The 
 
 Karaite Literary Opponents 
 of Saadiah Gaon 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 ANNEX 
 
 BY 
 
 V, 
 
 SAMUEL POZNANSKI, Ph.D. 
 
 LONDON 
 
 LUZAC & CO. 
 
 46 GREAT RUSSELL STREET 
 
 1908 
 
-75? 
 ,SLH 
 
 : p(o z 
 
 SK l^H: 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/cletails/cu31924075688303 
 
e„™^,«if5ffl^a 
 
 , |IPfi»T8^^ 303. 
 
 The L34f- 
 
 Karaite Literary Opponents 
 of Saadiah Gaon 
 
 BY 
 
 SAMUEL POZNANSKI, Ph.D. 
 
 LONDON 
 
 LUZAC & CO. 
 
 46 GREAT RUSSELL STREET 
 
 1908 
 
Reprinted from the Jewish Quarterly Beview, Vols. XVIII-XX 
 
 OZFOKD : HORACE HART 
 PRINTER TO THE VNITERSITY 
 
 ^ 
 
 C^'^ 
 
DEDICATED 
 TO MY BELOVED BROTHER 
 
 ADOLPH 
 
 THE AUTHOR OF "SCHILOH" 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 I. 
 
 2. 
 
 3- 
 4- 
 5- 
 6. 
 
 7- 
 
 Pkbfatort Resiaeks .... 
 
 Tenth Cbntubt 
 
 Ben Zuta (or Zita) 
 
 Ibn Saqaweihi (or Saquje) . 
 
 'Abu Jusuf Ja'qub al-Qirqisani . 
 
 Menahem b. Michael b. Joseph 
 
 Salmon b. Jeroham 
 
 Hasan (or Husein) ben Mashiah . 
 
 'Abu 'Anan Isaac b. 'Ali b. Isaac? . 
 
 8. Abu-1-Tajjib al-Jebeli . 
 
 9. 'Ali b. Hasan (or Husein) 
 
 10. David b. Abraham al-Fasi 
 
 11. Abu Sa'id(?) David b. Boaz . 
 
 12. Jefet b. 'Ali ha-Levi . 
 
 13. Sahl b. Masliah ha-Kohen (Abu-'l-Surri) 
 
 14. An anonymous Karaite author 
 
 Eleventh Centuey .... 
 
 15. Levi b. Jefet ha-Levi . 
 
 16. Joseph b. Abraham ha-Kohen 
 
 17. Jeshua b. Jehuda 
 
 18. Sahl b. FadI al-Tustari 
 
 19. 'A Karaite polemic treatise against Saadiah 
 
 20. An old Karaite Law-book . 
 
 2 1 . Questions of calendar-science 
 
 PAGE 
 
 I- 
 
 4 
 4 
 4 
 8 
 1 1 
 12 
 
 15 
 16 
 16 
 17 
 17 
 18 
 20 
 30 
 41 
 
 42 
 42 
 46 
 48 
 S3 
 55 
 56 
 56 
 
VI 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 2 2. An Arabic Commentary on Genesis . . -57 
 
 23. A Commentary on passages from Leviticus . . 58 
 
 24. An old Karaite Book of Precepts .... 58 
 
 25. A work on the differences and agreements, &c. . 59 
 
 26. Israel b. Daniel ....... 60 
 
 27. Tobias b. Moses 61 
 
 28. A Karaite compilation on Exodus and Leviticus . 65 
 
 Twelfth Centuet . , 
 
 29. Jacob b. Beuben ..... 
 
 30. An Arabic Commentary on Exodus 
 
 31. Jehuda b. Elias Hadassi 
 
 32. Elias b. Abraham .... 
 
 Thirteenth Centuet . . , - . 
 
 33. Jacob b. Moses Tamani 
 
 34. Jefet, called Ibn abi-1- Hasan al-£arqamdni 
 
 35. Natan b. Jehuda 
 
 36. Aaron b. Joseph 
 
 FOUETEENTJH CeNTUET 
 
 37. Israel [b. Samuel?] ha-Dajjan . '. 
 
 38. An Arabic Commentary on Deuteronomy 
 
 39. Aaron b. Elias 
 
 Fifteenth Centuet 
 
 40. Samuel b. Moses al-Magribi 
 
 41. David b. Saad'el ibn al-Hiti 
 
 42. Elias b. Moses Bashiatchi . 
 
 43. Kaleb b. Elias Afendopolo 
 
 Sixteenth Centuet 
 
 44. Moses lb. Elias Eashiatchi 
 
 66 
 66 
 
 68 
 68 
 
 72 
 
 74 
 U 
 75 
 75 
 76 
 
 78 
 78 
 78 
 79 
 
 81 
 81 
 82 
 82 
 83 
 
 84 
 84 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 vu 
 
 Seventeenth Centubt . 
 
 45. Elias b. Baruoh Jerushalmi 
 
 46. Mordecai b. Nisan 
 
 Eighteenth Centtiet 
 
 47. Abraham b. Josiah Jerushalmi 
 
 Nineteenth Century 
 
 48. Joseph Solomon Lutzki b. Moses 
 
 49. Abraham b. Samuel Firkowitsch 
 
 Addenda and Cobbigenda to my Essay on " The Anti- 
 Kabaite Wbitings of Saadiah Gaon " \J. Q. R., 
 X, 238-76) 
 
 page 
 86 
 
 86 
 87 
 
 88 
 88 
 
 90 
 90 
 90 
 
 94 
 
 Additions and Coeeections 102 
 
THE 
 
 KARAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS 
 OF SAADIAH GAON 
 
 The literary campaign that Saadiah, first among the 
 Rabbanites, started against the Karaites, and whose external 
 history I have on a former occasion attempted to trace ^, 
 found the foe ready to join battle. There arose a complete 
 array of Karaite scholars, who, either in special writings, 
 or incidentally in the course of their works, repelled the 
 attacks of Saadiah with enei'gy. But they were not 
 content to remain on the defensive. They speedily 
 assumed an ofiensive attitude, and endeavoured, with 
 varying degrees of success, to overthrow the arguments 
 and proofs advanced by Saadiah in support of the Oral 
 Law. A disagreeable element in the campaign is the 
 personal abuse into which the controversy often degene- 
 rated : objective treatises are marred by regrettable 
 recrimination. It must, however, be admitted that in this 
 respect both parties sinned, although perhaps the Karaites 
 sinned the more deeply. 
 
 The controversy initiated by Saadiah's activity did not 
 cease with his death. It was not confined to the Gaon 
 alone, but drew within its range the whole of Rabbinism. 
 Henceforth polemics form a principal feature of Karaite 
 
 • J. Q. B., X, 338-76. For Addenda and Corrigenda to that eaaay see 
 end of the present dissertation (pp. 94-101}, 
 
 B 
 
2 THE KARAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS OF 
 
 literature : they inspire Karaism with fresh life, and 
 stimulate the development of its literature in a very great 
 measure. In truth, the polemical element existed in the 
 very nature of Karaism. The latter was a product of 
 opposition and revolt against the principles of Rabbinism, 
 and hence its progress depended upon strife. Personal 
 attacks were not unknown even in its very early days, for 
 'An§,n is said to have prescribed the reading on every New 
 Moon of Psalm Ixxiv, because, in his opinion, there was an 
 allusion, especially in verses 4 and 8, against the Rabban- 
 ites ^. Still, polemics play a very small part in the oldest 
 writings of the Karaites, which, by the way, are still 
 accessible only to a very small extent. It was not till the 
 advent of Saadiah that their polemics assumed a tone of 
 bitterness and occupied the most prominent place in their 
 literary activity, and in the centre of the controversial 
 medley was the figure of the Gaon. I now propose giving 
 a bibliographical survey of this literature down to modern 
 times. In the first place, it must be observed that the 
 practice of the Karaites to repeat one another consciously, 
 and often to copy one another verbally, is pursued to a still 
 greater degree in their polemical treatises. The controversy 
 carried on against the Eabbanites in general and against 
 Saadiah in particular was for them a necessary of life, upon 
 which they continuously drew as their main resource. 
 Hence, even at a time when aU spiritual life in their midst 
 had been stifled, they still roused themselves, and brought 
 forth their rusty weapons to attack the execrated Fayyumite. 
 A brief survey of the earliest Karaite controversy directed 
 against Saadiah is given by Sahl b. Masliah in his polemical 
 work nijUD nnain ^. We there read : ana ")»•« Dnaoni . . , 
 
 ' Another statement of 'Anan, reported by Moses Taku, most probably 
 belongs to the realm of legend. 'AnSrn is said to have wished that he 
 could contain within himself all the learned Rabbis, so that by a single 
 stroke of the sword he might be able to slay them all with himself. See 
 B. i. J., XLV, aoi-a, 
 
 ' Commimicated by Steinschneider, Catal. lAigd., p. 403, and Pinsker, 
 nv:imp 'Oip^, p. 37. The variants are unimportant. 
 
SAADIAH GAON 3 
 
 bsi3 DHD nnxi xipD 'J3 hv n' nnno vna ciN''Sin nJ* (n^nyo b"-{) 
 
 *33 T3 insD i!5SJ iniD nnNi noki ii>iyD Nt^N nna ntJ'N bv ^^'^pn 
 nnDD»3 d-nuj nnaia nnwn jn^iiy u''ty''i mp»i Dipo b^i Knpo 
 'by pi "'i'ajbs yii3n a''iQi'N nx ne'yE' id3 na-in Dnaoa D^yina 
 nsni'N |Dn '<bv nxi o'-nn p ynwn omT pi nVD p pi pon p 
 '1DI Dno nnto manb naiari Tiaro 'jn dji orhv) " The writings 
 that Saadiah composed against the Karaites did not leave 
 his possession throughout his life. But one work fell into 
 the hands of Ben Mashiah, and he replied to it during 
 Saadiah's lifetime. Similarly Salmon b. Jeroham wrote 
 against him in Hebrew and refuted his statement, beginning 
 with the words n»S1 "b^a NB'N *. But not until the death 
 of Saadiah did his writings fall into the hands of the 
 Karaites in various places, and give rise to a multitude of 
 convincing arguments in a number of works. Among the 
 authors of the latter were Abu-1-Tajjib, known as al-Jebeli, 
 'Ali b. Hasan, Ben Mashiah, Ben Jeroham, known as Ibn 
 Kuheim, Abu 'Ali Hasan al-Basri, and others. I also have 
 written a reply against his contentions," &c. 
 
 But this list is not complete. We miss, for example, of 
 Saadiah's contemporaries, so important a wx-iter as Qir- 
 qis^ni ; and even granting that Sahl mentions only those 
 who composed special polemical treatises against the Gaon, 
 we still miss Isaac b. 'Ali, &c. But what sense is there in 
 the assertion that Saadiah throughout his life did not 
 publish his polemical writings against the Karaites 1 He 
 did not compose them for purely literary purposes, but 
 wished by their means to counteract the increasing propa- 
 ganda of the Karaites. Hence, had he suppressed his 
 writings his intention would have been quite frustrated. 
 The statements of Sahl are therefore to be treated with 
 
 • A cliapter of Salmon's controversial work actually begins with the 
 words (Pinsker, p. 18) : iDwn Jo max no3m . . . mno 'nn nn»D rm« 
 'i3i minsi 'b»o N»«. Perhaps we should read here also : 'biDia N\D« in i»M Ss 
 minm. 
 
 B 2 
 
4 THE KARAITE, LITERARY OPPONENTS OP 
 
 caution. His order, too, I would rather not follow, but 
 propose to give in chronological sequence all the Karaite 
 literary opponents of Saadiah known to me, including also 
 those who only indulged in occasional controversy against 
 him. In any case, this sequence cannot be quite exact, 
 inasmuch as there are no data respecting the lives of many 
 Karaite authors, or the data extant are much confused and 
 mutually contradictory, or, finally, they are fabricated 
 intentionally. In order to make this survey clear, therefore, 
 I shall enumerate these authors according to the centuries 
 in which they lived. 
 
 Tenth Centcrt. 
 
 1. Ben Zuta {or Zita), This otherwise little known 
 Karaite, whose full name was Abu-l-Surri * b. Z., probably 
 lived in Egypt, and disputed with Saadiah only by word 
 of mouth, so that, strictly speaking, he does not belong to 
 the literary opponents. If he did live in Egypt, he must 
 have disputed with Saadiah whilst the latter was still very 
 young. The substance of his polemical utterances, which 
 are only known from references in Ibn Ezra, has already 
 been fully dealt with in my Miscellen ilber Saadja, 11^, to 
 which the reader may be referred. 
 
 2. Ibn Saqaweihi (or Saqtije), one of the oldest Karaite 
 authors, about whose personality we likewise know no- 
 thing ^. He composed an anti-rabbinical work bearing the 
 title n''NvaijN nxna, " Book of Shameful Things " (i. e. of the 
 Eabbanites), which consisted of the following ten sections : 
 
 • As Steinschneider rightly remarks {Z.f. S. £., VI, 184), nebs can only 
 correspond to the Arabic {Jj^\. But then it must be transcribed al- 
 Surri (and not, as hitherto, al-Sari), see Sujuti, " De nominibus relativia 
 ed. Veth.," p. 136: (5pl). li/)l J\ JJXiJIj i^b (^Jl. In jeu,. 
 Encycl., V, 105 a, ben Z. has the forename " Eleazar " ! 
 
 ' Monatsschrift, XLI, 303-12. Of. also J. Q. R., X, 256, and E. t. J., loc. cit 
 «93-4. ■' 
 
 ^ See Steinschneider, Die arab. LiUr. d. Juden, pp. 45 and 281, no. 56 
 (also my Zur judisoh-araiischm Litteralur, Berlin, 1904, p. 40), 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE TENTH CENTURY 5 
 
 (1) on the unity of God^ ; (a) on a branch of the Sabbath 
 laws, viz. the kindling of lights ; (3) on another branch of 
 these laws, viz. on presents (or, on irrigation on Sabbath) ; 
 (4) on the determination of the New Moon ; (5) on the rule 
 noB l"n3 it^ (hence on the validity of Dehijat) ; (6) on leap- 
 year ; (7) on the prescriptions respecting forbidden fat ; 
 (8) on forbidden degrees of relationship ; (9) on the pre- 
 scriptions respecting menstruation ; and (10) on pollution 
 (np ?y3). This work was preceded, by way of introduc- 
 tion, by a polemic against the Mishna, in which it was 
 shown that the latter cannot be of divine origin. Ibn 
 SS,qaweihi maintained therein, with regard to the subject- 
 matter of the first four chapters, that the later Rabbis had 
 erred in equal measure with the earlier ones ; and with 
 regard to the remaining six chapters, he was of opinion that 
 here the later Rabbis had deviated from the earlier ones, 
 and he sought to confirm this by proofs from the Talmud. 
 The work of Ibn SS,qaweihi thus comprised the entire 
 scope of the controversy between Rabbanites and Karaites, 
 dealing both with theological matters (anthropomorphism) 
 as well as with matters of Halakha (Sabbath and festival 
 laws, calendar science, and laws of diet, marriage, and 
 cleanliness) ; and we should have had before us not a 
 mere reply but an independent anti -rabbinical work (the 
 oldest of its kind) ^- It is probable, however, that this 
 work was the result of Saadiah's activity, so that it rightly 
 belongs to the category of works dealt with in this study. 
 
 • This section must be the source of Ibn Saqaweihi's opinion, quoted 
 by Moses ibn Ezra in his npnrtM n'lWpo , that <m in Ps. Ixxxiii. a does 
 not mean "to be silent" but "to be similar" (quoted by Harkavy in his 
 Notes to the Russian translation of Oraets, vol. VI, p. oi) : jsz onD« ipbi . . . 
 
 ':33n 'nn 'Vwn rf) nis) «'; )» (Jes. Ixii. 7) li 'm unn bm d«v''« id p rh has 
 noEuVn-wsEj an.ia 'd tcsii'jK nin n'ip«D p Tp o'jffl'n'. 
 
 ' Everything points to the positive inference that Ibn Saqaweihi was 
 a Karaite and not a sectarian sui generis, as Firkowitsch (see Gottlober, 
 D'tnpn nnSirt mpa, p. 149) asserts. Moses ibn Ezra (see Harkavy, ibid., 
 p. c, and D'JW Oi D'Oin , VII, 33) places him in the same rank with Hivi 
 al-Balkhi. 
 
6 THE KARAITE LITEEARY OPPONENTS OP 
 
 Express testimony to this efiTeot is given by al-Hiti, who 
 was intimately acquainted with Ihn S§,qaweihi's work, in 
 the following words ^t '<bir\ pjxa-ii'K "hy '^'^ f\H rn mpD pi 
 
 arhpi baza). This is the conclusion also to be derived 
 from the fact that Saadiah, in his polemical work (about to 
 be mentioned) against Ibn SS.qaweihi, already alludes to his 
 principal work against the Karaites, the T"Dn7N 3Kn3 \ It 
 is, therefore, probable that Ibn S^qaweihi also had before 
 him many polemical writings of Saadiah*, which now 
 provoked him to a counter-attack. 
 
 Of this polemical work of Saadiah, which bore the title 
 mpaa ps '<bv '^^^\bti nxna, and of which only a few single 
 quotations were known hitherto ^, some extensive fragments 
 have now been discovered. One of these, belonging to the 
 early part ^.contains the information about Ibn S§,qaweihi's 
 work given above, as well as a part of the refutation of 
 the first chapter, namely, the reproach that the Talmudists 
 anthropomorphized the Deity'', A more extensive frag- 
 
 » J. Q. R., IX, 435. Cf. ibid., X, 253, note 3, and Z.f. H. B., II, 79. 
 
 ' On the Feast of Weeks (i. e. on the controversy respecting mrran 
 nyori) Ibn Saqaweihi had no special section, but he doubtless dealt 
 incidentally with this important theme in another section. Saadiah's 
 views on this matter were preserved at the end of his vortx isnD . See 
 J. Q. R., XVI, 102-5. 
 
 ' In the fragment soon to be mentioned, ed. Hirsehfeld (J. Q. R., XVI, 
 109). It is thus established anew that the controversial work against 
 Ibn Saqaweihi formed a separate work of Saadiah, and that therefore the 
 correction is necessary in the words of Moses ibn Ezra : ana Yi ii«:n 
 cmp'Esn H'lpD p hs i'niaTOro[i] jmnn icdi ; resp. (in Arab, original) : pa npi 
 noB:') n'MSDiiM a«n3 anus rripNo ja -'a r^l^ 'd[i] r^nrts asna 'b '1*1 pw h'-wd vn, 
 see ibid., p. 100, note i. 
 
 • Above all his controversial work against "Anan, which appeared in 
 the year 915. See J. Q. iJ., X, 24 r. 
 
 " Collected by me, ibid. , 252 seq. 
 
 ' Edited by Harkavy from the St. Petersburg Library, ibid., XIII, 
 662 seq. (partly also ibid., XVI, 112). Of also R. i. .7., XL, 88. 
 
 ' It can therefore be assumed with Harkavy (p. 667, note a) that the 
 quotation from Saadiah in Judah b. Barzillai's Commentary on. Tesira, p. ao 
 is perhaps likewise taken from the polemical work against Ibn Saqaweihi 
 (so that /. Q. R., X, 255 should be corrected). 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE TENTH CENTURY '] 
 
 ment (consisting of six leaves) ^ contains the refutation of 
 the sixth chapter (on leap-year ; the beginning is missing 
 of what seems to have been a very complete treatment of 
 the subject), the seventh (on the fat tail, n'5'N, the use of 
 which was forbidden by the Karaites, as opposed to the 
 Eabbanites, see Steinschneider-Festschrift, p. 303, n. 3), 
 and of the ninth chapter (on menstruation ; the conclusion 
 is missing). The refutation of the eighth chapter (on 
 forbidden degrees of relationship) was thus not included 
 in the work^, probably because Saadiah composed a 
 separate treatise on this subject *- Still another frag- 
 ment*, in which the objections against the Mishna are 
 refuted, is perhaps likewise an offshoot of the work against 
 Ibn S^qaweihi, as the latter (as we saw above) attacked 
 the Mishna in his own polemical writing, and Saadiah 
 expressly states that he will follow up the refutation of 
 the first four chapters with a defence of the Mishna ^ In 
 this fragment Saadiah does not address his words to a 
 particular person, as in the other two, but speaks of " those 
 people"*. 
 
 The treatment that Saadiah accorded to Ibn SS,qaweihi 
 in his work was not very generous. He usually calls him 
 
 • Edited by Hirschfeld from the Cambridge Geniza, J. Q. R., XVI, 
 105-ia. That this fragment belongs to the polemical work against 
 Ibn Saqaweihi is shown by the contents here presented, which corre- 
 spond exactly to the order of the sections in the work of Ibn Saqaweihi. 
 
 » This follows expressly from Saadiah's words (p. no, 1. 15) : wmw i«i 
 Kjs mp W3b'>w3 w« xn 'o wto «»n« 'rtN (r. Stjn'jm) nT5«'>H iS« Jo awiwbs iSx 
 ^hu axna'jM DNon 'm n'pwM J''« frm: jm <:33>d pan ip no M3D»ai. On the 
 division of the ten sections of Ibn Saqaweihi into four and six, see above. 
 
 » Steinsohneider's doubts (loc. cit., p. 49, no. 8) as to the existence of 
 this work seem to me to be unfounded. Cf. my Zur jud.-arab. Utter., p. 4=1 
 and the Addenda at the end of the present dissertation, p. 99. 
 
 « Likevriae edited by Harkavy, loo. cit., 656-7. 
 
 » See p. 663, 1. 7 from bottom : 3N13« ">« nin "jyp (mrWD ]is '«) Dipi . . . 
 i^M 13T hip dV Jk 'IN •\'ri<7B . . . irn rnuo )» «™m ■>«?' f|0 nvia'rA 'to jrio'js 
 asi3« •i'js ^DNi «n:o '©a amaMbs nin 'd p'^sn so ssid'; rymahvt nai nTa«')« a«ia« 
 n:irD')« fins'; ';wnn« tap n'E na »:w «o 'B Mn-to nWB Vnw'jh. 
 
 • See p. 656, 1. 7 from bottom : 'to xna )i:»ia' □?■>« •'^■m n'«T . . . 
 
 ■^'»t njtt)D'!M. 
 
8 THE KARAITE LITERAKY OPPONENTS OF 
 
 " the ignoramus " (bmibtt Kin), or " novice " (nnJ^N Kin), or 
 " that fellow " (^3"i^N Nin, tNDJS^N bsnn), applying to him the 
 verses Psalm xxxi. 19, Prov. xviii. 3, and Job xiii. 5. He 
 Bays that he has rightly called his work n'NiB^N 3Nn3, 
 because he has revealed in it only his own shame and 
 confusion. 
 
 Besides being mentioned in the special polemical work, 
 Ibn SS,qaweihi is referred to in another fragment, the author 
 of which, according to Harkavy, must also have been 
 Saadiah. We there read ^ : DikvIjn tN3 [m]pKQ p hup i6) 
 K\'h« ]n . . ."S K . . N NIK P3J33D^N mtJ' th tIJ', i. e. " did not 
 Ibn S^aweihi maintain that one who is fasting may drink 
 sakanjabin (a sort of syrup prepared from sour wine), as 
 it is to be regarded as medicine ? " 
 
 3. Abtl Jflsuf Ja'qtlb [b. Isaac b. Shemaja P] al-Qirqisftni 
 is rightly regarded as one of the foremost Karaite 
 authorities, but the full extent of his literary impor- 
 tance has only become known in recent times'^. His 
 chief work was a complete commentary about the pas- 
 sages of the Pentateuch not bearing on law ('JXyD n'W ^3 
 j>'N-isi>N T'J M ^nbn nnini>N), entitled p''Nnni'Ni Y^'<-\'?ti asna 
 " Book of Beds and Gardens," which had as introduction 
 a complete compendium of law, entitled 1N13N7N asna 
 apKlD^Nl " Book of Lights and Watch-towers." In the 
 former work the date of composition, Eabia' II, 346 of the 
 Hegira = Adar 1349 contr. (= 938), is expressly given'; 
 and the second work, too, which claims our chief interest, 
 was composed, according to Ibn al-Hiti, a year earlier, i. e. 
 3*5 of the Hegira (= 937)*- QirqisS,ni was accordingly 
 
 " Voskhod, January, 1900, p. 83. 
 
 ' Steinschneider details the literature on him, loc. cit., § 43 (supple- 
 mented in xay Zur jud.-arab. Litter., p. 48). In these places evei-y thing 
 is enumerated that has hitherto been edited of the works of Qirqis^ni. 
 
 ' See Neubauer, Med. Jew. Chron., II, 249, 1. 7 from bottom : Ni«B . . . 
 IMS ns'jN '3D JD iis) ™d '■!« nrtoji nntDttbH <:d 'ni iihdkSm '':d -iM 'to F)<s« 
 liMbu »«2T nno ini ii« ^n■a 'd -[Wi nsns'jN Kin f|'')«n fin «n'Dl . . . iiaS fiSm. 
 Cf. also Firkowitsoh, rmn 'ja, p. ai. 
 
 * J. Q.S., IX, 43a : nB':sn y-[m m rn 'Jnopip'jM pns' ji apj' □Sms'jn jvibn 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE TENTH CENTUEY 9 
 
 a contemporary of Saadiah, but, so fax* as is yet known, his 
 name has not been found mentioned in the writings of the 
 Gaon. Harkavy, indeed, conjectures ^ that the quotations 
 from Saadiah found in Jehuda b. Barzillai's Jesira com- 
 mentary are taken from a work directed against QirqisS,ni. 
 But it is much more probable that Jehuda b. BarziUai had 
 before him the polemical work against Ibn S&qaweihi^, 
 especially as only one of the Agadot, but not the second ', 
 defended by Saadiah, is cited by Qirqis^ni. Moreover, it 
 cannot yet be proved that Saadiah may have known the 
 writings of his younger Karaite contemporary. On the 
 other hand, Qirqis^ni often quotes Saadiah and controverts 
 him * ; but unfortunately only a single long passage ® from 
 the " Book of Beds " and a few chapters from the " Book 
 of Lights " have hitherto been published. Still, I shaU 
 adduce here all the passages known to me. 
 
 The Pentateuch commentary exists in a longer and a 
 shorter version, and there are fragments of both in 
 St. Petersburg and in the British Museum. In the pub- 
 lished passage from the longer version, which deals with 
 chronology, there is an anonymous rejoinder to Saadiah. 
 After stating that the Bible in dealing with large numbers 
 of years often omits smaller ones, e. g. one or two years, 
 the writer concludes: *VT p rin'SQi inyijN mn rh^ ain ♦si 
 ri^NjijK nin 'Ijn inxi pD "hv ^li'' ci'Nyi'N pbi i'lN i^D onp n:n 
 " From all this may be inferred the futility of the 'Ibbur 
 (i. e. of the permanent calendar) and the confusion of the 
 one who has maintained that the calendar is very ancient, 
 and that its rules have remained the same since the creation 
 
 finjnW no n:D 'b -|^i pye nrmvihh ]^<syo^ fi'2SDn jwmdi tpt* ran inij^Vk. Both 
 these dates do not agree, and we must correct )*»3D1 into J'snsi and r I e 
 into rre (hence p. 437, note i must be rectified; in f]«)"i '33, loc. cit., we 
 rightly have 1248, Era of Contracts, but equally wrongly 315 of the 
 Hegira). 
 
 ' Introduction to Qirqisani, p. 248. ' See above, p. 6. 
 
 ' Cf. J. Q. B., X, aS5. * Harkavy, loc. cit. 
 
 ' See Neubauer, loc. cit. Cf. also my Hiscellen iiber Saadja, III, p. 9, 
 note I { = Monatsschri/i, XLIV, 408, note a). 
 
lO THE KAEAITE LITEEARY OPPONENTS OF 
 
 of the world." As is well known, this was the theory of 
 Saadiah. 
 
 In the Kitdb al-Anwdr, of which I possess several 
 excerpts in manuscript besides those printed, there are 
 a few chapters exclusively devoted to the refutation of 
 Saadiah, e. g. section xi, chap. 39, on forbidden degrees of 
 relationship, and section xii, chaps. 15-16, on the use of the 
 fat tail (rfbii) ^. Again, in other passages Saadiah is con- 
 troverted incidentally (often anonymously), or he is the 
 chief object of controversy: e.g. section ii, chap. 13, on 
 Saadiah's theory about the age of the permanent calendar ^ ; 
 ibid., chaps. 14-15 (partly edited in Z.f.H.B., Ill, 1 75), on the 
 divinity and the necessity of the oral law; section xi, 
 chap. 30 (edited in the Kaufmann-Gedenkbuch, p. i8a; 
 reprint, p. xiv), on the prohibition to marry a niece ; 
 section xii, chap. 7, on the wrenching off of a fowl's head 
 (npibn) ^ ; ibid., chap. 10, on the eating of dead fish (Saadiah's 
 name is not mentioned here, cf. Z.f. E. B., IV, 74) ; ibid., 
 chaps, zo-i (edited loc. cit., p. 1 84 ; reprint, p. xvi) on the use 
 of an embryo, &c. Similarly, according to Harkavy, Saadiah 
 and his polemical work against "An§.n are meant in the 
 following passage of the Kitdb al-'Anwdr, the section and 
 chapter of which cannot be ascertained for the present * : 
 
 "i^K, i. e. " A Rabbanite has refuted the view that the 
 prayers are to consist only of psalms," &c. As a matter 
 of fact, this was a prescription of 'An§,n, who endeavoured 
 by this means to annul the hitherto prevalent order of 
 prayer, because the latter went back upon tradition *. 
 
 » See the headings of these chapters in Steinschneider-Festschrift, pp. 201, 
 S03. 
 
 ' J. Q. B., XIII, 661 : j«7« i«2 Dii 'Din )D ■iias'iN ;m Sip' nvoha )«3 ipi 
 Di« JO ™n 'jlp' ; hence the same as in the passage just mentioned from the 
 Pentateuch commentary. 
 
 ' See Steinschneider-Festschrift, jp. 203, note i, and R. ^. J., XLV, 196-7. 
 
 ' See Harkavy, Stud. ». Mitt., V, 107. The continuation in his Otcherki, 
 I, 52, note 3. 
 
 " See, e.g., Gan Eden, fol..7ia; Adderet Elijahu, nbon JW, chap. 5 (cf. 
 
SAADIAH GAQN IN THE TENTH CENTURY II 
 
 There is also a compendium of the Kitdb al-'Anwdr (Brit. 
 Mus. MS., Or. 3525, Catalogue II, no. 588, ct.Steinschneider- 
 Festschrift, p. an ), containing many controversial rejoinders 
 to Saadiah, which had not yet been discovered in the main 
 work : e. g. on the science of the calendar, where Saadiah's 
 name is not expressly mentioned (fol. 44 a, seqq. ; see 
 J.Q.R.,YIII, 686) ; on incest (fol. loi b, similar to section 
 xi, chap. 29, of the main work ; the passage may perhaps 
 be taken from Saadiah's treatise on this subject, see above, 
 p. 7, n. 3); on the idea of D"n d''D (fol. 137 b ; cf. Z.f. H.B., 
 IV, 17 seq.), &c. 
 
 We thus see that QirqissLni also touches on all the points 
 of difference between Rabbanites and Karaites. It must 
 be observed, moreover, that of all the older Karaite authors 
 Qh-qisS.ni is most deeply versed in the Talmudic literature, 
 and that his polemics are calm in tone and objective in 
 character. 
 
 [4. Menahem b. Michael to. Joseph is the author of a 
 poem with commentary on the laws of slaughtering^, in 
 which a controversy is directed quite clearly against 
 a Kabbanite opponent. The superscription of this poem 
 reads: 'i ijXN "un ol'pyi' 1N^p^ Drao uan rh^^ mjsn nxr 
 HD'-na' r\'QbT\ nilN bv \yv\ nnvo. Pinsker identifies the latter 
 with Saadiah Gaon, makes Menahem his contemporary, and 
 maintains that Menahem indulged in polemics against the 
 
 also Harkavy, Stud. u. MUt,, VIII, i, 203). In another passage Qirqisani 
 reproaches the Eabbanites for not taking prayers [exclusively ?] from the 
 Psalms (sect, i, chap. 3 ; ed. .Harkavy, p. a86: nste^« ilopDM d™« -p\ jdi 
 •i^K on mB';« »do «mtoi rehrm idd jd). A sectarian, Malik al-Ramli, 
 prescribed that Ps. xxix should take the place of the Eighteen Benedic- 
 tions, probably in agreement with the dictum of Hillel, the son of Samuel 
 b. Nahmani, in Berachoi, 28 b. See Harkavy, Yoskhod, Jan., 1900, p. 79. 
 Similarly Petahia relates of the heretics in the land of Kedar : d:'»i 
 alio n'rt jnon nanai u'je nVann rrnne Y'ln onV noDBai D'liDin n'jn p'jteno 
 Dn'3'M (of. 'H.a.vkarvyy.AUjiid. Senhmdler, p. 106). Cf. also the Eesponsa of 
 Levi b. Habib, no. 79 : «^« mjpinni nmiDo mill cnb J's bt^^vi D'J'onffi . . 
 '«i D'pDSi niTDi N'fi jnten ^3. 
 
 ' Edited from a Leyden MS. (Cat. Steinschneider, no. 41 ') by Pinsker, 
 p. 55 seq. 
 
12 THE KARAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS OP 
 
 Gaon^. But this identification can hardly be considered 
 correct, because the language of Menahem points clearly 
 to a Byzantine Karaite, e.g. b^2i for "definition" (p. 59, 
 1. 7), nv in the sense of " i. e." ( = Arab. ^ ; ibid., 1. a8), 
 expressions that the ancient Karaites in the East do not 
 know. Consequently our poem cannot have been directed 
 against Saadiah. Menahem belongs to a much later time, 
 and is adduced here only for the purpose of showing that 
 be does not belong to the category of the Karaite authors 
 dealt with here by us. The lifetime of Menahem can, in 
 any case, be determined with a certain probability. On 
 the one hand, he is doubtless identical with the Karaite 
 liturgical poet, Menahem b. Michael, of whose writings we 
 possess (among others) a Zion Ode \ so that he could not 
 have composed any poetry before Jehuda Halevi. On the 
 other hand, he is abeady cited by Aaron b. Joseph in the 
 Mibhar (composed 1 294) on Gen. xxvii. 3 (ed. fol. 50 b). 
 We shall therefore not go wrong if we assume that he 
 flourished somewhere in the second half of the twelfth 
 century. For other proofs of a later date, see Geiger 
 {icm ISIN, IV, 31) and Schorr (pJinn, VI, y6).] 
 
 It is thus established that only three Karaites disputed 
 with Saadiah during his lifetime. The other twp, who, 
 according to Sahl, likewise refuted the Fayyumite during 
 his life, certainly developed their main literary activity 
 after the demise of the Gaon. This is also true of 
 
 5. Salmon b. Jeroham (Arab. Sulejman to. Ruheim), 
 about the circumstances of whose life we possess hardly 
 
 ' It is superfluous to enter into the other identifications of Pinsker 
 (suoh as that of Menahem b. Michael with Menahem ha-Gisni, &o.), as 
 their impossibility has long been proved. 
 
 ' Begins ibd nnp' D'H 'to Jjipn jvs (" Karaite Prayer Book," ed. Wilna, 
 1890, 1, 134 ; cf. Landshut, Amude Jta-Ahoda, p. 76). Other liturgical poems 
 of Menahem are : two Kinnot, Q'3ij ^ip^ 2X\v^ llM and 'nnsn 'mjarrn 
 Dto'i mp in'sn (ibid., I, 127 and 135), and a Seliha, beginning pis« ^'M 
 'nn'O ja: (ibid., Ill, 316 ; cf. Pinsker, p. 139, no. 35 ; lacking in Luzzatto, 
 '}'-\v} rtn:, in 3110 nsw, 1884, p. 4). 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE TENTH CENTURY 13 
 
 any authentic information ^. His Hebrew polemical work 
 against Saadiah, written in wretched rhymes, is the only 
 one that has been preserved from remote times, and this 
 has been only partly edited. It was possibly composed 
 while Saadiah was yet alive, about 940. I have akeady 
 analysed its contents thoroughly in another connexion, and 
 referred there especially to its snarling tone^. Salmon 
 wanted to render this work into Arabic too for the people, 
 but we do not know whether this was carried out. In any 
 case no Arabic version has been preserved. 
 
