The Book of Jasher, the Kairites and the Spanish background to the transmission of Sefer Hayashar (SY)

Adapted from Haim Beinart, Eli Citonne, Nahum N. Glatzer, Joseph Elijah Heller, Shlomo Hofman, Daniel J. Lasker Leon Nemoy, Judah M. Rosenthal, Simon R. Schwarzfuchs

Menahem Stern begins his three volume, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (1974) with the statement:

Since the early nineteenth century scholars have recognized the need to assemble a collection of Greek and Latin literature relating to Jews and Judaism in ancient times." His work and that of many others illustrate how many sources from antiquity have been lost over the past two thousand years. For Greek and Roman sources the monasteries were the main instruments in maintaining libraries and making copies of deteriorating texts. Many texts were still lost to fires, war, and invasions such as those of the Vikings and others. Spanish history is particularly rife with persecutions of the Jews which culminated in their expulsion in 1492. As well as the attrition of earlier texts, there was also a phenomenon even biblical in origin of attributing works to earlier authors. In fact, it is well known that there is a wide body of pseudepigraphal writings of texts attributed to everyone from Abraham to the prophet Daniel (which is a book that was included in the biblical canon along with second and third Isaiah!). It have become increasingly obvious that ancient ideas of who wrote what were sometimes very different from our modern views.

Nevertheless, the question of who wrote the Book of Jasher, when and where is an interesting one for the light it might shed on the history of interpretation as well as implications for the interpretation of Josephus' Contra Apion and much more. In biblical times there is evidence that the original Sefer Hayashar, was an important work. One that is referred to in Joshua 10:13 and Samuel 1:18. Prior to the nineteenth century, there is evidence that many people considered the edition of Sefer Hayasher first published in Venice in 1625 to be a genuine work from antiquity. Early in the nineteenth century it was described by Leopold Zunz as a medieval literary fabrication. More recent scholarship has adopted the view that it must be late or their would be evidence of its existence in the writings of previous eras. Yet for texts outside the mainstream of Roman catholicism in the west, the task of maintaining literary works was difficult and at times even dangerous and the chances of manuscripts becoming lost or destroyed were very high. The question of how much such factors might have impacted the transmission of a text like Sefer Hayashar is interesting.

Jacqueline-Lise Genot-Bismuth was director of a team from the Seminaire sur le Sefer Hayashar de le Centre de Recherches sur la Culture Rabbinique which produced an introductory tome to their reprint of the 1625 Venice Hebrew edition of Sefer Yashar which was published by des Publications Universite de la Sorbonne Nouvelle in 1986. Their work argues that the lack of any evidence of the text between antiquity and 1625 is a primary argument for their suggestion that the text was actually "une fiction d'humaniste juif". The purpose of the following paper is to attempt to examine the validity of this assessment.

A possible flaw in ascertaining the history of the text is the assumption that it was a product of rabbinic culture. Genot-Bismuth et al. begin their introduction with a "Presentation et justification de notre edition" which states clearly:

Le Sefer Hayashar pose aux historiens de la culture rabbinique un problem d'origine et d'attribution depuis plus d'un bon siecle, qui tient d'abord aux circonstances fort curieuses de son apparition materielle et de sa diffusion. Yosef Dan, a qui l'on doit d'avoir considerablement fait avancer les chose dans des travaux conduits il y a une dizaine d'annees, rappelait le contraste que l'on ne peut s'empecher de trouver frappant entre l'existence de toute trace de ce texte avant l'edition originale de Venice, et la proliferation des editions apres cette edition. L'edition de Venise de 1625 revet donc de ce fait une importance majeure; elle devient dans la strategie de recherche l'objet privilegie don't on pressent qu'il est le vestige en mesure de nous fournir les seules clefs esperables.

C'est donc la raison pour laquelle nous avons choisi d'ouvrir la publication des travaux que notre equie a conduits sur le Sefer hayashar par la presentation et la reproduction de l'edition de Venise.

If much of the Hebrew in the text of Sefer Hayashar is in fact pre-Babylonian it would have been no mean feat if it was created by Talmudic scholars in the middle ages. One wonders how the supposed medieval author developed such as skill.

Although Professor Genot Bismuth does not mention it in their report, it seems likely that their assessment was at least partially influenced by the example of the fictitious Book of Jasher published in 1751 by Jacob Ilive, a Christian deist. In the title page he informed his readers that his book was "translated into English from Hebrew, by Flaccus Albinus Alcuinus of Britain, Abott of Canterbury, who went on a pilgrimage into the Holy Land and Persia, where he discovered this volume, in the city of Gazna. Inspite of the fact that Alcuin lived from c. 735-804, and thus lived before the English language even existed, the work stirred up an enormous public controversy. Ilive published the Book of Jasher in November and in the December issue of the Monthly Review of London it was stated:

"The Publisher, in order to give sanction to this pretended Book of Jasher, refers to the mention made to such a book in Joshua x.13 and Sam. I. 18. In both these references, says he, it is appealed to as a work of credit and reputation, and as such was at that time had in great esteem. But the work now published does not in the least appear to be the book referred to in the Scriptures; put a palpable piece of contrivance, intended to impose on the credulous and the ignorant, to sap the credit of the books of Moses, and to blacken the character of Moses himself. Hence it is no wonder that the editor or author has had the precaution to conceal his name. He has trumped up an idle story of the means by which the MS fell into his hands, which he relates in a prefatory epistle to a nameless earl. He has also prefixed a history of Alcuin's pilgrimage to the Holy land, of the manner of his procuring a sight of the Book of Jasher, and of the means by which he obtained permission to translate it into English. But the whole is so full of blunders, inconsistencies, and absurdities, that we think it beneath any further notice.

Ilive's The Book of Jasher consists of thirty-seven chapters which begin with the creation story and extend to the rule of "Jasher, the son of Caleb who judged Israel in Shiloh." Jasher is represented as an adjutant of Moses, along with Joshua. But even a casual reading of the work reveals its real purpose: the rejection of Revelation. Jethro is portrayed as the "founding father" of Israel's law code. Jethro is the one who convokes Moses and the seventy elders on Mount Sinai where he instructs them about the governance of Israel. Ilive intended his fiction to challenge the credibility of the Pentateuch and to diminish altogether the role of Moses. Jacob Ilive was sentenced in 1756, to three years imprisonment, for this work and his radical tracts.

Ilive's The Book of Jasher was reprinted however in Bristol in 1828. On November 19, 1828, a letter appeared in the London Courier over the signature of Moses Samuel, a Hebrew scholar in Liverpool. He had also come into possession of the Book of Jasher, the Hebrew text. It had been brought to him by a Jew from North Africa. Moses Samuel went on to say that he was currently translating the work and preparing a critical edition of it. He conceded that, while certain later additions had been made to it, the core of this work was, indeed, very ancient - perhaps two thousand years old.

Within ten days of Moses Samuel's London Courier letter, a lengthy and learned epistle from Leopold Zunz appeared in the Berliner Nachrichten. Zunz, who was one of the fathers of Judische Wissenschaft or the "Science of Judaism", wrote a treatise suited to a scholarly journal. Zunz argued that the Book of Jasher could be traced to the twelfth or perhaps the eleventh century. He argued that it was likely written in Spain by a talented Hebrew. It was, according to Zunz, a period, "rich in literary fabrications, the most notable example of this genre being the Book of Zohar"

Born in Detmold Germany, in 1794, Zunz was educated at the Jewish school called the Samsonsche Freischule at Wolfenbuettel from 1803. From an early age, Samuel Meyer Ehrenberg, an advanced Jewish educator, who was appointed director of the school in 1807, recognized Zunz's great talents and helped him in his development. From 1809 to 1811 Zunz studied at the local high school, and from 1810 to 1815 was an assistant teacher at the Samsonsche Freischule. His interest in Jewish history and literature was aroused (1811) by reading Zemah David by David Gans and Bibliotheca Hebraea by Johann Christoph Wolf. From 1815 to 1819 he had studied at the University of Berlin and acquired the basis of a scientific approach. He had been particularly influenced by the great classical scholar Friedrich August Wolf.

Zunz's scholarly work began in 1817 when he did research on the Sefer ha-Ma'alot of Shem Tov ben Joseph Falaquera (for this research work he received the degree of doctor of philosophy in 1821 at the University of Halle) and wrote Etwas ueber die rabbinische Literatur (1818). From a wish to give Judaism a new definition in keeping with the spirit of the times, he was a co-founder of the Verein fuer Cultur und Wissenschaft der Juden, in 1819. He believed in the scientific and historical approach of the "Science of Judaism" and saw the organization of which he was a founder as the way to achieve the aims of the society. Zunz edited the Zeitschrift fuer die Wissenschaft des Judentums issued by the society (1823) and published three articles in it, including a biography of Rashi.

Zunz, who was then very close to the spirit of religious reform, was invited to deliver sermons in the new synagogue in Berlin beginning in May 1820, and in August 1821 he was appointed preacher there, resigning a year later in disappointment with his congregation. A collection of his sermons (Predigten) appeared in 1823. He made his living as a member of the editorial board of the Berlin daily newspaper, Haude und Spenersche Zeitung (1824-31) and as director of the primary school of the Jewish community, the Juedische Gemeindeschule (1826-29). His chief interest, however, was his research in Hebrew literature. Zunz used the vast material he had accumulated and the notes he had collected from manuscripts and printed works on his visits to libraries (at Hamburg, the Oppenheim collection in 1828, and that of H. J. Michael in 1829) in writing his great work on liturgic addresses which appeared in his 1832, Die gottesdienstlichen Vortraege der Juden historisch entwickelt.

In his occupation with the "Science of Judaism" Zunz found an answer to the problems of transition from the traditional learning and the religious life based on it to modern Western education and the cultural life connected with it. He employed modern research methods to show the community of Israel and its literature as one of the trends in general intellectual life and as a participant in its progress. In so doing he denied several basic values of traditional Judaism, but in their place offered the modern Jew an interest in history.

One can discern a definitely negative attitude to the area of the Talmud and the Kabbalah in Zunz's writings. He considered their spirit opposed to that of the "Science of Judaism." It is worth noting that among the many subjects in Jewish literature Zunz chose the most "Jewish": the Midrashim and liturgical poetry. As a researcher he was precise and assiduous, demanding scientific perfection. He did not have disciples, but most of the researchers who followed him learned from him even if they did not accept his ideological premises, and his researches served as the foundation and the example for the "Science of Judaism." Not only was the latter not destined to sound the death knell of Hebrew literature, as Zunz had thought in his youth, but it was even to contribute to its revival. Zunz's assessment of Sefer Hayashar was thus very influential.

There were several medieval books with the name Jasher written by Jews in Hebrew. According to Edgar J. Goodspeed, following Zunz, there were:

1.. A treatise on Jewish ritual written by Rabbi Tham who died in 1171. This work was printed in Italy in 1625. 2.. A 1391 version by Rabbi Shabbatai Carmuz Levita, preserved in a Vatican manuscript 3.. And, following the lead of Zunz, the introduction to the Hexateuch, known to us as SY, which he deemed as probably written by a Spanish Jew in the thirteenth century and published in Venise in 1625. However, the inclusion of the third entry in this list derives at least in part on a comedy of errors. Apparently Zunz did not realize that the Bristol Gazette story referred to the fabrication of Jacob Ilive.

The analysis of Genot-Bismuth et al. and other earlier scholars is further derived in large measure from the sketch of the previous text transmission as outlined in preface of the printer, Joseph Haqatan, from the Venice 1625 edition (here relying on Moses Samuel's 1830's translation):

The humble worm, and no man, Joseph, son to my father, the wise and highly respected in Israel, Samuel the little one, says, my witness is in heaven and my testimony is on high, the God of Gods knows, and Israel knows also, how much fatigue I have undergone, and how much trouble I have taken until I had brought to light the hidden treasures of this book; for ever since I was driven from my land, from the metropolis of Israel, the great city of wise men and scribes, the renowned city of Pasia, ever since the Lord, through my great offenses, has driven me with a violent captivity, one stumbling after the other, he weakened my strength in the way, the iron entered my soul until I reached the Italian harbor, the royal city Livorno (Leghorn,) which is under the sway of our Lord the most serene Grand Duke Don Ferdinand de Media (Medici Qu?) for neither by day nor by night could I remain silent, I was, continually in thought, my soul was humbled in me, and sleep was removed from mine eyes when I reflected how energetically my father, the crown of my head, strove with his purse and labor to transcribe this book, as was his constant custom from his love of the study of the Law, to lavish money and wealth, principal and interest, for the purchase and the transcribing, for my own use, of books without end, in order that I might obtain wisdom and instruction, to comprehend the words of understanding, as all of the inhabitants of my city can testify and declare; (O God remember him favorably to rest in glory with the righteous who are in the garden of Eden, Amen! for this loss is felt only by me,) especially in the transcribing of this book it is holy for praises to the Lord, for there was never seen nor found but one, which the intelligent and pious scribe Jacob, the son of Atiyah, transcribed from a very old manuscript, the letters of which were defaced; and had it not been for' the consummate ability of the above mentioned Rabbi, no other person could have made out those letters, nor have transcribed them, from their antiquity and from their having been defaced. Now my father, of blessed memory, found favor in his eyes, to obtain this book on loan, in order that he might also get one transcribed by the hands of a certain scribe, and in the year 5373, through my great sins, I went out of the pale of my birth place, and from my father's house, owing to the terrors of famine, pestilence and slaughter. The sword destroyed from without, and within was the terror of pestilence and famine, on account of the battles and contentions which took place between the sons of the old king Maruccus who had died, for each lifted himself up, saying I will reign, and they devoured the Israelites with open mouth, so that very few remained of them, even a tithe of a tithe; many families and heads of the houses of their fathers were lost and destroyed and became as naught; many books of various kinds, new and old, some in manuscript and others in print, as well as those of modern times, were mostly destroyed by fire, or were torn to pieces, which, together with their owners, lie hid under the ruins to this day. Woe to the eyes that beheld this! yet may the name of the Lord be blessed for the evil as well as for the good.

