Geniza Lab

Letter addressed to ʿAbd al-Karīm. In Judaeo-Arabic. Dating: Late, probably 14th century at the earliest. The writer and addressee are Qaraites. Very long. Conveys information about conflicts and disputes and the lashing of women by a court. Altogether a detailed report of communal affairs. Recto. The writer reports on the charge against a certain woman that she went to see an astrologer (munajjim), and that the addressee's mother went as well and protected the other woman. The ḥakīm himself gave the woman 20 strokes with a cane. The writer is very agitated about this and urges secrecy ("these are matters that should only be spoken in the grave"). The next couple dozen lines are damaged and difficult to read. Some time later, Naṣrallāh b. ʿAbd al-Raḥīm b. the addressee's paternal uncle אבן אלנשו was going up the stairs when Ṣadaqa b. Ibrāhīm al-Ṣaghīr accosted him. It seems that Ṣadaqa upset Naṣrallāh, who went crying to his mother, who spoke angrily without realizing that the guards (shomrim) were listening, and word of what she said reached Ṣadaqa, who confronted the mother of Naṣrallāh and called her a fājirat kalb (!) who goes around seducing (tatabahraju) other men's husbands. The next couple lines are difficult to read; they mention "al-khāziniyyīn" and the addressee's parents. Subsequently, all the protagonists gathered in Dār Ben Sameaḥ (=Dār Simḥa, the main Karaite synagogue in Cairo from roughly the 14th century onward—see tag) on Saturday night for the reading of the Torah (al-talāwa). Ṣadaqa got up to read the Torah. The addressee's cousin ʿAbd al-Raḥīm (the father of Naṣrallāh and the husband of the woman whom Ṣadaqa had insulted) got up together with ʿAbd al-Raḥīm al-Shurayṭī, and they vehemently objected that a person who curses elders could ever read the Torah in the synagogue. Ṣadaqa then verbally abused them ("half of your prayers are heresy, you ass. . . .") and did the same to the others who confronted him (al-Melammed, al-Ḥakīm, his father and maternal uncle). The brawl continued until "the cameldriver was in the riverbed" (al-ḥādī fī l-wādī) and the community missed the chance to read the Torah. Eventually Ṣadaqa and Naṣrallāh's mother were summoned to continue their argument in the house of al-Muʿallim Sharaf al-Dīn, where Ṣadaqa was convicted of making oaths in vain and cursing elders/ancestors, and he therefore lost his right to pray before the congregation or read the Torah (yaṭlub sefer). The marginal note belongs here ("Why did you curse the khāziniyyīn?" "I only cursed them because of ʿAbd al-Raḥīm. . . "). It seems that a group (Ṣadaqa's gang?) was then overheard threatening to beat the muʿallim. The story winds down around here; the writer repeats that these matters are only to be discussed in the grave. Verso. The writer asks the addressee not to show this letter to Ibn al-Melammed, and also to take it with him to Cairo. The writer excuses the addressee for his failure to write, but, "When you went up to Jerusalem, you had no excuse left" or, "When you go up to Jerusalem, you will have no excuse left." He then gives detailed reports on the sightings of the new moons of Elul and Av. He mentions in passing "Yūsuf b. ʿAlam [who] was traveling through the lands collecting the jāmikiyya." Unpublished, uncited in the literature, and requiring much more work. ASE.

Letter from a man in Egypt to his brother or brother-in-law, an India trader in Aden. In Judaeo-Arabic. Frenkel identifies the writer's location as Alexandria, the addressee as Ismāʿīl al-Fāṣid, and the date as 1176 CE, but does not seem to explain her reasoning. The letter recounts an interesting family saga. The addressee's maternal uncle passed away while traveling with the addressee to India. The addressee took care of him before his death. The family has taken great pains to conceal the news of the uncle's death until they receive a detailed account of his will. This long letter repeatedly describes everyone's anxiety waiting for news of the addressee's health and the will. His mother, when she heard of the death of her brother and the news of the addressee's difficulties at sea, fell sick and fasted until news came of the addressee's health. His father stays up all night praying for him. "If you knew how much reward (in Heaven) you receive from every letter you write us, you would do nothing but write us letters." The family congratulates the addressee on his purchase of a male slave (ghulām). Finally, the reason for the anxiety about the will comes to light at the end. The uncle knew or thought that his wife was pregnant when he departed, however, they counted 9 months, and there was no baby. They counted another 9 months, and she had a baby boy. The family evidently wishes to ensure that none of the uncle's inheritance ends up with his wife or son. Even the Muslims say, "We have never heard anything like what this Jewish woman has done. She deserves nothing but hellfire." The widow was able to round up some allies from among the Byzantine Jews, and they managed to gather 10 Jews for the circumcision, but with no cantor or judge present. In the midst of sending everyone's regards in the margin of verso, the writer reports sarcastically that the newborn infant also sends his. Information in part from Frenkel and from Goitein's attached notes. ASE.

