Geniza Lab

Record and validation of a deposition regarding a compound partly dedicated to the synagogues, ca. 1047. A deposition given by four witnesses, prominent persons, confrims the fact that one sixth of a compound has been dedicated to the two synagogues of the Rabbanite Jews in Fustat, those of the Palestinians and of the Babylonians. The validation of the document and the authentication of the signatures take place before the two courts of the two congregations. The two heads of the courts, Sahlan b. Abraham and Efrayim b. Shemarya, sign the validation. The document bears two dates, 4 Iyyar and 2 Kislev; apparently the validation took place seven months after the deposition was first recorded. (Infromation from Gil, Documents, pp. 151 #7)

Court record in the hand of Efrayim b. Shemarya. A litigant named Moshe has claimed that his loan of 50.5 dinars to Ṣadaqa was guaranteed by Ḥesed ha-Zaqen al-Ṣayrafī (possibly Abu Naṣr al-Tustari?), and refuses to have a decision ratified in the Muslim courts. See Goitein's note card, Penn catalogue on FGP, and Bareket's edition for further information.

Evidence is deposed in connection with Saadya b. Elazar and Shela his brother with reference to a dwelling-place. The document proper ends on recto and is signed by Avraham b. Shemaya (who seems to be the scribe) and Eli ha-Kohen b. Yahya. Dated Elul 1404/1093. (Information from Halper Catalogue of Dropsie Geniza)

Recto: bottom of a marriage contract (ketubba). Groom: Yosef b. Shelomo. Bride: Karīmā bt. Nuṣayr known as Elʿazar. The end of her dowry list is preserved, including a black female slave valued at 30 dinars. The scribe and one of the witnesses is Yosef b. Elʿazar b. ha-Shofeṭ (who also signed T-S NS J269, dated December 29, 1066). Numerous other witnesses signed, including Ḥalfon b. Mevorakh, and Yehuda b. Moshe (?) ha-Ḥazzan. Verso: four different blocks of dense text, most in poetic, rhyming Hebrew lines. Join by Goitein.

Folio from a court ledger. Location: Fustat. In the hand of Ḥalfon b. Menashshe (1100–38). Under the jurisdiction of the Gaon Masliah (1127–39). Settlement between the cantor Shabbetay b. Yosef and his wife Turfa bt. ʿAmram. Referenced in the document are clothes, household goods, and a female slave named Naʿīm. The same Shabbetay b. Yosef sells a female slave in T-S NS 320.50c (1143 CE). There is a(nother?) Turfa bt. Avraham in BL OR 5524.3 (bill of divorce from Sheʾerit b. Ḥalfon, 1128 CE). (Information in part from Goitein’s index card)

Letter fragment. In Judaeo-Arabic. Regarding events that happened in the court of Maṣliaḥ Gaon (1127-38) and perhaps some dispute over the distribution of 20 dinars. See Penn catalogue on FGP for further information.

Court record attesting that Ḥalfon b. Netanel repaid the debt of his late brother Abū ʿAlī Yeḥezqel. Location: Alexandria. Dated: Iyyar 1457 Seleucid, which is April/May 1146 CE. This document was written after the payment of the debt that is the subject of CUL Or.1080 J284 (ח88), a letter from Abū ʿUmar Saʿdān b. Thābit Levi Baghdādī (Seʿadya ha-Levi b. Yakhin) to Ḥalfon, in which he asked Ḥalfon not to travel to Damascus without repaying the debt of his (still-living) brother Abū ʿAlī Yeḥezqel, a sum of 45 3/4 dinars. Ḥalfon had previously given a collateral of silk to Saʿdān. The present document deals with the sale of the silk, part of whose proceeds (43 2/3 dinars) paid off part of the debt (25 dinars), which means that Ḥalfon must have paid the remaining balance of 20 3/4 dinars from his own money. Between the writing of the previous document and this one, Abū ʿAlī Yeḥezqel died. Ḥalfon's nephew Abū Naṣr Shemuel b. Yiṣḥaq ha-Levi was the agent for the sons of Yeḥezqel (his cousins) with regard to selling the silk and paying off the debt. Here the creditor is given his Hebrew name: (Abū ʿUmar) Seʿadya ha-Levi b. Yakhin. The witnesses describe in detail the price that Shemuel received for the silk, both for the bulk of it and for the portion that was of a higher quality. Following the creditor's acknowledgement of having received the balance of the debt, the witnesses state that Shemuel received an excellent price for the silk, at least 1 dinar/raṭl more than a broker would have fetched. Information from India Book.