Fearing that this book might share the same fate as the others, I daily used the most persevering exertions in sending letters to some particular individuals in the city Argilia, in the city Titu, and in the city Pasia, to such as had been left, humbly beseeching them to search and inquire where might be the place of the glory of this book, and it was sought after and found to be hid in the hands of one of the individuals of the congregation, the wise and highly gifted Moses Chasan; and thanks are due to him, that upon. his ascertaining my good intention to print it and to scatter it throughout all Jewish communities, he did not delay to send it, as he felt a desire for a heavenly reward for this pious act, yea, he sent it to me as a gift, may he receive a blessing from the Lord, and may his reward be perfect. Amen.

Now I in my humble station have composed a work entitled ;xuh ,buf in two parts, one part containing some of the scriptural comments which I made with the gracious help of the Lord, and the second part containing fifty lectures which I delivered to a great congregation, besides a later comment containing explanations of parts of the Talmud which I met with in the course of my studies, and which I illustrated according to my humble abilities; now I am revising this work a second time in order to bring it to the press, if heaven spare my life, yet I said to my heart, to thee, O worm, and no man, does the scripture proclaim " It is time for thee, O Lord, to work, for they have made void thy law," for the printing of this book of Jasher tends to the honor and glory of the Lord, for through it will the hearts of men be directed to cleave to the blessed Lord, and by the means of which they will understand the wonderful works of God, and his bounties toward our ancestors from the days of old, and how he chose us from all nations, as thou wilt see at length in the preface, wherein thou wilt perceive enumerated the great many uses, thirteen in number, which induce men to confide in the Lord and to adhere to him. I have also found another use therein, which is, that many parts of the five books difficult of comprehension, and which the commentators have been unable to reconcile, are, by means of this book, properly understood, because it gives a detail of those parts, wherein the secret volume is brief in its account, and relates events as they occurred; thou wilt therefore find me lifting up my hand in the margin with the words rhgmv rnt "The humble editor says," by which will be understood what I have asserted; search and thou will find many things also, which our Rabbies in their works gave in short, are brought forth more fully in this book since it is high time now to act and have a care for the glory of God's name. Since then it is proper for me at present to defer the publication of my above mentioned work until I shall first have brought to light the hidden treasures of this book and to reveal them to the world, I am confident that with the help of the Lord all Israel will exult and rejoice therein. I have therefore put my trust in the Lord, may he remember me favorably, that I may be enabled in the next year by his help and decree to publish also my afore mentioned work. As for me, my prayer is to him who dwells on high, may the Lord God assist me, and send me from on high his peace, favor, and faithfulness to help me, that he may lead me beside the still waters, and conduct me to the paths of righteousness for the sake of his great name, and for the sake of his law. Amen for ever and ever.

Genot-Bismuth et al. bestow considerable respect on the importance of this preface, saying that it is situated in the exact milieu of Moroccan Jews at the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth centuries: a time of rabbinic collectors and text commentators, having religion of the book and an acute concern for its preservation. They suggest that although such matters by their very nature cannot be proven, that Jacob the son of Atyah should be identified with Jacob the Scribe, who played an important role in official relations between Morocco and Portugal in the sixteenth century and may well have been the person responsible for bringing Sefer Hayashar to Samuel Haqatan. The question remains as to who might have had the work before that and where it came from originally.

According to Genot-Bismuth et. al,

Yaaqov ben Attia le Scribe appairait donc, au temignage de Ysef haqatan, d'une certaine facon comme l'inventeur du texte, dans la mesure ou s'etant procure un grimoire, qui est peut-etre l'autographe, il en a tire ce que l'on peut considerer etre la premiere edition manuscrite, la premiere mahadura au sens original du terme. ..

This original manuscript is thought to have then been copied again by an anonymous copiest whose copy was then given by Yaaqov ben Attia le Scribe to Joseph haqatan's father who copied it again. None of thes copies survived.

According to Genot-Bismuth et. al, the ben Attia family were definitely of Spanish origin, and would have been victim's of the expulsion of Jews in 1492. It is difficult to imagine how such such a detailed historical record as Sefer Hayashar could have been developed out of such chaos.

Fez, Joseph haqatan's home city was in Morocco. It was one of the most important cities in the Islamic world; founded by Idris I in 789, and became the capital of the kingdom in 808 under Idris II. The first inhabitants of Fez were pagan Berbers, but it also included Christians and Jews. Idris II then admitted a large number of Jews who paid him an annual tax of 30,000 dinars. He assigned them a quarter, the al-Funduk al-Yahudi. This community rapidly became influential and respected. One of the first Hebrew presses was set up here, by Samuel b. Isaac Nedivot and his son Isaac who had learned their Hebrew printing in Lisbon. From 1516 (?) to 1524 they printed 15 Hebrew books.

The Fez community, which numbered about 10,000, consisted of "Spanish exiles" (megorashim) and "natives" (toshavim). The former, by issuing takkanot based on Judeo-Spanish custom, became entirely detached from the latter; serious friction broke out between these two elements, but the megorashim finally gained the upper hand. Their descendants instituted the Purim de Los Christianos to commemorate the defeat of the Portuguese at the battle of al-Qa\r al-Kabir in 1578; they held the office of nagid, established in Fez at the beginning of the 16th century, and their yeshivot were headed by scholars including Nahman b. Sunbal (d. after 1556), Samuel Hagiz (d. after 1596), Judah Uzziel (d. 1603), and Saul Serrero (d. after 1622). The Muslim world and its relations with europe were in a period of transition at this time.

From 1375 the Muslim world of the West clearly entered into its period of decline. The Jews of Morocco were all the more affected by this development because, unlike in Algeria, there was no revival due to the arrival of important Jewish personalities fleeing from the Spanish persecutions of 1391. The Jews who came to Morocco during this period were mainly of average erudition; morever, just like their native brothers, they encountered the fanaticism which had been introduced among the Muslim masses by the mystics who had then founded the Marabout movement. This movement eroded the authority of the last Merinid sovereigns, and a serious deterioration in the condition of the Jews ensued. in 1438 the Jews of Fez were enclosed within a special quarter, the first Moroccan mellah.

The political and economic situation in Morocco during the 15th century was bad. The sultan Abd al-Haqq turned to the Jews in order to straighten out his finances. He chose the Jew Aaron ben Battas as his prime minister, but a short while later the Merinid dynasty was ended (1465) with the assassination of its last representative and his Jewish minister. A large number of Jews lost their lives in this revolution, and many others were forcibly converted. They were authorized, however, to return to Judaism when Muhammad al-Shaykh al-Wattas< came to power in 1471. According to local traditions, groups of Jews had in the meantime taken refuge in Spain. Among these were the family of the scholar and poet Saadiah ibn Danan, who settled in Granada, as well as Hayyim Gagin, who became the leader of the native Jews upon his return to Morocco in 1492.

The Jewish chroniclers are unanimous in their description of the welcome accorded by the sultan Muhammad al-Shaykh al-Wattas< to the Spanish and Portuguese refugees (megorashim) in 1492 and 1496. Bands of plunderers, however, attacked the numerous Jews on the roads to Fez, the town to which they had been attracted. Once they arrived there, they found a lack of accommodations and they camped in the surrounding fields. About 20,000 of them died as a result of disasters, famine, and diseases. Many of them returned to Spain. Under the influence of powerful religious personalities, the majority of them, both distinguished families and the common people, permanently settled in the country. Among this new population there were such eminent men as Jacob QMnizal, Abraham Saba, Abraham of Torrutiel, Joshua Corcos, Nahman Sunbal, and others. There was, however, also a trend for emigration to Italy, Turkey, and Palestine. Among those who left Morocco at that time were Abraham Zacuto, Jacob (l) Berab, David ibn Abi Zimra, and Judah Hayyat.

The newcomers were generally ill received by their native coreligionists (toshavim). In spite of the fact that the megorashim rapidly assumed the leadership in southern communities, such a possibility was for a long time withheld from them in the north. The toshavim feared their commercial rivalry and their technical superiority. Controversies broke out between the two elements. The former went so far as to question the faith of the megorashim. The latter, however, succeeded in strengthening their position and in due course dominated all the communities where they were represented. Fez became their spiritual center. Their rabbis issued a large number of takkanot, which were known by the name of "takkanot of the exiles of Castile." These dealt essentially with the laws of marriage, divorce, and inheritance and were based on Spanish tradition. For 450 years they separated themselves in this manner from the toshavim. The descendants of the megorashim jealously adhered to their ways and customs. They worshiped in their own synagogues and sometimes had their own lots in the cemeteries. In such northern communities as TetuFn and Tangier the native Jews were completely assimilated among the descendants of the megorashim. Oblivious to their own origin, they disdainfully referred to their brothers of the interior as Forasteros ("aliens," i.e., to the Castilian community). Until recently, most of these communities spoke HakMtia, a mixture of Spanish, Hebrew, and an Arabic dialect. The ancient Castilian language, which differs from the Ladino spoken in the Orient, was, until the 19th century, in current usage among a large number of families of Spanish origin in both the north and south of the country.

At the beginning of the 16th century Portugal occupied some of the Moroccan coast on the shores of the Atlantic. Communities of megorashim had settled in such ports as Azemmour and Safi. From the beginning, cordial relations were established between them and the Portuguese, who employed their members as official interpreters and negotiators. The political role of these men was of prime importance to the kings of Portugal. Indeed, the latter granted the Jews of their Moroccan bases rights which may be considered as extraordinary for that period; they loaded such families as Benzamero, Adibe, and Dardeiro with favors. On the other hand, these Jews, as loyal subjects, did not hesitate in sacrificing their property or even their lives when this was required by Portuguese interests. The coreligionists who lived under the sharifs of Marrakesh or the Wattasids of Fez were the principal factors in arranging the peace, always unstable, between the Portuguese and the Muslims. Jacob Rosales and Jacob Roti, talented ministers of the Wattasids, endeavored to create a lasting reconciliation between the Christians and the Muslims. Counselors of Muslim princes such as Menahem Sananes or Abraham Cordovi pursued similar objectives. These exiles from Spain and Portugal often traveled to the Portuguese kings as Moroccan ambassadors. During their stay in the Iberian Peninsula they also induced the Marranos to establish themselves in Morocco.

During the 16th century, Morocco became a haven for Marranos who arrived from the Iberian Peninsula, the Madeira Islands, the Azores, the Canary Islands, and even the Americas. In TetuFn, Fez, MeknIs, and Marrakesh there were centers for reconversion to Judaism. Some Jews succeeded in transferring their fortunes there, while others, such as skillful craftsmen and especially the gunsmiths, found immediate employment. It was early Marranos who introduced a new process for the extracting of sugar from sugarcane. Due to their methods Morocco became the leading producer of the world's best sugar during the 16th-17th centuries. The Marranos were Jews of Spain and Portugal who had converted to Christianity and practiced their beliefs secretly. What if Sefer Hayashar was a work not a humanistic fiction but rather a real ancient text being maintained by Marranos who feared that their treasured work would appeal to neither Christianity nor conventional Talmudic Judaism?

The Hebrew introduction to Sefer Hayashar makes the claim that the book was rescued from Roman in 70 CE by one of Titus's generals who discovered an elderly Jewish man with a collection of ancient Hebrew texts while plundering the city after its defeat. He is said to have taken the books and the man to Spain where he was next posted. What if this introduction is as true as the printer's preface? Could there be a reason why it was not heard from for 1500 years?

