Introduction

1

Among the extant Early Judeo-Persian (henceforth, EJP) writings (Shaked 1985, 2003, 2009; Paul 2013), a group of nine manuscripts stands out. These manuscripts apparently hail from the Karaite synagogue of Dar Simḥa in Cairo and are currently held at the Russian National Library (henceforth, RNL; Evr. Arab. 1682, 4605, 4607–4611) and the British Library (henceforth, BL; Or. 2459–2460). A meticulous examination of the manuscripts, including their re-organization according to physical features and content, shows that they contain eleven works on selections from the Pentateuch and Prophets.¹ The examination also reveals that the works were copied by the same group of scribes during the eleventh to twelfth centuries. Moreover, it is quite likely that these commentaries were composed in a Karaite exegetical circle whose members were well-versed in Arabic and had strong literary ties to the famous “Mourners of Zion,” the Karaite community of Jerusalem during the ninth to the eleventh centuries (Haim 2018, 163–70, 2021).

2

The provenance of the manuscripts is unclear. Although their last location was the Karaite synagogue Dar Simḥa in Cairo, they may have been brought to the eastern Mediterranean by immigrants from the Persian-speaking world (Haim 2018, 168). However, in view of the literary ties to the “Mourners of Zion,” it is possible that the EJP exegetical corpus was composed by immigrants from Iran to the eastern Mediterranean, where they encountered the vast literature of the Karaites of Jerusalem. Its provenance notwithstanding, the EJP exegetical corpus presents a hitherto little-known perspective on the literary heritage of Persian-speaking Jewish communities during the first centuries of Islam, and places it in the broader intellectual environment of the Jewish world. It is particularly instructive for understanding how Persian-speaking Karaites perceived the Rabbanites of their age.

3

In general, criticism against the Rabbanites is not prevalent in the EJP corpus. This stands in clear contrast to early Karaite authors, such as Daniel al-Qūmisī (fl. late ninth to early tenth centuries; Ben-Shammai 1985, 51–54) and Salmon ben Yeruḥim (fl. mid-tenth century; Davidson 1934), whose works are replete with criticism of Rabbanite customs, practices, and beliefs. The EJP commentaries were composed in a later period, namely the late tenth and eleventh centuries, when anti-Rabbanite sentiment was less present in Karaite exegesis (e.g., Polliack and Schlossberg 2009, 34–40). For example, unlike al-Qūmisī, the EJP authors seldom use designations of the Jewish leadership in exile, which reflect the authors’ negative attitude towards it (Haim 2021, 42–49). Moreover, the anti-Rabbanite polemic in the EJP exegetical corpus is limited to certain themes that stood at the heart of the conflict between the Rabbanites and Karaites. As shown below, this is particularly apparent in MS D.

4

While some EJP authors express their utter rejection of Rabbanite law and doctrine, others rely on rabbinic materials in their works, as do other Karaite authors of the tenth and eleventh centuries. Although the main bone of contention between the Rabbanites and Karaites was the authority of the Oral Torah (Cook 1987; Ben-Shammai 1992; Frank 2007; Polliack 2006, 2016),² Karaite sages did not reject the rabbinic tradition entirely. Karaite exegesis relied on rabbinic and Rabbanite literature (Ben-Shammai 1985). In their exegetical discussions, these sages refer to rabbinic sources and embed rabbinic opinions quite often (Tirosh-Becker 2011, 2:15–42; Khan 2000b, 3–4; Polliack and Schlossberg 2009, 84–88; Zawanowska 2012, 94–95). This habit is best summarized by Polliack’s statement regarding the presence of rabbinic texts in Judeo-Arabic Karaite works: “When these sources offered conceptions, methodologies or interpretations that appeared to the Karaites as logically sound or contextually based they were quite capable of adopting and developing them even further, as an intellectual source for their own reasoning and argumentation” (Polliack 2003, 365–66).

5

Moreover, in one particular instance, the author of MS C expresses his hope for the end of the “envy and rancor” (חסד וכין; ḥasad wa-kīn)³ between the Karaites and the Rabbanites. This passage is integrated into the discussion of Isaiah 11:13,⁴ predicting the end of hostility between the Ten Tribes of Israel and the tribe of Judah:⁵

6

Then Ephraim’s envy shall cease (Is. 11:13) … Know that from that time when Jeroboam, son of Nebat, rose up, enmity befell between these Ten Tribes and Judah. And envy always existed for that (reason, namely) that Judah was the greatest in rank. The Ten Tribes were envious of them for that (reason) which existed. And also, these envy and rancor that exist in exile between the [Karaite]s and between the Rabbanites shall be removed. All shall return to Judah together, for the kingship is from Judah, as Ezekiel explained in the chapter Take a stick (Ezek. 37:16).⁶

7

After providing the historical background for the hostility between the Ten Tribes and Judah, the author of MS C notes that like them, the Rabbanites and Karaites would resolve their differences in the messianic future. They all would return to Judah with the Davidic messiah, as described in Ezekiel’s prophecy (37:15–28).⁷ The conciliatory approach of the author may be explained by the fact that MS C concerns a prophetic text, which is not the typical platform for Karaite-Rabbanite disputes. Rather, the EJP authors often state that the prophetic texts, and the commentaries thereof, aim at providing comfort for the Jews in exile. At the same time, the assumed date of composition of the EJP commentaries, ca. the eleventh century, should be considered as well.