 Besides this polemical work Salmon also composed 
 a series of Biblical commentaries, which were probably 
 all issued 'in the sixth decade of the tenth century 
 (i.e. after Saadiah's death), and which have been preserved 
 partly in the original Arabic, partly in a Hebrew transla- 
 tion. Here, too, aggressive war is waged against Saadiah *, 
 especially in the Commentary on Psalms (MS. in St. Peters- 
 burg). Salmon speaks here of Saadiah as of a com- 
 pletely unknown man ('DVsi'Nn ^ivf t6h nvy *a mnsn), 
 and refutes his view that the Psalms might be recited 
 as prayers only in the Temple and only with musical 
 accompaniment*. Then he also controverts another view 
 of Saadiah, that entire psalms are prophecies of David, 
 and that the royal minstrel had assigned many of them 
 to the sons of Moses and to other Levites, to be sung*. 
 
 ' See in particular Steinsohneider, loo. eit., § 40 (also ibid., 
 
 P- 340). 
 
 * J. Q. B., VIII, 684 seq. I have since published many more passages 
 from it, thus ibid., X, 271 ; Z.f. H. B., Ill, 17a ; and Kaufmann-Gedenlciuch, 
 p. 186. 
 
 ' Sahl's statement, quoted above, is thus confirmed, that Salmon con- 
 ducted his campaign against Saadiah in his lifetime as well as after his 
 death. 
 
 * See the passage in question in Neubauer, Studia Biblica, III, 18. It is 
 not difficult to see that Saadiah with this assertion aimed at an ordinance 
 of 'Anan. See above, p. 10, n. 5. 
 
 ' Ibid., p. 19. According to Saadiah, e. g., the heading nffio') in Ps. xe 
 means as much as ncD 'jaS (.he points to Judges i. 3, where min< and jisDffl 
 likewise stand for mirr '33 and jwoil) 'Ji), the heading nnto'?, in Ps. Ixxii, 
 
14 THE KARAITE LITER;AEY OPPONENTS OF 
 
 On Psalm cii. 14 there is a rather long excursus on th6 
 reckoning of the year of redemption, where likewise a 
 vigorous attack is made on Saadiah. I have edited in full and 
 thoroughly discussed this excursus ^, which Salmon again 
 repeats almost verbally on Canticles ii. 11, On Psalm civ. 19 
 Salmon quotes his ''Wshu "by 'i~b» nNTia, but it is doubtful 
 whether he means here the Hebrew or the Arabic work ^. 
 In connexion with cxl. 6 is related the often discussed fact 
 that Saadiah denied that the Talmud speaks of physical 
 struggles between the followers of Shammai and those of 
 Hillel. This passage has also been thoroughly examined 
 by me '. 
 
 In the commentaries on Echa and Kohelet, the only ones 
 that I saw complete in the original Arabic, I found nothing 
 polemical against Saadiah and especially nothing objec- 
 tionable against the Kabbanites, who are elsewhere so 
 violently attacked by Salmon*. Perhaps, therefore, 
 Steinschneider is right in doubting their genuineness ^ 
 which has yet, in any case, to be established. 
 
 Finally, it may be mentioned that, according to Ibn 
 
 al-Hiti, Salmon died in Aleppo during Saadiah'a lifetime. 
 
 The latter is said to have followed the funeral procession 
 
 and to have pronounced a eulogy on the departed. All 
 
 this naturally belongs to the realm of fiction (from mere 
 
 chronological considerations), but still it is possible that 
 
 Salmon indeed died in Aleppo®- We now know that 
 
 Saadiah stayed in this town, even before his appointment 
 
 as Gaon (about 921)'', but at that time Salmon was just 
 
 a new-born babe. 
 
 is equal to "on Solomon," &c. Even David's authorship of any psalm is 
 not to he disputed. 
 
 • " Miscellen uber Saadja," III, Berlin, 1901 (reprint from Uonatsschrift, 
 XLIV, 400-16 and 508-29). ' See Pinsker, p. 133. 
 
 ' Kaufmann-Bedenkbuch, pp. 169 seq. (For a correction see my ^v^'} n^nn, 
 Warsaw, 190a, p. 16 ; cf. also Monatsschrift, XIcVI, 376.) 
 
 * See J. Q. B., VIII, 689 ; XIII, 337. 
 
 » Heir. BiUiog., XIII, 103 (cf. R.i. J., XLI, 305). 
 
 " SeeZ.f.H.B.,Il, 79. 
 
 ' In a letter to his pupils, dated 92a, on the dispute about the Calendar 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE TENTH CENTUEY 15 
 
 6. Hasan (or Husein) ben Mashiah ^, according to the 
 above-cited account of Sahl, wi'ote polemics against Saadiah 
 both in his lifetime and after his death. He is also said to 
 have tried to hold a dispute with the Gaon verbally, but 
 the latter roughly repulsed him. He succeeded, however, 
 in obtaining one of Saadiah's anti- Karaite writings (which 
 the author is said never to have allowed to leave his 
 possession), and refuted it immediately (in a separate 
 work?) ^ It is, of course, difficult to establish how much 
 truth is contained in this report, but in any case Ben 
 Mashiah ought to be a contemporary of Saadiah, although 
 a considerably younger one. According to Ibn al-Hiti, 
 who often had good information at his disposal, Ben 
 Mashiah, who lived in Bagdad, disputed with his fellow- 
 townsman, the Christian physician, Ab(i 'Ali 'Isa b. Zar'a. 
 The latter wrote his polemical work against the Jews in 
 the year 387 of the Hegira (=997), and if we assume that 
 this disputation took place before the appearance of this 
 work, that is, about a few years before 997, and that Ben 
 Mashiah was already an old man then, he can hardly have 
 been engaged in literary activity before 940. Hence 
 al-Hiti is quite right in coupling him with Salmon b. 
 Jeroham, as they were of about the same age ^. 
 
 with Ben Meir, Saadiah says : 'i3i 13 telD □n'«3')nn nspD wa a'jna 'JTWi '3 »i 
 (Saadyana, ed. Schechter, p. 25, I. 12 ; cf. J. Q. B., IX, 37, and B. i. J., 
 XLVIII, 149, note 3). 
 
 ' For the literature about him refer to my article in Jew. Encycl., a. v. 
 (VI, 247 ; where, however, the determination of the period of his life 
 must be modified in accordance with the present conclusions), and Zur 
 Jud.-arab. Litter., p. 47. 
 
 ' Pinsker, p. 37 : Min niBN nM D« '3 vSm N'M (nnsD Vi) rrn nS dji . . . 
 no -mm pssto -a nini ym iniw M'ani (?) urvy-sa iicbj TSpn n'ffiD pi . . . yon 
 DHo iTOi M-ipo ':a to IT nnno vna DH'sin «'; ana to« Dnocm .'bra i'; -^n •'H 
 '131 vna r!)S ywn n'«.'D )a Ta '>B3. For continuation see above, p. 3. 
 
 ' See J. Q. B., IX, 434 : DniT ja [itatei n'fflo ]a (sic) jcribM law }'5'ib'»» . . . 
 nspw DniT jai nsxa 'd ni'na nsspwn rrspw n'OD ja jsai 'dvd'>« j«ni 'd «jm3 
 Nn<B IT (?)j'»aD D[«]rib« nn^Non 'D (1. fisii) fisio ja 'd'» ['to] lasi . ..i\n 'd 
 fhiainSs S'jndi'jsi ini in (1. NTiwni) «nii<3ni iiaiobs- n'ea jasa n:s nn mrrbx -Ha 
 rAv T\x> Kntas ^5'^Mn. The date 387 is confirmed by Ibn abi Oseibia (ed. 
 MuUer, I, 236, 1. 10 from bottom). Ibn Zar'a was born in August, 943, 
 
l6 THE KARAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS OF 
 
 Of Ben Mashiah's polemics against Saadiah, we are 
 principally acquainted with a passage directed against the 
 Gaon's defence of the antiquity of the present calendar- 
 system, in which Ben Mashiah refers to "Sadducean writings 
 (ri'pnsi'N ana, D^pnv ^ana), which are known among the 
 people." This passage has been preserved in Arabic, in 
 a commentary on Exodus, of which Sahl or perhaps even 
 Ben Mashiah himself is the author, and in Hebrew in 
 a fragment that originates from Hadassi ^. Besides this, 
 a MS. has been recently published, in which Ben Mashiah 
 reproduces a complete Hebrew treatise on the calendar 
 of an otherwise unknown Rabbanite, Joshua b. 'Al§,n ^, and 
 which writing perhaps originally formed the constituent 
 part of a polemical work by Ben Mashiah. 
 
 7. 'Abtl 'An&n Isaac b. 'AU b. Isaac was, according to 
 Ibn al-Hiti, an important Karaite scholar, who in a special 
 work, entitled JKloi'N 3Kn3(?), tilted his controversial pen 
 against Saadiah among others. I have already compiled 
 in another place the little that is known about him, and 
 there shown that he probably flourished about the middle 
 of the tenth century *. 
 
 8. Abu-1-Tajjib al-Jebeli (Hebr. Samuel b. Asher b. 
 Manstir) * is also mentioned by Sahl among the Karaites- 
 who wrote polemical works against Saadiah after his death. 
 According to Ibn al-Hiti, he is said to have been a contem- 
 porary of Abu-1-Faraj Hariin ; but as the latter flourished 
 about ioa6, al-Jebeli could hai-dly have been cited by Sahl. 
 According to a further account of Ibn al-Hiti, al-Jebeli 
 disputed with the head of a school, Menahem, after he 
 became acquainted with a work of a son of Menahem 
 
 and died at the beginning of May, 1008 ; see Fihrist, I, 264 ; II, 121. Cf. 
 also Steinschneider, Polem. u. apolog. LiiercUur, pp. 146-7. 
 
 ' Both versions are published and discussed by me in R. E. J., XLV, 
 176-7, where all particulars may be found. 
 
 ' Edited in m'Dsn, 1899, nos. 141-2, and again in pjn, IV, 75 (cf. 
 Zur jud.-arab. Litter., I.e.). 
 
 ' See ibid., pp. 15, 16. 
 
 * See on him my short article in Jew. Encycl., VII, 16 a. 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE TENTH CENTURY 1 7 
 
 addressed to a certain Abii TS,bit^. If this Menahem, 
 as I conjecture, is identical with another of the same 
 name, who addressed inquiries in Arabic to Saadiah (see 
 pan, I, 91)^, then al-Jebeli could likewise have composed' 
 his polemical work about the middle of the tenth century. 
 
 9. 'Ali b. Hasan (or Husein) likewise figures in Sahl's 
 list among Saadiah's disputants, but there are no par- 
 ticulars known about him. Pinsker (p. N''p) identifies 
 him with the grandfather of Levi b. Jefet, who, in his 
 Muqaddima (ibid., p. 64, where 'Ali b. loniiN), mentions 
 a commentary on the Pentateuch by him. Accordingly, 
 'Ali, as he was the father of Jefet, would have flourished 
 about 960-70. But there is a lack of suflBcient proof for 
 this, and, besides, the authenticity of the Muqaddima 
 is not quite free from doubt ^. 
 
 10. David ta, Abraham al-Pftsi is the author of a com- 
 prehensive and voluminous Hebrew dictionary in Arabic, 
 bearing the title inax or BSsi'N^N yosj nxna. Pinsker and 
 Neubauer have published detailed specimens from it, and 
 placed the author in the second half of the tenth century, 
 soon after Saadiah. On the other hand, there was no lack 
 of attempts, especially on the part of Schorr, to place him 
 in the twelfth century, after Ibn Ezra. But one will have 
 to decide for the first date*. In this lexicon Saadiah is 
 
 • J. Q.B., IX, 435 : 'baJSM l"El'!N 11«3 fjnrQ'jM lli':D p IBM p 'jNIDU) jvbW 
 
 fifflbMi 2'3«';« 'D (Nicwni=) Niswni )n«n jno^x (I. 'aw) iiM jvhi jndi 'b )N3 
 iscni iimobM iNCE3« 'D fi^Mpn nh^ n« rn % las ''jid'jm '«-\ 'to ;«3i S'snoSMj 
 ™ m"« nsMii '3« '■!« nmo p nspi 'to HDipi i» ayna bni. Drao 'to lyi i'jio'jn.. 
 Al- Jebeli's work against the Mahzor-cycle atid the calculation of the 
 Molad must be identical with the polemical treatise against Saadiah, 
 as these subjects form the principle theme of polemics. When Ibn 
 al-Hiti says further, that al-Jebeli was of the opinion of Abu 'Ali, 
 i.e. Jefet, one need not yet conclude from this that he followed him, 
 but that their opinions on this point were in agreement. 
 
 ^ Cf. Steinschneider, Arab. Liter, d. Juden, § 30 (and also ibid., p. 339). 
 . -• Cf. also Steinschneider, J. Q. B., X, 539, and my Ziir jud.-arab. Litter., 
 p. 49, I. ult. 
 
 * See the literature dealing with the matter in Steinschneider, pp. 86 
 and 341, and in Bacher, Jew. Encycl., s. v. (IV, 459, 460). 
 
 C • 
 
1 8 THE KARAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS OP 
 
 quoted twice s.v, en (Pinsker, p. io8), and his interpreta- 
 tion of the verses Gen. i. ii, I3, is refuted. In these verses 
 the yielding of fruit-bearing trees only is mentioned, not 
 of ordinary trees (see Nahmanides on the passage). Now 
 Saadiah must have explained ver. 1 1 in such a way, that 
 the latter are to be understood by ns fi, i. e. trees that are 
 a fruit of the earth, as opposed to fruit-bearing trees, which 
 are 'ns HE'S?. Ver. 12 is shortened, and should also read here 
 'IB Tvtrs ['"is] YV. This explanation of Saadiah, which is 
 combated by David b. Abraham, is, however, in contra- 
 diction to the Gaon's translation of the particular two verses. 
 
 11. Abu Sa'id (?) David b. Boae, the Prince (D'nijK, N-tfin), 
 according to a genealogical list of Solomon the Prince 
 (Pinsker, p. 53), was in the fifth generation of descent 
 from 'AnS,n. Hence David would have flourished about 
 910 (approximately 5x30=150 years after 'AnSji), and 
 have been a contemporary of Saadiah. On the other hand, 
 according to Ibn al-Hiti, David composed his commentary 
 on Kohelet in the year 383 of the Hegira (=993), and was 
 mentioned even after Levi b. Jefet by the Solomon referred 
 to ^, so that David would belong to the last quarter of the 
 tenth century. This date seems to me also to be the more 
 correct, principally because David, so far as is yet known, 
 is first quoted by Joseph al-Basir in the O'lSJIon nsD*. 
 Hadassi also mentions him between Jefet and his son', 
 though this may be accidental. 
 
 Of David's works Ibn al-Hiti mentions, besides the 
 commentary on Kohelet, still another on the Pentateuch 
 and a book on the principles of religion (i'lSN^'N 3Nn3)*. 
 
 ' J. Q. n., IX, 43a : fiijn')'! Tap fiffl 'D rtiip riD'jsn n« rn wu p tn T'rtm 
 ^isnSm 3«n3i mirtM TCBn rfn ; and ibid. ; Niinw nai (S'wn na'm '«) T\Mh .... 
 tn Dii m'jii nsabs >w hm on no'jM i3« nn 'j«Dpip^« oh 'jN'jt on j'd'm on j» 
 j'»d:« orr'w m fiom {1)-^^ ii« oSrobM oh H'toibM 1S12 p. 
 
 ' See the passage in Pinsker, p. 199 (of. also ibid., p. s'p). 
 
 " SsKkol, 341, D : \W\ D'jna min iddii nonsn isw -moi ssnn djitod .... 
 '131 irt' s'j r,D' (1. )ii) pi N<03n nni na'i Sno DnobDn. 
 
 ♦ The composition of such a work also points rather to a post-Saadyanio 
 Karaite than to a contemporary. 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE TENTH CENTURY 19 
 
 Of the Pentateuch commentary there have been preserved 
 only considerable parts in MS., namely, on Leviticus and 
 on the second half of Deuteronomy in St. Petersbm-g ; on 
 Exod. XXV. i-xxxiii. 13 in the British Museum (Catalogue 
 Margoliouth, Vol. I, No. 384), and, in addition, on the whole 
 of Exodus in a modem copy in the Karaite synagogue in 
 Jerusalem 1. According to Harkavy (Z. A.T.W., I, i5y), 
 David, in the St. Peteraburg MS., frequently controverted 
 Saadiah, not expressly naming him, however, but only 
 designating him as i'Jni'N N"in. In the London MS. there 
 are two such passages (fol. 19 a on xxv. 3 a and fol. 31 b 
 on xxvii. 4), and in both the discussion is about the 
 construction of appurtenances of the tabernacle^. 
 
 Besides this MS. of the British Museum, Margoliouth 
 has been trying to show that some other MSS. of the 
 same collection also have David as their author, but the 
 demonstration is not everywhere quite convincing^. We 
 have to consider only two of them here. The one (MS. 
 Or. 2494^; Cat. No. 318') contains a commentary on the 
 first pericope of Leviticus (the beginning and end are 
 missing), and in two passages (ff. ib, 4b) there is a hit 
 at the i'jii'N tain. The second is much more important 
 (Or. 2495; Cat. No. 306). This MS., of which I have 
 a copy of a few excerpts, contains a very detailed com- 
 mentary on Lev. xi. i-xv. 25. Of authors mentioned here 
 besides the Talmudists (designated pbisbj* and pSN^niiN) and 
 'An§,n, only Saadiah is very often cited*, sometimes as 
 'DVa^N, sometimes also as i'i^?K Nin, his name being 
 accompanied by the formula rbbti riT. The points on which 
 Saadiah's views are combated naturally concern the laws 
 of purity, but they are mostly questions of subordinate 
 
 ' See Steinschneider, § 39 (also ibid., p. 340). 
 
 ' See the beginning of both passages in Margoliouth's Catalogue, where 
 Saadiah is referred to in the one as hyitjii -]hi, and in the other as brht* »in. 
 In this MS. David is also called «ip wia p in tsd wn (the entire MS. is 
 otherwise, without exception, written with Arabic letters). 
 
 ' Cf. R. i. J., XLI, 305, 306. 
 
 * See the list of passages in Mai-goliouth's Catalogue. 
 
 C a 
 
20 THE KARAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS OP 
 
 impGrtance. Once (fol. i8i a, on xv. 25; see further, 
 p. 25) the prescriptions about menstruous women are 
 also discussed. The controversy is conducted calmly and 
 pertinently. Different expressions are adduced, e.g. 
 i?^^ 'Snp' Db Y3ht( inKO ns (fol. 47 a)i ; idns ns^n N-im (ibid.) 
 mniN ND ^"03 (fol. 78 a) ; rbip opDi ND j^-hy ttri-\ ips (fol. 179 b) 
 axna^N fib) nejiiN nnns' t6 . , . nijNp nd fii'DJ (fol. i8a a), &c. 
 Thus, unlike the Karaite custom elsewhere observed, only 
 views but not personalities are combated. In one passage 
 the author refutes an opinion of Saadiah, which is really 
 that of the Talmud (viz., the well-known explanation of 
 tnb 01 ^3 in Deut. xvii. 8, that what is intended here is 
 a decision respecting the pure and impure blood of a men- 
 struous woman, see Sifre, ad loc, and parallel passages), and 
 he refers to his own commentary on this verse (fol. 165 a): 
 JK3 i?i) ^B* ma fis^ t6 ('Dva^N 'n) nbt^p nd v'oi IN abvK . . . 
 niB-BJ m »s in b)p'' \ti noM^'i ^WT mj en <a in mb ai pa r\b)p 
 p^vo in "IN byn pa npo ■'ba JNnn^s ivd i^n jjib' pa ypn n^N 
 ytospbtt ND3N1 njD inn i^jt is 'pr tsBB'Di) nm ni'ip nv*ni na 
 Ni)! tsBB'nn nan p nan ma m oiiii oaxn^'N -\ati \v ^np' n^s 
 b»i-\btt lany' Noa NDii^K xnanj;n niiN nisoiiK la in iia an nan 
 ^n' ND piDB^JN ain -i^oan '■a nju npi ^nNti n'a d^^i ynr naatj' 
 i?K nosa snn JS 'ijjJ^ The Karaite author doubtless used 
 as his source in every case Saadiah's commentary on the 
 Pentateuch, and we should thus possess here important 
 fragments of this vanished work. 
 
 12. Jefet b, 'Ali ha-Levi (Arab. Abtt 'Ali Hasan b. 'Ali 
 al-Basri) must have flemished in the last quarter of the 
 tenth century K He is the most prolific Karaite exegete of 
 
 ' See the whole passage In B. ^. J., XLV, 56. 
 
 ' Perhaps the Samaritan Munajja b. Sedaqa also disputes with Saadiah 
 on this poipt ; see Wresohner, Samarit. Traditionen, p. 33, Cf. also Keier 
 Tora, ad loc. (fol. 20 b). 
 
 ' His commentary on Daniel, which is apparently one of his latest 
 commentaries (perhaps even the latest), appeared about the year 1000. 
 See D. S. Margoliouth's preface to his edition of this commentary (Oxford, 
 1889), p. v. 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE TENTH CENTURY 3T 
 
 the Bible, for he has translated the entire twenty-four booka 
 of Scripture into Arabic and commented upon them very 
 fully, partly at least in two recensions (Pentateuch, Psalms ?; 
 see-R.Ji.i7'.,XLI,3o6). The commentaries of Jefet, especially 
 that on the Pentateuch, afford very much valuable material 
 for the history of the older Karaite literature and theology ; 
 but of the many MSS. extant in St. Petersburg, London, 
 Oxford, Paris, Berlin, fee, unfortunately only a comparatively 
 small portion has been edited ^. 
 
 According to Sahl, Abft'Ali Hasan al-Basri, i. e. Jefet, like- 
 wise combated Saadiah in a special work, which is further 
 corroborated by Jefet's own statements. The composition 
 of such a work is promised in the passage on Gen. i. 14. 
 After Jefet advances controversial arguments about the 
 calendar against Saadiah in very thorough fashion^, he 
 adds that he has entered into this dispute only incidentally, 
 because his main purpose is to present here an exposition 
 of Holy Writ. But should God vouchsafe him the time, 
 then he will refute the views of Saadiah in a special treatise 
 (DK-13 f^vnhti nvpN th "'in nsniiN xin *E5 ixpi'K abv |s 2i^<^ » , . 
 
 ClKbi'N Tin JfO mtb ND3S1 I"^!-lpi'^« <ai'N3D \0 ni'J3 IK riaTlD^'N 
 
 'iinijNi nntwi'SDa ivy mai mnj nn''hv Nxpnoxi n3i)NDD^N 3N3 *a 
 nbha noa ini siNonx^s bonn^ sin i^oan dnjid mtd iNvniN^ m'<bv 
 <a nnniis aa vdj 'bv 'inni asna asai'N n'irb mna loyi's-'a 
 3S31 3sn b '•a n'bv nd nnow smyi n^DNsn^N ana id nana 
 i^tt itn nl'i'N NU' in). On the other hand, in the passage 
 on Exod. XXXV. 3 (published by Pinsker, p. 20), he 
 quotes this controversial treatise as ah-eady in existence : 
 ni? nsha nijx axnai's 'a n^jno •>bv na mm Noa i?i\ , . . 
 Jefet's polemical work, like many others, is now lost, 
 
 ' A review of the known and available MSS. and of the parts edited 
 so far is given by Steinschneider in Die arab. Liter, d. Jvden, § 44 (also ibid.,, 
 p. 341, and Zur jiid.-arai. Zitter., p. 49 ; add the MS. no. 234 of the 
 library of the Alliance isr. univ. in Paris, containing the coram, on 
 Lev. xxvi. 38-xxvii, cf. B. i. J., XLIX, 286, and the translation of Gen. viii. 
 1-22, and ix. 18-28, printed in Kahle, Die arab. Bibeliibersetzungen, pp. 29-3i)« 
 
 2 See J. Q.^B., X, 246. 
 
22 THE KAEAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS OF 
 
 and we do not know whether he composed it in Arabic, 
 like all his other works, or in Hebrew, like a work directed 
 against Jacob b, Samuel, to be mentioned below. But 
 although Jefet maintains that he will not expand his 
 commentary by a controversy with Saadiah or with other 
 opponents of the Karaites, he does nevertheless indulge in 
 polemics, especially in the Pentateuch commentary, very 
 often and very thoroughly against the naTiD^K DNn, and 
 quotes rather long passages both from anti-Karaite works 
 as well as from the Bible commentaries of Saadiah*. 
 I now proceed to give a survey of the passages in question 
 from Jefet's commentaries, so far as I have them before me 
 either in printed form or in manuscript excerpts*. I arrange 
 them according to subject-matter, and must observe that 
 here especially Jefet very often repeats himself verbally. 
 
 I. On the justification of the Oral Law in general, its 
 divinity and necessity: Exod. xxi. ^^ (here Jefet defends 
 very thoroughly especially the method of analogy, t^'p^^, 
 DN'p, applied by the Karaites) and Dan. xii. 4 (ed. D. S. 
 Margoliouth, p. 141). Contrary to his usual custom, Jefet 
 uses, in the last passage, very harsh words, and says that 
 Saadiah and his pai-ty, in maintaining that one must, with- 
 out personal investigation, follow the representatives of the 
 prophets, that is, the. teachers of the Mishna and Talmud, 
 have thereby led Israel into ruin, and so forth ^- Jefet treats 
 
 ' See ibid., S4i8eq., the passages from Saadiah 's anti-Karaite writings 
 preserved by Jefet. Saadiah's commentary on the Pentateuch, e. g., is 
 expressly mentioned by Jefet on Gen i. 14 : ftsp'jM nin TCBn 'S3 rtp «n3 . . . 
 ■Jm TB' nWn pi ovn ji 'jnanbi nbipi -^bip im n'SJUia 'D ; Exod. xxi. 33 : on . . . 
 ^btt '>^r DW iWN Dipo -[S 'HDOT 'B nwiD rrbw Tcon 'c rt wiji wnsj -fn so ; 
 xxiii. 15 : ry,n nora Niin «d d'stics nso HsB 'B 'dvb'jm Dn» 'an n:« -iMi . . '. 
 yitt nbip ini f^^n ; xxiv. 4 : 'b pna . . . »n nViti asna 'to bum ipB wd^m «d«i 
 ■yjH t)ini f]nn ssiobs nin tdbh ; Lev. xviii. 6 : n'i« ani no fi'san ninB 
 ■^^N D»ii piDBSs nin TOBn 'b 'ovb^m. 
 
 ' I use copies from the most varied libraries. 
 
 " 'orBbN Sip Siin TbprtM aNnsH Sip (MSoa 'Ss 5«in NniSTOji VwpKw nina . . . 
 nnaSw jo »n nSS« fs-iB rp»n }« m d'S iSMpi un Noa Sn-«b< laSnx -j»-iS« nTj' 
 nanai dwSk 'asMB . . . tdShSki wcoSm axnsM om s'ajKSM MBSaS TSpnSs aan . . . 
 ■ft* fiBli»oS«. Cf. also my conclusions in R. E. J., XLI, 183 seq. 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE TENTH CENTURY 23 
 
 this subject also in some other passages of his commentari^, 
 and disputes here with the Eabbanites in general. He 
 clearly hints at Saadiah in the passage on Deut. xxxiii. 14, 
 and there employs similar expressions ^to those used in the 
 Daniel passage: DSJ^N %''h i'lSM^'K 'p^pb'? tonsa pa* \n pD>1 
 ipn nana 's NnNtyj rianata iiiixpto on^i^y oJ7'> nd3 pnbit ]v. 
 
 a. Questions of calendar-science : hence the rise and age 
 of the present calendar, validity of the Dehijot, fixing of 
 leap-years, &c. — questions that are known to have been in 
 the very centre of the controversy between Rabbanites and 
 Karaites. The chief passage is Gen. i. 14 (partly edited 
 J. Q. R., X, 246 seq. ; cf. also above), where Saadiah's theory 
 about the great age of the calendar-system is quoted from 
 his Kitdh al-tairnjiz and the Pentateuch commentary and 
 very thoroughly refuted. There further belong to this 
 section : Gen. viii. 3 (the chronology of the Flood is here 
 considered, and various questions of calendar -lore are 
 discussed; cf. J.Q.R., X, 241); xUx. 14 (partly the same 
 as on i. 14 ; cf. ibid., 248, n. 3 ; Saadiah's proof from 
 1 Chron. xii. ^^ is chiefly refuted here)^; Exod. xii. 2 (see 
 ibid., 248, n. 3, and 253) ; xxiii. 15 (on the determination of 
 the a^ax, hence on the question of the intercalary month ; 
 in two versions); xxxiv. 18 (on the same subject; Jefet 
 refers here to the second version of his commentary on xii. 2 
 n'Q Noa riiaK^N nxiba ^s aa^ ntn cnnn »q n^^j? wm ipi 
 ri'Nsa); Lev. xxiii. 3 (partly the same as on Gen. i. 14); 
 xxiii. 5 (likewise in two versions ; see /. Q. B., X, 349 and 
 253); Deut. xvi. I (see ibid., 250 and 253); xxxiii. 18 
 (likewise on the proof from i Chron. xii. 33) ; and i Sam. 
 XX. 27 (see ibid., 251). In many of these passages Jefet 
 affords interesting material also about the history of the 
 calendar among various sectarians and kindred matter (see 
 
 e. g., ibid., 265, n. 3). 
 
 ' The same thing is again repeated by Sahl (in Pinsker, p. 37 ; ef . further 
 infra, p. 39), Levi b. Jefet in his niscn nDD (see non ms, VIII, 56), Jeshua 
 b. Jehuda (n3T n'tt)«i3, MS. Leyden, 41', f. 89b), and Aaron b. Elias (ps JJ, 
 
 f. 4 c ; the latter two without mentioning Saadiah). 
 
24 THE KARAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS OF 
 
 . 3. The kindling of fire on the Sabbath, a question likewise 
 often discussed in Karaite polemics. The Karaites, as is 
 ■well known, not only prohibit the kindling of fire on the 
 Sabbath, but even, the continued burning of anything — 
 a severity derived, as I have shown (R. E. J; XLIV, 
 174 seq.), from the expanded meaning of the word nasPB. 
 Jefet often deals with this subject, viz. Exod. iii. 2; 
 XX. 10 (Saadiah is mentioned here only cursorily at the 
 end: KiiT p j?Dix Dsija ra.'obvi isiD Dnnn *s a^sru jmi . . . 
 DNi mai ND VDJ )'P33i fiasn^s vsid in ^^\s» tJ'x nwn ih 'b 
 ihb^ -{\y2. naTiDi'N) ; xxxv. 3 (this is the detailed passage to 
 which Jefet previously refers ; Saadiah's entire proofs are 
 here adduced and thoroughly refuted ; cf. Pinsker, pp. 1 8, 90) ; 
 Lev. xxiii. 3 (completely the same as on Exod. xxxv. 3) ; 
 Deut. V. ] 3 (here Saadiah is adduced only anonymously : 
 •'jNnavi'K 's Knijn nsii'x -hv fiiayjD in nyan (n b-'V.p bv.\> ins . . . 
 f^v^ rh b''p rinJlID ; this conception of the word in Judges xv. 5 
 is that of Saadiah) ; xxv. 4 (see /. Q. R., X, 351). 
 
 4. On the time of sacrificing the Paschal oflTering : Exod. 
 xii. 6. This question is notably linked together with the 
 Karaite interpretation of the concept D'anvn p^, which 
 •deviates essentially from the Rabbinical : see my remarks 
 inR.E.J., XLV, 176 seq. 
 
 5. The fixing of the time of Pentecost, i.e. the interpreta- 
 tion of naE'n mnOD, one of the differences that the Karaites 
 have taken from the Boethusians (see Monatsschrift, XLI, 
 '2o6, and J. Q. R., XVI, 407): Lev. xxiii. 15 (edited by 
 Hirschfeld, Arabic Chrestomathy, p. 109 seq., Jefet's most de- 
 tailed passage on this subject-; cf. also /. Q. R., X, 250, n. a) ; 
 Num. xxxiii. 3 (here Jefet refers to the former passage: 
 jNnnN SD ''D nTntti's dnt ■'hv niiiK 's tii6:hK wjfoiN N33 ipi . . . 
 •j^K nat^n mnoD qJ? nmaoi '•a onans-iD nsans '•a piami'i') ; 
 Deut. xvi. 9 (very detailed; Saadiah is not expressly 
 mentioned here, but is designated as i>n^N Nin, once also 
 as pJKai^i' CKJ^JN j-w); Joshua V. 11 (here also Saadiah is 
 cited only anonymously: in noan mnDO [N p p ta^j npa 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE TENTH CENTURY 25 
 
 i^K ncu ririD DV); Ezek. xlvi.. 12 (here also nnti' signifies 
 Jiot festival, but Sabbath ; cf. further below). 
 
 6, Laws of Purity. Of the diiferences existing between 
 Eabbanites and Karaites. on this point, the prescriptions 
 about menstruous women come in specially for considera- 
 tion. There are two points in particular, one concerning 
 the interpretation of n"ini3 idt in Lev. xii. 5, where the 
 Karaites follow the severe view of the Sadducees (see Geiger, 
 Jiid. Zeitschrift, 11, 37; cf. also below), and the other 
 dealing with the determination of the colours in the impure 
 blood of a menstruous woman, which, according to the 
 Talmud, is five-fold (see, e.g., Aaron b. Elia, pj) |j, fol. no a 
 seqq. ; cf. also Z.f. H. B., IV, 30). Jefet combats Saadiah on 
 the first point, on Lev. xii. 7 (Saadiah says here, among 
 6ther things, one must, according to Prov. xxii; 38, follow 
 the wise: i'lpi' QnjD n^T ^np ail ipi i^n niiN n'Mni's |x dw 
 i^if. Tnnx Vifv ntys* th'iV ^JUJ Jon bn nsnai^N, and this leads 
 Jefet to a short digression on the Oral Law) ; and on the 
 second point, on Lev. xv. 19. 
 
 7. Mai'riage laws, notably one of the most difiicult and 
 complicated chapters in the legal lore of the Karaites, 
 especially in regard to the forbidden degrees of relation- 
 ship. Nevertheless, in his controversy with Saadiah, Jefet 
 mostly touches only subordinate points, which are besides 
 more of an exegetical nature. Thus, on Lev. xviii. 6, con- 
 cerning the expression ntJ'3 "^H^ {ei. KaufTnann-Gedenkbuch, 
 p. 175 ; Jefet also considers here the interpretation of Ezra 
 X. 3, on which further below) ; on xviii. 15, on the ex- 
 pression irh^, which, according to Saadiah, includes also 
 the son's betrothed, so that the words -]i2 nB>N had to be 
 added here. Much more detailed is the controversy about 
 Levirate man'iage, on xviii. 18. Here Jefet follows the 
 opinion of 'AnS.n, according to which D'nN, in Deut. xxv. 5, 
 means not "brethren" but "kindred" (cf. jB.^.J., XLV, 
 61 seq.), and among other things very thoroughly refutes 
 Saadiah's proof, that just as the prohibition of Lev. xviii. 
 .16 is limited by the command of Deut. xxv. 5, so also a 
 
26 THE KARAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS OF 
 
 biblical prohibition can be liable to limitation by another 
 command (or, in other words, n"? nnn riCT, of. R.E.J., 
 XXXIV, 169), as e.g. the prohibition of Exod. xx. 10 by 
 the command of Num. xxviii. 9 ^. 
 
 8. Civil law : Exod. xxi. 24 (published and discussed in 
 Monatsschrift, XLI, 305), where Jefet upholds the literal 
 interpretation of the jus talionis, and at the same time 
 disputes with Saadiah, without mentioning his name. 
 