Recto: Legal testimony. Dated: February-March 1160. In the hand of Hillel b. Zadoq, Av Bet Din. Abū al-Surūr Peraḥya b. Tiqva successfully sues for the right of disposal of five dinars which are already in his possession and are owed him out of the partnership assets of Abū Naṣr b. Khalaf and Abū al-Ḥasan b. Abū al-Waḥsh. The court demanded that Peraḥya provide a "guarantor" (Abū Sahl al-Tājir al-Levi b. Yosef ha-Levi b. Ayyūb), allowing the court to allocate the funds from the partnership to Peraḥya while the partnership accounting was ongoing. The funds then became Peraḥya’s free and clear. Peraḥya's demand that funds be released from the partnership and not from a specific individual who deposited them suggests that the partnership had a corporate identity. When Peraḥya sues Abū Naṣr and Abū al-Ḥasan, he sues them as participants in a partnership who have joint and total responsibility towards Peraḥya. The relationship of the two partners to one another may thus be similar to the "guarantor" relationship between Peraḥya and Abū Sahl. Witnesses: Hillel b. Ẓadoq Av Bet Din and Nathan b. Shemuel ha-Ḥaver. (Information from Lieberman, "A Partnership Culture", 39) Verso: Dowry list. Bride: Sitt al-Banāt bt. Yusuf. Groom: Mevorakh b. Abū ʿAlī. Early marriage payment: 10 dinars. Delayed marriage payment: 30 dinars. ASE.

Legal document. Record of release. Dated: April or May 1164. In the hand of judge Mevorakh b. Natan. Abū l-ʿAlāʾ b. Bū Sahl al-Jubaylī (aka Shemuel b. Yehuda) accepts seven dinars from Abū l-Maʿālī Shemuel b. Yehuda which had been on deposit with the court, and absolves him from any further obligations relating to the deposit. The seven dinars were a pledge that was deposited with the court; thus the first and third clauses of this release may be related to the deposit and the last two may be related to the relationship between the two parties. If so, then shirka and mu‘āmala are clearly related partnership structures, both employed to insure that the release covers the partnership relationship, whether one would choose to describe it as a shirka or as a mu‘āmala. It is unclear exactly what sort of relationship the parties here have. The document may simply have been the disposition of assets of a partnership which was between Abū l-ʿAlāʾ and Shemuel's late father, as lines 3-4 suggest that the Shemuel’s father is dead, whereas line 6 absolves the deceased father from any further obligation. (Information from Lieberman, "A Partnership Culture", 42-43)

A court decree made in the last decade of the month of Iyyar in 1543 (1232 in the Julian calendar), banning the use of synagogue holy objects (kele kodesh) as collateral for loans by congregants for twenty years. The decree is described as being instituted by both the court (bet din) and "elders whose names are signed below," likely referring to the only names on the fragment: "Netanel b. Sa'adyah" and "Eliyahu b. R. Zechariah, may his soul be gathered into life everlasting." In this context, these elders likely acted in a similar manner as amicus curiae ("friends of the court") do today, and who, despite not having official judicial appointments, nevertheless occupied important roles in relation to the court, due to their dignity and standing in the synagogue and community. Given the fairly intact nature of the fragment, it is improbable that those who signed were the court officials themselves, given that there are only two names (the court would have had three judges), though it may have been enough that only two judges signed, or there might have been more names at the bottom that were lost. The ban comes as a result of congregation officials who, short on funds, pledged synagogue property to creditors, which resulted in these important objects being repossessed when they were unable to pay. These objects, which would have included the customary silk robes for the Torah scrolls (seferim) and inscribed breastplates, silver bells, and pomegranate pendants that are hung on the scrolls, would have been important for use in the synagogue and their absence would immediately have been felt by the congregation. The decree describes two reasons for the ban, one being that their absence is "causing anguish of mind to some of the Congregation", and the second being that congregants would refuse to donate further expensive sacred objects to the synagogue if they believe they will be used as collateral for loans by officials of the congregation. Interestingly, the court merely forbids future use of sacred objects of collateral, but does not enjoin the congregation officers to restore or place the sacred objects already taken. The court puts "under the ban" anyone who violates the decree in the future; in this context, such a ban is akin to excommunication, and would have put a violator outside the protection of the community. They would have been unable to enter into any business or personal arrangements with members of the community, would be formally cursed, might have property confiscated, and might even have been subjected to corporal punishment. The public announcement of the ban would have been necessary in order to ensure its enforcement, and was likely very effective. The decree is noted as issued in the name of Avraham Maimonides, son of the famous Moshe Maimonides, and refers to him as "our Lord, our Nagid [prince]". The Nagid functioned as both religious and judicial head of the Egyptian Jewish community, and was supreme judge in criminal and civil matters. Similarly to his father whom he succeeded as Nagid, Avraham was a scholar and a physician, and even treated the caliph El Kamil. (Information from David Werner Amram's article "An Injunction of a Jewish- Egyptian Court of the Thirteenth Century" from the July 1901 issue of The Green Bag legal magazine, which also includes a full translation by Professor Richard Gottheil of Columbia University, as well as further analysis)