Legal query with the autograph responsum of Yehuda ha-Kohen Rosh ha-Seder b. Yosef (aka "the Rav"). Yehuda b. Yosef was a student of Rabbenu Nissim b. Yaʿaqov of Qayrawān. He appears in the letters of the Maghribī merchants of the second half of the 11th century simply with the name "the Rav." This query concerns an orphan girl whose mother married her off while she was still a minor. Some time after the wedding, she stated that she had committed adultery. The man initially denied this claim but confessed upon examination by the court. The querier wishes to know if the wife is permitted to her husband. The responsum begins: "There are two sides to this ruling." The Rav ultimately rules that she is permitted to her husband. On verso, in Arabic script, "hādhihi ʿindī bi-khaṭṭihi raḥimahu Allāh" ("I have this in his handwriting, may God have mercy on him"). Information from Amir Ashur via FGP and from Friedman, "A Responsum by 'The Rav.'"

Recto: Letter in Hebrew. Dating: early 13th century, based on the mention of the Judge Anaṭoli in the penultimate line. The sender is apparently a Byzantine Jewish man. He married either a Christian woman or a Jewish woman who converted to Christianity (along with him? והלכ[ה] אחרי אלי נכר). Then he tried to persuade her to return to Judaism. She said, How can I leave here (Byzantium) and eat and live? He arranges to support her with four pounds (ליטרין) of bread and one pound (רטל) of meat each week. With this, she was supposed "to sit and to make Rūmī garments" (on such garments see Goitein, Med Soc IV, 191–92). The letter becomes more fragmentary around here; mentions a Jewish woman; a Christian man; someone quarreling a lot with the sender (probably his wife); Muslims; giving some people a bribe; and perhaps accusing a man of sleeping with his wife (וחטאת עמה). Then he went to the Judge Anaṭoli and confessed. (Information in part from Goitein's index card, Goitein, Med Soc IV, 236, note 82, and de Lange, Byzantium in the Cairo Genizah, 40.) This document has also been edited by Ze'ev Falk in Sinai 85 (1979), 147–48.

Letter probably from a woman, in Alexandria, to [...] b. Avraham, in Fustat. In Judaeo-Arabic. (The clue for the gender of the writer is the verb ending with "-ī" in line 28 of recto where she is quoting the addressee's words.) The sender may be the mother-in-law of the addressee's daughter, as the daughter is under her charge, and the addressee has been accusing her of oppressing his daughter. The addressee's sister also lives with or near the sender. Either the sister or the daughter has a son named ʿAyyāsh. This letter is a detailed report on the scandalous behavior of one of the women with a young male neighbor for the last year and the writer's efforts to intervene. At one point, the woman and the man vowed not to see each other for 10 days, but the sender nevertheless found them talking to each other at all hours of the night. At this point, ʿAyyāsh and his mother vowed not to speak to the woman in question any more, which led to a period of peace and quiet. But clearly matters are still tense, as the sender felt the need to send this strongly-worded letter exonerating herself of all misdoings. She urges the addressee to "act with her this time the same way as last time." ASE

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.

Court notebook, probably. Bifolium. Entries in Judaeo-Arabic. Probably pertaining to the Qaraite court that convened in the Dar Simḥa synagogue (here called Dār Ibn Sameaḥ). Dated: Tishrei through Kislev 1751 Seleucid, which corresponds to the last months of 1439 CE. Includes entries on divorces, marriages, deaths. Also an curious entry documenting that there were rumors about the daughter of ʿAbd al-Laṭīf b. Bashīr(?), somehow connected to the bathhouse of Ibn al-Ashqar, and indeed the rumors were proven true by her pregnancy. "They did to him what was necessary upon the טפטיס (? = taftīsh?). Then, when the קצין told her "go to your father," she said, "No! I don't want to [go to] the religion of the Muslims." The entry is cryptic and these readings are tentative. Another entry mentions the ḥakīm ʿAbd al-Karīm, the head of the court (Av Beit Din). Needs further examination.