Daniel
ben Saul (fl. 9th century) was the grandson of
ʿAnan ben David, said to have founded the proto-Karaite Ananite sect in the eighth century. The Jacobite Syrian historian Bar Hebraeus (d. 1286), basing himself on earlier Syriac chronicles, recounts that in 825 a battle over the office of
exilarch in
Baghdad broke out between Daniel and
David ben Judah. Bar Hebraeus asserts that Daniel was an adherent of the Ananite heresy. Since this conflict had repercussions for Christians in the Abbasid caliphate, it attracted the attention of Christian chroniclers. According to their accounts, the dispute was brought before the caliph al-Ma'mūn (r. 813–833), and he ruled that every group of ten people among the
ahl al-dhimma had the right to form their own sect. The Epistle of
Sherira Gaon states that the power of the exilarchs declined during the exilarchate of
David ben Judah, an assertion repeated by the gaon of the Baghdad yeshiva,Samuel
ben Eli. Both geonim may have been referring to the dramatic outcome of the struggle between the two figures who according to the Syrian chronicles were contending for the position of exilarch.
Sherira Gaon was interested in the struggle over the exilarchate because it caused a split in the Pumbedita yeshiva. By his account, the conflict broke out during Abraham
ben Sherira’s incumbency as gaon of Pumbedita (816–828). A competitor for the exilarchate appointed the
av bet din (chief judge) of the academy to the post of gaon as a quid pro quo for the
av bet din’s support; this gave rise to a situation in which two geonim were serving simultaneously. Sherira failed to mention who it was that the
av bet din had backed. As for the rival candidates for the exilarchate, Sherira merely gave the name Daniel (without patronymic) as the rival of
David ben Judah. The responsa of the gaon of Sura,
Naṭronay bar Hilay (853–861), preserved in the
siddur (prayerbook) of Rav
Amram Gaon (861–872), note that
Anan ben David had a grandson named Daniel.
That a grandson of
Anan ben David could have received support from one of the gaonic academies in a contest for the exilarchate caused scholars to question the identity of
David benJudah’s rival. Jacob Mann claimed that this Daniel could not have been the grandson of the man who according to early Karaite sources had founded the Ananite movement. He found it inconceivable that a member of this family would have had supporters in the bastion of the Babylonian Rabbanite establishment. With respect to the assertion of Bar Hebraeus, Mann maintained that he had conflated two notables who were both active at that time, one of them being Daniel the exilarch, a Rabbanite, and therefore supported by members of the Rabbanite camp, and the other Daniel
ben Saul, the grandson of
Anan, who was obviously in the Karaite camp.
A recently discovered document from the
Cairo Geniza indicates that the Daniel who was striving to become exilarch was indeed the grandson of
Anan and was supported by a faction in the Sura yeshiva. No less surprising, another Geniza document, dealing with the history of the Palestinian gaonate, reveals that Anan’s great-grandson, Ṣemaḥ
ben Josiah
ben Saul
benAnan ben David (the son of Daniel’s brother), served as head of the Palestinian yeshiva for thirty-one years, till about 893. Ṣemaḥ was apparently not the only gaon from the House of
Anan in the Palestinian yeshiva. According to Moshe Gil, an anonymous letter written by a Babylonian exilarch indicates that there was an alliance between the Palestinian yeshiva headed by the House of
Anan and Daniel the exilarch. This letter, which Gil ascribes to Daniel, deals with the calendrical arrangements for the year 835, and in it the exilarch declares that the sages of Palestine support him on issues related to the calendar. It should be noted that scholars are still divided about the identity of this exilarch.
The Muslim historian al-Bīrūnī (d. after 1050) states that Daniel
ben Saul’s son, whose name was
Anan, was the person who founded the Ananite movement in about 890. According to Gil, the exilarchic branch of the House of
Anan only joined the Karaites and became their leaders in the second half of the ninth century, the period when Daniel and his son
Anan (
Anan II) were active. In Gil’s opinion, the fact that both Daniel and Ṣemaḥ held leadership positions in the Rabbanite establishment demonstrates that it was only in a later period that
Anan ben Davidcould have been credited with establishing the Ananite movement. André Paul assumed, even before Gil, that the Rabbanite source recounting that
Anan ben David managed to get out of prison during his struggle over the exilarchate with his brother, the exilarch Ḥananiah, by claiming that he was not rebelling against him but rather establishing a new Jewish sect, fits the period of al-Ma'mūn, during whose reign Daniel was trying to attain the exilarchate. Thus the story should not be attributed to the era of al-Manṣūr’s caliphate, when
Anan ben David was active.
In summary, the sources indicate that Daniel, Anan’s grandson, was the person who engaged in a struggle over the office of exilarch around the year 825. The outcome was significant for all the
dhimmī communities in the Abbasid caliphate. The support Daniel received from factions in the Rabbanite establishment and the fact that his nephew Ṣemaḥ served as the head of the Palestinian yeshiva have posed difficult questions about the origins of the Karaite movement. A final verdict is not yet possible. As for
Anan II, Daniel’s son, there is only uncorroborated evidence from a single Muslim source that credits him with founding the Ananite movement. His descendants, if there were any, disappeared from the historical arena.
Yoram Erder
Bibliography
Abramson, Sheraga. In the Centers and in the Diaspora (Jerusalem, 1965), pp. 9–20 [Hebrew].
Gil, Moshe. Jews in Islamic Countries in the Middle Ages (Leiden: Brill, 2004), pp. 105–111, 221-223.
Mann, Jacob. Texts and Studies, vol. 2 (New York: Ktav, 1972), pp. 128–131.
Paul, André. Ecrits de Qumran et sectes juives aux premiers siècles de lʿIslam (Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1969), pp. 15-24.