A deed of acquittance written in Cairo in 1383 or 1384 under the Nagid Amram, for whom nine lines of titles and epithets are included. Muwaffaq b. Musa, his half-sister Shams Ubaid (the wife of Shabbatai the Sicilian), and her mother Sutaita forgive the debt of Zarifa, the widow of Yakov, probably resulting from a case of inheritance. (Information from Goitein’s index card)

Recto: Legal testimony, fragment. In Judaeo-Arabic. Involving Abū l-Faḍl and Abū l-Barakāt. Perhaps related to verso.

Verso: Informal note, instructing the scribe of the court to write a promissory note on 96 dirhams—obviously the outcome of former litigation. Writtnen in Judaeo-Arabic in an oriental cursive hand, preserving seven lines. Avraham is asked to testify that Abū al-Faḍl owes Yaʿqūb b. Abū al-Surūr ninety-six dirhams. (Information from Halper Catalogue of Dropsie Geniza and Goitein's index card.)

Witnesses testify that Khasib the son of Sheikh Abu Nasr, known as Ibn Alma, appeared in the court of the Nagid with a claim against Moshe al-Shiraji (Siraji?). The document is signed by Mevasser ha-Kohen b. Avraham, Avraham b. Moshe ha-Melammed, Avraham b. Natan. (Information from Halper Catalogue of Dropsie Geniza)

Legal fragment. Dated [..]66 Seleucid, and the titles of the Nagid might help pin it down (ẓinẓenet ha-man nagid ʿam...). The case involves Abū l-Rabīʿ and and Abū l-Fakhr.

Legal fragment. In Hebrew. Involves Salmān and Yiṣḥaq and an inheritance.

Testimony in Arabic script probably meant to accompany an investiture petition from the gaʾon Shelomo b. Yehuda to the newly appointed caliph al-Mustanṣir billāh, listing the prerogatives the gaʾon has enjoyed for the past eleven years of his tenure. If this interpretation is correct, the document dates to 1036 CE. Goitein writes that the script and style are identical with those of T-S NS 320.45, and also that Halper 354 "is the most important Geniza document found thus far illustrating the official position of the Jerusalem Gaonate within the Muslim state."

Draft of a deed of compensation in the hand of the court reporter Yefet b. David Shekhanya, around 1030. It was given to Efrayim b. Shemarya ha-Ḥaver, the head of the Jerusalem community in Fustat. (Information from Goitein, Palestinian Jewry, pp. 53-54). VMR

Legal letter. Written on parchment (14 lines). In the hand of Ḥalfon b. Menashshe. He reports that he has come up with a good idea to resolve a documentation dilemma, namely that before something is deleted in a certain document as he had previously agreed with the addressee, the witnesses should be summoned again and a new qinyan should be made, so that they cannot complain after the fact that they never signed the document in its ultimate form and that it has been "falsified" or "forged" (muzawwar, line 9). (Information from Goitein's index card, MR, and Oded Zinger's forthcoming edition.)

Legal fragment scribed and signed by Moshe ha-Kohen b. Aharon ha-Kohen. In Judaeo-Arabic. There is an addendum. Needs examination for content. On verso are piyyutim.