Anan ben David and his Descendants (and the mysterious Karaites from Al-Hit), Part II
For Part I of this series see here
מתוך ספרו של פירקוביץ "מסה ומריבה"
Notice the interesting characters who provided funding for Firkovich's work.
Elgamil mentions that the Karaite Jews of Al-Hit were traditionally descended from Anan ben David himself.
More on Hit later.
Here is some additional information on some Anan ben David's immediate descendants from Brill:
David ben Boaz (421 words)
David ben Boaz, known in Arabic as Abū Saʿīd, was a fifth-generation descendant of Anan benDavid, and is thus rarely mentioned without the title ha-Nasi (and sometimes by that alone) or its Arabic equivalent, al-ra’īs. Hs lived in Jerusalem and, together with his brother Josiah ha-Nasi, is supposed to have supported Saʿadya Gaon in his conflict (ca. 930–937) with the Babylonian exilarch David ben Zakkay I, perhaps due to the strong enmity between the Karaite nesiʾim and the Palestinian geonim of the Ben Me’ir family, whose head at that time, Aaron ben Me’ir, lent his support to David ben Zakkay. According to Ibn al-Hītī, David ben Boaz was still alive in 993, when he composed a commentary on Ecclesiastes. He was succeeded by his son Solomon, who was serving as Nasi by at least 1016.
In his writings, notably but certainly not atypically among Karaites of the Karaite “Golden Age” (9th–11th centuries), David cites both tannaitic and amoraic sources. He was well regarded as a scholar and was often cited as an authority by both contemporary and later Karaite writers. According to his son Solomon, moreover, he was the first Karaite to oppose his sect’s rikkuv, or catenary, theory of forbidden marriages.
Among David’s known and more or less extant works are fragments of Arabic commentaries (tafāsīr), with translation (tarājim), on the Pentateuch (Mss. Brit. Lib. Or. 2403 [§304], 2494 [§318], fols. 1r–30v, 2495 [§306], 2561 [§305], fols. 1r–74v, 2562 [§307]; JTSA 8916; RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4803; T-S Ar.21.133), Ecclesiastes, and Lamentations (both in Ms. Brit. Lib. Or. 2552 [§299], fols. 90r–141v). Not extant are an Arabic commentary, probably with translation, on Psalms (an abridgement by ʿAlī ben Sulaymān is extant in fragments) and, according to Ibn al-Hītī, a work entitled Kitāb al-Uṣūl (The Book of Roots/Fundamentals), the topic of which is unclear.
Michael G. Wechsler
In his writings, notably but certainly not atypically among Karaites of the Karaite “Golden Age” (9th–11th centuries), David cites both tannaitic and amoraic sources. He was well regarded as a scholar and was often cited as an authority by both contemporary and later Karaite writers. According to his son Solomon, moreover, he was the first Karaite to oppose his sect’s rikkuv, or catenary, theory of forbidden marriages.
Among David’s known and more or less extant works are fragments of Arabic commentaries (tafāsīr), with translation (tarājim), on the Pentateuch (Mss. Brit. Lib. Or. 2403 [§304], 2494 [§318], fols. 1r–30v, 2495 [§306], 2561 [§305], fols. 1r–74v, 2562 [§307]; JTSA 8916; RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4803; T-S Ar.21.133), Ecclesiastes, and Lamentations (both in Ms. Brit. Lib. Or. 2552 [§299], fols. 90r–141v). Not extant are an Arabic commentary, probably with translation, on Psalms (an abridgement by ʿAlī ben Sulaymān is extant in fragments) and, according to Ibn al-Hītī, a work entitled Kitāb al-Uṣūl (The Book of Roots/Fundamentals), the topic of which is unclear.
Michael G. Wechsler
Bibliography
Mann, Jacob. Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature, vol. 2: Karaitica(Philadelphia: Hebrew Press and Jewish Publication Society, 1935).
Pinsker, Simcha. Liqquṭe qadmoniyyot (Zur Geschichte des Karaismus und der karäischen Literatur) (Vienna: Adalbert della Torre, 1860).
Polliack, Meira (ed.). Karaite Judaism: A Guide to Its History and Literary Sources, Handbuch der Orientalistik, Erste Abteilung, Nahe und der Mittlere Osten 73 ( Leiden: Brill, 2003).
Poznański, Samuel. The Karaite Literary Opponents of Saadiah Gaon (London: Luzac,1908; repr. from Jewish Quarterly Review, o.s. 18 [1906]: 209–250; 19 [1907]: 59–83; 20 [1908]: 74–85, 216–231.
Steinschneider, Moritz. Die arabische Literatur der Juden (Frankfurt a.M.: J. Kauffmann, 1902; repr., Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1986).
