yb n^o 
mr 'y njno ppnoe' no 5>3fr*iK rrn 
6 naDy no mr may n^3o N^XIOE' 
IN!? DK ibt? nx 't^ ppno DN mr msy^ 15 

pa mr may^ loan no pno 
mr may$> psi xin V" 1 ^ H^DBI 
mo NP ai -imo na nn N^I 

T 7 V3 TDK N^l niD Np KTJVUI PHD Kp 

7 oix jna 7 i 7 pm jiio IN njnjj IN N^N 20 
3*3 iiM* noNn OKI ^ni 8 nruio mr 'ayK' 
mr m3y *wsvo mr 'ay ^OB^O nr 
iBai y s in pm naire' ny pniDN PN 



1 'Abodah Zarah, Mishnah, III, 6 ; Gemara, ibid., 47 a. 
3 The printed texts of the Talmud read nmo p, but MS. M. and some 
old authorities agree with the reading of the fragment, 
3 Readyrm. * Read -my inspnw. s Read irr wja inspot. 

6 = nDD. 7 'Abodah Zarah, 138. 

8 Read nroo mi rmayc DI. 

9 'Abodah Zarah, Mishnah, I, 7 ; Gemara, ibid,, 16 a, 



GEONIC RESPONSA 199 



(Leaf 4, verso.) 

1 -imo rop na DNI nry^N 'n 'OKI ^'131 



IT '3V "VBVVV K1P1 H . . 

p"on p miro pjyh vnjrt? ny 



pry!? pnosp ^ "iniD pun p JH^N nn'-o 5 
vn s jm jbaoi prmoaa IK*O btau 



no-ins -- 
nhoi 
won 3n K^N my s % pi3n pn 



3 33 
pm nnn3n^ imo i 

Kin noi n^^ N^ nnni 
n^n mo 'DI? pncw raw^nn B>IV^ ponip 15 

H31H3 fr6 B> in3 HHN1 VH3 



n3in3 TOD 'ot^ PPB' N^^S* Nn nsipn Kin 
rmiar^ nnin 



3-1 SjVnOT 33 y S|K1 T3yBTO NS1D N 

H^J ps* im3 nnNi iru nns G ^O*K ohyi? 
PK B ^DK o5>wh :pi3n pa 



1 'Abodah Zarah, 19 b. 

2 Bckorot, Mishnah, VIII, 9 ; Gemara, ibid., 51 b. 

3 =jn-ntt3'? or pmrt. * Read inra N3"n nby nxi 
5 Ketubot, Misfmah, X, i ; Gemara, ibid., 90 a. 6 = - 



200 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leafs, recto.) 

irno K3W Kan ytwsn nmar6 
nnKi vna nriK 'cspn Kru^fia v p*cp*o ami 
'103 nnKi vna nnK wvo K'am J KVI "Kan inia 
am 'DB> nan no 3 'K nabn 2 T , . . pyn I^SKI b . . 
jni> ^ tfnoa nnxi ina nnx Nna^n XSD 5 
inio n^yj minai pnan pa 



pomp naswnn n 
IT ^N ncnip IT "-N VD33D niaii> N^K pian pa naina 

am ^ya n: nyoc' n^y 'cspn >a 
33 ^y 5)N naa naeno xna^ni roa na:Bio n 

naa si? naatro nro nyioc> wnn 
naai onpB> nmwo am i>ya 'loya *ND 5 panya 
rropa "-NH nw 3-6 wan IN naa n 
jxoh n^ janaao inch 6 Nnyot^ '^ai 15 



pa K^K }3*na IK ja^no^D yy\rbi & by nnby 
pa sa^K KD 7 Bma iai yana^> maa pa ^niDB' 
Nnyiatr i&d? Na s x jaamb KH^KI Nnyu^ 
^aao i>io^i yam ya^i? jrw . . ivna' paa 20 
pi ^i pD^ro xh pyat^a nnmac' pya^a 
'yia^ yainb yana p nyia^ is^ob jn-'atr in 
an na nh ja^aax N^ jaam ja'aas KnniNT 
inb pin Nnyap p^aax *Da pam 'csn >B>N 

nnisn pa ws *KD p ox 'nn -o rmv 25 
nyiatr amnac' >ca 



1 Ketubot, 90 b. 3 Read HD^rt -[3 on 

3 Ketubot, 91 a ; our texts read NITDII . 

4 Ketubot, Mishnah, X, i ; Gemara, ibid., 90 a. 

* 'Arakin, 7 b. Shebu'ot, 413. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 2OI 



(Leafs, verso.) 



p'nm B'ra x yane>D x 
yantj xh ' awen , , . . patron J 



jinn rrsa^ p'nm N!> nw r -nsa 'ONT 2l| Dx 'n 
paih 'ONPI 'hai |6pi n6iB> Knn 5 

rvoa^ pnra N^ pamo 
'5>DK yan:^ n^ p^notro N^N yaim wn 
a nboen P^n v^y B nr 
nr e 



m inyiaB> mien pxi yaw pi paino njnap 10 
yainb nnnK 3 IDIN 10^3 in . . 20 nn . , ^a 



Np 'an B>K ai 'D : i 

p^notro no^ ^'131 nnj: 'DNOI ny 
h n^y pan 4< ipnai nyiat^ yan^^o Np 
BV ^ ny noa njn 



pntsan n p^pan DI 'ro^ai 'unnp 'sxa opn 
a^no nin wnnisno w5n n^o DIB' B^IPB N^I n^ 
nabn 'n mi '\> nr B^i? &8W D^y nyuB' 20 
nr B*3^ li^orw B^B> hiuav 'c 'NPT 7 naNna 
nanoD nan X N Nyvoxij natrn 'n nn 'p 
nw i3K n^nni noiyi nt^nn^ ni 
nn vmyo ^ ^ew nr nrrso^ noun 

w I^SN 'OK N:i3n am vmyo H s^ i>bij 25 
nasna nai>m jDKi> nspn nnxb noijn 



1 Read pmo njyiao? rr^ pynm. 3 = 'D'i'. 

3 Bead n'nn IOIN Nin inoco nnnca. 4 iVicm? 

5 Read wciip'EKa. Read pntcci n'b jrpac 'nv ft ) ' 

T Ketubot, 93 a, end. 



202 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 6, recto.) 

pn 



3 mitn Kin 


, K . . . . D 



.......... 3TQ i . . a wn sn ...... DN n> 5 

\r\\o ........ nai tnn nym 'cm msn myi 

13 ......... ' {ween 'cy6 NianDD 

m ....... 3 ... ON K3a*n pano Krn 

ID 'Cp 33 i?y SJK1 2 p^3N N^> B mi 'D3 311 

mm *T ^SNT S NT 'oyo *Nts KIOIT 10 
3K ....... {fraNpn 3: ^y ej ixb nrn 

ycy Ton y . . r wro 'n^B 'n Di^WP 

:... ospn nat^b nnaap ^3 . . y^ bpe> 
D'o'b 'o'o yi?D iiH3isi y^o jna 3 pm yi^D Nim nn 'n 
jirjba niNnaiB 'no y^o p:tr 'taoi y^o D^PB > 15 
.... mi . . nn^ pnaia njtr ^3^ >t:o pjp 

N^K "bx in *S?K 311 BB 3-11 NJH3 3"I3 



IK ioDin ix n* hx yup pa ntn 

20 



. x nwa ni&* pin 'ex Natni spian NT 1 

Nicj ;o mjo p'pao N^> oan N ^333 

nya-ian p . . x^ai xo^a xpr: ia^a 



1 Ketubot, 93 b. 2 Baba Mezia, 67 b-68 a. 

3 "Ardkin, Mishnah, VII, i ; Getnara, ibid., 253. 
* Baba Kama, 84 a. 8 Ibid., 15 a. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 203 



XXII. 

Fragment T-S., paper, two consecutive leaves, 19 x 12 cm., 
square hand, tending to cursive. The fragment contains 
two Responsa, in incomplete condition, the beginning of 
the first and the end of the second not being preserved. 

i. The first Responsum is identical with the end of 
Rabbi Sherira's, found in El"3, 44, dealing with the 
question whether the ritual bath is obligatory at this time 
when its object can only be partially attained, since the 
ashes of the red heifer cannot be sprinkled upon the 
candidate. In spite of its fragmentary condition, the pre- 
sent Responsum throws new light upon the subject, 
especially through the statement on lines 7-9, which is 
missing in the Responsum in Dl'iM. The Gaon transmits 
to us that intercourse with those in a state of impurity 
was viewed with a considerable degree of leniency in 
earlier times, while the Jews dwelt chiefly in Sura 1 , 
Nehardea, and Pumbedita. The practice became stricter 
only after they settled in large numbers in cities like 
Bagdad, and the Rabbis feared that the prevailing laxity 
might lead to abuses in the new and more complex sur- 
roundings. At first sight, it might seem that the view 
of the Gaon is contradicted by the statement found in 
the Geonic Collection n'V, 172, which affirms that there 
is a difference between Babylonia and Palestine with 
regard to intercourse with one in a state of impurity, 
such intercourse occurring in Babylonia, but not in 
Palestine. The contradiction disappears, however, if we 
assume, as we may, that this statement refers to those 

1 For . . . 2C, line 8, on leaf i, recto, read mica. 



204 GENIZAH STUDIES 

earlier days during which, the Gaon himself admits, a 
more lenient practice prevailed in Babylonia. 

Whether the change from leniency to rigour coincided 
with the removal of the Jews to the large cities, as the 
Gaon maintains, is extremely questionable, in view of the 
fact that the severer practice obtained in Palestine alike 
in the earlier and in the later days, and in spite of the 
fact that there were no populous centres there. A more 
plausible explanation is offered by a consideration of the 
influence exercised by the Karaites upon the Rabbanites. 
As is well known, the Karaites laid great stress upon the 
observance of the laws of clean and unclean l . In Palestine 
their rigour reacted upon the Rabbanites, who stood in 
friendly relations with them 2 . The effect in Babylonia 
was the reverse. There the heads of the academies were 
inclined to slight customs which in principle they cordially 
endorsed, merely because their opponents, the Karaites, 
insisted upon them. In the time of Sherira, when the 
bitter feud between the two parties had been pretty well 
fought out, the influence of the Karaites made itself felt 
even in Babylonia, and this would explain the prevalence 
of a stricter practice in his generation. Also, the fact may 
not be overlooked, that the Karaites did not actually 
create the severe practices separating the clean from the 
unclean in a community. They merely raised them from 
the plane of custom to that of law 3 . How far-reaching the 
influence of the Karaites in this and similar respects was 
appears from Maimonides, Issure Biah, XI, 15, and from 
the Geonic Responsum, p. 153, no. 576, above. 

2. The second Responsum is the Gaon's decision in a 
lawsuit. A erects a building on a waste lot, having neither 
received the consent of the owner, who is away from 

1 Comp. Elijah Bashyazi, Aderet Eliahu, 73 d, nurnca rpnn ; Judah Ha- 
dassi, Eshkol ha-Kofer, noe, no. 295 ; and Harkavy, Sludien und Mittheil- 
ungen, VIII, 130, note is. 

3 Comp. Pinsker, Likkute Kadmoniyyot, Supplement, 33. 

3 Comp. Schorr, yifon, VIII, 51 ; Miiller, Mafteah, 228 (o); and Rabed, 
icr, I, end. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 205 

the city at the time, nor been apprised of his objection. 
On the return of the owner, he insists upon J.'s removal 
from the building, while A, the squatter, equally insists 
upon being indemnified for the building. The Gaon decides 
that A's claim is valid only if it can be demonstrated that 
the owner of the lot makes use of the building. In all 
probability, this is the Responsum to which reference is 
made in Alfasi, Baba Mezia, 101 a. Rabbi Hai Gaon 
decides differently in his naodl npD, VII, ai a. Nahmanides, 
however, in commenting upon the passage in Alfasi, 
asserts that Rabbi Hai later changed his view of the case, 
and came to agree with that held by the Gaon in our 
Responsum. 



206 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf i, recto.) 



jo frrrp:) . i^yiD am no f&iirb rnno 

ii6iJ)D rivm-a r6jn my ni npn 

epoD pai n^iiriD p YJTV pa ynr naap 

nNDitD ^ pnni? NM PIWD N^N 5 
D n^ iiovy K*ar6 DIX^ 1^ iniciy >a i?y cjxi 
'oann ona pjrto vn iWn nnmn ^21 'nxoo 
no DJ Ky-nrun vnv pn 
ranon nsnana Maya pj^ i^ay bs* 

PB> pn *a tfoann isn 10 
sj nnB^Dm myn oy nnh ns^b ib^n 
pxn ny ^ nn pns nnx^ pstmiB' ^a ^y 

nana 



penn PN^ ia iTonm n-jin a^D i^yi nana 15 
PKI nabn 4 j3notna wm 07122 nxn 
wru on^ann bai p pmo 

nB>yn K^I npim 
nra rv 



1 Read isapjc or ijnpc. 

2 = ypD ; on line 7, verso, it is spelled with 3. 

3 Read c>c. * Menahot, 36 b. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 207 



(Leaf i, verso.) 



. . . . pro 

nx f . , TIE , . . , 3 D^^N , , n ....... 

poy i3nnm .............. ^n 5 

nnna mr^ Kin mioxi ' NIPNB' ^x 
a }*"ia pnab mm 11 x^i 



p nvn 

rabn D3^p33 ^ n^y^ ja 33^ 
y n3i na^ man 



H331 
4 n . n3' i y3 DB> p*io p^jan vn xh 3 n^ya 

p'333 15 



x nxnn i>y3 i^ o NV 
733M1 n^y ^D 5 nvt2n IN on . . 
>333 --DT s i? jnnB> ny 



1 Read M^pN D^B'N, and comp. Prov. viii. 4. 2 Sukkah, 26 a. 

4 5 nvi:n? 



208 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf a, recto.) 

... ..... 3-13 ........ 

Dfiy'3 B DyiCWn fjK 

orno 'n^x MM i>y nr 
ni^na N^ 
n 4 & pyorc> PN is "6 pyow 

s 'OK nw an ib yoiB' 'OK 



'o 



mnn wa^ 

Nin pyan ^yae' pra IT 

ypnpn ^yai yaw vy ^ow y 
i>y35r n3/{^ n^s^3 jxa ba i!? me6 'DIM 
^yai 1^1 V33M1 vvy nr ^10* 'DIM yjnpn 
^ PM pnn muw pyan hs B'pao pysn 15 

!>ID i^ "in!? nvnn ^yai? en pysn 
n"n N? v53Ni vsy bwb wn eps i^Mt 
pnv 'n n3n nns? D^DI ha^ vby 

pM3 I^BW ^ pyD1B 

pnoix p n3 20 



1 Reading doubtful ; in inw? 2 a6a Jtfezfa, 101 a. 

3 = n^rt and comp. verso, line 5. 

* The last six words not in the printed text of the Talmud, but found 
in the MS. ; comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc. 
5 Reading doubtful. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 2OQ 



(Leaf 2, verso.) 

Mrva nno^ rp5*-rcn nth 



nn D DIM lisa* M> w nap 
pna woo D^aia pM jw p om ^ panx 
vsy 8 N^n hw vbx p^an *oi 5 
cm D^yan nit^na N!?^ njaty 
i?ya Ta nvwa D^ron HN n^oi nmpn 
nxnn ^yn n^jr no na nns f N1 "i yp">pn 
IHM n*3o Mini j":an iniM i>y nnpo DM 
vanv pnin 4 niypnpo nnnj nwi 10 
Minn a pna inyi uoo pboiai vby 
n^ X OM am n^opi' Mnxn Minn 5 
^ n"^ 'CM rr6 



^ 'DK rh niDJO Mpi n-nan 15 
: rwbyn ^y i-i^i n^ DW ^n ^ . . . run 
vnimn a^o n^an nM ^pon layjw nnwai 
n^^^n nMi n^^n. nMi muwnn HM mai 
mai noy DM X OIM ^Di 1 - 7 n IHM pano JM 
rvyann HM 20 

1 I do not know whether any letters are missing in the first line. 

2 Yebamot, lib. 3 = nbn. 4 Text corrupt. 

8 Ba6a Mezia, 101 a. ' Sa6a Batra, Mishnah, I, 3 ; Gemara, ibid., 4 b. 



210 GENIZAH STUDIES 



XXIII. 

Fragment T-S., vellum, one leaf, 28 x 23 cm., small 
square writing. It contains four Responsa, all dealing 
with laws of rairD. Of the first Responsum but a single 
line has been preserved, from which only the subject in 
general can be inferred, but not the specific content. 

2. The second Responsum contains a decision by Rabbi 
Zemah Gaon, regarding a woman who lost her Ketubah. 
It is identical with that quoted by Rabbi Sherira, in 
Harkavy, 97-8, in opposing the view set forth by Rabbi 
Zemah in our Responsum. Strange to say, the opinion 
expressed in f&, 57 a-b, 16-17, by Rabbi Haninah, is not 
in agreement with that attributed to him by his son Rabbi 
Sherira. 

3. The Gaon specifies the circumstances in which the 
heirs are not obliged to provide a residence for the widow. 
It is identical with Responsum 22, p. 33, above, and is 
given in the form of an explanation of the Talmudic 
passage Ketubot, 54 a. *npa l is defined as " one house," 
and it is taken to be the same as ^nyp>3, though it is 
difficult to see how the latter can be made to have the 
meaning the Gaon gives it. He may have been thinking 
of Tiyp:! in the meaning of " narrow hole," thence applied to 
.a " small dwelling-place," sufficient for a single family, " one 
house." Rabbi Zemah Gaon's explanation of the same 
passage in pV, 53 b, 2, is somewhat different. But as 
our Responsum is likewise ascribed to Rabbi Zemah, it 
may be assumed that jOp JV2 in *& is only a different 
-expression for iriK TV3 in our fragment. 

1 Comp. Perles, Etymologiscfie Studien, p. 83. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 211 

4. The last Responsum begins by quoting the very 
lengthy question put to Rabbi Moses Gaon. In spite 
of its prolixity, it is far from clear in its purport, as the 
Gaon himself complains. The case is the annulment of 
a marriage with a woman suffering from an incurable 
disease, which had been kept a secret from the husband at 
the time of the marriage. The decision of the Gaon has 
been preserved only in part. It starts with a lengthy 
explanation 1 of the passage in the Talmud, Ketubot,j$ a 76 b, 
the locus classicus for the annulment of such marriages. 

Attention should be called to the excellent idiomatic 
Aramaic in which this Responsum is couched, the question 
as well as the reply. It resorts to the use of Persian words, 
like 2 NpJTiN, pJBPM, and MDin, which shows that at this 
time Arabic was not yet the only language of the Jews 
of Babylonia. 

1 On the prolixity of Eabbi Moses Gaon, com p. Miiller, Mafteah, 75. 

2 The word occurs a single time in the Talmud, twice in the Skeeltot, 
V, 15 and 16, ed. Rabbi Naphtali Zebi, Berlin, and once in j'na, ed. 
Hildesheimer, 209. 



212 



GENIZAH STUDIES 



5 x 

r as 

IP 

II 



2 

5= as 

n .ir>. 

c as 

* n 



C 32 Q 

as F 
C a c 



231 

c Jr ix *- 



o. 

Q 



E E 



o 

M 

Q Q 



c Q 
I" 






n r 
/x 52 



t= P 



? 52 F 

g as 

p "as as 

= ct 
g** 

6 F 

S * 



g-aS 
S . r B " 

Z P s? 

i? ... a 

E C _ *~ 

*~ *^ C Q 
^ & 



52 



n I 






n 

-as 

3 

. -n 



* 52 
" JX 



S p 

*~ Q 

e - 1 " 

E n 
n 

5 ^ 



S 2 2 ? 
: 2 2 i 



-r n n 
n ? g 

o S S 

52 ^ C 

sn 

^ fc C 

r* * 2. 
as a 

5 c 

52 



& a ?s f 

1= F jg *~ 

o G"^ 

s & g i 

52 52 p 

_r\ 1 ' C 

._ ^ o 1C 



? C 



as 



n as 

c " 

E S 



c j^ 

*~ 

j -J"\- 

E 

f- K 

- *_f^ 

D as 



n 

S a 
j% c 



as E 



h 
Q 

a 
a 



Jig 

^J 
^ ~ & 



c - 



n 

r! 



*- as 

? n 

S r 



52 



s. a 

rv C 



F^ 



P 

- S 



n ,- 

r as 

. c 



5S 



Q 

H n 



E ? 

= E 



v Q 



'- IT 

y 

S3 5\ 



: 



?2 ^ 

n C 



^ S n ' 



Q 

E 
n 



E fc 
P a 



n f- c 



' * D 

la? 

- K E E 

f 

*J^ f~ *~ 

a 2 * 

a ^ P 
J= r~ 

f- X 

^ '' P 
n a F 

5* p S 

rv C 



&? 



5 E-B 

or 



Jig 

IT 



as c 

r 



eP 



in as 



as p 

~ Q 

n r 

r 

as n 



p^ 



8 



n _ 

S * 

j] as 



^ n 



as Q 

o a as 

E E g 

v as ~ ^ 

v S ^1 



GEONIC KESPONSA 



213 



s ft 

S !. 

- as 

p F 

S3 

as 



O c as 

c S E 

i 2 * r 

g "r- g _* 

P 3 a - 

- * i .- 

as _ n o p 

^ i-S F F 

o ,-, as - 

* | & S g. 

a & n Q as 

k- P c 

P 2 c 

tr ?^ * 



n n as c 
r -r*. n f: 



& 






- O. 

r ~c 
& ^ S. P " 



? .n a n & 

IT C _/x 

n n n c 

as P' c p 

' as T c 

- ' *T * 



as _r\ 



n _ 

n .55 

-^ 

as 



as f 



as 



as g ? 2 

n 1= * 



r *- 

o S.| 



as 

R p 

n r 



i i 

r 

? ^_ 

' n 

as c 






as ; 



n 
as 


%, 

a 

as 
as 



o P i 






n ?* 

c 

E-fi s. r 

^ r * 



Q r 
as a F 



? a 



as 



s P h 



j- ^ 
n 
i^ n 



~ r 



r P 






n 



n 



^ - 
8 



as 

*= as 



- P E n as ^R 

*"i P ' 5 a 

r> *" ^ |- S> S=* 

: g as S ~as p 
o > 



n 
as 

n 
o 

Cl 

as 

as 

c 



r 8 

i S 



X 
^ 

p 



-^ as -JN ^ g 

g 8 ai I 



h "-K t 

*- o ^ X ^r\ 

P fi s"^ al 

g j3 ~ I 
*~ F -i *~ O 

~P 1 r z? ^ 
C n fc F & 

c =- ' 
as E 

-S x 



6 E 



s 9 ? 



r 

as 



o 



a 



l>.^ 

_5 i- c 



. 

X. M 

" o' 1 





n r- z 

D w 

f - 

^' c r "g 

cq f 'S 

8>. - 



g 



s 






IK 



s 

S o 






n n 



214 



GENIZAH STUDIES 




GEOKIC KESPONSA 








w> .2 

C! J= 



^23 



W 



.- -O 
P C 



? g -O 



* -rf* a 

'oS ^ - 

. s 

M ^ O 



2l6 GENIZAH STUDIES 

XXIV. 

Fragment T-S., vellum, two leaves, 23 x 34 cm., square 
hand ; much mutilated, but the missing words and letters 
have been supplied, and are indicated by dots over the 
letters. The fragment contains the remainder of a collec- 
tion of Geonic Responsa, thirteen of which have been 
preserved, though not all in their entirety. The name 
of no Gaon appears upon the fragment, but the probability 
is that the author of most of them is Rabbi Natrona'i Gaon, 
since a number of them are identical with those known 
from other sources, as will be shown when we deal with 
the individual Responsa. 

i. The beginning of the first Responsum is missing. 
The Gaon decides in it that the work connected with the 
burial of a body, on the second day of a holiday, is to 
be done by Jews. He bases his view on the Talmud, 
Bezah, 6 a, and he maintains that Rabina's contrary view, 
j^tjmn nan NITST Nrrwi, was applicable only to times and 
places under Persian jurisdiction. According to the Gaon, 
Rabina was influenced by the fear that, if the Jews per- 
formed such labours on a holiday, the ''nan might force 
them to do the same for non-Jews. This is doubtless 
the correct explanation. It is found again, literally, in 
Rabbenu Hananel and in the 'Aruk, s. v. "Dn, and in a 
modified form in Rashi. To connect Rabina's statement 
with the objection of the fire-worshippers to burial, as 
some modern scholars do l , is absolutely false. In this 
Talmudic passage nan cannot be taken in its usual sense 
of fire-worshippers. To translate Rabina's words with 
"now when there are fire-worshippers," is out of the 
question. Such an interpretation would make it appear 
that Rab Ashi and Raba, the authorities preceding Rabina, 
had lived under other conditions, when, in point of fact, 
fire-worshippers had been in Babylonia centuries before 
them. Obviously, Rabina used "nan for the followers of 
Mazdak 2 , who had the upper hand in Persia about 480, 

1 Comp. Kohut, in his 'Aruk, s. v. -on. 

3 Comp. NOldeke, Aufsdtse sur persischen Geschichte, 109. 



GEONIC KESPONSA 2 17 

the time of Rabina II, the compiler of the Talmud. In 
accordance with their doctrines of a socialistic and commu- 
nistic tendency, the Mazdakites, insisting upon an equal 
division of work and means, opposed the holidays of the 
Jews, which interfered with the operation of their system. 

The same view is set forth in Fragment 18, p. 158, above, 
a Responsum ascribed in rW, 184, to Rabbi Natronaii 
Gaon. In the former source the city to which reference is 
made is "OKO (comp. p. 156, above), probably the same as 
the place called natja in the present Responsum, by the 
substitution of 3 for 3, which occurs frequently in old MSS. 

2. The second Responsum contains the Gaon's decision 
with regard to D"On nfe, maintaining that the prohibition 
applies only to a case in which wheat, barley, and grape 
seeds are sown together. He bases his view on Kiddushin, 
39 a, and other passages in the Talmud, without considering 
the difficulty involved l . 

3. The third Responsum is a brief explanation of Mish- 
nah Bezah, I, 6, and the Gemara upon it, ibid., 12 b. 

4. Here we have the very important decision of the 
Gaon regarding the law of nnnn and similar agricultural 
provisions, in their application outside of Palestine. The 
view of the Gaon is that they are limited to Palestine, 
and were never binding upon the Jews resident in other 
countries. According to him, the frequent references to 
the operation of these laws in Babylonia found in the 
Babylonian Talmud, are to be taken as descriptive of 
the practices indulged in by extremely pious men desirous 
of reproducing Palestinian conditions as far as possible 
upon alien soil. They never intended that their course of 
action, taken from choice, should be made the rule of con- 
duct obligatory upon all the members of the community. 
The only other authority 2 holding the same view is Rabbi 
Zemah Gaon, as can be seen from his Responsum quoted in 
mai nnaa, XV. Nevertheless, our Responsum cannot be 
declared identical with Rabbi Zernah's, on account of 

1 Comp. 'Aruk, s. v. rnn, Harkavy, 224, and 7";, ed. Lyck, 106. 

2 Comp. the long discussion on this question in Tosafot on Huttin, 6 b, 
catchword Trim. 



2l8 GENIZAH STUDIES 

the widely different tenor of the two Opinions 1 . The 
passage in the Jerusalem Talmud, Hallah, III, 60 a, may 
be adduced in corroboration of our Responsum. We read 
there: D"in p^nao vn rbvsv wrvai, showing that the 
practice of giving the priests their lawful portions in 
Babylonia was merely a custom, and it prevailed only 
among the scholars and the pious 2 . However, it is 
surprising that the Gaon pays no attention to the 
statement of the Mishnah Yadayim, IV, 3, which calls 
the application of the agricultural laws to Babylonian life 
a prophetical institution. Comp. also Sukkah, 44 b, from 
whence it appears that the Sabbatical year was generally 
observed in Babylonia. 

5. The fifth Responsum is a brief explanation of the 
Talmudic passage, Bezah, 34 a, the text quoted by the 
Gaon being different from ours. Notice especially the form 
paano, instead of panano. 

6. This Responsum is identical with cVea, no. 77. It 
deals with the question whether a Gentile servant is 
permitted to kindle a fire in a Jewish house on a holiday, 
the circumstances being such as to make it possible for him 
to use freshly cut wood. 

7. The Gaon specifies the circumstances in which an 
oven may be used after Gentiles have cooked and roasted 
prohibited food in it. It is noteworthy that the Gaon, 
in agreement with MS. B, reads, in Pesahim, 30 b, not ptPD, 
as we have it in our present text, but pBB>, a later form 
of pnotJ>. In a short form we meet with the same decision 
in a"n, 13, and it may be ascribed in all probability to 
Rabbi Zemah Gaon. 

8. The Gaon decides that bread baked by a Gentile may 
be eaten by Jews only if a Jew has had some part in the 
preparation, however trifling. The same decision is in 
brief found in D"n, 13, immediately after the Responsum 
corresponding to the seventh of our fragment, and we 
cannot go wrong in ascribing the eighth to the same 
author as the seventh, namely, Rabbi Zemah Gaon. Comp. 
also ^OB>K, III, 129. 

1 Our Responsum is, however, quoted in rosy, I, 29 a, ed. Lemberg. 
a The expression nVuanj irrran includes the scholars and the pious; 
comp. Yer. Kilaim, IX, 32 c. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 

9. This Responsum deals with a case similar to the 
subject of the eighth Responsum, and it is identical with 
that found in T\"&, 2 73. The words \xnsiff 13, leaf 2, recto, 
line 27, prove that this Responsum and the sixth (and the 
seventh ?) of the fragment have the same author, but who 
this author is cannot be easily determined. It will not do 
to attribute it to Rabbi Natronai, as Miiller and Bamberger 
do, on the ground that a similar decision in &"&, II, 87, is by 
him, because, although the two Responsa are alike in tenor, 
yet the verbal differences between them are too radical to 
permit of our ascribing them to the same person. 

10. The Gaon explains Pesafyim, 46 a. His explanation 
of ennn pX2 coincides with that of the 'Aruk, and our 
Responsum shows that the emendation suggested by Kohut 
is incorrect. The explanation of ^33^ by the Gaon is 
altogether new. It differs from that of Rashi as well as 
that of the 'Aruk l . This Responsum is found, in a very 
corrupt form, in n'V, 94, and its author is Natrona'i Gaon, 
as can be seen from hatJ'N, I, 50. Miiller was mistaken in 
his assumption (Mafteah, 274) that Rabbenu Hai is the 
author, as the mention of Hai by Rashba, on BeraJeot, 15 a, 
does not apply to our Responsum, but refers to that found 
above, pp. 38-9, or to that quoted in ta^N, I, 49. 

11. The eleventh Responsum contains the decision that 
if the Passover eve falls on Saturday, the leaven need not 
be removed on Friday. In a shortened form it occurs in 
T\"&, 93, where it is attributed to Rabbi Natronai' Gaon ; 
comp. 1H3P, 48 d. 

12. Here we have the decision that the leaven may be 
destroyed in other ways beside burning. This view is 
referred to as a Geonic decision by Rabbi Zerahiah Gerondi 
on Pesahim, I, catchword ytJTi rron , and by Rabbi Jacob in 
Tur, Or ah Hayyim, 445. Comp. Saadiana, 126. 

13. Of this Responsum only a part has been preserved. 
It deals with various questions connected with the Seder, 
as, for instance, whether it can be properly observed without 
the use of wine. It is identical with a"n, 165, where it is 
ascribed to Rabbi Natronai Gaon. 

1 Comp. also Tosafot on Hullin, 122 b, catchword bub. 



220 



GENIZAH STUDIES 



n n 

O Q 

a j, 

^ n 



f ?i 

22 22 

-^ C 

ri *-* 

a g 

a o 

n p. 

& 1 

*- n 



a 



5 2 ' 

E 



f 



25 ^ 



- P 

j% 3 

*~ n 



n 
^ 5 



X % ? 

o r 

a c 

_ c f- 

? 

a 

,- Q 



n 



r c 
n ' 
22 



X 



*- 22 



3i 22 



y l~ 
55 n 



X 



22 J= t 



22 r 1 



S s 

f~ 

s; - n 

K S 



r 1 
~ P 

5- 



a 

It 



- 



i=- r 



I ^ 
? " 

- t 

22 



a 



P g 



c n 

22 Cl 



r a a r t* 



m 22 
.. C~ 



n ._ 

^ g 



c - 

Q 

C 
^ 



E n: n r v*^ 3 C fl 
F SS ^ nfc n-^ 



f- 



n ^> a r .,. j= 

*: - " rl -^^ 



E fc| 

C c o 

f ~ ^ 

^ * ~ rv 

: 5 n 3 

Q n ^ 

" r 

a ZA 

i !^ 

C p E 

J- C 2- 

; i 2S 

22 F -r 

-r\ n 

a p ^ 



22 ^-gj 

ru 5?" ^~ 

c S ^ 



n F 



n D 



55 



r ~ :" 
v , C n . 



a IT 25 . 

. p p 

n * y p. 

r s 

? J^ : ? ^ - 

fc- *^i 'y 13 C 

r\ **-^ ^* T~ *^ 



22 

a -~ 
n . n 

n 



5 f c E 

2 n p P a 

P\ 1 Q 



F 

IL -n 

J -22 

25 :r 

a 



* 22 
22 ^ 

. n 



PS 

? n 



8 

c 
a 



s 



' a 
r 9 
22 n 



F 22 



Q 



r ^ & 
* * r. L 



25 '' 
E *^ 



H 



n 



g 2 
- 

22 



C ? 

M 



U ri C * 

Jr W *^ * 



n -I- x 
Q n 
a J^ 



GEONIC RESPONSA 



221 




222 



GENIZAH STUDIES 






i> C 

55 f- 

n S 

-r>. rr 

2 S 



fc> C 
& n 



3 



& 



fE -^ 

55 r- 
r Q 



Cj=^ 
r-t 



^ 
J% 



cr s^- 

a I, 

r f- 

M 

c ?. 

Q n 

ci 

r ^ 

Q fc 



i P 



*- *^ rx 

a Q -Ji - 



a 2 



Q 



n 

j- 



* n 
,- c 



Q j: 



a 



E * 

; r :E 



" 

a r 

,_ ci 

-rx r 



Q 



O 



r 

S 
.f- 

% 



L ? 
n 

c o 

^ % 

Q F 1 



:p- -n 

-i f; 

'& 1= 



J^r !> 
a 



a r 



n a ^ 



-J> p 

^~ J^ 

S C C 



55 



n *; 

Jr ~r\ c; 

52 r 

F Q o 

^ S 

a 

55 

Q P 

r" fi 



n S s_ 

Cl ;A 

P *~ 55 

^ n ' c 

^^ ' 

c "52 '& 



A * = ' 

^Jjx E 



n n 

Q ^ 

Q p 

ci 



n u 

n . 

~0 

55 n 

f 

I s \ 

25 

~ " 55 



55 



n n 

-^ 25 

^ j 

r 



a - 
: 5 :^ 

"^. p n c 

55 ~ I 

E. .E - 

' C/N n 

j% . r~ 

25 X. . 

n :f ~ - 
Q -^ 



:5:I-p g 
n a S 



5- f~ ^^ 



f~ * 

: .P n *~ 

ir -n 

i- ^ .? 

: s- a 



-r- -22 






' n 
tz x 



n 
c 

o 

. c 



J- Q 

i f^ 



r c 



n 55 

x F 5 



P 55 



X 



-V ii 

l~ ^ ., 

* "3Si v *~ t~ 

*^ * f-i 

a ^r\ u 

* y *.P 

^| 4U .^ 

P ~r\ ci 

* s ' *- 

cj n 5* 

8 s :r P 2 

F a *" * 

^ Cl . y= 

r E ^ ? 2 

Q *" oc Q O 
O 



C s. 



p X 
Z%\ 

E = ? 



Jx 
25 



GEONIC RESPONSA 223 



2rJ??S~Enarx . S . tg 

R ~ a 2 Q ~C E * 5* S& 

s**t.-gg M ^': 

" fj s. > ^ r ^ 73 " 

'~*~Fp 1 ~22S2" r:rI Jl. 3 J! - *3 

rl fc- y O X n "* 

X ; s> ^5?^.a^-22f;Q B"- 60 r ;-" 

~*rxPe"--~ J> r- I I * I 

oax&r-ji^Saa I 3 fc p 

?03S-.-^nPrrpn 5 " 
'tl^f-in r~ rv IP 

n a c Q ! 35 _r\ ^ j^ -I> ;; 

r^cEji?nS2E- 
5 c & jx S 



k ^ ' 

^ S" 8 p fc 

n-Q DQn^o 

Pv i -f^. v 2222 r .Q 

n r-r na ~ob : ^ 

pf-IJ^p-'ri;iJ22j 

^^ 1= 1 22 JS *^ - fN 22 



X 



f H r ^ * -2 

rt^'^>1C I n Sil- 



SSa^srSa I r 

.0 ; g j= ^ ? g a a o | b ^ 

r = 2 -A | -^ R P F ~ ? ^j -g 

C. JT rv ~J% *^ 

t|s?^5i|g^ * r 

^J^ p^fFFF^-^ ^ 

TX | ^. ^ I^. f 4^. r 

ci-*^I-^f^>l^^'r^*- i^ 

^a^Q 3 2Lrr as r_ar 5 

JJ <^ *g _| Q * 

Ji! 2C * *- % % r\ > ^ C*" ~S t3 

c ^ jr -^ JjJ? _. S^. ^ | 

c~g^ P n ^ n g^ J< f| | 

^2eEs^^2 s ll-il 

~Sn a ^-||qSa 1^5 

n n a ^^^^n ^g.o 

22 n ^8 

C ^ Q !3 r - " 

>% , JJ CC r 

r ^S^- * ft CL 

c; *- n J^ 

c r, B <n 



1 1 * e 1 

ta- i P .2, 



224 



GENIZAH STUDIES 



c C 5 

"^ F 

n ^- ^ 

Q *"! _/x 

a S 

ri n n 



n rr 

f^ 



r 

X 

& r 
" 2 



G % 



ZA r= 



_rx 25 



.-TX 

a 



r~ r 



2 X ? 

C ? " 

^rx n ^ 

*- * -^ 

Q 5 

.f f^ 

^ S F 



g P 



.s 
j, ' c 

H> -n 



r - 



n 

r - -fl n 

n -n r 

S . 

r & 25 



^ r 
n ri 



- F 



n n 
^ r 



'- x 

n c 

r 

55 n 

-C> 25 

? n 



& fl 

n r 
r n 



r- j% /- a 
ss n 



%5-k f y 
SJ _rx * 

C Z* X *~ 



~~ {= f~ *~ *~ 

g R p | 



fc I" o. 



n r- 
~ a 



f~ _R 

n 25 fc^ n *~ 25 

25 r 25 -ft ? "^ 



I I 



c 

p I 

r: n 



S g 
o. *-' 



25 -- 



Q 
fL 
a 



n. 
25 



X 

25 P 

^ n 

,- 25 



a 



x 

a "^ 

Q rr 

25 ^ 

j% r" 

as F 

(?- c 



5" C 
|- J^ 



n Q p 
c f 

2 



" n 

.P "ft ^ 



{I n 'n 

E -rx ' 

S n rr 

^ 25 

a a _ 



2 ^ rr a 

n * *~ 

^pgi 

a a 2 ' 
c ^ 5 ^ 

y 2u 

^ -a n p 

32 ;Q p ^ 

- "S t p 



r , 



a & 

C 55 

n 



X Q t 



' n t n JN 

r- ^ -jx -a 

C*-' ^i f~ 

T\ f *" 

P P Q P X 

t~ E ^" *~ t~ 

v * A S S 

a S iE ^ 

* n "-T- i 

a > ri n 

w fl n ~rx 

rr a E ~J> n 

. 25 , . p. 






25 f - 



a n r 
j^ a s^ 



r 

& n 

' 

Q r: 

fi -fi 

n c 

II 



I " 

Q 



c r 

^ Q 
~i "l " 



-r s : 

R n 



25 



J3 



GEONIC RESPONSA 



225 



E t> a 9 



P c 



a JA 

s *- ; 

n > F p 

52 *- f -K *- 
Q v: "-a 



c ix 
b -^ a 32 



P S3 



p _rx a 
52 



F 



'- n 
S 



52 

n 

D 

C 
52 






S - 



n ' " o 

o f- O 

iS ri S3 

n c n 



32 



c '- 
a ?v .- 



52 S 



Q 

52 ~J> 



H fi 

32 n 



^ *n 

g S r & P 



r c 
a 



n " 



n 
n 52 

C 5. o 



n ' jr 

^ a a 52 n 

c. c -^ ^ 

a 52 32 r- 

l~ st a S ^i 



jr p $3 '- JJ 
C *^~ 

n S i~ S3 ~ 

c a ^ ^- Q 

n *" x n C. 

a ^- r 




c ' 



Q 



c sc 



- is a a i 



r Q 



S3 52 



& S2 * 

c ^~ S3 

r ^ r 

s z ^ 

S 52 2 

S f f 

52 



C) 52 
f- S3 

r 



^ S3 



s ~? a J? * r 

p ^ &- n n 



Q 

C '-I 

S3 i= ? 

o n n 

a P n 

^ ^ 5s 

*- n * 

^-^ n 

n a 



n ^{ ^- 55 



*^ 32 

*y - ^^ 

r S ^ 

' ^ x 

S3 C ^/x 2 

^ ^3 5& 

n a ^ 

^ rv ' ^ 

^ -i> |- 32 

S &' n. 



n a 



*^ 32 

n o 



i- -n * * 

n j- 35 

^ * ? - 

j^ 52 a 

^ ? Q C 

n _ 32 p 

r- n c ' 

& J^ J- f\ 

a n & 



t? 



5 n 



f * 

S. 

Q 



5 e * 

1.2 S 
^ ^3 3 



1 
S S 



r3 a 



.0^ 

M |^ 



^ " -g 
o.g 



5>| 
"- 

s? Co 

I W 



2 a 



.2 B 4 

5 W ^M 



03 qjj cs 

^3 a; r g~ 

O IN CQ 

.s I 



p. ^ 



^j ^ * -D 

" . O 

2 r- * S 

E rt 'C c3 

a * s? a g 

^ ? ^^ 2 

. S 83 



^ .2 



M PH H P5 7 



226 



GENIZAH STUDIES 



J= fe- 



a ? 



-a 

as 



fi- 

o 






as 

i~ v 



o -as 



* P 

!> P 



as as 

- 



n as - 
:& F 
as 



as as as 

n t~ o 

^ i F 

a c 

^ J! ^ 

^ *- i> 



ri r 



r * s 

Ada 



Q 



O C -Vi 
T" r 



:E ? 

Q ^ 



V* 

r r: 






c 



as r- 
o - ~r\ 







C *- l~ 

&*! 

-~ *^ 



n *= 
C c 



- n c 
n " a 

*T *- 



as n- 

I; 



o - y 



Q 



a r a 



Si * f~ 

as Q 



5* *=- n s- 



s 



r= .Q 
c. C 






Q 
Cl 



n J=- ~ JJ_ -- 

*-k .Jx * 



Cl Cl 



~ r 
fa I 

P Q 



2~B 

J% fi- 
, a 

Q 



P ^ 

a Q 

c n 






Cl ;* 



~ 

-c^ 
r 25 



a ^ 



a rz 

t^ S 

ri 5, 

f~ ^ 

n Q 



J| SS p 

;' a"fi 

as 
a 



a r 
as Q 

c ^ 

fj 

^ n 



. P S 



^ c 



n 5 



a *- 

- Q 

O 5~ 

i^- O 



as Q 



Q J 

__ * 

\l 

a f_ 

as 



n a 

C jx 



S fc f 



^ 

r -^ 
Q : 



P S : S. 

J>. r: ;^ 
52 -Q. -ci 



^ I 

as ^ 







a 



n - 
r S 



IT Q 
n Q 

3-S 

C n 



5 
^ 



GEONIC RESPONSA 



227 



55 -Q ~ 

n P n 

-jx ij 

I 2 

X 55 n 



? r 



' P 

rl /% 



3 



f* I n 

*- * r~ 



n n 55 



t E 



L c : 

__ Q 5 

^ ? 2 



o. 
n 



fc o r 



c: 
n 
3 

f 

55 ' 

^- -F 



I- o ri. 



o n 



~J\. 

c. *- 



S S 

c 1 . 

^ I 

y *~ 



i- n 
Q o 



^g 

I 2 

I 

r ?i 






1 JA 35 

Q P- S- 

C ^ 

ii p ' 

7" ^ p 
" J5 

r- r JR 



rr r- 

r 

g 55~ n 
v 55 ^ 

Vi r 55 



r Q L 
c r 55 

55 -f- 



O n ^r\ n rr 

r~ Si 55 .J^ ^ 

lr r n -^ *~ 

-^ Cl n. *- 55 



n 



Z- 55 



r P 



~ p E 

*" f~ *^ 

n & ? 
f~ h r 

^ x i 
^ " 

MI 

55 Si n 
cr Q S3 

^ Q C 
P E p 
s. ^ 

r 







C 55 



rr Q 

, 55 

J\ 55 

ij 



' r ^ * 

E S 

a M p C 

2 P n ^ 

C F T -fx 



C ^ 



3 ~ 

- c 



C -' 
Q 



*~ . 

t- c 
n n 

g 

^ S 



55 fc- 

P *" 



*- % H 



^rx n Si 

f *J^ 



a C 
** 



p 

-. n 



IN. ftk JJ 

* 5^ * fT 



n 55 Q ' 
^\ ^ g , a 



c 

c Q 



J-~ 55 55 

n n . n 



n 1 ? 



C 
^ c 
rr 

"~5 
^ 



CS O 
VO U 

S" 1 



i 



^"^ I 

t|| 



Q 2 



228 GENIZAH STUDIES 



XXV. 

Fragment T-S., vellum, one leaf, 26 x 17 cm., clean, square 
hand, containing five Geonic Responsa, the first and last in 
incomplete form. 

1. The first Eesponsum deals with the legal status of 
a deaf-mute, especially with the question as to whether 
his written order has validity. The Gaon decides, that 
a deaf-mute may transact business by means of orders 
in writing, with the one exception, however, that he cannot 
divorce his wife in this way if he married her before 
becoming a deaf-mute. 

2. In this Responsum, the decision is handed down, that 
a man is not obliged to provide for his divorced wife, 
unless she has an infant at the breast, even if she is in 
a state of pregnancy. But his duty toward her begins 
from the moment of the birth of the child, which, according 
to Jewish law, remains with the mother. It is noteworthy 
that the question addressed to the Gaon refers to the 
opposite view held by older authorities, that a man 
divorcing a pregnant woman has duties toward her. So 
far as I know, the view here attributed to older authorities 
exists nowhere in Rabbinical literature *. It is possible, 
however, that Maimonides did know of it, which would 
explain his distinctly setting down his opposition to it in 
Ishut, XXI, 17, whence the later codifiers must have taken 
their paragraph upon the subject agreeing with the Geonic 
decision in our Responsum. 

1 Com p., however, Responsa, ed. Coronel, 76, and above, p. 214, line 2 ; 
and also Geonic Collection, ed. Mantua, 175, this Responsum being 
repeated in 322. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 229 

3. Here we have a brief decision against the view held 
by the author of the Halakot Gedolot on the question, 
whether in all circumstances heirs attempting to collect 
bills are to be made to take an oath affirming that their 
father, the testator, had not received payment. It is the 
resu7ti6 of the Responsum found in Harkavy 1 , no, the 
same one to which reference 2 is made in Tur, Hoshen 
Mishpat, 82. 

4. The fourth Responsum is concerned with the question, 
whether coined gold is to be considered as money or as 
merchandise. The author of this Responsum is probably 
Rabbenu Hai, as may be inferred from the view quoted 
as his by Alfasi, Baba Mezia, IV, i, near the beginning, 
which coincides with the decision given in our Responsum. 
Comp. also Harkavy, 45, of which our Responsum may 
perhaps be the resume 3 . 

5. The fifth Responsum deals with the law of Nruno 
mB. The Gaon's view upon the subject is lost to us 
through the incompleteness of the fragment. Its probable 
author is Rabbenu Hai, with whose Responsum in 
Harkavy, 35, ours has several points of discussion in 
common. 

1 The passage in a"n , to which reference is made in the text, is found 
on p. 431, ed. Hildesheimer, and p. 105 d, ed. Venice. 

2 Comp. also Miiller, Mafteah, p. 242. 

s Comp. Miiller, Mafteah, Introduction, p. 41 (n"y), who properly ascribes 
it to Rabbenu Hai, though in the body of the book no reference is made 
to it under Hai. 



GENIZAH STUDIES 
(Recto.) 



230 



NIP! NEp Kim iTJ?D Wlt DJ p 'yB> pi 

INT Ni^-in Npi vr 2ri3i WI^D Nin ni>y N^ N^P NJINI 
mn 3 'boa p 'yop pi by vi2n v^>y pp^n pro* 2 ION N^ nw 
'NpiD NP Njn 'EN NP pinnae ripen I^ENI N:W 
NSD 21 iTi> n>N nim wbn n ina inx Ma^n N^ 5 



21 'ON wna 21 nb 'op mpo ba nb *uw> xb 



pno 121^ ^un? ^ by SIN ru*o p^xn Npi nns^iy 

PJN ^Di 11 2113 rrjnftj5 N^HN pn^no pnoN nin 2nan 



'ONPI nn^m ,-WD ^piax' JN^DN Knnm 22 i>y i 



pjyi? 5>3K D^DJ pjy!? ^^D wn ^3^ 

^a N^N '.12 ybsn JND 3^ n>in nwnoi 



p"N1 Np 0321 2N Kill * UH3 

QIQ Trb ni? a^pioi n^ yo nnn NHJ^S n^y 15 

D ^3 1N^ i?2N D2H3 iSJD N^l DiTBDI 12^2 HHy2 
KniVN Jin^NtJ^l 1^3 D2H3 

noro WD ni? 2n 1| Dij 2- |1| rT'O n^y2 niopn Nni2yo 
nNi "NBP pnst^Ni N^IN NiN2iy Ninn 
i2yn 6 pn^no NHN in^cyo wpiNi rb ynh 20 

noiina 
pin 



NIID-'N 



NHN 



IN 



2 = ' 



IN * .1 pN 25 

* ^21 N3M 

p3.i NJHJN 

* Gittin, 71 b. 



1 = 

4 = iDbn. 5 Reading doubtful ; np">roN? 

' Febamoi, Mishnah, VII, 4 ; Gemara, ibid., 67 b. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 231 

(Verso.) 

pn'onoi npwo nap xb\>w\ 'on^n ny 
na 2 w si? nwitD arm Kin N-vnni 
niaiyi> nuwo anaa i>y nw KIKOJI bi prvano 
rwanay NP pam Naraw panai tttmb na N 
nnnN ^y am IDB' wnnns? D^oin 11 3 nia^na Kxoan ^asra 5 
mx I^SN Kin ynat? pyat^j wn yna Dnsirvi? nnb now 
N^ niaijna reman KH^D xm ana *yna WKB> omaK 
N~IJH ^a^a nii>wa n^mao nnawn ^i N^n pna 
an ^oi>BD pa^ ^ypnpo pa *oa: TKB^ NI^S ^aaij xarm 
N^I ana N^IK ^aoa pia wpi xya^a iisn mn 10 
ni^N^a ntyniao nnait^n s^i KI^B N!>K 
NH 4 mim an 'ON jwkwn 

naioa pnosi n^ia na jraao K 



nntr ''DNa nn^ moon 'N 'DNT ^n Nn:n 15 
H OB' 'JNpn trinn ^y IN njn ^y a^nan 
. . p N^N Nn-" xi? sn^DKa NiDt^ Ninn mn xta my 

Niopn p*an wnn pan wno ^ 
IN Tan ^y i^ ana 7 N3n tern n"b *yao 
Nina ND^P rano IT nn njna ^ mina HK> B>inn 20 
naioa Nnna NH Nropin <i NT nowaa IN ^D 'nin 
ny n:p N^> nao -iBtra ^NIOB> 'N ai nnyn 
n pnoN NH Nnna NHO wwon an n'- 
am nnjn ^BD im^ naia rb pna urn n 
mn^ B>pa mnoa pnj am NDB> iia D^DO ^a^a 35 
inia nN nia^i? na na pe6 ii> ana no^i 
N&i>yn 3*at nNsw ^KB> nnyn JBD men 
Np na 11 pyai moo i>Mni> nxn Nin^ nai "Nna Nni" 
jnu *an jro runoa s<i Nn pnN yar ana -I^BNI paro 



1 Readnmbn. * Read -pc. 

3 j*n, ed. Hildesheimer, p. 431, end ; ed. Venice, p. 105 d. 

4 BabaBatra, 40 b; rvroB = WTVDTD. * Read nrro. 

* Reading doubtful ; n ':w 'NOT? T a&a a<ra, 51 a. 



232 GENIZAH STUDIES 



XXVI. 

Fragment T-S., one leaf, 25x21 cm., vellum, squarish 
hand, rather careless, not tending to cursive, written below 
the line. It contains a single Eesponsum, the beginning 
and the end of which are missing, notwithstanding which 
its contents can be made out satisfactorily. A man had 
given power of attorney to two others to write and execute 
a bill of divorce. The appointed agents, instead of carrying 
out his instructions to the letter, had the instrument 
written by a scribe. The question put to the Gaon was, 
whether their deviation from his orders did not invalidate 
the divorce. The decision was favourable to its validity, 
on the ground that it could not be made to appear that 
the principal had specific reasons for entrusting the actual 
writing of the bill to his agents. This view is based on 
Gittin, 29, the passage which deals with the law of the 
messenger bearing a bill of divorce who deputes his errand 
to another, and the Gaon agrees with the interpretation 
of the text given anonymously in Alfasi. It may possibly 
be this very Responsum of ours which is referred to by 
Alfasi. The Gaon, it is worth while noting, holds that 
the norm, according to which Rabbi Johanan's opinion 
prevails against Rab's and Samuel's, is applicable only 
when he is pitted against Rab alone or Samuel alone, not 
when the two explicitly agree with each other, and to- 
gether oppose him a much mooted point among the later 
methodologists l . 

1 Comp. Heilprin, Seder ha-Lorot, ed. Maskileson, II, 204 ; Lampronti, 
Pahad Yizhak, i, 86 a ; Malachi Co6n, Yad Maleaki, no. 558. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 233 

(Recto.) 

N'ano ....... nm lama m aa M mum .... 