According to various legends, there were Jews living in Spain in biblical times, but no proof exists in support of such traditions. Considerable upheavals, persecutions and wars have since destroyed much if not all evidence of what existed even in considerably more recent times. More demonstrably, the first group of Jews settled in Spain under the Roman Empire and the communities grew rapidly. Although there is no substantive information available on the beginnings of the Jewish settlement in Toledo, which was only a small village in the period of Roman rule over Spain, according to a Jewish tradition dating from the period of Muslim rule, the Jewish settlement in Toledo was the most ancient in the Iberian peninsula. This tradition was accepted by Isaac Abrabanel who states (in his commentary to the Book of Kings, at the end, and to Obadiah, 20) that the first settlers were exiles from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, who had arrived there after the destruction of the First Temple, and were associated with a legend concerning Pirus and Hispan who took part in the siege of Jerusalem. Hence the name "Tuletula" (Lat. Toletum= Toledo) has been explained as deriving from their wanderings (Heb. taltelah) when they were expelled from their land. A tombstone inscription attests the presence of Jews in Adra (the ancient Abdera) in the third century C.E. They thus witnessed the conversion of the inhabitants of the Peninsula to Christianity, which is probably why the Council of Elvira (305) attempted to effect or maintain a separation between the members of the two faiths by forbidding Christians to live in the houses of Jews, or to eat in their company, or to bless the produce of their fields.

The weakening of the Roman and then the later Byzantine empires and the arrival of the Visigoths changed the face of Spain. From their court in Toledo the Visigoths attempted to restore the shattered Hispanic unity, initially on the religious plane, through the conversion of their king Reccared, originally an Arian, to Catholicism (587). Subsequently, again in the political sphere, King Sisebut (612-21) broke down the last Byzantine stronghold in Spain. It is therefore hardly surprising that the Church councils of Toledo, which were as much political as they were religious assemblies, should have played so important a role in the Visigothic state, and thus in the determination of its policy toward the Jews. As in the case of all their other subjects, the policy became to have the Jews adopt Catholicism, which had by then become the state religion. Reccared approved the decision of the third Council of Toledo (589) which established the policy that the children of a mixed Jewish-Christian marriage should be baptized by force. Going even further, Sisebut later inaugurated a policy of forcible conversion of all the Jews in the kingdom. From 613 they were ordered to be baptized or leave the kingdom. Thousands of Jews then left Spain, while others were converted. Most of the latter, however, took the opportunity of returning to Judaism under the rule of his more tolerant successor Swintila (621-31). They were joined at this time by a number of exiles returning to Spain. At that period the official Church doctrine on conversion was formulated: Jews must not be baptized by force, and the fourth Council of Toledo (633) accepted this. King Sisenand (631-36) supported this attitude but, like the council, insisted that those Jews who had been converted by Sisebut and reverted to Judaism under Swintila must return to Christianity. One might safely assume that during this period anyone having a copy of Sefer Hayashar, particularly in Toledo, might well be ill-advised to try to make its insights widespread even during times of relative calm.

The relatively moderate attitude under King Sisenand was, however, revoked again under King Chintila (636-39) who compelled the sixth Council of Toledo (638) to adopt a resolution proclaiming that only Catholics could reside in the kingdom of Spain; he even anathematized those of his successors who did not hold to his decrees against the Jews. Numerous Jews accepted baptism and signed a declaration that they would respect Christian rites; others chose exile. Under Chintila's successor, Chindaswinth (641-49), the application of these laws had been neglected to such an extent that his successor, Recceswinth (649-72) complained to the eighth Council of Toledo (653) about the presence of Jews in the kingdom. Probably some of the exiles had come back and some of the converts had returned to Judaism. The king commanded that they be brought back within the fold of Christianity, by force if necessary. Those who had relapsed had to sign a new declaration, promising to be good Catholics, to reject all Jewish rites, and to execute themselves those of their erring brethren who backslid into Judaism. However, they were permitted to abstain from eating pork, which they abhorred. The king decided not to drive the unconverted Jews to the font but to make it impossible for them to practice Judaism by prohibiting circumcision and forbidding them to celebrate the Sabbath and the festivals. However, these ordinances were honored more in the breach than in the observance and, thanks to various allies, even among the clergy, the Jews were able to survive in Spain; so much so that the tenth Council of Toledo had to remind Christians that they were obliged to observe the laws relating to the Jews.

The next king, Wamba (672-80), expelled the Jews from Narbonne and probably also from Septimania (then part of Spain), but they did not all leave the Visigothic kingdom. They were there when Erwig (680-87) convoked the 12th Council of Toledo to obtain in spite of the traditional ruling of the Church, the forced baptism of the Jews. Within a year every Jew had to foreswear Judaism, accept baptism for himself and his family, and pledge his fidelity to the Christian faith. Those who refused were to be penalized by having their belongings seized, by corporal punishment, and finally by exile. Similar penalties were to be imposed on those who, baptized or not, observed Jewish rites. The priests were to gather all the Jews in the churches to read out to them the text of the law so that none could claim he was unaware of it. Any noble who helped the Jews to evade these laws was to lose his rights over the Jews and pay a heavy fine. The execution of the laws was the task of the clergy, the king reserving several penalties for them if they were lax in carrying out his orders. Yet the Jews continued to Judaize and even to attack Christianity on some occasions for the king could not count on the assistance of his people in carrying out the whole of his anti-Jewish policy.

Erwig's successor, Egica (687-702), reversed this attitude of toleration, restating once more the prescription on forced baptism and suppressing those disqualifications which oppressed converted Jews, while at the same time increasing the benefits to be gained from becoming Christian. He passed several measures tending to impoverish the Jews and make it impossible for them to buy protection from powerful nobles. They were forced to sell, at a price fixed by the king, all slaves, buildings, lands, and vineyards which they had acquired from Christians. On pain of perpetual servitude and confiscation of their goods, they were forbidden to conduct commercial transactions with Christians or overseas. At the same time their taxes were considerably increased. In spite of its ratification by the 16th Council of Toledo (693), this policy was unsuccessful. Soon it was rumored that the persecuted Jews were thinking of appealing to the Muslim invaders, who had shown themselves to be decidedly more tolerant than the Visigoths.

Alarmed, Egica convened a 17th council on Nov. 9, 694, accusing the Jews of treason and demanding that the severest measures be taken against them. Declared as slaves and their possessions confiscated, all the Jews of Spain were given into the hands of Christian masters in various provinces. Their masters were charged to see that they did not practice Jewish rites and to take their children to be brought up from the age of seven by Christian tutors and later married to Christians. Those Jews who were able to, escaped; the rest were taken into servitude. Thus, again, if Sefer Hayashar existed in Spain at this time, its custodians were likely concerned primarily with their own and its survival.

When Tarik b. Ziyad in 711 crossed the Straits of Gibraltar, and overran the Visigothic Kingdom, there were no communities of openly professing Jews in Spain. But there remained in the country many secret Jews who welcomed the Muslims as their saviors from long oppression and flocked to join them. According to reliable Arabic sources the Muslim invaders made it their custom to call together the Jews wherever they found them and to hand towns which they had conquered over to them to garrison. They mention that this happened at Cordoba, Granada, Toledo, and Seville. Since the number of Muslim soldiers was relatively small, there can be no doubt that they appreciated the military help of the Jews who enabled them to continue their campaigns without having to leave behind them sizable divisions.

Thus the situation of the Crypto-Jews in Spain changed abruptly and they occupied the enviable position of a group allied with the new rulers of the peninsula. Probably their economic situation changed too, since most of the Visigothic nobles had fled and they could appropriate abandoned estates. The immediate sequel of the conquest of Spain by the Arabs was apparently that many Jews who had left Spain at the time of the religious persecutions by the Visigothic kings or their descendants returned from North Africa where they had found shelter. But soon the Jews began to suffer from the exactions of the new rulers who imposed on them (as on the Christians) heavy taxes. Even the party strife and civil wars which flared up among the Arabs brought down many calamities upon them.

The Umayyad kingdom in Spain was established by Abd al-Rahman I in 755 with its capital at Cordoba in Andalusia. There was relative economic prosperity throughout Umayyad rule and Jews were represented in many occupations, including medicine, agriculture, commerce, and crafts. Jews continued to work in these fields after the fall of the Umayyad regime. The tolerance of the Umayyad regime rendered Muslim Spain a refuge for the Jews and their numbers increased within the country. In 839 the Frank bishop Bodo converted to Judaism in Saragossa, married a Spanish Jewess, and wrote a tract against Christianity to which Alvaros of Cordoba replied.

Jewish scholarship and culture flourished alongside its Arab counterpart and was influenced by it. The Babylonian geonim corresponded with rabbis and scholars in the centers of Lucena and Barcelona. R. Amram Gaon sent his prayer book to Spanish scholars. The academy at Lucena flourished into the 12th century and is mentioned in responsa as early as the ninth. Later Arab geographers cited Lucena, Granada, and Tarragona as "Jewish cities." The real Jewish cultural revival began in the tenth century under Abd al-Rahman III (912-961), who assumed the title of caliph in 929 in Cordoba. At that time Cordoba was a center of both Arab and Jewish culture. This was the time of the political rise of the court physician Hisdai ibn Shaprut, who attained the position of chief of customs and foreign trade. Hisdai was also a diplomat who negotiated with Christian rulers on behalf of the caliphate. In addition, he was a patron of the two leading Hebrew philologists, Dunash b. Labrat and Menahem b. Saruk. The Jewish literati acquired a sense of aesthetics and an appreciation of physical beauty from the artistic accomplishment of the Arabs in Spain. This sensitivity took root in the mid-tenth century and found expression in the Hebrew poetry of medieval Spain almost right up to the general expulsion in 1492. One might well ask why Sefer Hayashar did not appear in Jewish writings during this period after the Muslim conquest and prior to their expulsion. The answer might relate to conflicts with Talmudic Judaism. Sefer Hayashar is primarily a work of written Jewish history and as such it went against the emphasis of Talmudic scholarship on oral tradition and its interpreters. Toledo became the major centre in Spain for the Kairite movement which took a fundamentalist view of the Hebrew scriptures - a view which would also have been unsympathetic towards Sefer Hayashar. There was in general an overall interest in philosophy rather than biblical history.

During the 11th century talmudic studies had taken root in Spain with the arrival of Isaac b. Jacob Alfasi and continued to be greatly influenced by his work. With the aim of summing up the discussions of the sages and pointing out the correct halakhah, he prepared a resume of the Talmud. In this work, he stressed practical observance, an attitude which was characteristic of the great Spainish talmudists. His main pupil, Joseph b. Meir ha-Levi ibn Migash, followed in his footsteps and, like his teacher, wrote a number of responsa clarifying points of the law. The greatest stimulus to talmudic studies was the work of Maimonides, who spent his formative years in Spain and can be considered a Spanish scholar. He, too, produced works of codification of the law, the Mishneh Torah and Sefer ha-Mitzvot, and wrote numerous responsa. Like other Spanish rabbis, he did not scorn to bring out his works in Arabic so that they could be understood by all. This bilinguality in Hebrew and Arabic was a mark of the first era of Spanish Jewry. Another equally important characteristic was its enthusiasm for philosophical debates. Spanish Jewry's integration into the contemporary Arab culture obliged it to face the same problems, though generally with an avowedly polemic intent. Writers were largely concerned with demonstrating that revelation and philosophy were not necessarily contradictory and that in any case Judaism represented the superior truth.

Although Ibn Gabirol's philosophical work Fons Vitae has no specifically Jewish character, Judah Halevi devoted himself to a vigorous apology for Judaism. Bahya ibn Paquda, a moralist, attempted to show the superiority of ethical conduct over the ceremonial law, which becomes falsified if the "duties of the heart" are neglected. However, the greatest representative of the philosophic trend was Maimonides, who followed it to formulate his classic definition of the dogmas of Judaism. Nevertheless, from the beginning of the 13th century the supremacy of philosophy was challenged in the controversy over Maimonides' works (see Maimonidean Controversy), especially in the north of Spain, which had then reverted to Christian rule. The change in attitude was influenced by disillusionment arising from the changed conditions of Jewish life, by the renewed interest in talmudic studies due to the work of the Franco-German tosafists, and by the new trends in Jewish mysticism which first appeared in Provence before reaching Spain.

