California I Regional acility BH The Library University of California, Los Angeles The gift of Mrs. Cummings, 1 963 yta JUF mmm REPRINTED FROM THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW NEW SERIES VOLUME X, NUMBER i THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM AS A SOURCE OF JEWISH HISTORY, II JACOB MANN PHILADELPHIA THE DROPSIE COLLEGE FOR HEBREW AND COGNATE LEARNING 1919 Stack Annex SOLS" THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM AS A SOURCE OF JEWISH HISTORY* BY JACOB MANN, Jews' College, London. II. THE POLITICAL STATUS OF THE JEWS. AFTER having discussed the extent of the influence the Geonim had over the Jewries of the various countries of the diaspora, an attempt will be made in this chapter to describe the political status of the Jews. In the light of the material the Gaonic responsa furnish, we shall con- sider in particular the relation of the Jews to the secular authorities and to their non-Jewish neighbours, their attitude towards the non-Jewish courts, and finally their treatment of their slaves. (a) It is generally assumed that with the advent of the Arabs to 'Irak (637-43) the Jewish ecclesiastical authorities, the so-called Bet-Din that existed in most of the Jewish communities of 'Irak, and the members of which were appointed either by the Exilarch or by the Geonim, continued to have full autonomy and could act entirely in accordance with the Talmudic law. The Gaonic responsa, however, show that the Muslim conquerors encroached occasionally more or less upon the sphere of activity assigned to the Jewish courts or the Jewish communal leaders. The first innovation the Geonim had to make not long after the Arab conquest of 'Irak was in all probability due to such an interference on the part of the Arab rulers. Sherira in his Letter (p. 35) states that the Geonim * See vols. VII, 457-90, VIII, 339-66, IX, 139-79. 121 2094998 122 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW R. Raaba of Pumbedita and Huna of Sura (both held office after 660 C.E.) instituted that a woman, who defied her husband and was thus rendered liable to the charge of being a nvrto (in the Talmudic phrase), should be divorced at once. The Talmudic practice was to defer the divorce for twelve months in order that meanwhile a reconciliation might be brought about between husband and wife (see Ketubot 64 a). Sherira himself explains in a responsum that the Geonim were forced to make this innovation because they saw ' that the daughters of Israel went and attached themselves to non-Jews in order to obtain a divorce through them from their husbands. These had in some cases to grant the divorce under compulsion '. 181 This statement probably means, as Weiss ("T)""n, IV, 8-9 and note 14) has pointed out, that the Muslim authorities could force the Jews to grant divorce in such cases, and in order to prevent such enforced divorces, which according to the Talmudic law are null and void (nB>iy B3), the Geonim ordained that in the case of rmiD the husband should at once divorce his wife by his own free will and was also bound to pay the amount of the Ketubah. The objections of Rabbinowitz (Graetz, Heb. ed., Ill, 131) against this assumption cannot hold good. The same phrase DMja lovy nbru occurs also in another responsum of Sherira where it must also mean the protection afforded by a Muslim court or by some influential Arabs to a Jew 181 yn, NO. 140 = ITS?, 56 a, NO. 15: rvo^n ptw pania en jn^jno DJixa PDJ pro inob trab see also p*3, No. 91, by Sherira. In 3"n, No. 89, the reason is : njn nohnk hfV* nm rON^n which amounts to the same. Cp. also Schechter's Saadyana, 147 ( =JQR., XIV, 515), 11. i ff. 0^31 \3& ^3 . . . RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM MANN 123 against the ruling of the Bet-Din. The case (nX No. 182, see Einleit., 21 note) deals with a Jew that committed some transgression on the Sabbath for which he was to be flogged, and the fear is expressed that he might escape and try to obtain the protection of the non-Jewish court or of some influential Arab ('M T1 lovy r6n''1, see also 0*103, No. 146, and a'n, No. 135). This decree about a ' defiant ' wife (n"nio) which was promulgated soon after the conquest of Babylon by 'Omar probably applied to this country only. We have the evidence of Maimonides that it was not accepted by the majority of the Jews. 182 A question that very frequently occupied the Jewish communities as a whole was the assessment of taxation. Generally the whole community of a district was made responsible for the entire amount of taxes that was imposed upon it. After the conquest of 'Irak and Syria by the Arabs under 'Omar, the Arab conqueror in organizing * = G the new state fixed a poll-tax for all non-Muslims (A^-*-), certain burdens in connexion with the quartering of Muhammedan soldiers, 183 and a graduated land tax (A^>, see Aug. Mu'ller, ibid., I, 272). This organization of the state by 'Omar was probably adopted by the Arabs after their conquest of North Africa and Spain. As regards Babylon, Graetz assumes that the Exilarchs were respon- sible for the taxes which were collected from the Jews (V 4 , 131 and 435-6). But from the responsa it appears that the Arab authorities collected the taxes directly from 181 npinn T, JWK 'n, 4"; fcw im o^ruon Drns niEipon ann orrby D^in n^ra D'a-n. IBS Probably R. Natronai refers to this in a responsum in TKTl, H f 20, i. 12: H33Dn *3BO 3 rQl n2'."2 ^3NO 1^ N'Sir6 iniDI, based on Besah, 21 a. See also Aug. Mailer, ibid., 274. 124 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW the Jews. The Gaon R. Sheshna of Sura (before 1000 Sel. = 689 C.E.) writes in a responsum that ' if the ruler or the tax-collector sends to the community and enjoins the pronouncing of a ban in his interest, and it is impossible to disobey on account of the compulsion, this tax that was imposed by means of the ban is not binding. But if they impose an oath, the community should refuse to administer the oath to the person concerned '. 