 9. Exegetical and miscellaneous matters : Gen. i. a (com- 
 municated by Munk, Notice sur Abou 'l-Walid, p. 40, n. i : 
 i?K Dinn ID inn p^5pnB'^« bvi p oija ^p1 . . . ; Saadiah is meant, 
 see Ibn Ezra, ad loc.) ; xv. 9 (a refutation of Saadiah's alle- 
 gorical interpretation of the kinds of beasts mentioned here, 
 where the Gaon partly follows the Midrash ^ ; especially 
 interesting are Jefet's concluding words : DKT 'X) NB'D ibss . . , 
 ^by nT nijN j?snid^k }d n^iia ■'S nniNW mnNU "hy (ria-na^K 
 p D^D ip iNai" jjjND nin i'^wni'N •<b» mnKD p pvj^iN inis to 
 riTiasPN np?t^N rrin) ; xix. 1 1 (Saadiah is said to have main- 
 tained that v3NM in xviii. 8 refeiTcd to Ishmael and the 
 servants of Abraham I In the translation there is no trace 
 of this) ; Exod. iii. 3 (communicated by Pinskerj p. 73 ; on 
 the explanation of CX n^b) ^ ; xi. 4 (? see Munk, 1. c, p. 41) ; 
 xxiv. 4 (according to Saadiah what is related here hap- 
 pened on Sivan 9, soon after the Revelation) ; xxx. 13 (on 
 Dniaa piD3*; Saadiah is quoted here anonymously: '<ibtiS, , . 
 
 ^ The words of Jefet in question are : EBba TV J« 'jfinDs'iN ViD D'Si . . . 
 'DVobH rrnix '■i'jH rat) <3i d'bss ':» r\yan am 'jrra csnn to'ii Hv nd:ni tennn 
 ■fm D'«33 '31!) nasjn dvii joi D'ns lao' 'a yi piB^« aino D3nn msD. These 
 words of Jefet must be the basis of Aaron b. Ellas' conclusions, which are 
 interesting though tinged with a philosophical tendency (Son Eden, f. 159). 
 Cf. also Finsker, p. 66. 
 
 ' This interpretation of Saadiah is also criticized by Bnnash b. Labrat 
 (no. 7), cf. Ibn Ezra's in' now , no. 7, and Jiippmann's notes on it, as well as 
 Geiger's Wiss. Zeitschr.,Y, 311, and nnn m3, V, loi. On the Agadic 
 interpretation of the Vision of Beasts especially see Steinschneider, Polem. 
 u. apolog. Liter., p. 266 seq., and on Saadiah's principles in his allegories, see 
 the passages quoted Monatsschrift, XLI, ao8, n. 3. 
 
 ' For the original of Saadiah's commentary on this verse, see Z.A.T.W., 
 I, 152. 
 
 ♦ The particular passage from Saadiah's commentary on this verse in 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE TENTH CENTURY 27 
 
 i^N ri3D ho "Si xtsy* t*«3 O'lisa "loa ]» p) ; Isa. lii. i^ (pub- 
 lished by Neubauer, The 53rd Chapter of Isaiah, &c. ; on the 
 Servant of God) ; Jer. xxxvi. i (see my "U DTOD 'an 'Jnna 
 jflpn 'nnaij uiin, p, 31, n. 9; the Megillah mentioned here 
 cannot possibly mean Echa, as Saadiah following the Talmud 
 maintains) ; Ezek. xlviii. 1 2 (according to Saadiah the form 
 n'onn would point to a duplication) ; and Dan. xii. 13 (ed. 
 D. S. Margoliouth, p. 151 ; on the calculation of the year 
 of Kedemption, see my Miscellen iiber Saadja, III, 1 1 = 
 Monatsschrift, XLIV, 410). 
 
 The tone is mostly calm and agreeable; but the 
 demonstration is not always fortunate. But it must be 
 remembered that the arguments of Saadiah too are very 
 often superficial. The commentaries of Jefet, however, are 
 also in this respect of great importance. 
 
 Nothing has yet been discovered of Jefet's polemical 
 work against Saadiah, as has already been observed. On 
 the other hand, a work of this kind in Hebrew, directed 
 against a pupil of the Gaon, Jacob b. Samuel, has been 
 preserved' ; and I have expressed the conjecture, which 
 still needs verification, that this pupil is identical with 
 the Jacob ibn Ephraim mentioned by Qirqis^ni as his 
 interlocutor (so that his full name must have been Jacob ben 
 Samuel ibn Ephraim) ^. But as the Karaites, and especially 
 Jefet, repeat themselves very often, and inasmuch as par- 
 ticularly in their anti-rabbinical campaign they almost 
 always advance with the same arguments, it is there- 
 fore more than probable that the polemical work against 
 Jacob contains much that Jefet also adduced against 
 
 German translation : Bacher, Hie jiid. Bibelexegese, &c. (Treves, 1892), 
 p. 13 seq. 
 
 • The heading here reads : nB' iXT 3in cSicn cann ycmn rraiiiTri nbm 
 irpsn ^isiDic ja ypy'j s'j 'ibn 'to n p bn:n loton 'I'jn. See corrections 
 thereto in Geiger, inn: isiH, IV, 19 seq. 
 
 ' See Kaufmann-Oedenkbuch, p. 169 seq. On Jefet's controversial work, 
 ibid., p. 180 (reprint, p. xii). It is, at any rate, remarkable that the 
 name of Jacob, as far as hitherto known, does not occur even in Jefet's 
 commentaries. 
 
28 THE KARAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS OF 
 
 Saadiah. One would therefore be justified in briefly ana- 
 lysing this polemical work, more especially as Saadiah 
 also is expressly mentioned here, in the second poem : 
 D^tjijD mm na'N /i.e. from fi3 in Egypt) 'swn nnjjD -pisbKh mas 
 n'3is''D ^?3 nnvD ^3^ . . . 'av b'bo dhb' Qiae'in cm /sn 
 nijjDnij ^nnras ne'i px ^k ,0- ^- ^^^ of Egypt, cf. Jer. xlvi. 20) 
 nj)[i]nv p HB'j) nsta /inia moo bnh d'jib*. 
 
 This polemical work consists of three sections in doggerel 
 verses of four members, in which, after the manner of the 
 Arabic Muwashshah songs, three members of each strophe 
 rhyme with one another, whilst the fourth members have 
 one common rhyme. The acrostic in all three is alpha- 
 betical '. That they all three belong together may be in- 
 ferred from the superscription of the third : n^'a «\"i'^5 B'^B'N*. 
 Possibly these were originally followed by replies in prose; 
 Their contents are as follows : — 
 
 In the first section Jefet combats the view that there exists 
 an Oral Law revealed by God to Moses, and employs the 
 following four proofs : (i) Moses commands Joshua (Deut, 
 xxxi. 1 1 ■?) in the presence of all Israel to read the Torah ; 
 there is no mention of an Oral Law. (2) To all questions 
 that the son should put to his father, the Torah gives 
 (Exod. xiii. 8, 14 &c.) such answers as can be derived 
 from itself, but not out of any Oral Law existing beside 
 it. {3) Moses, in his last exhortation (Deut. xxxii. 7)1 
 enjoins that questions should be asked of the ancestors, 
 the answers to which are contained in the same address: 
 so that here also there is no need of an oral supplement. 
 (4) God promised the scattered members of his people^ 
 he would turn to them again when they would abandon 
 the work of man (cf. Isa. xxix. 13), among which are to 
 be understood Mishna, Talmud, and A^da, which men 
 invented ^, 
 
 ' The fourth, with the acrostic pin omnn nspD , belongs, as Geiger, 1. e., 
 rightly recognizes, to Sahl's polemical work. 
 
 " To be sure, we cannot regard this point as an argument against tradition. 
 In tlie last strophe the iirst two members must be reversed : mw 'ec :n 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE TENTH CENTURY 2g 
 
 In section II the same theme is treated, and two proofs 
 of Jacob b. Samuel for the authenticity of the Oral Law are 
 refuted. From Jer. xvii. ai, 22 Jacob seems to have urged 
 that the Pentateuchal laws need a supplementary Oral Law, 
 because it does not follow from the Torah that one may not 
 carry a burden on the Sabbath, as the prophet here insists. 
 Jefet replies that this prohibition is to be derived from 
 Num. iv. 1 3, because here the carrying of a burden is called 
 work (naNiiD mE'j?^ ; and the sons of Kehat had only parts 
 of the tabernacle to carry). The second proof, which Jacob 
 repeated after Saadiah, was that from i Chron. xxiv. 19. 
 Here the words Wis ~iB'K3, which refer to the twenty-four 
 priestly divisions, must necessarily refer to the command 
 of an Oral Law, as there is nothing of it contained in the 
 Written Law. Whereupon Jefet again replies, that iniv "iCNO 
 particularly refers to the service of the priests (hence to 
 Num. xviii. 7) ; but the twenty-four divisions were indeed 
 first introduced by David ^. 
 
 In section III various ordinances and institutions are 
 discussed : on the one hand, it is shown that the data of 
 Scripture for these completely suflBce, contrary to the view 
 of the Rabbis ; and on the other hand again, that a part of 
 them are not of biblical origin, as the Rabbis maintain, 
 and hence they cannot have any validity whatsoever. For 
 example, the Priestly Blessing^ is expressly enjoined in the, 
 Torah (Num. vi. 23) ; but its details, as in many similar 
 commandments, are to be derived by meia,ns of the thirteen 
 
 lO'tt)' (i.e. the Oral Law) nai'^ni nmion ,nwMn pwni ni D'jin tdh ^niinan 'rr 
 (i Sam. xii. 21) non irtn '3 iVs' n'ji ■&sr «S D'to ,nssl^nh. 
 
 '■ Saadiah can only have asserted that the priests were already grouped 
 into divisions in the time of Moses, but not into twenty-foui-, for this 
 number is ascribed to David in the Talmud also (Taanit Babli, 27 a ; 
 "Tosefta," IV, 2, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 219). Cf. also Commmta/ry on 
 CAromdes, ed. Kirchheim, p. 36 seq. ; Hai's " Eesponsum " in nob© rtnp, 
 ed. Wertheimer, n 0. 20, as well as Maimonides and Nahmanides, ' 'Precepts," 
 no. 26. See also Zunz, Literaturg. d. syn. Poesie, p. 206. 
 
 ' This and the following points must, therefore, have been advanced 
 by Jacob as arguments for the necessity of an Oral Law. 
 
3Q THE KARAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS OF 
 
 Eules of Interpretation (which, as is known, the Karaites 
 also accepted) ". The libation «,t sacrifices is biblical, but 
 the water-libation is a capricious addition to the words 
 of God (for a Sam. xxiii. i6, e. g. has nothing to do with 
 sacrifices), and hence to be avoided. Again, the singing 
 of the Levites belongs to the nature of their service, and 
 had no need to be enjoined; and if at the offering of 
 firstfruits a hymn of thanksgiving was sung, a similar 
 hymn with instruments must have accompanied sacrifices. — 
 In Ezra x. 3 the Rabbis refer cno to the children, that is 
 to say, these were also expelled from Judaism. But this 
 is revolting ; the word rather refers only to the mothers ^. — 
 The different DmytJ' were devised by the Talmudists, and 
 it was particularly the Rabbis rather than the Karaites 
 (however the latter can determine without an Oral Law 
 what kinds of work are permitted on the Sabbath and 
 what forbidden), who had to ask themselves how it came 
 about that in this law, which claims to be of Divine origin, 
 there should be so many differences of opinion. This last 
 reproach is notably repeated by aU Karaite controversialists. 
 13. Sahl b. Masliah ha-Eohen (Abu-'l-Surri) is one of 
 the most prominent, but also of the most fanatical Karaites 
 of the older period^. He is generally considered very 
 
 ' The thirteen Rules are also used by 'Anan and the earliest Karaites, see 
 Steinschneider-Festschrift, p. ao8. Of. also Harkavy, Stud. u. MUi., VIII, i, p. xi. 
 
 ' Cf. Pinsker, p. 23, n. la, and Geiger, I.e., ai. 
 
 ' For the literature on him see Steinschneider, Cat. Lugd,, p. 294 ; 
 Die hehr. CTcrs.,^p. 964, n. 306 ; and Z. f. H. B., VI, 184. The short article 
 on Sahl in the Jewish Encyclopaedia, o. v. (X, 636 ; by Ochser), is written 
 without any special knowledge of the subject and is not without a comic 
 touch, for Sahl is said to have been one of the Eechabites ! The Masliah 
 ha-Kohen (Alphab. 47 1), or Masliah Abu '1-Surri (Alphab. 62 ') quoted 
 twice by Hadassi, was perhaps the son of Sahl also cited by the author 
 of the Hilluk (cf. Pinsker, p. 106, 1. 10 ; Pinsker, p. 87. u. a, considers 
 him to be the father of Sahl). On the other hand, the Masliah b. Sahl 
 ha-Kohen and Sahl b. Salah (see J. Q. R., XVII, 632), mentioned in a 
 Pentateuch Codex of the Karaite Synagogue, might have been descendants 
 of our Sahl b. Masliah. These two are brought into connexion with the 
 Massorete, Mishael b. Uzziel, who probably lived in the twelfth century 
 (see Steinschneider, Arab, Liter, d. Juden, § 167). 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE TENTH CENTURY 31 
 
 much older than Jefet, but the fact was overlooked that 
 in the oft-mentioned list of Saadiah's disputants he also 
 mentions Abu Ali Hasan al-Basri, i. e. Jefet. On the other 
 hand, Aaron b. Joseph, in his commentary on Lev. xv. 35, 
 expressly states that Jefet combats a view of Sahl (fol. 35 a : 
 mint: ^ynz'n av t\)02 n^nn dne' nj;n» iino wm [nan njjii . . . 
 , . . nat N^i mj x'^n »j''DB'n dv n^nna m nn«- i nboB' insi ijuani 
 n\ffbfffi2 NS' vh^ nmj by noNoa pj? ]vo^ isnb ^"1 ii^n nni 
 '131 onai), which indeed occurs in the commentary of 
 the former, although anonymous (see Munk, Notice sur 
 Abou 'l-Walid, p. 6, n. a). In any case, such anonymous 
 citations are no convincing proofs, for the view represented 
 by Sahl could be that of a much older Karaite exegete *. 
 But another circumstance must be considered. In his pole- 
 mical work (soon to be mentioned) against Jacob b. Samuel, 
 Sahl speaks of letters and various questions which this 
 Jacob addressed to him (see Pinsker, p. 26 : '<bti nana niy 
 li'B' mjK3 ; and p. ^6 : ni'Nt!' nrai noan B'pa ivo^ dx nns? nnsi 
 n^B*!? aiD t6 nisNCf njNin ]yKh dsi . . . n''m hid <jdd nii'SB'n 
 &c.), and as Jacob was a pupil of Saadiah^, Sahl can have 
 written his work at the latest circa 960. He was thus 
 most probably a contemporary of Jefet, of the same age ^, 
 and wrote about 960-1000. In agreement with this are 
 the statements of Ibn al-Hiti that Sahl in his commentary 
 on Leviticus controverted Joseph b. Noah, and that he 
 was probably his contemporary, and further, that Levi 
 b. Jefet controverted Sahl in his law-book*. Joseph b. 
 
 ^ Thus Munk concluded (1. e., p. la), on the ground of such anonymous 
 quotations, that Jefet is later than Jeshua b, Jehuda. 
 
 ' See above, p. a^. 
 
 ' In Karaite literature now Sahl, now Jefet is put forward. See, e. g., 
 Hadassi, 178 a and o( 213 h and B, 236 n (where 'I'jrri pDni), 241 o, 257 
 n and 1 ; Aaron b. Joseph on Num., f. 29 b ; Aaron b. Elias, pB p, f. 5a d, 
 167 c, 168 b, 170a, and mm nna on Num., f. 45 b, &c. The name of Sahl 
 does not seem to have yet been found in Jefet. 
 
 ' J. Q. B., IX, 433, 1. a : 13M j1ll^n -isssD ;m (_-'-\DhH UM 'n) TO« np«'!M1 . . . 
 ■fm fi'i'iiB fispwo r3ni« "B nspM: nssfi n: p F|DV ips' ; ibid., I. 12 : ;m31 . . . 
 (ms. n:N')i ''») n:N^ ncbM i3« □'iro'jH jmdi -d ('to i3n Dbso^M p no ia« d'woSs 'n) 
 
32 THE KARAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS OF 
 
 Noah flourished (according to Ibn al-Hiti) about 393 of 
 the Hegira (=1003-3), and Levi wrote at the beginning 
 of the eleventh century ^. That Sahl speaks of the period 
 of Saadiah as of that of his predecessors, agrees "with these 
 facts (see Pinsker, p. 36 : iDircsin iD''3 nrn •'isb)). 
 . Sahl also composed a special controversial work againsfc 
 Saadiah, which he mentions in the same list, and which, 
 is likewise lost. But he must have disputed violently 
 with the Gaon in his other works also, of which two, 
 both in Arabic, deserve particular consideration. In the 
 first place, thei'e is a commentary on the Pentateuch, of 
 which a fragment on Deuteronomy is said to exist in a, 
 MS. in St. Petersburg {Z. A. T. W., I, 157). The part on 
 Deuteronomy was also used in an anonymous Karaite 
 compilation of the year 135 1 (MS. Brit. Mus. Or. 2498, Cat, 
 MargoL, I, no. 334, cf. also below No. 38). But another MS. 
 fragment on Exodus, at St. Petersburg, is said to belong 
 perhaps also to Sahl, and here there are two passages 
 against Saadiah. In the one (communicated by Harkavy, 
 Stud. u. Mitt., Vj 325) Saadiah's contention, that 'Anan 
 taught that the new month should be fixed by observation 
 of the moon only in order that the Mahommedans (whose 
 custom was the same) should appoint him head of the 
 Jews, is rebutted with great indignation. The reproach 
 is levelled against himself, that in his attempt to succeed 
 to the leadership he relied upon the Mahommedans and 
 desecrated the Sabbath, and that during the strife with 
 David b. Zakkai, his opponents turned to every com- 
 munity with a ban against the man who wanted to attain 
 office in such a manner. In another passage (communi- 
 cated by the same in his edition of Qirqisa,ni, p. 354, n. 4, 
 and Otcherld, I, 11, n. 3) Saadiah's assumption, that the 
 
 n; 'iiiN man ied 'b. (ms. -bs) n'te '^-i^ nTDcn TsnaM [nwV can only 
 refer to Abu Said, i. e. to Levi ; see Steinsohneider, Z. f. H. £., 1. 0.] ; ibid.^ 
 1, 19 : fitoj pi «pT Nip'i nsD yonn jd in (I. n-n-\) i«t ptEm^ j"Nip!!« no'aa 'd 
 •fa rpiahit Dipbx 'b fijD r. ni, n: p'j nnspWD 'b nobN 13M d'jski'jm '^i^ so. 
 ' See my 2urjud.-arab. litter., p. 6., 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE TENTH CENTURY 33 
 
 calculation of the calendar was first introduced in conse- 
 quence of the advent of Sadok and Boethos, is disputed. 
 But I have already expressed the conjecture that the author 
 of this fragment is perhaps Hasan b. Mashiah. (see p. 16). 
 
 A second important work of Sahl was a niVDH nsD in 
 Arabic (of which there are fragments in St. Petersburg), 
 with a Hebrew introduction (edited by Harkavy in p|DND 
 D^mJ, I, no. i3 = }*'i'Dn, 1879, cols. 639-43), which contains 
 much valuable information about the Jews in Jerusalem 
 in the time of the author (see B. E. J., XLVHI, 154), and 
 is also otherwise very interesting. According to Stein- 
 Bchneider (Z.f.H.B., VI, 185), this work is perhaps identical 
 with the D'<T-\ ISD of Sahl cited by Samuel al-Magi-ibi 
 (Pinsker, p. 144). But it is more probable that Sahl 
 treated ritual and civil law matters in two works, like 
 Benjamin al-Nahawendi before him, of whose niSDn nsD 
 some fragments have recently become known (collected 
 by Harkavy, Stud. u. Mitt.,YU.J, 1, pp. 175-84), and whose 
 D'jn nsD on Civil Law is printed under the title (probably 
 invented later) of po^Ja dncd. In his law-book also, as 
 a matter of course, Sahl disputed with Saadiah, and per- 
 haps this book is the origin of a passage (communicated 
 by Harkavy in Saadiah's (Euvres, IX, p. xlii) in which 
 the Fayyumite is reproached with not recognizing analogy 
 as a legal noun, contrary to the Thirteen Rules instituted 
 by the Talmudists : hiXi> n^S ni'N D^iy niD [K (iD1''si'N iN) hpM 
 
 <a ni^Np ND inni vntJ'i'N "is okv^'n tspONi .'ii'N mjs nm bv 
 \na rw-n: nuaiji ntyniJ rrmn nno rrm ^^ p n'ljna min mv 
 
 ^ That Saadiah did not hold the Agada as a standard authority follows 
 also from the above-mentioned fragment of his polemical work against 
 Ibn Saqaweihi (No. a), where he reproaches the latter with having 
 derived arguments for his assertions not from Mishna, Mekhilta, and 
 Targum, but from Agadot, from unauthenticated writings, and from 
 Piyutim (J. Q. R., XIII, 664 '. n'ji raiBO^K 'd nqo 'sjj rfjip 'to irncno' a'n 
 vf) ana ;a unsyai nMi«3«')« )d «rrsw ayo tii 'n« nd:«i nianrts k^i ns^wobw 
 •i^« fiJSin^N JO Nrtsril sn'te nn«niD). It is also interesting to establish the 
 fact that the expression mj« nai to pniD J'«l, which also occurs in Sherira 
 
 D 
 
34 THE KARAITE LITEEAKY OPPONENTS OP 
 
 b'Kp b)p'' tN3E5 nxsDJ li'ip'' ch nnJK^ dnv^s^ iNnanDsiiK ''by hn 
 
 Moreover, according to a conjecture of Harkavy, Sahl is 
 perhaps the author of an Arabic lampoon against Saadiah; 
 in which is included a similar Hebrew lampoon of one of 
 Saadiah's most ardent opponents, namely, of the Gaon Aaron 
 (or Khalaf, cf. R. £.J., XLIX, 300) ibn Sarjado, as well as the 
 libellous document of the deposition of David b. Zakkai 
 (edited as far as extant, and completely discussed last, by 
 Harkavy, Stud. u. Mitt., V, 22 a seq.). In any case Sahl's 
 authorship is very doubtful, for in the first place the pre- 
 viously mentioned fragment on Exodus, which ofiers some 
 parallels to this lampoon, originates rather from Ben Mashiah 
 than from Sahl ; and in the second place, Harkavy himself 
 admits that everything seems to point to the Karaite author 
 of this work having been a contemporary of Saadiah, and 
 having lived in Ir§,q. But we know that Sahl probably 
 wrote in the last third of the tenth century, and that he 
 sojourned in Jerusalem ^- Besides, as this work is purely 
 personal, and does not touch on any legal or other points 
 of difference between Eabbanites and Karaites, it does not 
 exactly fall within the scope of this dissertation, and it 
 is only mentioned here incidentally. 
 
 Sah], like Jefet, composed a polemical work, not only 
 against Saadiah, but also against his pupil, Jacob b. 
 
 (see Eshkol, ed. Auerbach, II, 47) and Hai {Sesponsa, ed. Lyek, no. g8), is 
 already found In Saadiah, and was perhaps coined by him. 
 
 ' Harkavy wavers between Sahl and Jeshua b. Jehuda, but the author- 
 ship of the first should be more probable : see his polemical work (soon 
 to be mentioned) against Jacob b. Samuel (in Pinsker, p. a6) : nn[i]D 'in 
 Dn^tt! D'jna mina aina xSni ,ni»i3n d» noa min w DnniNn ,n\Bii wt kSi nmn 
 Twni rmnn nno mcs mbcD /ittnisn. [It may be remarked, by the way, 
 that the passage cited in (Euvres, 1. c, from a commentary on Exodus, is 
 actually derived from Jefet'a commentary, on xxi. 33 ; see above, p. aa.] 
 
 ' This follows not only from the preface to the mson 'd mentioned 
 above, but also from many passages of the polemical work against Jacob 
 b. Samuel; see, e.g., Pinsker, p. a^ below : ':i nM Tninb 'riNl iBipnn n'2D '3» 
 'DS, and so forth (ffiipon n'3 here in the sense of the Arabic ^juJiJ.! li* 
 i. e, Jerusalem). 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE TENTH CENTTJEY 35 
 
 Samuel, which has now been edited from a copy of Elias b. 
 Baruch Jerushalmi (Pinsker, p. 25 seq.) \ Elias is probably 
 also the author of the title nl?jD nnain or nnainn max. It 
 is written in Hebrew, but Sahl also intended to publish 
 it eventually also in Arabic, so that those ignorant of 
 Hebrew could also read it (p. 25 : anon pETia ainON ■<b\K) . . . 
 '131 nnin'> ]wb Vi^ ah^ "d u nip''B' \va'p i'NyDtJ'* iit^b ntn), but 
 we do not know whether he carried out this project. Sahl's 
 work has more the character of a reply, as it was preceded 
 by letters of Jacob to Sahl, both in Hebrew and in 
 Arabic^. In any case the assertion of a controversialist 
 so passionate and relentless as Sahl was, seems rather 
 comical, that he took up his pen against Jacob only because 
 the latter in his polemics indulged in irony and sarcasm 
 (p. 31 : nnain nba ania 'n^in t6 n^f ^"'^''^ nbrhno:! yin ■<o ^b-h)). 
 The style is lively, but too pathetic and too propagandist ^^ 
 Here and there one also meets various Arabisms *. 
 
 The polemical work in its existing condition is not a 
 uniform composition. At the beginning there is a poem 
 with the acrostic pin omnn nspD tiipn \mn niijso ja hno^, 
 
 ^ Corrections and variants in Geiger, lara "isw , IV, aa seq. Cf. also 
 Kau/matm-Gedenkbuch, pp. 180, 181. 
 
 ' Cf. above, p. 31, then the passage (in Pinsker, p. 239) : mj« ''jM nina '3 
 ^NSDIB' jiffita. 
 
 ' Many expressions are verbally repeated here and in the above- 
 mentioned Hebrew preface to the msDn 'd, thus, e. g., sS no'OB rfns dmi 
 ^loan no nsin rt'o ,Vdj (ytein, col. 639, 1. 34, and Pinsker, p. 43, 1. 16) ; 
 noffii npn) vmnW Hsi /pn 'n mimi ,icni5 J" ninoi •m-2. nVaNDi . . . (ibid., 
 1. a, from bottom ; Pinsker,p. 31, 1. 10). Pinsker, p. 31, 1. 1 seq., is a complete 
 Kinna. Sahl could not free himself, too, from Talmudical turns of ex- 
 pression, see Pinsker, 34, 1. 3 from bottom : iqbs'j nbnj iBpm "[WNll (from 
 the Boraita mm J'3p). Also interesting is the phrase (p. 26, 1. 22) : ij'nWNO 
 n^3 nisnn 'pn istao, which reminds one of the well-known rroiTrr tap. 
 
 * Thus icipnri n'l for Jerusalem (see p. 34, n. 2), then the expression 
 nmnn nspD ( = J'B'ib:'!« ysi? see following note), &c. 
 
 • Divided in Pinsker by mistake into two (pp. 26 and 24), and the other 
 half ascribed to Jefet, see Geiger, I.e., p. 20. That the poem forms 
 a rounded-off whole is shown by the conclusion (p. 25) ; on the other 
 hand, in the poem as well as in the epistle and in the actual polemical 
 work, one and the same phrase of Jacob b. Samuel, in which the word 
 rmn occurs, is alluded to : see p. 24, 1. 4 from bottom ; p. 27, 1. 16, and 
 
 D 2, 
 
36 THE KAEAITE LITEEARY OPPONENTS OP 
 
 in which it is particularly and emphatically shown that 
 the Oral Law cannot be of divine origin, as the teachers 
 of the Mishna themselves were of divided opinion on many 
 questions. Probably to this poem was attached an epistle, 
 the beginning of which is missing *, and in which gram- 
 matical and even orthographical errors of Jacob are pointed 
 out, Sahl remarking that he found nearly sixty such 
 errors in the letters of his opponent (p. 7a : 2^1^ mn lyi 
 n^nnjsa Tikvo mw QitJ'B'i'). But as a matter of fact, the 
 errors branded by Sahl (where, e.g. m*D3, ni"DB, nTp, &c., 
 are written plene) are not errors at all, for this mode of 
 writing was usual in the time of the Geonim in order 
 to facilitate the reading of words without vowels. 
 
 The actual controversy begins with the words (p. 27): 
 "oy 'J3 ns T-ntni) insa E'IPDH n^ao »3X, and is addressed to 
 Jacob b. Samuel; but it is really directed principally 
 against the Eabbanites, as it is more in the nature of an 
 admonitory and missionary pamphlet, in which Sahl 
 appeals incessantly to the followers of the Talmud to 
 abandon their former conduct and to walk in the only 
 right way, the way of the Karaites: "Have mercy, 
 Israelites," he exclaims in one passage (p. 34), " upon your 
 souls and your children! Beholdj the light is burning, 
 and the sun shines forth (i. e. Karaism). Choose for your- 
 selves the good path, where there is living water, and walk 
 not in a waste and waterless land (i. e. Talmudism)," &c. 
 "Brethren!" he exclaims in another passage (p. 43), 
 
 p. 30, 1. 14 from bottom. By nmn Sahl understands his rather strict 00- 
 roUgionists, see p. 36, 1. 17: nmnn nn« ns'i') 211a vhn wnN nns (of. also 
 
 p. a6, 1. I : Dmn W3N ibipb '3 WSID 09 IJTONl IVhSk NW '3 . . . ). 
 
 ' This follows from the opening words (p. 27, 1. 16) : mjNi 'V^ nins yta 
 ■]Se. The piece, p. 25, 1. 26— p,26, 1. s, seems to be the continuation of 
 p. 27, 1. 3 from bottom (if the words of Elias Jerushalmi, p. 25, 1. 24, refer 
 to it : pfbn nn ran n3 mj«n nsi 'jd") ni3in3 niaisjn S'\ -h c'ib 'jdoi ?) ; and 
 here also the conclusion shows that this epistle forms an independent 
 whole. According to Elias (p. 25, 1. 12), Sahl is said to have written 
 besides this epistle ten further replies (i. e. letters most likely) to Jacob. 
 But is this based on reality f 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN TPIE TENTH CENTURY 37 
 
 "hearken not unto those who say that the Karaites (''J3 
 xnpD) wish you evil. God forbid ! Verily we pray unto 
 God, that he should have mercy upon his people, the 
 remnant of Israel, and be mindful of the love for our 
 forefathers. We write all this only out of love for you: 
 circumcise the foreskin of your heart, for the time has 
 come to awake from the sleep of the exile." In a similar 
 strain he goes on reproving the Kabbanites repeatedly for 
 their numerous sins, and accuses them of transgressing 
 many prescriptions of the law respecting diet, purity, 
 marriage, and the Sabbath (pp. 88-30, 33) ', of being 
 devoted to superstition (p. 32)^, &c. And if many of the 
 Rabbanites of Palestine have entered upon a better course, 
 that is due to the influence of the Karaites (p. 33), whose 
 ascetic mode of life Sahl describes in eloquent words 
 (p. 31). The allegorical allusions of many verses are also 
 interesting, as, e. g. Canticles i. 8 (p. 34), and iii. 7 (p. 36 ; 
 cf. Geiger, I.e., p; 24); Zech. xi. la (ibid.) and 14 (p. 42). 
 In the last verse he makes the staff DW symbolize the 
 empire of the heathen nations, which is styled "grace," 
 because these nations have not destroyed the religion of 
 Israel ; by the staff D''!'3n is meant the yoke of the two 
 women (Zech. v. 9), i. e. of the two Jeshiboth in Sura and 
 Pumbaditha, which by means of Talmud and Agada " have 
 destroyed the vineyard of the Lord " (niNlV 'n Dia D^bno). 
 This staff will now be broken, i. e. the traditional writings 
 
 ' They are mostly such prescriptions in which the Karaites differ from 
 the Kabbanites, and are inclined to the severer view ; thus, with regard 
 to the enjoyment of an embryo (Vto or map) and of the fat tail (n'^s), the 
 adoption of a minimum (nmsiu) in the mixing of clean and unclean food, 
 the marrying of a step-sister (w niB« ra) and a childless sister-in-law 
 CrroT) &c. Almost allKaraites, from Qirqisani and Salmon toFirJiowitsch, 
 are not tired of repeating these complaints. 
 
 ^ This passage is of especial inteiest for the history of culture : -j'Ml . . . 
 D'wni onisji D':")! nnapi d'Mv hHivi> ':i nspD pi rm miis naw '^^^l mn™ 
 
 D'jjim D'N'in ':'o tab pnsn 'jid TOnn to nnps nnwpi °''^^'>^ ''» ori^^^'' nn'cpm 
 '131 D'non D'P'i^n mp to (jjj»siJj = ) (partly repeated in Hadassi,Alphab. 
 104 ; cf. also Bacher, Agada d. Tann., V, 354, n. 5). 
 
38 THE KAEAITE LITERAEY OPPONENTS OF 
 
 will be given over to destruction, and thus theii" declaration 
 (nins in the sense of ima. Job xv. 17 !) will be suppressed \ 
 
 As can be seen, there is hardly anything of a personal 
 controversy here with Jacob b. Samuel, but the attack is 
 all the more violent against his teacher, Saadiah, whose 
 name is accompanied by abusive epithets (p. 40 : yt^nn ITH 
 aion ']'\-\o [bvn^] nv ns nnoi n^Don nynnm nyinn jjnn B»Nn- 
 tfpv mtyvT riKi, also : [pun on iDin^an] inian E'pyn iDin''Bn nnjio). 
 Besides the passage already quoted in this dissertation, where 
 Sahl relates that Saadiah avoided disputing with Karaites, 
 and did not publish his anti-Karaite writings during his 
 lifetime, whereupon there follows a list of the Karaite 
 controversialists (Pinsker, p. 37) ; it is also related of the 
 Fayyumite that in consequence of his persuasive arts^ a 
 dispute about the festivals broke out between the Pales- 
 tineans and the Babylonians, so that they observed the 
 festivals on different days, and hurled the ban against one 
 another. I have shown {J. Q. R., X, 154) that what is meant 
 here is Saadiah's campaign against Ben Meir, in the year 
 921, which is now pretty well explained, and that Sahl's 
 statements rest upon facts throughout. 
 
 Much more detailed is a complete excursus in which 
 Saadiah's well-known theory of the great age of the 
 calculation of the calendar is refuted (Pinskei*, p. 37, 1. 7 
 from bottom — p. 4a, 1. 25)^. Only one of the Gaon's 
 proofs is there combated, namely, that from i Chron. 
 xii. 33: i'NiB'^ HB'j)' no mnb D^nv^ nj»3 ^jjir nac'B'i ''jaoi. 
 
 ' Jefet interprets this word similarly in Cant. iii. 2 (ed. Barges, p. 41), 
 although he gives a different allegorical explanation to the entire 
 verse. In his MS. commentary, ad loc, he refers to the vision of the two 
 women to the Talmudic colleges of both countries, Palestine and Babylon 
 (pMn»';m 'liM^Mi DHinwa fiinxi'js 'rtM j'ni'fin^s 'no D-ra D'nis ndni . . . ; and 
 further : 'i').^ ToWsi riMoto j-'j'sp'jH a^xnobN »»Dn nni a'vii D<n«) noni . . . 
 N'jsx'jx p™nB^K <B snisBi). Cf. also Hadassi, f. 10 a infra (letters vi and n). 
 
 ' Pinsker, p. 28 : D'b:m nno IBS 'Din'En ■'D<i nm 'joSi, a play on words. 
 