"ilia T.be>io ftfvy nsa ^BDpro * niaa ib^io nvn? w . . , . 
Dnyn 2 'aNnpn Nnapn pan nay Dinnb nny pyn> Nbn nan . . . 
'ONI 'onin PN ny 'bim 'boa p 'yocj> pn 'DM 'iai pynpo Qinnb 'jrii> PNB> 
'boa p 'yot? 'm 'yo MD nrybN 'n 'ONI 4 'yot? 'biai not? 3 sans ..... s 
nwwy DIB>D xn;pn pan nay MriMan Naa pai : B nwy ^MIB^ niia W 
DJ Maon 6 pm r jpn pan may DM nanooi 'c^ 1 }"IN DJ N^aoni 
^y t\xn nnx Ta in^ nr nn ni?m J?Mn^ psa 
jva IHM n^B> in "iiK'i? Nnityi n^ an* x^i n^ 
: rvta IB>D MHWI ^ n^n M^I xni^n i^ n^i N^ n^ nos sh 10 
onyaa 101x1 in^i pn n^a neny 7 *JNnp on nanoo 6h M^aon 
n^n MB^B pn n^n N3xa an 'DM nby 'noMi 'nna ysa anaa a'aa 
T Nniix rbr\ 'JxnpT Mm nbn M^n aa by SJMT pnn in 'om ino 
N nbm im T'hn ^DMI 'DM n^ya IN pp6Di na i^ini f? 'ciop 'axnp 
Mn 'Da p r ^ 'n 'WK n^ya IM yM nbni i^in ns 'boNT 'DM n^ya 15 
N ina'M ' 'ab IN *WM^> Da 8 iana D^^b -IDN xnavr, p^amoi 
bya byan 'wap Ditro M^M 'oyra sin nns sl| aN 'DM^ N 
^xp 'anMi T^n DN n^ 'DNP sh Dit^o MnWi 'oybn 

in n n^ 'DMT3 'nano pnoxn ;va 
NJiapn pan iiayn nans p^yDt? nbn xbn aa by ^N *]"bin HM 'box xbn xa^n 20 

pa^yb niapn pbna pan iiayn aa by SIN Nn^Di : nbn " Nbia pa nbrri pa 
nby pnNi 'ano '121 aan ba 12 pni Tva&fy nb anai a^nan ntrb pya nava 

'iai ptwn ib^sN 'DM bNio^i P^NID pn namaa pbioa jbia an 
^aN 'ON pnv 'n pnnxn p pn 'inaa 'bois PN obia 'ON 'Tyn 
'10^1 ai jinnN pa^yb nainaa ^boa Nb 'DNT nbiaa pnv 'n a'bs oa . . . 25 

MHD^ Nnna po'-p bwo^i an nsa 'yvoN pa^ybi JNnB 11 ^ Nina pop 

^o an prn 11 x na nabn pnr 'ni bNioty pnv 'na nabn pnv 'ni an pnoN "ai 

nnn 'c^a D'-Npn WN bax bNioen 'o^ai am 'o^a n^Npn wbn Na"n 



1 Gittin, Mishnah, VI, 6 ; Gemara, ibid., 66 a. * Git tin, 9 b and 19 b. 

8 Read 1*01 ;NO rrnp. * = Mnyrac bi3i. 5 Gittin, 19 b. 

' Gittin, Mishnah, III, 5 ; Gemara, ibid., 29 a. 7 Gittin, Mishnah, III, 6 ; Gemara, 

ibid., 29 b. 8 Read nn. 9 Our texts read jvn ; comp. introductory note. 

10 Read sb. u Read H?T. 12 G*7h'n, Mishnah, III, i ; Gemara, ibid., 24 a-24b. 



234 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Verso.) 

jNi6 2 'DNI 'ano 'ta '-^a t^n enaon ' pni jam* 'na na!?ri 'nN N^ pnro 

'iy^ 'DIN nryi>N p pyot? 'n jam KM -iryi>N p pyop 'n mpm 'ON Nan 

n No<n iivaN 'ON pnv '11 103 in 8/ ni rb lan^i -mm naoo itan? iy aa 

iiainao a ^DB^ >NOI 13 foa*i> inwpi ^Nin jan ywe' ION pal^n 

)'3 ^ pa 3^ N^N ^DNT p3 Kin hDSI 3J ^ P]XT H^D 

hi* nri n^ X N^ ni? 'rm 'n^ raco ^on srupn r6 nay ITV^N p 
ni aW nti^ D3a ni> IDS 4 N^m 'yi>K p 'yop ' *3n ^NOI 
iiii itbc' pa rvi> >JNB> N^ nry^N p pyot? 'i n^ mm x iai bwv ny 'iai 
6*B> iy Nrupn ni? nb ia^n u ^DB^ inwpn n^ NI^DI ^B!> K^K^ nr 

. . . . i? ions ^a 11 h n ^DB^ inNJp 5 maa iTn^nNoan naoo 10 
..... am nt3K> ^oa^a aa oa 'a ai^ xaxa nnb TD rwvap m 
psi ''DNI m^oan }xoa am itaty mnpn 6 ^a ton soan aa ^y SJNT n^ 
'p^ai nro n^p^o 71^ N^I nhoab xh m^anb K^ man pap DW nb 
N^T n nainab xhsfina Npn p*a ^sb N^N aa :K*ao naa sin n^ 'ON 
pai DIN W> nnni HN nn n!? 'OKI n^ n^ am mm n^ ^pen iy ni? 15 

:DJ Ninna m0an*6 Nnapn n^ nay onn pai aKn 
nina una DNI 7 janTa n:a a^ab N^N!? ana^o manan 
ninna nan n^ nw mp*yon pai nnna IBD 'om 'ONI Nn^-on 
aa i?y PJNI ann NS3N3 nao m^iw !>a N^> n^ p^no a NBJN inna 

ha 11 N^> nainan jo n ^o&h "iao m^ien jva 'oyu ^NOI 'DB ipnon 20 
oa in Nina mao:Ni iyta IN wia n a i?ai Noi'y^ ma nini6 nao 
Dip jo we* N^ ^DNT "i^s^ N^yo NJ^nN oa anai ^ya mn pan nnai 
pmno NP napn nai pai pwoa ina NJ^ N^I PNID': 
iyo IN mnjn ^y niay t6i nap N^ pyo^ i?y n^apn Nin PINT ^y 
Dnyf> nNT a\n pae> ^ai otn "VBB> N^yo ua ni? ana pa inai 35. 

I onm anai IBID^ p^N IIONI nt8>K^ uni oa lana 
onyi vefyyo ninna p^a noab m^N NMni? mao npna i?yan oa 
pana p^N pmn nan oa na^na^ n*bv 11^1 iyoi Nin 



1 Giitin, Mishnah, IX, i ; Gemara, ibid., 82 a. * Giltin, 84 b. 

* The words TCJ . . . f> not in any texts of this passage, but in Gitfin, 78 a. 
4 Gitfin, 788. 5 Read nu. 6 Read po. 

7 Gittin, Mishnah, IX, i ; Gemara, ibid., 82 a ; our texts have not DNI, but it is found 
in the Mishnah, ed. Lowe. 



GEONIC EESPONSA 235 



XXVII. 

Fragment T-S., two leaves, paper, 17x12 cm., square 
hand tending to cursive, very minute writing, thirty-five 
lines occupying only 13^ cm. The copyist who made the 
copy before us must have had a faulty model, as appears 
from several disjointed sentences, and from the fact that 
leaf i, recto, contains but five lines at the top of a page, 
the rest of the page being left blank. The fifteen para- 
graphs into which I have divided the contents of the 
fragment are in part only regular Responsa ; the rest are 
merely short decisions, niplDS rrobn. Possibly, the ex- 
planation of the latter is also to be sought in the circum- 
stance that our copyist's model was not accurately written 
throughout, and he therefore perpetuated only the final 
decision without attempting to reproduce the disconnected 
argument. 

i. The first Responsum contains an explanation of 
Bezah, 2; and, as said above, is in a very incomplete 
form as follows : 



rwa nTia mna iwa mp^ pro 
rrvii crti'D N!>K niD^s fro PN jsia \nw na^G? HITS 
'ha rrvra^ mna -may oip^ DHDK }n 
w ppira 6itj>6 3iD ova mhac? rwa mna 
nwnn p* }n aio ova iar^ Daay 

2. Of the second Responsum, the beginning is missing. 
It contains an explanation of Sukkah, 6, without offering 
anything of importance. 

3. The question is who is to be held guilty of trans- 
gressing the prohibition against coupling and muzzling 



236 GENIZAH STUDIES 

animals whether the one who works with them or the 
one who actually coupled and muzzled them. The decision 
is in accordance with the statement in Baba Mezia, 90, 
which holds that the prohibition is aimed against working 
with animals illegally muzzled and coupled, not against 
the preliminary preparations for work. It is worthy of 
mention that the Gaon reads Nathan, instead of Jonathan, 
as found in our present texts of the Talmud, a circumstance 
important in fixing the dates of Rabbi Siniai, to whom 
Nathan or Jonathan, as the case may be, addresses the 
question. Comp. Halevy, Dorot ha-Rishonim, II, 55. 

4. The Mishnic jWs is explained by the Persian dashnag ; 
comp. Lagarde, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 35, 91, and 
'Aruk, s.v. JWB. 

5. The fifth Responsum is introduced with the words : 
"The Head of the Academy said," and it gives an ex- 
planation of a number of names of plants occurring in 
the Talmud. Unfortunately, our text is in very bad con- 
dition, as in all probability that was from which our scribe 
copied it. The Gaon apparently identifies the two Mishnic 
words D^2^n l and D'Oiy^n] with the Aramaic NSN^n and 
K33^n 2 respectively, whether correctly or not we must 
leave those to determine whose botanical knowledge is less 
limited than the present writer's. The two Aramaic words 
occur nowhere else in Jewish literature, but attention 
should be called to the interesting fact, that Rabbenu Hai, 
in his commentary on Ohalot, VIII, i, explicitly states 
that the word N^TI was used by the Geonim. 

6. The sixth Responsum opens with the formula N^lp, 
very unusual in Geonic literature. It calls attention to 
the difference between the view of Rabbi Nahman, as 
recorded in Hullin, 40 a, and in 'Abodah Zarah, 54 a. The 
incongruity between the two Talmud passages did not 
escape other authorities. The Gaon's solution of the 



1 Written D'2'a 1 ? 'n in our fragment. 

8 It is hard to tell whether these two words are spelled with rr or with 
n as their first letter in our fragment. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 237 

difficulty is lost to us. Comp. the Geonic collection p*j, 41 b, 
and Introduction, 14 a, and Tosafot Hullin,4ob, catchword 
pro 31. 

7. This Responsum deals with Menafiot, 37 a, but further 
than this nothing can be said about it. Our scribe did not 
go beyond the first line, apparently discouraged by the 
state of his model. 

8. Here we have a decision by a 1 N^3 K>N1. A deposit 
was left with a man, the act having no witnesses and 
not being recorded in writing. The deposit was lost, the 
depositary maintaining it had happened through an un- 
foreseen accident, in which case the law exempts him from 
responsibility. The Gaon decides that the man's word 
must be taken, seeing that he might have denied ever 
having received a deposit. Compare the Geonic collection, 
ed. Mantua, 66 and 321. 

o. This Responsum, like the sixth, begins with tf'tjnp, 

j/ A * O 

but this time we have, not alone the difficulty in the 
Talmudic passage about which the Gaon was consulted, 
but also the Gaon's solution. The passage in question is 
Menahot, 53 a. 

10. Here we have the Gaon's explanation of the mnemo- 
technic sign D3j?p3J in Yebamot, 74 b. 

11. The eleventh Responsum describes itself as an ex- 
planation by Rabbi rrtPiE'D. This Rabbi is probably 
identical with the Gaon Rabbi Moses 2 , whom Rabbi Sherira 
Gaon calls ?W1B> in his famous Letter. The Responsum 
is nothing more than a translation into Aramaic of the 
Talmudic passage Ketubot, 5 a, end, on the formation and 
texture of the ear-flap. It is curious that the translated 
sentence should stand alone, without so much as a 

1 There are three Babylonian "JD 'On, whose opinions are quoted in the 
Geonic literature: (i) Rab Huna, in j*m,8b; (2) Rabbi Judah, ibid., 
ed. princeps, 21 d, and ed. Hildesheimer, 131 = avwn 'c, 310 ; (3) Rabbi 
Samuel, comp. Muller, Mafteah, 64, and Epstein, in pjn, III, 80. 

2 Comp. Rapoport's biography of Rabbi Nathan ben Yehiel, note 25, and 
Muller, Mafteah, 63 and 72. 



238 GENIZAH STUDIES 

reference to the Talmudic text. It would almost seem as 
though the copyist had been attracted by the translation 
evidently quoted in a discussion for a purpose, without 
being interested in the discussion itself, or it may be that 
his faulty model prevented him from preserving any 
more of the Responsum. However that may be, so much 
is certain, the Aramaic in which the Gaon rendered the 
Talmudic sentence is perfect another evidence that the 
author of the Responsum is Rabbi Moses, who elsewhere 
shows himself a master of Aramaic. Comp., for instance, 
p. 212, above, and introductory note, p. 211. 

12. This Responsum bears the superscription ^N fjD^ 
D^IXJ, " to some Geonim," which must refer to the rest 
of the Responsa in our fragment, and probably to a number 
of others which have not been preserved, at least not as 
a part of our fragment. In contents this twelfth Responsum 
is identical with that ascribed to Rab Amram in Dl"3, 23. 
It occurs also in Rabbi Judah Albargeloni's DT!yn 13D, 49- 
50, where it is combined with another Geonic Responsum l . 
It is an explanation of the Talmudic passage, 'Erubin, 42 a, 
on the law of poinn. 

13-14. These Responsa are probably by the same author 
as the preceding one, and they supplement the explanation 
given there. 

15. The last of the Responsa in this fragment, which is 
incomplete, though it is likely that only a few words are 
missing at the end, contains an explanation of the ex- 
pression "iin tJ>Ki occurring in Sukkah, 6 b. It is probably 
the source of the 'Aruk, s. v. Comp. t/V, I, 68. 

1 Read in the passage in DTOH'C, 'TE, instead of T", and comp. Perles, 
BeitrCtge, 57-69 ; Graetz, Jubelschrtft, 18; and Harkavy, 'rtjn 'D, 70. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 239 

(Leaf i, verso.) 

rr6 'DN raio o INKO n-ppa PNI nae&P m* iniN ' me>a -"nfj i^> 
>pi p-onv N^I *an 'atm Np N^I "Nm 2 pan Dn pN N3N~i 
votn JUsi u-D pnDN naioo NTom nap twifcTi win 
naiD3 IIVD na KO^JH nina^ D -IKBQ hotab 
pntMn ps? ^3 N^> nap JD sbvi mnoa N^m Nioin!? 5 
nwno nc'sna n-pBon^ rrb p'wi naioa p^pon 

rnci ccnn 

Dioaa na^o nt^-in pjjfc n^n pjy? cntbaa awsm j 
!J nn na BHT nM nn na ami nn noom xaMi pnospn 
^n^i em a^mm Ninn N^N com Ninn a^n^o 
'no fro 'n n^^o sya 3 pnopn a^irm sin ne'yo 10 

IN K3"Nm pya ^na IIP oonn N^ ino pnao 
K naioa pnoNpn nae^i p^D rr6 D^BI N3^ NHI pya nen 
D-'on ^iTn N^ n^n nyt^a oa Nan nna nnn N^ nN-a ny^a 
an:n^ nye ny 'oa D^x^aa anoi an^n ne*yo nycya N^N 
jnpa a^m o^yanxn nx aaio amen 4 pnini 'a^moi jna 15 

m pnop D^b pa^ 5 nn n^ixn ns aaio 
nn N^N a^n^o N^ a^iron Ninn jnpa ^^o <| D 
Npn Ninni anon o^N^a rra paenD NPT pnpa a'- 
np'-yi amo pipa patjns Npn niona ^ni> pna 
- i 'DN 6 p^a*s 'ND j 'D^a naooa niae IT nacr 20 
p\n po^o Nna^nro LTNI DK 'nnoia pirn aitrn w& p 



n*an ncna nn^n S N:IH an 'CK N^ip <7<i JN3iiNi 
}na an a^n^o *niDN IHN J^D n3 DnK^ }V3 'ry 

niNt^n e>i^ rrby an mr may^ pina nat^a nNtan 25 
naa N^iy^ n^ nN ipia pna ai in^ 'ON * 9 onn n^ nao vb 
ia IONI 'ON N.II "^N ^wwi "fW^ NJin an nann 
"Tina "pna ejioa I^DN ha 11 x ji man ma -JN 'yy *zb Non 
t&a e^sn 'DK 'onn N^n nSahm onn pbn HN 'D^ 6n 
nnan vn N^ n^ 'DN 'ya^Ni la^D N"ioe > N!?3 naa ppaon 30 

N^ip *iDJN3 'D^ ha* 1^ vnnrnn nsa ""N nhyo 

nano ^N^ ha 11 " nn^na^ ninaon ba nian^ nmo n^na nniN nma 
nniN n^np^aN Nni nn ^n o^aan onh nn^n ^ne* ?)N 
nniN MD iTninai NIP 'n^a p DN 'pn-nai? pn'-na h 



1 Sukkah, 7 a, end. 2 = '02 on ; comp. note 5. 

8 Ea&a Mezia, 90 b ; the printed text of the Talmud has jmv, but MS. M. 
and others read fro ; comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc. 

4 Kilalm, VIII, 3. 5 = F] ; comp. Harkavy, 353. 6 Baba Mezia, 84 a. 

7 Comp. introductory note. * Hullin, 40 a. 9 'Abodah Zarah, 54 a. 

10 Menahot, 37 a ; our texts and MSS. read 'anm ; comp. also Baba 
Kama, nb. u The second Tra is to be cancelled. I2 Ifenahot, 75 a. 



240 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Leaf 2, recto.) 

i?af> f'3o 'JION "no NT-IB n wo Nya ''nnn runs yot? 
^>B> iniN p-iot?oi pn^iaa metta? nimon 
noai nivo nnN onion 'fiai noao 
non 'ona x pona N^I nona N^> pi^n N^ nt?N 2 wan 
nimo '33 jn nwia D'^n DIBO 4 onn spv an 'OK 'TB 5 

B> 'TB }n prnr owa 
t^oin fain \y\vb IIDK nna 



yoB"i> vbn pawa n 
nypaa n3{y btwor 'ON jom an 'ON n^iN2 

n"n IT nypaa NVIO nnN ' 8 mrno mB'pni D*W iai 
na^i HON D'B^N nthv hy no 

Dipoo n"ni ns'no ir nypn^ D'i2 n 
nn bJ? HON HINO t^oni D^N '^ n^noi? 15 

niNo B>on jniNi ioinn po D'a^N ny 
' ^>y fna i?obt2o d'i3 ma'pn^ nyno lyi ioinn SIIDO 
n^'no 0^12 is'pm ivan ^Nioiri? n^ NTaoi npnr 
pnoNi THM ni^n iN^a N^I Tn'n nwna n^ N'IH 
'NO nhaa n^nna^ bvb&fy N^OT Tn'n nit^ia IN 20 
D'i2 iNan jvan nitro ^O^OOT Nin Npnt 'T ^y 
nin DV niyao N^ noxy na^a nvno 
npma N^N '102^ IN!?I 9 n^ia natj>n b mow nac> nvpo 
n'oyoa D'a^Na T^no 'ON N2in am i?Nio^ nNty 
an^> n'i> NT3D1 yaiNa N^N ^D^DO pN ^aN ^NIOBH 25 
'na N^N 'fyxhtA T^ nc> N^I N'on n^onaai N3in 
N!? 'ho^oi 'n win an!? p^poi <% ia^a i^t? niN 
^^ 'ON npnr 'T ^y nbiaa ^obo'3 n'ama ^oboo 
npnr 'T i>y 'bioi?oi? n'i> ntn '02 'an PN win an 
niNo t^on jniNa ivan 10 t^nnN "jv^o' NOK> p'-in N^N 30 
p'^po p'-nnv D'12 nvno nyi ioinn "PI'DIOT noN 
12 "iDN ioinn nnN^n noN IYINO ^on jniN nrnn 
noN D'a^Na ivan nnN IP& NOB> INT pnr6 N^ NJin an 
n'i> TON 'D3 D'ai?N3 .TnniN 'a WJDO Nin ioinn N.TO 
ioinn ppD'on noN niNo B'on H3n n'i?. PTDNT 'hoi?^ 35 



, 53 a ; read 'ON instead of pON. ' Pesahim, 42 a. 

3 Our texts read differently, but the MSS. agree with the reading of 
this fragment ; comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc. 

* Hullin, 123 b ; the quotation from the Talmud consists only of the 

words jn pm c^ro. s Ftbamo^, 74 b. 6 rc'3 or TD'\n:. 

7 Comp. introductory note^ 8 'Erubin, 42 a. 9 Ibid., 70 b. 

10 Read mnc inn. 11 Read rc'm. u ION? 



GEONIC RESPONSA 241 

(Leaf 2, verso.) 

nvna nbn poinnn noK D'B^K ap |ini> urn mrro nyi 

'OK an na rrm ni> niDKn 
an na ii*n 'OK pi 'OIK pnoKpn win ana 

nKitaa mnaap nvno 'OKn asi 
no 'oKn win an^ jryppKi DIB"D n^ moKn Dipoi? 5 
'ja ^y *?Kbwo xbi *n nnosi yinxa 
^O^D^ nnio IK ivsn nnx i^o 1 ' NOB' nnna nypan 
D^Q^NI Nin ivsn 



nnioa Tnn mcn? N"T N? iin nn 
a'yD nrya n^oa noai nsi^on 
nnnio mox nrya svit? nxn^a 
nsna:^ n^non xani niox p*o "pry nnaa 
no nixo tmn nioxn oipob ntyyo nn^n 
DnWin j npnr ^i 11 ^y loinna ^D^tD^ 15 
imc* n^n po 3 nD3in n^n nnpn *OKI 'a^n 
micas nnic> Vy'x nnp^n na^n o^aaaD nnpn 
nnpn na^n o^aaao IHTO ^101 P'a riios HDD min 
Nynx ny Nonoi Nnmn jxoa nnpn ru^ nnrn 
inv nnpn a 4 pncsp^a 12 ^ta^ta^ b nnion nna n^> 20 
mp*n na^ ^oj xan Kntwno n*nK niai Dnioi 
no n*nK nwi nn inisa ^D^D^ nrnoi y-wn ny 
a^ nmoi pn ny nnain nnp'-n nat^ naa xan 
nyanx j^yan jya Nnsvno P H DS niai nn inixa 
paa nao ny niyao^a Jjn na^ ^y 33 n nira yanxa 25 
nat? ^y psiyai mew ^on jnaa nun -I^N po^nipB' 
n naio nsn pnoix niox t^on inaia nvintj> 
^n nioN twn 'va naoo m n^ nvno bi 
Kim piainnB' ia jniK psn 7 p^nip^ niK 

wnvi naja >ctn ^n tsn^n^n Nnxyno p'aN ma 30 

niaan ^n^ npy ir naio '^ITB p 8 nin K'Kn naaai 

jani n^nnra jan Kn^ncra n^cinn jaim n^anyta jan 

jna^na n"n^ pan wn 9 pnioxpi ravbv nnn'-a 

rroyp p^n nata jniK n^y pnoKi nao I^BK 

niom ph? IOD n-'nnra jana nnajna an 'OK 35 
Kpn Kvrn Kwn naaa Kin nn nyw ^nty naiD^> n^> 



1 Read nipn'i. a 'Erubin, Mishnah, I, 8; Gewara, ibid., 15 b. 

a 'Erubin, 42 b. * Sukkah, i8b, top. 5 Ibid., 4 b. 

6 Text corrupt. T Read j'D'Wp'nD- 

8 Sukkah, 6 b, below-7 a, top. 9 Ibid., 6 b. 

R 



242 GENIZAH STUDIES 



XXVIII. 

Fragment T-S., two leaves, vellum, 31 x 23 cm., good, 
regular square writing, between lines. It contains Geonic 
explanations of thirty-six separate passages in Bdba Kama, 
occurring on seventeen folios, between fol. 51 a and fol. 82 a. 
Such a collection of Talmudic comments is a rare phe- 
nomenon in Geonic literature, from the point of view of 
the number of passages commented upon, passages, more- 
over, that follow each other closely in the same treatise. 
There are only two parallels, the collection at the end of 
p'j, by Rabbi Nahshon Gaon, on the treatises Sanhedrin 
and 'Abodah Zarah, and the one by Rabbi Hai Gaon, 
in Harkavy's Responsen der Geonim, pp. 144-5. That 
our fragment contains actual replies to actual questions 
put to Geonim, and is not merely an extract from a 
Talmudic commentary, is proven by such phrases as 
Dn^NWi (leaf i, verso, line 29, and leaf 2, verso, line 27), 
and jy!B> UK "p (leaf 2, verso, lines 17 and 19), and similar 
phrases. Though the comments are very concise, they 
contain excellent material for the text criticism and 
exegesis of the Talmud. 

The following are the chief points of interest in the 
fragment : 

II. From the Gaon's explanation of the passage on Bdba 
Kama, 51 b, it is obvious that his text of the discussion on 
fTVn differed from ours. According to the present reading, 
Rabbi Eliezer accepts nT~n, and his colleagues, the D^rin, 
reject it; while according to the Gaon, the reverse is the 
case. But what is of still greater importance is the Gaon's 
contention, that n"Vi3 in this passage has nothing to do 
with the legal maxim which bears this name in Talmudic 
literature. Furthermore, it is safe to assume that the 
Gaon's text lacked Rabina's statement ; otherwise his 
opinion would be wholly untenable. The Gaon's reading 



GEONIC RESPONSA 243 

and his explanation of it would do away with the difficulty 
experienced by a number of commentators and codifiers 
in reconciling the contradictory statements regarding the 
principle of mna in the Talmud. Comp. Rabbenu Nissim 
Gerondi, on Nedarim, 45 b, and the authorities cited by 
him. The only authority whose explanation of the passage 
approaches the Gaon's is Rabbi Aaron ha-Levi, quoted 
in Rabbi Bezaleel Ashkenazi's nvaipo nta^, on Baba Kama, 
51 b. There can be no doubt that Rabbi Aaron had the 
same text as the Gaon ; our present text would make the 
explanation impossible. 

VII. The words fy3nr6 K>pm are doubtless a lapsus calami. 
The Talmudic discussion in 95 a refers to D^x^a, and not 
to nyain. Comp. Rabbi Samson of Sens on KUalm, I, 6. 

IX. The Gaon justly compares the Aramaic Kltrp with 
the Arabic 3Dp, and explains it as meaning a certain kind 
of palm-tree, while the author of the *Aruk, s. v. 2vn, 
misled by similarity of sound, explains it as meaning cane- 
sugar, which, of course, is incorrect 1 , notwithstanding the 
endorsement of Maimonides. But attention should be 
called to the fact that, in our passage of Baba Kama, 
even the c Aruk defines 2B>p like the Gaon. 

XL On 58 b, the Gaon reads pm, not Prn, as our printed 
text has it, while the manuscripts and many of the old 
authorities agree with the Gaon's reading. Comp. Rab- 
binovicz, Dikduke Soferim, loc. cit., and on 'Erubin, 106, i. 
Low (Aramaische Pflanzennamen, p. 155) was therefore not 
wholly justified in rejecting the reading pm, which has 
the weight of authority in its favour, ^he Gaon's explana- 
tion of ptn, as young plants of wheat or barley before they 
have developed stalks, is found literally in Rabbi Bezaleel 
Ashkenazi's nvaipD nePB>, on Ketubot, 60, where it is 
explicitly quoted from a Geonic collection. 

XIV. The Gaon's reading pWDK in place of the pilBDK 
of our text is probably correct. It may possibly stand for 

1 Comp. LOw, Aramtiische Pflanzennamen, no. 
B 2 



244 GENIZAH STUDIES 

Ispeara in Armenia. Comp. Neubauer, La, geographic du 
Talmud, p. 387. 

XVIII. The explanation of &my as mint? rfoay rvaB is 
very strange. A water-pitcher, mac, is entirely out of 
place in this Talmudic passage. There can be no doubt 
that it should read t^SD, tapestry. Furthermore, the Gaon's 
description of the colour as black is probably due to the 
etymology of the word N3y, depressed, gloomy, dark- 
coloured. Comp., however, Bekorot, 45 b, and c Aruk, s. v., 

ITBB. 

XIX. The explanation here given for nTT1p is found 
literally in the *Aruk, s. v., the author of which may have 
had access to our source. 

XXL The definition of ND311N is found in Rashi, who 
explicitly admits having taken it from Geonic Responsa. 
It is worthy of note that the Gaon reads ND3TIN, with our 
printed text, and not NnailK, as most of the old authorities 
have it. Comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc. 

XXV. The Gaon's reading nrvsn is found in a single 
MS. of the Talmud, while all other MSS. read with the 
printed text JV^n. Comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc. 

XXIX. The Gaon's explanation of onso D'3^3 is highly 
interesting as the probable source, direct or indirect, of 
Maimonides in his commentary on Kila/im, I, 6, the Arabic 

text J of which reads : ^K 31D3D W&K a^K naa n^a 

frnpta Ml "ISD. This would lead to the supposition that the 
proper reading of W3 is naia. It is not likely that the 
Gaon would characterize the dog as Ethiopian and Chinese 
in almost the same breath. Concerning the " Chinese dog," 
compare Dozy, Supplements, s. v., and Friedlaender, Der 
Sprachgebrauch des Maimonides, s. v. ; and also mmpD no 11 ^, 
ad loc., where an explanation of >- iai3 2^3 is quoted from 
a Geonic source nearly identical with that given by 
Maimonides, except that "1313 is taken as the name of a 
place. Rashi has various explanations in different pas- 

1 Edited by S. Bamberger, Berlin, 1889. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 245 

sages. Comp. ad loc., and on Yebamot, 59 b ; comp. also 
' Aruk, s. v., 1B3. 

XXXI. The explanation by the Gaon of ptsnin as meaning 
" ploughed fields," is very strange. The passage permits 
of no explanation except " woodland." 

XXXII. The fragment is probably corrupt in this passage. 
Instead of "HIT, the reading should be nin, or, as n and n are 
almost indistinguishable from each other in old MSS. 
it may possibly be ITin, the more so, as the Gaon goes on to 
explain 13in as the branch, and nin as the trunk, of a tree. 
The Gaon's explanation of nin is quoted in Rashi from 
Geonic sources. 

XXXIV. The text here is not altogether clear. It seems 
that the question put to the Gaon must have been, Why 
does the Talmud repeat the word fpTi with the last of the 
ten institutions of Ezra"? The Gaon's answer cannot be 
made out very well. Perhaps the question was based upon 
misreading D^lp as DWlp, the false reading suggesting that 
the tenth of Ezra's ordinances provided that one "called 
up " to the Torah had to take a ritual bath. 

XXXV. Here we have the Gaon's decision that the tenth 
of the institutions of Ezra, the one on the necessity of 
a ritual bath in a case of impurity, remained in force 
in the Gaon's time. Comp. above, pp. 40 and 206. 



246 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Leaf i, recto.) 

2 . , . n B3n & 'ONI noyo on ^n NnnN3i mew ninab can ' PN i 
ntjTon IN c'nat: nysiN nun NnnN iyi "W^B icnao D^HBD mwy N^nm 

TTJ&N 'n n^naD mpy nn D^nao ntjw nnma na'K nvy NnnNi H 
nbiN ONI ^ run n3r6 IKJNI tyo nSnion 3 MOB' Nin wto mna B 'IN 

13^B >N3 ^1 li> TDDBD 'IN 3py p ITjrfo 'l BWIBtt inOHJTO 3n 5 

nann Nin nna nr B'DnB'o'j ibirn inootr jva 4 mna tr* nno 
ny 133 nnna px nao 3py p nry^N 'n otwi 13 3nrui 
CTNns ^no wnB B^n IN ry B n3DnD Nino T^ TD 
njmnB*3 Nno-'n 3*1 OB^ Wan } onN trn is' inns nstwj Nirn |Nsn RV1 rrro 
SID N^ Tii3 nyhDty 6 noo ntno Bn nb ntjny MNV ^y ISN nin* 10 nw ^s- 
7 -IDN 13 *iMn KD "Qnwi' IBID on i3Jivr6 raioi ^Nin iv ^^ T33? 

j , WVOD 

NTI n3iD7 nbnn 3in3.n u nnsi 3D33 n3iD7 n*wi3 3n3^ 
3ro: N^ l3rtST6 nini^m nn3in SJIDB* OBOI 3ita 's nixn 

ons ny3iN 8 pnoNi fn vi?D 7 po OVDB 3iD Niny v 
ID mim OI^DB V3N nN ^SND tr 11 : 'pnoNi vben OVDB ^3ipi 15 
9 prao vx*3 m 3n 
'niaiy nt33 nns: pw DOBD v3 nn nonn 
^n^3 0^3 *nnn 'nin x:yo Nm t^mto n^3 Nin Nin N^yo NH 
inans^ vwo5> N'-ns N^iyn NDE'D nnx n3 NnN 31 'DNPT m 

JOVi O 



Don 
nyann PIN TIDN naan PJOT nyain no ra^b pwn nn 

srya 



3n*D Bi>n IN D"N^3 DIB>D yrm N^I Nin wo in N^ Knm 35 
u i3io a onn w miy^h non^ *i Ni>n POB 
nanam ny3in ^y NDU^I Nfy I^NI IIDB p^ nvin3 
poo Nin i>pn 12 nn3no N3^p j>pi N133 Ninn jinnn by 

ON nbia t^Ni ib "N '3Dp iniN pNiip D^Nyiot^i anon 
ions -i33on nm onoa PNI irb IT nipm nnN jp3 jn wbv 3 
IN D^n^ ynr Nino 13 prn Nin TIDD pNiyi inN n-iise' x 
K * 1S pin Nipa Nin D^13B> niB'yb B>pin N^ jNiyi p 



Kama, 51 a. 3 Read ntnca. s 5a& Kama, sib. 

4 Comp. introductory note. * Baba Kama, 523. 6 Read no = MOID. 

7 Boba JTama, 55 a. Toma, 75 b, our texts read '"jrp with . 

' Kiddushin, 31 a, end. 10 Read JTUQ or j'HDon. " Read inrra. 

12 Baba Kama, 58 b. 13 Our texts read rm ; com p., however, the introductory note. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 247 

(Leaf i, verso.) 

pn 2 nna NP enm Nnav naan haa <am ilia paw UK na ' 'an via MI 
p pyes? 'ai 'DM DIN ano TIBS ppi noun enn T3 myan nN rwn 
i>3N naoD p^nni na^i r6na i!> IDB> N^N us? N^> iTprm NCBTD w\b 
'n 'iTprn 13 MPTI 'yo MD aTi ni>t?D myia NW pa na.-6& ^ IDD 
IIDQ ni'BiD nnyu Ninc^ ^a by *$* *DJ nan^ty 1^ no I^SN X DN jam 1 5 
r6 ^DCDI n^ iyao ^TN Np Kim n^ ona NpT enm Nnas x yo ^NO 

nahm naaaa N!?N n^yo^ npbn }W myan NIHD 4 nsaaa xm 
n^y an NIH oan DK> pnu *an ejov an 'ON mv mv xiv 
^ aaa N^N an X N NnyoB'i N^PDO av ^iran K/I laatro xv 
6 janoMpi wapi na *w n^ya nw n^yai i?ay ^M 10 
M^I aMpn jaan ncM n^ra triN^ na*am xa'-na naip 
B^M^MI p^a mas ^y mm Min Nnnixi pain IN 
jva n^ra 'aa 'oa Nan Mm iTnwna rh NCP na-'o nixo 
ra <DMI N^ MC-^H IN Mm n^niena ni> Np na^o mMD 
wn jaam rpTi> MHM NiiDNa n^ra nn^ MPM N-i^nna maN 15 
'DN tjor an N<n jaam nabmi .INDD pa'-y!? n 
aNp N^ Da pa-no I^BMI 'asp N^ na 
naNi n^^a^ noan vi>y nayi }*cn ^ra naxi^ spi* an 
nn B^N^no nr noaa j'lon aa Nan niap^ rwn nn ^N-'no nn Na'n 

naniM * noan Nnio^xa mp^n n^ Nn^a N^T mapi> nvn PM 20 
N^T MOWS tJ^N 11 'aai? ND^a IN no*M ^iran N^I laanp naNni? 3N 
inic?n3 wa no Maom 'ON enp in^a HN e>np ^a SJ^NI e>npo so 
na^o ycBi KHN^ IHN IN^ N^N misna ba JM 
neio 'aNnpn NST Mnxnno NivanD mao^m Mai r N ^aNp N^ 
mm p-'a aaB'D nnajn Nioy ^ran NO^IN CMI an Sran N^ 25 

^MD N^N 3Mp N^T 'ONT JMD Na^N ^D n&>y 

snpon nnam pip ^ran s oa Man B>OO aa&ra 
p3coa nona nniy HN naycn PIT jnNot3 na^no PM 
^ia ^ai D^b riNt 8 IIMCD MO on^SfBl piw 5>a II 
pm^ o^ya |n^y pa^no DN jnaN^D moaa t6 9 TN nytj' D^a 30 
10 pm pai nviB> n^yoa nNitai nat^noT HMDID p^apo n^a 
TD p/iy PNI na^noa jnNcta T pmv o^an f>a 



1 Baba Kama, 59 a. * Ibid., 59 b. ' Read pvn na vn. 

4 Ba6a Kama, 60 a. 5 Ibid., 65 b. ' Ibid., 66 a. 7 Read man rrb 

8 Read rwoiE. 9 Read jsirro = JISIT. 10 JTeZfm, XXV, 9. 



248 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Leaf a, recto.) 

nasta pnon vw mpo i>a a p lap Nayy N^m * ns?yo -wea xvn 

2 Ni>>N jriNDOO n3BTIO PN naN^D pID'H pNB> DlpO JHNOBO 

3BD nipn mynn naoo yspoi miner rbuy ITBB N3*y xvm 
ntry -001 naoi 33: ni"vay K^B> "oyp jva s Non3 en/wap 

iK pan 4 T3n ona son rwnvn ia nrvm xonn xix 
sin ym Diaa' ^an *jn*i nay NH^ na nons noisn no-m 6 
in ^ino nm IN Kin nna im mna n^ n^K OD i^na-"! xx 
pao p nphn pnn m^ nr pa runani nnan Kin ina nan 
n^yo mev nonn jn nn vmsd? T'ny 



nciin pa mna i^ t^ lao TND /- i nnen ^nio ye> naw 10 



ao iiyoty x ni DV '11 mw 'm nnien nio naim iae> 

NnaniNn 6 pnoKp * nnien bmo PN p^ni mna ib PN xxi 
}V3 'ON VN an poo ^yn IN n^p NJ^D DBHO^ m*o Npsa 
nnna n>^6 n^ity Nsnitr ^y NJH p n^ynoi JD .Ti> 
N^ won NJIDID "NHI NJ^Q n^|? o^sn INT runs Npa: 15 
na DKI 'ON 6 IIDS N^nni a^n n3^3 naoi 333 * o^am ND xxn 
3 <> n <i o Npn p^a nns 1 -:: ^ rapm WKHD 7 raKn Dipy ib niN3 NOH 
i>si poibtrnn jo nioa WM3 p*nn bn ppl^twi n^y n 
N^ n^ 'ONT M iTvao j3*ybi * poo D^ PN iB' 
>y PIN N^N iKn m>ao3 n3 nb ypo NPT p^a nun^ ny ^ rupn 20 

ono NaNii 7 <3Kpi 1200 naoo n^ ':po Npn 3Knan a; 
rh an s nN-a niinan jva ION ^y Na I^BKI mm HIDN 
N^N ypim b Krr3 N!> n^ 'DNT p^a s oj Kan n3 Ninp 
poana nabn onia^an ova naoi aaa ^ar 8 nan ^iNn -ona xxra 
^poi nc>oni nyaiN w&vn D^WO nmaan ova naoi aaa pm 25 
^n TKD '"i w n ^aN 'ON D^I npii? pN noi npii? PNI Km 
noi npi^ PN KTI nmn na^rn iTHKia Nna^n n^i D^BTDI npii> 
na 'ONT niana nun nin na^n tw'pi octroi npib PNI xxiv 
'ON ^rh nix "ani? nn^sn nnn KO p'ppoi 9 mr mny p xxv 
nnoiN nnN ony TD ^nt^ vnB> paa 10 vbans ann N33 3K 30 
pyoK' N3 ejio^i nniN nt^nam nnnN nN3i pyoir nN piNi 

ann N3 n^ mm n xxvi 



1 Baba Kama, 66 b. 2 Add 1*31. 3 Baba Kama, 68 a. 

* Ibid., 69 a. 8 Baba Kama, 70 a. JBa&a Kama, 70 b. 
' Text corrupt, and to be emended according to Baba Kama, 70 b. 8 Read rrrn. 

* Baba Kama, 73 a ; Nedarim, 87 a. 10 aba Kama, 74 b. u Ibid., 78 b, top. 



GEONIC EESPONSA 249 

(Leaf 2, verso.) 

nxooo mina Kb .Tno nona xbi nonao n^n xb nnayno px abiyb 
nnayno n>n 'OIK vnp inpbnoi nrybtf 'no pn .ninao nxoo xbi 
pyop 'TI 6Q^o ma p oibpo -rb^i najntn nw 'n 'ONI nonao 
npibn ba NIHD 2 la^na ynai aaa l lo^b non iani wxn nnw ny xxvn 
o uunm nmna nunn s pnn napn mpa i^ jna^ nao ^y WTO nne 5 

pnD in-ia 11 ! D'SMK jnix iNi 11 M^ MpT'Ji ^N^M inawj xh xxvm 

^ ab mix pxnip D^Nyro^i Kin ena ab 5 ansa uaba xxix 
nnaay p 6 Nim ppn .Tpitn N^nni NX"IB> m^n ^ po^o i^ni 

nby pon Npn *on pne> po 7 na^a pn ^y pynnro xxx 
"pan aan paa nia^n i?y nisai nwannon nvjyna ^D 10 
n'apn N^an^ prw ^^ p jrew x n 'DNI K'a^a n n^ pnt^a sn N^P 
VITB> nyiayax prre> wi 7 J^ traaao ^a 111 ! pinao n^ onxon ^y xxxi 
nona ^D ^n san 'DNI nnsr n^nna jnona pjno "ptnina pjno 
npn n^nna npn nona bax nan nx TVIDBB PNB> noa mynna npn 
NnB> npn n^nna noa nona paB> ^ai nann N^ moao Nne> 15 
twi^a na Bii6 ntw nt^n pixa n^yj) nayn n^ 9 nDa-ioi 
lain p paw WK na j^Nta 10 pixn p ino nona ^at<D^ xxxn 
i^T'j pjnin NIHET nin p && I^N nnf^ ^ay p nir p K^ 
pbna nnao^ "no w^ la N^N paw UN na N^ ann ban 
ami a 11 'yy nomb ann ban N^D boa^ xbx niy xbi nnM 20 
sion "lanoNn NM a^ann ^n N^anDNa bt3i no NSO xxxm 
nn DP pro a^a-irw aipo baai nbna x^baai a^naxa 
UUP na in BnbNB'K' noa xb U DWIP 'byab n^ao fp^n xxxiv 
nhai wonai uwa mina pxnip 14 ^rfp niry fp^n nupn 
irnto na babab pan nrm njnopn nbyi 13 a^np ^yab n^ao jp^ni 25 
15 Nninapn *ai wonai UP nnina pxnip ww new nyiop pxn p 
nwDio anbxppi 17 iTpnpni nnx nnx ipi&<ai 16 NM mxo xbni xxxv 
7 ap nnno baisb 'np 11 pxa NNT nnion nKDio xbiN ton nnion 
Tns pnxb nnnai np by nixo ir ynt naap uoo xvn a P^NI 

p Nvvn pan prn mo rronowai prr * nnry napna nbuo xxxvi 
aa , . 'Nai napa uoo pboui vby panu pbnn B byp rr 18 pm a^bnan 31 



1 Bekorot, 7 a. z 5a6a ^Tawia, 79 a, top. 8 ^16o<, III, 16. * Baba Kama, 79 b. 

5 Ibid., 80 a. 6 Add jrart mpan? 7 a&a Kama, Sob. 8 Ibid., 81 a, top. 

9 Read nDDTOi. 10 I3ii ? ll Bead no'. 1J JBofca Jfejia, 29 a. 

13 jBa&a Kama, 82 a ; for awip read D'Nnp or D'np. 14 Read vrro. 15 irr jpn ? 

17 Comp. introductory note. 18 'Ervhin, Mishnah, IX, 4 ; Gemara, ibid., 98 b. 



250 GEN1ZAH STUDIES 



XXIX. 

Fragment T-S., paper, 22 x 15 cm., writing square with 
tendency to cursive. It contains three incomplete Responsa, 
the last of them numbered twenty-two (22). 

1. The first Responsum, the beginning of which is 
missing, is a part of a long Responsum by Hai Gaon found 
in Harkavy, 164-7. It deals with the law of njnin ^102. 
It is noteworthy that in our fragment, as in the manuscript 
used by Harkavy, a blank space occurs after the word 
TiDU in the first line of leaf i, recto, yet that the two 
are not copies one of the other appears from their 
differing orthographies. This Responsum is also quoted 
by Albargeloni, in his nnorn 'D, p. 18. 

2. The second Responsum contains an explanation of 
a Talmudic passage, Menahot, 55 a-56 a. The text as 
quoted in the Responsum differs in some details from our 
printed texts. 

3. A passage in Menahot (fol. 37) forms the basis of the 
point discussed in the third Responsum. The question 
relates to Zizit and Sha'atTiez. Unfortunately, besides the 
query addressed to the Gaon, only a few lines of his reply 
are preserved. There can be no doubt, however, that this 
Responsum is identical with that quoted by Rabbi Abraham 
ben Isaac, of Lunel, in his ha^X, II, 101, the author of 
which, as Miiller has shown in his Mafteah, 215, was Hai 
Gaon. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 251 



(Leaf i, recto.) 

nnMP3M ^jn wsr ^yn ht^a pjyh war 



MIDBH XDBIDD it^n D'jrw vn 
1231 runoa M!>I ^na N!> 



n:no 



uwa 1210 ini? 'DM ai 
ana N:P M^ Min DWM IM^M panMai 10 

M^ xyii IDD 
vb 'DMI 3a ^y PJM 



pan 
15 



pan Tna pan 
3n3Mi 'yrio ^103 DJIM? yno 



w MP panai DJHVD ms 

pnpn JMD nay pani 
na an 'DM J pnoMn Mnn 20 
mn n^ 



Batra, 47 b. 

2 Gomp. Theodor's remark in his edition of the Midrash Rabba, 141, 
note i. 



252 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf i, verso.) 

win 'f? 'BN jom an 'DK ^anoK ronsi 



PK 

i na 
yna anyofr 



'NT 



oaa rn npjn 
nr3Ni ^an pan a^nsan 
in bD 'tnaanh Nnts^i xnaitrb 10 
'OK Nynio noNo nai JND 



irn 



a yo ny 15 

11HD iTJHlDl D 

yno N!J ^ 



Nyii Ninn htaan 

jor sin pan 



1 Baba Batra, 47 b. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 253 



(Leaf 2, recto.) 

nmny i>yi nn^ by p3m ' 
IKBK 2 xaa ai 'OK YKIKDJ vnrvaK 
nnxi nnany ^y nnx DW 3n 
noi ynp Km p^pon nnBK y 
Km nw nevo K*n^ mnvo nnBK 5 

K^J 3 NnyE> KiTT nun3 

low 133 K^m Tio^n no }nn 
yon iievn N^ 'OKJP ^sb pon 



no^i nnsn ^33 n^aK naxn K^ 10 

mnw nBK no n^x trpn^ 
nosy <i :a3 n^y p3m Tn ntjyo 



^31 nnsnxn nnc^^ K3K 
> eiio*p *H6 n3B> 
pnoK NP psn novy ^33 15 



Ti3n Tiyn Kn sin nasi Kin 
Kin iiy DK xo^n xin n 
33 vn^w Y3vn nns Nin 

Km 20 



1 Mishnah, Menahot, V, a; Gemara, ibid., 55 a. a Menahot, 563. 

3 Ibid., 55 b, top. * Ibid., 37 b. 



254 GENJZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf a, verso.) 

xnp pt^x x^m xnaaa 'nw an na 
KDO *a 'T xS n^ 'ex xb n 
p'oa^x anno n^ 'x .TO pj 
nr h*ai wi^Tt^jn mrsx 
xb neb t3inn:i waxn ^y p^osiB' 5 
jn^s pi on N n^n noa 
mD n^D2 in^D nn 
xn jntra n^n^ 'x x^x 
mn ^xn x pncn s 
n*3 pa^ TDX mx^ 10 
11 ^ ny rattjw 2 pnxi xn niyi 
xna^n nai ai yi{y 
rnoa DIB>B nvsa proa 8 pnra 



'oxp on sabn ix 3 x^i yiB> xi? xn 15 
np^y wanK wi? ixn 11 wa ix yitr ix 

. . onp^y no nai v i'm yity ni^ion i^x 

MTia xn^Di xann pan 
a'a TDXT xin xtro Dit^oi 4 nnai u 
yanx pn s :n ip^yi Taoyt^ Dims xh 20 



1 Menahot, 37 b. 3 Kt7afm, IX, 8. * Ifenatiot, 40 a -40 b. 

4 Text corrupt. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 255 



XXX. 

Fragment T-S., paper, two pages, 27x18 cm., upright 
square hand, not early, rather small, possibly a part of the 
same manuscript to which Fragment XVII belongs. Both 
fragments have catchwords in the margin. The present 
one contains three Kesponsa, apparently nos. 67, 68, and 69 
of a collection of Responsa. 

1. The first Responsum, of which the beginning is 
missing, and the end is badly mutilated, deals with a ca;ie 
of conflicting testimony. The parties concerned are 
mentioned by name, Elisha and Yazliah. 

2. The second Responsum contains the Gaon's decision 
that a kinsman three times removed may act as a witness, 
a view held by Alfasi as well, while Rabbenu Tarn decided 
against the fitness of such a witness. Comp. II, Tur, 
Hoshen Mishpat, 33, and Harkavy, 253. The author is 
probably Rabbi Nahshon Gaon, whose view, as quoted in 
jnnT 11N, IV, 10 b, agrees with that expressed in our 
fragment. The same Rabbi Nahshon is the author of 
a lengthy Responsum on the qualification of witnesses in 

P% i. 

3. Here we have a lengthy exposition of the rights of 
a husband and wife in their joint property, a case dealt 
with above, p. 155, top ; comp. the introductory note on 
p. 148. 



256 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Recto.) 

ny nanuvo jniTy PN 'pnoNpn K3nnK pinpo pan nra^i K*inp in 
'na Sn }^> 'o'pi nr nnx nn i^aN 'OIK Nnnp p ytw 'm into DW 
wn ainp oa is pnnnp N^a-oi p'-in ntnn nran pnoN w Nnnp p 
mh3^> njno bnpo ^jn NO^P tf BHV nprna nerv JJKDT HWK pTajn 
ny nnn Nrvonp pr ny jr^iK^ n>b ^p mm b n^ nw n^y NPSD^J * iT-ron 5 



naon D'-nxo 'OIK inNi nao 'OIK nnx nyn pnnjn pan ^ 
nb KjnnK K3io pnnnnt? KJ^ 
yiao xh n^ xpso nm JOT 'OK nn w pnnnn^ 

jpnnnnw 

Ky-irro NPI nKa by p^aooi nop 'xni nKa Kn TO mn nnnnb i 

13^^ NH^DT Knino nan 11 !' pr wa^ jwmA Kn^o pnfj NPSDD "" 
nprna nenin ton xcn 11 n^ mm &nn njn i^npio ^>y "im^ pn-pso bai . . . . 
pa pnb p-'soo ix iD^in in^no pr^ mna^ wn nano i>apo ^yi NO 
trcn pa p^ rwn^ Kp^aon NnB> mb mm pmn p 'in^ pmni> 
n^y n^Kanw pnnw P^t6 rr6 n^T Kaa*n 



1 

pjo'-noi -"iN.n o^nvn Nin nwn xn^pNn NnnnB> } . . , . m 15 

mm 



....... a Kpivaa 

PDK IN . , a^pin xnyc> ?o po ..................... T nprn 

in pns ..... p . , y\ n ..... 

nny payh j . . , . 3 
sax an . n 4 'cxpn nrb nr p^an WNT na K^K 



an na no p^xna CJK 'ON N3ni n^a ^3 B^B> 'bn xon na spv 



na ww ann NB>O xnoiT no cnn ^K 3n n3 noa 'Sn n s 7 

^ 'ON xon n3 ^D^ 3n^ N33 3n n^ nben a NnnyoB> ^n ^33 x ^n "{yx 

x pi ni? p^no paia PK WK n^ 'ON -"xo jom 3nn xn 5 xnt2ir no^ x^an 25 

> xsna '^n n^ 'ONP xh ^N 3n na noa ^n rrb 'oxp xn ^x 3n 
x3nno p^pnao xp xbi in FI S DIO xsnno *p\Qvb ix 'ONP 3ini X3xna '^n 

xon n3 SIDV ani? X33 3n mb n^ p^xnsn 'oxp *an xan n^o 
X33 3ni pB>xn3 xin n^ao xpi 'oxp n^an 'oyo Nan Nnyn 



1 Ketubot, 26 b. 2 nnn? s Baba Batra, 41 b. 4 Ibid., laSa-raSb. 

This is the correct reading, and not jonj , as the editions have it ; comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 257 

(Verso.) 

a^a'D Np ata itb N3-i na'o yop N^>N N3mo PIBK^ "-NO 



wan ID N^IN n nirn^ jno nns bw jin^nn in^Ni ^yi wan 

p npl> ' 'ONPTO nnaviab n^ in" *oa IN nrairoa rb 3nn an 
nan 'ON 2 rby pnow op inpo naa-s ^D3 inpo n^xn p nph irrn 5 

rb irre* nnw nnsinsa r6 anat^ nnx nin^ nbr jniss NJIH an 13 
rf? ^"yn *o^ ITDKBH paa -DNT a*m 3 1^ ow rb D^SHB* nnsi 
p np^ ^Di D^DSJ "IN^ MD^ IN 'NO <Biyc& 2 pnoKi nvinwo ton PDJI ni? 