184 This responsum shows that the authorities availed themselves of the coer- cion practised by the Bet-Din for their own purpose, and thus in order to obtain a true estimate of a man's taxing- power, they ordered the Jewish courts or the communal leaders to announce a ban against or impose an oath upon a Jew for this purpose. The Gaon to whom this responsum is assigned was one of the earliest Geonim whose sphere of influence probably did not extend beyond Babylon and Persia, and we may therefore assume that the responsum refers to the conditions that existed in these countries alone. The Gaon's opinion is that the enforced oath should not be administered by the communal leaders and that the ban, though announced, would be rendered null and void, in order to counteract the extortions of the authorities. The tax-collectors mentioned in this respon- sum were certainly non-Jews. Had they been Jews appointed by the Exilarch, or by the communal leaders, IM w vxsrn WBT ^nea nnnn^ bnpn PWDB> ono to PNI Dib u'N onnntr oa inw NDJIN DWD onnnb tth? b yyyrh TIDK oao bya IN pote IN ita jrapBp njnap bix h vnrk (T\'V, No. 195; D'n, No. 121 ; VET), I, 49, No. 13; V3, No. 26, and D'a, No. 26). Cp. also 1*3, No. 40. This R. Sheshna was certainly the Gaon and not the father of the Gaon 'Amram (856-74) of whose official capacity as a scholar to whom questions were addressed nothing is known (see also Weiss, T")Tl , 9, note 15). RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM MANN 125 to collect the taxes, the Gaon would not have decided against them. 1 * 5 The whole tone of the responsum shows that the authorities were extortionate in their coercion of the Jewish community. In the same responsum is also mentioned the case of a Jew that was executed, and his property confiscated. Thereupon the authorities enjoined the Jewish communal leaders to announce a ban against any- body that concealed some money of the criminal in order to preserve it for his heirs, instead of handing it over to the authorities. In the time of R. Nahshon of Sura (874-82) we learn that the taxes and impositions weighed heavily upon the Jews in Babylon. On a question, that came probably from some community abroad, whether the scholars should be asked by the community to contribute their share to the amount of the taxes due to the govern- ment, the Gaon answers that ' though the king and his councillors impose taxes without a limit and make the burden still heavier upon the community ', yet the scholars should not be taxed. 186 Probably the Gaon reflects here the deplorable state the Jews of Babylon must have been in, especially during the period of the decline of the 'Abbasid dynasty after the death of Mutassim in 842 (see Aug. Mllller, ibid., I, 523 ff.). In the communities outside Babylon, in Palestine, North Africa, Spain, and southern France, we learn from the responsa that fixed amounts were imposed upon whole communities, and the communal leaders had the task and 185 Cp. ?D"13, No. 10 : when the community collected the taxes and one of the members declared that he possessed nothing, he was adjured. 18 m, NO. 537: nwDi men -jtan favour B"yx&> wnn *an . . . D'33-in jo npb IIDN imn ^y Sy PTMDI pprnci pn ^a . . . 01^3- About the great number of taxes that existed under the Abbasid caliphs, cp. Kremer, I.e., I, 278, and II, 488 ff. 126 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW the responsibility to assess each member of their community in accordance with his economic position. Thus the people of Tlemsen style their late communal leader ' the eye of the community and. the first in every charitable affair as well as in the taxes and the impositions exacted from the community'. 187 Often disputes arose in the communities as to who should contribute the most, whether the traders or the people who owned landed property, as we learn from responsa of French scholars, contemporaries of Sherira and Hai (see o^oa, Nos. 165 and 205). In D*la, No. 165, it is also stated that the community had to collect an amount of money for bribing the officials not to expose them to extortion and oppression. 188 That the extortions of the authorities in the district of Kairowan became intolerable in the time of Sherira and Hai we can gather from a responsum of theirs preserved in n"j, No. 346 (cp. Geon., II, 5). A Jew was much harassed in his place of residence by penal impositions, and he could not leave the town as his wife would be arrested instead and treated in a similar way. Accordingly people advised that Jew to write a bogus document of divorce to his wife, in order that she should be able to take possession of her husband's property as being her dowry, and her husband be at liberty to escape. 189 It is expressly stated that some of the towns- |^ n) n , 31, No. 9 = n"3, No. 37, by R. Hai: i najjn noani twijn pa npnvn pi nm 5>ab JIK'X-II myn py , 'fine', was then the usual expression for tax. See O"1O3, No. 10 : y ^waynp nta s y ps IN ibrb D WISD 188 Drr&po Diisn pbpb PTHBW mn&wi3 rmntj>r6 pi. vryo sn 11 rvriBoi pobrn B'Jiyo nann nyoyo rrn &y\yn nn?^ .nnis pnyxoi nnainsn ^ ww ^ypnpo b n^iDnN^ inB>*6 RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM MANN 127 people used to avail themselves of such devices in order to escape the impositions of the governor. That such devices had to be used is sufficiently eloquent of the position of the Jews in those districts. The screw of taxation was made more and more tight, so that people were compelled to leave their places of residence. A similar case is reported in another responsum (Yt?n, II, 58, No. 7). Jews who had to flee from their town, settled in another place where they were taxed by the Jewish community. But now the members of their former community bring forward claims against them, because they had undertaken in common the responsibility for the taxes. In the respon- sum it is stated that the authorities would exact the amount assessed irrespective of the actual number of the members of the community. 190 In Palestine also, under the rule of the Egyptian dynasty of the Fatimids, the burden of taxation weighed heavily upon the Jews. In a letter to Ephraim b. Shemarya, head of the Palestinian syna- gogue of Fustat, the Jewish community of Jerusalem complain that they ' suffer the yoke of the non-Jews who put all burdens ' upon them. Though there was a famine p p&>w "vyn nniN ^SEI EI . vnnn nsrsn: intM* snn x na , . . P^ETI K'3iy fDSy JIN manb . This responsum belongs to the group of responsa sent to Kairowan in 991 c. E. (H"3 , Nos. 345-50, see p. 179, note i). It is interesting to note that the authorities did not confiscate this man's estate on his departure from the town. Further, the document of divorce, Q3, seems to have had legal recognition in the eyes of the authorities, and the wife was allowed to take possession of her former husband's estate in lieu of her dowry (rQlri3), in precedence to the claims of the authorities. iso ^tf-\y< ibbn by biy p-puae jnypE ima:? p'oi on D*D3 D^wnp ibtt DO ^BISl nnUB>. This responsum is seemingly by R. Hai like the one preceding it. Miiller, Einleit., 34, note (last line) assigns it without any proof to R. Isaac the Tosafite. 128 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW in the country, the Jewish community had to find the usual amount of taxes imposed by the government, and had thus to appeal to their compatriots in Egypt for support. 