Search Scripture Well: Karaite Exegetes and the Origins of the Jewish Bible Commentary in the Islamic East (Etudes Sur Le Judaisme Medieval) (No. 29)

SEARCH SCRIPTURE WELL ÉTUDES SUR LE JUDAÏSME MÉDIÉVAL FONDÉES PAR GEORGES VAJDA DIRIGÉES PAR PAUL B. FENTON TOME XX...

Author: Daniel Frank

67 downloads 681 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

SEARCH SCRIPTURE WELL

ÉTUDES SUR LE JUDAÏSME MÉDIÉVAL FONDÉES PAR

GEORGES VAJDA DIRIGÉES PAR

PAUL B. FENTON TOME XXIX SEARCH SCRIPTURE WELL

SEARCH SCRIPTURE WELL Karaite Exegetes and the Origins of the Jewish Bible Commentary in the Islamic East BY

DANIEL FRANK

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2004

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Frank Daniel. Search Scripture well : Karaite exegetes and the origins of the Jewish Bible commentary in the Islamic East / by Daniel Frank p. cm. — (Etudes sur le judaïsme médiéval, ISSN 0169-815X ; t. 29) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 90-04-13902-8 1. Bible. O.T.—Criticism, interpretation, etc., Jewish—History—To 1500. 2. Karaites—Palestine. 3. Karaites—Iraq. 4. Manuscripts. Karaite. 5. Japheth ben Ali, ha-Levi, 10th cent. I. Title. II. Series. BS1186.F65 2004 221.6’09—dc22 2004045719

ISSN 0169-815X ISBN 90 04 13902 8 © Copyright 2004 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

—[mam-[faf Δr[fa;p ˆyyd ˆWp rsWm μ[d ˆWz ˆyym Wx r[h ≥r[fWm ˆyyd ˆWp r[l yd ˆza…lrap fyn fsla…z ˆwa — hnyd[ òwkw μl;m;[}B' b/f rk;c; μh,l-; vyE rv,a} dj;a≤h-; ˆmi μyn"V]h' μybi/f .qteN:yI hr;hem]bi aOl vL;v¨m]h' fWjh'w“

This page intentionally left blank

CONTENTS

Preface ........................................................................................

ix

Chapter One “Search Scripture Well” ..................................

1

Chapter Two Unclean Birds and Tassels: Indeterminacy and Halakhic Exegesis ..........................................................

33

Appendix: Japheth b. (= Text Japheth b. (= Text

Eli on Deuteronomy 14:11–20 2.2) ........................................................ Eli on Deuteronomy 33:4 2.4) ........................................................

88

Chapter Three Interpreting Dreams and Scriptures ............

95

Appendix: Japheth b. Eli on Genesis 40:12–13 (= Text 3.4) Sahl b. Maslia˙ on Genesis 41:15–16 (= Text 3.8) ........................................................ Sahl b. Maslia˙ on Genesis 41:5–7 (= Text 3.10) ......................................................

139 143

Chapter Four “The Voice of the Turtledove”: Interpreting the Song of Songs ............................................

145

Chapter Five The Shoshannim and Their Liturgy: Exegesis, Prayer, and Communal Identity ..........................

165

Chapter Six A Prophet Like Moses: Exegesis As Religious Polemic ....................................................................................

204

Epilogue: On the Origins of the Jewish Bible Commentary in the Islamic East ................................................................

248

Judeo-Arabic Texts ....................................................................

259

Abbreviations ..............................................................................

319

80

viii

contents

Bibliography ................................................................................

321

Indices: Manuscripts Cited .................................................................. Biblical Verses ........................................................................ Rabbinic Sources .................................................................... General Index ........................................................................

351 354 362 366

PREFACE

The pages of a rabbinic Bible (miqra"ot gedolot) constitute a treasury of traditional learning. Since the eighteenth century these great works have presented the Hebrew Bible as a multi-layered text. Scripture, Aramaic translations, medieval commentaries and super-commentaries are all carefully arrayed so that we may compare interpretations, catch allusions, and follow debates. Here exegetes from eleventh-century Troyes, thirteenth-century Gerona, and sixteenth-century Bologna keep company, with the younger authors often citing and criticizing their elders’ views. Virtually all of them were Europeans, the products of Ashkenazic (Franco-Germanic) or Sefardic (Spanish) intellectual traditions. The Aramaic targumim apart, all of the commentaries are in rabbinic Hebrew. But the Jewish Bible commentary was born in the Islamic East, not the Christian West. Writing in Arabic, Jewish scholars in Iraq and the Land of Israel developed a new literary genre in order to meet the changing needs of eastern communities. Even as rabbinic culture and prestige reached new heights under the leadership of the Babylonian Geonim and their academies, Islamic culture was penetrating Jewish society more deeply. Long the vernacular, Arabic now replaced Aramaic as the language of Jewish scholarship, and an Arabic Bible translation (tafsìr) now accomplished the task of the Aramaic Targum. And since the anonymously edited, loosely structured midrashim were inadequate for readers accustomed to the systematic works of Arabic scholarship, commentaries were fashioned on Christian models available in the Islamic world. An internal schism, dividing the Jews into Rabbanite and Karaite camps, also served as a catalyst in this process. Staunch scripturalists, the Karaites rejected rabbinic authority and sought to restore Judaism to its biblical roots. Beginning in the ﬁrst half of the tenth century, they produced an impressive body of literature to further their reforming campaign. Though written almost entirely in Arabic and largely forgotten, the numerous commentaries that they and their Rabbanite opponents composed are the true ancestors of the Hebrew works enshrined in a rabbinic Bible.

x

preface

This book traces the contours of Karaite biblical exegesis as it developed in the Islamic East during the tenth century. Rather than attempting a comprehensive study of the major exegetes and their commentaries, I have taken a thematic approach. There are good reasons for setting more modest goals. Very few of these works have ever been published, even in part, and most of the existing editions are unsatisfactory. While the extensive manuscript holdings in Western Europe have long been accessible, the greatest collection of Karaite manuscripts—preserved in the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg—is only now being catalogued. Until a proper survey of this material has been completed, it would be premature to attempt anything like a fair assessment of medieval Karaite exegesis. All the same, it is possible to investigate certain key problems and themes which preoccupied these early commentators. If it is too soon to attempt a large canvas, there is plenty of material for the sketchbook. It is my hope that through the studies presented here I will have contributed to the fascinating picture of medieval Jewish biblical interpretation which is now beginning to emerge from these texts. In the same spirit, I have cited the commentaries at length, allowing the exegetes to speak for themselves. I know of no better way to convey some sense of their methods, style, and general approach. If this story has a hero, it must be Japheth b. Eli, the ﬁrst Jew to comment on the entire Bible. Japheth hailed from Basra, but sometime after the middle of the tenth century he moved to Jerusalem, joining the Karaite community of Mourners for Zion. Over a period of perhaps four decades he accomplished his monumental task, composing highly detailed, comprehensive commentaries which are almost all extant in manuscript. Indeed, his work was preserved and recopied by Karaite communities over the next nine centuries. Like his fellow sectarians, Japheth viewed the world through biblical lenses. And since he also took pains to cite multiple interpretations, it is possible to reconstruct the ideational universe of the Jerusalem Karaites from his exegesis. The commentaries are a source, therefore, for our knowledge of the speciﬁc context in which they were written. At the same time, they furnish much of the raw material for an evaluation of the tenth-century exegetical enterprise as a whole. This work comprises six chapters. Chapter One introduces the exegetes and their world. The hallmark of early Karaite interpretation is an anti-traditionalist rationalism. Investigating the Bible without rabbinic preconceptions became an intellectual and religious

preface

xi

imperative. At the same time, certain scholars, such as Daniel alQùmisì, connected the woes of the Exile with adherence to rabbinic Judaism. Preaching a return to scriptural religion, they urged their fellow-Jews to settle in Jerusalem. As Mourners for Zion, they pursued a regime of night-vigils, prayer, lamentation, and Bible-study. And through their prognostic approach to biblical prophecies, they found their own world—their activities, travails, and ultimate triumph— predicted in Scripture. The chapter concludes with a study of the dictum ascribed to Anan b. David, “Search Scripture well, and do not rely upon my opinion”—a slogan that encapsulates early Karaite biblicism. From the beginning, the Karaite-Rabbanite debate has been deﬁned by the question of authority. This is especially true in the realm of law where divergent practices demarcate the two groups. For Karaites, legislation must be ﬁrmly grounded in Scripture; ancestral tradition simply will not do. By contrast, Rabbanite Jews eﬀectively give priority to the Oral Tradition—in the form of the Talmud—which serves to mediate biblical law. Chapter Two explores these positions by considering the ways in which Karaite and Rabbanite scholars handle ambiguous or indeterminate areas of scriptural legislation. Biblical narrative, by contrast, presented relatively few real sources of friction between the two groups. Rabbanite and Karaite authors alike favored lengthy, deliberate expositions. Chapter Three is devoted to explications of dream narratives—speciﬁcally Genesis 40–41 and Daniel 2—which aﬀord our exegetes an occasion for discussing the interpretive process. Since they regarded dream interpretation and biblical exegesis as essentially a single rational activity, their interpretations of these passages betray much about their self-perceptions. For medievals dream interpretation was, of course, prognostic, and a signiﬁcant portion of the Jerusalem Karaites’ writings manifests an apocalyptic outlook. Chapters Four, Five, and Six each investigate a separate aspect of the Mourners’ prognostic exegesis. Chapter Four is devoted to the interpretation of the Song of Songs, which Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm and Japheth b. Eli read as salvation history. A comparison of their commentaries—the earliest extant on the Song by Jews—reveals signiﬁcant developments in the conception and execution of the genre. In its attempt at a comprehensive reading, Japheth’s commentary in particular displays sensitivity to the Song’s structure, while distinguishing sharply between the literal (Ωàhir) and hidden (bà†in) meanings of its ﬁgurative language.

xii

preface

The salvation history read into the Song of Songs also furnished a framework for interpreting many of the Psalms, which the Karaites regarded as divinely inspired prayers. Since prayer and biblical interpretation constituted the primary activities of the Mourners for Zion, a study of their liturgy will clarify their self-perceptions, hopes, and fears. Japheth’s Commentary on the Psalter seems to have been intended as a liturgical commentary; a short treatise on prayer included in his son Levi’s Code sketches the essential components of the daily liturgy itself. In Chapter Five, liturgy and commentary are correlated in order to establish the basic texts of Jerusalem Karaite prayer and the meaning with which they were invested. A self-constituted community with a reformist agenda, the Karaites of tenth-century Jerusalem polemicized extensively against Rabbinic institutions. At the same time, they were acutely aware of the threat Christianity, and especially Islam, posed to Judaism in general. Chapter Six is devoted to inter-religious debates and their reﬂexes in Karaite Bible commentaries. Following Christian precedents, Muslim scholars assembled a collection of biblical testimonia to the truth of their prophet’s message which they presumably used in their missionary campaigns. While some Jewish authors, such as al-Qirqisànì, responded directly to these arguments, others, such as Japheth, crafted tacit, but no less eﬀective replies. The chapter also demonstrates how certain of Japheth’s theological doctrines were likely shaped by polemical considerations. Sectarian, unpublished, long-winded, and in Judeo-Arabic, the commentaries of tenth-century Karaites have, until recently, attracted little attention. Until serviceable editions and translations appear, they will remain relatively inaccessible. But in reality, they are neither alien nor irrelevant to the history of Jewish biblical interpretation. On the contrary—as the Epilogue argues—the classic Bible commentaries of twelfth- and thirteenth-century Spain and Provence, were inspired by works composed centuries earlier in the Islamic East by Rabbanites and Karaites. I hope that this book stimulates further interest in the writings of several remarkable scholars who shaped biblical studies over a thousand years ago. *

*

*

preface

xiii

Texts Since very few of the commentaries have been published, I have included the original Judeo-Arabic of most of the passages cited as a separate section at the back of the book. These texts are not given in full critical editions, but rather as eclectic collations; I explain my editorial methods at the beginning of the section. Each text has been assigned a number, corresponding to the chapter in which it is discussed: 2.1, for example, refers to the ﬁrst text discussed in Chapter 2 ( Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Leviticus 11:13–19). Since this comment is fairly long, I have divided it into paragraphs: 2.1.3 refers to the third paragraph of text 2.1. In the body of the book and the notes these numbers are always given in boldface.

Translations Unless otherwise noted, all translations from Arabic and Hebrew are my own.

Transliteration Hebrew has been transliterated according to the system used in the Association for Jewish Studies Review. Arabic transliteration follows the Encyclopaedia of Islam, with the exceptions of j for ¡ and q for ˚.

Conventions The names of medieval scholars are given in accordance with modern scholarly usage. Inevitably, there is some inconsistency, e.g., Ya'qùb al-Qirqisànì, but Japheth b. Eli. Biblical citations have often been translated according to the speciﬁc exegetical context in which they occur. In general, I have modeled my translations on the Revised Standard Version or quoted it verbatim, but I have drawn upon other translations as well, notably the New Jewish Publication Society version. English citations from the Babylonian Talmud and Midrash Rabbah follow the Soncino Press translations. *

*

*

xiv

preface

Portions of this book have been published elsewhere in diﬀerent versions: Chapter 1: This chapter is based in part on “Karaite Exegesis,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. I/2, ed. Magne Saebø (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 110–128. Chapter 2: A portion of this chapter will appear as “May Karaites Eat Chicken?—Indeterminacy in Sectarian Halakhic Exegesis,” in Jewish Biblical Interpretation in a Comparative Context, ed. David Stern and Natalie Dohrmann (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press). Chapter 4: A Hebrew version was published as 'Ve-qol ha-tor nishma' be-"arßeinu: peirushei ha-qara"im salmon ben yero˙am ve-yefet ben 'eli le-shir ha-shirim (“‘The Voice of the Turtledove Is Heard in Our Land’: The Commentaries of the Karaites Salmon ben Jeroham and Japheth ben Eli on the Song of Songs”), International Rennert Guest Lecture Series, Bar-Ilan University, 2001. An English version appeared as “Karaite Commentaries on the Song of Songs from Tenth-Century Jerusalem,” in With Reverence for the Word: Medieval Scriptural Exegesis in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, ed. Jane Dammen McAuliﬀe, Barry D. Walﬁsh, and Joseph W. Goering (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 51–69. Chapter 5 ﬁrst appeared as “The Shoshanim of Tenth-Century Jerusalem: Karaite Exegesis, Prayer, and Communal Identity,” in The Jews of Medieval Islam: Community, Society, and Identity, ed. D. Frank (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), 199–245. I thank the presses for their permission to publish this material. * * * I should like to thank those institutions and individuals who have made this work possible. This project began in England, where I held fellowships at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies and Wolfson College, Oxford. I am deeply grateful to both institutions for many years of support. During the past six years, I have found a most congenial home at the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures of the Ohio State University. Both the Department and the Melton Center for Jewish Studies have generously supported my research. I have also received liberal grants from the Institute

preface

xv

of Jewish Studies, London and the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture. In spring 1998, I was the guest of the Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies, Bar-Ilan University, where I presented some of my research; the Center graciously published that paper in Hebrew, which served as the basis for Chapter Four. Most of the texts discussed here remain in manuscript. I read them on microﬁlm either at home or at the Institute of Microﬁlmed Hebrew Manuscripts [IMHM] of the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem. I am especially grateful to the Institute and its remarkable staﬀ—who are as helpful as they are learned—for all their assistance. I should also like to thank the following Libraries for permitting me to consult their manuscripts and to publish passages from them: the British Library, London; the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York; the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris; the Russian National Library, St. Petersburg; and the Institute of Oriental Studies, St. Petersburg. I am very pleased to continue my association with Brill, which now stretches back a decade. My warm thanks to Paul B. Fenton, Editor of the series Études sur le Judaïsme Médiéval, in which this volume appears. I should also like to thank Julian Deahl, Marcella Mulder, and Tanja Cowall, Editors at Brill, and Maribeth E. Siguenza, who typeset a complex text. Finally, I should like to express my gratitude to those scholars who generously assisted me with this project. Haggai Ben-Shammai, Tamar Frank, Bernard R. Goldstein, Daniel J. Lasker, David Malkiel, Marina Rustow, Michael Schwarz, and Sarah Stroumsa all read the manuscript—in whole, in part, or in previous versions—and graciously oﬀered numerous comments, suggestions, and criticisms. Meir Bar-Asher, Alan Cooper, Wilferd Madelung, Gonzalo Rubio-Pardo, and Michael Zwettler all responded promptly to speciﬁc queries. David Sklare brought manuscripts to my attention, checked readings for me, and answered many questions. Joseph Galron, Judaica and Hebraica Librarian at the Ohio State University, quickly and cheerfully obtained books at my request. Barry D. Walﬁsh and Adena Tanenbaum made many valuable suggestions and proofread the entire manuscript. My heartfelt thanks to all of them. My parents, Simon and Yakira Frank, have always taken a deep interest in my research. My wife, Adena Tanenbaum, has been immersed in it for years. They have supported me patiently, devotedly, and with good humor. This book is dedicated to them. “What is mine is yours.”

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER ONE

“SEARCH SCRIPTURE WELL”

The Karaites (qara"im, benei miqra"), Judaism’s oldest surviving sect, derive their name from the Hebrew word for Scripture and their identity from its interpretation.1 Denying the authority of the Rabbinic tradition, they originally sought to ground their laws and beliefs directly in the Bible. During the ninth century, the sect emerged in the Islamic East where its ideology was shaped by the surrounding religious and intellectual milieu. Quite possibly, the ﬁrst Karaites found inspiration in the writings of earlier sectarians such as the Sadducees, although no conclusive evidence for such direct links has yet been discovered. During its earliest phase, the sect was selfconsciously scripturalist, insofar as this was possible. With the gradual establishment of an exegetical consensus, however, both a communal identity and a Karaite tradition were formed. Ultimately, there were (and continue to be) concessions even to Rabbanite tradition. All the same, Karaites have always professed great ﬁdelity to the biblical text, consistently justiﬁying their practices and beliefs on scriptural grounds. Not surprisingly, their attacks on the Rabbinic tradition elicited harsh responses from leading Rabbanite authorities. Polemics between the two groups centered upon questions of legal interpretation. At the same time, the Karaites’ rationalistic, philologically oriented approach to the Bible bears strong aﬃnities to the contextual or pesha† reading advocated by many leading Rabbanites. Alternately diverging and converging, Karaite and Rabbanite modes of exegesis have inﬂuenced each other signiﬁcantly.2 1 On Karaites and Karaism generally, see: Heller and Nemoy, “Karaites” and Lasker, “Karaite Judaism.” For surveys of recent scholarship, see: Frank, “The Study of Medieval Karaism 1959 –1989”; idem, “The Study of Medieval Karaism, 1989–1999”; Ben-Shammai, “Karaites and the Orient”; idem, “The Scholarly Study”; Lasker, Karaism and Jewish Studies; Polliack, “Medieval Karaism” and idem, Karaite Judaism. 2 Throughout this work, the word “Rabbanites” signiﬁes those Jews who accept the authority of the rabbinic tradition or Oral Law (torah she-be'al peh) embodied in the Talmudim of Babylonia and the Land of Israel, the midrashim, and the writings of later rabbinic authorities, notably the Heads of the academies ( ge"onim) in the Islamic East. For our purposes, a Rabbanite, then, is a non-Karaite Jew.

2

chapter one

The following chapters seek to illuminate Karaite exegesis in its formative period, the tenth century.3 In order to provide some context, the present chapter surveys the major exegetes and their approaches, from Anan until the end of the eleventh century, when the Karaite center in Jerusalem, together with the entire Jewish community, was destroyed by the Crusaders.4 We close with a brief study of the well-known dictum, “Search Scripture well, and do not rely on my opinion”; its two component phrases convey the scripturalist imperative that drove the early Karaite exegetical enterprise. Anan b. David and Daniel al-Qùmisì Anan b. David (Iraq, mid-eighth century) is usually connected with the origins of Karaism. For reasons that remain obscure, he came to reject the rabbinic tradition, deriving a new, independent legal system (halakhah) directly from Scripture. Well-versed in the literature of the rabbis, Anan composed a code in Aramaic and employed rabbinic hermeneutics that largely depended on analogies between words and phrases (gezerah shavah, heqqesh). The laws he promulgated, however, diﬀered sharply and self-consciously from those established by the ancient rabbis. To take one example, where the Rabbanites permitted pre-existing ﬁres to continue burning in Jewish homes on the Sabbath, Anan prohibited ﬁre altogether by drawing an analogy between the words teva'aru (“you shall [not] kindle,” Exodus 35:3) and ta'asu (“you shall [not] perform,” Exodus 20:10), which both begin with the letter tav.5 This decision, lacking any contextual rationale, may hardly be deemed “scripturalist”; it points, rather, to the promotion of alternative midreshei halakhah. The strictness of this particular law also typiﬁes Anan’s halakhic outlook; he may be regarded as the founder of a rival legal school (Ar. madhhab) rather than a true sect.6 Certainly, some early Rabbanites regarded him in this light.7

3 For an important overview, see now Polliack, “Major Trends,” nicely complemented by the studies collected in Khan, Exegesis and Grammar. 4 On the crusader conquest and the destruction of the Jerusalem community, see Gil, A History of Palestine, 826–37. 5 See: Harkavy, Zikhron la-rishonim, 69 f.; Nemoy, Karaite Anthology, 17–18; Poznanski, “Anan,” 174–76. 6 Ben-Shammai, “The Karaite Controversy,” 20. 7 So, e.g., Natronai Gaon (ninth c.); see Ben-Shammai, ibid., 18.

“search

scripture well”

3

His followers, on the other hand—the Ananites—constituted one of several Jewish sects that ﬂourished in the Islamic East under the Abbasid Caliphate. The Karaites emerged in the same period, either as an oﬀshoot of the Ananites or as an independent scripturalist group. Apparently, the two sects coalesced during the tenth and eleventh centuries. Karaite writings from this period frequently refer to Ananite positions, which are often rejected. All the same, Anan was still regarded as “the ﬁrst to reveal the whole truth about the laws.”8 Among the early sectarian leaders who came after Anan, Benjamin b. Moses alNahàwandì (ﬁrst half of the ninth century) is the most frequently cited by later Karaite authorities.9 But the key ﬁgure in early Karaite history was Daniel al-Qùmisì (or al-Dàmaghànì), who originally admired Anan but later despised his teachings. Al-Qùmisì was the ﬁrst Karaite to polemicize explicitly against Rabbanite Judaism and to advocate real scripturalism.10 For ideological reasons, he emigrated to Jerusalem from his native Tabaristan (northern Iran) during the last quarter of the ninth century. Renouncing the sinfulness of Diaspora Judaism which he blamed upon a corrupt rabbinic leadership, he joined “the remnant, who come from (every) land to Jerusalem in penitence, and in order to observe the religious commandments before (the advent of ) the time of trouble.”11 While he was not much cited by later authors, his philological and prognostic approach to Scripture inﬂuenced the Karaite "avelei ßiyyon (“Mourners for Zion”) of tenth-century Jerusalem. Our main sources for his teachings are writings ascribed to him and references in Ya'qùb al-Qirqisànì’s Kitàb al-anwàr wa’l-Maràqib. 8

See al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr, I.2.14, vol. 1, p. 13, lines 3–4 (trans. Lockwood, 103). Cf. Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on Psalms (Marwick) 69:1, p. 89, lines 3–6. On the connections between the two groups see esp. Ben-Shammai, “Between Ananites and Karaites.” See also Gil, “The Origins of the Karaites.” 9 On Benjamin, see Mann, Texts and Studies, 2:11–12, 17 and Nemoy, Karaite Anthology, 21–29. 10 See al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr I.1.3, vol. 1, pp. 4–5 (trans. Lockwood, 94–95); Ben-Shammai, “The Karaite Controversy,” 23–24; idem, “Return to the Scriptures,” 328–30. On the historical background to Daniel’s activities, see idem, “Fragments.” 11 See Daniel al-Qùmisì’s comment on Joel 3:5 (Pitron, 30). The passage has been noted by Shohat, “The Opinions,” 10. Shohat notes important correspondences between the Pitron and the “Tract of an Early Karaite Settler” published by Mann and reedited by Nemoy as “The Pseudo-Qùmisìan Sermon”; see p. 127 and n. 11. Though cautious about ascribing the work to Daniel, Nemoy acknowledges that it “palpably belongs to a very early period of Karaite history” (50).

4

chapter one

Al-Qùmisì is the earliest Jewish exegete whose works have survived to any real degree.12 Although he was a proliﬁc author, only his commentary on Minor Prophets (Pitron sheneim 'asar) has been preserved virtually intact; fragments of other works have also been recovered.13 Composed in Hebrew, these are not midrashim but true commentaries. While al-Qùmisì refers (anonymously) to other scholars, he projects a clear authorial voice and provides unambiguous interpretations.14 He proceeds verse by verse, frequently glossing the text in Arabic and oﬀering clear, concise explanations.15 Most strikingly, he interprets the biblical prophecies prognostically, referring many of them to his own time. Al-Qùmisì may well have derived this type of exegesis from ancient sectarian writings that circulated in the Middle Ages; we will discuss its importance to the Jerusalem Karaites below. According to Ya'qùb al-Qirqisànì, al-Qùmisì advocated speculation and research in religious matters, constantly rethinking his postions and even instructing his disciples to correct copies of his works accordingly. At the same time, he was apparently “dissatisﬁed with reason, disowning it and frequently criticizing its practitioners in his books.”16 Al-Qùmisì drew a distinction between the rationalistic, philo-

12 A two-folio fragment of a commentary on Genesis has recently been attributed to Dàwùd b. Marwàn al-Muqammaß, an older contemporary of al-Qùmisì’s; see n. 29 below. 13 Daniel al-Qùmisì, Pitron. On this work, see: Markon, “Daniel al-Kumisi ein Karäischer Schrifterklärer”; idem, “The Karaite Daniel al-Kumisi”; and Shohat, “The Opinions.” Al-Qùmisì’s authorship has been disputed by Marwick, “Daniel al-Qùmisì and the Pitròn,” but his arguments have been convincingly rebutted by Wieder, The Judean Scrolls, 265–69. For al-Qùmisì’s Commentary on Psalms, see Marmorstein, “Fragments” and idem, “Seridim.” For the Commentary on Daniel, see BenShammai, “Fragments of Daniel al-Qùmisì’s Commentary.” On the Code, see ch. 2 below. Many exegetical fragments have been attributed to al-Qùmisì; see Mann, Texts and Studies, 2:8–18. Some of these ascriptions have been questioned; see, e.g., Zucker, Rav Saadya Gaon’s Translation, 182–84, n. 712. For recent discussions of al-Qùmisì’s exegesis, see: Ben-Shammai, “Fragments”; Polliack, “On the Question of the Pesher’s Inﬂuence”; idem, “Major Trends,” 372–88 14 See, e.g., his explicit rejection of an interpretation ad Jon 1:1 (Pitron, 41): “Some people said . . . but this is not the case.” For other indications of an authorial voice see, e.g., the comments on Zeph 2:5 (ibid., 57): “. . . which I explained in the Book of Nahum” and Zech 1:8 (ibid., 62): “In my humble opinion . . .” (ki-me"at da'ati ). 15 For Arabic glosses, see, e.g.: Pitron, p. 26, nn. 5, 28 ( Joel 1:4,7); p. 36, n. 7 (Amos 6:3); p. 40, nn. 8, 9 (Obad 14); p. 42, n. 16 ( Jon 4:10); p. 44, n. 1 (Mic 2:3). Occasional Persian glosses reﬂect Daniel’s place of origin; see, e.g., Pitron, p. 60 (Hag 1:6). 16 See al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr I.1.3, vol. 1, pp. 4–5 (trans. Lockwood, 94);

“search

scripture well”

5

logical interpretation of Scripture (which was desirable) and the study of alien wisdom (which could be dangerous).17 His disdain for Anan probably derived from the latter’s unrestrained use of analogy in deriving new laws, an approach that scarcely seemed to diﬀer from Rabbinic modes of exegesis. Al-Qùmisì attacks Rabbinic Judaism for devising a man-made tradition which he brands mißvat "anashim melummadah, “commandment of men learned by rote” (Isaiah 29:13).18 He also rejects the rabbinic notion that Scripture possesses multiple meanings. Unlike the Rabbanites, who maintain that the Torah may be interpreted in forty-nine ways, he insists that the task of the honest interpreter is to discover the one correct interpretation of every biblical verse through the exercise of reason.19 While uncertainties are inevitable, the Teacher of Righteousness will arrive at the End of Days to clarify all ambiguities. This appeal to the Teacher, whom al-Qùmisì identiﬁes elsewhere with Elijah, is strongly reminiscent of Qumran pesher.20 And the designation of Elijah as the ﬁnal arbiter at the End of Days is familiar from rabbinic sources. Where al-Qùmisì parts company with his contemporaries, however, is in denying them the possibility of multiple, conﬂicting traditions.

see also I.18, vol. 1, pp. 58–59 (trans. Lockwood, 151). Al-Qirqisànì also states that al-Qùmisì was the last to establish a school of thought (Ar. madhhab), compose a book, and gain a following; see ibid., I.2.20, vol. 1, p. 14, lines 8–10 (trans. Lockwood, 104). 17 See the fragments of al-Qùmisì’s Kitàb al-taw˙ìd (“Book on the Divine Unity”) in Zucker, Rav Saadya Gaon’s Translation, 176–78, esp. 177, lines 2–6 (trans. p. 180, lines 7 ﬀ.), and 480–85. 18 See, e.g., his comments on Hos 1:9 (Pitron, 1), 5:11 (ibid., 8), and 6:1–2 (ibid., 9). On the Karaite use of the phrase, see Wieder, The Judean Scrolls, 259–63. The phrase recurs in Kitàb al-taw˙ìd; see Zucker, ibid., 482–85. 19 For the Rabbanite notion that the Torah can be interpreted in forty-nine ways, see Bacher, Exegetische Terminologie, 2:157, s.v. “panim,” citing inter alia ySanhedrin 22a and Pesiqta Rabbati 21, fol. 101a. (According to Numbers Rabbah 13:16, fol. 54, col. c, the number is seventy.) In his comment on Mal 2:9 (Pitron, 78), al-Qùmisì writes: “And so I have set My face against you (so that) you are despised and abased in the eyes of the nations, for you have promoted non-literal interpretations of the Torah (innakum rafa'tum al-ta"wìlàt fì ’l-tawrìya), saying that there are forty-nine ways ( panim) of interpreting the Torah.” It should also be said that his rendering of the biblical expression nasa panim (“show partiality”) is neither idiomatic nor literal. For his statement that “every word in the Bible has but one true interpretation,” see the comment on Ps 74:6, cited below, p. 45 n. 45. 20 On the Teacher of Righteousness, see below, ibid.

chapter one

6

Polemics Between Saadya Gaon and Karaite Scholars The Karaite attacks on the Rabbinic tradition led them to criticize the great Rabbanite institutions of the day: the Exilarchate, the Gaonate, and the Academies, together with the literary instruments of geonic authority, the Mishnah and Talmud. The polemic between the Karaites and Rabbanites reached its climax in the harsh exchanges between the greatest of the Babylonian Geonim, Saadya b. Joseph (882–942), and several sectarian scholars. The Gaon’s views are attested in his polemical poem “"E≤≤a meshali” (“I take up my parable”), fragments of Judeo-Arabic tracts, and lengthy citations in the works of his opponents. The Karaite position is abundantly documented in the works of such scholars as Ya'qùb al-Qirqisànì, Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, and Japheth b. Eli.21 In Saadya’s view, the Rabbis did not produce a new body of halakhah; rather, they codiﬁed and set down an Oral Law which had existed since Moses’ day. This Oral Law, he maintains, is essential to any proper understanding of the Law, particularly of the ceremonial commandments. Only tradition can provide knowledge of the “revealed” laws and their details, argues the Gaon in the introduction to his commentary on Genesis. Thus, the Bible does not indicate the required number of fringes to be worn (Numbers 15:38), the dimensions of the booths in which Jews are to dwell (Leviticus 23:42), the nature of the labor prohibited on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10), or even the order of prayer. These laws are all mandated by the Tradition that preserves the practices of Moses and the Israelites who received the Sinaitic revelation.22 In rebutting Saadya’s arguments, Salmon maintains that the details of some commandments were not precisely prescribed because they were left to the individual’s discretion. Other laws can be derived directly from the Bible by rational means. Al-Qirqisànì adds that the Rabbanites are 21

See Poznanski, “The Anti-Karaite Writings”; idem, “The Karaite Literary Opponents of Saadiah Gaon in the Tenth Century”; Hirschfeld, “The Arabic Portion of the Cairo Genizah”; Harkavy, “Fragments of anti-Karaite writings”; Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia, ch. 6, esp. 96–99. A more idiomatic translation of “"E≤≤a meshali” might be “I hold forth”; the word mashal in the title likely alludes to its poetic form. The work was edited by Lewin, “‘"E≤≤a meshali’ le-Rasag”; for a list of fragments published subsequently, see Fleischer, “Saadya Gaon’s Place,” 11, n. 28. The poem inspired a Karaite response in verse, Salmon b. Yeru˙ìm’s Sefer Mil˙amot Ha-Shem. 22 He advances seven arguments; see Commentary on Genesis, 13–15 (Ar.), 180–84 (Heb.); Harris, How Do We Know This, 76–77. See further below, p. 38.

“search

scripture well”

7

inconsistent: although they wear fringes, they omit the blue cord mandated by Scripture; although their tradition prohibits certain activities on the Sabbath, it permits others in direct violation of the biblical text. Both Karaites insist that the Bible contains liturgical instruction and speciﬁc prayers (e.g., Daniel 6:11, 9:3 ﬀ.).23 There is an irony here. While the sectarians had originally attacked the Rabbis’ derivation of new laws from the Bible by means of certain hermeneutic principles, they in turn elaborated their own body of exegetical rules.24 For their part, many Rabbanites—following the lead of Saadya Gaon—came to downplay the role of midrash halakhah, insisting instead on the wholesale acceptance of the Oral Law.25 And though the Karaites continued to deny the binding authority of the Rabbinic tradition, they inevitably came to accept the force of their own received teachings which they dubbed sevel ha-yerushah (“the burden of the inheritance”).26 The two groups would soon diﬀer far more sharply over the authority of their respective legal traditions than over the methods by which their laws were derived from the Bible. Saadya and his Karaite adversaries lived in an Islamic environment and Arabic culture permeated their works. While Saadya was an important Hebrew poet and at least a few Karaites composed verse, these scholars wrote their prose in Arabic.27 Familiar with contemporary Islamic and Christian writings, they developed genres that were new to the Jewish literary tradition: dictionaries, grammars, codes, and theological treatises. Aimed at a sophisticated Jewish audience that was losing interest in traditional Hebrew and Aramaic texts, the new works fully exploited Arabic rhetorical models, stylistic devices, and technical terminology.28 This enterprise gave birth to the ﬁrst true Jewish commentaries on the Bible. Unlike midrashim, these works project clear authorial

23 Salmon ben Yerù˙ìm, Wars of the Lord, 47 (trans. Nemoy, Karaite Anthology, 80–82); al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr, II.14.2–3 and II.15, vol. 1, pp. 124–25, 128–32. 24 Some of these are identical with rabbinic hermeneutical principles; see alQirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr, IV, vol. 2, pp. 343–470, trans. Vajda, “Études sur Qirqisànì,” and idem, “Études sur Qirqisànì, IV.” 25 Harris, How Do We Know This, chap. 4. 26 Wieder, “Three Terms for Tradition.” 27 For a recent assessment of Saadya as a poet, see Fleischer, “Saadya Gaon’s Place.” 28 See Drory, The Emergence of Hebrew-Arabic Literary Contacts.

8

chapter one

voices and oﬀer systematic interpretations. They include programmatic introductions (muqaddimàt, ßudùr), complete Arabic translations of the biblical text, and embedded excursuses on a wide variety of topics. Rationalistically and philologically inclined, the authors also delineate a scriptural book’s principal themes and seek to deﬁne its central message. These works were likely modeled in part on Christian Bible commentaries. According to al-Qirqisànì, a Syrian Jew, Dàwùd b. Marwàn al-Muqammaß (ﬂ. mid-late ninth century) translated Syriac commentaries on Genesis and Ecclesiastes into Arabic. Al-Muqammaß had converted to Christianity and studied with the theologian Nànà (i.e., Nonnus) in Nisibis, before reverting to his ancestral faith. Presumably, he adapted his Arabic versions of Christian texts for a Jewish audience. Recently, a small fragment of a commentary on Genesis has been plausibly attributed to al-Muqammaß—perhaps all that survives of his exegetical endeavors.29 Saadya Gaon was unquestionably the ﬁrst to write original Bible commentaries on a large scale, but the tenth-century Karaite exegetes in Iraq and Jerusalem far surpassed him in the volume, if not the quality, of their compositions.30 Ya'qùb al-Qirqisànì Ya'qùb al-Qirqisànì was the leading Karaite scholar in the ﬁrst half of the tenth century. Only a small part of the many works that he composed in his native Iraq have survived: his code, The Book of Lights and Watchtowers (Kitàb al-anwàr wa’l-maràqib); portions of his Book of Gardens and Parks (Kitàb al-riyà∂ wa’l-˙adà"iq), a commentary on the

29 On al-Muqammaß and his exegesis, see Stroumsa, “From the Earliest Known Judaeo-Arabic Commentary on Genesis” and the literature cited there; the article includes an edition and translation of TS Ar. 52.184, a two-folio fragment from the Cairo Genizah. See also Stroumsa, “The Impact of Syriac Tradition.” For alQirqisànì’s biographical notice on al-Muqammaß, see Kitàb al-anwàr, I.8.5, vol. 1, p. 44, lines 9–16 (trans. Lockwood, 137). 30 The literature on Saadya’s exegetical activity is far too large to survey here. For now, see: Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia, 300–15; Ben-Shammai, “The Exegetical and Philosophical Writing of Saadya Gaon”; and Rosenthal, “Saadya Gaon: An Appreciation of His Biblical Exegesis.” Saadya’s introductions to his commentaries have elicited considerable interest; see: Rivlin, “Haqdamot Rasag”; Ben-Shammai, “Saadya’s Introduction to Isaiah”; idem, “Saadya’s Introduction to Daniel”; Sokolow, “Saadiah Gaon’s Prolegomenon to Psalms”; and Simon, Four Approaches, ch. 1. On Saadya’s tafsìr, see Zucker, Rav Saadya Gaon’s Translation of the Torah.

“search

scripture well”

9

non-legal portions of the Pentateuch; and fragments of a separate commentary on Genesis (Tafsìr bereishit).31 Like Saadya, al-Qirqisànì wrote in Arabic, the lingua franca of the Islamic East whose rich technical vocabulary admirably suited his needs. He regarded his code and commentaries as part of a single exegetical project, encompassing the legal and narrative sections of Scripture. His rationalism and broad learning are apparent throughout his oeuvre. He cites both Jewish (Rabbanite and Karaite) and non-Jewish authorities and applies secular knowledge to the resolution of religious and exegetical problems. Carefully structured, Kitàb al-anwàr includes a lengthy methodological discussion in which al-Qirqisànì sets forth the sources of legal authority, the manner in which the Bible presents legislation, and the various modes of legal reasoning. Both Karaites and Ananites, he explains, derive their knowledge of the law from three sources: Scripture, analogy, and consensus. While the ancient rabbis accepted these legal roots, their modern successors deny the validity of analogy since they ﬁnd that many of their practices are undermined when they are subjected to critical reasoning.32 Al-Qirqisànì’s aﬃrmation of analogy (qiyàs) as a means of constructive legislation leads him to consider the hermeneutics of classical rabbinic halakhah, the so-called Thirteen Principles of Rabbi Ishmael enunciated at the beginning of the Sifra to Leviticus.33 Examining each of the principles in turn, he accepts some—e.g., qal va-˙omer or reasoning a fortiori—while rejecting others (e.g., gezerah shavah, inference from similar phrases). Though he does not reject several of these rules per se, he objects to their application by the Rabbanites.34 As a general rule, he asserts that all precepts should be understood according to their plain sense unless this would express something manifestly false or would imply a contradiction:

31 Al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr. For translated sections see: Nemoy, Karaite Anthology, 42–53; idem, “Al-Qirqisànì’s Account”; Chiesa and Lockwood, Ya'qùb al-Qirqisànì on Jewish Sects and Christianity; and Vajda, “Études sur Qirqisànì, I–V”. For the most part, the commentaries remain unedited and unpublished. Ben-Shammai, “The Doctrines,” includes extensive excerpts and analyses. See also: Chiesa, “A New Fragment”; idem, Creazione e caduta, esp. 41–47; idem, Filologia storica, 1:166–86; Chiesa and Lockwood, “Al-Qirqisànì’s Newly-found Commentary.” 32 Kitàb al-anwàr, IV.0, vol. 2, p. 343; see Vajda, “Études, III,” 63. 33 He refers to them as the thirteen “gates” or “categories”. On the principles of Rabbi Ishmael see Kasher, “The Interpretation of Scripture,” 584–86. 34 Vajda, “Études, III,” 73–74.

10

chapter one This principle applies not only to the precepts but also to all biblical texts, including narratives (akhbàr) and others. We have already provided certain explanations of this matter. In eﬀect, were it permissible to attribute a hidden (bà†in) meaning to certain precepts—diﬀerent from the plain sense—without there being any necessity of doing so, we would have grounds for doing this with all the commandments and they would become invalid, their true meaning becoming unknown, since the hidden meaning (al-bà†in), i.e., the ﬁgurative interpretation (al-ta"wìl), might be extended in any direction, developing according to the wishes of each interpreter. This would obviously be the ultimate perversion; there is no need to elaborate upon it.35

At best, allegorization is a last resort. At worst, it represents a threat to the community whose very existence depends upon a uniﬁed understanding of Scripture. For Karaites this means seeking a “plain sense” (Ωàhir) in both legal and non-legal contexts. As an example of unacceptable ﬁgurative interpretation, al-Qirqisànì singles out Anan’s exegesis of the commandment “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.”36 Relating the injunction to the preceding clause in Exodus 23:19 and 34:26 (“the ﬁrst of the ﬁrst fruits of your ground you shall bring into the house of the Lord your God”), Anan takes the phrase as an injunction against delaying the bringing of the ﬁrst fruits to the Temple by leaving them to ripen in the ground. AlQirqisànì points to the third verse (Deuteronomy 14:21), arguing that its context (“You shall not eat anything that dies of itself . . .”) will admit only a literal interpretation, viz., a prohibition of eating ﬂesh. Now, since the expression per se is perfectly intelligible without allegorization, there is no reason for doing so and it must be taken literally in all three instances.37 The introduction to Kitàb al-riyà∂ also contains important programmatic statements explaining al-Qirqisànì’s motivations, exegetical aims, and methods.38 Arguing that revealed truths can only be ascertained by reason, he points to Solomon as a model religious philosopher and cites numerous verses as mandates for speculation.

35

Kitàb al-anwàr, IV.22.1, vol. 2, pp. 385–86; See Vajda, “Études, III,” 74–75. Kitàb al-anwàr, IV.22.2, vol. 2, p. 386; See Vajda, “Études, III,” 75. 37 Cf. the extended discussion in Kitàb al-anwàr, vol. 5, pp. 1226–27 and alQirqisànì’s criticism of rabbinic exegesis, ibid., 1213. Cf. Zucker, Rav Saadya Gaon’s Translation, 161. 38 For the text, see Hirschfeld, Qirqisani Studies, 39–59 (mistitled Tafsir Bereishit). For partial translations with notes, see: Nemoy, Karaite Anthology, 53–68; Vajda, “Du prologue de Qirqisànì”; and Chiesa, “Dai ‘Principi dell’esegesi biblica’ di Qirqisânî.” 36

“search

scripture well”

11

Isaiah 41:20, for example, supports the inference of a Creator from the observation of His creation—the standard argument by analogy in Islamic theology. And Psalm 19:8–10 assures us of the Law’s intrinsic rationality, truth, and clarity, hallmarks of its perfection. Having demonstrated the need for religious speculation, al-Qirqisànì sets forth thirty-seven exegetical premises;39 these include: (1) that Moses wrote the Pentateuch; (2) that Scripture must be interpreted literally, except where this would entail contradiction;40 (3) that the Hebrew language is primordial; (4) that anthropomorphism is a means of accommodation (“Scripture speaks in human language”);41 (5) that the Bible clearly labels all false statements as such; (6) that biblical dialogue may be recorded either in the original language (e.g., Aramaic) or in Hebrew translation; (7) that the details of a given narrative may be furnished from several biblical accounts; (8) that biblical style admits both prolixity and brevity; and (9) that events are not always presented in chronological order.42 Al-Qirqisànì’s openness to contemporary speculative trends obviously inﬂuenced his exegesis. In his Commentary on Genesis 1, for example, he describes the world in terms of bodies, accidents, and substances and posits four principal, created elements—earth, air, water, and ﬁre—from which the rest of the world was fashioned. He refers the biblical “heavens” (shamayim) to the philosophers’ spheres. And he employs the well-known argument from design in demonstrating the createdness of the world.43 He also discussed exegetical matters with at least one Christian ecclesiastic.44 The Iraqi environment in which al-Qirqisànì lived clearly fostered such scholarly exchanges; the main stage of Karaite activity, however, was shifting westward. 39

The text breaks oﬀ in the middle of the twenty-fourth. Cf. Saadya Gaon, Kitàb al-Amànàt 7:2, trans. Rosenblatt, The Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 265–67. 41 Al-Qirqisànì cites the rabbinic dictum dibberah torah ki-leshon benei adam (bBerakhot 31b). On its signiﬁcance in rabbinic literature see Kasher, “Interpretation,” 588–89. 42 Cf. the rabbinic "ein muqdam u-me"u˙ar ba-torah (bPesa˙im 6b); on its signiﬁcance in rabbinic literature see Kasher, “Interpretation,” 590–91. For al-Qirqisànì’s application of the rule, see his commentary to Gen 12:4 in Chiesa and Lockwood, “Newly-found Commentary,” 173. 43 See Ben-Shammai, “The Doctrines,” vol. 1, chap. 5 for a full discussion. For al-Qirqisànì’s view concerning the four elements, see ibid., 120–22. 44 He refers respectfully to Isho'zekha, bishop of Ukbara; see Kitàb al-anwàr, III.6.16, vol. 2, p. 220, and Brock, “Jewish Traditions,” 230. The impact of Christian writings upon Jewish exegetes writing in Arabic requires further study; for now see Chiesa, Creazione e caduta dell’uomo, and Stroumsa, “The Impact of Syriac Tradition.” 40

12

chapter one The Jerusalem School (ca. 950–1099)

During the second half of the tenth century, Jerusalem emerged as the Karaites’ spiritual and intellectual center.45 Since al-Qùmisì’s time, Mourners for Zion had settled in the Holy City; now, as the community became ﬁrmly established, Karaite scholarly activity ﬂourished. Seeking to persuade Rabbanites and encourage their cosectarians, leading ﬁgures like Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Japheth b. Eli, David b. Abraham al-Fàsì, Sahl b. Maßlia˙ and David b. Boaz produced a large body of Judeo-Arabic literature—including commentaries, codes, and grammatical works—most of it exegetical in nature.46 Their Bible commentaries are complex and multi-tiered, embodying substantial prefaces, complete Arabic translations of the scriptural text, and verse-by-verse explications.47 Much of this corpus is extant in manuscript, awaiting publication and analysis. Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Japheth b. Eli, and Sahl b. Maßlia˙ Active around the middle of the tenth-century, Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm is chieﬂy remembered for the versiﬁed Hebrew polemic he directed against Saadya Gaon.48 But he also wrote commentaries on the Psalms, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther.49

45 On the community, its ideology, and leadership, see: Ben-Sasson, “The Karaite Community”; Ben-Shammai, “The Karaites”; idem, “New Data”; idem, “The Location”; Erder, “The Negation of Exile”; idem, “The Mourners”; Gil, A History of Palestine, 777–820; Mann, Texts and Studies, 2:3–120; Poznanski, “Reshit”; idem, “The Karaite Literary Opponents of Saadiah Gaon in the Tenth Century,” 220–50; Walﬁsh, “The Mourners of Zion”; Wieder, The Judean Scrolls. 46 Salmon, Japheth, and Sahl will be discussed below. David al-Fàsì was a lexicographer and exegete, active during the late tenth century. See Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ, with an extensive introduction by Skoss; Marwick, “A First Fragment”; and Maman, “The Lexical Element.” On David b. Boaz, see EJ 5:1349. 47 Karaite Bible translations diverge markedly from Saadya’s classicizing style, often tending towards a slavish literalism. On their singular character, see Polliack, “Medieval Karaite Views,” and idem, The Karaite Tradition. 48 See Salmon b. Yeru˙ìm, Sefer mil˙amot ha-shem. For a translated selection, see Nemoy, Karaite Anthology, 69–82. 49 These are all extant; see: Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on Psalms (Marwick); idem, Commentary on Psalms (Alobaidi); Shunary, “Salmon Ben Yeruham’s Commentary”; Vajda, “Le Psaume VIII”; idem, “La Péricope”; Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on Lamentations (Feuerstein); Marwick, “Studies”; Ben-Shammai, “Poetic Works and Lamentations”; Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on Ecclesiastes; and Vajda, Deux com-

“search

scripture well”

13

Internal references would seem to indicate, remarkably, that the ﬁrst three were composed during 955–56.50 In choosing which books he would explicate, he seems to have been guided by speciﬁc communal needs. Rather than attempting a commentary on the entire Bible or even the Pentateuch, he selected books that held special signiﬁcance for the "avelei ßiyyon: the Psalms and Lamentations provided the community’s main liturgical texts; the Song of Songs and Daniel were both regarded as prognostic works containing information concerning the imminent End of Days; Ecclesiastes and Proverbs furnished theological and ethical guidance. Salmon was more a compiler than an original exegete. While he mentions the eﬀorts of earlier anonymous commentators disparagingly, he operates within an established tradition. The Introduction to his commentary on Psalms is devoted to justifying the Karaites’ choice of the Psalter as their main prayer book over the Rabbanite siddur championed by Saadya. Against Saadya, he argues that David was not the actual author of every Psalm but rather that he compiled the Psalter; Moses (Psalm 90), Solomon (Psalms 72, 127), Jeduthun and Asaph (Psalm 77), and the sons of Korah (Ps 44) all composed prayers via inspiration. For the Mourners, the Psalms were prophetic compositions intended by their ancient authors not only for the Temple service but also as prayers for future generations, i.e., for the period of Exile which they now experienced.51 Salmon’s work, therefore, is really a liturgical commentary for contemporary worshipers.52 The commentary on Lamentations goes even further: it apparently embodies the community’s liturgy of mourning and includes Hebrew dirges and litanies.53 All the same, Salmon’s works do betray a distinctive authorial voice, advancing criticisms of earlier scholars and suggesting preferred interpretations. They also feature

mentaires. The commentary on Song of Songs is discussed below, ch. 4. For the commentary on Esther, see Wechsler, “An Early Karaite Commentary,” 106–107, and n. 25. Salmon’s commentaries on the books of Job, Proverbs, Daniel, and Isaiah have apparently not survived. 50 See Poznanski, “Karaite Miscellanies,” p. 688, nn. 2–4 and Marwick, “Studies,” p. 319, nn. 20 and 21. 51 Shunary, “Salmon Ben Yeruham’s Commentary,” and Simon, Four Approaches, 59–71. 52 Japheth ben Eli’s commentary on the Psalter had much the same function; see below, ch. 5. 53 Ben-Shammai, “Poetic Works and Lamentations.”

14

chapter one

extensive homilies on biblical passages that are not the immediate subjects of discussion.54 Japheth b. Eli (Abù ’l-Óasan b. 'Alì al-Baßrì, active ca. 960–1005) was the ﬁrst Jew to write commentaries on the entire Bible.55 His works are far more systematic than Salmon’s in both form and content. His introductions are usually methodical examinations of a biblical book’s central themes, aims, and authorship. The commentaries feature complete translations of the text and word-by-word (or phraseby-phrase) explications of each verse, indicating alternative interpretations. Occasionally Japheth oﬀers grammatical observations.56 Like Saadya, he displays a fondness for categorization and enumeration. In discussing revelation, for example, he lists eight purposes for prophetic missions and six degrees of prophecy.57 He is also sensitive

54

See, e.g., the homily on Isa 52–53 in the Commentary on Psalms 72, discussed by Vajda, “La Péricope” and the homily on Isa 5 embedded in the Introduction to the Commentary on Song of Songs, RNL MS Yevr.-Arab I.1406, fols. 8a–11b. 55 On Japheth, see: Nemoy, Karaite Anthology, 83–108; Ben-Shammai, “The Doctrines”; idem, “Edition and Versions”; Birnbaum, “Yefet ben Ali”; Erder, “The Attitude of . . . Yefet . . . to Islam”; idem, “The Attitude of . . . Yefet . . . to Moral Issues”; Polliack, “Major Trends,” 389–410; Vajda, Deux commentaires karaïtes; idem, “The Opinions”; and idem, “Quelques aggadôt.” On Japheth’s dates, see the colophon to BL ms. Or. 2554, a manuscript of Japheth’s Commentary on the Song of Songs. According to Margoliouth, Catalogue, 1:224, no. 301, the colophon indicates that Japheth was still alive in A.H. 395 (1004/5 C.E.). Gil, however, reads the date as 375 A.H. (985/6 C.E.); see A History of Palestine, 789. On the manuscripts of Japheth’s commentaries in Western European collections, see Ben-Shammai, “The Doctrines,” 2:1–17 and Tamani, “La Tradizione.” There are hundreds more in the Russian National Library, St. Petersburg; for now, see Ben-Shammai et al., JudaeoArabic Manuscripts . . . Yefet . . . on Genesis. There have been many partial editions of Japheth’s works since Bargès published the Introduction and commentary to Psalms 1 and 2 (with Latin translation) in 1846; complete editions, however, remain rare. The commentaries on Hosea, Nahum, Song of Songs, and Daniel were published long ago (see Bibliography); these editions vary considerably in quality. See also Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Minor Prophets ( Joel-Micah), a posthumous, private printing of Lawrence Marwick’s edition. In recent years, the situation has been improving. The commentary on Ruth has just appeared, with Hebrew translation; see Butbul, “The Commentary of Yefet ben 'Eli . . . on . . . Ruth”—a text discussed by Blumﬁeld, “Yefet ben 'Eli on the Identity of the ‘Redeemer.’” Other works-inprogress include a new edition of the commentary on Hosea (Meira Polliack and Eliezer Schlossberg), editions of Obadiah and Jonah (idem), Zechariah, (Cees de Vreugd), Malachi (Yosef Hanani), and Esther (Michael G. Wechsler). See Wechsler, “The Arabic Translation and Commentary of Yefet ben 'Eli on Proverbs 31:10–31,” 284, n. 5. Other studies of Japheth’s exegesis are noted elsewhere in this volume. 56 On Japheth’s grammatical comments, see his Commentary on Hosea, xxxvi–xxxvii and Munk, Notice sur Abou’l-Walid, 16–40. 57 In the Introduction to his Commentary on Hosea, 1–3 he explains that the purposes of prophetic missions are: (1) to communicate laws; (2) to perform miracles;

“search

scripture well”

15

to literary questions. In treating the Solomonic books he addresses the problem of generic classiﬁcation, distinguishing between various types of song (shir) and parable (mashal ).58 He discerns diﬀerent types of scriptural discourse and perceives the larger textual units that constitute a biblical book; in his comments on Exodus 1:1 and Deuteronomy 1:1, for example, he precisely delineates each book’s main sections.59 In his commentary on the Psalms, he explains how the biblical editor arranged the Psalter and seeks the thematic connection between each Psalm and its predecessor.60 Japheth’s discussions frequently become short essays and his commentaries on certain books, e.g., Ecclesiastes and Job, are virtual monographs on speciﬁc subjects. Japheth’s contemporary Abù ’l-Surrì Sahl b. Maßlia˙ is best known for a polemical tract aimed at the Rabbanite scholar Jacob b. Samuel.61 He also composed codes of civil and ceremonial law, as well as a Torah commentary.62 There were many diﬀerences of opinion between Japheth and Sahl concerning points of law; these were catalogued in a special work by Japheth’s son Levi.63 Judging by their respective commentaries on Genesis, however, Japheth and Sahl approached the non-legal portions of Scripture in much the same fashion; very frequently, in fact, their interpretations of speciﬁc passages concur. One distinctive feature of Sahl’s Torah commentary, however, is the

(3) to encourage repentance; (4) to intercede through prayer; (5) to proclaim future events; (6) to recount the deeds of the past; (7) to compose books for later generations; and (8) to oﬀer consolation for the Exile. On this passage, see Polliack and Schlossberg, “Historical-literary, Rhetorical and Redactional Methods,” 10–12, 20–22. The six degrees of prophecy are enumerated in various contexts, e.g., the comment on Num 12:6–7; see Sirat, Les Théories, 47–49 and ch. 3 below, p. 101, n. 29. 58 See the Commentary on Song of Songs 1:1, pp. iii–iv and the Commentary on Proverbs (Günzig) 1:1, pp. vi–vii. On the classiﬁcation of biblical songs, see below, ch. 4, p. 155. 59 See the Commentary on Exodus, RNL MS Yevr.-Arab I.0121, fols. 5b–6b and the Commentary on Deuteronomy, RNL ms. Yevr-Arab I.0114, fols. 1b–3a. According to Japheth, Exodus comprises ﬁve sections and Deuteronomy six. 60 Simon, Four Approaches, 88–93; see also below, ch. 5. 61 See: Pinsker, Lickute Kadmoniot, 2:24–43; Nemoy, Karaite Anthology, 109–22; idem, “The Epistle of Sahl ben Masliah”; and idem, “Sahl ben MaΩlia˙ ha-Kohen Abu al-Surri.” 62 The Hebrew Introduction to his code of ceremonial law (Sefer mißvot) contains important information about the practices of the Mourners for Zion; see Harkavy, “Me"assef Nidda˙im, no. 13.” For the commentary on Exodus, see Mann, Texts and Studies, 2:2:87–88 and Sokolow, “Kidnapping.” 63 See BL MSS Or. 2573 and 2574.

16

chapter one

muqaddima, or introductory homily, which he composed for each weekly parashah. Artfully constructed pieces, these muqaddimàt weave a web of exegetical connections between the pentateuchal lection, its corresponding Psalm, and a ﬁxed hagiographic reading.64 Fittingly— for an apocalyptically minded community—they draw parallels between the ancestral narratives and the prophetic texts that shaped the group’s ideology.

Prognostic Exegesis One of the most striking aspects of the Jerusalem Karaites’ exegesis is its prognostic approach to biblical prophecies and songs, including the Psalms, the Song of Songs, and such passages as Genesis 49, Exodus 15, the oracles of Balaam in Numbers 23–24, Deuteronomy 32–33, and I Samuel 2. Like the pesharim of the Dead Sea sect, Karaite commentaries refer biblical prophecies to the recent past, the present, and the immediate future.65 An apocalyptic conviction that the present lies at the threshold of the Messianic Era lends power and urgency to this approach.66 For Karaites in tenth-century Jerusalem, the Bible predicted current events and described contemporary institutions. In the Kenite of Numbers 24:21, for example, they saw a reference to the Fatimid dynasty that had emerged in North Africa, and in the profanation of the Temple and the removal of the continual burnt oﬀering (Daniel 11:31) they found an allusion to the Carmathian raid on the sanctuary in Mecca and the suspension of the ˙ajj.67 Similarly, the ephah and the leaden weight of Zechariah 5 represented the Mishnah and the Talmud, while the two women (vv. 9–11) symbolized the Babylonian Academies.68

64 A large fragment of Sahl’s commentary on Genesis is preserved in RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I:4633; for extracts, see Mann, Texts 2:68–69, 103–105 (App. VII), where the author is not identiﬁed. Via cross-references to other works, such as his Sefer Mißvot (fol. 105a) the commentary may be safely ascribed to Sahl. See ibid., 103–104 for an except from the muqaddima for Mi-qeß. Regarding Sahl’s commentary on Genesis, see further below, ch. 3; on this muqaddima, see pp. 137–38. 65 On these terms, see Wieder’s studies noted below. On pesher in the Dead Sea texts, see Horgan, Pesharim and Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, ch. 3. 66 See Wieder, “The Dead Sea Scrolls Type of Biblical Exegesis,” 75–76. 67 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Numbers 24:21, cited in Ben-Shammai, “Edition and Versions,” 30; idem, Commentary on Daniel 11:31, pp. vi, 67 (Eng.), 127 (Ar.). The Carmathians took Mecca in 929. 68 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Zechariah 5:9–11, BL Ms. Or. 2401, fol. 172b;

“search

scripture well”

17

Prognostic exegesis operates emblematically: biblical words and phrases are understood to be special appellations for the actors in a great eschatological drama. To be sure, this approach to Scripture can be found in rabbinic midrash and Christian typology as well; we have only to recall Gerson Cohen’s analysis of Esau as a symbol among Jews and Christians in the early Middle Ages in order to recognize the power and popularity of the technique.69 The Karaites, however, were particularly adept at making such equations and using them in order to interpret the Bible, explain the world in which they lived, and establish their own place within that world. Like the Rabbanites, they identiﬁed Ishmael and Kedar with Islam, Edom and Seir with Christianity.70 But they isolated and applied to themselves a set of biblical code-names, e.g., ma≤kil (“Teacher”), temimei derekh (“The Perfect of Way”), shavei pesha' (“The Penitent”), and she"erit yisra"el (“Remnant of Israel”).71 Once the “lily among thorns” in Song of Songs 2:2 was taken as an allusion to the Jerusalem Karaites, the shoshannim (“lilies”) in the superscriptions to Psalms 44, 69, and 80 had to be understood in the same fashion. This, in turn, colored the interpretation of these Psalms as a whole: The phrase “Concerning the lilies” (Psalms 69:1) indicates that this prayer for salvation (was composed) on account of the righteous who are compared to lilies in Song 2:2. They have also been compared to ﬂowers, a vineyard, and a ﬁg tree (2:12–13) as well as to many other plants and fruits, each of which has its own special signiﬁcance which we will mention, God willing, in our commentary on the Song of Songs.72

see Poznanski, “Anan et ses écrits,” 184–85. Daniel al-Qùmisì maintains that the ephah refers to the law-court in which the Babylonian Jewish leaders administer justice corruptly, and the woman (v. 7) to the Exilarch; see his Pitron, 66. 69 See Cohen, “Esau as Symbol in Early Medieval Thought.” The compositions of the Palestinian payye†anim of the early Middle Ages are especially notable for their use of such emblematic appellations or kinnuyim; see Fleischer, Hebrew Liturgical Poetry in the Middle Ages, 104–107. 70 Ben-Shammai, “Attitude,” 8–23. 71 There are strong aﬃnities between the prognostic exegesis and epithets employed by the Karaites and the pesher of the ancient Dead Sea sectarians. See: Wieder, The Judean Scrolls and Karaism; idem, “The Dead Sea Scrolls Type of Biblical Exegesis”; and idem, “The Qumran Sectaries and the Karaites.” Cf. Paul, Écrits de Qumran and note the apposite remarks of Ben-Shammai, “The Karaite Controversy,” 12 and “Return to the Scriptures,” 321. For a recent reevaluation, see Polliack, “On the Question of the Pesher’s Inﬂuence.” 72 Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on Psalms (Marwick) 69:1, p. 97. In his Commentary on the Song of Songs 2:12–13, pp. 31–34, Japheth b. Eli discusses the signiﬁcance of these words as epithets for the Jerusalem Karaites. See further below, ch. 4.

18

chapter one

The name by which the Jerusalem Karaites are best known, "avelei ßiyyon (“Mourners for Zion”), derives similarly from Isaiah 61:3; it was particularly apt for a group that adopted an ascetic lifestyle, lamenting the destruction of the Temple and the lengthy duration of the Exile. They cited another verse, Isaiah 62:6, to describe their program of activities: “Upon your walls, O Jerusalem, I have set watchmen; all the day and all the night they shall never be silent. You who put the Lord in remembrance, take no rest.”73 As they understood it, the verse indicates that the prayers of an elite will ultimately bring about God’s return to Zion. The members of this elite are the ma≤kilim, or preachers and teachers of Karaism who settled in the Holy City.74 The “watchmen” of Jerusalem, they observe ceaseless vigils and pray to God, interceding with Him on Israel’s behalf in the time of trouble ('et ßarah).75 Grammarians and Scholastics: Yùsuf b. Nù˙ and His Disciples This study is devoted to Karaite exegesis as it emerged during the latter half of the tenth century. Toward the end of this period, a new stage of scholarship was initiated by Abù Ya'qùb Yùsuf b. Nù˙ ( Joseph b. Noah), who founded an academy in Jerusalem, giving the community a further institutional framework.76 During the next cen-

73 On this verse see Wieder, Judean Scrolls, 97–100, 102–103; Gil, History of Palestine, 612, 617. 74 On the meaning of ma≤kil see Wieder, Judean Scrolls, 104–117, esp. 106 where he notes Daniel al-Qùmisì’s gloss on Ps 74:1: “‘A ma≤kil is one who teaches and instructs Israel in the Galuth lest they go astray from the way of the Torah.’” The term derives from Dan 11:33 and 12:3. In his comment on Song 2:1 Japheth b. Eli explains that the “rose of Sharon” and the “lilies of the valleys” likely refer to two separate groups of ma≤kilim—he calls them “ma≤kilim of the Exile” (ma≤kilei galut)— those, such as Anan b. David, who lived in the midst of the Exile, and those living during the “generation of salvation” (dor yeshu'ah). The latter, of course, are the Shoshannim who “burst forth in the spring”; see Commentary on Song of Songs, p. 22 and cf. the comment on Ps. 45:1 cited below, p. 165. 75 See Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Isaiah 62:6, BL ms. Or. 2502 (Cat. 281). (The folio numbers are not legible on my microﬁlm copy.) 76 On the Karaites and their leaders in the eleventh century, see Gil, A History of Palestine, 809–20. On Yùsuf Ibn Nù˙ and Abu ’l-Faraj Hàrùn see: 'Alì b. Suleimàn, Commentary on Genesis, 4–27; Khan, “'Abù al-Faraj Hàrùn”; idem, The Early Karaite Tradition; idem, Early Karaite Grammatical Texts; Maman, “Medieval Grammatical Thought”; idem, “Order and Meaning”; Basal, “Excerpts”; and the studies of Khan, Gallego, and Olszowy-Schlanger in Khan, Exegesis and Grammar.

“search

scripture well”

19

tury, his students and their followers developed a science of Hebrew grammar, a systematic speculative theology, and a rigorous, scholastic approach to biblical exegesis in general, and law in particular. Much of this scholarship is preserved in manuscript and is only now being rediscovered. Although the eleventh-century authors continued to study and cite the earlier masters, their writings diﬀer markedly in style and substance. Consequently, I have largely refrained from extending my discussion beyond the tenth century. All the same, a brief survey of the major ﬁgures and their exegetical activities may not be out of place here. According to a ﬁfteenth-century chronicle, Yùsuf b. Nù˙’s disciples included Abu ’l-Faraj Hàrùn, Levi b. Japheth b. Eli, and Yùsuf alBaßìr ( Joseph b. Abraham)—who would all become leading scholars.77 Ibn Nù˙ wrote both an extensive commentary on the Pentateuch and a shorter set of grammatical notes. The former has been preserved in an abridgement by Abu ’l-Faraj Hàrùn; this, in turn, was epitomized by 'Alì ben Sulaymàn at the beginning of the twelfth century.78 While it is impossible to ascertain the precise form of Ibn Nù˙’s original work, the style and content of the abridgement suggest that it followed the models established by his contemporaries Japheth and Sahl. Ibn Nù˙’s philological expertise was surpassed by Abu ’l-Faraj Hàrùn, who achieved such renown that he even elicited the admiration of Abraham Ibn Ezra a century later.79 His grammar, alMushtamil (“The Comprehensive Work on the Roots and Sections of the Hebrew Language”; ca. 1025) was one of the earliest attempts to provide a systematic description of the Hebrew language. Like his

77 See Margoliouth, “Ibn al-Hiti’s Arabic Chronicle,” 433–34, 438–40. Levi b. Japheth (Abù Sa'ìd) wrote brief exegetical notes on the Bible but was better known for his code; see Ben-Shammai, “Sefer Ha-Mitzvoth” and ch. 5 below. Yùsuf al-Baßìr was renowned as a theologian and jurist; see: Vajda, Al-Kitàb al-Mu˙tawì; Sklare, “Yùsuf al-Baßìr”; and Sklare and Ben-Shammai, Judaeo-Arabic Manuscripts . . . Yusuf al-Basir. On a kalàm treatise by Levi, see Sklare, ibid., 133–36. 78 On Ibn Nù˙’s grammatical notes, see Khan, The Early Karaite Tradition. For Abu ’l-Faraj’s abridgement of Joseph’s commentary, see RNL MS Yevr.-Arab I.1754; for the epitome, see 'Alì b. Suleimàn, Commentary on Genesis. Miriam Goldstein informs me that she has identiﬁed several additional fragments of Joseph’s commentary. For a study of his exegetical method, see her “The Structural Function of Biblical Superﬂuity.” 79 See: Bacher, “Le grammairien anonyme”; Poznanski, “Aboul-Faradj Haroun”; and the works cited above in n. 76. See also Khan, “The Contribution.”

20

chapter one

predecessor David b. Abraham al-Fàsì, Abu ’l-Faraj subscribed to a theory of biliteral roots. He also worked out a theory of “ways” according to which paradigms are derived from certain base forms (imperative, perfect, etc.) that can be generated from artiﬁcial mnemonic “signs.”80 In addition to the grammatical topics treated (e.g., the nature of the inﬁnitive, gender and number, pronominal suﬃxes) the Mushtamil includes lexicographic, stylistic, and syntactic discussions. Like several of his contemporaries, the author regularly draws upon Arabic and Aramaic to elucidate Hebrew expressions; he also discusses morphological similarities between the three languages. While the Mushtamil is Abu ’l-Faraj’s chef d’oeuvre, he also produced an abridged, revised version entitled al-Kitàb al-Kàfì fì al-Lugha al-'Ibràniyya (“The Suﬃcient Book concerning the Hebrew Language”), which in certain respects supersedes the earlier work.81 Abu ’l-Faraj succeeded Ibn Nù˙ as head of the Academy. Together with Yùsuf al-Baßìr and Levi b. Japheth he taught the most important Karaite exegete of the day, Jeshua b. Judah (Abu ’l-Faraj Furqàn b. Asad), who ﬂourished during the mid-eleventh century. Scholar and communal leader, Jeshua was a proliﬁc author. In addition to several halakhic works, he composed a Long Commentary on the Pentateuch, a Short Commentary (including a complete Arabic translation), and Bereishit Rabbah, an exegetical treatment of theological issues in the opening chapters of Genesis.82 His writings, like those of Yùsuf al-Baßìr, are scholastic in character. Infused with Mutazilite kalàm (speculative theology), they also feature closely argued treatments of legal problems. Jeshua was learned in Rabbanite literature and cites classic rabbinic sources in extenso. In his Longer Commentary on Leviticus, for example, we ﬁnd entire passages repro-

80 Becker, “The ‘Ways’ of the Hebrew Verb.” Abu ’l-Faraj maintained that the imperative was the primary base form; see Khan, “'Abù al-Faraj Hàrùn.” 81 For a complete edition and translation with extensive introduction and notes by Khan, Gallego, and Olszowy-Schlanger, see 'Abù al-Faraj Hàrùn, Al-Kitàb alkàfì. 82 Schreiner, Studien über Jeschua ben Jehuda; Margoliouth, “The Arabic Writings of Abu’l-Faraj Furkan Ibn Assad”; Poznanski, “The Karaite Literary Opponents of Saadiah Gaon in the Eleventh Century,” 65–72; Mann, Texts and Studies, 2:34–40; Nemoy, Karaite Anthology, 123–32; and Ben-Shammai, “Yeshuah Ben Yehudah.” The Long Commentary was truly monumental in size; a ﬁfty-folio fragment (BL Or. 2494 [Cat. 318/II], fols. 31–80) covers Lev 11:37–44! For a catalogue of the manuscripts of Jeshua’s works in the Russian National Library, see Sklare et al., JudaeoArabic Manuscripts . . . The Works of Yeshu'ah ben Yehudah.

“search

scripture well”

21

duced from the Mishnah and Sifra. This attitude is consonant with his scholastic style of citation and refutation, and he does not hesitate to adopt certain rabbinic arguments that he ﬁnds compelling.83 While Jeshua was the last great representative of the Jerusalem school, two other scholars were active there during the latter half of the eleventh century. Sahl b. Fa∂l al-Tustarì criticized Jeshua’s attempts to reform the laws of forbidden marriages; he composed a Torah commentary and several other works. 'Alì b. Sulaymàn, mentioned above, further condensed the abridgements of Yùsuf b. Nù˙’s commentary on the Pentateuch and David al-Fàsì’s Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ; he also wrote a commentary on Psalms. Sahl was still living in Jerusalem in 1095, but 'Alì was in Egypt in 1103, having emigrated sometime during the previous troubled decades.84 The eleventh century witnessed the apogee of Karaite inﬂuence in the eastern Mediterranean. While Jerusalem remained the spiritual and intellectual center, important communities became established in Egypt and Byzantium. These groups maintained close ties with the academy in the Holy City, to which they sent students, requests for scholarly guidance, and essential economic support. The ﬁnancial and political success of the Karaite Tustarì family, which served the Fatimid caliphs in Fustat, doubtless enhanced the Egyptian community’s status. As these courtiers rose in prominence and other members of the community grew wealthier and more inﬂuential, relations with Rabbanites in Egypt and the Land of Israel became increasingly intertwined.85 Meanwhile, the Byzantine community set

83 These citations, incidentally, provide important textual and linguistic evidence for rabbinic literature in eleventh-century Palestine; see Maman, “Karaites and Mishnaic Hebrew”; Tirosh-Becker, “Preliminary Studies” idem, “A Linguistic Study”; and idem, “The Use of Rabbinic Sources.” 84 On Sahl al-Tustarì and 'Alì b. Sulaymàn, see: Poznanski, “The Karaite Literary Opponents of Saadiah Gaon in the Eleventh Century,” 70–72; Mann, Texts and Studies 2:39–42; Gil, A History of Palestine, 819–20; and 'Alì b. Suleimàn, Commentary on Genesis. On the Seljuk invasion of Syria and its eﬀects on the Jewish population during the latter decades of the eleventh century, see Gil, A History of Palestine, 409–21. 85 On the Tustarìs, see Fischel, Jews in the Economic and Political Life, 68–89 and Gil, The Tustaris. Geniza documents enable us to paint a much fuller picture of Jewish social, economic, and religious life during the eleventh century than is possible for the tenth; see Gil, Palestine, 2:511–64 and Olszowy-Schlanger, Karaite Marriage Documents, oﬀering editions and analyses of numerous texts, and Rustow, “Toward a History of Jewish Heresy,” proposing a nuanced reinterpretation of KaraiteRabbanite relations on the basis of documentary sources.

22

chapter one

about transplanting, translating, and ultimately transforming the JudeoArabic scholarship of Jerusalem and Iraq in order to meet the changing needs of northern and western communities. Led by scholars such as Tobiah b. Moses, who studied in Jerusalem during the second quarter of the eleventh century, the Karaites of Byzantium produced a library of Hebrew works that included translations of Yùsuf al-Baßìr’s theological treatises and Levi b. Japheth’s code, as well as exegetical compilations from Judeo-Arabic commentaries, such as the compendious "Oßar ne˙mad. During this period, Karaite attitudes toward rabbinic learning began to soften, as sectarian scholars entertained the possibility of gleaning true insights from the chaﬀ of rabbinic literature. A new chapter in Karaite history was beginning. The era of true scripturalism had come to an end.86

Search Scripture Well The watchword that gives this book its title contains two injunctions: “Search Scripture well, and do not rely on my opinion” (˙appi≤u be"orayta shappir ve-"al tish'anu 'al da'ati ). For over a century and a half, since it was gleaned from Japheth b. Eli’s Commentary on Zechariah 5:8, this motto has been used to sum up Karaite origins and attitudes. Since Japheth attributes it to Anan, it has been taken to represent that heresiarch’s scripturalism and abhorrence of received knowledge.87 Renewed scrutiny, however, has raised quite a few questions.88 At once apt and obscure, the motto resists facile interpreta-

86 The standard work on the subject remains Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium. See also Frank, “Karaite Exegetical and Halakhic Literature.” On Tobiah, see also Gil, A History of Palestine, 814–18 and idem, Palestine, 2:521–30, nos. 291–96. On the periodization of Karaite scripturalism, see Ben-Shammai, “The Karaite Controversy,” 22–24 and idem, “Return to the Scriptures,” 328–30. 87 The dictum was cited by at least one medieval Rabbanite, the Andalusian Moses Ibn Ezra (ca. 1055–1138); see Harkavy, Óadashim, 141–42 (= Pt. I, No. 7, 1895–96, p. 33), and Sassoon, Ohel Dawid, 1:412, no. 412, p. 63 (= Jerusalem JNUL Ms. 8º 5701). Apparently, it was rediscovered in 1844 by Ewald and Dukes, Beiträge zur Geschichte, 2:26, n. 1; soon, it was widely cited. See, e.g.: Fürst, Geschichte, 1:148, n. 11; Gottlober, Bikkoreth, 50; Graetz, History, 3:130; Harkavy, “Anan ben David,” 1:556; idem, Zikhron la-rishonim, 132; and Margolis and Marx, History, 262. (But see the next note for Harkavy’s subsequent reservations.) 88 The reassessment seems to have begun with Poznanski, “Anan,” 184. See also: Harkavy’s note in Graetz, Sefer divrei yemei yisra"el, 3:189 and n. 37; Mahler, Karaimer, 173, 210–11, nn. 32–33; Nemoy, “Anan ben David: A Reappraisal,” 241, n. 17;

“search

scripture well”

23

tion. Re-examining it from a somewhat diﬀerent angle, I have concluded that Anan’s Dictum—which is what I shall call it, for convenience sake—proves to be a most important summary statement indeed, once its true signiﬁcance is grasped. But ﬁrst to the questions. These may be subsumed under three headings: wording, emphasis, and context. In the form cited above, the Dictum is a curious amalgam of two clauses, one Aramaic, the second Hebrew. The use of Aramaic apparently conﬁrms the ﬁrst clause’s antiquity and strengthens the ascription to Anan, who wrote his Book of Commandments in that language. The original wording of that injunction, however, remains uncertain. The form cited at the beginning of this section, ˙appi≤u be-"orayta shappir, occurs only in an eleventh-century Hebrew translation of Japheth’s Commentary on Zechariah. The manuscripts of the JudeoArabic original have torah for "orayta; and at least one late copy of the text has Hebrew ˙appe≤u for Aramaic ˙appi≤u. It is true that the oldest and best manuscript of the commentary, written entirely in Arabic characters, clearly indicates the yod of ˙appi≤u by the letter yà. The same manuscript, however, entirely omits the second clause, suggesting that it may not even be original!89 The word ˙appi≤u, moreover, is a bit of an enigma: it does not belong to the lexicon of eastern Jewish Aramaic—Anan’s language—and occurs but rarely in the western Jewish dialect.90 There is also the question of emphasis. In and of itself, the Dictum does not appear to be controversial. The ﬁrst clause, in particular, scarcely diﬀers from the exhortation of Ben Bag Bag in Mishnah Avot: “Turn it (the Torah) and turn it over again for everything is in it.”91 But perhaps when read with the proper stress, the Dictum Baron, SRHJ 5:212–13, 389–90, n. 4; Ankori, Karaites, 209–12 ; Wieder, The Judean Scrolls, 58, n. 1, 88–89, and 256, n. 2; Lasker, “Islamic Inﬂuences,” 30, 43–44, n. 48; Ben-Shammai, “The Karaite Controversy,” 15–16, and nn. 18–19; idem, “Between Ananites and Karaites,” 22, 27, and n. 24; Polliack, “The Emergence,” esp. 304–308; and Chiesa, Filologia storica, 1:191–99. 89 See London, BL Or. 2550, fol. 89a, noted by Ben-Shammai, “Edition and Versions,” 22–23. 90 See Ben-Shammai, “Between Ananites and Karaites,” p. 27, n. 34, referring to Sokoloﬀ, Dictionary, 212, s.v. ˙ps. We may add that biblical Hebrew ˙.p.≤. is regularly rendered in the Targumim by b.l.sh.; see, e.g., Targum Onkelos to Gen 31:35 and 44:12, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to 1Sam 23:23, 1Kgs 20:6, 2Kgs 10:23, and Lam 3:40. 91 Avot 5:22, trans. Hertz, Sayings of the Fathers, 102–103 (5:25). Baron, SRHJ, 5:212–13, 389–90, n. 4 notes the similarity in formulation. In his comment on Avot

24

chapter one

assumes polemical signiﬁcance. Which element, however, is to be emphasized: “search,” “Scripture,” or “well”? And if the second clause really is original, how does it relate to the ﬁrst? Finally, there is the matter of context. We have noted a rabbinic parallel, but what precisely might Anan’s Dictum have signiﬁed to early Karaites? And might contemporary Islamic ideas also help clarify this elusive motto? Among the extensive polemical writings of Saadya Gaon was a tract attacking the Karaite practice of developing new laws from Scripture via logical analogy (qiyàs).92 The tract, which may have belonged to a larger work, has been preserved in Kitàb al-anwàr; naturally, al-Qirqisànì appended a refutation.93 According to Saadya, the hermeneutic rules of rabbinic literature were descriptive, not productive. That is to say, the ancient rabbis did not derive halakhah from the Bible using these rules; rather, these exegetical principles describe the Oral Law’s relationship to Scripture. The halakhah in its entirety, however, goes right back to Moses, who taught it to the Israelites during the forty years they spent in the wilderness.94 The Karaites, by contrast, maintain that the laws must be derived directly from Scripture through careful scrutiny of the text. Saadya begins by explaining the Karaites’ predilection for logical analogy. Having observed that there are numerous points of religious law which the Bible does not address, and having concluded that God could not

5:22, Simeon b. Íema˙ Duran (1361–1444) refers to two homilies on Torah study in b‘Eruvin 54a–b, which also emphasize Scripture’s inexhaustibility and comprehensiveness: “‘Whoso keepeth the ﬁg tree shall eat the fruit thereof (Proverbs 27:18).’ Why were the words of the Torah compared to the ﬁg tree? As with the ﬁg tree the more one searches it the more ﬁgs one ﬁnds in it so it is with the words of the Torah; the more one studies them the more relish he ﬁnds in them. . . . ‘Her breasts will satisfy thee at all times (Proverbs 5:19).’ Why were the words of the Torah compared to a breast? As with a breast, however often the child sucks it does it ﬁnd milk therein, so is it with the words of the Torah.” See Simeon b. Íema˙ Duran, Sefer magen "avot, 215. 92 While qiyàs is usually translated as “analogy,” it embraces other types of reasoning as well; see Hallaq, “Non-analogical Arguments.” For an overview, see Schacht, “Analogy, Systematic Reasoning, and Personal Opinion,” in The Origins, 98–132. 93 For the tract, see al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr, II.9, vol. 1, pp. 79–87; for the refutation, see II.10, pp. 87–101. For an annotated French translation, see Vajda, “Études II,” 66–85. For a possible reference by the Gaon to his tract, see Zucker, “Fragments,” 375, line 29 (“. . . nafy al-qiyàs”). It is also possible that the “tract” is simply part of Saadya’s Torah Commentary, like the passage cited by al-Qirqisànì in Kitàb al-anwàr, II.14.1; see below, p. 35, and n. 7. 94 See Harris, How Do We Know This, 74–81; see below, p. 36.

“search

scripture well”

25

have left His people without guidance, they inferred that personal opinion (ra"y) and logical analogy (qiyàs) were valid, God-given sources of law. What drove them to this position, claims Saadya, was their unwillingness to admit that the Mishnah and Talmud—i.e., the Oral Tradition—contain the explanation of these obscure matters.95 Next, Saadya turns to the Karaite arguments for using analogy to determine the revealed laws (al-farà"i∂ al-khabarìya). It is here, I believe, that we have the key to Anan’s Dictum: He (i.e., Saadya) said:96 Benjamin (al-Nahàwandì)’s argument for this derives from the words of the prophet (Solomon): “If you seek it (tevaqeshennah) like silver and search it (ta˙pe≤ennah) as for hidden treasures, then you will understand the fear of the Lord (and will ﬁnd the knowledge of God)” (Proverbs 2:4–5). He said: Anan cited this (prooftext) as well. Now according to them, this searching (taftìsh) for wisdom, which was enjoined by the prophet, means the establishment of the laws of the Torah as decreed by reason.97

Accordingly, Benjamin and Anan both took their legislative mandate from Proverbs 2:4–5, in which the object of seeking and searching is naturally Wisdom, that is the Torah.98 To search Scripture, they believed, meant to probe it with one’s reason in order to establish laws via analogy. And this must be the meaning of the Dictum’s ﬁrst clause, “search Scripture well”: originally, it was an exegetical gloss on the biblical “search for it as for hidden treasures.” More precisely, I am suggesting that the Aramaic phrase ˙appi≤u be-"orayta/batorah shappir originated in a targumic rendering of and comment on the Hebrew ve-kha-ma†monim ta˙pe≤ennah. That the root ˙.p.≤. had assumed a special connotation for Anan and Benjamin is apparent from the objection Saadya now raises:

95 Al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr, II.9.1, p. 79, lines 1–11; trans. “Études sur Qirqisânî, II,” 66–67. 96 The word qàla (“he said”), which recurs throughout this passage and refers to Saadya, may serve to dissociate the Gaon’s views from al-Qirqisànì’s or may indicate that the Gaon’s words have been abridged. 97 See al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr, II.9.2, p. 79, lines 14–17, trans. Vajda, “Études, II,” 67. As Ankori observes, al-Qirqisànì nowhere cites Anan’s Dictum. His conjectures on this point are not implausible, but remain unprovable; see Karaites, 212, n. 15. 98 According to rabbinic interpretation, the “treasures” (ma†monim) of Prov 2:4 refer to the words of the Torah; see Midrash Mishle, 27–28, trans. Visotzky, The Midrash on Proverbs, 29.

26

chapter one He said: Now this is false, since we do not ﬁnd that (the word) ˙ippu≤ connotes the establishment of a law per se, but rather ˙ippu≤ indicates searching by a seeker for something which is to be found with someone else and which he seeks, i.e., looking for something (al-wuqùf 'alayhi) that actually exists (wa-'aynuhu mawjùda), as it is stated concerning ( Joseph’s) cup: “And he searched (va-ye˙appe≤ ), beginning with the eldest and ending with the youngest” (Genesis 44:12). Similarly: “So he searched (va-ye˙appe≤), but did not ﬁnd the household gods” (Genesis 31:35). And similarly: “I will search him out (ve-˙ippa≤ti "oto) among all the thousands of Judah” (1 Samuel 23:23). He said: As for ˙ippu≤ meaning the production and creation (iΩhàr wa-ìjàd) of something that did not (previously) exist (mà huwa ma'dùm), so that its existence becomes established—such a usage does not exist.99

This philological critique indicates that more was involved than a simple prooftext; for Benjamin and Anan, the term ˙ippu≤ and the verse from which they derived it represented the legal imperative to engage in productive biblical research. Al-Qirqisànì’s response to Saadya clariﬁes this further: As for (Saadya’s) claim concerning ˙ippu≤ and his statement that we do not ﬁnd ˙ippu≤ meaning the production and creation of something that did not (previously) exist so that its existence becomes established— things are not as he says. The proof of this is Scripture’s statement: “They search ( ya˙pe≤u) (their) thoughts, we perished from the searching that was made (˙efe≤ me˙uppa≤ )” (Psalm 64:7).100 This indicates that they searched according to what came to their minds and they became immersed in thought—This is quite similar to the phrase, “what is in your mind” (Ezekiel 20:32)—so that they said “we have put an end to the searching that is being made.” Now this does not represent something that actually exists ('ayn mawjùda) which is being sought. Similar to this is the statement: “The spirit of man is the lamp of the Lord, searching (˙ofe≤) all his innermost parts” (Proverbs 20:27). And similar to this is the statement: “Let us search (na˙pe≤ah) and examine our ways” (Lamentations 3:40). Should someone claim that all of these (passages refer to) things that (actually) exist and not to things that do not exist (ma'dùma), we would say: in the same way, the true realities of the laws and commandments are present and exist in our souls, although they are hidden from many of the people so that they (must) search for them ( yufattishù 'anhà), and seek (wa-yab˙athù) in order to

99 See al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr, II.9.2, p. 79, line 17–p. 80, line 7; trans. Vajda, “Études, II,” 67. 100 I have translated the verse in accordance with al-Qirqisànì’s explanation. Cf. Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on Psalms (Marwick) 64:7, p. 81, and David al-Fàsì, Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ, 1:571, lines 27–31.

“search

scripture well”

27

derive them and produce them (wa-yuΩhirùnahà). Now (Solomon) the wise, peace be upon him, made this clear and indicated that his view was as we have ( just) stated, since after he had said “and search for it as for hidden treasures,” he continued “then you will understand the fear of the Lord” (Proverbs 2:4–5). He indicated that if you seek wisdom and knowledge of the commandments, and if you search for them, you will understand the knowledge of God and fear of him. Even more deﬁnitive is this statement: “I commune with my heart, my spirit searches ('im levavi "a≤i˙ah va-ye˙appe≤ ru˙i)” (Psalm 77:7). After this he indicates what it seeks: “Will the Lord spurn forever?” (Ibid., vs. 8). Now this is something that does not exist; rather, he informs us that he seeks (to establish) whether this is conceivable or not.101

Al-Qirqisànì argues that in biblical usage, ˙ippu≤ can indeed describe rational investigation. Should one claim that the objects of ˙ippu≤ in the Bible always exist, i.e., that the word never implies the production of something new, al-Qirqisànì would not disagree: those who search their minds are, after all, seeking to discover “the true realities of the laws and commandments (that) are present and (that) exist in our souls.” Because these things are hidden, however, people must “search for them ( yufattishù 'anhà) and seek (wa-yab˙athù) in order to derive them and produce them, (i.e., make them manifest).” The Arabic words taftìsh and ba˙th together with their Hebrew equivalents ˙ippu≤, ˙aqirah, and derishah feature prominently in tenth-century Karaite writing. Ba˙th, in particular, describes the quest for rational knowledge; like Muslim theologians, al-Qirqisànì connects it with naΩar (“speculation,” “rational examination”).102 His younger contemporary Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm uses the word to translate Hebrew lidrosh (Ecclesiastes 1:13), and to describe the rational investigation of the religious commandments.103 It is a standard term, likewise, in 101 Al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr, II.10.2, p. 88, line 9–p. 89, line 3; trans. Vajda, “Études, II,” 74–75. 102 See al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr, I.1, p. 3, lines 15–16; I.2, p. 4, line 3; and I.3, p. 4, line 17. Mutazilites, such as 'Abd al-Jabbàr b. A˙mad (d. 1024), employ similar terminology; see Bernand, Le problème de la connaissance, 202, 221–22, 231. Cf. Gabrieli, “Ba˙º”: “ba˙aºa became . . . almost a synonym of naΩara, and, in fact, the two terms ba˙º and naΩar are often found in association.” 103 See Salmon b. Yeru˙ìm, Commentary on Ecclesiastes 1:13, p. 71, and idem, Commentary on Lamentations (Feuerstein) 1:8, p. xxxi, lines 15–17: “We mingle with the nations and imitate their behavior; we try to master their language (i.e., Arabic) according to its grammar and spend money (on this) until we do, but we abandon the knowledge of the Sacred Tongue (leshon ha-qodesh) and the rational investigation (al-ba˙th) of God’s commandments.” The latter passage was noted by Munk, Notice sur Abou’l-walid, p. 39, n. 1, who misattributed it to Japheth b. Eli.

28

chapter one

Japheth b. Eli’s commentaries.104 By the late tenth-century, the injunction to search or investigate would become a rallying cry for Karaite propagandists, like Sahl b. Maßlia˙: “Happy is he who spares himself by choosing the good (path), and who searches, examines, and investigates (ve-ye˙appe≤ ve-yidrosh ve-ya˙qor).”105 Searching Scripture means to examine it for latent meanings that can be actualized as law. The adverb shappir (“well”) adds emphasis, implying that traditional (i.e., Rabbinic) exegesis has proven erroneous, or at best inadequate. This brings us to the Dictum’s second clause, which is virtually the converse of the ﬁrst: “and do not rely on my opinion.”106 As noted above, scholars have cast doubts on this clause’s originality, both because it is in Hebrew, not Aramaic, and because it is absent from the oldest manuscript.107 These arguments are cogent, and there is, in fact, no evidence connecting the second clause to Anan. All the same, there are indications that it really is quite old, and its signiﬁcance should not be overlooked. Among the earliest surviving texts of the Mourners for Zion is a missionary tract, encouraging Jews to abandon the evil ways of the Rabbanites and to settle in Jerusalem. The author—likely Daniel alQùmisì—enjoins his audience in the following words: As for you, do ye investigate (˙iqeru) the matter according to your own wisdom, lest you should do according to my wisdom in reliance upon my opinion. He who relies (ha-nish'an, mutaqallid) upon one of the teachers of the dispersion, without investigating thoroughly (ve-lo ya˙qor he†ev) according to his own wisdom, is like one who engages in idolatry.108

104

See, e.g.: Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Leviticus 23:33–44, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I.0063, fols. 167b, 293a, 294a; idem, Commentary on Deuteronomy 22:12, IOS C41, quire XX, fol. 3b = RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.0095, fols. 166–67; ibid. 33:4, BL, Ms. Or. 2479, fol. 127b; idem, Commentary on Jeremiah 6:16, p. 68, lines 7–8; idem, Commentary on Proverbs (Günzig) 2:1–10, pp. xvi–xviii; and Commentary on Ecclesiastes 1:13, p. 20, line 23. 105 See Sahl’s Epistle in Pinsker, Lickute Kadmoniot, 2:33, lines 31–32; See also p. 34, lines 4–8, 18–20. See also David al-Fàsì, Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ, 1:407, line 128 (d.r.sh.): ba˙th al-akhbàr, and 1:571, lines 25–31 (˙.p.≤ ). 106 The phrasing derives from Prov 3:5: “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight (ve-"el binatekha "al tishsha'en).” 107 On the linguistic aspect, see Ankori, Karaites, 209–12; for the manuscript evidence, see Ben-Shammai, “Edition and Versions,” 22–23. 108 Nemoy, “The Pseudo-Qùmisìan Sermon,” 62 (translation), and p. 92, lines 20–22 (text): ve-"attem ˙iqeru ha-davar be-˙okhmatekhem pen ta'a≤u be-˙okhmati lehishsha'en 'al da'ati ki khol ha-nish'an mutaqallid 'al "a˙ad mi-melammedei galut ve-lo ya˙qor he†ev be˙okhmato hu ke-'oved 'avodah nokhriyah. On the word mutaqallid, see ibid., p. 63, n. 36. See also the discussion, 50–51. On this text, see also: Mann, “A Tract”; idem, Texts

“search

scripture well”

29

As Leon Nemoy noted, the wording here is quite close to Anan’s Dictum.109 For the imperative ˙appi≤u, there is, to be sure, a synonym, ˙iqeru; and he†ev, the Hebrew equivalent of Aramaic shappir, occurs only later in the passage.110 But both halves of Anan’s Dictum do ﬁnd reﬂexes in this passage, and the Hebrew verb nish'an is glossed tellingly by Arabic mutaqallid. In Islam, taqlìd came to mean the unquestioning acceptance of authoritative teachings, without investigating the teachers’ reasons.111 This is precisely the practice that the Karaites attempt to undermine. Advocating independent investigation, they deplore the Rabbanites’ insistence upon the authority of Tradition. Thus, in his comment on Psalm 119:1, Japheth b. Eli writes: We say that these (people) whose way is blameless (temimei derekh) belong to the Karaite sect who hold fast to the Lord’s Torah, who abandon the “commandment of men learned by rote,”112 and who do not rely (velo nish'anu) upon the Mishnah and the Talmud, the laws and legends, which are full of erroneous statements contrary to the Lord’s Torah.113

But it was not just blind acceptance of rabbinic teachings that troubled the early Karaites; it was the acceptance of any authority other than Scripture. Zvi Ankori has suggested that the phrase “and do not rely on my opinion” may have originated with the circle of Daniel al-Qùmisì, who dissociated himself from Anan’s methods and teachings.114 Read in this way, the phrase becomes an anti-Ananite and Studies, 2:5; and Nemoy, Anthology, 34–39. In “The Pseudo-Qùmisìan Sermon,” Nemoy conﬁrms the text’s early date on the basis of its style and contents, while observing that it cannot be securely ascribed to al-Qùmisì. While Nemoy’s caution is commendable, the similarities between the tract and al-Qùmisì’s Pitron sheneim 'a≤ar really are striking and suggest that they were composed by the same author. It is worth comparing the present passage, for example, with al-Qùmisì’s comment on Hos 5:13, ibid., 8–9: “Worse and more diﬃcult than all these things is the fact that (the Jews) erred, and relied upon the shepherds of the Exile by means of taqlìd, which is like the support of a bruised reed (ve-nish'anu be-ro'ei galut be-taqlid ke-mish'enet kaneh raßuß).” 109 Ibid., p. 62, n. 35. On p. 51 he draws attention to another echo of the Dictum in the same text: “Accept nothing from any man, but only that which is written in the Torah of the Lord”; see further 56 (translation), and 88, lines 11–12 (text). 110 Cf. Lam 3:40 where the verbs occur together. 111 See Schacht, “Ta˚lìd,” 562. On the diﬀerent senses of the term, see Hallaq, Authority, ch. 4. 112 On this phrase, see above, p. 5, n. 18. 113 See Wieder, “Qumran Sectaries,” 289; partial translation (here modiﬁed), 99–100. 114 See above, pp. 3, 5.

30

chapter one

taunt ascribed to the heresiarch himself by his opponents.115 In light of the passage above, the suggested ascription is indeed plausible. But al-Qùmisì’s objections to Anan are only part of the story; in his Kitàb al-taw˙ìd (“Book on the Divine Unity”), he also attacks his fellow-Jews for shirking biblical interpretation and philology in favor of alien wisdom (al-kalàm al-barànì).116 In the same vein, he rejects the “philosophers’” view that the world is composed of four elements (earth, air, water, and ﬁre)—a theory to which al-Qirqisànì would later subscribe.117 Even more strikingly, he sharply restricts the exercise of personal opinion (ijtihàd). Aware of the dangers of antinomianism, al-Qùmisì brands anyone who “abandons even a single commandment or biblical narrative” a heretic (kàﬁr).118 He also invokes Proverbs 3:5 (ve-"el binatekha "al tishsha'en), which he renders paraphrastically: “Do not rely upon your reason in order to practice your religion, but do what is written in the Torah.”119 All human beings know intuitively that they are obligated to serve their Creator in accordance with His decrees, not their own. Jews have a further obligation: All Israel must worship God according to what is written in the Torah of Moses without disagreement,120 by means of instruction, investigation, and examination, and not by relying upon (taqlìd) ‘the commandment of men learned by rote.’ For all taqlìd is [. . .] analogy (based upon) the exercise of personal opinion.121 Though (people) plainly state that they are observing the Torah, they are following the opinion of others in accordance with taqlìd and not by means of knowledge. . . .122

115

Ankori, Karaites, 211. See the passage in Zucker, Rav Saadya Gaon’s Translation, 176, lines 23–25. Cf. al-Qirqisànì’s remarks noted above, n. 16. 117 Ibid., 177, lines 14–16. For al-Qirqisànì’s view, see above, n. 43. As BenShammai observes, Japheth b. Eli rejected al-Qirqisànì’s position; see “The Doctrines,” 1:123–24. On early Karaite resistance to the pursuit of alien wisdom, see also Simon, Four Approaches, 212–15. 118 Zucker, Rav Saadya Gaon’s Translation, 481–82. 119 Ibid., 482: là tasnud bi-'aqlik li-'amal al-dìn illà if 'al al-maktùb fì torah. 120 “Disagreement”: Ibid., line 15, reading khilàf. On legal disagreement in Islamic jurisprudence, see Hallaq, Authority, 40, 57. 121 “For all taqlìd . . . personal opinion”: Ar. li-anna kull taqlìd huwa [. . .] qiyàs ijdihàd al-ra"y. On the form ijdihàd for ijtihàd, see Wright, Grammar, 1:66D. This sentence is corrupt and does not make much sense in its present form; perhaps there is a haplography, where I have inserted the bracketed ellipsis. But cf. Zucker’s translation, 484, and n. 15. 122 Zucker, Rav Saadya Gaon’s Translation, 482. 116

“search

scripture well”

31

Since reliance upon authority leads us away from Scripture, says alQùmisi, we must resist it in every quarter. Not only must we shun the man-made commandments of the Rabbanites, but we must also resist the authority of those who invoke reason, such as the philosophers. Reason itself must always be subservient to Scripture, which constitutes divine wisdom. The second clause of Anan’s Dictum may sound a call for exegetical freedom, but the admonitions of Kitàb altaw˙ìd suggest that al-Qùmisì’s notion of intellectual independence was circumscribed. With al-Qùmisì, we have the beginnings of a tempered rationalism that held sway among certain tenth-century Karaite scholars. On the one hand, exegetes were urged to exercise their own independent judgment; on the other, they were cautioned against the excesses of alien wisdom. While they appealed universally to reason, these scholars diﬀered in their understanding of rationalism. As David Sklare has shown, Jewish thinkers in tenth-century Iraq—whence many of the leading Karaite ﬁgures originated—covered a broad spectrum.123 Thus, while al-Qirqisànì remained open to various intellectual currents and did not hesitate to name his sources, Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm emphatically rejected recourse to non-canonical books (al-kutub albarrànì), condemning those who show an interest in alien wisdom as “disciples of the inﬁdels, the heretics, those who believe in the eternity of the world, the dualists, the Trinitarians, the naturalists, the Brahmans (baràhima) who deny the reality of prophecy” and others.124 Japheth b. Eli rendered a severe verdict against the “external books” as well—and yet he espoused Mutazilite doctrines, which he readily

123 Sklare, Samuel ben Óofni Gaon, 104–41. Sklare identiﬁes four broad categories: “moderate rationalists”; “extreme rationalists”; “traditionalists”; and “those who object to any form of speculative thought” (104). Most relevant for our discussion are the “traditionalists” or “rational traditionalists” (110) who were “ﬁrmly rooted in traditional religion” yet “sought to construct a world view . . . based on rational argumentation which would provide an epistemological and theological framework for understanding revelation and the workings of divinely revealed law” (108). The terminology is not entirely satisfactory, in part because Islamicists deﬁne “traditionalist” quite diﬀerently, and in part because branding Karaite scripturalists such as al-Qirqisànì and Japheth “traditionalists” seems oxymoronic. Labels aside, this carefully shaded portrait of a vibrant intellectual life remains compelling. See further, Frank, review of Samuel ben Óofni Gaon. 124 See Salmon, Commentary on Ecclesiastes 12:12, 551, 557–59 and Vajda, Deux commentaires, 79, 81–82. Al-Qùmisì frequently condemns non-biblical texts and teachings; see Pitron sheneim 'a≤ar, 4, n. 23 for occurrences of the adjective barrànì. For Salmon’s use of the phrase kutub al-barrànì, see below, p. 147.

32

chapter one

incorporated into his exegesis.125 Scripturalism might engender an antipathy toward non-biblical literature, but it need not preclude a rationalistic outlook. The call to reason in these early Karaite texts is really an appeal to common-sense, not to any formal speculative system.126 Originally, then, Anan’s Dictum constituted an injunction to derive halakhah directly from the Bible by means of thorough investigation (˙ippu≤ ) and analogy. The early Karaites, who transmitted the message, emphasized the priority of the Bible to tradition and reason alike. Since the rational faculty and the capacity to transmit knowledge are both fallible, each person should search Scripture directly. As Japheth explains, immediately after citing the Dictum: And Benjamin (al-Nahàwandì) said at the end of his book: “I, Benjamin, am but one of thousands upon thousands (of people); ‘I am no prophet, nor a prophet’s son’” (Amos 7:14). Similarly, all of the Karaite scholars have taken this route, determining what seemed right to them and enjoining the people to engage in investigation (ba˙th). Thus, a person may contradict his father, but his father will not say to him, “Why have you contradicted me?” The same holds true for a disciple with respect to his master. For this reason, they have been forgiven by God, if they have made any error in their determinations, and they have been pardoned. For they desired to enlighten the people and to bring them forth from darkness into light.127

It was the readiness to question all received wisdom, the reluctance to accept authoritative teachings, and ultimately the drive to dig ever deeper into the biblical text that made the exegetical endeavors of these scholars so productive. In the chapters that follow we shall discover some of the hidden treasures that they uncovered.

125

Vajda, Deux commentaires karaïtes sur l’Ecclésiaste, 118–23. On Japheth’s absorption of Mutazilite kalam, see Ben-Shammai, “The Doctrines.” On the opposition to rationalism among certain Jewish scholars during this period, see also BenShammai, “Jewish Thought in Iraq,” esp. 27–30, and n. 47. 126 This last point may also explain the reticence of the earlier Jerusalem Karaites to name their sources. By contrast, Yùsuf al-Baßìr cites Muslim scholars, such as the Mutazilites Abù 'Alì al-Jubbà"ì and his son Abù Hàshim, by name; see, e.g., Vajda, Al-Kitàb al-Mu˙tawì, 52. On the other hand, al-Qirqisànì, who has no qualms about displaying his erudition, readily quotes Jewish and non-Jewish sources alike. 127 Comment on Zech 5:8, in Poznanski, “Anan,” 184–85.

CHAPTER TWO

UNCLEAN BIRDS AND TASSELS: INDETERMINACY AND HALAKHIC EXEGESIS

Jewish law derives its authority from the Torah, but in rabbinic Judaism, Scripture early lost its direct legislative force. The revelation at Sinai provides the Law’s basic principles or norms, but the actual sources of rabbinic halakhah are tradition, interpretation, legislation, custom, incident, and legal reasoning. Originally, many laws were derived exegetically from Scripture, a process known as midrash halakhah. Biblical verses were cited either to create new legislation or to integrate existing practices within the framework of Jewish Law. But the development of an extensive literature and ultimately, the codiﬁcation of the Talmud precluded the need for biblical interpretation in a legal context. As Menachem Elon has put it: “In halakhic literature after the completion of the Talmud, and especially after the middle of the geonic period, neither creative nor integrative biblical exegesis was employed to any signiﬁcant extent.”1 As a source for non-legal thought and expression, on the other hand, the Bible has remained preeminent—the foundation for rabbinic homiletics, ethics, mysticism and speculative writing. In Karaite Judaism, by contrast, the Bible functions not only as the basic legal norm but also as the primary legal source, mediated by reason and consensus.2 Consequently, Karaite halakhic works are exegetical, if not in form, then in content. Legal positions are always grounded in Scripture, and dissenting views scrutinized as to their exegetical validity. Conversely, Bible commentaries regularly contain extended discussions of halakhic issues, especially at those loci which may serve as a basis for legislation.

1

Elon, Jewish Law, 1:228–39, 283–90, 391. For the citation, see 399. For a detailed analysis of the tenth-century Karaites’ theories of knowledge, see Ben-Shammai, “Doctrines,” 1:8–111. 2

34

chapter two Ambiguity and Indeterminacy

If the Karaite movement developed as a rejection of Rabbanite Judaism, Karaite law represents a reaction to rabbinic halakhah. When the sect crystallized during the tenth century, its scripturalism was at its most pronounced. Karaite-Rabbanite polemics raged primarily over points of law, which served as emblems that demarcated the two groups. The calendar, the sabbath regulations, and the liturgy are among the better known areas of contention.3 But the factions diﬀered substantively as well on almost every other legal subject. Among the problems raised by both sides were questions of ambiguity, non-speciﬁcity, and uncertainty: How detailed must legislation be? Can law be derived from the Bible alone by means of legal reasoning, or is an authoritative, interpretive tradition necessary? And what is to be done when certain legal passages in Scripture defy interpretation? In this chapter, we will examine the ways in which early Karaite scholars responded to halakhic indeterminacy. We will restrict our investigations to two narrow topics: the identiﬁcation of unclean birds and the laws of ritual tassels. But ﬁrst, a deﬁnition of terms is in order. By “halakhic indeterminacy” I mean two things.4 First, there are practical issues that have not been regulated—laws, or aspects of legislation, whose precise implementation has not been ﬁxed. Under these circumstances, custom (minhag) supplements the law in rabbinic Judaism, although ultimately, custom too becomes ﬁxed and assumes

3 See, e.g., Saadya Gaon’s description of an anti-Rabbanite work with ten chapters covering Sabbath-laws, calendation, forbidden marriages, and laws of purity, among others, in Harkavy, “Fragments of Anti-Karaite Writings,” 663, 666. On early Karaite-Rabbanite polemics in general, see: Poznanski, “The Karaite Literary Opponents of Saadiah Gaon in the Tenth Century” and idem, “The Anti-Karaite Writings of Saadiah Gaon.” On the calendar, see, e.g.: Poznanski, “The Anti-Karaite Writings,” 246–48; Saadya Gaon, Commentary on Genesis, 227–28, 436 and Sklare, Samuel ben Óofni Gaon, 283–84. For the polemics concerning Sabbath-lights, see, e.g., Hirschfeld, “The Arabic Portion of the Cairo Genizah at Cambridge (Thirteenth Article)” and Klar, Me˙qarim ve-'iyyunim, 242–58. On liturgical conﬂicts, see: Simon, Four Approaches, chs. 1–2; Frank, “Karaite Prayer and Liturgy”; and below, Chapter 5. The halakhic aspect of the schism comes through clearly in Baron, SRHJ, 5:205–85, Lasker, “Rabbanism and Karaism: The Contest for Supremacy,” and Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia, ch. 6, esp. 93–99. 4 So far as I am aware, the term is my own. On the question of polysemy versus indeterminacy in midrash aggadah, see Stern, Midrash and Theory, ch. 1.

unclean birds and tassels

35

binding force.5 Second, there are points of law that have become obscure with the passage of time and whose proper implementation can no longer be determined. In rabbinic Judaism, the fulﬁllment of certain commandments depends upon the exact knowledge of biblical realia, such as the nature of the colored thread in the ritual fringes. Since the identity of the requisite dye has become uncertain, the fringes are worn without the colored thread—a temporary measure until further clariﬁcation is forthcoming.6 From the Rabbanite perspective, of course, most of the Law would have remained indeterminate, had it not been for the existence of the Sinaitic Tradition. Without an authoritative interpretation, biblical law would perplex us with its innumerable ambiguities. In the introduction to his Commentary on Genesis, Saadya Gaon expresses this forcefully. The Law, he says, contains both rational and revealed commandments: As for the rational commandments (al-'aqlìya), people would come to know them, even if they were not mentioned in Scripture. For this reason, (even) if ambiguous expressions (alfàΩ mutashàbiha min al-lugha) occur in their exposition, they are not incomprehensible to us, for (our) reason engages them, examines them, and veriﬁes them wisely and justly. But as for the revealed commandments (al-sam'ìya)—if they had not been established in Scripture, we would not come to (know) them. Similarly, if there were any ambiguous expressions in their exposition, we would be perplexed about them, since their numerous (possible) meanings would diﬀer from each other. Therefore, we require the testimony of those who beheld the prophet, so that these ambiguous expressions (al-alfàΩ al-mutashàbiha) concerning the revealed commandments will be restored to (their) unambiguous meanings (al-mu˙kam).7

5

On the ramiﬁcations of maintaining that certain halakhic details are not divinely determined, see Berger, Rabbinic Authority, 86–88 where the problem of scriptural ambiguity and the question of divine intention are directly addressed. On custom, see Elon, Jewish Law, 2:880–944, esp. 901–903 (“Custom as Supplementing the Law”). 6 See Num 15:38 for the injunction and bMena˙ot 42b–43a for a discussion of the dye. Interestingly, there have been modern attempts at discovering the identity of the snail used—according to rabbinic literature—in producing the dye; see Twerski, “Identifying the Chilazon.” 7 See Saadya Gaon, Commentary on Genesis, 13 (Arabic), 180–81 (Hebrew), and alQirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr II.14.1, vol. 1, p. 124, lines 1–7, citing Saadya in extenso. Cf. Vajda, “Études sur Qirqisànì, II,” 89 where lafΩa mutashàbiha is rendered “un mot équivoque” and al-alfàΩ al-mutashàbiha “ces mots de sens amphibologique.” Eastern exegetes confronted the problem of the Law’s apparent obscurities with its theoretical transparency; see Chiesa, Filologia storica, vol. 1, ch. 4.

chapter two

36

As he subsequently elaborates: It is inconceivable that (Moses) commanded them to eat unleavened bread (on Passover) without informing them explicitly of which grain it is (to be made),8 or to stay away from ritual impurities, without explaining to them the measure of emissions,9 and the like. For this reason, traditionally revealed knowledge must have existed for forty years before Scripture was set down in writing.10

Saadya’s classiﬁcation of the divine commandments, which is developed at greater length in Kitàb al-amànàt wa’l-i'tiqàdàt (“The Book of Beliefs and Opinions”), distinguishes between laws that coincide with the dictates of human reason and laws grounded in divine decree alone, whose purpose is to increase human reward and happiness.11 Although he was apparently the ﬁrst Jewish thinker to employ these categories, they derive from Mutazilite theology, which stresses that divine commandments are acts of God’s absolute wisdom (˙ikma), not arbitrary products of His will. Could ambiguity beset such a Law? Can divine precepts be imprecise? No, says Saadya: Reason decrees as well, that (God) the All-Wise would not make His commandments and prohibitions known in an ambiguous manner (mutashàbihan). Thus He stated: “Surely, this instruction which I enjoin upon you this day is not too baﬄing for you, nor is it beyond reach” (Deuteronomy 30:11). Indeed He conﬁrmed (their) clarity, as it is stated: “All are straightforward to the intelligent man, and right to those who have attained knowledge” (Proverbs 8:9).12

Not surprisingly, Saadya’s preoccupation with scriptural ambiguities derives from Islamic discussions of the terms mutashàbihàt and mu˙kamàt in Qur"àn 3:7:

8

See Ex 12:14–15, 39. See Lev 15. 10 Saadya Gaon, Commentary on Genesis, 15 (Arabic), 186 (Hebrew), and al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr II.14.4, vol. 1, p. 126, lines 5–8. 11 Saadya discusses the rational and revealed laws in several works, notably Kitàb al-amànàt 3:1–3, pp. 116–24 (trans. Rosenblatt, 137–47); see Altmann, “Saadya’s Conception of the Law” and Ben-Shammai, “The Classiﬁcation of the Commandments.” He also devoted a special work to the revealed commandments, Kitàb ta˙ßìl al-sharà"i' al-sam'ìya, portions of which were published by Zucker, “Fragments.” On these categories in Karaite thought, see Erder, “Early Karaite Conceptions About Commandments,” esp. 108–109. 12 Saadya Gaon, Commentary on Genesis, 13 (Arabic), 181 (Hebrew), and al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr II.14.1, vol. 1, p. 124, lines 7–10. 9

unclean birds and tassels

37

It is He who sent down upon thee the book, wherein are unambiguous verses (ayàt mu˙kamàt) that are the essence of the book (umm alkitàb), and others ambiguous (mutashàbihàt). As for those in whose hearts is swerving, they follow the ambiguous part, desiring dissension, and desiring its interpretation; and none knows its interpretation, save only God. And those ﬁrmly rooted in knowledge say, “We believe in it; all is from our Lord”; yet none remembers but men possessed of minds.13

As the late John Wansbrough showed, Muslim exegetes diﬀered widely in their understanding of this verse.14 According to Muqàtil b. Sulaymàn (d. 767), the ayàt mu˙kamàt are verses containing clear directives, such as the ordinances in Qur"àn 6:151–53, while the ayàt mutashàbihàt are four of the mysterious sets of abbreviations (almuqa††a'àt) with which certain sùras are headed.15 But according to the Companion Mujàhid (as reported by al-ˇabarì), the only ayàt mu˙kamàt are verses that prescribe what is permitted or forbidden; all others are mutashàbihàt.16 Interestingly, both authorities deﬁne ayàt mu˙kamàt as legislative verses, even though the injunctions they contain require elaboration; presumably, the very fact that they contain explicit prescriptions sets these passages apart.17 The theologian al-Màturìdì (d. 944) suggests an epistemological distinction directly relevant to Saadya’s usage: “the meaning of mu˙kamàt could be rationally apprehended . . ., that of mutashàbihàt only by recourse to authoritative tradition.”18 Taken together with the view of Ibn Qutayba (d. 889), that the prophet and his companions must have known the meaning of the ambiguous verses, this comes very close to Saadya’s usage.19 It is the Oral Law that enables

13

Arberry, The Koran Interpreted, 45 (modiﬁed). Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, 149–57. See also Ayoub, The Qur"an and Its Interpreters, 2:20–46 for a summary of traditional interpretations, and Kinberg, “Mu˙kamàt and Mutashàbihàt,” for an analysis of the ways in which medieval exegetes understood these terms. On al-ˇabarì’s comment, see McAuliﬀe, “Quranic Hermeneutics,” 51–54. See also Wild, “The Self-Referentiality of the Qur"àn.” 15 Wansbrough, ibid., 149. According to al-ˇabarì, Ibn 'Abbàs identiﬁed 6:141–53 as “clear and decisive verses”; see Ayyoub, ibid., 22. 16 Ayyoub, ibid. 17 Cf. Kinberg, “Mu˙kamàt and Mutashàbihàt,” 150–54. 18 Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, 150. Cf. al-Shàﬁ'ì’s statement: “The scholar must interpret the ambiguous passages of the Koran according to the sunna of the Prophet, and if he does not ﬁnd a sunna, according to the consensus of the Muslims, and if there is no consensus, according to the qiyàs”; see Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, 134 citing the Risàla. 19 Ibid., 152; for the text, see Ibn Qutayba, Ta"wìl mushkil al-qur"àn, 91–95. 14

38

chapter two

us to clarify ambiguous statements in Scripture.20 Since the revealed commandments are largely inaccessible to reason, they may be fully known only via the Tradition.21 In support of his argument, Saadya lists seven categories (or “roots,” ußùl) of the Revealed Law, for which we require the oral tradition: commandments whose qualities, quantities, essential nature, or very existence are not mentioned in the Bible, such as the form of the booth (sukkah),22 the length of the ritual fringe (ßißit), or the amount of the gift-oﬀering (terumah).23 For Karaites, of course, such claims were absurd. Revelation and reason alone, they maintained, are perfectly adequate sources of knowledge. There is nothing ambiguous or unclear about the rituals mentioned by Saadya: the Bible has simply left them undetermined. As Salmon ben Yeru˙im writes in his Wars of the Lord: You have written lies, for not all ordinances have a deﬁnite measurement, and that is why the length of the fringe is not speciﬁed in the Law.24

20 On Saadya’s usage of mu˙kamàt and mutashàbihàt, see Zucker’s discussion in Saadya Gaon, Commentary on Genesis, xxxviii–xlii and Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia, 305–307. 21 But cf. Kitàb al-amànàt 3:1–2, pp. 118–22 (Rosenblatt, 140–45) where Saadya notes “that they have some partial uses as well as a certain slight justiﬁcation from the point of view of reason. . . .” (Qàﬁ˙, 119; Rosenblatt, 141). 22 For the sukkah (booth or tabernacle), see Lev 23:42. 23 He also includes two non-legal categories: knowledge of post-biblical Jewish history; and knowledge of the End of Days. For Saadya’s seven ußùl, see Saadya Gaon, Commentary on Genesis, 13–15 (Arabic), 181–84 (Hebrew). For summaries and discussion, see: Vajda, “Études sur Qirqisâni, II,” 89–90; Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia, 92–93; and Harris, How Do We Know This, 75–81. The same argument can be found in Saadya’s polemical poem, "E≤≤a meshali; see Lewin, “"E≤≤a Meshali le-Rasag,” 525–27. Al-Qirqisànì reproduces Saadya’s words (Kitàb al-anwàr, II.14.2–3, vol. 1, pp. 124–25) and then refutes them (ibid., II.15.2–7, vol. 1, pp. 128–32). Salmon b. Yeru˙ìm also responds directly to the seven “demonstrations” (re"ayot) in Saadya’s “Pitron Bereshit”; see Sefer mil˙amot ha-shem, 47–50, trans. Nemoy, Karaite Anthology, 80–82. 24 See Salmon ben Yeru˙im, Sefer mil˙amot ha-shem, 47–48; trans. Nemoy, Karaite Anthology, 80. Cf. the baraita cited in bMena˙ot 41b–42a: “The word ßißit only signiﬁes something that hangs over; ßißit, in fact, signiﬁes any length whatsoever. And [this was established] long ago when the elders of Beth Shammai and of Beth Hillel went up into the upper chamber of Jo˙anan b. Bathyra and decided that there was no prescribed length for the ßißit; and so, too, that there was no prescribed length for the lulav” (Epstein, The Babylonian Talmud: Seder odashim: Mena˙ot, 251 [modiﬁed]). Only in the explication of the baraita are we told that “no prescribed length” means “no prescribed maximum length”; there is, of course a prescribed minimum length: three ﬁngerbreadths, according to Beth Hillel and four according to Beth Shammai. It should be noted that Anan declared the length of

unclean birds and tassels

39

Deftly parrying Saadya’s polemical thrust, Salmon states a fundamental scripturalist position: the details of certain halakhot were never meant to be ﬁxed. The ßißit, in truth, aﬀorded the Karaites an instance of Rabbanite uncertainty over the implementation of a law. Ya'qùb al-Qirqisànì argues that the Rabbis were ignorant of the subject and held diﬀerent opinions about it, since they asserted that the tekhelet (i.e., the colored thread speciﬁed in Numbers 15:38) is a substance in and of itself ( jawharan bi-'aynihi ), that they are no longer familiar with it, and that they do not know what it is. Now according to their statement, they ought to require that the ßißit be abolished for the nation at this time, since that which renders it complete is absent.25

To the Karaites, Rabbanite concern with the numbers, knotting, and length of the threads seemed particularly misplaced, when the one clear halakhic guideline furnished by Scripture—the colored thread— was openly ﬂouted. We will return to the problem of the ßißit, which illustrates the Karaite approach to halakhic exegesis in general, and to loosely-regulated legislation in particular. Let us begin, however, with a very diﬀerent problem, in which biblical precision gives way to great uncertainty.

Unclean Birds Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 prescribe the types of creatures that may be eaten. The Bible speciﬁes the physical characteristics by which we may distinguish land animals, water creatures, and insects that are permitted, or “clean” (†ahor). It gives no criteria for birds, however, listing instead some twenty varieties that are forbidden,

the tassel to be a handbreadth (†efa˙); see Harkavy, Zikhron la-rishonim, 10. As we will see, there were also serious halakhic disagreements between the diﬀerent groups of sectarians. 25 Al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr II.2, p. 129, lines 2–5. The Rabbanites insist that only one particular blue dye may be used, and that in its absence, the ßißit should be entirely white. For the Karaites, it is essential that blue cord be attached to the ßißit, but the source of the color is immaterial. Al-Qirqisànì diﬀerentiates here between the tekhelet of the ßißit, which is simply a color, i.e., an accident, and the tekhelet which is part of the sky’s essence. On the color of the sky, see Ben-Shammai, “Doctrines,” 1:157. Al-Qirqisànì’s last statement ﬂatly contradicts mMena˙ot 4:1: “The (absence of the) blue (in the fringes) does not invalidate the white, neither does the (absence of the) white invalidate the blue.”

40

chapter two

or “unclean” (†ame).26 Noting this apparent omission, the ancient Rabbis recorded a set of physical characteristics for birds as well. Thus, we read in the Mishnah, Tractate Óullin 3:6: The criteria (or “signs,” simanim) for cattle and wild animals are stated in the Law, but the criteria for birds are not stated. But the Sages have said: Any bird that seizes (food in its claws; dores) is unclean. (And) any that has an extra toe, and a crop, and whose gizzard can be separated (from the surrounding muscle), is clean. R. Eliezer b. Zadok says: Any bird that divides its feet (i.e., parts its toes evenly) is unclean.27

Elaborating on this passage, the Babylonian Talmud suggests that the vulture (nesher) and turtledove (tor) constitute ideal types: the vulture uniquely lacks every characteristic listed in the Mishnah, while the turtledove possesses them all.28 By forbidding the vulture and permitting the turtledove, therefore, Scripture is alluding to the crucial set of criteria. Abbaye, however, remarks that “the (characteristics) were not expressly stated in the Torah but were inferred by the Scribes.”29 Much of the section is devoted to determining whether a bird must have all or some of the characteristics and whether one particular characteristic constitutes a sine qua non. There are debates as well concerning the permissibility of various species of birds to which the criteria may or may not apply. Attempts are made to identify some of the birds forbidden in Scripture—by the rabbinic period there was great uncertainty on the subject—but physical cri26 Lev 11:13–19 and Deut 14:11–18. On the permitted and forbidden birds in the Bible, see: Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 661–64, 701–702, 718–36; Levine, Leviticus, 67–68, 243–48; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 139–40; Douglas, Purity and Danger, 41–57; Bulmer, “The Uncleanness of the Birds of Leviticus and Deuteronomy”; and Mayes, “Deuteronomy 14 and the Deuteronomic World View.” Note that Deut 14:13 mentions both the ra"ah and the dayyah, bringing the total to twenty-one. 27 Danby, The Mishnah, 518 (modiﬁed; cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 661–662). See also Sifra Leviticus, Shemini 5:6 (on Lev 11:13). 28 Heb. nesher is rendered “eagle” in most translations of the Bible, including the KJV, RSV, and NJPS. Following many modern scholars, I have rendered nesher “vulture”—more properly “griﬀon vulture.” This also has the advantage of accurately translating Ar. nasr, which, as we shall see, is the standard equivalent of nesher in Judeo-Arabic texts. On the identity of the nesher, see Y. Ahituv and S. Ahituv, “Nesher.” 29 See bÓullin 60b–61a, trans. Epstein, The Babylonian Talmud: Seder odashim: Óullin, 1:334. The talmudic discussion extends to fol. 66a; for a comprehensive analyasis, see Menahem Meiri (d. 1306), Beit ha-be˙ira 'al massekhet ˙ullin, 212–35. For a convenient overview with abundant references to later rabbinic sources, see Zivotofsky, “Is Turkey Kosher?”

unclean birds and tassels

41

teria, their deﬁnition, interpretation, and relevance frame the entire discussion. For scripturalist sectarians, the rabbinic approach begs three crucial questions: Is it still possible to identify the birds forbidden in the Bible? If not, does the Bible provide distinguishing criteria for permitted and forbidden birds? And if not, which birds are permitted, and on what basis? In his Book of Commandments, Anan b. David links Noah’s burnt oﬀering of “every clean bird” (Genesis 8:20) with the burnt oﬀerings decreed in Leviticus 1:14: “Now we do not ﬁnd that any birds were used for burnt oﬀerings save turtledoves and pigeons, as it is written . . . (in Leviticus 1:14). The juxtaposition of the words ‘of every clean bird’ and ‘he oﬀered burnt oﬀerings’ thus proves that the only clean birds are turtledoves and pigeons.”30 Anan’s strict interpretation of the two verses would seem to obviate the need for physical criteria: apparently all birds are unclean, except for those sacriﬁced. At the same time, it is diﬃcult to escape the notion that the lists of prohibited birds are meant to be comprehensive, and that any bird not explicitly forbidden is permitted. Since only fragments of Anan’s work have been preserved, however, we cannot say how he understood Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.31 According to al-Qirqisànì, some of Anan’s followers did establish two characteristics or “signs” ('alamatayn), which are typical of pigeons and turtledoves: (1) they feed their young, and (2) when they drink water they spit.32 Since Scripture speciﬁes two signs for permitted land animals, water creatures, and insects, they believed that clean birds—that is, pigeons and turtledoves—must possess two characteristics

30 See: Schechter, Documents of Jewish Sectaries, vol. 2, p. 24, line 5; Harkavy, Zikhron la-rishonim, 67–68 (trans. Nemoy, Karaite Anthology, 16–17); and Ben-Shammai, “Between Ananites and Karaites,” 22 and p. 27, nn. 27–29. The passage published by Harkavy and translated by Nemoy is a citation of Anan’s work found in an eleventh-century text; I have cited Nemoy’s translation. 31 See Harkavy, ibid., p. 67, n. 10. 32 Al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr XII.3, vol. 5, pp. 1183–84: wa-qad za'ama qawm min al-'ànànìya an al-†à"ir al-†àhir yu'raf bi-'alàmatayn wa-huwa an yazuqqu faràkhahu al†a'àm wa-yashribu al-mà"a majjan. Cf. Ben-Shammai, “Between Ananites and Karaites,” p. 22: “that it feed its young directly into their mouths and that it give them drink by spitting into their mouths” (apparently reading yushribu); so also Aaron b. Joseph (12th–13th c.), Sefer ha-miv˙ar, vol. 3, fol. 16a last line, and Aaron b. Elijah (d. 1369), Gan 'eden, fol. 101a. The reading yashribu (“drink”) would accord, however, with bÓullin 62b: zeh moßeß u-meqi ve-zeh moßeß ve-"eino meqi (“the former drinks and spits, the latter drinks but does not spit”). As Ben-Shammai notes (ibid., 22), these criteria may well represent a later innovation.

42

chapter two

as well.33 What is striking here is the similarity to the Rabbanite method: lacking explicit biblical guidelines, they derived physical criteria from their observation of permissible (and forbidden) birds. The only diﬀerence is in the number and nature of the criteria. As Haggai Ben-Shammai has emphasized, neither Anan nor the Ananites were true scripturalists. Rather, they championed an alternative interpretation of the Law, comparable to an Islamic legal school (madhhab).34 As we will see, the Karaites rejected the use of physical criteria for birds as a human innovation. Like Anan, they prudently restricted themselves to those species whose permissibility was universally acknowledged—pigeons and turtledoves. But in principle, they believed many other birds to be permitted as well. One of their earliest authorities, Benjamin al-Nahàwandì (early ninth century) states: The only clean birds which can be identiﬁed are the pigeon and its kind. There are many clean and unclean (varieties), as it said: “Two living clean birds” (Leviticus 14:4). And it states: “You may eat all (clean) birds” (Deuteronomy 14:11). This indicates that there are many clean (varieties), but they cannot be identiﬁed by means of physical criteria, since Scripture did not make these explicit. The pigeon and the turtledove are clean, for it is stated “Then he shall bring his oﬀering of turtledoves or of young pigeons” (ibid. 1:14). The pigeon is the (bird) that makes a cooing noise in its throat, as it is stated: “We coo like doves.” (Isaiah 59:11). And the turtledove is (a kind) of pigeon, as it is said: “And a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin oﬀering” (Leviticus 12:6). Therefore the only clean bird that it mentioned is the pigeon and its kind.35

Since pigeons and turtledoves were brought as sacriﬁces, they are still permitted. The identiﬁcation of other clean birds, however, remains uncertain: the Bible provides no physical criteria by which they may be known. Implicit in this passage is the question: can we identify the biblical pigeon and turtledove with certainty? According to Benjamin, Isaiah 59:11 describes the characteristic cooing (or

33 Some Ananites even added a third criterion, the extra toe; see al-Qirqisànì, ibid., p. 1183, line 17. 34 Ben-Shammai, “The Karaite Controversy,” 24. See also idem, “Return to the Scriptures.” On the legal schools in Islam, see, e.g., Coulson, A History of Islamic Law, ch. 7. 35 Benjamin’s view is recorded in the Commentary of Jeshua b. Judah on Leviticus (RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I:1989); see Harkavy, Zikhron la-rishonim, 179. On this manuscript, see Mann, Texts 2:38.

unclean birds and tassels

43

moaning) of pigeons—scriptural conﬁrmation of the identiﬁcation. Benjamin’s insistence that pigeons and turtledoves constitute a single genus likely relates to the use of min (“kind”) in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Presumably, if turtledoves are but one kind of pigeon, other kinds of pigeon are clean as well. Benjamin’s approach heralds the staunchly scripturalist stance of Daniel al-Qùmisì, who led the Karaite movement of Mourners for Zion at the end of the ninth century. In his Book of Commandments, Daniel clearly distinguishes between the creatures whose cleanness may be known by physical criteria—quadrupeds, ﬁsh, grasshoppers— and the birds which are known only by their names. God did this, he says: Because the marks of unclean beasts diﬀer from those of clean beasts, whereas the mark of many a clean bird is like that of an unclean one; that is why He listed the unclean birds by their names, and not by their marks.36

Al-Qùmisì rejects Rabbanite attempts to ﬁnd scriptural justiﬁcation for the physical criteria. Leviticus 1:16 states that the priest is to remove the bird’s mur"ah with its noßah; according to the Sifra, these words are to be glossed “gizzard” and “crop,” respectively.37 Dismissing this interpretation—albeit with the glosses reversed—al-Qùmisì explains that the mur"ah is the food stored by a bird in its noßah, a general designation for crop, stomach, or intestines. Thus, only one bodypart is mentioned, and there is nothing distinguishing about it: “Does a bird exist which does not possess an organ for the storage of food, be it a noßah or the intestines?”38 Having dismissed the rabbinic signs, al-Qùmisì states that unless we can make perfect sense of the lists of forbidden species, we are not permitted to eat any birds, with the exception of the turtledove (Heb. tor, Ar. shafnìn) and the pigeon (Heb. yonah, Ar. ˙amàm), which

36

Harkavy, Zikhron la-rishonim, 187–89 (trans. Nemoy, Karaite Anthology, 32). See Sifra Leviticus (ed. Finkelstein), Dibbura di-Nedava, parashah 7:9, vol. 2, p. 63, lines 40–42; for discussion, see ibid., 3:55–57, nn. 40–42. This translation is reﬂected in Saadya’s Tafsìr: wa-yanza'u ˙awßalatahu ma'a qànisatihi. 38 See Harkavy, Zikhron la-rishonim, 187: ki hem ˙oshevim ki mur"ah ve-noßah hi qànißa wa-˙awßala; for al-Qùmisì’s explanation, see p. 188 (trans. Nemoy, 32). Modern translations diﬀer as well; RSV has “its crop with the feathers,” and NJPS “its crop with the contents.” But Milgrom renders: “He shall remove its crissum by its feathers”; see Leviticus 1–16, 134 and the discussion on 169–71. 37

44

chapter two

are well known. But since Hebrew is no longer our vernacular, there is widespread disagreement concerning the signiﬁcance of many biblical bird names. To be sure, there is a consensus concerning the more common terms, but without suﬃcient context, it is impossible to establish the meaning of hapax legomena: “We can explain any word attested (elsewhere) in Scripture, such as crow ('orev) and vulture (nesher), but we cannot explain a word that is unattested (elsewhere) in Scripture, such as peres, 'ozniyah, ta˙mas, and the rest.”39 Naturally, domesticated fowl pose the real problem. While their physical markings indicate that they are clean and people are accustomed to eating them, there is no scriptural evidence that they are permitted. Attempts to identify the biblical tor with the chicken (dìk, dajàja) fail to convince al-Qùmisì, who cites Jeremiah 8:7 as proof that the tor is wild, not domestic. Others have cited rabbinic sources, which assert that the cock (tarnegol) is known in some parts as sekhvi— an obscure word appearing in Job 38:36.40 For a Rabbanite, this would have been enough to exclude chickens from the list of forbidden birds. But al-Qùmisì raises a simple objection: even granting that sekhvi is a fowl, how do we know that it is not a kind (min) of unclean bird? “Know,” he says, “that not every unclean bird is mentioned by name, but rather that for each kind a single representative type (is listed), as it is written: ‘every crow according to its kind’ (Leviticus 11:15); ‘the "ayyah according to its kind’ . . . From this you know that all those listed are representative types of birds. For each of these, there are a number of species whose names were not recorded. And who knows if sekhvi is not the name of (some unclean) bird?”41 Al-Qùmisì’s arguments were probably directed as much at other sectarians as at Rabbanites. According to al-Qirqisànì, a certain minor heresiarch, Malik al-Ramlì “stood up in Jerusalem (bayt al-muqaddas) and swore that cocks used to be sacriﬁced on the altar which was in the Temple, i.e., on ‘the altar of God.’”42 Malik’s position—which

39 Harkavy, Zikhron la-rishonim, 188 (my translation; cf. Nemoy, Karaite Anthology, 33): ve-khol davar "asher yesh lo domeh ba-miqra nukhal liftor "oto kemo 'orev ve-nesher; va"asher "ein lo domeh ba-miqra lo nukhal liftor "oto kemo ha-peres ve-ha-'ozniyah ve-ha-ta˙mas ve-ha-"a˙erim. I render 'orev “crow” rather than the more usual “raven,” since the Hebrew word apparently designates the genus corvus. 40 See: bRosh Hashanah 26a; yBerakhot 9.1, 63b; and Leviticus Rabbah 25:5. 41 Harkavy, Zikhron la-rishonim, 188 (my translation; cf. Nemoy, Karaite Anthology, 33). 42 See al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr I.16, vol. 1, p. 57, lines 9–11 (trans. Lockwood,

unclean birds and tassels

45

diﬀered from Anan’s on the one hand and Benjamin’s on the other— suggests that the identiﬁcation of clean and unclean birds had become something of a touchstone among the various Jewish sects in the Abbasid East during the mid-ninth century.43 When al-Qùmisì took his principled stand against eating chicken, therefore, he was very likely contending with another group of dissenters. For God-fearing people, he insisted, the only permitted birds are turtledoves, pigeons, and wild pigeons—at least until the coming of the Teacher of Righteousness. As he explains in his commentary on Joel 2:23, he believes this mysterious ﬁgure to be none other than the prophet Elijah, “whom (God) will assign to Israel to teach them laws.”44 It is Elijah’s special task to resolve precisely the kind of exegetical diﬃculty posed here, for “every word in the Bible has but one (true) interpretation, not two. Since people do not know (Scripture’s) true meanings, however, some will interpret it in one way and others in another until the coming of the Teacher of Righteousness.”45 Al-Qùmisì’s exposition of the problem anticipates all later Karaite treatments. Noting that Scripture furnishes no criteria for clean birds, he attacks the Rabbanites for having invented any; the unclean birds must be recognized by name alone. Great uncertainty prevails, however, since Hebrew is no longer spoken. Consequently, pigeons and turtledoves remain the only permitted birds, since their consumption is authorized in the Bible. Resisting attempts to sanction the eating of other species, al-Qùmisì asserts that the issue’s resolution awaits the advent of Elijah. In his commentary on Leviticus 11, Saadya Gaon reacts to sectarian criticism.46 Saadya’s method is familiar from his other writings:

150). The Arabic bayt al-muqaddas probably refers to Jerusalem, not the Temple Mount per se. By the twelfth century, the anecdote had become badly garbled; see Judah Hadassi, "Eshkol ha-kofer, fol. 41d, Alphabet 98, 'ayin, and Harkavy, Zikhron la-rishonim, 145. Cf. Baron, SRHJ, 5:195 who senses the polemical nature of Malik’s proclamation. 43 Malik seems to have been a contemporary of Benjamin al-Nahàwandì’s; his followers (the “Ramlìya” or “Malikìya”) were still active in al-Qirqisànì’s day. See al-Qirqisànì, ibid., I.2.18, vol. 1, p. 14, lines 4–5 (trans. Lockwood, 104; cf. 71–72). 44 Daniel al-Qùmisì, Pitron Sheneim 'Asar, 29. 45 Daniel al-Qùmisì, Comment on Ps 74:6; see Marmorstein, “Seridim,” p. 336, lines 16–17 = idem, “Fragments,” 196. See Frank, “Karaite Exegesis,” 114. 46 The text was published from a Genizah fragment, T-S Ar. 52.194 (formerly T-S. 10. Ca. 1); see Hirschfeld, “The Arabic Portion of the Cairo Genizah at Cambridge (Fourteenth Article).”

