Genizah Fragment Research Articles

Searching for the Last Genizah Fragment in Late Ottoman Cairo: A Material Survey of Egyptian Jewish Literary Culture

AbstractThe Cairo Genizah is well known as a repository for hundreds of thousands of manuscripts that the Jewish residents of Fustat (Old Cairo) produced and consumed in the premodern period. Foreign “collectors” acquired most of these manuscripts for European libraries in the second half of the nineteenth century, with the majority arriving at the Cambridge University Library in 1897 under the auspices of Solomon Schechter. Less well known is the fact that hundreds of Genizah fragments were produced in the late nineteenth century, even as European collectors were scouring Cairo for ancient texts. This later corpus includes witnesses to the social and economic history of late Ottoman Cairo and provides copious evidence for the material history of Egyptian Jewish literary activity at that time. Despite this, it remains understudied for both Ottoman and Jewish history. Late Genizah material also raises questions about the integrity of “Cairo Genizah” manuscript collections around the world, as some fragments postdate Schechter's Genizah “discovery,” and others were never in Egypt at all.

The Cairo Genizah Fragment of the Visions of Levi from the University of Manchester Library

Abstract Although the Visions of Levi (so-called Aramaic Levi Document) is a Jewish priestly composition written in the second or third century BCE, the largest part of its text comes from the trove of Jewish medieval manuscripts found in the Genizah of the Ezra synagogue in Old Cairo. Among the Genizah scrolls housed at the University of Manchester Library, Gideon Bohak found a new fragment (P 1185) of the pseudepigraphic document dedicated to Levi and his life. The present study contains a new edition of P 1185, including its paleographic description, notes on the readings, comments and photographs of the manuscript.

MS St. Petersburg RNL Yevr. II A 640: A Possible Remnant of Another Copy of Saadya Gaon’s Tafsīr by Samuel ben Jacob

Abstract The article discusses one Genizah fragment from the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg, MS St. Petersburg RNL Yevr. II A 640, which contains a remnant of Saadya Gaon’s translation of the Pentateuch possibly copied by Samuel ben Jacob in the first quarter of the 11th century.

Genizah Fragment’s Version of the Amoraic Statements in Bavli Eruvin 103a

The Genizah fragment Cambridge U-L T-S F2 (2) 23, numbered C98948 in the Friedberg Jewish Manuscript Society, includes among other things the amoraic controversy between R. Eleazar and R. Jose son of R. Hanina, as well as the give and take between R. Safra and Abaye in Tractate Eruvin 103a. Some of the researchers are divided concerning the initial formation of the sugya. The controversy between R. Eleazar and R. Jose son of R. Hanina as presented in the fragment’s version poses difficulties and interferes with the ordered understanding of the methods utilized by these amoraim to solve the contradiction between the Mishna in Eruvin and the Mishna in Pesaḥim. The purpose of the article is to present the difficulties in the fragment’s version with regard to the abovementioned amoraic controversy and reach conclusions regarding the precise original version of the fragment. Thus too in the matter of the fragment’s version of the give and take between R. Safra and Abaye, which differs from other versions. The purpose of the article is to examine the fragment’s version of this give and take in comparison to other versions and reach conclusions regarding the clearest and most precise version compared to the other versions.

Fußspuren eines gaonäischen Midrasch zu Hiob (32:11) in Samuel b. Ḥofnis neu entdecktem Fragment (CUL T-S Ar. 46.156) – Kitāb lawāzim al-Ḥukkām