191 Several responsa deal with confiscation of money and property belonging to Jews, and with other kinds of inter- ference on the part of the authorities. In some cases it may have been due to the punishment inflicted upon individual Jews that transgressed the law of the country (see X*B>, 34 b, No. 5 and 41 b, No. 38 by Saadya ; TJ, No. 3; D*J, Nos. 9 and 109; ro'iioa, No. 189). Some in- teresting points are contained in a list of headings of responsa quoted by Miiller (Einleit., 53, note) from a Parma MS. Non-Jews give evidence against Jewish young people about their indecent behaviour, and the governor appoints a Jewish official to collect the fines he imposed upon these young Jews, while granting this official a commission of ten per cent. Informing amongst Jews was an evil rampant in those times which often endangered the lives of many Jews while causing still further material loss. Accordingly the Bet-Din and the communal leaders dealt very severely with informers. Anybody that suffered from denunciation could pronounce a ban against those that denounced him to the authorities (see n'j, No. 333, end, by R. Hai; o'lDJ, 191 Geniza Letter (published by Cowley, JQR., XIX, pp. 107-8, and also by Wertheimer, D^BTP MJJ, II, 17): D^t^lM D'JJTin H3 THN man biy o^aio uru ne>N naisan rawyn na-6yn nan enipn o^jinn vn nxrn rwa a irvp* "po iros xh . . . mio rus? ba wby -KPN twiyn HU 12 nvi vb inreup nB>xi naooa baa D^pn? 13N n^K n^jyn ui? n N^ -INK':^ no rvrkb jn (r. ^32) ^>3 nan NjfOJ N^> aynn naca mw uan nt^N ny . , Don jo onmo ww D>ann RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM MANN 129 No. 193, by R. Joseph Ibn Abitur, and No. 195, end). 192 One of 'Omar's decrees was that a non-Muslim should 192 No indication is to be found in the Gaonic Responsa, as far as they are extant, that informers were sentenced to death by the Bet-Din in conjunction with the communal leaders. The responsa of the contemporary Spanish scholars also show no trace of this penal procedure. It is therefore surprising to find this drastic treatment of informers quite general among the Jewish communities chiefly in Spain. The first authority mentioned as having inflicted capital punishment on an informer, is R. Joseph Ibn Migash of Lucena, the disciple of Alfasi (see R. Juda b. Asher in miiT f. 55 = ruo^ta "inN -NDC^ SWD p nbn -"'i ^pot? n^Jtt ni'KQ Dim nrr6 bni? a"0nr2). Maimonides, writing in Egypt, also refers to this punishment as quite usual in the 'towns of the West' (21J?Dn "HJD), i. e. Spain and Morocco, which latter country contained then many Spanish Jews (Tlptnn T, p'TDl ^TIP! Tl, VIII, i). Highly important is the letter of Solomon b. Aderet concerning the case of an informer in Barcelona (published by Kaufmann, JQR., VIII, 1896, pp. 228 ff., where he also discusses this question of Jewish informers in the Middle Ages on pp. 217-28). See further the important responsum of Asheri in nV'6? 5?"Nin, XVII, i. On the whole, the material available tends to show that chiefly in Spain informers paid the penalty of death for their denuncia- tions. There the communities seem to have had the permission of the secular authorities for such a procedure. Altogether in Spain the communal leaders seem to have been invested with very great powers, amounting even to the right of inflicting capital punishment in some cases ; a fact that greatly astonished Asheri when he came from Germany to settle in Toledo, as he writes in the important responsum in JJ>"Nin f\Y'&, XVII, 8. Whether in the Gaonic period the Jewish communities anywhere in the diaspora, including even Spain, possessed such rights, is very doubtful. It is certainly surprising that in the numerous Gaonic responsa no mention is made of such formidable authority vested with the communal leaders. See further D"in '1E71, ed. Bloch, p. 208, No. 137 : H"1 $>3 PITDO rwa si>t? xpm ^"j on3 crnx pun ps nmooi JW3 N^> p ins* IDINB' ^ ^i wr *n ns 'in niO p npy ^n n-O. This responsum deals with conditions in Germany, where it seems informers were removed with the assistance of non-Jews ;cp. further, ibid., p. 50, Nos. 313 and 317). In view of the above remarks, the responsum in O"j, 182, VOL. X. K 130 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW suffer capital punishment in the case of his having spoken disparagingly of Muhammed and his religion (see Aug. Miiller, ibid., I, 273). A member of the Exilarch's family, who was to succeed the well-known David b. Zakkai, was denounced in Nisibis for such an offence and suffered the penalty. 193 From a responsum we learn further that if a Jew was converted to Islam and then repented and returned to his former religion, he had to flee to another place where he would be unknown, else he forfeited his life. 19 * On the whole it may be assumed that a Jew found some protection on the part of the authorities and Courts against robbery and oppression by non-Jews. This was more or less the case both in Muhammedan and Christian countries. The responsa supply proofs for this assumption. Thus we read in a responsum of R. Semah (probably of Pumbedita, 872-90) about a Jew that traded in Egyptian towns, and while attempting to ford a river was drowned. When the relatives searched for the body, the non-Jews living by the side of the river gave evidence that they had seen the body floating but they did not pick it up for fear -nn x min o^oye Q^prn 13 nnni too.-nan ^N . . . iniD ino \r\rb UH'3 Bn i?np^ nyuvoi 10101 nyo tbx . . . feup TO ^3 u imnb "inin phn WK inann by naipn ivh inr6 inio pi> nwr vby nD^B> v p vunn m ^y ^3N, is very likely not by a Babylonian Gaon but by a Spanish scholar. 193 Report of Nathan the Babylonian (Neub., II, 82-3) : JJ11K3 KSD3 N^l oy UDipn:^ ">3T ^ JH-NB^ ny inwob ip'aon Bn ns bbpB' vby nym piw. No. a8, by R. Moses of Sura, 832-43 c. E. : p1 inn DNK> pjnv ^n^ WIN p^oe' tN&b nirn^ imx pmn. RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM MANN 131 of the governor. 195 Probably they were afraid lest the authorities would accuse them of having murdered this Jew. As regards a Christian country, we see that R. Meshullam in *1C3, No. 188, decided in a case where non-Jews forcibly deprived Jews of their estates, fields, and vineyards, and afterwards other Jews took over from these robbers their spoil, that since there were non-Jewish courts and authorities with whom the plundered Jews could have lodged their complaints, they had relinquished their right of ownership by not taking legal proceedings and allowing other Jews to recover their property from the robbers. 