Geniza Lab

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 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.

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.

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.

Bill of divorce (get). Location: Cairo. Dated: Tevet 1744 Seleucid, which is 1432/33 CE. Husband: Shemuel b. [...] b. Shemuel. Wife: Sarah bt. [...]. The blanks in the date were never filled in, and there are no signatures, so this document was never actually used.

Court notebook, probably Qaraite. Many pages. In Judaeo-Arabic. Dating: 1570s CE, based on the dates in individual entries. Needs examination.

Legal testimony. In Judaeo-Arabic. Dated Tuesday, 25 Tammuz 1693 Seleucid = פֿדֿןֿ Hijri (this is confusing notation: perhaps 584 + an implied 200?). In any case, this corresponds to 1382 CE. Witnesses: Avraham b. Moshe b. Shemuel Ibn al-Kāzarūnī and David b. Yehoshuaʿ. The document has to do with Sitt al-[...] bt. Saʿīd b. Faraj Allāh who received from ʿAbdallāh b. [...] b. Khaṭīr Ibn al-Khāzin the 2200 dirhams nuqra that she had been willed by the deceased, ʿAbd al-Qādir b. ʿAbd al-Kāfī b. Khaṭīr Ibn al-Khāzin. The aforementioned ʿAbdallāh was the executor of the will.

Legal document. In Judaeo-Arabic. Dated Monday 2 Adar 5497 AM, which is 1737 CE. ʿEzra b. Eliyyahu Rofe Fayrūz acknowledges a debt of 31(?) golden fonduclis from Yosef Levi b. Naḥum Levi (or the grandson of Naḥum Levi?). This took place in the house of Moshe ha-Rofe b. Aharon Ẓaʿīr. There are no signatures and there are several corrections; probably a draft.

Qaraite marriage document (ketubba?). Attesting that the bride (Qamr bt. Moshe Levi b. Shelomo Levi Qayyim) and the groom agreed upon the conditions. ʿEzra b. Eliyyahu Rofe Fayrūz appears (the groom?), also known from Yevr.-Arab. II 1183.

Legal document, Qaraite. Conditional divorce. In Judaeo-Arabic. Dated Sivan 5503 AM, which is 1743 CE. It is a detailed record of how David b. Reuven Nāqish wished to travel to Istanbul for business, and how he agrees that if he is absent for longer than 2 years, his wife Masʿūda bt. Avraham Fayrūz may receive a bill of divorce from the court. There appears to be only one witness, a certain Yaʿaqov. Merits further examination. Cf. Yevr.-Arab. II 1573 (another conditional divorce).

Legal document (deed of sale). In Judaeo-Arabic. Location: Fustat/Cairo. Venue: The house of Shelomo b. Aharon Kohen Khāzinī. Dated: Thursday, 19 Heshvan 5527 AM, which is 1766 CE. The three sisters Marḥaba (the wife of Avraham Jazzār), Astrika(?) (the wife of Moshe Levi), and Qamr (the wife of Yūsuf Naqqāsh), the daughters of Naḥum b. Aharon Kohen Ḥāṭūs(?) attest that they have sold their share in a house to Shemuel b. Yisra'el Ḥakīm for 215 "Abū Mushṭ" diwani reals (=Spanish reals). Scribed and signed by Shelomo b. Moshe Rofe known as Ẓaʿir. Additional witness signatures: Shelomo b. Aharon Kohen Khāzinī Shāmī; [???] b. Yeshuʿa Fayrūz. Also present: ʿOvadya Ẓaʿir; Nissim Gabbay (?גבי); and Elishaʿ b. Yeshuʿa.

Recto: Responsum in the name of Shelomo Kohen b. Aharon Kohen Kanzī(?) Dimashqī. Dating: After 1490 CE. It has to do with a man who vowed in anger that he would divorce his wife. The ruling is that this vow, taken when he was not in full possession of his faculties, is null in comparison to the vow he took when he married her, when he was both in possession of his faculties and fulfilling a mitzvah. Numerous proofs are cited as well as the authority of Yehuda Hadassi (12th c) in Sefer ha-Peles (= Eshkol ha-Kofer), Aharon b. Eliyyahu (d. 1369) the author of Etz Ḥayyim, Eliyyahu Bashyaẓi ZL (d. 1490), and finally the great sage Shemuel ha-Rofe ha-Maʿaravi (active 15th century) in chapter five of his Book of Commandments. Shelomo Kohen writes an addendum in his own hand with his own signature, confirming everything above (that was written in his name but not by him). There are two further addenda.

Legal document. In Judaeo-Arabic. Dated: 8 Elul 5588 AM = 1243 AH, which is 1828 CE. Involves Nissim ha-Levi b. Yequtiel and Menashshe b. Yūsuf b. Yehuda and a partnership in a shop.

Deed of lease. Location: Cairo. Dated: Monday, 27 Tammuz 1613 Seleucid = Shawwāl 701 AH, which is June 1302 CE. The elders of the Qaraite Jews of Cairo lease the right of way (sulūka) through a doorway of the street of the synagogue (darb al-kanīs), "may it soon be reopened" (in Hebrew in an otherwise Judaeo-Arabic text), to al-Ṣafiyy Abū l-Maḥāsin b. al-Asʿad Abū l-Ḥasan, for 6 dirhems per year. During the persecutions of 1301–02, the houses of worship of Christians and Jews were closed by the Muslim authorities for about a year until the Byzantine emperor and other Christian monarches obtained their (partial) reopening (see Strauss, Mamluks, I, 86–87). Information from Goitein, Med Soc II, p. 435 (Appendix A, #173). ASE.