Saadiah

The study of the Samaritan version of Saadya Gaon’s translation of the Pentateuch (the tafsīr), mainly based on MS London BL OR7562, shows that a Saadyan version in Arabic Characters was adopted by the Samaritans and adapted to the Samaritan Hebrew Pentateuch. The transmission of this version in MS London BL OR7562 continued after the early Samaritan Arabic translation of the Pentateuch and perhaps also its later revision had already been created, since many of their translations were preserved in MS BL OR7562, mixed with its Saadyan basic text. As MS London BL OR7562 also contains numerous words and phrases paralleled only in Christian Arabic translations of the Pentateuch and Saadyan adaptations, mainly related to the Peshitta tradition, it is reasonable to assume that these were the sources of this Samaritan Saadyan version and possibly also of the other Samaritan Arabic translations. The Samaritan version of Saadya’s translation of the Pentateuch also reveals some parallels to tenth- and eleventh-century Karaite translations and it contains prominent Aramaic and Islamic vocabulary, unfamiliar in other versions of Saadya’s tafsīr.

The purpose of the following essay is to analyse the Biblical concept of kavod (i.e. “Divine Glory”), as it appears in the writings of the Jewish philosopher Saadia Gaon (882–942), especially in his Commentary on the Sefer Yezira and in the Book of Beliefs and Opinions. The main concern will be to find out whether a coherent theory of kavod can be extracted out of Saadia’s texts, and to explain how these ideas are to be understood in their proper historical and religious context. As an epilogue, I shall give two examples of Christian authors – somewhat younger than Saadia – who also dealt with the same theological issue of Divine Glory: the Arabic-speaking Coptic theologian Sāwīrus ibn al-Muqaffa' (d. 987), and the Byzantine monk Symeon the New Theologian (949–1022).

My sincere thanks to Edgar Xavier (https://independent.academia.edu/EdgarXavier2) for kindly pointing out some errors of fact in this paper. On page 70, the Herald is incorrectly identified as an Indonesian Catholic newspaper. The newspaper is Malaysian. And, of course, Kuala Lumpur (as mentioned in footnote 49), is the capital city of Malaysia - not Indonesia. So the phrase in parenthesis at the end of the second paragraph on page 70 should read "(an Arabic loanword in Malay [Bahasa Melayu])".  Again, sincere thanks to Edgar for his close reading of the paper and his taking the trouble to point out these errors.

Jonathan

To Saadia Gaon (882–942) belongs the distinction of having composed the first known personalized and programmatic Jewish commentary on the book of Esther. His more significant innovations in this commentary, which we shall briefly survey, include his treatment of various exegetical cruxes, his literary-thematic analysis and structuring of the biblical book (as well as his commentary thereon), his elucidative references to contemporary socio-religious and vocational realia, and his polemical appropriation of various exegetical topics.

In this article, I analyze a short segment of al-Maqrīzī’s account of Jews and Judaism in his al-Ḫiṭaṭ, focusing on the technique that al-Maqrīzī used in compiling it by comparing his account with sources on which he drew (sometimes verbatim). It is found that al-Maqrīzī copied from K. al-Taʾrīḫ, a seven-chapter chronicle in Judaeo-Arabic, and then inserted complementary material from Ibn Ḫaldūn’s K. al-ʿIbar and al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s K. al-Bayān wa-l-tabyīn, and may also have intertwined material from Biblical sources.

מאמר זה טוען שרס"ג כתב תפסיר לסידורו, ונוסח זה נשמר בטופס אחד, ממנו שרדו לפחות 5 דפים שכבר פורסמו בעבר, מקור ותרגום, ע"י יוסף טובי. מעתיק כתב יד זה לא פספס שום הזדמנות לטעות "מפני הדומות" ולכן הוא חסר למדי.
הפירוש נזנח בערך בתקופת הרמב"ם כיון שאנשים חדלו להתפלל בנוסח רס"ג והפירוש שלו לא התאים למה שהם אמרו.
ר' יוסף ראש הסדר, בן זמנו ומקומו של הרמב"ם, קיים את אשר כתב שתכנן לכתוב פירוש על התפילה. לפירושו השתמש כבסיס בפירוש רס"ג, ועליו הוסיף פירוש בכל מקום שבנוסח התפילה שרווח בזמנו – התואם לנוסח סידור רשב"ן. בכל מה שלא נוסף על נוסח התפילה של סידור רס"ג, אין שום שינוי מהתפסיר הקדום.
מפירושו של ר' יוסף ראש הסדר שרדו קטעים רבים של אוטוגרף (!), ועוד טפסים רבים. החיבור שלו רחב היקף וכולל את כל תפילות השנה.
על פי פירושו של ר"י ראש הסדר ניתן להשלים גם את כל הדילוגים שבטופס התפסיר של רס"ג.
לפירושים אלו תועלת הן בחידושים שבפירוש התפילה, והן ככלי לבירור נוסחאות התפילה של רס"ג ורשב"ן שרבות מתחבטים בהם.
המאמר כולל: א. מבוא המביא את תולדות פירוש רס"ג ופירוש רב יוסף ראש הסדר לתפילה, הפירוש שלפנינו וכו', ורשימת קטעי הגניזה המרכיבים אותו. ב. ההדרה של הפירוש - מקור ותרגום ללה"ק, ושחזור נוסח התפילה של רס"ג ושל רשב"ן על פיו ועל פי כתבי היד של נוסחי הסידורים. ג. הרחבה בכשלושים חידושים בפירוש התפילה והשוואה לדברי ראשונים ואחרונים.

This volume presents a critical edition of the Judaeo-Arabic translation and commentary on the book of Esther by Saadia Gaon (882–942). This edition, accompanied by an introduction and extensively annotated English translation, affords access to the first-known personalized, rationalistic Jewish commentary on this biblical book. Saadia innovatively organizes the biblical narrative—and his commentary thereon—according to seven “guidelines” that provide a practical blueprint by which Israel can live as an abased people under Gentile dominion. Saadia’s prodigious acumen and sense of communal solicitude find vivid expression throughout his commentary in his carefully-defined structural and linguistic analyses, his elucidative references to a broad range of contemporary socio-religious and vocational realia, his anti-Karaite polemics, and his attention to various issues, both psychological and practical, attending Jewish-Gentile conviviality in a 10th-century Islamicate milieu.

In this article we suggest that the terminus ad quem of the Palestinian Yeshiva’s final relocation (from either Tiberius or Ramla) to Jerusalem be narrowed down from ca. 960 CE to 934/35–942, based on deduction from the evidence afforded us by a heretofore unpublished excerpt from Saadia Gaon’s commentary on the book of Esther. The excerpt in question offers (so we argue) insight into contemporary discourse and realia regarding Jerusalem and underscores the potential importance of medieval exegetical sources as a venue from which primary historical data may be gleaned.