196 But frequently in disturbed times the authorities were powerless or callous about giving protection to Jews against thefts and robberies. Two responsa supply us with highly interesting material. Correspondents from probably some North African community write to Sherira ( ff t2>, 32 a, No. 20) concerning the case of a Jew that lost something or other, or was robbed by non-Jews, and afterwards another Jew bought back the stolen goods from these non-Jews, of course much below their value. Now the owner claims back his goods and intends paying back the other man's outlay. In the long argument which the owner of the stolen or plundered goods uses, three charac- teristic alternatives are enumerated as to how a Jew of those times could make good his loss. Either he finds out the culprits and brings them before the governor or the non-Jewish courts. Or he strikes a bargain with the rn, NO. 27 : DJIMD nnip^ iron p in^yr6 PKTJIO wn . . . fn Wrm n3J >tK *fl*; Cp. also the responsum of Elhanan b. Hushiel (above, IX, 171 if.). K 2 132 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW brigands to return him at least a part of his belongings. It is stated in the responsum that other Jews had to do likewise. The third alternative would be to parley with the elders and influential people amongst these brigands and persuade them by bribes to recover the stolen goods. Though there were prohibitions by the governors against stealing and robbing as well as against buying such goods, it seems that this ' trade ' flourished considerably. The Jewish communities, long before the time of this responsum, had to make an institution that the owner of the lost, stolen, or robbed property should be entitled to recover it from the Jewish buyer after paying back his expenses. This institution was common to all com- munities in that district, which shows that robberies and thefts must have been of very frequent occurrence. 197 From the answer of the Gaon we gather that this institution was unknown in Babylon. Accordingly the responsum refers to the conditions outside 'Irak, pro- bably in some North African district. In the other responsum in p"3, No. 93 (perhaps by R. Meshullam, see Miiller, Einleit.y 25, note) we find Jewish business-men 197 D^i3 rv6npn an &6 irnipna proo D-a^m pDD^rw? ^aua Qjruo ns r\\yth na p wax una m ^983) .nuno3 pa D'ama pa DVI or 5>aa niano ^ pxai orr-nn poo iboi onn wa^ DJIOB nas^ N^C' n^pn H^L See also D"3, NO. 4 a: n-nnon 70 i^srm oa nvacB' naBD nninoi HIKK'D nna vm oo^iro POD^ n^y iNatr m* 1 ^ IN ma s^nn DiTam onnK ^Nitr^ nninon fmxb on jniN onaoi v:ay np-i jnaa' onnn npi^ D^yan nn^ pnn JD B DT3 ? K? ^N. This responsum which is assigned in Pardes, end, to Rashi (cp. MQller, Einleit., n, note x is quoted in S"!"2ti>, II, 148, fol. 1673 [Cat. Montefiore Library, 33, No. ia8] as p3 NH W3") nmC'H. For the last reference I am indebted to Dr. Biichler. RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM MANN 133 taking the law into their own hands and paying back in the same coin to non-Jewish traders who constantly spolia- ted and harrassed them. ' A Jew said to a co-religionist, The people of the town N. have captured our city and have robbed us. Now the traders of that city usually go to the town, wherein you reside, for business purposes. If you can spoliate them by the authority of the rulers of your town, do it and let me have the spoil. But the other Jew answered, Were I able to make these traders pay the penalty, I should do it myself, because I have also lost a great deal in their town. At length it happened that once these traders came with their goods to the town of the second Jew, and he, risking his life, fleeced them after bribing the authorities of his town.' 198 The Jew seeing that no redress was to be obtained from the authorities, especially when towns were on the warpath against each other, had to risk his life and procure retribution for himself. Several responsa tell us of towns sacked wherein Jews lived and also of cases of exile, either of whole communities or of individual Jews. Unfortunately only a few of these responsa can be adequately identified. R. Meshullam must refer to some upheaval in Lucca and the surrounding places when he writes at the beginning of his responsum (P"3, No. 61), 'May God in his great mercy relieve us in distress and put an end to the upheavals among us, our ff\ irry nx i&'aa >:2 Ty ^K rvir IDN^ NTJ -njn 6 ^m ox ."p'y^ '"niriD^ pabin *vyn nnis ^ pjnm ON tane* mix -6 IONI . ^ jm DTO biu Try np n:a ty 'moan -UN DJB> 'Etfyi' DJYIN WBJ mrr iniN Db> n^ncn nnix . . . peon mn^^ nwn nprna. 134 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW brethren and the children of our congregations. 199 Above (VII, 484) we had the case of the town of Nefusa that was sacked and burned by the enemy. Another responsum tells us of an Arabic commander of an army who entered a town and captured many women, Jewish and non- Jewish. These captives had afterwards to be ransomed (o'ltM, No. 47, see Muller, note i). 200 Another responsum (P*a, No. 51, probably by R. Meshullam, see Einlcit., 25, note) tells us further of a town that was sacked and all the inhabitants were led away as captives, with the excep- tion of one Jew who escaped. From the responsum it appears that this Jewish community was not long after reorganized. In "i3, No. 153 (probably by some French or Italian scholar, see Mliller, note i) we read of the exile of Jews from a whole district. Before the exile a Bet-Din existed there, and thus there must have been an organized Jewish community in that town. The estates of the exiled Jews were not confiscated, and from the lawsuit it appears that the children of these exiles returned to their former place of residence and could take possession of these estates. Perhaps this responsum refers to the banishment of the Jews of Limoges in 1010 c. E. (see Gr. V 4 , 380), where the bishop of the town had Christianity preached to the Jews for a whole month, and when this was of no avail, had them exiled. We learn further of Jews of Tlemsen that were exiled to Ashir but their property was not confiscated 199 i3TiNi DD rnwwin niw ixa ub aw Dain wsma Kim Mbnp ya. See above, VII, 487. 200 Asheri, Responsa, XXXII, 5, quotes this responsum as follows : ipa 'oa NPDTWD ^n ^Niotr Vn T ana ynr nix 'oa ntD nacn nyb sa poan ipb ,pwn i>"n ^D an 'aitwi n^ru aa *?y 'Wl 'n>3^a lUrO 'HinM nrWO na~n 0^3. Accordingly only one Jewess was among the captives. The same reading is often found in the Responsa of R. Moses Alashkar, no. 95 (ed. Sabionctta, 1553, fol. 151 b). RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM MANN 135 and their heirs could become the owners of their parents' possessions (n"3, No. 33 and "IDJ, No. 133, by R. Hai, see also above, VII, 484). (b] The next point to be considered is the relations that existed between Jews and their Gentile neighbours. It is only natural to assume that Jews had many business connexions with Gentiles. This is corroborated by many responsa, as it will be shown in the next chapter. Thus in many cases friendly relations must have sprung up between Jews and non-Jews. R. Nahshon, in a responsum, is of the opinion that no charity should be accepted from a non-Jew (l"j, No. 26). This responsum shows that there must have been sometimes non-Jews that wanted to con- tribute to the charitable needs of Jewish communities. Some interesting details about the relations between Jews and Christians in Babylon are to be found in the Judicial Decisions of the Catholici (published by Sachau, Syrische Rechtsbticher, vol. II). The people of Hira (Hertha) used to practise circumcision according to Jewish rites (/. c., Jesubarnum, 27, cp. Timotheos, 16). The Catholicos Jesubarnum ( 118) prohibits both priest and layman to 'eat and drink with Jews and to keep friendship with the son of the crucifiers' (I.e., p. 170, 11. 