Geniza Lab

Legal record (#10). Rent of 1/2 house. Sitt al-Kull bt. Barakāt Ibn al-Dayyān, in the presence of her brother Abū l-Faraj b. Berakhot (=Barakāt) Ibn al-Dayyān, attests that she has rented from Abū l-ʿAlā al-Tājir Efrayim b. Yefet ha-Ne'eman Rosh ha-Parnasim the half of the house in Qaṣr al-Shamʿ in the alley of al-Ḥarrānī that is associated with the name of Abū l-Faḍl al-Ṣayrafī, for the period of one year to begin at the start of Sivan 1467 Seleucid. The monthly rent is 38 dirhams.

Legal record (#9). Deposition in court. Bū Naṣr al-Kohen Ibn Mukhtār, Yūsuf al-ʿAṭṭār ('the perfumer in the alley of the candles'), Abū l-Riḍā al-ʿAṭṭār Ibn al-Lebdī, and Sālim al-Munādī (the crier of the perfume market) all testify that they witnessed a brawl between Abū l-Bayān al-Levi b. Abū Naṣr al-Ḥalabī and the sons or slaves (ghilmān) of someone titled al-ʿAlam ('the eminent'), regarding a house that the two held in partnership. Al-ʿAlam accused Abū l-Bayān of pilfering the marble and the wood from the qāʿa, and he had a bill/promissory note (ḥujja) drawn up stating that Abū l-Bayān has to reimburse the value of what he took; al-ʿAlam also threatened to drag Abū l-Bayān before the chief of police (wālī) of Fustat. Witnesses: Ḥiyya b. Yiṣḥaq; Efrayim b. Meshullam. See India Book I for the identification of Abū l-Riḍā al-ʿAṭṭār Ibn al-Lebdi. (Information in part from Goitein's notes.) Summarized in Goitein and Friedman, India Book 1, א37.

Legal record (#11). Loan contract. Dated: Monday, 15 Iyyar 1467 Seleucid. Sayyid al-Kull al-Zayyāt Ibn Makḥūl and Abū ʿAlī b. Abū Saʿd attest that Sibāʿ al-Ḥalabī ('who was a zayyāt') owes 15 dinars to Abū l-Faraj b. Barakāt Ibn al-Dayyān and that he will repay them within two months, beginning in the middle of Nisan 1467 Seleucid. Security: Half of a house owned by Sibāʿ in Qaṣr al-Shamʿ. Witnesses: Ḥiyya b. Yiṣḥaq; Efrayim b. Meshullam; Natan b. Shemuel ha-Ḥaver. This is a corrected version of record #3 in the notebook (Yevr.-Arab. I 1700.2, verso, b). (Information in part from Goitein's notes.)

Legal record (#13a). Loan contract, summary. It states that Barakāt b. Abū l-Ḥasan owes 30 (dirhams) to Abū l-Ḥasan b. Abū l-Faḍl and will pay him 1 dirham weekly starting from the 'month of the holiday.' This pertains to the record on the facing page (Yevr.-Arab. I 1700.8, recto, a); perhaps the scribe (Mevorakh b. Natan) made a note of what the parties declared prior to writing it into a formal document.

Legal record (#12). Claim of money owed. Dated: Thursday, 18 Iyyar 1467 Seleucid. Abū l-Faraj b. Barakāt Ibn al-Dayyān brings a claim on behalf of his sister against her paternal uncle Abū l-ʿAlā al-Tājir for a sum of 30 dinars. She states that the late Abū l-Makārim b. Abū l-Faḍā'il al-Ṣayrafī told her that he willed her this amount and that Abū l-ʿAlā would pay it to her from the 250 dinars owed him (probably to the late Abū l-Makārim) by Abū Sahl b. Ayyūb. This record was left incomplete..

Legal record (#13b). Loan contract. Dated: Thursday, 25 Iyyar 1467 Seleucid. Barakāt b. Abū l-Ḥasan declares that he owes 30 dirhams to Abū l-Ḥasan b. Abū l-Faḍl and will pay one dirham weekly following ʿaẓeret (shavuʿot?) of 1467 Seleucid. Witnesses: Nadiv b. Seʿadya; Mevorakh b. Natan. This entry together with the note on the facing page (Yevr.-Arab. I 1700.7, verso, a), which is a summary of this record.