It is well established in research that the earlier sages (“Kadmonim” as well as “Rishonim”) had a broader access to Midrash sources than in modern times, due to changes in the forms of transmission of Jewish traditions. Since the 19th century, scholars have discovered and published fragments of Midrash literature, among other genres, from various recovered sources. Similar rediscoveries have also been made by scholars regarding the Geonim from Babylonia. The Geonic Age spanned the seventh to eleventh centuries in Babylonia. Whereas the early Geonic corpus was composed of collective oral traditions, the successors of Se’adya Gaon (882–942) specialized in the composition of individual halakhic codices. Known as “late monographic works,” the judges’ duties subgenre is the adjudicational and jurisprudential climax of this monographic genre. A fragment from the Cairo Genizah (CUL T-S Ar. 46.156) seems to match what is known to us as the introduction of the almost entirely lost Kitāb lawāzim al-ḥukkām by Samuel ben Ḥofni Gaon (d. 1013). From the Midrash traditions to Job, hardly anything has survived in the sources known to us. In this paper I would like to suggest that this introduction includes several remarks that could be remnants of a lost Misdrash to the book of Job, a biblical book that left almost no Rabbinic tradition behind. With the Genizah fragment presented here, it is suggested that the Geonim either had a midrash to Job that is unknown today; alternatively, they could have created such a midrash themselves - which was not unusual at the time, as scholars have recently elaborated. A third possibility could be the combination of these two literary components: The Geonim had earlier Midrash sources on Job, which they developed further, translated into Judeo-Arabic and adapted to the contemporary Zeitgeist.

Tale of a plaster – Different versions of a story and possible meaning of the phrase Lo shmiʿa li (Bavli Eruvin 102b)

This article deals with different versions of a story in Tractate Eruvin of the Babylonian Talmud (102b). This story has different versions in various sources, including in one page from the Genizah fragment Cambridge U-L T-S F2 (2) 23, numbered C98948 in the Friedberg Jewish Manuscript Society. Each version changes our understanding of the story’s content, and in this article we will display these variations and examine the feasibility that they reflect about the original version. The story ends with the phrase Lo shamiʿa li, for which we shall offer a new alternative meaning. Contribution: The main contribution of this article is in revealing the importance of comparing the different versions to the same story which implies a change in the content of the story. This has future implications when considering a story that has different versions. In addition, exploring and examining a particular phrase can offer a different interpretation or meaning than it was commonly thought. These insights are based on story and phrase found in the theological text, so that the article fits to the focus and scope of this journal.

The additional phrases on a Genizah fragment of Bavli Eruvin 4b–5a

This article deals with the additional phrases found in the Cairo Genizah fragment related to Bavli, Tractate Eruvin 4b–5a, identified as Cambridge UL T-S F1 (1) 44. FGP No. C 96446. Some of these additional phrases have not been found in any version of the various manuscripts and printed versions, and some were found in only one version. The purpose of the article was to examine whether these additional phrases preserve an ancient version that was only preserved in this Genizah fragment or whether they are a type of errors in the fragment. The conclusions of the article with regard to these additional phrases are varied; some of the phrases preserve an ancient version and some do not.

The Pronunciation of the Words “mor” and “yabolet” in a Cairo Genizah Fragment of Bavli Eruvin 102b–104a

This article refers to a Cairo Genizah fragment related to Bavli, Tractate Eruvin 102b-104a, identified as Cambridge, UL T-S F2 (2) 23. FGP No. C 98948. In the fragment, there are two words, “mor” and “yabolet”, which were written as vocalized by the scribe or copyist. Their pronunciation differs from that customary today, i.e., “mar” and “yabelet”. The purpose of this paper is to explain how this pronunciation was generated, the evolvement and development of this pronunciation as it appears in the fragment, and to examine whether there are additional words in other sources that were pronounced similarly. This paper begins with a description of the Genizah fragment and continues with a reproduction of the fragment itself.

Several comments on a Genizah fragment of Bavli, Eruvin 57B–59A

This article refers to a Cairo Genizah fragment related to Bavli, Eruvin tractate 57b–59a, identified as Cambridge, UL T-S F1 (1) 85. FGP No. C 96541. The article begins with a description of the Genizah fragment and presents a reproduction of the fragment itself at the end of the article. Reference is made to the content and several comments are made in an effort to characterise the fragment.

New light on the primitive rabbinic calendars: JTS ENA 1745

Cairo Genizah fragment JTS ENA 1745 sheds new light on the primitive rabbinic calendars, tentatively dated to the eighth century, which have been recently identified and analysed on the basis of T-S K 2.27 ( JJS 67:1, 2016, pp. 68–90). The text of ENA 1745 is in Hebrew, rather than Aramaic, and perhaps a partial translation of the Aramaic version in T-S K 2.27. One of its calendars, unlike the Aramaic version, is sufficiently accurate for Jews to have been able to use it in practice before the institution of the standard rabbinic calendar in the ninth century.