K^a N^ 'KEN SI-ID^^ HB'N N^3^ N^l D^p IHpD H^NH JO Hp^l ntlil B^KH 

o^o^ N^a 11 nahn nrvoai pann^a nn3 n^-y n^ 'oxn .............. h 10 

njo up xb *an y2"D N^ D^DSJ iNBan na^o p^yoan ^ya^ ^n^y nn nna 
vby ni?ya p upi ina na^o up fao* N^N nnainaa 



.... nna 

113DB* H^NI BK 

NI itry K rwwn p upi irm y3o upn 3*n ID^ON 'ON ai nppo 15 

NPDD *n N^NI n^oi in"N pan 
na w 'm ai ja'a-iT Nnapn3 pani in^x b*wn nw *nK pan 
a"yNi a*ar IINH 4 n . . ^ N . . , , <oa IN 
jvan 'oyo 'NO ^yai> Twy nn nna 

mn nao up nnyno 11 ... 'N innopiN nniB'na mpyon to 
N^I juno^piK nnwia mp^yo m na D^J N^n mn h 
in n*mn DN n^ ino ino ON aita nay jn I^N 5 'DKPT . . . b , . . b , . 
Napoo pin pi ninnx n^y ^ap vfa byi by junoB> N^ia DKT 
N^N ^oa inpo nirNn p np^i nrm ^yao npb *a ai^o DDan 
"ONT nry^N 'is 'ONI -WON 'O^N nya INI pnoNi pmo Npno 25 
N^I 'hai 13D3 u'KB* ^ nn vnnn P*KB* ^ nr Q^ov IN ova pB" 
n ^ya i* ^yiio UNP mm n^Nno UNPI ny 'oa ai^o *oaa IO^ONT 
a"yN ninnN b'pi n^y panoB^ ni>yai> mB nouam a*m nainnnn ^y 
rbyib DIB noaaon 6 non'-N noxpn uiar^ bw xb n^nwia pannan 
pin 'ON 7 min 31 o cy pin jnu UN D^OI 'OIN Nim n^tsu UN ^a 'ON N^ni 3 



1 Mishnah, Gitfin, V, 6 ; Gemara, ibid., 55 b. 2 Baba Batra, 4gb-5oa. 

3 Comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc. * Read minb n' nb :m, and comp. Rabbinovizc, ad loc. 

5 Mishnah, Yebamot, VII, i ; Gemara, ibid., 66 a. 6 Yebamot, 66 a. 7 Read mirp. 

S 



258 GENIZAH STUDIES 



XXXI. 

Fragment T-S., vellum, one leaf, 25x17 cm., square 
writing, but not careful or uniform. The fragment con- 
tains thirteen Geonic Responsa, the first and the last 
incomplete, and the rest not legible in all parts on account 
of the blurred writing. 

1. The Gaon holds, that as a rule the blessing over the 
light in the Habdalah ceremony at the going out of 
the Sabbath may be recited by one person, the rest of the 
occupants of the room following in silence. An exception 
must be made in the Bet ha-Midrash, where it would cause 
an interruption ; there each one should do it himself. The 
same question is discussed in Berakot, 53 a, where, in our 
text of the Talmud, the opinion arrived at is the opposite 
of that advanced by the Gaon. But there can be no doubt 
that the text as we have it requires emendation, in ac- 
cordance with what, to judge by the decision he rendered, 
must have been the reading of the Gaon, an assumption 
which finds corroboration in Tosefta, Berakot, V, 6, and in 
the reading of Ibn Gajat, w"w, 1, 15. Comp. Coronel, fro JT3, 
32, and Rabbinovicz, ad loc. 

2. The second Responsum gives two reasons for the 
custom of looking at the hands * while reciting the blessing 
over the lights in the Habdalah ceremony. It is noter 
worthy that the Gaon speaks of looking at the hands, not 
with Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, XX, and Seder Rob Amram, 
32 a, at the finger-nails. Our Responsum is perhaps 
identical with that found in rTc?, 102, 103 (comp. also B>*t?, 
I, 15), and the author of this Responsum as of the previous 
one is probably Hai Gaon. 

1 Comp. Nahmanides, on Genesis v. i, who quotes Sherira Gaon on 
palmistry ; and comp. Halberstam in Kobak's Jeschurun, V, 40. 



GEONIC KESPONSA 259 

3. This Responsum is a brief explanation of Ta'anit, 
26 b, concerning the dances on the fifteenth of Ab. 
Curiously enough, the Gaon refers not to Ta'anit, but to 
the end of pr6a ita, the last chapter in Moed Katon, a 
lapsus calami attributable, in all probability, not to the 
Gaon, but to the copyist. 

4. In the fourth Responsum several passages in Berakot, 
5 b, are explained. A notable interpretation is contained 
in what the Gaon says about the recital of the Shema 
before retiring. According to the Gaon, the Rabbis pre- 
scribed it to give the unlettered an opportunity to comply 
with the injunction regarding the study of the law, at 
least to the extent to which the opportunity may be said 
to be afforded by the Shenia. The learned are therefore 
dispensed from the duty of HDOH ^y w"\>. The Gaon does 
not stand alone in his conception of the Shema' as study 
rather than prayer. The same idea is expressed in Menahot, 
99 b, and Yer. Berakot, I, 3 b (pa'p nn }U*B> nt). But what 
one fails to see is why the theory should require a third 
saying of the Shema, the iiDon ^y B^'p, seeing that two 
recitals of the same Biblical passages precede it on 
every day. 

5. Here we have a brief explanation of Sukkah, 25 a, 
concerning the obligation of parents to induct their minor 
sons into the duty of " dwelling " in a Sukkah. 

6. This Responsum deals with Berakot, 44 b, where the 
Talmud gives hygienic laws with regard to certain fishes. 

7. In this Responsum, probably suggested by the previous 
one, we are given the Gaon's opinion as to the permissi- 
bility of eating fish cured by Gentiles, or otherwise handled 
by them. The decision is that small salt fish are per- 
mitted, because they can be eaten without being cooked ; 
large fish, however, which require cooking to render them 
edible, are forbidden if they have passed through Gentile 
hands. 

8. In this Responsum, the Gaon decides, that on all 
public fasts (ntt'X JVJyn) the Pentateuch lesson is to be 

s 2 



260 GENIZAH STUDIES 

Ex. xxxii. ii et seq., and the Prophetical lesson Hosea 
xiv. a et seq., with the exception of the Ninth of Ab, when 
Dent. iv. 35 et seq. is read from the Pentateuch, and 
Jer. viii. 13 from the Prophets. We have two points of 
importance here. First, the Pentateuchal and Prophetical 
lessons mentioned are to be read only on the fixed fast- 
days, a view held also by Amram Gaon (comp. Tur, Orah 
Hayyim, 566), and Kab Paltoi l Gaon (comp. Rabbenu 
Nissim, on Alfasi, Taanit, I), while Sar Shalom Gaon 
maintains that they are to be read at any public fast 2 
(comp. Tur, ibid., and a"n, 3). 

The other point is rather novel. According to the Gaon, 
Maftir is read at the morning service on a fast. So far 
as known, none of the rituals bears the Gaon out in this 
respect. The Ashkenazim have Maftir on all fasts, but 
only during the afternoon service, and then the passage 
read is from Isa. Iv. 6 et seq. The Sefardiin, Italiani, and 
the Yemenites have no Maftir on any fast except the Ninth 
of Ab 3 , when they read Shubah. 

It is open to serious doubt, whether the text of the 
fragment is in good condition. It is not improbable that 
nmoa is to be inserted on line 10, verso, after p"VDal. 
If this reading is accepted, the Gaon is concerning himself 
only with the Maftir of the afternoon service. That the 
text of the fragment stands in need of emendation is patent. 
On line 11, verso, T"n DM 'n DM should read r'n DM 
"n DM, otherwise the very next line, giving the lesson for 
the Ninth of Ab ('n DW), would contain a contradictory 
statement. It should, however, be mentioned that the 
custom of reading Maftir at the morning service of fasts 

1 Muller, Mafteah, under Paltoi, has no reference to this decision. 

2 The Responsum by Sar Shalom is found also in the Sulzberger MS. 
of the yVo. Comp. Marx, Untersuchungen sum Seder Rab Amram, 16. 

* In Mahzor Romania, ed. Venice, 61 a, in connexion with mca mrr, 
mention is made of Maftir lum for the afternoon service, but with the 
remark p lan: Kb -ONI, while under isa m-ujn it is said: pTOEOiD mVrrp rcn 
ittrn. These nV>np must certainly be those in Romania. Maimonides 
knows no Maftir from any s*n. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 261 

is not entirely unknown. Comp. Maseket Soferim, XVII, 7 ; 
Isaiah di Tram the Younger, on Alfasi, Taanit, II, 2, 
quoting Geonic authorities for the custom of reading 
icm on fast days (in the morning ?); :"n, I44 1 ; and Geonic 
Responsa, ed. Lyck, 79. Comp., however, sn"D, 28 b. 

9. The Gaon decides that those who deny themselves 
meat and wine during the three weeks from the Seven- 
teenth of Tammuz to the Ninth of Ab, should not abstain 
from them on the Sabbath, even a Sabbath which is the 
eve of a fast. On the latter point, comp. the Geouic 
Responsa quoted by Abraham ben Nathan, in the Manhig, 
50 a, and Sar Shalom, in B"n, 192. 

10. Due to the fact that the skin on which the fragment 
is written is greasy and blurred at this point, the tenth 
Responsum is not quite legible. So much, however, can 
be made out, that the Gaon permits the reciting of peni- 
tential prayers and supplications on New Year's Day and 
the Sabbath following. In a"n, a Responsum dealing with 
the same question follows that by Sar Shalom referred to 
in the previous paragraph. Comp. also nV, 64, and the 
passage quoted by Miiller in his notes on a"n, 192. The 
second volume of the Seder Rab Amram, as well as the 
liturgical collection ni3J"l TIBB>, contain penitential prayers 
for n"n and nnip V. Comp. pan, IV, 73-4. 

11. The Gaon decides, that if the owner of orchards 
discovers that his Gentile watchmen persist in doing work 
on the Sabbath, in spite of his repeated injunctions, he is 
obliged to dismiss them. Comp. nttta n^np, 59. 

12. The twelfth Responsum defines the term DHiQn railE. 

13. Of the last Responsum but two lines have come 
down to us. It is probably identical with that found 
in the Geonic Responsa, ed. Lyck, 85, and in n"B>, 26. 

1 Comp. j"m, ed. Hildesheimer, 623; in this Responsum also ' 
is to be cancelled. 



262 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Recto.) 

TOO into inN hv i 

na TIN DJE& warn amen jvai paw vn '3n 
inNi inN ^3 'DIN ^M n'3i ftia^ iino inN 'DIN NOB' 
mm tan NS^NI tmon n^aa Npni i&i ivaa na^m iDsyi? 
}n>T nN pnma cyo no 'wi : 2 oha^ TIID inN Tooa i>3N 5 
^ mm npi3N TIND ump na n^s? poionwa 



3N3 ^H3 'B' /C 1B 'D 11 Vil N 

vn N^ M^NNB> b ?wy HN ^3^ N^t? 6 i ..... is!? no^ noyo 

8/ n'63i 111331 pnn?a 'in 11 vn 6^'jh n^a^o nm 10 
j^ia WB> na ni^Ni^ N^N me^ano vm 



nar 33 noi pa^nai 'annoi 7 nD3i 
pax moo jnwm : pwo^ ^ ]rb ww mpn nma 

OKI N1D33 N3^1 D1T& V^311 PQ^ 15TN1 NpH "Dmi 15 

12 Dmi pax moo jnan win 'n 'ON 131 TIV I^N xin 
'oan 'irii :pn ny N3^ N^> 'c6n 
nyo nnv WK ['ojan 6n 18 pnv 13 pro an X DN 131 moo f>y 
}no*o by yDt? nnp nnpb 'B pa^n nyn no na ION ina 
poiy i^onB' jva 'Nil 'con 'o^n 'pai 133^31 IDPB> na 20 
n'i> NnNi V 13 pro 313 nabm pa^n PN niina 

^ m 'o N^>N v^y 

moo i>y N^N ypipn !?y 3^ pan mmos N!J Niipni 
naDNi "^DN 7 i NnNi moo ^y nnpi> nnx 'osn 'ON nae' 

:i33K>3i D^pb na oyo no 'aat^D i?y ^NI irn IB NIPN 25 
n3 <i ryD nna "'nob 16 }prn 'DB^P in^a 
16 pm ^NOB> n^3 pp^n 

naioo 'iioa 'aopi 'i3y 



1 Berakot, 53 a. 2 Comp. introd. note ; and Rapoport, jre 'i, note 21. 

3 This word and a few others have super-linear vocalization. * = iy. 
6 Mishnah, Ta'anit, IV, 8 ; Gemara, ibid., 26 b. 
c Read D >! JIN\C nnja rvmrab. 7 Read i>c. 



8 = 



"p 331 r^" 1 ^ 3 com P- Shabbat, 20 b. 
9 = 



m:i ; the passage referred to is not found in JTT^Q iVs but in 
rnrbica ; comp. note 5. 
11 = mbrn. ia Berakof, 5 b ; our texts read xrin 1*1 on S. 

13 Berakot, 4 b, end ; pn:r 11 not in our texts, but in the MSS. and old 
authorities. 

14 MS. M and moj? 'T iir, p. 19 a, also read 'cs*, and not 'cv, as our texts 
have it. 15 Read Nip 'o. 

16 Mishnah, Sukkah, II, 8 ; Gemara, ibid., 25 a. 1T Read nab. 



GEONIC EESPONSA 



263 



(Verso.) 

nanyo nnai bi ..... }a rriivi rianyi mpna naB>y inba 
'bn pto naoa 3n jxtbp <NDB> -DDT jop b'3ea raa by 



mo pan P-TOM T.a i 

bi IDK xbi inxian wot? triiaD 
D'U ^1^3 oinD ona p *jnn 
biy PNT inxi ru jne> moa p^atuu nnx 'oyo 
|n3 ^ o^na bax na 



PTDBDI p"iip nnntra 

pnip i^a 'rn ow 'n mvi x nn oivai 
'a pnip ivy a3 r D3 |j3N ' 
^xt^^i : 4 n*yn 'jai wpooa 
IN ppy xn 3N3 'o njn nona 'ro p*i 
3N3 r n any i^aNK' pjny *BB nat^ auyn jejny jjy 



n'-jyn 10 



raw 



"i^a in 



n bais 



pi>wan 'a 
3N3 X D 3 

nyi ncna 

nirvbo ncib nmo 'aan orb 7 r\ 
^naa D^cma nmnbi 8 Qns by . . b 



/ an note 



nb 



9/ aan nv nap B'NI patr DD 
'DIIBI nwa nDt^b D> 
10 ' 



isioni 



paw 
" 
ppiy pB> onya nnoy nan 11 ! 



. . . -nyi hoa a yTyi^ bna jna 12 nivo i?a by an 
min nao nnaJB' p-a "xain x i 13 nan 18 ' Nnni 
3-1 n^b NHX nabn nan3 ib'-ax -oib 



1 Bsrakot, 44 b. 2 Read NnMienn. s Read pii niDN? nn>. 

* Megillah, 31 b. 5 Ta'anit, 30 a. s Read bsw or ";n o, and comp. 

Ta'anit, 29 b. 7 Read n:u? xri pffi nacai. 8 Reada"n. 

9 Bosh ha-ShanaJi, i8a. 10 = ^pin'Si nnJiTa 'JUDTI pn. 

11 Read niac 1 "j^iu 1 TOicb nccN c\u nnib "jns )' ; the copyist had before 
him"tt?' "w = iiaaj 11 "ttTTO' 1 , but he thought the second "ST to be a dittography. 

12 Horayot, 12 a; comp. introductory note. 1S Read O"NT Nim. 

14 Sotah, 39 a , top ; our texts read N:in -1*2 n ; comp. Seder R. Amram, 28 a. 



264 GENIZAH STUDIES 



XXXII. 

Fragment T-S., vellum, one leaf, 27x18 cm., square 
writing, tending to cursive. It contains four Geonic 
Responsa, all dealing with rb%r\ 'n. 

i. The first Responsum, the beginning of which is 
missing, contains the Gaon's view as to the time of the 
Evening Prayer. He holds that no conclusion is reached 
in the Talmudic discussion, in which some of the authorities 
maintain that the time of the Evening Prayer follows 
immediately, without an interval, upon the end of the 
time set for the Afternoon Prayer, and others maintain 
that the time of the Evening Prayer begins with nightfall. 
The Gaon considers it advisable, though not obligatory, 
to adopt the latter view in practice, that is, recite the 
Evening Prayer only when night has set in. Furthermore, 
it is the Gaon's opinion that the week-day service in the 
evening, the Sabbath Eve prayer, and the Evening Prayer 
at the conclusion of the Sabbath, all alike are to be recited 
at the same time of day. However, if it happens that the 
prayer is recited on the eve of the Sabbath before night, 
the worshipper cannot at once go on with the Kiddush 
ceremony, for the Sabbath must be ushered in at the 
proper time. And again, the recital of the Evening Prayer 
before nightfall on the day of the Sabbath does not give 
leave to the worshipper to enter upon secular occupa- 
tions before nightfall. This Responsum may, perhaps, be 
merely another version of that found in Rabbi Judah 
Albargeloni's DTiyn 'D, 34-41. Comp. j"ra, 12 d, ed. 
princeps, or 45-6, ed. Hildesheimer, and also Bl"3, 142, 
and Miiller's note upon it. What Rabbi Isaac Ibn Gajat 
says in K>"B>, I, 19, seems to be partly directed against the 
view expressed in our Responsum. 



GEONIC KESPONSA 265 

2, 3. These two Responsa, probably by the same author 
as the previous one, contain explanations of Berakot, 27 b, 
which also forms the main basis for the discussion in the 
lirst Responsum of our fragment. A point of particular 
interest is what the Gaon says in defence of Rabbi Joshua 
in his controversy with Rabban Gamaliel, given in the 
Talmudic passage just cited. However, his acquittal of 
Rabbi Joshua of the charge of having resorted to a sub- 
terfuge hardly carries conviction to the mind of the reader. 
Another noteworthy point is the Gaon's attitude regarding 
the removal of public officials from their posts. Only 
immoral or irreligious acts, or tyrannical exercise of their 
power, are valid reasons for deposing them; but such 
reasons are imperative, they leave no choice of action. 

4. The fourth Responsum, the end of which, though 
probably not more than a line, is missing, explains the 
passage in Berakot, 30 a, dealing with the form of "pin n?sn. 



266 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Recto.) 

NEW anyo 'op rvany h w anyn ny rvany "to 
nnaon r6an JOT pp^rn pry p nnaon ai>a ny 'ONI mirr 'n 
B>a pai na^a pai nap anya pa ^o 'am n^any r6sn 

anyn p nao 'an n^any ni?3n pr ni>nna ppi^n iNvoa 
'ON ann pny 'n^ tnDTt an n^ "ox J pnowp am pi? DTIP nao am 5 

PHBM 'NO wan ppnsia Knn^naa pni bwn mm* 'na na^n wana an 
anya T&thv ^vo amo pN nna NID^H an 'ON H^O N^>I n^ 'ON N^ 
win anno namx N^NI p^poi niw 'na na^n nao yo^ na^ 
N^-I twip Dpi jaana na^n na^o yosr NnniN^ ny li'vo N^ pan irtaai 
2 n^o 'oa pani Nam ana N^I ^Niocn ana N^> Kna^n Nop N!?I ina^N 10 
non^N N^n nn^n p>noNn pana N^I mm* 'na vh na^n NOP N^i 
Nin pnm nay noa nayni nay noa nayn noa Nna^.n N^I noa 
nayn Nin pn.n NPNDB NHNnyo^ nnna pONn aa *?y S\M NJNPDO 
^ pan nNtn Nain ann jvai nay noa nayni nay noa 
na^ ^N^ioa N!?I na^ natr anya d> xnniN^ ny ivany 15 
nay pan nayn p a ^y f)Ni n^ana nayo^ ^ny pan ^ini?^ i?ina 
'na nainnN natsp nnao a^a nna roxihv ^voi rrh Nn-on INOI 
t^nNp na nvn PIT? baN Nnoini? naN^o p ^nNa NaNn"y Ninn 'poi 
nainnN ruep nnao a^a nna na^a na^ wyxbv ^xon JNOI NOV 
P^non ny ^inaN^ ^aN 11 N^I naa> NVH^ ny nax^o nayo^ ^ax 11 N^J 20 
'n 'ON >DN 'n 'ON NTT 'n 'oNn Nn n^NK'E'i :na 

'iai nat? anya rcufav 'an ^ana nT nioy nva 3 N3^an 'n 'ON nry^N 
in^o }Noa in-rina paNn a^ani mark nioy pa N^iy a^ani 
nioy nva \b 5 naay *NOI N3Npoo na n'^ NH^O Nn Nnyoc^ 
Nyot^ 'n IN rvn s or 7 iini.T 'n na nry^N 'ni nn nnon nxa IN S TO 25 
noa N^ noa N^ Nna^n non^N N^n NPDO NnyoK> n\n -w 'n na 
pi^n^ onN v* Dib ijN'-^oa pn 3/ oNn r^Ktvi 
i^n Nin vbm pan rri> 'ON 'NON ixb y^in 11 'n rr 1 !? 'ONI nr nana iyfyy 
IN^ 8 |nn^oN n"^ PWN No^ya pnc^o 'o^a INI vnnn sp^na 8 nnaoi 
^yi? Namn p^awi rrb c|^ ntwo ^Nn nNnn INO iNh n^ p-'opio Noa 30 
'n n^oyi na vrcn n.^an ny nioy y^in* 9 n^oNpn N^N my N!?i 
'n 9 n^oNpn yt^n 11 'n 015^0 pan mayn NOI 'iai vijan by 



1 Berakot, 27 a. 2 ? s Berakot, 27 b. * Read xopirrN. 

5 = nsav ; comp. p. 119, above. 6 Read rrn. 

7 The dots over mirr indicate that this word is to be cancelled. 

8 ? Written as one word. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 267 

(Verso.) 

nabna N^B> 'boa pi "ONI Ditro 'vii lay IN *piaab N^N 
nvy PNI nilan PNI noan PNI yenrr 'n niaao spy nin "-S 
pbyo no3 Km wi layob wo *an nnay3 2 im IONII ** 
. . riNnni un <DWK rwtw m pan PION pan pinio xh 
pra *|Ni v^n by ioiy iraw '11 anni aw 'boa pi rrw "nsr . , 5 
anna 'boa pn i!? B n^B> 4 pnn nas? K'sna 
nrn^ oniaan ov ^n^ ova T i niy3i 
aba ^oa pn -iN^ai waa i^y pi^n NH^ rwn nn vb 
a PKB> ynn 'n^ inyn nnn p nr nana 
. . N . , nnonD 7 Dp^no panai i^y pi!?n JNK' nr aB>ia -ii!> n^n 10 
. Tin 8/ K tr^nan^ ^nn ta INNT IONI vbn ^y ywn /- i nytr nn 
9 . . . fNrv 'ON iK>Na mia y^in^ 'n ib ION 

pi Tnn I^N Nobyi' Naiin p'awi n^ ej 1 '^ n^y 
nain^> niB>n pa n^ana npbn ^ax niONpn a mox "nan ^oa 
10 . , . . TI rrmb insi NM naim nao e|iD PJID n^o TIN xanin >NO 15 

<fti atPio inisa wp^nea oi^a ytwn 'n by p nahn ao na 
mn ao wb nabna ^ 'ONT Ditro ^oa pnb *nnay 
. . . o N^n nayo xn^o xn a 'yn P^D y^n 1 - '-n niaao 
tfn na^na N^ noib pianoi onno n\n^ N piiaot^ IN 

an na *a^a xnn xioja NO 11 ? xbptj'on }Na nnwi iy 20 
jnan n^yr 'ON 12l| oj pnoNpi nain pya na nan oyi 
}NoSi n^ pinnoo sb na*ovj NI^I }va nwn rvaiy nbsn 'ONT 
y^n^ 'm i-naai nN nnayai IB'SN ^ni n^ j^niao nain 
pnio Nh e>npa pi?yo payh nnyv yor nnbni Nain tjny 
nyx I^BKI p^onn I^QNI py vby NXOJ I^SNI pimo pN D^iyb 1*6 25 
jnnio faani Niyx DIB>O baN pnnio PNT Nin Nn^y N^a N^N pai 
xp KD niyND^b nc>^ ai 13 n^oNi Nn n^Nt^^i 

inn nbsn -6*0 Npi op^o Np ^n^oN NIDTI ai 
avi 14 yi Nipn ^N aits nvno bs*i JOPIN D3 
n^ 'bxo 'aM "]iin nbsn payb y^ai NM nina n pai 30 
Npi i^no Nint^a i^aN 'ON nc'^ ai ioiy Nint^a 'ON ion ai 
o^ry UNO nM n^ty an ^^^b \rvyy IN^ nnN oys a tnso 
l^iio Nint^a inban nN IOIN nna brUTDBDr 15 nioo rrm 
no VT3 "ID^N Nintr initro DN n^t^ ai ^NB> Nio^n ai aayru 
jva 1S n^oN "jnn n^Qn bbanoi ioiy Nin nn ib ION nny Nin 35 

mo a ^snNB> 3ioyn ^N ?IN loiyo ^ano ini ipy n^ 
^oa PIDIN nn niTDn mo nny "ninvna a iioyb Nin nin 

1 Read vj 'ray >N. 2 Read in nom. s Read nsra n>o ns nn\ 

4 Read pm. 5 EosA ha-Shanah, Mishnah, II, 9 ; Gemara, ibid., 253. 

6 Read ^JUTOna. 7 Read Dpinn. 8 Readn. ' Read JQ 'mn IICNI. 

10 Read ^pnpnm ti&. " >rrn N!) ? 12 Shabbat, gb ; our texts read "3N, but 

comp. 3i*D3, 141. 13 Written in one word. M Berakot, 30 a. 

15 "IJT? " Readinw. 1T Read -niy 



268 GENIZAH STUDIES 



XXXIII. 

Fragment T-S., paper, one leaf, 19 x 13 cm., small square 
writing, scarcely a tendency to cursive. It contains three 
Responsa, probably by Rabbenu Hai, as will be shown 
later on. 

1. The first Responsum is complete all but the Question. 
It contains the decision of the Gaon with regard to the use 
of fowl bought from Gentiles, without first subjecting them 
to an examination as to whether their limbs are unbroken. 
In discussing the point, the Gaon quotes the main Talmudic 
passage bearing upon it, Hullin, 51 b, with some variants 
as compared with our text. Another noteworthy feature 
is the grammatical distinction made by the Gaon between 
Q"p* and 'O'lpo, the former being the participle of the Etpiel, 
the second the participle of the Aphel. 

2. In a corrupt form this Responsum is found in Eshkol, 
I, 56, where it is ascribed to Hai. Instead of lW>l, the 
latter has *3^W1, which Auerbach, the editor, makes vain 
efforts to explain. 

3. The end of the Responsum is missing, so that it is 
difficult to tell what was the Gaon's view of the question 
put before him about the meaning of the word noN^a * in 
the Mishnah, Sukkah, III, 6. There can be no doubt that 
our Responsum is identical with that quoted by Ibn Gajat 
in e>*e>, 105, and attributed by him to Rabbenu Hai. The 
expression Dpli> SWO, which Bamberger, the editor of e>*B>, 
could not explain, is used by the Gaon to describe the top 
or blossom ends of fruit, the persistent remnant of the 

1 Mishnah, ed. Lowe, irwros ; other texts of the Mishnah and the 
Talmud have inoBE. Comp. also Niddah, V, 8. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 269 

flower, to distinguish it from the tail end, at which 
the stalk is inserted. The latter might analogously be 
described as j^N ^sbz. The correspondent of the Gaon 
was probably from Kairwan, as he refers to the Jerusalem 
Talmud, which at this time was well-known in North 
Africa, but not in Spain or Babylonia. As to the meaning 
of the word HEID'S, see 'Aruk, s. v., and Rashi, ad loc. 



270 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Recto.) 
K 13 " 



K!H ^ 

p*Bn K^I Kin KP^D pison no^ j^ n<K * 
^S n-w Kn^oi n^y np^oi' xa-'S 
PK: UOHK WTD^ trn^ K^T D^B 



nm KVDJ i3B> myn n3n3B> nm 

N^>K p WKl 'nip^D K^l IK ''l"lp < 'l 

3ina KXDJB' mp*D ViT2i anpD 10 

HDK3 |iTB> UlpD ^1^31 |31pnO }H H1VD K1H1 

^DOi oyon HK piao UK nm 
sjiy I3nn Kin 13 nn^pitr no DK 

Kinn O^B IK KO^J ^V ^BJI pNH ^y 

i^K pion o\vo p^^n |iyn i^y 15 
B^J Kinn '^y ^ 
Kinm oityo ejiyn <i i3 i| K 
nnop ppnnei K^^K n^ss n 

nno-'p ppnno K^ nnn-'K pion 
JKDI p^ona psn PK onaw Pion 20 

pane Kin *a nyo K^ nntsp p 
i>y ejiyn Dam DK^ 'en-pa nai 
no in^pi nunpo Kiniy mo^o aa by 



1 Hiittin, 51 b. 2 = ororoi. * Read n'? o = n 

4 The copyist indicated his error by dots. 

5 = f]" ; compare Rabbinovicz, ad loc. 

6 "The correct meaning," "the essence." 



GEONIC RESPONSA 27! 



(Verso.) 

i>aai Damp O3 Nin nn nra nr onninoi pp*iinn 



Minn 'BNTi inn^N iponna not? jan^m pNn by 

rao 
pan nn3 Tom ^7 IN D^ai 



T3jn 
inaM PMI "p Min^ : p^n M? M3na 5 



train no 2 *io DNT xn 
non bx nip^ M^ jna ppi 

IN HTH fD H1DM 

imp pjy^ N^N HMDID p^y^ nr 13*7 10 
no 

nnpo 

in I^MK' ai'yaMi non nx notion pi 

nnpo 
pn TDMT Nin niON ymx iin onni in^y ^nn 15 

pn 

nt? awn 

pi e>n^ ayii? DI^O n3 n^ xn^o Mm 
6 pym Nn ni>N&? n^Ni 0:nv ^33 pan p 

oy noDia Nn ^ioa moio^a n^D^a annN pay!? 20 
8 nen ^1^ J^IN ? T5^rffi npib a!>3i N>n nninn 
ny IN Ti^t? noDiaai ia lyotyoi ina^i^ n^>a 
annNn nN pniisty CHIP |^N3 pmn oip3 



1 Hullin, 57 b. a Berakot, i8a. 3 np'3?l? 

4 Berakot, Mishnah, II, i ; Gemara, ibid., I7b. 5 Berakot, i8a. 

6 Sukkah, Mishnah, III, 6; Gemara, ibid., 34 b. 

' Fer. Sukkah, III, 53 d. 8 "Takes it to be identical with." 



272 GENIZAH STUDIES 



XXXIV. 

Fragment T-S., two small leaves, square writing, rather 
thick and free. The first page is blank, with the exception 
of the owner's name in the left-hand corner at the top: 
jfj nnyo Y3 ^n iwot? rt3pc> ^pa. In the right upper 
corner of leaf i, verso, the letters ITS are scribbled in 
a large hand. About the middle of the same page the 
following occurs : 



pis 

an* nyaiK an 'DM n-nrv an 
pan . Mnpi Min'M pan panoM K^ 'yo 
D rvatn ^ pnno Nnpn WHJ^ 
ahn I^BM P^IVD nain nnanrbi c 



The leaf following contains a lengthy explanation of 
Berakot, 59 b-6o a. There can be no doubt that something 
is missing between the two leaves, as there is no connexion 
between the contents of the one and of the other. Again, 
we have no reason for suspecting that the superscription, 
b"pT D^DJ '~b nMnn pna BTVB, does not apply to all that 
follows. Accordingly, it appears that leaf i , verso, restores 
to us a portion of Rabbenu Nissim's Mafteah on Berakot, 
54 b, missing in our edition, and leaf 2, recto and verso, 
makes an addition, hitherto unknown, to the same work. 

The matter on leaf i, verso, is identical with Rabbenu 
Hai's Responsum quoted by the author of the 'Aruk, s. v. 
yanx 3 . This is not the only case in which Rabbenu Nissim 

1 Bead no. The owner, Samuel Halevi, is identical with the Samuel 
in Saadyana, 1 16, and Harkavy, Samuel ben Hofni, note 76. 

2 Berakot, 54 b. 8 Comp. also n;v '-\ Tobn , Alfasi, Berakot, IX. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 273 

used the method of incorporating Geonic Responsa in his 
Talmudic commentary. The famous Responsum by Hai, 
on the anthropomorphistic passages in the Talmud, to be 
found in the Geonic Collection, ed. Lyck, 98, is quoted 
from Rabbenu Nissim by Rabbi Jacob Ibn Habib in his 
"En Yafab on Berakot, IX. That Ibn Habib did not 
confuse names, but actually found Hai's Responsum in 
Rabbenu Nissim's Mafteak, is proved by a Genizah 
fragment in the T-S. Collection of Cambridge University. 
There we find the Responsum followed by Rabbenu Nissim's 
explanation of Berakot, 59 a *. The incomplete state of the 
Mafteah as published may be due to the fact that the work 
was written in Arabic, the Geonic Responsa quoted being 
reproduced in it in their original Hebrew. The translator 
of the book may have rendered only the Arabic portions. 
That Arabic is the original language of the Mafteah, of 
which even Steinschneider in his Arabische Literatur, p. 103, 
and Addenda, was not certain, is no longer open to doubt. 
In a Genizah fragment, T-S. Collection, I found the following 
remark by a commentator on the Talmud, who must have 
lived a short time after Rabbenu Nissim, as he knows 
neither Alfasi nor Rashi: nuni i/'tfr D*oy mi 



1 This fragment begins in the middle of the Responsum with the 
words : pn HBO MS V?N3. Thereafter it is complete until the end, which 
follows : WVEHJ 103 VJN pn pncra N^N nnn nnri ia an 'THM nun 
rr#m -nnm nwrn iNDivi runnel ~ra,n< unsvb 'ion 13 izj'n? -m cibci en N^'I 

by\ D'oo -pan xnb . . . up rru'pn D ; 5%n o^o i^ii to ion? o'jprvi 

ni '131 in:: rnrtm n\nj? ib -]:n IBM N-Q ni mmn 

j'p'in by noibi rv"v bicnj ntow "a -no p n nrracto oiVs 

nmcinn by\ ...... an byi D'piin bn nimn b rriyiin bri 

p ritoy 1 ? IT pNtt iao 3ii :n'\rii mri2? irm abi io inbo -j-na 'QIN Kin 
'a? 'DIM nsonira ni:inn cy nvotD j'i . . Vtt? btaa miTONnna c'ttn ... TO Nto 
nrai3? ina 712"? nsn 'ON D7^an byi mnnn bn D'o^Sn bri mynn ten fp'in 
bn nnnn 73? bi Nin bia' oViy bo imaa? fra "jnab nsn 'ni in bi3 n'CNii 
cbij? ^"70 mis -pa 1 ) bi3' ; ; rnmorr byi rmnan bjji o'^'n byi nwaan. That 
Rabbenu Nissim made use of this Responsum of Rabbenu Hai on 
anthropomorphisms in the Talmud is proved also by his essay on 
the subject published by Geiger, in Heilberg's D':QM Ttto: . 

T 



274 GENIZAH STUDIES 

Attention should be called to the fact that Rabbenu 
Nissim's reading of Berakot, 59 b-6o a, was essentially 
different from ours. Notice especially the difference he 
makes between pa NXV3 rowy 1^ J>N and pa NVi>3 -jnwy "6 pB>. 
Maimonides, nia^a 'n, X, a, seems to have had a similar 
reading in his text. Comp. also the reading of MS. P in 
Rabbinovicz, ad loc. 



GEONIC KESPONSA 275 



(Leaf 2, recto.) 



nrr rupi irm njp m Ni'3D 

'Din sow ^nni? -pi* PN bn 

mp inb NI-QD ii-vim ^30 tnro 
|NE fun pi!' TIIV PN i?3n 



pnao Nin noi pni 'n 
ipy ^3 w^nb Nnyo^ z/ yn 

ni? NP^D win in!? 

wnn pm * njn^o nn o^xp s 10 

31 



win 31 'DN JKIM 'NT NJIH 31 T-NQ '13 
Npi ni a^a nsi napi irm n:p3 I^SXT pin 

pani min 'n ms nyiin^ ib ^3 qbe^D 15 
pm 3/ in 0^ 



PKB> jT3 ^na yn win 31 'oxp 'nnt? 



pr 4 i 

Nb |H3 NVV3 1^ B" DN !>3N n313 
H313 T 



1 Berakot, 59 b-6o a. 2 = TOT Npto ; but ran is out of place here, 

and is to be cancelled. 3 = D'ttnn. 4 Text corrupt ; 

nrnni roprc - 



T 2 



276 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf a, verso.) 



na-ia fiyop Nin JDT twnn 
tnna tvwb wai 'iin 1 * 'TI -wo 7 -n 
}ra nana prwno mna*n a win an ' 
nip DN bx vb yim WIB> wp n^n 

va 5 



oya nip oss? n*o 'ni? n^ tnao mn wi 
MVP a ^y IN oban jmta nnx 
mn N$> MOT ^ 
ima nitD n>n K^N jna 
oya jna wa nap 



pa iwa way 



nipi nrm nip 

r na toin an 

-ia pnv 7 -n |na wa ^ pw nip 
iin 'na prn 7 n Nina W&kh b 
Tiv p s inx mpi nrni ^ pe^ nip 20 

niis Dya nipB> jva 'ONT win an 

1 Bead imunn i2' 



GEONIC RESPONSA 277 



XXXV. 

Fragment 2669 MS. Heb. d 47, f. 3 a~3 b of the Bodleian, 
written in Syr. square characters, 8vo, vellum is the intro- 
duction to a Responsum by Rabbenu Hai addressed to 
Rabbi Judah Alluf of Kairwan. Of the Responsum itself 
not a line has been preserved, and even of the introduction 
the beginning is missing, and also a few words at the end. 
It is unique in more than one respect as to length, as to 
style, and as to contents. The first twenty-four lines are 
Paitanic in form, each hemistich ending with the syllable nn. 
Then comes the name of the addressee, and the following 
eleven lines are in prose. Though Rabbi Judah was a man 
of worth and eminence, yet it cannot be denied that the 
terms applied to him and his father in this letter go to an 
extreme of extravagance unusual even in an Oriental writer. 
Obviously, we have before us a last desperate effort to 
maintain the interest and allegiance of foreign supporters 
and patrons of the Babylonian Academy. 



278 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Recto.) 

rrhv 



/ T 

rninp Dai s naajn Q" 1 pnam / rnm3Di KCD niaa nsj ny nae 
rnnoi *nap 

N^ inna ."60 ny rwa^i ^SIBTO 1^ np^rn ioy:a i^nn n 
nynxa ivy ba nx T 1 ! /miac'oi in^ya wpnb ^ pavi 5 
mipi nonama D lanan-" iai / nnnoh 'misn ns^ nn^ nsa rifyanbi 
rrv ton waiw ^a nni? / n"nopi n^iy i^a ^an 'by non 

n^npo 

8 myuno nam n rwo inaiDi / nncino npax pai po^pi no 
nips n^ nira^ an ibx^ N^a jnu Nim ,.112031 9 nj DI m^nn ipn 1 * VDI 
ni66''N3 irfas^ SI^K nxo onaai ^na ica in^ya ibpBisa ^K am 10 
nxa inyai) ix bi .nmnpai soa ^y 3^3 f?ai> T^D 
n nrnx nw ^HH ^aa yiu nsw "ion nfcy mik 
mnao , . , baa ip> ni?m i?a an ^ism nena ciai u vr nnna 
nyt^ a^ 'njan one bax mtno *fyy oai ia mux 

/ T** ~" 

nnppt ls n^naix 'HIDKI / rnBnaa HKODI nrw laa e|^KDi> 15 
miai njinoaa NM naim ^isino in^ai nbpitro rpawoa 
naen nxteai t^ana *ab npnoai ^noaai any ny *nenn u nni nya 
Naanoa a nNa a*an ^nnino ab 'ai 1) n <i B> ani s poy ojn 
maim 

1 In the Talmud synonymous with Voj. 2 Perhaps msi. 

3 Head TOIDSI ; rmip, "and yet it is too small." 

4 Comp. 'Amk, s. v. pnbo. s = wnite. 
6 Bead nnon. T From TDH ; in Talmud mono. 
8 = myittjo from -irirn, "estimate." njp> ? 

10 ion nrcsb ri ^31. u Read n\ 

12 Comp. 'Aruk, s. v. IIDD. ls Read rrno^. n nrra = ipia. 

15 Read nwnn. 16 Comp. Mishnah, Berakot, V, 5. 



iraa 



GEONIC KESPONSA 279 



(Verso.) 

IBID bi can *? ..... / mmnb l iai> nm n-nu? "i'tJai 
a*a nsm-6 3 nre> ^y / maiyi ^na aya npr6 .... 
mana nany^ now6 ifcrpan ,mu3pa nwyb loyab 
n^naa mnon^ G mh bai? / rr^Doa paooa nnye' nx 
nn nn^ -iiopni ansni ^"ipo "ip ^nn *?y\ nat? i>aa nnx Nip 5 



nnns pi awn DKO ni?nnnn mifw nonnNi noDK na ram 

/ T T T .- 



nnx wyan N nnx oya 

wnan ^y p i^van nt^Ka bs waa^ 
mtoxw nxr ns 



py <mpa ^ai ITJ^D ija pa nta ^aaa naao ram . 
onai D^y iyi njran snioi nit^x njn nn rvwnin 
nr xh WBD 9/ nn 'oa NIT^D t^xi 'Ton o^yoiB' 

onny maj ON a nm^ IB'N nnB' b D.Tj>ya naa 15 
MID D^yoi D^non ^"Dini? mar Qipon WSK ^y man 
'3B> jyya ion 11 K^ vD^pnai pj-'Dini ^n iy^> nyn 
TIN nw 'Ka 'nn 'B>n ns n^e* nyi pw iy ^ w wnn 



1 Read 'ib Dm, " my heart desires ; " en = rran. Comp. Jer. iv. 19. 'ib on 
would be out of place here. 

2 = mow. s = nnnp. * = TDW. s 

6 Comp. Tamid, I, i. 7 Comp. the last Mishnah. 8 Ton 

9 n:nrn nnto:. 



280 GENIZAH STUDIES 



XXXVI. 

Fragment 2680 MS. Heb. d 34, ff. 89-92 of the Bodleian, 
written in Syr. Rabb. characters, 8vo, vellum contains 
seven Responsa, some of them in incomplete form. In the 
margin the second Responsum is numbered twenty-six, and 
four is numbered as two, and six as three. As the hand- 
writing is uniformly the same throughout, these curious 
discrepancies can be accounted for by the fact that the 
subjects dealt with in the Responsa were of so diverse 
a character that the compiler divided them into groups 
according to their contents. No two leaves of the fragment 
being continuous, there is no way of telling the extent of 
the collection originally. But the circumstance that these 
Responsa are all to be ascribed to the same Gaon, in all 
probability Hai, as will appear later on, is a guarantee 
that the number of missing leaves cannot be excessively 
large. 

2. The concluding lines ( 16-2 2, leaf i, verso) of the second 
Responsum give the name of the addressee, Rabbi Judah, 
Resh Kallah, undoubtedly Rabbi Judah ben Joseph of 
Kairwan, the well-known correspondent of Rabbenu Hai, 
as has been noticed by Dr. Cowley in his Catalogue. As 
to the subject-matter of the Responsum, it is the Gaon's 
view concerning the difference of opinion between Rabbi 
Johanan and Resh Lakish in Pesahim, 37 b. 

3. Of this Responsum the beginning is missing. It is 
found also in Harkavy, 27, but there the question put to 
the Gaon is not reproduced. From the Responsa preceding 
and following it in the Harkavy Collection, we may infer 
with certainty that it should be ascribed to Rabbenu Hai 



GEONIC RESPONSA 281 

as its author. This assumption has been made by Harkavy, 
as well as Miiller, Mafteah, 340. 

4. The fourth Responsum, the end of which is missing, 
is identical with p"B>, 83 b, 29, where it appears anonymously, 
as it does in our fragment As in the case of the previous 
Responsum, so here, the fact that it is preceded and followed 
by Responsa belonging to Hai, suffices to establish its 
authorship. 

5. This Responsum, the beginning of which is missing, 
is identical with 1"J, 133. In the latter collection, 
however, the question as well as a part of the answer 
are missing, so that we are only now in a position to 
become acquainted with the contents. 

6. The sixth is identical with 01*03, 134, and "Wn, 
II, 32, and as Miiller, in his note, justly observes, it deals 
with another possibility of the very case considered in 
the previous Responsum. 

7. The seventh Responsum, of which both the beginning 
and the end are missing, has preserved the question in part, 
and the answer in part, of the Responsum in Harkavy, 18, 
where only the answer appears. The portion that has 
reached us enables us to fix its exact date ; comp. leaf 4, 
recto, line 20. It is probable that np"i3, the place whence 
the Gaon was addressed, is identical with Barco l , in Italy, 
which would establish the fact that in the time of Hai a 
connexion was kept up between Italy and the Babylonian 
academies, and would corroborate the facts conveyed to us 
in the superscription to a collection of Responsa, above, 
P-57- 

1 Comp. leaf 4, recto, line 5. That it is a town in Christian Europe 
is proved by the use of the era anno mundi, at this period current with 
Jews in Christian Europe, while the Seleucidan era was current with 
the Jews in Arabic countries. Comp., however, Saadyana, 114, top, which 
would seem to indicate that npl is in Egypt. 



282 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf i, recto.) 



n pr nni 
nnrvo w n^nr P<D 



wi Q^n^r PDIDS 5 



"rnno ""Ni pnoiyn nmsi rrp 

nnno !> w 2 rva p^n nSn ya: jb 

&6i n3 p^ri'TD K^ n^n yaa ji? 

TOND rbvnb rb p3nso 10 
I :nya33 {^ na^s bi ra 
prn nnyn n3 nu3D3 n^i yu 
INI ni3 NP^D Kpi 3nn jxoa n^ 
^ 'NI n>3 pyn n^n yai f? nnno 
nn p^ro xh Tin |5> nsa^N N^ 15 



onnon 

panw nWi 1*3 
h NTD pnpii 20 
rvb pisjn 

nn3 



1 Negaim, II, 4. 2 rri refers to ra: and not to nw. 

3 Read <mn xnam. * Niddah, 41 b ; the quotation is not literal. 



GEONIC EESPONSA 283 



(Leaf i, verso.) 

vwb pnay 

v^y panao <M J:SD mi 
maim ^o K-na 'OKI jwo rvtn 



nanai wtm 5 
no nana h ^ pay 
nr ^ax ntry nr^xa x 



n^nnm xa^n 
n^na a*"ni nsn niana ^an nai 10 



P 'yBt? 'm Nn:iQ n-nnn 

p pyoB> 7 m 
n iri?y Tiao xh n^nn p 

n^na n^ a^no jaw '11 15 
nnw "jam* 'na na^ni 
no 
'nm 



innaa min ia na^pn 20 
yoc'' 1 ^ no bai 
narni Tai3 oioa 



1 Read iJTOb. 2 Pesahim, 37 b. 

3 Comp., however, Alfasi, ad loc., and biswN, I, 40. 



284 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leafs, recto.) 



''3K "ra nan i msrn x own neo 
D"P '3K nvrco nai i ^nyB> I^K my xh 
voajn i^ncn !>y ITOJM 'as oy nano nn 
vn >WD ^N^ nuiatyn nao nm yyan^ nsa 5 
Tana y^antya 'IKI ii> 'DK pa^m nxvin 7^y 
-ji? iDih ^i>anh 1^^ ^n^n sh Tirana 
a N!? ny <rnjnnje>3 pi ^y man 
nani vh ^N a n^y^ noa TPX-IK> DIBID n*n N^ 
w noa nyi N^ PI li> n*is sh 10 
inofe* wrapoa Tao 'JN ^ 
pwn^ vnwyoa ^ DN pin 
pyon 'INI vntj pa ^ iron is 
n*n DJHJOI m ^K nr parrot? 
PNI unaa 'ye> jn 11 nan nni? 'yos? *x* 'isn 15 



non nain nr nn i^asi? nr& 7^ *iana N^ 'DK ' 
*3K^ nr6 ^ nnox now ' 
13 ^a by pini n^asb nnb 
PSD 13 PNB> 'isn^ uns 



vnnai 



25 

1 The same reading in Harkavy, but nNno, "protest," does not give a 
satisfactory sense. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 285 



(Le&(2, verso.) 

mbon Nna!>n 'ON NSNTT n*OB>o Naa 31 D'oan 
isnai> in* PN Qnyn wan DN 
IN n 'yoa> ^x b TPTW 'ixn 'a 
i> 'OK K 3r&n ^ >a^n ii 'OKI mo 'DB^ 

i^ Dy 'IKI isnna IOT nnsi? ony yea 1!? jn 5 
^a ^K yan N!> ^ 'ON ruon V^K jran ox <bt*v 
*b vnna naa pyoc' -IOM 'yoty ^SK 'IKI "jta 
ony. yea ib nnb i? rrn 'INI ^ 'ON 
'yoe> ^ 'ON imyfo K 



anaoa WB>y aw any Ka ioy jn^ 

^ DN pin n^o WJHK wno^ DIN ^ja 
KI 131x55 DN ffih^ ^n^ pa tjnan 
5 naon nx nni> 'yop nN 'ixn nix xi? DXP 15 
ony ysa ib nn!> a^n 'yoa> px any wa 
pai an^B> pa nr nana enan pxi 
a^a 'yo^ ^ jna N!> ^ 'ON BKI 
an 'ON N3Ni 'ox 2 pnoxn noaai ii> nnaB 
}n jn nc'xn nx -6 jnpi ixv Bae6 'ox jona 20 
pi pBTW3 pi I'ny }n jn vni^ 
pnox niaiDD wi paybi nuioo 
^nya iT3n nx ni^on n3D xp 'x 
wa jnny3 pyau *an anys iyna^ 
inb 'ox n^ jaan xh 'nox XT 25 

Shebu'ot, 4ib. 2 Kiddushin, 43a~4sb. 



286 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leafs, recto.) 

vny boia nr Mwtrai invry by aniaa nivi vby p-nyo 
'6iN b'oani UJB nn TNO '-i nan nrbfc? vny boia nn 

DN baN pblDB IX panp JflB rTNl ftfby N'QOE' JDT3 

pan mono Np sn -PNO 'ni I^BW DS^> ha^ PN pin vn 
nr nm noN 11 emp na t^p^ P nyot? /- i 'ON 2 now 5 
pn ^ nWa -lows? nr na^b 3 NWN iTb 
noi xin nny 13 ixb ^"Q *a ojnv ons 
nny p UM noa nian^ iann 71^ onyn i?y ttmo 
B ^a 4 noMB noa I^BK SDS i^y NVD: OKI 
n 'ON a^Si }6 ij ; N J^IN Tna N^I nwoa K^I 1 
nyn i?y Ni65 DN nro n^p nan py bai B 
noa i?nhn p.i ^iy ^ fniny n^aipoi nny 
jDN5 b'Jin pa pij^n i?y 'ON SJDI* an 'ON 

enon 5B DN inxn ^ax 
wb B^W o^n^i oya 'ONI niaa nr 15 
ioa nfi ...... by nr wab PINT ao nynbi 

jnioa iiirii pi n^ab iNai p n^ab pn o^oya npon pby 

o^oya nt^on pby yat^n nnNi nnx ba by pan naa 

oyb no 'yoK' 'i 'ON nnN Nbx pan PN naai pn na ysa 

7 nnmh mrnb pbia* PNI bwn 20 
pai pi nua pa nyia^ 



1 Sanhedrin, Mishnah, III, i ; Oemara, ibid., 233. 

2 Sanhedrin, 23 a, 24 b. s = 'b'O rroai n:D'pi ; comp. Harkavy, 33. 
4 Kiddushin, Mishnah, I, 10 ; Oemara, ibid., 40 b. 5 Kiddushin, 40 b. 
9 Baba Batra, 128 b ? 7 Shebuot, Mishnah, IV, 3 ; Gemara, ibid., 31 b. 
8 Shebu'ot, 32 b. 



GEONIC KESPONSA 287 



(Leafs, verso.) 

PN Iv 6n nmn TIKIIO nyj> ppn pn 'ON -IPNI pn n33 



N nnyn no*pnj N!> ON N^N woo jnu pNi pin 
121 ^3t?3 i^y n^aipD nny PNI nniN DPD m 
pin xin p njrap ppn pn ns }NHn 3n n^Ni nr 
ns yn^nb b ps mia33 hn^ nnyn no^pna N^ DN 5 
n^ unpo pp^rnwn fn^N 'oaj nx pp^np iy vnx 
^n IOK^SI "mm p!?n 71*3 ^ ^ pi *p 
no\n njn3B^ i^nno man nns^ yni* VK ^ 
3 y3K>3 xin HDI NJIODI NINIT 
ainai man in nr 3 yw ^NI ^ 'DK xh tax 
nm nnvn Dn^ iTn -njn IT n^N^ HOD p nnN n 
npn w p^nn nmcn nnvnn ^ jnn^ rwin DN i>nan 
ppn X 
nn 

^^K> yB> nnxi y noa^ ojno *pn ^JN rain 15 
nxnn ^^ npN^ ^ 2 cn s b ^JNI n^y IDS' 
nnnxn p3i np^ hnan ^pn^ nnntnn pni imn 
nno nmn nn^n nn jopn i^ 'OKI nnvn n 
npn ON bnjn 'ONI npN5y ^ B yn mpo3 nnoi 

unv DipD ^aa npi?n npne> IN 4 nnNe> IN 20 
n npi^> inN5? ^ i>y SIN ^D WNI pi pin 



1 In ai'nj, 133 : 'i^n . . . mraa ! 2 Bead pn' as in n"jn, II, 32. 

3 oi*O3, 134: nrvsrin ! 

4 Read 'moxic ; ' ' whether you take those houses of which I spoke or you, 
take your part in each house." 



288 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 4. recto.) 

yp-ipn nr ib mao naa 
ypipn jvrw von by -lira "pi na 
H3 -inxb rrora nKD iby nnni bin 
-ios3B> bvun pn by njnoB> nta 
na ^ B^I pnty paib ni x npiaa 5 
*b {^ 'OKI mn by nan byn i6y 
*njn eiiioon pbnn nvni nenn* 
nxnn >vn fprn n^n xbw yn nmn 
nanoa inK^ nnw ana xbc' 
wninb nniK nna xbx 10 
*mn nr uyDt? now? 
anp nr -pnb BI 
Knnn mow npKn naym 
onyn I^N noK n^nin 
mma nnsi nano nnx nana 15 

DV noK N^N jom noK 
nynr 'JN PK nevn moKi nbyn by 
aion *a nn niyi Diba nann nro 
nainan pn ^no^aa mip naina anai 

anyn ibxi *a^n na^a 20 



1 Comp. introductory note. 2 Head tyron, <; hasty." 

3 = a'*wm D'Dbs 'n, 4713 A.M., 953 C.E. 