Legal record (#14). Deposition in court. Dated: Thursday, 25 Iyyar 1467 Seleucid. Abū l-Faḍl al-Mustaʿmal b. Natan testifies that Hilāl al-Mustaʿmal b. al-Raṣṣāṣ said to Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm al-Tājir that he would take Abū l-Khayr b. Nājī as a security for any loss or expenditure incurred by Abū Isḥāq, and therefore Abū Isḥāq will not lose any money. Witnesses: Ḥiyya b. Yiṣḥaq; Efrayim b. Meshullam; Shelomo ha-Kohen b. Yehuda. See next record (Yevr.-Arab. I 1700.8, verso). (Information in part from Goitein's notes.)

Legal record (#15). Deposition in court. Dated: Monday, 29 Iyyar 1467 Seleucid. Abū l-Makārim b. Salāma al-Kohen known as Ibn al-Maqāniʿiyya states that he was passing by Dār al-Ṭāwūs when Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm al-Tājir called out to him. He found Hiba al-Labbān and Mūsā b. Bishr standing with Abū Isḥāq and with Hilāl b. al-Raṣṣāṣ. All these people testified that Hilāl agreed that whatever money was lost(?) by Abū Isḥāq al-Tājir and was not paid by Abū l-Khayr b. Nājī (as promised by Hilāl in the previous record, see Yevr.-Arab. I 1700.8, recto b)—would be guaranteed by Hilāl. Witnesses: Ḥiyya b. Yiṣḥaq; Hillel b. Ẓadoq Av Bet Din; Mevorakh b. Natan.

Legal record (#16). Inheritance settlement. Dated: Thursday, 25 Iyyar 1467 Seleucid. It is a complicated settlement with multiple sections. (1) Sitt al-Ahl bt. Barakāt b. Ibrāhīm Ibn al-Dayyān, the widow of Abū l-Faḍl al-Ṣayrafī declares that she has received from Abū l-ʿAlā al-Tājir (her late husband's brother) all the payments that are owed her on account of her husband's death (the delayed marriage payment and the belayot, i.e., the items from her trousseau that had been worn out from use), and she releases him from all claims. (2) Abū l-ʿAlā al-Tājir declares that he has received from Sitt al-Ahl all that she owes him of her dowry (qumāsh) and household furnishings (athāth), and he releases her from all claims. (3) Sitt al-Ahl purchases from Abū l-ʿAlā half of her late husband's house in Qaṣr al-Shamʿ for 160 dinars. There is a clause granting her the choice of whether to have this transaction registered as a sale in the Muslim courts, in which case she will be liable for fees, or as a gift. (4) Sitt al-Ahl releases Abū l-ʿAlā from all claims before a Muslim court, where she, as a widow, inherits—unlike in Jewish law. (5–6) Abū l-Faraj and Sitt al-Kull, evidently relatives of another recently deceased person, Abū l-Makārim the son of the brother (or possibly father?) of Abū l-ʿAlā, renounce their respective rights worth 30 and 50 dinars in exchange for Abū l-ʿAlā gifting them his share in the marble of the house (see Med Soc IV, p. 103). Witnesses: Ḥiyya b. Yiṣḥaq; Efrayim b. Meshullam; Mevorakh b. Natan. NB: Goitein referred to this document as folios 8–9 (e.g., the citation in Med Soc IV is Firk. II NS 1700.8b, with the b indicating verso) in accordance with the foliation written in pen; but the correct folios are 9–10, as written in pencil (the librarian with the pen gave two folios the number 8). (Information in part from Goitein's notes.) ASE.

Legal document in a gathering of the Karaites in Cairo, mentioning the instrument of the herem to elicit information concerning a rumor some women had heard about a husband. NB: This description and transcription are to be merged with PGPID 2728.