 ' This excursus is not free from errors and repetitions, which cannot 
 well be removed here. Whether Saadiah is meant by the rwn» (p. 28, 1. 14), 
 as Geiger (1. c, p. 23) presumes, is uncertain. 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE TENTH CENTURY 39 
 
 The sons of Issachar had, according to Gaon, under- 
 standing of the times (i. e. of the principles of the calendar), 
 and let Israel know when they should " make," i. e. observe, 
 the festivals. The verb ncj; is also used of the observance 
 of festivals, see Deut. xvi. i, 10, 13. Sahl replies, not 
 without humour, that the sons of Issachar fixed only the 
 time of the paschal offering (for Deut. xvi. i refers only to 
 this), of Pentecost, and of Tabernacles, but not that of the 
 remaining festivals, in connexion with which that verb is 
 not used. On the other hand, they must have taught the 
 order of the festival offerings, the recurrence of the Sabbath, 
 &c., because here ICjin (Num. xxix. 39) and nitJ'y^ (Deut. v. 
 15) are used respectively. In the same way the counsellors 
 of Ahasuerus must have calculated the calendar, because 
 they are called D^nyn ■<inv (Esther i. 13). Finally, Saadiah 
 contradicts himself, as he elsewhere maintains that the 
 fixing of the calendar lay in the hands of the Sanhedrim, 
 and he contradicts the Talmud, which speaks of torches 
 used as signals on the determination of the new month, and 
 of witnesses who were questioned about the new moon, and 
 who, on that account, might desecrate the Sabbath (see 
 Mishna, Rosh ha-Shanah, II) ^. Indeed, Sahl continues, the 
 command for the observation of the calendar follows from 
 Gen. i. 14, Ps. Ixxxix. 38 and civ. 19, and calculation is 
 strictly forbidden according to Deut. xviii. 10 ^. Sahl also 
 
 ^ These objections are repeated, partly in the same words, by Jefet and 
 his son Levi, then by Jeshua b. Jehuda and Aaron b. Elias, see above, 
 p. 23. The words of the last but one (MS. leyden, 41', t. 89 b) are as 
 follows : jwiunrt nri nrari m yenn nicN d'to^ nya 'snv naiDC 'jmi ids dhdi 
 btnv nvn to mi' on'B to on'nx tai id« onriDn nin» ona yonn D'ns?')! nD«i 
 p«3 S3'K in to na'HDn '3 'mh d'jbind nn«iD m q:i von rm nn^'iN q'iib nto 
 [f. 90 a] mv «■> ni »3 'am (cf. R.E.J., XLIV, 183, n. 4) Tbprts Nini st n<NT 
 2TO' r\'n □« '3 'jni rranton Dins') m'3 'nv rtx nvn 13 snpn tan nn« niBs to 
 133 M'H '3 'ini i3iEm' ':3n inv 310 on !«;« D'jwn ■!» iniM I'sjn 3iEri )i3iBnn is 
 OTIS'} ra'3 nrf no no« n'rt dki '3S u-wh r\yi siv (a Chr. ii. la) um H^xi ids 
 ini« iJNsn '3 'mi (i.e. null) Ym »ini m [)3 Di] 3"rin' p inw id« ii»« ieu' 
 nm o'l nDN i»s 103 13 yonn f«i (Esther i. 13) D'nsn 'siv D'Mn^ -pan id«'i 
 Dni« 'map d'jiki Dta nvNin nbn nTiwn') ny\r\ n'jow. 
 
 ^ That is to say, the calculation of the calendar system is to be regarded 
 
40 THE KARAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS OF 
 
 does not miss the opportunity of dealing a blow at the 
 Talmud. He says that Saadiah's strange interpretation of 
 the verse in question is not to be wondered at, as he only 
 follows his teachers (i. e. the Talmudists), who have made 
 assertions that are not less comical, e. g. when they deduce 
 the commandment about Kiddush on Sabbath and festivals 
 from Exod. xx. 8^ , or when they order the trumpet to be 
 blown to confound Satan (see Rosh ha-SJianah, 16 b supra), 
 &c. Finally, in support of the statement that the Talmudists 
 also speak of an observation of the moon, Sahl (p, 41, 1. 19 
 seq.) quotes a story that is said to be derived from the 
 Talmud, but which has quite the character of the biblical 
 stories of the Koran. Here also are truth and fiction inter- 
 woven, and the most diverse passages of the Talmud are 
 welded together K But it is not impossible that Sahl had 
 before him some apocryphal Boraithoth, Hadassi, who 
 
 as sorcery and astrology. This strange assertion is first found in Daniel 
 al-Qumisi (9th cent.), and raost have been advanced already by 'An&n, see 
 Harkavy, Stud. u. Mitt., VIII, i, 189 : -iidm niiso tbd 'D s'j 'Dmpbs '»<':t Sipi 
 DDip iCOT inai 133 T3S0 -|i «i'n' «'; 3W33 D'ODipn pimn n« anorti ttm"; u^ 
 'lai D'Dffl mini D'ooiprr jiimna nsini 'v 'onn mm') u^ inio |'mi .'31 Q'ocp. 
 
 • P. 40, 1. 26 : niEyoi vsT -|m3 -|^' TD^nn '3 vnunnD ds'J'm n^d' 'jni . . . 
 Twsn Dv ns 1131 pn un WTp^ namn dv ns ii3i jnnca nns pi d'oi iirs' ni3M 
 jD Dvn (I. "smfi) B)np to D'D3n 130D )n3d (i"n br) inD'M3 pn to imsi imip'j 
 an . o'ko inNs dv r« •a\T\ jso'; S'n ]':d nisnn jni niiD n'jm 'b ;'ni . minn 
 [b'n] )':a ni3cn an . [n'ffisn moiBi] n'lvni n"n nas ^3 m3ii b'n po nwimn 
 D<Np ni3Dn 3n3T jS:di .(1. 1'nbs 'n -\^xf^ nnsD yi«a) onsna n"n las msii 
 .D'D> nsaic -|'> nir»n ni3cn an Tth ytsss '131 ib p'jsn pjsn (1. n'Vi) n'Ss 'j'sns 3'n3i 
 13 man niai 10'n ;nDn n3na3i Nnite3 ni3n«b -|ns Nwn'p3 (1. naim) laim a'ssi 
 nSona (1. naio no) naiK^ naao (1. p'oVi) laVi nnwo mm D'3in3 D'piDB □'d»b 'a 
 '131 Dian toi nbona dv ('d to) t)« Di3n toi. This Boraitha agrees neither 
 ■with the passage in the Mekhilta, ad loc, nor with FesaUm, 106 a, but is 
 taken from the Halakhot Gedolot, beginning of n'jiani lonp ni3')n, of. also 
 sni niN, II, no. 25. 
 
 » Cf. e.g. Rush ha-Shana, 25 a, Menahot, 29 a, Shehuat, 31a, Berakhot, 
 63 b, &c. In consequence of the conflict that broke out between Gamliel II 
 and Joshua b. Hanania, the former, in conjunction with Akiba and Tarfon, 
 is said to have introduced the nineteen-year cycle, and to have abolished 
 the observation of the moon : (JicniB 'ni wps Si 'j.^'k:: laT b'n) on lawi . . . 
 (1. :"a B'a'j, i.e. j'a j'jja ': - ifl'ns n'nj) :'3 ifl'3 ': -mnD vcsi raab jiaicn iaicm 
 'i3i n"i<nn nw ibaal d'jib td'o ;'iia» 'i i»»'o na. 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE TENTH CENTURY 4 1 
 
 adopted the same story, with a few unimportant deviations 
 (Eshkol, Alphab., 19311-1 94 r), probably drew from Sahl. 
 
 14. An anonymous Karaite author, whose work (in 
 Arabic) is partly extant in a St. Petersburg MS., and who 
 (among other things) controverted a passage from Saadiah's 
 Arabic commentary on the 'lijjn ISD (edited by Harkavy, 
 Stud. u. Mitt.,Y, 195), must likewise belong to the tenth 
 century. Evidence of his antiquity is afforded by the 
 fact that he quotes nobody but 'AnS,n, Benjamin al-Naha- 
 wendi, and Saadiah. This Karaite quotes from the work 
 of Saadiah just mentioned, that the compilation of the 
 Mishna began forty years after the restoration of the second 
 Temple and was closed 130 years after its destruction, thus 
 amounting (as the second Temple stood 430 years, accord- 
 ing to tradition) to 510 years *; secondly, that there were 
 eleven generations of Mishna-doctors (see ibid. 196, n. 11) ; 
 and thirdly, that the latter generation fixed the Mishna in 
 writing because they feared, in consequence of the cessation 
 of prophecy and the increasing dispersion, that the tradition 
 might fall into oblivion. The anonymous Karaite replies 
 (see ibid. 1 96, n, 13), that if the Mishna rests on true tradition, 
 why was such a long period necessary for its compilation, 
 whence the many differences of opinion, &c. They are the 
 usual objections that all the older Karaites advance in 
 their controversy upon these points : e. g. QirqisS,ni, section 
 ii, chap. 13 seq.2 ; Salmon b. Jeroham (cf. J. Q. B., VIII, 
 
 ^ In the original it reads : roc [<snN )D rHBobs pini nras nin'jm js . . . 
 j'3D iTOi fi'ND DD3 -pri n'3^« anii m no ponai fi'Ka 'tei 'wii'jN nufjN n:3 jo rhi. 
 These numbers do not agree with one another (for 420— 40+150=530), 
 and Harkavy (p. 195, n. 6) therefore emends nujyi fi'^n Dd3 into J'iiSni 'n '5, 
 but it must be corrected reversely ]'Dn3l Jvtm into prtni fi'ND. The last 
 date is given by Saadiah himself in his polemical work against Ibn 
 Saqaweihi (J. Q. B., XVI, 108, 1. 4 from bottom) : nM2n« npl niN ''!«1 . . . 
 TOD 'jp 'wft« n'aVs aN-13 isi ■\'}M recDfiN. 
 
 ' Only a part of chaps. 14 and 15 (see above, p. 10) is preserved, where 
 in chap. 14 Saadiah's arguments for the authenticity of the Oral Law are 
 advanced, and in chap. 15 they are refuted (partly edited in Z.f. H. B., Ill, 
 i75i 176)' Yet QirqisSni says here expressly that he will deal with this 
 theme again in further chapters, and that he has already dealt with it in 
 chap. 13 (MS. Brit. Mus. Or. 2580, f. 49 a) : ni ('avB';« 'n) m33« nd ndni 
 
42 THE KARAITE LITEEAEY OPPOTJENTS OP 
 
 687 seq.) ; Jefet b. 'Ali on Exod. xxi. 33 (see ibid. n. 6, and 
 above, p. 22), &c. It may here be observed that both, 
 Qirqisani and Jefet, make verbal quotations from Saadiah 
 on the questions dealt with here, and it is therefore possible 
 that both used the Arabic commentary on the Mban nsD. 
 
 Eleventh Centukt. 
 
 15. Levi b. Jefet ha-Levi, a son of the famous Bible 
 exegete, is also designated "the teacher (d^'sjo^'N) 'Ab(i Said^." 
 The name Abu H§,shim, on the other hand, is based on 
 a confusion with a Mahommedan philosopher of the same 
 name, whose father was also called Abu 'Ali [al-Jubbai]. 
 Levi has composed in Arabic commentaries on the Bible, 
 which, unlike those of his father, were merely short 
 glosses, and hence bear , the name naj. There remains 
 of them a part on Genesis (MS. at St. Petersburg), but 
 Levi's authorship is doubtful (see Z. A. T. W., I, 158) ; and 
 the British Museum possesses fragments on Joshua (Cat. Mar- 
 goliouth, I, no. 308^ and 330^^) ^, Judges (no. 330^^), and per- 
 haps also on Psalms (no. ^^6'). I have also already expressed 
 the conjecture (R. £. J., XLI, 307), that the '''h "-\, quoted by 
 Ibn Ezra in three passages (Gen. i. 1 1 , long commentary, ed. 
 Eriedlander, p. 28 ; Ps. vii. 10 and xxxv.13), is perhaps ours. 
 
 More important than this commentary is a Book of 
 Precepts, niVDH "iSD, composed by Levi, which contains the 
 date of composition (Pinsker, p. 90) 397 of the Hegira 
 ( = 1006-7). Fragments of the Arabic original are also 
 extant in the British Museum (Cat., no. 3092and probably also 
 . . . D«to'!N JO n»3n« sm j'sns'jw tod 'b nans fi«iirtN jmi n'jipi ^pjfis fi'D'a p 
 
 npo TD'jn "I'ji.iDDi snobK jd 'pa vra ^•ft■^ i'nsSnbN j«i n»nB ipai reioa mSoi 
 'bN him Moi no'bi fins ni5i ;n -pi w'^31 nw hhrfM W2'm >b ■]hi> >oindb« onpn 
 
 ' See on him finally Steinschneider, Die arab. Liter, d. Judm, § 46, also 
 my Zur jild.-arab. Litter., p. 49, and Jew. JEncycl., a. v. (VIII, 33). 
 
 " The first of these two MSS. originally contained Levi's commentary 
 on all the earlier prophets, as is evident from the superscription given 
 in the Catalog:ue. 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY 43 
 
 no. 308^). A Hebrew translation is at Oxford (Cat. Neub. 
 857), Leyden (Cat. Steinschneider, aa), and St. Petersburg 
 (Firk. 613, and in the Asiatic Museum, cf. Z. f. H. B., 
 X, »6), and many passages from it have been communi- 
 cated by Schorr (non DID, VIII, 56), Pinsker (pp. 89-92), 
 and Harkavy {Stud. u. Mitt., VIII, i, 133-135). It is 
 from this work that the various quotations among the 
 later Karaites must be derived, and it is evident from 
 them that Levi was inclined to mitigation and was 
 also in other respects of a gentle nature ^. Cf. the quotations 
 in Hadassi (Eshkol, 187 \ 301 d, 341 a, and 357 l) ; Aaron b. 
 Joseph (Mibhar on Exod., fol. 17 b, and on Lev., fol. 15 b; he 
 calls him both times DB'n 13K) ; Aaron b. Elias (py 13 , fol. 7 b, 
 17 a, 18 b, 31 band c, 33 d, 39a, 49 a, 67c, 113a, 114a, 133 b 
 and c, 148 c [where ns'' p], 163 d, 167 c, 169 a, and 178 b ; 
 mm nna, on Exod. 'fol. 71b and 73 a, and on Num. fol. 2,6 b) ; 
 Elias Bashiatchi (Adderet preface ; tyinn mip pjy c. 5, 14, 
 15, 34, and 37 ; ri3B' ']} pref. and c. 4, 7, 13, 17, 19, and 30 ; 
 nis»n an 'y c. a, 6 ; niviatrn jn 'y pref. and c. 3, 6, and 9 ; 
 cnxn mnm 'j? c. 5; nB''nt5' 'j? c. 7, 13; mnoi hndq 'j> c. 10, 
 19 ; nvivn ~iiD c. 3 ; D'B'i ir\o c. 1,5; ntyni 'd c. a, 3) and 
 Caleb Afendopolo (additions to Adderet, i»3lil nDtttJ' 'y c. 6, 
 13, 15, 17 and 18 ; nnna 'sija 'y c. 3 ; nynt ^sb 'y c. 3 and 
 6 ; nnn ixb 'y c. 3 ; nyuB' 'y c. 5, 6, 7, and 13). 
 
 Levi did not compose any special work against Saadiah, 
 as he expressly states in his " Book of Precepts " (see Stein- 
 schneider, Cat. Bodl., 3164, and Pinsker, p. 89): WN3 Dxi 
 •ye/vt. hy\ npnynn bv Oowsn xnyo h^ h"-\) vmayt: b hv "on^^ 
 mDID "iBDij nnt3V3 nvtflpn p viiy. Hence he indulges in 
 pretty frequent polemics against the Gaon in the book 
 mentioned, and touches upon most of the' usual points of 
 dispute^. He naturally deals most frequently and most 
 circumstantially with the questions referring to the 
 
 1 Cf. also P. Frankl's article, "Karaiten," in Ersch u. Gruber, II, 33, 
 p. 20, n. 56. 
 
 " Besides the excerpts printed, I have also at my disposal copies of many 
 passages from the Oxford MS. 
 
44 THE KARAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS OF 
 
 calendar, but he only repeats the arguments of his pre- 
 decessors. Thus, he too refutes Saadiah's proof of the 
 great age of the calendar-system, derived from i Chron. 
 xii. 33, almost with the'^same arguments as Sahl used 
 before him and Jeshua after him (ion Dia, I.e., and MS. 
 Bodl., fol. 4 a). He likewise tries to invalidate Saadiah's 
 assertion, that the observation of the moon cannot have 
 been commanded by God as a precept, as its fulfilment 
 cannot always be carried out, in consequence of the moon 
 not being always visible (MS., fol. 6 b ; in Oan Eden, 
 fol. 6 a, cited as n'SJUl Nityip and refuted). He also combats 
 Saadiah's view, that Vni in Gen. i. 14 refers to day and 
 night (/. Q.R., XVn, 170), and, with particular violence, the 
 Gaon's rather strange interpretation, that those passages of 
 the Talmud testifying against the validity of the Dehijot 
 are to be conceived figuratively (MS., fol. 13 b) ^. In 
 another passage again (Pinsker, p. ao; MS., fol. 18 a), he 
 mentions that Saadiah reproachfully asked the Karaites, 
 whence they knew that 3iaK means "ripe corn" and not 
 the name of the month, just as there is a place 3UN iri 
 (Ezra iii. 15). Levi does not name Saadiah here expressly, 
 but designates him rather remarkably as one of the modern 
 Rabbanites (D'tfinn CJann p lati 'D 1311); but we know 
 from Aaron b. Elias (fol. 16 d), that Saadiah is meant by 
 this (cf. also Hadassi, Alphab.,190 D seq., who likewise quotes 
 Saadiah only anonymously). In addition to questions of 
 
 ^ Dvn Dntt53 orN iton d'Ou Dni'TOn "jiDja Dnnno nsp rri nn« t3i: nwi . . . 
 NnDDini nDS . . . noo I'la n'j Dm pjiunn to vssvi inw dhim i:pn niB« miDon jo 
 noN nii.'«i . . . (see Tos. Sukka, III, i) [lEion mnyi w':nni] raxn n« nnn ibi') 
 nTi' I'M DMi na-i» dv rrn ^h 'di« rrn pi nam •p^ to «in 'jrt nnnx '3 'Din'on 
 'i3i ini« nana nicsn omai ib now nvi' nwiD 3"n. All tlie Karaites attack 
 this weak position of Saadiah, which they storm with success, selecting 
 their weapons from the Talmudic arsenal, especially Salmon (cap. iv-vi ; 
 cf. J. Q. li., X, 271), Hadassi (Alphab. 183), and Aaron b. Elias (ffan Eden, 
 iBnnn mip 's, cap, v). Levi also returns to the subject in another passage 
 (see Pinsker, p. Tp, n. i). Saadiah's contentions in the matter, which 
 were hitherto known only from Abraham b. Hija's •\iyffn noD (ed. Filipowaki, 
 pp. 59, 60), are now partly also accessible in the form of fragments from 
 the Gaon's original writings. See J. Q. li., 1. 0., p. 263. 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY 45 
 
 calendar-science, Levi also deals particularly with the Oral 
 Law (MS., fol. 14 a), cites the passage from Jerushalmi 
 Berakhot (iwa j'lS niaia Tmbn^ -lONa' Nini) on the attitude 
 towards the differences of the Shammaites and Hillelites 
 (Jer. ed. Venice, fol. 3 b, 1. 6 from bottom), and mentions 
 Saadiah's objection to the application of the method of 
 analogy (noN p •>:> npnynn [ijnine''' ntj'mni n^xnn 'a . . . 
 niann on a''man 'a n^pm ni he'v s^ nninn 13 >amsr\ 
 arcma nvni> tDn< nninn p nnp'vn vn'- ^ai onp'-jjn nnx 
 '«i p), &c. 
 
 Other points touched on by Levi are : the burning of 
 fire on the Sabbath (Pinsker, p. 90), where Saadiah's 
 attack upon the proof from Jud. xv. 5, advanced by all 
 Karaites since Salmon b. Jeroham, is refuted ^ ; the mean- 
 ing of nntrn mnoD (see Pinsker, p. 92) ; the enjoyment of 
 an embryo (MS., fol. 80 a), where Saadiah's argument from 
 Lev. xxvii. 3 a is controverted anonymously (HDK ICKI . . . 
 atrnn D^natyn nnn "iBDoa niDnan id iniiit ik ntyn -lau'' ox mbn 
 '131 nain p t6 n^JK'a td ni^n p 'sa.- ct Kaufmann-Gedenk- 
 buch, p. 178, n. a), as well as the enjoyment of the fat tail 
 forbidden by the Karaites (niJiN, MS., fol. 88 b). Here also 
 Levi disputes the views of Saadiah anonymously, and 
 contrary to his usual custom employs an insulting ex- 
 pression: (nnan qn '■a lib ion nanna udd e>P3{j> maon nn 
 D3''i'j; a^nn* bii]m^^' iwija y^pn nn nD3Dn db' sini sain nniK 
 J'KjjDE'* \Msh2 2-\h Nnp' n*^Nn '3 ^jbd sain urx ncx Tinni) 
 '131; cf. Bashiatchi's Adderet, nta'-nB' pjj?, c. 18 : n^sn . . , 
 
 " In this verse the first iSTi means " to kindle," and the other " to cause 
 to be consumed," because in both the subject is Samson : hence the 
 kindling and the maintaining of fire on the Sabbath are forbidden from 
 nyin s';. Salmon has this argument first (in his polemical work, cap. xii), 
 and most of the Karaites repeat it (see Hadassi, Alphab. 145 s ; Aaron 
 b. Elias' Gan Eden, f. 29 b, &c.). Our Levi especially, who elsewhere 
 holds all Karaite arguments for the prohibition of fire-burning on the 
 Sabbath as not sound enough, admits the validity of this one alone ; see 
 Adderet, raw J'W, 18 : ij'nan wans) nwin to® 'I'j u'n D3nn roi3 in f]iD 
 wnjD -ov\ )iiro©i insert picon Nunsj n<>nn rtn ntea )n ijn np'jnn nic«a 
 nop 151. 
 
46 THE KARAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS Of 
 
 DS1 "21^ iii^b Dmn» T« • • ' "^^^"^ ■'oirT'sn nnvo no tvt3 n^JB* 
 '131 ini>ir Tnnb 3"nni . . . smn uonnn). 
 
 16. Joseph b. Abraham ha-Kohen, known under the 
 name of nsnn (Arab. al-Baslr), is the most important 
 Karaite philosopher of the older period \ He was confused 
 quite early with QirqisS,ni, and was regarded as older 
 ,,than the latter ; but it is now established that he belongs 
 to the first half of the eleventh century, as he abeady 
 disputes with Samuel b. Hofni. Of his numerous philo- 
 sophical and religio-legal works, which have only been 
 partly preserved, chief consideration is here due to his 
 " Book of Precepts," "iNvnnDS^S 3sn3 (composed 438 of the 
 Hegira= 1036/7)^. Al-Bastr probably controverts Saadiah 
 often here, but so far only a single passage from a com- 
 pendium of this work (MS. in St. Petersburg) is known, in 
 which the Mekhilta on XII, a a is used against Saadiah 
 [and Samuel b. Hofni] to show that the present calendar 
 cannot be so old K One section of the al-Istibsdr on the 
 Festivals (nnjnoi'N rb»pi2)* was translated by Tobias b. 
 Moses as a separate work under the title D^nyion 13D (also 
 MS. in St. Petersburg), and here also, at the very beginning, 
 is mentioned that Saadiah's view, that a'DX can also signify 
 the name of the month (and not ripe corn), has already 
 been sufficiently refuted by earlier Karaites : 1J~IX3 *3 jni . . . 
 NSDn nriK no bv (a»3Kn cnn b^) inim noi inn auxn naoa 
 
 * See on him Steinsohneider, I.e., § 50 (also my Zur jiid.-arab. Litter., p. 50 
 and Goldziher, B. A J., XLIX, 224). According to Firkowitsch (n«T 'a, 
 p. si) he was not a KoJim. 
 
 » See Ibn al-Hiti (J. Q.B., IX, 434, 1. 2) : n'; 'iSs n«sanDM')S p 'tt! mill . . . 
 I'rA rao 'S nsnsn. Cf. also Firkowitsch, 1. c, p. 22. One section of the 
 al-IsHbmr on th« law of inheritance (MS. Brit. Mus. 2576'; Catalogue, 
 vol. II, no. 591') is dated Bhu-1-Qa'da 409 of the Hegira = March, 1019. 
 (Another fragment of the al-Basir on the 'Omer, contained in the MS. 
 Brit. Mus. 2570, Cat., no. 596, is probably also taken from the cd-Istibsdr, 
 cf. B. A J., LI, 158.) 
 
 ' Published by Harkavy, Stud, u. Mitt., Ill, n. 120. Another passage, 
 given there also, on Gen. i. 14, is perhaps also directed against Saadiah. 
 
 * This section is cited under this title by al-Baslr in Muhtawi, see 
 Frankl, Beitr. s. Literaturgesch. d. Karaer^ p. 7. 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE ELEVENTH. CENTURY 47 
 
 ir tynm i>u m^-ioa nu'' nt nox ia 'Dvan nm nmx djji hoe' win 
 D» N-ip» 'ijsja Q'Dan vi'K nan -nys id n Kin ntysa nux i^ni 
 lij ly (i. e. Samuel b. Hofni) i'NiJDE' im 13 inNDi nm nibn 
 '131 iniN unntJ'm nm ^y ptin\ 
 
 From the Kitah al-Istihsdr must also have come certain 
 chapters that are extant in an Oxford MS. (MS. Heb. f. I3, 
 fols. 9 b-44b; Cat., Vol. II, no. 2789), and from which I have 
 already published many things (/. Q. R., VIII, 701 seq.). 
 This MS. is dated Sivan 5344 (1584), gives the impression of 
 a commonplace book, and also contains something by Joseph 
 al-Basir, including polemical remarks against Saadiah. In 
 the first place (fol. 9 a), there is a piece taken, not direct 
 from al-Basir, but from a controversial work of Natan 
 [b. Jehuda] against Saadiah *. Here some of Saadiah's 
 proofs for the great age of the calendar-system are refuted, 
 e. g., that based on the Talmudic sayings {Rosh ha-Shana, 
 19b): nnivo b'htt u'-SD t6 i7-'fi\ nitj; niD^o and niDon mx 
 ion ab'ivb p'^ih. Then Saadiah's assertion that Vni in Gen. 
 i. 14 refers not to the luminaries of heaven but to day and 
 night — a point that often recurs in Karaite polemics ^- 
 Saadiah is further controverted in a section on natyn mnoD 
 (fol. 17 a), and especially is his attack on the Karaite 
 argument from Josh. v. 11 rebutted*, and his inter- 
 pretation of Ezek. xlvi. 12 overthrown. From this verse 
 Saadiah wanted to deduce that n3K' can also signify 
 Festival, as on Sabbath one may not bring any peace- 
 offerings (D''d1'CJ'), which are here in question (hence mnOD 
 naB'n can also signify " on the morrow of the Festival "). 
 
 ' Cf. this passage also in Pinsker, p. id, who did not recognize who is 
 meant here by this Samuel, and therefore deduced false conclusions. 
 
 ^ In this MS. there is another piece given from this Natan b. Judah, 
 which I have also (1. c, p. 703) published, only I overlooked the fact that 
 this piece [and similarly the passage 'i3i u'w'mh iin Nin nniKD 'ri' yavt] 
 are also quoted in Moses Misorudi's ncD nsn (written 1602) : see 
 Steinsohneider, Cat. Imgd., p. 346. Cf. also below, No. 35. 
 
 " Cf. the text, 1. c, p. 70a, with the necessary explanations there. 
 
 * Ben Zuta also did this already ; see Monatsschrift, XLI, 205 seq. 
 
48 THE KARAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS OP 
 
 Joseph al-Basir replies that one may not bring any private 
 offering, either whole burnt-offering or peace-offering, on 
 the Festival day also, and that hence nacn DVa nw' nt5'K3 
 refers most probably to the opening of the gate (see xlvi. i) ' 
 or to burnt-offerings ; but that naB* never signifies a 
 Festival day. 
 
 Whether al-Ba?ir controverted Saadiah in his philosophi- 
 cal writings too, I do not know. I should only like to 
 call attention to the fact, that he too was of a gentle nature 
 and inclined to leniency. Thus notably, he successfully 
 combated the well-known Rikkuh theory in the Karaite 
 marriage laws, which made it almost impossible for the 
 Karaites to marry among themselves. 
 
 17. Jeshua b. Jehuda (Arab. Abu-1-Paraj Purqan b. 
 'Asad, abbreviated bh) was a pupil of the preceding writer, 
 and probably lived in Jerusalem ^ According to al-Hiti 
 (/. Q. R., IX, 433, 434), he was also a pupil of Levi b. Jefet 
 and Abu-1-Faraj Hariin. Jeshua developed a very fruitful 
 literary activity, and wrote works of exegetic, religio-legal, 
 and philosophical character, which we shall deal with in 
 order. 
 
 As a Bible exegete Jeshua was very important; hence 
 he is mentioned by Ibn Ezra (Introd. to Commentary on 
 the Pentateuch) as a representative of Karaite Bible 
 exegesis, together with 'Anin, Benjamin al-Nahawendi, and 
 ben Mashiah. He composed an Arabic translation of the 
 Pentateuch, together with a detailed and a shorter com- 
 mentary (the second composed later). I pass over the trans- 
 lation (MS. Brit. Mus., Cat., Vol. I, no. 93) which is un- 
 important for our purpose, and come first of all to the short 
 commentary, the compilation of which, according to Ibn 
 al-Hiti, was begun Eabi' 1,446 of the Hegira(=June, 1054) 
 
 1 Jefet already disputes with Saadiah in his Commentary, ad loc, see 
 p. 25. It is remarkable that Rashi also refers the words of the text 
 to the opening of the gate. 
 
 ' Cf. ou him finally Steinschneider, | 51 (also my ZurMd.-arab. Lilter., 
 PP- 50, 50- ^ , 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY 49 
 
 (l.c.,434, 1.7: (sic!) DixaD yi in n^iN '«■<■) 'y ,TTini>N i^Dsna nnasi 
 ni)Ni -|iDan ip-i rhai |di ffi riio bm yai insj' *a nD''n3bN rrr-a nBa 
 nnE'N riWD »b onispj' nds fj'-jvn rino nSia t"i'J *s niDB>). 
 A great part of this commentary is at the British Museum ^, 
 viz. MS. nos. 310-312 (fragments on all five books), 313 
 (fragments on n^itfa, 1-in\ and CDBtJ'D), 3141-2 (on Exod. xxiv. 
 13-17, and Num. xxxv. 9-34), and 33oi» (on part of Num. 
 xxxii). In all these MSS. Saadiah is not mentioned, but 
 he is in others that doubtless belong to this commentary 
 also. They are as follows: MS.no. 315^ (fragments on 
 "IION, here the detailed commentary, olDaoiiN T'DSni'K, 
 is also cited), 316 (on Num. xix. 4 — xxiii. 16), 31 7^"* 
 (fragments on Lev.-Deut. ; here also the detailed com- 
 mentary is quoted as NSinDoi'N n^Dan^JX or fi^JVn^N 
 DlD3Di5N, as distinguished from the shorter one, which he 
 styles lvn5»^N N"in), and 339^ (on Lev. xxiv. 9-33). Saadiah 
 is mentioned several times, firstly in 31$^, whether as 
 ''Weiba N^VD (on xxii. 5, fol. 6 b), or as finTiD^N DKI (on 
 xxii. 10, fol. lob, in connexion with Sahl b. Masliah; xxii. 
 II, fol. lib, and xxiii. la, fol. 24 a), or then in 317*, 
 fol. 59 a (on Lev. xiii. 30). Unfortunately, only the first 
 of all these quotations lies before me. Here Saadiah's 
 opinion, that fIB' in Lev. xxii. 5 includes also the carcass 
 of a beast, because it is said of the latter J'lNl isnci (Gen. 
 viii. 17), is quoted and refuted. The expression ISIB*! 
 proves nothing, as it also occurs in connexion with the 
 sons of Noah (ibid. ix. 7), though it is impossible that the 
 latter could be designated as y\ti>.' Here Saadiah follows 
 the Talmudists, but the latter deduce the prohibition from 
 ?3 (see Sifrd, ad loc), which is likewise wrong 2- 
 
 I Parts of Jeshua's Commentary are also in MS. in St. Petersburg, see 
 Z. A. T. W., I, 158. 
 
 ' To the short commentary belong perhaps also the compendious ex- 
 planation of the Decalogue translated by Tobias (Cat. Leyden, 26') ; see 
 Steinschneider, 1. c, no. a. Of the comprehensive commentary the part 
 on Leviticus was perhaps in the hands of Hadassi, who designates it 
 (Alphab. 33, n) as hMxn Nip'l. In any case, we cannot take it to be Jefet's 
 
 E 
 
50 THE KARAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS OF 
 
 Much more interesting tHan the short commentary is the 
 detailed one, of which a fragment on Lev. xi. 37-44 has 
 likewise been preserved in the British Museum (no. 318^, 
 fol. 31-80), and of which I have already edited many pas- 
 sages (see J. Q. B., VIII, 68a seq. ; B. A J., XLV, 54 seq.). 
 Here also occurs (fol. 75 b) the date, the 5 Eajab, 44a of the 
 Hegira (=Nov. 23, 1050), so that G. Margoliouth's view 
 that Jeshua is the author also agrees chronologically, apart 
 from various internal grounds 1 (cf. also Harkavy, Stud, u. 
 Mitt, VIII, T, 19a, n. i). In this fragment polemics are 
 several times indulged in against Saadiah, whether under 
 the name of ''KifSibtt or i'Jii'N Nin (once, fol. 59 a, also as 
 D5j)nio5>N Nin, and another time, fol. 59 b, as JSDJsi'N nin), 
 viz. on xi. 37 (fol. 35 b-36 a ; unfortunately I do not possess 
 this passage), 38 (fol. 44a-47 a), 40 (fol. 53 a-60 b), and 43 
 (fol. 70 a-77 b). In all these passages there is a discussion 
 about the explanation of the verses in question, hence 
 about various questions from the province of the purity 
 laws. Jeshua quotes the views of Saadiah from his com- 
 mentary on these verses (see fol. 7a b: 'cvsi'N lai Ipl , . , 
 Kin iiDsn 's nsan Kf b''tt)i6n '<'?« 2Di'< Nnjjo rt^ nh kd 
 . i?1Dai'^8), whereat he abridged the words of the Gaon (see 
 fol. 44 a : iaossb t6 ^vshu btp lb -onss tsiai'N sin ipi . . . 
 rpiDsiiN innn p^n'' nd '-ss nisijN njix bz ; fol. 46 a : ivnao Nin 
 v^Kibtt Kin ^a nisNb ; fol. 55 h : nnnvnas '^ nv3 bap on, &c.). 
 As the abbreviated statement of Saadiah occupies sufficient 
 
 commentary on Leviticus, nor can mm isw hran «^p'1 be regarded as one 
 book (so Bacher, Monatsschrift, XL, 12a, n. 4), as the idto isik is a work of 
 Tobias (see below No. 27), and Alphab. g8, ^ is separately mentioned.— 
 hr^xi Mip<l would therefore form an analogy to the Mil n<WNi3 soon to be 
 mentioned, 
 
 ' See J. Q. B., XI, sag seq. Another argument of Margoliouth for the 
 authorship of Jeshua, namely, the citing of a fiTiDn iVjva, is, however, 
 of no importance. In the first place, the title of a work is hardly to be 
 understood by it, and secondly, that portion of the Leyden MS. 41 ', in 
 which is also cited a miDlo r\Hvm (see Steinschneider, Cat. Lugd., p. 172), 
 belongs not to Jeshua but to Joseph al-Baslr or Tobias. See Frankl, 
 Beitr. z. LUeraturgesch. d. Karaer, p. 7 ; Steinschneider, Heir. Oberseiz., p. 454. 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE ELEVENTH CENTUEY 5 1 
 
 space, it follows that his detailed commentary was used 
 here^ The refutation of Jeshua is also fairly circum- 
 stantial, but without any passion. He twice quotes the 
 explanation of the Sifrd in extenso ^ (fol. 53 a : biNm 
 nNDi3[D] nona ni>a3 snn hxi" \^^^ i>«p ii jn Day nniiajo 
 nna NK'ioni yjun cin nna bisn no . , . nvbn r\>yi onn, see 
 /Sfi/rtJ, ed. Weiss, fol, 57 a; then fol. 70 a: i>j? ymtyn pETi h-s\ 
 [3"ni>] 1^3K' Ni> n«pD 'ON HD NH . . . DiD'i>33tJ' flN N''Vini> riX'l 
 731N3 i"3NDn TN, see ibid.), translates and explains it, adds the 
 explanation of the Saadiah based on that of the SifrA, and 
 shows that the Gaon does not follow the 8ifr& correctly. 
 He likewise reproaches Saadiah with the habit of accusing 
 'Ana,n of ignorance and the lack of insight (fol, 46 b : JCI 
 ri^p ■h^ niDM n^hnj hiSd^i ^b^a. lii inonv apun' t^? in njNty 
 "iisN i'Pvi'K) ^ In connexion with the explanation of verse 43 
 (fol. 75 b), general canons of Bible exegesis are also discussed, 
 and Saadiah's principles are combated. But here Jeshua 
 already borders on the province of dogmatics, 
 
 ' This MS. maythus also contribute to the knowledge of this lost commen- 
 tary of Saadiah, I should like to call particular attention to a specially 
 interesting passage on v. 40 (fol. 54). Here Saadiah tries to show that nnna 
 very often means all beasts, hence birds also. This is the case also in 
 Exod. XX. 10, whence il is forbidden to send forth carrier pigeons on the 
 Sabbath : -^rmnai innNi -jniy inii i:n nriN sn's SipoSs nao'jH fisniB Nnmo . . . 
 TOD^s Dv aMnata DNonSs nnsa nmn "]M'ji nh's tsb'jm Siii jo ni Mb rwn. 
 