8

The main aim of this paper is to demonstrate the complex attitude towards the Rabbanites and rabbinic literature as reflected in the different EJP commentaries. Through the introduction and discussion of unpublished manuscript materials, I attempt to show that like their fellow Karaites who wrote in Judeo-Arabic, the EJP authors criticized certain Rabbanite views and concepts, while still accepting other parts of the rabbinic tradition.

Reliance on Rabbinic Sources in the EJP Corpus

9

Like Karaite authors who wrote in Judeo-Arabic, the authors of the EJP exegetical corpus occasionally embed exegetical opinions originating in rabbinic works, particularly the Mishna, Tosefta and aggadic midrashim. With very few exceptions, the rabbinic opinions are cited anonymously and occasionally attributed to the “sages” (עילימאן, ʿēlimān; sg. עילים (ʿēlim), from Arabic ʿālim), the “Rabbis” (or “Rabbanites”; רבנן, rabbanān),⁸ or to “people” (in MS A; מרדומאני, mardumān-ī), making it difficult to trace the specific rabbinic sources used by the authors.

10

Significantly, rabbinic language and texts were employed by the EJP authors to justify their interpretation of unclear words and phrases in the biblical text. This may be exemplified by the following passage concerning the phrase hiššāp̄ēḵ nəḥuštēḵ (Ezek. 16:36) in MS A:⁹

11

And saying hiššāp̄ēḵ nəḥuštēḵ. People explained nəḥuštēḵ as “emission of semen,” and others said that it is “anklet.” And we have not seen that this kind (of thing) is called nəḥošet. Another manner (of interpretation) – they said that nəḥošet is “self.” That is, you threw your human body until they did that kind of prohibited (things) to you. And its meaning is idolatry. And those people who interpret nəḥošet as “body” say that in the rabbinic language they call the body of a thing nəḥōšeṯ, as they said in the Mishna: The vermin touched the bottom of an oven, and they said its meaning is the body of the oven, that is the body of the floor of the oven.¹⁰ (Translation based on Gindin 2007, 2:153)

12

The author supports the opinion that the noun nəḥošet should be interpreted as “self” (ḏāt) and “body” (tan), while rejecting the interpretation “anklet” (pāßarinǧān)¹¹ or “emission of semen” (šiḵəḇat zeraʿ). This is evident in the translation section, where the word nəḥuštēḵ is rendered as “your body” (tan-i tu).¹² In order to strengthen his argument, the author provides a short mishnaic excerpt containing the phrase nəḥošto šel tannur, which he understands as “the body of the floor of the oven.” As indicated by Gindin, the precise excerpt does not exist in the Mishna, and the author may have referred to the following phrase from tractate Kelim: If a vermin is found beneath the bottom of an oven, (the oven remains) pure (השרץ שנמצא למטה מנחושתו של תנור טהור, haš-šereṣ sěn-nimṣa ləmaṭa min-nəḥošto šel tannur ṭahor; Kelim 9:3; Gindin 2007, 2:153, n283).

13

Like other commentators on the book of Ezekiel, Karaites and Rabbanites alike, the author of MS A embeds the mishnaic expression nəḥošto šel tannur into the discussion of the phrase hiššāp̄ēḵ nəḥuštēḵ.¹³ It is no wonder, therefore, that he makes the connection between the biblical and mishnaic texts in his commentary. In view of the widespread usage of the mishnaic phrase in this context, the author of MS A did not feel obligated to turn to a copy of the Mishna. Instead, he quoted the phrase from memory.

14

An interesting parallel to the passage from MS A is given in Kitāb al-Diqduq, a grammatical commentary composed by the Karaite grammarian and exegete Abū Yaʿqūb Yūsuf ibn Nūḥ (fl. second half of the tenth-early eleventh centuries):¹⁴

15

Because of your brazen effrontery (Ezek. 16:36). There are those who interpreted (it) “the pouring of your fetter,” that is “the pouring of your anklet.” This is an improbable interpretation, for it is not the people’s custom to make their anklets from copper.

16

And nəḥuštēḵ was interpreted “you yourself,” that is “your body.” And the native speakers used (it) in their writings. When they wanted to say “the very same thing,” they would say the “nəḥošet of so-and-so,” as we found them writing neḥošet ha-tannur (i.e., “the oven itself”).¹⁵

17

Ibn Nūḥ presents two interpretations for the word nəḥuštēḵ: “anklet” and “self,” whose meaning is extended to “body.” He rejects the meaning “anklet” in favor of “body,” based on the expression nəḥošet ha-tannur attested in the writings of the native speakers (ahl al-luġa), which refers here to the people of the Mishna. Similarly, the author of MS A rejects the meaning “anklet” (pāßarinǧān) and supports the meaning “body” (tan), which he extracts from the Arabic dhāt. Based on this instance and others,¹⁶ it seems that the author of MS A consulted Ibn Nūḥ’s works, particularly the Diqduq, directly, in order to solve grammatical difficulties. The preference for grammatical analysis over polemics in Ibn Nūḥ’s Diqduq (Khan 2000b, 139–40) is apparent in this EJP commentary.