13-14: x-v. ]k.*.o ^o/ : UaoXx o( .j Ucu.). The same Catholicos ordains ex- communication from the Church on those that marry ' a heathen, Jew, or a member of another religion ' ( 10, ii, 119). These decisions of the Catholici allow us a glimpse of the relations, which appear to have been of a friendly character, between Jews and Christians in Babylon in the first half of the ninth century (see also Aptowitzer, Die syrischcn Rechtsbilcher 11. das MosaiscJie Recht, pp. 5-6, in 136 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. 163). But on the whole the Jew's life among his non-Jewish neighbours must have been precarious and exposed to dangers. We find the Geonim adopting the maxim, as found in the Talmud, that 'a non-Jew generally is an extortioner' (Kin ND3N 'H DHD ,0*183, No. 101, by R. 'Amram; n"3, No. 242, by Sherira or Hai to the Kairowan Jews). Characteristic is the statement by R. Natronai of Sura, 853-6 C.E., in a responsum, to the effect that 'generally if non-Jews get hold of a Jew's money they have no pity '. 201 It must have been sad experience only that made the spiritual leaders of Jewry view the non-Jew in such a light. Thus it is only natural that the Jews disliked having non-Jews as their nearest neighbours, for fear of violence. Jews preferred to live by themselves in special quarters. This tendency helped to erect the Ghetti which later on, in the times of persecutions, were made obligatory on the Jews. The Talmudic law was that if a Jew sold his field or house to a non-Jew, his Jewish neighbours could force this Jew to undertake the responsibility for any harm their new non-Jewish neighbour might do them. This law we find in full practice in the Gaonic period as several responsa show (cp. ?"&, 33 a, Nos. 21 and 22 (cp. O W 3, No. 142), probably by Sherira; "lEJ, No. 19, by R. Semah to Kairowan; E>"iD3, No. 158, anonymous: a whole quarter inhabited by Jews). Yet some responsa tell us of Jews living promiscuously with non-Jews and knowing the affairs of each other (see "i3 , No. 95). A responsum mentions that all the inhabitants of a town, including the Jews, were dressed alike as soldiers (*13, No. 69). Another 2 < Pardes 24 c : jV3 VTW W pDDl WH D3N '13 DHD "OH r6 ps D^iyn JTIIDIN T3 bast? (cp. B. kamma 1173). RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM MANN 137 responsum tells us of a case of a Reader (|tn) who was immoral, and the non-Jews were blaming the Jews for retaining such a man as their reader in the synagogue (o'lOJ, No. 17, probably by R. Joseph Ibn Abitur ; see also above, p. 128). We find further cases of Jews who in trying to exact monetary claims from co-religionists by violence would hire non-Jews and instruct them to waylay their victims and extort whatever they demanded (D w i3, No. 22, by Saadya ; n"3 , No. 39, to Tlemsen, see Einleit., 39, note). 202 All these disconnected details scattered here and there in the responsa give us some glimpse of the mutual relations between Jew and non-Jew in these times. (c] A point of much interest is the attitude of the Jews of the Gaonic period towards the non-Jewish courts. It is only natural that a non-Jew when having a claim against a Jew would summon him before the non-Jewish court. A gentile generally distrusted the Bet-Din (see n"3, No. 324, by R. Hai to Kabes ; $>"a, No. 40, by R. Hai; E"iE3, No. 153; No. 204 by Hanok b. Moses). Likewise a Jew had to summon a non-Jew before the secular courts. The Bet-Din had certainly no power of coercion over a non-Jew (see, e.g. "iD3, No. 102 by Sar Shalom of Sura, 849-53 C - E 'J Nos. 201 and 204). But as regards disputes that arose between Jew and Jew, the Geonim as well as the communal leaders strongly disliked any attempt to bring these disputes for settlement before the non-Jewish courts instead of the Jewish ecclesiastical court, the so-called Bet-Din. There were many affairs that could not be divulged before courts frequently hostile. The screw of 202 Miiller, Einleit., 53, note, quotes also a responsum from a Parma manuscript: W3nm VUH {jKI^ VMxh Tj6 pn 013 JDW nayoa orrby. 138 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW taxation and impositions would have been made tighter, if the whole extent of business carried on by Jews would have become known through such monetary lawsuits brought before the courts. Further, for fear of non-Jewish competition, the Jew found it inadvisable to reveal the particulars of his trade. We find the Christian ecclesiastical authorities in Babylon of the same period exhibiting the same dislike of seeing Christians bring their lawsuits before Muslim courts. In the Judicial Decisions of the Catho- licos Mar Timotheos (about 805) as well as those of the Catholicos Jesubarum (820-24) Christians are enjoined to bring their disputes exclusively before Christian courts. 203 The Geonim in opposing Jewish lawsuits being brought before the non-Jewish courts followed the Talmudic pre- cepts. Already R. Tarfon (end of first century, C. E.) was against attending non-Jewish courts (see Gittin 88 b, v. I. R. Meir) niNnuK NVin nnNB> 0*3 crb pppni> nsn nnx > foic* rn In a responsum (quoted by Miiller, Einleit. t 54, note 4, end, from a Parma MS.) the Gaon declares that if a Jew hands over a co-religionist to a non-Jewish court, even in monetary affairs, he is regarded as an informer ("HDD). 204 On the whole Jews acted according to the injunctions of their spiritual leaders and tried to settle all their disputes before the Jewish courts. Thus in the case of the stolen goods (above, pp. 131-32) we find the claimant arguing to 203 See Sa< hau, Syrist/te Rechtsbiicher, vol. II, Berlin, 1908, p. 56, 11. 13-14: ^+9 JJCUX ttJ3 ^20 JLJL..J9 0J oX ^oiL)/ )jO^&-V>0 ^X>?L&s^o *A!*? ; so Mar Timotheos; cp. further, 12-13 (PP 66-8), and Jesubarnum, 115 (pp. 168-9). See also Aptowitzer, /. c., 46 ff. C4 ^ D y tjy DK .-noj niDD Nip: nsa pn^ nan ns IDIDB' D tya vb nitrs3 ^poy by TIDE xipj poo. See also n*j, NO. 491, by Alfasi. RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM MANN 139 the defendant that because he must not summon him before a non-Jewish court he is worse off than if non-Jews had bought the stolen goods. 