 ' In both these places the Sifrd is not named, but the opinion contained 
 in it is designated as that of the jlbiN^H. On the other hand, we read in 
 another passage (fol. 73 a) : nmsi no fi^Ni' ('ovB'jM '») ton «o';p 'ibs inD . . . 
 ■fiii D':n3 min. 
 
 ' In another passage (fol. 55 a) Jeshua relates how Saadiah drives to an 
 absurdity 'AnSn's opinion that a new-born animal causes impurity only 
 after its eighth birthday (cf. R. A. J., XLV, 57 seq.), and asserts that the 
 founder of Karaism probably misunderstood the words of the Talmudists 
 {Sifrd, ad loc. ; SaVbath, 136 a), which he thought to turn into the opposite : 
 'B n'te nifjN 'Di . ni y-pjrts 'd i:io»i S'lnsi hnBdi j» anio ('ovb'^m 'm) 'an an 
 ira ^Np on . . . DK'M msofi n'br 'son j« '^n oiv vh ^'js'jm no'naSw ■^^ ]o nSip 
 p^ip' D'aan")** sod n:N in van wim 'nn ma^an ■'^'^ idn'jm jk aonxi nmsna« ^ 
 ja vf^vh ^Npi in Da»D □«'» msDii ja« nsiM nnjM in oSino ™id» ja «'ani 
 ■i^H D'win reioiB Ja '^m nsp no:m Dro« dV d')1 miniB. 
 
 K 2 
 
52 THE KARAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS OF 
 
 A part of this long commentary of Jeshua consists 
 perhaps of the work K3T n^B'N'fl, known only in Hebrew 
 translation, the beginning of which (on the pericope 
 Bereshit and beginning of Noah) has been preserved in 
 a Leyden MS. (no. 41^). In any case, this MS. has more 
 the character of philosophical and theological homilies 
 on the pericopes mentioned than that of a commentary. 
 The philosophic-dogmatic part has been thoroughly 
 analysed by Schreiner {Stvdien ilber Jeschua h. Jekuda, 
 Berlin, 1900, pp. 35 seq.), and here Saadiah is not men- 
 tioned. On the other hand, in those passages in which 
 Jeshua treats of the calendar (especially fols. 86-92) the 
 Gaon is often controverted. Thus, the Karaite proof for 
 the duty of the observation of the moon, from Gen. i. 14, 
 is especially treated at length, and then Saadiah's view, 
 repeatedly quoted here too, that ITil in this verse refers to 
 " day and night," is refuted on four grounds (fol. 88 a, b). 
 .On fol. 89 b, Saadiah's proof for the great age of the 
 calendar system, derived from i Chron. xii. 33, is likewise 
 refuted on various grounds (see the text, supra, p. 39, n. i). 
 In a section on the Molad (fol. 90 a : [iDN DS =] «"« IJIB' 
 i5)iD3 'Dixn nn^nirm D^mn 13m nsa) is quoted Saadiah's 
 assertion that the permanent calendar comes quite near 
 to the Molad, but does not quite agree with it (D^lNi 
 .lijiDn bv riDxa wi^si -hyan :i'r\^ Diue-n 13 diuw idn <Din*an). 
 Further, several proofs for the great age of the calendar are 
 quoted anonymously, and combated (fol. 91 a). But they 
 are all derived from Saadiah, e. g. the proof from 1 Sam. xx. 1 8 
 (n«Kn DTip n h'^vnv onvn hv mv \i>^n nno jnji.T in rrm. nm 
 nTn, cf. Gan Eden, fol. 5 c), then the objection why God 
 did not expressly command the observation of the moon 
 (mini u [^=] rwisb am irn mu n'apn unis rm 1^^5mnN njia 
 mu WB'in |u i^nan 'dk' '{fw, cf. ibid, 6 a), &c. 
 
 Not less important than as a Bible exegete and dog- 
 matic philosopher is Jeshua as a teacher of the law. But 
 the only thing preserved is the Hebrew translation of 
 a work on incest, ninvn nSD (MS. in Leyden, Cod.Warner 41", 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE ELEVENTH CENTUEY 53 
 
 and in St. Petersburg) which, according to Steinschneider,. 
 probably forms part of a comprehensive work on all the- 
 precepts, bearing the title 1B"n IDD, It is most likely 
 the same work that Jeshua himself quotes in his short 
 commentary (MS. Brit. Mus. 2544, Cat., no. 310, fol. 165 aj 
 cf. J. Q.R., XI, 197) as (read nii-iyiiN) ninv^N ^s ^iNDDi5N nN2Nli, 
 and which Samuel al-Magribi (see Neubauer, Aus d. Petersb. 
 Bibl., p. 114) quotes as nN3N1J^Nl b^NDoi'Na ^oDD^iK 'na^ In 
 this nvivn nao there is quoted a rather long passage from 
 Saadiah, perhaps out of his treatise on the same subject 
 (see supra, p. 7, n. 3, edited by Steinschneider in 13D 
 B^nT" III, 76, and partly in Gat. Bodl., 2163 ; then by 
 Miiller in Saadiah's OEuvres, IX, 171), but without any 
 polemics. This passage bears the superscription iriN ivtJ' 
 nv):vf, and is introduced by the words : nr inN '<b nn't: laai 
 D''is':n iisD |D mnjjn innsa n3^B'^^ stn-i snjjD inis idk ie'n -iiati* 
 i:»D pnni) Pinyi iit'I tanain DiawNiiT ^ann yiv invn dwd nniDNn 
 Dnn3T N-ip *D n pcthj xij 'dd in!5it inix pa'' nIj icn^. if 
 these words emanate from Jeshua himself (and not from 
 the translator) they would show that he also knew how 
 to treat his opponents with esteem. In other places also 
 jeshua's mode of expression in his polemics, apart from 
 a few exceptions, is free from animosity and personality. 
 
 18. Sahl b. Fad! al-Tustari (or al-Dustari, Heb. Jashar ta, 
 Hesed) is a fertile Karaite author, who has hitherto been 
 little known. He is quoted, so far as we are at present 
 
 ' Cf. on the nVTSTi '0, Steinschneider, Cat. Lugd., pp. 190 seq., and Die 
 arab. Liter, d. Juien, pp. 92, 93, aa well as Sohreiner, 1. c, pp. 68 seq. The 
 latter has also edited the introduction to the nmsn 'd (after Cod. Leyden) 
 as an appendix to his work. Other excerpts have been published by 
 Harkavy, StMd. u. Mitt., YIIZ, i, go seq., and a full edition appeared by 
 Markon. The fragment, MS. Brit. Mus. Or. 2497', which, according to 
 Margoliouth (J. Q.E., XI, 213 seq, ; Cat. I, no. 314'), should form a part of 
 the Arabic original of Jeshua's work, is actually a remnant of Solomon 
 ha-Nasi's nn»^« o«n3. See my Zur jUd.-arab. Litter., pp. 51 seq. 
 
 ' The excerpt from Saadiah forms the conclusion of such a one from 
 another Eabbanite work in Hebrew, which, according to Neubauei; 
 {Israel. Letterlode, IV, 55 seq.), is taken from the WT niD^n. 
 
54 THE KARAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS OF 
 
 aware, by Melammed Fadil in his Siddur as bn IDn p nB** 
 nnDlli>N 1^ 13, and by the author of the D^mni, a<»-V^ pvn 
 as non p lE'i (see Monatsschrift, XLI, 189). His period 
 cannot easily be determined, but, according to Steinschneider 
 {^Arab. Lit. d. Juden, § 69 ; also ibid., p. 34a)> tis place of 
 birth (Tustar in Persia)^ and the contents of his works, 
 soon to be mentioned, appear to show that he belongs to 
 the older Karaites. This is confirmed by the statement of 
 al-Hiti, who follows Jashar with Solomon b. Mubarak b. Sagtr, 
 the author of a lexicon T'Diini>K '3 (MS. in St. Petersburg, 
 see Z. A. T. W., 1, 158), and the latter with 'Ali b. Sulejman 
 (/. Q. R., IX, 435 : 3^x^{ IN n3NS n^jjv p inso p nabe^ t^'^'N Q" • . . 
 ■ivniD^N \)iiv6ti 3nNV nD^if p ■<hv tB'i'N ah T'D^n^N). As the 
 last named probably flourished at the beginning of the 
 twelfth century '^j Sahl must have written about the middle 
 of the eleventh century, and have been a contemporary of 
 Jeshua. Of his writings there have been preserved frag- 
 ments of a commentary on the Pentateuch in St. Petersburg 
 (see Z. A. T. W., 1. c), and extracts of two philosophical 
 works — h'^)}b^^ l*nini>N 'h'a T^'brhtu (Glosses on monotheism 
 and justice) and J!»3t3bs 1V3 NO '•S itJonN 3Nn3i' innni'K 
 (Critical remodelling of the Metaphysics of Aristotle) — ^in a 
 Brit. Mus. MS. (Or. 2572). According to Ibn al-Hiti (1. c.) 
 Jashar b. Hesed also composed other works, and wrote 
 polemics against Saadiah : nnDlijN IB''' p non p n^i 'f^v.'\ 
 cjn^sIjn thv *a n<'\brh\A 3Nn3 r\b^ iN33i'N Noijjj^N |d ts3 m nn 
 ^NnnjJsi'N '•a 3sn3 nb'i ns^n ''ovai's •bv 'I'H nminNisi onssa^N ''a 
 
 ' Our Jashar b. Hesed is probably also meant by the al-Dustari who is 
 cited in an Arabic compilation on Deuteronomy of the year 1351 (see 
 below, No. 38, and Semitic Studies in Memory of Dr. Kohut, p. 436, n. 3). 
 
 ' According to Steinschneider (1. c, § 180), Ali hardly lived before the 
 middle of the twelfth century. On the other hand, it must be observed 
 that in his commentary on the Pentateuch (of which there are fragments on 
 Numbers and Deuteronomy in MS. Brit. Mus., Cat., no. 309'), he compiles 
 only from Karaite authors of the tenth and eleventh centuries. Hence 
 he most probably belongs to the end of the eleventh and beginning Of the 
 twelfth century. 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY 55 
 
 ^inoi'K npthtt p STlia nnai^ At any rate, it cannot be 
 clearly ascertained from these words whether the contro- 
 versy with Saadiah was contained in nili'ni'N '3 or in a 
 separate work. Should the former be the case (and perhaps 
 the extracts in the British Museum could confirm this), then 
 Sahl would have combated Saadiah's philosophical views. 
 
 With Jeshua (and possibly Jashar b. Hesed) there closes 
 the specific Arabic period of the older Karaite literature, 
 and I therefore here append a few anonymous authors who 
 wrote in Arabic, and whose period cannot be determined 
 without difficulty, owing to the fragmentary character of 
 the pieces preserved. But they probably all belong to the 
 first half of the eleventh century, which does not exclude 
 the possibility of many being identical with those already 
 mentioned. These anonyma are as follows : 
 
 19. The Geniza-fragment, Saadyana, ed. Schechter, No. X, 
 forms a remnant of a Karaite polemic treatise against 
 Saadiah (''bva^N). It deals with the observation of the 
 moon and the calculation of the calendar ; and from facts 
 that have been handed down in the Talmud (Rosh ha-Shanah, 
 ai b : iJ?:^ ''ityn bv^ !d"'3 bv xi^K rbbno inti t6^ )ypr\n) and in the 
 Tosefta (ibid., 11, i : una ne'SJD nsDini's ''S -h^p ama nhi . . . 
 '131 •'Klina), it is shown that they cannot possibly be regarded 
 as purely theoretical cases, as Saadiah asserts ^. Similarly, 
 the Gaon's well-known statement is combated that the 
 observation of the moon was introduced only with the 
 advent of Sadok and Boethos, in order to fortify the calcu- 
 lation that generally prevailed hitherto. This statement, 
 he declares, has no basis whatever in the writings of the 
 Rabbis (fol. i v°, 1. 6 : ana i^ND ^a rh i^vN i6 b)p wnxa 
 
 » These titles are difficult to identify exactly, see Steinschneider, p. 34a, 
 and on n'i'in'js and 'jkhton'jn my Zur jiid.-arab. Litter., pp. 15 and 59 infra. 
 
 » Saadyana, p. 3S, fol. i™, 1. 7 : ™''«M ™« Sip' Jo Sip Sioi' nn«MNl nino . . . 
 V p Vip D'WSD'JM nina biai npo ^?d JM '» i33 1"° ™»d "'B '»'P' «° !«'' 
 m'tdW nN23«b« nin I«. As a matter of fact, in the discussion of such cases 
 Saadiah uses the expression fijtoD. See J. Q. R., X, 263, 271. 
 
56 THE KARAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS OF 
 
 pK3-i^N ; fol. a r°, 1. 9 : "'B naii's Nin ijv t6 nab ana naa Nini 
 iixK ni" iii' fN ba2 Nin »bj) nox^K [sa Nisi p3t<3-ii>N ana tno). 
 
 20. A Geniza-fragment in Cambridge, belonging to the 
 Taylor-Schechter Collection (Ar. T-S. 30), six leaves^, 
 18x13 cm., contains a remnant of an old Karaite Law- 
 book. The book was apparently divided up into sections 
 (nsi'spD), and each section into chapters (isiSB). The 
 superscription of such a chapter has been preserved 
 (fol. 2, r" : ispBTi rtba nsi iljNjjn nhp 13 ityj; Dcsa^N b)ishK 
 fjljjn p), and then the following sections are incidentally 
 quoted : on the Sabbath (T\2chti rbt^po ; fol. 3 v", 5 v°), on 
 the ripening of spring (a'as^N ri^NpD, fol. 3 v°), and on [the 
 enjoyment of] hens {mibn riiJNpD, fol. 5 v") K In addition, 
 the author cites his work TiaB'l'N axna (fol. 4 r°), which is 
 otherwise also unknown. In another passage (fol. 6 r°), 
 'An^n's views (known from another source too) about the 
 characteristics of permitted fowls, which differ entirely 
 from those given in the Talmud (Hullin, 61 a), is cited. 
 Our author states that Saadiah combated this view of 
 'AnS,n, and remarks that the refutation of the Fayyumite is 
 directed against him personally, i. e. against the Rabbanite 
 characteristics : fbnn nj» njn (["JKail^x nijNn in) onni'Nn i^h 
 Nca "wzba nii'v 'in ipi . . . . 5d^i pp nd in instii'N ix 'ip 's ps) 
 tir mb fUNi ijyBijN "bK vif hbat pibi< "a in nb)p ini nii '•jvo »b 
 jiiN moj li'N yjli ND nIsn p^tsoiiN nt2Ni)j( iia* in. I reserve 
 a full consideration of the subject-matter treated of here 
 till I have an opportunity of publishing the whole frag- 
 ment, but cf. Harkavy, 1. c, 154. 
 
 21. Another fragment of the same collection (so far 
 without any press-mark), two small leaves, paper, deals 
 with questions of calendar-science, holding that if the 
 
 * There is a gap between leaves 3 and 4. 
 
 * 'Anan is known to have forbidden their enjoyment, maintaining that 
 the hen is identical with the biblical nB>3n (see Hartavy, Stud. u. Mitt., 
 VIII, I, 145, n- S)- In our fragment (fol. 3 v°) this view of "Anan is also 
 quoted and likewise that of the sectarian Malik al-Ramli (see ibid.). 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY 57 
 
 new moon is invisible througli some cause or other, the 
 3iBt day must be adopted as the day of new moon K The 
 unknown Karaite author adduces as examples the cities of 
 Tiberias and Eamla ^ : he must therefore have been a 
 Palestinean. He furthermore cites the following argument 
 of the Karaites for the above view : Just as even a death- 
 sentence follows upon the declaration of witnesses, although 
 the certainty is never present that these witnesses have not 
 lied, so the 31st day can hold good as the day of New Mood, 
 even though it is quite possible this actually occurred 
 already on the 30th. He then says that Saadiah tried to 
 refute this analogy (mjl bt^pst n''nx DN^p '\'<i ^3^? ■•avstba DVr 
 i?ii NJ^n Npna pnn pa), and shows that this analogy holds 
 true nevertheless (tib HNVIN 'iSJia p-ia NDHJU [X ■'Wsbti DjJt 
 
 22. MS. Bodl. Heb. e 33, fols. 9-18 (Cat., Vol. II, 
 no. 3631^), contains a fragment of an Arabic commentary 
 on Gen. iv and vi, mostly in the form of questions and 
 answers. Its Karaite character is evident from the follow- 
 ing passage (fol. 13) : Cipj t mslsN aba Ip naTiDisN DKT NJiNTi 
 D^pj f m^v^N or!" ab (l. nbai nds) nljNaKsa^ n jg ^^n known 
 that the duration and the degree of the impurity of a woman 
 with child forms a subject of dispute between Kabbanites 
 and Karaites, inasmuch as the latter also forbid any sexual 
 intercourse during the thirty-three days after the birth of 
 a boy and the sixty-six days after the birth of a girl (see 
 
 * This question is also discussed elsewhere in Karaite literature, most 
 fully by Jefet in his Comm. on Gen., VIII, 3 ; see J. Q. B., X, 241. 
 
 ^ The interesting passage reads as follows, in extenso : ip ™« NB31 . . . 
 "iW 'B nbm'?« mnn <b ins jwi do«>')« mia'j -m nnaia fina 'D d<j psni 
 f: nnn Sa'jsi 13 'B rv-wD Snx juni'i Qvbs nbrn^M 'jrrw pjni'B nysi np-hn 
 nVmbMi 'jM'jn'jM *'t jm ro« «s'« hip: -|Mi3 bya^ 'j»Q»n nvn (Lev. xii. 3) axnabx 
 'B npn*' maa 'imf\ ovis* -fji jnpnr l« ffjaijn Vn« 'to ai' nnaioa Mnv m^i 
 'D p-\s orn'i vhs aTmin 'S)«iii (Num. xxviii. ri) y: nnn "jaVsi ^asrtM ovhi> 
 n3«i sini 3«3';« «in. On Bamla see i!. j^. J., XLVIII, 156, n. a. 
 
 ' Cf. my ZurjM.-arab. Litter., p. 31, 
 
58 THE KARAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS OF 
 
 the various Karaite views in Aaron b. Elias, Gan Eden, 
 fol. 1x4 b seq. ; cf. also supra, p. 35). 
 
 23. Another MS. of the same library (MS. Bodl. Heb. 
 d 44, fols. 60-3; Cat., Vol. II, no. 2634") contains the 
 fragment of a commentary on passages £rom Lev. i. 15- 
 xii. 3. This commentary belongs in any case to the older 
 period of Karaite literature, as the Karaite author Abu 
 Sulejman [David] al-Qumisi is quoted here, who is otherwise 
 almost quite unknown, and is only mentioned by Jefet besides 
 (see J. Q. R., VIII, 68 r, n. i ; cf. also R. E. J., XLV, 178, 179, 
 and Jew. EncycL, IV, 465) ^. On iii. 9 (fol. 60 b) Saadiah's 
 interpretation of the words n'^Kn U^Jn is cited and thoroughly 
 refuted: w n''l'Ni'Ni rrhtim uisn n''3yD rvban u^n rh^p btip •'avsh») 
 
 'INIJN NCfll B'WX TVif DIN ttih ]ii bnp) DJ)T N02 "IDN^N O'b) 3^n^N I^J 
 
 i?ii ni^iNni i3i?n nwyo n'han nijn rh)p i^'iaa fiobi'N dnt "hv 11 sb. 
 The enjoyment of the fat tail is known to be forbidden by 
 Karaite law, and Saadiah's explanation, taken from his 
 commentary on the passage*, is mentioned by many other 
 Karaites, e. g. by Tobias b. Moses (iDm IXIN, MS. Bodl. 290, 
 fol. 91 a), Hadassi (Alphab. 333, p; Saadiah's name is not 
 mentioned here), Jacob Tamani (Pinsker, p. 87), Aaron b. 
 Joseph (Mibhar, fol. 5 b ; here also Saadiah's name is not 
 mentioned ; cf. further, infra, Nos. 36 and 48), Aaron b. Elias 
 (Gan Eden, fol. 96 c ; cf. also his Keter Torah, on Leviticus, 
 fol. 8 a), and Elias Bashiatchi {Adderet, nD'-HE' pjjf c. 18 : 
 here the presentation of reasons and counter-reasons is 
 especially the most complete). 
 
 24. MS. Brit. Mus. 2580* (Cat. II, no. 587*) contains 
 a fragment of an old Karaite Book of Precepts (written 
 throughout in Arabic characters). In one passage (fol. 13 a) 
 is quoted an objection of Saadiah against 'AnS,n and 
 Benjamin al-Nahawendi with regard to the prescriptions 
 
 • ' I have published and translated another passage from this commentary 
 on X, 19 (fol. 62 a) in J. Q. R., VIII, 695, 6g6. 
 
 ' This follows explicitly from Tobias' words to be mentioned further on. 
 In the section in question of the polemical work against Ibn Saqaweihi 
 (J. Q. R., XVI, no. III), this explanation is not to be found. 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY 59 
 about menstruating women, which, reads^ as follows ': 
 
 (l.l4Jli?)UUi)U nat {l.cJL^*)iU. U-^ J-il Ul niJjl ^jl 1/i Uslj j^l^i 
 JJc 1^ (slljj L4J1C ^j (Lev. XV. 25) nmj ny N^3 sJjS 'UiSi 
 p nmi ny xb dys) i\J,\ i^l.^. Jc, The question here dis- 
 cussed is that, according to the Talmudists, oni Ci^D'' in this 
 verse mean " three days," and they refer this verse to the 
 maij mj patJ* di'' n"' (see Sifrd, ad loc, and Mdda, 73). But 
 'AnS,n explains the verse thus : if a woman, whether within 
 or without the period of menstruation, has a flow of blood 
 more than seven days she must then (in contradistinction 
 to a menstruating woman) count another seven days after 
 her purification, see his words in the original by Harkavy, 
 Stud. u. Mitt., VIII, I, 42 : cc dwb'd •'SD N^tNn <n ^ax . , , 
 Dm D'D^ non air aij"' *3 ■ik'ni a'Tiai n^dit nna nyat:' "^zocb "n'-no 
 (I. iD'-a) 'D '3 nnsDiD 31T o* b nnij iij? nitn o in nma nv xb 
 mjT DiB^D nmj ny s<b ca-i didi son tjp [sin] hndb ninn nmi 
 nvnisi' Dun n-iD* nmj nj> abs uj ndn Np r\ina 'd* hvde' ni" yap 
 nwB* m^sD HD'-isT Nin did' nyatyD 'an s'lrxn '•a "dj nm: ny siiaT 
 '131 (cf. also Mihhar and .ff^efer Tora, ad loc). That Saadiah 
 (probably in the Commentary) combats this view of 'AnS,n, 
 we also see from the commentary [of David b. Boaz ?] on 
 the passage in question (MS. Brit. Mus. Or. 3495, Cat., 
 no. 306, fol. 181 seq.) : . . . D'»' pJxmi'N lijNp D^m D''D* ^Npl . . . 
 Dnjpi) bbin bv '•aii'N p i)ipi'N Kin jn iDVsiiN l^xpi . . . rvih^ D^a-i 
 i^NP ND3 N'i intaljN nw ins nm: nyi i Dun d-id' in ini nxix 
 m3i5N IN py ly ton njx D^iyxi . . . rmb mj patf Dv nc'y nnx 
 'ii'N '•B'3 ns' D^i nJN pi nnr nii f id iiiaN dt ma: nin. 
 
 25. MS. Brit. Mus. Or. 3573 ^^^ ^574 (Cat. 11, nos. 589, 
 590) contains a work on the differences and agreements in 
 the exposition of the laws between Abu 'Ali and Abu-l- 
 
 ' I owe the communication of this passage to the kindness of the 
 Eev. G. Margpliouth. The Hebrew words are here transcribed in square 
 letters. 
 
6o THE KARAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS OF 
 
 Surri, i. e. between Jefet b. 'Ali and Sahl b. Masliah t 
 ID NDnay rhbti ^itn ^icha uni •<bv ux ps'-ts'i'N pa s» ti''V "'a ^xna 
 iT'i'S? spans ND1 niVD^X •'S ^i^a^N. Here also, according to 
 Margoliouth (Cat, II, p. i8o a), Saadiah is rather often 
 cited, but I have not a single passage before me^. 
 
 26. Israel b. Daniel ^ according to Firkowitsch, composed 
 in 1063, at the age of twenty-six, a Book of Precepts, 
 niv»n nSD (Arab, or Heb. ?), which was preserved in the 
 Karaite synagogue in Damascus. He is mentioned without 
 any further epithet by Jefet b. Sagir ; on the other hand, 
 in an alleged book-list of the synagogue named (see 
 Pinsker, p. 174; of. also p. 94, n. i), he is designated as 
 n"n i'S''3T -|"3n mjaosn pnn ^nic^ '^, and is said to have 
 
 ^ It should, however, be observed that a leaf of this work, which is 
 added to the Catalogue as a facsimile (Plate Y), contains a passage that 
 seems to have been directed against Saadiah, Here the argument derived 
 from I Chron. xii. 33 for the antiquity of the calculation of the calendar 
 is combated ; the same argument is cited and refuted by many Karaite 
 authors (see above, p. 23, u. i), but in the present instance the Oaon is not 
 expressly named but referred to as belonging to the " men of calculation " 
 (awDrtM :NnsN). I give the passage here, as far as it is contained in the 
 facsimile page of the HS. (fol. 7 a), while adding the diacritical points 
 and other signs : — 
 
 Jl '^\:i^ u»J J^l ^if llj .iUcill J ill alJj J^ ^ ^i>y^ f,vy^\ 
 
 JyiJl IJ4! ^^y^ jjl J!*iul Ul wl Jclj 'jUcill v_>L» XlS 8Jl ._*f».j JJl 
 Jigi Jc yjU. \y^ -Ujjill ^j\ t£,jj JS, w ^'ix^'i\ Jkj. J^\ te.j 
 
 ']vJ?rhii v'U-'' ^^ . . . . ii>jj£» cjLil ^ylJ njtyojl j w -j^ai.^ U Jc 
 
 .... •'Vif 
 
 ' See on him Steinsohneider, Die arab. Liter, d. Juden, § 70 (also ibid., 
 p. 342). 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY 6l 
 
 lived ill- Hebron. Moses Bashiatchi calls him 'nn p bti-\\i» 'T 
 (read inon) mnon 'Dano iDDpn i'N''J1 'un, and quotes his Book 
 of Precepts under the title ni3 'n niSD (Steinschneider, Gat. 
 Lugd., p. 14). He thus regards him as a son of Daniel al- 
 Qumisi (who wrote in the ninth century), and assigns his 
 domicile to Tustar (where Jashar b. Hesed also had his 
 home). But all these statements, especially that of his 
 home, are very doubtful, and those of Firkowitsch seem to 
 have been specially concocted ^. If Israel b. Daniel 
 flourished in the second half of the eleventh century, then 
 he might be identical with an Israel b. Daniel al-Ramli, 
 who is mentioned in an anti-Karaite work (composed 
 or copied ma) as a contemporary (see the passage in 
 question, J.Q.JJ.,Vin, 700: "hKrh^ ^ ^^5''J^ p iiiN-iDN •bvi . . .). 
 At the top of the Firkowitsch MS. (now in St. Petersburg) 
 of David b. Abraham al-F^si's Lexicon there are a few 
 poems with the superscription V'Vt ]'''''\n i'SIB" '311 '-\ab, 
 which may have been composed by Israel b. Daniel (cf. Pin- 
 sker, pp. 1 74 seq. ; Firkowitsch, HE'I ''32', p. 3, and Harkavy, 
 Stud. u. Mitt., Ill, notes 94 and laa). The first of these 
 poems is directed against Saadiah, " the erring Fayyumite " 
 (■'Dlir'an miW), and Samuel b. Hofni ("ijen 1^'' i'NiDtJ'), who 
 thought to uproot the creed of the Karaites, From the 
 clumsy form of the poems we might assume an earlier 
 writer ; but it is also possible that they originate from 
 Israel ha-Maarabi, who is also called ]'''''\n (see further infra, 
 No. 37). 
 
 27. Tobias b. Moses, called laiyn, ''p^n, and also pTiyen, 
 "the translator," as his chief importance consists in his 
 
 • The communication from the catalogue of books in Damascus seems to 
 have undergone various changes, for the statements that Israel b. Daniel was 
 twenty-six years old at the time the list was made, and that he sojourned 
 in Hebron, occur only in the Fittn ':a, p. 4, but not in Pinsker [here 
 also there have been added the dates 202 of the Hegira and 745 (of the 
 Creation?), which, however, do not agree with the year 1373, Era of 
 Contracts]. In Ibn al-Hiti (/. Q. B., IX, 432, 1. 4 from bottom) it seems that 
 we must really read 'jn'jt instead of 'imi )3 h^-\v\ see ibid., p. 438, n. i. 
 
62 THE KABAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS OF 
 
 numerous translations from the Arabic of works by co- 
 religionists ^. He is said to have been a pupil of Jeshua b. 
 Jehuda, and lived in the second half of the eleventh century 
 in Constantinople, where the first traces of Karaite literature 
 show themselves in his time. Besides the translations, 
 which he partly curtailed and revised, Tobias also com- 
 piled complete works from earlier authors. For example, 
 there is a sort of commentary on the Pentateuch, entitled 
 ^Dra 1S1N ^, which is compiled chiefly from David b. Boaz 
 (NiE'jn) and Jefet b. AH (iKhvn), and to which Tobias made 
 some additions, especially in the form of questions. All 
 that has been preserved, in a Bodleian MS. (Cat. Neub. 
 390), is the part on Leviticus i-x, from which 1; have 
 communicated several small and long passages (see /. Q. R., 
 Vm, 697 ; B.£.J., XXXIV, 167, 181 ; XLIV, 186). 
 
 In the IDPU "i^jix Saadiah is controverted pretty often, 
 and the name of the Gaon, who is mostly called ''OWan, 
 is accompanied with nasty expressions (cf. Steinschneider, 
 Cat. Bodl., ai68), e.g. lyin (MS. fol. 14 b), nrn (90b, loi b), 
 ybn (loi b), njnnn (90 a), nynoni nvinn (91 b), nvon iwn (90 b, 
 93 b), ti^an nt{='?rhtt nin, 95 b), &c. The questions on 
 which Tobias disputes with Saadiah in the portion pre- 
 served are naturally such as are connected with explana- 
 tions and prescriptions of the Third Book^, but in one 
 place (fol. 96 a) there is a controversy especially about the 
 Oral Law, where Saadiah's commentary on Exod. xxiv. 13 
 is cited : iiD^nni n3fi>an ^i>s^? nnt nniN nam ncK ^t^•n^^1 , . . 
 "•bn nbv Pidq 'nnsi 1[n]^^r iBtxa mb 'jsnni n''jnn nsD to cnSn 
 '131 DB' nMl n-^nn (cf. J. Q. R., X, 357, n. 3). The whole of the 
 passage is of a personal character throughout, and we read 
 
 ' See on him lastly Steinschneider, Die hebr. ijbersetn,, pp. 454 seq., 
 940 seq., and Jew. Encyd., s.v. (XII, 166). 
 
 ' That this work extended to the entire Pentateuch I gather from the 
 words of Tobias : mni ion:n isi« '■jddd 'k wtto iBon tn 'nins . . . rraio ':« 
 '131 D':n3 iiD. 
 
 ' The polemical passages also Tobias doubtless took for the most part 
 from his sources, but unfortunately the sources bearing on this particular 
 part of Leviticus are not accessible to me. 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY 6*3! 
 
 J 
 
 here : "If thou (Saadiah) and thy followers maintain that 
 Mishna and Talmud were dictated word by word by God to 
 Moses, then do I say that thou liest and deniest what is 
 manifest (nnn^ nnaB>i msai b^: in xajna nns npB* nr 'a vt 
 'sni nn 'cn cnnani c-lijjn), as these works contain the dicta 
 of individuals and events from the time of the second 
 temple and still later." 
 
 In the province of ritual law, Tobias discusses very often 
 and very thoroughly two questions especially. In the first 
 place, that on the operation of npiPD (fF. 6 a-7 b and 37 a- 
 39 b) * ; according to Saadiah this took place before the 
 slaying of the sacrificial bird, and its process does not rest 
 upon scriptural demonstrations, but upon continuous state- 
 ments of eye-witnesses (fol. 7 a : '3 ^DWSn nnjJD 'dni . . . 
 •'DiiT'an nnvD '»ni . . . nD'ntf'n DTip Pjija inan ihb'v* ntyyo np'^ban 
 nn bna 'nan |d nana nann nr hy n'-sn anb pN nann nr n»N 'b'n •'a 
 . . . 'iai nwon p Dni:''j)a iNnt5> no D''T'J»i onaDon jd npnynn Tinn ; 
 similarly fol. 37 b). Tobias then proves from SifrS, on i. 15 
 (fol. 37 b : naton hn jnan lanpni pnsa a':n 'ina 'on o^ia-in '•a 
 '131 Nin [1. pm] pnn paoa Mpba'< h^y, see ed. Weiss, fol. 8 d) and 
 from Tosefta, Zebahim, cap. VI (ibid. : "'E'B'n pnaa 'dn p 'a , . , 
 nanv hmx) piava pljio nvni D^tfnp nsDina njiB'Nin xnaoD t», see 
 ed. Zuckermandel, p. 489, where our passage is VII, 4), that 
 the Talmudists seek a support in the Scriptures for their 
 opinion, and that Saadiah deviates from them and contra- 
 dicts them. In any case, the argument of the Talmudists 
 is also not valid. Tobias also cites on this occasion 
 Saadiah's commentary on Leviticus (fol. 38 a : "'Dlir'a nt 'dni 
 Nnp''i naoa "h^ \r\r\Si2 nat ib'n nuanpn ''pbn p 'an pi^na). 
 
