Geniza Lab

Calendar written by Ibn Yiju for the year September 1149-September 1150, which seems to indicate that, as before in India and later in Egypt, he planned to organize and lead a private service in Yemen.

Letter 3 of 4 of Letters Miscellany, a collection of letters representing both sides of the calendar controversy. Letter 3 responds to a letter from the Palestinian Head of the Academy. It responds, point by point, to what ‘the Head of the Academy has written’. The Letter is clearly Babylonian, and written sometime in the year 1233 SE, i.e. 921/2 CE. Letter 3 identifies strongly with Babylonia, and draws so heavily on local Babylonian traditions, including testimonies from older members of the academies. The mildness of the tone of this letter casts doubt on a dating as late as July 922 CE, when the controversy had soured and the relationship between Babylonians and Palestinians had completely broken down. Letter 3 is famed for its account of a meeting that allegedly took place, many years before the controversy, between Palestinians and Babylonians, at which the Babylonians learnt the secret of the calendar calculation (fol. 5r:21-5v12). The Letter goes on to defend the Babylonians’ calendar decision of 921 CE (fol.5v:15 – 6r11) and their use of the Four Gates (fol.6r:11-13). It refutes ben Meir’s application of the rule of 641-642 in 921 CE, on the basis of the earlier version of the rule which our Letter suggests is more authentic (fol.6r:13 – 6v:3). However, it then refutes even this earlier version, on the basis of the Four Gates (fol.6v:3 – 6v:12). The author claims to have checked and found that in past years, for example in 913/4 CE, the rule of 641-642 was never used by the Palestinians (fol.6v:12-21).

Letter 2 of 4 of Letters Miscellany, a collection of letters representing both sides of the calendar controversy. Letter 2, of which only one folio is preserved, is a pro-Babylonian response to a Palestinian polemic on the calendar of 921/2 and on the Four Gates. The folio begins with the end of the end of the refutation of the Palestinians’ second argument. The Palestinians were arguing that the Four Gates are incomplete because they only account for four days of the week (the days on which the New Year is allowed to fall). Our letter responds that the Four Gates actually covers the full week because every period of time ends where the next one begins (fol.4r:1-5). The third argument concerns the rule of 641-642 parts. Our author misinterprets the rule as applying equally to Nisan and to Tishri, which enables him to refute it easily (fol.4r:5-14). Interjected here is a misplaced element of text that actually belongs to before the beginning of our folio. After the end of the misplaced text, the text resumes with the third argument (fol.4v:19-21).

Partially preserved 11th century copy of second of three letters written by Saadya in the course of the 921-922 calendar controversy between Palestinians and Babylonians. There is an address in Arabic script. The letters are addressed to Saadya’s disciples Shelomo, Ezra and ʿEli in Fustat and recount the events of the Palestinian calendar declaration by Ben Meir and the Babylonian’s reaction to it. Saadya urges his addressees to uphold the dates of the Babylonians, and ensure that Jews do not eat leaven on Passover and desecrate the Day of Atonement. (Information from Rustow, Stern, The Jewish Calendar Controversy of 921-22, in Stern, S and Burnett, C, (eds.) Time, Astronomy, and Calendars in the Jewish Tradition. (pp. 79-95). Brill: Leiden, 2013. See also Gil, Kingdom, Vol. 2, p. 17 and Goitein notes linked below, and the Penn Catalog.)

Partially preserved 11th century copy of one of three letters written by Saadya in the course of the 921-922 calendar controversy between Palestinians and Babylonians. There is an address in Arabic script. The letters are addressed to Saadya’s disciples Shelomo, Ezra and ʿEli in Fustat and recount the events of the Palestinian calendar declaration by Ben Meir and the Babylonian’s reaction to it. Saadya urges his addressees to uphold the dates of the Babylonians, and ensure that Jews do not eat leaven on Passover and desecrate the Day of Atonement. (Information from Rustow, Stern, The Jewish Calendar Controversy of 921-22, in Stern, S and Burnett, C, (eds.) Time, Astronomy, and Calendars in the Jewish Tradition. (pp. 79-95). Brill: Leiden, 2013. See also Gil, Kingdom, Vol. 2, p. 17 and Goitein notes linked below, and the Penn Catalog.)

