Reviewed by: The Jewish Calendar Controversy of 921/2 CE by Sacha Stern Sarit Kattan Gribetz Sacha Stern . The Jewish Calendar Controversy of 921/2 CE . Leiden : Brill , 2019 . 576 pp. doi:10.1017/S0364009420000550 In 921–22 CE, a calendrical dispute erupted between the Palestinian and Babylonian Jewish Rabbanite communities. The two communities disagreed about a small detail related to the calculation of the Jewish calendar, which usually made no difference, but that year resulted in a two-day discrepancy between the two calendars. Unable to settle the disagreement, Rabbanite Jews in Palestine and Babylonia observed Passover and Rosh Ha-shanah on different days in the spring and fall of 922. Rabbanite Jews in other parts of the Near East were forced to follow either the Palestinian or Babylonian calendar. (This dispute did not affect Karaite communities, whose calendar operated separately from the Rabbanite calendar.) During the controversy, tensions ran high. Rabbinic authorities in Palestine and Babylonia circulated letters about why their calculations were accurate, and accused each other of calendrical mistakes. Sacha Stern, in his monograph devoted to the history of this calendrical disagreement, argues that "it was, above all, a fight for legitimacy and authority, part of a much broader struggle between Palestine and Babylonia for religious and political hegemony" (3). The controversy did not last long. By the winter of 923, the calendars were once again synchronized, and Rabbanite Jews across the region celebrated their festivals on the same days. The controversy was remembered for a few [End Page 187] generations, until it receded to the murkier parts of Jewish memory. By the thirteenth century, it had been entirely forgotten, its details only rediscovered in the late nineteenth century in the documents of the Cairo Geniza. Early studies of the Geniza documents by Hayim Yehiel Bornstein (1845–1928) presented the controversy as a disagreement between the famous Babylonian rabbi Sa'adiah Gaon and the less well-known head of the rabbinic academy in Tiberias, Aharon ben Meir. According to Bornstein, this represented the last calendrical dispute before the finalization of the fixed rabbinic calendar. Notwithstanding significant advances since his time in Geniza studies, the history of the Jewish calendar, and the field of social history, Bornstein's conclusions have generally been accepted, although new manuscripts regarding this calendar controversy have been discovered, and different assumptions made about calendars and communal boundaries. Stern's book offers a fresh assessment of this calendar controversy and its enduring significance. It reproduces all of the extant texts related to this event, newly edited and translated, with tables, glossary, critical apparatus, analysis of the material features of the manuscripts, and commentary, correcting earlier editions and incorporating new manuscript finds; for these sections alone, the book is a great resource. Moreover, Stern's monograph takes an important methodological stance, arguing that "written sources cannot serve as historical evidence … except insofar as they are authentic expressions of (individual or collective) subjective perspectives, at the time, on the historical environment and events. It does not matter, therefore, that the sources are biased; quite on the contrary, it is precisely the personal bias, the rhetorical agenda, the literary devices that constitute our historical material. They were integral, indeed, to the controversy itself" (xi). In addition to reconstructing the positions expressed during the controversy, Stern demonstrates its memory's continued significance through the eleventh century, when many of the manuscripts were copied—evidence that communities sought to preserve and transmit traditions about this dispute even after it had been resolved. Stern's book is divided into four parts. The first chapter in part 1 offers an updated narrative of the controversy, based on meticulous analysis and synthesis of all available manuscripts. During Sukkot, the Palestinian rabbinic leader annually announced the upcoming year's calendar and festival dates so that the community knew in advance the details of the calendar. Even though Babylonian rabbinic figures typically performed their own calendrical calculations independently, they accepted the authority of the Palestinian community to announce the calendar. At some point, however, the Babylonians began making their own calendrical announcements in Elul, anticipating the Palestinian announcement by about a month. The two communities usually announced identical calendars —until 921 CE, when...
Read full abstract
Feb 17, 2024
Liat Shklarski 
Open Access