Does the Yod of ‮נַפְשִׁי‬‎ in Ps 24:4 Represent a Minuscule Waw?

AbstractIn BHS, Ps 24:4 has a reading of ‮נַפְשִׁי‬‎ “my soul” in a context that logically demands a reading of ‮נַפְשׁוֹ‬‎ “his soul.” In several manuscripts and in the Rabbinic Bible, there is a kəṯîḇ ‮נפשו‬‎ “his soul” and a qərê ‮נַפְשִׁי‬‎ “my soul.” However, some prominent Masoretic scholars, Elias Levita, Solomon Norzi and Solomon Frensdorff, have rejected this qərê reading by suggesting that the yod of ‮נַפְשִׁי‬‎ is the result of a scribal error, and that it represents a so-called minuscule waw. This article surveys the history of this debate, examines the nature of the minuscule letters, and shows that new evidence in a Genizah fragment and in the Masoretic appendices to the Leningrad Codex offers support for this dissenting opinion. As a result, the best reading in the context would probably be ‮נַפְשׁוֹ‬‎.

A Genizah Fragment of Bavli Eruvin 53b–54a, 64b

Abstract This article presents a Genizah fragment related to B Eruv. 53b–54a, 64b, identified as Cambridge UL T-S F1 (2) 114. The article begins with a description of the fragment, including paleographic and calligraphic description. The fragment then is compared to the printed version of the text and major manuscripts of Eruvin, including graphic comments of the commentators in the margins of the page in the printed text.

Several commemts on a Genizah fragment of Bavli Eruvin 56a-b, 57a

The article refers to a Cairo Genizah fragment related to Bavli, Eruvin tractate 54a, identified as Cambridge, UL T-S F1 (1) 85. FGP Nº C 96542. The article begins with a description of the Genizah fragment, and presents the text of the printed version and finally, reference is made to the content of the fragment and several comments are brought in an effort to characterize the fragment. A reproduction of the fragment presented at the end of the article.

A Genizah fragment of Bavli Eruvin 54a and 63b-64b

The present article is a study of the Genizah fragment containing parts of various sugyot from tractate Eruvin in the Babylonian Talmud. The principal focus is on the peculiarities of the Aramaic sections seen in contrast with the Hebrew parts of the text. The article introduces the ancient Aramaic wording in the fragment, emphasizing the consistent use of Aramaic, the elements of Aramaic grammar, the clarity of the usage and the precision of the linguistic specification. Proceeding along the same lines, the article also considers the relatively rare use of terminology in connection with the name of one of the Tannaim, as well as the use of Hebrew and a particular problem arising in connection with the fragment’s content – an issue which also arises in other versions of the same text.

A Genizah Fragment of Bavli Eruvin 61b–63a

The article presents a Genizah fragment related to Babli Eruvin 61b–63a, identified as Cambridge ul T-S F2 (2) 27. The article begins with a description of the fragment including paleographic and calligraphic description. The fragment is then compared to the printed version of the text and major manuscripts of Eruvin and graphic comments of the commentators in the margins of the page in the printed text.

A Fragment of a Book of Physics from the David Kaufmann <em>Genizah</em> Collection (Budapest) and the Identity of Ibn Daud with Avendauth

This paper describes a Judeo-Arabic genizah fragment, BUD GEN 210+, and discusses the implications of its discovery. The fragment was originally part of an anthology on physics that included writings by Ibn Sīnā and Ibn Rushd. One page contains the end of a book of Physics ( al-samāʿ al-ṭabīʿī ), which two colophons ascribe to Abraham Ibn Daud, the Jewish philosopher of Toledo (ca. 1110–1180). The manuscript is significant in itself, as a witness to an unknown work by Ibn Daud and as the sole surviving specimen of his Arabic writing. In addition, it lends definitive support to the hypothesis, advanced sixty years ago by Marie-Therese d’Alverny, that Avendauth, the twelfth-century Toledan Jewish translator of Ibn Sīnā from Arabic into Latin, should be identified with Abraham Ibn Daud.

