Geonic Literature

הרב טבגר, שפעל רבות למען חידוש מצוות התכלת בימינו, מקדיש בספרו פרק לבירור שיטת השאלתות, שמדבריו נראה בפשטות שציצית לכתחילה כולה תכלת ורק אם אין לו תכלת מטיל לבן!
לכך מצטרפים לכאורה דברי רס"ג בספר המצוות שראה אור השנה, על ידי ר' נסים סבתו.
במאמר זה אני מציע פרשנות שונה לדבריהם, לפיה הלבן משמש כרקע לתכלת. בכך מתיישב גם פירוש מוקשה של רש"י, ואת הדיון חותמת חזרה משולשת של הרמב"ם בפירוש המשניות ששורש אחד לה.

מונוגרפיה על השתלשלות מנהגי הערלה והדם לאחר ברית המילה, החל מדברי חז"ל, דרך ספרות החילוקים והגאונים כמו גם פייטנות אותה תקופה, פירקוי בן באבוי [כולל גילוי נדיר של מקבילה לדבריו], התפשטות מנהגי בבל ואר"י בראשונים ועד למגוון המנהגים בימינו אנו, כולל מנהגים מעניינים, כגון קבורת ערלות עם המוהל, שרפת הערלה, שימוש בערלה לצרכים רפואיים, דם שעל פי התוקע, ידי הכהן בברכת כהנים, ה'ווימפל' ועוד רבים.
בסוף הקובץ, מצורף פרק נוסף - 'טעמי מנהג קבורת ערלת ברית המילה בעפר' שאמור להתפרסם כמאמר נפרד בקובץ חצי גבורים.

התלמוד הבבלי הוא ספר היסוד של התורה שבעל פה, בין בלימוד האינטנסיבי שלו ובין בפסיקת ההלכה על פיו, מזה למעלה מאלף שנים. מרכזיות זו התעצבה בתקופת הגאונים. בתקופה זו הוא עבר ממסירה על פה לכתיבתו בכתבי יד, נוסחו התעצב, והוא הופץ מן המרכז שבבבל לכל תפוצות הגולה. העיסוק הרב בתלמוד ותהליכי מסירתו בעל פה ובכתב יצרו לא מעט חילופים בנוסחאותיו.
מחקר זה עוסק בסוגיות הקשורות לתהליך שבו הפך התלמוד הבבלי לספר כל כך מרכזי, ובעיקר בשאלת יחסם של גאוני בבל לנוסח התלמוד הבבלי: כיצד התייחסו לגרסאותיו השונות, כיצד הכריעו ביניהן ועל פי אלו קני מידה עשו זאת; עד כמה שימרו את גרסאותיו הקדומות ועד כמה שינו אותן. בחלקו השני של הספר מובאים ונדונים כל המקורות שבהם דנו גאוני בבל בגרסאות התלמוד.

Maimonides’s readers have long recognized that his presentation of the Oral Torah differed markedly from that of the Baghdadi geonim, particularly Sa‘adya Gaon. Maimonides did not cite any precedent for his disagreements with the geonim. Recent studies, however, have called attention to Andalusian sources that prefigure and parallel Maimonidean claims, suggesting that his views, at least in part, drew on earlier Andalusian thought. This article argues that a uniquely Andalusian understanding of the talmudic adage “A sage is superior to a prophet,” first found in the writings of Isaac Ibn Ghiyāth, demonstrates that Andalusian Rabbanite culture had long approached the Oral Torah differently than did the geonim of Baghdad. After identifying a number of Andalusian antecedents for Maimonides’s approach to the Oral Torah, this article explores possible motives for the divergent pictures of revelation put forward by Rabbanites in Baghdad and Andalusia. It is suggested that the impact of Andalusian Maliki jurists helps explain the divergent positions of Baghdadi and Andalusian Rabbanites.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10835-017-9278-9

This bibliographic essay explores the works of scholars who have used ḥadīth collections in their research on early Muslim-Jewish interactions. One of the main issues of this field has been the question of Jewish influence on ḥadīths, either by way of discussions between Jews and Muḥammad and his companions or through early Jewish converts to Islam. Even within the Islamic tradition itself, it is acknowledged that discrete Jewish traditions have been embedded within the ḥadīth, traditions which are sometimes referred to as Isrāʾīlīyāt. In addition to these, there are also ḥadīths which describe Jews and Jewish practices, usually in a polemical context. The more controversial question among scholars has been that of whether the structure of Jewish oral law influenced the formation of the ḥadīth, and I provide a survey of developments in scholarly thinking on that issue. I then turn to the impact of the ḥadīth on medieval Jews themselves and discuss the views of scholars who have argued that the medieval Islamic science of ḥadīth study had an impact on how Jews viewed their own religious tradition. Finally, I look at contemporary Islamic writings on Jews and ḥadīths.