 The second question is that on the enjoyment of the fat 
 tail (n'i'N), which forms a constant theme in Karaite 
 polemics. Tobias also devotes much space to it (ff. 90 a- 
 94 a, 95 b, and 99 a-99 b). Saadiah's reasons and the 
 counter-reasons of the Karaites are the same here as in the 
 
 ' For the various Karaite opinions on this subject, see the passages 
 quoted in J?. E. J., XLV, 196, 197. 
 
64 THE KARAITE LITEEAEY OPPONENTS OP 
 
 other sources hitherto kno-wn elsewhere (see above, No. 23), 
 but expressed much more passionately and often more 
 thoroughly. It is interesting to establish that all Saadiah's 
 reasons and objections are taken from his commentary on 
 Leviticus, and that here also is mentioned the explanation 
 of iT'i'Kn niin mentioned above (fol. 90 a : nvpD 'j?'' nspD ~hdk\ 
 'E'N Dipon nra ik33 kip^i 'd'? unnsa [paxa-i^N yv^=] D''3mn 
 niDS Tr>bttn 'a 'an '•a Dm nr mm nntyipn 'vpD laijo Nia 
 nra navatt'i qb'ub' ni^js 'jsi iDirr'sin 'dk . . . [1. nni'iaN] Dni'''3N 
 m'? ^ nD''Dn ni^JKH n^n mDK minn *3 nDN* dni . . . pnen 
 lai'n 'dnb> nvni) pn'' orh 'i^ 'sfsin ess 'ao wdd dwd^ ni^u* 
 ['!]D''''jn»vn i3Ni!D '^i6 . . . i"'i nis naoina nD''»n n'^Nm laiin n'<b»n 
 , , . injvoi t^wx riB' DIN 'naB* loa i"i xb nan'' "a s^npn ''ana V 
 '131 'jNi ntj'i Dns then fol. 95 b: [iiin^N N'in=] ty^Nn nr 'a ivn . . , 
 jiB'Nin pnan innsa dmix "lar ns^N nuanpn ''p^n[D] t^i pbna 'n 
 'iai ''pbn 'i nsi'<'vib nuaipn pi'n "irxa snp^i 'E>'na p). Tobias 
 also quotes from Saadiah the -well-known opinion of 
 Meswi al-Okbari, that only the fat of offerings was for- 
 bidden, and he spurns in indignant and abusive terms the 
 insinuation of the " frivolous Fayyumite " (pn i»in''Bn nt), aa 
 if the Karaites also follow the opinion of Meswi (ff. loi b- 
 103 a) ^ 
 
 Finally, Tobias controverts the following explanations of 
 Saadiah of single passages in Leviticus: (i) on ii, i 
 (fol. 8 b), on the amount of oil to be used with a meat- 
 offering ; (a) on ii. 14 (fol. 14 b). The offering of firstfruita 
 mentioned here is not the obligatory offering of barley- 
 sheaves, but a private and free-will offering that everybody 
 can bring from the firstfruits of his field products.. Tobias 
 cites here Saadiah's interpretation, and the refutation in the 
 name of Jefet: ''"''b Dmaa nn:D anpn dki ^"1 loi'sn-ns'' 'nsi 
 
 ' Of. detailed treatment in B. A J., XXXIV, 164. Saadiah does not give 
 the name of Meswi here, but says : D>TnD rrowrt lira vn D'TON '3 i3$am . . . 
 monirr n'jm n:nD mp' 'ia« nonan jd a^n to« S3 '3 'dm W «' '3 'om •nini D'abnn 
 vS anp' rvn 'ran fflxin »3 D"p iDiponB) jon •pin n>n j3i noN in ono aip: 
 '131 -imn li'jn anp: w« 'ibni iidk I3';n. 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY €5 
 
 "■a 'nn onm 'J? '■•DipiDn rwraan p mnssiD Dnun nmo nat 
 N^n 13 'am E'lnn toi tt^'^^ p vni [1. n^si] dni t^nnn v^r jo N>n 
 nm»n nw '•a 'dsc 'd i>nj nijita 'jJ»n ntai ... las' niaa^JK p saita 
 'J5K . . . n'JQ 'jo nru»n nsr ssn xi) '•a . . . nswnn -idijid ncyn 
 'w 'n ija^ vm t6 tjmaan ^a ivan 'owsn vnv n*n li" i^'t loiion 
 'tti pijnn nt pi'n» n\T «!>... insi) in»i [Dvn] ni bvif jcit "laa* »ai. 
 Both Karaites overlooked the fact that Saadiah here 
 follows the explanation of the Talmudists (see Sifrd, ad loc). 
 (3) On iv. 13 (ff. 22 b, 39 a, and 29 b ; in the MS. the leaves 
 are here wrongly bound), respecting the question, who is to 
 be understood here by the " congregation of Israel," Tobias 
 indulges in exclamations against the shepherds, i. e. against 
 the leaders of the Rabbanites, who allow what is forbidden 
 and forbid what is allowed. (4) On vii. la (fol. 117 b), 
 against the assertion that both the shewbread and the 
 loaves brought with a thank-offering and a Nazarite 
 offering and the Omer — all belong to meat-offerings. The 
 source is here also Saadiah's commentary on Leviticus: 
 'a wiran rvo Nini "h^ N^p<1 isd 'naa notn ci^mn 'xp» ^a vni 
 *iV3 'oi'B' ny anpv ib'ki minn ny npv ityx arhm o^jsn oni' 
 'iai niraDii )d sin neiyni. 
 
 28. A Karaite compilation on Exodus and Leviticus 
 in Hebrew exists in a Ley den MS. (Cod. Warn. 3), 
 and is identical with the St. Petersburg MS. (No. 588), 
 described by Pinsker (pp. 71 seq.) and Harkavy (Stud. u. 
 Mitt, VIII, I, 136). It doubtless originated in Byzantium, 
 because it contains Greek words (see e. g. Pinsker, p. 73, 1. 2 
 from bottom) ; as date of compilation is given loao since the 
 destruction of the second temple and 480 of the Hegira, i.e. 
 1088 \ The latest Karaite author mentioned by name is 
 Abu Jaqph, probably Joseph al-Basir, but the compiler used 
 
 ' So rightly in Pinsker, p. 75 : Fj'jM nw is D'3Sidi . . . D'onn inp nnnns' 
 n;\c B"n nn» ts nate Sksqb' niato nnannn jdi . . . u'iia 'an (see also p. 76, 
 1. 3). In the lioyden MS. (cf. Cat. Steinschneider, p. 7) erroneously 1000 
 and 380, which together does not at all agree (1000 from the Destruction 
 = 1068, and 380 of the Hegira = 990). Cf. also Geiger, -mm isw, IV, a6. 
 
66 THE KARAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS Ot" 
 
 Jeshua and Tobias also ^. It is also not impossible that the 
 above date (and the Greek words too) was simply taken from 
 some older, source, and thus our compilation is possibly 
 of later origin. Saadiah is cited here a few times and 
 controverted, and among other well-known questions 
 (e. g. on {^N nJ? in Exod. iii. a, see above, p. 2,6 ; on 
 the rejection of the B'p^^ ^, see above, p. aa) are mentioned 
 also such explanations of Saadiah as are not known from 
 other sources, e. g. that on Exod. xix. a (see Pinsker, p. 7 a, 
 
 I. 4), then that a sin-offering must be brought for all 
 involuntary transgressions for which extermination is 
 threatened (ibid., p. 73, 1. 10 : MHta yn^ "UT 'OVB ^!^N '3 
 '131 Nin p 161 nsian injatfa ir-n* ma). A Karaite opinion is 
 falsely given as that of Saadiah, namely, that it is for- 
 bidden to enjoy meat in the Diaspora (Pinsker, p. 74, 1. 19; 
 Harkavy, p. 138, 1. 16: itirh bn-i^ hu 3"n itts ''»i»a ph 
 '131 nmuy hv D^jnsn lawB' fiapn n» iv jkvi npn iB'a n^^sso; 
 cf. my remarks in Monatsschrift, XXXIX, 443, and pan, 
 
 II, 96, 97)- 
 
 Twelfth Centuey. 
 
 29. Jacob b. Reuben is the author of a Hebrew com- 
 pilation on the Bible, entitled l^jin nsD, which exists in 
 manuscript in several libraries (Leyden, Paris, St. Peters- 
 burg), and a part of which (from Jeremiah to the end, 
 excluding Psalms) is also in print (Eupatoria, 1836). He 
 lived in Byzantium, and as he already uses 'Ali b. SulejmS,n 
 
 ' For parallels to Jeshua see Pinsker, pp. 76 seq. (who, however, wrongly 
 concluded that Jeshua was the author ; cf. also Steinschneider, Polem. u. 
 apohg. Liter., p. 347). From Tobias, e.g., is taken the passage on np'ta 
 (P- 73)) where the compiler has combined conclusions found in two 
 widely-separated passages in Tobias (idto isin, ff. 7 a and 37 a). 
 
 ' In Pinsker, p. 75, 1. 6 : onn n*' 'ussdi in tei j'iB'po p« '3 'OVD yam 
 'lai mini Dnwan, but in the Leyden MS., f. 343 (Steinschneider, p. 8) t 
 
 '131 Ml tol »<pD ':« <3 'DVD 1DN1. 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE TWELFTH CENTURY 67 
 
 (see Harkavy in Jew. E7Vcycl.,YII, 44a b supra),he probably 
 belongs to the first half of the twelfth century \ Jacob's 
 chief source was the commentary of Jefet b. 'Ali, whom 
 he reproduces mostly in a very abbreviated form, and the 
 passages having reference to Saadiah must have been 
 taken for the most part from this commentary. All these 
 passages (with the exception of a single one) occur only 
 in the portion on the Pentateuch, and have been com- 
 municated by Pinsker (pp. 83 seq.) and Steinschneider (Cat 
 Lugd., p. 35). They are (i) Gen. i. i : iT'B'Nna '•Dircs nnsi 
 Nin p NP1 75313 r\"'>2, this agrees with Saadiah's translation: 
 i^N pbb NO i)iN ; cf. also Ibn E2ira, ad loc. : NS^M nunB' n"<i 
 Dj;t3 "h:! [? fiDu], and Parhon's Mahberet, fol. a c : inw l''a''DiDi 
 DNni'N Nia rhnn nnib xna n'-tJ'N-in id3 nnix 1^3 [n'un nx ^'n] ; 
 (a) Exod. iii. a on B'n nni' (from Jefetj see above, p. a6); 
 
 (3) ibid., xxi. i : nn''3si> means before the Sanhedrin ; 
 
 (4) ibid., xxiii. 19, on Lev. xxvii. 3a, from which Saadiah 
 proved that the enjoyment of a b''b\i> is permitted : 'DVai 
 D^Jts' on N^Ti fnan wnp* dn ibsu'd no mnuo nvrh mpn dn ion 
 mnjjon i'y nn^onns ba2 'n ^o^*n dni (cf. above, p. 45) ; 
 
 (5) Lev. xi (DJ1 cnoiN p [probably the Samaritans] DnoiBTil 
 p noix 10VS, but it is not clear what the question is here); 
 
 (6) ibid., xi. 39 on 3V ; (7) ibid., on grasshoppers, which 
 may be eaten without ritual slaughter (cf. Z.f. H. B., IV, 73, 
 and the passage cited there); (8) ibid., xx. 13, on the 
 various degrees of punishment for committing the crime 
 mentioned in this verse; (9) ibid., xxii. 8, on Ezek. xliv. 
 31; (10) ibid.j xxiii. 15 on nats*.! mnoo (extract from 
 Jefet, cf. above, p. 34). In addition there are two pas- 
 sages, which neither Pinsker nor Steinschneider quotes, 
 
 ' On the conjectured period of the life of 'Ali b. Sulejman, see supra, 
 p. 54, n. 2. That he is used by Jacob b. Reuben was unknown to me 
 when I wrote an article on the latter in the Jew. Encyd., s.v. (VII, 41). To the 
 literature there given must be added : Geiger, ion: nsw, IV, 25 ; Harkavy, 
 Altjiid. Denkmaler aus d. Krim, p. 62 ; Steinschneider, PoUm. u. apolog. Liter., 
 p. 347 ; Adolf Posnanski, Schiloh, I, 273. Cf. also the passages on 'Anan, 
 communicated by Harkavy, Stud. u. Mitt., VIII, i, 152-155? 
 
 F 3 
 
€8 THE KARAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS OP 
 
 and which I take direct from the Leyden manuscript (Cod. 
 Warn. 8) ; (ii) Gen. i. % D''»n '3 p si"! Ciinn p inn ^eva 'dni 
 "ipi? <cf. Ibn Ezra, ad loc. N^ nn ninn» Nina' inn jisan nns 
 D'on D'ca vf-m oinn q"d 'a pn-i); and (12) Lev. xix. 27: 
 
 V [E'^?-I31] jpD IK'S nyan 'a Tiyo id3 'dk 'jmn nns noi)inni 
 N1VV DN1 npB3j)i'K ^3 'sni -hrmon nsi 'Ji 'J''»»n nxa 'a nis^a 'r h 
 nsa "iDK »3 D^jaiN '3 '3 dki n^wns (niv) vb s'-'n* ■i3?n3 dhd 'n 
 nisa vh\ (of. Mishna Mahhoth, III, 5, where we read : K'l 
 nns xiiN 3i^n ijin nnN3 1^)3 liju^j ns nois). In the printed 
 portion Saadiah is cited only at the end of Daniel, with 
 regard to the year of Redemption (fol. 20 b : *3 ina ''DVs pi 
 unna ha'z dji CJE' nn), but this passage also is curtailed 
 from Jefet (see my Miscellen ilber Saadja, III, 12 = 
 Monatsschrift, XLIV, 411). 
 
 30. An Arabic Commentary on Exodus, of which a frag- 
 ment is extant at the British Museum (MS. Or. 2493 '> ^Jat., 
 I, no. 332), must likewise belong to the first half of the 
 twelfth century, for here also 'Ali b. Sulejmsin is the last 
 author quoted^. On xxx. 24 (fol. 73a) Saadiah (''avatiK) 
 is also quoted, but the substance of the quotation is 
 unknown to me. 
 
 31. Jehtuia b. Ellas Hadassi, of Constantinople, in his 
 work 'ia3n i>3B'K (Eupatoria, 1836), composed in 1148, 
 brought the science of Karaite law and dogma to a certain 
 close ^. His encyclopaedic work is, as Jost rightly ex- 
 presses himself {Oesch. des Judenthums, II, 352), a vast sea 
 into which all the rivulets of Karaite lore empty themselves, 
 and hence, despite its inelegance in outer form, which 
 makes reading pretty difficult, it is of extraordinary value. 
 In his polemics against Rabbinism he foUows in the foot- 
 
 ' other authors cited in this commentary are : 53 D'n'in (David b. Boaz), 
 ii » (doubtless Abu 'Ali, i. e. Jefet b. 'Ali) and w bb (Abu-l-Paraj Purqan, 
 with whose translation the one in our commentary also often agrees). 
 On the explanation mentioned here of Exod. xx. a6 from a book rai, by 
 which are perhaps to be understood the glosses cf Levi b. Jefet, see 
 R. A J., XLI, 306, n. a, and Z. f. H. B., V, 17. 
 
 ' For the literature on him see Jew. Encyd., s. v. (VI, 13a, 133). 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE TWELFTH CENTURY 6g 
 
 steps of Salmon b. Jeroham, Sahl b. MasliaK, and Tobias 
 b. Moses, and sometimes surpasses them in harshness and 
 want of consideration. All the more remarkable is it that 
 he names Saadiah only seldom (altogether six times), and 
 treats him with comparative indulgence. In three places 
 (Alphab. 168 n, 174 p and B') the question is about the 
 application of the method of analogy, which was employed 
 by the Karaites in considerable measure, and was energeti- 
 cally opposed by Saadiah. Hadassi urges that without 
 analogy one would not know, for example, that the father 
 inherits from a son, or that the damage done by a goring 
 ox, by crouching, trampling, or devouring, must be made 
 good (Alphab. 168 n: typn ps *3 iDDana -lox nnj;D ^Dwan 
 Dmajjni 'on n^j »3 . . . p^ asn b'i" ab B'pn pN ns inanai mina 
 "iwa pi . . . n-n3nni5 iinm nani inn li'on nm lusij trhnj ns 
 n3''E'j t6i nta'ya sh ns'ian v!? -w^b nai i6'\ p» »vm pn idn na 
 '131 mitra ; on the latter cf. Baba Kamma, a b) 1. Much 
 more interesting is another passage, where the sources of 
 our cognition, according to Saadiah, are given, and it 
 is stated, that his words can serve as a support to the 
 Karaites (169 j: :n-iinn [?pin] pn nD 'Dinian nnvD rhi 
 :mi2n irxin i>Nn '<»n*i y"j 'i'^ae'D jNipo 'i'yai' nry vncNei 
 D''viD HB'i'tJ' niv*i)»n pjii noann npyi ijaETi b'ib' 'a naa -ii»n3 
 wi" B^ni )ynbti Pi<Dini ^man yiDi ^atj'n jjidi nNion jjid :n-iiB>3 
 maanni) 't Nini j;DE>Dn yno dj 'n'<bv). They are the same 
 four sources of information that Saadiah discusses in the 
 introduction to his reKgio-philosophical work, and Hadassi 
 also drew from them without doubt ^. The other two 
 
 ^ The second passage (Alphab. 174 p seq.) reads : iSitei •mn wao n 'Din'Di 
 ''fflTDo vn ah DNi mini ''ibiibd 'nai n"' 'hnsdi -ai baa v^m ':« '3 I'libni 
 'lai mim maro rrten in '3« now tttt D"ibjl. Hence here too the reading 
 is like that in the Leyden MS. of the anonymous compilation on Exod. and 
 Ley. (see above, p. 66, n. a. Could Hadassi perhaps have drawn from it, 
 or the reverse?). — iWn here most probably means "his wantonness" 
 (see Ps. Ixxv. 5). 
 
 ' See Amandt, ed. Landauer, p. 13 infra : (jinhii nsm <s) n™« 'npn . . . 
 (■jaffin »io=) 'jipr'jM oto fi'iNrtMi (nsnon nD = ) nnNiobs Dto ''jin'^n into fiii'jn 
 
70 THE KARAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS OF 
 
 passages deal with the argument from Josh. V. 1 1 for the 
 correctness of the Karaite interpretation of nacn mnoss 
 (Alphab. 334 i), and with Saadiah's argument from Lev. 
 xxvii. 33, that the enjoyment of an embryo is permitted 
 (Alphab. 340 » : cnp ^^^» n'-tj'jjn ainan 110X3 idn ■'Cin''sni , . . 
 Nin ''3 i3i5?Dn ^ih iniD nroi nnss wpilj n^n "isijjd mpn dk 'ni? 
 ■6 MDta" tyrh» tivb inis DmoNtJ' 's'jnna i'tani :iD*Ji3i5'n3 nnN3 
 mm . . . nmivD nn^M vni ^3 1^ r^o rii^si'n 3315 *n v'j ''i'''3B'D 
 yrhtt 'Tin bh i^ 'ntDin mpa in nniw v"3 '^''3b« vbv) ^ 
 
 But besides these few passages, Hadassi now and again 
 controverts the views of Saadiah without naming him, 
 e.g. the assertion that 3''3N can signify the name of the 
 month (Alphab. 190 D: 3'3xn tj'in ns niDB> iDNK' 'ei . . . 
 3''3s bn iDNB' noa inoni inpi" *3 nmm BSB'cn ni5? . . . lU'inb w Nin 
 '131 DIpD ntf Nini ; see above, p. 44), or the explanation of 
 mi'Nn wJjn as n'^sni i3^n (Alphab. 333 p ; cf. supra, No. 33), 
 and so forth. It must be against Saadiah also that those 
 passages are directed in which Hadassi shows that in the 
 Talmudical period the rule noa 1*13 nh had not any validity 
 yet (Alphab. 1 85 B' seq.), or that i Sam. xx. 1 8 is no argument 
 for the great age of the calendar-system (Alphab. 197 B* seq.), 
 
 pFliobM fisKDi jm sbmi . . . ('man 910=) n'';H mni'jN nroT nd cbs firtsn'jNi 
 "iVs (sownn sio=) piss'jM iiibs fins 'm . . . fisaxT hind Mrp'jM rj'sn . , . 
 But it seems that Hadassi, in the fourth source, chose ivvya not without 
 intention (instead of, e. g., roDNin mjnn in Ibn Tibbon), because this word 
 among the Karaites signifies the Scriptures. Hadassi further adds : lisn 
 ntapni taon mn ':q«i rtipai so»ai 'jam niD"pnD 'mnri '3 (nnsD Y-\) ion 
 1'irtN min 'di 'inao no nioiin ':'« no«. Here again is Saadiah's division 
 of the commandments into precepts of reason (s'^nw'jM, nvtaffi niSD = ')3l» 
 S'^P»bs) and precepts of revelation (fi'sno'is r'Si»';s, nvsDiD nisn = »niB), to 
 which is also added truthful tradition (n'ns ini = ntap) ; see Amandt, § iii. 
 Cf. also Kaufmann, Geschichte <?. Atiributenlehre, pp. i seq. ; Guttmann, Die 
 Beligionsphilosophie d, Saadia, pp. aa seq., 134 seq. 
 
 ' This argument, as already remarked, is also advanced by Qirqis&ni, 
 Levi b. Jefet and Jacob b. Reuben (see Kau/mann-Bedenkbuch, p. 178, n. s, 
 and also above, pp. 45 and 67), but Saadiah's name is mentioned only by 
 the last of these. As Jacob b. Reuben draws especially from Jefet, it may 
 be presumed that the latter also handed down the name of the Gaon and 
 has used to Hadassi as a source. But unfortunately I have not before me 
 Jefet'S commentary on this passage of Levitiqus. 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE TWELFTH CENTURY 7I 
 
 or that one cannot conclude from Dan. x. 3 tiiat the 
 eating of meat was permitted in the Diaspora (see above, 
 p. 66), &o. 
 
 Besides the EshJcol, another fragment of Hadassi has 
 been preserved, which Pinsker (pp. 94 seq.) has edited. The 
 latter holds Tobias to be the author, but this time Firko- 
 witsch, who ascribes it to Hadassi, has exceptionally hit 
 upon the truth, as we find at the end quite explicitly 
 (P- 97. 1- 5): ta'iToi'nn pisp n^bn p mm'' 'J^i. This frag- 
 ment is not a remnant of a Book of Precepts, but collec- 
 tanea which Hadassi probably compiled as material for his 
 Eshkol. Saadiah is mentioned a few times here also, and 
 the matter at issue is that eternal question about the age 
 of the calendar-system. According to Saadiah it is no 
 argument against the great age of this system that there is 
 nothing about it in the Bible, for reason does not forbid us 
 to assume that God revealed, e. g. 100 precepts to his prophet, 
 and commanded him to write down only fifty of them, 
 but to hand down the other fifty only orally, or not 
 to fix any of them at all in writing. The precepts were 
 indeed already known to the patriarchs, although they 
 were not written down; similarly Mishna and Talmud 
 already existed before, and were only later made into a 
 record by the sages ^. Further, Saadiah maintains that the 
 calendar with all its rules originates from Moses, and only 
 when Sadok and Boethos, the two heretical disciples of 
 Antigonus, also opposed the system, was the observation 
 of the moon also made known [in order to show that both 
 
 » Cf. alao Frankl, Monatsschrift, XXXI, 77 seq. and in»n, VII, 50 ; Buber's 
 introduction to the aiiD np'i of Tobia b. Eliezer, p. 47. 
 
 2 Saadiah had this argument in his commentary on the Pentateuch 
 (p. 94, 1. 23 : piffinn iiisi lainn psa ^hw jnnEa sipon 'tea to ran 'mn'B '3 »t 
 '131 niasm ; 1. 25, for 'a aina'B read ': aina'o). By the assertion that the 
 patriarchs already knew the commandments, Saadiah means such sayings 
 as nS3 minri ta W3« omaM D"p and the like. In Karaite literature also 
 it is discussed whether the Biblical precepts were binding before the 
 Sinaitic legislation. I intend dealing fully with this problem, described 
 as y'SlD")** mp, in another connexion. 
 
72 THE KARAITE LITEEARY OPPONENTS OP 
 
 coincide] ^. The generally prevalent rules were again used 
 as a guide, until 'Anan and Benjamin al-Nahawendi arose 
 and again abolished the system that is of Sinaitic origin. 
 Hadassi further reports in Saadiah's name about the 
 wonders displayed by R. Eliezer in his dispute with R, 
 Joshua (see Baba Mesia, 59 a), about the sacrifice brought 
 with the Omer, the amount of meal to be used with the 
 Omer, and finally about the argument from Josh. v. 11 
 for the Karaite interpretation of natt'n mn»D and its refuta- 
 tion. This refutation agrees verbally with that by Jefet 
 on Lev. xxiii. 15 in the Kitah cd-tainjiz (Hirschfeld, Arabic 
 Chrestomathy, p. 113, 1. 24 seq.), and Hadassi also drew 
 from this indirectly ^- 
 
 With Hadassi the older period of Karaite literature 
 closes, and henceforth all independence is stifled. With 
 the exception of the two Aarons (and, in many respects, 
 of Elias Bashiatchi and Caleb Afendopolo), the later 
 authors only repeat what the earlier ones have said, and 
 " enrich themselves by their works." On this ground the 
 Fayyumite still continues to be the object of controversy 
 (but naturally without any new factor in the campaign), 
 although this controversy has long become an anachronism. 
 But, in accordance with our task, we will follow the traces 
 of this controversy, so far as it is present to our view, still 
 further, till the most recent times. 
 
 To the twelfth century, and perhaps even to the first 
 half of it, must most probably also belong 
 
 32. Elias b. Abraham, the author of the QJ? n''^<^p^ ^n 
 n-mn (ed. Pinsker, pp. 99 seq.) \ This follows from the 
 
 ' With this is connected the answer of Ben Mashiah mentioned 
 previously (of. above, p. 16). 
 
 ' This follows from the fact that the words of Hadassi following upon 
 the conclusions of Saadiah (p. 96, 1. 17): w^n laxa 'mn'Dn hsi 'im '3 sn 
 iDi imN3 xm j'N po niNW 'a on 'a yinn iiaro ibas'i jn nw, are simply 
 translated from Jefet (Hirschfeld, p. 114, l.ao) : i3nn« no 'D 'Dl'ij'js 'np nds 
 lai «oa iDS'js o-io frUrnya jrins nton psn niayn itawi p. 
 
 ' The view of Pinsker (p. e'), Schorr (yibnn, VI, 77), and Gottlober 
 (nwpn nn'nnb mpa, p. 157), that Elias b. Abraham is not the author, seems 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE TWELFTH CENTURY 73 
 
 fact 'that Elias speaks of the sects of the Tiflisites and the 
 Meswites (i. e. the adherents of Abu Imi-an al-Tiflisi and 
 Meswi al-Okbari) as still existing in his time (p. 100, 1. nj 
 from bottom: n^Kip mi cm m mm "I N's wjon px arm 
 •'IB'D mi D^D'i'sn mi)\ and that, as will soon have to be 
 mentioned, Saadiah's polemical work against 'Anan (asna 
 pj; 'by nni:N) was probably still in his hands. But the 
 traces of this work can only be followed up to the twelfth 
 century (cf. B.JS.J., XLV, T92). His home cannot be 
 determined, but as Karaite literature in this century has 
 its centre in Byzantium, he should most probably belong 
 to this century ". The work of Elias has the form of an 
 epistle to a Rabbanite (Jehuda b. Sabbatai?), and serves 
 the double purpose of defending Karaism and attacking 
 Eabbanism. Saadiah is not mentioned here explicitly, 
 but Pinsker's conjecture seems to be right, that it is he 
 who is meant by "the co-religionist of the receiver, who 
 insulted 'AnS,n, the teacher of the Diaspora " (p. 103, 1. 14 : 
 d'Dn nam Dsaan dkim nbi:r] b's^a \:v^ ^^n ie'k cam pi^i 
 WDNn lb nob usn''). There then follows in the "lying 
 story " of this Rabbanite, as Elias expresses himself (nnai 
 vnnpE' 11303), the weU-known account about the advent 
 
 to me to be unfounded. Just as little ground is there for the view of 
 Schorr, that the actual work begins with the words Nip[a] '33 nns (p. 100, 
 1. 27), for a few lines before (1. 23) the author expressly says : x^i 'rrajn p'n 
 'i3i 'm 'pcs i^ 'nniB ninSia airoto 'nnonom, then a scriptural passage 
 is here introduced with D!«:n (L 20 : 'i3i ■o^^H ':si ':nin DWjn D"pn'i), just 
 as in p. 103, L 15. Cf. also conclusions of Steinschneider, Sebr. Bibliogr., 
 V, 49 seq. 
 
 ' Pinsker (p. 98) also calls attention to this. With regard to the 
 Meswites, I have shown (B. ^. J., XXXIV, 163) that they still existed 
 in the twelfth century, and that will certainly have been the case with 
 the Tiflisites. It is thus unnecessary to presume with Harkavy (yoskhod, 
 Feb. 1900, p. 77), that here the author of the pi'jn simply copied from older 
 sources. The context is also against such a presumption. 
 
 ' See Pinsker, p. 98. In the list of Karaite scholars at the end of the 
 pthn (p. io6) only Tobias is mentioned of the well-known Byzantine 
 Karaites ; the citation of Hadassi, however, is not certain. See Stein- 
 schneider^ 1. c, 54. 
 
74 THE KARAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS OF 
 
 of 'An&n'. His injured ambition, following upon his re- 
 moval from the Exilarchate in favour of his younger brother 
 Hanania, drove him to Schisma. 'AnS,n was in mortal 
 danger owing to the interference of the Arabian govern- 
 ment. But following the advice of a Moslem scholar (Abu 
 ' Hanifa ?) imprisoned with him, he was able to win the 
 favour of the Chalif by declaring that he represented a 
 different religion from his brother, to wit, that in opposition 
 to the latter he taught the fixing of the months on the 
 basis of the observation of the moon and the consideration 
 of the ripeness of the corn. The Chalif saw therein a 
 concession to Islam, and showed him favour. Pinsker 
 must also be right in saying that this report was preserved 
 in Saadiah's above-mentioned polemical work. 
 
 Thirteenth Centuey. 
 
 33. Jacob b. Moses Tamani (of Taman in the Crimea), 
 according to a tombstone inscription (Firkowitsch, ^:3X 
 jnar, no. 98), was the head of a Karaite school, and the 
 author of a work innsn nsD, and he was buried in 958 in 
 Tschufut-Kald It goes without saying that the date of this 
 inscription, on which the word Tamani does not occur, 
 was fabricated by Firkowitsch, as there were not yet in 
 the tenth century in the Crimea any Karaite heads of 
 schools, who had many pupils (''n 'niD^n TDjJDn). It 
 does not at all follow from the work mentioned (the begin- 
 ning of which is missing) that it bore the title innan iBD, 
 and that its author was called Jacob b. Moses. It is more 
 likely to have been, according to Harkavy {Altjud. Denk- 
 mdler, p. a68), the work of an anonymous Byzantine 
 Karaite of the twelfth or thirteenth century. In the few 
 lines that Pinsker (p. 68) has published from this work, 
 "the heretic" (iT'l'niDn=fi^X3D^s) Saadiah is also mentioned 
 a few times. We have, e.g. his explanation of Exod. iii. 3 
 (on the burning of fire on the Sabbath ; cf. above, p. 24), 
 
 1 Of. a. A J., XLIV, 166 seq. 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY .75 
 
 then the assertion that analogy is not to be applied in 
 the case of incest, and hence that it is not forbidden, as 
 the Karaites maintain, to maiTy a niece i; and lastly, 
 Saadiah's explanation, mentioned often already, that inter- 
 prets n'i5Nn tJ?n as nii'Nni nijn. 
 
 34. Jefet, called Ibn abi-1-Hasan al-Barqamftni, was a 
 Karaite physician and author in Alexandria. A terminus 
 a quo for his life is afforded by the fact that he quotes no 
 later author than Moses Maimonides (''aonplsK iDl») ; a 
 terminus ad quern is supplied by the mention of his name 
 in a Karaite compilation on Deuteronomy of the year 1351 
 (see infra, No. 38). He must, therefore be assigned, with 
 Steinschneider {Arab. Liter, d. Juden, § 17a), to the middle 
 of the thirteenth century. Apart from a medical work, 
 ri'Jna^N mtsba con -a niJDnDijN ritiNpDijN (MS. in Berlin and 
 Oxford), Jefet also composed a polemical work in Arabic 
 against the Kabbanites, under the title naiBTi nsD (MS. in 
 St. Petei-sburg), which consists of seven sections (niii), and 
 is said to be very violent (see Monatsschrift, XLII, 189). 
 Here also Maimonides is quoted very often, and designated 
 as *D1D D'lni'X, D'n^N (also Dili's 'h'^Dba). A passage about 
 Saadiah has been published by Gurland (i'sntJ" ''tJJ, III, 
 Eussian part, p. 91): bpiba "W^siba '•s (pjNi-ii)N 's) ijJnNl . . , 
 n^bn nnjji'N in 'DvaiiN n'lVD ai bha D'oanfiN fw iv^ix n»3 
 i?t< |i;d^ni intJ'i'N r\''bv "i3j; p^'Nin dix [ni 'j^dd hk-d!? (cf. 
 above, p. 10, n. a). 
 
 35. BTatan b. Jehuda is an otherwise quite unknown 
 Karaite author. A passage in his name on the subject of 
 calendar-lore is quoted in a Bodleian MS. of the year 1584 
 (Cat., vol. n, no. 3789, fol. 45a; published /.Q.iJ.jVHI, 703) 
 and in Moses Misorudi's HE'D niXD, which was written in 
 1 60a (MS. Leyden, p. ^2', foL 347 ; see above, p. 47, 
 n. 3). The beginning of this passage reads : p IW 'as 
 
 ' 'ui ninsa piD<pn j'n iidni n» nn nins ni nwo inis iTnn man or 'dvb an.. 
 'Ao^n alreadjr derives the prohibition to marry a niece from the analogy 
 respecting the aunt; see KaiifmannrGedenkbuch, p. 173. 
 
76 THE KAKAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS OF 
 
 DnK I'w ffatyr on IK'S o^xipn 'aiiiN jd nsr rh^^ ti^nb'j mw 
 '131 n^n '1D3 D»a» ^JB' minn jd w^ psD ''3. From these worda 
 we may infer that Natan did not live in Constantinople 
 (nnx Tj?) and that this city was still ilnder Christian do- 
 minion. We are, therefore, perhaps not wrong in assigning 
 him to the Crimea in the thirteenth century^. From the 
 same Bodleian MS. another passage from this Natan is com- 
 municated, which is directed against Saadiah's well-known 
 explanation of the verse Gen. i. 14 (niniNi' vni ; see above, 
 1. c), and here we read towards the end : ''3N vnana DJftsn ni> 
 '«1 ^DVa hit naiETi 'JTCV nt^x nana ina. Thus Natan also 
 composed a polemical work against Saadiah. This fact 
 also testifies to an earlier date for our author, for, as the 
 present essay shows, the Karaites did not cease indulging 
 in polemics against Saadiah till modem times, though they 
 do so only incidentally. None of them, however, composed 
 a special work of controversy. Other traces of Natan's 
 polemics are hitherto unknown. 
 