18

The term “rabbinic language” (luġat-i rabbanān; lit., “the language of the Rabbis”) appearing in the discussion of Ezekiel 16:36 in MS A provides yet another piece of evidence corroborating the use of rabbinic materials or terms in the EJP exegetical corpus. Judeo-Arabic Karaite authors commonly integrate rabbinic terms and expressions (Tirosh-Becker 2011, 2:1:145–147). Likewise, we occasionally find rabbinic terms and expressions in the EJP text in order to explain the language of the Scriptures, introduced by the term “rabbinic language.” In MS B, the term appears once in relation to the phrase and give strength to your bones (wə-ʿaṣmōṯeḵā yaḥǎlīṣ; Is. 58:11):¹⁷ “In rabbinic language, they say ḥilluṣ ʿaṣamot,”¹⁸ which should be understood as “bolstering of the bones.” An expression analogous to the term “rabbinic language” is the “language of the Sages” (ləšon ḥaḵamim), found in MS D and employed in relation to the creation of the seas on the third day: “And it is that great sea which is located in the four sides of the world, and it is called in the language of the Sages ‘ocean’.”¹⁹

19

The integration of rabbinic materials for non-polemical purposes is particularly typical of MS B. Its author usually integrates this material in a succinct manner, as it appears, for example, in the discussion of the sacrificial work in the Temple. The author begins by enumerating the seven priests (imēmān; sg. imēm, from Arabic imām) who offered sacrifices to God prior to the establishment of the Tabernacle. According to the author, “The third priest was Shem, son of Noah, and he offered a sacrifice before God, as he said, And he was a priest of God Most High (Gen. 14:18).”²⁰ However, the latter description refers to Melchizedek, the king of Salem, and not to Shem. The author relies here on the identification of Shem with Melchizedek attested in the Palestinian Targumim (Neofiti, Pseudo-Jonathan and the Fragment Targum; Hayward 1996, 72–74), as well as in rabbinic literature (e.g., BT, Nedarim 32b; Leviticus Rabba 25:6 (Margulies 1953–1960, 3:580)). The author seems to adopt the identification of Shem with Melchizedek without hesitation, although other Karaite exegetes, such as Yefet ben ʿEli, offer it as a possibility.²¹

20

Rabbinic materials, particularly aggadic midrashim, were also integrated into the EJP texts in order to arouse interest among the readers and enrich the exegetical discussion of a specific verse or a group thereof. This is quite discernible in the first part of MS B (the commentaries on Jer. 1–2 and the historical narrative), which concerns the sins of the people of Judah and the subsequent destruction of the Temple. An interesting case of the use of midrashim is the occurrence of two different versions of the same midrashic tale, which is attested in the Palestinian Talmud and later sources (PT, Taʿanit 69b; Lamentations Rabba 2:4 (Vilna ed., 1924, 42–43); Midrash Tanḥuma, Yitro:5 (Warsaw ed., 1875, p. 94)).²² The tale tells of 80,000 apprentice priests who fled from the Babylonians to the Ishmaelites. Thirsty from the long journey, the priests asked the Ishmaelites for water. The Ishmaelites brought them salty food and skins that seemed to be filled with water. After eating the food, the priests put the skins to their mouths only to find out that they were filled with air, not water, and they choked. Many sources connect this tale to Isaiah’s prophecy on Arabia, which begins with the phrase The oracle concerning Arabia (maśśā ba-ʿraḇ; Is. 21:13–17).

21

By contrast, the two versions in MS B diverge from the known ones and are not associated with Isaiah’s prophecy on Arabia. The first version appears in the discussion of Jeremiah 2:25:²³

22

And your throat from thirst (Jer. 2:25) – that is, your throat from thirst. That is, you will walk thirsty and hungry, and no one will give you drops of water, as he said: Assuredly, my people will suffer exile for not giving heed, its multitude victims of hunger and its masses parched with thirst (Is. 5:13).

23

And the Rabbis²⁴ say that they would take many people, prepare salty food and place (the people) in the desert. Those Israelite captives said: “We are thirsty.” These enemies blew up empty skins and placed them far away. They said: “Behold, those are skins of water!” They ate the salty (food). They went to the skins. All were empty. And he said about this: (They) lay in wait for us in the wilderness (Lam. 4:19). And Isaiah said: Your sons lie in a swoon at the corner of ^every street – like an antelope, etc. (Is. 51:20).²⁵

24

According to the author, the Israelites did not heed Jeremiah’s warnings. The latter’s prophecy was consequently realized, namely that the Israelites would walk hungry and thirsty, and not be given water by anyone. A proof-text from Isaiah is provided (Is. 5:13) describing the hunger and thirst that the Israelites experienced in exile. The author then embeds a passage attributed to “the Rabbis,” relating the death of many Israelites from thirst. The Ishmaelites mentioned in rabbinic sources are replaced with a very general and vague term – “the enemies.” In addition, there is no hint as to when the event took place. However, it can be assumed that the author refers here to the destruction of the First Temple, since the passage appears in the first section of MS B, which concerns the last days of the kingdom of Judah. Furthermore, rather than linking the tale to the prophecy on Arabia by Isaiah (Is. 21:13–17), the author integrates verses from Lamentations (Lam. 4:19) and Isaiah (Is. 51:20) conveying similar notions.