GEONIC KESPONSA 289 



(Leaf 4, verso.) 

mjnjn forn 'nixn onb rvn 

nnx nna mao^ mNi 'bvian na 

yp~ipn n"W pn* S!?B> nioix n^iii 

IINJ wans mv nnx nii N^N 

"iK>KD p ON nn pin niic' T 5 

Dip 11 DNB' WNi ^ IT nWn tinia 

nab nvnn vn nna isn S 3 iiin 



nprnm m^ni ?|D32 papa niniis jn 

' 'CK 8 nby pncsi 10 

nano nacy 
DX NK ixo iaia 
hian pn n H:DTK> paa nano 
nawa nny n nn 
nx D'-nyn naia nipnb 15 
noa nairon iBB'n n INI a 
nbyob wtn^BB' 

4 6n DN bK nop nny n nn 
vn 



i = Vnjn ]an na. 2 Kiddushin, Mishnah, I, 5 ; Gemara, ibid., 263. 

3 Kiddushin, 26 a. 4 Harkavy, 18. 



GENIZAH STUDIES 



XXXVII. 

Fragment 3669 MS. Heb. d 47, f. 45 \ Bodleian ; Syr. 
cursive characters ; 4to, vellum contains four Geonic 
Responsa. It is a remnant of a large Geonic collection, as 
the third and fourth Responsa are numbered 442 and 443 
respectively. The name of the Gaon is not given, but we 
may assume with a high degree of certainty that they 
are the Responsa of an authority in Pumbedita. This 
assumption is based on the statement found in our fragment, 
recto, lines 25-6. The Responsum hands down the Gaon's 
view with regard to 23 N, agreeing with the view of Rabbenu 
Hai, as given in Harkavy, 93, who supports his opinion by 
reference to the Geonim of Pumbedita, inraxi Kjruo. On 
the other hand, we know that Saadia and Hilai (Harkavy, 
90 and 93), as well as Samuel ben Hofni, the contemporary 
of Rabbenu Hai ("TiDy, 1, 4 c), hold the opposite view 2 . Thus 
it hardly admits of a doubt that the Responsum originated 
in Pumbedita, though we cannot attribute it to Hai himself 
on account of peculiarities of style different from his. 



1 Fol. 44, in the same hand, is a part of an abstract of /m. 

2 Comp. also the Geonic Responsum quoted in Parties, 24 a. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 291 

(Recto.) 

ITD upp fva nny baK n^ainm ntaw WK 13 pnnnb ypnp ib PKB> fva pnoiK n 
m jaiKn n.abin ypnpn nnK K>snb "JIM Kbi ps^bna nniK naip K'n nrn nanon 
"bai miriDi nnaai pbobtao p3 mypnp pa nospn mvis n^ya ib rrntp no ba nityb 
iTi ipBD* nKi nw inbab nbKn n-ainrn nn -iw jnn jn^i nnsoi 
by B>3 n^i isna by mm nso bio^ wi-nan yae^ norn DMI . i? . . 5 
IB wm mine' no inbn xb^ybi nans WD b^DD IK ypnp nrn nt3B>n nj'-n: nya ^b 
iniN pyntw UN inyn by xbw xnv in ib noN 11 iniyaBK> onipi JDK noxn nny 
pjyn nn ny\y& nxrn ntwn by pjo nnwn TDB^I PT nn nyn byi unin by sbx 
nny * DK bn nn^n nb nna nyn n-'onb rpnp no ba by ya^nb nbn> n^^si 

IK niypip jnT im noB'n nn'-na nyn piKib ib T'n a mna njn* pyiv 10 
mn nb jn-'b n^rai IBWJ KbK pwn HK yntfj xb 112^3 D^man n^inrn QD 
MOD bion niK-a w^B3 nw ony N^n OKI mm .T-KT K^nb n^byi jnon 'ba 
pD^ann bax o^inrn DIDDD inwn T I DS I| I Kin y3^ -im ony K^nn Kb OKI 
nb 'OKI inbab PIKT K^n -IPK n^n Mtms&n *ba bai niyroi 3nri ?iD3 bai onnm 
p nnKi Dnno jyb vnvnKi ; .DKI jnnn 3 nny3 JDT -IHK oibo:i on ^ jnnn 15 
OKI noy pi3 nioybi ooipob Dinnnb p3m onnmn ^D pK nn i:bt^ nb nK 
nrn* 1 ^KIU vn n^biK^ ^i nn nnb a jnvpm IK |bi33 mna n^Kn nnb nw 
nno n^xn bion nan n"Ki nnb Kxo 11 Kb OKI n^Kin n Tioyn ntrKb IK fbiab 
Tioybi nonya minpb -IPK HK T-rnnb ibKn panpni nKm 3Kn pyrw pyoi 
'OK "Km ^TH 'OK ^Kn nn ^ nby K^J^OKP iim Knit? Kinn J pnoiK UK p ^ pia 20 
noo HHI 'nnoo PK 'o^ob b^a^ 3K 'OK Kaboi 2 K^amab moo WD nn nnp 
wna jimno po'-pi nb -nnon ny n^b j^notj^ KbK n^^oa bia Kan rrb 'OK 
nanaa nK --a na^a Fjoa yauo n^anb njno jnub pn Kb ^a i:b man: nm 

no 3i by f|D3 ^ yaoo ib amaB> jor ba 'ai ia pnnnb bia 11 Kin^ ypip aa by 

by in^anb nK^nn anian <3i Kinn yaoon mp 1 " Kb ia p^rnnb bw PKB> 25 

yjinp Kb naip I^KI n>b^ wj u pnnnb bia 11 WKI yn 11 i^Kt? 'n^ pK3 ypnp 

. , . . i PTJH njno anian pa B>nsn noi nbKt? -MM pboboo Kbi 

niyp-ip-i pibn nn':a w a 3 yn nnK bab naynt^ no iaoao IK voaao amab 13100 

pii nn poo )Dia pup nine^n nbir nan bai spam anrni D^nayrn b"t3om 

........ pboboon bai pjoani anrm nnayni ypnpn n-'oa: pe6 bbaa 30 

ba ib 4 K^oin iaoa ^ono KbK npib I^K ^soa .... noK' HKI 



1 Bdba Kama, 1173. 2 Comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc., and 'Aruk, s.v. 

3 Comp. Baba Batra, 150 3-150 b. 

U 2 



292 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Verso.) 

Bnan noi rhxw T^XI !3D"fi pwn tbnerrb 'IXT oni 
ini "i3oi n:np^ 1T3 oam n^ 1x3 p nnxi ota \b nn x^i nano ama pa 
rupo^ nw TOO x^x rono ^apo nip" 1 x^ insi? arnan a umpn -oai 
$>y jxi rop* x^> ota nxjpnn nya ii? rwi J DX T.a^ Ta^a nx^pnn nya 
'mi DT3i p nnK Q^oaj rup DN p^ ^31 na turn nnnx D^DSJ n:p^ D 5 
^3 nx ^han ^bni TOIND tbnvrb mno ^ 2 ana ib PNB> DB>nini 
OKI 3p*Ki iana x^ nuno nopa *a unow inuonpn IB xin nb 
noB'a i?ax mwnb xa x^ nan rupo DTK jw ^a^ mb bjjv x^ na 
jno D^n^nb p nn rrtbn TOPB> D-'DDin ^a naynt^i 'JP^XT pania am 
npii?n T*DI envn TO Knn ^nin ix naoi njp i^ax 'IKI inxi^n mbon to 

^ai THX ^y vax ncxi niaa xin^ ia pprnio 
pprmo vn r a-i WTD{> i>iPoe6 xoaxT xipx ya n^ m^ s ponia -ex p 
'xioc' TO b psnoJB' |vai ino -voa xintr nnx !?y vax noxi niaa xin^ ia 
m 'D onx jcxj mi.T 7 n 7 x po nnnx^ i3ia* IDKB' 'na na^nn 
pi nenna p nr 'o^ 'ow na "iiaa \ja nr 7 ii? DTX pxj^ otrai niaa ^a 15 
nxtrin parna mb n^ JDXJ ux 7 ix 'oam nxT pana na^n ix nvbn 
xnp n^ y^Doi TO 11 'nan jn joxa ax 'CXT m^n* 'n^ x^a pnoxi n6 nr 
*opio pan pnoxi pam xnyix p^pia i*a ^ xob }DXJ px noxi paib x^x 
TTX X^T p"a Km pnr xh yn 11 MKB> man Tnva xnp r nm i3i n^ 
p-nn lisa xin^ m^ir by iio'h V3x jcxypx ni^a xin^ ia pprmoi man 20 
D3 D n-b xsn^io^ nTDK ^x Nna^n S XD^> man 71x3 ^x p3- p^pxi 
n-'S 1 ' sna^tt!? s i? nio^ njno ^ a^n 1 - x^o nnx IDX xo^ya nano x^x xn 11 xb 
n^ rch nano bapo I^XT no i?ap^ niaa pa man n^x pan i35ri 
naT iTan!? rupo DTK px f? KDPT nanoT nny JTJH n^oaaa x^x ^>p^o^> 
Tyi nny ny jo 3x!? p^an D^DSJ } >T^D ^pu>ob b s 3^ xh 4 im^i3 irxcj' 35 

mio ny Tyi innan nyo V3x^ i^ajB> D^DDJD ^P^ 1133 ib w inio ny 

DDU 3X 'in T3 o^iy^ xa x^ 13T r an^ napo DTX 'DXT TX /- i^ x5nv -ioM 

3: i?y PIKI DDi: Kirroo ib i^a:ic> D^oaaa bpe> nisai n^no antei? iJi5^ ii^xi 

xm 13 pjoi 11 'ani? xax 'T n^ rbv 6 pnoxpT rrr\tr> 'T3 na^n 5 p3T ....... 

pirn by 'DIKH px"moi pew px x x pm 'ni }x: o^an pa pij^n by nDixn 30 
xna^n pnoxi pana pK3 px 'ox pnv 'ni mm^ 'na pw xin -ilia b^ari pi 



1 Read b. 2 Read aniarft. s Baba Batra, 127 a-b. * The expression 

used by the Gaon is not exact, he really meant D7W N2 sbc -ui and not ^n.1D^2 13'Mir im, 
which implies an entirely different principle of law. 

5 Read j:ai v'w ipbrac. ' Baba Batra, 128 b. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 293 



XXXVIII. 

Fragments 2760, MS. Heb. d. 48, fols. 11-12 ; and 2826, 
MS. Heb. d 63, fols. 62-73, Bodleian ; Syr. Rabb. charac- 
ters, 4to, paper. These two fragments are written in the 
same characters, on the same kind of paper, with the 
same ink, and the same number of lines to a page, 
and also the contents prove that they actually belong 
together. Fols. 62 and 63 of Fragment 2826 form a part 
of the Responsum on fols. 11,12 of Fragment 2760, though 
there is a gap between the two parts. We shall first 
consider Fragment 2760, in connexion with fols. 62 and 63 
of Fragment 2826, leaving fols. 64-73 f the latter fragment 
to be dealt with separately. 

The fragment under examination contains fifty short 
explanations of the treatise Shabbat, the first of them of 
a passage on fol. 3 a, the last, on 57 a. Obviously the 
fragment is incomplete, possibly to the extent of a quire 
of two or three leaves, which must have covered the 
text of Shabbat between 8 b and 17 b. There is, of course, 
no telling whether the commentary did not run on after 
57 a to the end of the treatise, as the last explanation 
preserved breaks off in the middle. Nearly all the com- 
ments are brief, and concern themselves mainly with 
linguistic points, giving special attention to the names 
of plants, animals, and similar things. The name of the 
author does not appear. It was probably mentioned at 
the beginning, which, it should be noted, is missing. The 
uniform style and character of the explanations leave no 
room for doubt that all of them were made by one and 
the same authority. The only clue to the authorship is 



294 GENIZAH STUDIES 

to be found in Responsum 23, which forms part of the 
collection 3"n (No. 95), where it is ascribed to R. Natronai 
Gaon l . In any event, it is certain that the author is one 
of the older Geonim, which may be inferred from the use 
of Persian expressions and also Aramaic expressions other- 
wise unknown. The importance of this fragment lies in 
the fact that the author of the 'Aruk made extensive 
use of it, as will be shown in analysing the separate 
paragraphs. It is interesting to note, that though he 
quotes more than thirty explanations contained in our 
Responsum, he yet does not mention the author, probably 
due to its having come into his hands as an anonymous 
Geonic document. 

Remarks upon a selected number of the explanations 
follow below, and we begin with the second paragraph. 

2. In this Responsum the Gaon explains the meaning 
of the term Tina "O, which he justly 2 brings into connexion 
with mna. He adds, that some read Titfa instead of Tina, 
which he asserts are synonymous words, Ti[K]a being used 
as in Num. xxiv. 17. Sifre Num. 85 has a bearing on this 
point. There pvp, " prince," is derived from nvp, " end." 
Analogously, TINS, " ends," is taken by so early a Jewish 
authority as Targuni Onkelos, as meaning "prince." The 
author of the 'Aruk, s.v., made use of cur Responsum 3 , but 
the words }n ymm "D Dm, leaf i, recto, line 10, must have 
been missing in his copy of it, wherefore he deviated from 
the Geonic explanation 4 . In point of fact, neither the 
explanation of the e Aruk nor the explanation of the Gaon 
is satisfactory. In the Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud, 

1 Comp. also Rabbi Isaiah di Trani the Elder, yoan, 31, who also 
ascribes it to Natronai Gaon. 

2 Comp. the Assyrian lei pihati, which corresponds exactly to the 
Talmudic expression. 

3 Kohut, Introduction to his 'Aruk, p. 17, is mistaken in assuming that 
the 'Aruk has drawn upon the lexicographical work of Rabbi Zemah 
Gaon. The two authorities have different explanations of VINE. 

4 The words 'im nabni D':B "h rrmzj are, however, not found in the 
editions and only in some of the MSS. of the 'Aruk, and are probably a 
later addition. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 295 



n is often softened to N, so that 'DSD and Tina are only 
orthographic variations of the same word. 

3. The explanation of NTis appears literally in ' Aruk, s.v. 
Yet one fails to see, at first sight, how the Gaon happens 
upon it in dealing with the treatise Shabbat, where it does 
not occur. It cannot be assumed for a moment that he 
was led to it by the resemblance of the word to TINQ. 
The only acceptable hypothesis is that the passage in 
Shabbat, 4 a, in the Gaon's text must have read [KIMIK NTia] 
'131 r6y ^"DTi W, the first two words having been omitted 
from our text out of deference to Rabba. The strong 
expression NMIN NTia is elsewhere l often employed by Rab 
Nahman, the very one who is administering a rebuke to 
his disciple Rabba in the passage quoted. 

4. The Gaon's explanation of ^pDIB is also reproduced 
literally by the author of the 'Aruk, s.v., with the rather 
curious addition that NpDB is an expression of the "holy 
tongue," while in reality it is a word of Persian origin. 

5. The explanation of VOD is quoted, not only by the 
'Aruk, s.v., but also by Albargeloni, in his DTiyn 'D, 301. 

6. This Responsum is quoted, though in a somewhat 
shortened form, in ' Aruk, s.v. *]n (5), ed. Kohut, III, 462. 

8. The Gaon's explanation of onno rta is found literally 
in the 'Aruk, s. v., with the addition of a copyist's error. 
Instead of the reading mo^ro uw, it has THoira pw, 
which of course cannot be correct. All authoritative 
Halakot must be based on the Talmud, if they are not 
found there explicitly. The most interesting information 
yielded by the Responsum is contained in the Gaon's 
statement about the use of the Talmud, showing that at 
so early a period as his time it was widespread. 

13. This Responsum appears in the 'Aruk, s.v. nVDDy. 

15. The 'Aruk does not contain this Responsum. On 
the other hand, it is quoted by Rashi, ad loc., who mentions 

1 Pesahim, 88 a, and Megillah, 14 b ; also Berakot, 500. Eabbi Saadia, in his 
newly discovered commentary on Berakot, explains it as a compliment ! 



296 GENIZAH STUDIES 

a Geonic Responsuin as his authority. As to the reading 
'IT, comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc., and 'Aruk, s. v. 13. 

1 6. This Responsum is quoted by three authorities, by 
the 'Aruk, s. v. i>nn, by Rabbenu Hai Gaon on Kelim, 
XVI, 5, and by Rashi on Shabbat, 81 b, catchword ND'EDD. 
Apparently, our Gaon must have written another Responsum 
upon the same subject, to which the words Dr6 WT3 "pi 
probably refer 1 . A better reading would be 1331 instead 
of 131. 

17. This Responsum was known to the author of the 
' Aruk, as can be seen from his definition of NTNT , though his 
reading of it must have been essentially different from ours. 

19. From what the Gaon says about NJintf, we may 
justly infer that his text of the Talmud differs from ours. 
It must have read sn3ix ran^Nl WNinK 'J7N3 f 1DNT xinn . 
Notice also the spelling NJinx and WNins, our texts reading 
Winx or KJlinx. 

20. The twentieth Responsum is literally quoted by the 
c Aruk, s. v. tOSt?, and probably was known also to Rabbi 
Judah Albargeloni. The Arabic equivalent of X"I3B> given 
by Albargeloni in his D'nyn 'D, 13, is the same as that 
appearing in our fragment. 

21. The word Ti3lJtJ>, with which the Gaon explains 
Nn3X, is found nowhere in Jewish literature. However, 
there can be no doubt that it is identical with the Syriac 

>, " moss." It is to be noticed also that the Gaon reads 
, not NDO31N. This would suggest that Nn3N has 
nothing to do with ND31N, " black," but is only a different 
form of NDJN, " marsh land." WIE3N would thus mean a 
growth in a pond or a marsh. In Hebrew, the word DJK 
as used in Jer. li. 33, would furnish an interesting parallel, 
if the traditional meaning could be accepted without 
reservation. 

22. There can be no doubt that the text of this Responsum 
is corrupt. It must read p'pl , . . f)lV 'DIK (MOV =) 

"131 IBP ^rpn NHSJ^I IDN . . . prre* 3*11 ioa>. The words 

1 Comp., however, below, pp. 310 and 321. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 297 



are the Gaon's explanation of XTpn 
This Responsum was known both to Rabbi Hai Gaon and 
the author of the 'Aruk, where its use is implied in 
what he says under Nip. Hai's reference to it occurs in 
a Responsum of his own reproduced in Albargeloni's DTijjn 'D, 
13, where the Arabic is quoted in so corrupt a form that 
it may not be superfluous to set it down here again 1 : 
cnpn JD PPB ^Npi (D*DK) DD-K Nin D^ pr^x (TWO) YIPD KTP 
(fop) fop^K an )D (mno*) a-ono 11 jrn rax oruo IPIK php 
(mom) monta NO jo (mno 11 ) aiano* jm in ^>Np (-ON 

P"ID 



The Hebrew translation of the above runs as follows : 
ru w!> vn nu'N D <i 3iti > sini ,[mpo] DB> ITNI ne'an inn srp 
,aa nov wjna jo NVVH jDt^ wnB> IK nn 
'anyni pno ^^N Nn^i^v .nn^s *oo KSIM JOB' 

The expression NJaiaiKH in our fragment, occurring a 
second time in Responsum XLI, is noteworthy ; it stands 
for NJS1J "ijn, as T1D1 in Responsum XLI stands for 
S T^J? IDjn. Neither of these two words is found elsewhere 
in Rabbinic literature, but N:si:nD is found in Syriac. Cornp. 
Low, Aramdische Pflanzennamen, 92. 

23. The 'Aruk, s. v. JD^I^Jt, quotes the Responsum. 
Probably it was also known to Hai, as is shown by his 
Arabic Responsum quoted above. 

24. This Responsum is nearly identical with that found 
in n"^, 233, where it forms part of a Responsum ascribed 
to Hai. But not much value can be attached to the 
superscriptions in the Responsa Collections, as is proved 
by the very next number, 234. Hai is given as its author 
as well, although it is beyond the peradventure of a doubt 
that it belongs to Rab Amram 2 . The 'Aruk, s. v. *icnn , 
quotes the explanation of our Responsum from niniKTi. 
Comp. Alfasi, Shabbat, II, i . 

1 The words in parentheses are the readings of the D'rwn 'c ; comp. 
Harkavy, in pan, VI, 28. 

2 Comp. below, p. 316. 



298 GENIZAH STUDIES 

25. As to the recipe here given for making ink, comp. 
Low, Aramdische Pflanzennamen, 199. 

26. This Responsum is identical with that found in 
j"n, 95, where it is ascribed to Rabbi Natronai Gaon 1 . 
It contains the very interesting statement that in olden 
times Maftir was read at the afternoon service, as well 
as at the morning service, and that the custom fell into 
desuetude during a period of oppression by the Persians. 
The persecutions were directed with particular force against 
the study of the Law. Accordingly, the readings were 
restricted as much as possible; Maftir in the afternoon 
was dropped, and not reinstated after the pressure 
from without was removed. The persecution to which 
the Gaon refers is probably that of Mazdak 2 . It is, 
however, very doubtful whether the Gaon's explanation 
of the change that took place in the reading of the Maftir 
is correct. From a Responsum by Hai, quoted by Rabbi 
Zerahiah Gerondi 3 , in his TiND, on Shabbat, 21 b, we know 
that so recently as his own time, the eleventh century, 
Maftir was still recited in the afternoon among the Persian 
Jews. If the afternoon Maftir had actually been dropped 
by reason of persecutions in Persia, one would hardly 
expect to find the custom there at so late a day. At 
all events, the statement of the Gaon as to the existence 
of the custom itself cannot be doubted, corroborated as 
it is, not only by Hai, but also by the Midrash Aggadat 
Bereshit, which is partly based on the prophetical lessons 
read in the afternoon 4 . The author of this Midrash 
beyond a doubt lived somewhere in the neighbourhood 
of Constantinople, and flourished about the time of 

1 Comp. above, p. 49, a similar tradition regarding the rronp, which 
makes both statements doubtful. 

2 Comp. above, p. 49 ; but see also, above, p. 217, and Halberstam in 
Kobak's Jeschurun, VI, 127-30. 

3 Comp. also Rabbi Isaiah diTrani the Elder, jrTjon, 31 ; niry, II, 45 d ; 
D'nyn 'D, 271 ; and Miiller, Mafteah, 210. 

* These lessons may, of course, not have been Maftir ; see the following 
page. 



GEONIC KESPONSA 299 

Hai. Thus we have a witness to the prevalence of the 
afternoon Maftir custom among European Jews as well 
as among the Persian Jews. In any event, there are traces 
left in all the rituals pointing to the fact that there was 
a time when lessons from the Prophets were read at the 
afternoon service, though not as Maftir. This assumption 
is the only one that enables us to explain the presence 
of the NTJDT NB>np in the afternoon service. From a 
Responsum by Rabbi Natronai (in the Geonic Collection, 
ed. Lyck, 90 ; n"tJ>, 55 ; and Mahzor Vitry, p. 26) we know 
that the NVim NtWp in the daily morning prayer had its 
origin in the custom of reading from the Prophets after 
the end of the service; this XK'np corresponding to the 
Maftir's Benedictions after the Prophetical lesson on 
Sabbaths and holidays. The NTiDl NK>11p in the afternoon 
service, therefore, proves that a Prophetical lesson was 
read in the afternoon, only it was not read as Maftir with 
its customary Benedictions. This conjecture is abundantly 
confirmed by an old Responsum, quoted by Rabbi Judah 
Albargeloni l , which explicitly mentions the custom of 
having a lesson from the Prophets on Sabbath afternoons, 
and reading it, not in connexion with the regular Pentateuch 
lesson, but at the beginning, before the service has started. 
The service at the conclusion of the Sabbath presents a 
development the reverse of what took place in the Sabbath 
afternoon service. While in the latter the Prophetical 
lesson was put at the beginning, in the former the reading 
from the Hagiographa 2 was pushed on to the end, where- 



h 'D, p. 289, where, on line 25, trail should be read instead of 
, as the context shows, 'iiroi crept in on account of the use of the 
word in the previous line. On line 26, read N'ooi instead of wmi. 

2 The custom at Nehardea originally was to read from the Hagiographa 
at the afternoon service, probably at the end. As to the expression 
X-IID 702, there can be no doubt that Rashi explains it correctly. It 
refers, not to Maftir, as some maintain, but to readings from the 
Hagiographa, independent of the Pentateuch lessons. Comp. Sqferim, 
XIV, 4, which probably also refers to public readings from the Hagio- 
grapha. For other explanations see N*San, and Friedmann in pan, 
IV, 25. 



300 GEN1ZAH STUDIES 



fore we have a NilDI Nt?np after the conclusion of the 
na&? ^si service. The reciting of Psalm xci at the service 
at the going out of the Sabbath is a remnant of the 
readings from the Hagiographa. This is what is meant 
to be conveyed by the statement of a Gaon found in 
the Oxford MS. of the Seder Rob Amram l : , . . i^nao Tim 
jnoa nai ^an maa im nn ^a <DTH fs'-nx aa pjm 
i3&oaB> UT^K ina TJNI ai *a in. A further 
corroboration of Rabbi Natronai's theory, that the XKTJp 
NTTD1 concludes a reading from the Prophets or from the 
Hagiographa, is offered by the custom of reciting it 2 after 
the reading of the Megillah on Purim, and the Book of 
Lamentations on Tisha be-Ab. 

28. This Responsum is given literally in the 'Aruk, s. v. 
P'N vbn, where the JTiaifcTi, Geonic Responsa, are referred to 
as the source. 

30. Also this Responsum is quoted literally by the author 
of the ' Aruk, s. v. bta , and probably was known to Hai, 
in whose commentary on Kelim, XXVIII, 7, a*in must be 
emended to read ain. 

31-32. Of these two Responsa, the second is quoted 
literally in the 'Aruk, s. v. D1E~in , and the first was probably 
made use of in the explanation of Tip (i) ; ed. Kohut, p. 767. 

35. This Responsum, the end of which is missing, was 
probably known to the author of the 'Aruk, whose 
explanation of fpD (2) seems to have been taken 
from it. 

39. A reference to this Responsum is found in the 'Aruk, 
s. v. pta . 

41. It is interesting to notice that the 'Aruk, in making- 
use of our Responsum, s. v. fjv (7), substitutes the expressions 

1 Originally they had readings from the Hagiographa for the people, later 
the readings were abolished, and a iiruj from the Kabbinical literature by 
the scholars took its place. The same development occurred in the daily 
morning service ; comp. Kabbi Natronai's Responsum quoted above. 

2 There are many explanations for the reciting of NTIDT 'np at various 
occasions, but they are all unsatisfactory ; comp. Abudraham, ed. Warsaw, 
67, 68, 96, and 138 ; and c v n nimn, I, 219. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 301 

in common use for the unique words X3Dia IE, T1O, and 
'ano. The last term, though of Arabic origin, seems to 
have been used by Aramaic-speaking peoples. It occurs, 
for instance, in Syriac. 

42. The explanation of ixw JV3 in our Responsum seems 
to be identical with that given by the 'Aruk, s. v., though, 
it must be admitted, Rabbi Nathan is not altogether clear 
in what he says on the subject. A noteworthy point in 
this Responsum is the use of the Persian fNina , juruban, 
for collar. 

43 and 45. These two Responsa are quoted by the ' Aruk, 
s. v. pnstf and P| (7). 

47. The explanation of sna 1 ^ isy is accepted by the 
'Aruk, s. v., though a second explanation is there added. 

48. The explanation of pODHNSDD by plpata , a jasmine 
mixture by bed-cover, is so odd that there can be no 
doubt of the corruptness of the text before us. The 
alternative is offered us either to read pDlpiSa 1 , y\vKvppi.a, 
or, which is more probable, to assume that the Gaon was 
giving an explanation of the word plpfi'&a occurring in 
the Talmud on the page next to that on which pDD'HXSD'in 
is found. 

49. This Responsum is quoted literally by two authorities, 
by the ' Aruk, s. v. xnoip^D, and by Rabbi Judah Albargeloni, 

'D, p. 32. 



Fols. 64-73, Fragment 2826, form a consecutive collection 
of fifty-one Responsa, by Rabbi Amram Gaon, with the 
exception of the first ten lines of fol. 64 a, which contain six 
disjointed Haggadic quotations, five of them from known 
sources, the sixth not found in existing Midrashic literature. 
The fragment is unique in the earlier Geonic Responsa lite- 
rature in giving, not only the name of the Geonic authority 
to whom questions about certain difficulties were addressed, 
and the name of the questioner to whom the Responsa 

1 The form ppovu for pmprj is not improbable. Comp. Krauss, 
Griechische und lateinische Lehnwtrter, I, 114. 



302 GENIZAH STUDIES 

were sent, but also the exact date when they were written, 
or, rather, when the letter of inquiry was received l . The 
month of the date is Adar, corroborating the statement, 
hitherto resting upon the unsupported authority of Rabbi 
Nathan ha-Babli 2 , that the Kallah of Adar was the occasion 
on which the Geonim submitted the questions addressed 
to them from the outside to the prominent members of 
the Academies. At all events, our Responsum testifies 
to the prevalence of the custom a century and a half before 
Rabbi Nathan's day. The year 169 of the Seleucidsean 
era (=857 c. E.) is also of importance, settling, as it does, 
the date of the beginning of Rabbi Amram's Gaonate, 
which some scholars set at a considerable number of years 
later 3 . It is possible that our Responsum contained an 
allusion to the recent death of the Gaon's predecessor, 
running somewhat like this : no pitfiwi Wily lonatP 'a by *|Nt? 
rnnpD min npoe xb rmr S?:a nm:6 nat pw wnBi m. 
The date is confirmed by Rabbi Isaac ben Abba Mari, 
who, in his "ilDy, II, 30 a, refers to a Collection of Responsa 
by Rabbi Arnram handed down in the presence of the Ab 
Bet Din and the prominent members of the Academy in 
the year 169 4 , and the analysis of the separate Responsa 
will demonstrate that the *11BV has our collection in mind. 
The introduction to the collection is couched in practically 

1 JNTIN on leaf 5, recto, line n, may mean " submitted " in the Academy 
for discussion. 

2 For the time of Sherira, comp. "ma> , I, 53 a : rv JOn NT-TO im aroi 
ppDj? ID"T n;o ma rfoi Nnrnai :mp [1. TIN]. The text is somewhat 
corrupt, after ppt the name of the Talmudical treatise or chapter is left 
out which was studied in the Academy in the month of ns"-i TIN. 

3 Comp. Miiller, Mafteah, Amram, note 3 ; Halevy, Dorot ha-Bishonim, III, 
245-6 ; and Halberstam, in Kobak's Jeschurun, V, 138, where the date 
1208 is incorrect; the Parma MS., from which it is copied, probably 
has 1298. 

* The text of the Trc needs to be emended; read (vum~a =) 'iwa 
p rv} 3 '3D1 nanajiu ; and comp. ibid., 32 a, where, however, 1*3 rniN is 
a copyist's error for n"a 3N ; the MS. of the TITDS in the Sulzberger 
Collection of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America reads in the 
first passage quoted MM 'icna. Miiller, Mafteah, 125 (na), reads nu 
jn , but, as the parallel passage shows, |n n'l IN is the correct reading. 



GEONIC EESPONSA 303 

the same phraseology as that used by Rab Amram at the 
beginning of his Seder, and also of a Responsum of his 
quoted in the Geonic Collection, ed. Lyck, No. 56. The 
designation of Rabbi Zemah as Ab Bet Din, while in 
the Responsum in the Lyck collection referred to he is 
described as Dayyana de Baba, is independent proof, in 
addition to all the other indications we possess 1 , of the 
identity of these two offices. It cannot be determined 
with certainty which Rabbi Zemah is meant. Probably 
it is the one who became the Gaon of Sura eight years 
after the death of Rab Amram 2 . 

The greater part of the collection consists of Responsa 
dealing with questions connected with rwx 'n. They all, 
with the exception of a very few, were known to Rabbi 
Isaac ben Abba Mari, and he made use of them in his 
lltay, quoting them on the authority of Rab Amram. There 
can be no doubt, however, that also the few not relating 
to n <l 5PX originated with Rab Amram ; some of them, indeed, 
are ascribed to him elsewhere. Apparently, the copy of 
our collection in the hands of the author of the TiDy was 
not so complete as the Genizah copy, as he fails to refer 
to Rab Amram in a number of cases on which the Gaon's 

1 Comp. Sherira's Letter, p. 38, lines 12 and 15 ; Harkavy, Studien und 
Mittheilungen, III, note 124, and Briill, Jahrbucher, II, 35, note 42. 

2 With regard to this Rabbi Zemah, comp. Miiller, Mafieah, 140 () ; 
Lazarus, Die Haupter der Vertriebenen, pp. 177-8, 180 ; Buchler, in Revue des 
etudes juives, L, 158 ; and Epstein, }"n IDD by IONO, end. My reason for 
identifying Rabbi Zemah ha-Bet Din with Rabbi Zemah ben Hayyim is 
that it seems very improbable to me that the Gaon would refer in 
a Responsum to the Ab Bet Din at the court of the Exilarch. The 
relations between the Gaonate and the Exilarchate were never of so 
intimate a character as to make the other assumption acceptable. The 
only Responsum by Zemah ben Solomon, the Ab Bet Din at the court of 
the Exilarchate, preserved to us (comp. Dukes, Ben Chananjah, IV, 141), 
was probably written at a time when the office of Gaon was vacant, 
possibly after Rabbi Hilai of Sura. Oddly enough, Epstein refers to 
Rab Amram's Responsum, Geonic Collection, ed. Lyck, 56, as quoting the 
Ab Bet Din Zemah ben Solomon, at the same time remarking upon 
the strangeness of the fact, when in reality Rab Amram writes Rabbi 
Zemah simply. 



3<M GENIZAH STUDIES 

opinion might have been derived from the MS. now under 
examination. Comp., for instance, II, 320, concerning 
flD ^"inn ; ibid., concerning NDSIp >73j 32 d, concerning n^yn 
tron ; and 46 c, explaining the Talmudic passage, bw nnDK 
min. Miiller, Mafteah, 125 (n"), quotes a decision by 
Rab Amram on the subject of JiTX from the T)0y not 
found in our fragment. But this is due to a slip. The 
words of the moy, 30 c, 3"3 vnnr^ra Nnrrno t?n Dnroy 3-11, 
do not refer to the preceding sentence (wvyp 'l), but are 
the beginning of a separate statement, a quotation of Rab 
Amram's Responsum (III) in our fragment. Miiller's next 
Responsum ("To) also calls for a word of explanation. It 
is by Rab Amram, on the same subject of rwv, and 
Miiller quotes it from the "ViDy (p. 32 b) without realizing 
that it is found in the Seder (5 a). Rabbi Abraham ben 
Isaac, of Lunel, a compatriot of the author of the "ntay, 
and a contemporary of his as well, quotes the same 
Responsum in his Eshkol, II, 98, and gives the source 
correctly. And still again, Miiller (p. 124, N" 11 ) goes astray 
in a similar manner. He failed to notice that the Responsum 
by Rab Amram referred to by Rabbi Aaron of Lunel in 
his ''"n mrnK, 32 c ('n), also goes back to the Seder (39 b). 

An abstract of nearly all the Responsa bearing on JTW 
is given in a"n, 70, Rab Amram being named as the 
authority. It is noteworthy that the order of the Responsa 
in a"n coincides with the order in our fragment, so that 
there can be no doubt that the two go back to the same 
document as their original. Though the Responsa under 
examination are in the form of a commentary on the 
fourth chapter of Menahot, the Talmudic passage con- 
cerning itself with JVVV, they nevertheless present a genuine, 
if primitive, attempt at codification. This is the reason 
why the order of the Responsa does not agree strictly 
with the sequence of the passages explained as they occur 
in the Talmud. 

i. The first Responsum consists of a lengthy explanation 
of the Talmudic passage Menahot, 1 03 b, concerning the 



GEONIC RESPONSA 305 

size of the meal offering. The Responsum contains nothing 
new, but one reading of the text by the Gaon is worth 
noting: ^yh N^W i'NB', a reading preferable to the one 
in our texts, which themselves offer the same reading in 
Shabbat, 30 a. On the other hand, the MS. as written 
presents a point of very great interest. In the Biblical 
verses quoted in our Responsum 1 , there are never more 
than two words written out; the rest of the words of 
the verse are merely indicated by means of their initial 
letters. This abbreviated system is not an expedient of 
economy, as might be supposed at first sight. To save 
space and time, the scribes resort to 'ui and '131. The 
true explanation goes back to the old ordinance in both 
Talmudim, Babli, Gittin, 6 b, and Yer., Megillah, III, 74 a, 
forbidding the writing of more than two consecutive words 
in a Biblical citation without D1B"iK>. To escape from the 
necessity of observing, in very early times, the Shirtut, 
or the "npJ , which was substituted for it in Geonic times 2 , 
the scribes invented the system of abbreviations, to be 
applied to all the words of a verse after the second. As 
this ordinance regarding the writing of Scriptural sentences 
fell into desuetude 3 , we are justified in assuming, that if 
our fragment is not a copy made directly from the original, 
it is at least not far removed in age from it, and in any 
event was made by a conscientious scribe. 

3. In the second Responsum, a view of far-reaching 
importance is preserved for us, regarding the authoritative 
character of the Tannaitic sources not embodied in the 
Talmud. The Gaon maintains that the opinions of the 
Tosefta and the Tannaitic Halakic Midrashim are valid 
only if they are supported by Talmudic views, or at 
least are not contradicted by Talmudic statements 4 . 

1 Comp. also Eesponsum XVII. 

2 Comp. n"tr>, 39 ; V;, 46 ; 'nw, II, 43 ; and n*Dn, in J. Q. R. t IX, 687. 

3 Comp. Tosafot, Menahot, 32 b, top. 

4 About the meaning of the words Nin D'lDQ Vi Nin Trap -UT N"J, leaf 6, 
recto, line 10, there can be no doubt. The Gaon maintains that a state- 
ment found in Tannaitic sources not embodied in the Talmud, is neither 

X 



306 GENIZAH STUDIES 

In any other case, they have no standing. His argument 
runs as follows : As the Amoraim repeatedly pronounce 
against statements in the Mishnah, by far the most com- 
manding work of the Tannaim, as being merely the opinions 
of individuals, how much less can the other Tannaitic 
sources lay claim to undisputed authority? The general 
argument is sound, but the proofs adduced in detail seem 
unfortunately to be based on an inaccurate use of Talmudic 
sources. While the Gaon's contention, that certain Mishwiyyot 
are declared by the Talmud to be individual opinions, is 
correct, yet, to my knowledge, the expressions JT3 *J 'jn 
NTI 'Kop and NVI ntrrrp 'ano do not actually occur in the 
Talmud. It is true that the latter expression is found 
in one MS. of the Talmud, Moed Katon, 19 a, only it 
refers there, not to a Mishnah, but to a Baraita. It will 
not do to suppose that the Gaon did not have the intention 
of making a literal quotation from the Talmud, for in 
that case the expression $y\>y 'n "OO 'jn would be a useless 

decisive nor authoritative, in the sense of being an accepted, settled view. 
In his resume, the Gaon uses the synonymous expression snp'CD NnVo, 
just as the Yerushalmi, Berakot, V, 8 a, uses niaisp rvobn for the term in 
the BaUi, ibid., 31 a, npiDD robn (Bacher mentions neither of these 
technical terms in his Terminologie). As to the use of D'lco as a synonym 
with aisp, comp. Rabbenu Hai's Responsum, quoted in the Eshkol, II, 49, 
where he employs exactly the same expression in characterizing the 
Yerushalmi : D'lDQ ir m nan. Friedmann, in his Introduction to the 
Mekilta, p. 48, misled by the false reading of Azulai's text of the Seder 
Tannaim we-Amwaim, and misunderstanding the exact meaning of the 
terms lisp and E'IDD, forces an entirely foreign notion into the text. The 
expression maisp is hardly borrowed from the Palestinians, as Epstein, 

I. c., 64, maintains. True, it does not occur in the Babylonian Talmud. 
NTUD is in the same case; it is found in the Yerushalmi, but not in the 
Babli, yet no one would assert that the Babylonians went to Palestine 
for it. Comp. aisp -QI, quoted from y'lD in rrco, 60. 

It may be of interest to call attention, by the way, to a passage in 
Harkavy, Geonic Responsa, 396, bearing on ">E3 in the Responsum by 
Rabbenu Hai, which baffled the editor of the Eshkol. We learn from 
it that a case of bB3 was decided differently in Palestine and in Babylonia. 
The an:o 'i:sj mentioned by Harkavy in another passage, immediately 
preceding the one under discussion, is by no means so new as he would 
have us believe, seeing that it occurs three times in the Yerusltalmi, Berakot, 

II, 4b, and parallel passages. Comp. Muller, n'rr, 33. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 307 



repetition of NM riNTrp 'jno. Some of the sources con- 
taining the present Responsum, to be quoted later on, do, 
indeed, give different readings of this passage, and though 
they do not rid us of the difficulty pointed out above, 
yet the very variations go to show that we have, to say 
the least, an incorrect copy of the Responsum before us, 
so far as these readings go. The most acceptable solution 
would be to assume that the expression N^py 'n 'JD 'JHD 
is an old gloss explaining KM riKTrP 'JDE, which has crept 
into the text of the Responsum. This would in part do 
away with the difficulty. 

Our Responsum has a rather interesting literary history. 
The greater part of it, to begin with, was incorporated 
in the oldest methodology of the Talmud, known as the 
Seder Tannaitn we -Amor aim, which has come down to 
us in as many as six versions 1 . That our Responsum 
is the primary source, and not the Nl"nD, is proved by 
the faulty readings occurring identically in all the 
versions 2 . We must guard ourselves against ascribing 
the Seder Tannaim we^Amoraim to Rab Amram. Any 
desire to do so would be nullified by the fact that this 
Gaon is on record with views diametrically opposed to 
some expressed in the book. The Gaon, in six cases, 
decides with Bet Shammai against Bet Hillel (Seder Rab 
Amram, 5a; and comp. also Responsum 18 of our frag- 



1 First version by Azulai in his a'osrt in ; the second and third by 
Luzzatto according to two MSS. (Prague, 1858), repTinted from non 013, 
IV ; the fourth version in Filipowski's edition of the pcnv ; the fifth in 
Oraetz, Einleitung in den Talmud (Breslau, 1871), and the sixth from the 
famous Munich MS. of the Talmud, by Taussig, cito rro ; comp. also 
Steinschneider, Geschichtsliteratur, 12-14, an( i Nachfrag, 173. 

2 Notice, for instance, the reading wro '-\ instead of win '-\ ; the author 
of the Tver also had the false reading in his text of the Ni'no. Rabbi 
Amram in his Responsum speaks only of ncc, meaning by it the 
Tannaitic Midrashim to Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, which is 
explained in the text of Ni'no by an additional sentence. In nvrm 'in, 
ed. Venice, 143 d, end, nro for neon Nntoo, and in so late a writer as 
c"i (Nedarim, 36 b, end), we find the use of nco for all the Tannaitic 
Midrashim except Sifra. Comp. Rashi in TmV> 'isn 't?n, No. 25. 

X 2 



308 GENIZAH STUDIES 

ment), while the Seder Tannaim we-Amoraim decides 
thus in a single case. 

The author of the Titty knew our Responsum both from 
the Seder Tannaim we-Amoraim and from the Rab 
Amram Collection. Miiller, in his Mafteah, p. 124 (a"'), 
completely misunderstood the expression vnuitfTD D"iy 211 
!WDn "HD, with which the "iiay, II, 340, introduces a 
quotation from our Responsum. The expression can be 
taken to mean only that the Responsum is found with 
Rab Amram and also in the Seder ha-Mishnah, which is 
the designation commonly used for the first part of the 
Seder Tannaim ive-Amoraim. A MS. of the *UDy in 
the Sulzberger Collection of the Jewish Theological 
Seminary of America, formerly in the possession of 
Halberstam, reads thus: ruBTon TIDI nniBTQ. The printed 
text goes back to nation TiDl iroitWU, which there can be 
no doubt is the correct reading. 

This Responsum seems to form the introduction to the 
Responsa that follow dealing with rvyx, it being a question 
of rpyx that affords the Gaon the opportunity to enunciate, 
and at the same time apply practically, his theory regarding 
the relation of the Tannaitic sources to the Amoraim. 
a " n > 7j contains nothing of the Gaon's theory as to the 
authoritativeness of the Tannaitic sources, but it illus- 
trates his practical use of it as applied to JITS. The 
practical decision again appears in n"K>, I59 1 , where a 
number of regulations are given bearing on rW. 

3. The third Responsum is quoted in the "HEy , II, 30 c, 
and n"c?, 159. The author of the Eshlcol, II, 97, also refers 
to it as }1N:6 miBTO. It probably reached him as an 
anonymous Responsum. The last sentence quoted in the 
Eshkol, 'tti pnnnn "it^pl, which has no meaning, is an 
abstract of Responsum 1 7 in our fragment, which probably 

1 The superscription <i"\ Dibc -TO refers only to the first part of that 
Responsum ; from pi b3 n^'ii to the end abstracts from several Responsa 
in our fragment are given. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 309 

followed the third Responsum in the MS. at the disposal 
of the author of the Eshkol. 

4. Abstracts of this Responsum are found in the Tltoy, 
II, 30 b, and in the 'Aruk, s. v. TU (4), in the latter source 
without any mention of Rab Amram. 

5. The "itDV does not quote this Responsum explicitly, 
but perhaps it is referred to in the words pwn 'IKTQ, on 
p. 31 a. If the conjecture is correct, we are forced to 
assume that the author had a text differing from ours. 
s"n and n"B>, 11. cc., both have abstracts of the Responsum. 

6. The Gaon's decision, that the TVtfnf may not be attached 
by a Gentile, is found in the lltay, 34 b, and in a"n, 1. c. 

7-8. Neither of these two Responsa is referred to in 
the "iltjy, and even a"n has an abstract of the first only. 
It seems that at the time these abstracts were made, 
custom 1 had already declared against attaching rwx to 
shrouds. Therefore the epitomizer neglected the Gaon's 
opposing view. 

9. The explanation of MenaJiot, 41 b, is highly interesting, 
as it is based on a reading essentially different from ours. 
The author of the "I1DJJ, 330, who noticed the difference 
between our Talmudic text and the text before the Gaon, 
s"n, I.e., reproduces of the Responsum only so much as 
bears upon the practical question dealt with ; the ex- 
planation of the Talmudic text is not referred to. 

10. The Gaon explains f^x &6p by Persian and Arabic 
equivalents. There can be no doubt that aW> should be 
read 3J?v 2 , the Persian word for lilac. Comp. Dozy 
et Engelmann, Glossaire, p. 297 ; and Low, Aramdische 
Pflanzennamen, p. 348. The ' Aruk's explanation of f^N a^P 
as iplJ^x does not differ from that given by the Gaon. 

n. In discussing the length of 7W, the Gaon mentions 
the fact that in his time as many as one hundred myrtle 
branches were used on Sukkot. This statement seems to 

1 Comp. Tur, Yoreh Detih, 351, and Nahmanides, Torat ha-Adam, 32 a et seq. 

2 : and 3 can hardly be distinguished in the MS. 



310 GENIZAH STUDIES 

contradict Responsum 189 in Q"n, ascribed to Rab Amram. 
The latter source gives sixty-eight as the number of myrtle 
branches commonly used. It is probable, however, that 
the Responsum in Q"n does not belong to Rab Amram, 
but rather to Rabbi Natronai, to whom a very similar 
Responsum is attributed in nV, 312. Comp. ^"rat?, 322-3. 

12. It is rather surprising that the Titty, though it 
discusses the subject of our Responsum in detail, has no 
reference whatsoever to it. B"n, I.e., and n"B>, 159, both 
have abstracts of the Responsum. 

13. The meaning of this Responsum is doubtful. The 
expression irpjtjnsi may be explained by UCHQ "031, referring 
to a Responsum in which the Hebrew and Arabic equiva- 
lents of *plW3 were actually given. But there is a more 
probable explanation, which applies also to the other 
passages in which the expression occurs in our fragment l . 
It seems fairly certain that the Geonim were in the habit 
of keeping copies of the Responsa they sent out. When 
the replies to questions were simple, or in their opinion 
not worth recording, it may be assumed that they merely 
noted the fact that an answer had been dispatched, without 
taking the trouble to keep an exact copy of the wording, 
or even an indication of the character and trend. This 
assumption would explain the last sentence in Responsum 
38, where a passage from the Talmud is quoted without 
the explanation. Obviously, the Gaon meant merely to 
record the fact that the passage had been expounded for 
the benefit of his correspondent, without considering it 
necessary to set down the explanation, which he may 
have regarded as self-evident. 

14. This Responsum is quoted not only in the ")1By, 33 b, 
and in s"n, I.e., but also in nV, end of 159, and Eshkol, 
II, 1 02. The fragment enables us to correct a mistake 



1 Comp. p. 320, line 19, and p. 321, line 9. The explanation in the text 
will not do for p. 321, as we have a number of explanations which are 
of a very simple nature in the Responsa preceding and following it. 



GBONIC RESPONSA 311 

which crept into this Responsum. The last two words 
read "isir 1 ^Nl , instead of which, by an error of some scribe, 
n"B> has the reading TiQn 'SN1. This corrupt reading 
antedated the Eshkol, which found it necessary to explain 
it by a whole sentence, so interwoven with the text of 
the Responsum that it cannot be distinguished as a foreign 
addition, and yet so foreign to the original meaning of 
the Gaon that it actually contradicts his conception of the 
subject treated. 

15. The fifteenth Responsum is found in the TIDV, 29 b, 
end, and B"n, 1. c. 

1 6. Also this Responsum is found in the "I1DJ7, 31 b, and 
D"n, I.e., and besides, as noticed above 1 , it occurs in the 
Eshkol joined to another Responsum. 

17. This Responsum is found only in a"n, I.e., not in 
the nicy. 

1 8. This Responsum contains Rab Arnram's famous 
decision concerning JVW3 pio, quoted by many of the old 
authorities. Comp. Eshkol, II, 98 (where it is given anony- 
mously) ; Rabbi Zerahiah Gerondi, in his "NK, on Shabbat, 
25 b; andniDy, 3 2 a. It is found also in a"n, I.e. RabAmram 
refers to his view upon this subject in his Seder, 5 a, 
and it is not to our Responsum, but to this passage in 
the Seder to which the three authorities just mentioned 
go back. The author of the Eshkol and Rabbi Zerahiah 
Gerondi give the Seder explicitly as their source. As 
for the TIDJ?, 32 b, though the author refers to a Responsum 
of Rab Amram, the text shows that it is the Responsum as 
incorporated in the Seder. In accordance with this, Miiller, 
Ma/teak, 1 25 (1"), should have referred to the Seder instead 
of the "iioy. By a"n (74) another Responsum dealing with 
the same question is ascribed to Rab Amram, but as the 
style militates against his authorship of it, we are inclined 
to accept Hai as the author, in agreement with the Eshkol, 
II, 96, corroborated by the manuscript reading of the 

1 Comp. pp. 308-9. 



312 GENIZAH STUDIES 

3 2 a. The latter reads Ttfyn instead of '^X For a com- 
plete understanding, it should be noted that the words 
'131 no NUN D1K>D WWII are quoted by Hai from an earlier 
Responsum by a Gaon of Sura, whose name was omitted, 
probably by a copyist's error. 

19. The Titty, 32 b, in quoting this Responsum, does not 
name Rab Amram as the author, but as it follows im- 
mediately upon the quotation from the Seder discussed 
in the previous section, we are justified in inferring that 
the name of the authority given is meant to apply to 
both Responsa. This is probably the reason the expression 
VJTQltJTQ is used here as well as in connexion with the 
Responsum quoted from the Seder. 

20. The twentieth Responsum is found not only in a"n, 
1. c., but also in Eshkol ^ II, 96. In the latter it is quoted 
anonymously, and Miiller, Mafteah, 218 (r*Sp), misled by 
the expression ilfcM^, ascribes it to Rabbenu Hai, while it 
agrees verbatim with the Responsum in our fragment. 
Attention should be called to the fact that as quoted in 
a"n and Eshkol, the Responsum contains a definition of 
D^-in men not found in our fragment. It is probably 
a later addition. It is true, however, that the view under- 
lying the definition, here ascribed to Rab Amram, was held 
by Sar Shalom; comp. J"n, 70. Rabbi Judah Albargeloni, 
in his DTiyn 'D, 306, quotes an anonymous Responsum very 
similar to ours as given in a"n and in Eshkol. 

21. Though the present Responsum does not deal with 
JViTO 'n, yet it stands in close relation with the previous 
one, both occupying themselves with the question of 
carrying on the Sabbath. As to the subject-matter, comp. 
Geonic Collection, ed. Coronel, 84. The Geonic origin of 
this Responsum, it should be said, is doubted by Miiller, 
Mafteah, Introduction, 31 (l^a). 

The twenty-first Responsum concludes the collection on 
rW. The rest of the fragment deals with miscellaneous 
subjects. The greater number of those that follow relate 
to Pesab, Hanukkah, and Purim. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 313 

22. The twenty-second, the first of the new series, treats 
of a case of inm niD^x. An abstract of it is found in 
s"n, 44, so brief that it is open to misconstruction. The 
real meaning could only be conjectured, which Miiller did 
correctly, as we now see from our fragment. Rashi, 
Pardes, 32 a, probably made use of our Responsuin. Comp. 
also, above, p. 92, and Muller, TW^l nsrft 'con nnittfi, 71. 
The author of the 11BJ? seems not to have known the 
Responsum under consideration, as appears from what he 
says upon the subject it treats of, in his work, II, 7 a; 
in fact, he appears to have known none of $hose that follow 
in our fragment. As, on the other hand, the iltoy quotes 
practically all the Responsa on TVW 'n, it would seem 
that our fragment is not a unit, but rather a compilation 
of Responsa by Rab Amram, given on various occasions 
and on various subjects. 

23. This Responsum is found in s"n, 86, and in better 
shape than in our fragment. 

24. The seven Responsa beginning with the twenty- 
fourth concern themselves with noa 'n . The first of them 
appears in shortened form in 1 "3, no, where, not "\&3&, 
but "DK> should be read, with MS. Parma and our fragment. 
Parts of our Responsum are quoted also by Ibn Gajat, 
vfv, H, 83; and -may, II, 500. In Muller, Ma/teak, 126, 
nos. 3"J and T"J are parts of the same Responsum, as our 
fragment now enables us to discern. 

25. This Responsum is quoted by Ibn Gajat, 1. c., 96. 

26. The Geonim Sherira, in n"B>, 96, and >"n, 164, and 
Hai, in n"B>, 269, seem to have made use of our Responsum, 
at least so far as the etymological explanation of E&i is 
concerned. As to the subject-matter, Rab Amram has 
a far more lenient view. He maintains that nvo prepared 
by no^n may not be used for niXD nxo, while Sherira 
and Hai prohibited it. 

29. The twenty -ninth Responsum is found in 1*03, no, 
and is quoted by some of the older authorities. Comp. 
Muller, in his note 30. Dealing with the question of nvo 



314 GENIZAH STUDIES 

prepared by a Samaritan, and whether its use is permitted 
or prohibited, this Responsum, one of only two in the 
whole of the Geonic literature making reference to the 
relations between the Jews and the Samaritans, is of 
peculiar interest. Rab Amram's view agrees with that 
of Rabbi Jehudai Gaon, in r\"V, 272. Curiously enough, 
the only other decision regarding Samaritan relations is 
by the same Rabbi Jehudai Gaon. See Muller, Ma/teak, 

69 (3*3). 