46

chapter two

Scripture, reason, and tradition, represent complementary sources of knowledge that together leave no halakhic problem unresolved. As an exegete, he does not shy from glossing strange names or words, but as a legal authority, he upholds traditional rabbinic solutions. Thus, although he translates the bird names into Arabic according to information he has collected, he admits that these renderings can only be conjectural.47 Confronted with an unfamiliar ornithological specimen, he would not be able to provide a ﬁrm identiﬁcation. Moreover, aside from the twenty names listed in the Bible, there are certainly other unclean birds; this is made explicit by the expression “after its kind (min),” which occurs four times in verses 14–16 and 19. Even when we know a bird to be clean—such as the pigeon— it is impossible for us to infer which speciﬁc characteristics it might share exclusively with other permitted birds.48 For this reason, it was essential that Moses give the people a set of physical criteria, which the Sages subsequently transmitted; these are the four signs recorded in Mishnah Óullin and the Sifra.49 Saadya’s statement reﬂects his general conception of the Oral Law as an independent, authoritative source of divine origin, that supplies information lacking in Scripture.50 The criteria for classifying birds constitute but one more proof that God has clariﬁed all biblical ambiguities for us. At this point, the anti-sectarian polemic becomes explicit. Saadya mentions a heretic (ba'∂ al-mu˙dithìn) who denies that fowl is permitted, despite its possessing all four characteristics. If this innovator (mubdi' ) were asked for his proof, he would say: “I have seen

47 See Hirschfeld, ibid., p. 145, lines 1–5 (Ar.), p. 156 (Eng.). Cf. Saadya, Tafsìr ad loc. Of the bird names in Lev 11 and Deut 14, only the "ayyah is mentioned in his dictionary, where it is simply glossed 'of; see Saadya Gaon, Ha-"Egron, p. 190. In his Tafsìr, however, he renders the word as ßadan (“screech owl”; Lev 11:14, Deut 14:13), and ˙id"a (“kite”; Job 28:7). Clearly, he considered these translations to be provisional. The identiﬁcation of the birds continued to perplex medieval exegetes and jurists. There were obvious practical implications. Some authorities in Europe, for example, believed the stork to be permissible, while others identiﬁed it with the forbidden ˙asidah; see 'Amar, “Ha-pulmus 'al kashrut ha-˙asidah.” According to 'Amar, Y. Seri has written an M.A. dissertation on the various Arabic renderings of the bird names in Lev 11 and Deut 14; see ibid., p. 137, n. 9. 48 See Hirschfeld, ibid., p. 145, line 16: wa-"idhà fa˙aßnà 'an dhàlika lam najid alra"y yu"addìnà ilà 'alàma al-battati (“Upon investigation, we have not found that reasoning could lead us (to discover) any deﬁnite sign.”) 49 Hirschfeld, ibid., p. 145, lines 9–21 (Ar.), p. 156 (Eng.). 50 See Harris, How Do We Know This, 76–81. Cf. Halbertal’s “retrieval model” of midrash halakhah as a means of reconstructing the Oral Law in People of the Book, 54–59.

unclean birds and tassels

47

that pigeons spit water and feed their young, but I do not ﬁnd this to be the case with chickens.”51 As we have seen, certain Ananites used these behavioral traits to distinguish between pigeons and all other birds. Saadya rejects these criteria, arguing that the signs indicating whether a creature is permitted or forbidden must not be habitual, but physical, so that they are always observable.52 This is the case with ﬁsh, insects, and beasts. The latter, for example, must possess cloven hooves and chew their cuds; ruminating, notes Saadya, actually implies a physical attribute, viz., the lack of upper molars.53 In the same way, the rabbinic criteria for permitted birds are all physical, including the provision that they not tear their food. This too involves a bodily feature—claws that cannot bend, for raptors must grip their food with their feet in order to tear it.54 Saadya also criticizes Anan’s citation of Genesis 8:20 as proof that pigeons and turtledoves alone are permitted.55 The parallel partitive constructions in that verse—“And he took of all the clean beasts and of all the clean birds” indicate that Noah sacriﬁced clean animals only, not that he sacriﬁced one of every clean species. After all, Saadya believed many—perhaps most—birds to be permitted, a view that the Karaites shared in theory. In practice, of course, the latter restricted themselves to the species sanctioned by Anan, while faulting the logic that led him to his position. Saadya’s younger contemporary Ya'qùb al-Qirqisànì responded directly to the Gaon, and as usual, the relevant portions of Kitàb alanwàr contain lucid, succinct presentations of the Karaite position. Here, however, we will turn to Japheth b. Eli, who drew upon the codes of al-Qùmisì and al-Qirqisànì (without naming either author).56 Japheth’s discussion reveals the principles that led early Karaites to take an agnostic stand on the question of unclean birds. Below, we present his comment on Leviticus 11:13–19; the parallel comment on Deuteronomy 14:11–20 (= 2.2) will be found in the Appendix to this chapter.57 51

Hirschfeld, “The Arabic Portion,” p. 147, lines 14–19 (Ar.), pp. 157–58 (Eng.). Ibid., p. 147, lines 23–24: wa-dhàlika an al-'alàma al-dàlla 'alà al-˙alàl wa’l-˙aràm innamà hiya fì’l-jism là fì’l-af 'àl. 53 Ibid., p. 148, line 2: al-ijtiràr al-mu∂∂amin bihi 'adm al-a∂ràs al-'àlìya. 54 Ibid., p. 146, lines 3–4. 55 Ibid., p. 146, lines 12 ﬀ. 56 For al-Qirqisànì’s discussion, see al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr XII.2, vol. 5, pp. 1183–85. 57 Japheth’s comment on Lev 11:13–19 has been edited and translated on the basis of RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I:0057, fols. 147–49, 150–52 (out of sequence). 52

48

chapter two

As mentioned previously, Japheth’s commentaries embody complete literal renderings of the biblical text into Arabic. In Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, however, the bird names have been left untranslated, because their identiﬁcations are no longer secure. Curiously, however, the copy of his commentary on Leviticus here cited contains the following translation: 2.1.1

58

(Leviticus 11:13) “And these you shall declare unclean among the birds; you may not eat them, since they are unclean:58 the vulture (nasr), the eagle ('uqàb), and the griﬃn ('anqà").”59 (11:14) and the falcon (ßaqr) and the screech owl (ßadan)60 and its kind. (11:15) and the crow and its kind. (11:16) and the ostrich (na'àm) and the swallow (khu††àf ) and the buzzard (sàf )61 and the sparrow62 and its kind. (11:17) and the owl (bùm) and the sea-osprey (zummaj)63 and the sparrow-hawk (bàshaq).64 (11:18) and the bat (khushshàf) and the owl (qùq)65 and the Egyptian vulture (rakham).66 (11:19) and the kite (˙id"a) and the parrot (babghà") and its kind, and the hoopoe (hudhud) and the peacock (†àwùs). (11:20) “All ﬂying swarming things that go upon all fours are unclean for you.” (11:21) “But these you may eat among all the ﬂying swarming things that go on all fours, which have knees above their feet, with which to leap on the earth.” (11:22) “Of them you may eat these: the "arbeh according to its kind, the sol'am according to its kind, the ˙argol according to its kind, and the ˙agav according to its kind.”67

Translating Heb. sheqeß with Ar. rajis, lit. “ﬁlthy.” The 'anqà" regularly designates a fabulous long-necked bird or griﬃn; see Lane, Lexicon, 2177a and Kazimirski, Dictionnaire, 2:388. This translation likely derives from Saadya’s Tafsìr. In his commentary ad loc. Abraham Ibn Ezra criticizes Saadya’s translation, since God could not possibly have forbidden the consumption of a creature “which has never existed except by way of a parable.” In defending the Gaon’s usage, Qaﬁ˙ describes a large raptor found in the Yemen which the Bedouin call 'anqà"; see Peirushei rabbeinu Se'adyah ga"on 'al ha-torah, p. 125, n. 7. 60 See Kazimirski, Dictionnaire, 1:1325. 61 Or, possibly, “kite”; see Dozy, Supplément, 1:703. 62 “Female sparrow”: naßßa; see Hava, Al-Faraid, 773. 63 Falco haliœtus; see Dozy, Supplément, 1:602. 64 See Lane, Lexicon, 1:209b. 65 Presumably a species distinct from that mentioned in verse 17; see Dozy, Supplément, 2:420. 66 Vultur percnopterus; see Lane, Lexicon, 1059c. 67 The Hebrew names have been left untranslated. 59

unclean birds and tassels

49

(11:23) “But all ﬂying swarming things which have four feet are an abomination to you.”

A scribal note explains that “these names derive from the words of the scholar Abù’l-Surrì,” that is, they were copied from Sahl b. Maßlia˙’s commentary. At least one Karaite, then, thought it useful to attempt Arabic renderings of the bird names, just as Saadya had done; most of these were almost certainly intended to be no more than educated guesses.68 On the other hand, the tenth-century Karaite lexicographer David al-Fàsì glossed half a dozen of the names with a vague ism †ayr (“bird name”); others, he simply omitted.69 Japheth will address the diﬃculty of translating these names directly, but ﬁrst, he must explain a key term in Leviticus 11:13, 'of: 2.1.2

68

The word for sea-creatures70 was applied to ﬂying things, which were originally created of the waters; (subsequently) their habitat was established on land, as it states: “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures (and let birds ﬂy above the earth across the ﬁrmament of the heavens)” (Genesis 1:20). This (passage) informs (us) that (among the ﬂying creatures) there are permitted and forbidden (kinds), just as there are among the beasts and ﬁsh. It mentions those of them which are forbidden by name and kind (anwà' ), but did not mention any sign for them.

It is interesting to compare Saadya’s and Sahl’s respective translations, which agree on all but ﬁve of the identiﬁcations (da"ah, neß, tinshemet, ˙asidah, 'a†alef ). Of these, Sahl has reversed the identiﬁcations of the da"ah and ˙asidah, and has rendered neß by a near homonym instead of Saadya’s bàz (“hawk”; Lane, Lexicon, 201b). Saadya renders tinshemet as shàhìn (“white falcon” or “gerfalcon”; Lane, ibid., 201b, s.v. bàz, and 1492a); he follows the targumim in translating 'a†alef as khuﬀàsh (“bat”; see Kasher, Torah Shelemah, 28:257). Sahl’s translation of tinshemet reﬂects the Karaite interpretation discussed below. I have not been able to ascertain whether any of the extant fragments of Sahl’s Sefer Mißvot and Commentary on Leviticus cover Lev 11:13–19. Quite probably, his translations of the bird names reﬂect a certain disjunction between the respective functions of tafsìr and shar˙. Later scholars recorded these renderings; see, e.g., the code of Samuel al-Maghribì (15th c., Egypt), alMurshid, treatise 7, ch. 4, ed. Lorge, Die Speisegesetze der Karäer, 4 (Ar.), 34 (German). Haggai Ben-Shammai has drawn my attention to fol. 158a of the same manuscript (RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I:0057), which contains identiﬁcations of insect names, ascribed to “Jeshua Abu ’l-Faraj b. Asad.” As Professor Ben-Shammai observes, this indicates that Sahl was not the only Karaite who engaged in such identiﬁcations and further, that the copyist actually edited the commentary, augmenting it where he saw ﬁt from manuscripts in his possession. 69 See David al-Fàsì, Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ, 1:359 (da"ah), 1:75 ("ayyah), 2:661 (sha˙af ), 2:286 (neß), 2:675 (shalakh). He omits the peres, 'ozniyah, bat ha-ya'anah, ta˙mas, yanshuf, ra˙am, ˙asidah, "anafah, and dukhifat. Some of the other names are discussed below. 70 Scil. Heb. shereß; see vs. 10.

50

chapter two Now we have found three types of ﬂying creatures ('of ) in Scripture. (The word) may be applied to anything that has two wings by which it moves, whether feathered (rìshì) or covered with membrane ( jildì), as it is stated at the beginning of creation: “And let ﬂying creatures ('of ) ﬂy upon the earth” (Genesis 1:20).71 It is a general term for anything that has a feathered wing. When (a creature’s) wing is of membrane, (the term 'of ) may be applied to it in certain instances. This is the case with the statement in Deuteronomy 14:72 “All clean ﬂying things you may eat” (ibid. 14:20). This was said solely in connection with the (creatures whose wings are) of membrane, since it had (already) stated in connection with the feathered (ﬂying creatures): “You may eat all clean birds” (ibid. 14:11).73 It may (also) be applied to the feathered creatures alone, as in the verse: “And your dead body shall be food for all birds ('of ) of the air” (Deuteronomy 28:26). Its referent (ma˙alluhu) is Leviticus 11:13.74 There is a special designation for feathered ﬂying creatures which is not applicable to those with (wings) of membrane, and that is ßippor, since we do not ﬁnd ßippor (applied anywhere) in Scripture to those with (wings) of membrane, whether in the plural or the singular. But just as there is a special designation for feathered ﬂying creatures, there is one for those with (wings of ) membrane, and that is shereß ha-'of. When (the Bible) says ßippor, we know that it is referring to the feathered ﬂying creatures alone, and when it says shereß ha-'of, it is referring only to the ﬂying creatures with wings of membrane. If it (simply) says 'of, (the term) requires examination (naΩar) so that we may know whether it is referring to feathered (ﬂying creatures) and not to those with (wings of ) membrane, or to those with (wings of ) membrane and not to feathered (ﬂying creatures), or to all of them, as it states by way of introduction concerning them: “They are unclean” (Leviticus 11:13). This is similar to what it states concerning the sea creatures.75

A general term whose meaning must be determined contextually, 'of may be contrasted with ßippor and shereß ha-'of, both of which are more speciﬁc. Japheth cites examples for each word according to its diﬀerent usages.76 Next, he takes up the bird names: 71

In this passage, Japheth uses a shorthand terminology: rìshì (“feathered”) for “feathered ﬂying creatures,” i.e., birds, and jildì (“membraned,” “having a skin”) for “ﬂying creatures with wings of membrane,” i.e., insects. Al-Qirqisànì uses the same terminology; see Kitàb al-anwàr XII.2.3, vol. 5, p. 1183, line 19 and n. 3 ad loc. 72 Lit. in the section banim (“You are the sons”; Deut 14:1–21). 73 For a similar interpretation, see Sifre on Deuteronomy, pisqa 103, on Deut 14:20. 74 I.e., the word 'of in Deut 28:26 means “birds” as it does in Lev 11:13. 75 See Lev 11:10. 76 Cf. the comment on Deut 14:11, 2.2.2, translated in the Appendix to this chapter.

unclean birds and tassels 2.1.3

51

It mentions twenty birds, concerning four of which it uses the expression “kind” (min): 'orev, "ayyah, neß, and "anafah. In Deuteronomy 14, twenty-one birds (are listed); there dayyah has been added. It seems that there are two kinds of "ayyah, the dayyah and another which is unnamed, since it says here: “the ayyah after its kind” (Leviticus 11:14), while there it says: “the "ayyah and the dayyah after its kind” (Deuteronomy 14:13). Now our language (i.e., Hebrew) does not distinguish between the words for genus ( jins) and species (naw' ), for (the Bible) says minah when it means “genus,” as in the verse “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds” (Genesis 1:24) and then speciﬁes “beasts” (bahà"im) and “creeping things” (dabìb). But (min may refer to) species as well, as it says: “the beasts after their kinds and the ﬂying creatures after their kinds.”77 The Arabs, however, distinguish between genus and species. Now the phrase “and the "ayyah after its kind” refers to a genus, and the phrase “and the dayyah after its kind” refers to a species. (The Bible) did not mention the names of the species, but only the names of the genera, and we lack knowledge of these birds and their species, since language is not one of those things that are known either via logical necessity (∂arùratan) or via speculation and analogical reasoning (bi’l-naΩar wa’l-qiyàs), but it is only acquired from a language community (ahl al-lugha), as they themselves acquired it from their predecessors. The Jews (al-'ibràniyyùn) used to know these birds by name, but this (knowledge) declined among them over the course of time. In our own time, we ﬁnd that they agree upon the identiﬁcation of the nesher and the 'orev, which they say are the vulture (nasr) and crow ( ghuràb) (respectively), and the kos which is the owl (bùm), and the ra˙amah which is the Egyptian vulture (rakhama). But they do not agree about (the identiﬁcation) of the others.

The passage begins descriptively: twenty names are listed in Leviticus, four of which are modiﬁed by the expression “kind”; in Deuteronomy, however, the dayyah has been added, making a total of twenty-one. Japheth explains that unlike Arabic, Hebrew does not distinguish between genus ( jins) and species (naw' ).78 The Hebrew word min may have either sense, as is demonstrated in Leviticus 11:14 and Deuteronomy 14:13, where it signiﬁes genus and species, respectively. This

77

The citation is imprecise; cf. Gen 6:20 and 7:14. These terms likely entered the Arabic technical vocabulary during the ninth century with the translation of Aristotle’s Categories. For their use in al-Fàràbì, see Abed, Aristotelian Logic, 10–15. Among Jewish thinkers, the terms can be found as early as Isaac Israeli; see Stern, “Isaac Israeli’s Book of Substances,” 138 and 143, lines 10–15. During the late twelfth century, the Tibbonids established sug and min as the respective Hebrew renderings of genus and species; see Klatzkin, Thesaurus, 3:96–97, s.v. sug and 2:192–93, s.v. min. 78

52

chapter two

leads to the main point: the Bible indicates which genera are unclean (without naming every unclean species), but today we are lacking in linguistic knowledge. This deﬁciency, moreover, cannot be made up through reason or logic, since linguistic knowledge is transmitted from one generation of a language community to another.79 Unfortunately, Jewish familiarity with Hebrew—by which, of course, Japheth means biblical Hebrew—has declined with the passage of time, and knowledge of the bird names has been lost.80 At this point, there is general agreement concerning four identiﬁcations only: nesher, 'orev, kos, and ra˙am. To this list, Japheth will add two names, bat ha-ya'anah and tinshemet, in his comment on Deuteronomy 14:11–20.81 When Japheth states that within the language community there is agreement concerning the meaning of certain words, he is referring to a kind of transmitted knowledge. Like other early Karaites and Ananites, al-Qirqisànì had already conﬁrmed the probative value of consensus (ijmà' ), and equated it with tradition (naql ). Now at ﬁrst blush, it might seem heretical for a strict scripturalist to admit traditional knowledge of any kind, but al-Qirqisànì carefully restricted naql to fundamental principles accepted by all Jewish groups, such as the incidence of the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week or the soundness of the consonantal text of Scripture. This type of broad, consensual tradition which is preserved by the entire community (al-umma bi-asrihà) diﬀers sharply from the rabbinic tradition, 79 The phrase ahl al-lugha designates the community of people who use a particular language, not philologists; it may be rendered “language community” or “linguistic community.” For the latter, see Sturtevant, Linguistic Change, ch. 7. “Speech community” (Bloomﬁeld, Language, ch. 3) would be oxymoronic in the present context. On ahl al-lugha, see Ben-Shammai, “The Tension Between Literal Interpretation and Exegetical Freedom,” 37, and p. 46 n. 38. In his comment on Deut 14:11–20, Japheth uses the term repeatedly; see the comment on Deut 14:11, 2.2, translated in the Appendix to this chapter. For another instance, see the commentary of Abu ’l-Faraj Furqàn ( Jeshua b. Judah) on Leviticus, BL Or. 2494 (318/II), fol.57a, noted in Margoliouth, Catalogue, 1:244, col. b. 80 Japheth’s observation is reminiscent of a point made by the jurist and philologist Abù Sa'ìd al-Sìràfì (893–979) concerning Ancient Greek in his debate with the translator Mattà ibn Yùnus (ca. 870–940): since Hebrew is no longer spoken, it can no longer be mastered, and the meanings of many words and expressions are no longer recoverable. See Mahdi, “Language and Logic in Classical Islam,” esp. 66–67. For medieval reﬂections on the decline of Hebrew among the Jews, see Halkin, “The Medieval Jewish Attitude Toward Hebrew” and Zwiep, Mother of Reason and Revelation, 229–40. 81 See the comment on Deut 14:11, 2.2.10, translated in the Appendix to this chapter. Cf. al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr XII.2.2, p. 1183, who lists all but the tinshemet.

unclean birds and tassels

53

which the Karaites reject as the teachings of individual authorities.82 For al-Qirqisànì knowledge founded on naql extends to the meaning of basic Hebrew vocabulary, such as va-yiqqa˙ (“he took”), va-ya'as (“he made”), or va-yitten (“he gave”). By contrast, there is no such agreement concerning most rare words (al-gharìb min al-alfàΩ); these can only be translated provisionally on the basis of root-derivation (al-ishtiqàq) or context, or the views of individual scholars. As examples of rare vocabulary, al-Qirqisànì cites fragments of two verses, Nahum 2:11 and Joel 1:17, as well as “the names of many birds and gemstones.”83 There is agreement, however, on certain bird names, and it is worth studying the examples Japheth oﬀers. Since three of the ﬁve identiﬁcations involve cognates—'orev/ghuràb (“crow,” “raven”); nesher/nasr (“vulture”); and ra˙am/rakham (“Egyptian vulture”)—it is tempting to ascribe the consensus to the obvious similarities between words. A fourth identiﬁcation—bat ha-ya'anah/na'àma (“ostrich”)—was likely made in similar fashion via Aramaic na'amita; translations of this kind, in fact, have clear antecedents in the targumim.84 At the same time, although these equations seem self-evident, they were not completely satisfactory to our exegetes.

82 On ijmà' and naql, see esp. al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr II.18, pp. 141–49, trans. Vajda, “Études sur Qirqisânî, II,” 93–97. For discussions, see: Ben-Shammai, “Doctrines,” 1:89–100; Khan, “Al-Qirqisànì’s Opinions”; Wieder, “Three Terms for Tradition,” 108–13; and Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium, 228–29 and n. 48. On the interrelationships between custom, tradition, and consensus in geonic writings, see Libson, “Halakhah and Reality,” 92–98. For a late tenth-century Rabbanite perspective on consensus, see Sklare, Samuel ben Óofni Gaon, 253–59 (the ﬁrst of Samuel’s Ten Questions). 83 Al-Qirqisànì, ibid., II.18.10–11, pp. 145–46. See Polliack, The Karaite Tradition of Arabic Bible Translation,70–71. Al-Qirqisànì’s remarks relate to a Karaite-Rabbanite dispute over the meanings of biblical hapax legomena. The central work is Saadya’s Kitàb al-sab'ìn lafΩa (“Book of Seventy Words”); see Allony,“Kitàb al-sab'ìn lafΩa” and Klar, Me˙qarim ve-'iyyunim, 259–75. There is also an anonymous anti-Karaite polemic dedicated to the subject—possibly from the tenth-century; see El-Hawary, The Diﬀerences. On the treatment of hapax legomena in medieval Jewish exegesis in general, see Greenspahn, “The Meaning of "Ein Lo Domeh and Similar Phrases.” 84 On the practice of translating Hebrew words with Arabic cognates (or similarsounding words), see Polliack’s discussion of “imitation,” The Karaite Tradition of Arabic Bible Translation, 171–74. For a detailed analysis of the phenomenon, see Maman, “The Comparison,” esp. 99–103 on Saadya’s Tafsìr; further examples can be found in Ecker, Die arabische Job-Übersetzung des Gaon Saadja, 211–33 and Ratzaby, Dictionary, 146–49. Other Karaites clearly accepted the identiﬁcation of bat ha-ya'anah with the ostrich; thus, Salmon b. Yeru˙im translates ka-ye'enim (Lam 4:3) as mithl banàt alna'àm; see B.L. Or. 2516 (Cat. 252), fol. 173a.

54

chapter two

Al-Qirqisànì’s treatment of the ﬁfth name, kos, is instructive: “the kos is the bùm (‘owl’)—for it is stated, ‘I am like an owl (kos) of the ruins’ (Psalm 102:7), and the owl is typically found among ruins.”85 Tenth-century Islamic sources provide similar characterizations: Abù Óayyàn al-Taw˙ìdì (ca. 932–1023) writes that “the owl’s shelter and habitat are ruins,” and according to the Rasà"il Ikhwàn al-Íafà", it “lives in . . . abandoned dwelling places, decayed buildings, and dilapidated castles.”86 Here the correlation between a biblical allusion and general knowledge has secured an identiﬁcation. This technique is familiar from the writings of medieval Arab philologists who also sought to determine the meanings of obscure zoological names by matching known behavioral patterns with information found in proverbs, traditions, and verse.87 The early Karaites, of course, restricted their literary corpus to the Bible. Here is Japheth’s comment on the nesher: The nesher is the nasr (vulture)—there is no disagreement about this among the language community (ahl al-lugha). Moreover, there is a clear reference to it in Scripture which strengthens the identiﬁcation with the nasr, as it is stated: “like a vulture that stirs up its nest, that ﬂutters over its young” (Deuteronomy 32:11). Observers assert that of all birds, the vulture alone habitually carries its young upon its wings, since it feels safe that no other bird will alight upon them. Other birds, however, bear their young beneath their wings for fear that a predatory bird might harm them or their young.88

By using proof-texts to conﬁrm even the most certain identiﬁcations, Japheth and al-Qirqisànì actually undercut the force of tradition— a useful move for staunch scripturalists. In similar fashion, he proves

85 Al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr XII.2.2, p. 1183, lines 13–14. See also David alFàsì, Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ, 2:91, lines 21–23. 86 For al-Taw˙ìdì, see Kopf, “The Zoological Chapter,” p. 103, par. 148; for the Rasà"il ikhwàn al-ßafà", see Goodman, The Case of the Animals, 100. A similar process could also have been applied to the ostrich, which inhabits the desert (Lam 4:3); see Kopf, ibid., 115 and Goodman, ibid., 91. While al-Taw˙ìdì and the Ikhwàn al-Íafà" had access to Aristotle’s zoological works or information deriving from them, it is not clear that Japheth had any knowledge of Greek science. On the reception of Aristotle in Arabic zoology, see Kruk, “Hedgehogs and Their ‘Chicks.’” 87 For a telling example involving an ornithological name, see Kopf, “The Bird "Anùq.” Some lexicographers connected the name with the 'uqàb (eagle) and others with the rakhama (vulture), but Kopf suggests that the medievals misunderstood an old proverb which does not refer to birds at all. 88 Comment on Deut 14:11–20, 2.2.11; see the Appendix to this chapter. Cf. David al-Fàsì, Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ, 2:294, lines 36–42 for very similar wording.

unclean birds and tassels

55

that the yonah is the dove by citing Isaiah 59:11 (ve-kha-yonim hagoh nehgeh); “there is no bird in the world that is said to coo,” says Japheth, “save the dove.”89 Oddly, he calls its cooing (hadìruhà) a sign or indication ('alàma), thereby using a term which the Karaites consistently reject in these ornithological polemics. But clearly his real concern is to identify modern doves with those mentioned in the Bible. Concerning the ﬁnal entry in Japheth’s list—tinshemet—there was certainly no consensus: Targum Onkelos has baveta (meaning uncertain); Pseudo-Jonathan has "oteya (“night owl?”); Saadya translates shàhìn (“gerfalcon”); and Sahl b. Maslia˙ has khushshàf (“bat”)!90 This last identiﬁcation, which Japheth accepts, is the product of exegetical ingenuity: the tinshemet is listed twice, among birds (Leviticus 11:18) and among swarming things (11:30), since the bat both ﬂies and suckles its young.91 As an interpretation, this must have seemed suﬃciently compelling to make the tinshemet one of six known unclean birds. The others, of course, remain ciphers. Japheth now proceeds to the Rabbanite position, which is already familiar to us from Saadya’s Commentary on Leviticus:

Comment on Deut 14:11–20, 2.2.9; see the Appendix to this chapter. Japheth glosses the Heb. verb hagah with Ar. hadìr, a general term for making noise, shouting, or bawling, but also the word for “cooing”; see Kazimirski, Dictionnaire, 2:1400. In his Tafsìr Isaiah, ad loc. Saadya Gaon renders hagoh nehgeh as nahdiru. Cf. David al-Fàsì, Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ, 1:422, lines 15–17. 90 More commonly, khuﬀàsh. For Aramaic baveta and "oteya, see Sokoloﬀ, Dictionary, 88b, s.v. bwt and 43a, s.v. "wt; for shàhìn (“white falcon” or “gerfalcon”), see Lane, Lexicon, 201b, s.v. bàz, and 1492a. David al-Fàsì cites the last identiﬁcation as well: “It is said that the tinshemet is the bat (khushshàf ) since it is mentioned both among the birds and the eight swarming creatures”; see Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ, 2:387, lines 35–36. It should be noted, however, that he prefers to identify the bat with the ‘a†alef (ibid., 2:386, lines 33 ﬀ .). Drawing upon earlier sources, al-Taw˙ìdì classiﬁes the bat among birds, but notes it mammalian characteristics; see Kopf, “The Zoological Chapter,” pp. 105–106, par. 157. 91 Ibid., 2.2.7; see the Appendix to this chapter. The interpretation may ultimately derive from the Talmud; see bÓullin 63a: “Our Rabbis taught: The tinshemet is the bawath among the birds. . . . Abbaye said: The bawath among the birds is the qypwp, and the bawath among the reptiles is the qwrpd"y.” Rashi ad loc. glosses these respective terms as chalve soriz (Mod. Fr. chauve-souris, “bat”) and talpe (Mod. Fr. taupe, “mole”), noting the resemblance between the two creatures. Unfortunately, all three Aramaic terms are quite rare and their meanings are uncertain. For a succinct characterization of Rashi’s vernacular glosses and the exegetical resourcefulness which lies behind them, see Banitt, “La Langue vernaculaire.” 89

56 2.1.4

chapter two The Rabbanites and their followers did not depend upon the names (of the birds); they depended, rather, upon signs ('alàmàt) that they have recorded, which they had found among those birds that they knew to be permitted beyond any doubt. They said: “If you ﬁnd these signs in an unfamiliar bird, it is permitted.” Similarly, having found a prohibited (bird) of undisputed description, they ruled every unfamiliar bird of that description to be prohibited likewise. That is the meaning of their statement: “Just as turtledoves and pigeons are unusual in possessing a crop, an extra toe, and a gizzard which is easily peeled, and they do not tear (their food) when they eat, so any (bird) like them is permitted.”92 Their meaning is that the pigeon and the turtledove are permitted and that these two species each have a crop, a gizzard which may be peeled, and an extra toe on (each of ) its feet; moreover, it does not tear (its food), as they put it: ve-"eino dores. They stated that any unfamiliar bird that is like these two (species) is permitted. Then they said: the vulture does not possess these three signs and furthermore, it does tear (its food); like the vulture, any bird that matches this description is forbidden. This indicates that they relied not upon name(s) but rather upon (observable) similarities.93

Following his précis of the Rabbanite position, Japheth advances a series of objections: 2.1.5

92

There are four (objections) to their (approach): First, God did not mention any sign for either the clean or the unclean (birds). Now were they to be declared permitted or forbidden by means of some sign, this would have been mentioned, just as it was mentioned in connection with the beasts and sea-creatures. They have, therefore, invented this ( fa-qad abda'ù dhàlika). Second, they mentioned these signs and not others, without (giving) any proof or demonstration. Third, some of these signs that they have mentioned are manifest (Ωàhira), and some are hidden (bà†ina). The manifest signs are whether or not it tears (its food) and whether or not it has an extra toe; these are, indeed, manifest. The hidden signs are the crop and the gizzard that can be readily peeled. Initially, these cannot be known until (the bird) is sacriﬁced and split open. At that point it may be discerned whether or not it has a crop. Now if this were a (real) sign for an unfamiliar bird, then it would be possible for us to sacriﬁce a bird, and to drain and cover its blood without knowing whether it is permitted or expressly forbidden. According to them (i.e., the Rabbanites), in fact, an animal may only be sacriﬁced if

Sifra, Shemini 5:6 (Lev 11:13). Cf. the comment on Deut 14:11 ﬀ., 2.2.17, translated in the Appendix to this chapter. 93

unclean birds and tassels

57

a benediction is recited over it: “Who has sanctiﬁed us with His commandments and commanded us to slaughter clean beasts and clean birds.”94 They also recite a benediction when they cover its blood.95 Reason will dismiss their claims! They (entertain) a similar (notion) as well concerning the †erefot that are hidden and which are only known after the animal has been slaughtered and subsequently examined (wa-tastabri"u).96 For they recite a benediction, slaughter, and then prohibit its consumption. (This extends) to their obligation to sacriﬁce on the Sabbath and the ﬁrst day of Festivals; should (the animal) be †erefah, it could not be oﬀered upon the altar, and they would be violating the Sabbath (me˙allelim "et yom ha-shabbat)! This indicates their lack of rational discernment. Now as we have explained, it is impossible that we rely in any way upon signs to inform us (which are) the permitted and forbidden birds. Fourth is that were they to know the permitted (birds) from the forbidden by their names, they would have no need of the signs. Moreover, we have found them to scrutinize the behavior of birds, declaring the (fact that) the starling (zurzùr) goes after the crow to be proof that it is forbidden.97

While these arguments are familiar from earlier sources, Japheth develops them in interesting ways. He begins with the fundamental charge of bid'a (“innovation”), a loaded term in the Islamic world signifying a break with established belief or practice.98 The standard Karaite expression deriding such Rabbanite inventions is mißvat "anashim melummadah, “a commandment of men learned by rote” (Isaiah 29:13). Although Japheth does not use the phrase here, it conveys sectarian outrage at legislation lacking all scriptural basis.99 As al-Qùmisì had argued, the Bible does not record distinguishing markings for birds, for the simple reason that they do not exist. The Rabbanites’ criteria, moreover, seem completely arbitrary, since no proofs have been adduced in their support. Japheth states his third objection at greater length: some of the rabbinic simanim are manifest—tearing the prey or possessing an extra toe—but others are hidden—the crop and

94 The standard benediction recited before ritual slaughter concludes: “. . . and charged us with ritual slaughter (ve-ßivvanu 'al ha-she˙i†ah)”; see bPesa˙im 7b. 95 See tBerakhot 6:16 and yBerakhot 66a. Cf. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Hilkhot She˙i†ah,” 14:1. 96 For istabra"a (“search in order to know a thing and to remove doubt”), see Lane, Lexicon, 179a. 97 See Genesis Rabbah 65:3, bBerakhot 92b, and bÓullin 65a. 98 On bid'a, see Goldziher, Introduction, 232–45. 99 See above, p. 5, and n. 18.

58

chapter two

gizzard that is easily peeled. The only way of ascertaining a bird’s status, therefore, is to slaughter it. But since the Rabbanites require benedictions before ritually slaughtering an animal and covering its blood, any reliance upon internal simanim would entail the risk of making blessings in vain. As mentioned above, the nature of the signs had already sparked considerable debate, with Saadya attacking the Ananite reliance upon behavioral criteria and insisting upon visible physical markings. Here Japheth shows how in practical terms, the latter are really no more reliable than the former, but that in any case, the Rabbanites are inconsistent in this respect, since they too have been known to rely upon behavioral evidence. Finally, he underscores the ultimate redundancy of the signs: if we were meant in the ﬁrst instance to distinguish the forbidden birds by name, why would a set of criteria have been given?100 Japheth reacts with exasperation, condemning the Rabbanite leadership for their reticence, dishonesty, and pride, and the masses for their unquestioning obedience: 2.1.6

This all points to madness, but in this matter people still do not see ﬁt to say, “we do not know.” Now had they said concerning this matter, about which they have no knowledge, “this matter has escaped us and we are ignorant of it,” it would have been better and more candid of them in (the practice of ) their religion than fumbling about with the thing and disdaining to show their students and their ﬂock that they do not know it. He who blindly follows101 such (leaders) as these, (permits) his own knowledge to be disgraced, as we have said, and has not submitted to God’s demands.102

The proper course of action, then, is a principled profession of ignorance and a self-imposed dietary restriction: 2.1.7

Now, we may only eat of those birds for which proof exists that they are clean; these are turtledoves and pigeons, which God has designated for sacriﬁce. There is agreement (wifàq) about them, but not about any other (species). Whoever eats some other species has eaten something he should not have done, since he is not certain

Cf. the comment on Deut 14:11–23, 2.2.17; see the Appendix to this chapter. Ar. fa-man qallada. Like the Muslim Mutazilites, the Karaites abhorred an uncritical dependence upon tradition (taqlìd ). On this term, see SEI, s.v. ta˚lìd, deﬁnition 3. 102 Staining obscures one or two letters; the last six words seem to read: wa-l[am yu]slim min mu†àlabat allàh. 100

101

unclean birds and tassels

59

that he may (not) have eaten something forbidden. Whoever maintains that the tor is a chicken, deﬁes the language community, all of whom identify it with the turtledove. For has Scripture not intimated that the turtledove has a (special) time of year when it arrives like the swallow, as it states: “and the turtledove, swallow, and crane keep the time of their coming” ( Jeremiah 8:7). He who has made this statement has not recognized that (the identiﬁcation of ) this bird is derived from usage (al-naql )103 and Scripture; his error in this is apparent.

Like al-Qùmisì and al-Qirqisànì, Japheth declares that turtledoves and pigeons are the only birds that are unquestionably clean. Their identity is guaranteed both by consensus within the language community and by biblical allusions. This is not the case, however, with all other species which consequently must be shunned. In his comment on Deuteronomy 14, Japheth even lists half a dozen birds— including the chicken, partridge, and duck—whose status must remain uncertain until Elijah “comes and teaches righteousness.”104 And should anyone dare to question standard usage by identifying the tor with the chicken, he would be ﬂying in the face of a prooftext.105 Having disposed of the Rabbanite position—which is relatively lenient in actuality—Japheth turns to the Ananite view, which is identical in practice, if theoretically much stricter than that of the Karaites: 2.1.8

103

There is also a (scholar) who maintains that aside from turtledoves and pigeons, no clean birds exist. By way of argument, he cites the statement concerning Noah: “And he took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and oﬀered burnt oﬀerings on the altar” (Genesis 8:20). (They argue:) “It states ‘and of every clean bird,’ but the only birds that we ﬁnd sacriﬁced are turtledoves and pigeons. This conﬁrms that there are no clean birds other than turtledoves and pigeons.” The proponent of this view is compelled to say that aside from cattle and sheep, which are sacriﬁced, there are no clean

On the equation of naql with ijmà', “consensus,” see above, n. 82. Cf. the comment on Deut 14:11–20, 2.2.21, translated in the Appendix to this chapter. The last phrase, from Hosea 10:12, clearly alludes to Elijah; see above, n. 45. In his comment on Ps 43:3, Japheth states that “Elijah will eliminate uncertainty and dissension (al-shibh wa’l-khulf ) among the nation, i.e., Israel, concerning (questions of ) impurity and purity as well as the other matters in which they diﬀer”; see Erder, “The Attitude of the Karaite, Yefet ben Eli, to Islam,” 29–30, n. 4. In his Epistle, Sahl b. Maßlia˙, also refers to the Teacher of Righteousness; see Pinsker, Lickute Kadmoniot, 2:34, lines 22–23. 105 Cf. the comment on Deut 14:11–20, 2.2.9, noted above, relating to the pigeon. 104

60

chapter two beasts. Now he made this statement as well without any understanding.106 For if it is possible for there to be clean beasts other than those which are sacriﬁced, it is similarly possible for there to be clean birds other than those which are sacriﬁced. This is a compelling argument (ilzàm) with which it is impossible to disagree.107 The proper interpretation (of this verse) is either that the phrase “of every clean animal” means that every clean animal is appropriate for sacriﬁce108 or that before the revelation of the Torah it was permissible to sacriﬁce any of the permitted beasts and birds upon the altar, but that afterwards God designated cattle and sheep, pigeons, and turtledoves—to the exclusion of other clean beasts and birds—especially for (this purpose). This is a comprehensive, (if ) concise statement on the subject.

As is readily apparent, Japheth’s refutation of the Ananite position derives from Saadya. If Genesis 8:20 is read restrictively, the number of permitted beasts must likewise be limited to sacriﬁcial animals—a conclusion that is ﬂatly contradicted by Deuteronomy 14:5.109 Indeed, in his comment on Deuteronomy 14:11, Japheth carefully diﬀerentiates between animals and birds that are “clean for purposes of consumption” (†ehorah la-"akhilah) and those that are “clean for sacriﬁcial purposes” (†ehorah li-she˙i†ah), a distinction which the Ananites apparently did not observe.110 These Karaite-Ananite polemics point up the essential diﬀerences between the two groups’ respective approaches. Insofar as he had issued an entirely new body of law, Anan had broken with the rabbinic tradition. But if the content had changed, the form remained the same: the methods by which Anan derived laws, the language and phraseology in which he formulated them, and the halakhic homilies which he interwove with his legislation, come directly from the rabbinic academies. In contrast, the ninth and tenth-century

106 Ar. wa-hàdhà qàlahu 'an ghayr ta˙ßìl ay∂an. Apart from the domesticated animals designated for sacriﬁce, there are, of course, wild ruminants with cloven hooves, and these are permitted; see Deut 14:5. 107 Ar. wa-hàdha ilzàm wàjib mà (laysa) lahu inﬁßàl minhu. A favorite kalam technique, the ilzàm compels one’s opponents to acknowledge that their premises will lead them into untenable positions; see Bernand, Le Problème, 57, 66–67 and Peters, God’s Created Speech, 74–75. For infaßala min, meaning “disagree with,” see Dozy, Supplément, 2:271. 108 Marginal comment: “And similarly, every clean bird is suitable for sacriﬁce.” 109 For Saadya’s comment, see Hirschfeld, “The Arabic Portion of the Cairo Genizah at Cambridge (Fourteenth Article),” 148–49 (Ar.), 158–59 (Eng.). 110 See 2.2.3–4, translated in the Appendix to this chapter.

unclean birds and tassels

61

Karaites, made every eﬀort to distance themselves not only from the rabbinic tradition but also from rabbinic modes of exegesis.111 To be sure, there were hermeneutical principles which Rabbanites, Ananites, and Karaites shared.112 As we have also just seen, there were even points of agreement between Ananite and Karaite practice. But in their systematic scripturalism, al-Qùmisì, Japheth, and the other early Karaites struck out on their own. Admitting their ignorance in the face of biblical ambiguities, they were simultaneously proclaiming their independence as interpreters.

Tassels We now return to the ﬁrst type of halakhic indeterminacy mentioned at the beginning of this chapter—loosely-regulated legislation. We have indicated above that Rabbanites and Karaites clashed over the laws of ritual fringes or tassels (ßißit). Familiar and fairly simple, the commandment may seem transparent, but the manner of its implementation is by no means clear.113 The semantic problems are not so intractable as the ornithological names, but the precise signiﬁcance of certain key terms does remain uncertain. Detailed instructions, moreover, are absent from Scripture: can these be supplied from another source, or indeed should they be? The diﬀerent ways in which Rabbanites and Karaites interpret this commandment eﬀectively illustrate their distinctive approaches to halakhic exegesis in general, and to regulation speciﬁcally. We will consider these laws from the Karaite perspective, as they are presented by Japheth and al-Qirqisànì.114 For comparative purposes, we will adduce parallels

111 See Ben-Shammai, “The Karaite Exegetes and Their Rabbanite Environment” contrasting the interpretive outlooks of Anan and Daniel al-Qùmisì. 112 See below, pp. 69–70, concerning 2.3.7–8. 113 On the ßißit see Milgrom, Numbers, 410–14, Excursus 38, and idem, The Tassel and the Tallith. 114 Reference will also be made to two other sources: (1) Anan’s discussion in his Book of Commandments in Harkavy, Zikhron la-rishonim, 7–10, and his homily in Schechter, Documents of Jewish Sectaries, 2:25–26, reedited, translated into Hebrew, and discussed by Ben-Shammai, “The Karaite Exegetes and Their Rabbanite Environment,” 47–51, 57–58; (2) Levi b. Japheth’s treatise in his Sefer ha-mißvot 3:786–802. For the most part, Levi takes his father’s position and reproduces his arguments. The code is cited here from the eleventh-century Byzantine Hebrew translation which preserves much of the original Arabic terminology.

chapter two

62

in rabbinic literature, mainly from Sifrei Numbers and Babylonian Talmud Mena˙ot.115 We will also refer to a contemporary Rabbanite work, Samuel b. Hophni’s Kitàb a˙kàm shar' al-ßìßìth (“Treatise on the Laws of Ritual Fringes”).116 The primary biblical source is Numbers 15:37–41: Speak to the children of Israel and bid them to make fringes (ßißit) on the corners of their clothes (kanfei vigdeihem) throughout their generations, and let them put upon the fringe of each corner a cord of blue ( petil tekhelet). It shall be a fringe for you to look upon and remember all the commandments of the Lord and do them, and do not follow your hearts and your eyes, which you are inclined to go after wantonly. So you shall remember and do all my commandments, and be holy to your God. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am the Lord your God.

This brief passage is supplemented by a single verse, Deuteronomy 22:12: You shall make tassels (gedilim) for yourself on the four corners of your cloak with which you cover yourself.

Japheth’s comments on these passages are virtually identical, and for the most part, the diﬀerences between them amount to manuscript variants. Conceived on a large scale, his commentaries are crossreferenced, but are also meant to be self-contained and comprehensive. The duplication here, however, is not merely expedient; it is the natural result of his attempt to harmonize two passages. We present a translation of the comment on Deuteronomy 22:12, for which there are more textual witnesses: 2.3.1

115

“You shall make tassels (Heb. gedilim; Ar. jadà"il) for yourself on the four corners of your cloak with which you cover yourself.” This commandment has been reiterated as well, for it has already been stated elsewhere: “Speak to the children of Israel (and bid them) to make fringes (ßißit)” (Numbers 15:38). We must refer to both of these passages and harmonize them, since each requires the other, as we will show (and) as is the custom elsewhere. We will begin with the latter passage since it (occurs) ﬁrst; then we will explicate the (present verse) which is its restatement.

Sifrei on Numbers, Shela˙, pisqa 115, pp. 124–29; bMena˙ot 38a–44b (Chap. 4). On the latter, see Sklare, Samuel ben Óofni Gaon, p. 22, no. 25 and Libson, “The Structure,” p. 192, no. 7; for the text, see Tavger, Kelil Tekhelet, 217–69. 116

unclean birds and tassels

63

The general approach is not dissimilar to midrash halakhah: scrutinizing the text for apparent redundancies or contradictions, Japheth seeks to extract every bit of usable information, demonstrating that each word is signiﬁcant. 2.3.2

There it states: “Speak to the children of Israel.” This commandment, therefore, was enjoined upon the children of Israel. In investigating the end of this passage (i.e., Numbers 15:39), we have demonstrated that this commandment is incumbent upon everyone who professes the religion of Israel.

The implicit question which the opening words raise is this: Upon whom does the commandment devolve—all Jews, or men alone? Japheth’s interpretation is strikingly reminiscent of the anonymous view with which the pericope in Sifrei tersely commences: “This includes women” ("af ha-nashim be-mashma' ).117 The Talmud goes further: “Our Rabbis taught: all must observe the law of ßißit, priests, Levites, and Israelites, proselytes, women and slaves.”118 Rabbinic law, however, follows the opinion of Rabbi Simeon, who exempts women on the basis of the familiar principle that they are not obligated to observe positive time-bound commandments.119 The Karaites rejected this rule outright; as al-Qirqisànì states: (Scripture) informs (us) that the reason for the commandment ('illat alamri) to wear it is “and remember all the commandments of the Lord and do them” (Numbers 15:39). Consequently, it is obligatory for every woman and man to wear them, since all must remember God’s commandments and fulﬁll them.120 This is contrary to the statement of those who make it obligatory for men, but not for women.121

117

Sifrei on Numbers, Shela˙, pisqa 115, p. 124, lines 1–6. bMena˙ot 43a. 119 See bMena˙ot 43a and tQiddushin 1:8; cf. bBerakhot 20b. The principle is enunciated in mQiddushin 1:7; in general, see Safrai, “The Mitzva Obligation of Women in Tannaitic Thought” and Hauptman, Rereading the Rabbis, 221–28. On its applicability to the wearing of ßißit, see Tavger, Kelil Tekhelet, 180–91. 120 In Islamic legal exegesis, such phrases as “and remember” (u-zekhartem) and “so you shall remember” (lema'an tizkeru) (Num 15:39–40) would constitute an explicit, scriptural revelation of the reason (manßùß al-'illa) for a commandment, which could serve, in turn, as the grounds for further legislation via analogy, when a similar reason is present; see Gleave, “The ‘First Source’ of Islamic Law,” 146–47 and Hallaq, “Non-Analogical Arguments,” 292–93. 121 Al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr XII.42.4, vol. 5, p. 1260, lines 9–12; so also Levi b. Japheth, Sefer ha-mißvot, 3:786–87. Basing himself on the masculine plural lahem (“to them”), Anan b. David declares that men alone are obligated to make the ßißit; see Harkavy, Zikhron la-rishonim, 8. 118

64

chapter two

As we shall see below (2.3.10–11), Japheth also emphasizes universal observance of the commandment. First, however, he must explain the key term: 2.3.3

“Bid them make fringes (ßißit).” Some scholars have rendered ßißit “ﬂower”122 from (the word) ßiß. This is incorrect for two reasons. First, there is no tav in ßiß, but tav belongs to the substance of the word ßißit.123 While we do encounter ßißat, the tav in that case (is present) because of the construct (al-samukh).124 Second, ßißit is not from ßiß; ßißat, rather, is formed from ßiß, as in the verse “and the fading ﬂower of (ßißat) its glorious beauty” (Isaiah 28:4). (Similarly,) shirat (“song of ”) (is formed) from shir.125 As for ßißit, however, it is a word designating “locks”126 as Ezekiel of blessed memory said: “And he took me be-ßißit roshi (Ezekiel 8:3), which means “by the locks of the hair of my head,” for (Ezekiel) was a priest.127

Since the Bible does not gloss the word ßißit, the Karaites sought to clarify its meaning etymologically. Outside of Numbers 15, ßißit, occurs only in Ezekiel 8:3. The ancient Rabbis drew attention to the parallel, declaring that the word “ßißit means something which hangs loose ('anaf ), for so it says, ‘and he took me by a lock (ßißit) of my head.’” Abbaye’s statement, that “one must keep [the threads] separate, like the forelock of the gentiles,” clearly builds upon the etymology.128 Although Japheth accepts this interpretation, he also mentions an alternative view—which he rejects—that ßißit should be connected with ßiß, “ﬂower.” More is at stake here than sound philology, for the Karaites—who cannot resort to tradition—must infer

122 “Flower” = zahra. Cf. Levi b. Japheth, Sefer ha-mißvot, 3:788: mi-qeßat ha-˙akhamim "ameru ki hu ßiß zahra, kemo ßiß ha-sadeh. 123 “Belongs to the substance of the word” = min jawhar al-kalima. On jawhar as the “substance” or “abstract root” of a word, see Khan, The Early Karaite Tradition, 74–78. 124 For al-samukh as “construct,” see ibid., 112, 146; apparently, the grammarians favored the Arabic term mu∂àf. See also Khan, Early Karaite Grammatical Texts, 57. 125 See Isa 5:1. 126 Or “fringes”: dhu"àba, with which Japheth renders ßißit in Num 15:38. See also Saadya ad loc. and David al-Fàsì, Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ, 2:526, lines 15–17. Cf. British “fringe,” the locks of hair hanging over the forehead, American “bangs.” 127 Cf. Levi b. Japheth, Sefer ha-Mißvot, 3:788–89. Haggai Ben-Shammai has suggested to me that the last phrase, “for he was a priest,” possibly relates to the prescriptions concerning the priestly hairstyle in Ez 44:20. 128 See bMena˙ot 42a. Cf. ibid. 41b and Sifrei on Numbers, Shela˙, pisqa 115, p. 124, lines 6–7: “ßißit means something that hangs over” ("ein ßißit "ella davar hayoße).

unclean birds and tassels

65

the ßißit’s form from its name. It was, in fact, Anan who had linked ßißit with the phrase va-yaßeß ßiß in Numbers 17:23. The verbal similarity suggested to him that the fringes should resemble the leaves (Aram. "a†arfei ), that had sprouted on either side of Aaron’s staﬀ.129 Al-Qirqisànì also records sectarian uncertainty over the appearance of the ßißit: The manner of making this divinely-decreed article is most uncertain (mushtabih).130 Some people believe the meaning of ßißit to be a lock (e.g., of hair; dhu"àba), basing themselves upon Ezekiel 8:3. Others believe it to be a pompon (lit. “rose,” warda), basing themselves on Numbers 17:23, “and it brought forth a ﬂower and a bud (ßiß).” These are perennial blossom(s) and ﬂower(s) like the rose.131 He who says that ßißit is a lock of hair supports his view with a verse from another passage: “you shall make tassels for yourself ” (Deuteronomy 22:12); these are threads braided in the manner of tassels (sharràbàt), as it is stated: “tassels (gedilim) like chainwork (ma'aseh sharsherot)” (I Kings 7:17).132 It is also stated: “make these braided like corded work (ma'aseh 'avot)” (Exodus 28:14). The word 'avot (designates) the plaited cord (˙ibàl) made in Damascus called miqà†;133 a similar (sort of cord) is made of leather (strips) for carts; therefore it says: “(who draw) sin as with cart ropes” (Isaiah 5:18); that which is (used) for carts is called nis'.134

Deuteronomy 22:12 provides an important key: if ßißit are identical with gedilim, then they must be braided like tassels. Typically, alQirqisànì explains gedilim on the basis of other verses; what he does 129 See Harkavy, Zikhron la-rishonim, 9–10. Anan’s rendering of ßiß as “leaf ” is a bit odd, but this is the standard meaning of Aramaic †arfa; see Jastrow, Dictionary, 557, and Sokoloﬀ, Dictionary, 231–32. Harkavy’s suggestion (p. 9, n. 6) that possibly branches ('anaﬁm) are intended would accord well with the Talmud’s statement: "ein ßißit "ella 'anaf, “ßißit can only mean something that extends (like a branch)” (bMena˙ot 42a). 130 Ar. al-amru fì ßan'ati hàdhà ’l-iftirà∂ mushtabihun jiddan. In Muslim tafsìr, mushtabih and mutashàbih are used synonymously to mean “ambiguous”; see Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, 157, 165. 131 This is, in fact, the view of David al-Fàsì, who emphatically rejects the idea that ßißit is a “lock” or “fringe.” “The most plausible scholarly suggestion,” he says, “is that the ßißit and petil are distinct from each other. The ßißit is a ‘ﬂower’ (i.e., a tassel, zahra) made upon the corners of the cloak (ridà"). The petil tekhelet is a cord placed in the middle of the tassel, as it is stated: ‘They shall set a sky-blue cord upon the ßißit of the corner’ (Num 15:38). The cord is twisted after the fashion of a rein (miqwad )”; see Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ, 2:526, lines 2 ﬀ. 132 Cf. David al-Fàsì, Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ, 1:302, lines 98–101. See also Anan in Harkavy, Zikhron la-rishonim, 8. 133 See Kazimirski, Dictionnaire, 2:1135. 134 Al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr XII.42.1, vol. 5, pp. 1259–60. For nis', see Kazimirski, Dictionnaire, 2:1249.

66

chapter two

not say—although it will be obvious from the translations of Saadya and Japheth—is that the Arabic cognate jadìla (“plait, braid”) makes this interpretation attractive. As we have noted, the Karaites avoid direct recourse to Arabic, preferring to develop their arguments from scriptural evidence alone.135 Rabbinic sources discuss the fashioning of the ßißit at length and there is considerable diﬀerence of opinion over such matters of detail as the number of threads that constitute a tassel, how and where they are to be attached to the garment, and how many times they are to be wound and knotted.136 For the most part, there is little attempt to ground these rules in Scripture; they are given anonymously or in the name of individual authorities and without prooftexts.137 By contrast, the Karaite scholars scrutinize other biblical passages dealing with manufacture for hints as to the making of the ßißit. Japheth takes up the phrase 'al kanfei vigdeihem in the following manner: 2.3.4

135

“On the corners of their garments.” (Scholars) have diﬀered concerning this as well. Some people say that the ßißit are made from the garment (izàr)138 itself in the (usual) manner that one would plait a garment’s edge. Whoever holds this opinion must plait the two ends139 of the garment from top to bottom, then sew a blue cord ( petil tekhelet) to the ﬁrst tassel (gedil ) on the corner.140 (The view) to which I incline, (however), is that the ßißit are not (formed) from the garment, but are plaited and sewn to its corner, as it is stated “upon the corners of your garments.” The proof for this (may be found in) the verse: “And you shall make on the breast piece twisted chains like cords, of pure gold” (Exodus 28:22)—they (i.e. the chains) are attached to it. Similarly: “On its hem you shall make pomegranates of blue and purple” (Exodus 28:33). Were the ßißit formed

See above, pp. 53–54. On the number of threads, the manner of winding and knotting them, and the length of the tassel (gedil ), see Samuel b. Hophni Gaon, Kitàb a˙kàm shar' alßìßìt, ch. 4, pp. 225–28, trans. 246–51. For the signiﬁcance of kanaf (“corner”), see ibid., ch. 6, pp. 233–36, trans. 257–60. 137 But see, e.g., bMena˙ot 39a on whether the upper knot is of biblical or rabbinic origin. 138 “Garment”: izàr. Japheth uses this term to render Heb. beged. The Arabic word denotes both a loin-cloth and a mantle, i.e., a simple cloth to be wrapped or draped around the body; see Stillman, Arab Dress, 7, 10, 13, 23. 139 “The ends”: †arafay (var. †araf ). In these texts Ar. †araf regularly renders Heb. kanaf, “corner,” but “end” or “edge” is certainly within the word’s semantic range. Perhaps Japheth intends the two short sides (“ends”) of an oblong wrap. 140 Cf. the comment on Num 15:37–39 (noted in the variants to 2.3.4): “upon the corner tassel” ('alà al-gedil al-†arafànì). 136

unclean birds and tassels

67

from the garment itself, it would have stated this as it does concerning the fashioning of the ephod and the horns of the altar. Concerning (the latter) it states: “And you shall make horns for it on its four corners; its horns shall be of one piece with it” (Exodus 27:2). It is also stated (concerning the ephod) “and the decorated band that was upon it was of it” (Exodus 39:5). Now, had (Scripture) stopped at the phrase141 “you shall make horns for it,” this would have meant that the horns are attached to it, but since it states, “its horns shall be of one piece with it,” we know that they are part of the altar. Now had (God) wished the ßißit to be formed from the garment itself, He would have stated concerning it “of itself (mimmenu),” as He stated elsewhere.142

From the opening remarks, it is clear that fundamental diﬀerences of opinion exist within the sect concerning the basic form of the ßißit. Some maintain that the garment should be ﬁnished all the way around with a braided fringe and that the blue cord should be aﬃxed to the corner fringes.143 While Japheth does not favor this view, he tolerates halakhic diversity at this level. Drawing on Exodus, however, he oﬀers examples of similar directives in order to prove that the ßißit should not be formed from the garment itself, but rather attached to it. The last phrase of the verse prompts observations on the placement of the cord, its form, and color: 2.3.5

Then it states: “Let them put upon the fringe of each corner a cord of blue.” The cord ( petil ) must therefore be something other than the fringe (ßißit), because of the phrase “upon the fringe of each corner” and it must be attached to the fringe, not to the shawl,144 because it says, “upon the fringe” not “upon the corner.” It must be twisted (maftùl ), since it says “cord” ( petil ), and not “thread” (˙u†).145 A cord has two strands; if there are more, that is permissible.146

Ar. law amsaka 'alà qawlihi. Cf. below 2.3.8. Cf. Levi b. Japheth, Sefer ha-mißvot, 3:790. 143 On various types of fringes and tassels, see Black, The Key to Weaving, 586–94. For braided fringe, see p. 589, no. 5 and ﬁg. 679. 144 “Shawl” or “mantle”: ridà". See Stillman, Arab Dress, 13. The word also means “coat”; see Goitein, Mediterranean Society, 4:157. The comment on Num 15:37–39 has izàr, “garment.” 145 Cf. David al-Fàsì, Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ, 2:491, lines 57–58: khay† asmànjùn. This rendering is clearly inﬂuenced by the Targum’s ˙u†a de-tekhilta, as al-Fàsì himself observes; see 1:526, lines 26–27. Since khay† may designate anything from a ﬁber to a thread, string, or cord, al-Fàsì’s view on the halakhic issue remains uncertain. 146 “Strands”: †àqayn; for this usage, see Dozy, Supplément, 1:70. Japheth’s comment on Num 15:37–39 reads: “If the cord has two strands, it is permissible; and if there are more than that, it is also permissible.” 141 142

68 2.3.6

chapter two “Blue.” People diﬀer (as to its meaning). Some say it is the name of a certain color of dye which is the color of the sky, what is known as “cerulean” (asmànjùn).147 According to others it is the name of a type (of color)148 unknown in the Exile.149

By the early geonic period—if not earlier—there was a Rabbanite consensus as to the basic form of the tassel: a set of four strings is passed through a hole at the corner of the garment and doubled over; the resulting eight strands are then wound and knotted in a prescribed manner. One of the four strings is the blue cord. In all, four such sets are required, one for each corner of the garment. In the absence of the special dye needed for the blue cord, all the strings are to be white.150 The Karaites, however, rejected these regulations, which they viewed as arbitrary and lacking biblical foundation. The Bible’s use of separate terms, says Japheth, indicates that the blue cord is not part of the ßißit. Taking his cue from the word “upon” ('al), he also stresses that the blue cord must be attached to the fringe, not the garment. Etymology furnishes a further scrap of information: since the root p.t.l. (Arabic f.t.l.) signiﬁes “twist,” petil obviously means “cord,” not “thread.”151 It must, therefore, comprise at least two strands. Interestingly, al-Qirqisànì had maintained that “the manner of plaiting (the ßißit) is with three or four threads.”152 As we have seen, al-Qirqisànì attacks the Rabbanites for having suspended the requirement to use a blue cord.153 Although Japheth mentions neither group by name, he does record their separate explanations of tekhelet: the Karaites believe it to be a shade of blue, but the Rabbanites claim that it is a speciﬁc dye, which can no longer be identiﬁed. In his chapter on ßißit, al-Qirqisànì adds that certain Karaites “assert it to be a color diﬀerent from that of the garment, so that it may be seen to be distinct from the garment, as it is stated 147 Asmànjùn is a word of Persian origin; see David al-Fàsì, Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ, 1:xlv. See also Saadya Gaon, Tafsìr Ex 25:4 and Num 15:38. 148 Or “species”; naw'. 149 Cf. al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr XII.42.3, p. 1260, lines 6–8, and Levi b. Japheth, Sefer ha-mißvot, 3:794–95. 150 For rabbinic discussions and pronouncements concerning the making of the ßißit, see Tavger, Kelil Tekhelet, 33–129. For a lucid statement of the laws, see Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Book II, “Hilkhot Íißit.” 151 Cf. Sifrei on Numbers, Shela˙, pisqa 115, p. 125, line 8: †avuy ve-shazur. 152 See Kitàb al-anwàr XII.42.2, p. 1260, lines 1–2. 153 See above p. 39. To this day, Karaite tassels include a blue cord; for an illustration, see the NIS 5.60 postage stamp issued by the State of Israel in May 2001 honoring the Karaite Jews.

unclean birds and tassels

69

“and you shall see it” (Numbers 15:39).154 For these sectarians, the particular shade is less important than the color’s function in making the ßißit more visible, a point which Japheth will take up with the next verse. 2.3.7

Next, it says: “It shall be fringes for you” (Numbers 15:39). “It shall be” (ve-hayah) is in the singular, as is “you shall see it ("oto).” (The interpretation) to which I incline is that the cord ( petil ) is twisted together with the fringe (ßißit) so that they become a single tassel (gedil ). Therefore, it states here: “You shall make tassels for yourselves” and not “you shall make fringes for yourselves” for the cord and the fringe together become a tassel.

In the use of the masculine singular forms ve-hayah and "oto, Japheth ﬁnds an opportunity to reconcile the terminological disparity between Numbers 15 and Deuteronomy 22:12. As he has explained, ßißit are fringes; when the blue cord is attached, the ensemble is called a gedil, or tassel ( jadìla) which should be plainly visible. This kind of interpretation is strongly reminiscent of midrash halakhah, a method which the Karaite scholars had mastered, and made their own. The next paragraph, in fact, reveals how they internalized and Arabicized rabbinic formulae in their own exegesis. 2.3.8

Here (Scripture) explains the meaning of the phrase (in Numbers),155 “the corners of their garments.” It states “on the four corners of your cloak.” Now had (the Bible) stopped at the phrase156 “the corners of their garments,” this could have meant two or three corners. Here, however, it speciﬁes that four tassels be made for the four corners of the cloak. This is the commandment. Had it stopped at the word “their garments” (bigdeihem), it would have been obligatory to make fringes for a robe, trousers, turban, and every other garment. But since it states here “on the four corners of your cloak,” robes, trousers, and the like are exempt (kharaja). The tassel is to be attached, therefore, to a four-cornered garment (beged) in which a person wraps himself, such as a cloak, for this is the force of the phrase “with which you cover yourself.” From the phrase “with which you cover yourself ”(we infer that) it is not necessary to make fringes for a cloth with which a person does not cover himself.157

154 In Kitàb ta˙ßìl al-sharà"i' al-samà'ìyà, Saadya Gaon ascribes this view to Mìshawayh al-'Ukbarì; see Zucker, “Fragments,” pp. 391–92 and n. 20. 155 Lit. “by the phrase there”; bi-qawlihi thamma. 156 Ar. law amsaka 'alà qawlihi. Cf. above 2.3.4. 157 Cf. Levi b. Japheth, Sefer ha-mißvot, 3:791–93, which ampliﬁes on the question of attaching ßißit to sheets and other cloths in which people might wrap themselves.

70

chapter two

In juxtaposing the two verses, Japheth concludes that Deuteronomy 22:12 delimits the earlier legislation quantitatively and qualitatively; his approach closely resembles that of Sifrei Numbers: “The corners of their garments”—from this I might understand that garments with three, ﬁve, seven, or eight (corners) are implied as well. Scripture states (talmud lomar), therefore, “upon the four corners of your garment,” so that those with three, ﬁve, seven, or eight (corners) are exempt ( yaße"u).158 This inference, which exempts (certain garments), implies that (others), such as mattresses and cushions, are to be included. Therefore Scripture states “with which you cover yourself.”159

If the substance of Japheth’s comment indicates knowledge of rabbinic interpretation, the formal parallels are equally striking. There are echoes of the familiar formula, “had it said ("illu ne"emar)/if this were the case ("illu ken) . . . I would have said (hayiti "omer) . . .; therefore, Scripture says (talmud lomar). . . .”160 Introduced by "illu—or in Japheth’s case, law—the protasis presents a hypothetical text that departs from Scripture by a word. Since even so slight a diﬀerence would aﬀect the law, the usage eﬀectively emphasizes the speciﬁc phrasing and underscores the signiﬁcance of particular expressions. Even closer to Japheth’s phrasing, “had it stopped at the word/phrase” (law amsaka 'alà qawlihi) is the locution "illu "amar . . . ve-shataq (“had it stated . . . and said no more”).161 It is worth noting that Samuel b. Hophni Gaon begins his discussion of the garments requiring ßißit in similar fashion: We say that God, may He be exalted, stated in one of the two verses: ‘upon the corners of their garments.’ And had He left it (lit. “us”) at that (wa-law taraknà 'alà hàdhà), it would have constituted a general rule 158 Note that Japheth uses Ar. kharaja (“be exempt,” lit. “go forth”), the semantic equivalent of yaßa". 159 Cf. Sifrei on Numbers, Shela˙, pisqa 115, p. 124, line 14—125, line 3. Cf. Sifre on Deuteronomy, Ki Teße, pisqa 234, pp. 266–67. 160 The formula recurs in Sifra Parashat "Emor; see, e.g., parashata 1:4–5, 8, 10; pereq 2:1–2; pereq 5:1–2, and cf. bYoma 40b. In his comment on Deut 33:4, Japheth argues that the pervasiveness of the formula talmud lomar in rabbinic literature is indicative of a later exegetical process and attests to the non-Mosaic origin of the Oral Law; see 2.4.8, translated in the Appendix to this chapter. He thus distinguishes between the methods of rabbinic interpretation—some of which he accepts— and the truth claims made for the rabbinic tradition. On the formula talmud lomar, see Bacher, Die Exegetische Terminologie, 1:199–201, s.v. “Talmud II.” 161 Apparently, it is attested only in homiletical contexts. For instances, see tSanhedrin 13:1 and Midrash Tehillim 9:15 (on Ps. 9:18), p. 90; Leviticus Rabbah 28:1, p. 80a; and Seder Eliyahu Zutta 11:1.

unclean birds and tassels

71

for all garments and for anything else having a corner to which the word begadim may be applied. . . .162

These examples suggest that rabbinic midrash halakhah and Karaite halakhic exegesis share certain premises, methods, and modes of expressions. Indeed, when rabbinic law emerges naturally from the Bible, the Karaites voice no opposition. They object sharply, however, when a ruling seems to deviate from the plain meaning of Scripture and clearly originates in the Oral Tradition. Let us turn to al-Qirqisànì’s description of the ßißit: The kanaf is the actual corner (†araf ), of which there are four. The garment (thawb), which is a shawl (ridà"), (can) have no ﬁfth (corner) like the others. This is contrary to the way in which the Rabbanites insert the (ßißit)163 four ﬁngerbreadths (aßàbi' ) from the corner. Our fellow (Karaites; aß˙àbunà) agree that the ßißit must be of the same material as the garment (min jawhar al-thawb). This also is contrary to the (practice of ) the Rabbanites (who insist) upon (using) wool alone; were this to be attached to a linen (garment), it would constitute cloth of mixed ﬁbers (sha'a†nez), which it is forbidden to wear.164

In restricting ßißit to four-cornered garments, al-Qirqisànì accords with Sifrei Numbers, while ﬂatly contradicting the opinion—recorded in the Babylonian Talmud—that a ﬁve-cornered garment requires tassels.165 He explicitly rejects the rabbinic consensus that the threads are to be inserted into holes above the garment’s corners and the view of R. Huna that each hole should be four ﬁngerbreadths from a corner—presumably, since there are no scriptural grounds for these regulations.166 And he attacks the rabbinic mandate for inserting woolen threads into a linen garment as a ﬂagrant violation of Deuteronomy 22:11.167 162

Samuel b. Hophni Gaon, Kitàb a˙kàm shar' al-ßìßìt, ch. 5, pp. 228–29, trans.

251. 163

Ar. ya'amaluhu, lit. “make it”. See al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr, XII.42.2, p. 1260, lines 3–6. 165 See Sifrei on Numbers, Shela˙, pisqa 115 and bMena˙ot 43b (R. Simeon). Cf. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Book II, “Hilkhot Íißit,” 3:3. On the debate in rabbinic sources, see Tavger, Kelil Tekhelet, 162–65. 166 For rabbinic regulations concerning the attachment of the ßißit, see ibid., 120–30. For R. Huna’s view, see bMena˙ot 41b. 167 For rabbinic debates over the possibility of aﬃxing woolen ßißit to linen garments, see bMena˙ot 39b–40b. The mandate is grounded in Resh Lakish’s teaching that when a positive precept and a negative precept are in opposition, observance of the positive precept overrides the negative one; see 40a. Cf. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Hilkhot Íißit,” 3:5–7. 164

72

chapter two

Rabbanite preoccupation with the precise pattern of the ßißit is prompted by their function as physical reminders of “all the Lord’s commandments.” Since there are 613 commandments, according to rabbinic tradition, the number of strings, windings, and knots in Rabbanite ßißit must total 613 as well.168 The Karaites, as we have seen, take no interest in the numbers of strings or knots—after all, they also reject the canonical number 613 as a Rabbanite fabrication.169 But they certainly stress the tassels’ purpose: 2.3.9

It is not necessary that every garment with which a person covers himself have fringes made for it. Fringes must be made, however, for a garment which is worn during times of prayer and business170 when a person must look at them, and they cause him to remember God’s commandments and what He has obliged him to do. Then he will not give short measure, steal, or lie. And if he sees something forbidden or gets a forbidden notion to do something that is prohibited, when he looks at the fringe, it will serve to remind him of his obligations, and he will avoid transgressing. As (Scripture) states in brief: “so that you look at it and remember all the commandments of the Lord and do them, and do not follow171 after your hearts and your eyes, which you follow rebelliously.172 So you shall remember and do all my commandments, and be holy to your God” (Numbers 15:39). From this you know that we are not obliged

168 On the numerical symbolism of the ßißit’s knots, see Numbers Rabbah 18:21. On the 613 commandments in general, see, e.g., Song of Songs Rabbah 1:13, Numbers Rabbah 13:15–16, Exodus Rabbah 32:1, Genesis Rabbah 24:5, and bMakkot 23b; for a brief discussion, see Urbach, The Sages, 342–44. On geonic enumerations of the commandments, see Sklare, Samuel b. Óofni Gaon, 183–85. 169 Rather than listing a ﬁnite number of commandments, Karaite scholars classiﬁed the entire law around the Ten Commandments. As Japheth b. Eli remarks in his comment on Ps 19:8: inna 'a≤eret ha-devarim hiya ußùl al-mißwoth kullihà aw ußùl aktharihà (“the Ten Commandments are the roots of all the commandments or the roots of most of them”; BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/I (Cat. 286), fol. 113b). Nissi b. Noah (11th c.?) is much more emphatic: “The Ten Words ['a≤eret ha-devarim] are the root and source for all . . . ordinances, whether obligatory or nonobligatory”; see Nemoy, “Nissi Ben Noah’s Quasi-Commentary on the Decalogue,” 317–23, esp. 319. A work of Byzantine provenance, Judah Hadassi’s encyclopedic code, "Eshkol ha-Kofer (1148), represents a comprehensive elaboration of this principle. 170 Lit. “times of buying and selling”: awqàt al-bay' wa’l-shirà". 171 Lit. “And do not spy”; see Commentary on Numbers 15:39, fol. 49a, where Ar. wa-là tajussù renders Heb. ve-lo taturu. Similarly, David al-Fàsì renders veyaturu (Num 13:2) as yajussu; on the other hand, he translates Num 15:39 là tanqàdu (“do not yield”), which would ﬁt the context better, but the text here is conjectural; see Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ, 2:751, lines 11–14. 172 “Which you follow rebelliously”; see Commentary on Numbers 15:39, fol. 49a, where Ar. antum tàghiyùn waràhum renders Heb. "asher "attem zonim "a˙areihem. So also Saadya ad loc.

unclean birds and tassels

73

to make fringes for bedclothes, since this would not cause us to see or remember,173 as we have explained.174

In his comment on Numbers 15:39, Japheth adds: 2.3.9a

“And do not follow” means that when you remember my commandments, you will not follow after your thoughts (hirhur ha-lev) and after the evil deeds which you behold, as it is said, “which you follow rebelliously”. This refers to the heart and eyes, for it is human nature that when one sees something, the idea of it (hirhur) enters the heart and one seeks it. But looking upon the fringes sets a person aright, keeping him from looking at that forbidden thing and from thinking of doing it.

The ßißit serve as a constant reminder of the Law. In mentioning business hours as well as times of worship, Japheth emphasizes that the tassels’ function is not primarily ceremonial, but admonitory. Looking upon them, people will be mindful of their obligations both to their fellow human beings and to God: they will be scrupulous in their transactions and attentive in their prayers.175 Like the Rabbanites, some Karaites limited the obligation of ßißit to certain segments of the population. What seems to have motivated them, however, was not some independent legal principle, such as the exemption of women from time-bound obligations,176 but rather a simple exegetical problem—the force of the phrases “so you shall remember and do all my commandments,” “and remember all the commandments of the Lord” (Numbers 15:40, 39). Does the word “all” (kol) imply that only the highest legal authorities must wear ßißit? Japheth’s objection to this view stems from his insistence upon the tassels’ practical value: if they are meant to instill vigilance, why should they be restricted to the educated elite, when all Jews are confronted by temptations? On the contrary, every Jew must wear ßißit, which will serve as a personal reminder of his or her obligations at any given moment: 173 Lit. “since neither seeing (re"iyah) nor remembering (zekhirah) would be achieved thereby.” 174 See also 2.3.15 below. 175 The tassels’ cautionary function is conveyed as well in the aggadah concerning a rich man who quells his desire for a prostitute (zonah) when he glances at his ßißit. The tale concretizes Num 15:39, since the man nearly “goes a whoring” in following his heart and eyes; see bMena˙ot 44a and Sifrei on Numbers, Shela˙, pisqa 115, pp. 128–29. 176 bMena˙ot 43a: “women are exempt from all positive precepts that are dependent on a ﬁxed time”; see above n. 119.

74 2.3.10

2.3.11

177

chapter two Scholars have disagreed as to which people are obligated to wear the fringes. Some say that scholars alone are required to do so, since it states: “So you shall remember and do all my commandments,” “and remember all the commandments of the Lord” (Numbers 15:40, 39). Those who hold this view diﬀer (with each other). Some say that it is incumbent upon those who know all the commandments, since it states: “And remember (all) the commandments of the Lord.” And some say that it refers to those who know most of the commandments; they maintain this view in light of 177 (the verse), “if any case arises which is too diﬃcult for you” (Deuteronomy 17:8). For God has commanded (us) to go to the High Priest or the Chief Judge.178 Now if the phrase “and remember all the commandments of the Lord” means those who know all of the commandments, then no one but the High Priest and the Chief Judge would be obligated to make fringes, and the nation would have left oﬀ making fringes during the time of the monarchy; how much the more so would they cease making fringes in Exile! God, may He be blessed and exalted, has said: “Look at the fringe so that you remember My commandments ‘and do not follow after your hearts.’” Now if it was obligatory to make them during the time of the monarchy so that “we would not follow after our hearts,” how much the more so is this the case during the time of the Exile when we are “a brood of sinful men” (Numbers 32:14), living among the wicked of the world who delight in doing all that is forbidden, and harlotry and abominations are ever before our eyes. It is incumbent upon us to make fringes, so that we look at them and remember what we are obliged to do and do not forget our Lord, may His name be exalted. Some people say that fringes are obligatory for the entire people, who fulﬁll the commandments required of them, each according to his station. For the common folk179 know which commandments are required of them, such as the sabbaths and festivals, what is pure and what is impure, and whatever they must know that relates to doing business. But the sages and judges (al-˙akhamim wa-’lshofe†im) excel each other in jurisprudence ( ﬁqh) to the point of advancing to the highest level which is that of Chief Judge. Each of them upon beholding the fringes recalls the commandments he is obligated (to fulﬁll).

“In light of ”: li-annahum qara"ù, lit. “since they have read.” “Chief Judge”: Ar. qà∂ì al-qu∂àh; Heb. shofe† ha-shofe†im (IOS MS C 41). The Hebrew term seems to be a calque. The Arabic is an Islamic honoriﬁc applied to such outstanding jurists as the Mutazilite, 'Abd al-Jabbàr b. A˙mad (d. 1025); see Peters, God’s Created Speech, 8–10. 179 Lit. “subjects, citizens,” ra'ìya. 178

unclean birds and tassels 2.3.12

75

You must know that the statement “so that you look at it and remember all the commandments of the Lord” does not mean that at the very moment a person looks at it he will remember all of the commandments, since this would be impossible. He will recall, rather, what he is obliged to do at that time, whether it relates to doing business or some other matter. If this is the case, then every single person is obliged to wear the fringes and to make a point of looking at them; then he will remember what he is obligated to do, according to God’s words: “you shall remember.”

Japheth ends by sharply criticizing those who exempt themselves from wearing ßißit, because they do not wear shawls. He is also impatient with those who claim that they will remember the commandments without looking at tassels. For a rationalist with a Mutazilite outlook, the divine wisdom behind the ceremonial laws is beyond human inquiry: God knows best when He enjoins us to wear fringes so that we remember His precepts.180 Another rationale for doing without ßißit is the uncertainty surrounding the commandment. With so much disagreement over the precept’s implementation, might it not be better to hold its observance in abeyance? Japheth will have none of it: scholarly disagreement does not constitute grounds for suspending a law. How many commandments, after all, could actually be performed if a consensus were required? 2.3.13

It is most astonishing that anyone should say: “Fringes are obligatory only for someone who wears a shawl; since I do not wear a shawl, I have stopped (fulﬁlling) the commandment of the fringes.181 Moreover, I cannot (in any case) ascertain the way they are to be made, since people disagree on this point.” He who holds this opinion bases himself upon two erroneous notions. As for his statement that this commandment is obligatory (only) for one who wears the shawl, he ought to have read (the verse) “you shall remember.” And should he say: “I shall remember without fringes,” the commandment would be abolished, since God desires that we remember the commandments by wearing the fringes, and He

180 Discarding the ßißit because one understands their purpose and would observe the commandments in any case is a ﬁrst step towards rationalization of the entire law and philosophic antinomianism. The problem of antinomianism—addressed in rabbinic sources (e.g., bSanhedrin 21b)—was taken up again by Maimonides, notably in Guide 3:26; see Twersky, Introduction to the Code of Maimonides, 391–93 and Stern, Problems and Parables of Law, 36–48. 181 For this attitude, see also Levi b. Japheth, Sefer ha-mißvot, 3:793. “Shawl” = izàr. Elsewhere, the word has been translated “garment.” See above, n. 138.

76

2.3.14

chapter two who is “wise in heart” ( Job 9:4) knows the (proper) path of our guidance and success and has commanded us (to follow) it. As for his relying upon the fact that he does not know the true nature of the commandment and that scholars disagree about it, this would oblige him to perform no commandments but those upon which the (entire) nation is agreed and concerning which no additional (views) are possible. And that is diﬃcult.182 You must know that I have not mentioned all that every scholar has said concerning the fringes since this would have taken too much time and space. But I have mentioned those things that seem plausible, and I have explained the passage as it seemed plausible to me.183 I shall beseech God, may His name be exalted, to grant us insight into his glorious Torah and reveal its secrets to us, as the Remnant184 have said: “Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Your law” (Psalm 119:18). And that He clear us of all charges for anything we have done in error, sin, or ignorance, as the saint (i.e., David) of blessed memory has said: “But who can discern errors? Clear me from hidden faults” (Psalm 19:13).

There may be no consensus concerning the minutiae of the tassels, but uncertainty, says Japheth, does not absolve one from observing the law.185 Since perfect knowledge remains an elusive ideal, he oﬀers general guidelines based upon those interpretations he deems most plausible. At the same time, he readily acknowledges the possibility of error, never suggesting that his readings and rulings are authoritative. By contrast, the Rabbis admit uncertainty, but prescribe normative law. The Schools of Hillel and Shammai disagree as to the number of threads that constitute a tassel, but neither school adduces grounds for its view.186 As a celebrated passage puts it, “[the utterances of ]

182 “And concerning which no additional (views) are possible. And that is diﬃcult”: wa-mà lam yumkinu fìhi al-ziyàda wa-'asira hàdhà. The translation is conjectural. 183 Lit. “which seemed plausible to me”: allàdì qaruba minì. 184 Heb. she"erit. On this term, an epithet for the Mourners for Zion, see Wieder, “The Qumran Sectaries,” 278–83. 185 In his Kitàb ta˙ßìl al-sharà"i' al-sam'ìya, Saadya reacts similarly when he is told of people who seek exemption from observing the second day of festivals in the Diaspora—a matter of contention in his day—because they “cannot distinguish truth from falsehood”—i.e., they cannot decide the proper ruling. Citing Job 4:17 (“Can man be more righteous than God”), he castigates them for their presumption: their inability to comprehend the reason for a law does not excuse them from observing it! See Zucker, “Fragments,” 407–408. 186 The school of Shammai maintained that each tassel comprises four threads, the school of Hillel, three; see bMena˙ot 41b. See Samuel b. Hophni Gaon, Kitàb a˙kàm shar' al-ßìßìt, ch. 4, p. 225, trans. pp. 246–47.

unclean birds and tassels

77

both are the words of the living God”; all the same, there must be a single standard practice. As in so many other disputes between the two schools, the halakhah (i.e., the practical ruling) becomes a technical matter, with the Rabbis simply deciding the law along procedural lines—unusually, in this case, according to the School of Shammai: each tassel would comprise four threads, not three.187 The Karaites were both dissatisﬁed and exasperated by the Rabbanite approach, which seemed arbitrary and unjustiﬁed. They could not accept the notion that normative praxis could be divorced from biblical exegesis, that the law might even contradict the plain meaning of Scripture. Although they regularly rejected the Rabbis’ conclusions, they did not object to midrash halakhah per se.188 What disturbed them deeply was the rabbinic claim that a divinely-sanctioned Oral Tradition was embodied in rabbinic literature. It galled them that the Rabbanites broached no criticism of the Sages’ opinions, whose authority, they declared, derived from divinely vested power, rather than legal expertise.189 The Karaites derided these assertions. Pointing to the halakhic disputes between the Schools of Hillel and Shammai, they brushed aside claims for a faithfully transmitted Oral Tradition 187 As the disputes between the two schools proliferated, a heavenly voice (bat qol ) is reported to have declared: “[The utterances of ] both are the words of the living God” ("ellu va-"ellu diverei "elohim ˙ayyim hen), but the halakhah is in accordance with the School of Hillel” (yBerakhot 1:4, 9a). Elon comments: “In theory, both are the words of the living God; but for purposes of practical action, one from among the set of legitimate opinions is the law”; see Jewish Law, 1:259. One source (b'Eruvin 13b) explains that the rulings of the School of Hillel are generally followed “because they were kindly and modest, they studied their own rulings and those of the School of Shammai.” As Louis Jacobs remarks: “This is an odd reason, on the face of it . . . [b]ut if the Halakah is a procedural matter it does make sense to say that the House of Hillel was rewarded for its humility by having the Halakhah decided in its favor”; see A Tree of Life, 27, and cf. Ginzberg, “The Signiﬁcance of the Halachah,” 94–96. 188 Karaites did, however, criticize the ancient Rabbis for their use of certain exegetical principles, notably gezerah shavah; see, e.g., al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr IV.10, vol. 2, pp. 366–67, and Vajda, “Études sur Qirqisânî, III,” 73–74. For his part, Saadya Gaon attacked the sectarians’ excessive use of qiyàs (analogy); for Saadya’s arguments and al-Qirqisànì’s refutation, see Kitàb al-anwàr II.9–10, vol. 1, pp. 79–101, trans. Vajda, “Études sur Qirqisânî, II,” 66–85. The rabbinic tradition itself, of course, records the tension between Ishmael’s method of contextual interpretation and Akiva’s preference for associative reading; see Elon, Jewish Law, 1:371–80 and Harris, How Do We Know This, ch. 3. 189 Michael Berger has demonstrated that the Sages’ authority is not epistemic; see Rabbinic Authority, 73–82. The “maximalist view of revelation” (ibid. 83–86) he describes, that links the Oral Tradition directly to the Sinaitic Revelation, is Saadyanic; cf. Harris, How Do We Know This, 74–80.

78

chapter two

of divine origin. Commenting on Deuteronomy 33:4 (= 2.4), Japheth remarks: . . . we see that they disagree concerning many of the commandments relating to permitted and forbidden (foods), impure and pure things, and sacred and profane matters as is well known from the diﬀerences between the schools of Shammai and Hillel and others.190

And if signiﬁcant diﬀerences existed between the practices of contemporary Rabbanite communities in Syria and Iraq, how could their leaders maintain that they upheld any tradition at all!191 AlQirqisànì observes that the gap between the two parties is no narrower than that between both of them on the one hand and the Qaraites and Ananites on the other. This fact discredits their claim to represent tradition and to derive their practices from the prophets.192

Japheth goes further, comparing the activities of the talmudic sages with those of Anan and Benjamin al-Nahàwandì: Their approach is like that of Anan and Benjamin and the other opponents of the Rabbanites who established Books of Commandments. Each of them stated his opinion(s) and drew inferences from whatever seemed to him to prove the soundness of his view. His opinion might then accord with the truth, or it might not. For they did not (represent) the entire nation, but constituted, rather, a small group that came into being over a long period of time after the disappearance of the prophets. They resolved to record their agreements and diﬀerences. They wrote these down and dispatched (the work) to the Jews in the East and the West, calling it the Mishnah and the Talmud, but they did not deem it permissible to claim that it was the Law of Moses, and they could not add it to the twenty-four books (of the Bible), which were composed by the prophets.193

Comment on Deut 33:4, 2.4.7, translated in the Appendix to this chapter. Al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr, I.10.1–2, vol. 1, pp. 48–49, trans. Lockwood, Ya'qùb al-Qirqisànì on Jewish Sects, 140–41. 192 Al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr, I.10.1, vol. 1, p. 48, lines 6–8, trans. Lockwood, Ya'qùb al-Qirqisànì on Jewish Sects, 140. Kitàb al-anwàr, I.10 (vol. 1, pp. 48–51) is devoted to the diﬀerences between the respective minhagim of Iraq (Babylonia) and Syria (i.e., the Land of Israel); see Lockwood, ibid., 140–44. The chapter draws upon an older Rabbanite composition, Sefer ha-˙illuqim bein benei "Ereß Yisra"el li-venei Bavel; see Elkin, “The Karaite Version of ‘Sefer Ha-Hilluqim’” and Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia, 112–13. 193 Japheth b. Eli, Comment on Deut 33:4; see 2.4.11, translated in the Appendix to this chapter. 190

191

unclean birds and tassels

79

At the same time, these Karaite scholars were acutely aware of the halakhic uncertainty that prevailed within their own camp. Intellectually honest, al-Qirqisànì devoted the last chapter of Kitàb al-anwàr, Book I194 to cataloguing the numerous diﬀerences in praxis he had observed among his fellow sectarians in everything from Sabbath regulations to calendation, purity laws, liturgy, and dietary restrictions—including birds of questionable permissibility: One allows chicken, another forbids it, while yet another asserts that he does not know whether it is permitted or forbidden.195

Having dispensed with any authoritative tradition, individual Karaites or small communities each claimed the license to interpret and legislate for themselves. As al-Qirqisànì concedes, the situation was deteriorating, and there were real fears that Rabbanite critics might gain polemical capital from it. If the integrity of the rabbinic tradition could be challenged with the existence of diﬀerent Rabbanite customs in Iraq and the Land of Israel, could not sectarian scripturalism also be ridiculed as a recipe for anarchy? Al-Qirqisànì responds that traditional knowledge should produce unanimity—but clearly does not—while rational knowledge inevitably leads to disagreement.196 Through cogent, persuasive argumentation, however, both he and Japheth try to minimize diﬀerences of opinion. What they resolutely do not attempt, however, is the resolution of intractable ambiguities or the imposition of arbitrary strictures where none are warranted. At least some indeterminate laws must inevitably remain until the coming of the Teacher of Righteousness.

194 Al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr, I.19, vol. 1, pp. 59–64, trans. Lockwood, Ya'qùb al-Qirqisànì on Jewish Sects, 252–56. 195 Al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr, I.19.3, vol. 1, p. 61, lines 19–20, trans. Lockwood, Ya'qùb al-Qirqisànì on Jewish Sects, 154 (modiﬁed). 196 Al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr, I.19.6, vol. 1, pp. 63–64, trans. Lockwood, Ya'qùb al-Qirqisànì on Jewish Sects, 156.

80

chapter two APPENDIX

This Appendix comprises translations of Japheth b. Eli’s comments on Deuteronomy 14:11–20 (= 2.2) and Deuteronomy 33:4 (= 2.4). IOS, RNL RNL RNL

2.2

C 41 (unnumbered folios; quires V–VI) MS Yevr.-Arab. I.0019, fols. 86a–b, 88–b. MS Yevr.-Arab. I.0095, fols. 57a–59b. MS Yevr.-Arab. I.0111, fols. 94a–95b. Japheth b. Eli, Commentary On Deuteronomy 14:11–20

2.2.1 “You may eat every clean bird” (Deuteronomy 14:11) I have already stated that “every clean bird” is mentioned in this section but not in the previous one (i.e., Leviticus 11:13–19). I have also stated previously that the purpose of this section is to assemble the (information concerning) the unclean and clean (creatures). Now if the statement “every clean bird” had no purpose, then there would be no need to specify by means of the statement “and these you shall declare unclean among the birds” (Leviticus 11:13), as I stated concerning (the verse) “these you may eat of all that live in water” (Leviticus 11:9; Deuteronomy 14:9). But we required a text concerning the permitted (birds). 2.2.2 It states “clean bird” (ßippor †ehorah) while concerning the clean swarming things it states “you may eat every clean thing that ﬂies ('of )” (Deuteronomy 14:20). Here it refers to the feathered ﬂying creatures, and there it refers to ﬂying creatures with wings of membrane. We have already mentioned elsewhere that the word 'of is applied to feathered ﬂying creatures and those with wings of membrane alike, but that ßippor is applied to feathered ﬂying creatures alone, while shereß 'of may not be applied to feathered ﬂying creatures. Proof for my statement that 'of includes both feathered ﬂying creatures and those with wings of membrane is the verse in the account of Creation, “And God said, let the waters bring forth swarms (of living creatures, and let 'of ﬂy above the earth across the ﬁrmament of the heavens)” (Genesis 1:20). Now when it mentions 'of alone without any modifying term, this refers to one of the two,

unclean birds and tassels

81

i.e., ßippor or shereß 'of; it is a general term for both. But the expression here, kol ßippor refers to feathered ﬂying creatures.1 2.2.3 The word “clean” (†ehorah) (in the present verse) means “clean for purposes of consumption” (†ehorah la-"akhilah).2 For we (apply the categories) “clean” and “unclean” to animals in two ways. The ﬁrst is “clean for purposes of consumption” and “unclean for purposes of consumption,” and the second is “clean for sacriﬁcial purposes” and “unclean for sacriﬁcial purposes.” As for “clean for sacriﬁcial purposes” this is alluded to in the verse “and he took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and oﬀered burnt oﬀerings on the altar” (Genesis 8:20)—by which lambs, sheep, turtledoves, and young doves are meant. As for “unclean for sacriﬁcial purposes” this is alluded to in the verse “and if it is an unclean animal such as is not oﬀered (as an oﬀering to the Lord, then the man shall bring the animal before the priest)” (Leviticus 27:11). “Clean for purposes of consumption” and “unclean for purposes of consumption” (are the subject) of the present passage. Should you encounter the words †ahor and †ame associated (muqàrana)3 with eating ("akhilah), know that their respective meanings are “permitted” (˙alàl) and “forbidden” (˙aràm) (for consumption). And should you encounter †ame and †ahor associated with sacriﬁce (qorban), know that the meaning is “unclean” and “clean for sacriﬁcial purposes.” Thus, we say concerning the verse “two living clean birds” (Leviticus 14:4) that they are of the genus of turtledoves and young pigeons, since th(ose species) render (the unclean) clean. For just as the water for (cleansing) impurity (mei niddah; Numbers 19:13) is of the same kind as that used for the sacriﬁce, so the animals that are clean (for consumption) (˙ayyot †ehorot) are of the same kind as those used for sacriﬁcial purposes.

Cf. Japheth’s comment on Lev 11:13, 2.1.2. I.e., “whose consumption is permitted.” 3 In Islamic legal writing the term qarìna denotes “a verbal or non-verbal element clarifying a part of speech extraneous to itself ”; more speciﬁcally, Japheth is referring to qarà"in maqàlìya (or lafΩìya), qarà"in relating to the semantics of words. See Hallaq, “Notes on the Term Qarìna,” 2. For Japheth’s use of qarìna in his halakhic exegesis, see Erder, “The Attitude of the Karaite Yefet Ben 'Elì to Moral Issues,” 314, n. 5 and passim. For a usage in a literary context, see Polliack and Schlossberg, “Historical-Literary, Rhetorical and Redactional Methods,” 16, n. 56 and p. 25. 1 2

82

chapter two

2.2.4 Now, should someone object: “Why did it not state ‘turtledoves and young pigeons?’ (in Leviticus 14:4),” he may be answered: God, may He be exalted, has let us choose between two birds. We may oﬀer turtledoves for both birds, if we so desire, or one young pigeon and one turtledove; and we may designate the turtledove for sacriﬁce and the pigeon for release, if we so desire, or the opposite. I have only stated this since I have seen legal reasoning (qiyàs) running rampant here, even to the point that had it stated “unclean” and “clean” without the (addition of ) the explanatory term (qarìna) “sacriﬁce” (qorban), this would have been taken to mean “permitted or forbidden (˙alàl wa-˙aràm) for consumption.”4 But although “eating” is not mentioned—as in the verse “take with you of all clean animals” (Genesis 7:2) and “of clean animals and of animals that are not clean” (ibid. 7:8), this means clean for consumption, since there was no mention there of sacriﬁce, as we have explained. Thus “clean” (†ahor)—meaning “permitted for consumption”—may be attested as an unmodiﬁed term (mu†laq) and it may also be associated with (the word) “eating.” As to “clean” for sacriﬁce, he requires a proof in order to demonstrate to us that it means “clean for sacriﬁce,” i.e., cattle, sheep, turtledoves, and young pigeons.5 [Here verses 11–18 are given in Hebrew, without Arabic translation] 2.2.5 The statement “these are the ones you shall not eat” (Deuteronomy 14:12) does not refer to the clean (birds), for then He would be forbidding what He had (already) permitted; and this would be inconceivable for the All-Wise, as it is stated [. . .].6 The remaining (possibility) is that it refers back to the genus of birds (in general).7

4 Japheth responds to the claim that the words †ahor and †ame must be associated with explanatory terms (Ar. qarà"in) which limit their semantic range either to eating or to sacriﬁce. He demonstrates that the meanings of these terms can readily be determined contextually. 5 I.e., those who maintain that the word “clean” in Deut 14:11 means “clean for sacriﬁce” must provide some evidence for this assertion. These unnamed opponents must be Ananites, since they maintain that the only birds permitted for consumption are those which are clean for sacriﬁce. 6 There seems to be a gap in the text here, likely due to a copyist’s error. 7 Since the preceding verse (14:11) reads “of all clean birds you shall eat,” Japheth wishes to clarify: the birds named in verses 12–19 are unclean; they are not clean birds that are forbidden.

unclean birds and tassels

83

This statement is similar to the previous one, “and these you shall declare unclean among the birds” (Leviticus 11:13). For the clean birds are, in fact, more numerous than the unclean ones. Now since the clean sea-creatures are fewer in number than the unclean, it states concerning them, “these you may eat of all that are in the waters” (Deuteronomy 14:9; Leviticus 11:10). Similarly, clean swarming things and clean beasts are fewer in number than unclean ones. But clean birds outnumber unclean ones, while the clean (species) among things that swarm in the air and things that swarm in the water and beasts are fewer than the forbidden species, as it states, “You shall therefore make a distinction between the clean beast and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean ” (Leviticus 20:25). Clean beasts are mentioned before (unclean beasts) in the process of diﬀerentiation (al-havdalah), but the opposite is the case with the birds. In diﬀerentiating something from a group, it is customary [to mention what is less common ﬁrst. And since there are fewer clean beasts]8 than unclean ones, the clean ones are mentioned ﬁrst. But since the unclean birds are fewer in number than the clean birds, they precede the clean birds in the diﬀerentiation. There it states, “and the "ayyah according to its kind” (Leviticus 11:14), but here it states, “and the dayyah according to its kind” (Deuteronomy 14:13). It did not state (here), “and the "ayyah according to its kind” in order to inform (us) that the dayyah is of the same kind as the "ayyah. Had it stated here, “and the dayyah” without “according to its kind,” we would not have known that there are (diﬀerent) kind(s) of dayyah. But since it says “according to its kind,” we know that there are (diﬀerent) kind(s) of dayyah and that all of them are varieties of "ayyah.9 And since the dayyah and its kind are (types) of "ayyah, it then states “and the "ayyah according to its kind” full-stop.10 For this reason, the number (of birds) mentioned above (i.e., in Leviticus) has been increased here by one, and that is the dayyah. 2.2.6 Know that for four of the unclean birds, “kind” (min) is mentioned: (1) "ayyah; (2) 'orev; (3) neß; and (4) "anafah. Min is like a kind of form.

8 9 10

There seems to be a haplography here; the text in square brackets is reconstructed. Lit. “and that the dayyah and its kind are a kind of "ayyah.” Ar. wa-amsaka, lit. “and stopped.”

84

chapter two

2.2.7 Know that (Scripture) lists the tinshemet (both) among the unclean birds and the swarming things (sheraßim). Here it states that it belongs to the genus of ﬂying birds, although it suckles like a mouse.11 2.2.8 You should know—may God grant you guidance—that He established signs ('alàmàt) for the clean (i.e., the permitted)12 beasts and sea creatures, as we have explained, by which unclean and clean (species) may be distinguished from each other. But He did not establish a sign by which the permitted (˙alàl) birds may be known. He did, however, establish (a list of ) names for this (purpose), which he mentioned, and they are the names recorded here.13 Should you wish to know (the meaning) of these Hebrew names, you will only suceed in doing so in one of two ways: either through some allusion ('alàma)14 recorded in Scripture, or via the consensus of the language community15 which gives a certain name to that species. It is (only) by these two means that you will know (their meaning). 2.2.9 One bird for which there is a telltale indication ('alàma) is the pigeon ( yonah), and that is its cooing,16 as it is stated: “we coo like pigeons” (Isaiah 59:11); no other bird in the world is said to coo, save the pigeon.

11 Japheth believes that the tinshemet has been listed among both birds and swarming things (Lev 11:18, 30) because of its dual nature: it is a ﬂying mammal. According to David al-Fàsì, “it is said that the tinshemet is the bat (Ar. khushshàf ) since it is mentioned both among the birds and the eight swarming creatures”; see Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ, 2:387, lines 35–36. He prefers to identify the bat with the 'a†alef (ibid., 2:386, lines 33 ﬀ.). In his translation, Sahl b. Maßlia˙ also rendered tinshemet as “bat”; see RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I:0057, fol. 149a. 12 Ar. †àhira, lit. “pure,” rendering Heb. †ehorah. 13 The Bible, of course, records the names of the unclean birds. Japheth has already discussed this in his comment on the ﬁrst words of Deut 14:11. 14 Note that Japheth uses Ar. 'alàma in two senses: (1) a physical or behavioral sign (Heb. siman); (2) a scriptural allusion or reference. In his section on clean and unclean birds, Judah Hadassi (Byzantium, 12th c.) renders these two meanings by Heb. siman and remez, respectively; see "Eshkol ha-Kofer, Alphabet 234, fol. 89c, lines 13 and 39. 15 Ar. ahl al-lugha, “language community” or “linguistic community,” rather than “the philologists.” 16 Ar. hadìruhà. According to Kazimirski, Dictionnaire, 2:1400, the verb may be applied to pigeons, with the meaning “roucouler.”

unclean birds and tassels

85

2.2.10 As for the consensus of the language community concerning the names (of species) that they know—such as baqar (cattle), ßon (sheep), and "ayil (ram)—the sum total of the bird-names upon which they agree are six:17 nesher, 'orev, bat ha-ya'anah, kos, ra˙am, tinshemet. 2.2.11 The nesher is the vulture (Ar. nasr)—there is no disagreement about this among the language community. Moreover, there is a clear reference to it in Scripture which strengthens the identiﬁcation with the nasr, as it is stated: “like a vulture that stirs up its nest, that ﬂutters over its young” (Deuteronomy 32:11). Observers18 assert that of all birds, the vulture alone habitually carries its young upon its wings, since it feels safe that no other bird will alight upon them. Other birds, however, bear their young beneath their wings19 for fear that a predatory bird20 might harm them or their young.21 2.2.12 The 'orev is the crow (Ar. ghuràb).22 The ra˙am is the Egyptian vulture (Ar. rakham). Bat ha-ya'anah is the ostrich (Ar. na'àm). The tinshemet is the bat (Ar. wa†wa†).23 The kos is the owl (Ar. bùm). For each of these, except the Egyptian vulture, there are clear allusions in Scripture.24 2.2.13 But they diﬀer concerning the (remaining) ﬁfteen names. Many, in fact, suspend judgment concerning them (bal kathìr waqafù 'anhà). Four of them possess subspecies (minim) as well. If this is the case, then these prohibited birds are known (only) by their names, and the language community has not agreed upon the identiﬁcation

17

The text is corrupt here, but the meaning seems clear. Ar. aß˙àb al-raßad. 19 Lit. “feathers.” 20 Ar. jàri˙; see Dozy, Supplément, 1:182. 21 Cf. David al-Fàsì, Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ, 2:294, lines 36–42 for very similar wording. For Japheth’s comment on Deut 32:11, see Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Deuteronomy XXXII, 66–70. Concerning the translation of nesher as “vulture” rather than “eagle,” see above, p. 40, n. 28. 22 Concerning the translation of 'orev as “crow” rather than “raven,” see above, p. 44, n. 39. 23 See the observation on the classiﬁcation of the tinshemet at the beginning of this selection. 24 Since biblical ra˙am and Ar. rakham are obvious cognates, the identiﬁcation is secure, despite the lack of any supporting scriptural evidence. For the rakham (nomen unitatis: rakhama), see Lane, Lexicon, 1059c. 18

86

chapter two

of them all. The permitted birds have not been mentioned in Scripture except for pigeons and turtledoves (yonah ve-torim), about which the language community is in agreement. Judgment is suspended concerning them all, except for those about which there is a consensus, i.e., torim u-venei yonah, the various kinds of turtledove and pigeon.25 2.2.14 Should someone say: “How can you deny that the clean birds are derived from consensus, since God says: “You may eat all clean birds” (Deuteronomy 14:11). Since the species of clean birds have not been mentioned in Scripture, they must be orally transmitted (manqùlan).” He should be answered: “We deny this since God, may His praise be exalted, did not make us depend upon oral tradition for our knowledge of the permitted and forbidden species (anwà' al-˙alàl wa’l-˙aràm) of animals. He provided us, rather, with signs and names. We have not found Scripture to mention the names of clean birds in the text; it mentions only the names of the unclean ones. Now had He made (knowledge of ) the clean birds orally transmitted (knowledge), as you claim, there would have been no advantage in His having mentioned the names of the unclean birds. 2.2.15 Another approach is that God has informed us that there are fewer unclean birds than clean birds. But behold we see that (people) diﬀer concerning their identiﬁcation, I mean the identiﬁcation of the unclean birds, which are speciﬁed in Scripture. Now if they do not know the unclean birds, which are fewer in number and which have been speciﬁed in Scripture, how much the more so will they not know the clean birds, of which there are many more species and which have not been speciﬁed (in Scripture). 2.2.16 Another approach is that most of the birds that we see Jews eating are of ﬁve species. Their statement that the clean birds are (known) via oral tradition (implies) that they should know that if it were as they say, it would be necessary that most of the birds be known by them. But since we have not seen that the Jews know the (diﬀerent) species of clean birds—except for a very few—we know that God did not make the clean birds (known) via oral tradition.

25

The text has “pigeon and its kinds and turtledove and its kinds.”

unclean birds and tassels

87

2.2.17 Another approach. We have seen that the Rabbanites have established signs ('alàmàt) for the clean birds, and have derived them by means of demonstrations mentioned in Torat Kohanim,26 i.e., they compared the unclean birds with the vulture (nasr), and the clean birds with the turtledoves and pigeons. They demonstrated that the turtledoves and pigeons do not tear (their prey), that they possess an extra toe, a zefeq, and a qurqevan, i.e., a crop and a gizzard. Then they saw that the vulture, according to their claim, lacks these signs and that, moreover, it tears its prey (Heb. dores; Ar. muftaris). They used the nesher for comparison, however, since among the language community it is identiﬁed without exception as the vulture. In the same way, they compared the clean birds to torim u-venei yonah, since the language community agree that these are turtledoves and pigeons.27 Were there an oral tradition (naql) among the people, they would not have established signs from which (they) draw inferences, as we have mentioned. 2.2.18 Should someone say, “The people already knew these signs via oral tradition from the prophet, but they only observed the unclean birds and saw that they diﬀered from the clean (species) and spoke about this,” he may be answered: “As to your statement that the people used to know these signs via oral tradition from the prophet—this is (but) a claim. You have no proof of this, either from consensus or from Scripture. At the same time, we have said that God established knowledge of all the permitted and forbidden animals from Scripture; nothing of (this subject) is known via the oral tradition. 2.2.19 Another approach. The signs that God established for beasts and sea creatures are (all) manifest and readily perceptible, so that when a person sees them,28 he knows them to be permitted without having to slaughter them. But with the exception of the extra toe, these signs that people have established are hidden, and may only be discerned after (the animal) has been slaughtered. God has permitted us, however, to sacriﬁce animals which are known to be permitted.

26 27 28

I.e., the Sifra, a tannaitic midrash on Leviticus. The text has “pigeons and turtledoves”: Ar. al-˙amàm wa’l-shafànìn; see above. I.e., creatures possessing the relevant criteria.

chapter two

88

There is general consensus about this. Everyone agrees as well that it is not permissible to immolate an animal without reciting a benediction over the sacriﬁce. One sacriﬁces and recites: “. . . (who has commanded us . . . to sacriﬁce) clean birds and clean beasts.” This being the case, it is impossible that God should make clean birds known by a sign which may not be discerned until after the sacriﬁce. For sacriﬁce is only possible after the particular (victim) is known to be permitted. 2.2.20 What I have set down here contains suﬃcient guidance (kifàya) for whoever wants justice for himself (li-man anßafa nafashu), seeks truth, and abandons gluttony, who has not induced himself to risk eating what is doubtful (al-mushtabih). For permission to immolate animals is known from revelation, and if clear proofs from revelation existed for the permissibility of a particular (animal), then sacriﬁcing it would be permissible ( jà"iz). And if it were doubtful (mushtabih), then sacriﬁcing it would be forbidden. 2.2.21 Of all the birds, those for which there exist clear proofs, indicating that they are permitted are turtledoves and pigeons, as we have explained. As for chicken, mountain quail, partridge, duck, goose, crane, sparrow, and others—we must suspend judgment29 concerning them all “until he comes and teaches righteousness” (Hosea 10:12).

2.4

Japheth b. Eli, Commentary On Deuteronomy 33:4

2.4.1 “Through Moses He gave us the law, an inheritance for the congregation of Jacob.”30 (Deuteronomy 33:4) He said: “shall receive of your words” (Deuteronomy 33:3)—they receive a single revelation “of your words” and proclaim for (all) their generations: “God gave us this law (sharì'a) through Moses, as it states: “You have given them commandments, ordinances, and a

29 Ar. kulluhà ta˙t al-waqf, “we must suspend judgment,” lit. “they are all under suspended ( judgment).” 30 Ar. 'alà yad Moshe, “through Moses.” According to Japheth, the subject is God; this is apparent from the addition 'alà yad, which makes Moses the instrument of revelation. Cf. Saadya, Tafsìr.

unclean birds and tassels

89

law” (Nehemiah 9:14), and it is an inheritance which the congregation ( jamà'a) of Jacob possesses as an inheritance one group from another ( jam' 'an jam' ). He said “the Congregation of Jacob” (qehilat Ya'aqov) and not “the Community of Jacob” ('adat Ya'aqov) or “the Children of Jacob” (benei Ya'aqov) for a reason, which is that Israel received its essential identity (aßlahu) on the day of congregation ( yom ha-qahal; Deuteronomy 9:10, 10:4, 18:16) when they all gathered together at the foot of the mountain and heard God’s speech. That day was called “the day of congregation,” as it is said, “these words the Lord spoke to all your congregation” (Deuteronomy 5:19). Here, a similar expression is employed, for he said “the congregation of Jacob” in order to inform them that the Torah is the inheritance of one group from another similar group. 2.4.2 It was not entrusted (mu∂ammana) to speciﬁc people,31 as our opponents (i.e., the Rabbanites) have claimed, that Moses transmitted the Torah to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the men of the Great Assembly.32 For they have stated it thus: “Moses received the Torah on Sinai, and handed it down to Joshua; Joshua to the elders; the elders to the prophets; and the prophets handed it down to the Men of the Great Assembly.”33 Now if by this they meant the written Torah (altorah al-mudawwana) concerning which it stated: “And Moses wrote this Torah” (Deuteronomy 31:9), then they have spoken idly, since he handed this (Torah) over to the priests and the elders and it is “an inheritance for the congregation of Jacob.” But if they meant by this the Oral Law (torah be-feh),34 we will not consent with them on this point for reasons I shall give. 2.4.3 One of these is that God commanded the Israelites to go to the priests, whenever some legal matter was obscure, and they would

31 Ar. li-qawm bi-a'yànihim. Cf. al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr, II.15.9, vol. 1, p. 132, lines 9–10. 32 This is Japheth’s Arabic paraphrase of mAvot 1:1; he cites the original Hebrew in the next sentence. 33 mAvot 1:1, trans. Hertz, Sayings of the Fathers, 12–15. 34 Throughout this passage, Japheth uses the expression torah be-feh (“Oral Law”) instead of the familiar torah she-be-'al peh. The phrase does not seem to occur in rabbinic texts—or at least in the recensions available to us. The closest parallel is the phrase zo torah she-be-feh; see Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana 15:5, p. 256, line 6.

90

chapter two

inform them, as it states: “And you shall inquire, and they will inform you” (Deuteronomy 17:9). We have not seen him state: “Go to Joshua and to the elders.” For I have already instructed them in the jurisprudence (governing) the commandments ( ﬁqh al-farà"i∂ ) so that you will learn from them and observe them. 2.4.4 Another argument: Here it states, “Through Moses, He gave us the Law.” This Law must be one of two things. Either it is the Law that Moses wrote, or it is (this) Scripture and something else besides. If it signiﬁes Scripture alone, then this statement is true, since only the Law of Moses can be found in the mouths of young and old alike, the Israelites teaching it to their children as God had commanded them to do: “And you shall teach them to your children, speaking of them” (Deuteronomy 11:19). It also states: “you shall read this Torah before all Israel in their hearing” (ibid. 31:11). But if (the phrase) signiﬁes Scripture and something else besides, this statement contradicts their main principle. For according to them, Joshua received the Oral Law and transmitted it to the elders. Concerning this (Law), however, it is stated: “an inheritance for the congregation of Jacob.” 2.4.5 Another argument: They claim that the Oral Law was transmitted orally (manqùla fì ’l-ßudùr) after the destruction of the Second Temple, but we have seen that Scripture states: “you shall read this Torah” (Deuteronomy 31:11). Nowhere in the course of the entire book, however, do we see any mention of the Oral Law. 2.4.6 Another argument: Had Moses recorded35 some of the commandments and narratives in a work which he called the Book of the Law (sefer torah), and taught (the people) other commandments which he called the Oral Law, it would be inconceivable that they36 would contradict (it) or that the elders—who claimed that it was orally revealed to them—alter it and set it down in writing. Now were it possible for them to choose to write down that which they were commanded to transmit orally, it is possible that the editor (mudawwin) would transmit it and convey it orally (lit. set it down on

35 36

Ar. kataba, lit. “written.” Ar. al-umma, lit. “the nation.”

unclean birds and tassels

91

[their] hearts), and the commandment would be nulliﬁed thereby. There is no diﬀerence between these two (possibilities). 2.4.7 Now if they claim that because they had transmitted their tradition (naql ) orally until they committed it to writing it constitutes (divine) wisdom and is sound, they may be answered: you have denied what God saw ﬁt to do—namely, that it be transmitted orally—and it is your opinion that has become decisive (al-muwaﬃr).37 But such a view is unthinkable (lit. “such a thing may not be said”). If one of them were to claim that God had commanded them to write down what had been transmitted orally among them when they had gone into Exile, we would say to him: “No one maintains such a view; all the same, we will show you the folly of it. God’s commandment to write down this oral tradition after the disappearance of prophets entails one of two things: either He knew that they would disagree with each other or that they would all be of one opinion. If (you say that) He knew they would be in accord, we do not ﬁnd the Sages of the Mishnah and the Talmud all to be of one opinion; on the contrary, we see that they disagree concerning many of the commandments relating to permitted and forbidden (foods), impure and pure things, and sacred and profane matters as is well known from the diﬀerences between the schools of Shammai and Hillel and others. If this is the case, then one of two things must be true: if you hold that (what) God knew was contrary to what (actually) came to pass, your claim is wrong;38 and if we cannot say that God knows something that is contrary to what will come to pass, your view must (also) be wrong.39 Therefore, God must not

37 Ar. wa-ßàra ra"yukum antum huwa al-muwaﬃr. Al-muwaﬃr may mean “that which furnishes proof,” i.e., “decisive”; see Wehr, Dictionary, 1083. Alternately, the word may be vocalized al-muwaﬀar; see Kazimirski, Dictionnaire, 2:1575: “trop nombreux, trop abondant, trop diﬃcile à étreindre,” i.e., “predominant.” Note that antum and huwa each add emphasis, albeit to diﬀerent elements of the sentence: the latter stresses the “opinion” (ra"y), the former those who hold it. Bernard R. Goldstein, who very kindly assisted me with this passage, notes that if ra"y is stressed, the sentence might mean, “. . . and it is your opinion that has been taken to be a decisive [proof ],” rather than God’s commandments. He has also suggested that there may be a play on the words ra"à (what God saw ﬁt to do) and ra"y (human opinion). 38 If you claim that God did not know that the Sages would disagree, you are mistaken, since God is omniscient. Japheth’s views concerning divine knowledge are Mutazilite; see Ben-Shammai, “The Doctrines,” 1:234–36. 39 But if God’s knowledge is necessarily perfect, then He must have known that

92

chapter two

have commanded that any portion of the commandments be written down, apart from what Moses had recorded. Thus, your view— that Moses taught them orally transmitted commandments—has been proven to be invalid.”40 2.4.8 Another argument: In this Oral Law, we have seen inferences by means of biblical texts; in many places, for example, they use the expression talmud lomar.41 This (usage) indicates an inference. Now if these were Moses’ words, why would he have had to draw an inference? Rather, he would have said: “This teaching is divinely revealed (mursal ).” 2.4.9 Another argument: The Congregation of Jacob, which is dispersed throughout the East and West, all agree that this Torah—I mean everything42 from the letter beit of bereishit (“in the beginning”; Genesis 1:1) until the end of the Torah—was written by Moses and that nothing has subsequently been added to it or deleted from it.43 But look! We see that the Oral Law diﬀers from this in form, for it contains such statements as “Rabbi so-and-so stated, but the Sages did not agree with him,” i.e., that he was not correct.44 Now if it is as we have shown it to be, then there is a distinction between what is recorded in the Torah and what is recorded in the Mishnah, since what is recorded in the Torah (derives) entirely from Moses, while what is in the Mishnah (derives) from Moses as well as others. From this it is clear that Moses did not teach them the law ( ﬁqh) of the Torah and they did (not) learn it orally.

the Sages would disagree and He could not have enjoined them to write down the Oral Tradition. 40 The Sages themselves voiced discomfort when oral traditions were set down in writing; see bTemurah 14b and bGi††in 60b, and the discussion in Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 31–34. The argument is an instance of ilzàm; see above, p. 60, and n. 107. 41 Talmud lomar, “(for this reason,) Scripture states.” See Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie, 1:199–201, s.v. “Talmud II.” 42 Ar. al-daﬀatayn, lit. “the two covers,” i.e., everything between the two covers. See Lane, Lexicon, 888b. 43 Cf. Salmon b. Yeru˙ìm, Sefer mil˙amot ha-shem, p. 37, lines 49–52: “All of them, believers as well as unbelievers, divided as they are by language and tongue, all Israel, from the east to the westernmost ends of the world, testify to the sanctity of the written law, all of them, the little and the great” (Nemoy, Karaite Anthology, 73). 44 For examples of the formula ve-lo hodu lo ˙akhamim, see: m'Eruvin 3:7–9, mPesa˙im 5:8, and mTa'anit 3:7.

unclean birds and tassels

93

2.4.10 Another argument proving that it (i.e., the Oral Law) is not a Mosaic teaching. It contains statements to the eﬀect that “Rabbi so-and-so says such-and-such” which he derives from a verse ( pasuq). The people accept his (teaching), although the verse is not found in the Torah, as in the statement of Rabbi Akiva that idolatry deﬁles as a menstruating woman (niddah) does;45 he inferred this from a verse in Isaiah: “You will cast them (i.e., the idols) away as a menstruous woman (davah);46 you will say to them, ‘begone’” (Isaiah 30:22).47 2.4.11 All this—may God grant you guidance—indicates that the people were searching (kànù bà˙ithìn) and drawing inferences, each telling the other what seemed right to him. If some statement seemed plausible to them, they accepted it, and observed it. But if this was not the case, they let it stand. Their approach is like that of Anan and Benjamin48 and the other opponents of the Rabbanites who established Books of Commandments (sifrei mißvot). Each of them stated his opinion(s) and drew inferences from whatever seemed to him to prove the soundness of his view.49 His opinion might then accord with the truth, or it might not. For they did not (represent) the entire nation, but constituted, rather, a small group that came into being over a long period of time after the disappearance of the prophets. They resolved to record their agreements and diﬀerences. They copied these down and dispatched (the work) to the Jews in the East and the West, calling it the Mishnah and the Talmud, but they did not deem it permissible to claim that it was the Law of Moses, and they could not add it to the twenty-four books (of the Bible), which were composed by the prophets.

45

See mShabbat 9:1. Cf. Lev 20:18. 47 The Rabbanites insist that the Oral Law is valid because it derives from Moses. Japheth objects that there are certain rabbinic laws whose authority derives not from Moses, but from the teachings of later prophets, such as Isaiah. As Haggai Ben-Shammai has remarked to me, this is a further example of ilzàm. 48 I.e., Anan b. David and Benjamin al-Nahàwandì. 49 “All this . . . of his view”: this passage is cited and translated by Poznanski, “Anan et ses écrits,” 184. See also Polliack, “The Emergence of Karaite Biblical Exegesis,” 303, where it has accidentally been combined with a passage from Japheth’s comment on Zech 5:5–8. 46

94

chapter two

2.4.12 Now what proof do these editors (al-mudawwinìn) have that their words derive from Moses? And which prophet has given testimony in their favor as to their reliability? We observe, however, that the inferences of these people are weak, and that they contain lies and (the kind of ) interpretation that our reason assures (us) is the report of an informant (khabar al-mukhbir)—a statement that may not be accepted without proof. The arguments I have mentioned represent (only) some of those advanced against the Rabbanites by their opponents. Although it was impossible to record all of the arguments that they advanced, I have noted some of them (in my comment) on this verse, so as to provide guidance for the ignorant (al-ghàﬁl) who hear a certain person50 extolling the sages of the Mishnah and the Talmud for having received a uniﬁed Tradition51 from Moses without harboring any disagreement. Now I wished to explain that this statement of his misses the mark (bi-ghayr ta˙ßìl ), and that he could use a false premise in order to lead people astray from the truth, deluding them with embellished words that originated in his (own) books. But our Lord, may He be gloriﬁed, has admonished52 (us), appealing to every straying member of His people, and has promised that He would appoint for them someone who would guide them on the right path, as it is stated: “I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding” ( Jeremiah 3:15).

50 Ar. ba'∂ al-nàs. Or translate “one of the people”; likely a veiled reference to Saadya. 51 Ar. naql wà˙id, lit. “a single tradition.” 52 Ar. tawà'ada. Or translate “threatened.” (Form VI = V; see Ratzaby, Dictionary, 138).

CHAPTER THREE

INTERPRETING DREAMS AND SCRIPTURES

In the Introduction to his Torah Commentary, Abraham Ibn Ezra criticizes the Babylonian Geonim for swelling their commentaries with unnecessary details and excursuses on subjects better left to experts. Singling out Samuel ben Hophni’s introductory remarks to Parashat Va-yeße (on Genesis 28:10), Ibn Ezra writes: Samuel b. Hophni also wasted much breath1 on many subjects, in his comment on Va-yeße Ya'aqov (Genesis 28:10). For he mentioned each prophet by name, and the number of times he was exiled, as well as the beneﬁts of travel. The sole beneﬁt of the commentary, however, is its length. For the verse, “And he dreamt” (Genesis 28:12), he wrote about dream interpretation, and why dreams occur during sleep. Whoever wishes to learn secular subjects ought to study them in books by specialists. Then he may consider whether their proofs are sound. For in their own works the Geonim cited these teachings without the (accompanying) demonstrations.2

Although Ibn Ezra disparaged such prolixity, it is precisely the expansive tendency of early Jewish exegetes writing in Arabic that illuminates their cultural and intellectual world for us. Prone to digression, they interject subjects that betray their acculturation; in using the lingua franca, they inevitably express Jewish concepts in Islamic terms. Not only do they borrow technical vocabulary, but they also draw upon Greco-Arabic categories in their detailed commentaries. Thoroughness and comprehensiveness were, of course, considered virtues among contemporary Muslim scholars—one has only to think of alˇabarì’s monumental Tafsìr. We should really be grateful that some of their Jewish counterparts sought to emulate them. Discussions of dream interpretation, in fact, reveal much about the commentators’ understanding of their own role and the exegetical techniques they employ. Since revelation, after all, is sometimes

1 Heb. "asaf rua˙ be-˙ofnav: lit. “gathered wind in his ﬁsts.” Ibn Ezra is punning on Samuel’s name and Prov 30:4. 2 Abraham Ibn Ezra, Peirushei ha-torah, “Haqdamah,” 1:2.

96

chapter three

conveyed in dreams, interpreters of biblical prophecies naturally drew upon oneirocritical methods. As we will see, there was little diﬀerence for them between the explication of dreams and sacred texts, both of which could be subjected to rational analysis. Like commentators, dream interpreters applied their critical faculties to narratives—not to the dreams themselves, but rather to accounts of dreams. And since, like some texts, certain dreams might hold prophetic value, the tasks of biblical exegete and oneirocritic could be strikingly similar. In their commentaries on Genesis 40–41, both Japheth b. Eli and Sahl b. Maßlia˙ discuss dream interpretation at some length. In this chapter, we will study their exegesis of several verses from these chapters with an eye to their methodology. We shall then turn to Japheth’s Commentary on Daniel; there we shall see that his prognostic interpretation of biblical prophecies strongly resembles his presentation of Daniel’s oneirocriticism. Finally, we will discuss the relationship of prayer to interpretation and will show how the tenth-century Karaites depict Joseph and Daniel not only as proﬁcient interpreters of dreams, but also as exemplary exegetes—true role models. Since high antiquity, dream interpretation has been practiced in the Near East as a means of foretelling future events. In ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia dreams were catalogued and interpreted by specialists.3 And in the Greco-Roman period, philosophers and physicians theorized on the nature of dreaming and its signiﬁcance.4 A Hellenistic tradition of dream interpretation also developed. The most important work in this ﬁeld was the Oneirocritica of Artemidorus (second century C.E.), a classiﬁcation and analysis of dreams.5 Jews manifested a serious interest in the subject as well: besides the relevant passages in the Bible and later midrashic treatments, there is the “dreambook” preserved in Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Berakhot 55a–57b, a substantial and self-contained literary unit.6 In the Islamic 3 See Oppenheim, “The Interpretation of Dreams”; idem, “Mantic Dreams”; Sauneron, “Les songes et leur interprétation”; Husser, Dreams and Dream Narratives; Bar, A Letter That Has Not Been Read; Gnuse, “The Jewish Dream Interpreter.” 4 See: Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational, 102–134; idem, Pagan and Christian, 38–53; Miller, Dreams in Late Antiquity; and Luck, Arcana Mundi, 229–39, 274–75, 290–98. 5 See Artemidorus, Oneirocritica; idem, The Interpretation of Dreams; Festugière, Artémidore: La clef des songes; Miller, Dreams in Late Antiquity, 77–91; and Walde, “Dream Interpretation.” 6 See Alexander, “Bavli Berakhot 55a–57b”; to the extensive bibliography on dreams in rabbinic literature (p. 232, n. 2) may be added Harris, Studies in Jewish Dream Interpretation.

interpreting dreams and scriptures

97

world, dreams assumed even greater signiﬁcance. The prophet is quoted as saying that a good dream is the forty-sixth part of prophecy.7 Numerous sources relate the various functions of dreams as media of personal messages, private prophecies, theological clariﬁcations, and political advice.8 The classical Islamic literature on dreams is thus altogether more extensive and ramiﬁed.9 Ibn al-Nadìm’s Fihrist (987 C.E.) lists works by Artemidorus and Porphyry alongside those of Abù Sulaymàn al-Mantiqì (i.e., al-Sijistànì, d. 986/7), Mu˙ammad b. Sìrìn, Abù Iß˙àq al-Kirmànì (8th c. C.E.), and Ibn Qutaybah (d. ca. 889) among others, as well as a Book of Dream Interpretation According to the Teachings of the Prophet’s Family (ahl al-bayt).10 Writing in the early eleventh century—when Samuel b. Hophni was at the height of his powers—the Muslim scholar Abù Sa'd Naßr b. Ya'qùb al-Dìnawarì could draw upon a rich, varied literature: native, Arabian teachings embodied in the Quran and ˙adìth literature;11 the Arabic version of Artemidorus;12 philosophical works, such as al-Kindì’s epistle on sleep and dreams;13 and Jewish as well as Christian traditions.14 Completed 7 Al-Bukhàrì, Ía˙ì˙, 9.89.116–18. See Kister, “The Interpretation of Dreams,” p. 71 and n. 20, recording numerous variants; and cf. bBerakhot 57b, “A dream is one-sixtieth part of prophecy” (˙alom "e˙ad mi-shishshim li-nevu"ah). 8 See von Grunebaum, “Introduction: The Cultural Function of the Dream.” 9 See Bland, “On the Muhammedan Science of Tâbîr”; Fahd, “Les songes et leur interprétation”; idem, La divination arabe; idem, “The Dream in Medieval Islamic Society”; idem, “Ru’yâ”; Kister, “The Interpretation of Dreams”; Schimmel, Die Träume des Kalifen; and Sviri, “Dreaming Analyzed and Recorded.” As usual, Ibn Khaldùn oﬀers a lucid exposition; see Rosenthal, Ibn Khaldûn: The Muqaddimah, 3:103–110 (= ch. vi, sec. 17), and cf. 1:207–13. 10 See Ibn al-Nadìm, Kitàb al-ﬁhrist, 316, trans. Dodge, The Fihrist of al-Nadìm, 2:742. On these authors, see Fahd, La divination arabe, 354 and 342 (al-Sijistànì), 312–15 (Ibn Sìrìn), 345 (al-Kirmànì), and 316–28 (Ibn Qutaybah). On Kitàb ﬁ ’l-indhàràt al-nawmiyya (Warnings in Sleep) attributed to al-Sijistànì, see Kraemer, Philosophy in the Renaissance of Islam, pp. 84, n. 12 and 132; on Ibn Qutaybah’s treatise, see Kister, “The Interpretation of Dreams.” Al-Nadìm’s early, representative sampling is misleading as to the genre’s popularity; Fahd, La divination arabe, 329–63 catalogues 181 oneiromantic treatises! On the reception of Artemidorus in the Middle Ages and the importance of the Arabic oneirocritical tradition, see Mavroudi, A Byzantine Book on Dream Interpretation, esp. ch. 4. 11 Quranic references to dream communications include: 12:4–5, 36, 43, 100, 17:60, 37:105, 48:27 (ru"yà); 8:43, 37:102 (manàm); and 12:44, 21:5 (˙ulm). For dreams in the ˙adìth literature, see al-Bukhàrì, Ía˙ì˙, vol. 9, Book 87; Muslim, Ía˙ì˙, Book 29; and Màlik b. Anas, Al-Muwa††a", Book 52. 12 For the Arabic rendering of Artemidorus attributed to Óunayn Ibn Iß˙àq, see: Artemidorus, Kitàb ta'bìr al-ru"yà. 13 For al-Kindì’s epistle, see: al-Kindì, Rasà"il, 1:283–311, French translation in al-Kindî, Cinq épîtres, 77–85. 14 Al-Dìnawarì frequently refers to the views of the Christians and Jews; see Kitàb al-ta'bìr, 2:607–608, s.v. al-naßàrà and al-yahùd.