25

The second version describes one of the tragedies that befell the Jews during the destruction of the Second Temple. In this case, the Ishmaelites are replaced by the Romans led by the Emperors Titus and Vespasian. No biblical verses are attached to this passage:

26

That (i.e., the destruction) of the Second Temple (was) even²⁶ worse. Titus and Vespasian did (it). Know that they took out many people from among the Israelites and said: “We are taking you to a (certain) place.” One day (has passed), two days (have passed, and they became) hungry and thirsty. At that time, they were in the desert. (The Romans) put before (them) empty skins blown-up with air and prepared salty food. They said: “Eat!” The Israelites said: “We are thirsty.” Then they said: “Behold, water! Full water skins (are) placed (there).” They ate the salty food. When they went to the skins, they saw (that) the skins (were) empty. They cried and many of them died of thirst.²⁷

27

Each of the two versions given above refers to a different period. While the first one, appearing in the commentary on Jer. 2:25, refers to the death of many Israelites following the destruction of the First Temple, the second describes their suffering after the destruction of the Second Temple. The use of the same tale in two different contexts demonstrates how the author of MS B saw no problem in embedding rabbinic literature into his work. Moreover, he fashioned this material according to his own intentions, while omitting or changing details existing in rabbinic literature.

28

The paraphrases of midrashic materials are accompanied by Hebrew quotations that are reminiscent of those known to us from rabbinic sources. For example, the commentary on Is. 57:14–58:14 in MS B is preceded by a short Hebrew passage titled “Ten things are called precious in the Bible” (עשרה דברים נקראו יקרים במקרא, ʿaśara dəḇarim niqrəʾu yəqarim bam-miqra; BL Or. 2460, fol. 17v:7–18). This passage is attested in Leviticus Rabba (2:1 (Margulies 1953–1960, 1:34–35) and later midrashic compilations (e.g., Midrash Tehillim 116:5 (Buber 1891, 139a); Midrash Samuel 8:7 (Buber 1893, 71–72)). Whereas different versions of the passage above are attested in rabbinic literature, I was unable to find parallels in several cases, such as the following one explaining the name Jeremiah:

29

And the Rabbis²⁸ said: Why was he called Jeremiah? Because in his days, the people of Israel were disobeying (mamrim) the Lord. Another interpretation: They shall raise (yarimu) their hand against the Lord.²⁹

30

While the rabbinic origin of these explanations is clearly stated in the passage, they differ from the one given in Ecclesiastes Rabba 1:1: “Why was he called Jeremiah? Because the Temple became a waste (erimiʾa, from Greek ἐρημία) in his days” (Hirshman (2016), 6: למה נקרא שמו ירמיהו. על שם שבימיו נעשה בית המקדש אירימיאה; lama niqra šəmo yirmiyahu? ʿal šem še-be-yamav naʿaśa bet ha-miqdaš erimiʾa) and are unattested in extant sources.

Rejection of Rabbanite Views

31

As shown above, rabbinic sources were used to support certain arguments and interpretations offered by the EJP authors. However, the latter also criticized Rabbanite beliefs and practices in specific places. This is particularly visible in MS D, where several opinions ascribed to the Rabbanites are rejected. For example, the author of MS D rejects the Rabbanites’ opinion that the sun and moon were created during the daytime of the fourth day of creation, and not during the previous evening (RNL Evr. Arab. I 4605, fol. 11r:32–34). Another Rabbanite opinion opposed by the author is that the world was created on the twenty-seventh of Elul and that the beginning of Tishrei occurred on the fourth day.³⁰ According to the author, the world was created in Nissan (RNL Evr. Arab. I 4605, fols. 6r:9–15, 11v:9–10).³¹ In addition, the fourth day of creation cannot be the first day of Tishrei, as this stands in stark contrast to the postponement rules of the Rabbanites’ calendar (RNL Evr. Arab. I 4605, fol. 11v:2–4).

32

In some cases, rabbinic statements are used in order to attack the Rabbanite opponents of MS D’s author. A consummate example in this regard is the reference to Saadiah Gaon’s opinion that the lights of the fourth day were created from the light of the first day (Zucker 1984, 116, translation in 1984, 229). Saadiah’s opinion is refuted by a rabbinic statement that the first light was concealed by God, which is attested in many rabbinic sources (e.g., BT, Ḥagiga 12a; Genesis Rabba 3:6 and 42:3 (Theodor and Albeck 1965, 3:1:21–22 and 405, respectively)). Thus, Saadiah is portrayed as transgressing the ways of his predecessors:

33

And Fayyūmī, the head of the academy, said that He divided that light of the First Day into three (parts), and created from them the sun, moon, and stars. And we wondered at him, for how did he (dare) transgress the saying of all his Sages? For all his Sages said that He concealed that light for the righteous ones in the future. It (is) more correct (to follow) the following: These lights were created from nothing.³²

34

Notwithstanding the occasional references to these opinions, the major criticism against the Rabbanites, especially Saadiah Gaon, appears in connection with the interpretation of the phrase they shall serve as signs for the set times (Gen. 1:14)³³ and its ramification for the Jewish calendar. Saadiah Gaon attributes the phrase to the day and night in his commentary on Genesis (Zucker 1984, 36–37, translation in 1984, 227–28) and Kitāb al-tamyīz (Zucker 1984, 436, translation in 1984, 441–42). Like his Karaite predecessors and contemporaries, the author of MS D objects to Saadiah’s interpretation. Instead, he asserts that the phrase refers to the lights of the fourth day, particularly to the moon, which is used to indicate the beginning of a new month. Therefore, he writes: “And likewise, the moon separates between one month and the other by its appearance in the west. And these set times (are) the times of the beginning of the month, for the separation between the beginning of the next month and the (end of the) previous one occurs by their appearance.”³⁴ In order to corroborate his argument, the author elaborates on the role of the moon in fixing the holy days.