At the beginning of the 14th century the Franco-German talmudic tradition came face to face with the Spanish through the arrival of Asher b. Jehiel, resulting in the preservation of unity in the field of Jewish law. Warmly received by the greatest Spanish scholar of the day, Solomon b. Abraham Adret, Asher b. Jehiel cooperated with him in restoring peace: the study of philosophy was permitted, but under clearly defined conditions. Time, too, had done its work and the controversy was soon stilled. In the meantime the Kabbalah became increasingly important, especially in the group at Gerona. The celebrated talmudist Nahmanides became one of its leading advocates. The appearance of the Zohar, the largest part of which was produced by Moses b. Shem Tov de Leon between 1280 and 1286, gave a powerful impulse to the development of the kabbalistic trend which became predominant in Spain. Talmudic studies too gained a new impetus through the commentaries, novellae, and responsa of Nahmanides, Solomon b. Abraham Adret, Asher b. Jehiel, and Nissim b. Reuben Gerondi. Jacob b. Asher, son of Asher b. Jehiel, produced his codification of the law, the Arba'ah Turim, which remains to this day the archetype of the rabbinic code and was one of the bases of the Shulhan Arukh.

Another code, Sefer Abudarham, was compiled by David b. Joseph Abudarham of Seville. Following in the same path Menahem b. Aaron ibn Zerah of Navarre composed his Zeidah la-Derekh. Yom Tov b. Abraham Ishbili was especially noted for his many novellae; Isaac b. Sheshet Perfet, who had to leave Spain in 1391, wrote many responsa. Biblical commentaries (frequently showing kabbalistic influences) also came to the fore once more with the works of Nahmanides, Bahya b. Asher, and Jacob b. Asher, although the latter resolutely avoided kabbalistic speculation.

Nevertheless the persecutions had grave consequences for scholarship too. The Judeo-Arab heritage began to disappear. Those conditions which had drawn Spanish Jews toward the study of science, medicine, and astrology in particular ceased to exist. This decay became more marked in the 15th century. Apart from the philosophic works of Hasdai Crescas and Joseph Albo, whose Sefer ha-Ikkarim was a new attempt to define the dogmas of Judaism, the creative period had passed. The messianic upheaval, exacerbated by persecution, only prolonged it slightly; the spirit of this period is best expressed in the works of Isaac b. Judah Abrabanel, who in 1492 preferred exile to apostasy. Probably stimulated by fear for the future, interest in kabbalistic speculation continued unabated. The expulsion itself did not mark a final end of the development of this specific type of culture. Abraham Zacuto finished his rabbinical history on the way to exile. The intellectual activity of Spanish Jewry was transferred to Eastern and European centers. Even the use of the Spanish language continued unchanged (see Ladino; Sephardim). Such was the vitality of this outlook that it remained seminal in Jewish life for many centuries. Perhaps a hint of what might have happened to Sefer Hayashar might be gleaned from the history of Toledo and the Kairite movement.

In the eighth century, Anan Ben David (eighth century), an ascetic sage in Babylonia, became the founder of the sect of Ananites (Heb. MyjnnA; Ananiyyim; Ar. 'Ananiyya). He then came to be regarded by the Karaites as their founder. This anti-Talmudic group eventually became very popular in Spain, where Toledo became a leading centre. A tenth-century Karaite account, related by al-Kirkisani, places Anan Ben David's origin as Bagdad and his appearance between 754 and 775. The report states that Anan was "the first to bring to light a great deal of the truth about the scriptural ordinances. He was learned in the lore of the Rabbanites... The Rabbanites tried their utmost to assassinate him, but the Almighty prevented them from doing so." In comparison to the Rabbanists who were developing the Talmud, Anan ben David was a scriptural fundamentalist. The Rabbanists were developing theology based on the oral traditions of commentary of the oral traditions that resulted in the Mishnah. The Ananites taught a doctrine of disregarding this established oral tradition and the writings it had produced. In the second half of the ninth century the Rabbanites saw Anan as a heresiarch "who said to those who strayed... after him, 'Forsake ye the words of the Mishnah and of the Talmud, and I will compose for you a Talmud of my own'" (attributed to Natronai Gaon).

By the eleventh century Toledo was the Berber capital with a Jewish population of 4,000. It had a prominent Karaite community. Jews probably established themselves there in greater numbers when the town became the capital of the Visigoths, or during the preceding fourth to fifth centuries C.E. The Jewish settlement was, however, inconsiderable, the Jews then being mainly concentrated in the towns on the east coast. Once the Visigoths became converted to Christianity, the Church councils held in Toledo, particularly from the reign of Sisenand onward, directed many decrees against them, which the Visigothic kings strictly applied. The legislation indicates that there were Jewish settlements in Toledo and the vicinity mainly engaged in agriculture. When the danger of a Muslim invasion seemed imminent, the 17th Church council, held in Toledo in 694, accused the Jews of plotting, in collaboration with their coreligionists living across the straits, to destroy the Christian kingdom. There is, however, no foundation to the accusation that the Jews delivered the town to the Muslims at the time of its capture (c. 712). Information on the conquest and the presence of Jews in the town is extant from a later period: during the 13th century, Ibn al-Adhari wrote that there had been only a few Jews in the town at the time of its conquest.

The main Jewish quarter in Toledo was situated in the western part of the town, where it remained throughout the existence of the Jewish settlement. In this area, a number of streets bear names recalling the magnificent past of the community: Samuel ha-Levi, TravesEa de la JuderEa. The quarter spread as far as the gate known today as Cambr\n, formerly named "Gate of the Jews." The principal artery of the Jewish quarter, at present known as Calle del Angel, was formerly named Calle de la JuderEa. This street led to a spacious square which was presumably the center of the quarter. The wall which surrounded the quarter was built as early as 820. There was also a fortress in the quarter for the protection of the Jewish population. Because of the form of its construction, the quarter constituted a kind of independent town which could provide support and assistance to the king when necessary. In addition, there was another unfortified quarter near the cathedral, the Alcana quarter, which existed until at least the 13th century.

The size of the Jewish population of Toledo cannot be estimated from the area of the Jewish quarters. Baer estimates that the community consisted of 350 families during the 14th century, including those who lived in villages in the vicinity. The historian Ayala concluded that 1,200 Jewish men, women, and children of Toledo died in the persecutions of 1355, in the Alcana quarter only, though Baer does not consider that there were so many Jews living here. In 1368, during the siege of Henry of Trastamara against the town, 8,000 Jews including adults and children died in Toledo, showing the magnitude of their numbers at that time. The community of Toledo was one of the largest in the Iberian peninsula, and at the height of its prosperity the Jews probably formed one-third of the city's population, which was then over 40,000.

Toledo is one of the few towns of Spain where remnants of Jewish edifices have been preserved. Toward the close of the 15th century the sources (see Cantera, in bibliography) mention ten synagogues and a further five battei midrash. The synagogues included the Great Synagogue situated in the old quarter, which was destroyed by fire in 1250; the Old Synagogue, renovated in 1107, an event which Judah Halevi immortalized in a poem; the Ben-Ziza Synagogue, and many others, some of whose names have not been recorded. In addition, there was a synagogue founded by Joseph Abu 'Omar ibn Shoshan in 1203, converted into a church named Santa Maria la Blanca in 1411 by Vicente Ferrer (see below). Another synagogue was built by Don Samuel Halevi in c. 1357; transferred to the Order of the Knights of Calatrava in 1494, it later belonged to the priory of San Benito and is at present named El Transito. These two synagogues, still standing, are built in pronounced Mudihari style and are distinguished for the beauty of their arches and general appearance. They were evidently built by Moorish craftsmen, and underwent structural alterations to adapt them to church requirements. Both were declared national monuments toward the middle of the 19th century. Repairs have been carried out in the Samuel Halevi Synagogue, and the women's gallery and other parts have been restored. The synagogue was appointed to serve as the Museum for the History of the Jews in Spain in 1964. It is decorated with passages from the Psalms and beautiful dedicatory inscriptions to the benefactor and builder of the synagogue and King Pedro, during whose reign it was erected. The house of Samuel Halevi, still standing, was for a while inhabited by the painter El Greco.

Toledo also has many remnants of Jewish tombstones, some of which are preserved in the archaeological museum of the town. Copying of the inscriptions on these tombstones was begun from the end of the 16th century; many of the tombstones have since been lost. During the 19th century these reproductions were seen by S. D. Luzzatto, who published them (Avnei Zikkaron). A scholarly edition of these inscriptions was published by Cantera and M Ellas with the addition of inscriptions and findings discovered after Luzzatto's publication. Of the tombstones whose inscriptions were published, noteworthy are those of Joseph Abu 'Omar ibn Shoshan (builder of the synagogue mentioned above) who died in 1205; several members of the Abulafia family; Jonah b. Abraham of Gerona (d. 1264); David b. Gedaliah ibn Yahya of Portugal (d. 1325); Jacob b. Asher, author of the Turim (d. 1340), son of Asher b. Jehiel (see below); his brother, Judah b. Asher, and members of his family who died in the Black Death in 1349; the woman Sitbona (a unique tombstone preserved in the archaeological museum of Toledo); and R. Menahem b. Zerah author of Zeidah la-Derekh (d. 1385).

Other findings include a pillar with the inscription "Blessed be thy coming and blessed be thy going," with an Arabic version of a blessing, which belonged to one of the synagogues of the town; its architectural form indicates that it dates from the late 12th or early 13th century. The bath house of the Jews of the town was handed over to the San Clemente monastery in 1131 by Alfonso VII but its location is unknown. This abundance of findings is exceptional in Spain, where few Jewish remains have been preserved.

During the 11th century, when Toledo was ruled by the Berber Ibn Danun dynasty, it had a large Jewish population of about 4,000, divided into separate communities generally according to place of origin (eg., the Cordobans, Barcelonese, etc.), and a group to which was attributed to Khazar descent. Toledo was also the center of the Karaites in Spain. Jewish occupations included textile manufacture, tanning, and dyeing, military professions, and commerce. Jews in the villages near Toledo were known for their skill in agriculture and viticulture. A wealthy class of Jewish merchants, bankers, and agents for foreign Christian rulers lived in Toledo. Toledo became a center of Jewish scholarship, translation, and science; the astronomer Zarkal (Abu Ishaq Ibrahim b. Yahya) lived there for a time in the mid-11th century, and the biblical commentator Judah b. Samuel ibn Bal'am was born and educated in Toledo in this period.

The accepted meaning of the name of the Kairite sect-Kara'im, Ba'alei ha-Mikra ("people of the Scriptures")-is assumed to imply the main characteristic of the sect, the recognition of the Scriptures as the sole and direct source of religious law, to the exclusion of the Oral Law. There is, however, another interpretation of the name Kara'im, defining it as "callers" or "propagandists," in the sense of the Arabic word duat by which the Shiite Muslim sect designated propagandists on behalf of Ali. Since a religion based on revelation cannot tolerate the complete exclusion of tradition, either in principle or in practice, the Karaite demand for a return to Scripture should be taken as a theoretical watchword, directed not against all tradition, but specifically against the rabbinical tradition.

As a matter of fact, the Karaites also developed a tradition of their own, described by them as sevel ha-yerushah ("yoke of inheritance"), consisting of doctrines and usages which, although not found in the Bible, were accepted as binding by the entire community (the kibbuz or edah, corresponding to the Muslim term ijma,"consensus"). A large number of these had come down from the Jews who had returned from the Babylonian exile (those designated as the "good figs," Jer. 24:5).

The discovery of the documents of the Dead Sea Sect has given rise to much speculation as to the possible influence of that sect and its literature upon the early schismatics who later merged into the Karaite sect. Assuming, with the overwhelming majority of students of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that they date from about the time of Jesus and that the Dead Sea sectarians went out of existence by the second century C.E., the problem may be considered under several aspects. The chronological aspect demands an explanation of the gap of some five hundred years between the disappearance of the Dead Sea sectarians and the rise of the early Karaite schismatics. To account for it, several ancient notices of the finding of Jewish manuscripts in caves (by Origen, c. 217 C.E., Timotheus, c. 800 C.E., and by Al-Kirkisani, c. 937 C.E.) are cited, as well as the fact that fragments of the so-called Damascus Document (copies of which had been discovered in the Cairo Genizah) were found among the Dead Sea documents. This argument is at best weak. Origen records the discovery of a Greek biblical manuscript, and does not identify the contents of the other manuscripts found with it. Al-Kirkisani describes the manuscripts found in a cave as belonging to the literature of the pre-Christian sect of the Magharians, whose books, with two exceptions, he dismisses as "merely... idle tales." As for the Damascus Document, all that can be said is that it was known in Jewish circles, not necessarily Karaite alone, in Cairo early in the second millennium C.E. Nowhere in early Karaite literature so far known is there mention of the discovery of pre-Karaite documents confirming the righteousness of the Karaite teachings. Why would they have kept such a find secret? Such secretiveness is quite out of their character. A connection with our hypothesized book of Yashar is equally problematic - but the connection with biblical fundamentalism is not. One wonders if this may have attracted adherents of Sefer Hayashar to Kairitism or vice versus.