Vol. 1 (A–C): “Aaron ben ʿAmram”; “Aaron Ḥakīmān”; “Aghmātī, Zechariah ben Judah”; “Alī ben Sulaymān”; “Bar Satya, Joseph ben Jacob”; “Baradānī, Joseph al-”; “Baradānī, Naḥum al-”; “Ben Berechiah Family”; “Ben Yijū, Abraham.”

Vol. 2 (D–I): “Daniel ben Eleazar b. Hibat Allāh”; “Daniel ben Ḥasday”; “Daniel ben Samuel ibn Abī ʾl-Rabīʿ ha-Kohen”; “David ben Boaz”; “Dunash (Abū Sahl) ben Tamīm”; “Eleazar ben Ḥalfon ha-Kohen”; “Ḥananel ben Ḥushiel”; “Ḥananel ben Samuel”; “Ḥushiel ben Elḥanan”; “Ibn al-Barqūlī Family”; “Ibn al-Majjānī Family”; “Ibn al-Shūwaykh, Isaac ben Israel”; “Ibn Bundar, Ḥasan, Abū ʿAlī (Japheth)”; “Ibn Jāmiʿ, Samuel ben Jacob”; “Ibn Sughmār Family.”

Vol. 3 (J–O): “Japheth (Abū ʿAlī Ḥasan) ben Eli"; “Jeshua ben Elijah ha-Levi”; “Josiah ben Jesse”; “Judah ben Eli (ʿAllān)”; “Judah ben Joseph of Qayrawān”; “Kohen Ṣedeq ben Joseph Gaon”; “Levi (Abū Saʿīd) ben Japheth”; “Nathan ben Ḥananiah.”

Vol. 4 (P–Z): “Salmon ben Jeroham (Sulaym ibn Ruḥaym)”; “Shabīb ben Jacob”; “Tanḥum ben Joseph ha-Yerushalmi”; “Wahb ibn Yaʿīsh al-Raqqī.”

Sherira Gaon's Epistle has been the most important source for the study of Babylonian Jewish history, and yet scholars have often relied too heavily on this work. This article argues that Sherira Gaon's Epistle must first be situated in its contemporary context, which reveals the many historiographical assumptions about the past that Sherira shared with both Arabic and Syriac historiography from the same period. In particular, analysis of Sherira's account of the Arab Conquest shows that it is not a historically accurate report of the past. Instead, Sherira is indebted to widespread assumptions of his time that viewed the Conquest as a watershed moment. Moreover, his celebrated account about an encounter between Ali ibn Abi Talib and the Jews of a certain town conforms to other apocryphal conquest accounts, composed in order to secure the material and cultural capital derived from such reports.

In: "It's better to hear the rebuke of the wise than the song of fools" (Qoh 7:5). Proceedings of the Midrash Sections, Society of bibical Literature, Volume 6. Edited by Rivka Ulmer and W. David Nelson. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2015.

The provenance of the opening Aramaic portion of the Passover Haggadah has confounded practitioners and scholars for centuries. Little evidence has come to light to explain the origins of this passage or the fluctuations in its attending practices over time. This article argues that additional evidence, found in some neglected Talmudic manuscripts and in incantation bowls, reveals that the core recitational and practical elements of this passage were originally unrelated to Passover or Jewish ritual. Instead, they were part of a recognised social script in late antique Jewish Babylonia that was integrated into the Passover Haggadah. With changes in Babylonian Jewish society, and with the transmission of this section and its associated practices to Jewish communities outside of Babylonia, the original social and cultural context of this sentence was forgotten. Untethered from the setting in which it was culturally legible, it developed through encounters with new actors in different contexts.

Building on medieval claims, modern scholars have long asserted that Saadia ben Joseph Gaon depicted the Oral Torah and extra-biblical institutions as rooted in divine authority primarily, if not exclusively, in order to parry Karaite claims. This essay argues that focus on Karaism obscures a cross-cultural factor that helped shape Saadia’s claims, namely, that Muslim jurists prior to and contemporaneous with Saadia likewise jettisoned non-prophetic elements of religious law and attempted to root Islamic law solely in prophetic dictates. This article traces Saadia’s emphasis on prophetic authority in his claims about the scope of revelation, his depiction of the role of the rabbis, and his portrayal of extra-biblical institutions. It underscores that contemporary Islamic depictions of religious law were decisive in Saadia’s presentations of the sources of Jewish law Full text at http://muse.jhu.edu/article/703673.