205 Yet the responsa mention several cases of Jews seeking redress against their co- religionists at non-Jewish courts. A Genizah Fragment of the year 1016 (published by Poznariski, REJ., XLVIII, 171) tells us of a Jew, 'Amrun b. Elijah of Sicily, who had Ephraim b. Shemaryah arrested by the Muslim court- officials in Fustat because the latter did not want to appear before a Muslim court to answer on the former's monetary claims. The arrested Jew justifies himself before the Muslim Judge that as Jews they had a court of their own for settling their disputes. 206 In a responsum R. Moses b. Hanok ("E>, 30 a, No. 9) decides in the case of a Jew who had his co-religionist arrested that he should pay all expenses which his co-religionist incurred through his im- prisonment (see also E"1C3, No. 210). Since Jews frequently brought their lawsuits before non-Jewish courts, repeated injunctions had to be made by the spiritual leaders of Jewry against this practice. In a Cambridge Genizah Fragment (published by Dr. Marmorstein, Monatsschrift, 1906, 599) we read of an institution in a community that any Jew that brings his lawsuit before a non-Jewish court 208 fniN ix pa33n ;rns* wb now naatr aniN DMJH nn . . . wnn N^I ,01110 N'DQP-IB nniN nupb ptaobn IN maxn HN jno v*\ .rcnarui jmna -now ^ae jnk" raw \b -nnna ynr IN /anu nms iTan D^ya INIT K^ nnup^ wsn s % i? 30D nnw pnpih oaicn IN ^on *J^ pia unra pyawn |ni? y nn nNSO3i .mnan *3ab 0*333.1 jnisa nwi 133100 nx TP2 Ninc'3 vc'ay jnis yam wn p pn jra^> rmrn See also o'j, NO. 166: . . . D^ijn pna wn ^ya oy pnh -jW papa i^by bapon. 209 " 1Da> NO. 179: IN^ DNI pi QTOH DS 'ibn iain pxtr la^sn 13 c^ai iEvyi> p '"aw ^tjpi n x!n pn D.T:H ps \snvj' nan nrvs n^'N np^ ny cha Dm nnny by RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM MANN 141 same disparaging opinion about the Arab courts was prevalent among the Jews of Kairowan and North Africa (n"3, Nos. 237, 278, and 324). A still more scathing criticism we find in another responsum by a Spanish scholar of that time (D^ioa, No. 199, see Mtiller, note i). The Rabbi maintains that, firstly, the Arabic documents of the courts are unreliable because by adding or omitting one dot over or beneath a letter in the Arabic script the whole meaning of a sentence can be changed. Secondly, the courts accept witnesses without knowing them, and rely on identifications the witnesses give about themselves. 210 Muller (note 6 to this responsum) is surprised at this pro- cedure as being against the Muhammedan law, but we shall see later on that R. Hai in Pumbedita knew that in some parts of the Muslim empjre such a scandalous administra- tion of justice was practised (see also Muller, Die Rcsponsen dcr spaniscJien Lehrer des io' e " JahrJwnderts y p. 6 in the seventh report of the Berlin Lehranstalt, 1889). Entirely different was the state of affairs in Babylon. There a whole system of jurisdiction was devised and brought to a high level of efficiency by the legal school which had as its founder the famous lawyer Abu Hanlfa (d. 766 c. E., see Kremer, ibid., I, 491-7 and 504). This high standard seems to have been maintained for several centuries. The Gaon Hai testifies that in his time the courts of Bagdad and of other large cities excelled them- selves in their care exhibited in administering justice. Great care was shown in accepting witnesses, and therefore 210 riN D'D^nD nns nr.p:a jn spnrr6 nfc'SN pana:? . . , D'*va pe> DIN D^Eyee' onnya ppnpio PNG? Tiyi . . . payn t& tnn waw a"yNi nai by pcmro j^a 12 , . . jtmsb itpaN "NSJ' anan nx^ 1 jn^anaa ^"i -ins*. 142 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW deeds of property drawn up at these courts were accepted as legal by the court of the Gaon. Yet R. Hai knew that there were ' villages and distant places ', where the courts did not come up to that standard of perfection, and ac- cordingly documents from such courts found no legal recognition in the opinion of the Jewish courts. 211 We thus see the Jewish scholars estimating the Muslim courts not from the point of view of fanatics, but of lawyers primarily concerned about fair and upright administration of justice. That the Jewish authorities themselves solicited the co- operation of the secular authorities, the so-called "INn 'a, is apparent from several responsa. In monetary lawsuits, whenever the Bet-Din or the communal leaders found that their powers of coercion were inadequate, they used to secure the help of the secular arm. Correspondents from Kairowan (rfa, No. 233 in the collection of responsa to Kairowan, Nos. 230-64) inquire of the Gaon with reference to the Jew A, who was sentenced by the Bet- Din to pay to B a sum of money, but does not obey the ruling of the Bet-Din. Those witnesses that were accepted 211 rT3, No. 278 (in all probability by Hai since n"3, No. 239, a similar responsum, is by him) : naVl3 VP3y UW? HNTH nrin >3 WtH pan D'npa ony N^S D'i3 *?v nixa-iya pbapo px iNiaa NIP nan xS npt? nan vht *?n \nrby rby t6 ix nao -IBP by vryn DK i^x paa p^ryD^u pnipji oma pn ^DJ I:N n^ oswn ^a*pi jn^ nwanya nnyn nx m"Di .DV baa n-tryo vt^ay waruo jai ,ubv xin n^a^ IDB' ;n na nnyb paon n^an -nw ns |na B^ i'aaaB' nibvun nnnxn tri . . . nptr nano PB> bai NI^ nana nnrnb panoi jma }na njnT niaara) niaipt^ N!JN na pp nisanya wunl> *ny ^sn^ vn vsb K moot 1 psu 113 ini^D nin nsn s"3 DT nnno rbn vtwbv 144 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW of enlisting the help of the secular power (n'Nanoi ana:n *Bhjai mnai TTM txvfyy anaanoi, in Pinsker, nmmp, DTISDJ, 31, bottom). 214 From some community the complaint came to R. Hai that there were refractory people who did not listen to the Bet-Din and committed evil deeds, while ' the government was a grievous one ' and afforded no assistance to the communal leaders. 215 The whole problem of the power of the Jewish courts and the communal leaders will be discussed fully in the chapter next but one. (d) We shall now discuss the material which the re- sponsa furnish concerning Jewish masters and their slaves. It is generally assumed that the Jews of the Gaonic period were very active in slave-trade (see Heyd, Geschichte d. Levante-handels im Mittelalter, I, 139, and Dr. Abrahams, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, 96 ff.). It is noteworthy that of the considerable number of responsa that deal with slaves in the service of Jews, only a few refer to slave-trade as a trade carried on by Jews. R. Nahshon of Sura (874-82) was asked by some community about slave-trade. 'In our place people are used to buy slaves cheaply, and there is no better trade than this. May we sell them at once without initiating them into Jewish rites, because only one out of a hundred abide in his newly accepted religion, and we get great profit from this trade?' 216 The Gaon 214 Yet Benjamin Nahavendi also advocates this practice : N12' N? DN1 ma^on Tfnsrtf> mix anoio aw N^ HB> p ^>ap> N^I nb insi? HP p v^y Toyr6 y^y DH^DI (fo^a nNt?o, ed. Firkovitz, 2a bottom). 