The doctrinal aspect is equally beset with difficulties. A number of close parallels between Dead Sea and Karaite doctrines have been pointed out (always subject to the caveat of the obscurity and ambiguity of the atrocious Hebrew style of the Scrolls)-for example, the emphasis on searching Scripture for right guidance, the implied rejection of oral tradition, the pressing and impatient messianism with its concomitant search in Scripture for hidden forecasts of the "end," when the Messiah will come to redeem Israel, and the tendency to regard biblical events not as accounts of past happenings but as prognostications of present-day situations. Added to all this is, of course, the common conviction that this is the true Mosaic faith, and that those who believe otherwise are misled into error. But what these parallelisms prove is that both sects remained true to the mainstream of Jewish sectarianism in its natural reaction to the prevailing majority of Jewry which acknowledged the authority of the post-biblical oral tradition. Moreover, these similarities must be weighed against an at least equally substantial series of dissimilarities, which cannot be reconciled with historical Karaism: the dualism of the Dead Sea Sect which divided the world into two opposing camps of good and evil ("light and darkness") subject to a predestined and immutable fate, the aforementioned tendency to secretiveness and obscurity of language, the inferior Hebrew style indicative of serious neglect of the study of Scripture in its original tongue, and the rigid and absolute monastic hierarchy. The only factual conclusion warranted by all these considerations would therefore seem to be the following: there is, at the present state of knowledge of the literature of both sects, no tangible evidence that the early Karaites had any direct or indirect contact with the Dead Sea writings, or if they had any secondhand knowledge of them, that they had been influenced by them to any recognizable extent. All that can be said is that both sects are separate-not consecutive and interdependent-links in the long chain of Jewish schism, going back to mishnaic times or even earlier, whose basic and common characteristic was anti-traditionalism.

Anan's immediate followers, the Ananites, were never numerous. Only a few remained by the tenth century. They steadily decreased in number and were absorbed into the later Karaites. However, Anan's prestige among the Karaites increased until he was acknowledged by them as the father of the Karaite sect itself. Although none of Anan's descendants could equal him in influence, they were much respected by succeeding generations of Karaites and accorded the honorific of nasi. Individual Karaite scholars often criticized or rejected Anan's views on various matters of law. These somewhat contradictory attitudes arise from the recognition that Anan was the first learned and aristocratic figure to lend his prestige to the hitherto obscure anti-Rabbanite movement among the poorer Jewish classes. In addition, his major work, Sefer ha-Mitzvot ("Book of Precepts"), became the keystone of Karaite literature and a rallying point for the various opponent non-Rabbanite schisms. The Sefer ha-Mitzvot is a manual of religious law according to Anan's own teaching, written in Aramaic. The portions so far discovered contain concise, if dry, expositions of the law on various subjects.

The guiding principles later ascribed to Anan's teaching include rejection of the talmudic tradition, a return to Scripture as the sole source of Divine Law, and repudiation of the authority of the geonic and exilarchic leadership. However, his extant writings demonstrate attempts to adapt the ancient biblical legislation to the changed circumstances of his day. His Rabbanite training ensured that his methods of biblical exegesis, as well as of formulation and interpretation of the law, were much the same as those adopted by the Talmud. But his conclusions were innovatory. His preferred method of deduction was by analogy (Heb. hekkesh; Arabic, qiyas), also frequently applied in Muslim jurisprudence. Anan, however, applied it not only to situations in law, but also to single words or even letters of the biblical text. In line with talmudic exegetical tradition, Anan held that the rules of rhetoric and syntax do not apply to Scripture. If two biblical texts seemingly describe the same situation, but in slightly different words, or employing somewhat varying grammatical constructions, a new and variant rule must be applied to construe the second text. Anan's procedure often seems to be a deliberate construction of proof, by forced interpretation of Scripture, for an Ananite preformulated rule. His rigorous, ascetic approach moved him to postulate the principle that the strict and prohibitive must always take precedence over the lenient and permissive, wherever both alternatives are equally admissible. One result of this attitude was that the elements of joy and pleasure, associated in Rabbanite practice with such institutions as Sabbath and Passover, were ruled out as being contrary to the mourning and sorrow which should mark Jewish life so long as Israel remained in exile and the Temple in ruins. Accordingly Anan also championed the rikkuv ("restrictive catenary") theory of forbidden marriages (extending the forbidden degrees of marriage), a 70-day fast (from the 13th of Nisan to the 23rd of Sivan evidently involving daytime fasting only, in the manner of the Muslim fast of Ramadan), and prohibition of the practice of medicine as incompatible with faith in the Divine healing power.

Various earlier and contemporary rigoristic and ascetic trends may have influenced Anan. His teaching indicates the inception of institutions for the separate existence of his sect. Rabbanite writers often accused Anan of a leaning toward the doctrines of the Sadducees, but since the available information is meager and partly contradictory, the extent of Sadducean influence, if any, remains in doubt. The same uncertainty also prevails regarding his probable espousal of religious customs current among certain Jewish groups in the talmudic period. These had been subsequently dropped in favor of those approved by the majority and incorporated in the Talmud. References to some such superseded customs seem to be discernible in the talmudic discussions, and are paralleled in some of Anan's rulings. Certain of Anan's doctrines coincide with those upheld by nearly all other schisms. They presumably represent a long-persisting dissident Jewish tradition, possibly harking back to pre-mishnaic times. An example is the rule that the festival of Shavuot should always fall on a Sunday, and perhaps also the prohibition on having any fire burning on the Sabbath. It would be rash, in the present state of knowledge, to suggest an immediate connection between Anan's teaching and that found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The picture of Anan as an inflexible ascetic presented by his teaching may be modified to some extent in the light of the maxim ascribed to him, "Search diligently in Scripture, and rely not on my opinion." Scholars differ as to whether to ascribe this maxim to Anan or whether it represents tenth-century Karaite tendencies. However there appears no ground for questioning its origin with Anan. It would have been perfectly in character for Anan to remain convinced of the rightness of his own teaching, while conceding the same privilege of independent thinking to others, or at least to those who could claim equal erudition in Scripture. Later reports that Anan acknowledged the prophetic mission of Jesus and Muhammad and accepted the doctrine of transmigration of souls seem to lack any factual basis. His extant writings are: Sefer ha-Mitzvot le-Anan publ. by A. Harkavy, in: Studien und Mitteilungen, 8 (1903; with Hebrew translation, repr. 1970); S. Schechter, Sectarics, 2 (1910); Mann, in: Journal of Jewish Lore and Philosophy, 1 (1919), 329-53.

The name "Karaites" was not applied to the sect until the ninth century; the principal component of the sect was originally known as "Ananites," from the name of its founder, Anan b. David. The sect appears to have come into being as the result of a combination of factors: the amalgamation of various heterodox trends in Babylonian-Persian Jewry; the tremendous religious, political, and economic fermentation in the entire East, resulting from the Arab conquests and the collision of Islam with world religions; and the social and economic grievances of the poorer classes of Jewry, particularly those who had left the populous center of Babylonia and had migrated to the sparsely settled frontier provinces of the caliphate, where they were more or less independent of the Babylonian Jewish authorities. The Karaite sect absorbed both such Jewish sects as the Isawites (adherents of Abu 'Isa al-Iofahani) and Yudghanites, who were influenced by East-Islamic tendencies, and small remnants of pre-talmudic Sadducees and Boethusians and similar anti-traditional movements.

The Karaites themselves, however, trace their origin to the first split among the Jewish people, at the time of Jeroboam; the true law had subsequently been preserved by the Sadducees, whose leader, Zadok, had discovered a portion of the truth, while the discovery of the whole truth was the achievement of the exilarch Anan (thus Al-Kirkisani and others). The unhistorical, fanciful, and biased Karaite sources also influenced the reports of Arab authors. Rabbanite sources, on the other hand, give their own one-sided version of the emergence of the Karaite schism, ascribing it exclusively to Anan's personal ambition and the injury his pride suffered when his younger brother Hananiah was elected exilarch.

The absorption by Anan's movement of many elements of an older, extra-talmudic tradition was pointed out particularly by A. Geiger and R. Mahler. Anan also took over several doctrines from Islam and Islamic sects; among these there may have been the doctrine of metempsychosis (transmigration of souls), in defense of which Anan is said to have composed a special work. Anan cannot, however, be described as a true "reformer" of Judaism; far from easing the "yoke" of traditional law, he made it more difficult to bear: he did not recognize the minimum quantities (shi'urim) of forbidden foods fixed by the rabbis; he introduced more complicated regulations for the circumcision ceremony; he added to the number of fast days; he interpreted the prohibition of work on the Sabbath in stricter terms; etc. He was particularly severe with regard to the laws on marriage between relatives, ritual cleanliness, and relations with non-Jews. In his interpretation of Scripture, he made extensive use of the 13 hermeneutic canons of R. Ishmael b. Elisha, adding to them the principle of analogy (hekkesh, Ar. qiyas; the latter, perhaps, under the influence of Abu-Hanifah, the founder of the Hanafite school of Muslim jurisprudence).

The principle established by Anan, as transmitted by Japheth b. Ali: "Search thoroughly in the Torah and do not rely on my opinion" was designed to uphold the Holy Scriptures as the sole source of the law; in practice, it contributed a great deal to the disintegration of the new movement after the death of its alleged founder. Innumerable groups and parties were formed within the Karaite sect, and soon, as related by Kirkisani, it became impossible to find two Karaites who held the same opinions on all religious issues. Anan's adherents, in the stricter sense, called themselves Ananites and remained few in number. Anan's descendants, who like Anan before them were given the honorific title of nasi ("prince") by their contemporaries, lived for the most part in Egypt. The names of his son, Saul b. Anan and his grandson, Josiah b. Saul b. Anan, are known from the prayer for the dead in the Karaite Sabbath and festival liturgy; neither seems to have had any role in the further development of the sect. Saul is also mentioned in Sefer ha-Kabbalah, by Abraham ibn Daud, and Josiah in Eshkol ha-Kofer, by Judah Hadassi, and in Gan Eden, by Aaron b. Elijah the Younger of Nicomedia.

As the Karaite movement did not recognize any single leader, it was not long before many sects arose in its midst, in opposition to the Ananites. Thus, in the first half of the ninth century, the Ukbarite sect, whose founder was Ishmael of 'Ukbara, came into being in Ukbara, near Baghdad, at the time of the caliph al-Mutaoim (833-842). Like Al-Kirkisani, Ishmael was violently opposed to Anan, "often denouncing him as a fool and an ass." Nothing of Ishmael's writing has been preserved and the little known about him and his school derives almost exclusively from the reports of Al-Kirkisani, at whose time (second half of the tenth century) the sect was probably no longer in existence. In his teaching, Ishmael rejects, inter alia, the masoretic variants (keri and ketiv, the reading of certain words in the Bible in a manner that differs from their spelling).

The same town, Ukbara, was also the place of origin of another sect, founded in the second half of the ninth century by Mishawayh al-Ukbari; characteristic of this sect is the principle that in all disputed matters (such as the day of the New Year Festival and the determination of the new moon), the Rabbanite practice was to be followed ("all coins are counterfeit, so one might as well use the one at hand," i.e., observe the holidays with the "whole," the Rabbanites). Among Mishawayh's innovations is his opinion that the day, in the religious sense, begins in the morning and comes to an end the following night (whereas according to the Rabbanites, and other Karaite sects, the day commences on the preceding evening). Another Karaite sect was founded by a contemporary of Mishawayh, Musa (Moses) al-Zafarani, a resident of Tiflis; also known as Abu 'Imran al-Tiflisi, he was probably a native of Zafaran, a district of Baghdad. The report by Al-Kirkisani (perhaps the earliest mention of Jewish settlement in the Caucasus) states that al-Tiflisi was a disciple of Ishmael of Ukbara, and the author of a treatise sanctioning the consumption of meat (whereas many sects, including the earliest Karaite authorities, regarded the eating of meat as prohibited as long as Zion was in ruins and Israel in exile). Musa was also mentioned by the Karaite authors Japheth b. Ali (tenth century) and Judah Hadassi, and by Saadiah Gaon; the latter, in his commentary on the Pentateuch, cites the opinion held by Al-Tiflisi and his supporters that the new month always commences at the moment when the new moon first makes its appearance, so that the day of the new moon is already a part of the new month (commentary to Gen. 1:14-18). Another sect, closely related to that of Al-Tiflisi and its contemporary, was created at Ramleh in Erez Israel by Malik al-Ramli. According to Al-Kirkisani, Malik made an oath on the Temple site in Jerusalem that chickens had been sacrificed at the Temple altar; by this oath, Malik sought to strengthen his view-as reported by the Karaite author Jacob b. Reuben in his commentary on Leviticus-that the torim mentioned in Leviticus 1:14, which were used as Temple sacrifices, were chickens, thereby contradicting Anan and his successors, who translated the term dukhifat ("the hoopoe") in Leviticus 11:19, as hen, and accordingly classified the chicken as an impure, prohibited bird.