98

chapter three

in 1006 and dedicated to the Caliph al-Qàdir bi"llàh (991–1031), his manual Kitàb al-ta'bìri ﬁ’l-ru"yà "aw al-qàdir fì ta'bìr (“The Book of Dream Interpretation or The Able Interpreter”) reﬂects the state of the art of oneirocriticism in the Islamic East at that time.15 In this milieu, Jewish authors of a humanistic bent could draw upon a rich, complex dream-literature that extended back to Antiquity.16 There was the Bible and classic rabbinic literature, itself an indirect source for Hellenistic teachings.17 There were classical sources in Arabic translation as well as original treatments by Islamic savants. And there were Muslim religious texts. It is not surprising that Samuel ben Hophni was familiar with oneirocritical works. The last Gaon of Sura, he was well versed not only in Islamic legal theory (ußùl alﬁqh) but also in theology ('ilm al-kalàm); quite likely, he had studied other genres of Islamic literature as well. The passage that oﬀended Ibn Ezra is no longer extant, but the surviving portions of Samuel’s commentary on Genesis 41 indicate that he was quite conversant with the science of ta'bìr.18 And although Japheth condemns “the deceiving gentile philosophers” (˙artumei ha-goyim ha-mekhazevim) for having abandoned study of the religious laws in favor of metaphysical speculation, neither he nor Sahl hesitate to draw upon their general knowledge in solving exegetical problems.19

15 See Fahd, “Les songes,” esp. 132–47, and Mavroudi, A Byzantine Book on Dream Interpretation, 27, 133–34, and esp. 451–65 on Christian dream interpreters. 16 On Islamic humanism during this period, see esp. Kraemer, Humanism in the Renaissance of Islam. 17 For parallels between the talmudic dreambook and Artemidorus, see Alexander, “Bavli Berakhot,” 241–44. Fragments of Hebrew dream-books have been found in the Cairo Genizah; the four folios of T-S K 1.11 clearly derive from the rabbinic tradition—there are citations of bBerakhot 57a–b—but the text has been organized as a manual. The preserved chapters deal primarily with dreams concerning birds (ostriches, eggs, vultures, bats, chickens, and so forth) as well as ﬁsh and milk. 18 On Samuel b. Hophni, see Sklare, Samuel Ben Óofni Gaon and His Cultural World. On geonic exegesis, see Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia, and idem, “The Geonim of Babylonia as Biblical Exegetes.” For the extant fragments of his commentary on Genesis, see Samuel ben Hophni, Peirush ha-torah. (On this edition, see Brody, “Book Review” and Blau, “Textual Comments.”) Samuel’s unpublished commentary on Ha"azinu is discussed by Ben-Shammai, “New Findings in a Forgotten Manuscript.” 19 For Japheth’s condemnation of the philosophers, see his Commentary on Ecclesiastes, 15 (Arabic), 160–61 (English) on Eccl 1:8, where the phrase ˙ar†umei ha-goyim designates philosophers; see also ibid., p. 308, n. 54, which may be supplemented by BN MS Suppl. héb. 30/II (Cat. 278), fol. 209a–b on Gen 41:8. See also Vajda, Deux commentaires karaïtes sur l’Ecclésiaste, 118–23. On Japheth’s absorption of Mutazilite

interpreting dreams and scriptures

99

On The Nature of Dreams If Scripture and Tradition claimed prognostic value for dreams, philosophers remained skeptical. According to Aristotle, dreams are the product of the imagination which remains active when we are asleep.20 Denying that dreams are divinely sent, he ascribes the fulﬁllment of some dream-prophecies to coincidence. In other cases, the heightened sensitivity of certain minds to external impulses or the special sympathy between close friends can produce premonition in dreams.21 Al-Kindì (ca. 800–870) takes much the same approach in his Risàla fì màhìyat al-nawm wa’l-ru"yà (“Epistle on the Nature of Sleep and Dreams”).22 Dreams occur when sensory activity is suspended during sleep, and the soul engages in thought. The imaginative faculty then impresses upon the soul all of the images that thought has encountered; these images are dreams.23 Some dreams depict events before they come to pass. While the body sleeps, the senses do not distract the soul. In a heightened state of receptivity, the soul may then create images of things prior to their coming into being based upon sensory information it has previously stored.24 Drawing directly upon al-Kindì and writing in the same naturalistic vein, the tenth-century Karaite, Ya'qùb al-Qirqisànì discusses dreams and the permissibility of oneirocriticism.25 What prompts alQirqisànì’s short chapter is the prevailing uncertainty among his fellow Karaites concerning the nature of dream interpretation. Some of them dismiss the signiﬁcance of all dreams, aside from those kalam, see Ben-Shammai, “The Doctrines.” On the range of Jewish attitudes towards rationalism in the Islamic East during this period, see Skare, Samuel ben Óofni Gaon, ch. 4, and Ben-Shammai, “Jewish Thought in Iraq,” esp. 27–30 on opposition to rationalism. On Sahl, see above, pp. 15–16. 20 Aristotle, “On Dreams.” 21 Aristotle, “On Divination through Sleep.” 22 Al-Kindì, Rasà"il, 1:283–311, trans. al-Kindî, Cinq épîtres, 77–85. 23 Al-Kindì, Rasà"il, 1:300, trans. al-Kindî, Cinq épîtres, 80. 24 On the theories of al-Kindì and Isaac Israeli (ca. 855–955), see Sviri, “Dreaming Analyzed and Recorded,” 253–55. Al-Fàràbì also composed a treatise on dreams, now lost. Some of his ideas on the subject are preserved in On the Perfect State, section IV, ch. 14, esp. §§ 8–10, pp. 220–27; see also 414–23 ad loc. 25 For al-Qirqisànì’s treatment, see: Kitàb al-anwàr VI.14, vol. 3, pp. 600–603, analyzed and translated by Nemoy in “Al-Qirqisani’s Essay”; Vajda, “Études sur Qirqisâni,” 115–23, where al-Qirqisànì’s dependence upon al-Kindì was ﬁrst noted; Sirat, Les Théories, 63–65; and Ben-Shammai, “The Doctrines,” 1:274. Al-Qirqisànì states that he had previously addressed the subject in his Commentary on Genesis (Kitàb al-anwàr, p. 600, lines 15–16); unfortunately, that discussion is no longer extant.

100

chapter three

through which biblical prophecies were conveyed. They explain the dreams of ordinary people as products of the humors or of the mind’s activity. As for the dreams of non-Israelite biblical ﬁgures, such as Pharaoh, his butler, and baker, they view these as divine instruments, by which Israelites were promoted. Benjamin al-Nahàwandì had maintained that those who do not interpret dreams in accordance with the Torah are like magicians; al-Qirqisànì rejects this view as nonsense, since the Torah contains no guidance concerning oneirocriticism. In al-Qirqisànì’s view, dreams result from the independent functioning of the intellect, when the senses are dormant. There are, however, diﬀerent types of dreams. Some correspond directly to an immediate, physical reality, e.g., a bodily function. Others directly contradict the waking reality, while still others neither match nor oppose any reality at all. But there are also dreams which are realized in the waking world, after the passage of time. Al-Qirqisànì explains these in much the same way as al-Kindì had done: while the body sleeps, the soul assembles all the information previously conveyed to it by the senses and the intellect; from these impressions, it can form images of things, even before they are realized. Dreams, then, can be much like premonitions; when they are created by particularly receptive souls, they may even be prophetic. This is the case, in fact, with many biblical prophecies, such as those of Jacob.26 In explaining how dreams can presage future events, al-Qirqisànì takes an Aristotelian approach, focusing on the nature of perception, imagination, stimulus, and consciousness. By contrast, Japheth manifests no real interest in the mechanism of predictive dreams.27 But he does stress that at most, they represent the lowest form of prophecy:

26

God also speaks to His prophets, when they are awake, by means of angels. The prophecy of Moses is, of course, unique in that it is direct—“mouth to mouth” (Num 12:8) or “face to face” (Ex 33:11, Deut 34:10); see al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb alanwàr II.28.14, vol. 1, p. 177, lines 3–14, translated and discussed in Ben-Shammai, “The Doctrines,” 1:267–68. 27 Cf. Artemidorus, who states, “I do not, like Aristotle, inquire as to whether the cause of our dreaming is outside of us and comes from the gods or whether it is motivated by something within, which disposes the soul in a certain way and causes a natural event to happen to it”; see Oneirocritica 1.6 (White, The Interpretation of Dreams, 31; Kitàb ta'bìr al-ru"yà, p. 32, lines 3–7).

interpreting dreams and scriptures 3.1

101

We have found the degrees of prophetic experience to be six in number. First is that of Moses—“mouth to mouth”—a rank in which no other prophet shared. Below this is the “holy spirit,” (held) by Moses and many of the (other) prophets. Third is the rank of Samuel, who used to hear God’s speech, directly (lit. “speaking”), not in a vision or a dream. Rather, (he heard it), via the divine Glory, as it is stated: “And the Lord came and stood” (1 Samuel 3:10); “the Lord came” is only stated concerning a created being (al-makhlùq).28 Samuel also had the rank of “vision,” as it is stated: “And the Lord appeared again at Shiloh” (1 Samuel 3:21). The fourth rank is beholding a vision, and that is the rank of Aaron, Miriam, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and most of (the other) prophets. The ﬁfth is the rank of Daniel, who beheld an angel speaking and heard his speech, as it is stated: “While I was speaking in prayer (the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the ﬁrst, came to me, etc.)” (Daniel 9:20). This did not take place in a vision or a dream. Sixth is the rank of dreams. Now the prophetic dream diﬀers from all other dreams, in that it contains a vision of the divine Glory or angels, as for example, when Zechariah beheld the angel of the Lord and heard him speaking. Similarly, Daniel saw angels in his sleep and heard one of them speaking, as it is stated: “I approached one of those who stood there” (Daniel 7:16). Here, the phrase “I speak to him in a dream” (Numbers 12:6) means a prophetic dream. We have already indicated that Moses did not hold these two ranks, i.e., “vision” and “dream,” as it is stated: “Not so with my servant Moses, for he is the trustworthy one in all my house.”29

Japheth’s classiﬁcation has been discussed by others and need not detain us here.30 Suﬃce it to say that while the rationale behind his ranking is not fully explained, dreams clearly represent the lowest degree of prophetic experience. In fact, some dreams, though they bear accurate information about future events, are not really prophetic at all, since they do not feature visions of angels or the divine Glory.

28 “A created being” (al-makhlùq), i.e., the divine Glory or an angel; see Sirat, Les Théories, 41–46 and Ben-Shammai, “The Doctrines,” 1:268, n. 46. 29 Japheth b. Eli, Com. Num 12:7; for the Judeo-Arabic original, see 3.1. See also Ben-Shammai, “The Doctrines,” 2:173–74, App. III.25, Hebrew translation and analysis in ibid. 1:268–78. (Cf. Japheth’s comment on Zech 1:8, where only ﬁve levels are mentioned; see ibid. 2:232–33, translated and discussed, 1:173–74.) The present translation is based upon Ben-Shammai’s text, which has been collated with SP, RNL Yevr-Arab. I:0017, fols. 246a ﬀ. 30 For discussions, see: Ben-Shammai, ibid.; idem, “On a Polemical Element,” 127–46, 137–38; Lasker, “The Inﬂuence of Karaism”; idem, “Maimonides’ Inﬂuence”; Sirat, Les Théories, 47–49; and idem, History, 51.

102

chapter three

They constitute, rather, a medium for sub-prophetic messages. This distinction becomes clear from Japheth’s comment on Genesis 41:7 which contains another typology: 3.6.3

Dreams (al-manàmàt) are of three types. The ﬁrst is the prophetic dream (˙alom ha-nevu"ah), such as the dreams of Jacob, Daniel, Zechariah, and—according to one opinion—Eliphaz the Teimanite.31 This is one of the six levels of prophecy. Whoever has one, knows it to be a prophetic dream because he sees the divine Glory and angels, just as Jacob did. Daniel did so, as well, as it is stated: “I approached one of those who stood there” (Daniel 7:16). In similar fashion, Zechariah beheld an angel who addressed him, as it is stated: “Then the angel of the Lord said” (Zechariah 1:12).32 Second, are the dreams that God sends33 his servants, believer and unbeliever alike, as in the two dreams that Joseph had, and those of the butler, baker, Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, and Abimelech, as well as the man whom Gideon overheard relating his dream to his companion.34 All these are of a single type; they do not belong to the category of the prophetic dream, since those who have them see neither divine Glory nor angel. God sends this second type of dream to His servants for various reasons.35 He might send one to a disobedient person in order to show him the error of his ways so that he returns to God, as it is stated: “In a dream, in a vision of the night, (when deep sleep falls upon men, while they slumber on their beds), then He opens the ears of men, and terriﬁes them with warnings” ( Job 33:15–16). Or God might send one in order to convey good tidings to someone, as He did to Joseph and (Pharaoh’s) butler. Or He might inform a person of his (impending) destruction, as He did (Pharaoh’s) baker and Nebuchadnezzar in his second dream.36 Or He might reveal to him what will take place in (the course of ) time, as he did Pharaoh, and Nebuchadnezzar, and the man whom Gideon overheard. As for this last type, we

31 See Gen 28:12–17 ( Jacob); Dan 7 (Daniel); Zech 1:8–6:15 (Zechariah); and Job 4:12–16 (Eliphaz). In his comment on Job 4:12–16, Japheth writes: “One of the commentators has asserted that he (i.e., Eliphaz) claimed to be a prophet (idda'à al-nubùwa), but there is no basis for speaking of prophecy in the present context”; see Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Job, 61 (Arabic). According to certain midrashic sources, Elihu prophesied via the holy spirit (rua˙ ha-qodesh); see Midrash Tan˙uma (Buber), Va-yishla˙ 8, fols. 83b–84a and 23, fol. 88a (trans. Townsend, pp. 209–11, 224), and Aggadat Bereshit 55, pp. 110–114. 32 Actually a conﬂation of 1:12 and 4:5. 33 Lit. “shows.” 34 See Gen 37:5–11 ( Joseph); Gen 40:5 (the butler and the baker); Gen 41:1–7 (Pharaoh); Dan 2 and 4 (Nebuchadnezzar); Gen 20:3–7 (Abimelech); and Jud 7:13–15 (the man Gideon overheard). 35 Lit. “in various ways.” 36 Daniel 4.

interpreting dreams and scriptures

103

have found that God sends (dreams of this kind) to people in order to convey good news to the righteous and to beneﬁt the pious (alßàli˙ìn), as He revealed to the man whom Gideon overheard, in order to convey good tidings to Gideon, as it is stated: “When Gideon heard the telling of the dream (and its interpretation)” ( Judges 7:15). And just as He sent the dream to Pharaoh in order to beneﬁt Joseph and his family (wa-"ahl baytihi ) and the rest of the people of the land.37 Third are dreams arising from the vapors and the prevailing humor (al-khala†).38 These possess neither plain sense nor symbolic signiﬁcance.39 The diﬀerence between dreams that possess interpretations and those that do not is that the latter are the product of humors; (the dreamer) sees them in a disordered, disconnected manner.40 But the dream that possesses an interpretation is ordered and coherent.41 We maintain that Pharaoh, the butler, Nebuchadnezzar, and the others had ordered, coherent dreams; therefore, they sought their interpretations.42

The ﬁrst category of dreams corresponds to the lowest degree of prophecy; what conﬁrms their prophetic quality are the heavenly visions they contain. The examples cited, moreover, all involve direct communications from an angel or God. By contrast, the second category comprises non-prophetic dreams that nevertheless convey real messages. The examples given also suggest that such dreams are symbolic in nature, rather than verbal. As we shall see below, the 37

Cf. al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr VI.14, p. 600, lines 6–10. On the vapors, see Ben-Shammai, “The Doctrines,” 2:298, al-bukhàràt, “probably vapors that rise to the brain (from the stomach? see Dozy).” The humors, of course, refers to the ancient and medieval theory of four humors or temperaments. Cf. al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr VI.14 (p. 600, lines 5–6, 19–20), likely based upon al-Kindì, Rasà"il 1:306–307, trans. al-Kindî, Cinq épîtres, 83–84. 39 Ar. laysa lahu tafsìr wa-là ta"wìl, lit. “they lack both plain and symbolic interpretation.” In other words, they lack any meaning whatsoever. 40 Ar. laysa yarayhu 'alà niΩàm wa-nasq, lit. “he does not see it in an ordered, coherent manner.” Elsewhere, Japheth also remarks that dreams arising from people’s waking thoughts have no interpretations; see his Commentary on Ecclesiastes 5:2, p. 93, lines 15–25 (Ar.), p. 267 (Eng.). Cf. Artemidorus’ observation that “those dreams that are similar to the dreamer’s thoughts are non-signiﬁcative and in the enhypnion class”; see Oneirocritica 6.1 (White, The Interpretation of Dreams, 31; Kitàb ta'bìr al-ru"yà, p. 31, lines 12–14). 41 Ar. yajrà 'alà niΩàm wa-nasq, lit. “proceeds according to order and sequence.” 42 Japheth b. Eli, Comment on Gen 41:7, edited and translated on the basis of BN MS Suppl. héb. 30/II (Cat. 278), fols. 207a–208a and BL MS Or. 2463 (Cat. 257), fols. 100a–b. For the Judeo-Arabic original, see 3.6. For this passage, I have drawn upon Ben-Shammai, “The Doctrines,” 2:138–39 (Arabic text) 1:274–76 (Hebrew translation), which I have recollated with the two manuscripts he used. For the rest of Japheth’s comment on Gen 41:7, see below, pp. 113–19. 38

104

chapter three

distinction is an important one, for it is symbolic dreams—not those containing spoken messages—that most often require interpretation. It must be said at this point, that Japheth’s classiﬁcation contains an inconsistency, which is, no doubt, the product of a certain preconception. Unlike most other Jewish exegetes, he restricts prophecy to Israelites. By deﬁning prophecy as an experience of the divine and hewing closely to the biblical text, he can actually sustain this theory for the most part. Abimelech, however, poses obvious diﬃculties.43 In the present comment, Japheth denies that his dream was prophetic, but in the comment on Genesis 20:2–5, he states plainly that while Abimelech slept, “God showed him an angel, who addressed these words to him . . .; but as for Pharaoh (i.e., in Genesis 12:17 ﬀ.), Scripture did not explicitly state that God had addressed him.” Japheth speculates that God may have addressed Abimelech because he was a believer, unlike Pharaoh “who believed neither in the Creator nor in His revelation.”44 Abimelech apart, the dreams noted in this passage are all silent visions, their meanings expressed in symbols. The ﬁnal category consists of dreams produced by internal physiological processes. Since no external stimuli are involved, they are nonsense, and may be disregarded; only the ﬁrst two categories, therefore, are signiﬁcant.45 43 On the restriction of prophecy to Jacob’s descendants, see Ben-Shammai, “The Doctrines,” 1:271 and Japheth’s comments on Deut 18:15, 18 discussed below in Chapter 6. But cf. Genesis Rabbah 52:5, pp. 544–47 and Leviticus Rabbah 1:13, pp. 27–30, which diﬀerentiate between the quality of the Jewish and gentile prophetic experiences; and see Eliyyahu Rabbah Ch. 28, p. 142 (trans. Braude/Kapstein, 350–51) on the prophets to the nations, from Shem to Balaam, “the last of them all.” Balaam, of course, presents a more complicated situation, to which we will return in Chapter 6. Muslim oneirocritics also cite the dreams of Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar as evidence of divine communication with believers and inﬁdels alike; see the passages in Mavroudi, A Byzantine Book on Dream Interpretation, 166–67, where, however, the prophetic status of these visions is not raised. 44 See Japheth b. Eli, Com. Genesis 20:2–5, BL MS Or. 2463, fol. 18a–b: ba'da an ˙aßalat 'indahu awrà"ahu allàh ta'àlà malak fì ’l-manàm yukhà†ibuhu bi-hàdhà almukhà†aba. . . . wa-ammà far'oh fa-lam yanußß al-kitàb anna allàh ta'àlà kha†abahu. fa-immà an yakùn kàna avimelekh yu"minu bi’l-khàliq fa-nabahahu bi’l-qawl wa’l-∂arabàt jamì'an. waammà far'oh fa-lam yu"min bi’l-khàliq wa-bi’l-risàla fa-li-dhàlika lamm yukhà†ibhu. (“After she (i.e. Sarah) had come to him (i.e. Abimelech), God caused an angel to appear to him in a dream, speaking these words. . . . But as for Pharaoh, Scripture does not relate that God spoke to him. Now perhaps it was the case that Abimelech believed in the Creator and followed Him both in word and in deeds. But as for Pharaoh, he believed neither in the Creator nor in revelation; therefore, (God) did not speak to him.”) 45 On pathogenetic dreams, see Mavroudi, A Byzantine Book on Dream Interpretation, 130–31, n. 9.

interpreting dreams and scriptures

105

While Japheth categorizes dreams according to their origin, oneirocritics generally classify them according to their content. Artemidorus, for example, begins his book by distinguishing between two types of dreams, the oneiros which indicates a future state of aﬀairs, and the enupnion, which refers to the present situation.46 As examples of the latter he mentions a hungry person dreaming of food or a lover dreaming of his beloved. No prediction is involved here, only “a reminder of the present state.”47 When the sleeper awakes, the dream departs.48 Óunayn Ibn Iß˙àq translates enupnion as a∂ghàth, “confused”—a pejorative term familiar from Quran 12:44, a∂ghàthu a˙làmin (“confused dreams”), and intended to convey a lack of signiﬁcance.49 For obvious reasons, the enupnion—which corresponds to Japheth’s third category—need not detain us. The oneiros or ru"yà, on the other hand, which persists after the dreamer has awakened, proclaims future events.50 Artemidorus distinguishes two main types: direct dreams (Gr. theòrèmatikoi; Ar. ru"yàt Ωàhira) and dreams that are subject to interpretation (Gr. allègorikoi; Ar. ru"yàt dhawàt ta"wìl).51 As an example of the former he adduces the case of a man who dreams he is at sea when it becomes stormy and begins to surge; upon awakening, this is exactly what occurs: he goes to sea, his ship founders, and he is among the lone survivors.52 Direct dreams, in other words, See Oneirocritica 1.1: “Oneiros diﬀers from enupnion in that the ﬁrst indicates a future state of aﬀairs, while the other indicates a present state of aﬀairs” (White, The Interpretation of Dreams, 22). Cf. Artemidorus, Kitàb ta'bìr al-ru"yà, 7: fa-aqùlu an al-ru"yà tukhàlifu al-a∂ghàth bi-an al-ru"yà tadullu 'alà mà sayakùnu wa-ammà al-a∂ghàth fa-innamà tadullu 'alà al-shay"i al-˙à∂iri. See also Grottanelli, “On the Mantic Meaning of Incestuous Dreams,” 156–57. 47 See Oneirocritica 1:1: “It is possible, therefore, to view these cases in which those types of experiences occur as containing not a prediction of a future state but rather a reminder of a present state” (White, ibid.). Artemidorus, Kitàb ta'bìr al-ru"yà, 8: laysa innamà tataqaddama fatadull 'alà mà sayakùnu lakinnahà tudhkiru bi-shay" al-˙à∂ir. 48 See Oneirocritica 1:1: “The minute the sleeping ends, it [the enupnion] disappears” (White, ibid.) Artemidorus, Kitàb ta'bìr al-ru"yà, 9, line 12: fa-idhà dhahaba al-nawm waintabaha al-insàn lam yara al-ru"yàt. Note that here enupnion is rendered by ru"yà. 49 Cf. al-Kindì, Rasà"il, 1:306, trans. Cinq Épîtres, 83. Ibn Qutayba likewise uses a∂ghàth for dreams that reﬂect human preoccupations; see Kister, “The Interpretation of Dreams,” 70. Saadya Gaon also discounts dreams arising from the previous day’s aﬀairs or the meal eaten before retiring; see Kitàb al-amànàt, 17–18, trans. Rosenblatt, The Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 20–21, and cf. his Commentary on Daniel 2:29, pp. 42–44. 50 Artemidorus, Oneirocritica 1.1 (White, The Interpretation of Dreams, 23; Kitàb ta'bìr al-ru"yà, 9–10). 51 Artemidorus, Oneirocritica 1.2 (White, ibid., 23; Kitàb ta'bìr al-ru"yà, 10–11). 52 See Artemidorus, Oneirocritica 1.2 (White, ibid.); idem, Kitàb ta'bìr al-ru"yà, 10–11: 46

106

chapter three

depict future events as they will occur. By contrast, “dreams that are subject to interpretation are those in which a person sees in his sleep something that signiﬁes another thing by means of associating a natural (property) of theirs with (his) soul.”53 Like most other ancient and medieval dream-books, Artemidorus’ work is a catalogue of mysterious images or actions together with their likely interpretations. The dreams in Japheth’s second category—save that of Abimelech— are all of this type.54

Joseph The Dream Interpreter All of the dreams in the Joseph-cycle are symbolic: they impart their messages indirectly via pantomime, rather than oral communication.55 Taken separately, however, they diﬀer in their accessibility. The import of Joseph’s dreams (Genesis 37:5–10) is not lost on his brothers, his father (or presumably himself ). As Japheth notes, their essential meaning is plain ('alà al-Ωàhir), even if the details’ signiﬁcance only becomes clear in retrospect.56 The dreams of the butler and baker, on the other hand, seem at ﬁrst blush to be direct—or almost so: the two men see themselves engaged in their erstwhile functions. But mithl insàn yarà ka-annahu ﬁ ’l-ba˙r wa-kàna ’l-ba˙r hàja 'alayhi wa-tamawwaja fa-lammà intabahat aßàba dhàlika bi-'aynihi wa-dhàlika annahu sàra ﬁ ’l-ba˙r wa-halakat safìnatuhu walam yaslam miman kàn fìhà a˙ad illà huwa wa-nafar yasìr. The example is cited in abridged form by al-Dìnawarì, Kitàb al-ta'bìr, 1:93. 53 Artemidorus, Kitàb ta'bìr al-ru"yà, 11: wa-ammà al-ru"yàt dhawàt al-ta"wìl fa-hiya allatì yarà al-insàn fìhà fì manàmihi shay"an fa-yadullu dhàlika 'alà shay"in àkharin bimushàrikati mà †abì'ìyatun fìmà baynahà wa-bayna al-nafsi. I should like to thank Professor Bernard R. Goldstein who suggested the tentative translation given above. Cf. Artemidorus, Oneirocritica 2.2 (White, The Interpretation of Dreams, 23–24): “Allegorical dreams, on the other hand, are those which signify one thing by means of another: that is through them, the soul is conveying something obscurely by physical means.” Clearly, there is a discrepancy between the Arabic and the underlying Greek. 54 On Abimelech’s dream, see above, nn. 43–44. Japheth’s ﬁrst category, prophetic dreams, need not concern us here, since they require no interpretation. In these visions, messages are conveyed directly. In the Islamic world, message-dreams remained widespread, with visions of the dead assuming special importance; see, e.g., Ibn Abì al-Dunyà, Kitàb al-manàm and Kinberg’s Introduction to this ninthcentury work. As Kinberg notes, the ta'bìr tradition centers on symbolic dreams, whereas Ibn Abì al-Dunyà’s collection of self-explanatory, “literal dreams most often convey verbal communication and bear clear messages” (p. 45). 55 Husser, Dreams and Dream Narratives, 106–22; Bar, A Letter That Has Not Been Read, 119. 56 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary Genesis, BN MS Suppl. héb. 30/II (Cat. 278), fol. 164a: fa-'inda mà sami'ù al-manàm 'alimù ma'nàhu.

interpreting dreams and scriptures

107

in the morning, they are troubled, and until Joseph arrives, their dreams remain opaque. Like Joseph, Pharaoh has two dreams that convey a single message, and like the butler and baker, he requires an interpreter. Unlike private dreams, however, those of Pharaoh— or indeed of any king—are necessarily of public interest and must be explained accordingly. Joseph’s career as a dream interpreter begins in prison, in the service of Pharaoh’s oﬃcers: And one night they both dreamed—the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were conﬁned in the prison—each his own dream, and each dream with its own meaning ("ish ke-ﬁtron ˙alomo) (Genesis 40:5; RSV).

According to Japheth, the phrase "ish ke-ﬁtron ˙alomo has been explained in three ways—although the manuscripts I have consulted record but two. He rejects the ﬁrst explanation: 3.2.1

(The butler and the baker) each beheld something like his profession in his dream. Now if it were really true that just as the butler saw himself giving Pharaoh drink, the baker saw himself bearing baskets of food to Pharaoh in his usual manner, the phrase ke-ﬁtron ˙alomo would not support this meaning.57

The dreams are not really direct. Since the butler alone dreamt that he was actually serving Pharaoh, the phrase cannot mean that each man beheld himself routinely fulﬁlling his duties. "Ish ke-ﬁtron ˙alomo must signify something else: 3.2.2

The phrase means that the dream is like the interpretation and the interpretation like the dream. For it is stated ke-ﬁtron ˙alomo, indicating that the dream was like the interpretation. Elsewhere it is stated: “He gave an interpretation to each man according to his dream” (41:12). This indicates to us that the interpretations of these two dreams accorded with their plain sense ('alà Ωàhir al-manàm). For ( Joseph) said: “And you shall place Pharaoh’s cup in his hand” (40:13), which is similar to what he beheld in his dream: “and placed the cup in Pharaoh’s hand” (40:11). In the same way he interpreted (the baker’s phrase) “but the birds were eating it out of the basket on my head” (40:17) according to its plain sense, stating: “and the birds will eat the ﬂesh from you” (40:19).58

57 Japheth b. Eli, Com. Gen 40:5, BN MS Suppl. héb. 30/II (Cat. 278), fol. 198ab = BL MS Or. 2463, fol. 97a; see 3.2. 58 Ibid.

108

chapter three

The phrase, then, does not simply refer to the naturalistic life-settings of the dreams, in which the principals go about their usual tasks; it alludes, rather, to the manifestly close correspondence between images and meaning. As Sahl b. Maßlia˙ puts it: Now it is the usual way with dreams for a person to see something whose interpretation is expressed in other terms. The dream of these fellows, however, resembled its interpretation, as it is stated, "ish keﬁtron ˙alomo, i.e., according to the plain sense of the dream.59

Plain their dreams may have been, but Pharaoh’s oﬃcers failed to grasp their signiﬁcance and were discomﬁted. When Joseph greeted them in the morning and volunteered his services as poter, his oﬀer was readily accepted. As Sahl suggests, since he had impressed them throughout his service with his intelligence and cultivated manners (bi-'aqlihi wa-adabihi), they were not surprised that he would be adept at dream interpretation; indeed they recognized him as an “allrounder”!: “They also said: ‘Together with your reﬁnement and cultivated manners you are expert in dream interpretation?! You are indeed a young man of many parts!’”60 Arabic dream-manuals also emphasize the commendable personal qualities (khißàl ma˙mùda) of a good oneirocritic. Al-Dìnawarì states that he must be religious, generous, pious, discriminating, chaste, silent concerning things of which he is ignorant, discreet about the dreams of others, and attentive to the inquirer’s question in its entirety; he must also refrain from bragging, for pride brings destruction on a person.61 Joseph’s exclamation, “Does God not possess interpretations?” (Genesis 40:8) is, therefore, suitably modest, and Sahl does not dismiss it as a pious platitude. Ultimately, of course, knowledge of all true realities derives from God who favors some of His creatures with insight.62 All the same,

59 Sahl b. Maßlia˙, Com. Gen 40:4–7, RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I:4633, fol. 91a: wa-min rasm al-manàmàt huwa an yarà al-insàn shay"an wa-yakùn lahu tafsìr bi-'ibàra ukhrà wa-manàm hà"ulà"i al-qawm kàna mithl al-tafsìr kamà qàla "ish ke-ﬁtron ˙alomo wahuwa 'alà Ωàhir al-manàm. 60 Sahl b. Maßlia˙, Com. Gen 40:8–11, RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I:4633, fol. 93b: wa-qàlù ay∂an ma'a mà fìka min al-fa∂l wa’l-adab tu˙sinu tafsìr ’l-à˙làm fa-anta ghulàmun jàmi'un. On the latter phrase, “a young man of many parts” (lit. “who combines” [scil. many good qualities]), see Dozy, Supplément, 1:216 and cf. Hebrew ˙akham kolel. For the phrase bi-'aqlihi wa-adabihi see fol. 90b. 61 Al-Dìnawarì, Kitàb al-ta'bìr, “Introduction,” maqàla 12, vol. 1:106. 62 SP RNL, Yevr-Arab. I:4633, fol. 94a: wa’l-ma'nà fì ha-lo" le-"lohim pitronim huwa ta'rìfun anna allàh 'alima al-˙aqà"iq wa-qad razaqanì minhà shay" fa-yaqùlu kull wa˙id

interpreting dreams and scriptures

109

good interpreters must be able to exercise their critical faculties. Japheth reads the verse in much the same way, although he also records an interesting alternative view, viz., that in context "elohim does not mean God, but rather “eminences” or “scholars” (ashràf wa-˙ukamà") from whom Joseph had acquired the rudiments of oneirocriticism.63 Our exegetes present Joseph as an experienced, capable interpreter confronted with fairly straightforward dreams. And where Scripture is silent about his technique, they seek to reconstruct the thinking that leads him to his solutions. Sahl’s treatment of 40:9–12 reveals his appreciation of Joseph’s exegetical technique: 3.3

The words, “in my dream there was a vine before me” mean “in my dream, I beheld a vine from a vineyard before me.” The allegorical meaning (ta"wìl) of a vineyard in a dream is always most auspicious ( jayyid), particularly for the one who sees it. It took the form he described: “And on the vine there were three branches.” Initially, those three branches lacked leaves; observing them from close up, he then (saw that) they had leaves. And in the same way that they put forth leaves, they blossomed, as he stated, “as soon as it budded, its blossoms shot forth”—just as they put forth leaves, they put forth blossoms. But this is not the natural course of things!64 Rather, a vine puts forth leaves after a period, then it blossoms some time later, and gradually, it grows until the grapes are suitable for juice.65 As for the juice, it (must) rest a long time before it is sampled.66 The entire dream of the butler, however, is all in accelerated time (rawàj kulluhu): he beheld branches without leaves, then they put forth leaves, then just as they had put forth leaves, they blossomed, and they

minhumà manàmahu fa-inni u'arrifuhu tafsìrahu; “The intent of the phrase ha-lo" le-"lohim pitronim is to declare: ‘God knows the true realities (al-˙aqà"iq) and He has provided me with some portion of them; therefore let each of you recite his dream and I shall inform him of its interpretation.’” 63 BN MS Suppl. héb. 30/II (Cat. 278), fols. 198b–199a: wa-qàla akhar innahu aràda bihi alaysa lil-ashràf wa-lil-˙ukamà" tafàsìr ya∂i'ùhà fa-la'alla qad sami'tu aßl min hadhà ’l-jins fa-ufassiruhu li-kumà. wa-fassara le"lohim ashràf mithl "elohim lo teqallel, vayyir"u benei ha-"elohim. “Another interpreter stated that by this he meant: ‘Do the eminences and scholars not possess interpretations which they give? Perhaps I have acquired some fundamental knowledge (lit. “heard some basic principle”) of this kind and I (can) interpret (the dreams) for you.’ He rendered "elohim “eminences” as in (the verses): ‘Do not curse eminent men’ (Ex 22:27) and ‘the sons of the eminent’” (Gen 6:2). Neither Japheth nor Sahl, therefore, would necessarily subscribe to Zeitlin’s view, “that the interpreter possessed a divine spirit”; see “Dreams and Their Interpretation,” 3. 64 Ar. wa-laysa ﬁ’l-'àda ka-dhàka. 65 Ar. lil-'aßìr. Or emend to 'aßr, “pressing.” 66 Lit. “before one may try drinking it” (ilà an yu†lab sharbahu).

110

chapter three matured until their clusters ripened with grapes within a short time. With the cup in his hand, he took the clusters and squeezed them into the cup, and (the juice) instantly became new wine (nabìdh), and he served some of the wine to Pharaoh, who approved of it, since it was old wine, not new (muß†àr).67 When Joseph heard the conclusion of the dream and that it(s events transpired) quickly, the interpretation came to him: “the three branches are three days.” He did not interpret them as three years or three months or three weeks but he made them out to be three days—according to what he had inferred from the rapid course of the dream. Nothing in this dream required allegorization (ta"wìl), save the three branches which (signify) three days. As for his having beheld (himself ) placing the cup in Pharaoh’s hand, its meaning is plain ('alà Ωàhirihi). Lifting the cup from his hand signiﬁes (Pharaoh’s) acceptance of the man and that he would return to his (former) station.68

Although the dream is exoteric ('alà Ωàhirihi)—a point stressed at the end of our passage—Sahl begins by stating that in oneirocriticism vines are, as a rule, auspicious omens. According to al-Dìnawarì, the Muslims say: “He who sees himself planting a vine or a tree of some kind will obtain distinction (sharaf ) and elevation to high rank (raf ' ).”69 Elsewhere, he records the view that “white grapes always constitute abundant sustenance, preserving whomever eats them, when they are in their season. If the account of the person who has had the dream augurs well, he will obtain good before the time he expected it.”70 Using this key, Joseph has every reason to propose a positive and straightforward interpretation for a dream which represents the butler discharging his old duties. But there are two minor puzzles: Why are his actions depicted in elapsed time? And why are 67 See Lane, Lexicon, 1358b, muß†àr (or mus†àr), “new, or recently-made wine” or “wine made of the earliest of grapes, recently.” Cf. Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Hosea, p. 65, line 13 (Hos 4:11) and p. 117, line 4 (Hos 7:14) translating tirosh; so also Ibn Janà˙, Kitàb al-ußùl, col. 299, line 7. 68 Sahl b. Maßlia˙, Com. Gen 40:9–12, SP, RNL, Yevr-Arab. I:4633, fols. 94b– 95b; see 3.3. 69 See al-Dìnawarì, Kitàb al-ta'bìr, 2:211, faßl 19, bàb 103, karm. In addition to its obvious positive symbolism, the vineyard (karm) might also be regarded as an auspicious sign through paronomastic association with karam, “generosity, muniﬁcence.” Cf. Artemidorus, Oneirocritica 4.2 (White, The Interpretation of Dreams, 191). Al-Dìnawarì also records the view that grape-juice (al-'aßìr) is a sign of abundance (khißb), and that “whoever sees himself pressing wine, will serve the ruler (al-sul†àn) and great things will occur through his good oﬃces”; ibid., 2:415. Joseph’s explication of a particular dream (Quran 12:36, 41) has thus becomes a standard interpretation for any comparable night-vision! 70 Ibid., 2:203, ch. 19, sec. 81, 'inab. The interpretation can already be found in bBerakhot 56b.

interpreting dreams and scriptures

111

there precisely three branches? Joseph’s solution, says Sahl, resolves both problems: the number three denotes a unit of time, in this case the shortest unit of time within which these events might be expected to transpire.71 Japheth takes a similar approach, in his comment on 40:12–13,72 but let us turn to his comment on 40:17–19, where he also seeks to reconstruct Joseph’s reasoning: 3.5

Joseph’s interpretation of the three baskets as being three days is similar to his interpretation of the three branches, since baskets hold food just as branches hold clusters of grapes.73 He interpreted the phrase “And the birds were eating them” according to its plain sense ('alà Ωàhirihi ): the birds would eat the baker’s ﬂesh. And he rendered the interpretation (al-ta"wìl) of “eating them” as “will eat the baker’s ﬂesh.” Now it is possible that ( Joseph) inferred this from something we will note, and that is that the baskets and the food were part of (the baker’s) profession, for every day he would serve food in the Pharaoh’s presence. But if the birds had eaten the food, he would have been prevented from serving Pharaoh. Seeing them eat from oﬀ the top of (the baker’s) head, ( Joseph) understood that Pharaoh’s food would no longer be served (lit. “would cease to be eaten”) by the baker’s hand, and this could only be explained by the death of the baker.74

Since the baker’s dream resembles the butler’s dream in its depiction of the dreamer’s profession, Joseph infers that like the three branches, the three baskets must also represent three days. He interprets the feeding birds literally ('alà Ωàhirihi), but realizes that via ta"wìl, the bread they eat represents the baker’s ﬂesh. Incidentally, there is a wonderful bilingual pun here which may have been fortuitous, but cannot have been unappreciated: in the dream the birds consume le˙em (Heb. “bread”); in reality they will devour la˙m (Ar. “ﬂesh”). Japheth cannot, in fact, refer directly to the word-play, since le˙em does not occur in Genesis 40:17, which speaks of “all sorts of 71 Cf. Husser’s comment on the numerical references in the dreams that Joseph interprets, Dreams and Dream Narratives in the Biblical World, 110. Inﬂuenced, no doubt, by the Joseph-stories, medieval oneirocritics also interpreted the number of objects seen in a dream as units of time; see, e.g., the story of Hishàm and the Jewish dream interpreter noted by Mavroudi, A Byzantine Book on Dream Interpretation, 130, n. 8, citing al-Dìnawarì, Kitàb al-ta'bìr, 2:169, faßl 19, bàb 24. 72 See 3.4, translated in the Appendix to this chapter. 73 Lit. “since baskets are places for food just as branches are the place for clusters of grapes.” 74 Japheth b. Eli, Com. Gen 40:17–19, BL MS Or. 2463, fol. 98ab = BN MS Suppl. héb. 30/II, fol. 202ab; see 3.5.

112

chapter three

food for Pharaoh prepared by a baker.” On the other hand, Michael Fishbane observes that within the biblical text itself, “paronomastic associations and elaborations often provide the key to many . . . interpretations of dreams, visions, and oracles.” This kind of interpretation, moreover, remained widespread in various traditions of oneirocriticism.75 At any rate, from Japheth’s ﬁnal suggestion it is apparent that he believes Joseph’s interpretations to be the product of clever inferences, not divine disclosure. For our medieval exegetes, Joseph’s successes as a poter result naturally from his expertise, intelligence, and God-given ability. From the biblical text itself, it is clear that he interprets dreams promptly and without recourse to divine assistance. Though obscure to Pharaoh’s oﬃcers or the wise men of Egypt, they are transparent to a competent interpreter. As Samuel b. Hophni explains, the oneirocritic is like a judge cross-examining litigants or a doctor examining a patient— he knows how to listen; that is the meaning of Pharaoh’s statement “when you hear a dream, you can interpret it.”76 Samuel goes on to enumerate thirteen matters with which a dream interpreter must be thoroughly acquainted if he is to produce a correct interpretation. These include a solid grounding in psychology, as well as speciﬁc knowledge of the dreamer’s temperament, habits, physical constitution, social and professional status, and the time and precise content of the vision.77

75

In this connection, Fishbane notes the word-play sheva' (“seven”)/sava' (“satiety”) in Gen 41:29; see Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 451 and n. 9. On the mantic uses of paronomasia in the Bible, see also Tigay, “Aggadic Exegesis,” 178–79, noting Mesopotamian parallels; for further instances from the ancient Near East, see Bar, A Letter That Has Not Been Read, 94–95, 98, 103. For an interesting rabbinic example, see bBerakhot 56b: “Bar Kappara said to Rabbi ( Judah Hanasi): ‘I dreamt that my nose (˙o†ami) fell oﬀ.’ He replied to him: ‘Fierce anger’ (˙aron "af ) has been removed from you.” Here, Rabbi Judah’s interpretation is based upon a synonym for nose ("af ) and the related idiom for anger; for other examples, see the literature cited by Lieberman, Hellenism, 71. On Artemidorus’ etymological wordplays, see Miller, Dreams in Late Antiquity, 87–89. The technique remained familiar in the Islamic world; see, e.g., Mavroudi, A Byzantine Book on Dream Interpretation, 192 on the symbolism of seeing a head and the multiple meanings of ra"s in medieval Arabic oneirocriticism. 76 Samuel b. Hophni, Comment on Gen 41:15, Peirush ha-torah, 110–13. 77 Ibid., 112–17; on this passage see ibid., [76]–[84], and Greenbaum, “‘Pitron ˙alomot,’ qorot u-meqorot.” Cf. Artemidorus, Oneirocritica 1.9 (White, The Interpretation of Dreams, 32; Kitàb ta'bìr al-ru"yà, p. 36).

interpreting dreams and scriptures

113

Interpreting Pharaoh’s Dreams Like the biblical text which it explicates, Japheth’s commentary on Genesis 41:1–32 presents an intricate fabric of description, repetition, and interpretation.78 The opening narration of Pharaoh’s dreams (verses 1–7) becomes the occasion for their explanation. Since Pharaoh’s own account diﬀers slightly, Japheth reviews the visions in his comment on verses 17–24. Finally, although he has already noted Joseph’s tafsìr, he reiterates his remarks in connection with verses 25–32. The comment on verses 5–7 reveals the complex relationships existing between dreamer, dream, and interpreter on the one hand, and between reader, text, and exegete on the other. It will also serve as a useful introduction to our exegetes’ perspective on the interpreter’s public role. Japheth begins by retelling the text: 3.6.1

(Scripture) recounted that he awakened from the ﬁrst dream and then went back to sleep. Then he saw that there were seven ears (of grain) on a single stalk, which is contrary to the way of the world;79 moreover, they were good and plump. The word mele"ot (“full”) means eightfold or sixfold ears (of grain). As for †ovot (“good”), this refers to the good quality of the grain, for the grain was not blasted (by the wind). Then it recounted that he saw seven other ears sprouting up after them, concerning which it did not say “on a single stalk.” It is possible that each of them was growing on its (own) stalk. Then it recounted that they were thin and parched,80 their grain being puﬀed up with air, like grain blasted by the east wind. It had not ripened,81 but consisted wholly of straw, with nothing edible upon it.82 Then it recounts that these seven other ears swallowed the previous seven ears, and at that point, he awoke from his sleep. Here it says, “and behold, it was a dream,” but there is a reason that it does not say the same thing concerning the ﬁrst one, and that is that when he awoke the ﬁrst time, he did not awaken suﬃciently to ponder the dream that he had had, but instead went back to sleep. He awoke from the second dream, however, pondered and studied it, and knew that he had had two enlightening dreams.83

78 On the structure of this narrative and its repetitions, see Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 394–402. On the dreams and their interpretation, see Bar, A Letter That Has Not Been Read, 54–59. 79 Ar. bi-khilàf 'àdat al-zamàn, lit. “in opposition to the habitual way of time.” 80 Ar. musaﬀa; see Kazimirski, Dictionnaire, 1:1096. 81 Ar. dajana, lit. “become wheat.” See Dozy, Supplément, 1:425a (citing Saadya) and Ratzaby, Dictionary, 63–64. 82 Lit. “there was no food on it at all.” 83 Ar. manàmayn mu˙aßßilayn, lit. “two dreams that obtain (enlightenment).”

chapter three

114

Initially, Japheth must establish the plain meaning (Ωàhir) of the dream as related in Scripture, glossing words and elaborating on phrases in order to establish the picture as precisely as possible.84 Next, he turns to its signiﬁcance, or—more accurately—to the interpretation that Joseph will present: 3.6.2

3.6.3

Having recounted the dream and what its plain meaning (min Ωàhir ma'ànìhi) indicates, we will turn to its explanation (tafsìr) in (our) commentary. We say that in his interpretation85 of the dream, Joseph—may peace be upon him—explained four things. The ﬁrst of these is the interpretation of the seven cows and seven ears of grain; he explained that they can only be interpreted as years. Second is the interpretation of their plumpness and good quality, and their thinness and poor quality; the interpretation of this, he explained, is (the) fertility and sterility (of the land). Third, he explained the signiﬁcance of the dream’s recurrence, stating, “as for the repetition of the dream . . .” (verse 32). And fourth, he explained the interpretation of the phrase, “one would not know (ve-lo noda' ) that they had consumed them” (verse 21), stating: “the abundance will be forgotten (ve-lo yivvada' ha-sava' )” (verse 31). Many things in the dream remained to be interpreted, but he did not explain them to (Pharaoh), for he knew that they (i.e., the Egyptian dream interpreters) would grasp them, once he had informed them of the essence of the interpretation. Similarly, we too have grasped them, having learned the principle of the method (al-ma"khadh), as we shall explain. Before we begin our comment on this, we will ﬁrst mention the diﬀerent types of dreams that people have, noting how many there are, and stating the category to which Pharaoh’s dream belongs. [For this paragraph, containing a typology of dreams, see above, pp. 102–103.]

Japheth explains the dream by summarizing Joseph’s interpretation (verses 25–32). He delineates four main points: the equation of cows/ears and years; the application of their physical qualities to the land; the signiﬁcance of the dream’s repetition; and the import of the phrase “one would not know.” Noting the Bible’s conciseness at this point, Japheth suggests that Joseph intentionally left Pharaoh’s counselors—and us—to amplify upon his interpretation. After a digression on the nature and origin of human dreams, he takes up this task, expatiating on every detail of Pharaoh’s visions.86

84 85 86

Cf. Samuel b. Hophni, Peirush ha-torah, 102–105. Ar. ta"wìl (BN MS) or tafsìr (BL MS). Cf. Japheth’s comment on Gen 40:12–13 (BN MS Suppl. héb. 30/II (Cat.

interpreting dreams and scriptures 3.6.4

115

Having mentioned the (diﬀerent) types of dreams and their modes, we shall resume our comment, interpreting whatever Joseph had skipped over in Pharaoh’s dream and which remains to be explained. We say that (Pharaoh) saw cattle and ears (of grain) since the subject (ghara∂ ) of the dream is abundance and plenty (rakhß). Crops always grow as a result of plowing with oxen, which marks both the beginning and the end (of the agricultural cycle), for the ﬁrst thing one does is to sow87 (a ﬁeld) and plow (it) with the oxen, and the last, to thresh with them. But if there are no oxen, there will be no revenue (al-dakhl ) of that kind, as it is stated, “Where there are no oxen, there is no grain” (Proverbs 14:4). Pharaoh’s beholding the ears (of grain) refers to the rising of the green crops (alzar' ). The interpretation of their going up from the canal (al-khalìj)88 is that the abundance of the land of Egypt and its famine is dependent upon the Nile, for when it rises the land’s revenues increase, and when it falls, the revenues decline as well.89 As for the interpretation of the seven inferior cows90 going up after the good ones, it is because the (good and bad) years are joined to each other with no break between them. As for the interpretation of their goodness, that is the security of the people from enemies and war and their physical health, due to the moderation of (their) desire (li-i'tidàl alhawà). As for the interpretation of their plumpness, that is the great abundance. Contrasted to this are the inferior quality and emaciation of the seven others, for there was much war, severe hunger, and diseases during the years of drought. The interpretation of the seven plump ears (of grain) and the (seven) scrawny ones is similar to this. The phrase relating to the seven plump oxen, “and they fed in the reed grass”91 (verse 2) alludes to the people’s great proﬁts

278), fols. 199b–200a, BL MS Or. 2463, fol. 97b): wa-ikhtaßara Yosef 'alà hàtayni alnuktatayn faqa† li-'ilmihi annahu idh qad nakata bi’l-ußùl yaqif fìhim 'alà tafri'ihi. wa-idhà na˙nu iltamasnà 'an ta"wìl shay" shay" min mà ra"ahu wajadnàhu na˙nu lahu ma'nan. (“Joseph restricted himself to these two points alone, knowing that if he indicated the main principles [of his interpretation], [the butler] would grasp the ramiﬁcations. Now if we seek the interpretation of every detail that he beheld [in his dream], we will discover its signiﬁcance.”) See below, p. 139, 3.4. 87 Ar. yakrubu; see Kazimirski, Dictionnaire 2:880a, s.v. karaba: “ensemencer le champ labouré.” 88 Ar. al-khalìj, rendering Heb. ye"or. So also Sahl ad loc., RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I:4633, fol. 104a. See Dozy, Supplément 1:389b. 89 Cf. Samuel b. Hophni, Peirush ha-torah, 100/101 (Gen 41:2). 90 Ar. rattàt (sg. ratt), usually meaning “swine.” In Judeo-Arabic, the word often renders Heb. par, “bullock,” “young ox.” See: Dozy, Supplément 1:506b; Ratzaby, Dictionary, 69; Blau, Emergence, 49; and 'Alì b. Suleimàn, Commentary on Genesis, 75–76; so also Shehadeh, The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch, 196–97. Sahl prefers baqaràt; see RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I:4633, fol. 107a. 91 “Reed grass” (RSV). Japheth renders Heb. "a˙u by Arabic qur†, a kind of plant which serves as fodder; see Lane, Lexicon, 2517b, and Dozy, Supplément 2:330b

116

3.6.5

chapter three in their commerce and their business. In addition to the(ir) abundance, security, and physical health, (they had) great proﬁts. And therefore they accumulated many possessions. The words “the oxen ate” and “the ears (of grain) swallowed” are to be interpreted as the consumption of the surplus crops of the seven years of plenty during the seven years of famine. The signiﬁcance of the phrase “growing on one stalk,” which relates to the seven plump ears—nothing comparable being stated concerning the seven other ears—is that the years of plenty were in the land of Egypt, which has a single climate. But concerning the famine, which occurred both in Egypt and elsewhere, it is stated: “there was famine in all lands” (verse 54). Another view is that (God) showed him (i.e., Pharaoh) the unnaturally great abundance, for although there already had been (great abundance) in certain years, there had never been such increase as there was in these years, and one year (of plenty) did not follow immediately upon another. The expressions “they swallowed” concerning the ears and “they ate” concerning the oxen possess two diﬀerent meanings. As for the meaning of “they ate” it signiﬁes the way they went about consuming the revenues of the seven years of plenty during the seven years of famine without delay. The meaning of “they swallowed” is the destruction of the crops of the seven years during these seven years so that nothing of the crops remained, but they were (completely) consumed during the seven years of famine. This is the interpretation of the two dreams.

In dream interpretation, as in midrash, every detail is signiﬁcant.92 Japheth, in his dual capacity as exegete and oneirocritic, allows no element of the narrative to escape his notice. The passage above reﬂects his certainty that Pharaoh’s dream constitutes a carefully coded message. Not only does the agricultural imagery broadly suggest a cycle of plenty and famine, but speciﬁc elements—the cattle, the Nile, the seven ears on a single stalk—also give precise information. Strikingly, Japheth explicates images as if they were texts. The phrases “the oxen ate” (va-tokhalnah ha-parot; verses 4, 20) and “the ears swallowed” (va-tivla'nah ha-shibolim; verses 7, 24) express what

(“luzerne”; “fourrage”). So also David al-Fàsì, Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ, 1:60, line 67, both following Saadya; see Qàﬁ˙, Peirushei rabbeinu Se'adyah ga"on 'al ha-torah, p. 57 and n. 2. Japheth records another translation as well, ˙alafa or ˙alfà", a kind of high grass growing in water; see Lane, Lexicon, 627c–628a. Sahl has days, a type of rush used for fodder; see RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I:4633, fol. 104a and Dozy, Supplément 1:481. 92 James Kugel calls this midrashic presupposition “the doctrine of ‘omnisigniﬁcance’”; see The Bible As it Was, 21. On the implications of this idea in midrash, see R. Kasher, “The Interpretation of Scripture in Rabbinic Literature,” 568–71.

interpreting dreams and scriptures

117

Pharaoh saw and how he described it, but Japheth treats them as if they were divinely revealed words. In fact, the oneirocritical tradition itself emphasizes the importance of verbatim accounts; according to Samuel b. Hophni, a dream interpreter must verify the words (alfàΩ) of a dream and evaluate them, for the slightest addition or abridgement may change its signiﬁcance.93 In expanding on the meaning of the dream, however, Japheth also extrapolates freely, going well beyond the textual evidence when he asserts that “there was much war, severe hunger, and diseases during the years of drought.” This is precisely the sort of imaginative inference he ascribes to Joseph in his comment on 40:17–19.94 Ancient and medieval authorities stress the importance of royal dreams, which may guide the decisions of kings. Obviously, as alDìnawarì observes, the interpreter must not treat them as he would ordinary visions: If you are asked about the dream of a just or a great king, do not interpret it according to your point of view, because the interpretation of his dreams is unlike that of the dreams (dreamt) by the rest of his subjects.95

Like al-Dìnawarì, Samuel b. Hophni counsels oneirocritics to interpret according to a dreamer’s rank.96 But he also distinguishes between three types of “public” dreams.97 First, there are visions sent to prophets, such as Daniel and Zechariah, which are of universal or very general signiﬁcance. Second are the dreams of a great king,98

93 Samuel b. Hophni, Peirush ha-torah, 114–15 (the twelfth matter). Cf. Artemidorus, Oneirocritica 4.4 (White, The Interpretation of Dreams, 191–92). 94 See 3.5 above. Japheth’s assertion concerning the years of famine may have been prompted by a midrashic statement suggesting that the seven years of plenty were peaceful: “In years of prosperity men become brothers”; see Genesis Rabbah 89:4, pp. 1090–91. In context, the observation derives from the midrashic interpretation of "a˙u (“reed grass”) as “brotherhood.” Although Japheth rejects such linguistic ﬂights, he can have no objection to the statement itself. 95 See al-Dìnawarì, Kitàb al-ta'bìr, “Introduction,” maqàla 12, 1:107; I cite the translation of Mavroudi, A Byzantine Book on Dream Interpretation, 154. See also Fahd, “Les songes,” 144. The public nature of royal dreams is also reﬂected in the rabbinic dictum, ˙alomo shel melekh shel kol ha-'olam kullo (“a king’s dream is of universal relevance”); see Genesis Rabbah 89:4, p. 1090, line 3 (following the variants). 96 Samuel b. Hophni, Peirush ha-torah, 114–15 (Gen 41:15, the eleventh matter). 97 Ibid., 122–25 (Gen 41:24). Samuel calls these “dreams that embrace all, or most people” (al-ru"yà allatì ta'ummu jamì' al-nàs aw kathìr minhum). 98 Ar. al-malik alladhì yamluku al-maskùn min al-ar∂, lit. “the king who rules over (all) the inhabited earth.”

118

chapter three

like Nebuchadnezzar, which have universal application and relate to the future. And ﬁnally, there are royal dreams sent to smaller kings— such as Pharaoh—whose messages are of local and immediate relevance. Japheth’s outlook is similar: “public” or “cosmic” dreams—to use Artemidorus’ terminology99—are sent directly to kings, who can act upon them: 3.6.6

Some people may ask the reason for God’s having revealed this dream to Pharaoh and not Jacob, Joseph, or one of His exalted saints (awliyà"ihi al-mufa∂∂alìn).100 Concerning this it has been said that God did so out of compassion for the inhabitants of the land. For if someone other than Pharaoh had had (the dream), it would have had no eﬀect beyond his being the only one with knowledge of it, or beyond his coming to Pharaoh in order to communicate it to him; but (Pharaoh) could have declared it false or true. Since it was revealed (directly) to Pharaoh, however, he was able to verify it. This enabled him to gather the surplus crops of the seven years of plenty for the seven years of famine, for he had more money than anyone else with which to buy the crops and store them. Moreover, if he were to seal the storehouses, none would have the audacity to force them open.101 For this reason, (God) showed the dream to Pharaoh, and not to anyone else.

The dreams, of course, are but a communication of God’s plans. In his concluding remarks on the verse, Japheth speculates brieﬂy on the divine purpose behind the famine: 3.6.7

Now, it is part of God’s graciousness ( fa∂l) to humanity that He brought the years of plenty before the years of famine, so that there would be sustenance for them. The reason for His having produced the famine in the(se) countries is twofold. First, is the destruction of the wicked, for it is God’s way to visit His world in every period, which ends for them when their disobedience (to Him) has been fulﬁlled.102 Second, in order to make manifest His providence ('inàya)

99 Artemidorus, Oneirocritica 1.2 (White, The Interpretation of Dreams, 26–27; Kitàb ta'bìr al-ru"yà, 19–20). 100 Or “chosen friends.” Japheth does not use the word walì in the technical sense of “one who possesses mystical knowledge,” but rather to mean “a friend of God”; cf. Quran 10:62. On the term in general, see SEI, s.v. “Walì” (B. Carra de Vaux). In these passages, the various forms of the verb fa∂∂ala denote “preferment” or “promotion.” 101 Ar. lam yastajri" a˙ad an yafukkahà, “None would have the audacity to force them open.” Text and translation are conjectural; BN MS Suppl. héb. 30/II (Cat. 278) is corrupt at this point, while BL Or. 2463 is partially obliterated. 102 Ar. kamà min ﬁ'l allàh tabàraka wa-ta'àlà iftiqàd 'àlamihi fì kull mudda tataqa∂∂à lahum tatakàmala fìhà ma'àßìhim.

interpreting dreams and scriptures

119

for His saints (awliyà") and to force Jacob and his family to go down to Egypt, so that their Exile ( galut) and enslavement (shi'bud) would be accomplished, as it states: “When he summoned a famine on the land, (and broke every staﬀ of bread), he had sent a man ahead of them, ( Joseph, who was sold as a slave)” (Psalms 105:16–17).103

Five main points emerge from Japheth’s comment on Genesis 41:7. First, his recapitulation of Pharaoh’s dream is a necessary part of his exegetical procedure. Like an oneirocritic, he must establish precisely the details of the account he is interpreting—both for himself and for his readers. This is especially important, if the account—a dream, a prophecy—will be interpreted ﬁguratively. Second, his classiﬁcation of dreams reﬂects an attempt to correlate certain biblical passages with theological notions such as the relative status of prophets. Third, his elaborations on Joseph’s interpretation—like his reconstruction of Joseph’s reasoning in the comment on 40:17—are the product of deduction. Recognizing Joseph’s brevity, our exegete draws upon his powers of discernment, as well as his general knowledge and interpretive skills in order to ﬁll in gaps. Fourth, Japheth’s statement concerning royal dreams—like his typology of night visions— suggests that functionally, he believes public dreams to be very close to prophecy. Finally, his closing remarks indicate a teleological reading of the biblical narrative: when not expressly stated, God’s purposes must be sought in the text—again, via logical inference. When Joseph appears before Pharaoh, the king describes his predicament and relates what he has heard of the young man’s great reputation. Joseph naturally demurs, but as Japheth explains in his comment on Genesis 41:15–16, this courteous reply, ascribing perfect wisdom to God, only conﬁrms the monarch’s favorable opinion: 3.7 Scripture has been brief (ikhtaßara al-kitàb) in relating to us Joseph’s words to the sovereign (al-sul†àn) and the other matters that passed between them. But it does mention the main point, informing (us) that Pharaoh indicated his trust in Joseph, stating, “and there is none who can interpret it”; for ( Joseph) did not act like one of the conjurers or legerdemain artists. The phrase “for I have heard concerning you” indicates “you hear people’s dreams and interpret them,

103 Cf. Midrash Tehillim 105:5, fol. 225b: “The Holy One, blessed be He, resorted to many devices to bring Jacob down to Egypt in honor. For example, ‘He called a famine upon the land.’ Why? So that ‘Israel should go down into Egypt, Jacob should sojourn in the land of Ham’ (Ps 105:23)”; see Braude, The Midrash on Psalms, 2:182.

120

chapter three unlike someone who hears a dream, but does not grasp its interpretation.” By the phrase “you hear a dream” he was referring to obscure dreams. Joseph answered him in an abased, humble manner, saying: “Not I!”—meaning, “you, O sovereign have ascribed wisdom to me, dismissing its (presence) in anyone else; wisdom, however, is not mine but belongs, rather, to Someone other than me,” thus alluding to the Lord who is the bestower of wisdom, as it is stated: “for the Lord grants wisdom” (Proverbs 2:6).104 Then he said: “May the Lord answer Pharaoh in peace.” This statement is cast in the form of the invocation one makes for kings. He said: “I ask God to answer the sovereign in peace.” Now Joseph’s words “Not I!” do not imply that he was unsuited to interpreting the dream; rather, they indicate that perfect wisdom belongs to God. When Pharaoh heard his words, he concluded that ( Joseph) possessed a superior intellect,105 and he began to relate the dream to him.”106

Joseph’s interview with Pharaoh, and the events surrounding it, inevitably recall a parallel story, to which our commentators continually refer in their readings of Genesis 41. Joseph and Daniel: From Pitron to Pesher and Beyond The book of Daniel contains several stories bearing strong aﬃnities to Genesis 41.107 In chapters 2, 4, and 5 the eponymous hero interprets royal dreams and a fearful inscription. Like Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar is troubled by strange visions, and like Pharaoh, he summons his experts who all fail him. And like Pharaoh, Belshazzar learns that there is a pious man who may help him, only after his resident scholars have disappointed him. Like Joseph, Daniel is an outsider,

104

Cf. Sahl’s paraphrase of Gen 40:8 cited above, n. 62. BN MS Suppl. héb. 30/II (Cat. 278): “that ( Joseph) was distinguished (and) sagacious (bi-annahu fà∂ilun 'àqilun). 106 Japheth b. Eli, Com. Gen 41:15–16; see 3.7. 107 The precise relationship between the stories in Daniel and Genesis remains uncertain. Concerning Daniel 2, Bickerman states unequivocally: “The situation is borrowed from the biblical story of Joseph”; see Four Strange Books of the Bible, 63. Collins writes: “The most obvious aﬃnities of Daniel are undoubtedly with the biblical story of Joseph,” but cautions that “the inﬂuence of Genesis is only one factor among many in the shaping of the tales”; see Collins, Daniel, 39–40. Cf. Di Lella, who lists a series of “unmistakable resemblances and relationships” between the Joseph narratives and Daniel 1–6, but also warns against overstressing the dependence of the latter on the former; see Hartman and Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, 56, 142, and cf. Montgomery, Daniel, 185–86. 105

interpreting dreams and scriptures

121

a pious Jew invoking divine assistance. And like Joseph, Daniel succeeds in deciphering divine messages which bear upon the welfare of the realm—indeed, the world. In rabbinic midrash, verbal and thematic relationships between these stories are stressed. Midrash Tan˙uma, for example, contains a homily for the opening verses of Parashat Mi-qeß devoted to Daniel 2, the verbs va-tippa'em (Genesis 41:8) and va-titpa'em (Daniel 2:1) providing an interpretive nexus between the passages.108 Naturally, the Karaite exegetes observe the similarities and diﬀerences between these narratives, comparing the characters, their situations, and their actions. In connection with Genesis 41:15–16, for example, Sahl remarks: Now in giving his interpretation after the wise men (had been summoned), Joseph resembles Daniel, who told Nebuchadnezzar his dream and interpreted it after the wise men (had failed to do so), thereby gaining an exalted station, as it states: “Then the king commanded that the magicians, the enchanters, the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans be summoned, to tell the king his dreams” (Daniel 2:2). In the same way Pharaoh inquired of them ﬁrst, as it is stated: “And he sent and called for all the magicians of Egypt (and all its wise men)” (Genesis 41:8). Similarly, with Belshazzar and the reading of the writing (on the wall): Daniel only came after the wise men of Babylon (had been summoned), when the queen, his grandmother, wife of Nebuchanezzar, said to him: “There is in your kingdom a man in whom is the spirit of the holy gods” (Daniel 5:11). By this, she was referring to Daniel, as it is stated: “Now let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation” (vs. 12).109

Japheth’s comment on Genesis 41:8 also exempliﬁes this approach: 3.9.1

[Tafsìr:] In the morning his spirit was troubled,110 and he sent and called for all the philosophers of Egypt and its wise men. And Pharaoh told them his dream, but there was none who could interpret them to him.

108 See Midrash Tan˙uma, Mi-qeß 2, fol. 49a–b (trans. Berman, 245–47), and Midrash Tan˙uma (Buber), Mi-qeß 4, fols. 95b–96b (trans. Townsend, 253–56). 109 Sahl b. Maßlia˙, Com. Gen 41:15–16, RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I:4633, fol. 115a–b. For the full comment, the gist of which is quite similar to Japheth’s ad loc., see the Appendix to this chapter, 3.8. 110 “His spirit was troubled”: takartamat ru˙uhu. See Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Daniel 2:1, p. 13, line 4 (Ar.), “Glossary,” p. 95; David al-Fàsì, Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ, 2:473, lines 35–37. The verb does not appear in the standard dictionaries.

122

chapter three We have found that Nebuchadnezzar had his dream in the middle of the night, then fell asleep again and forgot it entirely, as it is stated: “And his spirit was troubled, and his sleep was upon him” (Daniel 2:1).111 This indicates that he slept after having had the dream. Then he said: “The word has gone out from me”112 and asked them concerning his dream and its interpretation. As for Pharaoh, however, (Scripture) informs us that he awakened in the morning, but did not forget his dream. The signiﬁcance of this is evident: if a person has a dream toward morning, this indicates that its interpretation will soon be veriﬁed; but if he has a dream in the middle of the night, then this will be delayed.113 That Pharaoh did not forget his dream, while Nebuchadnezzar forgot his is also signiﬁcant, indicating that the interpretation of the former would soon be veriﬁed and would therefore not require any (conﬁrming) sign like the latter, which would only be fulﬁlled after a long time. God caused him to forget his dream and he asked the magicians (˙ar†umim) about it, but they were unable to inform him of its (interpretation); God, however, revealed it to Daniel. Now for Nebuchadnezzar, this took the place of a sign (conﬁrming) that the dream and its interpretation were true, as Daniel said to him: “The dream is true and its interpretation is sure” (Daniel 2:45). God showed these obscure114 dreams to Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar—(dreams) whose meanings people might see and grasp diﬀerently than would (the dreamer)—in order to exalt115 His saints. In Pharaoh’s case, (God) showed him an impenetrable116 dream in order to exalt Joseph, and so that Jacob and his children would survive the years of famine. The cause of (all) this was that Pharaoh needed Joseph to interpret it for him and thereby, he (i.e., Joseph) attained this high position. Similarly, during the Exile, Daniel attained such (a high position) that he was like a god (ma'bùd) for Nebuchadnezzar, who made him more honored than the governors of his state.

111 “And his sleep was upon him.” From an early date, interpreters seem to have construed the phrase to mean either that the king’s sleep was disturbed, or that he fell asleep again; see Montgomery, Daniel, 141–42, Collins, Daniel, p. 148, n. 6. Saadya Gaon translates: wa-taghannaßa nawmuhu, “and his sleep was disturbed”(Commentary on Daniel 2:1, p. 25). In his comment ad loc. (p. 31), he emphatically rejects the notion that Nebuchadnezzar forgot his dream; on the contrary, he wished to test his resident scholars. For much the same view, see Hartman and Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, 144. By contrast, Japheth believes that Nebuchadnezzar fell back asleep and then forgot his dream. 112 Cf. Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Daniel 2:5, p. 15, line 11: al-kalima minnì dhahabat, rendering Aram. milletah minni "azda. Among ancient and medieval exegetes, Japheth is not alone in construing "azda as a verb; on the history of the word’s interpretation, see Montgomery, Daniel, 145–48, Collins, Daniel, p. 148, n. 13. 113 Ar. kàna dhàlika ab'ad, lit. “then it (will be) more remote.” 114 Ar. munqaﬁla, lit. “locked.” 115 Ar. taf∂ìl. Or “promote,” “elevate.” 116 Ar. munghaliq, lit. “bolted,” “closed.”

interpreting dreams and scriptures

123

Contrasting Nebuchadnezzar’s experience with Pharaoh’s, Japheth notes the hours of their respective dreams, which he correlates with the times of their realization. Like the dreams in Genesis 37 and 40, Pharaoh’s early-morning visions—which he recalls perfectly— deal with the proximate future. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, on the other hand—which occurs at night and escapes his memory—largely relates to the distant future. And so, Japheth cites a rule: dreams dreamt toward morning refer to immediate events, those dreamt at night, to the remote future. Here again, he can draw upon both Jewish tradition and oneirocritical theory: according to Rabbi Johanan, “Every dream that (occurs) just before morning is immediately fulﬁlled,” while al-Dìnawarì reports that the Byzantine interpreters project dates of realization for dreams according to the hours when they are dreamt.117 Japheth recognizes that both Joseph and Daniel are praised and promoted for the soundness of their interpretations, even before these have been realized; indeed, he sees the advancement of both interpreters as part of the divine purpose. Pharaoh’s dream will soon become reality, and the king appreciates Joseph’s practical advice as much as his interpretive skill (Genesis 41:37–45). Since the truth of Daniel’s interpretation, however, will not be known for many years, God must ﬁrst intervene more directly on his behalf: Nebuchadnezzar forgets his dream, but Daniel—with divine assistance—recalls and explains it to him. The second portion of Japheth’s comment is prompted by the verbal parallel noted above (va-tippa'em/va-titpa'em): 3.9.2

The phrase “his spirit was troubled” indicates that he pondered the dream in order to grasp its interpretation, but did not (succeed in) doing so; therefore, his spirit was troubled. Similarly, Nebuchadnezzar’s spirit was troubled when he could not recall his dream. When Pharaoh did not grasp the interpretation of the dream, he sent for the magicians (˙ar†umim) and wise men (˙akhamim) and recounted (the dream) in their presence. Not one of them, however, grasped its interpretation, either because they said something which did not (really) seem to be veriﬁable to them, or because they could not see any way of interpreting it, so they confessed118 that they did not

117 See Genesis Rabbah 89:5, p. 1092: kol ˙alom she-hu samukh la-boqer mi-yad hu ba. Cf. bBerakhot 55b; see also Samuel b. Hophni, Peirush, 114–15 and n. 67. See al-Dìnawarì, Kitàb al-ta'bìr, 1:100–101 (eighth maqàla). For statements correlating the hour of a dream with its realization, see Mavroudi, A Byzantine Book on Dream Interpretation, 151–53, 156–58. 118 Reading fa-qarrarù for fa-qarrù.

124

chapter three understand it. The phrase “all the ˙ar†umim of Egypt and all its ˙akhamim” indicates that there was not one ˙ar†om or ˙akham remaining to attend him. Now a ˙ar†um is a philosopher ( faylasùf ),119 and his rank is higher than that of the ˙akham who only understands dream interpretation. Some say that the ˙ar†umim are magicians and conjurers,120 while the ˙akhamim are the philosophers who interpret dreams, and do not advocate deceit or trickery. But neither the former nor the latter related (the meaning of the dream). The phrase “there was none who could interpret them to him,” which employs the plural, indicates that they did not understand either of the dreams.121

Charlatans or simply incompetents, the Egyptian sages cannot make sense of Pharaoh’s dreams.122 Joseph, however, succeeds by virtue of his God-given insight. As we have seen, he does not claim inspiration, nor does Japheth ascribe it to him.123 The truth is, he does not need it, since the meaning of Pharaoh’s vision is clear to him. Daniel, however, is presented with a much more diﬃcult problem: he must relate a dream which the king has forgotten, before interpreting it.124 In the event, Daniel has a dream of his own in which the mystery is revealed, and he is able to tell Nebuchadnezzar what he had dreamt (Daniel 2:19, 28–35). The interpretation that Daniel presents (verses 36–45) is his own, the product of his skill rather than a divine

119 Japheth regularly renders ˙ar†om as faylasùf; cf. Commentary on Daniel, 1:20, p. 12 (Ar.); 4:4, p. 44 (Ar.); and 5:11, p. 56 (Ar.). This translation—which can hardly be intended in a technical sense—may reﬂect his antipathy toward philosophy and philosophers; see above, n. 19. Of particular interest is Japheth’s comment on Dan 1:20, in which he imagines a sort of majlis, or scholarly assembly at court, in which Nebuchadnezzar examines Daniel and his companions on a variety of subjects, ﬁnding them to be much more expert than his own philosophers and sages. In an odd twist, Japheth places a condemnation of philosophical relativism and antinomianism in the mouths of these falàsifa! See ibid., p. 12, lines 13–19 (Ar.), p. 5 (Eng.). On real convocations of this kind, see Lazarus-Yafeh et al., The Majlis. 120 Ar. al-su˙arà" wa’l-musha'widhìn. (The usual forms are sà˙ir, pl. su˙˙àr; musha'widh, pl. musha'widha.) Cf. Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Daniel, 2:1, p. 14, line 20. David al-Fàsì, Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ, 1:585, 113–15 dismisses the ˙ar†om, the "ashshaf, and the kasdi as shu'àwidha, “conjurers” (the form is presumably derived from sha'wadha). 121 Japheth b. Eli, comment on Gen 41:8. Cf. Sahl’s very similar comment on Gen 41:5–7 = 3.10, translated in the Appendix to this chapter. 122 Samuel b. Hophni observes that they might have managed the job, had they only exercised their powers of thought, deliberation, and discernment; see Peirush ha-torah, 108–109 (on Gen 41:8). 123 See Japheth’s comment on Gen 41:7, 3.6.3 above (= Ben-Shammai, “The Doctrines,” 1:274–76; 2:138–39). 124 Cf. Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Daniel, 2:1, p. 14, lines 10–18 (Ar.), p. 6 (Eng.), paraphrasing his comment on Genesis 41:8.

interpreting dreams and scriptures

125

communication. It is certainly not prophetic, since the text mentions neither divine Glory nor angel. This, at least, is Japheth’s view.125 During the course of his book, Daniel does, in fact, ascend through the ranks of prophecy: ﬁrst, he has a prophetic dream, then a vision, and ﬁnally a revelation when fully awake.126 For the mysteries revealed to him on these occasions, he does indeed require divine assistance. As Japheth remarks: “A marvel that Daniel the ‘interpreter of dreams’ should not understand this! So he slept again, and saw angels, and asked them concerning its interpretation.”127 At the same time, this statement implies that he interpreted Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams unaided. With its striking imagery and eschatological interpretation, the Babylonian king’s dream in chapter 2 points clearly toward Daniel’s weird visions in chapters 7–12 and their explication.128 Unlike Pharaoh’s dream, these divine disclosures all predict distant events, which will take place long after the dreamers’ own days. From the reader’s perspective, Genesis 41 is a story told, while Daniel 2 and 7–12 are prophecies in the process of fulﬁllment. What these texts do have in common is their accounts of symbolic dreams (or visions) that convey intelligence of the future only after they have been expertly deciphered. Close connections between the interpretation of dreams and sacred texts were noted long ago.129 Both functionally and formally, prognostic exegesis, in particular, betrays strong aﬃnities with oneirocriticism. The Pesher of the Dead Sea sectarians and the petirah of the ancient rabbis—both modes of reading Scripture prophetically— operate very much like dream interpretation.130 Nor should this be

For Japheth’s deﬁnition of a prophetic dream, see 3.6.3 above. Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Daniel, 7:1, p. 70 (Ar.), pp. 32–33 (Eng.). For the dream, see Dan 7:1–16; for the vision, see Dan 8:1–14; for what he saw when he was awake, see Dan chs. 10–12. In his comment on Num 12:7 [3.1], Japheth ranks the prophetic dream (e.g., Dan ch. 7) as the lowest of the six levels of prophecy and the vision as the fourth; Daniel’s vision of the angel (ch. 9) is described as belonging to the ﬁfth rank. This does not quite align with the comment on Daniel 7:1, where his waking vision (chs. 9–10) is described as a higher level of prophecy. 127 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Daniel, 7:15, pp. 75–76 (Ar.), p. 36 (Eng.). 128 This is certainly true, if—like Japheth—we read the text from a canonical perspective; see Childs, Introduction, ch. 41, esp. 616–18 where he emphasizes the links between chs. 2 and 7. 129 On the similarities between rabbinic exegetical techniques and Greco-Roman oneirocriticism, see Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 68–78. 130 See Silberman, “Unriddling the Riddle,” esp. 323–35 and Finkel, “The Pesher of Dreams and Scriptures.” On the nature of pesher in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see: 125 126

126

chapter three

surprising, since Jews generally believed all prophecy, other than Moses’, to have been revealed in visions and dreams.131 Interpreters of public dreams or prophecies communicate divine messages that have been transmitted in obscure imagery, both visual and verbal. In decoding these cryptograms, they must refer to various techniques of encoding, such as paronomasia, numerology (gema†riya), or shorthand (no†ariqon).132 They must also be familiar with an extensive catalogue of symbols and keywords. Confronting an enigmatic message, they break it down into its individual components, assigning each unit its proper meaning.133 In the process, an apparently mysterious or vague message becomes clear and speciﬁc. This is precisely how Daniel treats Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams (chapters 2 and 4) and the writing on the wall (chapter 5); it is also the way the angelic interpreters approach Daniel’s dream and vision (chapters 7 and 8). Since both the fearful inscription at Belshazzar’s feast and Daniel’s memorandum of his dream in chapter 7 are written texts, rather than oral accounts,134 it is but a short step from their interpretation to the Qumran pesharim of scriptural prophecies. We referred earlier to Naphtali Wieder’s seminal studies comparing the ideology and terminology of the Dead Sea sectarians with those of the early Karaites. Wieder investigated the prognostic treatment of biblical prophecies by both groups, and their use of noticeably similar terminology.135 Connections between the groups, however, remain hypothetical, even if one takes a conservative position and attributes shared usages to the medieval preservation or rediscovery

Horgan, Pesharim, esp. 229–59; Patte, Early Jewish Hermeneutic, 299–308; and Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 29–80, esp. 31–32 on the relationship between pesher and dream interpretation. On petirah in Genesis Rabbah, see Niehoﬀ, “A Dream which is not Interpreted,” esp. 68–84. The term petirah, incidentally, seems to be a modern coinage; in midrash, the verb patar is used exclusively. 131 See Numbers 12:6–8 and Sifrei Numbers, Beha'alotekha pisqa 103, p. 101 ad loc. 132 In gema†ria words are explained according to their numerical values, while in no†ariqon they are interpreted as acronyms or are redivided to form diﬀerent words; see Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 69. 133 For a clear description of the process, see Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 447–57. 134 For this point, see, e.g., Fishbane, ibid., 447–48 and Niehoﬀ, “A Dream which is not Interpreted,” 66. 135 See above, p. 17. The main studies are: “The Doctrine of the Two Messiahs Among the Karaites”; “The Qumran Sectaries and the Karaites”; “The Dead Sea Scrolls Type of Biblical Exegesis among the Karaites”; and The Judean Scrolls and Karaism.

interpreting dreams and scriptures

127

of ancient texts.136 As Meira Polliack has recently shown, the diﬀerences between Qumran pesher and early Karaite pitron are nearly as striking as the similarities.137 The terms themselves are signiﬁcant. In the Book of Daniel, the Aramaic root p.sh.r. signiﬁes the interpretation of a dream or riddle and is precisely equivalent to the Hebrew root p.t.r., which recurs throughout Genesis 40–41. Similarly in the Scrolls, pesher introduces a prognostic interpretation, in which a biblical phrase or name becomes a topical reference: And as for that which He said, “That he who reads may read it speedily” (Habakkuk 2:2), interpreted this concerns the Teacher of Righteousness ( pishro 'al moreh ha-ßedeq), to whom God made known all the mysteries of the words of His servants the Prophets.138

By contrast, in Daniel al-Qùmisì’s Pitron sheneim 'asar (Commentary on the Minor Prophets), the root p.t.r. possesses a much wider semantic range. In many instances, it corresponds to Arabic f.s.r. In the comment on Hosea 12:1, for example, it designates halakhic exegesis: “For they have denied My commandments in their Exile as well; they have interpreted ( pateru) My Law deceitfully and falsely in order to make My commandments less burdensome.”139 Elsewhere, however, it may simply mark a Hebrew or Arabic gloss.140 Only rarely, it seems, does pitron signal a prognostic interpretation.141 On one 136

On this question, see now Erder, “The Karaites and the Second Temple Sects.” 137 Polliack’s closely-argued critique of Wieder’s work represents an important corrective. While not discounting the possibility that early Karaites drew upon texts from the ancient Dead Sea community, she suggests that the approaches and terminology of the two groups may only resemble each other superﬁcially, or that the Karaites could have developed their private lexicon of key words independently; see “On the Question of the Pesher’s Inﬂuence.” 138 Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 239; for the Hebrew text, see Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 171. 139 Daniel al-Qùmisì, Pitron sheneim 'a≤ar, Hos 12:1, p. 20, line 9. 140 For Hebrew glosses introduced by pitrono, see, e.g., Daniel al-Qùmisì, Pitron sheneim 'a≤ar, Ob vs. 6, p. 40, lines 5–6, and Zech 3:9, p. 64, lines 34–35. For an Arabic gloss introduced by pitrono, see Ibid., Zech 2:3, p. 63, line 5. Cf. the comment on Dan 11:30: u-ﬁtron ve-nikhe"ah wa-ya∂'uf, “the meaning of ve-nikhe"ah is (the Arabic word) wa-ya∂'uf (“he will become weak”); see Ben-Shammai, “Fragments of Daniel al-Qùmisì’s Commentary,” p. 276, line 5. Usually, however, al-Qùmisì omits the marker pitrono altogether. 141 See, e.g., Daniel al-Qùmisì, Pitron sheneim 'a≤ar, Joel 2:3–5, p. 28, line 23. For al-Qùmisì’s use of p.t.r., see Polliack, “On the Question of the Pesher’s Inﬂuence,” 285–86 and the examples cited there. Prognostic interpretations are most commonly introduced by the copula: ki hineni mevi "et 'avdi ßema˙—hu mashia˙ (“‘Behold I will bring my servant, the Branch’—that is the Messiah”); see Daniel al-Qùmisì, Pitron sheneim 'a≤ar, Zech 3:8, p. 64, lines 29–30.

128

chapter three

occasion, however, al-Qùmisì actually compares prognostic exegesis to oneirocriticism, stating: “Indeed, we have not interpreted this (i.e., the word ve-ha-"amußßim) prognostically in connection with anything, for this is like interpreting diﬃcult dreams.”142 Karaite exegetes writing in Arabic use neither pesher nor pitron as exegetical terms. Following Saadya, they render both words by tafsìr— cognate with pesher, but like al-Qùmisì’s calqued pitron, possessing a much broader semantic range. Tafsìr, of course, is the standard word for Quranic exegesis; contrasted with ta"wìl, it connotes literal meaning, as opposed to allegorical signiﬁcance.143 It may also mean translation.144 Tafsìr al-a˙làm, moreover, is synonymous with ta'bìr (or ta"wìl) al-a˙làm, that is oneirocriticism.145 In name, then, as well as in deed, a biblical exegete—like a dream interpreter—was a mufassir. We have seen how Japheth and Sahl analyze Joseph’s interpretations in Genesis 40–41, imagining his thought processes and elaborating upon his statements. By correlating dream accounts and interpretations with the narratives of their realization, the commentators show us a successful exegete at work. Japheth approaches the Book of Daniel in much the same way, amplifying on the interpretations oﬀered. Where these are not fulﬁlled within the narrative, he refers them, as best he can, to historical nations, ﬁgures, and events. Since the dream in chapter 2 and Daniel’s interpretation are fairly uncomplicated, Japheth has only to supply basic information. First, he weaves a super-commentary around Daniel’s pesher, glossing vague pronouncements with references to familiar realities. Thus, on verses 41 and 43 he comments:

142 See Daniel al-Qùmisì, Pitron sheneim 'a≤ar, Zech 6:7, p. 68, lines 5–6: ve-lo patarnu zeh le-davar "omnam ki hu domeh le-ﬁtron ˙alomot qashot. The passage was noted by Wieder, “The Dead Sea Scrolls Type of Biblical Exegesis among the Karaites,” 76–77 and n. 3. Japheth identiﬁes the "amußßim with “the Little Horn,” i.e., the Muslims; see Erder, “The Attitude of the Karaite, Yefet ben Eli,” p. 40 and n. 71, and the anonymous late tenth-century commentary cited by Sokolow, “The Denial of Muslim Sovereignty,” 314, line 2. 143 For the term tafsìr denoting Quranic exegesis, see Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, 154–55 (on sùra 25:33 and the tafsìr/ta"wìl dichotomy). 144 In the Introduction to his commentary on Genesis, Japheth distinguishes between tarjama (“translation”) and tafsìr (“commentary” or “interpretation”); see Polliack, The Karaite Tradition, 41. Saadya, on the other hand, generally uses tafsìr for his Bible translation, and shar˙ for his commentary, although he is not entirely consistent; see Polliack, ibid., 78–80, and esp. p. 86, n. 83. 145 See, e.g., Fahd, La divination arabe, 355 listing several oneirocritical works with the titles Kitàb ( fì) ta"wìl/tafsìr/ta'bìr al-a˙làm/al-manàm.

interpreting dreams and scriptures

129

([verse 41] “And as you saw the feet and toes partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom . . .”): . . . the iron represents the Romans, the clay the Arabs; and this is because the Romans reigned a hundred years before the Arabs; then the Arabs began to reign, but the kingdom of the Romans remained, as is witnessed in our own day. He compares the kingdom of the Arabs to clay, because they have neither power nor force like those of the Romans. . . . ([verse 43] “As you saw the iron mixed with miry clay, so they will mix with one another by the seed of men”): . . . This is the mixture of the Romans and the Arabs; he tells us that just as they are associated in empire (a divided kingdom), so they shall be mixed in the matter of marrying and begetting children, neither party disapproving of this, as Israel does; for this reason, too, he said “they shall mix with one another by the seed of men.” For the Muslim does not refuse to take a wife of the Christian religion, nor the Christian to take a wife of the religion of Islam. “But they will not hold together”: since they disagree with one another on the fundamental doctrines, the one confessing One God, and believing that Jesus, the son of Mary, was a mortal; whereas the others believe that He is the Creator of the heavens and earth, as is well known concerning the Christian religion. Similarly do they diﬀer about the Qiblah and many other subjects too long to explain. This is why he says “they will not hold together,” which is explained in the words “just as iron (does not mix with clay). . . .”146

Having completed his explication of Daniel’s description and interpretation of the statue, Japheth presents his own comprehensive interpretation (tafsìr): It means four kingdoms which are to arise in the world. The ﬁrst is the kingdom which laid waste Jerusalem and took the people captive from their homes. After it came the kingdom of the Persians, which ordered the House to be built. . . . The third is the kingdom of the Greeks, which neither took the people captive nor laid waste their dwellings; however, harm was done the nation by them. . . . As for the fourth empire, it has carried Israel into captivity, as the ﬁrst did, and gone further than it in enmity and injury; and as for the Arabs, they have not indeed acted like the others in exiling them and destroying them, but they have injured the nation in the way of contempt and scorn and humiliation, etc., of which we shall mention some specimens in the commentary on the dream of Daniel and his prophecy.147

146 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Daniel 2:41, 43, p. 29, lines 8–11, p. 30, lines 3–11 (Ar.), pp. 13–14 (Eng., slightly modiﬁed). 147 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Daniel 2:43, p. 30, lines 12–23 (Ar.), p. 14 (Eng.).

130

chapter three

This scheme—with the Fourth Kingdom divided between Christendom and Islam—underlies much of Japheth’s prognostic exegesis.148 Working with the premise that the prophecies of chapters 7–12 enlarge upon the message of chapter 2 and inform each other, he attempts to solve the fantastic symbolism and opaque narratives of the later chapters. It must be remembered that in chapters 7 and 8, he is again dealing with interpreted prophecies—although Daniel is now the dreamer and the interpreters are angels. Indeed, at one point, he remarks that the angel follows standard oneirocritical conventions: A general statement, without special explanation of the four animals, corresponding to the method of both Joseph and Daniel in the interpretation of dreams, which is to give a general idea, resolving the knotty and diﬃcult point.149

Japheth follows suit, identifying each animal in chapter 7, and explaining the allegory as best he can. The second kingdom, for example, is depicted as a bear (verse 5) because of its stupidity ( jahl ): the Persians were dualists and idolaters (al-juhhàl ).150 The three ribs in its mouth represent the three quarters of the earth it ruled. The words, “arise, devour much ﬂesh” are Haman’s; there is no mention of the bear eating, however, because Haman’s plan to destroy Israel was thwarted.151 The method looks very much like Joseph’s, or rather, like Japheth’s glosses on Joseph’s interpretations: since Daniel does not inquire about the ﬁrst three animals, Japheth ﬁlls in details, just as he has already done in his commentary on Genesis 41. Japheth’s treatment of the Four Kingdoms has rabbinic antecedents. Genesis Rabbah, for example, includes typological midrashim on Genesis 15:9 and 15:12.152 Using Daniel as a model, the ﬁrst midrash 148 Saadya Gaon’s scheme is similar; see his Commentary on Daniel 7:8, pp. 131–32, and Schlossberg, “R. Saadia Gaon’s Attitude Towards Islam,” 25–29. And see further below, p. 179, n. 58. 149 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Daniel 7:17–18, p. 76, lines 15–16 (Ar.), p. 36 (Eng.). 150 Bears are associated in the Bible with ferocity (e.g., 2 Kings 2:24, Amos 5:19). According to Artemidorus, a bear may signify a woman, sickness, travel, or lingering; see Oneirocritica 2.12 (White, The Interpretation of Dreams, 104). The only association with stupidity that I have found is Prov 17:12: “Let a man meet a she-bear robbed of her cubs, rather than a fool in his folly.” Saadya suggests that the bear was chosen for this maxim because of its obstinacy (lajàja); see Saadya Gaon, Commentary on Proverbs 17:12, p. 125. 151 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Daniel 7:5, p. 72, lines 11–19 (Ar.), p. 34 (Eng.). For the rabbinic identiﬁcation of the bear with the Persians, see bMegillah 11a. 152 See Genesis Rabbah 44:15 (Gen 15:9), pp. 437–38, and ibid. 44:17 (Gen 15:12), pp. 439–40.

interpreting dreams and scriptures

131

connects each of the sacriﬁcial animals to one of the realms. In the second, the phrase “a dread and great darkness fell upon him” ("eimah ˙ashekhah gedolah nofelet 'alav) is divided into four units, each of which alludes to one of the empires. Clearly, the passage was understood to describe a prophetic dream, a conclusion supported by the dictum introducing it: “There are three incomplete phenomena: the incomplete experience of death is sleep; an incomplete form of prophecy is the dream (novelet nevu"ah ˙alom); the incomplete form of the next world is the Sabbath.”153 Japheth does not, of course, discover allusions to the Four Kingdoms in Genesis 15, because he does not read the Bible midrashically. Since there are no plain textual indications that Abram’s vision possesses apocalyptic signiﬁcance, Japheth does not relate it to the future Kingdoms. In fact, he sharply rejects an anonymous interpretation which makes the animals and birds of Genesis 15:9–17 part of Abram’s vision, and declares them to be symbols of the Four Kingdoms and the Resurrection of the Dead.154 Nor does he bother with other fanciful typologies constructed around the four rivers of Eden, the four kings of Genesis 14, or the four forbidden animals of Leviticus 11:4–7.155 What he does accept, however, is the rabbinic identiﬁcation of the ﬁrst three Empires (Babylonia, Persia, and Greece) and the

153

Genesis Rabbah 44:17, p. 439 (trans. Freedman and Simon, Midrash Rabbah, 1:371). Cf. ibid., 17:5 (Gen 2:21), pp. 156–57. 154 On the basis of a statement by Dunash Ibn Labrà†, Poznanski identiﬁed the unnamed interpreter as Saadya; see “Allegorische Gesetzauslegung,” 251–53, and 255–57 (Beilage II) for the text. Though plausible, the identiﬁcation is by no means certain. In closing, Japheth cautions against unwarranted allegorization: “All this indicates his confusion concerning this passage; had he followed its plain meaning (Ωàhirihi ) as is his wont in many other cases where he refutes those who strip texts of their plain meanings (man akhraja al-nußùß 'an Ωàhirihà; cf. Heb. "ein miqra yoße miyedei peshu†o) in favor of unrestrained allegorization (al-ta"wìl bi-ghayr màni' ), then he would have been saved from stumbling so badly, but the Exile is a darkness in which all go astray.” For Japheth’s own interpretation of this passage, centering on the nature of Abram’s vision, see: Sirat, Les Théories, 52–53; Ben-Shammai, “The Doctrines,” 1:273, 2:129–30; and Lasker, “The Prophecy of Abraham in Karaite Thought,” 103–106. 155 Genesis Rabbah is replete with typological midrashim concerning the Four Kingdoms. See: 16:4 (Gen 2:10–14), pp. 146–48, on the four rivers of Eden; 42:2 (Gen 14:1), p. 399 on the four kings; 68:14 (Gen 28:12), p. 790 [apparatus and notes to line 6] on the angels in Jacob’s dream; 70:8 (Gen 29:2–3), p. 807 on the ﬂocks at the well; 88:5 (Gen 40:9–13), pp. 1082–83 and 88:6 (Gen 40:16–19), p. 1084, in which the dreams of the butler and baker are read eschatologically. Similar midrashim may be found throughout rabbinic literature. For the four prohibited animals of Lev 11:4–7 as types of the Empires, see the homily in Leviticus Rabbah 13:5, pp. 281–95, which also integrates several of the other typological midrashim.

132

chapter three

ongoing mission of ﬁtting history as he knows it into the framework of Daniel.156 But in contrast to the homiletic, associative method of the ancient rabbis, Japheth’s approach is rational and systematic. Thus, he outlines the distribution of prophetic material in the book, noting which chapters mention all four Kingdoms, and which three or fewer.157 He directly addresses exegetical principles and theological problems emerging from the text, such as the resurrection of the dead and the nature of angels.158 And he undertakes to identify every historical allusion in the book, from the “he goat that came from the west” (Alexander the Great), to the “children of the breakers of your people” (the four evangelists), to the king “who shall be diﬀerent from the former ones” (Muhammad).159 Some of the identiﬁcations are commonplaces, such as the “little horn” (qeren ze'irah) of Daniel 7:8, which was a standard Karaite epithet for Islam.160 In other cases, however, his comments reﬂect all the uncertainty of a prophecy not yet realized. Since the identity of the King of the North was disputed, Japheth carefully explains how the phrase is used and to whom it might or might not be applied. In suggesting that the epithet describes the Buyid prince in Baghdad, Japheth oﬀers supporting arguments: Of the King of the North (he says) that he shall whirl against him, because he shall come from near the Caspian Gates (bàb al-abwàb). . . . The Muslim prince (ßà˙ib al-islàm) established at Baghdad—not the Abbasid— is from the north; now they were originally unbelievers, but will be associated with the Abbasid Caliph. . . .161

156 Nearly two centuries later, the Andalusian Rabbanite, Abraham Ibn Daud, approached the same task in rather a diﬀerent fashion; see Cohen, Sefer Ha-Qabbalah, 223–62. 157 Commentary on Daniel 7:1, pp. 69–70 (Ar.), 32–33 (Eng.). 158 On resurrection, see ibid., 12:2–3, pp. 138–39 (Ar.), 75–76 (Eng.). In the excursus on angels he also addresses the question of ﬁgurative versus literal interpretation of Scripture; see ibid., 11:1, pp. 111–13 (Ar.), 56–57 (Eng.). For an analysis of Japheth’s views on angels, see Ben-Shammai, “The Doctrines,” 1:288–99. 159 See: Commentary on Daniel 8:21, p. 86 (Ar.), p. 41 (Eng.) [Alexander the Great]; ibid., 11:14, p. 119 (Ar.), pp. 61–62 (Eng.) [the evangelists]; ibid., 7:24, p. 78 (Ar.), p. 37 (Eng.) [Muhammad]. See also the reference to 'Umar b. al-Kha††àb’s conquest of Jerusalem, ibid., 11:25, p. 124 (Ar.), p. 65 (Eng.). 160 See Steinschneider, Polemische und apologetische Literatur, 308–309, and BenShammai, “The Attitude of Some Early Karaites,” 8. 161 For Japheth’s excursus on the Kings of the North and South, see Commentary on Daniel 11:40, p. 133, lines 19 ﬀ. (Ar.), pp. 71–72 (Eng.); for the quotations, see p. 133, lines 18–19 and p. 134, line 20 (Ar.), pp. 71–72 (Eng.) [translation modiﬁed].

interpreting dreams and scriptures

133

Here, as in his treatment of Joseph’s and Daniel’s dream interpretations, Japheth attempts to correlate predictions with known facts. In the process, he must account for every prophetic phrase, while adjusting his reading of the apocalypse to changing historical realities. To a large degree, the general approach is anchored in earlier Karaite exegesis. The preserved fragment of Daniel al-Qùmisì’s Hebrew commentary on Daniel 11 evinces the same prognostic tendency, though it is far less detailed. By Japheth’s time, al-Qùmisì’s interpretation of the apocalypse was, of course, outdated—that is, unfulﬁlled; all the same, it clearly served as an important source for the later Karaite approach to Daniel and, indeed, to biblical prophecies generally.162 Previously, we have explained how certain exegetical identiﬁcations became independent, emblematic appellations, very much like the kinnuyim of classical piyyu†.163 Such epithets as qeren ze'irah (“the little horn”) for Islam or temimei derekh (“those whose way is blameless”) for the Jerusalem Karaites and their leaders recur throughout Karaite literature in this period, removed from their original exegetical contexts.164 Probably the most signiﬁcant epithet of this kind that derives from Daniel is ma≤kil. In Jerusalem Karaite usage, ma≤kil is a teacher or preacher of Karaite Judaism, that is, one of the leading scholars of the community. In an early homily on Psalm 74 attributed to alQùmisì, a ma≤kil is deﬁned as “one who instructs and enlightens Israel (when they are) in Exile, so that they do not stray from the way of the Lord.”165 This deﬁnition originates in Daniel 11 and 12, The latter passage was noted by Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium, 88, n. 6; on Japheth’s identiﬁcation of the Buyid prince with the King of the North and the dating of his commentary on Daniel, see Schenker, “Der Karäer Jafet ben Eli.” Recent converts to Islam, the Buyids were, of course, from Daylam near the Caspian Sea. Beginning with Rukn al-Dawla and his son, 'A∂ud al-Dawla, the Buyid rulers assumed royal titles, such as amìr and malik. For a concise overview of Buyid Iraq during the late tenth century, see Kraemer, Humanism, ch. 1. In Daniel al-Qùmisì’s day, the people of Daylam were still idolators; see Ben-Shammai, “Fragments of Daniel alQùmisì’s Commentary,” 277, 4 lines from bottom. 162 On al-Qùmisì, see esp. Ben-Shammai, “Fragments of Daniel al-Qùmisì’s Commentary,” and Polliack, “On the Question of the Pesher’s Inﬂuence.” 163 See above, p. 17. 164 For qeren ze'irah, see Dan 7:8 and the references in n. 160 above; for temimei derekh, see Wieder, “Qumran Sectaries,” 97–113 and 289–91 where he reproduces Japheth’s comment on Ps 119:1. 165 On the meaning of ma≤kil for the Jerusalem Karaites, see Wieder, Judean Scrolls, 104–117, esp. 106 where he notes al-Qùmisì’s comment on Ps 74:1: ma≤kil hu mevin u-ma≤kil le-yisra"el "asher ba-galut pen yite'u mi-derekh "adonay. (The translation is mine.)

134

chapter three

which tells how “the ma≤kilim shall make many understand, though they shall fall by sword and ﬂame” (11:33), and equates them with “those who turn many to righteousness” (12:3).166 It aptly characterizes the role which the Karaite religious leadership claimed for themselves during the tenth and eleventh centuries.167 If the eschatological scheme of Daniel provides the Jerusalem Karaites with an identity and a historical role, other biblical prophecies enable them to develop their self-image. This is an important point to which we shall return in the next two chapters. Of more immediate interest, however, is the way Japheth treats such passages exactly as he approaches the dreams in Genesis 40–41. In his comment on Isaiah 21:6–8, for example, he ﬁrst provides a literal paraphrase (shar˙ Ωàhir) of the verses in order to clarify the imagery. Then he oﬀers an allegorical interpretation (ta"wìl) in which he explains the vague expressions and ﬁgurative language: 3.11 As for its (ﬁgurative) interpretation (ta"wìluhà), scholars have diﬀered in their approaches, but I will follow a single, plausible line and will outline it brieﬂy so that the student may understand. I say that God’s injunction to the prophet to set a watchman168 refers to the ma≤kilei galut whom God will establish at the end of the Exile (and) whom He described as temimei derekh (“those whose way is blameless”), goderei pareß (“repairers of the breach”).169 They will keep watch using their knowledge of the signs (al-'alàmàt) found in God’s Scripture which will appear at the end of the Exile, as it is stated: “And the ma≤kilim

166

See also Dan 11:35 and 12:10. For further references to the ma≤kilim in Japheth’s commentaries, see chs. 4 and 5. There are polemical subtexts to the Karaite identiﬁcation of the ma≤kilim in Daniel. Among the sectarians, there were those who claimed that Anan was one of the ma≤kilim. As we have seen in ch. 2, al-Qùmisì was no admirer of Anan’s. In his comment on Daniel 11:35, he suggests that Anan may have been among the early ma≤kilim who stumbled (nikhshelu) in (his knowledge of ) the commandments; see Ben-Shammai, “Fragments of Daniel al-Qùmisì’s Commentary,” p. 276, fol. 2A, and p. 279. In the Rabbanite camp, Saadya Gaon identiﬁed the ma≤kilim with the Sages of the Mishnah, such as Rabbis Johanan, Eliezer, Joshua, Akivah, and Rabban Gamliel, who ﬁlled the role of the ancient Levites; see Saadya Gaon, Commentary on Daniel 11:33, p. 203. Quite possibly, Saadya was responding to the Karaites’ appropriation of the title ma≤kil; see also Wieder, The Judean Scrolls, pp. 107–108, n. 2. 168 Ar. 'alà al-daydaba, lit. “on watch.” Japheth renders “watchman” by daydabàn and “keep watch” by daydaba. See Wehr and Cowan, Dictionary, 305; Dozy, Supplément, 1:480b; Kazimirski, Dictionnaire, 1:756b (giving a Persian etymology); and BenShammai, “The Doctrines,” 2:303 with references to Japheth’s commentaries. 169 For temimei derekh, see Ps 119:1; for goderei pareß, cf. Is 58:12. 167

interpreting dreams and scriptures

135

will make (them) understood” (Daniel 12:10). Therefore he said, “set the watchman.” He said, “the watchman” using the deﬁnite article170 since the passage was composed concerning them and none other. For God has already made it known about them that they would guard and watch and never cease guarding until the time of the salvation. Now Isaiah has already explained (this) elsewhere in the statement “upon your walls, O Jerusalem, I have set watchmen; (all the day and all the night they shall never be silent; you who mention the Lord take no rest)” (Isaiah 62:6). He has informed (us) that the watchmen are people who pray night and day, watching for the Salvation of Israel. Here he says “upon a watchtower” (21:8); there, he explained that the watchtower is the walls of Jerusalem. Here he says “a lion cried out” (21:8); there, he explained that this (refers) to those “who mention the Lord” (62:6). Here he says “I stand continually”; and there he says “all the day and all the night they shall never be silent.” He compared them to three things—a watchman, a lion, and those who stand. He compared them to a watchman, because they watch for (the fulﬁllment of ) God’s promises (mawà'ìd ) and for the signs mentioned in His Scripture concerning what He will do to Israel’s enemies time after time, as well as His other promises to them of dominion, power, and dwelling in Jerusalem. He compared them to a lion for a number of reasons. One of them, is that they oﬀer up additional prayers (lit. “they multiply prayers”), asking God to destroy the nations, just as a lion redoubles (its eﬀorts) in seeking prey. . . .171

In relating Isaiah 21 to other biblical texts, such as Daniel 12:10, Isaiah 62:6, and Psalm 22,172 Japheth adheres to the same principle he applies to Daniel 2 and 7: like Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and Daniel’s vision, these prophecies complement each other; like Pharaoh’s dreams, they possess a single interpretation.173 In this case, the lion and watchmen are both ﬁgures for the ma≤kilim who observe vigils and redouble their prayers.

170 Ar. be-lashon meyudda', “the deﬁnite article.” On this term, see Khan, The Early Karaite Tradition, 101, 146, and idem, Early Karaite Grammatical Texts, 56. 171 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Isaiah 21:6–8 (excerpt); see 3.11. 172 In the continuation of the comment—not reproduced here—he continually refers to Psalm 22, a key text for the Jerusalem Karaites. The Psalm was edited and translated by Theodor Hofmann, Der XXII. Psalm. 173 See Japheth b. Eli, Com. Gen 41:25, BN MS Suppl. héb. 30/II (Cat. 278), fol. 214a = BL MS Or. 2463, fol. 102b: “It says ‘(Pharaoh’s) dream is one,’ indicating that it possesses a single interpretation” (wa-qàlà ˙alom "e˙ad hu li-yu'arrif an al-ta"wìl fìhi wa˙id ).

136

chapter three

There is another point here that bears directly upon our subject: the ma≤kilim “keep watch using their knowledge of the signs (al-'alàmàt) found (or ‘mentioned’) in God’s Scripture.”174 Like dream interpreters, they are experts endowed with knowledge and skill, adept at interpreting texts that others ﬁnd impenetrable. Their knowledge, moreover, seems connected with prayers and night-vigils, an impression conﬁrmed by Japheth’s comment on Isaiah 58:2: The phrase “righteous ordinances” refers to inscrutable matters.175 For thus he said with reference to the “blameless of way”: “At midnight I rise to praise You because of Your righteous ordinances” (Psalm 119:62) and when He reveals some aspect of the (laws) to them, they praise God, as it is said: “seven times a day I praise You for Your righteous ordinances” (Psalm 119:164).176

To be sure, wisdom and knowledge come from God in a general sense; this is the way Sahl and Japheth both explain Genesis 40:8.177 But here in response to prayer, divine aid arrives in the form of sudden scriptural insights. Noting several other texts that describe the ma≤kilim praying for enlightenment, Wieder called this phenomenon “illuminational exegesis.”178 Thus far, we have emphasized the Karaites’ rationalistic approach to interpretation of dreams and scriptures alike. But the passages collected by Wieder suggest that, like Daniel, they sought divine assistance with the knottiest problems.179

174 Cf. Japheth’s comment on Ps 22:1: “The editor (al-mudawwin) has informed (us) that David recited this Psalm via the holy spirit (rua˙ ha-qodesh) with reference to the Hind of the Dawn ("ayyelet ha-sha˙ar); they are the people who will live at the “time of trouble” ('et ßarah). The “times” (al-'iddanin; cf. Dan 7:25), which are the beginnings of the Salvation (al-yeshu'ah), have already begun . . . . the destruction of Mecca (al-makkot) and the subjugation of the Children of Qedar is the ﬁrst of the signs of the Salvation ('alàmàt al-yeshu'ah). See Hofmann, Der XXII. Psalm [unpaginated] = BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/I (Cat. 286), fols. 123b–124a. The destruction of Mecca refers to the Carmathian assault in 929, an event that ﬁgures prominently in Japheth’s prognostic interpretations; see, e.g., Commentary on Daniel, p. vi (Eng.) and the references given there. The objections raised by Schenker, “Die Geburtswehen der messianischen Zeit” do not seem well founded. 175 Lit. “things that are obscure to knowledge”: ghawàmi∂ al-'ilm. 176 Wieder, The Judean Scrolls, 62, n. 1. 177 See above, pp. 108–109. 178 Wieder, The Judean Scrolls, 60–62, 81–85, 92–94. Note that the comment on Is 21:6–8 focuses on knowledge of apocalyptic signs in the Bible, while the comment on Is 58:2 emphasizes knowledge of the law. 179 Wieder (p. 83) stresses the signiﬁcance of Ps 119:18 for the Karaites. In and of itself, this does not necessarily imply a request for special divine illumination, but could simply represent a pious formula; cf. Saadya Gaon, Kitàb al-amànàt, p. 2, trans. Rosenblatt, The Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 3.

interpreting dreams and scriptures

137

In the same way, they acknowledged their Benefactor for the solutions they discovered, which they believed to be inspired. In one place, al-Qùmisì even equates the ma≤kilim with prophets: “Know that the Law of the Lord has been likened unto water and that the teachers (ma≤kilim) of knowledge, who are prophets possessed of knowledge, know Scripture in its (diﬀerent) aspects, (and) why it is written in one way and not another.”180 It would be easy to dismiss this as a bit of hyperbole, were it not for another text, written pehaps a century later, which clariﬁes the relationship between prophecy and knowledge, dream interpretation, and biblical exegesis. In Chapter One, we touched brieﬂy upon a special Karaite subgenre, the muqaddima. Prefaced by certain exegetes to each weekly pentateuchal lection, the muqaddima is a homily developed around a prescribed Psalm and a hagiographic reading. Sahl’s muqaddima for the lection Mi-qeß is constructed around Psalm 39 and Daniel 12:5–13, texts that invite speculation on the End of Days. The latter text, which refers to two men standing upon the banks of the ye"or (“stream”) also provides an artful introduction to Genesis 41:1. The opening invocation praises the God of Israel, who bestows wisdom to the wise and understanding to those who comprehend: 3.12 Blessed be the Lord, God of Israel, who gives wisdom to the knowledgeable and bestows understanding to the discerning, as it is stated: “He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding” (Daniel 2:21). And it states: “For the Lord gives wisdom; from His mouth come knowledge and understanding” (Proverbs 2:6). Praised be He who teaches human beings knowledge, exalting them above beasts. Blessed be He, who is First and Last, glorious and awe-inspiring, who is unique in His might, gloriﬁed in His divinity, who is known (only) by His signs, inasmuch as He is intangible and imperceptible, who cannot be encompassed by the imagination or comprehended by the rational faculties, whom the senses cannot perceive, nor can those who cogitate (grasp), whom limits cannot contain, intimations cannot reach, and tongues cannot attain, who reveals secrets to His servants and makes hidden things known to them, as it is stated: “He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding” (Psalms 25:14) and further “For the Lord gives wisdom; from His mouth come knowledge and understanding” (Proverbs 3:32). This indicates that He reveals His secrets to

180 Wieder, The Judean Scrolls, 60 (my translation). The Hebrew reads: da' ki torat "adonay nimshelah ke-mayim u-ma≤kilei da'at ve-hem nevi"im yode'ei da'at ve-hem yade'u "et hamiqra 'al "ofanav lammah katuv ken ve-lo khen. The citation derives from a fragment of al-Qùmisì’s Commentary on Leviticus.

138

chapter three those who fear Him just as he reveals them to His prophets as it is stated: “Surely the Lord God does nothing, without revealing His secret to His servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7). In the same way He reveals the knowledge of the End to the righteously-guided scholars of the Exile, as it is stated: “And those among the people who are wise shall make many understand” (Daniel 11:33) “but none of the wicked shall understand” (Daniel 12:10). And this is in accordance with what they ask of God in Psalm 90:12: “So teach us to number our days that we may get a heart of wisdom.” Similarly in this Psalm (i.e., 39) which is associated with this parashah it is stated: “Lord, let me know my end” (Psalm 39:5). I shall begin explicating it from the beginning so as to show that the meaning of this Psalm concerns knowledge of the End, about which the angels asked each other, one saying to the other, “How long shall it be till the end of these wonders?” (Daniel 12:6); the reply to this is “for a time, two times, and a half a time; and that when the shattering (of the power of the holy people comes to an end all these things would be accomplished)” (Daniel 12:7).181

It must be admitted that this is a homily, and preachers are given to rhetorical ﬂourishes.182 All the same, it is diﬃcult to escape the notion that Sahl believed the ma≤kilim to be inspired, like Joseph or Daniel. Naturally, they also relied on their hermeneutic skills and good sense—the same God-given gifts with which their biblical forerunners were blessed. But like Joseph, they believed their special insights to be God-given. “The other interpreters,” says Joseph in Sahl’s paraphrase, “will not proﬀer anything like (the interpretation) I shall state, since what I say derives from the knowledge given me by God, who is the bestower of wisdom, as it is stated, “who teaches man discernment” (Psalm 94:10).”183 This is precisely the knowledge to which the Jerusalem Karaites aspired, when they sought to emulate Daniel. Emphasizing his piety, they suggested that the knowledge of dreams and their solutions with which he was divinely favored was a reward for his faith and devotion. And by adopting his ascetic regime and studying Scripture, they might also hope for the illumination of matters beyond the skill of even experienced interpreters.

RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I:4633, fol. 100; see 3.12. For an extended homiletic passage in Hebrew, cf. Sahl’s Epistle to Jacob b. Samuel in Pinsker, Lickute Kadmoniot, Pt. 2, pp. 31–34, and see the analysis by Nemoy, “The Epistle of Sahl Ben Maßlìa˙,” 154–57. 183 Sahl b. Maßlia˙, Commentary on Gen 41:15–16 = 3.8, translated in the Appendix to this chapter. 181 182

interpreting dreams and scriptures

139

APPENDIX

This Appendix comprises translations of Japheth b. Eli’s commentary on Genesis 40:12–13 (= 3.4) and Sahl b. Maßlia˙’s commentary on Genesis 41:15–16 (= 3.8) and Genesis 41:5–7 (= 3.10).

3.4

Japheth b. Eli, Commentary On Genesis 40:12–13

Manuscripts: Paris, BN MS Suppl. héb. 30/II (Cat. 278), fols. 199b–200a. London, BL MS Or. 2463 (Cat. 257), fols. 97a–b. Joseph said to him (i.e., the butler): “The interpretation (ta"wìl) of these three branches, upon which were clusters of grapes, is three days. As for your having seen yourself holding the cup and placing it in Pharaoh’s hand—that is (to be understood) according to its plain sense ('alà Ωàhiri ), for Pharaoh shall elevate your status1 and restore you to your post, so that you become his butler once again.”2 In his statement he added (the phrase) “as formerly,” indicating thereby “you will be the butler as you had been;3 there will be no one in your station superior to you.” Joseph restricted himself to these two points4 alone, knowing that if he indicated the main principles (of his interpretation), (the butler) would grasp its ramiﬁcations. Now if we seek the interpretation (ta"wìl) of each and every thing that he saw, we will discover its signiﬁcance. The vine (represents) his permanent profession, which he did not practice while he was in prison. His seeing three branches on it (signiﬁes) that he had progressed toward his profession during the course of these three days. As for his seeing how it branched forth5 over time, and how its grapes grew, and how the new wine matured (bulùgh al-nabìdh)—this signiﬁes (al-ta"wìl ﬁhi ) continuous providence (taràduf al-'inàya) over

1

BN MS: “rank and status.” Ar. min al-ra"s, “once again”; see Kazimirski, Dictionnaire, 1:794a (“derechef ”). 3 Ar. ka-rasmika, lit. “according to your custom.” 4 Ar. nuktatayn, “two points”; see Dozy, Supplément, 2:720a. 5 Japheth renders ve-hi ke-fora˙at (v. 10), wa-hiya 'indamà kànat munfari'a, “as it was putting forth branches.” 2

chapter three

140

him until one day he returned to his former rank. The signiﬁcance of “and it was putting forth branches” (ve-hi ke-fora˙at) is that he would go forth from prison, and of “its ﬂowers blossomed” ('aletah nißßah) is that he would be brought into the presence of the sovereign’s servants. Then, while he was seeking his place, (Pharaoh) commanded that he be reinstated—this is the signiﬁcance of “its clusters ripened with fruit.” (Pharaoh) then commanded him to ﬁll his cup immediately, and he poured wine for him; this is the signiﬁcance of the new wine maturing (bulùgh al-nabìdh). I have rendered va-"e≤˙a† contextually as “I squeezed” (wa-'aßartu); it is a hapax legomenon ( fardìya).6 And I have rendered va-hashivekha as “and restoring you” (wa-irdàduka), casting it in the form of a verbal noun (maßdar). One of the grammarians (al-diqdùqiyùn) has rendered it as “he will bring you back” ( yarudduka) from the verse “And the Lord will bring you back (ve-heshivekha) (in ships) to Egypt” (Deuteronomy 28:68).7 He claimed that the pata˙ takes the place of the segol,8 as in be-yom he˙eziqi (“on the day that I took them [by the hand]; Jeremiah 31:31) which is in place of ha˙aziqi (“take hold”; Nahum 3:14).

3.8

Sahl b. Maßlia˙, Commentary on Genesis 41:15–16

Manuscript: St. Petersburg, RNL, MS Yevr.-Arab. I:4633, fols. 112b, 115a–b [folios out of sequence] When ( Joseph) entered into his (presence), the king said to him: “I have summoned you on account of a dream that I had, for which 6 “Contextually”: Ar. min mujàwarat al-ma'nà, lit. “from the proximate meaning.” The ma'nà, or “meaning” of a word is often contrasted with its tafsìr, or “literal interpretation”; see Khan, The Early Karaite Tradition, 134–36. As noted above in Ch. 2 (pp. 44 and 53, n. 83), within halakhic frameworks hapax legomena presented the Karaites with serious diﬃculties. No legislation, however, turns upon the present word. It should be noted that Japheth’s translation, wa-'aßartu, is identical with Saadya’s, which derives from the Targum (wa-'aßarit); see Saadya, Tafsìr and Targum Onqelos ad loc. Cf. David al-Fàsì, Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ 2:314, lines 31–32: 'aßartuhum wa-laysa lahu naΩìr. In his entry, va-yißbo† (ibid., 2:497, lines 37–38), al-Fàsì uses phraseology closer to Japheth’s. 7 So also Saadya, Tafsìr. 8 Like the grammarian Joseph b. Noah, Japheth uses the terms fat˙ah and althalàth nuqa† for pata˙ and segol, respectively; see Khan, The Early Karaite Tradition, 28.

interpreting dreams and scriptures

141

there is no interpreter.” The phrase u-foter "ein "oto was intended to convey to him the inability of his wise men to interpret it; and also, when ( Joseph) said, “This is the interpretation (huwa al-tafsìr),”9 he demoted them and promoted him in rank and power. His wise men must have oﬀered some interpretation(s), but what they said did not seem plausible to anyone,10 for they were like deceitful11 (words) which are not concealed from discerning people. Moreover, when one of them would state (his interpretation), another would refute him; but when Joseph’s interpretation was heard, it was embraced by all, since there was something compelling in his words to (the king). (The king’s) words, “for I have heard concerning you (you hear a dream to interpret it)” mean “I have heard from the butler that you hear a dream to interpret it, for you are not like those who hear a dream but do not grasp its interpretation. And this is because you possess discernment.” Then Joseph replied and said to him: “The other interpreters12 will not proﬀer anything like (the interpretation) I shall state, since what I say derives from the knowledge given me by God, who is the bestower of wisdom, as it is stated, ‘who teaches man discernment’” (Psalm 94:10). Subsequently, he said: “May God ordain Pharaoh’s well-being,”13 which is to say that the knowledge ( Joseph) will impart via the science of (dream) interpretation, derives from God, who ordains Pharaoh’s well-being. (His) words are by way of the invocation one makes for kings. Now in giving his interpretation after the wise men (had been summoned), Joseph resembles Daniel, who told Nebuchadnezzar his dream and interpreted it after the wise men (had failed to do so), thereby gaining an exalted station, as it states: “Then the king commanded that the magicians, the enchanters, the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans be summoned, to tell the king his dreams” (Daniel 2:2). In the same way Pharaoh inquired of them ﬁrst, as it is stated: “And he sent and called for all the magicians of Egypt (and all its wise men)” (Genesis 41:8). Similarly with Belshazzar and the reading of the writing (on the wall): Daniel only came after 9

See Gen 41:25,28 and cf. Gen 40:12,18. Ar. illà annahu lam yakun qawl taqbaluhu al-nufùs, lit. “but it was not a statement that the souls would accept.” 11 Ar. zarjana, “deceitfulness”; see Lane, Lexicon, 1224c. 12 Ar. siwayya min al-mufassirìn, lit. “the interpreters aside from me.” Siway renders Heb. bil'aday. 13 Following Sahl’s Arabic translation, rabb al-'àlamìn ya"mur bi-salàmat far'oh. 10

142

chapter three

the wise men of Babylon (had been summoned), when the queen, his grandmother, wife of Nebuchanezzar,14 said to him: “There is in your kingdom a man in whom is the spirit of the holy gods” (Daniel 5:11). By this, she was referring to Daniel, as it is stated: “Now let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation” (ibid. v. 12). Now this is (what happened with) three kings, whom God put in need of Israel’s wise men, so that the (latter) would be elevated in rank.15 As for Daniel, he (i.e., Nebuchadnezzar) made him his chamberlain, as it is stated: “but Daniel remained at the king’s court” (Daniel 2:49).16 As for Joseph, he (i.e., Pharaoh) made him his vizier, as it is stated: “And he made him to ride in his second chariot” (Genesis 41:43). When Pharaoh heard Joseph say that his knowledge came from God, he desired it even more, and told him his dream. In the same way, he acknowledged him, after (he had given) his interpretation, saying: “Can we ﬁnd such a man as this, in whom is the Spirit of God?” (Genesis 41:38). He only said “the spirit of God” to conﬁrm Joseph’s words: “Not I! May God ordain (Pharaoh’s well-being).” I have explained that ( Joseph) said: “The other wise men do not proﬀer you anything like my words, nor does what I say originate with me; rather, it is something from God.” This is similar to Daniel’s statement: “But as for me, not because of any wisdom that I have more than all the living (has this mystery been revealed to me”) (Daniel 2:30). Subsequently, he said:17 “But there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and he has

14

Cf. Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Daniel 5:10, p. 56, line 8 (trans., p. 26). Both Sahl and Japheth identify the queen with Nebuchadnezzar’s wife, and assert that she was Belshazzar’s grandmother (Ar. jaddatuhu). Japheth seems unsure whether Nebuchadnezzar was Belshazzar’s father or grandfather (Ar. jadduhu); cf. the comments on verses 1 and 7, ibid., p. 53, line 8 (trans., p. 25) and p. 55, lines 8–9 (trans., p. 26). For the rabbinic identiﬁcation of Nebuchadnezzar’s wife with Semiramis, see Ginzberg, Legends, 6:380, n. 134, and Leviticus Rabbah 19:6, p. 438, lines 3–5 and Margulies’s notes ad loc. 15 Sahl mentions three kings and their Jewish courtiers, but only refers to Daniel and Joseph. Ahasuerus and Mordecai were, presumably, the third pair; either Sahl omitted them or there is a haplography in the manuscript. 16 Ar. ˙àjib, “chamberlain.” The word may also be rendered “gatekeeper,” but here connotes a high oﬃce; cf. Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Daniel 2:49, p. 33, lines 1–2 (Ar.), 15 (Eng.): “As for himself, he was established in the king’s gate,— not as a porter (bawwàb), but rather to inspect men’s business in the same way as Joseph did: so that the king had the title and Daniel gave the commands and prohibitions.” See also Montgomery, Daniel, 184. 17 Ar. wa-qàla ba'dahu. Probably a slip, since the verse quoted occurs earlier.

interpreting dreams and scriptures

143

made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will be (in the latter days)” (ibid., 2:28). Similarly, Joseph said: “God has revealed to Pharaoh what He is about to do” (Genesis 41:25).

3.10

Sahl b. Maßlia˙, Commentary on Genesis 41:5–7 [excerpt]

Manuscript: St. Petersburg, RNL, MS Yevr.-Arab. I:4633, fol. 109a–b . . . The reason that God caused (Nebuchadnezzar) to forget his dream is that the dream which he had would not be entirely realized18 in his days, but rather it would only be partially understood for a long time, for it refers to kingdoms that have gone and kingdoms that are to come. Now, had he not forgotten the dream, his wise men would have interpreted it to him as they saw ﬁt, and he would not have known the truth of their words concerning it. Therefore, the All-wise saw ﬁt to make him forget it, so that (Daniel’s) reminding him of it would serve as a proof of his interpretation’s truth. For his wise men were saying: “Tell your servants the dream, and we will relate the interpretation”19 (Daniel 2:4), but he said: “Tell the dream, so that I shall know that the interpretation that you convey (is correct),” as it is stated: “Tell me the dream and I shall know that you can show me its interpretation” (ibid., v. 9). When Daniel reminded him of the dream, he said: “This is the dream” (ibid., v. 36).20 The underlying context of this statement (wata˙tahu min al-ma'nà) was (Nebuchadnezzar’s) order that they state (the dream’s) interpretation, in response to their saying: “Tell your servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation.” At their inability to do so, Daniel said: “Now we will tell the king its interpretation” (ibid., v. 36). As (Daniel) interpreted it to him, the King became convinced of the truth and certainty of the rest of what he said, and that after the passing of four kingdoms, dominion would return to the Children of Israel. But because Pharaoh’s dream was

18

Ar. laysa yatafassar, lit. “would not be interpreted.” Cf. Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Daniel 2:5, p. 15, line 7: wa’l-tafsìr nukhbir, rendering Aram. u-ﬁshra ne˙avve. 20 Ar. hàdhà huwa al-manàm, Aram. dena ˙elma. 19

144

chapter three

not something which would be delayed for a long time, (God) could cause him to remember it, since he would distinguish the form of the interpretation from Joseph’s words.21 Nebuchadnezzar’s dream occurred in the ﬁrst part of the night, since its interpretation would only be realized after many years. “And his spirit was troubled, and his sleep was upon him” (Daniel 2:1). This indicates that he perceived his dream, but much of the night remained; therefore, it states: “And his sleep was upon him.” But as for Pharaoh’s dream, he had it in the latter part of the night, since its interpretation was soon to be realized; therefore it states: “So in the morning his spirit was troubled” (Genesis 41:8), indicating that (the dream) occurred in the latter part of the night.

Ar. li-anna ßawrat al-tafsìr sawfa yubìn min qawl yosef 'alayhi al-salàm. In other words, Pharaoh would soon observe the realization of Joseph’s interpretation. 21

CHAPTER FOUR

“THE VOICE OF THE TURTLEDOVE”: INTERPRETING THE SONG OF SONGS

“I slept, but my heart was awake” (Song 5:2)—in this neat description of a dreamlike state, Solomon Freehof thought that he had discovered the key to a diﬃcult exegetical puzzle.1 The ever shifting scenes and perspectives of the Song of Songs (Shir ha-shirim) have always troubled exegetes. Lacking an obvious structure, the book does not narrate its story in any logical sequence. Viewed as a collection of dream images, however, the work becomes intelligible—if interpreted oneirocritically. Freehof ’s intriguing attempt to solve the Song’s mystery has not been accepted, but his study highlights the ancient diﬃculties of interpreting the book satisfactorily and justifying its place in the canon.2 For Jews and Christians alike the Song of Songs posed a special problem. If its Solomonic authorship assured its scriptural standing, its frank eroticism demanded allegorization. In its depiction of love lost and regained Jews discovered a parable for the historical relationship between God and Israel, one that sat well with such other biblical passages as Hosea 1–2, Isaiah 54:4–7, Jeremiah 2:2, and Ezekiel 16.3 But the allegory still required interpretation. Determining the signiﬁcance of its elaborate symbolism and fashioning a coherent reading of the work as a whole would engage many a Jewish exegete in the Middle Ages—and this, even before the philosophers and kabbalists began to read the Song in new ways during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries!4 It is not surprising, then, that Jews have

1

See Freehof, “The Song of Songs.” See, e.g., the criticism of Pope, Song of Songs, 133, 510–11. 3 See Cohen, “The Song of Songs and the Jewish Religious Mentality.” 4 On philosophic exegesis of the Song by medieval Jews, see: Halkin, “Ibn 'Aknìn’s Commentary”; Rosenberg, “Philosophical Hermeneutics”; and Kellner, Commentary on Song of Songs, esp. xv–xxxi. For the kabbalistic tradition see: Vajda, Le commentaire d’Ezra de Gérone; Brody, Rabbi Ezra ben Solomon of Gerona; and Wolfson, “Asceticism and Eroticism.” 2

146

chapter four

probably composed more commentaries on the Song than on any other biblical book.5 The earliest Jewish interpretations of the Song were not, of course, proper commentaries but midrashim and targumim, the standard genres of rabbinic exegesis for over a thousand years.6 As we have noted previously, it was only in the ninth century that Jews in the Islamic East began to write real Bible commentaries. How then did these ﬁrst Jewish exegetes approach the Song of Songs and how did they interpret its symbolism? The answer to these questions, alas, remains elusive. The Karaite Benjamin al-Nahàwandì apparently composed a commentary on the Song, but this work is no longer extant.7 And while Saadya Gaon wrote a commentary on Shir ha-Shirim, it has not survived in its original form; the text ascribed to him is clearly an extensive reworking of later vintage.8 But two Jewish commentaries on the Song do survive from tenth-century Jerusalem. Written in Judeo-Arabic by the Karaites Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm and Japheth b. Eli, both include substantial introductory observations on the nature of biblical song and incorporate full Arabic translations and verseby-verse exegesis.9 As would be expected, they diﬀer markedly in form from the most popular Rabbanite treatments of the Song, Targum Shir ha-Shirim and Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah, which may be classiﬁed respectively as narrative and exegetical midrashim, but not as true commentaries. Where the Targum speaks anonymously and Shir ha-

5 On exegesis of the Song by medieval Jews see: Salfeld, Das Hohelied Salomo’s; Ginsburg, The Song of Songs, 34–58; and Walﬁsh, “An Annotated Bibliography.” For medieval Christian interpretations of the Song, see Astell, The Song of Songs in the Middle Ages and Matter, The Voice of My Beloved. For a survey of the history of interpretation, see Pope, Song of Songs, 89–288. 6 On traditional rabbinic exegesis of the Song, see: Loewe, “Apologetic Motifs”; Alexander, “Tradition and Originality”; and Boyarin, “Two Introductions.” See also Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 343–44, 347–48. 7 See Japheth b. Eli’s comment on Isa 53:12 in Neubauer and Driver, The FiftyThird Chapter of Isaiah, 1:32 and 2:31. 8 For the text, see Óamesh megillot, 17–129. Cf. Walﬁsh, “An Annotated Bibliography,” p. 522, no. A.1.b.1. An authentic Saadyanic composition, the unpublished “Commentary on the Ten Songs” does, however, contain a short homily on the Song; see n. 28 below. 9 On Karaite exegesis of the Song, see Salfeld, Das Hohelied, 126–34, secs. 39–40. Among the Mourners for Zion, the lexicographer and exegete David b. Abraham al-Fàsì also composed a commentary on the Song; see Skoss, Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ, 1:158, lines 67–68. Fragments of Judeo-Arabic commentaries on the Song apparently emanating from the Jerusalem Karaite group are extant in London and St. Petersburg.