35

He begins by describing the three methods of determining the new moon among the Jews: 1) the sod ha-ʿibbur (lit., “secret of intercalation”) of the Rabbanites; 2) the theory of conjunction (or mīlād/molad, lit., “birth”), according to which the new moon occurs at the moment when the moon passes between the sun and the earth;³⁵ 3) lunar sighting. The affiliation of the author of MS D with the proponents of lunar sighting is reflected in his arguments against the two other calculation-based methods.

36

The author of MS D dedicates most of the discussion to arguing against the Rabbanites and their calendar calculation. His arguments are quite common in early Karaite works written in Hebrew and Judeo-Arabic, such as Salmon ben Yeruḥim’s “The Book of the Wars of the Lord” (Sefer milḥamot ha-shem; Davidson 1934, 51–77) or the discussion against the proponents of intercalation in al-Qirqisānī’s Kitāb al-anwār wal-marāqib (Nemoy 1939–1945, 4:804–814). The Hebrew term ʿibbur (lit., “intercalation”) may refer either to the addition of an extra day to a month or of an extra month to the year. However, it might also designate the calculation methods of the Rabbanites, within which the intercalation of a month or a year is applied.³⁶ In a similar context, the tenth-century Karaite commentator Sahl ben Maṣliaḥ explains that the calculation (ḥisāb) of the Rabbanites is commonly known as ʿibbur, although its literal sense (fī al-ḥaqīqa) is the addition of an extra month to a leap year. Sahl notes the origin of the term: it is borrowed (mustaʿār) from the noun “pregnancy.”³⁷

37

The ʿibbur of the Rabbanites, namely their calendar calculation, is tied to the postponement rules (Heb. dəḥiyyot), which are meant to ensure that the Jewish holidays should not occur on certain days of the week. This connection is attested in earlier Karaite sources, such as al-Qirqisānī’s Kitāb al-anwār wal-marāqib. In the first article (maqāla), al-Qirqisānī writes that the Rabbanites adopted the “ʿibbur based on the maxim: ‘Not on the second, fourth or sixth,’ for which there is no reason to make it obligatory” (Nemoy 1939–1945, 1:23; translation in Chiesa and Lockwood 1984, 116).³⁸

38

The author of MS D first addresses the issue of their meticulous astronomical calculations (Shaked 2003, 203–4). He notes that God did not command the Rabbanites’ careful calculations in order to determine the beginning of the month. The Rabbanites, who may determine the beginning of the month at any hour of the day, disobey God’s command to fix it at the evening time, like His orders to eat unleavened bread and observe the Day of Atonement (Shaked 2003, 203–4).

39

The author continues his attack on the Rabbanites, focusing on Saadiah Gaon. Thus, the ʿibbur was not passed on from Moses to the Israelites, as claimed by Saadiah. All the required calendrical calculations are already stated in the Torah. If the calculation rules presented by Saadiah and other Rabbanites had been given by Moses, the Torah would have included them (Shaked 2003, 203–4).

40

The author then refutes the view that the ʿibbur was given by Moses. He moves on to the post-biblical period, during which the Sages also practiced eye-witnessing of the new moon rather than calculations:

41

Furthermore, in the Mishna and in the Talmud there are arguments written concerning the moon. It is a wonder of Fayyūmī that he presents the Sages and their utterances as deceitful. He is guilty of (the offence expressed by the words): “Anyone who transgresses against the words of the Sages is liable to the death penalty.”³⁹ How did he (dare) say that the ʿibbur is a tradition from Moses? All the early Sages after Malachi observed (the month) according to the moon, as it is written in the Mishna, in the chapter of Rosh ha-Shana tractate. And (there is also mention of) those five mountains on which they would see the moon: Har ha-Mishḥa, Sarṭava, Agrifna, Ḥoron and Bet Biltay (cf. Mishna, Rosh ha-Shana 2:4).⁴⁰

42

In this passage, the author refers to the first chapters of Rosh ha-Shana tractate (up to 3:1) indicating how the mishnaic Sages, i.e., those who lived after the time of the last biblical prophet Malachi, determined the time of the beginning of the month on the basis of the appearance of the new moon. He then adds that the new moon was sighted on top of the five mountains mentioned in the passage. However, the known versions of the Mishna clearly state that on the top of these mountains, bonfires were lighted in order to announce the appearance of the new moon (2:2–4).

43

The next argument against the Rabbanites deals with the rules of postponements (dəḥiyyot), which prohibit the occurrence of certain Jewish holidays on certain days of the week. Here, too, the author demonstrates the Rabbanites’ unfaithfulness to the sayings of their early rabbinic Sages by providing two mishnaic quotations contradicting these rules:

44

And (as for) these (rules of postponement, namely) Monday-Wednesday-Friday, and Tuesday-Thursday-Saturday, and Sunday-Wednesday-Friday, and Sunday-Tuesday-Friday – then Yiṣḥaq Nappaḥa ruled (it), for it is written in the Mishna: The bones and the tendons (and what is left over) must be burned on the sixteenth (of Nissan); If the sixteenth should come out on Shabbat, they must be burned on the seventeenth (Mishna, Pesaḥim 7:10). In the section of the Passover (sacrifice), they said (that) the bones and the tendons, the bones and the veins shall be burned, (namely) those of the Passover (sacrifice), on the sixteenth day. If the sixteenth day occurs on the Sabbath, they shall be burned on the seventeenth day. So, when the sixteenth day occurs on the Sabbath, is the day of the time of the Passover (sacrifice) not Friday? So, (how) could the Sages of the Mishna say what he (i.e., Yiṣḥaq Nappaḥa) said: The (first day) of Passover shall not occur on Monday, Wednesday or Friday, (namely) on Monday, Wednesday (and) Friday, the (first day of) Passover does not occur?