It follows that in the ninth century and the beginning of the tenth, the Karaite movement was a conglomeration of various anti-Rabbanite heresies, some of which had sprung up after Anan's death. Al-Kirkisani gives a vivid description of the countless differences on questions of religious ritual that existed among the various Karaite groups, some of which still existed in Al-Kirkisani's time. In order to counter the Rabbanite arguments in polemics with the Karaites, based upon these heterogeneous views, Al-Kirkisani concludes his description with a characteristic observation: the Karaite readers of his work, he states, had no reason for concern, for in this respect there was a great difference between them and the Rabbanites: "They [i.e., the Rabbanites] believe that their laws and regulations have been transmitted by the prophets; if that was the case, there ought not to exist any differences of opinion among them and the fact that such differences of opinion do exist refutes their presumptuous belief. We, on the other hand, arrive at our views by our reason, and reason can lead to various results."

The many sects which had come upon the Karaite scene after Anan disappeared as fast as they had sprung up, without leaving any noticeable trace upon the movement. By their gradual self-liquidation, however, they prepared the ground for the consolidation of a well-defined, uniform doctrine which has subsisted to this very day as Karaism. The outstanding representative of the new movement in the ninth century was Benjamin b. Moses Nahawendi (from Nehavend, Persia; c. 830-860) who laid the groundwork for the new development of Karaite doctrine and was also the first Karaite writer to employ the term Kara'im (Benei Mikra). Rabbanite scholars, such as Saadiah Gaon and Judah Halevi, regard Anan and Benjamin as the fathers and founders of the Karaite sect; Arabic and Karaite authors also refer to Karaites as A\hab Anan wa-Binyamin (i.e., followers of Anan and Benjamin). The Karaites themselves put Benjamin almost on the same level as Anan, and in the memorial prayer (zikhronot) Benjamin's name follows immediately upon those of Anan, Saul, and Josiah. It was Benjamin, in particular, who turned the free and independent individual study of the Scriptures into a basic principle of Karaism. Thus it became possible for Karaism to tolerate differing interpretations of the Bible; brother did not have to agree with brother, nor son with father, nor a pupil with his teacher, and none had the right to remonstrate with the other on this account. Benjamin also differed from Anan in making no special efforts to maintain a hostile attitude to the Rabbanites and stress a fundamental opposition to them. He sought to base each law upon the Bible (without differentiating between the Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa) and freely borrowed from the Rabbanites (although he declared such regulations as not binding upon Karaites). Furthermore, he advised his coreligionists to adopt the Rabbanite view in cases where the Bible did not provide a clear prescription. Benjamin may also be regarded as the first Karaite dogmatician and religious philosopher. Seeking to remove all taint of anthropomorphism from the conception of God, he employed Philo's theory of the Logos (which he may have known in Arabic translation or by the way of the Maghariyya-the cave dweller-sect, mentioned by Al-Kirkisani) in his exegesis of the Bible (see also Sects, Minor). The creator of the world, its builder, and its guide, was an angel created by God to represent His will; it was this angel who performed the miracles, revealed the Law, etc., and it is to this angel that the anthropomorphic passages in the Bible refer.

Daniel b. Moses al-Qumisi, who lived toward the end of the ninth century and seems to have been the first eminent Karaite scholar to settle in Jerusalem, opposed Benjamin's method of Bible exegesis, and denied the existence of angels, interpreting the term malakhim as natural forces employed by God to serve as His emissaries (cf. Psalms 78:49; 104:4). Opposing also Benjamin's principle of independent Bible study, he called for strict adherence to the literal sense of the Scriptures. This may also explain his fight against Anan, whom he had at first revered as "first among the sages" ("rosh ha-maskilim"), only to denounce him as "first among the fools" ("rosh ha-kesilim"). It may be assumed that it was this attitude to Anan that caused Al-Qumisi's exclusion from the Karaite memorial prayer, in spite of the great respect in which he was held by later Karaite writers. Al-Qumisi also taught that in case of doubt, the more rigorous interpretation of the law should be accepted, and was thus the representative of a reactionary movement, opposed to Al-Nahawendi's liberal attitude.

In the tenth century, when Karaism was already fairly consolidated, the movement adopted an aggressive attitude, designed to spread its doctrine. This was also the golden age of Karaite literature (with most of the Karaite works of this period being written in Arabic). Karaite attempts to gain mass support for their beliefs among the Rabbanites (which, however, seem to have attracted only a few converts of no particular distinction) brought forth, on both sides, an apologetic and polemic literature. There were in this period (ninth and tenth centuries) a considerable number of outstanding Karaite theologians, religious teachers, grammarians, lexicographers, and biblical exegetes. Rejection of secular sciences, which Anan had advocated, was discarded and Karaite scholars became active participants in the flourishing Arabic culture. In view of the special significance attached by Karaism to the study of the Bible, the Karaites dedicated themselves with great zeal to masoretic and grammatical exegetic studies and must have had a stimulating influence upon Rabbanite scholars. Some Jewish historians (such as J. Fuerst, S. Pinsker, H. Graetz) were even of the opinion that the first Jewish masoretes, grammarians, and biblical exegetes had been Karaites, but this thesis has been refuted by subsequent scientific research.

Karaite missionary activity, while hardly successful, forced the Rabbanites to take note of their existence and combat them. The first prominent Rabbanite to attack the Karaites was Saadiah Gaon, who at the age of 23 wrote a book (in Arabic) attacking Anan. On both sides the battle was waged with great ardor and often with a lack of objectivity; however, it remained a war of words and scarcely ever degenerated into physical violence. The main targets of Karaite attacks were the anthropomorphisms of the aggadah and of Jewish mystical literature. Karaite literature flourished in most of the areas under Muslim rule-in Egypt, North Africa, and particularly in Erez Israel, in addition to Babylonia and Persia, where Karaism had come into being.

The greatest Karaite mind of the tenth century was Abu Yusuf Yaqub al-Kirkisani whose work on religious law, Kitab al-Anwar wa-al-Maraqib, particularly its opening chapter, represents one of the foremost sources for the history of the Karaite sect. David b. Boaz, a descendant of Anan, attained great repute as a biblical commentator, and is also said to have composed a work (in Arabic) on the basic doctrines of religion. In the second half of the tenth century, David b. Abraham Alfasi, a resident of Fez (Morocco), became known as a lexicographer and biblical exegete. At the end of the century Japheth b. Ali from Basra translated the entire Bible into Arabic and added his own commentary, becoming, as a commentator on the Bible, the Karaite counterpart of Rashi. Japheth's son, Levi b. Japheth, in addition to Bible commentary, also wrote a work on religious law. One of the most active opponents of Rabbanism and especially of Saadiah Gaon, was Salmon b. Jeroham (mid-tenth century). In a similar vein was the work of Sahl b. Mazli'ah ha-Kohen, a skillful and eloquent Karaite missionary who wrote a commentary on the Bible and was a religious teacher; his Hebrew introduction to his Arabic-language book of precepts contains important information on the Karaite community in Jerusalem.

At that time Jerusalem was one of the outstanding spiritual centers of Karaism. Among the scholars residing there at the end of the tenth century was Joseph b. Noah, who gained fame as the director of a religious academy, biblical commentator, and Hebrew grammarian. His pupil, Abu al-Faraj Harun (Aaron b. Jeshua), who lived in the first half of the 11th century, was also a noted grammarian ("the grammarian of Jerusalem"), lexicographer, and biblical exegete. A contemporary scholar was Nissi ben Noah, a resident of Persia, author of a philosophical commentary on the Ten Commandments. The outstanding Karaite theologian and religious philosopher of the 11th century was Joseph b. Abraham ha-Kohen ha-Ro'eh al-Baoir (Hebrew "ha-Ro'eh," euphemistically for "the Blind"), who had also been a disciple of Joseph ben Noah. Al-Baoir's religious philosophy was decisively influenced by the teachings of Kalam; he attacked Anan's doctrine on metempsychosis and the theological views of Benjamin al-Nahawendi, and denounced the extremist interpretations of forbidden marriages (the so-called rikkuv theory). His pupil Jeshua b. Judah (Arabic name: Abu al-Faraj Furqan ibn Asad) became known as a religious teacher and philosopher, as well as a translator of the Bible and an exegete (in the latter capacity he earned the admiration of Abraham ibn Ezra). Like his teacher, Jeshua was also an adherent of the philosophy of Kalam and his opposition to the extension of the categories of forbidden marriages was even greater, and more decisive, than that of Joseph. Jeshua was the last Karaite scholar in Erez Israel. At the end of the 11th century Karaite literary and scientific work in Erez Israel came to an abrupt end as the result of the First Crusade (1099). When the invading army, under Godfrey of Bouillon, took Jerusalem, the members of the Karaite community, with the Rabbanites, were driven into a synagogue and burned alive (see Graetz, 6 (1894), 95). This seems to have marked the destruction of the Karaite community in Jerusalem. In 1642, according to the report of the Jewish traveler Samuel b. David, there were only 27 Karaites living in Jerusalem, and in the middle of the 18th century there were no Karaites at all. Karaite efforts, however, to maintain a representative group of pietists in the Holy City never ceased.

The decline of Karaism in the East began in the 12th century. No original writer of any significance came to the fore there after the first half of that century, even in the field of religious law. The only exception was in Egypt, where for a time the Karaites enjoyed the goodwill of the authorities and also had some success among the Rabbanites who were the victims of political repression. Some Rabbanites converted to Karaism, while others, without leaving traditional Judaism, came under Karaite influence and neglected rabbinical precepts. It was only when Maimonides took up residence in Cairo that a fundamental change in this situation took place. Also living in Egypt at this period was Moses b. Abraham Dar'i, the outstanding Karaite poet of his time; his poetry, however, was largely an imitation of the classical Hebrew poetry of the Arab-Spanish period (Judah Halevi, Solomon ibn Gabirol, and Abraham ibn Ezra). Other Karaite writers who lived in Egypt (mainly in Cairo) in the 12th to 15th centuries, such as Japheth al-Barqamani, Japheth ibn Saghir, Samuel ha-Ma'aravi, and Samuel b. Moses al-Maghribi, played no independent role in the further development of Karaism.

At the end of the 11th century, the center of Karaite intellectual activity shifted to Europe. This was largely the work of the many European disciples of Jeshua b. Judah, who upon returning to their homes from Jerusalem acted as the emissaries of Karaite doctine. One such propagator of Karaism was Sidi ibn al-Taras, who was active in Spain and whose wife continued his missionary work after his death. After a short while, however, the Castilian government, influenced by the Rabbanites, turned against the Karaites and extirpated the movement in Spain. In the Byzantine Empire, on the other hand, Karaism succeeded in gaining a firm foothold. A massive Karaite literature of translation came into being here, produced mainly by former disciples of Jeshua b. Judah who for the most part were residents of Constantinople. The most eminent among them was Tobias b. Moses ha-Avel (known as "ha-Oved" and also as "ha-Ma'tik") whose major work was the translation of the Arabic writings of Jeshua, as well as of Joseph b. Abraham al-Ba\ir. He also wrote a commentary on the Pentateuch, Ozar Nehmad, based primarily upon the works of David b. Boaz and Japheth b. Ali. The only other name to be preserved is that of Jacob b. Simeon, one of the most prominent Karaite translators of this period. Prominent religious scholars and biblical exegetes active in Byzantium in the 12th century were Jacob b. Reuben ha-Sephardi, author of a Bible commentary Sefer ha-Osher, which consists largely of excerpts from the works of earlier Karaite authors, especially those of Japheth b. Ali, which are either unknown or exist only in manuscript; Aaron b. Judah Kusdini (from Constantinople) of whose works there survives only a responsum on marriage laws; and Judah b. Elijah Hadassi, author of Eshkol ha-Kofer, an encyclopedic summary of Karaite theology, one of the most important works of Karaite literature and undoubtedly the outstanding Karaite work in Hebrew.

In principle, the Bible is the sole source of Karaite creed and law. All religious precepts must derive directly from the Bible, based upon the literal meaning of the text, the customary use of the words and the context. Tradition is accepted, provided it is indispensable for the application of precepts contained in the text, for the clarification of ambiguities, or to make up for deficiencies in the concrete details of precepts; even so, however, its role remains restricted and subordinate. Certain rabbinic laws are accepted, not as valid components of the Oral Law transmitted by the Rabbanites, but as clarifying prescriptions, indicated in the text and reinforced by custom and tradition (sevel ha-yerushah, "yoke of inheritance"; ha'takah. "tradition"). For the rest, every scholar must study Scripture for himself, and if urged to do so by his own knowledge and conscience, alter earlier opinions (according to Anan's dictum: "Search thoroughly in the Torah and do not rely on my opinion"). Thus, Karaite doctrine is characterized, on the one hand, by rigidity and immutability of tradition, and, on the other hand, by an absence of restrictions on individual understanding of the Scriptures.