“the

voice of the turtledove”

147

Shirim Rabbah cites multiple authorities, both Salmon and Japheth project clear authorial voices. Where the Midrash records diverse interpretations for each verse, the Karaites strive for a single, correct meaning. Though not infrequently they set down more than one explanation, they usually indicate which comment they favor—all the while looking forward to the advent of the Messiah who will solve every exegetical problem and eliminate interpretive dissension.10 Salmon’s comment on Song 3:8, makes his position as exegete clear: 4.1

Now you must know, my brother, that the meanings of the Song of Songs are most obscure; not every one will venture upon its interpretation. For my part, I too acknowledge the deﬁciency of my own knowledge. I shall proﬀer only the most plausible explanations that I have found among the words of the Sages as well as those interpretations which I know might (feasibly) be suggested. And if what I have set down contains errors, may God in His great mercy forgive me, since in all that I write it is my sole intention to beneﬁt Israel and to promote their love for the knowledge of Scripture. For I see that they neglect it—some (occupy themselves) with Talmud, and some with books of alien wisdom (kutub al-barrànì ) and some with (their) livelihoods.11 I have therefore composed these books (i.e., his commentaries) in similar fashion in order to stimulate them to (study) God’s Scripture, for I know that repentance begins with the study of the Bible, speculation on its meaning, and performance of what is prescribed therein. And when Israel follows this path they will deserve to behold the salvation.12

Salmon’s and Japheth’s commentaries both reﬂect the particular outlook and needs of the Mourners for Zion. The Song of Songs and the Psalter held special signiﬁcance for these Karaites—the former 10 Daniel al-Qùmisì (late 9th c.) comments on Ps 74:6: “Every word in the Bible has but one (true) interpretation, not two. But since people do not know (Scripture’s true) meanings, they will (continue to) interpret it in various ways until the advent of the Teacher of Righteousness”; see Marmorstein, “Fragments du commentaire,” 196. On this and similar passages see Ben-Shammai, “The Karaite Exegetes,” 52. 11 Cf. his Commentary on the Song of Songs 1:6, RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.1406, fol. 36a: “Some occupied themselves with the Talmud of the Rabbis, others with the ways of the philosophers, and others with heretical (lit. ‘external’) books.” For kutub al-barrànì, see above, p. 31 and n. 124. 12 Commentary on the Song of Songs 3:8. RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.3959, fol. 5a. In the Introduction to his Commentary on Psalms he states that the errors of his predecessors motivated him to write the work; see Shunary, “Salmon ben Yeruham’s Commentary on the Book of Psalms,” 163, lines 2–4 and Commentary on Psalms (Alobaidi), 176–77 (Arabic), 287–88 (French). In his Introduction to Lamentations Salmon expresses his reliance upon earlier authorities; see BL Ms. Or. 2515 (Cat. 253), fol. 12b.

148

chapter four

as a coded salvation history, the latter as a book of inspired prayers. We shall take up the question of Karaite prayer and liturgy in Chapter Five. Here we shall examine and compare Salmon’s and Japheth’s commentaries on the Song; these two texts reveal much about the shared ideology of their readership and the interpretive strategies and techniques of their authors. Until a few years ago, Salmon’s commentary on the Song was thought to have been lost. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, Poznanski had succeeded in identifying eight folios of the work in a scarcely legible British Museum manuscript.13 But it was only recently, when the great collections in St. Petersburg again became accessible, that the work was rediscovered. The 165 folios of Russian National Library Manuscript Yevr.-Arab. I.1406 contain virtually the entire commentary. While the title page, beginning and end of the manuscript are missing, several other extensive fragments conﬁrm the work’s authorship and supply lacunae.14 Composed in 956 C.E., it was one of several long commentaries that Salmon seems to have produced within a short period, perhaps no more than ﬁve years.15 The speed at which he worked owed as much to his methods as to his diligence: he strove to record interpretations already current among the Mourners, and he freely transposed material from one work to another. By the time he had begun his exegetical project,

13 Poznanski, “Karaite Miscellanies,” 688, n. 4, referring to BL Ms. Or. 2520 (Cat. 328/XII). See Salfeld, Das Hohelied, 127–28, and Walﬁsh, “An Annotated Bibliography,” p. 521, no. A.1.a.2. 14 The manuscripts of Salmon’s Commentary on the Song of Songs consulted for this chapter are: (1) RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.1406; (2) RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.4252; (3) RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.3958; and (4) RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.3959. 15 See RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.1406, fol. 84b, on 2:12. In the course of a long excursus on messianic calculation, he gives the date of the work’s composition as 888 after the destruction of the Second Temple and 345 A.H., both of which correspond to 956 C.E. The precise correspondence of the two dates rules out the possibility of scribal error. Other works completed between 953 and 957 include his Commentary on Psalms and Commentary on Lamentations. He also wrote a Commentary on Ecclesiastes (extant) and commentaries on Daniel, Isaiah, Proverbs, Job, and the Pentateuch that have not survived. On the dating of Salmon’s commentaries see Poznanski, “Karaite Miscellanies,” 688 and nn. 2–4, and Salmon b. Yeru˙ìm, Commentary on Ecclesiastes, xxxi–xxxiii; cf. Fürst, Geschichte des Karäerthums, 3:87–90 which should be corrected accordingly. On the dating of Commentary on Lamentations, see Margoliouth, Catalogue 1: 192–93 on BL Mss. Or. 2516 (Cat. 252) and Or. 2515 (Cat. 253).

“the

voice of the turtledove”

149

the Jerusalem community was over half a century old.16 It had evolved practices of its own as well as a method of translating and interpreting the Bible.17 Since the Psalter and the book of Lamentations furnished the Mourners with their basic liturgy, Salmon’s commentaries on these books were necessarily compilatory aﬀairs. Indeed, it has been argued that Salmon’s Commentary on Lamentations is no more and no less than the community’s liturgy of mourning, featuring a biblical verse-cum-refrain at the end of each comment and incorporating many simple hymns.18 On the other hand, the homilies and excursuses that Salmon embedded in his commentaries were his own; he tended to reproduce them in more than one place.19 One of the most interesting features of Salmon’s commentaries are his programmatic introductions or ßudùr. As we have noted, by the mid-tenth century this subgenre was already well established in the Near East among Muslims, Christians, and Jews, serving to address questions of authorship, generic classiﬁcation, function, and content.20 Salmon’s Introduction to the Song is a substantial disquisition on the nature of divine communications, the function of metaphor in biblical prophecies, and the symbolism of Shir ha-Shirim.21 He commences with a standard invocation to the Creator, praising God for having communicated to his creatures via prophets. Then he observes that God revealed His Scripture to humanity in diﬀerent modes: 16 For his account of Karaite history and the origins of the Shoshannim, see his comment on Ps 69:1, in Commentary on Psalms (Marwick), 98. On this passage, see Gil, A History of Palestine, 618–19 and Ben-Shammai, “The Karaites,” 201. 17 On these translations, see Polliack, The Karaite Tradition. 18 See Ben-Shammai, “Poetic Works and Lamentations.” 19 For three examples of this practice see: (1) the messianic calculation in his Commentary on Psalms 102:14 found also in the Commentary on the Song of Songs 2:12 [RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.1406, fols. 73a–85b], noted by Poznanski, “Miscellen uber Saadja”, 405, n. 1; (2) the comparison of Job’s suﬀerings with those of Israel found in the Introduction to the Commentary on Lamentations and the Commentary on the Song of Songs 1:5 [RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.1406, fols. 30b–33a]; and (3) the exegesis of Ps 42:6–7 found in the Commentary on Psalms ad loc. and in the Commentary on Lamentations 3:20, noted by Ben-Shammai, “Poetic Works and Lamentations,” 195. See also Marwick, “Studies in Salmon,” 317 listing extended passages from Prophets discussed in Commentary on Lamentations. 20 See above, pp. 8, 10, 13–14. 21 Salmon’s Introduction is preserved in St. Petersburg, RNL, Ms. Evr.-Arab. I.1406, fols. 1a–4b, 7a–12b; the text between fols. 4b and 7a can be supplied from RNL, Ms. Evr.-Arab. I.4252, fol. 36. The beginning of the Introduction is missing; see RNL, Ms. Evr.-Arab. I.3958, fol. 19 for text preceding RNL, Ms. Evr.Arab. I.1406, 1a.

150

chapter four

4.2 I say:22 Since the Creator anticipated that actions vary in (the eﬀects they produce) upon human souls,23 He revealed His scripture in three modes. The ﬁrst is the purely exoteric (al-Ωàhir al-ma˙∂ ), which scholars must [explain]24 such as narratives (al-akhbàr), commandments and prohibitions, promises and threats. Second is the purely esoteric (albà†in al-ma˙∂ ); scholars must summarize its contents and explain its purposes with subtlety, exerting themselves to reveal its beneﬁts in order to obtain some reward thereby. The Song of Songs, in whose interpretation we are engaged, belongs to this type (of revelation). The third mode is an esoteric revelation,25 whose signiﬁcance can only be known via an explanation given by Him through His prophet. An example of this are His words: “Let me sing for my beloved a love song concerning his vineyard” (Isaiah 5:1).26 Now students must know that the Song of Songs is a precious and exalted book. Were this not the case, the prophets would not have included it among the twentyfour books (of the Bible); nor would a (man) like Solomon the Wise and Excellent, peace be upon him, have written a book which the people of Israel would possess as an inheritance, unless it had wisdom and value which would beneﬁt both the elite and the masses of the people. Proof of this may be found in the opening words, “the Song of Songs which is Solomon’s.” This is similar to the words which serve to introduce other prophecies, such as Psalm 88 and Psalm 108, as well as the ﬁfteen Songs of Ascents (Psalms 120–134). In commencing with the word “song” (shir), (Solomon) informs us that this is a noble book, intended as a song to God, a petition and intercessory prayer (to Him); for the true meaning of the word shir throughout Scripture is a song to God.27

The biblical narratives, commandments and prohibitions, and divine promises and threats were all communicated plainly. But there are also esoteric communications that require interpretation. Some are revelations that can be understood only by means of the interpretations God Himself furnishes through His prophets; an example of this is the Song of the Vineyard in Isaiah 5. Others, such as the Song of Songs, can only be grasped and appreciated with the assistance of scholars. Qualiﬁed exegetes, then, both occupy privileged 22

Lit. “The exegete says”: Ar. qàla al-mufassir. Ar. an al-a'màl fì anfus al-'ibàd mukhtalifa. He seems to be saying that diﬀerent types of stimuli aﬀect (diﬀerent types of ) human souls in diﬀerent ways. 24 The text seems to be corrupt here; followng ya˙tàju al-'ulamà" insert yashru˙ù; cf. the clause below: ya˙tàju al-'ulamà yulakhkhißù. . . . 25 Lit. “a revelation (wa˙y) that God has revealed in esoteric form.” 26 RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.1406, fol. 1a. 27 RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.1406, fol. 1a–2a = RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.14252, fol. 3a = RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.3958, fol. 19b. 23

“the

voice of the turtledove”

151

positions and bear the heavy responsibility of making esoteric discourse meaningful to their community. The work’s genre, authorship, and stature are all indicated in the ﬁrst verse, “The Song of Songs that is Solomon’s” (1:1). Now in Scripture, says Salmon, the word shir denotes a song to God (nashìd li-llàhi ), of which there are some half dozen diﬀerent types. There are songs of praise, such as Exodus 15, which describe God’s might and His destruction of those who vaunted their own power, before petitioning Him to extend His favor to Israel. There are songs of testimony, such as Deuteronomy 32, and songs of thanksgiving, such as Judges 5. In one crucial respect, Salmon’s classiﬁcation of biblical song aligns with the rabbinic enumerations found, for example, in the Targum and elaborated by Saadya Gaon in his commentary on Exodus 15: in none of these Jewish sources are aesthetic canons applied to biblical texts.28 This absence is striking in light of Islamic claims concerning the Quran’s inimitable literary perfection—a clear mark of its superiority.29 For Jewish authors, however, a song’s value lies in its substance, not its form. What makes a biblical passage a “song” is its designation as such rather than any formal criteria with which it may or may not comply.30 According to Salmon, the Song of Songs contains three essential elements: a petition that God elucidate His Law (1:2); an expression of remorse for Israel’s sins, and grief over its punishment (1:3); and

28 On the Rabbinic enumeration of ten biblical songs see Epstein, Mi-qadmoniyot ha-yehudim, 2:251–54, and Goldin, The Song at the Sea, 68–76. Saadya composed a work that explicates these songs, fasr va-yosha'; see Ben-Shammai, “New Findings in a Forgotten Manuscript,” 313–32, esp. 323 on the homily on the Song; idem, “Saadya Gaon’s Ten Articles of Faith”; and idem, “Prognostic Midrash.” It should be noted that Salmon does not enumerate ten songs (as the Rabbinic sources would have it), nor does he record songs enumerated by the Sages but lacking clear scriptural authority, e.g., the Song of Abraham mentioned by Saadya. His classiﬁcation, therefore, may be seen as a response to the Rabbinic lists. 29 For the Muslim argument concerning the inimitability (Ar. i'jàz) of the Quran, see Abdul Aleem, “I'jàzu-l-Qur"àn,” and von Grunebaum, A Tenth-Century Document. 30 Philo and the Church Fathers had already discussed the problem of the Bible’s literary merit; see Kamesar, “Philo and the Literary Quality of the Bible.” Abraham Ibn Ezra (12th century) would also ignore the Song of Songs’ form while praising its content; see Simon, Four Approaches, 270, n. 62. During the twelfth to seventeenth centuries, certain Jewish scholars in Spain, Provence, and Italy would investigate the art of biblical poetry, seeking to establish its relationship to Arabic or classical norms. For a convenient overview see Berlin, Biblical Poetry, ch. 4, esp. 35–44, on rhyme and meter.

152

chapter four

ﬁnally, a declaration of Israel’s longing for Messianic salvation (5:8 and 8:1). These are all expressed by means of an extended parable in which Israel is depicted as a woman whose husband has favored her with food, clothing, and conjugal rights.31 In his comment on 5:10, Salmon reiterates the allegorical nature of the work: 4.3 Now you must know that this entire book is a parable, (kulluhu 'alà sabìl al-mathal), as I have explained to you above. Reason only permits God to be called “father” inasmuch as He is the Governor and Creator. Nor does it permit Him to be styled “protector” (walì ), as it is stated: “The Lord is a man of war” (Exodus 15:3). But if this be permissible, it is only because all that our Scripture describes by means of anthropomorphic expressions relates to God’s actions. For reason decrees that the Creator has no (real physical) attributes. Indeed Scripture attests to this with the words: “To whom then will you liken God?” (Isaiah 40:18). But all of these attributes are (employed) only as a means of making (matters) more accessible to our intellects, as the Sages have expressed it, “Scripture speaks in human language.”32 Rather they are to be referred to His actions and in a ﬁgurative sense, as I have explained in the Introduction to this book.33

In his Introduction, Salmon oﬀers a simple key to the Song: 4.4 From the beginning of the book to 7:10 every expression denoting a man refers to the Creator; from 7:10 to the end of the book, such expressions refer to the Messiah son of David. Wherever the feminine is employed, the congregation of Israel is intended.34

Support for this reading of the Song can be found in the Song of the Vine (Isaiah 5) which Salmon explicates before commencing his commentary proper.35 As was mentioned previously, the commentary includes a full Arabic translation of the Song. For the most part, it is a highly literal rendering with each Hebrew word represented by an Arabic equivalent.36 Occasionally, the word mithl (“like,” “as”) is inserted to

31

Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on the Song of Songs Introduction, RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.1406, fol. 3b–4b. 32 Note that Salmon readily uses the rabbinic dictum “scripture speaks in human language” (bBerakhot 31b), which had become an exegetical commonplace. 33 Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on the Song of Songs 5:10, RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.1406, fol. 5a–b. Note that this folio is out of sequence and properly belongs after folio 124. 34 RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.1406, fol. 7b. 35 RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.1406, fol. 8a–11b. 36 On Japheth’s approach to translation, see Polliack, The Karaite Tradition, ch. 3, esp. 40.

“the

voice of the turtledove”

153

signal a metaphor: “I am like the narcissus of the plain, like the lily of the ﬁelds.”37 And where blasphemies might result, exegetical interpolations do creep in; “Draw me, we will run after your worship (†à'atika),” reads 1:4 in Salmon’s Arabic.38 But on the whole, the translation furnishes the Song’s pesha† or Ωàhir, its exoteric meaning. The commentary, on the other hand immediately decodes the parable, identifying speakers, glossing diﬃcult words, and explaining the connection between verses.39 Let us take as an example, verse 1:13: ßeror ha-mor dodi li bein shadday yalin, which Salmon renders: “Like a bundle of musk40 is my beloved to me, lying also between my breasts.”41 He begins his comment in the following way: 4.5.1

37

These were the words of the Congregation of Israel, when they ﬁrst described their mourning at the cessation of the sacriﬁces and (the destruction of ) the Lord’s altar, as it is stated: “The Lord has scorned His altar, disowned His sanctuary” (Lamentations 2:7). And just as he described the sorrow of the priests with the words: “Gird on sackcloth and lament, O priests, wail, O ministers of the altar . . . because cereal oﬀering and drink oﬀering are withheld from the house of your God” ( Joel 1:13), he added to this the words: “like a bundle of musk is my beloved to me,” which is to say that when His Glory rested between the two cherubim,42 the kingdom was victorious, fear seized the (nation’s) enemies, and all happiness was perfect. But when the divine Glory departed from the Lord’s sanctuary, the situation was entirely reversed: the Temple was destroyed and set ablaze, the sacriﬁces ceased, the priests were exiled, the kingdom came to an end, and the royal scepter was broken until we remained . . .

RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.1406, Song 2:1, fol. 54b: anà mithl narjisat al-sahl mithl sùsanat al-murùj. 38 RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.1406, fol. 28ab. On the avoidance of anthropomorphisms through this type of addition, see Polliack, The Karaite Tradition, 230–32. 39 See, e.g., the identiﬁcations oﬀered for the following verses: 1:2 (Israel to God); 1:3 (Israel to God); 1:4 (Israel to God); 1:5 (Israel to Israel); 1:6 (Israel to Israel); 1:7 (Israel to God); 1:8 (God to Israel); 1:9 (God to Israel); 1:10 (God to Israel); 1:11 (God to Israel); 1:12 (Israel); 1:13 (Israel); 1:14 (Israel); 1:15 (God to Israel); 1:16 (Israel to God); 1:17 (Israel to God); 2:1 (Israel); 2:2 (God to Israel). 40 For some reason, both Rabbanites and Karaites render Heb. mor (“myrrh”) by Ar. misk (“musk”); see: Saadya Gaon, Ha-"egron, 288; Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on the Song of Songs 1:13, p. 18; and Abraham Ibn Ezra, Ha-peirush ha-qaßar on Ex 30:23 in Peirushei ha-Torah, 2:331, criticizing this translation. 41 RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.1406, fol. 45a. 42 Midrashic sources also interpret the breasts in Song 1:13 as an allusion to the cherubim of Num 7:89; see Kasher, Torah Shelemah, 37:201, n. 351.

chapter four

154

And here, suddenly, Salmon switches styles and languages, launching into a terse, Hebrew dirge: 4.5.2

"ein "ein "ein "ein "ein "ein "ein "ein

melekh ve-"ein ≤ar, ve-"ein meshare†ei "adonai nevi"im ve-"ein morim ˙akhamim ve-"ein yode'ei da'at shofe†im ve-"ein sho†erim kevod "adonai ve-"ein keruvim "aron ve-"ein badav heikhal ve-"ein devir "ulam ve-"ein ˙aßer. . . .

(No king, no prince, no ministers to the Lord. No prophets, no teachers No sages, no scholars, No judges, no oﬃcers, No divine glory, no cherubs, No ark, no coverings, No sanctuary, no sanctum, No hall, no court. . . .)43

This lament, in fact, reappears in a more embellished form in Salmon’s Commentary on Lamentations 3:4 and formed part of the Karaites’ liturgy of mourning for Zion.44 From the unself-conscious way in which Salmon integrates the hymn into both commentaries it is clear that he saw nothing wrong in mixing genres, or rather, that his notion of commentary was ﬂexible. By contrast, Japheth’s commentary adheres to strict organizational principles.45 By the time he set about writing his commentary on the Song, he had developed a standard exegetical method and model.46

43 RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.1406, fol. 45b–46a. See Texts 4.5.2 for the full text of the lament. 44 See BL Ms. Or. 2515, fol. 121a and Ben-Shammai, “Poetic Works and Lamentations,” 214–15; as he observes (216), simple piyyu†im of this kind may well have been modeled on ancient Rabbinic litanies. Adena Tanenbaum has drawn my attention to a similar piyyu†—albeit an acrostic—from the 'avodah of Yom Kippur which begins: u-merov 'avoneinu "ein lanu/ lo "ishshim ve-lo "asham/ lo baddim ve-lo velulah/ lo goral ve-lo ga˙alim. . . . On this hymn see: Ma˙azor le-yom kippur, 397; Davidson, Thesaurus, 1:143, no. 3050; and Beit-Arié, “Palimpsest,” who dates the piece prior to the eighth century. 45 See Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on the Song of Songs. 46 On the probable sequence in which Japheth composed his commentaries see Marwick, “The Order of the Books.” On Japheth’s exegetical approach see above, pp. 14–15.

“the

voice of the turtledove”

155

Japheth’s Introduction to the Song, which centers on its ﬁrst verse, exempliﬁes his systematic approach. A methodical survey of the Solomonic corpus—its generic classiﬁcation, and the modes in which it was revealed—leads directly into a discussion of the Song, and a tripartite classiﬁcation of song that resembles Salmon’s: the wholly exoteric, the parable containing its own interpretive key (the Song of the Vine again!), and the wholly esoteric. The Song of Songs belongs to the latter category. “From beginning to end,” says Japheth, “not a word of it is to be taken exoterically. It is, rather, condensed speech, rich in meaning which may be understood only through (recourse to) the prophetic books.”47 It was written as a parable in response to the prophecies of Ezekiel in which the relationship between a man and a woman is depicted negatively and Israel’s abandonment of and by God deplored.48 In the Song of Songs, Israel’s return to God is celebrated through the female-male relationship. Shir haShirim takes its name from the thirty songs it comprises, which, says Japheth, correspond to the thirty Psalms that bear the word shir in their superscriptions. One of the tasks Japheth sets himself, consequently, is the identiﬁcation of these poetic units.49 The import of the work’s Solomonic authorship prompts comment as well: the song is emphatically not autobiographical but prophetic. Solomon recited it with reference to the community of Israel and their leaders—“the Perfect of Way” and “the Mighty Ones of Israel”—and the Messiah.50 The reason God revealed this song to Solomon alone among the prophets is that his reign was the most glorious in Jewish history, only to be surpassed by the messianic period, concerning which it prophesies. The object of the commentary is to relate the Song’s metaphors to the players and events of the End of Days.

47 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on the Song of Songs, p. 4 = BL Ms. Or. 2554 (Cat. 301): min awwalihi ilà àkhirihi laysa ﬁhi shay"in 'alà Ωàhirihi bal huwa kalàm mukhtaßar ghazìr al-ma'ànì wa-laysa yuqaf 'alà ma'nàhu illà min kutub al-anbiyà". 48 From Japheth’s standpoint, it was, of course, perfectly natural for Solomon to respond prophetically to Ezekiel—who lived long after his time—just as it was entirely logical for them both to prophesy concerning the late tenth century C.E.! 49 Japheth does not, in fact, enumerate thirty “songs,” although he does indicate where sections begin and end. Following these indications, Bargès identiﬁes twentytwo such units in his “Praefatio,” xix–xxii. 50 On the epithet “the Perfect of Way” or “Those Whose Way is Blameless” (temimei derekh; Ps 119:1), see Wieder, “The Qumran Sectaries,” 97–113, 289–91. For the “Mighty Ones (or ‘Terebinths’) of Israel” ("eilei Yi≤ra"el) see ibid., p. 292 and n. 148.

156

chapter four

Broadly speaking, Salmon and Japheth oﬀer similar readings of the Song. The allegory which they elucidate describes the relationship between God and the Jewish people—from the distinctive standpoint of Mourners for Zion. Three features characterize this interpretation: (1) an emphasis on the End which is identiﬁed with the present; (2) the isolation and explication of emblematic appellations; (3) a vigorous sectarian stance against Islam and Rabbinic Judaism. While the Karaite approach to the Song is rooted in the Rabbinic tradition, the salvation history it proﬀers diﬀers markedly from those given in Targum Shir ha-Shirim, Midrash Shir ha-Shirim, and Song of Songs Rabbah. The Targum, for example, presents a coherent, chronological sequence from the Exodus and revelation at Sinai to the conquest of Canaan, the construction and destruction of the First Temple, the campaigns of the Maccabees, and the functioning of the Sanhedrin; only in chapters 7 and 8 are references to the eschaton discerned.51 In contrast, the Karaites regard most of the Song as an apocalyptic prophecy relating to their own time—a prophecy that, to be sure, represents earlier episodes in Jewish history, but only as necessary background to the messianic present. In reading the Song comprehensively, Japheth elucidates its various strands of discourse, its underlying structure, and the relations between each of its sections.52 By inserting programmatic statements at key points, he shows his readers how to make sense of this abstruse work: 4.6 This song contains four types (of discourse): (1) the address of the congregation of Ma≤kilim53 to the Lord, describing His deeds and beneﬁcence to their ancestors and them, and beseeching Him to fulﬁll His promises; (2) the plaint of the Daughters of Jerusalem concerning their condition, their rehearsal of God’s deeds as a stimulus to serve Him, and their request that He fulﬁll His promises; (3) the words of the people to each other concerning their aﬀairs, e.g., the passage, “We have a little sister” (8:8); and (4) the Creator’s response to the Ma≤kilim concerning their petition and desire as well as an account

51 See Ginsburg, The Song of Songs, 38–34, and Alexander, “Tradition and Originality,” 332–34. Rashi (11th century) follows the Targum in developing a uniﬁed, coherent reading; see Marcus, “The Song of Songs in German Hasidism,” 182–83, and Kamin, Rashi’s Exegetical Categorization, 77–86, 247–62. 52 Cf. Japheth’s explanations for the sequence of the Psalms; see Simon, Four Approaches, 86 and below pp. 178, 185. 53 These are the leaders of the community of Mourners, the preachers and teachers of Karaism; see above, pp. 18, n. 74, 133–34.

“the

voice of the turtledove”

157

of their excellence and beauty when they serve Him, and their ranks, as we will explain in every section.54

Or, there is this comment on 6:11: 4.7 Here ends one section and begins another in which is described how Israel’s aﬀairs run their course at the end of the Fourth Kingdom. For the Song of Songs contains three sections, each of which commences with the beginning of a time (period) and concludes with the Salvation. The ﬁrst section is “Upon my bed at night” (3:1); it commences with the destruction of the Second Temple, as we have explained. The second section, “I slept” (5:2), begins with the kingdom of the Chaldees, as we have explained. This, the third section, refers to the end of the era of the Fourth Kingdom, as we will explain.55

Thorough in the extreme, Japheth takes pains to explicate every element of the Song’s rich symbolism, frequently suggesting alternative interpretations which he rates as more or less plausible.56 The comment on 2:6 gives a good idea of his penchant for order: 4.8 “His left hand beneath my head and his right hand embracing me.” They said “For I am sick with love” and then stated, “His left hand, etc.” Thus, they proclaimed that they long for the embrace of his left and right hands. The plain sense (al-Ωàhir) of this statement derives from (Solomon’s) having composed the book as a song concerning a man and his wife; they join beneath a single cover, he embracing her with his right and left hands. The allegorical interpretation (ta"wìl) yields several meanings. One (explanation) is that He protects them along both borders of their lands, i.e., the north and south. . . . Another, plausible one is that he has mentioned the two Exiles (in this verse): the ﬁrst was when the kings of Assyria and Babylonia exiled (Israel) to the North; the second was the exile to the South by Edom (i.e., Rome). By this verse they mean: “We are longing and yearning for Him to reunite Israel who had been exiled in (the days of ) the First and Second Temples.” For this reason, they mentioned His left before His right. There are still other interpretations of this by (our) Sages; therefore, I have been brief.57 54

Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on the Song of Songs 1:2, p. 5. Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on the Song of Songs 6:11, pp. 90–91. 56 See, e.g., Commentary on the Song of Songs 7:3, pp. 95–98, where Japheth oﬀers three alternate interpretations. At the end of the ﬁrst, he states: “This is a plausible approach (maslik qarìb) to this verse; but there is, in my view, another, even more plausible approach oﬀering a superior interpretation. . . .” Cf. Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Hosea, viii–x. 57 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on the Song of Songs 2:6, p. 27. 55

158

chapter four

First Japheth renders the verse quite literally: ﬁve words of Arabic, corresponding precisely in sequence, form, and meaning to the ﬁve of the Hebrew original. The comment proper begins with a brief statement relating the verse to 2:5, thereby identifying the speaker with the Karaite leadership. Next he explains the verse’s plain meaning in the context of the Song’s guiding metaphor. These preliminaries completed, he embarks on the allegory proper, presenting three possible interpretations (only the ﬁrst and last are given here). All three involve the linguistic connection between left and right with north and south respectively, the directions to which Israel was exiled and from which God will “embrace” or gather in Israel.58 Japheth makes it clear that he does not know the precise signiﬁcance of the metaphor; he is proposing only those interpretations that he deems soundest. Naturally, there are verses whose Rabbanite and Karaite exegeses comfortably coincide—or nearly so. In Song 1:9 (“I have compared you my love to a mare of Pharaoh’s chariots”) Targum, Midrash, and Karaites all ﬁnd an allusion to God’s destruction of Pharaoh’s forces (Exodus 14:23–28). The interpretations diﬀer, however, both in details and in signiﬁcance. The Targum makes the verse a peg on which to hang an embellished paraphrase of Exodus 14; verses 10–14 will serve almost as nicely for the summary of Israel’s journey to Mount Sinai, Moses’ ascent and descent, the sin of the Golden Calf, and the building of the desert tabernacle.59 Midrash Shir HaShirim, for its part, contributes an aggadah: when the Egyptians pursued Israel, God made Himself manifest to them by means of a cherub that took the form of a mare; the stallions drawing Pharaoh’s chariots promptly plunged in after the phantom, and the Egyptian troops were destroyed.60 Interestingly, Salmon and Japheth both mention the aggadah of the mare-siren, the former ascribing it to the Rabbanites, the latter to “one of the scholars”; here is Salmon’s version:

58 In both Hebrew and Arabic the root ≤/sh.m.l may signify either “left” or “north,” while y.m.n. may designate “right” or “south,” a consequence of orientation toward the rising sun. 59 See Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, vol. IVA, 128–29; Gollancz, The Targum to ‘The Song of Songs’, 22–27. 60 See Midrash Shir Ha-Shirim, 34–35 and n. 150. The legend is ancient; see, inter alia, Mekhilta, Beshalla˙ ch. 7, 1:247 and Avot de-Rabbi Natan ch. 27, p. 42. On Midrash Shir Ha-Shirim, see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 347. Further on this legend, see Pope, Song of Songs, 338–39.

“the

4.9

voice of the turtledove”

159

Concerning the meaning of “to a mare among Pharaoh’s chariots,” another interpreter has said that its purpose is to inform the people of the Exile that when they resume obeying God, He will make a sign appear to them and will destroy their enemies, just as He did on the day He split the Sea of Reeds, when He made the form of a mare appear in the sea so that Pharaoh’s horses pursued it and the Egyptians were drowned. He ﬁnds support for this interpretation in the words: “The horse and its rider He has thrown into the sea” (Exodus 15:3). He said that the meaning of ramah “has thrown” is “raised up and caused to appear” in the sea. The origin of this interpretation is Rabbanite; God knows (whether it is true).61

Salmon’s concluding “God knows (if this is true)” sounds dismissive. The real purpose of the verse is to draw a comparison; just as God preserved Israel from destruction at the Red Sea, so will He save them at the End of Days: 4.10 If you serve me (says God), I shall make My salvation manifest to you, just as I made it manifest to your ancestors. And I shall destroy your enemies, just as I destroyed Pharaoh and his people. . . . The words “I compared you, my beloved” mean that just as I fought the Egyptians on your behalf, so shall I ﬁght on your behalf in the future, as it is stated: “Then the Lord will go forth and ﬁght against those nations as when he ﬁghts on a day of battle” (Zechariah 14:3). And just as I annihilated all of the Egyptian horses in the past, as it is written “For when the horses of Pharaoh with his chariots and his horsemen went into the sea, etc.” (Exodus 15:19), so will all the enemy horses be annihilated in the future, as it states: “On that day, says the Lord, I will strike every horse with panic, and its rider with madness” (Zechariah 12:4). And just as Israel was compared to a horse at the time of their passing through the Sea of Reeds, as it is written, “You trampled the sea with your horses” (Habakkuk 3:15), so shall they be compared (to a horse) in the future, since it is stated: “For the Lord of hosts cares for His ﬂock, the house of Judah, and will make them like His proud steed in battle” (Zechariah 10:3). . . .62

61

Salmon, Commentary on the Song of Songs, RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.1406, fol. 42ab. Salmon, Commentary on the Song of Songs, RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.1406, fols. 40b– 41b. Cf. Judah Goldin’s observation, in a related context, that “every age is thus itself and also may be paradigmatic of another, for, according to the Rabbis, the biblical vocabulary addressed past generations, but present and future ones no less, each according to its requirements . . .”; see Goldin, “Of Midrash and the Messianic Theme,” 360. Signiﬁcantly, Saadya emphasized this prognostic element in his Commentary on the Ten Songs; see above n. 28 and especially Ben-Shammai, “Prognostic Midrash.” 62

160

chapter four

For Japheth the Rabbinic legend remains a possibility63—but only because it can enhance his eschatological scheme: 4.11 One of the scholars said that God made a mare appear in the sea and when Pharaoh’s stallions beheld her, they sought her and this was the reason for their destruction. Now (Solomon) compared the Remnant of Israel (she"erit Yi≤ra"el) to (this mare), for they will attract the nations who will then be destroyed.64

The “Remnant of Israel”—that is, the Mourners for Zion—are, of course, the heroes of this apocalypse, at once lightning rods for gentile wrath and instruments of divine deliverance. For the Karaites, the Song of Songs, then, is no less than a prophetic drama that gives their community the leading role in the ﬁnal act of Israel’s history. “The Remnant of Israel,” “Those Who Turn from Transgression,” “The Perfect of Way,” “The Mourners for Zion,”—each biblical phrase which these Karaites applied to themselves evoked a diﬀerent aspect of the group’s identity.65 Emblematic appellations, a prominent feature of the Jerusalem sectarians’ writings, also facilitated prognostic interpretations and helped forge exegetical connections between biblical texts. As we have noted, one of their favorite names for themselves was the “Shoshannim” or “Lilies,” an epithet deriving directly from the Song. In his comment on 2:1, Japheth explains that the words ˙avaßelet (“narcissus”) and shoshannah (“lily”) are metaphors for the “Ma≤kilim of the Exile,” that is the Karaite leadership. Like the narcissus that ﬂowers in midwinter and soon withers, the ﬁrst Ma≤kilim appeared in the midst of the Exile, then passed away. Latterly, however, a new generation of Ma≤kilim has emerged. They are styled Shoshannim, for like lilies they have come forth in the spring —the spring of Israel’s Salvation.66 They have turned the people toward God’s Law and are called “those who promote righteousness” (maßdiqim), since they teach the people and call them to repentance. It is on their account that God will return to Israel; this is the meaning of “I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine, who tends the Shoshannim” 63 For Japheth’s critical attitude to certain aggadot on biblical narratives, see Vajda, “Quelques aggadôt.” 64 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on the Song of Songs 1:9, pp. 14–15 = BL MS Or. 2513 (Cat. 302), fol. 56a. 65 On these appellations, see above, pp. 17–18. 66 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on the Song of Songs, p. 22. Cf. Japheth b. Eli, Comment on Ps 45:1, cited in Commentary on the Song of Songs, 185–86 (notes), and Wieder, “The Qumran Sectaries,” 280 and n. 80.

“the

voice of the turtledove”

161

(Song 6:3).67 This exposition leads Japheth to refer certain Psalms bearing the word shoshannim in their superscriptions directly to the Mourners for Zion.68 Epithets of this kind also ﬁgure prominently in polemical contexts. Medieval Jews—Rabbanites and Karaites alike—identiﬁed Edom with Christianity, Ishmael with Islam.69 The Mourners’ prognostic readings of biblical prophecies regularly use these epithets when referring to the great kingdoms whose military conﬂicts would mark the End of Days. Upon encountering a verse containing one of these appellations, they are quick to comment. Thus, Salmon ﬁnds an allusion in “the tents of Kedar”70 (Song 1:5) to “the kingdom of Hagar’s son”—that is Islam—which he identiﬁes with the Fourth Kingdom.71 Since both Salmon and Japheth present triumphalist interpretations of the Song, focusing on the imminent salvation of Israel and the defeat of her enemies, their commentaries contain numerous references to the Fourth Kingdom and its destruction.72 The polemical edge these compositions show can already be observed in ancient Jewish and Christian readings of the Song. The Rabbis and Fathers advanced competing allegories: for Jews the work described God’s love for Israel; for Christians, His love for the Church. Modern scholars have argued convincingly that Rabbinic and Patristic exegeses of the Song betray mutual awareness, each side countering the other’s claims.73 But though the Karaite exegetes could comfortably adopt the Rabbinic allegory in its broad outlines, 67 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on the Song of Songs 6:3, p. 85. Cf. Wieder, The Judean Scrolls, 106–107. See also Japheth’s comment on 2:16, p. 37, in which he explains that ha-ro'eh ba-shoshannim means “who tends us, who are called Shoshannim.” 68 Speciﬁcally, Pss 45, 69, 80, and 23; see Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on the Song of Songs 4:5, p. 55, and 2:16, p. 37. See further below, pp. 165, 188–89. 69 See ch. 6 below, esp. pp. 219–20. 70 Kedar, Ishmael’s second son (Gen 25:13) also became a standard appellation for Islam. 71 RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.1406, fol. 34b. Cf. Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on the Song of Songs, p. 10; on this verse see Erder, “The Attitude of the Karaite, Yefet ben Eli, to Islam,” 35. Japheth’s commentary contains other polemical references to Islam; see, e.g., Commentary on the Song of Songs 2:15, p. 36, col. b, lines 7–12, where he states that the “little foxes” are the propagandists (du'àh) who missionize among the ( Jewish) people, setting snares and ruining many of them. These du'àh were most likely Fatimid missionaries; see Stern, “Fatimid Propaganda.” Cf. Erder, ibid., 38 and n. 53, who identiﬁes them with the Carmathians. 72 On the Four Kingdoms, see above pp. 129–32. 73 Polemical interpretations of the Song date back to antiquity; see: Loewe, “Apologetic Motifs”; Urbach, “Homiletical Interpretations”; Kimelman, “Rabbi Yochanan and Origen”; and Hirshman, A Rivalry of Genius, 83–94. For the medieval period, see Kamin, “Rashi’s Commentary on the Song of Songs.”

162

chapter four

they found certain elements to be unacceptable. By way of response, the Mourners’ commentaries feature sharp anti-Rabbanite polemics; these sectarians were at least as troubled by the enemy from within as from without. For Rabbanites Song 7:3–5 signaled the triumph of talmudic Judaism: a restored Sanhedrin that would teach and administer Law; an Av Beit Din with the same power to coerce, convict, and punish that King Solomon possessed; and scribes who would determine the calendar for all Jewry.74 For Japheth, however, Song 7:3 described a biblical utopia, a realization of Ezekiel 48 which details the allotment of the Land of Israel and accords prime portions to the Priests and the Na≤i.75 Now in his time, the Karaite leadership was vested not only in those Ma≤kilim who studied, taught, and proselytized, but also in a hereditary line of Ne≤i"im or Princes who claimed Davidic descent—rivals, in other words, to the Babylonian Exilarchs.76 Responding directly to the rabbinic scheme, this interpretation reaﬃrms the preeminence of biblical institutions and associates the Karaite community’s leaders directly with them. The polemic is often explicit as well. A prime example may be found in Japheth’s comment on Song 5:7, “The watchmen found me, as they went about in the city; they beat me, they wounded me, they took away my mantle, those watchmen of the walls”: 4.12 “The watchmen” refer to the judges (dayyanim) and rabbinic scholars (benei beirav al-˙averim) who went about in the lands collecting pledges.77 They exercise the power to permit, to prohibit, and to scrutinize the people’s aﬀairs. When reports of these seekers (i.e., the Karaites)78 reached them, the (Rabbanite scholars) questioned them concerning the diﬀerent manner in which they kept their festivals and observances. Then the (Karaites) said: “Have you seen him whom my soul loves?” (Song 3:3), meaning: “You lack knowledge of the commandments that God has included in His Law—may He magnify and glorify it—that which He has forbidden and that which He 74

See Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, vol. IVA, p. 138 on Song 7:3–5 = Gollancz, The Targum to ‘The Song of Songs’, 74–76. Cf. the fragment of a Geonic commentary on the Song cited in Mann, Texts and Studies, 1:322, n. 47a which interprets Song 8:14 as a reference to the two Babylonian Academies. 75 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on the Song of Songs 7:3, 95–98. 76 On the Karaite Ne≤i"im, see Gil, A History of Palestine, 790–94. 77 “Collecting pledges (al-fasà"iq)”: these are the pesiqot; see Mann, Texts and Studies, 2:89, n. 112. On this institution, see Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, 2:106–109. 78 That “the seekers” are the Karaites can be seen from Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on the Song of Songs 3:2, p. 42.

“the

voice of the turtledove”

163

has permitted. How then should we not investigate (nab˙ath) it and uphold it?” When the (Rabbanites) heard their words, they knew that the (Karaites) were leaving their jurisdiction.79 They promptly struck them so that they should not defy them and alienate the people from them (i.e., the Rabbanites). It is well known that wherever the Karaites have appeared in the lands of the Exile, these things have befallen them. Therefore, the verse states: “They beat me, they wounded me”. . . . Now these “watchmen of the walls” are the Exilarchs and Heads of the Academies who ensure that the people observe their customs and invented traditions; they do not permit anyone to abandon them. Therefore, they have assumed the position of “watchmen of the walls.” (The Karaites’) words: “They took my mantle” refers to the removal of their veil when (the Rabbanite leaders) insult them and do not permit the community to visit them on the occasion of a circumcision, a wedding, or a bereavement. They allude to these matters with the phrase, “they took my mantle.” They (i.e., “the watchmen”) do all this to the (“seekers”) lest the latter alienate their community from them. Quite likely, they have slandered them before the (Muslim) rulers so that they might kill them. These are the deeds of the “watchmen of the walls.”80

Rabbinic exegesis refers this verse to a later biblical period, interpreting “the watchmen” as the Chaldeans or the governor Tatenai (Ezra 5)—in any event, an allusion to past injuries suﬀered by the Jews at the hands of gentiles.81 But for Japheth the verse depicts a sharper pain, the deep wounds inﬂicted by the Rabbanite hierarchy of his day on the Karaite seekers, and on the Jewish people at large. “The ﬂowers appear on the earth, the time for pruning has come, and the voice of the turtledove is heard in our land” (2:12). In this verse, Japheth sees a clear reference to the emergence of the Ma≤kilim or Shoshannim, “the great teachers who are scattered in the diaspora.” “With their advent,” he declares, “has come the time for pruning away82 the evildoers who have held power over Israel throughout the period of the Exile . . . for Israel’s worship (of God) will not become sound until after the destruction of her evildoers (rish'ei Yi≤ra"el) who harm the righteous.” The true “watchmen of the walls,” after 79

Lit. “what they had enjoined, prohibited, and legislated.” Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on the Song of Songs 5:7, 73–74 = BL MS Or. 2513 (Cat. 302), fol. 73b. This passage was published by Mann, Texts and Studies, 2:89–90 from a manuscript in St. Petersburg; see also Wieder, “The Dead Sea Scrolls Type of Biblical Exegesis,” p. 98, n. 86. 81 See Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, vol. IVA, 135 = Gollancz, The Targum to ‘The Song of Songs’, 60–61; Midrash Rabbah Shir ha-Shirim, ed. Dunsky, 130. 82 Connecting Heb. zamir with the verb zamar; see Lev 25:4 and esp. Isa 5:6. 80

164

chapter four

all, are the Ma≤kilim whose prayers and pious, ascetic ways hasten the people’s salvation. Japheth continues: 4.13 “The voice of the turtledove” alludes to “the Terebinths of Righteousness,” “the Mourners for Zion” (Isaiah 61:3) who come from the Exile to the Land of Israel, devoting themselves to knowledge, perpetually “seeking Him by prayer and supplications” (Daniel 9:3), never desisting from this until they have beheld the Salvation. Concerning them the prophet Isaiah pronounced: “Upon your walls, O Jerusalem, I have set watchmen; all the day and all the night they shall never be silent. You who put the Lord in remembrance, take no rest, and give Him no rest until He establishes Jerusalem and makes it a praise in the earth” (62:6–7).83

Japheth’s wrathful, vindictive tone reﬂects the virulent nature of the Karaite-Rabbanite debate in his time. The controversy raged around the question of exegetical authority, namely, who was authorized to interpret Scripture. For the most part, battle was joined over a series of halakhic issues relating to the calendar, the observance of festivals, dietary regulations, and other ceremonial laws; it is diﬀerences of praxis that distinguish rabbinic and sectarian Judaism. As we have seen, however, certain nonlegal portions of Scripture were also susceptible to partisan readings. While it is not a halakhic source, the Song of Songs is especially cherished as an aﬃrmation of God’s love for Israel. The Rabbis’ interpretation of the Song elaborated God’s historical relationship with His people, giving pride of place to rabbinic authority and institutions. Karaite exegetes adopted this approach, but rewrote the interpretation to suit their own particular outlook and needs. In doing so, of course, they believed that they were only uncovering truths within the text.84 The same impulse inspired them to recover Israel’s lost liturgy, the Psalter which, like the Song of Songs, they read prophetically. It is to the prayers of the Shoshannim, then— that is, their recitation of Psalms—that we now turn our attention.

83 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on the Song of Songs 2:12, pp. 31–32. On this verse, see Wieder, “The Qumran Sectaries,” 100–102 and Polliack, “On the Question of the Pesher’s Inﬂuence,” 281–82. 84 Curiously, even so particularistic a reading could be adapted to a very diﬀerent readership. At least one Karaite commentary on the Song made its way to the Yemen, where it was cited in an anonymous work, Kitàb al-maràqì (“The Book of Degrees”; 12th c.?). Quoting an interpretation of Song 5:8, the Yemenite author seems unaware of its sectarian provenance. See Friedman, Maimonides, The Yemenite Messiah, and Apostasy, 117–21.

CHAPTER FIVE

THE SHOSHANNIM AND THEIR LITURGY: EXEGESIS, PRAYER, AND COMMUNAL IDENTITY

If a religious intellectualism drove Karaite scholars to question Rabbinic Judaism, and if a spirit of reform led them to reinterpret Scripture and refashion the Law, it was apocalypticism that led them to Jerusalem. Through their prognostic reading of biblical prophecies— including the Song of Songs—they accorded themselves a leading role in history, a role central to the imminent eschaton. Borrowing a ﬁgure from Song 2:1–2, they styled themselves shoshannim (“lilies”). More than a lovely metaphor, it helped them to describe their place in the world: The Remnant of Israel is compared to “the lily among thorns,” for as the lily appears in the spring when the summer season is just beginning, so “those whose way is blameless” (temimei derekh; cf. Psalm 119:1) appear at the end of the Exile which is compared to the winter.1

Although "avelei Íiyyon (“Mourners for Zion”) is probably a much better known appellation for the Jerusalem Karaites, the words shoshannim and ma≤kilim—which both occur in Psalm superscriptions—also carried powerful associations for them.2 In fact, by interpreting several such terms as epithets for themselves, they succeeded in deﬁning themselves as a community. As Japheth b. Eli explains:

1 Japheth b. Eli, Comment on Ps 45:1, JTSA MS Mic. 3350 [ENA 96], fol. 15b = BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/II (Cat. 287), fols. 17b–18a. See Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Song of Songs, 185–186 and Wieder, “The Qumran Sectaries,” p. 280 and n. 80. See above, pp. 160–61. For the epithet temimei derekh, which Wieder renders “The Perfect of Way,” see ibid., 97–113 and 289–91 where Japheth’s comment on Ps 119:1 is reproduced. On the phrase “The Remnant of Israel” see ibid., 278–83. The payye†anim of Byzantine Palestine referred emblematically to the Jewish people as a shoshannah; see Yahalom, Poetic Language in the Early Piyyut, p. 13 and n. 11. 2 For shoshannim, see Pss 45, 69 and 80. For Japheth b. Eli’s comment on Ps 80:1, see below, p. 189 and 5.9. See also the superscription to Ps 60, in which shoshan occurs. Ma≤kil occurs seventeen times in Psalms, thirteen in superscriptions. On the Karaite use of emblematic appellations in general, see above pp. 17–18.

166

chapter five . . . The shoshannim are the ma≤kilim of the Exile who were gleaned from the Tribes of Israel and brought to Jerusalem so that they might intercede with God for the sake of His people. It is with their help that Israel’s salvation and the kingdom of the Messiah will come. They are the ones who in the (period of the) Exile are styled the “Mourners for Zion” ("avelei Íiyyon) and who will be called the “Terebinths of Righteousness” ("eilei ßedeq) at the time of salvation.3

From this passage it is evident that prayer and lamentation featured as prominently in the group’s activities as biblical interpretation: both were integral to the program of settlement, scholarship, and devotion that was intended to hasten the coming of the Messiah.4 A study of the Mourners’ exegesis and liturgy would seem, therefore, one of the most natural ways of learning about their hopes, fears, and selfperceptions. But here we encounter a problem: while a great part of their enormous exegetical production is extant, their rite remains something of a cipher. Verbose and repetitive, the commentaries of Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm and Japheth b. Eli furnish an abundance of information on the sect’s ideology, halakhah, and theology—materials which still await proper analysis.5 But how are we to make sense of a liturgy which consists almost entirely of biblical passages and verses? To be sure, the Shoshannim did recite piyyu†im and lamentations of their own composition; so far as we can tell, however, it was the Bible—notably the Books of Psalms and Lamentations—which furnished them with their prayer book. In interpreting a liturgy of this kind we must ﬁrst identify the most central texts and then seek to grasp the principles governing their selection. Finally, we must discover the way these texts were understood by the community. In other words, we must try to ﬁnd out what the Mourners for Zion intended when they recited these biblical passages.6 Essentially, we are

3 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 46:1, JTSA MS Mic. 3350 [ENA 96], fol. 22b = BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/II (Cat. 287), fol. 26a. 4 For a brief but perceptive characterization of the Jerusalem Karaites’ Messianism see Cohen, “Messianic Postures of Ashkenazim and Sephardim,” 273. 5 For a sense of the tenth-century Karaite literary enterprise, its aims and scope see Drory, The Emergence of Hebrew-Arabic Literary Contacts and idem, “The Role of Karaite Literature.” 6 Cf. Wieder’s succinct formulation: The question as to the guiding principle, or principles, which determined the selection of the passages is still unexplored ground and cannot be fully discussed here. For the present purpose, however, it will suﬃce to state brieﬂy that a number of biblical quotations that were accorded a place in the Karaite

the

SHOSHANNIM

and their liturgy

167

seeking two types of texts: a liturgy proper, containing the designated passages ordered and arranged according to occasional demands; and a commentary on the passages in question, providing a key to the meaning which the community attached to them. The second type of text is, as we have said, abundantly represented: the extant literary legacy of the Shoshannim includes extensive commentaries on Psalms by Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm and Japheth b. Eli.7 There is also a commentary on Lamentations by Salmon which, as has recently been suggested, actually constituted the Mourners’ main order of lamentation.8 It is the ﬁrst type of text, the liturgy, which poses problems. Japheth mentions his “book of prayers for all the days of the year” (kitàb fì ’l-ßalàt li-†ùl ayyàm al-sana), but unfortunately, the work does not seem to have survived.9 The Karaite siddur that has come down to us is a late text, of Byzantine origin.10 While it undoubtedly preserves certain features of the old Palestinian liturgy, it contains numerous later accretions—including piyyu†im by some of the great Andalusian poets!11 As a means of evaluating the liturgy of the Shoshannim, therefore, it is virtually without independent value.12

order of prayers owe their selection to a distinctive sectarian interpretation given to them—an interpretation which associated them with aspects of Karaite history, practice and doctrine. (“The Qumran Sectaries,” 110; cf. 288.) 7 For a penetrating study of these works see Simon, Four Approaches, ch. 2 and the literature cited there. 8 Ben-Shammai has argued this most persuasively; see his “Poetic Works and Lamentations.” For an edition and study of the commentary on Lam 1, see Salmon b. Yeru˙ìm, Commentary on Lamentations (Feuerstein). 9 See Sklare and Ben-Shammai, Judaeo-Arabic Manuscripts . . . Yusuf al-Basir, 133 and n. 18. Another Karaite prayer book from this period which does not seem to have survived was compiled by one Abù Sulaymàn Dàwùd b. al-Óusayn; see ibid., 133 and n. 19. 10 It was redacted by the thirteenth-century Crimean scholar Aaron b. Joseph, “The Elder”; see Bowman, The Jews of Byzantium, 1204–1453, 140–42. 11 For a study of the Karaite siddur see Goldberg, Karaite Liturgy and Its Relation to Synagogue Worship; for Karaite paraphrases of rabbinic prayers see 108–14. For Rabbanite piyyu†im appropriated by the Karaites see Zunz, Die Ritus des Synagogalen Gottesdienstes, 160–61. A generous selection of Karaite piyyu†im from the later Byzantine and Turkish periods can be found in Weinberger, Rabbanite and Karaite Liturgical Poetry in South-Eastern Europe. In general, see now Frank, “Karaite Prayer and Liturgy.” 12 The liturgy of the Damascus Karaites, which contains numerous payyetanic additions as well, also does not aﬀord reliable evidence for the practices of the tenth-century Jerusalem community; for a description, partial edition, and translation see Margoliouth, “An Introduction to the Liturgy of the Damascus Karaites.”

168

chapter five

There is, however, one work which can answer our present need. Sometime during the ﬁrst decades of the eleventh century, Japheth b. Eli’s son Levi composed a short but important treatise on prayer which he included in his Book of Precepts. In this treatise he enumerates inter alia the biblical passages which he deems most important for daily recitation. This text, then, furnishes us with a liturgy employed by the Shoshannim. And by correlating Levi’s pronouncements concerning the passages most appropriate for prayer with his father’s comments on those passages, it is possible, I believe, to answer some of the questions that we have posed above concerning the Jerusalem Karaites and their worship. We shall restrict ourselves to the Book of Psalms, its recitation and exegesis. For reasons which will become readily apparent, the Psalter aﬀords a natural focus for our inquiry. Before turning to Levi b. Japheth’s liturgy, therefore, we will brieﬂy discuss his father’s general approach to Psalms. This, in due course, will lead us to a discussion of speciﬁc, paradigmatic passages in his commentary. Japheth b. Eli and His Commentary on Psalms In the Introduction to his Commentary on Psalms, Japheth discusses the nature of prayer and its relationship to the biblical text.13 As mentioned above, the Karaites regarded the Psalter as their dìwàn al-ßalàt, their siddur. In this, they were notably at odds with Saadya, who denied the Psalms the status of mandatory prayer.14 While that

13 For an edition of Japheth’s Introduction and Commentary on Psalms 1 and 2, see Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms (Bargès). Bargès also published a complete edition and Latin translation of Japheth’s Arabic translation of the Psalter; see Japheth b. Eli, Translation of Psalms. For other partial editions, see: Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms (Hofmann) (Ps 22 with German translation); Ben-Shammai, “Doctrines,” 2:234–63 (extensive excerpts from the entire commentary); and Eissler, Königspsalmen und karäische Messiaserwartung (Pss 2, 72, 89, 110, 132 with German translation). In 1989, Adrian Schenker announced plans to produce a facsimile edition and French translation of Japheth’s Commentary on the First Book of Psalms; see “Auf dem Weg zu einer kritischen Ausgabe.” 14 Concerning Japheth’s commentary on Psalms see Simon, Four Approaches, chap. 2 where the matter is fully discussed. The original Hebrew edition of Simon’s book was reviewed by Ben-Shammai in KS 58 (1983): 400–406. For the phrase dìwàn alßalàt see Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms (Bargès), 9. For Saadya’s views, see his Introductions to his Commentary on Psalms, 17–53; for an annotated translation, see Sokolow, “Saadiah Gaon’s Prolegomenon to Psalms.”

the

SHOSHANNIM

and their liturgy

169

entire debate relates back to the question of rabbinic versus scriptural authority, there is another aspect to the Mourners’ approach which lends their reading of Psalms special vitality. The apocalypticism of the Jerusalem community manifested itself, as we have seen, in their prognostic interpretation of biblical prophecies. Believing the Psalms to be prophetic prayers, the Shoshannim fashioned their own personal liturgy from the Psalter.15 In introducing the Psalter, Japheth asserts that its numerous “categories” or “themes” (tafnìnàt wa-abwàb) can be subsumed under twelve rubrics (abwàb). After ﬁrst listing the rubrics, he proceeds to catalogue the Psalms and individual verses which address each theme. Japheth’s purpose in providing such a detailed listing is practical: “It is obligatory,” he says, “for us to include these twelve themes in our mandatory prayers, day and night.”16 Obligatory, because reason demands that we praise our Benefactor, enumerate his wondrous deeds and acts of muniﬁcence, and thank Him for them.17 The twelve rubrics themselves provide further insight into Japheth’s conception of prayer; they are as follows: (1) mentioning the creation and its arrangement; (2) mentioning God’s excellences and His general and particular beneﬁcence; (3) mentioning the wonders, miracles, and signs performed (by God) in the past and those He will perform in the future; (4) the disobedience of our ancestors; (5) the punishment which overtook them; (6) the return of the repentant (shavei fesha' ), i.e., the Shoshannim; (7) their request to God for knowledge of His Scripture; (8) their request for salvation from their enemies; (9) their request that God fulﬁll His promises (to redeem them); (10) the conversion of the gentile nations to the true faith and their eternal thanks 15

Here the liturgy of al-Qirqisànì, the Iraqi Karaite, oﬀers an interesting contrast: while it prominently features Psalm recitation, it does not reﬂect the prophetic approach characteristic of the Jerusalem community; see al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr, 3:603–36. See also Nemoy, “Studies in the History of the Early Karaite Liturgy,” containing a partial translation of chs. xv–xix and a complete translation of chs. xx–xxi. While he was certainly familiar with the practices of the Jerusalem community, al-Qirqisànì did not fully identify with them. As Gil has observed, he was the only contemporary sectarian who did not employ the phrase “Mourners for Zion”; see History of Palestine, 620. 16 See Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms (Bargès), p. 6, lines 9–10 (Ar.). Cf. Simon, Four Approaches, 72–74. 17 Ibid., lines 10–11. The appeal to reason derives from Japhet’s Mu'tazilite orientation in theological matters; see Ben-Shammai, “Doctrines,” 1:8ﬀ. On the phrase fì fa†r al-'aql (“known intuitively according to the nature of human reason”) see ibid., 73 ﬀ.

170

chapter five

to God; (11) recounting universal and perpetual peace and the banishment of enmity among the nations; (12) the obedience of the nations to God’s people and His Messiah. Taken together, these themes describe a salvation history in which divine beneﬁcence is met with human disobedience, and divine punishment (Exile) is ultimately replaced with redemption (Return). Particularly noteworthy are the sixth through ninth themes which deal explicitly with the Mourners for Zion—here called “the Penitent” (shavei fesha' )—and their requests for divine assistance.18 Even from Japheth’s initial presentation it is clear that the Jerusalem community regarded its own part in this historical drama as pivotal. And when we turn to Japheth’s exegesis of individual Psalms, we feel the full force of the Mourners’ assertions and appreciate the depth of their convictions. Rather than attempting the ambitious task of analyzing Japheth’s commentary on the entire Psalter, however, we have chosen to focus on a small corpus of Psalms which the sectarians singled out for daily worship. This liturgy, as circumstances would have it, was set down by none other than Japheth’s successor within the community, his son Levi. Levi b. Japheth’s Treatise on Prayer (Al-qawl fì’l-ßalàt) Like his father Japheth b. Eli, Levi b. Japheth—or Abù Sa'ìd Lawì b. Óasan al-Baßrì, as he was known in Arabic—was one of the leading scholars of the Jerusalem community.19 He is remembered today chieﬂy for his Book of Precepts which was frequently cited by later Karaite authorities.20 Composed during the ﬁrst quarter of the eleventh century, this work represents the oldest extant code to have been

18 On the term shavei fesha', which derives from Isa 59:20, see Wieder, “The Qumran Sectaries,” 269–78 and idem, The Judean Scrolls, 101–102, 125–26. 19 On Levi, see Poznanski, “The Karaite Literary Opponents of Saadiah Gaon in the Eleventh Century,” 59–63, no. 15; Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium, index, s.v. “Levi b. Yefeth”; Ben-Sasson, “Tenth- and Eleventh-Century Karaite Attitudes”; Vajda, “La Lex orandi”; Ben-Shammai, “Sefer Ha-Mitzvoth of the Karaite Levi ben Yefet”; and Sklare, Judaeo-Arabic Manuscripts . . . Yusuf al-Basir, 133–36. 20 Composed in Arabic, Levi’s Code was later translated into Hebrew by Byzantine Karaites. For citations of the Sefer mißvot by such scholars as Judah Hadassi (12th c.), Aaron b. Elijah (14th c.), and Elijah Bashyachi (15th c.) see Poznanski, ibid., 60 and Ankori, ibid.

the

SHOSHANNIM

and their liturgy

171

produced by the Jerusalem Karaites.21 Like al-Qirqisànì before him, Levi devoted one section of his code to the subject of prayer. This treatise, which seems to have circulated independently, comprises ten short chapters that deﬁne the obligation to pray and discusses the times, orientation, location, language, and physical postures appropriate to prayer.22 Each subject is introduced in turn, diverse opinions are surveyed, and the author’s own view is expressed clearly and unequivocally. Levi’s treatise is important for two reasons. As Japheth b. Eli’s son and intellectual heir, Levi occupied a prominent and inﬂuential position among the Shoshannim; his statements concerning prayer must therefore have carried real weight. Moreover, his code as a whole may be taken to reﬂect not only the views of his father but also the consensus of the community: to a great degree, it faithfully preserves the practices and beliefs of the Shoshannim.23 21 While the work has traditionally been dated to 1006/1007 C.E., the fragment identiﬁed by Ben-Shammai—quite possibly an autograph—dates from the year 415 A.H., i.e., 1024 C.E. See Ben-Shammai, “Sefer Ha-Mitzvoth,” p. 100, n. 2 and p. 103, referring to British Library MS Or. 2577 (Cat. 592), fol. 159a. While Levi’s code has not survived intact in the original Arabic, it has been largely preserved in medieval Hebrew translation; see Ben-Shammai, “Sefer Ha-Mitzvoth,” 100–101. For a popular edition, see Levi b. Japheth, Sefer ha-mißvot. Sahl b. Maßlia˙ ha-Kohen (Abù’l Surrì), whose Book of Precepts has been cited above, belonged to the generation of Levi’s father; see above, pp. 15–16 and ch. 3. 22 For an annotated translation, see Vajda, “Lex orandi.” For most of the text, Vajda was compelled to rely upon two medieval Hebrew versions, the Arabic fragment preserved in BL MS Or. 2564 (Cat. 308/II) supplying chs. 7–10; for the contents of the treatise, see pp. 7–8. For the Hebrew, see Levi b. Japheth, Sefer ha-mißvot, 2:497–520. The BL fragment contains a colophon indicating that it was copied in A.H. 437 (C.E. 1045) and collated with the original, i.e., the authorized copy; see Margoliouth, Catalogue, Pt. I, p. 232b. From a statement at the beginning of the manuscript we learn that the treatise was known as Al-qawl fì’l-ßalàt and that it was copied independently of the rest of the code; see ibid., 232a. David Sklare has drawn my attention to two more fragments of the Arabic original (in Hebrew characters) containing portions of the ﬁrst eight sections: RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.930, fols. 19–26 and RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.928, 141–148. Taken together with the BL fragment, they constitute virtually the entire treatise in its original language. The longer of these fragments, MS Yevr.-Arab. I.930, originally belonged to a manuscript of Levi’s Code, i.e., it was not copied as a separate text. From this fragment we learn that the treatise on prayer followed the treatise on the Sabbath; the title of the former, incidentally, is given here as al-kalàm fì’l-ßalàt. For another copy of the Hebrew translation (ascribed to Japheth b. Eli) see RNL MS Yevr. I.761. 23 Cf. the remarks of Ben-Sasson, “Tenth and Eleventh-Century Karaite Attitudes,” 75. A complicating factor, of course, remains the degree to which the (largely extant) Hebrew translation accurately reﬂects the (mostly lost) Arabic original. On the relationship between the Arabic and Hebrew texts of the Code see Ben-Shammai, “Sefer Ha-Mitzvoth,” 110–12, 130–33.

172

chapter five

It is immediately apparent from the treatise, in fact, that the community shared certain basic opinions concerning prayer, even if there were diﬀerences in matters of detail. As self-professed scripturalists, they traced all religious obligations back to biblical sources; their actual liturgical practices were based, therefore, directly upon their interpretation of the Bible. On the basis of I Chronicles 23:30, for example, most of them held two daily services to be obligatory; according to a minority view, however, Daniel 6:11 and Psalm 55:18 indicated the existence of three mandatory daily prayers. Levi necessarily founds his own halakhic opinion, therefore, upon the exegesis of a scriptural passage—in this case, a biblical narrative.24 The liturgy itself, as we have said, derived mostly from Scripture, although some sectarians permitted the use of piyyu†im as well.25 The speciﬁc biblical passages employed seem to have remained a matter of choice. It was, moreover, accepted practice to string unconnected verses together to form new, meaningful texts.26 Several fragments containing ﬂorilegia of biblical verses attest to this convention; the presence of interspersed instructions to worshipers conﬁrms their liturgical function.27 Although at least one Karaite, a certain Abù Sulaymàn Dàwùd, compiled an order of prayer, the community as a whole resisted the canonization of its liturgy. While they might regard certain forms of worship as obligatory—e.g., the declaration of divine unity, expressions of thanks and praise, and confession—they tended

24 See Vajda, “Lex orandi,” 12–13. While the Rabbanites ultimately restricted themselves to pentateuchal proof-texts in their halakhic argumentation, the Karaites derived their laws from the entire biblical corpus; see Lasker, “The Inﬂuence of Karaism on Maimonides,” 155–56 and n. 53. 25 See Vajda, ibid., 15–16. For piyyu†im recited by the Mourners for Zion see: Assaf, “Prayer by Salman ben Yerù˙am [?] the Karaite”; Mann, Texts and Studies, 2:31–32 (attrib. Japheth b. Eli, trans. Nemoy, Anthology, 107–108); Zulay, “Mi-piyyu†ei ha-qara"im ha-qadmonim” (partial trans. Carmi, The Penguin Book of Hebrew Verse, 250–51); Ben-Shammai, “Poetic Works and Lamentations,” 192–93 and nn. 6–10, 222, 229–31. 26 Vajda, “Lex orandi,” 17. Certain Rabbanite prayers, such as the qedusha desidra (u-va le-Íiyyon go"el), are constructed similarly; see Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 70–71. 27 See Khan, Karaite Bible Manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah, MSS nos. 13–17, pp. 152–69. MS no. 14 includes liturgical instructions: “Save us, Oh Lord (hoshi'enu adonai )! Prostrate, then complete the verse and say . . .”; “The leader says . . . and you say . . . (wa-yaqùl al-ra"ìs . . . wa-qul anta”); see 163–64. These manuscripts, like the others published by Khan, were all written in Arabic characters. The practice of transcribing biblical texts into Arabic characters was typically Karaite. On possible motivations for this convention, see ibid., 20–21 and Khan, “The Medieval Karaite Transcriptions.”

the

SHOSHANNIM

and their liturgy

173

to leave the choice of speciﬁc liturgical texts to individual discretion, there being no scriptural prescriptions to determine their prayers.28 Despite the community’s special esteem for the Psalter, some sectarians sensed a tension between the original setting of a Psalm and its contemporary use as prayer. On exegetical grounds—often on the basis of a superscription—they might ascribe the composition of a given Psalm to speciﬁc individuals who were reacting to particular historical circumstances. Confronted by the problem of adapting scriptural texts to current liturgical needs, they developed two eﬀective solutions. First, they might preface the recitation of a Psalm with the words, “this is the prayer which so-and-so recited.”29 As alQirqisànì had put it, the worshiper, in eﬀect, acknowledged: “Even though these prayers are compositions of so-and-so, yet I admit what he had admitted, and seek what he had sought.”30 Any passages within the Psalm which did not conform, however, to the worshiper’s own situation could safely be regarded as a record or quotation (˙ikàya) pertaining to the original historical context.31 Second, those Karaites who compiled ﬂorilegia eﬀectively disengaged verses from their ancient settings. Such anthologizing brought an additional beneﬁt: since individual Psalms often seemed incomplete from a liturgical standpoint, it was tempting to assemble all the necessary components from diﬀerent sources. The evocation of God’s creation in Psalm 136:4–9, for example, could be admirably supplemented by Psalm 104.32 As Levi states: (The worshiper) may choose verses in accordance with what he desires his prayers to express. And this is the practice of all worshipers, for they glean verses expressing divine unity ( fawàsìq al-taw˙ìd ) (from all

28 Vajda, “Lex orandi,” 8–12 (RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.930, fols. 191–20b). For Abù Sulaymàn Dàwùd b. Óusayn see ibid., 17 (RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.930, fol. 21b). While the medieval Hebrew rendering which Vajda had before him refers to Abù Sulaymàn’s work as a siddur, the original Arabic simply has ta"lìf (compilation, composition). Levi criticizes his fellow Karaite for incorporating so much extraneous material—homilies (diràshàt), exegetical comments (tafàsìr), and polemics (dalà"il 'alà ’l-madhàhib wa-radd 'alà ’l-mukhàlifìn)—that the Psalms, the sine qua non of prayer, are indiscernible. 29 BL MS Or. 2564, fol. 13a, lines 7–8: ßallà fulàn kadhà wa-kadhà, trans. Vajda, 32–33. 30 See Kitàb al-anwàr, 3:636, lines 9–10; trans. Nemoy, “Studies in the History of the Early Karaite Liturgy,” 328. 31 BL MS Or. 2564, fol. 13a, lines 2–3; see Vajda, “Lex orandi,” 33. 32 See Vajda, “Lex orandi,” 18.

174

chapter five of Scripture) for their prayers. In the same manner, (they select) verses of confession ( fawàsìq widdùyìm), verses of consolation ( fawàsìq nà˙àmòth), praise and prayer (wa-hillùl wa-taﬁllà) which it would take too long to detail.33

One of the ﬂorilegia preserved, in fact, represents just such a sequence of verses. Here the verb hodah (“give thanks”) works as a kind of magnet, attracting diverse phrases drawn almost exclusively from Psalms. Skilfully arranged and adapted, they constitute a new prayer of thanksgiving (hoda"ah):34 In the name of God, the merciful the compassionate. It is good to give thanks to the Lord (92:2); sing praises to the Lord, O you His saints and give thanks (30:5)! Give thanks to Him, bless His name! For the Lord is good; His steadfast love endures for ever (100:4–5). For as the heavens are high above the earth, so great is His steadfast love toward us [!]35 (103:11); for great is His steadfast love toward us (117:2) I will praise the Lord as long as I live (146:2). My soul is feasted as with marrow and fat, and my mouth praises You with joyful lips (63:6). I will thank You forever because You have done it (52:11). I give thanks to You, O Lord my God, with my whole heart (86:12). O give thanks to the Lord, for He is good! O give thanks to the God of gods! O give thanks to the Lord of lords, He who gives food to all ﬂesh! O give thanks to the God of heaven (136:1–3, 25–26)! O give thanks to [!]36 the Lord for His steadfast love, for He satisﬁes him (who is thirsty) (107:8–9). The aﬄicted shall eat and be satisﬁed (22:27). O taste and see that the Lord is good! O fear the Lord, you His saints (34:9–10)!. . . .37

Florilegia of this kind enabled worshipers to formulate their devotions in pure biblical phraseology. Selective by nature, such prayers include only those verses which address the speciﬁc liturgical matter at hand, be it praise, petition, or thanksgiving. Whether they were carefully constructed or associatively pieced together, composite texts of this kind present isolated verses stripped of their original contexts

33

See BL MS Or. 2564, fol. 13a, lines 10–14, trans. Vajda, “Lex orandi,” 33 and nn. 151–53. 34 See Khan, Karaite Bible Manuscripts, MS 15, pp. 165–66. For the place of thanksgiving in Karaite prayer, see al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr, 3:624–25; trans. Nemoy, “Studies in the History of the Early Karaite Liturgy,” 314. 35 Ps 103:11: “. . . toward those who fear him.” The verse has been adapted, consciously or unconsciously, to accord with 117:2 which follows. 36 Ps 107:8: “Let them thank.” Another adaptation. 37 The prayer continues with Deuteronomy 6:11, Exodus 23:25, and Joel 2:26 before reverting to the Psalter for the last dozen or so verses.

the

SHOSHANNIM

and their liturgy

175

and interpretative frameworks.38 Nevertheless, certain Psalms retained their special liturgical value for the community precisely because of the way in which they were integrally interpreted. Levi classiﬁes such biblical prayers (ßalawàt) as either divine communications to the prophets (awliyà") which contain information about the future ('atidot) or lessons for the people of the exile (ahl al-jàliya).39 In both cases, the Psalms were to be understood at once liturgically and prophetically, i.e., as prayers whose full signiﬁcance would be realized long after their revelation, during the days of the Shoshannim. As we will argue below, Karaite exegesis of these texts functioned, therefore, as liturgical commentary. First, however, we must identify the scriptural texts which the Shoshannim themselves regarded as possessing special liturgical value. Levi b. Japheth’s Liturgy Towards the end of his treatise, Levi oﬀers some speciﬁc liturgical guidelines, indicating which biblical passages best express the themes that a worshiper must address on a daily basis: 5.1 It is laudable to begin with those Psalms which relate to the community (al-mazàmìr allatì lil-jamà'ati ), and after them to recite Psalms relating to the individuals (mazàmìr al-à˙àd). Examples of Psalms relating to the community are Psalm 44, “We have heard with our ears, O God,” Psalm 80, “Hear us, O Shepherd of Israel,” and Psalm 90, “A prayer of Moses.” But ﬁrst of all, (one should recite) the Psalms relating to the Temple (mazàmìr al-quds) such as Psalm 74, “Why have you rejected us forever O God” and Psalm 79, “O God, the nations have invaded your inheritance.”40 Examples of Psalms relating to the individuals are Psalms 25, 28,41 and 86 and the like. Similarly, it is laudable to recite the Psalms relating to the Exile (mazàmìr al-jàlùth) prior to the Psalms relating to the Salvation (mazàmìr al-yeshù'òth) according to the chronological sequence of events. Of all the Psalms, none combines communal concerns and historical issues so well as 38 For an important collection of such texts see BL MS Or. 2539, fols. 1–55; my thanks to Haggai Ben-Shammai for this reference. 39 Ps 90 (“A Prayer of Moses, the man of God”) is an instance of the ﬁrst category, Ps 79 of the second; see BL MS Or. 2564, fol. 12b, trans. Vajda, “Lex orandi,” 32. See also the comments concerning Pss 79, 44, 80, 90, and 102 on fol. 13a, lines 14–19, trans. Vajda, 33–34. 40 Vajda, ibid., p. 41 (last line): “LXIX” should be corrected accordingly. 41 Vajda, ibid., p. 42 (ﬁrst line): “XXX” should be corrected accordingly.

176

chapter five Psalm 90, teﬁllah le-mosheh.42 Should worldly concerns intervene, however, and a condensed service be preferred, the worshiper should recite the verses proclaiming the unity of God ( fawàsìq al-taw˙ìd),43 Psalm 136 (hodu ladonay ki tov al-kabìr)44 and the portion concerning the daily sacriﬁce ( faßl al-qorbàn). He should follow this with Psalm 145, the verses of Lamentation ( fawàsìq al-qìnòth),45 Psalms 79, 90, and 86,46 and ﬁnally, the portion va-yevarekh David (I Chronicles 29:10–13).47 Figure Levi b. Japheth’s abridged liturgy Proclamation of divine unity Psalm 136 Numbers 28 (the daily sacriﬁce) Psalm 145 Verses of Lamentation Psalm 79 Psalm 90 Psalm 86 1 Chronicles 29:10–13

fawàsìq al-taw˙ìd hodu al-kabìr = hoda"ah48 faßl al-qorbàn sheva˙, hillùl 49 fawàsìq al-qìnòth mazàmìr al-quds al-mazàmìr allatì lil-jamà'ati mazàmìr al-à˙àd va-yevarekh David

42 Ar.: wa-laysa fì’l-mazàmìr mà yajma' umùr al-jamà'a wa’l-azmina mithl teﬁllah lemosheh. 43 It is not clear which verses Levi intends. The proclamation of divine unity ( yi˙ud or yi˙ud ha-shem) ﬁgures at least as prominently in the Karaite liturgy as it does in the Rabbanite service. The scriptural verses which constitute the sectarian proclamation ( fawàsìq al-taw˙ìd ) are not identical, however, with the Rabbanite shema' (Deut 6:4–9; 11:13–21; Num 15:37–41). While both groups recite Deut 6:4, the Karaites have, at diﬀerent periods, employed other biblical verses as well. For one such text see the Genizah fragment published by Ginzberg, Genizah Studies in Memory of Doctor Solomon Schechter, 2:441–42. Commenting upon Ps 44:18 ( JTSA MS Mic. 3350 [ENA 96], fol. 13a) Japheth b. Eli explains: “The words ‘we have not forgotten You’ refer to the proclamation of divine unity ( yi˙ud ha-shem), for daily in this world they (i.e., the Karaites) recite: ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One (Deut 6:4).’” On the other hand, later Karaites also regarded Neh 9:6ﬀ. as an expression of yi˙ud ha-shem; see, e.g., Aaron b. Elijah, Gan Eden, “'Inyan teﬁllah,” ch. 2, fol. 72b, line 12. And see the discussions in Goldberg, Karaite Liturgy, 64–70 and Frank, “Karaite Prayer and Liturgy,” 574 and 579. 44 Cf. the rabbinic designation hallel ha-gadol; see bPesa˙im 118b. 45 Again, Levi does not indicate speciﬁc verses. See further below, p. 178. 46 In the Arabic text (fol. 18b, lines 7–8) these three Psalms are labelled “"elohim ba"u goyim” (79), “teﬁllah le-Mosheh” (90), and “teﬁllah le-David” (86). Vajda, “Lex orandi,” p. 42 and n. 202 seems to have read “teﬁllah le-David” as a heading for the following words, “va-yevarekh David” (1 Chr 29:10–13). But as noted below, each of these three Psalms corresponds to one of the groups enumerated above. 47 BL MS Or. 2564, fol. 18a, lines 13 ﬀ., trans. Vajda, ibid., 41–42. 48 According to al-Qirqisànì Ps 136 constitutes “Thanksgiving” (hoda"ah); see Kitàb al-anwàr, 3:625, lines 5–7. 49 Levi speaks generally of “Praise” (sheva˙, fol. 12b, line 15; hillùl, fol. 13a, line 13); Ps 145 would seem to ﬁt this category of prayer.

the

SHOSHANNIM

and their liturgy

177

From this passage, several basic features of the Jerusalem Karaite liturgy become clear. First—as may be seen from the abridged liturgy—the essential “prayer book” of the community is deﬁned by a small core of biblical passages, each of which fulﬁlls a speciﬁc liturgical function. Second, the recitation of individual Psalms occupies a prominent place. Particular Psalms have been chosen, moreover, because they express key communal concerns. The rubrics under which the Psalms may accordingly be classiﬁed are: the Temple, the Community, and the Individuals. The importance of these three categories is apparent, moreover, from the abridged liturgy where each rubric is represented by one Psalm. Third, two additional considerations determine both the selection of individual Psalms and the order in which they are recited: (1) the chronological sequence of events to which the Psalm is understood to relate, and (2) the Psalm’s comprehensiveness, i.e., the degree to which it is seen to express both historical and communal issues. Having identiﬁed which scriptural passages furnished the core of the Jerusalem Karaite liturgy, we may investigate the way the sectarians understood these texts when they prayed. Here, the Bible commentaries of Levi’s father, Japheth b. Eli, are most informative. As Uriel Simon has demonstrated, Japheth’s Psalms commentary reﬂects the sectarians’ conviction that the Psalter was their prayer book (dìwàn al-ßalàt).50 In his Introduction, Japheth clearly and unequivocally expresses his commitment to examining liturgical issues, a tendency which becomes manifest in his comments on virtually every Psalm. We may reasonably assume that Levi understood Scripture as his father had expounded it. We will focus below, therefore, on Japheth’s exegesis of Psalms, particularly the three groups singled out for recitation by Levi.

50 Simon, Four Approaches, 75. For the term dìwàn al-ßalàt see Japheth, Commentary on Psalms (Bargès), 9. From several references in Levi’s treatise it is clear that there were other Karaite liturgies circulating; see Vajda, “Lex orandi,” p. 17 (the siddur of Abù Sulaymàn David b. Óusayn) and p. 42 (“les rituels composés par les Docteurs”—where, however, the Ar. ta"lìf al-'ulamà" is vague).

178

chapter five The Psalms Relating to the (Destruction of the) Temple (74 and 79)

As "avelei Íiyyon, the Jerusalem Karaites naturally devoted themselves to mourning the destruction of the Temple. They donned sackcloth and ashes, observed night vigils, and recited dirges—all practices which are well attested in both sectarian and Rabbanite sources.51 In his liturgy, Levi mentions “verses of lamentation” ( fawàsìq alqìnòth); these likely refer to selections from the Book of Lamentations accompanied by the commentary of Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm.52 There were also poetic laments which had been composed in biblical Hebrew.53 Not surprisingly, Levi recommends the recitation of two Psalms which feature the destruction of the Temple as their main subject. Psalms 74 and 79—the mazàmìr al-quds—share certain thematic and stylistic similarities. Both report the deﬁlement of the Temple and its destruction (74:3–8; 79:1–3, 7). Both describe the way the nations revile God and Israel (74:10, 18, 22; 79:4,10). And both recount Israel’s complaint to God for having abandoned them and for raging against them continually (74:1, 11; 79:5) as well as their entreaty to Him for vengeance against their enemies (74:11, 22; 79:6–7, 9–11). For Japheth b. Eli, Psalm 74 expresses Israel’s plaint at the Temple’s destruction in ancient times and the continuing deﬁlement of its site during the present. He recognizes a clear two-part structure: verses 3–10 describe the destruction wrought by the Babylonians; verses 11–23 relate the contemporary injuries inﬂicted by the Muslims. As usual, Japheth begins by noting a thematic link with the preceding Psalm. He then oﬀers some general, programmatic observations: 5.2.1

(Psalm 74:1) A Ma≤kil (rushd) of Asaph. O God, why have You utterly abandoned (us), Your anger smoking against the sheep of Your ﬂock? In the preceding Psalm he (i.e., the Psalmist) complained about what will befall them at the hands of the Fourth Kingdom, as we explained

51 See, e.g., Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Daniel 12:9, p. 146, lines 19–20 (Ar.), p. 81 (Eng.). And see Gil, A History of Palestine, 618–21 and the literature cited there. For Rabbanite reactions to the Mourners’ practices see Zucker, “Teguvot li-tenu'at "avelei Íiyyon ha-qara"iyim be-sifrut ha-rabbanit.” 52 See Ben-Shammai, “Poetic Works and Lamentations,” passim. 53 See above, n. 25.

the

SHOSHANNIM

and their liturgy

179

in connection with the verse “I was envious of the wicked” (Psalm 73:3). In the present Psalm, he has assembled ( jama'a) (descriptions of ) all that befell54 them at the hands of the kingdom of the Chaldeans as well as what will befall them at the hands of the Fourth Kingdom. The verses “Direct Your steps” until “How long, O God, is the foe to scoﬀ ?” (Psalm 74:3–10) constitute a complaint about what befell them at the hands of the Chaldeans. (In the second part of the Psalm), from the verse “How long” until the end of the Psalm (Psalm 74:10–23) they complain about what will befall them at the hands of the Fourth Kingdom. This Psalm (deals with) two matters (ma'nayn): The purpose of the ﬁrst (relates) to the subject of the Holy Temple (al-quds), for ( just as) the Chaldeans had deﬁled and burned it, so Ishmael ever deﬁles it, fulﬁlling thereby (the prophecy) that “they will scoﬀ at God and revile His name”55 as it is written, “Is the enemy to revile your name for ever?” (Psalm 74:10). Second, it mentions the ﬁrst and last kings56 so as to include thereby the two (other) kings who come between them.57

This Psalm, says Japheth, takes the form of a two-fold complaint (shakwa) in which Israel ﬁrst recounts the destruction of the Temple in ancient times, before describing the current desecration of the holy site. By juxtaposing these descriptions the Psalm accomplishes two ends: it emphasizes that the current situation under Islam is, alas, comparable to the desolation wrought by the Chaldeans; and it suggests a historical continuum of oppression, by alluding to the so-called Four Kingdoms.58 The comprehensiveness of the text is

54

Reading jarà with BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/III (Cat. 288). Cf. Ps 74:18. 56 Ar. al-malikàn al-tarafàniyàn, lit. “The two kings at either end.” 57 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 74:1, JTSA MS Mic 3349 [ENA 95], fols. 16b–18a = BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/III (Cat. 288), 13a–14a. 58 For a survey of tenth-century Karaite views on Islam see Ben-Shammai, “The Attitude”; see also Erder, “The Attitude of . . . Yefet ben Eli to Islam.” From this passage and his commentary on Ps 73, it seems that Japheth regarded Islam as the Fourth Kingdom. According to Japheth’s Commentary on Daniel, however, the Four Kingdoms were, in order, (1) the Chaldeans; (2) Persia; (3) Greece; and (4) Rome. The Arabs, who arose last, after the Romans, “have not indeed acted like the others in exiling them and destroying them [i.e., Israel], but they have injured the nation in the way of contempt and scorn and humiliation, etc.” See Japheth, Commentary on Daniel, 28–30, esp. p. 30, lines 19–20 (Ar.), 12–14 (Eng.) (comment on 2:37–43). This comment suggests that Japheth seems to have experienced some diﬃculty in accommodating both Christendom and Islam within his scheme. His use of the standard Karaite epithet for Islam, “the Little Horn” (qeren ze'ira; see Dan 7:8) may indicate that he regarded the latter as an outgrowth of the former and thus a part of the Fourth Kingdom; on “the little horn” see Ben-Shammai, “The Attitude,” 8. Japheth’s contemporary, Sahl b. Maßlia˙ oﬀers a diﬀerent, more 55

180

chapter five

noteworthy: in encompassing a great historical sweep, it describes the persecution of Israel, past and present. The Psalm’s special signiﬁcance for the Shoshannim is immediately apparent from its heading: 5.2.2

The superscription employs (the term) ma≤kil, since (this Psalm) contains guidance (rushd) and instruction (ta'lìm) for the remnant of Israel (she"erit yisra"el)—how they voice their complaints to God, beseeching Him to change their condition and the condition of their Holy Temple (for the better)!

While Ma≤kil was, of course, employed by the Jerusalem sectarians as an appellation for teachers or preachers of Karaism, within a Psalm superscription it was understood to indicate divine guidance (rushd, hidàya) for the group as a whole which was to use the following text as a prayer.59 The latter often styled itself “the Remnant of Israel” which had clung fast to the Law and would in the end be saved.60 The Psalm, then, was seen as a divinely-inspired petition by means of which the community could voice its plaints to God and its pleas for deliverance: 5.2.3

The words “O God, why” take the form of a question or entreaty like the words of Moses, peace be upon him, “O Lord, why does Thy wrath burn hot . . .? Why should the Egyptians say . . .?” (Exodus 32:11–12). And the words “have You utterly abandoned (us)” bring together what befell them at the hands of the Chaldeans until the present day. “Abandoned” means the cessation of (divine) support so that (Israel’s) enemies accomplish their designs against them. “Your anger smoking” refers to the times of severe tribulations. The ﬁrst of these occurred at the destruction of the Lord’s Temple by the King of Babylon; this resulted from the Lord’s burning wrath

symmetrical scheme with each of the Kingdoms corresponding to two nations: Babylonia and the Chaldeans, Media and the Persians, Greece and Macedon, Edom and Ishmael; see Harkavy, Me"assef nidda˙im, 202–203. Cf. the respective solutions of Saadya Gaon, who divided the Fourth Kingdom between the Christians and Muslims, and Abraham Ibn Ezra, who unequivocally excluded “Rome” from his interpretation of the Four Kingdoms. See: Cohen, “Esau as Symbol,” 260–61; idem, The Book of Tradition, 237–40; Schlossberg, “The Nature and Exegetical Purpose,” 13; idem, “R. Saadia Gaon’s Attitude,” 25–29. And see above, pp. 129–34. 59 On ma≤kil see above pp. 133–34. For Japheth’s interpretation of the term in the Psalms superscriptions see Simon, Four Approaches, 89 (citing the comment on Ps 88:1) and p. 107, n. 66. Japheth discusses the meaning of the terms mizmor, shiggayon, mikhtam, shir, ma≤kil, teﬁllah, and tehillah at the beginning of his comment on Ps 3; see BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/I (Cat. 286), fols. 20b–21b and Simon, ibid., 93. 60 For the Karaites’ self-designation as “the Remnant of Israel” see Wieder, “The Qumran Sectaries,” 278–83.

the

SHOSHANNIM

and their liturgy

181

as it states: “The Lord gave full vent to His wrath” (Lamentations 4:11). In the present verse he summarizes all that will befall them in the Exile; and indeed, He has fulﬁlled every single (prediction).61 This is the force of the phrase “have You utterly abandoned (us)” which is similar to “cursed shall you be in the city” (Deuteronomy 28:16) and all the rest of the curses (Deuteronomy 28:16–68). For every one of (these) things will befall them at some time, e.g., the destruction of the two Temples, those periods when they will be pressed62 to abandon their faith, and the time of conﬁscation63—all these (disasters) are included in the words “Your anger smoking against the sheep of Your ﬂock.” The phrase “against the sheep of Your ﬂock” is (intended) to soften (the tone of ) the statement, indicating that this nation has been “the sheep of Your ﬂock” as long as it has existed and they have no other leader beside You. They are like sheep which cannot ﬁnd their own way;64 the gentle shepherd, however, leads them and protects them.

The entire Psalm is a communal plea for succor to an absent deity: “Do not send us away confounded but accept, rather, our prayers and entreaties and answer our requests.”65 “Divine guidance” (rushd) might, at the least, take the form of a Ma≤kil, an inspired interpreter who could explain the words “shut up and sealed until the end of time” (Daniel 12:9). But alas, “there is none among us who knows how long!” (Psalm 74:9): . . . We are perplexed and are unable to ﬁnd a prophet in our midst whom we can consult or a Ma≤kil among us who correctly understands what Your scripture contains concerning the End (qeß) so that he might inform us how much (time) remains. We would then be certain as to how much remains and would be patient. For we have now (been waiting) a long time and still do not know when the end of this Exile (galut) has been decreed for us and when we will be saved.66

Lending this prayer urgency is the way individual phrases are understood in light of the Jerusalem Karaites’ own experiences. As we have seen, Japheth believes that the second half of the Psalm—beginning with verse 10—constitutes Israel’s complaint at their mistreatment by the Muslims: 61

Ar. fa-kull shay" huwa muqìm. Reading yu†àlabùna (Form III, passive), lit. “it will be demanded of them.” 63 Ar. waqt al-mußàdara. The allusion is obscure. 64 Or “lead themselves.” 65 See Japheth’s comment on 74:21, JTSA, MS Mic 3349 [ENA 95], fol. 29a. 66 Comment on 74:9, JTSA, MS Mic 3349 [ENA 95], fol. 23b. Cf. Japheth’s comment on Ps 90:12, JTSA, MS Mic 3350 [ENA 96], fols. 193b–194a. 62

182

chapter five

5.3 (Psalm 74:10) Until when, O God, will the foe oﬀer insult? Will the enemy despise Your name forever? This is (their) complaint at the situation (which they endure) under the Fourth Kingdom. They exclaim: “Until when?” at the prolongation of the Exile and the remoteness of the End (qeß). They are exasperated by the two types of abuse mentioned that the enemy has heaped upon them; these are (reﬂected in the words) “oﬀer insult” ( ye˙aref ) and “despise”67 ( yena"eß). “Oﬀer insult” refers to the way that they (i.e., the Muslims) revile Israel on account of the degradation (dhull) and insult that have befallen them (i.e., the Jews), all the while saying: “Where is your God?”68 as we have explained in our comment on “With a deadly wound in my body” (Psalm 42:11). “Will the enemy despise” relates to the subject of religion (al-dìn), for they have despised the Law (torah) of the Lord, uttering all manner of evil things about it. Thus, they always accuse Israel (saying): “You have altered (ghayyartum) the Torah and have falsiﬁed it (wa-˙arraftumùhà)!” One of them might even assert on his own authority that he denies the One who commanded this Torah, while aﬃrming this “(Book of ) Shame” which is replete with expressions of scorn (ne"aßot), lies, and follies. Therefore, it says “Will the enemy despise.”69

Japheth characteristically interprets the two verbs ye˙aref and yena"eß not as simple synonyms, but as allusions to distinct acts. In seeking to actualize the biblical text as far as possible, Japheth reads the verse as a plaint concerning two common anti-Jewish slurs. The insult that he describes recalls the Quranic charge that “shame (aldhilla) is pitched over them (i.e., the Jews) wherever they are found” (2:112).70 Indeed, both Muslims and Christians regarded the Jews’ adherence to their faith—despite their subjugation and degradation— as an act of blind persistence. The Muslims’ rejection of the Torah, on the other hand, is rooted not only in their belief that it has been abrogated, but also in their conviction that it has been “altered” or “falsiﬁed.”71 But not only do they deny the Torah; they also aﬃrm 67 Or “reject,” “abandon.” Japheth regularly renders Heb. na"aß with Ar. rafa∂a; cf. Commentary on Deuteronomy XXXII, 85–86 on Deut 32:19. See also David al-Fàsì, Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ, 2:248, lines 44–50. 68 Cf. Pss 42:4, 11; 79:10. 69 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 74:10, JTSA MS Mic 3349 [ENA 95], fols. 23b–24a = BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/III (Cat. 288), 18b–19a. 70 Ali, The Holy Qur"àn, p. 151. 71 See, e.g., Quran 2:59, 75. On the Muslim charge that the Jews falsiﬁed the text of their Scripture see EI, 1st ed., s.v. “Ta˙rìf ” and Lazarus-Yafeh, Intertwined Worlds, 19–35. Oddly, perhaps, Japheth does not connect Heb. ye˙aref with Ar. ˙arrafa (“falsify”), though he does include the phrase wa-˙arraftumùhà (“and you have

the

SHOSHANNIM

and their liturgy

183

their own “Book of Shame”—al-qalon, a punning, derogatory epithet for al-qur"àn—a work packed with lies and absurdities!72 The Muslim presence on the Temple Mount—manifest in the monumental Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsà Mosque—also deeply aﬀronted the Mourners:73 5.4 (Psalm 74:11) The phrase “eliminate (him) from within Your bosom” is a request to God asking that He eliminate Ishmael from the midst of His holy place. By the word tashiv (“hold back”)74 he as much as indicated his wish for speedy vengeance against them in the other places where Jews (dwell) in their midst. The phrase “eliminate (him) within Your bosom” refers to those of them who are within His sanctuary (miqdasho). Concerning the latter he says “eliminate,” since their sin is greater than others’. For while they have “mocked” ( ye˙arefu) and “despised” ( yena"eßu)75 as others have done, they have exceeded others in reviling the Lord’s name in His sanctuary ( yena"aßu "et shem "adonay be-miqdasho). They have, moreover, polluted His sanctuary with their impurity, adultery, fornication, and funeral biers ( ye†amme"u miqdasho be-†um"atam ve-ni"uf u-zenut u-mi††ot metim). Therefore he says “eliminate (him) from within Your bosom.”76

The Muslims’ desecration of the holy site is a recurring theme in the writings of the Jerusalem Karaites. Daniel al-Qùmisì, Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, and Sahl b. Maßlia˙ all decry the comings and goings of gentiles who are contaminated with every kind of ritual impurity.77

falsiﬁed it”) in elaborating Heb. yena"eß. But cf. Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm’s comment on Ps 44:17 cited below, p. 193. 72 On Japheth’s use of Heb. qalon (“shame”) and sefer qalon (“book of shame”) as a derogatory epithet for the Quran, see Steinschneider, Polemische und apologetische Literatur, 316 and the comments on Hab 2:18 and Isa 47:9–10 translated by BenShammai, “The Attitude,” 16–17. 73 Ben-Shammai has shown that the Jerusalem Karaites inhabited the City of David, a neighborhood situated just outside the present Dung Gate, to the south of the Temple Mount; see: “The Karaites,” 166–68; idem, “New Data”; idem, “The Location.” He observes that the Mourners, in looking up towards the city from their quarter, would have beheld the Muslim ediﬁces upon the Temple Mount and the Nea Church on Mount Zion; see “Poetic Works and Lamentations,” 223–24 and notes ad loc. 74 Ps 74:11: lamah tashiv yadekha (“Why do You hold back Your hand?”). 75 On the verbs ye˙arefu and yena"eßu see Japheth’s comment on vs. 10, discussed above. 76 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 74:11, JTSA MS Mic 3349 [ENA 95], fols. 24b–25a = BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/III (Cat. 288), fol. 19b. 77 See, e.g., the text attributed to Salmon, published by Assaf, “Prayer by Salman ben Yerù˙am [?] the Karaite,” and Salmon’s Commentary on Lam 1:7, cited by Ben-Shammai, “The Attitude,” 9. As has often been remarked, the Karaites held

184

chapter five

They are also very disturbed by the Muslims’ daily services which they declare to be both obtrusive and profane: 5.5 (Psalm 74:23) Forget neither the clamor of Your foes, nor the uproar of Your adversaries which goes up continually! Previously he said “do not forget the life of Your poor forever” (v. 19) for the reason which we explained. At the conclusion of the Psalm he again says “do not forget” what they did in your holy place. He has subsumed (wa-jama'a) the actions of both the Chaldeans and the Muslims (lit. “Ishmael”) within this verse. “The clamor of Your foes” refers (back) to the phrase “Your foes have roared in the midst of Your holy place” (v. 4) which includes the rest of what we mentioned concerning “the enemy has destroyed everything in the sanctuary!” (v. 3). “The uproar of Your adversaries” refers (back) to the phrase “the foe mocks, the enemy reviles” (v. 10). In this way, he mentions the magnitude of their mocking and reviling, i.e., (the way) they assemble on the Temple Mount78 with a great tumult, especially at the hour of prayer, and behave in a provocative manner (Heb. yargizu) ﬁve times a day.79 For this reason he says, “which goes up continually.” By the words “do not forget” he means “to annihilate them from before You and from your holy place” as it says, “eliminate (him) from within Your bosom” (v. 11).80 In saying “do not forget” in connection with the actions of the Chaldeans he means, “Hasten to fulﬁll what You promised them (when You said): ‘I will requite Babylon and all the inhabitants of Chaldea before your very eyes for all the evil that they have done in Zion etc.” ( Jeremiah 51:24).81

For Japheth the Psalm’s ﬁnal verse describes not only the destruction of the Sanctuary by the ancient Babylonians, but also the site’s continued occupation by Muslims. Having usurped the holy place, the latter conduct daily religious services which create a disturbing din. The sound of these prayers serves as a constant reminder to the Jerusalem Karaites of the Temple’s destruction, the extended Exile, and their abasement at the hands of the nations. In Japheth’s reading, the verse perfectly encapsulates the frustrations of his fellow

extremely strict views on matters of ritual purity; see, e.g., Ben-Shammai, “New Data,” 308 and n. 15. See also Japheth’s comment on Ps 79:8, translated below. 78 Or, “in Jerusalem”; Ar. fì ’l-quds. 79 For parallel passages in the exegesis of Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, see Ben-Shammai, “The Attitude,” 9. 80 This refers to the Muslims. 81 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 74:23, JTSA MS Mic 3349 [ENA 95], fols. 29b–30a = BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/III (Cat. 288), fols. 23b–24a.

the

SHOSHANNIM

and their liturgy

185

sectarians. For what could be more disturbing to the worshiper than the perpetual clamor of rival religious services? The other Psalm of Lamentation, Psalm 79, addresses similar themes; it is likely that Levi b. Japheth preferred it for his abridged liturgy because of its comparative brevity. In his commentary, Japheth identiﬁes two main subjects: a description of the Temple’s destruction in ancient times and Israel’s plea that God punish her enemies: 5.6 (Psalm 79:1) A psalm82 of Asaph. O God, the nations have invaded Your inheritance; they have deﬁled Your holy Temple; they have made Jerusalem a wasteland. There is a very close thematic link (niΩàm)83 between the present Psalm and the preceding one, for just as he (ﬁrst) recalled the destruction of Shiloh (Psalm 78:60–67) and then (said) “He built His sanctuary like the high heavens” (ibid., v. 69), he informed (us) afterwards that this Temple would be destroyed as well, and that Israel would suﬀer at the present time as it had not suﬀered when Shiloh was destroyed. The phrase “O God, the nations have invaded” (marks) the beginning of a narrative. It (deals) with two subjects: the ﬁrst is His fulﬁllment of His threat [78b] against them; the second is their request that God exact justice of these nations, as we will explain in connection with verse 10.84

In accordance with his historico-prophetic approach, Japheth relates the Psalm to the destruction of Jerusalem in ancient times and to Israel’s continued suﬀering at the hands of the nations down to his own time. In praying for relief, Israel acknowledges and enumerates the transgressions which have incurred divine punishment. These sins are of two kinds: imitation of gentile practices and halakhic innovation. Israel’s assimilation of foreign mores and general lawlessness represents contamination from without; the institution of new laws lacking scriptural foundation represents erosion from within.85 Japheth’s comment on 79:8 suggests that he discerns a prayer of confession (viddui) embedded within the Psalm. The “Penitents of Jacob” (shavei

82

Heb. mizmor (psalm) rendered here by Ar. majd, a (song of ) praise. On the meaning of this term in Japheth’s Psalms exegesis see Simon, Four Approaches, 86. 84 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 79:1, JTSA MS Mic 3349 [ENA 95], fol. 78a–b = BL MS Or. 2551 (Cat. 290), fol. 37a–b = BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/III (Cat. 288), fol. 61a–b. 85 Cf. the notion of unacceptable legal or doctrinal innovation in Islam; see SEI, s.v. bid 'a and above, pp. 46–47, 56–57. 83

186

chapter five

fesha' ) whom he pictures proclaiming the verse are, of course, none other than the Mourners for Zion for whom repenting and returning to Scripture were fundamental.86 5.7 (Psalm 79:8) Do not remember against us the iniquities of our ancestors; may your compassion come speedily to meet us, for we are brought very low. Having said, “How long, O Lord? Will You be angry for ever?” (v. 5) they ask God again to disregard the great sins which they have committed. The words “iniquities of our ancestors” refer to [82b] the transgressions committed by our forefathers whom we have followed and whose path we have taken. Now, however, since it has become clear to us that these (ways) are not right, we have returned from them; we ask You, therefore, not to remember them against us. (Here) it should be said that the sins of the people of the Exile can be classiﬁed (as follows): There were transgressions (similar to those committed by) the ruling nation87 such as forbidden sexual relations, the profanation of the Sabbath, divination, enchantment, sorcery, and the like, as well as robbery, oppression, and theft, etc. There were also transgressions committed speciﬁcally by the people of the Exile, such as intercalation, by which they changed the festivals from their (appointed) times.88 They abandoned (the laws of ) ritual purity and impurity and (the laws relating to the consumption of ) food prepared by gentiles (ma"akhalot goyim); being brought up with these practices in the Exile, they became habituated to them. Then the Penitents of Jacob (shavei fesha' be-Ya'aqov) say: “O Lord! We beseech You not to remember against us the iniquities of our predecessors which we used to commit (as well) but of which we have now repented.” [83a] The words “may Your compassion come speedily to meet us” mean “hasten the salvation which has been slow in reaching us.”

86 On this epithet, see Wieder, “The Qumran Sectaries,” 269–78 and idem, Judean Scrolls, 101–102, 125–26. The Hebrew verb shuv encompasses both repentance from sin and return (to Scripture); Arabic tawba, which Japheth employs in his comment, is the standard term for repentance. On the signiﬁcance of “returning” to Scripture see Ben-Shammai, “Return to the Scriptures.” 87 I.e., sins endemic to the surrounding society that the Jews consequently committed. 88 Heb. 'ibbur, lit. “pregnancy,” i.e., the leap year. Japheth here attacks the Rabbanite practice of intercalating an additional month during seven years of every nineteen-year cycle. The Rabbanites do this in order to keep the lunar and solar years more or less aligned, ensuring thereby that the festivals fall during their proper seasons; see Stern, Calendar and Community, ch. 2. According to the Karaites, the months are determined by direct observation of the new moon, and the new years— including intercalated leap-years—by the sighting of the "aviv, i.e., freshly-ripened ears of barley. See Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium, ch. 7, esp. pp. 350–51, n. 138.

the

SHOSHANNIM

and their liturgy

187

The phrase “for we are brought very low” refers to those who have strayed, a people that has reached the most diminished of circumstances and for whom the divine promise, “for the Lord will judge His people” (Deuteronomy 32:36) had already been fulﬁlled. The phrase “for we are brought very low” is (similar to) “the power is gone” (ibid.).89 Elsewhere it has been explained that Israel will repent ( yatùbùn)90 at the present time ( fì dhàlika al-zamàn) and that God will have mercy upon them as it is stated: “When you are in tribulation, and all these things come upon you (in the latter days, you will return (ve-shavta) to the Lord your God and obey His voice)” (Deuteronomy 4:30). This indicates that Israel will repent at a time of trouble ('et ßarah) and that God will have mercy upon them when they do so,91 as it is stated: “For the Lord your God is a merciful God” (Deuteronomy 4:31). Those who repent at the time of trouble have said: “O God, behold, how ‘we are brought very low’! You have promised those who repent (al-tà"ibìn) that You will have mercy upon them; have mercy, therefore, upon us as you have promised” for “their power is gone and there is none remaining, bond or free” (Deuteronomy 32:36).92

That the Psalm is to be understood as a contemporary text is clear from Japheth’s reference to “the present time” (dhàlika al-zamàn), when, as he notes with reference to verse 10, “the signs of the Salvation ('alàmàt al-yeshu'ah) have already (begun) to appear.”93 What makes the Psalm particularly suitable for regular liturgical use, however, is its comprehensiveness: it rehearses the past and present aﬄictions of the Jews; relates their sinfulness; conveys their contrition, desire for mercy and vengeance; and expresses their thanks. Japheth’s comment on the ﬁnal verse provides the student and worshiper with a digest of the major themes which he has isolated in the Psalm:

89

See Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Deuteronomy XXXII, 138–41 on Deut 32:36. Or “return.” 91 Lit. “with their repentance,” Ar. 'inda tawbatihim. 92 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 79:8, JTSA MS Mic 3349 [ENA 95], fols. 82a–83a = BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/III (Cat. 288), fols. 64b–65a. 93 Ar. wa-hàdhà maqùl 'alà dhàlika al-zamàn alladhì qad Ωaharat fìhi 'alàmàt al-yeshu'ah. Comment on Ps 79:10, JTSA, MS Mic 3349 [ENA 95], fol. 84b. The “signs of salvation” are events in which biblical prophecies are apparently realized. Cf. the “signs” ("otot) of the Messiah’s coming enumerated in such seventh-century Jewish apocalypses as "otot rabbi Shime'on ben Yo˙ai and "otot ha-mashia˙; see Even-Shemuel, Midreshei ge"ulah, 311–23. 90

188

chapter five

5.8 (Psalm 79:13) Then we Your people, the sheep of your ﬂock, will give thanks to You for ever; from generation to generation we will recount Your praise. Know that this Psalm comprises ﬁve themes: (1) the three ways in which the nations acted against Israel—by entering [86b] their domain, polluting their sanctuary, and destroying it (v. 1); by killing them there (vv. 2–3, 10); and by reviling them for the destruction which befell them (vv. 4, 10); (2) (Israel’s) entreaty that God forgive their sins, which were the cause of all this destruction (vv. 5, 8–9); (3) their entreaty for mercy and salvation (vv. 9, 11); (4) their exacting justice of their enemies (vv. 6–7, 9–10, 11); and (5) their conviction that they will thank and praise God (v. 13). For they said: “We are the nation (qawm) that is Your people (sha'buka) who belong to you, the sheep of Your ﬂock whom You lead as You see ﬁt. You save us from the enemy94 and from the kings of the nations, tending us as You have said: ‘I will be the shepherd of my sheep, and will make them lie down.’ And we will thank You always, never ceasing to praise You; indeed, we will recount Your praise in each and every generation, as it is stated: ‘But I [87a] will hope continually (and will praise You yet more and more’)” (Psalm 71:14).95

The Psalms Relating to the Community (44, 80, and 90) The second group of Psalms in Levi’s liturgy relate, he says, to the community as a whole (al-mazàmìr allatì lil-jamà'ati ). The interpretation of these Psalms by the Shoshannim should reveal much about their self-perception and corporate identity; more precisely, it should show us how they deﬁned themselves as a group through prayer. In surveying the three Psalms which Levi singles out, we must ﬁrst inquire why he felt them to be special, before noting certain key themes which they share. First, the Psalm superscriptions not only guided exegesis but also inﬂuenced the process of liturgical selection. As we have seen, the terms shoshannim and ma≤kilim were understood by the Jerusalem Karaites as prophetic references to their community and its leaders.96 It was natural, therefore, that Psalms which include these words in

94

Lit. “the evil ones”; Heb. ra'im. Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 79:13, JTSA MS Mic 3349 [ENA 95], fols. 86a–87a = BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/III (Cat. 288), fol. 67a–b. 96 On the former appellation, see above pp. 165–66; for the latter, pp. 133–34. 95

the

SHOSHANNIM

and their liturgy

189

their headings ﬁnd their way into the liturgy. Thus, Japheth comments on the superscription to Psalm 80 (la-menaßßea˙ "el shoshannim 'edut le-"Asaf mizmor): 5.9 (Psalm 80:1) In (our commentary on) the preceding Book (of Psalms) we have already mentioned to whom these “Shoshannim” refer. Similarly, we have explained the meaning of the term “testimony” ('edut). We have stated that these Shoshannim are the people who sprout up amidst the thorns.97 They are the same (people) who are described in “Blessed are those whose way is blameless” ("ashrei temimei derekh) (Psalm 119) and “A Prayer of one aﬄicted” (teﬁllah le-'ani) (Psalm 102).98 We have stated that “testimony” ('edut) denotes “lineage” (nisba), as we have explained concerning “To the leader about the Shoshan, a testimony” (Psalm 60), which concerns the Messiah. This (Psalm), however, was spoken concerning the Shoshannim who are the “worm of Jacob” (tola'at ya'aqov).99 They are mentioned in the superscriptions of three Psalms, “My heart overﬂows,” “Save me, O God!” (Psalms 45 and 69), and here in order to inform us that this Psalm is their prayer.100

Whatever the word shoshannim (“lilies”) might signify to other exegetes, to the Mourners for Zion it was a clear reference to their own community. This passage, in fact, oﬀers a ﬁne example of the serial identiﬁcations they favored: shoshannim = temimei derekh = 'aniyim = tola'at Ya'aqov. The power of such equations will be obvious: they enable a predisposed exegete—or community of interpreters—to read the Bible prognostically. For the Shoshannim, the term ma≤kil seems to have denoted both the community as a whole vis-à-vis the rest of Israel (and the nations), as well as the leading teachers within the community who instructed the other Shoshannim. Commenting on the superscription to Psalm 44, Japheth explains:

97

The Arabic here accords with Japheth’s translation of Song 2:2. On the importance of these two Psalms for the Mourners for Zion see Wieder, Judean Scrolls, 203–204 (Ps 102), 206–13 (119) and the literature cited there. 99 For the signiﬁcance of this name, see Japheth’s comment on Isa 41:14 (“Do not fear, O worm of Jacob . . .”) which he explains as God’s reply to the community’s complaints. “They compared themselves to a worm,” he says, “which is the lowliest of things and trodden upon by all”; see BL MS Or. 2501 (Cat. 280), fol. 203b, lines 6–13. 100 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 80:1, JTSA MS Mic 3349 [ENA 95], fol. 87a = BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/III (Cat. 288), fols. 67b–68a. Cf. Japheth’s comment on Song 2:1 cited by Wieder, Judean Scrolls, p. 202, n. 4. 98

190

chapter five

5.10 (Psalm 44:1) The word ma≤kil is used in the superscription because (this Psalm) contains guidance and instruction for Israel as to how they should present their case before God. Know that this Psalm refers to the Jewish people (umma Yi≤ra"el) and it has (therefore) been expressed in the plural. Among all the Psalms none other compares to it in terms of comprehensiveness ( fì jawàmi' ma'ànìhi), for it commences with (the Exodus from) Egypt and concludes with the end of the Exile. There are three verses in this Psalm which are expressed in the singular, viz., vv. 5, 7, and 16—each for a reason which we shall mention in due course.101

Second, the abstraction of certain key liturgical themes undoubtedly governed the choice of liturgical texts from Scripture. Psalms were, most likely, designated for liturgical use when both their superscriptions and content corresponded to these key themes. We have already seen how Japheth identiﬁes twelve major liturgical themes according to which he classiﬁes the Psalms.102 Psalms 44 and 80 are, in fact, listed in his thematic catalogue under rubric 2b, “Psalms which express God’s special acts of beneﬁcence (ni'amuhu al-khàssa) toward Israel.”103 Third, and ﬁnally, the Shoshannim had a marked predilection for Psalms which they felt to be of a comprehensive nature, encapsulating the various doctrines emphasized by the community. In Japheth’s view—as we have just seen—Psalm 44 is the most comprehensive of all, encompassing the entire history of Israel from the Exodus until the end of the Exile. His opening comment on Psalm 90, “A Prayer of Moses,” contains a similar observation: 5.11 (Psalm 90:1) This prayer comprises six themes: (1) the eternal and enduring nature of the Creator; (2) His creation of His creatures; (3) the varying life-spans of human beings and the fact that they are (in any case) short; (4) what befell Israel on account of God’s wrath and the other things that happened to them in Exile,104 all this being the cause of their sins; (5) their entreaty to God to inform them of the end (qeß) so that they might verify (the time); and (6) the anticipated fulﬁllment of the (divine) promises.105 Now this (Psalm) com-

101 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 44:1, JTSA MS Mic 3350 [ENA 96], fol. 8a = BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/II (Cat. 287), fols. 9b–10a. On Ps 44:5, 7, 16, see below, p. 198. 102 See above, pp. 169–70. 103 See Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms (Bargès), 3. 104 BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/III (Cat. 288). adds bi-ikhtisàr, “in summary form.” 105 Ar. injàz al-mawà'ìd al-muntaΩara, lit. “the fulﬁllment of the anticipated promises.”

the

SHOSHANNIM

and their liturgy

191

prises all that is necessary to mention on the subject of the two Exiles.106

From this observation, we learn that Japheth approaches Psalm 90 in much the same way as he interprets Psalm 74: the text is presented as a condensed, self-contained Heilsgeschichte which has been cast in liturgical form. In terms of comprehensiveness, however, it is Psalm 44, he believes, which most completely surveys the course of Jewish history.107 In verses 3–4, he ﬁnds references to the expulsion of the seven nations from the Land and its inheritance by Israel’s ancestors in the time of the judges and kings. “Within these two verses,” Japheth explains, “(the Psalmist) has included all that God accomplished for them in the Land; it is possible that the words ‘what deeds You did perform in their days’ (v. 2) encompass what He did for them in Egypt and in the wilderness. But he enlarged upon what He did for them in the Land because (further on) He mentions the opposite, as we shall explain.”108 In verses 5–6, Japheth sees allusions to the defeat of the Philistines, Moabites, Ammonites, and Edomites in ancient times; indeed he views the ﬁrst nine verses as a description of the praiseworthy deeds which God performed for Israel of old.109 With verse 10 there begins an enumeration of the punishments which God inﬂicted upon His people; signiﬁcantly, the word "af is also used in Leviticus 26:16 to introduce the curses which God will bring down upon Israel, should they violate the covenant. While Japheth relates the next ﬁve verses to the people’s suﬀering in Exile, he connects verses 16 and 17 with the anti-Jewish polemics characteristic of the Islamic milieu in which he lived: 5.12 (Psalm 44:16) My disgrace is before me all the time, and the shame of my face has enveloped me. (Psalm 44:17) At the voice of him that reviles and slanders, by reason of the enemy and avenger.

106 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 90:1, JTSA MS Mic 3350 [ENA 96], fol. 189b = BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/III (Cat. 288), fol. 137a [beginning missing]. 107 On Japheth’s commentary to this Psalm, particularly vs. 24, see now Goldstein, “The Beginnings of the Transition.” 108 Comment on Ps 44:4, JTSA, MS Mic 3350 [ENA 96], fol. 9b–10a. 109 Comment on Ps 44:10, JTSA, MS Mic 3350 [ENA 96], fol. 11a.

192

chapter five The expression “all the day” (kol ha-yom) has two connotations: “all day long” from morning to evening; and throughout the period of the Exile. He says “my disgrace is before me” and explains in the following verse “at the voice of him that reviles,” informing (us) that he is perpetually ashamed when he hears “the voice of him that reviles and slanders.” This refers to the one who reviles my religion and slanders my law and my God (sharì'ati wa-ma'abùdì ) as it is stated, “(with which) the servants of the king of Assyria have reviled me” (2 Kings 19:6, Isaiah 37:6). Next he says “by reason of the enemy,” by which he means, “and the shame of my face has covered me . . . by reason of the enemy and avenger.” By the words “and the shame of my face has covered me” he wishes to convey the fact that the shame which manifests itself on a person’s face (can) envelop his body as well—an indication of deep humiliation. This is because “the enemy and avenger” has stated: “The Torah has been abrogated (nusikhat) by another (scripture) and there is no (possibility) of your returning (to your former prosperity)!110 For how are you faring now, after ﬁfteen hundred years of degradation (dhull)?” It is to these and similar (statements) that he refers, when he says “my disgrace is before me all the time . . . at the voice of him that reviles and slanders.” “The shame of my face” refers to the way they revile Israel for their disobedience as, for example, when they say: “You worshiped the Golden Calf and slew the prophets!”111 These and the like are expressed by the phrase “and the shame of my face has enveloped me.” The phrase “the enemy and avenger” refers to Ishmael and Edom112 and to the others as well who revile Israel.113

110 “And there is no (possibility) of your returning (to your former prosperity)!” (Ar.: wa-laysa lakum raj'a). I follow Haggai Ben-Shammai’s suggestion in translating this obscure phrase. For raj'a meaning “return” in the sense of “proﬁt” see Lane, Dictionary, 1041; the phrase might then mean, “And there is no (longer) any proﬁt in it for you!” The technical, legal sense of the word may also be apposite, denoting remarriage with a wife who was previously divorced; see Wehr, Dictionary, 328. If the latter meaning is intended, then Israel is being taunted as a divorced wife to whom her husband will never return. 111 For the charge that the Jews worshiped the (Golden) Calf see Quran 2:51, 2:92; 4:153. According to Quran 2:61, the Jews were subjugated and brought low (wa-∂uriba 'alayhim al-dhilla wa’l-maskana) because they used to deny God’s signs and would kill (His) prophets unjustly; cf. Quran 2:91, 3:21, 3:112, 3:181, and 4:155. 112 I.e., to Islam and Christendom. 113 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 44:16–17, JTSA MS Mic 3350 [ENA 96], fols. 12a–b = BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/II (Cat. 287), fol. 14a–b. The BN MS refers only to Ishmael and Edom and omits the last clause.

the

SHOSHANNIM

and their liturgy

193

For the Mourners the word me˙aref represented a whole range of Muslim, anti-Jewish slanders: the charge that the Jews had falsiﬁed their Scripture (ta˙rìf ); the claim that the Bible had, in any case, been abrogated (naskh); and the libel that they declared Ezra to be the son of God. Thus Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm comments: A me˙aref is one who reviles (us) for (sins) which we have committed and (others) which we have not. The former includes (our) worshiping the calves, killing the prophets, and the like. The latter, our assertion that 'Uzayr (i.e., Ezra) was the son (of God) and our tampering with the text of Scripture (lit. “changing the letters of the Torah,” i.e., ta˙rìf ) and other matters which it would take too long to expound.114

From such remarks, it is easy to see that the community recited these verses as a plea for relief from the insults that they endured. Despite the unbearable situation in which they found themselves, they remained ﬁrm in their faith and observance.115 Verses 18–19 encapsulated for them their own steadfastness, furnishing a suitable reply to their tormentors: 5.13 (Psalm 44:18) All this has befallen us, although we have not forgotten You and not betrayed Your covenant. (Psalm 44:19) Our heart has not turned back and our steps have not departed from Your ways. They mentioned the four things observed by the entire nation. First, “we have not forgotten You”—this refers to the proclamation of divine unity ( yi˙ud ha-shem), for every day in this world they say: “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). Second, “we have not betrayed Your covenant”—the meaning of this is that we have not abolished Your Law but rather, we continually assert “the Law of Moses is true.”116 For they proclaim as

114 Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on Psalms (Marwick), 9 on Ps 44:17. For the charge that the Jews call 'Uzayr (i.e., Ezra) a son of God, see Quran 9:30 and the discussion in Lazarus-Yafeh, Intertwined Worlds, 50–74. See also Salmon b. Yeru˙ìm, Commentary on Lamentations (Feuerstein), p. XXXI on Lam 1:8, trans. Ben-Shammai, “The Attitude,” 15. On ta˙rìf and naskh see ibid., 19–41. And see pp. 182–83 above. 115 On reﬂections of Muslim-Jewish polemics in Japheth’s commentaries, see ch. 6 below. 116 Heb. “torat moshe "emet.” On the liturgical function of "emet among Rabbanites and Karaites, see Wieder, “An Unknown Ancient Version,” pp. 44–46 and n. 34. Noting that "emet ﬁgures in the four hodayot (“aﬃrmations”) of the Karaites, Wieder cites a passage from Japheth’s commentary on Song 5:8: “They say: ‘Hear O Israel, etc.’ and say: ‘The Law of Moses is true, His prophets are true, and His Temple is true”; see Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on the Song of Songs, 74 (Ar.).

194

chapter five well that God made a covenant with them beneath Mount Sinai and that that covenant will remain binding upon the generations of Israel until the end of time,117 as it is stated: “Nor is it with you only that I make this covenant and this oath, but with him who stands here with us this day (before the Lord our God, and also with him who is not here with us this day)” (Deuteronomy 29:13–14). (Third) it then stated, “Our heart has not turned back”—by this they meant, “Our hearts have not inclined toward any religion other than Yours.” Now in the ﬁrst verse (i.e., v. 18), they conveyed the plain meaning of their statement; subsequently, they imparted its hidden (sense). (Fourth,) by the words “Our heart has not turned back” and “and our steps have not departed from Your ways” they are referring to the commandments ( farà"i∂ ) which both the righteous and wicked among them118 perform such as facing in the proper direction for prayer,119 circumcision, eating unleavened bread (on Passover),120 and the like.121

Yi˙ud ha-shem, the daily aﬃrmation of God’s unity, ﬁgures as prominently in the Karaite liturgy as in the Rabbanite prayer book. Here its importance is underscored by a sort of cross-reference within the Psalm: our loyalty to the Covenant, proclaims the worshiper, is manifest in our recitation of the Shema'.122 We have, moreover, remained ﬁrmly committed to the Law of Moses, resisting all arguments that it has been superseded and its commandments abrogated. For even the least devout Jew observes such basic religious laws as circumcision and the eating of unleavened bread on Passover.123 And this, in the face of unremitting persecution (vv. 20–23)! The conclusion of the Psalm (vv. 24–27) represents a request—the Mourners’ request— that God no longer conceal Himself from them and reveal at last His Salvation. In sum, the Psalm provided the Shoshannim with a compelling prayer for their community whose message can be recapitulated as follows: 117

Lit., “until the end of all the generations.” Ar. “ßàli˙uhum wa-†àli˙uhum.” 119 Ar. istiqbàl al-qibla. 120 Ar. akl al-fa†ìr. 121 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 44:18–19, JTSA MS Mic 3350 [ENA 96], fols. 12b–13a = BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/II (Cat. 287), fols. 14b–15a. 122 As we have seen Levi b. Japheth’s liturgy begins with yi˙ud ha-shem. On this component of the Karaite liturgy, see above p. 176 and n. 43. 123 It is true that Japheth complains elsewhere of apostasy; see ch. 6 below, pp. 208–11. In commenting on Ps 44:23, however, he recalls the willingness of Jews to suﬀer martyrdom at the hands of Christians and Muslims rather than abandon their faith. 118

the

SHOSHANNIM

and their liturgy

195

. . . Now this Psalm comprises four themes: (1) God’s beneﬁcence toward (our) ancestors throughout the various ages; (2) (Israel’s) complaint at what has befallen them; (3) mention of their adherence to the religion and law of God; and (4) (their) entreaty to God that He pay attention to their (present) situation and restore them to their former (condition).124

While Levi b. Japheth includes both Psalms 44 and 80 in his liturgy, it is Psalm 90 which he claims best combines communal and historical issues.125 Most likely, his choice was aﬀected by the Psalm’s ascription to Moses. Like his father, he probably believed that Moses composed the Psalm through the same “holy spirit” (Heb. rua˙ haqodesh) which inspired his songs at the sea (Exodus 15) and in the plains of Moab (Deuteronomy 32)—texts which the Jerusalem Karaites read prophetically.126 The Psalm’s designation as a prayer moreover, made it a natural choice for the liturgy. According to Japheth, the heading teﬁllah signiﬁes “a complaint at (one’s) situation, and an entreaty to God for salvation and the fulﬁllment of the (divine) promise”—a deﬁnition which tallies with his exegesis of Psalm 90.127 But Levi may also have been inﬂuenced by messianic considerations: the Psalm’s popularity among the Karaites was stimulated by certain clues to the Messiah’s coming which some detected in verses 4, 12, 14, and 15. Evidence for such calculations can be found both in Japheth’s commentary and in a Hebrew fragment apparently copied in Byzantium. In Japheth’s reading, the Psalm does indeed become a comprehensive prayer which would certainly make a ﬁtting liturgical climax: “You have been our refuge (Heb. ma'on; Ar. ma"wan) in every generation” (v. 1) alludes both to God’s all-encompassing nature and self-suﬃciency on the one hand, and the way He has continually aided Israel, on the other. This divine assistance was granted in the

124

Comment on 44:27, JTSA, MS Mic 3350 [ENA 96], fol. 15a. See above, pp. 175–76. 126 According to Japheth’s classiﬁcation, “inspiration” (Ar. ilhàm; Heb. rua˙ haqodesh) is the second highest of the six degrees of prophetic experience; see above, p. 101. 127 For Japheth’s deﬁnition of teﬁllah see his comment on Ps 3:1, BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/I (Cat. 286), fol. 21a, lines 10–11. Similarly, Ps 86 (“A Prayer of David”), was chosen to represent the “Individuals”; see above pp. 175–76, and further below. Al-Qirqisànì advances three reasons for the daily recitation of Ps 90 in the morning: (1) its Mosaic authorship invests it with special value; (2) its subject matter— the Exile, the return following repentance, and reward—is apposite; and (3) the word “morning” (boqer) is mentioned several times. See Kitàb al-anwàr, vol. 3, p. 630, lines 1–9 and Nemoy, “Studies in the History of the Early Karaite Liturgy,” 320–21. 125

196

chapter five

days of Moses, the time of the Judges and the Kings, and during the Exile; at the End of Days, “in the future, it will be even greater than in the past.”128 Having succinctly described God’s creation of the world and His relation to all of His creatures (v. 2),129 the Psalmist (here: Moses) describes the nature of the human predicament (vv. 3–6), speciﬁcally the decreasing life spans of human beings.130 These general statements introduce a description of what has befallen Israel: as a result of their sinfulness, the Jews have decreased dramatically and unnaturally in number and have suﬀered divine punishment at the hands of the nations (vv. 7, 9–11). The nature of their transgressions is familiar (v. 8): changing the times of the Sabbaths and festivals, eating forbidden foods, contracting illicit unions, and perverting justice. Whether willful or unintentional, these sins result primarily from ignorance of Scripture and adherence to man-made commandments (mißvat "anashim melummadah).131 Beset by great troubles (ßarot gedolot) in the last days of the Fourth Kingdom, the Teachers of the Exile (ma≤kilei 'am) realize that the words of the Prophet Jeremiah have been realized: “It is a time of trouble for Jacob; yet he shall be saved out of it” ( Jeremiah 30:7). When these troubles subside, however, and their hopes for redemption go unfulﬁlled, they beseech God to tell them the number of days remaining before the advent of the Prophet Elijah; for to date, none of the Sages of the Exile (˙akhmei galut) has successfully computed the End (v. 12).132 They ask God to repent of His anger and bestow upon them His favor so that they might rejoice all their days (vv. 13–14). In his comment on the following verse, Japheth exhibits his well-known antipathy to Messianic computations.133 On the basis of v. 15, some Karaite 128

Comment on 90:1, JTSA, MS Mic 3350 [ENA 96], fol. 190a. JTSA, MS Mic 3350 [ENA 96], fol. 190b. 130 JTSA, MS Mic 3350 [ENA 96], fol. 191ab. 131 JTSA, MS Mic 3350 [ENA 96], fol. 192ab. Cf. Japheth’s comment on Ps 79:8, pp. 186–87 above, and 5.7. On the signiﬁcance of the phrase mißvat "anashim melummadah (Isa 29:13), see above, p. 5, and n. 18. 132 Cf. Japheth’s comment on Ps 74:9, above p. 181. 133 In his Commentary on Daniel, Japheth makes it quite clear that precise calculation of the End is impossible. While the Bible does contain certain hints as to the timing of the ﬁnal days, it has deliberately prevented any precise reckoning; see Commentary on Daniel 12:6, p. 143, lines 18ﬀ. (Ar.), p. 79 (Eng.) where he collects eight such biblical references and his comment at the end of Daniel on the mistaken computations of his predecessors, ibid., pp. 151–53 (Ar.), pp. 86–87 (Eng.). And see Ben-Shammai’s comments, “Fragments of Daniel al-Qùmisì’s Commentary,” 270 and n. 30. 129

the

SHOSHANNIM

and their liturgy

197

exegetes, such as Benjamin al-Nahàwandì, maintained that the days of the Salvation (ayàm al-yeshu'ah) would number as many as the days of the Exile (ayàm al-galut).134 Rejecting this reading, Japheth ﬁnds in the verse an expression of hope that the period of the Salvation will be as joyful and full of rejuvenation as the preceding period was miserable and full of oppression. The ﬁnal two verses (16–17), he says, mention ﬁve deeds which God will perform in the “morning” (cf. v. 14), i.e., the advent of the Salvation and the passing of the darkness of Exile (zawàl ˙oshekh galut): (1) the wreaking of divine vengeance upon Israel’s enemies, Israel’s salvation from them and return to their land—all this is signiﬁed by the word “Your work”; (2) the bestowing of glorious dominion upon the new generation; (3) the favoring of Israel—after years of want—with the bounties of the Land; (4) the reestablishment of Jewish settlement in the Land; (5) and the reestablishment of the Temple for all eternity. In his exegesis of verses 12, 14, and 15 Japheth unequivocally rejects the suggestion that the Psalm may contain intimations of some actual eschatological date. His explicit dismissal of Benjamin alNahàwandì’s interpretation implies that some Karaites may have persisted in searching Psalm 90 for clues of this kind. The Hebrew fragment mentioned above, on the other hand, gives direct evidence of the Psalm’s importance to the Jerusalem Karaites in Levi’s time, both as a source for messianic calculations and as a liturgical text.135 On the basis of verse 4, some had reckoned that the Salvation would begin in the year 1015. Quite possibly, these calculations were stimulated by the harsh conditions endured by the Jews of Jerusalem during this period: the severe persecution of non-Muslims by the Fatimid Caliph al-Óàkim, beginning in 1012, extended to the Holy Land which was also ravaged by the revolt of Bedouin tribes.136 Writing in 1024, the anonymous author emphasizes the importance of this prayer, i.e., Psalm 90, whose recitation by the ma≤kilim shavei fesha' is essential preparation for the beginning of the Salvation.137 The incorporation of Psalm 90 within Levi’s liturgy, therefore, may

134

JTSA, MS Mic 3350 [ENA 96], fols. 194b–195a. The fragment was published by Mann, Texts and Studies, 2:100–102; see also Gil, History of Palestine, 805 for a brief discussion. 136 On the events of this period, see Gil, History of Palestine, 376–85; and see further below, pp. 210–11. 137 Mann, Texts and Studies, 2:102, last eight lines of Hebrew text. 135

198

chapter five

well reﬂect not only his community’s longing for salvation, but also a concession of sorts to their predilection for messianic computations. Psalms Relating to the Individuals (25, 28, and 86) “Following the Psalms relating to the community,” declares Levi, “one should recite Psalms relating to the individuals (mazàmìr alà˙àd), such as Psalms 25, 28, and 86.” The signiﬁcance of this phrase is obscure. Most likely, Levi is contrasting prayer recited for the sake of the entire community with prayer recited for personal needs; the same terminology can be found at the beginning of his Treatise.138 On the other hand, for the Jerusalem Karaites, who were preoccupied with the notion of spiritual elitism, the term à˙àd may have held greater signiﬁcance: are they the Mourners for Zion, a special group within the entire nation of Israel? Or are they an elite group within the Jerusalem community, i.e., the Ma≤kilim? Now, it is tempting to connect the “Individuals” (à˙àd ) with the “elite” (al-khàßß) mentioned by Japheth on several occasions. Thus, at the very end of his comment on Psalm 44, he remarks: As for the three verses (5, 7, 16) which, we have noted, are expressed in the singular—they allude to the elite of the nation (khawàßß al-umma). For He has also slain their elite.139

The elite in this case seem to be the nation’s leaders through the ages: the judges, kings, priests, and—in Japheth’s time—Shoshannim. This notion is borne out by his comment on Psalm 149:2 (“Let Israel be glad in his Maker, let the sons of Zion rejoice in their King!”): He mentions both “Israel” and “the sons of Zion.” (First,) he mentions the community, i.e., the nation which rejoices in the Lord (i.e., in) His worship and His salvation. Then he mentions the elite (alkhàßß), i.e., the sons of Zion, the sons of Kings, the sons of Priests and Levites, the singers (meshorerim), the servants of the city, and the “Terebinths of Righteousness” (i.e., the Mourners for Zion)140 who are the 138 See RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.930, fol. 20a, lines 11–13: “The legal authorities diﬀer concerning the obligation of prayer devolving today upon the communities and individuals ('alà al-jamà'àt wa’l-à˙àd ). 139 Comment on 44:27, JTSA, MS Mic 3350 [ENA 96], fol. 15a. Cf. above, p. 190 for Japheth’s comment on Ps 44:1 (5.10). 140 For the origin of this epithet, see Isa 61:3 and Wieder, “The Qumran Sectaries,” 100–101.

the

SHOSHANNIM

and their liturgy

199

most joyful just as during the Exile they were more aggrieved and distressed than the rest of Israel. Therefore, he says: “rejoice in their King.”141

Japheth’s contemporary David al-Fàsì makes the identiﬁcation explicit: he contrasts the elite (al-khußùß), “by which I mean the individuals” (a'nì al-à˙àd), with the general public (al-'umùm al-jumhùr) in his commentary on Psalms.142 From all this, it would seem that the terms khawàßß and à˙àd refer to the Shoshannim. On the other hand, we have already seen how the term jamà'a must designate the Jerusalem community as well, for Japheth relates Psalms 44, 80, and 90 directly to the Mourners.143 According to Levi, the three texts which most aptly represent the concerns of the Individuals are Psalms 25, 28, and 86. In his commentary, however, Japheth connects them with the Shoshannim generally. “This Psalm,” he writes in connection with Psalm 28, “also refers to the Remnant of Israel (she"erit Yi≤ra"el) and in it he related their prayer to the Lord for deliverance from their enemies among the nations and Israel.”144 A prophetic prayer vouchsafed unto David, it was “spoken concerning the ‘time of trouble for Jacob’ ('et ßarah le-Ya'aqov) when they would be overtaken by dangers threatening their life and religion.”145 Similarly, Psalm 86—which at ﬁrst blush seems to be David’s prayer for his own deliverance—really relates to “those whose way is blameless” (temimei derekh, cf. Psalm 119), living at the “time of trouble,” i.e., the Mourners for Zion. This, then, is another prophetic prayer spoken by David but intended for recitation by the pious (˙asidim) at the End of Days.146 What sets these three Psalms apart, of course, is their voice: cast in the ﬁrst-person singular, they furnish suitable texts for individual prayer. What Japheth and Levi may intend, then, is that each “pious servant” ('abd ßàli˙) recite these Psalms as a personal supplication for salvation from the aﬄictions he or she has endured as an individual member of an elite group.147

141

JTSA MS Mic. 3351 [ENA 97], fol. 207a. See Marwick, “A First Fragment,” p. 60, lines 21ﬀ. 143 See above, especially the comment on Ps 80:1. 144 Comment on Ps 28:1, BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/I (Cat. 286), fol. 159b. 145 Ibid. 146 Comment on Ps 86:2, BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/III (Cat. 288), fol. 100a. Cf. Japheth’s comment on Ps 25:1, BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/I (Cat. 286), fol. 142a–b. 147 For 'abd ßàli˙ see Japheth’s comment on Ps 86:2, ibid. 142

200

chapter five Conclusion: The Nature of Karaite Prayer in Tenth-Century Jerusalem

Since the best prayers, according to the Karaites, are in fact biblical prophecies, the most perfect worshipers ought to be ancient prophets. Indeed, as Simon has noted, the seeming opposition between prayer and prophecy—between human speech addressed to God and divine speech addressed to human beings—“disappears, because of the holy spirit, which descends from heaven and inspires the prophet’s address to the Lord.”148 Scripture records the inspired prayers of many individuals, such as Moses, Hannah, David, Solomon, and Habakkuk all of whom serve as exemplars of piety. In the prophet Daniel, however, the Mourners for Zion likely saw a prototype for their own devotional practices. A prophet in Exile, Daniel lived in Babylonia, whence many of the Shoshannim themselves probably hailed.149 As we have seen, his visions furnished the Shoshannim— as they did Rabbanite Jews—with the raw material for messianic speculation. His personal piety, moreover, served as a model which they strove to emulate. Defying a royal ban on prayer addressed to anyone but King Darius, Daniel retired to his chamber, faced Jerusalem, and prayed to God three times a day (Daniel 6:11). For the Karaites, this verse provided a halakhic source: it indicated that the worshiper was regularly to face Jerusalem in prayer evening, morning, and midday.150 Far more important to the Shoshannim, though, was the prayer of Daniel (Daniel 9:3–20) in which he prays, oﬀers confession, and beseeches God to relieve Israel’s oppression. Japheth’s analysis of this passage tallies perfectly with his approach to the Psalter.151 The following observation concerning the prayer’s form and content accords with numerous statements in his Commentary on Psalms: 148

Simon, Four Approaches, 81. Japheth b. Eli’s nisba, al-Baßrì, indicates his Iraqi origin; Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm was apparently also from Iraq. 150 See Japheth, Commentary on Daniel 6:11, p. 24 (Ar.), p. 30 (Eng.). See also alQirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr VI.16.3 and VI.18.1, trans. Nemoy, “Studies in the History of the Early Karaite Liturgy,” 310–12. Levi b. Japheth, on the other hand, believed that only the morning and evening prayers were strictly obligatory; see Vajda, “Lex Orandi,” 12–13 where he argues that Daniel’s three daily prayers reﬂected his own personal practice. Levi did, of course, insist that Jerusalem was the proper qibla; ibid., 23–25. 151 Commentary on Daniel 9:3–20, 91–98 (Ar. ), 44–48 (Eng.). 149

the

SHOSHANNIM

and their liturgy

201

The prayer contains four subjects (ma'ànì): (1) praise of God (v. 4); (2) the enumeration of (Israel’s) sins and transgressions (vv. 5–11a); (3) the enumeration of what has befallen Israel in consequence of their sins (vv. 11b–14); and (4) a petition that God return from His wrath in respect of the city and the nation and that He forgive their sins. . . . He prefaces the prayer with an account of God’s deeds, as is the custom with all those who ask God for anything they desire.152

Japheth’s gloss on Daniel’s closing words, “O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, give heed and act,” is strongly reminiscent of his deﬁnition of prayer as “a complaint at (one’s) situation, and an entreaty to God for salvation and the fulﬁllment of the (divine) promise”: Hear, i.e., hear our complaint concerning our condition (shakwa ˙àlinà) and what has befallen us, and forgive our sins. Give heed, i.e., listen to our supplication and do something for Your people, Your city, and Your Temple.153

Daniel’s behavior, moreover—his fasting, donning of sackcloth and ashes (9:3) and lamenting the Temple’s destruction (9:16–18)—established a program for the Mourners in tenth-century Zion.154 And in calling themselves Ma≤kilim, they clearly believed that their own activities were described in visions vouchsafed to the prophet.155 For as Japheth observes elsewhere: After they have performed the commandment(s) and religious obligations, the Remnant of Jacob—i.e., the Penitent, the Ma≤kilim—will take upon themselves the performance of such supererogatory acts (nawàﬁl ) as fasting, (donning) coarse clothing, and refraining from permissible delights and celebrations, while praying continually at night.156

152 Ibid., 9:4, p. 91, lines 6–17 (Ar.), 44 (Eng.); I have modiﬁed Margoliouth’s translation slightly. Cf. especially the twelve liturgical themes in Japheth’s Introduction to Psalms; cf. also his comments on, e.g., Ps 79:13 (5.8) and Ps 90:1 (5.11). 153 Commentary on Daniel 9:19, p. 97, lines 6–17 (Ar.), 48 (Eng., modiﬁed); cf. 9:20, p. 98, lines 1–2 (Ar.), 48 (Eng.). The deﬁnition of teﬁllah can be found in the comment on Ps 3:1 (shakwa al-˙àl wa-mas"ala allàh fì ’l-khalàß wa-injàz al-wa'ad); see above n. 127. Cf. also the comments on Pss 74:1 (5.2), 74:10 (5.3), and 44:27. 154 Cf. Commentary on Daniel 10:2–3, 104–105 (Ar.), 52–53 (Eng.) where Japheth characterizes Daniel’s actions as “after the ordinary fashion of mourners” (min mabsù†àt al-"avelut). 155 See the comments on Daniel 11:32–35, 128–30 (Ar.), 68–69 (Eng.) and 12:9–10, 146–49 (Ar.), 81–84 (Eng.). 156 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Hosea, p. 220, lines 10–14, on Hos 14:5.