Fragment of a Judaeo-Arabic Treatise on Andalusi Hebrew Metrics (ʽilm al-ʽarūḍ)

Treatises on Hebrew metrics (ʽilm al-ʽarūḍ) are scarce and almost all of those that are known to scholars at present postdate the classical period of Andalusi Hebrew poetry (tenth–twelfth century). The Cairo Genizah fragment T-S Ar. 31.232 concerns Andalusi Hebrew metrics. This fragment shows how its author did not conceptualize medieval Hebrew metrics using the categories employed in its study today, but worked with purer Islamic concepts. The single damaged folio is dedicated to the different forms that the mutaqārib metre can take. It must have been written in an Islamic environment between the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the golden age for this poetry in its original form. This paper includes an introduction to Arabic and Hebrew medieval metrics, the study, edition and translation of the fragment and at the end of the article, a glossary on the Arabic metrical terminology used in the fragment is provided.

An Early Fragment of Ibn Jazlah's Tabulated Manual “Taqwīm al-Abdān” from the Cairo Genizah (T-S Ar.41.137)

AbstractIbn Jazlah was born and raised as a Christian in Karkh (Baghdad) and died in the year 1100. He acquired his medical education in Baghdad, worked at the ʿAḍuḍi hospital, and was appointed as a registrar and physician for the court at the ʿAbbāsid capital and later became a court physician of Caliph al-Muqtadī. Ibn Jazlah wrote several books on various subjects, mainly on medicine. During the process of reconstructing the medical library of the medieval Jewish practitioners in Cairo, a Genizah fragment of a unique tabular medical book in Arabic was identified as Ibn Jazlah's tabulated manual “Taqwīm al-abdān”, which is most probably part of the earliest known copy of the text. A study of the T-S Ar.41.137 clearly shows that it was an uncompleted draft, and can therefore teach us how the medieval copier worked. The image of the fragment is presented here, as well as its transliteration, translation and analysis.

Literary Canonization at Work: The Authority of Aggadic Midrash and the Evolution of Havdalah Poetry in the Genizah

Applying a social interaction approach to the study of the reception of different literary genres, this article focuses on an unnoticed Judeo-Arabic Genizah fragment whose contents deal with the relative cultural value of midrash andpiyyutin medieval Mediterranean society. The fragment describes a debate concerning the identity of Elijah and his connection to the zealous act of Phineas. The debate, which probably took place in the early thirteenth century in Fustat, occurred in reaction to a synagogue performance of Havdalah liturgical poetry. The arguments for and against the poems were based on aggadic traditions. A survey of relevantpiyyutimreveals that this debated motif was indeed subject to variations and alterations. A similar development can be traced in the evolution of another Havdalahpiyyutcomposed by Rabbi Yehudah Ha-Levi. The fluidity of the poetic texts likely reflects the same literary hierarchy presented in the events recorded in the Genizah fragment (and at the same time reinforced by them): a growing appreciation of the authority of aggadic midrash, alongside the perception of the Havdalahpiyyutas creative performance, and not as an authoritative source of knowledge.

Divorcing Lilith: from the Babylonian incantation bowls to the Cairo Genizah

One of the striking features of ancient Jewish magic is the disappearance of numerous magical spells and formulae that are known to us from the Babylonian Aramaic incantation bowls; spells that come to be absent from the register of later Jewish magic. In the present paper we present one exception to this general rule, by editing a Genizah fragment (Hebrew Union College 1029) that contains a spell which is well attested in the incantation bowls. The fragment in question was copied in the twelfth century as part of a larger magical recipe book. One of its recipes, entitled ‘A deed of divorce for Lilith’, contains an anti-demonic get (divorce formula) which is attested in several different versions in the Babylonian incantation bowls, produced half a millennium earlier. In our paper, we offer a synopsis of all these versions, and a detailed assessment of the significance of this discovery.