Legal report in a Qaraite court register. Written in Judaeo-Arabic. Location: Cairo. Dating: Unknown. Catalogued as 1101 CE, but this date does not appear on the microfilm images. Perhaps the missing digits were legible in the past or remain legible on the physical document. The date in the microfilm reads "Sunday night, 7 Tevet, 14[..] Seleucid." The digits את appear at the beginning of the year, but this gives only an earliest possible date of 1089 CE and a latest possible date of 1688 CE. Based solely on the script, a date in the 13th century seems more likely. The scribe has the unusual name Neḥam'el b. Mevorakh b. Yehuda b. Aharon. The document is a fascinating report on the Qaraite court of Cairo's investigation into the years-long rumors about the relationship between Abū Naṣr b. Qayūma and an unnamed woman who is alternately referred to as "the daughter of Abū l-Maʿālī b. Tāmār," "the wife of Abū Saʿd b. Ṣadaqa al-Labbān," and "the woman." It appears that the woman had a petition (ruqʿa) written on her behalf to the communal authorities, which came into the possession of the scribe, who subsequently brought it to the attention of the Qaraite authority, ha-Nasi ha-Gadol, who called for an inquiry. The council first summoned the woman and her husband (called her "waliyy" or "guardian"). (1) She reported that Abū Naṣr had been stalking her for years, visiting her house three or four times a day. She was frightened of him and told her husband's paternal aunt that if she ever saw Abū Naṣr visit when this woman was alone, she should come down and join them. She had gone several times to the court to complain about him, but nothing came of that. When asked whether she knew who wrote the petition (ruqʿa), she admitted that in fact she was the one responsible for it, but the person who wrote it for her added some things she had not said and left out other things she had said. (2) As for the husband, he responded that he didn't know anything about this. All he knew was that his wife hated to have Abū Naṣr in their house, but he never knew why. (3) Abū Nāsr was then summoned. He denied everything. But then he admitted that he had previously been summoned to court and been issued a restraining order not to enter her house for a period of a year and a half. They questioned him repeatedly, but he wouldn't admit anything else. (4) The woman was then questioned in Abū Naṣr's presence what she had said in his absence, and she was unwilling to repeat what she said before. Rather, "she changed her story. . . and said, 'I hated. . .'" (5) Abū l-Faraj al-Ṭaḥḥān reported to the court and attested that whenever he visited the house of his brother-in-law Abū Saʿd b. Ṣadaqa al-Labbān and Abū Naṣr b. Qayūma was also present, he witnessed Abū Naṣr's vulgar speech and behavior toward the woman, but he had no knowledge of whether anything else passed between them. (6) A number of other women were then questioned. They confirmed that the woman under investigation had complained to them numerous times about Abū Naṣr's harassment (taʿarruḍ) of her. However, the scribe writes, because their testimony entirely derived from what the woman herself told them, there is no need to record it in this document. But he notes that these women confirmed her "agitation" (imtiʿāḍ) whenever she talked about Abū Naṣr's behavior to them. At this point the court determined that they needed to gather more testimony. Thus they agreed that the next day a ban of excommunication would be declared against anyone who had knowledge of the affair and did not come forward to testify about it. The scribe records the date and his name, and several witnesses sign: Netan'el ha-Kohen b. ʿAmram; Yefet ha-Melammed b. Ḥalfon(?), Avraham b. Yefet, and probably others that are now faded. He adds an addendum the following day stating that he attended "al-majliṣ al-marsūm" (Goitein interprets this as 'the next prayer service') of the Qaraites in Cairo and declared the agreed-upon ban of excommunication, effective for a period of one week. This addendum was witnessed by Avraham b. Yefet and Yefet ha-Melammed b. Ḥalfon(?). This document is mentioned several times in Zinger's dissertation and in Goitein, Med Soc V, 314 and 592. ASE.