202

chapter five

Certainly, the Shoshannim sought to imitate the actions of prophets. Even more important to them, however, was the use of prophetic language in prayer. As we have tried to show throughout this chapter, their exegetical and devotional activities were intimately related. Having interpreted a biblical passage, they incorporated its exegesis directly into their worship. For the most part, of course, this phenomenon was implicit and must have been invisible. But there can be no doubt that the teachings of their leading scholars were internalized. The commentary of Japheth b. Eli on the Psalter was intended as liturgical exegesis. His abstraction of key liturgical themes, his frequent references to prayer, complaint (shakwa), and entreaty (mas"ala), and his regular detection of references to the Jerusalem community within the Psalter can all be seen as an attempt to inculcate a certain way of reading the Psalms. Ultimately, the focused worshiper could not help but understand these texts according to their accepted interpretation as he recited them. The Mourners for Zion developed a grand salvation history, giving themselves a leading role at the End of Days. The liturgy which they constructed for themselves plainly reﬂects this vision. Where possible, they tended to interpret individual Psalms as comprehensive, self-contained units which included praise of God, mention of Israel’s past—notably their sins and suﬀerings—and a petition for divine help. Japheth sets forth twelve main liturgical themes in the Introduction to his Psalms commentary; the texts most suitable for prayer are those which encompass the greatest number of these rubrics. Comprehensiveness in a Psalm became, therefore, a prime liturgical desideratum.157 But this was not all. The liturgy in its entirety was organized around the same principle; as Levi aﬃrms: “It is laudable to recite the Psalms relating to the Exile prior to the Psalms relating to the Salvation according to the chronological sequence of events ('alà tartìb al-zamàn).”158 The message imparted by this structure was one of repentance and return—from Babylonia to Jerusalem, from Exile to Redemption. Bearers of this message to all Israel, the

157 For the twelve themes see above, pp. 169–70. For examples of comprehensive Psalms see the comments on 44:1 (5.10), 74:1 (5.2), and Ps 90:1 (5.11). 158 See above, p. 175 and 5.1. A similar tendency is discernible in the Rabbanite order for Passover; cf. the statement in mPesa˙im 10:4 concerning the recounting of the Exodus, “one should begin with blame and conclude with praise.”

the

SHOSHANNIM

and their liturgy

203

Shoshannim claimed for themselves a unique function. Through their fasts, vigils, prayers, and Bible study they believed that they might hasten the coming of the Messiah. And through this regimented program they self-consciously determined their collective identity as Mourners for Zion.

CHAPTER SIX

“A PROPHET LIKE MOSES”: EXEGESIS AS RELIGIOUS POLEMIC An Environment of Contentiousness Throughout this book we have touched upon polemics—between Karaites and Ananites, Karaites and Rabbanites, Karaites and Gentiles. This is a natural function of our subject. As scripturalist reformers, the early Karaites opposed legislation that they believed lacked biblical justiﬁcation. If legal ambiguities arose, they preferred uncertainty and indeterminacy to rabbinic regulation (Chapter Two). The Jerusalem Karaites’ apocalyptic outlook, moreover, led them to interpret scriptural prophecies prognostically. This meant identifying biblical adversaries mentioned in the Song of Songs (Chapter Four) or the Psalter (Chapter Five) with their own contemporary foes, the Rabbanites, Christians, and Muslims.1 In this chapter we shall show that Karaite commentaries not only vilify these adversaries, but also preserve considered—if veiled—responses to Christian and Muslim polemics against Judaism. Tenth- and eleventh-century Karaite authors considered Gentiles in six overlapping literary contexts: heresiography, theology, halakhah, exegesis, eschatology, and polemics. The ﬁrst book of al-Qirqisànì’s Kitàb al-anwàr, which contains an important account of Jewish sects and their origins, represents the sole Karaite heresiographic text from this period; it provided later writers with valuable information about Christianity and Islam.2 Thoroughly informed by the teachings of

1 When reading an entire salvation history into a particular Psalm, they identify certain enemies with Israel’s ancient oppressors. In his comment on Ps 3:1 (BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/I [Cat. 286], fols. 21b–22a), Japheth b. Eli lists a group of Psalms by the speciﬁc enemies to which they relate, e.g., Gog only (2, 27, 46, 48, 68); Ishmael and Edom (5, 140); Ishmael only (12, 74); Gog, Edom, Ishmael, and enemies of the pious servant (35). On the problem of the “enemies” in modern biblical scholarship see Birkeland, The Evildoers and Anderson, “Enemies and Evildoers.” 2 See al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr I.8, vol. 1, pp. 42–47 (trans. Lockwood, 135–39), and Nemoy, “The Attitude of the Early Karaites Towards Christianity.” The twelfth-

“a

prophet like moses”

205

Mutazilite masters, Karaite theologians, such as Yùsuf al-Baßìr, engaged Muslim and Christian teachings dialectically in their own kalàm writings.3 Halakhic issues arose naturally in connection with the question of the Torah’s universality: if, for example, the Law really is binding upon Jews and Gentiles alike, then the corpses of non-Jews might communicate impurity as readily as do those of Jews.4 In his Code, Levi b. Japheth presents the problem in some detail; we have already noted his father’s comment on Psalm 74:11, in which he complains that the Gentiles deﬁle the Temple Mount with their dead.5 Indeed, the exegesis of prophetic texts and eschatological speculation became the most natural occasions for discussing the Nations. By contrast, open attacks on Christianity and Islam remained quite rare; given their lowly status and small numbers, it was imprudent for Jews to polemicize overtly.6 The Jerusalem Karaites’ preoccupation with Gentile oppression and blasphemy is readily apparent in Japheth’s commentary on Psalm 5, which by virtue of its superscription holds special signiﬁcance for them: 6.1 (Psalm 5:1) Of the choir master (musta˙ithth)7 concerning the time of the sicknesses (zamàn al-mara∂iyàt). A song of David.

century Byzantine Karaite Judah Hadassi drew upon al-Qirqisànì for the heresiographic section of his encyclopedia "Eshkol ha-kofer; see Bacher, “Inedited Chapters” and Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium, pp. 373–74 and n. 44. 3 See Vajda, Al-Kitàb al-Mu˙tawì, 134–35, 140–41. Al-Qirqisànì also discusses Christian and Muslim teachings; see Kitàb al-anwàr, III.2–4, vol. 2, pp. 190–201; III.15–16, vol. 2, pp. 292–307. On these texts, see Lasker, Jewish Philosophical Polemics, 57–63, Ben-Shammai, “The Attitude of Some Early Karaites,” 23–39. 4 See Ben-Shammai, “Some Genizah Fragments”; Erder, “Early Karaite Conceptions About Commandments”; and Sklare, “Are the Gentiles Obligated to Observe the Torah?” 5 For Levi b. Japheth’s Code, see Ben-Sasson, “Tenth- and Eleventh-Century Karaite Attitudes to Gentiles.” For Japheth’s comment on Ps 74:11, see above, p. 183 and 5.4. 6 See Stroumsa, “Jewish Polemics Against Islam and Christianity” and Sklare, “Responses to Islamic Polemics.” On inter-religious polemical literature in Arabic, see Steinschneider, Polemische und apologetische Literatur. On Islamic attitudes toward Judaism, see Lazarus-Yafeh (ed.), Muslim Authors on Jews and Judaism. On Jewish polemics against Islam, see Perlmann, “The Medieval Polemics between Judaism and Islam,” revised Hebrew translation in Lazarus-Yafeh, ibid.; see also Schlossberg, “Ha-pulmus 'im ha-"islam,” a study of Jewish attitudes and responses in a fourteenth-century Yemenite commentary. On Jewish polemics against Christianity in Islamic lands, see Lasker, “The Jewish Critique of Christianity.” For Karaite polemics against Islam, see Ben-Shammai, “The Attitude of Some Early Karaites.” 7 The standard Karaite rendering of Heb. menaßßea˙ is Ar. musta˙ithth, lit. “one

206

chapter six The superscriptions indicate that unlike Psalm 4, this Psalm was not recited by David or any of the other singers (meshorerim) concerning themselves. He recited it, rather, via divine inspiration (rua˙ ha-qodesh) concerning them (i.e., the Mourners for Zion). There are ﬁve such Psalms: (1) Psalm 5; (2) Psalm 22; (3) Psalm 45; (4) Psalm 69; and (5) Psalm 80. There is another one as well that David recited concerning his son, (i.e., the messiah) peace be upon them both, viz., Psalm 60. We will explain the meaning of each and every one of these terms in its proper place.8 But for now, the phrase "el ha-ne˙ilot alludes to the Mourners for Zion whose hearts were ﬁlled with grief for the destruction of God’s Temple, the desolation of Jerusalem and Zion, the cessation of the divine sacriﬁces and liturgy, the desecration of the Divine Name, and Israel’s disastrous exile. They left oﬀ attending festivities, dressed themselves in9 rough garments (al-khashin), observed continual fasts, and refrained from eating those delicacies with which they were familiar. Thereupon, they became sick, their bodies dried out, their hearts became parched. It is they who complain about their situation in many of the Psalms, especially Psalm 102; the expression "el ha-ne˙ilot refers to them.10

Japheth’s translation of the obscure ne˙ilot as “sicknesses” may seem odd, but it does reﬂect a Karaite consensus.11 What is striking here, however, is that he classiﬁes Psalm 5 together with the three “Shoshannim” Psalms (45, 69, 80), Psalm 22 (“the Hind of the Dawn”) and Psalm 102 (the “Aﬄicted One”). These are the special prayers of the Mourners for Zion, whose way of life Japheth sketches so vividly here. For him Psalm 5 is an inspired plaint through which the Mourners can contrast their own degradation in Jerusalem with the prosperity of the Gentiles; it expresses their fervent hope that

who urges, excites.” Cf. Salmon b. Jeroham, Commentary on Psalms (Alobaidi), 4:1, p. 220 and pp. 357–58, nn. 1–4, and David al-Fàsì, Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ, 2:288: . . . almusta˙ithth lil-meshorerim al-mu'allim lahum al-nashìd (“who rouses the singers, teaching them the song”). 8 I.e., such terms as "ayelet ha-sha˙ar and shoshannim that occur in the superscriptions to these Psalms. 9 Reading wa-labisù for wa-labisa. 10 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 5:1, BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/I (Cat. 286), fols. 29b–30a. 11 Cf. Salmon b. Yeru˙ìm, Commentary on Psalms (Alobaidi) 5:1, p. 228 where hane˙ilot is glossed as Israel’s “aﬄictions of the heart.” David al-Fàsì suggests “the ailments” (al-awjà' wa’l-amrà∂ ), connecting it with na˙elah ( Jer 10:19) and referring the Psalm to the “aﬄictions of the Exile”; see Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ, 2:264, lines 48–53. This interpretation is virtually unknown in rabbinic literature, but cf. Yalqut Shim'oni, 2:884b, par. 628 end, which corresponds to Braude, The Midrash on Psalms, 1:83, lines 14–17; the passage is absent from Midrash Tehillim, ed. Buber.

“a

prophet like moses”

207

God will soon remove Christians and Muslims from the Holy City that they pollute: 6.2 (Psalm 5:6) “The contemptible will not stand before You; You hate all evildoers.” In this verse, he provides a description of those people he had mentioned (previously). He informs us that they are “contemptible evildoers.” The “contemptible” (holelim) ones are the Christians (al-naßàrì) who devote themselves to eating, drinking, and continual merrymaking. This word occurs in similar expressions such as “Of laughter I said, ‘contemptible!’” (Ecclesiastes 2:2). As for “the evildoers” they are Ishmael, the people of malice and the way of wickedness (madhhab alsù"). Thus (the Psalmist) said: “O Lord, these Christians do not remain in Your sanctuary; in the same way You have despised Ishmael so that they will not inhabit Your sanctuary.” (Psalm 5:7) “You exterminate those who speak lies; a bloodthirsty and deceitful man does the Lord abhor.” In the previous verse (David) informed (us) that they (i.e., the Christians and Muslims) would not remain in “Your sanctuary.” In this verse, he explains that (God) will eradicate them from the world, by which he means the “contemptible ones”12 who lie and assert abominations about Him, for they profess belief in the Trinity. All the doctrines that they invoke are lies and absurdities. Then, he mentions the other, the “bloodthirsty and deceitful man,” i.e., the ruler of Ishmael (sà˙ib yishma'"el) to whom deceitfulness is ascribed, as it stated: “He shall make deceit prosper under his hand” (Daniel 8:25) and “and from the time that an alliance is made with him, he shall act deceitfully” (Daniel 11:23). He is (called) a bloodthirsty man since his way has been one of war ( jihàd ) and conquest (ghazwàt), from the beginning of his dominion until its end. Then he stated, “The Lord abhors,” i.e., God abhors and detests him.13

Japheth’s comments on these verses display his abhorrence for the two religions that together constitute the Fourth Kingdom. He presents the Christians as frivolous and their faith as both blasphemous and foolish, while depicting the Muslims as wicked and violent. Invective of this kind recurs throughout Japheth’s commentaries, with disparagement of Christian and Islamic behavior and religious practices frequently accompanying complaints of suﬀering at Gentile hands.14 12

Identiﬁed as the Christians in the comment on 5:6. Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 5:6–7, BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/I (Cat. 286), fol. 32a–b. This comment has been cited by Gil, A History of Palestine, 807. 14 See Ben-Shammai, “The Attitude of Some Early Karaites,” esp. 8. 13

208

chapter six

One form of abuse particularly galls Japheth: the attempts of missionaries to convert Jews. There are clear intimations of his fears in the comment on verse 9: . . . The meaning ( ghara∂ ) of this statement is that his enemies desire him to forsake (his) religion. Therefore, he said: ‘O God, do not make them attain their designs against me; cause me to go, rather, in (the ways of ) Your Torah and Your religion.’ By the word hayshar he meant ‘make the knowledge of Your laws ( farà"i∂ ) and Your way (madhhab) easy for me, for their machinations are (working) against me at all times. They desire that I forsake Your religion. . . .15

Needless to say, divine assistance is required. For Japheth, Psalm 5:11 represents the Mourners’ plea that the Muslims be driven into Gehenna for having slandered the Torah, while brazenly claiming an enduring dominion, a place in Paradise, and the eﬃcacy of Muhammad’s intercession on their behalf.16 While it is diﬃcult to correlate Japheth’s statements with particular historical circumstances, interconfessional relations were undoubtedly tense in Jerusalem during the latter half of the tenth century. A sacred center dominated by holy sites and religious establishments, the city was governed by Muslims and home to a large Christian population.17 The small Jewish minority remained for spiritual, rather than material reasons. As ahl al-dhimma, they were protected from physical persecution, although unpleasant events are known to have

15 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 5:9, BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/I (Cat. 286), fols. 33a–b: . . . wa’l-ghara∂ fì hàdà ’l-qawl huwa an a'dàhu ya†lubùn khurùjahu min al-dìn. fa-qàla yà rabb là tuballighuhum muràdahum ﬁyya bal sawwiqnì fì tawràtik wa-dìnik. waqawluhu hayshar yurìdu bihi sahhal 'alayya 'ilm farà"i∂ik wa-madhhabik fa-inna tadbìrahum 'alayya dà"iman ya†lubùn ikhràjì min dìnik. . . . 16 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 5:11, BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/I (Cat. 286), fol. 34b: . . . wa-dfa'hum ilà she"ol gehinnom fa-innahum khàlafùk fì mà †a'anù fì sharì'atik wa-a˙dathù kadhb min anfusihim wa-nasabùhà ilayk wa-hiya ∂idd tawràtik wa-kutubik almuqaddasik wa-hum ma'a dhàk yaz'amùn an dawlatahum tuthbit wa-ilà gan 'eden munßarafuhum wa-"ish ha-rua˙ yashfa' fìhim. . . . On the opprobrious epithet for the prophet of Islam, (meshugga') "ish ha-rua˙ (“[mad] man of the spirit”; Hos 9:7), see Steinschneider, Polemische und apologetische Literatur, 302, and Ben-Shammai, “The Attitude of Some Early Karaites,” 13–14. For a similar passage, see Japheth’s comment on Isa 47:3, cited by Ben-Shammai, ibid., 18. 17 See Gil, “The Authorities and the Local Population” and Linder, “Christian Communities in Jerusalem.” Describing Jerusalem in 985 C.E., al-Muqaddasì complained that “learned men are few, and the Christians numerous, and the same are unmannerly in public places . . . everywhere the Christians and the Jews have the upper hand”; see Le Strange, Description of Syria, 37 = al-Muqaddasì, A˙san al-taqàsìm fì ma'rifàt al-taqàlìm, 167.

“a

prophet like moses”

209

occurred. Until the Islamic conquest in 638, Jews had been barred from the Holy City for ﬁve hundred years; under the new regime, they were permitted to settle in the area and granted access to the Temple Mount. According to Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm (ca. 955), Christian agitation led to the restriction of these privileges; in his own day, he complains, the Christians seek to exclude Jews from the area entirely.18 On occasion, inter-religious tensions even led to violence. In 966, the Muslim governor of Jerusalem incited anti-Christian riots which led to the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher; apparently, Jews also took part in the looting on this occasion.19 For medieval Jews there were always incentives to abandon an ancestral faith which put its adherents to real disadvantage. Some Jews in the Islamic East apparently converted to Christianity during this period.20 But for social and material reasons, at the very least, Islam obviously oﬀered a much more attractive alternative, and consequently posed a true danger. Conversion to Islam eliminated the onerous conditions of dhimmì status, which required the payment of a poll-tax ( jizya), and the wearing of special clothing, while barring non-Muslims from high oﬃce.21 By apostasizing, however, a Jew 18 See Gil, “The Political History,” 1–9, 21 and idem, “The Jewish Community,” 163–71 (referring to Karaite sources including Salmon’s comment on Ps 30). For a Genizah fragment describing 'Umar’s restoration of the Temple site and his reestablishment of the Jewish community in Jerusalem, see Gil, Palestine, 2:2–3, no. 1, translation in Stillman, The Jews of Arab Lands, 154–55. For Salmon’s comment on Ps 30, see Mann, The Jews in Egypt and in Palestine, p. 46, n. 1. See also Sahl b. Maßlia˙’s summary of events in Harkavy, Me"assef nidda˙im, p. 199, lines 23–28, Gil, A History of Palestine, 324–25, 347–48 (citing Japheth and Salmon). 19 See Gil, A History of Palestine, 325–26. On Jewish-Christian relations during this period, see also Baras, “Jewish-Christian Disputes and Conversions in Jerusalem.” 20 During the preceding centuries, when many of the leading scholars in the Islamic East were Christians, certain Jewish intellectuals, like Dàwùd b. Marwàn al-Muqammaß, were attracted to Christianity. Although conversion to Islam was always much more common, even in Japheth’s day there were some who apostasized, and converted to Christianity. See Stroumsa, “On Jewish Intellectuals Who Converted,” pp. 183–85, and n. 21 citing Japheth’s comment on Deut 4:28, BL MS Or. 2478, fol. 42a, lines 4–6. There is no evidence from this period, however, for any signiﬁcant Christian missionary activity among the Jews of the Islamic East. Jewish-Christian polemics deriving from this milieu likely reﬂect tensions between members of two competing religious minorities. 21 On Jewish apostasy in Islamic lands during the Middle Ages, see: Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, 2:299–303; Lewis, The Jews of Islam, 92–102; Cohen, Under Crescent and Cross, 175–77; and many of the studies in Pe'amim 42 (1990). On dhimmì status, see Cahen, “Dhimma”; Cohen, Under Crescent and Cross, ch. 4; Tritton, The Caliphs, esp. ch. 6; Lewis, The Jews of Islam, ch. 1; Fattal, Le statut légal des non-musulmans; Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, 2:273–89.

210

chapter six

became eligible for positions of power. This was the case with Ya'qùb Ibn Killis, who distinguished himself as vizier under two caliphs (977/8–991).22 The rise of the Fatimid caliphs in Egypt coincided with the institutionalization of the Ismaili mission (da'wa) during the second half of the tenth century and the ﬁrst decades of the eleventh. During the reign of the Caliph al-Óàkim (996–1021) proselytizing among non-Muslims seems to have intensiﬁed.23 Japheth mentions the Ismaili propagandists (du'àh) who “call people to their faith, casting snares for them, so that many Jews are ruined.”24 In his comment on Daniel 11:32, he elaborates: . . . they will become apostates for sundry worldly reasons; they will take certain verses of the Bible, relating to the Messiah, and apply them to the ßà˙ib al-waqt 25 and interpret them accordingly; they will also allegorize the Sabbath and the festivals. They will run into perdition and apostasy.26

As S.M. Stern observed, this passage aﬀords insights into the arguments of the missionaries, who discovered biblical allusions to the Caliph and allegorized the ceremonial laws of the Torah.27 The temporal inducements to apostasy included the promise of riches, honors, and land on the one hand, and the threat of execution on the other: . . . for they will see that everybody who enters his religion attains these high ranks, while those who do not accept his doctrine he kills and

22 On Ibn Killis, see Fischel, Jews in the Economic and Political Life of Mediaeval Islam, 45–68 and further below. Muslim sources stress the sincerity of Ibn Killis’s conversion, his piety, and his expertise in Islamic jurisprudence ( ﬁqh). 23 See Daftary, The Ismà'ìlìs, 186–96; van Ess, Chiliastische Erwartungen; and Halm, The Fatimids. 24 See Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Song of Songs 2:16, p. 36b, lines 7–12: wadhàlika an fì dhàlika al-zamàn yaqùm min qeren ze'irah dawla lahà du'àh tad'ì al-nàs ilà dìnihim wa-ta†ra˙ lahum mikhsholim fa-yatlaf kathìr min Yi≤ra"el. 25 Wilferd Madelung informs me that the term ßà˙ib al-waqt (more commonly ßà˙ib al-zamàn) refers in Shiite usage to the imàm who is God’s representative on earth. Since the text dates from the age of al-Hàkim, he concurs with Stern’s suggestion that al-Óàkim is meant. Meir Bar-Asher adds that this phrase, meaning “The Master of Time,” refers to the one who is to rectify the age, ushering in an era of justice and good order. According to Kraus, Óamìd al-Dìn al-Kirmànì composed a series of works aimed at demonstrating that al-Óàkim was ßà˙ib al-zamàn; see “Hebräische und syrische Zitate,” 244 and 252. 26 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Daniel 11:32, p. 128 (Ar.), p. 68 (Eng.). The translation given here is by Stern, “Fà†imid Propaganda,” 91; the text is reproduced from Margoliouth’s edition on p. 90. 27 Ibid., 92–95. On the allegorization of ceremonial laws, cf. Goldziher, Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law, 221–222, and nn.

“a

prophet like moses”

211

burns—so they will leave the religion. This is the reason why so many of our people were ruined (i.e., apostasized) at the beginning of the reign of this dynasty and even till now. Also in the region of the Maghrib many of the ( Jewish) community became apostates.28

Stern plausibly related this text to the persecutions of al-Óàkim, whom he identiﬁed with the ßà˙ib al-waqt. This is chronologically possible, since the Commentary on Daniel was likely one of the last works Japheth composed, and since he is known to have been alive in 1004/5 C.E., shortly before the anti-dhimmì measures were instituted.29 Persecutions apart, Fatimid missionary activity had been winning converts for years. Karaite scholars tried to meet the challenge by studying Islam and refuting its teachings: By the words: “but the people that do know their God shall be strong and take action” he alludes to the people from Israel who will understand the religion of ßà˙ib al-waqt and will gather that it has a secret which escaped many of Israel so that they ran into perdition, but other people, who are learned, will search his religion and will realize that it is false. They will become strong in the Law and will act according to it, and will not leave the religion of Israel as the others did. All this has begun in the region of the West many years ago: a great number of Israel became apostates and accepted his doctrine—all this is very well known.30

Non-Muslims, who were already vulnerable to worldly pressures and temptations, found that rational and scripturally-based arguments created serious trials of faith.31 Naturally, interconfessional polemics presented problems. In the Islamic East, the majlis (plural, majàlis), or 28 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Daniel 11:39, p. 132 (Ar.), pp. 70–71 (Eng.). The translation given here is by Stern, ibid., 93 (modiﬁed). 29 On the dating of the Commentary on Daniel, see Margoliouth, p. v, n. 5 and Marwick, “The Order of the Books,” 459–60. Schenker has suggested the possibility of two editions. Like Margoliouth, he believes that in its present form, the work dates from 990 at the earliest; see “Der Karäer Jafet ben Eli,” 24–25. If Stern’s suggestion is accepted, the work may have been further revised during the early eleventh century in order to reﬂect changing realities. On Japheth’s dates, see above, p. 14, n. 55. For Geniza sources on al-Óàkim’s treatment of non-Muslims, see Mann, The Jews in Egypt and in Palestine, 1:28–38, 2:26–39, and idem, “A Second Supplement,” 258–63. Sahl b. Maßlia˙ also alludes to the persecutions in his commentary on Genesis; see Mann, Texts and Studies, 2:68 and 103, App. VII, an extract from the muqaddima to parashat Mi-qeß discussed above in ch. 3, pp. 137–38. 30 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Daniel 11:32 (continuation), in Stern, “Fà†imid Propaganda,” 91 (translation modiﬁed). 31 On the motivations for conversion to Islam, see Stroumsa, “On Jewish Intellectuals Who Converted” and Fiey, “Conversions à l’islam.”

212

chapter six

séance, was a recognized phenomenon. Princes and viziers held regular assemblies at which theological, philosophical, or literary topics were debated by representatives of diﬀerent religions as well as freethinkers. Generally speaking, the rules of engagement demanded openness as well as courtesy.32 In fact, an Andalusian visitor to two majàlis at the Buyid court in Baghdad at the end of the tenth century expressed horror at the readiness with which Muslims would debate theological points with inﬁdels. What seems particularly to have galled him, was the stipulation, accepted by all, that arguments appeal to reason, not revelation.33 While this policy may have shocked a conservative theologian, it guaranteed a common ground for discussion among members of diﬀerent faiths and prevented defamation of the Quran. Jews did participate in such meetings, although not necessarily with any great enthusiasm. A tantalizing fragment from the Cairo Geniza, refers to a majlis held by Ibn Killis at which the rabbinic prayer book was ridiculed; the anonymous author, who had been deeply embarrassed at the occasion, sought to defend the excellence of the rabbinic liturgy.34 The atmosphere of these gatherings, it seems, was not always perfectly civilized. Then again, skillful debating technique was much more dangerous than crude mockery. The famous Karaite scholar Yùsuf al-Baßìr recounts his experience of a majlis: Many of us who had associated with them (dàkhalahum) found that the Muslims had argued elegantly in the most embellished and beautiful manner concerning the prophecy of their master, and that there was nothing (in the argument) by which they could refute it. So doubt took possession of them, they went astray, and were lost. When I had

32 On the ideal of courtesy and the rude realities of the majlis, see Stroumsa, “Ibn al-Ràwandì’s sù" adab al-mujàdala.” As Stroumsa notes, al-Qirqisànì included a treatise on dialectics, which discusses the “code of manners,” in Kitàb al-anwàr; see Vajda, “Études sur Qirqisànì V,” esp. 37–46 and 48–50 = Kitàb al-anwàr IV:66 and 68. 33 The Andalusian was Abù 'Umar A˙mad Ibn Sa'dì; see Griﬃth, “The Monk in the Emir’s Majlis,” 62, and Kraemer, Humanism, 59–60. 34 See Cohen and Somekh, “In the Court of Ya'qùb ibn Killis.” The document mentions that both Rabbanites and “their adversaries” (mukhàlifuhum) were present (p. 290, last line); this may well constitute the earliest evidence for a Karaite presence in Egypt (pp. 294–95). On this text, see also idem, “Interreligious Majàlis in Early Fatimid Egypt” and Somekh, “Fragments of a Polemic Treatise.” The prayer book in question was an Arabic translation of Saadya Gaon’s siddur. As Stroumsa observes, the Jewish participants on this occasion were hardly treated with respect; see “Ibn al-Ràwandì’s sù" adab al-mujàdala,” 71.

“a

prophet like moses”

213

become aware of this, and had become worn out from enduring the(ir arguments), as the doubts with which they had assailed me recurred in (my mind), I then sought solitude in order to meditate and pray that “He who created the world” ﬁx my feet ﬁrmly in His law and that I not slip, as it is stated: “Make my feet ﬁrm through Your promise” (Psalm 119:133). Then I returned to the majlis with renewed strength having realized what I should say and how I should respond.35

Apparently, there were also Jews and Christians who were prepared to debate doctrinal points with each other at majàlis. Convocations of this kind, after all, presented good opportunities to humiliate one’s rivals at court.36 On the other hand, it is diﬃcult to imagine that any Jewish scholar would have willingly engaged a capable Muslim controversialist in public disputation. Japheth’s commentaries certainly reﬂect these concerns. The “violent, deceitful man” (Psalm 5:7)—that is, Islam personiﬁed—possessed many stratagems: the Muslim controversialists were skilled in debate and sought to persuade Jews of their religious error through sophistry. For their part, the Jews felt a robust response to be unsafe: 6.3 (Psalm 31:21) With Your face’s veil You conceal them from the bonds (ribà†àt) of man; You preserve them in Your booth from the disputation (khußùma) of tongues. . . . The phrase “from the bonds of men” refers to “the violent, deceitful man” (Psalm 5:7) who through tricks (˙iyal) of his devising calls upon Israel to abandon the Torah. Many Jews become ensnared37 by these (tricks) which are of many diﬀerent types. Therefore it states, “from the bonds of man” in the plural. Then it states, “You preserve them in Your booth.” This refers to His Temple, as we have explained with reference to “for He will hide me in His shelter” (Psalm 27:5). And he compared it to the shelters that oﬀer protection from cold and heat. The phrase “from the disputation (khußùma) of tongues” alludes to their calumny against the book of God and their appeal

35 See Sklare, “Responses to Islamic Polemics,” pp. 141–42 and n. 16 (Arabic text); I have modiﬁed the translation. The passage appears towards the beginning of al-Baßìr’s treatise refuting the doctrine of the Quran’s inimitability, which he composed in the aftermath of the majlis. 36 According to the Coptic bishop Sawìrus Ibn al-Muqaﬀa', a Jewish friend of Ibn Killis instigated a theological debate before the Caliph, al-Mu'izz. The bishop, representing the Christian side, claims to have brought the debate to a spectacular conclusion by means of a miracle; see Cohen and Somekh, “Interreligious Majàlis in Early Fatimid Egypt,” 129–31, and Heijer, “Apologetic Elements.” 37 “Become ensnared”: Ar. yanwahiqùn; see Dozy, Supplément, 2:845b and Ratzaby, Dictionary, 140.

214

chapter six to the Righteous38 via reason and argument (bi’l-naΩar wa’l-jadal ) with them. But they (i.e., the Righteous) are unable to argue against them at length,39 fearing for their lives and more, as I shall explain in connection with Psalm 39:2. I have rendered me-rukhsei “bonds” on the basis of “and they shall bind the breastpiece” (Exodus 28:28). Others have rendered it “of the roughnesses of man” as in “and the rough places, a plain” (Isaiah 40:4), meaning their crude actions that beset the righteous one, which are compared to an uneven path along which people stumble.40

Discretion dictated silence, since a sharp rejoinder might well lead to denunciation, punishment, and even death. At the same time, the Mourners had to counter these false arguments decisively and bolster the faith of their fellow Jews whenever they met, in synagogue or study-hall: 6.4 (Psalm 39:2) I said, “I will keep my ways from sinning with my tongue, I shall keep my mouth muzzled so long as the wicked one is before me.” In this Psalm, verses 14 and 15 of the preceding Psalm are explicated; as I have already explained, there are two aspects to these verses. Alluding to the pious servant of the (future) Exile, the poet stated: I said, I will keep my business dealings with my enemies from (leading me) to condemn and injure myself by uttering a word against those who mistreat and curse me, a word to which they might cling and by which their intentions against me might be attained. Therefore, I depicted myself as “a man who does not hear, and in whose mouth are not rebukes” (Psalm 38:15), and I stated “I shall keep my mouth muzzled” “and he who is dumb does not open his mouth” (cf. Psalms 38:14 and 39:10) when I heard the arguments against the Law of the Lord. Then he stated: “So long as the wicked one is before me,” i.e., so long as I am among them in the markets and in their quarters. But where Jews gather and assemble together I will not be silent but will produce arguments refuting the way of this wicked one. I shall make his corruption manifest and oﬀer clear, cogent arguments for the Law of the Lord. I am compelled to do this lest any simpletons among the Jews be deluded by what they hear from the wicked one and be aﬄicted by doubts concerning God’s Law. I shall also oﬀer excuses before God for the self-conﬁdence with which I mentioned this at

38

“The Righteous”: Ar. al-ßàlihìn, i.e., the Mourners for Zion. Or, “They are unable to rebut them in full.” 40 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 31:21, BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/I (Cat. 286), fols. 178b–179. 39

“a

prophet like moses”

215

Jewish gatherings and for speaking at length upon the subject. When the wicked one is before me, however, I shall play dumb and keep quiet, as it states: “I was dumb, in silence. I refrained from saying what is right; my pain was apparent” (Psalm 39:3).41

Under these circumstances, it should come as no surprise that—with rare exceptions—Jews did not polemicize openly against Islam.42 Furthermore, since there was no Christian mission to the Jews in Islamic lands, there was little need for a direct Jewish response to Christian teachings. In certain literary contexts, however, Jews did write about both religions for internal consumption.43 Since biblical exegesis shaped most of their intellectual and spiritual activities, the Jerusalem Karaites naturally took note of Christian interpretations that explicitly challenged Jewish teachings. In Kitàb al-anwàr, alQirqisànì had already refuted basic Christian doctrines and had rejected christological readings of scriptural passages.44 Genesis 1:26, for example, is a standard Christian proof-text for the doctrine of the Trinity, since it can be used to demonstrate both plurality and corporeality within the divine nature: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” Al-Qirqisànì, however, dismisses this claim, by explaining the verb na'aseh as a pluralis majestatis, and by insisting that be-ßalmenu ki-demutenu be interpreted metaphorically.45 Now this refutation of an explicitly Christian interpretation occurs not only in Kitàb al-anwàr, but also in al-Qirqisànì’s commentary on Genesis, Kitàb al-riyàd wa’l-˙adà"iq. The argument uses a standard technique known as ilzàm (“compulsion”), which forces opponents to acknowledge that their premises will lead to untenable positions:46 41 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 39:2, BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/I (Cat. 286), fols. 233b–234b. 42 See Lazarus-Yafeh, Intertwined Worlds, 6–8 and Sklare, “Responses to Islamic Polemics,” 137–43. 43 See above n. 6. 44 See al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr III.2–6, vol. 2, pp. 186–222; Nemoy, “A Tenth Century Criticism” (trans. of Kitàb al-anwàr III.3); idem, “The Attitude of the Early Karaites Towards Christianity”; Lasker, Philosophical Polemics, 57–60; idem, “The Jewish Critique of Christianity,” 125, 129. 45 Al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr III.5.1 and III.6.2, vol. 2, pp. 202, 205–206, and II.28, vol. 1, p. 176; Nemoy, “The Attitude,” 710. For Jewish responses to the Christian interpretation of this verse—which go back to the rabbinic period—see Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate, 42–43, 234–35. According to a Christian Arabic digest, John Chrysostom (d. 407) and Ephrem the Syrian (d. 373) explain the plural verb as a reference to the trinity, but interpret “in our image, after our likeness” (ka-ßawratinà wa-mithàlinà) metaphorically; see Lagarde, Materialien, 2:19. 46 On ilzàm, see above p. 60, n. 107.

216

chapter six They may be answered: “Do you maintain that in this passage there are words that must be taken metaphorically (alfàΩ majàzìya), or must every word be taken according to its plain meaning?”47 Were they to maintain that every word must be taken according to its plain meaning, they would be compelled to concede that man truly has God’s form. According to them, therefore, the Creator would be of ﬂesh, blood, bones, and the like. But in fact, none of them believes this. They would also be compelled to say that God is both male and female just as man is both male and female (Genesis 1:27). They would also be compelled (to concede) that all of the hypostases (aqànìm) created Adam, for it states “let us,” but that one of them created Eve, for it is stated “I will make him a helper ﬁt for him” (Genesis 2:18). They reject and dismiss all of this.48

A typical sample of al-Qirqisànì’s dialectical style, this excerpt illustrates his familiarity with Christian doctrine, his unusual willingness to engage in interfaith debate, and his readiness to inject theological argument into his commentary.49 When we turn to Japheth, however, we ﬁnd a markedly diﬀerent approach. In his comment on Genesis 1:26, he explains that since other scholars—presumably alQirqisànì is intended—have already shown the Christian interpretation to be false, he will stay clear of polemics with the Gentiles. For his part, Japheth does not wish to turn his commentary into a manual for inter-religious disputation: 6.5 We know that the phrase “let us make man in our image, after our likeness” is an expression (isti'màl al-lugha), and that God has no associate (sharìk) in His creation, not to mention that this is rationally impossible. Many scholars have already refuted the Christians who assert that the phrase “in our image, after our likeness” supports their belief in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ("abba u-vera ve-rua˙ qadisha). For our part, we shall not undertake to refute our opponents

47 Lit. “or do all of the words (possess) precise/ﬁxed meanings”: Ar. am jamì' alfàΩihà mu˙kama. On the term mu˙kam, see above, ch. 2. 48 For the passage, see Saadya Gaon, Commentary on Genesis, 51, lines 1–9 (Ar.), 252 (Heb.). For a translation and discussion, see Chiesa, Creazione e caduta dell’uomo, 49–61. On Kitàb al-riyà∂, see above, pp. 8–11 and n. 31. On Karaite exegesis of Gen 1:26, see Fenton, “«A l’image de Dieu»,” esp. 273–79 on al-Qirqisànì and Japheth; see also Stroumsa, “«What is man?»,” which examines the theological and exegetical polemics surrounding Jewish, Christian, and Muslim interpretations of Ps 8:4–5 and Gen 1:26. 49 Among al-Qirqisànì’s lost works is a refutation of Muhammad’s prophetic mission and a treatise on God’s unity which doubtless contained anti-Christian polemic; see Chiesa, Creazione e caduta dell’uomo, 42–43.

“a

prophet like moses”

217

among the Gentiles (goyim), both because many (other) exegetes—may God be pleased with them—have already done so, and because the Gentiles themselves refute each other. We will, however, undertake to reply to those who share our views concerning God, his Prophet, and His revelation.50 We will not depart from this practice for fear of spoiling our commentary.51

He is as good as his word: while his commentaries—particularly in halakhic contexts—contain long, ordered attacks on Rabbanite practices and tenets, they do not include comparable refutations of Islamic or Christian doctrines. The rationalistic, theological arguments found in al-Qirqisànì’s writings are largely absent. At the same time, Japheth’s writings unmistakably betray his familiarity with standard Christian and Muslim exegetical arguments against Judaism.52 Prophecies and Polemics Jewish-Christian and Jewish-Muslim debates in the early Middle Ages diﬀered markedly in substance and in detail. While the former focused on the nature of God and the identity of the Messiah, the latter centered on the ﬁnal revelation and its prophet.53 Christians accepted the validity of the Old Testament, although they argued that it had been fulﬁlled and hence, succeeded by the New Covenant. Muslims, on the other hand, denied the authority of the Jewish and Christian Bibles entirely, arguing that the Peoples of the Book had falsiﬁed the separate scriptures given them. At the same time, they maintained that these revelations had, in any case, been abrogated by

50

Ar. al-ràsil al-rasùl wa’l-risàla, lit. “the Sender, the messenger, and the message.” Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Genesis 1:26, BN MS Suppl. héb. 31 (Cat. 279), fol. 69a; the text is based upon Ben-Shammai, “Doctrines,” 2:99, lines 111–16, Hebrew translation in 1:195, n. 25. Cf. Japheth’s pointed remarks at the end of his brief Introduction to Genesis in Ben-Shammai et al. (ed.), Yefet ben 'Eli . . . A Sample Catalogue, 85–86 (Ar.), 144 (Heb.). Stroumsa (pp. 144–45, n. 7) suggests that his comments were quite likely directed at al-Qirqisànì. 52 Admittedly, these often veiled comments seem timid when compared to the anti-Christian exegetical polemics of Latin Christendom (11th–15th centuries); see: Rosenthal, “Anti-Christian Polemic in Medieval Bible Commentaries”; Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate, “Introduction,” esp. 7–12; and Talmage, “R. David Kim˙i as Polemicist.” 53 On the Jewish-Christian debate in Latin Europe, see: Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate; J. Cohen, “Towards a Functional Classiﬁcation”; Funkenstein, “Basic Types of Christian Anti-Jewish Polemics”; and Lasker, Jewish Philosophical Polemics. 51

218

chapter six

the Quran, which had been revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. Since Christians and Jews share a Scripture, the exegesis of key passages ﬁgured prominently in their disputes from the outset. And although Muslims believed the texts of the Jewish and Christian Bibles to have been corrupted, they recognized the polemical value of these books: though falsiﬁed and superseded, the Bible might yet preserve true prophecies of the ﬁnal dispensation. In the Islamic East, the Jewish response to such polemics may proﬁtably be studied in Karaite Bible commentaries. Their abundance and comprehensiveness make them important witnesses to the exegetical fencing in which Jews, Christians, and Muslims engaged. In earlier chapters we have seen how the Jerusalem Karaites read biblical prophecies prognostically, noting the three features that distinguish their approach. First, they extended the biblical corpus of eschatological texts to include large portions of the Latter Prophets, the Psalms, and such biblical songs as Genesis 49, Deuteronomy 32, Judges 5, and I Samuel 2. Second, they discovered numerous allusions to contemporary events and nations in the Bible. And third, they arrogated a central role in the eschatological scheme to themselves, as hasteners of the redemption through study, prayer, and penitential practices. In other words, they tended to read their own particular version of Israel’s salvation history into one biblical prophecy after another, picking out diﬀerent details in each text that referred to their own world. Within their apocalyptic ideology Christendom and Islam played pivotal roles, jointly constituting the dreaded Fourth Kingdom. As Haggai Ben-Shammai has shown, the numerous statements directed against Islam in early Karaite texts may be classiﬁed into three categories: (1) plaints about the “Islamic Exile” (galut Yishma' "el); (2) negative generalizations about the religion of Islam; and—to a much more limited extent—(3) rationalistic theological arguments, including exegetical polemics.54 We have already met with instances of the ﬁrst two types; in this chapter, we will focus primarily on the third.55 Here, I will only add that these categories are equally relevant for Karaite statements against Christianity and Christendom. We have just cited one of al-Qirqisànì’s rationalistic arguments against

54 55

Ben-Shammai, “The Attitude of Some Early Karaites,” 8. See above, pp. 129, 182–85, 191–97.

“a

prophet like moses”

219

a christological interpretation. Japheth’s comment on Obadiah 3, which simultaneously condemns Christian beliefs and laments Jewish suﬀering at Christian hands, illustrates the ﬁrst two categories: (The prophet) employed the phrase zedon libbekha (“the insolence of your heart”) concerning (Edom), because from the outset he behaved arrogantly towards the Lord in professing the (doctrine of ) the Trinity and in claiming that the Creator56 has a son, as they proclaim: “the father, the son, and the holy spirit”—may the Creator be exalted beyond the attributes of (his) creatures. Furthermore, he claimed a prophetic mission (risàla) and a scripture (for himself ), and maintained that God’s Law had been abrogated, while his (own) scripture is enduring.57 . . . Now this is of the utmost insolence! Believing that Jesus is (God’s) son—as they maintain—and that the Jews had cruciﬁed him at the time of the Second Temple, they believed that all Israel deserve to be annihilated and destroyed. Therefore, they began to shed the blood of Israel. . . .58

Apart from this passage, Japheth’s commentaries contain a number of references to Christianity and Christians, but nowhere is Christian doctrine depicted in any but the crudest terms.59 Unlike al-Qirqisànì, he evinces little interest in non-Jewish systems of belief. For his commentaries, Japheth required nothing more than a thumbnail sketch of Christianity and Christendom. Much more important was the standard Jewish equation of biblical Edom with ancient Rome and contemporary Christendom. Like other Eastern Jews in this period,

56

Ar. al-khàliq, following the MS; there is a typographical error in the printed

text. 57

Or “is conﬁrmed”: Ar. thàbit. See Japheth b. Eli, comment on Obad 3 in Commentary on Daniel, p. vii (Eng.), n. 1 (collated with Oxford, Bodleian MS Opp. Add. 4° 169 (Cat. 2483), fol. 82a–b); the translation incorporates variants in Ben-Shammai, “Doctrines,” 2:228–229. See also Polliack and Schlossberg, “Yefet ben Eli’s Translation of the Book of Obadiah,” p. 73 and n. 39. Cf. the comment on Jer 49:16, BL MS Or. 2503 (Cat. 284), fol. 193a–b. 59 See, e.g., Commentary on Daniel 11:14, p. 119 (Ar.), pp. 114–15 (Eng.), where the Evangelists are named and their occupations given. In his Commentary on Jeremiah 49, he explains that “aside from what was stated in the Psalms, many prophets— Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, and Obadiah—prophesied concerning Edom. They all prophesied concerning that which God would bring upon Edom, because of what had befallen Israel through them. And their prophecies about (Edom) all related to the Future”; see BL MS Or. 2503 (Cat. No. 284), fol. 196b, lines 10–15. It should be noted that he restricts himself here to the Latter Prophets; his comments on Num 24:18–25, Deut 32:38, and certain Psalms (e.g., 94:8–9 and 139:19–22) indicate that he interpreted the prophetic utterances of Balaam, Moses, and David in the same manner. 58

220

chapter six

he naturally identiﬁed Edom with the al-rùm, that is the Byzantine Empire, which with Islam constituted the Fourth Kingdom.60 As Gerson Cohen demonstrated, Edom became a natural symbol for the Roman—then Christian—oppressor, precisely because such biblical prophecies as Obadiah and Malachi could easily be read in a contemporary light.61 This type of prognostic interpretation, which we have now encountered many times, also served as a useful response to Christian typological exegesis. Although they wrote few real commentaries, the Fathers of the early Church devoted much of their literary oeuvre to the interpretation of the Old Testament, more speciﬁcally to demonstrating from the Old Testament that Jesus was the Messiah, that the ceremonial laws had been abrogated, and that the Church was the true Israel.62 Following the lead of the New Testament writers, apologists such as Justin Martyr (d. ca. 165), Melito of Sardis (d. ca. 190), and Tertullian (d. 220) developed a large set of Old Testament proof-texts which were eventually compiled into collections, such as the books of testimonies Ad Quirinum of Bishop Cyprian (d. 258).63 The most famous of these testimonia, such as Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 7:14, and Numbers 24:17, ﬁgured constantly in anti-Jewish polemics since they seemed to demonstrate conclusively—to Christians, at least—the fulﬁllment of the Old Testament in the New. With even the slightest exposure to Christian teachings and interpretations, a medieval Jewish scholar could not help knowing the polemical use to which these verses were being put. The question was how to respond. We have noted Japheth’s unequivocal refusal to inject inter-religious polemic into his commentaries. Since he was writing for a Jewish audience, this policy seems sound. Blasphemous, Gentile interpretations were best ignored; his commentaries were long enough as it was. At the same time, he could quietly disarm certain christological proof-texts simply by restoring them to their original contexts. The tactic can prove just as eﬀective as direct refutation. Here it is instruc-

60 See Polliack and Schlossberg, “Yefet ben Eli’s Translation of the Book of Obadiah,” citing Japheth’s comment on Ob 3: fa-qàla shokheni ve-˙agevei sela' wa-huwa balad al-rùm. 61 See, G.D. Cohen, “Esau as Symbol.” On the depiction of Edom in the Bible, see Dicou, Edom, Israel’s Brother and Antagonist. 62 Skarsaune, “The Development of Scriptural Interpretation,” 376. 63 See Barrett, “The Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New,” 399–401 and Skarsaune, “The Development of Scriptural Interpretation,” 387–450.

“a

prophet like moses”

221

tive to compare the ways in which al-Qirqisànì and Japhet each approach one of the best known testimonia, Isaiah 7:14. In Kitàb alanwàr III.5, al-Qirqisànì collects several celebrated proof-texts of this kind; in the following chapter he shows how Christians have misunderstood them. Let us turn to his refutation in III.6: As for what they (i.e., the Christians) have stated concerning Isaiah 7:14, and their pronouncement that this birth involved neither man nor sexual intercourse—neither is there evidence for it nor is there cause for doubt, since the young woman (Ar. jàrìya, rendering Heb. 'almah) might or might not have been a virgin. That is because the meaning of 'almah is na'arah, for it is stated: “and the 'almah who comes out to draw (water)” (Genesis 24:43) and also: “let the na'arah to whom I shall say” (Genesis 24:14).64 Now (a female) who had married was called a na'arah as it is stated in Ruth: “because of the children that the Lord will give you by this na'arah” (4:12). It also states: “and the way of a man with an 'almah” (Proverbs 30:19). The phrase “behold an 'almah shall conceive” does not mean what they imagine it to be, viz., that she was a virgin. How then do those ignoramuses compel us to (accept) that this birth involved neither man nor sexual intercourse?65

Al-Qirqisànì begins by adducing a familiar semantic argument: 'almah does not necessarily mean “virgin,” as the Christians claim.66 Next he attacks the credibility of the information: there can be no reliable tradition that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth, because sexual relations are a concealed, private matter. Then there is also the matter of the genealogy in Matthew 1:1–16, which traces Jesus’ ancestry from Abraham to Joseph, the husband of Mary. If Jesus was not begotten by Joseph, what is the point of relating this lineage?67 Having criticized the Gospels for their inaccuracy and inconsistency, al-Qirqisànì now returns to Isaiah 7:14, examining it in context. In verses 10–11, God tells Ahaz, King of Judah to ask for a sign conﬁrming His previous message. When Ahaz refuses out of disbelief, Isaiah responds:

64 According to al-Qirqisànì, na'arah and 'almah are synonyms because they are both used to describe Rebekah in Genesis 24. Likely, he is also alluding to verse 16: “The na'arah was very fair to look upon, a virgin (betulah), whom no man had known,” which suggests that na'arah simply means young woman. 65 Kitàb al-anwàr, III.6.4, vol. 2, p. 208, lines 1–9. 66 See Mt 1:23, citing Isa 7:14; 'almah is rendered by Gr. parthenos, “virgin.” On this semantic argument, see Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate, 100 and the sources noted on p. 275. 67 See Berger, ibid., 167.

222

chapter six If you will not ask for a sign, then God will produce one for you (anyway): the young woman (al-jàrìya), that is his (i.e., Ahaz’s) wife, will conceive and bear a son.68

The verse, then, plainly announces a divine sign, soon to be realized. But what precisely is the sign? Sensing objections to his interpretation, al-Qirqisànì introduces hypothetical Christian interlocutors: If they say: “What sign is there in this? Do not all women who have husbands give birth?” We say: “There are two responses to this. First, Ahaz was ten years old at the time, for he begat Hezekiah when he was eleven years old and it is not in the nature of an eleven-year-old boy to beget children; this is the sign.69 Second, it is possible that in saying he would give them a sign, he was not referring to his statement that the young woman would conceive and give birth, but rather to what followed this statement. . . .70 Should they say: “What is the sign that He has declared He will produce for Ahaz?” We say: “It is his statement, ‘For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted’ (Isaiah 7:16). Then it states, ‘The Lord will bring upon you and upon your people . . . the King of Assyria’ (verse 17), ‘and he will sweep on into Judah’ (8:8), and it states, ‘the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.’ (Ibid.) This informs us that Sennacherib will ﬁll your land, O Immanuel.” But these ignorant, confused people have not read this and do not understand that Immanuel is the one whose land the King of Assyria will enter, not Jesus who lived a long time after this episode. Let us take refuge in God, who is exalted and mighty beyond all disappointment.

There could be no more emphatic rejection of the verse’s christological signiﬁcance: those who ﬁnd a reference to Jesus in Isaiah 7:14 have not bothered to read Isaiah or Kings! Peppering his arguments with mild invective, al-Qirqisànì oﬀers his interpretation of the passage in a polemical context.71 By contrast, Japheth, who has forsworn interreligious disputation, simply ignores the Christian exegesis:

68 Kitàb al-anwàr, III.6.4, vol. 2, p. 209, lines 6–14. As a rule, Jewish interpreters read Isa 7:12 as an expression of disbelief and scorn, rather than piety; cf. the comments of Rashi, Isaiah of Trani, and Joseph Kaspi ad loc. in Mikra"ot Gedolot ‘Haketer’: Isaiah. 69 This information is derived from 2 Kings 16:1–2 and 18:1–2. 70 Kitàb al-anwàr, III.6.4, vol. 2, p. 209, line 19–p. 210, line 3: al-Qirqisànì compares the present context to Ex 3:12. 71 Cf. David Kim˙i’s approach, which is quite similar; see Talmage, “David Kim˙i as Polemicist,” 215–17 = Apples of Gold, 191–93.

“a

prophet like moses”

223

6.6 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. The word “therefore” means “because of your words, O Ahaz, ‘I will not ask and I will not put the Lord to the test’ (verse 10). He shall begin by giving you a sign so that it will serve as a proof against you. People have diﬀered concerning the phrase “Behold, a young woman shall conceive.” One of them maintained that it is to be taken according to its plain meaning, that is, a woman. He said that she is the mother of Immanuel, and that the prophet (i.e., Isaiah) had two wives. And some say that the mother of Immanuel is the wife of Ahaz, while the mother of Mahershalal is the prophet’s wife, as it is stated: “And I went to the prophetess” (Isaiah 8:3). But he who interprets it according to its esoteric meaning ('alà bà†inihi ) said that these two statements refer to the Kingdom of Judah and that the ﬁgurative interpretation (al-ta"wìl) of the two boys is the generation that will be born at this time (i.e., in the present). But we are inclined to take this (verse) according to its plain meaning, which is that the prophet said to Ahaz: “Behold, the young woman (al-ßabìya) who is your wife will soon conceive and bear you a son.” And the prophet said to her that she should name him Immanuel, because God will be a support for Judah and will save them from the hand of the King of Aram and the King of Israel, as well as the King of Assyria, as it is stated at the end of the passage, “Take counsel together, (but it will come to nought; speak a word, but it will not stand, for God is with us)” (Isaiah 8:10).72

This contextual explanation obviously resembles the one in Kitàb alanwàr, which eﬀectively eliminates the possibility of a christological reading. What makes the passage remarkable, however, is the inclusion of an alternative, prognostic interpretation (ta"wìl), which presents the two boys of Isaiah 7 and 8 as types or ﬁgures of Japheth’s own generation! As a Mourner for Zion committed to ta"wìl of this kind, Japheth feels obliged to record the interpretation, which has clearly emanated from his circle, even if he is not inclined to accept it. But he could not easily have mentioned the christological interpretation as well, without showing Karaite ta"wìl in an unfavorable light: after all, if it is possible to brush Christian testimonia aside through contextual interpretation, it might be just as easy to dismiss the Mourners’ prognostications. Disregarding Christian typologies remained the safest course.

72 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Isaiah 7:14, RNL MS Yevr. I.568, fol. 249 = IOS MA A143 (unnumbered folios).

224

chapter six

Discovering such implicit polemics may seem like arguing from silence, yet there are occasions when Japheth overtly contests Christian assertions. One striking instance occurs toward the end of his comment on Numbers 24:17, another of the classic Christian testimonia.73 The interpretation necessarily takes account of his theory of prophecy, Balaam’s previous speeches, and the suggestive phrase, “at the end of days” (be-"a˙arit ha-yamim): 6.7.1

“I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not nigh: a star shall come forth among the people of Jacob, and a staﬀ shall rise out of the people of Israel; it shall weaken the sides of Moab and root out all the children of Seth.” We have already explained the meaning of the previous two verses (i.e., Numbers 24:15–16) in (our comment) above. In connection with these verses, however, he added (the words) “and knows the knowledge of the most high (verse 16). This (phrase) admits two (possible) explanations: (A) He was alluding thereby to this parable which he had mentioned previously through the divine spirit (rua˙ "elohim). For Balaam’s speech was of three types: ﬁrst, “and God came to Balaam” (Numbers 22:9)—this is (the import of ) “the oracle of him who hears (the words of God)” (24:16); second, his vision of the angel (22:31–35)— this is (the signiﬁcance of ) “who sees the vision of the Almighty” (24:16); third, via divine inspiration (ilhàm)—this is (the meaning of ) “and knows the knowledge of the most high.”74 (B) It refers to what follows in this passage until (the verse) “And Balaam arose” (24:25). By the statement “I see him, but not now,” he means “behold, I see something which will come to pass, but not at this time, i.e., in our days”; and by the statement “I behold him but not nigh,” he means “it is not something in the near (future).” The reason he added “I behold him but not nigh” rather than stating brieﬂy “I behold him but not now”75 is that the parables he had recited previously were of two kinds: (1) those refer-

73 On the polemical signiﬁcance of this verse, see Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate, 73–74, 261. 74 Another allusion to the six degrees of prophetic communication; see above, p. 101. Of the three mentioned here, the ﬁrst corresponds to prophetic dreams, which constitute the lowest level. Next is the vision of an angel, the ﬁfth level. Finally, there is inspiration (ilhàm, rua˙ ha-qodesh), the second highest form of communication. Thus, Japheth suggests that Balaam’s ﬁnal vision concerning the End of Days was of the same prophetic quality as the prophetic songs of e.g., Moses (Deut 32) and David (the Psalms). 75 Japheth is explaining why the two clauses “I see etc.” and “I behold etc.” are necessary instead of a single statement, “I behold him but not now.”

“a

prophet like moses”

225

ring to his own days, i.e., the ﬁrst two poems76 (Numbers 23:7–10 and 23:18–24), for these (songs referred to the events of ) that period; and (2) that which came to pass in the time of Saul, David, and Solomon which was in the near future. Balaam said: “Know, O Balak, that what I speak now at this time (refers) neither to anything in our days—as did my speeches on the ﬁrst two occasions— nor to anything in the near future, as did my third speech to you. Know, therefore, that my speech (on this occasion relates to) the End of Days, a time that is remote from us.” By this, Balaam alluded to a future time.77

At several junctures in his commentary on the lection Balaq (Numbers 22:2–25:9), Japheth examines the nature of Balaam’s prophetic experience, which he believes to have undergone a qualitative change from a lower level of inspiration to something quite exalted. He correlates key phrases—va-yavo "elohim "el bil'am (Numbers 22:9), ve-yodea' da'at 'elyon (Numbers 24:16)—with his familiar typology of prophecy. The entire treatment resembles his explanations concerning Daniel’s dream and visions; in both cases, he connects the most detailed, eschatological passages with ilhàm, the second highest level of prophetic experience.78 The portentous expression, “in the latter days” (be-"a˙arit ha-yamim) (24:14), would naturally have been understood by any Jew as a clear reference to the eschaton.79 But Japheth is much more systematic: each of Balaam’s oracles relates to a speciﬁc historical context. Having prophesied about his own time (Numbers 23:7–10 and 23:18–24) and about the days of the Davidic kingdom (Numbers 24:3–9), the seer speaks of the future. When Balaam says “I see him, but not now,” he means “in my own days”; when he says “I behold him, but not nigh,” he means “in the days of Saul and David. Neither short- nor medium-range, Balaam’s ﬁnal prophecy can only refer to the messianic age in the distant future.80 76 Ar. shi'rayn. In his translation of Numbers 23–24, Japheth renders Heb. mashal by Ar. shi'r, rather than the cognate mathal. 77 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Numbers 24:17, BN MS Suppl. héb. 35 (Cat. 283), fols. 189b–190a = RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.1535, fol. 28a–b. Japheth’s comments on Balaam’s parables in Num 23–24 have recently been published; see Avni, “Balaam’s Poetic Verses”; for the comment on Num 24:17, see 412–15 (Ar.), 447–50 (Heb. trans.). 78 See above, p. 101. 79 Cf. Targum Ps.-Jon. and Neoﬁti which translate be-sof 'aqev yomaya, “at the very end of days”; see Kasher, Torah Shelemah, 42:136, 199. 80 On this type of argument, see Talmage, “R. David Kim˙i as Polemicist,” 215–16 = Apples of Gold, 191–92. Polemical considerations apart, medieval Jews often disagreed as to the referents of given prophecies and the periods to which they were

226 6.7.2

chapter six Then he communicated his message, saying: “A star shall come forth among the people of Jacob and a staﬀ shall rise out of the people of Israel.” This refers to Íema˙ the son of David.81 He compared him to (a star) for three reasons: (1) In his exaltedness (the Messiah) resembles a star in heaven; in the same way, it is stated concerning him “and behold, with the clouds of heaven (there came one like a son of man)” (Daniel 7:13). And also because the people of the world are under his hand as it is stated, “the people of the desert82 will bow down before him . . . the Kings of Tarshish and the isles (will render him tribute) . . . all the Kings will fall down before him, etc.” (Psalm 72:9–11). (2) The expansion of his dominion to the four corners of the world is like a star in its orbit that circles the earth; so also is it stated, “May he have dominion from sea to sea” (Psalm 72:8) and “for the nation and kingdom that will not serve you shall perish; those nations shall be utterly laid waste” (Isaiah 60:12). (3) On account of the light by which the people of this world in their darkness take comfort in their religious aﬀairs, returning to the truth (al-˙aqq).83 For the Law is compared to light as it is stated, “for the commandment is a lamp and the Law a light” (Proverbs 6:23). The messiah is likewise compared to light, as it is stated, “I will give you as a light to the nations” (Isaiah 49:6). And they will be saved, moreover, from the troubles and wars that beset them. Therefore (Balaam) compared (Israel) in this to someone who goes forth from darkness into light. “Out of Jacob” indicates that this star is of the people of Jacob and that he is neither from Ishmael—as the Fourth Kingdom (i.e., the Muslims) claim. Nor is he Jesus, as the erring Edomites (i.e., the Christians) maintain, nor is he from the other nations. He compared him to a staﬀ since he will annihilate the enemies and destroy whoever opposes him, as it is stated “and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth” (Isaiah 11:4).

meant to apply. On this problem, albeit in a very diﬀerent context, see Simon, “Ibn Ezra Between Medievalism and Modernism.” 81 In Jewish tradition, Íema˙ is a name for the Messiah; see Targum Pseud-Jon. to Jer 23:5, 33:15 and Zech 3:8, 6:12 where ßema˙ is rendered meshi˙a. Cf. David al-Fàsì, Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ, 2:515, lines 45–46, glossing Zech 6:12 as al-muntaΩar, “the expected one”—a standard term applied by Muslims to the mahdì, and Jews to the Messiah. 82 Heb. ßiyyim, translated according to the standard Arabic rendering, al-mafàziyùn. Cf. David al-Fàsì, Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ, 2:507–508, lines 10–11, and Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on Psalms (Marwick), 118 ad loc. 83 Or, “returning to God.”

“a

prophet like moses”

227

For certain medieval Jews—Rabbanite and Karaite alike—the verse unquestionably bore a messianic interpretation. As far back as the second century C.E., Rabbi Akiva had applied it to Simeon Bar Kosiba, for whom it furnished the nom de guerre, Bar Kokhba.84 And though his revolt against Hadrian ended in disaster, the verse’s messianic signiﬁcance was preserved.85 Retaining this interpretation, Japheth explains the aptness of the star symbolism. Then he underscores the signiﬁcance of the word mi-ya'aqov: the Messiah, who will come at the End of Days, must be of Israelite descent. This, he says, puts paid to the attempts of Muslims to claim descent from Ismà'ìl for their Messiah, the mahdì.86 The Christian belief that Jesus was the Messiah to whom the verse alludes is also easily discounted, because the immediate prophetic context is long-range: Balaam’s ﬁnal oracle refers to events in Japheth’s time, not the Second Temple period. Although Japheth does not explicitly state that he is challenging a Christian interpretation of Numbers 24:17, it is diﬃcult to view his comment in any other light. But did Muslims maintain that the verse alluded to their mahdì or to the prophet Muhammad? There is no evidence of their having done so, but the question leads us to consider the problem of Muslim exegetical polemics and the Karaite response. The Islamic polemic against Judaism is founded upon two basic claims: ﬁrst, that God’s revelation to the Jews has not been faithfully preserved by them in their Scripture and second, that that revelation was, in any case, superseded by the universal revelation of Muhammad, the “Seal of Prophets.” The ﬁrst claim led Muslims to practice a kind of biblical criticism.87 Pointing to biblical anthropomorphisms, absurdities, and narratives which show the prophets in

84 See yTa'anit 4:8, fol. 68d and Lamentations Rabbah 2:2, p. 101, discussed by Cohen, “Esau as Symbol,” 245. 85 See Targum Onkelos and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan in Kasher, Torah Shelemah, 42:141. 86 On the mahdì, a messianic ﬁgure in Islamic theology, see: SEI, 310–13, s.v. “al-mahdì ”; Goldziher, Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law, 196–202; and Blichfeldt, Early Mahdism, esp. 1–12. It is the Shi'ites in particular who claim that the mahdì is descended from Ismà'ìl. But there has been quite a range of beliefs, some Muslims even arguing that the mahdì will be Jesus! (Blichfeldt, Early Mahdism, 2). As we shall see below, for polemical reasons, Japheth also maintains that together with the Messiah, all prophets—apart from Balaam—are descended from Jacob. 87 See Strauss (Ashtor), “Darkhei ha-pulmus ha-"islami”; Lazarus-Yafeh, Intertwined Worlds, chs. 2 and 4; and Adang, Muslim Writers.

228

chapter six

an unfavorable light, they sought to reveal traces of human tampering in a text of purportedly divine origin. At the same time, however, they maintained that the Bible—with all its imperfections—nevertheless preserves accurate predictions concerning the advent of Muhammad. Despite their best eﬀorts, the Jews were unable to suppress these passages which stand as testimonia to the prophet of Islam and his message. The second claim, that the Torah was abrogated, is directly connected to central Islamic tenets concerning the wondrous, inimitable nature of the Quran and the superiority of Muhammad’s prophecy. Reﬂexes and responses to these claims can be found in Japheth’s exegesis. He takes pains to show, for example, that the prophet Jonah did not attempt to ﬂee from the Lord as Scripture apparently states; in making for Tarshish, he was actually seeking a fast route to Nineveh so that he might fulﬁll God’s commandment to him. As Moshe Zucker has shown, this interpretation was shaped by the Islamic doctrine of prophetic infallibility ('ismà") which denies God’s chosen messengers the possibility of sin.88 Although it is possible that Japheth embraced the doctrine simply because he found it compelling, such a willful reading of Jonah suggests that he adopted it for apologetic reasons, in order to demonstrate that the biblical narratives do not ascribe sinful behavior to the prophets. The Muslims’ biblical testimonia undoubtedly derive from Christian collections. Converts to Islam, such as the ninth-century scholar 'Alì b. Rabbàn al-ˇabarì, could muster a fair number of passages dealing with Ishmael, Paran, the desert, and so forth which, they maintained, allude to Islam.89 Their basic tactic was to argue that God conveyed certain “clear and joyful messages” (bishàràt bayyinàt sàrràt) in the Bible which were only fulﬁlled with the coming of the Prophet. Concerning Deuteronomy 33:2 (“The Lord came from Mount Sinai, and dawned for us from Seir, and appeared from Mount Paran . . .”),90 'Alì b. Rabbàn writes: Paran is the land which Ishmael . . . inhabited; for this reason God had previously mentioned it in the Torah . . . [Genesis 21:20–21]. All people knew that Ishmael dwelt in Mecca, and his children and successors

Zucker, “The Problem of 'Isma.” See Lazarus-Yafeh, Intertwined Worlds, ch. 4, and Adang, Muslim Writers, 23–30, 110–11, 165–69 on 'Alì b. Rabbàn. 90 I follow Ibn Rabbàn’s Arabic rendering of the verse here. 88 89

“a

prophet like moses”

229

who are in it and around it know the abode of their grandfather, and do not ignore his land and his country. And “the lord” rose up from Paran! If this is not as we have mentioned, let them show us “a lord” who appeared so. The name “lord” refers here to the Prophet. . . .91

While Ibn Rabbàn does not elaborate, the interpretation clearly hinges on the sequence of place names, which are to be taken as emblems of the three faiths: Sinai (Israel), Seir (Christianity), and Paran (Islam); the verse thus represents the progression of revelations, culminating in Muhammad’s mission.92 The Ismaili scholar, Óamìd al-Dìn al-Kirmànì (d. 1021), who served as chief dà'ì in Iraq and then at the court of al-Óàkim, makes this plain.93 Citing the original Hebrew (in transliteration!), he states: “The one who appeared at Mount Sinai was Moses, peace be upon him, and the one who appeared from the land of 'Ìß—that is Syria and the districts of Byzantium (al-rùm)—was Jesus, peace be upon him, and the one who appeared from the mountains of Tihàma was Muhammad, God bless him!”94 In interpreting the verse, Japheth remarks that the four clauses— “came from Sinai . . . shone from Seir . . . appeared from Mount Paran, and approached from Rebeboth-kodesh”—indicate the manifestation of the divine Glory on all four sides of Mount Sinai. We have seen how this kind of contextual interpretation can be used to discredit a typological reading, such as Ibn Rabbàn’s. But was Japheth conscious of the way in which contemporary propagandists like Óamìd al-Dìn were exploiting the verse? The continuation of his comment suggests that indeed he was: Another exegete explained that the divine Glory (kavod ) illuminated Sinai, as it is stated in Exodus 19:2. The light of the divine Glory shone forth in these two directions, Mount Paran and Mount Seir, in order to furnish an argument against the Children of Esau and the Children of Ishmael who are of Abraham’s seed.95 For Esau inhabited 91 'Alì b. Rabbàn, Kitàb al-dìn wa’l-dawla, 74–75; Mingana, The Book of Religion and Empire, 86–87 (translation modiﬁed). 92 As Lazarus-Yafeh notes, the verse is one of the most frequently cited of all the Muslim biblical testimonia; see Intertwined Worlds, 109 and n. 110, and Adang, Muslim Writers, 264, 268 (translating an interesting parallel in Ibn Qutayba). 93 On this author, see Walker, Óamìd al-Dìn al-Kirmànì. 94 See Kraus, “Hebräische und syrische Zitate,” 245, citing al-Kirmànì’s Kitàb almaßàbì˙ fì ithbàt al-imàma; and see his translation and comments on 247–48. Interestingly, al-Kirmànì substitutes 'Ìß (Esau) for Heb. se'ir in both transliteration and interpretation. 95 wa-kàna nùr al-kavod yashruqu ilà hàdhihi ’l-jihatayn har paran wa-har se'ir liyakùn dhàlika ˙ujja 'alà benei 'esav u-venei yishma'"el alladhì hum zera' "avraham.

230

chapter six Mount Seir as it is stated in Genesis 36:8, while Ishmael dwelt in the wilderness of Paran, as it is stated in Genesis 21:21.96

According to this view, the verse does not describe a succession of revelations, but rather the unique revelation at Sinai, which Israel’s rivals could only glimpse from afar. Interestingly, both interpretations are ancient, deriving from the Sifrei on Deuteronomy.97 But given Japheth’s own prognostic tendencies and his sensitivity to gentile triumphalism, it seems most likely that he is countering Muslim polemical exegesis. Another favorite verse of Muslim polemicists was Genesis 16:12: “He [i.e., Ishmael] shall be a wild ass of a man, his hand against every man and every man’s against him; and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen.” In 'Alì b. Rabbàn’s rendering, the words yado ba-kol ve-yad kol bo become: “His hand will be over all (wa-takùn yadduhu fawq al-jamì ' ) and the hand of all extended towards him” (wa-yadd al-jamì' mabsù†a ilayhi ). In this way, explains 'Alì b. Rabbàn, the angel “told (Hagar) that God would make her son’s hand the higher, and the hand of all others the lower with regard to him.” “We have not seen,” he adds “that this point of the prophecy of Moses . . . was fulﬁlled and realized, except after the appearance of the prophet Muhammad.”98 Ibn Qutayba, writing somewhat later in the ninth century, ampliﬁes upon this interpretation as follows: Consider this statement, for it contains clear proof that the one alluded to (in the text) is God’s messenger. For Ishmael’s hand was not above Isaac’s and Isaac’s was not stretched in submission (bi’l-khu∂ù' ) to Ishmael. How could this be possible when dominion and prophecy were held by the descendants of Israel and Esau, both of whom were Isaac’s sons? With the mission of God’s messenger (Muhammad), however, prophecy was transferred to the descendants of Ishmael to whom kings submitted and nations humbled themselves. Then God abrogated every (previously existing) law through him, and sealed the (line of ) prophets with him. He granted them (i.e., the Muslims) regency and

96 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Deuteronomy 33:2, BL MS Or. 2479 (Cat. 275), fols. 122b–123a. Cf. the very similar passage in the anonymous Karaite exegetical compendium on Deuteronomy, BL MS Or. 2498 (Cat. 334), fol. 139a–b. Adang, Muslim Writers, 201 discusses Saadya’s treatment of the verse in connection with naskh. 97 Cf. Sifrei Deuteronomy, Pisqa 343, pp. 395–97. 98 'Alì b. Rabbàn, Kitàb al-dìn wa’l-dawla, 67–68; Mingana, The Book of Religion and Empire, 78–79.

“a

prophet like moses”

231

dominion at the End of Days so that their hands were above those of everyone else, while the hands of everyone else were extended toward them in longing and deference.99

Camilla Adang has suggested that Ibn Rabbàn’s curious rendering, “his hand will be over ( fawq) all” alludes to the payment of the jizya, or poll tax stipulated by Quran 9:29: “Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and (who) do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden—such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book—until they pay the tribute out of hand (˙attà yu'†ù al-jizyata 'an yadin) and have been humbled.” In fulﬁllment of the verse, the Jew or Christian was required to oﬀer the payment in his open palm to a Muslim tax collector, who took it—his hand covering the dhimmì’s. If this is indeed the origin of Ibn Rabbàn’s phrase, we have here a most interesting example of inter-scriptural midrash.100 Tenth-century Karaite exegesis of the verse is, of course, prognostic and unfavorable to Ishmael. Here is Japheth’s comment: 6.8 The phrase, “and he shall be a wild ass of a man” indicates that just as a wild beast lives in the wilderness, so shall Ishmael, the wild man, live in the wilderness. And (Hagar) learned that (Ishmael) would not be the son promised to Abram, who would inherit the Land of Canaan; thus, her hope(s for him) were cut short. This message, moreover, compelled her to return to her mistress and to submit to her. The phrase “his hand against every man” indicates that he will mingle with the nations, and that they will mingle with him in marriage and in (their) customs,101 as it is written: “they shall mingle with the oﬀspring of men” (Daniel 2:43), in contrast to the depiction of Israel as “a people dwelling alone (and not reckoning itself among the nations)” (Numbers 23:9). This is the most plausible interpretation that I know. Another exegete said that it means he (i.e., Ishmael) will rule over all (nations) at some time—and that is at present. When the End comes, however, all (nations) will rule over him. Another (exegete) stated that

99 Ibn Qutayba, A'làm al-nubùwa, in Ibn al-Jawzì, Al-wafà", 62 (my translation). Cf. Adang, Muslim Writers, 267–68; and see 152–53 on the Karaite exegetical response. 100 See Adang, Muslim Writers, 146–47; the translation of sùra 9:29 is Arberry’s. On the interpretation of this verse, see Rubin, “Quran and Tafsir,” esp. p. 136, sec. A.5.d: “Payment is made while the hand of the payer is lower than that of the receiver.” See also Tritton, The Caliphs, 227 and Fattal, Le Statut légal, 287–88. 101 “Their customs” or “ways”: Ar. al-madhàhib. Ben-Shammai, “The Attitude,” p. 20, n. 70 suggests “religious principles.”

232

chapter six it means that (Ishmael’s) place will be among all the peoples,102 that is to say that he has no place apportioned (to him)103 as other peoples do, but rather that he will be like an animal that wanders from one place to another. The expression “and every man’s hand against him” refers to the other caravans in the wilderness in which he dwells. He explained that “his hand against every man” (means Ishmael’s) place shall be among all (men), and the place of every man (shall be) in his midst, as in (the verse): “you shall have a place (Heb. yad )” (Deuteronomy 23:13).104 This indicates that he is not the seed promised to Abram in the verse, “to your seed I shall give this land” (Genesis 12:7).105

According to Japheth, the phrase yado ba-kol ve-yad kol bo most probably indicates that the Ishmaelites will intermarry with other nations and adopt their ways.106 Such behavior stands in sharp contrast to that of Israel, “a people dwelling alone, and not reckoning itself among the nations” (Numbers 23:9).107 This explanation may well constitute a retort to Islamic claims for the purity and nobility of Muhammad’s lineage.108 Two alternative interpretations of the verse— cited anonymously—respond more directly to Islamic exegesis. According to one, the words yado ba-kol ve-yad kol bo suggest that Ishmael will indeed rule over all during some historical period—that is, the present—but that ultimately, at the End of Days (qeß), all will rule over him. According to the other, the phrase signiﬁes that Ishmael, unlike other nations, will have no ﬁxed habitation or land but rather that he will wander from place to place like some wild 102 Ar. a˙zàb. In Karaite Bible translations, ˙izb renders biblical Hebrew goy; see: Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on Psalms (Marwick) 46:7, p. 19; David al-Fàsì, Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ, 1:310, line 47; and Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Daniel 8:22, p. 86 (Ar.). In Saadya’s Tafsìr it translates le"om; see Ratzaby, Dictionary, 55. 103 “Apportioned to him”: Ar. mustaq†i'un. See Ratzaby, Dictionary, 115, s.v. aq†a'ahu. 104 See David al-Fàsì, Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ, 2:41, lines 33–34. 105 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Genesis 16:12, BL MS Or. 2462 (Cat. 255), fols. 201a–b. See Sokolow, “The Denial of Muslim Sovereignty,” 317–18 for text and Hebrew translation. For a partial English translation, see Ben-Shammai, “The Attitude,” pp. 20–21, n. 70. 106 Cf. Japheth’s Commentary on Daniel 2:43, p. 30, lines 6–7 (Ar.), pp. 13–14 (Eng.): “For the Moslem does not refuse to take a wife of the Christian religion, nor the Christian to take a wife of the religion of Islam.” 107 In his comment on Num 23:9 (BL MS Or. 2475 [Cat. 271] fol. 18a, Japheth writes: “And He showed him a people living apart, in contradistinction to the (other) nations who live with each other, as the Midianites and Moabites do. But (Israel) does not mingle with the (other) nations (by sharing) their food or drink, or by intermarrying with them.” 108 On Muhammad’s lineage, see further below.

“a

prophet like moses”

233

animal ( pere). Since Ishmael is not the designated seed of Abraham (zera' avram al-maw'ùd ), he will not inherit the Land of Israel. An anonymous Karaite commentary on Genesis from the year 982 C.E. treats the verse in the same vein, albeit in greatly expanded form, with topical allusions. Since the passage has already been published and discussed,109 we shall cite yet a third tenth-century commentary, the Tafsìr of Yùsuf b. Nù˙ in the abridgement of Abù’l-Faraj Hàrùn: 6.9 The phrase ve-hu yihyeh pere "adam means a wild man, because he will inhabit the deserts like a wild animal; so much for their belief that he is the son of Abraham to whom possession of the land has been promised! The phrase yado ba-kol ve-yad kol bo indicates that he will mingle with the nations and they will mingle with him in marriage, food, and drink, as it is stated, “they shall mingle with the oﬀspring of men” (Daniel 2:43). It has also been said to mean that his hand will be over all ('alà al-kull) during some periods, i.e., with the advent of the “prophet” (Heb. pasul )110 and the expansion of his preaching and dominion (Ar. wa-intishàr da'watihi wa-dawlatihi) in the world. Then (God’s) judgment (qadìya) will be reversed against him, and the hand of everyone will be against him and over him (Ar. fìhi wa-'alayhi) at the end of time. The phrase ve-'al penei khol "e˙av yishkon (“and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen”) refers to his dwelling in the desert opposite the children of Keturah, Esau, and Israel. From the word "e˙av (“his brothers”) you learn that Abraham will have other children besides him.111

With the phrase, “his hand will be over all during some periods, i.e., with the advent of the pasul,” Ibn Nù˙ may be replying to Ibn Rabbàn: Islam may now be in the ascendant, but its dominance is only temporary. Since Ibn Nù˙ was active during the late tenth century, his mention of religious propaganda or preaching (da'wa) likely refers to

109 See: Sokolow, “The Denial of Muslim Sovereignty,” 313–16; Ben-Shammai, “The Attitude,” 20–22; and Adang, Muslim Writers, 152–53. 110 On this opprobrious epithet, Karaite rhyming slang for Ar. rasùl (“messenger”), see Steinschneider, Polemische und apologetische Schriften, 302 and Ben-Shammai, “Attitude,” p. 14, n. 47, and p. 21. Moses, by contrast, was the true rasùl; see 'Alì b. Suleimàn, Commentary on Genesis 17:14, p. 146, line 17. This commentary is but a digest (intizà' ) of Abù’l-Faraj Hàrùn’s abridgement (talkhìß) (!) of Ibn Nù˙’s commentary; see ibid., p. 34. 111 Yùsuf b. Nù˙, Commentary on Genesis 16:12, RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.1754, fols. 231b–232a. On this work, see Khan, The Early Karaite Tradition, 5–6 and Goldstein, “The Structural Function of Biblical Superﬂuity.” See also 'Alì b. Suleimàn, Commentary on Genesis, 4–11.

234

chapter six

the Fatimid activities mentioned above. The strong similarity between the comments of Japheth, the anonymous commentator, and Ibn Nù˙ indicate a common exegetical line.112 But do these interpretations really reﬂect an awareness of the polemical use to which Muslims put Genesis 16:12? And are they intended as a response? It is diﬃcult to say for certain. Muslims may eagerly have seized upon references to Ishmael and possible allusions to their prophet in the Jewish and Christian scriptures, but in any case, the Karaite exegetes had developed a far more elaborate range of prognostic interpretations. While it is likely that Japheth, Yùsuf b. Nù˙, and the anonymous commentator were familiar with such an important Muslim testimonium, they would, in any case, have read the verse as a prediction of ﬁnal Islamic failure. The response to an Islamic exegetical polemic in this case remains indirect.

A Prophet Like Moses One of the prooftexts most frequently cited by Muslims for polemical purposes against both Jews and Christians does not, in fact, relate obviously to Ishmael at all. Two verses, Deuteronomy 18:15 and 18:18—sometimes paraphrased or conﬂated—indicate that God will raise up a prophet for Israel like Moses from their brethren among them.113 Both 'Alì b. Rabbàn and Ibn Qutayba maintain that the prophet of Islam is intended. “And God has not raised up a prophet from among the brethren of the children of Israel,” says Ibn Rabbàn, “except Muhammad—peace be with him.”114 “Should anyone claim,” asserts Ibn Qutayba, that the prophet in question must also be of the children of Israel because the brethren of an Israelite are Israelites, he will ﬁnd himself refuted both on scriptural and rational grounds: on scriptural grounds,

112 Comparison of the passages indicates that the fragment published by Sokolow is almost certainly not a longer version of Ibn Nù˙’s tafsìr. 113 On these verses see: Adang, Muslim Writers, 144, 158, 160, 264, 269; LazarusYafeh, Intertwined Worlds, 18–19, 104, 125, 150; Strauss, “Darkhei ha-pulmus,” 191–92. Rather than appropriating these verses, however, many quranic exegetes choose to emphasize Muhammad’s dissimilarity to Moses; see Wheeler, Moses in the Quran, 123–27. 114 Ali b. Rabbàn, The Book of Religion and Empire, ch. 10, 73–75 (Ar.), pp. 85–86 (Eng.). For a Christian refutation of this argument, see Mingana, “The Apology of Timothy the Patriarch,” 208.

“a

prophet like moses”

235

because it states in Deuteronomy 34:10 that “none has arisen in Israel like Moses,” and on rational grounds precisely because the word “brethren” is used; had Scripture intended an Israelite it would have speciﬁed “for them, from among themselves” (la-hum min anfusihim).115

Taken together, these verses from Deuteronomy appeared to demonstrate conclusively that the “prophet like Moses” could not be an Israelite. Who else could he be then, but Muhammad, the last and greatest of the prophets, whose universal message abrogated all previous revelations?116 Read against this background, Japheth’s exegesis of these three verses takes on strongly polemical overtones. Moreover, it is quite probable that certain aspects of his theory of prophecy were shaped as well by anti-Islamic considerations. Let us begin with the comment on Deuteronomy 18:15: 6.10.1

“A prophet (navi) from among you, from your brethren, like me shall the Lord your God raise up for you; him you shall heed.” The appellation prophet (navi) is given to one who prophesies in the name of a deity and object of worship. Some say that the true meaning of prophet is one whom God has sent, the “prophets” of Baal and the false “prophets” having styled themselves with the appellation of a true prophet (navi ßedeq). The expression “from among you” (mi-qirbekha) excludes the possibility of God raising up a prophet who is not from among Israel, i.e., who is not of my religion (Ar. dìnì). Now since there might be righteous proselytes (Heb. ger ßedeq) among Israel, as it is stated, “the stranger ( ger) who is in your camp” (Deuteronomy 29:10); “the stranger ( ger) who is among you” (Deuteronomy 26:11); and “he shall dwell with you, in your midst” (Deuteronomy 23:17), (the present verse) speciﬁes “from among you,” referring thereby to the lineage (Ar. silsila) of Jacob. And the expression “shall raise up for you” ( yaqim lekha) informs us that the one whom God will send to Israel will be of Jacob’s lineage, as it states “from your brethren, like me” (me-"a˙ekha kamoni ) and of the religion of Israel, as it is stated, “from among you. The expression “shall raise up for you” informs us that this prophet will prophesy in the name of God. Should a prophet come to us saying, “I have been sent by God” and he is of Jacob’s lineage

115 Ibn Qutayba cited by Ibn al-Jawzi, Al-wafà", 63 (my translation); Cf. Adang, Muslim Writers, 269. 116 See Lazarus-Yafeh, Intertwined Worlds, p. 104, n. 92 for references to polemical citations of Deut 18:15, 18 and Ben-Shammai, “Attitude,” 32–33.

236

chapter six (and adheres) to the religion of the Torah, we are obligated to accept him after he has performed a sign and miracle (Ar. àya wa-burhàn), since we already know that God does not send a prophet without a sign or miracle.117

Japheth’s general deﬁnition of the word navi, which distinguishes sharply between prophets true and false, introduces a deliberate, word-by-word exegesis. This leads him to the important conclusion that the verse establishes four signs or proofs ('alàmàt) of the true prophet. First, the word mi-qirbekha (“from among you”) denotes that the prophet must adhere to the religion (dìn) of Israel. Second, me"a˙ekha (“from your brethren”) limits prophecy to those descended from Jacob (min silsilat ya'qùb). Third and fourth, the phrase yaqim lekha "adonai "elohekha (“the Lord your God will raise up for you”) indicates that the individual must prophesy in God’s name and must produce a prophetic miracle (àya mu'jiza).118 Finally, insists Japheth, it is essential that all four criteria be present; should any one of them be absent, the claimant to prophecy would be false: 6.10.2

Now these are the four signs (Ar. 'alàmàt) of a true prophet: (1) that he be of the line of Jacob; (2) that he adhere to the religion of the Torah; (3) that he prophesy in God’s name; and (4) that he perform a miracle (Ar. àya mu'jiza). If all four of these (criteria) are present, then we may be certain that he is a true prophet (navi ßedeq). But if even one should be absent, then he would be a false prophet (Heb. navi sheqer). We could not acknowledge him as a true prophet, (for example), if he were to prophesy in God’s name, perform a miracle, and be recognized as (an adherent) of the Torah, but were a proselyte. We would have to pronounce him a false prophet; the miracle he had performed would be revealed, upon investigation, as a bit of legerdemain and artiﬁce (Ar. sha'wadha wa-˙ìla). This would be the case if we were to isolate any of the other criteria; if all four are present, however, we are obligated to accept him, as it is stated, “him you shall heed.” This (latter) expression obligates (us) to accept every (message) that the prophet conveys, once these (four) signs have been conﬁrmed. This prophet, whose prophethood has been conﬁrmed for us, is

117 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Deuteronomy 18:15, IOS MS C41 (unnumbered folios) = RNL MS Yevr. I.567. 118 In his comment on Deut 13:4, Japheth lists the three signs of a true prophet (navi ßedeq): (1) that the prophet be descended from Jacob, and that he not be from outside the religious community (milla); (2) that he produce a miracle; and (3) “that he summon us to the law of Moses” (an yakùn yastad'ìnà ilà sharì'ati Moshe). See IOS MS C41, fols. 28b–29a [Quire III, folios unnumbered].

“a

prophet like moses”

237

not required to perform a sign and miracle for us on the occasion of each mission (Ar. risàla). The expression (“him you shall heed”)119 indicates what we have known, viz., that God will only send a prophet if He knows in advance that he will not alter his mission, neither adding to nor omitting from it. We may neither admit that He is ignorant of a mission’s realization (Ar. adà" al-risàla), as has been mentioned in the preface to Va-"et˙anan,120 nor that (the prophet) will seek to oppose God outside his mission. No, it is inconceivable that he be ignorant of the commandments or of anything that is commanded later, unless it be something pertaining to his mission, as we have explained previously.121

Japheth’s use of the term 'alàmàt (“signs” or “proofs”) in this passage is highly signiﬁcant, for the “signs of prophecy” (a'làm al-nubùwa) constituted a standard subject in Arabic theological discourse and inter-religious debate. Muslims, Christians, and Jews developed distinctive prophetologies and systems of vindication.122 Two of the four 'alàmàt enumerated by Japheth represent criteria upon which Jews, Muslims, and Christians would all insist, namely that the prophet’s message be delivered in God’s name and that it be conﬁrmed by a miracle. The nature of the miracle is itself a signiﬁcant polemical theme. In the absence of tales about Muhammad that might compare with biblical stories of wonder-working, Muslims claimed, for example, that the Prophet’s victories were achieved miraculously, “without battle or (drawn) sword” (là bi-˙arb wa-là bi-sayf ). Japheth b. Eli uses the same language in describing God’s miraculous deliverance of His people from Egypt: “He performed miracles for them and saved them without sword or battle.”123 Obviously for a Jew, this was a true example of a miraculous victory. For most Muslims, in fact, the conﬁrming miracle of the Quran is simply its perfect inimitability (i'jàz). Here too, as David Sklare has shown, there was a Karaite response.124 119 120

These words have been omitted in the manuscripts. The second weekly lection of the Book of Deuteronomy, from 3:23 through

7:11. 121

IOS MS C41 (unnumbered fols.) = RNL MS Yevr. I.567. See: Stroumsa, Freethinkers, ch. 1, esp. 33–36; Adang, Muslim Writers, ch. 5; and Lazarus-Yafeh, Intertwined Worlds, ch. 4. On medieval Jewish discussions of the distinction between true and false prophecy, see Cooper, “Imagining Prophecy.” 123 See Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Deuteronomy 4:7, BL MS Or. 2478 (Cat. 274), fol. 35b, line 12. On this theme, see Stroumsa, Freethinkers, 34–35. 124 On the inimitability of the Quran, see: Abdul Aleem, “I'jàzu-l-Qur"àn”; von 122

238

chapter six

The other two 'alàmàt, however, are clearly aimed at Muslim— and possibly Christian—claims, though Japheth does not explicitly refer to either faith in the present context. First, his insistence that the true prophet be descended from Jacob is obviously directed against Muslim genealogies of Muhammad, whose lineage is traced back through Ishmael to Abraham.125 One such example may be found in the book A'làm al-nubùwa, by the Iraqi Shaﬁ'ite jurist, Abù’lÓasan 'Alì b. Mu˙ammad al-Màwardì (974–1058).126 The eighteenth chapter of the work is devoted to the origins of Muhammad’s lineage and the purity of his descent.127 According to al-Màwardì, all of the prophet’s ancestors were lords and chieftains; none was undistinguished or despised. Scrupulously avoiding forbidden marriages, they all took wives who were models of virtue.128 As for the phenomenon of prophecy, it was at one time the exclusive heritage of the Children of Israel, among whom it ﬂourished until the time of Jesus, the last prophet of Israel. Subsequently, it became attached to the line of 'Adnàn, a descendant of Ishmael and the ancestor of Muhammad.129 For his part, Japheth contradicts each of the three basic points assumed by al-Màwardì. We have already observed how he disparages Ishmael and the Muslims for intermarrying with

Grunebaum, “I'djàz”; and idem, A Tenth-Century Document. Sklare discusses Yùsuf alBaßìr’s criticism of this doctrine in “Responses to Islamic Polemics,” 153–60. More commonly, Jews simply emphasized the priority and sanctity of Hebrew, the “Holy Tongue” (leshon ha-qodesh); see: Halkin, “The Medieval Jewish Attitude Toward Hebrew”; Loewe, “Hebrew Linguistics,” 125–32; and Allony, “‘Sefer ha-"egron’ ha'ivri ke-neged ha-‘'arabiyya,’” discussing Saadya’s elaboration of the idea. On the Jewish-Christian-Muslim polemic concerning the primordial language, see Rubin, “The Language of Creation.” Japheth seems to have subscribed, at least, to the broad outlines of the theory; see his commentary on Gen 11:1, BN MS Suppl. héb. 31 (Cat. 279), fol. 199b: “It is stated that before their languages became dispersed, all the peoples of the earth had a single language, i.e., the sacred tongue (leshon ha-qodesh) in which the Lord spoke to Adam and in which he named the animals and the other things. Neither he nor his descendants ceased (to speak) it until the (time of ) the generation of separation (dor haﬂagah), for they knew no other language.” 125 Cf. Japheth’s comment on Isa 39:1, noted by Ben-Shammai, “Doctrines,” p. 264, n. 21. Note too Japheth’s comment on Num 24:17 (6.7.2 above) in which he claims that the Messiah must be descended from Jacob, not Ishmael as the Muslims claim. Muhammad’s lineage is set forth at the beginning of the Sìra of Ibn Iß˙àq; see Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, 3. 126 On this author, see Brockelmann, “al-Màwardì.” 127 Ibid., pp. 165–85. 128 Ibid., 184. 129 Ibid., 165.

“a

prophet like moses”

239

other nations.130 By asserting, moreover, that true prophets can only be descended from Jacob, he unequivocally denies the reality of Muhammad’s mission. (He emphasizes this by excluding the possibility of a proselyte—ger ßedeq—becoming a prophet.) Finally, as we shall see in a moment, he emphasizes that prophecy existed only among Israel and that it was never transferred to any other nation.131 Japheth’s most obviously polemical criterion, however, is his insistence that the prophet adhere to the religion of the Torah, a declaration that ﬂies in the face of Muslim and Christian claims that the Mosaic Law was superseded. He addresses the question of Mosaic revelation and its eternal validity in his comment on Deuteronomy 18:18: 6.11.1

“I will raise up a prophet like you for them from among their brethren and I will put My words in his mouth and he shall speak to them all that I command him.” God raises up two kinds of prophets: Some prophesy only about what will occur in their own time but not about future events ('atidot). But as for those who prophesy about future events, they are of two kinds as well: (A) those who prophesy concerning events (akhbàr) alone; and (B) those who prophesy concerning both events and laws ( furù∂ ), such as Ezekiel who prophesied concerning the form of the Temple as well as all that he mentioned concerning the sacriﬁces additionally prescribed in the law.132 Concerning the latter there are three scholarly opinions: (1) Some people say that it is possible that God impose upon us additional sacriﬁces and acts of worship, if they are conditional upon a (speciﬁc) place, the place in question having already been mentioned as being exclusively designated for (certain) obligatory acts. They maintain, nevertheless, that this additional (obligation) does not contradict the law’s statement, “You shall not add to the word (which I command you) (Deuteronomy 4:2). The proof of this is that the law has obliged (us) to accept whatever message a

See above, pp. 231–33 and Text 6.8 (comment on Gen 16:12). Japheth’s insistence that prophecy is only possible for those of Israelite descent would seem to conﬂict with his clear statements concerning Balaam’s prophetic experiences; see above, p. 224, n. 74, and Ben-Shammai, “Doctrines,” 1:271. Japheth’s theory has rabbinic precedents; see Sifrei Deuteronomy, Pisqa 175, p. 221 and notes ad loc. Perhaps the best known exponent of such a view is the Andalusian Jewish poet and religious philosopher, Judah Halevi (d. 1141). See Wolfson, “Hallevi and Maimonides on Prophecy,” 62–64 = Studies, 2:98–101. 132 Ez 45–46. 130 131

240

chapter six prophet brings, be it a law ( far∂ ) or something else, once his status as a prophet has been conﬁrmed. (2) The proponent of the second view states: “I would not call this an addition to the law (ziyàda 'alà al-far∂ ) but only an addition to its particulars (al-ashkhàs). As for the burnt oﬀering ('olah) oﬀered on the Sabbath (Ezekiel 46:4), that addition does not constitute a new law but rather an act of worship (ta'abbud ) which (God) enjoined upon us in that particular year, just as the dedication of the Temple alters the numbers (of obligations on that particular occasion).133 Similarly, God commanded the building of numerous towers and pools but these do not constitute additions since the law was not augmented; indeed, He did not increase the types of sacriﬁces or vessels.”134

We have touched upon Japheth’s theory of prophetic experience, which distinguishes between its diﬀerent qualities and degrees.135 Here, he observes that prophets may also be classiﬁed according to their missions. While some may impart information about present or future events, others—such as Ezekiel—may announce future legislation. But in what sense may a prophet be like Moses, the lawgiver? To admit the possibility of new, post-Mosaic legislation means accepting that in principle, it can be superseded. Since the Quran’s abrogation (naskh) of the Torah and every other revelation is central to Muslim doctrine, a carefully formulated response is required.136 Japheth records three approaches to the problem. According to the ﬁrst, it is possible for God to add new laws relating to a particular location. Presumably, this would sanction the perpetuation of the cult in the

133 Lit. “just as the dedication of the Temple (˙annukat ha-bayit) increases and reduces the numbers.” For the prescribed Sabbath sacriﬁce, see Num 28:9–10. Cf. al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr, IV.58, vol. 2, p. 470 (trans. Vajda, “Études, IV,” p. 257). 134 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Deuteronomy 18:18, IOS MS C41 (unnumbered folios) = RNL MS Yevr. I.567 = RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.0020, fols. 60b–62a = RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.0095, fols. 110a–112a. The argument seems to be as follows: the diﬀerences between Ezekiel’s account of the Temple and the Solomonic Temple of 1 Kings do not indicate a change in the essential divine prescriptions but only slight diﬀerences in their particulars. Some of the diﬀerences can be explained as special prescriptions for one-time events, e.g., the Sabbath burnt-oﬀering of Ez 46:4. Others, such as the building additions do not alter the original design. The essentials—the numbers of sacriﬁces and vessels—remain the same in every prophetic account. The towers and pools to which he alludes are likely those mentioned in 2 Chr 26:10–11. 135 See above, pp. 102–104. 136 On naskh, see: Adang, Muslim Writers, ch. 6; Lazarus-Yafeh, Intertwined Worlds, 35–41; and Wansbrough, The Sectarian Milieu, 109–13, 150–54.

“a

prophet like moses”

241

Solomonic Temple, rather than the desert Tabernacle. By contrast, the second view distinguishes between the details and essences of laws: what appear to be additions to the Law are but special observances instituted at a particular time in a particular place. Japheth endorses neither view; he favors a third, more complex approach: 6.11.2

137 138 139 140 141

The third view, which is the most plausible of all, is that God revealed137 all of the laws via Moses and that they are of three kinds: (a) those performed by the earlier generations, prior to Moses’ time; (b) those imposed from the time of Moses until the End of Time;138 and (c) those that will become obligatory with (Time’s) expiration. Those that have been shown to be as old as the earlier (i.e., pre-Mosaic) generations comprise all of the rational commandments (al-farà"i∂ al-'aqlìya) and many of the revealed commandments (al-farà"i∂ al-sam'ìya).139 Those imposed from Moses’ time include most of the commandments.140 And those imposed with the expiration (of Time) include the pilgrimage (al-˙ajj ) to God’s Temple, oaths and vows, and all the commandments that are conditional upon the Land (al-manù†a bi’l-ar∂ ). These three classes (of commandments) that I have mentioned have been elaborated and recorded (in Scripture). Just as it is conceivable that commandments be enjoined that become obligatory with the expiration (of Time), so is it conceivable that commandments be enjoined that are to be performed at speciﬁed times and (in) speciﬁed locations. Thus according to this view, they say that via Moses God ordered the construction of the First Temple that Solomon built, as well as all the vessels, and the construction of the Second and Third Temples. In their opinion, all that Ezekiel mentioned had been transmitted (manqùl ) via (earlier) prophets. When the time came to build the First Temple, David instructed (Solomon) in the form of its construction with all its furnishings,141 as it states: “David gave his son Solomon the plan of the porch, etc. and the plan of all that he had by the spirit, etc.” (1 Chronicles 28:11–12); and it stated, “All this that the Lord made me understand by His hand on me, I give you in writing (—the plan of the works)” (vs. 19). Similarly, they transmitted the form of the Third Temple down to the time of Ezekiel; when the Temple was destroyed in his day, God showed him the sanctuary and its plan as it had been transmitted (manqùl ) among them without addition or omission. He commanded him to record it for the consolation

Lit. “enjoined”: Ar. amara. Lit. “the end of all generations”: Heb. sof kol ha-dorot. On these categories, see above, pp. 35–36, and n. 11. I.e., all of the rational commandments and most of the revealed commandments. Reading al-athàth, “furnishings” for al-atha.

242

chapter six of the people and because he was the seal of the prophets (khàtam al-anbiyà") during whose time the Temple was destroyed. In similar fashion, the menorah was mentioned by Zechariah.142

According to this schema, God actually revealed all of the laws through Moses. Some, such as the “rational commandments” (alfarà"i∂ al-'aqlìya) were already observed before Moses’ day; most of the others have been observed from Moses’ time to this.143 There is a third category, however, which is only valid in the Holy Land and which requires a functioning Temple; these laws will be observed at the end of time. Once Moses had fulﬁlled his mission, other prophets had a very limited role in giving the Law. Japheth explains, for example, that the building of all three temples was commanded via Moses but that certain details speciﬁc to time and place were only revealed later. Thus David instructed Solomon concerning the form of the First Temple, and Zechariah, in his day, described the construction of the Menorah. The legislative activities of the post-Mosaic prophets consisted, therefore, of receiving and transmitting certain divine communications which elaborated slightly on the Sinaitic revelation. The designs for the Second and Third Temples were faithfully transmitted by the prophets, until God showed them to Ezekiel, who was enjoined to set them down, because he was the “seal of the prophets” (khàtam al-anbiyà"). That ﬁnal phrase resonates with polemical overtones, since for Muslims Muhammad is the khàtam al-nabìyìn, whose message—the Quran—had superseded all previous revelations and is itself ﬁnal and immutable.144 Now al-Qirqisànì had already attacked the Islamic doctrine of the Torah’s abrogation (naskh). He argued that it was vain for Muslims to accept the Torah as a legitimate revelation that conﬁrms their own prophet’s mission, when the Torah itself denies the possibility of any new dispensation.145 Interestingly, he calls

142

Zech 4. See Erder, “Early Karaite Conceptions About Commandments,” which discusses the question in the context of naskh. 144 In the Quran, sùra 33:40 khàtam (alternate reading: khàtim) al-nabiyyìn does not actually signify “the last prophet”; the “seal of prophets” is the one who corroborates the prophecies of others. See Friedman, “Finality of Prophethood in Sunni Islam.” By the tenth century, however, the “seal” was traditionally understood to be the ﬁnal prophet. 145 See al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr III.15.2–5, vol. 3, pp. 293–95. See BenShammai, “The Attitude of Some Early Karaites,” 27–30, and Adang, Muslim Writers, 143

“a

prophet like moses”

243

Malachi—who had commanded Jews to observe the Torah—the seal of prophets (khàtim al-nabìyìn), because he is the last one recorded in Scripture.146 In our passage, however, it is Ezekiel whom Japheth styles “the seal of the prophets.” True, he regards Malachi as chronologically the last of the prophets (àkhir al-anbiyà").147 But in the context of his comment on Deuteronomy 18:18 and the debate over naskh, he wishes to stress that legislative revelation ceased with Ezekiel’s vision of the Temple. While there is no explicit reference here to Muhammad, Japheth’s rejection of a central Muslim teaching is no less pointed than al-Qirqisànì’s. The comment concludes with a brief explication of Deuteronomy 18:18b: 6.11.3

We have already mentioned the types of prophetic communication (aqsàm al-nubùwa) in connection with the verse “If a prophet rises among you” (Deuteronomy 13:2); we have explained that they are six in number and that by whichever of them the prophet is addressed, it is obligatory to accept his word, as it is stated, “and I will put My words in his mouth,” for that is one of the forms of revelation by which prophets are addressed.148 The phrase “and he shall speak to them all that I command him” indicates that the prophet is conﬁrmed in his fulﬁllment of the mission to convey it to the people, as it is stated, “all that I command him.”149

For Japheth Deuteronomy 18:15 and 18:18 do indeed describe the criteria of a true prophet, and he uses the explication of these verses as an opportunity for sketching the history of legislative revelation. God communicated with all true prophets in one of six modes. Since prophecy ceased in Malachi’s time, however, Jews will readily conclude that Muslim claims for their prophet are not to be credited. As for Ibn Qutayba’s interpretation of Deuteronomy 34:10 and his

204–206. The Asharite theologian, Abù Bakr Mu˙ammad b. al-ˇayyib al-Bàqillànì (d. Baghdad, 1013) also discusses the identity of “the seal of the prophets” in connection with the abrogation of the Mosaic Law; see Adang, ibid., 213. 146 See al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr III.15.3, vol. 3, pp. 293–94; Ben-Shammai, ibid., 27. 147 See Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Minor Prophets, Mal 1:1, BL MS Or. 2401 (Cat. 288), fol. 234a. 148 For the comment on Deut. 13:2 see IOS MS C41, fols. 26aﬀ. [Quire III, folios unnumbered]; the six levels of prophetic inspiration are discussed on fol. 27a–b. See also above p. 101. 149 IOS MS C41 [Quire XIV, folios unnumbered].; Variants from RNL MS Yevr. I.567 and RNL MS Yevr.-Arab I.0020, fols. 60b–62a. See Texts 6.11; cf. the comment of Lazarus-Yafeh, Intertwined Worlds, 104–106.

244

chapter six

assertion that prophecy ceased in Israel, but was vouchsafed to Moses’ superior, Muhammad—Japheth’s comment provides a decisive reply: 6.12.1

And there will not again arise a prophet among the nation of Israel like Moses, with whom the Lord conversed face to face, i.e., without any intermediary (ay bi-ghayr wàsi†a). The phrase ve-lo qam navi 'od be-yisra"el is a statement concerning the future. The word (qam) may be translated in two ways, as a past tense ('avar) or as a participle ( fà'il ).150 In the past tense it occurs in such passages as “he arose (qam) from before the altar of the Lord where he had knelt” (1 Kings 8:54) and “he neither rose (qam) nor trembled before him” (Esther 5:9). It is to be translated “rising” (i.e., as a participle) in the phrase “he was rising by night” (2 Kings 8:21). Here (in Deuteronomy 34:10), because of the word 'od (again), it is not to be translated “there has not arisen.” I have interpreted it “and there will not arise” (wa-là yaqùm) which seems to give the right meaning; the literal sense (ma˙∂ ) of the expression is “and there will not be arising,” the word 'od signifying in future generations.151

First, the verb “arise” (qam) is to be taken as a participle, not a past tense. While this appeal to Hebrew grammar possesses no overt polemical force, it certainly points up the ignorance of non-Jewish scholars who, as a rule, relied upon translations and could hardly challenge Jewish Hebraism. At a stroke, Japheth has demonstrated to a Jewish audience their own linguistic mastery of the Hebrew Scriptures and conﬁrmed the reality of post-Mosaic prophecy. There remains, of course, that ambiguous term be-Yi≤ra"el: does it mean that prophets did arise after Moses, but not among the Children of Israel? or does it indicate that the prophets who arose in Israel after Moses’ time were not comparable to him? Ibn Qutayba had naturally suggested the former interpretation. Japheth counters with the latter:

150 On these terms, see Khan, The Early Karaite Tradition, 91 and 146 ('avar), 98–99 and 149 ( fà'il ). 151 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Deuteronomy 34:10, BL MS Or. 2479 (Cat. 275), fol. 157a–b = IOS MS C72 (unnumbered folios). Cf. al-Qirqisànì, Introduction to Kitàb al-riyà∂ wa’l-˙adà"iq, 19th premise (Hirschfeld, Qirqisànì Studies, p. 56, lines 19–20), according to which “there are instances in which an apparent past tense is in reality a future.” As an example, he adduces Deut 34:10, in which ve-lo qam means wa-là yaqùm. A portion of al-Qirqisànì’s comment on Deut 34:10, dealing with the problem of the verse’s Mosaic authorship, has been translated and discussed; see Chiesa, Filologia storica, 1:200–205.

“a

6.12.2

prophet like moses”

245

“In Israel” does not signify that prophets like Moses will arise in nations other than Israel. It (indicates) rather, that since the nation of Israel is a “special possession among all the nations” (Exodus 19:5, Deuteronomy 7:6), the noble prophets who were sent (to them) go forth to other nations as well. Jonah ben Amittai was sent, for example, to Nineveh to encourage (its people) to repent, just as the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, and Nahum all prophesied concerning the nations of the world. It was common knowledge152 among the nations that the true prophets came from the nation of Israel. Thus, the king of Aram sent Naaman to Elisha (2 Kings 5) and Hazael was sent to him likewise upon his entry into Damascus (2 Kings 8:8). And thus the king of Babylon sent to Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:12) that he might learn from him the signiﬁcance of the miracle. For this reason (the verse states) “in Israel.”

Prophecy, Japheth maintains, is restricted to Israel, that is the “line of Jacob” (silsilat Ya'aqov). Not only did the Prophets of Israel deliver messages to their own people, but they also communicated God’s will to the nations, who recognized their veracity, and even traveled to consult them. Historically, only Israelite prophets could fulﬁll such positive functions. Of these, Moses was undeniably the greatest; indeed, he was incomparable: 6.12.3

152 153

Now had (the verse) ended there, we would not grasp the import of the phrase “like Moses”; it is only through the words “whom the Lord addressed, etc.” that we grasp its meaning. For it thus became clear that after Moses no prophet arose whom God addressed “face to face.” I have already mentioned the degrees of prophetic communication in (my comment on) Deuteronomy 13:2 where I explained that they are of six types, the most exalted being “mouth to mouth” ( peh "el peh) and “divine inspiration” (rua˙ ha-qodesh). Moses possessed both of these (degrees), but other prophets, although sharing in the degree of “divine inspiration,” did not share in the degree of “mouth to mouth.” I have already explained the meaning of panim "el panim, distinguishing between it and panim be-fanim (on the one hand) and peh "el peh (on the other) in my comment on Deuteronomy 5:4. This (kind of ) “knowledge” ( yedi'ah) is the knowledge (produced by) speech, therefore it has been rendered (by the word) “conversing.”153 Genesis 18:19, “for I have

Lit. “disseminated”: Ar. mustafà∂. “Conversing”: Ar. munàjàh. See Dozy, Supplément 2:644: “s’entretenir avec Dieu.”

246

chapter six known him, that he may charge (his children),” and Hosea 13:5, “it was I who knew you in the wilderness,” have been translated in similar fashion.

The full polemical thrust of Japheth’s comment now becomes apparent: Moses’ prophetic experience was unique in its intimacy and directness. By contrast, Muslim tradition declares that the angel Gabriel mediated God’s revelations to Muhammad. Even were Japheth to grant the possibility that Muhammad might be a prophet—and this would mean making an exception for a man of non-Israelite descent, who lived long after the cessation of prophecy in Israel, and proclaimed a revelation at odds with the Torah—he would rank him no higher than Daniel, who also conversed with Gabriel and only attained the ﬁfth of the six degrees. And this, on the testimony of the Muslims themselves!154 Naturally, Japheth spells out none of this, since his readers can hardly be ignorant of the most basic Muslim teachings concerning the Qur"àn’s origin. For all that, his arguments remain cogent and irrefutable from a Jewish viewpoint. The keys to grasping Japheth’s polemical intentions, then, are the speciﬁc exegetical contexts in which certain comments appear. Throughout this study, we have seen how he allows the biblical text to shape and organize his ideas, rather than fashioning those thoughts into monographs or systematic treatises. Once we become aware of the polemical use to which Muslims put certain biblical verses, the true signiﬁcance of his statements becomes obvious. The theory of revelation he propounds, moreover, responds at every turn to Muslim claims for the prophecy of Muhammad. The Qur"àn and tradition literature present a doctrine of successive revelations according to which each nation possessed its own prophets155 until the advent of Muhammad, whose universal message—Islam—superseded all that had come before. In contrast, Japheth’s conception of prophecy is highly particularistic. All true prophets were descended from Jacob

154 On the quranic description of Muhammad’s prophetic experience, see Watt, Bell’s Introduction to the Qur"àn, 18–25; the key passage is sùra 2:97–98. According to the ˙adìth, the ﬁrst revelation to him actually came in a dream (al-ru"yà al-ßàli˙a); in Japheth’s view this would even rank below angelic communication. Subsequently, the angel Gabriel addressed Muhammad, commanding him to recite the ﬁrst ﬁve verses of sùra 96 (sùrat al-'alaq); see Ía˙ì˙ al-Bukhàrì 1:1. See also 'Ali b. Rabbàn, The Book of Religion and Empire, 2. 155 Quran, sùras 10:47 and 16:36.

“a

prophet like moses”

247

and adhered to the Torah. The nations possessed no prophets of their own. God granted inspiration to Balaam and Nebuchadezzar in order to incite them to abandon their wicked ways and return to the religion of Israel (dìn Yi≤ra"el).156 Indeed, the function of preaching repentance to the nations of the world devolved not upon gentile apostles but rather upon the Jewish prophets who came after Moses, and it was widely appreciated among the nations of the world that true prophets came only from Israel.157 The highest form of prophecy, however, never to be matched let alone surpassed, remains the legislative revelation vouchsafed to Moses at Sinai which was complete and all-embracing. Beside it, the legislation revealed to later prophets may be considered only as ampliﬁcation, not as amendment. Finally, Japheth’s apologetic and polemical responses to Islam were most likely not addressed to Muslims or even intended for interconfessional debate. We have his explicit testimony to the fact that he was not interested in writing criticisms of gentile doctrines per se. On the other hand, the challenge posed by Islam lent his exegetical endeavor a certain urgency. The prophetology which informs his commentaries thus served to vindicate the tenth-century Karaites in their world outlook and their self-imposed way of life. If Jews as a group were regarded by Muslims as “People of the Book” (ahl alkitàb), the Jerusalem Karaites in their time were the champions of Scripture par excellence. Confronted with the polemical exegesis of Christians and Muslims, Japheth ben Eli incorporated a powerful response in his commentaries on the Bible.

156 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Numbers 24:2, BN MS Suppl. héb. 35a (Cat. 283), fol. 182a. 157 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Deuteronomy 34:10, BL MS Or. 2479, fols. 156b–157a.

EPILOGUE

ON THE ORIGINS OF THE JEWISH BIBLE COMMENTARY IN THE ISLAMIC EAST

In an earlier chapter, we noted Abraham Ibn Ezra’s sharp critique of the Babylonian Geonim for their exegetical prolixity. Having dispatched them in the ﬁrst paragraphs of the Introduction to his Torah commentary, he turns his attention to a second interpretive stance, that of the Karaites. A pious Rabbanite, Ibn Ezra naturally excoriates this “Second Way,” stating categorically that it is impossible to understand the Law without recourse to the Tradition.1 Again, toward the end of his Introduction, he asserts: “God forbid that we have anything to do with the Sadducees (i.e. the Karaites) who maintain that the (Rabbanite) tradition contradicts Scripture and grammatical usage.”2 In his emphatic rejection of Karaism, Ibn Ezra joined company with an illustrious group of eleventh- and twelfth-century Andalusian Rabbis: Judah al-Bargeloni, Moses Ibn Ezra, Joseph Ibn Íaddiq, Judah Halevi, Abraham Ibn Daud, Moses Maimonides, and Judah al-Óarizi all polemicized against the sect to greater or lesser degrees.3 At the same time, Ibn Ezra did not hesitate to cite interpretations of Karaite origin in his commentaries.4 Indeed, his denunciation of the Karaite approach to the law, like his misgivings concerning Geonic style, belies his appreciation of eastern scholarship. He may have been determined to introduce the Jews of Latin

1 See Abraham Ibn Ezra, Peirushei ha-torah, “Haqdamah,” 1:10 and 138–39 for the alternate version. On the Introductions to Ibn Ezra’s two commentaries on Genesis, see: Bacher, Abraham Ibn Esra’s Einleitung; Friedlaender, Essays, 143–49 and 1–9 (Heb.); and Lancaster, Deconstructing the Bible, esp. ch. 6. 2 Abraham Ibn Ezra, Peirushei ha-torah, “Haqdamah,” 1:10. 3 See esp. Cohen, The Book of Tradition, xliii–lxii and the ﬁne overview by Lasker, “Karaism in Twelfth-Century Spain.” 4 In the Introduction to his edition, Weiser records numerous references to Japheth, Jeshua b. Judah, and other Karaite scholars; see Abraham Ibn Ezra, Peirushei hatorah, “Mavo,” 1:59–71, s.v. “Ben Zutta,” “Yefet,” and “Yeshu'ah.” On Ibn Ezra’s polemics against Karaism, see Weis, “Abraham ibn Ezra and the Karaites.” On the reception of Ibn Ezra’s Torah commentary by Byzantine Karaites, see Frank, “Ibn Ezra and the Karaite Exegetes.”

jewish bible commentary in the islamic east

249

Christendom to a new kind of Bible commentary, but he was not reluctant to draw heavily upon the best of the older exegetes. If Ibn Ezra, David Kim˙i, and Moses Na˙manides represent the high-water mark of Sefardic parshanut, we must look eastward for their precursors. The Sefardim unquestionably made great advances over their predecessors. Though learned and insightful, the grammatical works of Saadya Gaon and Abu ’l-Faraj Hàrùn were completely eclipsed by the writings of Óayyùj and Ibn Janà˙, which were informed by the theory of triliteral roots.5 Nor did the Mutazilite kalam of the East ever really hold sway in Spain; Neoplatonism and then Aristotelianism became the dominant modes of rationalist discourse in the West, in speculative and exegetical works alike.6 Fittingly, it was also in Andalusia that Greco-Arabic poetics was ﬁrst applied to the Bible in systematic fashion; the identiﬁcation of ﬁgurative language by Saadya or Japheth pales beside the rigorous exposition of Moses Ibn Ezra or the discerning observations of David Kim˙i.7 Stylistically, linguistically, and substantively, the Sefardic commentary marks a new phase in the history of Jewish biblical interpretation.8 And yet, the hallmarks of the Sefardic Bible commentary can be traced back to Rabbanite and Karaite works composed in Iraq and the Land of Israel as far back as the tenth century. Let us brieﬂy consider ﬁve characteristic aspects of the Spanish Approach, each of which has discernible antecedents in the East. 1. Exegetical Program. The goal of preparing a series of commentaries that would cover the entire Bible or large sections of it goes back to the tenth century. Saadya Gaon seems to have attempted the project, although comparatively little of his exegetical oeuvre has survived. Apparently, he did not write on the entire Torah; the Geonim Aaron b. Sarjado and Samuel b. Hophni completed the

5

See Maman, “The Linguistic School.” See esp. Maimonides, Guide 1:71 (trans. Pines, 176–77), contrasting the Geonic and Karaite appropriation of the Mutazilite kalam with the Andalusian adherence to philosophy: “You will not ﬁnd them in any way taking the paths of the Mutakallimùn.” 7 See Berlin, Biblical Poetry Through Medieval Jewish Eyes and Cohen, Three Approaches to Biblical Metaphor, both emphasizing the Andalusian attempt to integrate classical and Arabic theory into biblical poetics. 8 For general characterizations of the Spanish School, see: Sarna, “Hebrew and Bible Studies in Medieval Spain” and Simon, “The Spanish School of Biblical Interpretation.” 6

250

epilogue

Pentateuch commentary.9 Among the Karaites, we have already noted that Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm commented on the ﬁve megillot as well as other portions of the Prophets and Writings, while Japheth b. Eli wrote commentaries on every book of the Bible.10 These vast projects underlay the interpretive programs of Judah Ibn Bal'am (second half of the eleventh century), Abraham Ibn Ezra, and David Kim˙i, and indirectly, of Isaac Abarbanel.11 The Karaite endeavor, notably the writings of Japheth and Jeshua b. Judah, provided contextually and philologically grounded interpretations of virtually every biblical verse. An Andalusian Rabbanite venturing to interpret the Minor Prophets, for example, would naturally turn to Japheth’s commentary, which was the most comprehensive available; as modern scholars have observed, this is precisely what Ibn Ezra did.12 2. Authorial Voice. While engaged in exegetical projects of such scope, commentators develop their own distinctive approaches, vocabularies, and styles. They refer to comments they have made or intend to oﬀer; sometimes they copy material from one locus to another.13 They evaluate previous explanations and even assess their own places

9

On the scope of Geonic exegesis, see Brody, “The Geonim of Babylonia as Biblical Exegetes,” 78–79. 10 See above, p. 14. Japheth’s commentary on Lamentations is the only one of his exegetical works which does not seem to have survived; see Ben-Shammai, “Poetic Works and Lamentations,” 193. With but one exception, every Karaite commentary on Lamentations that I have examined has turned out to be that of Salmon. An unidentiﬁed thirty-two folio fragment (RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.3806) may represent all that remains of Japheth’s commentary on the book; I hope to discuss this manuscript on another occasion. 11 On Ibn Bal'am, see Maman, “The Linguistic School,” esp. 277–81. On Kim˙i, see Talmage, David Kim˙i and Cohen, “The Qimhi Family.” On Abarbanel, see Lawee, Isaac Abarbanel’s Stance Toward Tradition, esp. ch. 2. As Lawee notes, Abarbanel expressed dissatisfaction with both the Northern European and Andalusian schools of biblical exegesis; he was particularly bothered by their “great brevity.” One wonders how he would have reacted to the older Geonic and Karaite commentaries, had he had access to them. 12 See Birnbaum’s Introduction to Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Hosea, xliii–xlvii and Abraham Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Hosea (Lipshitz), 17, n. 54. In the notes to his edition of Ibn Ezra’s commentaries on Minor Prophets, Uriel Simon adduces many more anonymous citations of Japheth; see Abraham Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Minor Prophets (Simon). Birnbaum (xlvii–l) also observes striking parallels between the commentaries of Japheth and David Kim˙i on Hosea. These suggest that the Provençal exegete too was familiar with the Judeo-Arabic work. 13 On the transfer of material within Salmon’s commentaries, see above, p. 149, n. 19. For an instance of duplication in Japheth’s commentaries, see above, p. 62 and 2.3.

jewish bible commentary in the islamic east

251

in the history of biblical exegesis.14 In short, they acquire unique, authorial voices.15 Japheth’s penchant for enumeration—which he shared with Saadya—his judgments of alternative interpretations, and his tendency to reiterate favorite theories (such as the hierarchy of prophetic experiences) help give his commentaries their particular ﬂavor.16 He also made sure to diﬀerentiate his work from that of his predecessors. In the Introduction to his commentary on Genesis, for example, he criticizes the eﬀorts of an earlier exegete: Because we have decided to translate the verses of this book and to clarify its ideas in accordance with the demands of its language, we have not dealt with matters that depart from our aim, lest we become immersed in (the sorts of ) things in which another commentator immersed himself. He ﬁlled his commentaries with the teachings of the heretics, the dualists, the philosophers and the sophists, and began responding to them, embellishing his book in this way and consequently departing from his aim of interpreting the meaning of the book’s language. . . .17

When Japheth wrote these words sometime around the middle of the tenth century, the Judeo-Arabic exegetical enterprise was relatively new—probably less than a century old. The forms a Jewish Bible commentary might take were still being determined. No systematic exposition of Scripture in its entirety yet existed. All the same, the Jewish exegete had become an identiﬁable author—the writer of books, not merely a name attached to an isolated midrashic interpretation. When Abraham Ibn Ezra wrote his Introduction to Genesis, nearly two centuries later, he could cite and critique quite a few exegetes, both Rabbanite and Karaite. Naturally, his inimitable Hebrew style and wide-ranging erudition distinguished him from other scholars, but he also took great care to deﬁne his own place

14

See, e.g., Salmon’s comment on Song 3:8 (4.1), p. 147 above. Cf. the discussion of individualism and especially the authorial voice by Sklare, Samuel ben Óofni Gaon, 38–50. 16 For enumerations, see, e.g., the comments on Ps 79:13 (5.8), Ps 90:1 (5.11), and Ps 44:18–19 (5.13) translated and discussed in ch. 5. For examples of alternative interpretations, see, e.g., the comments on Song 2:6 (4.8) and Song 1:9 (4:9) in ch. 4. On the theory of prophecy, see the comments on Num 12:7 (3.1), Gen 41:7 (3.6.3) in ch. 3, and Deut 18:18 (6.11.3) and 34:10 (6.12.3) in ch. 6. 17 Japheth b. Eli, Introduction to the Commentary on Genesis, in Ben-Shammai et al., Judaeo-Arabic Manuscripts . . . Yefet . . . on Genesis, 85 (Ar., ed. Butbul), 144 (Heb., trans. Stroumsa). As Stroumsa suggests (144–45, n. 7), the object of Japheth’s criticism is likely al-Qirqisànì. 15

252

epilogue

within the exegetical tradition by means of the famous ﬁve-part typology of biblical interpretation, with which he prefaced his Torah commentary.18 3. Programmatic Introduction. In commenting on the phrase davar davur 'al "ofanav in Proverbs 25:11, Saadya Gaon remarks that while there are various modes of exposition and authors structure their works according to their own purposes, “. . . it is desirable that the introduction (ßadr) of every book explain its goal(s); if it is possible for it to begin by (setting forth) some or all of its principles in its introduction, this makes for a more structured and orderly (work).”19 The introductions to Saadya’s books do indeed address basic principles.20 They also established this sub-genre, which had originated in the Hellenistic world, within the Jewish literary canon.21 Saadya’s introductions to his Bible commentaries address certain speciﬁc questions: the origins and genre of the biblical book under consideration, its authorship, its aims, and its distinctive characteristics. Carefully structured, they typically feature an opening invocation to God followed by theological and epistemological disquisitions, methodological statements, and general observations. The Introduction to his commentary on Proverbs, for example, Kitàb †alab al-˙ikma (“The Quest for Wisdom”), comprises an important essay on wisdom, knowledge, and human nature which leads to the enumeration of a dozen key themes in the biblical book.22 As we have seen, Karaite commentaries from this period—by al-Qirqisànì, Salmon, and Japheth—also feature intro-

18

For appreciations, see Sarna, “Abraham Ibn Ezra as an Exegete” and Simon, “Abraham Ibn Ezra.” One trademark of Ibn Ezra’s style is his biting sarcasm; see Simon, “Ibn Ezra’s Harsh Language.” On the authorial voice in Andalusian Hebrew poetry, see Pagis, Hebrew Poetry, ch. 1. 19 Saadya Gaon, Commentary on Proverbs 25:11, p. 202. 20 On the Introductions to Saadya’s commentaries, see the literature cited on p. 8, n. 30 above. The ﬁrst Jewish author to have written introductions may have been Dàwùd b. Marwàn al-Muqammaß, who studied with Christian scholars. Unfortunately, the beginning of his Twenty Chapters has been lost, but the opening lines of his Masà"il fì ’l-taw˙ìd (“Questions on the Divine Unity”), which have been preserved, almost certainly belong to a preface: the verb iftata˙a, the divine invocation, and the forumulaic ammà ba'du are all standard features of the introduction; see Adler and Broydé, “An Ancient Bookseller’s Catalogue,” 60–61 and Stroumsa, Twenty Questions, 22–23. 21 On the muqaddima in Arabic literature, see Freimark, “Das Vorwort” and idem, “Mu˚addima”; for the Syriac precursor, see Riad, Studies in the Syriac Preface. 22 See Saadya Gaon, Commentary on Proverbs, 8–22 and Rosenthal, “Saadya Gaon: An Appreciation,” 94–96.

jewish bible commentary in the islamic east

253

ductions (Ar. muqaddimàt or ßudùr); together, these miniature treatises constitute an important corpus.23 Japheth was particularly proliﬁc, composing ßudùr for more than half of the books of the Bible, including one for each of the books of the Pentateuch. The Introduction to his commentary on Genesis is quite short—almost self-consciously so, perhaps. But the ßadr to Exodus is more extensive. Here, Japheth turns naturally to the notion of covenant which ﬁgures so prominently in the ﬁrst two books of the Bible. By rehearsing the Genesis narratives which tell of God’s covenants with Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he summarizes the central themes of the ﬁrst book, emphasizing and preparing the reader for the stories of the Exodus and the Sinaitic covenant which follow. The Introduction, in this case, clearly points backwards as well as forwards, underscoring the special relationship between Abraham and God. By way of contrast, Japheth’s comment on Exodus 1:1–4 represents the book’s real preface: “This book,” says Japheth, “comprises ﬁve principles: (1) the origins and circumstances of Israel’s suﬀering in Egypt; (2) an account of their exodus from Egypt and their journey to Mount Sinai; (3) an account of Israel’s experience at Mount Sinai; (4) an account of Israel’s rebellion in fashioning the Golden Calf; and (5) an account of the construction of the tabernacle.”24 The themes or principles enunciated here represent, of course, no more and no less than a table of contents to Exodus. And yet, Japheth also takes pains to relate the opening verses of the book to the genealogies of Genesis, thus linking the two sets of narratives. For the Andalusian and Provençal Rabbanites, these tenth-century ßudùr served as obvious models. Isaac Ibn Ghiyàth, Abraham Ibn Ezra, and Joseph b. Judah Ibn 'Aqnìn all prefaced their commentaries with substantial Introductions.25 Samuel Ibn Tibbon, to be sure, was

23 On al-Qirqisànì’s Introduction to Kitàb al-riyà∂, see above, p. 10. The Introductions to Salmon and Japheth’s commentaries on the Song are discussed above in ch. 4; for Japheth’s Introduction to Psalms, see ch. 5. For an annotated translation of Japheth’s Introduction to his commentary on Hosea, see Polliack and Schlossberg, “Historical-literary, Rhetorical and Redactional Methods.” 24 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Exodus, Introduction and 1–4, RNL MS Yevr.Arab. I.0055, fols. 1b–2a = RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.0054, fols. 1b–4b = RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.0040, fols. 1b–3a = RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.0041, fol. 1a = RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.0121, fols. 2b–5a. 25 For Ibn Ghiyàth’s introduction to his commentary on Ecclesiastes, see Óamesh megillot, 161–71 (misattributed to Saadya); for Ibn 'Aqnìn, see his Commentary on Song of Songs, 2–19 and Halkin, “Ibn 'Aknin’s Commentary.”