31-32. These Responsa, though they do not treat of 
HDD 'n, yet have 7 a degree of connexion with the previous 
ones, in that they, like them, are based on passages in 
the treatise Pesakim. 

The explanation of NJVBIS is the source for the Geonic 
tradition given in the ' Aruk, s. v. 

34. Muller, Mafteah, 124 (N" 11 ), quotes a similar decision 
by Rab Amram from the D^n mniN of Rabbi Aaron of 
Lunel, 34 c ('n), but the contents in the latter source show 
plainly that it is not considering the matter discussed in 
the Responsum in our fragment. He has reference to Rab 
Amram's opinion on the washing of the hands before 
reciting the grace after meals given in the edition of 
the Seder, 39 b, and in the MSS. of the Seder. Comp. 
Dr. A. Marx, Untersuchungen zum Seder des Gaon Rab 
Amram, p. 7. 

Attention should be called to two points of interest. 
In Berakot, 42 a, the Gaon reads TIN n, the reading of 
the Munich MS. also. This does away with the conjecture 
made by Isaac Halevy, in his Dorot ha-Rishonim, II, 183, 
who corrects TIN 11 to read TIN 11, in four passages in 
the Jerusalem Talmud 1 , not knowing that the former 
name TIN occurs in Zacuto's Yohasin, s. v., as well as in 
the Munich MS. of the Babylonian Talmud. As to the 
origin of the name, nothing can be said with certainty. 

1 Ratner, }vs niriN, Ma'aserot, 122; a Genizah fragment of Yer., Kid- 
dushin, I, 61 c, and the Vat. MS. of Ma'as. read TIN and not TTN ; bn"air, 28, 
has nrw. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 315 

It may be connected with the Biblical names TIN, MVN, 
and ^IVX, and no less with 'B, which is spelled also n?'N, 
if it is derived from B>', Aramaic TIN. It is true that the 
name ^ appears in Aramaicized form as TN, or in its 
lengthened form, pw 1 . The explanation of 'B>N as an 
abbreviation of I^N is untenable. Comp. Riviata Isr., V, 1 1. 

The second point of interest in our Responsum is con- 
nected with the expression NBVDt pn. As the context 
shows, the Gaon meant by this the latest redactors of 
the Talmud, practically the same as Saboraim. In a 
Responsum by Sherira, found in Harkavy, 138 (also B^BJ, 
143), NBVD is used in the same sense, though it must be 
admitted that the Responsum as a whole is rather unclear 2 . 
From other passages it appears that the NBVD1 'l 3 were 
tutors, " coaches," agreeing with D"D, "to repeat," as used 
in Baba Kama, 117, and Baba Batra, 22 a. In modern 
Yeshibotythe corresponding office is performed by the lira Itn. 

35. An abstract of the thirty-fifth Responsum occurs 
in a*n, 185, and in full it is given by Rabbi Judah 
Albargeloni, in his DTiyn 'D 4 , 277. The Gaon's explanation 
is very attractive ; it completely establishes the connexion 
between the two statements of the Talmud in MegiUah, 
32 a. The Responsum shows that the Gaon, like Rashi and 
the Tosafists, takes Dny as descriptive of mm nso, and not, 
with Maimonides 5 , mm 'D of &W1, or Trnsn, as the case 

1 Comp. Harkavy, 365 and 417 j row, II, 37, 'TUN -10 n, who is identical 
with 'ST '-\ in Harkavy ; and the name ''TTN, for b^rr, in 'Erubin, iaa, end. 

2 The explanation given by Kazan, D'n , 108 a, is certainly wrong. 

3 Comp. Halberstam in Kobak's Jeschurun, V, 136-40 ; and the Genizah 
fragment published by Cowley in the J. Q. R., XVIII, 404. Halberstam 
is, however, mistaken in reading CVD instead of navp, in Responsa, ed. 
Lyck, 56. The lorp '2 are the wop im '2. As to the grammatical form, 
comp. above, p. 98, note i. 

* Comp. Rabbinovicz, Variae Led., Megillah, end, where this Responsum 
was printed before the J?"D was published. 

5 Comp. p2':2 ':a in the Wilna edition of the T, where attention is 
called to this view, of Maimonides, and reference is made to Rabbi 
Manasseh Ilier. It is very strange that Schwarz, Mishneh TJiorah, 83, 
note 3, does not mention the remark by the author of -j^n ':a. 



316 GENIZAH STUDIES 

may be. The view of the former is corroborated by Yer., 
Shabbat, XVI, 15 c, line 13 (from below), which assumes 
the prohibition not to touch the scroll unless it is covered. 

36. Here, as well as in a"n, 190, this Responsum is 
incomplete. In our fragment, the sentence explaining 
pDWD is missing, and in a"n that explaining pano. 

37. The Gaon's explanation of nnos differs from that of 
all other authorities. Comp. Rabbenu Hai, rTe>, 204 l ; 
'Aruk, s. v. ; Rashi, ad loc. ; and Tosafot, on Menakot, 32 b, 
catchword pTIIB xn . The only authority that quotes Rab 
Amram's explanation is Rabbi Isaiah di Trani the Elder, 
in his ynaon. 

38. In explaining the passage in Shabbat, 23 b, the Gaon 
quotes a p^D which does not occur in our text of the 
Talmud, and which I find myself able to interpret only 
partly : DM stands for npbo DJ naa. 

39. This Responsum is nearly identical with Responsum 
24, on fol. 62 b of our fragment. It proves that the 
tradition with regard to ^"in is well authenticated, and 
finds corroboration in the Assyrian naramdu, meaning 
a certain kind of wood. 

40. The fortieth Responsum is ascribed to Sar Shalom 
Gaon in a"n, 132, while in n"fc>, 233-4, the three Responsa 
last enumerated are found in somewhat modified form 
with Rabbenu Hai as the author. 

41. The lenient view of the Gaon with regard to beer 
manufactured by Gentiles is rather extraordinary, opposing, 
as it does, the view accepted by all the codifiers. 

43. The Gaon's explanation of ponv 'D is very interesting, 
especially his rationalistic view regarding hitob i>*xcn NBTT. 

44. The explanation of nan as meaning the "height of 
power" is well worthy of consideration, notwithstanding 

1 This Responsum by Rabbenu Hai is quoted by many of the earlier 
authorities, comp. -rosy, II, 46 c ; Vow, II, 40 ; and Me'iri on Megillafi, i6b. 
Auerbach, the editor of the Vow, tries in vain to explain his text, not 
knowing that the Responsum as given in n"c, 204, as well as in Mei'ri. 
is self-explanatory. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 317 

the fact that Rashi as well as the l Aruk define it 
differently. 

47. This Responsum is quoted by Ibn Gajat, B>"e>, I, 21, end. 

50. In explaining the passage Yoma, 20 b, the Gaon 
quotes the first Mishnah of the fifth chapter of Shekalim 
in a reading different in many points from the printed 
text, and agreeing with the MSS. and with ed. Lowe. 
The student should note especially that the Gaon in his 
text did not have the identification of Pethahiah with 
Mordecai. It was put in between the lines by the copyist. 
Mishnah, ed. Lowe, agrees with the reading of the Gaon, 
and there can be no doubt that it is the correct reading. 
Also the name N'HN is to be noted instead of KDN, and 
comp. Tosefta, Yebamot, end, where the name nns p occurs . 

51. The last Responsum throws new light on the 
Responsum in p"a, no, found also in the Geonic Collection, 
ed. Lyck, 15. In the latter two, the reading HHn must 
be adopted, instead of linn or linn, as the Geonic explana- 
tion is based on in, mountain. 



318 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf i, recto.) 

Npi D'a-in 'Bna n^ nabi TITO ' 
: WD pr 'yim pppci pi>aix n^an wyon ' *ano an 
iTa jnai wan nai TITO rwna iciy fro 
wnno wn rrb paan p"a *j6iK a^n pn^ N^I 'BT 
npy i>i pa KD^n IN a^ni Dnn iopo pan npiya pyo 5 
?ya !>o3i D:ai> n ns ^yn D^Q 2 ':Nnpn >3 iDpoo sin pan 
n te iToa DiT3t8> K^yim roinb ina^ IN n^n n-an 
UD IBUI 3 nna ^au nna n> 'oyo MD n^ non wtn a^n 

: o^twnn ninsm '*ran ^anai na nna na : n^ n 
pn 'nan Mn ^anan na om ^nsa na po-in pan 10 
"nw M^N poioa 'DNT ^a n^ata Noais JWIB :asiD m 
n^ np NO^ n-ao 7 wo 
pm mip THN DB> i^ B 

pa 10 V13D :NpD s D THN DB> ^ B1 tUMn^t9 9 pDIU IV, v 

n^ann Via iiyi VDD o^ab VBD H/ DNPI wn omoyn 15 
jrvtanam n^iDDsn nypai & ^as "jwm in n^naai 

nwi n^a pam nrjr^K /- i a^a ls<i a % .a <i n vi 
N^N uoi nun p^ai K^T pa no pan 
d"ain ni^na N^ n^nan o^y ^UD^ prppa: ppm h 
D^y pa^noi n^ai ppmn paon p"a i? 'ON ITJT^K 'ni 20 
^N /- i 'DNT "now nspi IDNT n-ann niena p^n 
ns an IONT D*ann mena o^ann 



3 a. 2 Sltabbat, Mishnah, I, i ; Gemara, ibid., a a. 

3 Bead NY-U. * Read jn. 6 =TIMB. 

6 Bekorot, 45 b. 7 Read jrro or jno. 



6 Bekorot, 45 b. 7 Read jrro or jno. 

8 Shabbat, Mishnah, XVII, 6; Gemara, ibid., 125 a; our texts have 
rrwpasj, MS. M. 'npa, but in Yerushalmi *w>j:ac. 

9 Shabbat, 5 a. w Ibid., sb. 

11 Pesahim, 13 b ; our texts read VEDO D':D7. 12 Shabbat, 6 a. 

13 Shabbat, 6a; our texts read apr Ja nir? 'i, but the MSS. agree with 
the reading of this fragment ; comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc. 

14 Read Tra\< ; comp., however, Anan's o*nr, 119, where -mit* = ins:. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 319 



(Leaf i, verso.) 



rrnp NN ! 'aian jn noi 

D'taa ipT N!?B> ounn msrb JWN-I PK'VIDK* Dunn 
nnnv MOD pTWi ia paaint? ^man DN onx aai 



nonn 

4 . . , a : ioin ounn nienan 'ION *D nna vu 
ao nnno rbyo JDUI pivot? nipo i^y piz> vm 
D^na M^NB' nw^n ISD pya mpios ma^n na 
pa :nnno n^ao Kip'J iaai> mx b {>VN ix 
mc'y laina pro? na :ia-ioNK> VDD NIHT x 
' ny K^K n^yo^ naK nunn ni^n nyna ia /1( b n 
y*P"i^ ny nhy nnn nwn 'DNPT Trvn 'en n^yoh D^HDD 
niB>ni> nmai '^ na^ve VITPI 'nets '< ^n n PKB* na nn 
^n D^naD '* ia PKB> puts' ^D^D^ niox uma ounn 
b nim laina ^D^U^ IIDKI n^ffn men ntrya p r6yr^ 15 
^ maan pun 7 biaa ^oi> nmta laa i>y tounn nitna n^ 

as 'ON D:& tJ'ia^ 'tsw nwn 'B'l n^ mn D^nsu xi 
nnia PIT "as 'ON 'oxp pn 8 ouin mvnb n~na pnr 
nanni ni?yo^> D'-nao ' nmaa DN tnpfa? Nm xn^n w 
T a"n^o un 'oyo ^NO nioa ounn nT^ npin 'nao '1 20 



nanni D^nao ' wmaan pu w rnis i>3N p3 tnnu IN naip 

1 Shabbdt, 6 A. 2 =niTip n?. s Comp. n. 14, on previous page. 

4 Read >BTD. E Read irobro . 6 Shalbat, 7 a. 

7 = i"?i33. 8 Shabbat, 8 a. 9 Superlinear vocalisation. 



320 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 2, recto.) 

an n nrwm 'Bxpn nrvbi NTpy o^a nn3B> xn 
ton *KDP rpa D'ba nrpas? Nan JND ^DX an 'DK 
p npiaxb KOB> rva Tonsb inoyjn *m Tassvib 

p3 pbvup 'JDP JOD nvooy j na^n xm 
noa jna p^n DHI jnnx p^aoi 5 



2 wm ^n nua rc&np imo na^n ny 
payi? nniy D'jnu px 'DIN 
^n rvai 3 Dr niyan icyyty na K^N 
nax n^a vn parru 'fea ja 'D^ pn 'ONT jrai 
; nau o^aiai? 4 )n^ -6a panw 
n^aa 'boa p '^ 'i nb nin 
axna :n3t^o naK bbn n^a mpm xv 
niaBD3 jniN pajnoB> mans mbn: 15 
p-iip w n^oiN ji^ba nw^aoi minob 
IDNT nspioa in m ''aiai jva 'IDNPI 

nonai 6 Nnm nina xvi 
pai onb WB>TB 8 iai pp 
pjipD"ini t^nai pen paa nii^N ^ pjay NTNT xvn 

neny pa P-ID ^ pa jna N^a bai ppoism 21 
9 ppfDi ND3D?oi spienai nbia :nna pen na xvm 



1 Shabbat, i8a. 2 Shcibbat, Mishnah, I, 8, 9 ; Gemara, ibid., I7b-i8a. 

3 Our texts and MSS. read bbn nu piaai. 

4 Editions : p^ 'ta ; MSS. : frfno pb ^3 ; comp. Eabbinovicz, ad loc. 

5 Shabbat, 19 b ; comp. introductory note. 6 Eead NTTI.- 

7 Shabbat, aoa and sob. 8 "ii (?) ; comp. introductory note. 

9 Shabbat, ao b ; our texts and MSS. read 



GEONIC RESPONSA 321 



(Leaf a, verso.)' 

tnao naa 'NJVIN j}n N-una NW jfcj i&n ftf-ven xix 
nanyi? w NnaiNi "Nna-iN rontsw NJNIHN yta JNO 
nfiVBY naiN na-iN nave* 3 pnoN Npn a sin a^i>c> 
Nna-)Nijt? rwD onsan wu 1231 aW wo Npa: 'NO 
buy nbp nby jab n^ nip 4 p^nox Npi a NJIHS NWB> 5 
t aDi 5 i>nn 1^ *any jn^a NintJ' :^D^ non n^ai xx 
nnva wn Dm wn p'D po iy-in basa PNI Nin D^ynr 

nnm 'noax :nanr ia ^B> ^ inx pmen xxi 

vim 'Kruw pnb pB>n'D ^IINT 
my ps^a notin onsn ^a ^yt? Kpn xxn 

?)iy 'DIN wst? 11 pp^n 133 "NTPT n 
jtDB> "ION min* am rrna prw ani 7 1K> nrpi 



noaa triaoi navi jvpp xxm 
Nin pio I^NI -uoipoa K' 1 IHN J^N na^^x 15 
n tw o bi Nin PJOD poi p> ;no penjn pa^yna 
pip uotsn 10 yinia 'any jie^a IOK>I uoo nnw nann 
nonn }oc?i 12 p ovy v* ^Nionn : u jnntt inn IHN xxiv 
\rb PNI jn'-^NO phyi jna pp^ooi jrwo D^ay pN^aoi 
o3V n^any^ jnaN^oo o^ia ponyi pna^^ai o^on 20 
vn IN ny^ niy^ jnaN^oa m^a pmtj^ jva 
noin iniNO wro ^y nnN n^an N^ao nnN b 



1 Shabbat, so b ; our texts and MSS. read wnnM or winw. 

2 Comp. introductory note. 3 Shabbat, 36 a. * Sukkah, 34 a. 
5 J^. 6 Shabbat, ai a. 

7 Our texts read rj-oa c nn Fiiy >b IT:NI NO' rvm 'ja'j inrn^c 'JNIDTD ION 
TOXD p'pi D'n, but the MSS. and the old authorities agree with the reading 
of our fragment, except that they read p'pi instead of ipi ; 'not? of our 
fragment stands for b^ioc . 

8 Our texts and MSS. read NipT Mnrao. 9 =3D 

10 - u * J - 12 = 



322 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leafs, recto.) 

im *|W3 : w Nwm &&n Kpoa D "Npi nn onnvi> xxv 
4 ax IB>I 3 pa-ion b n^ 
nruoa KM33 "peaon vie ' 
vn TUBE nnacn pip vrreo 'it^n nnm 

ny*3 5 

PplDB * 

:imp^D xxvn 

8<i 3 D'NBO Dnoai mopn DID^SI ppi msana 
j hnn 10 niDi nvn p n naop nn3 9 frx *bn xxvni 

13 B1 Kin 10 

3T3r N3iy3i KPDB> 'IOIN ji^ai D^BB> 13 ' 



: " bbon p pn : 13 ta^i n^i? i^ pnpj rw xxx 
y^ Mnm pa nisnvx 'a i>y niynss 'a N!>N nun PM 
pn an r a ^y 'a N^im Npni HNED nbp ahya 15 
naa n^nna anw IBTDB> 11^ inr ^D ^on p 
na naa *?v sjay im niynxs 7 a r a niy^ nan 
ins DPI an^ ^DSO PN any n.ptn in 
: 17- np ^op pi^aa : 16 anin *3iy ji 
D^Bebinn ayn^tn m^y^ jn paipmn 'a }anNp 20 
:i^x nnn 'ao K^K ppmn in x^n 
onnn 'a iT3 nw mn sh Kn mn 



1 Shdbbat, 21 b ; our texts and MSS. read 'Mimin . Comp. note 2, p. 343. 

* Skabbat, 23 a ; our texts read F]iop, but comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc. 

s Read pDltun. 4 uiyi ^-*- . 5 Shabbat, 24 a. 6 Ibid., e6 a. 

7 Read rjtop mm. . 8 Comp. Onkelos on Gen. xliii. 10. 

Shabbat, 28 a. 10 Read mmai. " <_>^J1. 
11 Read '. 1S Shabbat, 28 b. 14 Ibid., 29 a. 
15 Comp. note a, p. 330, below. 16 v** n Shabbat, 33 a. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 323 



(Leaf 3, verso.) 

nn vapa nx nnaw ^n .Tn N^N n^a u>n pan 
no VSQ ia"B>pBi :vapa nx nneio rrnp ppmna 
a '&n Mnwi vapa nx nnwDi pa icrcya wiy iTn 
pn^n 'ym K^wa p.'waa p^tDpi mp '^tap pt^aa 

pan an IDKT |i> 'i : won int* pnno PK 5 
nan niv nan nynx nan jnr naat?' nan pne> nan m 
wA n^ >np NPI 'nan PPT pan D^n ns nan ppmn xxxn 
poonn 8 nnn ponn :mp ^tsp^ iBnna inn mp 
D^onina i^as 'DNT *a 4<i ann }n onfii pynr s J 'v* pnxa 
: 5 miyD nwp3 i n ^ pbisi b6a n^oya 'n inx pphpt? 10 

7 nasn nwwe'n pa pi^yb IO'D 6 snia TJIMM wo xxxm 
niB'DB'n pa yan ON yn^ nnroi? ixn KPT 
anyo inn poison nija BTDO nnro ^a nnao 
i?ai3 mn mr nna nmna Kne' xnia :xni 
n pa yao^ p-o SIN nnrb anyo pai anyo r\rb 15 

nioa nnro aa PO^KD anya norm npp^ yaoi 
pnaia PN 8/ Npn ^ p^nn ns ia pnaiap ^a nr nnaa xxxiv 
10 nni^y 9 pnotn xnno IDBH nnaaa pnn nx 
n 7 n 'DKPI |ai na pxty n "n^ivaa 
nn^a TOTD nh 'ai ^onan B^ni? nbjr D"fitt& 20 
13 : nsan ^ab noin in biays? fva^ nnaai? xxxv 

spi 'DP nios ii? HBM 



. 

2 Bekorot, 44 b; our texts read S*T IQ 2^Dp n*t n*T ia nn -ION. 

3 Shdbbat, 34 a; our texts and MSS. have nom 'Dmin. 4 =rmn. 
6 Bezah, 25 b ; as to the reading, comp. Rabbinovicz, Berakot, 38 b. 

6 Shabbat, 35 a. 7 Our texts and MSS. have *ui. 



srtavvai, 35 a. vur MNUB H.JUU. ouoo. navo NJ 

Shabbat, Mishnah, XX, 3 ; Gemara, ibid., 140 a. 
Pesahim, 119 a. 10 Read nwy or rmos . 

11 Our texts have mi2D3. 12 =msa. 1S Shabbat, 38 a. 



Y 2 



324 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 4, recto.) 
'-D 132 N^N 13i> PK 13K 'K pW '"11 *'OK Xpl niW03 p"HK XXXVI 

niDx DT "wa p3 nnx vra ni'O'o pa muo ^as 
2 iTnn ^otn SIDV 3-n nan 'thd? -nota KO moyoi r 



Dann n^a nn nipo rh yaip DINT DIB> ^3^ 'tifab 5 
o^nn 3 ^a n*n 'i DIJW ^NIOC' 'DNI nip n^ vaip 
4 nann 'DS X^N j3>vnnoi npna!> 
nip nb yaip DTNT oitw vb 
ptanpi : }3 >i p l| Dy nv^nb^ niwoa K^K D^nn xxxvn 
nnno ^D^D^ ai inTi a r'nwTD pan Q3x6 D3y 10 
nnnoa na win spn 

N JH3 Ht3 

ponp an irn 'o^n ai :iDip DI^O nnro 
naai D W 3X^ ww v n3a s^nni pan p 

p3>yi> JN^ an^y^ ojy naa ^ax anB^ nn^y 15 
Vy^ nn 'nao X 3 ^y DTIBD 'a u ^^ ^33 pnoNp noD 

na PNB> 6 ni^t3 itwvy naa npDi xxxvm 
naa npci o^ay^ N^N n^iKi px niyaw 
jm 
aa i? 

a jn D^vy 'n noo^p pa^o noon ni33^o xxxix 
nansa 8 naioa .... a noon ani-6 'ai non 



1 Shabbat, 45 b. 2 =irpnn. 3 KeadnVa. 

* Our texts have "in. MS, Oxford agrees, however, with the reading of 
our fragment. 

5 Shabbat, 47 a. 6 Comp. note 2, p. 330, below. 7 =D:aj?. 

8 roiDi pnotoa? comp. Sukkah, lob-na. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 325 

(Leaf 4, verso.) 

<JW a by *| 'DTia '31 nnvp 
j 2 D3ip D'bt? . . D>nib : nmbo fmx snip jn 'ns? XL 
payn 4 Tnoni wQuncn aina paa DBUD nox 3 nos XLI 
jnun :natj>3 6 -iwn rva p-i"n ; 5 >m 
I man xh mna b& INIX nai 1022^ 0212^ 
Din s^ao 8 nnwa ino N^T ^m 7 |Nana 
na man WN Bin imxa' jvai i^itjn vby 
na pnnia sb bas mvn n^a nnrrb nat?2 



PM jni }D DN jna potytb paaio PNB> jva mi nob *i^yn 10 
ins po "pipiaa N^prn Nnnn 10 nvnn :}nix pbote XLIV, XLV 



pxi :na^vai ppmaa psxv wam Kin pnoi 
PIIDI naitwi TI IDS K^N nao by 
pbpm wpn 13 bnD ppma :nat>n by XLVI 
rrb mm ppniaa tjoa bao pn K'-jn na^ab NI p P^aa na 16 

i Kmnay wia'ab nay :pi n^yo XLVU, XLVUI 
nniD^N Nnoip^bo wna^op 16 }npaiba po XLIX 
wwai NBO 11 sbi maa nb py-n wo piayn 

|nnn jsoa ^DNT mm naben bon^x p 20 
mpyob moNi niaino a nb N^in sbisi nen NW 
19 anaK p jn "poanoi namta :w*o inn p n3^3 L 



mna '11 onsp? 

2 Reading doubtful ; it is probably to be read mnpDTO Q'mb ; comp. 
Rabbinovicz, ad loc., and 'Aruk, s.v. nb. 

3 Shabbat, 48 a. 4 =>vr inyTi JBU ion; comp. introductory note. 
5 j-nD=Arab. \j*j*- 6 =iwisn. 

7 Comp. p. 301, above. 8 =rm'>S 'a. 9 Shabbat, 503. 

10 Our texts have mnn. 

11 This is the correct form ; comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc. 

12 ^ n3n > :n o ? ; comp. Shabbat, 56 b. ls Read N'jpo, " polish." 
14 =Arab.^J^, Heb. mm M Read pxn NDD13. 

16 j'cnpi'ja, fXvKvWifa'! Comp. introductory note. " Read rt^T 'N. 

18 Shabbat, Mishnah, VI, i ; G^ewiara, ibid., 578. 

19 'Aruk in MS. Oxf. WEN, our texts and MS. M. WIBN ; comp. 
Rabbinovicz, ad loc. 



326 



GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leafs, recto.) 

IVTN 1 rvrtt6 pixi HINI jva vnx 'ivi MI 

i . . 
mm 3py ^iiv 3 n*n*n ipa Daa 

: 4 vi'N 'y ie6 ii> 'yb pao nvv "yy naa^x u?y nit 'ay 
nnno jpnih nir 'aj6 nit!>a3 nvi> jrw TV yn s^ iw 
}va iwin" 11 ) 6 C|<|<!| *jai5 TV 1123 n ^ moaa nra^ ^wa 5 

ns pan H^DDT NS^K ^A N^D nin n^y 
: 6 Kn-n^ n^ni b no^ in y^i DN no^ p D 
vja '33 ^ MB>\n TO 'VD^ YT^ apy ^a^ pa in^ai 
j 7 .^ 11 !! maioBn 'vna )na> onso nua i?y jnyn un 11 
: 8 Nin xan D^iyn }a^ mnaan nob D^ya 'a nin nin nn^in n^N 10 
iij sal o^vy ^ran "jn^ na 66p nstjn nxa js^nN 

13 Dioy : 9 fna 



tei 



rrn D'ncn p mran-n n 

pi MOD 






D*anoi 



txr pnn 



mpon vtb nan nxnn i33n3i 12l) 3in ens 
/iai 13 ni3iy 
p " 



19 



nmo DIN 



}3ni 



}33i 



niroo 



I Read rnb or Tnro^. 2 S(/re, Deut., 355. 

3 Super-linear vocalization. 4 Comp. Genesis Rabba, LXIII, 6. 

B Comp. ibid., LXIII, 10 and XXXVII, 3. ? 

7 Pesikta Zuttarti on Exod. i. i. 

8 Comp. Genesis Rabba, XXXVIII, 12. 

9 Baba Kama, IX ; Yoma, VII, i. 

10 He is mentioned as a correspondent of Rab Amram in Rabbi Mei'r of 
Rothenburg's Responsa, no. 40, ed. Prague. 

II Readm in. " =nrin. 1S Comp. Harkavy, 117, line a. 
14 =i:iNirm? nna. 15 Menahot, icab. 16 ? 

17 Ifenahot, Mishnah, XII, 4 ; Qetnara, ibid., 103 b. 



GEONIC BESPONSA 327 



(Leafs, verso.) 



na na^ ^33 nx'3 'D ny N^K D^a '33 K3nh rmt3$> TH* PKI 

p 'a ?y BJK i nx p-ipyi 'x ^33 'D Kao 'KB -IDKI 3*13113 BKI 

/ *^3 *3D 6 ly no yaoi :nn 

pn }^3 n^i3i> 'nruo i>3e> 0^3 
pm a^an onh an^n ^ntn now nmoi 5 



nraoi on^n ^np pp pyo pi m^ pyo a^an an^ nsioi 
'ry 'a ny 'osn nyen rui3^ K^I JDP N^ s/ oin 'rooi mw? 
miiT 'no K^J& ^NP W 4 'an now na* p^3J ps r D 
^33 'D N^OP 'py 'KB ^y nn nixi? p^o 5<i Ny^N 'n 13 
^Ny^N 'n 13 mm* 'n nns 'p xh '3 h 7 B rns noh :nns ^33 

3 N>3D innf M3 }3^ -|JO DlpO ^33 a*T31On 

rrvi? in 6 Vy 'KB n3{y3 nvni? ^HB> an!?B> jiBwm 310 



31t3 DV3 

yj/a'a'a ^ nb anaipm 13 'JB> 'KB n3^3 nvn^ i?np jnbtr VKI^P 15 
'a np3 b 613 anmoi a^Don 7/ y'N'p '33 V 'KI 



'D^ ana 'J 11 !? INXJOJ nnsn ^33^ 8/ py 'yi nnsn xi> '3 
'npy 'y\ 'n p nn ^y 'T a^33 'n^i 'py 'n 
'3i '03 nn Vy 'en '<on V '3 '3 'p rapn awi 7 3 
i^ nx 'KB pnn a^anyn p3^i nnp h? pnsn 
nsy n^^a I^K aaa I^KI a^Ki ana 



1 Read n'jVab -p2. 2 Menahot, Mishnah, V, 3 ; Gemara, ibid., 59 a. 

3 Our texts and MSS. have the reverse order nw:p nrooi cin nn:m. 

4 Menahot, 103 b. 

8 Editions : W^N -ia mirr I'D rfrffch rfi>vm VMC ; MS. M. : nbsrab nVwo 'JIWD 
a mim I'D. 

6 =D:ntw, neither in the editions nor in the MSS. 

7 = D'Q'on icy nyn rctn :a D'iD23 D':w D'?NI icy rrobw ipa '23 nno ; the 
Masoretic text has D'b and not D^MI. 

8 pea n 1 ?!^ nn:n nSo D'3iu '3n inn neb pea nViba rrn:o nbc n':iy T 

pwi in^n b'w 1 ?. 



328 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 6, recto.) 

nro pbbaj PN D'anyn pa 'ibw nnrwa ib^N nan jnb'ba ibw 
nhba nrao bai 'OIK in nn ib noN nnN -ION ib 2 TDM nr by 
joea bba>b nbia 1 *^ nmo N'an nnin moN 8 nanm 'pa 
4 mTo bai pn ib -ION pbbaa PN 'ND pbbaa 'D \rwsn ib -ION 
o HND 'oa 5 na N^va IJ^VD pai }n^y ejDin!> pi p 'can 5 
nvaa .'butDb ha* PN abnip ion 'D baic vi nipo 



PN nnx row n^on 'a by 'a DTTO NDDD 'a by 'a 'aix 

: |n*by Tioob wno Nnsoin 'bstrBn : o-no H 

mini Nnsoin^ aso Kin 7 woo bi 6 sin awp nai xb 10 

nabn |n^ |no B>* Nn^na niobna JDJ? naoi o^na 

.vby ppibn p sn^Kia ba nvr^a nabn pstr jno K-^ 

DIN noiy n\n 9 paa nmoa nabn mox pan mobna 

baai ppai jana icxy noano nr nn 10 nny ony m^a 

lab HN noaB> ny bbsn^ Nb baN yDiy nnp Nnipi nan 15 

Nb>N niy Nbi nibna n>by ppibn pjw NM nabn wia it 

'ON oa na Na-'bnn an 'ON " niobnn |o yvo nb B^B> 

yoB> nnp N-iipi nb'-ab pn IPNI NVIO any nb^aa 

n p"anion mtw n^nst: /|( nmaa PNB> nb^aa n 

'np 'np^i nb^ab pn iiwi N^r Nb ony nb^aa }^n Nnavn ao 

'nao ' Nn^aan nb'aa WKI 'xv Nb ani Nn 'pnsoi yoty 

noiyb non IT nabn new 'JNnpn *oa Np*n n^ai N^DH nb 



1 Editions and MSS. jnVSa ibxi rnniD 

2 This is the correct reading, and not iinx, as the editions have it ; 
comp. Eabbinovicz, ad loc. 

3 Editions, max liD, but MS. M. agrees with the reading of our 
fragment. * Editions and MSS. read mo to ib nnx. 

B From pni till in not ill the editions or MSS., and these words are 
probably by the Gaon. 6 Comp. introductory note. 

7 D'lpo in the British Museum MS. of the Ni'n 110 is either a misreading 
or a misunderstanding. 

8 Read JOCTD ; Filipowski, IQSJC, probably a misprint. 

9 Tostfta, Berakot, II, 15. The quotation is not a literal one. 
10 Dittography. " Sukkah, lob. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 



329 



(Leaf 6, verso.) 

onm yop mp Nipi libra wn ' Nbe> ony ivaa 
DMBB '*o nmna 'n^ann IN bba KBU DSO Nb 
p3B> bai , Nip'ob .Tb nan ONI m --Daoi 7i:n 
V3 baai &>pi pna nosrp ttnaa 2 N3'N Nbn jiw 
n^y pa^ai WTK-D bi :n^ano 3 ^n> bw Nip*i 5 
TOSS 'SMDI 'M-O Npm 4/ nom nnn wis^n n^ 

pjor nnws '3^n rr6i 



by K^N wnrw jynox N^T KM '3^1 
pr -iDib MO /- IN win mn pin ^ nan 'ONI pr^ pro 
7 ban '121 'o^n IN 'ION IHN Np prb prcn |V3 'isan on mjf 

i>y I^SN N3N feN mM 31 <Dp5> NHN HS1D3 'Np W 31 

^N <i nNi Kne6 Nnt? jo ^03 Nipn pr WON oj xmn Nip 
:wnnt? 'ONT KM prb pro *nKi b by NO^N 15 
by wnnB> p3i3D Nb i&n pr nb y3p Nb 
IN Nns^on IN Nnsoina ppbinc' nipo bai 
'jno 'OTIDT fNoa nabn pnao nna 'ano 'o*noi 
n-'b Nn^Nn33 'o'noi n3 y^a pn^nosi Nnb"o bai 

NBH3N 1H2N 'n b^TNl HOHD^O 8 "ONI NH^NIS 7 Mn3 '3^M 20 

Nnb^o Na^b ns^n :pbhn3 nbiai 'OB' Dim 'm 
'OTI ^ 9/ aD 



3 Read tearc ; Azulai : n^oc maVso bxair, which is a better reading, as 
we deal here with roc rwip = c'O\c note 'Jij? n"?ap, and not with nten. 

4 =}TV3nn m. 8 Megillah, 2&; Bekorot, 30 a. 

6 Tostfta, Berakot, VII, 10. MS. E. and editions read warro, but 
MS. W. agrees with our fragment. 

7 'Erubin, "40 b, chapter pnro taa. 8 Yebamot, 42 b. 

9 =nETn jnc'D ncDira. Comp. Rabbenu Tarn's Pt'yul oanc a'S, where 
the same division of Tannaitic sources is given, including the Mekilta in 



330 



GENIZAH STUDIES 



naio 



(Leaf 7, recto.) 

cN lovyb abib rrenymTai wnw nob l 
naio >oNn N^ aWn naiob .TOT^ n nrcon jva 

;or ba 2 nibo 'ONPI : JOT nb yap N^ rvrv JOT |v6 
mm* an 3 'cspn na^n IDI ova Doye noa I^SNI n^y 1120 na 
NISV ^3 nnaci iTn^a WNT IBWTB^ xn^an 'on 5 



4l| ani :royn 



xin 
|r ^ 



oin 



nu>y 

<i ma 1120 
4l >ani ^ai nan 



i sin 
'-wren 
: rwva 



m 



by IDV xb |mDm 15 



an ye> snav 
wovn rvij-ia n^y 

rr6 oao nnm i 
'ns nina 11 N^ nnian in 
vn na V* n^a ni>an iT.n^a 6 
nnx ninm n^ab nvx^ nnx 
an 'ON nmn 11 na NJIH an 'ON 'oNpn 'a nniyt^ noai 
nan "pat? nban an noN nax na rvon 11 an 'ON 
noai mn DHN n^ia N^N na ^n^ N!? i^aNi 
ym ^t^i njt^i nna^ 'na 'OIN *an N^n n^in 20 

m 7 nvbn ya^o nina 11 N^ nman NJNO ' 
^nno in^a pnio nvNai 'ai 7 nvbn 'r by 



1 Tosefta, Serakot, VII, 9, 10 ; Talmud, Sukkah, 46 a. 

2 rvbTD ? but the spelling with i is consistent in our fragment. 

3 Menahot, 43 a. 4 =nom. 

5 Menahot, ibid. 6 Ibid., 393. 

7 Not in our texts, nor in the MSS., and was perhaps added by the 
Gaon. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 331 



(Leaf 7, verso.) 

jinnnn -rap in^ ^nia rpn Tm p^>a DDO DDD iwai p^a 

rr^yi p^e> rvhni r&H&P n-^yi ?3&p nns rr^in 

ir6yi rbatbv rr^yi p&p rr6in rv^yi nbnta rvinn 

OKI yasro ninQ 11 ^ wn mi }V^yn -it?p nenpi p^e> 

n jo nNpy : nrn moa PI^DID a' ny SI^DIH^ nvi iv 
n p : 2 nhoa poon pi J pman pi po^n pi ppn 6 
pa xTTin pa pann pa pnoNn pa IN 
NI D'Boai D^nn^ nv trxio pxip 

DN 1V3^ pO31 10MB> yi N^ 

poan p pai nhoa rw* n^yi pxip jnwo m 10 

^ jna an^y !>i n^yv JHD nt^yi nv tia3B> 
pom mix nosh? ija ant?ti> anix jiaa J pman p 
nrx jni^y^ IID naa inrnj^ nns^ hn p 
nvypa po*o rwnt pai> }me^ niDN nova tw 
'OK i?Kioin n'V'B'a 'ON an iwopi an ppi^n any^i 15 



'a^m aa ^y JNI ^io^a na^m no^ nio "pan 
4 pa 'oxn n^oyo nano'-m 'oc>a 'a^n na nio^a ana 
'aa p'pooi 'naioa 'nvn 'oyoa pim :noe6 n 

Dr6 HTS nn^ iiryi n^ wn o^na ana 
pa poy pa psip pa p^n noa^ am 'oyoi? n^pan 20 
ns 6xtrun : n*S*^ bios PDD pa * p*na v 
a nyi !?nia n^po na^n j'a Tina IK inia ntrp 

. 2 Menahot, 42 b. s 

4 =pn?l. 5 SvJckah, 9 a. 



332 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 8, recto.) 

'a "pna pn^ TM pain 'n T.ab'n 'NBB an ' 

frws rw&v pnN rrrw na 'yanN 
T pnv 'n 'ON apy 'n 'ON jopb 'noNi yaN 'n 
NS>Q an inoxw 'now ppn |o biu n^p N^O 
pnn^ N!>T 'j Tin NJON mn NDS a-no ^NI apjr 'm 5 

xoai 
nin apy 

rwyv ivroi :niyavN 7 a isn w.nt^po vi 
p^o an 'ON mm* an 'ONT n^ioa hvn&b 
by fi x<| : 2 wi DISH N^I 2< i5ryi "^ -oa iB'yi 'IB" 33 i?N nan '3P 10 

N nb i:no an p 'jno ^an jn ^N ani? amo an ^ONT 
S J3 ^N nan 'tot? mnpap a nvxb PJO an 'ON mirr an 'ON 
"jw ana nabm 'mo amb nn^b jonnN nnb wyi 
Nin TWM pa-'n NDSIP 4 i?ai :nhos wa n^ 
Noaip ba bNiOB> 'ON NJDip na -aia an 'ON B Nnna 'oNpn 15 
an 'ab ybp^N N:nn an na nan pnoNp Tiyi n^^a pa'-n 
tN naioa pnoNi :nbiaa mbo 7 oaon n^rn 6 }om 
nain NTI ejun na^n nnao D boN nnnN i| Da t| Ni 
:pan NDDipa pmio D^an ba NO^N nb *on 8 m vm 
n ^n a nb p^on 'NTI Nnyt^ N^nna 'oNpn ribn 20 
rb noo 9 min^ am Nni nrwy pinn B>nb ayb 'JK> owro ix 
rh o^n wan ND^D nb Tay n^n an 



1 Menahot, 42 a. 

2 The editions have icy, but MS. C. agrees with our fragment. 

3 Superlinear vocalization. 4 Read ^31 . 5 Menahot, 41 a. 

6 This is also the reading of MS. M. ; the editions have pro n na N3 
comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc. 

7 =T3m. s '11 = ^1? 9 Menahot, 4ib. 



QEONIC RESPONSA 



333 



(Leaf 8, verso.) 

'DPI "ua^ 1330 nw pnTio p 'OK an nonK r6yi? 
r6n jo nai> 'noa Tay ion ^D fe "a 'OKI '121 pn'no 
mirr an 'no naa^ naao p-vno p an 'own aam 'iai 'oeo 
*n^n ^ ni? wya i^on nn ^>ox D^ata^ n^nioa^ n^ noo 

naa^ .T'onai ^n naan nnn6 ^J H K n^p^o b noi^a 5 
:niDan o^y npam nha nantt ND-'D n^ -ray 3 an J 
*3 s tbv lhai nioan p n^ 
JK mnK nioai? n^on vnioao 



ni? on wan 
^i n^pn n^ fna 

n nnrm *uai? naao pn^no px 'CKI }ini> xn^ao ana 
pyno ^Kio^a Tayn 'j an p nai? 



ny nDoi? my^ px rbyzb 
nwin nnr ny nianxn 



noo^ 



10 
x, xi 



niyavx yanx 



:yanx 



'a^n 'on KSB am xn i?y pnospi 



naai 



r6 



15 



nnrx noi nn^na ja 7 jnw n^y 
ai>iij ia 
rb w vb 
ahi? ia' 
u 



p 



niycj' 



rh 



1 Bead 113. 

2 Fi'om 'JOM to nbn not in the editions nor in the MSS. of the Talmud. 

3 Read rran n ; comp. the last line on the previous page. 

* lLJ. s J-o. sReadiby. 

7 Editions ^:nv, but MS. C. and many old authorities agree with our 
fragment. 

8 Our texts read ntcob Tiro nb bo rhyob Tirw rrt p. 

9 Editions and MSS. : >3n. 



334 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 9, recto.) 

nnny ^nc^s po-tn 'a 'OIK i>Ny&" 'n thy/eh b pw 
nnN annNi ins a^p n^a 'DIN a<py 'n :nnN anni 
UN nn vpajn nBB^ "iw nr J nnN nanyi inn Din na 
nw 'Ban unae* irtn nioip nBaa pai : 2/ P ny peny 
^n sas an 8/ D&nni :n na nw IN ni>yi> ww 161 x 
*BB> n^a la^a^i DIB^D 'n ne^wa enSv nina nyans 6 
'i 'DIN ^NOB' n^a }ni3 sin pcin noa pan wi ^n n>ai 
n^a B^WD nn ntsai 4 fbDiai enbt? 'BIM i?^n n^a 
ITBK pan inxi : 4 niya^N 'a 'DIN bbn n^ 4 niyavN 
4 pom 'a 'DIN min> 'n 'n ne^itw 'T Tina 'n win an 'DN 10 
apy na NnN /- i 4 niyasN 'a nvhve pp^ 4/ yass 'a 
iBirs 'v pyn r n DNT ^naiB n^Dn^ am 'n prn 
Tina VB>ay peny 'uwwa 'n^ D^isa pom 'n nabn P^DBD!? NBQ 

'T nhsa 'iri NnntJ' 'yavN 'n 'tj6iB>D ppi? 'yavN 'a 14 

e6a 8 v&Bnai 7l| pnxD :ntrn*s ton nn 
na nn }na -nani B>I^D pn nynpac' ni^o xiv 
a man^ N^ vbv i[\r\ naa mm n^y w 'a by 
by w^v jna PNB> nvabt3Da Q ID 'DN Npi a naa mm 
nn^n JNOSI rh b^ai }Nnn Vyb N!?I jNnn D^ayb N!? 
ine> 10 piB>n }D iwwBn n^a npibm : nan^ xv 
: U/ DD tavnnn JD NJ^ KBI iB'a nann JB NJB' 21 
pibi nann vby D^JN paiBDt? jva nan 



1 SuJtkah, Mishnah, III, 4 ; Gemara, ibid., 34 b. 

2 Refers only to nmy. s Menahot, 41 b. 

4 Explanation by the Gaon. B Menahot, 42 a. 



6 =I:NTD ana. 7 

9 Sukkah, 1 6 a. 10 JHmo^o<, 438. 



6EONIC RESPONSA 335 



(Leaf 9, verso.) 

PNI *nDan sbw iaioo by pni -ana pnpioi na-in 

ryi> viw MW vbv na rvro btnp nk iboiw rota 
na onn i>aN iB>a 'an DIB>O iaoo pnp"6 PN awi nvon 
nns ni^D N^N ib pty jva -un ia*K? 
in nn 'DB na'-a!' n^ nnr ppnpio 5 
pan >^n in ov 6 ^a in^vx enn^ DIN ^ix *^flWi x 

m^ya nv!6 nn-'Ni noan pan ^n pan 
pnnn nppi ^^y B'' 1 ^ 'JB'I ^n: B>^ aw ^iy 
JOT ba nnix B>in^ pan mnnoK xb inipoa jvi'y 
n'-aja 'n n^ya nbtn nnjo iai nap I^SNI napna 
b WK IN x n IOIN nnx "a h r n yais 
no n -nN 'n n^ya nn na noan IPK TDI 

bi X T 4/ oa 'aa yanx 
'n 'n ^aa wv 'n nbya : na-io 'a r6ya 

mo nn 'n x a ^aa pp 'a n^ya a 15 
mp ^aa pntaia D^n^ai nov ^SBW xvm 
p^oy n^^a 6 pnyo^ ^a N^N ja n^-an po^y no 
Nin 7/ ^ai nox TD^ea nca^ Nino 



j nt^yn nna raoyp pan N a^nan p^a NOT 20 
nann 'ONI POPBI io*a D^nc^a NJB' N^ n'-n^aa nox 
jnt^a Dim }nB>ai?^3 p-iDia nox oin mw an -ION 

1 Bead TDD'. 2 Comp. introductory note. 

3 Menahot, 43 b. 

4 =iniD3 rnD33 ; not in our texts, but in MS. M. 

5 i.e. not JtMDC '"i. 6 .JfenaAof, 39 b. 



336 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 10, recto.) 



pro m '&n joru 
rrvBn KS^I N'JDD KP 



po pat? ^ai tnD u BB> 5?s pan I^BN b^n JVM na^m 5 
rwy ^nx no 'DNI aa ^y sjw ;wx i{ p^no p jntwa 
niVD ^3 ^o ^n TJtayc' t^abn N^ n^ m if? tvyyn D 
in ovan jva 'v^v nivo ^as TO ni? p'-oao N^I Ton wn 



na mro 10 
tnx on^m jobi n"x 
nioa niB'D HTM 'nfennai 'pp'-ho noaa 



ano xi? myi 'OKI NP niya 'xnn aa ^y ej KM naa 
nBi vyi'B' n :^n naa np^jn np'-y nna 5/ ir pnoK 15 
*ipjn "ip^y ina 6|| T ^NT sp naaa n*wr aa ^y BJK in ^ 
-QDP sjaa ina ^TK ^NHN ani jv^xn jo miosi in my 
my spa is naM naa ejaa ix np^y ejaa nsKnp fjasa nvsn }va 
Kn n^cia as Tina n3tra nvx ib npoa:^ D : mioa xx 
n*a-.n men DKI ewn law in^ab K3^ ny .13 nosno 20 
N3B>^ ^BW 3-1 n3 n3 's^rn ^nntr iy moB>Di 3Bn <i M 

tnna 



Aoi, 40 a. 2 =nrn NP. s Shabbat, 25 b. 

4 Menahot, 40 b. 5 =Vn. 6 =Vl. 7 Menahoi, 38 a. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 337 



(Leaf 10, verso.) 

iB>nnt5> ny PIOPDI a&>v IN TvpaB IN N^N > bzbi> TIDN 
nina nina ia^i lx Nn pny 'na 'ahn niy 
:pn^ 'na ppiy PN onaa nNBn ynspi 
DN nwan n^a nna pai nat? anyn hont* roB>i to\ni xxi 
j>cp pi rhnKth iK*ao aiTy nn ^i Kin naswo T'ya 5 

a^n PMB> jop N^ao xin T-HM mtn^ n^oiao nw 
in pnv^ an 2/ oNpn Kin -6 noN 11 N^ na^ai injni> 
ma 'm rvDp^ xnx KK'mo an mnna n^ 
inac^i n^ax onn 1^03 vbm ^ 
piso pn n^a px ni^a: ^ax pp naop NO^N 4 ni? 

:pam 'naa r6 pnDpioi Navn 
vh IOT nx tnnoi iynp aSn 6 'ONPT a ynpa N^ 

ja rr^ pnoNp h nnirDi ih^a nn iynip 
Kin a^ p3B>w xynp 'yxa N^ ^na ^as nynp yai in ai> 

aN nynpa n^ ^D N^ ^na nynpa n^ aon 15 

i N^ pair6tMe> pa nynp N^a ^an 11 ^ 
x^a^aa Ntrn 6/ ONpn ^ p yna N^T Nyu wo 
nip'-o n^n jmsM n-nnx nen a^Ni aT'o norw 
jva ninai : TDNI n^on n^ NIP 'oa Nan TDNI xxm 
nbnai nonna ^N^' nniDNi mnan bzh nnr n^yj 'wh 20 
vb nN^Jty }na na 7 pm onnN^ pai n^a pa 
na pai DnriN^ pa n^ pa 'nDNp NDOD 'oinna 



1 Shdbbat, 153 b. 2 Fe6awo<, nsb, end. 

3 = Ti'n'w ; our texts have IDDTN . See D'bm 'U " "van, I, in Jahrb. d. 
jud.-lit. GeseUs., V, Heb. pt., where the reading agrees with our fragment. 

4 Our texts have -QDp NO'TN in 1 ? TPO i;fj 'HDOTD 'i cnn I^E^I. 

5 Hullin, xogb. 6 Pesahim, 93 b. 

7 Fe&ano<, Mishnah, VII, i ; Gemara, ibid., 66 a ; the quotation is not 
literal. 

8 The words 'u^b rvn na crept in from the previous line. 



338 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf n, recto.) 

pa nb&> pa nbn xbi nonn xb basn tb ' 
nonn ib'axi nnns nonnb lovy nonn pa bp 
ats>mi na aina nnp nbna nnna nawn 

IN nab iron naDtp ^NI^I :'ai ncnn Dab xxrv 
nonyn DB> pw inn na n^o DN mioa njnna ib 5 
wn *jmD xb'-K D^E^ iNt^a p niK'yb b*ai ww 
'KD nan } noan nnx laoo npbi "wnb 't^ 
b 'D*PI mnitna nb Dp rvaswi na iTapn 
aabt? pn a pm nbaa inin HDQ nnx 
IN 'rwno nn^n WD }:nsi nxana imo noan vby 10 
Nfiioa 3 pnsi nn ibai 'DNP NOHD ^n mm* 
KI /<p 3N:i nni an*D n^b aKi win 
:nana imo naian an nsana TIDN 
nboi Dnabt? nun 4 pan uni :nb*a3 nnio noa nnx 
DK> NVDJB' ^on DB> pwi pwaa '"it^ 'bjnai onabtr 15 
aim "nsana noib T>IV w nb*aa nnio noan 



"inio jona am SJNI jnx^na pa nb*aa pa 
n nsv P^aa mn pm aT-a pin a xan 'own 

naian pom nsjna pbn ba p fanw '121 sno^an ao 

noiy pN*aoE> ppno rnxana nmc noa ins xxv 
penyi pban ^a^o iKea IN pbab^aai paa nnix 



2 Pesa^'m, Mishnah, II, 2; Gemara, ibid., 28 a. 
But comp, TM. 4 Pesahim, 31 b. 

5 The editions have woi, but some of the MSS. read itoi ; comp. 
Rabbinovicz, ad loc. 

' Comp. introductory note. 7 Pesahim, 30 a. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 339 



(Leaf u, verso.) 

on^ya pp'pn vm ptsw n^oya D^ana 
2 p ptjny PKI >pn 2 p ppno ptsny 'BIK m 'n ir oan 

'nn* pan wn nnio noaa nro *T pa nw6i rratpD&3 
naa nNn DNI noan pTison 'no^i n-nm n^pj nan 
p own i>K nr nan mw r n 'DK 'an 'xon 'no peny ps 'osn HP 5 

ayap^i ny 'lai 

n^nn JBD puny px pa nwyi? IB^^ a ^y |K 
ppHD Kpin peny PNBOI puny p NO^N 'nifc o*nu p"io pmos 
i3K po*n H^ D^sai pa pmen prnt pw paoiK WB> on ^a h? 
Dya pnv 'n 'na nry^N 'n 'OKT nni |n prnn jn pawjw poinna^ 10 
N^X no poinm^ xi? nosn torn naioa 'ON 'noaai nns 
naa 4 no^nm no^yo :Kina NJB^a ^m on 
PODIBW pnnn D*D p^ae :pe&a& *aa ^y nop 
nn nop *aa ^y pt^ao no^n :jna nnho ni 

in ni?n payb nn 15 

pano *KOI '121 
nr paaao : ^y on^ niv 'OK 'omi paK oni? ix^n pa nain 

pawan in^n^ nb pnay 5 jnDB>j jon aanaa in xxvn 
a^ IN B>an pxta pe> pa Nvi^ai 8 attB>ia 
p^y P'D'N "nana mix paiK pa^an 'oien 20 
xntyo pn^y nKe*i tn^aaoa pnl pnrnoi 
rvbrn ;rknn JD 'IOB D^a 'o^ni 'nm 'aion pan jam nijni? xxvm 



37 a. 