In the initial period of the development of Karaism (eighth-ninth centuries), it was the individualist trend that predominated, resulting in an almost anarchic state of affairs. This situation in Karaism of an infinite variety of opinions, as it existed until the middle of the tenth century, is reported on by Al-Kirkisani, who also attempts to explain and justify it by the principle of a free conception of Scriptures based on human reason (see above). Eventually, Karaite doctrine underwent a process of systemization and unification; in its essentials, this process was developed at the time of Judah Hadassi (middle of the 12th century), achieving its final form at the time of Elijah Bashyazi (end of 15th century).

The following principles were established as norms for the determination of the law:

(1) the literal meaning of the biblical text (ketav, mishma);

(2) the consensus of the community (edah, kibbuz);

(3) the conclusions derived from Scripture by the method of logical analogy (hekkesh);

(4) knowledge based on human reason and intelligence (hokhmat ha-da'at); this latter principle, however, was not universally accepted by Karaite scholars. The principle of logical analogy was applied in its broadest sense and encompassed inference based upon analogy of words (gezerah shavah), upon induction (hekkesh ha-hippus), and upon analogy of notions (e.g., in respect of the prohibition of kilayim, and others). Judah Hadassi established not less than 80 different hermeneutical rules, including those applied by the Talmud (Eshkol ha-Kofer, nos. 114, 168-73). The hermeneutical rules most widely applied (especially with regard to marriage laws and degrees of consanguinity) are:

(1) analogous interpretation of juxtaposed words and passages (semukhin);

(2) inferences drawn a fortiori (kal va-homer);

(3) interpreting a general principle on the basis of individual examples (kelal u-ferat; perat u-khelal; kelal u-ferat u-khelal), as well as all kinds of subsumption under a general principle (binyan av, etc.);

(4) extensive interpretation of a notion (hagbarah);

(5) a variety of rules for the interpretation of special words and grammatical peculiarities (e.g., the hermeneutical interpretation of the particles et and kol in the expansive sense, and of akh, rak, and min in the restrictive sense).

CREED

Apart from its fundamental stand on the Oral Law, Karaite creed does not differ in its essentials from that of Rabbanite Judaism. Its philosophical foundation was established in Ez Hayyim, the work of Aaron b. Elijah of Nicomedia, which the Karaites recognized as authoritative. Elijah Bashyazi and his pupil Caleb Afendopolo formulated the philosophy of the Karaite creed in ten principles:

(1) God created the whole physical and spiritual world in time, out of nothing;

(2) He is a creator who Himself was not created;

(3) He is formless, One in every respect, incomparable to anything, incorporeal, unique, and absolutely unitary;

(4) He sent our teacher Moses (this presumes belief in the Prophets);

(5) He sent us the Torah through Moses which contains the perfect truth (which cannot be complemented or altered by any other law, specifically not by the Oral Law recognized by the Rabbanites);

(6) every believer must learn to know the Torah in its original language and with its proper meaning (mikra and perush);

(7) God also revealed Himself to the other Prophets (although their gift of prophecy was less than that of Moses);

(8) God will resurrect the dead on the day of judgment;

(9) God rewards every man according to his way of life and his actions (individual providence, freedom of will, immortality of the soul, and just reward in the hereafter);

(10) God does not despise those living in exile; on the contrary, He desires to purify them through their sufferings, and they may hope for His help every day and for redemption by Him through the Messiah of the seed of David. (In some earlier Karaite creeds the doctrine of the Messiah is omitted.)

Unlike Rabbanite Judaism, Karaism has no fixed number of commandments (of commission or omission). Karaite legal doctrine does not, of course, even approach rabbinic Judaism in its multi-faceted development. In particular, Karaism lacks systematic development and interpretation of biblical law. The calendar, laws of marriage, and precepts on ritual purity have received the most intensive treatment in Karaism, usually in a strictly literal sense and with a tendency toward greater severity.

The calendar was the subject of much dispute among the Karaites, and it was only by the middle of the 19th century that the use of mathematical calculation, in addition to visual observation of the new moon, was finally accepted, at least by the majority of the Crimean Karaites. Like the Rabbanite calendar, the Karaite calendar is based on the calculation of the new moon. Karaites also recognize the 19-year cycle with seven leap months of 29 days each; determination of the beginning of the month, however, in addition to being based upon the calculation of the moment of the appearance of the new moon (molad) and its location in accordance with special tables, also depends upon direct observation of the new moon. Thus, if direct lunar observation is made on the eve of the 30th day of the month, the following day becomes the day of the new moon; otherwise, the 31st day becomes the day of the new moon and the preceding month is determined to have had 30 days. The month of Nisan is regarded as the first month of the calendar year.

In determining the date of the holy days, Karaites deviate from Rabbanite usage in the following manner: the New Year Festival may begin on any day of the week (contrary to the Rabbanite rule, which provides for the postponement of the day of the New Year in three specific cases); as a result, the Karaite Day of Atonement does not always coincide with the Rabbanite; Passover and Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles) are observed for seven days only; the Feast of Weeks (Shavuot) falls on the 50th day following the Saturday of the Passover week (in accordance with the literal interpretation of Lev. 23:11, which the Talmud interprets in a different manner), and is therefore always on a Sunday; Hanukkah is not recognized, but Purim is, although the Fast of Esther is not; the Fast of Gedaliah is observed on the 24th of Tishri (as it was by the exiles returning from Babylon). Other fast days, with the exception of the Tenth of Tevet, are also observed on dates that differ from the rabbinic fast days (Karaites relate the fast days to the destruction of the First Temple, not the Second Temple).

Special rules apply to the sanctification of the Sabbath. Prohibition of work extends, beyond the 39 actions proscribed by Rabbanite Judaism, to any action not forming part of the prayer service or not absolutely necessary for nourishment or the satisfaction of other physical human needs. The earlier Karaite teachers (up to Jeshua b. Judah), like the Samaritans and the Beta Israel, prohibited the kindling of lights on Friday for use on the Sabbath (see Eshkol ha-Kofer, no. 146), and even taught that a light already lit had to be extinguished on the Sabbath; Jeshua b. Judah and his successors, however, taught that light on the Sabbath was permitted as an indispensable need and for the joy of the Sabbath (see Adderet Eliyahu, 1835, 31a). To this day, however, Karaites are either "friends of light" or "enemies of light," depending on whether or not they use artificial light on the Sabbath. Sexual intercourse is also prohibited on the Sabbath, and Karaites also oppose a number of alleviations of Sabbath precepts sanctioned by the rabbis.

Certain rabbinical precepts pertaining to circumcision (peri'ah and mezizah) are rejected by the Karaites. They also differ on the detailed regulations of ritual slaughter, and therefore regard the meat of animals slaughtered according to Rabbanite regulations as prohibited. An important difference is the rejection of the "minimal quantities" (shi'urim) fixed by the Talmud in connection with dietary laws and the laws of purity. The prohibition contained in the Bible (Ex. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21) of boiling "a kid in its mother's milk" is also accepted by the Karaites as forbidding the consumption of the meat of cattle (not of fowl) with milk or butter; they do not, however, accept the additional restrictions enacted by the rabbis. Karaites permit the consumption of the meat of those animals only that are enumerated in the Bible, and reject the criteria for permitted mammals and birds as formulated in the Talmud. Many Karaite scholars hold that ever since the destruction of the Temple, any consumption of meat is prohibited.

Karaite laws on marriage and the prohibited degrees of consanguinity are of special severity. In the early period, even the farthest removed degree of consanguinity was regarded as prohibited, with the result that by the 11th century the Karaite community was running the danger of extinction. The Karaite scholars of that period established the so-called rikkuv theory, based on the assumption that man and wife form a unity of flesh (according to Gen. 2:24), from which it follows that persons related by marriage are also blood relations (she'er). In arriving at this conclusion, they made use not only of direct analogy (hekkesh) but also of derivative analogy (hekkesh ha-hekkesh), of the second, or even a higher degree. In this manner, the most distant relatives came to be included in the biblical term she'er.

This extreme theory of incest was rejected by Joseph b. Abraham ha-Kohen ha-Ro'eh al-Ba\ir and his pupil Jeshua b. Judah and replaced by a less stringent law consisting of a set of six regulations (five, according to Joseph ha-Ro'eh). The first regulation states that according to the Bible and tradition, "blood relatives" (she'er) for a man are father and mother, brother and sister and their blood relatives; i.e., the father's or the mother's sister, the son's daughter and the daughter's daughter (in accordance with Lev. 18:10, 12, 13) and-by analogy-the brother's daughter and the sister's daughter. The corresponding relatives are regarded as prohibited for a woman (this is the second regulation). The third regulation prohibits the wife's blood relatives (based on Lev. 18:17). The fourth prohibits blood relatives of the wife's blood relatives. The fifth forbids marriage between two blood relatives and two blood relatives, e.g., two brothers marrying a mother and her daughter, respectively, or two sisters a father and his son, respectively (based on Lev. 18:11). The sixth regulation prohibits marriage between two blood relatives and two blood relatives once removed (thus Jeshua b. Judah, on the basis of an extensive interpretation of Lev. 18:14). Furthermore, any prohibition applying to one person also applies to all his blood relatives in the ascending and descending line, ad infinitum (but only to a limited degree as far as lateral lines are concerned).

In respect of ritual impurity, especially the impurity of the menstruation period (niddah). Karaite regulations are far stricter than the ones fixed by the rabbis.

Karaite liturgy-which originally consisted solely of biblical psalmody-has the least similarity with its Rabbanite counterpart. There are two prayer services a day, mornings and evenings; on the Sabbath and holy days the Musaf prayer and other non-obligatory prayers are added. Originally, the Ma'amadot (prayers referring to the Temple sacrifices) formed the main basis of the Karaite rite. A prayer may be short or long, but must consist of seven parts (shevahim, hoda'ah, viddui, bakkashah, tehinnah, ze'akah, keri'ah) and the confession of faith. The prayers consist mainly of passages from the Bible (with the emphasis on Psalms) and partly also of prayer-poems, unknown to the Rabbanite rite. The Shema prayer is included in the Karaite rite, but the Shemoneh-Esreh (daily prayer consisting of 18 benedictions) is not known. The haftarot selection used by the Karaites differs from the Rabbanite one. During the prayer service, Karaites wear zizit (a fringed garment), the zizit including a light-blue thread. The biblical prescriptions concerning mezuzah and tefillin are regarded by the Karaites as having a figurative and symbolic meaning, and they reject the rabbinical regulations based upon them.

The basic disagreement between the Karaites and the Rabbanites over the authority of the post-biblical oral tradition, and the unshakable conviction of the Karaites that their teaching represented the pure original Mosaic faith, free of Rabbanite distortion and corruption, made attempts at reconciliation anything but hopeful. The finality of Saadiah's proscription of the Karaites as complete heretics, and the resultant extreme bitterness of his Karaite opponents, made any rapprochement impossible in the tenth century, while the Karaite propensity to repeat over and over again the dicta of their great scholars of the golden age extended this bitterness into later centuries. Eventually, however, feelings calmed down on both sides. No less an authority than Elijah Bashyazi quotes approvingly his predecessors to the effect that "most of the Mishnah and the Talmud comprises genuine utterances of our fathers, and... our people are obligated to study the Mishnah and the Talmud." On the Rabbanite side Maimonides states his view that the Karaites "should be treated with respect, honor, kindness, and humility, as long as they... do not... slander the authorities of the Mishnah and the Talmud. They may be associated with, and one may enter their homes, circumcise their children, bury their dead, and comfort their mourners." Two medieval efforts to heal the breach are noteworthy. The first, an Arabic tract on the differences between the two camps, was composed some time before 1284 by Sad ibn Kammuna, a freethinking Rabbanite physician and philosopher in Iraq. He cites the mutual accusations proferred by each side against the other, and offers his own replies to them, silently implying that both sides have sinned against each other and that the ancient split has long lost its pertinence. Half a century later an Italian Rabbanite scholar who settled on the island of Crete, Shemariah b. Elijah of Negropont surnamed Ikriti (the Cretan), wrote on the same theme, calling upon both camps to come together, "so that all Israel might once more become one union of brethren."