254

epilogue

already operating within a diﬀerent tradition when he composed his peti˙ah to Ecclesiastes, for it bears the clear imprint of Aristotle. All the same, he still developed his prooemium from the biblical book’s opening verses—a practice familiar from the tenth-century.26 4. Systematic Exposition. One of the most welcome features of an Andalusian Bible commentary is the orderly way in which words, phrases, verses, and sometimes larger units are explained. The text is broken down into lemmata, each of which signals a comment, that is, the exegete’s attempt to clarify an obscurity. Once a problem is solved, the exegete moves on. While this procedure may seem perfectly natural, classic exegetical midrashim, such as Genesis Rabbah, are not so tightly organized. Here too, the tenth-century commentators broke new ground. With their Arabic translations, lexical notes, and contextual explanations, the commentaries of the Jerusalem Karaites provided suitable models. Doctrinally and halakhically speaking, they might be tainted, and they were certainly long-winded, but these works unquestionably contained a wealth of information, in an accessible format. In Chapter Four, we saw how the Karaite exegetes elaborated a comprehensive reading of the Song of Songs. Japheth’s multi-tiered commentary translates the Hebrew, identiﬁes the book’s units and speakers, explains the imagery, and unlocks its allegorical meaning. Abraham Ibn Ezra may have rejected the Karaites’ prognostic reading of the Song, but the tripartite form of his own commentary may well go back to Japheth’s prototype: here too, philological, contextual, and allegorical interpretations are methodically presented.27 Similarly, Japheth’s sustained reading of the Psalter, which was unacceptable to the Andalusian Rabbanites on ideological grounds, likely challenged them to produce their own philologically informed, doctrinally sound commentaries on Psalms.28 26 On this prooemium, see Robinson, “Samuel ibn Tibbon’s Commentary on Ecclesiastes.” On the Introduction as a sub-genre of medieval Hebrew literature see Lawee, “Introducing Scripture” and Sirat, “Biblical Commentaries and Christian Inﬂuence”; while both studies correctly emphasize the Latin environment in which the Hebrew haqdamah developed, neither disputes that the basic form ﬁrst entered Jewish literature in the Islamic East. 27 On Ibn Ezra’s commentary on the Song, see Reif, “Abraham Ibn Ezra on Canticles.” For his rejection of Karaite prognostic exegesis, see Simon, Four Approaches, 202–10. Ibn 'Aqnìn’s long commentary on the Song evinces no awareness of Karaite exegesis, but it is dependent upon another Eastern model—Saadya’s lost commentary. 28 See ch. 5 above and Simon, Four Approaches, chs. 3 and 4.

jewish bible commentary in the islamic east

255

5. Contextual-Rationalistic Outlook. Finally, there is the Karaite approach to the biblical text, which may be characterized as rational investigation (˙ippu≤ ). For al-Qirqisànì, Japheth b. Eli, Sahl b. Maßlia˙, and others, this meant seeking to understand Scripture, whenever possible, contextually. While they were familiar with the common—yet slippery—Hebrew term pesha†, they naturally used the Arabic word Ωàhir to connote the text’s plain or “external” sense, which was their primary objective.29 As Japheth emphasizes: There is no justiﬁcation for rejecting the plain meaning of the text (Ωàhir al-naßß) of God’s word or that of His prophets, except where that plain meaning is obscure or impossible because it is contradicted by reason or an unambiguous text (naßß mu˙kam).30

This statement clearly reﬂects Saadya’s well known exegetical principle that “every statement found in the Bible is to be understood in its plain sense except for those that cannot be so construed.” He gives four grounds for rejecting the plain meaning of a verse: it is contradicted by sense perception; it is rejected by reason; it is at odds with another verse; and ﬁnally—this is where Saadya and the Karaites part company—there are verses whose plain meaning must be modifed by the Rabbinic tradition.31 The ﬁnal principle deﬁnes the Rabbanite-Karaite schism, for there are innumerable Rabbinic laws which seemingly defy the external sense of the text. In eﬀect, it was this fourth axiom that provoked Karaite scripturalism and called forth stern Rabbanite responses. Yet, like both Saadya and Japheth, Ibn Ezra also stresses the function of reason in exegesis: Rational judgment is the foundation, for the Law was not given to those lacking in reason, and the angel that mediates between man and

29 There is a vast literature on the pesha†/derash dichotomy; for basic bibliography, see Garﬁnkel, “Clearing Peshat and Derash.” Loewe, “The ‘Plain Meaning’ of Scripture,” shows how indiscriminately the term pesha† has been applied and how poorly it has been understood in ancient and modern times. Japheth occasionally uses the term pesha†; see, e.g., his commentary on Isa 42:20, RNL MS Yevr. I.569, fol. 117a. On Ωàhir/bà†in in Quranic exegesis, see Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, 151–52, 242–44. 30 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Daniel 11:1, p. 111 (Ar.), 56 (Eng.). The translation is mine. 31 Saadya Gaon, Kitàb al-amànàt 7:1, pp. 219–220, trans. Rosenblatt, 265–66. On this passage and the question of the plain or “external” meaning of the text according to Saadya, see Ben-Shammai, “The Tension.” As Ben-Shammai notes, similar statements can be found elsewhere in Saadya’s writings.

256

epilogue God is his rational faculty. Whatever reason does not deny we shall interpret according to its plain meaning (ki-feshu†o) and sense.32

When Scripture and Tradition were not in conﬂict, then, both Rabbanites and Karaites could interpret the text rationally and independently. Like the Karaites, the Geonim and the Andalusian Rabbanites felt free to explicate biblical narratives contextually, for although they respected Rabbinic midrash aggadah, they did not consider it to be binding.33 Philology necessarily played a primary role in the enterprise, since it provided the most essential tools. It should come as no surprise that Yùsuf b. Nù˙ and his Rabbanite contemporary Judah Óayyùj produced similar sets of grammatical notes on the Bible, although their conceptions of Hebrew grammar diﬀered greatly. Both scholars sought to clarify the text at the most basic, linguistic level.34 By Ibn Ezra’s day, Karaite philology had become obsolete, but the practice of incorporating grammatical explanations within Bible commentaries—which the Jerusalem scholars had championed—was ﬁrmly established. Grammar, however, was not the only branch of learning required for good exegesis. As the tenth-century Geonim and Karaites demonstrated, any specialist subject could prove useful. Ibn Ezra might mock Samuel b. Hophni for having swelled his commentary on Genesis with a discussion of oneirocriticism, but he himself was not unwilling to digress on astrology, mathematics, or calendation.35 Biblical interpretation had become inter-disciplinary. *

*

*

Nearly half a century ago, Salo Baron cautioned against the “panKaraite” vein he discerned in nineteenth-century Jewish historiography: Before long all the revolutionary discoveries of that period36 in Hebrew philology, Bible exegesis, and philosophy were ascribed to Karaites or, at best, to Rabbanites reacting to the rise of the new sect. These exaggerations of literary history have, as we shall see, been eﬀectively dis-

32

See Abraham Ibn Ezra, Peirushei ha-torah, “Haqdamah,” 1:6, “The Third Way.” On the Geonic attitude to aggadah—i.e., classic rabbinic teachings of a nonlegal nature—see Saperstein, Decoding the Rabbis, 6, 10 and Elbaum, Medieval Perspectives on Aggadah and Midrash, 47–64. For Ibn Ezra’s views, see Peirushei ha-torah, “Haqdamah,” 1:7–9, “The Fourth Way” and Elbaum, 75–94. 34 See Khan, The Early Karaite Tradition and Judah Óayyùj, Kitàb al-Nutaf. 35 See above, p. 95. On Ibn Ezra’s digressions, see Sarna, “Abraham Ibn Ezra as an Exegete,” 154. 36 I.e., “the crucial centuries after the rise of Islam.” 33

jewish bible commentary in the islamic east

257

proved by more recent painstaking research, which, at times, went to the opposite extreme of denying even some indubitable pioneering merits of Karaite authors.37

A decade ago, the late Rina Drory revived the argument in a literary context. Surveying the impressive range of new genres in which Jews suddenly began writing during the tenth century, she noted the disproportionate contribution of Karaite authors. While the Rabbanites continued to cultivate older forms, the Karaites, she argued, adopted literary genres from the larger Islamic culture and worked out a new literary system of their own. It was the Karaite impetus, she claimed, that led to revolutionary developments in Jewish literature in Hebrew and Arabic.38 Predictably, her conclusions have not been universally accepted. It would be rash, in fact, to attribute the entire range of Jewish literary activity in the Islamic East during this period to Karaite innovations and reactions to them.39 But with respect to at least one genre, she had a point. It was unquestionably the Karaites who moved biblical exegesis to center stage. Abandoning Rabbinic midrash while championing philology, they perfected a new form. The Bible commentary was born in the Islamic East.

37

Baron, SRHJ, 5:275. See Drory, The Emergence and idem, “The Function,” oﬀering a succinct statement of her argument. 39 On Jewish intellectual, cultural, and literary developments during this period, see Sklare, Samuel ben Óofni Gaon, chs. 2 and 4. 38

This page intentionally left blank

JUDEO-ARABIC TEXTS

This page intentionally left blank

JUDEO-ARABIC TEXTS

The following pages contain the Judeo-Arabic passages translated and discussed above. As noted in the Preface, each text has been assigned a number, corresponding to the chapter in which it is discussed: 2.1, for example, refers to the ﬁrst text discussed in Chapter 2 ( Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Leviticus 11:13–19). Since this comment is fairly long, I have divided it into paragraphs: 2.1.3 refers to the third paragraph of text 2.1. Wherever possible, I have tried to present an eclectic text edited on the basis of two or more manuscripts.1 My texts are strictly provisional; they should in no way be regarded as proper critical editions. In general, I give the most plausible readings in the body of the text and include most variants in the apparatus. I have emended the texts but sparingly, and only where all manuscripts seem to be corrupt. References to biblical verses have been given in parentheses in the body of the text. Square brackets indicate lacunae and restored text. Folio breaks are also indicated by square brackets. Register of Texts 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

Japheth Japheth Japheth Japheth

b. b. b. b.

Eli, Eli, Eli, Eli,

Commentary Commentary Commentary Commentary

on on on on

Leviticus 11:13–19 Deuteronomy 14:11–20 Deuteronomy 22:12 Deuteronomy 33:4 (excerpt)

1 In evaluating the manuscripts of Japheth b. Eli’s commentaries, I was guided by the critical survey of Haggai Ben-Shammai, “The Doctrines,” 2:1–18, which is devoted to the holdings of the British Library, the Bibliothèque Nationale, the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, as well as several other collections. I also consulted Ben-Shammai, “Edition and Versions,” and Tamani, “La Tradizione”; these studies were all completed before the holdings of the Russian National Library and the Institute of Oriental Studies in St. Petersburg became readily available. During research trips to Jerusalem in 1993–98, I was able to consult microﬁlms of manuscripts in the St. Petersburg collections before they had been catalogued—a process which is still ongoing. For now, see Ben-Shammai et al., Judaeo-Arabic Manuscripts in the Firkovitch Collections: Yefet ben 'Eli . . . Sample Catalogue.

262

judeo-arabic texts

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12

Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Numbers 12:6–7 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Genesis 40:5 Sahl b. Maßlia˙, Commentary on Genesis 40:9–12 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Genesis 40:11–12 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Genesis 40:17–19 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Genesis 41:5–7 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Genesis 41:15–16 Sahl b. Maßlia˙, Commentary on Genesis 41:15–16 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Genesis 41:8 Sahl b. Maßlia˙, Commentary on Genesis 41:5–7 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Isaiah 21:6–8 (excerpt) Sahl b. Maßlia˙, Muqqadima to Genesis 41 (excerpt)

4.1 4.2

4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13

Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on Song of Songs 3:8 Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Introduction to Commentary on Song of Songs (excerpt) Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on Song of Songs 5:10 Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Introduction to Commentary on Song of Songs (excerpt) Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on Song of Songs 1:13 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Song of Songs 1:2 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Song of Songs 6:11 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Song of Songs 2:6 Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on Song of Songs 1:9 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Song of Songs 1:9 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Song of Songs 1:9 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Song of Songs 5:7 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Song of Songs 2:12

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11

Levi b. Japheth, Treatise on Prayer (excerpt) Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 74:1 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 74:10 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 74:11 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 74:23 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 79:1 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 79:8 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 79:13 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 80:1 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 44:1 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 90:1

4.3 4.4

judeo-arabic texts 5.12 5.13

Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 44:16–17 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 44:18–19

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12

Japheth b. Eli, Japheth b. Eli, Japheth b. Eli, Japheth b. Eli, Japheth b. Eli, Japheth b. Eli, Japheth b. Eli, Japheth b. Eli, Yùsuf b. Nù˙, Japheth b. Eli, Japheth b. Eli, Japheth b. Eli, 2.1

Commentary Commentary Commentary Commentary Commentary Commentary Commentary Commentary Commentary Commentary Commentary Commentary

on on on on on on on on on on on on

263

Psalms 5:1 Psalms 5:6–7 Psalms 31:21 Psalms 39:2 Genesis 1:26 Isaiah 7:14 Numbers 24:17 Genesis 16:12 Genesis 16:12 Deuteronomy 18:15 Deuteronomy 18:18 Deuteronomy 34:10

Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Leviticus 11:13–19

Manuscript: St. Petersburg, RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.0057 (folios out of sequence).

fyÎgy Δay arqyw çwryp Δyl[ ˆb tpy rçnh ta μh ≈qç wlkay al πw[h ˆm wxqçt hla taw (gyΔay) (2.1.1) .hynz[h taw srph taw yh òda lkwt ˆa zwògy al ryafla hlmòg ˆm wsògrt [awnala hòdhw [b147 πws] .hqn[law baq[law rsnla μhw sògr [a149] .hnyml hyah taw hadh taw (dyΔay) .ah[wnw adxlaw rqxlaw .wnyml brw[ lk ta (wfΔay) .h[wnw 1bybarglaw .whnyml ≈nh taw πjçh taw smjth taw hn[yh tb taw (zfΔay) .h[wnw ≈xnlaw πaslaw πafòklaw μa[nlaw .πwçnyh taw ˚lçh taw swkh taw (zyΔay) .qçablaw ògmzlaw μwblaw .μjrh taw taqh taw tmçnth taw (jyΔay) .μòkrlaw qwqlaw πaçòklaw .πlf[h taw tpykwdh taw hnyml hpnah hdysjh taw (fyΔay) .swwaflaw dhdhlaw ah[wnw hgbblaw adjlaw

264

judeo-arabic texts

≥lòòz yrsla wba òjh μalk ˆm amsala ˚lòdw .μkl awh ≈qç [bra l[ ˚lhh πw[h ≈rç lk (kΔay) .μkl wh sògr h[bra yl[ ryasla ryafla y[as lk (kΔay) wlÎrça [braÎl[ ˚lhh πw[h ≈rç lkm wlkat hz ta ˚a (akΔay) .≈rahÎl[ ˆhb rtnl wylgrl l[mm μy[rk bkr hl yòdla òd yl[ ryasla ryfla y[as lk ˆm wlkat aòdh ≈aòk .ò≈rala yl[ μhb zpqy hlògr qwp ˆm whnyml μ[lshÎtaw wnyml hbrahÎta wlkat μhm hlaÎta (bk Δay) .whgyml bgjhÎtaw whnyml lgrjhÎtaw bgjw h[wnw lgrjw h[wnw μ[lsw h[wnl hbrala ahnm wlkat hòdh .h[wnw .μkl awh ≈qç μylgr [bra wlÎrça πw[h ≈rç lkw (gk Δay) .μkl wh sògr lògra òd hl yòdla ryafla y[as lkw [b149] lxala yp whw ryafla 2yla amla ˆawyj ˆm μalkla lqtna (2.1.2) hqylòkla lxp yp laq amk rbla yp hawam l[ògw amla ˆm qwlòkm μarjw lalj hyp ˆa πr[ ≥(kΔa tyçarb) ògw hyj çpn ≈rç μymh wxrçy μlw [awnaw amsab hnm μarjla rkòdp ˚amsalaw μyahbla yp amk μsala hòdh [qy dq òg yl[ batkla yp πw[ andògww ≥hmal[ hl rkòdy yp hlwqk ydlòg ˆwky dqw yçyr ˆwky dqp hb rysy ˆyjanòg hl am lk yl[ lkl [maòg μsa whp (kΔa tyçarb) ≈rah l[ πpw[y πw[w hqylòkla lxa [òxawmla ò≈[b yp [qy dqw dlòg hjanòg ˆak amlw ≥çyr hjanòg ˆak am rwhf πw[ lk (akÎaΔdy μyrbd) μnIb; lxp yp hlwqk hòdhw ydlògla yl[ lk yçyrla yp laq hnal fqp ydlògla yp lwqm whw (kΔdy μyrbd) wlkat htyhw hlwqk fqp yçyrla yp hrkòdy dqw (ayΔμç) wlkat hrwhf rwpx wxqçt hla taw hlwq hljmw (wkΔjk μyrbd) μymçh πw[l lkaml ˚tlbn rwpx whw ydlògla yl[ [qy al hxòky μsa yçyrllw (gyΔay arqyw) πw[h ˆm drpmla yp alw lmògmla yp al ydlògll rwpx batkla yp dògn μl anal πw[h ≈rç whw hxòky μsa ydlògll ˚aòdk hxòky μsa yçyrll ˆa amkw ≈rç laq aòdaw fqp yçyrla yla ryçy hna anml[ dq rwpx laq aòdap ròfnla yla ògatjy πw[ laq aòdaw ≥fqp [a150] ydlògla yla ryçy πw[h ˆwd ydlògla wa ydlògla ˆwd yçyrla yla hb ryçy yç ya yla μl[nl hyp arqyw) μh ≈qç ahyp laqw lwqla μdqt amk [ymògla yla wa yçyrla ≥amla ˆawyj yp laq am lòtm (gyΔay ≈nE hy:a' brw[ ˆa hbçyw hyah taw anhh snògla μsa ˆyb

whw ˆym òfpl ahyp rkòd òd ahyp ryaf òk rkòdw (2.1.3) hy:d" μòt dazw ryaf 3aòòk (akÎaΔdy μyrbd) μynIb; ypw .hp;n:a laq hnal hmsa rkòd am ròka yçw hy:d" μynym ytç hy:a'll antgl qrpt sylw hnyml hydhw hyah taw μòt laqw hnyml

judeo-arabic texts

265

çpn ≈rah axwt lòtm snòg hb dyrtw hn:ymi lwqt ahnal [wnla μsa ˆybw aòxya [wnll μsaw bybdw μyahb hlxp μòt (dkΔa tyçarb) hnyml hyj snògla ˆyb qrpt br[law whnyml πw[h taw hnyml hmhbh taw laq amk hnyml hydh taw hlwqw snòg dyry hnyml hyah taw hlwq ˆala [wnlaw dqw snògla μsa rkòd amnaw [awnala amsa 4rkòdy μlp ah[wn hb dyry ˆm yh tsyl hglla ˆa òtyj ˆm ah[awnaw rwyfla hòdh hpr[m anmd[ sayqlaw ròfnlab aòxya μl[t alw hrwròx μl[t ytla ayçala hlmòg ˆak dqw μhqbs ˆmm μh ahwlwant amk hglla lha ˆm lwantt amnaw ò≈[b yp μhn[ ˚lòd òdçnap ahamsab rwyfla hòdh ˆwpr[y ˆyynarb[la hnwpr[yw [b150] hyl[ ˆwqptm hòdh antqw yp μhandògw yòdlap taqwala hmjrw μwbla wh swkla ˆaw bargw rsn ˆwlwqy μhnap br[law rçnla wh ≥ahryg yl[ wqpty μlw hmòkr yl[ wlw[ amnaw amsala yl[ wlw[y μl μh[abtw ˆynabrlaw (2.1.4) alb alalj hna wml[ dq yòdla laljla yp ahwdògwp ahwrkòd tamal[ lalj ˆak lwhògmla ryafla yp tamal[la hòdh tdògw aòda wlaqp ≥πlòk wmkjp am πxwb hyp πlòk {al} al yòdla μrjmla wdògw aòxya ˚lòdkw μyrwt hm μhlwq ˚aòdw hlòtm μarj hnak hpxwb lwhògm ryaf lk yl[ ˆysrwd ˆn:yaew“ πl…q]nI /nb]q;rq;w“ hryty [b'xaw qp;z: ˆh,l; vyE ˆydIj;Wym hnwy ynbw ˆynpçlaw μamjla ˆa ˚lòd yp μhdarm 5≥rtwm ˆhb axwyç lk ˆylkaw hlw rçqnt hxnaqw hlxwj amhnm djaw lkl ˆy[wnla ˆyòdah ˆaw lalj /nyaew wlaq amk srtpy sylp ˚lòd [mw hylògr [baxa yp hdyaz [bxa wlaq μòt lalj ˆy[wnla ˆyòdah lòtm ˆak am lwhògm ryaf ya wlaqp srwd ryaf yap srtpy whp ˚aòd [mw tamal[ ògla hòdh hyp syl rsnla ˆaw yl[ wlw[y μl μhna yl[ ˚lòd ld rsnla lòtm μarj πxwla aòdhb ˆak ≥lòtmla yl[ wlw[ amnaw μsala μl hrkòd lòg hlla ˆa wh ahdja ≥ayça òd ˚lòd yp μhyl[w (2.1.5) μrjtw ljt tnak wlw ahnm amfll alw ahnm rhafll hmal[ rkòdy dqp amla ˆawyjw μyahbla yp hrkòd amk ˚lòd rkòd ˆakl hmal[b alb ahryg ˆwd tamal[la hòdh wrkòd μhna wh òblaw ≥˚lòd w[dba [a151] hrhaòf ahòx[b tamal[la hòdh wrkòd μhna òglaw ≥ˆahrb alw lyld [bxa hl amw srtpy alw srtpy yòdla wh rhaòflap hnfab ahòx[bw hlxwjla yh hnfablaw hrhaòf yrm[l hòdhp hl syl amw hdyaz jbòdt ˆa d[b ala μl[t μl lxala yp hòdhw rçqnt ytla hxnaqlaw hmal[ aòdh ˆak aòdaw ahl syl wa hlxwj ahl ˆa ˚lòd dn[ ˆyybyw qçtw am ˆjnw hyfgnw hmd ypxnw ryaf jbòdn ˆa zwògy ˚lòdp lwhògmla ryafll rbyw ala ˆawyj jbòdy al hna μhdn[w amys μarj wa lalj wha μl[n rwhf πw[w hrwhf hmyhb tfyjç l[ wnwxw wytwxmb wnçdq rça lwqyw hyl[ lòtm μhlw hwlaq am [pry ròfnlaw μdla hyfgt tqw yp aòxya wkrbyw

266

judeo-arabic texts

jbòd d[b ala μl[tu al hnfab yh ytla t/prEfla yp aòxya ˚lòd ˆwmrjy ˚lòd d[bw ˆwjbòdyw ˆwkraby μhp ˚aòd d[b arbtstw hmyhbla dqp swar çdq arqm μwyw tbsla μwy ˆwjbòdy ˆa μhmzly hna ytj hlka tbçh μwy ta μylljm wnwkwp jbòdmla yl[ brqy ˆa ˆkmy alw hp;rEf] ˆwky πyrt yp anlw[m ˆwky ˆa zwògy syl ˆala ròfnlab rxb hlq yl[ ldy aòdhw òdlaw ≥annyyb dq aml alxa tamal[ yl[ rhaòfla ˆm μarjlaw laljla hmal[la ˆ[ wng hyamsab [b151] μarjla ˆm laljla wpr[ wl hna wh yla rwzrzla rwrm wl[ògyp ryfla qalòkab wrbt[y μhandògw ana aòxyaw 6 ≥hmyrjt yl[ hlald bargla yp ˆwlwqy ˆa ˆwry al μwqla ˆkyl fabòk yl[ ldy aòdh lkw (2.1.6) bab aòdh hyp ˆwlwqy hwpr[y al yòdla yçla ˆak wlw ≥hpr[n al ana yçla ˆwfbòkty ˆa ˆm μhnyd yp μhl ≈lòkaw jlxa ˆak hanlhòg dqw an[ bhòd dq ˆmp ≥hnwlhògy μhna μhtyy[rw μhòdymaltl rhòfy ˆa ˆwpnayw yçla yp ≥hlla hblafm ˆm μls[y 7μ]lw hanlq amk hml[ jòxp ylwah lòtml dlq yl[ lyldla μaq am ala ryafla ˆm lkan ˆa zwògy al ˆala (2.1.7) qapwlap ≥ˆabrqll hlla ahl[òg yòdla hnwy ynbw μyrwt whw rhaf hna ˆa ˆmay al hnal zwògy al am lka dq ahryg lka ˆmp ≥ahryg ˆwd ahyl[ lha πlaòk dqp ydla rwtla ˆa laq ˆm amap μrjmla lka dq ˆwky atqw rwtll ˆa batkla jwwl dq πykw ˆynpç hna wlaq μhlk ˆal hglla t[ wrmç rwg[w sysw rwtw laq amk hwnwnsla lòtm hyp yògy hnsla yp ˆm òdwòkam ryafla ˆa yry μl lwqla aòdh lyaqp (zΔj hymry) hnawb ≥˚lòd yp hflg ˆabw batkla ˆm òdwòkam hnaw lqnla ògtjaw hnwy ynbw μyrwt ryg rhaf ryaf μòt syl ˆa lwqy ˆm μòtw (2.1.8) l[yw rwhfh πw[h lkmw hrwhfh hmhbh lkm jqyw òçh òl[ j'n hlwqb ryaf dògn μlw [a152] rwhfh πw[h lkmw laq (kΔj tyçarb) jbzmb twl[ ynbw μyrwt ryg rhaf ryaf μòt syl ˆa tbòtp hnwy ynbw μyrwt ryg brqm ryg hrhaf hmyhb μòt syl ˆa lwqy ˆa hmzly lwqla hòdh bjaxw hnwy ˆa zaòg aòdap aòxya lyxjt ryg ˆ[ hlaq aòdhw ˆybrqmla μnglaw rqbla ryg hrhaf ryf ˆwkt ˆa hlòtm zaòg hbrqm ryg hrhaf μyahb μòt ˆwky ˚lòd yp jyjxlaw hnm laxpna hl 8syl am bògaw μazla aòdhw ≥hbrqm jlxt hrhaf hmyhb lk ˆm hb dara hmhbh lkm hlwq ˆwky ˆa ama hna amaw (ˆabrqll jlxt rhaf ryaf lk ˆm ˚lòdkw .μyylwçb) ˆabrqll [ymòg ˆm jbòdmla yl[ brqy ˆa zwògy ˆak hrwtla lwzn lbq ˆwky ˆa ≈wxòkm hlla hl[òg ˚lòd d[bw laljla rwyflaw laljla μyahbla ˆm μhryg ˆwd ˆynpçlaw 9μamjlabw hrhaf hmyhb lk ˆwd μnglaw rqblab ≥babla aòdh yp rxtòkm apwm μalk aòdhp ryafla

judeo-arabic texts

267

.yòòk (4 ≥ka .yòòk (3 ≥atyl Δyòòk .yla (2 ≥bybargla [ymògw .gòòsr ryspt hwwçhw (1 Δjk qlj Δhmlç hrwt Δrçk ˆyy[w ˘(zfΔay arqyw) wΔh ynymç tçrp arps (5 ≥rkòd al rmwa rz[yla ybr .a òm[ Δhs ˆylwjw b òm[ Δbx amq abb war (6 ≥jx òm[ tja twa çy ˛μlw ˛alw (7 ≥wnym awhç ybpm ala brw[ lxa ryzrz ˚lh μnjl ≥μamjlab .yòòk (9 ≥atyl Δyòòk .syl (8 ≥ˆwqyt çyç harn μg Δμyytç wa tçfçwfm 2.2 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Deuteronomy 14:11–20 Manuscripts: St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg, 88a–b St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg,

IOS MS C41 (unnumbered folios: quires hÎw = RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I:0019, fols. 86a–b, = RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I:0095, fols. 57a–59a = RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I:0111, fols. 94a–95a =

a b g d

kÎayΔdy μyrbd çwryp Δyl[ ˆb tpy .WlkeaOT hrO:hf] r/PxiÎlK; (ay Δdy) (2.2.1) .wlkat rhaf ryaf lk hrkòdy μlw hrwhf rwpx lk lxpla aòdh yp rkòd hna tlq tnk dq hyp [mògy ˆa hòxrg lxpla aòdh ˆa μdqt am yp aòxya tlqw ≥˚anh ˆak wlw hdyap hrwhf rwpx lk hlwql ˆky μl alaw ≥rhaflaw ymfla hz ta yp tlq am lòtm axyxòkt bògwm ryg πw[h ˆm wxqçt hla taw òwq ≈n yla ˆyògatjm ankl (fΔdy μyrbd ˘fΔay arqyw) μymb rça lkm wlkat ≥laljla yp πw[ lk rhafla πw[la ≈rçla yp laqw 1hrwhf rwpx laqw (2.2.2) ydlògla rkòd ˚anhw yçyrla rkòd anhahp ≥(kΔdy μyrbd) wlkat rwhf yl[ [qt 2πw[ hòfpl ˆa [b òm[] [òxwmla aòdh ryg yp trkòd tnk dqw al πw[ ≈rçw fqp yçyrla yl[ ala [qy al rwpx ˆaw ydlòglaw yçyrla 3 òwqw ydlòglaw yçyrla [mògy πw[ ˆa ylwq yl[ lyldlaw ≥yçyrla yl[ [qy rkòd aòdap (kΔa tyçarb) μymh wxrçy μyhla rmayw hqylòkla lxp yp πw[ ≈rçw rwpx yn[a amhtdja yl[ ldt hnyrq rygb lsrm πw[ [òxwm yp ≥yçyrla hb dyry rwpx lk anhah òwqp ≥ˆynòtall μa[ whp amfw rwhf anl ˆa ˚lòdw ≥hlykall hrwhf hb dyry hrwhf òwqw (2.2.3) òblaw hlykall amfw hlykall rwhf awh rjawla ≥ˆybròx yl[ ˆawyjla yp lkm jqyw òwqk ˆbrqll rwhf amap ≥ˆabrqll amfw ˆabrqll rwhf dyry (kΔj tyçarb) jbzmb twlw[ l[yw rwhfh πw[h lkmw hrwhfh hmhbh

268

judeo-arabic texts

hmhb lk μaw òwqk ˆbrqll amf amaw ≥hnwy ynb μyrwtw ˆaxw hç hb amf hlykall rwhf amaw ≥(ayΔzk arqyw) ògw hnmm wbyrqy al rça hamf hnraqm amfw rwhf hòfpl tyar aòdaw ≥lxpla hòdh whp hlykall rwhfw amf tyar aòdaw ≥μarjw lalj ahryspt ˆa μl[ap hlykall òwq yp lwqn aòdkw ≥ˆbrqll 4rwhfw amf han[m ˆa μl[ap ˆbrqll ˆraqm yh ˆal hnwy ynbw μyrwt [wn ˆm ahna (dΔdy arqyw) twrwhf twyj μyrpx ytç twrwhf twyj ˚aòdk brqmla [wn ˆm wh (gyΔfy rndmb) hdn ym lòtm hrhfm ≥brqmla [wn ˆm hl lyq ≥hnwy ynbw μyrwt lwqy μl ¤μl laqp ò≈ra[m ò≈ra[ ˆap (2.2.4) ˆm òbla anbòg anaç ˆa ≥μyr¤px ytç 5hòdh yp anryyòk ò[t hlla ˆa anaç ˆaw μyrwt ˆm djaww hnwy ynb ˆm djaw anbòg anaç ˆaw μyrwtla ym[] tlq amnaw ≥˚lòd sk[b anaç ˆaw jl;vum hnwylaw fwjç rwtla anl[òg amf lyq aòda ylaw anhah yçmy sayqla tyar ynal lwqla aòdh [a òqòmk hlyka rkòdy μl ˆaw ≥μarjw lalj hb dyry ˆbrq hnyrq rygb rwhfw ˆmw hrwhfh hmhbh ˆm laqw (bΔz tyçarb) 6jqt hrwhfh hmhbh lkm μl òda hlykall rwhf hb dyry (jΔz tyçarb) hrwhf hnnya rça hmhbh dq lalj hryspt yòdla rwhf raxp anyyb am yl[ ˆabrqll rkòd μòt ˆky lyld yla ògatjy ˆabrqll rwhf amap hlyka hnraqt dqw qlfm dògwy ≥hnwy ynbw rwtw ˆaxw rqb yn[a ˆbrqll rwhf hb dara hna anml[y [ Âryspt ˆya—jyÎay μyqwsp]

μarj ˆwkyp rhafla hb dyry syl μhm wlkat al rça hzw òwq (2.2.5) snòg yla [ògar ˆwky ˆa yqb 7[≥ ≥ ≥] òwqk μykj ˆm zwògy al aòdhw hqlfa am arqyw) πw[h ˆm wxqçt hla taw ˚anh hlwq lòtm lwqla aòdhw ≥rwpxla amla ˆawyj ˆak amlw ≥amfla ˆm ròtka rwhfla πw[law ala (gyΔay μyrbd) μymb rça lkm wlkat hz ta hyp laq ymfla ˆm lqa rhafla ymfla ˆm lqa μh hrwhf hmhbw rwhf πw[ ≈rç ˚aòdkw ≥(yΔay arqyw ˘fΔdy hmhbw μymh ≈rçw πw[h ≈rçw ymfla ˆm ròtka rhafla ryafla raxp hamfl hrwhfh hmhbh ˆyb μtldbhw òwqk μarjla ˆm lqa hnm laljla hldbhla yp hrwhf hmhb μdq (hkΔk arqyw) rwhfl amfh πw[h ˆybw 8 [≥ ≥ ≥] wh ˆwky ˆa hlmòg ˆm zrpmla yçla μsrw ≥πw[la yp ˚lòd sk[w hmdq rwhf πw[ ˆm lqa amf πw[ ˆak amlw ahyl[ ahmdq hamf ˆm lqa ≥(dyΔay arqyw) hnyml hyah taw ˚anh laqw ≥rwhfla yl[ hldbhla yp hnyml hyah taw lqy μlw (gyΔdy μyrbd) hnyml hydhw anhah [a òm[] laqw hnyml lqy μlw hydh taw anhah laq wlw ≥hya ˆym ˆm hyd ˆa πr[yl ˆym hydll ˆa anml[ hnyml laq amlp ≥ˆym hydll ˆa μl[n ank am laq μòt hyala 9ˆm hnymw hyd tnak amlp ≥hyall ˆym hnymw hydla ˆwktp dd[la yl[ djaw dd[la yp anhah daz ˚lòdlp ≥˚smaw hnyml hyah taw ≥hydla whw ˚anh yòdla

judeo-arabic texts

269

≥hrwkòdm ˆym μhl h[bra twamfla twpw[la yp ˆa μl[aw (2.2.6) ˆp lkaçm wh ˆymlaw ≥hpna òdlaw ≈n òglaw br[ òblaw hya djawla ≥hrwxla ahrkòdw hyymfla rwyfla hlmòg yp tmçntla rkòd hna μl[aw (2.2.7) lòtm [òxrt [a57g] yhw ryft rwyfla snòg ˆm anhah laqp μyxrçla yp ≥rapla ≈rçw twmhbll l[òg lògw z[ hlla ˆa ò[t 10hlla ˚dçra μl[aw (2.2.8) rhaflaw ymfla ˆyb ahb zrpy anyyb am yl[ tamal[ hrhafla μymh amsa hl l[òg amnaw ahb 11πr[y hmal[ laljla ryafll l[ògy μlw hòdh πr[t tdra aòdaw anhah hrwkòdmla amsala hòdh yhw 12aÉhrkòd hdjawla ≥ˆythòg ˆm ala ˚lòd yla lxt alp 13hynarb[la amsala [wnla ˚lòd ˆwmsy ˆa hglla lha [amòga wa batkla ahrkòd hmal[b 14 ≥ˆythògla hòdh ˆm hpr[tp am μsab whw 16hnwyla yhp ahb 15πr[y hmal[ hl yòdla ryafla amap (2.2.9) μla[la yp ˆa rkòdu amw (ayΔfn hy[çy) hghn 17hgh μynwykw òqk ahrydh ≥hnwyla 18aws rdhy ryaf ˆaxw rqb lòtm hwpr[yw μsa yl[ hglla lha w[mtògy ˆa amaw (2.2.10) tb br[w rçn yhw 19ahyl[ hglla lha wqpta yòdla amsala [ymògw lyaw ≥tmçnthw μjrhw swkhw hn[yh ≥hglla lha ˆyb πlòk al 21rsnla wh [òb òm[] 20rçnla (2.2.11) wylzwg l[ wnq ry[y rçnk lwqy amk rsnla hna ywqy jywlt hyp batkllw [ymòg ˆm hmsr rsnla ˆa dxrla bajxa wm[z (ayΔbl μyrbd) ògw πjry ˆa haws ryaf ˆm ˆma dq hnal hyjanòg yl[ hòkarp lmjy ˆa rwyfla μhçyr tjt 23μhòkarp wlmjy ròkala rwyflaw hòkarp yl[ 22rqtsy ≥hòkarp yòday wa hyòday 25ˆa jraòg ˆm 24apwòk ≥μa[nla hn[yh tb ≥μòkrla μjrh ≥bargla wh br[law (2.2.12) yp tajywlt μhl yalwah lk ≥μwbla swkh [b57g] 26≥fawfwla tmçnth ≥fqp μòkrla ala batkla aòxya ahlw ahn[ wpqw ryòtk lb ≥ahyp wpltòka μsa òyòhlaw (2.2.13) [a86b] rwyfla hòdh tnakw 27aòdkh aòdh ˆak aòdap ≥òd μynym hpr[m yl[ hglla lha 30qptt μlw ahamsab 29hpwr[m 28hmrjmla μyrwtw hnwy ryg batkla yp hnm rkòdyU μl laljla ryafla ˆakw ahtlmòg am ala πqwla tjt lkla ˆak 31amhyl[ hglla lha wqpta yòdla ≥h[wnw 35ˆynpçlaw 34h[wnw μamjla hnwy ynbw μyrwt 33whw 32hyl[ w[mtòga

270

judeo-arabic texts

ˆm òdwòkam rhafla ryafla ˆa trkna am lyaq laq ˆap (2.2.14) rwpx [awna rkòdy μl òdaw hrwhf rwpx lk laq 36hlla ˆal [amògala hlla ˆa lbq ˆm ˚lòd anrkna hl lyq ≥alwqnm ˆwky ˆa bògw 37axn hrwhf ˆawyjla ˆm μarjlaw laljla [awna πyr[t yp 38anlw[y μl hwanòt lòg rkòd batkla 40rn μlw amsaw tamal[ yl[ 39anlkw amnaw ≥lwqnm yl[ l[òg ˆak wlp ymfla 41amsa rkòd amnaw ≈nla yp rhafla ryafla amsa ryafla amsa hrkòdl ˆak aml ˚m[z yl[ alwqnm rhafla 42ryafla ≥hdyap ymfla ˆm lqa ymfla ryafla ˆa anrbòka 43hlla ˆa whw ròka hògww (2.2.15) hpr[m yn[a ahtpr[m yp wpltòky μhna yrn aòdwhw [a òm[] rhafla whw lqa wh yòdla ymfla 45ryafla ˆak aòdap 44≈wxnm wh yòdla ymfla wh yòdla rhafla ryafla wpr[y al ˆa yrjalabp hwpr[y al 46≈wxnm 47 ≥axwxnm wh sylw [a58g] [awna ròtka wh ryafla ˆm dwhyla ˆwlkay yrn am ròtka ˆa whw ròka hògww (2.2.16) dq alwqnm rhafla ryaf[b86b]la ˆa lwqy yòdlap ≥49[awna 48hsmòk rhafla ròtka ˆwky bògy ˆak dql laq amk ˆak wl hna μl[y bògy ˆak rhafla 51ryafla [awna ˆwpr[y dwhyla 50rn μl amlp ≥μhdn[ πwr[m ≥alwqnm rhafla ryafla l[ògy μl 52hlla ˆa anml[ rysyla ala rhafla ryafll wl[òg ˆynabrla anyar ana whw ròka hògww (2.2.17) wsaqa μhna whw μynhk trwt yp ahwrkòd lyaldb wldtsaw tamal[ μyrwt yl[ rhafla ryafla wsaqaw rsnla yl[ ymfla ryafla 53 qpzw hryty [bxa hlw srtpm ryg hnwy ynbw μyrwt ˆa wrwaw hnwy ynbw ˆm yr[tm μhm[z yl[ rsnla warw hxnaqlaw hlxwjla 55ˆwn[y 54ˆbqrqw 56 rçnla yl[ wsaqa amnaw srtpm srwd wh ˚aòd [mw tamal[la hòdh wsaqa ˚aòdkw πlòk alb 57rsn hna hglla lha dn[ πwr[m hnal 59 amhyl[ wqpta hglla lha ˆal hnwy ynby μyrwt yl[ rhafla 58ryafla wl[ògy wnak aml alqn μwqla [m ˆak wlp ˆynapçlaw μamjla amhna ≥anrkòd amk asayq tamal[ ahl tamal[la hòdh 61ˆwpr[y μwqla ˆak dq 60ˆa lyaq laq ˆap (2.2.18) rhafla πalòkb hwarw ymfla ryafla wdxr amnaw ybnla ˆ[ lqnla ˆm ˆwpr[y wnak μwq [a88b] la ˆa ˚lwq ama hl lyq [b òm[] ≥hyl[ wmlktw hyl[ ˚l lyld al yw[d whp ybnla ˆ[ lqnla ˆm [b58g] tamal[la hòdh hpr[m l[òg 62hlla ˆa anlq dq ana am[m axwxnm alw a[amòga al ≥alwqnm yç ahnm syl axwxnm ˆawyjla [ymòg ˆm μarjlaw laljla μyahbll 63hlla ahl[òg ytla tamal[la ˆa whw ròka hògww (2.2.19) ˆm lalj ahna μl[y ˆasnala ahdhaçy amk hswsjm hrhaòf jbasllw

judeo-arabic texts

271

hnfab yhp μwqla 65ahl[òg ytla tamal[la hòdhw ahjbòdy 64ˆa ryg qlfa amnaw 67jbòdt ˆa d[b ala πr[t alw fqp hryty 66[bxala ala aòdh yl[ 69ˆw[mògm lklaw lalj ahna πwr[mla ˆawyjla jbòd anl 68hlla 72 wkrabyw ala ˆawyj hykòdt 71ˆwzyògy al μhna yl[ 70ˆw[mògm μh aòxyaw aòdh ˆak aòdaw hrwhf hmhbw rwhf πw[ 73lwqyw jbòdyw hjybòdla yl[ πqwy al hmal[b πwr[m rhafla ryafla 75hlla l[ògy ˆa zògy μl 74yòdkh ˆa 77πr[y 76ˆa d[b ala zwògy al jbòdlaw ≥jbòdla d[b ala ahyl[ ≥lalj wh ≈òkçla ˚rtw qjla dxqw hspn πxna ˆml hyapk 78wh htrkòd amypw (2.2.20) hbtçmla 80lka yl[ rsaògtlaw 79rfòkla yl[ hspn lmjy μlw hrçla tmaq ˆap [msla ˆm [b88b] μl[tu yh ˆawyjla hykòdt hjaba ˆal ˆak ˆaw zyaòg hjbòdp ≈òkçla lyljt yl[ [msla ˆm hjòxawla lyaldla ≥htykòdt μarjp hbtçm [ymòg ˆm 82hlyljt yl[ hjòxawla lyaldla 81tmaq yòdlap (2.2.21) 83 lògjlaw ògaògdla amap anyyb am yl[ hnwy ynbw μyrwt wh ryafla ahrygw [a òm[] rypax[law ykarklaw [a59g] 84zwalaw fblaw ògbqlaw ≥(byΔy [çwh) qdx hrwyw aby d[ πqwla tjt ahlk (5 ≥a Δatyl .rwhfw (4 ≥lwqla wh .lòòx (3 ≥a Δatyl .πw[ (2 ≥rwhf .yòòkb (1 .a (8 ≥fsqfhm ˆak whçm fmçwh harnk .a (7 ≥wjqt .yòòkb (6 ≥aòdh .yòòkb Δπr[wy (11 ≥a Δò[t + (10 ˛ˆym+ lòòx (9 ≥fsqfhm ˆak whçm fmçwh harnk ˆm ≥ ≥ ≥ hmal[b hdjawla (14 .a Δhyynarb[la (13 ≥g Δatyl .ahrkòd (12 ≥g Δyws (18 ≥g Δa Δwgh (17 ≥g Δòqk+ (16 ≥g Δπr[wy (15 ≥a Δatyl .ˆythògla hòdh hglla lha wqpta ahnm òw ahyp ryf wqpta yòdla amsala hòdhw+ (19 ≥a ròkala rwyflaw (23 ≥b Δrqsty (22 ≥a Δrçnla (21 ≥g Δrsnla (20 ≥a Δahyl[ .yòòkb (26 ≥a Δatyl .ˆa (25 ≥πyk .yòòkb (24 ≥a Δatyl .μhòkarp wlmjy (31 ≥b Δqpta (30 ≥g Δhpwr[mla (29 ≥b Δhmrjm (28 ≥a .yòdkh (27 ≥fwfwla Δˆynapçlaw (35 ≥a Δatyl .h[wnw (34 ≥a Δyhw (33 ≥a Δμhyl[ (32 ≥a Δμhyl[ (40 ≥a Δanmlkta (39 ≥bÈa Δanlww[y (38 ≥a Δanl (37 ≥a Δdq ò[t + (36 ≥a Δryfla (42 ≥b Δatyl .amsa rkòd amnaw ≥ ≥ ≥ rhafla ryafla (41 ≥a Δyrn Δatyl .ryafla ˆak ≥ ≥ ≥ yòdla ymfla (45 ≥a Δwhw+ (44 ≥a Δò[t + (43 ≥gÈb Δòh .hsmòk wh (48 ≥gÈa Δ≈wxnm (47 ≥g Δatyl .≈wxnm whw ≥ ≥ ≥ aòdap whw (46 ≥b ≥a Δò[t + (52 ≥a Δatyl .ryafla (51 ≥gÈa Δyrn (50 ≥g Δhts + (49 ≥bÈa (58 ≥a Δrçn (57 ≥rsnla .yòòkb (56 ≥b Δyn[y (55 ≥a Δwnbqrqw (54 ≥a Δqypzw (53 Δò[t + (62 ≥b Δwpr[y (61 ≥b Δatyl .ˆa (60 ≥b Δahyl[ (59 ≥b Δatyl .ryafla (67 ≥b Δ[bxa (66 ≥gÈa Δahwl[òg (65 ≥gÈa Δatyl .ˆa (64 ≥a Δò[t + (63 ≥a Δwzyògy ˘b Δwzwògy (71 ≥gÈa Δˆy[mògm (70 ≥gÈa Δˆy[mògm (69 ≥a Δò[t + (68 ≥a Δjbst ≥a Δaòdkah (74 ≥gÈb Δwrkòdyw .lwqyw jbòdyw (73 ≥g Δwkrbwyw ˘b Δwkrbyw (72 ≥g Δrfòk (79 ≥gÈa Δatyl .wh (78 ≥g Δπr[wy (77 ≥a Δatyl .ˆa (76 ≥a Δò[t + (75 (83 ≥a Δhjaba {htykòdt} .hlyljt yl[ (82 ≥a Δhmaq (81 ≥a Δlkala (80 ≥bÈa ≥g Δzwlaw (84 ≥a Δhtyl .lògjlaw

judeo-arabic texts

272

2.3 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Deuteronomy 22:12 Manuscripts: St. Petersburg, IOS MS C41 (unnumbered folios; quire k, fols. 3a–5b St. Petersburg, RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I:0095, fols. 166b ﬀ. Paris, BN MS Suppl. héb. 35a (Cat. 283), fols 47b–50b [on Num 15:37–39; incomplete] St. Petersburg, RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I:0017, fols. 142a–143b [on Num 15:40–41] St. Petersburg, RNL MS Yevr. I:567, fols. 140a–144b

= a = b = g = d = h

byΔbk μyrbd çwryp Δyl[ ˆb tpy [a3 πd Èk srfnwq Èa yòòk]

hskt rça ˚twsk twpnk [bra l[ ˚l hç[t μylydg (byΔbk) (2.3.1) .hb 1 ≥hb afgtt yòdla ˚afg πarfa [bra yl[ ˚l lm[t lyadòg ynb la rbd ròka 2[òxwm yp laq dq hnal da[m aòxya ò≈rpla aòdh rkòdn ˆa bògyp ≥(jlΔwf rbdmb) tyxyx μhl wç[w (μhyla trmaw) larçy yl[ ròkala yla ògatjm djawla ˆak òda amhnyb qpwnw a[ymòg ˆylxpla ˆak òda [b òm[] ròkala ≈nlab ydtbnw ≥hryg yp μsrla yròg amk ˆyybn am ≥htda[a wh yòdla aòdh rspn μòt lwala wh hb ˆyrwmam ò≈rpla aòdh ˆakp larçy ynb la rbd μòt laq (2.3.2) aòdh ˆa anld lxpla μamt ˆ[ anòtjb amlp 3≥larçy ynb [b140h] 6 ≥larçy ˆydb 5ˆyydtm lkl 4μzal ò≈rpla tyxyx ryspt 8aml[la ò≈[b laq 7tyxyx μhl wç[w hlwqw (2.3.3) tyxyxw 9wt; hyp syl ≈yx ˆa amhdja ≥ˆyhògw ˆm dspy whw ≈yx ˆm hrhz 12 wh wt;la ˚aòdp tx'yxi [a167b] anyar ˆaw hmlkla rhwòg ˆm 11wh 10wt;la amnaw ≈yx ˆm ˆwky al tyxyx ˆa wh ynaòtla hògwlaw ≥˚wmsla hhòg ˆm ˆmw (dΔjk hy[çy) wtrapt ybx lbn txyx htyhw òwqk txyx ≈yx ˆm lm[y 14 òçh ò[ laqzjy laq amk hbawòdll μsa 13whp tyxyx amaw ≥tryç ryç ˆak hnal ysar r[ç hbawòdb hryspt (gΔj laqzjy) yçar tyxyxb ynjqyw ≥μynhkla ˆm

17

ˆa μwq laqp aòxya hyp wpltòka μhydgb ypnk l[ hlwqw (2.3.4) ≥razala badh ldògy amk whw 16razala spn ˆm hlwm[m 15yh tyxyxla

judeo-arabic texts

273

21

ahlwa ˆm 20razala 19yprf ldògy ˆa bhòdmla aòdh bjax 18yl[ bògyp yòdlaw ≥tlkt lytp 23πrfla ˆm lydg lwa yl[ 22fyyòky μòt ahròka yla ldògt amnaw razala ˆm yh tsyl tyxyxla ˆa hyla lyma [a141h] lyldlaw μhydgb ypnk 26l[ 25laq amk razala πrf spn yl[ 24fyyòktw 27 (bkΔjk twmv) twb[ hç[m twlbg tçrç ˆçjh l[ tyç[w hlwq ˚lòd yl[ twmç) ˆmgraw tlkt ynwmr wylç l[ tyç[w hlòtmw hyl[ hql[m yhw laq amk ahyp laq dq ˆak hspn razala ˆm tyxyxla tnak wlw 28(glΔjk wytwnrq tyç[w twnrqla yp 29laq yòdla jbzmh twnrq ypw dpah bçj yp bçjw laqw [a òm[] ≥(bΔzk twmç) wytwnrq ˆyyht wnmm wytwnp [bra l[ tyç[w hlwq yl[ ˚sma wlp ≥(hΔfl twmç) awh wnmm wyl[ rça wtdpa anml[ wytwnrq ˆyyht wnmm laq amlw ≥hyl[ hql[m twnrqla tnak wytwnrq 32 hspn razala ˆm 31tyxyxla lm[t ˆa dara wlp ≥jbzmla ˆm 30ahna ≥ahryg yp laq amk wnmm 33ahyp laq dq ˆakl ˆa 34bògwp tlkt [b167b] lytp πnkh tyxyx l[ wntnw laq μòt (2.3.5) yl[ 36ql[y ˆa 35bògyw ≥πnkh tyxyx l[ hlwql tyxyxla ryg lytpla ˆwky ≥πnkh l[ lqy μlw [b141h] tyxyx l[ hlwql 38adrla yl[ al 37tyxyxla amw ˆyqafb lytp ˆaw ≥fwj lqy μlw lytp hlwql lwtpm ˆwky ˆa bògyw 39 ≥zyaòg ˚aòdp amhqwp ˆwl μsa hna μwq 41laqp 40≥ˆypltòkm hyp sanlap tlkt amaw (2.3.6) μwq dn[w 43ynwògnamsala 42laqy yòdla amsla ˆwl whw gbxla iawla ˆm ≥twlgla yp hyl[ πqwy al 44[wnl μsa hna μtyarw dyjy ˆwçlb hyhw laq ≥tyxyxl μkl hyhw laq μòt (2.3.7) [m lytpla 45ldògy ˆa hyla lyma yòdlap ≥dyjy ˆwçlb aòxya wtwa μlw ˚l hç[t μylydg 48anhah laq 47˚lòdlw djaw 46lydg ryxyp tyxyxla bògy hlmòglabw ≥lydg tyxyxla [m lytpla 50raxp 49˚l hç[t tyxyx lqy 52 ˆwkyw tlkt lytp ahyl[ ldògy μòt 51razala ˆwl yl[ hbawòd lm[y ˆa ≥anlq am yl[ lydg [ymògla amsw 53≥razall ˆyabm lytpla laqp ≥μhydgb ypnk 56μòt hlwqb dxqla çya 55anhah 54ˆyybp (2.3.8) ˆa zaògl μhydgb ypnk hlwq yl[ ˚sma wl hnap ˚twsk twpnk [bra l[ hna 60anhah 59ˆyybp 58≥hòtalòt wa ˆyprf hb [a142h] 57darmla ˆwky wlw ≥62bògawla whw twsk twpnk [bra l[ μylydg t[bra lm[y ˆa 61bògy lywarslaw bwòtla yl[ tyxyxla lm[t ˆa bògwl μhydgb hlwq yl[ ˚sma twpnk [bra l[ 63anhah laq amlp swblm lkw hmam[law [b òm[] 65 dgb yl[ lm[y lydgla 64raxp hrygw lywarslaw bwòtla ògròk ˚twsk ˆal 68razalab ˆasnala hb 67lmtçy ˆwkyw πarfa 66h[bra hl yòdla μzly μl 69hb hskt rça hlwq ˆmw ≥wh hòdh hb hskt hwq [a168b] ≥hb afgty al yòdla 70razala yl[ tyxyxla lm[

judeo-arabic texts

274 73

tyxyxla hyl[ lm[y 72ˆa μzly 71hb afgty raza lk sylw (2.3.9) wa hwlxla taqwa yp sbly yòdla 76razala yl[ 75lm[t ˆa 74μzly amnaw bbs ˆwkyp 79hròfny ˆasnala yl[ bògy yòdla 78[yblaw yrçla 77taqwa yp alw hlma[mla yp sòkby alp hyl[ bògwa amw 80ò[t hlla ò≈yarp hrkòd μarjla ˆm yç hdlòk yp radw μarjla ˆm yç yar aòdaw bòdky alw qrsy bògy am 83hrykòdt bbs 82hròfn aòda tyxyxla ˆak 81rknmla l[p ˆm htrkòd am hlmòg yp laq amk afòkla l[p 84ˆ[ bntògyp hyl[ [b142h] yrja wrwtt alw μta μtyç[w ywy twxm lk ta μtrkzw wtwa μtyarw lk ta μtyç[w wrkzt ˆ[ml μhyrja μynwz μta rça μkyny[ yrjaw μkbbl hna 86aòdh ˆm 85μl[tp ≥(flΔwf rbdmb) μkyhlal μyçwdq μtyyhw ytwxm hyar al hyp lxjy syl ˆal çarpla raza yl[ tyxyx 87lm[y ˆa bògy al 88 ≥anyyb am yl[ hrykz alw l[ twrwps twrwç tpy πyswm flΔwf rbdmbl çwryph πwsb] (2.3.9a) .òòwrwtt alwòò arw wrmt μl yòxyarp μtrkòd aòda μkna hb dyry wrwtt alw òwqw μta rça òqòk jybq l[p ˆm μkraxba hkròdt am arww blh rwhrh μda ynb ˆaç ˆm yòdla ˆyny[law blqla yla hb ryçyw ≥μhyrja μynwz aòdaw hwblfyw μhblq rwhrhla lòkad ayçala ˆm yç war aòda μhna ˚lòd yla ròfnla ˆm ˆyny[la dry ˆasnala μwqm ˚lòd ˆak tyxyxla war ≥hl[pb rkpy ˆa ˆmw rknmla yçla μabl sanla ˆm hyl[ bògy ˆm yp aml[la πltòka dqw (2.3.10) wrkzt ˆ[ml 90hlwql fqp aml[la μzly hna μhòx[b 89laq ≥tyxyxla bajxa wpltòkaw ≥91ywy twxm lk ta μtrkzw laqw ≥ytwxm lk ta μtyç[w ahrsab ò≈yarpla μl[ ˆm yl[ bògy hna μhòx[b 92laqp ≥bhòdmla aòdh ˆm yla hb ryçy hna μhòx[b 93wlaqw ≥ywy twxm (lk) ta μtrkzw hlwql alpy yk [òa òm[] wrq μhnal lwqla 94aòdhb wlaqw ò≈rpla ròtka μl[ ˆhk yla rwrmlab 95ò[t hlla rma dqw ≥(jΔzy μyrbd) fpçml rbd ˚mm twxm lk ta μtrkzw hlwq ˆak aòdap [a43h] ≥96haòxqla yòxaq wa lwdg 98 tyxyx lm[ bògy al 97ˆòdap ò≈yarpla lk μl[ ˆm hb [b168b] dyry ywy hlwdla ˆamz yp hmala ˆ[ fqs dqw μyfpwçh fpwçw lwdg ˆhk yl[ ala ˆa hlyljw 99tyxyxla lm[ μhn[ fqsy twlgla yp yrjalabw tyxyxla lm[ ˚rabt 102hlla laq dqw 101tyxyxla lm[ twlgla yp 100larçy ˆ[ fqsy yrja wrwtt alw 105yòxyarp 104wrkòdt ytj tyxyxla 103wròfna yla[tw yrja rwtn al ytj 107hlm[ 106bògy hlwdla ˆamz yp ˆak aòdap ≥μkbbl μyafj μyçna twbrt ˆjn yòdla twlgla ˆamz yp yrjalabp wnbbl 109 twnzlaw rknm lk l[p wnsjtsa yòdla μlw[ y[çr ˆyb 108ˆyfswtm rkòdnw 111hròfnnl tyxyxla lm[ anyl[ bògy amyad 110anaòdjb twb[wtlaw ≥hmsa yla[t anbr yx[n alw anyl[ bògy am

judeo-arabic texts

275

112

wlm[y ˆyòdla μhlk sanla yl[ bògt tyxyxla ˆa μwq laqw (2.3.11) ˆal [b143h] htlznm bsjb djaw lk 113ò≈yarpla ˆm μhyl[ bògy am day[alaw twbsla lòtm ò≈yarpla ˆm μhyl[ am wml[y 114hyy[rla 115 yrçlaw [ybla yp htpr[m μhyl[ bògy amw rhflaw amflaw ˆa yla hqpla yp ròkala yl[ djawla wlòxapty μyfpwçlaw 116μymkjlap djaw lkp ≥μyfpçh fpwçl ytla 118hyla[la hqbfla 117yla aqrty ≥ò≈rpla ˆm hyl[ am rkòdt tyxyxla yar aòda μhnm twxm lk ta μtrkzw wta μtyarw hlwq syl ˆa μl[t ˆa bògyw (2.3.12) lk rkòdy ˆasnala hary 119yòdla lajla ˚lt yp hna hb dyry ywy yp hyl[ bògy yòdla rkòdty amnaw lajmla ˆm bròx aòdh ˆal ò≈yarpla ˆak yç 122ya wa [òb òm[] 121yrçw [yb [a169b] 120yp ˆak ˆa tqwla ˚lòd 123 tyxyxla sbly sanla ˆm dja lk yl[ bògyp aòdkh aòdh ˆak aòdaw ˆ[ml 126ò[t hlla lwql hyl[ bògy am rkòdtyp 125hròfn ˆm hdxq 124l[ògyw ≥wrkzt yl[ bògt amna tyxyxla ˆa 127lwqy yòdla ˆm byòg[la bòg[law (2.3.13) 129 yn[ fqs dqp 128razala [a144h] sbla al amnap razala sbl ˆm hmala tnak òda hlm[ hypyk qqjta syl ynap ˚aòd [mw tyxyxla ò≈rp hlwq amap ≥ˆydsap ˆyyçb lwqla aòdh bjax ql[t dqp ≥ˆypltòkm hyp ˆ[ml arqy hyl[ bògy ˆak dq razala sbl ˆm yl[ bògy ò≈rpla 130aòdh ˆa 133 hlla ˆal ò≈rpla 132fqs dqp tyxyx alb 131rkza yna laq ˆap ≥wrkzt πyk 134μl[y bbl μkj whw tyxyxla sablb ò≈yarpla rkòd anm dara πr[y al 136hnab hql[t amaw ≥˚lòdb 135anrmaw antjlxmw andçr qyrf 137 al ˆa aòdh ˆm hmzlyp ˆypltòkm hyp aml[la ˆaw ò≈rpla hqyqj rs[w hdayzla hyp ˆkmy μl amw hmala hyl[ tqpta am ala ò≈rp l[py 138 ≥aòdh yp μla[ lk hlaq am lk trkòd am yna μl[t ˆa bògyw (2.3.14) tjrç dqw brq am ahnm trkòd 139ˆklw [styw lwfy yç hnal tyxyxla yp anraxba πçky ˆa 140lsa hmsa lòg hlla ˆmw ≥ynm brq yòdla lwqla wlaq amk 143ahayapòk anl 142rhòfyw [b144h] 141hpyrçla htarwt ˆm anyrby ˆaw ≥(jyΔfyq μylht) ˚ytrwtm twalpn hfybaw yny[ lg tyraçla whslaw 144afòklaw llzla [b169b] ˆm anm yrògy am [ymòg yp hblafmla ≥(gyΔfy μylht) ynqn twrtsnm ˆyby ym twaygç òla ò[ ylwla laq amk laq (4 ≥b Δlarçy ynb la rbd laq amk (3 ≥b Δˆa+ (2 ≥a Δatyl .[bra (1 (5 ≥g Δhmwzwlw ò≈rpla aòdh bwògw hb dyry òçy ynb la rbd òwqw .μzal ≥ ≥ ≥ μòt Δhyp aml[la πltòka+ (7 ≥g Δwrkzt ˆ[ml yp ˚lòd ˆybn am yl[+ (6 ≥g Δˆydtm (11 ≥g Δwat ˘a Δwytla (10 ≥g Δwat ˘a Δwyt (9 ≥g Δˆa μhòx[b .aml[la ò≈[b (8 ≥g ò[ laqzjy (14 ≥g Δwh (13 ≥h Δyòdla ˘g Δwatla ˘a Δwytla (12 ≥g Èb Δatyl ˘h Δyh

276

judeo-arabic texts

ˆm razyala ˘a Δrazyala (17 ≥g Èa Δrazyala (16 ≥g Δwh (15 ≥g Èb Δatyl .òçh aòdh bjax yl[ bògyp (20 ≥g Δπrf (19 ≥g Δlwq+ (18 ≥g Δhròka yla hlwa lwa (23 ≥g Δfyòky (22 ≥g Δhlwa (21 ≥b Δatyl .razyala yprf ldògy ˆa bhòdmla (27 ≥b Δlk+ (26 ≥a Δòwqk (25 ≥g Δfyòktw (24 ≥g Δynaprfla lydgla .πrfla ≥ ≥ ≥ twmç awh ffwxmh qwsph gÈb yòòkbw (28 ≥wfΔfl twmç awh ffwxmh qwsph b yòòkbw ˆakl (33 ≥g Δrazala spn (32 ≥b Δtyxyx (31 ≥g Δμhna (30 ≥b Δlwq (29 ≥dkΔfl (37 ≥g Δlytpla+ (36 ≥g Δaòxya+ (35 ≥h Δbògyp (34 ≥g Δlaq ˆak .ahyp laq dq ˆaw (39 ≥g Δrazala ˘a Δydrla (38 ≥b Δatyl .tyxyxla yl[ ≥ ≥ ≥ tyxyx l[ hlwql zyaòg whp ˚lòd ˆm ròtka ˆak ˆaw zyaòg ˆak ˆyqafb lytp ˆak ˆap .zyaòg ≥ ≥ ≥ lytp (41 ≥g Δtlkt ryspt yp aòxya sanla πltòkaw .ˆypltòkm ≥ ≥ ≥ amaw (40 ≥g Δaòxya (44 ≥h Èa Δynwògnamsa (43 ≥g Δatyl .laqy yòdla amsla ˆwl (42 ≥gÈb Δlaq ≥g Δhrwt hnçm yp (48 ≥g Δ˚lòdlp (47 ≥b Δˆa lydg (46 ≥b Δldògwy (45 ≥g Δˆwll Δrazyala (51 ≥raxp òsn .g lç μyylwçbw ˘g Δryxyp (50 ≥b Δatyl .˚l hç[t (49 ≥g Δhrwt hnçm yp (55 ≥g Δˆybw ˘b ˆyybw (54 ≥g Δrazyall (53 ≥g Δˆwl+ (52 ≥a ≥g Δhrwt hnçm yp (60 ≥g Δˆybp (59 ≥g Δòg (58 ≥g Δdara (57 ≥g Δatyl .μòt (56 (63 ≥g Èb Δatyl .bògawla whw twpnk (62 ≥g Δbògy ˆa ˘h Èb Δatyl .bògy hna (61 (67 ≥g Δòd ˘b Δ[bra (66 ≥g Δdgbla (65 ≥gÈb Δraxw (64 ≥g Δatyl .anhah Δraza (70 ≥h Δatyl .hb hskt ≥ ≥ ≥ ≥ wh hòdh (69 ≥bÈa Δrazalak (68 ≥g Δlmtça (74 ≥g Δtyxyx (73 ≥g Δatyl .ˆa (72 ≥a Δatyl .hb afgty raza lk sylw (71 ≥b Δtaqwa wa (77 ≥h Èg Èb Δraza (76 ≥b Δlm[wy ˘g Δatyl .lm[t ˆa (75 ≥g Èa Δbògy ≥h Èg Èb Δatyl .ò[t (80 ≥gÈa Δhròxny (79 ≥g Δarçlaw [ybla (78 ≥g Δtaqwaw ˘b (83 ≥a Δtròxn (82 ≥h Èg Δatyl .ˆm μarjla ˘b Δatyl .l[p ˆm μarjla (81 Δlm[n (87 ≥g Δatyl .aòdh ˆm (86 ≥b Δμl[p (85 ≥g Δatyl .ˆ[ (84 ≥g Δhrkòdt Δatyl .ywy twxm ≥ ≥ ≥ laqw (91 ≥a Δòwqw (90 ≥g Èa Δlaqp (89 ≥g Δanyb (88 ≥g Èb (96 ≥h Èg Èb Δatyl .ò[t (95 ≥g Δaòdh (94 ≥g Èa Δlaqw (93 ≥g Δlaq (92 ≥b twlgla yp yrjalabw (99 ≥g Δtyxyxla (98 ≥g Δaòdap (97 ≥a Δμyfpçh fpçl .tyxyxla lm[ ≥ ≥ ≥ hlyljw (101 ≥a Δan[ (100 ≥b Δatyl .tyxyxla lm[ μhn[ fqsy (105 ≥h Èa Δwlm[t (104 ≥g Èa Δwròxna (103 ≥a Δatyl .hlla (102 ≥g Δatyl ≥g Δtwnwzlaw (109 ≥h Èa Δyp+ (108 ≥g Δahlm[ (107 ≥a Δbògw (106 ≥g Δytjw+ Δatyl .ò≈yarpla ˆm (113 ≥g Δwml[y (112 ≥a Δhròxnnl (111 ≥b Δanyòdjb (110 Δyl[ (117 ≥g Δμymkjlaw (116 ≥g Δarçlaw (115 ≥h Èg Δhy[rla (114 ≥g Èb ≥g Δarç wa (121 ≥g Δatyl .yp (120 ≥a Δytla (119 ≥b Δayl[la (118 ≥b Èa .ò[t (126 ≥a Δhròxn (125 ≥a Δhl[ògyw (124 ≥g Δtyxyx (123 ≥g Δyaw .ya wa (122 anap .razala sbla al amnap (128 ≥g Δlwqy ˆmm ˘a Δˆm+ (127 ≥g Èa Δatyl + (129 ≥a Δraza sbla amnap ˘h Δraza μbla am anap ˘b Δraza sbla al dq ˘a Δfqsa dqp .fqs dqp (132 ≥g Δrkòda ˆa (131 ≥a Δhòdh (130 ≥a Δfqs ≥g Δhnal (136 ≥g Δanrmap (135 ≥b Δatyl .μl[y (134 ≥a Δò[t + (133 ≥g Δfqsa (141 ≥b Δhlsa (140 ≥h Δˆkylw (139 ≥g Δrs[ aòdhw (138 ≥h Èb Δala (137 .afòklaw (144 ≥a Δahtayapk (143 ≥a Δrhòxyw (142 ≥h Èb Δatyl .hpyrçla ≥g Èb Δatyl 2.4 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Deuteronomy 33:4 Manuscripts: St. Petersburg, IOS MS C72 (unnumbered folios) London, BL MS Or. 2479 (Cat. 275), fols. 124a–128a

= a = b

judeo-arabic texts

277

Note: The passage has been abridged. The end of the comment— about a folio and a half in the BL MS—is not given here.

dΔgl μyrbd çwryp Δyl[ ˆb tpy .bqo[}y" hL'hiq] hv;r;/m hv,m Wnl;ÎhW:xi hr;/T (d Δgl) (2.4.1) .bq[y la h[amòg aòtarym hçm dy yl[ anl axw h[yrç 2

ˆwlwqyw ˚ytrbdm adjaw alqn 1ˆwlqny (gΔgl μyrbd) ˚ytrbdm açy laq amk 3hçm dy yl[ [a òm[] ˆymla[la br anaxw h[yrçla aòdh μhlayògal ahnwòtrawty òtarym yhw (dyΔf hymjn) μhl tywx hrwtw μyqjw twxmw 4laq alw bq[y td[ lqy μlw bq[y tlhq laqw ≥[mòg ˆ[ [mòg bq[y h[amòg w[mtòga yòdla lhqh μwy ˆm hlxa larçy lqn ˆa whw yn[ml bq[y ynb ˚lòd ymsw ˆymla[la br bafòk w[msw rhh tytjtb [b124b] μhlk lhqh μwyb brwjb ˚yhla ywy μ[m tlaç rça lkk òwqk lhqh μwy μwyla ≥(fyΔh μç) μklhq lk la ywy rbd hlah μyrbdh ta (zfΔjy myrbd) 5 hrwtla ˆa anml[yl bq[y tlhq laqw hòfplla ˚lòd lòtm anhah rkòdp ≥hlòtm qwòg ˆ[ 6qwòg òtarym yh ˆa anyplaòkm a[da amk μhnay[ab μwql hnmòxm yh sylw (2.4.2) aybnalaw aybnall ò˚wyçlaw ò˚wyçll [çwhyw [çwhyl hçm ahmls hrwtla [çwhyl hrsmw ynysm hrwt lbq hçm wlaq amk hlwdgh tsnk yçnal ≥(aΔa twba) hlwdgh tsnk yçnal μyaybnw μyaybnl μynqzw μynqzl [çwhyw hçm btkyw ahyp 8laq ytla 7hnwdmla hrwtla hòdh ahb wn[a wnak ˆap yla ahmls 9hòdh ˆal wlfba dqp (fΔal μyrbd) tazh hrwth ta 10 yla ahb wn[a wnak ˆaw ≥bq[y tlhql hçrwm yhw ò˚wyçlaw μynhkla ≥ahrkòda hwògwl μhnm lbqy al ˚aòdp 11hpb hrwt ypòk aòda ˆwòxmy ˆa larçy rma ˆymla[la br ˆa ˚lòd ˆm (2.4.3) wdyghw tçrdw òwqk ˚lòdb μhwrbòkyp μynhkla yla μakjala ˆm yç μhn[ dq ynap μynqzla ylaw [çwhy yla wòxma lwqy harn μlw (fΔzy μyrbd) ˚l ≥hyl[ wlm[tw μhnm 12wml[ttl ò≈yarpla hqp μhtnql wlòkt sylw hçm wnl hwx hrwt anhah laq hna whw ròka hògww (2.4.4) ahbtk ytla hrwtla yh ˆwkt ˆa ama ≥ˆyrma dja ˆm hrwtla hòdh ahdjw 14hbwtkmla yh tnak ˆap ahrygw [b òm[] hbwtkmla yh wa 13hçm ahwml[y rybklaw rygxla μp yp yh fqp hçm trwt ˆal qj lwqla aòdhp ta μtwa μtdmlw òwqk ˆymla[la br μhrma amk μhdalwal larçy dgn tazh hrwth ta arqt laqw [a125b] ≥(fyΔay μyrbd) μb rbdl μkynb aòdhp ahrygw hbwtkmla yh tnak 15ˆap ≥(ayΔal μç) μhynzab larçy lk

278

judeo-arabic texts

yla ahmlsw [çwhy ahmlst hpb hrwt ˆa μhdn[ ˆal μhlxa lfby lwq ≥bq[y tlhq hçrwm ahyp laq hòdhw ò˚wyçla rwdxla yp hlwqnm tnak hpb hrwt ˆa ˆw[dy μhna whw ròka hògww (2.4.5) sylw tazh hrwth ta arqt lwqy batkla anyarw ynç tyb baròk d[b ≥hpb hrwtl rkòd hlk batkla ˆarwd yp harn ò≈yarpla ò≈[b btk 16òsla ò[ hçm ˆak wl ˆa whw ròka hògww (2.4.6) ò≈yarpla ò≈[b μhnqlw hrwt rps ahamsw ˆawyd yp rabòkalaw wm[z yòdla μynqzla 17wa hmala πlaòkt ˆa zaòg aml hpb hrwt ahamsw zaòg wlw 19anwdm hwl[ògyw ˚lòd wryygy ˆa rwdxla yp μh[m 18hlwqnm ahna wlqny ˆa zaògl rwdxla yp hwlqny ˆa μhrma am wnwdy ˆa wratòky ˆa μhl 21 ≥qrp amhnyb sylw ò≈rpla lfbyw rwdxla yp hwl[ògyw 20ˆwdmla hwl[òg ˆa yla rwdxla yp ˆwlqny ˆak aml μhlqn ˆa wm[z ˆap (2.4.7) ˆm ˆymla[la br 23har am μtbls dq μhl lyq ≥bawxw hmkj wh 22anwdm aòdhw rpwmla wh μtna μkyar raxw rwdxla yp alwqnm ˆwky ˆa bawxla 25 wnwdy ˆa μhrma 24hlla ˆa μhdja μ[z ˆap laqy ˆa zwògy al am μl lwq aòdh hl laqy hylaògla yp w[qw aòda μh[m rwdxla yp lwqnmla wlòky al hna whw lwqla aòdh dasp ˚yrwn ˆjnp ˚aòd [mw 26dja hb lqy d[b rwdxla yp hlwqnmla aòdh 28ˆwdt ˆa 27hlla rma ˆwky [a òm[] ˆa wnwky wa ˆypltòkm wnwky μhnab μl[ ˆwky ˆa ama ≥ˆyhògw ˆm aybnala μd[ arn sylp ˆyqptm wnwky μhnab μl[ ˆap [b125b] ≥djaw lwq yl[ ˆyqptm ryòtk yp ˆypltòkm μharn lb lkla yp ˆyqptm dwmltlaw hnçmla bajxa yl[ lwjlaw çdqlaw rhaflaw ymflaw μarjlaw laljla yp ò≈yarpla ˆm aòdap ≥μhrygw llh tybw yamç tyb ˆyb am yp πlòkla ˆm μwl[m wh am lòg hlla ˆa wlwqt ˆa ama ≥ˆyrma dja ˆm wlòky alp aòdkh aòdh ˆak ˆa lwqn ˆa zògy μl aòdaw lfab μkaw[d 30ˆa ˆwky am πalòkb μl[ 29al[w dqp ≥lfab μklwq ˆwky ˆa 32bògw ˆwky am πalòkb yçlab μl[y 31hlla hçm 34ˆwd am ryg ò≈yarpla ˆm yç ˆywdtb rmay μl 33hlla ˆa bògw rwdxla yp 36hlwqnm ò≈yarp μhnql hçm ˆa 35μklwq ˆa tbòtw òslaò[ ≥lfab lwq wh ≈wxnb laldtsa hpb hrwtla hòdh yp anyar ana whw ròka hògww (2.4.8) hna yl[ ldy aòdhw ≥rmwl dwmlt hrytk [òxawm yp wlwqy amk hrwtla lwqla lwqy lb ldtsy ˆa ògatja aml 37hçm lwq wh ˆak wlp ≥laldtsa ≥lsrm brglaw qrçla yp ˆyddbmla bq[y tlhq ˆa whw ròka hògww (2.4.9) ròka yla tyçarb ybe ˆm ˆytpdla yn[a hrwtla hòdh ˆa ˆyqptm μhlk

judeo-arabic texts

279

hrwt yrn aòdwhw ≥hd[b ˆm ≈qny μlw ahyp dazy μlw ahbtk hçm hrwtla 39 μymkj wl wdwh alw ynwlp ybr rma ahyp ≥hrwxla 38hòdh πalòkb hpb dqp tnyyb am yl[ aòdh ˆak ˆaw h[m qjla syl ˆa lwqla aòdhb yn[y ˆak òda hnçmla yp ≈wxnmla ˆybw hrwtla yp ≈wxnmla ˆyb hqrptla t[qw hnçmla [b òm[] yp yòdlaw 40hçm ˆ[ hlk [a126b] hrwtla yp ≈wxnmla hrwtla hqp μhnqly μl 42hçm ˆa jòxwy aòdhp hrygw hçm ˆ[ 41whp ≥rwdxla yp ahwlqnyp ahyp òda hçm ˆ[ anyqlt yh tsyl ˆa ldy amm ròka hògww (2.4.10) hnm sanla lbqyw qwspb hb ldtsyw 44tykw tykb ynwlp ybr rma 43lwqy sògnt hrz hdwb[ ˆa 45abyq[ ybr lwqk hrwtla ˆm wh syl qwspla ˚lòdw wl rmat ax hwd wmk μrzt whw why[çy ˆm qwspb ldtsaw 46hdnla lòtm ≥(bkΔl hy[çy) ˆyòtjab wnak μwqla ˆa yl[ ldt 47hlla ˚dçra ahlk hòdhp (2.4.11) lwqla ˚lòd brq ˆap qjla hnab hl jal am djaw lk lwqy ˆyldtsm μhtrwxw ≥atwbòtm 48hwkrt ˚lòd ryg ˆak ˆaw hyl[ wlm[w hwlbq μhnm twxm yrps wtbòta yòdla ˆynabrla ˆyplaòkm ryasw ˆymynbw ˆn[ 49hrwxk hjx yl[ alyld hna hl 50μaq amb ldtsaw hdn[ am djaw lk laqw wnwky μl μhnal ˚lòd ryg zwògyw qjll qpawm hlwq ˆwky ˆa zwògyw hlwq 51 aybnala μd[ d[b wmaqw ˆyrysy μwq wnak amnaw ahrsab hmala [qw am wtbòtyw μh hyl[ qpta am wtbòty ˆa yl[ wmz[w ≥lywf rhdb br[m ylaw jrzm yla larçy yla hwòdpnaw hwbtkp πlòkla hyp μhnyb μlw hçm trwt ahna ˆwlwqy ˆa ˆwljtsy μlw dwmltw hnçm ahwmsw ≥aybnala 53ahwnwd yòdla 52rps òdòkla yla ahwpyòxy ˆa μhnkmy ybn yaw hçm ˆ[ μhlwq ˆa 54ˆynwwdmla ylwahl μaq lyld yap (2.4.12) talaldtsa μwqla yalwah talaldtsa yrn ˆjnw ≥hqòtlab μhl dhç hnakb lq[la 55dhçy am lywatw bòdk wh am ahypw [b126b] hpy[òx yòdla hwògwla hòdhp ≥lyldb ala hlwq lbqy ˆa zwògy alw rbòkmla rbòk ˆynabrla 56yplaòkm ahb ˆwdry [a òm[] ytla hwògwla ò≈[b yh ahtrkòd yp ahòx[b trkòd amnaw 57ahwrkòd yòdla hwògwla lk tabòta ˆkmy μl ˆap 58 jdmy sanla ò≈[b [msy yòdla lpagll ahybnt ˚lòd ˆwkyl qwspla aòdh alw adjaw alqn 59hçm ˆ[ ˆylqan μhnab dwmltlaw hnçmla bajxa ˆa ˆkmyw lyxjt rygb hnm lwqla aòdh ˆa πr[a ˆa tdrap ≥μhnyb πalòk μhyl[ sbly amb qjla ˆ[ sanla lòxyl lfabla 60lwqla yp dmt[m ˆwky 61 hblafmb d[awt dq al[w lòg anbrw ≥hbtk yp ahaçn hprkzm lywaqab hlwqk bawxla qyrf yp μhqwsy ˆm μhl μyqy ˆa d[ww htma lòxm lk ≥(wfΔg hymry) lyKec]h'w“ h[;DE μk,t]a, W[r;w“ yBiliK] μy[iOr μk,l; yTit'n:w“

280

judeo-arabic texts

≥b Δ(ryd)òayw (lyd)ògy+ (5 ≥b Δòwqk (4 ≥b Δhòò[+ (3 ≥a Δwlwqyw (2 ≥a Δwlqny (1 .yla ahb (10 ≥b Δaòdh (9 ≥a Δatyl .laq (8 ≥b Δhnwwdmla (7 ≥a Δatyl .qwòg (6 yrpsb [ypwm wnya hz ˆwçl ≥hp l[bç hrwt wnyyhd .hpb hrwt (11 ≥b Δatyl hrwt wz .bwtk (πwsb h ˆmys wf qrp anhk brd atqysp) dja μwqmbw ≥lòòzj ≥a Δatyl .hbwtkmla ≥ ≥ ≥ ahrygw (14 ≥b Δhòò[+ (13 ≥a Δjwml[tt (12 ≥hpbç (20 ≥b Δanwwdm (19 ≥b Δalwqnm (18 ≥b Δˆa (17 ≥b Δhòò[ (16 ≥b Δˆaw (15 Δwnwwdy (25 ≥b Δtòòa (24 ≥b Δhaar (23 ≥b Δanwwdm (22 ≥b Δò≈rp (21 ≥b Δˆwwdmla (31 ≥b Δòda (30 ≥b Δyl[w (29 ≥b Δˆwwdt (28 ≥b Δtòòa (27 ≥a Δadja (26 ≥b ≥b Δalwqnm (36 ≥a Δμhlwq (35 ≥b Δˆwwd (34 ≥b Δtòòa (33 ≥a Δbwògw (32 ≥a Δò[t+ ˘zΔg tyn[t ˘jΔh μyjsp ˘fÎzΔg ˆybwry[ .wnyy[ (39 ≥b Δaòdh (38 ≥b Δhòò[+ (37 Δryòtkw (44 ≥a Δlqy (43 ≥b Δhòò[+ (42 ≥a Δhyp (41 ≥b Δhòò[+ (40 ≥òwkw zΔd μç ≥b Δhrwxb (49 ≥b Δhkrt (48 ≥b Δò[t+ (47 ≥aΔf tbç (46 ≥b Δhbyq[ (45 ≥a (54 ≥b Δahnwwd (53 ≥a Δarps òkòdla (52 ≥b Δhwbnla (51 ≥b Δatyl .μaq (50 Δwzyymy (58 ≥b Δahtrkòd (57 ≥b Δatyl .yplaòkm (56 ≥b Δdhç (55 ≥b Δˆynwdmla ≥a Δtblafmb (61 ≥b Δlwqll dm[tm (60 ≥b Δhòò[+ (59 ≥b 3.1 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Numbers 12:6–7 The text below is based upon Ben-Shammai, “Doctrines,” 2:173–74, App. III.25, which has been collated with St. Petersburg, RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.0017, fol. 246b–247a = r

la hp òslaò[ hçm hbtrm ahdja ≥μasqa òw yl[ hwbnla btarm andògww tnak dqw çdq jwr ahnwdw ≥ahyp aybnala ˆm dja hkraçy μlw hp [msy ˆak yòdla lawmç hbtrm hòtlaòtlaw ≥aybnala ˆm ryòtklw hçml ywy abyw) laq amk dwbk ˆm ˆkylw μwljw harm rygb 1ahapç hlla bafòk hbtrm aòxya lawmçl ˆak dqw qwlòkm yl[ ala ywy abyw lwqy alw bxytyw òdla hbtrmlaw ≥(ak Δg a lawmç) wlçb harhl ywy πsyw 2(òqk harmla ≥aybnala ròtkaw laqzjyw hy[çyw μyrmw ˆrha hbtrm yhw harmla ròfn wh hbfaòkmla [msw ahapç ˚almla ròfn yòdla laynd hbtrm yh òhlaw ˚lòd [a247p] ˆky μlw (kΔf laynd) ògw hlptb rbdm yna dw[w qòòk hnm ryas πlaòky hawbn μwljw μwljla hbtrm yh òwlaw ≥μwljw harmb yar amk μykalm wa dwbk ròfn hyp ˆwky 3(hawbn μwlj) òda twmwljla hkyalmla ròfn laynd ˚aòdkw hnm bafòkla 4[msw ywy ˚alm òslaò[ hyrkz aymaq ˆm dj l[ tbrq 6hlwqk 5μhnm djaw ˆm bafòkla [msw hmanm yp dqw ≥hawbn μwlj hb dyry wb rbda μwljb anhah hlwqp ≥(zfΔz laynd) al hlwqk hçml ˆwkt μl μwljw harm yn[a ˆytbtrmla hòdh ˆa anpr[ ≥awh ˆman ytyb lkb hçm ydb[ ˆk har) d[q òm[ Δòb òrk Δòòtwfyçòò Δç-bj yòòp[ hmlçhh ≥r Δatyl (2 ≥r Δhapç (1 har) d[q òm[ Δòb òrk Δòòtwfyçòò Δç-bj yòòp[ hmlçhh ≥r Δatyl (3 ≥(7 ò[h Δμç ˚aòdkw (6 ≥r Δhnm .μhnm djaw ˆm (5 ≥ r Δ[msy ywy ˚almw (4 ≥(11 ò[h Δμç ≥r Δlaq

judeo-arabic texts

281

3.2 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Genesis 40:5 Manuscripts: Paris, BN MS Suppl. héb. 30/II (Cat. 278), fols. 199b–200a = p London, BL MS Or. 2463 (Cat. 257), fol. 97a–b = l

yp amhròfn qpta ˆklw μanm 2ròfn 1amhnm djaw lk ˆa πr[ (3.2.1) ≥rysapt 3òg hyp lyqp ≥wmlj ˆwrtpk çya laq μòt hdjaw hlyl ˚aòdk wh ˆak ˆaw ≥ht[nx snòg ˆm 5yar amhnm djaw lk ˆa wh 4òa yar μypah rç ˚aòdkw h[rp yqsy hna yar μyqçmh rç ˆa hqyqjlab wmlj ˆwrtpk òòhrab[ lmtjt μlp htda[k μa[fla qabfa lmjy hna ≥yn[mla 6aòdh askt ˆa rysptlaw rysptla lòtm μanmla hb dara hna lyq 7òblaw (3.2.2) lòtm μanmla ˆa πr[p wmlj ˆwrtpk 8laq hna ˚lòdw ≥μanmla lòtm ˆymanmla 9aòdh ˆa πr[p rtp wmljk çya ròka [òxwm yp laqw ≥rysptla 10 h[rp swk ttnw laq hnal μanmla rhaòf [b198p] yl[ amhryspt lka πw[hw rsp ˚lòdkw 11≥ydyb h[rp swkw μanmla yp yar am ryòfn ˚rçb ta πw[h lkaw 12laq amk hrhaòf yl[ yçar l[m lsh ˆm μtwa 13 ≥˚yl[m (7 ≥p Δhòdh (6 ≥p Δròxn (5 ≥p Δahdja (4 ≥p Δòtlòt (3 ≥p Δròxn (2 ≥p Δμhnm (1 (11 ≥p Δwdyb+ (10 ≥p Δhòdh (9 ≥p Δ[òxwm yp laq ˆa .laq hna (8 ≥p Δynaòtlaw çya hlwq ˆwky rysptla hòdh yl[w+ (13 ≥l Δqòòk (12 ≥p Δatyl .ydyb ≥ ≥ ≥ ryòfn

≥p Δwmlj ˆwrtpk 3.3 Sahl b. Maßlia˙, Commentary on Genesis 40:9–12 St. Petersburg, RNL, Evr-Arab. I.4633, fols. 94b–95a.

μrk ˆm hnpòg aòdaw ymwlj yp tyar yna dyry ˆpg hnhw ymwljb hlwqw ≥ ≥ ≥ am hrwxb whw amys al hary ˆml dyòg μwnla yp μrkla lywatw ymadq ahrma adbm yp tnak ˆabòxq òg yhw μygrç hçlç ˆpgbw hlwqb hakj td[xa tqrwa am radqmw aqrwm yhw brq¨ ˆ[ ahròfn μòt qrw alb 1 td[xa tqrwa amk whw hxn htl[ tjrpk (a)yhw laq am yl[ ahrawn yla μwqy μòt hdm d[b qrwy μrkla lb ˚aòdk hda[la yp sylw rawnla ryx[law ryx[ll jlxy bn[ ryxy ˆa yla ymny lylqp lylqw hdm rawnla 2 ròfn whw hlk ògawr μyqçmh rç μanmw ryòtk aqbw hbrç blfy ˆa yla yla htglbw rawnla td[xa tqrwa amk μòt tqrwa μòt qrw alb ˆabòxq dyqan[la òdòkay whw hdyb 3sakla ˆakw brq ˆ[ bn[ ahdyqan[ wògòxna ˆa òdybnla ˆm h[rp yqsyw tqwll òdybn ryxtw sakla yp ahrx[yw [a95]

282

judeo-arabic texts

μanmla ò≈rg πswy [ams dn[p rafxm al qyt[ whw hpr[y ˆak yòdla òg alw ˆyns òg ahrspy μlw tçlç ògrçh tçlç hl rsp ytay a[yrs hnaw h[rs ˆm hldtsa am yl[ μaya òg ahl[òg lb [ybasa òtlòt alw rwhç òg yhw ˆabòxq ògla ryg lywat hl am μanmla yp ˆky μl ≥ ≥ ≥ ≥μanmla hrhaòf yl[ hnap h[rp dy yl[ sakla hla[òga ròfn yòdla amaw μaya ≥htbtrm yla dw[y hnaw lògrla labqa πr[ hdy ˆm sakla h[pd ˆaw ≥sabjla .yòòk (3 ≥hryòfn .yòòk (2 ≥d[x .yòòk (1 3.4 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Genesis 40:12–13 Paris, BN MS Suppl. héb. 30/II (Cat. 278), fols. 199b–200a = p London, BL MS Or. 2463 (Cat. 257), fol. 97a–b = l

.μh μymy tçlç μygrçh tçlç wnrtp hz πswy wl rmayw (byΔm) .μaya 3òg yh ˆabòxq 2hòtalòtla hryspt 1aòdh πswy hl laqp swk ttnw ˚nk l[ ˚bçhw ˚çar ta h[rp açy μymy tçlç dw[b (gyΔm) .whqçm tyyh rça ˆwçarh fpçmk wdyb h[rp ˆw[rp sak l[ògtw ˚zkrm yl[ ˚dadraw ˚naç ˆw[rp [pry μaya 4òg dh[ yp .hyqas tnk yòdla lwala μsrlak hdy yl[ yh bn[la dyqan[ ahyp ˆak ytla ˆabòxq 5ògla hòdh lywat πswy hl laq ˆw[rp dy yl[ htl[ògw sakla tòdòka dq ˚na htyar am amaw ≥μaya 6òg ˚zkrm [b97l] yl[ ˚dryw 7˚naç [prys ˆw[rp ˆa whw hrhaòf yl[ whp dyry ˆwçarh fpçmk lwqla yp dazw ≥hyqas ˆwkt ˆa yla sarla ˆm dw[tw πswy rxtòkaw ≥˚nm lòga ˚tbtrm yp ˆwky 8˚msrk μyqçmh rç ˆwkt hb 9 μhyp πqy lwxalab tkn dq òda hna hml[l fqp ˆyttknla ˆytah yl[ ≥h[yrpt yl[ hl ˆjn handògw har am ˆm yç yç lywat ˆ[ [a200p] ansmtla ˆjn aòdaw 11 ahnm 10lfb ˆak dq yòdla μawdla yl[ ht[nx yhp ˆpgla amap ≥yn[m dq ˆa 12wh μygyrç hçlç ahyp hròfn amaw ≥sbjla yp hmaqm hdm lwf ah[arpna hròfn amaw ≥μaya 13ògla hòdh dh[ yp ht[nx yla ˚rjt hb hyan[la πdart hyp lywatla òdybnla gwlbw bn[la ògaòxnaw tqwll ˆm hògaròka 16ˆakp hlwala 15hlajla yla 14djaw μwy yp [ògr ˆa yla wh ˆaflsla dyb[ ˆyb am yp hraòxjaw tjrpk ayhw lywat wh μbjla yla h[wògrb rma hlaj ˆ[ òtjb am dn[ hna μòt ≥hxn htl[ lywat almy ˆa tqwll hrma μòt ≥μybn[ hytwlkça wlyçbh lywat whw htbtrm ≥òdybnla gwlb lywat whw hyqsyw jdqla ˚byçhw trb[w ≥hydrp yhw yn[mla òòhrwaògm ˆm trx[ fjçaw trb[

judeo-arabic texts

283

˚byçhw 17ˆm ˚dry ˆwyqwdqdla ˆm μwq hrsp dqw ≥rdxm htl[ògw ˚dadraw [òxwm yp lm[t hjtpla 18ˆa μ[zw (jsΔjk μyrbd) (μyr)xm yyy μaqm wh yòdla (alΔal hymry) yqyzjh μwyb lòtm fqn 19hòtalòtla ≥yqyzjh ≥p Δòtalòtla (5 ≥p Δòtalòt (4 ≥p Δòtalòt (3 ≥p Δòtalòtla (2 ≥p Δhòdh (1 (10 ≥p Δμhypqy .μhyp πqy (9 ≥p Δ˚msrb (8 ≥p Δ˚naçw ˚rdq (7 ≥p Δòtalòt (6 Δμwyla .djaw μwy (14 ≥p Δhòtlòtla (13 ≥p Δatyl (12 ≥p Δhnm (11 ≥p Δlfbta ≥p Δòtlòtla (19 ≥l Δatyl (18 ≥p Δμaqm (17 ≥p Δhnakp (16 ≥p Δhlaj (15 ≥p 3.5 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Genesis 40:17–19 Paris, BN MS Suppl. héb. 30/II (Cat. 278), fols. 202ab London, BL MS Or. 2463 (Cat. 257), fol. 98a–b

= p = l

μygyrçh tçlç rsp am lòtm μymy tçlç ahna μylsh tçlç πswy wsp ˆakm yh ytla μygyrçla lòtm μa[fll [òxawm yh qabfala ˆal ryafla ˆa hrhaòf yl[ μta lka πw[hw [b98l] rspw ≥bn[la dyqan[l rç μjl 3lkayw μta lka lywat l[ògw μypah rç 2μjl lkay 1yòdla wh 4 hòdh ˆa whw [b202p] hlwqn hògw ˆm ˚lòd ògròktsa hna ˆkmyw ≥μypah yla μa[fla μdqy μwy lk 5ytla ht[nx ˆm yh hm[falaw qabfala yarw h[rp yla hmdqy ˆa lfb μa[fll ryfla lka aòdaw h[rp òòhròxj tjt ˆm hlka ˆa ˆm lfby ˆw[rp μa[f ˆa μl[p hsar qwp ˆm hlkay hna ≥μypah rç ˚alhb ala ˚lòd ˆaby sylw μypah rç dy (5 ≥l Δaòdh (4 ≥l Δlka (3 ≥l Δatyl (2 ≥l Δwh yòdla .yòdla wh ryafla (1

≥l Δyòdla 3.6 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Genesis 41:5–7 Paris, BN MS Suppl. héb. 30/II (Cat. 278), fols. 206a–209a = p London, BL MS Or. 2463 (Cat. 257), fols. 99b–101a = l A portion of the text has been edited by Ben-Shammai; see “Doctrines,” 2:138–39. For Hebrew translation, notes and analysis, see 1:274–76.

twalmhw twayrbh μylbçh [bç ta twqdh μylbçh hn[lbtw (zΔam) .μwlj hnhw h[rp ≈qyyw ˆw[rp ò≈qytsaw hnalmlaw ˆamsla lbs h[bsll qaqrla lbsla ˆ[lbw .μlj araw

284

judeo-arabic texts

yarp ≥μan lajla yp [ògrw lwala μanmla ˆm hbtna hna πr[ (3.6.1) ˆnak 1˚lòd [mw ˆamzla hda[ πalòkb hdjaw hbòxq yp lbs h[bsb aòdaw 2 ≥hsdsm wa hnmòtm lbans hb dyry twalm hlwq amap ≥ˆamsw ˆasj πr[ μòt ≥hbwròxm hbjla ˆkt μl yòdla bjla ˆsj whp twbwf amaw hnqb ahyp lqy μlw d[b ˆm td[x ròka lbans h[bs yar hna [b206p] 4 μhna πr[ μòt ≥hbòxq 3qwp hdjaw lk d[xt tnak ahna ˆkmyp dja 6 jyrla hbròxy yòdla bjla lòtm ˚wpnm ˆhbjw 5hpsm qaqd lbans μòt ≥μa[fla ˆm yç hyp syl hdjw ˆbt ˆwkyp ˆògd dq ˆky μlw yqrçla lbans h[bsla ˆ[lb hryòkala lbans h[bsla hòdh [a100l] ˆa πr[ lqy μlw μwlj hnhw anhh laqw ≥hmwn ˆm hbtna ˚lòd dn[w hmdqtmla μl ylwala h[pdla yp hbtna am dn[ hna whw yn[ml lwala yp hlòtm yp μwnla yp lòkd lb har yòdla μanmla yp rkpy am radqmb ò≈qwtsy μl[p hlxjw μanmla yp rkpaw ò≈qytsa ynaòtla μanmla ypw ≥lajla ≥ˆylxjm ˆymanm yar hna yla dw[n hyna[m 7rhaòx ˆm hyl[ ld amw μanmla anrb[ d[bw (3.6.2) μanmla 8lywat hlmòg ˆm rsp òsla hyl[ πswy ˆa lwqnp ≥jrçb hryspt ahlywat ˆa hpr[w μylbç [bçw twrp [bç lywat ahdja ≥ayça h[bra ˆa πr[p ˆhjbqw ˆhtqrw ˆhnsjw ˆhnms lywat wh ynaòtlaw ≥ryg al ˆyns l[w laq amk μanmla ryrkt yn[m hpr[ òtlaòtlaw ≥bdògw bxòk hlywat laqp ≥hnbrq la wab yk [dwn alw lywat hpr[ [barlaw ≥μwljh twnçh ahrspy μlw hryòtk ayça lywat μanmll [a207p] yqbw ≥[bçh [dwy alw anpqw ˚lòdkw rysptla lxa μhpyr[t d[b ahyl[ wpqw μhna hml[l hl jrçb ydtbn lbqw ≥jrçns amk òdòkamla lxab anml[ d[b ahyl[ ˆjn μk ˆyybnw sanla ahary yòdla tamanmla bwròx rkòd alwa μdqn ˚lòd ≥h[rp μanm ˆak bwròxla ˆm bròx ya ˆm πr[nw yh bròx wh lwala bròxlap ≥bwròx òtlòt yl[ tamanmla ˆa lwqnp (3.6.3) zpyla μwljw hyrkz μwljw laynd μwljw bq[y μwlj lòtm ≥hawbn μwlj ≥hawbnla btarm bwròx hts ˆm bròx whp ≥bhaòdmla ò≈[b yl[ ynmyth 10 dwbk wa μykalm 9yry am wh hawbn μwlj hna yl[ ròfanla ldy yòdlaw dj l[ tbrq qòòk laynd yar ˚lòdkw ≥μykalmw 11dwbk bq[y yar am lòtm laq amk hbfaòky ˚alm hyrkz yar ˚lòdkw ≥(zfΔz laynd) 12aym(a)q ˆm tamanmla ynaòtla bròxlaw ≥(byΔa hyrkz) yla rmayw ywy ˚alm ˆ[yw πswy 14(andy)òs yar amk rpakllw ˆmwmll hdyb[l hlla ahyrwy 13ytla 15 ˚lmybaw rxndkwbnw h[rpw μypah rçw μyqçmh rç yarw ˆymanmla djaw snòg ahlk hòdhp ≥hqyprl hmanm ≈qy ˆw[dg h[ms yòdla lògrlaw alw [b207p] dwbk al ahròfan yry syl òda hawbn μwlj snòg ˆm yh sylw dqp hpltòkm bwròx yl[ dyb[ll hlla hyrwy ynaòtla snògla hòdhw ≥˚alm μwljb laq amk ˆymla[la br yla bwtyl htlpg ˆm hhbnyl yxa[ll hyrwy

judeo-arabic texts

285

hyrwy dqw ≥(zf-wfΔgl bwya) 16μtjy μrsmbw ˆzwa hlgy za Δògw hlyl ˆwyzj hrçby dqw μyqçmh rçw πswy rçb am lòtm hbyyf hraçb hrçbyl hlla hyrwy dqw ≥ynaòtla μanmla yp rxndkwbnw μypah rç arwa amk 17hkalhb yòdla 18lògrllw rxndkwbnw h[rpl arwa amk ˆamzla yp òtdjys aml ˆa yn[ml sanll hyrwy hlla andògw ryòkala bròxla hòdhw ˆw[dg h[ms h[ms yòdla lògrll arwa amk ˆyjlaxla hb [pnyw μyqydxla hb rçby ˚ydy hnqzjt rjaw wrbdy hm t[mçw hlwqk 19ˆw[dg hb rçbyl ˆw[dg amkw ≥(wfΔz μç) μwljh rpsm ta ˆw[dg [mçk yhyw laqw ≥(ayΔz μyfpwç) ≥dlbla lha ryasw htyb lhaw πswy hb [pnyl μanmla h[rpl arwa hwqw taraòkbla ˆ[ dlwty yòdla 20wh tamanmla ˆm òtlaòtla bròxlaw ˆyb qrplaw ≥lywat alw rysph hl syl ˚aòdp blg dq yòdla flòkla lywat hl syl yòdla μanmla ˆybw [b100l] lywat hl yòdla μanmla yl[ hyry 22sylw flòk ˆ[ dlwty yòdla 21wh lywat hl syl yòdla μanmlap [a208p] ≥qsnw μaòfn yl[ yrògy 23lywat hl yòdla μanmlaw ≥qsnw μaòfn hmòftnm tamanm wròfn μhrygw μyqçmh rçw rxndkwbnw h[rp ˆa lwqnp ≥ahryspt ˆ[ wòtjb ˚lòdlp 24hqstm am lywat yla dw[n ahqrfw tamanmla bwròx anrkòd ˆa d[bw (3.6.4) hna lwqnp jrçla yp πswy hrxtòka yòdla h[rp μanm ryspt ˆm yqb 26 tnakw ≈òkrlaw [bçla wh μanmla ò≈rg ˆa òtyj ˆm lbansw rqb 25yar yç lwa ˆal yhtnalaw adtbala whw rqbla òtrjb lxjt 27adba hlgla μl rqbla μd[ aòdaw rqblab srdy yç 29ròkaw 28rqblab òtrjyw brky (dΔdy ylçm) rb swba μypla ˆyab hlwqk lòkdla 30˚lòd ˆm yç lxjy wh ògylòkla ˆm ahdw[x lywat 33amaw ≥[rzla dw[x 32wh 31lbsll hròfnw lòkd ròtky htdayzb ˆal lynla 34hhòg ˆm h[wògw rxm dlb [bç ˆa 37 jabqla tatr 36[bsla dw[x lywatw ≥lòkdla ≈qny hnaxqnbw 35ò≈rala lxp ryg ˆm ò≈[b yla ahòx[b ˆynsla laxta lòga ˆm wh 38ˆasjla arw hjxw 40brjla ˆmw wd[la ˆm sanla ˆma whp ahnsj lywat 39amaw ≥μhnyb ≥ryòtkla [bçla wh ˆhnms lywat amaw ≥awhla ladt[al μasògala 43 yns tnak yòdla 42ahlazhw yròkala h[bsla jbq yn[mla 41aòdh dòxbw 46 lywat ˚lòdk 45ò≈armalaw μyòf[la [wòglaw 44brjla hryòtk bdògla yp hlwqw 49≥aòdh lywatla lòtmk qaqrlaw ˆamsla 48lbs 47h[bsla bsk tròtk yl[ ldy wjab hn[rtw [b208p] ˆamsla tatr 50[bsla μasògala hjxw ˆmalaw [bçla yla πaòxnap μh[yanxw μhryaògt yp sanla ≥hryòtkla lawmala w[mòg ˚lòdlp ≥bskla 51hròtk lka wh 52hlywat μylbçh hn[lbtw twrph hnlkatw hlwqw (3.6.5) h[bsla yp hlwqw ≥[wògla ˆyns 54[bs yp [bçla 53ˆyns [bs talg lòxp 55 lbsla h[bsla yp hlòtm lqy μlw dja hnqb tlw[ ˆamsla lbans ≥djaw μylqa whw μyrxm dlb yp tnak [bçla ˆyns ˆa whw yn[ml ròkala

286

judeo-arabic texts

twxrah lkb b[r yhyw laq amk ahrygw rxm yp ˆak [wògla amaw hda[la πalòkb bxòkla hròtk arwa hna whw ròka lwqw ≥(dnΔam tyçarb) lòtm yp htdayz lòtmb ˆky μl ˆklw ˆynsla ò≈[b yp yrògy ˆak dq hnal yp hn[lbtw hlwqw ≥hns d[b hns πdarty ˆak alw 56ˆynsla hòdh yn[m amap ≥ˆyryagtm ˆyyan[m amhl hnlkatw twrpla yp laqw μylbçla 59 [bs yp [bçla ˆyns 58[bs lòkd 57awlkay awnak am bsjb whp hnlkatw yp ˆyns h[bsla talg anp wh hn[lbtw yn[mw ≥laj d[b laj [wògla ˆyns 64 [bs yp 63lkaw ala 62talgla ˆm 61yç qby 60μl ytj ˆyns h[bsla hòdh ≥ˆymanmla lywat aòdhp ≥[wògla ˆyns aòdh 66tòòa arwa 65ˆa yp bbsla ˆ[ sanla ò≈[b lsy dqw (3.6.6) ≥ˆylòxpmla haylwa djal wa πswyl wa bq[yl hyrwy μlw h[rpl μanmla lha yl[ qapça ˚lòd l[p lògw z[ hlla ˆa ˚lòd yp lyq [a209p] μl[la ˆm ròtka ryòtat hl ˆky μl h[rp ryg har wl hna ˚lòdw dlbla bòdky 71ˆa amap h[rpl 70hnwrbòky 69hyla wlxy ˆm ròtka wa fqp 68hb hnkmyw 72≥hdn[ ˚lòd qqjt dqp h[rpl harwa aòda amaw ≥qdxy wa ˆal [wògla 74ˆyns h[bsl [bçla ˆyns 73h[bsla talg talòxp [mòg 75 ahyla lxy al am [a101l] ahnzòkyw talgla ahb yrtçy lawma hl yrògtsy μl ˆzaòkmla yl[ 77amtaòk ˆak aòda hnap 76˚lòd [mw ≥hryg 79 ≥hrygl hyrwy μlw h[rpl harwa ˚lòdlp ≥78ahkpy ˆa dja

67

[bçla ˆynsb ata 81dab[la yl[ 80lògw z[ hlla lòxp ˆm μòt (3.6.7) 84 yp [wògla 83hòdh 82ˆywkt bbsw ≥hyjm μhl ˆwkyl [wògla ˆyns lbq 86 òtw òbt hlla l[p ˆm amk μy[çrla anp wh ahdja ≥ˆyyç 85wh ˆadlbla ≥μhyxa[m ahyp lmaktt μhl aòxqtt hdm lk yp hmla[ daqtpa yla 88hlhaw bq[y 87rfòxylw haylwab htyan[ rhòfyl wh ynaòtlaw l[ b[r arqyw òqòk dwb[çlaw twlgla μhyl[ 90μtyp rxm yla 89lwznla ≥(zy-zfΔhq μylht) lwqla μamtw çya μhynpl jlç Δ≈rah ≥p Δhpwsm (5 ≥p Δatyl .μhna (4 ≥l Δyp (3 ≥l Δhnmòtm wa hsdsm (2 ≥l Δ˚aòd (1 wa μykalm (10 ≥p Δyar (9 ≥l Δryspt (8 ≥l Δatyl .rhaòx (7 ≥l Δjyr (6 (13 ≥p Δatyl .aymaq ≥ ≥ ≥ ˚lòdkw (12 ≥l Δμydwbk (11 ≥l Δμykalmw μydwbk .dwbk μamtw .μtjy μrsmbw (16 ≥p Δatyl .˚lmybaw (15 ≥p Δatyl .òs (14 ≥l Δyòdla (20 ≥p Δatyl .ˆw[dg hb rçbyl (19 ≥p Δlògrlaw (18 ≥p Δhklhb (17 ≥p Δlxpla ≥p Δsyl (22 ≥p Δμanmla .wh lywat hl syl yòdla μanmlap (21 ≥l Δatyl .wh ≥p Δˆakw (26 ≥l Δaar (25 ≥p Δhqstnm hmòfantm (24 ≥p Δlywatw ryspt (23 Δryka ypw .ròkaw (29 ≥p Δatyl .rqblab ≥ ≥ ≥ adtbala whw (28 ≥p Δadtba (27 Δatyl .hhòg (34 ≥l Δama (33 ≥p Δwhw (32 ≥p Δlbsla yarw (31 ≥l Δatyl (30 ≥p (38 ≥p Δˆyjbqla (37 ≥p Δh[bsla (36 ≥l Δlòkdla .ò≈rala lòkd (35 ≥p ≥lÈp Δahlzhw (42 ≥p Δhòdh (41 ≥p Δμjalmla (40 ≥l Δamap (39 ≥p Δˆynsjla Δ˚lòdkw (46 ≥p Δμyòf[la [wòglaw ò≈armala (45 ≥p Δμjalmla (44 ≥p Δyyns (43 ≥p Δh[bsla (50 ≥p Δlywatla hòdhk (49 ≥p Δlbsla (48 ≥h[bs .lòòx (47 ≥l

judeo-arabic texts

287

≥p Δh[bs (54 ≥p Δyyns .ˆyns [bs (53 ≥l Δatyl .hlywat (52 ≥l Δtròtk (51 ≥p Δwlkay ˆak .awlkay awnak (57 ≥l Δatyl .ˆynsla ≥ ≥ ≥ ˆklw (56 ≥p Δlbs (55 ≥l Δal (60 ≥p Δh[bsla ˘l Δ[bsla .[bs (59 ≥p Δh[bsla ˘l Δ[bsla .[bs (58 (65 ≥p Δh[bs ˘l Δh[bsla (64 ≥p Δlkataw (63 ≥l Δayçã (62 ≥l Δatyl .yç (61 Δatyl .hb (68 ≥p Δatyl ˘l Δˆylòfpmla (67 ≥p Δatyl .tòòa (66 ≥p Δatyl .ˆa .hdn[ (72 ≥p Δatyl .ˆa (71 ≥p Δhwrbòkyl (70 ≥p Δatyl .hyla ≥ ≥ ≥ wa (69 ≥l Δ˚aòd (76 ≥l Δhyla (75 ≥p Δˆynsl .ˆyns h[bsl (74 ≥p Δh[bs (73 ≥p Δatyl ˆa yrògtsy μl ˆzaòkml .ahkpy ˆa dja ≥ ≥ ≥ ˆzaòkmla (78 ≥p Δhmtòk (77 ≥p ≥p Δatyl .hrygl hyrwy μlw (79 ≥l Δahyl[[] dja [≥ ≥ ≥] ˆzaòkmla ˘p Δahkpy dja Δatyl (83 ≥l Δˆwk (82 ≥l Δμhyl[ .dab[la yl[ (81 ≥l Δtòòa .lògw z[ hlla (80 htyan[ rhòfyl (87 ≥l Δtòòa .òtw òbt hlla (86 ≥l Δatyl (85 ≥l Δaòdhã (84 ≥l ≥l Δlwznll .lwznla yla (89 ≥l Δatyl .hlhaw (88 ≥p Δrròxyl .rfòxylw haylwab ≥l Δμtyl (90 3.7 Japhet b. Eli, Commentary on Genesis 41:15–16 Paris, BN MS Suppl. héb. 30/II (Cat. 278), fols. 211b–212a = p London, BL MS Or. 2463 (Cat. 257), fol. 101b = l

˚yl[ yt[mç ynaw wta ˆya rtpw ytmlj μwlj πswy la h[rp rmayw (wfΔam) .wta rtpl μwlj [mçt rmal ˚na alwq ˚n[ t[ms anaw hl syl rspmw tmlj μlj πswyl h[rp laq .hrysptl μljla [mst .h[rp μwlç ta hn[y μyhla yd[lb rmal h[rp ta πswy ˆ[yw (zfΔam) .ˆw[rpl hmals byògy ˆymla[la br yyaws alwq ˆw[rpl πswy baòga yna[mw ˆaflsla yla πswy μalk ˆm yròg am anl ˆwwdw batkla rxtòka lwqlab πswy qdx h[rp ˆa πr[p ò≈rgla rkòdp 2≥amhnyb tròg 1ytla ròka hlwqw ≥hqròkmlaw lyyjla bajxa 3lòtm lm[y μlw wta ˆya rtpw hlwqk [msy ˆmk al ahrsptw sanla tamanm [mst hb dyry ˚yl[ yt[mç ynaw yla μwlj [mçt hlwqb dxqp [a212p] ≥hryspt yl[ πqy alw μanmla [òxawtlaw rasknala qyrf yl[ πswy hbaòga ≥taòxmagla tamanmla tqp hmkj 7yla 6yntbsn ˆaflsla 5hya 4ay ˚na han[mw yd[lb laqp br yla hb ryçy yrygl yh lb yl hmkjla sylw sanla 8ryas yl[ ahb μòt ≥(wΔb ylçm) hmkj ˆty ywy yk hlwqk hmkjla bhaw wh yòdla ˆymla[la a[dy yòdla a[dla lybs yl[ lwq wh h[rp μwlç ta hn[y μyhla laq lwq 11ˆky μlw ≥hmalslab ˆaflsla byògy ˆa 10hlla lsa laqp 9≥˚wlmll ˆa arwa ˆkl μanmla rspy ˆsjy 12am hna yl[ ldy amm yd[lb πswy yl[ ldtsa hmalk 14h[rp [ms amlp 13òtw òbt hll hmatla hmkjla .hlwqk hyl[ μanmla ≈qb ydtbaw 15hlq[ lòxp

288

judeo-arabic texts

≥p Δwhya (5 ≥p Δatyl .ay (4 ≥p Δl[py .lòtm lm[y (3 ≥p Δμhnyb (2 ≥l Δyòdla (1 (11 ≥l Δtòòa (10 ≥p Δ˚lmll (9 ≥l Δatyl .ryas (8 ≥p Δyla[t (7 ≥p Δbsn (6 Δyla[t yrabll yh .òtw òbt hll (13 ≥l Δhna am .am hna yl[ (12 ≥l Δatyl .ˆky lòxp yl[ (15 ≥(wqjmn μylmh hrwakl) l Δatyl .h[rp [ms amlp (14 ≥l ≥p Δlqa[ lòxap hnab hyl[ .hlq[ 3.8 Sahl b. Maßlia˙, Commentary on Genesis 41:15–16 St. Petersburg, RNL, MS Yevr.-Arab. I:4633, fols. 112b, 115a–b [folios out of sequence]

˚yl[ yt[mç ynaw wta ˆya rtpW ytmlj μwlj πswy la h[rp rmayw (wfΔam) .wta rtpl μwlj [mçt rmal ˚n[ t[ms dqp anaw hl hsyl rspmw tmlj μlj πswy yla h[rp laqw .haya rysptl μanmla [mst alwq .h[rp μwlç ta hn[y μyhla yd[lb rmal h[rp ta πswy ˆ[yw (zfΔam) .h[rp hmalsb rmay ˆymla[la br yaws alwq h[rpl πswy baògaw ˆ[yw hl syl rspmw tmlj μljl ˚ty[d yna ˚lmla hl laq hyla lòkòd amlw ytm hnaw hryspt yp hamkj zòg[ hpr[yl wta ˆya rtpw hlwq yp yn[mlaw dq hamkj ˆa db alw hrdqw htògrd [prw μhfqsa rysptla wh laq hybç hnal swpnla hlbqt lwq 1ˆky μl hna ala rysptla ˆm yç wlaq djawla ˆak dqp aòxyaw [a115] alq[la ˆ[ apòkt al ytla hnògrzla htpntka πswy ryspt [ms¨ amlw hlwqy amk ròkala yl[ dry μhnm dyry ˚yl[ yt[mç ynaw hlwqw hrwròxlab hybç hl 2hlwqb ˆakw swpnla ˆmm tna sylw hrsptl μanmla [mst ˚na μyqçmh rç ˆm t[ms yna πswy hbaògap ≥zyymtla ˆm ˚yp aml ˚lòdw hryspt yl[ πqy alw h[msy yòdla ynal hlwqa am lòtmb ˚ytay syl 3ˆyrspmla ˆm yyaws ˆa hl laqw òqk hmkjla bhaw wh yòdla μyhla dn[ ˆm ahtyf[ hpr[mb wh hlwqa (h[r)p μwlç ta hn[y μyhla hd[b laqw ≥(yΔdx μylht) t[d μda dmlmh μyhla dn[ ˆm wh rysptla μl[ yp ahrkòdy ytla hpr[mla hòdh ˆa dyry a[dy amk a[dla lybs yl[ lwq whw ≥h[rp hmalsb rmay wh yòdla laynd hbçy amkjla d[b rsp hna yp òsla òl[ πswy rma ˆakw ≥˚wlmll ljm hl ˆwky ytj amkjla d[b hrspw hmanm rxndkwbnl rkòda yòdla (μyd)çklw (μypçk)mlw (μyp)çalw μymfrjl arql ˚lmh rmayw òqk μyòf[ ta arqyw h[rp jlçyw òqk lbq ˆm μhb a[d h[rp ˚aòdkw ≥(bΔb laynd) yògy μl batkla harq [b115] yp rxaçlb ˚aòdkw ≥(μyr)xm (ymf)rj lk hrm htdòg htklm hl tlaq am yl[ lbb amkj d[b ala laynd (ayΔh laynd) hb ˆyçydq ˆyhla jwr yd ˚twklmb rbg ytya raxndkwbn

judeo-arabic texts

289

laynd) hwjhy hrçpw yrqty laynd ˆ[k ahlwq whw laynd yla traçaw ˆm w[pry ytj larçy ymkj yla hlla μhògwja òg ˚wlm yp hòdhp ≥(byΔh laynd) aklm [rtb layndw òqk hbògaj hl[òg hnap laynd amap ≥μhrdq rça hnçmh tbkrmb wta bkryw òqòmk hryzw hl[òg dqp πswy amaw ≥(fmΔb hpr[mla hòdh h[m ˆa πswy lwq h[rp ([)ms dn[w ≥(gmΔam tyçarb) wl d[b hl dhç ˚aòdkw hmanm hyl[ ≈qw ròtka ˚lòd yp bgr hlla dn[ ˆm μyhla jwr laq amw ≥wb μyhla jwr rça çya hzk axmnh laqw hryspt (h[rp μwlç) ta hn[y μyhla yd[lb laq yòdla hlwql qydxt ala 4hn[ ylwq lòtmb ˚ytay syl amkjla ˆm yaws ˆa laq hna htjrç am yl[ ryòfn whw ≥μyhla dn[ ˆm yç wh lb yspn hhòg ˆm wh ana hlwqa yòdla alw laqw ≥(lΔb laynd) ayyj lk ˆm yb ytya yd amkjb al hnaw laynd lwq awhl yd hm rxndkwbn aklml [dwhw ˆyzr alg aymçb hla ytya μrb hd[b hç[ μyhlah rça ta πswy laq hlòtmw ≥(jkΔb laynd) (aymwy tyrjab) ≥(hkΔam tyçarb) h[rpl (dygh) ≥hn[y .yòòkb (4 ≥ˆyrspla .yòòkb (3 ≥ahlwqb .yòòkb (2 ≥ˆwky .yòòkb (1 3.9 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Genesis 41:8 Paris, BN MS Suppl. héb. 30/II (Cat. 278), fols. 209a–210a = p London, BL MS Or. 2463 (Cat. 257), fol. 101a = l

μyrxm ymfrj lk ta arqyw jlçyw wjwr μ[ptw rqbb yhyw (jΔam) (3.9.1) .h[rpl μtwa rtwp ˆyaw wmlj ta μhl h[rp rpsyw hymkj lk taw [b209p] hpsalp lkb 1y[dtsaw òt[bp hjwr tmtrkt jbxla yp ˆakw .hl 3amhrspm dògy μlw hmanm 2h[rp μhl ≈qp ahamkjw rxm alxa hysnw μan [ògrw lylla fswt yp hmanm yar 4rxndkwbn ˆa andògw μan hna yl[ ldp ≥(aΔb laynd) wyl[ htyhn wtnçw wjwr μ[ptw laq amk μhblafp ≥(hΔb laynd) adza ynm atlm laq hna μòt μanmla 5yar d[b μlw jbxla 7yp hbtna hna πr[ dqp h[rp amaw 6≥hrysptw μanmlab ròfanla har aòda μanmla ˆa whw ˆyyb ˚lòd yp yn[mlaw hmanm asny yp 9har aòdaw 8brqb hryspt jxy hna yl[ ldy ˚lòd ˆak jbxla brq 11 μanmla asny μl h[rp ˆa yp yn[mlaw ≥d[ba 10˚lòd ˆak lylla fswt syl brqlab jxy h[rp μanm 14ryspt ˆa aòxya wh 13hysn 12rxndkbnw hdm d[b μty 16hmanm 15rxndkwbn ˆak am lòtm hya yla ˚lòd [m ògatjy hwpr[y wrdqy μlw hb μymfrjla blafw μanmla 17hlla hasnap hlywf hjx yl[ 19rxndkwbnl hya μaqm ˚lòd ˆakw ≥layndl 18hlla hpçkw hrçp ˆmyhmw amlj byxyw òslaò[ laynd 20hl laq òmk hrysptw μanmla tamanmla hòdh 22rxndkwbnw h[rpl 21hlla arwaw ≥(hmΔb laynd)

290

judeo-arabic texts

yl[ ˆwpqyp har am πalòkb 24ahyna[m sanla ˆwry dq yòdla 23hlpqnmla [a210p] μanm harwa h[rp 25amap ≥haylwa lyòxpt yn[ml hryspt yòdla [wògla ˆyns yp hdalwaw bq[y aqblw πswy lyòxpt lòga ˆm qlgnm ˚lt yla glbw hl hrsp ytj πswy yla h[rp rarfòxa ˚lòd 26lxa ˆak dn[ ˆak ˆa yla hylaògla yp glb òslaò[ laynd ˚lòdkw ≥hyla[la hògrdla 29 ≥htklmm yyrbdm yl[ πrçm hl[ògw 28dwb[m μaqm 27rxndkwbn yl[ πqyl μanmla yp rkpa hna yl[ ldy wjwr μ[ptw hlwqw (3.9.2) 30 rxndkwbn ˚lòdkw ≥hjwr tmtrkt ˚lòdlp hyl[ πqy μlp hryspt yl[ h[rp πqy μl am dn[p ≥hmanm rkòdy μl am dn[ hjwr tmtrkt μhtròxjb ≈qp μymkjlaw μymfrjla 32arw òt[b 31μanmla lywat wlaq dq ˆwky ˆa ama 34rysptla yl[ μhnm 33djaw πqy μlp ≥μanmla yp qyrf μhl hògty μl 35ˆwky wa μhspna yp hjyjxt hògty μl yç taw μyrxm ymfrj lk ta hlwqw ≥hyl[ wpqw am μhna 36wrrqp hryspt μfrjlaw ≥hròxja ytj 37μkj alw μfrj qby μl hna yl[ ldy hymkj lk tamanmla ryspt rxby wh yòdla μkjla hqbf qwp htqbfw πwslypla wh μh μymkjlaw ˆyòdw[çmlaw arjsla μh μymfrjla 38ˆa lyqw ≥fqp μlp lyyjbw hnògrzb wlwqy al yòdla tamanmla 39yrspm hpsalpla ldy μybr ˆwçlb μtwa rtwp ˆyaw hlwqw 41≥ylwah alw 40ylwah al wrbòky ≥a[ymòg ˆymanmla yl[ wpqy μl μhna yl[ ≥l Δhyar (5 ≥l Δraxndkbn (4 ≥p Δamwhrspm (3 ≥l Δˆw[rp (2 ≥l Δa[dtsaw (1 .brqb ≥ ≥ ≥ ldy ˚lòd (8 ≥l Δ[m (7 ≥p Δatyl .hrysptw μanmlab μhblafp (6 .har aòdaw (9 ≥l Δbrqb jxy hryspt ˘p Δhryspt jxy hna yl[ ldy ˚lòd Δraxndkwbnw (12 ≥l Δhasny .μanmla asny (11 ≥l Δatyl .˚lòd (10 ≥l Δˆak ˆaw .hmanm (16 ≥l Δraxndkwbn (15 ≥l Δatyl .ryspt (14 ≥l Δhmanm asn (13 ≥l (21 ≥l Δatyl .hl (20 ≥l Δraxndkwbnl (19 ≥l Δtòòa (18 ≥l Δtòòa (17 ≥p Δatyl (25 ≥l Δamhyn[m (24 ≥p Δhplqnmla (23 ≥l Δraxndkwbnw (22 ≥l Δlògw z[ + (29 ≥p Δdwb[mla (28 ≥l Δraxndkwbn (27 ≥l Δatyl .lxa (26 ≥p Δaòxyap ≥l Δyla (32 ≥l Δhlywat .μanmla lywat (31 ≥l Δraxndkwbn (30 ≥l Δhklmmla ≥p Δl Δwrqp (36 ≥p Δatyl .ˆwkw ≥ ≥ ≥ hògty μl (35 ≥l Δhryspt (34 ≥l Δdja (33 (41 ≥l Δyalah (40 ≥p Δˆyrspm (39 ≥p Δμhna (38 ≥p Δμkjw .μkj alw (37 ≥l Δyalah 3.10 Sahl b. Maßlia˙, Commentary on Genesis 41:5–7 [excerpt] St. Petersburg, RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I:4633, fol. 109a–b

syl hròfn yòdla μanmla ˆa wh hmanm hasna hlla ˆa yp bbsla ˆakw lwd hyp ˆal hlywf rwhd yla ˆyby lylq wh lb hmaya yp hlk rspty hl hwrspy hamkj wnak dql μanmla asny μl ˆak wlp ytat lwdw yòxmt ytj hysny ˆa μykjla yarp hyp μhlwq hjx πr[y wh ˆak amw wry amk

judeo-arabic texts

291

tnak dqw hryspt hjx ˆm hlwqy am yl[ lyld haya hrkòda am ˆwky (lwqy) whw (dΔb laynd) (aw)jn (ar)çpw (˚ydb)[l (amlj r)ma lwqt hamkj

yl wrma amlj ˆhl òqk wrbòkt rysptla ˆa μl[a ytj μanmla 1awlwq laq μanmla laynd hrkòda amlw (fΔb laynd) ynnwjht hrçp yd [dnaw wh yn[mla ˆm htjtw μanmla wh aòdh (wlΔb laynd) amlj hnd [b109] (ar)çpw ˚db[l hmlj rma ˆwlwqy ˆak amk hryspt wlwqy ytj μhrma dn[p ≥aklm μdq (rm)an hrçpw laynd laq ˚lòd ˆ[ μhzòg[ dn[p ≥(aw)jn òd d[b ˚lmla ˆaw ˆyqy 2qyqj hna laq am ryasb ˆqya hl hrsp am yla ròkaty yç hsyl h[rp μanm ˆak amlw larçy ynb yla dw[y yòxmt lwd πswy lwq ˆm ˆyby πws rysptla hrwx ˆal haya hrkòdy ˆa zaòg hlywf hdm ala μty al hryspt ˆal lylla lwa yp raxndkwbn μanm ˆakw ≥òsla ò[ aòdhw ≥(aΔb laynd) (wy)l[ htyhn wtnçw wjwr μ[pt(t)w ≥ryòtk ˆyns yla wtnçw laq ˚lòdl ryòtk ˆamz lylla ˆm yqb dqw hmanm rxba hna ldy ròka yp hròfn brq ˆ[ ògròkw hryspt ˆak aml h[rp μanmw ≥wyl[ htyhn lylla ròka yp hna ldy aòdhw wjwr μ[ptw rqbb yhyw hlwql ˆak lylla ≥hlwql ˆak ≥qqj .yòòkb (2 ≥yòòk Δlwq whw .awlwq (lwqy) whw (1 3.11 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Isaiah 21:6–8 St. Petersburg, RNL MS Yevr. I.568 [unnumbered folios]

˚lsm òdòka ˆkal hpltòkm qrf ahyp aml[la òdòka dqp ahlywat amaw yòdla aòdh ˆa lwqap ≥blafla hyl[ πqyl raxtòkab hmòfnaw byrq djaw yòdla twlg ylykçm μh hbdydla yl[ hmyqy ˆa ybnla hb ò[t hlla rma ≈rp yrdwg ˚rd ymymt μhnab μhpxw yòdla twlgla ròka yp hlla μhmyqy ytla tamal[la ˆm ò[t hlla batk yp am μhtpr[m ˆm wbdydy μhw hpxmh dm[h laq ˚lòdlp ≥wnyby μylykçmhw òwqk twlgla ròka yp rhòfts μl[ dq yòdla μhryg ˆwd μhyla hxqla òda [D:Wym ˆwçlb hpxmh laqw ≥ògrpla tqw yla srjla ˆ[ wlwzy alw wbdydyw wsrjy μhna μhnm ò[t hlla μyrmç ytdqph μlçwry ˚ytwmwj l[ òwqb ròka [òxwm yp why[çy jrç dqw ˆybdydm rahnw lyl ˆyylxm μwq μh μypxmla ˆa πr[p ≥(wΔbs hy[çy) ògw wh hpxmla ˆa μòt ˆyybw hpxm l[ anhah laqp ≥larçy t[wçy [b00πd] ≥ywy ta μyrykzm μhna μòt ˆyybw hyra arqyw anhah laqw ≥μlçwry twmwj al dymt hlylh lkw μwyh lk μòt laqw dymt dm[ ykna anhah laqw μhlyòtmt amap ≥μydm[ hyra hpxm ayça hòtlòtb μhlòtmw ≥wçjy tamal[law ò[t hlla dy[awm μypxm μhna lòga ˆm ˚aòdk hpxmlab ˆamz d[b ˆamz larçy ad[a yp ahl[py amm hbatk yp ahrkòd ytla hyrab μhlòtmw ≥μlçwry hram[w z[law hlwdla ˆm hb μhd[w am ryasw

292

judeo-arabic texts

˚alh ò[t hlla ˆm wblfyw tawlxla yp wdyzy μhnal ahdja yna[ml ≥ ≥ ≥ ≥hsyrpla blfl [bsla dyzy amk μmala 3.12 Sahl b. Maßlia˙, Commentary on Genesis 41, Muqaddima [excerpt] St. Petersburg, RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I:4633, fol. 100a–b

ahtmdqmw ≈qm yhyw hçarp ahwltyw yyy ˚wrb bq[y bçyw hçrp hlmk (fl μylht) (ynw)çlb (aw)fjm ykrd hrmça ytrma wh rymazmla ˆm (hΔby laynd) (μyrja μynç hnhw) laynd yna ytyarw wh lwxpla ˆm ahtmdqmw .anlwq wh ahyl[ rdxlaw μhpla yf[mw μkjla ypra[l hmkjla bhaw larçy hala hlla ˚rabt laynd) (hnyb y[)dyl (a[dn)mw ˆymykjl atmkj bhy òqk μhpla bajxal μl[m ˆajbsp ≥(wΔb ylçm) hnwbtw t[d wypm hmkj ˆty yyy yk laqw (akΔb hmdqla hl ˆm ˚rabt hmyhbla ˆ[ μhlòxpmw hpr[mla sanla hybwbrlab rqwtmla hmòf[lab drpnmla hbyhlaw raqwlaw hylzalaw fyjt alw μhwl rxjny alw ˚rdyU alw sjyU al yòdla hlyald ˆm πwr[mla ˆyrkpmla rkp hglbt alw [b100] sawjla hglbt alw lwq[la hb hnsla hqjlt alw taraçala hyla lxt alw tahògla hnmòxtt alw (wtyr)bw wyaryl yyy dws òqk tabyaglab μhrbòkmw hdyb[l rarsala πçak yrwy aòdhw ≥(blΔg ylçm) wdws μyrçy taw laqw (dyΔhk μylht) (μ[ydw)hl (hç)[y al yk laq am yl[ aybnall hpçky amk hrs ayqtall πçky hna ˚aòdkw ≥(zΔg swm[) (μyay)bnh (wydb)[ la (wdw)s hlg μa yk rbd yyy (yn)da wnyby μ[ ylykçmw òqk ˆydçrmla hylagla aml[ yla hpçky ≈qla μl[ ˚lòd wlsy am yl[ whw (yΔby μç) μy[çr lk wnyby alw (glΔay laynd) μybrl abnw [dwh ˆk wnymy twnml (x μylht) hçml hlpt rwmzm yp òqk hlla ˆm hçrplab qyly wh yòdla rwmzmla aòdh yp laqw (by qwsp) (hm)kj bbl ˆa πr[y ytj hlwa ˆm hjrç yp adba anaw (hΔfl μylht) yxq yyy yn[ydwh hbab yp hkyalmla hlyast yòdla ≈qla μl[ yl[ wh rwmzmla aòdh darm hna bawògla [qww (wΔby laynd) twalph ≈q ytm d[ aòdhl aòdh laqw ≥(z Δμç Δμç) ≈pn (tw)lkkw yxjw μyd[m d[wml l[ tsswbm hmdqmh μlwaw ≥zΔy laynd ˚çmh awhw ≥armh ta ydbl .yòòkb (1 μylçh alw ˆak qyt[mh h[fç ˆktyw ≥μç z qwsp djwymbw òwkw hΔby laynd alw + .yòòk (4 ≥dqwtmla .yòòkb (3 ≥htmkj .yòòkb (2 ≥hnwknk qwsph ta ≥tansla .yòòkb (6 ≥qyt[mh yòò[ hqjmn ylwaw tçfçwfm hlmh (5 ≥sawjla hglbt ≥wh amhna .yòòkb (7

judeo-arabic texts

293

4.1 Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on Song of Songs 3:8 Manuscript: St. Petersburg, RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I:3959, fol. 5a

djaw lk sylw adyg hxyw[ μyryçh ryç yna[m ˆa yòka (a)y μl[t ˆa bògyw brqa jrça amnaw aml[ ˆ[ yzòg[b rqmp aòxya anaw ahlywat yl[ rsgy flg yl ydg ˆaw laqy ˆkmy hna tml[ amw aml[la lwq ˆm hyla tlxw am yp dxqa syl ynal wymjr bwrm yl rpgy twabx yyy anap tbòta am yp hbjm yla μhlwbq {lwbq} byrqtw larçy h[pnm ala htbòta am [ymòg μwqw ramòglab μwq hn[ ˆylpagtm μhara ynal lyzntla batk μwl[ μhkyrjtb hybç btkla hòdh tl[ògp ayndla ça[mb μwqw ynarbla btkb hlla btkb lagtçala hbwçtla lwa ˆa yml[l lògw z[ hlla batk yla hqyrfla hòdh larçy wlm[tsa aòdaw ≥hnm jxy amb lm[law hyp ròfnlaw wç[w fpçm [b5] wrmç ywy rma hk laq amkw h[wçyla ròfn wqjtsa ≥(aΔwn hy[çy) ògw awbl yt[wçy hbwrq yk hqdx 4.2 Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on Song of Songs, Introduction Manuscripts: St. Petersburg, RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.1406, fols. 1a–2a St. Petersburg, RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.4252, fol. 3a St. Petersburg, RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.3958, fol. 19b

= a = b = g

spna yp lam[ala ˆa yrabla μwl[m yp qbs 1aml rspmla laq ≥ajna òg yl[ hbatk lzn hpltòkm 2{ahna yl[ hbatk lyznt} dab[la rabòkalak ˚aòd 3aml[la ògatjy yòdla ò≈jmla rhaòfla ahnm lwala ògatjy yòdla ò≈jmla ˆfabla ynaòtlaw 4≥dy[wlaw d[wlaw yhnlaw rmalaw yp μhspna wdkyw hòxarga jrç yp wpflyw hyna[m wxòkly aml[la ryç lòtm ˆpla adhw ˚lòd yl[ bawòtla ˆm zwpla wlanyl hdyawp rahòfa lògw z[ hlzny yjw wh òtlaòtla wjnlaw ≥hryspt yl[ 5lm[n yòdla μyryçh lòtm ˚lòd hybn dy yl[ hjrçy jrçb ala hdxq [b1a] μl[y al ˆfab yl[ bògyw (aΔh hy[çy) ògw wmrkl ydwd tryç ydydyl an hryça hlwq ˆky μl wlw 6πyrç sypn batk μyryçh ryç rps ˆa wml[y ˆa ˆyml[tmla rps ˆyrç[w h[brala òhlmòg yp aybnala htbòtt μl ˆòda aòdkh batk btky 7lòxapla òslaò[ μykjla ˆmyls lòtm ˆky μlw hlznmla ahb [ptny h[pnmw dyawpw hmkj yhw ala lyarsa ynb hma hòtrawtt hlwqb hlwa yp hrydxt ˚lòd yl[ lyldlaw hmala ˆm μa[law ≈aòkla yp ahb rdxmla tawbnla ò≈apla ryas lòtm hmlçl rça μyryçh ryç tn[l tljm l[ jxnml jrq ynbl rwmzm ryç [a2a] ˆmp ahlyawa jattpa

294

judeo-arabic texts

μyhla ybl ˆwkn dwdl rwmzm ryç ˚aòdkw ≥(jp μylht) yjrzah ˆmhl lykçm amlp (dlq-kq μylht) twl[mh yryç òwòf [a3b] ˚aòdkw (jq μylht) ògw hb dxqmla ˆaw πyrç batkla [b1g] aòdh ˆa μl[ ryç hòfplab rdx arqmla [ymòg yp ryç hòfpl hqyqj hòdh ˆal h[apçw blfw hlla [dy]çn ≥hll dyçnla ahb dxqla (3 ≥hla μylym fymçhl çy harnk .gÈa Δ{ahna yl[ hbatk lyznt} (2 ≥a Δamlw (1 (6 ≥a Δlm[m (5 ≥b19 òm[ èg yòòk ˆak d[ (4 ≥a Δatyl .aml[la ògatjy yòdla ≥a Δyòdlab+ (7 ≥a Δπwrç

4.3 Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on Songs of Songs 5:10 St. Petersburg, RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.1406, fol. 5a–b [The folio is out of sequence and should follow folio 124.]