216 D"iD3, NO. 42: paypi wn ai pnjf K^n ^K pj n*N . . . ^a* xh NNT nppi niy nia^oi Nin n^p pn pea pnaiy "^, 26 b, No. 27 : p RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM MANN 145 permitted this trade. Had the Talmudic law (Yebamot 48 b) been carried out to its full extent, slave-trade could not have been carried on by Jews. This Talmudic law requires that every Jew should have his male slaves circumcised and his female slaves initiated into the rites of Judaism. With their acceptance of Judaism such slaves must not be sold any more to non-Jews. Some Geonim seem to have been very strict about these laws. Thus R. 'Amram (v"cr, 25 b, No. 18) does not allow a slave to be retained even for a month unless this slave consents to become a Jew. Only circumcision is allowed to be post- poned for a year (based on Yebam. 48 b). According to the Talmud (Gittin 44 a) a Jew who sold his slaves that had accepted Judaism to non-Jews was to be fined by the Bet-Din ten times the value of the slaves. This fine which was spent on charity we find imposed by the Geonim (YV, 26 a, No. 19) by R. Kohen-Sedek (either of Sura 845 or of Pumbedita 926) ; 27 b, No. 37, by R. Natronai ; see "K>, 23 a, No. 3, end). The Catholici in 'Irak likewise excommunicated Christian masters that sold their Christian slaves to members of another religion (Jesubarnum, 65, and Timotheos, 77, in Sachau, op. cit.}. But it seems that the Geonim had difficulties in enforcing all these laws amongst the people. Slave-trade was lucrative in those times, and the temptation was great. Several Jewish masters disliked to circumcise their slaves, because they would not be able to sell them any more to non-Jews. R. Hai in a responsum wonders that there should be a Jew mino cr m"tn nin l W\ riNCD iriS tix. Other references to slave-trade as carried on by Jews are perhaps to be found in Jf"K', 81 b, No. 17 ; Geon., II, 15 (P"n) ; H"3, No. 435. See also X*K>, 27 b, No. 38, by R. Natronai. VOL. X. L 146 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW whose slave desires to become a Jew, but whose master prevents him (see Y"e>, 26 a, Nos. 20 and 21 (Einleit., 15, note) and Geon. y II, 197). Thus, in spite of the opposition of the Geonim, slave-trade apparently flourished among Jews. The Arabic geographer Ibn Kordadbeh, in the middle of the ninth century, in his famous report (published first by Sprenger, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, vol. 14, Part 2, 1844, 519 fif., discussed in the next chapter) tells of Jewish business men that travelled from the country of the Franks so far as to China, and who on their way back used to bring slaves, both male and female, and eunuchs to the Occident. It should be pointed out that Jews them- selves were prohibited by a Talmudic law to castrate their slaves, and this could be done only by non-Jews, as we learn from a Gaonic responsum. 217 In Jewish households slaves were as frequent as in any non-Jewish household. In Arabic-speaking countries it appears that Jews were allowed to keep only Christian slaves but not Muhammedan. An interesting question from Tlemsen sent to Hai shows us how Jews obtained slaves for their households. R. Hai's correspondents write that there are places where Jews find only Christian female slaves for sale. These a Jew is allowed to acquire legally : Muhammedan slaves he can obtain only secretly and at great danger. Now some of these Christian slave-girls accept Judaism at once, others ask for some time for consideration, but the majority refuse to accept Judaism. The correspondents describe how a Jewish household without a female slave is in great trouble, since the wife "" n , No. ; : nipK 'JN1 DD1D DH3J7 " C*r * TDK'." ... Kin -1103 -vnvn nta -pa pw nniD 720. Cp. JTB>, 233, NO. 3: ono nay RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM MANN 147 or the daughters of the Jew would have to fetch water from the wells, wash the linen by the side of the river, and go to the baker's. They will thus come into contact with non-Jewish and profligate slaves and be exposed to dangers and disgrace. The Gaon permits these Jews to retain their female slaves, in spite of their not accepting the rites of Judaism. He only enjoined the Jewish masters not to employ their slaves on the Sabbath. 218 This interesting responsum, besides giving us a glimpse of the social condi- tions of those times, shows in the first instance that Jews were not allowed to have Muhammedan slaves. This is further corroborated by j"n, Nos. 12 and 13 (probably by R. Paltoi of Pumbedita, 842-58) especially according to Halberstamm's MS. (see Einleit., 27, note 3). A slave told his master ' Either liberate my son or I shall become a convert ', i. e. he would become a Muslim and thus eo ipso liberate himself ("33 nx mm? \rh "iDtw nay btttttl nnnK>N vb w) . We learn further from the above question from Tlemsen to R. Mai that even in Muhammedan countries Christian slaves could not be forced to become Jews. This is corroborated by several responsa. Especially *5^ 23 b> No 6= n // :> No< 43X . or6 nniD oum nvwo ucipcs jni nvrco S^N nupb ninBB> wp$> ?niK prwo p jno pn bns jniapb oninM nx jno an 7 nn^^ nn^anot? jno B>I ,nD3i -mr6 rwi WKB' ^1 / p? v:n ttiox* K^B> inra nn^ pvnsi QU ninsitr oy "JTID^ DN^I nvycn p mN3. ninXtS in the bad Salonica print of the X'^, where 1J are put so closely as to appear as a D, really stands for m v "W3. (Examine the word miJB in X"^, 20 b., No. 13). In X"B> ab, No. 17 it is clearly printed nVW. See further n"3, p. 224, note 10. The abbreviated responsum in n"3, No. n, has also niHJfJ HIDSt^. L a 148 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW male slaves could not be forced to become circumcised even after the lapse of twelve months given for considera- tion (cp. above, p. 145, and v"', 23 a, No. i). But as regards female slaves who required only the ritual bath for their initiation into the Jewish rites we find cases of forcible action on the part of the Jewish masters. Sherira (*B>, 25 b, No. 16, n^aom D^ni? nnsy by rtap xbw ivm) nnse> nrro !>jn) decides rightly that such an enforced ritual bath has no effect, and the slave remains a Christian anyhow. But Sar Shalom (of Sura, 849-53) ls f a different opinion (x*e>, 27 a, No. 32=n"&?, No. 255 = a"n, No. 16). It should be kept in mind that for a Jewish household, a slave that did not accept the Jewish rites was of no use. The slave could neither cook, nor prepare the food, nor touch the Jew's wine, nor perform other domestic duties (see x"li>, 23 a, No. 3 ; nV, No. 254 = s"n, No. 15). In some places Jewish masters were afraid that slaves, who did not accept Judaism, would be used by their non-Jewish enemies as a tool for denunciation and slander. 