45

And again, they said: The (seventh) day of the willow falls on Shabbat (Mishna, Sukka 4:3), (namely) the day of the willow that occurs on the Sabbath. It is the seventh day of the Tabernacle (i.e., of the Feast of Tabernacles). Is the day of the beginning of the month of Tishrei not Sunday (when the day of the willow occurs on Sabbath)? How do you say: The (first day) of Rosh ha-Shana shall not occur on Sunday, Wednesday and Saturday, (namely) on Sunday, Wednesday (and) Friday, the beginning of the month of Tishrei does not occur?⁴¹

46

According to the Mishna, the sixteenth of the month of Nissan – the day when the leftovers of the Passover sacrifice are burnt – could fall on Saturday. Therefore, during mishnaic times, the first day of Passover (the fifteenth of Nissan) could have occurred on Friday. This stands in clear contrast to the postponement rules (dəḥiyyot) set by the Talmudic sage Yiṣḥaq Nappaḥa, according to which Passover cannot occur on Monday, Wednesday or Friday. According to the second quotation in the passage, Hoshaʿana Rabba (“the Day of the Willow”) may occur on Saturday. This leads the author to the conclusion that Rosh ha-Shana could fall on Sunday, in contradiction to another postponement rule saying that Rosh ha-Shana cannot occur on Sunday, Wednesday or Friday.

47

The long discussion is concluded by returning to Saadiah. Based on the examples from the Torah and the Mishna concerning the eye-witnessing of the new moon, he doubts Saadiah’s claim that calendrical calculations begin with the First Man. The author presents the chain of transmission of the “secret of the ʿibbur” and concludes with a reference to the relevant chapters in his book of precepts:

48

So how did Fayyūmī say that this calculation is from the First Man, (by saying that) This is the record of Adam’s line (Gen. 5:1) concerns the (secret of the) ʿibbur? He said: Adam handed (the secret of the ʿibbur) to Enoch, and Enoch handed to Noah, and Noah to Shem, and Shem to Abraham, and Abraham to Isaac, and Isaac to Jacob, and Jacob to the Tribes, and Kehath to Amram, and Amram to Moses, and Moses to Israel.⁴²

49

I cannot interpret at length here, for much confusion has been undergone regarding the words of Fayyūmī. And I explained about Fayyūmī in those twelve chapters that (are) in the book of precepts in favor of (eye-witnessing) the moon and against the ʿibbur.⁴³ This by itself is enough for all (concerning the words of the verse) as signs and as set times (Gen. 1:14).⁴⁴

50

It is worth noting that earlier in this passage, the author states that Saadiah regards the ʿibbur as a heritage from Moses. Interestingly, al-Qirqisānī notes that Saadiah changed his mind regarding the source of ʿibbur: At first, he asserted that the ʿibbur was a heritage from Adam, but later on, he said that it was a heritage from Moses (Nemoy 1939–1945, 1:117). As for the chain of transmission given by the author of MS D, I have not managed to find it in Saadiah’s extant works.⁴⁵ However, it somewhat resembles the chain given in the eighth chapter of the midrashic treatise Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliʿezer, which was probably composed in the early Islamic period (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliʿezer 8 (Luria 1852, 18a–20b)). According to the midrashic account, the “secret of the ʿibbur” was given to Moses and Aaron through divine revelation, and not through Kehath and Amram, as stated in MS D.

51

The author concludes this polemical discussion by referring the reader to his book of precepts, where he further opposes Saadiah’s views on the calendar. Although this legal work was not preserved, it is plausible to assume that the author refutes other arguments made by the Rabbanites on an array of legal and doctrinal issues. At any rate, the reference to EJP legal works in MS D demonstrates the vast literary production of Karaite Jews who wrote in Judeo-Persian, and their view of themselves as part and parcel of the Karaite tradition.

Conclusion

52

To sum up, the EJP exegetical corpus is a valuable source for the intellectual history of Persian-speaking Jewry, which sheds light on the attitude of EJP Karaite authors towards Rabbanite law and rabbinic literature. While early Karaites of Iranian origin, as exemplified by the writings of Daniel al-Qūmisī, held a staunch polemical stance against the Rabbanites, including the utter rejection of the rabbinic tradition, the eleventh-century authors of the EJP exegetical corpus criticized their Rabbanite opponents only when encountering themes and verses which stood at the heart of the dispute between the two groups. The polemical discourse in the EJP corpus is narrowed down to specific, mostly legal, subjects. This is particularly apparent in MS D, whose author dedicates an elaborate discussion to refuting the calculation-based calendar of the Rabbanites.