= a

˚l tjrç amk lòtmla lybs yl[ hlk rpsla aòdh ˆa μl[t ˆa bògyw lybs yl[ (ala) ba yrabla ˆa laqy ˆa lq[la dn[ sylw ≥μdqt amyp hmjlm çya yyy (hl)wqk yylw [b5] hna laqy ˆa alw qlaòkw rbdm hna μalkla ˆm anbatk πxy am lkp zyaòg ˚lòd ˆak aòdaw (gΔwf twmç) ˆa μkjy lq[la ˆak òda lògw z[ hla[pa yla [ògar han[mp ynamsògla ym law (hl)wq[b] ˚lòdb dhçy batklaw lantp hpx hl syl yrabla yl[ yh amna ahlk tapxla hòdh [ymòg ˆap ≥(jyΔm hy[çy) ògw la ˆwymdt (hkr)bl (μnwr)kz (μym)kjla wlaq amkw anlwq[ yla byrqtla lybs lyòtmtla lybs yl[w hla[pa yla hdwdrm yhw μda ynb ˆwçlk hrwth hrbd ≥batkla aòdh rdx yp tjòxwa amk 4.4 Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on Song of Songs, Introduction St. Petersburg, RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.1406, fols. 7b–8a

= a

aòdh yp rykòdtlab hyla raçm òfpl ˆm tròfn am lk ˆa ˆala lwqap yla μyryçh ryç lwa ˆm yrabla amhdja ˆyan[m hb dwxqmlap rpsla dwxqmla rpsla ròka yla bwfh ˆyyk ˚kj ˆmw (yΔz çòòhç) bwfh ˆyyk ˚kjw yla ahb raçmlap hòtnwm hòfpl ˆm ˆak am lkw dwd ˆb jyçm yla hb ≥larçy [a8]

judeo-arabic texts

295

4.5 Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on Song of Songs 1:13 St. Petersburg, RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.1406, fols. 45a–46a

= a

ˆm tap am yl[ ahpsat alwa πxw aml larçy tsnk lwq aòdh (4.5.1) ˆzj ˆm πxw amkw ≥ògw wçdqm ran wjbzm yyy jnz òwqk yyy jbzmw ˆybarqla yk laqw Δògw jbzm ytrçm wlylyh μynhkh wdpsw wrgj hlwq dn[ μynhkla Δyl ydwd rwmh rwrx Δlaqp ˚lòd yla lxwa Δ˚snw hjnm μkyhla tybm [nmn hrhaòf hlwdla tnak Δμybwrkh ynç ˆyb ˆkas hraqw ˆak aml ˆa yn[y lqtna amlw hlmak tada[sla [ymògw ad[ala yl[ h[qaw hbyhlaw hyp yqlaw tybla bròkp ahlk lawjala tblqna yyy lkyh ˆm raqwla byòxq rsknaw hlwdla tlazw μynhkla wlògw ˆybarqla tlfbw ranla anyqb ytj ˚lwmla [b45] ˆya μyrwm {μyzwr} ˆyaw μyaybn ˆya yyy ytrçm ˆyaw rç ˆyaw ˚lm ˆya (4.5.2) μybwrk ˆyaw yyy dwbk ˆya μyrfwç ˆyaw μyfpwç ˆya t[d y[dy ˆyaw μymkj ˆyaw jbzm ˆyaw rxj ˆyaw μlwa ˆya rybd ˆyaw lkyh ˆya wydb ˆyaw ˆwra ˆya ˆya μyawlm ˆyaw μyjsp ˆya μynmç ˆyaw ˚sn ˆya hnwbl ˆyaw hjnm ˆbrq jbz ˆya μça ˆyaw tafj ˆya μyrwa ˆyaw dwpa ˆya twrç[m ˆyaw twrwkb μymsh trfq ˆyaw hjçmh ˆmç ˆya μytbh ˆyaw μynph μjl ˆya hbxm ˆyaw μyr[wç ˆyaw μyjxnm ˆyaw μyngnm ˆyaw μyrrwçm ˆya μytpwm ˆyaw twtwa ˆya hkya) ògw d[wm yab ylbm twlba ˆwyx ykrd μyggwj ˆyaw μylgr ylw[ ˆya ytbçhw ≈rah çwçm hlg hjmç lk hbr[ hjmç [a46] ˆyaw ˆwçç ˆya (dΔa hçwçm lk ytbçhw hjmç lwqw ˆwçç lwq μlçwry twxwjmw hdwhy yr[m ≥wnybl çwçm tbç 4.6 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Song of Songs 1:2 London, BL MS Or. 2513 (Cat. 302), fol. 47a–b Ed. Bargès, 5

= b = d

ydy ˆyb μylykçm td[ lwq (ahdj)òa bwròx òd yl[ ryçla aòdh ˆa μl[a zaògna hlstw ahylaw ahamdq yla hnasjaw hla[pa πxt (ˆymla)ò[la br la[pa μhl πxtw ahlaj yktçt μlçwry twnb hlwqt lwq òblaw ≥hdy[awm ahòx[b hmala lwq òglaw ≥hdy[awm blfw ht[af yp μhbgrtw hlla [b47] ≥(jΔj çòòhç) hnfq wnl twja lxp lòtm ahjlaxm wh am yp ò≈[bl aòxyaw μhbwlfmw μhlws yl[ μylykçmll lògw z[ yrabla bawòg òdlaw lxp lk yp jrçns amk μhbtarmw μht[af tqw yp μhlamògw μhnsj πxy ≥rpsla aòdh ò≈rg lmòg aòdhp

296

judeo-arabic texts

4.7 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Song of Songs 6:11 London, BL MS Or. 2513 (Cat. 302), fol. 132a–b Ed. Bargès, 90–91

= b = d

tròg πyk hyp rkòdy ròka lxp yp òdòkaw [b132] lxpla ˚lòd ahtna lk lwxp òg μyryçh ryç yp hna ˚lòdw ha[ybr wklm ròka yp larçy rwma lxpla ≥h[wçyla yla yhtnyw ˆamzla 1ˆm tqw ˆm hb ydtby ahnm djaw ˆm wh ˆamzla ˚lòd y(a)dtbaw (aΔg çòòhç) twlylb ybkçm l[ wh lwala (bΔh çòòhç) hnçy yna òbla lxplaw ≥hanjrç amk ynç tyb baròk d[b ˆamz ròka yp wh ògla lxpla aòdhw hanjrç amk μydçk twklm ˆm hlwaw ≥hjrçns amk ha[ybr wklm ≥d Δlwa ˆm (1 4.8 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Song of Songs 2:6 London, BL MS Or. 2513 (Cat. 302), fol. 67b Ed. Bargès, 27

= b = d

h[bta μòt yna hbha tlwj yp wlaq ≥ynqna[t hnymyw ysar tjt hlamç μhmòxt hlamçw hnymy tnak ˆm yla wqatçy μhna wpr[p hlamçb yl[ ynbm 1ryç hna rpsla hyl[ ynb am wh lwqla aòdh ˆm rhaòflap lògrla μòxyp djaw raza tjt a[mtògy amhnaç ˆm ˆa ˚lòdw hçaw çya hna (ahdj)a hwògw hògty ˚lòd yp lywatlaw hlamçw hnymyb htmrj hna whw byrq whw ròka lwqw ≥ ≥ ≥ μwrdw ˆwpx ˆm μhdlb ythòg ˆm μhnwxy ˆwpx yla lbbw rwça yklm ahalòga ylwala hwlògla ˆyytwlògla rkòd ˆwn[y ògw [y]çarl tjt wlamç laqp ˆmyt yla μwda ahalòga hynaòtlaw ˆwçar tyb yp wlògna yòdla (lar)çy lmç [mògy ˆa ˆyblfm ˆyqatçm ana [a]ml[ll rysapt hyp yqb dqw wnymy yl[ wlamç wmdq ˚lòdlw ynç tybw ≥ahtrxtòka ˚lòdl d[b ahyp b Δryçy (1 4.9 Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on Song of Songs 1:9 St. Petersburg, RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.1406, fol. 42a–b

= a

πr[y ˆa dxq hna h[rp ybkrb ytswsl yn[m yp ròka rspm laq dqw ˚lhaw twa μhl rhòfa hlla h[af yla w[ògr ytm μhna hylaògla lha hkmr hrwx rjbla yp rhòfa òda πws μy t[yrq μwy l[p amk μhad[a

judeo-arabic texts

297

sws hlwq yp aòdh yp lw[w ˆyyrxmla hw[btw h[rp srp ah[btp hbqn lxaw ≥rjbla yp rhòfaw [pr hmr yn[mp laq μyb [b42] hmr wbkwrw ≥[dwy yyw ˆynwbrl lwqla aòdh 4.10 Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on Song of Songs 1:9 St. Petersburg, RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.1406, fol. 40b–41b

= a

μkyabal trhòfa amk ògrpla μkl rhòfa ynap yt[af μtl[p ˆa μkna yty[r ˚ytymd hlwqw ≥ ≥ ≥ hmwqw h[rp tklha amk μkad[a [a41] ˚lhaw òwqk ytay amyp μkn[ braja ˚aòdk μkbbsb rxm lha tbraj amk yn[y [b41] amkw ≥(gΔdy hyrkz) brq μwyb wmjlh μwyk μhh μywgb μjlnw yyy axyw wbkrb h[rp sws ab yk òwqk μdqt amyp ˆyyrxmla lyyòk [ymòg tklha ytay amyp ad[ala lyyòk lk ˚lhy ˚aòdk (fyΔwf twmç) ògw μyb wyçrpbw larçy lòtm amkw ≥(dΔby hyrkz) ògw sws lk hka yyy μwan awhh μwyb òwqk (wfΔg qwqbj) ògw ˚ysws μyb tkrd òwqk πws μy yp μhzawòg tqw lyòklab tyb ta wrd[ ta (twabx) yyy dqp yk lwqy òda ytay amyp lòtm ˚aòdk ≥ ≥ ≥ ≥(gΔy hyrkz) hmjlmb wdwh swsk μtwa μçw hdwhy 4.11 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Song of Songs 1:9 London, BL MS Or. 2513 (Cat. 302), fol. 56a Ed. Bargès, 14–15

= b = d

rjbla yp hkmr rhòxa hlla ˆa aml[la ò≈[b hlaq am aòxya lmtjyw tyraç lòtmp ≥μhbf[ bbs ˚lòd ˆakp ahwblf h[rp sws ahròfn amlp ≥ ≥ ≥ ≥ˆwklhyp μhyla μywgla balògtsa bbs wnwky μhnal ahb larçy 4.12 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Song of Songs 5:7 London, BL MS Or. 2513 (Cat. 302), fols. 114b–115b = b Ed. Bargès, 73 = d Mann, Texts and Studies, 2:89–90 = m (Mann published the text from St. Petersburg, RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.13869, but failed to identify the author.)

μyrbjla bryb ynb ylaw ˆynaydla yla hb ryçy μyrmçh ynwaxm òwqp ròfnlaw yhnlaw rmala μhlw qyaspla òdòka yp ˆadlbla ˆwpwfy ˆyòdla [a115] μhyla ˆyblafla yalwh rbòk πçkna amlp sanla rwma yp hbhaç ta wlaqp μhnnsw μhday[a wplaòk yòdla πalòkla hògw ˆ[ μhwlas

298

judeo-arabic texts

ˆm ht[yrç yp hlla hnmòx am μl[ μkdn[ syl ˆa han[mw μtyar yçpn ahyp amb l[pnw ahn[ òtjbn ala zwògy πykp hlljw hmrj amw ò≈yarpla ˆ[w μhyhnw μhrma ˆ[ ˆwògròky μhna wml[ μhnm μalkla aòdh w[ms amlp μhyl[ hmala wdspyw μhwplaòky al ytj μhbròx yla wrdabp μhqwqj rhòf yòdla twlgla ˆadlb ˆm dlb lk yp ˆa πwr[m rwhçm rbòk aòdhw wpr[p ynw[xp ynwkh laq ˚lòdlp rwmala hòdh μhyl[ tròg ˆyyarqla hyp lkw ˆyswbjm ˆybwròxm μhna hrhaòf yl[ lwq whw ˆwògçyw ˆwbròxy μhna yrmwç l[p rkòd μòt μyrmwçla l[p aòdhp μhnm μhyl[ yrògy πòks μhnns yl[ hmala wòfpjy yòdla byaòtmlaw òtylawògla aswr μh twmwjh yrmwç hlznmb wrax ˚lòdlp μhn[ ògròky djal wqlfy alw μhta[wòxwmw 1 μhnwmtçy amb μhrts ˚th wh ydydr ta waçn μhlwqw [b115] twmwjh hòdh ylap ˆzj alw jrp alw ˆatòk μhl ròxjt h[amògla ˆwlòky alw al ytj μhb hnwl[py ˚lòd lkw yl[m ydydr ta waçn òwqb ryçy yna[mla μhwltqyp ˆyfalsla yla μhb w[s ambrlw μht[amòg μhyl[ dspnt ≥twmwjh yrmwç la[pa hòdhp ≥h Δμhnwtmsy ˘m èd Δμhnwmtçy (1 4.13 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Song of Songs 2:12 London, BL MS Or. 2513 (Cat. 302), fols. 73b Ed. Bargès, 31–32

= b = d

yla twlgla ˆm ˆwyògy ˆyòdla ˆwyx ylba qdxh ylya yla hb ryçy rwth lwqw μawdla yl[ μynwnjtw hlpt çqblw μl[ll μhspna wdrpyw larçy ≈ra dysla laq μhn[w ≥h[wçyla μhl rhòft ˆa yla ˚lòd ˆ[ ˆwrtpy alw wntt law ≥òwgw μyrmwç ytdqph μylçwry ˚ytwmwj l[ òsla hyl[ why[çy hnaw Δμwl[la blfb μhspna wpxw ˆyòdla ˚rd ymymt μhw ≥òwgw wl ymd ≥πskw bhz yplam ˚yp trwt yl bwf .hlwqk lawmala πwla ˆm lòga μhdn[ òwgw πçnb ytmdq òwgw hlyl twxj òwgw hlylb ytrkz .hlwqk ˆwbyanla μhw ≥rwth lwq laq ˚lòdlw ≥òwgw μyrmwçm òhl yçpn òwgw twrwmça yny[ wmdq

judeo-arabic texts

299

5.1 Levi b. Japheth, Treatise on Prayer (al-qawl fì ’l-ßalàt) Manuscript: Levi’s liturgy is found towards the end of his Treatise; see G. Vajda, “La Lex Orandi de la communauté karaïte d’après Lévi ben Yefet,” REJ 134,1–2 (1975): 41–42. The text below has been transcribed from London, BL MS Or. 2564 (Cat. 308/II), fol. 18ab, which is written in an Arabic naskhi hand; Hebrew words are rendered according to masoretic orthography rather than the transcription system of the manuscript. [a18] rymazm ahd[bw h[amògll ytla rymazmla μdqy ˆa ˆsjyw ≥ ≥ ≥ (13) h[wr (dm μylht) wn[mç wnynzab μyhla lòtm h[amògll ytlap ≥dajala sdqla rymazm lkla lbqw ≥(x μylht) hçml hlpt (p μylht) larçy ≥(f[ μylht) μywg wab μyhla (d[ μylht) jxnl tjnz μyhla hml lòtm arqa ywy ˚yla (hk μylht) aça yçpn ywy ˚yla lòtm dajala rymazmw ˆsjy ˚lòdkw [b18]≥ ˚lòd snaòg amw (wp μylht) dwdl hlpt (jk μylht) sylw ≥ˆamzla bytrt yl[ tw[wçyla rymazm yl[ twlgla rymazm μdqy ˆa ˆap ≥hçml hlpt lòtm hnmzalaw h[amògla rwma [mògy am rymazmla yp bwf yk ywyl wdwhw dyjwtla qysawp alxw raxtòkala ròtaw lgç ò≈r[ (hmq μylht) dwdl hlhtb h[btaw ˆabrqla lxpw (wlq μylht) rybkla (x μylht) hçml hlptw (f[ μylht) μywg wab μyhlaw twnyqla qysawpw ròtka yl[ yta dqw (òwgw y Δfk a yòòhd) dwd ˚rbyw (wp μylht) dwdl hlptw ≥darmla Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms Manuscripts:

a New York, Jewish Theological Seminary of America ( JTSA): MS Mic 3349 [ENA 95]: text, translation, commentary to Ps 73–89. MS Mic 3350 [ENA 96]: text, translation, commentary to Ps 42–72; 90–106. MS Mic 3351 [ENA 97]: text, translation, commentary to Ps 107–150.

b London, British Library (BL) MS Or. 2551 (Cat. 290). Fragments in Arabic characters. Ps 79 only.

300

judeo-arabic texts

p Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale (BN): MS Suppl. héb. 37/I (Cat. 286): text, translation, and commentary to Ps 1–41. MS Suppl. héb. 37/II (Cat. 287): text, translation, and commentary to Ps 42–72. MS Suppl. héb. 37/III (Cat. 288): text, translation, and commentary to Ps 73–106. MS Suppl. héb. 37/IV (Cat. 289): text, translation, and commentary to Ps 107–150. 5.2 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalm 74:1 Manuscripts: New York, JTSA MS Mic 3349 [ENA 95], fols. 16b–18a. Paris, BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/III (Cat. 288), fols. 13a–14a.

ˆaxb ˚pa ˆç[y jxnl tjnz μyhla hml πsal lykçm (aΔd[) (5.2.1) .˚ty[rm .˚ty[r μng yp ˚bòxg ˆòkdty hyagll tlòdòk br ay aòd aml πsal dçr hlwdla ˆm μhyl[ yrògy am μdqtmla rwmzmla yp ykç hna [b13p] μl[a rwmzmla aòdh ypw (gΔg[ òht) μyllwhb ytanq yk yp anlq amk h[barla ˆm aòxya μhyl[ yrògy amw 2μydçk twklm ˆm μhyl[ 1yròg am lk [mòg μyhla ytm d[ yla (gΔd[ òht) ˚ym[p hmyrh ˆmp [a17a] ≥ha[ybr twklm yla ytm d[ ˆmw 3μydçk ˆm μhyl[ yròg am ywkç wh (yΔd[ òht) rx πrjy hypw ≥ha[ybr wklm ˆm μhyl[ yrògy ˆwky am hyp ˆwkçy rwmzmla ròka hwsògn dq wnak òda sdqla yn[m yp hòxrg ˆak hna wh amhdja .ˆyyan[m μyhla wprjy ˆymyqm μhw amyad hwsògny la[mçy ˚lòdkw hwqrjaw μydçk rkòd hna ynaòtlaw ≥(y qwsp) jxnl ˚mç bywa ≈any òwqk 4wmç wxanyw ≥amhnyb ˆafswtmla ˆaklmla lòkdy ytj ˆyynaprfla ˆyklmla πyk larçy tyraçl μyl[tw dçr hyp òda lykçm hnawn[ yp laq (5.2.2) ≥μhsdq lajw μhlaj ryygt hnwlsyw 5ò[t hlla yla μhawkç ˆw[pry òyys lwq lòtm a[dlaw hlsmla yrògm yrògy μyhla hml hlwqw (5.2.3) twmç) μyrxm wrmay hml (ayΔbl twmç) ˚pa hrjy ywy hml òsla ò[ hçm ˚lm ˆm μhyl[ yròg am hyp [b17a] [mògy jxnl tjnz hlwqw ≥(byΔbl tlxw ytj hnw[mla ˚rt wh tjnz yn[mw ≥anyahtna òtyj yla μydçk [a14p] taqwa yla hb ryçy ˚pa ˆç[y hlwqw μhyp μhdarm yla ad[ala

judeo-arabic texts

301

ˆak yòdla lbb ˚lm dyb ywy çdqm baròk tqw ahlwap ≥hb[xla dyadçla yp [mògp (ayΔd hkya) ògw wtmj ta ywy hlk hlwqk ywy πa ˆwrj ˆm ˚lòd yp whp μyqm wh yç lkp hylaògla yp μhyl[ yrògy am lk qwspla 6aòdh lkw twllqla ryasw (zfΔjk òbd) ry[b hta rwra lòtm jxnl tjnz hlwq ˆwblafy taqwaw ˆytybla baròk lòtm taqwala ò≈[b yp μhyl[ yrògy yç 7 ˚ty[rm ˆaxb ˚pa ˆç[y hlwq yp hòdh lk hrdaxmla tqww ˆydla ˚rtb ˆax μh hmala hòdh ˆa 8yrwy lwqlab qqryl ˚ty[rm ˆaxb hlwqw syl yòdla μngla lòtm ˚aws rbdm μhl [a18a] sylp wnak òdnm ˚ty[rm ≥ahnwxyw ahrbdy qpçmla y[arla amnaw ahspn ahrbdt (6 ≥p Δatyl (5 ≥jy qwsp hwwçh (4 ≥a Δμydsk (3 ≥a Δμydsk (2 ≥a Δyraòg (1 ≥p Δydwy ˘aΔwdwy >yòòkbw ≥yrwy lòòx (8 ≥p Δatyl >˚ty[rm ˆaxb (7 ≥p Δhòdh

5.3 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalm 74:10 Manuscripts: New York, JTSA MS Mic 3349 [ENA 95], fols. 23b–24a. Paris, BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/III (Cat. 288), fols. 18b–19a.

>jxnl ˚mç bywa ≈any rx πrjy μyhla ytm d[ (y) >hyagla yla ˚msa wd[la ò≈pry μdaxmla ry[y hlla ay ytm yla twlgla lwaft dn[ ytm d[ wlaqp ha[ybr wklm ˆm μhlaj ywkç aòdh ˆyyçla ˆyòdh yp wd[la μhyl[ πrja dq òda wrògòx dqw ≈qla d[bw whp πrjy amap [a19p] ≥≈any πrjy [a24a] amhw qwspla yp ˆyrwkòdmla ˚lòd [m μhl ˆwlwqyw alblaw lòdla ˆm μhb lzn amb larçy ˆwry[y am ≥(ay Δbm rwmzm) ytwmx[b jxrb ryspt yp ˚lòd anjrç amk μkyhla hya ahyp wmlktyw ywy trwt wòxpry yòdla ˆydla yn[m yp whp bywa ≈any amaw ahwmtprjw harwtla μtryyg dq larçyl amyad ˆwlwqy amk jybq lkb harwtla hòdhb rma ˆmb rpak hna hspn ˆ[ μhnm djawla lwqy dqw 1 ≥bywa ≈any laq ˚lòdlp twlptw twrqçw twxan wlmmla ˆwlqla jjxyw ≥bk qwsp l[ wyrbd hwwçh (1 5.4 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalm 74:11 Manuscripts: New York, JTSA MS Mic 3349 [ENA 95], fols. 24b–25a. Paris, BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/III (Cat. 288), fol. 19b.

302

judeo-arabic texts

ynpy ˆa hlsy hlla yla a[d wh (ayΔd[ òht) hlk ˚qyj brqm hlwqw ≥ ≥ ≥ hmqnla laòg[tsa byçt 1hlwq yp dara hnakp ≥wçdq brqm la[mçy ˚qyj brqm hlwqw ≥larçy μwq μhnyb yòdla μh[òxawm ryas yp μhyl[ ˆm μòf[a μhbnòd ˆak òda hlk μhyp laqw ≥wçdqm yp μh ˆyòdla yp hlk [a25a] yp μhryg yl[ ˆwdyzyw μhryg lòtm wxanyw wprjy wnak òda μhryg bnòd μtamfb wçdqm wamfy μhna aòxyaw wçdqmb ywy μç ta wxany ˆa ≥hlk ˚qyj brqm laq ˚lòdlp ≥μytm twfmw twnzw πwaynw ≥a Δhlwqp (1 5.5 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalm 74:23 Manuscripts: New York, JTSA MS Mic 3349 [ENA 95], fols. 29b–30b. Paris, BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/III (Cat. 288), fols. 23b–24a.

>dymt hl[ ˚ymq ˆwaç ˚yrrwx [a30a] lwq jkçt la (gk) d[ax wh yòdla ˚ymwaqm tblòg jrft alw ˚ymdaxm twx jrft al >amyad yòdla yn[mla yl[ (fy qwsp) jxnl jkçt la ˚yyn[ tyj μdqt am yp laq ≥˚sdq yp hwl[p am aòxya jrft al rwmzmla hmtaòk yp laqw Δhtjrç lwq hlwqp a[ymòg la[mçy l[pw μydsk l[p qwspla aòdh yp [mògw [maòg whw (d qwsp) (˚d[wm) brqb ˚yrrx wgaç hlwq yla hb ryçy ˚yrrwx ˚ymq ˆwaç hlwqw ≥(d qwsp) çdqb bywa [rh lk yp htrkòd am ryasl πwrj μòf[a rkòdp ≥(d qwsp) (bywa) ≈any rx πrjy hlwq yla hb ryçy tqw yp hxaòk amyòf[ hblòg μhlw sdqla yp μh[amtòga whw ≈waynw ≥dymt hl[ laq ˚lòdlw μym[p hçmj μwy lkb 1wzygry yòdla μhtawlx 2 ˆmw ˚madq [b30a] ˆm μhynpa yn[y [a24p] jkçt la hlwqb daraw jkçt la μydçk l[p yp hlwqw ≥(ay qwsp) hlk ˚qyj brqm òwqk ˚sdq ybçwy lklw lbbl ytmlçw hb μhtd[awt amb [rsa hb dara hnap ≥(dk Δan hymry) ògw ˆwyxb wç[ rça μt[r lk ta μydçk ≥p Δatyl >ˆmw ˚madq (2 ≥a Δwzydgy+ (1 5.6 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalm 79:1 Manuscripts: New York, JTSA MS Mic 3349 [ENA 95], fol. 78a–b. Paris, BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/III (Cat. 288), fol. 61a–b. London, BL Or. 2551 (Cat. 290), fol. 37a–b.

judeo-arabic texts

303

wmç ˚çdq lkyh ta wamf ˚tljnb [b61p] μywg wab μyhla πsal rwmzm >μyy[l μlçwry [b37b] ta wl[òg ˚sdq lkyh wsògn ˚tljn yp bazjala wlòkd br ay πsal dògm ≥1[qalb μlçwry rkòd amk hna whw byrq μdqtmla rwmzmla yla rwmzmla aòdh μaòfn πr[ (fs Δj[ òht) wçdqm μymr wmk ˆbyw ˚lòd d[b rkòdw 3wlyç 2baròk tqwla aòdh yp larçy 4qjlyw bròky aòxya çdqmla aòdh ˆa ˚lòd d[b hxq [pr wh μywg wab μyhla hlwqw ≥wlyç baròk yp μhqjly 5μl am ynaòtlaw μhyl[ [b78a] 7hdy[w μmt dq hna wh amhdja 6ˆyan[m ˚lòd ypw μd tmqn yp 9jrçns amk μywgla 8yalwh ˆm μhqj òdòka yp hlla ˆwlsy ≥ ≥ ≥ ≥(yΔf[ òht) ˚wpçh ˚ydb[ bròk (4 zsÎs Δj[ μylht (3 ≥b Δatyl >baròk (2 ≥p Δa[qalb ˘a Δh[qalb (1 ≥a Δjrçn (9 ≥a Δyalwah (8 ≥a Δhd[w (7 ≥p Δa Δˆyyan[m (6 ≥a Δal (5 ≥b Δqjlw 5.7 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalm 79:8 Manuscripts: New York, JTSA MS Mic 3349 [ENA 95], fols. 82a–83a. Paris, BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/III (Cat. 288), fols. 64b–65a.

>dam wnwld yk ˚ymjr wnwmdqy rhm μynçar tnw[ wnl rkzt la (j) anp[òx anap ˚tamjr anlbqtsy a[yrs 1ˆylwala bwnòd anl rkòdt al >adòg ˆa yp hlla 3wlasy w[ògr (h qwsp) jxnl πnat ywy hm d[ wlaq ˆa d[b hb dyry μynçar twnw[ hlwqw 4rabkla bwnòdla ˆm μhl yròg am[ zwaògty ahyp μhraòta anòdòkaw μhan[bt ˆjnw abala ahwprtqa bwnòd [b82a] al ˆa ˚lsnp ahn[ an[ògr dqp bawx ryg yl[ ahna anl 5ˆab dqp ˆalaw bwnòd 6ahnmp μsqnt twlgla lha bwnòd ˆa μl[t ˆa bògyw anl ahrkòdt çjnw μymsqw tbç lwljw twrwsa 7twyr[ ywlg lòtm hlwdla lhal tnak hxaòk bwnòd ahnmw ˚lòd hbçy amw hbngw qç[w lzgw ˚lòd hbçy amw πwçkw wkrtw ahtaqwa ˆ[ day[ala 8wryyg yòdla rwb[la lòtm hylaògla lhal wlaqp 10ahwplaw twlgla yp ahyl[ wybrw 9μywg twlkamw hrhfw hamf amdqla bwnòd anl rkòdt al ˆa ˚lsn br ay [a65p] bq[yb [çp ybç wnwmdqy rhm hlwqw [a83a] ahn[ an[ògr dq ˆalaw ahlm[n ank yòdla ldy dam wnwld yk hlwqw an[ afba dq yòdla ògrplab [rsa ˆwn[y ˚ymjr qbs dq yòdla lawjala ≈qna yla wglb μwq μh ˆyylòxmla yalwh ˆa yl[ yk wh dam wnwld yk hlwqp (wlΔbl òbd) ògw wm[ ywy ˆydy yp μhl d[wla ynb ˆwbwty ˆamzla ˚lòd yp ˆa ròka [òxwm yp πr[ dqw (μç) dy tlza πr[p (lΔd òbd) ògw ˚waxmw ˚l rxb hlwqk ˆymla[la br μhmjryp larçy 2

304

judeo-arabic texts

μhtbwt dn[ μhmjry hlla ˆa πr[ μòt hrx t[ yp ˆwbwty larçy ˆa yp ˆwbwty ˆyòdla yalwah wlaqp (alΔd òbd) ˚yhla ywy μwjr la yk hlwqk μhmjrt ˚na ˆybyatla td[w tnaw dam wnwld aòdwh br ay hrx t[ >(wlΔbl òbd) bwz[w rwx[ spaw dy tlza ˆap ≥antd[w amk anmjrap (6 ≥a Δˆaby (5 ≥p Δryabkla (4 ≥p Δwlsy (3 ≥p Δanp[wòx (2 ≥p Δylwala (1 ≥a Δahnplaw (10 ≥p Δatyl >μywg (9 ≥a Δryyg (8 ≥p Δtwwr[ (7 ≥a Δμhnmp

5.8 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalm 79:13 Manuscripts: New York, JTSA MS Mic 3349 [ENA 95], fols. 86a–87a. Paris, BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/III (Cat. 288), fols. 67a–b.

>˚tlht rpsn rdw rwdl μlw[l ˚l hdwn ˚ty[rm ˆaxw ˚m[ wnjnaw (gy) >˚tjydm ≈qn lyògw lyògl rhdll ˚rkçn 1˚ty[r μngw ˚b[ç ˆjnw μywgla l[p wh ahdja bwròx hsmòk ˆmòxty rwmzmla aòdh ˆa μl[a wsògnw μhtljn [b86a] yp μhlwòkd yn[m yp bawba òtlòt yp larçyb ˆm μhb lzn amb μhwryy[ amypw μhyp wltq am ypw hwbròkw μhsdq yh ytla bwnòdla [b67p] μhl rpgy ˆa yp μhtlsm ynaòtlaw ≥albla [barlaw ògrplaw hmjrla μhtlsm wh òtlaòtlaw alb lk μhyl[ tbbs rkçla μhspna yl[ μhnamòx wh smaòklaw μhyad[a ˆm μhqj òdòka μngw ˚yla ˆybwsnm ˚b[ç ˆjn yòdla μwqla ˆjn wlaqp ≥hll hjydmlaw μywg yklm dy ˆmw μy[rla 3dy ˆm anxlòktw 2yrt amk anrbdt ˚ty[r ˆjnw (wfΔdl laqzjy) ògw μxybra ynaw ynax h[ra yna tlq amk ana[rtw 5 ˚tjydm ≈qn lyògw lyòg lk yp lb 4˚tjydm ˆ[ rtpn alw amyad ˚rkçn ≥(dyΔa[ μylht) ògw ljya dymt [a87a] ynaw hlwqk Δ˚tjdm (5 ≥pΔa Δ˚tjdm (4 ≥a Δatyl >dy (3 ≥a Δyròg yrt amb (2 ≥p Δ˚twy[r (1 ≥pΔa 5.9 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalm 80:1 Manuscripts: New York, JTSA MS Mic 3349 [ENA 95], fol. 87a. Paris, BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/III (Cat. 288), fols. 67b–68a.

μynçwçla yalwhb ryçy ˆm yla hmdqtmla hlògmla yp anrkòd ank dq μwqla μh μynçwçla 1ylwah ˆa anlqw twd[ yn[m çya anyyb ˚lòdkw ˚rd ymymt yrça yp μhpxw ˆyòdla μhw ˚wçla ˆyb am yp ˆwòtbny ˆyòdla

judeo-arabic texts

305

hbsnla yh twd[ yn[m ˆa anlqw (bq μylht) yn[l hlpt ypw (fyq μylht) yp ˚aòdp (s μylht) twd[ ˆçwç l[ [a68p] jxnml yp anjrç amk Δam hy[çy) bq[y t[lwt ˆm μh ˆyòdla μynçwçla yp lwqm aòdhw jyçmla yn[yçwhw (hm μylht) ybl çjr rymazm òtlòtla rdx yp μhrkòdp (dy ≥μhtalx wh rwmzmla aòdh ˆa πr[yl rwmzmla aòdhw (fs μylht) μyhla ≥p Δyalwah (1 5.10 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalm 44:1 Manuscripts: New York, JTSA MS Mic 3350 [ENA 96], fol. 8b. Paris, BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/II (Cat. 287), fols. 9b–10a.

μhtxq ˆw[pry πyk larçyl μyl[tw dçr hyp ˆal lykçm hnawn[ yp laq larçy 3hma ˆ[ 2bar[a wh rwmzmla 1aòdh ˆa μl[aw ≥hlla ydy ˆyb hyna[m 4[mawòg yp hlkaçy òzm twlhtla yp sylw ≥μybr ˆwçlb hògròkw òg òzmla aòdh ypw ≥twlgla ròka yla yhtnyw μyrxm ˆm ydtby hnal al yk (h qwsp) μyhla yklm awh hta whw dyjy ˆwçlb ògròkt 5μyqwsp yn[ml ahnm djaw lk (zf qwsp) ytmlk μwyh lk (z qwsp) jfba ytçqb ≥hyp [a10p] hrkòdn (5 ≥a lç μyylwçb Δ[maòg (4 ≥p Δynb+ (3 ≥a lç μyylwçb Δbr[a (2 ≥p Δhòdh (1

≥p Δqysawp òtlòt 5.11 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalm 90:1 Manuscripts: New York, JTSA MS Mic 3350 [ENA 96], fol. 189b. Paris, BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/III (Cat. 288), fol. 137a [beginning missing].

lòg qlaòkla rkòd ahdja yna[m hts [mògt hlptla hòdhw ≥ ≥ ≥ [b189a] lògw z[ hnaw qyalòkla rkòd ynaòtlaw μyadla μydqla hnaw (hr)kòd yryxq μhnaw ahpaltòka yl[ μda ynb ram[a rkòd òtlaòtlaw 1ahdògwm wtmjw ywy πa ˆm larçyb [a137p] lzn am rkòd [barlaw ram[ala smaòklaw twnw[la bbs ˚lòd [ymòg ˆaw 2twlgla yp μhqjly am ryasw 4 zaògna sdaslaw 3hwqqjty ytj ≈qla μ(h)pyr[t yp ò[t hlla hlasm yn[m yp hrkòd yla ògatjy am lkl h[maòg yhp hròftnmla dy[awmla ≥ˆyytwlògla ≥p Δμamta (4 ≥p Δhwqqjtyl >hwqqjty ytj (3 ≥p Δraxtòkab+ (2 ≥ahdògm >yòòkb (1

judeo-arabic texts

306

5.12 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalm 44:16–17 Manuscripts: New York, JTSA MS Mic 3350 [ENA 96], fols. 12a–b. Paris, BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/II (Cat. 287), fols. 14a–b.

>yntsk ynp tçbw ydgn ytmlk μwyh lk (zf) >yntfg yhògw 1òòhyzòkw yyaòdj ytlògòk ˆamzla lk >μqntmw bywa ynpm πdgmw πrjm lwqm (zy) >μqtnmlaw [b12a] wd[la lbq ˆm πòdaqlaw ryy[mla twx ˆm 3

ynaòtlaw br[l rqbm rahnla lwf 2amhdja ˆyhògw lmtjy μwyh lk òwq hd[b yòdla [b14p] qwspla yp ˆyybw ydgn ytmlk laqw ≥twlgla ˆamz lwf dyryw πdgmw πrjm lwq [msy amm òòamyad 4lògòky hna πr[ πrjm lwqm ˚lm yr[n wpdg rça òwq lòtm ydwb[mw yt[yrç πòdqyw ynyd ryy[y yòdla hb ynp tçwbw hb dyryw bywa ynpm laq μòt ≥(wΔzl òçy ˘wΔfy bòòm) yta rwça ˆa πr[ hna whw yn[ml yntsk ynp tçwbw laqw ≥μqntmw bywa ynpm yntsk aòdhw 7hndb tlmça ytla yh hhògw yp ˆasnala yl[ 6ˆwkt yòdla 5ayjla hrwtla ˆa μqntmw bywa laq yòdla wh aòdhw ≥hçwbla μòf[ yl[ ldy hns hyam smòkw πla μwyla μkrbòk çyaw h[ògr μkl sylw ahrygb tòksn πrjm lwqm ydgn ytmlk òwqb ryçy aharòfnw hòdh ylap ≥lòdla tjt am snòg ˆm μhyxa[mb larçy ˆwryy[y am whp ynp tçwbw amaw ≥πdgmw tçbw òwq yp aharòfnw 9hòdhp aybnala 8tltqw lòg[la tdb[ ay ˆwlwqy μhryg aòxyaw μwdaw la[mçy yla hb ryçy μqntmw bywa òwqw ≥yntsk ynp ≥10larçy ryy[y ˆmm Δhyayjla ≥p Δa Δayjla (5 ≥a Δlògòk (4 ≥a Δòblaw (3 ≥a Δdja (2 ≥a Δhyyzbw (1 ˆm ay >tltqw ≥ ≥ ≥ tdb[ ay (8 ≥a Δhldb (7 ≥p Δˆyybty (6 ≥a lç μyylwçb ≥p Δatyl >larçy ≥ ≥ ≥ aòxyaw (10 ≥a Δaòdhp (9 ≥a Δwtdb[ 5.13 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalm 44:18–19 Manuscripts: New York, JTSA MS Mic 3350 [ENA 96], fols. 12b–13a. Paris, BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/II (Cat. 287), fols. 14b–15a.

>˚tyrbb wnrqç [a13a] alw ˚wnjkç alw wntab taz lk (jy) [a15p] >˚dh[b anbòdk amw ˚asnn 3μlw 2antaòg 1hòdh lk

judeo-arabic texts

307

>˚jra ynm wnyrça ftw wnbl rwja gwsn al (fy) >˚lybs ˆm anmadqa tlam alw anblq yrqhq yla gzy al alw ahlwa >ayça òd yhw ahyl[ hmala 4tlmòg ytla ayçala wrkòd ywy larçy [mç ˆwlwqy ayndla yp μwy lk ˆyòdla μçh dwjy han[mw ˚wnjkç amw han[mw ˚ytyrbb wnrqç alw òblaw ≥(dΔw μyrbd) dja ywy wnyhla hlla ˆab ˆwrqy aòxyaw tma hçm trwt amyad lwqn lb ˚t[yrç anlfba lk πws d[ larçy layòga μzlt tyrbla ˚lt ˆaw ynys rh tjt μhdha[ ≥(dyÎgy Δfk òbd) hp wnçy rça ta yk ògw μkdbl μkta alw òwqk twrwdh aws ˆyd yla anblq πrjny μlw hb wdara wnbl rwja gwsn alw laq μòt laqp ≥μhnfab wrkòd μòt μhlwq rhaòf lwala qwspla yp wrkòdp ˚nyd ò≈yarp yla hb ˆwryçy ˚jra ynm wnyrwça ftw μhlwqw wnbl rwja gwsn al hnatòklaw hlbqla labqtsa lòtm μhjlafw μhjlax ahl[py lwxa yh ≥˚lòd lkaç amw ryfpla lkaw ≥p Δòòhlmòg (4 ≥a Δalw (3 ≥p Δantg (2 ≥a Δaòdh (1

308

judeo-arabic texts

6.1 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 5:1 Manuscript: Paris, BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/I (Cat. 286), fols. 29b–30a.

>dwdl rwmzm twlyjnh la jxnml (aΔh) [b29] >dwwadl dògm tayòxrmla ˆamz yl[ òtjtsmll hlwqy μl rwmzmla ˚lòd ˆa rkòdy dq rymazmla tanawn[ yp ˆa μl[a òht) ynn[ yarqb rwmzm lòtm μhspna yl[ μyrrwçmla ˆm hryg alw dwd aòdhw rymazm hsmòk whw μhn[ òòabar[a çdq jwrb hlaq amnaw (d μynçwç l[ òtlaòtlaw (bk òht) rjçh tlya l[ [a30] òblaw ahlwa h[r smaòklaw (fs òht) μyhla yn[yçwh [barlaw (hm òht) jrq ynbl [ymògla yl[ hdlw ˆ[ òòabar[a dwd hlaq ròka anlw ≥(p òht) larçy hòdh ˆm djaw lk yn[m ˆyybn ˆjnw ≥(s òht) twd[ ˆçwç l[ whw μalsla ylba yla hb ryçy twlyjnh la anhah òwq ˆala ≥h[òxwm yp amsala μlçwry twmmçw ywy tyb ˆbrj ˆzj μhbwlq yla wlòkda dq yòdla ˆwyx ≥larçy twlg rbçw ywy μç lwljw wytwryçw ywy twnbrq tlyfbw ˆwyxw μayxla wlm[tsaw ˆçòkla sblw jarpala yla lwòkdla ˆ[ wlzt[ap wòxrm ˚lòd dn[p ≥ahwdh[ ytla òdyaòdlla lka ˆ[ w[ntmaw μyadla hryòtk rymazm yp μhlaj wkç yòdla μhw ≥μhbwlq tsbyw μhnadba tpògw òwq ypw ≥twlyjnh la òwqb ryçy μhylap (bq òht) yn[l hlpt yp hxaòkw drpmla ò≈arga [mòg hòfplla hòdh tnak ˆap yn[m μybr ˆwçlb twlyjn μaqsaw hpltòkm ò≈arma yp wlxj μhna lòga ˆm ˚aòdp hlyjn ahnm μangalab ˆylòtmm μhna ˆm ˚aòd μybr ˆòfyp ≈aòkça [mòg ˆak ˆaw hryòtk ≥(dΔdl zjy) μtqzj al twljnh ta laq amk [b30] hòxyrmla 6.2 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 5:6–7 Manuscript: Paris, BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/I (Cat. 286), fol. 32a–b.

>ˆwa yl[wp lk tanç ˚yny[ dgnl μyllwh wbxyty al (wΔh) >lgla yl[ap lk tynç ˚aòdj ˆynnhmla wbxtny al μhna πr[p μhyla raça ˆyòdla μwqla πxw qwspla aòdh yp jrç brçlaw lkala yl[ ˆykmhnmla yraxnla μh μyllwhlap ˆwa yl[wp μyllwh òwqk yn[mla aòdh lòtm yp [qt hòfplla hòdh ˆap μyadla jrplaw lgla bajxa la[mçy μhp ˆwa yl[wp amaw llwhm ytrma qwjçl ˚sdq yp ˆwtbòty al yraxnla yalwah br ay laqp wsla bhòdmlaw ≥˚sdq yp wmyqy ˆa la[mçy tòxgb ˚lòdkw

judeo-arabic texts

309

>ywy b[ty hmrmw μymd çya bzk yrbwd dbat (zΔh) hrky rkmw ymd wòd bjax wh yòdla lògrla bòdkla [b32] ymlktm dybt >ˆymla[la br aòdh ypw ˚sdq yp ˆwtbòty al μhnab rbòka μdqtmla qwspla yp ˆwbòdky yòdla μyllwhla yla hb ryçy μla[la ˆm hdyby hna πr[ ynaòtla μhlywaqa lkw òtwlaòtlab ˆwlwqy μhnal çjawpla hyp ˆwlwqyw hlla yl[ whw hmrmw μymd çya laqp ròkala rkòd μòt lfabw rwz ahnw[dy ytla wdyb hmrm jylxhw laq amk hyla hmrmla bsnt yòdla la[mçy bjax μymd çya whw (gkΔay μç) hmrm hç[y wyla twrbjth laqw (hkΔj laynd) μòt ahròka ylaw htlwd tçn òdnm tawzglaw dahògla hbhòdm ˆa òtyj ˆm [çr ≈pj la al qwspla yp laqp hòxgyw hlla hhrky yn[y ywy baty laq bhòdmla bajxa hb dyryw ywy baty aòdh yp laqw bhòdmla spn yp whw ≥hbajxaw bhòdmla dybyp μhbhòdmw hlla μhhrk dqp 6.3 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 31:21 Manuscript: Paris, BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/I (Cat. 286), fols. 178b–179a.

>twnwçl byrm hksb μnpxt çya yskrm ˚ynp rtsb μrytst (akΔal) ˆm çyr[ yp μhròkòdt ˆasnala tafabr ˆm ˚hògw rts yp μhrtst >ˆslala òhmwxòk adap ˆaflsla hògw yl[ ql[mla rtsla wh ˚ynp rtsb yp rhaòfla yn[mlaw dja [a179] ˆm [zpy μl rtsla lòkad hlòkdaw ˆasnab yn[ t[ yp rayòkala ˆm hyp lxj ˆm lk yòdla ˆymla[la br sdq wh hyp yp hjrças amk ˆwyl[ rtsb bçwy hlwqb ryçy μhylaw yògny hrx hmrmw μymd çya yla hb ryçy çya yskrm òwqw ≥ˆamjrla ˆw[b h[òxwm larçy ˆm ryòtkp ahbxny lyyjb hrwtla ˚rtb larçy blafy yòdla ˆwçlb çya yskrm laq ˚lòdlp hpltòkm hryòtk bwròx yhw ahb ˆwqhwny yk yp anjrç amk hsdq yla hb ryçy μhw hksb μnpxt laq μòt μybr byrm òwqw rjlaw drbla ˆm llòfy yòdla lalòxlab hlòtmw hksb ynnpxy ˆyjlaxla òhblafmw hlla batk yp μhn[f yla hb ryçy twnwçl òòapwòk hògjla μhyl[ wpwtsy wrdqy alp μhw μh[m ldòglaw ròfnlab trb[ ògw hrmça ytrma yp ˚lòd jrçns amk ˚lòd rygw ltqla ˆm tanwçk ˆm μwq ahrb[ dqw ˆçjh ta wskryw ˆm tafabr yskrm ˆm jlaxla yl[ yrògy amm ˆwn[y h[qbl μyskrhw lòtm sanla sanla ròt[ny yòdla hr[wla qyrflab hlòtmmla hnçòkla μhla[pa ≥ahyp

310

judeo-arabic texts

6.4 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 39:2 Manuscript: Paris, BN MS Suppl. héb. 37/I (Cat. 286), fols. 233b–234a.

>ydgnl [çr dw[b μwsjm ypl hrmça ynwçlb afjm ykrd (bΔfl) amhm amfòkm yypl òfpja ynaslb yfòka afòk ˆm yqrf òfpja tlq >yyaòdj qsapla μdqtmla rwmzmla yp hrkòd μdqt am hyp jrçy rwmzmla hòdh ˆa μl[a òht) [mç al rça çyak yhaw (dyΔjl òht) [mça al çrjk ynaw hlwq whw abr[m rrwçmla laqp amhtnyyb ytla ˆymsq [a234] yl[ μhw (wfΔjl yp ybabsa òfpja tlq laqp twlgla yp ˆwky yòdla jlaxla db[la ˆ[ ahlwqa hmlkb ahyl[ ynògaw yspn yl[ yfòka ˆa ˆm yyad[a [m ytlma[m lòga ˆmp yyp hdarm glbyw ahb yyl[ ql[typ ynn[lyw ynmlòfy ˆml ynaslb tlqw (wfΔjl òht) twjkwt wypb ˆyaw [mç al rça çyak yspn tryyx ˚lòd dyΔjl òht hwwçh) wyp jtpy al μlan rçaw (bΔfl òht) μwsjm ypl hrmça [çr dw[b laq μòt ≥ywy trwt yl[ ˆ[fla t[ms am aòda (yΔfl òhtw lpajm yp amap ≥μhnyb tarajlaw qawsala yp ana amhm yn[y ydgnl hòdh bhòdm lyfbt yl[ ògògjla μyqa lb tksa sylp μh[wmògw larçy h[faqla hjòxawla ògògjlab ywy trwtl ògtjaw hdasp jòxwaw [çrla ˆm hw[msy amb larçy ˆm μyatpla ò≈[b rtgy al lòga ˆm ynmzly ˚aòdw dn[ yspnl ròd[la μyqa aòxyaw ≥hlla h[yrç yp hhbç hlòkadyp [çrla larçy lpajm yp ˚lòd trkòd am aòda yspn yl[ tqòtw dq òda hlla yspn l[òga anap ydgnl [çrla ˆak aòda amap ≥lwqlab [staw μlktap ≥hlwqk tksaw [b234] sròkala μaqm 6.5 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Genesis 1:26 Manuscript: Paris, BN MS Suppl. héb. 31 (Cat. 279), fol. 69a. The text is based upon Ben-Shammai, “Doctrines,” 2:99, App. B, no. 10, lines 111–16; Hebrew translation in 1:195, n. 25.

hll ˚yrç sylw hglla lam[tsa wh wntwmdk wnmlxb hç[n òwq ˆa anml[p aml[la ˆm ryòtk dr dqw ≥lq[la yp lyjtsm ˚lòd ˆa am [m hqlòk yp arbw aba μhlwq ywqy wntwmdk wnmlxb òwq ˆa wm[z am yp yraxnla yl[ dr dq òda μywgla ˆm anyplaòkm yl[ drla μztln syl ˆjnw açdq jwrw μhòx[b dry μywgla ˆa aòxyaw μhn[ hlla yòxr ˆyrspmla ˆm ryòtk μhyl[ law {hlasrlab} lsarlab anqbaf ˆm yl[ drla μztln amnaw ò≈[b yl[ ≥rysptla dspyp ˚lòd ˆ[ ògròkn alw hlasrlaw lwsr

judeo-arabic texts

311

6.6 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Isaiah 7:14 Manuscripts: St. Petersburg, RNL, MS Yevr. I.568, fol. 249 (lower right corner, upside-down) = p St. Petersburg, IOS MS A143, unnumbered folios = m

wmç tarqw ˆb tdlwyw hrh hml[h hnh twa μkl awh ywy ˆty ˆkl (dyΔz) >lawnm[ 1 hdlaww hlmaj hatpla aòdwh aya μkl wh ˆymla[la br yf[y ˚lòdl >lawnm[ hmsa ymstw ˆba br 3aòdwh bròga alw 2lasa al zja ay ˚lwq lògal hb dyry ˆkl òwq wpltòka ≥μkyl[ hògj 4ˆwkt ytj aya μkaf[ab hdn[ ˆm ydtby ˆymla[la yhp hrhaòf yl[ hna μhòx[b laqp hrh hml[h hnh 5òwq yp sanla 9 ≥ why[çy ybnll 8wnak ˆatwsn amhw lawnm[ μa yh ytla 7laqp 6hrmla yh 11zbçj llç rhm μaw zja 10òòharm yh lawnm[ μa ˆa μhòx[b laqw laq hnfab yl[ hrspy yòdlaw ≥haybnh la brqaw òwqk ybnla 12òòharma wh ˆydlwla lywat ˆaw hdwhy tklmm 14yla 13ˆylwqla ˆyth yp dxqla ˆa hrhaòf yl[ hna yla lymn ˆjnw ≥15ˆamzla ˚lòd yp dlawty yòdla lyògla brqlab lbjt ˚tògwz yh ytla 16hybxla aòdwh zjal laq ybnla ˆa whw yp ˆwkys 19hlla ˆa whw lawnm[ hymst 18ˆa ybnla ahl laqp ˆba 17dltsw aòxya rwça ˚lmw larçy ˚lmw μra ˚lm dy ˆm μhxlòkyw hdwhy òhnw[m ≥ògw hx[ wxw[ lxpla ròka yp òwqk ≥p Δryxt (4 ≥p Δatyl >aòdwh (3 ≥m Δlsa (2 ≥m Δdlwtw hlbj >hdlaww hlmaj (1 Δatyl ˘(μyylwçb) m Δwnak+ (8 ≥p Δlaqp laqw (7 ≥p Δharma yhw (6 ≥p Δòwqb (5 (13 ≥p Δtarma (12 ≥p Δatyl >zbçj (11 ≥p Δtarm (10 ≥p Δhòò[ ybnll (9 ≥p (18 ≥p Δdltw (17 ≥p Δaybxla (16 ≥p Δrx[la (15 ≥p Δyl[ (14 ≥m Δˆytyraògla ≥p Δtòòa (19 ≥p Δatyl >ˆa ybnla 6.7 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Numbers 24:17 Manuscripts: Paris, BN MS Suppl. héb. 35 (Cat. 283), fols. 189b–190a St. Petersburg RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.1535, fol. 28a–b

= p = s

fbç μqw bq[ym bkwk ˚rd bwrq alw wnrwça ht[ alw wnara (6.7.1) >tç ynb lk rqrqw bawm ytap ≈jmw larçym byòxq μaqw bq[y la yp bkwk qrf byrq sylw hjmla ˆala sylw hròfna >tç ynb lk [lqw bawm tahòg ˆhwaw larçy la ˆm

312

judeo-arabic texts

(wf qwsp) ògw wlçm açyw yn[a ˆyqwspala ˆyòdah yna[m [b189] anjrç dq t[d [dy qwspala aòdh yp daz ˆklw μdqt am yp (zf qwsp) ògw [mç μan

yòdla lçmla aòdh yla hb raça ˆwky ˆa wh òa ˆyryspt lmtjyw ˆwyl[ abyw ahlwa μasqa òg yl[ μ[lb lwq raxp μyhla jwrb apnya hrkòd hzjm whw ˚almll hròfn òblaw la yrma [mç μan whw μ[lb la μyhla t[d [dwy yp òbla rysptlaw ˆwyl[ t[d [dy òwq whw μahlab wh òglaw ydç ht[ alw wnara òwq μ[lb μqyw yla lxpla aòdh yp πnatsy amyp ˆwyl[ anrx[ yp yn[y tqwla aòdh yp wh sylw ˆwky 1ayç yra aòdwh yna hb dyry ˆa yp bbslaw brqla ˆ[ 3ˆwky ayç wh 2syl hb ò[y bwrq alw wnrwça òwqw tnak aml ˆa wh ht[ alw 4wnara yl[ rxtòky μlw bwrq alw wnrwça laq whw hrx[ yp ˆak amhdja ˆybròx yl[ yh apna ahlaq ytla μylçmla [mçw qlb μwq aòxyaw (zΔgk òmb) qlb ynjny μra ˆm yn[a ˆylwala ˆyr[çla lwaç ˆamz yp ˆak am wh ynaòtlaw rx[la ˚lòd yp tnak hòdhw (jyΔgk μç) yòdla aòdh ˆa qlb ay μl[a μ[lb laq brq ˆ[ ˚lòd ˆakw hmlçw dwdw yp ˚l tlq amk 6anrx[ yp yç wh syl tqwla aòdh 5yp hlwqa aòdwh yp ˚l tlq amk anrx[ brq yp ˆwky yç wh alw ˆymdqtmla ˆylxpla anm dy[b ˆamz wh μymyh tyrjab 9ylwq ˆa 8μl[ap 7òtlaòtla lxpla ≥dyt[ ˆamz yla aòdh yp [a190] μ[lb raça fbç μqw bq[ym bkwk ˚rd laqp lwqy yòdla çya πr[ μòt (6.7.2) 11 bkwkb hlòtmp 10òsla òl[ dwd ˆb jmx yla ˚lòdb ryçy larçym am yl[w amsla yp wh yòdla bkwkla lòtm hwl[l ahdja yna[m òtalòtl òwqk hdy tjt μla[la lha ˆalw (gyΔz ònd) aymç ynn[ μ[ wraw 12hyp lyq òht) ògw μyklm lk wl wwjtçyw ògw μyyaw çyçrt yklm ògw μyyx w[rky wynpl μla[la πarfa h[bra yp hklm fasbna wh ynaòtla 13yn[mlaw (ayÎfΔb[ μy d[ μym dryw laq amkw ò≈ralab fwjy whw ˚lpla yp yòdla bkwklak bwrj μywghw wdbaw ˚wdb[y al rça hklmmhw ywgh yk laqw (jΔμçΔμç) lha ògrpty 14yòdla ayòxla yn[m wh òtlaòtla yn[mlaw (byΔs òçy) wbrjy hrwtla ˆal qjla yla ˆw[ògryp 15μhtnayd rwma yp μhtmlòf ˆm μla[la lòtmw (gkΔw ylçm) rwa hrwt hwxm rn yk laq amk rwnlab hlòtmm μhna aòxyaw (wΔfm òçy) μywg rwal ˚yttnw laq amk rwnlab jysmla ˚lòd yp μhlòtm ˆwkyp μhnyb tnak 16ytla bwrjlaw dyadçla ˆm wògrpty aòdh ˆa 17yl[ ˚lòd ldy bq[ym òwqw rwn yla hmlòf ˆm ògròk ˆm lòtm wçy wh alw a[ybr wklm μ[zk la[mçy ˆm wh sylw bq[y la ˆm wh bkwkla hrysptw 18fbçb hlòtmw ≥μmala ryas ˆm alw μwda hlaòxla μ[z amk ≈ra hkhw laq amkw hdna[ ˆm 20˚lhyw ad[ala yp ˚tpy hnal 19abyòxq ≥(dΔay òçy) ògw wyp fbçb ≥p Δwnrwça (4 ≥p Δatyl >ˆwky (3 ≥s Δatyl >syl hb ò[y ≥ ≥ ≥ yp wh (2 ≥s Δyç (1 (8 ≥p Δˆymdqtmla ˆylxpla >òtlaòtla lxpla (7 ≥s Δrx[ (6 ≥s Δatyl >yp (5

judeo-arabic texts

313

(13 ≥s Δatyl >hyp (12 ≥p Δ˚lòdb (11 ≥p Δòla òl[ (10 ≥s Δhlwq (9 ≥s Δμl[aw (17 ≥p Δyòdla (16 ≥s Δμhtanayd (15 ≥s Δatyl >yòdla (14 ≥s Δatyl >yn[mlaw ≥s Δwlaqw (20 ≥s Δbyòxq rysptw (19 ≥s Δatyl >fbçb (18 ≥s Δatyl >yl[ ˚lòd

6.8 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Genesis 16:12 Manuscript: London, BL MS Or. 2462 (Cat. 255), fol. 201a–b

= b

rbla yp yway μyahbla çjw ˆa amk hb yn[y (μd)a (ar)p hyhy awhw òwqw μrba dlw wh syl ˆa tml[p rbla yp yway sanla yçjw la[mçy ˚aòdk ˆakw ≥hyògrt òòhnak ytla ahaògr [fqnap ˆ[nk ≈ra òtry hna dw[wmla òwqw ≥ahl [wòxklaw ahts yla [wògrla ahmzly amm aòxya lwqla aòdh bhaòdmlaw hògyzla bab yp hwflaòkyw μmal flaòky hna hb dyry lkb wdy ˆh larçy πxw πalòkb (gmΔb laynd) açna [rzb [b201b] ˆydb[tm òqòk laqw ≥hyp htpr[ ryspt brqa aòdhp (fΔgk rbdmb) ˆwkçy ddbl μ[ yp whw taqwala ˆm tqw yp lkla yl[ flsty hb dyry hna ròka rspm dyry hna ròka laqw ≥hyl[ ˆwflsty lkla ≈qla aòg aòdaw ˆamzla aòdh ryask [fqtsm [òxwm hl syl ˆa yn[y bazjala lk yp hnakm ˆa hb dyw òwqw ≥[òxwm yla [òxwm ˆm hlqtnmla çjwla lòtm ˆwky amnaw bazjala wdy rspw ≥ahyp yway yòdla yrarbla yp lpawqla ryas hb dyry wb lk ≥(gyΔgk μyrbd) ˚l hyht dyw lòtm hyp lkla ˆakmw lkla yp hnakm lkb ta yttn ˚[rzl òwqb hb dw[wmla μrba [rz wh syl ˆa yl[ ldy aòdh ≥(zΔby tyçarb) tazh ≈rah 6.9 Yùsuf b. Nù˙, Commentary on Genesis 16:12 Manuscript: St. Petersburg, RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I.1754, fols. 231b–232a.

çjwk yrarbla yway òtyj ˆm sanla ˆm çjw yn[y μda arp hyhy whw hlwqw dw[wmla μhrba dlw hna ˆm hnòft tnak am ˚lòdb lazp μyahbla μmall htflaòkm [a232] lyq wb lk dyw lkb wdy òwqw ≥ò≈rala μlstb ˆybr[tm òwqk hbraçmlaw hlkawmlaw hògyzla bab yp hb μhfaltòkaw ò≈[b yp lkla yl[ hdy ˆwk han[m lyqw (gmΔb laynd) açna [rzb ˆwhl μòt ≥μla[la yp htlwdw htw[d raçtnaw lwsp rwhòf dn[ yn[y taqwala ynp l[w hlwqw ≥≈qela tqw hyl[w hyp lkla dy ryxyw hyl[ hyòxqla sk[nt ynbw wç[ ynbw hrwfq ynb lbaqm rbla yp hanks lyq ˆwkçy wyja lk ≥μhrbal hryg dalwa yògm wyja òwq ˆm tml[p larçy

314

judeo-arabic texts

6.10 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Deuteronomy 18:15 Manuscripts: St. Petersburg, IOS MS C41, fols. unnumbered St. Petersburg RNL MS Yevr. I.567

= m = p

>ˆw[mçt wyla ˚yhla ywy ˚l μyqy ynmk ˚yjam ˚brqm aybn (6.10.1) >ˆw[mst hyla ˚hala brla ˚l μyqy ylòtm ˚twòka ˆm ˚fsw ˆm ybn ˆa μwq laqw ≥dwb[mw hwlam ˆ[ ybny ˆm yl[ [qy aybn yn[a μsala aòdh rqçh yaybnw l[bh yaybn amnaw ò[t hlla hòt[ba ˆm wh aybn hqyqj aybn ò[t hlla μyqy ˆa [nmy ˚brqm òwqw ≥qdx aybn μsab μhspna wms ˚rgw òwqk larçy brqb qdx rg ˆak amlw ≥ynyd yn[a larçy 1yfsw ryg ˆm hwwçhw ˘ayΔwk òbd) ˚brqb rça rghw laqw (yΔfk òbd) ˚ynjm brqb rça ryçy ˚yjam òwqb ≈xòk (zyΔgk òbd) ˚brqb bçy ˚m[ laqw (gm Δjk ˘ayΔzf ò[t hlla hòt[by yòdla ˆa anrbòka ˚l μyqy òwqw ≥bq[y hlsls yla hb ˆyd yl[ ˆwky hnaw 2ynmk ˚yjam òwql bq[y hlsls ˆm wh larçy yla òhlla ˆ[ ybny ybnla aòdh ˆa anpr[ ˚l μyqy òwqw ≥˚brqm òwql larçy òhlsls ˆm ˆakw ò[t hlla ˆm òtw[bm 3ana lwqy ybn anaòg aòdap ≥ò[t anal ˆahrbw hya μyqy ˆa d[b hnm lwbqla bògw hrwtla ˆyd yl[ bq[y ≥ˆahrbw hya rygb ybn òt[by al 4ò[t hlla ˆa anml[ dq bq[y òhlsls ˆm ˆwky ˆa ahdja qdx aybnl tamal[ òd hòdhp (6.10.2) μyqy h[barw ò[t hlla ˆ[ ybny hòtlaòtw hrwtla ˆyd yl[ ˆwky hynaòtw ≥qdx aybn hna anqqjt h[brala hòdh hl t[mtòga aòdap ≥hzòg[m hya qdx aybn ˆwky ˆa zwògn μlw ≥rqç 5aybn whp hdjaw òdla hòdh txqn aòdaw 6 hrwtla ˆydb πwr[m ˆakw zòg[mw hya μaqaw ò[t hlla ˆ[ abna hna wl aòda hl[p yòdla zòg[mla ˆakw rqç aybn [b òm[] hna anmkj rg ˆakw òdla ryas yrògt ˚aòdkw hlyjlaw hòdw[çla qyrf yl[ hna μl[ hn[ òtjb wyla òwqk hnm lwbqla 8bògy òdla hòdh t[mtòga aòdaw ≥7dyrptla yl[ tjx ˆa d[b hb ytay am lk yp ybnla qydxt bògwy lwqla aòdhw ≥ˆw[mçt ˆa htwbn andn[ ttbòt yòdla ybnla aòdh μzly sylw tamal[la hòdh hl anml[ dq ˆal 9ˆw[mçt wyla lwqw ≥hlasr lk yl[ ˆahrbw hya anl μyqy yp ryygy al hna hml[ yp qbs dqw ala ybn òt[by al 10ò[t hlla ˆa am yl[ hlasrla ada yp whsy ˆa zwògn alw ≈qny alw dyzy alw hlasrla ryg yp ò[t hlla òhplaòkm dxqy ˆa aòxya zwògn alw ˆnjtaw rdx yp rkòd 13 [rmwy] rma ypw ò≈yarpla yp whsla 12yrògy ˆa zwògy yrm[l ylb 11hlasrla ≥14[μdqt a]m yp ˚lòd tjrç am yl[ hlasrla ˆm yç yp ˆwky ala d[b (6 ≥m Δybn (5 ≥p Δhwanòt lòg >ò[t (4 ≥p Δyna (3 ≥p Δatyl >ynmk (2 ≥p Δfsw (1 Δlògw z[ (10 ≥mΔp Δatyl >ˆw[mçt wyla (9 ≥p Δbògw (8 ≥p Δrysptla (7 ≥p Δhrwt

judeo-arabic texts

315

hmlçhh (14 ≥p yòòp[ hmlçhh (13 ≥p Δhnm+ >yrògy ˆa (12 ≥p Δhlasr (11 ≥p ≥p yòòp[ 6.11 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Deuteronomy 18:18 Manuscripts: St. Petersburg, IOS MS C41, fols. unnumbered St. Petersburg RNL MS Yevr. I.567 St. Petersburg RNL MS Yevr.-Arab I.0020, fols. 60b–62a (The text in p and x is virtually identical.) St. Petersburg RNL MS Yevr.-Arab. I:0095, fols. 110a–112a

= m = p = x = q

rbdw wypb yrbd yttnw ˚wmk μhyja brqm μhl μyqa aybn (6.11.1) >wnwxa rça lk ta μhyla bfaòkyw 3hyp 2yp ybfòk l[ògaw ˚lòtm μhtwòka fsw 1ˆm μhl μyqa ybn >4hyxwa am [ymòg μhyla ˆwbnty μhnm ≥ˆybròx yl[ wh 6ò[t hlla hmyqy yòdla ybnla 5aòdh ˆa μl[a 9 twdyt[b ˆwbnty ˆyòdlaw ≥8twdyt[b ˆwbnty alw fqp μhnamz yp 7òtdjy yçl abnty ˆm μhnmw ≥fqp rabòkab abnty ˆm μhnm ≥aòxya ˆybròx yl[ μhp am ryasw tybh trwxb abnt yòdla òçh ò[ laqzjy lòtm ò≈wrpw rabòkab ≥bhaòdm òg ˚lòd yp aml[llw ≥h[yrçla yp hdyazla ˆybarqla ˆm hrkòd hdab[law ˆybarqla yp anyl[ ò[t hlla dyzy ˆa zyaòg hna μhòx[b laq ≈òka dq yòdla [òxwmla rkòd μdqt dqw [òxwmb hql[m ˚lt tnak òda syl 10hdayzla hòdh ˆa wlwqy μh ˚aòd [mw ≥hryg ˆwd hl bògt yna[mb ˚lòd yp ˆayblaw ≥(bΔd μyrbd) rbdh l[ wpyswt al h[yrçla lwq πlaòkt jyjxt hl tbòt dq yòdla ybnla lwq 11lwbq tbògwa dq h[yrçla ˆa wh hbjax lwqy ynaòtla bhòdmlaw ≥hryg wa ˆak ò≈rp ata am çyab hwbnla yp hdayz yh amnaw ò≈rpla yl[ hdayz hrwkòdmla ˚lt ymsa al yna tsyl hdayzla ˚ltp tbsla yp hbrqm 12hl[la ˆa whw ≥fqp ≈aòkçala ˆa amk fqp hnsla ˚lt yp hb anrma db[t 13wh amnaw dydòg ò≈rp yh ryanm lm[t ˆa ò[t hlla rma amkw dad[ala yp ≈qntw dyzt tybh tknj dadzy μl ˆak òda 15dyawz ˚lt sylw hryòtk ò≈awjaw 14dyawmw hryòtk ≥μylkla [wn yp alw ˆybarqla [awna yp 17dyzy μl hna yrt 16ala ≥ò≈rp rma ò[t hlla ˆa laqy ahbrqa whw òtlaòtla bhòdmlaw (6.11.2) tnak am ahnm ≥μasqa òg yl[ yhw òçh ò[ hçm dy yl[ hòxyarp [ymògb ˆm μzlt am ahnmw ≥òçh ò[ hçm rx[ lbq hmydqla layògala ahl[pt ≥hparxna d[b bògt am ahnmw ≥twrwdh lk πws d[ òçh ò[ hçm rx[ yhp lyawala 18ˆwrqla [m hmydq ahnab hlaldla ttbòt am amap

316

judeo-arabic texts

μzlt yòdla amaw ≥hy[msla ò≈yarpla ˆm ryòtkw hylq[la ò≈yarpla [ymòg d[b μzlt yòdlaw ≥ò≈yarpla hryòtk yh dògmlaw òçh ò[ hçm rx[ ˆm [ymògw twbdnlaw μyrdnlaw ò[t hlla tyb yla ògjla yhp hparxna hjwrçm ahtrkòd yòdla μasqa ògla hòdhw ≥ò≈ralab hfwnmla ò≈yarpla zaòg ˚aòdk 20hparxna d[b μzlt ò≈yarpb 19rmay ˆa zaòg amkp hnwwdm wlwqyp ≥hxwxòkm ˆkamaw hxwxòkm hnmza yp lm[t ˆa ò≈yarpb rmay ˆa tyb ˆynbb òçh ò[ hçm dy yla rma ò[t hlla ˆa bhòdmla aòdh yl[ [ymògbw yçylç tybw ynç tyb ˆynbw μylkla [ymògw hmlç lm[ yòdla ˆwçar amlp ≥aybnala hlqnt lwqnm μhdn[ ˚lòd ˆak òçh ò[ laqzjy hrkòd am htala [ymògb sdqla ˆaynb hrwx dwd πr[ ˆwçar tyb ˆaynb tqw aòg jwrb hyh rça lk tynbtw ògw μlwah tynbt ta wnb hmlçl dwd ˆtyw òwqk ≥(fy ΔμçΔμç) lykçh yl[ ywy dym btkb lkh laqw (byÎayΔjk aòòhd) wm[ bròk amlp laqzjy ˆamz yla yçylç tyb ˆynb trwx wlqny wnak ˚aòdkw amk hbytrtw sdqla laqzjyl ò[t hlla arwa laqzjy ˆamz yp sdqla az[ttl ˚lòd ˆwwdy ˆa 21hrmaw ˆaxqn alw hdayz alb lwqnm μh[m ˆak ˚aòdkw ≥μhrx[ yp sdqla bròk yòdla aybnala μtaòk hnalw 22hb hmala ≥òçh ò[ hyrkz dy yl[ hrwnmla rkòd (bΔgy òbd) aybn ˚brqb μwqy yk yp hwbnla μasqa anrkòd dqw (6.11.3)

lwbq 24bògy ybnla hb bfwòk μhnm 23am yap μasqa òw ahna anpr[w bfaòkt ytla hwbnla μasqa ˆm wh wypb yrbd yttnw òwqw ≥hlwq yp dyyam ybnla ˆa 25πr[ wnwxa rça lk ta μhyla rbdw òwqw ≥aybnala ≥wnwxa rça lk ta òwqk hmala yla ahydwyl hlasrla òfpj >ò[t (6 ≥m Δhòdh (5 ≥p Δm Δhwxwa (4 ≥q Δ˚ap (3 ≥p Δm Δatyl >yp (2 ≥q Δyp (1 ˆwbnty ˆyòdlaw (9 ≥q Δatyl >twdyt[b ˆwbnty alw (8 ≥q Δòtdjy ˆa (7 ≥q Δatyl Δhlw[la (12 ≥x Δatyl >lwbq (11 ≥x Δp Δhdyazla (10 ≥pΔm Δatyl ˘q Δtwdyt[b Δdzy (17 ≥p Δm Δyla (16 ≥x Δdyaz (15 ≥m Δatyl >dyawmw (14 ≥x Δp Δyh (13 ≥x Δhrma (21 ≥p Δm Δhparça ≥x Δhparxna (20 ≥x Δp Δrmawy (19 ≥p Δˆwrq (18 ≥x ≥x Δp Δπr[y (25 ≥p Δm Δbògw (24 ≥m Δatyl >am (23 ≥x Δp Δatyl >hb (22 ≥m 6.12 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Deuteronomy 34:10 Manuscripts: London, BL MS Or. 2479 [Cat. 275], fol. 157a–b St. Petersburg, IOS MS C72, unnumbered fols.

= l = s

>μynp la μynp ywy w[dy rça hçmk larçyb dw[ aybn μq alw (6.12.1) ˆymla[la br haògan yòdla hçm lòtm larçy la yp ybn aòxya 1μwqy alw >hfsaw rygb ya hògwl hògw

judeo-arabic texts

317

hòfplla hòdh ryspt ˆap πnatsy aml rbòk wh 2dw[ aybn μq alw òwq jbzm ynplm μq hlwqk whp rb[ wh am amap ≥l[apw rb[ ˆymsq μsqnt ≥(fΔh rtsa) wnmm [z alw μq alw hlòtmw (dnΔj aòòm) wykrb l[ [wrkm ywy anhahw ≥(akΔj bòòm) hlyl μq (a)wh yhyw òwqk whp amyaq rspy am amaw yp ˆsjy am yl[ μwqy alw htrb[ 4˚lòdlw dw[ hlwql μaq amw 3rspy al πnatsy am yp hb dyry dw[ hlwqw ≥μyaq ˆwky alw hrab[la ò≈jmw yn[mla ≥layògala ˆm aybna μwqt larçy ynb hma ryg yp ˆa larçyb òwqb dyry sylw (6.12.2) òmç) μym[h lkm hlgs yh lyarsa ynb hma tnak aml amnaw hçm lòtm ˆm μhryg ylaw μhyla ˆyòtw[bmla 5ˆylòxpmla aybnala ògròktw (hΔfy tbnt amk μhbwttsyl hwnyn yla 6hòò[ ytma ˆb hnwy lsra amk μmala μwjnw swm[w laqzjyw hymryw why[çy lòtm μla[la μma yl[ aybnala ˆa μmala dn[ ò≈aptsm ˚lòd ˆakw μla[la μma yl[ wbnta (ˆy)òdla 7 ˆm[nb μra ˚lm òt[b amk lyarsa ynb hma ˆm μh ˆyqdaxla aybnala òt[b amkw qçmd yla hlwòkd dn[ aòxya lazj hyla òt[bw [çyla òdla laq yn[mla aòdhlp zòg[mla bbs hnm μl[tsyl 8whyqzjy yla lbb ˚lm ≥larçyb hçmk hlwq ò≈rg yl[ πqn ank aml lwqla aòdh yl[ ˚sma wlw (6.12.3) μl ˆa jxp ò≈rgla yl[ anpqw lwqla μamtw ywy w[dy rça laq am lb dqw ≥μynp la μynp 10tòòa hlla hbfaòk yòdla ybn 9hòò[ hçm d[b μqy 11 tnyybw (bΔgy òbd) aybn ˚brqb μwqy yk yp hwbnla btarm trkòd tnk ˆythw çdq jwrw hp la hp ˆytnòt yh htsla lòga ˆaw μasqa hts ahna hbtrm yp aybnala 14htkraç dq 13ˆkalw 12hòò[ hçml atnak ˆytnòtla ≈yxòktla [qwa ˚lòdlp hp la hp hbtrm yp hkraçt μlw çdq jwr la μynp yn[m tjrç tnk dqw ≥μynp la μynp ywy w[dy rça 15òwqk anhah ryspt yp 16hp la hpw μynpb μynp ˆybw μynp la μynp ˆyb tqrpw μynp h[ydyla hòdhw ≥μòt ˆm hyl[ πqwy (dΔh òbd) μkm[ ywy rbd μynpb μynp rça ˆ[ml wyt[dy yk wrsp ˚aòdkw haòganm 17hwrsp ˚lòdlw rwbd t[ydy yh ≥(hΔgy [çwh) rbdmb ˚yt[dy yna (fyΔjy òrb) hwxy >˚lòdlw (4 ≥s Δatyl >rspy al ≥ ≥ ≥ amyaq (3 ≥l Δatyl >dw[ (2 ≥s Δμwqy (1 (8 ≥s Δˆm[nl (7 ≥s Δytma ˆb >hòò[ ≥ ≥ ≥ hnwy (6 ≥s Δatyl >ˆylòxpmla (5 ≥s Δatyl ò[ (12 ≥s Δaòxya+ (11 ≥s Δatyl >tòòa (10 ≥s Δatyl >hòò[ (9 ≥s Δwhyqzjyl >hp la hpw (16 ≥s Δhlwqb (15 ≥s Δahtkraç (14 ≥s Δˆkylw (13 ≥s Δòsla ≥s Δhwrg (17 ≥l Δatyl

This page intentionally left blank

ABBREVIATIONS

RABBINIC b y m t

TEXTS Babylonian Talmud Palestinian Talmud (Yerushalmi”) Mishnah Tosefta

MANUSCRIPT COLLECTIONS BL London, British Library BN Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale JTSA New York, Jewish Theological Seminary of America IOS St. Petersburg, Institute of Oriental Studies RNL St. Petersburg, Russian National Library Yevr. Yevreskiy [= Hebrew] Yevr.-Arab. Yevreskiy-Arabskiy [= Judeo-Arabic] JOURNALS BÉK BJGS BJRL EI EJ EJB HTR HUCA IC IOS JA JBL JE JJS JQR JRAS JSAI JSOTS JSP

AND REFERENCE WORKS Bulletin d’Études Karaïtes Bulletin of Judaeo-Greek Studies Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Manchester Encyclopaedia of Islam Encyclopaedia Judaica ( Jerusalem) Encyclopaedia Judaica (Berlin) Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Islamic Culture Israel Oriental Studies Journal Asiatique Journal of Biblical Literature Jewish Encyclopedia Journal of Jewish Studies Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

320 JSS KS MGWJ NJPS PAAJR REJ RSV RQ RSV SBB SBL SEI SRHJ TAPA

abbreviations Journal of Semitic Studies Kiryat Sefer Monatsschrift für die Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums Tanakh (New JPS Translation) Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research Revue des Études Juives Revised Standard Version Revue de Qumran Revised Standard Version Studies in Bibliography and Booklore Society of Biblical Literature Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam. Ed. H.A.R. Gibb and J.H. Kramers Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews. 2d ed. 18 vols. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Translations are listed below under Primary Sources. Manuscripts Cambridge University Library (CUL) T-S K 1.11 T-S Ar. 52.184

Fragments of a Dreambook Dàwùd al-Muqammaß, Commentary on Genesis (fragment) Saadya Gaon, Commentary on Leviticus (fragment)

T-S Ar. 52.194

London, British Library (BL) Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or.

2401 2462 2463 2475 2478 2479 2494

(Cat. (Cat. (Cat. (Cat. (Cat. (Cat. (Cat.

288) 255) 257) 271) 274) 275) 318/II)

Or. 2539 (Cat., vol. 4, p. 153)

Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Minor Prophets Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Genesis Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Genesis Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Numbers Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Deuteronomy Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Deuteronomy Abu "l-Faraj Furqàn b. Asad, Commentary on Leviticus Anonymous Exegetical Compilation on Deuteronomy Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Isaiah Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Isaiah Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Jeremiah Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on the Song of Songs Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on Lamentations Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on Lamentations Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on Song of Songs Karaite Liturgical Fragment

Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or.

Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Minor Prophets Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on the Song of Songs Levi b. Japheth, Treatise on Prayer On the Diﬀerences between Abu ’l-'Alì and Abu ’l-Surrì On the Diﬀerences between Abu ’l-'Alì and Abu ’l-Surrì Levi b. Japheth, Book of Commandments

Or. 2498 (Cat. 334) Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or.

2501 2502 2503 2513 2515 2516 2520

2550 2551 2554 2564 2573 2574 2577

(Cat. (Cat. (Cat. (Cat. (Cat. (Cat. (Cat.

(Cat. (Cat. (Cat. (Cat. (Cat. (Cat. (Cat.

280) 281) 284) 302) 253) 252) 328/XII)

289) 290) 301) 308/II) 589) 590) 592)

New York, The Jewish Theological Seminary of America ( JTSA) Mic. 3349 [ENA 95] Mic. 3350 [ENA 96] Mic. 3350 [ENA 97]

Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 73–89 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 42–72, 90–106 Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms 107–150

bibliography

322

Oxford, Bodleian Library Opp. Add. 4° 169 (Cat. 2483)

Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Minor Prophets

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale (BN) Suppl. Suppl. Suppl. Suppl. Suppl. Suppl. Suppl.

héb. héb. héb. héb. héb. héb. héb.

30/II (Cat. 278) 31 (Cat. 279) 35a (Cat. 283) 37/I (Cat. 286) 37/II (Cat. 287) 37/III (Cat. 288) 37/IV (Cat. 289)

Japheth Japheth Japheth Japheth Japheth Japheth Japheth

b. b. b. b. b. b. b.

Eli, Eli, Eli, Eli, Eli, Eli, Eli,

Commentary Commentary Commentary Commentary Commentary Commentary Commentary

on on on on on on on

Genesis Genesis Numbers Psalms 1–41 Psalms 42–72 Psalms 73–106 Psalms 107–150

St. Petersburg, Institute of Oriental Studies (IOS) A 143 C 41 C 72

Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Isaiah Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Deuteronomy Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Deuteronomy St. Petersburg, Russian National Library (RNL)

Yevr. I.567 Yevr. I.568 Yevr. I.569 Yevr. I.761 Yevr.-Arab. Yevr.-Arab. Yevr.-Arab. Yevr.-Arab. Yevr.-Arab. Yevr.-Arab. Yevr.-Arab. Yevr.-Arab. Yevr.-Arab. Yevr.-Arab. Yevr.-Arab. Yevr.-Arab. Yevr.-Arab. Yevr.-Arab. Yevr.-Arab. Yevr.-Arab.

I.0017 I.0019 I.0020 I.0040 I.0041 I.0054 I.0055 I.0057 I.0063 I.0095 I.0111 I.0114 I.0121 I.0928 I.0930 I.1406

Yevr.-Arab. I.1535 Yevr.-Arab. I.1754 Yevr.-Arab. I.1989 Yevr.-Arab. I.3806 Yevr.-Arab. I.3958 Yevr.-Arab. I.3959 Yevr.-Arab. I.4252 Yevr.-Arab. I.4633

Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Deuteronomy Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Isaiah Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Isaiah Levi b. Japheth, Book of Commandments (Hebrew) Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Numbers Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Deuteronomy Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Deuteronomy Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Exodus Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Exodus Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Exodus Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Exodus Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Leviticus Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Leviticus Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Deuteronomy Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Deuteronomy Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Deuteronomy Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Exodus Levi b. Japheth, Book of Commandments Levi b. Japheth, Book of Commandments Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on the Song of Songs Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Numbers Yùsuf b. Nù˙, Commentary on Genesis Abu ’l-Faraj Furqàn b. Asad, Commentary on Leviticus Anonymous, Commentary on Lamentations Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on the Song of Songs Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on the Song of Songs Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on the Song of Songs Sahl b. Maßlia˙, Commentary on Genesis

bibliography

323

Primary Sources Aaron b. Elijah of Nicomedia, Gan 'eden = Sefer ha-mißvot ha-gadol gan 'eden. Gözlöw, 1864. Aaron b. Joseph. Sefer ha-miv˙ar. 5 vols. Gözlöw, 1835. Abraham Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Hosea (Lipshitz) = The Commentary of Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra on Hosea. Ed. and trans. Abe Lipshitz. New York: Sepher-Hermon Press, 1988. Abraham Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Minor Prophets (Simon) = Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Two Commentaries on the Minor Prophets: An Annotated Critical Edition, Vol. 1: Hosea, Joel, Amos (Hebrew). Ed. Uriel Simon. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1989. ——. Peirushei ha-torah le-rabbeinu "Avraham Ibn 'Ezra. Ed. Asher Weiser. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1976. "Abù al-Faraj Hàrùn, Al-kitàb al-kàfì = Khan, Geoﬀrey, María Ángeles Gallego, and Judith Olszowy-Schlanger (ed. and trans.). The Karaite Tradition of Hebrew Grammatical Thought in its Classical Form: A Critical Edition and English Translation of al-Kitàb alKàfì fì al-Lu©a al-'Ibràniyya by "Abù al-Faraj Hàrùn ibn al-Faraj. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Aggadat bereshit. Ed. S. Buber. Cracow, 1902. 'Ali b. Rabbàn, The Book of Religion and Empire = Mingana, A. (ed.). The Book of Religion and Empire by Ali Tabari: Arabic Text. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1923. English translation: see Mingana, A. 'Alì b. Suleimàn, Commentary on Genesis = Skoss, Solomon L. The Arabic Commentary of 'Ali ben Suleimàn the Karaite on the Book of Genesis. Philadelphia: The Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning, 1928. Alobaidi, Joseph. Le Commentaire des Psaumes par le Qaraïte Salmon ben Yeruham. Bern: Peter Lang, 1996. Arberry, Arthur J. The Koran Interpreted. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964. Aristotle. “On Sleep and Waking,” “On Dreams,” and “On Divination through Sleep.” In Aristotle on Sleep and Dreams. Ed. and trans. David Gallop. 2d ed. Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips Ltd, 1996. Artemidorus, The Interpretation of Dreams = White, Robert J. (trans.). The Interpretation of Dreams (Oneirocritica) by Artemidorus. 2d ed. Torrance, CA: Original Books, 1990. Artemidorus, Kitàb ta'bìr al-ru"yà = Artémidore D’Éphèse: Le livre des songes, traduit du grec en arabe par Óunayn b. Is˙àq. Ed. Touﬁc Fahd. Damas: Institut Français de Damas, 1964. Artemidorus, Oneirocritica = Artemidorus of Daldanis. Artemidori Daldiani Onirocriticon Libri V. Ed. Roger A. Pack. Leipzig: Teubner, 1963. French translation: see Festugière, A.J. Avot de-Rabbi Natan = Aboth de Rabbi Nathan. Ed. Salomon Schechter. Vienna, 1887. English translation: See Goldin, Judah. Berman, Samuel A. (trans.). Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu. Hoboken, N.J.: KTAV, 1996. Braude, William G. (trans.). The Midrash on Psalms. 2 vols. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959. Braude, William G. and Israel J. Kapstein (trans.). Tanna Debe Eliyyahu: The Lore of the School of Elijah. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1981. Brody, Seth. Rabbi Ezra ben Solomon of Gerona: Perush Shir ha-Shirim (Commentary on the Song of Songs). Kalamazoo, Mich.: Medieval Institute Publications, 1999. al-Bukhàrì. Ía˙ì˙ = Kitàb al-jàmi' al-ßa˙ì˙. Le recueil des traditions mahométanes par Abou Abdallah Mohammed ibn Ismaìl el-Bokhàri. Ed. Ludolf Krehl and Th. W. Juynboll. 4 vols. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1862–1908. Chiesa, Bruno and Wilfrid Lockwood. Ya'qùb al-Qirqisànì on Jewish Sects and Christianity: A Translation of « Kitàb al-Anwàr » Book I, With Two Introductory Essays. Judentum

324

bibliography

und Umwelt, 10. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1984. The translation of “The First Section of the Book of Lights and Watchtowers” is by Lockwood. Cohen, Gerson D. The Book of Tradition (Sefer Ha-Qabbalah) by Abraham Ibn Daud. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1967. Danby, Herbert (trans.). The Mishnah. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933. Daniel b. Moses al-Qùmisì. Pitron sheneim 'a≤ar. (Commentarius in Librum Duodecim Prophetarum). Ed. I.D. Markon. Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1957. David al-Fàsì, Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ = David b. Abraham al-Fàsì. The Hebrew-Arabic Dictionary of the Bible Known as Kitàb Jàmi' al-AlfàΩ (Agròn). Ed. Solomon L. Skoss. 2 vols. (Yale Oriental Series, 20–21). New Haven: Yale University Press, 1936–45. al-Dìnawarì, Kitàb al-ta'bìr = al-Dìnawarì, Abù Sa'd Nasr b. Ya'qùb. Kitàb al-ta'bìr fì "l-ru"yà aw al-qàdirì fì "l-ta'bìr. Ed. Fahmì Sa'd. 2 vols. Beirut: Dàr al-Kutub, 1997. Dodge, Bayard (ed. and trans.). The Fihrist of al-Nadìm. 2 vols. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970. Eliyyahu Rabbah = Seder Eliahu Rabba und Seder Eliahu Zuta (Tanna d’be Eliahu). Ed. M. Friedmann. Vienna, 1902. English translation: see Braude, William G. and Israel J. Kapstein. Epstein, I(sidore) (ed.). The Babylonian Talmud . . . Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices. 35 vols. London: Soncino Press, 1935–52. Even-Shemuel, Yehudah. Midreshei ge"ulah. 2d ed. Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv: Mossad Bialik, 1954. Exodus Rabbah = Shemot rabbati. In Midrash rabbah. 2 vols. Vilna: Romm, 1878. English translation: see Freedman, H. and M. Simon. al-Fàràbì, On the Perfect State = Al-Farabi on the Perfect State: Abù Naßr al-Fàràbì’s Mabàdi" Àrà" Ahl al-Madìna al-Fà∂ila. Ed. Richard Walzer. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. al-Fàsì, David b. Abraham. See David al-Fàsì. Festugière, A.J. (trans.). Artémidore: La Clef des songes. Paris: J. Vrin, 1975. Freedman, H. and M. Simon (trans.). Midrash Rabbah: Translated into English. 10 vols. 3rd ed. London: Soncino Press, 1961. Gallop, David. Aristotle on Sleep and Dreams. 2d ed. Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips Ltd, 1996. Genesis Rabbah = Midrash bereshit rabba. Ed. J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck. Berlin: H. Itzkowski, 1912–36. Reprinted with corrections, 3 vols. Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1965. English translation: see Freedman, H. and M. Simon. Goldin, Judah (trans.), The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955. Gollancz, H. (trans.). The Targum to ‘The Song of Songs’. London, 1908. Guillaume, A. (trans.). The Life of Muhammad. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955. Óamesh megillot . . . 'im peirushim 'attiqim. Ed. Yosef Qaﬁ˙. Jerusalem: Ha-Agudah leHaßalat Ginzei Teiman, 1962. el-Hawary, Mohamed. The Diﬀerences Between the Karaites and the Rabbanites in the Light of Genizah Mss.: MS. Heb. f.18 ( fols. 1–33a), Bodleian-Oxford (Arabic). Cairo: Dar El-Zahraa, 1994. Hertz, Joseph H. (ed. and trans.). Sayings of the Fathers. New York: Behrman House, 1945. The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1959. The Holy Qur"àn. Ed. and trans. Ali, Abdullah Yusuf Ali. London: The Islamic Foundation, 1975. English translation: see also Arberry, Arthur J. Ibn Abì al-Dunyà, Kitàb al-manàm = Kinberg, Leah (ed.). Morality in the Guise of Dreams. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994. Ibn 'Aqnìn, Commentary on Song of Songs = Ibn 'A˚nìn, Joseph b. Judah b. Jacob. Divulgatio Mysteriorum Luminumque Apparentia (Hebrew and Judeo-Arabic). Jerusalem Mekize Nirdamim, 1964. Ibn Janà˙, Abu"l-Walìd Marwàn. Kitàb al-ußùl. (The Book of Hebrew Roots). Ed. A. Neubauer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1875.

bibliography

325

Ibn al-Jawzi. Al-wafà" bi-a˙wàl al-muß†afà. Ed. Muß†afà 'Abd al-Wà˙id. Cairo: Dàr al-Kutub al-Óadìtha, 1386/1966. Ibn al-Nadìm. Kitàb al-ﬁhrist. Ed. Gustav Flügel. Leipzig, 1871. English translation: Dodge, Bayard. Ibn Qutayba, Abù Mu˙ammad 'Abdallàh b. Muslim. Ta"wìl Mushkil al-Qur"àn. Cairo: Markaz al-Ahràm lil-Tarjama wa"l-Nashr, 1989. Kellner, Menachem (trans.), Levi ben Gershom (Gersonides), Commentary on Song of Songs. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1998. Lasker, Daniel J. and Sarah Stroumsa (ed. and trans.). The Book of Nestor the Priest. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1996. Lockwood, Wilfrid. Ya'qùb al-Qirqisànì on Jewish Sects and Christianity. See Chiesa, Bruno and Wilfrid Lockwood. Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Daniel = A Commentary on the Book of Daniel by Rabbi Jephet the Karaite. Ed. D.S. Margoliouth. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1889. Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Deuteronomy XXXII = “The Commentary of Yefet ben Ali on Deuteronomy XXXII.” Ed. and trans. Moshe Sokolow. Ph.D. dissertation. Yeshiva University, 1974. Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Ecclesiastes = Bland, Richard M. “The Arabic Commentary of Yepheth ben 'Ali on the Book of Ecclesiastes, Chapters 1–6.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, 1966. Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Hosea = The Arabic Commentary of Yefet Ben 'Ali the Karaite on the Book of Hosea. Ed. Philip Birnbaum. Philadelphia: Dropsie College, 1942. Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Jeremiah = Wendkos, Philip David. “The Arabic Commentary of Yefet b. Ali the Karaite on the Book of Jeremiah: 150 Folios Edited from Three Mss With Critical Notes.” Ph.D. dissertation. Dropsie College, 1969. Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Job = Hussain, Haider Abbas. “Yefet Ben 'Ali’s Commentary on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Job I–X.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of St. Andrews, 1986. Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Minor Prophets ( Joel-Micah) = Marwick, Lawrence. Retribution and Redemption: Yefet Ben 'Eli on the Minor Prophets, A Lost Work of Lawrence Marwick. n.p., [2003] Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Proverbs (Günzig) = Günzig, Israel. Der Commentar des Karäers Jephet Ben "Ali Halêvi zu den Proverbien. Krakau: Josef Fischer, 1898. Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms (Bargès) = Rabbi Yapheth Ben Heli Bassorensis Karaïtae in Librum Psalmorum Commentarii arabici. Ed. and trans. ( J.J.) L. Bargès. Paris, 1846. Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Psalms (Hofmann) = Hofmann, Theodor. Der XXII. Psalm in das Arabische übersetzt und erklärt von R. Jephet b. Eli ha-Baçri. Tübingen: Druck von Ludwig Friedrich Fues, 1880. Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on the Song of Songs = Bargès, J.J.L. Rabbi Yapheth Abou Aly in Canticum Canticorum Commentarium Arabicum. Paris, 1884. Japheth b. Eli, Translation of Psalms = Bargès, J.J.L. (ed.). Kitâb al-zubûr: Libri Psalmorum David regis et prophetae versio a R. Japheth ben Heli Bassorensi Karaita. Paris, 1861. Judah b. Elijah Hadassi. "Eshkol ha-Kofer. Gözlöw, 1836. Judah Óayyùj. Kitàb al-nutaf. Ed. Nasir Basal. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 2001. Kasher, Mena˙em M. Torah shelemah. 45 vols. in 12. Jerusalem: Beth Torah Shelemah, 1992–. al-Kindî. Cinq épîtres. Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientiﬁque, 1976. al-Kindì, Rasà"il = Abù Rìda, Mu˙ammad 'Abd al-Hàdì. Rasà"il al-Kindì al-falsaﬁyya. Cairo, 1950. Lagarde, Paul de. Materialien zur Kritik und Geschichte des Pentateuchs. 2 vols. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1867. Lamentations Rabbah = Midrash eikhah rabbah. Ed. S. Buber. Vilna, 1899. English translation: see Freedman, H. and M. Simon.

326

bibliography

Le Strange, Guy (trans.). Description of Syria Including Palestine by Mukaddasi. London: Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, 1886. Levi b. Japheth, Sefer ha-mißvot = Levi b. Japheth. Sefer ha-mißvot. Ed. Yoseph ElGamil. 5 vols. Ashdod: Makhon “Tif "eret Yosef ”, 2002. Leviticus Rabbah = Midrash Wayyikra Rabbah. Ed. Mordecai Margulies. 5 vols. Jerusalem, 1953–60. Reprinted in two vols., New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1993. English translation: see Freedman, H. and M. Simon. Lorge, M. Die Speisegesetze der Karäer von Samuel el-Ma¿rebi. Berlin: H. Itzkowski, 1907. Ma˙azor le-yom kippur. Ed. Daniel Goldschmidt. Jerusalem: Koren, 1993. Maimonides, Guide = Moses b. Maimon. Dalàlat al-˙à"irìn (Sefer moreh nevukhim). Ed. Shelomo ben Eliezer Munk. Jerusalem: Junovitch, 1931. English translation: see Pines, S. Maimonides, Mishneh torah = Moses b. Maimon. Mishneh torah. Warsaw: Mordechai Kleinberg, 1881. Màlik b. Anas. Al-Muwa††a". 4 vols. Cairo, A.H. 1279–1280 [= 1862–64]. al-Màwardì, Abù ’l-Óasan 'Alì b. Mu˙ammad. A'làm al-nubùwa. Cairo, 1391/1971. Mekhilta = Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael. Ed. and trans. Jacob Z. Lauterbach. 3 vols. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1933. Mena˙em b. Solomon ha-Me"iri (d. 1306). Beit ha-be˙irah 'al massekhet ˙ullin. Ed. Avraham Lis. Jerusalem: Mekhon ha-Talmud ha-Yisre"eli ha-Shalem, 1970. Midrash Mishle (Hebrew). Ed. Burton L. Visotzky. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1990. English translation: see Visotzky, Burton L. Midrash Rabbah. 2 vols. Vilna: Romm, 1878. Midrash Shir ha-Shirim = Midrash shir ha-shirim. Ed. Joseph Chaim Wertheimer. Jerusalem: Ktav Yad Vasefer Institute, 1981. Midrash Tan˙uma. Wilna, 1831. English translation: see Berman, Samuel A. Midrash Tan˙uma (Buber) = Midrash tan˙uma. Ed. S. Buber. 2 vols. Wilna: Romm, 1885. English translation: see Townsend, John T. Midrash Tehillim. Ed. Salomon Buber. Vilna: Romm, 1891. English translation: see Braude, William G. Mikra’ot Gedolot ‘Haketer’: Isaiah. Ed. Menachem Cohen. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1996. Mingana, A. The Book of Religion and Empire by 'Ali ˇabari. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1922. Mishnah = Shishah sidrei mishnah. Ed. Chanoch Albeck. 2d ed. 6 vols. Jerusalem/ Tel-Aviv: Mossad Bialik and Dvir, 1959. al-Muqaddasì, A˙san al-taqàsìm fì ma'rifàt al-taqàlìm = al-Muqaddasì, Shams al-Dìn Abù Abd Allàh Mu˙ammad b. A˙mad b. Abì Bakr al-Bannà al-Shàmì al-Bashshàrì. A˙san al-taqàsìm fì ma'rifàt al-taqàlìm. Ed. M.J. De Goeje. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1906. Muslim, Ía˙ì˙ = Muslim b. al-Óajjàj. Ía˙ì˙ Muslim. 5 vols. Cairo, A.H. 1283 [= 1866–67]. Nitzan, Bilha. Pesher Habakkuk: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea (1QpHab) (Hebrew). Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute, 1986. Numbers Rabbah. In Midrash rabbah. 2 vols. Vilna: Romm, 1878. English translation: see Freedman, H. and M. Simon. Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana = Pesikta de-Rav Kahana. Ed. Bernard Mandelbaum. 2 vols. The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962. Pines, Shlomo (trans.). Moses Maimonides: The Guide of the Perplexed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1963. Rosenblatt, Samuel (trans.). Saadia Gaon: The Book of Beliefs and Opinions. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948. Rosenthal, Franz (trans.). Ibn Khaldûn: The Muqaddimah. 3 vols. New York: Pantheon Books, 1958. Stroumsa, Sarah (ed. and trans.). Dàwùd Ibn Marwàn al-Muqammiß’s Twenty Chapters ( 'Ishrùn Maqàla). Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1989.

bibliography

327

al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr = Ya'qùb al-Qirqisànì. Kitàb al-Anwàr wa"l-Maràqib: Code of Karaite Law. Ed. Leon Nemoy. 5 vols. New York: The Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1939–43. Saadya Gaon, Commentary on Daniel = Dani"el 'im tirgum u-feirush rabbeinu Se'adyah ben Yosef Fayyùmì. Ed. and trans. Yosef Qaﬁ˙. Jerusalem: Ha-Va'ad le-Hoßa"at Sifrei Rasag, 1981. Saadya Gaon, Commentary on Genesis = Saadya b. Joseph Gaon. Commentary on Genesis (Arabic and Hebrew). Ed. Moshe Zucker. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1984. Saadya Gaon, Commentary on Proverbs = Mishlei 'im tirgum u-feirush ha-ga"on rabbeinu Se'adyah ben Yosef Fayyùmì. Ed. and trans. Yosef Qaﬁ˙. Jerusalem: Ha-Va'ad leHoßa"at Sifrei Rasag, 1976. Saadya Gaon, Commentary on Psalms = Tehillim 'im tirgum u-feirush ha-ga"on rabbeinu Se'adyah ben Yosef Fayyùmì. Ed. and trans. Yosef Qaﬁ˙. Jerusalem: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1966. Saadya Gaon, Ha-"Egron = Ha-"egron: kitàb "ußùl al-shi'r al-'ibrànì by Rav Se'adya Ga"on (Hebrew). Ed. Ne˙emya Allony. Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1969. Saadya Gaon, Kitàb al-amànàt = Kitàb al-mukhtàr fì al-amànàt wa"l-i'tiqàdàt (Sefer haniv˙ar ba-"emunot u-va-de'ot). Ed. Yosef Qàﬁ˙. Jerusalem: Sura, 1970. English translation: see Rosenblatt, Samuel. Saadya Gaon, Tafsìr = Version arabe du Pentateuque de R. Saadia ben Iosef al-Fayyoûmî. Ed. Joseph Derenbourg. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1893. Saadya Gaon, Tafsìr Isaiah = Saadya’s Translation and Commentary on Isaiah (Hebrew and Arabic). Ed. Yehuda Ratzaby. Kiriat Ono: Mkhon Moshe, 1993. Salmon b. Yeru˙ìm, Commentary on Ecclesiastes = Riese, Moshe. “The Arabic Commentary of Solomon Ben Yeruham the Karaite on Ecclesiastes” (Hebrew). Ph.D. dissertation. Yeshiva University, New York, 1973. Salmon b. Yeru˙ìm, Commentary on Lamentations (Feuerstein) = Feuerstein, S. Der Commentar des Karaers Salmon ben Jerucham zu den Klageliedern. Krakau, 1898. Salmon b. Yeru˙ìm, Commentary on Psalms (Alobaidi) = Alobaidi, Joseph (ed. and trans.). Le commentaire des Psaumes par le qaraïte Salmon ben Yeruham: Psaumes 1–10; introduction, édition, traduction. Bern: Peter Lang, 1996. Salmon b. Yeru˙ìm, Commentary on Psalms (Marwick) = Marwick, Lawrence (ed.). The Arabic Commentary of Salmon Ben Yeruham the Karaite on the Book of Psalms, Chapters 42–72. Philadelphia: The Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning, 1956. Salmon b. Yeru˙ìm. Sefer mil˙amot ha-shem (The Book of the Wars of the Lord). Ed. Israel Davidson. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1934. Samuel b. Hophni, Kitàb a˙kàm shar' al-ßìßìt = Tavger, Kelil Tekhelet, 217–69. [see under Secondary Sources]. Samuel ben Hophni. Peirush ha-torah. Ed. Aharon Greenbaum. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1979. Seder Eliyahu zutta. [printed with Seder Eliyahu Rabba]. Ed. M. Friedman. Vienna, 1902. Shehadeh, Haseeb. The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch, Volume One: GenesisExodus. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1989. Sifra on Leviticus. Ed. Louis Finkelstein. 5 vols. New York and Jerusalem: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1983–91. Sifre on Deuteronomy. Ed. Louis Finkelstein. Berlin: Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaft des Judentums, 1939. Reprinted, New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1969. Sifrei Numbers = Siphre D’Be Rab: Siphre ad Numeros adjecto Siphre zutta. Ed. H.S. Horovitz. Leipzig: Gustav Fock, 1917. Reprinted, Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1966. Simeon b. Íema˙ Duran. Sefer magen "avot. Jerusalem: Boys Town Jerusalem Press, 1961. Song of Songs Rabbah = Midrash rabbah shir ha-shirim. Ed. Shimshon Dunsky.

328

bibliography

Jerusalem/Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1980. English translation: see Freedman, H. and M. Simon. Sperber, Alexander. The Bible in Aramaic. 5 vols. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1959–73. Targum Onqelos = Sperber, Alexander (ed.). The Bible in Aramaic, Vol. I: The Pentateuch According to Targum Onkelos. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1959. Tanakh: A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures according to the Traditional Hebrew Text. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1985. Torat ˙ayyim: ˙amishah ˙umshei torah. 7 vols. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1986– 1993. Townsend, John T. (trans.). Midrash Tan˙uma Translated into English . . . S. Buber Recension. Vol. 1: Genesis. Hoboken, N.J.: KTAV, 1989. Vajda, Georges (trans.). Le Commentaire d’Ezra de Gérone sur le Cantique des Cantiques. Paris: Aubier-Montaigne, 1969. ——. Al-Kitàb al-Mu˙tawì de Yùsuf al-Baßìr. Ed. David R. Blumenthal. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985. Visotzky, Burton L. (trans.). The Midrash on Proverbs. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1992. Yalqut Shim'oni. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Lewin-Epstein, 1967. Ya'qùb al-Qirqisànì. See al-Qirqisànì. Secondary Sources Abdul Aleem, “I'jàzu-l-Qur"àn,” IC 7 (1933): 64–82, 215–33. Abed, Shukri B. Aristotelian Logic and the Arabic Language in Alfàràbì. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991. Adang, Camilla. Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible: From Ibn Rabban to Ibn Hazm. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996. ——. “The Karaites as Portrayed in Medieval Islamic Sources.” In Karaite Judaism: A Guide to its History and Literary Sources. Ed. Meira Polliack, 179–97. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Adler, E.N. and I. Broydé. “An Ancient Bookseller’s Catalogue.” JQR o.s. 13 (1901): 52–62. Ahituv, Yair and Samuel Ahituv. “Nesher.” In Encyclopaedia Biblica (Hebrew). Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1968, 5:976–78. Alexander, P.S. “Tradition and Originality in the Targum of the Song of Songs.” In The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context. Ed. D.R.G. Beattie and M.J. McNamara, 318–39. JSOTS, 166. Sheﬃeld: Sheﬃeld Academic Press, 1994. ——. “Bavli Berakhot 55a–57b: The Talmudic Dreambook in Context.” JJS 46 (1995): 230–48. Allony, Ne˙emya. “Kitàb al-sab'ìn lafΩa le-rav se'adyah ga"on.” In Ignaz Goldziher Memorial Volume (Hebrew), vol. 1, 1–48. Jerusalem, 1958. Reprinted in Studies in Medieval Philology and Literature, vol. 1. Ed. Yosef Tobi and Robert Attal, 27–74. Jerusalem: Ben Zvi Institute, 1986. ——. “‘Sefer ha-"egron’ ha-'ivri ke-neged ha-‘'arabiyya.’” In Zer li-gevurot . . . qoveß me˙qarim ba-miqra . . . mugash le-rav Zalman Shazar, 465–74. Jerusalem, 1973. Reprinted in Studies in Medieval Philology and Literature, vol. 1. Ed. Yosef Tobi and Robert Attal, 325–34. Jerusalem: Ben Zvi Institute, 1986. Altmann, Alexander. “Saadya’s Conception of the Law.” BJRL 28 (1944): 320–39. 'Amar, Zohar. “Ha-pulmus 'al kashrut ha-˙asidah (Ciconia) bi-yemei ha-beinayim” (“The Debate Concerning the Permissibility of the Stork in the Middle Ages”). Sinai 128 (2001): 135–46. Anderson, George W. “Enemies and Evildoers in the Book of Psalms.” BJRL 48 (1965): 18–29.

bibliography

329

Ankori, Zvi. Karaites in Byzantium: The Formative Years, 970–1100. New York: Columbia University Press, 1959. Assaf, Sim˙ah. “Prayer by Salman ben Yerù˙am [?] the Karaite” (Hebrew). Zion o.s. 3 (1928–29): 88–94. Astell, Ann W. The Song of Songs in the Middle Ages. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990. Astren, Fred. “Karaite Historiography and Historical Consciousness.” In Karaite Judaism: A Guide to its History and Literary Sources. Ed. Meira Polliack, 25–69. Leiden: Brill, 2003. ——. “Islamic Contexts of Medieval Karaism.” In Karaite Judaism: A Guide to its History and Literary Sources. Ed. Meira Polliack, 145–77. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Avni, Zvi. “Balaam’s Poetic Verses in the Commentary of Yefet ben 'Eli the Karaite” (Hebrew). Sefunot 8 [23] (2003): 371–458. Ayoub, Mahmoud M. The Qur"an and its Interpreters. 2 vols. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984–1992. Bacher, Wilhelm. Abraham Ibn Esra’s Einleitung zu seinem Pentateuch-Commentar. Wien, 1876. ——. “Inedited Chapters of Jehudah Hadassi’s ‘Eshkol hakkofer.’” JQR o.s. 8 (1895–96): 431–44. ——. “Le Grammairien anonyme de Jérusalem et son livre.” REJ 30 (1895): 232–56. ——. Die exegetische Terminologie der judischen Traditionsliteratur. 2 parts. Leipzig, 1899, 1905. Reprinted, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1965. Bar, Shaul. A Letter That Has Not Been Read: Dreams in the Hebrew Bible. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 2001. Baras, Zvi. “Jewish-Christian Disputes and Conversions in Jerusalem.” In Jerusalem in the Middle Ages: Selected Papers (Hebrew). Ed. B.Z. Kedar and Z. Baras, 27–38. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1979. Bareket, Elinoar. “Karaite Communities in the Middle East During the Tenth to Eleventh Centuries.” In Karaite Judaism: A Guide to its History and Literary Sources. Ed. Meira Polliack, 237–52. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Baron, Salo W. A Social and Religious History of the Jews. 2d ed. 18 vols. New York: Columbia University Press; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1952–83. [= SRHJ]. Barrett, C.K. “The Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New.” In The Cambridge History of the Bible. Ed. P.R. Ackroyd and C.F. Evans, 1:377–411. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Banitt, Menahem. “La Langue vernaculaire dans les commentaires de Raschi.” In Rashi, 1040–1990: Hommage à Ephraïm E. Urbach. Ed. Gabrielle Sed-Rajna, 411–18. Paris: Cerf, 1993. Basal, Nasir. “Excerpts from the abridgment (al-Muhtasar) of al-Kitâb al-Kâfî by Abû al-Farag Hârûn in Arabic script.” IOS 17 (1997): 197–225. Becker, Dan. “The ‘Ways’ of the Hebrew Verb according to the Karaite Grammarians Abu-Al-Faraj Harun and the Author of the Me"or Ha'ayin” (Hebrew). Te"udah 7 (1991): 249–79. Beit-Arié, Malachi. “Palimpsest minkhen.” KS 43 (1968): 411–28. Ben-Sasson, H.H. “Tenth- and Eleventh-Century Karaite Attitudes to Gentiles.” In Salo Wittmayer Baron Jubilee Volume (Hebrew Section). Saul Lieberman and Arthur Hyman, 71–90. Jerusalem: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1974. ——. “The Karaite Community of Jerusalem in the Tenth-Eleventh Centuries” (Hebrew). Shalem 2 (1976): 1–18. Ben-Shammai, Haggai. “The Classiﬁcation of the Commandments and the Concept of Wisdom in Rav Saadia’s Thought” (Hebrew). Tarbiz 41 (1972): 170–82. ——. “Edition and Versions in Yephet b. Ali’s Bible Commentary” (Hebrew). Alei Sefer 2 (1976): 17–32. ——. “The Doctrines of Religious Thought of Abû Yûsuf Ya'qûb al-Qirqisânî and

330

bibliography

Yefet ben 'Elî” (Hebrew). 2 vols. Ph.D. dissertation. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1977. ——. “The Attitude of Some Early Karaites Towards Islam.” In Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature, vol. 2. Ed. Isadore Twersky, 3–40. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1984. ——. “Sefer Ha-Mitzvoth of the Karaite Levi ben Yefet” (Hebrew). Shenaton HaMishpat Ha-Ivri 11–12 (1984–86): 99–133. ——. “New Findings in a Forgotten Manuscript: Samuel b. Hofni’s Commentary on Ha"azinu and Sa'adya’s ‘Commentary on the Ten Songs’” (Hebrew). KS 61 (1986): 313–32. ——. “Yeshuah Ben Yehudah—A Characterization of a Karaite Scholar of Jerusalem in the Eleventh Century” (Hebrew). Pe'amim 32 (1987): 3–20. ——. “On a Polemical Element in Saadya’s Theory of Prophecy” (Hebrew). In Shlomo Pines Jubilee Volume, Pt. 1 (= Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought, 7). Ed. Moshe Idel, et al., 127–46. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988. ——. “The Karaite Exegetes and Their Rabbanite Environment” (Hebrew). In Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Bible Studies and Ancient Near East, 43–58. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1988. ——. “Fragments of Daniel al-Qùmisì’s Commentary on the Book of Daniel as a Historical Source.” Henoch 13 (1991) 259–81. ——. “Saadya’s Introduction to Isaiah as an Introduction to the Books of the Prophets” (Hebrew). Tarbiz 60 (1991): 371–404. ——. “Some Genizah Fragments on the Duty of the Nations to Keep the Mosaic Law.” In Genizah Research After Ninety Years. Ed. Joshua Blau and Stefan C. Reif, 22–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. ——. “The Karaite Controversy: Scripture and Tradition in Early Karaism.” In Religionsgespräche im Mittelalter. Ed. Bernard Lewis and Friedrich Niewöhner, 11–26. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1992. ——. “New Data on the Location of the Karaite Quarter in Jerusalem During the Early Islamic Period” (Hebrew). Shalem 6 (1992): 305–13. ——. “Return to the Scriptures in Ancient and Medieval Jewish Sectarianism and in Early Islam.” In Les Retours aux écritures: fondamentalismes présents et passés. Ed. Évelyne Patlagean and Alain Le Boulluec, 319–39. Louvain-Paris: Peeters, 1993. ——. “Between Ananites and Karaites: Observations on Early Medieval Jewish Sectarianism.” In Studies in Muslim-Jewish Relations. Ed. Ronald L. Nettler, 19–29. Chur: Harwood, 1993. ——. “The Exegetical and Philosophical Writing of Saadya Gaon: A Leader’s Endeavor” (Hebrew). Pe‘amim 54 (1993): 63–81. ——. “Poetic Works and Lamentations of Qaraite ‘Mourners of Zion’—Structure and Contents.” In Kenesset Ezra: Literature and Life in the Synagogue, Studies Presented to Ezra Fleischer (Hebrew). Ed. S. Elizur, et al., 191–234. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1994. ——. “The Location of the Karaite Quarter in Medieval Jerusalem” (Hebrew). Cathedra 70 (1994): 59–94. ——. “Saadya Gaon’s Ten Articles of Faith” (Hebrew). Daat 37 (1996): 11–26. ——. “The Karaites.” In The History of Jerusalem: The Early Muslim Period, 638–1099. Ed. Joshua Prawer and Haggai Ben-Shammai, 201–24. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi; New York: New York University Press, 1996. ——. “Jewish Thought in Iraq in the 10th Century.” In Judaeo-Arabic Studies: Proceedings of the Founding Conference of the Society for Judaeo-Arabic Studies. (Studies in MuslimJewish Relations). Ed. Norman Golb, 15–32. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1997. ——. “Prognostic Midrash in the Works of Se'adya Gaon as Exempliﬁed in His Introduction to the Commentary on the Song of David (2 Sam. 22)” (Hebrew).

bibliography

331

In Me"ah She'arim: Studies in Medieval Jewish Spiritual Life in Memory of Isadore Twersky. Ed. E. Fleischer, et al., 1–19. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2001. ——. “Karaites and the Orient—Trends in the Study of Karaites and Karaism” (Hebrew). Pe'amim 89 (2001): 5–18. ——. “The Tension Between Literal Interpretation and Exegetical Freedom: Comparative Observations on Saadya’s Method.” In With Reverence for the Word. Ed. Jane Dammen McAuliﬀe, Barry D. Walﬁsh, and Joseph W. Goering, 33–50. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. ——. “Saadya’s Introduction to Daniel: An Essay on the Calculation of the End of Days according to Prophecy Against the Speculations of Astrologers and Magicians” (Hebrew). In Sefunot 8 [23] (2003): 13–60. ——. “The Scholarly Study of Karaism in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries.” In Karaite Judaism: A Guide to its History and Literary Sources. Ed. Meira Polliack, 9–24. Leiden: Brill, 2003. ——. “Major Trends in Karaite Philosophy and Polemics in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries.” In Karaite Judaism: A Guide to its History and Literary Sources. Ed. Meira Polliack, 339–62. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Ben-Shammai, Haggai, Efrat Batat, Sagit Butbul, David Sklare and Sarah Stroumsa. Judaeo-Arabic Manuscripts in the Firkovitch Collections: Yefet ben 'Eli al-Basri, Commentary on Genesis. A Sample Catalogue. Texts and Studies. Jerusalem: Center for the Study of Judaeo-Arabic Culture and Literature/Ben-Zvi Institute, 2000. Berger, David. The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages: A Critical Edition of the Nizzahon Vetus. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1979. Berger, Michael. Rabbinic Authority. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Berlin, Adele. Biblical Poetry through Medieval Jewish Eyes. Bloomington and Indianapolis: University of Indiana Press, 1991. Bernand, Marie. Le Problème de la connaissance d’après le Mu©nì du cadi 'Abd al-Gabbàr. Alger: Société Nationale d’Edition et de Diﬀusion, 1982. Bickerman, Elias. Four Strange Books of the Bible. New York: Schocken Books, 1967. Birkeland, Harris. The Evildoers in the Book of Psalms. Oslo: I Kommisjon Hos Jacob Dybwad, 1955. Birnbaum, Philip. “Yefet ben Ali and his Inﬂuence on Biblical Exegesis.” JQR 32 (1941–42): 51–70, 159–74, 257–71. Black, Mary E. The Key to Weaving: A Textbook of Hand Weaving for the Beginning Weaver. 2d ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1980. Bland, N. “On the Muhammedan Science of Tâbîr, or Interpretation of Dreams.” JRAS 16 (1856): 118–71. Blau, Joshua. A Grammar of Mediaeval Judaeo-Arabic. 2d ed. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1980. ——. The Emergence and Linguistic Background of Judaeo-Arabic: A Study of the Origins of Middle Arabic. 2d ed. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1981. ——. “Textual Comments to: A. Greenbaum, The Biblical Commentary of Rav Samuel Ben Hofni Gaon” (Hebrew). Tarbiz 55 (1986): 279–91. Blichfeldt, Jan-Olaf. Early Mahdism: Politics and Religion in the Formative Period of Islam. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985. Bloomﬁeld, Leonard. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1933. Repr., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984. Blumﬁeld, Fiona. “Yefet ben 'Eli on the Identity of the ‘Redeemer’ in his Commentary on the Book of Ruth.” In Exegesis and Grammar in Medieval Karaite Texts. Ed. Geoﬀrey Khan, 65–75. ( Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement, 13.) Oxford: Oxford University Press on behalf of the University of Manchester, 2001. Bowman, Steven B. The Jews of Byzantium, 1204–1453. University, Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 1985.

332

bibliography

Boyarin, Daniel. “Two Introductions to the Midrash on the Song of Songs” (Hebrew). Tarbiz 56 (1987): 479–501. Breen, A. “Observations on the Arabic Translation of Artemidorus, Bk. I.” Le Muséon 101 (1988): 179–81. Brock, Sebastian. “Jewish Traditions in Syriac Sources.” JJS 30 (1979): 212–32. Brockelmann, Carl. “al-Màwardì.” In EI. 2d ed. 6:869. Brody, Robert. “Book Review: A. Greenbaum, The Biblical Commentary of Rav Samuel Ben Hofni Gaon” (Hebrew). Tarbiz 55 (1986): 269–78. ——. The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1998. ——. “The Geonim of Babylonia as Biblical Exegetes.” In Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. I/2: The Middle Ages. Ed. Magne Sæbø, 74–88. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Bulmer, Ralph. “The Uncleanness of the Birds of Leviticus and Deuteronomy,” Man n.s. 24 (1989): 304–20. Butbul, Sagit. “The Commentary of Yefet ben 'Eli the Karaite on the Book of Ruth” (Hebrew). Sefunot 8 [23] (2003): 459–571. Cahen, Claude. “Dhimma.” In EI. 2d ed. 2:227–31. Carmi, T. The Penguin Book of Hebrew Verse. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd., 1981. Carra de Vaux, B. “Walì.” In SEI, 629–31. Chiesa, Bruno. “Dai ‘Principi dell’esegesi biblica’ di Qirqisani.” JQR 73 (1982–83): 124–37. ——. “A New Fragment of Al-Qirqisànì’s Kitàb al-Riyà∂.” JQR 78 (1987–88): 175–85. ——. Creazione e caduta dell’uomo nell’esegesi giudeo-araba medievale. Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 1989. ——. Filologia storica della Bibbia ebraica. 2 vols. (Studi Biblici 125, 135). Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 2000–2002. Chiesa, Bruno and W. Lockwood. “Al-Qirqisànì’s Newly-Found Commentary on the Pentateuch: The Commentary on Gen. 12.” Henoch 14 (1992): 153–180. Childs, Brevard. Introduction to the Old Testament As Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. Cohen, Gerson D. Studies in the Variety of Rabbinic Cultures. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991. ——. “Esau as Symbol in Early Medieval Thought.” In Studies in the Variety of Rabbinic Cultures, 243–69. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991. ——. “Messianic Postures of Ashkenazim and Sephardim.” In Studies in the Variety of Rabbinic Cultures, 271–297. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1991. ——. “The Song of Songs and the Jewish Religious Mentality.” In Studies in the Variety of Rabbinic Cultures, 3–17. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1991. Cohen, Jeremy. “Towards a Functional Classiﬁcation of Jewish anti-Christian Polemic in the High Middle Ages.” In Religionsgespräche im Mittelalter. Ed. Bernard Lewis and Friedrich Niewöhner, 93–114. Wolfenbütteler Mittelalter-Studien, 4. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1992. Cohen, Mark R. Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. Cohen, Mark R. and Sasson Somekh. “In the Court of Ya'qùb Ibn Killis: A Fragment from the Cairo Geniza.” JQR 80 (1990): 283–314. ——. “Interreligious Majàlis in Early Fatimid Egypt.” In The Majlis: Interreligious Encounters in Medieval Islam. Ed. Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, Mark R. Cohen Sasson Somekh, and Sidney H. Griﬃth, 128–36. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1999. Cohen, Mordechai Z. “The Qimhi Family.” In Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. I/2: The Middle Ages. Ed. Magne Sæbø, 388–415. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000.

bibliography

333

——. Three Approaches to Biblical Metaphor: From Abraham Ibn Ezra and Maimonides to David Kimhi. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Collins, John J. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. (Hermeneia). Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. Cooper, Alan. “Imagining Prophecy.” In Poetry and Prophecy: The Beginnings of a Literary Tradition. Ed. James L. Kugel, 26–44. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990. Coulson, N.J. A History of Islamic Law. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1964. Daftary, Farhad. The Ismà'ìlìs: Their History and Doctrines. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Davidson, Israel. Thesaurus of Mediaeval Hebrew Poetry. 4 vols. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1924. Dicou, Burt. Edom, Israel’s Brother and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in Biblical Prophecy and Story. JSOTS, 169. Sheﬃeld: Sheﬃeld Academic Press, 1994. Dodds, E.R. The Greeks and the Irrational. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1951. ——. Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety. New York: W.W. Norton, 1965. Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966. Dozy, R.P.A. Dictionnaire détaillé des noms des vêtements chez les arabes. Amsterdam: Jean Müller, 1845. ——. Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes. 3d ed. 2 vols. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1881. Drory, Rina. The Emergence of Hebrew-Arabic Literary Contacts at the Beginning of the Tenth Century (Hebrew). Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1988. ——. “The Function of Karaite Literature in the Evolution of Tenth-Century Jewish Literature” (Hebrew). Dappim le-Me˙qar be-Sifrut 9 (1994): 101–10. Ecker, Roman. Die arabische Job-Übersetzung des Gaon Saadja Ben Josef al-Fajjûmî. München: Kösel-Verlag, 1962. Eissler, Friedmann. Königspsalmen und karäische Messiaserwartung: Jefet ben Elis Auslegung von Ps 2.72.89.110.132 im Vergleich mit Saadja Gaons Deutung. Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism, 17. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2002. Elbaum, Jacob. Medieval Perspectives on Aggadah and Midrash (Hebrew). Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2000. Elbogen, Ismar. Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History. Trans. Raymond P. Scheindlin. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1993. Elkin, Zeev. “The Karaite Version of Sefer Ha-Óilluqim Bein Benei Erez-Yisrael Le-Benei Bavel” (Hebrew). Tarbiz 66 (1996): 101–11. Elon, Menachem. Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles (Ha-Mishpat Ha-Ivri). 4 vols. Philadelphia and Jerusalem: The Jewish Publication Society, 1994. Epstein, Abraham. Mi-qadmoniyot ha-yehudim. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1967. Erder, Yoram. “Early Karaite Conceptions About Commandments Given Before the Revelation of the Torah.” PAAJR 60 (1994): 101–40; 61 (1995): xvii–xviii. ——. “The Negation of the Exile in the Messianic Doctrine of the Karaite Mourners of Zion.” HUCA 68 (1997): 109–40. ——. “The Attitude of the Karaite, Yefet ben Eli, to Islam in Light of his Interpretation of Psalms 14 and 53” (Hebrew). Michael 14 (1997): 29–49. ——. “The Attitude of the Karaite Yefet Ben 'Elì to Moral Issues in Light of His Interpretation of Exodus 3:21–22” (Hebrew). Sefunot 7 [22] (1999): 313–33. ——. “The Karaites and the Second Temple Sects.” In Karaite Judaism: A Guide to its History and Literary Sources. Ed. Meira Polliack, 119–43. Leiden: Brill, 2003. ——. “The Mourners of Zion: The Karaites in Jerusalem of the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries.” In Karaite Judaism: A Guide to its History and Literary Sources. Ed. Meira Polliack, 213–35. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Ess, Josef van. Chiliastische Erwartungen und die Versuchung der Göttlichkeit der Kalif alÓàkim (386–411 H.). (Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse). Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, 1977.