Letter from an unnamed Fatimid official in Alexandria to Najīb al-Dawla. Dating: second half of the eleventh century. 36 lines preserved, written in an elegant chancery hand with very wide line-spacing. Najīb al-Dawla is a higher-level official than the author of the letter, but the author also has quite a bit of command and responsibility, and the ability to issue to levy and cancel taxes and to issue decrees on the spot in a region of the delta, so perhaps he is a local governor — although he refers to a different ʿāmil in his letter. The author writes to report to Najīb al-Dawla on his activities in the delta and in a village called Tarūja, which is southeast of Alexandria. Topics, in order of appearance: 1. Soldiers who have taken an oath of loyalty to the Fatimid dynasty. 2. The author's postponement of one leg of his journey, to Tarūja, until the coming Thursday, which will cut short his time with the governor. 3. A state occasion attended by all the soldiers, leaders and elders of the city (unclear which city), as well as its governor and its postmaster, on which occasion a certain adopted son of the Sharīf repeated an admonishment to the leaders of said city and to the Banū Qurra. 4. The arrival of the addressee, Najīb al-Dawla, and his touring with the addressee around the rest of the districts to collect taxes. 5. The soldiers’ protests about staying in the garrison, which furnish the author with an excuse for failing to fulfill his other duties, perhaps collecting taxes. 6. The author's success in eliminating crime in a certain district thanks to a tax-farm of 400 dinars that paid for policing. The elimination of crime allowed him to reward the district by lifting taxes on popular foods (al-maṭāʿim al-ḥabība), provisions and necessities, a policy he announced by writing [decrees], reading them in the town and having them sent to the rest of the districts. 7. The delay of the endorsement of a certain memorandum concerning the writer. 8. The return of the author's son to him. 9. The author's wish to receive more official duties from Najīb al-Dawla, a request he expresses with what might be a raʾy clause (but there is a lacuna). 10. A visit that the author made to the aforementioned adopted son of the Sharīf, Abū Ṭālib al-Ḥusayn, at his estate (which is named, but there is a lacuna); there, he ran into Ḥusay[n] and Ḥasan b. Mahdī and […] b. Jābir the captain (khardar). The letter was cut up and turned into ten bifolios that were folded into a single quire; on this, the well-known late-eleventh-century Qaraite ʿAlī b. Sulaymān wrote extracts in Hebrew and Arabic script of Kitāb al-anwār wa-l-marākib by the tenth-century Iraqi Qaraite al-Qirqisānī. ʿAlī b. Sulaymān included two colophons with his name (fols. 5r and 17r), but neither is dated or mentions a place of writing. ʿAlī b. Sulaymān was active in Jerusalem ca. 436/1045, where he studied with some of the well-known Qaraites of the Dār al-ʿIlm, and then in Tinnīs ca. 1057 and Fustat ca. 1080, where he signed and dated colophons (see Borisov [1954]). He may have been active as late as 1103, according to a colophon with a problematic date of 415 (is this [1]415 Sel., or 1103? a hijrī dating would be too early). Assuming his floruit was 1045–1103, our letter would date to ca. 1050–1100; this also assumes, as was the usual practice, a relatively brief turnaround time between state-related documents being discarded and their being reused. Where and how did ʿAlī b. Sulaymān acquire the letter? Was he active in state circles in Egypt in the late eleventh century? He was close with Sahl b. al-Faḍl al-Tustarī, a muʿtazilī philosopher-theologian who was a government administrator in Jerusalem in the 1090s under the Seljuks; but the letter reflects an Egyptian Fatimid context, not a Syrian Seljuk one, so al-Tustarī is unlikely to be its author, unless he had an otherwise unattested appointment in Egypt before his appointment in Jerusalem. The FGP images are missing a folio between what it labels folios 14r and 15r. This would be folio 11 according to the pencilled numbers on the bottom of the recto pages of the manuscript, and it would have been part of a blank verso of the original letter. MR

Colophon to a pamphlet containing two 'qedushas' on parashat Yitro. The scribe is Barukh Rofe b. (or grandson of?) Elʿazar Ḥazzan known as Rofe.

Masoretic notes. In Judaeo-Arabic.

Masoretic notes. In Judaeo-Arabic.

List of Qaraite Nasis.

Court notebook from the Qaraite court of Cairo that was based in the Dar Simḥa synagogue. Spanning the dates 1560–75 CE. 69 pages. Contains 190 documents in Judaeo-Arabic, 6 documents in Hebrew, and 1 document in Arabic script. Discussed in depth with two sample transcriptions by Haggai Ben-Shammai in "New Sources for the History of the Karaites in Sixteenth-Century Egypt (A Preliminary Description)" (Hebrew), Ginzei Qedem 2 (2006), pp.85–97.

Praises for God and a long list of names of God in Judaeo-Arabic.

Prayers and praises for God in Judaeo-Arabic.

The story of Esther in Judaeo-Arabic.