219 On the whole we may assume that the slaves were treated humanely in Jewish households. The very fact that they became half-proselytes helped to raise their status and to elicit sympathy from their employers. Thus they were regarded almost as members of the family. In x"c', 273, No. 3 (by R. Semah = Geon., II, 183, 1. 9) there is mentioned the case of a slave, who pretended to have adopted Judaism, in order not to be sold to non-Jews. We find further cases of masters having their slaves or the 219 m, No. 431 (end), and No. ir: DHIiyn |D ptn'TlD Jilt? DDII DPBJ wpivb bxw -no -by* vbv nana J fJTlN pD"pD PN - ." "Wl niOr61. This again shows us the attitude of the populace in Arabic countries towards the Jews. RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM MANN 149 children of their slaves, instructed in the Bible (":?, 26 b, No. 29, by Sherira ; 27 b, No. 36, by R. Nahshon (see Einleit., 14, note) ; Geon., II, 83-4). But it seems that the Geonim disliked this practice. Sometimes slaves were entrusted with the entire management of their masters' affairs (see "E>, 26 b, No. 29 ; 73 b, No. 10, by R. Natronai (Einleit,, 14, note) =1*3, No. 79 ; p"3, No. 50, which Muller, Einleit., 25, assigns to R. Meshullam or R. Gershon, hence, a case of slaves in Christian countries). The Roman custom of manumitting a favourite slave before or immediately after the death of his master, which we find in vogue among the Jews in the Talmudic times, was also continued in the period of the Geonim. From several responsa we learn that the practice was for a man to liberate before his death his favourite slave. Likewise the death of her mistress would result in a female slave regaining her liberty (see X*B>, 27 a, No. 31 ; Geon., II, 83). Female slaves were frequently included in the dowries given to daughters on their marriage ("e>, 45 b, No. 7, by Samuel b. Hofni ; 54 b, No. 8, probably by Sherira; *i3, No. 220). Generally we find the Bet-Din looking after the interests of the slaves and affording them protection. Following the Talmudic maxims, the Geonim would force, for example, the heirs of a man, that declared his slaves to be free after his death, to carry out the will of the testator (see *"&?, 26 b, No. 25; 253, No. 14; 27 b, No. 36, end). Once R. Sadok (of Sura, 823-5) even forced the son of the Exilarch to comply with the Talmudic rule in such a case, and grant freedom to the slaves of his testator, a late member of the Exilarch's family. 220 The Christian eccle- 2 > Geon., II, 83 : -Q frU lEBn rttTBO '33 }D TnN3 TOO JW "p Tins:? ^ibsi nay ^ba "^NI mxi nnaE>i nay ib vm -ix"-ine> 150 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW siastical authorities in Babylon likewise forced the heirs, by excommunicating them from the Church, to fulfil the wishes of their testator and grant freedom to his slaves that had been declared free (so Henaniso, V ; Jesubarnum, 66 in Sachau, op. cit.}. Another case R. Nahshon men- tions in a responsum in sV, 27 b, No. 33 : ' A slave swore not to serve his master.' Seeing the great binding force of the oath with Jews, the slave wanted to gain his liberty in this manner. But the Gaon decided to take no heed of the slave's oath. On the other hand we find the Bet- Din imposing flagellation on a slave because he assaulted certain people (*&?, 29 b, No. 4, probably by Sar Shalom, see Einleit., 14, note). If a slave of a Jew did not observe the rites of Judaism into which he was initiated, his master was allowed to sell him to non-Jews. We have the evidence of the responsa that the greatest majority of the slaves in the service of Jews did not observe the Jewish rites (see vV, 23 a, No. 3, but cf. *IIM, No. 49; n"j, Nos. in and 431, by Sherira as regards the Sabbath; "B>, 27 a, No. 30, by R. Semah). Likewise if a Jewish master was discovered committing immorality with his female slave, the master was severely punished and the slave sold to non-Jews (x"B>, 2b, No. 17, cp. 253, Nos. 13 and 15). All the responsa discussed in this paragraph, when taken together, acquaint us with the position of the slaves in the service of Jews. However great an evil slavery was in those times, it should not be overlooked that in Jewish nDpi> NriNi ((**>. ^ A! ^Juj }') nya p nnx ma nye> frm cnv^ n^aai . . . pxa pm an no wry KJinvn NO': Jir6 nnSI Nrv6a pn pnrt. A similar case we have in the Decisions of the Catholicos Henaniso, No. VII (Sachau, ibid., p. 14). See Aptowitzer, ibid., 12 ff. RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM MANN 151 service the slaves enjoyed perfect rest on the Sabbath and the Jewish Festivals, just as their masters. Further, their having adopted Judaism made their lot more tolerable. They were therefore treated with more consideration. In P*J, No. 1 1 8, the Rabbi, probably Kalonymos of Lucca, writes that the well-known prayer for the dead, the Kaddish, should also be recited for slaves that observed the Jewish rites (pnp Dnis ruDNn nx Dnoposp D"*nyn by i^aM). In another responsum (xV, 23 b, No. 5) we find the case of a slave whom his Jewish master sold to a non-Jew, and who on gaining his freedom from his second master desires to remain henceforth a Jew. Finally, the Jewish master was personally free from the blame of the cruelty of castrating his slaves (see above, p. I46). 221 221 Yet Dozy (Geschichte der Mauren in Spanien, II, 38) writes, 'The Jews, who speculated on the misery of the nations, bought children of both sexes and brought them to ports where Greek and Venetian ships called to transport them to the Saracens. Other slaves, destined for attendance at the harems, came from France where there existed large establishments for eunuchs managed by Jews '. As Harkawy (.TJDfv HaiVH, 1877, 219, 4) rightly remarks, Jew-hatred rather than the actual facts is the reason for the above statement as well as for the assertion of the Arab writer Muhammad al-Mukaddasi al-Bashari that the slaves from the Slav countries are brought to Baganah (near Almeria in southern Spain, see above, VII, 486, note 32) whose inhabitants are Jews and who castrate them there. ( To be continued.} 152 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW CORRIGENDA IN VOL, IX, 139 ff. P. 148, note 105, 1. i. Far Tos. Ber. 316 read 3 1 '. P. 151, note 120, 1. 2. For 310 Sel. = 9g8 read(i) 310 Sel. = 999 c. E. Pp. 156, 1. 21, and 167, 1. 27. For part H read Hebrew part. P. 160, I. 9. For Elhananan read Elhanan. P. 165, 1. 14. For Juda read Joshua. P. 169, note 163, 1. 3 from the bottom. For we razrfwere. Vol. IX, p. 415, note 8. For i Sam. 4. 3 read 4. 13. P. 417, 1. 18. For Suhlan read Sahlan. P. 420, 1. 15. For become in MS. read are styled. University of California SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 305 De Neve Drive - Parking Lot 17 Box 951388 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90095-1388 Return this material to the library from which it was borrowed. 000 370 586 H I V , I i Universi Southi Libri