334

bibliography

Ewald, Heinrich and Leopold Dukes. Beiträge zur Geschichte der aeltesten Auslegung und Spracherklärung des Alten Testamentes. 3 vols. Stuttgart: Verlag von Adolph Krabbe, 1844. Fahd, Toufy. “Les Songes et leur interprétation selon l’Islam.” In Les Songes et leur interprétation, 125–58. Sources Orientales, 2. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1959. ——. La Divination arabe: études religieuses, sociologiques et folkloriques sur le milieu natif de l’Islam. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1966. ——. “The Dream in Medieval Islamic Society.” In The Dream and Human Societies. Ed. G. E. von Grunebaum and Roger Caillois, 351–63. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1966. ——. “Ru"yà.” In EI. 2d ed. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1999, 8:645–649. Fattal, Antoine. Le statut légal des non-musulmans en pays d’Islam. Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique, 1958. Fenton, Paul B. A Handlist of Judeo-Arabic Manuscripts in Leningrad: A Tentative Handlist of Judeo-Arabic Manuscripts in the Firkovic Collections. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1991. ——. “«A l’image de Dieu»: l’interprétation de Genèse I,26 selon quelques exégètes qaraïtes du moyen âge.” Henoch 15 (1993): 271–90. ——. “The European Discovery of Karaism in the Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries.” In Karaite Judaism: A Guide to its History and Literary Sources. Ed. Meira Polliack, 3–7. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Fiey, Jean Maurice. “Conversions à l’islam de juifs et de chrétiens sous les abbassides d’après les sources arabes et syriaques.” In Rapports entre juifs, chrétiens et musulmans. Ed. Johannes Irmscher, 13–28. Amsterdam: Verlag Adolf M. Hakkert, 1995. Finkel, Asher. “The Pesher of Dreams and Scriptures.” Revue de Qumran 4 (1963): 357–70. Fischel, Walter. Jews in the Economic and Political Life of Mediaeval Islam. London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1937; repr. New York: KTAV, 1969. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. Fleischer, Ezra. Hebrew Liturgical Poetry in the Middle Ages (Hebrew). Jerusalem: Keter, 1975. ——. “Saadya Gaon’s Place in the History of Hebrew Poetry” (Hebrew). Pe'amim 54 (1993): 4–17. Frank, Daniel. “The Study of Medieval Karaism 1959–1989.” BJGS 6 (1990): 15–23. ——. “Ibn Ezra and the Karaite Exegetes Aaron ben Joseph and Aaron ben Elijah.” In Abraham Ibn Ezra y su tiempo. Ed. Fernando Díaz Esteban, 99–107. Madrid: Asociación Española de Orientalistas, 1990. ——. “Karaite Exegesis.” In Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. I/2. Ed. Magne Saebø, 110–128. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. ——. “The Study of Medieval Karaism, 1989–1999.” In Hebrew Scholarship and the Medieval World. Ed. Nicholas De Lange, 3–22. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. ——. Review of Samuel ben Óofni Gaon, by David E. Sklare. In JQR 91 (2001): 460–65. ——. “Karaite Exegetical and Halakhic Literature in Byzantium and Turkey.” In Karaite Judaism: A Guide to its History and Literary Sources. Ed. Meira Polliack, 529–58. Leiden: Brill, 2003. ——. “Karaite Prayer and Liturgy.” In Karaite Judaism: A Guide to its History and Literary Sources. Ed. Meira Polliack, 559–89. Leiden: Brill, 2003. ——. “May Karaites Eat Chicken? Indeterminacy in Sectarian Halakhic Exegesis.” In Jewish Biblical Interpretation in a Comparative Context. Ed. David Stern and Natalie Dohrmann. Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press (in press). —— (ed.). The Jews of Medieval Islam: Community, Society, and Identity. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995.

bibliography

335

Freehof, Solomon B. “The Song of Songs. A General Suggestion.” JQR 39 (1948–49): 397–402. Freimark, Peter. “Das Vorwort als literarische Form in der arabischen Literatur.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Münster, 1967. ——. “Mu˚addima.” In EI, 2d ed. 7:495–96. Leiden and New York, 1993. Friedlaender, M. Essays on the Writings of Abraham Ibn Ezra. Vol. IV. London: The Society of Hebrew Literature, 1877. Friedman, Mordechai Akiva. Maimonides, the Yemenite Messiah, and Apostasy (Hebrew). Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2002. Friedman, Yochanan. “Finality of Prophethood in Sunni Islam.” JSAI 7 (1986): 177–215. Funkenstein, Amos. “Basic Types of Christian Anti-Jewish Polemics in the Later Middle Ages.” Viator 2 (1971): 373–82. Fürst, Julius. Geschichte des Karäerthums. 3 vols. Leipzig: Ries’sche Buchdruckerei (Carl B. Lord), 1862–69. Gabrieli, F. “Ba˙º.” EI. 2d ed. 1:949a. Gallego, María Ángeles. “The Transmission in Medieval Manuscripts of al-Kitàb al-Kàfì by Abù al-Faraj Hàrùn ibn al-Faraj.” In Exegesis and Grammar in Medieval Karaite Texts. Ed. Geoﬀrey Khan, 151–78. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement, 13. Oxford: Oxford University Press on behalf of the University of Manchester, 2001. Garﬁnkel, Stephen. “Clearing Peshat and Derash.” In Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. I/2: The Middle Ages. Ed. Magne Sæbø, 128–34. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Gibb, H.A.R. and J.H. Kramers (ed.). Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1953. Gil, Moshe. The Tustaris, Family and Sect (Hebrew). Tel Aviv: The Diaspora Research Institute (Tel Aviv University), 1981. ——. Palestine During the First Muslim Period (634–1099) (Hebrew). 3 vols. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University and the Ministry of Defense Publishing House, 1983. ——. A History of Palestine, 634–1099. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. ——. “The Political History of Jerusalem During the Early Muslim Period.” In The History of Jerusalem: The Early Muslim Period (638–1099). Ed. Joshua Prawer and Haggai Ben-Shammai, 1–37. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi; New York: New York University Press, 1996. ——. “The Authorities and the Local Population.” In The History of Jerusalem: The Early Muslim Period (638–1099). Ed. Joshua Prawer and Haggai Ben-Shammai, 101–20. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi; New York: New York University Press, 1996. ——. “The Jewish Community.” In The History of Jerusalem: The Early Muslim Period (638–1099). Ed. Joshua Prawer and Haggai Ben-Shammai, 163–200. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi; New York: New York University Press, 1996. ——. “The Origins of the Karaites.” In Karaite Judaism: A Guide to its History and Literary Sources. Ed. Meira Polliack, 73–118. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Ginsburg, Christian David. The Song of Songs. London, 1857. Reprinted: New York: KTAV, 1970. Ginzberg, Louis. The Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909–38. ——. Genizah Studies in Memory of Doctor Solomon Schechter (Hebrew). 2 vols. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1929. ——. “The Signiﬁcance of the Halachah in Jewish History.” In On Jewish Law and Lore. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1955. Reprinted, New York: Atheneum, 1977.

336

bibliography

Gleave, Robert. “The ‘First Source’ of Islamic Law: Muslim Legal Exegesis of the Qur"àn.” In Law and Religion [Current Legal Issues, 4]. Ed. Richard O’Dair and Andrew Lewis, 145–61. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Gnuse, Robert. “The Jewish Dream Interpreter in a Foreign Court: The Recurring Use of a Theme in Jewish Literature.” JSP 7 (1990): 29–53. Goitein, S.D. A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza. 5 vols. Los Angeles and Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967–88. Goldberg, P. Selvin. Karaite Liturgy and Its Relation to Synagogue Worship. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1957. Goldin, Judah. “Of Midrash and the Messianic Theme.” In Studies in Midrash and Related Literature, 359–79. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1988. ——. The Song at the Sea. Philadelphia and New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1990. Goldstein, Miriam. “The Beginnings of the Transition from Derash to Pesha† as Exempliﬁed in Yefet ben 'Eli’s comment on Psa. 44:24.” In Exegesis and Grammar in Medieval Karaite Texts. Ed. Geoﬀrey Khan, 41–64. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement, 13. Oxford: Oxford University Press on behalf of the University of Manchester, 2001. ——. “The Structural Function of Biblical Superﬂuity in the Exegesis of the Karaite Yùsuf ibn Nù˙” (Hebrew). Sefunot 8 [23] (2003): 349–70. Goldziher, Ignaz. Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law. Trans. Andras and Ruth Hamori. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981. Goodman, Lenn Evan. The Case of the Animals versus Man Before the King of the Jinn. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1978. Gottlober, A.B. Bikkoreth Letoldoth Hakkaraim. Vilno: Fünn et Rozenkrancz, 1865. Graetz, Heinrich (Íevi). Sefer divrei yemei Yi≤ra"el. Trans. Saul Phineas Rabinowitz. 10 vols. Warsaw: Yi≤ra"el "Alaﬁn, 1890–1908. ——. History of the Jews. 6 vols. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1894. Greenbaum, Aharon. “‘Pitron ˙alomot,’ qorot u-meqorot.” Areshet 4 (1966): 180–201. Greenspahn, Frederick E. “The Meaning of "Ein Lo Domeh and Similar Phrases in Medieval Biblical Exegesis.” AJSR 4 (1979): 59–70. Griﬃth, Sidney H. “The Monk in the Emir’s Majlis: Reﬂections on a Popular Genre of Christian Literary Apologetics in Arabic the Early Islamic Period.” In The Majlis: Interreligious Encounters in Medieval Islam. Ed. Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, Mark R. Cohen, Sasson Somekh, and Sidney H. Griﬃth, 13–65. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1999. Grottanelli, Cristiano. “On the Mantic Meaning of Incestuous Dreams.” In Dream Cultures: Explorations in the Comparative History of Dreaming. Ed. David Shulman and Guy G. Stroumsa, 143–68. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Grunebaum, G.E. von. A Tenth-Century Document of Arabic Literary Theory and Criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950. ——. “I'djàz.” In EI. 2d ed. 3:1019. ——. “Introduction: The Cultural Function of the Dream as Illustrated by Classical Islam.” In The Dream and Human Societies. Ed. G.E. von Grunebaum and Roger Caillois, 3–21. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1966. Grunebaum, G.E. von and Roger Caillois. The Dream and Human Societies. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1966. Halbertal, Moshe. People of the Book: Canon, Meaning, and Authority. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997. Halkin, A.S. “Ibn 'Aknìn’s Commentary on the Song of Songs.” In Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume. Ed. Saul Lieberman. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1950, 389–424.

bibliography

337

——. “The Medieval Jewish Attitude Toward Hebrew.” In Biblical and Other Studies. Ed. Alexander Altmann, 233–48. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963. Hallaq, Wael B. Law and Legal Theory in Classical and Medieval Islam. Aldershot, Great Britain: Variorum, 1995. ——. “Non-Analogical Arguments in Sunni Juridical Qiyàs.” Arabica 36 (1989): 286–306. Reprinted in Law and Legal Theory in Classical and Medieval Islam. ——. “Notes on the Term Qarìna in Islamic Legal Discourse.” JAOS 108 (1988): 1–15. Reprinted in Law and Legal Theory in Classical and Medieval Islam. ——. Authority, Continuity, and Change in Islamic Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Halm, Heinz. The Fatimids and Their Traditions of Learning. London: I.B. Tauris, 1997. Harkavy, Abraham. “Me"assef nidda˙im, no. 13.” Ha-meliß 15 (1879): 639–43. Reprinted: Me"assef nidda˙im. St. Petersburg, 1879; Jerusalem: Qedem, 1970. ——. “Fragments of Anti-Karaite Writings of Saadiah in the Imperial Public Library at St. Petersburg.” JQR o.s. 13 (1901): 655–68. ——. Zikhron la-rishonim, ma˙beret sheminit (Studien und Mittheilungen aus der Kaiserlichen Oeﬀentlichen Bibliothek zu St. Petersburg, VIII: Aus den ältesten karäischen Gestzbüchern) (Hebrew). St. Petersburg, 1903. ——. “Anan ben David.” JE 1:553–56. ——. Óadashim gam yeshanim: meqorot u-me˙qarim be-toledot yi≤ra"el ve-sifruto. Jerusalem: Karmiel, 1970. Harris, Jay M. How Do We Know This?: Midrash and the Fragmentation of Modern Judaism. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995. Harris, Monford. Studies in Jewish Dream Interpretation. Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson, 1994. Hartman, Louis F. and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Book of Daniel. (Anchor Bible). Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1978. Hauptman, Judith. Rereading the Rabbis: A Woman’s Voice. Boulder, Colorado: Westview, 1998. Hava, J.G. Al-Faraid Arabic-English Dictionary. Beirut: Dar el-Mashreq, 1970. Heijer, Den. “Apologetic Elements in Coptic-Arabic Historiography: the Life of Afrahàm ibn Zur'ah, 62nd Patriarch of Alexandria.” In Christian-Arabic Apologetics during the Abbasid Period (750–1258). Ed. Samir Khalil Samir and Jørgen S. Nielsen, 192–202. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994. Heller, Joseph Elijah and Leon Nemoy. “Karaites.” EJ 10:761–82, 785. Heschel, Abraham J. Prophetic Inspiration After the Prophets: Maimonides and Other Medieval Authorities. Hoboken, N.J.: KTAV, 1996. Hirschfeld, Hartwig. “The Arabic Portion of the Cairo Genizah at Cambridge (Thirteenth Article).” JQR o.s. 18 (1906): 600–20. ——. “The Arabic Portion of the Cairo Genizah at Cambridge (Fourteenth Article).” JQR o.s. 19 (1907): 136–61. ——. Qirqisànì Studies. London: Jews’ College, 1918. Hirshman, Marc. Rivalry of Genius: Jewish and Christian Biblical Interpretation in Late Antiquity. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996. Horgan, Maurya P. Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979. Husser, Jean-Marie. Dreams and Dream Narratives in the Biblical World. Sheﬃeld: Sheﬃeld Academic Press, 1999. Jacobs, Louis. A Tree of Life: Diversity, Flexibility, and Creativity in Jewish Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press for The Littman Library, 1984. Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. 2 vols. London, 1886–1903. Kalmin, Richard. “Patterns and Developments in Rabbinic Midrash of Late Antiquity.” In Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. I/1. Ed. M. Sæbø, 285–302. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996.

338

bibliography

Kamesar, Adam. “Philo and the Literary Quality of the Bible: A Theoretical Aspect of the Problem.” JJS 46 (1995): 55–68. Kamin, Sarah. Rashi’s Exegetical Categorization (Hebrew). Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1986. ——. “Rashi’s Commentary on the Song of Songs and Jewish-Christian Polemic” (Hebrew). In Jews and Christians Interpret the Bible (Hebrew), 31–61. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1991. Kasher, Mena˙em M. Torah Shelemah. 44 vols. in 12. Jerusalem: Beth Torah Shelemah, 1992–95. Kasher, Rimon. “The Interpretation of Scripture in Rabbinic Literature.” In Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Ed. Martin Jan Mulder, 547–94. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum and Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988. Kazimirski, A. De Biberstein. Dictionnaire arabe-français. Paris, 1860. Khan, Geoﬀrey. Karaite Bible Manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. ——. “Al-Qirqisànì’s Opinions Concerning the Text of the Bible and Parallel Muslim Attitudes Towards the Text of the Qur"àn.” JQR 81 (1990): 59–73. ——. “The Medieval Karaite Transcriptions of Hebrew into Arabic Script.” IOS 12 (1992): 157–76. ——. “"Abù al-Faraj Hàrùn and the Early Karaite Grammatical Tradition.” JJS 48 (1997): 314–34. ——. “The Karaite Tradition of Hebrew Grammatical Thought.” In Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda. Ed. William Horbury, 186–203. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999. ——. The Early Karaite Tradition of Hebrew Grammatical Thought: including a critical edition, translation and analysis of the Diqduq of "Abù Ya'qùb Yùsuf ibn Nù˙ on the Hagiographa. (Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics, 32). Leiden: Brill, 2000. ——. Early Karaite Grammatical Texts. (Masoretic Studies, 9). Atlanta: Society for Biblical Literature, 2000. ——. “Biblical Exegesis and Grammatical Theory in the Karaite Tradition.” In Exegesis and Grammar in Medieval Karaite Texts. Ed. Geoﬀrey Khan, 127–49. ( Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement, 13.) Oxford: Oxford University Press on behalf of the University of Manchester, 2001. —— (ed.). Exegesis and Grammar in Medieval Karaite Texts. ( Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement, 13.) Oxford: Oxford University Press on behalf of the University of Manchester, 2001. ——. “The Contribution of the Karaites to the Study of the Hebrew Language.” In Karaite Judaism: A Guide to its History and Literary Sources. Ed. Meira Polliack, 291– 318. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Khan, M.A.M. “A Unique Treatise on the Interpretation of Dreams by Ibn Sina.” In Avicenna Commemoration Volume, 255–307. Calcutta: Iran Society, 1956. Kimelman, Reuven. “Rabbi Yochanan and Origen on the Song of Songs.” HTR 73 (1980): 567–95. Kinberg, Leah. “Mu˙kamàt and Mutashàbihàt (Koran 3/7): Implication of a Koranic Pair of Terms in Medieval Exegesis.” Arabica 35 (1988): 143–72. ——. Ibn Abì al-Dunyà: Morality in the Guise of Dreams. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994. Kister, M.J. “The Interpretation of Dreams.” IOS 4 (1974): 67–103. Klar, Binyamin. Me˙qarim ve-'iyyunim be-lashon be-shirah u-ve-sifrut. Tel-Aviv: Ma˙barot le-Sifrut, 1954. Klatzkin, Jacob. Thesaurus Philosophicus Linguae Hebraicae. 4 parts in 2 vols. New York: Philipp Feldheim, Inc., 1968. Kopf, Lothar. “The Bird "Anùq (A Lexicographical Study Concerning Arabic Zoology).” JRAS (1956): 157–64. Reprinted in Studies in Arabic and Hebrew Lexicography. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1976, 125–32.

bibliography

339

——. “The Zoological Chapter of the Kitàb al-Imtà' wal-Mu"ànasa of Abù Óayyàn al-Tau˙ìdì (10th century), Translated from the Arabic and Annotated.” Osiris 12 (1956): 390–466. Reprinted in Studies in Arabic and Hebrew Lexicography, 47–123. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1976. Kraemer, Joel L. Humanism in the Renaissance of Islam. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1986. ——. Philosophy in the Renaissance of Islam: Abù Sulaymàn al-Sijistànì and his Circle. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1986. Kraus, Paul. “Hebräische und syrische Zitate in isma‘ilitischen Schriften.” Der Islam 14 (1931): 243–63. Reprinted in idem, Alchemie, Ketzerei, Apokryphen im frühen Islam, 3–23. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1994. Kruk, Remke. “Hedgehogs and Their ‘Chicks’: A Case History of the Aristotelian Reception in Arabic Zoology.” Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Arabisch-Islamischen Wissenschaften 2 (1985): 205–34. Kugel, James L. The Bible As It Was. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997. Lancaster, Irene. Deconstructing the Bible: Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Introduction to the Torah. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003. Lane, Edward William. An Arabic-English Lexicon. London and Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1863–1893. Lasker, Daniel J. Jewish Philosophical Polemics Against Christianity in the Middle Ages. New York: KTAV, 1977. ——. “Rabbanism and Karaism: The Contest for Supremacy.” In Great Schisms in Jewish History. Ed. Raphael Jospe and Stanley M. Wagner, 47–72. Denver: University of Denver Center for Judaic Studies and New York: KTAV, 1981. ——. “Karaites, Developments 1970–1988.” In EJ Yearbook, 1988–89, 366–67. Jerusalem, 1989. ——. “Islamic Inﬂuences on Karaite Origins.” In Studies in Islamic and Judaic Traditions, vol. 2. Ed. William M. Brinner and Stephen D. Ricks, 23–47. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. ——. “Karaism in Twelfth-Century Spain.” Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 1 (1992): 179–95. ——. “Maimonides’ Inﬂuence on Karaite Theories of Prophecy and Law. Maimonidean Studies 1 (1990): 99–115. ——. “The Inﬂuence of Karaism on Maimonides” (Hebrew). Sefunot 5 [20] (1991): 145–61. ——. “The Jewish Critique of Christianity Under Islam in the Middle Ages.” PAAJR 57 (1991): 121–53. ——. “Against Whom Did Rav Saadia Gaon Polemicize in his Discussion Concerning Abrogation of the Torah?” (Hebrew). Daat 32–33 (1994): 5–11. ——. “Saadya Gaon on Christianity and Islam.” In The Jews of Medieval Islam: Community, Society, and Identity. Ed. Daniel Frank, 165–77. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995. ——. “The Prophecy of Abraham in Karaite Thought.” In Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 14 [Sermonetta Memorial Volume] (1998): 103–11. ——. Karaism and Jewish Studies. (Hebrew). Jewish Culture in Muslim Lands and Cairo Geniza Studies, 1. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 2000, 29 pp. ——. “Karaite Judaism.” In The Encyclopaedia of Judaism, Vol. IV, Supplement I. Ed. Jacob Neusner et al., 1807–21. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Lawee, Eric. Isaac Abarbanel’s Stance Toward Tradition: Defense, Dissent, and Dialogue. Albany: SUNY Press, 2001. ——. “Introducing Scripture: The Accessus ad auctores in Hebrew Exegetical Literature from the Thirteenth through the Fifteenth Centuries.” In With Reverence for the Word: Medieval Scriptural Exegesis in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Ed. Jane Dammen McAuliﬀe, Barry D. Walﬁsh, and Joseph W. Goering, 157–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

340

bibliography

Lazarus-Yafeh, Hava. Intertwined Worlds: Medieval Islam and Bible Criticism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. —— (ed.), Muslim Authors on Jews and Judaism: The Jews Among their Muslim Neighbors. (Hebrew). Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 1996. Lazarus-Yafeh, Hava, Mark R. Cohen, Sasson Somekh, and Sidney H. Griﬃth (eds.). The Majlis: Interreligious Encounters in Medieval Islam. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1999. Levine, Baruch. The JPS Torah Commentary: Leviticus. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989. Lewin, B.M. “"E≤≤a meshali le-Rasag.” In Rav Se'adyah ga"on: qoveß torani-madda'i. Ed. Yehudah Leib Fishman, 481–532. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1943. Lewis, Bernard. The Jews of Islam. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. Libson, Gideon. “Halakhah and Reality in the Gaonic Period: Taqqanah, Minhag, Tradition and Consensus: Some Observations.” In The Jews of Medieval Islam: Community, Society, and Identity. Ed. Daniel Frank, 67–99. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995. ——. “The Structure, Scope and Development of the Halakhic Monographs of Rav Shemu"el Ben Óofni Gaon” (Hebrew). In A Century of Geniza Research [Te'uda, 15]). Ed. Mordechai A. Friedman, 189–239. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1999. Lieberman, Saul. Hellenism in Jewish Palestine. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1950. Linder, Amnon. “Christian Communities in Jerusalem.” In The History of Jerusalem: The Early Muslim Period (638–1099). Ed. Joshua Prawer and Haggai Ben-Shammai, 121–162. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi; New York: New York University Press, 1996. Loewe, Raphael. “The ‘Plain Meaning’ of Scripture in Early Jewish Exegesis.” In Papers of the Institute of Jewish Studies London 1 (1964): 140–85. ——. “Apologetic Motifs in the Targum to the Song of Songs.” In Biblical Motifs: Origins and Transformations. Ed. A. Altmann, 159–96. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966. ——. “Hebrew Linguistics.” In History of Linguistics, vol. 1: The Eastern Traditions of Linguistics. Ed. Giulio Lepschy, 97–163. London and New York: Longman, 1994. Luck, Georg. Arcana Mundi: Magic and the Occult in the Greek and Roman World. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984. Mahdi, Muhsin. “Language and Logic in Classical Islam.” In Logic in Classical Islamic Culture. Ed. Gustave E. von Grunebaum, 51–83. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1970. Mahler, Raphael. Karaimer: a yidishe geule-bavegung in mitlalter. New York: Farlag Eliyahu Shulman, 1947. Maman, Aharon. “The Comparison of the Hebrew Lexicon with Arabic and Aramaic in the Linguistic Literature of the Jews from Rav Saadia Gaon (10th cent.) to Ibn Barun (12th cent.)” (Hebrew). Ph.D. dissertation. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1984. ——. “The Lexical Element in David Alfasi’s Dictionary Deﬁnitions.” In Genizah Research After Ninety Years. Ed. Joshua Blau and Stefan C. Reif, 119–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. ——. “Medieval Grammatical Thought: Karaites vs. Rabbanites” (Hebrew), Language Studies 7 (1995): 79–96. ——. “Karaites and Mishnaic Hebrew: Quotations and Usage.” In Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew. Ed. Moshe Bar-Asher, 264–83. Scripta Hierosolymitana, 37. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1998. ——. “The Linguistic School: Judah Óayyùj, Jonah ibn Janà˙, Moses ibn Chiquitilla and Judah ibn Bal'am.” In Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. I/2: The Middle Ages. Ed. Magne Sæbø, 261–81. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000.

bibliography

341

——. “Order and Meaning in Root Letters: On the Character of the Seventh Part of Kitàb al-Mushtamil by Abù-al-Faraj Hàrùn” (Hebrew). Pe'amim 89 (2001): 83–96. Mann, Jacob. The Jews in Egypt and in Palestine Under the Fàtimid Caliphs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1920–22. Reprinted, New York: KTAV, 1970. ——. “A Tract of an Early Karaite Settler in Jerusalem.” JQR 12 (1921–22): 257–98. ——. “A Second Supplement to ‘The Jews in Egypt and in Palestine Under the Fà†imid Caliphs.” HUCA 3 (1926): 257–308. ——. Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature. 2 vols. Cincinnati: The Hebrew Union College Press, 1931 (vol. 1); Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1935 (vol. 2). Reprinted, New York: KTAV, 1972. Marcus, Ivan. “The Song of Songs in German Hasidism and the School of Rashi: A Preliminary Comparison.” In The Frank Talmage Memorial Volume. Ed. Barry Walﬁsh, 1:181–89. Haifa: Haifa University Press, 1993. Margoliouth, D.S. “On the Book of Religion and Empire by Alî b. Rabban alTabarî.” Proceedings of the British Academy 16 (1930): 165–82. Margoliouth, George. “Ibn al-Hiti’s Arabic Chronicle of Karaite Doctors.” JQR o.s. 9 (1896–97): 429–43. ——. “The Arabic Writings of Abu’l-Faraj Furkan Ibn Assad.” JQR o.s. 11 (1898–99): 187–215. ——. Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the British Museum, Pt. I. London: British Museum, 1899. ——. “An Introduction to the Liturgy of the Damascus Karaites.” JQR o.s. 18 (1906): 505–27. Margolis, Max L. and Alexander Marx. A History of the Jewish People. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1927. Markon, I.D. “Daniel al-Kumisi, ein karäischer Schrifterklärer des IX Jahrhunderts.” Korrespondenzblatt der Akademie für die Wissenschaft des Judentums 8 (1927): 18–30. ——. “The Karaite Daniel al-Kumisi and his Commentary on the Minor Prophets” (Hebrew). Melilah 2 (1946): 188–206. Marmorstein, A. “Fragments du commentaire de Daniel al-Kumisi sur les Psaumes.” Journal Asiatique, IIème série 7 (1916): 177–237. ——. “•eridim mi-pitronei ha-qara"i Daniel al-Qumisi.” HaΩofeh: Quartalis Hebraica (Budapest) 8 (1924): 44–60, 321–37; 9 (1925–26): 129–45. Marwick, Lawrence. “The Order of the Books in Yefet’s Bible Codex.” JQR 33 (1942–43): 445–60. ——. “Studies in Salmon ben Yeruham.” JQR, n.s. 34 (1943–44): 313–320, 475–480. ——. “Daniel al-Qùmisì and the Pitròn Shenem 'Asar.” SBB 5 (1961): 42–61. ——. “A First Fragment of David b. Abraham al-Fasi’s Commentary on Psalms.” SBB 6 (1962–63): 53–72. Matter, E.A. The Voice of My Beloved: The Song of Songs in Western Medieval Christianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990. Mavroudi, Maria. A Byzantine Book on Dream Interpretation: The Oneirocriticon of Achmet and Its Arabic Sources. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Mayes, A.D.H. “Deuteronomy 14 and the Deuteronomic World View.” In Studies in Deuteronomy (SVT, 53). Ed. F. García Martínez et al., 165–81. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994. McAuliﬀe, Jane Dammen. “Quranic Hermeneutics: The Views of al-ˇabarì and Ibn Kathìr.” In Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qur"àn. Ed. Andrew Rippin, 46–62. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. Milgrom, Jacob. The Tassel and the Tallith. The Fourth Annual Rabbi Louis Feinberg Memorial Lecture in Judaic Studies. Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati Judaic Studies Program, 1981. ——. The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1990.

342

bibliography

——. Leviticus 1–16 (Anchor Bible). New York: Doubleday, 1991. Miller, Patricia Cox. Dreams in Late Antiquity: Studies in the Imagination of a Culture. Princeton University Press, 1994. Mingana, A. “The Apology of Timothy the Patriarch Before the Caliph Mahdi.” BJRL 12 (1928): 137–226. Reprinted as: “The Dialogue of Patriarch Timothy I With Caliph Mahdi.” In The Early Christian-Muslim Dialogue. Ed. N.A. Newman, 163–267. Hatﬁeld, Penn.: Interdisciplinary Research Institute, 1993. Minnis, A.J. Medieval Theory of Authorship, 2d ed. Aldershot: Wildwood House, 1988. Momen, Moojan. An Introduction to Shi 'i Islam: The History and Doctrines of Twelver Shi‘ism. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1985. Montgomery, James A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. [ICC]. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927. Munk, S(alomon). “Notice sur Abou’l-Walid Merwan Ibn-Djana’h et sur quelques autres grammairiens hébreux du Xe et du XIe siècle.” JA, 4eme serie, 15 (1850): 297–337; 16 (1851): 5–50, 201–47, 353–427. Reprinted, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1851. Nemoy, Leon. “Al-Qirqisànì’s Account of the Jewish Sects and Christianity.” HUCA 7 (1930): 317–97. ——. “A Tenth Century Criticism of the Doctrine of the Logos ( John 1:1).” JBL 64 (1945): 515–529. ——. “Anan Ben David: A Re-appraisal of the Historical Data.” In Semitic Studies in Memory of Immanuel Low, 239–48. Budapest, 1947. ——. “Al-Qirqisani’s Essay on the Psycho-Physiology of Sleep and Dreams.” Harofé Haivri 22, vol. 2 (1949): 165–158 (reverse pagination) = “Ha-ma"amar shel alqirqisani 'al ha-psikho-ﬁsiyologyah.” Ibid., 88–95. ——. Karaite Anthology. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952. ——. “The Epistle of Sahl Ben Maßlìa˙.” PAAJR 38–39 (1970–71): 145–77. ——. “Studies in the History of the Early Karaite Liturgy: The Liturgy of alQirqisànì.” In Studies in Jewish Bibliography, History, and Literature in Honor of I. Edward Kiev. Ed. Charles Berlin, 305–32. New York: KTAV, 1971. ——. “The Attitude of the Early Karaites Towards Christianity.” In Salo Wittmayer Baron Jubilee Volume (English Section). Ed. Saul Lieberman and Arthur Hyman, 2:697–716. Jerusalem: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1974. ——. “The Pseudo-Qùmisìan Sermon to the Karaites.” PAAJR 43 (1976): 49–105. ——. “Sahl ben MaΩlia˙ ha-Kohen Abu al-Surri.” In EJ Decennial Book, 1973–82, 542–43. Jerusalem: Keter, 1983. ——. “Nissi Ben Noah’s Quasi-Commentary on the Decalogue.” JQR 73 (1983): 307–48. Neubauer, A. and S.R. Driver. The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters. 2 vols. Oxford and London, 1876–77. Niehoﬀ, Maren. “A Dream Which Is Not Interpreted Is Like a Letter Which Is Not Read.” JJS 43 (1992): 58–84. Olszowy-Schlanger, Judith. Karaite Marriage Documents from the Cairo Geniza: Legal Tradition and Community Life in Mediaeval Egypt and Palestine. Leiden: Brill, 1998. ——. “The Explanation of Diﬃcult Words by Abù al-Faraj Hàrùn ibn al-Faraj.” In Exegesis and Grammar in Medieval Karaite Texts. Ed. Geoﬀrey Khan, 179–94. ( Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement, 13.) Oxford: Oxford University Press on behalf of the University of Manchester, 2001. ——. “Karaite Legal Documents.” In Karaite Judaism: A Guide to its History and Literary Sources. Ed. Meira Polliack, 255–73. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Oppenheim, A. Leo. “The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East.” TAPA n.s. 46:3 (1956): 179–354. ——. “Mantic Dreams in the Ancient Near East.” In The Dream and Human Societies. Ed. G. E. von Grunebaum and Roger Caillois, 341–50. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1966.

bibliography

343

Pack, Roger Ambrose. “On Artemidorus and His Arabic Translator.” TAPA 98 (1967): 313–26. Pagis, Dan. Hebrew Poetry of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1991. Patte, Daniel. Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine. (SBL Dissertation Series, 22.) Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1975. Paul, André. Écrits de Qumran et sectes juives aux premiers siècles de l’Islam: recherches sur l’origine du Qaraïsme. Paris: Desclée, 1969. Perlmann, Moshe. “The Medieval Polemics between Judaism and Islam.” In Religion in a Religious Age. Ed. S.D. Goitein, 103–38. Cambridge, Mass.: Association for Jewish Studies, 1974. Peters, J.R.T.M. God’s Created Speech: A Study in the Speculative Theology of the Mu'tazilî Qâ∂î Abû l-Óasan 'Abd al-Jabbâr ibn A˙mad al-Hama≈ânî. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976. Pines, Shlomo. “The Arabic Recension of Parva Naturalia.” IOS 4 (1974): 104–53. Pinsker, S. Lickute Kadmoniot. Vienna: Adalbert della Torre, 1860. Polliack, Meira. “Medieval Karaite Views on Translating the Hebrew Bible into Arabic.” JJS 47 (1996): 64–84. ——. The Karaite Tradition of Arabic Bible Translation: A Linguistic and Exegetical Study of Karaite Translations of the Pentateuch from the Tenth to the Eleventh Centuries. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997. ——. “The Emergence of Karaite Bible Exegesis” (Hebrew). Sefunot 7 [22] (1999): 299–311. ——. “On the Question of the Pesher’s Inﬂuence on Karaite Exegesis” (Hebrew). In Fifty Years of Dead Sea Scrolls Research: Studies in Memory of Jacob Licht. Ed. Gershon Brin and Bilhah Nitzan, 275–94. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 2001. ——. “Medieval Karaism.” In The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies. Ed. Martin Goodman, Jeremy Cohen, and David Sorkin, 295–326. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. ——. “Major Trends in Karaite Biblical Exegesis in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries.” In Karaite Judaism: A Guide to Its History and Literary Sources. Ed. Meira Polliack, 363–414. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2003. —— (ed.). Karaite Judaism: A Guide to its History and Literary Sources. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Polliack, Meira and Eliezer Schlossberg. “Yefet ben Eli’s Translation of the Book of Obadiah” (Hebrew). Pe'amim 89 (2001): 61–82. ——. “Historical-literary, Rhetorical and Redactional Methods of Interpretation in Yefet ben 'Eli’s Introduction to the Minor Prophets.” In Exegesis and Grammar in Medieval Karaite Texts. Ed. Geoﬀrey Khan, 1–39. ( Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement, 13.) Oxford: Oxford University Press on behalf of the University of Manchester, 2001. Pope, Marvin H. Song of Songs: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. (Anchor Bible, 7C). Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1977. Poznanski, S(amuel). “Karaite Miscellanies.” JQR, o.s. 8 (1896): 681–704. ——. “Aboul-Faradj Haroun ben a-Faradj: le grammairien de Jérusalem et son Moschtamil.” REJ 33 (1896): 24–39, 197–218. ——. “The Anti-Karaite Writings of Saadiah Gaon.” JQR o.s. 10 (1897–98): 238–76. ——. “Miscellen uber Saadja, III: Die Berechnung des Erlösungsjahres bei Saadja.” MGWJ 44 (1900): 519–29. ——. “Anan et ses écrits.” REJ 44 (1902): 161–87; 45 (1902): 50–69, 176–203. ——. “The Karaite Literary Opponents of Saadiah Gaon in the Tenth Century.” JQR o.s. 18 (1906): 209–50. ——. “The Karaite Literary Opponents of Saadiah Gaon in the Eleventh Century.” JQR o.s. 19 (1907): 59–83. ——. “Reshit hityashevut ha-qara"im bi-yerushalayim.” In Jerusalem. Ed. A.M. Luncz 10 (1913): 83–116.

344

bibliography

——. “Allegorische Gesetzauslegung bei den alteren Karäern.” In Studies in Jewish Literature Issued in Honor of Professor Kaufmann Kohler. Ed. David Philipson, David Neumark, and Julian Morgenstern, 237–59. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1913. Prawer, Joshua and Haggai Ben-Shammai (eds.). The History of Jerusalem: The Early Muslim Period (638–1099). Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi; New York: New York University Press, 1996. Qàﬁ˙, Yosef (ed. and trans.). Peirushei rabbeinu Se'adyah ga"on 'al ha-torah. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1984. Rabinowitz, Isaac. “Pêsher/Pittârôn. Its Biblical Meaning and Its Signiﬁcance in the Qumran Literature.”RQ 8 (1973): 219–32. Ratzaby, Yehuda. A Dictionary of Judaeo-Arabic in R. Saadya’s “Tafsir” (Hebrew). Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1985. Reif, Stefan C. “Abraham Ibn Ezra on Canticles.” In Abraham Ibn Ezra y su tiempo. Ed. Fernando Díaz Esteban, 241–49. Madrid: Asociación Española de Orientalistas, 1990. Riad, Eva. Studies in the Syriac Preface. Uppsala: Uppsala University, 1988. Rivlin, Joseph Joel. “Haqdamot Rasag ke-mavo le-khitvei ha-qodesh.” In Rav Se'adyah ga"on: qoveß torani-madda'i. Ed. J.L. Fishman, 382–415. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1943. Robinson, James T. “Samuel ibn Tibbon’s Commentary on Ecclesiastes and the Philosopher’s Prooemium.” In Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature, vol. 3. Ed. Isadore Twersky and Jay M. Harris, 83–146. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Center for Jewish Studies/Harvard University Press, 2000. Rosenberg, Shalom. “Philosophical Hermeneutics on the Song of Songs, Introductory Remarks” (Hebrew). Tarbiz 59 (1990): 133–51. Rosenthal, E.I.J. “Saadya Gaon: An Appreciation of His Biblical Exegesis.” BJRL 27 (1942): 168–78. Reprint: Studia Semitica, Volume I: Jewish Themes, 86–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971. ——. “Anti-Christian Polemic in Medieval Bible Commentaries.” JJS 11 (1960): 115–35. Rosenthal, Judah. “Ha-pulmus ha-"anti-noßri be-rashi 'al ha-tanakh.” In Me˙qarim u-Meqorot, 1:101–16. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1967. Rubin, Milka. “The Language of Creation or the Primordial Language: A Case of Cultural Polemics in Antiquity.” JJS 49 (1998): 306–33. Rubin, Uri. “Quran and Tafsir: The case of ‘an yadin.’” Der Islam 70 (1993): 133–44. Rustow, Marina. “Rabbanite-Karaite Relations in Fatimid Egypt and Syria: A Study Based on Documents from the Cairo Geniza.” Ph.D. dissertation. Columbia University, 2004. Safrai, Shmuel. “The Mitzva Obligation of Women in Tannaitic Thought” (Hebrew) Bar-Ilan 26–27 (1995): 227–36. Sagi, Avi. “Models of Authority and the Duty of Obedience in Halakhic Literature.” AJSR 20:1 (1995): 1–24. Salfeld, S. Das Hohelied Salomo’s bei den jüdischen Erklärern des Mittelalters. Berlin, 1879. Saperstein, Marc. Decoding the Rabbis: A Thirteenth-Century Commentary on the Aggadah. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980. Sarna, Nahum. “Hebrew and Bible Studies in Medieval Spain.” In The Sephardi Heritage, vol. 1. Ed. Richard D. Barnett, 323–66. London: Vallentine and Mitchell, 1971. Reprinted in Studies in Biblical Interpretation, 81–125. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2000. ——. “Abraham Ibn Ezra as an Exegete.” In Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra: Studies in the Writings of a Twelfth-Century Jewish Polymath. Ed. Isadore Twersky and Jay M. Harris, 1–27. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Center for Jewish Studies, 1993. Reprinted in Studies in Biblical Interpretation, 139–59. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2000. Sassoon, S(olomon) D(avid). Ohel Dawid: Descriptive Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan

bibliography

345

Manuscripts in the Sassoon Library, London. 2 vols. London: Humphrey Milford and Oxford University Press, 1932. Sauneron, S. “Les songes et leur interprétation dans l’Egypte ancienne.” In Les songes et leur interprétation, 18–62. Sources Orientales, 2. Paris: Le Seuil, 1959. Schacht, Joseph. “Ta˚lìd.” In Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam. Ed. H.A.R. Gibb and J.H. Kramers, 562–64. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1953. ——. The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967. Schechter, Solomon. Documents of Jewish Sectaries, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910. Schenker, Adrian. “Der Karäer Jafet ben Eli, die Buyiden und das Datum seines Danielkommentars.” BÉK 1 (1983): 19–26. ——. “Auf dem Weg zu einer kritischen Ausgabe von Jafet ben Elis Kommentar zu den Psalmen.” BÉK 2 (1989): 29–38. ——. “Die Geburtswehen der messianischen Zeit nach Japhet ben Eli.” BÉK 2 (1989): 39–46. Schimmel, Annemarie. Die Träume des Kalifen: Träume und ihre Deutung in der islamischen Kultur. München: Verlag C.H. Beck, 1998. Schlossberg, Eliezer. “The Nature and Exegetical Purpose of the Commentary of R. Saadia Gaon on the Book of Daniel” (Hebrew). PAAJR 56 (1990): 5–15. ——. “R. Saadia Gaon’s Attitude Towards Islam” (Hebrew). Daat 25 (1990): 21–51. ——. “Ha-pulmus 'im ha-"islam ba-midrash ‘me"or ha-"afelah.’” Tema 3 (1993): 57–66. ——. “The Polemic of R. Se'adyâ Gaon Against Christianity.” In Heritage and Innovation in Medieval Judaeo-Arabic Culture: Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the Society for Judaeo-Arabic Studies (Hebrew). Ed. Joshua Blau and David Doron, 243–63. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2000. Schreiner, Martin. “Zur Geschichte der Polemik zwischen Juden und Muhammedanern”. ZDMG 42 (1888): 597–675. ——. Studien über Jeschu'a ben Jehuda. Berlin: H. Itzkowski, 1900. Shohat, Azriel. “The Opinions of Daniel Alkumasi as Reﬂected in his Commentary on Minor Prophets” (Hebrew). In Yitzhak F. Baer Jubilee Volume. Ed. S.W. Baron et al., 125–33. Jerusalem: The Historical Society of Israel, 1960. Shunary, Jonathan. “Salmon ben Yeruham’s Commentary on the Book of Psalms.” JQR 73 (1982): 155–75. Silberman, Lou H. “Unriddling the Riddle: A Study in the Structure and Language of the Habakkuk Pesher (1 Q p Hab.).” RQ 3 (1961): 323–64. Simon, Uriel. “Ibn Ezra Between Medievalism and Modernism: The Case of Isaiah XL–LXVI.” VT Supplement 26 (1985): 257–71. ——. “Ibn Ezra’s Harsh Language and Biting Humor: Real Denunciation or Hispanic Mannerism?” In Abraham Ibn Ezra y su tiempo. Ed. Fernando Díaz Esteban, 325–34. Madrid: Asociación Española de Orientalistas, 1990. ——. Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms. Trans. Lenn. J. Schramm. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991. ——. “The Spanish School of Biblical Interpretation.” In Moreshet Sepharad: The Sephardi Legacy. Ed. Haim Beinart, 115–36. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992. ——. “Abraham Ibn Ezra.” In Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. I/2: The Middle Ages. Ed. Magne Sæbø, 377–87. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Sirat, Colette. Les Théories des visions surnaturelles dans la pensée juive du moyen-âge. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969. ——. A History of Jewish Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. ——. “Biblical Commentaries and Christian Inﬂuence: The Case of Gersonides.” In Hebrew Scholarship and the Medieval World, ed. Nicholas de Lange, 210–23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Skarsaune, Oskar. “The Development of Scriptural Interpretation in the Second

346

bibliography

and Third Centuries—except Clement and Origen.” In Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, I/1: Antiquity. Ed. Magne Sæbø, 373–442. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Sklare, David E. “Yùsuf al-Baßìr: Theological Aspects of His Halakhic Works.” In The Jews of Medieval Islam: Community, Society, and Identity. Ed. Daniel Frank, 249–70. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995. ——. Samuel ben Óofni Gaon and His Cultural World: Texts and Studies. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996. ——. “Responses to Islamic Polemics by Jewish Mutakallimùn in the Tenth Century.” In The Majlis: Interreligious Encounters in Medieval Islam. Ed. Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, Mark R. Cohen, Sasson Somekh, and Sidney H. Griﬃth, 137–161. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999. ——. “Are the Gentiles Obligated to Observe the Torah? The Discussion Concerning the Universality of the Torah in the East in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries.” In Isadore Twersky Memorial Volume. Ed. Jay M. Harris. Cambridge: Harvard University Press (forthcoming). Sklare, David in cooperation with Haggai Ben-Shammai, Judaeo-Arabic Manuscripts in the Firkovitch Collections: The Works of Yusuf al-Basir. A Sample Catalogue. Texts and Studies (Hebrew). Jerusalem: Center for the Study of Judaeo-Arabic Culture and Literature/Ben-Zvi Institute, 1997. Sklare, David et al., Judaeo-Arabic Manuscripts in the Firkovitch Collections: The Works of Yeshu'ah ben Yehudah. A Sample Catalogue. Texts and Studies (Hebrew). Jerusalem: Center for the Study of Judaeo-Arabic Culture and Literature/Ben-Zvi Institute, (forthcoming). Sokoloﬀ, Michael. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1990. Sokolow, Moshe. “The Denial of Muslim Sovereignty over Eretz-Israel in Two 10th Century Karaite Bible Commentaries” (Hebrew). Shalem 3 (1981): 309–18. ——. “Kidnapping in Karaite Law According to the Commentary of Sahl Ben Maßlìa˙.” JQR 73 (1982): 176–88. ——. “Saadiah Gaon’s Prolegomenon to Psalms.” PAAJR 51 (1984): 131–74. Somekh, Sasson. “Fragments of a Polemic Treatise from the Cairo Genizah” (Hebrew). In Shivtiel Book. Ed. I. Gluska and T. Kessar, 141–59. Tel-Aviv: The Association for Society and Culture/Aﬁqim Fellowship/Shivtiel Family, 1992. Steinschneider, Moritz. Polemische und apologetische Literatur in arabischer Sprache. Leipzig, 1877. Reprinted, Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1966. Stern, David. Midrash and Theory: Ancient Jewish Exegesis and Contemporary Literary Studies. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1996. Stern, Josef. Problems and Parables of Law: Maimonides and Nahmanides on Reasons for the Commandments (Ta'amei Ha-Mitzvot). Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998. Stern, Sacha. Calendar and Community: A History of the Jewish Calendar, Second Century B.C.E.-Tenth Century C.E. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Stern, Samuel Miklos. “Isaac Israeli’s Book of Substances.” JJS 6 (1955): 135–145. ——. Studies in Early Ismà'ìlism. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1983. ——. “Fà†imid Propaganda Among Jews According to the Testimony of Yefet b. 'Alì the Karaite.” In Studies in Early Ismà'ìlism, 84–95. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1983. Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987. Stillman, Norman A. The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and Source Book. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1979. Stillman, Yedida Kalfon. Arab Dress: A Short History from the Dawn of Islam to Modern Times. Ed. Norman A. Stillman. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

bibliography

347

Strack, H.L. and Günter Stemberger. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Trans. Markus Bockmuehl. 2d corrected printing. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. Strauss (Ashtor), E. “Darkhei ha-pulmus ha-"islami.” In Sefer ha-zikaron le-veit hamidrash la-rabbanim be-vina (Memorial Volume for the Vienna Rabbinical Seminary), 182–97. Jerusalem: Reuven Mass, 1946. Stroumsa, Sarah. “The Impact of Syriac Tradition on Early Judaeo-Arabic Bible Exegesis.” ARAM 3 (1991): 83–96. ——. “«What is man?»: Psalm 8:4–5 in Jewish, Christian and Muslim Exegesis in Arabic.” Henoch 14 (1992): 283–90. ——. “On Jewish Intellectuals Who Converted in the Early Middle Ages.” In The Jews of Medieval Islam: Community, Society, and Identity. Ed. Daniel Frank, 179–97. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995. ——. “Jewish Polemics Against Islam and Christianity in the Light of Judaeo-Arabic Texts.” In Judaeo-Arabic Studies: Proceedings of the Founding Conference of the Society for Judaeo-Arabic Studies. (Studies in Muslim-Jewish Relations). Ed. Norman Golb, 241–50. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1997. ——. Freethinkers of Medieval Islam: Ibn al-Ràwandì, Abù Bakr al-Ràzì, and Their Impact on Islamic Thought. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ——. “Ibn al-Ràwandì’s sù" adab al-mujàdala: the Role of Bad Manners in Medieval Disputations.” In The Majlis: Interreligious Encounters in Medieval Islam. Ed. Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, Mark R. Cohen, Sasson Somekh, and Sidney H. Griﬃth, 66–83. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1999. ——. “From the Earliest Known Judaeo-Arabic Commentary on Genesis.” JSAI 27 (2002): 375–95. Sturtevant, E.H. Linguistic Change: An Introduction to the Historical Study of Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1917; repr. 1961. Sviri, Sara. “Dreaming Analyzed and Recorded: Dreams in the World of Medieval Islam.” In Dream Cultures: Explorations in the Comparative History of Dreaming. Ed. David Shulman and Guy G. Stroumsa, 252–73. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Talmage, Frank Ephraim. David Kimhi: The Man and His Commentaries. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975. ——. “R. David Kim˙i as Polemicist.” HUCA 38 (1967): 213–35. Reprinted in Apples of Gold in Settings of Silver: Studies in Medieval Jewish Exegesis and Polemics. Ed. Barry Dov Walﬁsh, 189–211. Toronto: Pontiﬁcal Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1999. Tamani, Giuliano. “La Tradizione delle opere di Yefet b. Ali.” BEK 1 (1983): 27–76. Tavger, Eliyahu. Kelil Tekhelet. Jerusalem: The Author, 1993. [No English t.p.; the author’s name (†bgr) has been transliterated variously as “Tavger,” “Tebager,” and “Tevgar”]. Tigay Jeﬀrey H. “An Early Technique of Aggadic Exegesis.” In History, Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures. Ed. H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld, 169–189. Jerusalem: Magnes Press and Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1983. ——. The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1996. Tirosh-Becker, Ofra. “Preliminary Studies in Rabbinic Quotations Embedded in the Pentateuch Commentaries of the Karaite Scholar Yeshu‘a Ben-Yehuda” (Hebrew). Massorot 5–6 (1991): 313–40. ——. “A Linguistic Study of Mishnaic Quotations Embedded in Yeshu'a ben Yehuda’s Commentary on Leviticus” (Hebrew). Massorot 7 (1993): 145–86. ——. “Linguistic Study of a Rabbinic Quotation Embedded in a Karaite Commentary on Exodus.” In Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew. Ed. Moshe Bar-Asher, 380–407. Scripta Hierosolymitana, 37. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1998. ——. “The Use of Rabbinic Sources in Karaite Writings.” In Karaite Judaism: A

348

bibliography

Guide to its History and Literary Sources. Ed. Meira Polliack, 319–38. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Tritton, A.S. The Caliphs and Their Non-Muslim Subjects: a Critical Study of the Covenant of 'Umar. London: Frank Cass, 1930, repr. 1970. Twerski, Chaim E. “Identifying the Chilazon.” Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 34 (1997): 77–102. Twersky, Isadore. Introduction to the Code of Maimonides (Mishneh Torah). New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980. Urbach, Ephraim E. “The Homiletical Interpretations of the Sages and the Expositions of Origen on Canticles, and the Jewish-Christian Disputation.” In Studies in Aggadah and Folk-Literature. Ed. Joseph Heinemann and Dov Noy, 247–75. (Scripta Hierosolymitana, 22.) Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1971. ——. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. 2d ed. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1979. Vajda, Georges. “Études sur Qirqisànì.” REJ 106 (1940–45): 87–123. ——. “Études sur Qirqisànì, II.” REJ 107 (1946–47): 52–98. ——. “Études sur Qirqisànì, III.” REJ 108 (1948): 63–91. ——. “Études sur Qirqisànì, IV.” REJ 120 (1961): 211–57. ——. “Études sur Qirqisànì, V.” REJ 122 (1963): 7–74. ——. “Du prologue de Qirqisânî à son commentaire sur la Genèse.” In In Memoriam Paul Kahle. Ed. M. Black and G. Fohrer, 222–31. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1968. ——. Deux commentaires karaïtes sur l’Ecclésiaste. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1971. ——. “La Lex orandi de la communauté karaïte d’après Lévi ben Yefet.” REJ 134, 1–2 (1975): 3–45. ——. “Le Psaume VIII commenté par Salmòn b. Yerù˙ìm.” In Essays on the Occasion of the Seventieth Anniversary of the Dropsie University. Ed. Abraham I. Katsh and Leon Nemoy, 441–48. Philadelphia: The Dropsie University, 1979. ——. “The Opinions of the Karaite R. Yafeth b. Ali on the Destruction of the World in the End of Days” (Hebrew). In American Academy for Jewish Research Jubilee Volume, 85–95. Jerusalem: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1980. ——. “La péricope du serviteur souﬀrant interprétée par le Karaïte Salmòn ben Yerù˙ìm.” In De la Tòrah au Messie: études d’exégèse et d’herméneutique bibliques oﬀertes à Henri Cazelles. Ed. M. Carrez et al., 557–65. Paris: Desclée, 1981. ——. “Quelques aggadôt critiquées par Yefet ben 'Eli.” In Studies in Judaica, Karaitica, and Islamica Presented to Leon Nemoy. Ed. S.R. Brunswick et al., 155–62. RamatGan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1982. ——. “L’homélie du karaïte Samuel al-Maghribî sur les Dix Commandements.” In Interpreting the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honour of E.I.J. Rosenthal. Ed. J.A. Emerton and Stefan C. Reif, 251–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Vermes, Geza. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English. 2d ed. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1975. Walde, Christine. “Dream Interpretation in a Prosperous Age? Artemidorus, the Greek Interpreter of Dreams.” In Dream Cultures: Explorations in the Comparative History of Dreaming. Ed. David Shulman and Guy G. Stroumsa, 121–42. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Walﬁsh, Barry Dov. “The Mourners of Zion ("Avelei Íiyyon): A Karaite 'Aliyah Movement of the Early Arab Period.” In Eretz Israel, Israel and the Jewish Diaspora: Mutual Relations. Ed. Menachem Mor, 42–52. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. 1991. ——. “An Annotated Bibliography of Medieval Jewish Commentaries on the Song of Songs.” In The Bible in the Light of Its Interpreters: Sarah Kamin Memorial Volume (Hebrew). Ed. Sara Japhet, 518–71. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1994. Walker, Paul E. Óamìd al-Dìn al-Kirmànì: Ismaili Thought in the Age of al-Óàkim. London: I.B. Tauris, 1999. Wansbrough, John E. Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977.

bibliography

349

——. The Sectarian Milieu. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978. Watt, W. Montgomery. Bell’s Introduction to the Qur"àn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1970. Wechsler, Michael G. “An Early Karaite Commentary on the Book of Esther.” HUCA 72 (2001): 101–37. ——. “The Arabic Translation and Commentary of Yefet ben 'Eli on Proverbs 31:10–31.” JJS 54 (2003): 283–310. Wehr, Hans. A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic. Ed. J. Milton Cowan. 3rd ed. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1971. Weinberger, Leon J. Rabbanite and Karaite Liturgical Poetry in South-Eastern Europe. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1991. Weis, P.R. “Abraham ibn Ezra and the Karaites in the Halakhah” (Hebrew). Melilah 1 (1944): 35–53; 2 (1946): 121–34; 3–4 (1950): 188–203. Wheeler, Brannon M. Moses in the Quran and Islamic Exegesis. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002. Wieder, Naphtali. “The Doctrine of the Two Messiahs among the Karaites.” JJS 6 (1955): 14–25. ——. “The Qumran Sectaries and the Karaites.” JQR 47 (1956–57): 97–113, 269–92. ——. “The Dead Sea Scrolls Type of Biblical Exegesis among the Karaites.” In Between East and West: Essays Dedicated to the Memory of Bela Horovitz. Ed. A. Altmann, 75–106. London: East and West Library, 1958. ——. “Three Terms for Tradition.” JQR 49 (1958–59): 108–21. ——. The Judean Scrolls and Karaism. London: East and West Library, 1962. ——. “An Unknown Ancient Version of the Haftarah Benedictions—The Use of ‘emet’ to aﬃrm Important Religious Principles.” In Knesset Ezra . . . Studies Presented to Ezra Fleischer (Hebrew). Ed. S. Elizur et al., 35–46. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1994. Wild, Stefan. “The Self-Referentiality of the Qur"àn: Sura 3:7 as an Exegetical Challenge.” In With Reverence for the Word. Ed. Jane Dammen McAuliﬀe, Barry D. Walﬁsh, and Joseph W. Goering, 422–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Wolfson, Elliot. “Asceticism and Eroticism in Medieval Jewish Philosophical and Mystical Exegesis of the Song of Songs.” In With Reverence for the Word. Ed. Jane Dammen McAuliﬀe, Barry D. Walﬁsh, and Joseph W. Goering, 92–118. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Wolfson, Harry Austryn. “Hallevi and Maimonides on Prophecy.” JQR 32:4 (1942): 345–70 and 33:1 (1942): 49–82. Reprinted in Studies in the History of Philosophy and Religion, vol. 2. Ed. Isadore Twersky and George H. Williams, 60–119. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977. Wright, W. A Grammar of the Arabic Language. 3rd ed. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1933. Yahalom, Joseph. Poetic Language in the Early Piyyut (Hebrew). Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1985. Zeitlin, S. “Dreams and their Interpretation from the Biblical Period to the Tannaitic Time: A Historical Study.” JQR 66 (1975–76): 1–18. Zivotofsky, Ari Z. “Is Turkey Kosher?” Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 35 (1998): 79–110. Zucker, Moshe. Rav Saadya Gaon’s Translation of the Torah: Exegesis, Halakha, and Polemics in R. Saadya’s Translation of the Pentateuch (Hebrew). New York: Philipp Feldheim, 1959. ——. “Teguvot li-tenu'at "avelei ßiyyon ha-qara"iyim ba-sifrut ha-rabbanit.” In Sefer ha-yovel le-rabbi Óanokh "Albeq, 378–401. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1963. ——. “The Problem of 'Isma—Prophetic Immunity to Sin and Error in Islamic and Jewish Literatures” (Hebrew). Tarbiz 35 (1965): 149–73. ——. “Fragments of the Kitàb Ta˙ßìl al-Sharà"i' al-Samà'ìyah [!]” (Hebrew). Tarbiz 41 (1972): 373–410.

350

bibliography

Zulay, Mena˙em. “Mi-piyyu†ei ha-qara"im ha-qadmonim.” In Qoveß hoßa"at Shoqen le-divrei sifrut, 139–45. Tel-Aviv: Schocken, 1941. Zunz, Leopold. Die Ritus des synagogalen Gottesdienstes. 2d ed. Berlin: Verlag von Louis Lamm, 1919. Zwiep, Irene E. Mother of Reason and Revelation: A Short History of Medieval Jewish Linguistic Thought. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 1997.

MANUSCRIPTS CITED

Numbers in boldface refer to Judeo-Arabic Texts, e.g., 2.4. Cambridge University Library (CUL) T-S K 1.11 T-S Ar. 52.184 T-S Ar. 52.194

98 n. 17 8 n. 29 45 n. 46 London, British Library (BL)

Or. 2401 Or. 2462 Or. 2463

Or. 2475 Or. 2478 Or. 2479

Or. 2494 Or. 2498

16 n. 68, 243 n. 147 232 n. 105, 6.8 ch. 3 passim; 103 n. 42, 104 n. 44, 107 n. 57, 111 n. 74, 115 n. 86, 118 n. 101, 135 n. 173, 139–40; 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.9 232 n. 107 209 n. 20, 237 n. 123 28 n. 104, 230 n. 96, 244 n. 151, 247 n. 157, 2.4, 6.12 20 n. 82, 52 n. 79 230 n. 96

Or. Or. Or. Or.

2501 2502 2503 2513

Or. 2515 Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or.

2516 2520 2539 2550 2551 2554 2564

Or. 2573 Or. 2574 Or. 2577

189 n. 99 18 n.75 219 nn. 58–59 163 n. 80, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13 147 n. 12, 148 n. 15, 154 n. 44 53 n. 84, 148 n. 15 148 n. 13 175 n. 38 23 n. 89 185 n. 84, 5.6 14 n. 55, 155 n. 47 171 n. 22, 173 nn. 29 and 31, 175 n. 39 5.1 15 n. 64 15 n. 64 171 n. 21

New York, The Jewish Theological Seminary of America ( JTSA) Mic 3349

Mic. 3350

179 n. 57, 181 nn. 65–66, 182 n. 69, 183 n. 76, 184 n. 81, 185 n. 84, 187 nn. 92–93, 188 n. 95, 189 n. 100, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9 165 n. 1, 166 n. 3,

Mic. 3351

176 n. 43, 181 n. 66, 190 n. 101, 191 nn. 106 and 108–109, 192 n. 113, 194 n. 121, 195 n. 124, 196 nn. 128–131, 197 n. 134, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12, 5.13 199 n. 141

manuscripts cited

352

Oxford, Bodleian Library Opp. Add. 4º 169

219 n. 58 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale (BN)

Suppl. héb. 30/II

Suppl. héb. 31 Suppl. héb. 35 Suppl. héb. 37/I

98 n. 19, 103 n. 42, 106 n. 56, 107 n. 57, 109 n. 63, 111 n. 74, 114 n. 86, 118 n. 101, 120 n. 105, 135 n. 173, 136 n. 174, 139, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.9 217 n. 51, 238 n. 124, 6.5 225 n. 77, 247 n. 156, 2.3, 6.7 72 n. 169, 180 n. 59, 195 n. 127, 199 nn. 144 and 146, 204 n. 1, 207

Suppl. héb. 37/II

Suppl. héb. 37/III

n. 13, 208 nn. 15–16, 214 n. 40, 215 n. 41, 6.4 165 n. 1, 166 n. 3, 190 n. 101, 192 n. 113, 5.10, 5.12, 5.13 179 nn. 54 and 57, 182 n. 69, 183 n. 76, 184 n. 81, 185 n. 84, 187 n. 92, 188 n. 95, 189 n. 100, 190 n. 104, 191 n. 106, 199 n. 146, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.11

St. Petersburg, Institute of Oriental Studies (IOS) 6.6 28 n. 104, 80, 236 nn. 117–18, 237 n. 121, 240 n. 134,

A143 C41

243 nn. 148–49, 2.2, 2.3, 6.10, 6.11 244 n. 151, 2.4, 6.12

C72

St. Petersburg, Russian National Library (RNL) Yevr. I.567

Yevr. I.568 Yevr. I.569 Yevr. I.761 Yevr.-Arab. I.0017 Yevr.-Arab. I.0019 Yevr.-Arab I.0020

236 n. 117, 237 n. 121, 240 n. 134, 243 n. 149, 2.3, 6.10, 6.11 223 and n. 72, 3.11, 6.6 255 n. 29 171 n. 22 101 n. 29, 2.3, 3.1 80, 2.2 240 n. 134, 243 n. 149, 6.10, 6.11

Yevr.-Arab. Yevr.-Arab. Yevr.-Arab. Yevr.-Arab.

I.0040 I.0054 I.0055 I.0057

Yevr.-Arab. I.0063 Yevr.-Arab. I.0095 Yevr.-Arab. I.0111 Yevr.-Arab. I.0114 Yevr.-Arab. I.0121

253 n. 24 253 n. 24 253 n. 24 47 n. 57, 49 n. 68, 84 n. 11, 2.1 28 n. 104 28 n. 104, 80, 240 n. 134, 2.2, 2.3, 6.10, 6.11 80, 2.2 15, n. 59 15 n. 59, 253 n. 24

manuscripts cited Yevr.-Arab. I.928 Yevr.-Arab. I.930 Yevr.-Arab. I.1406

Yevr.-Arab. I.1535 Yevr.-Arab. I.1754

171 n. 22 171 n. 22, 173 n. 28 14 n. 54, 147 n. 11, 148 and nn. 14–15, 149 nn. 19 and 21, 152 nn. 26–27, 152 nn. 31, 33–35, 153 nn. 37–38 and 41, 154 n. 43, 159 nn. 61–62, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.9, 4.10 225 n. 77, 6.7 19 n. 78, 233 n. 111, 6.9

Yevr.-Arab. I.1989 Yevr.-Arab. I.3806 Yevr.-Arab. I.3958 Yevr.-Arab. I.3959 Yevr.-Arab. I.4252 Yevr.-Arab. I.4633

353 42 n. 35 250 n. 10 148 n. 14, 149 n. 21, 4.2 147 n. 12, 148 n. 14, 4.1 148 n. 14, 149 n. 21, 152 n. 27, 4.2 16 n. 64, 108 nn. 59–60 and 62, 110 n. 68, 115 nn. 88, 90, 116 n. 91, 121 n. 109, 138 n. 181, 140, 143, 152 n. 27, 3.3, 3.8, 3.10, 3.12

BIBLICAL VERSES

Genesis 1 1:20 1:24 1:26 1:27 2:10–14 2:18 2:21 6:2 6:20 7:2 7:8 7:14 8:20 11:1 12:4 12:7 12:17ﬀ. 14 14:1 15 15:9–17 15:9 15:12 16:12 17:14 18:19 20:2–5 20:3–7 21:20–21 21:21 24 24:14 24:16 24:43 25:13 28:10 28:12–17 28:12 29:2–3 31:35 36:8 37 37:5–11 40–41

11 49–50, 80 51 215–17, 216 n. 48 216 131 n. 155 216 131 n. 153 109 n. 63 51 n. 77 82 82 51 n. 77 41, 47, 59–60, 81 238 n. 124 11 n. 41 232 104 131 131 n. 155 131 131 130 and n. 152 130 and n. 152 230–34, 239 n. 130 233 n. 110 245 104 and n. 44 102 n. 34 228 230 221 n. 64 221 221 n. 64 221 161 n. 70 95 102 n 31 95, 131 n. 155 131 n. 155 23 n. 90, 26 230 123 102 n. 34, 106 96, 123, 127, 128, 134

40:4–7 40:5 40:8 40:8–11 40:9–12 40:11 40:12 40:12–13 40:13 40:16–19 40:17 40:17–19 40:18 40:19 41:1–32 41:1–7 41:1 41:2 41:4 41:5–7 41:7 41:8 41:12 41:15 41:15–16 41:17–24 41:20 41:21 41:24 41:25 41:25–32 41:28 41:29 41:31 41:32 41:37–45 41:38

108 n. 59 102 n. 34, 107 108, 120 n. 104 108 n. 60 109–110, 131 n. 155 107 141 n. 9 111, 114–15 n. 86, 139–40 107 131 n. 155 107, 111, 119 111, 116 141 n. 9 107 98, 113, 130 102 n. 34, 113 137 115 116 124 n. 121, 143–44 102–103 and n. 42, 116, 119, 124 n. 123, 251 n. 16 98 n. 19, 121, 124 nn. 121, 122, and 124, 141, 144 107 112 nn. 76–77, 117 n. 96 119–20 and n. 106, 121 and n. 109, 138 n. 183, 140–43 113 116 114 116, 117 n. 97 135 n. 173, 141 n. 9, 143 113–114 141 n. 9 112 n. 75 114 114 123 142

biblical verses 41:43 41:54 44:12 49 49:10

142 116 23 n. 90, 26 16, 218 220

Exodus 1:1–4 1:1 3:12 12:14–15 12:39 14 14:23–28 15 15:3 15:19 19:2 19:5 20:10 22:27 23:19 23:25 25:4 27:2 28:14 28:22 28:28 28:33 30:23 33: 11 33:11–12 34:26 35:3 39:5

253 15 222 n. 70 36 n. 8 36 n. 8 158 158 16, 151, 195 152, 159 159 229 245 2,6 109 n. 63 10 174 n. 37 68 n. 147 67 65 66 214 66 153 n. 40 100 n. 26 180 10 2 67

Leviticus 1:14 1:16 11:4–7 11:9 11:10 11:13–19 11:13 11:14–16 11:14 11:15 11:18 11:19 11:30 11:37–44 12:6 14:4

41–42 43 131 and n. 155 80 50 n. 75, 83 39–61 49–50, 80, 81 n. 1, 83 46 46, 51, 83 44 55, 84 n. 11 46 55, 84 n. 11 20 n. 82 42 42, 80, 82

14:11 15 20:18 20:25 23:33–44 23:42 25:4 26:16 27:11 Numbers 7:89 12:6–8 12:6 12:7

355 42 36 n. 9 93 n. 46 83 28 n. 104 6, 38 n. 22 163 n. 82 191 81

24:18–25 24:21 24:25 28 28:9–10 32:14

153 n. 42 126 n. 131 101 101 n. 29, 125 n. 126, 251 n. 16 100 n. 26 72 n. 171 62–76, 176 n. 43 67 n. 146 6, 35 n. 6, 62, 64 n. 126, 65 n. 131 63, 69, 72–74 73–74 65 81 225 224–25 224 16, 225 n. 76 225 231–32 225 247 n. 156 225 225 224–25 220, 224–27, 238 n. 125 219 n. 59 16 224 176 240 n. 133 74

Deuteronomy 1:1 3:23–7:11 4:2 4:28 4:30 4:31 5:4

15 237 n. 120 239 209 n. 20 187 187 245

12:8 13:2 15:37–41 15:37–39 15:38 15:39 15:40 17:23 19:13 22:2–25:9 22:9 22:31–35 23–24 23:7–10 23:9 23:18–24 24:2 24:3–9 24:14 24:15–16 24:17

356 5:19 6:4 6:11 7:6 9:10 10:4 11:13–21 11:19 13:2 14:1–21 14:5 14:9 14:11–20 14:11

14:12 14:13 14:20 14:21 17:8 17:9 18:15,18 18:16 22:11 22:12 23:13 23:17 26:11 28:16–68 28:26 28:68 29:10 29:13–14 30:11 31:9 31:11 32–33 32 32:11 32:19 32:36 32:38 33:2 33:3 33:4 34:10

biblical verses 89 176 n. 43 174 n. 37 245 89 89 176 n. 43 90 243, 245 50 n. 72 60 80, 83 39–61, 80–88 50 and n. 76, 52 nn. 79 and 81, 56 n. 93, 60, 80, 82 nn. 5 and 7, 84 n. 13, 86 82 40 n. 26, 46 n. 47, 51, 83 50, 80 10 74 90 104 n. 43, 234–44, 251 n. 16 89 71 28 n. 104, 62–76 232 235 235 181 50 140 235 194 36 89 90 16, 151 195, 218, 224 n. 74 54, 85 and n. 21 182 n. 67 187 219 n. 59 228–30 88 70 n. 160, 78, 88–94 100 n. 26, 234, 243, 244–47, 251 n. 16

Judges 5 7:13–15 7:15

151, 218 102 n. 34 103

1 Samuel 2 3:10 3:21 23:23

16, 218 101 101 23 n. 90, 26

1 Kings 7:17 8:54 20:6

65 244 23 n. 90

2 Kings 5 8:8 8:21 10:12 10:23 2:24 16:1–2 18:1–2 19:6

245 245 244 245 23 n. 90 130 n. 150 222 n. 69 222 n. 69 192

Isaiah 5 5:1 5:6 5:18 7:10–11 7:12 7:14 11:4 21:6–8 28:4 29:13 37:6 39:1 40:4 40:18 41:14 41:20 42:20 47:3 47:9–10 49:6 52–53 53:12 54:4–7 58:2 58:12

14 n. 54, 150, 152 150 163 n. 82 65 221 222 n. 68 220–23 226 134–36 64 5, 57, 196 n. 131 192 238 n. 125 214 152 189 n. 99 11 255 n. 29 208 n. 16 183 n. 72 226 14 n. 54 146 n. 7 145 136 and n. 178 134 n. 169

biblical verses 59:11 59:20 60:12 61:3 62:6 62:6–7

42, 55, 84 170 n. 18 226 18, 164, 198 n. 140 18, 135 164

Jeremiah 2:2 3:15 6:16 8:7 10:19 23:5 30:7 31:31 33:15 49 49:16 51:24

145 94 28 n. 104 44, 59 206 226 n. 81 196 140 226 n. 81 219 n. 59 219 n. 58 184

Ezekiel 8:3 16 20:32 44:20 45–46 46:4 48

64 145 26 64 n. 127 239 n. 132 240 and n. 134 162

357

5:19 6:3 7:14

130 n. 150 4 n. 15 32

Obadiah 3 6 14

219, 220 n. 60 127 n. 140 4 n. 15

Jonah 1:1 4:10

4 n. 14 4 n. 15

Micah 2:3

4 n. 15

Nahum 2:11 3:14

53 140

Habakkuk 2:2 2:18 3:15

127 183 n. 72 159

Zephaniah 2:5

4 n. 14

Haggai 1:6

4 n. 15

Hosea 1–2 1:9 4:11 5:11 5:13 6:1–2 7:14 9:7 10:12 12:1 14:5

145 5 n. 18 110 n. 67 4 n. 18 29 n. 108 5 n. 18 110 n. 67 208 n. 16 59 n. 104 127 201 n. 156

Zechariah 1:8–6:15 1:8 1:12 2:3 3:8

Joel 1:4 1:7 1:13 1:17 2:3–5 2:23 2:26

4 n. 15 4 n. 15 153 53 127 n. 141 45 174 n. 37

5:9–11 6:7 6:12 10:3 12:4 14:3

102 n. 31 4 n. 14, 101 n. 29 102 and n. 32 127 n. 140 127 n. 141, 226 n. 81 127 n. 140 242 102 n. 32 16 22, 32 n. 127, 93 n. 49 16 128 n. 142 226 n. 81 159 159 159

Malachi 1:1 2:9

243 n. 147 5 n. 19

Amos 3:7

138

3:9 4 4:5 5 5:8

358 Psalms 1–2 2 3 3:1 4 4:1 5 5:1 5:6–7 5:7 5:9 5:11 8:4–5 12 19:8–10 19:8 19:13 22 22:1 22:27 23 25 25:1 25:14 27 27:5 28 28:1 30 30:5 31:21 34:9–10 35 38:14–15 39 39:2 39:3 39:5 39:10 42:4 42:6–7 42:11 43:3 44 44:1 44:2 44:3–4 44:5 44:6 44:7

biblical verses 168 n. 13 168 n. 13, 204 n. 1 180 n. 59 195 n. 127, 201 n. 153, 204 n. 1 206 206 n. 7 205–208 206 nn. 10–11 207 213 208 and n. 15 208 and n. 16 216 n. 48 204 n. 1 11 72 n. 169 76 135 and n. 172, 168 n. 13, 206 136 n. 174 174 161 175, 198–99 199 n. 146 137 204 n. 1 213 175, 198–99 199 n. 144 209 n. 18 174 213–14 174 204 n. 1 218 137–38 214–15 215 138 214 182 n. 68 149 n. 19 182 and n. 68 59 n. 104 13,17, 175 and n. 39, 188–95, 199 190, 198, 202 191 191 190–91, 198 191 190, 198

44:10 44:16 44:17 44:18 44:19 44:20–23 44:23 44:24–27 44:27 45 45:1 46 46:1 46:7 48 52:11 55:18 60 63:6 64:7 68 69 69:1 71:14 72 72:8 72:9–11 73 73:3 74 74:1

74:3–9 74:3 74:4 74:6 74:9 74:10–23 74:10 74:11

191 190–92, 198 183 n. 71, 191–92, 193 n. 114 176 n. 43, 193, 251 n. 16 193 194 194 n. 123 194 195 n. 124, 198 n. 139, 201 n. 153 161, 165 n. 2, 189, 206 18 n. 74, 160 n. 66, 165 n. 1 204 n. 1 166 n. 3 232 n. 102 204 n. 1 174 172 189, 206 174 26 204 n. 1 17, 161, 165 n. 2, 189, 206 17, 149 188 13, 168 n. 13 226 226 179 n. 58 179 133, 175, 178–85, 191, 204 n. 1 18 n. 74, 133 n. 165, 178, 179 n. 57, 201 n. 153, 202 178–79 184 184 5 n. 19, 45 n. 45, 147 n. 10 181 and n. 66, 196 n. 132 178–79, 181–84 178–79, 182–84, 201 n. 153 178, 183 and nn. 74, 76, 184, 205 n. 5

biblical verses 74:18 74:19 74:21 74:22 74:23 77 77:7–8 78:60–67 78:69 79 79:1–3 79:1 79:4 79:5 79:6–7 79:7 79:8 79:9 79:9–11 79:10 79:13 80 80:1 86 86:2 86:12 88 88:1 89 90 90:1 90:2 90:3–6 90:4 90:7 90:8 90:9–11 90:12 90:13

178, 179 n. 55 184 181 n. 65 178 184 and n. 81 13 27 185 185 175 and n. 39, 176 and n. 46, 178, 185–88 178, 188 185 and n. 84 178, 188 178, 186, 188 178, 188 178 184 n. 77, 185–87 and n. 92, 188, 196 n. 131 188 178, 188 178, 182 n. 68, 185, 187 and n. 93, 188 188 and n. 95, 200 n. 152, 251 n. 16 17, 161, 165 n. 2, 175 and n. 39, 188, 195, 199, 206 189 and n. 100, 199 n. 143 175–76 and n. 46, 195 n. 127, 198–99 199 n. 146 174 150 180 n. 59 168 n. 13 13, 175 and n. 39, 176 and n. 46, 188, 190, 195–99 190–91, 201 n. 152, 202, 251 n. 16 196 196 195, 197 196 196 196 138, 181 n. 66, 195–97 196

90:14 90:15 90:16 90:17 92:2 94:8–9 94:10 100:4–5 102 102:7 102:14 103:11 104 105:16–17 105:23 107:8–9 108 110 117:2 119 119:1

359

119:18 119:62 119:64 119:133 120–134 127 132 136 136:1–3 136:25–26 136:4–9 139:19–22 140 145 146:2 149:2

195–97 195–97 197 197 174 219 n. 59 138, 141 174 175 n. 39, 189, 206 54 149 n. 19 174 172 119 119 n. 103 174 150 168 n. 13 174 189, 199 29, 133 n. 164, 134 n. 169, 155 n. 50, 165 and n. 1 76, 136 n. 179 136 136 213 150 13 168 n. 13 176 and n. 48 174 174 172 219 n. 59 204 n. 1 176 and n. 49 174 198

Proverbs 1:1 2:1–10 2:4–5 2:6 3:5 3:32 5:19 6:23 8:9 14:4 17:12 20:27 25:11

15 n. 58 28 n. 104 25, 27 120, 137 28 n. 106, 30 137 24 n. 91 226 36 115 130 n. 150 26 252

biblical verses

360 27:18 30:4 30:19

24 n. 91 95 n. 1 221

Job 4:12–16 4:17 9:4 28:7 33:15–16 38:36

102 n. 31 76 n. 185 76 46 102 44

Song of Songs 1–8 1:1 1:2 1:2–17 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:9 1:10–14 1:13 2:1–2 2:1 2:2 2:5 2:6 2:12 2:12–13 2:15 2:16 3:1 3:2 3:3 3:8 4:5 5:2 5:7 5:8 5:10 6:3 6:11 7 7:3

145–64 15 n. 58, 151 151, 156–57 153 n. 39 151 153 149 n. 19, 161 147 n. 11 158–60, 251 n. 16 158 153 and nn. 40, 42, 154 165 18 n. 74, 153 nn. 37 and 39, 160, 189 n. 100 17, 153 n. 39, 189 n. 97 158 157–58, 251 n. 16 148 n. 15, 149 n. 19, 163–64 17 161 n. 71 161 nn. 67–68, 210 n. 24 157 162 n. 78 161 147 and n. 12, 251 n. 14 161 n. 68 145, 157 162–63 152, 193 n. 116 152 and n. 33 160–61 157 156 157 n. 56

7:3–5 7:10 8 8:1 8:8 8:14

162 152 156 152 156 162 n. 74

Ruth 4:12

221

Lamentations 1 1:7 1:8

4:3 4:11

167 n. 8 183–84 n. 77 27 n. 103, 193 n. 114 153 154 149 n. 19 23 n. 90, 26, 29 n. 110 53 n. 84 181

Ecclesiastes 1:8 1:13 2:2 5:2 12:12

98 n. 19 27, 28 n. 104 207 103 n. 40 31 n. 124

Esther 5:9

244

2:7 3:4 3:20 3:40

Daniel 1–6 1:20 2 2:1 2:2 2:4 2:5 2:9 2:19 2:21 2:28–45 2:28 2:29 2:30 2:36 2:37–43

120 n. 107 124 n. 119 102 n. 34, 120–121, 125, 126, 130, 135 121 and n. 110, 122, 124 n. 120, 124 n. 124, 144 121, 141 143 122 n. 112 143 124 137 124 143 105 n. 49 142 143 179 n. 58

biblical verses 2:41 2:43 2:45 2:49 4 4:4 5 5:1 5:7 5:10 5:11–12 6:11 7–12 7 7:1–16 7:1 7:5 7:8 7:13 7:15 7:16 7:17–18 7:24 7:25 8 8:1–14 8:21 8:22 8:25 9:3–20 9:3 9:4 9:16–18 9:19

128–29 128–29, 231, 232 n. 106, 233 122 142 102 nn. 34 and 36, 120, 126 124 n. 119 120, 126 142 n. 14 142 n. 14 142 n. 14 121, 124 n. 119, 142 7, 172, 200 125, 130 102 n. 31, 126, 135 125 n. 126 125 n. 126, 132 n. 157 130 and n. 151 130 n. 148, 132, 133 n. 164, 179 n. 58 226 125 n. 127 101–102 130 n. 149 132 n. 159 136 n. 174 126 125 n. 126 132 n. 159 232 n. 102 207 200–201 7, 164, 201 201 and n. 152 201 200 n. 153

9:20 10–12 10:2–3 11–12 11:1 11:14

361

11:39 11:40 12:2–3 12:3 12:5–13 12:6–7 12:9–10 12:9 12:10

101, 201 n. 153 125 n. 126 201 n. 154 133 132 n. 158, 255 132 n. 159, 219 n. 59 207 132 n. 159 127 n. 140 16 201 n. 155 210 n. 26, 211 n. 30 18 n. 74, 134 and n. 167, 138 134 nn. 166 and 167 211 n. 28 132 n. 161 132 n. 158 18 n. 74, 134 137 138, 196 n. 133 201 n. 155 178 n. 51, 181 134 n. 166, 135, 138

Ezra 5

163

Nehemiah 9:6 9:14

176 n. 43 89

1 Chronicles 23:30 28:11–12 28:19 29:10–13

172 241 241 176 and n. 46

11:23 11:25 11:30 11:31 11:32–35 11:32 11:33 11:35

RABBINIC SOURCES

Mishnah Shabbat 9:1 'Eruvin 3:7–9 Pesa˙im 5:8 Pesa˙im 10:4 Ta'anit 3:7

93 n. 45 92 n. 44 92 n. 44 202 n. 158 92 n. 44

Qiddushin 1:7 Avot 1:1 Avot 5:22 Mena˙ot 4:1 Óullin 3:6

63 89 23 39 40

n. n. n. n.

119 33 91 25

Tosefta Berakhot 6:16 Qiddushin 1:8 Sanhedrin 13:1

57 n. 95 63 n. 119 70 n. 161 Avot De-Rabbi Natan

ch. 27

158 n. 60 Mekhilta

Beshalla˙ 7

158 n. 60 Sifra Leviticus

Dibbura di-Nedava 7:9 43 n. 37 Shemini 5:6 40 n. 27, 56 n. 92

"Emor 1:4–5,8,10 "Emor 2:1–2 "Emor 5:1–2

70 n. 160 70 n. 160 70 n. 160

Sifrei Numbers Be-ha'alotekha 103 Shela˙ 115

126 n. 131 62 n. 115, 63 n. 117, 64

n. 124, 68 n. 151, 70 n. 159, 73 n. 175

Sifrei Deuteronomy Pisqa 103 Pisqa 175

50 n. 73 239 n. 131

Pisqa 234 Pisqa 343

70 n. 159 230 n. 97

rabbinic sources

363

Palestinian Talmud Berakhot 1:4, 9a 9:1, 63b 66a

77 n. 187 44 n. 40 57 n. 95

Ta'anit 4:8, 68d

227 n. 84

Sanhedrin 22a

5 n. 19

Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 20b 31b 55a-57b 55b 56b 57a-b 92b

63 n. 119 11 n. 41, 152 n. 32 96 123 n. 117 110 n. 70 97 n. 7, 98 n. 17 57 n. 97

'Eruvin 13b 54a–b

77 n. 187 24 n. 91

Pesa˙im 7b 118b

57 n. 94 176 n. 44

Yoma 40b

70 n. 169

Rosh Hashanah 26a

44 n. 40

Megillah 11a

130 n. 151

Gi††in 60b

92 n. 40

Sanhedrin 21b

75 n. 180

Makkot 23b

72 n. 168

Mena˙ot 38a–44b 39b–40b 41b–42a

44a

62 n. 115 71 n. 167 38 n. 24, 64 n. 128, 71 n. 166, 76 n. 186 35 n. 6, 63 nn. 118–19 73 n. 175

Óullin 60b–61a 63a 65a

40 n. 29 55 n. 91 57 n. 97

Temurah 14b

92 n. 40

42b–43a

Genesis Rabbah 16:4 17:5 24:5 42:2 44:14 44:17

131 n. 155 131 n. 153 72 n. 168 131 n. 155 130 n. 152 130 n. 152, 131 n. 153

52:5 65:3 68:14 70:8 88:5–6 89:4 89:5

104 n. 43 57 n. 97 131 n. 155 131 n. 155 131 n. 155 117 nn. 94, 95 123 n. 117

rabbinic sources

364

Exodus Rabbah 32:1

72 n. 168 Leviticus Rabbah

1:13 13:5 19:6

104 n. 43 131 n. 155 142 n. 14

25:5 28:1

Numbers Rabbah 13:15–16 13:16 18:21

72 n. 168 5 n. 19 72 n. 168 Song of Songs Rabbah

1:13 5:7

72 n. 168 163 n. 81 Lamentations Rabbah

2:2

227 n. 84 Tan˙uma

Mi-qeß 2

121 n. 108 Tan˙uma (Buber)

Va-yishla˙ 8 Va-yishla˙ 23 Mi-qeß 4

102 n. 32 102 n. 32 121 n. 108 Pesiqta Rabbati

21

5 n. 19 Pesiqta De-Rav Kahana

15:5

89 n. 34

44 n. 40 70 n. 161

rabbinic sources Midrash Tehillim 5:1 9:15 105:5

206 n. 11 70 n. 161 119 Midrash Mishle

27–28

25 n. 98 Seder Eliyahu Rabbah

Ch. 28

104 n. 43 Seder Eliyahu Zutta

11:1

70 n. 161 Midrash Shir Ha-Shirim

1:9 5:7

158 163 n. 81 Yalqut Shim'oni

628 (Psalm 5)

206 n. 11 Aggadat Bereshit

55

102

365

GENERAL INDEX

Note: In alphabetizing Arabic names and terms, the deﬁnite article (al-) has been ignored. Aaron 65, 101 Aaron b. Elijah 41 n. 32, 170 n. 20 Aaron b. Joseph 41 n. 32, 167 n. 10 Aaron b. Sarjado 249 Abarbanel, Isaac 250 Abbasids 3, 45, 132 Abbaye 40, 64 'Abd al-Jabbàr b. A˙mad 74 n. 178 Abimelech 102, 104, 106 Abraham 131 n. 154, 151 n. 28, 229, 233, 253 Abraham Ibn Ezra, see s.v. “Ibn Ezra, Abraham” Abù ’l-Faraj Furqàn b. Asad, see s.v. “Jeshua b. Judah” Abù ’l-Faraj Hàrùn 18–20, 233, 249 Abù ’l-Surrì, see s.v. Sahl b. Maßlia˙ Abù Sulaymàn Dàwùd 167 n. 9, 172, 173 n. 28, 177 n. 30 Academies, Bablonian 6, 16, 60, 162 n. 74, 163 adab 107 Adam 238 n. 124 a∂ghàth 105 'Adnàn 238 aggadah 34 n. 4, 158–60, 256 and n. 33 à˙àd 175–76, 198–99 Ahasuerus 142 n. 15 Ahaz 221–23 ahl al-dhimma 208–209, 211, 231 ahl al-kitàb 247 ahl al-lugha, see s.v. “language community” Akiva 77 n. 188, 93, 227 a'làm al-nubùwa, see s.v. “prophecy, signs of ” 'alàmàt, see s.v. “prognostic signs,” “prophecy, signs of ” Alexander the Great 132 'Alì b. Sulaymàn 19, 21, 233 n. 110 alien wisdom 31, 147 allegorical interpretation 10, 145–64 passim

allègorikoi 105 allegorization of laws 210 ambiguous expressions 34–39 Amos 245 analogy, see also s.v. gezerah shavah, ˙ippu≤, qiyàs 2, 9, 32, 63 n. 120 Anan b. David 2–3, 10, 18 n. 74, 22–23, 25–26, 29–30, 38–39, 78 n. 24, 41–42, 45, 47, 60, 93, 134 n. 167 Book of Commandments 23, 41, 61 n. 114, 63 n. 121, 65 Ananites 3, 9, 29–30, 41–42, 47, 58–60, 78, 82 n. 5 “Anan’s Dictum” 22–32 Andalusian Rabbanites 248–57 passim angels 100 n. 26, 101–104, 125–26, 130–32, 138, 230, 246 n. 154 'anqà" 48 and n. 59 anthropomorphism 11, 152, 153 n. 38, 227 antinomianism 75 n. 180, 124 n. 119 apocalypticism 16–18, 126–38, 160–64, 165–66, 169–70, 187, 196–98, 202–203, 218 apostasy, see s.v. “conversion” al-Aqsà Mosque 183 Arabic characters 172 n. 27 Arabic language 9, 27 n. 103, 48, 51, 54, 127–28 Arabic translations 8, 12, 48–55, 82, 85, 146, 152–53, 158 and n. 58, 189 n. 97 Aramaic (see also s.v. “Targum”) 2, 7, 23, 25, 28, 53, 55, 65, 127 Aristotelianism 249 Aristotle 54 n. 86, 99 Artemidorus 96–97, 98 n. 17, 100 n. 27, 103 n. 40, 105–106, 111 n. 69, 112 nn. 75 and 77, 117 n. 93, 118, 130 n. 150 Asaph 13 'atidot 175, 239 attributes, divine 152

general index Av Beit Din 162 "avelei Íiyyon, see s.v. “Mourners for Zion” àya mu'jiza, see s.v. “miracle, prophetic” Babylonians, see s.v. “Chaldeans” Baghdad 132, 212 ba˙th 26–27, 28 n. 105, 32, 93, 163 baker (Pharaoh’s servant) 100, 102–103, 107–12, 131 n. 155 Balaam 104 n. 43, 224–25, 227 and n. 86, 239, 247 al-Bàqillànì, Abù Bakr 243 n. 145 Bar Kokhba, Simeon 227 bat 55, 84–85 bat ha-ya'anah, see s.v. “ostrich” bà†in 10, 56, 150, 223 bear 130 and n. 150 Belshazzar 120–21, 126, 141, 142 n. 14 benediction 57–58, 88 Benjamin al-Nahàwandì 3, 25–26, 32, 42–43, 45, 78, 93, 100, 146, 197 bid'a, see s.v. “innovation” birds, clean and unclean 39–60, 80–88 booths, see s.v. sukkah Brahmans 31 Brethren of Purity 54 al-Bukhàrì 97 nn. 7 and 11 butler (Pharaoh’s servant) 100, 102–103, 107–12, 131 n. 155 Buyids 132 and n. 161, 212 Byzantine Karaites 22 Byzantium 21, 220, 229 calendar 34, 79, 162, 164, 186 Carmathians 16, 136 n. 174 Chaldeans 179–80, 184 chicken 44–45, 47, 59, 79, 88, 98 n. 17 cherubim 153, 158 Chief Judge 74 Christian exegesis, impact of 11 and n. 44 Christianity, see s.v. “Edom,” “Jesus,” and “polemics, Jewish-Christian” Church Fathers 151 n. 30, 220 Church of the Holy Sepulchre 209 circumcision 194 City of David 183 n. 73 cognates 53 and n. 83, 66 commandments (see also s.v. “law”) 127, 150, 194, 208

367

allegorization of 210 rational 35–36, 241–42 revealed, ceremonial 25, 35–36, 75, 241 six hundred and thirteen 72 ten 72 n. 169 women and 63 consensus 37, 44, 52–53, 59 n. 103, 86, 88, 91 conversion 208–15 Coptic Christians 213 n. 36 creation 11, 169, 173, 196 Creator 11, 149–50, 152, 156, 190, 219 crow 44, 48, 52–53, 85 custom (minhag) 34–35, 53 n. 82, 78 n. 192 Damascus, Karaites of 167 n. 12 Daniel 95–144 passim, 200–201, 225 Daniel al-Qùmìsì 2–5, 28–31, 46–47, 57, 59–60, 134 n. 167, 183 Book of Commandments 43–45, 47 Commentary on Leviticus 137 n. 180 Commentary on Minor Prophets (Pitron sheneim 'a≤ar) 3 n. 11, 4 nn. 14–15, 5 n. 18, 17 n. 68, 18 n. 74, 29 n. 108, 31 n. 124, 45, 127–28 Commentary on Psalms 4 n. 13, 45 n. 45, 133, 147 n. 10 Commentary on Daniel 133 David 13, 76, 199, 200, 206, 224–25, 241 David b. Abraham al-Fàsì 12, 20–21, Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ 26 n. 100, 28 n. 105, 49 and n. 69, 54 nn. 85 and 88, 55 nn. 89–90, 64 n. 126, 65 nn. 131–32, 67 n. 145, 68 n. 147, 72 n. 171, 84 n. 11, 85 n. 21, 116 n. 91, 121 n. 110, 124 n. 120, 140 n. 6, 146 n. 9, 199, 206 nn. 7 and 11, 226 n. 81, 232 nn. 102 and 104 David b. Boaz 12 David Kim˙i 222 n. 71, 249–50 da'wa 210, 233 dayyanim 162 Dead Sea sect 125–27 dhimmì, see s.v. ahl al-dhimma dialogue, biblical 11, 153 n. 39 al-Dìnawarì, Abù Sa'd 97, 106 n. 52, 108, 110, 111 n. 71, 117, 123 dìwàn al-ßalàt 168, 177

368

general index

Dome of the Rock 183 dores 40, 56, 87 dove, see s.v. “pigeon” dream interpretation 95–144 dreams, direct 105–107 dreams, pathogenetic 103–104 dreams, public 118–19 dreams, royal 117–20 du'àh 210, 229 Dunash Ibn Labrà† 131 n. 154 Ecclesiastes 15 Edom 17, 192, 219–20, 226 Egypt 21, 119 "eilei ßedeq 164, 166, 198 Elihu 102 n. 31 Elijah 5, 45, 59, 196 Elijah Bashyachi 170 n. 20 Eliphaz 102 Elisha 245 elite and masses 18, 198–99 End of Days 5, 155–56, 159–61, 181–82, 190, 196, 202, 224–25, 227, 232 enumeration 251 and n. 16 enupnion 105 Ephrem the Syrian 215 n. 45 epithets, emblematic 17–18, 156, 160, 165, 188–90 Esau 17, 229, 233 eschatology 5 'et ßarah, see s.v. “time of trouble” evangelists 132, 219 exegesis, Christian 145–46 exegesis, Rabbinic 145–46 exegetical principles 9, 11, 24–25, 61, 125 n. 129, 132, 152, n. 32 Exilarch 6, 162 exile 18, 91, 119, 125, 127, 131 n. 154, 133, 157–60, 163, 165–66, 170, 175, 181–82, 186, 190, 192, 196–97, 202, 206 exoteric (see also s.v. Ωàhir) 155 Ezekiel 64, 101, 155, 239–43, 245 Ezra 193 fa∂l 118 al-Fàràbì 99 n. 24 fasà"iq 162 n. 77 fasting 201, 203, 206 Fatimids 16, 161, 197, 210–11, 234 fa†ìr 194 n. 120 ﬁgurative interpretation 10, 152

Four Kingdoms 129–33, 157, 161, 179–80 and n. 58, 182, 196, 207, 218, 220, 226 fringes, see s.v. ßißit Gabriel 101, 246 galut Yishma' "el 218 Gaonate 6, 163 Gehenna 208 gema†riya 126 Geniza 21, 98 n. 17, 212 genre 7, 151, 248–57 genus 51 geonim 95, 163, 248, 249, 256 ger ßedeq 239 gezerah shavah 2, 77 n. 188 Glory, divine 102, 125, 229 Habakkuk 200 Hadassi, Judah, see s.v. “Judah Hadassi” ˙adìth 97, 246 Hagar 230–31 ˙ajj 16 ˙akhmei galut 196 al-Óàkim 197, 210–11, 229 halakhah, see s.v. “law” halakhic indeterminacy 34, 204 ˙alàl 81–84 hallel ha-gadol 176 n. 44 Haman 130 Hannah 200 hapax legomena 44, 53 n. 83, 140 ˙aràm 81–83 Óayyùj, Judah 249, 256 Hebrew grammar 19–20, 53, 64, 135 n. 170, 140, 244, 256 Hebrew language 7, 11, 21 n. 83, 27 n. 103, 44–45, 51–53 Heilsgeschichte 191 heqqesh 2 heresy, heretic (kàfir) 30–31, 44–46 Hezekiah 222, 245 hidàya 180 High Priest 74 ˙ikma 36, 91 Hillel, school of 38 n. 24, 76–78, 91 ˙ippu≤ 22–32, 255 hoda"ah 174 hodayot 193 n. 116 humanism 98 and n. 16 humors 103 and n. 38 Óunayn b. Iß˙àq 97 n. 12

general index 'ibbur 186 n. 88 Ibn Abì al-Dunyà 106 n. 54 Ibn 'Aqìn, Joseph b. Judah 253, 254 n. 27 Ibn Daud, Abraham 132 n. 156, 248 Ibn Ezra, Abraham 19, 48 n. 59, 95, 98, 151 n. 30, 153 n. 40, 180 n. 58, 248–56 Ibn Ezra, Moses 22 n. 87, 248–49 Ibn Ghiyàth, Isaac 253 Ibn Iß˙àq 238 n. 125 Ibn Janà˙, Abù ’l-Walìd 110 n. 67, 249 Ibn Killis 210, 212, 213 n. 36 Ibn Nadìm 97 Ibn Qutayba 37, 97, 105 n. 49, 229 n. 92, 230–31, 234–35, 243–44 Ibn Sa'dì, Abù 'Umar 212 n. 33 Ibn Sìrìn 97 i'jàz al-qur"àn 151 n. 29, 237 ijmà', see s.v. “consensus” Ijtihàd 30 Ikhwàn al-Íafà", see s.v. “Brethren of Purity” ilhàm 224–25 illuminational exegesis 136–38 ilzàm 60, 92 n. 40, 93 n. 47, 215 Immanuel 222–23 'inàya 118 innovation 46–47, 56–57, 185–86 inspiration, divine 136 n. 174, 195, 206, 224, 245 introduction (genre) 8, 149, 252–54 Iraq 8–11, 78–79, 200 n. 149, 249 Isaac 230, 253 Isaac Israeli 99 n. 24 Isaiah 101, 135, 164, 221, 245 Isaiah of Trani 222 n. 68 Ishmael 230–34, 238 Ishmael (Islam) 17, 161, 179, 183–84, 192, 207, 228–29 Isho'zekha 11 n. 44 ishtiqàq 53 Islam, passim; see also s.v. “Ishmael,” “Kedar,” “Muhammad,” “polemics, Jewish-Muslim,” “Quran” 'ismà" 228 Ismà'ìl 227 Ismailis 210, 229 izàr 66 and n. 138, 75 n. 181 Jacob 100, 102, 104, 118–19, 122, 253

369

Jacob, lineage of 227 n. 87, 227 n. 86, 235–36, 245 Jacob b. Samuel 15 Japheth b. Eli 12, 14–15, 19, 22, 31–32, 250–55 Book of Prayers 167 Commentary on Genesis 15, 95–144 passim 216–17, 232 n. 105, 234, 238 n. 124, 251, 253 Commentary on Exodus 253 Commentary on Leviticus 28 n. 104, 47–60 Commentary on Numbers 16 n. 67, 62–76, 101 n. 29, 219 n. 59, 224–26, 232 n. 107, 238 n. 125, 247 n. 156 Commentary on Deuteronomy 28 n. 104, 62–76, 78, 80–94, 104 n. 43, 187 n. 89, 209 n. 20, 219 n. 59, 230 n. 96, 235–47 Commentary on Isaiah 18 n. 75, 134–35, 136 n. 178, 146 n. 7, 189 n. 99, 208 n. 16, 238 n. 125 Commentary on Jeremiah 28 n. 104, 219 nn. 58–59 Commentary on Minor Prophets 14 n. 57, 16 n. 68, 22–23, 32, 101 n. 29, 110 n. 67, 157 n. 56, 201 n. 156, 219, 243 n. 147, 253 n. 23 Commentary on Psalms 29, 136 n. 174, 163–205 passim 204 n. 1, 205–208, 213–15, 219 n. 59, 253 n. 23 Commentary on Proverbs 15 n. 58, 28 n. 104 Commentary on Job 102 n. 31 Commentary on Song of Songs 15 n. 58, 18 n. 74, 145–64 passim 165, 189 n. 100, 193 n. 116, 210 n. 24, 253 n. 23 Commentary on Ruth 14 n. 55 Commentary on Lamentations 250 n. 10 Commentary on Ecclesiastes 28 n. 104, 103 n. 40 Commentary on Daniel 16 n. 67, 96, 121 n. 110, 122 n. 112, 124 nn. 119–120 and 124, 125 nn. 126–127, 129 nn. 146–147, 130 nn. 149 and 151, 132 nn. 157,159, and 161, 136 n. 174, 178 n. 51, 179 n. 58, 196 n. 133,

370

general index

200–201, 210–11, 219 nn. 58–59, 232 nn. 102 and 106, 255 n. 30 Kitàb fì ’l-ßalàt li-†ùl ayyàm al-sana 167 jawhar al-kalima 64 n. 123 Jeduthun 13 Jeremiah 196, 245 Jerusalem 2–3, 8, 12–22, 129, 135, 164–68, 170, 178, 181, 185, 198–200, 202, 206, 208–209 Jeshua b. Judah 20–21, 42 n. 35, 49 n. 68, 250 Jesus 129, 219–22, 226, 238 jihàd 207 jizya 209, 231 Job 15, 149 n. 19 John Chrysostom 215 n. 45 Jonah 228, 245 Joseph 26, 96, 102, 106–24, 95–144 passim Joseph Ibn Íaddiq 248 Joseph Kaspi 222 n. 68 Judah al-Bargeloni 248 Judah Hadassi 45 n. 42, 72 n. 169, 84 n. 14, 170 n. 20, 205 n. 2 Judah Halevi 239 n. 131, 248 Judah Hanasi 112 n. 75 Judah al-Óarizi 248 Judah Ibn Bal'am 250 Justin Martyr 220 kabbalah 145 kalàm (theology) 20, 98, 205, 249 Karaism, origins 2–5 Karaites, passim Kedar 17, 161 Keturah 233 khàtam al-anbiyà", khàtam al-nabìyìn, see s.v. “seal of the prophets” khawàßß al-umma 198–99 khußùß 199 al-Kindì 97, 99–100, 105 n. 49 King of the North 132 and n. 161 kinnuy(im) 17 n. 69, 133 al-Kirmànì, Abu Iß˙àq 97 al-Kirmànì, Óamìd al-Dìn 210 n. 25, 229 kutub al-barrànì, see s.v. “alien wisdom” language community 52, 54, 59, 84–85, 87 law 2, 5–10, 15, 20, 22, 24, 27, 32, 33–94, 208 leshon ha-qodesh 238 n. 124

Levi b. Japheth 15, 19–20 Book of Precepts (Sefer ha-mißvot) 22, 61 n. 114, 63 n. 121, 64 n. 122, 67 n. 142, 68 n. 149, 69 n. 157, 75 n. 181, 168, 205 Treatise on Prayer 168, 170–77, 178, 185, 188, 195, 197–99, 200 n. 150, 202 literal interpretation 11 “Little Horn” (Islam) 132–33, 179 n. 58, 210 n. 24 liturgy 6–7, 13, 34, 148–49, 163–205 passim aﬃrmations 193 n. 116 complaint 179–80, 202 comprehensive ideal 175–77, 179–80, 187, 190–91, 195, 202 confession 169, 172, 174, 185 consolation 174 daily sacriﬁce 176 divine unity, proclamation of 172–73, 176, 193–94 ﬂorilegia 172–74 instructions 172 n. 27 lament, lamentation 154, 166–67, 176–88 petition 169, 174, 202 praise 169, 172, 174 repentance 186–87 thanksgiving 172, 174 themes 169–70, 175–76 Maccabees 156 madhhab 2, 42 mahdì 226 n. 81, 227 Maimonides, Moses 57 n. 95, 68 n. 150, 71 n. 165, 71 n. 167, 75 n. 180, 248, 249 n. 6 majàz 216 majlis 124 n. 119, 211–13 Malachi 243 Màlik b. Anas 97 n. 11 Malik al-Ramlì 44–45 Mary 221 maßdiqim 160 mashal 6 n. 21, 15, 225 n. 76 ma≤kil 17–18 and n. 74, 133–38, 156, 160, 163–66, 180–81, 188–89, 197–98, 201 ma≤kilei galut 134, 160, 196 al-Màturìdì, Abù Manßùr 37 al-Màwardì, Abù ’l-Óasan 238 Mecca 16, 136 n. 174, 228 Melito of Sardis 220

general index Mena˙em Me"iri 40 n. 29 Messiah 147, 152, 155, 166, 170, 189, 195, 203, 210, 217, 220, 226–27, 238 n. 125 messianic calculations 148 n. 15, 149 n. 19, 195–98, 200, 205, 227 messianic era 16, 152 metaphor 149, 158, 216 midrash 121, 131 n. 155, 146–47, 156, 158–59 midrash aggadah 34 n. 4, 158–60, 256 and n. 33 midrash halakhah 2, 7, 33, 46 n. 50, 63, 69, 77 miracle, prophetic 236–37, 245 Miriam 101 Mìshawayh al-'Ukbarì 69 n. 154 Mishnah 6, 16, 21, 25, 40, 78, 91–94 mission 208–15 mißvat "anashim melummadah 5, 57, 196 Mordecai 142 n. 15 Moses 6, 11, 13, 24, 30, 36, 46, 88–94, 101, 126, 195–96, 200, 224 n. 74, 229–30, 233 n. 110, 234–35, 240–47 Moses Ibn Ezra, see s.v. “Ibn Ezra, Moses” Mount Zion 183 n. 73 Mourners for Zion 3, 12–18, 15 n. 62, 28–29, 43, 76 n. 184, 132 n. 165, 146–49, 154–56, 160–64, 165–68, 169 n. 15, 170, 172 n. 25, 178, 183, 186, 193–94, 198–99, 202–203, 206, 208, 214, 223 mudawwin 90, 94, 136 n. 174 Muhammad 132, 208, 216 n. 49, 218, 227–30, 232, 234–35, 237–39, 242–44, 246 lineage of 232, 238 mu˙kam 35–38, 216 n. 47, 255 al-Mu'izz (caliph) 213 n. 36 Mujàhid 37 muntaΩar 226 n. 81 al-Muqaddasì, Shams al-Dìn 208 n. 17 muqaddima (see also s.v. “introduction”) 16, 137–38 Muqammaß, Dàwùd b. Marwàn 4 n. 12, 8, 252 n. 20 Muqàtil b. Sulaymàn 37 mushtabih 65, 88 Muslim b. al-Óajjàj 97 n. 11 mutashàbihàt 35–38 Mutazilites 31–32, 36, 58 n. 101, 74

371

n. 178, 75, 91 n. 38, 98 n. 19, 169 n. 17, 249 al-Nahàwandì, Benjamin; see Benjamin al-Nahàwandì. Na˙manides, Moses 249 Nahum 245 Nànà, see Nonnus narrative, biblical 10–11, 90, 95–144 passim 150, 227 Na≤i 162 naskh 182, 192–93 naql (“tradition”) 52–53, 59 n. 103, 87, 91, 94 n. 51 Na†ronai Gaon 2 navi ßedeq 235–36 navi sheqer 236 nawàfil 201 Nea Church 183 n. 73 Nebuchadnezzar 102, 104 n. 43, 118, 120–26, 135, 141–44, 247 Neoplatonism 249 nesher, see s.v. “vulture” Ne≤i"im, see s.v. Na≤i New Testament 220–21 night vigils 136, 164, 178, 201, 203 Nineveh 245 nisba 189 Nisibis 8 Nissi b. Noah 72 n. 169 niΩàm 185 Noah 41, 47, 59, 253 non-canonical books (al-kutub al-barrànì) 30–32, 147 Nonnus 8 no†ariqon 126 oneirocriticism, see s.v. “dream interpretation” oneiros 105 Oral Law, Oral Tradition 7, 24–25, 37–38, 46, 52, 70 n. 160, 71, 77, 86–94 'orev, see s.v. “crow” orientation in prayer, see s.v. qibla ostrich 48, 52–53, 54 n. 86, 85, 98 n. 17 owl 48, 54–55, 85 parable 152 Paradise 208 Paran 228–30 parashah 16 paronomasia 111–12, 126

372

general index

Passover 36, 202 n. 158 pasul 233 “Perfect of Way, the” 17, 133–34, 155, 160, 165, 189, 199 “Penitent, the” 17, 160, 169–70, 185–86, 197, 201 personal opinion, see s.v. ijtihàd pesha† 153, 255 pesher 5, 16–17, 125–28 petirah 125 Pharaoh 100, 102–104, 107, 113–24, 139–44, 158–60 Philo 151 n. 30 philosophers, philosophy 11, 30, 98–99, 124,145 pigeon 41–43, 45–47, 55, 58–59, 81–82, 84, 86–87 pilgrimage 16, 241 pitron 127–28 piyyu† 133, 154, 165 n. 1, 166–67, 172 pledges 162 n. 77 poetics, biblical 249 poetry 7 n. 27, 151, 155 polemics, Jewish-Christian 17, 129, 156, 161, 182, 204–209, 213, 215–17, 219–27, 238–39 polemics, Jewish-Muslim 17, 129, 156, 161, 178–88, 204–47 passim polemics, Karaite-Ananite 41–42, 59–60, 78, 82 n. 5, 204 polemics, Karaite-Rabbanite 6–8, 16, 24–32, 33–94 passim, 162–64, 255–56 poll-tax 209 Porphyry 97 prayer (also s.v. “liturgy”) 6–7, 13, 148, 163–205 passim prayer book, see s.v. siddur priests 162 prognostic exegesis 4, 16–18, 99, 120–38, 143–44, 165–203 passim 169, 189, 204, 218, 254 n. 27 prognostic signs 134, 136, 187 prophecy cessation of 91, 242–43 degrees of 14, 100–104, 125 n. 126, 195 n. 126, 224–25, 240, 241, 243–246, 251 signs of 235–39 Psalms 13, 15, 163–205 passim enemies in 204 n. 1 relating to community 175–76 relating to the Exile 175–76 relating to individuals 175–76

relating to Salvation 175–76 relating to the Temple 175–76, 178–88 qalon 183 qarìna 81 n. 3, 82 n. 4 qedusha de-sidra 172 n. 26 qeren ze'ira, see s.v. “Little Horn” qeß, see s.v. “End of Days” qibla 129, 171, 194 n. 119, 200 n. 150 al-Qirqisànì, Ya'qùb 3–4, 6–11, 30, 32 n. 126, 59, 61, 217–18, 251 n. 17, 252, 255 Commentary on Genesis (Kitàb al-riyà∂ ) 10–11, 99 n. 25, 215, 244 n. 151, 253 n. 23 Kitàb al-anwàr wa’l-maràqib (“Book of Lights and Watchtowers”) 3 nn. 8 and 10, 4 n. 16, 24–27, 30–31, 35 n. 7, 36 n. 10, 38 n. 23, 39, 41, 42 n. 33, 44–45, 45 n. 43, 47, 50 n. 71, 53–54, 63, 65–66, 68, 71, 77 n. 188, 78–79, 99–100, 103 nn. 37–38, 169 n. 15, 171, 173, 174 n. 34, 195 n. 127, 200 n. 150, 204, 205 n. 3, 212 n. 32, 215, 219, 221–23, 240 n. 133, 242–43 qiyàs 9, 24 and n. 92, 25, 37 al-Qùmisì, Daniel; see Daniel al-Qùmisì Quran 36–37, 97, 110 n. 69, 128, 151, 182, 192 n. 111, 212, 218, 228, 231, 240, 242, 246 inimitability of 151, 213 n. 35, 237–38 Rabbanites, passim; see also s.v. “polemics, Karaite-Rabbanite” Rashi 55 n. 91, 156 n. 51, 222 n. 68 rationalism 9, 11, 22–32, 99 n. 19 raven 44 n. 39 ra"y 25 Rebekah 221 n. 64 Remnant of Israel 17, 76 n. 184, 160, 165 n. 1, 180, 199, 201 Resh Lakish 71 n. 167 Resurrection of the Dead 131–32 Rome 219 rua˙ ha-qodesh 195, 206, 224 n. 74, 245 rùm 229 rushd 180–81 ru"yà 105

general index Saadya Gaon 6–8, 13–14, 24–27, 34–39, 60, 94 n. 50, 146, 168, 180, 230 n. 96, 249, 251, 254 n. 27, 255 Commentary on Genesis 34 n. 3, 35–36, 38 n. 23, 216 Commentary on Leviticus 45–47, 55, 58 Commentary on Proverbs 252 Commentary on Daniel 105 n. 49, 122 n. 111, 130 n. 148, 134 n. 167 Commentary on the Ten Songs 146 n. 8, 151 n. 28 Ha-"egron 153 n. 40 "E≤≤a meshali (polemical poem) 6, 38 n. 23 Kitàb al-amànàt wa’l-i'tiqadàt (“Book of Beliefs and Opinions”) 11 n. 40, 36, 38 n. 21, 105 n. 49, 136 n. 179, 255 n. 31 Kitàb al-sab'ìn lafΩa 53 n. 83 Kitàb tahßìl al-sharà"i' al-sam'ìya 36 n. 11, 69 n. 154, 76 n. 185 Siddur 212 n. 34 Tafsìr (Arabic Bible translation) 8 n. 30, 43 n. 37, 46 n. 47, 48 n. 59, 49 n. 68, 53 n. 84, 55 n. 89, 66, 68 n. 147, 72 n. 172, 88 n. 30, 140 nn. 6–7, 232 n. 102 Sabbath 2, 6–7, 34, 57, 79, 186, 196, 210, 240 ßadr, see s.v. “introduction” Saducees 1, 248 Sahl b. Fa∂l al-Tustarì 21 Sahl b. Maßlia˙ 12, 15–16, 19, 28, 49, 55, 171, 183, 209 n. 18, 255 Commentary on Genesis 15, 16 n. 64, 95–144 passim 211 n. 29 Epistle 15 n. 61, 28 n. 105, 59 n. 104, 138 n. 182 ßà˙ib al-waqt 210–11 ßà˙ib al-zamàn 210 n. 25 ßàli˙ùn 214 n. 38 Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm 12–14, 166, 183, 250, 252 Commentary on Psalms 3 n. 8, 13, 17 n. 72, 26 n. 100, 147 n. 12, 148 n. 15, 149 and nn. 16 and 19, 167, 193, 206 nn. 7 and 11, 209 and n. 18, 226 n. 82, 232 n. 102 Commentary on Song of Songs 13, 17 n. 72, 145–64 passim 251 n. 14, 253 n. 23

373

Commentary on Lamentations 13, 53 n. 84, 147 n. 12, 148 n. 15, 149, 154, 167, 178, 193 n. 114, 250 n. 10 Commentary on Ecclesiastes 13, 27, 31 n. 124, 148 n. 15 Commentary on Esther 13 n. 49 Wars of the Lord 6 n. 21, 7 n. 23, 38 and nn. 23–24, 92 n. 43 salvation 166, 169, 175, 186–88, 194–95, 197–99, 201–202 salvation history 170, 191, 202, 218 Samuel 101 Samuel b. Hophni Gaon 53 n. 82, 62 and n. 116, 66 n. 136, 70, 71 n. 162, 72 n. 168, 76 n. 186, 95, 97–98 and n. 18, 112, 114 n. 84, 115 n. 89, 117, 249, 256 Samuel Ibn Tibbon 253–54 Samuel al-Maghribì 49 n. 68 samukh 64 Sanhedrin 156, 162 Saul 225 Sawìrus Ibn al-Muqaffa' 213 n. 36 scripturalism 1–5, 8–16, 22–32, 33, 52, 60, 172, 204, 255 “seal of the prophets” 227, 242–43 Sefardic scholarship 248–57 passim Seir 17, 228–30 Íema˙ son of David 226 Semiramis 142 n. 15 Sennacherib 222 sevel ha-yerushah 7 shakwa 179, 202 Shammai, school of 38 n. 24, 76–78, 91 shar˙ 128 n. 144 shavei pesha', see s.v. “the Penitent” she"erit Yi≤ra"el, see s.v. “Remnant of Israel” Shem 104 n. 43 Shiites 210 n. 25 shir, see s.v. “song” Shir ha-shirim rabbah 146–47 shoshannah, shoshannim 17, 18 n. 74, 160–61, 163–64, 165–69, 171, 175, 180, 188–90, 194, 198–99, 202–203, 206 siddur, Karaite 167–68, 173 n. 28 siddur, Rabbanite 212 Sifra Leviticus 9, 21, 43, 46, 87 al-Sijistànì 97 silsilat Ya'qùb, see s.v. “Jacob, lineage of ” Simeon b. Íema˙ Duran 24 n. 91

374

general index

Sinaitic revelation 6, 33, 35, 88–94, 156, 158, 194, 228–30, 247, 253 ßißit 6–7, 34–35, 38–39, 61–77 Solomon 10, 13, 15, 25, 27, 145, 150, 157, 162, 200, 225, 241 song, biblical 15 and n. 58, 150–51, 155–57 Song of Songs 145–64 passim sons of Korah 13 species 51 stork 46 n. 47 ßudùr, see s.v. “introduction” sukkah 6, 38 sunna 37 n. 18 supererogatory acts 200 Syria 78–79, 229 al-ˇabarì, Abù Ja'far 37, 95 al-ˇabarì, 'Alì b. Rabbàn 228–31, 234, 246 n. 154 Tabaristan 3 Tabernacle 241 tafsìr 128, 141 taftìsh 26–27 †ahor 39 ta˙rìf 182, 193 Talmud 6, 16, 25, 33, 55 n. 91, 62, 71, 78, 91–94, 96, 147 talmud lomar 70 and n. 160, 92 taqlìd 28–29, 58 n. 101 Targum 23 n. 90, 25, 55, 140 n. 6, 146, 151, 156, 158, 163 n. 81, 225 n. 79, 226 n. 81 tarjama 128 n. 144 tassels, see s.v. ßißit taw˙ìd, see s.v. “divine unity, proclamation of ” al-Taw˙ìdì, Abù Óayyàn 54 ta"wìl 10, 109–11, 128, 131 n. 154, 132, 139, 157, 223 Teacher of Righteousness 5, 45, 59, 79, 127 tekhelet 39, 65 n. 131, 66, 68–69 temimei derekh, see s.v. “Perfect of Way, the” Temple 16, 18, 44, 45 n. 42, 90, 153, 156–57, 175, 177, 179, 180–81, 184–85, 197, 201, 205–206, 209, 213, 219, 227, 240–43 “Terebinths of Righteousness” 164, 166, 198 Tertullian 220

terumah 38 testimonia, biblical 220–234 theòrèmatikoi 105 “time of trouble” 3, 18, 136 n. 174, 187, 196, 199 tinshemet 55, 84–85 Tobiah b. Moses 22 tola'at Ya'aqov 189 tor, see s.v. “turtledove” torah be-feh 89 n. 34 Torah 5, 23, 25, 29–30, 33, 33, 60, 88–94, 100, 182, 208, 236, 246–47 abrogation of (Muslim claim) 182, 192–94, 218, 228, 230, 239–40, 242–43 falsiﬁcation of (Muslim claim) 182, 193, 218, 228 universality of 205 traditional knowledge 52 travel 95 Trinity 207, 215–17, 219 turtledove 40–43, 45, 47, 56, 58–59, 81–82, 86–87 Tustarì family 21 'Umar al-Kha††àb 132 n. 159 unleavened bread 194 virgin birth 221–23 vulture 40 and n. 28, 41, 44, 48, 52–54, 85, 87, 98 n. 17 wa˙y 150 n. 25 Walì 118–19, 175 wisdom, divine 36, 91 Ya'qùb b. Killis, see s.v. “Ibn Killis” Ya'qùb al-Qirqisànì; see al-Qirqisànì, Ya'qùb Yemen 48 n. 59, 164 n. 84 yi˙ud ha-shem, see s.v. “divine unity, proclamation of ” yonah, see s.v. “pigeon” Yùsuf al-Baßìr ( Joseph b. Abraham) 19–20, 22, 32 n. 126, 205, 212–13 Yùsuf b. Nù˙ ( Joseph b. Noah) 18–21, 140 n. 8, 233–34, 256 Ωàhir 10, 106–107, 110–11, 114, 131 n. 154, 132, 139, 150, 153, 157, 223, 255 Zechariah 101–102, 117, 242

ÉTUDES SUR LE JUDAÏSME MÉDIÉVAL ISSN 0169-815X

1. SIRAT, C. Les théories des visions surnaturelles dans la pensée juive du moyen-âge. 1969. ISBN 90 04 02990 7 2. METZGER, M. La Haggada enluminée, 1. Étude iconographique et stylistique des manuscrits enluminés et décorés de la Haggada du XIIIe au XVIe siècle. Préface par R. Crozet. 1973. ISBN 90 04 03714 4 3. SCHLANGER, J. La philosophie de Salomon ibn Gabirol. Étude d’un neoplatonisme. 1968. ISBN 90 04 00566 8 4. VAJDA, G. Deux commentaires karaïtes sur l’Ecclésiaste. 1971. ISBN 90 04 02658 4 5. Azriel de Gérone. Commentaire sur la liturgie quotidienne. Introduction, traduction annotée et glossaire des termes techniques par G. Sed-Rajna. 1974. ISBN 90 04 03822 1 6. The Commentary of R. Ý¡«er b. Shel¡m¡ to the Thirteen Principles of Maimonides. Edited, translated and annotated by D.R. Blumenthal. With a foreword by S.D. Goitein. 1974. ISBN 90 04 03909 0 7. SHAMIR, Y. Rabbi Moses ha-Kohen of Tordesillas and his Book }Ezer ha-Emunah. A Chapter in the History of the Judeo-Christian Controversy. 1975. ISBN 90 04 04254 7 8. MESCH, B. Studies in Joseph ibn Caspi, Fourteenth-century Philosopher and Exegete. 1975. ISBN 90 04 04221 0 9. GELLES, B.J. Peshat and Derash in the Exegesis of Rashi. 1981. ISBN 90 04 06259 9 10. MARCUS, I.G. Piety and Society. The Jewish Pietists of Medieval Germany. 1981. ISBN 90 04 06345 5 11. The Philosophic Questions and Answers of Ý¡«er b. Shel¡m¡. Edited, translated, and annotated by D.R. Blumenthal. With a supplementary essay by Y. Tobi. 1981. ISBN 90 04 06541 5 12. VAJDA, G. Al-Kit¸b al-Mu¥tawº de Y¢suf al-Basºr.Texte, traduction et commentaire. Edité par D.R. Blumenthal. 1985. ISBN 90 04 07302 7 13. D¸w¢d ibn Marw¸n al Muqammiª’s Twenty Chapters ({Ishrun Maq¸la). Edited, translated and annotated by S. Stroumsa. 1989. ISBN 90 04 09216 1 14. HARY, B.H. Multiglossia in Judeo-Arabic. With an edition, translation and grammatical study of the Cairene Purim Scroll. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09694 9 15. YEROUSHALMI, D. The Judeo-Persian Poet {Emr¸nº and his Book of Treasure. {Emr¸nº’s Ganj-n¸me, a versified Commentary on the Mishnaic Tractate Abot. Edited, translated and annotated together with a critical study. 1995. ISBN 90 04 10301 5

16. FRANK, D. (ed.). The Jews of Medieval Islam. Community, Society, and Identity. 1995. ISBN 90 04 10404 6 17. POLLIACK, M.R. The Karaite Tradition of Arabic Bible Translation. A Linguistic and Exegetical Study of Karaite Translations of the Pentateuch from the Tenth to the Eleventh Centuries C.E. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10267 1. 18. SKLARE, D.E. Samuel ben Ýofni Gaon and his Cultural World. Texts and Studies. 1996. ISBN 90 04 10302 3 19. FENTON, P.B. Philosophie et exégèse dans le Jardin de la métaphore de Moïse Ibn {Ezra, philosophe et poète andalou du XIIe siècle. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10598 0 20. OLSZOWY-SCHLANGER, J. Karaite Marriage Documents from the Cairo Geniza. Legal Tradition and Community Life in Mediaeval Egypt and Palestine. 1998. ISBN 90 04 10886 6 21. TOBI, J. The Jews of Yemen. Studies in Their History and Culture. 1999. ISBN 90 04 11265 0 22. FENTON, P.B. & R. GOETSCHEL. Expérience et écriture mystiques dans les religions du Livre. Actes d’un colloque international tenu par le Centre d’études juives Université de Paris IV – Sorbonne 1994. 2000. ISBN 90 04 11913 2 23. WEINBERGER, L.J. Jewish poet in Muslim Egypt. Moses Dar‘º’s Hebrew collection: critical edition with introduction and commentary. 2000. ISBN 90 04 11931 0 24. FREUDENTHAL, G. & S. KOTTEK. Mélanges d’histoire de la médecine hébraïque. Études choisies de la Revue d’histoire de la médecine de la hébraïque (1948-1985). 2003. ISBN 90 04 12522 1 25. TANENBAUM, A. The Contemplative Soul. Hebrew Poetry and Philosophical Theory in Medieval Spain. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12091 2 26. COHEN, M.Z. Three Approaches to Biblical Metaphor. From Abraham Ibn Ezra and Maimonides to David Kimhi. 2003. ISBN 90 04 12971 5 27. TOBI, Y. Proximity and Distance. Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Poetry. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13798 X 28. GIL, M. Jews in Islamic Countries in the Middle Ages. Translated from the Hebrew by D. Strassler. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13882 X 29. FRANK, D. Search Scripture Well. Karaite Exegetes and the Origins of the Jewish Bible Commentary in the Islamic East. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13902 8

Search Scripture Well: Karaite Exegetes and the Origins of the Jewish Bible Commentary in the Islamic East (Etudes Sur Le Judaisme Medieval) (No. 29)

Opening the Gates of Interpretation (Etudes Sur Le Judaisme Medieval)

The Contemplative Soul: Hebrew Poetry and Philosophical Theory in Medieval Spain (Etudes Sur Le Judaisme Medieval)

The Arabic Translation and Commentary of Yefet ben 'Eli the Karaite on the Book of Esther (Etudes Sur Le Judaisme Medieval) (v. 1)

Proximity and Distance: Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Poetry (Etudes Sur Le Judaisme Medieval)

The Secular Poetry of El'azar ben Ya'aqov ha-Bavli (Etudes Sur Le Judaisme Medieval)

Bibliographia Karaitica: An Annotated Bibliography of Karaites and Karaism, Karaite Texts and Studies (Etudes Sur Le Judaisme Medieval)

Etudes sur le combat

Esoteric and Exoteric Aspects in Judeo-Arabic Culture (Etudes Sur Le Judaisme Medieval)

Translating Religion. Linguistic Analysis of Judeo-Arabic Sacred Texts from Egypt (Etudes Sur Le Judaisme Medieval)

From a Sacred Source: Genizah Studies in Honour of Professor Stefan C. Reif (Etudes Sur Le Judaisme Medieval)

The Oxford Bible Commentary

The Concise Bible Commentary

Medical Synonym Lists from Medieval Provence: Shem Tov ben Isaak of Tortosa: Sefer ha - Shimmush. Book 29 (Etudes Sur Le Judaisme Medieval)

Secret Origins of the Bible

Rosenzweig's Bible: Reinventing Scripture for Jewish Modernity

Roman, Provincial and Islamic Law: The Origins of the Islamic Patronate (Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization)

Roman, Provincial and Islamic Law: The Origins of the Islamic Patronate (Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization)

The Dragon in Medieval East Christian and Islamic Art (Islamic History and Civilization)

The Texture of the Divine: Imagination in Medieval Islamic and Jewish Thought

The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible

The Gospels (Oxford Bible Commentary)

The JPS Bible Commentary: Haftarot

Narratives of Islamic Origins: The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writing

Method and Theory in the Study of Islamic Origins

Building Jewish In The Roman East

The Islamic Middle East: Tradition and Change

Scripture, Culture, and Agriculture: An Agrarian Reading of the Bible

The First Word: The Search for the Origins of Language

Scripture, Culture, and Agriculture: An Agrarian Reading of the Bible

The Middle East in Bible Prophecy

Search Scripture Well: Karaite Exegetes and the Origins of the Jewish Bible Commentary in the Islamic East (Etudes Sur Le Judaisme Medieval) (No. 29)

Opening the Gates of Interpretation (Etudes Sur Le Judaisme Medieval)

The Contemplative Soul: Hebrew Poetry and Philosophical Theory in Medieval Spain (Etudes Sur Le Judaisme Medieval)

The Arabic Translation and Commentary of Yefet ben 'Eli the Karaite on the Book of Esther (Etudes Sur Le Judaisme Medieval) (v. 1)

Proximity and Distance: Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Poetry (Etudes Sur Le Judaisme Medieval)

The Secular Poetry of El'azar ben Ya'aqov ha-Bavli (Etudes Sur Le Judaisme Medieval)

Bibliographia Karaitica: An Annotated Bibliography of Karaites and Karaism, Karaite Texts and Studies (Etudes Sur Le Judaisme Medieval)

Etudes sur le combat

Esoteric and Exoteric Aspects in Judeo-Arabic Culture (Etudes Sur Le Judaisme Medieval)

Translating Religion. Linguistic Analysis of Judeo-Arabic Sacred Texts from Egypt (Etudes Sur Le Judaisme Medieval)

From a Sacred Source: Genizah Studies in Honour of Professor Stefan C. Reif (Etudes Sur Le Judaisme Medieval)

The Oxford Bible Commentary

The Concise Bible Commentary

Medical Synonym Lists from Medieval Provence: Shem Tov ben Isaak of Tortosa: Sefer ha - Shimmush. Book 29 (Etudes Sur Le Judaisme Medieval)

Secret Origins of the Bible

Rosenzweig's Bible: Reinventing Scripture for Jewish Modernity

Roman, Provincial and Islamic Law: The Origins of the Islamic Patronate (Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization)

Roman, Provincial and Islamic Law: The Origins of the Islamic Patronate (Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization)

The Dragon in Medieval East Christian and Islamic Art (Islamic History and Civilization)

The Texture of the Divine: Imagination in Medieval Islamic and Jewish Thought

The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible

The Gospels (Oxford Bible Commentary)

The JPS Bible Commentary: Haftarot

Narratives of Islamic Origins: The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writing

Method and Theory in the Study of Islamic Origins

Building Jewish In The Roman East

The Islamic Middle East: Tradition and Change

Scripture, Culture, and Agriculture: An Agrarian Reading of the Bible

The First Word: The Search for the Origins of Language

Scripture, Culture, and Agriculture: An Agrarian Reading of the Bible

The Middle East in Bible Prophecy

Recommend Documents