2 Editions and MSS. ','02, but the '^4ru&, s.v. pic, agrees with our 
fragment. 

3 Superlinear vocalization. 4 Pesahim, 37 b. 5 Persian. 



Z 2 



340 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 12, recto.) 

p yaw 'n B*TBO Npn 
i 'Dm 'DN yy nr6 noa p^yb !?3N 
DipD3 u paiNP inn baai n-paai -o-naa niaNi? mo *J*ff& xxix 

DDN ^3N J.T^yD pJTW 13N pKI 'niD 13OV pN WK 113n pB> 

"p -inxi v^y IN vnnn ppoop i>a 021*3 rvn* nr fe 5 
nan nx p3TD OKI :nmi pn T^ N3 p nan ns 
p|iD3^i n^nnn 3/ Dspn -now nni? NOB> 2 wBnn P^D^D 
noan 4 nia^tr mi : TIDN nTnn PJIDS^ p3in nnio xxx 

mmio *ntt 6 niVD 5 p3i i:m mni 
'oa p 'o^ 'n nn 'npna 8 pjrpa pwy ^ai> now 7 nry^ 'n noan 10 
'n 'nosi 'B^D n*n* nn 'pie 9<i mn ownia ra x rnn^ rm ^a 'DIK 
DP N3n pn Na^s 'piaDi NP wn wn 6oa p 
inn Niop wm nw *n na pnns xh '-IINS 
IN nao 7 D3 p 'OB' /- ii P^rnx N^I 23 ^y |M 
na ipnnnK* 'so ^a n w an '^poi :xi> pnn N^ IN PN 15 

Na^N N^N J33B>D1 N" 1 ^? NO^Npl : iT^ WD H3 Ip^THH DN 

by PIN Na^na N^T jva NCP wni pnnNi Na^na N^T in^^a 
jrai :pnn pnnNT jva nao '03 p 'yoe* 'ni N^ pnnNi aa 
HID "Na^na 'nan pnnN-i N3' i na N^na '03 p 't? p*n psm 
n3-ina mxo nvon jvai : panb ^03 p pyoB> /- i vib 1Z HID 20 

p pyDB> pn n>b mn n mins 
'a^n rv6i nn n^b nin IDNI 



1 Pesa/iim, 373. 2 =owin. s Pesakim, 37 a. 

4 Bead Trote. B Hullin, 43. 6 Bead nsD. 

7 This is the correct reading, and not TO^N, as the editions have it; 
comp. Babbinovicz, ad loc. 

8 Our texts have jwpa, MS. M. jwpa and p?pD. 9 =nann. 

10 Bead on '. J1 Bead wnrm Kn. 12 Dittography. 

18 Pesahim, 24 a, end. 



GEONIC RESPONSA 341 



(Leaf 12, verso.) 

nnao KBW : IV TJ 'any ptj6a noen n NOB ani xxxn 
IN 'aan DV any!> IN noan anyb a now no!? nroo abai mop 
t^anyn pata Ton p3*yb 'oan 'ONP no nbnn :'aiB 'on 
pa nt?yn ypn paan DNI Tona a-nai nr ny nr noai 
n pa 'B> my 5>a inx lonen nosa aTDi n^aiyn 5 
'ano 3/ )3i tan^a nnsn wa^i :noaij Ton D^ipnh 
nww WB> wnoii> sai nnsm n^xm moa 
'nyn pa ia ama Ton 'DIN ian pa N^ I^KP nina nnao nnpa 
IT Nrr-sna na :bioa rrcnDi t^^a IDHB'^ pai 
pa po^ UN naooi :nJDp nrxi n!>na ': irx 10 
a na^K' nnaoi paoio n^ani? pa i?in^ n^an 
a* jnnaiy na*B> mso ny '121 ni^an 'a vaa^ vn xxxm 
5<i an r i>aN an ^na'n 'DIN p^a JOBH nrb nr ppiann nnaa w 
^aw TYWV 3so T"na N^I ap W> nnaa 'i ap^ 'aa aa i5 jw 
an 'DK :nyacn n^axi niNy 'nya^ N^ 4 fnj?B> no^a nann 15 

pajn nr pna an 'ON :nf i^n^a ny :ain waa ny 'm 
ana i^n nan p jam an 'ON K^N *an a< ^y nn^a j6t? 

N on^npnni ^MBW j '121 annxt^ i?a N^N xxxiv 

na^n p 6/ iai D^JinnN D^D I^N 'snip on*m 
an 'ON 7 nvrNana N^N IT nia pania UN PN 20 
wna ana pin a ^N an 'ON iaayo p |B>a 
an 'ONT N.n a N^N 'yoB' un baa wna^n n^i 'DNI }b aayo 



a- ; comp. I. Low in Orientalische Studien, I, 552. 

2 Berakot, 26 b. 3 PesaAtm, Mshnah, V, i ; Gemara, ibid., 58 a. 

4 Superlinear vocalization. 

5 Berakot, 42 a, top; read win n ; comp. 'Aruk, s.v. "pa. 

6 Berakot, 53 b, end. 7 = 1S'313 ; Berakot, 42 a. 
8 Comp. introductory note. 



342 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 13, recto.) 

pm 2Ti w 2T1 '121 'a>2n 'a 21 'ON *B>N 12 nn 
B 2-1 ira nnK NVDI pan MNI nw 2-12 n2^n 

in22 'na^n 'D*pi "anna pr6 wn pap xxxv 
mm TDD 8 &wn 'oxpi IPITD 12 a mm iao ni>a ^KI nnaoo 
KI &? nnsD2 ^ha N^N any T2pa any 5 

mm ISD oy n^aai ^iai> i^ia pa 
aoio JTO pya nTin TSD!? i!> vn p^ian j^ 
4 sy xb yTaoi? n^a mipn : mm TQD n^a 11 iNi nnat3 
innsi HK^D ^21 innNi mrrn WTD aa Nw p 
pa2 pn*o :jnfioi inr enTwnK o3 <i n i|i i ny hn 0^1 10 
ny NTpi aa*jn 'nun oa nyi 'IWIK wi wi PDD 
:aay I^D^ jon TIO^I ny NTpi 22^yi pieo 
iyT mn N^ 



: 7 nrno n> rnoi :nae> n^ao'Di o*pm nn paa n no2 15 
piaiy DTK ya J 8 pie>n JD fcn nbn^ ny nawn nivo xxxvm 
nni'nnn) :onaan ^n 'nan ^2 jn^aT2 paen 



pipr p nn22 'a^m np^inf) a^n px po nine 
ps nnaai Vpoi : 10 Da2 'na^m :po oa oa DT 20 
IN!? ^N pwwi JD i>aT nbn^ ny nniso ^ 
b pipr N^N ni p^no Tin 



1 =w. 2 Megillahj 32 a, end. 

8 Our texts read min ; comp. introductory note. 

* Megittah, Mishnah, II, i ; Gemara, ibid., 17 a. 5 Megillah, i8a. 

6 Ibid., i6b. 7 Ibid., 19 b. 8 Shabbat, ai b. 9 Ibid., 23 b. 

10 Read : . . . 02 m = nnna . . . IID x inio pipi] ' [ttjonttn 1 ?] inio pipi 



GEONIC RESPONSA 343 



(Leaf 13, verso.) 

i> nw w P^ID pwn JD ^n 
np!>DD nw IN naao nvn DN np^VT JK J lyi pi^n jo bi nrfan 



nD n^y nonn f*ep 

:D3na nonm an? pro^ n^ss N^n pn^aoi 4 J1VN jnc' 5 
I^D r^rffvyo DX pnn mw :nnx nxna nann D^JNI XL 
ye^ nSy nva v\v rh wv ino nnx in n!?i3 pwn* joB'n 
mn K>NIO KIIT 'moi "wi jot? nnyp N!J^D wm 'moi DTK 
nroo mnh aan^ nsnn ^ns N^JD 7 ninnwa xoi'N 6 wiaa 



a 10 
:'iai nnsi ins i>a^ 12 piiom in^ai XLI 



pa onorn pni D*m pi 
ntj> "NO-INT sna^ n 21 'DJH nt? rrb J^eao s^ 
b' n^DNT Ditw ^i> pnoKi :rryD VNM N^ '"ja iTrn 14 
13 P^DD fnty iva QMa^ 10 ypisi : 9/ i3i n^ v^ *P^ x^ 11 
}V3 "pom 11 IQD :11DN i'B'iao o^iye' np XLIU 

nosi nna^Di 'at^ i>3 triTa n 
vn mm ^ya noai na vn 'pn D33 noai na vn 
ppano vn na vn hoai o:a n3i na 
i pouan jo ppmnoi D*3im ponvo Dy piannoi 20 
pynv vn N^ nn^ry ms nnai jnia trt^n wjJtr 
pa iTn no pyiv vn N^ pvy ;n i^asi ipai* nnat^o 



i =j-jyi. 2 Shabbat, 21 b. It cannot be determined whether the 

correct reading is *rrain or nmn. s Read in > oin = prro\n. 

4 Read pr. 5 Shabbat, 23 b. 6 Ibid., 238. 

7 Read mcrwra. 8 Shabbat, 21 b. 9 '^Cfcodafe Zarah, 31 b. 

10 Arab, p Uii , a beverage made of barley. u Pesahim, 62 b. 



344 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 14, recto.) 

6 naain ruw nsw Mtsnan {53 'o^Dan nDNP HDD 



noa :Dnwa vn noi it^y no rnna^D ntryD tjnn XLIV 
aayo-i nr nN m ppnn bana 4 'ata 'a^N ^n^ pant? pva 3 paiyo 

vn xh DJ nt^yj n^n 'Bm3i : HMD *ib pai m nn nr 5 
DIN nyn: xi? obipo 'can 'ON -\3V roao n^ pN3 vn N!>I 



paa a DII aa pjntwp 7 on naa : 6 n^nn pi nntya XLV 

nnyni nmoaai nnaiaai nniooh 



"itin ?Ji :pnnn nri yiap ai wp XLVI 
rnaoo ^T N^ nr nan 8/ oiN nhyn niioix 'Danp pjnap 10 

iap^ TIV^ in nn^m nio^N h jn nit^aj am 
nawn an noNB' B ^y SINK> 'an puna p 'a i>y 
map Wa ND^N paxa anpxn mnna n^ay ian N 

'oxpn annl> nanai * 9 n2Nn N3 nna ys^ pnnn 
pnnn NBHI N^nnn : 10 Ntrn Nna*i Nnnn Nanoa NO^HI 15 

niyi :Nnnaa 'a^n ^ 'DPI joipoa pnoiy wnann 
na na nan 'DNn naxn^ n^ yoo n naBDn nx naiann 

nnn ny 'ai xnia nra 'sn^D^ nnnanNi 'iai nan 
^oan pai :nrin h^a ND^N ni> nbpt^i 'anb N^a^a 
7 iN 'oana na^n ira^ 'iai nai?n non nva 'DIN obiyn HIDIN 20 

n^ai paaw 12 n^y ovaty on>nan pna ^an 'DNn 'yn 
pwn WK na nw :na ^an ^y "pi^nNB' nnN PNB> pnnn 



1 Kiddushin, 70 a. 2 PesaAim, 62 b. 8 Ibid., 64 b. 

4 =D'D I ? Db. 5 Read payoi. 

6 Nothing bearing on it is found in Tamid. Either read nONi and comp. 
V, ii ; or the two words belong to p. 345, line 18, and comp. Tamid, III, 8. 

7 Pesahim, 87 b. Ibid., 94 b. 
9 Our texts read ap' 13 ^n at. 

10 This is also the reading of MS. B. and some of the old authorities; 
omp. Kabbinovicz, ad loc. n Bdba Batra, 74 a. 

11 Editions and JdSS. have ni^^so. 1S Read pibn'ffi. 



GEONIC KESPONSA 345 



(Leaf 14, verso.) 

map lyaxx vwv onxb IIDKI ^an -IDB> noa JHB> niryoa XLVH 
peny UK nai NTI nabn 1/- iaan ova WKP "pia axa 'on 

xpn 
'a by ejK 'ean ova 'Dxpn omaan DVD asa 'D epny N^T 

vn DN isu ba IBW nvpD pmb IIDK now? 5 

XLVIH 



ai 

a tnn 'NH nasn X DK 7 nwyn moa 
9 ma ^aa :'iai N^y KDW^ xnn xoinn pa L 
noatj'na D-ITI nbnna o^nab rnani? B>npoa HJIDD 10 
vna> PJIDD jn I^NI 10 wm "ja n^y mi "p nt^y s nr 
a rrriD nin^on !?y nn nioninn ^y DTOB ja pnv 



nnia mt 

pyo ^in fy .TTIX ja p^ o^ya^a ynvi jtrini onan 
ja onyt? n^yj i?y naa p nia yaa prw Tam Kairu 15 
iva -awn by >ib p DIJN i?v^n by n p y^an by "waa 
nrybx niop npy by D^oas n^a D^an onb n^y by 
noy 'DIN .Tn no ma aaa 9 'Dan uen : cnabon onaa nanan 

ibip nm oaiDyob 'B o:anb D^ib namiayb o^na 
nDiy rww DIPD "nnn wa :niMna 'aa yD^j LI 
pnnoi nbntjiDn n^jw ima DipD pi^b obvrt pa 21 
3B> pa nnn nDiba pix nanob 'pn naiD pa n\n naiDi pb^D 'a 

1 Pesahim, 54 b, end. 2 Fowa, 77 b. 

3 Fowza, Mishnah, VI, 3 ; Gemara, ibid., 53 b. 4 =TO n. 

B Foma, 54 b, end. 6 Ibid., 21 a, top. 7 Ta'anit, 25 b. 

8 Our texts and MSS. have bry ; perhaps it is to be read 
"a calfkin." 9 Yoma, 20 b. 

10 Shekalim, V, i ; comp. introductory note. 

11 Ybma, Mishnah, VI, 8 ; Gemara, ibid., 68 b. 



APPENDIX 



APPENDIX 

XXXIX-XLVII 

THIS appendix contains, either in their entirety or in 
part, nine fragments (XXXIX-XLVII) of the Sheeltot and 
the Halakot Gedolot, belonging to the Taylor-Scheehter 
Collection. Their important place in the study of the 
Halakic literature of the Geonim is demonstrated in the 
first volume of this work, pp. 91-2 and 108-9. 

XXXIX contains a single leaf, vellum, the first twelve 
lines of which are given. The rest of the fragment is 
identical with the beginning of Sheelta IV in the editions. 
The portion reproduced here is closely connected with the 
end of Sheelta III in the editions. Both deal with the 
question whether r6a nojan is more important than rwi>n 
non. Our text of the Sheeltot has preserved nothing of 
the material treated in the present fragment, and, as the 
latter also is incomplete, it is not possible to determine the 
exact size of the Sheelta. 

XL consists of eight consecutive folios, and it contains 
the Derashah meant to be attached to Sheelta XLIII, 
which, like all the Derashot, is missing in the editions, 
and, besides, it contains a considerable portion of Sheelta 
XLIV in a form differing essentially from the text as 
printed. Although the additions made by the fragments 
to what we possessed of the Sheeltot are almost entirely 
quotations from the Talmud, it was still thought well 
to reproduce the whole here, especially in view of its 
value for the text criticism of the Talmud. 

XLI consists of two folios. The first twenty-five lines 
are the beginning of a Sheelta, not preserved in our printed 
texts. To judge by the Halakic material in the piece now 



350 GENIZAH STUDIES 

rescued from oblivion, it was intended for the pericope 
yirn, or yniVD, or ni nns. Only so much of the fragment 
has been copied here as contains the Sheelta. The rest 
consists of extracts from Halakic and Haggadic works, 
one piece being particularly interesting. Apparently, it 
belongs to the Tanna debe Eliyahu Rabba and Zutta, 
and, differing from our version, as it does, it is of great 
importance in the study of this Midrash. 

XLII contains two leaves, vellum, thirty-seven lines to 
a page. The part published here consists of the last 
thirteen lines of leaf i, recto, and the first thirteen lines 
of leaf i , verso. It is the end of the Sheelta belonging to 
the Pentateuch lesson jnrce. The rest of the fragment is 
in our printed texts. 

XLIII is written on paper and contains six leaves, the 
last page blank ; pp. 1-8 in neat square writing, while p. 9 
is nearly cursive, and large; pp. 10-11, square writing. 
The first page is blackened and rubbed, and further muti- 
lated by two holes. I have tried to supply the illegible 
and missing words. What is reproduced here corresponds 
to nine consecutive pages, containing a Yom Kippur Sheelta. 
The last two pages are part of a Piyyut, probably from an 
< Abodah for the Day of Atonement. 

This Sheelta is quite new, and it has a number of 
interesting points. I venture to call attention to some 
of them. 

Leaf i, recto, line 7, a Haggadah is quoted from the 
Midrash Tehillim with the introductory words D'tot? moi, 
plainly indicating that the author of the Sheeltot had before 
him a Midrash on the Psalms arranged according to Sedarim. 
The oldest authority known up to the present as having 
had access to such a Midrash was Rabbenu Nissim of 
Kairwan 1 , who lived three centuries after the author of 
the Sheeltot. 

For the history of the liturgy, the Confession of Sin, 
on leaf i, recto, lines 26-9, is extremely important. 

1 Comp. Buber, Introduction to his edition of Midrash Tehillim, p. 66. 



APPENDIX 351 

Although badly mutilated, it can still be recognized as 
identical with the form occurring in Palestinian sources, 
and different from that in the Talmud Babli l . Yet one 
must guard against drawing the unwarranted inference, 
from this agreement between Rabbi Aha and the Pales- 
tinian sources, that he gave the preference to them. If 
there is any statement that can be made with certainty 
concerning Rabbi Aha, it is that it was his constant aim 
to establish the authority of the Babylonian Talmud as the 
court of highest resort. Our information about the liturgy 
of the Babylonian Jews of Geonic times is so inadequate 
that the utmost caution is required in dealing with what- 
ever concerns it. The view, universally held 2 , that the 
'Amidah, published by Professor Schechter in the J. Q. R., 
X, p. 654 et seq., is of Palestinian origin, becomes less 
certain when it is recalled that so late as the time of 
Rabbi Natronai (see above, p. 119, end) an l Abodah com- 
monly considered Palestinian was used in the Babylonian 
synagogues. 

The reason given, on leaf i, verso, u. 8-n, for the 
choice of the Pentateuch passage read in the afternoon 
of the Day of Atonement 3 , is cited by Rabbi Abraham ben 
Nathan, of Lunel (JTUB, 61 a), as a " French tradition." It 
is not at all improbable that the old French Jewish scholars 
may have derived their tradition from this very Sheelta. 

The source for the parable, leaf 3, recto, n. 4-6, is not 
known to me. Obviously, Rabbi Aha must have had it in 
his text of the Talmud, Sanhedrin, 99 a. In any event, it 
is the short, original form of the New Testament parable of 
the prodigal son. 

XLIV is on paper, six consecutive leaves, square, black 

1 Comp. Yer. Yoma, end ; Lev. R., Ill, 3 ; and Babli Yoma, 87 b. 

2 Comp. Prof. Schechter's remarks, and Dr. Elbogen, Studien 2. 
Oeschichte d. jud. Gottesdienstes, p. 49 et seq. 

3 The reason given is probably correct. In view of the fact that in 
olden times folk-dances took place on 11D3 between men and women, 
leading to marriages, the reading of the Biblical laws of marriage is 
highly appropriate. 



352 GENIZAH STUDIES 

writing. It contains a piece of the 3"n. There is very 
little new material of importance, but the arrangement 
is characteristic, differing widely from that of the printed 
texts of the a^n. 

XLV, two leaves, vellum, square writing. Like the 
previous fragment, it contains a piece of the 3*1. Fol. 4 
follows our printed text rather closely, but fol. 2, varies 
greatly from it. I have therefore copied only the latter 
portion of the fragment. 

XLVI, one leaf, vellum, small square writing. It is 
a piece of the Halakot Kezubot of Rabbi Jehudai Gaon 
corresponding to that published by Horowitz, in VB>n, 
I, pp. 15-16, but containing a considerable number of 
variant readings as compared with it. 

XL VII, one leaf, vellum, thick, regular, square black 
hand. It seems to be an extract from a version of the 3"n 
essentially different from ours. With the exception of the 
first eleven lines, which are contained in 3"n, ed. Hildesheimer, 
623, it is not to be found in the 3"n. Notice especially 
that our fragment speaks of X?DJ , and not of ''jm D"D , thus 
betraying itself as a Palestinian version, since it was only 
in Palestine that the prohibition against ''jm applied to all 
sorts of plantings, and not merely to vineyards 1 . The view 
that ''JQI is to be buried in the cemetery is, moreover, in 
opposition to the 3"n and to the nini>KtJ> 2 , and probably is 
another Palestinian custom 3 . 

1 Comp. Tur, Yoreh Deah, 294, and j^n, ed. Hildesheimer, 644. 

2 Comp. j"n, i6a ; ed. Hildesheimer, 643, and Sheeltot, C, 114, 116. 

3 In a"n, ed. Hildesheimer, 643, xypco is not to be translated with the 
editor " river " but " depth," by which the depth of the soil is meant. 



APPENDIX 353 



XXXIX. 



'* D-D l pjwano -inv 
2 nrb hyin nspoi rrnna 3n3oi> ^o ^aa rrb man 
, . . . na win 'Top N . . NI rbzbv not* ^ \r\rbv van *N 
..... a^o NJM xaaB' nnpD mm mD n^yn $>y3D mn 

. , . T^ lap ^ym -inni nany mxo n^yn 101^ ^on DN 5 
...... T *N WN-D ama nn^o 'o 11 nyn^ n<b nnpn inn 

ins .TnB> nn nam 3 yo^ xn ni^ax ^o 11 
a^ noK IN ; 

iiio n^yi ^ym naini? n^an nsi jnnn nx mnb nn 
nhB>on 'o 1 ' nyaa> ama ino nx naip na nnxi 

n2 , 

p }B Nin n-'D 1 ' jnai nibaN ^D* nyaiy 
nban j POBOO pyaio pxi a^an pa 
na 



Kama, 93 a. 2 Kead no ncinb . 3 Ketubot, 3 b. 



A a 



354 GENIZAH STUDIES 

XL. 

(Leaf i, recto.) 



. , . . . jp pot xnnioDK 'sn NDQ 31 

..... rrrbtrK >jp N^ mm mta xpn 

Nnsno xnx an rrb ' *j 

TlttS^ 'OJ 'N nitK iTSBDN . . ^N NDbni 5 



pnn NIIJ Ninn >jp NVINN -rep 
, , D ........ b %rn ^ 



"12 11 ID' 1 NQQ 21 12D . . t 10 

2 ixb nxi nuia 'be .... ^ *U3* .... ^N n^ 'N .. N .... 

. 1 11DN 3 ID^D^ XBS 11 ........ ..... N .. OH 

r^p H :nri' N^T NVIN pa ..... ^ ........ N'jp xb 

. . Kp N^ 'NT b NBQ nib NJin 31 .Tb ' n ...... 

. . IN nil . . 13^.1 N s Jp N!? 'a^DN '31 11DNT . ...... 15 

. . nuro3 r^no joru 31 i3Dp . . b . , . ib IN . . . . 

.. in 3*1 'K n'oni? bpn HITS naion iDrvN N ...... 

13 



pBO N 3W 1 ........ IK 

rur . . m 3 



N nbiia DK n ..... 

. . 1D3 b ....... 

... H31 K ....... 25 



Mezia, 66 b. The reading of the last three words doubtful. 

1 Baba Mezia, 67 a. 



APPENDIX 355 



(Leaf i, verso.) 

DB vb BB ^ax p'pao ' rvm 
ryan pas psi Nin ivan pas 

nwva xnaiy PK an nay no 
tann ITDB>D fov am nna 8 nos n 



13 N> ''03 Kn 

'osn jNoi' K^N twiwp n^ 'osn 
na a^B xni^p 

nrn Nnp 'DK nn 
ny n^ 'oxn jua 
nit iw w^a ^w po xn 
. . ni NH Kjvaa N^a w^as pj{j> B>on ny niosn 



osn N3^i ^ nynai MIT ii> nnn ny .......... 

sni^p *sn ^^n N^N n ..... N ............ 15 

...... p3t? K'Dn ny rrb anan ............. 



. . anan 
... oa 



1 BabaMezia, 6^ a. s Ibid., 67 b, top. 



A a 2 



356 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf a, recto.) 

....... aw KJK mb nios npn wax * 

....... Npiea p^y Kpi Tana nnna aa 

..... D KB^B TDK t6w np H^ Htt 'K KTHBtt 

T 

. . . tte> n * . N <aa N3p ny w ttp K^OW jva KDW 
iry JIK ai^ 2 1^ n*n an >3 Nan 'etsp DT nnso 5 
'oto nan INXD ^niia nx nm^i v^ni 
^^ mn />i n-m:DB> no i? niao nn^in Typ no 

-non n^ niao 
an nos "nos nai ^ an ton oi Tsty , /an 

' 



*N 'i n mari Npn in^s w sn^n N^NT ^n 10 
win am 4 Naa ai : 8 inana wnnx ^ns v6 Npoa 

'ONI ywn am 

na ^u naarn woo na am ^yn p 
n NIDIT no 'NI nnooBTD nvasw 
none BM n^ PV^DO ^DDI Ninxa 15 
nuna npibb^ v^a SI| NT Nti 'JP ^DDa naa w 
an n^D N3p*i' 71* N^ 'DM an np nap 1210 

am nna 



an *a NJ'a . . . KD nn 20 
^ B am wna a ... ^a 
mm *TD ^a 'ONI jo Nyo ^ 

mm aa i?y SJK wb nnn 
n nyansa ini? e 



1 jBoba Jfezfo, 64 a. 2 Read ibinn or nbin rvn. s Reading doubtful 
inrona or imna? * Baba Mezia, 67 b. * =TOST jNoVi. 

Afezt'a, 68 a. 



APPENDIX 357 



(Leaf a, verso.) 

nnrw mm* mm TB ^ax vb 
DVTSK nnspiN warm wn Bnpn nnns rrw . . 
*B>K an 'K rvana ntwnnB sin nxi^n an . . . 



epn wnrrcn >ntDB>3 s ^IQNQT 5 

xmn 



N n-i? ID 2 iT?N xron M.T 
pr 3 s wn NH n^ 'NI JOMO ins * 



mn 10 



mm K? n^yns paw 
WJP an panan ^H yp 
4 Knana nr mm pJTy na n 

na ^NT TBB> 15 






JIWB 'li? np^ myo 1^ jn N!>I natr 
ra 



PN B3 yiaa ..... a jnw p DK 
prvoi p^ay PBB> px na^ rwro^ pbaninn HN 
... nat^ i!? jnu p DK N!?N na^ mrnB^ 20 
DipBai IBK oy n^oi ION oy i>:y 
p pbyB my^b ejna 



1 5a&a Ifezio, 68 a, top. a =rrt ION. 3 =n:>n ; for n as in 

many cases. * Read Nmrort = rnrwn. 5 Not in our text of the 

Mishnah, but quoted in the Talmud, 68 b, from Tosefla, Baba Mezia, V, 6. 



358 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leafs, recto.) 



3N ' 

natfta finish? taa ^>yiaa wo naxta 
Mian pywN ttaanw :tmNn ny 

rrfc rvh 'aun ^a nwa npii? i>3N MHTO n^ 
noa pan wn fr s inop n^ 2 ar T K^K wy bta si> i^as 5 



'n nD 'n nan noyio pa nanioa pa nat? Nin 
icy ia N^ i^fiK n^a N^N IDV bta b I^BN 'IN 
ii> inu 'IN nr p pyB> 'n nas? NNT ir nriK nnana 
nn xh nny N^ PDB> PN 'an un :D^O 
nw 'i nac' nvno^ i?aixi nitryi' lamp nan in Nbi 10 
nnn *! nnhn }HB> ^BD onyn nx po 'IN nnin* 
n/iannn nxi niDnioi niBow nima \rw 
'in ^ af>ni nna NP wn nany ^nt? 

a^s xb mby ^ia a^ni nraa WITBI i^oy 
'Dsn masa ni? nan nnin 11 'n*a nov 'n nrnm ^avoaa 15 
'na ni? nao Np NJn n^a N^N ivy bo b I^SN 
pan wn :D^ na^ li? jnu 'Dn nv ja pyoc' 
pmnaN -^a nnan^ n^aann ntrx nnatro 
nhaann nnnan^ nosn^ n^x nnnioi naea 
n^ 'or 'n 'an o^mnsNa pi^nn i?v onni "*?w 2 
5 nry^N 'n : nnno D^va Na'-x lanioi i^oy natr ni? 

'm . , 

n-9 aw mnn Nt^ns xinn rr9 mn x^niaNo 
mn nnna rb a^B 'a n^ D'-QBI 6 nan rri? pan 



nan* Nh mc^ xn^xa i? a^a xi>n >xn inn^an 25 



1 Ua&a Jtfezta, 68 a end to 68 b. 2 ='ao. 3 = 

* Abbreviation for rw. 5 Bo&a Ifezia, 69 a. 6 Read rram. 



. -APPENDIX 359 

(Leafs, verso.) 

n<7 a7B v 



an 

WIT wiswi n^ana nnn^o nn w 
inna nnita 



DHD 



131TD 



'IK 'oa p 'DB> pn 

jnaoi IDK Dy irfcn IDK ny ?ay po 10 
4 pan un : rran otw ewn ww im^ ?y 
7BB7 a^n ^no ny wan? nona on 
naiD^ nn7ia 'DIK DISDID nnha nna 

P17H7 N3 DK1 BHIH Tl 5 nWJ3 CH1H 1B^ 

noh MK 72N v?y aayo nan wor lira 15 
nnnx nae^v n^is^c? IT 
no ny nan? nona ot^n 
DV S noaa nr 7'' npna nn?o ^so 11 ? 

a 'IN nmn> 'Ta S 



Kan no ID^D^ 'aao ND nano 20 
nvno nrm i7{y nvno 7Qia 17x1 pns nipn 

1 Baba Mezia, 69 a. s -pm ? 3 Mishnah, Baba Jfezia, V, 5 ; 

Qemara, ibid., 69 b. * Ba&a Mezia, 69 a. 



360 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Leaf 4, recto.) 
, . , , n NpE> NHIJ N^JO 31 

wn 



, , , . 

Kin rub u;w mpo inn p aba JKO mb ' 
nim <Nni3 nn iron i^nr W unit? mpo 
^ ^a W3o in J>TK mn nna nieiiw in!> 5 



!rK Dpi ^BT Ka -nr joro ai ' 
n paa xaa an X N nnam 



, 

Ki yT 'oby ? p Nicn Nb n>> ' Dn 10 

. 

noa nr |cna 3-1 X K naw JD-DS K? 



3*1 

*" " 



t ' t L ^ 

OT VDP KB^aa KDV ?a nn lao mn 
n K^I nioK mm n*o nao >ND Nnp^yo son 15 



n-nn x xnt ?wya nmn mo 
T s % b Km nnna yn m naya K*nn loii? 
nnanb \rvvb wvb rvb n xan ' nnna 

b 'yts KO wbsb manK n^ KDii nir nyaiK 
7 m^ nni? nKan 'na"i N^N mm moK 20 

n^ noK nn ? nnani? jnnab ^3Ki> n^ nv 



!7N mtfl 

1 Saba Jfezia, 69 a. 2 Ibid., 69 b, top. 

4 Comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc. 



APPENDIX 



361 



(Leaf 4, verso.) 

by P-IBO Kin nn<K nap son l mb , . . . o 

wa pan lan :n*an BIPO twnn law nn 

nia tfisw* mt? ib n^atpn urn? by pnao 

OKI no;n : Bi m DTINB 'b jn ib nox na&>:i 

by b pee p bnx nniD -112 anby ^ n^yx 5 

nb ^^ nn-no na nwl> ni3n ^naon i>y jtin nwnn 



na nurb nun n^acn ^jn nunn 
D toas 

- 



nrao an 

i ., 

aip <ov ail wna-ai m no 



NTJN NP xnaa >{< xnaa N 
an n^ p*ne> xp 7 yo K 



an 



by f wy n nona ib 'NI nano nona 
N!?^ s& nmo enha ybo *]b n^yx aw nan 

nnsb o^Dia nsby baK ano 
snaai Nnax na^ao sna^n NBB 'an 'OK n 
ny^a snaa na'-B'D ny^a xnas nea 'aa s aina 20 
xanaa 



N py an 'N 

py anb pna an n^ 'N nuna 



nnio 



xnaiyn NBVJ n 



wpat? nna 



25 



Mezia, 69 b. s These two words, written over something 

else, are a note by the scribe calling attention to the fact that he had 
written a part of the sentence on the previous line; read rporo*. 
3 Baba Mezia, 70 a, top. * inr: 



362 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 5, recto.) 



mm mn Ninn n 'K 1 mn 

T- : - 

n ..... pp ^pan i>'pni aw bpn i>xiDp -ID mm 
KnnB 'K Nnns N!> KT:K 'N 2> jpB3n ^3 n'rins -uxi 

B> "DJ yjpna 'I^SK nM KJU NiT3 m^ 7 K KnJK N^> 

TO33 NK'nj rrnns rrby ^apn jva 'yo ^NO 5 
?n nw an ' 01 T rvnsn 
pinii na^b anp 



on ^a Qp tnpon n-'a^ pra nian i?a "b cnp 10 

'31 TIC 

S 'W H3IDH 3 



1H D1D 

jots DID ^ya nnsi on nns i^ nn Di^3i 'an 
ny nyn o^p 'pen '3 PNB> )r3i n^p enpon 

KOIO KIB>D^ mow : onnJ? bs3i mo 13 

>np , , 

13 nw N7 DID 73\ 'M t^OO iT3 

T33 



)7BM1 13 sin 

13 H"m K^ N^N ^ PK 13 '.T N^ DID ^3 KWT 11DK 

DID ba ^ 7 ^n onnx n ^y i^ onr K^ PJD oTa DID 



TDK , , 

na n^riDn 33 'y x si : DID bs DNI DID X DK 20 



si? onen n3yni osni? mb ^rnoi ny 

n"i> pnoK N^N no^nt? nnsi? JDID^J rvb 

we 

min n IDID ns nKioi niasn ns 



1 J5ab 3fezio, 70 a. 2 -|JE: no ? 3 Read MraVn. 

S*e?Wo, XLIV, 136, ed. N. Z. Berlin. 



APPENDIX 363 



(Leaf 5, verso.) 

TIDN nnoio *B ^y vbw on^ai i>wn IN 
an pyat? ppm pnv 'IN nan na -ia na 
no ppaatr poioa wtaa noNi "a^a N 

101 pyas? ppn 'IDS epaap poio pnra nan 
'11 T'NO '-i ^ NO'pn aa ^v ^KV pnra si? nao 5 
Si. ^NIDB' ' ;on3 an 'NT -PN 'na xna mw 'ia '^n 
niaa n^ jvtn nncio I^MO vnnnaa T>N 'ia 
T'lv N^N nigfia^ Nin nn N^ NDID n^a nw 
nsn DIN nniaan ^ am . . . nnsij l mn?rw^ 
rva n^n^n niaa I^N :ona nosy maao pn 10 
Nova oar6 H^ITHN^ Nin no xata sova NOIO 
nvpi Ditra n*a n^N 'o n^a^oi rrorwoi 



iTa nn^NT a v n noi Nvo^n DNI nxpi nin N 15 

D11UQ . 

n^a rvx D n <i p' i y nn^on ""yT 1 ! pnaion 

N!J sin pnaio Dim ynn ;va pnos 3 N^s* 
T^ p^pnro IN yn 11 sin |va 'o^n 'N n'hjno 

'11 mm* /- i na a^a a^o Nin nspi N^N ofn 
mm* '-n aa 'y 'NI N3ia ^na nxpio wri N^ ' min* /- n 20 
'ON pyot? x ni n^y rrnjn m 2 N^n nspioa none 
nty pyo^ /- n aa 7 y 'xi nvpio wn wia ^s 
p'pnron NO" 'o X NI IDN an 'obya 

1 Edition n^ir^, but in the following sentence as in our fragment. 

2 The scribe could not read his copy in this passage, and left space 
indicating that words were missing. Bead NVirra and Vpo *n. 



364 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Leaf 6, recto.) 



NVI 'NI D3n m> 

i ny BIB n w DN ntni Nnm& m* 'IK 
IBIB PNP b 'IN pyBp 'n mro* N!> IN!> DNI 
pia jiyofc* '13 ^N '-iim '13 'i^n pin JD w aita av 
'en :p3y$>i noan 2 'Z ptamc' poio i^x by : 

N^rn nin xb ao Kova mn rww ^ 
4 Nin nau > 'n xm nn N^T nay 

nin 



nnsp 'NT Ninn ^3 NSPID na n^ ini? nnt? 
Np mm B NV ^yon N^BN Nisia 

NHI NJT'Nn n n^ 'N n^Diob n^rn ntsi 
T'OID!' n-'S non 6 rpN IN^T nntr n 11 !? nw 

T10N , , 

Nin wi Nnaiyn n^au n s ? I"ION m? 'N 
m^n b^y 'Xim ND^ 7n!? myt? on Np mn ^ 15 
N!> n^ 'N mb n^N KD^H in^ 'N n^na^ Npoai 
PN 12 nw N^ DID b an NHTO NTON D mb JDK 131 
V 1 ib>N tons :D3K :mbi3 Din 12 rwy 

|3nOK D N^N nWON IP^D 'B |iT3B 
jn3N 7 T TB |BnB N^ mb ^a ^m }V3 ao 

nni33 irfoai jva }33i mi? wm Nin aoro 

ppB KB^H }331 in^ 1B>n NTIH pn*3Bn Nin 

21 'N -IDIVNT x B>n }33i inb wr\ N^> '^ ^23 HBIB 

........ 'N 



1 The printed text has N'jm , though the passage quoted is a Mishnah. 
On the other hand in p. 379, 1. ss below, the printed text has *nm, but 
the MS. j:m, though it is a Baraita. For an explanation of this vague use 
of the terms }:m and &wm comp. above, p. 190. 

3 This sign stands for nx. Comp. above, p. 358, note 4. 

3 *nau 'in rowm 'ON 'T, and comp. note 2 on p. 363 above. 

4 Read Ninn mn, and comp. note a on p. 363 above. 

5 Read NIB NOV. ' = n. 

7 Read mm, and comp. note a on p. 363 above. 



APPENDIX 365 

(Leaf 6, verso.) 
}D D3B> T")* 'B* 1133 pfiD tM'Bp 31 ...... 

hin PP^ ^3M Nim JND 'ya *MD vi>y Tyn$> p . . . 
pryo o^ya 'DM jom mi |D\TD i 



pa na va-'W ^3 'DIM nov /- i nw ...... 

M^M 3no nMD '11 nwnon 

: Mini x : nro yDtr pan ini? wn M^ 

DinOH JO 13TM HDJ3J 1133H HN pDITW 10 

nspa mon N^ 'BYM npnoj iiyn JD 
3pj 1| nt}> bs n^ 11 n irs nvyv is 
p 'or /- i m 



y7B> on : 
vry3 c>nj pn h^3n pn wjn nm 15 

niHB>3 D33J1 TT'DS pDISH p^ h^3fl 
l3n3n pi>3 plD PM85> DID WM J3^3 

DV a nne'B' b yi3p n3i3n inns pynpn 
1in3 'oya 3 VIM ppii3 'IN DJJ^JM p rr33n '-i 

i?3M pynpn D*DH jn I^MI or a 20 
^3 nnsi B>3n HN ^>3N5? ix frfafat? vnn rb 
ea'n ns ^3w ny DID WM nbn nx 



1 The Derashah missing in the editions of the Sheeltot consists of the entire 
chapter "VI of Mishna Bekorot, and of Mishnah, IV, 3, of the same treatise. 

2 =Tnnn? Or did the scribe confuse nnwr, "albugo," with nanin, 
"serpent"? 



366 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 7, recto.) 



. . . BP piDapi D3B3P1 3pap loom n^n 



IDD ...... i 10:1335? nwwnn vein npnosp noawp 

ID ppnto pN 'N oua&aK p rraan '"i npysp nvD'aan 
fix N!> ^3N D^aS niD^snon 



p 33tn Daaa ipoai rofthv nnyni pirn 5 c 

aarn pNn nmp IN pnan p N? 73N osyn fc_ 

nvin7 nvin pa nt^a B'^K' IN Dvy 
'n nnN nv3 N!?N b PN D^3 i^ pN 

ia*pio 'IN na^py '"i nnN nya N^N i^ pN nnN 10 fe. 



naio rwa DK> p DN nyona main p 
npian nNVai ontj'ai ny bi iyoa^ 

:nw p pm /- i "IDNI /i( py /- i T-nm a 

N^N ^ PMPI v n 



i3^T noopap 73 .Jinp in? H N 
v D^y 13P3 nni3a un^D 
17 mm n33'3 N:D i7"N PDID na^a la^xp 
n?N nN layDp N? IIDN ^-oin np7P niyi 'oan - 

Trn7P7 non vai D1N7P3 7iay la^y 7373^ 
onnnN7P pn n'a 131P77P isnon 3n 7D I| 3P20 a 
pnnnn 6nr npyo PDID i7'N nn IIDN v^ 
nn IIDNI '3n7 'oa p 'DP pn 7NP1 ji^yn ?y fjniy 



1 Bead 
* Read 

3 Arabic : this is the order of arrangement ; first ttrfafe, then z~\2, then 
n:, then pyb-, then sni. 



APPENDIX 367 



(Leaf 7, verso.) 

nriN ovy na DN DID IHN ox 



JWZJ1 

TTH7 non NVWP >b ian 3a? 'N '703 p man 



'DIN D33B3K p maan 'n DID nr nn nv^n nta nn 
if'n Dvyi n* ovy poeatj' wya nha^ nx 
nnw n^na nnx va* vae ^ DW DJB^ 5 
bns n^noa naop nnxi n^na nnx vam 
nhia vroo nnsi 'IN min^ 
a^MB' ijayn aar . . . 'can ii> inin s 
p o^ay n^iD hi ....... nip ... ^ nyao 

i t 

ra ninna jn JW8D }n^ pr 73 10 

3ipny3 'DIN oaa^oaK p n-aan 'n 



von pyup pw 15 

313 



m . . IDI mxn rmnen 

DID pN 'IN ^NyD^ 11 /- 1 iT3H03 N71 

na . . N7N 1133 I^N 'DIN 'am nto 7ina 
ontrai Tiaan nN HNII nnoio WNET *D 
p :inao D?B^ "i3p^ m nn va iy 
HN am 3nn nx nsni pin HN 



368 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 8, recto.) 

. nx -I.TOI -iinon nN NO-BI 



pn n-a rrn DN in-ao 

nnoio 






n . , . yni om n^nan prna 
praon n*ai nmj.T n^i 
in^jn i^^n p it^y DNI I-DB' . . , nnpyoi nonn 
xh i^nn N^> 'DWI 'ax ' 'ON 6n rp-a nnncn 'IN 'nan 



i 'DIN >NO 'on 
3 * n^pwoi 'ion 10 
liana i'aDij pa w n '& noa ny N^ D^ya rra 
3 I"N nov 'n ov 3 noni or % npn nona 
irun nrn for iina jna h 'ON DNI 
^JBO ntw an 'N ..... D WD i^ 
no : ma j nman n^a ......... on 15 



n 



na 



jp^n N^N yoon jnaa n^b n^im n^ paroi 
^>yni nr niaa wwnn -ioif> {nan p ........ 6 em 

iiaa n^yb nsio iy PJDNJ b ....... 010 20 

nr nn 1^1 ma^JB' IT nyopay wy no ..... N 

I^BN 'IN nov 'n no:a aa wh? ^a iy on ..... 

: Nnoio ^s i>y N^N oin^ N!> n^en onw ...... 

. , , vbv ny jnwi naoi noan nN 01 ..... 



1 =ND'JNIB ; SheSlta, XLIV, 138. 2 Read prrti . . . N"3p 

s Read "> nn'oi wb. * = rrb n^wi. * Read naon 'Ji 

' The Derasha, missing in the current editions of Mishnah, Bekorot, V, 5-6 
III, i- ? 



APPENDIX 369 



(Leaf 8, verso.) 

D'mn , . 

TIK }m "mn-O 173K 73NB> no . . nKin 

own riK on? nitrn na i?a . . . K?E> . , o 



i .... }n? nnm .............. D awn HK 

inn wm nt?an ........ n , . jn . . 7aK ...... no 5 

on 'IK o^ab ... nao DD . . . nK jn^ 
in . . an , . o noro npi!?n . , . nano *on . b 10^ 
m ry 'IN ken^* 'n m^a N!? DKI rnou DK jn . . . 
na ^nn pan sjbw p*o }nai> ........ a nni^ 

33 . . . om ma pan -m pna ...... ^ 'xnn 10 

'n -6 'N pan ^m p^o 



Tat^ . . ne>K3i mp nom BIWO npn nonn 
a^ jK3 p . , m^ l| 3B' yn^ b ^an nr n ..... 

1D1C3 ^aK . . pan OKI |nab nr nn m^n xb ...... 15 

"nn ny&tw noj nom 'K 'py^ p ry^N 'n o^y ..... 

'3 'DC? pn miaan ID moa^i lap^n if nn DT . . 
ma KD .......... WK ''lan ID np^o nona npi^n 

..... a ..... njoi my im^ waj mn nnnx ^ 

......... u^in U*K nnaao PKB^ nsi mp^o 20 

..... a ir^ nja KDB> IK IT !?VN ii> iK3 ir^ vn 

t 

niaan n om^n 'IK DTIB^D p DV 'n ir 

.... y^n HK t^ini p'oi pns 



Bb 



GENIZAH STUDIES 



MOW* tULjV , 

Gli 

cn! 



r? & 

S> n 



F r- 

n a 



a 

X 



* INCHl. QUILL! Nu S 

::.7._- ::.-._,._ ,.-'-....i_ r.-.i.. :.: _s 

O ir. 



s 



22 

n - 

f- n 

c E 

a , 

c ^ 

22 ^ 

^-^ 

^ n 






i- 
, as 



r x 
a Z 



c a 

; p 

5 o 

*~* -iz 

:^ 



g 

a 
a 



n ^- 



t> n 
^ SA 



G -3 -^ 



U :j=. -n 
i~ 
c n -c 



^ E n o 
-j> c r 22 

* 22 a n 



c c n a 
, *^ - .9 

?\ ?= -J"x 



a ^ 



J3 



C *- 







C 22 > 

^ n Q r~ 
x ** n " 



p rt -^ 

^ $3 22 
C a P 



Q 
22 

J- 
C 

22 

P 



n 
ft 



C 
22 

? P 

22 Jr 



- 



- n ;- J-- a ' 






22 1 

P r r 

t~ J3 ^ 

5 I s 

IX Q Si P 

22 ix Q 



a 

-e-R 



'^ I 



r n 22 p 



F 
P i 

"E- i ^ 
^ n E 

^ E | 



S ^ 



a 



n 
S n 



P Q 
a | 



n 22 



n 

- 



a 



n 
n 
Q 

J c r ' 

2 Q S 
^. ? l - 



- ~r\ 

s ^ 



- s 

*x ^ IT 

n ? - 

5 e^ 

C fl C 

x Ji q 
P o 

22 3 n 



C x 
C O 



. S 



n J^ 
r * 

t- *J% 



n 



x C *- 



f- n 
c a P 
n 



v P 



C Jx 

Q ' 
a 



t^ c 

r 



c ^ 

at 






APPENDIX 



371 



-0 Q O 

Q O Q 

* f~i J"^ -J"x 

3^ O TX J^ 

s c c fc 

^ , a a 

r ? n n 

P "** 

o ~P ? 



- as 



1 Q 
C ' 



_ 
X 



.JN 



as z, 



as * 



Q 

as n 



f & 

Q n 

g E 

ft n 

? Q 

i o 

S g 

^r\ C 
Q 

& r 



~ B as ^ 

Q U C M 

r n : 

Q S 



M 



: 



S I 

P n 

J^ o tz. 

n ~rx 

K C 






^ Q 



c I 

n f= 
as c 

*K 
r- Q 

as E 



P E g 



C ^ 

*^ S 

& n 

r 



Q 



f & B 

a n 

** 
c r *~ 

c c. ^ 



n ? 
o SA 



5^ 

? n ^ 

a Q a 

jy E p 

S 3 a 



S ^ & 



a 2? 



f r n 

& Q 

B i P 

n ^- -c 
a 



P F 



^^ d^ 



f! 25 ? 

" ^ 

P ~ S 

d ^ P 

F 2 c 

c <= as 



5 n js 

C ?v ~S 



c - 



as J_ ir 



Q 

a 

as 



9 C >9 

2 Jil 



e 1 - -5 ci 

. S - -S pi 



Ti * V 

. 5 ^ S 

^ S ft 

|* 5 ^. 



. .1 

I*-*! 

* o? ~ *. 

'" I' is -2 

A ^ .2 

8 I 



r- O Q 

co ^ o - ^3 

1 -s i- f -9 

05 s 1 1 -g 

- M OH : 2 O 



B b 2 



372 



GENIZAH STUDIES 

XLIL 

(Recto.) 



nT3 trb B*D&TI none KOI nm KWTK I^K Din 25 

nono m nxiin ' p3i uni yB> xn N^IK n^> 
i?r\ K^K &OB>n si? I^NI po ww^w men ruwn oya 
oya n^oBio &*OBTI nono DI nnxn inxb n 

nosy pram ^n B'nsB'n vb i?tx\ po 
i>y TID nnaoi pi^n JTBB* n^sist? nao novy npin iv nrxai 30 



nnaoa nhn rao n^ B DSI nnou nhn noi nb ^ DN pnxn p 
nhn 
rpa& 



nao 

N 8 Niny roo m 
p lyoB* ^ 
'OK mw 



DID HJI^D nna DI PIMM 
mot* upo 



b pstr n^ 'OK 
'OK 4 



nosy pram prn 



OK DI 



1.13.1 



DI 
6 



(Verso.) 
DI .1X11 

a nny3 Dip 
nns 



IT 



mat^i no's i?a '03 N nsairm rbyss\ na!?n 1.13.1 33 
b ^K KM ninn *N nwn6 ^vt^ T* 1 ^ ^ n "i nt3 *ov3 
mno nsv3 xnx 11.11 nine *ov3 sniiN^ pasn JKD I^K Di3 



Knyi 

N^> T'OH 

an rrrra 
panv o .11,10 



1 Niddah, 65 b, end. * =ncnn. s Explanation of 

* Text corrupt. * Our texts, nan. * Head mrra. 7 Comp. 

Niddah, 66 a, end. 8 Niddah, ia b, top. 



KM .11.131 }Va K1 IN 

}i3 <i nij <i NB' K3na ai 8/ Ni 
ai ^o p3i jnx ^a ynrp 311 nn3 win 3111 
mo N!J n npm 



APPENDIX 3-73 

XLIIL 

(Leaf i, recto.) 

........ an IDN ta^n jwim wiym ' <nxt:n 

, . . y&Bfi jiy KW3 ntf HK>D 2 yjiyenm nnym 
3 ........ h . . i ni3n . . , . y mine n\nt? 'ytja n 

.......... N 'wm VJab mat? jn 

....... 3Nn 'CM 'nytr 

......... y moan nans nabn an 'CM 

M , , , , n aib . . . $>M ina triBDo 0^08? 
Min /- i;i 'pn ysb TH nnx S M!? 'n 'ON 4 m 
panm ain NJNI ai n^M nx nSy ^ 
n . . . pn-m pnr6 p^aen nen an 6 n^ 
an a "Jiy^ nn^oi ' ^DB' 
nmc n^ana niaan MDV ^yoa 
nno moi^yni D^iy m jni 11 nnM 
xmiyoa a^nxn opo ini>an 
nnno iTnjn MTitro N^>H PIDSNT 15 
aiy *ITI mvD pan wm 8 ynvN^ b*3M M^I 
mine D^osn noM ^ax na^n oy omaan 
uiyn epD'n N^ n^n^i n^ax mip |p Min 
nnt5i i'3N <i B > onip miring ^s i?y PJNI miyo3 
131 ynN^ . , . net? nnt^i i3M^ "inNi? mine 20 
, , , , 10 any minnp B ^y SJMI nmyoa n^p^p 
PJD1D3 nnirp n^iici* nnnt^ mine 
jaSni n^yj3 linih^ nn33 nruoa nnin 11 



25 

.... Wvyv noa . . . na^n nyn nnnat^ 9 IJB^ 
^ 733^0 pin NT . M^ ...... ^iy VM aw 

i'incni wa ^3 by ^ naahB' wnbN 



'na . . . 

riibob !ia^ ? *a iinbs bxi taorrvi 3 o 

1 Zoma, 36 b. 2 Read i;3Wim uiyni? comp. Rabbinowicz, ad loc. 

8 nia^cn tei rnamn by cmno D'nm ? * Read 21 yccn . * Midrash 

Tehillim, XIX, 172. 6 Read rf?b wi. 7 a'rr, 30 d ; ed. Hildesheimer, 154. 
8 Read 'nw"j. 9 Comp. Lev. R., Ill, according to which the text is to 

be supplemented. 



374 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf i, verso.) 

PN nr omaan DV onby 'minrw 

"ins omaan DV Drr6y mwp T^* 

DV D.-vijy mirvp in* ona rop DNI 

minni ona rat? N$> DNI ins omaan 

'DIN 'nan vi>y ins omaan DV Dn^y 5 

'DIN 3pjp p nryta 'n INT ^ ^B> aba 

^x WE ^a 'ay nnitro nr nn pe> ^>ai 

'oan wpn nh nnan naa nDrf jnx 

on not? oniaan ova nvnyn nnpi> 

yoB on nn3 DIN ^a: DI^I 10 
Dpo ^N TO N^N niiB'n nu>yi innm 
men may nnyt? nr INV i>y ae> aba 
inytr jva win n 'NT N3in /- na na 
i^ ninin b mnin na r\xr\ nTay DHN 
Tnna b n^y: ND^N N^N xnjn Npi>D 15 

onb wjn 'at? Nenn HN ona 
'DIN Na^py 'n rrnrt* 'i nan anr 'n 



N on!? iB>yi D^PD ^JN no N^N n 
wun 'in 'na 'pn ":ab jwo IDN ant 20 

nn-ann^ ann ?iD3 ^ 
Dia Nin H noi^n on^nina^ 
BV ^ 2<| i^ P yenrr '-IN by 
na pnna jn^ na N^N rvyyo 
nr oaai? n*m in 11 ns 'nan nai^n ^ya^ 25 
b mvo b HN IOB^I ^ 
oni? n 

1 'ON mi.T an 'we 
. . oa . . 'tai nNon IDS y^a 
3no^ onh^ anyi mii n^y 30 
':rn . . . D 



1 Foma, 86 b. 2 'Abodah Zarah, 4 b, end ? ; our texts and MS. read 

differently. s Read VJKDE ncaoi. 4 Read rp'n n :m mc3i wavbjwa , 
and comp. 3*n, 31 a, ed. Hildesheimer, 155, end. 



APPENDIX 375 

(Leaf 2, recto.) 

Dawpfia riN Drvjyi nano 
payno n i 'B>y3 N$>m pjyno nyB>n3 *3i 
wr>3 nmc?n ^ixn ^3 ^^ 10^ N^K 
, , , n?n j?B>n nayna i^w 3insn vi>y n^yo 
nae> n^y nnx p piaTn n^yi 5 

m 3 J nnv , . , 3 nb na 
amp 3 3-n ;niN paano i?3N jmx 



21 'DK n M*y3D m nnp paano 10 
n n33 n 
n HM jnix 



p pnv 'n 'ONT pm 'n 5 ioa |nix paaro 15 
|nis paano njcj* mtyy 
*ins DVI mt 



VI rue> 

n3 'DNT pm 'T3 Nna^n ji? ND^PI 20 
c^^o THN nvi mt 
DVI n-it^y B>^ p 



pi 11 u: ^y^ TV e epb p 
s)x ND . . omaan ovn nania^ 25 

H3 "8>3n*Dn JV3 K1 



. . . naib nniain DVI 

r 30 

1 Read rmsm rrb. 2 Towza, Mishnah, VIII, 9 ; Gemara, ibid., 82 a. 

3 "Ui. * Toma, 82 a. 5 = nosn rroD ; the text following is corrupt. 