 86. Aaron b. Joseph, or Aaron the Elder, the famous 
 physician of philosophical training, Bible exegete, and 
 liturgical poet, is one of the most prominent representatives 
 of the later period of Karaite literature. Of special im- 
 portance is his commentary on the Pentateuch, inaon "iSD 
 (ed. Koslow, 1835), which he composed according to his own 
 statement in 1293/3 (on Exod. xii. a; fol. 14b: '•^ nt . . . 
 li'iD D'jm^ n^m tsisa ii"h rijc ts'in'-an nt mip m^ mcj; vans 
 d*:3i^ iniK irNini ij-Dtyn nnnta n^-ip ]^n wki wtoni neri 
 
 ' Simha Isaac Lutzki (D'pns ms,f. 21 b, 1. 22) mentions a'j'nDipn jro •\"fr\, 
 who was perhaps a brother of the Aaron b. Judah ':nDip , to whom Solomon 
 ha-Nasi sent his epistle on incest (see Steinschneider, Cat. JJugd., p. 234), 
 and who accordingly had lived at the beginning of the twelfth centuiy. 
 But it Is impossible to identify him with our Natan, as the latter, in my 
 opinion, did not live in Constantinople. Further on Simha Isaac (1. c, 
 f.22a, 1.17) mentions among the Karaite scholars of Lithuania a Judah 
 b. Daniel, together with his two sons, Daniel and Natan. But the latter 
 also cannot possibly be our Natan b. Judah, as the literary activity 
 of the Karaites in Lithuania only began in the sixteenth century, hence 
 at the time when Byzantium was no longer Christian. 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 77 
 
 '131 DsoijlD xipan DIpD inwi de> cxvosn) i. Saadiah is men- 
 tioned here only twice: (i) on Exod. xiii. 4 (fol. 19b), on 
 3UK. According to Saadiah's declaration, this verse speaks 
 against the Karaite interpretation of T^X as ripeness of 
 corn, for here the question is about the ripeness in Egypt, 
 which takes place one month earlier than that in Palestine, 
 and therefore cannot serve for the fixing of the months. 
 Aaron replies that this verse would then also point against 
 the Rabbanites, who likewise pay regard to the a^ax ('DDT'sni 
 133 DnSD 3''3N ^3 nDK3 3''3Xn tS'nn ns niDK'3 D'NIpij I5JD ^3 3B'n 
 wn )VSi32 '3 VT K^l nntfin). (3) On Lev. iv. 35 (fol. 7 a), 
 on the use of the fat tail (i\'<hii). Contrary to his custom 
 elsewhere, Aaron deals with this subject rather fully. In 
 this passage he already reverts to it a second time, and 
 mentions the name of Saadiah only in connexion with 
 an argument. In Lev. ix. 19-ao, where TfhK is included 
 in the general concept of DU?n, the Karaites find a support 
 for their prohibition of this fat tail. Saadiah refutes this 
 argument by showing from Exod. xx. 8-10 and similar 
 verses, that when two groups of things are enumerated, 
 of which the one is much less than the other quantitatively, 
 then only the larger group is mentioned, whilst the other 
 is included in it (thus in ver. 2,0 only siri is repeated, as 
 this is greater quantitatively in comparison with nv'i'3 
 and 'i33n mnv of ver. 19). This view is opposed by Aaron 
 in the following words : jnjD ibnk' njyta "Dinian nayn psi . , . 
 IK -non injn hii e'''n in* '3 n^n ovan n'':r\b\ 3nn fsin'? nsjjn 
 
 thw^ -pvb lOICSTI ]12m DN1 TIDB'!' HDHa bl 3in3 DE'l HB' IN niB' 
 
 nnnnE' pn< vh^ nisb^ by) n^ bv niDn by -\w bv jib's ^3^ b bv 
 ]1DW mni'-ni nvi'3n n'JDi 2bnn "vom run p . . . n»n3 isipa 
 nniB' T\\tnsb mn now ncns p3 n3B> N'lyo 'n t5»Nn n33 maicjTi 
 '131 no *11 "I3B' ^. But Saadiah is also meant in the passage 
 
 > For the literature on him see Jew. Encyd., a. v. (1, 14). On the Mibhar 
 cf. especially Jest, Besch. d. Judenthums, II, 356 seq. It is not quite certain 
 that Aaron lived in Constantinople. 
 
 ' Both these conclusions of Saadiah have hitherto not been known 
 from older sources, so far as I am a,ware. Could Aaron perhaps have 
 drawn them immediately from Saadiah? 
 
78 THE KARAITE LITERARY ,-OPPONEKTS Ol" 
 
 on iii. 9 (fol. 56), where several of his arguiiieiits are refuted- 
 
 ~iv nb'':it6 nniK nnTiDn lyai n2iab n2-\p caan n'-i'N nin . . . 
 i>b DB' laijn »3 iJJta iivi . . . .Tiij^ni ui'n new i"'i is'-mn onspB' 
 'til ■ins'' ai'n ma Nin uijn '3 jvta niyi .... cnawn ntt-onb (cf. 
 (?aw ^cZen, fol. 9b; Adderet, nD''nB' pJjf, cap. 18). Apart 
 from these passages Aaron must hint at Saadiah many 
 times without mentioning his name. 
 
 Fourteenth Century. 
 
 37. Israel [ta.Samuel?]ha-Dajjan (also called ha-Ma'arabi) 
 lived in Cairo at the beginning of the fourteenth century, 
 and is the author of several works in Arabic-'. I have 
 made the conjecture above (No. 36), that the poems pre- 
 served at the top of a MS. of David b. Abraham's Lexi- 
 con, and which are aimed against Saadiah and Samuel 
 b. Hofni, were perhaps composed, not by Israel b. Daniel, 
 but by our Israel ha-Ma'arabi. 
 
 38. The MS, of the British Museum, Or. 2498 (Cat., I, 
 no. 334) contains an Arabic commentary on Deuteronomy, 
 the beginning of which is missing, and which originally 
 extended perhaps over the whole Pentateuch. This com- 
 mentary, as the colophon states, is compiled from Qirqi- 
 sS,ni, Jefet b. 'All, Sahl b. Masliah [Abu-1-Surri], Abu-1- 
 
 ' Enumerated in Steinsojineider, Arab. X-iter. d. Juden, § 184. The 
 name of his father S&muel only rests upon a combination of Pinsker 
 (p. 176) that has yet to be confirihed. On the other hand, the Karaite 
 authors call him only ]'nn '>nib' m or 'nsnn; e.g., his pupil, Jefet b. Sagir 
 (in Pinsker, ifcid.) ; Aaron b. Elias {Oan Eden, f. aa b ; Keter Tora on 
 Exod. xii. a, f. a8 a) ; Samuel al-Magribi {Murshid, Section vii, chap, xiii, 
 ed. Lorge, p. 14) ; Ibn al-Hiti (J. Q. B., IX, 435, 1. 8 from bottom) ; Elias 
 Bashiatchi (Adderet, n*rtp )'», cap. XL) ; Moses Bashiatchl (in the nvis ied, 
 see Steiuschneider, Cat. Lugd., p. la) ; Judah Meir Taurizi (in Pinsker, 
 p. 144), and Simha Isaac Lutzki (D'pns mK, f. ai b, 1. aa). — In the Arabic 
 compilation on Deuteronomy about to be mentioned, the author cited as 
 nvis^x inNs [D'n')«=] ibs 'to nibs 'd [)«ib' = ] to> '^ (see MargoUouth, 
 Catalogue, I, p. a68b) must likewise be our Israel. 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE FOUETEENTH CENTUEY 79 
 
 Faraj Harftn, Abu-l-Faraj FurqS,n b. 'Asad [i.e. Jeshua 
 b. Jehuda], and others, of whom Jefet seems to have been 
 used the most, and it was finished in the first ten days 
 of the month Nisan, 1663 (Era of Contracts) or the end 
 of Muharram, 752, of the Hegira (= March, 1351)^. On 
 xvii. 8 (fol. 49 a) a vigorous controversy is waged against 
 Saadiah, who (according to the precedent of the Talmudists) 
 refers the words on'? m p3 to the difference between pure 
 and impure blood (0-6 m pa 'yn 'lp t** nvxSm bbtt '?»p npi 
 nni»p5? DijJi nnarriD indb "bv '?-]" Kim nn<t mi nnj m sin 
 'i?H N-in ID napK hp: lU' bnn Drum). As mentioned abeady 
 (cf. above, p. ao), David b. Boaz (?) also controverted this 
 explanation of Saadiah, and it is therefore possible that he 
 was the source whence our compiler drew. 
 
 39. Aaron b. Ellas, or Aaron the Younger, is also im- 
 portant as a Bible exegete, a teacher of the Law, and a 
 religious philosopher, on which account his co-religionists 
 place him by the side of Maimonides. His place of origin 
 was Nikomedia, in Asia Minor, and he died 1369^. For 
 our purpose we have first to consider his Book of Precepts, 
 entitled \tv \i (composed 1354, ed. Koslow, 1866). Here 
 also Saadiah is the subject of rather frequent controversy. 
 Aaron deals most fully with the subject of the calendar, 
 and is uncommonly incensed against Saadiah's theory of 
 the great age of the permanent calendar with all its rules. 
 He says that Saadiah, in this assertion, scoffs at his own 
 teachers, the Talmudists, who all firmly maintained the 
 method of observation (fol. 5 b : hnn N^IJJD 'n tJ^NH bhso . . . 
 '^1 ynn'' 'ni iiK^l^oj pia m^^ n^Nia D'-ansriD rn ib'n rnmi) 
 '131 mm ina xi'B' m wan ontj' idki nnnani wpv), then 
 
 • Cf. my Ahoul-Faradj Earcmn ben al-Fwradj, p. 37 (,=R.E.J., XXXIII, 
 216). That Jefet was the principal source follows from the remark on 
 Deut. xzxiii. 4 (published in Semitic Studies in Memory of Dr. Kohut, p. 436, 
 n. 3). See also Margoliouth, Catalogue, 1. c, and Steinschneider, Arab. Liter, 
 d. Juden, §§ 132, 335 (also my Zur jud.-arab. Litter., p. 79). 
 
 ^ Cf. on hijn finally Jew. Encycl, s.v. (I, 9, 10), and '■siffi.' ^s^», s.v. (1, 161). 
 
8o THE KARAITE LITEKAEY OPPONENTS OP 
 
 advances his arguments and objections against observation 
 (VB'iaB'l vnrtJ'ipi vnuia on i^ni, altogether ten in number), 
 and refutes it. Then Aaron opposes Saadiah's assertion 
 that all the data in the Talmud from which it is inferred 
 the Dehijot had no validity, are to be understood only 
 theoretically (fol. 6 d : li'Oa nB'yBn IXD nt iNUm b''H)n) . . . 
 '131 nam Yv lavis bn mkk'^ mpo b *3 nosij' i»in''Bn nm). 
 Incidentally we learn that Saadiah's opinion of those data, 
 which could not in any case be taken theoretically, was 
 that they contain only the view of individuals but not 
 the generally accepted view (fol. 7 b : D^rjyn liiNa pwa . . . 
 bbJ? t6 IX ct^JN nvpij m n-in nt 13 idn 'DWan x^ivo B"Nn nr 
 '131 sn^a riDsn E>''n3Di nsun •'sb mTion '"ii»: inani ntsiNn). 
 He further attacks the theory of the great age of inter- 
 calation, which he refutes with arguments from the Talmud 
 itself (fol. 15 b); and he also mentions his objection, that 
 a^as can also signify the name of the month (fol. 16 d, 
 where he calls Saadiah IB'SW irinDn). The other passages 
 concern the problem of nacn mn»D (fol. 5^ a), the process of 
 np^bD (fol. 89 d), the use of the fat tail (fol. 96 d : C'pbwr] B-xni 
 n"!? irosni D'Kipn njji n«3 pM nojJ itfN ^loin'an unvo win 
 vniyni>D nnc 133 ; rather thorough and complete), and the 
 theory of the Levirate mamage (fol. 159 b : the name of 
 Saadiah is not mentioned here, though he is the author of 
 the viewj introduced by IlJ)t3' DKl, that Lev. xviii. 16 suflfers 
 limitation through Deut. xxv. 5, just as, e. g. Lev. xxiii. 3 
 through Num. xxviii. 9, see supra, p. 26). 
 
 All the views of Saadiah mentioned here are already 
 known from earlier sources, from which Aaron also must 
 have obtained them. On the other hand, the refuta- 
 tions often contain new points, especially with regard 
 to the last matter, where logical categories are intro- 
 duced. The manner of treatment is mostly pertinent and 
 calm, as befits a serious scholar, though we have seen that 
 the tone is not always distinguished. 
 
 In the commentary on the Pentateuch, min nns (composed 
 1363 ; ed. Koslow, 1866-7), in which rabbinical authors are 
 
SAADIAH 6A0N IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 8l 
 
 very often mentioned \ Saadiah, remarkably enough, is not 
 quoted a single time, and just as little in the religio- 
 philosophical work D^n yv (composed 1346 ; ed. Leipzig, 
 1841 ; Koslow, 1847). 
 
 Fifteenth Century. 
 
 40. Samuel b. Moses al-Magribi, a Karaite physician and 
 author in Cairo, composed among other things a Book of 
 Precepts in Arabic, entitled it^noiiN (finished July 2, 1434), 
 which consists of twelve sections, and is extant in MS. 
 in London, Berlin, and (partly) in St. Petersburg''. It is 
 distinguished by lucidity and orderly arrangement. The 
 parts edited are: Section 11, on Sabbath, ed. N. Weisz 
 (Pressburg, 1907) ; Section in, on the calendar, ed. F. 
 Kauffmann (Frankfurt a. M., 1903; see my critical notice, 
 J. Q.R., XVI, 405 seq.) ; Section IV, chap, i-xviii, on the 
 fast- and feast-days, ed. Junowicz (Berlin, 1904; cf ibid., 
 XVIIj 594); Section VI, chap, i-xxii, on the laws con- 
 tained in the section Mishpdtim, ed. Gitelsohn (Berlin, 
 1904 ; cf. ibid., XVIII, 560), and Section VII, on the dietary- 
 
 • They are as follows : David (al-Muqammes ? I, f. 15 b) ; Hayyuj (I, 
 39 b, 45 b ; II, 69 b) ; Abulwalid (I, 39 b, 64 a, 68 a, 69 a, 80 b ; II, 4 b, aa a, 
 49 a) ; Moses ibn Chiquitilla (II, loi b) ; Rashi (I, 6a; II, 93 a, 95 a) ; 
 Abraham ibn Ezra (very often) ; Maimonides (I, 7 a, 25 b ; III, 63 b) ; 
 Nahmanides (I, 7 a) ; David Kimhi (I, 45 b ; II, 4 b ; III, 16 b) ; Judah 
 (b. Solomon ibn Matqa) of Toledo (I, 7 b, 8 a) and Shemariah Ikriti (I, 6 b). 
 
 ' Cf. Steinschneider, § 199 (also my remarks in Monatsschrift, XLII, 
 189, and in my Zur jild.-arab. Litter., pp. 76, 77). According to Stein- 
 schneider, Samuel b. Moses [b. Jeshfia] al-Magribi [the physician, xonn] 
 was already identified or confused by the Karaites with Samuel (so 
 read for Solomon) b. Moses b. Hesed El ibn al-'3D [the teacher, naten] 
 (cf. especially Catalogue of Heb. MSS. in Berlin, II, no. 202), and hence 
 a work entitled nxnipo is ascribed first to the one, then to the other. 
 It is interesting to point out that in a Karaite prayer-book written by 
 Daniel Firuz (MS. Brit. Mus. Or. 253 1 ; Cat., II, no. 725) we read as follows 
 (f. 90 b, cited in the Catalogue, p. 462 b) : niaiiT n'!« vTfnti «np'3 n'lN m- aip'i 
 «Dnn "jMiDiDi nnton ^«iniB »ni nn am umisi todSs biM ;d nuns h^ '';» D'oarts 
 ■i^« nNOT'pD'js DniDDMi nisiii. Thus both Samuels have composed such a 
 work, and hence the confusion. Or, on the other hand, is fhia confusion 
 reflected also in our notice ? Cf.. also R. A J., LI, 155. 
 
 G 
 
82 THE KARAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS OP 
 
 laws, ed. Lorge (Berlin, 1907). No rabbinical author is 
 mentioned in this work by name, but Saadiah is anony- 
 mously made the subject of controversy. Thus, in Section 
 III, chap. I (ed. Kauffmann, p. 4*, 1. 7), Saadiah's interpreta- 
 tion of Gen. i. 14, already mentioned a few times in this study, 
 is characterized as that of a heretic (vixi in ninix? vni 'lpi 
 fvn Dvr ND3 nWp^ avba ['^in] 16 fimaiD^N nnixD^N ■ba 
 psi'NaBi'N ; cf. also J. Q. R, XVI, 406). 
 
 41. David b. Saad'el [ = Saadiah] ibn al-Hiti (of Hit 
 on the Euphrates) is the author of a register of Karaite 
 scholars, among whom the Samuel al-Magribi just men- 
 tioned is the latest. It thus appeared probably about the 
 middle of the fifteenth century, but in spite of his com- 
 parative youth and in spite of his lack of critical power, 
 it is not altogether without value, as the author apparently 
 often had at his disposal good older sources. We have also 
 made use of it here rather frequently, not without profit. 
 This register is edited, with an English translation, by 
 G. Margoliouth (J. Q. B., IX, 439-43, also separately ; cf. 
 my notice in Z.f. H. B., II, 79), under €he title " Ibn al-Hiti 's 
 Arabic Chronicle of Karaite Doctors." Saadiah is men- 
 tioned here a few times in conjunction with various 
 Karaite authors (see p. 43a, 1. 19; p. 433, 1. 11 ; p. 435, 
 11. 8, 10, 19), but the only thing of interest is the statement 
 that Salmon b. Jeroham died in Aleppo, that Saadiah 
 followed the bier in rent garments and barefooted, and 
 that, when he was reproached about it, he is said to have 
 replied: "We have both derived great profit from our 
 mutual controversy. There is not the slightest doubt 
 about his [Salmon's] knowledge; and hence I did what 
 I did " (p. 434, 1. 20 seq.). Probably Ibn al-Hiti did not 
 invent this fable, but took it from an older Karaite author. 
 — Cf. also Steinschneider, Arab. Liter, d. Juden, § 200, 
 and infra, No. 49. 
 
 42. Ellas b. Moses Bashiatohl, who is distinguished 
 " by conspicuous knowledge of the older literature, by 
 complete mastery over the rich material, and who presents 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTUKY 83 
 
 the clearest and plainest method among the Karaite 
 oodifiers ^," died in Constantinople, 23 Sivan, 1490, without 
 completing his Book of Precepts in^^N mis (ed. Constanti- 
 nople, 1531 ; Koslow, 1834 ; Odessa, 1870) ^. In this work, 
 which attained predominant authority among the later 
 Karaites, Bashiatchi records the older opinions and hence 
 mentions also the opinions of Saadiah. In the intro- 
 duction, for example, he disputes Saadiah's explanation of 
 Exod. xxiv. 13 (iiNjnE' ny rh2\)n 'i>j;3t3 nvp \pm: piDsn nni . . . 
 mmn ny i6 psn nimi) tjy pT\ ^nana idnc no ^a idn ^Din^an 
 min mmn tyn'si onmn niB'y pn ana si> n!?j?n' Dt^n '•a nivem 
 ^nana idnc no vi>y nawnm . . . na ^vaty min niveni anaai:' 
 13 |icN<B' ains Tis '"" niittsni minn nn vh pKn ninii> cy pan 
 'iai DHD Dnip nwty ^isi n»ni nisoni minn nnx sin ^nana 'a) ^. 
 Then he discusses the themes touched on most often in the 
 controversy with Saadiah, viz. the questions of calendar-lore 
 (B'lnn mp rjy, chap. 6, 9, 15, and 36), fire-burning on the 
 Sabbath (nac 'v, chap. 4, 18), and the forbidden pieces of 
 fat (no'HB' 'V, chap. 18). Moreover, he also controverts 
 Saadiah without mentioning his name, e.g. in reference 
 to nat^n mnoo (nijiiatJ'n an 'v, chap. 3), &c. In all these 
 questions Bashiatchi follows earlier protagonists, espe-" 
 cially Aaron b. Elias, but by his clear and systematic 
 classification of the material he throws a brighter light 
 upon many a matter that had till then received scant 
 consideration. 
 
 43. Ealeb b. Elias Afen^opolo (or Efendopulo). He 
 was a pupil and brother-in-law of the preceding. He is 
 justly called the last Karaite polyhistor, for he represents 
 
 > Frankl in his article " Karaiten " (in Ersch u. Grubor, II, vol . XXXIII, 
 
 p. ai). 
 
 ' The work was then completed by Kaleb b. Elias Afendopolo, the 
 well-known pupil and brother-in-law of Bashiatchi ; but he was also 
 overtaken by death before he was able to bring his work to a complete 
 conclusion. Cf. the following number. 
 
 » This explanation of Saadiah is already controverted by Tobias b . Moses, 
 who, however, does not quote it fully: see above, p. 62. Cf. also Wolf, 
 Bibl. Sebr., IV, 1093. 
 
 G a 
 
84 THE KARAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS OP 
 
 in his own personality the entire learning of bis age^ 
 Among his numerous writings, which deal with the most 
 xii verse scientific subjects, there is also an incomplete 
 supplement to the in'i'S miS, which has just been mentioned. 
 This work mentions the date, 1497, in several places. In 
 the supplement to mntsi nxDIQ pjj? (ed. Odessa, 136 c, at 
 foot), he discusses the commandment of the red heifer, the 
 ashes of which possessed the well-known property of 
 defiling the pure and cleansing the unclean. He quotes 
 Saadiah's view '^, but he is as little satisfied with it as with 
 the exegesis of the other Eabbanite and Karaite authorities, 
 whom he quotes previously. 
 
 Sixteenth Century. 
 
 44. Moses b. Elias Bashiatchi, a great-grandson of Ellas b. 
 Moses Bashiatchi (no. 43 above), is generally represented as a 
 prodigy. Born in 1554, at Constantinople, he is said by his 
 sixteenth year to have already acquired many languages 
 (Greek, Arabic, Spanish) and to have composed many works. 
 He then started on his travels, but died two years after, 
 36 lyar, 1573, as a young man of eighteen (Mordecai b. 
 Nisan, '3TiD m, ed. Vienna, fol. 9 b). How much of this is 
 true it is hard to ascertain ^ ; but it is a fact that he 
 understood Arabic, and that he had before him many 
 
 * For the literature about him, see my article in the Sebrew Encyclopedia, 
 '}trw isiN, vol. II, pp. 172-4, a.v. iSiBnJSH, where I have endeavoured to 
 'deteripine the time when he lived. 
 
 ' ^Mb Vsvi nm-iNn mnn teii p'rain Danb nnn mBrro jiMjn rPTSW ^i noxi 
 :D3i3n ':b titcoi Diwnrt inn pijo® fflos)') non oi nn'bn It appears 
 from the examplea quoted here, which do not agree with those given 
 in Emimoth (section iii, end), that Afendopolo must presumably 
 have used an intermediary source — i. e. ibn Ezra on Numbers xix. 2. 
 It must, however, be remarked that the first instance only is adduced 
 •there. 
 
 ' Much more probable is ai^other statement contained in the St. Peters- 
 burg MS. of his D'n'jH rvcso (in Neubauev, Avs d. Petersb. BiU., p. 121), that 
 Moses B. died in 1555, at the age of twenty-eight. Of. also Steinschneider, 
 Vie QeschichtsUteratur dor Juden, I, p. jo6, no. 124, and J. Q.R.^ XVIII, 188. 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY 85 
 
 monuments of the oldest Karaite literature. In Egypt 
 he found fragments of 'AnS,n's Book of Precepts in the 
 original Aramaic, which he included in his nos nit (cf. 
 R. £. J., XLV, 176 seq.). The Pentateuch commentary of 
 Abu-1-Faraj Hariin was also known to him (see ibid., 
 XXXIII, 217 ; reprint, p. 38), &c. In his DTha HDD he gives 
 a chain of tradition of the Karaite teachers (reproduced 
 by Mordecai b. Nisan, 1. c, f ol. 1 1 b). Here we read, 
 among other things, that Saadiah flourished at the time 
 of Salmon b. Jeroham, Joseph b. Noah, Jacob b. Isaac 
 Qirqiselni, Hasan b. Mashiah, and Abraham b. Isaac al- 
 Basri ; that he was a disciple of Salmon ; and that Joseph 
 disputed with him in his "ilNDn ISD, composed in 930 
 (3"iS cinn* p nvh^ m^ p'nsjn Nim m m^ nipTiyn nni . , . 
 n''B'D p [sic !] -non m^i ijNDpipn pnx' p npv'^ anh m p tiDV 
 'Din'sn b't psj nnvD 2-\ nin Dn*3»«i nxun prw p nmas 2•^b^ 
 ir{< "iNSDJi u'trn eiDV mi am-v p pn^K' n bv iT'oiri nsn nm 
 n-atD nwD vnujfBi lis nnani fiov 'i vbv ncpm ina |»t3 cn^JB* 
 miyj) 'si niND tyB* D^B^N nyniN nitJ'n -am nit<»n laoa naoa). 
 Here we have, so far as is known, the oldest source for 
 the information, often repeated by later Karaites, that 
 Saadiah was a pupil of Salmon \ and this information 
 caused Firkowitsch to fabricate the Muqaddima named 
 after Salmon (Pinsker, p. 61 seq.). By the Joseph who 
 disputed with Saadiah we have likewise to understand 
 Qirqis§,ni, whom Moses Bashiatchi mostly calls fiDl' 'on 
 'JNDpnpn, but whom he also styles once as Joseph b. Isaac 
 b. Jacob Q. and another time as Joseph b. Jacob Q. 
 Hence we should probably read in the chain of tradition : 
 ^JNDptpn pny p 3pJ)* [p ftDV] 3li'1. He always entitles his 
 work as bmn niNon, and only once as Dmsn nsD, so that 
 here also llNan is to be given the full form of isnin niNcn 2. 
 
 1 Another of the recent writers on the Talmud (Bernfeld, Ser Talmud, 
 Berlin, 1900, p. 83) asserts that this is a fact, and that it is admitted by 
 both sides, Karaite and Rabbinical ! 
 
 * Cf. the passages in question from the works of B. in Steinschneider. 
 Festschrift, pp. 214 seq., where I also point out that Qirqisftni was 
 
86 the karaite liteeaey opponents of 
 
 Seventeenth Centcrt. 
 
 45. Elias b. Baruch Jerushalmi belongs to the second 
 half of the seventeenth century. We find him in Elul, 
 1654, in Constantinople, where he hospitably entertained 
 the Karaite travellers from the Crimea, Moses Jerushalmi b. 
 Eliaa ha-Levi and Elias b. David, in hia house*. But he 
 must have migrated later to the Crimea, for Simha Isaac 
 Lutzki mentions him among the scholars of this country 
 (DV"'^X nix, fol. ai b, 1. 3 from bottom). Elias composed 
 certain works (enumerated by Furst, III, 61), which, how- 
 ever, exist only as manuscripts. He was also a scribe 
 and particularly copied old polemical works of the Karaites, 
 which he provided with prefatory remarks and postscripts, 
 e.g. the polemical treatise of Sahl b. Masliah against Jacob 
 b. Samuel (Pinsker, pp. 25, 37, 43). In a concluding note 
 on a copy of Salmon b. Jeroham's controversial work, which 
 has been preserved from Pinsker's literary remains in the 
 Vienna Beth ha-Midrash (No. 27' ; cf. Pinsker, p. ^5), Elias 
 indulges in such violent abuse of Saadiah that the pen 
 refuses to repeat the words **- We there read that many 
 Karaites engaged in a polemical campaign against the 
 godless Fayyumite, e. g. David b. Boaz (tjju p ii'<e>m "vn id 
 n'V N'B'Jn itotn) s, « his teacher " Salmon b. Jeroham {f\aba 
 
 confused with al-Basir (but perhaps this confusion originates with the 
 copyists ; cf. also the following number). The designation of Qirqisani's 
 im«nSs 3«n3 as ^nin ntmn ought to serve as a sufficient distinction from 
 Basir's ishjdch'jm iwna ( — iwon idd). 
 
 ' See the account of the travels of this Moses, ed. Gurland (Snic 'm:, 
 part I, p. 31) : 'ffiw DV Wa I3':m wioDipS i3«i {i'-rxn h-h* «'<] 'n Dvai . . . 
 cnos -wfrna ivnici utasi ^*s■> 'oSttnT jm I'si i*s' 'nbwiT w'>h I'ns n<M ' 
 
 rTipn pTO noo. Cf. also Neubauer, Am d. Petersb. Bibl., pp. 47, 67. The 
 
 surname Jerushalmi, which both Elias and his father Baruch bear, and 
 which is also to be met with among other Karaites of the later time, does 
 not signify absolutely that its bearers came from Jerusalem, but that they 
 had made a pilgrimage to the holy city (hence analogous to the Moslem 
 ?ajji) or had sojourned there some time. 
 
 ' Published by Bardach, r^w >:ih T3io (Vienna, 1869), p. 37. 
 
 ' Elias has here a hovering notion of the name of the Exilarch David 
 b. Zakkai, the opponent of Saadiah. 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 87 
 
 vniDi^n bv ns> bv in^aioi na^na nuiB-n fb 3''B>Dn an onn* p 
 in3T ?vi), and his colleague, Joseph al-Basir, also a disciple 
 of Salmon, in his work ha-Maor, composed in the year 910 
 (m jiD^D wm b^ n-oiri n^nn fiDi' wan 'ora ijc nan dji 
 y'E^ N'n njcn nainon -iwDn nsoa). The ban which Salmon, 
 according to right and custom, hurled against his rebellious 
 pupil, provoked Saadiah to such a degree of agitation and 
 fear that he fell into a melancholy, died of it in 94a, and 
 was denied an honourable burial in Sura. Elias seems 
 to have taken these various chronological snippets partly 
 from Moses Bashiatchi ^. 
 
 46. Mordecai b. Nisan composed among other things, as 
 is well known, in the form of an answer to the questions of 
 Trigland, the little work ■'3ino 11, which pretends to be 
 a history of Karaism. He finished it July 18, 1699, in 
 Krasni Ostrow (or Kokizow), not far from Lemberg, and it 
 first appeared in Wolf's Notitia Karaeorv/n, Hamburg, 1 7 14. 
 Saadiah is mentioned here only quite incidentally, e. g. in 
 the above-mentioned chain of tradition of Moses Bashiatchi 
 reproduced here. In another passage (ed. Vienna, fol. 13 a) 
 Mordecai states that the Karaite chronology agrees with 
 that of the Rabbanites. For example, of the latter, 
 Gedaliah ibn Yahya, in his Shalshelet, gives 943 as the 
 year of Saadiah's death (nn'-anNn iBDon ["VJCa p 1»31 . , . 
 Ni^n^ pK n'ha <n nyn anac Dnb^ pw nnyo 'an nx inatB' 
 nT'S'i' a'^n d'e^n "i ruB'a ntssj })ta nnyo uie' nb^pn T\b^b^2), 
 and this agrees (?) with the assertion of the Karaites just 
 mentioned, that Saadiah was a pujal of Salman, and that 
 he is the object of a polemical attack in the Sefer ha-Maor, 
 composed in 930. In conclusion, he speaks (fol. 13 b) of 
 the letter of Menahem, mentioned by Trigland, to njn Dl'''py 
 pnn nnsD 't bllti (ed. Pinsker, p. 55 seq. ; see supra, No. 4), 
 and doubts whether this Saadiah is identical with the 
 Gaon. He does not evince a trace of hatred against the 
 Fayyumite. 
 
 * So for instance on the polemics against Saadiah in ilNDn itB, only that 
 he independently added after FjDl' 3T the word rwnn. 
 
88 the kaeaite literary opponents op 
 
 Eighteenth Centubt. 
 
 47. Abraham b. Josiah Jerushalmi is included among the 
 scholars of the Crimea by Simha Isaac Lutzki (D'pnv mx, 
 fol. ai b, 1. a from bottom), and lived in Tschufut-Kal^, as he 
 also bears the surname '>]f?p (ibid., fol. 26 a, s. v. bv.^ i'lNB'). 
 He is the author of a work entitled pa njlCN (ed. Koslow, 
 1846), which is uncommonly interesting in many respects. 
 In the first place the author manifests an unexampled 
 extensive knowledge of the Rabbinical literature, extending 
 not only to the halakhic but also to the theological and 
 other branches, and he speaks of this and also of the 
 Talmudical literature with an esteem that could hardly 
 be surpassed by a Kabbanite. He especially reveres Mai- 
 monides, whose works he has studied with diligence^. 
 Abraham cjomposed this work whilst he was still young 
 and lived a wandering life, and he finished it, according 
 to the postscript, in the year 1713*. The greatest part 
 (ff. 4 b-44 b) is devoted to the demonstration whether the 
 Karaite or the Rabbanite law is the true one, and here 
 also he discusses the matter with the Rabbanites in the 
 calmest tone and only occasionally uses a rather violent 
 expression. For example, in the only passage in which 
 Saadiah is mentioned (fol. 33 b), it is said that the Rab- 
 banites in their controversy with the Karaites adopt as 
 their support either the plain meaning of scripture (OB'S) 
 or tradition (npap). But they could not succeed with the 
 Peshat, as this is against them. Thus Saadiah maintained 
 that the Jewish religion does not teach the observation 
 of the moon but the calculation of the calendar, and that 
 this is based upon scripture itself. But this is wrong, 
 as Maimonides in his commentary on the Mishna and Ibn 
 Ezra, besides others, admits ^. Similarly, his opinion that 
 
 * I hope to analyse this work shortly in a special notice. 
 
 ' F- 49 b : '^ncn 11S1 . . . 'DipoD nii:i nbi: iw ':m vmin '3 Tijn . . . 
 JON n:iDN pimo nisB ncDti m rrarm D'^wnS '3311 , . . nnD:n nem D'oiTEno 
 'i3i m<s<') I'rnn roioa ids') is nsn n«i 1102 snzth ':i» ova. 
 
SAADIAH 6A0N IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 89 
 
 the fat tail (n^bn) is not designated in scripture as fat is 
 altogether wrong, and Ibn E2ira admitted here also that 
 the Gaon was mistaken. Nay, even Alfasi expressly states 
 in his Halakhot {Hullin, section VII), that the fat tail is 
 indeed called fat, but that the Bible nevertheless permitted 
 its enjoyment 1. In fact, all Saadiah's objections against 
 the Karaites were void and vain (nniBTi b n^jx T3^3 'hva ih> 
 ina yasi inn ip hv nvua en nipd ■hv^h y^w), and even the 
 greatest Eabbanite scholar could not offer any real reply, 
 as what was false could not possibly be given out as truth 
 (Mnpo -hv:!^ nvnax nnicn y^rh bv ^v nab n^ivD \\xir\ ^b^ 
 '3 •\\>vn noN'B' ''D D^Jiya px ^a nn i'j'i'' vh onaty hnan ii'''aN Mi's 
 yy h^:m>Tn D«p vata WDj!?). By the "greatest" scholar he 
 doubtless means Maimonides, whom, as already mentioned, 
 he places in the highest rank of Rabbinical learning. 
 
 Tsn 1331 iioj ipw ni '3 pED I'Ni Dvn D'jniTO 103 piicnn 'd to nSs rrsin 'B to 
 CiMD rrnn ':ni S'n mmDi iiditm 'j'si jiD"n 13 niro 'w "jn^n 3in ni irnp©'; 
 |iM)nn <D to «^M naabn n'«T S» m:3 n::'« Dnin'n m '3 in«'i niNin icns' 
 'i3i I'lai nosn tea© mnM3 nvMT tobdii toh "i'i s'sxin J3i . . . i3'j3. What 
 is meant here ia the passage ia Maimonides' Comm. on Bosh ha-Shana, II, 6, 
 and in Ibn Ezra on Lev.zxiii. 3 (but the latter passage is indirectly taken 
 from Aaron b. Elias). 
 