Pinsker, Simcha. Liqquṭe qadmoniyyot (Zur Geschichte des Karaismus und der karäischen Literatur) (Vienna: Adalbert della Torre, 1860).
Polliack, Meira (ed.). Karaite Judaism: A Guide to Its History and Literary Sources, Handbuch der Orientalistik, Erste Abteilung, Nahe und der Mittlere Osten 73 ( Leiden: Brill, 2003).
Poznański, Samuel. The Karaite Literary Opponents of Saadiah Gaon (London: Luzac,1908; repr. from Jewish Quarterly Review, o.s. 18 [1906]: 209–250; 19 [1907]: 59–83; 20 [1908]: 74–85, 216–231.
Steinschneider, Moritz. Die arabische Literatur der Juden (Frankfurt a.M.: J. Kauffmann, 1902; repr., Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1986).
Cite this page
Michael G. Wechsler. "David ben Boaz." Encyclopedia of Jews in the Islamic World. Executive Editor Norman A. Stillman. Brill Online, 2013. Reference. National Library of Israel. 10 October 2013 <http://www.brillonline.nl/
__________________
Daniel ben Saul ben Anan (1,029 words)
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 theav 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 ofDavid 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 ofAnan 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
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 theav 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 ofDavid 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 ofAnan 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.
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.
Cite this page
Yoram Erder. "Daniel ben Saul ben Anan." Encyclopedia of Jews in the Islamic World. Executive Editor Norman A. Stillman. Brill Online, 2013. Reference. National Library of Israel. 10 October 2013 <http://www.brillonline.nl/The Mysterious Community in Al-Hit
We know very little about the community there. Here are some sources I have come across.
Rabbi Yosef Shwartz in his study of the holy land and its environs mentions Al-Hit in passing, referring to it as 'the dwelling place of Sadduccees (a common euphemism for Karaites) and adding that no 'sons of Israel' reside there.
Jewish Virtual Library:
HIT, town on the Euphrates, approximately 90 mi. (144 km.) W. of Baghdad; site of the Mesopotamian city of Is. An old *Karaite community, dating back to the 10th century at least, existed in Hit. Persecution and ill-treatment by the authorities brought about a gradual reduction of its size and by the middle of the 19th century it numbered only 20 families. The community was headed by the Muʿallim ("teacher, sage") whose home also served as the religious school and house of prayer (after the decrepit synagogue that had existed in the town was abandoned in the second half of the 19th century). The community went to Israel shortly after the establishment of the State, settling in Beersheba.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
A. Ben-Jacob, Yehudei Bavel (1965), 318–20.
[Abraham Haim]
*********
While reading Dan Shapira’s “Avrham Firkowicz in Istanbul”, the following passage caught my eye (p. 18): He (Firkowich) also wished to visit Hit in Iraq, the home of an old Qaraite community that preserved ancient traditions (including daily ablutions in the Tigris). In the comment there (n. 36), Shapir further writes: at that time, communities of Mandeans, Yazidis, and Nestorian Christians also inhabited Hit.
Now while there is a relative abundance of material on the mandaeans, yazidis and Nestorian Christians of the area, I have been unable to find anything on the unique community of Karaites mentioned. Aside from a genetic study, which sheds little light on the history and daily life of the community here
The daily ablutions in the Tigris (although Hit is located on the shores of the Euphrates[indeed Mikahil Kizilov claim that the Karaites of Hit immersed in the Euphrates twice daily, before each prayer see herehttp://books.google.co.il/books?id=hGILHIgEl7cC&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=karaites+hit+iraq&source=bl&ots=IUMo4GI6L8&sig=gPp124p1G8FksQ1LAYo4ixJG3Z8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Q9kWT9aeIoPo8QP2r5nvAg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=karaites%20hit%20%20&f=true]) are of particular interest. I would have expected that more from their Mandean neighbors; followers of John the Baptist, but very interesting nonetheless.
Here is an interesting excerpt from the NYT, that indicates that some Mandaeans, have kept this tradition even under difficult conditions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/world/europe/09iht-mandeans.4.5202220.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/world/europe/09iht-mandeans.4.5202220.html?pagewanted=all
This book likewise looks interesting http://www.worldcat.org/title/mandaeans-and-the-jews-2000-years-of-estrangement-or-what-made-the-jews-hated-by-the-mandaeans/oclc/68208613
More on Mandaeans and Jews here http://books.google.co.il/books?id=dQhL7CCESHsC&pg=PA137&lpg=PA137&dq=hit,+iraqi+mandaeans&source=bl&ots=JMEFklSPXY&sig=mRoaPx453uThC3ZkL2kLTfEl6P0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=39EWT_YNyYHyA9_tzdsC&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=jews&f=false
This looks interesting as well http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=6150467
posted by Joels W. @ 6:05 PM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home