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
