Geniza Lab

Collection of letters relating to the calendar controversy of 921–22. This is part of what Sacha Stern (2020) calls the Letters Miscellany: Letter 4 of 4. Bornstein (1904) called this letter ‘Ben Meir’s Second Letter’. This letter was likely written by the highest authority in Palestine, ben Meir, the Head of the Yeshiva, and likely addressed to the Iraqi/Babylonian leadership. The identity of the author emerges most clearly in his reference to his disciples’ announcement, on the Mount of Olives, of the dates of 921/2 CE (fol.7v:12), as well as from parallels with Ben Meir’s First Letter. Dating: the letter was written after Passover 922 CE, but before the New Year of that year. This date is based on the fact that the author refers to the celebration of Passover 922 as a past event (fol.7r:2) and warns his addressee not to repeat the error of Passover, but also warns his addressee to observe the New Year on the correct date (fol.8r:9-10). In the folios that survive, the author responds point by point to a letter that had been sent to him by his addressee. At this advanced stage in the dispute, the tone of the correspondence had deteriorated considerably. In several places in this letter, the author suggests somewhat perversely that the Iraqis have gone over to the Ananites, who should have been (and were once) their common enemy (fol.7r:17-18, 8v:7); and he comes close to suggesting a permanent schism between Palestinians and Iraqis (fol.8r:2-3, 8v:8; Stern notes that the meaning of these passages, however, needs a more nuanced evaluation). As in ben Meir’s First Letter, the author still lays most of the blame on Saadya (fol.7r:6-8, 8r:14-16, 8v:17-18), as if to give the Iraqis a way out of their entrenched position. (Information from Sacha Stern, The Jewish Calendar Controversy)

Letter in Hebrew narrating the trouble caused by Ben Meir including quoting at length a letter sent by the elders. Entered in Geniza collection as an independent manuscript (in 2017, citing Alder) and as the second folio of the most extensive text witness of the Book of the Calendar Controversy (in 2021, citing Stern).

Manuscript 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. Four folios of this text are extant, ENA 2555.1, T-S 10K3 (one side only), T-S NS 175.57 (one side only), and ENA 2556.1. Stern concludes that these folios are discontinuous elements of the same manuscript and supposes their sequence from textual parallels in other manuscripts of the Book of the Calendar Controversy. Scribe changes throughout the manuscript appear random and change the style of script (round, square, compact, etc.). The evident involvement of several scribes in the production of this single manuscript suggests a commercial enterprise in which a team of scribes was employed to produce books, and where the books being copied were passed around the team at the convenience of the scribes’ individual work schedules. Its hasty, somewhat sloppy production by a team of scribes suggests that it was intended as a cheap, ‘budget’ copy, for circulation among a broader, private readership. (See Stern pp. 166-170 for discussion regarding the scribal hands.)

Geonic responsum about the calendar controversy of Ben Meir, dated 994–95 CE. It is attributed to Hayye Gaon. Preserved here is the second of two versions of this responsum, referring to the era of Creation, the epoch of the molad and tequfah, and the 19-year cycle. The first version is preserved in a secondary source, Abraham bar Ḥayya’s monograph on the Jewish calendar known as Sefer ha-'Ibbur (3:7), first published by Herschell Filipowski in 1851. Although these two versions share much in common, there are significant textual variations between them, and extensive passages that are unique to only one or the other version. Thus, this passage refers to the controversy of Ben Meir and is preserved only in the Cairo Geniza version. (Information from Sacha Stern, The Jewish Calendar Controversy)

Letter 1 of 4 of Letters Miscellany, a collection of letters representing both sides of the calendar controversy. Letters 1 and 2 are pro-Babylonian. Both respond to a polemic on the calendar by the Palestinian Head of Academy (or one of his disciples), and both refute systematically each of his polemical argument. Addressee suspected, with his disciples, to be an ally of Palestinian camp. Author claims not to suspect him, but calls on him nevertheless to denounce this rumour publicly, and to join in the campaign against the Palestinians (fol.3r:18-3v:19). The addressee appears to be a Palestinian resident, as the author of our letter claims that the majority of Israel are on the Babylonian side, whereas ben Meir’s followers are localised and only ‘in a few places that are around you’ (fol.3v:7-8). Author writes from a position of authority, and appears to know recipient personally. Polemic responding to a text that was written by ben Meir or his disciple. One line (fol.3v:6-7) suggests that our letter may have been written between Passover and the New Year of 922 CE. T-S 10J32.1 is almost completely preserved in a single piece, and contains uniquely the entire text of the folio, although its bottom margin is torn off and lost; its measurements are thus informative, even if the folio’s full dimensions (its bottom margin, and its total height) remain unknown.

Latest, most formal, and most perfected, copy 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.

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 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.)

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.)

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.

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.

This text is preserved in one very fragmentary folio, T-S AS 160.96. What survives indicates that it is about the midday calendar limit, whereby the New Year is postponed if the molad of Tishri occurs after midday. Babylonians and Palestinians are not explicitly mentioned, but the text contrasts the Babylonian limit of midday with the Palestinian limit of midday and 641 parts. An original feature of this text is the distinction it makes between an ‘astronomical’ month, which begins on the astronomical conjunction (presumably, the true conjunction), and a ‘numerical’ month (lines 9-10, 15-16). The latter probably means that its dates are calculated, and refers to the (Rabbanite) calendar month.The text is too fragmentary to be understood with certainty.

The text is responding, in the fragment extant, to two arguments that were made by ben Meir against the Babylonians at the time of the calendar controversy: that the Four Gates, a Babylonian algorithm, are inadequate because they do not cover all the days of the week, and that festivals should not be excessively postponed, as the Babylonians did in the years of the contro versy. It also rejects the Palestinian addition of 641 parts to the midday calendar limits.

Two folios of this 12-folio manuscript 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, through two years, on different dates. The controversy was major, but it became forgotten until its late 19th-century rediscovery in the Cairo Genizah. The two folios found are T-S NS 194.92, the second, and T-S 8K4, the fifth. Stern supposes that the manuscript is twelve parts and that extant here are the second and fifth parts because of comparison to parallel manuscripts.

New discovery of a copy 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. Fragmentary and partially reconstruction by other text witness of the book. See Stern for detailed overview of reconstruction.

This recently discovered document presents a detailed account of the calendar controversy from the perspective of a Qaraite. It is also the only source confirming that the controversy continued until the beginning of 924, when Palestinian and Babylonian calendars converged back to the same dates, without however either side emerging victorious over the other.

A brief narrative of the calendar controversy of 921/2 appears within a treatise or manual in Judaeo-Arabic on the Jewish calendar, which was composed and written only a few decades after the controversy. The author is unknown, but appears to be an outsider and might even have been non-Jewish. One bi-folio of this manual has been preserved, T-S NS 98.47. The purpose of this manual is to provide essential guidance on how the rabbinic calendar is constructed. The calendrical data in the manual relate to ‘cycle 249’, a 19-year period beginning in 954/5CE.