53

At the same time, the EJP authors were open to exegetical opinions, including those from rabbinic sources. Like their Judeo-Arabic counterparts, the EJP authors opposed the authority of the Oral Torah, not its content. This allowed them to select rabbinic materials that did not contradict their ideology and tradition. Consequently, they relied on rabbinic language to justify their interpretation of biblical words and phrases and grammatical analysis, as shown by the example from MS A. In addition, the author of MS B augmented his exegetical discussions by embedding aggadic midrashim. In some cases, he fashioned these midrashim according to his own needs.

54

The limited criticism of specific Rabbanite views in the EJP corpus should be attributed to the authors’ strong literary ties to Judeo-Arabic Karaite authors from Jerusalem. The EJP authors relied on the teachings of the Karaite center in Jerusalem, which is apparent in the astonishing resemblance between MS A and Ibn Nūḥ’s Diqduq, and the arguments against the Rabbanite calendar in MS D. During the late tenth and eleventh centuries, al-Qūmisī’s all-out attack against Rabbanite institutions and doctrines was toned down in Karaite exegesis hailing from the Karaite center in Jerusalem.

55

Like the study of other aspects of the EJP exegetical corpus, the investigation of the attitude towards the Rabbanites shows how the corpus authors shared a similar worldview to the Jerusalem Karaites and regarded themselves as part and parcel of the Karaite exegetical tradition.

APPENDIX: Excerpts from the EJP Exegetical Corpus

58

(26) … sārā qinʾaṯ ʾep̄rayim … (29) … bi-dānīd ki az ān waqt ki yaroḇʿam (30) [be]n nəḇaṭ abar ḫīzīd dušmanādī andar uftād (31) [m]iyān-i īn ʿaśara šəḇaṭim wa-yəhuda wa-hamīša ḥasad ān (32) rā būd ki pa martabat yəhuda bīštarīn būdī ʿaśara (33) šəḇaṭim abar īšān ḥasad dāštandī abar īšān ān (34) [r]ā ki būd wa-anīz īn ḥasad wa-kīn ki hast pa galut miyān-i (35) [qarrāʾā]n wa-miyān-i rabbanān judā bi-buwad hama pa yak-ī abā yəhuda (36) [ab]āz gardand ki mulkat az yəhuda buwad čun šarḥ kard yeḥezq[el] (37) [pa] faṣl-i qaḥ ləḵā ʿēṣ ʾeḥāḏ.

61

wa-guftan-i hiššāp̄ēḵ nəḥuštēḵ. mardumān-i nəḥuštēḵ abar šiḵəḇat zeraʿ šarḥ kardand. wa-digarān guftand pāßarinǧān⁴⁶ hast: wa-īn gūna na dīdīm ki nəḥošet ḫ^wānda āmad: wa-gūna-ī dīgar guftand ki nəḥošet ḏāt hast: yaʿnī tan-i tū bi-abgastī tā ān gūna na bāyast abā tu bi-kardand wa-maʿni-yi ū ʿaḇoda zara hast. wa-ān mardumān ki nəḥošet abar tan tafsīr hamī kunand hamī guyand ki pa luġat-i rabbanān tan-i čīz nəḥošet hamī ḫ^wānand čun guftand pa mišna. nagaʿ haš-šereṣ bi-nəḥošto šel tannur wa-maʿnī-yi ū guftand ki tan-i tannūr hast yaʿnī tan-i zamī-yi ān tannūr.

64

(23) … yaʿan hiššāp̄ēḵ nəḥuštēḵ. min al-nās man fassara insifāk qaydiki (24) yaʿnī inkišāf ḫalḫāliki wa-huwa tafsīr baʿīd li-anna laysa min rasm al-nās (25) yaʿmalūn ḫalāḫīlahum nuḥas. wa-qad fussira nəḥuštēḵ ḏātiki yaʿnī badaniki (26) wa-qad istaʿmalū ahl al-luġa fī kutubihim iḏā arādū yaqūlū ḏāt al-šayʾ (1) yaqūlūn nəḥošet pəloni kamā wajadnāhum yaktubūn nəḥošet hat-tannur.

67

(13) … ū-ḡərōnēḵ miṣ-ṣimʾā. yaʿnī gulū-yi tu rā az tišnayī. yaʿnī rawī tišna wa-gursa wa-kas nuqāṭ-i (14) āb na dihand čun guft lāḵēn gālā ʿammī mib-bəlī ḏāʿaṯ ū-ḵəḇōḏō məṯē rāʿāḇ wa-hămōnō ṣiḥē ṣāmā: wa-rabbanān⁴⁷ (15) hamī gūyand ki ḫalq-ī ʿaẓīm hamī burdand ṭaʿām sūr kardand wa-nihādand pa biyābān guftand (16) ān wardagān-i isrāʾīlān ki ḫ^wad īmā tišna hīm īn dušmanān ḫīgīhā-yi tīg rā bi-damīstand (17) wa-dūr bi-nihādand guftand ki hānka ḫīgīhā-yi āb. ḫ^wardand ān sūr. sūy-i ḫīgīhā raftand hama (18) tīg budand wa-īn rā guft bam-miḏbār ʾārəḇū lānū. wa-yišaʿayahu guft bānayiḵ ʿulləp̄ū šāḵəḇū bə-rōš kol ḥūṣōṯ kəṯō wa-g(omer).

