The Contribution of Genizah Texts to the Study of Siddur Rabbi Solomon Ben Nathan
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE CONTRIBUTION OF GENIZAH TEXTS TO THE STUDY OF SIDDUR RABBI SOLOMON BEN NATHAN Uri Ehrlich Prayer finds from the genizah of the Ben Ezra synagogue in Fustat (old Cairo) constitute a key resource for our knowledge of the early siddur, in particular, prayer rite praxis in the late first, and early second, mil- lennium CE.1 If it were not for the hundreds of pages from worn-out siddurim in the Cairo Genizah, the Palestinian branch of prayer would remain virtually unknown. But Genizah texts also impact significantly on the study of early versions of the better-known Babylonian rite. History favoured the Babylonian rite. Its adoption and constant use over the generations by the majority of Jews throughout the far corners of the Diaspora, guaranteed its preservation to our day. This preservation was, however, accompanied by the introduction of mani- fold changes. The acceptance of the Babylonian rite also assured the survival of several manuscripts of this ancient rite in various loca- tions worldwide. Cherished by generations of worshipers, and later by collectors, these manuscripts ultimately came into the possession of libraries, primarily in Europe. Among these manuscripts are witnesses to the two main prayer books attesting to the old Babylonian rite: Seder Rav Amram Gaon (SRA), and Siddur Rav Saʿadya Gaon (SRSG). For SRA, several copies dating to circa the fifteenth century from a number of locations are extant. They formed the basis for the printed editions, and later for the 1 The numerous articles on the findings from the Cairo Genizah in general, and regarding prayer in particular, are inconceivable without the outstanding contribution of Professor Stefan C. Reif to the study and preservation of the Cambridge University Library Genizah fragments. I am delighted and honoured to dedicate this article to Professor Reif. I thank Professor Joseph Tabory for his pertinent comments on this article. I also thank Vered Raziel-Kretzmer for her remarks. The article was translated by Dena Ordan. On prayer in the Genizah in general, see S. C. Reif, ‘The Importance of the Cairo Genizah for the Study of the History of Prayer’ (Hebrew), Kenishta (2001), pp. 43–52, and the relevant chapters of Reif, A Jewish Archive from Old Cairo: the History of Cambridge University’s Genizah Collection (Richmond, Surrey, 2000). 128 uri ehrlich critical edition published by Daniel Goldschmidt (1971).2 A complete manuscript of SRSG, copied sometime during the twelfth or thirteenth century—housed in the Bodleian Library at Oxford—comprised the basis for the collaborative critical edition by Simha Assaf and others.3 But the preservation of these manuscripts is by no means an unmixed blessing, as anyone involved in the study of the early siddur accord- ing to the Babylonian rite is aware. Its wide acceptance fostered the introduction of changes by each generation and in each locale in line with the local praxis of the day and hampers our ability to reconstruct the early Babylonian rite from the late, complete findings. This is well known for the manuscripts of SRA. It can be shown that each manu- script of SRA reflects the prayer rite for a specific place and time.4 And, even the base text for SRSG’s critical edition displays traces of late ori- ental influence.5 Here the Genizah prayer finds make a vital contribu- tion. Untouched by later scribal hands, thousands of discarded pages from Genizah prayer books, largely belonging to the eastern branches of the Babylonian rite as practiced during the late first, and early sec- ond, millennium, reflect early versions of this rite. An identical situation applies to a third extant witness to the Babylonian rite: the siddur of Rabbi Solomon ben Nathan (SBN), which belongs to a later, secondary, eastern branch. Where its compiler, the twelfth-century scholar Solomon ben Nathan, was active remains undetermined. Although briefly noted by the bibliographer Moritz Steinschneider as early as the mid-nineteenth century, nevertheless, 2 D. Goldschmidt, Seder Rav Amram Gaon: Aruḵ u-muge al pi kitve yad u-defusim ʿim hašlamot, šinuye nusḥaʾot u-mavo (Jerusalem, 1971). For a description of the man- uscript, see pp. 11–13. 3 See M. Beit-Arié, Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library: Supplement of Addenda and Corrigenda to Vol. I (A. Neubauer’s Catalogue), edited by R. A. May (Oxford, 1994), p. 171; I. Davidson, S. Assaf, and B. I. Joel, Siddur R. Saadja Gaon: Kitāb Ġāmi‘ As-Ṣ ̣alawāt Wat-Tasābīh (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1941). For a detailed description of the manuscript, see pp. 42–44. 4 See Goldschmidt, Seder Rav Amram Gaon, pp. 11–19. Louis Ginzberg hit the nail on the head when he commented, “It was used until it was used up”—L. Ginzberg, Geonica, vol. I: the Geonim and their Halakic Writings (New York, 1909), p. 124. 5 In the introduction to Davidson, Assaf and Joel, Siddur, p. 43, Joel notes the dif- ferences in nusaḥ between the complete MS Oxford and the nusaḥ of the Genizah fragments. Goldschmidt conjecturally attributes its divergence from the Cairo Genizah fragments to its Aleppine origins; see D. Goldschmidt, ‘The Prayerbook of Rav Saadiah Gaon’ (Hebrew), Kiryat Sefer 18 (1941–1942), pp. 336–342, reprinted in D. Golschmidt (ed.), On Jewish Liturgy: Essays on Prayer and Religious Poetry (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1980), pp. 413–420..