6 Yoma, Sob. 7 Yoma, Mishnah, VIII, 9 ; Gemara, ibid., 85 b. 



376 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Leaf 2, verso.) 

DV mpi ons pat? rvrvay ' 
PN nun pai was? ^aao 
DN row jy^y ny naao nniaan ov 
'ON rwin 'n 'OK 2 iTy^N '") 'ON nun 
PKS? KBn nnon " us DaTiNtan bo 5 
onsan or 'in 'in 'pn K^K 
n^na 'now I H KO 'n n\n 
1!? p^mo nauwi n 
is onni^D 

'SNn 130O 

i3 an 'ox min" an 'ON roicn 
niic'Nn cya n*a ni^ay im 
nniNa miiT an ^no njo\n 
min> inn pis iniNa nipo iniNa 

HNDH 'IDS y^S ''WJ n^N 'H3 >ON1 15 

p N^p N^ r\^ N!J iiyt^s HD3O 'nai 

WNS? NDH3 p DDIIQOn 5 D^SOH N^H3 

fN3 3i 'ON rraio in NIDH 3n DDIISO 
nn"aya }N3 nun^ onN pas? nn^aya 

'n ia DV 'n N^n oipo^ DIN pat? 20 
pbrno n3i^N"i oya muy na^y QIN IOIN 
^mo w&bv b pi'nio 6 m , , cni? 
i?y ' "ION na '35? i^ p^nio PN 
jn T'CNI m^N t6 nyan bxn ^NI^ 
NO -133 oy ^B? D^oya ^N by& n^N 25 



^3 7 pni 11 'n 'ON N3N na nii 'n 'ON N!? 

^y3^ N^N iN33n: xb 8 i^a 
nnxn N^J py omoj D^pnx i?3N 

1 Yoma, Mishnah, VIII, 9 ; Qemarah, ibid., 85 b. " Keritot, 25 b. 

3 Yoma, 86 b. * Read cim. 5 The scribe wanted to write 

n, but wrote D'Don, which he cancelled. 6 Read n"3tu i^. 

8 



7 SanJwdrin, 99 a. 8 Read 



APPENDIX 377 

(Leafs, recto.) 



p poiy naien 



..... b aitaa *]bn nnx o^a w b wit? 
Dita cnbt? 'j& J nyn niannb y 
rnp^yo rn^ay nan pirn ^ 



nan ^y na nna vaxta ' 8 na 
v^ani pm '-\ paai nan i>ipa 
^ e^n ni> IDN Knnoo NMH 10 
mow ^DTI no 

T38JH }S n 



H T-ayi p ni? ION "sn 'ND n^ 

nrn chya ataio Nna a3 15 

mn 'N n^ KIO 4 xan 
an X DN naitrn ^ya ^XT "^n n^> Njnyv mn 
oys n^ miay nan xatr i>a a-i 'CK mw 
nnixa min^ an >inD umn hrci naitwi 
* 6 pan un pna vvna oipo inisa nw 20 
ns n^^a N^ wnin^ nt^K 
jno en n^y ^w on^on 



e* 25 
n^an n^ oypon ba wan na 



nany DN 

nypn 



1 From mn -jN'm not in our text of the Talmud ; for xb read 1 s ?. 

2 Kiddushin, 40 a. 3 12111 ? The spelling of i for ELamez is found 
elsewhere ; comp., for instance, below, p. 388, line 2, 1101 = "mi. 

4 From rrcno san not in our text of the Talmud ; after ITDTO a word or 
two are missing ; read rpxcwo inin or something like it, and comp. Baba 
Mezia, 59 a : ... imy VD'C. 

fi Fowa, 86 b. 6 Sukkah, 53 a. 7 Foma, 87 a. 



378 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Leafs, verso.) 



-pa 

arni oainn -j^ ^n epa nxa 
nman p&0a ID^ inm pn . 



5 

mtry NUO innx -I"DN PJDV m 
^ TiNnn noNi nap ^y n H oyi 
NI ia *n^anc' nr ^i^sSi ^sn^ *nb 
s n3no n^no K>p3cn ^a wjn na 
'yy n^cys nvt^vo n^n 1 * oo ppa 10 

y^a nj xv na ejw^ noxn na 
'21 NJ KB' nnyi ito nyn 

'3 nrax xn> N^t 
"J1 n^ni'N NST) Dr6n ^N nn 
ny if> i>nD3 pw D^iyaB> poo ^a -6 jn: 15 
*a B^NH n^x ae>n nnyi wo^n trpa 1 "^ 

Nin NU: 

ivy iyv 'on ^as ntj'ia nyx w 
ny ^ ^HDJ PN nvaii ^s ba anpn 
vayen i?a 3 Nasn 'CN wosn t^pa 11 20 



y "aiyi py 
naiy Nnt^ D^ py 
rrb D^SD N^ NH n^ D^SD m 



1 Read 'rviyn. a Baba Kama, 92 b ; our texts differ essentially from 

the reading of the fragment. s Rosh ha-Shanah, 173. 4 Read 'Ni. 



APPENDIX 379 

(Leaf 4, recto.) 



mpn 

py wsra -pea i>x <o 'nai 
naiy mp o^ py 
'na >nxn NJIH an mbro 
r6nro vyo i?3n TDHI 'nai vam 5 
'na n3n nry^N 'n i*on P|ioa^ pnx 
nnx a non ' ^i 
nnx a ni?nna 
non ' iii pjioa^i 

pnr 'n X N 'ai /<( > N /1|S xnp^i we 10 
ntMj^ na'SN ^ ains xnpo 
IDT b ntw^ 'p 'n next? 
on!? fjmo yto nrn nnoa nt^y 'JB^ 
onp wn 'jx orprwy ^a 

nx^ wn yw 15 
non am D^SN inx pjni Dinn bit ny\vn 

nnina nna nmn* an 'DM 
npn nnnn PKB> nnD 
'n 'ION nna nna 'aJM nan 
2 KTDn pyot5> n "DM MJTD na i>MJM3n 20 

na pjyno PMS? nia^ n^jyn b 
no b K3ni n^jyn ru-^ ^nt^ yt^a 
x^ ^jn rwy ^y nnaao nawn no 
DVI ni?in nawn no ^yi wyn 
nmna ^y naa oniaan 25 
3 n^yn xi? ^jn pn n>a 
'OIK nry^K r n 

1 Bosh ha-Shanah, 173, b. 2 Keritot, 6b; our texts read *n 

instead of bN33D. 3 Comp. Yoma, Mishnah, VIII, 8; Gemara, ibid., 85 b. 
, 86 a. 



380 GENIZAH STUDIES 

(Leaf 4, verso.) 

w npj 11 xb now iaap npj -iii> n^a^s 'N 
npa -ION: -iaap npy 
npj ww o3B6 Nin npjo 
minap nnay b ^y D 11 ! 
nmon WB> N^I ni!?p Mae> N^ npjcn wn 5 



nix a nea^o N nno 
ona K^ DTO p 
x rwnna T'OST pno NP 10 
in* V3B i^axi ejian 
^aa p 



TDK! pnK *D3 'N 11 '^KJ 3S 15 



nantaa 

iNcn ^rai nnwi mi nbn 
nnaaa nmyc' 4 nii33 inn a^nan 20 
nia a^rro N^T pnoN NP NH nina 
ni^ KXNEn DNI na 

IN NnniNTO NIID^X .T3 iT3 



jvan nijrBOD n^a KIIDN aw 25 
nnao nma NIH 



1 Read MSQTI ni. 2 Read 'VBM:. 3 The strokes indicate that 

this word is to be cancelled. 4 Read nnsn. 5 Reading 

doubtful ; ronim ? 



APPENDIX 381 



(Leafs, recto.) 



mn KniWTo TDK 'nnriE nina 
mn pa-n iw Knoirta jmmto 
Np ions t&ph pam 
nwsn jnn BWK 
vmi n^nen n^as i^y 5 
"a 'an nonsn t^D^n 
nrn nw ovyn myn 



nab n^nen n^a ^y KD^T IK 
ym x *na Nno myn *b pnox 10 
pnhas Tp^n wy ina a^na 
ma 



INT nnw n^ax inrj 'N nia 15 



ina 

4 pnn yt? xn in^apn no^ 
DVT nn^ pnaao ^m otwrt 
nawnn oy onsan o 



1 Read man. * =a'3 . 3 no TTDI? * Yoma, Mishnah, 

VIII, 8 ; Gemara, ibid., 85 b. 



382 GENIZAH STUDIES 

XLIV. 

(Leaf i, recto.) 



x 'aiy 'nyDtroa 'ioa 'c?a 'xe> >a B^N BK 'at? 
DniDa jn 'KB> 'is apy p 'ry^K '"i 'jrn lajn 'an 
m^ ivpfa nap6 rrbto jnn K^ 'moa jn 
ptnn nb jnn K^ ':w jn '102 ma^ 'w /C ID:J 
K> IDV 'n ym potman ni^2 ppn N^ nonn 5 

K'OB'oty }DTB anao na ana 11 vb& 
'wn i?a win 'n 'NT sain 'nb n^ KJPDB )r 
jnnina jnn N^V maaa m naaa sax 

nsiNi naniD n^yai? irony n 
nsjnyi HD^IO ib nyvci nan ns np^ci r^raD) 10 
vb\ 'BIK N^ 'mo N^ nnx nnsc' i!? no^aan 
a^ en^ nai ns 'WD 'w 't^ao na^x 
n I^EJN 'is 'ry^x 'n Nm^npa naen* yans no^on 
ni'Dantj' irovn m^yb naia ninaB> HND ib 

ns T'lDn 'IN taa ja ycty pi non n^ 15 
n^oam? naina jni *w nat^a 
nantao NO S N 'jn 'i>D 3/ nit3 : 
'n 'NT nn 'na K^I nyno NT-T 



pan ^an naa nx '*a^ : nt^sn ^pan * NN n^s ps 20 
J^NI |a^ t?nn nyanw pipy ny i^im pav pia'-n 



1 Ketubot, 47 b. 2 Ketubof, Mishnah,y, 5; Gemara, ibid., 59 b. 

3 Ketubot, 59b-6oa. * Read 'r'HOrft. 



APPENDIX 383 



(Leaf r, verso.) 

wsn yaiK I^SN 'IN ynrp 'n 'ry^N 'n 'an ppty pjva 

D^ H ntj^t? int^na noai VIM pnno |M ma pp 

NJN Mnp3o mcM NTi J 'Wii :ye>vp '13 ^n ejov 'n 'CM 

%^D 'IN Mim *M13^ ft'!' 

nf? 'IN fjya : p^yo 
Wrtpxb n^ NJN ttxa^e n^ 'ION 



o^Mb n^ yn 11 ^N jnina 
Nn!?n 132 ^D ym naaon 



nni 



pinna unMaai 'ja n^ n^Mi n^pa vbi 
Npni 'a^ iiD^y i^pcy po^o nai pa^n 'DSJ JD 
jnaan N^n^ya 'N jaw^n N:n H ya jMn^on NIH 
^n a: i?y CJM nnjia jn^a \n^ <i 3 1|<i r NP --NI 15 



N^I jaojM w JN^HD N^n Nin 
nan 'bw pjn^nx ^IHM pnon 4/ w niD"y 
jnab HJO^N ^^ni :nvy^ n^n* 'nu'yoi pnMn ny 

nn*a nnina jn^ ^ ovnn pab 'ibm 'na 20 
jna nan DN n^i^N nnNi HJ^M nnN 



1 j"rt, 71 b. 2 a*n, 71 d. s Written over something else, and reading 
is doubtful; read '3 DTOO pnoNi DI?O DJ?B Q. * ='D3'3. s a'rr, 583. 



384 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 2, recto.) 

rnrno ru pn myo wa TW^JS? 76 



vn K 

"ina ^ D 11 ^ ib mNi rivn ^y mrrn o^a n^ vm 

vm 'y^ni' ns^j nn 5 
ny 



tos-n t 
nprmn /1( asi ' 
nprmn ai p3B> ixw mna 
mm Na^ni n^ n s N 'ma ^ax n:oo maa^ nar 

Ti wnnso paa 



Knn 'yo ^so 'wa 
KW myo nn nxa --HII NT 15 
ioi NI^ NiDin wya N^N sraii nn^B 
nen wm nama nb aaoi sayta n 
mmi 

pas? 
ua ^BN xb KIDK N*m nainaa 20 



1 3*n, 68 d. * Head im. s Read M>m. 4 Read m. 



APPENDIX 385 



(Leaf a, verso.) 

aa i>y SJN 'y& 'NO naow NVI 'ON -an ' 
Npmo N^> N^aNn JTiVN DN -iriN3 nana 
'IN Nin :r6 jiaoa t6i DTH nb pt^ 
mn 'rybs nn V 7 n 'ON ^BK nn^n 'ON N*m n 

o^o^ WNT na i?y PJW HJONJ n jnoNi 5 
nin Ni? nr6n vfa&n \nb N nnsn r 

rb pB>*n pi 

NMI 'ja ni> ivh p:e iB'y nn^ N^T 
H N^NI : n>^5 o>p yb Nim pna n-w I^NT Nirr 

onn 



o "on ^n nnyoj ^yano pan IIONT 
ncno HNS !?3N njytD none nxa n^xn Na^n 
m aa i>y PJKI mirp ^D^ni NVH n:yt3 



rib rv 
n s b n^a-'Ni Kim in^N i?y pt^j noa 3 p 



1 Add 'vi. 2 Read rvrovui or rrc 

3 = DIN ; the spelling with ] is frequently met with k in the C4enizah 
Fragments of the Yerushalmi ; comp. also below, p. 390, line 5. 



C C 



386 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 3, recto.) 

nya ba ixb rvb xaayo w 

'4 *wn Tiaina 'b am jtrva 

nyat? nnamao nb prims nbya by nmion pro 



rue jypso s nnainao nyT'ts NB^BH 5 



n!> n^ 

PPDB Np an Nnxa^nD pmna *^nan p 
nnainao NDsm a: by ej 
n!> p^an^i byab n^ pmnoi runs 
*jn ND bax bya nb anan 'Na 
ba N^sn tb pai n^b Ntyfln pa 
m nb jyan^i wn mn n^ya 
mnb pmn ^ypipo r 
na ^bm VVB ba ^ypipo ian^ 15 
pm nn pwm on paa NLM nb an NPT 
nainon nnD bai Kin byan wfym ba 
an inan aa by JK ^bn sb 
nb aw Npn Kny^ twinan jva 



1 :*n 1*33 not in the printed texts of the j*n. Was the original reading, 
in Rabbi Jehudai's a*n, simply a'n n*33, indicating the seat of the Gaon of 
Sura, to which later NDNaTio pmni was added, without removing the 
original reading? Then it may be assumed that the printed texts take 
this next step of removing the original reading, as useless. It is, 
however, more probable that the a*rt 1*2 of the two Academies refers 
to the court presided over by the Gaon in opposition to the court presided 
over by the i*2. 



APPENDIX 387 



(Leaf 3, verso.) 

mpo IN 'yDP 'n 'm mn jw ina^bn x 
Dipoi nnNva ma yvin nno^aa inia 
penbnn nrvo 'spa inia na nno'aaa ima 
pnpij pnaincm )^K> Yai n^ nno^aa ypnpn JD 
am : 'yK> '13 pna^m n^ Yai by nnD*a 5 
mSi iJn m^i ncna 'x m^i nre^ .T!> N^^yn 
jmn WBM ninsen nsia nonai ij 
niona nbiia paii n^an ^sn a: by 
rinss? nb bynb aibo nona ibii 'ai 
hia aibo nona nbii wy X N maan n 
aibo nnsB> ib ^N byab aibo 'na nbn no 
B' 'ON nn na n:in r n 'ONI 
nionai NHNHDN ^3 I ^ jNn^ 
n ID p^opio mn nnbn Naw n*b 
'NDD nb p*an ffo^N oipoa in in 15 
N:n s^x Nn^nb ^n N^ .Taan NobtJ'a pnoN 
^o: aibo nona nbii I^BN nn^ob en 'N NP 
nona nbn I^SN nn^ob {^"n N^ ^N *vra rnwn 
an 'ON p^pnaoi ma byai ^a aibo 
nona nSi ^NC'I nnob s^*n D^iyb 20 



C C 2 



388 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 4, recto.) 



n iWK KIND nw to 
men a^an Kin KBtprni xnp ^a xp xh KJHT 
pns^n N$> 'DK '101 mvo^ jwn 'OK 
riB2> IN nora nn^o nn 3*n ^3N 
nn nn im^n nn^i -jan jo popio nnhi 5 
pni ihyi pnb ^pjy NnNK>i r6 j^nn^i n>D* 
np^i nao^ ovpr ninBBn pi3y nb 1^33 ^3 
wn pj^pu nn^a ^JIN Kim vpip |H3 



NHD rr wonai nnD *D3 'N HID NP 
in nn imn nni> ^n p p^opio i?yn 
in tnsen ni? 'an-'i ITN 



15 



pm 

n^ n^^yn m ian JD spo^y 
ni^y NS^NT Nnxni n^i3 Npo^y mnrb 20 



1 = nan ; i for Kamez according to the Ashkenazic pronunciation ; 
comp. above, p. 377, line 7. 2 Bead iSos 



APPENDIX 389 



(Leaf 4, verso.) 



DIP byao <pitt& nb ivb rrninno Mpaa Npi NJW 

nnanaa n^ injjvana N^n N^n ^o <:ni ayro 

rk pnrv D^h^M ^rin ;N^ w^y iwrn^ 

N\T Npaj Npi an 1^0 ym 'ypipoo 5 
paao 'ypipo n^ n^x na n^ p'sn Npn 

a in'K ni? anan pa nnainaa 



a nyiatj> 

K^a pa 'DK ono ND^K na ^KB> 2N ''an pm 10 
jo pa 'tyy -pj pa ma ^pj pa 'n^ N^a pa in: 
PN pt5>iv pa Nin pa pb soa^a jo pa "oa^ 
yna 11 !? san 'an 'DNST ntpjw no ^ax nnis pyairo 
'10^ 'ION jn3 'n 'ow 'latsa N^N yiD 11 N^ pown jo 
nx a^Knon pni :nno na 2/ ioty xasa 7 ai?n 15 
m nn N^antaisN r\yis& IN n^iun 
^I nyiwn 'enn N^ rwnns' }or b 
I^SN 'IN 'ry^N 'n nya^ni? ^ WN m nn 
N IBB M!> nr nn 'an un :nnoy bjn na^a 
o^ IN n^wn HKEV 'la^n pi man p me** 20 
'wn N|J nxTB' pr ba nyaaio nr nn 'DIBM 



1 = pn and not n. z Read VIMW as in line 10, where the scribe 

first wrote 'won? and then corrected it to VINUJ ; comp. below, p. 390, 1. 19. 



390 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 5, recto.) 

' WN nr nn 'maN ruo 

nr nn 'DISK '^o xi>i rwron 'pin N!> I^BK IK ryta 'n 
? PNB> nsnn? jor ^3 ny3B>D 
ro^a ^y ni>y3 w rn nnx nye> I^BK 'max 
'y^K 'ii : na*apa ^ni oy m * PK px irjr^K 'n^ i!> 'ON 5 
JED 'D^K 'yoc' 7 i ND^DI ywi Kpi 'ana ^n "nil pam 
ya^D penv nnaina nyain^ 
pyatro ptnrn pK nnaina nyain 
rh vr\ sp tn*nK 'yo^ 'n sn pnoKi 

xaa an X CN p^ooi nhao 10 
B>im aa y s\x nao 'yo^ /- n pa-ii 'ty^K ' 
y*ae>o 'vo N^ ^a ^ya 'BIBK 
nnis pyat^D pt^iv 'yo^ 'n 'CK 

^ N^aan Kan nnix y^ajro ^yan PNI 
aa ^y v\x i?ya ^ax ni> pyaB>*r Kin 15 

s ^x N^ 'DIBK *DI rvaiun 
pam TH* n^ mn 'yo '11 pain a; 
/- in NO^P Npn N^N paia ^n 
an 'ONI anon NO^K ia 2/ ioi^ 
^03 Naa an Nnxi nnon ND^K na ^KB> 3Ka ao 
n^a Nnyop K^DI 'yo^ 'ni? nvnm nnnan 

1 Comp. above, p. 385, note 3. 2 Comp. above, p. 389, note a. 



APPENDIX 



391 



(Leafs, verso.) 



iriNi> n^ 

nayoa Ni>e> pyasw w jprvano IM cnoi 
nwsram nvxm psiDieNni ponsm psni^n 
o xi? ^ya Ni>x rvan pi nan nina nanui 5 



yna^n > nnnina noaian jam nnaina 
nyns x\n^ nTyo nnx lyi 'lac^a 
nynaam 'in* ^D33i pnajntw poaao 'u^a xiN 10 
nnaina ncaisn r'la^a N^N y-iB'n tb vasa 
rtapnn rfo 'CN nr PI^N nnawia nn\n 

yna^n xi? nao N^N ni>apnn vb 'IN NNII 
ni?apnn ni? 'EN *wa 'ne K^ne' myo ins nyi 
nyna N^ntr myo int* njn 'pnn N^ IN Nni 'wu 15 

poaao :'i3B>3 N!?N yns^n N^> 
n }D nyns^a NMI pnro6 voaa 130 
voaa n^ani no nya 'in 11 ^oaao 'n^a N^N yns^n 
> 'mn p 'a^a Mm 'in 11 ^ 
m DM runo^ b i?n 2/ '3 waa N^ nyna^am 20 
^N 'a^n *b "33 N^B> nyna^a 



392 GENIZAH STUDIES 



(Leaf 6, recto.) 

rrno n^> B not? i?ax 

nan* '^x nxea runoi> nan* na*x maa poaa 

nnn^o ni> OKI ninoi> 'nx nxt^ai man mno^ 

r6 rrx axn "Da^ao xarrvo NPT 1 Na*m :mDBn 

niaam S i6po ion QKI s^nan ny 
^aT sp w :'a3 Vy nb n^N nnaa ^n aa i?y 
ni? JVN N^HD H aa ^y ejw nnaia x^n^a n 
x^n N\n KQio^a msw janoNi 'yo KD 'a-a ' 
'ncMi 'a^a 'e^y ni> n^ N^no bi Na^ 

^bobooD N^I <| yp"ip wrn*o ai pan^ns ^n 10 
niaani nwn 'ITD nww jnoansi? pa niairob pa 
7 sn Niaa 3 Ninn :'a3 V'y 2 a\Ti ^ya 'ana noa-ia 
*paron nin Nain an 'ON mayon ^rh 'ao 
4 paten ^m nap N!> 'iy^ 5 iaiom 

h 'NT wnn : nap n^n^ai? nap xb 15 
n^ 'ox nna nn D^xp nin VD 7^ vim paai> <|l| Da ii a 
pnao nna nap ^r n^ 'ox n*o xh xa^ya x^ xaxi 
n>oT '-n pax 'n inan^b *na xm iap x!> mi nan 
mpoa vebcb p^n n^ n-'X xn nox x^x^o 'm 
noxn xnxsa pnv^ 'ni BB n'-aan '-n xinax 'n x^aa 20 
xnaa xinn '^n jai x^aa nipoa x^o^ pi>n n^ 

1 a'n, 71 d. 2 pm? 

3 3*n, nib; ed. HildesLeimer, 455. 

* Read rorarr. 8 Read n;rarn. 



APPENDIX 393 



(Leaf 6, verso.) 

"3p spv 'n 'ON "33h NnriN^ '3*3 'N 
]nn^ nivm 'IN 'n jwmo r6 WON wo epv '"i ' 
hi jp 'hni 'no 'ah rrano 'nt6 'a 



"INI -EN 'n 'ON innm^ "N-IBH PDB ni> men 

o ^ni 'ai> nwa^ wnm 'ab pab 5 
p^as? N^ NnN^a n^ n^N i>3N 



wnn jn^na? mtwi n^nwa pap v 

N13 H^ Hln 3ai> '3*3 1f 'NT 



10 

^33 nna nn!? ^JN -wp N^> mn % HN Np ':n 
"331 aN 'ON "HN Np runoa rvtnsb na^o-h 
^prn 3Nm*3 Nohi N3NT n^ 'ON :D'Bnn p 
ON N^N tt3ph? D^ina D'ano D"J3 VHP 
nn : nn:y jn^N 33i 'ON CIDP 'n a5> N^S ^ai 15 
o Nia iai Nna n"^ nin v J3i? '3^3 irb 'NT 

Np N/1 N^N N13 



"n Np npvro iTia 13^ npi^oh HBHTD N"i3 
no Nia Nia ia^ nNpn P^N n^ay 'ON wan an 

N13 N13 n3^ N-|poi? B>3K T3y N^ 'ON "PN 31 "13 20 

-inio pan ;o iT3n mion B>K an -a non 



394 



GENIZAH STUDIES 



Q 
" v 

^ rt 
n n 



g 

- fc. 






X! 



L 



[r ^rx r~ 

Q ' rt 

Cl ., 

Q a ? 

r- = i- 



c E 



r- f- 
I *^ 

r: 



Q p i 

B K 

C! ~ iJ .J"^ 



L 

C 



n -' 



- r 

C ~ r> 

~D f" 



n 

i 

C Q n - 

s "^ i= fc^B 

^* r\ ^ ^ C 

c a jj , 

f -* F - 

P ^ ri 

Q rt -T^. 



5 F 



J- S? J3 



c 

Cl 

I 

Q 
rt 
C 

I 

^ 
a 



rt v 
x "fc 

C i" 



a r 

5 fe 

" i^- 

F n 

c n 

ci r 

c as 

c F 



! i 



fi. 
as 



as 



~r% 
Q 



8 ^v 
as - 

-- rt 

F v~ 

rt -J> 
C 

tt 
r: E 



* s ^ 

c as i " Q 

~G *~ IT 
C E * | 

J r: - 

III . 






^ Q 



*- n M 35 
fi % ~ 

Q ?- 



rt Jf 

PS 

P F Q 

E f- E. as 

p a r s_ 

n P T ^ 

-ft E a ^ 

i ^ 



QJ2: V* y 

v r ^> 

? as as p 

J3 ^ I C 

n Q c g 

E- Ji E -^ 



as 



a a P a 



a ;- 



c ~^j 

j~ rt 

Q rt 

v rt 



P n 

f, & ? 
f^ -^^ 



? E 35 



^ 



s p ' ; 

C r -rt M 



f 

i . 



r h'x g :fc fc 

a * - ^ -n 



c 51 



rt f 



g -as 
as 



a 



APPENDIX 



395 



P 2 s-S 

- n r 

r- 5^ 35 

r P J r & 

? ^_ p n 53 



r~ *^ 



c n 

C * 



: 2-* 
& ^ R 

; i *^ 

Q C ~ 



c 5 

-^ ~r 1 
52 ' fj 

P: 



F 



2 
t~ ^ 

n c 



R a 

c ~fj S 
r\ E. j>. 
55 n 

fc Q 



22 



Q 

r c 



o 



Q 



o 



f- 

n 



% 



r: <~ 



o 
Q n 55 

*$ a 



r r i ? P E 

g, Jj_ C -Q 



25 ~J 



f~ 



i- K, 



C S 



a . 25 



D 

n 8 



n 

.* 



x r c 
^~ 



55 



> -: 

; 

-& ~25 



~ 55 



Q 

& IZ 
Q ^ 

x F 

^ 
Q n 



_ n - 

52 n 

C 

t~ Q 



n 



Jr- J. | *? y-_ ., 

?^ IX *^ O *~ . . *^a *"~ 



fc 25 



Q 
55 ^ 

a r- 







' fk 

S 

^3 UN 

a Z 

? Q 

f r~ 

n J=- 

% X 



r *~ 
X r= 1 

o *- c 
F n fi 

^ ^^ 

-J> & ^ 

? S 

: So 



^ - n 

P j P 

J n; tJ 



X 



f C 

r c 

55 Z- 

JN ^J 

fc P 

Y. 



a 
o 

UN 



Q q 

r 

ri a 



r\. 
F 



X 4Q 

t * 'O 

I 78 

*3 P 

i, S 2 

8 

3 iT 

V *b M 

I'M 

n -3 



and 
* 
ldesh 



e 5 fc <* 



line 
ed. H 



omp. 
eime 
an 



c 
shei 
65 a 



.. o 

?s % r 



I 

ri r T? 



'r 




. 




jj 


Q 




^f- 




'i 


C 




" 


e* 


X 


o 


d 

p 




^- 


P 


5 


1O 




f; 


e" 

g 


a 


tf 






o 









* 




JD 

c 


_S 

'i 

3 




| 


M 

i i 
M 


a 


S 

2 


tf 







H 




S 


z- 
fe 




of 




T" 

A 


s 











396 



f= n e n 
E P ' fc. 



n ,_ 

Q 

L 



.: r n 
i~ 

n 

s 

'F i * 

S E c 
? E 5 

1" S 

n: n 



F p 
F 



r~ ? 



Js 



n ' f _ 

n as 

5 R r n 

9 2 n : 

3& i- =5 



^ 



as ^ 
F if 



n 



D :fj -rr Q j^ 
*.? as :jr .. as 



.- K fi 4& ?. ^ S * 8 

OQPr : rnn 

V If * & *" *" 5^ ^f\. 

C r C P '" ~P 

r 3 f~ Tv. SJ *~* * <- '- r- ' 

it f~ *" f~ ?~ "-^ 

^~ *- , ? n as c: is '. 

O ^" *J\ I f U I ^-" 



^ CT 



* 



a 
c S 



a ^ 



Q 



n - 



P P 

n r 



Q 



c r: 



n ?^ 



i~ E n' i 

5 f I | 

n n 



O 2 [ 

% n^ Q 

r r as 

5 E 

E 

P 11 

p , 3 



n 
J^- as 



as 

n 



as -i> 
n 

P-8 



n |^ 



r n 
n 



as t: 
i~ n ^ 2. 

2-^ - 



as c 



a 

n f 



r ^ p 

c 



' r 

n r: 





^ as 



r v '- 



n a -r- 
Q P n 



*- E 









n as ^ 

r as a 

-ft c rv 



n 
n 

a 

^ 



k fc c g 

r . 



n r 



;i u,. uii QOILULL c-^c.?.. 



APPENDIX 



397 



P _R 

O rl 

~i " 



c r 

*j~ j"v 

55 r 

55 C 

Q 

: i 



*~ r^' f 



n s- 

* * 



55 _r\ s* n 

f f- o 



f * 

O ft 



II - 

n c E 2 



*^ ci c 

- y l~ 

^ 

f- r* " 



n ?; 

n 
p 52 

P a 

r 



s> 



n Q Q 

K~ r. 

_rx f 

55 ' 

&1 



^ P 

E 

^v. 

J 1 - 55 

C 



a 
p 
n 

p' 

f ; ' 
tj 



ti IT 

E. f 

n I=- 

c n 

n g 

n ?= 



a 
r 

n ^ 



*J n 

!L r 

rt _r n 

^ "^ - 

* Si 55 



* S 

i - 

r a 



n ^_ Q 



iJ 


g 



n 



r: 



I, 

| | 



" n ^ 
- n r- r ~ 



n 



C IT 



* 3 



* 



Q r 

a E 
n c 



a jEI 



n r 

2 



* ^ 

n ** 



*^- r 



o 



n K 

r & 

'" S 

~ c 



- g 



v Q- 

? c. a ~D 

5 D * 

5. in _K 



e 5 s F 



S ;5 



c n^ 

r- r 

Q- ,- 

Fr S 
n 



Q p 

a f- 



^r\v 

/N. Q 

p * - o 



?5 =. Q 



X 

a 
r 



P 2>- *" 



n 55 

? n 

c n 

c _ 

J3 C 

~ c 
n 

n ^ 

~ n 



n Q 

', 55 
b n 
O 



* 2 n S 



I 2 
^ n 

f! Q 



n 

.Jj IT _Tj 

S O 7- 

55 r 



y ^ 
n- 



IT 

n 

5 r 

? a 

fc 8 

n 

n F 

~^* P 






Q 

H 



p 



r 
5 

a 
a 

55 
~& 



r g. 



io 
ed 



309. . 
n line 25 n 



hei 

o mrn 



:^ 

a S 

I r 

:P S P 

* 1 i 



n o 
? g 



T3 " 

g J 

13 <B 

ltd 

10 1 ^ 

* 

^^ F 

/ 3 1 

w s 

- 4* 

<o 



398 GENIZAH STUDIES 



XLVI. 

(Kecto.) 
....... T 1 ' DTiaD-l ....... 

jrpa'J i>y rupi jm ..... ........ 

ONI ir>NK> p^ya imi avvy ntnjn c^ana IN D^ya iiB>iy 
iiN DB^N i^b into runioij runoi -ryi> -vyo T^i> nxi 
rnp^ , , , . nya w p nns DON i^aN inv Tyn nniN npirn DN !>aN 5 
pn nni i?3 JD n'-oiw DND 
iniroi I^B> WIDD pinn nN 
B>a: b . . rb . . inx nxmoi> ^ nvn DN bnx nnns HON D^S^N Tiy 

pnni TOK D^S^ND nnv npinn NMB> a ^y ?] min nao IN 
, v , , , wo nna mix n^ nwaon pn npoa omn ni^n TIT DNI 
jp i?ty D^nnan pnaB' msao 

D^nna uyo 11 n^a nanon i?3 jai *an*ya nt D^y nr bi>vb D^n 
pnoK Npi3 an^ya pnnioi nna mix pya nevi n^ana IN 



nao ^331 -iiDN niy3Dni n35r3 js^inb pimo myopn n3^3 pnnio 15 

11DN1 imo nn na^nn I^BNI n^y n3t?3 nNian onanb inio 
pa t^DB^n ^a bai imo ii? PN DN tpbnn^ 1^ t^B>a na^3 o^a 
n n^3N -pixi> i3n ^a ^ pai no>n i?^ p3i py 
iwna na naty DNI 'Dvn ^>a n^ne' ^i n^aN h? nnyan ny pinn^ 

bi nniDi nniyo vhv pro uoo N^V ^aN 1 * no 20 
ni? DN j^aiN^ imai '^naa jpnw ratra I^BN 
2i| ajip nwyh oyo 7\xtpv taba nc^naoa ipnwb IIDN hnm 
moa N H n^ nnvo na^apa IN maaai nan ^3N njaa najn ^NI nnio 
-im!?i na^n nan^ pnh IIDN no^no ba^ nono n^ Na^ N^ n^ 
j^ ynn no w Dinnn ima natr DHip noaaae' nraoi nnio niv 25 

joapi D^ ...... p ..... na^ ^a^a N^N D . . , ^ni DWOT jn . 

1 Halakot Kezubot in i*cn, I, 15-16. a =pc'i:if. 



APPENDIX 



399 



(Verso.) 

, ... & ... DM pn 
DN i>a , . aD 

, B> , , . N^t? p31 n3B>D Nn 

nnypa IN ^aa N^N nat^a D 11 . , } ana 

won D'a^p D<a f^W^ "iiDNi DTiaa nyanN 

'^D b kiN WDD nin!6 ini pvyi? n^ pN^ao D^ naea 

poo ^i icvy^ *ia j^aw IN 'ity^ w wxw & . . . y 

nay ^aN ao nva pa na^a pa fno ^N^ TIDN per 

i3 DN ^aN oinnn Tina pnnio p^oa DN j 

DN nnN 'njr'i' pnniio '-ity ^3{ya iNa DNI PIIDN 10 

.. DO nat^a haNi? inns . . an ID ncn ns 'n^ pin yn . . . . 

t . . b N!> iwnB>r6 .... 01 D*M hs> nnnon na aonn , . i5 

. ap . . E^N n^ . . ir pn'-anx ^a ;n^ nipy!> nhni'i n . . i? ... i> .... DI 

.-6ina jai D^^ 'n Tina nn^vb tr^n DIO D'-N IIDN . . nc 

'w PSD no pso ^n PSD DB> WN PSD DP Nin PQD DIN ^y ^a . . a ^>DJ 

10!? . , . N .... h hsw *D3 pi nat?a . . N v^y p^no "u PBD 

B* . . ownb i^y D^oa m^ ^SN . . mivioa i^ss* 

. . . i . . D"in nan^i ^r\rh inwi WSIDI ni'in n . . . B> n-'an 
. . , . yc> ^ p n^ ni^nh no . . ta 

'Tk^ Nia" DNI . n^a . , m ^ann Tno n^yc' niniom nNn? 20 

, . f v nan ba IN bs^aa IN nonaa mitrn upi> 
D^an bp IN D3B> ^ nxnn ^BD an*y T">^ 
. . , N . . W> n . . N D , iWi nvnn ba i'oi'ui? abiao 

nniD ^aN niDN nan p nap f>i . . . 

nN 



400 



XLVIL 

(Recto.) 

naunai D'ann wo ppoBD bab nxan nae^i 
xbx pnnn pxi omaan ovai nnoyoai nnynai nniaai 
pi n3B>3 nvnb 310 ova nnao bn iva nv&ns mob 
D'o' 1 -noa p-np p naiD nyi nap crtn JOB' ^'onai 
rbrwzi na^i 210 ova nmoa pi ninna iioa N^N 5 
liar njn lawno jna snip wwn na nnpi? 
jo NIP ^sn^i p *na i>y inaan ny mar JD 
nxr w loan ii? ny TI jo snip 'yam ywi ^ N-M 
*B^ H D^OB' ^N N^N a ny icon ii> jo 
ny ntj^nan ns QDD ^atn : ntw Na^i ny KB>S ^ jo 10 
n>b S TDKI :^ i*fii 'can inyrw JDDI nanan 

Snn pa a^a pa ^ ..... b . . K pa nw pa '0110^ ^ne nab 

r na mb o saba *D ............ o NDir p nx I^N^ pioix 

nn Kpnn NDIID bww? 3 'IN ........... h nasnNati' i?a iB>yn vh 

aira n DHKO na^n nan N^ ........ Nnbn ^yoi yansi N3B>a 15 

'v pi n^ai rbyzbw pn n^a^ ^a ..... 'yn 

no3"iKT ya-isi yaixn yans YIDK nyi : 
B'Ni NnwD inVw 'yoni PIBTH yaixi yanxi p-uryn 
ntai Nnnvyi KOV ^yo Nnaao ib ............... ib j 

nn Di^' Km^yn KOV ^yo ...................... ba by pan ao- 

IT ins IT jnix biD 11 xb ................. nm mac 

4 bni:a D^DIDI ................... no bnno 

jiaa 6 nn bia^ xbi : n ............... x ir DW 

xbi nnbn IN Kin ^ax ................. jra paa 

Ninnai ^osa nnb . . . ........... nn n4 25 



2 Comp. Sheeltot, CV, 140. 
* Comp. Shvlhan 'Aruk, Orah Hayyim, 260, i. 



1 a"n, ed. Hildesheimer, 623. 
3 =onN ; comp. Shabbat, isgb. 
5 Pesahim, 109 b et seq. 



APPENDIX 401 



(Verso.) 

IN NTH IN N^N w Tnn ab^ N^I rp"W6 iTewriD mm 
pmn a'D3 w 'pmn IWN ac^ N!J 'jaan IION pam 
DHN "pa^i '& .Tail me wp^ BWK awoi 
jnion noa pna :'31 m^ na o*ni> nn 
nnx nna inao n^p-ia^^ ^Nai men IDB n^ >im IND -I^NT 5 



nriN 

i?y nr nirsn IBB nemp ^inn 'INI n^yobi myo ne^vo 
l~iao 2 ryai y&J pna |na^ nan jniji nm 

yai yt33 pna ^y uivi 'voa i:tnp "IB'N 'no wn^N nnN ina 10 
'~\ oyo *aoi oB>3K whv . . , f> ....... 01 'iai w^nne' nna 

nr mna nennp hnn 'INI on 11 ......... *ND N-aoi WCD ma . . 

: s nnapn n-'aa omN ni ............ pitjn oniya' i^n ...... 

15TN nna Tiao ........... a^ 4 an^y nnyn ^ai 

nnvo ^aa nan n ........ an'-y nivo i?y uw rnivca 15 

nao nne^i ^10 . . h !>vy^ ^piaNi? ^ n Nn^ pia 
'n na'kWi n^iri? n^Toi ~na^ n^aoi nvni? n^aoi n^a^ 
^>n^ aio DV ..... ai : IT nvna^ 'K bh ninN 

nv any^ ............ n^D na^ anya IN nae>a 

-IN ................ *mo nae^a y^an Nin^ aio 20 

'n 'n ............... aoi n^o IN ^i^ an IN m& 

nivo ^y vw 'voa ' 
ba^i 13^ ................ o nayoh 

'13 n^i3 ................. : nNr 

N piou 



1 Pesakim, lisa. 

2 Comp. :*n, ed. Hildesheimer, 643, and Shelllot, C, 114, 116. 
5 Read : Tup' -]D -irwi cnwwn cnw 1 ? j' 

* Comp. i*cn, I, 15. 



D d 



LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS OF TITLES 
OF BOOKS 

nim, R. Aaron of Lund's Code, I, Florence, 1750 ; II, Berlin, 1902,^ 

the first part quoted by folio and column, the second by page. 
or town, R. Abraham b. Isaac of Narbonne's Talmud-Compendium, 

I-III, ed. H. B. Auerbach, Halberstadt, 1867-1869, quoted by page. 
yni tin, by R. Isaac ben Moses of Vienna; I-II, Sitomir, 1862, quoted by 

folio and column. 
jnTi = nVv.Ti mabn bra, a Geonic compendium of law, ed. Venice, 1608, 

quoted by folio and column. A different version, ed. Hildesheimer, 

Berlin, 1888-1892, quoted by page. 
V*a = la'in p'b D':iNjn niavcn. 

01*03 = airoi mm ':W3 mai?n, ed. Miiller, Berlin, 1888. 
j*n. See a'na. 

n"crr = mm ire rvobn, an anonymous compendium, published in J.Q.R., IX. 
mpicD rrabn, ed. Miiller, Cracovie, 1893. 
c'n = mpiDD rwbn. 

n*n = Lr3n:o rjibn, ed. Miiller, Vienna, 1878. 
rrn:j men, a collection of Greonic Responsa, Jerusalem, 1863. 



T = Maimonides, Mislmeh Torah. 

mci in23, by Estori Parhi, quoted by chapter. 

oir"? = nv:oip 'cipb, by S. Pinsker, Vienna, 1860. 

'mn 'c, by R. Saadia Gaon, in Harkavy, Studien und Mitlheilungen, V, 

St. Petersburg, 1891. 
o'riD = msnn IED, by Anan, the founder of Caraism, in Harkavy, Shulien 

und Mitt/ieilungen, VIII. 
JO"D = bna mso -\tc, by R. Moses of Coucy. 
pn'c = pp mso ncc, by R. Isaac of Corbeil. 
yi"D = ar\oy ai nic, by R. Ami-am Gaon, Warsaw, 1865. 



Tiry, the legal code of R. Isaac ben Abba-Mari, I-II, Lemberg, 1860, 

quoted by volume, folio, and column. 
D'nrn ncc, by R. Isaac Albargeloni, ed. Jacob Schor, Berlin, 1903. 

n"?np, a Geonic Collection, ed. S. A. Wertheimer, Jerusalem, 1900. 
n = '17H bv p -iir^N im, author of a compendium of law, quoted 

from a manuscript. 

atD or pbn'ic = ^pbn 'bate, ed. S. Buber, Wilna, 1886, quoted by page. 
nrc, a Geonic Collection, ed. N. Mod'ai, Salonioa, 1792, quoted by 

folio and number. 
pis '-C?\L\ 



LIST OP ABBREVIATIONS OF TITLES OF BOOKS 403 

nrmv nyir, by R. Isaac ibn Gajat, I-II, ed. Bamberger, Furth, 1861- 

1862. 
ni"tt.', ed. Lyck. See 'j'a. 

xc"u? = nrroc nss?. 

naiffin nrw, a Geonic Collection, ed. Leipzic, 1858. 

n'tt? * naicn njnc. 

p'n = D:imp D'awa rraitrn, ed. D. Cassel, Berlin, 1848. 

m?oi mra aio 'n. See ni'oa. 

an'n = o'aian rmiari, ed. N. Coronel, Vienna, 1871. 

Baal ha 'Itlur. See -nzj>. 

Eshkol. See bi3ffi. 

Harkavy, Responsen der Geonim, in Studien und Mittheilung., IV, Berlin, 1887, 

quoted by page. 

J. Q. R. ** Jewish Quarterly Review. 

Afafteah, by Muller, Berlin, 1891. * 

Maimonides. See T. 
Manhig, by R. Abraham ben Nathan, ed. Goldberg, Berlin, 1855, quoted 

by folio and column. 
Muller. See Mafteah. 
Miiller's Einleitung. See Mafteah. 
Parties, by R. Solomon ben Isaac (TC'I), Constantinople, 1807, quoted by 

folio and column. 
R. E. J. = Revue des Etudes Juives. 
R. S. B. A. = Rabbi Solomon ben Adret. 
Rabbinovicz, Variae Lectiones in Mishnam et in Talmud Babylonicum, I-XV, 

Munich, 1877-1886 ; XVI, Przemysl, 1897. 
Ratner, Ahawath Zion We-Ieruscfialaim, I-IV, Wilna, 1901-1907 ; V, 

Petrikoff, 1908. 
Responsa, Coronel. See an'n. 
Responsa, Lyck. See b"a . 

Responsa, Mant. = D':warro manrm nibwr, Mantua, 1596. 
Saadyana, edited by S. Schechter, Cambridge, 1003. 
Steinschneider, Cat. = Catalogus Librorum Hebraeorum in Biblioiheca Bodleiana, 

Berlin, 1852-1860. 
Vidal de Toulouse, author of the commentary, Maggid Mischneh, to 

Maimonides, Mishneh Torah. 
Talkut = YaUcut Shimeoni ; Part I to Pentateuch ; Part II to Prophets and 

Hagiographa, quoted by paragraphs. 

Yaqut = Mugam Albuldan, by Alyaqut, ed. Wiistenfeld, Leipsic, 1866-1873. 
Yentshalmi, the Talmud of Jerusalem, quoted by treatise, folio, and column 

of ed. Krotoschin, 1866. 
Z. H. B. = Zeitsciiriftfiir Jiebraeische Bibliographic. 



D d 2 



rfcani v"? niana 'n 



114-17 

283 ^Bb'N rroyo 

262 ,n::an byvc tt)*pn ITOD can Tobn 

262 ,yppn by aci "pa i:w imoa by TT'P wnp 

92 ,ina norm y: 

91-2 ,mb linns? m '33 b*3tc3 ma monbi nnn 1 ? irra y'c 

91 ,mrro be nbiwa r^mnb JN 

341 ,nn:o abm n:cpi n'rru nnio pi 

266 ,n'3iy nbcn pi 

91 ,i">'3n by jTionb i"n TH ta bbDnnb iD;3:w D^tz? 
^TO cwpan ,mva nnpb CTIIV? 'i pwc cipo 
120 ,Tnsn Dy Toy i inr 

nnrs 'n 

332 
331, 332 ,nJ:rr pp p n'2's rpmn 

332 ,rv2'23 TT rro non nna 

332 ,.TS'23 p3"n NDClp 'to 

333> 334 ^ri'S's jiis -nrs? 
335 ,in-S'2 xnnb -JHS DN 
335 ,D^E33 'n nbr3 rvbo 
335-6 ,CH:I toa PTCIE CN ,D'ntrci IDS 
33 6 ~7 >"pi2 ram in' 



r6*nm natr 'n 



320 ,n3'cn ny xr'y yasb nb3 jn? imo 
81-2, 196-7 ,nic naw nanyn 
-81 ,c'*3 p rocs ]'a n-by 
263 ,n3\c3 

194-5 ,m:ra 

195 ,rron:n ^ 

195-6 ,rac3 jns ttjTin nD:ni mnn3 np'b '-o:b mro jn:ic 
153 ,ratt?a n3:n i.Bpb'aj n3 c*y3 ns:b im3 niaob 

175 ,P3izn Tbr ip'birnn C 
J 59 >n'i p?3 H'T j'p'JTD p 'owe peri '13 nsbn 



85-6 ,nrBC3 r'jEon 
337 ,ruo 3iyo nbn be 
121 ,mTi'n 3iT 
263 , 
262 ,-cn .13133 CH'n pnniE nob 



405 

'n 

327 ,rroa yon TOT 

225, 340 ,ncEa Nn no 'me- 

338 ^ns: 1 } ison i3oj ^NIIC' 

184 ,]oeoi nopo % i\ryn no 

185 ,pcp 

185 .paitra mcub ino 

185 ,n:?o mcx 1 ? ino nj TtcSo 

338-9 ,j'7ctai ]Q3i rtms fcto rrcy 

340 ,'no Vc nsn 

184-5 T" 132 'T ^ n - n ' EM 

185 ,moi3 ' 

185 ,V:n 

185 .rr 

26 ,mci3 '15 ;';:T3S b j 

227 ,^pco "iNttJ 'TJ? bbm m:n ^o"j Via' DM 

114 ,HDD ^Sa iQ"nn mip D'T ni'm to joiao p 

185 jTDiyn m'ED n:o N'JO TD 



iD DV 'n 

222-3 (P ^^ W*'3 ^33 

220 /:TD ^i*u 

158 ,':C Cl"' 
119 ,F]D1O pip 'P 

184 ,i;ion 

37 ,on"ina. no 
47 ,rt;tDn TTNI rpio ?c niana rac 



naum 3N2 ny^n ins nayn ' 

152 ,npi 
152 ,nr.3?no r| 

345 >^"' n 3 




* n 

29 ,m3: n:'N x-irao rjiy 
33 jpiE'TO n*' crs 
27 ,':i 'n j:oo n::n num NO M 
27, 32 ,':i 7 nb ncviso xmn Nn':i3' DX 
28 ,]iyi KOSNT spia 
26 ,nn2 psin 
31 ,nsm ':IN npna 
29 ,rwin na^o 
nzTiy 'a pa-c jiEoca WD 
27 ,pncT soiw WIN 



406 rYQiKnn nnsD 

29-3 r > y y 



29 ,mo nb rtuso: be FJW 
28 ,rrc;N pa n:jo n 
27 



33 ,ibna ici iiD'N cro 

26 ,t 
337 O 

118 ,p'nmy2 ibararcc mciy 
102 ,rrz*m 'T te rrmto ' 
92 
92 prsn or nVcarow nVu:vt 

118-19 >n i? '- 1130 

120 ,c'sa ':oci ?]W ':OD 
45 >p 



oTay <23M9 ,a\"3y 'n 

be in'a fina i3iye 1*5 be 



J 93-4 r D1 * :3y 11Dyc Din 
263 ,GIJ 'bnri men DTIDM C' 

J 53 >D' ^ 

26 , join's be p' 

193 ,nD: n'aa bsic 1 be p 

32 ,mc TM nba -jc: p 

224 ,ci*3y m ibse N:TID 
26 ,c'ij be no 

224-5 ,ci*3y n> br ';-IIE:I ncwe nc 
343 >D^33 be i3e 



118 ,' 

117-18 ,nwc nsi 
80-1 ,n>Tcrt npn 3n"j<i cnmcb poo i:n:e cvo 'bra 



mm iion 'n 



119 ,IWM mprn 
121 ,non n'lbn cieo ntobn bsa* DN 



J 53 ,mcio c'o 11 noa nap: rnbv 
206-7 ,n3nboa NTT mo rra 
38 ,:3"na3 bbon^ c> ai 
39, 40, 249 ,np by3 n^ac 'ri 
39 ,cn3: 



407 

worn ntrnn ,ncm ^a 'n 



339 ,0'Nja awo 

195 pram Tiica rro"n 

195 ,n'c coin Dia'rm rronaa pcrmc ci3*n tow 

onny ..'n 

83 jD^Nrour pirba -nine 03 
197 ,Vrob jMonrc 'JTT na 

8l ^iO 1 ? HST Nbc "IS13 139 

83-4 peon nub 121 ic^arro 11? 
82-3 ,niTn Eja J':p 
183 ,DI"D niryo n'ttryoi <: nnin' movw? r 



na 'n 



151 ,mn pn IQI* 
337-8 jb 

nnina ,nie ' 



212-15 ,msa 'imp I'Trnjrn DM pom n? \u'ffi 
77-8 ,VYI i'Q\u -jw Nin no 

J 55 5 a 57 >xfo "02: 

78 j'ma JN2? rr:nj nn\mc HICN 

79-80 ,nn lEiub jrna noniptt? HUJN nains 

139 ,c'-m?3 D'T cy ounp 

155 ,nnawD njnimu 

155 ,n-iain3 nspo by ca njobs? prams 

212 ,nnavi3 mas*D rroM 

199-200 ,pT3i p:a natna 

poa 'n 



5-6 ,t33a i:iaT vn mmn nn\r D'ny 

233-4 ,ain3b ICID"? IIDM cm 'ntrxV -.1 i:m laro onr? IDMW "jya 

230 ,n ^3' CM ansn IIHO ^3^ I J ViD'c \mn 

98 ,rvnwn pa n-nn '.can na'naa nyxc IEID 

171-3 ,137^ vro '3n na'nsa rrycc IBID 

98-9 ,13 Mari7 blCD '1D3 

152 jbiyab Vi3 pN n'wac '3oo 103 nraxi ntt 

160 ,nmD nnc p?ran 
230 ,maiyo 'n CM C3 xicna m3M33 a"n 'wan p 

153 ,n3i3y irw-'M ^73 niw 'o pi -pia 3^n:n 



'n 

182-3 ^noS nro 
182 ,^0 



4 o8 

nny 'n 



356 ,0'anp nny 

256 ,rn nn nt pTr'naow on? 