70

(19) ān-i ḫāna-yi duyum anīz bad tar: (20) Titus va-Aspasiyanus kardand: bi-dān ki bīrūn āwardand ḫalq-ī bisyār az isrāʾīlān (21) wa-guftand ki pa ǧā-ʾī hamī barīm šumā rā yakī rūz du rūz gursa⁴⁸ wa-tišna. wa-ān waqt pa (22) biyābān budand. ḫīgīhā-yi damīsta-yi tīg barawar nihādand wa-ṭaʿmīha sūr kardand (23) guftand ki bi-ḫ^warīt.⁴⁹ isrāʾīlān guftand tišna hīm. tā guftand ki hā āb ḫīgīhā (24) purr nihāda-ē ḫ^wardand ṭaʿāmīhā-yi sūr čun raftand pa bun ḫīgīhā dīdand ḫīgīhā-yi (25) tīg giryīstand wa-murdand bisyār az išān pa tišnayī.

73

(39) … wa-rabbanān⁵⁰ guftand ki lama niqra (40) šəmo yirmiya bišəḇil še-bě-yamav hayu ʿadat yiśraʾel mamrim hayu ʿim ʾadonay. d(ab̄ar) a(ḫer) yarimu (41) yadam ba-ʾadonay:

76

(23) … wa-fayyūmī raʾs al-maṯība guft (24) ki ān ʾor yom rišon rā baḫšīd pa sih wa-az īšān āftāb (25) wa-māng wa-astaragān āfrīd wa-ʿaǧab āmad īmā rā az ū ki čun (26) guḏišt abar qawl-i hama ḥaḵamim-i ḫ^wīštan ki hama ḥaḵamim-i ū (27) guftand ki ān ʾor panhān kardī pa sūy-i ṣaddiqim pa sūy-i ʿatid (28) pa ān drustarī ki īn məʾorot az nā-čīz āfrīda āmadand.

79

(14) … wa-anīz ki pa mišna wa-talmud (15) ḥuǧǧatīha pa sūy-i māng nibišta hast pas ʿaǧab az fayyūmī ki (16) čun drūzan kard ḥaḵamim wa-qawl-i īšān wa-ū abar ān būd kol ha-ʿoḇer (17) ʿal diḇəre ḥaḵamim ḥayyaḇ mita: čun guft ki ʿibbur qabbala hast az (18) moshe: wa-hama ḥaḵamim-i piš pas-i malʾak̄i pa māng dāštand čun (19) pa mišna nibišta hast pa pereq massek̄ta roš haš-šana: wa-ān panǧ (20) kūhīhā ki abar ū dīdandī māng har ham-mišḥa wə-sarṭaḇa wə-ʾagrip̄na (21) wə-ḥoron u-ḇet biltay:

82

(21) … wa-īn bd"w wa-gh"z wa-ʾd"w wa-ʾg"w pas nihād yiṣḥaq (22) nappaḥa ki pa mišna nibišta ha-ʿaṣamot wə-hag-gidim yiśarəfu baš-šišša (23) ʿaśar ḥal šišša ʿaśar lihyot baš-šabbat yiśarəfu baš-šiḇʿa ʿaśar: pa (23) qiṣṣat-i (24) pesaḥ guftand ha-ʿaṣamot wə-hag-gidim sutuḫ^wānīhā wa-ragīhā (25) sūḫta āyad ān-i pesaḥ pa rūz-i šānzdahum agar rūz-i šānzdahum šabbat būd sūḫta (26) āyad pa rūz-i hafdahum pas ki rūz-i šānzdahum šabbat būd ha-na rūz-i moʿed pesaḥ (27) rūz-i šiši būd: pas ḫ^wadāwandān-i mišna īn guftand čun hamī (28) gūyad lo bd"w pesaḥ. rūz-i du-šanba čahār-šanba ādīna na būd pesaḥ: (29) wa-abāz guftand yom ʿaraḇa še-ḥal lihyot bə-šabbat rūz-i ʿaraḇa ki rūz-i (30) šabbat būd rūz-i haftum-i sukka būd ha-na rūz-i sar-i māh-i tišre (31) rūz-i yak-šanba būd čun hamī gūyī ki lo ʾd"w roš haš-šana rūz-i (32) yak-šanba čahār-šanba ādīna na būd sar-i māh-i tišre:

85

(32) … pas čun (33) guft fayyūmī ki īn hisēb az adam ha-rišon hast ze sēp̄er tōləḏōṯ (34) ʾāḏām: ʿibbur hast: guft adam masar la-ḥanoḵ. wa-ḥanoḵ masar lə-noaḥ (35) wə-noaḥ lə-šem. wə-šem lə-ʾaḇraham wə-ʾaḇraham lə-yiṣḥaq wə-yiṣḥaq lə-yaʿaqoḇ (36) wə-yaʿaqoḇ laš-šəḇaṭim u-qəhat lə-ʿamram wə-ʿamram lə-moše u-moše (37) li-qəhal yiśraʾel. wa-īdar tafsīr-i darāz na hamī tawānum k[ardan] (1) ki bisyār swdʿ⁵¹ guḏišt abar īn saḫ^wan-i fayyūmī wa-pa ān duwāzdah pəraqim (2) ki pa sefer miṣvot abar qawwiyat⁵² kardan-i māng wa-šikastan-i ʿibbur šarḥ (3) kardum abar fayyūmī: ḫ^wad hama rā bas hast wə-hāyū lə-ʾōṯōṯ ū-lə-mōʿăḏīm