Letter from the head of the Gola concerning the calendar. Describes his opinion about the need to shorten two months (to 29 days) and explains that the head of the Gola and the heads of the Yeshiva are going after the Gaon of Palestine and his decision in this matter. (Information from Gil, Kingdom. Vol. 2, #3) VMR

This manuscript is the earliest copy we have of the Book of the Calendar Controversy. About the disagreement between Jewish leaders of Palestine and Babylonia on how to calculate the calendar year in 921/2. This led the Jews of the entire Near East to celebrate Passover and the other festivals on different dates over the course of two years.

This manuscript, T-S Ar. 29.190 fol. 9, contains the first part of Palestinian Calendar Manual 1, of which the other text witness is T-S Ar. 29.129. Provides minimal information on the calendar, perhaps intended as a aid for those who were already knowledgable about calendar calculations. It consists of a discontinuous bi-folio, each side written in a different hand. Our text, on the recto right side only, marks a new beginning, following a blank page on its verso. The manuscript is tidy and well produced.

Letter in Arabic script. Fragment (bottom only). Mentions Abū l-ʿAlāʾ b. Abū Naṣr al-Isrāʾīlī al-Tājir (the trader) and Abū l-Riḍā b. Abū l-Faraj al-Isrāʾīlī. Needs further examination. On verso there are calendrical calculations in Judaeo-Arabic for the 19th year of maḥzor 260 (= 4940 AM = 1179/80 CE).

This manuscript, T-S Ar 29.129, contains the first part of Palestinian Calendar Manual 1. It provides as much information as is needed for an individual to calculate and construct the calendar of any year. This manual is attested in two manuscripts, T-S Ar 29.129 (here) and T-S Ar. 29.190 fol. 9. The scribes took the liberty to word it the two manuscripts in their own ways, possibly because the calendar data needed to be updated to the scribe’s own year. It is part of a set of Jewish calendar manuals dating from the eleventh and early twelfth centuries that display a number of Palestinian calendrical features, and in particular, the rule of 641–642 with led ben Meir to his controversy with the Babylonians in 921/2. These manuals demonstrate that the controversy of 921/2 did not end in a Babylonian victory; the Palestinians, or those who affiliated with this tradition, upheld and used the calendar of ben Meir for almost two centuries after the controversy.

Recto: Arabic document, perhaps a letter. Needs further examination. Verso: Lists of the Islamic months and Coptic months, and prognostications for the coming year based on the Hebrew calendar.

Calendrical text. Dated: 1241 Sel. (929–30 CE). This copy: late 10th/11th c. Part of a longer calendrical work; the passage preserved on this fragment sets out to correct the Christian calendar dates of Lent and Easter for 1241–44 Sel. The 19-year Alexandrian Easter cycle, instituted in the 4th century, synchronizes the lunar months with the Coptic solar years; but the discrepancies from astronomical reality became progressively more pronounced over the centuries (hence the Gregorian reform in the 16th c). The use of the Coptic months in this text locates the author beyond a doubt in Egypt. It is one of the earliest Jewish texts that discusses the Easter computation. Such Jewish texts are attested in the Latin West from the twelfth century onward, and somewhat more common from the 14th-15th c on, but this is early even for the Islamicate Jewish material. It may also be the earliest known attestation of the Seleucid era that can be firmly traced to Egypt. There are earlier instances of the Seleucid calendar from the geniza, but they originated outside Egypt; see Halper 331, dated 1182 Sel. (870/71 CE). The next earliest attestation of the Seleucid era in the geniza is dated to the 1260s Sel. (950s CE). This is a paper bifolio, one of the outer pages of a quire; the texts on the other side are unrelated. (Information from Stern and Vidro, "Tenth-Century Jewish Correction") The date of this text may be significant for another reason: it's possible that Jews were more aware of the functioning of calendar cycles and/or discrepancies between calendars in the wake of the Great Calendar Controversy of 921/22. (MR)

Calendar in Hebrew and Judaeo-Arabic.

Calendrical notes in Hebrew, a commercial note in Arabic mentioning 5 dinars, and various jottings, possibly accounts. (Information from CUDL)

Recipe for a certain kind of wine ("al-nabīdh al-mudabbir"). On verso there are calendrical calculations mentioning Tishrei 1423 Seleucid, which is 1111 CE.

Calendar for the year 53[..] AM, which means no earlier than 1540 CE.

Calendrical. Mentions the names of months and days, a leap year and cycles. CUDL

List of numerals, probably in relation to the calendar. (Information from CUDL)

Recto: abbreviations, followed by a note defining a (lunar) year: 354 days, 8 hours, 815 minutes. Verso: Arabic legal document referring to witnesses. (Information from CUDL)

Probably calendrical calculations. AA