161 ,iDa an'w Tyns? iy 

1 60, 161 ,rynb ino nviyn by 

45 ,iynb D'3is ON nc by ppa nny D'jnvw 



}jna 

ana 'D by fpa N'sinic jsvz '11 nn;xa pn-ui pwo vn proci 



bni IT ana 

150 ,biTDi yarn iioNb bia- nibn 
339 ,ic:>3 noi 1 ? Vij D'iy 'ta nun b 

153 jmbcn w D'iisnn icoa 
154 ,rro>o i'yaco ym TO'N 1 ? prawa y* 
vnv p nm any 'ba fiycro bs rpon PINT 

nxt^nni jritt&i 'n 

163-4 ,ia "ninb Via' j' mbn aii'p pib nun puran 

150 .npibnb poio 'm Tinn 1 ? a"n ^^lon in'airm poio ia ?' iay npibn 

150 ,10171 pin onan p baN DHT no'nn po'pnc ony 

291 ,'*Na inn bab win ypip aj by nnsin aman 

'n 

150 ,npibnb pa b 'iao 

201-2 ,iacn j'pbm -)> cob ib^onc 'a 

151 ,iTan Jiooa iD^y b'snc n^biD 

385 ,icia 'ibi any 'ba 'ibb poo jn: jaii n'bc j-yoc 

njnci naoBi npo 'n 

231 ,niTD i yaToo am -on 

292 ,mni 1301 n:pb n'b na an*i oiba ib n'n Nbi n:no anian ]>a rra 

291-2 jiccao amab voasra n:no aman }'a nn 

152-3 ,nan :oa incxb noiy n;no nm ana an'm nunb n:no aman 

153 ,v;ab n:no aman -n 

391 ,-IBW T by r|ca yaion iTanb ronra j,-vb IITEN 'N 
251-2 ,n:nn Tt\ea nyno bica p 



286-7 ,miiaaa icia popm 1133 '3N IOIN bnsn ,CTTN ':c 

287 jDn^'a jmx ip 1 " 1 ' T** n13 " 1 niisn onb triz? D'nn JXD 

139-40 ,nain }r la pnnn inx :in by o'on -pi oinob nsii mum D'nw ': 

288-9 ,n\rnn nmw D'ai 'cm CTT: 'nwa ni:ai o:a n3ni no jaixi 

ioi-3 pcipsa inn rruob nsiixe CIET-ICH 



nnsa 



bairn nbu ,n^jna niTac* 'n 

164-5 02 inn 1 ' ^13 
207-8 ,iT2n D3Tin3 



409 



5271 ,cein no ,i8a 591 (-p^n 1 ? nous? cipo ,n a 5262 ,irrco pun ,5 a ,nm3 
new 'T rrt 'ON ,30 a 5266-7 ,OIK ?> cito ,27 b 5266 ,m -no? -m ,275 
,on*33 piv vn,saa 5263 ,jop JT ,44 b 5341 ,>cn 3*>,42a 5267 jTryocb 
; 273 ,n:>TCp m ,59 a 5272 jnrnnb p'-c? 'i ,54 b 5341 ,ansnpnm ,53 b 5262 
4^5 i^ fib's ,62 b 5275-6 ,n:pi iim n:p ,60 a 

5320 ,r8a ,D^3 nnnc ,i8a 5319 ,rrvo p-i ,8 a 5319 ,o'Tiorn p ,7 a .ram 
5322 ,nn:o3 vsron ,24 a 5321 ,343 ,'niioin ,21 b ; 342 J'JJT n'?3nc ,21 b 
,85 a 5324 ,D"35? nja ,47 a jio 1 ? p u ,45 b 5127-8 ,mcott:rt p ;34b 
5220 ,TDn Dioj? '~\ ,139 a 542 ,XDIC ,85 b 542 ,j:nv 'T ' ,85 b ;nmj? 
37 ,]'Qn:o i 1 ; JWD no ,152 a 5121 ,m cmo ,i44b 
5240-1 ,nrpa2 me ,42 a 5142 ,iow 013010 ,26 a 536 ,o t nsn bs ,21 a ,piTj? 

185 ,i7n -J'-'JSWT >'n ,53 b 5241 ,rvin mpn ,42b 

nc'ro ,37 b 5339-40 ,p;Dicn ,37 a 59-13 ,nmn' '-\ -\u >oi ,na-iob ,D'ncD 
,jinn pia ,46 a 5184 ,-n? ncis ,45b 5184 .obn 1 ? >^ ,39b 5339 ,rrc i i ! 7ri 
,TDiprr "rw rvica ,55 b 5227 ,ruc3 bmz? i*' ,49 a 5226-7 ,733? ,46 a 5225 
,ncn fr3 ,86 b 5141 ,n3 nntnDi ,71 a 5343-4 ,piyo HOD ,62 b 513-14 
14 ,to3 nno: ,ma 5344-5 ,chiyn mow tsn ,94 b 514 
,66 b 515 ,sco'un xorni ,28b 5345 ,sn~i ,21 a 5345, vro '3'3J ,2ob ,KOT 

345 ,iiii" "P3 ,68 b 5345 ,^SO3 ,53 b 514 ,vra Tfto 
271 ,inoraE nbr: ,34 b 5262-3- ,irt3 mb ,25 a 5241 ,svn na:3 ,6 b-7 a ,n3io 
222 ,cin n pabio ,34 a 5220-1 ,nbn ps^io j' ,i2b ,rr^3 

262 ,D'3TO D'O 1 ,26 b ,n3rn 

342 ,nncTO ^3n ,32 a 5342, yizrh ,17 a 5342 ,min ^TD nnos ,i6b ,n^3o 
cnc'\io ,27 a ; 37 ,c (I 33x roi3 ,24 b ; 37 Yn': ,24 a ; 174-5 ,rnjB3 '' ,3 b ,]rp ino 

36 jbbisn 

,77b 5240 /oVr'pVD ,74b 5183 ,-crp ,61 a 5183 ,np-c3 ncyo ,15 a ,mor 
, 107 b-io8 a ; 183, rwEcin HIT ,80 b ; 183 ,in3N VN ,80 a ; 183 ,n33O mva 

182-3 ,Di3UTQ: p rr::n '-\ 
n':n3 ,54 a 533 ,c'VriT 'C3 ,54 a 533 ,212 ,v\p'33 xVi naa ,52 b ,ni3ir3 

34 ,p3i ]'33 nsmsVi ,55 a 534 ,rrc3ici 
263 ,nnc:\i? p'3 ,39 a 5132-3 ,1^ J'HT -IHNOI ,29 a 

^nb-oi ciic ,37 a 539 ,'I;ET ,34 a 5174 ,N'-no ,8 a 5173 ,cvr n:no ,2 a , 
ta ,80 a 598 ,ni3innnn rwno ,79 a 537 539 ,jnr5o3 p? ,44 a 539 
"3N ' ,85 b ; 101 ,mp B3 ,81 b 5101 ,^3 ICID 2H3 ,80 b 599 ,rmy 

169-171 ,JKQ 'wrr 
130-131 ,T3T ro: mien ,54 b ,pt 

5246 ,co nbion ,51 b 5246 ,TD3n px ,51 a 5105 pic ^3l'2^ ,46 a ,op 
,247 ,anm nri3s ,59 b 5247 ,'3nv -p-o ,59 a 5246 psncrrb JEICI ,55 a 

5248 ,w:n3 C-UIC:TD ,68 a 5247 ,p3T be ,66 b 5247 ,n:ip varu ,66 a 
,-iun ns -jin ,73 a 5248 ,0^01 npib p ,71 a 5248 PIED *nnm ,7ob 

5249 ,iE ( r"3 rnci ,79 a ; 248 ,^po isrui ,78 b 5248 ,ann was ,74b 5248 
ban ,81 b 5249 /-imco ,81 a 5249 ,j'tnin3 ,81 a 5249 ,-|iynrt "jy ,80 b 

249 ,nV3c ;p\-ii ,82 a 5249 ,nn 



4 io 

rraron ,8 a ; 105 ^NVI piaa ,6 b ; 102-3 jin^rro wc VE ,3 b ,r:ra a 
'o no ,11 a ;ios ,toio rwso ,ioa 5104-5 ,3-iirn DIN ,gb 5103 jrwso 
; 104 ,ncbn nsca ,17 b ; 104 ,D'3Bb ,17 a ; 103 ,t teas ,12 b ; 104 ,in 

3-4 ,pQ'DS ,47 b 5 JQS jVnao Win ,25 a 

,nyj "aijrn ,93 a ;io6 ,iar naran ,92 b 5123-4 ,pico rroa ,80 a ,nna j*aa 
292 ,Trt vfro ,127 a 5107 ,ncpo ,95 b 5106 ,niE3b a ,94 a 5106 

3 ,mcn .Nrmwaa .64 b 546 ,ai no ,54b-55a ,pin:D 
200-1 ,rpDiiaa n-ops ,61 a 5102 ,n:rEn an 'N ,39 b ,mnaw 
26 ,w.-cn 5 ,ssb ,rm 
263 ,cHjaa narra ,12 a 
; 33 ,nmcn ,39 a ; 253-4 ,VpTO mn uran ,37 b ; 239 ,on 'a 'OT ,37 a ,mn:o 
;334 ,na'n NEC i* ,41 b 5334 ,nnp3TC n^n ,41 a 5336 ,1:3 Vo 'n ,40 b 
5334 ,njri20 n'SB ,43 a 5331 ,f2ipn jn ,42 b 5332-3 ,ni*pi n 5 ? IDO ,41 b 
326-8 ,ai3no jiosa-iosb 5239 ,nnw mns ,75 a 5253 ,EE i* ,56 a 

318 ,-nnc ,45b ,mvaa 

>47 a J339 >rwaT iTan rrana ,40 a 532 ,ci*a? bn? pea anncn ,8 b ,pin 
,56 b 528 jN'DCXT xpia ,54 b 5270-1 ,unpt3i 'brN ,51 b 526 ,':w 'n 

28 ,a"?a )a-npa 



82, 83, 97, 102, 105 ,rn 

266, 269 

103, 199 ,"|b NQ' 

D'HSN 'y 

318, 319 , 

316, 342 ,rmn 
30 



55, 57 

105 ,c"y^o c'te:N 
87 ,NVQ: p pnc'K 

TIED 'S 322 ,N'OEC'N 

243-4, 246 ,mpo cr jimscN ,pico 

in ,(nTn:) pnjp 'ipcN 

152 ,F]iir:) T by ? TD 

230 ,n"rcan: = MP'JPD'S 

mtenn ^nn: 'y D"CM 

30 f spncN 

317 ,? DBJ ,n 

244, 248 ,s*roiiM 

yiT3 'y ,yi 

55 ,npT 

203, 804, 217, 2l8, 320 ,^-llT pM 

D'Jnao F]i?n ,y 'y 323, 306, 352 

,rro-np ,,-iibcnn 



358 , 

315 ,'JN ' 

nibcnn 'nci: 'y 420 ,t:3ffi 

98 ,VCM =^ ''TC 

326 ,(apy> p) te 

ion: 'y 279 ,-nc 



337, 394 ,Tiin 

359 ,^ 

266 ? SOPTD'N 



88 .c'rjDn 1 ; iin 
66 ,ninxnn '*w TIC , 



214 



57. 59, 6l, 67, 104 ,p JV3 3M = 2N 

96, 104, 302, 303, 326 ,p rra OH 

386 

249 ,JTN "? in 



182, 251, 252 , 

345 
151 



169 ,nna'M 
OQffi 'y cnn 

385, 39 m = P 

26, 29, 34, 60, 83 ,nii3n inn ,i:':nM 

270, 284, 285, 287, 289 

302, 326 ,rron win ,m 

321, 396 ,nos oa ,N:inx 

67, 87 ,pW ,pTHM 
230, 256, 257, 266, 381, 397 ,' = i 

,nv/cnn 'ncn 'y ,]v;ri 

ISVNO 'y is IVN 

394 ,niEN by m ,"?i 

337 ,'TOIIN 

211,213,340 ,'p:m 



296, 321 ,nns cc ,:in 
363 ,w 

nn 'noi: 'y 55, 281 ,N'TE'N 
, 358 ,(n" p) pT ,i:T'N 

30, 31 

296, 321 ,nos cc , 

nc3T? 'y 

*3'biia 'y 

319 ,nb 

Din: 'y O 

109 ,nmr: n?** 

54, 59 ,moc p pmn 

256 ,rc'SM 

67, 42o,(n'3ny) p3?n 

,:nyo 'y anrrsbN 

279, 326 ,z*vfa ,r\-b*i 

18 ,(n 

80, 356 



412 



320 ,rp ,nru 

396 ,nrv3 

180-1 ,y 

301, 325 ?povfo 

prose 'y ,11*3 

379 ,T3131 = TIQ3 



316, 317, 344 ,'on to 
301, 325 ,(rvcne) nisn n'3 
314, 340-41 ,n D 

325 , 
an, 213 , 
167, 174 ,winon 
320 , 



305, 306, 328 ,3i<?p 131 

1 6, 17 ,ai3'n i3i 'D 

321 ,(n'3iy) pit? pa ,ymi3 ]mi 

147, 154 Til 

58, 6r, 191 ,pw ,NDVI 

303 ,N33i 3"i 

174 ,Fom 

169 irn = ^| 

138 ,rc: nri3iro3 ,nn 

354j 375 ,DDM = NHEIT 

98 ,mij ,-n 
57. 59> 61, 67, 69 ,(rvrw) ,cnt::ip .3-11 

71,85 
349 ,mnbxtt?: 



33 6 . 339 >0"i'CiE) nvc'D 2in ,O:JT 

7, 19, 20, 24, 25 ,(NV-IC p) pw 'Nn 
37, 43, 44, 54, 55, 57, 61, 67, 69, 
71, 113, 134, 135, 145, 146, 147, 
167, 168, 176, 178, 179, 189, 191, 
205, 219, 229, 236, 242, 250, 258, 
a68, 272, 273, 277, 280, 281, 290, 
297, 298, 306, 311, 312, 313, 316 
212, 213 ,Ty DC ,nmn 
301, 326 rm;n 
179 ,ncc to man 
245, 249 ,p>n bj mrt 
300, 322 ,(n'iny) %o .aim 
3 to , 334 ,^W rnrt 
53 ,-IION i:osy7 nai 
39 



if 3, 48, 49, 5a, 78, 203 ,z^32 ,- 
'oif* pcb ,Ta?n 'y 204, 217, 279 



72, 



35 1 



'3iT 



87, 88, 206 ,-n.-3 
85 ,DttJ ^^D>^ nr:jn '"3 jXix'Sm 
86, 88, 93, 277, 280, 290, 293 

214 ,2':wan be ten '3 

222 ,D1pa DC ltD'3 

386 ,Vnan pi rva 

myo 'y yninr? n'3 

301, 325 ,^isn n'3 

91, 119 ,i:'3T n'3 

54, 55, 59 ,n cv P <|l ' r ' 3 

294 ,(nmTEn) \nnD b3 

379 , (prodigal son) ,nyT nuin J3 

87 ,piriN n'a '33 

87 ,viD3 n*a '33 

mD-130 'y ,CD3 
87, 96, 105 ,D',-I3 '?y3 

33, 7 1 , 2I2 , 213 ?3 
ISO ,D''p3-plF3 

33, 210, 212 ,Knyp3 ,Nnp'3 
J 37, !38 ,(St. Barnabas) ,i 
294, 318 ,'nnc ,VND 
194 ,nn3 = i- 
58, 69 ,cipo EUJ p 
,co IXL-X nr3jn *a ,Dirio 
'13 5109, no ,anon ton n3^3 
5109, 1 10 ,?-nr' nciy S3 5401 
'13 ; 1 12 ,c'3i3n '13 ; 1 10 ,D';m3 
401 ,prc3n 'y S3 -,401 ,rvnsn 
281, 288 ,-ry DC ,npi3 
242, 243, 246 ,rm3 
351 ,ncnn nna 
10 ,mys nyocoa ,nna 
35-6, 328-30 ,wv>m 

131T3 'y ,131T3 

323 ,t)rra ics 



89. 91 ,rf?Bn TO , 
7, 8, 43, 58, 59, 68 ,icnc) c':i3 ,pw 
104, 140, 142, 240, 270, 284, 287, 
289, 386 

104 ,(n'ri2) in-re: ,pm3 

8, 13 ,nvTO3,= ni'wi3 

252 ,p>u = ;^v 

TCSJ 'y ,ni2:nr nnu 



413 



243, 246 ,n<:i' cir j v ,n , 
54, 59 ^NTCtt p 

288 ,t}ioi ,avt:n 

288 ,paa? jm 1 ? n 

J 54 >pn:r '2M ,nn 

174 ,ciro DC jabn 

236, 239 ,nos DUJ ,N?3Tr 

236, 239 ,no2 cw ,:a^n 

236, 239 ,TOJJ DJ ,D'S3 u n 

wfjnio 'y brrbn 

40 ,mrroa pVin 

306 jbaai '* pro ovinso rfton 

252, 266, 331, 354, 356 ,N3in = 3in 

370, 372, 374, 379, 382, 387, 392 

357 ,'3yn 
361 , m:n 

r 35 .(^'tcin p) bwojn 
31 ,'Niin 'T Tn^n pa 'uran ,n:'jn 

94, "3 
191, 210 ,pj rrnn' 'n p n>::n 

360 ,C3fTU ,'3'Cn 

295, 318-19 ,'cicn 
366 ,iTuin 
'y ,mnn 



174 ,pn 
177, 184 ,ncnn 
296, 320 ,N7,-in 

420 ,'lcbD 'l 3TO 

ci: 'y ,jniTQ 
17 ,rminto 'D 
325 ,nD^:o 
238 ,nTQ J^W^Q 

353 ,)'TD'?:B 



239 ? 
180, l 



16, 19, 48, 54, 107, 122, 129, 134, 

143, 156, 166, 176, 186, 203, 210, 

216, 228, 232, 235, 242, 250, 255, 

258, 264, 268, 272, 349 

330, 332) 334, 335, 336 ,,TTD = ro 

no ,n' 

2 3-4 

339 

295, 3 J 8 



362 ,> 

209 ,rf>n = 

20, 24, 290, 303 ,(-wnE: p) pw ' 
'y 

'y ^'i-a'n 
394 ,?'ocrt '133 ,i?n 
21 ,'MVO3 na-rr 
48, 52, 53 ,nwyt) l > n3"jn 
306 ,npico nabn 
222, 271 ,nyioo 
6 3, 7 r > 85, 86, 229, 231 ,n 

352, 382-97, 400-1 
2 35, 

304 ,D^o^ 'nb rvs's n 
306, 352, 398, 399 ,niaisp 
26, 27, 150, 256, 332 ,-p^n = fabin 

109 ,'3OD = 'JO'H 

5*1 nana 'y ,Vrt 
103, 106, 160, 226, 239 ,'oj 103 ,ort 

394 

i, 2, 3 ,prr 

pD:n nci: 'y pc:n 

310 ,ni2icnn pnyn 

398 ,nmrn c'lcn 

301, 325 jpncn 

302, 303, 326 ,o"2cn jo inton 

323, 326, 340 ,nain = 'nn 

13 ,D'-ai2 -pnrr ,rrnn 

325, mnn 

an ,:mn 

sn, 345 



54, 6 r ,oipo cc? np b TI 
351 ,3n*v to 'm 
52 ,j 



296, 320 ,r|:y ,NII 
322 ,(n'aiy) JTN Nbn ,am 

358 ,'JD = '31 

320 ,m:'ED ,n 

332, 336, 36 r , 364 ?*i =11 ,'i 
249 ,p'i 

397 ,TTO1 DttJ ,"331 

37, 343 ,>"'' = in 

345, 249 !** mi 

245, 249 ,^'x to lain 
216-17 ji^rircH) nan 



178, 179, 181 ,(? 

185, 189 

361 ,?r? 

362 ,;y.3 

1iTN3 'y ISO 

187, 189 ,rrori3 '" 

244, 249 ,nD3 '3 ,'rD '3 ,tt?13 3b3 

302 ^"JHI TIH nmn ,Nto 
177 ,na 
26 ,*mm wrc3 
nibsnn 'noia 'y NE3 

HBE33 'y f]D3 

3^3 'y nc3 

295-6, 320 ,'in *o~o 
1 08 ,ocn3 
198 ,rn3 = nro 

3">3 'y 'W13 

339 j(n'onE) ,np'no nt3 ,ai3wi3 

156, 158, 217, 220 ,D1pO DHJ O3C3 

325 ,)'non WCD13 
321 ,(n'3iy) . 

322 

278 ,^p pbn , 

323 ,p"jrr ,Kni3 

314 ,DWI3 

72, 73, 77, 78 ,nairo 
ntrnp 'y ,in3 

9, 14 ,n"j 
55, 57 ,W CW jMib 
309, 333 ,(rvcns) ,fr bp ,aaW 
236, 239 ,7102? cic ,c':i?b 

10, 96, 104 jD'JE 1 ? 

166, 167, 211, 237, 238, 294 ,'D-IM pirb 

T7J ,733 ,bW1ffi y*1M y 295, 320, 322 

82 83> 321, 322 ,a-y jC'bNyntt? 11 ptcb 

n"y:2 'r 334, 341 
96, 104, 236, 301, 309, 333 ,'ciD Jicb 

339 

-np 'r ,-np pw'' 
95 ,m3nmn ptt'b 
334 ,np pcb 



83 ,ii23rt ^^^n ,1:': 
326 ,rcv ' 

40 

43 ,J>noy '3 



105 

244, 248 ,TTEC 
224 ,C'DyT 

334 

318 jbpcns ,: 
295, 3i 

rnn nu?3 'y 



55, 69, 277, 279 ,rj-te ,r]Dv '3 

280, 283 
31, 48, 50, 52, 53, 85, 180 ,pna ' 



183 , 

236 ,('t3'D 'i -isn) |n:v 

120 ,H3i ni2c NTT = Vnan TOC <rr 

136, 141, 142 ,cmc3n DV 

178, 179, 188 ,p no N3N '3 FjCV 
326 ,TMQ 'T '3N F|-V 

55, 59 jVi'TO '3 F]cv 

55, 59. 278 ,mirr '3 )cv 

420 ,DID i"5Q ,-nar 

326 ,13'3M 3py 

29, 30, 31, 85, 86 ,pa ono '3 apr 
214 

55, 67 ,C'D'3 '3 3pr 

154 ,n"n 13 pns' 

154 ,nw '3 pn^' 

154 ,>3piy n3 pns' 

75, 8 3 >^i3 ^N" 1 ?ns' 

256 jH^S' 

207 ,irp> 

52 

b^ic 1 pH T.obn 'y ' 

3, 3i, 34, 47, 78, 9 1 ,n'ttj' 

185, 212, 277, 302, 326, 386, 

ro'w on 'y 

'y iT'ri 49, 5 1 , 83, 174 jcr'T 



328, 341, 372 



154 ,F"S' *3 ,rwr> 
43 ,rnirr '3 ^rrynr 



375, 38o 
78 ,*na 

191 ,NC313 

323 ,rr\33 



415 



398 ,nsno 

43 jiri^r '3t* ,ntco 

191, 211, 212, 214, 237 ,pw ,mrn 

238. 240 
17 ,1:^31 ,rroo 

;wj ,rrco '5240 ,p} ,rrtnco 
246 ,rv3i3rco 

55. 57 ,cio>3ibip3 310 '2 obiico 
278 ,myvc 

182 j 

306, 307, 357 ,n:Tcn 

58 ,fop mo D3DO ,J'PJO 

ru-tt." cm ,nyw 'y wnvio 

214 ,rrcno no 

278, moino 

306, 329 ,N'rr 'NOW m MD prwno 

306, 329 ,TT MTIT frrcno 

191 ,jwj ,rrnnn 



206, 299 , 
131 ,' 



55 58, 69 ,' 

420 ,'oin: 
420 ,pn: 
26, 34, 144, 242, 255 ,p 

87 , 

108 ,nvvDV 

108, 114, 314 jD^TinN D'O nVs: 
400 ,a'riES n"?'T: 

20, 23, 24, 55, 90 ,pna ''yrr 'a 'wns: 
95, 107-14, 145, 146, 156, 216, 
219, 294, 298, 299, 300, SOG, 310 

247 jDcca: 

98, 3 2 > 338,^3 = ">3i2 
39, 333 ,(rrai3?) ,jb' Vp ,^3 
321 ,(nunr) ,D^on 3E tec npw n3 
326 , 
105 

1 66 ,can TTDI: 
nnns 'r ,rr2inD 'nci: 
104 ,j:B:n nci: 
549 ,p':3i 549 ,D"B ;rrDnn 'nci: 

p 548, 49, 89, IIO, 260 jN'bE'N 

4 8, 49, 50. 51, 52, 109, 112 ,"oc' 

,-23 548, 49, 89, 200 ,133CM 5351 

rTiE 549, 52, 107-12, 260, 351 
,an^o ;49,SE3 ; 49 , (JTVE 



174 ,p13-3 

36 ,ncr rrtjo 

S'Si 339 -P 27 "" 

2 95? 3 '9 ,cnno rfao 

16-18 ,n'W7ji n'3c ,njic>n rrro 

52, 57, 206, 212 ,T3? TOCCO3, 

344 ,ninDrro niLTQ 
50 ,Vnjn 
350 ,o^nn 
' 549 ,pwa 'o 549 ,3teH Tiino 



322, 324 ,n' 1 

101 ,no , 
305, 306 ,moTD by 'o ; 24, 39 



104 



307 



306 ,nF' 

300, 324 
87, 88 ,naa 
300, 322 



281 ,Q3 
35, 306, 328 , 

50 ,n2*pn btj inaw by 
327 

2 , 3, 4 jjorb p:ren niro 
265, 267 ,pTiTO j' 
51 



298, 299 ,ruu? be nn:o3 raco 
260-61 ,1135 n'syna TTDEO 

286 ,KC3S H'b J37BQ 
2l6, 217, 298 ,'CTD \T DXD 

217-18 ,fi3 nvibnn 

mbcnn TICV 'y 326 , 

38 , 

388 ,10= 
282 , 
42 

59,67, 69,31 10-310 

297, 321, 325 ,N3E13 1Oy = M3E131O 

317 ,1'M* p '3T1O 

86 ,J1N3 3pr '3 ,'3110 

301, 325 ,(nw) ,f E ' :Tra 
206 ,^y 

297, 325 ,' 
338 ,T 



272 , 

288 ,:icc3 meyrr nono ,33-0 
319 ,rrobn IED 
343-4 .(Trabmc) ponv IED 
60 ,n '-V? niyiarc IED 
153 ,c>:i:nn 'D, m^cn ,^DD 
rmn '? ,>TIE'D 
ODD'N 'y ,TCD 
305, 306, 307, 326, 328 ,nDT> 
325 ,njms ,bpo 
65 ,>N DC ,n^p'D 

71^ 203, 312 ,NTID 

168, 174,279,387 ,niD 
174 ,' 



74, 8 1 ,nsi3 n 
341 ,m , 

4 5, 84, 99, 104, 246 ,py ,J 1? ,;N 
34i, 343 
43 ,nco 'a 
190, 266 ,nE3' = 

213 ,? 'b 
i, 3, 279 ,$? 
46-7 ,nan irVy 
130, 131 ,nro? 

10, 12, 13, 130, 131, 284 ,"j? -raj? ,-ra? 
43 ,-pnn '2 ,^oy 

295, 320 ,nVDDT 

43 ,!? rn':an '' 

19, 176, 179, 238, 260, 297 ,pa , 
301, 302, 303, 304, 306, 308-16, 

.CT2j? 'T ^^D 's 326 
301, 325 ,Hnra7 i 
279, mEi 

244, 248 ,> 
154 ,pns> '3 
180 ,p"ji 



'y ,)'Vc3n n*y ,nwsrr '3 
294 ,D'2iN3 

ipr: 'y ,pny 

326 ,115? 

35-6 ,m-u-in n?y 



372 
2 36, 239 ,p^D 

401 piQn ire 'D- ,T?n yn: pnc 

314. 340-1, NTPCIE 



5420 ,2iy 548, 260 pnro 548, 49 
49 ,'on ; 49 ,pc:cip ; 49, no ,,-IEIS 
549, 89, no, 260 ,':OTI ;N'^'yi 
man ,nyi> ,. . . nsii 'y 260 ,JOTI 
,minn nsnp ,ncnp ,11000 ,HDD be 

55, 67 ,3py S '3 D'D'3 
272, 273 jiTD-ll 1 ? 1\TT<D ,CD'3 

ncnp 'y ,-[2'iy: 

p'pcn 'y pea 

392 ,nnE: 

138 ,M310'DC' ,nyOC02 ,CEO 

ice ,niy 'y 174 
305 ,nvrnn by 
,rrernp 'y ,T 
316 ,mioN3 ^y DW , 

249 

83, 96, 104 , 
339 ,0" V 



23 ,rp::n p jn3 

jny 'y 23, 36 ,^SYP 'a jru 

75 83 pxnrro ]3 jru 

236 ,'ND'D '> 12H JH3 



306 , 

III ,Fjiy CW jNJID 

,ui 'y ,UD 

277 ,3TD"D J123D 

109, no, 114, ,'N:nT03 'ib ni3i3 IID 
"5-n 

108, 178, 179, HDD ^B 1TO 

49, 89, 108, 109, no ,DToy '~\ ~\TD 
258, 260, 261, 262, 300, 303, 304, 
307, 3". 3", 314 

306, 307, 308 ,DNTTON1 C'3H TO 

nrnn trrno 'y ,013 mo 

87 ,-i^i '3 too 

96, 105 . 

295, 318 ,1 



wovn pn 'y . 
45 ipcp to , 
wp^no'M .'r 101 ,^1 

301, 325 .NnDip 
278 ,n 

316, 342 jTTO^r 

21, 31 ,N^3 cn 'mice ,'s:mo 
1 6. 25. 45, 146, 290 ,pj ,rrii-D 



417 



48, 49, 5', 52, 53 

297, 321 *p s> >N1p 
244, 248 ,rvwp 

300, 322-3 ,1Tp 'VtDp 

325 

39, 333 ,^ 
181 

Dwyfr)p: 'y 

36 , 
322 
230, 

iyE3yrc TiVffi 'y , 

377 i (imps) pp 

339 ,(rvtnC3) npiD p .n:p 

Mitcp 'y 3Dp 

aisp in 'r zisp 

1 88, 189, 203 jD'Mlp 

299-300 ,raa ouiroi n'H'33 nsnp 

259 ,rrann by yan? nunp 

ym ; 351 ,3*nv to nn:cn minn 

260 ,T 

54 , 

324 ,J"^ 

r.V?Bnn 'ncia 'y 

243, 246 , 

13 



y ,n 
53 ,n" 

69 ,nnrnob C 
71 ,niD nrrra CN 
w\T3 'y 75, 83 ,nVu C 
2, 8, 54 ,nrno (ten) CNT ,mto' c 

59> 69, 7 1 , 3I 4, 236, 239, 326 
,F|I^M 'y 21, 31, 237, 239 ," xcn ,ITN 



54, 59, 279 ,VPD en OTD ^>" 

232 , 233 ,]:m> Si m 

in ,'^n n 

379 ,n = an 

224, 225, 247, 323, 344 

221,253,254 ,'3T = 3' 

68 , 
218 jn 

315, 342 

221 jQ'riWl p31 

,>nuT 'y ,rm 

'y mi 



268, 271 ,noiz' 

105 jDJ 1 ! 

19, 24, 54. 59, 360 ,pa 
319 ,pic 

206, 290 ,nH3O1E 

113, 121 

43 

246 ,' 

299 

9, 15 ,:n3 Vn 
343 i(n | 3i) law 
340 ,j^p3 

301, 325 ,PP1B 

278 ,m'pBn-mpE 

55 

291 ,;3amB 
*mrn scnp ,jnn 'y 
339 , 
55, 57 inns ,nanc 

35 ,D3-1B 

30, 216, 217, 220, 236 ,D'cnB ,DIE 
,'cns PC'S ,nan 'y 294, 298, 322 
.noffi ,pisn 
116 ,yotj by DTIE 
212 jCnen 'y DIB 



67 , 

56 ,ruiD 
242 jD'rwrfj iiobn 'urns 

295, 318 ,NO31M H'HE 
78 , 



30, 3 1 , 75, 8 3 ,Pa ,p 
297, 321 

322 ,(nt3i) m:V> FJITC po p^s 
19 ,(nD"jttj '3 ,'ic?D '3 ^"n '3) pus rros 

20, 22, 23, 28, 149, 177, 179, 210, 
212, 217, 2l8, 294, 303, 326 

300-1, 325 ,'E'S 

309 ,-!O '31303 H'S'2 

'y ,55 ,ncis 



1 8 ,Tb ION s 

49 

68 , 

105, 278 

299, 300 ,N-\Tm 



E e 



418 



TiVE 'y 

339 ,1>*P1D='V<P 

225 jNTioN DC ,rra 

305 

258 .nn' 

19, 20, 22, 26, 55, 57, 61 ,pNJ MVTO 
67, 75. 1 9, !9ij 203, 210, 258, 302, 



326 ,p3 o-ray 'n ^N ,:TCXC 
187 ,013"? cy witr mcmir 



36 ,(fu? 

278 ,rro-i:nn 
nmn 

322 

nVjcnrr TTDI: 'y 
300, 322 ,jV 
239 ?' 

306, 307, 319, 328, 329 ,Tvchr\ 

39, 94, 138, 142, 177 fa-w p mnbn 

218, 259, 271, 306, 314, 316 

96, 105 ,131330 

moirro 'y ^n^ 

6 ,wn=n:n 

357 .rwn-wn 

I 9>, 364, 379 .p'" 1 >'3n 

71, 94, 126, 305, 306 jSPEDin ,nc-in 

328, 329, 357 

48 ,rnEtnn 

rninn nsnp ,TCEQ 'y 1132 rv:yn 

28 ,pn 

15, 42, 90, 91, 104, 262 ,3 w n ,ainn 

318 

68 ,MO3in 

326 ,^maN '3, ,nin 

297,316,321,343 ,'TOin 

323 ,j'cnnn 

niso 'y rrann 

357, 358 ,nbiJ3in ^:nin ,]^awn 

305,306, 328, 329 ,D':m3 min 

8, 250 ,UDin nss'n D':'jn norm 



minn 



4 ,(n'2iy) yasn 

ni^Dnn 'noi3 'y 'on 
167, 170 ,nD at? ,> 

nV?cnn 'noi: 'y ,N': 

341 ,nyiu: yT N 1 ? w ,]i3yn 

nsna 'y yn 

112,351 ,rrrny3 ,rrs-i 

J3O jnnuo 8 ? mnic ami 1 : bTfjm nsn 

51 jnacb 

3i2',rac^ D^nn men 
54-71 ,a':w: 



305, 327 ^b 
349-51 ; 353-8 1 ,>-I*T 

382 , 
50 , 

148, 154 ,nyiatJ 
181, 185 ? 
296, 321 ,nos DC, 
104 ,iJj 

42 

251 ,' 
75, 8 3 O 
TBDD 'y 

218, 224 ,mD= 
121, 353 ,n>? , 
go, 186, 260, 261, 308, 312 ,p3 

316 
59, 191, 290 ,p3 , s :cn '3 "?TO? 

113 

272 ,nny 

54, 59 

94, 101 ,anN na NH 
232, 233 ,pnv 
,'inn 'y 49, 50, 51, 52, 298, 322 ,-raj 



105 



17, 256 ,N)3ttJ=rra\D 

irwnn 'y D'ow 

75, 83 ,rt^: c>o pns' p rryn 

279 
55, 59 .pnVn 

84 ,in 
296, 321 ,TTO: cc ,'n:i 

mycra 'y 



ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS 

P. i, top. Comp. below, p. 57, n. 4. P. i, n. i. Corap. 
Dr. Davidson, Parody in Jewish Literature, 212. P. 2, 1. 3. 
The effigy was first crucified and then burnt, hence the accusation 
against the Jews that they do it " in contemptu Christianae fidei." 
Comp. Corpus Juris Civilis, lex u, Codex Justinianus I, 9, and 
Cassel in Ersch und Gruber, Encyclopcidie, XXVH, 79. We may 
well assume that on account of this false accusation, the Jews 
living in Christian countries changed the old custom of burning 
Haman to that of " knocking." P. 2, end. This Responsum is 
identical with that found in Responsa, Mantua, 178, and Harkavy, 
173 P. 3, 1. 15, read 1^^311. P. 4, 1. 6, read pnN"n. P. 4, 
1. 7. Comp. Wertheimer, }1NJ nHjD 'n BHI^S, 22b, whore "1W 
is explained to have the meaning of "IP ; some may have put this 
explanation into the text of the Talmud and therefore the question 
in our Eesponsum. P. 4, 1. 18, read IJinn. P. 4, n. i. Comp. 
N^tsn and p^BT in ^rf'lW, 172 = {/'{}>, I, 6; for f6on in f WT\ 
B"^ n33n, 62, read pD^. P. 4, n. 9. Comp. Index, s. v. ] 
the above-quoted passage from R. Saadia's Commentary, '"i 
jDJ, ed. Schechter, 164, and 3"n, 12 c. P. 5, 1. 3. Harkavy, 
DB> DK! P. 5, 1. 14, read 1onn "na. P. 6, 1. 4, read Ban poyk 
P. 6, 1. 5. Harkavy, DiTJS^ 1D1OV P. 6, 1. 13, read ^3B>3 3. 
P. 6, 1. 17, read xyni. P. 6, 1. 18, read ntn. P. 6, n. 9. Har- 
kavy, nun 11 :. P. 6, n. 15, read DWNI. P. 7, 1. 9 from below. 
Comp. Conforte, nnnn NTlp, 5 a, ed. Cassel, and below, p. 59, 
top. P. 8, 11. 9 and 14, for 106 read 10 b. P. 8, 1. 2 from below. 
Comp. R. Saadia's Commentary on Berakot, 6b. P. 13, n. 16. 
Add. and a P. 16, 1. 22. Comp. Albargeloni's rrvy r D WIB, 
335. P. 1 6, 1. 23, read r6. P. 16, last line, read D'DTt. P. 17, 
1. 15, read *m P. 18, 1. 6, read *?V !?y. P. 20, 1. 12, add. The 
authorship of R. Hai is however very doubtful. P. 20, 1. 4 from 
below. Comp. Parties, 310, where this Responsum is ascribed to 
R, Zemah. P. 21, 1. 16. Comp. ^TflV, 399. P. 21, 1. 18, read 
411, U4b. P. 21, 1. 25. Comp. vol. I, pp. 8-9 and 47. P. 22, 
1. 30. Comp. Pardes, 21 b-2i c, and Epstein in pan, VI, 70. 

E e 2 



420 ADDITIONS AND COKRECTIONS 

P. 23, 1. 34. Comp. Dr. Aptowitzer's instructive note on this 
Responsum in J.Q.R., XVIII, 135-40. P. 24, 1. 30. Comp. 
below, p. 219. P. 26, 1. 2. The usual spelling NTTWK is met 
with below, p. 32, 1. 9. P. 38, n. 3, end. Comp. R. Abraham 
Ibn Sabba, "11n "linv, 970 (ed. Venice, 1567): D33J DN 

niK 'n mmi OTISD ' maa wro ib jw nwan 



iy nnann cr^ -nxa DB> onioiyn. Ibn Sabba does not 

give his source for this statement, but we may well assume that 
he drew on a Geonic writing. Comp. also Horowitz, 
NDpTiy, V, 26. P. 39, 1. 4. 'Aruk, s.v. ]S~l, reads likewise 
our texts of the Talmud have 'USI. P. 39, 11. 8 and 15, read 
ffolW. P. 46, 1. 15, read ni"l1xn. P. 48, 1. 5 from below, read 
Bet ha-Miclrash. P. 48, last line. The 'my JfUD, given in Berliner- 
Hoffmanns, Magazin, 1886, n, has "ID3 for mnfc?'. P. 49, 1. 12. 
That the old Italian ritual knew only IDS can be seen from pn*!3f, 
38. P. 49, last line. Comp. vol. I, 207 top, where a Geonic 
Responsum is quoted, according to which the insertion of yotJ> 
in the nB>np had its origin in the religious persecution of the 
Jews by the Persian king Yesdegerd (about 456). Another 
change in the liturgy is also ascribed to a religious persecution 
by the Persians, comp. below, p. 298, probably that instigated 
by Yesdegerd. The statement of Samuel al-Maghribi (Monats- 
schrift, XLII, 123 et seq.) goes back to these Geonic traditions. 
Attention should be called to the fact that Kalir had before him 
yotJ> in the flB>np, as can be seen from his Kedusliah for Bosh 
ha-Shanah in the German Mahzor. P. 50, n. 7. Comp. '*TD 

D^ysn, Bereshit, end: IOB> ins ^y ^rno uw $Ttt m"pn bn by 

P. 51, 1. 2. 1yo is about the same as HIGH 'pi Da which precede 
r6sni yct2> ni3"Q. P. 51, 1. n. Concerning this insertion, comp. 
my note in Z.H.B., IX, 106. P. 52, 1. 12, read "ttDISI. P. 52, 
1. 1 8. This statement regarding 10B> rupn seems to contradict 
the statement on p. 51, 1. 2, according to which yotf was recited 
?|D1D3, but this contradiction disappears if we take here 5|D1O3 to 
have the meaning "in addition." P. 53, n. 2. Comp. vol. I, 4, 
n. i, and E.. Moses of Coucy, JlD^D, Commandement, 63. P. 54, 16. 
Comp. vol. I, 7, n. i, where this Hezekiah is identified as the 
grandson of R. Tob and great-grandson of R. Paltoi. He was a 
prominent member of the Pumbeditan Academy and my theory 



ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS 421 

concerning the title 11D K>X"I is accordingly untenable. Comj). 
also the Babylonian R. Asaph, TlD '"1, in R. fi. J. } LV, 50. 
P. 54, bottom, read np^X. P. 55, 1. 24. The Spaniard E. Yom- 
Tob (xa'Bn; Gittin, 76) calls R. Moses of Tachau (Bohemia) 
and in the same way is the German B. Meir of Bothen- 



burg described as H31V .... DU^ tWl by the Provencal 
R. Menahem Meiri in the introduction to his JTTnan JTQ. On 
the other hand R. Isaac of Corbeil uses T33BW instead of n2"l 
in the introduction to his.p"D. DD1V was the general name 
applied by the Spaniards and Provencals to any European country 
except their own, while the Germans and the inhabitants of 
Northern France applied T33B*X to an)' European country which was 
not "nSD or Plains. Even to-day we describe the Jews in Slavic 
countries as D'toSB'X, by which term we distinguish them from the 
. P. 56, if 3. Comp. Responsa, Lyck, 59. P. 57, 1. 1. aT^X 

, in Hebrew ^ann DintDaipn. P. 57, 1. 2. 3-in=3n ID. 

P. 58, 11. 11-18; in Hebrew = -IKK>1 nrwn ; pD nnx m/XB> ne> 

pun .... n3Kn rntw .... r6ty nan *?y rb&v Tiyi tffa&n 

pyOB' ro nK NB'Jtr. P. 58, 1. 2 f. below, the text is unintelligible 
to me and seems to be corrupt. P. 58, n. 3. Read : 5 a and 44 a. 
P. 59, 1. 2 ; in Hebrew=KTTl mnN n^Xtn. P. 59, 1. 4 ric6 = 
21 1i>. P. 59, 1. lOeH^onn DniMlpn. P. 60, 1. 4 from below, 

iii Hebrew = p:p N^i IDC' i^ PKB> nap nyn^ TIYI. P. 60, 

bottom=' l ^onn DneJIpn. P. 60, n. 5. Bead Responsa. P. 61, 
1. 5 = pw NDH r n^ n^X ni^N^l. P. 61, 1. 6. The Hebrew for 
nnxaDX^X would be niJPWn or n^nson, but neither of the two 
makes any sense; perhaps iTDX"lX3/'S = Hebrew D"1Q and comp. 

Hullin, 61 b. P. 61, 1. 8=nmj?3 p DJ ruyvi nm. P. 61, 1. 10 = 
i>y. P. 61, 1. 12 = nxis nis^ r6in. P. 61, 1. 14 = 

"13 "13H pT 13 -OWS? JH pDS. P. 6 1, 1. 16= , . . N3^33 
. P. 6 1, 1. i7=Wn Dn031pn. P. 65, n. 7. Read : iii any 
other place except Ketubot, 45 a. P. 67, 11. i-5 = pi>nn [roBn] inT 
3H3 npnyn . inx onojip xin oai B^^n p^nn ni&n ;^BT 
nix not? jnsn ^EMT [?an33]. P. 67, 1. 10. This R. Aaron is 

undoubtedly R. Aaron Sargado, the Gaon of Pumbedita. P. 69, 

1. i^ytrnn onojipn. P. 69, 11. 3-i5 = rawi trx 
n ^y nx3e> H^BTI n^xE'm o* n* ^y if^ew naa n 

n*pon gran ; Dn"j>3 fns nn xh ^wnv nnv ; . . . 31 no 
^e> ; nnx c w x ^y na nrac' nrn 



422 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS 



The last Responsum deals with the question whether 
the blessing over the light in the Habdalah ceremony may be 
recited by the Hazan, the congregation following in silence. 
Comp. below, p. 258. P. 69, 1. 17. For ir read H3 11 ; in Hebrew 

= 3N2 njRwa [? Dnn] myth jnin nxn. -P. 69, 11. 19-23 = irsi 
y3M& v ; nni ratia W joy hv i"" 1 ; PDQ JXTOD jmn mm me? 
nnvo Dip B* nwan rvnn U^VN ('n) ni>iyb -in DW rup 

ttbixb. P. 70, 1. 2 = iyr6N [?1!DN> DK] 1OK *6l ^Hl W BHP! 
comp. Nahmanides, miDr6l9,.3era&o,VII,end. P. 70, 1. 4, Hebrew = 

bi3' ni?yn DN npaioo nn^n^ntw. P. 70, 1. 6 = hvr\w psn^ nK 

DVn 5)iD2 TOK* mj?n miyo I^S 11 N^. The meaning of the Arabic 
is very obscure, it may refer either to DpDSdn miJJD or to 

. P. 70, 11. 8-22=2:1 mj na^o ; mi naeno ^y ;B^ n 
'no nns nw [n^nn IK p^nn] nxnc' nni DN 
N nvnan ''antr no ; on^ N^I pbni> N^ nyn 

; iniN 1^10> D^3N nO3 ^3^ ,1TO 1^3 DN 

nnh h^h bw DK ip-isij yjn t6e ">yi ; nn^n ova 
P. 71, l. 2 = nx niSma nu^n ^ync'. P. 71, l. 4=ns yainn 

'33 pyB>. P. 71, 1. 8=1^ ynn jnJB' }3iNi. P. 71, 11.9-12 

' 



"nna 13K. P. 72, end. Comp. the Respon- 
sum by R. Nathan b. Hananiah of Kairwan in yi"tf "UN, I, 176, and 
the formula for a Ketubah by R. Hai Gaon in rUDSn, III, 46, 7. 
P. 74, 1. 15. The Responsum in Responsa, Man., 120, is an extract 
of that in our Fragment. P. 76, end. Cornp. 'Ittur, II, 18 c, who 
quotes a Geonic Responsum contradictory to the view given in our 
Fragment. P. 81, end. Comp. below, pp. 196-7. P. 85, top. 
This Responsum is fully discussed by me in vol. I, pp. 101-3. 
P. 85, 1. i of the Hebrew. The superscription, D^yrn^N, is a 
note by the copyist indicating that he took this Responsum from 
a quire (=311), which began with an explanation on Berakot, 44 a, 
top, DiTJfib W3n, and continued till D'23yi D^ND ^3S. Our texts 
of the Mishnah and Talmud, Eerakot, 1. c., read wsb, but MS. M 
has the plural Dni>, and in a similar passage, Tosefta, Berakot, 
IV, 8, we have likewise D!li> ; Berakot, 43b, DrTJE^ lN'3n. P. 87, 
1. II. Comp., however, J. Q. R., XVIII, 402, and XIX, 106, where 
references are made to a prominent man by the name of R. Aaron, 
who flourished about this time. P. 87, end of the English. The 
writer of this letter is perhaps R. Joseph, the opponent of R. Saadia. 



ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS 423 

It is true R. Sherira in his Letter, 40, 1 1 , informs us that 
R. Joseph settled in Bozrah, but he may have stayed for a short 
time in Bagdad. P. 87, 1. i of the Hebrew. For "pan is perhaps 
to be read pan. P. 89, 1. 6. Comp. R. Saadia in his commentary, 
ud-loc. P. 89, 1. 8. This insertion in the Geiillah is found 
in a Genizah Fragment, comp. R.lZ.J., LIII, 236 P. 89, end. 
Comp. vol. I, pp. 134-5, where this question concerning the Geiillah 
is fully discussed. P. 89, n. i. Read in the MS. P. 91, 1. 24, read 
Diian. P. 94, 1. 20, readHaninah instead of Hananiah. P. 95, end. 
The language of this Responsum is rather obscure ; D^BH may refer 
lo the person as well as the property. P. 96, 1. 10. Comp. above, 
p. 10, last line. P. 96, u. R. Sherira in his Letter, and R. Nathan 
ha-Babli use fc^tJO and rtN^J for the exilarch; comp. also above, p. 83, 
the Chronicle of Ahimaaz, 130, 15, and Hekalot, ed.Wertheimer, 9b. 
P. 98, n. 6. Comp. below, p. 166. P. 99, 1. 4 : fhyQ " related." 
P. 101, 1. 1 6. Comp. Bet Yosef, Hashen Mishpat, 290, 30. 
P. 102, 11. 9 and 13, read DJp. P. 103, 1. 6, read 13JJB>D. 
P. 103, n. 7, read Dn, and comp. Index, s.v. R. Amram in his 
Responsum quoted in 'Aruk, s.v. 1D3 likewise uses Dn in the 
meaning of 'O3. P. 106, 1. 14, read n3JJ naioni. P. 106, n. 2. For 
DH read Dn, and comp. addition to p. 103, n. 7. P. 106, n. 15, 
read Baba Batra, 94 a. P. 108, 1. 4. Attention should be called 
to the fact that the benediction has D^T nym and not D'T n^tM ; 
the use of the same expression by the author of the nvN *31 WH 
would rather indicate the Geonic time, and not the Mishnic as 
Friedmann maintains in his introduction, 126. P. no, 1. 22. 
R. Saadia in his commentary on Berakot, 22 a, explains JlVTUI 
by DTT3T *?V fOlpD! 7113X1 TDD. P. no, 1. 5 from below. A 
Geonic Responsum in p"3n, 31, describes min ^3 in the following 
words: JV^3 i*VtJ>33 j^VDl ^3, and this statement seems to corro- 
borate my assumption that the Tallit was not worn generally. 
P. in, 1. 19. The text in p. 118, 11. 10-12 can, however, be 
restored; read fnai ffwmjn jn^a maW Dfc6m DH3 yfcrb IfflO 

^aon ivai . . . n^ana TIDNB' wjn 12 I^NI ^aa. The decision 

of the Gaon agrees with D1 TIDW ai?n "IID^X DltTD jn jmDN, 
the opinion given in Shulhan 'Aruk, Yoreh Deah, 68, 10. P. in, 

n. i. Is ^n an = 'i^n la'a /- i? P. 112, 1. 15. In a"n, 100 this 

decision is ascribed to R. Paltoi. P. 112, 1. 21. Comp. below, 
P- 35 1 - P- IJ 3' 1- I 5- Perhaps na'B* t^SI Qna^a '~\ ; comp. 



424 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS 

Harkavy, Saadia, 114. P. 114, 1. 3, read fwn. P. 115, 1. 19, 
read TOW Si^N. P. 115, 1. 23: DV. P. 116, 1. 14, read nV. 
P. 116, n. 5. For K^ read urn -P. 118, 11. 10-12. Comp. 
additional note to p. in, 1. 19. P. 118, n. 3. Our texts read. 

P. 119, 11. 20-21, read jro ni:& p3B"j nt?jn . . . rvyy no. 
P. 119, 1. 25 : CTJDpn by. P. 1 19, L 26 : 0nn6 ^ " removed." 

P. 119, 1. 99 : |J:ri3B> wan. P. 131, l. 10 : nroynk P. 138, u. 

Comp., however, Yeruxhalmi, Peak, VIII, 2 1 a, according to which 
HB' is a euphemism for ni>phpO. P. 141, 1. 27, read : pp. 70 (/a), 
139 (a^), 149 (0*a), and comp. Responsa, Mant., 91. P. 145, 
10 end, read: as that found in Responsa, Mant., 139, and also 
quoted. P. 145, 1. 29. This Respousum is perhaps only a different 
version of that by R. Nahshon Gaon, quoted by R. Bezalel Ash- 
kenazi in his n21pD riDB>, Ketubot, comp. Muller, Mafteah, 134. 
P. 146, 1. 9. Coinp. also Responsa, Mant., 122 ; the author is 
R. Hai. P. 146, 1. 14. This Responsum is found in Responsa, 
Mant., 226. P. 147, bottom. A similar symbolic use of a cock is 
its use as mS3 ; comp. R. Solomon ben Adret's Responsa, I, 396. 
P. 148, 1.17, read: found in Responsa, Mant., 15, and in. P. 149, 1. 2. 
This Responsum is identical with that found in Responsa, Mant., 
29. P. 149,1. 12. Our Responsum is shortened from that given 
in Responsa, Mant., 16. P. 149, 1. 17. This Responsum is found 
in Responsa, Mant., 17. P. i52,n. 5. Comp. also Sachs, Beitrage, 
I, 63, and Griinbaum, Gesammelte Aufsdtze, 421-3. P. 157, 
1. 20 read : This Responsum is identical with that by R. Nahshon 
given iu "&> 43 b> 48, of which 99 a, 22 is perhaps another 
version. P. 160, n. 2. Comp. Index, s.v. Dfl. P. 167, n. i. 
After having written this I found that Mr. A. Epstein has given 
a similar explanation of the three yods in p^irprvn, comp. the 
Hebrew periodical, D13H, 1887, 87-88. P. 176, 1. 15. Comp. 
R. Saadia's Commentary on Berakot, note 121. P. 191, 1. 17. 
Comp. no^t? nbnp, 72 (l), where the Respousum by R. Sherira 
and R. Hai concerning jn3T P32 fOIDS is referred to. P. 204, 
n. 3. Comp. D^n, 15, 1 6. P. 218, n. 2. In Midrash Jia-Gadol 
I, 709 is wnUN corrupted from UVVan. P. 258, 1. 20. Comp. 
also Yalkut MaTdri on Mislile, ed. Griinhut (= D'Ulp^ VI, 14 a), 
where the reading is the same as in our Fragment. P. 290, 
1. 13, read: we know that the Geonim of Sura, Saadia. P. 299, 
1. n. In the Talmud passage, Sotali, 49 a, N1TDT NBmp is N~iTD 



ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS 425 

pID in opposition to the following NJTUX. Rapoport, 
misunderstood the proper meaning of it. P. 306, 

I. 4 (note). Comp. also Midrash ha-Gadol, 632 131D *iriN. P. 307, 
n. 2. Comp. also minn ?y HIBDin, Exod. xii. 30, where HBD 
= NnSa. P. 339, 1. 1 8. Perhaps 3JBD3 is to be read instead 
of amaa, coinp. p. 283. P. 343 (XLIII). Comp. Sachs, Beitrdge, 

II, 156-8. P. 343, 1. 18: ITOTCn or Bnaijon by. P. 366, 1. 17. 
Comp. E. Hai, n3D1 npO, 82 a, who has the reading j'n H3O I^N. 
P. 388, n. i. The spelling "fl!D from which UTID as title among 
the Ashkenazim ! is found in 1N"I HID^n, 121. 



II 



Pf 



University of California 

SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 

305 De Neve Drive - Parking Lot 17 Box 951388 

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90095-1388 

Return this material to the library from which it was borrowed. 



WL' 



Form L9-25m-7,'63(D8618s8)444 




BM 
501.5 



v.2