Unlike the Rabbanites, who produced a flood of Jewish printed books from the 1470s to the present day, the Karaites ignored the printing press down to the 18th century, and the very few Karaite books printed earlier were the work of Rabbanite printers. The earliest Karaite printed work is an edition of the liturgy, set up in 1528/29 by Rabbanite typesetters at the press of Daniel Bomberg in Venice. The next Karaite book to come off the press, Bashyazi's Adderet Eliyahu, was produced at Constantinople in 1530/31 by Gershom b. Moses, a member of the great Rabbanite family of master printers, the Soncinos. Two more works, Aaron the Elder's Kelil Yofi and Judah Fuki's Sha'ar Yehudah, were published in 1581 and 1582 respectively, likewise at Constantinople, by unnamed, but no doubt Rabbanite, printers. In the 17th century only one Karaite work, Joseph Malinovski's Ha-Elef Lekha, was published, at Amsterdam in 1643 by the press of Manasseh b. Israel.

The first Karaite printers were the brothers Afdah (Afidah) and Shabbetai Yeraqa, who issued a few sample sheets of the liturgy at Constantinople, in 1733, under the auspices of the Crimean Karaite leader Isaac Sinani. They then moved to Chufut-Kale, in the Crimea, and there produced in 1734 a larger sample of their work, an edition of the haftarot. This was followed by an edition of the entire liturgy in 1737 and a booklet of benedictions in 1741; an edition of the Rabbanite liturgy according to the rite of Feodosiya and Karasubazar (in the Crimea) was also issued in 1735. The press apparently went out of business soon after 1741, although why Isaac Sinani, who lived on until 1756, permitted it to expire, is not known. In 1804, several years after the Crimea was annexed to Russia, a new Karaite press was organized, likewise at Chufut-Kale, and between 1804 and 1806 it produced four works-revised editions of the liturgy and the benedictions, and two tracts on the calendar. Then it too went out of existence, and the few Karaite books printed later came from non-Karaite presses in Vienna and Ortakoy (near Constantinople). The first more or less successful Karaite press was established in 1833 in Eupatoria, and published some important texts.

The reason for this paucity of Karaite printing can only be conjectured. Presumably it was their traditional rigid conservatism and dislike of innovations, however beneficial, and the small demand for books which made printing for the Karaite market an unprofitable undertaking.

The situation of the Jews in Toledo remained unchanged after the town was conquered by Alfonso VI in 1085. During the 12th century it continued as a center of learning and Jews and apostates were among those who translated works of mathematics, astronomy, and other subjects from Arabic into the spoken vernacular and from that language into Latin. The capitulation terms of the town show that Alfonso promised the Muslims that they could retain their mosques and would only transfer to him the fortified places. There is, however, no information available on the terms affecting the Jews although the fortress situated in their quarter remained in their possession. At this time and throughout the reign of Alfonso, Don Joseph Ferrizuel (Cidellus) held office in the royal court and was particularly active in favor of his coreligionists.

From then on, the community developed until it became the most prominent in the Kingdom of Castile and one of the most important in Spain. In 1101 Alfonso granted the Arabized Christian population a privilege establishing that the fines they might pay should amount to only one-fifth of those paid by others, excepting in the case of murder or robbery of a Jew or Moor. When Alfonso VI died in 1109, the inhabitants of the town rebelled and attacked the Jews. Alfonso VII, the crown prince, reached a compromise with the townsmen and issued a series of laws discriminating against the Jews, and laid down that lawsuits between Jews and Christians were to be brought before a Christian judge. In 1118 he actually reintroduced the Visigothic law of the fourth council of Toledo in 633, which excluded "those of Jewish origin" from all public positions.

During this period some of the most distinguished personalities of their time lived in Toledo: Isaac ibn Ezra who apparently left the town in 1119; Moses ibn Ezra who stayed there; and Joseph ibn Kamaniel, the physician, one of the wealthiest members of the community who was entrusted with an important diplomatic mission to the king of Portugal. There were also the families of Shoshan, Al-Fakhar, Halevi, Abulafia, the Zadok (who were given land in a village near Toledo in 1132), and Ferrizuel. Because of their importance, the last regarded themselves as descendants of the House of David and as being of noble birth: they assumed the title of nasi and thus became a kind of oligarchy within the Jewish community. This family produced the leading tax lessees in the city, in the surrounding area, and in the whole kingdom, as well as other courtiers almost throughout the community's existense. During the reign of Sancho III (1157-58), the position of almoxarife in Toledo was held by Judah Joseph ibn Ezra (referred to as Bonjuda in documents); the king granted him lands and exempted him from the payment of tithes on these estates and taxes. R. Judah is known for his energetic activity to remove Karaism from Castile. During the reign of Alfonso VIII (1158-1214), when Toledo was again threatened by the Almohads, the Christian soldiers maltreated the Jews, although these had actively participated in the defense of the town. Joseph Al-Fakhar and his son Abraham, originally from Granada, then acted as almoxarifes in Toledo, as did also members of the Ibn Ezra family and Joseph Abu Omar ibn Shoshan.

The language spoken by the Jews of Toledo and employed in their documents during the 11th to 13th centuries was partly Arabic; they customarily wrote their documents in Arabic with Hebrew characters. These sources reveal a well-developed economic life. Jews of Toledo are recorded as having sold or purchased land, as lenders and borrowers, and are also found in partnerships with Christians in real estate transactions and in commerce. The documents show that the Jews of Toledo did not turn to the non-Jewish tribunals, as was customary in other communities, in matters which involved both Christians and Jews. The Jews owned fields and vineyards and occasionally leased land and pastures in partnership with Christians; they maintained slaves, owned shops, and engaged in every kind of craft. In conjunction with Christians they even occasionally leased the revenues of churches and monasteries. The documents also indicate the status of several of their signatories within the framework of the community. Some of them bear the title of sofer or hazzan, as well as honorifics such as al-hakim and al-vazir. Apparently until the close of the 12th century, the community's style of life resembled that of a Jewish community under Muslim rule. It was only in the course of the 13th century that the prevailing Arab titles lost their luster. By the beginning of the 14th century, use of Arabic in deeds and documents was abandoned.

The adminstrative organization of the community does not appear to have changed throughout its existence. There is no information on the administrative organization during Muslim rule, but a responsum, attributed to R. Joseph ibn Migash, mentions the existence, in the early 12th century, of an organization headed by seven notables and elders and a bet din. During that period there were also administrative leaders in the community. Gonzalez Palencia has shown that these positions were held by members of the distinguished families. From the 13th century the community was administered by ten muqaddimun. Under the influence of Don Joseph ibn Wakar, changes were introduced into the procedure for the election of the community leaders: two arbitrators were elected to choose the muqaddimun. After the expulsion of the Jews from Spain the regulations of Toledo became a model for the organization of the communities of Spanish refugees who settled in North Africa and throughout the territories of the Ottoman Empire.

The decisions of the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 influenced the relationship between the Church and the Jews of the town. Rodrigo, the archbishop of Toledo, reached an agreement with the Jews of the archdiocese according to which every Jew aged over 20 would pay one-sixth of a gold coin to him as an annual tax; it was laid down that doubtful cases were to be decided by four elders, the muqaddimun of the community, and two Jews chosen by the archbishop; the Jews of Toledo would be exempted from all tithe payments as decided by the Lateran Council, and any property sold by a Jew to a Christian throughout the archdiocese would be exempted from tithe payment. The archbishop undertook to protect the Jews, and the elders of the community were responsible for observance of the agreement by the Jews. Ferdinand III ratified this agreement.

A period of crisis occurred at the time of the revolt of Crown Prince Sancho against his father (1280-81). A contemporary author relates that the community of Toledo was shaken "as Sodom and Gomorrah." Alfonso X ordered the imprisonment of the Jews in their synagogues, from which they were not to be released until the community paid him a special tax. Notables of the community remained in prison for many months. Attempts were even made there to convert them and several were executed. The distinguished poet Todros b. Judah Ha-Levi was among the prisoners, who after some self-examination decided to repent. He called on the community to amend its evil ways in transactions and commerce, and to separate from non-Jewish women, among other practices. The community accepted his appeal, and a herem ("ban") was proclaimed in the synagogue against anyone committing these offenses. This was an act of repentance on the part of a whole community. One of the scholars of Toledo, Jacob b. Crisp, turned to Solomon b. Abraham Adret (Rashba) and requested his opinion and sanction for the administration of "this province and the penalization of offenders." The latter advised that the same rule could not be applied to everyone: at first a gentle manner should be adopted, but if this proved of no avail, then the strict letter of the law was to be applied.

The same conditions prevailed within the community of Toledo during the reigns of Alfonso and Sancho. The main figure among the Jewish courtiers was Don Abraham El Barchillon, a native of Toledo, first mentioned in state documents as having leased the minting of coins in the kingdom. Others included Don Abraham ibn Shoshan who had already risen to importance during the reign of Alfonso X, and was the almoxarife of the queen. The poet Todros ha-Levi Abulafia also resumed his public activities and for a period headed a group of personalities who leased the state revenues: the port customs duties, payments to the royal office, and others.

During his own lifetime, Maimonides was challenged in Toledo by a notable adversary, Meir b. Todros ha-Levi Abulafia, whose opinions were shared by the physician Judah b. Joseph al-Fakhar, and Joseph b. Todros Ha-Levi, the brother of R. Meir. They regarded the writings of Maimonides to be dangerous in that they could undermine faith. The controversy over the study of the writings of Maimonides (see Maimonidean controversy) received particular impetus in Toledo in 1304-05, at the time of the publication of the correspondence between Solomon b. Adret and Abba Mari Astruc on the subject of the herem issued against the study of the Guide of the Perplexed. The correspondence was published by Samson b. Meir, who went to Toledo to obtain the signatures of the community leaders to this herem and the support of R. Asher b. Jehiel (Rosh), who from the beginning of the 14th century occupied the rabbinical seat in Toledo. During his lifetime and that of his son R. Judah, Torch learning flourished in Toledo; another of his sons, R. Jacob b. Asher, wrote the Turim there. Israel b. Joseph al-Nakawa, author of Menorat ha-Ma'or, was also active there.

At the beginning of the 14th century, an attempt was made by the clergy in Toledo to compel the Jews to cease from engaging in moneylending; they also compelled the Jews to return the interest which they had taken and to cancel the obligations of payment which Christians had undersigned. Ferdinand IV notified the clergy that he would bring them to account if they continued to impose a boycott on the Jews or sought to prosecute them before the Church tribunals. Nevertheless in a number of cases the king accepted the arguments of the clergy, and Jewish moneylenders of Toledo were arrested, tried before Christian judges, and condemned to lengthy terms of imprisonment. During that period there were wealthy Jews who earned their livelihood by renting houses to other Jews, a practice until then unknown. Toledo was also one of the rare places where Jews owned Muslim slaves. The reign of Alfonso XI (1312-50) was favorable to the community. Don Joseph ha-Levi b. Ephraim (identified with Don YuLaf de Ecija) and Samuel ibn Wakar, the king's physician who in 1320 leased the minting of coins in the kingdom, were then active at court. They competed for influence there and for the leasing of the revenues of the kingdom. Don Moses Abzardiel (or Zardiel) was a third personality of importance; as dayyan in Toledo and scribe of the king, his signature in Latin is found on deeds and documents concerning taxes and financial affairs, and on privileges issued to bishops, monasteries, noblemen, and towns during the 1330s.

The Black Death (1348) took a heavy toll among the community of Toledo. During the reign of Pedro the Cruel (1350-60), Don Samuel b. Meir ha-Levi Abulafia acted as chief agent and treasurer of the king. It was presumably he who built the synagogue in 1357 which bears his name (see above). In 1358 he left for Portugal to negotiate a political agreement, and he was signatory to several royal edicts. He was suddenly arrested in 1360 (or 1361) upon the order of King Pedro, and removed to Seville, where he died at the hands of his torturers. Other Jews after him were lessees and courtiers, more particularly members of the ha-Levi and Benveniste families of Burgos.

In 1355, when the king entered Toledo, Christians and Muslims attacked the Jewish quarters. The Alcana quarter, near the cathedral, suffered heavily. During the civil war between Pedro and Henry (1366-69), the town changed hands several times; when Pedro once more besieged the city, in 1368-69, 8,000 Jews perished. In June 1369 he ordered that the Jews of Toledo and their belongings be sold to raise 1,000,000 gold coins. The community was ruined, and every object which could find a buyer was sold. By 1367, however, the Christian congregations already complained that they had sunk into debts to the Jews and called for a moratorium on their debts and reduction to half of their value. Henry remitted their debts for two years and reduced them to one-third.

While the Toledo community was still endeavoring to recover from the effects of the civil war, it was overtaken by the persecutions which swept Spain in 1391 and brought down upon it ruin and destruction. The riots against the Jews in Toledo broke out on 17 Tammuz (June 20) or, according to Christian sources, on August 5. Among the many who were martyred were the grandchildren of R. Asher, his disciples, and numerous distinguished members of the community. Almost all the synagogues were destroyed or set on fire, and the b