Medieval legend relate how the first Exilarch of the Islamic era, Bustanay, received the gift of a Persian princess from the Arab conquerors. Uproar surrounding the legal and religious status of the descendants of this union is said  to have erupted in a much later period, and is attested in Geonic sources between interested parties attempting either to discredit or to affirm the legitimacy of Davidide clans who claimed descent from Bustanay...

A Rotulus from the Cairo Genizah from which R. Nahshon Gaon's decisions were published, includes on the flip side what appears to be a random assortment of Talmudic citations. When transcribed and analyzed, we find here 21 explanations of difficult terms  from Talmud Gittin and Yevamot, an example of what was known to the Rishonim as Pinkas Starim- the birth of extra-talmudic exegesis. The rotulus also includes a version of Seder Tanaim v'Amoraim that predates by centuries all known versions. Published in Yeshurun LXI (autumn 2019).

Rabbenu Ḥananel's (=RḤ) commentary on the Talmud was widely accepted among Torah scholars as early as the end of the 11th century. Among those Rishonim who cite RḤ is R. Eliezer b. R. Natan (Raavan), who quotes RḤ multiple times in his work "Even HeEzer". However, a careful reading of Raavan's commentary reveals a more extensive use of RḤ's commentary then has previously been noticed. In this study we analyze Raavan's commentary on the first three chapters of Tractate Bava Kamma in comparison to RḤ's commentary. Our results lead us to conclude that Raavan made far greater use of RḤ's commentary than appears at face value, embedding the latter’s commentary anonymously into his own writing in twice as many instances as those in which he cites him by name. In the appendix, we examine the degree to which the Tosafists made use of RḤ's commentary to the same chapters.

The Shi'ur Qomah is a Jewish mystical text related to the Hekalot literature, which focuses on the anthropomorphized figure of God. Of particular interest are the numerous mysterious divine names which are attributed to the various parts of the divine body and the heavenly Throne-Chariot. I present here a comparative list of these names from the primary sources (including the numerous fragments of the SQ in other texts). This list is by no means complete, but I hope will prove useful as reference.

The last influential head of the Pumbadithan Academy in Baghdad, Rabbi Hayya Gaon (939-1038), requested his Sicilian student Rabbi Maṣliaḥ ben Eliah al-Basak to inquire the Nestorian Patriarch (Catholicos) about the Syriac definition of a word in Psalms (141:5). Upon Rabbi Maṣliaḥ's protests, Rabbi Hayya rebuked his student saying "our pious forefathers and ancestors would inquire regarding languages and their explanations from members of different religions, even from shepherds".
Despite scholarly treatment since 1855, a new, analytical reading of the text, based upon manuscripts, external sources and comparative literature, provides fresh approaches towards understanding Jewish-Christian scholarly interaction in Baghdad at the turn of the eleventh century, particularly in comparison to those in Sicily. Additionally presented are new facets in Peshitta studies.

SaꜤadia Gaon (d. 942 AD) wrote a commentary on the thirteen hermeneutical principles attributed to R. Yishmael at the beginning of the Sifra. His commentary contains some unknown Midrashic material and presents original interpretive approaches along with hints of polemical activity. The original Judaeo-Arabic text of this commentary was, until recently, unknown, and all scholarly work on it was based on a medieval Hebrew translation preserved in a single manuscript. The Hebrew translation raised several unanswered questions. The commentary does not appear in any of the lists found in the Cairo Geniza of Saadia’s works, not even in the list prepared by his two sons. The time and place of the translator are unclear. Above all, in the absence of the original Judaeo-Arabic text, there was no way to evaluate the faithfulness of the translation.
This article deals with these issues and presents the Arabic original, which survived almost entirely, along with a new Hebrew translation. We find that the previous translation is part translation, part reworking of the text – a standard practice in translations from that period. This reworking omitted close to half of the original material. The article answers the open question of the time and place of the translation, identifies the source of the Midrashic material, and presents parallel passages from other works by SaꜤadia to demonstrate his originality. Finally, for the first time, the article raises the possibility that another ancient commentary was available to Saadia.