 ' DD^M n TKhra iinvi io3 jftn «ipn niiiMnD nnio vnin ^h^'Bnvl sit iiai . . . 
 •nw a'jn ta ymi sn® »3am aSn Mnpm 33 Sj? f]m «ci: n^'isi H't nffi:n t: piBi 
 "11103 mm ro»Ni Vmn rrijHi iidnt Nirt wi a«j3i inns men in itoNn n^ wi 3toi 
 3'» [m'iid] nsip nS wi ts)31 naipi «'rt 03331 wi m>3i. But Abraham 
 b. Josiah, who, according to his own statement, had no copy of the 
 Talmud before him when composing his work (see above, p. 88, n. 2), was 
 unable to know that Alfasi here simply paraphrases a Talmudical passage, 
 see JSulUn, 117 a (cf. Keriiot, 4 a) : 3')n 'sip'« n'')« '« T3i sib no ai fa 
 wi 3»3i iwa men 131 wi 31031 -1110 aSn to Nip idh -['to h"tf ^'3^3 non'ri 
 'i3i 'Nip'« kS ndhd a'jn 'Mip'M n<';Nn la'jn id« 'ir« 31. Incidentally be it 
 remarked that this Talmudical passage, in which only late Amoraim 
 appear, and which in Suilin gives quite the impression of an editorial 
 addition, was perhaps also intended to weaken the objections of many 
 people to the permitted enjoyment of the fat tail. Thus the Karaites 
 would in this case have only had to attach themselves to a pioneer 
 -opposition of earlier times. 
 
go THE KARAITE LITERARY OPPONENTS OF 
 
 Nineteenth Centdby. 
 
 48. Joseph Solomon Lutzki ta. Moses (called "I'tyin), Haham 
 in Koslow in the first half of the nineteenth century (born 
 1769, died December 10, 1844; for his epitaph see Firko- 
 ■witsch, jnar 'Jax, pp. 341-2), composed a very thorough 
 supercommentary on the Mibhar, entitled ^D3 n-Ca (com- 
 pleted 17 Ab, 1835), which was published together with 
 the Mibhar in Koslow, 1835^ Here Joseph Solomon 
 remarks, on Lev. iii. 9 (fol. 5 b, n. 136 seq.), that the argu- 
 ments adduced by Aaron b. Joseph, that the fat tail is 
 not comprised under :hr\, are those of Saadiah ; Dn»n»n lytsi] 
 'n riT [iTijKni laijn noxi] I'M iB''Din onviJC ly [ni^aNi' riniK 
 ■■ID-IB lira bby\r\ xijc na I'li noDina r\'h»n'i eh'sk' jwa nnvD 
 u^n ninic b"vn o '•Din^sn jyts iiv . . . nnnx Dnann D''3^nn 
 •T^iNn ^3N iT^Kn n»s< ins nnawn D-ai'n 'nn biiD sin i)5>3 nv 
 '131 isijn n^»a nbba nrx. He naturally obtained this in- 
 formation from Aaron b. Elias {Oan Eden, fol. 96) or Elias 
 Bashiatchi {Adderet, nta'ntJ' pJV, cap. 18). 
 
 49. Abraham b. Samuel Firkowitsch (born at Lutzk 
 ai Elul, 1788, died at Tschufut-Kald 33 Sivan, 1874), a 
 brother-in-law and pupil of the preceding, is at the same time 
 the last noted Karaite scholar ^. His epoch-making impor- 
 tance, which was the cause of much blessing as well as of 
 much harm, ia too well known that we should dilate upon it 
 here. We shall therefore, in accordance with our object, 
 merely examine his relations with Saadiah. 
 
 Firkowitsch began his literary career with abusive 
 writings directed against Rabbanite Judaism. One of them 
 (rrijan nnin) he added as an appendix to the Dntf' nn3D 
 
 ' See on him and hia work also Jost, II, 374 ; Gottlober, p. 179, and 
 Fiirst, III, 131 seq. 
 
 " The day and year of his birth are given by Firkowitsch himself in, 
 SmDn, II (1861, i86a), 169. The literature on him in Jem. Eneycl., s.v. 
 (V, 394), is not complete. Cf., e. g., Geiger, Jud. Zeitschrift, XI, 14a seq. ; 
 Frankl, Monatsschrift, XXV, 479 ; Steinschneider, Torlemngm viber d. Kunde 
 hebr. Handschriften, p. 8a, &c. 
 
SAADIAH GAON IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 91 
 
 (Koslow, 1835) edited by him (fol. 49-58) \ The other 
 (nanoi noo) appeared as an independent work (ibid., 1838). 
 In outward form the author here follows the example of 
 Hadassi, inasmuch as he takes the Ten Commandments 
 as his text, and writes in rhymed prose, although the style 
 is somewhat more fluent and pleasant than that of his 
 predecessor. But in regard to matter also, he follows 
 throughout those of the older Karaite authors who are 
 lacking in every feeling of respect for their opponent. In 
 this work Saadiah is occasionally made the object of a 
 polemical attack, and is mentioned by name. The author 
 also repeats the statement that the Gaon was a pupil of 
 Salmon, and that in his religio-philosophical work he 
 followed the footsteps of his teacher (fol. 134b: nsT DJI 
 *7Ko (sic) pD^JD im iejdd nono ic'?) irJiDip nsD [D"3Din h"-\] 
 nuicN neon tit pn : UNatyo pw nnyo 'p^ m ■thb' now mano 
 nob^ ni'ivBn.niol'B'D 'pv inoan^ rx nniT p \\vbD m "pi^ li'ts' 
 nnaw ?V1Dn), nay, that he had learnt the philosophy of the 
 KalS,m, upon which this work is built, from the Karaites, 
 just as Maimonides himself admits that this philosophy 
 first appeared among them (fol. 135a: ?""•] 'llin p3 ... 
 N'BiDii"B DB'n nnmn [1. noan] nosn nxxDJ D^xipn ^'Xkb' [D'aoin 
 ioi)SN i^b "IK'S nwiDio bm nnyoi mip:-, see Moreh, I, 71). 
 In fact, all important Rabbanite scholars who, in accor- 
 dance with the precept of i Chron. xxviii. 9, strove after 
 a true knowledge, like Saadiah, Maimonides, and others, 
 only followed the example of the Karaites, who first made 
 this knowledge a duty (fol. 137 a : nT'pnn ni nanD DiJlB'Sin . . . 
 Dnnnsi . . . y^a •>rbt( nx yn p^oahy ddw "bn) . . . n'snpn vn n^n 
 nnyo laSn CNnp '•ama nnioan •'hiJ wcoJ d»J3-i ai) nts" b 
 '131 ibp nnxn D^iijjn isai D"3D-i1). In the controversy about 
 single points of difference among Kabbanites and Karaites, 
 
 1 Also in the supplement to Aaron b. Joseph's Isaiah commentary 
 (from cap. lix), entitled n'Sffi' n'ton n«p, he continually disputes with 
 the Rabbanites in a very abusive tone ; see, e. g., on lix. 5 ; Ix. aa ; Ixii. 11 f 
 Ixv. 4, 7, 8, II, &c. Cf. also Geiger, 1. c, 147- 
 
92 THE KARAITE LITEEARY OPPONENTS OP 
 
 Saadiah ia mentioned only in the discussion about the 
 burning of fire on the Sabbath (fol. 51a: 13Sn3 'Oin^a 03 
 '131 now npbinb p'<r\z' ^2 min t6 iT'yani' nyan). 
 
 But in proportion as Firkowitsch began to make his 
 discoveries, his relation towards Rabbinism changed. 
 Whether it was that in consequence of his scientific ardour 
 his ideas had become enlarged^, whether it was that he 
 now needed the good will of the Rabbanite scholars ^, the 
 fact is that from 1839 he no longer indulged in any 
 objectionable remarks in his published works against the 
 Rabbanites, and that he gave expression to this altered 
 disposition in his famous letter to Bezalel Stem in the 
 year 1841 (published in part in ncm nviN, I, 105) ^. Now 
 Saadiah also receives honour from his hands, especially 
 in a treatise in which he communicates the discovery of 
 fragments of two works of Saadiah, the tnjxn "iDD and the 
 •')bin -iSD (in Y^ban, VIII, 1868, no. 26-7 ; pai-tly quoted by 
 Harkavy, Stud. u. Mitt.,Y, la seq., 135 seq.). He rejoices ex- 
 ceedingly at the discovery of his "great and wonderful work," 
 the jnjNn IBD, because here Saadiah, "our holy teacher," 
 gave a positive date (vlB'VB'n biM nx Vtnrh) mrh b2^'' '»1 . . . 
 2b "iDan b^o Dvn ly o^yj n^na' nnn inxna VE'vnB'D "'jn -ib'k 
 '131 nnnn nbv2 ncnpn nu nrn cnpn uan ana ib'k). All the 
 Gaon's opponents were worthless fellows who invented 
 godless libels against him (by MJID ntTN nuvtJn t>a . . . 
 D'-B'^K m VB*"! riii'ii'w nxnc p e)i>3i "Kar p iii 't . . . man 
 vbv nncipn px ■<by\Si). He regretted himself that he was 
 once one of the foes of the Gaon (bv [n"aN-in bp] mbsp D51 
 nsp pT cinnBD by rrhyn vh . . . . minBTi mon p };\nir\ riTDs 
 (nr '':th ;ji»a) snpD '-jao y'Din ns o-wiB-n in inbp^ D^rDNcn 
 D^iya rb-m mbyo iiaao a'pas ^nxDn tyi . . . DnnsDa nis^an 
 Nan). Firkowitsch also admits here that Saadiah was older 
 
 '■ So Geiger, I. c, 149. 
 
 ' So Harkavy, AUjud. DenkrmiUr, pp. 21 1 seq., whose judgment, however, 
 is somewhat too one-sided. 
 ' Cf. also his preface to Solomon b. Mubhar's t pin (Odessa, 1866). 
 
SAABIAH «AON IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 93 
 
 than Salmon, and hence that the statement of Ibn al-Hiti 
 (see supra. No. 41) caused difSculties ("i2T dts' E» <^ini . . . 
 bsrini '"3Dnn m^Ds |»t3 nnix anxa j*Dnn n'ne' ttti^'n ta nana 
 D'i'nn 'iB nan '"aonntj' iinx nvni) ityss i^s nyii) bw nIj ns vijsj 
 D3Di»n ^fb a'ari n't nJE^a ntss: j*Dnni T'tyn 8<"t pinb t"snn nitya 
 '131 p'jna)^, and so forth in the same tone. In another 
 work, where he likewise has the opportunity of mentioning 
 Saadiah (fiEn ija, Vienna, 1871, p. 8 seq.), he does this quite 
 objectively. 
 
 With Firkowitsch the fountains of Karaite learning dry 
 up completely, for the extremely little that has flowed 
 from a Karaite pen during the last thirty years is hardly 
 worthy of mention; and so with him there closes the 
 polemical campaign against Saadiah. But it is worth 
 while now calling particular attention to a phenomenon. 
 In this essay we have passed in review almost a full 
 thousand years, and we have seen that we cannot speak 
 of any development whatever in this controversy. The 
 number of the controversialists is indeed not very great, 
 but still it forms a distinguished host. The points in the 
 dispute, however, are almost always the same, and we 
 seldom meet any new factors or new points of view. The 
 tone mostly depends not on internal but on external 
 factors : it is calm or violent according to the temperament 
 of each disputant. But throughout the course of centuries 
 the argument proceeds along the same track. Our dis- 
 sertation, therefore, is of interest not only as a biblio- 
 graphical document but also as a chapter in the history 
 of culture. 
 
 1 Harkavy, Stud. u. Mitt, V, 136, n. 2, did not yet know who is meant 
 ty this Ibn al-Hiti. 
 
94 ADDENDA AND COERIGENDA 
 
 ADDENDA AND COERIGENDA TO MY ESSAY 
 ON "THE ANTI- KARAITE WRITINGS OF 
 SAADIAH GAON" 
 
 {J. Q. R, X, 238-76). 
 
 In general, cf. Steinschneider, Arab. LUer, d. Juden, 
 pp. 50-1 and 65 (no. 10-13), also ibid., p. 339 ; my Zur 
 jud.-arab. Litter,, pp. 44-3, and Bacher, Jewish Encycl., X, 
 p. 582, as well as the passages quoted there. In particular, 
 the following must also be added : 
 
 P. 243, 1. 3 from bottom. Saadiah's work against 'An§,n 
 was preserved longer than I originally assumed, for it is 
 mentioned in a list of books at the end of the twelfth 
 century. See R. ^. J., XLV, 192, No. a, and the passages 
 quoted there. Cf. also supra, No. 3a, and Hirschfeld, 
 J. Q. R., XIX, 137. 
 
 P. 244, 1- 23 seq. The conclusion of the varhn nsna 
 has been found in the Geniza, and edited by Hirschfeld 
 (/. Q. R., XVI, ioa-5) K We learn from it that the whole 
 work consisted perhaps of eight sections (see p. 103, 1. 18 : 
 mbiba 'a •iano^'N •ha cavisx fianyo in n^N libs nsai^N mtri . . .), 
 and that the penultimate seventh section (the conclusion 
 of which is extant in this fragment) dealt with the 
 problem of n^BVi mnoD, whilst in the last the question 
 about the two days' observance of festivals (except the 
 Day of Atonement) in the Diaspora is discussed. This 
 last section, which has been preserved in its entirety, 
 occupies altogether two printed pages, and if we were to 
 conclude from this with regard to the other sections, the 
 f'oni'N asna must have been small in compass. But it is 
 also possible that the work became split up into several 
 
 » The fragment edited by Harkavy (.T.Q.S., XIII, 656, 657) is probably 
 rather a part of Saadiah's polemical work against Ibn Saqaweihi, see 
 above, No. j. 
 
TO J.Q.E. X. 238-76 95 
 
 parts (nxpspo), and that we have before us only the seventh 
 and eighth sections of the last part ^. We know, as a matter 
 of fact, that this work must have dealt with other subjects 
 besides the calendar and the festivals (see my essay, p. 35a), 
 We can enter only very briefly here into the contents of 
 this fragment. In the seventh section it is shown, in the 
 first place, that one and the same word (in our case niC) in 
 two neighbouring verses, or even in one and the same verse 
 can very well have two diflerent meanings (hence, in our 
 case, festival-day and week) ; and secondly, that the Karaites 
 are wrong in deducing an argument for their own interpre- 
 tation from the non-mention of a fixed date for the Feast 
 of Weeks in the Bible. Then the opinion of a min^ 
 »3N'n33DKi'N is advanced, that just as the harvest of wheat 
 is fifty days distant from that of barley, so is that of the 
 new wine from that of wheat, which thus falls at the end 
 of Tammuz, and that a similar interval divides the harvest 
 of oil from that of the new wine, so that on the aoth of 
 Elul an oil ofiering had to be brought. Saadiah adds 
 that the author had arguments in support of this (p^iJli^NI 
 ^^^ 'i'y nb). That Philo is meant by this Judah the 
 Alexandrian, as Hirschfeld supposes, is possible; these 
 recent discoveries have shown that his works (in an 
 oriental translation) were known in the ninth and tenth 
 centuries in the East, and that he is also quoted, for 
 example, by QirqisS.ni as ^3^5^^5^D^<^^{ (see all the details in 
 my essay, " Philon dans I'ancienne littdrature jud^o-arabe," 
 in R.i!.J., L, 10-31). — In the last or eighth section it is 
 also stated that it is a tradition handed down by the prophets 
 that outside Palestine two days were observed instead of 
 one ; and it is then shown that no oflFence is thus intended 
 ao'ainst Deut. xiii. i, for we do not read here : " Whatsoever 
 I write unto you ... ye shall not add thereto, nor diminish 
 from it," but " Whatsoever I command you," and that which 
 is handed down by tradition must be regarded as having been 
 
 1 This would become a certainty if the ■■'iw'js nb«pD';N, mentioned in 
 the next note, were really taken from the Tanyis. 
 
96 ADDENDA AND COEKIGENDA 
 
 commanded just as well as that whicli is written (p. 103, 1. 9 
 from bottom : i6 W^ DnvpNJ'' mis IN "b)/? Nipei'K nDDniiNS . . . 
 Dib NiND piDsi'N b\t( njunsj wdd van [MS. d^i] t6) vby fioin 
 mill D3nN nw» in ndjsi oaij ania -aix ib'n nmn b ns n^a 
 ainaa^sa '•W "ibjI'n nay SjipJoisN). A principle is here ex- 
 pressed, of the range of which Saadiah himself was perhaps 
 not conscious. 
 
 The fragment edited by Schechter [Saadyana, No. IX) 
 must also belong to the Kitab al-tamjiz ^. In this fragment 
 Saadiah adduces various passages in Bosh hxl-Shanah as a 
 support for his theory of the great age of the calculation 
 of the calendar, e. g. from Mishna, I, 9, which shows that 
 often witnesses arrived after the lapse of a whole night and 
 a whole day, so that their declaration could not be of 
 influence any more on the fixing of the new month. The 
 object of the observation, therefore, was only to support 
 the .calculation (see Saadyana, p. z^, 1. 1 : riJiU i'''N7T nins . , . 
 jNui'N in ND3N Dn^NDHNi Dn^NVE'Ni nopi'^ Dnna^'D IN finvNi 
 3NDni'N pvnn '■a NniDV [ijasa ni'N i'''Nhi'N rinvi pn^N [read inuIj] 
 •i^K), a well-known favourite hypothesis of Saadiah. The 
 earlier Karaites, on the other hand, forged a weapon against 
 the Fayyumite out of the data in Rosh ha-Shanah, I-II. 
 
 P. 345, n. 3. The passage from Moses b. Ezra is now 
 known in the Arabic original, and here also we read: 
 niipNp p 1^ n'lT "^ f'Dni'N asna 'a, see supra, p. 6, n. 3. 
 
 P. 25a, 1. 23 seq. On the ■T'lpND pN '>\>y "il^N axna (so read 
 line 24 instead of iTIpD), of which several fragments of the 
 Arabic original have likewise now been discovered.see supra, 
 No. 2. On the passage cited by Mebasser respecting the 
 controversy between B. Meir and the sages, see also Z.f.H.B., 
 IV, 21 (where in n. 3 instead oiJ.Q.R., X, 852^ read 252). 
 
 * As I have observed subsequently, there is here a gap between leaf 2 
 and 3 of the MS. Natan b. Isaac al-Siqili seems to have compiled 
 a work for the support of tradition in general and that of the great age 
 of the 'Ibbur in particular, and for this object to have included the first 
 chapter ('bisSs fi'inp's'iM) of the r'nrt« 2«n3 in his work or compilation 
 (my ScheMer's Saadyana^ p. 16, s. v. Natan^ is therefore to be corrected). 
 
TO J. Q. R. X. 238-76 97 
 
 P. 254, 1. 19 seq- This polemical work of Saadiah is 
 mentioned in a list of books from the end of the twelfth 
 century as i>DNnnD "hv Ill's 3Nn3, and in another of uncertain 
 date as i^ennD^N ■hy mi'N. In both places, therefore, the 
 mysterious word DVn is missing (see my Schechter'a 
 Saadyana, p. 33, no. 24). The passage from Nissim's rhio 
 Q^nno is really taken from the anonymous D"nn iejd, and 
 is again printed in Jellinek's :''nn DIDilp, p. 46 (cf. also his 
 D"aDnn oiOilp, first edition, p. 29, and Stein86hneider, l.c., 
 p. 65, n. 13). The quotations in Jehuda b. Barzillai's Jesira 
 commentary originate perhaps rather from the polemical 
 work against Ibn SS,qaweihi, see supra, p. 6, n. 7. 
 
 P. 255, 1. 27 seq. On Ben Zuta, see supra, No. i. 
 
 P. 256, 1. 4 from bottom. Verbal examples of Saadiah's 
 anti-Karaite Polemic in his commentary on the Pentateuch 
 have now been supplied by Harkavy (directed against 'An^n, 
 see ]')in, VI, pp. 38-40), and by Hirschfeld. The latter has 
 printed from the Geniza two fragments : on Exod. xxxv. 3, and 
 on Lev. xi. 11-21 (/. Q. R., XVIII, 600 seq. ; XIX, 136 seq.). 
 In the first fragment, which contains an extensive polemic 
 on nyan n?, the following passage is especially interesting 
 (p. 607, 1. 7) : nsni ''3 ninxa D^^''p5'N p^tai w»i>v pbvn p anjDi 
 
 N»3 •\h^^^ niJJODi>N V^^IB'i'N "'S DN^pi>N i^NDas N^JW mpDi5NS TIC 
 
 nb nsbtt n^JX asnal'N ■•a n"S!i» 'hv nn mm. Hirschfeld 
 (p. 600, n. 3) sees here the title of a book composed by 
 Saadiah against the application of Analogy in traditional 
 laws, identifies it with an elsewhere cited ''bv Qti''\>7» 3Kn3 
 ri'yoDljN ysntJ'i'N, would here amend DNipl'N to DN^pl>K 
 (and also apparently ''^j; to '•s), and would insert bsoaN. 
 But all that Saadiah says is that a Karaite, in order to 
 establish the prohibition (Exod. xxxv. 3) according to 
 Karaite views, had relied on the method of Analogy, but 
 that in a work which he had written against this Karaite 
 (probably 'Anan) he had opposed the application of this 
 method in traditional laws. There is thus no reference 
 here to a special work against the method of Analogy. 
 Anyhow, it follows from this passage that it has been 
 
 H 
 
g8 ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA 
 
 wrongly ascribed to Jefefc, and therefore my own con- 
 clusion (supra, p. 3i) must be corrected. In the fragment 
 on Leviticus, Saadiah is throughout controverting 'AnS,n, 
 as Hirsehfeld rightly says. Saadiah does not name him, 
 but indicates him as prnnDiis J'W (fol. i™, 1. 16; fol. 4™, 
 1. 14), i'ni'K Nin (fol. a'", 1. 15; ibid.™, 1. 3; fol. 5'°, 1. 17), 
 and also ynao^x xin (fol. 4^°, 1, 18). All the opinions 
 here opposed are from other sources known to be 'An§,n's. 
 Thus besides the prohibition against eating fish which one 
 of another religion has caught (see the proof by Hirseh- 
 feld, XIX, 138), there are also the following prohibitions : 
 (1) to touch dead fish and birds; see his niSDH nSD, ed. 
 Harkavy, p. 66; (a) to eat dead fish, see Z.f.H.B., 
 IV, p. 74, and above, p. 10 ; (3) to eat hens, see above, 
 p. 56 (where the words of Saadiah entirely agree with the 
 foregoing) ; and (4) to eat any birds except pigeons, with 
 reference to Gen. viii. 20, see niSDn ISD, p. 67. 
 
 P. 257, 1. 19. Besides in the commentary on the Penta- 
 teuch, Saadiah also disputes with the Karaites in the 
 commentary on Proverbs: for the passages see Heller, 
 R.JS.J., XXXVII, 329-30 (the passage on xxx. 10-17 must 
 also be added, which Saadiah likewise refers to the oppo- 
 nents of tradition, who " calumniate the servants," i. e. the 
 prophets, and those who follow them, before " their Lord," 
 i. e. God, inasmuch as they characterize their tradition as 
 falsehood. Verse 10 is especially directed against these 
 calumniators). 
 
 Ibid., 1. 2 from bottom. That Saadiah with the pa Dip 
 n'*iini?N3 t'lDDn'' aims at the Karaites was doubted by 
 Horovitz {Die Psychologie des Saadia, Breslau, 1898, 
 pp. 69-70) and Schreiner (Z.f. H. B., Ill, 90), but without 
 justification ; see ibid., p. 176, n. 22. 
 
 !*• 259, 1. 3. In his commentary on the thirteen rules of 
 R. Ishmael perhaps Saadiah also followed, however, an 
 anti- Karaite tendency; of. R.iJ.J., XL VII, 136. 
 
 Ibid., 1. 8. Cf. my Zur jud.-arab. Litter., p. 42, where 
 I, conjectured, inter alia, that a passage from this work 
 
TO J. Q. R. X. 238-76 99 
 
 is quoted in the fragment SaadyaiHa, ed. Schechter, no. XVI. 
 We here find that the persons -vyith whom cohabitation 
 is subject to limitations are to be divided into seven 
 ascending degrees (p. 44, 1. 17: n['']DnD pw nnjJD um '?np 
 ■<r\) i5n^n p aysN nnNi i>3i iin:n'<^i niDnoi'H DNDiNtiN v"^3 
 ii'x [read riyao] nwD) as follows: (i) harlots; (2) those 
 despoiled of virginity ; (3) relatives (twenty-eight in 
 number, twenty according to scripture, eight according to 
 tradition) ; (4) married women; (5) women in menstruation; 
 (6) heathen women ; and (7) sodomites ^- Similarly 
 Hirschfeld edited a Geniza fragment (J.Q.B., XVII, 713 
 seq.) and rightly proved that it belongs to Saadiah's work 
 on " forbidden marriages." Here allusion is actually made 
 to the " heretics " (nsiai'N), who stand in opposition to " us, 
 the entire body of Rabbanites" (t^jmi'N V'^i ini, p. 717, 
 IL 15, 26). There ought, therefore, to be no doubt any longer 
 about the existence of this work of the Gaon. 
 
 Ibid., 1. 23. A i'''Snn asna is also mentioned in a book- 
 list of the end of the twelfth century ; it is probably 
 Saadiah's work of the same name. See J. Q. R., XIII, 328 ; 
 R.J^.J., XL, 87. But the Geniza fragment edited by 
 Hirschfeld {J.Q.R., XVH, 721 seq.) belongs not to the nxna 
 JJ'xntS'i'N of Saadiah, but consists of a portion of his 'Amandt, 
 cf. ibid., XVIII, 146. 
 
 P. 260, 1. 7 seq. On the 'jnKn^N 2Kn3 see also my 
 Schechter' s Saadyana, p. 23, no. 23, and Bacher, R. £. J., 
 XLIX, 298. 
 
 P. 261, 1. 2 from bottom. Head MS. Heb. e 45 (Cat. 
 Bodl., vol. n, No. 2787I). 
 
 Ibid., n. 2. On the nnVD 3T llpJ quoted by Rashi on 
 Ps. xlv. 10, cf. also Bacher, Die Anfdnge d. hebr. Gram- 
 matilc, p. 60, n. 2, and Steinschn eider, Vorlesimgen iiber di 
 Kunde hebr. Handschriften, p. i5- 
 
 P. 263, 1. 14. In the commentary on Job xii. 7 ((Euvres, 
 
 ' Cf. an analogous classification with regard to the marriage law, of 
 which Jacob b. Ephraim is the author, in my monograph on the latter; 
 pp. yii, Tiviii (,=Kaufmann-Gedenkbuch, pp. 175, i86j. 
 
lOO ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA 
 
 V, p. 40), besides this verse Ps. cxxxix. 8 is also given as 
 an example of a figure of speech : a^'Un^bti i^NDn IN ?30N •b^ 
 cotj* pott QN 'ip hf\a Nini ♦ • • DKb^N ''S ai'san tnn • • • in^ib 
 '•]bK nriN Diy. 
 
 Ibid., 1. 35. Instead of iCJ^JNa ND we should read (as Herr 
 Mag. Israelson points out to me in a letter) pii buz ND. 
 
 P. 265, n. I. This passage of Saadiah is, as can now 
 be established, directed not against Jehuda ha-Parsi, but 
 against the noted Karaite author of the ninth century, 
 Benjamin al-Nahawendi. The latter had maintained that 
 there are two kinds of month, lunar and solar (nT" i^nn 
 and niBlpn ^tfin) ; and even found a proof for his position 
 in Haggai i. 15 and ii. i, where an event is dated in two 
 ways, by the 34th Elul and the aist Tishri. The difiference 
 of twenty-seven days is, he holds, to be referred to the 
 difference between the lunar and solar months. Compare 
 my remarks in 12. £. J., L, 19. 
 
 P. 368, n. a. The article I promised here on Arabic 
 expressions for the figure of hyperbole among Jewish 
 authors appeared in Z.f. E. B., Ill, 93 seq. Cf. also ibid., 
 p. 177, and the passage just cited from Saadiah's com- 
 mentary on Job. 
 
 P. 375, 1. 8. I published a rather long passage from 
 this little anti-Karaite work on 'An^n in B. £. J., XLV, 194 
 seq., and discussed it in detail. Cf. also Steinschneider, 
 1. c, p. 343 infra, and my Zur jud.-arab. Litter., p. 86. 
 Naturally the polemical campaign against the Karaites did 
 not cease after Saadiah, but continued till the most recent 
 times. I need only mention, e.g. (besides those named 
 in my essay, pp. 374-5) in the Orient, Samuel ibn Jkmi' 
 (see E. i!. J., 1. c, 3oi), David b. Zimra {Responsa, No. 796), 
 and Levi b. Habib (see above, p. 11, n. 5) ; in Byzahtium, 
 Tobias b. Eliezer, author of 31U npb (see Buber's Preface, 
 § 14) ; in Spain, Judah ibn Bal'^m {R.JS.J., 1. c, 193), Moses 
 ibn Ezra (ibid., 198), and Judah b. Barzillai (Ci'nyn nsD, 
 ed. Mekize Nirdamim, p. 35) ; in Germany and France, 
 Moses Taku (iJ.^.J,, I.e., 301), Zerahia ha-Levi (Maor, 
 
TO J. Q. R. X. 238-76 lOI 
 
 Satbath, § 3 beginning), and Simson of Sens (see R. 6. J., 
 VII, 41 ) ; in Italy, Aaron Abulrabi (in his commentary on 
 Deut. XXV. 4 ; cf. R. 6. J., XXI, 253), &c. The polemics of 
 these writers, however, are only of an incidental character ; 
 with the exception of the author of the anonymous little 
 work just mentioned, none of them composed a special 
 controversial treatise, unless we are to consider as such 
 the work of a Turkish Rabbi of last century, Solomon 
 Kimhi, entitled nd?^ nSK^D (printed 1863). The author 
 here endeavoured to show that the Karaites are to be con- 
 sidered as beasts, that it is forbidden to instruct them in 
 the Torah, and that it is permitted to kill them. These 
 statements were so monstrous that every copy of the work 
 that could be seized was consigned to the flames by order 
 of the Haham Bashi, Yakir Gdron, in Constantinople. See 
 Franco, Essai sur I'histoire des IsroMites de VEmpire 
 Ottoman (Paris, 1897), pp. 171, 17a, and Jew, Encycl., s.v. 
 
 (VII. 497)- 
 
ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 
 
 Pages 6-7 (comp. p. 96). The anti-Karaite Fragments of Saadiah, 
 edited by Harkavy {J. Q.R., XIII, 656), which are nearly all directed 
 against Ibn Sftqaweihi, have been printed for a second time, with 
 a Hebrew translation, in tllt^Tl, I, 65 seqq. 
 
 P. 14. On the struggle between the Shammaites and Hillelites, 
 reported in the Temshalmi, see my article in Dlpn, I, 39. On 
 Salmon's Commentary to Koheleth, see also Monatsschrift, LI, 718 seqq. 
 
 P. 21, foot (comp. p. 97). The citation from Jefet (on Exod. 
 XXXV. 3) made by Pinsker may, it now appears, be a quotation 
 from Saadiah. 
 
 P. 39, foot. The assumption of the older Karaites that Deut. 
 xviii. 10, forbade the fixation of months and feasts perhaps arose 
 under the influence of Islam. The Koran (ix. 37) makes intercalation 
 a heresy. Compare Albiruni's Chronology of the Ancient Nations, 
 ed. Sachau, p. 12 (translation, p. 14). 
 
 P. 42. To the Karaites who had connexion with Saadiah in 
 the eleventh century must be added the Jerusalem Grammarian 
 (''D?B'n''n plplDH) Abu-l-Paraj Harun b. al-Paraj, who unquestionably 
 knew and used Saadiah's works. See my essay on him (Paris, 1896), 
 p. 18, and my further citations from his writings in R. i, J., April, 
 1908. 
 
 P. 48. Some parts of the chief philosophical work of Joseph al- 
 Bastr (the ^innfsi'N 3Xn3) have recently been published as Doctorate- 
 Dissertations with a Hungarian translation. The parts published 
 include chapter xxiii (with excerpts from chs. xix, xxii, and xxiv), 
 ed. Goldberger (Buda Pesth, 1906) ; chs. xxv-xxix, ed. Bande (Raczkeve, 
 1906), and ch. xxxiv, ed. Horovitz (Buda Pesth, 1905). But Saadiah 
 is not quoted in any of these. On al-Basir compare further the article 
 in R. E, J., cited in preceding note. 
 
ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS I03 
 
 P. 52. A part of Jeshu'a's long Commentary on Numbers, in 
 a Hebrew recension, is perbaps contained in the Leyden MS., Warner 
 26' (Cat. Steinechneider, p. iii). Here, as in nST n''B'N^3, the para- 
 graphs begin IDX DX and only the oldest Karaites are quoted : viz. 
 'Anftn, Benjamin alNahawendi, Daniel al-Kumisi and Joseph al- 
 Baslr. 
 
 ■ P. 79, top. The citations from Abu-l-Paraj Hariin, which are con- 
 tained in this compilation from Deuteronomy I have collected in my 
 article, E. E. J., 1. c. Abu-1-Faraj is here described as Kb. 
 
 P. 81. On Samuel al-Magribi's ^!^'^D7^{, section II, ed. Weisz, and 
 section VII, ed. Lorge, see my review in J. Q. R., April, 1908. 
 
 P. 86. I have now before me a modern copy of Elia b. Baruch's 
 nnDXO niB'y. This copy belongs to Samuel Neeman ([»W), a 
 Karaite hazzan in Eupatoria. In the introduction he speaks of the 
 prohibition 1"iJ?3n X? and he has a long passage against Saadiah 
 which I now quote in full : 
 
 "Ml Nini trps; ■iB'''n nsi ''Oirr'an Nn»D mnn cts •'jb' cit-b , . . 
 myni pvo wn tfN npnn t6 rbnv nox 'a pjyn nmci r^^bn pnpi 
 
 nam nrn u'^xn ram .nnuB'iDai oniaa irn-VKa''' bM nnBTi nvn 
 tyiT'B jnv niaioDn nii'DnD la nniDon nibDn» ccn xh nnwoa 
 inn "B^ sin DS1 n'oa nw ba nW 3t5\T nw-ii' TBpn vht pavn 
 naa nvn^ iisi nNni ci"d3 b niso xui) ^^^ moE'n ptyi? nsyniE'Dn 
 T-atHB' nnnxn isa ne-sa nats'n ovn oa^nuE'iD bo cn nyan «!> 
 mm CN nijioi o^npo 3>"in niwi pi D3Ti2» -iixb' inntyn d'oa 
 pi {Tsa 11)13 njon nam n^'aa bn isa pi nphni mya iicls Nine' 
 ptfijn •hv:i ijvs ni'JJi oityB nai t<in njni .sfxa nya IK'S QTiB'Ba 
 pcisn catrij nvn e^no lya nr in nt D'yiv pn nn i'B' nipirni 
 ia Dip'' b nniDHDa bji vsinynb n»D il^ nvn^ na pjyn ^i^innh 
 DWi'sa D^J'^y noa cT'B naai ."b iry^' Dna onr onai nxn b 
 njB'Da caina nnai B'^nani vt^yo ■'bI' onann niicn^ na anr 
 -ipjn Dnn a^B'JNn 'j-yn inii' li) ^inii i»y ''Ja ''^y nisij nxni iioisnai 
 nib^i iits'^n pnpT nM Tioy^i ub niatj' ca'in DiE'n''B \i>irb a^'ni 
 nninan ^ok'sd nxi'' b:h mpi naai .vb inny mbii'i noann nba 
 
 .i3iy NC'-i mbp yiv 
 
I04 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS 
 
 The explanation of nwn N? " ye shall not destroy '' is also com- 
 bated, e.g. by Aaron b- Elia {Gan Eden, fol. 28c). In the last- 
 mentioned place the author of this explanation is not given as 
 Saadiah, but as " one who strays " {pB>^ KIHB' IDNB' nvin nmoi 
 'l31 mOBTl). It is possible, however, that Saadiah is meant. The 
 concluding words of Elia ('131 HDann D7D3 ni7V71) are modelled on 
 Ibn Ezra's remark to Exodus xx. 23, though that remark is directeji 
 against the Karaite Ben Zuta. Mr. Neeman also possesses a copy 
 of Elia b. Baruch's nion nns ; and the well-known nnONO miyy, 
 as well as another writing of Elia, entitled 0^py, are to be found in 
 a MS. of Samuel Figit, Karaite l^azzau in Ekaterinoslav (see ppcil, 
 1888, no. 343).